re bow's story - points on JASN mail - post 1

[Guest guest]

jasn sn [jayasartn]

Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM

Re: Bow's story – clarification on question raised.

JASN: Two questions have been raised in the Bow's story -10, to which

I wish to attempt some answers, expect and accept comments /

corrections / concurrence from fellow devotees. I gather some courage

to venture into this - though I am more on the side of being

disqualified for my little knowledge of Shastras and Puranas - purely

out of conviction that the aim of our shastras and sruti is not to

reveal anything outright but to make us to delve, think, probe,

discuss and deduce.

 

JASN: The questions are 1) In her conversation with Anasuya, sita

says that her father Janaka obtained the shiva-dhanush from Varuna in

a maha-yajna. Is this not contrary to the version found elsewhere,

that it was given to the Videha king, Devaratha? Then which version

is right?

 

2) If sita as a 6 year old girl could move the heavy shiva-dhanush

effortlessly, why could she not protect herself when Ravana lifted

her up?

 

JASN: To find a convincing reply to the 1st question, let us remember

that cross-references and interpretations using similar versions

expressed in the same source do help in arriving at a better

understanding. In my limited knowledge, let me quote 2 instances of

such mix-up (perceived so) in Valmiki Ramayana and how learned

persons have resolved them.

 

MGV: Smt.Jayasree has rightly said as "perceived so".

 

JASN: 1. One occurs in Sundara khandam when Hanauman was witnessing

Ravana's outburst against Sita when she refused to budge. His wife

Dhanyamalini pacified him and brought him back to his palace. Later

when Hanuman recounted this incident to fellow vanaras on his return,

he said that Mandodhari pacified Ravana. This is not seen as a mix-up

nor of something to doubt the veracity of the incident that occurred,

but as a proof that Ravana's patta-mahishi too was present when he

visited Sita. Both Mandodhari and Dhanyamalini (who were accompanied

with scores of other wives of Ravana) seemed to have persuaded Ravana

to retire to his place. The mention of one at one sarga and the other

at another sarga, does not negate the presence of both at the time of

incidence.

 

MGV: Sargam 22 slokam 39 sundhara kandam says dhaanyamaalinee.

mandhodharee says sargam 58 slokam 77

 

See sargam 58 slokam 76 -

maithilE hanthum aarabdha: sthreebhi: haha krutham thadhaa

SthreeNaam madhyaath samuthpathya thasya bhaaryaa dhuraathmana: 76

varaa mandhodharee naama thaya prathishEdhitha:

 

here, hanumaan's describing what he has seen as raavaNan being

consoled by dhaanya maalinee or mandhOdharee cannot be considered as

a valid argument. For hanumaan already has demerits in

estimating `who is who' among ladies – for he mistook mandhodharee as

seethaa while searching in raavaNan's antha:puram. That too, as he

claims here sthreenaam madhyaath – when `among a collection of

ladies' he is bound to miscalculate who is who.

 

So, in my opinion this point of smt jayasree does not hold water.

 

JASN: 2. Another incident is that of Rama telling Sita at the end of

the war (before agni-pravesa) to go to Lakshmana or Bharatha. This is

interpreted by pandithas, not as being derogatory (not to mean any

anartham) but only as an advice to take refuge in them for

protection, like how a mother is protected by her sons. Suffice it to

say that for umpteen number of times it has been said in Valmiki

ramayana itself that lakshmana is like her son.

 

Based on the interpretations such as these, let us analyse the first

question. That the dhanush was given by Rudra to Devaratha is a fact

considering that more than one instance can be cited to substantiate

this (by cross-reference). At the same time let us not ignore the

fact that Sita does not say that Varuna gave it to Devaratha, she

merely says that varuna gave it to her father Janaka (who was the son

of Devaratha.)

 

MGV: Janaka is not the son of dhEvaraatha. See in baalakaandam sargam

79 slokam 6 to 13 the vamsam after dhEvaraatha is given. Dhevaraatha -

bruhadhratha - mahaaveera -sudhruthi – dhrushtakethu – haya – maru –

pratheendhaka – keerthiratha – dhevameeda – vibhudha – maheedhruk –

keerthiraatha – mahaaroma – svarnaroma – hrasvaroma – janaka father

of seethaa and kusadhvaja who is seethaa chiththappaa [uncle]. So it

is a long chain in between dhevaraatha and janaka.

 

JASN: So something exists in-between, a reference to which may exist

in some other source. But by interpretation (like how it is done in

the 2 instances quoted above), we may be permitted to say that it was

true that Rudra gave this bow to Devaratha and it was also true that

Varuna gave this to Janaka. It is possible that it had gone into the

hands of janaka by means of a yajna in which the Varuna-devatha

formally transfers the bow to Janaka. That is, Janaka comes into

possession of this bow (though by now a family property) by means of

some rituals in which the devathas pray for the bow (this is what

Sita says to Anasuya) to be given to Janaka and Varuna undertakes the

act of giving it. Thus both the information about the possession of

the bow are to be treated as facts told by Valmiki.

 

MGV: Here again a point: the bow is coming from ancestors of janaka

to janaka.

 

Point 1. As said by janaka, siva gave this to all gods just after he

was pleased with the assured offer of the havis in the yagnaas after

the dhaksha yagnam [wherein siva was not given]. So he gave the bow

to all dhEvaas as per this slokam below.

 

preethi yuktha: thu sarvEshaam dhadhou thEshaam mahaathmanaam |

thath Ethath dhEvadhEvasya dhanoo rathnam mahaathmana: || 1-66-12

nyaasabhootham thadhaa nyastham asmaakam poorvajE vibhO |

[meaning already given]

 

Since the bow is already there with gods, mahaathmaa-s, which

includes varuNan [can be inferred as he is one of the important

persons among the conglomeration of dhEvaas]. From this we can say

seethaa's giving that version in ayOdhyaa kaandam is correct.

 

Point 2. Another version is as per parasuraama, that the bow was

given to dhevaraatha which is also corroborated by janaka.

 

For janakan claims due to continued fighting of the kings there was

samvathsarE poorNE kshayam – means there, in his kingdom, prevailed

draught conditions for the whole year. – re slokam 22 sargam 66

baalakaandam.

 

So janaka did yagnam with munis as mentioned in slokam 23. As a

result varunan gave rains and quiver with arrows, other dhevaas the

chathuranga sena – re slokam 24.

 

So we have to interpret that slokam of seethaa claiming `varuNan

gave' as rains and the `ambaraaththooNi' the quiver from

where `akshayam asthram' can be had – inexhaustible supply of arrows.

 

By considering these, there is no contradiction as such. But I would

still welcome other points or references from elsewhere; [to

elaborate this anasooya conversation and seethaa claiming varuNan

gave bow].

 

dhasan

vasudevan m.g.