Could anyone have called Rama a woman in a man's appearance, whose valour as a mighty man with his Kodanda is well known even as early as a young chap when he was taken by Viswamitra to the forests to safeguard the yajnas from the demons?
Sita called so!
When Rama was asked to go to the forest, Sita wanted to go with him. But Rama refused to take her citing reasons of dangers of the forest. Sita was obviously not convinced by those reasons.
If Rama is supposed to be valorous, couldn't he safe guard Sita in the forest?
If safe guarding her is the main issue for which Rama is not taking her along with him, there can be nothing shameful as that.
Echoing this sentiment, Sita shot her astra – a common one which continues till today with Indian women – what would her people in her parental home think of him? She asked what her father would think of Rama if he gives excuses like dangers of forest and difficulty in safeguarding her. Won't he think – what a son-in-law have I got? Have I erred in getting my daughter married to a woman who is in a man's garb? Is he "Sthreeyam purusha vigraham?"
किम् त्वा अमन्यत वैदेहः पिता मे मिथिला अधिपः |
राम जामातरम् प्राप्य स्त्रियम् पुरुष विग्रहम् || २-३०-३
3. raama = Oh; Rama! kim = what; mepitaa = my father; mithilaadhipaH = the king of Mithila; vaidehaH = belonging to the country of Videha; amanyata = think of himself; praapya = having got; jaamaataram = as son-in-law; tvam = you; striyam = a woman; purushhavigraham = having form of a man.
"What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the country of Videha, think of himself having got as so-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?" (VR 3-30-3)
This was the topic of discussion in a forum some 9 years ago in which I was a member. As part of this Rama Navami musings, I am reproducing below my article with some modifications.
Did Sita confer a title to Rama, "Sthreeyam purusha vigraham"?
No, if we go by the commentary given Sri A.V.Narasimhachar in Tamil.
He based his commentary on the commentaries that existed before him. In other words this is one of the topics of Valmiki Ramayana that has been analyzed and debated for all these years in the past.
In this article I am writing those ideas of the past commentators for better understanding of the nuances of why Sita told like this.
But before going into the details, let me state my position as I have understood.
(1) This is not the 'title' given by Sita. This is what king Janaka is likely to think of Rama. Sita merely expresses her worries over this. By virtue of her being the better half of Rama, she also has to bear the brunt of the criticisms and/or commendations poured on Rama. So in her role as pathivradha (is one who shares the husband's happiness and sorrow ) she is
cautioning him of the impressions that can be caused if Rama leaves for the forest without her. That is why she says these words with "prANayascha (affection) abhimAnAscha (with pride) paricikShepa raghavam" in the verse preceding the one under discussion.
It runs thus:
"saa tam uttama samvignaa siitaa vipula vakSasam |
praNayaac ca abhimaanaac ca paricikSepa raaghavam ||"
2-30-2
(meaning):- saasiita= that Seetha; tam= distressed;
uttamasamvignaa= highly agitated; praNayaat= from
affection abhimaanaachcha= and pride; parichikshhepa=
reproached; raaghavam= Rama; vipula vakshhasam= having
a broad chest.
Distressed and highly agitated, the said Seetha reproached Rama having a broad chest, from affection and pride in the following words….
(2) One of the interesting features of Valmiki Ramayana is that the Kavi seems to indicate beforehand what is likely to happen later. There is lot of scope to interpret and invent tattwArtham in the verses, particularly in the seemingly controversial ones. The
kavi seems to insert them at appropriate places making us wonder whether he had in his mind more than one idea for a given word or phrase when he put them down into writing. Such tattwartham that had occurred to me are given in brackets and the rest as found in the transliteration / commentaries are furnished below.
The 3 verses that have a lot of bearing on Sita's purported accusation are 2-20-2, 3 &4.
I find an additional verse in the translation (not found in www.valmikiramayana.net ) which says, "Rama, you seem to possess soundharyam only, seeing which others derive happiness and not pourusham." Saying this she continues with conferring the so-called 'title'
(My view :- since the extra verse doubting Rama's pourusham does not fall within the length of a
separate verse, I presume those words are indeed to explain the name "Rama", by which Sita calls him in the verse. The translator might have taken the liberty to express like this based on the commentary he has furnished for why Sita called him Rama and not by any other name.)
The source for this is traced to Balakhandam where sage Vasishta suggested the names for the 4 sons born to Dasharatha.
The sage seems to have been attracted by the outer appearance of Rama, the baby, and suggested the name Rama as the very appearance gave immense happiness to the one who happens to see the baby (Rama means one who gives happiness). Sita means to imply that 'the meaning ends with that only' and not about the other quality namely valour, which actually was anointed to Shatrugna by the sage. (Shatrugna means destroyer of enemies). By not taking Sita to the forest, does Rama mean to show that he possesses only outward beauty and not inner quality –that is, the mighty prowess? Sita seems to remind this to Rama by calling him by this name (Rama).
To analyse this, let us see the next verse.
"kim tvaa amanyata vaidehaH pitaa me mithilaa adhipaH
|
raama jaamaataram praapya striyam puruSa vigraham ||"
2-30-3
(meaning):- raama= Oh, Rama! kim= what; mepitaa= my
father; mithilaadhipaH= the king of Mithila; vaidehaH=
belonging to the country of Videha; amanyata= think of
himself; praapya= having got; jaamaataram= as
son-in-law; tvam= you; striyam= a woman;
purushhavigraham= having form of a man.
"What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the
country of Videha, think of himself having got as
so-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?"
For better understanding, I take the liberty to compartmentalize the commentary into groups as the original commentary looks complicated.
(1) By mentioning about her father in two ways, 'videhaH' and 'mithila adhipaH', Sita lays stress on Janaka unmincingly.
Is it not enough to say my pita?
Why that extra identification?
One reason could be that he as a king would have expected his daughter, the princess Sita to adhere to highest modes of conduct and support Rama in his actions. But that does not mean he would have expected her to stay back just because Rama had asked her to do so.
In fact Janaka would have rather wished to see her go to forest and suffer and even die
in not being able to withstand the vagaries of forest-life than to come back to him (father) on
Rama's departure to the forest. Or he would be crest-fallen, that his daughter had not
died on leaving the husband. (Note: people of present times would say what madness all this is. But those were the times when people attached importance to such kinds of values. One must recall that the Pandyan queen died on the spot upon seeing her husband dying when he came to know that he had done injustice to Kovalan, husband of Kannagi in the 2nd century AD Tamil Epic of Silappadhikaram. It is for this tendency highly moralistic people were compared with a rare breed of deer (called Kavari maan) seen in remote locations of Himalayas that would die even if a single strand of its hair is fallen. )
He (janaka) would think of himself as sthree in purushavigraham ( a gender-mix) in having
begotten such a daughter who failed to show up the fine values of a pathivradha. The terms 'amanyata' and prapya' are about thinking of himself (Janaka) as 'sthree in purushavigraham'. This is one way of looking at this. (This is the olden commentary.)
{My note:- I see the mention of 'Pita' in a different way. Why should Sita bring in here her father's predicaments? Does it mean that she would be expected to go to her father's house when Rama goes to the forest? On seeing her back home, would Janaka become remorse saying as above?
Actually Rama did not expect her to go to her father's home. The very first thing that Rama
says to Sita after announcing a one-liner (again kavi's yukhthi in Rama psychologically preparing Sita for the bad news of leaving her) of the impending vanavaas, is that she stays as one among other Bhandus (relatives) under Bharatha's protection. He not even once says that she go back to her father.
But Sita takes a difference stance (implied meaning) of going to her father. Why? I think the reasons are in accordance with the dharma in practice for persons under such predicament that can be found Kausalya's admonition of Dhasaratha after Rama left. She tells the king that she is without any support now. The first protector for the woman is her husband and she can not count on Dhasharatha's support for, he has gone after pleasing another wife (Kaikeyi). She lost
the second protector also, who is her son. The third protector is the Bhandu (relatives) and she can not count on them as they are in a far-away land.
(Kausalya to Dasaratha :- "O, king! A husband is a chief refuge for a woman. Her second refuge is a son. The third refuge is her near-relative. There is no fourth one here." (VR 2-61- 24))
It is thereby implied that the women's protectors are her relatives of her house of birth and not of the house into which she has entered as a daughter-in-law.
Without keeping this in mind, Rama tells Sita to be under the protection of Bharatha. Is it right? He can not ask her to be under Bharatha's protection because that is against the dharma about protectors for the woman.
Nor can he ask /expect her to go to her father's house for reasons explained above.
Therefore Sita by calling him Rama admonishes him that he has forgotten the inner meanings but stuck to outer ones (like he is known for his outer soundharyam).
Therefore the double insistence on 'my pita' (which then makes it triple insistence) and the distress that her pita would undergo if she goes to him.)}
(2) Another explanation is about what actually constitutes purusha vigraham. The commentary says that it is about wearing 'kirItam' (crown) and "pIthambharam"(robes). Now that Rama had to forego them in his stay in vanavaas, he is losing his purusha lakshanam, which then means
that he is in sthree rUpam. Here the kavi brings in an element of premonition that Janaka has indeed had a prior instinct of what is to happen and had given his daughter in marriage to Rama thinking of the time in the forest when he has to forego his purusha- symbols and look like a woman!
Sita indicates this and says that there is nothing wrong in taking her along with him because her father has thought of this and had given her to him, the woman in man's garb.
(3) When the situation is like this, 'kim twa' – why do you, the one trained by the sage Vasishta, say like this thinking that you know the dharma that I have to follow now? Is your dharma (in asking her to stay back under the protection of Bharatha) right (kim twaa?) or
his (Janaka's) dharma right (kim amayantha)?
(4) Why talk of the dharma for the two in the above point? It is because of the term used. "jaamaataram" which means son-in-law. He has got (prapya) you as son-in-law in the tradition of having got you as the10th gruham besides the 9 gruhams (Nava grahas) that control the woman. When I have got you as the 10th and final gruham, where else can I stay, if not in your place, in your company? { The mention of Nava grahas in the commentary is reflective of the views that were prevalent in the past that a woman's horoscope and birth star fortunes do affect the husband and his home. For example the stigma attached to the 4 stars Moola, Aslesha, Jyeshta and Vishaka applies to women only. My personal opinion is that these kinds of views were formed only in the last 1000 + years when misfortunes of sorts occurred and the calm life of people was affected with the progress of Kali Yuga dharma.}
(5) Sita, by talking about the moment of Janaka in having got him as the son-in-law seems to remind of him the vows that Rama took at the time of her marriage. The commentary then delves into details of every word uttered at the time of PaNigrahanam to remind that Rama has indeed forgotten his vows and his dharma as though he is a changed person now (– the
change being to an extent of changing even the gender – interpretation, mine)) Therefore what will Janaka think of you (kim twaamayantha)
(6) My father got you, Vasudeva, as son-in-law (for whom the entire world is like sthree.) But he didn't get the world (which is like sthree) unto himself as the son-in-law, but you, the purushottama. (To tell this more clearly, he has got you, the purushottama in whom the world resides as sthree and not vice versa. It is in having got you, he did think of the rest of
the world as inconsequential. The pramanam for this can be had in his having lived as a karma yogi and in not even getting disturbed when fire broke out in Mithila –refer Shanthi parva, Mahabharatha for details))
(7) Why this line of reasoning is taken up to explain the seemingly derogatory statement of Sita is to be justified in the next verse which runs thus:
"anR^itam bala loko ayam aj~naanaat yadd hi vakSyati |
tejo na asti param raame tapati iva divaa kare |"
2-30-4
(meaning):- bata= what a pity! ayam lokaH= these
people; vakshhyati yadi= if they tell; ajJNaanaat= by
ignorance; anR^itam= the falsehood; param= excellent;
tejaH= valour; naasti= is lacking; raame= in Rama;
divaakare iva= as in a sun; tapati= which is blazing.
"It is a pity if these people of Ayodhya through
ignorance tell the falsehood that excellent valour is
lacking in Rama as in a blazing sun."
Sita is worried that if Rama doesn't follow the dharma (as she has indicated), people would talk bad about him which is falsehood. By saying this Sita implies that she doesn't believe that Rama has moved away from Dharma. She obviously doesn't mean that Rama is woman in a man's garb. If she had actually meant that by herself, she would not have used the terms, out of ignorance and falsehood as being the components of people's reaction. But that she had tried to convince him only goes to show that she has done that as a saha-dharmachaariNi, - a role she seems to remind Rama by bringing in the memories of the vows at the time of their marriage.
{A similarity can be drawn in our lives too. We are devoted to our parents and treat them as gods. But when we think that their ways and talks are not right, we are not supposed to remain quiet, but bring out correctives. (That is absolutely within our dharma as
responsible sons and daughters). That is what happened with Bharatha, who would have stopped Kaikeyi at the very first instance itself, had he been in Ayodhya at that fateful time. Another instance can be cited in the case of Ahalya, whose husband Gouthama out of anger, commands their son Shirakaari to kill her. But the son takes enough time to weigh the pros and cons
and dharma of the situation and waits until such a time that Gouthama himself rescinds his command. A similar instance happened with Parashurama but that he failed to retract or preach reason to his father resulted in hardships to him as a person (the penance
and parihara that he had to do).
It is on these lines that I am unable to accept that the Loka-mAtha had taken a dig at our loka-pitA. Can she withstand the comment that he lacks the tejas of the Sun, He who is lord of Sun god himself? It is to make sure that nothing happens as to give rise to such comment, that she gently reminds him well within the scope of her dharma as a responsible wife, of His dharma, and janaka's dharma in having got him as his son-in-law.
What Janaka would think of and what He himself has to think, remembering the name he is known for, are all that Sita attempts to tell in these 3 verses.)
PS:- In a similar vein, if only Rama had behaved as a 'responsible husband' and refused to go after the golden deer and instead advised Sita against such desires, his marriage could have been saved. But that he didn't do it is due to avathara reasons. But then we, mortals can not afford to behave like this is what we have to learn from these avataras. We have to do what is required in a given situation.
