ramayan clarification

[keerthi]

hi,
I am doing a study on ramayan and need the reference of where is it mentioned tat sita lifts the shiv dhanush in her childhood and janak sees tis ,i hve thoroughly checked balkand of both tulsi & valmiki ramayan bt cannot find it anywhere.I have asked this question in many forums bt no one is able to give the reference.can anyone pls help me in tis matter?any help will be highly appreciated.

[Jaskaran Singh]

hi,
I am doing a study on ramayan and need the reference of where is it mentioned tat sita lifts the shiv dhanush in her childhood and janak sees tis ,i hve thoroughly checked balkand of both tulsi & valmiki ramayan bt cannot find it anywhere.I have asked this question in many forums bt no one is able to give the reference.can anyone pls help me in tis matter?any help will be highly appreciated.

It's there, you just didn't look hard enough. Just kidding, but see here (http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga67/bala_67_frame.htm) and here:
http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a554/jdhaliwal175/lll_zpsdf9489bd.jpg

[Viraja]

Namaste Jaskaran,

The references you have given, both refer only to Rama breaking Shiva Dhanush. They do not show verses where Sita is breaking the dhanusu? Or am I seeing it wrong owing to near-sightedness? :confused: :)

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste Jaskaran,

The references you have given, both refer only to Rama breaking Shiva Dhanush. They do not show verses where Sita is breaking the dhanusu? Or am I seeing it wrong owing to near-sightedness? :confused: :)
I thought keerti made a typo and actually meant rAma breaking the dhanush at the svayaMvar, I don't know anything about sItA lifting the shiv dhanush, I've never even heard of that (although I do remember reading in the text that parashurAma got angry when the bow was broken).

[Anirudh]

can anyone pls help me in tis matter


Few popular "stories" (I call them as value additions) do not find their place in Vaalmiki Raamaayan. What we don't find in Vaalmiki Raamaayan should not be considered as truth.

There are stories that Vaalmiki Maharishi was a highway robber but haven't read any proof till date.

[Viraja]

Actually Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami in his 'Ramanin Padhayil' Tamil TV serial did say that Sita playfully took the Shiva Dhanusu which Janaka watched. Sri Krishnan Swami did say that this is what made Janaka come up with the condition that whosoever befits marrying Sita should be capable of lifting the bow and stringing it. I have documented what Swami said here:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=106373&postcount=12

[Jaskaran Singh]

Actually Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami in his 'Ramanin Padhayil' Tamil TV serial did say that Sita playfully took the Shiva Dhanusu which Janaka watched. Sri Krishnan Swami did say that this is what made Janaka come up with the condition that whosoever befits marrying Sita should be capable of lifting the bow and stringing it. I have documented what Swami said here:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=106373&postcount=12
I'm sorry if this offends you, but I honestly don't like Velukkudi Krishnan and don't trust him. His divyadeshavaibhava upanyAsam wasn't very coherent as he seems to shift from topic to topic and his "anubhAva" is usually just a simplified version of the direct quote, or in some cases doesn't make any sense. For example, his bhAShyam for the first shloka of the paratvAdi pa~nchakam, "dhR^itarathA~NgAbjaM subhUShojvalam" (wearing/holding the chakra [rathA~Nga] and shankha [abjam], [nArAyaNa] radiates when decorated) was "enbathu bhagavAne shanku chakkara" (he's the lord of the conch and disc). Oh geez, wasn't that a "revelation." :rolleyes: On top of that, he has a tendency to make very controversial statements.

[Viraja]

I have, to this date, only observed/listened to several upanyasas and presentations by Sri Krishnan Swami. Which have been i) Chatusloki by Alavandar ii) The 108 divya desa video upload as can be seen in YT iii) The path traversed by Rama TV series iv) Thirumalai upanyasam v) 'Can karma be transcended' upanyasa vi) Some miscellaneous upanyasa in Vijay TV's 'Bhakti Tiruvizha' on the kshetra mahamiya of SriRangam.

I have been satisfied with his presentation in the above. I noticed he is very devout. But on 2 occassions I did not like his comments.

Besides, I also didn't like him calling retd. Election Officer to discuss 'Politics during Ramayana times' in an episode of Ramanin Padhayil - seemed like he was making 'right connections' using Rama as an opportunity.

But I respect him for his apparently true devotion. I admire his eloquence in reciting those slokas by-heart. :)

[Jaskaran Singh]

But I respect him for his apparently true devotion. I admire his eloquence in reciting those slokas by-heart. :)
I can understand where you're going with that, he does seem to be quite devoted. Still, there are some aspects of shrI vaiShNavism that I just can't agree with. Why does he (and other shrI vaiShNava-s) accept AnDAl as an avatAra of bhUmIdevI, but not consider rAdhA to be an aMsha of shrI lakShmI (they view rAdhA as merely a gopI)? Their argument is that the latter is only mentioned in rAjasika purANam-s (like the padmapurANam) and "tAmasika" purANam-s (like the devi bhAgavatam), yet I've never, ever heard AnDAl mentioned in any shAstra-s. Isn't that kind of a double standard?


Besides, I also didn't like him calling retd. Election Officer to discuss 'Politics during Ramayana times' in an episode of Ramanin Padhayil - seemed like he was making 'right connections' using Rama as an opportunity.
Hehehe, :).

[Anirudh]

Namaste Viraja,



http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...3&postcount=12


Very strange that such things are said by Sri U Ve Krishnan Swami. Agree that he discuss many a things but most of such deviations are related to the parent topic. However, believe that he is genuine. You have told us what you listened in his disclosure. Do you remember the telecast date or some other data to filter the original video.

I am not questioning your integrity but cannot agree with things that are not available in Vaalmiki Raamaayan. In my opinion even Goswami Tulsidas ji's work can not be treated as authentic. For eg, he relates Hanumaan ji with Shiva in his Hanuman Chaalisa but the birth of Hanumaan ji is documented in a different way by Vaalmiki.

Having said, I am a beginner in Sri Vaishnava journey and open to learn.

Thanks in advance.

[Anirudh]

I can understand where you're going with that, he does seem to be quite devoted. Still, there are some aspects of shrI vaiShNavism that I just can't agree with. Why does he (and other shrI vaiShNava-s) accept AnDAl as an avatAra of bhUmIdevI, but not consider rAdhA to be an aMsha of shrI lakShmI (they view rAdhA as merely a gopI)? Their argument is that the latter is only mentioned in rAjasika purANam-s (like the padmapurANam) and "tAmasika" purANam-s (like the devi bhAgavatam), yet I've never, ever heard AnDAl mentioned in any shAstra-s. Isn't that kind of a double standard?


Very interesting question... Hope some learned men following Sri Vaishnava can throw light on this...

[Viraja]

I can understand where you're going with that, he does seem to be quite devoted. Still, there are some aspects of shrI vaiShNavism that I just can't agree with. Why does he (and other shrI vaiShNava-s) accept AnDAl as an avatAra of bhUmIdevI, but not consider rAdhA to be an aMsha of shrI lakShmI (they view rAdhA as merely a gopI)? Their argument is that the latter is only mentioned in rAjasika purANam-s (like the padmapurANam) and "tAmasika" purANam-s (like the devi bhAgavatam), yet I've never, ever heard AnDAl mentioned in any shAstra-s. Isn't that kind of a double standard?


Our scriptures have been available to us from pre-historical times, whereas Andal was born just in 8th Century AD. So naturally her name isn't available in the scriptures, as also does the names of other Alwars including Ramanujacharya. Some people say that Nammazhwar was aware of Sri Ramanujacharya's avatara many centuries later but that's just that - no scripture documents any of the Alwars' avatara. So that way, SriVaishnavas who have been first-hand witness to Sri Andal's avatara and her works, owing to her birth to Bhumi devi call her an 'avatara' and that of 'Bhuma'. But most SriVaishnavas being Tamilians or belonging to down South, do not know much about the more popular Radha-vatara in Northern India, only those who know the scriptures do. And I honestly don't know why these scripture-literate people do not consider her to be an avatara of Lakshmi.

[keerthi]

hi,
thanks for the answers,and no i have not made any typing mistake & i have asked for the reference tat when WHEN SITA LIFTS THE BOW IN HER CHILDHOOD,& NOT RAM.its given in WIKI UNDER SHIV DHANUSH bt has no reference (tats the prob),viraja had also mentioned when she made a post under ramayan & if its not in ramayan where is it mentioned.can anyone help pls?.i have asked all the religious blogs bt to no avail,any help will be highly appreciated

[Jaskaran Singh]

hi,
thanks for the answers,and no i have not made any typing mistake & i have asked for the reference tat when WHEN SITA LIFTS THE BOW IN HER CHILDHOOD,& NOT RAM.its given in WIKI UNDER SHIV DHANUSH bt has no reference (tats the prob),viraja had also mentioned when she made a post under ramayan & if its not in ramayan where is it mentioned.can anyone help pls?.i have asked all the religious blogs bt to no avail,any help will be highly appreciated
I know you didn't make a typo; I just thought you made a typo when I made my original response (before virAja responded). I don't think there is any reference to this anywhere, probably just in folk tales or something, although I'm prob. wrong. I'm just as clueless as you, probably moreso since I haven't even heard of sItA moving the shiv dhanuSh before.

[aupmanyav]

Few popular "stories" (I call them as value additions) do not find their place in Vaalmiki Raamaayan. What we don't find in Vaalmiki Raamaayan should not be considered as truth.There are many Ramayanas other than those of Valmiki and Tulsidas. And they are all true. So, perhaps the incident is in some other Ramayana.