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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00139 Nov 2004

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




SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

Respected Sri Vasudevan swami,
I wish to add the following points to your mail on the
title conferred by Sita, ?Sthreeyam purushavigraham?,
on the basis of vyakhyanam given in Sri A.V.
Narasimhachar?s  translation in Tamil. As I said in my
earlier post I am not in a position to pinpoint who
has given this, the translator or Sri Govindarajar.

But before going into the details, let me state my
position as I have understood.

(1) This is not the ?title? given by Sita.  This seems
to be what king Janaka is likely to think of Rama.
Sita merely expresses her worries over this. By virtue
of her being the better half of Rama, she also has to
bear the brunt of the criticisms and/or commendations
poured on Rama. So in her role as pathivradha (is one
who shares the husband?s happiness and sorrow ) she is
cautioning him of the anartham that can be caused if
Rama leaves for the forest without her. That is why
she says these words with ?prANayascha (affection)
abhimAnAscha (with pride) paricikShepa raghavam? in
the verse preceding the one under discussion. It runs
thus:
 ?saa tam uttama samvignaa siitaa vipula vakSasam |
praNayaac ca abhimaanaac ca paricikSepa raaghavam ||?
2-30-2
(meaning):-  saasiita= that Seetha; tam= distressed;
uttamasamvignaa= highly agitated; praNayaat= from
affection abhimaanaachcha= and pride; parichikshhepa=
reproached; raaghavam= Rama; vipula vakshhasam= having
a broad chest.
Distressed and highly agitated, the said Seetha
reproached Rama having a broad chest, from affection
and pride in the following words:-

(2) One of the interesting features of Valmiki
Ramayana is that the Kavi seems to indicate beforehand
what is likely to happen later. There is lot of scope
to interpret and invent tattwArtham in the verses,
particularly in the seemingly controversial ones. The
kavi seems to insert them  at appropriate places
making us wonder whether he had in his mind more than
one idea for a given word or phrase  when he put them
down into writing. Such tattwartham that had occurred
to this adiyaL are given in brackets and the rest as
found in the transliteration are furnished below.

The 3 verses that have a lot of bearing on Sita?s
purported accusation  are 2-20-2, 3 &4. I find an
additional verse in the translation (not found in
www.valmikiramayana.net) which says, ?Rama, you seem
to possess soundharyam only, seeing which others
derive happiness and not pourusham.? Saying this she
continues with conferring the so-called ?title?

 (Adiyal?s view :- since the extra verse doubting
rama?s pourusham doesnot fall within the length of a
separate verse, I presume those words are indeed to
explain the name ?Rama?, by which Sita calls him in
the verse. The translator might have taken the liberty
to express like this based on the vyakhyaanam he has
furnished for why Sita called him Rama  and not by any
other name.)

The source for this is traced to balakhandam where
sage Vasishta suggested the names for the 4 sons born
to Dasharatha. The sage seems to have been attracted
by the outer appearance of Rama, the baby, and
suggested the name Rama as the very appearance gave
immense happiness to the one who happens to see the
baby. Sita means to imply that ?the meaning ends with
that only? and not about the inner beauty, which
actually was anointed to Shatrugna by the sage. By not
taking Sita to the forest, does Rama mean to show that
he possesses only outward beauty and not inward
beauty? Sita seems to remind this to Rama by calling
him by this name.

What then is inner beauty? To analyse this, let us see
the next verse. 

?kim tvaa amanyata vaidehaH pitaa me mithilaa adhipaH
|
raama jaamaataram praapya striyam puruSa vigraham ||?
2-30-3
(meaning):-  raama= Oh, Rama! kim= what; mepitaa= my
father; mithilaadhipaH= the king of Mithila; vaidehaH=
belonging to the country of Videha; amanyata= think of
himself; praapya= having got; jaamaataram= as
son-in-law; tvam= you; striyam= a woman;
purushhavigraham= having form of a man.
"What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the
country of Videha, think of himself having got as
so-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?"
For better understanding, I take the liberty to 
compartmentalize the vyakhyanam into groups as the
original vyakhyanam looks complicated.

(1) By mentioning about her father in two ways,
videhaH? and ?mithila adhipaH?, Sita lays stress on
Janaka unmincingly. Is it not enough to say my pita?
Why that extra identification?
One reason is as given by Sri Vasudevan swami, on the
basis of Janaka being identified for his karma-yoga
marga as moksha saadhanam and the related ones that he
had furnished in his mail on how Sita had to support
Rama in his actions, in her capacity as saha-dharma
chaariNi.

Another notion given is that Janaka would have rather
wished to see her go to forest and suffer and even die
in not being able to withstand the vagaries of
forest-life than to come back to him (father) on
Rama?s departure to the forest. He would be
crest-fallen in that case, that his daughter had not
died on leaving the husband. He would think of himself
as sthree in purushavigraham ( a gender-mix) in having
begotten such a daughter who failed to show up the
fine values of a pathivradha. The terms ?amanyata? and
prapya? are about thinking of himself (Janaka) as
?sthree in purushavigraham?. This is one way of
looking at this.
(adiyal?s note:- Why should Sita mean to go to her
father?s home on Rama leaving her and not stay back in
Ayodhya itself. Didn?t Rama say  that she stay back in
their gruham? Because the very first thing that rama
says to Sita after announcing a one-liner (again
kavi?s yukhthi in Rama psychologically preparing Sita
for the bad news of leaving her) of the impending
vanavaas, is that she stays as one among other Bhandus
(relatives) under Bharatha?s protection. He not even
once says that she go back to her father.

But Sita takes a difference stance (implied meaning)
of going to her father. Why? I think the reasons are
in accordance with the dharma in practice for persons
under such predicament that can  be found Kausalya?s
admonition of Dhasaratha after Rama left. She tells
the king that she is without any support now. The
first protector for the woman is her husband and she
can not count on Dhasharatha?s support for, he has
gone after pleasing another wife (Kaikeyi). She lost
the second protector also, who is her son. The third
protector is the Bhandu (relatives) and she can not
count on them as they are in a far-away land. It is
thereby implied that the women?s protectors are her
relatives of her house of birth and not of the house
into which she has entered as a daughter-in-law.

Without keeping this in mind, rama tells sita to be
under the protection of Bharatha. Is it right? He can
not ask her to be under Bharatha?s protection because
that is against the dharma about protectors for the
woman. Nor can he ask /expect her to go to her
father?s house for reasons explained above. Therefore
Sita by calling him Rama admonishes him that he has
forgotten the inner meanings but stuck to outer ones
(like he is known for his outer soundharyam).
Therefore the double insistence on my pita (which then
makes it triple insistence) and the distress that her
pita would undergo if she goes to him.)

(2) Another explanation is about what actually
constitutes purushavigraham. The vyakhyaanam says that
it is about wearing ?kirItam? and ?pIthambharam?. Now
that Rama had to forego them in his stay in vanavaas,
he is losing his purusha lakshanam, which then means
that he is in sthree rUpam. Here the kavi brings in an
element of premonition that Janaka has indeed had a
prior instinct of what is to happen and had given his
daughter in marriage to Rama thinking of the time in
the forest when he has to forego his purusha- symbols
and look like a woman. Sita indicates this and says
that there is nothing wrong in taking her along with
him because her father has thought of this and had
given her to him, the woman in man?s garb.

(3) When the situation is like this, ?kim twa? ? why
do you, the one trained by the sage vasishta, say like
this thinking that you know the dharma  that I have to
follow now? Is your dharma (in asking her to stay back
under the protection of Bharatha) right (kim twaa?) or
his (Janaka?s) dharma right (kim amayantha)? 


(4) Why talk of the dharma for the two in the above
point? It is because of the term used. ?jaamaataram?
which means son-in-law. He has got (prapya) you as
son-in-law in the tradition of having got you as the
10th gruham besides the 9 gruhams that control the
woman. When I have got you as the 10th and final
gruham, where else can I stay, if not in your place,
in your company. 

(5) Sita, by talking about the moment of Janaka in
having got him as the son-in-law seems to remind of
him the vows that Rama took at the time of her
marriage. The vyakhyanam then delves into details of
every word uttered at the time of PaNigrahanam to
remind that Rama has indeed forgotten his vows and his
dharma as though he is a changed person now (? the
change being to an extent of changing even the gender
? interpretation, mine)) Therefore what will Janaka
think of you (kim twaamayantha)


(6) My father got you,  vasudeva, as son-in-law (for
whom  the entire world is like sthree.)  But he didn?t
get the world (which is like sthree) unto himself as
the son-in-law, but you, the purushottama. (To tell
this more clearly, he has got you, the purushottama in
whom the  world resides as sthree and  not vice versa.
It is in having got you, did he think of the rest of
the world as inconsequential. The pramanam for this
can be had in his having lived as a karma yogi and in
not even getting  disturbed when fire broke out in
Mithila ?refer Shanthi parva, Mahabharatha for
details))

(7) Why this line of reasoning is taken up to explain
the seemingly derogatory statement of Sita is to be
justified in the next verse which runs thus: 
?anR^itam bala loko ayam aj~naanaat yadd hi vakSyati |
tejo na asti param raame tapati iva divaa kare |?
2-30-4
(meaning):- bata= what a pity! ayam lokaH= these
people; vakshhyati yadi= if they tell; ajJNaanaat= by
ignorance; anR^itam= the falsehood; param= excellent;
tejaH= valour; naasti= is lacking; raame= in Rama;
divaakare iva= as in a sun; tapati= which is blazing.

"It is a pity if these people of Ayodhya through
ignorance tell the falsehood that excellent valour is
lacking in Rama as in a blazing sun."

Sita is worried that if Rama doesn?t follow the dharma
(as she has indicated), people would talk bad about
him which is falsehood. By saying this Sita implies
that she doesn?t believe that Rama has moved away from
Dharma. She obviously doesn?t mean that Rama is woman
in a man?s garb. If she had actually meant that by
herself, she would not have used the terms, out of
ignorance and falsehood as being the components of
people?s reaction. But that she had tried to convince
him only goes to show that she has done that as a
sha-dharmachaariNi, - a role she seems to remind Rama
by bringing in the memories of the vows at the time of
their marriage.

(A similarity can be drawn in our lives too. We are
devoted to our parents and treat them as gods. But
when we think that their ways and talks are not right,
we are not supposed to remain quiet, but bring out
correctives. (That is absolutely within our dharma as
responsible sons and daughters). That is what happened
with Bharatha, who would have stopped Kaikeyi at the
very first instance itself, had he been in Ayodhya at
that fateful time. Another instance can be cited in
the case of Ahalya, whose husband Gouthama out of
anger, commands their son Shirakaari to kill her. But
the son takes enough time to weigh the pros and cons
and dharma of the situation and waits until such a
time that Gouthama himself rescinds his command. A
similar instance happened with Parashurama  but that
he failed to retract or preach reason to his father
resulted in hardships to him  as a person (the penance
and parihara that he had to do). It is  on these lines
that I am unable to accept that the Loka-mAtha had 
taken a  dig  at our loka-pitA. Can she withstand the
comment that he lacks the tejas of the Sun, He who is
lord of Sun god himself? It is to make sure that
nothing happens as to give rise to such comment, that
she gently reminds him well within the scope of her
dharma as a responsible wife, of His dharma, and
janaka's dharma in having got him as his son-in-law.
What janaka would think of and what He himself has to
think, remembering the name he is known for, are all
that Sita attempts to tell in these 3 verses.)

PS:- In a similar vein, if only Rama had behaved as a
?responsible husband? and refused to go after the
golden deer and instead advised Sita against such
desires, his marriage could have been saved. But that
he didn?t ( and so too with Parasurama) are all due to
avathara reasons. But that we, mortals can not afford
to behave like this is what we have to learn from
these avataras.

Regards,
Jayasree saranathan.






                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
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/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