Guest guest Posted January 12, 1996 Report Share Posted January 12, 1996 It is known that Vishnu took the form of Rama provide the world a model of conduct. Why then was it the proper mode of conduct for him in the end of the Ramayana to dessert Sita in the forest when she was pregnant, just because a commoner spoke falsely about her? Why didn't Rama owe Sita a greater obligation to care for her, and his children, than caring for what an outsider said? This has been really bothering me because I know that God does not act without meaning. Yet, what is todays society suppossed to learn from this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 1996 Report Share Posted January 12, 1996 > It is known that Vishnu took the form of Rama provide the > world a model of conduct. Why then was it the proper mode of > conduct for him in the end of the Ramayana to dessert Sita in the > forest when she was pregnant, just because a commoner spoke falsely > about her? Why didn't Rama owe Sita a greater obligation to care > for her, and his children, than caring for what an outsider said? > This has been really bothering me because I know that God does not > act without meaning. Yet, what is todays society suppossed to > learn from this? Here are some of my own thoughts on this question. Rama is the epitome of good conduct, as a son, as a husband and as a ruler. Before he composed the Ramayana, Valmiki asked Narada, ko-nv-asmin sAmpratam loke guNavAn kaSca vIryavAn | vidvAn ka: kas-samarthaSca satyavAkyo dr.Dhavrata: || The Ramayana was composed after Narada told him that the one answer to this question was Rama, the king of Ayodhya. Rama's qualities as a man are described by the words guNavAn, vIryavAn, vidvAn, and samartha: - all very praiseworthy, no doubt. However, Rama's actions as a ruler are to be understood specially from his characteristics as satyavAkya: and dr.Dhavrata:. Rama's actions are deliberately shown to be those of an ideal man, not those of God. The powers that are available to Krishna in the Mahabharata are not available to Rama. Rama relies solely on his skill in archery to kill Ravana, unlike Krishna who kills Sisupala with his cakra. No issue is ever straightforward in our epics. Both the Ramayana and Mahabharata present complex situations where it is difficult to understand what is dharma and what is not. The Mahabharata is even richer in such moral complexities than the Ramayana. I view Rama's abandonment of a pregnant Sita as one such complex issue. Rama is an ideal monarch and at the same time, an ideal husband. In classical representations of a monarch, his responsibilities to his subjects are paramount. Rama shows how to be an ideal monarch, by example, whereas in the Mahabharata, Bhishma teaches Yudhisthira by precept. Rama, as the ideal monarch, is completely unlike a feudal monarch, who views his "divine right to rule" as licence to do whatever he wants. Rama is presented as ever responsive to the concerns of his subjects. As a husband, he had a duty towards Sita. But as a ruler, he also had to protect her reputation as the queen. That is why he asked her to go through the agni-parIkshA, so that Sita's fidelity was proved before a large audience. Even after that, years later, there was one subject who doubted her. At this juncture, Rama's duty as a king responsible for his subjects took precedence over his duty as a husband responsible for his wife. The subject who criticized Rama and Sita was not really an outsider to Rama, because of Rama's duty to him as his king. Thus, the only way to protect the ideal queen Sita is by sacrificing the wife Sita. It is important to remember that even after sending her away to the forest, Rama remained true to Sita. He did not marry another woman, even though polygamy was very much allowed. When performing the aSwamedha sacrifice, he had a golden image of Sita stand in for her. All these actions pointed to his subjects, that in his eyes, Sita was his only wife, and that his physical abandonment of her was only in keeping with his dharma as a rAjA. Earlier in the Ramayana, there is an episode in which Rama's duty as a son takes precedence over his duties as a prospective monarch - when he was told to go the forest. It is tempting, in the modern context, to analyze these two episodes to mean that in a patriarchical system, a man's duty to his wife was the least important. But that is not really the case. At the time he was told to go the forest, Rama was not yet the king. At this point of time, Rama's duty to the subjects was more indirect, and in a sense he himself was a subject of the king, his father. So, his duty to be true to Dasaratha was more important. Even though Dasaratha himself, in his heart of hearts, did not want to exile Rama. In all occassions where personal life and public responsibilites conflict, Rama is a satyavAkya and a dr.Dhavrata. Nothing could cause him to abandon a course of action once he had decided upon it. Thus, he did not cut short his stay in the forest even after Bharata and Kaikeyi themselves requested him to do so. Rama, Lakshmana and Bharata are all depicted as such uncommon men that they are somehow superhuman. It is very easy for human beings to be tempted to a compromise. Even so, the sense of duty that Lakshmana and Bharata exhibit, is to some extent driven by emotion rather than reason. Lakshmana's emotional attachment to Rama is legendary. Even Bharata's refusal to take advantage of the situation and become king, is driven more by emotion than by reason. However, emotion can be a double-edged sword, and neither Lakshmana nor Bharata can reconcile themselves with Rama's decision to send Sita away. Rama is the one person who does not let emotion ruin his reason, so much so that he may even be criticized for being cold and unfeeling. On the other hand, he shows in real life what the Gita teaches - sukhe du:khe same kr.tvA lAbhAlAbhau jayAjayau tato yuddhAya yujyasva In happiness and in sorrow, in victory and in defeat, Rama's actions are always reflective of his equanimity and a complete absence of personal desire. In modern society, what does all this mean for us? Nothing directly, as there are no real monarchies any more. However, it does mean several things indirectly. Putting an elected representative like a president or a prime minister, in place of the king, the immediate lesson is that such a functionary has to be himself completely above reproach. He need not be called upon to separate from his wife for some reason, because modern society is structured very differently from the ancient, monarchical setup. But a ruler has many other relationships too - with his stockbrokers, his accountants, his lawyers, his various advisers, his relatives, and a whole host of other people. It goes without saying that all these relationships must also be beyond reproach. He must put his public duties and responsibilities above his personal likes and dislikes, and he must be prepared to even sacrifice his personal life and loves for the sake of his public life. It is needless to emphasize how important this is, in the context of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, the Bofors scandal in India, and the recurrent financial scandals in Japan. Regards S. Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.