Digest Number 1035

[Guest guest]

dear shri mukundan, an ideal prescription indeed for not only SARS but for

all that ails the physique and the spirit. regards, sadagopan

-

 

 

Monday, April 28, 2003 2:18 PM

Digest Number 1035

 

 

Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

------

 

There are 2 messages in this issue.

 

Topics in this digest:

 

1. The Scapegot-2

" sadagopaniyengar " <sadagopaniyengar

2. 'SARS' and 'AchArs'

" Mukundan " <krupa

 

 

______________________

______________________

 

Message: 1

Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:02:01 +0530

" sadagopaniyengar " <sadagopaniyengar

The Scapegot-2

 

 

 

 

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

 

 

The Scapegoat-2

 

 

We saw how Sri Nammazhwar puts the blame for something Sri Rama did,

squarely at the doorstep of Krishna- " KoonE chidaya undai vill niratthil

teritthAi Govinda! " . It was Rama who wielded the catapult, hitting the

deformed Mantara on her hump, but Azhwar addresses the culprit as

" Govinda! " , giving the impression that the perpetrator is Sri Krishna, on

the grounds that all misdeeds should be attributed to the habitual offender,

just as policemen conveniently pick up the crime-sheeter immediately upon

an offence being reported, rather than search for a new delinquent.

 

 

 

It is interesting to note that having escaped the blame for his

unintended misdemeanour, Sri Raghava in turn is held responsible for

something not of His doing. Everyone with even a nodding acquaintance of

Srimad Ramayana is well aware of the fact that it was Sri Lakshmana who cut

off the nose and ears of Soorpanakha, when she tried to harm Sri Mythily,

considering Her an obstacle in the way of winning the affections of Sri

Rama, to whom the ogress had developed a justifiable infatuation. Not

wanting to harm a woman, Sri Rama sends the insistent Rakshasi to Lakshmana,

in the hope that he would be able to din some sense into the dense head.

When she refuses to listen to words of wisdom and intends to harm Sita devi,

Lakshmana inflicts appropriate punishment by severing her nose and ears.

This is the tale we have all heard, whatever be the version of Ramayana one

peruses.

 

 

 

However, Sri Periazhwar, while recounting this episode, lays the blame

for this deed on Sri Rama-

 

 

 

" SoorpanakhAvai seviyOdu mookku avaL Arkka arindAnai pAdi para "

 

 

 

Though the words " pAdi para " are an injunction to sing the praises, they

refer unmistakably to Sri Rama alone, as the following line

confirms- " ayOddhikku arasanai pAdi para " . Is it poetic justice that Sri

Periazhwar makes Sri Rama the scapegoat for Lakshmana's misdeed (if indeed

misdeed it is), to make up for Sri Nammazhwar failing to blame the Prince of

Ayodhya for the catapult episode?

 

 

 

If it were just one Azhwar who says this, we might perhaps overlook the

same, treating it as a case of identity between the brothers Rama. However,

Sri Tirumangai Mannan too spares Lakshmana and attributes the deed to Rama-

 

 

 

" anjuvan venjol nangAi! arakkar kula pAvai tannai

 

venjina mooku arinda viralOn tiram kEtkil "

 

 

 

Here too, from the context, it is clear that the reference is to Rama alone,

as one who inflicted the disfigurement on the rakshasi.

 

 

 

With two Azhwars speaking in unison on the subject, we are confused and

refer to the relevant slokas of Sri Valmiki for confirmation-

 

 

 

" ityuktO Lakshmana: tasyA: kruddhO Ramasya pasyata:

 

uddhrutya khadgam chicchEda karNa nAsam mahAbala: "

 

 

 

There is no ambiguity-it is indeed Lakshmana who cuts off the rakshasi's

nose and ears.

 

 

 

Why should Sri Periazhwar, and Sri Kalian too, to boot, differ from Sri

Valmiki, who has been blessed with the boon of witnessing and chronicling

the proceedings of Rama charitam as it happened? It can't be a case of

mistaken identity or deliberate misinformation, for Azhwars have also been

blessed with blemishless wisdom ( " mayarvara madinalam " ) and are incapable of

bhramam or vipralambham.

 

 

 

The answer lies in Sri Valmiki's own words, describing Sri Lakshmana as Sri

Rama's right arm- " RAmasya dakshiNo bAhu: " . For all practical purposes, Sri

Lakshmana is considered an integral part of his illustrious elder brother,

so that whatever the former does is automatically attributed to the latter.

Sri Lakshmana might have a separate body but the brothers apparently share

the same life spirit, for the younger brother is described as Rama's

" prAna " - " LakshmanO Lakshmi sampannO bahi: prANa ivApara: " Normally, the

life spirit ( " PrANa " ) remains within the body: however, Sri Lakshmana was so

close and devoted to Sri Rama that the former was considered to be the

" prANa " of the latter, albeit located externally.

 

 

 

It is this identity between the two brothers that prompts Azhwars to ascribe

to Sri Rama something done by Lakshmana. If further proof were needed in

this regard, one needs only to refer to Sage Visvamitra's consistent

practice of addressing only Sri Rama ( " KousalyA suprajA Rama! " ) during their

long sojourn together, though Lakshmana too accompanied the Maharshi. Again,

while it is only Sri Rama who is sought by the Rishi from Dasarata for Yaga

samrakshanam, and the King agrees to part with only Sri Rama, Sri Lakshmana

automatically accompanies his brother, unbidden by anyone and unsought by

the Maharshi himself.

 

 

 

Apart from such identity, it is also appropriate to ascribe the act to Sri

Rama, for it is at His express bidding that the demeaning disfigurement was

inflicted by Lakshmana on Soorpanakha. Enraged by the rakshasi's attempt to

harm Sita, Sri Rama instructs Lakshmana to maim the unseemly ogress-

 

 

 

" imAm viroopAm asatIm atimattAm mahOdarIm

 

RAkshasIm purusha vyAghra! viroopayitum arhasi "

 

 

 

The chastising of Soorpanakha is carried out at the express bidding of Sri

Rama and while He looks on with obvious approval - " RAmasya pasyata: "

 

Thus, while Lakshmana merely executes the act of punishing the rakshasi, it

is Sri Rama who issues the instructions therefor and is morally responsible

for the deed. It is with this in view that the Azhwars attribute the act to

Sri Rama, though the same is actually that of his younger brother.

 

 

 

This appears to be an appropriate solution for the apparent conflict between

the Azhwars' sreesooktis and that of the Maharshi. There may be other

instances too of such dichotomy between two impeccable sources of wisdom,

but our Acharyas have shown us the way of resolving such differences without

trashing either source. If Sri Ramanuja is remembered till date, it is

because of his approach of reconciling apparently conflicting Shruti vAkyAs,

often representing diametrically opposite schools of thought. While some

philosophers chose to disregard and dismiss Veda vAkyAs inconvenient to

their chosen thread of philosophy, the Bhashyakara accepted the irrefutable

validity of the entire Shruti and found a way to make the apparently

conflicting portions dovetail with one another, with ease and without

resorting to far-fetched formulations. Swami Desikan is so impressed with

the Master Philosopher's efforts in this regard that he likens the latter to

an expert physician who cures the apparently incurable and chronic fever of

conflict that the Shruti was seen to be suffering from- " shruteenAm antar

jvaram aseesamat " .

 

 

 

Srimate Sri LakshmINrsimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana

Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

Dasan, sadagopan