From: jasn sn [jayasartn@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Bow's story ? clarification on question raised.
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 her father Janaka obtained the shiva-dhanush 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 jayasree does not hold water.
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.
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.
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 `ambaraaththooNi' the quiver from
where `akshayam 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].
dhasan
vasudevan m.g.
------------------------ 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 |