Dear Sri Sudarshan,
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY TO ALL
Saare Jahan se Acchaa… Hindustan hamara.. Vande Mataram… Jai Hind
***
Your brilliant essay on Selection 247 is filled with strikingly compelling arguments, woven through your core thought and takes my breath away, truly speaking.
You have addressed your persuasive arguments to Mr.Raghavan, evidently in response to his intercessions on this Selection. And it would be Mr.Raghavan’s natural first right to react to your weighty opinions – accept, laud, rebut, appreciate or endorse as he might be doing. I am sure that the Group is keenly awaiting the usual incisive, authentic and remarkably persuasive comments from Sri Raghavan’s pen.
But as an eager-beaver student in the Group, I am lured into offering some thoughts, some rumblings in the mind, some queries, on reading your document.
“The scene in this epic was constructed, I believe, to deliberately keep us ordinary mortals and our consciences perennially befuddled about the lofty concept of Dharma … so that we realise that no matter how much, or how deeply we think we have fathomed the contours and dimensions of Dharma, it will, nonetheless, continue to elude us like eternal will o’ the wisp.”
You have captured our dilemma so precisely! What is the message for us? Should ‘dharma’, which the Supreme Being regards as his core ‘sankalpa’ drawing him into interventional incarnations – yuge, yuge, should it be shrouded in such befuddling shape, form or lingua? In his Gita, the Lord goes to painfully detailed extents to place comprehension of ‘dharma’ beyond ‘any reasonable doubt’ to a person of average intelligence. Why would this epic seem to work contrarily – in this particular episode amongst a few others?
Going through your essay, I get a feeling that all of us must sort out in our minds one central issue: which is, are we seeing Rama in action that is we are enjoying a true story narrated as it happened – ithi haasa; or, are we seeing the word wizardry of the rendering poets – be it Valmiki or Kamaban (Valmiki in this particular instance as we have not yet moved to Kamban’s version of this affair)?
This apparent confusion is evident from your statements:
“Sri Rama was an astute reader of human nature. And so was Sita too. It was because they both so well understood human nature that the divya-dampathi-s tacitly undertake to enact the “agni-pravesam” in the way they did ….”
And
“In the “agni-pravesam” episode, Valmiki, to my mind, was skilfully using what is called the “shock and awe effect”: I.e. building a narrative and delivering a rather unsavoury, uncomfortable and very bitter lesson about human nature to be understood by all of us:….
Valmiki thus makes both Rama and Sita suffer grievously in the scene. He makes them utter the most unspeakable things to each other. He makes Rama behave totally out of character …. “atrociously”, in fact!”
Are we seeing Rama’s ‘astute skill to read human minds’ that powers ‘his enacting the ‘agni-ravesam’ episode – OR – are we seeing Valmiki ‘skillfully using the platform to deliver a ‘shock and awe effect’ – catharsis effect as you would like to call it? You seem to say that those abhorrent words that we are debating with our minds churning and hearts in turmoils were actually sculpted by Valmiki and put in the mouths of these two divine actors – for his own end?
Because a clarified answer to this puzzling thought in all of us possibly would place the onus for our mental churn truly where it lies.
In other words, back to where we started, – are we going through an ‘ithi haasa’ or are we enjoying a poetically stellar ‘kaavya’ with the poet having a free field to impose his thoughts – queer though they seem in this episode – on unwary and rattled readership, clinging on, as it were, to hopes that that Ram Lalla is not capable of hurting a fly and this is an aberration that the poet has invented for whatever dark purpose he had in mine; or, that these are Supreme Beings with their words and conduct beyond testing against the standards of mere mortals, or that – as you say – “there is indeed a very dark, malevolent and pathological streak running strong and deep inside human minds which often finds, and then derives, some perverse pleasure (Schadenfreude)” , and “that was the only credible and effective way in which Valmiki could convincingly reveal to all humanity the darkest side of human nature lurking inside every human spirit in this world.” – I know I am tearing this out of context but with a purpose – and having incarnated as humans these two also are possessed by such a ‘pathological streak’ hereabouts?
It could have been ‘play-acting’ by the Divya Dampatis, as Sri Raghavan would suggest. But then, as he himself wonders, where was the need for all the filth? Rama could have just honestly told Sita – I trust you. I am at heart convinced your virtuosity is untouched in this year-long incarceration. But the world would not believe it that easily. So, demonstrate to the world that your virtuosity is indeed untouched. It is well within you. And the onus is yours.’ That would have set up the ‘agni pravesa’ quite without that cathartic effect you are talking about. Far from the very physical episode of ‘agni pravesa’, it is the unspeakable words that tumble out of Rama’s lips – or Valmiki’s? – that cause a grinding, pulsating, bleeding wound in everyone’s heart, don’t they? So unspeakable that Sita would retort, with all the civility at her command:
किं मामसदृशं वाक्यमीदृशं श्रोत्रदारुणम् |
रूक्षं श्रावयसे वीर प्राकृतः प्राकृताम् इव
kiM mAmasadR^ishaM vAkyamIdR^ishaM shrotradAruNam |
rUkShaM shrAvayase vIra prAkR^itaH prAkR^itAm iva
“O valiant Rama! Why are you speaking such harsh words, which are violent to hear for me, like a common man speaking to a common woman?”
prAkR^itaH – actually connotes ‘lowly’.
Rama could have even stopped with his
yatkartavyaM manuShyeNa dharShaNaaM pratimaarjataa |
tatkR^itaM raavaNaM hatvaa mayedaM maanakaaN^kkShiNaa
viditashchaastu bhadraM te yo.ayaM raNaparishramaH |
sutiirNaH suhR^idaaM viiryaanna tvadarthaM mayaa kR^itaH || 6-115-15
rakShataa tu mayaa vR^ittamapavaadam cha sarvataH |
prakhyaatasyaatmavaMshasya nyaN^gaM cha parimaarjataa
tadgachchha tvaanujaane.adya yatheShTaM janakaatmaje |
etaa dasha disho bhadre kaaryamasti na me tvayaa |
kaH pumaaMstu kule jaatah striyaM paragR^ihoShitaam |
tejasvii punaraadadyaat suhR^illekhyena chetasaa
The last verse summing up the societal norm that Rama cited in disowning Sita – How could a ‘noble man’ born in an illustrious race, take back a woman who lived in another’s home?
But to go on to say –
tadadya vyaahR^itaM bhadre mayaitat kR^itabuddhinaa |
lakShmaNe vaatha bharate kuru buddhiM yathaasukham ||
shatrughne vaatha sugriive raakShase vaa vibhiiShaNe |
niveshaya manaH siite yathaa vaa sukhamaatmanaH
??
That mind, at that moment, was very dark, murky and most vengefully cruel, indeed.
The touchstone that we test this episode with is what Sage Narada described Rama to be:
niyata aatmaa mahaaviiryo dyutimaan dhR^itimaan vashii
buddhimaan niitimaan vaa~Ngmii
dharmaj~naH satya sandhaH ca prajaanaam ca hite rataH |
yashasvii j~naana saMpannaH shuciH vashyaH samaadhimaan
sarvaloka priyaH saadhuH adiinaaatmaa vicakShaNaH
krodhe kShamayaa pR^ithvii samaH
raamam satya paraakramam
Sri V.V.S.Iyer, in his grand, awesome treatise on Kamba Ramayanam, would say this of Rama, in his character analysis:
Rama has the dignity of Nestor and the cleverness and the
skill of Ulysses, but Nestor lacks the fire and delicate moral
sensibility, and Ulysses the straightness, of the Prachanda
Kodhanda Rama 1 who will go through fire rather than go back
upon his pledged word. The Messiah is not worked up by Milton
with the same power with which he has worked up his Satan and
Beelzebub or Adam and Eve, and his figure does not leave a
lasting impression upon the readers’ imagination as does the
figure of Satan ; and there is a shadowiness about him which
takes away a great deal from him, though as literary creations
they impress the reader with no less force than the character
of our hero.
(Sri Iyer invests exhaustively in his brilliant analysis of Rama as a character in his humongous treatise on Kamba Ramayanam. Strangely, he seems to have seen fit to gloss over this particular episode. It would have been very interesting to find his thoughts here. We have several worthies venturing into this swirl and offering an opinion and we would be looking at some of them in the course of this engrossing discussion.)_\
It is against these standards we all choose to test Rama’s words and actions in the epic. And though we have had a few occasions – like Rama investing so much of self-pity when he is up against the emotional wall – we did have to wonder if this one is playing true to the standards set for him, in this particular episode, our minds crumble, crack under the weight of the atrocious conduct revealed in those really vile words of his.
We accept Krishna for all his mischiefs and cutting corners with dharma which he goes on to define. We never seem to question in our minds the chasm between what Krishna preached and what he practiced. Because Krishna comes through as a person – a God figure – who is beyond standards of human conduct. But Rama is supposed to be the standard for the ideal human and hence the wringing minds and bleeding hearts on going through this episode.
These discussions are woven around the Valmiki version of the episode. Our initiative is actually to read Kamban – his Irama Kaavyam. And, as this poet has done consistently throughout his rendering, he has chosen to diverge from Valmiki and interpolate, impact his narrative with his own religious and spiritual faith, his cultural leanings and his own very Thamizh values. Yet, though the words chosen by Kamban are very different, the dark, vengeful, vile streak remains in his rendering too. That is quite saddening.
You have alluded to the ‘patti mandrams’ in Thamizh country treating this episode as one of the most popular topics for debates. True. But what is widely debated is, I think, the physical act of ‘agni pravesam’ and its fairness or otherwise. The obnoxious words that Kamban has chosen to put on the lips of his unflappably straight Rama are rarely discussed. A discussion would obviously hurt the foundation of the solid ‘bhakti’ for Rama that the south has nourished since the advent of the Azhwars and we would very much like to cling on to that emotional attachment to that Lord of gentle valour – சினத்தினால் தென்னிலங்கைக் கோமானைச் செற்றா மனத்துக்கினியானை.
Thank you very much once again for such an erudite and compelling presentation. Your thoughts are always assertive and well-argued. But then, as you yourself would ask time and again, where are the pramanas?
Fond wishes,
Parthasarathy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Sri Parthasarathy,
What a true literary delight you have penned indeed in responding to my blogpost on the subject-line on my own website at:
https://mksudarshans.blog/2021/08/15/the-agni-pravesam-of-sita-ramas-atrocious-behavior-and-trial-by-media/
Without in any way trying to sound argumentative, Sir, please allow me, in my own humble way, to try and address the very valid questions posed to me in your email below…. You must please regard my thoughts expressed here as having been articulated more in the spirit of savoring the “rasa” of the Ramayana than any kind of defense of either this or that sundry position of mine. I have always believed that the Ramayana can be enjoyed thoroughly only if its “rasa” is contemplated upon deeply… and not by being defended in scholastic debates on this themes and principle or the other. Which is why, to that very valid question you posed to me while you signed off your email (viz. ” But then, as you yourself would ask time and again, where are the “pramanas”?”), my simple (or, rather simpleton’s) answer is just this:
I try to draw lessons from the Ramayana not always through “pramaana“; I do so occasionally through “anumaana” also. More often than not, when hoary “pramaana“, the scriptural authority that punditry demands and insists upon so much, I find it cannot provide me altogether fully satisfactory answers, I seek then answers and clarity in “anumaana“, the plain inferences that even a layman like me can draw from contemporaneity …. and quite easily relate to.
It is on the basis of the statement of my firm belief above, that I now try to address your questions:
1. To your first question viz. “Should ‘dharma’, which the Supreme Being regards as his core ‘sankalpa’ drawing him into interventional incarnations – “yuge, yuge“, should it be shrouded in such befuddling shape, form or lingua? In his Gita, the Lord goes to painfully detailed extents to place comprehension of ‘dharma’ beyond ‘any reasonable doubt’ to a person of average intelligence. Why would this epic seem to work contrarily – in this particular episode amongst a few others?
My answer: In the Bhagavath-Gita, the Krishna avatar spoke; whereas in the Ramayana, the Rama-avatar acted.
Usually, it is said that actions speak louder than words… To that I say, not always.
Sometimes, actions are harder to fathom than the spoken word… and there are so many instances in the Ramayana where the actions of the “maryaada purushottaman” were unpredictable and inscrutable…. The dhaarmic quality of many of his deeds were not easily visible or comprehensible… e.g. why did he renounce his right to the throne of Ayodhya without demur?why did he kill Vali in the manner he did? why did he mete out the treatment to Surpananka that he did?
Moral justification for many of Rama’s actions were not apparent prima facie… It had to be either later explained by himself — which he often did rather sketchily — or it had to be adduced painstakingly by traditional Ramayana exegetists. Even in the Mahabharatha, many of Sri Krishna’s deeds were not so apparently “dhaarmic” to the ordinary layman. It is really not given so easily to Man to be able to divine the Divine Mind. Throughout the Ramayana, one can easily see that Rama remained rather reticent, or less than wholly forthcoming, in explaining clearly the motives and rationale for many of his actions — and I think that became the job left later for generations of Ramayana scholars to do. Krishna in the Mahabharatha too, in fact, left many in doubt and deeply bewildered too about his motives and the dhaarmic justifications for many of his deeds. But then, Krishna did one outstanding thing which Rama did not! That was “upadesam” — sermon! Krishna spelt out as grand sermon to Arjuna in the Bhagavath-Gita, at the end of the Mahabharatha, what the divine scheme of all existence is… He spelt out clearly what Dharma meant when it is said to be Sanaatanam … eternal and universal. Thus, Krishna and Rama, respectively in their avatars, really upended the cliché that says “deeds speak louder than words“. Rama’s deeds in the Ramayana, thus, did not really speak to the layman as loudly as did the words of Krishna in the Bhagavath-Gita.
2. Your second question was this: “Going through your essay, I get a feeling that all of us must sort out in our minds one central issue: which is, are we seeing Rama in action that is we are enjoying a true story narrated as it happened – ithi haasa; or, are we seeing the word wizardry of the rendering poets – be it Valmiki or Kamaban (Valmiki in this particular instance as we have not yet moved to Kamban’s version of this affair)? This apparent confusion is evident from your statements… You seem to say that those abhorrent words that we are debating with our minds churning and hearts in turmoils were actually sculpted by Valmiki and put in the mouths of these two divine actors – for his own end?”
My answer: Sir, there is no confusion ….. at least, not in my mind.
There is no doubt at all that the Ramayana is incontestably an “itihaasa” and Valmiki (later, Kamban following suit) duly recorded what “really happened as it did happen” during Rama’s avataric sojourn on earth.
As we all know well, that in writing a chronicle, the chronicler must not take any liberties with the bare facts, or with the truth and accuracy of what he is recording. But then he is entitled, however, to add emphasis and embellishment he deems appropriate for the narrative he is constructing. It is literary prerogative of the raconteur or chronicler to turn the spotlight upon what he sees as event, episode, character or sequence which, in his own fine judgement, or in his own sense of aesthetics, deserves to be highlighted more starkly or strongly than others.
Now, in the “agni pariksha” incident, Valmiki, the poet non pareil that he is, had a choice — and I think it is not at all unreasonable to assume it — to portray all its itihaasic content or footage in 2 distinct ways. In one, he could choose to “soften” or “tone down” every thing unsavory that transpired between Rama and Sita i.e.in other words, Valmikia could have reported everything rather matter-of-factly, and perhaps without overly focusing on the brutality and harshness of the entire scene.
Alternatively, on the other hand, Valmiki could have chronicled everything “without pulling punches“, and portrayed the entire episode in all its graphic ugliness without expurgating anything of it.
Obviously, Valmiki chose the latter course (having perhaps correctly divined what you yourself have correctly termed “bhagavath-sankalpam”) and that is why he recorded and narrated what did happen as “itihaasa” on that fateful day on the Lankan battlefield in exactly the way he did in the Yuddhakaanda…. He scripted the whole episode as the Divya-Dampathi , the divine couple who were the chief protagonists of the divine play, had perhaps wished it to be as per their “sankalpam”.
There is thus no confusion at all in my mind whatsoever , nor in any of my original statements, that what did happen in the “agni–pravesam” episode is indeed “itihaasa” … but I do aver that it was narrated by Valmiki, the poet, with the kind of heightened emphasis and intense highlighting, graphic flourishes even, which he felt was perfectly appropriate for the occasion. In doing so, Valmiki was not (quoting you) “sculpting… putting abhorrent words in the mouths of these two divine actors – for his own end?” . I believe that Valmiki was, instead, merely exercising a prerogative that is wholly legitimate and is also well within the permissible boundaries and norms of a literary art-form of which he was truly a master. The charge brought against him in this regard will not hold — the charge which arraigns the ” poet (for) having a free field to impose his thoughts – queer though they seem in this episode – on unwary and rattled readership”.
3. To your third and final question: It could have been ‘play-acting’ by the Divya Dampatis, as Sri B S Raghavan would suggest. But then, as he himself wonders, where was the need for all the filth? Far from the very physical episode of ‘agni pravesa’, it is the unspeakable words that tumble out of Rama’s lips – or Valmiki’s? – that cause a grinding, pulsating, bleeding wound in everyone’s heart, don’t they? Are we seeing Rama’s ‘astute skill to read human minds’ that powers ‘his enacting the ‘agni-pravesam’ episode – OR – are we seeing Valmiki ‘skillfully using the platform to deliver a ‘shock and awe effect’ – catharsis effect as you would like to call it?
My Answer: It is not a case of “either/or”. It is a case of “AND”. There is no necessity to introduce a binary choice, as you suggest, in we all wanting to understand why Valmiki used the “shock and awe effect” to drive home the subtlety of the moral lessons that are to be derived from the “agni-pariksha” episode … (and what those moral lessons are, to the best of my own understanding, I have essayed already, Sir, in my blogpost referred above).
Sir, you are not amiss in describing the words that Sri Rama hurled at Sita in this famous Ramayana scene as being “filth“, “unspeakable” and as “meant to ….cause a grinding, pulsating, bleeding wound in everyone’s heart”.
To the readers, students, commentators of Ramayana, to modern-day feminists and gender-rights “warriors”, and to every person who possesses a rather sensitive nature that is allergic to depiction of any kind of violence and brutality, whether physical, mental or psychological, in books, drama, on TV or celluloid screens or in real life … to such persons, indeed, the scene of the “agni pariksha“, and Sri Rama’s behavior and words in it, will indeed seem very distressing and repugnant.
But as an avid student of Ramayana myself, let me say this: without the “agni-pariksha” episode as narrated in it, the epic “ithihaasa” would simply lose half the interest and enthrallment it holds for me. Valmiki did not depict this scene for those of us who, for want of a more polite word, I have to say are probably “morally faint-hearted“. In every book, TV Show or movie we read or watch these days, there are certain passages or portions in it, that carry a “WARNING” to readers and viewers, cautioning or alerting them in advance that what they are about to read or witness is “graphic or adult in nature and might cause distress to some; viewer discretion is advised”. The Valmiki Ramayana is a great “itihaasa” but it is also a great and epic work of literature. And so, it also similarly does contains graphic scenes and episodes — ‘itihaasic‘, of course — which the author has deliberately included in it with the intention to “shock and awe” the audience. Why? Because, in Valmiki’s artistic view, such “shock and awe effect” and “outrageous content” is absolutely essential to the purpose of his work viz. to deliver an inconvenient truth about human nature: that there are some parts of the human psyche that are very dark, very perverse and very pathological. And from Valmiki’s own artistic vantage, such grim lessons cannot be imparted in any other way but through “shock and awe”, if they are to register as deeply within the minds of the audience as he wants.
In conclusion, I thank you Sir, for posing such truly penetrative and pertinent questions to me and giving me thereby both reason and the opportunity to plumb the depths of my very own understanding of this great “itihaasa” called Srimadh Ramayana which is truly a repository of the loftiest of human truths and wisdom.
Best Regards,
Sudarshan Madabushi