Rama Setu -2

[Guest]

Bodhiji,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to make a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu so that nobody should come from Lanka.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't Vibhishana travel back-n-fro from Lanka after war. I believe that there's some Srirangam temple connection. Plus there's a river/lake in South India named after his wife - Sarama.

[Bodhi]

Virenji, I have not seen either of the two texts so I can not comment what they say on this point. But surely there is some janashruti in rameshwaram area amongst the local priests and fishermen that after the war, the new king of lanka expressed his fears to Rama that in future some other Indian kings may invade lanka making use of the setu. Rama then using an arrow destroyed the indian end of the bridge at the place known as dhanushakoti, and in folk tradition that is what explains the gap in teh setu on the Indian side. But the main point the government always bypasses is, that all the texts and all the popular traditions and practices, make setu an object of reverence. full stop. where is the argument that negates that main point?

But one thing is sure, like I suspected, the recent purchased victory in lok sabha has made these people's egos swell further, and DMK will leave no stone unturned in seeing their own nuclear deal accomplished here.

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Ram Setu cannot be worshipped, government tells apex court </span>

New Delhi, July 23 (IANS) The government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the <span style='color:red'>Ram Setu “cannot be worshipped” since it was broken by Lord Ram himself.</span> Central government counsel Fali S. Nariman also told a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan that the government has withdrawn from the court its earlier affidavit that doubted the existence of Lord Ram “in extraneous circumstances”.

“If you want to go strictly by religious scriptures, the Padma Purana has stated that Lord Ram had broken the bridge” while returning from Sri Lanka after killing Ravana and rescuing Sita, Nariman told the bench, which also included Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal.

“And (according to Hindu faith) something which is broken cannot be worshipped. It’s also quoted extensively in the Kamban Ramayana (a version of the Hindu epic Ramayana) that Lord Rama had destroyed it,” said Nariman.

Maintaining that “legal issues cannot be decided on the basis of faith”, Nariman asserted: <span style='color:red'>“We are not destroying any bridge. There is no bridge. </span>We are only building a shipping channel.”

Nariman, counsel for the Setusamudram Shipping Channel Corporation, made these assertions during his argument on a bunch of lawsuits challenging the construction of a shorter shipping channel cutting across Ram Setu or Adam’s Bridge in the Palk Strait, separating India and sdri Lanka. The court began hearing the issue Tuesday.

Seeking to counter arguments of various petitioners based on faith and religion and challenging the construction of the shipping channel, Nariman said, “The best approach to follow is to (ask) whether you are following legal steps.”

“The affidavit (that doubted the existence of Lord Ram) was withdrawn in extraneous circumstances,” Nariman added.

The government resorted to an assertive stance Wednesday, despite the fact that it had on May 8 acceded to a suggestion by the court to explore the possibility of adopting an “alternative alignment” sparing the Ram Setu for building the shipping channel.

In fact, even during Wednesday’s arguments, the bench earlier counselled the government to consider an “alternative alignment” for the shipping channel to avoid all the acrimony, entailing the project.

“If the government approach is that avoiding access to Ram Setu or Adam’s Bridge is not possible, then it’s a different issue. But, if an alternative is available, there is no issue,” observed the bench.

“It’s easy to create an issue. Why create a mammoth issue, if you have an alternative?” the bench remarked, suggesting the government to opt an alternative alignment for the channel, other than the ‘alignment 6′, which goes across the Ram Setu.

After examining various project reports, spanning a period of 150 years, the bench said: “There were nine study reports (for the shipping channel project) before the Independence and six afterwards. All of them avoided Ram Setu. This is the first proposal of the alignment 6 that touches Ram Setu.”

It suggested the government “consider alignment 4 added with some curve as it will be away from the bridge as well as the marine biosphere”.

But Nariman told the bench: “The experts want to avoid curve. They want a straight channel.”

He also informed the court that till the apex court suspended the work on the project last year, the one fourth dredging of the bridge had been completed.

The arguments over the lawsuits will continue Thursday.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politi...t_10075127.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I never heard government quoting Sharia Laws to say what muslims should do or not!

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All lies and jest,
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
Ooh-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
<i>The Boxer</i>, by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkle. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Isn't this Fali Nariman chap a Parsi? Given his logic of not offering prayers to something that's been or can be destroyed, how can Parsi community worship fire? Even today there are parts of central asia where some old fire temples have been resurrected and worshiped by people in his very own community.

[Bodhi]

parasi? I say he is only a cha<b>parasi</b> of the incumbent government.

contrast is the legal team of the raksha samiti. The lawyers are TOP class lawyers who are not charging a single paisa, working just for the sake of performing their dharma in protection of setu out of their personal conviction. And they are real TOP class professionals. I mean real <b>TOP </b>class, with a battery of paralegals and an army of reserachers and the stuff.

[Guest]

Cho Ramaswamy on NDTV was saying that he doesn't know of any such setu breaking references in Kamba ramayana. He thought it was just DMK propaganda which was borrowed without verification.

Since every one is having a field day with hindu divinities, I think time has come to tell the neo-purANic tales of "allAsura" and "jihvAsura".

P.S. Not to forget "moha-madAsura".

[acharya]

<b>VHP accuses UPA of insulting Hindus</b>

New Delhi (PTI): Attacking the Centre for its recent affidavit filed in the Supreme Court saying Lord Ram himself destroyed the Ramsethu, VHP on Thursday accused the Congress-led UPA government of insulting the feelings of crores of Hindus.

Terming the Centre's position on Ramsethu as "unfortunate", VHP General Secretary Surendra Jain strongly condemned the government of resorting to different trick on the issue only "to appease certain sections of society".

Criticising the reference from a particular version of Ramayana given by the Centre to the apex court on Ramsethu, Jain said that the Valmiki Ramayana is the most recognised and acceptable and hence "the reference should be accepted from this version only".

"There are thousands of versions of Ramayana available, but the most recognised and acceptable one is that written by Valmiki," he said and thanked the government of accepting the existence of Lord Ram in their recent affidavit.

In its earlier affidavit government had questioned the existence of Lord Ram, calling him a mythological character only.

"I thank the government for accepting at least the fact, though unknowingly and unintentionally, that Lord Ram existed," he said.

"On August 4, We are going to organise 'Jalabhishek' in the "Shiv Mandirs" with the pledge to remove the anti-national and anti-Hindu forces," he said.

On the Amarnath land controversy he said: "Now Congress has joined hand with the National Conference and PDP to deprive Hindus of the facilities and amenities for Amarnath Yatra."

[acharya]

<b>UPA government pursuing Vatican agenda on Ram Setu'</b>

Chandigarh, July 24 : The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government was out to push the Vatican agenda on the Ram Setu issue, Punjab Medical Education Minister Tikshan Sud said here Thursday.

The UPA government had no sanctity in submitting the affidavit on a sensitive issue like Ram Setu as it was standing on the crutches of illegally cast votes in the parliament, Sud said in a statement here.

Sud, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, said the UPA, headed by an Italian-born Catholic lady was out to push the Vatican agenda by degrading Lord Rama and his religious and mythological symbols, hurting the feelings of billions of people having faith in Hindu religion.

He said the UPA government was already on a political ventilator, surviving on oxygen provided by illegally cast votes by defected MPs.

“The UPA government has no legal and constitutional right to take any major policy decision, especially those hurting the feelings of majority of Indian population,” Sud said.

Warning the government against playing with the religious sentiments of Hindus on the Ram Setu issue, the BJP leader said any action by the government affecting the holy structure of Ram Setu would be resisted by Hindus and they would intensify nationwide agitation to scuttle "this Christian conspiracy".

He said that by issuing contradictory affidavit on this historic and mythological fact, the UPA government was trying to create confusion in the minds of Hindus, under a well-planned strategy and this would not be allowed.

Sud urged President Pratibha Patil to intervene and dismiss the “unconstitutional” UPA government and order fresh general elections. He said the UPA was inflicting damage to the country’s social and religious fabric.

The Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Corporation was constructing a shorter shipping channel cutting across Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge in the Palk Strait, separating India and Sri Lanka.

--- IANS

[Bodhi]

Alright!! Fali Nariman is lying (or bluffing) in the supreme court on behalf of his DMK-Congress masters. Just completed the reference check in padma mahApurANa, and the lawyer is a liar.

The padma purANa comprises of 55,000 shloka-s arranged into 5 books: sR^iShTi-khaNDa, bhUmi-khaNDa, swarga khaNDa, uttara khaNDa and pAtAla khaNDa. The last book, the pAtAla khaNDa, contains among other subjects, a mysterious version of the story of the 8 viShNu avatAra-s, upto kR^iShNa (not balarAma). The story of rAma is the largest among these (and very interesting - some events are described in a pretty unique way!!!) Chapter 116 of this section, known as shiva-rAghava-saMvAde-purAkalpIya-rAmAyaNa-kathanam, deals with the events under discussion here. And there are pretty intriguing things described in it - by far the most singularly unique description I have seen of how vAnara-senA crossed the sea - widely differing from the accounts of vAlmIki, mahAbhArata, skanda purANa and other rAmAyaNa-s. While I shall try to fill in more details later about what the purANa says, there is absolutely no mention of the sort of things that the lying lawyer has reported in the Supreme Court attributing to this purANa - having went through these shloka-s as carefully as I could!

[acharya]

<b>
UPA suffering from secular amnesia : BJP</b>

New Delhi (PTI): BJP on Thursday accused the UPA of suffering from "secular amnesia" with respect to Hindu sentiments in the country.

"It seems that the government suffers from secular amnesia. When it comes to the sentiments of the majority Hindu community in the country, they feel free to hurt the faith at their own convenience," party spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy told reporters here on Thursday.
<b>
The UPA in its latest affidavit on the Ram Sethu issue in the Supreme Court on Wednesday has accepted the existence of Lord Rama but now they say that the bridge created by Lord Rama was destroyed by himself, he added.

"The UPA is trying to create a comic situation out of a community's faith," he claimed.

The saffron party also claimed that the UPA was paying "the kickback to DMK" for the southern party's support to the government in the trust vote.

"This is an incentive and a kickback of the UPA to its southern allies like the DMK for their support. The government is trying to barter faith for its existence," he said.
</b>

[acharya]

<b>Our position on Ram Setu has not changed: Congress</b>

New Delhi (PTI): The Congress on Thursday said its position on the Ram Setu has not changed and is guided by the two affidavits filed in the Supreme Court earlier.

"The Congress party believes in respecting all religions..our philosophy is guided by this," party spokesman Manish Tewari told Reporters.

Referring to the arguments of Fali S Nariman in the Supreme Court on the Sethusamundram project that Lord Rama himself destroyed the Ram Setu after emerging victorious in Lanka, Tewari said during course of argument in courts, lawyers put forward different positions.

Asked if the party also felt the same about the Setu, Tewari said the government had made its position clear in the affidavit and then the counter affidavit.

"As it is a sub judice matter, it would be unfair on our part to speak on this," he said.

[Shambhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The Congress party believes in respecting all religions..our philosophy is guided by this," party spokesman Manish Tewari told Reporters.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->



<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/Ram_sethu_cho.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jul 24 2008, 03:56 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jul 24 2008, 03:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Alright!!  Fali Nariman is lying (or bluffing) in the supreme court on behalf of his DMK-Congress masters.  Just completed the reference check in padma mahApurANa, and the lawyer is a liar. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bodiji, Nariman is highly respected name in Mumbai. Mumbai's Nariman point is India's most the prized real estate Mumbai (or India itself). Was named after Khurshed Framji Nariman who too made his mark as a lawyer taking on British empire over a real estate deal. He got a stay order and the unfinished construction still stands in shallow waters of Arabian sea's Nariman point area of Mumbai (or atleast it did when I was told the story couple decades ago by my uncle who took all of us kids to that area).
I'm not sure if Fali Nariman's related to the same Nariman, but sure Fali's name will live in infamy for generations to come.

came in email:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Narimaan is way out of line when saying that no one can worship something that is destroyed. He is wrong.

Pilgrims go to Rama Setu to worship the monument. They remember their ancestors starting with Sri Rama. I think it is a waste of time to try to explain to Narimaan or Union of India that the worship is a tarpanam, a way of remembering that their identity is due to their ancestors, a way of worship to those aatman who have given such an identity to the pilgrim.

Pilgrimage is worship. Do you know, Narimaan that Skanda Purana says that the worshipper goes barefoo and chants ashtakshari and panchakshari --- Om namo narayana and Om namah s'ivaaya while walking on the Setu? Setu ain't destroyed, Narimaan. It exists and any pilgrim stand and walk on it in stretches. People crossed over to Talaimannar in Srilanka from Rameshwaram-Dhanushkodi walking on it as did Ashoka's son, according to Mahavams'a. Why don't you quote this, Narimaan, when you quote Kamba Ramayana? Do you know that in Kamba Ramayana, reasons are given for the breach caused by Sri Rama? Do you also know, Narimaan, that later, in Mahabharata Veda Vyasa says it is the responsibility of the people of those times to protect Rama Setu as was the responsibility of Setupati rajas of Ramanathapuram (then, Ramnad)? Or, is it a waste of time providing evidence to the learned counsel, Narimaan?

Let me tell you something, Narimaan. Pilgrims have tears in their eyes as they utter the sankalpam starting with Sri Rama Rameti, vyapohati nasams'ayah. Go find the meaning of this, Narimaan; you may get some glimpse into Hindu traditions of yore, instead of being counsel for atheists supporting a bogus government engaging in horsetrading of MPs. I don't know about juristic ethic. It makes me sick that there are counsels indulging in suggestio falsi, suppressio veri. No pangs of conscience? What ignominy.

You are a lawyer, right? Then read the judgement on London Nataraja case. A Hindu temple is a temple for ever, Narimaan. It is a pity that UK lawyers are more compassionate than those who claimed and got aatithya in Hindusthanam. What a shame.

A report also claims that Narmaan claimed in the court that he "shot down the demand for an Archaeological Survey of India study to establish if the setu was man-made or natural, saying the project's critics could reject the findings on the ground of faith." Why are you afraid of truth, Narimaan? Is it because you wanted to quote selectively from Kamba Ramayana? Or is it because, you had no answer to the 11-page judgement of the Madras HC? By bucking the issue, it will not go away nor will it enhance your reputation as a jurist, Narmaan.

xxx<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Bodhi]

While I was not totally wrong in post 290, but I have to take back my words. padma purANa in another variant and at another place does say something of that sort. will update.

[Guest]

Rama Setu doesn't fulfil criteria of national monument: Centre

http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20080729/1416/...riteria-of.html

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>UPA flip-flops on Ram Setu in SC  </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
After claiming that Lord Ram was the "destroyer" of the Ram Setu, the Centre has again gone back and questioned the very historicity of the bridge. The flip-flop became evident in the Supreme Court on Tuesday with <b>the Centre suggesting that it was a mistake to withdraw its earlier affidavit denying the existence of Lord Ram.</b> 

<b>Special counsel for the Centre and senior advocate Fali S Nariman informed the court that except for the objectionable paragraph that doubted the Ramayan and the characters (including Lord Ram) mentioned in the mythological text, the Centre stood by the remaining portion of its affidavit, which doubts the historicity of the Ram Setu and describes it as a sand-and-coral formation.</b>

The latest submission came within a week after the Centre admitted the existence of Lord Ram by suggesting that the Ram Setu was broken by Lord Ram himself and that the structure was not man-made but "superman-made". Quoting from the affidavit discarded by the Centre in September last, Nariman said, "We take the entire blame for withdrawal of the affidavit since people reacted in a certain manner." He went to suggest Ram Setu could not be considered a national monument.

The three-Bench, headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, expressed reservations on accepting arguments based on an affidavit withdrawn from the court.<b> "You did not say we are withdrawing paragraph 20 (which denied existence of the Ramayan)...You withdrew the entire affidavit."</b>

Responding to the court's proposal to re-file the affidavit, Nariman said, "The assertion of the Centre that it (Setu) is not a monument does not get diluted by the affidavit withdrawal."

Interestingly, what paled the Centre's submission was its parallel determination to study alternative routes. The court had asked the Centre for its readiness to explore alternative alignments of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project since the main opposition to the existing alignment stemmed from the destruction of the alleged Ram Setu or Adams Bridge, a symbol of Hindu faith.

The court was informed that a decision in this regard would be available by Thursday. Nariman said,<b> "I have written to the Prime Minister. I may get the response in a day or two."</b>

According to the Centre, the power to declare any monument a national monument rests solely with Parliament. This is a delegated responsibility under Article 57C of the Constitution. Whether an ancient monument is of national importance is entirely left to Parliament to decide and, to this extent, the demand by several petitioners to declare it a national monument cannot be entertained by courts, he submitted.

The petitioners, who resumed the arguments in reply to the Centre's assertions, assailed the project for failing to comply with requisite environmental safeguards. Senior advocate Sriram Panchu argued that the project had received clearance under the Air and Water Act alone, while the environmental impact assessment (EIA) clearance entails several clearances considering the fact that the area where the project is to be built is in the Gulf of Mannar, which is the largest reserve of marine biosphere.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moron Singh will come up with his another nonsense.
This whole episode show, these government lawyers are bunch of clueless jokers, just reflects people who had hired them.

[Bodhi]

Representing the Union of India in Supreme Court, Attorney General of India 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.”

This statement prompted us to look into the original sources and examine the claim made by the Union of India, and the below are 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, and an 1883 edition of Vishvanath Narayan Mandalika printed from Pune in the Anandashram Sanskrit Series in four volumes represents this recension. Another edition from the southern recensions, primarily from certain karNATaka and Andhra manuscripts is edited by Kshemaraj Srikrishnadas Shreshthin and printed from Mumbai. Finally, another primary recension with quite a lot of differences and of fair antiquity is the eastern recension available in Bengali script. The most complete version of this being the manuscript preserved in the National Library Kolkata, while two other manuscripts are available in the Asiatic Society of Kolkata and these display quite some differences with other recensions and slight differences with each other as well.

2. The arrangement of sections in this purANa itself and their sequencing is a matter of difference between these different recensions. The eastern one has six khaNDa-s in the following order: i) sR^iShTi-khaNDa ii) bhUmi-khaNDa iii) swarga-khaNDa iv) pAtAla-khaNDa v) uttara-khaNDa, and vi) kR^iyA-yoga-sAra. The VN Mandalika edition has a different list and sequence: i) Adima-khaNDa ii) bhUmi-khaNDa iii) bramha-khaNDa iv) pAtAla-khaNDa v) sR^iShTi-khaNDa, and vi) uttara-khaNDa. In the second southern recension the Kshemaraj edition, chapters are similar to the eastern version, but after sR^iShTi and bhUmi khANDa are arranged bramha-khaNDa, pAtAla-khaNDa and uttara-khaNDa omitting as it would seem the swarga-khaNDa. However a closer examination would show that the swarga-khaNDa of one recension is in reality what has been split into two independent khaNDa-s by the others: the Adim-khaNDa and bramha-khaNDa. kR^iyA-yoga-sAra likewise is but an appendix in the uttara-khaNDa as well. With that said, the most common book-arrangement appears to be the one mentioned in the eastern recension minus the kR^iyA-yoga-sAra as a separate book.

3. The dating of padma purANa, like many other scriptures is a matter of debates, but most scholars now agree for this to go back at least as far back as the 4th century of CE. We are of the opinion that it might be dating back ever earlier than this, but as it does not concern us for the present purpose, we shall skip that discussion.

4. We should however mention in the passing that some of the contents of the padma-purANa, interestingly but not surprisingly, have been used as the base matter for some major classical saMskR^ita literature. The primary references used by the legendary kAlidAsa in his works, has been a subject of intense research. Haradatta Sarma has convincingly demonstrated that while composing raghuvaMshaM, kAlidAsa should have relied upon padma purANa more than on vAlmIki’s rAmAyaNa for the itihAsa-content. [1] Likewise, ample research now shows that kAlidAsa should have also had the benefit of referring to this purANa, more than the mahAbhArata, for the skeletal story behind his masterpiece abhij~nAna shAkuntalam.

5. ‘padma purANa’ is also the title of an important jaina saMskR^ita scripture, written by jaina scholar AchArya raviSheNa in the 6-7th century of the CE, adaptation/recension of which are found in prAkR^ita as ‘pauma-chariya’ by vimalasUri and in apabhraMsha tongue as ‘pauma-chariu’ by swayaMbhU. The subject matter of all of these jaina texts is the legend of rAma whom they have revered here as padma. There are some intriguing similarities between rAma’s story in the padma purANa of vyAsa (the one of our focus in this note), and the padma-purANa of jaina recension, including the peculiar coincidences in the flow of the narrative, in spite of the huge differences they display in the specifics. However we shall leave it for future to explore this connection between the jaina and hindu padma-purANa-s further.

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.

7. pAtAla-khaNDa, contains one hundred and seventeen chapters and among these is a lengthy section titled shiva-rAghava-saMvAda spanning over several chapters and containing a dialog between rAma and mahAdeva. The 116th chapter of this section is known as purAkalpIya-rAmAyaNa-kathanaM and contains jAmbavanta’s narration of the rAmAyaNa’s events. In this section is this strikingly unique description of the enterprise of crossing the sea by the vAnara senA:

{(219) Now, I am going to relate (to you) the efforts (made) towards crossing the sea. (220) Then rAma said, I would worship Lord shaMkara and appeal to him about our predicament, and then we shall do as guided by him. Saying this, he started praying to mahAdeva. (221 is a beautiful hymn containing several names of maheshwara, which rAma uttered to invoke him). (222, 223) mahAdeva then appeared to rAma with all his attributes. (224) rAma saluted mahAdeva with joined palms and prayed to him again in the daNDavata posture. (225) parameshvara then addressed rAma promising him the desired boons. (226) rAma replied to mahAdeva: ‘O shambhu, only give us the means to cross this sea so that we may reach laMkA’. (227) (hearing this,) shambhu then answered: ‘This is my bow ajagavaM. It immediately takes any shape as desired (by its wielder). Take this and climbing through it you can overcome the sea and reach laMkA’. (228) Then intent upon this course, rAma invoked that ajagavaM, (229) and when the bow appeared, rAma worshipped it. (230) Shiva then handed it over to rAma, (231) and rAma threw the bow across the ocean. (232) rAma, lakShamaNa and the entire senA of as numerous vAnara-s as six-parArdha [2] fulfilled their objective (of crossing the ocean) by climbing that bow. (233) Seeing those vAnara-s approaching the shore though the bow, (234) and alarmed by the force of the vAnara-s, a rAkShasa coast-guard by the name of atikAya immediately approached rAvaNa.}

Besides this particularly striking description, there is no further mention of the rAma setu in pAtAla-khaNDa.

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 and when insisted by vibhIShaNa, he has given him instructions about conducting the empire and some interesting orders to recover and restore a certain mUrti-s of vaiShnavI and of vAmana which were commissioned earlier by bali the great dAnava emperor. 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 General in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 monument", since the Attorney General 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.

Notes:
[1] Haradatta Sarma, “Padmapurana And Kalidasa”, Calcutta Oriental Series, 1924.

[2] parArdha is the largest measure of count. One parArdha is measured by number of mortal days in the span of 50 bramha-years (and would equal “one hunderd-thousand-billion” according to mahAbhArata).

Attachments:
1. Scanned pages (# 1028 and 1029) from the southern recension 1 of the purANa, edited by Vishvanath Narayan Mandalika, Anandashram, 1894, Pune.
2. Scanned pages from the southern recension 2 of the purANa, edited by Khemraj Srikrishna Das Shreshthi, 1867, Sri Venkateshwar Mudranalaya Mumbai.
3. Complete text of sR^iShTi khaNDa of the northern recension, where this reference mentioned in point #8 could not be located.
4. Complete text of the pAtAla khaNDa of the northern recension, in which the section mentioned in the point # 7 can be located.

[Bodhi]

I stand corrected. Fali Nariman is not the Attorney General. He was Addl. Solicitor General but not any more. He is just the Lead Attorney hired by the Union of India.