Some time ago, in a conversation I had with one of our Western members, I made a point about how the traditional guru-disciple relationship in Vedic Hinduism was generally between brahmin-males and other twice-born males, and that women in traditional culture were supposed to accept their husbands as their gurus. I did not have shAstric pramANa for this statement at the time. However, I did read some verses recently in which this is explicitly stated.
patir eva hi nārīṇāṁ daivataṁ paramaṁ smṛtam |
mānasaḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ vāsudevaḥ śriyaḥ patiḥ || bhA 6.18.33 ||
sa eva devatā-liṅgair nāma-rūpa-vikalpitaiḥ
ijyate bhagavān pumbhiḥ strībhiś ca pati-rūpa-dhṛk || bhA 6.18.34 ||
tasmāt pati-vratā nāryaḥ śreyas-kāmāḥ sumadhyame |
yajante ’nanya-bhāvena patim ātmānam īśvaram || bhA 6.18.35 ||
"The husband is considered the worshipable deity of the woman. Vâsudeva who, situated in the heart of all as the husband of the Goddess of Fortune, is worshiped as the Supreme Lord by men through the forms and names of the different divinities, is there also for women in the form of the husband. Women who with respect for the will of their husbands desire a happy life oh slender-waisted lady, therefore worship with devotion their spouse as [a representative of] the Lord who is the Supersoul." (bhAgavata purANa 6.18.34-35)
patirhi devatA nAryAH patirbandhuH patirguruH || VR 7.48.17 ||
"The husband is the deity, the kinsmen, the preceptor for the (wedded) woman." (vALmIki-rAmAyaNa 7.48.17)
This latter statement is uttered by sItA-devI after being taken across the ganga river to be exiled to the hermitage of vAlmIki. Like many statements in the rAmAyaNa, there is so much more here than simply the statement about how dharma is (e.g. the general principle that the wife must serve the husband as a guru and/or deity).
sItA, who was blameless and who had endured so much hardship simply for the sake of rAma, was exiled unfairly. The citizens of ayodhya suspected her of infidelity and believed rAma's act of taking her back would encourage more of the same. rAma knew very well that sItA was pure, as the devas headed by brahmA, indra, and agni attested to this in public (as well as the fact that He is the all-knowing nArAyaNa). Neverthless, He acted out of concern for the citizens' welfare, and in so doing set the example that a king's personal happiness is secondary to the duty of leading the citizens to uphold dharma.
sItA understood this also, and after lakShmaNa confessed what He was doing, she refused to censure her husband in any way, instead giving lakShmaNa instructions to convey to rAma. In those instructions, sItA stated that rAma is her only resort, and that He should always conduct Himself to uphold dharma, treating the citizens as He would do His own brothers.
sItA is truly a remarkable figure in the rAmAyaNa, not merely because she behaved as the ideal wife, but because her unmatched selflessness exemplified the principle of sharaNAgati. She entered forest exile to follow her husband and Lord, then tolerated being abducted on account of rAma's hostility towards the rAkShasa-s, and again tolerated a second exile because of the wrong beliefs of ayodhya's citizens. She demonstrated through her conduct, whether it be in refusing rAvaNa's advances, her attachment to rAma's wishes, or in her refusal to abandon Him even when He had seemingly abandoned her to fire, that she would under no condition have any other Lord but rAma. This is the essence of sharaNAgati, and it reminds us of why we perform our dharmas. It is not that the husband must be served simply for the sake of serving the husband. In this regard, the bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad states:
In other words, our worldly duties, which invariably involve doing service to another, have the goal of understanding and serving the paramAtma who is the indweller within all of us. But it is not just any service that qualifies - we are enjoined to serve those whom shAstra ordains us to serve in order to attain this supreme goal (gItA 16.23-24). This is because the service itself is a meditation and a path to self-realization and ultimately to paramAtma-realization. And the fruit of that service culminates in more of the selfless devotion to paramAtma which even the great sages hanker for.II-iv-5: He said: 'It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one's own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised - should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.
Getting back to sItA's example, we see how her behavior exemplified this standard of selfless devotion, in which her every thought and deed were fully in step with those of her Lord. There is a verse in the rAmAyaNa in which sItA stated that she could have destroyed rAvaNa herself, but refrained from doing so:
asaMdeshaattu raamasya tapasashchaamapaalanaat |
na tvaaM kurmi dashagriiva bhasma bharmaarha tejasaa || 5-22-20 ||
"O Ravana! Although you are suited to be burnt into ashes, not having the mandate of Rama and preserving austerity, I am not reducing you into ashes with my glory." (vALmIki-rAmAyaNa 5.22.20)
Indeed, we can take it as a given that sItA could have burned all of Lanka, the entire rAkshAsa race, and quite possibly all the three worlds by her angry glance had she chosen to! Similar to the verse in which sItA declined to be rescued by hanumAn, these verses remind us that the surrendered soul makes no effort of her own to improve her situation. Rather, she depends always on her worshipable Lord and only acts when He ordains it. In one sense, her glories consist not in (unlicensed) action, but in restrained inaction, based as it is on an unsullied motive of pleasing the Lord only and not acting independently.
Living in post-modern culture, we have a tendency to see any kind of service as deplorable. We value independence and free-thinking, and perhaps these are very good in some contexts. But we err in thinking that the service and dependence of wives to their husbands in Hinduism is something to be criticized or looked down upon. After reading the rAmAyaNa, one thing becomes abundantly clear: kausalyA is glorified to a far greater degree than dasharatha, tArA is glorified to a far greater degree than vALI, and sItA is glorified to a far greater degree than rAma. The service of these high-souled women to their Lords is not something to be criticized. It's a lesson to all of us to remind us of what it is that we seek in our spiritual endeavors.
All glories to the exalted women of the rAmAyaNa, who show us the true path of surrender and devotion!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by orlando
Bookmarks