re: the bow's story - the 2 questions -[ part 2 of reply to Smt.Jayasree]

[Guest guest]

Re: Bow's story - clarification on question raised.

 

Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

 

Continuing the points on Smt. Jayasree's mail on the bow's story, this is part

2. as stated earlier JASN is Smt. Jayasree and my points are given as MGV: [

also there may be a small overlap in the first two paragraphs as new points came

up.

 

JASN: Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two pieces of

information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana itself. One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam

takes place only during certain kaala-dEsha-vartha maana. The Vishnu-veeryam was

present in the Shiva-dhanush only at the time of samhaaram of Thripura asuras

(refer previous postings of bow's story) and not later when the war broke out

between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise, shiva placed His veeryam in the dhanush to

make it extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up. Even otherwise it

was heavy (by some standard) is another point. Whether it was heavy when Sita as

a little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder.

 

MGV: -- One point here. The original when it was intended for the dhEvaas may

have been light but once the bow reached human hands like dhEvaraatha, chances

are very bright that the bow became heavy. Please compare human time and dhEvaas

time. One ayanam [6 months period] for us is half a day for them. Like that the

weight alsocan be. To put it lightly - what is one quintal for us [100kgs] may

be one gram for them. Further once built, the heaviness with which it was built

will not go elsewhere. That is why it is so light for them but heavy for human

kings here. But since seethaa is 'saakshaath maha lakshmee' it was very light

for her.

 

JASN: The question that comes to my mind here is whether Ravana recognised Sita,

when Surpanaka told him of the story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him to

avenge them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn't betray any

remembrance of the incident at Janaka's court nor any knowledge about Sita's

existence. He listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about her for the

first time. The reasons are easy to understand. It was by a kind of selective

amnesia that he would not have wanted to remember Sita's swayamvara, where he

suffered a humiliation to his valour (in having failed to lift the bow).

 

MGV: This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to be heard

properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and can help her in

achieving her goals [either by way of punishing the human characters who defaced

her, or by way of bringing forcefully the humans whom she liked and give to her

for enjoyment or in marriage ]. At that stage he would definitely not like to

exhibit he also suffered at the cause of same seethaa.

 

JASN: That perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take her to show how

valiant he was. Because at every occasion he was keen on showing her how valiant

he was and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no match to him. Thus the

seeds of doing harm to Rama must have been sown at Janaka's court itself.

 

MGV: To a large extent, yes.

 

JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose it - however otherwise

convinced he might be about the pathivratha nature of Sita. Because when he told

her that he was going to take her, he addressed her 'varavarNinI' - (a term used

to exemplary women who are extremely devoted to the husband) and ridiculed Rama

that he was not a match even to his finger!!

 

MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17

 

Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a

beautiful woman. This 'varaarOhE' is one among the group of:

varaarOhaa,

mathtta kaasinee,

uththamaa,

vara varNinee

- amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2].

Again this addressing is repeated

vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE |

na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28

 

JASN: Our (2nd) question is why Sita didn't stop the abduction by some way -

(implied) say by even becoming heavy so that Ravana would have struggled as he

did when he tried to lift the shiva-dhanush. The reasons I can think of is the

one stated above (based on kaala-desha-vartha maana) and the stated position of

Sita that she, as pathi-vrathai (shesha here) was not supposed to act without

being ordained by her lord. Sita at this juncture (at Aranya) was not the same

as the 6 year old at Janaka's palace and her dharma was different now.

 

MGV: The point here is - when, as a six year old, she could push the siva dhanu:

so easily, her mind always was on raama [as mahalakshmi thinking of naaraayaNan,

in and as raama] so she could do that. But, now, in front of raavaNan, she has

become a part of raama having united with him in marriage as well physically

also. For she claims in front of that very same raavaNan, " we enjoyed the

humanly life for 12 years in ayodhyaa as well in forest". So now she is totally

dependent on raamaa. So her powers are identified with raamaa.

 

Further as stated in slokam 2-29-6 [given below again] seethaa, when raavaNan is

approaching her, with the intention of abducting, is not in the vicinity of

raama. For she only sent him away. As such, she has become powerless. Further,

at least if lakshmaNa is there she could have had some power. Even he is sent

away. As such raavaNan could lift her so easily.

 

[like the modern day quiz programmes, the clue is given by way of the following

slokam, in the write up [earlier], before the question or doubt is raised].

 

Further as stated by herself, somebody comparatively more powerful than indhran

also could do no harm when raama is in her vicinity. [Actually raavaNan has

overpowered indhran already. That is why all gods lead by indhran went to brahma

and, he, in turn, went to naaraayanan, as we have seen in vaali vadham series by

Sri Anjaneyalu - on the portion dealing with birth of vaali - sargam 16 of baala

kaaNdam].

 

na cha maam thvath sameepastham api saknOthi raaghava |

suraaNaam eeshvara: sacra: pradharsayithum Ojasaa || 2-29-6

 

Meaning: Oh raama! Even dhEvendhra, the lord of celestials, by his strength,

cannot over power me, when I am in your vicinity.

 

Moreover when seethaa is fully conscious of herself, she would have done the act

of just resisting the abductor. But her mind was fully on the golden deer. As

long as her mind was on 'materialistic things' like golden deer, she could not

do that thing, even to protect herself, though she is so powerful as to push the

siva dhanu.

 

[at the stage of pushing the dhanu, she is awaiting the lord's arrival, always

thinking of him and the time of his arrival, the union with her lord etc, even

though apparently she is playing with ball etc].

 

Even if her mind was on raamaa, raavaNan could not have overpowered her.

 

thatha: suvEsham mrugayaa gatham pathim

pratheekshamaaNaa saha lakshmaNam thadhaa |

nireekshamaaNaa haritham dhadharsa thath

mahad vanam na Eva thu raama lakshmaNou || 3-46-38

 

Meaning: Then she looked forward for her finely attired husband, who has gone on

a hunting game, and also for Lakshmana, but on her gazing, she saw the greenery

of the great forest only, but not Rama or Lakshmana.

 

[hari also mean a deer. Here the 'looking forward' for raamaa is with the

intention of 'hey, when he returns he will bring that beautiful deer, but here

is a braahmaNan waiting, may be I have to do 'athithi sathkaaram' with full

involvement, or, he has to be sent out soon. This person will be an intrusion,

when raamaa comes back, he will bring the golden deer, live or dead. So she was

in two minds - one on raamaa with deer, deer being predominant - another on the

braahmaNan waiting]. Thus the powers inherent have all gone or not helping her

because of the mind is engaged elsewhere.

 

Once she is abducted, overpowered and carried away, all her concentration

returned on raamaa. That is why no body could do any harm to her. All threats

from raakshasees, raavaNan etc were only words, and she has to react to that

superficially.

 

JASN: But Sita herself stated the core reason as Ravana was lifting her. As she

was screaming the name of Rama, she wailed why he, as protector of dharma, had

not protected her as she was being taken away in adharmic way - why he, as one

who punishes the sinners had not yet punished Ravana. Then, as if by

realisation, she continued that unless one had sinned, how could he be punished.

Ravana had done the paapa-kaaryam only then (in the process of abduction) and it

would take some time for the counter-action (for the paapa) to take place, just

as how it takes some time for the plant to give results.

 

MGV: The protector of dharmam is her lord raamaa, who has been sent away by her.

If dharma raajan, the yaman is to be considered here, as protector of dharmam,

then he is a subdued person by the very same raavaNan. So both could not come to

rescue of seethaa.

 

JASN: This is to be read along with what Rama says as his mission to the sages

who visited him in Sarabhanga ashram (aranya khandam) pleading him to protect

them from the raakshasas. Rama confides to them that he had undertaken vana-

vasam for a personal reason (sondha-prayOjanam). If they (sages) ask if it is

not due to pitru-vaakhya paripaalanam, Rama says it is not so. He uses it only

as a pretext to be able to come to the forest to destroy the asuras. He further

states that he has come there only on his own volition, to fulfill his purpose.

 

When Rama does for a purpose, so also Sita does to further His cause. The

abduction is only a pretext to make ravana commit an offence to rama so that

Rama can rise up against him.

 

MGV: Fully agreed.

 

JASN: Sita could have as well stopped Ravana from lifting her. But that she

didn't give a minimum physical resistance nor even a fight when ravana lifted

her, gives a different story.

 

MGV: Yes. Agreed.Otherwise how the avathaara kaaryam will take place.

 

JASN: Had she resisted, Ravana would not have dared to even touch her. Because

such was the curse ravana had on his life. Valmiki says this precisely when

ravana lifted her, that mindful of the curse on his life, he held by her hair in

his left hand and her thigh in his right hand so that her body does not touch

his. This shows that sita could have easily made Ravana burst into pieces, if

she had resisted. But that was not the purpose for which the entire story was

enacted.

 

MGV: Agreed.

 

JASN: A further proof for why Rama needed a pretext to kill ravana can be cited

as follows. We may be permitted to ask why Rama didn't kill him instantly in the

war. He 1st cuts off his heads, which however grew immediately. I am reminded

here of the adage in Tamil 'Dharmam thalai kaakkum'. Ravana was protected by the

numerous good deeds and the penance he had done earlier. Then how to stop them

from coming to his rescue? I find a clue to this in the abduction drama that

unfolded after jatayu's exit. Jatayu had fallen on the ground and Sita sits

beside him wailing about his demise and her bad luck. It is then Ravana lifts

her up by her hair to carry her.

 

MGV: this is the second time. First seethaa is lifted from her aasraamam. May be

the first act can be forgiven. Any act, if done second time also, then it

requires a punishment. So raavaNan deserved a punishment.

 

JASN: Seeing this Brahma deva remarks, 'kaaryam mudindhadhu" (the job is done)

and the other worldly entities too rejoice over this. Yes, valmiki uses the term

rejoice here. Why should they be rejoiced when Sita were to be treated like

this? This perhaps forms the pretext or cause for wiping out whatever dharma

that Ravana had accumulated that would safeguard him even when he is in dire

straits. There may be connection between this rejoice over lifting her by her

hair and Ravana getting back his head in position in the war. This act perhaps

was instrumental in getting whatever dharma that was left to safeguard his head

was successively getting depleted every time that Rama cut off a head and

finally leaving him out of bound for protection by dharma in his account, so

that the final asthra, the Brahmasthra was able to finish his life.

 

(PS: The instances / narratives from Valmiki ramayana quoted in this mail are

drawn from the transliteration of the same into Tamil done by Sri A.V.

Narasimhachari published by R. Venkateswarar & co, in the year 1926.) - jayasree

saranathan

 

MGV: On the whole a very good account and nice interpretations.

 

As rightly said by Smt.Jayasree in today's mail [recd on 4.12.04] no offences

meant any where, by discussing the aspects / points from different angles, many

new viewpoints are thrown up, thereby, we are able to go deep into raamaayaNam

and enjoy raamaa's glory more and more.

 

Dhaasan

Vasudevan m.g.

[Guest guest]

Re: Bow's story - clarification on question raised.

 

Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

 

Continuing the points on Smt. Jayasree's mail on the bow's story, this is part

2. as stated earlier JASN is Smt. Jayasree and my points are given as MGV: [

also there may be a small overlap in the first two paragraphs as new points came

up.

 

JASN: Taking up the second question, I wish to look into two pieces of

information drawn from Valmiki Ramayana itself. One is that Bhagavath-sankalpam

takes place only during certain kaala-dEsha-vartha maana. The Vishnu-veeryam was

present in the Shiva-dhanush only at the time of samhaaram of Thripura asuras

(refer previous postings of bow's story) and not later when the war broke out

between Vishnu and shiva. Likewise, shiva placed His veeryam in the dhanush to

make it extremely heavy only when Ravana came to lift it up. Even otherwise it

was heavy (by some standard) is another point. Whether it was heavy when Sita as

a little girl moved it is yet another point to ponder.

 

MGV: -- One point here. The original when it was intended for the dhEvaas may

have been light but once the bow reached human hands like dhEvaraatha, chances

are very bright that the bow became heavy. Please compare human time and dhEvaas

time. One ayanam [6 months period] for us is half a day for them. Like that the

weight alsocan be. To put it lightly - what is one quintal for us [100kgs] may

be one gram for them. Further once built, the heaviness with which it was built

will not go elsewhere. That is why it is so light for them but heavy for human

kings here. But since seethaa is 'saakshaath maha lakshmee' it was very light

for her.

 

JASN: The question that comes to my mind here is whether Ravana recognised Sita,

when Surpanaka told him of the story of Rama and Sita and persuaded him to

avenge them for the humiliation she suffered. Ravana didn't betray any

remembrance of the incident at Janaka's court nor any knowledge about Sita's

existence. He listened to Surpanaka as though he was hearing about her for the

first time. The reasons are easy to understand. It was by a kind of selective

amnesia that he would not have wanted to remember Sita's swayamvara, where he

suffered a humiliation to his valour (in having failed to lift the bow).

 

MGV: This is ok. Also since soorpanakaa was the sufferer she has to be heard

properly by her elder brother, whom she thinks mighty and can help her in

achieving her goals [either by way of punishing the human characters who defaced

her, or by way of bringing forcefully the humans whom she liked and give to her

for enjoyment or in marriage ]. At that stage he would definitely not like to

exhibit he also suffered at the cause of same seethaa.

 

JASN: That perhaps was a strong reason mentally, to wish to take her to show how

valiant he was. Because at every occasion he was keen on showing her how valiant

he was and he lost no occasion to abuse Rama that was no match to him. Thus the

seeds of doing harm to Rama must have been sown at Janaka's court itself.

 

MGV: To a large extent, yes.

 

JASN: When the chance came he didn't want to lose it - however otherwise

convinced he might be about the pathivratha nature of Sita. Because when he told

her that he was going to take her, he addressed her 'varavarNinI' - (a term used

to exemplary women who are extremely devoted to the husband) and ridiculed Rama

that he was not a match even to his finger!!

 

MGV: bhoothir vaa thvam varaarOhE rathir vaa svaira chaariNee || 3-46-17

 

Actually the addressing is 'varaarOhE', and the attribute of the addressee is a

beautiful woman. This 'varaarOhE' is one among the group of:

varaarOhaa,

mathtta kaasinee,

uththamaa,

vara varNinee

- amara kosam - 2-4-436 [chapter 2].

Again this addressing is repeated

vasoonaam vaa varaarOhE dhevathaa prathibhaasi mE |

na iha gachChanthi gandharvaa na dhEvaa na cha kinnaraa: || 3-46-28

 

JASN: Our (2nd) question is why Sita didn't stop the abduction by some way -

(implied) say by even becoming heavy so that Ravana would have struggled as he

did when he tried to lift the shiva-dhanush. The reasons I can think of is the

one stated above (based on kaala-desha-vartha maana) and the stated position of

Sita that she, as pathi-vrathai (shesha here) was not supposed to act without

being ordained by her lord. Sita at this juncture (at Aranya) was not the same

as the 6 year old at Janaka's palace and her dharma was different now.

 

MGV: The point here is - when, as a six year old, she could push the siva dhanu:

so easily, her mind always was on raama [as mahalakshmi thinking of naaraayaNan,

in and as raama] so she could do that. But, now, in front of raavaNan, she has

become a part of raama having united with him in marriage as well physically

also. For she claims in front of that very same raavaNan, " we enjoyed the

humanly life for 12 years in ayodhyaa as well in forest". So now she is totally

dependent on raamaa. So her powers are identified with raamaa.

 

Further as stated in slokam 2-29-6 [given below again] seethaa, when raavaNan is

approaching her, with the intention of abducting, is not in the vicinity of

raama. For she only sent him away. As such, she has become powerless. Further,

at least if lakshmaNa is there she could have had some power. Even he is sent

away. As such raavaNan could lift her so easily.

 

[like the modern day quiz programmes, the clue is given by way of the following

slokam, in the write up [earlier], before the question or doubt is raised].

 

Further as stated by herself, somebody comparatively more powerful than indhran

also could do no harm when raama is in her vicinity. [Actually raavaNan has

overpowered indhran already. That is why all gods lead by indhran went to brahma

and, he, in turn, went to naaraayanan, as we have seen in vaali vadham series by

Sri Anjaneyalu - on the portion dealing with birth of vaali - sargam 16 of baala

kaaNdam].

 

na cha maam thvath sameepastham api saknOthi raaghava |

suraaNaam eeshvara: sacra: pradharsayithum Ojasaa || 2-29-6

 

Meaning: Oh raama! Even dhEvendhra, the lord of celestials, by his strength,

cannot over power me, when I am in your vicinity.

 

Moreover when seethaa is fully conscious of herself, she would have done the act

of just resisting the abductor. But her mind was fully on the golden deer. As

long as her mind was on 'materialistic things' like golden deer, she could not

do that thing, even to protect herself, though she is so powerful as to push the

siva dhanu.

 

[at the stage of pushing the dhanu, she is awaiting the lord's arrival, always

thinking of him and the time of his arrival, the union with her lord etc, even

though apparently she is playing with ball etc].

 

Even if her mind was on raamaa, raavaNan could not have overpowered her.

 

thatha: suvEsham mrugayaa gatham pathim

pratheekshamaaNaa saha lakshmaNam thadhaa |

nireekshamaaNaa haritham dhadharsa thath

mahad vanam na Eva thu raama lakshmaNou || 3-46-38

 

Meaning: Then she looked forward for her finely attired husband, who has gone on

a hunting game, and also for Lakshmana, but on her gazing, she saw the greenery

of the great forest only, but not Rama or Lakshmana.

 

[hari also mean a deer. Here the 'looking forward' for raamaa is with the

intention of 'hey, when he returns he will bring that beautiful deer, but here

is a braahmaNan waiting, may be I have to do 'athithi sathkaaram' with full

involvement, or, he has to be sent out soon. This person will be an intrusion,

when raamaa comes back, he will bring the golden deer, live or dead. So she was

in two minds - one on raamaa with deer, deer being predominant - another on the

braahmaNan waiting]. Thus the powers inherent have all gone or not helping her

because of the mind is engaged elsewhere.

 

Once she is abducted, overpowered and carried away, all her concentration

returned on raamaa. That is why no body could do any harm to her. All threats

from raakshasees, raavaNan etc were only words, and she has to react to that

superficially.

 

JASN: But Sita herself stated the core reason as Ravana was lifting her. As she

was screaming the name of Rama, she wailed why he, as protector of dharma, had

not protected her as she was being taken away in adharmic way - why he, as one

who punishes the sinners had not yet punished Ravana. Then, as if by

realisation, she continued that unless one had sinned, how could he be punished.

Ravana had done the paapa-kaaryam only then (in the process of abduction) and it

would take some time for the counter-action (for the paapa) to take place, just

as how it takes some time for the plant to give results.

 

MGV: The protector of dharmam is her lord raamaa, who has been sent away by her.

If dharma raajan, the yaman is to be considered here, as protector of dharmam,

then he is a subdued person by the very same raavaNan. So both could not come to

rescue of seethaa.

 

JASN: This is to be read along with what Rama says as his mission to the sages

who visited him in Sarabhanga ashram (aranya khandam) pleading him to protect

them from the raakshasas. Rama confides to them that he had undertaken vana-

vasam for a personal reason (sondha-prayOjanam). If they (sages) ask if it is

not due to pitru-vaakhya paripaalanam, Rama says it is not so. He uses it only

as a pretext to be able to come to the forest to destroy the asuras. He further

states that he has come there only on his own volition, to fulfill his purpose.

 

When Rama does for a purpose, so also Sita does to further His cause. The

abduction is only a pretext to make ravana commit an offence to rama so that

Rama can rise up against him.

 

MGV: Fully agreed.

 

JASN: Sita could have as well stopped Ravana from lifting her. But that she

didn't give a minimum physical resistance nor even a fight when ravana lifted

her, gives a different story.

 

MGV: Yes. Agreed.Otherwise how the avathaara kaaryam will take place.

 

JASN: Had she resisted, Ravana would not have dared to even touch her. Because

such was the curse ravana had on his life. Valmiki says this precisely when

ravana lifted her, that mindful of the curse on his life, he held by her hair in

his left hand and her thigh in his right hand so that her body does not touch

his. This shows that sita could have easily made Ravana burst into pieces, if

she had resisted. But that was not the purpose for which the entire story was

enacted.

 

MGV: Agreed.

 

JASN: A further proof for why Rama needed a pretext to kill ravana can be cited

as follows. We may be permitted to ask why Rama didn't kill him instantly in the

war. He 1st cuts off his heads, which however grew immediately. I am reminded

here of the adage in Tamil 'Dharmam thalai kaakkum'. Ravana was protected by the

numerous good deeds and the penance he had done earlier. Then how to stop them

from coming to his rescue? I find a clue to this in the abduction drama that

unfolded after jatayu's exit. Jatayu had fallen on the ground and Sita sits

beside him wailing about his demise and her bad luck. It is then Ravana lifts

her up by her hair to carry her.

 

MGV: this is the second time. First seethaa is lifted from her aasraamam. May be

the first act can be forgiven. Any act, if done second time also, then it

requires a punishment. So raavaNan deserved a punishment.

 

JASN: Seeing this Brahma deva remarks, 'kaaryam mudindhadhu" (the job is done)

and the other worldly entities too rejoice over this. Yes, valmiki uses the term

rejoice here. Why should they be rejoiced when Sita were to be treated like

this? This perhaps forms the pretext or cause for wiping out whatever dharma

that Ravana had accumulated that would safeguard him even when he is in dire

straits. There may be connection between this rejoice over lifting her by her

hair and Ravana getting back his head in position in the war. This act perhaps

was instrumental in getting whatever dharma that was left to safeguard his head

was successively getting depleted every time that Rama cut off a head and

finally leaving him out of bound for protection by dharma in his account, so

that the final asthra, the Brahmasthra was able to finish his life.

 

(PS: The instances / narratives from Valmiki ramayana quoted in this mail are

drawn from the transliteration of the same into Tamil done by Sri A.V.

Narasimhachari published by R. Venkateswarar & co, in the year 1926.) - jayasree

saranathan

 

MGV: On the whole a very good account and nice interpretations.

 

As rightly said by Smt.Jayasree in today's mail [recd on 4.12.04] no offences

meant any where, by discussing the aspects / points from different angles, many

new viewpoints are thrown up, thereby, we are able to go deep into raamaayaNam

and enjoy raamaa's glory more and more.

 

Dhaasan

Vasudevan m.g.