http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=2&theme=&usrsess=1&id=216003
Sethu: DMK quotes Ramayana
Chennai, July 29: Rushing to the defence of the Centre's stand in the Supreme Court that Lord Ram himself had destroyed Ram Sethu after crossing over to the home territory, the DMK has come out with exact quotes from Kambaramayana which supports the Centre's contention.
Countering a report in an English daily quoting pro-Hindutva journalist Mr Cho Ramasamy who had asserted that no such verses were found in any part of Kambaramayana, an article published in DMK organ `Murasoli’ quoted the stanza from Kambaramayana which says “Lord Ram destroyed the bridge using an arrow so that the bridge should not be an obstacle to passage of ships”.
The exact Tamil verse given is “Marakkalam Iyakka Vendi Varisilai Pudhaiyal Keeri”.
The next three lines of the stanza says “those who travel near the place where the demolished bridge lies will be absolved of their sins and will be equivalent to the Gods”.
The article written by a senior advocate Mr M S Venkatachalam asked “If Lord Ram himself has destroyed the Ram Sethu saying that it should not be an obstacle to ships, why some people are opposing it in the name of Ram himself”.
“Lord Ram himself had said that those who pass near the demolished bridge would be absolved of their sins. If a canal is dredged, several ships can pass near the demolished bridge and the people travelling in them will be absolved of their sins”, the article said quoting Kambaramayana.
The writer also gave the details about the chapter and the stanza's number in Kambaramayana. The article also questioned Mr Cho Ramasamy's knowledge in Tamil literature and asked if he was an expert in Kambaramayana. The article has also used ironical epithets like `great scholar’ and `great poet’, while referring to Mr Cho Ramasamy since most of the Tamil scholars have ridiculed Mr Cho Ramasamy's knowledge of Tamil as he cannot write a single sentence in proper Tamil without mixing Sanskrit words.
From Jayasree Evam Ethath puraa vruththam aakhyaanam bhadhram asthu va: | pravyaaharatha visrabdham balam vishNO: pravardhathaam ||
(6-131-121)Let this story that happened in an olden time be of good to you.
Let the power of Vishnu grow in all worlds.
So saying Kavi Valimiki concludes his epic.
This verse, being said everyday by thousands of people
at the end of their parayana of Ramayana / Sundara khanda
is supposed to increase the power of presence of Vishnu in this world.
Rama does not come by himself to defend or destroy someone,
every time dharma is challenged.
The recital of his name or his story itself is taking care of the needs of the times.
Now this miracle has happened with the die-hard haters of Rama and his fame.
With all the outbursts and ridicules on Rama and his historicity,
the DMK Chief and his party’s mouth-piece,
are in effect giving credence to the existence of Rama.
By saying that Rama broke the Sethu,
they accept that Sethu existed.
By accepting Ram Sethu,
they accept that Ram existed!
But in quoting a verse from Kamba Ramayan
(this is not found in many olden editions
but only an interpolation as shown in this link
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/07/sethu-in-kamba-ramayanam.html)
they have also demonstrated that knowledge and intelligence
do not always go hand in hand.
Mere knowledge of Tamil is not enough,
if one lacks the intellect to interpret the verses in Tamil.
Such intellect is not possible in the absence of knowledge
of the root texts which are in Sanskrit.
Thus their diatribe against Cho also is flawed.
Let us look at how their interpretation is false.
The verse quoted by them is this:
Marakkalam iyanga vendi,Varisilai pudaiyal keeri th
Tharukkiya idathhu,Pancha pdhagarenum saarin,
Perukkiya ezhu mundru piraviyum, pinikal neengi
Nerukuriya amararkku ellam nin needhi aavar anree.
The same verse also has appeared in some quotes
with ‘pudhaiyaal’ as ‘kudhaiyaal’.
‘Kudhai’ is the bottom part of the arrow.
‘Pudhai’ is the bunch of arrows.
First let them make it clear whether it is kudhai or pudhai.
I am saying this to show that the verse had been mutated/
with respect to some letters.
The other place where I find such mutation is
the very first word – ‘marakkalam’ (ship)
which they are relying on to ‘blast’ Ram sethu.
The 'marakkalam' (ship) seems to be
the mutated form of 'marukkaamal' (means 'without objection').
Look at the 'yedugai'
(the 2nd letter of the first words in each line rhyming with each other)
of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines.
The 'ru' in all these 3 lines do not go well with 'ra' of marakkalam in the first line.
It will be appropriate to have 'ru' yedugai in the first line too
and it does not result in 'thaLAi thattudhal' (adheres to the grammar of the words)
It must be
"marukkamal iyanga vEndi".
That is, in order to make the rule of Rama-neeti be adhered to
without any objection or opposition,
the 'kudhai' of Rama made a mark on Ram Sethu to declare
that those who worship there will be relieved of sins of 21 births.
If we analyse the verse deeply,
we see the purpose of 'breaking' (keeri).
This verse gives 2 reasons for this.
One is for making the ships sail (marakkalam iyanga vendi)
and another is for removing the sins accumulated in 21 births.
What Rama really intended to do?
To help people get their sins removed?
Or to make way for ships?
If ships could cross that stretch,
a question comes why Rama didn’t think of crossing the sea by ships.
Even catamarans would do to cross this stretch.
When he was able to get his huge army to build a bridge across the ocean in just 5 days,
he could have easily constructed catamarans or
even sailable ships in record numbers in record time
with the help of the vanaras.
But he didn't.
Or it didn't occur to him to cross the ocean in ships or catamarans.
Why?
One reason we can deduce is that
this part of the ocean was not a navigable one in his times.
The sea had been rough,
and this can be made out from the description in Valmiki Ramayana.
The description of the sea after they reached the shore,
is indicative of rough waters and rough weather.
(Yuddha khanda – chapter -4)
Based on this line of reasoning, we can say that
making a way for ships was not in the agenda of Rama.
Now about ‘kudhai’.
Kudhai is the bottom portion of the arrow.
(Senthamizh agaraathi by NC Kandaiya pillai, 1950 edition).
It is not the sharp piercing tip.
When will someone do the ‘keeral’ with the bottom of the arrow?
to mark the area for some purpose.
The purpose is told in the next lines
which is about the sanctity of the place for propitiation.
If the word is ‘pudhai’, which means a bunch of arrows,
it would mean that a bathing ghat was made
by means of shooting arrows on the ground.
The ensuing lines on propitiation make it known that what was done
was creation of a place for taking holy dip!
The verse seems to be a declaration
that those who take a dip there
would be relieved of the results of ‘pancha maha paadhakam,
and the sins accumulated over 21 births
and would be disease free.
By quoting this verse,
the DMK has accepted that Ram sethu is a holy theertham.
The verse also indicates that Ram sethu has been once used by people.
Then what prevents them from declaring it as a monument?
Foot note:-
The verse quoted by Murasoli is the succeeding verse of this:-
ஆவினை, குரவரோடும் அருமறை முனிவர்தம்மை,
பாவையர் குழுவை, இன் சொல் பாலரை, பயந்து தம் இல்
மேவின அவரை, செற்றோர், விரி கடல் சேது வந்து
தோய்வரேல், அவர்கள் கண்டாய், சுரர் தொழும் சுரர்கள் ஆவார்.
From this context it is deduced, that the 'keeral' was done
only for propitiation and not for movement of ships.
The 2 verses read together make this clear.
ஆவினை, குரவரோடும் அருமறை முனிவர்தம்மை,
பாவையர் குழுவை, இன் சொல் பாலரை, பயந்து தம் இல்
மேவின அவரை, செற்றோர், விரி கடல் சேது வந்து
தோய்வரேல், அவர்கள் கண்டாய், சுரர் தொழும் சுரர்கள் ஆவார்.
மரக்கலம் இயங்கவேண்டி, வரி சிலைக் குதையால் கீறித்
தருக்கிய இடத்து, பஞ்ச பாதகரேனும் சாரின்,
பெருக்கிய ஏழு மூன்று பிறவியும் பிணிகள் நீங்கி,
நெருக்கிய அமரர்க்கு எல்லாம் நீள் நிதி ஆவர் அன்றே.
