Kaikeyi -- the Mother

In my last post (it seems to have appeared almost a year ago!), I had written about Kaikeyi's mother and how Sumantra, the Kosal Minister had accused her of being like her mother. In this post, I am going to investigate the motherly nature of Kaikeyi and how she suffered an unpleasant fate out of that love.

Manthara and Kaikeyi 

When King Dashrath declares the coronation of Ram, Kaikeyi is elated. Seeing this, Manthara says:

मनसा प्रहसामि त्वां देवि दुःखार्धिता सती |
यच्छोचितव्ये हृष्टासि प्राप्येदं व्यसनं महत् || २-८-३
शोचामि दुर्मतित्वं ते का हि प्राज्ञा प्रहर्षयेत् |
अरेः सपत्नीपुत्रस्य वृद्धिं मृत्युमिवागताम् || २-८-४
भरतादेव रामस्य राज्यसाधारणाद्भयम् |
तद्विचिन्त्य विषण्णास्मि भय भीताद्धि जायते || २-८-५

(Oh, queen! Though stricken with grief, I mentally laugh at you in that you are rejoicing at the time when a great calamity is befalling you. I am lamenting over your foolish mind. Does any intelligent woman feel happy over the prosperity of a stepson who is considered an enemy? Does it not amount to praising a befalling death? Rama has a fear about Bharata because Bharata has equal rights over the kingdom. In thinking about this matter, I am getting anguished. Do we not get disasters from those who are afraid of us?)

She adds:
विदुषः क्षत्रचारित्रे प्राज्ञस्य प्राप्तकारिणः |
भयात्प्रवेपे रामस्य चिन्तयन्ती तवात्मजम् || २-८-८
(Rama is a learned man and a political statesman. His actions are timely and appropriate. When thinking of your son's calamity to be resulted from Rama, I get shaken with fear.)

In reply, Kaikeyi says:

धर्मज्ञो गुरुभिर्दान्तः कृतज्ञ सत्यवाक्चुचि |
रामो राज्ञः सुतो ज्येष्ठो यौवराज्यमतोऽर्हति || २-८-१४

(Rama knows all righteousness. Elders trained him. He has a proper gratitude. He speaks truth. He has a clean conduct. He is the eldest son of king Dasaratha and hence eligible for the kingdom.)

She believes that there is no difference between Ram and Bharat. She thinks that coronation of Ram would be equivalent to coronation of Bharat. Manthara calls this stupid and convinces Kaikeyi that only one of the four sons would be crowned. And that one Prince, she suggests, should be Bharat.

Kaikeyi, who had never thought that way before(- according to the Valmiki Ramayan), now thinks of Bharat, who has stayed in Ayodhya (capital of Kosal) the least among the four brothers. Bharat has spent most of his childhood at his maternal uncle's abode, unknown of the most affairs in Ayodhya. The news of coronation had not reached him yet. Now, she perceives that Bharat had been kept away from the 'power politics' of Ayodhya by Dashrath for long. With the advise from Manthara, she asks for two (most popular) boons to the King: coronation of Bharat and fourteen years of exile to Ram.

Ram's Response

When Ram comes to know that the King has been unconscious for a reason he did not know then, he meets Sumantra. He knows of the boons asked by his step-mother Kaikeyi and meeting her, says:

एवम् अस्तु गमिष्यामि वनम् वस्तुम् अहम् तु अतः |
जटा चीर धरः राज्ञः प्रतिज्ञाम् अनुपालयन् || २-१९-२

(Let it be, as you said it. I shall fulfil the king's promise, go to the forest from here to reside there, wearing braided hair and covered with a hide.)

He then leaves the palace and the kingdom to reside into the dreaded forest of Dandak. His wife Sita and his brother Lakshman follow him. Lakshman not only exiles himself but also departs from his wife, Urmila.

Bharat's response 

When Bharat returns from his uncle's, King Dashrath has passed away. He asks his mother Kaikeyi what had happened to Dashrath and where had Ram gone. Kaikeyi explains all she had done to crown him. Bharat accuses and curses her:

कुलस्य त्वम् अभावाय काल रात्रिर् इव आगता |
अन्गारम् उपगूह्य स्म पिता मे न अवबुद्धवान् || २-७३-४
भ्रूणहत्याम् असि प्राप्ता कुलस्य अस्य विनाशनात् |
कैकेयि नरकम् गच्च मा च भर्तुः सलोकताम् || २-७४-४

(You came for destruction of our race, like the night of destruction coming at the end of the world. My father could not be aware of his embracing a live char-coal to his bosom. O, Kaikeyi! You got the sin of killing an embryo because of the destruction of this race. O, Kaikeyi! Go to hell. Do not get the residence in the same heaven as your husband.)

He also vows that he would bring Ram back to the kingdom. When he fails to do so, he asks for Ram's kharau (sandals) and places them upon the throne. Unlike what most of us think, he does not rule the kingdom. He, instead lives the life of the hermit, Shatrughna actually ruling the kingdom in Ram's name.

How Bharat lived has been described in the Yuddha Kaanda. After the victory of Ram in the great war against Ravan, Hanuman goes off to convey message of Ram to Bharat. This is what he sees:       

  
क्रोशमात्रे त्वयोध्यायाश्चीरकृष्णाजिनाम्बरम् || ६-१२५-२९
ददर्श भरतं दीनं कृशमाश्रमवासिनम् |
जटिलं मलदिग्धाङ्गं भ्रातृव्यसनकर्शितम् || ६-१२५-३०
फलमूलाशिनं दान्तं तापसं धर्मचारिणम् |
समुन्नतजटाभारं वल्कलाजिनवाससं || ६-१२५-३१
नियतं भावितात्मानं ब्रह्मर्षिसमतेजसं |
पादुके ते पुरस्कृत्य शासन्तं वै वसुन्धराम् || ६-१२५-३२
चतुर्वर्ण्यस्य लोकस्य त्रातारं सर्वतो भयात् |
उपस्थितममात्यैश्च शुचिभिश्च पुरोहितैः || ६-१२५-३३
बलमुख्यैश्च युक्तैश्च काषायाम्बरधारिभिः |

(At a distance of two miles from Ayodhya Hanuman  saw Bharata, living in a hermitage, with the bark trees and the skin of a black antelope wrapped round his waist, looking miserable and emaciated, wearing matted locks on his head, his limbs coated with dirt, afflicted through separation from Rama his elder brother, subsisting on roots and fruits, with his senses subdued, engaged in austerities, protecting virtue, with a very high head of matted hair, covering his body with the bark of trees and a deer skin, disciplined, whose thoughts were fixed on the Supreme Spirit, with a splendour equalling that of a Brahmanical sage, ruling the earth after placing the wooden sandals before him, protecting the people belonging to all the four grades (viz. Brahmans Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras) from all peril and attended by the upright ministers, priests and by clever troop-commanders, all clad in saffron robes.)

Kaikeyi's Failure

In all these, we can see the failure of Kaikeyi as a mother and as a wife. Her love for Bharat proved worthless as he not only rejected the throne but also cursed her as the destroyer of the race. Her demands became curse to King Dashrath, who died after Ram was exiled. Almost every Hindus, who are acquainted with the Ramayan, hate her for being cruel towards Ram and her husband.

My Personal Opinion

As I have read somewhere in the web, Ram would not have been Ram if he had not been exiled. Without those adventures, the Ramayan would have completed at the end of Book I - the Bal Kanda, where the four Princes, after their marriages, would have 'lived happily ever after'. It is Kaikeyi, who sends Ram to the forest and gives him an opportunity to know himself. 

Even after being sent to the forest, Ram never stops praising Kaikeyi. I personally believe that Kaikeyi had instructed Ram to go to the forest of Dandak because it was the border between Kosal and Lanka. Dandak had been strategically used by Ravan to threaten Kosal and its allies. Ram was a valiant warrior, who could sneak into the forest along with Lakshman to slowly destroy the Demon army of Ravan. The only setback was Sita's kidnapping but that too, proved its worth for Ram. Kaikeyi never hated Ram. The boons she had asked were due to insecurities sprouted by the words of Manthara. In that sense, I believe that Kaikeyi showed that she was a worthy mother.

*N.B.: The Sanskrit slokas and there translations have been derived from www.valmikiramayan.net.    

(P.S.: The words of Manthara have been described as evil, even by Valmiki. I don't think so. Words which made Ram a Lord from a common man, cannot be evil at all!)

Kaikeyi's Mother

Kaikeyi, the Queen of Ayodhya, was once accused of being like her mother by the Chief Minister Sumantra. The accusation had come after he saw King Dashrath lying unconscious on the floor. Queen Kaikeyi had asked for the well known boons and the king had fallen victim of the queen's wishes.

The accusation of Sumantra

अभिजात्यम् हि ते मन्ये यथा मातुस्तथैव च |
न हि निम्बात्स्रवेत्क्षौद्रम् लोके निगदितम् वचः || २-३५-१७
 तव मातुरसद्ग्राहम् विद्मः पूर्वम् यथाश्रुतम् |
पितुस्ते वरदः कश्चिद्ददौ वरमनुत्तमम् || २-३५-१८
सर्वभूतरुतम् तस्मात्सम्जज्ञे वसुधाधिपः |
तेन तिर्यग्गतानाम् च भूतानाम् विदितम् वचः || २-३५-१९

"I think, by birth your nature is as exactly as that of your mother. a proverb is quoted in the world saying that honey does not ooze from a neem tree.We know, as heard of in the past, your mother's conduct of evil satisfaction. Someone capable of giving boons, granted a great boon to your father. By that boon he could identify the language of all created beings. The talk of those beings belonging to sub human species could be known by him."
(Source: www.valmikiramayan.net)

The Chief Minister of Ayodhya is in fury because of what the queen did to her husband. The king is unconscious upon the floor and the queen is occupied in her own aim of political victory. He says, "I knew this would happen. The genetic influence has pronounced itself. You have become like your mother."

Kaikeyi's Mother

Kaikeyi's mother, the wife of King Ashwapati of Kekaya was a happy woman until that unfortunate day when she heard her husband laughing over something. A natural curiosity made her ask the king the cause of his laughter. He refused to tell her anything saying that if he revealed the cause he would die. The queen said, "I don't think anything will happen to you. So please tell me, why you were laughing."

Enraged, the king went to pay visit to the sage who had granted him the boon of understanding the language of all animals. "But be careful not to reveal anything you listen to," the sage had warned, "Else you will die."

After the meeting with the sage, Ashwapati banishes the queen, the mother of his eight children, some of whom, including Kaikeyi were still too young to understand the cause of their mother's exile.

Manthara's Role
Since her mother's exile, the closest feminine companion of Kaikeyi was Manthara. Manthara must have influenced the upbringing of the princess and made her believe that the king had made up a story to abandon the queen.

Reply to the accusation of Sumantra
When Sumantra accuses her, Kaikeyi does not change. Neither is her expression changed. She might have always believed that her mother was too naive not to fight her husband against injustice done to herself.

Thus, I conclude that Sumantra was wronged in understanding Kaikeyi's mother. Kaikeyi was the one who always remained in the power politics and the one always ready to rule over the others. Her mother however, was the exact opposite. She could not defend herself from faulty accusations made by her husband.

(P.S. The Ramayana does not mention the name of Kaikeyi's mother. Also, the name Kaikeyi is not proper. It means "the daughter of Kekaya". Her real name seems to have lost. So do the names of Manthara and Kaushalya.)

Who was Hanuman?--Part II

I have discussed the mythological background of Lord Hanuman's story and how they praise and castigate him at the same time in the Part I of the post. Now I will go to the depth, relating the stories of Ramayan historically. Before that a legend will be presented.

The Legend of Sage Valmiki and Lord Hanuman

Adikavi( aadi= first, kavi= poet) Valmiki wrote his manuscript for his version of Ramayan. By some sources, he came to know that Lord Hanuman had written a version of Ramayan, the Hanumad Ramayan. Valmiki went to the Himalayas to meet the Lord and demanded a look at the Hanumad Ramayan. He read the version prepared by Lord Hanuman. Legend has it that he was so diasppointed, that he said, "Lord Hanuman, your version of Ramayan will be forgotten. Mine is far superior than yours." Lord Hanuman was then dejected. He threw his manuscript and never published it. Valmiki's version was published and promoted making it the household lore. Later Mahakavi, the Great Poet, Kalidas found a page of Hanumad Ramayan which became inspiration for his own version of Ramayan.

When the legend seems to have ended, I begin an analysis of this legend. What does Valmiki mean when he says the Hanumad Ramayan would be forgotten? And why does he say so? Was it a sort of conspiracy? If the log-book of someone who helped Lord Ram accomplish his journey is rejected by the Great Sage, have the bitter truths of Ram's journey and Hanuman's life been concealed?

The legend leads to the main quest of the post: Who was Hanuman? Mythological background been presented in Part I of the post, I will proceed into some historical possibilities based on two theories.

1. The Mutant Theory

(This theory is based on some blogs on the Internet and on The Shiva Trilogy by Amish Tripathi.)

A mutant?  What is a mutant doing in a story that old. Where did the mutants come from? That would be the greatest quest in Hinduism! However, I will introduce some possible mutants in the Ramayan itself.

• Ravan, the "antagonist" of the epic was a mutant. How? His name Dashanan suggests so. If he really had ten heads protruding from the trunk, he must have been a mutant.

• Suparnakha, the sister of Ravan, whose mistreatment by Ram and Lakshman lead to the abduction of Sita. Her name itself means "bird-beaked". She had a bird's beak on her face instead of nose and mouth.

• Jambavan, the bear-man, friend and mentor of Hanuman. He had hairy body with the face like that of a bear.

• Jatayus, the vulture like beings in the forest near Kiskinda had feathered bodies and beaks.

• Simhika, a protector of Ashok Vatika in Lanka, had the head of a lion. 

These were only some representative characters. There are also mentions of Rakshyasas, who were bigger than normal humans. Nags mentioned in other Sanskrit texts represent human-serpent form. The Ashwini Kumars, the doctors of Gods were centaurs. Even Lord Ganesh seems to be a mutant with an elephantine head.
                                                            Another legend
When Lord Manu established a kingdom safe from all sorts of sea-floods on the northern part of Jambudweep, he prohibited people from going to the south of Narmada River. However, humans were living there, most certainly mutants, abandoned by the "normal" humans away from the main civilization.

                                                           X-Men of the Past
With abandonment, came vengeance. Ravan must have been the leader of the revolt against the "normal" people. They knew they were better that the rest and used their abilities in disturbing the peace of others. There might have been some mutants who disagreed with Ravan and his actions, leading to factions among the mutants.(While writing this, I feel I am citing the story of X-Men. Ravan seems like Magneto and Bali, the king of Vanars before Sugriv, seems like Professor X. Ravan and Bali were best friends at first but Ravan went on to try dominate the world.)
Vanars were, thus a group of mutant with distorted face and tails. They were in search of their identities in the "normal" world. They did that with Lord Hanuman. The mutants at last were able to show that they were better than most humans and earned a certain degree of respect.
The respect does not seem long-lasting, though. No mention of Vanars has been made after the end of the Great War. Lord Hanuman, who could have served Lord Ram at Ayodhya resorted in the Himalayas. The disapproval of his version of Ramayan by Valmiki might not have been his alone but that of Lord Ram himself. (It would be convenient for the readers to state here that Lord Ram was still the king of Ayodhya when Valmiki had written the Ramayan and had been appointed as the promoter of the Raghuvansis. That might explain why Valmiki said that his version of Ramayan was superior.)

2. The Non-Mutant Theory/The Forest Clans Theory 

The problem with the Mutant Theory is that I don't have the proof for the mutagen that induced such a prominent mutation. While Amish Tripathi mentions Somras(or Amrit) as the mutagen, there is no evidence of such. So I introduce my own theory (applicable to the Ramayan only-till date). Also, paleontological studies do not indicate presence of mutants, assuming that the paleontologists haven't been wronged.
So, I come up with the world with all normal humans. The above examples change accordingly.

• Ravan did not have ten heads. Instead, he was wise and intelligent. His capacity would have been to think as much as ten heads would at a time, thus the name Dashanan.
•  Suparnakha must have had a long, crooked nose rather than the bird-beak. 
•  Jambavan must have had a hairy body but strong physique. He must have descended from the Bear-clan, one of the strongest clans of forest dwellers.
• Jatayus may have been a clan that were quick and lived on high trees wearing feathered clothes to trick their enemies. They must also have had the ability to glide from one tree to another safely. Gliding is always often mistaken for flying!
• Simhika may have been like a lioness, fearless and strong among the women. The name might have been a title assigned after she assisted Ravan in wars.
• Vanars must have been the witty of all the forest clans. The combination of knowledge of Vanars, Jatayus and Bears seem prominent in Hanuman.

The characters of Ramayan have been described. However, I still find it difficult to explain other characters that have been so easily described by the Mutation Theory. And that's the most difficult challenge in explaining the stories without the consideration of any mutants.

And in all this, I see the mightiest, the bravest and the most humble Hanuman, who could have gained anything with the help of Ayodhya, but chose to live in the Himalayas. He might either have been a mutant or a forest-dweller or both and he must have been alienated there.  

 

Who was Hanuman?--Part I

Hanuman is the central character of famous Sanskrit epic Ramayan. He has been ascribed as an accomplice to Lord Ram and Lord Lakshman during their search for Lady Sita. The most revered among the Vanars, he is a "Lord" himself.

Mythological Background

Lord Hanuman, the son of Vayu or Pavan and Anjana looks like a mythical creature. The monkey face and the long tail are the features that distinguish him from other Lords. The Ramayan tells that he was a Vanar. Vanar whether meant the forest-dweller or the monkey can be a debatable question which I will discuss in the Part II of this post.

Hanuman first comes in the story of the Ramayan in Kiskinda Kanda. Lady Sita has been taken away by Ravan, the king of Lanka, and Lord Ram and his brother Lord Lakshman reach the mountain of Kiskinda where they encounter the Vanars. Hanuman disguises himself as a beautiful Brahmin boy and meets Lord Ram for the first time.

Here, I think Hanuman did not look like monkey at all. His face and physique have been described to be like a "normal" human would look. And if he was a monkey, how could he speak a human language? We have not been able to talk to monkeys as yet. However, if you insisting on keeping his face like that of a monkey and giving him a tail, I have a theory on it, which I will be describing in Part II of the post. The Brahmin boy then would be an art, a masked guise with the tail well concealed!

Being a forest-dweller, Lord Hanuman was well trained in jumping and swimming. The accounts of him going in the water to look at the construction of Ram Setu is a proof of his abilities to swim. The abilities of making long jumps, attributed as "flying", must have been the reason he reached Lanka.

Hanuman was the first to reach Lanka without the invitation or the abduction. He was also the wisest. To defend himself from the Brahmastra of Indrajit and to surrender in order to meet Ravan seem to be the wisest deeds. He was able to burn down the palace of Lanka, though in agony.

While he seems wise enough to challenge Ravan, the way he "carries" a hill for bringing the herb of Sanjivani is quite difficult to understand. Could he really have not known what Sanjivani herb looked like? As a forest-dweller, he should have known it better than the others. The mythologies describing his strength over his wisdom have even forgotten that he was blessed with wisdom and wit by Lord Brahma himself. Lord Surya was his teacher. I don't understand why Lord Hanuman would carry a mountain when he could find the herb himself. Whether it was his temper, show-off of his strength or a conspiracy in favour of Lord Ram, that I am not quite certain.

Lord Hanuman, as previously stated, was an accomplice to Lord Ram and his devotee too. He even killed a woman (Simhika), one of the protectors of Ashok Vatika in Lanka. He faced the temper of Ravan and his sons, saved Lord Lakshman, brought Lord Ram and Lady Sita together. His contribution to Lord Ram would make an excitingly long list. However, after the Great War between Ram and Ravan, he self-exiled himself to the Himalayas, where he lived his life meditating and writing his experiences. The writing however, would be lost, to deny ourselves of all the truths of the Ramayan.

A possible solution to one of the most interesting question at the end of the Part I of this post: How did Lord Hanuman tear up his chest to show Lord Ram with Lady Sita? Mythologies say that he tore up his chest to show the images of his Lord and Lady. I say that did not happen. How can anyone, even as strong as Hanuman, tear up his own chest? The story must be an over-exaggeration. I, therefore conclude that Lord Hanuman had removed his armour to reveal his tattooed chest. Tattooing is nothing less than tearing yourself apart!   

More on Who was Hanuman?--Part II

Ahilya's Story--A History of Male Domination

A story is told by Viswamitra as he leads Ram and Lakshman to the ashram of Gautam-a sage, Royal teacher of King Janak and  ‘most honoured by the Gods who dwell above the sky.’ The story is famous as the story of Indra and Ahilya.

I don’t want to get into the details of the story which has been retold for generations via the Valmiki Ramayan and many others who had read or heard the Ramayan and many know(actually they think they know!) that Ahilya, being driven by lust kept immoral relationship with Indra-king of Gods and cursed by her husband into becoming a stone until Ram noticed, came and touched her. Have we been diverted from the truth? Yes, we have been diverted from the truth.

1. What Valmiki Ramayan Says

The Ramayan describes her as counter-part of Gautam until this incident and even lists her as Pancha Kanya (also known as Five Satis-Devotees of their husbands) along with Sita, Tara, Mandodari and Draupadi. (It is strange that all these women suffered male domination!) The arrival of Indra is described as in the lines below:

‘It chanced the saint had gone away,
When Town-destroying Indra came,
And saw the beauty of the dame.’

Based on these lines, I don’t see Ahilya as the culprit because she did not even have a hint that Indra was coming. I find the culprit in Indra(Why is he being culprit in my every post?). Ramayan of other writers of have given in details, the preparation made by Indra and cause of Gautam’s absence which I don’t think should be detailed. I am concerned with everything that happened after the sage's departure.

2. What I have to Say

What was her reaction after seeing her husband coming back so soon and knowing that he was Indra instead? This question is important if we regard Ahilya as a noble woman. She was wife of one of the most heeded scholars of that age and happy with her conjugal life. Then could she have submitted herself to Indra at once to fulfill fer lust? That’s not possible at all. ‘But touched by love’s unholy fire, She yielded to the God’s desire.’ Such defaming lines have been used for Ahilya in Valmiki Ramayan but don’t the two word’s “God’s desire” not explain that Ahilya was under the authority of Indra. Who is the culprit-- Indra, the mightier who suppressed a lady, or Ahilya-- the inferior? The answer should have been Indra, but our blind-folded eyes see guilt on Ahilya. Shame on us!

Had this incident been a matter of love affair or adultery, I would not have to speak against Gautam, what he did to his wife might have been pardonable but this is a matter of crime. Crime on Ahilya by a male dominant society! Indra tricks Gautam into going out of the house at night, comes in his guise and meets Ahilya whom he tells who he is. She is then seduced by the king of Swarga Just as in modern times, this was a crime  then but the victim was much victimized than the culprit. (Such trend still exists, must be the remnants of the past!)

After returning from the river, feeling that the daylight was far off, Gautam sees Indra rushing in a hurry. Ramayan says he was cursed but I don’t believe it. Had he been cursed, how could he forever become the King of Gods! He then curses the lady to remain as dead as stone and goes away saying he cannot accept her. (Life OK’s Mahadev showed that the curse on Indra was lifted by Parvati on the request of young Ganesh. How could anyone, that too a woman, lift the punishment for such a crime on mere request of a child? Was she afraid of Indra? Had she not lifted the curse and punished Indra even more, there would have been an inspiration for a secured society for women at present. Alas! That did not happen, not even on a contemporary show.)

Being a wise sage, why could Gautam not accept his wife or revolting against Indra? This idea haunts me whenever I read, watch or hear the story and I imagine him doing so. But what I imagine had not occurred at all! Gautam was a learned-man(educated man) and though people say such men are wise, I don’t think so. They are actually the ones who live for the prevalent traditions of the society. Gautam is the best example of Rousseau’s citizen. Yes, he was scared of the society. What would others say if he accepted a woman who had “crossed her limits”? He knew the question would arise and instead of answering, he abandoned his wife at the state of distress. This led the society to believe her as the culprit and apparently, Indra benefited. As a king, no one would raise questions on him and what would have happened if he was questioned? All the blame would go to the dame who had no one to support. What became of her life? Everyone knows--as dead as stone and the one who regained a little consciousness when Ram kicked her. (Ramayan says that Ram touched Ahilya on her head to bring her back to consciousness. It is to be noted that very few people visited that lonely cottage after Gautam left. Vishwamitra, Ram and Lakshman had reached near the cottage in the evening and Ram had been curious of Ahilya. How Ahilya survived that long might be a different question, but Ram kicked her during her unconsciousness. And it might have been other body parts as well, not only the head!)

I often think, “Had Gautam defended his wife and made Indra confess his sin, there would have been a more secure society for women.” His action might have affected him then but would have created ideal society for women. 

Conclusion

The present society-it lives in duality. Sometimes it says Ahilya a scarlet woman and sometimes respects her as devotee to husband(who left her at time of distress!) This duality, which still exists, would have been ended a long time ago had Gautam raised his voice against the crimes of the SHAMELESS Indra.[i]

---

[i] The texts in Italics have been derived from The RÁMÁYAN of VÁLMÍKI Translated into English Verse, Ralph T. H. Griffith, 1870-1874.

Was Valmiki the Original Writer of the Ramayana?

What a funny and stupid title? Who does not know that Ramayan was written by Valmiki? This is not a matter for discussion! These might be your immediate reactions. But I have found something what is worth discussion.

These stanzas are from "The Ramayan of Valmiki, translated into English verse" by Ralph T.H. Griffith published around 1870s.

"Praise to Válmíki, bird of charming song
Who mounts on Poesy’s sublimest spray,
And sweetly sings with accent clear and strong
  Ráma, aye Ráma, in his deathless lay.

Where breathes the man can listen to the strain
  That flows in music from Válmíki’s tongue,
Nor feel his feet the path of bliss attain
  When Ráma’s glory by the saint is sung!

The stream Rámáyan leaves its sacred fount
  The whole wide world from sin and stain to free.

 The Prince of Hermits is the parent mount,
  The lordly Ráma is the darling sea.

Glory to him whose fame is ever bright!
  Glory to him, Prachetas’ holy son!
Whose pure lips quaff with ever new delight
  The nectar-sea of deeds by Ráma done.

Hail, arch-ascetic, pious, good, and kind!
  Hail, Saint Válmíki, lord of every lore!
Hail, holy Hermit, calm and pure of mind!
  Hail, First of Bards, Válmíki, hail once more!"

These stanzas are present in "Invocation". I would have thought that the translator had written these if he had not added the following footnote:

"The MSS.(manuscripts written in the original language) vary very considerably in these stanzas of invocation: many lines are generally prefixed in which not only the poet, but those who play the chief parts in the poem are panegyrized. It is self-apparent that they are not by the author of the Rámáyan himself."

But I have never read the Sanskrit version(I am not a Sanskrit scholar so I don't think I would have ever understood). I haven't even read other translated versions. So, I would be grateful if someone joined the discussion and solved my doubts.

Since I believe that no author praises himself, I think Griffith presents his findings during the translation. Even if Valmiki is the writer, the writing of the events of Rama's life are believed to be after 16 years(Is this TRUE?) of his enthronement(after returning from the forest) that too, when Narad Muni asks him to write the story in slokas invented by Valmiki. As Valmiki hears the complete story from Brahma( some say Brahma gave him yogic powers and through which he was able to see all the events as a seer which I believe is false), it is apparent that he associated the story with myth. What I believe is that Valmiki sang the Ramayan which he taught to Luv and Kusa and was later written by someone else.