 |
| Illustration by Copilot Designer |
Unwavering adherence to dharma causes much suffering
in the Ramayana. Dharma can mean duty, righteousness, and moral order.
There are many characters in the Ramayana who stick to their dharma as best as
they can and cause much pain to themselves as well as others.
Dasharatha sees it as his duty as a
ruler (raja-dharma) to uphold truth and justice and hence has to fulfil the
promise he made to Kaikeyi and send Rama into exile in spite of the anguish it
causes him and many others. Rama accepts the order following his dharma as an
obedient son. Sita follows her dharma as a wife and enters the forest along
with her husband. The brotherly dharma of Lakshmana makes him leave his own
wife and escort Rama and Sita.
It’s all not that simple, however.
Which dharma makes Rama suspect Sita’s purity, later in Lanka? Which dharma
makes him succumb to a societal expectation instead of upholding his personal
integrity, still later in Ayodhya?
“You were carried away by Ravana and
kept in his lap,” Rama tells Sita when she runs to him in love and longing as
soon as the Lanka War is over. “How can I accept you back, you who have dwelt
in the abode of another?” Rama tells Sita heartlessly to go wherever she
wishes. He is happy that his mission to decimate the evil Ravana is
accomplished. He is not the least concerned about the woman who spent nearly 14
years in exile in harsh wildernesses for his sake.
His attitude is cruel, apparently.
“Choose whomsoever you desire,” he tells Sita. He names Lakshmana, Bharata, and
Shatrughna – as if they have no say of their own. “You are free to go and live
happily under their protection.”
No wonder Mahatma Gandhi said that
the Rama of the Ramayana could not ever be his god.
Sita is heartbroken. She is eager to
prove the purity of her body and soul. Lakshmana follows his new dharma and
builds up a flame that can consume Sita if she is not chaste. The fire-test proves
Sita’s chastity. She walked into a flame for a man who will abandon her
heartlessly yet again in order to uphold his social status in an absurd
patriarchal system. She is doing it for a king who will convince himself that
the perversions of his plebeian subjects are politically more important than
the unwavering devotion of his own wife. All in the name of dharma.
What did dharma mean to Rama at this
juncture?
Long ago, Bharata asked him the same
question in another context. Dasharatha was dead. The people of Ayodhya wanted
Rama to return to Ayodhya and take charge as King. Even Kaikeyi repented her
mistake and wished Rama to return. Rama didn’t care for anyone except for his
personal dharma.
Why does he then succumb to some
people’s opinion now where the life of a goddess-like woman, who is also his devoted
wife, is concerned?
Dharma is subtle. Indeed. Does it
have to be, necessarily?
Mandodari, Ravana’s wife who is a good
woman – righteous person, devoted wife, wise counsellor, and loyal friend to
Sita – has something to say about karma and dharma.
“The wise keep talking about the law of
karma. They say everyone will have to eat the fruits of karma. However, in
life, it does not happen like that. Good people suffer, and evil people
flourish. There is no correlation between action and the fruits of action. It
is our need to find some pattern to life that makes us think so. Things
happen randomly; there is no one controlling it. Sometimes, when bad things
happen, we console ourselves saying it is the result of prarabdha or
what we have carried from the karma of our past lives. Men perform actions for
their selfish needs and justify them by talking about dharma.”
Mandodari thinks some blind destiny
determines the course of our life. Dharma is facile psychological consolation
for those who can afford it.
Ravana is more blunt about it.
“People talk about dharma and ethics only when they have the upper hand,” he
tells his son Indrajit who is concerned about his dharma when asked by his
father to join the war against Rama.
A balance between the rigidity of
dharma and the fluidity of pragmatism is what makes life go on. Dharma alone
can be heartless.
Dasharatha could have found a
pragmatic – diplomatic, if you wish – solution by sharing the power between
Rama and Bharata. Dharma need not be as rigid as a rulebook. Rama could have
easily defended Sita publicly. There was no need to let dharma come between his
heart and public opinion; there are situations when love has to stand above
dharma. Even Sita could have averted the Lanka War by agreeing to cross the
ocean with Hanuman.
There were options galore to make it
a better world. But it was Rama’s destiny to kill Ravana, and it was Sita’s
destiny to be a scapegoat in the big male game.
It is absurd, Mandodari would say. Mandodari is the philosopher of the absurd in Ramayana. “Things happen randomly.” More about that tomorrow.
PS. I’m participating in #BlogchatterA2Z. This series looks at the Ramayana
from various angles.
Tomorrow: Exile
and the Kingdom
Previous Posts in this series:
Self respect , once it is lost it gone for ever and it's such a humiliation it's like killing yourself . And here sita without considering or thinking about the harm which can come to her self respect she decided to be consumed by fire for a man who suspects her purity? She was kidnapped by ravana she didn't flee with him . How can a person like rama be named as MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM when he can't keep his dharma as a husband . A man who fails his family is a man of no value is what I believe.
ReplyDeleteIn every household everyone thinks that only a wife is supposed to follow the dharma of taking care of her family supposed to do everything it's fine and alright but you can't ask them to be perfect . On the otherside no man before marriage is asked to learn about the dharma he has to keep with his wife . The dharma of taking care of her, valuing her opinions , giving priority to her more than just considering her as a free maid or baby machine??... Rama couldn't believe in sita or see her truthfulness and loyalty. She was kidnapped and now he is indicating her as a prostitute indirectly is very rude . In my view Sita shouldn't have stayed to prove anything to a man who can't trust her. If Sita was of this generation definitely in a minute she would have left 😂.
By this comment I didn't mean any offence to any religion or any community I was just presenting my views on this matter ❤️👍
These are some questions that troubled me for long, Mary Ann. I'm happy you are thinking seriously on these issues. Asking questions is your right and I don't think anyone should feel offended. We are all learning. I'm still learning when it comes to religious texts.
DeleteSome of your questions will be anwered in tomorrow's post which looks at the absurdity of the Rama Rajya. I hope the post won't hurt anyone's sentiments. But I'm looking at Rama Rajya from a philsophical standpoint. Sita rises as my heroine there and you'll be happy to read tomorrow's post.
I had to do a retake to look at the author of this post since I have not read a piece about Hindu Mythology from you.The questions raised are very thought provoking indeed but then these are stories and easy solutions do not make for great stories.
ReplyDeleteI am not looking for easy solutions either. I'm trying to understand the epic in my own way. My fundamental quest is to know whether Rama Rajya is desirable at all.
DeleteI have a special place in my heart for Mandodari. This post is a reality check for us. - Swarnali Nath
ReplyDeleteAs I learn more, I too begin to admire Mandodari. In fact, many female characters in the epic are better than the male ones!
DeleteHari OM
ReplyDeleteYou have said that you are to assess this text as a literary, not spiritual book. Then in responses to others you mention assessing it as a philosophical exercise... but then state you are seeking to understand "Rama Rajya"... which, knowing you, hints at the political which drives much of your writing.
If one who had never read it before, nor had the related background, were to pick up the Bible and read of Abraham's obeyance to the Lord, prepared to sacrifice his beloved Isaac then proceed to cast doubts on the point of that tale, how would you advise them? As a literary device it provides only suspense. As a spiritual example, it asks us to look deep into our purpose and how prepared we are to follow the path of faith even in times of sour demand. There is no political twist on that particular tale.
What we do know is that men have, over time, used the spiritual texts of their particular backgrounds as a weapon and twisted the words within them to suit their own needs, politically.
Everywhere currently we see democracy and the rule of law being defied by such men. They are the Ravanas of the story. In every case, base, selfish desires are the drivers, rather than the more noble human mores and ethics.
Relating directly to your post, I am wondering what imprint you are reading, for while Mandodari is a significant character in the Valmiki Ramayana, there is no record of her directly speaking to Sita about karma or any other specific philosophical concepts. She does do much by constantly reminding Ravana that he is straying from the path of righteousness. There are, of course, other versions of the text which provide more on Mandodari. In Valmiki, however, I only recall her cursing Sita.
This reponse is inadequate, yet too long, and I'm sure more will come as the days pass! I appreciate your efforts, dear blogpal, even as I am inclined to push back a little. YAM xx
I started this series as a literary exercise and it was meant to be nothing more than that. But as I read more and more on Ramayana, my understanding of the epic began to change and so did my writing. You once said I would be splitting hairs, but I think you're doing that now. I don't find any problem with philosophy joining literature. In fact, I'm bringing Camus here tomorrow. The very title of tomorrow's post, Exile and the Kingdom, is borrowed from Camus. And he was both: philosopher and novelist. Rama Rajya is part of the same literary-philosophical understanding of mine. For me, they're all interrelated.
DeleteI didn't want to bring politics into this series. But as you understand there is a strong strain of politics within me and, much as I try to suppress it, it raises its head occasionally.
Mandodari's speech here is quoted from the book 'Many Rmayanas, Many Lessons' by Anand Neelakntan. He writes, "The folk Ramayana of south India and the Valmiki Ramayana reveal that during the war, Angada had entered Ravana's palace and dragged Mandodari away." A few lines down, the quote in the post appears. So I assumed that Valmiki Ramayana also has that speech. Now when I check Valmiki Ramayana, translated by Ralph T H Griffith, I understand that Valmiki didn't make Mandodari say those words. But does it really matter? I didn't make any claim that I'm following Valmiki all through.
Regarding the Bible, I am a trenchant critic of that book which I think is unfit for general reading, particularly the Old Testament. I could never appreeciate what Abraham did and I can ever accept a god who asks that sort of sacrifice. I relinquished religion precisely because of my quarrels with such things.
Hari OM
DeleteThank you... the interrelatedness was what I (perhaps inadequately) was trying to convey! It was my thought from your announcement, that it would be very difficult to stick only to a literary view. I am in fact glad that you are finding the Ramayana sufficiently interesting to embrace the philosophical. The entire point of the classic is also to show that to live at the level Rama did, the political must also be addressed. At the measure of diplomacy if nothing else. That is society for you!
Also, it might have been useful, given the subject, to have cited the sources if other than the Valmiki, which is the only source till now that you have stated. It is clear, then, that you have seen similar to the link I provided and that there are regional variations to suit the mores and culture of each part of society.
Now let me go read your latest post - and again I thank you for the effort! Yxx
👍
DeleteI am reading your posts as your writing and your thoughts. Just like we all read and applauded The Palace of Illusions. This has to be my favorite post so far. I have always had respect for Ravan, and i say this at the cost of being belittled by many around me. Mandodari's views are certainly food for thought! I so loved reading this and I will be re-reading it as i think about it.
ReplyDeleteRavana wasn't all that wicked as I will be saying in one of the coming posts. He was a learned person who knew the Vedas and much more. But his ego was his menace.
DeleteThis post on Dharma wasn't easy to write. I rewrote it a few times. I left out much of what I wrote originally because it was highly critical of Rama. I didn't want to bring any religious bad taste here. I'm trying my best to make this series as 'gentle' as possible - no hurt to any sentiments, especially these days.
//People talk about dharma and ethics only when they have the upper hand// Still so true. Your post raises the reader's morality and I especially loved how to mentioned Mandotari. Tamils - through the Kamba Ramayanam - never forget to revere her.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the South Indian versions of Ramayana give much importance to Mandodari.
DeleteBecause we claim, Ravana is a Tamilian!
DeleteOh, ok, The portrayal of Dravidian as Rakshasa?
DeleteThis post is really a critical analysis of Dharma. You brought the points that are in everyone's minds. I like that you mentioned the alternatives or how it would have been if Dharma is not solely followed. Sita might have averted war if she came back with Hanuman. Rama might have defended Sita publicly. But, as you said at the end, a few things are bound to destiny. Ravana to be killed by Rama is bound to destiny and might be the purpose of Rama avatara.
ReplyDeleteDestiny and karma play a huge role in Ramayana. It becomes difficult to find rational answers the moment we bring in supernatural elements.
DeleteI think when we talk of Ram and his Dharma we cannot take him out of the times he lived in. Maybe the times required him to be harsh. Lakshman was harsh too, so was Bharat. We think of their actions from how we see things now. I would not see wrong in Dashrath sending Ram away because Kakiye had specifically asked for it and keeping his word was dharma. Similarly for other characters. Your posts are making us all think and introspect
ReplyDeleteI agree that the time and context make situations different. We can't judge the past by today's standards. But when we are told that Rama is the role model even today... I may differ.
DeleteIsn't it so true that things happen randomly ! I have always admired the character of Mandodari while reading about Ramayana. Indeed she shines with her intellect despite staying in the shadow of the mighty Ravan. But I wonder, we mere mortals find it hard to react to a situation, then why did Ram, the incarnation of the Lord Vishnu, find a more acceptable way to treat his beloved wife Sita? Is it to showcase that no human can be without flaws, even if you are born as an Avatara? Or is it just normal patriarchy of those times at play ? Your posts are food for thought.
ReplyDeleteMost literature I read on this says that for Rama his raja-dharma mattered above personal dharma. I didn't find the arguments convincing.
DeleteThe question about Sita's chastity is the question that lingers mankind for ages, especially in patriarchal systems. In that case, Mandodhari's Random or Freewill philosophy works repeatedly on women! (Quite deterministic !)
ReplyDeleteJust imagine if it were a matriarchy in those days!
DeleteIt's the women who always suffer.
ReplyDeleteYes. The situation is changing, however.
DeleteYour reflections on dharma and destiny really hit home—especially the contrast between surrender and resistance. I love how you tied ancient wisdom to everyday modern struggles. It’s the kind of perspective that lingers long after reading.
ReplyDeleteI was never convinced of the validity of these concepts: dharma and karma. I go with Mandodari: it's all random.
Delete