Skip to main content

Golden Deer: Illusions

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:

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

Bharata: The Ascetic King

Chitrakoot: The Antithesis of Ayodhya

Dharma and Destiny

Exile and the Kingdom

Friendship in Kishkindha

Comments

  1. Hari OM
    Sita'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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that addition which makes greater sense. I wasn't quite pleased to read that 'alive or DEAD' part.

      That the line between good and evil is thin need be underscored.

      Delete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wanting 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..

      I'm glad you reached here after a long time.

      Delete
  3. 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not at all easy. The motive makes most difference, I'd say.

      Delete
    2. Buddha 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!

      Delete
  4. Somehow 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you're right, the plot changes utterly after this episode.

      Delete
  5. Beautifully 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sanity confronted with brute egotism is helpless. Knowledge without compassion can be dangerous.

      Delete
  6. You 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also drew a contrast. Ravana was driven by lust and egotism. That contrast matters. Ravana was not drawn by aestheticism.

      Delete
  7. Sita'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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, but when I read that part I was initially scandalised.

      Delete
  8. When 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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Every 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 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
  10. MKV Tech Solutions is a leading name among Zincalume Steel Storage Tank Manufacturers and Zinc Aluminium Water Storage Tank Manufacturers, offering durable, corrosion-resistant tanks for industrial and commercial use. We ensure quality, strength, and long-term performance in every solution.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Ugly Duckling

Source: Acting Company A. A. Milne’s one-act play, The Ugly Duckling , acquired a classical status because of the hearty humour used to present a profound theme. The King and the Queen are worried because their daughter Camilla is too ugly to get a suitor. In spite of all the devious strategies employed by the King and his Chancellor, the princess remained unmarried. Camilla was blessed with a unique beauty by her two godmothers but no one could see any beauty in her physical appearance. She has an exquisitely beautiful character. What use is character? The King asks. The play is an answer to that question. Character plays the most crucial role in our moral science books and traditional rhetoric, religious scriptures and homilies. When it comes to practical life, we look for other things such as wealth, social rank, physical looks, and so on. As the King says in this play, “If a girl is beautiful, it is easy to assume that she has, tucked away inside her, an equally beauti...

Helpless Gods

Illustration by Gemini Six decades ago, Kerala’s beloved poet Vayalar Ramavarma sang about gods that don’t open their eyes, don’t know joy or sorrow, but are mere clay idols. The movie that carried the song was a hit in Kerala in the late 1960s. I was only seven when the movie was released. The impact of the song, like many others composed by the same poet, sank into me a little later as I grew up. Our gods are quite useless; they are little more than narcissists who demand fresh and fragrant flowers only to fling them when they wither. Six decades after Kerala’s poet questioned the potency of gods, the Chief Justice of India had a shoe flung at him by a lawyer for the same thing: questioning the worth of gods. The lawyer was demanding the replacement of a damaged idol of god Vishnu and the Chief Justice wondered why gods couldn’t take care of themselves since they are omnipotent. The lawyer flung his shoe at the Chief Justice to prove his devotion to a god. From Vayalar of 196...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...

Our gods must have died laughing

A friend forwarded a video clip this morning. It is an extract from a speech that celebrated Malayalam movie actor Sreenivasan delivered years ago. In the year 1984, Sreenivasan decided to marry the woman he was in love with. But his career in movies had just started and so he hadn’t made much money. Knowing his financial condition, another actor, Innocent, gave him Rs 400. Innocent wasn’t doing well either in the profession. “Alice’s bangle,” Innocent said. He had pawned or sold his wife’s bangle to get that amount for his friend. Then Sreenivasan went to Mammootty, who eventually became Malayalam’s superstar, to request for help. Mammootty gave him Rs 2000. Citing the goodness of the two men, Sreenivasan said that the wedding necklace ( mangalsutra ) he put ceremoniously around the neck of his Hindu wife was funded by a Christian (Innocent) and a Muslim (Mammootty). “What does religion matter?” Sreenivasan asks in the video. “You either refuse to believe in any or believe in a...