Recently, I was reading this book called A handbook of Hindu Mythology that contained anecdotes from - yes, you guessed right, Hindu mythology! While reading it, two stories stood out - not for their actual content but more for the tacit meaning that they implied.
The first is the story of the Pandavas and Draupadi trying to cross Mount Meru to reach the heavens. As we all know, only Yudhishtira made it to Swarga. The first to fall was Draupadi - her weakness was that she loved Arjuna more than her other 4 husbands. Now, it was but natural that she loved Arjuna more - after all, he was the one who rightfully won her and she actually did spend a few hours extra as his wife than as wife to all the brothers. (time lapse between Arjuna marrying her and then taking her home to present to mother Kunti). But no, Yama does not consider that. So, Draupadi falls first.
The other brothers also had some weakness or the other - Sahadeva for being smug about his knowledge, Nakula for being vain about his good looks, Arjuna for being jealous of all other archers, and lastly Bheem for being a glutton. Now, when Yudhishtira reaches Swarga and finds that Draupadi and his brothers are in Naraka, he asks Yama to take him also there as he does not want to forsake his beloved brothers and wife. Yama smiles and tells him that they will indeed have to spend some time in Naraka for their imperfections after which they would then join him in Swarga. Yama also tells Yudhishtira that he will also have to go through Naraka for the one white lie that he uttered (Ashwathama hatha kunjaraha).
Now this is what struck me as ironical - this man, known for his righteousness and virtuosity and known as Dharmaraja for being the upholder of dharma, had to pass through Naraka for uttering a white lie but what about his terrible treatment of his wife? He looked upon Draupadi as a mere commodity and traded her in the game of dice. Is that not a greater misdeed than the white lie he uttered? Should he not have been punished for this wretched act? If he had to stay in Naraka, it should have been more for this reason than for the white lie.
The second story that caught my attention was that of Surpanaka approaching Rama in the forest and asking him to be her lover. Rama refuses saying that he is married and his wife is right there with him. Well, that was fine (though I actually don't agree with the second part of his sentence) but then he cheekily tells her to approach Lakshmana saying "he has no wife here".
I found this atrocious! Did Rama mean that as Lakshmana's wife wasn't around, he could take on Surpanaka or anybody else as a lover? How could that great soul revered as "Eka patni vrata" even think of suggesting such a thing? Knowing his brother was also married, should he not have told Surpanaka that as both of them were already married men, they could neither of them oblige her? If only Rama had done this, the whole course of the Ramayana would have completely altered - Lakshmana would not have cut off Surpanaka's nose and ears and nor would Ravana have avenged his sister's humiliation by carrying away Sita!
The first is the story of the Pandavas and Draupadi trying to cross Mount Meru to reach the heavens. As we all know, only Yudhishtira made it to Swarga. The first to fall was Draupadi - her weakness was that she loved Arjuna more than her other 4 husbands. Now, it was but natural that she loved Arjuna more - after all, he was the one who rightfully won her and she actually did spend a few hours extra as his wife than as wife to all the brothers. (time lapse between Arjuna marrying her and then taking her home to present to mother Kunti). But no, Yama does not consider that. So, Draupadi falls first.
The other brothers also had some weakness or the other - Sahadeva for being smug about his knowledge, Nakula for being vain about his good looks, Arjuna for being jealous of all other archers, and lastly Bheem for being a glutton. Now, when Yudhishtira reaches Swarga and finds that Draupadi and his brothers are in Naraka, he asks Yama to take him also there as he does not want to forsake his beloved brothers and wife. Yama smiles and tells him that they will indeed have to spend some time in Naraka for their imperfections after which they would then join him in Swarga. Yama also tells Yudhishtira that he will also have to go through Naraka for the one white lie that he uttered (Ashwathama hatha kunjaraha).
Now this is what struck me as ironical - this man, known for his righteousness and virtuosity and known as Dharmaraja for being the upholder of dharma, had to pass through Naraka for uttering a white lie but what about his terrible treatment of his wife? He looked upon Draupadi as a mere commodity and traded her in the game of dice. Is that not a greater misdeed than the white lie he uttered? Should he not have been punished for this wretched act? If he had to stay in Naraka, it should have been more for this reason than for the white lie.
The second story that caught my attention was that of Surpanaka approaching Rama in the forest and asking him to be her lover. Rama refuses saying that he is married and his wife is right there with him. Well, that was fine (though I actually don't agree with the second part of his sentence) but then he cheekily tells her to approach Lakshmana saying "he has no wife here".
I found this atrocious! Did Rama mean that as Lakshmana's wife wasn't around, he could take on Surpanaka or anybody else as a lover? How could that great soul revered as "Eka patni vrata" even think of suggesting such a thing? Knowing his brother was also married, should he not have told Surpanaka that as both of them were already married men, they could neither of them oblige her? If only Rama had done this, the whole course of the Ramayana would have completely altered - Lakshmana would not have cut off Surpanaka's nose and ears and nor would Ravana have avenged his sister's humiliation by carrying away Sita!
My take:
ReplyDeleteRegarding (1):
During the days of Yudhishtra, gambling was cosidered OK if done under certain conditions.
Also, it was considered OK to gamble your wife. So Yudishtra, acting as per the dharma as understood/practised in those times, didn't do a mistake. Well, its altogether a different question whether
treating your wife as a commodity can ever be considered dharama. We are all a product of our times
and what we consider dharma/adharma changes from time to time.
Regarding (2):
In times of Rama, it was considered normal for kings to have multiple wives.
Rama undertook "eka patni vrata" .. i.e though he can "dharmically" marry multiple wives, he "chose" to
marry only one. But those days, there was nothing wrong in having multiple wives.
This is the reason why Rama saw nothing wrong it redirecting Surpanaka to Lakshmana.
Again, its altogether a different question how marrying mutliple wives can be ever be considered
dharma. So Rama acted as per dharma as "understood/practised in his times".
Hi Tenze, As you said, it all depends on the time and place when these events took place. Reading them in today's context seems totally unacceptable. Thanks for publishing your views!
DeleteWhile views may change over time and laws may come into place. Man's character cannot be changed, its in the DNA. Their is nothing right or wrong in anything. its all in your mind!
ReplyDeleteSudha, if you haven't already tried it, do read the Palace of Illusions - the story of the Mahabharata from Draupadi's point of view, think you'll like it :).
ReplyDeleteAnd the questions you've asked here, epics written by men, with men as the main characters, I don't expect anything different :).