RE: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Ramayana of Valmiki and Kamban

[Guest guest]

!! Sri Rama Jayam !! Thank you for a detailed illustration of the episode. I have some thoughts based on my very limited knowledge & seek your comments on these purely on human grounds. To me - the two wishes of Kaikeyi were not properly balanced. It is hard to digest the fact that when a mother ask the crown for her dear son why did not she opt to remove the major obstacle (like Rama) for the entire life itself than for just 14 years. What is so symbolistic about 14 years ? Is it that she still hope Rama to aid her dear son Bharata after 14 years (forgetting all mis-happenings of the 14 years) or was that a well-planned political strategy of a much wiser queen 'Kaikeyi'. She was well aware of the fact that exiling Rama for any reason would cause a high political upheaval (especially from brother Laxmana & other allies of Ayodhya). We must remember that Laxmana was not asked for exile & it makes very clear that Laxmana would be a solid threat to king Bharata, if he does not leave Ayodhya with Rama for any good reason. Even Manthara does not persuade Kaikeyi to involve Laxmana in her boons. As a second thought - if we assume that Laxmana was sure to leave Ayodhya becoz of Rama; then the same applies for Bharata as well. Kaikeyi must have known all these. It is was very evident from the childhood that Laxmana & Bharata were so much dear to Rama. Hence, to my limited knowledge, exile of Rama must have been planned and appproved much earlier taking a/c of Rama's silent consent along with the valued opinions of greatest sages like Vashishtha, Vishwamitra, Saptarshis & lord Parashurama himself. If so, why 14-years only ? Is that a calculated time sufficient enough to accomplish the key mission of Ramavataram. A time based on the barefoot-journey needed to travel from Ayodhya to Lanka; time needed to educate the down-trodden soceity (like Guha, Sabars) & make them stand for the protection of Arya civilization; time needed to re-organize the Vanara society untying them from the friendship treaty Bali & Ravana...so on & so forth. All these could be possible to my understanding. If all these be true, we must ask why would Kaikeyi take the bad name of exiling Rama for any personal reason. To find this answer we must travel back to the pre-Ramavatara period. The Devasura war led by Dasharatha associated by Kaikeyi. How many of us know that during this great war it was Ravana who battled against Dasharatha ? There are enough evidences to prove that Dasharatha was injured badly by Ravana & that Kaikeyi had to step in to save her dear husband. This was the root of the two boons granted by Dasharatha to Kaikeyi - a well-known incident. Story does not stop here !Kaikeyi burning with anger against Ravana stood helpless as she had no means to challenge the demon king. Dasharatha was getting older, but she had pledged to uproot Ravana with his society. The queen had to wait long. The two boons of Daharatha were not capable enough to grant a mighty son to any of his queens. The dying hopes of Dasharatha & queens were energized by the words of Sumantra (the minister) who refers to Romapada (the king friend to whom Daharatha had gifted his first daughter 'Shanta'). In the course of time Rishyashringa (the glorious son of sage Vaibhandaka) weds Shanta, & later on he is invited to Ayodhya as the head-priest for Putrakameshthi yagya. That opens the way to Ramavataram. Among the four sons - Rama was only capable of killing Ravana & for that she had asked the exile, but her deep love for Rama made her to demand 14 years & no more. She was sure that Bharata would successfully persuade Rama to bring back to Ayodhya - but only after the maga plan is fulfilled. Dear All - this is a human philosophy to visualize the story of Ramayana (where Rama enacts a pure human being & not as a God). When Rama is potrayed as God, the story goes as per 'Adhyatma Ramayanam'. Wish to know your comments. Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur [guruvayur ] On Behalf Of sarojram18Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:19 PMguruvayur Subject: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Ramayana of Valmiki and Kamban4. The machinations of MantharajnAthidhAsee yatho jAthA kaikeyyAsthu sahoshithAprAsAdham chandrasamkASam Aruroha yadhrcchayA (VR.Ayod. 7.1)Manthara climbed the stairs of the palace of Kaikeyi and went to the top floor balcony by chance. Valmiki refers to Manthara as yatho jAthA, born somewhere, implying the person herself is of less importance than her action. She was jnathidhAsee, servant and relative of Kaikeyi and lived with her , sahoshithA. Valmiki says that she climbed the stairs accidentally, yadhrcchayA. But it was not yadhrcchA but eesvara icchA. Whatever we consider as accidental in this world are not so. More often than not, important events that cause great effects in our lives happen by accidents only which shows that though they seem to be accidental happenings to us because we never planned for it, they are by the will of the Lord. There were two women whose actions served as the turning points in the epic. One is Manthra and the other is Surpanakha, who also like Manthara , chanced to come that way and saw Rama. Thus Manthara gave the initial push towards the fulfillment of the purpose of the incarnation and Surpanakha was responsible for the finale of the drama.Manthara saw that the whole city of Ayoodhya was in festive mood and asked a maid who was near, about the cause for it. Manthara saw Kousalya distributing gifts to all which was surprising as she was usually a thrifty lady and this caused suspicion that the king was doing something behind the back of Kaikeyi. She figured that whatever caused joy to Kousalya would be detrimental to the interests of Kaikeyi! She mentioned the name of Kousalya as Ramamata, mother of Rama and arTha parA, who is money -minded , which showed her hatred towards Rama as well as Kousalya.The maid gleefully told her the cause of the festive preparations and the next moment Manthara descended the steps hurriedly and went to Kaikeyi, her face a picture of anger and hatred. She spoke to Kaikeyi who was resting in her bed thus:utthishTa mooDe kim Seshe bhayam thvAm abhivarthatheupaplutham aghoughena kim AthmAnamna buDhyase (VR.Ayod.7-14)“Get up you fool! You are lying in bed without knowing that there is a great calamity awaiting you followed by a series of misfortunes.†Manthara told Kaikeyi that she was under the illusion that she has the exclusive love of the king but who was not sincere and cunningly arranged the coronation of Rama while Bharatha was away. Valmiki calls Manthara as vAkyaviSAradhA, clever in speech. She abused the king as being outwardly truthful but in reality deceitful and wicked. Acting as though Kaikeyi was his dearest wife he was going to favour Kousalya by crowning Rama.Kaikeyi, rising from her bed like the Moon from the autumn clouds, became delighted to hear the news and gave Manthra a rich ornament and told her that she was overjoyed to hear about the coronation of Rama since he was as dear to her as Bharatha. Kaikeyi thus spoke like a lady of noble birth who possessed good qualities and told Manthara to ask for whatever she wanted for telling her the goodnews.But it was the divine will that Rama should go to forest to fulfil the avatarakarya, namely to destroy the rakshasas and Ravana and hence the pure mind of Kaikeyi was slowly poisoned by Manthara thus.Manthara told Kaikeyi that it was ridiculous that she rejoiced with the news which meant harm to her and her son. Bharatha was the only rival to Rama being the next in succession and so, if Rama became the king he would try to get rid of Bharatha. Thus she first created fear in the mind of Kaikeyi for the safety of her son and then flung the final missile that if Rama became the king Kousalya would become all powerful and Kaikeyi would be reduced to an inferior position. Thus she kindled the envy of Kaikeyi towards Kousalya, which was working in her mind and finally poisoned her mind thoroughly.Even then Kaikeyi was not convinced and said that she knew Rama very well and he was dharmajna, wellversed in dharma, guNavAn, virtuous, dhAnthaH, self-controlled, sathyavAn, honest and Suchih pure. Moreover being the eldest son he only deserved the kingdom. And further she said that Bharatha will inherit the kingdom in due course and that Rama was more attached to her than to Kousalya.Manthara was not to be silenced by the arguments of Kaikeyi because she was determined to stop the coronation and told Kaikeyi that after Rama only his son will inherit the kingdom and not Bharatha. She said Kaikeyi was so innocent that she was quite unaware of the royal intrigues and it was definite that Rama will try to get rid of Bharata or even if he allowed him to live, Bharata would be no more than a servant to Rama. Finally she said that it was inevitable that Kousalya would become more powerful and Kaikeyi and her son would be reduced to a state of servitude. She pointed out that Kaikeyi committed a big mistake in sending Bharatha often to her brother’s house and hence he was away from the king for a long time and thus there was no love for him in the heart of Dasaratha, while Rama was always the near and dear son to him. Finally she reminded Kaikeyi that she insulted Kousalya many times being arrogant with the love of the king towards her and Kousalya would certainly take revenge if Rama became the king. Manthara finished poisoning the mind of Kaikeyi and told her to think about the means of making Bharatha the king instead of Rama.

[Guest guest]

I will try to answer your points one by one. Before that let me express my appreciation of your analytical mind and thought provoking comments. 1.What is so symbolistic about 14 years ? In olden days it is considered that if a person is not heard of for ten years he is as well as taken to be dead. Kaikeyi must have added 4 more to ensure that the peoplewill forget Rama and accept Bharatha. She did not ask for elimination of Rama because she knew that it was impossible even for a sathyasandha like Dasaratha to agree and also because she still had love for Rama in her heart, as no one could help loving him even his worst enemy and also because she knew that Rama would obey his father without a question and give the kingdom to Bharatah and will never aspire for it

again. 2.- if we assume that Laxmana was sure to leave Ayodhya becoz of Rama; then the same applies for Bharata as well. True. But Kaikeyi knew Rama well enough that he will persuade Bharatha to accept the kingdom and will never allow him to go to forest with him. 3.exile of Rama must have been planned and appproved much earlier taking a/c of Rama's silent consent along with the valued opinions of greatest sages like Vasishta. Of course Vasishta and others knew the future and hence never said anything against his exile but they have not in any way responsible for Kaikeyiâ€s doing but simply understood that it was the

divine will which is well known to Rama who has taken the incarnation for the kiing of Ravana. As Rama himself remarks later to Bharatha it was the quirk of fate which is another name for divine will of the Lord enacting in arama in which he is the scriptwriter, director and one of the actors. 4.why would Kaikeyi take the bad name of exiling Rama for any personal reason? Kaikeyi was only portrayed by Valmiki as an

impetuous woman who acted purely out of personal interest without thinking of the consequences. she , like an ordinary mother , wished to do good for her son and ended up by losing his good will which is not an uncommon occurrence to find in the world. She was an ordinary mortal who could be pleasant and loving as long as everything goes according to his wishes but turns inimical the moment anything happens to displease him. Moreover Sumanthra abuses her later saying that she has taken after her mother who, knowing fully well that her husband will die disclosing a divine secret, pressed him to tell her as a consequence of which he abandoned her, because Kaikeyi knew verywell that Dasratya would not survive the separation from Rama. But in fact the act of Kaikeyi was beneficial not only to fulfil the avatarakarya but also to enhance the

glory of Bharata who was praised as being even greater than Rama by Kousalya herself by his great sacrifice. Otherwise the character of Bharatha would not have come to be extolled as such . 5.As per your comment about the mission of Rama not only to destroy Ravana but also to elevate and show his grace to Guha, Sugriva etc. it is a well thought of comment because the whole Ramayna is considered as the saranagathi sasthra. Why did Rama go to Dandkaranya ? He need not even have taken the trouble of proceeding to Lanka. He could have killed Ravana from where he

was. It was all due to the all merciful nature of the Lord that he seeks those who surrender and never waits till they come to Him. It was to show that the Lord protects those who surrender to him no matter who they are, may they be bird, man, woman or beast. 6. Finally the battle you referred to in which Kaikeyi accompanied Dasaratha was the one he fought with Samabarasura and not Ravana. I hope that I have answered the questions to your satisfaction. Most of the points would appear in the commentary of Ramayana in the proper places.. Saroj a Ramanujam Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit http://www.geocities.com/sarojram18 http://freewebs.com/asrama3

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with FareChase.

[Guest guest]

!! Sri Rama Jayam !! Thank you Saroja ji for a detailed reply. Please accept my wished on your B'day anniversary.May Guruvayurappan grant you "Ayur-Arogya-Saukhyam". Hare KrishnaHare Ramaguruvayur [guruvayur ] On Behalf Of Saroja RamanujamWednesday, September 19, 2007 2:54 PMguruvayur Subject: RE: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Ramayana of Valmiki and KambanI will try to answer your points one by one. Before that let me express my appreciation of your analytical mind and thought provoking comments.1.What is so symbolistic about 14 years ? In olden days it is considered that if a person is not heard of for ten years he is as well as taken to be dead. Kaikeyi must have added 4 more to ensure that the peoplewill forget Rama and accept Bharatha. She did not ask for elimination of Rama because she knew that it was impossible even for a sathyasandha like Dasaratha to agree and also because she still had love for Rama in her heart, as no one could help loving him even his worst enemy and also because she knew that Rama would obey his father without a question and give the kingdom to Bharatah and will never aspire for it again.2.- if we assume that Laxmana was sure to leave Ayodhya becoz of Rama; then the same applies for Bharata as well. True. But Kaikeyi knew Rama well enough that he will persuade Bharatha to accept the kingdom and will never allow him to go to forest with him.3.exile of Rama must have been planned and appproved much earlier taking a/c of Rama's silent consent along with the valued opinions of greatest sages like Vasishta.Of course Vasishta and others knew the future and hence never said anything against his exile but they have not in any way responsible for Kaikeyiâ€Âs doing but simply understood that it was the divine will which is well known to Rama who has taken the incarnation for the kiing of Ravana. As Rama himself remarks later to Bharatha it was the quirk of fate which is another name for divine will of the Lord enacting in arama in which he is the scriptwriter, director and one of the actors.4.why would Kaikeyi take the bad name of exiling Rama for any personal reason?Kaikeyi was only portrayed by Valmiki as an impetuous woman who acted purely out of personal interest without thinking of the consequences. she , like an ordinary mother , wished to do good for her son and ended up by losing his good will which is not an uncommon occurrence to find in the world. She was an ordinary mortal who could be pleasant and loving as long as everything goes according to his wishes but turns inimical the moment anything happens to displease him. Moreover Sumanthra abuses her later saying that she has taken after her mother who, knowing fully well that her husband will die disclosing a divine secret, pressed him to tell her as a consequence of which he abandoned her, because Kaikeyi knew verywell that Dasratya would not survive the separation from Rama. But in fact the act of Kaikeyi was beneficial not only to fulfil the avatarakarya but also to enhance the glory of Bharata who was praised as being even greater than Rama by Kousalya herself by his great sacrifice. Otherwise the character of Bharatha would not have come to be extolled as such .5.As per your comment about the mission of Rama not only to destroy Ravana but also to elevate and show his grace to Guha, Sugriva etc. it is a well thought of comment because the whole Ramayna is considered as the saranagathi sasthra. Why did Rama go to Dandkaranya ? He need not even have taken the trouble of proceeding to Lanka. He could have killed Ravana from where he was. It was all due to the all merciful nature of the Lord that he seeks those who surrender and never waits till they come to Him. It was to show that the Lord protects those who surrender to him no matter who they are, may they be bird, man, woman or beast. 6. Finally the battle you referred to in which Kaikeyi accompanied Dasaratha was the one he fought with Samabarasura and not Ravana.I hope that I have answered the questions to your satisfaction. Most of the points would appear in the commentary of Ramayana in the proper places..Saroj a Ramanujam Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit http://www.geocities.com/sarojram18 http://freewebs.com/asrama3 Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with FareChase.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your wish. May God bless you. saroja Ramanujam Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit http://www.geocities.com/sarojram18 http://freewebs.com/asrama3

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

First of all , let me introduce myself as P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN aged 76 years originally from Pallassana West Village and at present settled at BANGALORE.

Mine is a small family consisting of my wife, only son, daughter-in-law and their two children. I am a new member in this group.

 

I read with great interest the E-mail written by Smt. Dr. Saroja Ramanujam. I would like to add something more to this. The controversy about Lord Sri Ram , that he was an imaginary person has evoked mixed reaction. I would like to clarify that although the DASAVATHARAM itself shows the evolution of mankind, we cannot discard by saying that that Lord Ramachandra was a legendary figure. He was very much alive the THRETA YUGA. There was a time when the ASI people of India and Historians said that OLD DWARKA, the city which LORD KRISHNA ruled did not exist. However, now we got the proof of a city which is submerged. This happened in DWAPARA YUGA.Lord Rama lived in THRETHA YUGA ,which is older to Dwapara Yuga.. When our ASI people and Historians have taken so much of time to get proof about the erstwhile existence of DWARAKA of LORD KRISHNA, I do not thing, it will be possible for them to find out about the existence of Lord Ram in near future. Hence, let them not comment on the subject.

 

Now coming to the point of the DMK and communists who are non believers of GOD , I pity them only. The existence of GOD is an AXIOM.. It is self proved. These DMK and communists want for everything proof. Can they say who are their fathers? Their mother pointed out a man and said that he is the father. Now they believe it. There is no other proof.

 

 

It is a fact that our scriptures have spelt punishment for those who do not believe in them. This is what Sri. Vedanthi told which has been twisted by the DMK to achieve their goals.

 

Coming to Ramayana, I woud like to say that it is a story about a a perfect king who lived ling ago written by many authors like KAMBAR, VALMIKI, EZHUTHACHCHAN, TULASIDASS ETC. There may be exaggerations according to the imaginations of the writers. This does not mean that Rama did not exist or RAMA SETHU was not built by LORD RAMA AND HIS SENAS. Again, there were many races including DEVAS, ASURAS and MANUSHAS. There might have

been a protracted war between them in which at times ASURAS won and at times DEVAS won and sometimes MANUSHAS won. We have heard many stories about Sri. Sathya Sai Baba, out of which some are out of imagination and facy of the writers, This does not mean that Sri. Sathya Sai Baba does not exist or has not done wonders or has not worked and still working for the upliftment of the great humanity.

 

 

Jai Sri Ram.

 

P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 24/09/2007, Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your wish. May God bless you.

saroja Ramanujam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit

http://www.geocities.com/sarojram18

http://freewebs.com/asrama3

 

 

 

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you

all the tools to get online.

-- Rrpallassana

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Radhakrishnan

Welcome to this wonderful web world of Guruvayoor. Now I have a company from my own village i.e Pallassana. You will meet besides our Sarojaji many more wise persons including my G who lives in Bangalore. Your comments about Sri Rama is really good one.

Welcome once again

Ohm Narayanaya Namah

Chandra Sekharan Menon

P.R. RADHAKRISHNAN <pallassanasguruvayur Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:56:06 AMRe: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Ramayana of Valmiki and Kamban

 

 

Dear friends,

 

First of all , let me introduce myself as P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN aged 76 years originally from Pallassana West Village and at present settled at BANGALORE.

Mine is a small family consisting of my wife, only son, daughter-in- law and their two children. I am a new member in this group.

 

I read with great interest the E-mail written by Smt. Dr. Saroja Ramanujam. I would like to add something more to this. The controversy about Lord Sri Ram , that he was an imaginary person has evoked mixed reaction. I would like to clarify that although the DASAVATHARAM itself shows the evolution of mankind, we cannot discard by saying that that Lord Ramachandra was a legendary figure. He was very much alive the THRETA YUGA. There was a time when the ASI people of India and Historians said that OLD DWARKA, the city which LORD KRISHNA ruled did not exist. However, now we got the proof of a city which is submerged. This happened in DWAPARA YUGA.Lord Rama lived in THRETHA YUGA ,which is older to Dwapara Yuga.. When our ASI people and Historians have taken so much of time to get proof about the erstwhile existence of DWARAKA of LORD KRISHNA, I do not thing, it will be possible for them to find out

about the existence of Lord Ram in near future. Hence, let them not comment on the subject.

 

Now coming to the point of the DMK and communists who are non believers of GOD , I pity them only. The existence of GOD is an AXIOM.. It is self proved. These DMK and communists want for everything proof. Can they say who are their fathers? Their mother pointed out a man and said that he is the father. Now they believe it. There is no other proof.

 

It is a fact that our scriptures have spelt punishment for those who do not believe in them. This is what Sri. Vedanthi told which has been twisted by the DMK to achieve their goals.

 

Coming to Ramayana, I woud like to say that it is a story about a a perfect king who lived ling ago written by many authors like KAMBAR, VALMIKI, EZHUTHACHCHAN, TULASIDASS ETC. There may be exaggerations according to the imaginations of the writers. This does not mean that Rama did not exist or RAMA SETHU was not built by LORD RAMA AND HIS SENAS. Again, there were many races including DEVAS, ASURAS and MANUSHAS. There might have

been a protracted war between them in which at times ASURAS won and at times DEVAS won and sometimes MANUSHAS won. We have heard many stories about Sri. Sathya Sai Baba, out of which some are out of imagination and facy of the writers, This does not mean that Sri. Sathya Sai Baba does not exist or has not done wonders or has not worked and still working for the upliftment of the great humanity.

 

Jai Sri Ram.

 

P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 24/09/2007, Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18 > wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your wish. May God bless you.

saroja Ramanujam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit http://www.geocitie s.com/sarojram18

http://freewebs. com/asrama3

 

 

 

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

-- Rrpallassana

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Dear Shri. Radhakrishnan, I am Nalini Sree from Pallasena now I am settling at Madras. I read your message about Rama. I accept your comments. Nalini sree Chandra Menon <chandrasmenon2002 wrote: Dear Shri Radhakrishnan Welcome to this wonderful web world of Guruvayoor. Now I have a company from my own village i.e Pallassana. You will meet besides our Sarojaji many more wise persons including my G who lives in Bangalore. Your comments about Sri Rama is really good one. Welcome once again Ohm Narayanaya Namah Chandra Sekharan Menon P.R. RADHAKRISHNAN <pallassanas >To:

guruvayur Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:56:06 AMRe: [Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Ramayana of Valmiki and Kamban Dear friends, First of all , let me introduce myself as P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN aged 76 years originally from Pallassana West Village and at present settled at BANGALORE. Mine is a small family consisting of my wife, only son, daughter-in- law and their two children. I am a new member in this group. I read with great interest the E-mail written by Smt. Dr. Saroja Ramanujam. I would like to add something more to this. The controversy about Lord Sri Ram , that he was an imaginary person has evoked mixed reaction. I would like to clarify that although the DASAVATHARAM itself shows the evolution of mankind, we cannot discard by saying that that Lord Ramachandra was a legendary

figure. He was very much alive the THRETA YUGA. There was a time when the ASI people of India and Historians said that OLD DWARKA, the city which LORD KRISHNA ruled did not exist. However, now we got the proof of a city which is submerged. This happened in DWAPARA YUGA.Lord Rama lived in THRETHA YUGA ,which is older to Dwapara Yuga.. When our ASI people and Historians have taken so much of time to get proof about the erstwhile existence of DWARAKA of LORD KRISHNA, I do not thing, it will be possible for them to find out about the existence of Lord Ram in near future. Hence, let them not comment on the subject. Now coming to the point of the DMK and communists who are non believers of GOD , I pity them only. The existence of GOD is an AXIOM.. It is self proved. These DMK and communists want for everything proof. Can they say who are their fathers? Their mother

pointed out a man and said that he is the father. Now they believe it. There is no other proof. It is a fact that our scriptures have spelt punishment for those who do not believe in them. This is what Sri. Vedanthi told which has been twisted by the DMK to achieve their goals. Coming to Ramayana, I woud like to say that it is a story about a a perfect king who lived ling ago written by many authors like KAMBAR, VALMIKI, EZHUTHACHCHAN, TULASIDASS ETC. There may be exaggerations according to the imaginations of the writers. This does not mean that Rama did not exist or RAMA SETHU was not built by LORD RAMA AND HIS SENAS. Again, there were many races including DEVAS, ASURAS and MANUSHAS. There might have been a protracted war between them in which at times ASURAS won and at times DEVAS won and sometimes MANUSHAS

won. We have heard many stories about Sri. Sathya Sai Baba, out of which some are out of imagination and facy of the writers, This does not mean that Sri. Sathya Sai Baba does not exist or has not done wonders or has not worked and still working for the upliftment of the great humanity. Jai Sri Ram. P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN On 24/09/2007, Saroja Ramanujam <sarojram18 > wrote: Thank you for your wish. May God bless you. saroja Ramanujam Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit http://www.geocitie s.com/sarojram18 http://freewebs. com/asrama3 Building a website is a piece of cake.

Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. -- Rrpallassana

Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Autos.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Sarojini and friends,

 

I am of the opinion that but for Manthara who was no one else than Goddess Saraswathi's incarnation, Saraswathi is also called as Manthara, ( See Shyamalaa Dandakam ), the killing of Ravana could not have happened. The poets who wrote Ramayana have added many stories to the real one and that is the main reason as to why our History is distorted. These are all NIMITHTHAAS. Manthra has been depicted as a bad character in Ramayana. The fact is that it is the will of God which prevailed. No matter who wrote what.

 

 

Best wishes and regards.

 

" OM NAMO BHAGAVATHE VASUDEVAYA , OM VISWASMAI NAMAH OM NOMO NARAYANAYA "

 

P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN

On 13/10/2007, sarojram18 <sarojram18 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kaikeyi whose intellect was clouded with delusion asked Manthara to tell her the way to do it and as though waiting for the occasion Manthara started speaking. He reminded Kaikeyi about the battle of Dasaratha with Sambarasura to help Indra

when he became wounded and lost consciousness. Kaikeyi was adept in driving chariot and accompanied Dasaratha as his charioteer and she saved him by bringing him swiftly away from the battlefield and nursing him back to consciousness. Then being pleased with her Dasaratha wished to grant her two boons.

But at that time she did not want anything and told him that she would ask him when needed. To the doubt that may arise in the mind that how did Manthara knew all this she herself clarifies saying that she knew about it since Kaikeyi herself told her.

 

 

Apart from the fact that it is the fate that directs the actions of individuals, as Rama himself says later, viewed as a human drama, this shows the effect of placing confidence in wrong persons in life. Manthara was the confidante of Kaikeyi and trusting one whose mind was as crooked as her body Kaikeyi had to pay heavily for her action. This also indicates the result of folly of Kaikeyi in allowing a third person to come between her and Dasaratha. This is normally the case in all families to this date wherever any one is allowed to interfere between close relations, like husband and wife, father and son etc. whoever they may be.

 

 

Manthara advised Kaikeyi what to do . She even directed her actions by telling her to enter the villa of sulk, kopagrha, and not to give up until Dasaratha agrees to crown Bharatha. Also as an additional precaution she told Kaikeyi to ask for Rama's exile to forest for fourteen years. Her calculation seems to be that if Bharatha rules the kingdom for fourteen years as he was also virtuous and pure-hearted, the people will start loving him and forget Rama.

 

 

Valmiki calls Manthara as papadarsanee, evil minded because she was more intent

on Rama's exile than the crowning of Bharatha, raamaartham upahimsanthee , says Valmiki (Ay.Kan.9-10). In fact she reminds Kaikeyi again and again not to forget Rama's exile even if the king, who is very fond of her, agrees with the proposal of crowning Bharata.

 

The question is , why was she so particular about Rama's exile? Not considering the machinations of the devas, there goes the story that Rama as a boy hit her hunched back with his toy weapon, which is also mentioned by Kamban as 'pandai naal iraagavan paani vil umizh undai undadhanai than uLLatthu uLluvaaL' but it is highly improbable that she would have taken vengeance for a childish prank. It becomes sensible

only if, as Valmiki says, she is evil minded. The wicked cannot tolerate goodness in others and takes pleasure in creating trouble for them. This is what Krishna terms as asooya or carping in Bhagavatgita. Valmiki himself says that she threw the ornament Kaikeyi gave her, pleased with the news of the coronation of Rama, with asooya, `Mantharaa abhyasooya enaam utsrujya aabharanam ca that.'(

Ay.Kan.8-1)

 

Manthara knew Kaikeyi thoroughly to brainwash her completely by clever arguments.

 

The reasons she gave to Kaikeyi for stopping Rama's coronation were very convincing and

prove that she was indeed vakyavisaarada, as Valmiki calls her.

 

The arguments Manthara gave to change the mind of Kaikeyi were:

1. Dasaratha arranged the coronation while Bharata was away. This, she said , was to avoid the promise given to the father of Kaikeyi that only the son of Kaikeyi will succeed him to the throne.

2. She pointed out that if Rama became the king, Kousalya, whom Kaikeyi had insulted, intoxicated with the influence she had with the king, would be more powerful and she would take revenge.

The first one put a doubt in the mind of Kaikeyi while the second one whipped up her jealousy towards her co-wife. Both together have done the trick.

 

 

Here it would be of interest to see what Kamban says about this episode. He make Manthara give a third and more powerful reason for preventing Rama

from ascending the throne. She says,

`Kaadhal un perum kaNavanai anji akkanivaay seethai thandhai un thaadhaiyai theRugilan

Iraaman maatulan avan nundhaikku vaazhvu ini uNdO?'

 

That is, she reminded Kaikeyi about the enmity between Janaka and her father and if Rama became the king Janaka would be more powerful as the father in law of the king. Then where is the protection for her father, she said. As it is the nature of women to have a soft her for their

parents, Kaikeyi was completely changed.

 

Kamban expresses the act of Manthara and the transformation of Kaikeyi in emphatic terms. He describes Manthara as `

innal sei iraavaNan izhaittha theemai pOl tunna arumkodumankkooni.' She was as wicked as the actions of Ravana and capable of harming all the three worlds.' moonRu ulaginukkum oru idukkaN moottuvaaL `

 

 

Kaikeyi who at first said ,' enakku nallaiyum allay nee; en magan bharatan thanakku nallaiyum allay,' meaning, " you are neither my well-wisher nor of my son Bharata, " later changed so as to say, " enai uvandhanai; iniyai en maganukkum, you are dear to me and my son. "

 

Kamban explains the effect of the counsel of Manthara as `theeya mandharai ivvurai seppalum dhEvi thooya chindhaiyum thirindhadhu

..' The pure heart of Kaikeyi was changed and the reason for this, says Kamban was not mere words of Manthara but due to the plotting of the devas , the promise to them by the Lord and the penance of the pious.' Soozhcchiyin imaiyor maayaiyum , avar petRa nalvaram uNmaiyaalum aaya andhaNar

iyaTRiya arum thavtthaalum.'

 

Thus Kaikeyi mistook the words of Manthara, which was going to bring disaster for her,

 

as something of great value 'anarTham arTharoopeNa graahithaa

,' and became uncontrollable, like a filly which has lost its way, `kiSoreevotpaTham gathaa,' says Valmiki.

She even praised Manthara for her looks and said that she alone was beautiful and promised to decorate her with ornaments once Bhartha became the king, which showed that Kaikeyi completely lost her reason being deluded by the magic of Manthara.

 

Then she cast off all ornaments and rich clothes and lay down on the ground swearing that if the king did not grant her wish she would give up her life. It was in this state Dasratha found her when he came to tell her the good news of the coronation of Rama, naively thinking that she would be pleased to hear it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- Rrpallassana

[Guest guest]

Of course it is the will of God without nothing could have happened and Manthara could be a goddess in disguise but Ramayana became known to the world through Valmiki only and he was supposed to be told the story by Narada through the command of Brahma.We have no authority or proof other than this to say that it was imagined by Valmiki who pictured Manthara as bad.The story as told could not be dismissed because 1.The name Manthara alone is not enough to prove that she was the incarnation of Sarasvati as any one can be named after any Goddess. 2.Even if she is, Valmiki could not have said so nor Narada as it would have been divine secret and cannot be divulged . 3. Once a person had taken the role of a bad character whoever he or she might be they had to act it out and the script writer of the drama will have to portray them only as the character and not as who they really were. 4.

Both Valmiki and Kamban explicitly state that it was all the plot of the devas and the will of God and there is no doubt about it at all. 5. Rama Himself inspite of being the incarnation had to appear true to His character and so did Ravana who was in reality only the faithful attendent of the Lord in his poorva janma. 6.Ravana could also be defended by some quoting some other source to say that he wanted to die in the hands of the Lord and that is why he abducted Sita etc.but these are only various threads to the main story, which was written by Valmiki the adhikavi, who did not do so out of his imagination but by the instruction of Brahma and Narada. 7. Finally when the subject matter of these posts have been specified as the Ramayana of Valmiki and Kamban, one has to expound only on what exactly they have said even though it could be mentioned that there is a view that Manthara was an incarnation of Sarasvati, though Sarasvati

need not have taken the incarnation as a hunchback when she could have easily manifest on the tongue of Manthara to make her say what she said, probably that was what happened. saroja Ramanujam Dr. Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit. Please visit www.freewebs.com/sarojaramanujam www.freewebs.com/asrama3

Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Autos.