Krishna – the Eternal Ideal

Please welcome guest writer* Dr Harsh Chaturvedi, currently at the Department of Physics at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune. Harsh holds a Doctorate in Optical Science and Engineering from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.  His blog post is a far cry from his dissertation which was on “Photon Induced Effects in Molecular Assemblies of Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes”!! Recently honoured with the Ramanujan Fellowship by Department of Science and Technology (DST, India), Harsh is deeply interested in and inspired by Indian Philosophy. One of the most enlightened Hindus I have had the pleasure of interacting with, you can follow him on Twitter @hchaturv 

Philosophy of Upanishads is characterized by a rational temper, a passion for the welfare of the human beings and spirit of harmony which applied to whole world and every human being. Though impersonal abstract, aspects of this philosophy have been personified idealized by galaxy of personalities born in this land, our motherland. Among these Ram and Krishna have been the brightest ones who have influenced the Indian thought life and culture in many profound ways.  Krishna means 'black'. Krishna was also beautiful hence we call him as "Shyamsundara' the 'black-beautiful'. One "beautiful" who has mesmerized us for generations the 'black' has been an enigma too for thousands of years.  This land has produced the greatest of men, the kings, Gyanis, yogis, how many of them we remember today? There has to be something eternal to life of these that withstood the test of time not over just centuries but thousands of years and under dynamically changing society with varied interests. He was as relevant then as he is now.  HE is not burden on history but is breath of our society, living through traditions and times.

Krishna has entered, not only into religion and philosophy, but also into mysticism poetry painting sculpture music dancing and all aspects of Indian folkfore. To say the least he has mesmerized a whole generations. Where else can one seek the reason of this then in his great character and noble life? And yet, it is strange irony that no other person in India's history and culture has been subjected to foul criticism based on either incomplete incorrect understanding of facts available, if not a deliberate distortion of the same to serve an ulterior purpose.

We come across several Krishnas in the scriptures. The Rigveda (1.116.23) mentions one Krishna, the father of Visvakya. The last mandal of same work (10.42-44) attributes two suktas to sage Krishna. We also find mention of Krishna Angirasa in Kausitaki Brahmana (30.9) and a Krishna Harita in Aitareya Aranyaka (3.26). Then there is Krishna Dvaipayana also called Vyasa, the celebrated author of epic Mahabharata. It can safely be assumed none of these Krishnas is the Krishna, as we know him. However, the Chandogya Upanishad (3.17.6) mentions Krishna -Devakiputra as a disciple of Ghora Angiras, by whom Krishna was taught the science of Purusayajna. It is very likely this is same Krishna the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. However, even at the time of epic Mahabharata, Krishna was well known not only as a very great person but even deserving worship as manifestation of the divine. As a matter of fact, Indian scholars D.S Triveda and K.S.Narayanachar conclude the date of Mahabharata to be 3206 B.C and 3067 B.C.

There are four primary source of Krishna 's story - the Mahabharata and its adjunct Harivamsa, the Vishnupurana and Bhagvata. The story is also referred in Brahmapurana, PadmaPurana and Brahmavaivarta-purana. In Mahabharat, Krishna appears for the first time during the marriage of Draupadi with the Pandavas. Though casual references about his earlier life have been mentioned no details are given. To make up for this Harivamsa was added as adjunct, later. It is fairly long work of over 16000 verses and deals with story of Krishna in great detail in section called Vishnuparva. Vishnupurana (300 AD, 6000 verses) is one of earliest puranas and deals with the story of Krishna in fifth section. Bhagvata (600 AD; 18000 verses) seems to be expanded version of the Vishnupurana dealing in much great detail.

Whether Krishna Vasudeva was "Super" Human being or God Incarnate there is no gainsaying in fact that he has been ruling hearts of millions of hindus for over three millennia. If a person can make such a profound impact on the Hindu race affecting its psyche and ethos and all aspects of its life for centuries he is no less than the God. And the Hindus do believe that he was an avtara. An Avtara or incarnation of God is not a product of history but creates it shapes it. The primary purpose of avtara as Krishna himself has stated in Gita (4.7, 8) is to re-establish dharma or righteousness on a firm foundation. Throughout his life, Krishna sole concern was dharma to uphold it, to protect it and to reassert its supremacy and to unravel its mystery whenever it became inscrutable.

Dharma becomes just an ethereal concept unless it lives in the minds and hearts of human beings expressed through actions. Krishna’s life shows his concern for everybody around with no discrimination. The care he bestowed on cowherds of Vrindavan , curing Kubja,  protecting honour of Draupadi or his bestowal of wealth on the poor Kucela, washing sudama's feet and so many more incidences, all reveal his grace. Krishna though possessing heart "softer than a flower" could exercise terrific valour in defence of dharma. In fact he was the strongest man and the greatest warrior of his times. He knew no fear nor tasted defeat at any time in his life. He killed demons even as a toddler, he was the one requested not to take up arms himself from either side in Great War of Mahabharata.

All the same he was not the war-monger. He was a master statesman, skilled in the art of peace too. He was interested in peace, but not the cost of dharma. There is a common belief that brain and brawn cannot go together. But Krishna was extraordinary exception. His scholarship in the Vedic lore secular sciences, politics arts was renowned. His three Gitas the BhagvadGita, the Anugita and the Uddhavagita are standing monuments to his learning and wisdom. Intelligence and learning do not necessarily lead to culture and refinement. Arrogance is a more common result. But Krishna was a perfect gentleman. When he killed Kansa or got Jarasandha eliminated, he put Ugrasena and Sahadeva on thrones. He was the first to honour elders, brahmans and sages. Even in the face of grave provocation he could be calm; the remarkable tolerance he exhibited towards the cantankerous Sisupala or Duryodhana is a case to the point.

Krishna was not only a philosopher but an accomplished Yogi or mystic as well; hence the epithet 'Yogesvara'. The Bhagvata narrates several incidents where in he has displayed yogic powers. Mysticism and activism rarely go together; but in Krishna, they did. From cradle to grave, his life was one continuum of dynamic activity; but always for the good of others and never for himself. He was very personification of selflessness, he lived ever for others.   Krishna as a rule followed old customs and time honoured traditions but if in his judgement any custom needs to be altered he would unhesitatingly do so.  He stopped worship of Indra by cow herds and substituted with worshipping cows and Govardhan hill which were backbone of their agrarian society.

Above all, Krishna was intensely human. He responded to every human emotion in an appropriate way. His parents Devaki Vasudeva, his foster parents Yasoda and Nanda his mates at Gokula and Vrindavan the Gopis, his wives like Rukmini and Satyabhama, the Pandavas the elders of Hastinapur, even cows, horses in fact everyone that came in touch with him was never left untouched by his magic. It is but natural he was called 'Purusottama' the best of human beings.

Does Krishna who staked his life to defend and protect weak defenceless ones, himself need

defence? It appears so, on the face of it, if only we look at the spate of criticism and abuses heaped upon him by the aliens to Indian culture or de-cultured Indians themselves, who are aliens in their own society. At the outset, one thing has to be made clear. The criticisms levelled against Krishna are based on the story as depicted in the Mahabharata and the Bhagvata. These two works have declared not just the greatness the divinity of Krishna in no uncertain terms calling him as the supreme lord Himself. If the detractors of Krishna accept as true only those parts of these works that come in handy for their criticism and conveniently ignore the rest , they are no wiser than the guy who wanted to cut an egg into two halves , keep one half for hatching chicken and use the other for eating !

The criticisms fall under two broad categories: those pertaining to his relationship with the gopis of Vrindavan and those related to the various stratagems he adopted to get victory for the Pandavas. The former is related to well- known incidents as given in Bhagvata: gopivastrapaharana (snatching away clothes of Gopis) and Rasalila. Neither the Vishnupurana nor Harivamsa refers to first episode. Second is dealt with in all three works.

In the first incidence, the gopis were kumarikas (10.22.1) undergoing Katayanivrata (10.22.4) and Krishna was just seven years old (vide 10.26.3) Hope that gives perspective to perverted minds. Having seen for themselves all the super-human acts of Krishna from babyhood, it was gopis who were convinced of his greatness and divinity. This attitude of soul towards divine is well known as kantabhava or madhurbhava in the works on devotion and mysticism.  It is very much present in Christianity and Sufism too.  One who wants to approach God should eschew astapasas or eight infirmities that bind a soul like ghrina (hatred)  sanka (doubts) bhaya (fear) lajja ( shame) and so on. What is depicted here is just symbolic of this of total surrender of jivas or souls to God by giving up all bonds of life; and hence should be studied in the proper perspective.  The five chapters 29 to 33 of the tenth skandha of the Bhagvata are called Rasapancadhyayi and deals exclusively with Krishna’s play with the Gopis.  And summary of the concluding part of section is stricken with remorse the gopis wail and wander pine for and pray for HIM.  After chastising them thus Krishna reappears in their midst to their great delight and dances the Rasa, multiplying himself so that each gopi has her own Krishna at same time. All the while, the people at the home of gopis have not missed them at all ! They continue to exist physically there too. Was it a play of ordinary mortal paramour or divine sport between Jiva and Shiva?  Many a mystic both of the East and the West, have cultivated this type of love towards the divine.  Andal,  Akka Mahadevi and Mira of India, St. Teresa of Avila of Spain and Rabiya of Basra , Iraq are well known mystics who prove this point.

All this is from the subjective standpoint of Krishna and the blessed gopis. From the objective standpoint did not Krishna transgress dharma? If yes, has he not set a bad example to the world for centuries?  This is exactly the question that the king Pariksit put to sage Suka, the narrator of the Bhagvata (vide 10.33.27-29) Suka in reply classifies men into three groups: the Isvaras (Lords, Incarnations), the jivanmuktas (the liberated ones) and the ordinary people.

Those who realize God in this very life are called jivanmuktas. According to the Hindu scriptures like the Upanishads, they have transcended even dharma and hence are not bound by the dos and don’ts of this world.  (Kausitaki Upanishad 3.1). These jivanmuktas get that power by meditating on the lotus feet of God. Then, what to speak of Krishna the Lord Himself! The acts of such Isvaras cannot be should not be emulated by ordinary beings. If someone can do all that Krishna did, then and only then, he like Krishna can take liberties to define the dharma!

Krishna is true to his words: “In whichever way people approach me, in the same way do I respond” If we approach him as ‘problem-Krishna’ he will create more problems. On other hand, if we approach him as the divine incarnate in human form, ever gracious he will solve all our problems, cut our karmic bondages, bestows grace and answers our prayers. The innumerable mystics and devotees of Krishna over the centuries are the standing proof of this. The one who inspired so many ideal lives can he be just an ordinary womaniser, a failed human? How can we mortals comprehend the divine Sun, when likes of Swami Vivekananda are just moon reflecting HIS divine wisdom and grace dispelling darkness of gloom and ignorance. Words can’t suffice to describe the one, whose birth itself was divinity in action. “Under the divine spell, the gates of the prison opened up, the guards slept and Yamuna ji made way for the transportation of the divine infant.”

- Janmashtami. 2013.

[The article is in spirit inspired, edited, borrowed from Swami Harshanandaji ‘s book “All about KRSNA” RK Math, Bangalore. Indebted to him. All credits to him, any fallacies or misrepresentation will be due to my limitations for which I humbly, take the responsibility.]

* I may or may not agree with the views of guest writers, but I respect their right to be heard

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – IX

Bibek Debroy offers us a refreshing opportunity to reconsider how we live our lives. He also gives us a candid insight into how he has changed. It certainly made me introspect on issues such as priorities,  concentration, anger management, and when to let go. Read on and leave a comment sharing your experiences on this matter. The more we share, the more we learn!

ullukas

There is a place known as Haflong.  Not too many people have heard of it.  Technically, it is the only “hill station” in Assam and is not far from Manipur.  When I was very young, I spent a lot of time in that part of the country.  There were metre gauge trains and steam engines chugged along these.  And there were tunnels and tunnels, through what was known as “the hill section”.  As soon as the train entered a tunnel, you heard some kind of animal howling from inside the tunnel.  My parents told me these were “ulluka”s howling.  When I had grown up, I asked several people what an “ulluka” was.  No one had heard of any such animal.  The closest was “ullu”, owl, derived from the Sanskrit उलूक​.  However, what I used to hear in my childhood were definitely not owls.  The mystery was eventually solved on a recent trip to the Garo Hills.  There is something called a Hoolock gibbon, the only proper “ape” that is found in India.  It is found in the North-East, in Meghalaya and in Assam and Manipur.  The Hoolock gibbon became an “ulluka”.  It took me around 50 years to find an answer to a trivial question.  Had I tried really hard, would I have been able to find the answer sooner?  I am sure I would have.  I didn’t try hard enough.  It wasn’t one of my priorities.

A friend visited us recently.  He is a NRI, turned green card holder, turned US citizen.  He asked us, “What is this about spirituality?  What are people looking for?  What is the answer?”  I asked, “Is that an important question for you?  Is it high on your list of priorities?”  He responded that it certainly was.  I told him to rank, on a scale of 1 to 10, what his concerns and priorities were.  When he did that, to cut a long story short, professional growth, family life, prosperity and material possessions scored 9 out of 10.  Spirituality, and concerns around it, scored 2 out of 10.  I responded, “There’s your answer.”  I am not sure he understood.  Questions about dharma, artha, kama and moksha aren’t like instant coffee. There are different translations of the Bible.  In one of these, Matthew 7.7 states, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”  If I don’t ask, if I don’t seek, if I don’t knock, how will I find the answers?

ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते।

सङ्गात्सञ्जायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते॥

क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह​: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम:।

स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति॥

Many people will recognize this.  This is 2.62-63 of the Bhagavad Gita.  There are many different translations of the Bhagavad Gita.  As on earlier occasions, I am giving you mine.  Naturally, you don’t have to accept my translation.  But any other translation will also convey the same sense. “If a man thinks about sensual objects, this gives birth to attachment to those objects. From attachment is created desire and desire gives birth to anger. Anger gives birth to delusion and delusion leads to confusion of memory about what is right. From confusion of memory comes loss of intellect and loss of intellect results in destruction.”

Here are another couple of shlokas from the Bhagavad Gita, 2.47-48, and they are even more famous.  These are quoted indiscriminately, especially 2.47.  “You have the right to action alone.  You never have the right to the fruit.  Do not be motivated to act because of the fruit.  But don’t be motivated to not acting either.  O Dhananjaya! Perform action by resorting to yoga. Give up attachment.  Look upon success and failure equally.  This equal attitude is known as yoga.”  Because these are quoted indiscriminately, I think the point is sometimes missed.  This isn’t about attachment to the fruits of action alone.  It is about all kinds of attachment.  It is about वैराग्य​, since everything that we are normally attached is impermanent and transient.  It is about being निर्मम​, being indifferent to any sense of ownership.  It is about overcoming ममता, the sense of ownership.  I have mentioned the Ashtavakra Gita earlier.  Without quoting chapter and verse (2.2 actually), in the Ashtavakra Gita, the sage Ashtavakra asks King Janaka to avoid material objects, as if they are poison, if he seeks liberation.  I am sure advocates of renunciation will disagree, but my sense is the following.  Unless we are going off to the forest, we can’t do without material objects and possessions.  But the key is not being attached to them.  They come and go.

कर्मणयेवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥

योगस्थः कुरु कर्माणइ सङ्गं त्यक्ता धनंजय​।

सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्ययोः समो भुत्वा समत्वं योग उच्य्यते॥

Dr. Bibek Debroy

I am not going to quote the Sanskrit now.  This is 2.56 from the Bhagavad Gita. “He is not disturbed by unhappiness and he is beyond desiring happiness.  He has overcome attachment, fear and anger and he is known as a sage who is unwavering in his intellect.”  You will say this is impossible for an ordinary mortal.  It is meant for sages.  I can only tell you something that is extremely personal.  As some of you know, for the last several years, I have immersed myself in the Mahabharata.  On an average day, let us say 2 hours per day.  My wife calls it my “meditation”.  I don’t know about meditation.  What I do know is that it has changed me.  For instance, the following has happened, inadvertently, rather than consciously.  (1)  I no longer know what is “right”.  (2) I find that I know nothing at all.  (3) I no longer have to prove myself “right” by proving you “wrong”.  (4) Unlike earlier, I find most people agreeable and pleasant.  (5) I no longer lose my temper. (I used to frequently lose it earlier and frequently find it again.)  (6) I am content and no longer want anything from anyone.  (7) I find most normal preoccupations completely irrelevant.  I am looking for something that I still haven’t found.

On “Raja Yoga” and meditation, Swami Vivekananda said – try it out and you will see the difference, within three months.  I don’t know about three months.  All that I know is that, provided it is one of your priorities, you will change.

What exactly is a shiva-linga?

This post is being reproduced here as desired by its author, Mam dhata, who is a guest writer* on this blog. He is also a key supporter of the "Revive Sanskrit" initiative on Twitter - which much like the internet has no 'owner' but is an interconnected network of enthusiasts, all doing their utmost for Sanskrit! To share more of his views, you can follow him on Twitter @Mamdhata 

Last Shiva ratri a few secular Illuminati commented on Shiva linga which were quite lewd, derogatory and far removed from understanding of Shiva and Shiva linga. This erroneous understanding that Shiva linga = penis propagated by cow-caste-curry Westerners is being mindlessly repeated by English-educated Indians who have not taken the trouble of knowing this matter.

Let us first understand what linga means? Monier-Williams dictionary defines thus

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/index.php?sfx=pdf. A linga is a mark, a symbol, an indication. Qualifiers such as pum or stri modify the word to indicate whether male or female.

What does Shiva in the form of linga signify? It is certainly not organ of generation as some ignorant say. Shiva is called स्मर हर = destroyer of kama; He is also called in ऊर्ध्व रेतस् = one whose svadhistana chakra is opened but has sublimated all desires.

Lingastakam stotram says this:

देवमुनि प्रवरार्चित लिङ्गं

कामदहन करुणाकर लिङ्गम् ।

रावण दर्प विनाशन लिङ्गं

तत्-प्रणमामि सदाशिव लिङ्गम् ॥ 2 ॥

(meaning:

Lingam worshipped by the best amongst devas and munis

Lingam that destroys lust and is embodiment of compassion

Lingam that destroyed the pride of Ravana

The ever auspicious lingam of sadashiva, that I worship)

i.e., Linga is kama dahana – that which burns up desires include desire for sex. A Shiva Linga consists of three parts, the lowest of which is called the 'Brahma-Pitha,' the middle one, the 'Vishnu-Pitha' and the uppermost one, the 'Shiva-Pitha.' Thus is is very clear that Shiva linga doesn't represent any form of symbol of sex.

 Sankaracharya in शिवापरध क्षमापण स्तोत्रम् (Praise beseeching forgiveness from /of Shiva) describes Shiva as

चन्द्रोभासित शेखरे स्मरहरे गंगाधरे शंकरे

सर्पै भुषण कण्ठकर्ण युगले नेत्रोथ वैशानरे

दन्तित्वक्कृत सुन्दराम्बरधरे त्रिलोक्यसारे हरे

मोक्षार्थं कुरु चित्त वृत्तिम् अचलम् अन्यस्तु किं कर्मभिः

Meaning:

who whose head is adorned with moon, destroyer of Kama, bearer of Ganga

one who was snakes for ear ornaments and fire for (third) eye

one who wears elephant skin, beautifully attired, one who is the essence of 3 worlds

for the sake of Moksa (liberation), please make my consciousness firm

What other effort is of any use (to man)

Sankaracharya prays to Smarahara (destroyer of kama) with these words मोक्षार्थं कुरु चित्त वृत्तिम् अचलम् i.e., make my consciousness firm without any mental modifications for the sake of moksha. As Paramayogi (Supreme Yogi) it is fitting that Shiva is prayed to thus. Patanjali defines Yoga योग चित्तावृत्ति निरोधः i.e., yoga is stopping of mental modifications.

Shiva is also called vyomakesha व्योमकेशः i.e., one whose hair alone form the outspace. This hair is illumined with moon – चन्द्रोभासित शेखरे and with (आकश) गंगाधरे - & with akasha Ganga or the milky way.

Shiva signifies the formless Brahman - rooted in this world – but also beyond it as is said in Purusha Suktam अत्यतिष्टद् दशांगुलम् = extending 10 fingers beyond the entire universe. It is this immanence that is the subject of Sri Rudram in Yajur Veda where Shiva is identified with everything in this known world. Hence the most apt symbol for Sthanu i.e., pillar (i.e., support of this Universe). The pillar itself indicating that He alone is the basis for all creation and that He is formless. Linga is a very apt symbol of this.

*I may or may not agree with the view of guest writers but I respect their right to be heard.

SRI RAMA DHARMA SANKATAM: A response to Dharma Artha Kama Moksha VIII

Please welcome guest* writer Mam dhata, who has kindly encapuslated the discussion on Twitter raised by Bibek Debroy's Dharma, Artha, Kama Moksha VIII. A Gemini, Mam dhata holds a degree in Philosophy and is deeply interested in comparative religion. He admires Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and has studied Christianity and Islam. Well versed in Hindu scriptures, Mam dhata is an enthusiastic participant and support of the 'Revive Sanskrit' programme on Twitter. You can learn more about his views by following his Twitter handle @Mamdhata 

SRI RAMA DHARMA SANKATAM – OR THE  ETHICIAL DILEMMA OF RAMA

            Today in an discussion on Dharma – a query was posed by an 8 year old boy through

the uncle , on dharma.   Question on dharma related to what should one do when there is a conflict in dharma.  The enquirer  posed the question:  would Raja Rama have upheld both Dharma - as a Raja & as a pati (husband) had be abdicated as an Raja and then accompanied Sita as a husband.  In his stead, the greater objective of welfare of subjects could have been achieved by Raja Rama by handing over reigns to his brothers.  Thus both the dharma could have been achieved without conflict. 

2.         What a delight it is to attempt an answer to this question by a darling 8 year old and how wise beyond his years is he.  This reminds me of Yama's joy at Nachiketas questions to which Yama himself exclaimed:

यां त्वमापः सत्यधृतिर्वतासि त्वादृङ् नो भूयान्नचिकेत प्रष्टा

May I have an enquirer, Nachiketas, like you who is established in truth. 

1.9 kathopanishad

Such is the rarity of persons who query on Dharma as even Yama himself experiences even though all humans are his guests. 

3.         Among the arguments that was put forth was Rama could have abdicated.  Rama's Rajadharma was to ensure the welfare of his subjects either through his own direct rule or through that of his brothers.  An example was cited of Bharata ruling on Rama's behalf during his 14 years of  exile. Bharata.  This is an excellent argument too.

4.         Hinduism has always welcome the exploration into nuances of Dharma and explored alternatives.  Duryodhana while lying with his legs shattered had rebuked Yudhisthira saying that during his reign people were happy & contended and that in annexing Yudhisthira's kingdom he was only pursuing Rajadharma in that he was not allowing his enemies to grow.  Duryodhana's arguments are put forth with greater vigor in Bhasa's play Urubhangam.

5.         Let us now come to the question proper:  Here there is an ethical dilemma – which is – what   action when pursued would result in most appropriate dharma.  Dharma has been defined as Dharayati iti dharmah i.e., that which supports is Dharma.   Actions, attitudes and modes of life which support either the station/stage in life or society as a whole.  Rama's banishment of Sita was a result of fear by the subjects -  as expressed through the mouth of a Rajaka – a washerman.  The subjects feared that since Rama had accepted his wife who had stayed in someone else's place – they too would be forced to accept their wives after having stayed in in a non-marital home or parents house.  The unstated fear was that marital fidelity which is the basis for sound relationship between husband and wife and society as whole would now be compromised.  The subjects feared that  this would give fillip to infidelity and that nothing could be done if the spouses chose to return after philandering.  Although these thoughts are not specifically expressed in Uttara Ramayana, Rama correctly deducted from the absolute silence of witness in the drama in public place and that none of the public had sided with the 'straying' wife of a washer-woman that society as a whole did endorse the Rajaka's arguments. In Malayalam there is a saying that if 4 people speak ill about a person, then that person should relocate from the village. Hence, as a responsive monarch to the sentiments of the subjects, he banished Sita.

6.         However, there is an unanimity in dharma shastras that wife and other dependents may not be abandoned.  During the the sapta-padi (saat phera in Hindi) a groom promises will cherish and protect his wife.  This he does in front of a witness – Agni – which is every where in the form of sun, the stars and the moon and the fire.  Hence Agni is a eternal witness to this marital promise. The question then arises did Rama break this promise made in front of Agni, the eternal witness to cherish his (pregnant) and (innocent) wife. (Rohini ma'm:  if I remember correctly, Sita does ask Lakshmana as to why he didn't leave her with his father if he suspected her). 

7.         The situation before Rama was complex – Raja dharma on one side and pati dharma on other hand.  Rama does not suspect his wife of infidelity but his subjects do.  In fact his subjects fear that Rama's action would become the norm and that they would be forced to put-up with philandering spouses.  If he does nothing then the Rama's actions would become the norm – Yatha raja thatha praja; Raja Rama being the trend setter would usher moral decline in the society.

8.         Rama had courses of action before him.  (1) He could refuse to accept his wife Sita 

and send her back to her family – this would mean giving credence to society's rumors indeed she had been unfaithful.  (2) Rama could keep Sita with her and the subjects/judges would point him as their matrka purusha model to be emulated and started giving judgments thereby inaugurating a decline in dharma. (3)  An innovative solution wherein he banishes her – does not send her to her father thereby confirming rumors nor he does he remarry thereby rebuking the subjects by indirectly saying that I have no reason to suspect her fidelity in any way.  It is for you that I have forsaken my wife.

9.         Rama's course of action now seems obvious.  However, herein lies the twist in the tale as pointed out by our young, perspicacious querant.  Could not Rama have gone with Sita to the forests and abdicated his kingship.  Rama's duty of praja palanam could have been done his brothers such as Bharata or Lakshmana Shatrughna who were equally competent and solicitous of welfare of the subjects.  Would his brothers Bharata & Shatrughna have accepted this situation?  Bharata declined to accept this kingship when offered to him and said only Rama is eligible for rulership and that during 14 years he would function as his regent only.  Ayodhya's subjects wanted to accompany him during his first banishment.  It is moot whether they would have accepted Rama going to forests a second time.  In an era when kings had untrammeled powers to do as they liked, Rama acts more like a democrat and listens to his subjects.  Rama also acts like a matrika purusha (a model man) and doesn't break dharma's codes and remarries. 

10.       Even if Rama could have done these  instead of being a matrika purusha (a model man), the world would have castigated him for being besotted with sensual pleasures.   A reference may be made here to King Edward the VIII who abdicated his throne to marry a divorcee Wallis Simpson.  His refusal to remarry on being advised by sages such as Vashishtha during Ashvamedha Yaga or upon Sita going back to mother earth send strong signal for monogamous marriages  and for eka patni/pati vrtam. (one spouse vratam).  This strong moral impact that influenced Indian culture and society  to a very great extent.

11.       Rama  Rajyam concept included not only the concept that the king and the subjects were in mutual interdependence and should be responsive to each but it also included as to how a man should conduct as a father, son, husband, wife, brother and a king.  This Rama could shown  had be abdicated his throne. 

 *I may or may not agree with the views of guest writers but I respect their right to be heard.