Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra
Mahadesikaya nama:
The Eye-sore of Ayodhya
Sri Valmiki tells us that there was none in Ayodhya who was not beautiful, none
who was not well dressed, none who was unadorned with scents and perfumes. The
city and its natives had everything good going for them, with everyone attired
in the best of clothes and ornaments. Everyone was strikingly good-looking and
there was none who was even remotely otherwise.
It was a beautiful city, with beautiful and handsome inhabitants. Their beauty
was not merely skin deep-all citizens of Ayodhya were of impeccable conduct and
character, pure as Maharshis. There was none who coveted others' wealth,
because each had enough and more. Everyone adhered to the righteous path
scrupulously. There were no thieves in Ayodhya, because there was no need for
anyone to take others' property. There were no atheists in Ayodhya, no
agnostics nor anyone who did not discharge in full measure the duties enjoined
upon him or her, as per varNa and Ashrama. Even if you were to search the
entire city, you wouldn't find a fool or an unlettered individual-not merely
were the citizens literate, every one of them was a scholar, says Sri Valmiki.
There were no weaklings in Ayodhya, physically and psychologically; everyone
lived to their full lives, were blessed with happy families, with children,
grand children and great-grand children abounding. In short, Ayodhya was an
ideal city, with responsible, beautiful and righteous citizens who were
paragons of virtue. This, however, is no wonder, because in the reign of the
fair and faultless IkshvAku Emperors, things couldn't have been otherwise. To
put it in a nutshell, the denizens of Ayodhya were living examples of the maxim
"yathA RAjA tathA prajA:" (As the King, so the subjects). The Adikavi is so
impressed with the attainments of the citizens of the capital city of KOsala
dEsam, that he devotes an entire chapter to a rapturous recounting of the
merits of AyOdhyA vAsIs.
However, all these positive features in the citizenry of Ayodhya were brought
to nought in a second and their collective will thwarted, all through the
medium of a pitifully insignificant inhabitant of the city, of whom none
normally took any notice. It was because of this person that Ayodhya, which was
one big, happy family, was transformed within seconds to a city drowning in a
bottomless pit of sorrow, the gay sounds of song and dance replaced by those of
wailing, weeping and breast-beating. A perfect Prince was turned into a nomad,
His lovely wife and devoted brother driven from the palace to the jungle, and
an Emperor, who would have lived on happily for a thousand more years, died
immediately due to unbearable sorrow. The teeming city of happy inhabitants was
transformed overnight into almost a ghost town, shorn of its carnival
atmosphere, with even non-sentient objects like trees in full bloom withering
away suddenly, unable to bear separation from their youthful idol. This person
was powerful enough, or could wield such power by proxy, that the Coronation of
the Paramapurusha Himself , fixed with the consent of all concerned including
the Rajaguru Vasishtta, courtiers, and, above all, the discerning citizens of
Ayodhya, was cancelled at the last moment, with His having to endure a jungle
sojourn of 14 years, instead of reigning in splendour on the throne of Ayodhya.
Readers would have guessed by now that the subject of this piece is none other
than the notorious Manthara, the hunchback.
When we hear her name, the figure that springs to our mind is that of the
grotesquely bent form of an old woman, with a crotchety face and irascible
temperament. She had a deformed back, which gave her a skewed perception of
life and people, which in turn was reflected in her attitude towards others.
Despite her looks or character, it must definitely be admitted that it was she
who brought about a crucial turn in the epic, but for which events would have
taken quite a different and rather uninteresting course, with Sri Rama duly
being anointed Crown Prince and every one living happily ever after-that is,
every one except the long-suffering dEvAs and Rishis, who would have continued
to be tormented by Ravana and his minions. The contribution of Mantara is thus
extremely significant, though her motives might not have been the best.
Do we find a contradiction in Valmiki's description of Ayodhya's residents?
While he portrays all of them as being beautiful of body and mind, does he not
take cognisance of Mantara, who was anything but beautiful? When the Adikavi
tells us that the citizens of the great city had nothing but laudable virtues,
has he overlooked the hunchback, who was a scheming specimen of jealous
humanity?
We must remember, however, that whatever Sri Valmiki has laid down is the
gospel truth ("yasya vAk anrutA kAvyE kAchit atra bhavishyati"). Commentators
tell us that what Sri Valmiki said is indeed true and he was talking about the
citizens of Ayodhya, born and brought up there under the benign influence of
the IkshvAku Emperors. Mantara, on the other hand, was an expatriate of KEkaya,
the homeland of KaikEyi. The hunchback came to Ayodhya along with her mistress
KaikEyi, when Dasarata brought the latter to his capital city, as his newly wed
bride. Thus Mantara was part of the "streedhanam" or dowry KaikEyi brought with
her to Ayodhya, it being the practice in days of yore for princesses to bring
with them their own maids. And even in KEkaya, Mantara appears to have been an
insignificant part of the royal household, no one knowing where she was born
and to whom-"gyAti dAsi yatOjAtA KaikEyyAstu sahOshitA". Thus, by all
accounts, Mantara did not belong to Ayodhya and hence the worthy citizens of
Ayodhya could not be faulted for having such a one in their midst.
All of us know that Mantara was instrumental in asking KaikEyi to seek Sri
Rama's banishment to the forests. But why? What harm did Raghunandana do her
that she worked through her mistress to ensure His extradition to the cruel
jungle?
We do not have an answer for this in Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam. The Adikavi
doesn't devote much attention to Sri Rama's childhood and mentions it just in
passing, apparently in a hurry to chronicle the momentous events that await
detailed recording. We are just told that Rama and Lakshmana were inseparable
and whenever the former went hunting, the latter accompanied Him and neither
took food or water without the other being fed. This is all Sri Valmiki has to
tell us about the Prince's infancy. It is indeed Sri Rama's misfortune that no
Azhwar sought to rectify the Adikavi's omission and record for posterity the
Prince of Ayodhya's bAla leelAs, as was done by Sri Periazhwar for Sri Krishna.
However, we do have glimpses of Sri Rama's childhood from other sources. For
instance, Sri Nammazhwar paints a rare picture of the Prince wielding a
catapult ("uNdai vil"). It must be indeed difficult for us to picturise the
sober and sedate Chakravartthi Tirumagan with a catapult in His hand, but He
did use one, avers Sri Nammazhwar-and if anybody should know, Azhwar should,
having been blessed with unblemished wisdom by Emperuman. In the fifth decad of
the first hundred of Tiruvaimozhi, Azhwar tells us that Sri Rama straightened
the hunch of Mantara with a single shot from His unerring catapult-"koonE
chidaya uNdai vil niratthil teritthAi GOvindA!". Going by this account, we
deduce that Mantara's must have been one of the first occasions when the Lord
displayed His glorious marksmanship, hitting the target right on the head.
Sri Nampillai, in his beautiful commentary on the aforesaid line, tells us that
as in His other endeavours, PerumAL was prompted solely by compassion for the
hunchback and, by a well-placed shot on the hump, straightened the poor
creature's back, destroying the deformity. And He did this without the least
harm to any other part of her physique-"ivaLudaya allAda avayavangaLukku oru
vAttam vArAdapadi nimirttha". Hence, even in sport, we find that unlike the
inconsiderate Krishna, Sri Rama was always compassionate and merciful even to
the most insignificant of men and women.
While we don't disbelieve Azhwar, we are assailed by a genuine doubt. Azhwar
says, "koonE chidaya uNdai vil niratthil teritthAi GOvindA!", very obviously
referring to Krishna and not to Rama. How then can the act be ascribed to the
Prince of Ayodhya? The commentator's reply here is again extremely enjoyable.
Sri Nampillai says that whenever one thinks of any prank, mischief or
misdemeanour, it is to Krishna that the mind automatically leaps. Being unable
to associate Sri Raghunandana with wielding a catapult and hitting people with
its ammunition, though it was indeed He who did it, Azhwar ends up ascribing
the act to Govindan, on whose unprotesting shoulders any blame for any act
could be laid without dispute-"teembu sErvadu KrishNanukkE AgayAlE, avan
talayilE Erittu solludal"
Well, coming back to Mantara, the aforesaid episode perhaps kept rankling in
her devious mind and she was awaiting an opportunity to "get her back". Though
it must have done her a world of good to have her hunchback straightened,
perhaps she didn't like the way it was done, by a mere boy wielding a catapult.
Whatever be the reason, Mantara does not appear to have been favourably
disposed towards Sri Rama.
Coming to the day prior to the infructuous Coronation planned by Dasaratha, Sri
Valmiki appends an exclamatory mark ("YadricchayA"), to the sloka about the
festivities coming to the notice of the scheming hunchback Manthara. Her
movements circumscribed by her deformity, Manthara normally stays on level
ground, finding climbing or any other form of exercise painful. However, on the
day prior to Rama becoming the Prince of Ayodhya, Manthara takes it into her
head to climb the steep steps to the palace terrace, from where she has a
bird's eye view of the enthusiastic preparations for the Coronation.
"GyAti dAsI yatOjAtA KaikEyyAstu sahOshitA
prAsAdam chandra sankAsam ArurOha yadricchayA"
This, in turn, makes her hatch plans for ensuring KaikEyI's supremacy in
Dasaratha's royal household and to incite the queen to seek the long-forgotten
boons from the Emperor.
Mantara, from her vantage point on the terrace, perceives the entire Ayodhya
draped with flags and festoons, an atmosphere of celebration in the air and
everyone head over heels with joy. She also finds Kousalya giving away riches
to alms-seekers. Puzzled at this carnival atmosphere pervading Ayodhya, the
hunchback investigates and finds out the impending coronation of Sri Rama. She
rushes down immediately, as fast as her deformity would permit, and reaches
Kaikeyi's quarters, boiling with rage-"dahyamAnA kOpEna MantarA pApadarshinI".
The proximity Mantara must have enjoyed with her mistress is brought out by her
addressing Kaikeyi as "moodE!" (You fool). Sri Valmiki describes the hunchback
as well versed in the art of speech-"vAkya visAradA". When we read Mantara's
discourse to Kaikeyi, exhorting her to stop Sri Rama's coronation at once, we
are struck by wonder at her persuasiveness, at her forceful, convincing and
logical arguments, at her perseverance in the face of Kaikeyi's disbelief. If
the poor, unlettered hunchback was able, solely by her cogent arguments, to
convince Kaikeyi who doted on Rama, to seek His banishment, one can definitely
imagine her powers of oratory and imparting conviction to a reluctant listener.
We are able to discern the gradual change of heart in Kaikeyi, almost with
every word of Mantara's harangue. The Queen, when told by the hunchback of the
imminent coronation, immediately removes an invaluable chain from her neck and
presents it to Mantara, for having brought the glad tidings of Sri Rama's
ascension. And, even after listening to Mantara's ranting and raving, Kaikeyi
initially remains steadfast in her love for Sri Rama and tells the former that
she doesn't distinguish between Bharata and RAma, as both are equally dear to
her-
"RAmE vA BharatE vAham visEsham na upalakshayE".
The same Kaikeyi, after having had a prolonged earful of Mantara's venomous
words, veers around to the view that Bharata should become the Prince in
waiting ("YuvaraAjA") at all cost and Rama, the rightful contender to the
throne, should be removed from the scene post-haste. If a well-read, scholarly,
normally pure-minded lady like Kaikeyi, with a heart brimming over with love
for Chakravartthi Tirumagan, could be transformed into a virulent opponent of
the Prince, all within the space of an hour, it speaks volumes of Mantara's
skills of persuasion. Her uncanny ability, to sow seeds of hate in the most
barren of soils and to nurture them quickly into giant trees radiating odium,
fills us with wonderment.
It is she again who reminds Kaikeyi of the long-forgotten boons obtained from
Dasaratha during the SamabarAsura vadham and advises her to seek the same from
the Emperor immediately, insisting on Sri Bharata's coronation and the
banishment of Sri Rama for fourteen years. A perusal of the dialogue (almost a
monologue) between Mantara and Kaikeyi, as recounted by Valmiki, would make us
look at the hunchback with new respect (albeit laced with distaste) for her
persuasiveness and indomitable courage-yes, courage, for, had her machinations
been rejected by Kaikeyi out of hand, Mantara faced the most cruel of
punishments for her campaign against the Prince of the land. Kamban attributes
another reason for Kaikeyi's change of heart-viz., the good fortune of the
celestials and the misfortune of the rAkshasAs. Had not the Queen undergone a
change in attitude, Ravana would never have been confronted or killed.
People say that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How else can you explain
Kaikeyi's statement, after listening to the "enlightening" words of Mantara,
that the latter looked beautiful? Kaikeyi launches into a detailed and highly
complimentary portrayal of the hunchback's physical attributes, describing her
face as resembling the blemishless full moon, her form gracefully bent like a
lotus waving in the wind and so on. The Empress goes to the extent of likening
Mantara to an elegant swan in form and gait. The scheming maid is praised as
the Queen of Hunchbacks ("KubjAnAm uttamA") and as an honourable exception to
the rule that hunchbacks are mostly wicked, cruel and evil-minded. Not only the
maid, but the huge lump on her back also comes in for praise, as being the
repository of wisdom and diplomacy-
"Tava idam yat deergham ratha ghONam iva Ayatam
mataya: kshatra vidyAscha mAyAyAscha vasanti tE"
When we love a person overly, even their negative features appear to us to be
admirable-this is the case with Kaikeyi too, who wants to adorn the hump of
Mantara with priceless jewels, fragrant sandal paste and the best of flowers.
Well, "enough about the hunchback", I hear readers remark. However, detestable
as she may sound, all of us have to be extremely thankful to Mantara for her
intervention, for, had she not done so, several of the glorious Lord's
magnificent attributes, especially that of providing succour to those who
surrender ("abhaya pradAnam"), would not have come to light. But for the
pitiful hunchback, the Lord's promise to the deities, to rid them of Ravana's
oppression, could not have come to pass. And but for her, we would have had no
occasion get acquainted with Sri Hanuman and his glory.
Srimate Sri LakshmINrisimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana
Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:
dasan, sadagopan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/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/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |