re bharatha doubts raama 3

[Guest guest]

Dear

sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

Continuing

the discussion on Sri Ramji's mail –

 

11.

Sri raamji says “But I have faithfully adhered to upanyasams /

explanations of my elders who I can vouch are scholars and anushtana

seelars”. MGV is not here to comment on these elders or about their

scholarship, or their capacity of giving an upanyaasam, nor on their

anushTaanams -- for that is not the subject matter of this

discussion.

 

12.

Sri raamji talks about 'big picture' 'small picture'. On this my

points are --

Sri

vaalmeeki covers 60000 years of dhasaratha's rule and his longing for

a son in few sargams. His 'puthra kaama ishTi' and raama avathaaram

is covered again in 2 or 3 sargams. Raama growing to 16 years [or 12

years] is covered in 2 or 3 slokams [ see my article 'roles of

lakshmaNa' wherein I stated this]. Similarly happily living with

seethaa for 12 years is covered in one slokam. Next when this

'crowning' proposal and consequent discussions and raama being sent

to forest etc are all timewise if you consider, it is of 'utmost 2 or

3 days' affairs. For this, there are more than 30 sargams.

 

Similarly

when it comes to living in forest happily by the seethaa raama

couple, it is in 2 slokams for a period of 11 years [aaraNya, sargam

15]. But seethaa's abduction, raama sOkham etc are very elaborate

which again period wise if you consider, it is a matter of maximum

one month. Again hanumaan's sundhara kaaNdam exploits over 68 sargams

are all a matter of '4 days'. Later the yudhdham is for '13 days

only' stretching for about 70 sargams. At the end of 6th

kaaNdam, 11000 years of raama's excellent rule, which we quote today

also, as to bring back 'raama raajyam' is covered in few slokams in

128th sargam.

 

So,

on the time scale when it is 'long' and 'very long', vaalmeeki

compresses it like any thing to miniscule size, but when it comes to

 

certain

'characterisation',

 

'human

values' and

 

'moral

values'

 

nature

or rules of administering people by kings etc,

 

 

he

goes at length. These moral values, discussions on human nature,

lessons to be learnt from a deeper study on the characters depicted

by vaalmeeki are relevant for all periods, yesterday, today, and days

to come also.

 

So

bharatha doubting raama is also a simple 'human nature' reflection

and a reaction on hearing that news from a mother, whose character

depiction by vaalmeeki is all that not 'so colourful'.

 

As

such, dear readers, if you want or do not want to accept bharatha

doubted raama, it is your own decision and views, but vaalmeeki has

really stated it - as quoted.

 

13.

Sri ramji writes, -- quote - bharatha on hearing his mother -- “his

'Manas' went in all directions and thought all unwanted things -

remember Baratha has been presented to us like an ordinary being and

not Brahma Rishi - it is only natural for a human's mind to wander in

all directions - but how someone manages to bring back the wandering

mind back into discipline and what he / she does subsequently

determines the character of the person. Rama's exile was the weakest

moment of their respective lives for the entire Royal Household of

Ayodhya” -- unquote.

MGV's

reaction on the above – yes-- that is what vaalmeeki has also

portrayed – stated above and even in my article, I have just said

bharatha doubted and questioned like this, this – etc. I asked for

this “doubting” what kind of punishment he had to face. That

much.

Later

what he did like paadhukaa pattabhishEkam and bharatha's waiting at

nandhigraamam etc is well known to all.

14.

Further Sri ramji states – quote -- Baratha only asks Kaikeyi

these questions but did not ever 'ACCUSE' Lord Rama – unquote.

That

is again what I also have stated - even my 'title' or 'subject' of

my article is “bharatha doubts” – NOT BHARATHA ACCUSING RAAMA.

Hope there is lot of difference between doubting a person and

accusing a person. So nothing new in ramji's mail.

15.

Sri Ramji further states – quote-- Baratha belongs to Ikshvaku

Kulam - sons take father's gothram for brahmanas and father's

dynasty for Kshatriya. Nowhere in any of our Itihasas or Puranas has

there been a single instance where a son has taken his mother's

lineage - now some very rare exceptions might be presented with but

only in very exceptional circumstances for specific reasons.

Generally when one talks about one's vamsham it is the father's

lineage and not the mother's lineage - ours is a Patriarchial

society (like the rest of the most of the world). So the line of

thinking presented by you about Kaikeya vamasham's drawbacks does

not hold good – unquote.

On

this MGV's reaction is – about ikshvaaku kulam and the glory of it

– yes patrarchial – in ikshvaaku vamSam, similar instance of

sending a person to forest on exile happened. And none other than

kaikeyee herself indicts dhasaratha on that -- see slokam -- [ again

I'm quoting from vaalmeeki and none else]

 

 

thava

Eva vamSE sagarO jyEshTa puthram upaarudhhath |

asamanja

ithi khyaatham thathhaa ayam ganthum arhathi || 2-36-16

 

meaning:

kaikEyee to dhasaratha, “hey raajan, it is in your clan that sagara

king sent his first son to exile. The famous Asamanja was he, who

deserved that exile.”

 

point: So there is an instance in which

ikshvaaku race was also having a blemish. This again is a straight

reporting by vaalmeeki. For that kind of argument happening between

husband and wife has been reported in such a straightforward manner

by vaalmeeki.

So on the 'fame' or 'ill fame' of the 'vamSam' –

both 'kEkaya' as well 'ikshvaaku' – were on same platter.

Ikshvaaku vamSam also had this “bad glory” of

sending a son – that too the eldest son to exile - who is supposed

to take the crown next as per practice prevailing in those periods.

Bharatha knew both of them. And that is why he doubted.

16.

Further, perhaps Sri raamji may or may not have heard this tamil

proverb – 'thaayaip pOla piLLai, noolaip pOla sElai'- translating -

how a mother is, like that is her issues, like how the thread is, the

saree is.

 

Also

in any family, if somebody, male or female, gets angry with a

particular lady, he or she immediately pounces saying “oh, he or

she is like her mother - ammavaip pOla, aunt – aththaiyaip pOla, or

paatiyaip pOla. To find fault, the lady's reference comes first

easily and naturally.

 

Comments

again are welcome.

dhasan

-- Vasudevan MG