Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Respected Sir, Will any Members in the group tell me--the Nakshatra of Radha (Krishna's Radha). Thanking You, rangansree +++++++++++++++++++ SrI: Dear Srimathi Rangansree, I guess AzhwArs have not referred to any Radha; they have referred to only Nappinnai. There is an interesting post from Sri Parthasarathi Dileepan back in 95 about Nappinnai. Let us enjoy the same in this context. Srivaishnava acharyans have not referred to Radha, however, in my humble opinion. Regards Namo Narayana dAsan The name Nappinnai, or just Pinnai, is unique to Thamizh, NeeLaa being the equivalent in Sanskirit. Aazhvaars use Nappinnai almost exclusively for Lord Krishna's consort. References to Pinnai is found in non-sri vaishNava Thamizh literature as well, such as Chilappathikaaram and Paripaadal. These precede aazhvaar paasurams by at least 100 years. Who is this Nappinnai? Due to the association with Krishna and Gokulam it is intuitively satisfying to equate Nappinnai with Radha. But is this tenable? If not, what alternative association is plausible? Until just a few years ago I simply assumed that Nappinnai must be Radha. Then, I heard someone contradict this view. Now, in "Viraha-Bhakti" (page 221-225) F. Hardy [1] suggests that Nappinnai and Radha are NOT one and the same. However, the alternative he offers seems farfetched to me. First let me present the reasons for disassociating Nappinnai from Radha, followed by Hardy's alternative suggestion, and finally my own guesses. Nappinnai and Radha: -------------------- All of aazhvaar's works are free of specific references to the name Radha. Aazhvaars did not shy away from other northern names, albeit they Thamizhized them, such as, sireedharan, irudeekEsan, uruppiNi (RukmiNi), iraaman, vaidhEvee, ilakkumaNan, sanagaraasan (Janaka), iraNiyan, kancan (Kamsan), etc., etc. If they intended to refer to Radha, they surely would have used something like iraadhai, in stead of Pinnai. Interestingly, Hardy says Bhagavatham, a Sanskrit work by a South Indian in line with aazhvaar paasurams, is also free of the name Radha. Further, Nappinnai is portrayed by aazhvaars as Krishna's wife while Radha is supposed to be his mistress. One may then speculate that legend of Radha was not well known in the south during aazhvaar's time. Hardy's alternative: -------------------- First, Pinnai is to be understood as "after" and not plaits as in Pinnal. Thus, according to Hardy, Pinnai is younger sister and the Nal in Nal + pinnai (= Nappinnai) is just an adjective. Then, Hardy goes on to suggest that Pinnai is Krishna's younger sister, Subhadra. Further, this Subhadra is none other than Kali for Kali is referenced as Krishna's anujaa in Mahabharatham. Another unlikely source Hardy cites is Chilapathikaaram. In vEduva vari (12.20 - 22) we have the name Neeli for Kali with Kamsan referred to as her maternal uncle, i.e. maaman. (Here Chil. has Neeli kicking Sagadam to death!!) Thus, Hardy suggests, Neeli is indeed NeeLaa and she is Krishna's younger sister (pinnai) Subhadra. To reconcile all of this with the erotic association between Nappinnai and Krishna found in thamizh literature, Hardy hopelessly suggests that (1) Subhadra is only a step-sister for Krishna, not a real one, and (2) the Thamizhs making these erotic associations were not aware of or have forgotten the true identity of Nappinnai. My guess: --------- Hardy is right to reject "the one with beatiful plaits" for Nappinnai, but there is no justification for interpreting Pinnai as younger sister, that too to Krishna. If nappinnai is Subhandra that would be an important part of our puraaNaas. It is incredulous that aazhvaars, who otherwise show remarkable familiarity even with obscure legends described in puraaNaas would be unaware or forgotten such an important association. My guess is that pinnai simply means the one who came later. Then, pinnai is Lakshmi, the one who came after MoodhEvi, i.e. Munnai, from thiruppaRkadal. Or, pinnai could mean the second thaayaar, i.e. Bhu dhEvi, after the first, i.e. periya piraatti. Thus, Nappinnai is piratti incarnated as a gopikaa in Gokulam. ---------------- [1] "Viraha-Bhakthi: The Early History of Krsna Devotion in South India," Friedhelm Hardy, Oxford University Press, 1983. [Thanks to Sri Dileepan for his permission to refer here] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Sri: Dear All : You will enjoy this input from Sriman M.G.Vasudevan. Thank you Srioman Vasudevan / V.Sadagopan - M.G.Vasudevan yennappan (AT) computer (DOT) net Cc: sria2000 ; krupa (AT) singnet (DOT) com.sg Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:39 PM - Re: Doubt respected swamin here is two notes as appearing in website www.valmikiramayan.net these two explain the vEdhavathee story of course the exact puraaNam in which it is quoted is not clear. but it is more likely to be padma puraanam for it deals with raama and seethaa. Vaalmeeki declares Ramayana is seethaayaa: charitam mahath... 'Seetha's impeccable conduct...' by giving her an unusual birth from the furrow of the plough, and in the end she exits from this world into the same soil, where the earth is called vasundharaa, which cleaves under Seethaa's feet, and takes Seethaa into her womb again. As such, the reason for Seethaa to be there in that furrow as baby is said to be a vow of Goddess Lakshmi, in her earlier incarnation as vEdhavathee. The mythologies [puraaNams - which one? not sure] go on to say that vEdhavathee is the brainchild of a sage called kusadhwaja, and he decides to give vEdhavathee in marriage none less than vishNu. But in his lifetime, it is an unfulfilled desire. Then vEdhavathee starts a rigorous penance to achieve her father's wish. When she is at her culmination point of her penance, raavaNan, passing that way in sky sees this beautiful lady, nears, and disturbs her penance. VEdhavathee coming out of her meditation, curses raavaNan saying that she will reincarnate herself, to destroy raavaNan and his entire dynasty. Then she causes a yogic fire and immolates herself in it. And vEdhavathee is reborn as seethaa of RaamaayaNam, in an unusual way. Here aanandha raamaayaNam has an interesting parable. Once there was a king named padhmaaksha who wanted Lakshmi as his daughter. On practicing thavam or thapas vishNu appears and gives a fruit called maathulunga phalam, and girl emerges out of that fruit, and she is named as Padhmaa. But greedy to possess her, all the wooing kings war with padhmaaksha and his entire family is ruined and padhmaa jumps into fire and self immolates herself. Later when vishNu's maaya comes out of an altar of fire, sits in her meditation, raavaNan sees her and wants to abduct her. Of course, she is otherwise said to be vEdhavathee in other texts. But again, she enters the fire altar and reduces herself to ashes. Even then, raavaNan searches in those ashes for her. In there, he gets five diamonds of high quality. He comes to Lanka and paces those diamonds in a casket and jovially presents them to his wife mandhOdhari. When mandhOdhari could not lift the casket raavaNan lifts it and opens its lid, as he lifted Mt. Kailas. When the casket is opened, mandhOdhari finds a baby girl in it and recognises her to be Goddess Lakshmi. Then they consult their teachers about that baby's arrival. Those teaches wishing good for raavaNan, advise to get rid off this girl immediately, for he is Goddess Lakshmi, arrived here only to end raavaNan and his dynasty. Then mandhOdhari orders his servants to carry away this baby in a casket by an aircraft and get rid off it. But raavaNan rushes after the girl with a sword, to put that girl to sword. Empress mandhOdhari pacifies raavaNan and says "Why purchase a later time death now itself at the hand of this baby... let that the casket be buried..." raavaNan agrees. MandhOdhari also curses this girl saying, "this faithless girl, [for wealth is unfaithful,] will thrive only in a house, where the householder has his senses conquered, and who being an emperor lives like a perfect hermit, and who though wealthy and supreme by himself, will care nothing for the riches but view whole of the world and people as his own soul, with an impartial attitude..." Thus this casket is buried in the fields of King Janaka's empire by demons, clandestinely. MandhOdhari thought that such a person is an impossibility to take birth in this mortal world, to foster this buried girl, and thus presumed her curse to be twisty. But there is King Janaka with all the above attributes. A king without ego, wealthy but living simple, childless, yet does not crave for one, like King Dasaratha. Hence, he is called raajarshi a saintly king. Seethaa's birth is to be limitedly understood, as said by Janaka in this chapter. Otherwise, the nuances about the birth of Seethaa are to be viewed through the viewfinders of mythologies, legends, and above all, through the viewfinders of tradition... but not in the vast of epical poetry, as Vaalmeeki himself has undocumented it. An enigma called - Seethaa [another version] Is Seethaa really the Goddess Lakshmi? This question is often raised and answered by commentators. RaavaNan kidnapped umpteen numbers of beautiful women and goddess, but why his dialogues with Seethaa are given many shades of meanings by all most all commentators. Is this for proving RaavaNan as devotee or else to prove that Seethaa is not a human but Goddess Lakshmi - is the collateral objection. Apparently, Seethaa is behaving like a normal woman but latently her speeches, verbiage, or the words put by Vaalmeeki on her tongue, indicate that she is an all-powerful enigma... without saying who she is. If she is an incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi how then can RaavaNan lift her up and carry this far - is the next dilemma, because RaavaNan's strength becomes useless to lift up Lakshmana who swooned on the battlefield when RaavaNan used sakthi missile. In Yuddha Kaanda Ch. 59 verse 111 it is said: himavaan mandharO mErO: thrai lOkyam vaa saha amarai: | sakyam bhujaabhyaam uddharthum na sakyO bharatha anuja: || 'RaavaNan may have lifted Mt. Himavaan, Mt. Mandhara, Mt. Meru or all the three worlds along with all gods, but he could not lift up Bharatha's brother LakshmaNa with both of his shoulders...' Raavanan wanted to distance fiercer LakshmaNa from Raama so that Raama's intensity of warring lessens. Then an episode of this lifting occurs and Hanumaan on seeing this comes to RaavaNan and hits RaavaNan with fist, by which RaavaNan falls distantly with blood effusing from eyes, ears, and mouth. Then Hanumaan easily lifts up LakshmaNa and takes him to Raama. A man in swoon will not weigh differently to two different lifters. How then RaavaNan could not lift LakshmaNa, which is not at all a great feat to Hanumaan? For this the very next verse 112 gives a reply saying that: 'even if LakshmaNa is hit by Sakthi missile of Brahma, he is conscious of himself as an unimaginable entity of God VishNu, so RaavaNa could not lift LakshmaNa. Whereas Hanumaan happened to be a true devotee of God Almighty, he could easily lift LakshmaNa...' Then the original topic of Raavana's lifting and carrying off Seethaa comes to fore. She is also another unimaginable entity of Supreme Person. How then can RaavaNan lift her? For this it is said that Seethaa allowed herself to be carried off by RaavaNan as she pledged in the incarnation of VEdhavathee. The legend goes on to say that VEdhavathee is the brainchild of a sage called Kusadhwaja, and he decides to give VEdhavathee only to VishNu in marriage. But it is an unfulfilled desire in his lifetime. Then VEdhavathee starts a rigorous penance to achieve her father's wish. When she is at the culmination point of her penance, RaavaNan passing that way in skyway sees this beautiful lady, nears, and disturbs her penance. VEdhavathee coming out of her meditation curses RaavaNan saying that she will reincarnate herself to destroy RaavaNan and his entire dynasty. Then she causes a yogic fire and immolates herself in it. RaavaNan took this as prattle by a woman-hermit, dismisses that curse, and conveniently forgets it. Later, RaavaNan being an ardent devotee of Siva, on one day when he enters a lake to get lotuses for his daily worship of Siva, and finds among lotuses a baby in a lotus. He brings that lotus and the baby to his palace, in all his fondness for children. But his empress MandhOdhari doubts the arrival of this baby in lotus and recognises that baby as Goddess Lakshmi. They consult their teachers about that baby's arrival. Those teachers, priests and pundits advise to get rid of this baby immediately, for she is Vedhavathee, arrived here only to end RaavaNan and his dynasty. Then MandhOdhari orders the servants to carry away this baby in a casket, and bury it. Empress MandhOdari further curses that girl saying: 'this faithless girl [for Wealth has no faithfulness, and this girl is recognised as Goddess Lakshmi - presiding deity of Wealth,] will thrive only in a house, where the householder has his senses conquered, and who being an emperor lives like a perfect hermit, and who though wealthy and supreme by himself, will care nothing for the riches but view whole of the world and people as his own soul, with an impartial attitude...' Mandodari thought that such a person is an impossibility to take birth in this mortal world, and thus presumed this curse to be twisty. But there is King Janaka who has all these attributes. A king without ego, wealthy one living simple, childless but yet does not crave for children, like King Dasharatha. Hence, he is called raajarshi a saintly king. While King Janaka was about to perform a Vedic ritual, he had to till some piece of land as a ceremonial act to commence that ritual. Then this casket with the baby is touched to the blade at the end of plough-beam and that plough halted. The attendants dug up that area only to find this casket with baby. The childless Janaka takes the baby into his arms and names her as 'Seethaa...' where Seethaa in Sanskrit means 'furrow.' This is as per aananda raamaayaNa Thus, Goddess Lakshmi became VEdhavathee and VEdhavathee became Seethaa of RaamaayaNam, as such Vaalmeeki calls his Ramayana seethaayaa: charitham mahath... Then another counter objection - it is all correct to say that all puraaNaa-s say that these characters in Ramayana as gods and goddesses, as VishNu Puraana says raaghavathve havath siitaa rukmiNii kR^iSNa jananee. But does Vaalmeeki say it in his epic? For this it is answered, though it is not said explicitly there are many instances indicating towards this divinity of Seethaa. Seethaa asks Fire-god to become cool for Hanumaan, when his tail is burnt saying seethO bhava hanumatha and likewise she could have said hathO bhava raavaNa 'dead you are RaavaNa...' But she does not say so for, because Raama has to undertake that process of elimination of vice called RaavaNan. As Seethaa said in Sundhara Kaanda Ch. 22, verse 20: a sandesaat tu raamasya tapasa: ca anupaalanaat | na tvaam kurmi dasagreeva bhasma bhasmeerha tejasaa || 'As I have no indication from Raama to burn you down, nor do I wish to waste my ascetic power, therefore I do not burn you to ashes, though you are worthy to become a mound of ash...' In the very next verse 21 she directly says to RaavaNan: na apahartum aham sakyaa tvayaa raamasya dheemata: | vidhi: tava vadha arthaaya vihito na atra samsaya: || 'I am un-seizable for [any] as I am the wife of bold Raama, but it happened so, for you are fated to doom [you could seize me...] undoubtedly...' Again in Yuddha KaaNdam Brahma in eulogising Raama for eliminating RaavaNan says in Ch. 117, verse 28: seethaa lakshmee: bhavaan vishNu:... 'Seethaa is Lakshmi and you are Vishnu...' Like this, there are many bits and pieces of information to establish her as an incarnate of VEdhavathee alias Goddess Lakshmi. Govindaraja. Then why she and Raama behaved like humans in their wailing, moaning, and bawling is again a secondary query. This is according to loka reethi, loukika vidhaana 'humanly nature, behaviour in human world...' Though this humanly behaviour is not innate trait as Raama says aatmaanam aham maanusham manye 'I for myself confess to be human...' Hence this humanly wailing and bawling are due to an adopted human behaviour, where incarnation itself is an adaptation. Their humanly behaviour is to show themselves as one with the humans, asking humans to undergo these series of sufferings to eliminate unrighteousness, either in the society or within themselves. Besides, their mission is to make believe Raavana that they are just humans, as Raavana is killable by humans and monkeys, but not to hoodwink readers, the adherents or all of us put together. Maheshvara Tiirtha. This incarceration of Seethaa in Asoka gardens is viewed as the incarceration of the innate soul in birthed being's body. The release from that body, namely mOksha is achievable only when that being wants a perfect release by transcending the threefold nature consisting of sathva, rajas, thamO guNaa: 'purity, activity and stolidity...' and with an unswerving devotion to the Supreme as said in Gita, 14-26: maam ca yo avyabhicaareNa bhakti yogena sevate | sa guNaan samateeshtya etaan brahmObhaaya kalpate || 'And such- / With single, fervent faith adoring Me, / Passing beyond the Qualities, conforms / To Brahma, and attains Me!' - Sir Edwin Arnold. God Almighty is said to be masculine single, the rest of the universe is taken as feminine, as said in Vishnu Puraana: sa eva vaasudevo ayam saaksht purusha ucyate | stree praayam etat sarvam jagat brahma purassaram || Then the way the innate soul, called Seethaa, is incarcerated is, when she had no help of the Supreme or the Adherent of the Supreme, [Raama and LakshmaNa.] Then the Decahedral demon [the demon called Ten Motor Senses,] came and captured the Soul, called Seethaa and incarcerated that soul in Lanka. The syllable 'lam' in the word Lanka is lam - beejaakshara which stands for earth, and because body is earthly, lascivious and carnal, the soul enters that body by its bondage. If that soul again tries for a final release, that soul shall seek the Ultimate as said in the verse of Geethaa, quoted above. There is no instance to quote that Raama or Seethaa have performed some miracles, special effects or any other optical works... perhaps due to lack of any FX studio or something like that, or due to their humanly behaviour. This wizardry is shown by demons and monkeys but not by mannish Raama or womanish Seethaa. Yet Seethaa is held more enigmatic than Raama. If she is not an enigma how she footslogged miles and miles in forests without hiring a taxi, and how she came out of blazing fire when she performed self-immolation after Great War? These are but two questions among many. Because these questions are never-ending and more enigmatic, because we think that we have deciphered what Raama is, it is better retain Seethaa as an undecipherable enigma. trust this clarifies sri srirams point dhasan vasudevan m.g -- M.G.Vasudevan Fri 7/28/2006 9:48 PM Dr. Sadagopan Cc: sria2000 ; krupa (AT) singnet (DOT) com.sg RE: [Newsender-Check validity] - Re: Doubt - Message is from an unknown sender respected swamin, thanks for the confidence posed on me. today just now 9.48pm IST returned from a long official trip to delhi and cochin and saw mails. did not see mail for more than 5 days. hence this delay. will send points and comment on this on sunday. regards MGV -- Dr. Sadagopan [yennappan (AT) computer (DOT) net] Wed 7/26/2006 1:11 AM Sriram Varadharajan Cc: M.G.Vasudevan; Mukund [Newsender-Check validity] - Re: Doubt - Message is from an unknown sender Dear Sri Varadarajan: There are many versions of RaamAyaNam . For us Vaalmiki RaamAyaNam is the basic text . There is no reference to Vedavathi . The best person to comment on Srimath RaamAyaNam matters is Sriamn M.G.VaasudEvan of Chennai . By copy of thsi note , I am requesting him to comment . V.Sadagopan - Sriram Varadharajan yennappan (AT) computer (DOT) net Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM Doubt Adiyen, I have a small doubt.. In Ramayana, during Sri Ramas Vanavasam, Sita was carried by Ravana to Lanka. But in the Thirumala website, its said that Ravana was tricked & took Vedavathi instead of Sita. Web page : http://www.tirumala.org/opage34.html "When Ravana was about to carry away Sita from Panchavati, in the absence of Rama and Lakshmana, Agni appeared and offered Vedavati to Ravana as the real Sita who was kept with him by Rama to evade Ravana. Ravana was tricked into thinking that Vedavati was the real Sita." My Question is 1) Is the above one true ? 2) If its true, does Rama not know the truth ? However few slides down the above link its said that, http://www.tirumala.org/opage36.html "After the destruction of Ravana, Vedavati entered the fire when rejected by Rama. Then, Agni, offered the real Sita to Rama. Rama then questioned her as to who the other lady by her side was. " & at http://www.tirumala.org/opage37.html " Sita informed Rama that the lady was Vedavati who endured Ravana's torture for ten months in Lanka for her sake. Sita requested Rama to accept Vedavati also as his spouse. But Rama declined her request saying that he believed in having only one wife during his life time. However, He promised to wed her in her next birth as Padmavati, born as the daughter of Akasa Raja, when Rama himself would take the form of Srinivasa. " Question : 1) Sita knows that Ravana would carry her & was helped by Agni & Ravana took Vedavathi instead. Knowing about character of Sita, she will not allow others to suffer as she is kind hearted. So how did she allow Vedavathi to suffer in her behalf. 2) If Sita was safe, could it not be easier for her to approach Rama & tell him the truth that Vedavathi has been kidnapped by Ravana ? Please forgive my ignorance & if possible can you please clarify the above points. Thanks & Regards Sriram Sriram. V Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. DISCLAIMER: This Message and its contents is intended solely for the addressee and is proprietary.Information in this mail is for L&T Business Usage only. Any Use to other than the addressee is misuse and infringement to Proprietorship of L&T ECC.If you are not the addressee please return the mail to the sender.L&T ECC DIVISION Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.