You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Aug 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00127 Aug 2006

 
Aug 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Respected swamin
it appears the part 2 of response copied to you is not received at your end. so 
repeating same.
 dhasan
 vasudevan m.g. 

________________________________

From: M.G.Vasudevan
Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 7:58 AM
To: Vivek Shankar Natarajan
Cc: yennappan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Query - Shrimad Ramayanam - 2


From:   Vivek Shankar Natarajan [nvivekshankar@xxxxxxxxx] [VSN]

Sent:   Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:04 PM 

To:     M.G.Vasudevan [MGV]

Subject: Re: Query - Shrimad Ramayanam 

Dear Sri Vasudevan Swami Ji, 

 

Continued as part 2: 

MGV adds: We saw in ahalyaa and indhra the 'PeN aasai' - desire for sex - 
dominating. Here in kaikEyee front it is 'maN aasai' - the raajyam - kingdom - 
for her son - this is but a 'normal' mother's desire. As you say dhasaratha 
later excused her at raamaa's behest. 

 

kuru prasaadham dharmagna: kaikEyyaa bharathasya cha |

sa puthraam thvaam thyajaam ithi yadh ukthaa kaikEyee thvayaa ||

sa saapam kaikEyee ghOra, saputhraam na sprusEth prabhO | 6-122- 25, 26

 

There also a subtle point is available - this is to be understood. If a lady 
does not bear a child for her husband - that lady can be banished / brushed 
aside [in tamil -thaLLi vaikkalaam] and another wife can be taken to produce a 
son. That is the saasthram - practiced those days. That is what raama also 
pleads with his father 'do not forego kaikeyee, because she has a son'. For a 
son is always the savior of 'pithrus' from the hell of 'puth'. To get that 
important 'son', more than one marriage is permitted those days.

 

Further once a mother is banished, the son produced by her is also banished. 
That is why raama did not want to lose his brother, because of father's action 
of banishing mother [that too raama pleads after he passed away and returned 
from swargam to see his son raamaa's feat. [or feet] for dhasaratha also says 
to lakshmaNa 'raama is saakshaath avyaktham aksharam brahma samhitham' who else 
it is except mahaa vishNu, sreeman naaraayaNan'  - like earlier brahma sthuthi 
[just aheadof dhasaratha talking]. 

 

Also dhasaratha went to swargam only and not to sree vaikuntam the abode of the 
supreme lord.

 

VSN: When that is the case, why is my mother Sita Piratti, the embodiment of 
all things good, pure and noble subjected to such a harsh language pre-agni 
pravesam. When Rama did forgive everyone, why such a treatment for my Piratti 
twice (counting Uttara Rama charitam)? It is in this spirit that I experience 
the lacerations. You are right. Maybe, I need to be more dispassionate.  But, 
would that mean I should not look at Sita as a mother and merely a Character in 
a tale? I do not know. 

 

MGV: Uttara raama charitham [URC] of bhavabhuthi? After a good search in the 
net, I am able to get that book today. After going through only I can comment 
on URC. Further this is a 'drama' written based on later raamaayaNam incidents 
in uththara kaaNdam - may be, in certain cases, the author of drama has the 
liberty to twist the main story to suit his point. [like kiraathaarjuneeyam by 
bhaaravi wherein dhuryOdhana is described as a wonderful king who took care of 
his subjects well]. Further there is also a contention that vaalmeeki did not 
write uththara kaaNdam and somebody else.  If so, then to what extent, we can 
give credence to URC in the same way as vaalmeeki?

 

On that harsh language in pre-agni pravEsam - my comments are -

 

Seethaa's tongue lashing will really upset any 'normal' man - since he is raama 
the super natural - he acted in that way - at a later stage - to seethaa - of 
course with a difference - the seethaa tongue lashing was in private - between 
these two, raama and seethaa. Raamaa's tongue lashing was in open, in front of 
all. That again is a typical 'man's style' - in an act.  

 

It is stated in ayOdhyaa kaanDam first sargam - he did not react to harsh words 
spoken by others. That is what we see in seethaa's case initially - after a 
long time he reacts in pre-agni pravEsam.

 

sa cha nithyam prasaantha aathmaa mrudhu poorvE cha BhaashathE |

uchyamaanO~pi parusham na uththaram prathipadhyathE || 2-1-10

 

Meaning: That Raama was forever peaceful in mind and spoke softly. He did not 
react to the hard words spoken by others.

 

See some examples of seethaa's tongue lashing -

 

yadhi maam duhkhithaam Evam vanam nEthum na cha ichchhasi |

visham agnim jalam vaa aham aasthaasyE mruthyu kaaraNaat || 2-29-21

 

meaning: I shall take resort to poison or fire or water for dying, if you are 
not willing to take me, afflicted as I am, as above."

 

[may be seethaa is the forerunner, in this kind of threatening, to the wives of 
these days and also a dialogue renderer to all fims and serials]

 

kim thvaa amanyatha vaidhEha: pithaa mE mithilaa adhipa: |
raama jaamaatharam praapya sthriyam purusha vigraham || 2-30-3

 

Meaning: What my father, the king of mithila, belonging to the country of 
vidhEha, think of himself having got you, as son-in-law, a woman having the 
form of a man?"

 

[this will provoke any ordinary man because it hits at his masculinity but 
raama reacted slowly]

 

svayam thu bhaaryaam koumaareem chiram adhyushithaam satheem |

sailoosha Eva maam raama parEbhyo dhaathum ichchhasi || 2-30-8

 

meaning: Oh, Raama! I am a young girl, lived for a long time with you, a chaste 
woman and your wife. How would you, like an actor intend to deliver me, to 
others, by your own will?"

 

When she lashed the words in 2-30-8 without provocation, the same was paid back 
to her. Raama says, "As I as a husband fulfilled my duty of rescuing you from 
the abductor by killing him, and, now you are free to go as you please - for 
you only said then that 'like an actor why you intend to deliver to others'. 
Now knowing fully well I deliver you to others" - by saying this, he acts to 
deliver as per her words [please note that word ACT]. 

 

[Perhaps this point was not touched in the ordeal by fire - in main as well 
counters by other swamins - though sadagopan swamy quoted this slokam in 
seethaa's sins.]  

 

Oh, a grand 'tit for tat'. This does not mean I enjoy this with a male 
chauvinism but things, which are to be enjoyed, are to be enjoyed dispassionate.

 

Also that accusing lakshmaNa - who says 'I have never seen her above her ankle 
- so I can not identify her other jewels except her 'golusu' -

 

ichChasi thvam vinasyantham raamam lakshmaNa math kruthE || 3-45-6

lobhaath thu math krutham noonam na anugachChasi raaghavam |

 

meaning: Because of me you wish Raama to be completely destroyed, and only 
because of your cupidity for me you are not following up on Raaghava. It is 
definite. [3-45-6b, 7a]

 

Please read 'sita's sins big and small' in two parts by Sri Sadagopan iyengar 
available in archives. In case you are able to lay hands on these, please write 
to me and I will send that. To a large extent that article explains the reasons 
for raama's tongue lashing - tit for tat - sita's tongue lashing earlier to 
raama and lakshmana. Also please read fully the lengthy article 'ordeal by 
fire' with all comments and counters by others. It is Quite fascinating. After 
that perhaps you will not have that lacerating feelings.

 

VSN: Our life is inexplicably intertwined with God - specially Maha lakshmi and 
Shriman Narayana of whose incarnations, Shri Sita Piratti and Shri Rama Piran, 
appear very approachable and lovable. We celebrate their birthday, homecoming, 
chant their names everyday, celebrate their celestial wedding and invoke their 
name for all good occasions. The title song for our marriages is Sita Kalyanam. 
How do we get away from that special bonding that one enjoys with the divine 
couple who walked on earth? It is said that Ramayanam is Sitayaha Charitam 
Mahat. I understand that spirit. However, I am only seeing the troubles of 
Piratti. I want to see her success and her joys. 

 

MGV: On Seethaa's joys - Yes. What vaalmeeki describes in raamaayaNam is much 
without the 'timescale'. That gives a 'tilt' that seethaa was always in 
suffering. 

 

First upto the kanyaa age - which as per dictionary is placed at around 10, she 
is happy in mithila with janaka. This 'kanyaa' age - vaalmeeki does not 
indicate anywhere except saying the bow is kept as kanyaa shulkam. Seethaa 
repeats I am ayOnija, and janaka also. But no time is indicated.  Even raama's 
birth, education etc is all pushed up so fast in one sargam very fast - to be 
precise in 18 slokams 8 to 26 of 18th sargam of baala kaaNdam. 

 

[here just compare for a minute srimadh bhaagavatham - krishNaa 's baala 
leelaa's - oh joyful tears flow even just to make a mention of krishNaa's baala 
leelaas - raama's baala leelaas - just 'no adequate details'].

 

After marriage as seethaa herself says, 'we enjoyed life for 12 years in 
ayOdhyaa, in 13th year the king proposed coronation'.

 

ushithvaa dhvaa dhasa samaa: ikshvaakooNaam nivEsanE |

bhunjaanaa maanushaan bhOgaan sarva kaama samruddhinee || 3-47-4

 

Meaning: On residing in the palace of ikshvaakus [meaning in Ayodhya] for 12 
years, I have relished all human prosperity and all cherishes, sumptuously. 

 

thaththra thrayOdhasE varshE raaja amanthryatha prabhu: |

abhishEchayithum raamam samEthO raaja manthribhi: || 3-47-5

 

Meaning: In the 13th year, therein [in that Ayodhya] that lordly king 
Dasharatha deliberated together with his imperial ministers, to anoint my lord 
raama as Crown Prince.

 

Of course, these two slokams are seethaa's introduction to raavaNa in aaraNya 
kaaNdam and later she repeats 'very same 12 years enjoyment' matter in her 
introduction to hanumaan in sundhara kaaNdam. So she had her quota of 'married 
life enjoyment' in city ayOdhyaa.  

 

One more slokam to calculate age is given - 

mama bharthaa mahaathEjaa vayasaa pancha vimsaka || 3-47-10

aSTaa dasha hi varshaaNi mama janmani gaNyathE |

 

Meaning: My great-resplendent husband was of 25 years of age [at that time of 
proposal for coronation] and to me, 18 years are reckoned up from my birth.

 

MGV adds: Further, for a period of 13 years, seethaa spent happily in the 
forest with husband raama, and 'servant and brother in law' lakshmaNa. Again 
this reference of spending these may years in just two or three slokams in 
aaraNya kaaNdam. 

 

Only in the 14th year of forest living the abduction takes place. For a period 
of 10 months, she was located in asOka vanam. In the 14th year last two months 
only all these searching by hanumaan, yudhDham, tongue lashing, agni pravesam, 
and reunion - for which vaalmeeki spends more than half the volume of sreemadh 
raamaayaNam.

 

Later when she returned to ayOdhyaa [after raavaNan was killed], she lived 
happily for 10900 years. For in the very first sargam as well as in 
pattaabhishEkam sargam of yudhDha kaaNdam, it is said raama ruled for 11000 
years.

 

dhasa varsha sahasraaNi dhasa varsha sathaani cha |

raamO raajyam upaasithvaa brahma lokam prayaasyathi||" (1-1-97)

 

meaning: "On reverencing the kingdom for ten thousand years plus another one 
thousand years, [i.e. for a total of 11000 years,] Rama voyages to the abode of 
Brahma... [1-1-97]

 

In the last 100 years or so, only that seethaa's garbham - carrying of lava and 
kusa, separation by way of banishment on vaNNaan's comment, birth of lava and 
kusa, bringing them up, reunion of the kids with father raama, seethaa taking 
off from this world by going into mother earth, raamaa sending the 3 mothers, 
finally he himself leaving etc, etc. [again not much details on the time period 
in uththara kaaNdam]. 

 

You stated "why such a treatment for my Piratti twice?" In the second time 
sending to forest when seethaa is a garbhavathi- pregnant woman - seethaa only 
prefers a stay in the forest during her 'masakkai' period - raama asks her what 
would you like to have or where you would like to go during this period of 
masakkai - she prefers a forst stay - sargam 41 42 of uththara kaandam - which 
incidentally adds a reason for banishment according to comment of vaNNaan.

 

So it is not that seethaa did not enjoy life. But since raamaayaNam rushes fast 
in these areas, perhaps we may not feel the 'impact' of 'joy' of the couple.  

 

VSN: Since that is not visible, I am grieving and sad. Your advise and 
suggestions will greatly benefit me - almost like a Sanjeevani. Adiyen Vivek

 

MGV: The 'joyful times of seethaa' - on that, points added above in 'time 
scale'. Some references of how they enjoyed are available in aaraNya kaaNdam. 
Since you, yourself, are a thorough reader of raamaayaNam, you can lay hands 
on. Otherwise also it can be provided. Whether it serves as 'sanjeevani' or 
'amirtham' itself, you only have to decide. [sanjeevani is only a 'life giver' 
again leading to 'death' - the end of life is its natural course. Amirtham is 
the nectar, which gives no 'death' - 'amarathvam'] 

 

Facts only are placed before you. On the second part question of you [given 
below], I will comment in next post.  

 

Dhasan

Vasudevan m.g.

 

PS: respected sadagopan swamy, pranaamams, thank you sending the mail to groups 
also. i am sending this to you two only and you can forward to groups at your 
end.


________________________________

From: Vivek Shankar Natarajan [mailto:nvivekshankar@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Fri 8/11/2006 2:46 AM
To: M.G.Vasudevan
Subject: Re: Query - Shrimad Ramayanam 


Dear Sri Vasudevan Swami,

Continuing on the same lines that I wrote earlier, I have more queries.

We hail Sundarakandam as the cream of Ramayana. The main aspect of this Kandam 
is that Hanuman gets the message of Swami to Piratti and then Piratti to Swami. 
He paves the way for union of two souls. After that, the destruction of Demon 
race takes place.  Then pattabhishekam takes place. So far so good.

But my problem is with the ending. After all this superhuman effort, Swami has 
to sacrifice Piratti. Then, what is the use of all that great efforts of Sri 
Anjaneya. What is the message? 

This questions really bother me and some answers will really help me.

Vivek




DISCLAIMER:
  This Message and its contents is intended solely for the addressee and is 
proprietary.Information in this mail is for L&T Business Usage only. Any Use to 
other than the addressee is misuse and infringement to Proprietorship of L&T 
ECC.If you are not the addressee please return the mail to the sender.L&T ECC 
DIVISION


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





 
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