Guest guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Respected U.Ve. Swami Sadagopan Iyengar: I have read so many articles on this particular subject and heard so many upanyasams from learned gurus, discourse panditis for the past seventy years. Although I firmly believe wholeheartedly of the conduct of Sri Ram and Piraati, in my humble opinion, no body have ever argued eloquently and convincingly defending Sri Rama's conduct. Of course Paramatma need not require chetana's defence. I hope this should satisfy those who are not able to reconcile about Sri Rama's conduct in this particular instance. May Pramatman Lord Narayana bless you with more insight so that Ordinary Jeevatmas can have insight into Puranas, Ithihasas and Divya Prabandams. Adiyaen Nerur S. Rajagopalan --- sadagopaniyengar <sadagopaniyengar wrote: > Dear Shri Sudarshan, > > As always, your spirited advocacy of the > "prosectuion" was admirable for its style and the > formidable case you have built up against the > "accused" does look daunting, but not for the > traditionalists. Entering into the spirit of your > enactment of the court scene, I would like to lay > the following lines before the "jury". I know it is > not customary for the defence to interrupt before > the prosecution has concluded its arguments, but the > fear that the jury might be mesmerised by the > apparent logic in your skilful harangue prompts me > to enter this rebuttal. > > First and foremost, I would submit that the case is > not justiciable at all. We should remember that the > entity we are trying to put in the dock and > categorise as "accused", is none other than the > Parabrahmam. Can the Paramatma do any wrong, and,if > He does, would He be a Paramatma still? However > incongrous Sri Rama's actions may appear to us, the > fact remains that, as the Supreme Godhead, He was > incapable of wrong-doing. If we are unable to fathom > to our satisfaction and with our limited intellects > the rationale behind divine actions, would it be > fair to charge-sheet, arrest and prosecute the > Paramatma Himself? What laws do we apply to the > Law-maker Himself? And who can sit in judgement over > the actions of the Ultimate Arbiter? > > Having said this, I would like to reply > point-by-point to your facile arguments. > > 1.When we seek to assess the guilt or otherwise of a > person, the first and foremost evidence there can be > is a confession from the alleged perpetrator. Here > too, whether Sri Sita was guilty of bhagavat, > bhAgavata apachAra, is to be determined from Her own > words, to Siriya Tiruvadi-- > "mama Eva dushkritam kinchit mahat asti na samsaya: > > samartthou api yat mAm na avEkshEtE parantapou" > > Here, Piratti has little doubt that Her pitiful > state was due to some transgression, big or small, > which She had committed, knowingly or unknowingly. > Thus, when Sri Sita Herself admits to guilt, there > is little for us seek from the words of others. > > > > And, as for the pyre being lighted by Sri Lakshmana, > would you not agree that there were indeed several > others who could have done it--for instance, what > about Sri Hanuman, who was eminently qualified to do > it, with his mastery over Shastras and impeccable > conduct? In fact, he should have been the normal and > obvious choice, given the intimacy he had develped > towards Piratti during his previous visit to Lanka. > That Lakshmana was chosen over all others is > definitely significant and must have been a gesture > of seeking atonement at the very hands of the person > who was offended. > > > > 2. The second question about the need for Sri Rama > to question HIs lady's conduct. In advancing this > argument, the prosecutor is laying another charge at > the doors of the innocent and unprotesting > Sharanagata Vatsala--that of failing to save > Prapannai, contrary to His protestations. > > > > Sri Sita's appeals and words on the occasion can by > no means construed to be a Sharanagati--almost all > the prescribed elements of Prapatthi, as prescribed > in the Shastras, like Anukoolyasya sankalpam, > PrAtikoolyasya varjanam, KArpaNyam etc. are lacking > in Sita Piratti on this occasion. > > This absence of the essential angAs of Prapatti is > not a blemish on Her, for Prapatti was not intended > at all. And as such, Sri Rama's conduct towards Her > was prompted solely on the basis of having to > preserve the lofty standards of the IkshvAku vamsam, > which did not permit the taking back of a princess > who had spent a year in a rogue's custody, without > question or inquiry. > > > > 3. Thirdly, I would freely admit that Sri Rama, as a > conscientious monarch-to-be and the descendant of > the famed Soorya Vamsam with not a breath of scandal > in all its innumerable years of reign, was indeed > conscious of "public opinion polls". He thus firmly > believed that Justice must not only be done, but > also seem to be done. For any Emperor not to bother > about what His subjects would think about any of his > action, would be to invite trouble in the short run > and revolution in the long run. Hence there is > absolutely nothing wrong in Sri Rama meting out > justice by inquiring into His lady's conduct and > appearing to do the same, in public. As to the > Vali-vadham episode, it is the confirmed view even > of the aggrieved Vali that Chakkravartthi Tirumagan > was entirely in the right in what He did on the > occasion. Hence, there is no question of the Lord > not having been bothered about the apparent > correctness of His conduct. > > > > 4. Next for the construction put on Sri Rama's words > asking Sri Sita to go with anyone She liked. > > The learned and eloquent prosecution counsel would > surely appreciate that words in any language and > more so in Sanskrit, acquire different purports > depending upon the context, the speaker, the > addressee and the tenor of the words. If the > commentator Sri Govindaraja choses to put such a > "spin" on Sri Rama's speech, it must be with good > reason, privy as he was to the traditional thinking > on Srimad Ramayana and its nuances, handed down from > one Acharya to another in our hallowed and erudite > guru parampara. In fact, we have seen more divergent > interpretations being put on Upanishadic passages > and accept the same as correct, because of the > authority of the Acharya who says so. Hence it is my > humble submission that traditional commentators are > in a much better position to fathom the depths of > Sri Valmiki's words than us. > > > > 5. As to Sri Rama's conviction about His Consort's > chastity, shall we let Him speak for Himself? Here > is a sloka which immediately follows the agni > parIkshA episode, uttered by Sri Rama, not as a > soliloquy, but declaring to the whole world and the > skies that He had absolutely no doubts about Sri > Sita's conduct or purity-- > > "imAmapi VisAlAkshIm rakshitAm svEna tEjasA > > RavanO nAtivartEta vElam iva mahOdadhE:' > > This Sita is so protected by the halo of Her own > purity that Ravana would never have been able to get > to Her, just as waves can never cross the shores of > the ocean. > > "na hi shakta: sa dushtAtmA manasApi hi MythilIm > > pradharshayitum aprAptAm deeptAm agni shikhAm iva" > > Just as he wouldn't have been able to approach a > blazing ball of fire, Ravana would never have been > able to pollute Mythily even with His wicked mind. > > > > Do we need any more convincing conduct certificates > than these from Sri Rama Himself, to indicate His > absolute conviction with Her eternal purity? > > > > I do not know whether these submissions would > silence the learned counsel for prosecution, but I > rest in the strong belief that neither Sri Raghava > nor Sri Sita need any defence of their impeccable > conduct. When the mundane scales fall from our > impaired eyes, we would definitely see the divine > pair shining as ever with their innumerable > auspicious attributes and without a spec of blemish > on them, as they are, in Sri Ramanuja's words, > "akhila hEya pratyanIkA:" > > > > dasan, sadagopan > > > > > > > > Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Respected U.Ve. Swami Sadagopan Iyengar: I have read so many articles on this particular subject and heard so many upanyasams from learned gurus, discourse panditis for the past seventy years. Although I firmly believe wholeheartedly of the conduct of Sri Ram and Piraati, in my humble opinion, no body have ever argued eloquently and convincingly defending Sri Rama's conduct. Of course Paramatma need not require chetana's defence. I hope this should satisfy those who are not able to reconcile about Sri Rama's conduct in this particular instance. May Pramatman Lord Narayana bless you with more insight so that Ordinary Jeevatmas can have insight into Puranas, Ithihasas and Divya Prabandams. Adiyaen Nerur S. Rajagopalan --- sadagopaniyengar <sadagopaniyengar wrote: > Dear Shri Sudarshan, > > As always, your spirited advocacy of the > "prosectuion" was admirable for its style and the > formidable case you have built up against the > "accused" does look daunting, but not for the > traditionalists. Entering into the spirit of your > enactment of the court scene, I would like to lay > the following lines before the "jury". I know it is > not customary for the defence to interrupt before > the prosecution has concluded its arguments, but the > fear that the jury might be mesmerised by the > apparent logic in your skilful harangue prompts me > to enter this rebuttal. > > First and foremost, I would submit that the case is > not justiciable at all. We should remember that the > entity we are trying to put in the dock and > categorise as "accused", is none other than the > Parabrahmam. Can the Paramatma do any wrong, and,if > He does, would He be a Paramatma still? However > incongrous Sri Rama's actions may appear to us, the > fact remains that, as the Supreme Godhead, He was > incapable of wrong-doing. If we are unable to fathom > to our satisfaction and with our limited intellects > the rationale behind divine actions, would it be > fair to charge-sheet, arrest and prosecute the > Paramatma Himself? What laws do we apply to the > Law-maker Himself? And who can sit in judgement over > the actions of the Ultimate Arbiter? > > Having said this, I would like to reply > point-by-point to your facile arguments. > > 1.When we seek to assess the guilt or otherwise of a > person, the first and foremost evidence there can be > is a confession from the alleged perpetrator. Here > too, whether Sri Sita was guilty of bhagavat, > bhAgavata apachAra, is to be determined from Her own > words, to Siriya Tiruvadi-- > "mama Eva dushkritam kinchit mahat asti na samsaya: > > samartthou api yat mAm na avEkshEtE parantapou" > > Here, Piratti has little doubt that Her pitiful > state was due to some transgression, big or small, > which She had committed, knowingly or unknowingly. > Thus, when Sri Sita Herself admits to guilt, there > is little for us seek from the words of others. > > > > And, as for the pyre being lighted by Sri Lakshmana, > would you not agree that there were indeed several > others who could have done it--for instance, what > about Sri Hanuman, who was eminently qualified to do > it, with his mastery over Shastras and impeccable > conduct? In fact, he should have been the normal and > obvious choice, given the intimacy he had develped > towards Piratti during his previous visit to Lanka. > That Lakshmana was chosen over all others is > definitely significant and must have been a gesture > of seeking atonement at the very hands of the person > who was offended. > > > > 2. The second question about the need for Sri Rama > to question HIs lady's conduct. In advancing this > argument, the prosecutor is laying another charge at > the doors of the innocent and unprotesting > Sharanagata Vatsala--that of failing to save > Prapannai, contrary to His protestations. > > > > Sri Sita's appeals and words on the occasion can by > no means construed to be a Sharanagati--almost all > the prescribed elements of Prapatthi, as prescribed > in the Shastras, like Anukoolyasya sankalpam, > PrAtikoolyasya varjanam, KArpaNyam etc. are lacking > in Sita Piratti on this occasion. > > This absence of the essential angAs of Prapatti is > not a blemish on Her, for Prapatti was not intended > at all. And as such, Sri Rama's conduct towards Her > was prompted solely on the basis of having to > preserve the lofty standards of the IkshvAku vamsam, > which did not permit the taking back of a princess > who had spent a year in a rogue's custody, without > question or inquiry. > > > > 3. Thirdly, I would freely admit that Sri Rama, as a > conscientious monarch-to-be and the descendant of > the famed Soorya Vamsam with not a breath of scandal > in all its innumerable years of reign, was indeed > conscious of "public opinion polls". He thus firmly > believed that Justice must not only be done, but > also seem to be done. For any Emperor not to bother > about what His subjects would think about any of his > action, would be to invite trouble in the short run > and revolution in the long run. Hence there is > absolutely nothing wrong in Sri Rama meting out > justice by inquiring into His lady's conduct and > appearing to do the same, in public. As to the > Vali-vadham episode, it is the confirmed view even > of the aggrieved Vali that Chakkravartthi Tirumagan > was entirely in the right in what He did on the > occasion. Hence, there is no question of the Lord > not having been bothered about the apparent > correctness of His conduct. > > > > 4. Next for the construction put on Sri Rama's words > asking Sri Sita to go with anyone She liked. > > The learned and eloquent prosecution counsel would > surely appreciate that words in any language and > more so in Sanskrit, acquire different purports > depending upon the context, the speaker, the > addressee and the tenor of the words. If the > commentator Sri Govindaraja choses to put such a > "spin" on Sri Rama's speech, it must be with good > reason, privy as he was to the traditional thinking > on Srimad Ramayana and its nuances, handed down from > one Acharya to another in our hallowed and erudite > guru parampara. In fact, we have seen more divergent > interpretations being put on Upanishadic passages > and accept the same as correct, because of the > authority of the Acharya who says so. Hence it is my > humble submission that traditional commentators are > in a much better position to fathom the depths of > Sri Valmiki's words than us. > > > > 5. As to Sri Rama's conviction about His Consort's > chastity, shall we let Him speak for Himself? Here > is a sloka which immediately follows the agni > parIkshA episode, uttered by Sri Rama, not as a > soliloquy, but declaring to the whole world and the > skies that He had absolutely no doubts about Sri > Sita's conduct or purity-- > > "imAmapi VisAlAkshIm rakshitAm svEna tEjasA > > RavanO nAtivartEta vElam iva mahOdadhE:' > > This Sita is so protected by the halo of Her own > purity that Ravana would never have been able to get > to Her, just as waves can never cross the shores of > the ocean. > > "na hi shakta: sa dushtAtmA manasApi hi MythilIm > > pradharshayitum aprAptAm deeptAm agni shikhAm iva" > > Just as he wouldn't have been able to approach a > blazing ball of fire, Ravana would never have been > able to pollute Mythily even with His wicked mind. > > > > Do we need any more convincing conduct certificates > than these from Sri Rama Himself, to indicate His > absolute conviction with Her eternal purity? > > > > I do not know whether these submissions would > silence the learned counsel for prosecution, but I > rest in the strong belief that neither Sri Raghava > nor Sri Sita need any defence of their impeccable > conduct. When the mundane scales fall from our > impaired eyes, we would definitely see the divine > pair shining as ever with their innumerable > auspicious attributes and without a spec of blemish > on them, as they are, in Sri Ramanuja's words, > "akhila hEya pratyanIkA:" > > > > dasan, sadagopan > > > > > > > > Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. 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.