Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Alamelu mangai" 

Sent: 23-04-2021 8.19.47 PM

Subject: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Respected members of the sanga,

Please accept my humble obesiances

All glories to Srila Prabhupada and Guru Maharaja

Some sources say that Surpanaka was again reincarnated as kubja. Others say she was Manthara in Rama lila. 

In Srila Prabhupada's purport, she is described as one of the energies of Krsna-  bhu sakti and partial manifestation of satyabhama who became crippled because of outrageous demons who flourished in the earth planet in the absence of powerful Ksatriyas. 

It would be helpful if someone could clarify this confusion. 

Your servant

Anupama Devi dasi

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Shyamananda Dasa" 

Sent: 24-04-2021 2.46.20 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Sri Sri Gaurangau Jayatah

Dandavats Mataji, Srila Prabhupada ki Jaya!

In reply to your query Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Garga Samhita confirm that Surpanaka from Rama lila reincarnated as Kubja in Krishna Lila. In Lomash Ramayana it is mentioned that Manthara of Rama Lila reincarnated as Surpanaka. This can be understood by referring to Bhavabhuti's Ramayana where he says that Malyavan, the minister of Ravana, orders Surpanaka to possess Manthara and make her poison the mind of Kaikeyi. So being possessed by the spirit of Surpanaka, Manthara acted inimical to Rama and poisoned the mind of Kaikeyi.

This is the only mention of Manthara in Ramayana. So basically the Manthara of Ramayana is actually representation of Surpanaka. 

This Surpanaka who had conjugal affection for Lord Rama but could not fulfill her desire in Rama lila was able to fulfill her desire when He appeared as Krishna and she appeared as Kubja in Krishna lila. 

There is no contradiction that Kubja was a partial expansion of Bhu-sakti or Satyabhama as stated by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarthi Thakura.

Hare Krishna!

your servant,

Shyamananda dasa

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Jay Nityananda Das" 

Sent: 27-04-2021 12.41.40 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Respected Mataji,

Namo Namah.

The Garga-samhita(5.11.10) and Brahma-vaivata Purana(4.62.53) [and also (4.72.56)] mention that Surpanakha, desiring Lord Rama as husband performed austerities and reappeared as Kubja. However the only difference between the two narrations is that according to Garga-samhita she got a boon (of receiving Lord Rama as a husband) from Lord Siva whereas according to Brahma-vaivarta Purana she got that boon from Lord Brahma.

Also, Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Brhad-Vaisnava-tosani commentary on SB (10.48.9-12 verses) mentions another incidence from "Mädhura-Harivaàça" wherein Kubja in her previous life was a daughter of a king and she performed severe austerities to get Lord Krsna as her husband. However, Jiva Gosvami writes that this incidence may or may not be of another kalpa.

Almost all Vaisnava Acaryas' commentaries mention Kubja to be vibhuti of "Bhu" shakti without mentioning her past birth as Surpanakha. Hence, it is likely due to the "Kalpa-bheda" aspect in such narrations.   

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa

("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Jay Nityananda Das" 

Sent: 28-04-2021 3.20.43 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Dear Shymananda Prabhu ji,

 

Namo Namah.

 

>>In Lomash Ramayana it is mentioned that Manthara of Rama Lila reincarnated as Surpanaka. This can be understood by referring to Bhavabhuti's Ramayana where he says that Malyavan, the minister of Ravana, orders Surpanaka to possess Manthara and make her poison the mind of Kaikeyi. So being possessed by the spirit of Surpanaka, Manthara acted inimical to Rama and poisoned the mind of Kaikeyi.

 

Is Lomasha Ramayana or Bhavabhuti's Ramayana authentic or on a par with Valmiki Ramayana or Kamba Ramayana? 

Poet Bhavabhuti does get mentioned in CC Adi (16.101, 102) along with Jayadeva and Kalidasa. Srila Rupa Gosvami mentions a verse of Bhavabhuti in his Padyavali, Krsna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami mentions a verse of Kalidasa in CC, however, both Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti , (unlike Jayadeva Gosvami) are widely famous only as great poets, not as pure devotees of Lord Krsna. Also, in traditional poetic compositions, there is an element of poetic license that allows poets to make variations in stories keeping the main theme and characteristics of the characters intake. Hence, any such variations should not be seen as authentic unless it is supported by authentic scriptures. Kindly note the following..

" Bhavabuti is praised for his characterization of the various epic personalities and his innovative remodeling of the story, inducing various new themes and events.^[16][1] Bhavabuti's analysis of politics and his handling of the Manthara, Surpanakha, and Parshurama episodes with Malyavan's devious background politics is commended." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahaviracharita]     

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Shyamananda Dasa" 

Sent: 30-04-2021 12.08.22 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah

Dandavats Prabhu, Srila Prabhupada ki Jaya!

In reply to your question, undoubtedly Valmiki Ramayana is the most respected and authorized description of Lord Rama's pastimes but unless there is any contradiction the version other recognized Vedic authorities can also be accepted as valid evidence known as vaidusa pramana. 

Bhavabhuti has been accepted as a Vedic authority so his version is also considered valid but not on the same level as Valmiki. As Srila Prabhupada writes in C.C. Adi 16.101 purport -

"Despite its minute literary discrepancies, one must study poetry on the merit of its subject matter. According to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, any literature that glorifies the Lord, whether properly written or not, is first class. There need be no other considerations. The poetic compositions of Bhavabhūti, or Śrīkaṇṭha, include Mālatī-mādhava, Uttara-carita, Vīra-carita and many similar Sanskrit dramas. This great poet was born during the time of Bhojarāja as the son of Nīlakaṇṭha, a brāhmaṇa."

Hare Krishna!

your servant,

Shyamananda dasa

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Jay Nityananda Das" 

Sent: 01-05-2021 2.42.10 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Dear Shyamananda Prabhu ji,

 

Namo Namah.

 

>>In reply to your question, undoubtedly Valmiki Ramayana is the most respected and authorized description of Lord Rama's pastimes but unless there is any contradiction the version other recognized Vedic authorities can also be accepted as valid evidence known as vaidusa pramana. 

 

I could not understand what has been stated above as there are few words missing there. As far as Vaidusa-pramana is considered, Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Sarva-samvadini commentary on Tattva-sandarbha, says the following:

tathā hi,pratyakṣaṁ tāvan mano-buddhīndriya-paṣcaka-janyatayā ṣaḍ-vidhaṁ bhavet |pratyekaṁ punaḥ savikalpaka-nirvikalpaka-bhedena dvādaśa-vidhaṁ bhavati | tadeva ca punaḥ vaiduṣam avaiduṣaṁ ceti dvividham | tatra vaiduṣe cavipratipatti-bhramādi-nṛ-doṣa-rāhityāt, śabdasyāpi tan-mūlatvāc ca | avaiduṣeevaṁ saṁśayaḥ |

Translation:   Moreover, "Pratyaksa-pramana", that is born of mind, intelligence and five senses, is of six kinds. Each of these six, is again divided into two types: sa-vikalpa and nir-vikalpa, thus forming 12 types of Pratyaksa-pramana. Thereafter, each of these 12 types, is again divided into two types: Vaidusam and A-vaidusam. In this regard, Vaidusa-pratyaksa-pramana, which is even the original source of Sabda-pramana,  there is no faults or errors such as bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava, that are found in ordinary human being.

JND: Also, the following is from the Tattva-sandarbha notes of BBT Translators: 

So, considering both the evidences, Bhavabhuti, who is not known as a pure Vaisnava (and hence, cannot be beyond four defects),  cannot be considered as a flawless authority unless his composition has been supported by other Vedic Authorities.

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Shyamananda Dasa" 

Sent: 02-05-2021 11.17.34 AM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Dandavats Prabhuji,

I was not referring to vaidusa pratyaksa as defined by Srila Jiva Goswami but vaidusa pramana in a more general sense of evidence given by scholars. Vaidusa also means vedic scholar or learned person. As Srila Prabhupada many times quoted Kalidasa, Canakhya, Tulasi dasa etc. and even material scientists although they are not in the pure devotional line of Srila Rupa Goswami. Those statements of others which are not opposed to the principles of pure devotional service or Vedic evidence can be accepted.

Hope it is clear now, I didn't mean to confuse you.

Hare Krishna!

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Jay Nityananda Das" 

Sent: 04-05-2021 2.35.28 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Dear Shymananda Prabhu ji,

Namo Namah.

>>I was not referring to vaidusa pratyaksa as defined by Srila Jiva Goswami but vaidusa pramana in a more general sense of evidence given by scholars. Vaidusa also means vedic scholar or learned person.

Thanks for the clarification.

>> As Srila Prabhupada many times quoted Kalidasa, Canakhya, Tulasi dasa etc. and even material scientists although they are not in the pure devotional line of Srila Rupa Goswami. Those statements of others which are not opposed to the principles of pure devotional service or Vedic evidence can be accepted.

The point mentioned above by your grace is well accepted. The point of my concern is whether "the Surpanakha episode" described in Lomasha Ramayana or Bhavabhuti's Ramayana has been supported by any Vedic evidence or any authentic Vaisnava sampradaya literatures. The story of "Kamba Ramayana" is a testimony of how scholars could not accept Kamba Ramayana as an authoritative narrative on Ramayana as there were many episodes that were not found in the authentic texts on Ramayana. It was only after Lord Nrsimhadeva approved it by nodding, was then Kamba's Ramayana accepted by the scholars of his time. 

If such "episode" is supported by any Vedic evidence  or any authentic Vaisnava sampradaya literatures , then it should be accepted wholeheartedly as a fact, however, so long its authenticity is not found to be approved, it can be accepted only as a poetic remodeling of the original story found in Valmiki Ramayana. [Poetic remodeling of the original story or imagination is not considered a bad thing in traditional poetry. It was still appreciated by scholars provided there is no transgression from the main theme and characteristics of the characters. Your grace might be aware of such examples.] 

Apart from poetic analysis and poetic ability, the compositions of Kalidasa or Bhavabhuti are not known to be treated as authoritative narrations of the events found in the authentic versions of Ramayana, Mahabharata or any other Puranas. Hence was my concern.  

Hope I could clarify my concern without troubling your grace unnecessarily,

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Jay Nityananda Das"
Sent: 05-05-2021 12.38.43 PM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Dear Shyamamda Prabhu ji,

Namo Namah.

JND: Sripada Sridhara Swami in his Bhavartha-dipika commentary on SB
(9.10.3) does make a point that the transcendental activities of Lord
Rāmacandra have been described by great saintly persons (such as
Valmiki and so on) who have seen the truth. So, there is a possibility
that Sage Lomasha's Ramayana could be one of such authentic Ramayanas.

However, how do we come to know whether the Lomasha Ramayana is one of
those authentic narratives is another point.

Also, another fear is that devotees may start reading (and also citing
) various unauthorized versions of Ramayana treating them as authentic
narratives. Kindly note the following excerpt from SB (9.10.3,
purport):

"...While describing the history of Lord Rāmacandra, Śukadeva Gosvāmī
told Mahārāja Parīkṣit, "You have already heard about the activities
of Lord Rāmacandra." Apparently, therefore, five thousand years ago
there were many Rāmāyaṇas, or histories of Lord Rāmacandra's
activities, and there are many still. But we must select only those
books written by tattva-darśīs (jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ [Bg. 4.34]),
not the books of so-called scholars who claim knowledge only on the
basis of a doctorate. This is a warning by Śukadeva Gosvāmī. Ṛṣibhis
tattva-darśibhiḥ. Although the Rāmāyaṇa composed by Vālmīki is a huge
literature, the same activities are summarized here by Śukadeva
Gosvāmī in a few verses."

>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahaviracharita#cite_note-das-16>[1]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahaviracharita#cite_note-indology-1>

>>>>>> -

[BVKS Sanga]

From: "Shyamananda Dasa" 

Sent: 06-05-2021 11.21.41 AM

Subject: Re: Query: Kubja and Surpanaka

Sri Krishnaya Namah

Dandavats Prabhu. Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!

Since most Vedic authorities agree on the fact that Surpanaka reappeared in Krishna Lila as Kubja so we can accept that as final. We don't need to refer to any other version. Since the original query raised here was based on other versions I tried to reconcile them without rejecting them outright. But they may be differences that are irreconcilable in which case we surely stick to the version given by our Guru Parampara.

Thank you Prabhu, I very much appreciate your concern, astuteness and loyalty to the original Valmiki Ramayana.

Hare Kristen!