Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Ramayanam and Divya Prabhandam

From the Bhakti List Archives

Hari Krishnan • December 1, 2002 


Dear Sri Nanmaaran,

The fact that Vali coveted the wife of Sugriva is very clearly mentioned in Kamban.  The version varies from that of Valmiki here.  Neither Sugriva, nor his ambassador, Hanuman, disclose the details to Rama in the first instance - or during the first meeting.  They simply state that Sugriva needs protection from Vali.  The first meeting between Rama and Sugriva is very interesting.  'I need your help,' says Rama.  'Kabanda told me about you.  I have come to solicit your assistance,' he says.  Instead of answering Rama, Sugriva seeks redressal of his own grievance.  'My brother is tormenting me.  I need your protection,' he says and Rama, without another word assures him of it, being the 'ocean of mercy' that he is.

Afterwards, Hanuman skilfully makes all the moves, instead of Sugriva directly handling the situation as in Valmiki.  This gives the advantages of fulfilling the requirements of 'saranagathi'.  Thus, we see that it is Hanuman who suggests that Rama be put to the test of shooting his arrow through one of the seven sal trees. ('I am convinced of what he is capable of,' he tells Sugriva.  'Still, in order that your faith in him is strengthened, we will ask him to perform this feat.')  We see Sugriva putting Rama through two tests of strength in Valmiki Ramayana.  'One of these two is sufficient,' he says initially.  But after Rama does the first, he insists that Rama performs the second feat as well.  This is circumvented in Kamban's version - as a devotee who seeks saranagathi is not to put his lord to test.  And the number of test, as suggested by Hanuman, is limited to one. And this forms the basis for the rest of the arguments that are advanced in clearing the slur of Vali Vadham.  Please note by slur I mea

Please also note that I do not mean to belittle the work of Valmiki.  It is as perfect as the creation of Brahma.  But Kamban had the advantage of the ages, he had studied Valmiki very closely, together with all critical studies that had been collected over hundreds, nay, thousands of years and worked with his material true to his calibre.

Coming back to Ruma.  Rama, after his pledge of friendship has lunch at Sugriva's place and notices that the feast is served by men and the wife of Sugriva is absent.  He then calls for details.  Hanuman, with the nod of Sugriva narrates him the story.  'She has been covted by him,' says Sugriva very clearly and without any room for doubt in Valmiki's version.

Now, on the question of Tara.  The difference lies in the fact that Ruma was coveted when her husband was alive.  Tara lived with Sugriva after the death of Vali.  This has to be read in the context of their lifestyle.  The lifestyle of Vanaras.  And also, this has to be discussed with due respects to Valmiki.  No small mind could have produced such a great work as Ramayana.  It is not that Valmiki was not aware of the implications of what he depicted.  It is for the reader to read the ithihasa properly and understand it in the right context and right sense.

However, Kamban shows her as leading a life of widowhood.  In the famed scene of Lakshmana going in person to question in anger about the delay in organising for the search of Sita and encountered by Tara with "the gold string of her girdle hanging loose and her slender frame bent low" Kamban gives a totally different picture.

The angry Lakshmana is subdued by the arrival of Tara with all signs of widowhood, because he is moved to tears.  Moved to tears because he was reminded of his mothers - Kausalya and Sumitrs (not Kaikeyi!) - who would be, thought he, similar in all respects in appearance as widows of Dasaratha.  

Another thing I would like to remind.  There were three different versions of Ramayana even during the period of Valmiki.  Valmiki, Vasistha and Bodhayana.  The version of the Telugu poet Bhaskara  is different from the original.  The version of Tulasi Das is quite different.  Valmiki is considered to be more authentic, which fact is acknowledged by Kamban.  Versions differ from place to place and country to country.  The Indonesian version, we understand, is a lot more different from what we know!  Each has a superiority of its own and has to be understood in the backdrop of times and cultural metamorphosis.

Now I know that there will be questions from scholars scoffing and belittling the version of Kamban and even virulent and vituperative attacks on Kamban.  I am sorry I would not be able to answer baseless questions. 

Regards,

Sincerely,
Hari Krishnan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nanmaaran" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Ramayanam and Divya Prabhandam


| Dear Shri Harikrishnan,
|
| My query on conventional statement.: 
| There is no reference that vaali abducted Ruma spouse of sukrivaai and vaali does not accept that anytime. May be as sukriva ran away for life, he left Ruma back.  If we say that RAMA killed vaali as he had attached RUMA spouse of sukrivaa, then he should have done the same to SUKRIVA as he had attached Thaara after vaali's demise according to Valmiki. So this theory does not seem to FIT.
| Regards,
| Nanmaaran



--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

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