Piratti's ordeal and Reply from SriRama to my letter

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Dhyaanam:-

“ Anbu, aazhiyaanai aNugu ennum,

naa, avan than paNbu, aazhi, thoL paravi yetthu ennum,

munbu voozhi kaaNaanai-k-kaaN ennum kaN,

sevi kEL ennum

pooNaram poondan pughzh.” (Poigaiaazhwaar)

 

Dear devotees,

Kindly excuse me for interfering in the discussion on

Piratti’s agni pravesham at this stage, for if I

don’t, I would be committing an offence of not

speaking up when it was my mail which was the cause of

the round of discussions currently taking place and

not what Sri Sadagopan Iyengar has thought (that Sri

Narasimhan’s salvo was a sequel to his write up). Mr

Narasimhan sent a cc of his mail to me on this issue

as a sequel to my post “An open letter to Sri Rama”

apparently in a bid to ‘educate’ me on the kinds of

‘dosham’ that Sita Piratti had, but missed in the

process the perspective which I wished the reader to

see –the perspective being – “Rama can not be faulted

for any mis-demeanor, so also Sita. When Rama (as

Vishnu in avathara krama) had apparently intended to

place Himself and Piratti in such worst conditions,

what was the need to do so? Why didn’t He do it by

some other way that could have spared themselves,

particularly Sita of the hardships they had to

undergo?”

 

But the discussion has gone far beyond as to make the

moderator of one of the groups openly react to a

devotee’s request and suspend all discussion. Instead

he could have laid down guidelines for the discussion

to continue, the most important guideline being not to

attribute any dhosham or apacharam or mis-conduct to

the divine couple. The discussion is necessary to

sharpen our understanding of Lord’s mind and leela

better.

 

At times God Himself gives us clues about what he

thinks are His goals of a particular avathara. For

instance in Parasurama gharva-bhangam, SriRama makes

an observation (unprovoked) that absolves Parsurama of

any kind of accusation such as jiva-himsa or giving

up the swadharma of a brahmin. Rama says that as a

valiant son, Parasurama has been right for having

wiped out the kshatriyas in revenge. By this God

implies that what is perceived by ordinary mortals

need not / may not be the same as what God has had in

mind. This makes it all the more inevitable for us to

look keenly for clues in the puranas or in other

pramanas to know what God intends to tell us. Bhakti

is one thing and it is the very basic thing in

meditation on God. But discussions like these and

bhakti are not self-contradictory. We need be worried

whether we are violating the tenets of bhakti by these

discussions.

 

Ramanuja says, “ The term bhakti signifies a

particular kind of love (preethi). Love is a

particular kind of congnition.” But “the means for the

attainment of Brahman is para bhakti, which is of the

nature of meditation that has become an object of

supreme attachment (to the meditator) and has acquired

the vividness of clearest perception. This para bhakti

is to be attained through the path way of devotion,

which in turn is aided by one’s performance of his

duties after a due understanding of the nature of

reality through the scripture.” (Vedartha sangraha,

Verse 238). It is with this in mind that Ramanuja held

the inquiry into Brahma sutras as the foremost duty

to the seeker. When we indulge in such search and

re-search, we come to get a better grasp of what we

must do and what we must not do. This once again

energises us to search higher and at some stage He

decides “buddhi yogam dadaami” (Gitachaaryan). The

‘peru vidaai’ (parama bhakti) that comes from knowing

Him takes the chethana to ‘anthamil pErinbam’ is what

Azhwars have shown as the pathway of devotion. For all

this, the very basis is bhakti and for the bhaktan, it

is inquiry into sruti and puranas. The aazhwars have

under gone this process. (Refer Acharya hridhayam for

the saamyam Aazhwar enjoys with Sita.) And we the very

ordinary mortals who are still at the kindergarten

level are ‘just drawn’ into this search which is a

very appropriate development to happen to us at this

stage. So instead of putting curbs, we must ask

ourselves whether we are proceeding in the right

direction and follow the right tools.

 

As followers of Bhagavad Ramanuja, it is only

appropriate to follow the Theory of Knowledge of

Ramanuja which is based on Religious Experience

(Bhakti), metaphysics and ethics and employ the 6

pramanas laid down by him namely, Prathyaksha

(perception), Anumana (inference / reasoning), Shabda

(testimony), Upamana (comparison), Arthabdhi

(assumptions) and Anupalabdhi (non- apprehension).

 

When we base our discussion within the parameters of

these rules, emotions are likely to run high. A

devotee writing as a sequel to my post (apparently)

said that emotions should not be there while reading

puranas. I think it is precisely to evoke our emotions

and provoke the seeker that elders have made it

mandatory for us to know the puranas. The Ithihasas

are capable of rousing our emotions to such a level as

to make us experience even the incidents connected

with the emotions. That is why our elders have

forbidden us to read them at home (barring sundara

khandam and a few other select chapters) and read them

instead within the premises of the temple. (A more

detailed and substantive discussion on moolavars could

have helped us to understand the implication of this.)

 

It is the emotion that one picks up while reading

Piratti’s dhukkham and ‘kadaral’ -“what dhosham do I

have that Rama had not yet come to save me?

What paapam did I do in my previous birth that I have

to suffer like this?

Why Rama has not yet come to relieve me?” etc

(1) prepares the chethana at the lowest level of

understanding to empathise with Piratti and console

himself that his ordeal is not as bad as what Sita

underwent and trains him to look at good and bad in

life with equanimity. (when Piratti Herself has

underwent so much suffering, my suffering is not

something big. I can certainly manage –this is the

message directed at a majority of us who are finding

it difficult to cope with sufferings of life. “van

siraiyil van vaikkil” –NDP)

(2) reveals to those chethanas having a higher level

of grasp of bhagawan’s leela that He will wait and

watch ONLY TILL we reach the breaking point, but

before that happens he would certainly do the right

thing for us - as how rushed to save Draupathi though

He waited till the moment she stopped believing

herself, how He had Hanuman interfere when Janaki lost

all hopes and prepared to commit suicide. Let me

borrow the idea from Paapanasam Shivan who says why

God does like this. “Sodhanai theeyil sphutahmiduvAn;

irangi thooki eduthu Anadam aLitthiduvaan”. He does

subject each one of us to agni pravesham –just to make

us glow with virtues. In spite of all this suffering,

if we stand the ordeal, then comes the third level.

(3) The chethana thinks of nothing but Him and His

arrival to release the chethana from suffering.

(refer Acharya Hridhayam – 125 &126, P.B.

Annagraracharyar vyakhyanam). When like Sita, the

chethana is completely immersed in thoughts of Him

waiting for him as a saviour, He too thinks about the

chethana like how Rama was completely immersed in

thoughts of Sita. The perfect ‘chemistry’ works then

and the chethana is at the verge of attaining

‘release’. Even then the Lord holds out the Final test

for everyone to see that this chethana is indeed the

perfect candidate to live with Him in Parama padam.

 

The above reading based on interpretations of elders

in the form of Swapadesam does not answer the doubts

that we at the present juncture have.

The problem with us is that we read / interpret the

words as they are. If Sita laments what dhosham she

has, we take it in the literal sense and try to figure

out what dhosham she has!! If she wonders what

apacharam she has done, we immediately look for

apacharams – both bhagavad and bhagavada. If one

thinks that there indeed exists instances in Ramayana

that denote dhosham or apacharam on the part of Sita,

it is said that any inquiry such as this must based on

the stipulated rules and assumptions (like in science)

laid down by none other than Ramanuja.

 

He recognises 2 steps in Prathyaksha (perception), the

first one based on perception of form and structure

(herein the outward meaning of Sita’s lamentation) and

the second, the kind of perception which is the

product of discriminative activity (vikalpa) based on

the other pramanas. (Eg – understanding the expression

‘village on the Ganga’ in V.S –verse 179)

The shabda –based inference has it that Sri is

“ishwarIm sarva bhoothanaam” (SrI sookhtham) and that

“She is all-pervading even as Vishnu is all-pervading’

(Vi.Pu) and puts her on equal footing with Him (v.s.

217) Whatever attributes that He has, She also has is

what we have as Testimony. When He is born as a Deva,

She too is born as a Deva. If He is born as a human

being, She too is born as a human being. If He is all

righteousness personified, She too is all

righteousness personified. If He can not be otherwise,

she too can not be otherwise. Therefore to proceed

with the assumption that Sita is culpable of dhosham

or committing apacharam itself is fallacious.

 

Elsewhere Sita wonders whether it is vidhi (destiny)

that is making her suffer. We find Hanuman also making

such statements in Sundara khandam. But we take this

reference to destiny as being the cause of Sita’s

suffering with a pinch of salt because of our

conviction (supported by scriptures) that destiny and

karma do not bind the divine couple. But that a

similar conviction with reference to ‘pure’ qualities

of them and that they are just incapable of doing any

unrighteous thing is something we have missed, really

unfortunate and shows how limited, hypocritical and

choosy we tend to become.

 

The question then comes how to explain the so-called

‘dhosham and apacharam’, the evidence for which is

found in Ramayana itself.

To explain this we base our understanding by combining

the two steps of perception.

The only kind of apacharam that Sita herself speaks of

is what she tells Hanuman about her goading of Rama

before going on vana vasa in a bid to make Rama take

her along with Him. It is to be noted that she doesn’t

think about this when she was lamenting in isolation

in the Ashoka vana but only when she sends the message

through Hanuman. It is to be interpreted as a scuffle

between the divine couple where we have no place to

sit on judgement. It happens in our life too and we

know that the children in no way interfere in the kind

of altercation such as this taking place between the

parents.

 

If it be still be said that Sita in the mortal form

has committed this Bhagavad apacharam, it is to be

noted that Bhagvan is one (from Sita’s refrain in

kaakasura vriddhantham, sarga 38, sundara khandam) who

believes ‘en adiyaar kuttram cheyyaar. Appadi

chaithaalum adu kuttramaai eraadu’ and accepts the

adiyaar. Sita as one will be seen as devoid of any

‘kuttram’ by Rama. Therefore the question of bhagavad

apacharam is simply non-existent.

 

The other sin according to some is the bhagavada

apacharam supposedly done by Sita to Lakshmana.

Whatever altercation that has happened between the

two when Rama went after Mareecha and when Sita

commanded Lakshmana to make agni, it is something like

what happens between the mother and the son. Sita’s

very first query about Lakshmana proves this. As

mother in her capacity as ‘manni’, Sita’s actions do

not attract any apacharam.

 

To make a better understanding that the idea of

dhosham or apacharam on the part of Sita is just non

–existent, we resort to another tool namely,

anupalabdhi or non-apprehension. Non-apprehension of

something (in this context, non-apprehension of

Piratti’s Nir-dhosha qualities) is subject to error

in perception, wherein the first level of perception

alone is taken into consideration without taking into

account the second level which is necessary to arrive

at the correct judgement of perception. This must be

read along with Arthabdhi (assumption) based on

Shabda.

 

For example when we say that stars are not found in

the day, it is anupalabdhi based on the arthabdhi

that it is due to the luminosity of the sun. But if we

say that stars do not exist in the day we will be

committing an error. Non-apprehension of something,

according to Ramanuja must be analysed along with the

knowledge whether the non-apprehended thing exited in

the past (just before non-apprehension) and in the

future. Non-apprehension of Piratti’s ‘pure’ qualities

without taking reference from what She was before and

after the given instance will lead us to arrive at a

fallacious statement which is what has happened in the

various altercations on this subject.

 

In a similar vein Rama can not be attributed with

being un-righteous to Sita while being righteous as a

ruler etc, when he asked for agni-parIksha. Simply

because Rama can not be wrong as how Sita can not be!

To understand this, let us employ the first pramana,

Perception.

Just a reading of Sita’s very first enquiry about

kshEma-lAbham of Rama and others is sufficient.

(sargam 36) It is here a wonderful tattwa of

sthreethwa is at its glowing best. After making

enquiries about Rama and others (in just 10 verses),

Sita’s main concern is about how Rama is braving the

loss of Sita (which runs into many verses) “Does he

still think about me? Does he pray to God to get me

back soon? Does he make all steps at his disposal to

reach to me? Does he still remember me, the one who is

in a far away land? Has the purva snEham between us

undergone any change? Is he worried about me, sad and

afraid about the conditions I am in? .. (After all her

queries about whether Rama thinks only about her and

nothing else, she concludes ) Can anyone, be his

mother whose love for him has no bounds or his father

who died due to separation from him or the other

relatives be a match to me in HIS HEART?”

 

I consider this as the clue to unravel the truth

behind the issue under discussion. This is sthreethwa

at its best which only a sthree can understand. The

love for her husband is so intense that it is the

basis of pathi vradha dharma. Just prior to the entry

of Hanuman we find her despairing that Rama would

complete his vana vasam without finding her out and go

back to Ayodhya, have Rajyabhishekam and be happy with

other ‘women’. This worry about whether the husband

has forgotten the wife or still thinks about her with

unwavering and unbroken love is the core part of

sthreethwa and the complete faith that the wife gets

to hold by virtue of experiencing the unalloyed love

of the husband (samsleshatthil dharikkai,

vislEshatthil dhariaamai) makes her a pathi-vradhai

whereby she would be ready to undergo sufferings of

any kind and to any extent just to uphold the honour

of the husband which in fact is a shared

responsibility of the two. Sita would have undergone

agni-pravesham with absolutely no qualms or regrets or

even without Rama having to tell her because if it is

by that she can uphold Rama’s honour, which she would

be happy to do! There is no question of one commanding

the other to do a specific act for the sake of a

shared responsibility of the two. If we accept this

line of thinking, even the banishment in Uttara

khandam will not be seen objectionable. That this line

of reasoning is the most plausible one can be proved

by the fact that of all the different dharmas that

Rama came to establish, the one as Eka patni vradhan

is the foremost. Whenever we think of the purpose of

Rama avathara, we don’t even think of Ravana vadam or

pitru-vakhya paripalanam etc but about Rama as

Eka-patni vradhan. Throughout Ramayana, Rama stands

as an embodiment of this virtue even as Sita stands as

a purushakara bhoothai with qualities such as anayarha

seshatwam. Rama is the Eka-patni vradhan for the

chethanas too who think of Him and nobody else and who

wait for union with Him with the life-long ‘kadaral’

-‘koovikkoLLum kaalam innum kurugaadO’. God also

undergoes the pangs of separation from the chethanas

and longs to join this chethana – a fact that can be

cross-checked with Gitacharyan’s longing,

“Bahoonaam janmaanade gyanavaanmaam prapathyathe/

Vasudeva: sarvam ithi sa mahathma sudhurlabha//”

(7-19)

 

Let me now move on to my prime vishanam that I

expressed in the Open letter to Rama – why God

conceived a script such as the one in Ramavathara.

Since both are possessed of same kind of divine

qualities, it is worthwhile to know who among the two

decided the script. To know this we must understand

the ‘relationship’ or ‘equation’ between the two. (How

words are inadequate to express this idea!! Or is it

to do with my inadequacy by way of lack of command of

language? (sigh))

 

Taking Ramanuja’s words as pramana (V.S. 217), Sita

or Sri is the mother of the Universe, is eternal and

knows no separation from Vishnu. (Jhanardhan and

Vishnu are synonyms, says 159, V.S. whereby we assume

that Vishnu as mentioned here is Supreme.) If it be

said that She is one with Him, how does one understand

the injunction, “Being alone, all this was in the

beginning, one only, without a second.” (Chand –VI –

II).

 

To clarify this, it is said that Sita as Sri, though

said to have originated during the churning of the

milky ocean, must have existed even before that, from

the Beginning in or as part of the ‘one only without a

second’. The ‘one only’ does not negate Her union in

Him at that time, as the ‘one only’ speaks of causal

condition of the Supreme, so says Ramanuja in B.S.

 

But then how to substantiate that She existed in Him

at that Time? We refer to the injunctions, which speak

about ‘will’ as in ‘It willed that It may become many’

and ‘Thought’ as in ‘It thought – May I become

manyfold and be born’ (chand) are of the nature of Sri

without whose existence / insistence, the Supreme does

not contemplate to do anything.

 

The Will or the Thought are part of Him which for

simpler understanding are said to be seated in His

manas. Ramanuja acknowledges this in his dhyaana sloka

to Sri Bhashyam to Vedanta sutras thus :- “ May my

understanding assume the form of loving devotion to

the Highest Brahman who is the Home of Lakshmi.” The

implication that He will not do anything without being

told by Lakshmi is further authenticated by

Purvacharyas. (EvaL purushakaaramaanaalalathu,

Ishwaran kaaryam cheyyaan ) (samsleshatthil Ishwaranai

thirutthum … iruvaraiyum upadesatthaal thirutthum …

Ishwaranai azhagaalE thirutthum)

 

It is therefore concluded that Piratti as the Will or

Thought-force of the lord is the one who actually aids

Him in His actions. Connecting this to my vishanam why

Rama made a script such as the one He used in

Ramavathara, it is said that it She, not He who is

responsible for such a script. Imagining a samvAdham

between the two in pAr-kadal before they finalised the

story line, it can be said with cent percent surity

that Piratti as the Will of Lord dominated the writing

of the story.

 

If it be said that Sita has been at the receiving end

of Rama’s unjust treatment (?), it can not be so

because it is she who decided to have such treatment!!

Can a ‘victim’ who voluntarily wants to look like a

victim, be a victim?

 

If it be said that Sita is culpable of dhoshams of

sorts (?), it can not be so. Because can any one

deciding to take a role that seems (note- ‘seems’) to

have dhosham be attributed with that dhosham? Based on

this derivation, let me attempt to see how SriRama

could have written His reply to my open letter.

Here it is :-)

 

REPLY FROM SRIRAMA TO MY OPEN LETTER.

 

Dear Sow Jayasree,

AsIrvAdham.

I have forwarded your mail to your thaayaar, Sita

Piratti.

Everyone of you think that I am a Swathanthran. But I

only know how much sathanthram I enjoy with your

thaayaar beside me. Lokatthil sthreegaL purushargaLAi

aatti vaippadu patri unakku solla thevai illai. It is

something like what you mean when you say, ‘It is not

enough that justice is done, but justice is seen to be

done’. Your thaayaar makes it appear that I do my

functions as a swathanthran whereas it is she who is

behind all that I do. I have many astras which are

capable of piercing through 14 lokas. But your thaayar

has just one astra called ‘kaN asaippu’ with which she

binds me effectively.

 

You don’t know the power of kaNNasaippu. Un thaayaar

kaNNasaippil kaariyatthai sadhitthu-k-koLvaL. Whether

it is about gifting her jewels to sage Sooyagyar

before we set out for the forest or about gifting her

hAram to Hanuman, it is her kaNNasaippu that makes me

look as though I am a swathanthran or the deciding

authority.

 

Even now she has given me a long list of

recommendations and if I don’t take action

immediately, she would be there before me to get her

wish fulfilled. She would go to any extent to prove

her point, even to the extent of hardships that she

planned for herself in Ramavathara.

 

Unakku theriyaadu kuzhandhe, Jayasree, how I felt when

I had to mouth those words for agni-parIksha. My heart

was screaming, ‘Hey, Sithe, ennai indha ikkattil

maatti viittaayE’. I also felt that the script for her

was a bit exaggerated. I suggested that she tone down

her dialogue, with the apprehension that some of our

children at some point of time may take them in their

face value and start thinking of mis-demeanors on her

part. But instead of accepting my suggestion, your

thaayaar suggested that I take up some blame on my

part to compensate for it and scripted the

vaali-vadham in the way that it was finally enacted.

What can I do about it?

 

Actually I have no time to write more. I have to rush

to take action on her recommendations before she hands

me over another list. InimEl un paadu, un thaayaar

paadu. Ennai aaLAi vidu.

 

KshEmam.

Your loving father,

Sri(Sita)Raman.

 

 

Concluding prayer:-

“ManushyaaNaam sahasrEshu kaschidhyathathi siddhayE/

Yathathaamapi siddhaanaam kaschin maam vEththi

thathvatha://

(B-G – 7-3)

Hey Ram, Lead me in the right path…

--\

--