SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. Two questions have been raised in the Bow?s story ?10, to which I wish to attempt some answers and expect and accept comments / corrections / concurrence from fellow devotees. I gather some courage to venture into this - though I am more on the side of being disqualified for my little knowledge of Shastras and puranas? purely out of conviction that the aim of our shastras and sruti is not to reveal anything outright but to make us to delve, think, probe, discuss and deduce. The questions are (1) In her conversation with Anasuya, sita says that the shiva-dhanush was obtained by her father Janaka from Varuna in a maha-yajna. Is this not contrary to the version found elsewhere, that it was given to the Videha king, Devaratha? Then which version is right? (2) If sita as a 6 year old girl could move the heavy shiva-dhanush effortlessly, why could she not protect herself when Ravana lifted her up? To find a convincing reply to the first question, let us remember that cross-references and interpretations using similar versions expressed in the same source do help in arriving at a better understanding. In my limited knowledge, let me quote 2 instances of such mix-up (perceived so) in Valmiki Ramayana and how learned persons have resolved them. One occurs in Sundara khandam when Hanauman was witnessing Ravana?s outburst against Sita when she refused to budge. His wife Dhanyamalini pacified him and brought him back to his palace. Later when Hanuman recounted this incident to fellow vanaras on his return, he said that Mandodhari pacified Ravana. This is not seen as a mix-up nor of something to doubt the veracity of the incident that occurred, but as a proof that Ravana?s patta-mahishi too was present when he visited Sita. Both Mandodhari and Dhanyamalini (who were accompanied with scores of other wives of Ravana) seemed to have persuaded Ravana to retire to his place. The mention of one at one sarga and the other at another sarga, does not negate the presence of both at the time of incidence. Another incident is that of Rama telling Sita at the end of the war (before agni-pravesa) to go to Lakshmana or Bharatha. This is interpreted by pandithas, not as being derogatory (not to mean any anartham) but only as an advice to take refuge in them for protection, like how a mother is protected by her sons. Suffice it to say that for umpteen number of times it has been said in Valmiki ramayana itself that lakshmana is like her son. Based on the interpretations such as these, let us analyse the first question. That the dhanush was given by Rudra to Devaratha is a fact considering that more than one instance can be cited to substantiate this (by cross-reference). At the same time let us not ignore the fact that Sita does not say that Varuna gave it Devaratha, she merely says that varuna gave it to her father Janaka (who was the son of Devaratha.) So something exists in-between, a reference to which may exist in some other source. But by interpretation (like how it is done in the 2 instances quoted above), we may be permitted to say that it was true that this bow was given by Rudra to Devaratha and it was also true that Varuna gave this to Janaka. It is possible that it had gone into the hands of janaka by means of a yajna in which the Varuna-devatha formally transfers the bow to Janaka. That is, Janaka comes into possession of this bow (though by now a family property) by means of some rituals in which the devathas pray for the bow (this is what Sita says to Anasuya) to be given to Janaka and Varuna undertakes the act of giving it. Thus both the information about the possession of the bow are to be treated as facts told by Valmiki. Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two pieces of information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana itself. One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam takes place only during certain kaala-dEsha- vartha maana. The Vishnu-veeryam was present in the Shiva-dhanush only at the time of samhaaram of Thripura asuras (refer previous postings of bow?s story) and not later when the war broke out between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise, shiva placed His veeryam in the dhanush to make it extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up. Even otherwise it was heavy ( by some standard) is another point. Whether it was heavy when Sita as a little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder. The question that comes to my mind here is whether Ravana recognised Sita, when Surpanaga told him of the story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him to avenge them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn?t betray any remembrance of the incident at Janaka?s court nor any knowledge about Sita?s existence. He listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about her for the first time. The reasons are easy to understand. It was by a kind of selective amnesia that he would not have wanted to remember Sita?s swayamvara, where he suffered a humiliation to his valour (in having failed to lift the bow). That perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take her to show how valiant he was. Because at every occasion he was keen on showing her how valiant he was and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no match to him . Thus the seeds of doing harm to Rama must have been sown at Janaka?s court itself. When the chance came he didn?t want to lose the it - however otherwise convinced he might be about the pathi-vradha nature of Sita. Because when he told her that he was going to take her, he addressed her ?varavarNinI? ? (a term used to exemplary women who are extremely devoted to the husband) and ridiculed Rama that he was not a match even to his finger!! Our (2nd) question is why Sita didn?t stop the abduction by some way ? (implied) say by even becoming heavy so that Ravana would have struggled as he did when he tried to lift the shiva-dhanush. The reasons I can think of is the one stated above (based on kaala-desha-vartha maana) and the stated position of Sita that she, as pathi-vradahai (shesha here) was not supposed to act without being ordained by her lord. Sita at this juncture (at Aranya) was not the same as the 6 year old at Janaka?s palace and her dharma was different now. But the core reason was stated by Sita herself as she was being lifted by Ravana. As she was screaming the name of Rama, she wailed why he, as protector of dharma, had not protected her as she was being taken away in adharmic way ? why he as one who punishes the sinners had not yet punished Ravana. Then as if by realisation, she continued that unless one had sinned, how could he be punished. Ravana had done the paapa-kaaryam only then (in the process of abduction) and it would take some time for the counter-action (for the paapa) to take place, just as how it takes some time for the plant to give results. This is to be read along with what Rama says as his mission to the sages who visited him in Sarabhanga ashram (aranya khandam) pleading him to protect them from the raakshasas. Rama confides to them that he had undertaken vana- vasam for a personal reason (sondha-prayOjanam). If they (sages) ask if it is not due to pitru-vaakhya paripaalanam, Rama says it is not so. He uses it only as a pretext to be able to come to the forest to destroy the asuras. He further states that he has come there only on his own volition, to fulfil his purpose. When Rama does for a purpose, so also Sita does to further His cause. The abduction is only a pretext to make ravana commit an offence to rama so that Rama can rise up against him. Sita could have as well stopped Ravana from lifting her. But that she didn?t give a minimum physical resistance nor even a fight when ravana lifted her, gives a different story. Had she resisted, Ravana would not have dared to even touch her. Because such was the curse ravana had on his life. Valmiki says this precisely when ravana lifted her, that mindful of the curse on his life, he held by her hair in his left hand and her thigh in his right hand so that her body does not touch his. This shows that sita could have easily made Ravana burst into pieces, if she had resisted. But that was not the purpose for which the entire story was enacted. A further proof for why Rama needed a pretext to kill ravana can be cited as follows. We may be permitted to ask why Rama didn?t kill him instantly in the war. He first cuts off his heads, which however grew immediately. I am reminded here of the adage in Tamil ?Dharmam thalai kaakkum? . Ravana was protected by the numerous good deeds and the penance he had done earlier. Then how to stop them from coming to his rescue? I find a clue to this in the abduction drama that unfolded after jatayu?s exit. Jatayu had fallen on the ground and Sita sits beside him wailing about his demise and her bad luck. It is then Ravana lifts her up by her hair to carry her. Seeing this Brahma deva remarks, ?kaaryam mudindhadhu? (the job is done) and the otherwordly entities too rejoice over this. Yes, valmiki uses the term rejoice here. Why should they be rejoiced when Sita were to be treated like this ? This perhaps forms the pretext or cause for wiping out whatever dharma that Ravana had accumulated that would safeguard him even when he is in dire straits. There may be connection between this rejoice over lifting her by her hair and Ravana getting back his head in position in the war. This act perhaps was instrumental in getting whatever dharma that was left to safeguard his head was successively getting depleted every time that Rama cut off a head and finally leaving him out of bound for protection by dharma in his account, so that the final asthra, the Brahmasthra was able to finish his life. (PS : The instances / narratives from Valmiki ramayana quoted in this mail are drawn from the transliteration of the same into Tamil done by Sri A.V. Narasimhachari published by R. Venkateswarar & co, in the year 1926.) - jayasree saranathan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |