Ramayana’s Rama: Was he The Original Feminist?
- In History & Culture
- 08:30 AM, Jul 17, 2019
- Anjali Kanojia
I am a political scientist and also a yoga teacher. Once I was giving a lecture to thirty plus college students about Prakriti (feminine energy) and Purusha (masculine energy) from yoga perspective. Prakriti and Purusha represent duality. Their union depicts bliss, perfection, balance, harmony, and also principles of advaita. The conversation flowed toward balancing uninhabited Prakriti and her makeup - the gunas - which are always in flux, in each of us and in nature.
While many of the students were doing everything other than paying attention to what seemed to be a riveting talk to a handful, a non-Indian student who had read the Ramayana and seemed to have sufficient knowledge about the Brahma-Saraswati, Vishnu-Laxmi (incarnations Rama-Sita), and Shiva-Parvati said that he totally understood Brahma as Purusha manifesting and engaging with Saraswati to bring forth creativity and creation and that Shiva-Parvati are Purusha-Prakriti. However, he wanted an explanation for Rama-Sita as Purusha-Prakriti in the context of balance and harmony. The student wondered if Vishnu avatar Rama was considered to be a kind of a loser who deserted his wife.
The question above is not verbatim as my memory has limitations. Yet, this question touched something deep within me as, I too as a modern-day feminist, never quite understood how Rama was anything close to leading to perfection. It seems romantically thrilling to imagine a man taking great pains to find his missing wife, including a war to get her back. It symbolizes such love and devotion. Then how can this same man part ways with his beloved? This has always been a conundrum for me.
Like any professor who has been stumped, I bought time; I acknowledged the wonderful question put forth and mentioned that we would address it during next week’s meeting.
Much of the literature from a pro-feminist angle, which I came across, frame Rama as a weak, troubled ruler who did not stand up to his nation-folk and ended up deserting his wife. Just like the different iterations and angles of the Ramayana, there must be a thousand different methods of analyzing the complexity of the Sita-Rama relationship. Some of the explanations which redeem Rama from a modern-day context revolve around him exercising his dharma - first toward his father who inflicted obvious injustice towards him. Second, is Rama exercising his dharma as a householder and husband where he makes it a mission to find his missing wife? Then finally exercising his dharma as a leader, ruler first, and husband second, to maintain the rule of legitimacy over his kingdom? Chronology matters here as in the second phase of exercising grihastha ashram-based dharma, Rama remained utterly devoted to his wife, including the destruction of Lanka and Ravana to bring her back.
As one of India’s leading gurus has explained, whether there was one dhobi or many is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a ruler cannot govern if his character is considered illegitimate by those he governs. Rama first banished by his father upholds dharma toward his father but fails to uphold dharma towards his constituency. Here the circumstances force him to choose between obeying his father versus serving his people. When given a chance to rule Ayodhya after the exile, he decides to uphold his dharma over his constituency - something he was unable to do earlier - now at the expense of his wife. It seems he is forced to play the zero-sum game in every phase of life and ends up choosing the greater good - at least according to his mental faculties. Rama seems to handle turmoil with great care and his own perception of fairness and justice are context specific. However, how does this seemingly skewed dynamic between Rama-Sita explain the idea of harmony between Purusha-Prakriti?
I keep using the yoga lens to analyze the Rama-Sita relationship. In brief, Purusha can exist as manifest or unmanifest. Once determined and ready to engage with ever-changing Prakriti, is when dualism ceases to exist, and one speaks of balance, harmony, oneness. What characteristics of both Rama and Sita allow them to exist in harmony, especially post-exile? What explains the give-and-take of tyaga and sacrifice of each to fulfill their dharmic purposes? Is this even possible to surmise, given our modern-day training and exposure to the fact that women get paid eight cents to a dollar earned by men; the invisible glass ceiling women face in the place; the way female bosses and politicians must imitate men in order to be considered non-emotional and effective?
As if struck by Zeus’ thunderbolt, a thought hit me. For harmony to exist between Rama and Sita, Rama must have had to be the original feminist. He must have figured that his beloved Sita, for whom he looked for months and waged a war would be just fine on her own despite choosing to no longer be with her as Ayodhya’s queen. Isn’t needing a man in one’s life contrary to the basic feminist principles of female empowerment? If intentions on either side are not based on negative thoughts, what constitutes injustice in this sense? Yoga literature gives importance to the intention behind actions. Rama’s actions towards Sita seem unfair, but what was the intention behind these actions? Rama must have figured that Sita is not ordinary and would fulfill her dharma as a wife by agreeing to part ways. On the flip side, Sita is not seen to fight for her right to remain his wife and queen either. She seems to be aware of her female shakti and even her role as an incarnation of Laxmi.
Next week was upon us and class began as normal. Another student had a burning question, “what if Sita was not affected by Maya? What if Sita was fully aware, as a goddess, as a realized yogini would be about what needed to occur for things to turn out exactly as they did?” He meant to say that Rama might not have been aware that he was Vishnu’s avatar, or a deity having been immersed in the mayavi illusion, but Sita was fully aware of her existence and role she had to play in that particular birth in order to destroy most things Ravana embodied. He wondered how Sita, who readily gave up comforts of a palace was smitten by a golden deer, maybe she was or pretended to be and perhaps was the catalyst who put the Ramayana in play starting with sending Rama after the deer, and then defying the boundaries of Laxman rekha.
I mulled over the question. Why would Sita, supposedly learned, humble and smart do silly things which would endanger her life? This makes me wonder, what if Sita acted exactly according to her will, including allowing herself to get kidnapped so that the war could be waged?! This means Sita had a greater sense of awareness, at least compared to her husband, who did go chasing after poor Maricha as a blinged out deer.
Harmony, in this sense, is not about a Disney-film with the happily-ever-after ending but harmony and balance are depicted in Rama and Sita post-exile. Neither may have been happy with parting ways, however, neither Rama seeks out a replacement upon Sita’s kidnapping, nor remarrying after parting from her. Sita too never takes up other partners - though Ravana seems quite a charmer, nor does she seek revenge after parting from Rama. There is mutual acceptance of circumstances from both Rama and Sita. After fulfilling her dharma and role in the story, including giving birth to Rama’s twin boys, she ceases to exist in the avatar as per her will. Sita seems to fulfill her dharma and play her part in the story as someone not engulfed in Maya. Perhaps Rama does his part as someone who is engulfed in Maya, and is thereby mortal, i.e. far from being perfect. Somehow, from this angle each of them seems to believe in feminine shakti, engaging, and disengaging as need be, guiding life and samsara forth. The circumstances are rocky, but intentions are far from evil, and a new type of balance is restored after Rama and Sita part ways.
The student who posed the first question further asks,” what if Sita is Purusha, choosing when to and when not to engage with Prakriti, who is Rama? Since Sita is much more powerful and Rama has to be flexible, submissive in the give-and-take with his father and then his countrymen, couldn’t we say that Rama represents feminine principles of Prakriti?” Reversal of gender roles centuries ago? What an ‘epic’ concept! If Shiva can be Ardhanarishwar, why couldn’t Sita be Purusha and Rama the original feminist Prakriti in their respective avatars? Let us ponder this and continue to seek answers; therein lies the charm and beautiful diversity of this introspective tradition.
Take a deep breath in, and a long, slow exhale out.
Namaste.
Image Credit: Sanjay Patel
Comments