You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Dec 2004

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00061 Dec 2004

 
Dec 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]



Dear srivaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

my points are added at appropriate places as MGV:----

Sorry for this delay i was away at kolkata, officially.

dhasan 
vasudevan m.g.

PS: since the length is more i am replying in two parts. 
about Smt. jayasree's other points i will give my points later.


From:   jasn sn [jayasartn@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM
Subject:        [Oppiliappan] Re: Bow's story -10 
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 the shiva-dhanush was 
obtained by her father Janaka 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 jaisree does not hold water. ---MGV  

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.  

JASN: 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. -- MGV   

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 'ambaraththooNi' the quiver from where 'akshyaam 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]. --MGV

JASN: Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two pieces of 
information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana itself. One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam 
takes place only during certain kaala-dEsha- vartha maana. The Vishnu-veeryam 
was present in the Shiva-dhanush only at the time of samhaaram of Thripura 
asuras (refer previous postings of bow's story) and not later when the war 
broke out between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise, shiva placed His veeryam in the 
dhanush to make it extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up. Even 
otherwise it was heavy (by some standard) is another point. Whether it was 
heavy when Sita as a little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder.

JASN: The question that comes to my mind here is whether Ravana recognised 
Sita, when Surpanaga told him of the story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him 
to avenge them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn't betray any 
remembrance of the incident at Janaka's court nor any knowledge about Sita's 
existence. He listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about her for the 
first time. The reasons are easy to understand. It was by a kind of selective 
amnesia that he would not have wanted to remember Sita's swayamvara, where he 
suffered a humiliation to his valour (in having failed to lift the bow). 

MGV: -- This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to be heard 
properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and can help her in 
achieving her goals [of punishing the human characters who defaced her]. At 
that stage he would definitely not like to exhibit he also suffered at the 
cause of same seethaa. 
  
JASN: That perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take her to show 
how valiant he was. Because at every occasion he was keen on showing her how 
valiant he was and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no match to him. 
Thus the seeds of doing harm to Rama must have been sown at Janaka's court 
itself. 

MGV: To a large extent, yes.
 
JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose it - however otherwise 
convinced he might be about the pathi-vradha nature of Sita. Because when he 
told her that he was going to take her, he addressed her 'varavarNinI' - (a 
term used to exemplary women who are extremely devoted to the husband) and 
ridiculed Rama that he was not a match even to his finger!!

MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17

Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a 
beautiful woman. This is one among the group of: varaarOhaa, mathtta kaasinee, 
uththamaa, vara varNinee - amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2].

Again this addressing is repeated
vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE |
na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28

MGV: Rest we will continue in next post

-----Original Message-----
From: jasn sn [mailto:jayasartn@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM
To: oppiliappan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; srirangasri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Oppiliappan] Re: Bow's story -10 -






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/VkWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list