365bet娱乐

362
A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYA峁�
It is the public censure which creates in his mind an apprehension.
about the character of Sit膩. It is on account of public censure that
R膩ma expresses disparaging words about women. Lak峁�ma峁嘺 on the
other hand supports S墨t膩. He charges people with wickedness and
blames them for making situations against women (94.6). Otherwise
why should R膩ma later on admit before S墨t膩 that she is chaste and he
abandoned her only to convince the people (101.37; 102.37-38).
It should not be forgotten that the above mentioned human
weaknesses are not peculiar to women alone but are found with men
also.
Male-Excesses and Women's Lot-Man's polygamous habits show
that he is more unsteady in love. Further the special instances of not
only his infidelity but of his excesses over the fair sex can be mentioned
as follows. It has been already stated that R膩vana abducted S墨t膩
though she was the legitimate wife of Rama. King Kundalamandita
snatched away the wife of a Purohita and harassed him (26.12). King
Madhu kidnapped treacherously the wife of his vassal (105.94).
Brahmin Kay膩峁嘺 abducted the wife of another Brahmin, Atibh奴ti
(30.61). S膩hasagati wanted to estabiish sexual relations with
T膩r膩 (47.14-19), the wife of Sugr墨va and some Mlecchas
forcibly removed away a woman (30.118). These instances clearly
indicate how the male-class also fell victim to sexual urges. Further
in the cases which are mentioned above in connection with the infidelity
of women, the corresponding males also are responsible for the guilt.
In those cases there were both the unmarried and the married males
and as far as the married males are concerned they can be charged
with unfaithfulness to their own wives, Svayambhu forcibly raped a
virgin girl despite of her opposition (103.100). We find that the rulers,
on being refused by the parents of the girls, attacked them and after
defeating them married the girls. These cases are not of infidelity but
those of male-excesses from a certain point of view.
Divorce -Further we find that women are dishonoured, exiled or
divorced on mere suspicion. A帽jana was exiled by her mother-in-law
in absence of her husband. She did not find place even at the house of
her parents, because she was suspected to be infidel (17.7-20). A Va峁噄k
woman Mitramati was exiled by her father-in-law for the same reason.
In the above two cases their husbands were the cause of their pregnan-
cies, hence ultimately A帽jan膩 and Mitramati were united with their
husbands, but for the time being they had to suffer. S墨t膩 was exiled
by R膩ma on a mere doubt that she might not have remained chaste on
account of her long association with R膩vana. She was accepted