 |
| Illustration by Copilot Designer |
Maricha is the demon who changed his appearance as the
golden deer that attracted Sita’s attention. He doesn’t want to do it but is
forced by Ravana to play the role. Maricha warns Ravana of calamitous
consequences if he dares to do any harm to Sita. Rama is very powerful, in the
first place. Secondly, he is very virtuous. Thirdly, he doesn’t do us any harm.
Rama doesn’t even bother about us though we do immense harm to the sages in
Dandakaranya where Rama too lives with Sita and Lakshmana.
In spite of being an exceptionally
learned and intellectually gifted person, Ravana fails to understand Maricha’s
counsel. Ravana is a Brahmin by birth and was well-versed in the four Vedas and
the six Vedangas. He has a deep understanding of scriptures and rituals. An
ardent devotee of Lord Shiva, Ravana composed the Shiva Tandava Stotram, a
complex and powerful hymn in praise of Shiva. He had won many boons from Lord
Shiva through intense tapas (penance).
Yet he was destined to fail in life
merely because of his ego. Ego is a realm of illusions. Ego makes us think of
ourselves as a lot more than what we really are. Ego leads us to doom in the
end. It won’t listen to good counsels from best friends. Maricha’s sane
suggestions are not heeded by the egotistic Ravana.
Maricha
does not mince words:
Men such as thou with wills unchained,
Advised by sin and unrestrained,
Destroy themselves, the king, the state,
And leave the people
desolate.
[Valmiki Ramayana, translated by Ralph T H Griffith]
Maricha had already met with Rama’s
power long ago when the latter was a mere 12-year-old lad brought to the forest
by Sage Vishwamitra to deal with the menace of demons. Ravana accuses Maricha
of being “weak and base / Unworthy of the giant race” and threatens him with
death if he didn’t carry out his King’s wish. And so Maricha becomes the golden
deer that will tempt Sita.
Sita wants the golden deer ‘alive or
dead’. If alive, it will live with her as a pet. If dead, she will convert its
skin into art. She doesn’t know that the deer is mere illusion, maya. A
lot of things that we humans hanker after are nothing more than illusions. The
golden deer appears enchanting and desirable but is an ominous fabrication.
Ravana is enchanted by Sita’s beauty
and Sita is enchanted by the beauty of the golden deer. Sita is more real than
the deer. Yet Ravana’s surrender to the charm of beauty is vile while Sita’s
surrender to a similar charm is driven by aesthetics.
In simpler words, Ravana is consumed
by lust; Sita is drawn by beauty and wonder.
Ravana’s desire for Sita is carnal
and obsessive. He sees Sita not as a person but as an object to possess. His
illusion is rooted in ego, entitlement, and sensory craving (kama or
lust). Such egotism disrupts the cosmic harmony and thus Ravana is a great
offender.
Sita is captivated by beauty and
mystery of the unknown. Her desire is not sensual but aesthetic, symbolic of
curiosity and longing. The golden deer appeals to her sense of wonder and joy.
It is only when she adds that she doesn’t mind even if the deer gets killed in
the process of catching it that she becomes an offender of sorts, though
killing a deer in those days was no big deal.
Ravana’s illusion engendered by his gigantic ego is predatory and destructive. His fall thus becomes just and necessary. Sita’s suffering, on the other hand, is tragic and poignant.
PS. I’m participating in #BlogchatterA2Z. This series looks at the Ramayana from
various angles.
Tomorrow: Hanuman: Zenith of Devotion
Previous Posts in this series:
Hari OM
ReplyDeleteSita's desire may have been aesthetic, but her egotistical lust to own that beauty still drew her to demand of Rama that he capture or kill it. She was still driven to possess that to which she had no right. She saw only what she wanted to see and didn't question or attempt to see beyond the skin of the creature. She then demanded of Lakshmana to follow Rama into the forest ... (though the rekha and 'sadhu' will follow in your telling, I'm sure!)
Thus, even the most innocent, the most righteous and virtuous can be prone to fall from our pedastals when desire overrides our common sense. There is little that divides good and evil when egos/desires are in full flow. YAM xx
Thanks for that addition which makes greater sense. I wasn't quite pleased to read that 'alive or DEAD' part.
DeleteThat the line between good and evil is thin need be underscored.
Well written Tom. Lusting after aesthetic beauty is a lesser sin compared to lusting after a woman with carnal desires as perceived by most human beings. Sita loves the aesthetic beauty of the deer and is driven by a desire to possess it dead or alive. But since Ravana is driven by more ulterior desires his motives are considered much more sinful. But lust whichever way you look at it is still lust. It is just the perspective that differs.
ReplyDeleteWanting that deer wouldn't be a sin in my perspective. But when Sita said Alive or Dead, my view changed. But hunting animals was common in those days..
DeleteI'm glad you reached here after a long time.
Very well categorised! What sort different offenses at different degrees belong is not so easy to analyse so convincingly like this. Once again a novel perspective on the stories of Ramayana. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteNot at all easy. The motive makes most difference, I'd say.
DeleteBuddha says, the doctor takes a knife to cure a wound and a thief takes the knife to slit a throat to rob the victim. It is the volition which matters. Not the act of taking the knife. Yes, motive does make the difference!
DeleteSomehow I feel the main story of Ramayana begins with the illusion of the golden deer. Undoubtedly, Ravana was a learned person but also he didn't use his wisdom in the sake of good. This is a great learning from the epic. - Swarnali Nath
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right, the plot changes utterly after this episode.
DeleteBeautifully narrated sir ! Maricha was sane yet was powerless and Ravana though powerful & had brilliance did not act wisely and hence the entire Sita - harana ( kidnapping of Sita) happens post this incident. What I wonder is it is not enough to be sane and it is not enough to be powerful. Having both qualities is a rarity but is absolutely required to avoid such mishaps.
ReplyDeleteSanity confronted with brute egotism is helpless. Knowledge without compassion can be dangerous.
DeleteYou have mentioned aesthetics when sita wants the golden deer. I see you drawing parallels between ravan and sita towards the end. Did they both then want it for the beauty and the wonder?
ReplyDeleteI also drew a contrast. Ravana was driven by lust and egotism. That contrast matters. Ravana was not drawn by aestheticism.
DeleteSita's acceptance of the deer’s death does complicate her desire but i think it still stems from childlike wonder rather than cruelty. It reflects how beauty can sometimes momentarily blur our better judgment. Unlike Ravana’s intentions, which are steeped in manipulation and ego, Sita’s are emotionally driven and deeply human. That contrast makes her pain all the more poignant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but when I read that part I was initially scandalised.
DeleteAh, the trappings of ego.
ReplyDeleteIn shortest and simplest terms, that's it.
DeleteWhen Gods and Demons couldn't resist temptations, who are we to try to? This incident was a turning point in the story, with multiple lessons - all of which you have explained so well. Really enjoying reading your posts. Mayuri
ReplyDeleteHappy to hear this.
DeleteEvery fire starts with a spark. In this narrative, the spark ignited when Rama mutilated Shurpanaka's nose. Rama's action could be seen as overreaction. Since Madam S did not physically harm Mr R, his right to such violent response becomes questionable, isn't it? While the honor of women is crucial for any family, and doubly so for a royal family like Ravana's. Hence he did it to provoke Rama for a war. While we can not simplify Ravana's wrong doing, we need to consider this too. Anyway, that is not the focus here. I liked your portrayal of ego, I am able to connect with it due to my own experiences and those around me. What a wonderful post!
ReplyDeleteIn Valmiki Ramayana, it is Lakshmana who mutilates Shurpanaka. But Rama wasn't quite right to mock Shurpanaka as he does in Valmiki's version. I get your point anyway. Rama has his flaws, some of them very serious too.
Delete