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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00016 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: [ 
also there may be a small overlap in the first two paragraphs as new points 
came up.

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. 

As rightly said by Smt.Jayasree in today's mail [recd on 4.12.04] no offences 
meant any where, by discussing the aspects / points from different angles, many 
new viewpoints are thrown up, thereby, we are able to go deep into raamaayaNam 
and enjoy raamaa's glory more and more. 

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/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/
 




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