Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan II - Page 2

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Same108

You beat me to it - I was going to ask that very question - more particularly, how exactly is she worshipped? With offerings of taquilla, pina colada, bloody mary, et al?😆😆😆

Ananya

I'm guessing that nobody married her?😆😆😆

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Pg 44, where I repost it. The original was in the previous frozen discussion group

P.S. I'm assuming you meant the Rama-Hanuman battle

I am not familiar w/ most of the details about the Ashwamedha yagna. However, one thing I do know is that while the Rajasuya yagna (like the one Yudhisthir did when he was ruler of Indraprastha) was a campaign of world conquest, with the acceptance of rulers who offered their allegances as vassals, the Ashwamedha was a horse going randomly, and only the kingdoms that it travelled in being subject to the challenge. Also, the Ashwamedha choices to a ruler faced w/ the options were:

• Letting the horse move freely symbolized his acceptance of the overlordship, friendship and protection of the ruler
• If the horse was captured, a battle ensued between the capturer and the protector of the horse
• If the protector of the horse won, then the outcome was treated like option 1, where the defeated party was now a vassal of the emperor conducting the Ashwamedha yagna
• If the challenger won, then now he was required to conduct a new Ashwamedha yagna of his own (this last seems contradicted in the Mahabharat, where Arjun was temporarily killed by Chitrangada's son Babruvahana, and therefore did not establish Pandava suzereinity over Manipuri, but Babruvahana, far from conducting an yagna of his own, attended Yudhisthir's yagna along w/ Chitrangada and Uloopi)

So while the Rajasuya and Ashwamedha yagnas were almost identical in that they sought to establish the suzereinity of that kingdom over all others, or as many others, the last condition that a ruler who defeated an Ashwamedha performer was himself required to do one could possibly have been a constraining factor to a knee-jerk opposition. After all, if a ruler was simply being challenged over his independence, the choice was plain - wage war. But if a ruler had the Ashwamedha challenge - that there was also a consequence to winning - he'd have to think long and hard. After all, an Ashwamedha yagna was a long and elaborate affair (I believe the entire yagna lasted a year) that could be a huge economic burden on a kingdom, which would have been why only rich and powerful kingdoms could have performed it.

One question - does Bharat's objection to the Rajasuya yagna, and Lakshman's suggestion of the Ashwamedha yagna, appear in Valmiki? What exactly does 7:83-84 say? I know that the next few chapters are Rama and Lakshman narrating to each other stories like Indra & Vritra, Budh & Hila, et al.

Also in the original Valmiki, far from trying to convince Sita to re-join her husband, Valmiki goes out of his way to tell the kids not to reveal who their father was (even though they knew): for instance, when Lakshman, at the point of offering them the 18000 gold coins, asked them that, they (were to and did) ask him how was it relevant to their project of singing the Ramayan, and the Guru was more important in the context, and that their guru was Valmiki. It was only after they had sung everything up to that point in the story that Rama either realized that they were Sita's kids, or asked them and found out.

So given how Valmiki totally left it to Rama to decide whether he wants them or not, the scene on Wednesday of his urging Sita to re-join her husband was totally ahistorical. Yep, I know, we are talking the same serial that gave us the gazillion vidhans of the great vidhi, but now that we are looking at the part of the story which is mentioned in the original, these differences are worth pointing out for the sake of anyone who believes what's being shown. So far, in this serial, we have:

• Valmiki urging Sita to return
• Valmiki wanting K-L to inherit Rama's throne (w/ that bizzare story of how to divvy up the fruits)
• Most bizarre - Valmiki telling Sita that Rama had disowned Sita, but not the kids. But that's only possible had Rama retained Sita until his kids were born, and then exiled her, so how does the above make sense?

All of which can be shown to be contradicted by the original

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Who could accompany a horse?

In the preview to tomorrow's today's episode, they showed Shatrughan and Hanuman being sent off to accompany the Ashwamedha horse.

It's worth noting that this is a variable in every version of the Ramayan that describes the event, as to who accompanies the horse:

1. Valmiki - Lakshman; in this account, no encounter takes place w/ K-L
2. Tulsidas/Adhyatma(?) - Shatrughan and his sons accompany the horse. They fight & kill Lavanasura and his sons, and Subahu & his brother are crowned the rulers of Mathura and Vidhisha. Shatrughan continues alone, and during his return, he is encountered by K-L
3. Padma puran - Shatrughan and Pushkal
4. Bhavabhuti Ramacharitas - Chandraketu
5. Sita Shakti Kavya - Lakshman: his army fights K-L, but he doesn't, and instead gets Rama to battle them on their knowledge (see the link) 😕😕😕
6. Various cartoon Luv-Kush shows - Shatrughan
   
7. Others?????

The question I have here is not which one is accurate, since I believe Valmiki uber alles, but rather, what was the protocol regarding who was expected to accompany the horse? (An interesting sidenote is that in both the accounts where Lakshman is the primary companion of the horse, he does not fight K-L!!!)

The way I read it, the horse would have to be accompanied by a prince or leading general of the kingdom establishing its suzerainty. It wouldn't be done by the ruler of a vassal state, as such an act would be degrading for the ruler in question - after all, if he can protect the horse, why is he not the one doing the yagna?

Many rulers may have been capable of protecting the horse but did they have someone to do it for them? As far as I have understood, a king must remain in the palace or the place where the sacrifice is conducted and lead a celibate life till the horse returns. The king must send someone with the horse - sometimes more than one person. Probably the king would send some generals along if it is a Prince who accompanies the horse. If the ruler who went with the horse did not have anyone to do it for him, he would not be able to do the yagna.

Whether sending a ruler of a vassal state along with the horse degrades the ruler who goes with the horse depends on the person's view. If this ruler is close to the king and considers him a good friend and loves him like a brother he may be happy to do it. But it might degrade the person who was doing the Ashwamedha Yagna as some might say the king does not have anyone in his family or country to protect the horse and he depends on a person from another country. This is just a guess - this may or may not be the case. If the peaople start thinking so, it will kill the purpose of the Ashwamedha Yagna. In general I think it is expected to send someone from the king's own family or some of his generals rather than send a king of another country be it vassal or friend.

Some questions arise here - Was it a rule that a king performing a horse sacrifice should only send someone from his family or his best generals to accompany the horse? Was it allowed to send someone other than those mentioned above? Has any king done so? Was it the rule that the king should send only his army and ask help from no one else? I think he could use the help and the armies from the kings who had accepted his supremacy. Not sure of this though.

I think the king has to think about another matter too. What if someone attacks the country when the king's army had gone away with the horse? Will the king have a part of his army in his own country to gurad the country and maintain peace there? Was he allowed to take the help from his friends and allies if someone attacked his kingdom when the best of his warriors have gone after the horse? Or was he expected to defend his country without help? Was there any rule or understanding that says that the enemies can only challenge the horse and not attack the country of the King who performs the Ashwamedha Yagna if they wanted to stop the king's fame from spreading?

So from the options Rama had, it doesn't look at all likely that Shatrughan could have gone, since he was now the independent king of another kingdom, and asking him to do it would be insulting the kingdom of Mathura. Somewhat related - in the account of the war, it was the job of only the kingdom performing the yagna to protect the horse. In other words, Rama could not have involked the fighting support of Sugriv or Vibhishan in fighting K-L, as these accounts have it. He could only have sent his bros & troops, and once they were defeated, it was only up to him. If Ayodhya, unaided, could not rescue the horse, they'd forfeit the rights to continue the yagna: only twist here is that it would then be incumbent on the victors here (K-L) to then do the yagna, which would have been impossible for them, given the non existance of their resources.

I am not sure if sending Shathrugan could have caused any trouble but sending Lakshman or Bharat would have seemed more favourable. Though Shathrugan was Ram's own brother he was the king of another country. But sending Shathrugan may not seem too bad.

I think Ram could have invoked the help from his friends (Maharaj Vibhishan and Maharaj Sugreev) but yes it does put down the fame of the country a bit.

Another set of questions here - Only those who can afford an Aswamedha Yagya and strong enough to defeat the army of a mighty king can accept the challenge? What about those who are strong enough yet cannot afford the horse sacrifice? I read a story long long ago about some sages who performed an Ashwamedha Yagna to attain blessings from Lord Shiva or to be delivered from a curse - I don't remember the details.

Therefore, the accounts that have either Shatrughan accompanying the horse, or Sugriv and Vibhishan fighting alongside the Ayodhya army (yes, in the Tulsidas or Adhyatma version, Vibhishan too actively fought, unlike in the war against Ravan) seem completely ignorant of protocol.

A look at some of the other major Ashwamedhas that took place: when Aja's grandfather Dileepa was doing his 100 Ashwamedha yagnas (Indra stole the horse in #100 to prevent Dileepa from rivaling him, and got into a battle w/ Raghu, which he failed to win), his son & yuvraj Radhu was the one who accompanied the horse. In the Mahabharat, after the war, when Yudhisthir did his Ashwamedha yagna, Arjun (who else?), who was the Pandava senapati, was the one who accompanied it. (Incidentally, who did that for Dasharath, when he was doing his yagna ❓) Neither of them used vassal rulers (In Yudhisthir's case, there weren't any, since they were all wiped out @ Kurukshetra).

So really, the only options Rama had as to who to accompany the horse were Bharat and Lakshman. Granted, Bharat was the yuvraj, but given that it was acceptable for a yuvraj to accompany the horse (like Raghu did for his father Dileepa), that could have been done. As for the versions that have Pushkal or Chandraketu accompanying the horse, it completely ignores their age, which must have been 11 or below, and the only way they would be sent is if Rama knew that everybody accepted his overlordhip, and that this was just a formality.

Its true that Bharat could have gone with the army but Lakshman was there and he too was capable of defeating any possible enemies. I think it was more appropriate to send Lakshman rather than Bharat. Ram was lucky to have two capable brothers with him - he could send one of them with the horse and keep the other with him to guard the country too.

Dileepa, I think did not have anyone except Raghu (probably there was no one as capable or more capable and most probably Raghu must have volunteered) to send with the horse. If he had more than one son, Dileepa must have contemplated whom to send and sent accordingly.

Maharaj Dasharath probably sent his best generals or some of his ministers who could fight well.

Questions again - Was there a standard set for the person to accompany the horse? (Like, he should be a Prince or a General? Or that he should be a Kshathriya only?) Generally the Princes and the Generals are the best fighter but if some common person who is neither a Prince nor a General was capable, would he be allowed to accompany the horse?

I too do not agree with the versions that send Chandraketu or any of Ram's nephews with the horse, For one thing they were too young and it would be too big a task for one so young. To follow the horse wherever it roams as long as it wants to is no easy thing. This sacrifice may take years to complete and to send a kid, though he is capable, away from his family for ages to roam behind a horse will be a huge burden on the little one. Apart from the travel, following and guarding the horse, there may be battles and the person in charge must take care of his troops and care for the needs of the horse too.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Also, are you familiar w/ the versions that had the story of K-L singing near Rama's palace/camp (aside from the yagna itself), which was in last night's episode?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Sure there is. In 7:91, it's explicitly mentioned that the yagna was held at Naimisharanya on the banks of the Gomati river, and in 7:93, it's mentioned that Valmiki went there to the yagna accompanied by K-L. That very explicitly rules out their going to Ayodhya, and there is nothing in 1:4 that contradicts 7:91-93.

Lest you think they may have gone to Naimisharanya via Ayodhya, here is what the route looks like on a map



The blue circle being Ayodhya, the light orange being where Valmiki's ashram is believed to have been located after he probably move out of Chitrakut (also visible in the above map), and the saffron being Sitapur, the district in which Naimisharanya is located. The brown arrow indicates the route they probably took. While it may be approximate, there is no way it could have gone through Ayodhya.

Vibs

Thanks for your account of the various stories regarding the various reactions to Sita's exile by different people.

According to Raghuvamsa, where did the yagna take place - Naimisharanya or Ayodhya?