RE: Bow's story -11.

November 30, 2004

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

Respected Sri Vasudevan swami,

I wish to add the following points to your mail on the

title conferred by Sita, “Sthreeyam purushavigraham”,

on the basis of vyakhyanam given in Sri A.V.

Narasimhachar’s translation in Tamil. As I said in my

earlier post I am not in a position to pinpoint who

has given this, the translator or Sri Govindarajar.

But before going into the details, let me state my

position as I have understood.

(1) This is not the ‘title’ given by Sita. This seems

to be what king Janaka is likely to think of Rama.

Sita merely expresses her worries over this. By virtue

of her being the better half of Rama, she also has to

bear the brunt of the criticisms and/or commendations

poured on Rama. So in her role as pathivradha (is one

who shares the husband’s happiness and sorrow ) she is

cautioning him of the anartham that can be caused if

Rama leaves for the forest without her. That is why

she says these words with “prANayascha (affection)

abhimAnAscha (with pride) paricikShepa raghavam” in

the verse preceding the one under discussion. It runs

thus:

“saa tam uttama samvignaa siitaa vipula vakSasam |

praNayaac ca abhimaanaac ca paricikSepa raaghavam ||”

2-30-2

(meaning):- saasiita= that Seetha; tam= distressed;

uttamasamvignaa= highly agitated; praNayaat= from

affection abhimaanaachcha= and pride; parichikshhepa=

reproached; raaghavam= Rama; vipula vakshhasam= having

a broad chest.

Distressed and highly agitated, the said Seetha

reproached Rama having a broad chest, from affection

and pride in the following words:-

(2) One of the interesting features of Valmiki

Ramayana is that the Kavi seems to indicate beforehand

what is likely to happen later. There is lot of scope

to interpret and invent tattwArtham in the verses,

particularly in the seemingly controversial ones. The

kavi seems to insert them at appropriate places

making us wonder whether he had in his mind more than

one idea for a given word or phrase when he put them

down into writing. Such tattwartham that had occurred

to this adiyaL are given in brackets and the rest as

found in the transliteration are furnished below.

The 3 verses that have a lot of bearing on Sita’s

purported accusation are 2-20-2, 3 &4. I find an

additional verse in the translation (not found in

www.valmikiramayana.net) which says, “Rama, you seem

to possess soundharyam only, seeing which others

derive happiness and not pourusham.” Saying this she

continues with conferring the so-called ‘title’

(Adiyal’s view :- since the extra verse doubting

rama’s pourusham doesnot fall within the length of a

separate verse, I presume those words are indeed to

explain the name “Rama”, by which Sita calls him in

the verse. The translator might have taken the liberty

to express like this based on the vyakhyaanam he has

furnished for why Sita called him Rama and not by any

other name.)

The source for this is traced to balakhandam where

sage Vasishta suggested the names for the 4 sons born

to Dasharatha. The sage seems to have been attracted

by the outer appearance of Rama, the baby, and

suggested the name Rama as the very appearance gave

immense happiness to the one who happens to see the

baby. Sita means to imply that ‘the meaning ends with

that only’ and not about the inner beauty, which

actually was anointed to Shatrugna by the sage. By not

taking Sita to the forest, does Rama mean to show that

he possesses only outward beauty and not inward

beauty? Sita seems to remind this to Rama by calling

him by this name.

What then is inner beauty? To analyse this, let us see

the next verse.

“kim tvaa amanyata vaidehaH pitaa me mithilaa adhipaH

|

raama jaamaataram praapya striyam puruSa vigraham ||”

2-30-3

(meaning):- raama= Oh, Rama! kim= what; mepitaa= my

father; mithilaadhipaH= the king of Mithila; vaidehaH=

belonging to the country of Videha; amanyata= think of

himself; praapya= having got; jaamaataram= as

son-in-law; tvam= you; striyam= a woman;

purushhavigraham= having form of a man.

"What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the

country of Videha, think of himself having got as

so-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?"

For better understanding, I take the liberty to

compartmentalize the vyakhyanam into groups as the

original vyakhyanam looks complicated.

(1) By mentioning about her father in two ways,

videhaH’ and ‘mithila adhipaH’, Sita lays stress on

Janaka unmincingly. Is it not enough to say my pita?

Why that extra identification?

One reason is as given by Sri Vasudevan swami, on the

basis of Janaka being identified for his karma-yoga

marga as moksha saadhanam and the related ones that he

had furnished in his mail on how Sita had to support

Rama in his actions, in her capacity as saha-dharma

chaariNi.

Another notion given is that Janaka would have rather

wished to see her go to forest and suffer and even die

in not being able to withstand the vagaries of

forest-life than to come back to him (father) on

Rama’s departure to the forest. He would be

crest-fallen in that case, that his daughter had not

died on leaving the husband. He would think of himself

as sthree in purushavigraham ( a gender-mix) in having

begotten such a daughter who failed to show up the

fine values of a pathivradha. The terms ‘amanyata’ and

prapya’ are about thinking of himself (Janaka) as

‘sthree in purushavigraham’. This is one way of

looking at this.

(adiyal’s note:- Why should Sita mean to go to her

father’s home on Rama leaving her and not stay back in

Ayodhya itself. Didn’t Rama say that she stay back in

their gruham? Because the very first thing that rama

says to Sita after announcing a one-liner (again

kavi’s yukhthi in Rama psychologically preparing Sita

for the bad news of leaving her) of the impending

vanavaas, is that she stays as one among other Bhandus

(relatives) under Bharatha’s protection. He not even

once says that she go back to her father.

But Sita takes a difference stance (implied meaning)

of going to her father. Why? I think the reasons are

in accordance with the dharma in practice for persons

under such predicament that can be found Kausalya’s

admonition of Dhasaratha after Rama left. She tells

the king that she is without any support now. The

first protector for the woman is her husband and she

can not count on Dhasharatha’s support for, he has

gone after pleasing another wife (Kaikeyi). She lost

the second protector also, who is her son. The third

protector is the Bhandu (relatives) and she can not

count on them as they are in a far-away land. It is

thereby implied that the women’s protectors are her

relatives of her house of birth and not of the house

into which she has entered as a daughter-in-law.

Without keeping this in mind, rama tells sita to be

under the protection of Bharatha. Is it right? He can

not ask her to be under Bharatha’s protection because

that is against the dharma about protectors for the

woman. Nor can he ask /expect her to go to her

father’s house for reasons explained above. Therefore

Sita by calling him Rama admonishes him that he has

forgotten the inner meanings but stuck to outer ones

(like he is known for his outer soundharyam).

Therefore the double insistence on my pita (which then

makes it triple insistence) and the distress that her

pita would undergo if she goes to him.)

(2) Another explanation is about what actually

constitutes purushavigraham. The vyakhyaanam says that

it is about wearing ‘kirItam’ and “pIthambharam”. Now

that Rama had to forego them in his stay in vanavaas,

he is losing his purusha lakshanam, which then means

that he is in sthree rUpam. Here the kavi brings in an

element of premonition that Janaka has indeed had a

prior instinct of what is to happen and had given his

daughter in marriage to Rama thinking of the time in

the forest when he has to forego his purusha- symbols

and look like a woman. Sita indicates this and says

that there is nothing wrong in taking her along with

him because her father has thought of this and had

given her to him, the woman in man’s garb.

(3) When the situation is like this, ‘kim twa’ – why

do you, the one trained by the sage vasishta, say like

this thinking that you know the dharma that I have to

follow now? Is your dharma (in asking her to stay back

under the protection of Bharatha) right (kim twaa?) or

his (Janaka’s) dharma right (kim amayantha)?

(4) Why talk of the dharma for the two in the above

point? It is because of the term used. “jaamaataram”

which means son-in-law. He has got (prapya) you as

son-in-law in the tradition of having got you as the

10th gruham besides the 9 gruhams that control the

woman. When I have got you as the 10th and final

gruham, where else can I stay, if not in your place,

in your company.

(5) Sita, by talking about the moment of Janaka in

having got him as the son-in-law seems to remind of

him the vows that Rama took at the time of her

marriage. The vyakhyanam then delves into details of

every word uttered at the time of PaNigrahanam to

remind that Rama has indeed forgotten his vows and his

dharma as though he is a changed person now (– the

change being to an extent of changing even the gender

– interpretation, mine)) Therefore what will Janaka

think of you (kim twaamayantha)

(6) My father got you, vasudeva, as son-in-law (for

whom the entire world is like sthree.) But he didn’t

get the world (which is like sthree) unto himself as

the son-in-law, but you, the purushottama. (To tell

this more clearly, he has got you, the purushottama in

whom the world resides as sthree and not vice versa.

It is in having got you, did he think of the rest of

the world as inconsequential. The pramanam for this

can be had in his having lived as a karma yogi and in

not even getting disturbed when fire broke out in

Mithila –refer Shanthi parva, Mahabharatha for

details))

(7) Why this line of reasoning is taken up to explain

the seemingly derogatory statement of Sita is to be

justified in the next verse which runs thus:

“anR^itam bala loko ayam aj~naanaat yadd hi vakSyati |

tejo na asti param raame tapati iva divaa kare |”

2-30-4

(meaning):- bata= what a pity! ayam lokaH= these

people; vakshhyati yadi= if they tell; ajJNaanaat= by

ignorance; anR^itam= the falsehood; param= excellent;

tejaH= valour; naasti= is lacking; raame= in Rama;

divaakare iva= as in a sun; tapati= which is blazing.

"It is a pity if these people of Ayodhya through

ignorance tell the falsehood that excellent valour is

lacking in Rama as in a blazing sun."

Sita is worried that if Rama doesn’t follow the dharma

(as she has indicated), people would talk bad about

him which is falsehood. By saying this Sita implies

that she doesn’t believe that Rama has moved away from

Dharma. She obviously doesn’t mean that Rama is woman

in a man’s garb. If she had actually meant that by

herself, she would not have used the terms, out of

ignorance and falsehood as being the components of

people’s reaction. But that she had tried to convince

him only goes to show that she has done that as a

sha-dharmachaariNi, - a role she seems to remind Rama

by bringing in the memories of the vows at the time of

their marriage.

(A similarity can be drawn in our lives too. We are

devoted to our parents and treat them as gods. But

when we think that their ways and talks are not right,

we are not supposed to remain quiet, but bring out

correctives. (That is absolutely within our dharma as

responsible sons and daughters). That is what happened

with Bharatha, who would have stopped Kaikeyi at the

very first instance itself, had he been in Ayodhya at

that fateful time. Another instance can be cited in

the case of Ahalya, whose husband Gouthama out of

anger, commands their son Shirakaari to kill her. But

the son takes enough time to weigh the pros and cons

and dharma of the situation and waits until such a

time that Gouthama himself rescinds his command. A

similar instance happened with Parashurama but that

he failed to retract or preach reason to his father

resulted in hardships to him as a person (the penance

and parihara that he had to do). It is on these lines

that I am unable to accept that the Loka-mAtha had

taken a dig at our loka-pitA. Can she withstand the

comment that he lacks the tejas of the Sun, He who is

lord of Sun god himself? It is to make sure that

nothing happens as to give rise to such comment, that

she gently reminds him well within the scope of her

dharma as a responsible wife, of His dharma, and

janaka's dharma in having got him as his son-in-law.

What janaka would think of and what He himself has to

think, remembering the name he is known for, are all

that Sita attempts to tell in these 3 verses.)

PS:- In a similar vein, if only Rama had behaved as a

‘responsible husband’ and refused to go after the

golden deer and instead advised Sita against such

desires, his marriage could have been saved. But that

he didn’t ( and so too with Parasurama) are all due to

avathara reasons. But that we, mortals can not afford

to behave like this is what we have to learn from

these avataras.

Regards,

Jayasree saranathan.

Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard.

November 30, 2004