Two Tales of Two Brothers

Let me tell you about an interesting observation. But first stories, which many of us might be quite familiar with.

The first one is from the epic Ramayan, related to the Kishkindha episode. Sugriv and Vali were brothers and Vali was the king of the vanars in the Kingdom of Kishkindha. He had a boon, that he would absorb half the strength of his opponent in a fight/battle. Once a demon by the name of Dundubi threatened him to a duel, but when Vali accepted it, he developed cold feet and ran away. Both Vali and Sugriv chased him till he entered into a cave. Before going inside the cave, Vali asked Sugriv to wait for him outside the cave and in case he saw blood coming out of the cave, then he should assume him to be dead and return to the kingdom and crown himself the King. After Vali had gone inside the cave, Sugriv heard loud sounds and soon he saw blood coming out of the cave. Sugriv assuming that his brother was dead, bolted the entrance of the cave with a boulder and came back to the kingdom to inform all that their King was dead and assumed the throne.

Soon Vali managed to kill the demon, and came back to his kingdom to see Sugriv crowned as a king. This enraged him and he rushed to kill Sugriv. When Sugriv tried to explain that he had done as instructed to him, Vali would not hear and rushed to kill him. Sugriv had no option but to escape from there and live in exile. Vali in the meanwhile also forcefully took Sugrivs’ main wife Ruma. Later when Ram and Lakshaman came there in search of Sita, they met Sugriv and assured him of their support.

As planned, Sugriv challenged Vali to a duel in the forest and while the two were fighting, Ram hid behind a tree and shot an arrow and killed Vali. This singular act is seen as an unfair blemish in an otherwise spotless character of Ram. (We will not get into the details of the unfairness and will leave the story here.)

In the epic Mahabharata, during the war of Kurukshetra, again two brothers were pitched against each other, Karna and Arjun. During the war, when Karna gets off the chariot, to release its wheel which was stuck in the ground, Krishna coaxes Arjuna to kill Karna, even though Karna was unarmed. This too is seen as an unfair act by Krishna and he has been criticised for the same.

Am I telling you stories that you know?

Well now for a very interesting comparison in both the tales related above.

In the first tale, Vali and Sugriv were brothers because they were born of same mother, Aruni, but not the same father. Vali was the son of Lord Indra and Sugriv was the son of Lord Surya. In this case, Ram, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, sides with the son of Lord Surya to kill the son of Lord Indra.

In the second tale, Karna and Arjun are again bothers because they were born of the same mother, Kunti, but not the same father. Karna was the son of Lord Surya and Arjuna was the son of Lord Indra. In this case, Krishna, an avatar of Lord Vishnu again, sides with the son of Lord Indra, to kill the son of Lord Surya!

The first epic was written by Sage Valminki and the second was written by Sage Vyasa, but the similarities are too glaring.

• In both the cases, the fathers are Lord Indra and Lord Surya, the most important Vedic deities.
• In both cases, the driving force was Lord Vishnu in different incarnations
• In both cases, the death of one of the brothers is by unfair means.

What is more important is that what was done in the Ramayan was reversed in an effort to balance in Mahabharat, a poetic justice of sorts for the fathers, Indra and Surya!

Isn’t this interesting? Two epics, written by two different sages, during two different ages (Ramayan during Treta Yuga and Mahabharata during the Dwapar Yuga) but enabling a balance of justice.

Finally to conclude, Vali before dying is supposed to have told Ram that shooting him from behind and that too when he was fighting someone else was unfair. To avenge this unfairness, Ram allowed Vali to be reborn as the hunter Jara during the dwapar yuga (Mahabharata) who shoots an arrow at Krishna’s feet thinking him to be a deer, leading to the death of Krishna!

Jara killing Krishna (courtesy Wikipedia)

Doesn't this also depict the declining standards of morals? What was unfair during Ram's times and allowed to avenge later, is missing during Krishna's times?

 

Ravan - Part 1

Some time back, I wrote about Ravan’s family (Ravan's Family – Kumbhakarna, Ravan's Family – Surpanakha , ravans-family-meghnaad , ravans-family-vibhishan ). Some of my readers felt it strange that I left out Ravan himself. Was I playing safe and being politically correct? My answer to all is a loud No. I am a great admirer of Ravan as a character who had lots to admire about. A few aspects of his nature were definitely not what can be considered to be ‘popular’, to put it mildly, but even with them, the character of Ravan needs some critical appreciation.

Critics might question the timing of this article, especially when the nation is getting ready to burn effigies of this character, but then, man today is more rational than when the rituals started. I am hoping that today we can differentiate between what is good and what is evil and at the end of it all we will burn only the evil and retain all that is good.

Ravan was born to a Brahmin sage Vishrava and the Daitya princess Kaikesi (it is important to note that the word ‘daitya’ should not be understood as a giant; this could just be a community during those times, however, strength was a quality with this community as mentioned in the myth). It is said that Kaikesi’s father wanted her to marry the most powerful person on earth, so that they could produce exceptional children. He rejected all the kings, as none were greater than he. Kaikesi then identified sage Vishrava, but unfortunately she had approached him at an inauspicious hour. Vishrava warned her about this as this implied that her children would have evil leanings, but nevertheless agreed to marry her. Thus Ravan was half Brahmin from his father’s side.

Ravan is sometimes referred to as Dashamukha, implying that he had ten heads. In mythology, such references are significant. Some sources say that he was so named as his face reflected ten faces from the crystal necklace that his father had gifted him on his birth. A more commonly accepted explanation is that he was so intelligent, that he had the brains of ten people. Under the tutelage of his father, Ravan is supposed to have learned all the Vedas and other holy scriptures. He was also well-versed with the art and crafts of the Kashatriya community. Under the guidance of his maternal grandfather, he was well-versed with all the ethics of the Daitya community. He is also depicted with twenty hands, once again implying that he was very strong or that his strength was equal to that of ten people. He was gifted in music too, and was supposed to be an excelled Veena player.

Ravan is supposed to have undergone a severe penance to propitiate Lord Brahma, who pleased with his penance, granted him a boon. Ravan asked for immortality, but Brahma denied the same. Ravan then asked for invulnerability from all gods, and other heavenly spirits, besides demons and all kinds of serpents and animals. It was beyond his stature to ask for invulnerability from humans at that stage of his life (which is why Vishnu had to take the human form of Rama later in the epic).

Armed with the boon of invulnerability he was made the head of the Lankan army by his grandfather. But Ravan was not satisfied by just the leadership of the army and so asked for the entire Lanka, which was ruled by his elder brother Kuber. His grandfather suggested to Kuber to concede to his suggestion as Ravan was unbeatable. Though Ravan is supposed to have usurped the throne of Lanka, his subjects were very happy and satisfied under his rule. It is said that even the poorest of the poor in his kingdom had utensils of gold and hunger was not known to anybody. The fact that later poets have called Lanka a kingdom of gold could just be a metaphor for the great rule and life under the rule of Ravan.

Ravan was a great devotee of Lord Shiva. Once Ravan tried to please him by trying to take his abode with him to Lanka and in his devotion, he tried to uproot the entire Mount Kailash. Seeing his abode shake, Shiva got irritated with him and pressed him down with his toe. The pinning down was both painful and also a lesson of humility for him. To please Shiva he sang paeans in honour of Lord Shiva for many years. In Shiva’s honour Ravan is supposed to have composed the Shiva Tandav Stotra, a form of dance worship. Pleased with his devotion, Shiva had gifted him the coveted weapon, the Chandrahas (moon-blade), and Ravan became a life-long devotee of Lord Shiva. 

The episode has been very beautifully carved out in one of the sculptures in Ellora Caves, Maharashtra, India –

Next we will read about Ravan and women in his life and his alleged misdemeanours.

Unsung Women of Ramayana

Though Ramayan is the story of Ram, the epic is also well knows for some of its female characterisations like that of Sita, Kaushalya and even Kaikeyi. But there have been some lesser known ladies who have not found much mention, even when characters like Manthara and Shabari find some mention and attention.



Let us discuss two of them here, Urmila, Lakshaman’s wife and Trijata. Did you say, Trijata who? Well then, let’s keep Trijata for later.

Lakshaman and Urmila from the
teleserial by Ramanand Sagar

Urmila is considered to be the most tragic characters in the epic. What might not be known to many is that Urmila was the daughter of King Janak and was thus the sister of Sita. Why this has not been mentioned often is not known. Urmila is tragic as she is supposed to have spent vanvaas (stay in the forests) without going to the van (forest)! When Ram, Sita and Lakshaman were leaving for the forest, she too wanted to accompany her husband like Sita. But Lakshaman is supposed to have said that he is going to serve his brother and sister-in-law and likewise she should stay back to serve his parents. Urmila stayed back to serve her father-in-law (who died soon) and three mother-in-laws. While all the brothers (Ram, Bharat and Shatrughan) had their wives with them, she was the only one who did not have her husband by her side for fourteen long years. Some versions mention that she did not step out of her room for fourteen years and some say, that she slept for fourteen long years. This seclusion is viewed by many as leading a life of extreme deprivation of worldly life in the absence of her husband.  A number of scholars have attributed small episodes to her, but they all depict her as a person whose existence was to follow instructions and not opine.  She probably lived like a nun, a life of servitude in solitude at the peak of her youth.

The famous Hindi poet, Maithili Sharan Gupta was so disappointed with Valmiki’s treatment of Urmila, that he wrote his own epic by the name of Saket, based it on Ramayana, whose heroine was not Sita, but Urmila! The Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore too is supposed to have lamented this treatment (or mistreatment) of Urmila by Valmiki. According to Tagore, Valmiki had shown Lakshaman as the ideal brother, but completely forgot Urmila who was left all alone in Ayodhya for fourteen long years. Truly an unsung heroine of the epic.

Sita and Trijata from the teleserial by
Ramanand Sagar

Trijata was one of the demoness who were guarding Sita after Ravan kidnapped her to Lanka. However, that is not Trijata’s only introduction. She was also Vibhishan’s daughter and thus Ravan’s niece and was blessed with the power of foresight. She was the only one who was sympathetic to Sita during her plight and while the others were coaxing Sita to give in to Ravan, she was the only one who kept consoling Sita about Ram’s definite visit to Lanka to save her. Her faith in Ram’s victory in the battle was reinforced after she had a dream where she sees Ravan on a donkey, his head shaved off and his face blackened heading southwards (the direction was associated with doom and/or death).  She was a good hearted demoness and would scold the others whenever the others harassed Sita. She is supposed to have warned even Ravan against the war as she could foresee that he would lose, but Ravan obviously did not listen to her. It is said, that she soon became a confidante and a shoulder to cry upon for Sita. During the battle between Ram and Ravan, with her powers, she used to relate the events of the battle to Sita (something similar to what Sanjay was supposed to have done for Dhritarashtra during the war of Kurukshetra in Mahabharata).

Popular depiction of Trijata is an ugly ogress; however, Vibhishan is not shown as a demon. This is probably because not many are even aware of this relationship. Also, as mentioned earlier the depiction of rakshasa and rakshashi was always dark, red-eyes, disheveled hair, horns, et al. The same depiction has stayed on with Trijata too, though Vibhishana is never shown as one. Again this can be attributed    to popular perceptions.

Finally, why were characters like Urmila and even Mandodari (Ravan’s wife) not given their due attention? Many a times it has been seen that at the beginning of the plot, a number of characters are drawn which gives it a feel of an epic. Like in all epics, besides the main plot, there are sub-plots and many side-plots. This is like the tributaries of a main river, all converging into the main river. Though the author sets these characters with a set of ideas, in due course, ends up focusing only on the main characters or future characters and leaves a few by the side. This leads to some well-begun but half-baked characterisations in due course of time. Urmila was definitely one of them.

Another reason could be that these epics belonged to an oral tradition, where the stories were related orally over generations. As it happens many a times, the narrator ends up focusing on some and at times neglecting some characters, till they end up being part of the cast with no major contribution in the epic. The narrators perceptions take precedence.

However, Urmila’s contribution in terms of her ‘sacrifice’ (a virtue in Indian culture) is of epic-proportion and thus warranted a discussion. As far as Trijata is concerned, she is mentioned for her strong characterization (remember she warned Ravan about the impending disaster) and her staunch belief that Ram would come to save his wife and her interpretation of her dreams. She was also a strong support-system to Sita during her most trying times in the epic.

Twins – A case of peaceful co-existence.

The last few articles have been focusing on twins in mythology. It must be mentioned at the onset, that the theory of twins in mythology is a subject by itself. But we will avoid the intricacies of the theory and discuss the concept from a mythical perspective.

Twin birth was an intriguing subject for the mythologists of yore. Explanations for the normal itself were a task, and over that something out of the line taxed ones capabilities to the hilt. However daunting the task be, they did try to explain the phenomenon.

Nearly all the mythologies of the world have instances of twins. The Greeks had Artemis and Appolo, Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome,Castor and Pollux who went on to represent the Gemini twins, to name a few. The Bible hasEsau and Jacob, Cain and Abel. The Sumerians had Utu and Innana, while the Egyptians had the twin brothers Danus and Aegyptus. The Hindu myths have a host of twins, in the form of the Ashwins the twin gods of healing; Yama and Yami, Lakshaman and Shatrughan, and Luv Kush from Ramayan are just a few of them.

The concept of twin births was complicated and not understood well. This brought up the confusion of either double paternity or divine paternity. Divine paternity led to an element of mystery and magic, but at the same time it also gave a sort of sanction or rather a divine sanction.

In the earlier series, we have seen instances of conflict and rivalry; let us now examine a few cases of harmony and peaceful co-existence.

Castor and Pollux

A good example of the above is seen in the Greek myth of the twin birth of Castor and Pollux who go on to become the Gemini twins. Castor and Pollux were the result of two impregnations, one by Zeus who fell in love with the mortal and the married Leda. Leda on the same night got impregnated by her husband and thus the offspring were twins, one being divine and the other being a mortal. This reiterated the belief of the times of dual paternity and thus the offspring bearing the traits of the father. However, this myth is not quite of conflict as they two brothers were quite devoted to each other, to the extent that when the mortal brother was wounded the divine one asked for immortality for the other. The request was granted in a manner that when one brother was in Mount Olympus, the abode of the gods, the other brother would in Hades, the underworld, and thereafter they would exchange their positions.

Some Greek mythologists have explained the myth of Narcissus in the theory of twinship (refer to the article The Romance of Echo and Narcissus dated December 15, 2010, in this Blog). According to this interpretation, Narcissus had a twin sister who he lost and he would keep looking for her everywhere. After she died Narcissus would keep consoling himself by looking at his own reflection in the water, to keep her memory alive; it was not his love for himself as is better known! The myth of the more famous twins of Greek Mythology, Apollo and Artemis is also that of love and harmony and not that of hatred and jealousy

Ashwins

Horse-faced Ashwins

A similar situation is found in the Hindu myths too. Amongst the most famous of the twins are the Ashwins – the twin gods of healing. Ashwins were Vedic gods, portrayed as divine horsemen and there are more than 400 references of the god in Reg Veda. They were supposed to be the children of Sun god and an there is an interesting myth of their birth. It is said that the Sanjana the wife of Sun god could not bear the luminosity of her husband and to avoid the heat and the glare, she took the form of a mare and ran away to a shaded area. Sun god decided to change himself to a horse and followed her to the shaded area. The offspring of this mare and horse were the divine horsemen, the Aswins. This is also seen as an act of accommodation and benevolence on the part of the Sun god towards his wife. The Ashwins are thus also depicted as horse-faced gods. The Ashwins are thus seen as benevolent gods who are known for their medical feats and the ability to cure and give life to anyone who needs it, much to the chagrin of the other gods of the pantheon. (Here we can compare the acts of the Ashwins with the Greek Prometheus who goes against the gods to give the art of fire to mankind). The Ashwins are also considered to be the fathers of the twins Nakul and Sahadev in the epic Mahabharata, where Nakul was the most handsome of all and Sahadev was the most knowledgeable of all. Again we see that the offspring have the traits of the father as we have seen in the earlier myth of Castor and Pollux.

 

Besides the Ashwins the other twins in the Hindu myths, i.e. Lakshaman and Shatrughan, and Luv Kush from Ramayan amongst the few of them are too not at loggerheads. There is no rivalry in such myths but seem to share a harmonious relationship.

Thus we can conclude that the issue of twins was not just of confusion, but also divine in some case. The divinity in some of them avoided the evil aspect as we have seen in some of the cases above and this is critical. This could be both cultural as well as a sense of accepting the unacceptable, inherent in the cultural milieu. What cannot be understood, need not necessarily have an evil connotation. So an amicable and an acceptable solution was arrived at, as we see in the above myths. In some of the Hindu myths, either one of the twin brother does not have a significant role (like in the case of Shatrughan) or the twins have an equal role to play (like that of Luv and Kush in Ramayan), but the conflict is not there.

Though this is a contradiction to some of the myths of conflict and rivalry as we have seen before, the issue of divine intervention runs as a common aspect in all of the myths.

Are Marriages made in Heaven?

Marriages they say are made in heaven, may be, I have no clue, since I haven’t been to heaven as yet and am in no hurry to do so, either. For that matter, I don’t know anybody, who has gone to heaven or would be! Do you?

But on this day, I have a very basic question to ask, to people who come out with such sayings, and end up making mountains out of pimples. Why heaven? Let me analyse some great couples whose marriages are definitely subject of the heavens. How many of we mere mortals would like to exchange places with these great couples?

Ram & Sita from Epic Ramayan

A marriage which was definitely destined to take place and such a godly couple was never to be seen. A wife like Sita and a husband like Ram, who was the maryada purushottam – a man amongst men! The marriage began well, till things came to a state of exile ending with the kidnapping of Sita, followed by a battle. Such a heavenly wedding was rocked by palace intrigues and the taunts of laymen, ending up with the banishment of Sita during her pregnancy. She then gives birth to twins and continues to battle the hardships of a single mother in the jungle, till she manages to reunite her children with Ram, but ends up giving up her life. Anybody willing to exchange this marriage with theirs? Not me – not beyond the kidnapping, for sure!

Shiva & Parvati from Hindu Mythology

Shiva, a loner, an ascetic and living a Bohemian lifestyle; Parvati a princess, in love with Shiva, and willing to go to any extent to appease him. Parvati after a lot of penance manages to convince Shiva and the two get married. The wedding procession of Shiva had, all sorts of ghosts, goblins and creatures, with the groom on a bull! It is said that Parvati’s mother had fainted on seeing the wedding procession, but that’s not important. Also, the wedding attire of each member of the procession – a subject that is best not delved in, is also I guess not important! The groom stays on a mountain top. If all this is not enough, Shiva is known for his famous anger which burns up everything and makes the world tremble under his feet. Supposedly, the only husband whose anger surpasses that of his wife, but that is a different matter! Any takers for such a married life? Let’s move on!

Zeus & Hera from Greek Mythology

Zeus and Hera, the two chief deities of the Greek pantheon. Zeus, known for his affairs, with goddesses, nymphs and mortals and Hera known for her jealousy, and her vindictiveness. All through his life, Zeus keeps his affairs on and Hera chases him and his partners everywhere, with his partners bearing the brunt of her ire. Any takers for such a married life? Well to begin with, I do envy Zeus and his ability, virility, but wouldn’t it be better with a bit of a less nagging wife than Hera? Food for thought!

Vishnu & Lakshmi from Hindu Mythology

My last couple, considered to be the best of all, a life of fun, glamour and colour. Vishnu, the man amongst all, with an ability to do all that gods are well known for – has it all. Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, one who grants prosperity. Great wife to have. But all the myths suggest that the two seldom spend time together. Vishnu is busy taking different avatars on earth, chasing demons, and the chanchal Lakshmi left alone quite often, keeps moving all over the place (this place is quite huge) like a butterfly! Both happy and seldom complaining. I think the lack of proximity is the key to the success of this marriage! As they say, ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’.

Having analysed all the four marriages, I must say, I am happy my marriage was not made in heaven, but on earth, and like earth, my marriage has its mountains and valleys and sometimes deep drowning oceans too!

I don’t want a wife like –

• Sita, who suffers in silence, because I am used to a lot of shout-back by now!
• Parvati, even though she never complains – that’s too much of a luxury for a mere mortal like me!
• Hera, as she is too much of a nagging and suspicious woman.
• I wouldn’t mind a wife like Lakshmi who is the embodiment of wealth, but on second thoughts, I don’t want a wife who is so ‘chanchal’, and keeps flying away like a butterfly!

I am happy and content with what I have, besides the fact that I love status-quo! I do agree with the fact that change is good, but only if I was Zeus! But since that might not happen in the 21^st century,

• let me trust my wife and be by her side, especially when she needs me the most, unlike Ram;
• let me remain worldly and control my temper (do I have a choice?), unlike Shiva;
• let me be true to her unlike Zeus, &
• let me always be with my wife, unlike Vishnu!

Who cares where my marriage was made – I feel on top of the world today!

Happy Anniversary – my dear wife!