SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. Sri Vasudevan swamy has contradicted my earlier mail at two places and interestingly (perhaps from my point of view), those two explanations were given by the translators. They are as follows: --- "M.G.Vasudevan" <mgv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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:- Infact the sargam 22 wherein it is said that Dhanya malini pacified Ravana, is the version of the Kavi.It is as how valmiki narrates. Later in sargam 58, the narration is as how it is by Hanuman. There is a possibility that Hanuman made a 'mis calculation'. But in my opinion, if it is so, the Kavi would have mentioned that mistaking Dhanya malini for Mandodhari, Hanuman said so. Why I think in these lines is that for one who is the Pattamahishi, it is going out of her way to accompany her husband who is going to intimidate Sita. It certainly makes a difference to her personality if she had accompanied or not accompanied him. From her state of my mind and how she has viewed the abduction act of her husband from what she says on the death of Ravana, it is difficult to digest that she had accompanied Ravana to Ashoka vana on that night. But that she had, is due to her virtue to obey her husband's words and due to the fact that she could not initially believe that a man had killed him and that her doubts arose after Hanuman's visit to Sita (from her narration on Ravana's death). If she had not actually accompanied him and if Hanuman had made the mistaken understanding of the identity, Valmiki would have certainly made it known that she, as one with highest notions on the admissability of such an offence (abduction) did not accompany Ravana but Hanuman had no way of knowing that.(Mandodhari had come down from the pedastal in having accompanied him - a reason why the Kavi didnot think it fit to talk about it. If she had not accompanied him, somewhere the Kavi would have made it known that she, the virtuous who averred the abduction, said or did such and such a thing.)This perhaps was the reason why I found the information as I have given originally (that both of them had accompanied him though the mention had been made separately in two sargas) as a bracketed explanation in the Tamil translation of Sundhara khandam by Sri U.Ve. C.R. Srinivasa iyengar (1867-1936) published by The Little Flower Company in 1962. The entire translation was for the first time brought in print many years after his death, with the help of his son. Therefore the note on the two being present must have come from the original palm-leaf scripts and must have found mention as could have existed in pravachanas that came down through generations. Another point I wish to state is that Hanuman initially mistakes Mandodhari for Sita - based on rupam only. But thinking on Gunas, he convinces himself that it is not Sita. The rupam, the jewellery and other accessories of a pattamahishi used to be distinctly different from other wives. Hanuman could not have missed the differences. Another point I wish to state on this topic is that by harping on this we are actually going away from the original issue on Varuna's connection which Sri Vasudevan has clarified in this mail. Thanks to him. I brought in the above discrepancy to convince ourselves that whatever description and the difference we might perceive in Valmiki Ramayana need to be viewed as facts. Any difference is perhaps due to the Kavi's way of talking in crisp terms or to generate more interest in the reader. The second issue:- JASN wrote: 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 Jasn replies:- I dared to use this part , (I, with limited knowledge of Sanskrit) for substantiating further (that knowingly well that Sita would not budge, Ravana tried to intimidate her) only on reading the meaning as given by translator, Sri A.V. Narasimhachari in his 1926 edition of Ramayana. He has quoted a verse in grantha letters as pramana which says that the one whose body parts (samastha avayangaL) are hot in cold season and are cold (sukha sheethaLAm) in summer and who is extremely devoted to her husband (perhaps due to this her body temperature changes accordingly ?this interpretation mine) is known as Vara varNini. Just preceding to this, Ravana tells Sita that like Urvashi, who initially refused Pururavas but later lamented for having refused him, she too would come to him voluntarily some day. So saying he addresses her as ?VaravarNini in the next verse and tells her that Rama is no match for even his finger. Therefore fear not him and obtain me. In my opinion, the insertion of this name does not fit the context, unless otherwise Ravana is convinced that Sita can never be intimidated. This occurs in sarga 48 in Aranya khandam. >From www.valmikiramayana.net:- a.ngulyaa na samo raamo mama yuddhe sa maanuSaH | tava bhaagyen sa.mpraaptam bhajasva varavar.hNini || 3-48-19 19. anvaya/word-order: maanuSaH+saH+raamaH= [mere] human, he, that Rama; yuddhe= in war; mama+angulyaa+na+samaH= my, finger, not, equal to; varavarNini= oh, richly, colourful lady; tava+ bhaagyen + sampraaptam+bhajasva= by your, serendipity [good fortune,] chanced, you honour [me.] "He that Rama is merely a human, and in war he equals me not by my finger... oh, richly colourful lady, and I chanced here merely by your serendipity, thus you honour me [and my desire to possess you..." [Thus Ravana spoke to Seetha.] [3-48-19] Comment: 'Serendipity' is the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident... coined by Horace Walpole [1754] after The Three Princes of Serendip [now Sri Lanka,] a fairy tale, so as a Lankan, let Ravana also say so. Ravana, the devotee is saying: yuddhe 'in war...' yasya angulyaaH samaH ko api na asti 'whose, finger, equalling, whoever, even, not, there...' yaH saH raamaH ' who, he, is Rama... or, Vishnu Himself...' maanuSaH 'humanly incarnate...' tam 'him, such a Rama...' mama bhaagyena 'by my, fortune...' sampraaptam 'let that Rama arrive [in Lanka...]' bhajasva 'him, that Rama, you hold him in honour...' "In battlefield none can match that Rama even by his little finger, for He is none other Vishnu, and such a Vishnu chanced here in the human incarnation as Rama, and let fortune betide me and let that Rama arrive in my Lanka, and you be instrumental to his arrival, then you may hold that Rama in high honour... for all this first you come with me..." Maheshvara Tiirtha. Jasn:- In the above version, VaravarNini is meant as ?richly, colourful?. The meaning as given by Sri A.V. naradsimhachar has already been furnished by me. Note that the direct reading of ?sampraaptam bhajasva varavarNini? seems to fall in line with the explanation given by Sri A.V.Narasimhachari. I leave it to the pundits to clarify. PS: My mail attempting to answer the two questions was not meant to offend any one. That mail addresses the two questions raised in the bow?s story ?10 and attempts to find answers. Regards, Jayasree saranathan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/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/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |