Ordeal by Fire- 2 -- The case for Sita-pirAtti

[Guest guest]

tiruvenkatam, sadagopaniyengar

<sadagopaniyengar@v...> wrote:

Ordeal by Fire-2

 

what He said and did on the occasion, but for us, as

students of Srimad Ramayanam, He would always be the

shining paragon of virtue, the epitome of all merit

and the compulsively righteous monarch, who could

never do wrong. Sri Rama was incapable of wrongdoing.

If some of His actions appear to us to be incorrect,

it is because we apply our own defective human

standards in judging divine conduct, which we have no

business to do.

>

For, if Rama did it, it must be correct.

> dasan, sadagopan

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

 

Dear SrimAn Sadagopan,

 

Thank you for an excellent article based as it is on

traditional commentary of Sri Govindarajan. It is

truly enjoyable. It gives students of the Ramayana

like me an insight into the mind of traditional

'vyAkhyAna-kartA-s' and their style of interpreting

important events like the "agni-parIksha" in the

Ramayana.

 

Since we all say that Rama and Sita-pirAtti were

actors on the stage of Valmiki's Ramayana ("best actor

and best actress" according to our respected SrimAn

Anbil swamy), let us also take the liberty to do a bit

of play-acting ourselves just so we can enjoy the epic

episode a little more, a little longer.

 

*********

 

In your article, you end by saying "For if Rama did

it, it must be correct". It is a line that sounds so

much like an attorney's closing statement in a court

of law. Your arguments too, in fact, are set forth in

the masterly manner of a skillful defense-lawyer

marshalling legal facts and precedents all meant to

secure for the defendant an honourable acquittal on

technical if not substantive counts.

 

Sir, since you have so admirably donned the role of a

defense-attorney, permit me for a while to act the

part of a public-prosecutor appearing on behalf of my

beloved client, Sri Sita-pirAtti, and make my own

case.

 

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

 

Many of the arguments you made, I must respectfully

submit, are tenuous if not wholly untenable. Let's

look at a few of them and reason why.

 

(1) The first argument is that the "agni-parIksha" was

a kind of justice meted out to Sita-pirAtti for the

(Quote) "insults She meted out to Lakshmana, when he

refused to leave the parNashAlA, in response to

MArIcha’s cry for rescue, uttered in Rama’s voice....

It was to atone for this inexcusable conduct towards a

BhagavatA, that Sri Mythily requests him specifically

to make a fire for Her to enter and prove Her

innocence...." (UnQuote).

 

This is not true. Please refer to sarga 59, shlOka

23-24 of the Aranya-kAnda, where Rama clearly lays the

blame for Sita'a abduction on Lakshmana alone and in

fact holds Sita blameless. Lakshmana remonstrates and

tells Rama about all the unpleasant, stinging words

that Sita had hurled at him. What does Rama then say?

 

He says, "I cannot forgive you. You left your post of

duty and left her unprotected. Sita is in danger. Why

did you come, merely because she was angry? When she

became angry, mad, and said absurd things, you became

angry too and came away?! You have disobeyed my

command! No blame rests upon Sita! She became

momentarily mad, but that's understandable. But you,

you cannot get angry with mad people..." (The

suggestion is Lakshmana could have left the scene,

pretending to go after Rama, go a short distance and

hang about in the neighbourhood, out of sight but not

going too far and still being able to protect Sita in

case harm arose to her).

 

The fact therefore clearly shows that Sita had already

been forgiven by Rama for the harsh way she behaved

towards Lakshmana in the Maricha episode. She was

temporarily unhinged of mind in that grave moment.

Women in such moments generally say all manner of

things. It is quite understandable. You cannot take

them to task for it. Having already forgiven Sita in

the "arAnya-kAnda" for the misdemeanour, it is

unlikely that in the "yuddha-kAnda", in the

"agni-pravEsa" episode, Rama would have wanted to

punish Sita again for the same offence. Even in a

legal court of modern days, no one can be accused and

punished twice for the same crime.

 

As for Sita asking Lakshmana to light the pyre (and

not anyone else), far too much meaning is being read

into the gesture when there is none at all.

 

Sita asked Lakshmana to light the fire, because there

just wasn't anyone else around there in the assembly

at that moment whom she could have commanded to do so.

She could not ask a royal person like Vibheeshana to

light a fire. She could not have approached 'vanarAs'

like Sugriva, HanumAn to do the task. How could she

ask bears like Jambavan to light an 'agni-kundam'? She

could not have commanded her own husband Rama to light

the pyre given the blazing mood in which he was! Who

else could Sita then take the liberty to command? And

who else present there other than Lakshmana was a

person bearing a "yagnyOpavitam" -- the minimum

qualification needed by a person to start a Vedic fire

going?

 

(2) The second argument you make is this: (Quote)

"However, for Chakravartthi Tirumagan to have

unquestioningly accepted Sri Mythily, would have

attracted adverse comment from the undiscerning.

Gossip-mongers would have said, “Look at Rama, who is

so head over heels in love with His wife, that He has

accepted Her without question, knowing full well that

she was abducted and was in the custody of the

notorious kAmuka Ravana”. Hence, it was indeed

necessary for Sri Rama to appear to enquire into His

lady’s chastity." (UNQUOTE)

 

This argument is untenable because it is totally,

absolutely inconsistent with what Rama said about

himself in that famous shlOka 33-34-35 sarga 18 in the

"kishkindA kAndam":

 

"sakrudEva prapannAya tavAsmiti cha yAchatE

abhayam sarva-bhUtEbhyO dadAmyEtadh-vratam mamaII"

 

"aanayainam hari-shrEshta dattamasyAbhayam mayA

vibhishiNO vA sugrIva yadi vA rAvANa: svayam II"

 

"I offer protection without reserve to anyone who just

comes and says "please protect me, I'm helpless and

have none else to protect me". From all dangers, from

all enemies, I grant such persons full protection.

Bring such persons to me now. No matter who they are,

whether Vibeheeshana or Sugriva. Even if Ravana

himself were to come and beseech my protection, I

shall embrace him and give him my "abhaya-pradAna"!".

 

After having said all those grand things above, how

can it be argued that it was not possible for Rama to

"have unquestioningly accepted Sri Mythily ..."?. Did

not Sita declare at many places in the Ramayana that

she was like a true "prappana" -- wholly dependent on

Sri Rama, her very life breath? Please read shlOka

4-5, 7-9 of sarga 30 in the "ayOdhya kAnda". In that

scene, Rama is trying to persuade Sita-pirAtti not to

go into exile with him into the forest, but to remain

in Ayodhya and "stay with Bharatha". What does Sita

tell him in that moment? Her words though they sound a

little angry still ring true with all the passion and

pathos of a true "prappanna":

 

"Why are you afraid of taking me with you to the

forest? O Rama, why do you reject me who has no other

person to rely on earth? I am yours entirely, utterly,

and yet you discard me?". Later on in the sarga she

says, "When I am with you Rama I do not want food;

plain fare will be like delicious viand for me. The

dust of the forest on which you have trodden will be

the sandals after my heart; and grass will be the most

luxurious couch. Do not be anxious for me; I shall not

be a burden to you. The place where I can be with you,

whatever be the its name, and wherever it may be, is

heaven to me. If you are not there, whatever place it

may be, it will be "niraya" to me. When you abandon

me, I will not want to live anymore. If I cannot live

without you for a minute, how can you abandon me?"

 

What moving words indeed are the above of

Sita-pirAtti? It brings tears to anyone's eyes. Are

they not the true words of one who is seeking the

"abhaya" of Rama? So then, why is it that the same

Rama who declared he will accord even Ravana "abhayam"

--- that too "unquestioningly" and without any

pre-conditions except the condition of surrender --

why is Rama so reluctant to extend the same privilege

to Ravana's victim, SIta-pirAtti? Why the

inconsistency on the part of Rama? If "charity must

begin at home" why does Rama too not begin granting

"abhaya-prAdanam" first at home to his wife before

offering it to all and sundry of the world? Why is one

standard being applied to Ravana but yet another one

on his poor victim, Sita?

 

(3) Your next argument is this: (Quote) "The

suspicions about Sri Sita’s conduct could indeed have

been voiced and clarifications obtained in private, or

before a select audience of trusted acolytes. However,

the general public would still be unaware of the

proceedings and might continue to think Sri Raghava’s

conduct unbecoming of a scion of the Ikshvaku

dynasty". (UNQUOTE)

 

Further, Sir, you go on to argue: (Quote) "If Sri Rama

were to appear to be apparently satisfied by Sita’s

own words of assurance and sworn protests of

innocence, it would not have been adequate for the

assembled public, who would have thought, “What sort

of justice is this, if the accused person is

exonerated based solely on her own protestations of

innocence?” Hence some solid proof was needed, if the

proletariat was to be convinced as to where the rights

of the matter lay. The agni parIkshA was therefore

necessary. (UNQUOTE)

 

These argument too of the Counsel-for-defense are

rather flimsy. Was Rama always so fastidious and

conscientious about doing things in full view of the

general public? With full, utterly full, transparency?

If He had indeed been so sensitive to public opinion

--to the sacred opinion of "the proletariat", as you

say -- and doing everything under open scrutiny, isn't

it a great wonder that He didn't pause even an instant

to think twice about what the great "general public"

would say when they finally came to hear about how he

got rid off Vali in a less-than-straight duel deep in

the forests of Kishkinda?!! In that episode your

client Rama was too keen on doing just justice, and

didn't evidently worry too much about "justice being

seen to be done"!

 

Surely, Mr.Defense Attorney, you do not mean to say

that Sri Rama after all did apply one standard to

himself and yet another to Sita-pirAtti when it came

to the business of public-relations or public

accountability -- i.e. managing the perceptions of the

public about his deeds? Are you suggesting that your

defendant was in fact more worried about

public-opinion polls than about the moral propriety of

his deeds? One was always under the impression that

your client goes by by the popular name of "rAmo

vigrahavAn dharma"? Are we to revise such impressions?

 

 

(4) The next argument you offer is this: (Quote):

 

"Commentators clarify that the actual purport of Sri

Raghava’s words about Sita being free to live with

Lakshmana, Bharata, et al, is that once abandoned by

her husband, a woman could seek the support and roof

of her husband’s relatives and friends. It was with

this in mind, (that Sita could find support from any

of the worthies mentioned), that Sri Rama’s words were

uttered and not with any other untoward purport, says

Sri Govindaraja (“atra LakshmanAdou mana: karaNam nAma

anAthAyA: rakshakatvEna tat tat grihE vartanam.

BhartrA parityaktAyA: striyA bandhu grihE vAsa

vidhAnAt”).(UNQUOTE)

 

With due respects to the traditional commentator he

has taken the trouble to quote, I cannot however help

saying the Hon'ble Counsel for defense is attempting

to put a skillful but deceptive "spin" on the original

stanzas of the Ramayana-text just in order to soften

the harshness and sting contained in Rama's actual

words.

 

I confess I am not an expert in the Sanskrit language,

but what Rama said to Sita-pirAtti is this

(VI.118.22-23):

 

"lakshmanE bharatE vA tvam kuru buddhim yathAsUkhAt I

sugreevE vAnarEndrE vA rAkshasEndrE vibhishINE I

nivEshaya mana: seethE yathA vA sukhamAtmanah: II"

 

The word "yathAsUkhAt" and "yathA vA sukhamAtmanah:",

have unmistakable connotations of what kind of

"sukham" was actually meant, given the particular

context of the Ramayana. So, this is what Rama said,

"Lakshmana, Bharatha, Sugriva or Vibheeshana... you

may go ahead and fix your affections on any one of

these four people. I do not care!".

 

The Counsel for defense, I am afraid, is not only

taking undue liberties with the facts of the case but

also with the language and idiom in which the evidence

is made available before the court.

 

(5) Your next argument is: (QUOTE) "Despite His harsh

words, Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri

Sita’s impeccable character. He knew too that none of

the five elements was capable of causing Her harm,

since all were under the joint command of Himself and

His Consort (“bheeshAsmAt VAta: pavatE, bheeshOdEti

Soorya:, bheeshmAt agnischa indrascha, Mrityu: dhAvati

panchama iti”—the Taittiriyopanishad). Since no injury

could be caused by Fire to Sita who was the embodiment

of purity, and since it would prove Her to be

blemishless beyond doubt, Sri Rama didn’t feel any

qualms about permitting Her to enter the fire."

(UNQUOTE)

 

The evidence available in the Ramayana does not quite

support your statement that "Despite His harsh words,

Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri Sita’s

impeccable character". The available evidence in fact

seem to suggest the exact contrary. Your client

appears to have a steady, past record of being

incapable of instinctively trusting people. As in the

present episode of the "agni-parIksha" where we find

that he doubted His own very Consort, so too in the

case of his ally Sugriva and brother, Bharatha.

 

Let the facts speak for themselves.

 

In the "kishkinda kAnda", at one point in time, your

client became enraged with Sugriva when he suspected

the latter was going back on his word given earlier

that a whole 'vanara' would be put at Rama's disposal

in the search for Sita.

 

Again, in the final scenes of the "yuddha-kAnda", when

the whole entourage of Rama, Sita, Sugriva and Hanuman

were returning to Ayodhya, your client called Hanuman

aside to tell him, "Now that we are nearing Ayodhya,

Hanuman, I want you to go ahead of us and see what is

happening in Ayodhya. I want you to report back to me

whether my brother Bharatha is ready to hand the

kingdom back to me on my return or is otherwise

pre-disposed. In which case, if he's changed his mind

and decided to appropriate the kingdom to himself,

then I should know about it. He can of course, if he

wants to, have the throne all for himself. But I want

to know in advance, so go ahead of us and find out."

 

Your client Sri Rama, thus, had an ingrained habit of

doubting the intentions of even those who were closest

to him. In view of the facts above, it would be

difficult therefore to be convinced by what you, my

dear learned defense-counsel, have to say on behalf of

your client -- that He (Quote) "Despite His harsh

words, Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri

Sita’s impeccable character". (UNquote)

 

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

 

Sir, I want to bring my own closing argument in this

case to an end today by saying that my client,

Sita-pirAtti, can have no better counsel to represent

her case than she herself. She speaks later in her own

words, in the "uttara-kAndam" where one can find the

bravest and most eloqent summation of her case. Let me

allow her to do it, for there really is no need at all

for someone like me to hold a brief for my beloved

client. I propose to merely reproduce her own words...

not now but in my next posting. Until then, I say,

"All arise, the Court is adjourned...."

 

Yours respectfully,

 

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

______________________

India Careers: Over 65,000 jobs online

Go to: http://.naukri.com/