desire 16

[Guest guest]

Dear sri vaishNava

perunthagaiyeer,

 

In the previous post we saw saint

thulasidhasa in his raama charitha manas identifying 4 persons doing same

'kaamam' laden act for which 2 getting rewarded, 2 getting punished by 'raama'

- the supreme god.

 

A

note added there in baala kaNdam after doha 8 elaborates –

"Vaali was killed by sree raama

on the plea that the former has usurped his younger brother's wife. Sugreeva

and vibheeshaNa too are stated to have taken thaara [vaali's wife] and

mandhOdhari [raavana"s wife] respectively as their consort, after the death of

their husbands. In this way even though sugreeva and vibheeshana are

practically guilty of same offence [which brought the wrath of lord on vaali

and raavaNa] their guilt was extenuated. This is by the fact that they took

these ladies as wives after their respective brother's death and with the

consent of the other party. And a further fact is that their conduct was

keeping in with the practice in vogue, then, among the monkey and demon chiefs.

That is why the poet characterizes vaali's conduct as a crime [as 'agha'], he

dismisses sugreeva's act as a mere misdemeanour [kuchaalee].

 

In this note few points are worth reconsidering –

a. statement "It is stated that sugreeva has taken

thaaraa" – on this we have very clear slokams from vaalmeeki. So it need not be

a little vaguely put as 'stated to have taken' as in the note above.

 

b. Of course sage vaalmeeki did not write about

vibheeshaNa taking mandodhari as his wife. [as far as I know after mandodhari

vilaapam - in yudhdha kaandam no more reference on her].

 

Bhaagavathaas can add reference from raamaayaNam or other

puraanams or places.

 

[Even this 'mandodhari vilaapam' – her expression of

sorrow on death of raavaNa contains a beautiful sthuthi of raama about which I

will write a separate article].

 

c. It is stated herein above – "they took these ladies as

wives after their respective brother's death and with the consent of the other

party". This is the crux of matter why raama did

not take cognizance of the 'offence of kaamam'. Because it is with

the concerned lady's consent. Whereas for vaali or raavaNa – it is by force in

their cases, it is without the consent of the lady involved – like taking ruma

by vaali, seethaa by raavaNa.

 

d. Another factor which weighed in favour of sugreeva and

vibheeshaNa is the respective husbands are no more – dead and gone, whereas in

vaali and raavaNa's cases both were alive.

 

e. As already seen by us in previous posts, when the

husband of a lady is dead, she is allowed or permitted to remarry [ref manu

saasthram point already given]. The practice in vogue those days was to marry

the brother of the husband [if available] and that is what these two – thaaraa

and mandodhari did.

 

Dear bhakthaas, see how clear the same 'kaamam' laden acts

are dealt by raama, and according to saasthrams prevalent - at his time and for

all times to come.

 

Now let us go back to sugreeva. When lakshmaNa arrived at

the gate as envoy of raama to meet sugreeva [after he was crowned as king by

same lakshmaNa] see sugreeva's 'kaamam' laden condition – as described by

vaalmeeki --

 

thaarayaa sahithah kaamee sakthah kapivrishah

thadhaa |

na thEshaam kapi veeraaNaam susraava vachanam thadhaa ||

4-31-22

 

meaning: At that time, he who is in a lustful mood,

who is in the company of Lady Thaaraa and who is enmired in privacy, that

foremost monkey Sugreeva is unheedful of the words of those bold monkeys, who

brought the message.

 

atha angadhah thasya sutheevra vaachaa sambhraantha

bhaavah paridheena vakhthrah |

nirgathya poorvam nrupathEh tharasvee thathO

rumaayaah charaNou vavandhE ||

4-31-36

 

meaning: Bewildered in his perception at the very

sharp words of LakshmaNa, mighty Angadha then had gone to the palace assuming a

very sad face, and there he firstly saluted the feet of his father Sugreeva and

then at the feet of Rumaa, wife of Sugreeva.

 

sangrihya paadhou pithuh ugrathEjaa jagraaha maathuh

punar Eva paadhou |

paadhou rumaayaah cha nipeeDayithvaa nivEdhayaamaasa

thathah thath artham ||

4-31-37

 

meaning: Angadha whose vitality is intense clinched

himself to the feet of his father Sugreeva, and later clung to the feet of his

mother Thaaraa, and he even clasped the feet of his paternal-aunt Rumaa, and

latching on to the feet of his parents, then he started to appeal to them about

the message of LakshmaNa.

 

sa nidhraa madha samveethO vaanarO na vibudhdhhavaan

|

babhoova madha maththah cha madhanEna cha mOhithah

|| 4-31-38

 

meaning: Sugreeva, the vaanara, who is bound up in

drowsiness and dizziness could not comprehend clearly what Angada is talking

about, as he is benumbed with intoxication, and even numbed down with the

torpor of lustfulness.

 

So it is clear from vaalmeeki's slokams herein that

sugreeva took thaaraa as his wife – and no need for a hesitant statement – "it

is stated". Also see the usage of words – kaamee in slokam 22 has become

'madha' and 'mOhithah' – means more intensified kaamam.

 

We will continue with more on this 'kaamam' or

desire.

 

dhasan

 

-- Vasudevan MG