Wednesday, May 05, 2010


VERSEs 18 & 19 - SLOOKA 18 & 19

Aryapaadau grihiitvaa
tu shirasaa dharmakovidaha (18)
upavaasakris`oo diinashchiira
krishn`jinaambaraha (19)

Rama returned from the exile to forest. Bharata was getting ready to welcome him back. The above line describes the condition of Bharata at that time.

The great expert of righteousness Bharata was carrying the footwear of Rama on his head ...
Bharata was emaciated with fasts.
Bharata was wearing black deer.


*I greatly appreciate the virtuosity of Bharata and his respect to Rama. Making fasts and wearing deer skin etc. also we can appreciate. Yet one question lingers:

Rama was under a vow to stay in forests and he could not visit the City. Bharata was not barred by law to visit Rama in the forests. How many times did Bharata visit the forest to inquire about his well-being? Rama didn't bar Bharata from visiting forest. Rama and Sita were carrying gold ornaments in the forests. There was no bar on Bharata on sending some gifts to Rama. Why Bharata didn't send any gifts, though not gold, some gifts to Rama?

Had Bharata kept a continuous track of Rama during the 14 years, he could have known about the abduction of Sita immediately after the incident. Bharata could have sent his army to Rama in the forest, for undertaking the search of Sita. There was no bar on Bharata from providing such aid to Rama in the forest. The condition was that Rama should stay put in the forest.

Bharata could have sent some birthday gifts to rAma, the kind of which were not prohibited by the terms of exile to forest. He could have sent Satrughna to find out if rAma and SItA had some off-springs during the fourteen years. It is strange that rAma and sIta did not have children during their 13 years of cohabitation in the forest and Sita became pregnant only after they returned to ayOdhya and coronation of rAma.

bharata`s keeping track of rAma`s well-being while in forest, would have saved Rama, from the travails of begging Vanara tribal chiefs for help. This would have helped Rama to avoid the unnecessary slaying of Vali and anointing his brother as the new king. bharata`s army would have joined rAma`s battles with rAvaNa. Such co-operation would have truly reflected fraternal love. Not symbolic fasts / not staying outside ayOdhya / not undertaking fasts / not taking baths which were all nothing but tokenisms.

From the above, we can possibly deduce that Bharata and Kaikeyi did not expect Rama to return from forests after 14 years. They would have felt comfortable had Rama been killed by wild animals or tribals or Vali or Ravana. This did not happen. Instead, Rama returned stronger with an army of Vanara tribal warriors.

Now, Bharata would have no alternative. Had he refused to return the kingdom to Rama, Rama would have killed him with the help of Vaanara army. Bharata didn't want to take that risk of fighting with a stronger Rama. Bharata had to save himself by representing as a person emaciated by fasts and wearing deer-skin. He had to prove his loyalty to Rama.

3-45-24 and 25 : Sita was doubtful of Bharata's and Lakshmana's sincerity. When in forest, she felt that Bharata and Lakshmana conspired against her and Rama. This attitude on the part of Sita might have been wrong and she might have received her punishment. Yet one thing is certain: There was hidden animosity and cold war between Rama and Bharata. Both didn't want to engage in an open war for the kingdom.


rajanikanth m said...

great work out. if you don't mind, the modern science has identified an illness called "psyco". if your father breaths, do u feel he is breathing all the air u r supposed to breath.

I have some questions :

what is ur age?

from which fool you learned sanskrit?

if u feel wrong with my questions, i'm sincerelt "NO SORRY" to you.

your sanskrit and psycological thinking is not upto standards of atleast reading ramayana. how can you make a comment on it?

you are thinking like educated brutes like :

i'm sorry to them,

madhvacharya, ramanujacharya...

i'm sorry friend,

you better think about ur capacity of thinking and ur grand, fore father's capacity of thinking.

the question of thinking is not how speed u think, how many ways you think.the question of thinking is how perfect you think.

i hope the one who taught you sanskrit, has taught you only reading it but not understanding it !!!

Anonymous said...

I think what the blogger TruthSeeker is doing is fine. He is telling it like it is. How does it matter who teaches you Sanskrit? English would mean the same whoever teaches you or which ever school you attend. That is the way it should be. The previous commentor seemed irked because TruthSeeker is not following the age old agenda to protect the status quo and keep people in the dark. My understanding that this is how Sanskrit studies are mismanaged in the South (India). I do not know about the situation in the North. You quote a sloka and interpret what ever suits your convenience. Not what it means. No body to question you. It is time to start a new beginning. I appreciate what the blogger TruthSeeker is doing here.