Guest guest Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer, We saw in the previous post, how raavaNa remembered about vEdhavathee and also how she has come as seethaa in her next life. That also clearly established how raavaNa committed the offence of lustful desire on both ladies, viz, vedhavathee and seethaa, spanning in two generations. Now we will see how raavaNa's role is being introduced by vaalmeeki. How he introduced raama, asking naaradha about a set of points on 'character' of a person, [by way of a question answer session with naaradha] in same way raavaNa is being introduced by way accusing 'raama' on same 'character' points. A villain will naturally be antagonistic on the hero, and that is what vaalmeeki projects beautifully. In this, we can see how ravaNa is 'desireous' of offending raama by words first and then by deed in taking away seethaa – as a kaama mOhitha -- and that antogonism is on in 'full glow' in front of maareecha. Perhaps you may be fed up by now on this maareecha – but what to do – this is the place where valmeeki places the intoduction of his villain. [though soorpaNakha earlier goes to raavaNa and talks about raama and seethaa, raavaNa's character comes out in its full glow here only. We can also see 'a pattern' is set with 'raavaNa' and 'sisupaala' – both wanted to marry or enjoy the consort of the lord -- seethaa in raama avathaaram, rukmiNee in krihsNa avathaaram, and both accused the lord with 'choice' words. Perhaps it is more direct in raama avathaaram [recorded by vaalmeeki for us to realize how harsh it is]. And not like sisupaala - though it is stated the lord excused 100 times –what he said is not much recorded and available for comparison with raavaNa's words. [this is to my understanding. Bhaagavathaas can point out so that I will stand corrected] Another small difference, before marriage itself, rukmiNee was taken possession by lord, not leaving her to be taken by sisupaala. Thus he avoided retrieving her from sisupaala's clutches etc. Perhaps, since lord had previous experience of that separation etc, as raama, He became 'proactive' - as they nowadays in modern management "be proactive". So krishNa was proactive. What raavaNa described to maareecha, about raama, is all like what naaradha described – same in opposite sense or direction. And again maareecha turns very same words adding a 'na' and it is like naaradhaa's words in first sargam. Perhaps you may not realize the impact, unless all are given side by side. Here it is – pithraa nirashthah krudhdhhEna sa bhaaryaah ksheeNa jeevithah || 3-36-10 sa hanthaa thasya sainyasya raamah kshathriya paamsanah | meaning: raavaNa describes about raama to maareecha, "He, § who is put to flight by his infuriated father, § who came to Dandaka forest along with his wife, § that ignoble Kshathriya is the slaughterer of that demonic army of mine, § who has his lifespan is diminished. [3-36-10b, 11a] aseelah karkasah theekshNO moorkhO lubdhO~ajitha indhriyah || 3-36-11 thyaktha dharmah thu adharma aathmaa bhoothaanaam ahithE rathah | meaning: He is [viz. raama] § out of character, § brutal, § firestorm, § senseless, § selfish, § one with his senses unconquered § righteousness discarded, § he is an unrighteous soul § just delighting in the disservice of all beings. [3-36-11b, 12a] Maareecha in reply uses same words with a 'na' in front – see -- na cha pithraa parithyakthO na amaryaadhah kathanchana | na lubdhO na cha dhuhseelO na cha kshathriya paamsanah || 3-37-8 na cha dharma guNair heenaih kousalyaa aanandha vardhanah | na cha theekshNO hi bhoothaanaam sarva bhootha hithE rathah || 3-37-9 meaning: maareecha in reply to above by raavaNa says, § Rama the enhancer of his mother Kausalya's happiness § is completely forsaken by his father - no, he is not; § there is unseemliness in him - no, not in the least; § he is out of character - no; § he is selfish - no; § he is an ignoble Kshatriya - no, not at all; § he is neither a debased one insofar as the merits of righteousness are concerned, § nor he is atrocious towards living beings, § for he takes delight in the welfare of all beings. [3-37-8, 9] Just compare that with vhat Vaalmeeki asked naaradha in the first chapter in 3 slOkams [1-1-2 to 4] who really in this present world is --- guNavaan = principled person veeryavaan = potential one dharmaj~nah = conscientious and also knower of righteousness krithajnah = what has been done, knower of it [a redeemer,] satya vaakyah = speaker of truth [habitually speaking the truth = truth-teller]; dhruDa vrathah = determined in his deed. 1-1-3. chaarithrENa yukthaH = conduct-wise blended with good conduct sarva bhoothEshu hithah = who is in [respect of] all beings benign vidvaan = adept samarthah = ablest one Eka priya darshanaH = who is also uniquely good to look at. 1-1-4. aathmavaan = courageous jitha krOdhah = controlled his ire dhyuthimaan = brilliant one; anasooyakah =who is not jealous jaatha rOshasya samyugE bibhyathi dhEvaah = gods even are afraid of whom when provoked in [the matter of ] war. Though raavaNa listed a big one, 13 in number - maareecha hit him back in same with a 'na' and that looks more or less same what vaalmeeki asked naaradha. As we know, out of 16 asked by vaalmeeki, naaradha could give only 12 in the list. Similarly maareecha also gives 9 only, but more emphatic, in same lines and of that of naaradha. Dear bhakthaas of raama, now you tell me how nice is this introduction of villain and its impact. A great projection is available about the villain. Vaalmeeki is also desirous of giving a dexterous touch in his story. Let us continue in next post. Dhasan Vasudevan MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.