bow's story - sthriyam purusha - points on JASN write up

[Guest guest]

jasn sn [jayasartn]

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:47 PM

RE: Bow's story -11.

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)

Distressed and highly agitated, the said Seetha reproached Rama

having a broad chest, from affection and pride in the following

words:-

 

MGV: I only used that word `title' – in inverted commas – just to

give an added pep. Actually the `sargam' is just flowing in

vaalmeeki without any such words. In the commentary by sri

poundareekapuram aaNdavan swamy, whose points I used, also does not

mention this as `title'. Swamy uses the title `kOpaththOdu

parihaasam' for this chapter in his book `raama piraanaik karpOm'

where in he offers the commentary for this slOkam.

 

JASN: (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 2-30-2, 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'

 

MGV: saa tham uththama samvignaa seethaa vipula vakshasam |

praNayaach cha abhimaanaach cha parichikshEpa raaghavam || 2-30-2

 

Meaning: Distressed and highly agitated, the said Seetha reproached

raama having a broad chest, from affection and pride in the following

words:-

 

kim thvaa amanyatha vaidhEha: pithaa mE mithilaa adhipaH |

raama jaamaatharam praapya sthriyam purusha vigraham || 2-30-3

 

meaning: What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the country

of VidhEha, think of himself having got as so-in-law you, a woman

having the form of a man?

 

anrutham batha lOkO~yam ajnaanaath yadhi vakshyathi |

thEjO na asthi param raamE thapathi iva dhivaakarE || 2-30-4

 

meaning: 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.

 

Just rearrange slightly the same words as in meaning given above.

Then it can read "It is a pity, the falsehood, that, if these people

of ayOdhyaa tell through their ignorance, that in raama, as in the

blazing sun, excellent valour is lacking.

 

This means he is having that excellent valour as the sun.

 

In sanskrit placing words anywhere is permitted, then interpretation

to suit the context can also be done. Of course, in the present case

seethaa is a little sarcastic and hence the meaning given first is

taken. But what she says is that my husband is a valourous man, but

now he refuses to take me along with him to the forest, I am unable

understand him why he does so?

 

On the additional verse or point of JASN on, "Rama, you seem to

possess soundharyam only, seeing which others derive happiness and

not pourusham".

 

>From this verse itself the above interpretation can be given. For

this word `thEjas' in amara kosam reads

thEja: prabhaavE dheepthou cha bale sukrE~pyathasthrishu 3-3-845

 

also monier Williams page 454 glow glare, splendour, brilliance,

bright appearance of the human body, beauty, fiery energy, ardour,

vital power

 

thEjas also means `balam', as we all know, balam is a more familiar

word meaning power, strength, might, vigour, force, validity, etc.

 

meaning: It is a pity if these people of Ayodhya through ignorance

tell the falsehood that excellent balam – strength or force is

lacking in Rama as in a blazing sun.

 

But that word `raamE' – in raama – ramayathi ithi raama - the beauty

personified - param raamE –excellent in soundhrayam.

 

So the interpretation can be `oh raamaa, it is a pity, falsehood that

people of ayOdhyaa, by ignorance, say you do not have the manly

strength pourusham – [being a lean figure], but has only beauty -

soundharyam.

 

pourusham means `a weight that can be carried by man' besides the

main meaning of `manly', being a derivative of purusha: meaning man.

[re Monier Williams page 651]

 

So it can also be said as seethaa sarcastically claiming `hey raama

you lack the capacity of carrying me to the forest [means taking me

along], and you are beauty personified only for other people to

enjoy".

 

JASN: (Adiyal's view:- since the extra verse doubting rama's

pourusham does not 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 did the sage anoint to Shatrugna. 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.

 

MGV: the point given here by JASN is adequately explained above.

 

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

country of Videha, think of himself having got as son-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 un-mincingly. 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.

 

2. 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 purusha vigraham (a gender-

mix) in having begotten such a daughter who failed to show up the

fine values of a pathivratha. The terms 'amanyata' and prapya' are

about thinking of himself (Janaka) as 'sthree in purusha vigraham'.

This is one way of looking at this.

 

MGV: Another story [ayOdhyaa - sargam 29] is also there that some

astrologers and a lady thapasvee foretold seethaa that she has to

spend some years in forest and also has to live separately. Since it

is not connected with bow I do not want to include same. So father

janaka would simply accept that proposal and not resist for he is a

karma yogi as well a gnaani.

 

On other points given by JASN I have no more to offer for they are `a

class interpretation'.

 

Dhaasan

 

Vasudevan m.g