Ramayana the different versions

History, religion and culture
Post Reply
cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

The word Rama is magical. It is the story of a Man who lived and showed the path of rectitude to all humans and hence was idealized and idolized as the incarnation of the Supreme Himself. When Valmiki queried sage Narada
kO nu asmin sAmpratam lOkE
guNavAn kashca vIryavAn|
dhrmag~nyashca k^Ritag~nyashca
satya vAkyO d^riDa vrataH||
he was essentially asking for the story of the perfect 'man'. And Narada responds with the story of Rama and vAlmiki called it rAmAyaNaM (rAmasya ayanaM (Rams's travel through life)). There are many who claim that it was also the story of the ideal 'woman' viz., sItA and hence it was also rAmAyAH ayanaM (the travel through life of sItA (rAmA). Since that time we have several versions of the life history of those perfect humans. In this thread we will look at the different aspects and share our views as also the musical works of the Greats extolling the life and glory of the rAma parivAr. Let me start off with a superb navarasa shloka from ramakarnamrita superbly rendered by MDR.
http://rapidshare.de/files/21810618/MDR ... a.mp3.html
The lyric is
SringAram kShitinandInI viharaNE
vIram dhanur bhanjanE
KAruNyam bali bhOjanE
adbhuta rasam sindhou giri sthApanE
hAsyam shUrpaNakhA mukhE
bhayam aghE
bheebatsam anyAmukhe
Roudram RavaNa mardanE
munijanE shAntam vapuH pAtu naH

Our discussion need not stick to any historical or chronological order. Again we are interested in rAmAyaNa as also sociological treatise applicable to our Indian society. But we should stick to one theme at a time and bring in the music (your own or the non copyrighted) as is relevant so that we can appreciate the musical, literary and spiritual gems that derive from the story and life of Rama, the Man. Pl give source and references whenever possible and translations as is appropriate since rAmAyaNa is the microcosm symbolizing the spirit of India itself. Thanks

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

Nice Start CML sir.

May I invoke the blessings of Lord Ganesha for the success of this tread, by quoting Goswami

Jo smirat sidhi hoyi gan nayak karibar badan
karau anughrah soyi budhi rasi subh gun sadan


The very thought of HIM- who has the head of an elephant on his shoulders and is the leader of Siva's retinue i.e Ganesha- in enough to ensure success. may such a god who is also the repository of wisdom and auspicious qualities, be gracious unto me.
he was essentially asking for the story of the perfect 'man'
.

A popular beleif is that it was Valmik himself who was reincarnated as Tulsidas. Man however perfect might be. is ultimately mortal and subject to human failings. This was unacceptable to Valmiki who wanted to re write the Ramayana, this time potrying Rama as the Sumpreme Lord Himself and possesing all the divine qualities. Hence in Ramcharit Manas, Tulsidas has no hesitation hos describing Rama as the Lord Himself.

Raam ananat anant gun amit katha bistaar,
suni acharaju naahi jinh ke bimal bichaar


Ram is infinite, his virtues are infinite, his story endless
Those with pure heart wil not feel surpreised (on hearing his story)

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Thanks Srinidhi

Now we have both sides; human and divine. Thyagaraja is also claimed to be a reincarnation of Valmiki. He captured the essence of Ramayana in CM to make it available to the common man. Though most of the popular versions of Ramayana treat Rama as divine it is not universally true. KALidAsa essentially tows the historical line in summarrizing the paramapara tracing back to Raghu. In mahabharata Rama was mostly unknown and the story is narrated by sage mArkaNDEya to yudhiShTHira in the vanaparva (rAmOpAkhyAna). The story is mostly historical with very little divine element and follows mostly vAlmIki rAmAyaNa. shuka gives short shrift to rAma as an avatara in the navamaskaandham of bhagavata. Hence we may be curious as to the historicity of rAma himself. There have been several archeological explorations regarding the sites referred to in vAlmiki rAmAyaNa the most controversial being the rAma janma bhUmi/babri masjid controversy which we need not entertain here. Suffice it to say they many sites referred to in rAmAyaNa are still in existance but ruthless time has erased any remnants of the past as have the onslaught of civilization on those territories. There have been some remarkable astronomical studies based on the information in rAmAyaNa and the results are intriguing indeed. See
http://rammanohar.wordpress.com/2006/03/05/
The janmakuNDali (jAtaka) of rama places him about 7000 years back at a time when the rest of the world was coming out of stone age. vAlmiki rAmAyaNa itself has been dated to be from ca1400- 3000BC and it is undoubtedly one of the earliest literary compositions in human history. vAlmiki as the Adi kavi is credited with the invention of shlOka versification (anuShtubh chandas) in the sanskrit language. Again he precedes PaNini the sanskrit grammarian since he is considered an exception and is exempted from the rules of pANini.

Perhaps you may share some of your thoughts on these 'factual' historical issues before we jump on to literary and musical ones!

mohan
Posts: 2806
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 16:52

Post by mohan »

You can read Rajaji's book, Ramayana, online at

http://www.switzerinstrument.com/Rajaji-Original/

Some of his other works are also there.

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

Mohan,
Thanks for that link.
Rajaji's 'rAmAyaNA' was my first introduction to the Adi kAvya, and now, my battered old copy is a treasured possesion of my daughter's....I am eternally indebted to the likes of Rajaji and the editors of the 'Amar Chitra Katha' series that made me appreciate the stories and literature of our forefathers. As I grew older, I found myself trying to read the references quoted in the ACKs for more details...

The versions of this epic are inherently similar, with small modifications forced by local sentiments and prevailing customs, in addition to the composer's inherent creativity.
For instance, Kamban doesn't deal with the uttara kAnDam...of course, some say that the uttara kAnDam was a later addition to Valmiki's creation being passed of as his own. AFAIK, gOswAmIjI does have it in the RCM. [Srinidhi can correct me if I am wrong.] Kamban has rAvaN lift the cottage (parN kuTIr) with sItA in it when he kidnaps her. But in VR and RCM, sItA is physically abducted by rAvaN. RCM and KR have rAma and sItA meet before the dhanurbhangam, but not in the VR...However, it is these small differences that grants these later versions individuality, and stand alone status, and not exist as mere regional translations of the original.

Ravi

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

Ravi,

RCM has an Uttara Khanda but not the same one as Valmiki Ramayan. The Uttara khanda of RCM describes the return and coronation of Lord Rama, his glorious reign and the happy domestic felicity of Rama and Sita. There is no separation of the divine couple and Luv and Kush are born very much in Ayodhya.

However in one of the earlier verses, Goswamiji makes a passing reference to Valmiki's Uttara Khanda i.e banishment of Sita.

He says that even though the citizens of Ayodhya had sinned terribly (by forcing Sita into exile) they still went to Heaven (Due to Sri Rama's grace)

Siya nindak agh ogh nasaye
lok bisok banayi basayi

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Hope this is still relevant to the thread in some manner.

While thinking about the historical rama, several questions come to my mind. What is the earliest written text available that one can rely on? Was papyrus or related material used by our BCE ancestors to write down stuff.

Just today, I came across this article about the oldest western written document: http://tinyurl.com/m6w2g . The amazing thing that technology affords is that even a completely carbonized papyrus can now be 'read'. If some ancient written document that talks about Ramayana ( atleast from the first millenium BCE ) even in such a human unreadable state is found in India, that will make things interesting due to this technology.

Bringing it all back to Ramayana, how was VR handed down to us?

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

VK,
Tradition has it (and claims this to be the speciality of the rAmAyaNA), that Valmiki set it to music and taught it to lava and kusha, who sang it to rAma and the citizens of ayOdhyA during the ashwamEdha yagnya..since rAma heard it and confirmed the veracity of the story it is considered doubly sanctified. The other epic, bhAgavatam, had to await the arrival of nArAyaNa bhaTTadrI to achieve similar verification....
So, to answer your question, like the vEdAs, I think it was handed down by oral tradition...I am sure CML will know the answer.
(I am sure you have seen the movie rAmarAjyam...there lava and kuSa (P. Leela and P. Susheela) sing 'jagam pugazhum puNya kathai, rAmanin kathaiyE' in hindOLam...)

Srinidhi,
Thanks for that info on uttara kAnDam in RCM...
BTW, do you know the composer of a very lyrical, modern day version of the rAmAyaN, that goes, 'sunlO pAwan rAm kahAnI'?
Also, isn't gOswAmIjI the composer of the hanumAn chAlIsA?

Some other versions of the epic:
In aruNAchalakavI's rAmanAtakam, I found some interesting ideas:
1. AK does not describe the divine foursome as being born (pirandAr) - instead, he uses 'vayiTTRinil irundu vandAr' - is this an accepted way to describe gestation and birth?
2. AK's version treats the rAma paraSurAma vAkvivAdam in humorous and satirical detail...Does gOswAmiJi describe this?
3. He also describes the rAma-sItA meeting before the dhanurbhangam...

Ravi

Ravi

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Just to recollect my memory on uttara khanda, I just read the story on the web. It is a very disturbing and depressive story, quite counter to the mood created by the rest of the ramayana.

When we used to question why rAmA would do such things to a pregnant sItA, the answer is usually a variation on the theme: It is all part of the divine plan.
Here is where the divine rama and historic human King rAmA are brought together to provide a satisfactory answer. That was never satisfactory... And there are other questions like if rAmA was so depressed by the separation from sItA and things were not going quite right for him, why would he launch on to the asvemedha yagha whose usual purpose is to garner more geographical territory.....none of this fits with the theme of the rest of the main ramayana.

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

VK,

As you have rightly pointed out, the Uttara Khanda is indeed very disturbing, depressing and controversial as well. No wonder Tulsi and Kamban steered clear from it.


IN an attempt to answer some of your questions:

Rama did not abandon Sita. He specifically asks Lakshmana to leave her in Valmiki's Ashram where He knew she and her unborn child would both be looked after.

By sending Sita away from Ayodhya, Rama probably hoped to acheive two things: one, avoid further baseless allegations about Sita's fidelity and Two, more importantly, avoid any further contoversy on the parentage of the child in Sita's womb which would be the heir to the throne.

However, Valmiki in the fifitieth sarga of Uttara Khanda gives an explanation for the physical separation of Rama and Sita attributing it all to Sage Bhrighu's curse. Hence the banishment falls in with the divine plan. Towards the end of the sarga, Valmiki is quick to confirm (through Durvasa's words) that Sita will indeed give birth to two sons who will be accepted and crowned by their father, eventually.
And there are other questions like if rAmA was so depressed by the separation from sItA and things were not going quite right for him,
Rama does not seem to be unduly depressed by Sita's separation. Even if He initially was, he soon got over it. When Lakshmana after having left Sita returns to his brother's presence, he tries to comfort Rama. On hearing Lakshmana's words, Rama says,

nivrittischAgatA Sowmya Santaapscha nirAkrutA
BhavdvAkyayi Suruchirairnunitosmi lakshmana

By your sweet words O lakshmana, I have regained my peace and composure.

why would he launch on to the asvemedha yagha whose usual purpose is to garner more geographical territory.....
The reason given by Valmiki for aswamedha yagna is that it also purifies sins accrued by brahmahatya. Lakshmana explains this to Rama by giving the example of Indra and Vritrasura.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Rama did not abandon Sita. He specifically asks Lakshmana to leave her in Valmiki's Ashram where He knew she and her unborn child would both be looked after.
srinidhi: Is that the actual Valmiki Ramayana version? What I read was 'Lakshmana leaves Sita in the forest and Valmiki finds her there'.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

According to Valmiki Rama specifically directs LakShmaNa to take Sita away and leave her in the vicinity of Valmiki Asshrama! Valmiki finds the desolate Sita and takes her into his Ashrama. KaaLidaasa strictly toes the line here. I would like to know more about Tulsi's argumensts!

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

I don't think tulsi had this in the RCM...see Srinidi's previous post...he refers to the 'ill-treatment' meted out to sItA despite which the natives of ayOdhyA ascended to heaven.
Ravi

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

My problem with reconcilation of the abandonment of sItA goes beyond the subtlties of where sItA was left...The greatness of rAmA is amply illustrated when he goes to the forest to keep the words of his father. That is noble and is the foundation of all the dharma that rAmAyana preaches.

Whereas this uttara kandam material goes against the grain of such moral principles ( thus making me doubt its valmiki connection ). Just because one citizen says something about sItA ( isn't that how rAmA is supposed to have heard about it...a government official overheard a couple engaged in their own family fight where sItA was referred to), it does not mean the King should take action on such matters. What about the justice for his own wife who is also a subject of the nation? I do not see much a hand-wringing over such a great dilemma. The decision was supposed to have been taken overnight against the advice of all his counsellors and executed in surrepticious fashion. I am not even sure that it is part of the kshathriya dharma to abandom one's (pregnant) wife based on a casual remark by a citizen. It just disgusts me.

I realize there are stories that illustrate how a King should behave, like the King who gave his chariot to a flower plant etc. but we sort of take it as metaphor for illustrating how magnanimous a King should be but not to be taken seriously since there are not enough chariots in the world to support all the creeping flower plants in any King's nation. But this one does not even lend itself to such a metaphorical interpretation given its connection to the rest of the rAmAyanA.

Also, purely on a story basis, it just does not seem rational either. What if another citizen talks badly about rAmA for abandoning sItA. Is he going to bring her back? As a king, it is just not rational that you act based on such things. That is what bothers me about all this. It looks like someone wanted to extend the rAmAyanA given its vast popularity and rode on its coattails, so to say. But the lack of consistency of the rAmA character spoils it for me.

kiransurya
Posts: 781
Joined: 13 Dec 2005, 15:58

Post by kiransurya »

VK
Very logical points. I agree with you..

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

VK,

There have always been doubts cast over the authenticity of Uttara Khanda. Perhaps that is why, it does not enjoy the same sanctity as the other khandas.

Most versions of Ramayana (be it Tulsi or Kamban or anybody else) have followed the broad schematic pattern laid by Valmiki. For instance Baalakanda will end with Rama-Sita wedding, Ayodhya kanda will describe the proposed coronation, subsequent exile, and generally ends with the paaduka pattabhishekam (give or take a chapter here and there), Aaranya kanda contains the kidnapping of Sita, so on and so forth.

But when it comes to Uttara khanda, there are several different versions floating around. Tulsi does not even consider the separation.
If you remember the TV serial produced by Ramanand Sagar telecast several years ago, it showed Luv and Kush capturing the aswamedha horse and then valiantly subjugating Lakshmana, Bharata and Hanuman in battle when they come to rescue the horse. The Valmiki Ramayan does not mention this.

No wonder Uttara Khanda seems "superficial".

But to attempt to answer your questions,VK (from a purely argumentative point of view)

isn't that how rAmA is supposed to have heard about it...a government official overheard a couple engaged in their own family fight where sItA was referred to), it does not mean the King should take action on such matters
The first time the issue of Sita's fidelity comes up in the forty third sarga of the Uttara Khanda. According to Valmiki, Bhadra (the government official ) reports that Sita's fidelity is the talk of the town. He does not not refer to a particular couple or one particular conversation. Towards the end of the sarga, Rama asks his other ministers and they all confirm that it was indeed so.

In the very next canto, Rama sends for his brothers and says that this problem needed to be deliberated by all of the together (verse 20, canto 44)

We are not told what the brothers deliberated because Rama seems to have made up his mind and instructs Lakshmana to leave Sita at the hermitage of Sage Valmiki.

All the while we have seen Rama as the perfect son, brother and even husband. Now the author wants to potray Rama as the perfect king too. Sita is not his subject. She is his wife and hence the queen of the kingdom. And as they say, Caesar's wife should be above reproach.
Rama realizes such allegations (he himself agrees that they are baseless (canto 45, verses 8-10) will tarnish the image of a king who is supposed to be the upholder of Dharma. He finds himself in a difficult situation- as a husband and as a king. While as a king, he exiles the queen, He does not forsake her as his wife. When the preparations for the aswamedha yagna were going on he specifically asks for an image of "my wife" to be constructed (mama patnim) . There are very very few instances in the whole Ramayana where he refers to Sita thus.

Moreover he does not abandon Sita in the middle of nowhere. He asks Lakshmana to leave her in the Ashrama of Valmiki where she would be looked after.
It just disgusts me.
Why this alone? The Ramayana is full of Such "disgusting" examples. Don't you find Rama killing Vali surreptiously "disgusting" ?
Don't you find Dasaratha performing this great big sacrifice merely for a son (having already given up his daughter,Shanta, for adoption) rather disgusting?

The key point is not what rama did but what best he could have done under the circumstances.

No doubt we find it difficult to digest all this, much less accept it. But perhaps if we look at it from the view of a society which existed long long ago, and the author tried to show what the ideal moral code of conduct would have been in that society, perhaps we find some answers.
[/i]

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

Great points, and very well argued, Srinidhi!
The yAga is always called 'putrakAmEshTi' right? Yet, on at least 3 ocassions, girls have emerged as a result: sItA from the furrow, mInAkshI, and draupadI from the flames directly (of course, the latter appeared only after a son emerged first from the flames).
Ravi

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

srinidhi: Good rebuttal points, as you said, from an argumentative point of view. This is how the 'patti manram' ( debate sessions ) on rAmAyaNa episodes are. Actually, every year, in the village thErizhandUr where kamban was born, there is a festival for kamban and the highlight is the debate on such matters by the leading tamil debaters. It can get very heated and highly entertaining.

As you said, there are many versions of Uttara Kanda and I have not read Valmiki myself, so I may be mixing up the different versions. For example, the version I read talks about the battle between Luv & Kush against Lakshmana etc. It also mentions about a conversation that sItA has with rAmA that she wants to visit the hermitage of various sages, and rAmA uses that as a ruse to get her out of the kingdom. So, sItA does not even know that she is being abandoned/exiled until Lakshmana leaves her in the forest. Is that how it is in the valmiki version as well?

On the specific points you made: I guess there are different levels of disappoitments and disgusts with the lead character of a story.. The vAli episode is troubling but at least there is considerable scope for debate from a kshatriya dharma perspective. The dhasaratha item you mention does not trouble me that much for various reasons...( Actually I did not know about the story that he gave up her daughter Shanta for adoption )...he was portrayed as a weak man by the time the main rAmAyAnA story kicks into high gear.

But besides all that, the dharma part that you also mention is the troubling part and the double edged sword "...the author tried to show what the ideal moral code of conduct would have been in that society........we have seen Rama as the perfect son, brother and even husband. Now the author wants to potray Rama as the perfect king too...."

I can accept all this, however much nose-holding one has to do, if Valmiki goes to some length on the debates about such great dilemmas introduced by dual responsibilities and quoting any shastras that rAmA follows to make his decision to exile the queen.. Does he? What are the precedents for such an action? or rAmA IS setting the precedent. Aren't there other decisions he could have contemplated? Since he knows fully well the public perception is wrong, why punish sItA and risk the life of the potential heir to the thrown. What is the kshatriya dharma in such cases? ( like offering to step down as a show of his resolve and belief in the fidelity of sItA. That might have actually changed the public perception..)

kiransurya
Posts: 781
Joined: 13 Dec 2005, 15:58

Post by kiransurya »

VK
I dont the composer's name. However, Naam Raamayana as sung by MS confirms more or less all the events of uttara kanda we are talking about...

Also
For our info, Dasaratha gives Santha for adoption and marries her to a sage(I think it is to Sanathkumaara-I cant remember the name excatly) so that Shantha can seduce him and bring him to Kosala so that his entry into the kingdom would bring rains...(I think Iam distracting you all from the main topic..)

tandu
Posts: 3
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 00:48

Post by tandu »

Hi Kiran

The sage that shatha gets married to is Rishyasringa.

Tandu

kiransurya
Posts: 781
Joined: 13 Dec 2005, 15:58

Post by kiransurya »

Cheers Tandu for correcting me..

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

VK,

Continuing the arguement....
What are the precedents for such an action? or rAmA IS setting the precedent.
Aren't there other decisions he could have contemplated?
ike offering to step down as a show of his resolve and belief in the fidelity of sItA.
I don't think stepping down was an option given to Rama. A king was a king till he died or appointed a worthy successor. It was not an "office of profit" that one could step down, have the law changed and conveniently ascend the throne again. :cheesy:

A king's moral resposibility overrode his personal considerations. His word was the law, he was looked upon as a representative of god on earth (in this case, the lord himself had come as king). Stepping down was the last resort made available. It was to be done only when the character of the king had been damaged beyond repair. If at the cost of some personal sacrifice, the image and the reputation of the person who was the king could be maintained, then such a sacrifice had to be made.

More so if the person concerned (Rama, in this case) comes in the glorious line of Ikshwaaku which had earlier seen the likes of Harishchandra who did not hesitate to sell, nay even execute his wife for the sake of Dharma.

There you have your precedent, VK.

That is why Dasaratha proudly says

" Raghukul reet sada chali aaye
Praan jaye par bachanu na jaaye"


Bachan here means promise, but in a larger sense it could also mean dharma, code of conduct,etc.

Ravi,

I don't think Janaka performed the putrakameshti yagna. He was ploghing the field for a scrifice (Valmiki does not mention it as putrakameshti), when the furrow of the plough hit upon a female child.[/u]

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

Srinidhi,
I am not sure if your explanation for why rAma did not stepdown is valid because, there was always the option of assuming the vAnaprastAshram or becoming a sanyAsin...in his panchvaTI prasang, MSG has lakshmaN thinking thus:
'hOta yadi rAjatva mAtr hI lakshya hamArA jIvan kA,
tO kyOn apnE pUvaj uskO chODh, mArg lEtE vvan kA?'
The purANAs are replete with kings who took up sanyAs, and had ministers rule in their stead, when the heir was not clear.

It may not have been a putrakAmEshTI that janak performed, but janak ploughs the field of satAnandA's choosing - so it was some sort of yAga/pUja or whatever. I do not think that it was a daily chore of the king's to plough a field!
Ravi

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

ravi,

Yes, What you say is absolutely right. I did not mention it because it did not seem relevant here. I tried to explain why Rama could not step down, given the context.

tandu
Posts: 3
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 00:48

Post by tandu »

HI Srinidhi and Ravi

From what I have heard from my grandmom Rama does offer to step down and pleads with his brothers one after the other to ascend the throne but one and all are horrified at the very thought of they taking the throne from Rama.But this might just be heresay.

VK

I never thought Dasaratha was a weak character.He had given his word to kaykeyi during the war with asura(I Forget the name here) for Indira where she saves him by putting her hand into the wheel of chariot to stabalise it when the pin falls down.It is kaykeyi who demands that he keep his promise that he had given of yesteryears.Like any other King of the great Ikshvaku dynasty he goes on to keep his word.Like srinidhi pointed Harischandra sold his wife and we never think of him as weak.I agree that it is heartbreaking to see Dasaratha send his most favorite son into the forest as he must keep his word and he dies because of the same but I really don't see any option that he had.

Tandu

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

A silent Bhakta has drawn our attention to
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/artic ... 3209990011
Look forward to a lively discussion on the disapora ;)

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

I never thought Dasaratha was a weak character.---Tandu
vALmIki says otherwise. daSaratha is besotted with kaikEyi and on that particular day too, he approaches her with lust. He pleads with her variously and asks her if she is rejecting his advances as he is an old man. lakShmaNa ridicules his father on several occasions for being so passionate about a woman at his age.

There is no doubt that daSaratha was a very righteous person. But the point is he made those promises on that fateful night when his judgement was clouded by lust. He does regret it bitterly later.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

DRS

An interesting point is why Dasharata chose to keep his promise to Kaikeyi. Rama of course did it to keep his father's behest. Dasharata was not protrayed as a satyasandha in Ramayana. There is a reference by LakShmaNa that he gave in due to his infatuation for Kaikeyi:

"viparItaH ca v^riddhaH ca viShayaiH ca pradharShitaH|
n^Ripa kim iva na brUyAc cOdyamAnaH samanmathaH||"
(LakShmaNa's words Ayodhya kaanDaM 21.3)

Again as it was a royal command Rama had indeed no choice except be bound by that!

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

An interesting point is why Dasharata chose to keep his promise to Kaikeyi. Rama of course did it to keep his father's behest. Dasharata was not protrayed as a satyasandha in Ramayana
.

Sri Tulsidas answers this

Dasaratha had to keep his word because it always had been so in the race of Raghus. When Dasaratha, in an attempt to pacify Kaikeyi, asks her what was it that she wanted and that he would do anything to fulfill it, she tauntingly replies

"Maagu maagu kahahu piya kabahu na dehu na lehu
den kahehu bardaan dui teu paavat sandehu"

"You keep saying 'ask ask', but neither have you given me anything, nor have I asked for anything. Two boons you had promised me long ago, but I am doubtful of your honouring them"


Thus cut to quick, Dasaratha proudly replies,

"Raghukul reeti sadaa chali aaye
praan jaaye bar bachanu na jaayee"

"It always has been a tradition in the race of Raghus
A promise must be honoured, even at the cost of one's life."


Dasaratha goes on to swear in the name of Rama too. This is what Kaikeyi wanted and she makes her cruel demands.

In describing this incident, Tulsi faithfully follows Valmiki, even the metaphors are similar.

But while in Valmiki's , the king busts into lamentations, in Tulsi's, Dasaratha instantly agrees to the queen's first request i.e coronation of Bharat as crown prince. It is the second demand which troubles him and he hopes that his ready acceptance of her first wish would mollify her and make her withdraw her demand for Rama's banishment.

"...kachu din gaye bharat jubraju
ekahi baat mohi dukh laaga bar doosaru asamanjas maaga"

In a few days time, Bharat will be annointed Crown Prince. Only one thought troubles me. The second boon you seek seems inexplicable.

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

---Dasaratha had to keep his word because it always had been so in the race of Raghus. When Dasaratha, in an attempt to pacify Kaikeyi, asks her what was it that she wanted and that he would do anything to fulfill it, she tauntingly replies
Yes. daSaratha does the same thing in vAlmIki. It is incorrect to say he was not a satyasandha. He was. rAmAyaNa is the story of rAma and sItA and hence daSaratha is not described so much. After making the promise, he never once thinks of himself going back on his word but wishes rAma would refuse to heed him etc. lakShmaNa too ridicules his dad only because of making the promise in a moment of weakness. He never questions daSaratha's credibility in keeping his word. He of course praises his father too. But this kind of emotionality is lakShmaNa's very nature.
But while in Valmiki's , the king busts into lamentations, in Tulsi's, Dasaratha instantly agrees to the queen's first request i.e coronation of Bharat as crown prince. It is the second demand which troubles him --
It is the same situation in vAlmIki as well. It is not so much the coronation of bharata but sending rAma to exile that really hits him hard.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

What is the rationale for kaikEyi to ask for the second boon when the first one is what she really wants? What was she afraid of if rAmA remained in ayOdhyA? Is that portrayed as a punishment of rAmA or a defensive maneuver for any perceived future troble? If it is the latter, were her fears and anxieties rational?

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

VK,
The two reasons that I have always heard propounded in kathAs are as follows:
1. She was afraid the people of ayOdhyA would never accept bharat as the king as long as rAma was around.
2. She may have also been afraid that even if bharat was crowned, if rAma remained in ayOdhyA, bharat would be king in name only, and would defer all important decisions to rAma.
Hence the need for bharat to be crowned in/and the absence of rAma.
Ravi

kiransurya
Posts: 781
Joined: 13 Dec 2005, 15:58

Post by kiransurya »

Kaikeyi realises her mistake later on though. Doesnt she?
Isnt it true tha she loves Raama more than she does Bharath..

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

The reasons Ravi has listed are correct. One more reason was that manthare had scared kaikEyi that rAma might put up a fight if he was in ayOdhyA.

Kiran
It is true that kaikEyi loves rAma and is all praise for him until manthare poisons her mind. She is in fact thrilled when she hears of rAma,s coronation-to-be(Which was not to be ;) But even when rAma accepts to go to the forest immediately, she does not flinch nor is she shaken when daSaratha dies. It is only when bharata scoffs at her and strongly derides her that she starts realising her mistake.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Here is the exact translation by Griffith of VR of Rama confiding to Lakshmana at the forest.
.......
When evening rites were duly paid,
Reclined beneath the leafy shade,
To Lakshman thus spake Ráma, best
.....
'This night the king,' he cried, 'alas!
In broken sleep will sadly pass.
Kaikeyí now content should be,
For mistress of her wish is she.
So fiercely she for empire yearns,
That when her Bharat home returns,
She in her greed, may even bring
Destruction on our lord the king.
What can he do, in feeble eld,
Reft of all aid and me expelled,
His soul enslaved by love, a thrall
Obedient to Kaikeyí's call?
....
For who, in wisdom's lore untaught.
Could by a beauty's prayer be bought
To quit his own obedient son,
Who loves him, as my sire has done!
....
To Bharat's single lot will fall
The kingdom and the power and all,
When fails the king from length of days,
And Ráma in the forest strays.
.....
Methinks at last the royal dame,
Dear Lakshman, has secured her aim,
To see at once her husband dead,
Her son enthroned, and Ráma fled.
.....

Certainly very human and not very complimentary of Rama...

I am sure none of the other Ramayanas (including Tulsi) will have such revealing 'confessions on the couch'.

Comments?

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

CML,
Is this how you would translate the relevant verses of the VR?
Ravi

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Shankar

The translation is true to the original though it was done by an English man. Let us admit that 'Rama' was not considered an 'avatar' for a long time. The deification started more in the last millenium! Rama was a 'good' king! But he was human according to VR subject to human emotions and foibles. Kamban and Tulsi considered Him a parabhramham and fashioned their versions accordingly. So does adhyatma Ramayana. Thyagaraja immortalized him through his music and 'blind' bhakti! If we want to evaluate Rama we have to stick to VR where he has painted him 'warts and all'. Question is 'Was Valmiki a Poet or a Historian?'

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

It looks like a word for word translation, hence I suppose the jumbled word order ( suppose I order word jumbled hence ;-) ).. it is so hard to read in English....

I had the same question as Ravi, so thanks for that clarification..

Though it does not mention the God connotation, the confession is more like a recap of what had happened...

>To quit his own obedient son,
>Who loves him, as my sire has done!

May be this is what you referred to as 'uncomplimentary towards rAma'. Proabably. He comes across complaining...

Is this after the news of dhasarathA's death or rAma is just predicting that all this will kill dhasarathA?

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Griffith has done a marvellous job translating VR in rhymed verse.
Here are the relevant shlokas
http://rapidshare.de/files/22829934/shlokas.txt.html

In fact there is more to it
Rama speculates that Kaikeyi in her frenzy might even kill Kausalya!

Now my question is: how did Valmiki know about this private conversation when there were no CNN reporters ;)
Again why should he write as such about Rama who he wants to depict as a model human?
Did he want to bring realism to his fiction?
Now why should the other poets do a whitewash? They could have created their own fiction!

Any speculations?

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Vk

By the by this is before the demise of dasharata after he spends the first night in the forest...

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

CML,
Did not Brahma give vAlmIkI the ability to 'see' the things that occured in rAma's life as if he were a 'fly on the wall'...even better than Amanpour/CNN!
When lava and kusha sang these verses to rAma during the ashvamEdha, it is considered by many to have been the verification of all of these conversations and events...
Ravi

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

>Now my question is: how did Valmiki know about this
>private conversation when there were no CNN reporters

;) Actually, by the time of mahAbhArathA, the concept of neutral embedded reporters had become the war dharma..Isn't that the case that during mahAbhArathA war, poets, war time reporters and historians stood on top of raised platforms in the war field and sang and wrote about the happenings....And that is an accepted part of the kshathriya dharma that those are neutral parties not to be harmed by either warring parties..... Am I right?

meena
Posts: 3326
Joined: 21 May 2005, 13:57

Post by meena »

war time reporters and historians stood on top of raised platforms in the war field and sang and wrote about the happenings
wrote abt happenings ....possible
BUT
sang???
What IF some dude missed aiming that arrow?
gosh! i would have feared standing on that platform for my precious dear life!

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Thanks Shankar!
Brahma does grant vAlmiki a boon

tat ca api aviditaM sarvaM viditaM tE bhaviShyati|
na tE vAk an^RitA kAvyE kAcit atra bhaviShyati||

whatever is unown will be known to you! Never will there be falsehood in your poem.

In other words Valmiki writes his own conduct certificate. Let us grant him extrasensory perception ;) (hoping one of these days science will uncover that technique!)

vk

It was common practice among the greeks/Romans to imbed bards when they went to war. (Have you seen Spartacus for that matter). Ancient Tamil kings are also supposed to have adopted that practice. But I don't know whether they had diplomatic immunity.

Don't worry meena
Women were never chosen for those assignments ;)

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

The translation is true to the original though it was done by an English man. Let us admit that 'Rama' was not considered an 'avatar' for a long time. The deification started more in the last millenium!
CML
The verses/translation you have quoted is only one side of the coin and does not portray rAma is the correct perspective. There are many places where rAma holds his father in great respect and does not question his rigtheousness in the least. When lakShmaNa tells his father off, rAma checks him.

As for rAma being an avatAra, there are a few places in vAlmIki itself where rAma is explicitly mentioned as none other than viShNu and that his divine purpose is the destruction of evil personified by rAvaNa. So the later poets only picked up the seeds in vAlmIki and provided a fertile soil for their growth.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

>his divine purpose is the destruction of evil personified by rAvaNa

DRS, an offshoot question from this. It was a fair fight with rAvaNa since he abducted sIta. What were the transgressions of rAvaNa prior to rAma's birth that caused the rAmA avathar to take place ( the reason for the divine purpose )?

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

The verses which CML quoted occur in the 53rd sarga of Ayodhya Kanda.Whilst one does detect a strain of bitterness in Rama's words, if we go back to 22nd Sarga we a get a glimpse of his greatness and magnanimity.

He says

yasya madbhishekarthemanasam paritapyate
maataa na: sa yatha na syaat savishankha tatha kuru
tasya: shankhamayam dukham muhutrtamapi notsahe
manasi pratisanjaatam soumitrehmupekshitam


Rama explains ( to Lakshmana) that he should leave for the forest immediatlly since any delay caused will make Kaikeyi anxious (that Rama might change his mind about going into exile) and that he cannot afford to ignore even for a while the agony of apprehension aroused in her mind.

In the same sarga, he also absolves Kaikeyi of all blame and instead chooses to blame Providence.

Krutaant yeva soumitre drushtvyo matpravaasena
Raajyasyacha viteernasya punareva nivartane


Providence alone shoud be regarded, O Lakshmana as being responsible for sending me into exile as well as snatching from me the sovereignity of Ayodhya which was offered to me.
There are many places where rAma holds his father in great respect and does not question his rigtheousness in the least.
One such example is to be found right here in this sarga itself

satya: satyaabhisandhascha nityam satyaparakramaha
paralokabhayaad bhito nirbhayostu pita mama


(My father) who is always truthful, true to his promise, brave and valiant,
who is afraid of the the consequences to be faced in the other world if one were to go back on one's words, may such a father of mine be rid of all fear.

srinidhi
Posts: 227
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 08:59

Post by srinidhi »

What were the transgressions of rAvaNa prior to rAma's birth that caused the rAmA avathar to take place ( the reason for the divine purpose )?
The most popular story told is that of Jaya and Vijaya- the two dwarapalakas of Sri Hari. When the four Sanatkumaras come to Vaikuntha, Jaya and Vijaya mocked them and made fun of them. The Sanathkumaras, cursed them to be separated from Vishnu and to be born on Earth. When Jaya and Vijaya realized their mistake, they sought pardon. Sanathkumaras modified their curse offered them a choice- either be born as good virtous people, devoted to Sri Hari for seven births or as cruel wicked demons for three births, each time meeting their end at the hands of Sri Hari. For Jaya and Vijaya, the latter choice was preferable. Hence they were born as Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, Ravana and Kumbhakarna and later on as Shishupala and Dantavakra.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

DRS

It is possible that Rama missed his daily dose of Prozac on this particular occasion ;)

You cannot balance 'bad' thoughts with several other 'good' thoughts. In fact the inner psyche is revealed only in those rare unguarded moments. Now here is yet another from the Aranyakanda (canto 2).
.....
When Ráma saw Virádha clasp
Fair Sítá in his mighty grasp,
Thus with pale lips that terror dried
The hero to his brother cried:
'O see Virádha's arm enfold
My darling in its cursed hold,--
The child of Janak best of kings,
My spouse whose soul to virtue clings,
Sweet princess, with pure glory bright,
Nursed in the lap of soft delight.
Now falls the blow Kaikeyí meant,
Successful in her dark intent:
This day her cruel soul will be
Triumphant over thee and me.
Though Bharat on the throne is set,
Her greedy eyes look farther yet:
Me from my home she dared expel,
Me whom all creatures loved so well.
This fatal day at length, I ween,
Brings triumph to the younger queen.

I see with bitterest grief and shame
Another touch the Maithil dame.
Not loss of sire and royal power
So grieves me as this mournful hour.'
....
This certainly counters the quote srinidhi provided about Rama's concern for Kaikeyi...

You know all kings were considered as avataras of God (viShNu) and hence there is nothing strange in considering Rama as such!

vk
All those mythological stories srinidhi quotes are later inventions. RavaNa was the thorn in the flesh of 'vedic' brahmins(oil-hungry) and was wrecking havoc on their sacrifices. Rama could have used that as the WMD to launch a battle. But perhaps he wanted Blair (sugriva?) to join him. The abduction of Sita was the proper 9/11. The rest is history on the repeat. The restoration of the contemplated 'twin towers' (after the agnipravEshaM) will signal the Coronation. But first RavaNa has to be located to destroy his nikumbalai yagna.... ;) ;)

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

You cannot balance 'bad' thoughts with several other 'good' thoughts. In fact the inner psyche is revealed only in those rare unguarded moments. ---

This certainly counters the quote srinidhi provided about Rama's concern for Kaikeyi...
It depends on which end you are looking at things from. Yes. You cannot balance good thoughts with "human" thoughts which you choose to call as "bad".
You know all kings were considered as avataras of God (viShNu) and hence there is nothing strange in considering Rama as such!
Well. vAlmIki's words do not exactly ampunt to this general category. Even rAvaNa was viShNu then!;)
All those mythological stories srinidhi quotes are later inventions.
There is no proof to say this except that among preserved written documents, rAmAyaNa happens to be the earliest.

Post Reply