F Would any sensible person trust an untrustworthy person? This can be understood with the help of two examples:
1. Suppose, you are travelling in the countryside and somehow lost your way. You want to reach the highway. And then, if you come across a person but somehow, you come to know that this person is untrustworthy. Sometimes he speaks lies, and sometimes he speaks truth, but you can’t tell for sure when he speaks lies or when he speaks truth. Will you trust such a person to tell you the path to the highway? If yes, then on what basis? And if you choose to trust him, what are the chances that you will be able to get back to the path which will take you to your destination? And if there is no surety or guarantee, then, will it be a comfortable situation? Answer is that it is not going to be a comfortable position. And a sane person will never trust an untrustworthy person. Similarly, in our human life, we want to go towards a highway which can take us towards the ultimate goal of our human life. And during that journey, if we come across the Vedic literature which is supposed to lead us towards the highway which takes us to our ultimate destination. But if there is doubt in our minds regarding the truthfulness of Vedic literature, then, we will not be able to take the advantage of the wisdom that is given in them. We will be accepting only that part which we like and rejecting that part which we don’t like. And this can’t lead us to our goal. This can be understood with the help of another example. 2. Suppose a person is diseased. He goes to a doctor. If he asks a doctor to give the same medicine which the patient likes or understands and with no restrictions and not prescribe anything which the patient doesn’t like, then is it possible that such a person can get cured?? No. if a person has already decided what he wants to take and what he doesn’t want to take, then, what is the use of visiting the doctor and wasting the time of both. Similarly, if a person has already decided which part of the scripture should be considered authentic and which part should not be considered authentic based on his own presumptions, then, what is the use of approaching the scriptures and misleading others and oneself ? There is no use. Better to remain an honest unbeliever. G But the question still remains?? Someone may ask : Do you mean to say that Rama was right in sending Sita to forest in pregnancy? And in that way, do you mean to suggest that Rama was insensitive towards women, he was misogynist, patriarch and so on and it is desirable for a common man to be like that in a civilized, developed, modern society? And do you suggest that Rama was right in killing the shudra just because he was performing meditation? And do you mean to suggest that Shudras should not have the right to meditation? Do you mean to suggest that it is ok to be racist??? Because Rama is Maryada purushottama — best human among the dignified, the civilized, the modest. Whatever he does, the common person should follow. H Again, the answer is big NO again. Yes, Rama (historically) was Maryada purushottam — best human among the dignified, the civilized, the modest. And during those circumstances and according to the responsibility that he had, he was right in sending Sita into forest despite her pregnancy. And although he might seem insensitive towards Sita, still he was not misogynist or a patriarch. He had unparalleled love for Sita. Similarly, although he killed Shambhuka, he was not a racist. The reasons (from a sociological point of view) are mentioned here. Please note here that although extremely important, I am not going into the metaphysical/mystical/spiritual side of these issues in this article which are mentioned in various smritis and puranas (although those are facts. J By metaphysical/mystical/spiritual, I mean certain aspects like: 1. Rama is Vishnu and Sita is Lakshmi so they can never be separated from each other. Separation is only in the eyes of common people. Original Sita always remains with Rama. 2. Rama deliberately left Sita nearby the ashram of Valmiki muni. He kept here close to him only. 3. Actual reason for Rama giving up Sita was the curse of Bhrigu muni to Vishnu when Vishnu killed Bhrigu’s wife for giving shelter to the demons. 4. Actual reason for Rama giving up Sita was the curse of a parrot in Sita’s childhood. 5. Actually Rama is God and whoever is killed personally by God himself, he goes to spiritual loka (Vaikunthan) and enjoys life for eternity. What I am doing here is only analyzing the matter from the modern day sociological point of view. K What message did Rama want to give to the world by sending Sita into the forest? Throughout this episode. One point is common across all references. The reason Rama himself cited for sending Sita into the forest was Lokapavada. Which means — popular censure, popular accusation, general evil report. And when Lakshmana came back after leaving Sita in the forest, Rama was found crying for three days in agony. L Rama’s love for Sita?? It is a well-established fact that kings in those ages used to have many wives. Even Rama’s father, whom Rama eulogized so much, had three wives. But Rama on the contrary had only one wife. One of the most prominent reasons for this was his deep love for Sita. Although it might be said that Rama married only one wife, that he wanted to inspire, set an ideal example for every man to marry only one wife, but he is not known to have set any rule in this regard during his reign. Rama’s style of leadership is inspirational leadership. He would act in a certain way, according to his behavior, people would try to follow. Even during 14 years of exile, the way Rama cried in separation from Sita is unmatchable in the history of all love-stories of the world. It can be compared on the separation felt by Sri Radha when Krishna left Vrindavan and went to Mathura. Even when there was time for Ashvamedha Yajnas (many 100s of those), and it was needed that he should be accompanied with his wife, rather than marrying another woman, he chose to construct golden Yajna-Sita’s. This shows the amount of love Rama had for Sita. M How does an ideal king along with his queen relate to citizens in the kingdom?? Role of king and queen as father and mother: In Sanskrit, the citizens of a kingdom are referred to as praja. Etymologically, the word praja is a derived from two words — Pra + Jna. It is said — prajaayate iti praja. It means — That which is given birth to is called Praja. It literally means progeny, offspring, children, descendent, etc. So, in an ideal kingdom, the king treats the citizens as his own children, and the citizens treat king as their own father, and the queen as their own mother. That is, in an ideal kingdom, the relationship between the king and citizens is as deep, as loving as father and children. It is also said that in an ideal kingdom, citizens should treat the king as a mature son treats his father and a mature disciple treats his Guru and a devotee treats this worshippable Lord. Similarly, an ideal king treats his citizens as a father treats his own children, a Guru treats his disciple. Similarly, in an ideal kingdom, the queen is treated by its citizens as their own mother. It is said in the Niti sastras, that there are seven entities who are to be given respect as much as one gives to his/her biological mother. It is said in the Niti sastras: Atma-mata Guru patni brahmani Rajapatrika, dhenu dhatri tatha prithvi, saptaitah matarah smrta N Which means: One’s own biological mother, the wife of the guru, the wife of a brāhmaṇa, the wife of a king, the cow, the nurse, and the earth are known as the seven mothers of a man.” That means, the same amount of depth exists in the relationship of a citizen with the queen as a mature son/daughter has with his own biological mother. Now, how this discussion is related to our subject of Rama giving up Sita is as follows: P Analogy of parents. It is mentioned in the Vedic literature Srimad Bhagavata Purana 9.10.50 jugopa pitåvad rämo menire pitaraà ca tam He cared for the citizens exactly like a father, and the citizens accepted Him as their father. Transformation by Personal sacrifice VS Transformation by punishment. R Suppose, in a family, if one of the sons develops any negative feeling or resentment towards his loving mother or father who have great amount of love towards each other, or develops a doubt on character of his mother or father , and that resentment is also gradually spreading among other members of the family, other siblings, and all start expecting that father and mother should separate, then how would the father and mother try to resolve the issue and what could be the consequence of their resolution??? There could be two possible ways: 1. Father and mother punish the miscreant son, and warn others in an authoritative, dictatorial way that whosever feels or talks negatively among mother or father will be put behind the bars or will be given 100 lashes in the middle of the town or will be given capital punishment. If this is the resolution, then, what impact will it create in the minds of those who have doubt on the character of father or mother?? It will definitely not remove their doubts. Rather, their negative feelings towards father, mother will further deteriorate. 2. Father and mother get separated for some time, lead a life of austerity for some time which could be observed by their children and try to convince the children about their purity by giving them further evidence. If the parents do like this, then In due course of time, when the children see how much austerity the parents are performing, and how much they suffer while living separately from each other, the heart of the children may get transformed and then they will have a feeling of remorse. And they would feel how much the parents care about the feelings of their sons and daughters that they are ready to sacrifice their own pleasures for the sake of the opinion of children. The probability that the heart of the accuser and others will get transformed is very much higher in the second way rather than the first one. S What would be the impact had Rama punished the washerman and the related people? Similarly, had Rama punished the washerman by killing him or by any other means, then, the image of Rama would have further deteriorated in the eyes of the common public. Rather than considering the washerman’s fault, people would think that — Rama is not only lusty, but he is a ruthless dictator as well. And Sita is not just an unchaste wife, but a wicked, merciless woman as well. This would have certainly ruined the ideal Rama-rajya which Rama wanted to create. And then, the ‘modernists’ would be questioning the traditional followers of sanatana dharma regarding the same, and would be publishing papers in indological journals about how this part of Ramayana is added ‘later’. Ideal man can never be a ruthless dictator. What people thought when Rama gave up Sita? Performed Asvamedha Yajnas not with original Sita but deities of Sita on his side and when Sita entered in to the earth??? T Lav and Kush reciting Ramayana at Ashvamedha Yajna On the contrary, every time when the people saw that Rama had given up Sita, they became -remorseful. At the time of Asvamedha Yajnas, whenever people used to see the golden Yajna Sitas on the left side of Rama rather than original Sita and Rama’s sorrowful face, they used to recall the good times when original Sita was around how everyone was happy at that time. Then, they used to remember how much Rama and Sita have sacrificed for the foolishness of the citizens. Towards the end, when Sita took a vow of entering into the earth and thus again prove her chastity in front of citizens of Ayodhya and the rishis and demigods, etc. that time also, the respect the Ayodhya-vasis had for Sita and Rama increased many times, and they glorified Sita and Rama. Even they glorified Sita more than they glorified Rama. In this way, the glory of Sita was established more deeply in the society. V Was the reason for Rama giving up Sita — democracy??? As far as I understand, generally, in a democratic setup, there are elections, and whoever gets a higher number of votes, generally wins. If it was only about democracy, then, Rama would have conducted some form of polling for all the citizens and asked a question, somewhat like this: Those who want Rama should let Sita remain in the kingdom in the royal palace as the queen and beloved wife of Rama should press the button A. And those who want otherwise should press the button B. If ‘A’s are more — Sita and Rama stay together. If ‘B’s are more — Rama gives up Sita. If ‘A’s and ‘B’s are equal — Status quo remains. However, that was not the case. It is not in democracy that the opinion of even one person is given more importance. But it is in the Ideal families that there is a culture of respecting the opinion of even one person and the leaders in the family are ready to sacrifice their own personal comforts in order to give value to the children. W Ideal Leadership: More questions can be asked — What about the duties of Rama towards Sita as an ideal husband?? What about the rights of Sita as wife of Rama?? What about the rights of Sita as a citizen of ayodhya? What about the rights of Sita as a queen?? To answer this, one must understand : Rama has multiple roles or Dharmas that he is supposed to play. He is supposed to be the ideal king (Raja-dharma), ideal husband (Pati-dharma), ideal son (putra-dharma), ideal brother (Bhratra-dharma), ideal father (Pitra-dharma), ideal leader (Raja-dharma) and so on. Similarly, Sita also has multiple roles to play — ideal Queen, ideal wife (pati-vrata dharma), ideal mother, ideal daughter in law, ideal sister-in-law, ideal subordinate and so on. One must understand that all Dharmas are not on the same level. Among all kinds of Dharmas, the highest dharma is the Bhagavata dharma or Dharma of Bhagavan or Dharma of absolute truth or Dharma of the Atma or Dharma of the soul. Other Dharmas are laukika, mundana or lower.. And even among other mundane Dharmas, there is graduation. Often in the world in which we will live, there is a conflict between these various types of dharmas. It is a million dollar question, the answer to which should be very clear to every person in the society. And this question was even faced by Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. On one side, there was his Dharma as a Ksatriya ruler and on another side there was his Dharma as a family member of the Kuru dynasty. This conflict can be resolved by one simple formula — one should try to follow all his dharmas in ideal possible way, but if these conflicts in Dharmas are irresolvable, then, one may give up lower Dharma for the sake of upholding higher Dharma. I discuss the detail about this in another article, but this is the basic principle. For example — it is dharma that one should always speak the truth and never speak the lies. But it is also said that if by speaking the truth, an innocent person will get killed (note that it is also Dharma to save the life of an innocent person by all possible means one has), then, one should not speak such truth. Rather one may even speak false at that time. Based on a similar principle, Krishna asked Yudhishthir to speak lies when it was the only means to kill Dronacharya and killing Dronacharya was the only means to establish a Dharmic kingdom. Now, in this particular case which we are discussing, what is the higher dharma, and what is lower Dharma? Raja-dharma is higher or pati-dharma is higher??? Y We must understand that it is a higher priority to follow Raja-dharma or Dharma of a king rather than Pati-dharma or Husband-dharma. It is the duty of a husband to protect the rights of a wife. But higher than that, it is the duty of a king or a leader to set higher examples for citizens to follow by sacrificing his own enjoyment by giving up his beloved wife. And it requires a much greater amount of courage to follow Raja-dharma at the cost of pati-dharma. The lesson to be learnt is — If one is not strong enough mentally, emotionally and spiritually and also physically to reject or sacrifice the comfort levels of the lower dharmas for the sake of higher dharmas, one should not take the responsibility and privilege of the higher dharma. In modern times, people are more eager to talk about their fundamental rights, but not eager to follow their fundamental duties. People generally are very eager to accept the privileges which the persons with higher responsibility get, but they are not very eager to sacrifice those privileges when there is the need to set a right example. And that is the difference between an ideal leader and a common man. A common man can’t sacrifice his personal comforts, but an ideal leader can sacrifice all his possessions for the sake of upholding Dharmic principles. Lord Rama , being Maryada-purushottama himself, was very well aware of these principles, and that’s why he overcame his sentiments of deep love and attachment for Sita and became ready to give her up even though his love for her never diminished even in infinitesimal quantity. Similarly, Sita devi, being ideal leader herself, was also very well aware of these principles, and never demanded her ‘rights’ as queen, wife or citizen, but did what was the desire of her beloved Rama. She never questioned the decisions which Rama took in regards to her although she was very much uncomfortable physically (due to pregnancy), and emotionally. Even if a leader may not be at fault personally, but still he has to sacrifice for larger good of the society in general. Many times it doesn’t matter whose fault is it. That’s why, as much as Lord Rama is ideal king, ideal husband, ideal man, so is Sita the ideal queen, ideal wife, ideal woman. Does it mean that — husbands/wives should give up their spouses or banish them if they have even the slightest doubt on their wife or husbands? Answer to this question is a big NO. That is not the learning point here. The learning point or the application point here is simply that a man should be ready to sacrifice his attachment to someone as good as his wife for the sake of upholding the higher principles of Raja-dharma, ideal leadership. If one can’t do that, one should not become the king or the leader. And real love is the matter of the heart. It doesn’t matter much if the person is far away. Only one who is as pure as Rama and as committed to his wife as Rama is to Sita, has even the right to ask his wife in this regard what to speak of giving her up. And if one is not as pure as Rama, and if the person has any doubt on the ‘character’ of the spouse, then, based on situation, the person should try to discuss it out with the spouse, and if the discussion is fruitless, then, the person should collect the evidences and approach the courts who have the authority to decide on such matters. K RAJARAM IRS PART 2 17924 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor5ybttJaqoZhvJFg48LA336Lc0S13surC4oX%2BcL-HHdQ%40mail.gmail.com.
