Topics 3&4/Sec.3/Part I Myths

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

We give below two more topics 3 and 4, one relating to Vibhishana vs

Kumbakarna and the other relating to Urmila vs Sita. Hope you will find them

interesting.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

============================================================

3. Was it Vibhishana or Kumbakarna who did the right thing, the former in

deserting and the latter in supporting Ravana at a crucial moment ?

 

This is an instance of conflict of duties known in scriptures as ' Dharma

Sankata'. Both courses seem to be just and unjust at the same time depending

upon our perception. It is clear that all cannot follow the same course. Each

one follows the course conditioned by his / her respective nature.

 

Vibhishana tried his best to wean away Ravana from Adharma, persuade him to

restore Sita to Rama and make peace with Rama. Only when Ravana adamantly

stuck to his wicked disposition and denounced Vibhishana as a traitor,

Vibhishana had no alternative to leaving Ravana. If we find fault with

Vibhishana, it only shows how brittle is our regard for Dharma.

 

But, this does not mean that Kumbakarna is to be blamed. He acted according to

ordinary morality while Vibhishana was conditioned by a higher morality.

Ordinary morality can be understood by simple folk. It would be difficult for

them to appreciate the mental struggle which Vibhishana went through before

taking the hard decision.

 

For the same reason of being truthful to one's salt than to higher moral

values, we find in the Mahabharata, Karna sticking on to Duryodhana rather

than joining his other Pandava brothers in the war between Pandavas and

Kauravas. He conveyed this to his mother in clear terms when she approached

him on behalf of the Pandavas. For the same reasons we condone Kumbakarna, we

can condone Karna also.

 

4. Was Valmiki right in his treatment of Urmila and Sita in the specified

contexts?

 

The case of Urmila

 

At the time of the wedding of the four brothers, Rama married Sita, while

Lakshmana, Bharata and Satrughna married Urmila, Mandavi and Srutakeerthi

respectively all at the same time. While Sita accompanied Rama to the forest,

Mandavi and Srutakeerthi remained with their husbands. But, poor Urmila was

left behind and had to bear the pangs of separation from Lakshmana for 14 long

years.

 

The Ramayana, otherwise known as " Sitayah Charitam Mahat" meaning the 'Great

story of travails of Sita' depicts very graphically the sufferings of Sita on

her separation from Rama for just 10 months but conveniently and totally

ignores the pangs of Urmila. We feel that if ever there is a character who

deserves the most sympathy in the entire Ramayana, it is that of Urmila and

the poet could have done a little more justice to her.

 

Explanations given by Srimad Andavan of Poundarikapuram Asramam, Srirangam-

 

( i ) Urmila could have insisted on accompanying Lakshmana as did Sita with

Sri Rama. But, she did not do so. Some say that she was sleeping at that time;

Some others say that she was in her shower when the three left for the forest.

This is quite unacceptable because the whole palace and indeed the whole

Ayodya was aghast at the unnatural turn of events and there is no reason to

believe that Urmila was unaware of what was happening.

 

The real reason is that her insistence would have defeated the very purpose of

the Avatar of Lakshmana which was to render uninterrupted, undisturbed and

unperturbed service ' at all times, in all places and in all manners '. It was

Lakshmana's purpose to demonstrate how a '"Sesha" shoild act in relation to a

"Seshi "-.And, certainly, this could have been jeopardised by her accompanying

Lakshmana.

 

( ii ) In a way, the ' Pativratyam ' of Urmila has been amply proved by her

devotion to her husband even in his absence more out of concern for this

purpose than for satisfying her own desires.- A different facet of '

Pativratya ', a kind of counterpart to that of Sita who accompanied and stayed

with her husband - and indeed helped him to carry out his Avatara Rahasya.

 

(iii) It is the tradition of poets not to clutter their works with characters

and events not quite relevant to the main theme. Obviously, Valmiki felt that

there was no need to refer to Urmila and Srutakirti in the later denouement of

the epic. Similarly, there is not much of mention about Satrugna in the latter

portions of the epic.

 

Lakshmana exemplified the ' Bhagavad Seshatvam' while Satrugna exemplified

' Bhaagavata Seshatvam'. And, this has been graphically brought out in the

very first stanza of Ayodhya Khanda.

 

 

The case of Sita

 

When Sita was redeemed after the war, she was brought before Rama fully

bedecked as ordered by Rama. And, when she appeared, Rama reproached her and

she performed a rare feat of going through the fire ordeal. This is in Yuddha

Khanda.

 

When her innocence had already been proved once, Rama is again seen in Uttara

Khanda as banishing her to the forest when a washerman made some unsavory

remark about her - long, long after their return to Ayodhya. We do not know

under what kind of jurisprudence, past, present or future that she was

banished- a second punishment for the same offense from which she had already

been exonerated.

 

Rajaji in his Ramayana ( published by BVB, 1990- p.311) offers some kind of

explanation for this. He says " As the prince returned from Mithila, he met

Parasurama. I have heard it said that with that meeting Parsurama's Avatar

came to an end. Likewise, it should be held, I think, that Rama's Avatar came

to an end with the slaying of Ravana. After that battle, Rama remained only as

a king of the Ikshvaku race. On this theory, Rama's treatment of Sita after

the battle and in the Uttara khanda can be explained as the behavior of a king

in accordance with the customs of the times".

 

He adds that "her banishment mirrors the voiceless and endless suffering of

womenfolk".

 

Since joy and sorrow are God's play, He and his divine spouse having come down

to the world of men and women had to go through the drama of joy and sorrow

like other ordinary folk."

 

Explanations given by Srimad Andavan Swami of Poundarikapuram Asramam -

 

( i ) The banishment of Sita only shows how as a king, Sri Rama respected

even the will o' wisp of even the least significant citizens in his kingdom

where it concerned his own rectitude or that of those closely associated

with him. No one would dare say anything derogatory about Sita (not because

she was the queen but) because everyone knew how the lady was pure and serene

beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

In such a background, even the fact of an uncharitable remark being slipped

out was unthinkable and needed to be disabused. Though he was convinced

personally about Sita's conduct ( especially as revealed by the fire ordeal ),

he had to demonstrate that he as a king, was not carried away by a blind love

to her in accepting her and was wary of the feelings of his subjects. This,

he could do only by such a draconian step as banishing Sita to the forest.

 

(ii ) Also, Sri Rama was concerned that his sons should be brought up in the

proper environment of the hermitage where only they could acquire appropriate

knowledge and build character to be able to propagate the values unfolded in

the great epic Ramayana. May be, this was another reason why he sent Sita to

the forest.

 

More to follow

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy