pachai maamalai pol mene

Sunday, August 07, 2011

some questions on ramayana answered.

Valmiki has clearly stated that Laksmana accompanied Rama to forest as a noble gesture of a loving younger brother.. How can anyone find an explanation to any jeeva seeking the paramaatma always?..The avatara dharma might explain it. Ravana's son  Indrajit had won a boon that he could  be killed only by a person who has gone on fast and remained  without sleep for years and years...So the incarnation of the aadhisesha that is Llaksmana could do it because snakes are used to taking food once in a while and going without food for long durations. And it is said that as a guard and servant of Rama Lakshmana never slept nor partook in any food during the forest life.   There are more vital questions to be answered.  The moment Bharatha declined to accept the kingdom the promise of Dasaratha stands rescinded and Rama as the eldest son would regain the title..the second conditions of Kaikeyi that Rama should live in forest for fourteen years becomes otiose because, even before declining the kingdom Bharatha had asked Rama to return to Ayodhya and at that point Bharatha was the real king and his desire overrides the condition put forth by kaikeyi.  However  Rama did not return.  The raakshasaas in the Jalasthanam had to be annihilated and Ravana with his evil power had to be razed to earth.  This was the design of Gods for which Rama descended on earth. And He had been already reminded of this duty by sages like Bharadwaaja, Agastya, Atri etc.. So He remained in forest for14 years.  Astrologers claim that the entire 14 years were inauspicious for all the four brothers and fate had it that an inanimate pair of sandals should act as the king so that the four brothers are saved.. These are from the aithihasic angle.
From human and historical angle, Rama as the vindicator of his father's promise would have lost  his eternal fame had he returned to Ayodhya at the behest of Bharatha.  The people of Ayodhya loved Rama so much so that if  Bharatha had decided to rule on his own, even a revolution would have broken out and he would have been dethroned...In politics there is much more to consider than brotherly love. So Bharatha preferred to be an agent of Rama in ruling Ayodhya rather than occupying the gaddi himself. The storyline of Ramayanam has a real history behind it,, may be from unrecorded times.. but the actions of the dramatis personnae have to be described as truthfully as possible.. this is the historic compulsion for Vaalmiki..Surely Ramayana was an epic..itihaasa  --
-" iti  haa  aasa " meaning  "such a glorious thing happened"..so Valmiki just held on to facts to the extent he could record  as he was a contemporary of Rama and a character in the epic... just as Krishnadwaipaayana the Vyaasa is a living character in Mahaabhaaratham.   
regards  kva