rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 16:34:51 CDT 2012
On Thursday, July 12, 2012, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> [Was Re: [Advaita-l] mleccha-s not eligible to take Hinduism??]
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, rajaramvenk at gmail.com wrote:
> I don't have a copy of Ramayana handy at the moment but here is what the
> dhobhi said to his wife in Bhagavata 9.11.9 (and note he is directly
> comparing their relationship to Sita-Rama.)
> nAhaM bibharmi tvAM duSTAM asatIM paraveshmagAm |
> straiNo hi bibhR^iyAt sItAM rAmo nAhaM bhaje punaH ||
> If you want to translate paraveshagAm as something other than "consorting"
> thats fine. The point was about monogamy or the lack of it.
RV: As you know more than I do, we can't translate randomly. We have to see
what commentators such as Sridhara said. The three adjectives are used by
the dhobhi with respect to his wife. Of these, paraveshagam only means
going to another's house. It does not mean consorting literally or by
derivation because that is already indicated by asatIm (unchaste). The
dhobhi only compares his wife going to another's house with that of Sita's
abduction by Ravana. He does not express any suspicion about Sita's
character by this comparison. There I see a fine line of difference. It is
like kapyasam pundarikam highlights the similarity in the colour of Lord's
eyes and the monkey's back but does not give an inferior simile.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list