Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama: Dasaratha’s Dilemma It is no exaggeration if we call Srimad Ramayana a Guide Book for universal good conduct. It is so full of the right type of advice, that anyone who reads it could never go wrong. And the beauty is that the characters of Valmiki adhere so completely to what they preach, that the usual dichotomy between precept and practice is conspicuous in the epic by its absence. One of the traits given much importance in the epic is Truthfulness or Honesty. We find characters praising each other for being invariable adherents to Truth. This quality is so basic to the work as to form the bedrock on which the entire magnificent epic is founded. Though Sri Rama might have had innumerable auspicious attributes (“BahavO Nripa! KalyANa guNA: putrasya santi tE”), Truthfulness leads the pack, with everyone adulating Raghava for His scrupulous honesty in word, thought and deed. In the very first Sarga, we thus find Sri Rama described by Sri Narada as “Dharmagya: Satyasandhascha prajAnAm cha hitE rata:” How does Sri Rama conquer all the worlds—by His prowess with the bow and arrow or His undisputed valour? Neither, says Sri Valmiki, telling us that it is through His unvarying Honesty that Sri Rama triumphs over all world—“SatyEna lOkAn jayati, deenAn dAnEna Raghava:”. And again, when Dasaratha lists the glorious good qualities in his eldest son, it is Truthfulness that comes to his mind first— “Satyam dAnam tapa: tyAgE mitratA soucham Arjavam VidyA cha Guru sushrooshA dhruvANi EtAni RAghavE” Not only is Sri Raghunandana personally honest, He encourages and facilitates the trait in others too. Take for instance His conduct, when told on the eve of His coronation as the Prince of Ayodhya, that He was to leave the country instantly and reside in the jungle for fourteen long years. Receiving these instructions from His stepmother, Sri Raghava could very well have refuted them, as He had already been promised the post of Crown Prince. Had He done so, He would have been well within His rights and assured of popular support too. None would have found fault with Him, had He chosen to go through with the Coronation, as scheduled.
However, Sri Raghava meekly submitted to the machinations of KaikEyI, because He wanted His father the Emperor, to retain his name and fame as an adherent to Truth. Just for the sake of retaining the crown of Ayodhya, Sri Rama wouldn’t let His father incur the infamy of not keeping his word, lest the scrupulously built IkshvAku edifice of Honesty crumble due to a single act or omission, however painful it was to the persons concerned. We thus see how dear was the concept of Honesty to the heart of Sri Raghunandana. We now come to Dasaratha’s side of the picture. It was indeed true that he had promised two boons to Kaikeyi, at the time of the SambarAsura vadham. And, as the famed Emperor of the IkshvAku dynasty, it was his sacred duty to deliver on his promises, when called upon to do so. However, it is worth our while to research the options open to the Chakravartthi and the real concepts of Honesty or Truthfulness. When Kaikeyi delivered the twin blows of seeking Sri Rama’s expulsion from Ayodhya and the Coronation of Bharata as the Crown Prince, Dasaratha knew very well that acceding to his Empress’ request might plunge the entire nation into anarchy. The People of Ayodhya had already indicated their choice of Rama as their ruler, in no uncertain terms, even hinting to Dasaratha that the earlier he vacated the throne, the better. What would the reaction of these masses be, when told that Rama was being asked to live in the jungle, instead of reigning over Ayodhya? Would there not be an uprising, leading to consequences too disastrous for contemplation? Should Dasaratha plunge the entire nation into possible mutiny and rebellion, merely to satisfy the wishes of an avaricious and obviously misled wife? Where did his duty lie, as an Emperor responsible for the welfare of millions of citizens who looked to him verily as their father? Was adherence to honesty worth it, in the face of such calamitous possibilities affecting the entire nation? ShastrAs tell us that on several occasions, speaking of untruth is justified—for instance, when one’s life is in danger, to save oneself, one might speak untruth, without the attendant stigma attaching to oneself. When sticking to his word and acceding to Kaikeyi’s requests would entail the possible loss of millions of lives of people who might decide to commit suicide rather than live in a state without their beloved Raghava, was it not adequate justification for resiling from his promise to Kaikeyi? And what about his promise to Rama? He had categorically told his glorious eldest son that He would be the Prince of Ayodhya on the morrow (“ata: tvAm Yuva rAjAnam abishEksyami Putraka!”). In implementation of the Royal Decree, all requisite arrangements for the Coronation had been made. There was no doubt that the extremely obedient Rama would consent to the fourteen-year sentence without a word of protest—however, would it be fair on his (Dasaratha’s) part to go back on his word to Rama, in order to keep his promise to Kaikeyi? Merely because Rama was compliant and uncomplaining, could he, as a father, possibly impose on the blemishless boy a terrible punishment apropos of nothing, in the process of honouring his word to Kaikeyi, who had proved to be anything but a devoted mistress? And honouring the promise to Kaikeyi would also result in breaking the word given to the denizens of Ayodhya, that Sri Rama would soon be their monarch? Did he not enthusiastically agree to their proposal for making Rama the Crown Prince? “ahOsmi parama preeta: prabhAvascha atulO mama yanmE jyEshttam priyam putram YouvarAjyasttham icchatha” On the other hand, what would befall him, if he were to tell Kaikeyi to go to hell along with her boons and just refuse to honour his earlier promises, given in a moment of weakness? Dasaratha realised that the stigma of untruth would definitely attach to him indelibly, bringing him ineradicable infamy and opprobrium, as an Emperor, a scion of the famed Ikshvaku dynasty, who couldn’t keep his word, whatever be the extenuating circumstances. Among his worst critics would be his own son, his darling Sri Rama, who would never countenance dishonesty in anyone, leave alone His own father. And this single untruth would be enough to mar the glory and goodwill earned over thousands of years of sincere reign over Ayodhya. Whenever anyone spoke of him subsequently, they would say, “Dasaratha! Oh! That Liar?”, referring disparagingly to his having been unable to keep his word to his own Empress. Books of history would casually gloss over his innumerable years of painstaking honesty, to label him a common liar. With all these cruel thoughts buffeting him from every side, what does Dasaratha decide? Sri Valmiki gives us a graphic account of the devastating dilemma Dasaratha finds himself in, bound on all sides by bonds of honesty and righteousness— “Sa Satya vachanAt RajA dharma pAsEna samyata:”. By the time Dasaratha recovers from his long faint, he finds Rama come to take leave of him, all ready for departure for the forest. Dasaratha realises then that the decision had been taken out of his feeble hands, with Sri Rama having made up his mind to accept jungle life, in preference to a life of palatial comfort at Ayodhya. Still, he tells Rama to overthrow him (Dasaratha) and assume the reigns of Ayodhya, which Rama respectfully declines. It would be instructive to note the arguments advanced by Sri Rama for choosing a life of hardship and privation, over one of over lordship of Ayodhya. 1. Rama says that He would not be the reason for the Chakkravarthy’s words turning to untruth— “na mE kAryam tvayA anrutam”. Of all people, let Me (who have espoused Honesty and Truthfulness as my life’s mission) not be the provocation for your acquiring the stigma of truthlessness, says Sri Rama. The Lord prefers to see His father stick to the narrow but difficult path of Satyam, irrespective of consequences, rather than tread the easy and comfortable trail of untruth—“TvAm aham Satyam icchAmi na anrutam Purusharshabha!” 2. To Rama, it is a question of personal honesty too, for, having promised to Kaikeyi that He would unprotestingly go to the forests and renounce His claim to the throne of Ayodhya for fourteen years, if He were to listen to Dasaratha now and refrain from leaving Ayodhya, it would be a breach of the promise made to the stepmother. Even in His dreams, Rama wouldn’t contemplate going back on His word, as He Himself reiterates— “anrutam na ukta poorvam mE, na cha vakshyE kadAchana” “RAMO dvi: na abhibhAshatE”.
Hence Raghunandana tells Dasaratha that as promised, He must immediately leave for the forests— “artthitO hyasmi KaikEyyA vanam gaccha iti Raghava! MayA cha uktam vrajAmi iti, tat Satyam anupAlayE” Thus, looked at from any angle, it was the desire to accord Honesty the lofty pedestal that it was used to in the reign of IkshvAkus, that prompted Sri Rama to accept immediately and uncomplainingly the deadliest of instructions from His own stepmother whom He had been regarding with greater love than for His own mother. Neither would Rama utter untruth and go back on His own hallowed words, nor would He permit such conduct in those near and dear to Him, even if it would result in His shouldering indescribable suffering. Even to save Himself from the cruel jaws of death, Sri Raghava would never utter an untruth, says Sri Mythily to Hanuman, putting Sri Rama’s philosophy in a nutshell— “dadyAt na pratigrihNeeyAt Satyam brooyAt na cha anrutam api jeevita hEto: hi Rama: Satya parAkrama:” Amidst all this, somewhat funnily, we find Sri Rama adducing His father’s instructions as the reason for His jungle sojourn (“Pitu: vachana nirdEsAt, KaikeyyA: priya kAraNAt”), though Dasaratha never tells Him in so many words to leave Ayodhya: in fact, the embattled Emperor tries his best to dissuade Rama from going to the jungle. The reason is that Sri Rama accords high credibility to His stepmother’s words, as if they were His father’s own— “Mannavan paNi endrAgil num paNi maruppEnO?”. Despite such overwhelming obsession with Honesty, would you be surprised to hear that Sri Raghunandana prompted someone to tell a deliberate untruth? Before you rise up in arms to castigate me for casting aspersions on the “VigrahavAn Dharma:”, let me narrate what happens when Sri Rama ascends the chariot which is to take Him to the forests. Sri Rama’s eyes fill with tears at the sight of His mothers, the doting denizens of Ayodhya and above all, His aged father the Emperor, all assembled with heavy hearts and tear-filled eyes to watch Him embark on His jungle sojourn. As the horses are given the command to go, the chariot starts its unpleasant task of rolling off with its distinguished occupants. Unable to bear this parting from the dearest of his sons (“RamO rati kara: pitu:”), Sri Dasarata shouts to Sumantra the charioteer, to stop, so that he could have a last word, a last embrace, a last glimpse at the glorious features of Sri Rama. However, the Lord tells Sumantra to hasten and drive the chariot off fast. Sumantra is torn between the conflicting orders he receives from Father and Son— “Tishtta iti RAjA chukrOsa, yAhi yAhi iti Raghava: Sumantrasya babhoovAtmA chakrayOriva cha antarA” At this juncture, Sri Rama tells Sumantra, “Do drive off fast. If the Chakravartthy asks you later why you didn’t stop, you could tell him that you didn’t hear his words in all the crying and breast-beating that was going on— “na asrousham iti RajAnam upAlabdhOpi vakshyasi”. Can you believe your eyes and ears-- Sri Rama, the paragon of virtue, the embodiment of Satyam and Dharmam, telling the charioteer to utter a blatant lie! It is here that we must remember that the concepts of Satyam (Honesty) and Dharmam (Righteousness) are not absolute, but vary according to time, place, occasion and persons. As Sri Rama Himself is to point out during the Vali vadham episode, the nuances of Dharma are indeed difficult to discern for ordinary mortals like us—“Sookshma: parama durgyEya: satAm dharma:”. Sri Rama provides enough justification for His asking Sumantra to ride off oblivious to Dasaratha’s entreaties and to tell the Emperor later that his cries were drowned in the general tumult. To the surprised Sumantra, who is astounded at the request from Rama, of all people, to utter an untruth, Sri Rama says that there is no point in prolonging grief both to oneself and others. Even if Sumantra were to stop as requested by the Emperor, it would only elongate the suffering both the father and son would feel in the parting, each moment of lingering feeding the already unbearable grief— “chiram du:khasya pApishttam iti Rama: tam abraveet”. It is hence that Sri Rama instructs Sumantra to hasten and to offer excuses to the Emperor for not listening to him. And in doing so, Sri Rama is adhering to the Shastraic dictum to speak the Truth, but only if it is Sweet. If such Truth is harmful to the listener, then it is better left unsaid—“Satyam brooyAt Priyam brooyAt, na brooyAt Satyam apriyam”. Would it serve any purpose for Sumantra to tell Dasaratha, upon inquiry, the truth that it was at the behest of Sri Rama that the chariot was driven off, despite the Emperor calling for it to stop? This would have only heightened Dasaratha’s already overwhelming grief. This would therefore have been an example of “Satyam apriyam” and it was to avoid this that Sri Rama advises Sumantra to offer an excuse, though not really the truth. Thus, the nuances of Truth and correct conduct are to be learnt not through our own concepts of good and bad or from the pages of unresponsive books, but from the behaviour of acknowledged paragons of virtue—“MahA janA: yEna gata: sa panthA:”. Srimate Sri LakshmINrisimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama: dasan, sadagopan
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |