Sita - Part 24 - திருத்த வரலாறு

08:03, 6 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் Hariki

2010-02-06T08:03:54Z

மாற்றங்களைக் காட்டு

16:29, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:29:43Z

16:28, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:28:40Z

16:26, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:26:32Z

16:23, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:23:39Z

16:21, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:21:55Z

16:13, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:13:23Z

16:12, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:12:22Z

16:09, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T16:09:57Z

09:27, 29 ஜனவரி 2010 இல் Dev

2010-01-29T09:27:45Z

@@ வரிசை 25: / வரிசை 25: @@
 “Though knowing me to be capable of repulsing the ogres, you came away annoyed by this angry rebuke from Sita (a princess of Mithila)! Surely I am not much pleased (na hi te paritusyāmi) with you for the fact that you came hither leaving Sita (a princess of Mithila and that (too) on hearing a harsh word uttered by an angry woman.”<br>Therefore, the question of bhgavata-apachara and its consequent punishment in the shape of repudiation in public does not arise, inasmuch as Rama was displeased not with her, but with Lakshmana for moving away from the post of duty. ‘You are not justified,’ he says. “It was wholly unjustifiable on your part that falling a prey to anger when goaded by Sita (to leave her) you did not carry out my behest.” (Ibid, Sloka 24) Like the One Minute Manager, Rama keeps his criticism sharp and short and leaves it at that. He doest not speak about it at all even once, later. <br>We have discussed Kamban’s handling of this situation earlier. (See: The urgent and the immediate IV) Even there, we see Rama not showing displeasure at the way in which Lakshmana was pressurised to move out. He was neither unhappy with Lakshmana, nor with Sita. He finds fault with himself. <br>More over, this incident of Sita’s unkind words was something that took place in the jungle, where just the two of them were present. A public repudiation for something spoken in private does not show Rama in better light. When such a criticism is advanced against Sita, one should remember that we are depicting Rama as a person whose sense of proportion was off-balance. If at all Rama wanted to pull her up for that fault, he would have told her in private, ‘I hear that you spoke these words to Lakshmana. It is not right. I am not happy with what you said.’ That would be a simpler and more honest way of doing it. Rama did not do this as well. That only shows that he did not take these words too seriously. Therefore, even this last and supposed-to-be-strong criticism also fails. It does not hold water.<br>We have examined all the possible causes advanced in this respect and have strong evidence to prove that not a single one of them is supported by the poets. As can be seen, offence is not the best form of defence. Any defence should have solid proof, supported by the text. Or even offence for that matter. <br>And then, there remains only one, and more valid reason for the way in which Rama repudiated her on that day.
-= Public Opinion I =
+= Public Opinion I  =
 I am afraid I will not be able to dwell in detail on this point that remains – after eliminating all possible causes adduced in respect of the reason behind Rama’s sudden change of stance and the public repudiation of Sita that led to Agni Pravesa – for the present. As I have been stressing a convincing picture can be evolved only after we take up Rama for study and arrive at this point on a later day. But, let me give a quick sketch now, however weak it may sound because of the sequence in which the evidence surfaces at this point of our discussion. <br>I have mentioned earlier when describing the events that led to the event under study, that Valmiki gives a quick, three-sloka long description of the couple, when Rama completes the first part of his speech preceding the repudiation. (See: Get lost and be prosperous?) There, before the commencement of all those scalding remarks, Valmiki states what troubled Rama’s heart at that time.
-<blockquote>
+<blockquote>pashyathasthAm tu ramasya samipe hrudayapriyAm | <br>janavada &nbsp; bayadha &nbsp; rajnyo &nbsp; babuva hrudayam dvida ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 115, Sloka 11) </blockquote>
 pashyathasthAm tu ramasya samipe hrudayapriyAm | <br>janavada &nbsp; bayadha &nbsp; rajnyo &nbsp; babuva hrudayam dvida ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 115, Sloka 11)
 </blockquote>
 “The heart of King Rama (even) as he beheld Sita (the beloved of his heart) near him, was torn (within him) for fear of public scandal.” <br>‘janavada bayadha’. He was afraid of public opinion. Now, what could that opinion be? Obviously, undesirable and unfavourable public opinion that would scandalise the incarceration of Sita in the palace of Lanka for a long time. The public mind in yonder Ayodhya may or may not be able to perceive the truth of the matter that took place across the ocean in the other end of the continent. Now, that becomes very important in view of the fact that Rama’s role is not limited to that of a loving husband but extended to that of a responsible king. A king was – and any ruler is – expected to be a role model to the public that he governs. He is supposed to be an epitome of virtues. And Rama measured himself against that scale. <br>This continues to be true. Times have changed. The present day world is not blessed with many leaders who demand the highest measure of rectitude from themselves. Such a breed is a rarity now. However, it continues to be true that the society expects their leaders, the persons who occupy the portals of power to be clean, transparent and virtuous. We may not expect a Rama from every single one of our leaders. But we still do expect that. At least to an extent. If this is not so, every other weakness of the person in power would not be a matter of public debate; would not hit the headlines; would not be discussed again and again in social gatherings. <br>This sloka, rolled out as an observation from the poet, before Rama commences his virulent attack gives out an ample and justifiable cause for the changes that were coming over in the stance of Rama, from the moment he sends Hanuman to Sita (See: The message and its mood) till the time the palanquin carrying Sita reaches his presence. (See: To bear or not to bear and The point of the palanquin) All the evidence that we have collected in 23 instalments commencing from In interregnum to The moon and the moon, showing the moods of Rama, his facial expressions, the Freudian slips et al, point to the fact that he was getting prepared for the most difficult performance of his life. This ‘performance’ was the one that we spoke about in Proud, was he not? that Rama adopted in eliciting information; ascertaining that his gut feeling is right; and establishing beyond doubt to himself and to the world that what he was so certain in his mind was true indeed. Verified and found correct. <br>But there is one difficulty in adopting this sloka as the basis of or as a pointer to our conclusion. As has been mentioned earlier, the authenticity of the three Slokas – including the one above – which come out as the voice of the poet who intervenes when Rama concludes the first part of his speech – is considered doubtful by many scholars. Only a few editions contain these three Slokas. Others simply omit them. <br>If so, where do we stand now?

@@ வரிசை 63: / வரிசை 63: @@
 = The role of Fire<br>  =
 The drama transcends human limits and human experience from this point, till the end of the scene. Fire has been playing a major role in the epic, from the beginning. It was from fire that Rama and his three brothers emerged. The payasa that Dasaratha divided among his wives came out of this fire. If Rama accompanied Viswamitra, it was to protect this fire that he tended during his Yaga, from being put out by the demons. It was before this fire that he took the hand of Sita in his. We are going to listen to Agni shortly about his role in wedding and the reason why he is the fittest authority for bearing testimony. <br>Again, it was this fire that witnessed the concluding of friendship between Rama and Sugriva. This however, is limited to Valmiki Ramayana. Kamban has not brought in this element of fire to witness the pact of friendship between the two, for his depiction of the relationship is quite different. Rama was the protector and Sugriva was the protected. Once again, it was this fire that – after so many years of servitude to Ravana – blazed from the tail of Hanuman and turned the city of Lanka to nothing more than ashes and embers. Ravana’s unbridled control over the elements that the poets enthusiastically describe was humbled for the first time by the setting up of fire. Reality strikes across the face of Ravana who had absolute control over the elements when Agni rose up to consume Lanka, heralding the liberation of elements from under his control.<br>And now, here, it is this fire which is going to rise up once again – in the words of Kamban – in anguish and agony to speak about the way she burnt him. The play of divine elements come to the fore in the scene as she circumambulates the leaping flames and pronounces her directive to the Lord of Fire for the second time, setting up conditions and asking him to act on her words, on the strength of her purity, her moral power.<br>When the news of Hanuman’s tail was set on fire reached her, she called up on the Lord of Fire – Agni – and sought his protection, asked him to remain cool to Hanuman, for the first time in the epic, demonstrating the fire that She is, exercising her Will on the elements, true to her words that she uttered to Hanuman ‘allal mAkkaL ilangayadhu aagumO? ellai nIttha ulagangaL yaavum en sollinaal suduvEn,’ I will turn the limitless Universe into embers with a single word of mine. What of this tiny island infested by amoral perpetrators? ‘Remain cool to him,’ she prayed then,
-<blockquote><br>yady &nbsp; asti patisusrūsā yady asti caritam tapah |<br>yadi cāsty ekapatnitvam sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>yadi kascid&nbsp; anukrosas tasya mayyasti dhimatah |<br>yadi vā bhāgyasesham me sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>yadi mām vrttasampannām tatsamāgamalālasām |<br>sa&nbsp;&nbsp; vijānāti &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; dharmātmā sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>yadi mām tārayaty āryah&nbsp;&nbsp; sugrivah satyasamgarah |<br>asmād duhkhān mahābāhuh&nbsp; sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto 53, Sloka 27 – 30) </blockquote>
+<blockquote>
-“If service rendered to one’s husband has any value, if austerities have (ever) been practised (by me) of if there is exclusive devotion (in me) to my husband (please) prove cool to Hanuman (O fire)! If there is any compassion for me in the heart of that sagacious prince, or if any residue of good luck (still) exists in me, prove cool to Hanuman. &lt;i&gt;If Sri Rama, whose mind is set on piety, fully knows me to be richly endowed with morality and ardently keen on being (re-)united with him, (please) prove cool to Hanuman.&lt;/i&gt; If the noble Sugriva, who is true to his promise, should (be able to) take me across this ocean of agony, (please) prove cool to Hanuman.”<br>‘sito bhava’ Remain cool to Hanuman, if my husband Rama fully knows my morality and purity, and if he is keen on our re-union. Agni listened to her prayers then, testifying to the truth that Rama did know her morality and her purity and was serious about their re-union. <br>‘nIyE ulagakku oru saandru,’ she would say in Kamban. You are the only witness to all that is good and bad in the world. ‘nirkkE theriyum.’ Only you know all that takes place around the world and the nature of beings. ‘karpu adhanil thUyEn enin, thozugindrEn eriyE, avanaich chudal,’ If you are the witness to the whole world, then you know what I am. If I am pure, if I am chaste, I pray thee, do not burn him. Remain cool. <br>‘Do not burn him,’ was her order to Agni in the name of Rama; in the name of her purity; in the name of Rama’s knowledge and understanding of her immaculate nature and his true intentions of a re-union. ‘Burn me,’ she says now. In the same name of Rama and in the same name of her purity. ‘Take me, burn me,’ says Kamban’s Sita. ‘Protect me,’ says Valmiki’s Sita.
+yady &nbsp; asti&nbsp; patisusrūsā yady asti caritam tapah |<br>yadi cāsty&nbsp; ekapatnitvam sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>yadi kascid&nbsp; anukrosas tasya mayyasti dhimatah |<br>yadi vā bhāgyasesham me sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>yadi mām vrttasampannām tatsamāgamalālasām |<br>sa&nbsp;&nbsp; vijānāti &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; dharmātmā sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>yadi mām tārayaty āryah&nbsp;&nbsp; sugrivah satyasamgarah |<br>asmād duhkhān mahābāhuh&nbsp; sito bhava hanūmatah ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto 53, Sloka 27 – 30)
 = That which could not touch a tail<br>  =

@@ வரிசை 72: / வரிசை 72: @@
 <blockquote>adhomukham tato rāmam sanaih krtvā pradakshinam |<br>upāsarpata &nbsp;&nbsp; vaidehi &nbsp;&nbsp; dīpyamānam &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; hutāsanam ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 116, Sloka 23) </blockquote>
 “Walking clockwise (as a mark of respect) about Sri Rama standing with his head bent low, Sita (a princess of the Videha territory) approached the blazing fire.”<br>She pressed on in the execution of her decision with determination and head held high. Sri Rama was casting his glance on the ground. It may be remembered that when this scene started he was found in the same posture. (See: Valmiki’s clue) There we saw him –
-<blockquote>dīrgham usnam ca nisvasya&nbsp; medinīm avalokayan | <br>uvāca&nbsp; meghasamkāsam&nbsp; vibhīsanam upasthitam ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Ibid, Canto 114, Sloka 6) </blockquote><blockquote>"Drawing a deep audible breath, and casting his eyes on the ground, he spoke (as follows) to Vibishana who closely resembled a cloud (in hue), standing near."<br></blockquote><blockquote>He was unable to deliver his order to Vibishana at that time and could not look straight when he uttered his command to bring her there. And now, he is unable to see what is going on. There can be no other reason for this ‘adhomukham tato rāmam’ that Valmiki draws our attention to. The scene began with him standing with his eyes gazing the ground and it ends with the same stance. He stands with his head bent low, avoiding eye-contact, when she goes around him. That is another piece of evidence that we collect now for our discussions later. <br>‘Let me stand protected,’ Sita prays as she completes the walk around the flames, before she leaps into them. “Inasmuch as I have never been unfaithful in act, thought and speech to Sri Rama (a scion of Raghu) who knows (the secret of) all virtues, let the god of fire in that case afford protection to me,” is one of her oaths taken before the fire. (Ibid, Canto 116, Sloka 27)<br>Kamban – unlike him – translates this portion almost fully, with a twist. ‘ganatthinaal kadandha pUN mulaya, kaivaLai,’ She of the bejewelled breasts and hands (adorned with) bangles, (said) ‘manatthinaal, vaakkinaal maru utrEn ennin,’ ‘If at all I am blemished of mind, of word (or deed), ‘sinatthinaal sududhiyaal thIch chelvaa,’ may you burn me; consume me O Lord of Fire.’ ‘punath thuzhaai kaNavarkkum vaNakkam pOkkinaaL.’ So saying she bowed to her husband, one who wears the garland of Tulasi (sacred basil). The last line emphasises the fact that Rama is none other than Vishnu himself. And what follows would emphasise that she is none other than Mahalakshmi herself, turning the leaping flames into the lotus bloomed sheets of cool water, her abode.<br>At this moment, I am reminded of the words of Hanuman, who after dipping his burning tail in the ocean and putting the flames off, witnessing the dance of flames on the city of Lanka, realising suddenly that it was there that she resides in the Asoka grove and is worried about her safety. At that time, after a moment of anxiety, he calms down, muttering to himself<br>yad vā dahanakarmāyam sarvatra prabhur avyayah |<br>na me dahati lāṅgūlam katham AryA m pradhakshyati ||<br> (Ibid, Sundara Kanda, Canto 55, Sloka 26)<br></blockquote><blockquote>“Or how should this fire, whose natural function it is to burn (whatever comes into contact with it) and has power over all, yet which could not burn (even) my tail, consume the noble lady (because of whom this miracle has happened?”<br>It is more than evident that the Fire is powerless before her. When it could not burn my tail even, there is no reason why to think that she could be harmed by this inferno that I have made of Lanka. <br>Yes. When the whole country of Lanka was in blazes, the small patch of the Asoka Vana remained safe, untouched by the angry long tongues of flame. What can this pyre do to her! Instead, it was Agni who was scorched.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>dīrgham usnam ca nisvasya&nbsp; medinīm avalokayan | <br>uvāca&nbsp; meghasamkāsam&nbsp; vibhīsanam upasthitam ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Ibid, Canto 114, Sloka 6) </blockquote>
 = Like a stream of ghee<br>  =

@@ வரிசை 96: / வரிசை 96: @@
 “Here comes this Rama, before he speaks to me, make a move, let him not see me. Shortly, when he has conquered Ravana and achieved his purpose, then I shall see him. For, he has to do a great deed which is very difficult to be done by others.” <br>‘Let me go away before he sees me. I will speak to him after the purpose of the avatar is achieved.’ There are a few more instances to this effect, more or less similar, which includes the address of Garuda who appears on the battlefield when they are bound by the serpent noose of Indrajit. <br>Therefore, strictly speaking, Rama is an ordinary human being – as far as his own personal knowledge of his ‘self’ is concerned – and continues to be so from the dramatic and the philosophical points of view, at this moment, his true nature having not been revealed to him as yet. The logic with which Valmiki has handled his drama and the effect of the modifications brought about by Kamban are not for us to discuss now. They will be taken up later when studying Rama.<br>And therefore, as a very simple man, Rama puts the question, ‘yArai nI? ennai nI iyambiyadhu, eriyuL thOndri?’ Who are you and what are you saying, appearing from the pyre?’ You appeared from nowhere from the pyre and you are uttering something to me! ‘ip punmai saal orutthiyai, sudAdhu pOtrianaai!’ Instead of burning this woman who deserves no respect, you are praising her! ‘annadhu aar solla?’ How does this happen? On whose words, or orders, that it is happening this way? ‘Idhu aRaidhiyAl.’ Tell me. Let me know everything.<br>Agni then explains his role and how he qualifies to vouch for Sita. That is, Rama makes Agni to say in his own words that he is the fittest person to testify.
-= A witness to the Witness =
+= A witness to the Witness  =
 Hari Krishnan

@@ வரிசை 88: / வரிசை 88: @@
 If she fell in the fire as an unbroken stream of ghee in Valmiki, Kamban looks at the event as the return of the Mahalakshmi to Her abode. Brahma has not yet appeared on the scene as it happened in Valmiki. She jumped into the pyre. But the fire was no fire for her. ‘nIndha arum punalidai nivandha thAmarai Eyndha than kOyilE eydhuvAL ena,’ he sings. ‘As if she returned to Her abode in the deep waters full of lotuses,’ ‘pAyndhanaL,’ she leapt in. It was not into fire that she fell. It was to her own temple, her abode, that she returned. For what she experienced was not Fire, the scorcher, the consumer of the universe. When the flames could not dry even the drops of sweat that had appeared on her out of anger moments back, how then is one to call this a platform of inferno! No. It was a sheet of cool, clear waters, so deep that one cannot swim across (nIndha arum punal’). The leaping tongues of flames were nothing but the lustrous petals of lotuses in the pond (‘nivandha thAmarai’). And she appeared as if she, the Lakshmi that She is, was returning to her abode on Her seat of lotus. <br>The element of divinity starts playing its part right from moment one. For Kamban emphasises in the third and fourth lines of the quartet the strange aspect in the drama. ‘pAydhalum,’ As she leapt in, ‘pAlin panju enath thIyndhadhu av eri,’ it was that fire which was burnt as simply and as easily as a bundle of milky white cotton wool, ‘avaL kaRpin thIynAl,’ by the Fire of her purity, of her chastity. <br>One is not able to but stand in amazement at the consistency of the metaphor that the poet maintains, thousands of verses across. If one remembers it, it was almost a similar situation way back in the Aranya Kanda, when she lit a fire in the forest and threatened an unmovable Lakshmana that she would jump into it unless he goes in search of Rama, to his aid. Take a look at the metaphor that the poet employed then. ‘thAmarai vanathidaith thAvum annam pOl,’ Like a swan that swiftly moves into a forest of lotuses, ‘thUma vengAttu eri thodargindraaL,’ she rushed into the forest fire that she kindled. The fire was a sheet of water and the flames were nothing more than petals of lotuses even at that time. (See: The other fire ordeal) Only, the fire was lit by her at that time. And it was Lakshmana, who moved away in order to stop her from falling into the flames, set them ablaze for her now. <br>Apart from the irony of that so subtly and poignantly emphasised, the poet underlines the divine aspect when he makes the deliverer of divine oblations, the witness of all the joys and sorrows of the world, he who is present on every holy event, who stands witnesses to the happy unions in wedlock, who diffuses this biological frame of a body when the soul departs, back to the elements, to be burnt by the fire of her purity.<br>If Agni emerged with her, after the appearance of Brahma in Valmiki and after his appraisal of His divinity to Rama, he emerges now from amidst the flames, carrying her in his hands, unable to bear Her a second longer. ‘azundhinaL nangayai angayAl sumandhu ezundhanan angi,’ sings the poet. The reader may remember our observation of Kamban’s natural joy that wells up whenever he sings of Sita. He goes almost always either high or low with her emotions. When he sings of her, his ‘viewless wings of poesy’ scales ever so new heights. ‘Unable to bear her, who fell in, the Lord of Fire emerged,’ ‘vendhu eriyum mEniyAn,’ His body boiled and burnt. ‘thozum karath thuNayinAn,’ His hands joined in reverence (to Rama). ‘surudhi gnAnathin kozundhinaip pUsalittu aratrum koLgayAn.’ His voice loudly seeking the protection of Rama, who is The Wisdom, the quintessence, the summum bonum of the Vedas.
-= Being a human…<br> =
+= Being a human…<br>  =
-<blockquote>
 The way in which Agni appeals to Rama reminds one, of the initial reaction of the slain Vali, lying on the ground, on seeing Rama. ‘irakkam engu ugutthaai?’ Where did you shed your mercy? ‘en pAl enna pizai kaNdaai, appA?’ Where did I go wrong? What was my fault? <br>‘What did I do to you? Why were you angered at me, as well?’ pleads Agni, to Rama. ‘kanindhu uyar karpu enum kadavuL, thIyinaal – ninaindhilai – en vali nIkkinaai.’ Rama, you did not realise that she is the very Goddess of purity. What did you do to her, and what did you do to me! You made me powerless. You made me lose my quality. More than that, you made me suffer, being burnt by the fire that She is. ‘ena, anindhanai il angi, nI ayarvu il ennayum munindhanai aam? ena murayittaan.’ So pleading, the Lord of Fire said, ‘You were angered with me too.’ Rama, you did not realise her nature and was angry with her. You had one reason or the other to find fault with your wife. Let that be so. But, what did I do to you? You made me undergo this ordeal of bearing her, rendered so totally powerless, and devoid of my very quality! I got burnt, instead of burning! <br>The interesting point to observe here is that Rama’s stance does not relent immediately on sighting Agni emerging with Sita in his hands, as it happens in Valmiki Ramayana. Rama continues to play the drama a little longer. He does not recognise the Lord of Fire at all. Whereas in the version Valmiki, he instantaneously identifies Agni and speaks to him, when addressed by him, vouching for the purity of Sita, Kamban’s Rama does not show any sign either of relaxing his attitude or of showing any knowledge of the person who emerges from the flames. ‘Who are you?’ he asks, instead, making Agni to reveal his identity by his own words. That is to say, he continues to remain a plain and simple human being unlike the Rama of Valmiki at this point. There are several reasons behind this significant modification brought about by Kamban. Though we may not be able to see all, let us see one, and an important, reason behind this. <br>The main element that has gone into the casting of Rama is that he should not be aware of his true nature, until Ravana is killed. Ravana’s boons did not afford him protection against humans and monkeys, because he did not seek that. Therefore, it was essential for the avatar to remain in complete ignorance of his nature in all respects. There are instances in the Valmiki – and of course in Kamban – where the celestials avoid Rama’s presence, in order to maintain the avatara-rahasya. <br>Something very interesting happens when Rama visits sage Sarabhanga in the Aranya Kanda. Indra was there with the sage, when Rama, Lakshman and Sita reach the precincts of the hermitage and Rama sees the aerial car of Indra there. Leaving Lakshmana and Sita aside, he walks to the hermitage, curious about the car and concluding that it must be that of Indra’s. Indra sees Rama from a distance. And he tells Sarabhanga,
-</blockquote><blockquote>
+<blockquote>
-ihopayāty asau rāmo yāvan mām nābhibhāsate |<br>nisthām nayata tāvat tu tato mām drastum arhati ||<br>jitavantam krtārtham ca drastāham acirād imam |<br>karma hy anena kartavyam mahad anyaih suduskaram ||<br> (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto V, Sloka 22 and 23)
+ihopayātyasau rāmo yāvanmām&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; nābhibhāsate |<br>nishthām nayata tāvat tu tato mām drashtum arhati ||<br>jitavantam &nbsp;&nbsp; krtārtham &nbsp; ca &nbsp; drastāham&nbsp;&nbsp; acirād&nbsp; imam |<br>karma hyanEna kartavyam mahadanyaih sudushkaram ||<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto V, Sloka 22 and 23)
-“Here comes this Rama, before he speaks to me, make a move, let him not see me. Shortly, when he has conquered Ravana and achieved his purpose, then I shall see him. For, he has to do a great deed which is very difficult to be done by others.” <br>‘Let me go away before he sees me. I will speak to him after the purpose of the avatar is achieved.’ There are a few more instances to this effect, more or less similar, which includes the address of Garuda who appears on the battlefield when they are bound by the serpent noose of Indrajit. <br>Therefore, strictly speaking, Rama is an ordinary human being – as far as his own personal knowledge of his ‘self’ is concerned – and continues to be so from the dramatic and the philosophical points of view, at this moment, his true nature having not been revealed to him as yet. The logic with which Valmiki has handled his drama and the effect of the modifications brought about by Kamban are not for us to discuss now. They will be taken up later when studying Rama.<br>And therefore, as a very simple man, Rama puts the question, ‘yArai nI? ennai nI iyambiyadhu, eriyuL thOndri?’ Who are you and what are you saying, appearing from the pyre?’ You appeared from nowhere from the pyre and you are uttering something to me! ‘ip punmai saal orutthiyai, sudAdhu pOtrianaai!’ Instead of burning this woman who deserves no respect, you are praising her! ‘annadhu aar solla?’ How does this happen? On whose words, or orders, that it is happening this way? ‘Idhu aRaidhiyAl.’ Tell me. Let me know everything.<br>Agni then explains his role and how he qualifies to vouch for Sita. That is, Rama makes Agni to say in his own words that he is the fittest person to testify. </blockquote>
+</blockquote>
 = A witness to the Witness =

@@ வரிசை 10: / வரிசை 10: @@
 ‘I expected to see her with you,’ remarks Rama, when the brothers meet and return from killing Märïca to their hermitage, only to find it empty. Valmiki says,
 <blockquote>athāsramād&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; upāvrttam &nbsp; antarā &nbsp;&nbsp; raghunandanah | <br>paripapraccha saumitrim rāmo duhkhārditah punah ||<br>tam&nbsp; uvāca kimartham tvam āgato 'pāsya maithilīm |<br>yadā &nbsp;&nbsp; sā &nbsp;&nbsp; tava &nbsp;&nbsp; visvāsād &nbsp; &nbsp; vane&nbsp; viharitā mayā ||<br>drstvaivābhyāgatam&nbsp; tvām&nbsp; me&nbsp; maithilīm tyajya laksmana |<br>sankamānam mahat pāpam yat satyam vyathitam manah ||<br>sphurate nayanam savyam bāhus ca hrdayam ca me |<br>drstvā&nbsp; laksmana&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; dūre &nbsp;&nbsp; tvām &nbsp;&nbsp; sītāvirahitam&nbsp; pathi || <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto 59, Sloka 1 – 4) </blockquote>
 Let’s take a look at how Ralph T H Griffith translates this portion:
 <blockquote>But Rama ceased not to upbraid. <br>His brother for untimely aid, <br>And thus, while anguish wrung his breast, <br>The chief with eager question pressed:<br>'Why, Lakshman, didst thou hurry hence<br>And leave my wife without defence?<br>I left her in the wood with thee.<br>And deemed her safe from jeopardy.<br>When first thy form appeared in view, <br>I marked that Sita come not too.<br>With woe my troubled soul was rent, <br>Prophetic of the dire event.<br>Thy coming steps afar I spied, <br>I saw no Sita by thy side.<br>And felt a sudden throbbing dart<br>Through my left eye, and arm, and heart.' </blockquote>
-‘Why did you leave her behind?’ asks Rama. ‘When I left her behind in your custody, my heart was at ease because I was satisfied that she stands protected by you. Why did you come alone? Actually, when I saw you coming in search of me, I was expecting to see her by your side. I looked for her; but could not find her with you. It was at that moment that my left eye and left arm twitched, and my heart started pounding.’ <br>In fact, Rama starts his speech with a disapproving note. “Ah, Lakshmana, a reproachful act has been done by you in that you came away here leaving alone Sita, who deserved protection, O gentle brother! Can she (be expected to) be doing well? No doubt lurks in my mind, O heroic brother, but that the daughter of Janaka has at all events been removed out of sight or even devoured by ogres reigning in the forest, as (is evident from the fact) that evil portents alone appear before me in abundance. Shall we actually (be able to) find, O Lakshmana, the entire being of Sita, daughter of Janaka, continuing to live, O tiger among men?” (Ibid, Canto 57, Sloka 14 – 20)<br>It may be noted at this point, Lakshmana had not yet informed Rama of the situation in which he had to leave her behind, why he had to move out against his will, what were the unbearably harsh words that she spoke to him, etc. But it is not that difficult for Rama to guess that something unpleasant has happened and that is why this strong-willed fellow has moved away from the hermitage, looking for him. He understands that there must have been some pressure of an extreme nature that pushed him into this move. There is sufficient clue in his speech about what he ‘feels’ though it is not to be found explicitly in the text. The tone says that all.<br>Given that reading, one can easily see what Rama means. ‘You are not supposed to move away from the post of duty. You were under my orders. You cannot violate my words. However, if it was such a difficult situation that you had to leave the hermitage, you should have brought her along with you.’ That’s why he says, ‘drstvā laksmana dūre tvām sītāvirahitam pathi’ On seeing you at a distance, coming without Sita (my left hand and eye started twitching and heart started pounding). ‘You should not have left. If you had to, you should have brought her along with you.’ <br>Lakshmana remains silent. This is a difficult moment for him. This is not to demean or underestimate this valiant, intelligent and stoic of a man. He was left with no alternative, or so did he think. Now, Rama points out to that alternative which was open to him. Lakshmana is not able to say a thing. It is only after a two-canto long prodding and repeated questioning by Rama, left with no choice, Lakshmana tells Rama what actually happened. He intended not to let Rama know what took place. But he had to speak out now. ‘I did not come here on my own accord,’ he says. “I have sought your presence here only when urged by her in pungent words.” (Ibid, Canto 59, Sloka 6) And then he quotes her words to Rama.<br>“Reassured in these words (by me), Sita (a princess of the Videha territory) for her part, whose judgement was utterly clouded, addressed the following poignant words, shedding tears (all the time): ‘The grossly sinful intention of winning me when your (eldest half-) brother has been slain has definitely been cherished by you with regard to me; but you shall never secure me. You are closely following Sri Rama in pursuance of a pact entered into (by you) with Bharata in that you do not actually run to the side of Sri Rama, who is crying (for your help) at the top of his voice! An enemy (of Sri Rama) in disguise, you have been following him for my sake (only), seeking an opportunity to harm him. Hence you do not run to his succour.’” (Ibid, Sloka 16 – 19) <br>Rama heard every word of it. Now, what did he say? What did he tell Lakshmana? Did he say that she was harsh? Did he find fault with her at that time? It is natural for people at such times to say few words in disapproval of such remarks and then continue with their criticism. In other words, Rama could &nbsp;have remarked, ‘Yes. She was wrong. But still your act is not justified.’ Instead, what did he say?
+‘Why did you leave her behind?’ asks Rama. ‘When I left her behind in your custody, my heart was at ease because I was satisfied that she stands protected by you. Why did you come alone? Actually, when I saw you coming in search of me, I was expecting to see her by your side. I looked for her; but could not find her with you. It was at that moment that my left eye and left arm twitched, and my heart started pounding.’ <br>In fact, Rama starts his speech with a disapproving note. “Ah, Lakshmana, a reproachful act has been done by you in that you came away here leaving alone Sita, who deserved protection, O gentle brother! Can she (be expected to) be doing well? No doubt lurks in my mind, O heroic brother, but that the daughter of Janaka has at all events been removed out of sight or even devoured by ogres reigning in the forest, as (is evident from the fact) that evil portents alone appear before me in abundance. Shall we actually (be able to) find, O Lakshmana, the entire being of Sita, daughter of Janaka, continuing to live, O tiger among men?” (Ibid, Canto 57, Sloka 14 – 20)<br>It may be noted at this point, Lakshmana had not yet informed Rama of the situation in which he had to leave her behind, why he had to move out against his will, what were the unbearably harsh words that she spoke to him, etc. But it is not that difficult for Rama to guess that something unpleasant has happened and that is why this strong-willed fellow has moved away from the hermitage, looking for him. He understands that there must have been some pressure of an extreme nature that pushed him into this move. There is sufficient clue in his speech about what he ‘feels’ though it is not to be found explicitly in the text. The tone says that all.<br>Given that reading, one can easily see what Rama means. ‘You are not supposed to move away from the post of duty. You were under my orders. You cannot violate my words. However, if it was such a difficult situation that you had to leave the hermitage, you should have brought her along with you.’ That’s why he says, ‘drstvā laksmana dūre tvām sītāvirahitam pathi’ On seeing you at a distance, coming without Sita (my left hand and eye started twitching and heart started pounding). ‘You should not have left. If you had to, you should have brought her along with you.’ <br>Lakshmana remains silent. This is a difficult moment for him. This is not to demean or underestimate this valiant, intelligent and stoic of a man. He was left with no alternative, or so did he think. Now, Rama points out to that alternative which was open to him. Lakshmana is not able to say a thing. It is only after a two-canto long prodding and repeated questioning by Rama, left with no choice, Lakshmana tells Rama what actually happened. He intended not to let Rama know what took place. But he had to speak out now. ‘I did not come here on my own accord,’ he says. “I have sought your presence here only when urged by her in pungent words.” (Ibid, Canto 59, Sloka 6) And then he quotes her words to Rama.<br>“Reassured in these words (by me), Sita (a princess of the Videha territory) for her part, whose judgement was utterly clouded, addressed the following poignant words, shedding tears (all the time): ‘The grossly sinful intention of winning me when your (eldest half-) brother has been slain has definitely been cherished by you with regard to me; but you shall never secure me. You are closely following Sri Rama in pursuance of a pact entered into (by you) with Bharata in that you do not actually run to the side of Sri Rama, who is crying (for your help) at the top of his voice! An enemy (of Sri Rama) in disguise, you have been following him for my sake (only), seeking an opportunity to harm him. Hence you do not run to his succour.’” (Ibid, Sloka 16 – 19)
-<br> It is his words, his feeling and his perception that we are to take cognisance of when we come to conclusions about the ‘apachara’ that she committed, for which we tend to think that she deserved punishment in the shape of the Agni Pravesa. What we are seeking to spot is the ‘actual intention’ of Rama when he uttered those words that led to Agni Pravesa. Instead, we should not be imputing motives to him – not supported by the text – in putting up a brave fight in his defence<br>Unjustified <br>‘It is unbecoming of you,’ says Rama on hearing the report of Lakshmana, ‘to have left her behind.’ ‘I agree she might have said so many things in anger. But you know that I am capable of handling this. Yet, you got annoyed by her words. I am not pleased.’ “Distracted with agony, Sri Rama replied (as follows) to Lakshmana (son of Sumitra) when he was speaking as aforesaid. ‘An unbecoming act has been done by you in that you came hither without her.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto 59, Sloka 21)
+<br>Rama heard every word of it. Now, what did he say? What did he tell Lakshmana? Did he say that she was harsh? Did he find fault with her at that time? It is natural for people at such times to say few words in disapproval of such remarks and then continue with their criticism. In other words, Rama could &nbsp;have remarked, ‘Yes. She was wrong. But still your act is not justified.’ Instead, what did he say?
 <blockquote>jānann api samartham mām raksasām vinivārane | <br>anena&nbsp; krodhavākyena &nbsp; maithilyā nihsrto bhavān ||<br>na &nbsp; hi te paritushyāmi&nbsp; tyaktvā &nbsp; yad&nbsp;&nbsp; yāsi&nbsp; maithilīm |<br>kruddhāyāh parusham srutvā striyā yat tvam ihāgatah || &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Ibid, Sloka 22, 23) </blockquote>
 “Though knowing me to be capable of repulsing the ogres, you came away annoyed by this angry rebuke from Sita (a princess of Mithila)! Surely I am not much pleased (na hi te paritusyāmi) with you for the fact that you came hither leaving Sita (a princess of Mithila and that (too) on hearing a harsh word uttered by an angry woman.”<br>Therefore, the question of bhgavata-apachara and its consequent punishment in the shape of repudiation in public does not arise, inasmuch as Rama was displeased not with her, but with Lakshmana for moving away from the post of duty. ‘You are not justified,’ he says. “It was wholly unjustifiable on your part that falling a prey to anger when goaded by Sita (to leave her) you did not carry out my behest.” (Ibid, Sloka 24) Like the One Minute Manager, Rama keeps his criticism sharp and short and leaves it at that. He doest not speak about it at all even once, later. <br>We have discussed Kamban’s handling of this situation earlier. (See: The urgent and the immediate IV) Even there, we see Rama not showing displeasure at the way in which Lakshmana was pressurised to move out. He was neither unhappy with Lakshmana, nor with Sita. He finds fault with himself. <br>More over, this incident of Sita’s unkind words was something that took place in the jungle, where just the two of them were present. A public repudiation for something spoken in private does not show Rama in better light. When such a criticism is advanced against Sita, one should remember that we are depicting Rama as a person whose sense of proportion was off-balance. If at all Rama wanted to pull her up for that fault, he would have told her in private, ‘I hear that you spoke these words to Lakshmana. It is not right. I am not happy with what you said.’ That would be a simpler and more honest way of doing it. Rama did not do this as well. That only shows that he did not take these words too seriously. Therefore, even this last and supposed-to-be-strong criticism also fails. It does not hold water.<br>We have examined all the possible causes advanced in this respect and have strong evidence to prove that not a single one of them is supported by the poets. As can be seen, offence is not the best form of defence. Any defence should have solid proof, supported by the text. Or even offence for that matter. <br>And then, there remains only one, and more valid reason for the way in which Rama repudiated her on that day.