Subject: Re: Bow's story - clarification on question raised.
Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,
Continuing the points on Smt. Jayasree's mail on the bow's story, this is part
2. as stated earlier JASN is Smt. Jayasree and my points are given as MGV: [
also there may be a small overlap in the first two paragraphs as new points
came up.
JASN: Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two pieces of
information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana itself. One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam
takes place only during certain kaala-dEsha-vartha maana. The Vishnu-veeryam
was present in the Shiva-dhanush only at the time of samhaaram of Thripura
asuras (refer previous postings of bow's story) and not later when the war
broke out between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise, shiva placed His veeryam in the
dhanush to make it extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up. Even
otherwise it was heavy (by some standard) is another point. Whether it was
heavy when Sita as a little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder.
MGV: -- One point here. The original when it was intended for the dhEvaas may
have been light but once the bow reached human hands like dhEvaraatha, chances
are very bright that the bow became heavy. Please compare human time and
dhEvaas time. One ayanam [6 months period] for us is half a day for them. Like
that the weight alsocan be. To put it lightly - what is one quintal for us
[100kgs] may be one gram for them. Further once built, the heaviness with which
it was built will not go elsewhere. That is why it is so light for them but
heavy for human kings here. But since seethaa is 'saakshaath maha lakshmee' it
was very light for her.
JASN: The question that comes to my mind here is whether Ravana recognised
Sita, when Surpanaka told him of the story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him
to avenge them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn't betray any
remembrance of the incident at Janaka's court nor any knowledge about Sita's
existence. He listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about her for the
first time. The reasons are easy to understand. It was by a kind of selective
amnesia that he would not have wanted to remember Sita's swayamvara, where he
suffered a humiliation to his valour (in having failed to lift the bow).
MGV: This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to be heard
properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and can help her in
achieving her goals [either by way of punishing the human characters who
defaced her, or by way of bringing forcefully the humans whom she liked and
give to her for enjoyment or in marriage ]. At that stage he would definitely
not like to exhibit he also suffered at the cause of same seethaa.
JASN: That perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take her to show
how valiant he was. Because at every occasion he was keen on showing her how
valiant he was and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no match to him.
Thus the seeds of doing harm to Rama must have been sown at Janaka's court
itself.
MGV: To a large extent, yes.
JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose it - however otherwise
convinced he might be about the pathivratha nature of Sita. Because when he
told her that he was going to take her, he addressed her 'varavarNinI' - (a
term used to exemplary women who are extremely devoted to the husband) and
ridiculed Rama that he was not a match even to his finger!!
MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17
Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a
beautiful woman. This 'varaarOhE' is one among the group of:
varaarOhaa,
mathtta kaasinee,
uththamaa,
vara varNinee
- amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2].
Again this addressing is repeated
vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE |
na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28
JASN: Our (2nd) question is why Sita didn't stop the abduction by some way -
(implied) say by even becoming heavy so that Ravana would have struggled as he
did when he tried to lift the shiva-dhanush. The reasons I can think of is the
one stated above (based on kaala-desha-vartha maana) and the stated position of
Sita that she, as pathi-vrathai (shesha here) was not supposed to act without
being ordained by her lord. Sita at this juncture (at Aranya) was not the same
as the 6 year old at Janaka's palace and her dharma was different now.
MGV: The point here is - when, as a six year old, she could push the siva
dhanu: so easily, her mind always was on raama [as mahalakshmi thinking of
naaraayaNan, in and as raama] so she could do that. But, now, in front of
raavaNan, she has become a part of raama having united with him in marriage as
well physically also. For she claims in front of that very same raavaNan, " we
enjoyed the humanly life for 12 years in ayodhyaa as well in forest". So now
she is totally dependent on raamaa. So her powers are identified with raamaa.
Further as stated in slokam 2-29-6 [given below again] seethaa, when raavaNan
is approaching her, with the intention of abducting, is not in the vicinity of
raama. For she only sent him away. As such, she has become powerless. Further,
at least if lakshmaNa is there she could have had some power. Even he is sent
away. As such raavaNan could lift her so easily.
[like the modern day quiz programmes, the clue is given by way of the following
slokam, in the write up [earlier], before the question or doubt is raised].
Further as stated by herself, somebody comparatively more powerful than indhran
also could do no harm when raama is in her vicinity. [Actually raavaNan has
overpowered indhran already. That is why all gods lead by indhran went to
brahma and, he, in turn, went to naaraayanan, as we have seen in vaali vadham
series by Sri Anjaneyalu - on the portion dealing with birth of vaali - sargam
16 of baala kaaNdam].
na cha maam thvath sameepastham api saknOthi raaghava |
suraaNaam eeshvara: sacra: pradharsayithum Ojasaa || 2-29-6
Meaning: Oh raama! Even dhEvendhra, the lord of celestials, by his strength,
cannot over power me, when I am in your vicinity.
Moreover when seethaa is fully conscious of herself, she would have done the
act of just resisting the abductor. But her mind was fully on the golden deer.
As long as her mind was on 'materialistic things' like golden deer, she could
not do that thing, even to protect herself, though she is so powerful as to
push the siva dhanu.
[at the stage of pushing the dhanu, she is awaiting the lord's arrival, always
thinking of him and the time of his arrival, the union with her lord etc, even
though apparently she is playing with ball etc].
Even if her mind was on raamaa, raavaNan could not have overpowered her.
thatha: suvEsham mrugayaa gatham pathim
pratheekshamaaNaa saha lakshmaNam thadhaa |
nireekshamaaNaa haritham dhadharsa thath
mahad vanam na Eva thu raama lakshmaNou || 3-46-38
Meaning: Then she looked forward for her finely attired husband, who has gone
on a hunting game, and also for Lakshmana, but on her gazing, she saw the
greenery of the great forest only, but not Rama or Lakshmana.
[hari also mean a deer. Here the 'looking forward' for raamaa is with the
intention of 'hey, when he returns he will bring that beautiful deer, but here
is a braahmaNan waiting, may be I have to do 'athithi sathkaaram' with full
involvement, or, he has to be sent out soon. This person will be an intrusion,
when raamaa comes back, he will bring the golden deer, live or dead. So she was
in two minds - one on raamaa with deer, deer being predominant - another on the
braahmaNan waiting]. Thus the powers inherent have all gone or not helping her
because of the mind is engaged elsewhere.
Once she is abducted, overpowered and carried away, all her concentration
returned on raamaa. That is why no body could do any harm to her. All threats
from raakshasees, raavaNan etc were only words, and she has to react to that
superficially.
JASN: But Sita herself stated the core reason as Ravana was lifting her. As she
was screaming the name of Rama, she wailed why he, as protector of dharma, had
not protected her as she was being taken away in adharmic way - why he, as one
who punishes the sinners had not yet punished Ravana. Then, as if by
realisation, she continued that unless one had sinned, how could he be
punished. Ravana had done the paapa-kaaryam only then (in the process of
abduction) and it would take some time for the counter-action (for the paapa)
to take place, just as how it takes some time for the plant to give results.
MGV: The protector of dharmam is her lord raamaa, who has been sent away by
her. If dharma raajan, the yaman is to be considered here, as protector of
dharmam, then he is a subdued person by the very same raavaNan. So both could
not come to rescue of seethaa.
JASN: This is to be read along with what Rama says as his mission to the sages
who visited him in Sarabhanga ashram (aranya khandam) pleading him to protect
them from the raakshasas. Rama confides to them that he had undertaken vana-
vasam for a personal reason (sondha-prayOjanam). If they (sages) ask if it is
not due to pitru-vaakhya paripaalanam, Rama says it is not so. He uses it only
as a pretext to be able to come to the forest to destroy the asuras. He further
states that he has come there only on his own volition, to fulfill his purpose.
When Rama does for a purpose, so also Sita does to further His cause. The
abduction is only a pretext to make ravana commit an offence to rama so that
Rama can rise up against him.
MGV: Fully agreed.
JASN: Sita could have as well stopped Ravana from lifting her. But that she
didn't give a minimum physical resistance nor even a fight when ravana lifted
her, gives a different story.
MGV: Yes. Agreed.Otherwise how the avathaara kaaryam will take place.
JASN: Had she resisted, Ravana would not have dared to even touch her. Because
such was the curse ravana had on his life. Valmiki says this precisely when
ravana lifted her, that mindful of the curse on his life, he held by her hair
in his left hand and her thigh in his right hand so that her body does not
touch his. This shows that sita could have easily made Ravana burst into
pieces, if she had resisted. But that was not the purpose for which the entire
story was enacted.
MGV: Agreed.
JASN: A further proof for why Rama needed a pretext to kill ravana can be cited
as follows. We may be permitted to ask why Rama didn't kill him instantly in
the war. He 1st cuts off his heads, which however grew immediately. I am
reminded here of the adage in Tamil 'Dharmam thalai kaakkum'. Ravana was
protected by the numerous good deeds and the penance he had done earlier. Then
how to stop them from coming to his rescue? I find a clue to this in the
abduction drama that unfolded after jatayu's exit. Jatayu had fallen on the
ground and Sita sits beside him wailing about his demise and her bad luck. It
is then Ravana lifts her up by her hair to carry her.
MGV: this is the second time. First seethaa is lifted from her aasraamam. May
be the first act can be forgiven. Any act, if done second time also, then it
requires a punishment. So raavaNan deserved a punishment.
JASN: Seeing this Brahma deva remarks, 'kaaryam mudindhadhu" (the job is done)
and the other worldly entities too rejoice over this. Yes, valmiki uses the
term rejoice here. Why should they be rejoiced when Sita were to be treated
like this? This perhaps forms the pretext or cause for wiping out whatever
dharma that Ravana had accumulated that would safeguard him even when he is in
dire straits. There may be connection between this rejoice over lifting her by
her hair and Ravana getting back his head in position in the war. This act
perhaps was instrumental in getting whatever dharma that was left to safeguard
his head was successively getting depleted every time that Rama cut off a head
and finally leaving him out of bound for protection by dharma in his account,
so that the final asthra, the Brahmasthra was able to finish his life.
(PS: The instances / narratives from Valmiki ramayana quoted in this mail are
drawn from the transliteration of the same into Tamil done by Sri A.V.
Narasimhachari published by R. Venkateswarar & co, in the year 1926.) -
jayasree saranathan
MGV: On the whole a very good account and nice interpretations.
As rightly said by Smt.Jayasree in today's mail [recd on 4.12.04] no offences
meant any where, by discussing the aspects / points from different angles, many
new viewpoints are thrown up, thereby, we are able to go deep into raamaayaNam
and enjoy raamaa's glory more and more.
Dhaasan
Vasudevan m.g.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/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/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |