[Buddha-l] Another One Bites the Dust

[Jo]

Thanks. Ashok. for your text references and correcting my choice of terms. 
My comments by the way had nothing to do with "re-writing history" nor with
gaining tenure--LOL.
I'm a retired prof., not a wannabe. 

Caesar's wife was supposed to be above reproach, but Caesar certainly was
not. 

In this century, a woman cannot look on Rama's move as cause for admiration.
It converted a happy event--the rescue of his wife from Ravana---into
tragedy. 
Of course in the culture of that era, and even today in some locations, it
was inconceivable that a husband would support a wrongly judged wife by
resigning the throne and going back into exile with her. We all know very
well that ancient oral texts were variable--see for example the phenomenon
of many Ramayanas. 

Aside from all this, I was interested to point out the folklore motif
involved in the two instances.
That I used the wrong term, "cheater," in error does not otherwise call into
question the evidence of a tale motif.
Moreover, I did not speculate at length about the politics associated with
Cincamanavika, as another list member did.  That wasn't necessary. I stand
by what I said.

As for heroes, of late we have seen how the "mighty" have fallen. 

Regards,
JK  


-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Ashok Aklujkar
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:34 PM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Another One Bites the Dust


On 04/03/2013 and earlier Jo wrote: 
>> ... but "people gossiping" led Rama again 
> to put her [= Sita] aside as a cheater. 

According to the oldest available Ramayana, namely that of Vaalmiiki, "as a
cheater" is not a part of Raama's thinking; cf. Uttara-kaa.n.da (= 7th
book), sargas/chapters 42-44 of the critical edition. There is no expression
in these chapters that suggests that Raama was angry or felt 'let down'. On
the contrary, he is depicted as having eyes full of tears and caring only
for his effectiveness as a ruler. He also mentions that Lak.sma.na was a
witness to the earlier fire-test which Siitaa passed and which the gods like
Indra/Mahendra indicated to be adequate. 

'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion/reproach' is the principle behind
Raama's decision to abandon Siitaa according to Vaalmiiki and every other
Indian Raamaaya.na of which I am aware. 

Not directed individually at Joanna or anyone else who has participated in
this thread:
Modern academics, of course, have the freedom to be cynical, but even in
exercising that freedom they should check if there are textual indications
in support of their interpretation, if the discussion is to be really
academic. Otherwise, their statements will not be different from rewriting
the Raama/Siitaa story or the Cincaa-maa.navikaa story and arbitrarily
deciding that there can never be a noble side to human beings, especially to
traditionally respected heroes. 

Rewriting is not to be rejected entirely, but it should not be presented as
history or used as a basis for tenure at a university (except, maybe, in a
department of creative writing). 

a.a.