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

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00202 Jul 2004

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


--- 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: dhAvati
panchama 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 


________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Careers: Over 65,000 jobs online
Go to: http://yahoo.naukri.com/


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