Mangalmandir - Maruti Edition (PDF) - Sai Kirtan Group

chanting. Kapivar‘s contrivance was in ―rupam dehi‖ in which the ―e‖ maatraa was
requested by him – so it so happened that:
―Rupam dahi, jayam dahi, yasho daho, dvisho jahi‖ meaning that wishing for his resolve
accomplishment may our yajmaan (organiser) Raavan‘s form be burned, his victory turn
to ashes, his fame be burned, and his opponents be burned. So by Hanumaanji‘s obtaining
just one maatraa, the whole Laksha-Chandi operation turned adverse by the fault of mis
pronunciation and instead of giving Raavan victory, destruction was granted – what
contrivance of Kapivar! When Raavan came to know this, he began to maim the
brahmins with his mace. Whereupon the noble like Vibhishan etc. said to him: ―Even
Bhagvati Shakti by mispronunciation through the brahmins is turning to oppose your
accomplishmnent of resolution. Please believe and refrain. There is still time.‖
―But paying no attention and flouting the words of advise of his brother Vibhishan,
Raavan became convinced that the monkey who in return for his service asked only for
one maatraa was no ordinary person – that Hanumaan was no ordinary monkey but a
great intellectual grammatarian and knower of tantra and mantra. Raavan was set back
and by the contrivance of Kapivar, Sitaa I obtained you.‖
Sitaaji asked Raam for next morning to grant a boon to Hanumaanji according to his
wishes for his assistance. And as if the moon was bearing witness it shed cool rays and
hiding behind the clouds watched the sweet company of Sri Raam Sitaa. Though he was
cursed with deterioration of his brilliance, he had not given up his act of the play act of
prakruti and purusha. Sri Raam related Kapivar‘s contrivance to Sitaa – was it not heard
by any other apart from the moon? Astu.
The great intellectual Hanumaan
Author : rev. Swaami Sri Sachchidaanandji
Was Hanumaanji a monkey or human? In reply to that question Swaamiji presents his
view.
In a book published by Sastu Saahitya Vardhak Kaaryaalay ―Mahaabhaarat vishe ketlaak
vichaaro ane suchanaao‖ has an article ―Hanumaan and his associates were humans but
not monkeys with tails‖ the essential facts within which are that Hanumaanji was very
well versed with Rug-ved, Yajur-ved, Saaam-ved and grammar faculty. Such a great
intellectual, who can call such individual a monkey? In this God‘s creation can one see
any rule by which one can draw inference that the race of monkeys could behold wisdom
of the Vedas? So, it can be concluded that Hanumaanji and Sugriva and others who were
the beholders of the knowledge of Vedas were not tailed monkeys. For example, just a
little time ago when the war took place between Russia and Japan, noticing the jumping
of the Japanese the Russians inferred them as Yellow monkeys (many Japanese are
yellow in complexion). That is how this reference became established for the Japanese.
And it alo came to used as such. Also even today many Europeans and other countries
refer to the Russians as bears. And for the British as the British lions or John Bull. And
take the example of our Bhaarat. Warriors of the Naag dynasty (Naag-vanshi) are famed,
whose descendants of Chhotaa-nag-pur etc. Mahaarajas pride themselves with the title of
―Naag‖ (serpent). So were they really serpents? Not so, they beheld the lustre of warriors
so their dynasty became known as ―Naag‖. Similarly, there is no doubt that Sugriva and
his other associates and aids became known as monkeys. Observe, even to this day many
62 | P a g e