Surpanakha's misplaced love.
On a given day, Rama having finished His bath and morning duties is seated in the front yard of His parNasala. Seetha sitting next to Him shone like the moon alongside the constellation Chitra in the sky. LakshmaNa is also seen at a distance. As though by God's act, there appeared a demoness to all their surprise. Her name is Shurpanakha, the sister of the ten headed-RavaNa. She is old and ugly looking.
He whose face is charming as radiant Sun, brilliance similar to Love-god, complexion dark as clouds, eyes attractive as lotus, skin soft and silky, look brimming with sAtvik grace and He the possessor of all Kingly aspects as that of Indra - the demoness has seen such a Rama and became love-stuck.
Sage Valmiki ridicules her appearance highlighting the mismatch:
Her face is unpleasant compared to the pleasant face of Rama. She is pot bellied against the slim waist Rama. Elephant like eye can they ever match the broad ones of Rama. Hairs again hard as copper wire against the smooth and soft one of His. She the ugly featured and He the charming. Her voice patents a donkey compared to the sweet and meliflous voice of His. Over aged is she against the ever twenty five yuva-Kumara: Rama. She talks crooked against straight forward natured Rama. She is ill-mannered and Rama the abominable.
She, ignorant of all the mis-match yet possessed of love wished wife-hood with Him.
'apprmeyamhi Tat teja: yasyasa JanakAtmaja' - Rama being united with Seetha attains to greatness.
'Sradhaya Devam Devatvam asnuthE' - the divinity in Lord becomes whole sum being the spouse of Sri: - His consort.
Given so, will it be appropriate for Surpanaka to aspire Rama's companionship?
Way back people practised polygamy. For that matter Dasaratha himself had 60000 wives. But Rama is a clause apart. He stood for His monogamist principle and remained 'eka dhArA vradan', proving chastity as a virtue is common to both men and women.
'vihitha vishaya nivruththi tan yEtram' - means keeping sex away from ones's life being married. Celibacy and Sage-hood do the same one by not heeding and the other by renunciation. This is essential for Saint-hood.
As celibacy is for brahmacharya, monogamy is for married life in our pursuit for God-hood. He, in 'AdhyAtma sastra' parlance, be called a "sudha-yAji". The desire for woman, wealth and world (maN, peN & pon) should sinc with stipulations contained in the 'sastras' and limited to the extent they do not stand an impediment in our pursuit for liberation.
One may ask whether Lord Krishna is a bad example in this respect, as He married 16000 women kept captive by Narakasura.
It is not so. Ramayana and Krishna katha have different morals to tell.
The stress is on 'one-to-one' relationship between husband and wife in Ramayana where as the it is on the 'devotion to God' in Krishna katha. One is the realm od man and the other that of God.
In respect of man and woman the relation is based on 'loukika kAmam' and in respect of God and Soul it is based on 'Bhagavat kAmam'. The Stree-Purusha relation between Atma-Paramatma justify the Lord to have wed-lock with each one of us.
As human Rama fits in as role-model in seeking a companion but on spiritual plane let Krishna be our soul-mate and the two never inconsistent either.
Surpanakha wants to marry Rama, leaving Seetha. Rama avoids her pointing to LakshmaNa as 'akruta dhara' - un-married man.
Is not lakshmaNa married to UrmiLa? Should Rama tell a lie to Surpanakha? Of course not.
Here "akruta dhara" has to be read as a+sa+kruta dhara - meaning married but living separated from wife. Then it will sound true.
No comments:
Post a Comment