Dasaratha’s Children

The Dasaratha Jataka  (DJ) is a version of Ramayana, which is quit distinct from the Valmiki version of the epic. It relates the story of King Dasaratha of Benares, his sons, Rama and Lakkhana, their sister, Sita, and half-brother, Bharata. There is no Shatrughna.

King Dasaratha has three children by his chief queen: Rama, Lakkhana and Sita. The chief queen dies and is superseded by a queen who bears a son called Bharata. At this the king is so pleased that he promises to grant her a wish. Soon the queen decides to check if the King was serious about his wish. When Bharata is seven, she asks that he be made king. Horrified, Dasaratha refuses. But the Queen persists. The King grew worried at thought that his queen was a treacherous woman, and if the children of his first wife, remained at the palace, she might cause them harm; maybe even murder. So he calls the three siblings and advises them to go into exile for their own safety. They should return when he died and take over the throne, he says.

Sita decides to accompany her brothers. The three settled in a hermitage in the Himalayas. Lakkhana and Sita decide they go about with the task of gathering food for the three of them, as Rama was the eldest. The soothsayers had predicted that the King would live for twelve more years. The soothsayers had predicted that the King would live for twelve more years. But King Dasaratha was so upset with the absence of his children that he died after nine years, not twelve.

On his death Bharata went with the army to fetch Rama back. They camped near the spot, and with just a few ministers entered the hermitage at a time when Lakkhana and Sita had gone into the jungle. Rama was sitting by the entrance, fearless and at ease, like a well set up golden image. Bharata went up and greeted him, stood to one side, and told him the news of the king. He and his ministers fell at Rama’s feet and wept.

Rama neither grieved nor wept; his senses were not even disturbed. When Bharata had wept and sat down, in the evening the other two arrived with roots and fruit. Rama thought, that Lakkhana and Sita were young and lacked his power of comprehension. If they were told of their father’s death, they might not be able to bear the grief and their hearts may burst. He decided that he would break the news to them gently.

He indicated to a pond and said, ‘You are late. Your punishment is to go into the water and stay there.’ They did so, and Rama said that Bharata had brought the sad news of the death of their father, King Dasaratha. At this they fainted. Twice more he tells them, twice more they faint. Then he took them out of the water. Once they were comforted, all of them wept again, except Rama.

Bharata then asked Rama why he is not grieving and Rama gives him the following explanation –

“When man can never keep a thing, though loudly he may cry,

Why should a wise intelligence torment itself thereby?

“The young in years, the older grown, the fool, and eke the wise,
For rich, for poor one end is sure: each man among them dies.

As sure as for the ripened fruit there comes the fear of fall,
So surely comes the fear of death to mortals one and all.

“Who in the morning light are seen by evening oft are gone,
And seen at evening time, is gone by morning many a one.

“If to a fool infatuate a blessing could accrue
When he torments himself with tears, the wise this same would do.

“By this tormenting of himself he waxes thin and pale;
This cannot bring the dead to life, and nothing tears avail.

“Even as a blazing house may be put out with water, so
The strong, the wise, the intelligent, who well the scriptures know,
Scatter their grief like cotton when the stormy winds do blow.

“One mortal dies—to kindred ties born is another straight:
Each creature’s bliss dependent is on ties associate.

“The strong man therefore, skilled in sacred text,
Keen-contemplating this world and the next,
Knowing their nature, not by any grief,
However great, in mind and heart is vext.

“So to my kindred I will give, them will I keep and feed,
All that remain I will maintain: such is the wise man’s deed.”

Rama explained the concept of ‘impermanence’ of things through the words.

After that Rama said that his exile had three more years to run, but gave Bharata his straw sandals to rule in his stead. Bharata returned with Lakkhana and Sita. The sandals were put on the throne when the ministers give judgment, and if the judgment was wrong they clapped together, if it was right they stayed quiet. After three years Rama returned home; he married Sita and ruled for sixteen thousand years. The whole point being made in this version is that Rama is the Bodhisattva, and as such gives an object lesson in controlling one’s feelings. From the Buddhist point of view the kernel is reached with the second verse, when Bharata asks: “Rama, by what power do you not grieve at what is grievous? You hear that father is dead but sorrow does not overcome you.” This is most unlike the Rama of the Ramayana, who faints at the news and then laments at length. He acts in accord with Hindu values. The author of the DJ is criticizing those values and saying, “Our idea of a hero is that he acts like this.”

This version however, does not proceed to take on the epic proportions that the Valmiki version does. There is no kidnapping and therefore no Ravana, Hanuman, et al.

TEXT SOURCE: The Dasaratha Jataka, Story number 461, Jataka Tales

LOCATION: Pan India

IMAGE SOURCE: Wikipedia

First Published in "Talking Myths Project" - Dasaratha's Children )

Unconventional Protest

(Pic Courtesy-Times of India)

The recent ‘protest’ by the CM of Delhi has been called names, chief among them being ‘anarchy’. The CM is accused to have driven the state to an anarchical state by leading the protest. Friends and foes were up in arms about the means and the unconventional modus operandi of the protest. How can the CM force an established system to change ways? Are the state and its CM beyond the purview of the constitution? Has he not violated the constitution by taking his protest public when his prime job is to quash all public protests, which could have led to violence?

 

(Pic Courtesy - NDTV.com)

I am appalled to say the least when I heard and read the ‘learned’ make such comments in such pompous and holier-than-thou attitude and words which were quite a mouthful, meanings for many made me scamper towards the dictionary. I am not learned enough to understand the jargon and matters around the Constitution, Republic, etc. I don’t know much about Governance as I have seen more of the lack of it, so let me refrain from commenting on the 9pm-intelligentsia.

But what is beyond me is the raising of perfectly threaded eyebrows to certain issues. What are people upset with – is it David unsettling the Goliaths or the unconventional means of protest? As far as the confrontation of the fledgling political outfit of a David with the established political parties with all the paraphernalia at their beck and call – the world has seen the outcome and people are rejoicing at some glimmer of hope on the horizon. We have seen many instances of overconfident giants being relegated to defeat by relatively unknown or minor entities who stood no chance prior to the confrontation.

What baffles me the most is the hue and cry on the unconventional method of protest. Since childhood, we have been exposed to many unconventional methods of protest and none have bothered to question them.

When Gandhiji first mooted the idea of burning the ‘passes’, an obligatory identification document for all non-South African citizens in Johannesburg, wasn’t that against their constitution? When he further advised people to protest non-violently, wasn’t that unconventional? When he advised equality of all castes, wasn’t that against the then social order? When he suggested protests by burning all foreign imports, wasn’t that against law of the land? I can go on, but what is important to realize is that it was exactly these unconventional methods of protest that ushered in a change and need I mention, change for good.

Mythology too is witness to many an unconventional methods of protest. Sati jumped into the sacrificial fire to protest against her husband, Shiva’s insult. Today people will call it suicide, but then it was unconventional even for the gods, and it was so disturbing to Shiva that he literally lost his cool! In Ramayana, towards the end, when Rama is united with his sons, it was hinted to Sita that she should prove her chastity once again. Sita protested against the unfairness and decided to find refuge in Mother earth than submit. Wasn’t this an unconventional protest for a woman who had stood by every said and unsaid norm of the then society? Didn’t she question the laid down societal norm or convention?

Conventions lead to status-quo and a state of complacency for any establishment. While the unconventional disturbs the fabric of order, it does set in new rules of the game. Martin Luther King had once said, "One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. Today, our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change."

While the ‘protectors of status quo’ are up in arms, I am sincerely hoping that ‘fraternities of the indifferent’ will rise to the occasion, since ‘our very survival’ depends on our ability to accept this ‘challenge of change’.

While I am not holding a brief for the new David on the block, I do think that the nation needs a revolution. We need a change and change is what we need.

When a child is born, it causes unimaginable pain to the woman, but is the most joyous moment for the mother. On this Republic Day, we as citizens of India need to take a call, we want to endure like the woman in pain or enjoy like the joyous mother – a little discomfort notwithstanding.

You decide.

Did Sita err?

Recently Kailash Vijayvargiya, a BJP Minister from Madhya Pradesh, India, has said that if the women of India breach the lines of morality, they will be punished, just like Sita (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-05/india/36161573_1_kailash-vijayvargiya-babulal-gaur-maryada). While the statement is highly regressive and offensive, what is important is that it did not quite stir a hornets’ nest, except for some condemnation in the social media and a few hours wasted on the visual media.

Does this reveal a passive acknowledgement of such mindset?

This leads me to the question – did Sita err?

In Ramayana, when Sita sends Lakshman to help Rama during their exile in the jungles, Lakshman is supposed to have drawn a line (of morality) asking Sita not to breach it under any circumstances. When Ravan is supposed to have come in the guise of an ascetic asking for alms, he provoked Sita to come out and give him the arms, as he was unable to cross the zone too. According to a poetic version of this episode from the Bengali poem “Meghnadbadh Kabya” (slaying of Meghnad) written by Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Ravan is supposed to have told Sita – “Give me alms, or say you will not, so that I may go elsewhere. Are you unwilling to serve a guest today, O daughter of Janak? Do you want to blacken the house of the Raghu’s with the scandal of this, Married into it though you are?...)*

If we go with the above or any version, Ravan, in the guise of an ascetic is supposed to have threatened Sita with dire consequences for denying alms to an ascetic. So what choice did Sita have?

If Sita declined to step out and give alms to the ascetic as was the norm of the day, she would insult her illustrious in-laws, the clan of the Raghu’s who were known for being the upholders of morals and principles. She would have further maligned the family of her father, King Janak for poor upbringing which had not taught its daughters to serve ascetics. Wasn’t Sita simply following the rules set by the patriarchal norms of the then society? Just how did she breach the moral limits (so regressively known as Lakshman rekha)? Was Sita left with any choice, but to do what seemed to be the need of the hour?

This was a peculiar predicament for Sita. If she agreed with the moral code of her in-laws, then she could have harmed the established norms of the society, and if she catered to the societal norms, then she would have broken the moral code of her in-laws. At the end of the day, Sita was in such a tragic state, because she decided to follow her husband, kidnapped by a King, because her brother-in-law severed the nose of a jungle woman, and later asked to prove her chastity, by her husband. In all the cases, she had to suffer the acts of men. In spite of her unflinching loyalty and dedication, she is misunderstood, punished and banished, without ever given a chance to explain.

Sita's agni-pariksha

Sita endured it, for she had no choice as the moral-brigade of the times had enforced their rules. In her case, it was just not the King who questioned her but even a lowly born mortal (read ‘man’) questioned her morality. She was punished time and again for this single act of hers in many ways than one. But can the same norms be seen as an acceptable code of conduct today? Can stepping out at 9.30pm with a male companion be seen as a breach of morality and thus be punished and that too in such a brutal manner? Should women of today, (and I am not referring just to the 10-20% of the educated city-bred working women) live by the norms of the Puranic times? Should the modern woman, suffer what is better known as the Sita Syndrome? Also, just who are these self-appointed upholders of the medieval morality and what is their authority?

This is not just a feminine issue; it is a matter of civilisation. We cannot have predators roaming around with naked lust, and hide our women from their bloodthirsty eyes. We need to eliminate the predators themselves and let our women roam around freely in this country. We also need to vehemently shut the mouths of all the incorrect utterances of the fossilised moral brigade (be they the politicians or religious heads) and ensure that they simply do not exist. It is they who need to be put on leash, not our women.

Friends and readers of this Blog raise your voice and object to the abject utterances!

*Translated in English by William Radice, Penguin Edition

Ravan – Part 2

Many scholars have said many things about Ravan’s womanising ways, but that too is a contradiction in the opinion of many. Many have said that though he had many wives, which was probably a norm for Kings in those days, he always respected women. This can also be understood by the fact that his subjects were both happy in his regime and respected him as a King. A kingdom cannot be happy and content, if the women in the kingdom were insecure. Besides, many felt that his kidnapping of Sita, had less to do with his womanising ways or lust for women, than revenge for the wrongful mutilation of his beautiful sister, Surpanakha. However, there are different opinions on this matter, based on different versions. Let us understand this in a slight detail.

According to one version, a sage-woman by the name of Vedavati was performing penance to propitiate Lord Vishnu and gain him as a husband. Ravan was moved by her beauty which seemed to have been enhanced due to the penance, but she rejected his advances. When Ravan tried to force himself on her, she is supposed to have ended her life by burning herself. Before dying, she had vowed to be the cause of his death in her next birth. Later Vedavati is reborn as the first child of Ravan and Mandodari. It had already been prophesied that Mandodari’s first born would be the cause of Ravan’s death. On the birth of their daughter, she was ordered to be killed. However, Subahu, who was given the task of killing the child, was unable to kill the baby-girl and abandoned the child and lied to Ravan that he had killed her. The child was later found by King Janak, who brought up the child as Sita (also known as Vedavati, sometimes) and the rest as they say, is history.

There is another version of his alleged womanising ways. According to this version, Ravan tried to force himself on Rambha, an apsara, who was already engaged to Kuber’s (Ravan’s elder brother) son. Rambha pleaded to let her go as she was like a daughter to him, but Ravan could not be deterred. Seeing this, Kuber’s son cursed him that if he ever tried to force himself on any woman, then his ten heads would fall of his head. Some scholars also say that it was for this reason that Ravan could not violate Sita’s chastity when she was in his custody, and not necessarily due to his strong character and will, which many of Ravan’s admirers feel.

As I mentioned there are different opinions about Ravan’s womanising ways, but his strong will and the strength of character cannot be questioned. Many have also opined that he was well aware of the fact that Sita was his daughter, and it was due to this that he never even touched Sita. His only objective was to avenge his sister’s insult. Or was there some other objective?

Let me tell you a story here –

Once, when Vishnu was in his abode, Viakuntha, there were two dwarpal (gatekeepers) by the name of Jaya and Vijaya. Once when the Sanath Kumars (sons of Lord Brahma, who were born out of his mind, and thus are also known as Brahma’s manasputra) were visiting Vishnu, they were not allowed entry, as the Kumars were in the form of small children, and thus were not recognisable. However, this denial by the dwarpal angered the Kumars and they cursed Jaya and Vijaya that they would be expelled from Vaikuntha and would be born on earth. Vishnu however, agreed to mitigate the curse, after all they were just doing their duty. Vishnu gave them a choice. They could take seven births as devotees of Lord Vishnu or three births as enemies of Lord Vishnu. Jaya and Vijaya chose the option of enemies as this could bring them back to Vaikuntha and serve their Lord earlier than as devotees.

 Jaya & Vijaya on the Eastern gate at Jagannatha Temple, Puri, Odisha, India

In the first birth, Jaya and Vijay were born as Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha, who were killed by Vishnu as Narasimha and Varaha. In the second birth, they were born as Ravana and Kumbhakarna, who were killed by Vishnu as Ram and in the third birth; they were born as Sishupala and Dantavakra, who were killed by Vishnu as Lord Krishna. After these three births, Jaya and Vijaya return to Vaikuntha to serve their Lord.

Ravan Kidnapping Sita - Raja Ravi Verma

Coming back to Ravana, could his kidnapping of Sita (aka Lakshmi) be a way to come face to face with his Lord Vishnu and enhance the end of his second birth? Is this another case of pre-ordained destiny?

Well as they say, gods have their own ways and who are we mere mortals to understand them!! Leela, as they say!!