The Commune had published a review of my book by Vedic Speaker ‘Rāmāyaṇaṁ’– Volume 1. The reviewer came up with a few questions and doubts in the review. Here are the responses to some of those queries.
On Ramayana Dates
The paragraph about the Ramayana dates that the reviewer has written. As such, I have not discussed anything about the yugas, the duration of every yuga, Chaturyuga, etc in the text of my book, nowhere it has been discussed. Nor have I criticized the version of the Puranas or the Itihasas and upheld the research Jayashree Saranathan has done research which is much better than the Puranas. I have quoted Jayashree’s name stating she is the one who has given the dates. Her dates have been mentioned in the footnotes, that’s all. The concept of a Chaturyuga especially the number of years 43 lakh 20,000 years being the Chaturyuga, the 24th Chaturyuga where the Ramayana happened is different.
All this is not found in Valmiki Ramayanam itself. From Bala Kandam to Uttara Kandam, there is no mention of it. It is found in a Purana and between itihasas and Puranas, itihasas are given more respect than the Puranas. When I say more respect, more authentic because they are regarded as direct history or recording. So nowhere in the Ramayanam itself, there is a discussion of the 24th Chaturyuga, where the Chatur Yuga being 43 lakh 20,000 years, nothing of that sort, it comes only in the Purana. I have not analyzed the dates or anything of that sort. In fact, in one of the paragraphs within the text of the book, I mentioned that I think it’s Lakshmana vakyam towards Rama, Rama now we are living in the times of Treta, but your administration makes me feel that there is more than Dharma in it like the Krita Yuga. So I’ve clearly mentioned this as Treta, this as Krita, and all of that in the text. Because I’ve mentioned clearly that we are living during the times of Treta Yuga, Rama, but you make us feel as if we are living in the times of Krita Yoga, because this has been extracted from a line of Vedanta Deshika’s Raghuveera Gadyam which says “Tretayuga pravarthitha Karta yuga vritthantha.“
On Venkatesa Suprabhatam verse
With respect to the verse “Kausalya Supraja Ramapurava Sandhya Pravathathe”, this is a verse from Valmiki Ramayana where Vishwamitra wakes up Rama in the early hours of the morning. So the reviewer asks why didn’t I make reference to Venkatesha Suprabhatam. There is no need. The Venkatesha Suprabhatam of the 14th century where Prativaadhi Bhayangara Mannan imports the verse from Valmiki Ramayana – Kausalya Supraja Rama and from the next verse only he starts composing which is “Uttishtottiṣṭha gōvinda uttiṣṭha garuḍadhvaja”. So, I don’t think there is any need to add the reference of Venkatesha Suprabhatam anywhere in the book, because I don’t pick up any verse from Venkatesha Suprabhatam. This verse is from Valmiki Ramayana. And the comment whatever I’ve written is explaining those lines is from the commentator Periyavachan Pillai’s commentary of the 13th century and Govinda Raja’s commentary of the Bhushana.
Rama and Sita as Narayana and Mahalakshmi
The original Valmiki Ramayanam has six commentaries and one of the largest of the six and probably the grandest is Govinda Raja’s commentary called Bhushana. Nagesha Bhatta’s commentary Thilaka is good but it is not as big and as deep as Govinda Raja’s. So there, Govinda Raja makes very clear references to Rama as the avatar of Narayana. Narayana akhilaheya pratyaneekatharaha samastha kalyana gunatmakaha, jagatchakshuhu, So he calls him the one who controls all the functions of the world, the one who is the Antaryami or all Devatas. So I’ve used that particular line stating that Narayana who is the Antaryami of all, thereby even when Shiva’s made reference, I have used that. So it is conforming to the commentary of Govinda Raja.
Within Valmiki’s original Ramayanam itself (Yuddha Kandam), there are multiple open and hidden references to Rama and Sita as Lakshmi and Narayana. When Mandodari praises Rama,
व्यक्तमेष महायोगी परमात्मा सनातनः |
अनादिमध्यनिधनो महतः परमो महान् ||
तमसः परमो धाता शङ्खचक्रगदाधरः |
श्रीवत्सवक्षा नित्यश्रीरजय्यः शाश्वतो ध्रुवः ||
She says that I see you as Paramatma holding Shanka Chakra as Narayana who has got Mahalakshmi on his chest. And when looking at Jatayu, he says “Gachcha lokaanuktamaan”. I grant you Moksham, go to that place from which there is no return Jatayu, which is Mokshapradattvam. So, all these have been taken into verses by Kuresha in the 11th century in his work called Atimaanushasthavam where he says,
He clearly talks about the Moksha granting status and calls Rama as Narayana. So Valmiki in many instances, has given subtle references to their Parathvam.
Valmiki Ramayana inspiration
I have mentioned in the Rāmāyaṇaṁ’– Volume 1 book flap in the front blurb as well as in the preface that I have completely been inspired by Valmiki his commentators, and many other works, and I had to use that little right of being the author of this book, to use some creativity to stitch those ends.
Dravida/Tamil
Coming to the word Dravida Draavida, please note that in Ayodhya Kandam, Aranya Kandam also, when Lakshmana sees a branch full of flowers, Rama refers to them and states these are carrying so many flowers, like the women from the south of India (Dakshinayaam), who have flowers on their heads. So, there is a clear reference to the South Indian culture.
Gajendra Moksham Reference
This instance involves Agastya who was in the south of India, and Bhagavatham, we have a clear reference that it happened by the banks of river Tamirabharani. The word Dravida comes in Bhagavatham as well (Utpanna dravidesaaham) and Vedanta Desika has written Dramidopanishad Tat Parya Ratnavali. So Dravida Shishu says Adishankara. So the word Dravida Dramila Draavida has been in vogue in the Samskruta literature.
Even in Ramayanam, Sindhudouveeraaha Draavidaha, I remember this verse where the word Draavida comes. So, this word has been there. The word Tamizh may not explicitly occur in any of the granthas because that is the name given locally to this language. But I had to introduce that because in Sundarakandam when Hanuman says, “Instead of Samskrutham, I will talk to her in a Madura Basha”, many of the Acharyas in the south of India interpret that to be Tamizh. So, Tamizh must have existed then. And also Tamizh must have been a language completely soaked in Bhakti. Because Bhagavatam says “Utpanna dravidesaaham”, Bhakti grew and was born in the state of Dravida, which means where Tamizh is spoken and around that period Tamizh must have also come up.
Dushyant Sridhar is a Hindu, Vedic Speaker and the author of ‘Rāmāyaṇaṁ’– Volume 1
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.