तामपश्यत्ततो बालां रामपत्नीं यशस्विनीम्।
रोहिणीं शशिना हीनां ग्रहवद्भृशदारुणः॥
tām apaśyat tato bālāṁ rāma-patnīṁ yaśasvinīm
rohiṇīṁ śaśinā hīnāṁ grahavad bhṛśa-dāruṇaḥ
tām = that; apaśyat = saw; tataḥ = then; bālām = girl; rāma-patnīm = the wife of Śrī Rāma; yaśasvinīm = illustrious; rohiṇīm = the nakṣatra Rohiṇī; śaśinā = the moon; hīnām = without; grahavat = the way a cruel planet [sees]; bhṛśa-dāruṇaḥ = that very terrible [rākṣasa].
Then that very terrible [rākṣasa] saw that illustrious girl, the wife of Śrī Rāma, the way a cruel planet [sees] the nakṣatra Rohiṇī without the moon.
1 The texts referred to are from Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 6.3.
2 In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (4.8.53), Nārada Muni instructs Dhruva Mahārāja thus—japaś ca paramo guhyaḥ śrūyatāṁ me nṛpātmaja / yaṁ sapta-rātraṁ prapaṭhan pumān paśyati khecarān: “O son of the king, now I shall speak unto you the mantra which is to be chanted with this process of meditation. One who carefully chants this mantra for seven nights can see the perfect human beings flying in the sky.” This indicates that celestial beings can be seen by those who engage in certain standard procedures. The Vedānta-sūtra dṛśyate ca quoted above indicates that the presiding deities of inanimate objects can be seen by anyone with appropriate capabilities. In other words, the existence of superhuman demigods and demigoddesses are open to independent verification using certain standard procedures; they are not products of creative fiction.
3 Śrī Madhva’s Anuvyākhyāna 2.1.62-67: tathāpi mṛj-jalādīnāṁ buddhi-vāg-ādi-vācakaḥ / dṛṣṭa-vyāpti-viruddhatvāt tatra mānaṁ kathaṁ bhavet; tatas tan-nāmakaḥ kaścit pumān anyo bhaved iti / yukty-āgamāvirodhena prāptam atrābhidhīyate; bāla-rūḍhiṁ vinaivāpi vidvad-rūḍhi-samāśrayāt / tat-tan-nāmāna evaite tat-tad-vastv-abhimāninaḥ; santi teṣāṁ viśeṣeṇa śaktir anyebhya ucyate / vyāptiś coktānusāreṇa dṛśyante cādhikāribhiḥ; śāstrokta-vastunaś caiva vyutpattiḥ śāstra-liṅgataḥ / vyutpattiḥ sā balavatī mūrkha-vyutpattito hi yat; dṛḍha-yukti-virodhe tu sarvatra nyāya īdṛśaḥ. Śrī Jayatīrtha’s Nyāya-sudhā: ete pṛthivī-varuṇādayas tat-tan-nāmāna eva santi. tāni tāni mṛd-ādīni nāmāni vācakāni yeṣāṁ te tathoktāḥ. na tu tāni lakṣakāṇīty eva-śabdārthaḥ. santi bhavanti.
4 We come across such usage even in modern English. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy.
Cruel planet refers to Mars or Saturn. It is implied that Rāvaṇa’s sight of Sītā-devī, like a cruel planet’s sight of Rohiṇī, resulted in calamities for the world.
NOTE. The statement “Cruel planet refers to the Mars or Saturn” means “Cruel planet refers to the presiding deity of Mars or Saturn.”
Śrī Madhva deals with scriptural statements such as this in his commentary to Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6-7 which runs as follows:
mṛd abravīt āpo ’bruvan ity-ādi-vacanād yukti-viruddho veda ity ato ’bravīt
Anticipating the objection that the Veda contradicts rational thought because it contains statements such as [those that seem to mean] “The mud spoke” and “Water spoke,” the author [of the Vedānta-sūtra] says:
abhimāni-vyapadeśas tu viśeṣānugatibhyām
“The references to presiding deities [of material objects] are because of the special features and all-pervasiveness [of those deities].” (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6)
mṛd-ādy-abhimāni-devatā tatra vyapadiśyate. tāsāṁ cetarebhyo viśiṣṭaṁ sāmarthyam anugatiś ca sarvatra. atas tāsāṁ sarvam uktaṁ yujyate.
In those scriptural texts, the references are only to the presiding deities of mud, water and so on [and not to mud, water and such material substances].1 These [presiding deities] have special capabilities that set them apart from other conscious beings and they also pervade everything [within their respective domains in material existence]. Therefore everything stated about them is appropriate.
dṛśyate ca
“And [great souls] perceive [their capacities].” (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.7)
tāsāṁ sāmarthyaṁ mahadbhiḥ. bhaviṣyat-purāṇe ca: pṛthivy-ādy-abhimāninyo devatāḥ prathitaujasaḥ / acintyāḥ śaktayas tāsāṁ dṛśyante munibhiś ca tāḥ / tāś ca sarva-gatā nityaṁ vāsudevaika-saṁśrayāḥ iti.
Their capacities [are perceived] by great souls.2 It is also stated in Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa: “The presiding deities of earth and so on possess exalted prowess. Their inconceivable potencies are perceived by sages. They are all-pervading [within their respective domains in material existence], and are eternally and primarily dependent on Lord Vāsudeva.”
Śrī Madhva also notes in his Anuvyākhyāna commentary on the same two sūtras that words such as pṛthvī which literally means “earth” and varuṇa which literally means “ocean” primarily refer to their respective presiding deities when those words are used in the scriptures. Śrī Jayatīrtha specifies that those presiding deities are primarily and not secondarily referred to, whenever such words are used in the scriptures, by default.3
Readers of Śrī Rāmāyaṇa, a Vedic scripture, should therefore note that while the literal translation of a portion of its text might be, “the way a cruel planet [sees] the nakṣatra Rohiṇī without the moon,” it factually means, “the way the presiding deity of a cruel planet [sees] the presiding deity of the nakṣatra Rohiṇī without the presiding deity of the moon.” This is meant to be the default understanding of such statements.
This is the point: In our worldly transactions, by default, we take recourse to the secondary meaning of a statement when its primary meaning is inapplicable. A textbook example of this from Sanskrit literature is gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ which literally refers to a village in Gaṅgā—but that is impossible and hence contextually inappropriate—and so it actually refers to a village by Gaṅgā.4 The Vedic scriptures, however, employ a different method of communication: By default, statements of consciousness and action by inanimate objects refer to presiding deities of those inanimate objects—unless such references are contextually inappropriate.