re bow's story - points on JASN's mail part 2

[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: --

 

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.

Dhaasan Vasudevan m.g.