Episode 01 - Chapter 5 - Canto on Surpanaka.

Chapter 5 – Canto on Surpanaka - சூர்ப்பனகைப் படலம்

 

 

“பஞ்சி ஒளிர், விஞ்சு குளிர் பல்லவம் அனுங்க,

செஞ் செவிய கஞ்சம் நிகர், சீறடியள் ஆகி,

அம் சொல் இள மஞ்ஞை என, அன்னம் என, மின்னும்

வஞ்சி என, நஞ்சம் என, வஞ்ச மகள் வந்தாள்.”

 

Would words strut and dance? Would words produce a drama? Would words scintillate? Would words do drum beats? Kamban could make them do all that, and more. You would find that when you arrive at the end of this post. … Your narrator.

 

Sri Rama, Lakshmana and Sita, on their way to Panchavati, encounter River Godavari. Kamban presents Godavari:

 

வண்டு உறை கமலச் செவ்வி வாள் முகம் பொலிய, வாசம்

உண்டு உறை குவளை ஒண்கண் ஒருங்குற நோக்கி, ஊழின்

தெண்திரைக் கரத்தின் வாரி, திருமலர் தூவி, செல்வர்க்

கண்டு அடி பணிவதென்ன, பொலிந்தது கடவுள்யாறு

 

“கடவுள் யாறு” – Kamban attributes divinity to the river and calls her கடவுள் யாறு.

 

Godavari, exhilarated on seeing the three of them arriving at her side, seemed to pay obeisance to them with her countless hands (waves) offering fragrant flowers to them; The river is shown by the poet to have lotus and lily blossoms – the blooming lotus compared with Godavari’s happy smiling face; and the lilies her lovely eyes.

It is poetic licence to adduce delicate flora like lotus and lilies in a swift-flowing river.

The commentator – Sri V.M.Gopalakrishnamachariar – quotes, in affirmation, from the Divya Prabhandams:

 

'புள்ளார் புறவிற் பூங்காவி புலன் கொள் மாதர் கண் காட்ட

நள்ளார் கமலம் முகங் காட்டும் நறையூர்' (பெரிய

திருமொழி 6,7,3) 'தெண்ணீர்ப் பொன்னி திரைக்கை யாலடி வருட' (பெருமாள் திருமொழி 1)

 

This one is even better!

 

எழுவுறு காதலாரின் இரைத்து இரைத்து, ஏங்கி ஏங்கி,

பழுவ நாள் குவளைச் செவ்விக் கண்பனி பரந்து சோர,

வழு இலா வாய்மை மைந்தர் வனத்து  உறை வருத்தம் நோக்கி,

அழுவதும் ஒத்ததால், அவ் அலங்கு நீர் ஆறு மன்னோ

 

Godavari, scintillating in her flow, looked as if she was tear-filled and crying (with the countless droplets arising from her waves), looking at the destiny-imposed pain suffered by these spotless products of Truth, their travails of trudging through the harsh forest. Her emotions resembled those of love-torn lovers, lamenting their separation, with audible and distressful sighs and the lily-like, wide and red-streaked eyes of the afflicted young women shedding tears of affected sorrow. “இரைத்து இரைத்து, ஏங்கி ஏங்கி” – See the poet’s emphasis by the repetition of the emotional flow from the afflicted lovers.

   

We see Sri Rama and Sita losing themselves in the enrapturing beauty that enveloped them and involuntarily slide into comparing each other with what Mother Nature is presenting to them.

 

ஓதிமம் ஒதுங்கக் கண்ட உத்தமன், உழையள் ஆகும்

சீதை தன் நடையை நோக்கி, சிறியது ஓர் முறுவல் செய்தான்;

மாது அவள் தானும், ஆண்டு வந்து, நீர் உண்டு, மீளும்

போதகம் நடப்ப நோக்கி, புதியது ஓர் முறுவல் பூத்தாள்.

 

ஓதிமம் = Swan.  போதகம் = Young (ten years old) male elephant.

 

Rama looks at the swan’s graceful and captivating stride past them; and looks at Sita and her even more captivating gait; and smiled at her, both knowing the context of that smile. And not to be outdone, Sita looks at a young male elephant’s imperious and assertive stride after finishing his drink, and simultaneously looked at her handsome husband, striding even more imperiously, and exchanges a lovely smile with him. The poet brings to us the two of them scoring decisively over the compared objects: ஓதிமம் ஒதுங்க = The swan retreating (shamed by Sita’s grace in her gait); மீளும் போதகம் = The male elephant retreating on seeing Rama’s imperious, assertive strides.

 

As could be expected, Lakshmana puts up a lovely hermitage in the precincts of the river and the three of them settle down there in peace and quiet.

 

ENTER – SUPRPANAKA – AS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF HER WHOLE CLAN:

 

வெய்யது ஓர் காரணம் உண்மை மேயினாள்,

வைகலும் தமியள் அவ் வனத்து வைகுவாள்,

நொய்தின் இவ் உலகு எலாம் நுழையும் நோன்மையாள்,-

எய்தினள், இராகவன் இருந்த சூழல்வாய்.

 

“வெய்யது ஓர் காரணம்” – Actually there were several reasons for Surpanka to hover around alone in the Dandakaranya - all of them merging into the fatal, final one, the eventual routing of the Rakshasas including her brother, Dasakanta Ravana. One was the vengeful intent in her mind to spite Ravana who had her husband Vidyutchivan slain; the other was to use Ravana’s licence to infiltrate Dandakaranya and tyrannize and torture the sages there with the help of Kara and Dhushana and their hordes; the third was theone-sided carnal desire she had raging in her for Sri Rama, having been widowed young; every one of these being instrumental to the destiny’s call for the complete annihilation, at the hands of Rama, of the Rakshasas and Lanka. Lured by that final destiny, she approaches the precincts of Rama.

On eyeing Rama, Supernaka wonders:

 

சிந்தையின் உறைபவற்கு உருவம் தீர்ந்ததால்;

இந்திரற்கு ஆயிரம் நயனம்; ஈசற்கு

முந்திய மலர்க் கண் ஓர் மூன்று; நான்கு தோள்,

உந்தியில் உலகு அளித்தாற்கு'

 

Drinking in Rama’s magnificent form, Surpanaka mused: “Would this be the God of Love, Manmatha? Then she scores that out, reasoning that Manmatha did not have a body, “Anangan”, after Lord Shiva burnt him down. Would this, then, be Devendra? She scores that out too, saying to herself, Indra had countless eyes. Would this then be Shiva, the epitome of male handsomeness? No, she reasons, this one did not have three eyes like Shiva. Would this then be Sri Maha Vishnu, manliness in divine perfection, who nourishes all of creation with a lotus from his navel? Nay. That one has four arms, this one has just two.”

 

She muses further with her thoughts riveted on Manmatha. Could it be that he did ascetics and regained his form and handsome body? Is this that one?

 

அதிகம் நின்று ஒளிரும் இவ் அழகன் வாள்முகம்

பொதி அவிழ் தாமரைப் பூவை ஒப்பதோ?

கதிர் மதி ஆம் எனின் கலைகள் தேயும்; அம்

மதி எனின், மதிக்கும் ஓர் மறு உண்டு' என்னுமால்

 

Isn’t his dazzlingly brilliant face resembling a freshly blossomed lotus? But then the lotus does wilt and close. (This one stays perpetually in its dazzling bloom – never to change) Should one try and place this face along with the captivating full moon, doesn’t the moon have its blotch?

(This one is spotlessly brilliant.)

 

'எவன் செய, இனிய இவ் அழகை எய்தினோன்?

அவம் செயத் திரு உடம்பு அலச நோற்கின்றான்;

நவம் செயத்தகைய இந்நளின நாட்டத்தான்

தவம் செய, தவம் செய்த தவம் என்?' என்கின்றாள்.

 

What would this one do with this incomparable handsomeness he is endowed with? Why would he engage that most desirable manhood and form in wasteful ascetics? What does he wish to accomplish with this improbable ascetics? Ascetics itself ought to have accumulated immeasurable ascetic value for it to have this (incomparable) man with his lotus like eyes engage in it (ascetics)!

(Though a Rakshasi, inimically inclined towards anything related to ascetics, Surpanaka exclaims: “What ascetics did ascetics itself perform for this man to engage in it”

 

“இந்நளின நாட்டத்தான் தவம் செய, தவம் செய்த தவம் என்?”

 

Your narrator feels completely inadequate to translate this most imaginative allegory into English.

 

உடுத்த நீர் ஆடையள்,  உருவச் செவ்வியள்

பிடித் தரு நடையினள் பெண்மை நன்று; இவன்

அடித்தலம் தீண்டலின் அவனிக்கு அம்மயிர்

பொடித்தன போலும், இப்புல் என்று உன்னுவாள்

 

Mother Earth, clothed with the seas, beautiful, with the gait of a she-elephant, ought to have her womanhood highly celebrated and gifted: for, as these Rama’s feet grazed the grass as he walked, wouldn’t she be having hair-raising goose bumps all over her?

Surpanaka slips into a reverie induced by her carnal desire for Rama; envious of the Earth, with the classical imagery of a goddess, having the enviable good fortune of having Rama’s feet touching her whenever he walked, giving her goose-bumps of love-flow.

 

Your narrator is tempted to cite the following verse from “Kettathellaam Tharuvan” that uses this unusual allegory:

 

நடந்தாய் கெளசிகன்பின் திருத்தவத்தோர் வேள்வி காக்க; அவன்பின் மீண்டும்

நடந்தாய் தாள்பதித்து அகலிகையின் வினைதீர்க்க; மிதிலைக்குமேல்

நடந்தாய் வில்லிறுத்து மைதிலியின் கரம்பற்ற; கைகேயி சொல்லேற்று நடந்தாய் கானகத்தில் இரண்டேழு;  இலங்கேசன் மதிகேட்டால்

நடந்தாய் மீண்டுமொரு நெடுவழியாய்; நற்றுணையின் இடந்தேடி;

கடந்தாய் பெருங்கடலை நடந்துற்றுப் பொல்லானை வென்றழிக்க;!

தவந்தான் என்செய்தாள் தரணியவள் நின் பதந்தழுவ! நிலம்பெறவே உளந்தான் உன்கழலை உன்னிடுமே! உலகெங்கும் பரந்துற்றுக்

கரந்தானே! தாண்டவந்தோட்டத்துறைவா! கழலயரும்! கண்ணுறங்கு!

 

Increasingly intoxicated by drinking in the enrapturing handsomeness of Rama, limb by limb, Surpanaka surpasses limits of imagery. She laments:

 

நம்பிதன் எல்கலை திருஅரை எய்தி ஏமுற, வற்கலை நோற்றன;

மாசு இலா மணிப் பொன்கலை நோற்றில போலுமால்' என்றாள்

 

How very privileged are these bark attires to adorn that magnificent waist of his; classy, gold-woven clothes were not as fortunate.

“Had Rama not matted his lustrous dark hair, those lovely tresses would have devastated countless young women’s lives.”

 

 

கரந்திலன், இலக்கணம் எடுத்துக் காட்டிய,

பரம் தரு நான்முகன்; பழிப்பு  உற்றான் அரோ-

இரந்து, இவன் இணை அடிப் பொடியும், ஏற்கலாப்

புரந்தரன், உலகு எலாம்  புரக்கின்றான்' என்றாள்.

 

“Brahma, who created this man as the very best of his creation, ought to assume all the blame: how come, Indra, who wouldn’t equal the dust of this man’s feet, rules the worlds, while this one reigns the harsh forests?”

   

நீத்தமும் வானமும் குறுக, நெஞ்சிடைக்

கோத்த அன்பு உணர்விடைக் குளிப்ப மீக்கொள,

ஏத்தவும், பரிவின் ஒன்று ஈகலான், பொருள்

காத்தவன், புகழ் எனத் தேயும் கற்பினாள்.

 

With her longing for Rama flooding her mind limitlessly like the seven seas and the fringeless sky and inundating her commonsense, Surpanaka’s sense of chastity dived steeply like that of a wealthy person, who, even after being praised and sung to by the needy, would not give to them, stuck fast to his wealth. Kamban, interestingly, speaks of chastity of Surpanaka (கற்பினாள்) though in the sense that she loses that sense completely in the wake of the flooding carnal passion for Rama.

 

Kamban invests 16 verses for presenting Surpanaka’s enraptured, passionate narrative about Rama’s handsomeness – limb by incomparable limb. Being a Rakshasi, having ulterior motives for this visit of hers, in the grip of a raging carnal desire (having been widowed and living singly), one could expect this character to rant wildly and without regard to any etiquette or decency of expression. But we find that she is almost dignified, exudes a lot of poetic good grace, and – though adversarially disposed to anything divine – invokes plenty of divinity and imputes divinity in imbibing and articulating Rama’s riveting handsomeness. Could this be the real Surpanaka? Or, Is this the poet, unable to contain or suppress his own emotional adoration of Rama even while presenting this adversarial character?

 

SURPANAKA GETS TO RAMA’S PRESENCE AND THINKS OF A RUSE TO OPEN UP WITH HIM:

நின்றனள்-'இருந்தவன் நெடிய மார்பகம்

ஒன்றுவென்; அன்று எனின், அமுதம் உண்ணினும்

பொன்றுவென்; போக்கு இனி அரிதுபோன்ம்' எனா,

சென்று, எதிர் நிற்பது ஓர் செய்கை தேடுவாள்.

 

As she stood ahead of Rama, she muses to herself: “I ought to embrace that vast chest of Rama (right now). Or else, I shall die – even if the Divine Nectar (Amirtham) is fed to me. There is no other go for me. What shall I find as an ruse to approach him.” Surpanaka was, until this moment, in her real Rakshasi form – with long reddish hair, etc. She needed to make her appearance desirable for Rama. That was what she was thinking about.

 

She recites mantras propitiating Sri Mahalakshmi and is then granted a divine, beautiful form. Kamban presents this form to us in lilting unforgettable rhyme.

 

பஞ்சி ஒளிர், விஞ்சு குளிர் பல்லவம் அனுங்க,

செஞ் செவிய கஞ்சம் நிகர், சீறடியள் ஆகி,

அம் சொல் இள மஞ்ஞை என, அன்னம் என, மின்னும்

வஞ்சி என, நஞ்சம் என, வஞ்ச மகள் வந்தாள்.

 

As we recite this verse, we could envision in front of us a most attractive seductive temptress swinging like a gloriously strutting peacock with its brilliant train in full pageantry and with the gait of a lovely swan, approaching Rama – like poison in the form of a beautiful seductress.

 

Valmiki narrates this transformation more vividly, limb by limb, deportment by deportment:

 

सुमुखम् दुर्मुखी रामम् वृत्त मध्यम् महोदरी ||

विशालाक्षम् विरूपाक्षी सुकेशम् ताम्र मूर्धजा |

प्रियरूपम् विरूपा सा सुस्वरम् भैरव स्वना ||

तरुणम् दारुणा वृद्धा दक्षिणम् वाम भाषिणी |

न्याय वृत्तम् सुदुर्वृत्ता प्रियम् अप्रिय दर्शना ||

शरीरज समाविष्टा राक्षसी रामम् अब्रवीत् |

 

sumukham durmukhii raamam vR^itta madhyam mahodarii ||

vishaalaakSham viruupaakShii sukesham taamra muurdhajaa |

priyaruupam viruupaa saa susvaram bhairava svanaa ||

taruNam daaruNaa vR^iddhaa dakShiNam vaama bhaaShiNii |

nyaaya vR^ittam sudurvR^ittaa priyam apriya darshanaa ||

shariiraja samaaviShTaa raakShasii raamam abraviit |

 

This canto is a long one. Let us stay with this incomparable verse, its lilt, its rhyming hyperbole matching the intoxicating captivation of the beauty presented, its poetically graceful metaphors, presenting Surpanaka in the form of a very lovely seductress – till next week. The drama – A BLOODY ONE – unfolds then.

 

Surpanaka emerges in the presence of Rama, in the bewitching form of acquired beauty and seduction. Rama hears her arrival with the jingling sounds from her waist-belt, anklets as well as the drone from thebumble bees around her floral adornment.

 

As Surpanka arrives in front of him, Rama marvels at her beauty. Surpanaka invokes all her seductive skills and presents herself in (deceitful) obeisance before Rama:

 

அவ் வயின், அவ் ஆசை தன்  அகத்துடைய அன்னாள்,

செவ்வி முகம் முன்னி, அடி செங்கையின் இறைஞ்சா,

வெவ்விய நெடுங் கண்-அயில் வீசி, அயல் பாரா,

நவ்வியின் ஒதுங்கி, இறை நாணி, அயல் நின்றாள்.

 

Containing the consuming desire for Rama in her heart, Surpanaka commands her skills of seductive coyness: Looking up at his face for a second and in (pretentious) obeisance to Rama’s red-tinted lotus feet with folded hands, throwing a fleeting look at him with her large, murderously seductive eyes, shifting that fleeting look away from him and in assumed bashfulness, she stood aside from him – for Rama to soak in her form and passion.

 

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN RAMA AND SURPANAKA – RENDERED BY KAMBAN – FITS (A) THE PINNACLE OF SOPHISTRY AND ALMOST CREDIBLE LYING BY THE SEDUCTRESS AND (B) THE WARY, WISE, CULTURED, CHIVALROUSLY CORRECT AND COMMISERATING STYLE OF HER QUARRY – RAMA.

 

Rama breaks the ice and fires the first salvo; rightly it would seem as he is the host.

 

'தீது இல் வரவு ஆக, திரு! நின் வரவு; சேயோய்!

போத உளது, எம்முழை ஓர் புண்ணியம்அது அன்றோ?

ஏது பதி? ஏது பெயர்? யாவர் உறவு?' என்றான்.

வேத முதல்; பேதை அவள் தன் நிலை விரிப்பாள்;

 

Rama, the predominant object of the Vedhas, addressed Surpanaka: “ Let your arrival here be auspicious. The lovely red-tinted one! Your arrival here is our good fortune. Pray! Who is your husband? Which is your city? What is your name? Who are your people?” Surpanaka would narrate her circumstance. Kamban calls her naive (பேதை) as she believes that she could seduce Rama with her guiles and possess him.

 

Surpanaka presents her credentials – truthfully:

 

பூவிலோன் புதல்வன் மைந்தன்  புதல்வி; முப்புரங்கள் செற்ற

சே-வலோன் துணைவன் ஆன செங்கையோன் தங்கை; திக்கின்

மா எலாம் தொலைத்து, வெள்ளிமலை  எடுத்து, உலகம் மூன்றும்

காவலோன் பின்னை; காமவல்லி ஆம் கன்னி' என்றாள்.

 

“I am the great grand-daughter of Brahma (Sage Pulastya was one of the sons of Brahma. Visravas was Pulastya’s son; Surpanka was Visravas’ daughter; she was born with Ravana, Kumbakarna and Vibishana.) I am also the (cousin) sister of Kubera, who is dear to Lord Shiva and who had blood-shot hands because of his incessant giving. I am the later born sister of Ravana, who vanquished the elephants guarding the eight directions of the world, lifted the Kailas mountain and ruled the three worlds. I am a “virgin” with the name of “Kamavalli”. (Except assuming an appropriately seductive name “Kamavalli” Surpanaka presented her credentials quite truthfully and very impressively – making a fine art of “name-dropping”.)

 

Rama is alerted: he instantly queries Surpanaka: If it is true you are Ravana’s sibling, how come you have this lovely form?” ‘‘செங்கண் வெவ்வுரு அமைந்தோன் தங்கை என்றது மெய்ம்மை ஆயின், இவ்வுரு இயைந்த தன்மை இயம்புதி இயல்பின்”

 

Surpanaka manufactures a dazzlingly credible response: “I got exasperated with the life styles and values of the Rakshasas; I thought through that and changed my life style and values on the dharmic path. Did ascetics to dissolve my accumulated sins. And was granted this form and person by the gods,  as a consequence.”

 

Rama’s doubts still linger: He queries: "if you are the sibling of Ravana who holds sway over all the three worlds, how is it that you are all by yourself, and humble in appearance without any trappings of wealth and affluence (that would be associated with your background)?”

 

Surpanaka sticks to her line: “I did not approve of the life and actions of my clan. I gave up their relationship and reached out for the association of the gods and great sages. I have an obligation to seek of you. Hence I am here – in your presence.”

Rama is at his wary and smart best in his response:

 

அன்னவள் உரைத்தலோடும், ஐயனும், 'அறிதற்கு ஒவ்வா

நல் நுதல் மகளிர் சிந்தை நல் நெறிப் பால அல்ல;

பின் இது தெரியும்' என்னா, 'பெய் வளைத் தோளி! என்பால்

என்ன காரியத்தை? சொல்; அஃது இயையுமேல் இழைப்பல்' என்றான்.

 

Rama brings to bear on his response his supervening view of good-looking women – “it is near impossible to fathom their minds and understand their purpose; one needs to wait it out.” He is very civil in his response though: “Tell me, you the lovely one with bangle-filled hands! What do you want of me? If it is possible for me to do it for you, I could.”

 

The bard brings into play, the social value prevalent in his time – an assailable one, but widely prevalent. We had briefly discussed this in the context of Kaikeyi.

 

FROM AYODHYA KHANDAM

 

Quote:

 

KAMBAN ASSAILS ALL WOMANHOOD IN HIS EMPATHY WITH DASARATHA’S DISTRESS CAUSED BY THE HEARTLESS KAIKEYI.

 

The poet says that it is shameful even to narrate the shameless conduct of this woman. And, by this shameful conduct, she proves the old saying that intrigue and vengefulness are embodied in the form of women and thus they are not worthy of depending on or leaning on to.

 

வஞ்சனை பண்டு மடந்தை வேடம் என்றே

தஞ்சு என மாதரை உள்ளலார்கள் தக்கோர்.

 

புகழ் பேணி நாண்பால் ஓரா நங்கையர் தம்பால் நணுகாரே;

ஆண்பாலாரே; பெண்பால் ஆரோடு அடைவு அம்மா?

 

Unquote.

 

Your narrator was very surprised that the modern female represented so very well in this elite group did not pick up cudgels with Kamban’s view then. He hopes his surprise is short-lived.

 

Surpanaka expands on her menu:

 

“It is not given to women of good birth and upbringing to articulate their sexual desire explicitly. But I am being tortunred by Manmatha, the Love God and I have been suffering as a lonely female. I wish that you save me from this torture.”

 

(She says women cannot articulate explicitly their biological urges; but she does that in great style!)

 

On hearing this Rama gets the clear picture of who this is:

 

நாண் இலள், ஐயள், நொய்யள்; நல்லளும் அல்லள்'

 

“This one is shameless, wicked, not at all a good one.”

 

As Rama kept his counsel and did not oblige Surpanaka with an immediate response, she concludes, “Maybe he is reacting positively to my advance; maybe he desires me too.”

 

She hammers the iron, thinking it is hot:

 

“I did not know you were hereabouts at all. I had committed myself to the service of elderly sages and consequently my whole femininity had got wasted and blunted by disuse.” (She continues in her immaculate buildup of lying, one blatant cute lie surpassing the other.)

 

Rama tries the logical improbability of the two getting involved with each other:

 “Yo say you are a Brahmin descendant; I hail from royal (kshatriya) lineage. How could these go together?” Interesting to note that Rama does not get done with this high voltage conversation; he leaves the door ajar for Surpanaka for follow through. Is this the typical playfulness of youth; or, is this chivalrous courtesy to womanhood – did not want to slap her in the face with a no nonsense closure?

 

Surpanaka refreshes her history and points out that she is not totally alien to royalty in her background. (We would skip the long puranic anecdotes asserting this.) And, pleads: “If you accept me, that would save my life.”

 

Rama ploughs along with the conversation: “Your background is filled with Rakshasa lineage. I belong to the humankind. The twain shall not meet is what elders have determined.”

 

Surpanaka corrects Rama: “I had informed you how, from my Rakshasa background

I had shied away out of disgust and had done obeisance and service to the sages around here. You shall not therefore keep touching on my rakshasa lineage.”

 

Rama sticks to responses that He knows would not work with her but those would keep in line with the right and acceptable ones in prescribed norms of conduct.

 

He offers: “If your elder brother, the mighty Ravana who rules the worlds (according to you) or Kubera, the famous uncle of yours, gives your hand to me then I would consider your proposition. Otherwise I would be afraid for you to be going and offering yourself all by yourself!”

 

Your narraor’s note: It looks like the poet had lost himself in the build up of the intrigue and in presenting Rama in his ability for smart repartee and correct civil conduct, forgetting that his character is etched with the most vital attribute that He would not even look up at another woman – other than Sita. Here the poet has Rama actually making a proposition of sorts, however improbable, that he would have Surpanaka under some conditions.

 

Valmiki, though, steers clear of even suggestively casting a shadow or aspersion  on that vital attribute of Rama while presenting this very same drama; he also imports,

As Kamban does,  a lot of mirth and easy banter on the part of Rama, but Rama would only go as far as to tell Surpanaka: “Look, I am already married. You would not want to share me with another female. Here is my younger brother. He is unmarried. He actually is more handsome than me and he is as valourous. Go, wed him.”

 

Surpanaka builds on with inspired hope and with knowledge: “You ought to know that there is a Gandharva style of two people who desire each other getting into wedlock – by themselves without ceremony or approval from elders; you should also be aware that the Vedhas do approve of this style. My elders you are talking about cannot object to that. I have more to say further on this.”

 

Surpanaka brings out a strategic value of her proposition that she thought Rama cannot refuse:  “My elder brothers are ruthless adversaries of all the sages and sadhus around here. You are alone here. You would not be able to meet the vindictive aggression of those. By wedding me (in Gandharva style), you would not only secure protection for yourself, but would have an opportunity to command the gods and rule the worlds with their support.”

 

Rama now explodes into a derisive laughter: “(As you say), I have secured the friendship and goodwill of the Rakshasas; I have you, the lovely one; and I also have immeasurable wealth and command in this world. And some! It looks as if the ascetics I had engaged in after leaving Ayodhya are delivering their boons already!”

வாள் எயிறு இலங்க நக்கான் = Rama laughed aloud, with his glittering white teeth exposed.

 

At this stage of this absorbing interaction between these two, Sita emerges from inside the hermitage.

 

பெண்ணிடை அரசி, தேவர் பெற்ற நல் வரத்தால், பின்னர்

மண்ணிடை மணியின் வந்த வஞ்சியே போல்வாள் வந்தாள்.

 

The queen of all womanhood, the slender-looking goddess who descended to the earth due to the prayers of all gods, emerged from inside the hermitage.

 

Surpanaka beholds Sita. Kamban describes Sita:  அரக்கர் என்னும்

கான் சுட முளைத்த கற்பின் கனலியைக் கண்ணின் கண்டாள்.

Surpanaka ‘apprehended’ Sita the raging fire of chastity that would burn and destroy the harsh and inhospitable forest called the reign of Rakshasas. The allegory is that it was Sita’s chastity that eventually destroyed the Rakshasas.

 

மரு ஒன்று கூந்தலாளை வனத்து இவன் கொண்டு வாரான்;

உரு இங்கு இது உடையர் ஆக மற்றையோர் யாரும் இல்லை;

அரவிந்த மலருள் நீங்கி, அடி இணை படியில் தோயத்

திரு இங்கு வருவாள் கொல்லோ? ‘என்று அகம் திகைத்து நின்றாள்.

 

மரு ஒன்று கூந்தலாளை = This is a famous and extensively debated attribute adduced to the hair of chaste, high-born, women – that their tresses have their own (not acquired externally like flowers, oil, incense, etc.) fragrance. We are aware of the fiery debate between Nakkeeran and Lord Shiva on this very issue.  Here Surpanaka attributes that feature to Sita and ponders over the improbability that anyone would fetch such a high-born, chaste woman into these harsh forest circumstances. She also rules out any other female being equal to this form and arresting beauty. Then she wonders, “would Sridevi have left her lotus-seat and descended to be hereabouts? Impossible” She is truly baffled.

 

Surpanaka now exclaims on seeing Sita – words that are truly drenched in poetic flair: and terms that Surpanaka would use later when presenting Sita to her brother Ravana:

 

“கண் பிற பொருளில் செல்லா; கருத்து எனின், அஃதே; கண்ட

பெண் பிறந்தேனுக்கு என்றால், என்படும் பிறருக்கு? ‘‘

 

“The eyes would not move on to anything else; and the mind is likewise; if this is the lot of me – a woman – what shall be the fate of others (i.e. men)?”

 

Surpanaka then looks at both Rama and Sita together and wonders:

 

பொரு திறத்தானை நோக்கி, பூவையை  நோக்கி, நின்றாள்;

'கருத மற்று இனி வேறு இல்லை; கமலத்துக் கடவுள்தானே,

ஒரு திறத்து உணர நோக்கி, உருவினுக்கு, உலகம் மூன்றின்

இரு திறத்தார்க்கும், செய்த வரம்பு இவர் இருவர்' என்றாள்.

 

“These two are forms that define the best creative skills of Brahma – one for the male and the other for the female; these are the highest definitions of his effort in all of his creation.”

 

A rage of jealousy gets hold of Surpanaka hereabouts. She swears to herself and deducing with her low-bred thought process that this female by Rama’s side could not be a duly wed one, she also ought to be another interloper like me; let me expose her and humiliate her here and now.”

 

We promised last week that we would have the ‘BLOODY END OF THIS DRAMA” this week. We are still a distance from that climax. We thought the interface and dialogue between Surpanaka and Rama was filled with so much literary richness for us just to skip all of it and go for the climax. Please bear with us.

 

We find that Kamban presenting Rama as offering to take the hand of Surpanaka – of course subject to improbable conditions – has troubled one reader who had said, with supreme gentleness: “He (Rama) might be testing the depth of one's true love to Him through this conversation.” She was referring to Kamban attributing to Rama the following offer: “அன்னார் தருவரேல், கொள்வென்” That had led to the narrator re-looking at what the AadHi Kavi had said in that context.

 

Look at what the Aadhi Kavi had to say about Rama’s responses to Surpanaka’ s advances.

 

“Look, I am already married. You would not want to share me with another female. Here is my younger brother. He is unmarried. He actually is more handsome than me and he is as valourous. Go, wed him.”

 

“He is unmarried”????? Rama saying this? Even in jest – to poke fun at the shameless rakshasi seductress? This comes through to us as a disquieting aspect in the epic. Let us consider the exact words used by Valmiki in the epic:

 

अनुजः तु एष मे भ्राता शीलवान् प्रिय दर्शनः |

श्रीमान् अकृत दारः च लक्ष्मणो नाम वीर्यवान्

 

anujaH tu eSha me bhraataa shiilavaan priya darshanaH |

shriimaan akR^ita daaraH ca lakShmaNo naama viiryavaan

 

“Akrta Daarah” would not literally mean a bachelor or an unmarried person it would seem. It means “he is without his wife (now)”. Yet, according to Valmiki, Rama goes on to say that Lakshmana needs one: let us see the next sloka:

 

अपूर्वी भार्यया च अर्थी तरुणः प्रिय दर्शनः |

अनुरूपः च ते भर्ता रूपस्य अस्य भविष्यति

 

apuurvii bhaaryayaa ca arthii taruNaH priya darshanaH |

anuruupaH ca te bhartaa ruupasya asya bhaviShyati

 

"He is without a wife and in need of a wife; he is youthful, good-looking and he can become a fitting husband of yours, befitting your lovely features.”

 

When we encounter such moments in the epic that seem to trouble our minds, raising queries on the basis of rationality and logic, raising queries around the reputational attributes etched in the characters, all we can do is tell ourselves: this is ithihasa: remarkable that the author did not try to inventively paper over such disquieting sequences. And, if we are still curious, we could refer to the myriad commentaries that would present these sequences through their own spectrum of value judgements and rationalizing.

 

In this particular instance, there are a few explanations offered: one is that Rama did not tell anything that was untrue. He only said that Lakshmana was without his wife (right now). But to go on to say that he needed one and Surpanaka could therefore more appropriately court him would still impact Rama’s image. But the rationalizing would go on to say – this is all in jest (svecchaya); and further on, this one is just a shameless ill-planning rakshasi and everything is fair with her as the recipient.

 

Here is an erudite explanation from  one Sri P.S.Subramanya Sastri in a treatise titled: “Telling a Lie or Otherwise by Rama at Panchavati” –  the word akrtadara ("unmarried") can also mean "one whose wife is not with him" or "one who is not using his wife." (Excerpted from a very well-studied treatise on “Mutilation of Surpanaka” by a critic - Kathleen M.Erndl. Courtesy Sri B.S.Raghavan) (This remarkable treatise would be forwarded to those who wish to peruse it.)

 

Another commentator goes farthest to say that Rama could not have said any untruth: Lakshmana ought to have been unmarried; the episode presented in Bala Khanda about his wedding Urmila ought to be an interpolation!

 

Your narrator believes that these heavy-set sequences are not for the faint-hearted. He realizes that this elite Group is made up mostly of persons who have assiduously cultivated the attribute of bhakti and many have subscribed to the concept of “prapatti” as well, and deep sensibilities are involved in presenting these. However he wishes to remind the Group that we are on a literary journey – not a religious one though it is mostly about a religious epic. This is a literary commentary not a discourse.

 

And, bhakthi supervenes the mental levels of rationality or logic. Even when  bhaktas articulate the superficially perceived flaws or faultlines of their Lord, it is actually in adoring praise of Him – Nindha Sthuthi. We could look at some delightful ones here!

 

SRI KULASEKARAZHWAR IN “PERUMAL THIRUMOZHI”

 

கெண்டை ஒண் கண் மடவாள் ஒருத்தி  கீழை அகத்துத் தயிர் கடையக்

கண்டு ஒல்லை நானும் கடைவன் என்று கள்ள-விழியை விழித்துப் புக்கு

வண்டு அமர் பூங்குழல் தாழ்ந்து உலாவ  வாள்முகம் வேர்ப்ப செவ்வாய் துடிப்ப

தண் தயிர் நீ கடைந்திட்ட வண்ணம் தாமோதரா மெய் அறிவன் நானே

 

தாய்-முலைப் பாலில் அமுதிருக்கத் தவழ்ந்து தளர்நடையிட்டுச் சென்று

பேய்-முலை வாய்வைத்து நஞ்சை உண்டு பித்தன் என்றே பிறர் ஏச நின்றாய்