9058009444

253

THE V ALM na RAMAYANA AND ITS IMPACT ON PURANIC YERSIONS

• •

courting of Sltfi attributed to Ravana in canto 20 of the same Kanda is impossible. How can one court one’s daughter in the presence of one’s wife? A Jam version of Rśmśyana informs that Ravana wanted to defeat Rama and present his daughter to him. But that was not to be. There seems to be some substance in this theory about the parenthood of RSvana.

The Daśaratha JSlaka, in spite of its dependence of the R&mSyana in

respect of Rama story, States that Sita was Daśaratha’s daughter. As per

$

custom among Sakyas (which Gaulama Buddha proudly defends), Sita was married to Rama.

To me, the first theory viz. Sita was Janaka’s daughter appears to be morę probable.

DI. Was Kaikeyi a ViUain ?

No. She is morę sinned against than sinning. People blind with devotion to Rama unduly blamed her. A great saint like Ekanath used untranslatabie words about her.

The facts of the case about KaikeyTs insistence on Bharata’s coronation are as follows:

Daśaratha married twice but had no małe issue necessary for the continuation of the royal family of Iksvakus. He married a beautiful princess from Kekaya, (a land between the Bcas and the Sutlcj). The king of Kekaya gave his daughter on condition that her (KaikeyTs) son should ascend the throne of Ayodhya. Rama knew this contraclual obligalion. When Bharata came to Citrakuta to persuade Rama to return to Ayodhya, Rama tells him:

JCT ^TrT: ftrTT H ^fcl<    I

mmi    ii

(VR, 2.107.3)

Legally Bharata had a claim on the throne of Ayodhya. The queen -mother of Bharata was perfectly justified in taking a firm stand on this stipulation in the marriage contract.

VR states that Kaikeyi obtained another boon or promise from Daśaratha.

/

When in his fight with Sartibara Kaikeyi brought the chariol of the wounded king out of the battle-ground and nursed his wounds. Rama (in fact all the members of the family) knew ii and he mentions this to Bharata:

(VR, 2.107.4)

(see upto verse 7)