Author's
Note: Please visit - The 'Real' Ramayana/ Ram-Rajya - to read the other parts of this series, so as to be able to
fully understand or grasp the contents of this one.
What *really* was Manthara's role? [Please read Part-VI
– so as to get the drift.] A glimpse of the 'Treta Yug' or the 2nd era. Thoughts on the much-bandied-about 'Lakshman-Surpanakha' episode. *What* does
Shri Hanuman tearing open his chest to reveal the image of
Shri Rama and Sita mean?
The
narrative tells us that Manthara was a trusted attendant of Kaikeyi from her
parental home. She is variously referred to as: 'Kubja' (hump-backed) and
'Vamani' (dwarf woman). This is a clear indication that she belonged to
the group of people known as the Yakshas (male) and Yakshis (female). These
were dwarf or small-sized humans. [Do read: Part-III
- for greater clarity.]
In
ancient times, these little people were mostly engaged in guard duties, such
as: to guard the treasury, etc. They were renowned for their loyalty and for their strength.
Their
knowledge of nature, plants and medicine is also well-documented. When Shri
Hanuman went to get the 'Sanjeevni Booti' - the medicinal herb whose juice
could revive the unconscious Lakshman, he was not quite aware as to: what plant
it was, what it looked like or where exactly it could be found. However, the Yakshas
that lived in the mountains (the Gandhamadhana Parvat) guided him.
Manthara
undoubtedly would have been extremely trustworthy and loyal, so much so that
she would have under no circumstances, even in a moment of weakness (say: due
to all the scorn being heaped on Kaikeyi) – would have revealed *anything*.
Also:
Kaikeyi, who was known to have loved Ram and Bharat equally, could not have
asked for Ram to be exiled for 14 years – all of a sudden, out of the blue! Right?
Quite
obviously: a background had to be created. And for that to happen,
someone who could be totally trusted was required. And this is
where Manthara came into the picture.
There is
a strong possibility that Ram may have maintained a covert correspondence
with Ayodhya - in order to keep tabs on the goings-on there. This -
he would have maintained with Kaikeyi - and no one else. Hence, Manthara would
have been required. Since Kaikeyi, being a queen... would not have been able to
do everything herself.
I say
this because: Bharat and Shatrughna severely chastise Manthara and even attempt
to assault her. The commotion draws Kaikeyi's attention. She stops Bharat and
Shatrughna from assaulting Manthara, by saying that it was not right to hit a
woman, and that: Ram would be very displeased if he heard of it.
Now, why
did she say that? How could Ram (who was in exile) get to hear of it?
What do
you think?
To my
mind: Only four people were in the know: Ram, Sita, Kaikeyi and
Manthara.
I do not think any of it would have been shared with
Lakshman and Bharat (and Shatrughan as well), 'coz they would, very likely, not
have accepted any of it, let alone co-operate. And: they were also known to have
been somewhat emotional.
In fact,
Bharat (along with Shatrughna) had been away - visiting his mother's place i.e.
his maternal grandfather's place (Kekeya Mahajanapada or kingdom) - when
all this happened. Later, he met Ram (at Chitrakut) during the exile period
itself, and begged and pleaded with him - to return to Ayodhya. On being
unsuccessful, he asked Ram to give him his 'paduka' (footwear) instead. This
is because: in our culture, the feet are worshiped. Touching the feet of one's
elders is a mark of respect.
As for
the 14 years (exile period): we have seen in Part-VI
- how an adult Ram has been mistakenly turned into a teenager
or how say, a period of 12 months has been (mis)translated as 12 years.
Therefore: whether the exile was for 14 years or for a
somewhat lesser period: we can only conjecture.
BTW, keeping what Kaikeyi tells Bharat and Shatrughna
(when they attempt to assault Manthara) in mind, if we are to examine the
Lakshman-Supranakha episode, who might have been responsible? Meaning: who
might have thought up and then inserted this episode?
The dacoits of Aravalli were notorious for cutting
off the nose... of their victims, and then letting them off. Given that the
current versions of the Ramayana - including the Valmiki Ramayana - are
much-embellished versions, 'contemporised' too + customized for stage plays,
etc., what should we make of this much-bandied-about episode?
[Note: We do not know what happened to the community
known as: Yakshas and Yakshis - given that a lot of intermingling
between various groups of people has happened over the centuries.
However I wonder: whether the ones we call 'dwarf' today, are
a type of Yaksha or Yakshi? I say this: 'coz even though they are
very small in size, this does not seem to be a hindrance in any way.
They are physically strong, lead a normal life and can procreate as well.
Incidentally: Tuberculosis (TB) is called 'Jakkha' in Bangla.
So, we may want to explore whether this disease (or epidemic, or a series of
such epidemics) caused the Yaksha population to dwindle - many years ago.
We must also take a closer
look at our various ancient dance-forms. These are not restricted to
entertainment alone, but very clearly convey aspects of our ancient culture,
history and heritage. E.g. Kathakali. This dance-form may provide more
information about the Kirat, the Kinnara and the Kimpurusha ("people with lion-like nature" or "people
from the mountain"). Ditto: the various
dance-forms including the war-dances from the mountainous regions in the north or
the north-eastern regions of our country. While the Yakshagana and the Chau
dance-forms may provide some clues about the Yakshas and the yakṣī or Yakshini - of yore. We may also want to look at the Bhuta Kola and the Aati Kalenja, apart from the Royal/Regal Tiger dance (Kannada:
the Hulivesha, Hulivēṣa | Tulu: the Pilivesha, Pilivēṣa) as well as the Puli
Kali, a similar dance-form in neighbouring Kerala. ("Puli" = Leopard/Tiger and "Kali" = Play - in the Malayalam language.) Do read:
Part-III - for more info on these various groups of humans.]
We have discussed about Shri Hanuman and Shri Jambavan in
some detail (in our earlier posts in this series). Shri Hanuman very likely belonged
to a clan or community that had a monkey-totem. While: Shri Jambavan belonged
to one that had a bear-totem (or maybe: sported a bear-mask). The Kirat and the Kimpurusha were groups that had a lion-totem or headgear while the Kinnara were communities with a tiger-totem or mask.
And their facial features e.g. the jaw-line may have invoked the image of an ape or a bear - respectively. As for the Kirat or the Kimpurusha ("people with lion-like nature" or "people from the mountain") - do watch a monk meditating, it will invoke the image of a lion in your mind.
And their facial features e.g. the jaw-line may have invoked the image of an ape or a bear - respectively. As for the Kirat or the Kimpurusha ("people with lion-like nature" or "people from the mountain") - do watch a monk meditating, it will invoke the image of a lion in your mind.
We are (somehow) convinced that Nandi and Bhringi
were bulls. But they were clearly humans hailing from a community with a bull-totem
or one that sported a headgear of bullhorns; or perhaps a totem displaying the Chamri Gai (a
high altitude cow or yak) and/or a headgear of yak-horns. [Chamer, Bengali for 'chowry' or fly whisker, is used during worship of a deity or shrine. The word 'chamer' is derived from 'chamri gai' meaning yak.]
Therefore: we must examine the different totems,
masks, costumes, body-paint, head-gears, sculptures, whoops, musical instruments, articles used during rituals or worship, ceremonial objects, cuisine, crafts, metalwork, jewellery,
paintings, languages and attire - of the many groups of people that still live in the
forest or in and among the hills and mountains - all over our country. Who knows, we may
(still) be able to gather some info - about some of our ancient groups and
communities. And who knows we may be able to get some clues about the evolution of
the human species.
I say this 'coz: given the passage of time and the
movements between people, there has been a lot of intermingling of people as
well as intermingling of blood. And all of this has given rise to a new
set of humans: groups and communities... as well as culture and languages.
Yet, despite all the proverbial water that has clearly flown under the bridge,
we may still be able to find some traces of our ancient culture, history and
heritage. And we must treasure whatever little we can salvage.
What say you?
Also: Please remember:
The Ramayana is geographically very correct. We are
only attempting to piece together the events, in as dispassionate a manner as
possible.
There has been a huge amount of flights of fantasy,
mistranslations, misinterpretations, various crosscurrents and a mixing of
multiple narratives - into the main narrative w.r.t the Ramayana. There
are over 3000 re-tellings and versions (India and beyond), and counting! And
half-baked knowledge has been responsible for the twisting of the Ramayana
and the mutilation of our ancient history. Sadly.
[Note: What we today know as the Valmiki Ramayana is thought to be the work of several people, besides the 'aadi kavi' or the first poet - Maharshi Valmiki. We will discuss in our later posts as to why this is so. Not just bits and pieces, but two whole 'khands' - parts or chapters - are accepted as having been latter-day 'add-on'. And the much-bandied-about 'Lakshman Rekha' is a part of one of these two added 'khands'...! Isn't it strange that added bits are bandied about everywhere, while no effort is made to scrutinize the narrative - in order to weed out the 'impurities' that has so obviously seeped in?!]
Well?
[Note: What we today know as the Valmiki Ramayana is thought to be the work of several people, besides the 'aadi kavi' or the first poet - Maharshi Valmiki. We will discuss in our later posts as to why this is so. Not just bits and pieces, but two whole 'khands' - parts or chapters - are accepted as having been latter-day 'add-on'. And the much-bandied-about 'Lakshman Rekha' is a part of one of these two added 'khands'...! Isn't it strange that added bits are bandied about everywhere, while no effort is made to scrutinize the narrative - in order to weed out the 'impurities' that has so obviously seeped in?!]
Well?
Each era
is distinct. Here we are discussing a completely different era or yug -
the 2nd era, the Treta Yug. We cannot view it or discuss it though the prism
of the current one. That will be unfair to say the least... as well as
misleading.
The
terrain that we see today is a much-changed one. It obviously would have been
totally different - in another era. In all likelihood, it would
have been heavily forested, infested with a completely different set of flora
and fauna, wild animals included - the kind that we don't see now or rather:
won't get to see - ever. And there would have been a much greater number of
hills, mangroves and water-bodies too.
The land
area itself would have differed. It would have undoubtedly been much larger. Over
the years, due to the action of the waters, chunks of land would have slowly but surely been
swallowed up by the sea and the ocean. Some natural events too would have
contributed towards changing the landscape. [Read: Link.]
Humans
would have been very different as well, and far more diverse than we see today.
And Ram,
Lakshman, Sita, et al would have been very different from us - modern humans
- in all respects: height, strength, appearance, longevity, intelligence, perception,
caliber, knowledge, technology, and what have you. Both the Ramayana and
the Mahabharata very clearly talk about awesome technology, something
that the modern world (5000 years into the 4th era or the Kali Yug)
has still not seen...! [Please read: Part-V
– to get an idea of how advanced our ancients were.]
[Our ancients undoubtedly had far more sophisticated technology
at their disposal than most of us moderns (enslaved by our arrogance and a
linear view of history) - are willing to give them credit for. E.g., the Ashoka
Pillar at Sarnath, the Iron pillar of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya in Mehrauli,
the cave temples of Ajanta and Ellora, the Egyptian mummies and the pyramids,
the drainage system, wells and water-storage system of the Indus-valley cities
(i.e. the Sarasvati Civilization), the Stonehenge - to name a few. And many of these
are from the current era or yug itself.
Yet, no matter how much or how hard we try... we cannot replicate them. In
fact, we won't even come close.]
Also: the
constraints and challenges (faced by the people of the Treta Yug) would have been different - in all respects, than what we (moderns) experience
today, or have been experiencing for the past few generations.
The type
of society and the societal norms followed and accepted in the 2nd era
or the Treta Yug - is nothing like what we see around us today or are used to
seeing or accepting.
Societal
norms were far more rigid, and important personalities like the kings
were bound by their words or by their 'dharma' (duty). They followed 'Raaj-neeti' or 'Raaj-dharma'
- the 'way of a king' or the 'principles or duty of a king' and 'Kshatriya Dharma' i.e.
the 'way of a Kshatriya' or the 'way of a brave-heart'.
'Raaj-neeti'
or 'Raaj-dharma' is not to be confused with what passes for 'politics' today.
The
society that we see today or have been seeing for a while now is far more flexible
and accepting of many things. There are no rules or words that bind. And this
of course works both ways. However: the earlier ears (yugs) were completely
different... and unlike the current one.
Ram was a
human, not God - as we have been led to believe. He did not possess any magical
powers to make things happen either. It was only through 'Karm-Yog' that Ram
and Sita (along with Hanuman, Jambavan, Kaikeyi, Manthara, Sugreeva and his 'Van-nar
Sena', et al) - were able to achieve all that they have achieved - despite huge odds
and challenges. And no less a person than Shri Krishna has paid the highest tributes to
Shri Ram, while describing that unseen and formless force known as the Paramaatma (the Supreme Soul) or the Parameshwar (the Supreme Being) i.e. divinity - in the Srimad Bhagavad Geeta.
Do remember: we are discussing an era (yug) when the
'van-nar' (forest-dwelling humans) was not even considered as humans.
They were shunned and taken as part of the 'animal world' or as 'lesser
humans'. [The so-called tribal of today does not have to face such a plight.]
There are reasons for Ram not having sought the help of his own powerful army (that of Ayodhya + Videha) and instead
going into battle with an army of 'Van-nar Sena' (i.e. an army of forest-dwelling humans) - led by Shri Hanuman. [Videha = the
kingdom from where Sita hailed; after her marriage to Ram, Videha
was a staunch ally of Ayodhya.]
There
are reasons for Ram not having sought the assistance of his own highly-skilled engineers
and technicians (from Ayodhya) - to build the bridge to Lanka (also known as:
the Ram Setu). [Do read: Part-I, Part-II and Part-III.]
[Nala was the 'van-nar'
architect-engineer who led the sethu-bandhan. The Setu was used
for pedestrian traffic between India and Sri Lanka right until 1480 when a
major cyclone destroyed it.]
In the course of our discussions, we have had a glimpse of
the kind of society that prevailed in the Treta Yug
(the 2nd era) and we have seen how shabbily even venerated and
learned persons treated women, and the immense influence they wielded on society. [Do
read: Part-I.]
Sita refused to receive instructions/education from Rishi
Gautam, although the latter was the Raj Purohith (chief or royal
priest) of her foster-father, Raja Janak. This is because: Gautam had
killed his wife, Ahaliya. We are told that Gautam 'cursed' her and as a result
Ahaliya turned into stone. This actually
means: he either killed her by
hitting her with a stone or buried her alive. The reason: he
suspected her 'fidelity'. [Do read: Part-I - to know more.]
Therefore: In order to undo a variety of ills that
plagued society (in the Treta Yug) especially in light of the influence and
power wielded by certain sections, a routine ascension
to the throne, as Raja Dasharatha's heir, would not have provided
any Moral Gravitas or authority whatsoever - to Ram. That way: he would have been bound by the norms and duties of a king, and would have had to abide by them too. Long
absence was not a possibility as per the norms of the Treta Yug, and articulating
the reforms or changes he wanted to bring about - would have defeated its very
purpose. There would have been a lot of resistance from powerful entities. Remember
a king of the Treta Yug cannot be equated with a dictator. They were
bound by guidelines, and societal norms were very rigid. [Please read: Part-I, Part-II and Part-III – in order to know more.]
We have unfortunately turned Ram into a one-dimensional figure, which he clearly was not. He possessed great foresight and has done what had to be done, by adopting appropriate methods... instead of relying on rituals in order to better the conditions of the people.
We have unfortunately turned Ram into a one-dimensional figure, which he clearly was not. He possessed great foresight and has done what had to be done, by adopting appropriate methods... instead of relying on rituals in order to better the conditions of the people.
Instead of placidly accepting the norms and the various
injustices prevailing in the 2nd era (Treta Yug), Ram and Sita chose
to do something about it - in order to improve the conditions of the people.
Ram has been erroneously termed as: a 'Perfect Man' or an 'Ideal Man'. 'Maryada-Purushottam' does not mean 'Perfect Man' or 'Ideal Man'.
Someone that accepts the prevailing norms (maryada) of society and abides by them or works accordingly: is known as: 'Maryada-Purush'.
But someone that *goes beyond* the accepted norms prevailing in society and changes them - for the greater good: is 'Maryada-Purushottam'.
Someone that accepts the prevailing norms (maryada) of society and abides by them or works accordingly: is known as: 'Maryada-Purush'.
But someone that *goes beyond* the accepted norms prevailing in society and changes them - for the greater good: is 'Maryada-Purushottam'.
Ram is known and hailed as: 'Maryada-Purushottam'.
He possessed the courage and the moral wherewithal to go beyond the accepted norms of the society (in
the Treta Yug) and change them - for the greater good, i.e. for the upliftment of society and for the improvement in the lives of the people.
Also: When various 'knowledgeable' persons say that Ravan
could have easily ravished Sita in captivity, but did not - and then
take this as a sign of his noble-mindedness, they simply choose
to overlook the fact that Sita was Mandodari's daughter. [Mandodari was Ravan's favourite queen. Sita and Mandodari were so alike that even Hanuman was confused.]
And it is these types that misrepresent what Sita's 'Agni-Pariksha' was all about, and then blithely twist certain texts to say that 'Ram subjected Sita to purification rituals since her chastity was questioned'...! He did not. [We will of course discuss what Sita's 'Agni-Pariksha' actually means, in our forthcoming posts.]
And it is these types that misrepresent what Sita's 'Agni-Pariksha' was all about, and then blithely twist certain texts to say that 'Ram subjected Sita to purification rituals since her chastity was questioned'...! He did not. [We will of course discuss what Sita's 'Agni-Pariksha' actually means, in our forthcoming posts.]
[Note: To know *who* Sita really was, i.e. *what* she
was really like... and how shabbily women were treated in the Treta Yug: Do
read: Part-I and Part-II.]
'Sita' or 'Seeta' is derived from 'Seet' - an instrument
used to dig up the ground, especially for agricultural purposes. It is said
that Raja Janak of Videha (now known as Janakpur) found her abandoned in
a ditch, adopted her and brought her up as his own daughter. [Mandodari may
have abandoned her for whatever reason, or Sita may have been lost or kidnapped.]
However: it is beyond a shred of doubt that we prefer theatrics
and narratives that are high on emotional content. Plus: we love to learn by
rote. In fact: we have managed to become champions at it.
How else do you think we have not taken a closer look at the
Ramayana and sought to separate the grain from the chaff, in order to get a
clearer picture?
How else do you think we have been celebrating 'Ram-Leela' year after
year with so much gusto, where even the effigy of Vibhishan is burnt?!
Since: Vibhishan and Ram were friends and allies...!
Unbelievable, right?!!
Now, let us consider our ancient texts. We know (and
have discussed) that they are peppered with metaphor, imagery or camouflaged
language. Here's yet another example:
What does
Shri Hanuman tearing open his chest to reveal the image of
Shri Rama and Sita mean?
Well, it simply means: body art or tattoo. As simple as
that!
Yet such
heavy-weather has been made of it...! Just think of the numerous serials on
television or the many stage-shows - and how they project this simple thing. Not
to speak of the various books and illustrations. They have all contributed
handsomely towards a warped version of our ancient history or itihasa. :)
Yes, our ancient texts are filled with metaphors and
imagery. But this should not surprise or baffle us at all. Simply because: this
is how our ancients wrote. If we are to examine our ancient texts like
the Devi Mahatmyam, the Shiv Puran, the Ramayana, the Mahabharat,
et al, this pattern will become very clear.
It is we,
the 'moderns' that have not been able to fathom, decode and decipher. Instead:
we have royally entangled ourselves in cobweb and confusion. And theatrics. :)
Our ancient itihasa cannot be looked at in
isolation. They are like flowers strung together on a string, and hence they
have to be viewed as a whole; else the big picture will remain incomplete.
The 1st era or the Satya/Sat/Krita Yug:
the Devi Mahatmyam and the Shiv Puran.
The 2nd era or the Treta Yug: the Ramayana.
The 3rd era or the Dvapar Yug: the Mahabharata.
There is continuity. [Of course there are several other
texts too. And they all contain a wealth of info, provided we are able to separate
the grain from the chaff - if you know what I mean.]
In my humble opinion, what needs to be done is this:
having crisp, concise, sharp, taut, decoded versions of all the above (the Devi Mahatmyam,
the Shiv Puran, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata), in simple
language (that is easy to understand and comprehend) - resting within the same
covers, is the way to go. Some illustrations would definitely help,
since visual depiction leaves a greater impact than mere text. [However:
we should not confuse the Shiv-Parvati stories with the Shiv-Sati
stories. Also: the possibility that the Devi Mahatymam and the Shiv Puran
(may be) depicting the early part of the 2nd era (the Treta Yug) cannot be ruled out.]
(Do stay tuned…)
Picture: 1. Kaikeyi and Manthara. 2. Shri Hanuman 'tearing open his chest' to reveal the image of Shri Ram and Mata Sita.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment