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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00243 Jul 2004

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


Milord "amicus curie", Members of the jury, the
Hon'ble defense-counsel, Sri Sadagopan Iyengar,
-------------------------------------------------------

As I rise today today before the court to deliver the
prosecution's closing statement, I confess a grave and
mortal trepidation has suddenly taken hold of me. 

I stand here today before the court as counsel for
prosecution -- quite firm, on the one hand, in my
resolve to do my job thoroughly: the job of arraigning
the defendent, Sri Rama, for the injustice done by Him
unto my client, Sita-pirAtti. 

On the other hand, when I realize who it is I am about
to arraign and prosecute, and whom I am about to 
gravely charge, I cannot help shudder a little in holy
fear... After all, who am I, a mere worm of a mortal,
to dare arraign the Almighty who chose to live amidst
us in the human garb of Rama?

Sir, my sense of fear, however, lasts less than a
fleeting moment. It dissipates as quickly as I realize
who it is that I am representing. I am appearing for
my client, "Sita-pirAtti", who is but human avatar too
of the Consort of the Almighty. She is a Deity no less
endearing and venerable to all of us, and dearer
still, above all, to the Almighty Himself.

My fear further gets completely extinguished when I
take a close look at the vast, entire and magnificent
body of evidence which is at hand right here before
me, its nature and purpose too  --  Sir, you should
know I'm talking here about the truth of the Srimadh
Valmiki Ramayana. "Know the Truth", is an old saying,
"for the Truth shall set you free". It is on behalf of
that Truth too, besides "Sita-pirAtti" herself, that I
stand before you today to make my case and petition
for the justice that my client so rightly deserves.

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

Let me briefly talk to you about the evidence.

The Ramayana is a faithful record of the lives of Lord
Rama and Sita-pirAtti as divine incarnations. It
recounts how they took birth on earth and acted out
their respective roles as mere human beings in a drama
they co-scripted, co-directed, co-produced and
co-enacted. And why did they do it? It was for the
purpose of instructing mankind on 'Dharma': that Ideal
which in Man's conception is said to constitute all
that is noblest in human conduct.

Having said that much, Sir, I offer this thought to
your lordships for careful consideration: Since both
Rama and Sita-pirAtti were play-actors, they went
about setting both 'positive' and 'negative' examples
of 'dhArmic' human conduct in the Ramayana. They
sought to impress upon Man not only what is "To be"
but also what is "Not to be" (to borrow a useful
expression from Shakespeare's Hamlet). In other words,
through the various scenes in which they played out
the role demanded of them, Rama and Sita each
portrayed not only righteous conduct but
not-so-righteous conduct as well. In episodes like the
"Rama-Bharatha samvAda" and the
"Vibheeshana-saraNagathi", for example, Sri Rama
exhibits to us many lofty standards of "dharma".
Likewise, in scenes like the "sundara-kAnda",
SIta-pirAtti, shows us what high "dharmA" is. But in a
scene like the "agni-parIksha", although there might
be something to say about the righteousness of
SriRama's conduct in it, the real scene-stealer is
"Sita-pirAtti" and she alone! It is entirely her show,
indeed, since the real and substantive lessons of
highest "dharmA" are there to be learnt from
"pirAtti's" role and not from that of SriRama. 

In trying to unduly project and magnify Rama's image
in that particular scene, the Hon'ble Defense-counsel
has wrongfully sought to steal and appropriate for his
client the thunder that rightfully belongs to Sita.   


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

Milord, hon'ble members of the jury, if we all
properly understood and accepted my submissions above,
then I say we will hardly find it difficult to face
the fact that, in the Ramayana, it is not from Sri
Rama's conduct alone that one may draw lessons on
"dharma". There is plenty more available in the
evidence -- far more, in fact, than some people (like
the hon'ble defense-counsel and his "traditionalist"
commentators, for instance) are normally accustomed to
acknowledge -- there is a great deal more indeed to
learn from Sita-pirAtti's deeds too. 

Sir, I now further go on to state that there is
nothing in the script of the Ramayana to suggest that
Sita, in her deeds, should never be held to appear
more righteous or more "dhArmic" than Rama. If the
script shows Sita completely overshadowing her
illustrious mate, and if, in a few scenes of their
'avatAric' life together on earth, and particularly in
the "agni-parIksha" scene, we see Sita's conduct
exemplifying a greater "dharma" than Rama's own, I say
that we must not let that fact in any way disturb our
faith in the Almighty. We must not also seek to change
or modify the given script... or otherwise interpret
it in ways which, however well-intentioned they might
be, are still designed to merely fit into our smug
framework of ideological bias and ... or perhaps,
still more probably, just to help calm some wave of
theological doubt down which, alas, has arisen within
us and threatens to rock and perturb the boat of our
inner peace. 

Our job, members of the jury, I say our job is not to
read non-existent meaning, or otherwise unduly stretch
existent meaning that there is in that body of
evidence called 'Ramayana'. It is not also our job to
go beyond the clearly scripted roles of its principal
characters, Sita and Rama. It is definitely not our
job to imitate what the defense-counsel has done in
his elaborate arguments -- i.e. seeking to divine the
mind of the Divine.
  
Milord, "amicus-curie" and members of the jury, we
hold this trial today of the Divine Couple, engaged
fully as they were in their respective role of
"Plaintiff" and "Defendent" in the "agni-parIksha"
episode. But this is a mock trial. By holding it let
us not in any way fear we are mocking them. On the
contrary, and however ironical it may seem, by
bringing Sri Rama and Sita-piratti to trial in this
august court, and in seeking to playfully "arraign"
one and "seek justice" for the other, actually in a
special sort of way, we honour and celebrate two of
the greatest artists ever to appear on the Divine
Stage-show.

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

Let us proceed with the case for prosecution.

The particular episode of the "agni-parIksha", and the
events both immediately leading to and following from
it in the "uttara-kAnda", is one where Sita in her
role essayed a "dhArmic" value far greater than the
one Rama demonstrated. It behoves one to glorify
"pirAtti" in this episode and not Sri Rama -- as the
defense-counsel sought to do in his otherwise elegant
article titled "Ordea by Fire-2". 

The role cut out for the Almighty was to demonstrate a
"dharma" wholly secular in nature. It was "sAmAnya".
No doubt, it represented the highest "dharma", the
highest duty a King, any king, owes his subjects and
the State. And Rama did play that role to perfection
--that role of a king who pursues a pitiless code of
"dharma" for the sake of his people, regardless of
everything. 

The role the Almighty's Consort had to essay was a far
more complex and formidable one. She had to play the
part of a noble and pitiful lady who is wronged,
reviled and utterly humiliated by her husband in full
view of a watching world. 

It was a very difficult scene to enact. The script
involved pitting the two principal characters (i.e.
the hero and heroine of the Ramayana), bitterly
against each other. And in the process, Sita had a
message to deliver too -- the message of a "dhArmic"
value more lofty and grand in order than Rama's own. 

Sita's "dharma" was not secular or "sAmAnya". In
contrast, it was spiritual in character. It was, by
contrast, rather very special, very exceptional... it
was "visEsha".

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

In the "agni-parIksha" scene of the "yuddha-kANda" (to
be precise at VI.119.6-8) there is a significant line
spoken by Sita-pirAtti to Rama. It is the line which
clearly makes out the Prince of Ayodhya to be a
"sAmAnyan" in the whole "agni-parIksha" affair. 

We see Rama fulminating against Sita saying:

           "Not for your sake, woman,
             This war was fought!
           It was to redeem my honour!
             But I can't take you back
           For your sight hurts
             As light pains 
             A diseased eye !

         All the glory of 
           pristine womanhood,                    
         All the grace of purity,
            and perfection,
         All the fire of a true wife
         All have taken leave of you!"

           ("sitAyana" by Prof: K.Srinivasa Iyengar)

When Sita-piratti listens to the above words, it is
interesting to see almost the very first thing she
says in response:

"How can you say these terrible, horrible things to
me?! O! how can you stoop to say these low things to
me as if I were a common woman and you were a common
husband!"

It is so remarkable that Sita, for a moment, forgets
all about her chastity, honour and dignity being
called into serious question. Instead all she is
worried about, first of all, is that Rama, her dearest
Rama, the shining paragon of all "dharmA", has
suddenly fallen so low, has stooped to the abysmal
depths of a "sAmAnyan" -- a common man! 

Given Sita-pirAtti's own words above, there should be
no doubt in our minds, therefore, as to what we must
make of Sri Rama's conduct in this particular episode.
It was "dhArmic", of course... but it was "dhArmic" in
a narrow, secular sort of way... it was "sAmAnya"!

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

Which brings us, Milord "amicus curie" and members of
the Jury, to the important task of the prosecution:
the task of framing charges against the defendent.

I have before me a host of grounds on which the
prosecution can easily and quite convincingly bring
charges against the defendent. But Sir, I propose to
ignore all but the very last one as being the most
heinous charge:

(1) We do not wish to press the charge that Sri Rama
wrongfully doubted the purity of Sita-pirAtti. We
shall ignore it.

(2) We do not wish to press the charge that Sri Rama
used invectives of the vilest kind against a poor,
defenceless lady of noble birth. We shall ignore it.

(3) We do not wish to press the charge that Sri Rama
heaped indignity upon indignity on "pirAtti"... not
once but on 3 separate occasions -- once in the
"yuddha-kAnda" and twice in the "uttara-kAnda", as
already described in my earlier submissions before the
court (i.e. Posting "1 of 2" in this series).

(4) Sir, but we DO WISH to press the charge that Sri
Rama, much as "pirAtti" herself bitterly complained in
the Ramayana, acted like a "sAmAnyan", holding
steadfast to the conduct and "dharmA" that was, when
you carefully examine the facts of the case, far more
becoming of a common earthling than of a moral
celestial! 

That Sir, is the gravest of all charges which the
Prosecution brings today against the defendent.

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

In stark contrast to the rather pedestrian
"sAmanyA"-ness (if I may be allowed to coin such an
unusual expression) of Sri Rama's conduct, Milord
members of the jury, I pray that you now pay close
attention to what the Prosecution presently wishes to
present to you as the exceptional ("visEsha") quality
and character of the "dharmA" which Sita-pirAtti, in
her turn, demonstrated to us in the whole affair.

Our faith in God is never a constant given. It is
always susceptible to the vagaries of life that all of
us must weather out, whether we like it or not. When
things are all going well with us in life, we
generally find it easy to glow with goodness. When we
have enough wealth, good health and happiness, we say,
"God is good to me. He is happy with my devotion. I'm
happy to be his "bhakta"".

But what happens to our Faith when the weather of life
suddenly and rudely turns dark and stormy, as it
sometimes does?

What happens to one's Faith when, say, one's only
beloved child suddenly contracts cancer and dies? Or a
hurricane hits town and flattens out one's home and
everything inside it, rendering one totally homeless
and bankrupt overnight? Or, say, one's spouse just
walks out of the marriage one fine morning to go and
live with another?

What happens to our Faith when such catastrophes hit
us in life? Faith, the deepest of Faith cultivated
steadfastly over several years, even such Faith 
suddenly crumbles within us in those moments. It is
then quite natural for us then to beat our breasts and
wail aloud over our condition, "The God that I
worshipped all these years has forsaken me! For all
the devotion I showed him, this is how he returns it
to me! But why? Why has God heaped such tragedy on me?
Why has he deserted me? And now, why should I have
faith anymore in a God, in this God, who has rejected
and forsaken me?!"

That is exactly what all of us will most certainly say
when the Faith that we held dear in our hearts
suddenly fails us miserably. We will then not hesitate
to rebel against and revile the very same God whom
earlier we venerated and worshipped. 

Our Faith we must realize is always a "fair-weather
craft"...

How many of us, on the other hand, can in such moments
of great and painful tragedy conduct ourselves like
Sita-pirAtti did? In the "agni-parIksha" episode, and
in the "uttara-kANda" thereafter, she lost everything
-- her honour, her dignity, her womanhood, her
husband, her place as queen in the palace at
Ayodhya... everything! It was a tragedy of epic
proportions -- tragedy with a capital 'T' -- which few
humans, we know well, can ever bear stoically. 

And yet, as we see in the Ramayana, did Sita-pirAtti's
Faith in her Rama waver? Did she wail aloud and beat
her breasts in despair like any ordinary ('sAmAnya')
woman or wife would surely have done under similar
circumstances? Sri Rama banished her, heaped
invectives and insults upon her, kicked her out of his
palace and sight.... And for all that she underwent,
do we see her Faith in Her Lord waver one bit? 

No, never... not an inch!

Instead, recall what the "pirAtti", the great and
gracious lady, actaully did say in the final moments
of the "uttara-kAnda":

"Take back my message to Ayodhya, O Lakshmana!

"First, my prostrations, my humble prostrations, at
the feet of my mothers-in-law as well as then at the
feet of the King. Tell Him then on my behalf, O
Lakshmana, this: "You know Dharma and practise it at
all risks. In your heart you will admit my character
is without a stain. I have never been false to you
whether in mind or in body. Yet because your subjects
suspect my purity, you throw me out. 

"So be it. I submit."

"You honour and love your people, the same as you
honour and love your brothers. If to preserve your
good name among them, I must be sacrificed, I am
content to be sacrificed. As you serve your subjects,
so I serve you, not less but more. This body of mine
is nothing. TO me as to any woman, the husband is
everything, he is kindred, he is preceptor, he is God.
My duty is to be of use to him and in his service to
lay down my life, if need be".

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

Let us all ask ourselves this then: When all else
around us has been struck by disaster and tragedy,
when the very reasons and foundations of our Faith in
God lie in ruins around us, how many of us can keep
our faith as steadily as Sita-pirAtti did and,
finally, hold our head high as she did, and say aloud:

         "So be it! I submit."

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

Milord "amicus-curie" and members of the jury!

Having shown you that there is a fit against the
defendent Sri Rama, and having also stated our charge
against Him clearly, we have also finally shown the
inherent merits of the case in favour of my client,
Sita-pirAtti! We urge you all to now decide for
yourself bearing in mind only this:

The Hon'ble Counsel for Defense, Sri Sadagopan
Iyengar, ended his earlier peroration with the now
famous but clearly fatuous remark:

       "If Rama did it, it must be right!"

Tell me, Your Gracious Lordships, tell me honestly,
does the above statement sound more convincing or more
"dhArmic" to you than this one made by my client
Sita-pirAtti?

   "TO me ....he is God. My duty is to be of use to
him and in his service to lay down my life, if need
be. So be it. I submit!"

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

                 (CONCLUDED)

Yours most respectfully,

dAsan,
Sudarshan
(forever in the service of the defense of my most
Gracious Lady, "Sita-pirAtti")


  

 



________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/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