You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Dec 2005

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00097 Dec 2005

 
Dec 2005 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

Respected Swamin,

My humble pranams to you.

Kindly pardon me for making an interruption in this wonderful write-up
you have been giving from time to time.

In my opinion some amount of psychological empathy goes into
understanding why Rama was on meager diet and why Sita thought of His
condition as giving her both amrutham and poison.

First of all, the dhukkam that both Rama and Sita were undergoing is
something unparalleled.
Even on reading about it, people like us are not able to eat or remain calm.
 Hey SithE, unaaku inda dhukkamaa?
Hey Raama, unakku kooda dhukkamaa?
We also empathise with Hanuman, "Alas, can I ever get to see Sita ?"
 We catch Sita's emotions, "Hey SeethE podum podum, innum dhukka-p-paddathE"
We feel like telling, "Hey Hanuman, oru kai paarthudum."

But thinking of Raama, I have this complaint against Valmiki. When he
went into details about all the sufferings, when he went on to say how
the vanaras  celebrated the good news of  having found out Sita, why
was he with such paucity of words to express some goodness felt by
Raama on receiving the news?

 There is just the information about goose pimples experienced by
Raama and Lakshmana on hearing from Shugreeva  that there is some good
news about Sita. It is because of the fact that Rama was not happy
except for having found her whereabouts. Because the dhukkam was of
such high magnitude.

The dhukkam was of such high magnitude, that Raama, Lakshmana and Sita
could not have  remained calm or caring for their body on those
occasions. Then where comes even the thought of using the mantras
Bhala and Ati bhala? What they needed were sedatives and not mantras
for keeping awake or appetite-free! And Sita could have never thought
of even a sedative (if offered as we wish) for who knows what kind of
danger would come to her from Ravana,  if she is asleep or loses her
conscious vigilance even for a second. Recall the way the kavi
describes how she shrank herself physically, when Ravana visited her
in the late hours of night.

And didn't Rama know of this danger to Sita? How could he have slept
or eaten anything when he was under constant worry about Sita and her
safety? Anybody undergoing that dhukkam would have been so without any
aid of bhala or ati bhala.

Also these  mantras were taught to Raama and Lakshmana  by the sage at
a time when  they were required  to keep round the clock vigil over
the yajnas that the sages in the forest were doing and they as very
young princes who have until then had grown in the luxuries of
princely life would not have got used to keeping awake and even going
without food for days in their vigil over the yajnas.

Certainly those mantras would in no way be in the thought of Raama
while in search of Sita, and whatever he ate was the  basic minimum
required to keep him alive and strong enough, because he had that
formidable task of looking for Sita and vanquishing the one who had
abducted his dear wife. In this context the comparison with "what is
great in Bheeshma?" looks out of place.

Raama could have as well reached Lanka soon after the abduction, or
could have reached the parNashala in time to thwart Ranavana's efforts
and killed him then and there. But He had scripted the sequences in
such a way that (it looks that) He and Sita deliberately parted and
suffered presumably to make room for other players such as Shugreeva 
and Hanuman, other samhaarms such as Valli's and establishment of
Dharmas such as sharanagathi to Vibheeshana with Pirati not being
physically present, but by extending purushakaarathwam in absentia
(via hanuman).

This purushakaarathwam of Sita is the interpretation I see for the
second part of your mail!
She is one who is bearing the suffering on behalf of all jivas,  to
drive home the point that come whatever may, bhagavan will not leave
us in the lurch, that bhagavan is indeed suffering more in His search
for the jivas He has lost in samsara. - Will she ever think that she
is the one who is really suffering with no armoury that Rama has ?
Likewise will she ever think that while she is suffering, what is so
great about Rama not eating or sleeping?

She is one takes the sufferings of others and suitably recommend to
Him that they are indeed eligible for His kataaksham. Can such a
persona ever think that she is suffering more and compare it with
Raama's?

Even if she were to think about Rama's suffering, She would be
thinking of taking that suffering too for herself. That is the
characteristic of any Bharateeya naari.  That is all the more true for
a pati-vrathai. And that is Absolute Truth for Piratti!

She could not even stand the news of fire in Hanuma's tail. She, who
did not think of  cleaning her body resorted to cleaning by athma
shuddhi before  invoking Agni bhagavan not to burn Hanuman. Can such a
Sita ever think that it is a monkey statement and that Raama has
better armoury unlike her, to ward of hunger and sleep?

Another dimension to this is the supreme Trust between the couple in
marriage, here the divine couple. They know each other how the other
would be in their absence. They followed the acharam of each other in
the absence of each other. Even if Shugreeva has brought food and
compelled Raama to eat, what would have Rama told, "How can I eat this
food when Sita wont be touching anything offered by that abductor."
Rama's constant bickering, asking even the trees and animals whether
they had seen Sita is to be seen that He could not think of anyone
other than Sita.

 But Sita did ask whether He was thinking about her. It was due to the
delay in Raama reaching to her. Coupled with it were all sorts of
self-doubts about herself. Such a Sita will be cursing herself or her
fate more and more than thinking that Rama is in a better position
than hers. Even when she was thinking  that Rama might complete his
vana vasam and go back to Ayodhya without  tracing her, she considered
it as her Dhur-bhagyam and not find it as Rama being better placed.
That is about the way women think.

As such it is not a monkey statement. Monkey statement is something
else – which she says  later when Hanuman declared that he can take
her to Rama. There again Hanuman was initially  led to think that it
is to do with his physical prowess. But after Sita explained the
intricacies in it, he realized the un-tenability of his declaration or
offer.

Here it is amrutham visha sampruktham.  She receives the news that
Raama is always thinking of her. It is amrutham for, that gives her
tremendous strength to brave any kind of suffering.
It is visham, for, he is suffering on account of her. This is
unbearable to her, for she can never have Rama suffer on any account
particularly for her sake– she, who entered agni for his sake and who
took up life in exile as a pregnant woman for the sake of his honour!

 There is no such scope here (in the context under discussion) for her
to do something to thwart his suffering.
She could have embraced death (which she seriously contemplated) but
that would bring dishonour to Him.
She could have killed Ravana by herself or by  power of pati vratham.
But that would bring dishonour to Him.
She could have even accepted Hanuman's offer of taking her back to
Raama. But that would bring dishonour to Him.

All options available to her are tied to this dishonour aspect to Rama.
That is the crux of this entire issue!


Regards,
Jayasree saranathan

-----------------------------------------------------

 "vasudevan m.g." <mgv@xxxx> wrote:
>
> Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,
>
> We are continuing the discussion - "is seethaa not capable of
> eliminating raavaNa on her own?" We have seen that seethaa is
> fasting, as also raama not eating non-vegetarian food or wine etc.,
> due to separation of seethaa. But it is not so clear a fasting, in
> the case of raama, as is the case of seethaa. Further considering the
> fact that raama is possessing the knowledge of balaa and athibalaa
> manthraas, given by sage visvaamithra [as seen in post 2], the
> fasting or not eating meat etc., is not going to, in any way, affect
> raama physically. So no `upavaasa krusaam dheenaam' as far as raama
> is concerned.
>
> NO evidence is given by vaalmeeki, that raama has recited or used
> these bala athibala manthraas for their effectiveness. One can only
> reasonably presume that, having learnt / got such a powerful manthra,
> raamaa would definitely have used it whenever required, and not
> otherwise. On the other side seethaa is really fasting and does not
> have any such armoury in her possession. So, dear raama
> bhakthaas, `who is really great?' you can conclude. `SiRai irunthvaL
> ERRam' is raamaayaNam.  `seethaayaascharitham mahath'.
>
> Incidentally, when I was viewing the mahaa bhaaratham serial, I was
> really stunned to hear a small, simple, but very powerful line of
> lyrics. Just before the start of the 18-day war, Sikhandi just mocks
> at bheeshma saying `bheeshma is a coward'. When asked why he [or she]
> says so by paaNdavaas and krishNa, the reason he pours out, out of
> vexation is – hey, he is having the very safe armor of `ichchaa
> maraNam' – `death only when wished'. So unless he himself wishes a
> death, bheeshma cannot be killed. If he does not have that boon, then
> bheeshma is just nothing. So, `what is great in bheeshma?' He says.
>
> Now let us consider two more slokams in sundhara kaaNdam.
>
> saa seethaa vachanam sruthvaa poorNa chandhra nibhaananaa|
> hanoomantham  uvaacha idham dharma artha sahitham vacha: || 5-37- 1
>
> amrutham visha sampruktham thvayaa vaanara bhaashitham | 5-37-2 a
>
> meaning: that seethaa, who has a full moon like face, on hearing the
> speech of hanumaan, which had all dharma and artha etc, spoke [to
> hanumaan] hey vaanara – monkey – what you said about raama is like
> nectar mixed with poison.
>
> Point: 1. When going for a straight interpretation - what hanumaan
> said to seethaa  `raama never thinks about any other than you', it is
> like nectar to seethaa. For any lady will normally expect that only
> from her husband, that he does not have relationship with any other,
> that too when she is physically away. But when hanumaan said `he is
> always immersed in `sOkam' – worried or sad', then it sounds like
> poison to seethaa.  That is why `amrutham visha sampruktham'.
>
> 2. To interpret this slokam in slightly different manner – First –
> hey hanumaan what you said is sweet nectar to me- viz. `when he gets
> up says `haa priYe ithi Evam [slokam 44 36th sargam] - idham dharma
> artha sahitham vacha: hanoomantham – that is also amrutham. What you
> said `hey vaanara – hey monkey – what you said is a typical `monkey
> statement' – `vaanara bhaashitham'. For he is already having the
> great armour of bala and athibala, and what is so great about his non-
> eating of meat or wine and not sleeping `anidhra' etc. Here I am
> fasting really.
> Also lakshmaNa, you, king sugreeva et al are all giving raama [or
> keeping him] a good company, whereas you have seen what kind of
> company I have, surrounding me. As such what you told me now is a
> typical monkey statement of `nectar mixed with poison'.
>
> Now we will see a krithi of thyaagaraajaa in raagam bhavapriyaa.
>
> 44 bhavapriya mELam
>
> Aa: S R1 G2 M2 P D1 N2 S
> Av: S N2 D1 P M2 G2 R1 S
> thaaLam: dhEsaadhi
> Composer: thyaagaraaja Language: Telugu
>
> pallavi
> sreekaantha neeyeda bala athi bala chelangaga lEdhaa vaadhaa
>
> anupallavi
> paakaarinutha neevaari balaa-balamunu theliyaga lEdhaa
>
> charaNam
> kaaka dhaithyu nEka saramuna nEya kajja jaasthramai baraga lEdhaa
> sreekara dhvijulai dhaari neruga lEni chintha neeku dhOchadhEmi
> thyaagaraajanutha
>
> A point on raagam selection. Bhava is siva. Hanumaan is said as
> rudhra avathaaram as considered. So siva priya is raama naamam.
> Hanumaan does that raama naama japam anavaratham – incessantly.  So
> an apt raagam selection. The starting word in pallavi is also sree
> kaantha – meaning lakshmi kaantha – ramaa kaantha or raama.
> Looking at another way – hanumaan is rudhra avathaaram – he is now
> sitting in front of seethaa, the priyaa of bhava's priya raama. So
> she cannot but be bhavapriyaa also. So the raagam's name whether it
> is bhavapriya or bhavapriyaa - in both ways it is so apt.
>
> The meaning and why this krithi in this topic we will see in next
> post.
>
>
> dhasan
>  vasudevan m.g
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/.itolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Azhvar EmberumAnAr JeeyAr ThiruvadigalE Saranam 
http://www.vedics.net

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ramanuja-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
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list