re bharatha doubts raama 2

[Guest guest]

Dear

sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

First

of all my sincere apologies to Sri Ramji govindarajan, for he writes

'I missed his mail'. Yes. By mistake I have deleted the whole digest

of mails for few days, because in August and September 2009, I was so

busy in my son's marriage and some technical meetings and programmes

of my own.

 

Now,

my reactions –

 

First

of all - I am just relying on vaalmeeki's slokams and commentaries

in sanskrit, of 3 well known authors of 'NOT TODAY' but yesteryears.

Sri Ramji in his mail has not quoted anything from vaalmeeki to the

contrary, that bharatha never doubted raama [ramji in his mail

admits that].

 

I

am quoting from vaalmeeki, whereas all the 3 responses received are

relying on interpretations. Already I commented on the other two

responses, saying vaalmeeki has acted as a 'straight forward

reporter' in reporting things as they happened. No hiding when the

matter to be reported becomes 'a little inconvenient' and adding pep

to it when it is 'conveneient'. Same is the reply to Sri Ramji also.

For

this kind of reporting as things happened, the very clear permission

or authorisation or a 'gnaana' vision [like what vision vEdha vyaasa

gave later to sanjaya to report the war scene in other epic maha

bhaaratham] was given to vaalmeeki by nobody else than brahmaa, the

creator himself, which again is found in baala kaaNdam.

 

Brahmaa

gave such a permission to vaalmeeki to know, see, visualise, hear,

and incorporate those which happened 'openly' or 'secretly'. Those

slokams of brahmaa's authorisation --

rahasyam

cha prakaaSam cha yadh vriththam thasya dheemathah || 1-2-33

 

raamasya saha soumithrE raakshasaanaam cha sarvaSah

|

vaidhEhyaah cha Eva yadh vriththam prakaaSam yadhi

vaa rahah || 1-2-34

thath cha api avidhitham sarvam vidhitham thE

bhavishyathi |

meaning: brahmaa says to vaalmeeki, " The

adventures of valorous raama along with lakshmaNa, and the

misadventures of demons, known or unknown in

every detail, and even the plight of vaidhEhi which is

either revealed or un-revealed so far,

and whatever legend that has happened,

all that will also be known to you, even if

it were to be unknown, as yet... [1-2-33b-35a]

 

 

na thE vaak anrithaa kaavyE kaachith athra

bhavishyathi || 1-2-35

kuru raama kathaam puNyaam SlOka baddhaam manOramaam

|

meaning:

brahmaa continues to vaalmeeki, " You shall place them in verses

the heart pleasing and merit-yielding legend of raama, and not

a single word of yours will be unfounded in this epic.

[1-2-35b-36a]Going

back again to our context and to stick to vaalmeeki on that 2-72-43

slokam, taking reference to above 1-2-35 b and 36 a slokams, dear

readers, if we accept the version that at no time bharatha doubted

raama, it means vaalmeeki has inserted “an unfounded slokam”

there in 2-72-43. If I have quoted somebody else, then I am prepared

to take back what I stated and offer my very sincere apologies at

all times.

 

That

also leads to a very great apachaaram to vaalmeeki and his kaavyam -

to take something which suits our views and thoughts as “truely

reported”, and something as “untrue” when it comes not suiting

our line of thoughts.

 

On

the authenticity of these vaalmeeki slokams - particularly in baala

kaaNdam and uththara kaaNdam - there is a view among learned

scholars that certain portion of vaalmeeki raamaayaNam, and certain

slokams even in those portions accepted as vaalmeeki's [the other 5

kaaNdams] are not his works, but later day inclusions. On these

views, I have no comments.

Now

let us see 3 commentaries on the 'bharatha sankhayaa' slokam --

 

thath

Sruthvaa bharathah thrasthah bhraathuh chaarithra Sankayaa |

 

svasya

vamSasya maahaathmyaath prashTum samupachakramE || 2-72-43

raamaayana

thilaka commentary – thadhithi – [page 822 and 823 of the

2nd volume of the 8 volume book of srimadh vaalmeeki

raamaayaNam by M/s. Parimal publications, new delhi]

 

-chaarithra

Sankhayaa raamasya dhharmachyuthi Sankhayaa

thrasthah sva vamSasya maahaathmyam asadhaachaaraa bhaava poorvakam

sadhaachaara niratha thvam sadhaachaara thyaagithvam cha thath

samsmruthya prashTum dhaNdakaaraNya gamana kaaraNam ithi SEshah ||

raamaayaNa

sirOmani commentary – thadh ukthaakaara poorvakam raama

gamanam Sruthvaa svasya vamSasya maahaathmyaan mahathvam praapya

vidhyamaasya bhraathuh raamasya chaarithra

Sankhayaa vana gamana hEthu-bhootha sadhaacharaNa

samSayEna prashTum samuchakramE aarabhE ||

govindaraja's

bhooshaNa commentary – thadhithi – chaarithra Sankhayaa

chaarithram kim abhooth ithi Sankhayaa

vamSasya maahaathmyaath asadhaachaara vaimukhya poorvaka sadhaachaara

nirathathvam vamSasya maahaathmyam ||

Since

the point here is whether bharatha 'doubted or not' on raama's

character – the commentator's words particularly is highlighted and

a full meaning not given.

 

[Note:

govindaraja's commentary is accepted by sree vaishNavaas without much

questioning or a simple rejection, since he is a 'sree vaishNava',

born and lived in kanchipuram, and a sishya of 6th pattam

ahobila mutt jeeyar as per notes about the commentators in this book]

9.

Going back to the 'later day insertion' view, the authors of website

valmikiramayan.net also state when a slokam is commented by many

commentators of yesteryears, we can consider them as authentic. On

this view again, I can state 'I am not a great researcher in

raamaayaNam or in sanskrit' and as such I cannot comment more than

this.

10.

Next -- To rely on interpretations only and not consider the

original version as given above, is a matter of how one wants to

take it. Further, please remember 'always the interpretations are

subject to the “colours” in the

eyes of the “interpreter”. Of

course there is another side also to this - without these

interpretations, perhaps we may miss the different viewpoints.We

will continue the discussions in next post also.

Dhasan

-- Vasudevan MG