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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00214 Jul 2004

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





BEFORE THE HIGHEST SUPREME COURT OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS UNIVERSE
      THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SRIMAN NAARAYANAN

                  S.RAMACHANDRAN  a silly mortal with limited
                  Knowledge working in a private bank in Bombay,
                  India
........................................................Applicant

                              Versus

                  Dharma
........................................................Defendant

IN THE MATTER OF: Inquiry into the entire episode of the Appellant’s
Dearest Mother Shri Shri SitaPiratti's ordeal
at the hands of HER husband the illustrious scion of the Solar Dynasty and
the most favorite son of Shri Dasharatha,
Shri Rama

To all those who are present, members of the jury, citizens of Ayodhya and
all the devotees at large, the appellant seeks to
summon the following material witnesses:

a.  The right honorable Wisest Sage Shri Shri Vashista the preceptor for
the Solar Dynasty

b.  The right honorable Wisest Sage Shri Shri Vishwamitra

c.  The right honorable wisest author of the Ramayana episode Shri Shri
Valmiki

As all the participants including the parties involved are aware of the
background initiated by Shri Sadagopan in his two
part case sheets, the Applicant hereby presents his rejoinder rebutting the
prosecution's contentions in addition to the
various points raised by my right honourable public prosecutor.

1.    In the first place let us dispassionately look at the qualities
required for a monarch of the stature the defendant client.
Apart from the extraordinary valor, compassion, firmness etc. etc. and so
on, he also should be a visionary. A man who has the
inborn, instinctive capacity to look into the future for each and every
step of his speech and conduct.  Each of his decisions has far
reaching consequences and cannot be casually done at a whim.  Moreover,
having got tutored at a very young age with the
family's highly accomplished Yogi, the witness (a) Sage Vashista,
especially in his understanding the finer points of the tenets
of "Yoga Vashista", the defendant client cannot claim that he was not
groomed to take on the Royal throne one day in the future
when he attained adulthood.  Further, coming from a highly reputed,
respected and venerated race with blue blood coursing
through his veins the defendant client ought to take a balanced approach in
every matter, be it a personal affair or the
public at large.

More so, when the defendant client carried the onerous dictates as the
Upholder of Dharma, and propriety, he could
not take any decision without adequate, appropriate consultations with
elders/knowledgeable people like the witness No. (a) and (b),
his own father, and applying his own thought, deeply analyze a given
situation and come out with the most optimum solution.
This was the basic minimum requirement of a monarch of his stature.

These being facts, how come then the defendant client acceded to My
Mother's childish imploring for fetching the golden deer?
A leader does not himself do things. He gets the work done. Delegation is
the hallmark of a leader. He has people serving under him
and he makes use of these helpers to accomplish his mission. The CEO just
issues order, charts out the main course of the company
and gives directions. Loyal employees do the actual job.

Why then did the defendant client a leader in his own right not order his
beloved brother, who would have been more than happy
to obey his command to fetch the deer?

Lest the defendant counsels objects here that his client went forth to
himself fetch the deer out of love and affection and sport
the argument does not hold water since the defendant client was very much
aware of the dangers, the problems, the uncertainties
deep inside the lonely jungle and despite being acutely aware of these
issues and the fact that his beloved wife Shri SitaPiratti
may not be able to defend herself he thought it fit to NOT DELEGATE at this
crucial juncture.   Rather he took the a lengthy
step of empowering the perimeter/entrance of his abode with the magical
line and also issued instructions to Shri SitaPiratti
and enjoined his brother to take care of the situation during his absence.
These three decisions namely to empower and put
the magical line, cautioning his wife and asking Laxmana to stand guard
were thoughtless casual reactive impromptu decisions
without weighing the plus and minuses DEEPLY. The defendant client had all
the knowledge, prior information on likely
problems, knew very well the security issues and yet the defendant client
choose the decision which had a high probability
of backfiring.  If on the other hand, he had chosen to stay put with his
beloved wife and Delegate his brother to fetch
the deer, then he could have afforded a more certain riskless solution
because his personal presence in these troubled
times would have ensured that neither his wife stepped out to be cheated
and abducted by the imposter Ravanna, but also
Laxmana would have got the deer successfully.

The defendant client therefore did not display adequate presence of mind in
a given sudden development and was therefore,
not equipped perhaps to deal with abruptly changing environment and
circumstances.  If he was emotionally charged at that point,
then there was all the more reason for him being at fault because he did
not make complete use of his powers, knowledge,
thinking processes to their fullest capacity.

I ask all the honorable gentlemen present here, knowing fully well that his
wife though very loyal, kind and devoted to him, was
yet prone to nurse petty whims, more so she being a pampered child in her
home at Mithila. If he had the desire to sportingly
give in to her requests and yet not hurt her, as a more mature person and
the Head of the family he was duty bound to counsel her,
guide her or at least distract her inclinations by charming her with some
witty talk or some other method.

By resorting to a knee jerk spontaneous decision done in a moment of
emotional engagement, the defendant client jeopardized
the entire family and his own fortunes in the bargain.

2.    Historically as the Honorable prosecutor had mentioned to quote "Your
client thus, had an ingrained habit" unquote, I must
Elaborate that apart from this ingrained habit of suspecting, His father
too had the same knee jerk reactionary tendencies and
therefore,  it is not surprising at all for the son to exhibit the same
tendencies running in his blood.  The defendant’s father
Shri Dasharatha was at his wits end to the sudden evil mechanization of an
inconsequential lowly maid with malafide intent.
For an EXPERIENCED KING who had for his 'sambhandi” accomplished yogis like
Janaka, plus the two stalwart witnesses (a)
and (b) above, especially his royal preceptor and family guru Sage Shri
Vashista. Ignoring all these avenues and also ignoring to
deeply ponder over the patently cruel demands at such a crucial stage, just
before the coronation, Shri Dasharatha reactively
decided instead of being proactive.

It is not my case and suggestion that the defendant’s father should have
declined to give in to the cruel demands of one of his wives,
but when you go in for multiple queens as a royal right and privilege, he
should also be acutely aware that 'too many cooks spoil
the broth". The piquant situation was bound to happen any day. He was
literally sitting on a time bomb after casually promising everyone
left right and center and calmly forgetting about it. Let me ask you
honorable gentlemen present? Did the conduct of the
defendant’s father show presence of mind, thoughtful deliberation, deep
thought over the 'emergency crisis' confronting a king
of his stature

It is clear that since he had given word he had to now fulfill the demands,
however unfair of his queen. But he could have still
Salvaged from the situation and yet dealt a good blow to the queen for her
arrogant, foolish and unfair demand.  What was her
demand? (a) Coronate Bharata her son and (b) banish Rama for 14 yrs. Fair
enough. He could have straightaway confirmed that Bharata
would be coronated for the simple reason that he was aware of the
defendant-client his son's mental make up namely, a loyal son who
would never question his father's decisions and would not blame or
castigate him or hurt him for denying the crown.  The defendant
client was too much mature for these petty things, as the father was
acutely aware deep within.

As regards the second demand, yes, the father could have commanded his son
the defendant client to take him alongwith his wives
to the forest so that he, the father, could enjoy the company and
protection of his upright son. At this point, when the kingdom
itself was about to go out of his hands, there was no point in the father -
if he were a thoughtful person, a leader with a vision with
foresight - to hesitate for petty things like crown, pelf, kingdom etc.
since he had already groomed an enviable line of succession
in Rama, Laxmana and Bharata etc. It was just time for him to retire and
repair to the jungles for the last ashrama of a man's life.
In fact the second demand could have been construed as a blessing in
disguise.

Bottomline: the defendant’s father could have successfully checkmated the
evil intentions by giving in and yet extracting his
pound of flesh in terms of cutting the own noses of the culprits.  He had
the time on his side. Instead what did the defendant
client's father do? In a typical knee jerk reaction, he was caught
'MENTALLY' offguard and fell prey to the cheap emotional
blackmails of a jealous servant.

Royal households are bound to be full of intrigue, cold wars, loyalty
alignments and internal fights. The king's crown is never a
cushy one. He always needs to be on guard. He has to watch deeply,
remember, recollect in a flash, take hard decisions,
and be firm and try NOT TO GET EMOTIONALLY ENTANGELLED in any issue. He is
also the final arbiter, the judge
for the people and cannot act or give decisions in fickle manner without
proper inquiry. Decisions must be based on judicious
enquiry and not run counter to established principles of judiciary.

As the tamil saying goes 'kaadalai ketkapadum poi, kanalum parpadum poi,
teera vizarichupade unmai "  (what the ears hear may
be false, what the eyes see may be false, so deeply enquire before
concluding or deciding on the truth).

Having been caught off guard and confronting a crisis, what does a good
able leader do? He first tries to salvage the situation.
Not give in mechanically with little or no evidence of deeper deliberations
and consultations.

AS THE POPULAR MODERN MANAGEMENT TERMINOLOGY GOES "WHEN THE GOING GETS
TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET
GOING". This was sadly absent in the case of the defendent client.

3.    Coming to the post-Ravanna scenario at Ayodhya during the cruel
'agni' test thrust on my beloved Mother Shri SitaPiratti.
I call upon all of you honorable gentleman to first and foremost testify
before this h'ble court what does one see when you look at
any picture of the divine foursome - Shri Rama, Shri SitaPiratti, Shri
Laxmana and Shri Hanuman.  While Shri Rama and his brother
bravely look at you on the face fearlessly, yet with a benign blessing
becoming their military nature,  Shri SitaPiratti’s demure and
tender looks are fastened steadily on HER one and only beloved Shri Rama's
noble feet.  While with one hand she is blessing
Shri Hanuman, HER looks are reserved for none in this and any world except
at the Lotus feet of her beloved.

Further, my dearest Mother Shri SitaPiratti coming being a natural gift of
the gods to HER foster father Shri Janaka SHE had
to sacrifice a lot vis-a-vis the defendant client.  She was her parents'
favorite and a pampered child. At a very tender age
she had to literally uproot HERSELF lock, stock and barrel and literally
give up HER familiar surrounds, friends, doting relations,
the comfort of HER father's palace, gardens etc. and not only adjust
HERSELF to an entirely new family, household, people
and environment, but also to face the ignominy of having to undergo 14
years of forest life with limits on HER food, HER dress,
HER desires and HER comforts. Can any of you gentlemen say with certainty
that such was HER fate or destiny?

I call upon witness no.(c) to take the stand and answer. When he was a
highway brigand he was under the deluded impression
that his family and wife would share his sins of robbing others. But when
they bluntly told him to take a walk and they would
not be a party to his sins, he got the shock of his life and changed
himself.  When his own wife of many years refused to take
part in his sins, how can one expect a newly married dreamy eyed young
bride to react when she is told that her husband had
to repair to the forest and live an improvished  life for 14 years just
because HER father-in-law  had made some promises
long ago to one of his wives and that the dutiful son had no other go but
to obey his father? Honorable gentleman Imagine this
happening in this age?

And the age when my beloved mother married Shri Rama was not even in the
Satya Yuga. Truth and Dharma were already blunted
and it would not have been out of place or inappropriate if SHE had argued,
declined to these problem situation. SHE could
have taken the safety route as many in these current times would resort
namely, say bye-bye and shift back to her father's
house and continue to lead the comfortable life and wait for the husband's
problems to get over so that both can once more live joyfully.

Did my beloved MOTHER SitaPiratti do any of these arrogant, casual
knee-jerk, emotionally charged reactions?
NO SIRS. SHE being what SHE was and true to HER training, despite knowing
fully well that everyone would support HER, with
deep thought exhibiting extraordinary courage and steel flung her fancy
footwear and silk sarees and readily donned the coarse clothing
as if to signal to HER shell-shocked husband HER full and absolute support
and partnership in his troubles. No one less than Thriuvalluvar
could have aptly described my beloved MOTHER Shri SitaPiratti's undiluted,
unquestioned one track exemplary devotion to HER husband,
when he said of Vasuki his wife that as she was drawing the water from the
well when Thirvulluvar called her. She abruptly
let go the rope and instantly rushed BLINDLY to her husband's call that
even the law of gravity became inoperative and the rope just
stood still without dropping into the well.  Even nature was shaken.

Even in captivity as Shri Hanuman would have testified, HER constant
concern, thought and feeling was solely on her husband
and mentally seeking his speedy arrival and redemption from the clutches of
Ravanna.

When the defendant client did not question and was ready to admit the
brother of his mortal sworn enemy Vibhishna
into a brotherly bondage and lifelong friendship, how could he now
afterwards give in to the clamor of the general populace.
He, being a monarch of his stature, could not afford to take the demands of
the public at face value.  It is common
Psychology that the common man irrespective of the state of affairs is
always a gossip monger in terms of discussing
the going-ons in the royal household. We all are even today more interested
in election results, which party is going to upset who,
what etc. and this casual attitude, is perfectly normal.

Do we not occasionally, discuss our bosses behind his back? And as in any
rumour, casual talk, gossip it thrives on
constant communication and Mis-representation. Eventually, the molehill
becomes a mountain with no one being
aware of who originated the entire sham.

4) Where was the equivalent steadfast loyalty on the part of the defendant
client when the public started making a noise? Again,
True to his ingrained nature, as was his wont in times of crises, in a
typical knee-jerk reaction, he promptly asked my Mother
SitaPiratti to go thru the ordeal knowing fully well at the back of his
mind, deep inside his heart that perhaps he may
not be right.  Indeed he was answerable to the people. But if he had calmly
taken stock of the situation he could have
Done something more noble which would have endeared him in the hearts of
the people and this entire controversy would
Not have taken place at all.  Given the monumental sacrifices Shri
SitaPiratti underwent without any fault on HER part, and
Occasioned by him in the first place, and  being frank with himself for his
proclivity for casual knee-jerk reactions in times
Crisis, he ought to have mulled deeply and in front of the populace bravely
stood his ground and rejected the call of the
People with a “fine, so be it, I still accept HER as there is no fault
attached to HER and I trust HER since the
Entire kidnapping episode was beyond control of anyone”. The entire
population knew well the story, were also happy at the
Defendant client’s return to stake his claim on the throne was in a
receptive mood. Just like a sole bad apple like Manthara
Spoiling the party during the earlier coronation 14 years back, the
washerman’s random gossip-ridden, lazy utterances
Got blown out of proportion into a raging rumour, in a similar manner,
these are testing times for the leader and the
More strong he is internally, the more maturely complete will his decision
be.

I end my appeal and beg you all honorable gentlemen to do justice. My
Mother being what SHE IS, SHE even forbade me to
Go into this appeal, but the subject is too disturbing to my feeble mind
that I had to approach your forum and knock on your
Doors.  I totally agree with the defendant’s counsel that

“For, if Rama did it, it must be correct.”

However, I would like to add the words at the end i.e.” For, if Rama did
it, it must be correct, but only for Himself”
IF this appellent has ERRED THE LORD MAY PARDON the appellent

Om tat sat
Tat tvam asi




                                                                                
                             
                      sudarshan                                                 
                             
                      madabushi                  To:      
tiruvenkatam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       
                      <mksudarshan2002@y         cc:      
srirangasri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,                       
                      ahoo.co.in>                oppiliappan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    
                             
                                                 Subject: [t'venkatam] Ordeal 
by Fire- 2 -- The case for     
                      07/21/04 06:39 PM          Sita-pirAtti                   
                             
                      Please respond to                                         
                             
                      tiruvenkatam                                              
                             
                                                                                
                             
                                                                                
                             




--- In tiruvenkatam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sadagopaniyengar
<sadagopaniyengar@xxxx> wrote:
                 Ordeal by Fire-2

 what He said and did on the occasion, but for us, as
students of Srimad Ramayanam, He would always be the
shining paragon of virtue, the epitome of all merit
and the compulsively righteous monarch, who could
never do wrong. Sri Rama was incapable of wrongdoing.
If some of His actions appear to us to be incorrect,
it is because we apply our own defective human
standards in judging divine conduct, which we have no
business to do.
>
 For, if Rama did it, it must be correct.
> dasan, sadagopan
                 ***************

Dear SrimAn Sadagopan,

Thank you for an excellent article based as it is on
traditional commentary of Sri Govindarajan. It is
truly enjoyable. It gives students of the Ramayana
like me an insight into the mind of traditional
'vyAkhyAna-kartA-s' and their style of interpreting
important events like the "agni-parIksha" in the
Ramayana.

Since we all say that Rama and Sita-pirAtti were
actors on the stage of Valmiki's Ramayana ("best actor
and best actress" according to our respected SrimAn
Anbil swamy), let us also take the liberty to do a bit
of play-acting ourselves just so we can enjoy the epic
episode a little more, a little longer.

                    *********

In your article, you end by saying "For if Rama did
it, it must be correct". It is a line that sounds so
much like an attorney's closing statement in a court
of law. Your arguments too, in fact, are set forth in
the masterly manner of a skillful defense-lawyer
marshalling legal facts and precedents all meant to
secure for the defendant an honourable acquittal on
technical if not substantive counts.

Sir, since you have so admirably donned the role of a
defense-attorney, permit me for a while to act the
part of a public-prosecutor appearing on behalf of my
beloved client, Sri Sita-pirAtti, and make my own
case.

                  ************

Many of the arguments you made, I must respectfully
submit, are tenuous if not wholly untenable. Let's
look at a few of them and reason why.

(1) The first argument is that the "agni-parIksha" was
a kind of justice meted out to Sita-pirAtti for the
(Quote) "insults She meted out to Lakshmana, when he
refused to leave the parNashAlA, in response to
MArIcha’s cry for rescue, uttered in Rama’s voice....
It was to atone for this inexcusable conduct towards a
BhagavatA, that Sri Mythily requests him specifically
to make a fire for Her to enter and prove Her
innocence...." (UnQuote).

This is not true. Please refer to sarga 59, shlOka
23-24 of the Aranya-kAnda, where Rama clearly lays the
blame for Sita'a abduction on Lakshmana alone and in
fact holds Sita blameless. Lakshmana remonstrates and
tells Rama about all the unpleasant, stinging words
that Sita had hurled at him. What does Rama then say?

He says, "I cannot forgive you. You left your post of
duty and left her unprotected. Sita is in danger. Why
did you come, merely because she was angry? When she
became angry, mad, and said absurd things, you became
angry too and came away?! You have disobeyed my
command! No blame rests upon Sita! She became
momentarily mad, but that's understandable. But you,
you cannot get angry with mad people..." (The
suggestion is Lakshmana could have left the scene,
pretending to go after Rama, go a short distance and
hang about in the neighbourhood, out of sight but not
going too far and still being able to protect Sita in
case harm arose to her).

The fact therefore clearly shows that Sita had already
been forgiven by Rama for the harsh way she behaved
towards Lakshmana in the Maricha episode. She was
temporarily unhinged of mind in that grave moment.
Women in such moments generally say all manner of
things. It is quite understandable. You cannot take
them to task for it. Having already forgiven Sita in
the "arAnya-kAnda" for the misdemeanour, it is
unlikely that in the "yuddha-kAnda", in the
"agni-pravEsa" episode, Rama would have wanted to
punish Sita again for the same offence. Even in a
legal court of modern days, no one can be accused and
punished twice for the same crime.

As for Sita asking Lakshmana to light the pyre (and
not anyone else), far too much meaning is being read
into the gesture when there is none at all.

Sita asked Lakshmana to light the fire, because there
just wasn't anyone else around there in the assembly
at that moment whom she could have commanded to do so.
She could not ask a royal person like Vibheeshana to
light a fire. She could not have approached 'vanarAs'
like Sugriva, HanumAn to do the task. How could she
ask bears like Jambavan to light an 'agni-kundam'? She
could not have commanded her own husband Rama to light
the pyre given the blazing mood in which he was! Who
else could Sita then take the liberty to command? And
who else present there other than Lakshmana was a
person bearing a "yagnyOpavitam" -- the minimum
qualification needed by a person to start a Vedic fire
going?

(2) The second argument you make is this: (Quote)
"However, for Chakravartthi Tirumagan to have
unquestioningly accepted Sri Mythily,  would have
attracted adverse comment from the undiscerning.
Gossip-mongers would have said, “Look at Rama, who is
so head over heels in love with His wife, that He has
accepted Her without question, knowing full well that
she was abducted and was in the custody of the
notorious kAmuka Ravana”. Hence, it was indeed
necessary for Sri Rama to appear to enquire into His
lady’s chastity." (UNQUOTE)

This argument is untenable because it is totally,
absolutely inconsistent with what Rama said about
himself in that famous shlOka 33-34-35 sarga 18 in the
"kishkindA kAndam":

    "sakrudEva prapannAya tavAsmiti cha yAchatE
  abhayam sarva-bhUtEbhyO dadAmyEtadh-vratam mamaII"

  "aanayainam hari-shrEshta dattamasyAbhayam mayA
    vibhishiNO vA sugrIva yadi vA rAvANa: svayam II"

"I offer protection without reserve to anyone who just
comes and says "please protect me, I'm helpless and
have none else to protect me". From all dangers, from
all enemies, I grant such persons full protection.
Bring such persons to me now. No matter who they are,
whether Vibeheeshana or Sugriva. Even if Ravana
himself were to come and beseech my protection, I
shall embrace him and give him my "abhaya-pradAna"!".

After having said all those grand things above, how
can it be argued that it was not possible for Rama to
"have unquestioningly accepted Sri Mythily ..."?. Did
not Sita declare at many places in the Ramayana that
she was like a true "prappana" -- wholly dependent on
Sri Rama, her very life breath? Please read shlOka
4-5, 7-9 of sarga 30 in the "ayOdhya kAnda". In that
scene, Rama is trying to persuade Sita-pirAtti not to
go into exile with him into the forest, but to remain
in Ayodhya and "stay with Bharatha". What does Sita
tell him in that moment? Her words though they sound a
little angry still ring true with all the passion and
pathos of a true "prappanna":

"Why are you afraid of taking me with you to the
forest? O Rama, why do you reject me who has no other
person to rely on earth? I am yours entirely, utterly,
and yet you discard me?". Later on in the sarga she
says, "When I am with you Rama I do not want food;
plain fare will be like delicious viand for me. The
dust of the forest on which you have trodden will be
the sandals after my heart; and grass will be the most
luxurious couch. Do not be anxious for me; I shall not
be a burden to you. The place where I can be with you,
whatever be the its name, and wherever it may be, is
heaven to me. If you are not there, whatever place it
may be, it will be "niraya" to me. When you abandon
me, I will not want to live anymore. If I cannot live
without you for a minute, how can you abandon me?"

What moving words indeed are the above of
Sita-pirAtti? It brings tears to anyone's eyes. Are
they not the true words of one who is seeking the
"abhaya" of Rama? So then, why is it that the same
Rama who declared he will accord even Ravana "abhayam"
--- that too "unquestioningly" and without any
pre-conditions except the condition of surrender --
why is Rama so reluctant to extend the same privilege
to Ravana's victim, SIta-pirAtti? Why the
inconsistency on the part of Rama? If "charity must
begin at home" why does Rama too not begin granting
"abhaya-prAdanam" first at home to his wife before
offering it to all and sundry of the world? Why is one
standard being applied to Ravana but yet another one
on his poor victim, Sita?

(3) Your next argument is this: (Quote) "The
suspicions about Sri Sita’s conduct could indeed have
been voiced and clarifications obtained in private, or
before a select audience of trusted acolytes. However,
the general public would still be unaware of the
proceedings and might continue to think Sri Raghava’s
conduct unbecoming of a scion of the Ikshvaku
dynasty". (UNQUOTE)

Further, Sir, you go on to argue: (Quote) "If Sri Rama
were to appear to be apparently satisfied by Sita’s
own words of assurance and sworn protests of
innocence, it would not have been adequate for the
assembled public, who would have thought, “What sort
of justice is this, if the accused person is
exonerated based solely on her own protestations of
innocence?”  Hence some solid proof was needed, if the
proletariat was to be convinced as to where the rights
of the matter lay. The agni parIkshA was therefore
necessary. (UNQUOTE)

These argument too of the Counsel-for-defense are
rather flimsy. Was Rama always so fastidious and
conscientious about doing things in full view of the
general public? With full, utterly full, transparency?
If He had indeed been so sensitive to public opinion
--to the sacred opinion of "the proletariat", as you
say -- and doing everything under open scrutiny, isn't
it a great wonder that He didn't pause even an instant
to think twice about what the great "general public"
would say when they finally came to hear about how he
got rid off Vali in a less-than-straight duel deep in
the forests of Kishkinda?!! In that episode your
client Rama was too keen on doing just justice, and
didn't evidently worry too much about "justice being
seen to be done"!

Surely, Mr.Defense Attorney, you do not mean to say
that Sri Rama after all did apply one standard to
himself and yet another to Sita-pirAtti when it came
to the business of public-relations or public
accountability -- i.e. managing the perceptions of the
public about his deeds? Are you suggesting that your
defendant was in fact more worried about
public-opinion polls than about the moral propriety of
his deeds? One was always under the impression that
your client goes by by the popular name of "rAmo
vigrahavAn dharma"? Are we to revise such impressions?


(4) The next argument you offer is this: (Quote):

"Commentators clarify that the actual purport of Sri
Raghava’s words about Sita being free to live with
Lakshmana, Bharata, et al, is that once abandoned by
her husband, a woman could seek the support and roof
of her husband’s relatives and friends. It was with
this in mind, (that Sita could find support from any
of the worthies mentioned), that Sri Rama’s words were
uttered and not with any other untoward purport, says
Sri Govindaraja (“atra LakshmanAdou mana: karaNam nAma
anAthAyA: rakshakatvEna tat tat grihE vartanam.
BhartrA parityaktAyA: striyA bandhu grihE vAsa
vidhAnAt”).(UNQUOTE)

With due respects to the traditional commentator he
has taken the trouble to quote, I cannot however help
saying the Hon'ble Counsel for defense is attempting
to put a skillful but deceptive "spin" on the original
stanzas of the Ramayana-text just in order to soften
the harshness and sting contained in Rama's actual
words.

I confess I am not an expert in the Sanskrit language,
but what Rama said to Sita-pirAtti is this
(VI.118.22-23):

 "lakshmanE bharatE vA tvam kuru buddhim yathAsUkhAt I
 sugreevE vAnarEndrE vA rAkshasEndrE vibhishINE I
 nivEshaya mana: seethE yathA vA sukhamAtmanah: II"

The word "yathAsUkhAt" and "yathA vA sukhamAtmanah:",
have unmistakable connotations of what kind of
"sukham" was actually meant, given the particular
context of the Ramayana. So, this is what Rama said,
"Lakshmana, Bharatha, Sugriva or Vibheeshana... you
may go ahead and fix your affections on any one of
these four people. I do not care!".

The Counsel for defense, I am afraid, is not only
taking undue liberties with the facts of the case but
also with the language and idiom in which the evidence
is made available before the court.

(5) Your next argument is: (QUOTE) "Despite His harsh
words, Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri
Sita’s impeccable character. He knew too that none of
the five elements was capable of causing Her harm,
since all were under the joint command of Himself and
His Consort (“bheeshAsmAt VAta: pavatE, bheeshOdEti
Soorya:, bheeshmAt agnischa indrascha, Mrityu: dhAvatipanchama iti”—the 
Taittiriyopanishad). Since no injury
could be caused by Fire to Sita who was the embodiment
of purity, and since it would prove Her to be
blemishless beyond doubt, Sri Rama didn’t feel any
qualms about permitting Her to enter the fire."
(UNQUOTE)

The evidence available in the Ramayana does not quite
support your statement that "Despite His harsh words,
Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri Sita’s
impeccable character". The available evidence in fact
seem to suggest the exact contrary. Your client
appears to have a steady, past record of being
incapable of instinctively trusting people. As in the
present episode of the "agni-parIksha" where we find
that he doubted His own very Consort, so too in the
case of his ally Sugriva and brother, Bharatha.

Let the facts speak for themselves.

In the "kishkinda kAnda", at one point in time, your
client became enraged with Sugriva when he suspected
the latter was going back on his word given earlier
that a whole 'vanara' would be put at Rama's disposal
in the search for Sita.

Again, in the final scenes of the "yuddha-kAnda", when
the whole entourage of Rama, Sita, Sugriva and Hanuman
were returning to Ayodhya, your client called Hanuman
aside to tell him, "Now that we are nearing Ayodhya,
Hanuman, I want you to go ahead of us and see what is
happening in Ayodhya. I want you to report back to me
whether my brother Bharatha is ready to hand the
kingdom back to me on my return or is otherwise
pre-disposed. In which case, if he's changed his mind
and decided to appropriate the kingdom to himself,
then I should know about it. He can of course, if he
wants to, have the throne all for himself. But I want
to know in advance, so go ahead of us and find out."

Your client Sri Rama, thus, had an ingrained habit of
doubting the intentions of even those who were closest
to him. In view of the facts above, it would be
difficult therefore to be convinced by what you, my
dear learned defense-counsel, have to say on behalf of
your client -- that He (Quote) "Despite His harsh
words, Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri
Sita’s impeccable character". (UNquote)

                  *************

Sir, I want to bring my own closing argument in this
case to an end today by saying that my client,
Sita-pirAtti, can have no better counsel to represent
her case than she herself. She speaks later in her own
words, in the "uttara-kAndam" where one can find the
bravest and most eloqent summation of her case. Let me
allow her to do it, for there really is no need at all
for someone like me to hold a brief for my beloved
client. I propose to merely reproduce her own words...
not now but in my next posting. Until then, I say,
"All arise, the Court is adjourned...."

Yours respectfully,

dAsan,
Sudarshan


________________________________________________________________________
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




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