"Ordeal by Fire" - The case for 'sitA-pirAtti'- ("amicus curie" PART 3)

[Guest guest]

> Dear Sri Chary svAmin,

>

> I'm so glad to read your sober, well-considered and

> pertinent observations on the subject. For once

> somebody is asking the right, thoughtful questions

> instead of needlessly offering opinions and

> gratuituous 'expert comments' which only serve to

> distract from and obfuscate the crux of the issue at

> hand. I wish members take a cool, dispassionate

> stand, as you have done, but I know that's asking

really for too much in any discussion (especially

amongst SriVaishnava e-groups) on the highly emotive

issue of the "agni-pravEsam" episode in the Valmiki

> Ramayanam.

>

> I have no objection to your being the "amicus curie"

> in the present "litigation" between Sri Sadagopan

> Iyengar's client and mine.

>

> As desired by you let me make my basic stand very

> clear.

>

> (1) I hold the Valmiki Ramayana to be an account of

> "ramAvatAra". But I cannot accept the canard that

> the "uttara-kAnda" is a fictitious latter-day

insertion by someone other than Valmiki.

>

> (2) Lord Rama and Sita-pirAtti are divine

> incarnations.

>

> (3) They took birth on earth and acted out their

> respective roles as mere human beings.

>

> (4) The purpose of their drama was to instruct

> mankind on 'dharma' and what constitutes right human

> conduct.

>

> Having said all the above, let me state that I also

> believe firmly in the following:

>

> (5) It is not only from Sri Rama's conduct that we

> may draw lessons on "dharma". There is plenty in the

> Ramayana to learn from Sita-pirAtti's actions also.

>

> (6) Since both Rama and Sita-pirAtti were only

> play-acting, we can say they went about setting both

> positive and negative examples of human conduct. In

> other words, through their deeds in varied roles,

> they sought to portray for our benefit both

righteous

> conduct and not so righteous conduct.

>

> There were a few deeds of Sita that fell short of

> righteousness -- as in the "mAricha" episode, for

> example -- and she played that role really well

> indeed only to show us all how frail and fatuous

sometimes women can become. Equally, we must also

accept that there were a few deeds of Sri Rama too in

the Ramayana -- as in the present case of the

"agni-parIksha" -- where he brilliantly played the

role, of course, of an ordinary human-being hopelessly

caught up in situation of great "dharma-sankatam" and

eventually falling short of the highest standard of

righteousness.

>

> (7) If we must really profit from the Valmiki

> Ramayana, we must be willing and open to learn

> lessons on "dharmA" from both Rama's deeds as well

as Sita's deeds. We cannot say, "Rama is God incarnate

and therefore, a deed of His as per the script of the

> Ramayana, even if it is patently

less-than-righteous,

> is still 100% righteous, no matter what. But

> Sita-pirAtti, being merely the "patni" of the

> Almighty, even if her deed is 100% righteous in the

> play-script, she can never be more righteous than

> Rama".

>

> (8) I hold that in the "agni-parIksha"

> episode, there are lessons on "dharma" to be learnt

from both Rama's actions and Sita-pirAtti's actions.

But Rama's portrayal of "dharma" merely shows us how a

royal King should conduct himself when it comes to

placing the interests of his subjects above his own

personal interest. This is "sAmAnya dharma".

>

> But in Sita's sterling actions in this episode, we

> find the portrayal of a far greater and superior

> "dhArmic" conduct -- a conduct which has universal

> value and appeal. Sita illustrated "visEsha-dharma"

> which is far more significant than "sAmAnya-dharma".

>

> Now, whenever and wherever we SriVaishnavas discuss

> the "sita-agni-parIksha" we always end up glorifying

> the "dharmA" Sri Rama sought to illustrate through

> his conduct. But they are hopelessly blind to a far

> greater lesson on "dhArma" lying at the heart of

> Sita "pirAtti's" conduct. They will go on to stoutly

> defend Rama, through tenuous and rather far-fetched

> arguments drawn from so-called "traditionalist"

commentaries, and show Him to be in a more splendorous

light than "pirAtti". It will thus therefore somehow

appear to us all as if Sita-pirAtti really had nothing

at all to say in defense of Herself, leave alone

revealing Her true glory in the whole affair. It will

appear as though what Rama dealt out to "pirAtti" is

what she rightly deserved!

>

> That is exactly the type of representation which the

> Hon'ble Defense counsel, Sri Sadagopan Iyengar too

> set forth in his article "Ordeal by Fire Part-1 and

II". "If Rama did it, it must be right!", is what the

> counsel for defense wrote -- and that is where the

> prosecution disagrees completely and vehemently.

>

> ************

>

> Now that I have made the position of the

> "prosecution" very clear, permit me Sri IVK Chary,

to proceed to complete my closing arguments on behalf

of my client, Sita-pirAtti. Let me hope that Sri

Sadagopan Iyengar will not further interrupt the

proceedings and take any more unfair advantages.

>

> I will describe to you in the next posting the

> "visEsha dharma" which our "pirAtti" demonstrated in

> the "agni-parIksha" episode. I must say that all the

> so-called lessons on "dharma" which the hon'ble

> defense-counsel has dished out to us in his

> representations on behalf of his client, Sri Rama,

> fall quite short of the greatness and significance

> of the values of "dharma" which Sita has imparted to

us and to the whole world, through the "agni-parIksha"

> episode.

>

> Rgds,

>

> dAsan,

> Sudarshan

[Guest guest]

Respected members

 

There has been a typo in the pro bono appellant’s (this writer's)

rejoinder. To clarify, in the starting para the Appellant is joining hands

with the public Prosecutor in rebutting the defendant’s claims. The typo

may be pardoned.

 

Om tat sat

tat tvam asi