But as far as I am concerned, I am fully aware that Shiva is eternally an
exemplarily renunciate ascetic, totally detached from all the grossness associated with
this world. I know that Shiva is eternal in the sense that he does not take a birth like
other creatures including me. I know he is irreproachable^2 : he has no Kaam (desires,
lust, passion) in him; he is not interested in enjoying the pleasures of the sense organs
or the sense objects of the world. (3)
[Note—^1 Parvati addresses this issue of Shiva burning Kaamdeo in Chaupai line nos.
6-8 that precede Doha no. 90 herein below.
(^2) This observation that Shiva is beyond reproach and is free from any taints is
significant in the context of what the sages have said and intended to mean. They
have said that Shiva has burnt Kaamdeo (refer: Doha no. 89)—that means he has a lot
of anger inside him and is short-tempered. Would he also not show this anger towards
Parvati for all the misdeeds she had committed in her previous life as Sati, or for
daring to propose marriage to him especially when he has already declared his
intention to discard her for life (refer: Chaupai line no. 2 that precedes Doha no. 57)
and she was fully aware of this determination of Shiva (refer: Chaupai line no. 3 that
precedes Doha no. 58)?
By burning Kaamdeo, Shiva gave a clear hint that he abhors love and passion. So
would he not pour his wrath on Parvati if she dares to show that she loves him and
wishes to marry him? Would Shiva not sternly punish Parvati for her stubborn
attitude like he has done with Kaamdeo by burning him when the latter had
obstinately acted in a manner that disturbed the Lord’s meditation?
So, Parvati addresses this issue by saying that Shiva is irreproachable; that he
cannot be accused of harbouring any kind of fault—whether it be lust and passion, or
anger and being short-tempered. It was Kaamdeo’s own fault that Shiva punished
him. After all, being the Lord God of creation, is it not one of the responsibilities of
Shiva to protect the norms of Dharma in this world? Kaamdeo had spread nuisance in
this world; the world had lost all sense of propriety and ethical behaviour under his
influence (refer: Ram Charit Manas, Baal Kand, from Chaupai line no. 6 that
precedes Doha no. 84—to Doha no. 85). So, should Shiva not punish the perpetrator
of this mischief? So what wrong did Shiva do by punishing Kaamdeo by burning him
to death? After all, the good and well-being of the world at large was a greater
priority for Shiva than overlooking the misdemeanours of one single individual who
was wreaking havoc by sparing his life.
As far as ‘lust and passion’ are concerned, everyone knows that Shiva remains
deeply submerged in meditation and its accompanying Samadhi (a trance-like state of
transcendental existence when the practitioner is totally oblivious of the surrounding
world)—a state of existence that necessitates complete self-restraint of all the sense
organs. This precludes indulgences in lust and passion.
And as for ‘anger’ etc., Parvati knew that Shiva was calm and patient as one can
ever be. Shiva had not shown any visible sign of anger towards Sati even though she
had done grave wrong to him—by disobeying him and showing lack of faith in his
advice. This will be amply evident when we read the sequence of events as narrated
in Ram Charit Manas, Baal Kand, (i) from Chaupai line no. 5 that precedes Doha no.
50—to Chaupai line no. 3 that precedes Doha no. 52; and (ii) from Doha no. 55—to
Doha no. 62.
In fact, Shiva was concerned that Parvati was suffering due to separation from
him and that she had done severe Tapa (penance) to atone for her past sins so that she
can be reunited with her beloved Lord once again (refer: Ram Charit Manas, Baal
Kand, from Chaupai line no. 7 that precedes Doha no. 75—to Chaupai line no. 2 that
precedes Doha no. 76).]