Ramayana - Manthara's advice to Kaikeyi

[P.K.Ramakrishnan]

यौ तौ दैवासुरे युद्धे वरौ द्शरथोऽददात् |
तौ स्मारय महाभागे सोऽर्थो मात्वामतिक्रमेत् || ९-२-२८

Dasaratha had given two boons to Kaikeyi during the war between devas

and asuras. Kaikeyi had told him that she would specify those boons at a

later date. Manthara advises Kaikeyi to ask Dasaratha now to send Rama

to the forest for 14 years and appoint Bharatha as the king.

Objections - When a human being should come into the picture of a war

between Devas and Asuras. Why Dasaratha should give two boons to

Kaiakeyi.  Kaikeyi was given the option to ask them whenever she wanted.

The  poet has brought these points to develop his story. So this is nothing

but fiction.

Mahabharata on the other hand is itihaasa meaning iti iha asa. Thus here

happened.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

All wanted to say रामायण is महाकाव्य while महाभारत is called इतिहास and not a महाकाव्य!

This commonly known to those who have read both or learnt Sanskrit Literature. A महाकाव्य need not be a historical account and it never called as इतिहास, even though रघुवंश is explicitly narrates the genealogy of Raghu dynasty, it is called महाकाव्य and never considered as इतिहास!

[Venkata Sriram]

Sir,

Read the kAvya carefully before arriving at such conclusions !! bhagavAn rAmachandra was the contemporary of mahAkavi vAlmiki.  

"kO nvasmin sAmprataM lOkE guNavAn kashcha vIryavAn" asks vAlmiki.  

Maharishi uses the word "sAmprataM" which holds the key.

Study the Adi-kAvya carefully under sampradAya AchArya; then one would not arrive at this funny conclusions.

iti,

srIrAmachandra charaNa rajOabhilAshi...

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

<Mahabharata on the other hand is itihaasa meaning iti iha asa. Thus here happened.>

I doubt the correctness of this word story. 'iti iha asa' would be इतीहास and not इतिहास.

We were told that इतिहास is इति ह आस - it happened thus, the ह being a meaningless supplementary word like च वै तु हि.

Arvind Kolhatkar.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 01-Oct-2015 5:31 am, "Arvind_Kolhatkar" <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <Mahabharata on the other hand is itihaasa meaning iti iha asa. Thus here happened.>
>
> I doubt the correctness of this word story. 'iti iha asa' would be इतीहास and not इतिहास.

This is correct and Mr. Ramakrishnan was wrong.

But the comment on the word is wrong.

> We were told that इतिहास is इति ह आस - it happened thus, the ह being a meaningless supplementary word like च वै तु हि.

It is not meaningless as per Monier Williams:

1) ha 3[p= 1286,1][L=260032]
nd. (prob. orig. identical with 2. gha, and used as a particle for emphasizing a preceding word, esp. if it begins a sentence closely connected with another ; very frequent in the brāhmaṇas andsūtras, and often translatable by) indeed, assuredly, verily, of course, then &c

Exclamation used in proper place giving the required meaning.

 ; in later language very commonly used as a mere expletive, esp.at the end of a verse) RV.  &c &c

The present case is not a verse to be expletive, but it is a derivation for the word already in use.

The proper use for use of filling in  thus, being a meaningless supplementary word like च वै तु हि.

 उत्तिष्ठोत्तिष्ठ राजेन्द्र मुखं प्रक्षालयस्व टः।
एष आह्वयते कुक्कुः च वै तु हि च वे तु हि॥

The other version of the above verse for the 3rd is different,:

 उत्तिष्ठोत्तिष्ठ राजेन्द्र मुखं प्रक्षालयस्व टः।
प्रभाते रटते कुक्कु चवैतुहि चवैतुहि॥
Arvind olhatkar, Toronto, June 22, 2011.  in a blogspot.

In these case, it is completed without anything for completing the verse considering - तु हि च स्म ह वै पादपूरणे पूजने स्वति in amara to fill in the whole Pada!

It is not a verse in this case nor a poetry at all to discuss the meaninglessness, but it gives many shades of meaning इतिहास it certainly happened. Indeed it happened thus.

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Indeed!

I now recollect the following from a text we studied in College...

हरिश्चन्द्रो ह वैधस ऐक्ष्वाको राजापुत्र आस । तस्य ह शतं जाया बभूवु:।

Arvind Kolhatkar

[KN.Ramesh]

>>Objections - When a human being should come into the picture of a war

between Devas and Asuras. Why Dasaratha should give two boons to

Kaiakeyi.?

Answer:  See slokas 11 to 17 in the same sarga. See the word तत्रापि in sloka 16.

 Dasaratha was saved twice and hence two boons.

>> Kaikeyi was given the option to ask them whenever she wanted.

This is true, as per sloka 17.

My objections to treat this as fiction:

1) Dasaratha had a daughter by name Santa - The Bala Kanda gives us the information that he had a daughter by name Santa, who was adopted by Romapada and was given in marriage to Rsyasrnga. Sumantra mentions this when he suggests to Dasaratha to bring Rsyasrnga to Ayodhya to perform putra-kameshti yaga.

“In this way (according to the suggestion of the family priest and the ministers of King Romapada) the Rsi’s son (Rsyasrnga) will be caused by Romapada (the ruler of the Anga territory) to be brought (to his own capital) through courtesans, when the rain-god will cause clouds to send down rain and Santa (Dasaratha’s daughter adopted by Romapada) will be given (in marriage to Rsyasrnga). (Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 18).

So Dasaratha can very well crown his जामाता  and continuity could be in a different fashion.

2) Even if the boons are NOT taken in to consideration, Dasaratha has assured Kekaya king to give the kingdom for the child borne to Kaikeyi.

Please see (Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Canto CVII, Sloka 2-6).

Source is from here:

http://heritagewiki.org/index.php/Kaikeyi_-_Part_1

http://heritagewiki.org/index.php/Kaikeyi_-_Part_2

Of course Kamba ramayan reinforces the above facts.

some other interesting facts:

1)  Did  Rama actually carried out  matru vakya paripalana or pitru vakya paripalana ....??

No mention of Dasaratha asking him to go to forest, but kaikeyi on his behalf.

2) There is a story that the avatar of  Bhagavan Sri Ramachandra as maruthanallur sadguru swamigal was to carry out Maatru vaakya paripalana of Kaushalyaa... by doing uncavritti.

[KN.Ramesh]

Who was Manthara? Devi Sarasvati herself... 

I have posted about this in my blog but not able to retrieve it. Probably source for this could be from Adyatma ramayana or Ananda Ramayana, am not sure.

If anyone knows about this, will be very happy to the details.

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 22:16:21 UTC+5:30, peekayar wrote:

[K.N.RAMESH]

http://knramesh.blogspot.in/2015/01/tenets-of-dakshina-sampradaya-bhajan.html?m=1

Please see this for maruthanallur swamigal and matru vaakya paripaalanam quoting reference from Ramayana

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/samskrita/HKXgLNFyiK4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Subrahmanian R]

Respected Sirs,

As to the mention 'who was Manthara', in the Mahabharata Markandeya is narrating to Yudhishthira 'Ramayana' wherein he says:

पितामहवचो श्रुत्वा गन्धर्वी दुन्दुभी तत:।

मन्थरा मानुषे लोके कुब्जा सम्भवत् तदा ॥ 03.260.10 ||

And Dundubhi hearing these words of the Grandsire was born in the world of men as the hunchbacked Manthara.

R Subrahmanian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

[Dr P Narayanan]

वचो श्रुत्वा ? वचः श्रुत्वा !
सम्भवत् ?  समभवत् !

[Subrahmanian R]

Sorry sir. There has been a typo in my attempt to type in devanagari from Roaman. It is समभवत् as you have mentioned and not सम्भवत् as wrongly rendered by me. However, as to the other correction, the text says: वचो श्रुत्वा.

10 pitāmahavaco śrutvā gandharvī dundubhī tataḥ
     mantharā mānuṣe loke kubjā samabhavat tadā

Respectfully

R Subrahmanian

[Dr P Narayanan]

Obviously, वचो श्रुत्वा is wrong. If your text says so, it surely is a blunder. It is preliminary grammar which sets aside your version. I referred to Wikisource and many other versions all of which had mentioned it rightly.
There is not an iota of doubt in that your version is wrong.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 18-Oct-2015 11:20 pm, "Dr P Narayanan" <ayurveda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Obviously, वचो श्रुत्वा is wrong. If your text says so, it surely is a blunder. It is preliminary grammar which sets aside your version. I referred to Wikisource and many other versions all of which had mentioned it rightly.
> There is not an iota of doubt in that your version is wrong.
>

Unless the poet meant having not listened to the speech  वचः+अश्रुत्वा! If that is meant in the context, it could be correct.

[Dr P Narayanan]

> --
Yes, Sir.
That is why I referred to some other versions. They all said श्रुत्वा and not अश्रुत्वा.

[Subrahmanian R]

Thank you Bhat Sir for pointing out the unreliability of the source of the roman script Sanskrit version of Mahabharata that I have.

With Respects

R Subrahmanian

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Subrahmanian R <subrah...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Bhat Sir for pointing out the unreliability of the source of the roman script Sanskrit version of Mahabharata that I have.

With Respects

R Subrahmanian

There is no unreliability of roman script source:

Here is one in romn script source the critically edited Text of BORI:

03,260.010a pitāmahavacaḥ śrutvā gandharvī dundubhī tataḥ
03,260.010c mantharā mānuṣe loke kubjā samabhavat tadā|

Another source:

10 pitāmahavacaḥ śrutvā gandharvī dundubhī tataḥ

mantharā mānuṣe loke kubjā samabhavat tadā||

Both are online sources.

[Subrahmanian R]

Bhatt Sir,

I did not complain about 'roman script' but about the copy of the Mahabharata that I have. I said that the copy that I have is unreliable. I definitely did not say or mean Roman script is unreliable.

With respects

R Subrahmanian

--