Sita's sufferings

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

Sita's sufferings as also the slaying of Vali as depicted in our Puranic

literature has agitated the minds of many Rama Bhaktas. Late Sri C.

Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) in his Ramayana and Shri Narayana Bhattathiri in his

Narayaneeyam have dealt with this subject and stated their views. Their comments

are reproduced below; these may also be seen reproduced in the web-site:

http://people.we.mediaone.net/surfings/RamaPage.htm#Sita .

 

As observed by Rajaji,

 

"if we keep in mind that when God takes a lower and limited form by His own

ordinance, limitations follow and we should not be confused thereby. This is my

humble view as against other explanations propounded by the pious."

 

"Vaalmeeki has it that Raama gave some explanation with which Vaali was

satisfied. But I am omitting all this as pointless and pray that the learned may

forgive me. What I think is that an avataar is an avataar and that among the

sorrows that the Lord and His consort had to endure in their earthly

incarnation, this liability to have their actions weighed on the earthly scale

is a part."

 

Dasan,

M.K. Krishnaswamy

 

Sita's sufferings:

 

Comments by C. Rajagopalachari in his "Ramayana":

 

Rama's face showed a strange transformation of mind. None of those around him,

not even Lakshmana, could understand.

 

"I have slain the enemy," said Rama (to Sita). "I have recovered you. I have

done my duty as a Kshatriya. My vow is now fulfilled." ......"It was not for

mere attachment to you that I waged this grim battle; but it was in the

discharge of duty as a Kshatriya. It gives me no joy now to get you back, for

dubiety envelopes you like a dark cloud of smoke."

 

"What do you wish to do now?" he continued. "You must live alone, for we cannot

live together. You can stay under the protection of any of our kinsmen or

friends. How can a Kshatriya take back a wife who has lived for so long in a

stranger's house?"

 

Sita looked at Rama. Her eyes flashed fire. "Unworthy words have you spoken!"

she said. "My ears have heard them and my heart is broken. The uncultured may

speak such words, but not one nobly born and brought up like

you......................Is it my fault that the wicked Raakshasa seized me by

force and imprisoned me? But since this is how you look at it, there is but one

course open to me."

 

Then, turning to Lakshmana, she said:

"Fetch the faggots, Lakshmana, and kindle a fire."

 

Obeying Sita, Lakshmana kindled a big fire and the princess, with eyes fixed on

the ground, circumambulated her Lord and exclaimed: "Ye Gods, I bow before you.

Oh Rishis, I bow to you. Oh Agni, you at lease know my purity and will take me

as your own!"

 

With these words she jumped into the flames. And wonder of wonders! The lambent

flames were crowded with celestial figures; for all the gods came and assembled

there.

Brahma spoke: "Narayana! Mighty God that took human form to slay Ravana! Is not

this your own Lakshmi?"

 

Agni, God of fire rose in his own body out of the flames and lifting Seeta in

his arms with all her clothes and jewels untouched and intact, presented her to

Rama.

 

Rama said to Brahma:

"Who am I? All that I know and can tell is that I am Rama, son of Dasaratha. You

must know who I am and whence I came and more; it is you who must inform me."

 

Rama accepted Sita fire-proved saying to her: "Think you that I did not know

your irreproachable purity? This ordeal was to satisfy the

people................" So saying, he drew her to his side.

 

Then Dasaratha descended from above and, placing the prince on his lap, blessed

him.

"My child!" he said to Sita. "Forgive my son. Forgive him for the wrong he did

to you to preserve the dharma of the world. God bless you."

 

In conclusion, Rajagopalachari observes in his book:

 

I have followed the story of the Prince of Ayodhya as told by Valmeeki. There

was a legend current among people, I think even before Valmeeki's time, that

after recovering Sita, for fear of scandal, Rama sent her away to live in the

forest. This pathetic episode must have sprung from the sorrow-laden imagination

of our women. It has taken shape as Uttarakaanda of Ramayana.

 

Although there is beauty in the Uttarakaanda I must say my heart rebels against

it. Valmiki had disposed of this old legend through the fire ordeal in the

battle field. Even that ordeal does not seem to me as consistent with Rama's

character. It is painful to read it.

 

As the Prince returned from Mithila he met Parasurama. I have heard it said that

with that meeting, Parasurama's Avataar came to an end. Likewise, it should be

held, I think, that Rama's avataar 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 Uttarakaanda can be

explained simply as the behaviour of a king in accordance with the customs of

the time.

 

Narayana Bhattatiri's comments in his Narayaneeyam:

 

In Canto35 Verse 10 of Narayaneeyam, Narayana Bhattatiri attempts to explain

Rama's action after slaying Ravana, resulting in Sita Devi's ordeal by fire and

again, later in Ayodhya, when he sent her away to the forest even though she was

pregnant.

 

 

The following translation is from Narayaneeyam published by Sri Ramakrishna

Math, Madras (March 1976):

 

"This human embodiment of Thine is for instructing mankind how too much

attachment (Kama) will lead to pangs of separation and how addiction to Dharma

(the letter of the Law) will push one to such Adharma as abandonment of innocent

ones. Otherwise, it is unimaginable how Thou, who art ever established in the

Atman-consciousness, canst ever have any weakness of the mind. O Thou Lord of

Guruvayoor, the very embodiment of Sattwa, deign to remove my sufferings from

this disease."

 

The following comment appears in Note #14 appended to the text:

 

"Bhattar's estimate of Rama Incarnation, that it is to show men how intense

affection (Kama) will lead us to pangs of separation (as Rama suffered from his

loss of Sita) and how extreme addiction to Dharma, (the letter of the Law), will

push one to Adharma -- is an echo of the Bhagawata verse 5.19.5-6. Many a

devotee of Rama will not agree with this, although it may be conveying a subtle

point that would interest a critical student. Rama and Krishna are two major

incarnations, the former being glorified in the Ramayana and the latter in the

Bhagawata.

 

Both have been equally important factors in the devotional life of India. Rama

Incarnation depicts a model of manhood and human conduct which people are asked

to follow, whereas Krishna is a Divine manifestation whose words are to be

followed but not deeds. In some Vaishnava texts, Rama is therefore described as

Maryada-Purushottama (Divinity who has restricted Himself by laws) and Krishna

as Pushti-Purushottama (Divinity that bestows Grace in ways that are not bound

by laws and social norms.)

 

Slaying of Vaali - Rajaji's account:

 

"All who are born must die. This is the law. I do not therefore grieve for my

death. Still, your sin is great in killing me in this treacherous way." This,

Vaali, son of Indra, reproached Raama with his dying breath. And all this is

fully set out by Vaalmeeki, the divine poet, as well as by Kamban. Against this

accusation what defence could Raama offer?

 

Vaalmeeki has it that Raama gave some explanation with which Vaali was

satisfied. But I am omitting all this as pointless and pray that the learned may

forgive me. What I think is that an avataar is an avataar and that among the

sorrows that the Lord and His consort had to endure in their earthly

incarnation, this liability to have their actions weighed on the earthly scale

is a part. ..............................................................

.................................................................................\

......................

Raama erred in running after the magic deer to please his wife. Consequent to

this, difficulties and sorrows and conflicts of duty pursued him. If we keep in

mind that when God takes a lower and limited form by His own ordinance,

limitations follow and we should not be confused thereby. This my humble view as

against other explanations propounded by the pious."