is she capable - continuation 3

[Guest guest]

Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

 

We are continuing the discussion - "is seethaa not capable of

eliminating raavaNa on her own?" We have seen that seethaa is

fasting, as also raama not eating non-vegetarian food or wine etc.,

due to separation of seethaa. But it is not so clear a fasting, in

the case of raama, as is the case of seethaa. Further considering the

fact that raama is possessing the knowledge of balaa and athibalaa

manthraas, given by sage visvaamithra [as seen in post 2], the

fasting or not eating meat etc., is not going to, in any way, affect

raama physically. So no `upavaasa krusaam dheenaam' as far as raama

is concerned.

 

NO evidence is given by vaalmeeki, that raama has recited or used

these bala athibala manthraas for their effectiveness. One can only

reasonably presume that, having learnt / got such a powerful manthra,

raamaa would definitely have used it whenever required, and not

otherwise. On the other side seethaa is really fasting and does not

have any such armoury in her possession. So, dear raama

bhakthaas, `who is really great?' you can conclude. `SiRai irunthvaL

ERRam' is raamaayaNam. `seethaayaascharitham mahath'.

 

Incidentally, when I was viewing the mahaa bhaaratham serial, I was

really stunned to hear a small, simple, but very powerful line of

lyrics. Just before the start of the 18-day war, Sikhandi just mocks

at bheeshma saying `bheeshma is a coward'. When asked why he [or she]

says so by paaNdavaas and krishNa, the reason he pours out, out of

vexation is – hey, he is having the very safe armor of `ichchaa

maraNam' – `death only when wished'. So unless he himself wishes a

death, bheeshma cannot be killed. If he does not have that boon, then

bheeshma is just nothing. So, `what is great in bheeshma?' He says.

 

Now let us consider two more slokams in sundhara kaaNdam.

 

saa seethaa vachanam sruthvaa poorNa chandhra nibhaananaa|

hanoomantham uvaacha idham dharma artha sahitham vacha: || 5-37- 1

 

amrutham visha sampruktham thvayaa vaanara bhaashitham | 5-37-2 a

 

meaning: that seethaa, who has a full moon like face, on hearing the

speech of hanumaan, which had all dharma and artha etc, spoke [to

hanumaan] hey vaanara – monkey – what you said about raama is like

nectar mixed with poison.

 

Point: 1. When going for a straight interpretation - what hanumaan

said to seethaa `raama never thinks about any other than you', it is

like nectar to seethaa. For any lady will normally expect that only

from her husband, that he does not have relationship with any other,

that too when she is physically away. But when hanumaan said `he is

always immersed in `sOkam' – worried or sad', then it sounds like

poison to seethaa. That is why `amrutham visha sampruktham'.

 

2. To interpret this slokam in slightly different manner – First –

hey hanumaan what you said is sweet nectar to me- viz. `when he gets

up says `haa priYe ithi Evam [slokam 44 36th sargam] - idham dharma

artha sahitham vacha: hanoomantham – that is also amrutham. What you

said `hey vaanara – hey monkey – what you said is a typical `monkey

statement' – `vaanara bhaashitham'. For he is already having the

great armour of bala and athibala, and what is so great about his non-

eating of meat or wine and not sleeping `anidhra' etc. Here I am

fasting really.

Also lakshmaNa, you, king sugreeva et al are all giving raama [or

keeping him] a good company, whereas you have seen what kind of

company I have, surrounding me. As such what you told me now is a

typical monkey statement of `nectar mixed with poison'.

 

Now we will see a krithi of thyaagaraajaa in raagam bhavapriyaa.

 

44 bhavapriya mELam

 

Aa: S R1 G2 M2 P D1 N2 S

Av: S N2 D1 P M2 G2 R1 S

thaaLam: dhEsaadhi

Composer: thyaagaraaja Language: Telugu

 

pallavi

sreekaantha neeyeda bala athi bala chelangaga lEdhaa vaadhaa

 

anupallavi

paakaarinutha neevaari balaa-balamunu theliyaga lEdhaa

 

charaNam

kaaka dhaithyu nEka saramuna nEya kajja jaasthramai baraga lEdhaa

sreekara dhvijulai dhaari neruga lEni chintha neeku dhOchadhEmi

thyaagaraajanutha

 

A point on raagam selection. Bhava is siva. Hanumaan is said as

rudhra avathaaram as considered. So siva priya is raama naamam.

Hanumaan does that raama naama japam anavaratham – incessantly. So

an apt raagam selection. The starting word in pallavi is also sree

kaantha – meaning lakshmi kaantha – ramaa kaantha or raama.

Looking at another way – hanumaan is rudhra avathaaram – he is now

sitting in front of seethaa, the priyaa of bhava's priya raama. So

she cannot but be bhavapriyaa also. So the raagam's name whether it

is bhavapriya or bhavapriyaa - in both ways it is so apt.

 

The meaning and why this krithi in this topic we will see in next

post.

 

 

dhasan

vasudevan m.g

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Respected Swamin,

 

My humble pranams to you.

 

Kindly pardon me for making an interruption in this wonderful write-up

you have been giving from time to time.

 

In my opinion some amount of psychological empathy goes into

understanding why Rama was on meager diet and why Sita thought of His

condition as giving her both amrutham and poison.

 

First of all, the dhukkam that both Rama and Sita were undergoing is

something unparalleled.

Even on reading about it, people like us are not able to eat or remain calm.

Hey SithE, unaaku inda dhukkamaa?

Hey Raama, unakku kooda dhukkamaa?

We also empathise with Hanuman, "Alas, can I ever get to see Sita ?"

We catch Sita's emotions, "Hey SeethE podum podum, innum dhukka-p-paddathE"

We feel like telling, "Hey Hanuman, oru kai paarthudum."

 

But thinking of Raama, I have this complaint against Valmiki. When he

went into details about all the sufferings, when he went on to say how

the vanaras celebrated the good news of having found out Sita, why

was he with such paucity of words to express some goodness felt by

Raama on receiving the news?

 

There is just the information about goose pimples experienced by

Raama and Lakshmana on hearing from Shugreeva that there is some good

news about Sita. It is because of the fact that Rama was not happy

except for having found her whereabouts. Because the dhukkam was of

such high magnitude.

 

The dhukkam was of such high magnitude, that Raama, Lakshmana and Sita

could not have remained calm or caring for their body on those

occasions. Then where comes even the thought of using the mantras

Bhala and Ati bhala? What they needed were sedatives and not mantras

for keeping awake or appetite-free! And Sita could have never thought

of even a sedative (if offered as we wish) for who knows what kind of

danger would come to her from Ravana, if she is asleep or loses her

conscious vigilance even for a second. Recall the way the kavi

describes how she shrank herself physically, when Ravana visited her

in the late hours of night.

 

And didn't Rama know of this danger to Sita? How could he have slept

or eaten anything when he was under constant worry about Sita and her

safety? Anybody undergoing that dhukkam would have been so without any

aid of bhala or ati bhala.

 

Also these mantras were taught to Raama and Lakshmana by the sage at

a time when they were required to keep round the clock vigil over

the yajnas that the sages in the forest were doing and they as very

young princes who have until then had grown in the luxuries of

princely life would not have got used to keeping awake and even going

without food for days in their vigil over the yajnas.

 

Certainly those mantras would in no way be in the thought of Raama

while in search of Sita, and whatever he ate was the basic minimum

required to keep him alive and strong enough, because he had that

formidable task of looking for Sita and vanquishing the one who had

abducted his dear wife. In this context the comparison with "what is

great in Bheeshma?" looks out of place.

 

Raama could have as well reached Lanka soon after the abduction, or

could have reached the parNashala in time to thwart Ranavana's efforts

and killed him then and there. But He had scripted the sequences in

such a way that (it looks that) He and Sita deliberately parted and

suffered presumably to make room for other players such as Shugreeva

and Hanuman, other samhaarms such as Valli's and establishment of

Dharmas such as sharanagathi to Vibheeshana with Pirati not being

physically present, but by extending purushakaarathwam in absentia

(via hanuman).

 

This purushakaarathwam of Sita is the interpretation I see for the

second part of your mail!

She is one who is bearing the suffering on behalf of all jivas, to

drive home the point that come whatever may, bhagavan will not leave

us in the lurch, that bhagavan is indeed suffering more in His search

for the jivas He has lost in samsara. - Will she ever think that she

is the one who is really suffering with no armoury that Rama has ?

Likewise will she ever think that while she is suffering, what is so

great about Rama not eating or sleeping?

 

She is one takes the sufferings of others and suitably recommend to

Him that they are indeed eligible for His kataaksham. Can such a

persona ever think that she is suffering more and compare it with

Raama's?

 

Even if she were to think about Rama's suffering, She would be

thinking of taking that suffering too for herself. That is the

characteristic of any Bharateeya naari. That is all the more true for

a pati-vrathai. And that is Absolute Truth for Piratti!

 

She could not even stand the news of fire in Hanuma's tail. She, who

did not think of cleaning her body resorted to cleaning by athma

shuddhi before invoking Agni bhagavan not to burn Hanuman. Can such a

Sita ever think that it is a monkey statement and that Raama has

better armoury unlike her, to ward of hunger and sleep?

 

Another dimension to this is the supreme Trust between the couple in

marriage, here the divine couple. They know each other how the other

would be in their absence. They followed the acharam of each other in

the absence of each other. Even if Shugreeva has brought food and

compelled Raama to eat, what would have Rama told, "How can I eat this

food when Sita wont be touching anything offered by that abductor."

Rama's constant bickering, asking even the trees and animals whether

they had seen Sita is to be seen that He could not think of anyone

other than Sita.

 

But Sita did ask whether He was thinking about her. It was due to the

delay in Raama reaching to her. Coupled with it were all sorts of

self-doubts about herself. Such a Sita will be cursing herself or her

fate more and more than thinking that Rama is in a better position

than hers. Even when she was thinking that Rama might complete his

vana vasam and go back to Ayodhya without tracing her, she considered

it as her Dhur-bhagyam and not find it as Rama being better placed.

That is about the way women think.

 

As such it is not a monkey statement. Monkey statement is something

else – which she says later when Hanuman declared that he can take

her to Rama. There again Hanuman was initially led to think that it

is to do with his physical prowess. But after Sita explained the

intricacies in it, he realized the un-tenability of his declaration or

offer.

 

Here it is amrutham visha sampruktham. She receives the news that

Raama is always thinking of her. It is amrutham for, that gives her

tremendous strength to brave any kind of suffering.

It is visham, for, he is suffering on account of her. This is

unbearable to her, for she can never have Rama suffer on any account

particularly for her sake– she, who entered agni for his sake and who

took up life in exile as a pregnant woman for the sake of his honour!

 

There is no such scope here (in the context under discussion) for her

to do something to thwart his suffering.

She could have embraced death (which she seriously contemplated) but

that would bring dishonour to Him.

She could have killed Ravana by herself or by power of pati vratham.

But that would bring dishonour to Him.

She could have even accepted Hanuman's offer of taking her back to

Raama. But that would bring dishonour to Him.

 

All options available to her are tied to this dishonour aspect to Rama.

That is the crux of this entire issue!

 

 

Regards,

Jayasree saranathan