re: is she capable -continuation 3 MGV comments on JS write up

[Guest guest]

Jayasree Saranathan <jayasree.saranathan

Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:50 pm

Re: Is she capable - continuation 3

 

In Smt. Jayasree's mail I am adding my comments. Dhasan M.G.Vasudevan.

 

JS is Smt. Jayasree

 

MGV is myself.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: Thank you, madam, for your mail. Interruptions and comments are always

welcome from all. That too from such a knowledgeable, serial and serious writer

in and as JS is 'at once' welcomed.

 

'From time to time' - please excuse me for that - for I am in service and have

official and other commitments.

 

Besides some amount of knowledge deficiency is also there, which has to be

overcome from supplement sources of knowledge. This is done by me in the form of

a discussion with a colleague, with whom every topic, I write, is discussed in

detail [particularly on sreemadh raamaayaNam].

 

JS: 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."

 

MGV: these all show the capacity of sage vaalmeeki - the aadhi kavi - the first

poet - to make the reader - even a casual one like MGV to get fascinated with

his simple and lucid presentation. Then become a serious one like JS - then to

get emotionally involved with the characters of the epic.

 

JS: 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?

 

MGV: the hero if he reacts with high emotion such as happiness when the servants

are enjoying on account of the hero, in my opinion, then the rasa anubhavam of

enjoyment of the servants gets diminished. For a good father the children's

pleasure is his pleasure.

 

That is why perhaps vaalmeeki underplayed that aanandham of raama. Also as

naaradha says, not once but twice, 'raama does not show his emotions so easily

and highly'. See both slokams in the very first sargam of baala kaaNdam.

 

ikshvaaku vamsa prabhavO raamO naama janai: srutha: |

niyatha aathmaa mahaaveeryO dhyuthimaan dhruthimaan vasee || 1-1-8

meaning: "One emerged from Ikshvaku dynasty and known to people as Rama by his

name, and he is conscientious, highly valorous, resplendent, steadfast and a

controller of vice and vile, and his own senses, as well.

 

Dharmajna: sathya sandha: cha prajaanaam cha hithE ratha: |

yasasvee jnaana sampanna: suchi: vasya: samaadhimaan || 1-1-12

meaning: "He is the knower of rectitude, bidden by the truth, also his concern

is in the welfare of subjects, proficient in prudence, clean in his conduct,

self-controlled and a diligent one, thus he is glorious.

 

This word vasee and vasya denotes the controlling of senses. 'Senses' is a

complete word, and exhibiting aanandham or pleasure is part of that.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: replied as above.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: Since thee is no evidence from vaalmeeki whether the manthraas are used or

not, we cannot conclude that it was not used. Further anybody undergoing a

suffering would seek some remedy - for certain people by weeping, for certain by

walking some distance, for certain people changing the place, for certain others

some meditation etc. May be for raama that came from bala and athibala. We must

give the benefit of doubt to the beneficiary of the manthra and not rule out

that since kavi has not expressed that openly.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: 'whatever given like the bala and athibala are not sufficient. Hey sage

visvaamithra give more to raama' was the comment of indhra made just after raama

killed thaataka. So sage also gave all sasthraas and asthraas, later paved way

for getting seethaa also. Shall we call this also a gift from visvaamithra?

 

When raama has used later all the asthraas, sasthraas and seethaa also - just

recall seethaa saying for 12 years we enjoyed all materialistic life before

raama was called upon to be coronated, - is there no chance that he would not

use these two manthraas.

 

JS: In this context the comparison with "what is great in Bheeshma?" looks out

of place.

 

MGV: it is just a point just came to mind, which I wanted to share with all, and

definitely not a comparison. If it is interpreted as a comparison then I am

sorry.

 

JS: 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 samhaarams such as Vali's and

establishment of Dharmas such as sharanagathi to Vibheeshana with Piratti 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?

 

MGV: 'purushakaarathwam'- etc are beyond my capacity to grasp and hence I offer

no point / comment.

 

JS: 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 person 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

Hanuman'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.

 

MGV: these all are high-class interpretations by JS. Similarly I also

interpreted that as monkey statement.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: again a good defense lawyer's argument in support of her client.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: since that comes later we cannot place the sentences of kavi to suit our

argument or convenience. Kavi has placed this amrutham visha sampruktham here.

 

JS: 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.

 

MGV: that is what is given in the first interpretation. Second is just a

different one given with main intention to introduce that such marvelous krithi

of thyaagaraaja.

 

JS: 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!

 

MGV: as seethaa herself stated she did not have the mandate of raama to

eliminate raavaNa. It means that she is capable all the while but just restrains

herself for the sake of honour of her husband. That was the highlight in the

previous 8 [5 + 3] posts on this topic.

 

Further when raama was about to meet sage sarabhanga indhra was there waiting to

lead or take the rishi to nether world. Indhra said I do not want to talk to

raama now and till he finishes his avathaara kaaryam of elimination of such evil

forces like raavaNa so that it will show to the world who is raama, and left the

place without talking to raama. Seethaa, and lakshmaNa were also there by the

side of raama. When indhra sidetracked to meet raama, she would definitely, have

realized whose responsibility it is to do such kaaryam of elimination.

 

Dhasan

 

Vasudevan m.g

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER:

This Message and its contents is intended solely for the addressee and is

proprietary.Information in this mail is for L&T Business Usage only. Any Use to

other than the addressee is misuse and infringement to Proprietorship of L&T

ECC.If you are not the addressee please return the mail to the sender.L&T ECC

DIVISION