Episode 01 - Chapter 8 - Canto on Jadayu breathing his last.

Chapter 8 – Canto on Jatayu Breathing His Last - சடாயு உயிர் நீத்த படலம்

 

Sita, on hearing the loud cry – a cry that very much resembled that of a dying man – “Hey Sita, Hey Lakshmana”, mimicking Rama’s voice, instantly concluded that Rama was in deathly peril. In that moment of confused grief, she concluded two things: one this calamity was her own making; and two, her life with Rama had ended.

 

"பிடித்து நல்கு, இவ் உழை"   என, பேதையேன்

முடித்தனென், முதல் வாழ்வு'  என, மொய் அழல்

கொடிப் படிந்தது என, நெடுங்  கோள் அரா

இடிக்கு உடைந்தது என,  புரண்டு ஏங்கினாள்.

 

By prompting Rama “Please catch that deer and give it to me” I had ended my own life – “my first life” says Kamban, implying that if Rama’s life had ended, Sita contemplates her life without him, without her husband who provided her safety and comfort.

 

She fell to the ground like a flower bough was plucked and thrown into a raging fire, like a serpant trembling on hearing (???) loud peals of thunder.

 

(Do Snakes Hear? Snakes do not have ears. They do not “hear sounds” like humans or other creatures endowed with a hearing mechanism do. This is a famous anachronism in Indian literature. இடியோசை கேட்ட நாகம் போல், மகுடி கேட்ட நாகம் போல are literary references we come across both in ancient literature (not just in Thamizh but in Sanskrit and other Indian languages as well.

 

The fact about snakes “hearing” is : Snakes have no visible ear, so they don't hearsounds as we do. But it's not quite right to say thatsnakes are deaf. They have vestiges of the apparatus for hearing inside their heads, and that setup is attached to their jaw bones, so they feel vibrations very well and may hear low-frequency airborne sounds)

 

Sita, in the midst of that deep distress, grief and “end of the world” loss of her mind, sneered at Lakshmana, who is standing by, quite still and apparently unaffected (as he is aware that Rama was unharmed), and accused him with a rage that she is never associated with:

 

குற்றம் வீந்த குணத்தின்   எம் கோமகன், மற்று அவ் வாள் அரக்கன்   புரி மாயையால்,

இற்று வீழ்ந்தனன் என்னவும்,  என் அயல் நிற்றியோ, இளையோய்! ஒரு  நீ?' என்றாள்.

 

“Even after hearing that my Lord, Rama, had fallen to the trickery of that Rakshasa (Mareecha), you would stand alongside me? His younger One? YOU?”

என் அயல் நிற்றியோ, இளையோய்! ஒரு  நீ? – is an accusation that is pregnant with a charge that Sita would later pay for. She implies that Lakshmana was unmoved by the apparent end of Rama and was standing by her side with an malevolent, indeed wicked,  intent concerning her.

 

Even as she extols Rama as virtuous - குற்றம் வீந்த குணத்தின் எம் கோமகன், she contrasted Lakshamana with that characterization her.

 

For its being considered by literateus as pregnant with multiple senses and innuendo, this phrase: என் அயல் நிற்றியோ, இளையோய்! ஒரு  நீ? – is regarded as “Kamba Suthram” “கம்ப சூத்திரம்” (From the commentary of Sri V.M.Krishnamachariar)

 

Sage Valmiki is more obvious and explicit:

 

इच्छसि त्वम् विनश्यन्तम् रामम् लक्ष्मण मत् कृते || ३-४५-६

लोभात् तु मत् कृतम् नूनम् न अनुगच्छसि राघवम् |

 

icchhasi tvam vinashyantam raamam lakShmaNa mat kR^ite|| 3-45-6

lobhaat tu mat kR^itam nuunam na anugacchhasi raaghavam |

 

Because of me, you wish Rama to be completely destroyed, and only because of your( illicit)desire for me you are not leaving here for saving my Raghava. It is obvious.

 

Sita’s toungue-lashing continues, unbounded and unabated. She imputes a well-planned conspiracy by Lakshmana in which she says Bharatha might be complicit.

 

तत् न सिद्ध्यति सौमित्रे तव अपि भरतस्य वा |

कथम् इंदीवर श्यामम् रामम् पद्म निभेक्षणम् || ३-४५-२५

उपसंश्रित्य भर्तारम् कामयेयम् पृथक् जनम् |

 

tat na siddhyati saumitre tava api bharatasya vaa |

katham i.ndiivara shyaamam raamam padma nibhekShaNam || 3-45-25

upasaMshritya bhartaaram kaamayeyam pR^ithak janam

 

Whether this is an intrigue of yours or that of Bharatha, Oh! Soumitri! Understand that it is unachievable. How can I accept a commoner, having had for my husband, the lotus-eyed, dark-complexioned Rama?

 

Lakshmana, recoiling from this totally unexpected accusation from Sita, who he always regarded as his mother, tried to reason with her, tried to make her understand that what she heard was just trickery and Rama was not capable of being harmed thus or in any other manner, recalling for her Rama’s prowess and valour:

 

'ஏழுமே கடல், உலகு   ஏழும் ஏழுமே,

சூழும் ஏழ் மலை, அவை  தொடர்ந்த சூழல்வாய்

வாழும் ஏழையர் சிறு வலிக்கு,   வாள் அமர்,

தாழுமே இராகவன்  தனிமை? தையலீர்!

 

“Oh! My Mother! Even if all the seven seas, the entire constellation of the fourteen worlds, the seven mightiest mountains and the entire creation – all of these are arraigned against Him, He standing alone, would Rama’s prowess be found wanting?”

 

பார் என, புனல் என,   பவன, வான், கனல்,

பேர் எனைத்து, அவை, அவன்  முனியின் பேருமால்;

கார் எனக் கரிய அக்  கமலக் கண்ணனை

யார் எனக் கருதி, இவ்  இடரின் ஆழ்கின்றீர்?

 

“Should he just frown, this whole Earth, all the seas, the limitless sky and the fire, all these elements would be wholly destabilized. Who do you think this dark-complexioned, lotus-eyed One really is, for sinking in this (unwanted) distress?”

 

மாற்றம் என் பகர்வது?  மண்ணும் வானமும்

போற்ற, வன் திரிபுரம் எரித்த புங்கவன்

ஏற்றி நின்று எய்த வில்  இற்றது; எம்பிரான்

ஆற்றலின் அமைவது ஓர் ஆற்றல் உண்மையோ?

 

“What more could I say (about Rama’s prowess and power)? His matchless, unrivalled supremacy – is that not eloquently demonstrated by his breaking the Shiva Dhanus?” – Lakshmana hopes that by bringing the breaking of the Shiva Dhanus into his argument, he would have Sita moved, as this incident brought Rama for her.

  

'பரக்க என் பகர்வது? பகழி, பண்ணவன்

துரக்க, அங்கு அது பட, தொலைந்து சோர்கின்ற

அரக்கன் அவ் உரை எடுத்து அரற்றினான்; அதற்கு

இரக்கம் உற்று இரங்கலிர்; இருத்திர்  ஈண்டு' என்றான்.

 

“What more is there for me to elaborate? As Rama shot his dart, Mareecha, the rakshasa (in the form the golden deer) fell down and yelled out those (misleAading) words. You shall not worry or grieve about this. Please quit worrying and rest here.”

 

என்று அவன் இயம்பலும்,   எடுத்த சீற்றத்தள்,

கொன்றன இன்னலள்,   கொதிக்கும் உள்ளத்தள்,

'நின்ற நின் நிலை, இது, நெறியிற்று  அன்று' எனா,

வன் தறுகண்ணினள்,   வயிர்த்துக் கூறுவாள்:

 

Hearing Lakshmana trying to pacify her, Sita reacts with uncontained anger and rage, felt Lakshmana’s words were actually murderous for her, boils over and assailed Lakshmana, with an inimical intent: “Even after hearing the dying cry of your brother Rama, you are standing here, without hurrying  to help, unaffected! This is not at all right! This is just not acceptable!”

 

ஒரு பகல் பழகினார்  உயிரை ஈவரால்;

பெருமகன் உலைவுறு பெற்றி  கேட்டும், நீ

வெருவலை நின்றனை; வேறு என்? யான், இனி,

எரியிடைக் கடிது வீழ்ந்து இறப்பென்,    ஈண்டு' எனா,

 

Sita threw the ultimate dice at Lakshmana with these blistering, carping, rebuke: “Even if acquainted for just a day, good people would offer their life to save, protect that friend in distress. You? Even after you heard your own brother in dying peril, you look unworried! You just stand here? What else is left for me? Now I shall plunge into fire and end my life, right here.” Sita alludes to Guha and compares his deep affection and love for Rama even with just a day’s acquaintance with him and the apparent indifference she saw in Lakshamana’s stoic indifference to Rama’s “dying” cry.

 

Piratti is jagan matha, jagajjanani. Why would those unspeakable words come out of her mouth?

 

I had an interesting, near-convincing explanation from an elder – the late Sri N.K.Lakshmi Narasimhan, my wife’s maternal uncle and the son of the renowned Thamizh scholar and sanatanist leader from Madurai – Sri N.R.Krishnaswami Iyengar. “Piratti was no doubt Jagan Matha and Jagajjanani. But she also was playing out as a human. And, in the particular context, the whole environment surrounding her was severely vitiated and poisoned by the presence of Ravana in the vicinity.” Food for thought.

 

தாமரை வனத்திடைத்  தாவும் அன்னம்போல்,

தூம வெங் காட்டு எரி  தொடர்கின்றாள் தனை,

சேம விற் குமரனும் விலக்கி, சீறடிப்

பூ முகம் நெடு நிலம்  புல்லி, சொல்லுவான்:

 

Seeing Sita preparing to plunge into a fire to end her life – like a swan swimming into a lotus pond filled with lotus blooms, Lakshmana, stepping aside from her, prostrated before her and implored her.

 

This is a curious allegory – Sita preparing to plunge into a destructive fire to end her life, resembling a swan that is skimming a pond filled with lotus blooms. What the poet means actually is that that Fire would not, in the event, harm Sita and would receive her as the cool, bloom-filled pond would receive a skimming swan.  He would revisit this allegory in the Yudhdha Khanda when Sita makes the “Agni Pravesa” on Rama’s command: 'நீத்த அரும் புனலிடை நிவந்த தாமரை ஏய்ந்த தன் கோயிலே எய்துவாள் எனப் பாய்ந்தனள்' சேம விற் குமரனும் - சேம வில் = holding a bow that was meant to protect, குமரன்= Lakshmana who is regarded by Sita as her son.  

 

'துஞ்சுவது என்னை? நீர் சொன்ன சொல்லை யான்

அஞ்சுவென்; மறுக்கிலென்; அவலம் தீர்ந்து இனி,

இஞ்சு இரும்; அடியனேன் ஏகுகின்றனென்.

வெஞ் சின விதியினை வெல்ல வல்லமோ?

 

Lakshmana responds in helpless despair: “Why try to end your life? I am fearful of your words (i.e. I fear the consequences that would roll out); but I shall not defy (you); quit your despair and stay here, I shall go (in seek of Rama and his condition.) How could we overwhelm DESTINY?”

 

Sage Valmiki would adduce Sita’s ascerbic tongue-lashing of Lakshmana as a feminine failing:

 

विमुक्त धर्माः चपलाः तीक्ष्णा भेदकराः स्त्रियः |

न सहे हि ईदृशम् वाक्यम् वैदेही जनक आत्मजे || ३-४५-३०

श्रोत्रयोः उभयोः मध्ये तप्त नाराच सन्निभम्

 

vimukta dharmaaH capalaaH tiikShNaa bhedakaraaH striyaH |

na sahe hi iidR^isham vaakyam vaidehii janaka aatmaje || 3-45-30

shrotrayoH ubhayoH madhye tapta naaraaca sannibham

 

vimukta dharmaaH = unfettered from Dharma i.e. etiquette; capalaaH = whimsically, tiikShNaa = cantankerously bheda karaaH = vagaries;   striyaH = women| na sahe hi = unbearable, indeed;  iidR^isham vaakyam = these kind of words;  vaidehii janaka aatmaje = (from) Vaidehi, Jahaka’s child;  ||shrotrayoH ubhayoH madhye = in between the two ears (where Buddhi resides?);  tapta naaraaca sannibham = like red hot iron dart.

 

When women happen to be unfettered by Dharma (proper etiquette) (when provoked, when they lose their mind and equipoise), they tend to use, whimsically and cantankerously, words that are unbearable; Vaidehi! Oh! Janaka’s daughter! Your words are like red hot iron arrows right between my two ears. Tapta naaraaca = red hot iron arrow. “நாராசம்” is a word that we usually hear in such contexts. 

 

Lakshmana also calls on all the itinerant creatures including the elements to witness these unbearable outpouring from Sita to witness and corroborate.

 

 Back to Kamban:

 

Interesting that Lakshmana concedes and gives into DESTINY. He was the one who would challenge Destiny – when Rama alluded to it as the cause of his having to leave for the fests: 'விதிக்கும் விதியாகும் என் விற்றொழில் காண்டி'

 

 

போகின்றேன் அடியனேன்; புகுந்து  வந்து, கேடு

ஆகின்றது; அரசன்தன்  ஆணை நீர் மறுத்து,

"ஏகு" என்றீர் இருக்கின்றீர் தமியிர்'  என்று, பின்

வேகின்ற சிந்தையான்  விடைகொண்டு ஏகினான்.

 

Even while giving up and deciding to go as commanded by Sita, Lakshmana points out to her that her command was in conflict with Rama’s  command to him – to stay and protect Sita. And articulates to her his foreboding that a major peril is about to approach her.

 

“I shall go, right now. I see a major peril approaching (us). You are commanding me to go and that command is in conflict with my Lord’s command (which was that I should stay here and see you in safety - 'கான் இயல் மயில் அன்னாளைக் காத்தனை இருத்தி'). I shall still go (because of your threat to end your life and your harsh words). You would be all by yourself (vulnerable to harm)” thus lamenting, he left her presence, taking leave of her. He left with a fuming, turbulent mind - வேகின்ற சிந்தையான்.  Lakshmana, while leaving, rationalizes that if, as he apprehended, Sita should encounter harm, she would be wholly responsible for it. (Rama would point fingers at him and allude differently. That would be later.)

 

இருப்பெனேல், எரியிடை   இறப்பரால் இவர்;

பொருப்பு அனையானிடைப்  போவெனே எனின்,

அருப்பம் இல் கேடு வந்து  அடையும்; ஆர் உயிர்

விருப்பனேற்கு என் செயல்?'  என்று, விம்மினான்.

 

“Had I stuck to my conviction, ignored Sita’s accusations (as flowing from her ignorance), she would have ended her life. Had I, on the other hand, pushed by her pressuring, left her unguarded in search of Rama, she would encounter harm. What shall I do, with my love for dear life?” Lamented Lakshmana as he went, disgusted with his life.

 

அறம்தனால் அழிவு இலது  ஆகல் ஆக்கலாம்;

இறந்துபாடு இவர்க்கு உறும்,  இதனின் இவ் வழித்

துறந்து போம் இதனையே துணிவென்; தொல் வினைப்

பிறந்து, போந்து, இது படும்,  பேதையேன்' எனா,

 

“Maybe,  Dharma would prevent any harm (to Sita); because she (threatened that) would die if I did not leave (in search of Rama), let me leave her as she wished. I am a helpless pawn in the hands of inescapable Destinay, ain’t I?”

 

Lakshaman’s rants alternate between his core faith in Dharma and circumstantial fear of Destiny.

   

'போவது புரிவல் யான்;  புகுந்தது உண்டுஎனின்,

காவல்செய் எருவையின் தலைவன் கண்ணுறும்;

ஆவது காக்கும்' என்று அறிவித்து, அவ் வழி,

தேவர் செய் தவத்தினால் செம்மல் ஏகினான்.

 

Lakshmana entertains a consoling, hopeful, thought while wallowing in this crunching, painful dilemma – in case, just in case, something untoward should happen here, causing harm to piratti, Jatayu, the king of Eagles (and a great friend of Raghus) would intervene and stop that harm from touching her.  He conveys that hope to Sita and went in pursuit of Rama in the same direction that Rama ventured in.

 

Lakshmana recalls the promise and assurance of Jatayu when the trio meet him in Dandakaranya: 'நீவிரும் நல்நுதல் தானும் இக்காட்டில் வைகுதிர்; காக்கு வென் யான்'

 

LAKSHMAN REKHA?

 

THE UBIQUITOUS “LAKSHMAN REKHA” IS ABSENT IN BOTH THE AAKI KAAVYA; IT OCCURS IN SRI TULSIDAS’ RAMA CHARITHA MANAS, IN A QUAINT, DISTANT CONTEXT – NOT IN ARANYA KHANDA BUT IN THE LANKA KHANDA, WHERE MANDODHARI IS PILLORYING RAVANA FOR HIS PUT UP BRAVADO, REMINDING HIM THAT HE COULD NOT GO PAST A SMALL TINY LINE DRAWN BY RAMA’S SIBLING. .

 

Ravana emerges in the deceitful guise of a tapasvi, as Lakshmana leaves:

 

இளையவன் ஏகலும், இறவு பார்க்கின்ற

வளை எயிற்று இராவணன் வஞ்சம் முற்றுவான்,

முளை வரித் தண்டு ஒரு மூன்றும், முப் பகைத்

தளை அரி தவத்தவர் வடிவம், தாங்கினான்.

 

As Lakshmana went (in search of Rama), anticipating his departure from the scene, Ravana, with bent prominent teeth, with the intent of executing his pernicious plan, bearing three bamboos tied together as a symbol of his ascetic form, symbolizing the dissociation (from that ascetic) of the three “malas” – blemishes viz. carnal desire, anger and wobbly mind – the reputed three internal enemies of a human.

 

The composite rod made of three bamboo shards is called “Thridhandam” which symbolizes sainthood. All the current-day aacharyas and heads of maths are seen holding one. The ancient Thamizh literature indeed made that a symbol for all Brahmins: 'கற்றோய்த் துடுத்த படிவப் பார்ப்பான் முக்கோலசை நிலை'

 

Ravana approaches the hermitage where Sita was immersed in distress and grief, strumming a veena and rendering the Sama Vedha – the foundation of all music:

 

வீணையின் இசைபட வேதம் பாடுவான்

 

(Legend has it that Ravana pleased Lord Shiva with his rendition of this vedha).

 

Ravana’s gait and physical characteristics in this guise:

 

பூப் பொதி அவிழ்ந்தன நடையன்; பூதலம்

தீப் பொதிந்தாமென மிதிக்கும் செய்கையன்;

காப்பு அரு நடுக்குறும் காலன், கையினன்;

மூப்பு எனும் பருவமும் முனிய முற்றினான்.

 

His gait resembled a bud slowly opening its petals; each step so wary as if the earth underneath was afire; with hands and legs swinging and trembling without control; with the form of a loathsome aged person. A soft and slow walking gait is attributed to saints, ascetics and Brahmins in general. குறுநடையும் குந்தி நடத்தலும் அந்தணர்க்கியல்பு

 

Should be some transformation! Shoulders that shook Kailash, threatening to uproot it, getting to stoop and tremble!

 

தாமரைக் கண்ணொடு ஏர் தவத்தின் மாலையன்;

ஆமையின் இருக்கையன்; வளைந்த ஆக்கையன்;

நாம நூல் மார்பினன்; நணுகினான் அரோ-

தூ மனத்து அருந்ததி இருந்த சூழல்வாய்.

 

Wearing a garland made of beads of lotus stem, seemingly in total withdrawal of his sense-organs – like a turtle withdraws its limbs in, with a bent torso, with a prominent sacred thread adorning his chest, Ravana, in that deceitful guise approached the hermitage wher Sita, the one with a spotless mind and virtues matching those of Arundhati, was.

 

(There was a distinct divergence by Kamban in presenting the highly-charged wordy exchange between Sita and Lakshmana, from what Sage Valmiki has presented, reflecting two key differences between the two: One, the stand-out one, is the chasm between the gender-perceptions in the Aadi Kaavya times and Kamban’s times and across two distinctly different cultures; Two: Kamban’ s consistent attitude of deifying the Divya Dampathis and not treAading anything even remotely critical of them – in human terms. )

 

The Aadhi Kaavya invests nearly half a “sarga” for Sita’s tongue-lashing at Lakshmana. We have just a few of the slokas here:

 

इच्छसि त्वं विनश्यन्तं रामं लक्ष्मण मत्कृते।।3.45.6।।

लोभात्त्वं मत्कृते नूनं नानुगच्छसि राघवम्।

 

icchhasi tvam vinashyantam raamam lakShmaNa mat kR^ite || 3-45-6

lobhaat tu mat kR^itam nuunam na anugacchhasi raaghavam

 

It is with the (wicked) thought to possess me that you wish Rama's death. You would not rush to his help certainly because of your evil desire for me.

 

अनार्याकरणारम्भ नृशंस कुलपांसन।।3.45.21।।

अहं तव प्रियं मन्ये रामस्य व्यसनं महत्।

 

anaarya karuNaaraMbha nR^ishaMsa kula paaMsana || 3-45-21

aham tava priyam manye raamasya vyasanam mahat

 

O ignoble, cruel Lakshmana, you are a disgrace to your dynasty. I think this great disaster of Rama is a pleasure to you. अनार्या = anaarya! = one who is not an Arya i.e. noble – ignoble;

 

सुदुष्टस्त्वं वने राममेकमेकोऽनुगच्छसि।

मम हेतोः प्रतिच्छन्नः प्रयुक्तोभरतेन वा।।3.45.24।।

 

suduShTaH tvam vane raamam ekam eko anugacchhasi |

mama hetoH praticchhannaH prayukto bharatena vaa || 3-45-24

 

You are vile. You are hiding your true identity, and (possibly) employed by Bharata, you are following Rama in the forest as he is alone (with the ulterior intent of having me (mama hetoH) after causing hurt to Rama.)

 

तत् न सिद्ध्यति सौमित्रे तव अपि भरतस्य वा |

कथम् इंदीवर श्यामम् रामम् पद्म निभेक्षणम् || ३-४५-२५

उपसंश्रित्य भर्तारम् कामयेयम् पृथक् जनम्

 

tat na siddhyati saumitre tava api bharatasya vaa |

katham i.ndiivara shyaamam raamam padma nibhekShaNam || 3-45-25

upasaMshritya bhartaaram kaamayeyam pR^ithak janam

 

O Lakshmana! Such evil design  of yours or even that of Bharata  will not be fulfilled. I have held the hands of Rama who has eyes like the lotus petal (padma nibhekShaNam), the one with a handsome dark complexion. How can I even think of some other (ordinary) man?

 

(Curiously, Sita imputes the evil scheming perceived by her not just to Lakshmana; she drags Bharata into it. What she might have conjured in her mind, seized with the fear of Rama in grave peril, and in the full grip of paranoia, that Bharata, having stolen the crown from Rama and sent Rama forest-bound, had set up Lakshmana to go with him and steal Sita as well. Paranoia knows no bounds of logic or rationality!)

 

 Sage Valmiki attributes Sita’s outburst at Lakshmana, her acerbic tongue-lashing, thus (in the words of Lakshmana):

 

vimukta dharmaaH capalaaH tiikShNaa bhedakaraaH striyaH |

na sahe hi iidR^isham vaakyam vaidehii janaka aatmaje || 3-45-30

shrotrayoH ubhayoH madhye tapta naaraaca sannibham

 

When women happen to be unfettered by Dharma (proper etiquette) (when provoked, when they lose their mind and equipoise), they tend to use, whimsically and cantankerously, words that are unbearable; Vaidehi! Oh! Janaka’s daughter! Your words are like red hot iron arrows right between my two ears. Tapta naaraaca = red hot iron arrow. “நாராசம்” is a word that we usually hear in such contexts.

 

Kamban, on the other hand, would have his Lakshmana respond to Sita’s tirade – a masterpiece of word-play – just in six words”என் அயல் நிற்றியோ, இளையோய்! ஒரு நீ?” packed with all the indictment and innuendoes she had for him.

 

In the process, Kamban brings to us a Sita that would not be coloured with what Sage Valmiki brings out as a failing of a woman. Does this difference in presentation also represent the gender perceptions that prevailed in the two time periods?

 

Two: Sage Valmiki’s Lakshmana has him giving back to Sita as hard as he got it from her, while still deifying her, and giving it where it should hurt most a well-bred woman.

 

धिक् त्वाम् अद्य प्रणश्यन्तीम् यन् माम् एवम् विशंकसे || ३-४५-३२

स्त्रीत्वात् दुष्ट स्वभावेन गुरु वाक्ये व्यवस्थितम् |

 

dhik tvaam adya praNashyantiim yan maam evam visha.nkase || 3-45-32

striitvaat duShTa svabhaavena guru vaakye vyavasthitam |

 

Fie upon you! You seem to be acrimoniously tempered because you are feminine!

And because of that impulsiveness, you mistrust me, while I am just abiding by my Lords’s command. tvaam adya praNashyantiim = May God (be with you?) for this cantankerousness. (Loosely interpreted the word “praNashyantiim” would be close to the Thamizh scolding “நாசமாய்ப் போவாய்” which elders use in upbraiding young people, without the sting of a curse.)

 

We see that the Aadi Kaavya’s obvious gender bias bears the brunt of its criticism of Sita in this context.

 

Kamban’s Lakshmana responds with an equanimity,  and calmness that Lakshmana is not usually known for – and civility; he stays unprovoked, holds his humility and deifying respect for Sita and tries, even in the face of frustratingly increased anger and biting lashes from Sita; when his efforts to pacify her are totally thwarted by her threat to immolate herself, he leaves in resignation –  mind swinging from Destiny’s inevitability and the Hope offered by Dharma,

 

அறம்தனால் அழிவு இலது ஆகல் ஆக்கலாம்; ………… தொல் வினைப்

பிறந்து, போந்து, இது படும், பேதையேன்'

 

 oblivious, at that moment of mental turmoil, that it is a reenactment of

“இழைக்கின்ற விதி முன் செல்ல,   தருமம் பின் இரங்கி ஏக,” (Bala Khandam – Rama, with the news of his abdication, enters the chambers of His mother Kousalya).

 

We noted that Sita would pay for her acerbic tongue-lashing – later. Throughout Sundara Khanda, Rama waxes and melts recalling Sita’s virtues and beauty and Hanuman invokes that melting heart in Rama in bringing to him in grandly vivid and rich recalls of what he saw Sita as, in the Asoka Vana. The pangs of separation and fiercely burning embers of His love for Sita were only fuelled by Hanuman’s reports. But when Sita was fetched to Him on conclusion of the Lankan war, he would say:

 

‘ஊண்திறம் உவந்தனை;  ஒழுக்கம் பாழ்பட,

மாண்டிலை; முறைதிறம்பு   அரக்கன் மாநகர்

ஆண்டு உறைந்து அடங்கினை;  அச்சம் தீர்ந்து இவண்

மீண்டது என்? நினைவு, “எனை விரும்பும் “ என்பதோ? ‘

 

 “You loved the rich food (offered by your captors); you did not choose death rather than sully your righteousness. You lived in the city of your captors willingly subject to them. Now, with the lifting of the captors’ fear, why did you have to come here? Did you now revive your desire for me?”

 

Rama’s words to Sita are inexplicably scorching, trenchant and publicly humiliating; if those words were lit then, these would have burnt the whole of womanhood. And Rama at that point of context apparently lost himself, lost all his equanimity and balance, lost memory of what Hanuman informed him about Sita’s condition in Asoka Vanam, seems to have been in a blinding loss of mind.

 

Was Rama just grandstanding? Or, was he deliberately punishing Sita for the acerbic and wholly unjustified lashes she dealt Lakshmana (and as per Valmiki, Bharata as well)? A mine-field for commentators!

 

The very devout amongst us would find it very trying – in fact very uncomfortable – in going through parts like these in Valmiki Ramayana. It would be necessary for us to remember this:

 

While Valmiki wrote the epic from the vantage points - equipped with the insight provided by Brahma himself and Narada (a la Sanjaya) and having been a contemporary mentor-sage to whom Sri Rama Himself paid obeisance  - and thus must have gone through these awkward passages with aplomb, for Kamban, one of the most devout Rama Bhaktas after Hanuman, who melted into hyperbole at the very mention of Rama and Sita, it should have wrung his  heart  into a virtual rag while having to say what he had to say in terms of the ithihasa narrative dharma.  Kamban’s heart must have bled when he wrote those four lines. But he did not flinch. We shall salute Kamban.

 

Your narrator kept back this elaboration for a postscript in the hope that this significant divergence between Valmiki and Kamban would be picked up – especially the always alert feminine voices in the Group, leaving open a tantalizing prospect. Alas! No ruffled feathers! No raised voices deprecating gender bias! He missed his mark, once again.)

 

A     l……..o……….n………g    p o s t s c r I p t!

 

Now back to the Ravana Sanyasi:

 

As Ravana emerges in the vicinity of Sri Rama’s hermitage, disguised as a sanyasi, the whole environment reacts with fear and disgust.

 

நடுங்கின, மலைகளும் மரனும்; நா அவிந்து

அடங்கின, பறவையும்; விலங்கும் அஞ்சின;

படம் குறைந்து ஒதுங்கின, பாம்பும்;-பாதகக்

கடுந் தொழில் அரக்கனைக் காணும் கண்ணினே.

 

As they saw Ravana, with the wicked intent of abducting another man’s wife, the hills and the trees trembled with fear; the birds went speechless; the vicious snakes doused their hissing and became quiet.

 

பொற்பினுக்கு அணியினைப் புகழின் சேக்கையைக்

கற்பினுக்கு அரசியைக் கண்ணில் நோக்கினான

 

He saw Sita – the reigning queen of chastity – with his own eyes (for the first time).

 

புன மயில் சாயல்தன் எழிலில், பூ நறைச்

சுனை மடுத்து உண்டு இசை  முரலும் தும்பியின்-

இனம் எனக் களித்துளது என்பது என்? அவன்

மனம் எனக் களித்தது, கண்ணின் மாலையே.

 

Why would his delight on seeing Sita, like a ravishingly beautiful peacock, be compared to the drunken delight of bumble bees that have drunk deep in the stream of honey flowing from the forest of flowers – it would be more appropriate to compare the drunkenness of the bees to the inebriated condition of Ravana’s mind on seeing Sita. (The allegory is: Ravana’s eyes (twenty of them but here only two were visible), drinking deep the divine beauty of Sita, drowned his mind into a soaring, dizzy, drunken delight.)

 

'அரை கடை இட்ட  முக்கோடி ஆயுவும்

புரை தபு தவத்தின் யான் படைத்த போதுமே,

நிரை வளை முன் கை இந்நின்ற நங்கையின்

கரை அறு நல் நலக் கடற்கு?'என்று உன்னினான்.

 

“Would all of my three-and-a-half crore years of my lifetime be enough to imbibe the loveliness of this feminine form with dainty hands adorned with rows of bangles? This is a limitless ocean of pleasurable feast for my eyes.” நல் நலக் கடற்கு = Sita’s loveliness is a veitable sea of a pristine beauty worthy of deifying.

 

(The thought in Ravana’s mind at the moment of his longevity is regarded as a foreboding premonition of the approaching premature end.)

 

தேவரும், அவுணரும்,தேவிமாரொடும்

கூவல்செய் தொழிலினர், குடிமை செய்திட,

மூஉலகமும் இவர் முறையின் ஆள, யான்

ஏவல் செய்து உய்குவென், இனி' என்று உன்னினான்.

 

Ravana mused: “Sita would rule the three worlds, with the gods, asuras and their spouses slaving for me at my bidding, and I would (be her slave), do her bidding”.

Ravana fancies life with Sita and conjures a life where he anoints her as the empress of all the worlds and while all the devas and asuras with their spouses would be slaving for him, he would slave for her, doing her bidding.”

 

 உளைவுறு துயர் முகத்து ஒளி இது ஆம் எனின்,

முளை எயிறு இலங்கிடும் முறுவல் என்படும்?

தளை அவிழ் குழல் இவட் கண்டு தந்த என்

இளையவட்கு அளிப்பென், என் அரசு' என்று எண்ணினான்.

 

If this the glow in that face that is immersed in distress and grief, what would she be like in the grip of joy, with a smile adorned by her small, shining, pear-like teeth? For finding this matchless one with lovely deep-crawling tresses freed to fall, I shall reward my sister Surpanaka with my kingdom!”

 

நா முதல் குழறிட  நடுங்கு சொல்லினான்,

“யாவிர் இவ் இருக்கையுள் இருந்துளீர்? “ என்றான்

 

Arriving at the threshold of Sri Rama’s hermitage, Ravana, in his disguise as a old, frail, bent ascetic, with his voice incoherent and trembling, enquired : “who is in this hermitage?”

 

Sita, wiping her eyes of the streaming tears, with a welcoming face, receives the Ravana sanyasi and offers him a seat. Then she proceeds to answer his query:

 

'தயரதன் தொல் குலத் தனையன்; தம்பியோடு,

உயர் குலத்து அன்னை சொல் உச்சி ஏந்தினான்,

அயர்வுஇலன், இவ் வழி உறையும்; அன்னவன்

பெயரினைத் தெரிகுதிர், பெருமையீர்!' என்றாள்.

 

“He is the son of Dasaratha, of the renowned ancient (Raghu) dynasty; accompanied by his younger brother, holding his (step)mother’s command as gospel, the tireless one, he liveth here; Wouldn’t you be knowing his name?” Sita presumes that all the sages in the Dandakaranya area ought to know Rama by name and leaves that query incomplete.

 

அனக மா நெறி படர் அடிகள்! நும் அலால்,

நினைவது ஓர் தெய்வம் வேறு இலாத நெஞ்சினான்

சனகன் மா மகள்; பெயர் சனகி; காகுத்தன்

மனைவி யான்' என்றனள், மறு இல் கற்பினாள்.

 

Answering Ravana’s follow up query, Sita, the one with a spotless chastity,  responded: “Oh! Blemishless sage!(!!!!!!) I am the daughter of  Janaka, the one adores ascetics like you as god, my name is Janaki. I am the wife of “Kakustha”. “ Kakustha” is the name used for denoting Rama several times in the two epics and in the devotional literature as well. “Kakustha” was one of the forbears of Rama in the long Raghu lineage.

 

Ravana presents where he came from. Here, he needs to keep his disguise intact but st