Has Sh Nariman really read the Padma Purana?
…or has he relied on some half-baked research presented to him as a backgrounder?
I was alerted today to this excellent analysis of “Rama Setu in Padma PurANa” by Sh Sarvesh Tiwari. I sincerely hope that Sh Nariman reads this…although I am not very hopeful.
Regardless, the lie about BhagwAn Shri RAm “destroying” the Rama Setu needs to be nailed…(remember, a lie told often enough will become the truth etc…?)
But do you think any of the mainstream media (or the TV anchors) are going to take notice of this? IÂ bet not.
*** Excerpts Begin (emphasis mine)Â ***
Representing the Union of India in the Supreme Court, Senior Attorney Fali Nariman was reported to have stated the following: “the Padma Purana states Lord Rama broke the bridge after rescuing Sita. And according to the Hindu faith, something that is broken cannot be worshipped†and “This is why nobody has till date declared it a monument.â€
This statement prompted us to look into the original sources and examine the claim made by the Union of India. The below note summarizes our findings.
1. padma purANa is one of the eighteen main purANas, a mahApurANa of vaiShNava category, and is listed as second in that list. It is also counted among the six of this list that are considered to be of predominantly sAttvika content (the other five being viShNu, nArada, bhAgavat, garuDa and vArAha). This purANa comprises of fifty-five-thousand shloka-s and is therefore one of the lengthiest. There are four main recensions of this purANa available. The most commonly found is the northern one in devanAgarI, and is widely printed and circulated by several publishers like Geeta Press Gorakhpur etc. The other major recension is from the southern sources…Finally, another primary recension with quite a lot of differences and of fair antiquity is the eastern recension available in Bengali script….
…
6. The story of rAma finds an important coverage in the padma purANa, and occurs in two different books: the sR^iShTi-khaNDa as well as pAtAla-khaNDa. rAma-setu finds narration in both of these books as well. The story is generally the same as in vAlmIki’s rAmAyaNa but differs dramatically in the details. pAtAla khaNDa provides a very unique story about how the vAnara senA crossed the sea and reached the coast of laMkA. In some recensions of the sR^iShTi-khaNDa, rAma is described to be trifurcating the setu on request from vibhIShaNa. The text is generally the same in the referred recensions and editions, ignoring some scribal mistakes, and in one particular devanAgarI recension this mention is missing altogether.
…
8. Earlier in the sR^iShTi-khaNDa, is this another unique mention of rAma setu in the fortieth chapter known as vAmanapratiShThA (in some recension thirty-fifth chapter, and in some missing altogether). The background of the mention is that after winning the war at laMkA and fulfilling his objectives there, rAma is readying to return back to ayodhyA along with his entourage by using the puShpaka vimAna offered by vibhIShaNa. Before departing, rAma has entrusted the rAkShasa kingdom to vibhIShaNa …
In this context is the following dialog recorded between vibhIShaNa and rAma in the vAmanapratiShThA chaper of the sR^iShTi-khaNDa the first book of the padma-purANa:
{(130) Hearing this from rAghava, vibhIShaNa responded to him. ‘All that you have ordered shall be obediently executed, O rAghava. (131) (However,) O Lord, this sacred setu of yours could be used by all the people of the world to approach (into laMkA) and therefore should be obstructed. (132) What control do I have in this matter O deva, but this is a need of mine.’ Hearing these words uttered by the best rAkShasa, The Scion of Raghu (133) took in his hands the missile kArmukaM, and breached the setu in the middle at two places over a length of ten yojana, (134) therefore dividing it into three parts with a one-yojana gap on the either side. Then approaching the shore-forest, he worshipped mahAdeva the Lord of umA. (135) There he established The Three- Eyed mahAdeva by the name of rAmeshwara. rAma, the Great Prince then prohibited the God sAgara, (136) that the Southern Sea should neither thunder there, nor flow across. Issuing his prohibitions this way, rAma then sent off the God sAgara. From the sky then emitted the following AkAshavANI. (137) Spoke rudra: O rAghava, you have auspiciously established me here. O Brave One, so far as the worlds remain, so far as the earth is intact, (138- till then I shall reside myself at the Setu, O Scion of Raghu! Hearing these nectar-like words uttered by mahAdeva himself, rAghava the Hero then spoke in these intelligent and sweetest words. (rAma humbly salutes devadeva and sings a hymn in his praise which spans over shloka-s 139 to 147. shloka 148 is a comment by sage pulatsya in praise to this hymn. In shloka-s 149-151, rudra speaks again, praising the deeds of rAma.) (152) O raghunandana, to this place created by you whichever man comes and even (merely) glances at it in the sea, (153) (even if) he be an extreme sin-fallen, all their sins would get destroyed, O rAma. The wicked crimes as heinous as brAhmaNa-slaying etc., even these (154) would be released here by mere darshana, no doubt.}
9. In conclusion, we can only say that the statement made by the Attorney in the Hon’ble Supreme Court that according to padma purANa: a) rAma “destroyed†the setu; and b) setu can no more be an object of worship; – are both absolutely inaccurate if not downright false.  Very unambiguously, the referred recensions of the padma purANa state that rAma trifurcated the setu for the sake of protecting laMkA, and at the same time he and lord mahAdeva invested spiritual powers into setu as a place of worship forever. Till this word remains, and till the earth is intact – “yAvajjagadidaM, yAvaddharAsthitA†are this purANa-s own exact words. As to “therefore, nobody has declared it a monumentâ€, since the Attorney is referring to padma purANa, in which lord mahAdeva himself has declared it a unique sacred place of worship, releaser of the sin and crime, and abode of his own – this remains and would remain a sacred monument for Hindus; and Union of India can do little about it.
*** Excerpts End ***
Pl. do read the article in full with images of the scanned pages of the relevant text and complete references included. My heartfelt thanks to Sh. Tiwari-ji for this painstaking and excellent analysis.
Related Posts:
“Who is this Ram?†– Will Thiru Karunanidhi look at this evidence?
A Search for the Historical “Krishna”
The search for a historical “Rama”
Voices of caution on SethuSamudram
Comrades-in-arms: UPA & Pakistani “militantsâ€
Find of the Day: “If only we had forgiven Iraq for 9/11“. Do read.
Dear Sir,
How does a lawyer survive, quoting bits and peices here and there and then coming back, quoting once again in rebuttal and so on so forth.
Come of it gentleman he has to survive.
A man has survived on bluff and lies and now will go back with honor as person who has completed his tenure as President after bluffing about WMD’s and all that BS.
The whole white world swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Give Shri Nariman some time he may reealise the folly of his ways.
Regards,
vck
UPDATE:
From Sh Kalyanaraman-ji re. recent remarks of Mr. Nariman regarding destruction of Rama Setu by Lord Rama himself
*****
By K.Gopalakrishnan (28 July 2008)
Mr.Nariman submitted on behalf of the Govt. of India to the Supreme Court on 24th July, 2008 that “As per Kamba Ramayana, the Superman Rama himself destroyed the bridge Rama Sethu that was earlier constructed by him and anything that was broken is not a bridge, and we can not worship something that has been destroyedâ€.
Mr. Nariman also said â€Kamba Ramayana also expressly says the bridge was destroyed by Lord Ram so that no one can cross over to Sri Lanka and ships can sail throughâ€.
Kamba Ramayana is one of the many vernacular versions of the original Ramayana by Valmiki in sanskrit language. Kamba Ramayana itself has got many versions in its publications.
The verse in question being quoted by Mr. Narman is verse No. 171 in yudda kanda published in a version edited and published by one Sri, V.M.Gopalakrishnamachariyar.
Rama, after killing Ravana and other rakshasas in the battle and after rescuing his wife Sita, was returning from Lanka to Ayodhya by Pushpaka vimaana (an aero-plane) with Sita. It is described that from the plane, Rama was showing Sita and giving details about various places en-route. The above verse in Gopalakrishnamachariyar’s version forms one of the seven verses (166 to 172) describing the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu.
It is obvious that Rama could not have broken the bridge from the aero-plane. That means that Rama should have destroyed the bridge after winning the war and before boarding his vimaana/plane. There was no mention of such activity during this specific period anywhere in Kamba Ramayana. When Rama describes the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu in so many verses, it is not rational that he himself would have destroyed it. Besides, Goplakrishnamachariyar himself says in the explanatory notes for this verse that the break-up of this bridge was done from the western side and because of that reason, that place is known as Dhanushkodi. If that was the case, then Rama would have had to swim back to Lanka crossing the ship-sailable channel. Gopalakrishnamachariyar’s text does not talk about breakage in three places (see the annexured text); but Mr. Nariman says that as per Kamba Ramayana, the bridge was broken in three places. Then Rama would have to swim not one channel but three to get back to Sri Lanka to board the plane with Sita and all others.
Another aspect of many versions of Kamba Ramayana is that at many places, many later insertions have been made to the original text of Kamban. Even in his version of Kamba Ramayana, Gopalakrishnamachariyar himself had cited 43 such insertions between the above verses 166 and 172 (see enclosed annexures). Also, between verses 173 and 174, two more insertions are cited.
In another version of Kamba Ramayana edited by Poovannan, Srichandran and Manikkam, and published by Varthamanan publishers, there are only five verses describing the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu instead of the seven given in Gopalakrishnamachariyar’s version (see annexures). The verses 170, and 171 quoted by Mr. Nariman are not found in the latter’s version. It is therefore more likely that the verse under question regarding the destruction of Sethu by Rama himself as well as the one preceding it (no.170) in the former’s version may also be insertions.
The other contention of Mr.Nariman that we can not worship some thing that has been broken is also incorrect. This type of argument may hold good for idols, but not for kshetrams and thirthasthanams. It is to be noted that even in the quoted verse, in the later part, Rama talks about the virtue of Rama Sethu stating that one who takes bath in the Sethu thirtham will be absolved of all his sins and will live like Devas for the next 21 births. Thus, even if one accepts the above verse as original for arguments’ sake, the Sethu will still be a place of worship, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Nariman.
ANNEXURES (Tamil texts with translations into English of relevant Tamil verses/comments)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4202841/VMG1 Annexure 1: From VMG’s version – 1
Translation of Verse 167: Rama tells Sita: Lady wearing golden bangles! To talk of the purity of the Setu is an impossibility for even Brahma, what can I say? Yet, listen to what I have to say: even those who have harmed parents, guru, and relatives will attain purity and become deva-s by the mere sight of the Setu.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4202896/VMG2 Annexure 2: From VMG’s version – 2
Translation of Verse 168: There are some who say that the purity of Setu is because of the association with Gandhamadana mountain. The legend is that when Indra broke the mountain slopes, some mountains feared Indra and hid under the ocean.
Comment of Verse 171: When Rama traveled on the Pushpaka Vimana, to move amidst wooden trawlers smoothly, it is incorrect to state that he tore the Setu. It is an incorrect translation. Here criminals who have committed panchamahapatakas (five grievous misdeeds) took a dip. Even in 21 births, they will be healthy without illnesses and will attain the appreciation of deva-s. (Thus, it is explained that the tearing of the Setu was to facilitate the samudra snaanam).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4202953/VMG3 Annexure 3: From VMG’s version – 3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203003/VMG4 Annexure 4: From VMG’s version – 4
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203153/VMG5 Annexure 5 From VMG’s version – 5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203689/VMG6 Annexure 6: From VMG’s version – 6
The three annexes – VMG3 to VMG6 explain Poojai padalam, that is, chapter of Setu worship. (Note: The accent on the entire chapter on the sacredness of Setu and the procedures of worship).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203247/Poovannan1Annexure 7: From Poovannan et al –1
Trans. Verse 4058 is titled: Showing Setu, explaining its greatness (cirappu) Translation of the verse: Rama said: ‘Lady with an exquisite countenance! After many days lapsed after I got separated from you, after I gained the friendship of Sugriva, the monarch of vaanara, after Hanuman met you in Lanka in the Ashokavana where you were held captive and relieved your anguish, after he informed us of your presence, to join battle with Ravana, to get you released from captivity, vaanarasena constructed this Setu to cross over the ocean. See this Setu.’
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203379/Poovannan2 Annexure 8: From Poovannan et al – 2
Trans. of verse 4059 (same as verse 167 in VMG1): Rama tells Sita: Lady wearing golden bangles! To talk of the purity of the Setu is an impossibility for even Brahma, what can I say? Yet, listen to what I have to say: even those who have harmed parents, guru, and relatives will attain purity and become deva-s by the mere sight of the Setu.
Trans. of verse 4061: If one immerses in sacred snaanam in Ganga river, Yamuna river, Godavari river, Narmada river, Kaveri river, evils will not be eliminated. By merely seeing the sacred waters of the Setu which takes on the incessant waves which throw the s’ankha onto the shore, all sins will be removed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203435/Poovannan3 Annexure 9: From Poovannan et al – 3
Trans of verse 4063. Rama carrying the powerful kodanda bow which vanquishes evil people explained to Sita while traveling on the Pushpaka Vimana, showed the specific spot where Varuna had s’aranaagati (adaikkalam or surrender).
NOTE: At the following blogspot post, verses from another Kamba Ramayanam edition have been analysed, again pointing out the comments made by the editors about interpolations. This edition is: Setu in Kamba Ramayana (First edition, 1976, published by Kamban Kazhagam, Chennai).
http://setubandha.blogspot.com/2008/07/rama-setu-hindu-cosmolog-sea-level.html
The interpolated verse for example iss 170-23.
kappai enum kanniyaiyum, kandanaar taataiyaiyum
appozhude tiruvanaikku kaavalaraay angu irutti
ceppa ariya cilaiyaale tiruvanaiyai vaay keeri
oppu ariyaal tannudane uyar cenai kkadaludane
Appointing a lady-warrior called Kappai and a warrior named Kandanaar to guard the Setu, using an arrow (cilai) marking a line (vaay keeri — line on the end of the Setu). This verse does NOT indicate that Rama destroyed the Setu. (Note: The word keeri has many meanings. In this context of engaging guards to guard the Setu, the line is drawn only as a demarcation of their zone of responsibility).
In the original verses of Kamban, and in Valimki Ramayana, Setu’s beauty is described which makes Sita devi wonderstruck. The verses also extol the fact that pilgrms who see the Setu become blessed. It is clear that even during the periods when the interpolations were made, Setu continued to be a place of pilgrimage and worship. (Sriram continues to cite verses which are interpolations pointing to the use of later-day Tamil words and poetry-styles not in tune with the original version of Kamban, citing verses from 162-6 to 162-8, 169-1 to 169-2, 170-1 to 170-12.)
SC should be told that UOI counsel Nariman has misquoted the Padma Purana.
This misquotation has led to a false allegation that Rama himself destroyed Setu. The counsel went on to claim without any basis that Hindus cannot worship something that has been destroyed. That Hindus should worship Setu is mentioned in the very same Padma Purana in the very same string of verses which the learned counsel misuses to make an erroneous argument. Any number of sacred texts establish that the very darshan of Setu is a life-fulfilment in the triad tradition of setu yatra, setu darshana, setu puja.
This is too serious a matter to be ignored by the SC and left uncontested, since an attempt has been made, using erroneous readings of sacred texts, to distort the tradition of worship of Setu in a continuum for millennia by millions of people. Setu snaanam on ashadha amavasya day (which falls this
year on 1 August 2008), for example, is to pay homage to our ancestors by pitru tarpanam. Normally over 5 lakh pilgrims have a samudra snanam in the Setu. Skanda Purana, a sacred text notes: “One, who prostrates in the middle of the Setu’s sandbank (setu-saikata-madhye), his sins becomes dulled.”
Sri Rama did NOT destroy the Setu is clear, if there is a careful reading of the sacred texts of Padma Purana and Skanda Purana and the Valmiki Ramayana or Kamba Ramayana. Sri Rama was responding to Vibhishana’s apprehension about use of Setu to approach his domain. (The tradition has it that Vibhishana’s pattabhishekam–ascension to the throne — took place near Dhanushkodi). Setupati raja are traditionally the guardians of the Setu in the tradition of the guards established by Sri Rama as mentioned in Kamba Ramayana (in an interpolated verse).
I am thankful to Sarvesh Tiwari for citing the devanagari text of Padma Purana at http://bharatendu.com/2008/07/30/on-rama-setu-in-padma-purana/
The key verse is: 133:
“kArmukaM gR^ihya hastena rAmaH setuM *
dwidhAchChinnat**trivibhaajya* cha vegena madhye vai dashayojanaM ||”
The key verb in this verse is chinnat in dvidhaachinnat trivibhaajya.
The meaning of the word, chinna is this:verse should be taken to be ‘division marker’, that is making two division markers to creat three segments in a continuous stretch of Setu.
The idiom often used is chinna-bhinna (even in many vernacular languages derived from Sanskrit), meaning: divided and cut up. There is no reference to such an action of ‘cutting up’ or ‘breaching’ the Setu in this verse of Padma Purana.
*chinna* mfn. cut off , cut , divided , torn , cut through , perforated
AV. &c. ; opened (a wound) Sus3r. ; interrupted , not contiguous Bhag. vi ,
36 R. iii , 50 , 12 VarBr2S. ; disturbed (%{kiM’naz’chinnam} , what is there
in this to disturb us? “‘ there is nothing to care about Amar.) Hariv. 16258
Mr2icch. ; ? (said of the belly of a leach) Sus3r. ; limited by (in comp.)
Bhartr2. iii , 20 ; taken away or out of. R. ii , 56 , 23 Ragh. xii , 80
What Rama did was this. He divided or perforated the Setu in two spots — as boundary markers — creating three segments of 10 yojana each (out of the 30 yojana-long Setu). The chinna was to install the s’ivalinga as he Padma purana verse immediately following this dvidhacinnat reference confirms; the verse number is 135:
The correction translation of the sequence of verses should be as follows:
*(130) Hearing this from rAghava, vibhIShaNa responded to him. ‘All that you have ordered shall be obediently executed, O rAghava. (131) (However,) O Lord, this sacred setu of yours could be used by all the people of the world to approach (into laMkA) and therefore should be obstructed. (132) What
control do I have in this matter O deva, but this is a need of mine.*
*Hearing these words uttered by the best rAkShasa, The Scion of Raghu (133) took in his hands the missile kArmukaM, and DIVIDED the setu in the middle at two places over a length of ten yojana, (134) therefore dividing it into three parts with a one-yojana gap on the either side.*
Then approaching the shore-forest, he worshipped mahAdeva the Lord of umA. (135) There he established The Three- Eyed mahAdeva by the name of rAmeshwara. rAma, the Great Prince then prohibited the God sAgara, (136) that the Southern Sea should neither thunder there, nor flow across. Issuing his prohibitions this way, rAma then sent off the God sAgara.
‘DIVIDED’ does NOT mean ‘cutting through’ or creating breaches in the Setu at two places. It just means that two division markers were made to create spaces for installing hte s’ivalingas for worship one each in each segment 10 yojanas long – thus installing three s’ivalingas in the three segments..
If this interpretation of the verb chinnat is not made, the subsequent verses stopping the crossing of the ocean waters beyond the Setu — ocean does NOT flow across the Setu — do not become meainingful. So, chinnat here means only two division markers were made to create three segments of 10 yojanas each.
Clearly following this episode in Padma Purana, Kamba Ramayana version refers to the appointment of two warrior guards — Kappai and Kandanar — at each of the perforated spots to guard the Setu, This is Rama’s answer to the concern of Vibhishana about protecting him since “this sacred setu of yours
could be used by all the people of the world to approach (into laMkA) and therefore should be obstructed.”
The interpolated verse in Kamba Ramayana for example iss 170-23.
kappai enum kanniyaiyum, kandanaar taataiyaiyum
appozhude tiruvanaikku kaavalaraay angu irutti
ceppa ariya cilaiyaale tiruvanaiyai vaay keeri
oppu ariyaal tannudane uyar cenai kkadaludane
Appointing lady-warriors called Kappai and Kandanaar to guard the Setu, using an arrow (cilai) marking a line (vaay keeri — line on the end of the Setu). This verse does NOT indicate that Rama destroyed the Setu. (Note: The word keeri has many meanings. In this context of engaging guards to guard the Setu, the line is drawn only as a demarcation of their zone of responsibility). Two guards to guard at the two division-markers.
And, the tradition has it that he installed three s’ivalinga in each of these three segments. One in Rames’waram, one in Tirukkedees’varam (Talaimannar end) and the third in the middle segment of the Setu. It is the responsibility of the Pacauri Committee who ever is asked to stud the cultural aspects of the project to find this third s’ivalingam. The tradition is emphatic. Kuppuramu’s mother has said that her great grandfather went to this setu-madhya s’ivalingam and offered sankalpam for the 16th child. Pamban Swamigan also sings in Tamil about this setu-maddiyil irukkum s’ivan (s’iva in the middle of Setu).
Kumara Guru Dasa Swamigal or Pamban Swamigal 1848-1929 had sung 6666 songs. In the compilation realated to tirthasthana dars’ana, (referred to in Tamil as Tiruvalam); in the second kaanda (kat.t.al.aik kavittur-aikal.), there is a song titled: Tiruccetumatti (In the middle of Rama Setu);
Translation from Tamil rendering is as follows:
In the middle of Rama Setu enveloped by the ocean and the clouds, is the s’ivalinga worshipped by vibhuti-wearing Rama, the Kaakutsa ; I bow down with love imagining S’iva in the form of Kugesa Muruga who is searching for me and finds me.
This and other textual and archaeological evidences are contained in the Second Part of Setubandhanam (Ramar Palam), a book authored by R. Subbarayalu and published in March 2008 by Thanjavur, Mamannan Padippagam, 126 Natcattiranagar, Thanjavur 613005.
Skanda Purana’s third book, Brahmakhandam, opens with a section called Setu-Mahatmya and the 48th and 49th verses from its first chapter known as setu-gamana-phalAdi-varNanam are:
setusaikatamadhyeyaH shete tatpAMsukunThitaH |
yAvantaH pAMsavo lagnAstasyAnge viprasattamAH || (48)
tAvatAM bramhahatyAnAM nASaH syAnnAtra saMSayaH |
setumadhyastha vAten yasyAngaH spR^syate-akhilaM || (49)
meaning:
(48) One, who prostrates in the middle of the Setu’s sandbank (setu-saikata-madhye), his sins becomes dulled. And ultimately his sins are subdued, O Best of the Dvija-s. (49) (So much so), that the grimmest sin that arises from killing a Bramhana, no doubt, even that is destroyed by performing rites there – (when) every part of the (sinner’s) body touches the winds in the middle of the Setu ( setu-madhyastha-vAta ).
“…the Padma Purana states Lord Rama broke the bridge after rescuing Sita. And according to the Hindu faith, something that is broken cannot be worshippedâ€
While Mr Nariman is obviously wrong with regard to the importance of the Sethu, his knowledge of Hindu faith and religion also seems very little.
According to our Agamas, idols and other objects of worship that is established by Rishis (and Gods) are never discarded. If damaged, they can be repaired and worshiped again.
Regards, Hari