Context: Construction of Shri Rama's Temple at Ayodhya, believed to be the Birth Place of Shri Rama.
Trigger for me to write this particular blog post: A blog post by one Shri Milin Patel, dated 22nd March 2018, at http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.com. References link is given below. I have seen it only a few days back. This blog post of Shri Milin Patel has 14 comments, which can be seen at his blog post. I am neither supporting nor denigrating what has been written by Shri Milin Patel, and his Commentators, including one Commentator who has strongly disapproved what Shri Patel wrote.
Ever since I have started writing this blog Ramayanayb.blogspot.com, in 2007 i.e. 13 years back, I have been thinking about the validity of evidence available in Valmiki Ramayana about the existence of more than one wife for Lord Rama. I did not dare to make public my thoughts on the subject because evidence is not enough. But, now there is a need for me 'to think alound, without malice to anybody'. Before that I wish to clarify that I am not a Christian Missionary or an Islamic Cleric on the prowl to convert people. I am very much a born-Hindu, and I have no animosity against Hinduism or any other religion.
About 20 years back, I read a Telugu researched book by name 'Ramayana visha vriksham' by Marxist Writer Ms. Ranganayakamma. She has a penchant of looking at everything from the point of view of Marxism. There is nothing wrong in that approach, prima facie. Besides, she has given a touch of humor in her analyses, albeit, with no intent to malign any Ramayana characters. While reading that book, I searched for her opinion about 'whether Shri Rama has more than one wife, beside Sita?'.
As far as I can recollect from my reading of that Work of Ranganayakamma, she was very categorical that there is not enough evidence for polygamy of Shri Rama. The reasons given by her in her book, were also quite convincing, though personally I believed that Shri Rama might have had more than one wife, as was the custom of Kings of those days. But, then we have to go by evidences and not by personal hunches. My appreciation to her unbiased approach. She did not want to write some rubbish and throw it on people.
A look at the verse quoted-discussed by Shri Milin Patel
hR^ishhTaaH khalu bhavishhyanti raamasya paramaaH striyaH |
aprahR^ishhTaa bhavishhyanti snushhaaste bharatakshaye || 2-8-12
English gist as per Translation at valmikiramayan.net: raamasya= Rama's; paramaa striyaH= great wives; bhavantikhalu= will become; hR^ishTaaH= delighted; te= your; snushhaaH= daughters-in-law; bhavishhyanti= will become; aprahR^isTaaH= unhappy; bharata kshhaye= of Bharata's weak position.
"Rama's wives will get delighted. Your daughters-in-law will be unhappy because of Bharata's waning position."
Comment: The words 'Rama's wives' here do not indicate that Rama had multiple wives. Manathara refers to a possible future where Rama being a King would marry other women. It was a norm then for a king to have more than one wife.
ybrao-a-donkey-s personal view
The phrase 'parama striyaha' literally means 'best women'. Then, its literal interpretation will be 'the best women' of Shri Rama. They need not necessarily be wives. 'Stri' is a generic term, to mean 'woman'. All the women in the gynesium of Prince Shri Rama will come into the category of Shri Rama's women. They can include even servants, makeup women, tailors, betel-leaf pan makers, cooks, scripture readers, priest-caste-women performing rituals. They need not be wives. Women in gynesia of other kings might have been sexually used by other Kings of that period. But, there is no evidence to prove that Shri Rama used them for sexual purposes.Almost all Indian Gods, with the exception of Lord Shri Rama have more than one wife.
Question of Shri Rama and Lakshmana gifting Slave Girls to Agastya and Kausika, examined by Shri Milin Patel
Shri Milin Patel used Mr. Pollock's Englsh Translation, quoting Book 2, Sec. 29 (Book of Ayodhya, Chapter 29)."...Among this wealth, are included slave girls of Rama (/Ayodhya Kanda Section 29, translation by Pollock/): ... Summon the two eminent brahmans Agastya and Kaushika and in homage shower precious objects on them, Saumıtri, as crops are showered with rain. As for the learned preceptor of the Taittirıyas, the master of the Vedas who devotedly serves Kausalya with his blessings—*present that twice-born with a palanquin and slave girls*, Saumitri, and silken garments to his heart’s content....".
ybmad's personal view, with no malice to Shri Milin Patel:
In Valmiki Ramayana , Book of Ayodhya (Ayodhya Kanda), Chapter No. 29 (sarga No.) quoted by Shri Pollock Engl. Translator, appears to be incorrect; or there may be variations between one version and another version say Bengal Version / Bombay Version / Madras Version. I quote the relevant verse from Book of Ayodhya, Chapter 32, Verses 15 and 16 (2-32-15&16):--source Valmikiramayan.net (reference 3 below):--kausalyaam ca yaaashiirbhir bhaktaH paryupatiSThati |
aacaaryaH taittiriiyaaNaam abhiruupaH ca vedavit || 2-32-15
tasya yaanam ca daasiiH ca saumitre sampradaapaya |
kausheyaani ca vastraaNi yaavat tuSyati sa dvijaH || 2-32-16
Word Meanings in 15,16. saumitre= Oh, lakshmana! yaH= which brahmana; taithiriiyaNaam= studying Taittiriya ( a schoolf yajurveda); aachaaryaH= a preceptor, abhiruupashcha= a man of conformity; vedavit= a knower of Vedas; paryupatishhTati= seving; kausalyaam= Kausalya; bhaktaH= with his blessing; tasya= to him; sampradaapaya= in duly gifted; yaanamcha= conveyance; daasiishcha= servant-maids; kaushayaani vastraaNicha= silken clothes; yaavat= till; saH dvijaH= that brahmana; tushhyati= gets satisfied.
"Oh, Lakshmana! Which brahman is studying Taittiriya(a school of yajurveda), a preceptor, a man of conformity; a knower of Vedas, serving Kausalya with his devotion and blessing, to him see that he is duly gifted conveyance, servant maids and silken clothing till he gets satisfied."
ybmad i.e. this blogger continuing
The word used by Shri Pollocks in his English Translation goes against the commonly understood meaning of the word 'dAsi', 'dAsIs cha'. He translated it as Slave Girls. The word 'dAsi' (plural 'dAsIs' commonly understood meaning (rUDhi artham) are a servant maid and, servant maids. Definitely not slave girl. Even if that meaning is derivable, it will only be a secondary meaning and not a primary meaning. What Rama and Lakshmana gave prima facie were servant maids and not slave girls. The English Translator Pollock is not amidst us to clarify. However, Shri Mlinin Patel can clarify.
ybmad's important clarification:--
Confirmed evidence is not available from Valmiki Ramayana about existence of women slaves during Ramayana period. Valmiki Ramayana as per the evidence available today (it may change later when fresh evidence comes to light) is only mythological and legendary. It is not history. Ramayana verses are only panegyrics. The Kings of Punjab, Hariyana, Rajasthan, MP, UP, Bihar area who claimed to be descendents of Sun Dynasty (SUrya Vamsam) seems to have engaged balled singers to sing the glories of their Ancestors, the Chief among them being Shri Rama. This went on for several centuries, and Shri Rama was made into an incarnation of Lord VishNu. During the process, several insertions, deletions, and interpolations took place in the Valmiki Ramayana. The basic story, in all probability, might have happened. It requires lots of unbiased efforts by hundreds of Analysts to identify the insertions, deletions, and interpolations.Vyasa Mahabharata
In Vyasa Mahabharata, AsvamEtha Prava (Book of Horse Sacrifice), there is some evidence of Emperor Yudhishthira sacrificing slave women in the Sacrificial pyres. But in Ramayana, I am unable to trace such evidence.Is monogamy compulsory to make a person a God, or an incarnation of God?
As already pointed out by me above, most Hindu Gods are married, and they have more than one wife. E.g.: Creator Brahma-- Sarasvati and Gayatri are his wives. Lord VishNu: Sri Devi (Lakshmi) and Bhudevi (Personification of Goddess Earth). Lord Shiva (Shankara): Parvati and Ganga (River Ganga). Hence, nobody may stop praying/worshipping Lord Rama even if it is proved that he has more than one wife. Monogamy is not a qualification for a God.
There seems to be only one verse in the entire Valmiki Ramayan, which refers to 'only one wife' of Shri Rama. I quote it:
mogho hi dharmashcharito mayaayaM |
tathaikapatniitvamidaM nirartham |
yaa tvaaM na pashyaami kR^ishaa vivarNaa |
hiinaa tvayaa saMgamane niraashaa || 5-28-13
13. yaa= I that person who; na pashyaami= is not seeing; tvaam= you; niraashaa= and who is not hopeful; sangamane= of coming into contact with you; kR^ishaa= who is emaciated; vivarNaa= and pale in complexion; ayam= this; dharmaH= righteous act; charitaH= performed; mayaa= by me; moghaH his= has indeed become a waste; tathaa= likewise; idam= this wife to you; nirartham= has become useless.
“For me who is not seeing you, who is bereft of you, who is not hopeful of coming into contact with you, who is emaciated and pale in complexion this righteous act performed by me has indeed become a waste. Likewise, this state of my being only one wife to you has become useless..”
ybmad contg.
In this verse from Sundara Kanda, Chapter 28, Sita in Ashoka Garden, laments about her misfortune (alpa bhAgyam). Here, she expresses her anguish about Shri Rama going back to Ayodhya without her and enjoying with his [may be future] wives. In "tath aikapatniitvam idaM" Sita is very clear that Shri Rama had only one wife at that particular point of time, i.e. her grief. In that anguish, she contemplates a suicide with a sharp weapon or with poison.
However, we must always keep one thing in mind: patni here means dharma patni, i.e. legally wedded wife, religiously wedded wife. Not concubines. Not women who may be temporarily abused.
My apologies to my Readers: How many MLAs, MPs, CMs, Central Ministers, Governors, IAS IPS Officials, Cricketers, Film Stars, Lawyers and Judges, Surgeons and Medical Specialists have just one wife? Yes, they may have only one legally religiously wedded wife i.d. dharma patni. Others are not counted. They are also not mentioned in Nominations data during Elections. So let us not be too penetrative. Then we cannot live in this World.!
For example, there was a complaint against a former Chief Justice of India that he tried at his Official residence to cultivate a S/C Junior Court Assistant working with him. According to her allegations, the former CJI her boss tried to win her by touching her at places such as back, hips, and when she tried to maintain 'distance' he started harassing her. Her saga was pitiable. She was dismissed on the basis of a defective flimsy ex-parte disciplinary proceeding. She was arrested, shackled, and held in a police station during night, on the basis of a frivolous complaint of bribe taking. Her younger brother in law who was a physically challenged person who was given an appointment under CJI's discretionary quota was also removed. Her two brothers-in-law who were working in Delhi Police were removed from Service and arrested, on flimsy grounds. An InHouse Inquiry Committee consisting of that CJI's Junior Judges absolved him of all allegations after a non-transparent-ex-parte inquiry. After retirement, the CJI was nominated by President of India as a Rajya Sabha Member. The complainant i.e. the suffering Junior Court Assistant, her brothers-in-law were coolly reinstated, probably to put a lid on the whole matter. Suppose, this whole affair is opened after 2000 years from now, say as a part of History of Supreme Court of India, what evidence will be available?
References
1. http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.com/2018/03/how-did-valmiki-prove-rama-had-only-one.html
2. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga8/ayodhya_8_frame.htm.
3. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga32/ayodhya_32_frame.htm.
4. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/sundara/sarga28/sundara_28_frame.htm.
No comments:
Post a Comment