"Ordeal by Fire"

[Guest guest]

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