हृष्टाः खलु भविष्यन्ति रामस्य परमाः स्त्रियः।
अप्रहृष्टा भविष्यन्ति स्नुषास्ते भरतक्षये॥
hṛṣṭāḥ khalu bhaviṣyanti rāmasya paramāḥ striyaḥ
aprahṛṣṭā bhaviṣyanti snuṣās te bharata-kṣaye
hṛṣṭāḥ = be happy; khalu = certainly; bhaviṣyanti = will; rāmasya = Rāma’s; paramāḥ = exalted; striyaḥ = women; aprahṛṣṭāḥ = unhappy; bhaviṣyanti = will be; snuṣāḥ = daughters-in-law; te = and your; bharata-kṣaye = when Bharata is diminished.
Rāma’s exalted women will certainly be happy and your daughters-in-law will be unhappy when Bharata is diminished.
1 The actual lines quoted by the commentator is mātaraś caiva sarvā me kumārāḥ strī-gaṇāni ca / agrato bharataṁ kṛtvā gacchantv agre samādhinā, “May all of My mothers, sons and women go with rapt attention of mind, keeping Bharata in front of them.” Since these lines are not the actual reading utilized by the commentator in Canto 7, I have replaced them with the above which are in the text he has commented upon. These two lines appear separately in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute’s edition as alternative readings.
1 Literally, the commentator, taking the side of an opponent, states: “Moreover, there is also śrutārthāpatti evidence for the existence of Rāma’s possession of wedded wives.” Śrutārthāpatti literally refers to the presumption of a fact in order to explain another fact known through the authentic testimony of a trustworthy authority.
1 To conduct a yajña as a sponsor (yajamāna), a king had to have a patnī, which in this context technically refers to a wife who belongs to the same varṇa as his varṇa. For instance, a king may have a kṣatriya wife, a vaiśya wife and a śūdra wife; however, only his kṣatriya wife can participate in the rituals of the yajña along with him.
1 This foolish activity of Bhṛgu Muni will be described in Canto 7. Later he honestly repented for his grievous offense in attempting to curse the Supreme Personality of Godhead Nārāyaṇa Himself, the singular source of Vedic dharma. The Supreme Lord went through the motions of accepting this curse for His own purposes, as it will be clear from Canto 7.
1 With no consideration whatsoever of the type of wife He would have.
Though Rāma had only one queen, there is a reference here to “Rāma’s exalted women.” This expression refers to [Sītā’s] maidservants. [Mantharā alleged that] Kaikeyī’s daughters-in-law would be unhappy when Bharata was diminished, that is, became poverty stricken.
One might object, “Striyaḥ here means ‘wives’ because this word appears in the same place, that is, the current verse, where there is a reference to Kaikeyī’s daughters-in-law.
“Therefore, Sītā says in Canto 5 (Sundara-kāṇḍa):
pitur nirdeśaṁ niyamena kṛtvā
vanān nivṛttaś carita-vrataś ca
strībhis tu manye vipulekṣaṇābhiḥ
tvaṁ raṁsyase vīta-bhayaḥ kṛtārthaḥ
‘After carrying out the vow of living in the forest in full obedience to Your father’s order, You will return from the forests. I think You will enjoy the association of large-eyed women, with no more fear, having accomplished all of Your purposes.’ (Rāmāyaṇa 5.28.14)
“In Canto 6 (Yuddha-kāṇḍa), while describing Lord Rāma’s sleeping on darbha, His arm is described as bhujaiḥ parama-nārīṇām abhimṛṣṭam anekadhā, ‘cleansed in various ways by the hands of excellent women.’ (Rāmāyaṇa 6.21.3) This would have been possible only if those women were His wives.
“And the following appears in Canto 7 (Uttara-kāṇḍa) while introducing the Aśvamedha sacrifice:
bharatena tu sārdhaṁ te yāntu sainyāni cāgrataḥ...
...mama mātṝs tathā sarvāḥ kumārāntaḥ-purāṇi ca
“May the armies,... all of My mothers, sons and the women of the inner quarters go with Bharata, keeping Him in front of them.” (Rāmāyaṇa 7.91.24-25)1
“In this instance, unless one accepts the existence of Rāma’s wives other than Sītā, it would have been impossible for there to be “sons” and “women” [belonging to Rāmacandra].
“Moreover, that Rāma had lawful wives (patnī) other than Sītā-devī can be inferred from scriptural testimony.2 [This is because] it is not possible for one without a lawful wife to conduct a yajña.3
“Because He did not participate in any conjugal enjoyment with His lawful wives [other than Sītā-devī], Rāma was known to have only one wife and Bhṛgu’s curse [that He be separated from His wife Sītā] was maintained.4 Rāma had a [golden] form of Sītā-devī made because He had a lot of affection for her.”
In answer to this objection, it can be stated that it is well known that Rāma had taken up the vow to have only one wife.5 And His having a lawful wife other than Sītā-devī does not match up [with the scriptural evidence]. It is not required that He marry again in order to become eligible to perform the yajñas [as a sponsor], for He could do so with a [golden] form of Sītā-devī [for this purpose]. Therefore, Lord Rāma will state in Canto 7 (Uttara-kāṇḍa):
kāñcanīṁ mama patnīṁ ca dīkṣārhāṁ yajña-karmaṇi
agrato bharataḥ kṛtvā gacchatv agre mahā-matiḥ
“The greatly intelligent Bharata should go in front, keeping a golden form of My wife fit for initiation into the sacrifice procedures.” (Rāmāyaṇa 7.91.25)
Here it is clearly stated that Sītā’s deity form was fit for initiation into the sacrificial procedures and Lord Rāma also refers to her as His wife (patnī).
na sītāyāḥ parāṁ bhāryāṁ vavre sa raghu-nandanaḥ
yajñe yajñe ca patny-arthaṁ jānakī kāñcanī bhavat
1. The actual lines quoted by the commentator is mātaraś caiva sarvā me kumārāḥ strī-gaṇāni ca / agrato bharataṁ kṛtvā gacchantv agre samādhinā, “May all of My mothers, sons and women go with rapt attention of mind, keeping Bharata in front of them.” Since these lines are not the actual reading utilized by the commentator in Canto 7, I have replaced them with the above which are in the text he has commented upon. These two lines appear separately in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute’s edition as alternative readings.
2. Literally, the commentator, taking the side of an opponent, states: “Moreover, there is also śrutārthāpatti evidence for the existence of Rāma’s possession of wedded wives.” Śrutārthāpatti literally refers to the presumption of a fact in order to explain another fact known through the authentic testimony of a trustworthy authority.
3. To conduct a yajña as a sponsor (yajamāna), a king had to have a patnī, which in this context technically refers to a wife who belongs to the same varṇa as his varṇa. For instance, a king may have a kṣatriya wife, a vaiśya wife and a śūdra wife; however, only his kṣatriya wife can participate in the rituals of the yajña along with him.
4. This foolish activity of Bhṛgu Muni will be described in Canto 7. Later he honestly repented for his grievous offense in attempting to curse the Supreme Personality of Godhead Nārāyaṇa Himself, the singular source of Vedic dharma. The Supreme Lord went through the motions of accepting this curse for His own purposes, as it will be clear from Canto 7.
5. With no consideration whatsoever of the type of wife He would have.
“The beloved of the Raghus did not accept any wife other than Sītā. To preside over each sacrifice as the wife [of the sponsor], Jānakī was [brought] in the form of a golden [deity].” (Rāmāyaṇa 7.99.8)
[Mere] logic cannot prevail over scriptural statements. From the above-mentioned statement that does not contradict sense perception or the Śruti scriptures, it is inferred that for those whose wives are far away or who are unfavorable to their wives there is a prescription to perform Vedic rituals taught in the Śruti or Smṛti by using a replica form of that wife. The Smṛti contains such [provisions]. For instance, in Hemādri’s [digest of scriptural rules], there is this statement:
dūra-bhāryo ’nanukūla-bhāryaś ca darbha-piñjūlair bhāryā-pratinidhiṁ vidhāya pārvaṇaṁ kuryāt.
“If one’s wife is far away or if he is not favorable to his wife, he should make a form of his wife with grass and execute the oblations at new and full moon.”
The duties of the wife [of the sponsor] should be carried out by the Adhvaryu priest or the sponsor. It is just like [the situation where] the wife is incapable of attending the sacrifice; the fire sacrifice is not stopped.
The idea that Rāma had a [golden] form of Sītā-devī made because He had a lot of affection for her is worthless because having abandoned His wife, to love her so much [to the extent of creating a golden form of her to attend each sacrifice], will lead to Rāma becoming defective, [which is not a fact].
Therefore, text 7.91.24-25 meaning “May the armies... all of My mothers, sons and the women of the inner quarters go with Bharata, keeping Him in front of them” refers to Rāma’s mothers as well as the princes and wives of Bharata and others, and the other verses referred in this objection should be understood along the following lines: “Rāma’s exalted women” includes [Sītā-devī’s] maidservants. Sītā-devī’s statement that Rāma “will enjoy the association of large-eyed women” in text 5.28.14 simply posits the possibility of Him accepting other wives [and not that He actually had other wives]. The Canto 6 reference to Lord Rāma’s arm “cleansed in various ways by the hands of excellent women” is a statement of the poet Vālmīki and hence refers to His wives Śrī, Bhū and other Lakṣmīs.