Rigvedic Ramayana.

[elmec]

Hari Om,

Many thanks and congratulations to Sri Anand for bringing into light ( I
am sure many of us  List members were ignorant of its existence ) the
Rigvedic Ramayana which is being beautifully explained.

This has, infact, cleared one major doubt which had arisen in my mind
while reading the 'Adhyatma Ramayana'.  In Ayodhya kaanda of this work,
Rama comes and informs Sita that he had to immediately leave Ayodhya and
go to the forest to fulfill the promise that his father had made to
Kaikeyi. He tells her not to come with him to the forest as she would
not be able to bear the hardships of a forest life. For this Sita
replies thus :

( Shloka 74 and 75 of Ayodhya kaanda of Adhyatma Ramayana )

anyat kinchit pravakshyaami shrutvaa maam naya kaananam
raamaayaNaani bahushaH shrutaani bahubhirdvijaiH
siitaam vinaa vanam raamoo gataH kim kutrachidvada
atastvayaa gamishyaami sarvathaa tvatsahaayinii
yadi gachchasi maam tyaktvaa praanaamstyakshyaami tE.agrataH

Meaning : " I shall tell you one other thing ; listen to it and then
take me to the forest. Manytimes before have I heard the story of
Ramayana from many Brahmanaas. Has Rama gone to the forest without Sita
anywhere there ?
( in any of those stories? ) If so tell me where. Therefore I shall come
with you as a helper. If you still decide to leave me and go to forest,
then I shall kill myself in front of you. "

The above two lines which I have highlighted were bothering me so much.
I was wondering how could Sita have heard the story of Ramayana before
when the story was just unfolding then ?! Now after reading the Rigvedic
Ramayana, I understand that Sita, being the daughter of Janaka, the
RajaR^shi and a Jnaani, would have had many occasions to listen to veda
paaraayanas done in his Royal court before and hence she is saying like
this on this occasion.

Vedas being anaadi and the story of Ramayana having taken place during
the tretaayuga ( the turn of which repeats after the cycle of four
yugaas ) such a quote is not impossible, though it looks little
improbable. Still, I am not fully convinced of the inclusion of above
two lines in this work.

Can someone give a better explanation for this ?

Regards,
Hari Om,
Latha Vidyaranya

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20000413/7d320780/attachment.html>