In what language did Hanuman speak to Sita?

[P.K.Ramakrishnan]

In what language did Hanuman speak to Sita?

Quotations from Valmiki Ramayana Sundara Kanda Sarga 30 sloka 18, 19 etc.

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम् /

रावणं मन्यमाना सा सीता भीता भविष्यति  //

वानरस्य विशॆषेण कथं स्यादभिभाषणम्  /

अवश्यमेव वक्तव्यं मानुष्यं वाक्यमर्थवत् //

--------

--------

मथुरमवितथं जगाद वाक्यं द्रुमविटपान्तरमास्थितो हनूमान् //

 

----------------------------------- P.K.Ramakrishnan http://peekayar.blogspot.com

[Hnbhat B.R.]

2012/1/19 P.K.Ramakrishnan <peek...@yahoo.com>

In what language did Hanuman speak to Sita?

Quotations from Valmiki Ramayana Sundara Kanda Sarga 30 sloka 18, 19 etc.

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम् /

रावणं मन्यमाना सा सीता भीता भविष्यति  //

वानरस्य विशॆषेण कथं स्यादभिभाषणम्  /

अवश्यमेव वक्तव्यं मानुष्यं वाक्यमर्थवत् //

--------

--------

मथुरमवितथं जगाद वाक्यं द्रुमविटपान्तरमास्थितो हनूमान् //

 

He spoke in a pleasing human language and वाल्मीकि reports the speech in Sanskrit language and has not mentioned the language spoken by हनूमान्. As appears from the above quotation, it seems he spoke some human language to make his speeches understandable to सीता. 

It is left to inference whether he spoke संस्कृता वाक् like रावण, or avoided it depending on the interpretation of the above line as referring to Sanskrit language or a refined language understandable to सीता and to himself. Any guesses are welcome as there is no specific mention of the language he used to speak to सीता.

Here is the explanation given by the commentator:

अत्र वाक्यस्य मानुषत्वं कोसलदेशवर्तिमनुष्यसंबन्धित्वं विवक्षितम् । तादृग्वाक्यस्यैव देवीपरिचितत्वात् ।। 5.30.19।। 

Only as quoted above वाल्मीकि doesn't give any clue whether he used Sanskrit or any regional languages known to Sita, but simply says:

इति स बहुविधं महानुभावो जगतिपतेः प्रमदामवेक्षमाणः । 
मधुरमवितथं जगाद वाक्यं द्रुमविटपान्तरमास्थितो हनूमान् ।। 5.30.44।।

But there is nothing wrong in assuming that he chose to speak in संस्कृता वाक् considering the pros and cons in it and continued to utter in beautiful voice pleasing story of Rama first to avoid any confusion as he feared and make her confident in Rama's name and so on. मधुरमवितथं referring to the narration of the story of Rama. This is clear in the next अध्याय -

एवं बहुविधां चिन्तां चिन्तयित्वा महाकपिः । 
संश्रवे मधुरं वाक्यं वैदेह्या व्याजहार ह ।। 5.31.1।। 
एवमित्यादि । चिन्तां चिन्तयित्वा चिन्तां कृत्वा, कर्तव्यमर्थं निश्चित्येत्यर्थः । संश्रवे सम्यक् श्रूचते ऽस्मिन्निति संश्रवः समीपम्, समीपे व्याजहार । यद्वा "पाठ्ये गेये च मधुरम्" इति संश्रवे श्रवणे मधुरं ज्ञानप्रसरणद्वारा इन्द्रियेभ्यो निस्सृत्य विषयान् गृहीत्वा तदनन्तरं हि रसो जायते लोके, अत्र न तथा यत्र शब्दसंसर्गो जायते तत्र रसो जायत इत्यतिशयोक्तिः । मधुरं ज्ञानमपि तद्द्वारा रसजनकं वाक्यं पूर्वापरनिरूपणं विना स्वयं रसजलकम् । वैदेह्याः वैदेही निमित्तम् । कुलानुरोधेन देहे निस्स्पृहायाः देहमपि दत्त्वा रसावहत्वमुच्यते ।। 5.31.1।।

by the narration:

राजा दशरथो नाम रथकुञ्जरवाजिमान् । 
पुण्यशीलो महाकीर्तिर्ऋजुरासीन्महायशाः ।। 5.31.2।

Yet it is not clear he spoke to सीता directly until she was attracted to him by the listening to the story of राम as she knew. as in the 33rd chapter also:\

सो ऽवतीर्य द्रुमात्तस्माद्विद्रुमप्रतिमाननः । 
विनीतवेषः कृपणः प्रणिपत्योपसृत्य च ।। 5.33.1।। 
तामब्रवीन्महातेजा हनूमान् मारुतात्मजः । 
शिरस्यञ्जलिमाधाय सीतां मधुरया गिरा ।। 5.33.2।। 
कानु पद्मपलाशाक्षि क्लिष्टकौशेयवासिनि । 
द्रुमस्य शाखामालम्ब्य तिष्ठसि त्वमनिन्दिते ।। 5.33.3।। 

Here also वाल्मीकि doesn't mention the language which हनूमान् used to speak to सीता. As I said, considering pros and cons in using संस्कृता वाक्, he decided in favor of using it. 

The remaining is left to wild guesses.

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[kamalesh pathak]

respected group,
let me ask here,
were there any other languages existing during the time of rAmAyaN ?
if learned group has any proof to this - the question ' in which
language HanumAnaji speak ti SITA - has better importence.
regards,
kamlaesh pathak

> *Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
> **Research Scholar,
> *

> Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry
> 16 & 19, Rue Dumas
> Pondichéry - 605 001
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "samskrita" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
>
>

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Group,

This my two-paise worth of opinion.

Before attempting an answer to this question, the person attempting
the answer has to choose between three mutually exclusive
alternatives, as below:

A) Does the Ramayana, wholly or at least substantially, a chronicle of
events and personalities that actually happened?
B) Does the Ramayana represent a kernel of a true story of a much
smaller scale, which was embroidered upon and expanded upon by a poet
called Valmiki?
C) Is it a pure fiction of imagination?

(The poet 'Valmilki' could be one poet or it could be a collective
name for a group of poets but discussing that would lead us away from
the main issue at hand.)

Further attempts to answer the question can be meaningful only if one
selects Option A. Then you go into questions like whether the
language was संस्कृता वाक्, if yes, what is the purport of the word
'संस्कृता', or, alternatively as observed by the commentator quoted by
Dr Bhat, 'अत्र वाक्यस्य मानुषत्वं कोसलदेशवर्तिमनुष्यसंबन्धित्वं
विवक्षितम्' or any other alternative

For those selecting options B or C, the question is irrelevant. If
Ramayana is substantially or wholly an imaginary tale, play of
imagination alone is enough reason to explain anything said therein.

That said, I do not wish to step back without attempting any answer to
the question.

I go for option B. I think that accepting the story exactly as
narrated puts too much strain on physical boundaries within which the
world runs today and obviously ran 3000 or 4000 years ago. That world
cannot have bridges built across the sea with stones that float
because the word 'Rama' is written on them. That world also cannot
have monkeys speaking with human voice, in Sanskrit or any other
language. It cannot have a Viman that flies or a King Dasharatha
whose help the Gods had to seek in their war. At the same time I
would not like to go so far as to say the story is an entire fiction
as it does have echoes of actual events like the spread of the culture
from the North towards the South. I think that Ramayana was a
chronicle of events that took place on a smaller scale both as regards
the geographical extent and the capabilities of its various
characters. A young prince avenged, with the help of tribes, a
dishonor done to him by a mighty king. This story, which essentially
is a human story, caught the imagination of poets whose embellishments
of it further caught the imagination of a population that was much
less skeptical and more credulous than today's population.

As I have selected Option B, I answer the question by saying that only

Valmiki knew what he meant when he wrote:

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम् |

रावणं मन्यमाना सा सीता भीता भविष्यति |

वानरस्य विशॆषेण कथं स्यादभिभाषणम् |

अवश्यमेव वक्तव्यं मानुष्यं वाक्यमर्थवत् ||

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, January 19, 2012.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Exactly this was what I meant. For your information, with reference to your  there are people trying to prove that the events actually took place and the mention of the king in flying chariot or Ravana flying through the sky was real and scientifically possible at that time (though I do not contribute to that view).:

http://slabhyankar.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/aeroplanes-in-valmiki-ramayana/

Here is the link reproducing the description of aeroplanes in Valmiki Ramayana a real Scientific feat from another forum of Sanskrit Scholars.

 

--

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,

Research Scholar,

[nagendra kumar jha]

Namaskaar.

It is very common to communicate with person in mother tongue.

So, Hanoomaan spoke in MAITHILY, मधुरा वाणी , the mother language of सीता।

This is implied so not described.

regards to all.

nagendra.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--

Be proud of yourself and respect yourself. The world will respect you.
nagendra/CSE/2000

Commandant, NFC, Hyderabad.

09440808011 (m)

[murthy]

I go along with Option B. However the following is not in Valmiki.

"bridges built across the sea with stones that float
because the word 'Rama' is written on them. "

Regards
Murthy

Dear Group,

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Myth making is an ancient art Indians are good at and trying to find scientific explanations without any basis we are equally good at this is a classic example.

There is always a vast difference between facts and imagination. If onelooksat the sky one sees stars. So how how doI reach stars I fly. This is just pure common sense logic which our ancients were good at. That doesn't mean we had the technology to fly to stars

Pushpak Vimana mentioned  in Ramayana is a poetic imagination and there is nothing more to it.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Muthy
I would go by option c

So logically its a pure story to enjoy

To quote Arivind's words " This story, which essentially

is a human story, caught the imagination of poets whose embellishments
of it further caught the imagination of a population "

It a pure fiction combined with excellent imagination and it forms a great poem

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

All the opinions calling Pushpak Viman as poetic imaginations are themselves imaginations masquerading as rational logic. When one cannot prove or disprove something, the right conclusion is no conclusion. Lack of proof does not imply lack of existence, it is the other way round - proof implies existence. Elementary logic says if A => B then negation of B => negation of A. Elementary logic also says that if A => B then negation of A need not imply negation of B. Take A=proof and B=existence and you may understand what I am hinting, if your logic is indeed sound.

Indian thought system accepts three proofs (प्रमाण or means of true knowledge) as specified in the Yoga Sutra

प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमाः प्रमाणानि (Samadhi Pada 7)

Regarding events in Ramayana, प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण can be available only to characters of Ramayana and to Valmiki, Vyas, Tulsidas et cetera. When you try अनुमान, which is the only means people in this group resorted to, nothing can be proved or disproved. आगम is the third option which is trusting Vedas, scriptures or a siddha/saint. MaCaulay's greatgrandchildren and eminent historians can resort to incorrect अनुमान to call them myth makers, but for believers like me, Valmiki, Vyas and Tulsidas were not people who would lie, and so for me, their speech is a proof by means of आगम. When Tulsidas said that नौमीड्यं जानकीशं रघुवरमनिशं पुष्पकारूढरामम् meaning he bowed down many a time to Rama aboard Pushpak Viman, it is my strong belief that neither was he hallucinating nor was he weaving myths - he was perceiving the actual events.

McCaulay's greatgrandchildren and eminent historians can believe in what they want, but if you want to use correct logic or rational thinking (अनुमान), then in the absence of any proof, your conclusion is the same as your null hypothesis. My null hypothesis is different from yours, nothing else.

--
Nityānanda Miśra
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
     - Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

Now, the discussion has reached to pramANa-s, i.e. means of valid knowledge. So, I think a new thread is needed. And when we reach some decision there about validity of scriptures or any document dealing with past things, let us come back to this thread again.
That's a better option.
And, use of harsh words is not going to help anyone who wishes to reach correct decision. So, leave that please.
Use focused question-answers.
Hope it will help many here.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

[Anand Ghurye]

Dear Friends ,

Just for your information. Dr. Bhave was a Doctor teaching in Government Medical College . He was also an avid pilot . He used to teach as visiting faculty at KEM hospital . He used to come by helicopter to teach . He undertook to research the Ramayana and the various places given in Ramayana . He traveled via air from Ayodhya to Sri Lanka noting down the places from Ramayana and mapping these on aerial map . He has written a book on this topic . Not only was he able to find almost all places mentioned in Ramayana but he also calculated timeline ( time taken to move from one place to another ) mentioned in Ramayana and matched it agaist the distances and has come out with a good match . One fact he mentions alongwith photoes is that some of descriptions of  places given in Ramayana are only possible if these places were seen from high up in the air .

Regards ,

Anand Ghurye 

Regards ,

Anand Ghurye

*Training*Development*Synectics
Space Page : 9820489416

[swyambha das]

namaskara,

           dear group, I am very glad to get the chance to express my view on this topic. I think hanumana was talking to sita in some type of prakrita language. in that time the general people were talking in prakrita and the women also. this language is "madhura, sarasa and sarala".

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Friends,

Wiht reference to Anand Ghurye's mail above, for those wanting to know
more about Dr Bhave's aerial photography and retracing Rama's and the
cloud-messenger's routes, these two new reports from ToI will be
informative:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-10-26/pune/27239773_1_mr-bhave-sri-lanka-pushpak
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-12-27/pune/27219521_1_bhave-pushpak-ram

Dr Bhave expired just two month's after his book came out in print.
He was an amateur aviator who maintained a small airplane as a hobby.

Claims of science and technology made on behalf ancient India were the
subject of a long discussion in the Group in November 2010 under the
heading 'Science And Technology In Vedas And Sastras' and may be seen
at http://tinyurl.com/6n67p6b. Several members of the Group.
including this humble scribe, contributed to it. As suggested by
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः, the discussion about science and technology may
perhaps be continued under that thread, leaving this thread only for
the topic of HanumAn's language while addressing SItA.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, January 20, 2012.

[Vasu Srinivasan]

I am not sure if discussions of "whether it really happened" is of any benefit at all. All said and done, it comes to one basic point - "What I believe in" is confused as "What happened". The strong identification of oneself to what one believes in, clouds any reasoning of what happened. 

It is not that the objectivity is lost. But objectivity in itself is mis-believed to be "conclusive reasoning". 

We can't even believe how we lived without cellphones a few years ago. A person from future generation may never believe a world without cellphone, iphone or a tablet. But that doesnt mean that such a world didnt exist.

There are so many great things in Ramayana. I hope the learned ones here can educate others on that.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
Regards,
Vasu Srinivasan
-----------------------------------
vagartham.blogspot.com
vasya10.wordpress.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

In reply to Nityanandji post

Proposition: Ramayana is a figment of a poets imagination
Reason: Because it is based on fiction
Example: Whatever is based on fiction is a imagination (as a story) (homogeneous or affirmative)
Application :so is Ramaraya a Story - (affirmative)
Conclusion Therefore Ramayana is a fiction

"Valmiki, Vyas and Tulsidas were not people who would lie, and so for me, their speech is a proof by means of आगम. "

Ramayana is neither a Veda or an Agama  so whatever Valmiki, Vyas and Tulsidas doesn't matter

Anumana is doubt in common langauge usage and it will always remain as a doubt Pushpak Viman, in my view the poet was hallucinating or was he weaving myths - he was didn't see any events except to make a good story and a grand Epic.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Anand Ghurye
Ramyana is said to have taken place Treta yuga and now we are in Kali yuga seperated by millions of year as per puranans. When this is fact Dr. Bhave research is for amusement and serves no purpose.

To find rationality in myths and superstitions or personal belief will never work for a person who wants to see sober facts

As has been already pointed out by Dr. Bhat one can only speculate as Valmiki doesnot say Hanuman, Sita or Ravana spoke different languages

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[R. Jambunathan]

Respected members,

"Dear Friends ,

Just for your information. Dr. Bhave was a Doctor teaching in
Government Medical College . He was also an avid pilot . He used to
teach as visiting faculty at KEM hospital . He used to come by
helicopter to teach . He undertook to research the Ramayana and the
various places given in Ramayana . He traveled via air from Ayodhya to
Sri Lanka noting down the places from Ramayana and mapping these on
aerial map . He has written a book on this topic . Not only was he
able to find almost all places mentioned in Ramayana but he also
calculated timeline ( time taken to move from one place to another )
mentioned in Ramayana and matched it agaist the distances and has come
out with a good match . One fact he mentions alongwith photoes is that
some of descriptions of places given in Ramayana are only possible if
these places were seen from high up in the air .

Regards ,

Anand Ghurye "

While I am in full agreement with Sri Nityanand Misraji, is it
reasonable to expect the places described in Ramayana to be present
today as described therein, in as much as Sri rAma avatAra was in
treta yuga and now we are in kali yuga with dwApara yuga ( ~864000
years intervening).

Regards,

Jambunathan

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Just addendum>

Even accepting computers came as an invention by copying the Panini's system or Pingala's binary system, for the sake of argument there were in Panini's and Pingala's time binary system was present, (this not my opinion, but the opinion of some of the topics I have read in this group and other groups), the immediate question will be how it was lost? Only after the invention of computers we are aware that the science had developed in our ancestry and was lost to negligence of our ancestors or the attack of foreigners, they were carried off from us? (and published as their patent right)? Right brothers copied aeronotics from Veda-s or Ramayana probably, only to remind of our ancestry and research to be taken by Arvind Gurye to identify the places present in Kritayug? 

I can add cellphones were in the time of Ramayana also, so that Hanuman could talk to Bharata, while he was about to enter fire on the day Rama had promised to return.

From my little knowledge of Sanskrit literature, Ramayana was not considered as the इतिहास which is usually associated with  महाभारत in contrast with वाल्मीकि's रामायण as आदिकाव्य in the very outset of Indian Literary persons honoring him as आदिकवि. 

I think rather than enjoying the poem as enjoyed by our ancestors, we are using the discussions to convince other we believe or do not believe than any thing with literature and enjoy ourselves.

Art for Art's sake is seemingly western concept, but it was present in India also since Bhamaha's time. 

 धर्मार्थकाममोक्षेषु वैचक्षण्यं कलासु च । 

करोति कीर्तिं प्रीतिञ्च साधुकाव्यनिषेवणम्॥

and whether भक्ति is to be given a status of रस was yet open till the advent of भक्तिप्रस्थान in poetry. Only the reverse of the purpose or emphasis on one of the benefits over others is done in many of the discussions.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Here is the Engineering Manual of Setubandhana for those who want it at the Ramayana period:

http://kalyan97.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/789/

Nala was the Engineer of the construction, the son of the architect of the Gods, Vishvakarma.

[Nityanand Misra]

Firstly, your stated reason is not reason but an assumption or your belief. In the Indian tradition, Ramayana and Mahabharata are called इतिहास - इति ह आस - thus definitely happened. If I use this fact (that it is called इतिहास) and call it my "reason" conclude that the events actually happened - that is not reasoning at all.

Secondly, अनुमान as defined by पतञ्जलि in Yoga Sutra is not "doubt" but "inference" or "reasoning".  An example is to conclude the existence of fire from existence of smoke, or the existence of father from existence of son.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Even accepting computers came as an invention by copying the Panini's system or Pingala's binary system, for the sake of argument there were in Panini's and Pingala's time binary system was present, (this not my opinion, but the opinion of some of the topics I have read in this group and other groups), the immediate question will be how it was lost?

In my opinion this assumption is not correct. Yes Panini's system of Grammar is highly sytematic and scientific in terms of sutras its arrangement etc. This doesnot mean Panin new Binary System or was even remotely hinting at 21st century Mathematical concepts

"Only after the invention of computers we are aware that the science had developed in our ancestry and was lost to negligence of our ancestors or the attack of foreigners, they were carried off from us? (and published as their patent right)?

Science was well developed in India and we were much ahead of times in early historical period. Scientific spirit and growth was curtailed to a large extent due to political instability"

"Right brothers copied aeronotics from Veda-s or Ramayana probably, only to remind of our ancestry and research to be taken by Arvind Gurye to identify the places present in Kritayug? "

Wright brothers didn't copy aeronautics from Vedas or any of our epics. If one starts thinking in this highly unscientific manner I am sure a day may not be far away when we shall stop all scientific and engineering research and can start looking at non existing theories in our ancient scriptures. Let us save ourselves from going back to middle ages. I don't think reinterpreting and re understanding ancient texts mean imposing foreign ideas into these texts which the neither these texts speak of nor the author of these texts were aware.

If any still feels Wright brothers copied " aeronautics from Vedas" please provide proof so that the scientific community may accept such findings and true spirit of inquiry call for such acceptance.

For the sake of acceptance let me accept an ancient bridge was built between India and lanka that might have been possible but doesn't make the story of Ramayana a historical.

In my opinion one should study Ramayana to enjoy the superb and unparalleled which talks and glorifies highest Human sentiments, values.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[subhendu rath]

I was also in doubt whether Ramyana is a real History or an excellent Poem or a real History with some fiction (To add flavor to the history).
Everything changed when I came across Bonda tribal people in Malkangiri district in South orissa. Theses people are still quite uncivilized and do not mix with common or so called civilized people. Due to Hilly deep Forest region with Naxal problem It is still not possible to access them completely. A group from bonda people who live in the lower part of hill were lately accessed.
Uniqueness of bonda Tribal women is that they do not wear any dress upon them (although ever other tribal in other parts of orissa state were wearing dress even before British period). Only leaf are adorned over private organs. WHY?
What the down the Hill tribal people say is that
 " A long time back a queen like women Sita along with his husband was stying near Saleru-Godavari river . Once she was bathing in the river naked. Few Bonda women passing near by laughed by looking towards Sita in that state. So Devi Sita thinking that these may be MAYAVI demons in veil of women, cursed them that they will never wear any cloth upon them. Otherwise they and their family will suffer. Then those tribal women requested devi Sita to take back her curse and pardon them. After knowing about their reality Devi Sita said that the curse once given can not be taken back. So they may wear leaf or any other thing to protect their private part, but not cloth."

So after listening all these from those tribal I astonished and change my thinking about reality of Ramayan. Even many of their customs carry the names of Rama, Sita and Laxaman although they were completely cut off for many centuries from outside world.
So they are not wearing any dress evening during extreme winter season.
Many Indian and Foreign sociologist have made research on Bonda people and found the above fact true. you may search into Google to find many more facts to prove Ramayan among many isolated Tribal society in Orissa, Madhy Pradesh, Chhhatisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra region.
Thanks
Regards,
Subhendu Rath
Puri Jagannath
Orissa, India

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The same is true about another custom from the name of Draupadi in the name of Pandava grama a community who as a custom marry more than 5 men and live with them for whole life. You can see the even  Pancha Pandava's house in the vicky map:

http://wikimapia.org/1484327/Kayyala-House

Google search and research will return whatever you want to find.

[murthy]

This reminds me of an honest attempt by a research scholar to identify Malgudi, which is where most stories of RK Narayan take place. And, for sure, he did identify it as a place somewhere around Salem. I am sorry I am narrating this from my memory and I am unable to provide supporting reference.

Regards

Murthy

[murthy]

I fully agree with Ajitji.

Regards

Murthy

----- Original Message -----

From: Ajit Gargeshwari

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Mahabharata is called इतिहास. Ramayana is said to be an Adikavya and not इतिहास.
I agree several researches are being done to prove the historicity of Ramayayna but none of the researches provide any concluding evidence because Ramayana was written in Treata yuga as per the epic narration and as per historical facts, forget Rama not even dinosaurs existed during those early times. This is to speak of the historic sense of the epic.

Ramayana has been written and re written several times. There are several versions and variants of Ramyana. This shows that myth makers and story writers from time immemorial have tampered with the text.
Ramayana has a strong influence of Sanskrit Kavya, Drama, and religious literature there is no doubt absolutely.

An epic may have an influence this doesn't mean an epic has to be true
Let us keep अनुमान as defined by पतञ्जलि in Yoga Sutra Advaitins view Buddihsts view on the same to a different thread
This is all i have to say thank you

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Aditya B.S.A]

नमो नमः 

नमो नमः 

I much resisted the impulse to jump into this thread at the outset, and thought I should observe where it would go. But between the apologists, the rationalists, and the cynics, I believe the 'layers' have only been added to, creating a confounding medley that is quite pointless. 

<A) Does the Ramayana, wholly or at least substantially, a chronicle of

events and personalities that actually happened?
B) Does the Ramayana represent a kernel of a true story of a much
smaller scale, which was embroidered upon and expanded upon by a poet
called Valmiki?
C) Is it a pure fiction of imagination?>

Let me point out the assumptions made here. In case of point A: 

1. That the Ramayana is a chronicle written by a chronicler. 

The Ramayana never claimed to be an accurate chronicle in the first place, in the manner that we know chronicles. Anyone who has actually read it won't be bothered with having to agree to this point, purely because it suggests a notion that is void from the start. 

2. That the Ramayana represents a 'kernel' of a true story that was embellished by Valmiki. This is the most presumptuous point because it assumes that the intent of the poet was to embellish a true story. Are we so hypocritical as to try to pinpoint sources of inspiration for a poet, with the confident assumption that they were real-life incidents, when we struggle to establish real incidents of our own time with due process? Firstly, state your yardstick for establishing 'truth.' And also, if you believe Valmiki's main intent was to compose a poem (and one of the best ever), don't do him the injustice of limiting the scope of his inspiration to your assumed reality. 

3. And of course, if it was all a figment of Valmiki's imagination, as is suggested in the third point, at least one is saved from having to conjecture about poetic inspiration. One is content to remain a frog in the well, which is their comfortable notion of real and unreal. 

The following logic is absolutely inconsistent:

Proposition: Ramayana is a figment of a poets imagination.
Reason: Because it is based on fiction.

If imagination is based on fiction, what is fiction based on? Fiction is based on reality. If fiction is based on reality, when does it become fiction? When a part of the fictional account does not concur with your understanding of reality. So your part-fiction can be my full-fact, because my understanding of reality (which is the base of fiction) ensures that I am steadfast in my view that your fiction is, in fact, reality. 

Example: Whatever is based on fiction is a imagination (as a story) (homogeneous or affirmative) 

Wrong. Because fiction is based on reality, whatever is based on fiction is also real for the most part. Imagination can propose a five-legged man-eating monster in Venus. While the idea may seem preposterous, 'legs' are real things, 'Venus' is real, 'man' is real, and so is 'monster.' Their confluence is unlikely. 

Application :so is Ramaraya a Story - (affirmative)

Conclusion Therefore Ramayana is a fiction

Your application introduces a new word 'story' which does not find place in your reason, or relate to it. Do not apply what is not reasoned. If you want to relate story and fiction, be my guest. But I am sure I can point out your flaws there, too. Your conclusion, based on a flawed reason and flawed application, is also flawed. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Raama is a manifestation of Brahman. Valmiki composed a poem. That poem itself was never apologetic in its various descriptions of Rama, which are understood to be the lakshanas of Brahma tattva. Those who understand it from such perspective would not be apologetic about the same, nor seek to justify it in any manner to one who is not on the same playing field. 

Regards,

आदित्यः 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[narayan iyer]

Namo namaH,

Sri Ajit-ji, are you not stereo-typing and over-generalising when you say Indians are good (meaning all Indians in general) at myth making?

You say (and I quote you here):

"If one looks at the sky one sees stars. So how how doI reach stars I fly. This is just pure common sense logic which our ancients were good at. "

If such be the only logic and common-sense that was available, did you find any statements in ancient writings sages or rishis flying and  reaching ashwini or magha or anuradha nakshatras?  

There is no point in speculating about the common sense or logic of our ancients when we have next to nothing information on that sphere.

Regards,

narayan

---

From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>

To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: In what language did Hanuman speak to Sita?

Myth making is an ancient art Indians are good at and trying to find scientific explanations without any basis we are equally good at this is a classic example.

There is always a vast difference between facts and imagination. 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

There is no doubt in my mind that Raama is a manifestation of Brahman. Valmiki composed a poem. That poem itself was never apologetic in its various descriptions of Rama, which are understood to be the lakshanas of Brahma tattva. Those who understand it from such perspective would not be apologetic about the same, nor seek to justify it in any manner to one who is not on the same playing field. 

There is no need of such an preamble for this belief as it is already available in the following verse attributed to अगस्त्यसंहिता-

वेदवेद्ये परे पुंसि जाते दशरथात्मजे । वेदः प्राचेतसाऽदासीत् साक्षाद् रामायणात्मना ।। तस्माद्रामायणं देवि! वेद एव न संशयः ।। [Agastya-SamhitA]. 

One can find many more on googling from similar blog spots.

Thanks for y our contribution to the meddle already.

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

As usual, this topic also turned out to be on the same route as many other earlier threads the discussions between believers and non-believers than literary discussion in Sanskrit literature.

I had already expected long ago.

[Nityanand Misra]

Coming back to the original question, Jagadguru Ramandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya expounded on these verses from the VR in one of his discourses on the Ramayana given in Muradabad, Uttar Pradesh on September 13, 2009. He cited a Sanskrit commentary (unnamed, maybe Tilak or Bhushan Tika, but I am not sure) which says the languages was either Awadhi or Maithili. His conclusion is that the language was Awadhi.

• Rambhadracharya, Jagadguru (Speaker, Composer and Singer) (2009). "मानस धर्म" [Righteousness in the Ramcharitmanas] (in Hindi). Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh: Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University. DVD 8 of 9. Event occurs at 02:31:40.
  

You can hear his explanation on this Youtube video (scroll to time 0:37:45, the explanation continues till 0:41:30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifzIiiLl7AM

Thanks, Nityanand

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, P.K.Ramakrishnan <peek...@yahoo.com> wrote:

In what language did Hanuman speak to Sita?

Quotations from Valmiki Ramayana Sundara Kanda Sarga 30 sloka 18, 19 etc.

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संस्कृताम् /

रावणं मन्यमाना सा सीता भीता भविष्यति  //

वानरस्य विशॆषेण कथं स्यादभिभाषणम्  /

अवश्यमेव वक्तव्यं मानुष्यं वाक्यमर्थवत् //

--------

--------

मथुरमवितथं जगाद वाक्यं द्रुमविटपान्तरमास्थितो हनूमान् //

 

----------------------------------- P.K.Ramakrishnan http://peekayar.blogspot.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mahabharata is called इतिहास. Ramayana is said to be an Adikavya and not इतिहास.
I agree several researches are being done to prove the historicity of Ramayayna but none of the researches provide any concluding evidence because Ramayana was written in Treata yuga as per the epic narration and as per historical facts, forget Rama not even dinosaurs existed during those early times. This is to speak of the historic sense of the epic.

For the record, both Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered Itihasa. Ramayana is considered as both आदिकाव्य and इतिहास, and its consideration as इतिहास dates back to Mammata's Kavyaprakash. The terms आदिकाव्य and इतिहास are not contradictory. See the entry of Itihasa in the following work.

• The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature (Volume Two) (Devraj To Jyoti), Volume 2. Amaresh Datta. Sahitya Akademi, 2006. ISBN 8126011947, 9788126011940. pp. 1752-1753.

Also refer the following which deal with Ramayana and Mahabharata as Itihasa

• A Critical Inventory of Rāmāyaṇa Studies in the World: Indian languages and English. Volume 1 of A Critical Inventory of Rāmāyaṇa Studies in the World, Satkari Mukhopadhyay. K. Krishnamoorthy, Sāhitya Akademi. Sahitya Akademi, 1991. ISBN 8172011008, 9788172011000. p. xxi.
• India : History, Religion, Vision And Contribution To The World, Volume 1. Alexander P. Varghese. Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2008. ISBN 812690903X, 9788126909032. p. 169.
• Indian Narratology. K. Ayyappapanicker, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2003. ISBN 8120725026, 9788120725027. pp. 41-57.
• Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective. Peter J. Ucko. Routledge, 1995. ISBN 0203973283, 9780203973288. p. 113.
• Ramayan : Bhrantiyan Aur Samadhan. Swami Vidyanand Saraswati. Kitabghar Prakashan. ISBN 8188118052, 9788188118052. pp. 17-18.
• Hindu Sanskriti. Swami Tejomayanand. Chinmaya Mission. ISBN 8175971738, 9788175971738. pp. 151-152.

 

An epic may have an influence this doesn't mean an epic has to be true

That also does not mean epic has to be false. Iliad and Aenind were considered to be a legends with no historical basis but Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of the lost city of Troy reopened the debate/

[Naresh Cuntoor]

[Moderator's note]

This thread has drifted way off-course. In hindsight, we should have intervened many posts ago. I have denied several posts which added little to the discussion. And I'm closing this thread. There are a couple of dangling questions regarding pramaNas. As Sri Lalitalalitah suggested, that discussion is best had under a separate thread.

Naresh

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

"Wrong. Because fiction is based on reality, whatever is based on fiction is also real for the most part. Imagination can propose a five-legged man-eating monster in Venus. While the idea may seem preposterous, 'legs' are real things, 'Venus' is real, 'man' is real, and so is 'monster.' Their confluence is unlikely. "

These are some possible definition of fiction

a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.

2. A lie.

3.

a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.

b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.

4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

I feel the Ramayana of Valmniki is perfect match

---

"Your application introduces a new word 'story' which does not find place in your reason, or relate to it. Do not apply what is not reasoned. If you want to relate story and fiction, be my guest. But I am sure I can point out your flaws there, too. Your conclusion, based on a flawed reason and flawed application, is also flawed. "

1.a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale.

2. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel.

3. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature: song and story.

4.the plot or succession of incidents of a novel, poem, drama, etc.: The characterizations were good, but the story was weak.

5. a narration of an incident or a series of events or an example of these that is or may be narrated, as an anecdote, joke,

"There is no doubt in my mind that Rama is a manifestation of Brahman. Valmiki composed a poem. That poem itself was never apologetic in its various descriptions of Rama, which are understood to be the lakshanas of Brahma tattva. Those who understand it from such perspective would not be apologetic about the same, nor seek to justify it in any manner to one who is not on the same playing field. "

"Rama is  a manifestation of Visnnu. Not Brahma definitely not Brahman used in the Neuter ( If that is true everyone is a manifestation of Brahmhan including Rama and Ravana)"
Valmiki composed a poem I agree
That poem itself was never apologetic in its various descriptions of Rama, which are understood to be the lakshanas of Brahma tattva.The poem did not want to Promote any Bramha tattva it wanted portray the art of ideal living which may or may not be  Bramha tattva. Please define Bramha tattva

"Those who understand it from such perspective would not be apologetic about the same, nor seek to justify it in any manner to one who is not on the same playing field. "

Valmiki doesn't impose his view point assuming that he is the author of the all the numerous recension and variation of Ramayana story that we have as of now.

[Vimala Sarma]

The sapta RSis are a constellation in the sky.
But I agree with Ajita Mahodaya.

Vimala