You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Dec 2004

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00068 Dec 2004

 
Dec 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]




Subject:  Re: Bow's story ? clarification on question raised.

Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

Continuing the points on Smt. Jayasree's mail on the bow's story, 
this is part 2. as stated earlier JASN is Smt. Jayasree and my points 
are given as MGV: --

JASN: 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.

MGV: -- One point here. The original when it was intended for the 
dhEvaas may have been light but once the bow reached human hands like 
dhEvaraatha, chances are very bright that the bow became heavy. 
Please compare human time and dhEvaas time. One ayanam [6 months 
period] for us is half a day for them. Like that the weight alsocan 
be. To put it lightly ? what is one quintal for us [100kgs] may be 
one gram for them. Further once built, the heaviness with which it 
was built will not go elsewhere. That is why it is so light for them 
but heavy for human kings here. But since seethaa is `saakshaath maha 
lakshmee' it was very light for her.

JASN: The question that comes to my mind here is whether Ravana 
recognised Sita, when Surpanaka 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). 

MGV: This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to 
be heard properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and 
can help her in achieving her goals [either by way of punishing the 
human characters who defaced her, or by way of bringing forcefully 
the humans whom she liked and give to her for enjoyment or in 
marriage ]. At that stage he would definitely not like to exhibit he 
also suffered at the cause of same seethaa. 
  
JASN: 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. 

MGV: To a large extent, yes.
 
JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose it - however 
otherwise convinced he might be about the pathivratha 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!!

MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-
17

Actually the addressing is `varaarOhE', and the attribute of the 
addressee is a beautiful woman. This `varaarOhE' is one among the 
group of: 
varaarOhaa, 
mathtta kaasinee, 
uththamaa, 
vara varNinee
 - amara kosam ? 2-4-436 [chapter 2].

Again this addressing is repeated
vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE |
na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28

JASN: 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-
vrathai (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. 

MGV: The point here is ? when, as a six year old, she could push the 
siva dhanu: so easily, her mind always was on raama [as mahalakshmi 
thinking of naaraayaNan, in and as raama] so she could do that. But, 
now, in front of raavaNan, she has become a part of raama having 
united with him in marriage as well physically also. For she claims 
in front of that very same raavaNan, " we enjoyed the humanly life 
for 12 years in ayodhyaa as well in forest". So now she is totally 
dependent on raamaa. So her powers are identified with raamaa.

Further as stated in slokam 2-29-6 [given below again] seethaa, when 
raavaNan is approaching her, with the intention of abducting, is not 
in the vicinity of raama. For she only sent him away. As such, she 
has become powerless. Further, at least if lakshmaNa is there she 
could have had some power. Even he is sent away. As such raavaNan 
could lift her so easily. 

[like the modern day quiz programmes, the clue is given by way of the 
following  slokam,  in the write up [earlier],  before the question 
or doubt is raised].

Further as stated by herself, somebody comparatively more powerful 
than indhran also could do no harm when raama is in her vicinity. 
[Actually raavaNan has overpowered indhran already. That is why all 
gods lead by indhran went to brahma and, he, in turn, went to 
naaraayanan, as we have seen in vaali vadham series by Sri 
Anjaneyalu ? on the portion dealing with birth of vaali ? sargam 16 
of baala kaaNdam]. 
 
na cha maam thvath sameepastham api saknOthi raaghava |
suraaNaam eeshvara: sacra: pradharsayithum Ojasaa || 2-29-6

Meaning: Oh raama! Even dhEvendhra, the lord of celestials, by his 
strength, cannot over power me, when I am in your vicinity.

Moreover when seethaa is fully conscious of herself, she would have 
done the act of just resisting the abductor. But her mind was fully 
on the golden deer. As long as her mind was on `materialistic things' 
like golden deer, she could not do that thing, even to protect 
herself, though she is so powerful as to push the siva dhanu. 

[at the stage of pushing the dhanu, she is awaiting the lord's 
arrival, always thinking of him and the time of his arrival, the 
union with her lord etc, even though apparently she is playing with 
ball etc]. 

Even if her mind was on raamaa, raavaNan could not have overpowered 
her. 

thatha: suvEsham mrugayaa gatham pathim
pratheekshamaaNaa saha lakshmaNam thadhaa |
nireekshamaaNaa haritham dhadharsa thath
mahad vanam na Eva thu raama lakshmaNou || 3-46-38

Meaning: Then she looked forward for her finely attired husband, who 
has gone on a hunting game, and also for Lakshmana, but on her 
gazing, she saw the greenery of the great forest only, but not Rama 
or Lakshmana. 

[hari also mean a deer. Here the `looking forward' for raamaa is with 
the intention of `hey, when he returns he will bring that beautiful 
deer, but here is a braahmaNan waiting, may be I have to do `athithi 
sathkaaram' with full involvement, or, he has to be sent out soon. 
This person will be an intrusion, when raamaa comes back, he will 
bring the golden deer, live or dead. So she was in two minds ? one on 
raamaa with deer, deer being predominant - another on the braahmaNan 
waiting]. Thus the powers inherent have all gone or not helping her 
because of the mind is engaged elsewhere.     

Once she is abducted, overpowered and carried away, all her 
concentration returned on raamaa. That is why no body could do any 
harm to her. All threats from raakshasees, raavaNan etc were only 
words, and she has to react to that superficially. 

JASN: But Sita herself stated the core reason as Ravana was lifting 
her. 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.

MGV: The protector of dharmam is her lord raamaa, who has been sent 
away by her. If dharma raajan, the yaman is to be considered here, as 
protector of dharmam, then he is a subdued person by the very same 
raavaNan. So both could not come to rescue of seethaa.

JASN: 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 fulfill 
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. 

MGV: Fully agreed.

JASN: 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. 

MGV: Yes. Agreed.Otherwise how the avathaara kaaryam will take place. 

JASN: 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. 

MGV: Agreed.

JASN: 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 1st 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. 

MGV: this is the second time. First seethaa is lifted from her 
aasraamam. May be the first act can be forgiven. Any act, if done 
second time also, then it requires a punishment. So raavaNan deserved 
a punishment.

JASN: Seeing this Brahma deva remarks, 'kaaryam mudindhadhu" (the job 
is done) and the other worldly 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 

MGV: On the whole a very good account and nice interpretations.
Dhaasan Vasudevan m.g.









------------------------ 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/VkWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list