lakshmaNa 43

April 2, 2007

Post 43

Dear Sri vaishnava perunthagaiyeer,

In the previous 42 posts, we saw 'lakshmaNa' donning 11 roles. The study on the 11

th role of the 'minister' or counsel is continuing. LakshmaNa is consoling of raama, when he was in deep sOkham / weeping since indhrajith killed 'maaya seethaa' in front of raama. This consoling or advising is more or less a 'dharma upadhEsam' to raama. We saw few slOkams on lakshmaNa talking. 'Dharmam will not beget bad things even if it is apparently seen as bad things now but in the end it will be not so' is the point from lakshmaNa, what we saw in previous post towards the end. We continue with more slokams.

athavaa dhurbala: kleebO balam dhharmO~nuvarthathE |

dhurbalO hatha maryaadhO na sEvya ithi mE mathi: || 6-83- 26

meaning: alternately dharmam is "not to be observed foregoing saasthra rules and in small quantities or weakly". I consider dharmam is not wavering and is without attachments and even it surrenders to a 'strong'.

Point:

here is something very apt for present day situations. Dharmam is NOT to be observed weakly. Yes, I do sandhya vandhanam when I want, because I do not find time, whereas time is available for me for doing all other things, which are not saasthraic. But for doing this sandhya 'only' time is not there.

Such observation of dharmam weakly is not dharmam at all says lakshmaNa – that is doing it weakly and foregoing all saasthraic rules. If you are strong enough at will, dharmam will surrender to you – means if you want and wills it you can do – just do not blame other things. It applies to other karmas also.

balasya yadhi chEth dhharmO guNabhootha: paraakramE |

dhharmam uthsrujya varthasva yathaa dharma thathaa || 6-83- 27

meaning:

oh raama, if you also feel that dharmam gets subdued in front of strength [as stated above by me] please resort to strength in same manner as you are adopting dharmam, leaving aside your dharmam.

Point:

here 'leaving aside your dharmam' means it is not that just shirk away from dharmam – raama is always soft to others. So lakshmaNa says, 'you leave that softness and be tough, since you are basically a strong personality'.

Resort to strength means fight. Do not be a weeping man – fight – he says.

Dear bhakthaas, is it not similar to krishNa inducing arjuna into fighting at every stage – even though krishNa talks about karma yOgam, gnaana yOgam, bhakthi yOgam, and sanyaasa yOgam and what not, at every stage krishNa included one sentence in his long preaching 'so please leave this kind of brooding, wavering etc and resort to fighting, which is your basic duty'.

In the same way for us, may be as a forerunner to krishNa, lakshmaNa talks same to raama – this is my mathi: - koLgai – kOtpaadu – ruling – so oh raama, resort to fighting, do not brood. There also same – This is my yOgam, hey arjuna stand up and fight said krishNa.

So lakshmaNa has become A GURU also to raama besides a minister?

A new role is here, which incidentally was NOT THOUGHT about when the list of roles of lakshmaNa was complied.

Yes, lakshmaNa has a guru's role also – that is what appears to me.

'show your strength' at this stage means what else, dear bhakthaas, except that please resort to fighting than brooding? Also note that word dharmam is just being spun

so many times giving definite and different meanings at different stages.

atha chEth sathya vachanam dharma kila paranthapa

|

anrutha: thvayaa akaruNa kim na badhdhasthvayaa pithaa || 6-83-28

meaning: lakshmaNa continues to raama, 'hey, one who destroys enemies, if adherance to one's words [sathya vachanam or upadhEsam] is the dharmam, as you feel, why you have not bound our dear father, who missed his words and failed to show mercy on you, his son.

Point:

here comes one very important aspect. LakshmaNa points out to raama 'thvayaa pithaa anrutha:' - your father is 'a liar'. This is something to be analysed further.

Yes, to a good extent what lakshmaNa says is true. And at the same time 'no' also - which again is also is true - from two viewpoints.

1. Dhasaratha is a liar to his father in law – which perhaps lakshmaNa may or may not know - for dhasaratha gave assurance to kaikEyee's father while marrying kaikEyee, that a son born to him, through her, will rule the kingdom of ayOdhyaa. But what he tried to do is to coronate raama, who is son of kousalyaa and not kaikEyee's son. And that too when bharatha was not there in the ayOdhyaa. So to that extent dhasaratha is a liar.

May be you will ask for a reference – here it is - sri paravaakkOttai sreemadh aaNdavan swamy in his ramaapiraanaik kaRpOm vol 2 titled paadhukaa pattaabhishEkam in page 81 says so. [Of course this ref is not in vaalmeeki but may be in other puraaNams].

2. Dhasaratha was all set to become a 'liar' again to kaikEyee – if he had to deny the two boons he gave at the time of war, when she drove the chariot. He conceded the boons and thus saved himself from that 'liar' title. Or toput it other way, is it that she won her boons and thus saved him being conferred that title? Perhaps the latter would be correct.

To make dhasaratha a 'sathyasandha' – a 'truth abider' or 'non-liar', raama simply obeyed his father's orders and went to forest without putting a fight. LakshmaNa says dhasaratha failed to show mercy on his son. If he had then he would have become a liar by 2 counts – so no mercy.

3. See point 1 is similar to what king santhanu assuring that fisherman father when he wanted to marry sathyavathi, [that fisherman's daughter]. And that assurance led to dhEva vratha, the son of santhanu, born thru ganga, becoming a 'bheeshma' sacrificing the throne.

[Technically bheeshma only gives assurance that he will not claim the kingdom rights but santhanu is the beneficiary. Here in raamayaNa also raama simply obeys father and thereby giving the benefits to king dhasaratha - from being accused as a liar]

Only difference between raama and bheeshma is

§ raama was a married man, and was crowned later, even though prevented by words of father initially.

§ Bheeshma remained a brahmachaari and became the protector of the throne and not ascended the throne like raama later.

4. Already we are seeing bhagavadh geethaa and lakshmana's words are going so close. Points 1 and 3 above are one more instance of both epics bhaaratham and raamaayaNam going close to each other.

5. Just compare both epics – in both cases

§ Both fathers were in embarrassing situation,

§ Both mothers were 'up' in position,

§ The sons of different mothers were obedient and responding to their fathers and thus saving their father's faces [or words],

§ In both results are ackward – the sons for whom the mothers fought their cases did not rule the country a long time to their mothers's satisfaction.

§ Bharathaa ruled more 'in absentia' and vichithraveerya died early.

§ It also left both these fighting ladies kaikEyee and sathyavathi living as a widow for a very long time. Kaikeyee left along with other two wives, when raama returned to his abode after 11000 years of rule. Sathyavathi's end [?] - is not so clear to me to make a mention here in mahaa bhaaratham – but she lived long enough to see the birth of 5 paaNdavaas and 100 kouravaas etc, who are 3

rd generation.

Recollecting that situation of father, lakshmaNa asks raama 'why you did not bind father who missed his words and thus failed to show mercy on you.

Here again we see two varying situations –

1. If dhasaratha has to show mercy on raama, then he would have become a liar on both counts stated above.

2. If raama disobeyed his father's directive, then raama would have become an arrogant, disobedient son and perhaps we may not be studying now about such a son.

So in both counts there are good results – dhasaratha has become a sathyasandha thru raama, raama is regarded as an obedient son to father. So there is no question of raama binding his father.

Again similar to bhaaratham – bheeshma helping father to become a sathyasandha and bheeshma regarded as 'a son par excellence' – not only obedient to father, but more than that in many aspects.

[please bear it in mind, that there is also an 'avathaara kaaryam' for raama, whereas bheeshma has NO SUCH THING].

To continue further

yadhi dharmO bhavEth bhoothO adharmaa vaa paranthapa |

na sma hathvaa munim vajree kuryath ijyaam sathakrathu || 6-83-29

adhharma samsrithO dhharmO vinaasayathi raaghava |

sarvam Ethath yathhaa kaamam kaakuthsthha kuruthE nara: || 4-83 –30

meaning:

oh raama, you the one who devastates his enemies, if adharmam has to become the duty of beings, indhra, who has done 100 yagnams, would not have conducted one more after killing the muni [ref vrudhraasura story] oh raaghava, a man does all things according to his will [or desire]. The dharmam, which gets mixed with adharmam, destroys all these acts [and their results].

mama cha idham matham thaatha dhharmaO~yam ithi

raaghava |

dharma moolam

thvayaa chhinnam raajyam uthsrujathaa thadhaa || 6-83 – 31

meaning: oh elder, this dhharmam is my philosophy. That is why you, who dictates the rules or formulates the rules, gave away the kingdom obtained by doing duty.

Point:

lakhsmaNa now puts in subtly, 'hey raama, you are the all knower and one who formulates the rules for this world. You willed to give away the kingdom and did things accordingly. That I know. But now you also act as though you are weeping etc – that is the truth – and it is your dharmam. That also I know. Oh great lakshmaNa -

Perhaps is it a bit of overdosage on this word 'dharmam'. Let us continue in next post to avoid any confusion on this dharmam -

Dhasan

-- Vasudevan MG