22

In Ramayana, Indrajit was able to hit Laxman by his special weapon named Shakti. Due to this Laxman went very near to death. Now Lord Hanuman went to Himalaya & brought Sanjivani. This way Laxman was saved.

The next day Indrajit uses all three main weapons i.e. Bramhastra, Narayanan's Sudarshan Chakra & Shiva's Pashupatra (Trishul). These weapons are considered as most deadly weapons but none of this weapon was able to harm Laxman.

Video Source from Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan. All the sources of this Ramayan are based on the Valmiki's Ramayan & Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas.

So how come shakti weapon was able to harm Laxman?

codeczar
  • 756
  • 2
  • 10
  • 34
Kedarnath
  • 4,706
  • 14
  • 36
  • 68

2 Answers2

29

First of all, Indrajit never tried to use a Brahmastra, Narayanastra or Pashupatastra in the war (although he did use a Brahmastra against Hanuman during Hanuman's pror visit to Lanka, as I discuss in this answer). But he did once use another weapon of Shiva, the Raudrastra, although as I'll discuss below that was just to fight off one of Lakshmana's weapons. Second of all, the TV serial is conflating a bunch of different incidents:

  1. There is one occasion where Indrajit fatally wounded Lakshmana, but that's an occasion where he fatally wounded both Rama and Lakshmana. As described in this chapter and this chapter of the Yuddha Kanda of the Ramayana, early on in the war, Sugriva's nephew Angada defeated Indrajit in battle, so Indrajit turned invisible and then launched numerous Nagastras (snake weapons) at Rama and Lakshmana, which put them in a state very close to death. But then Vishnu's mount Garuda came to the battlefield, eating all the snakes and healing the wounds of Rama and Lakshmana. (Rama asked him who he was and why he was helping them, but Garuda refused to answer because Rama wasn't supposed to know that he was an incarnation of Vishnu.)

  2. The only direct confrontation between Lakshmana and Indrajit happened later on in the war, and its conclusion is described in this chapter of the Yuddha Kanda. Indrajit fired a Yamastra (weapon of Yama god of death), but Lakshmana destroyed it with a Kuberastra (weapon of Kubera god of wealth). Then Lakshmana launched a Varunastra (weapon of Varuna the ocean god), but Indrajit destroyed it with a Raudrastra (weapon of Shiva). Then Indrajit fired an Agneyastra (weapon of Agni the fire god), but Lakshmana destroyed it with a Saurenastra (weapon of Surya the sun god). Then Indrajit launched an Asurastra (weapon of the demons), but Lakshmana destroyed it with a Maheshwarastra (another weapon of Shiva). Finally Lakshmana hit Indrajit with an Indrastra (weapon of Indra king of the gods), killing him. Now after killing Indrajit, Laskhmana did have some wounds, but those wounds were very easily healed by Sugriva's father-in-law Sushena.

  3. The incident you mentioned involving Hanuman carrying a mountain happened even later in the war and had nothing to do with Indrajit. As described in this chapter of the Yuddha Kanda, during the battle between Rama and Ravana, Ravana's brother Vibhishana killed Ravana's horses, so Ravana got down from his chariot and threw a powerful spear at Vibhishana, but Lakshmana shot the spear down with three arrows. Angered by this, Ravana threw an even more formidable spear at Lakshmana, fatally wounding him. So as described in the next chapter, Sugriva's father-in-law Sushena sent Hanuman to retrieve the herbs called Vishalya Karani, Savarni Karani, Sanjiva Karani, and Sandhana Karani from the peak of Mount Oushadi. Hanuman couldn't identify the herbs on that mountain, so he brought the mountain peak itself to Lanka, and then Sushena used the herbs to heal Lakshmana.

So there's not even a question of Lakshmana being vulnerable to some Astras (magical weapons) and not others, because there iss never an occasion where he shows any invincibility against Astras.

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
2

The fact is that both in the Ramayan and Mahabharat the so called good sides(i.e. Sri Ram's side and the Pandavas respectively) were weaker than the bad side (Ravan's and the Kauravas respectively). So the good side cheated to win, plain and simple. Ram and Laxman even though they were avatars could not have defeated indrajeet had not vibhishan betrayed indrajeet. Ram and Laxman broke the rules of war and attacked indrajeet while he was praying. Regarding angad defeating indrajeet, so that did not happen, angad killed his charioteer and killed his horses but he was not able to defeat indrajeet once he started using maya tactics infact Indrajeet was actually stronger than GOD......

prashant
  • 121
  • 1
  • 3
    Rama cheated in the war? from where did you get that? killing charioteer and horses is not cheating according to war strategies. Vibheeshan didn't betray indrajeet but indrajeet abused his uncle in front of whole assembly. Vibheeshana than did not want to support his adharma brother and went to Rama's side. Vanaras were not weak. So you say Ravana acted according to the dharma? Read yuddha kanda before answering questions. – Sarvabhouma May 14 '16 at 07:50
  • 2
    Ofcourse he cheated, he sanctioned attacking indrajeet when he was praying and vibhishan betrayed his country as well as raavan and indrajeet by giving away the secrets of their strength.......please check what rules of war were prevelant in that time before responding – prashant May 14 '16 at 18:36
  • Newton's Third Law: "For every action there is an equal & opposite reaction". Vibhisan suggested Ravan not to follow ADHARM but Ravan turned Vibhisan's plea down (Action) & As a reaction Vibhisan went to Ram side to punish Ravan for his evil deeds. Kidnapping a virtuous wife of other is a heinous act which Ravan did (Action). As a reaction, Ravan went to destruction along with his family & (evil) followers. – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 17:34
  • @prashant: read in hindi if you can "Genhu ke sath ghun bhi pista hai" Ravan, an evildoer is 'Genhu' and his (innocent) family (like Indrajit) & followers are 'Ghun'. All your deeds good or bad what you do, directly affect your family, friends, followers. When a person does something bad, he along with his loving people (family, friends, followers) will have to suffer the defame & the like. So those who are not at all in favor of evil doer of a family, it's better to separate or leave the family however others will call them/him a betrayer to the family if something bad happens to his family. – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 18:00
  • @prashant: Because one can't get something for nothing i.e. everyone has to pay for what he earns good or bad. Similar thing happened with Vibhisan. He chose to be called a betrayer & suffer defame (PAYMENT OF VIBHISAN) just to follow Dharma & get blessings of God (REWARD TO VIBHISAN). Simply think "WITHOUT HARD WORK & SUFFERING HOW CAN YOU ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL ?" – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 18:13
  • @prashant: you very well know 'TIT FOR TAT'. These are some basic moral things for human that we are taught in our schools. If you behave a fraudulent (ACTOR) like a fraudulent (REACTOR) , it's no cheating. If one swindles an innocent person then it's cheating. Indrajit, the son of evil doer Ravan , was to fight against DHARMA (IT IS CHEATING as an action) Lakshman guided by Vibhisan, attacked Indrajit even while praying (IT IS NOT CHEATING as it is reaction) – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 18:29
  • @prashant: Indrajit (ACTOR) unlawfully (frequent appearing & disappearing just to divert) hit Lakshman by his SHAKTI spear (it's cheating). Lakshman (REACTOR) attacked Indrajit while praying in the same unlawful way (it's no cheating as it is TIT FOR TAT). It's no use behaving a dishonest person honestly. It's no cheating if you (REACTOR) cheat a cheater (ACTOR). NEWTON'S THIRD LAW EQUALLY HOLDS GOOD IN THE NATURE/UNIVERSE – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 18:57
  • @prashant: It's no use behaving a trickster honestly. In case, Lakshman had not attacked Indrajit (trickster) while praying, Indrajit might have killed Lakshman. This means ADHARMA wins DHARMA. There would be an unnecessary loss to DHARMA since Rama & Lakshman had already suffered a lot to keep their word & follow Dharma. So unnecessarily killing of Lakshman was not justice of Nature. – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 18:58
  • LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST: Practically, if a person is keen or wants to see the results of ADHARMA, just kidnap (like RAVAN) a virtuous wife (like goddess SITA) of somebody. The POLICE will search him out even faster than Lord HANUMAN & finally arrest him (usually without any WAR of Rama & Ravan). The police & the court (God of death to criminals) do not follow any principles of Lord Rama like mercy, compassion, negligence etc, they follow their own rules to set him (criminal) right for the lifetime by handling him in a better way – Bhaskara-III Dec 16 '16 at 19:38
  • 1
    I am not saying what the ravaan or indrajeet were on the side of dharma, they were not. However the question here is "how come shakti weapon could harm laxman who was an avataar of lord vishnu"........to that point I am saying that atually in the Ramayan, INDRAJEET was the strongest warrior...and the strength he acquired through penance had to bear fruit even if it was used against Raam and Raam knew that Indrajeet could not be defeated by fighting him, he had to be cheated to be defeated...just like Arjun could not kill Karna as long as the latter stood with the Vijaya dhanush, – prashant Dec 18 '16 at 08:02
  • 2
    Raam could not have killed indrajeet if he was allowed to complete his prayer.....so he attacked him while he was praying......My point is that the lesson to learn from this is that you may be the most adharm person in the world, but if you have worked to acquire the strength which Indrajeet acquired then you can force even the GODs to recognize the fact that they cannot win through power alone. Forcing Lord Raam to attack a person when he is praying or having Grauda come to help Lord Raam when he was swooned by megnath....is the lord bowing his head to indrajeet's power........ – prashant Dec 18 '16 at 08:05
  • which is a testimony to what the will power of a human being can achieve. – prashant Dec 18 '16 at 08:09