Page 15 - GALIET LOVE AND DUTY´S LOTUS: Rama and Sita IV

Galiet & Galiet
of cows, one thousand pots of wine and huge heaps of “mamsa” to eat” 25 in gratitude for their safe return. Second, as Philosopher King, Rama might have challenged his subjects’ beliefs in the Socratic26 style as to what constitute “objects of knowledge” and “objects of belief.”27 Similarly, he might have asked them to see with “the mind’s eye”28 or the “eye of the soul.”29 Alternatively, in order to preserve the social and moral order, King Rama could have sought the advice of priests or wise Brahmins or sought to elevate his eminence by educating his devout subjects on the skill of discernment by appealing to Sita’s defence argument.30 Third, to preserve his integrity and karma, he might have told Sita directly of his decision to exile her from the kingdom rather than delegating his task to Lakshmana. Whatever his motivation for concealing the truth from Sita, whether dharma, honour, self-possession, deep sorrow or fear of kama,31 it is the most reproachable of his actions for it is tainted with cowardice.32
Whether King Rama’s mind has been obscured by his duty to his honour or by his gloom, he could have at least tried to bring his citizens to pursue the path of highest truth and highest good by questioning the cruelty of abandoning one’s innocent wife and children to the mercy of the forest. But we are not perfect. We feel our hearts, nevertheless, clotted with anguish perhaps as painful and deep as King Dasaratha’s wound. King Dasaratha sacrifices Rama, his most beloved son 3⁄4 his everything 3⁄4 and hence, he sacrifices his life for he must honour his oath to Kaikeyi so as to maintain the socio-moral standards of his Kingdom in
25 Nagaiah, Samudralala. An Appreciation of Valmiki’s Ramayana. Tirupati: Nagaiah, 1981. 267-268.
26 This is said in a figurative sense. Though the Ramayana is earlier than Socrates, Plato’s theory of forms is reminiscent of early eastern Vedic thought and of Buddhist thought.
27 In Plato’s Republic, an object of knowledge is that which participates in its universal form, idea or essence “ness.” As such, objects of knowledge are
infallible, unchanging and eternal. Objects of belief or “doxa”, on the other hand, are always changing and highly misleading since they are perceived by the senses. Hence King Rama could have explained to his subjects that justice has to conform to the ideal standard or form of Justice (dharma) to maintain universal harmony (rta). It is true that “persuasion” is not part of this equation; however, King Rama could have shown to his subjects that their perception of the events was misleading without incurring moral relativism. Furthermore, in Plato’s Theaetetus (188c), it is not possible for a man to see something and yet see nothing. Hence, to judge something that is not (Sita’s pollution) is the equivalent of judging nothing at all. Plato. Complete Works. Republic. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing, 1997.
28 Plato. Republic. 479c. Plato. Complete Works. Republic. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing, 1997.
29 Plato. Republic. 533d. Plato. Complete Works. Republic. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing, 1997.
30 Sita advocates that there are events beyond one’s control for which one ought not to be blamed.
31 As a possibility, Rama may have felt that it is safer to avoid Sita’s love and beauty because they might mislead him towards the less desirable path of hedonism.
32 Perhaps Rama’s pride remembers, at that moment, Sita’s words when, in order to convince him of taking her to the forest, she taunts him that she had married, “not the best among men, but a cowardly woman dressed as a man.” (II-29-18,19,20,21) p. 266 of Dr. Nagaiah. Curiously, King Dasaratha does not tell his son of his banishment. Although he is present is the room, he learns it from Kaikeyi.
• 15•