Prof. Dr. Satya Vrat Shastri's Thai Ramayana 12. The story shifts to Ravana

At that time, like a misfortune, there was a sister of Ravana, Surpanaka by name. She was married to a demon Jihva and lived in Lanka. Once when Ravana had to go out, he asked Jihva to protect Lanka. Jihva devoted himself to the task whole-heartedly and did not sleep for seven days. As sleep overtook him, he became worried. 'How can I protect Lanka if I go to sleep?'

The demon thought about it and lengthened his tongue and covered entire Lanka with it. The tongue placed Lanka in endless darkness. In the meanwhile Ravana returned and did not find a way to enter. Then the mighty Ravana cut down the tongue swiftly and as soon as it was cut, Jihva fell down lifeless.

Ravana was shocked when he saw the result of his action and with grief performed the last rites in the manner of demons. Men may do wrong things in ignorance, but for that they have to repent.

Surpanaka, her husband having gone to the world attained through his actions and thinking of her life as desolate tells Ravana, 'How should I, the miserable one, deprived of my husband, pass my time? I wish to go and live with my son.'

Visit to her son was a ploy, she had other things on her mind. She, a promiscuous woman, under the influence of carnal desire wanted a husband for herself. With a desire to look for him she went to the very same forest where Rama was living in the company of Sita and Lakshmana.

Valmiki Ramayan describes their stay in the Dandaka Forest in great detail. But Thai Ramayana seemed to be in a hurry to get on with story of Rama and Ravana. It is interesting in a way that while the story of Rama inspired Thais in creating art, dance and drama it took many more dimensions in India.

Rama would be surely bemused to see his Rajya today! He was the one who did not argue with his father or question him about the decision to send him on exile. And it was not even conveyed to him by his father, but by Kaikeyi. And he was ready to go! He did not waver when practically everyone in Ayodhya, except his step-mother and her advisor, did not want him to go!

Incidentally Sriram found an answer to my question 'why Manthara disliked Rama'.
http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/2001/d010402.html,
Kaikeyi was, in fact, more fond of Rama than Bharata, but Manthara intervened. If you start enquiring about the principle behind the actions of Manthara, you will discover that this is also part of the Vedic principle. Once, when the King of the land of Kekaya was going out hunting, he aimed an arrow and killed a male deer. The female deer went to her mother and said, "Mother, the King of Kekaya has killed my husband. Now, what is my fate?"

That mother had the device (yantra) by which dead persons could be revived. So, the mother deer said, "My child, don't cry, I shall revive your dead husband." The mother deer went to the King of Kekaya and told him, "O king, it is not a proper action that you have done, killing the husband of my daughter. You should not indulge in such actions, which create separation. Just as I am suffering now by the loss of my son-in-law, you will suffer the loss of your son-in-law. I shall see to it that this event takes place."

That mother deer was born as Manthara and was the cause of the death of Dasaratha and the consequent loss of son-in-law of Kaikeyi's father. If you look closely into the various events in the Ramayana, you will discover several truths which are enshrined in the Vedas. Vedas,Shasthras and Puranas are all interdependent, indispensable to each other, and should not be studied as independent works. It is not proper to separate them as unconnected works. The so-called scholars apply worldly standards to these works and make all kinds of studies by separating them as different (such as Veda,Shasthra, and Purana).

As per this story karma is not linear, cause and effect of just one's actions, it is a web and very complex one at that. It is not Rama's childhood pranks that created the dislike, but the actions of his father-in-law. Amazing that a talking deer could curse and also ensure it worked by taking birth as a human in the accursed person's home!

Gayathri said...

We live in times when honor killings, female foeticide and such make the news everyday. And the times past are glorified as the golden years - when curses could transcend births and rebirths and change the course of history! I guess violence is one aspect of the human that has existed since creation and has been justified through the years - it is only the way it manifests that changes through time.

4 December 2012 at 10:24 

Raghunath said...

Didn't know this one. Thanks