Rama - Positive and Negative

[kr subramanian]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear brothers,
WE are talking about RAMARAJYAM in the sense (as I understand) that this country shouldbe as ruled by Rama. But I have not come across any write up on Rama`s ruling after his pattabhishekam. I think more good is said about asura kings like Mahabali, Ravana etc Howthis prominence for ramarajyam came? Can anybody explain? eager toknow........

 

[samarapungavan]

Dear Shri Sangom,​

​

Please find my post below in response to your questions. ​

​

Rama’s pattabishekam is stalled because of Kaikeyi’s boons and Rama proceeds to Dandakaranyam along with Lakshmana and Sita. King Dasaratha passes away. Bharata along with Vasishta, the queens and other ministers meet Rama at Chitrakoota at Bharadwaja’s ashram. Bharata, Vasishta, Jaabali and others request Rama to get back to Ayodhya and accept the throne, but Rama wants to adhere to pitru vakya paripalanam and complete the 14 years of vanavasam. Later deep in the woods, he enters pampa saras and the kingdom of kishkinda(vanarajya populated by vanaras).He befriends Sugriva and promises to kill Vali after ascertaining Vali’s misdeeds.​

​

I have summarized my points below and also provided the appropriate sloka references after the set of statements.​

​

1. This earth with its mountains, woods, and forests, even along with the authority to condone or condemn the animals, birds, and humans on it belongs to Ikshvaku-s.(4-18-6)​

2. Bharatha offers the throne back to Rama. (2-105-4)​

3. Rama praises the greatness of Bharata and asks him to take care of the throne(king of human beings), while he will take care of the Vanarajyam.(2-107-17)​

4. Dharma sastras apply to Vanaras.(Vane Charathi ithi vanaraha). We find Vali performing Sandyavandanam and also Tara performing the vedic rite of Swastyayanam when Vali goes to fight Sugriva.(4-16-12,7-34-13,7-34-18)​

5. Vali misbehaved with his brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. The Dharmasastras ordain capital punishment for such a transgression.​

Ayodhya Kaandam
tuuShNiim te samupaasiinaa na kashcit kimcid abraviit |
bharataH tu suhR^in madhye raama vacanam abraviit || 2-105-3

Sitting in silence, no one uttered a word. Bharata, on his part, amidst his companions, addressed Rama as follows:

saantvitaa maamikaa maataa dattam raajyam idam mama |
tad dadaami tava eva aham bhunkShva raajyam akaNTakam || 2-105-4

"My mother has been consoled (by you) by giving this kingdom to me. I am giving back that kingdom to you. Enjoy it without hindrance!"

mahataa iva ambu vegena bhinnaH setur jala aagame |
duraavaaram tvad anyena raajya khaNDam idam mahat || 2-105-5

"As a dam breached by a great on-rush of water during a rainy season cannot be repaired so easily, this great continent cannot be defended by any one other than you."

​

tvam raajaa bharata bhava svayam naraaNaam |
vanyaanaam aham api raaja raaNmR^igaaNaam || 2-107-17


'Bharata, you become the king of humans, and I shall be the emperor of forest-beings.

​

​

​

​

Kishkindakandam – Rama addresses Vali​

​

​

​

ikSvaakuuNaam iyam bhuumiH sa shaila vana kaananaa |
mR^iga pakSi manuSyaaNaam nigraha anugraheSu api || 4-18-6​

"This earth with its mountains, woods, and forests, even along with the authority to condone or condemn the animals, birds, and humans on it belongs to Ikshvaku-s. [4-18-6]

taam paalayati dharmaatmaa bharataH satyavaan R^ijuH |
dharma kaama artha tattvaj~no nigraha anugrahe rataH || 4-18-7​

"He who is virtue-souled, truth-abiding, plain-speaking, and the knower of the import of probity, pleasures, and prosperity, and the one who is concerned in controlling or condoning his subjects, that Bharata is the ruler of earth. [4-18-7]

nayaH ca vinayaH ca ubhau yasmin satyam ca susthitam |
vikramaH ca yathaa dR^iSTaH sa raajaa desha kaalavit || 4-18-8

"In whom both scrupulousness and benignancy are there, truthfulness is firmed up, and valour as evinced by scriptures is evident, and he who is the knower of time and place is the king, namely Bharata. [4-18-8]

tasya dharma kR^ita aadeshaa vayam anye ca paarthivaH |
caraamo vasudhaam kR^itsnaam dharma sa.mtaanam icChavaH || 4-18-9

"Holding his virtuous decree desiring to keep up the continuum of righteousness, we and some other kings are wayfaring this earth in its entirety. [4-18-9]

The 'virtuous decree to keep up virtue' dharma kR^ita aadesha is not that of Bharata, but by the king raaaja dharma kR^ita aadesha. Bharata as younger brother cannot order his elder, and that too, a 'would-have-been-king,' but the throne demands it to be done by any subject, and now Bharata is in that throne. Actually Bharata did not give any explicit orders to Rama or others making them responsible for the upkeep of dharma, on his behalf.(Infact Bharata has offered the kingdom back to Rama) Rama himself orders Bharata as at:

tvam raajaa bharata bhava svayam naraaNaam |
vanyaanaam aham api raaja raaNmR^igaaNaam |
Ayodhya Kanda II, 2-107-17

'Bharata, you become the king of humans, and I shall be the king of forest-beings...' Thus, taking responsibility on his own shoulders, in his own duty as a Kshatriya to keep up dharma, Rama is trekking forests. Some 'other kings' roaming like this are not detailed.


tasmin nR^ipati shaarduula bharate dharma vatsale |
paalayati akhilaam pR^ithviim kaH caret dharma vipriyam || 4-18-10

"While that Bharata, the kingly-tiger and a patron of virtue, is ruling the earth in its entirety, who is there to conduct himself in an unacceptable way to morality on it? [4-18-10]



te vayam maarga vibhraSTam svadharme parame sthitaaH |
bharata aaj~naam puraskR^itya nigR^ihNiimo yathaa vidhi || 4-18-11

"Abiding in our own pre-eminent righteousness, and even abiding by the order of Bharata we punish him who deviated from the path of morality, according to custom. [4-18-11]
tvam tu sa.mkliSTa dharmaH ca karmaNaa ca vigarhitaH |
kaama ta.ntra pradhaanaH ca na sthito raaja var.htmani || 4-18-12


"As for you, you brought virtue to a state of decadence, rendered yourself reprovable by your own decadent behaviour, for carnality alone has become your primary doctrine, and thus you have not abided by the conduct meetly to a king. [4-18-12]

jyeSTho bhraataa pitaa caiva yaH ca vidyaam prayacChati |
trayaH te pitaro j~neyaa dharme ca pathi vartinaH || 4-18-13


"It is to be known by him who treads the way of righteousness that he has three fatherly personages, namely his own father, his elder brother, and the one who accords education to him. [4-18-13]

yaviiyaan aatmanaH putraH shiSyaH ca api guNoditaH |
putravat te trayaH ci.ntyaa dharmaH caiva atra kaaraNam || 4-18-14

"An younger brother, a son, and a disciple with good characteristics, these three are to be deemed as one's own sons, for such matters take base on rectitude alone. [4-18-14]

suukSmaH parama dur.hj~neyaH sataam dharmaH plava.mgama |
hR^idisthaH sarva bhuutaanaam aatmaa veda shubhaashubham || 4-18-15
"The probity practised by principled people is very subtle and highly imponderable, and the soul that abides in the hearts of all beings alone can differentiate between just and unjust. [4-18-15]



tat etat kaaraNam pashya yat artham tvam mayaa hataH |
bhraatur var.htasi bhaaryaayaam tyak{}tvaa dharmam sanaatanam || 4-18-18

"Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you… you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. [4-18-18]

tat etat kaaraNam pashya yat artham tvam mayaa hataH |
bhraatur var.htasi bhaaryaayaam tyak{}tvaa dharmam sanaatanam || 4-18-18

"Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you… you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. [4-18-18]

asya tvam dharamaaNasya sugriivasya mahaatmanaH |
rumaayaam vartase kaamaat snuSaayaam paapa karmakR^it || 4-18-19

"While the great-souled Sugreeva is still alive, you with your habit of sinful acts have lustily misbehaved with Sugreeva's wife Ruma, who should be counted as your daughter-in-law. [4-18-19]

Vali being a king, he committed incest transgressing tradition.

tad vyatiitasya te dharmaat kaama vR^ittasya vaanara |
bhraatR^i bhaaryaa abhimarshe asmin daNDo ayam pratipaaditaH || 4-18-20

"Thereby, oh, vanara, this punishment is imposed on you, for your dissolute sinning in abusing your brother's wife, thereby for your transgression of tradition and virtue. [4-18-20]

na hi loka viruddhasya loka vR^ittaat apeyuSaH |
daNDaat anyatra pashyaami nigraham hari yuuthapa || 4-18-21

"I foresee no other kind of control other than punishment to him who conducts himself contrary to the society and who is deviant of conventions. [4-18-21]

na ca te marSaye paapam kshtriyo aham kulodgataH |
aurasiim bhaginiim vaa api bhaaryaam vaa api anujasya yaH || 4-18-22
pracareta naraH kaamaat tasya daNDo vadhaH smR^itaH |

"As a Kshatriya emerged from a best dynasty I do not tolerate your wrongdoing, and the punishment to the one who lustfully indulges with his daughter, or with his sister, or with the wife of his younger brother is his elimination, as recalled from scriptures. [4-18-22, 23a]

Tara performs Swastyayanam (Kishkinda Kandam)


tataH svastyayanam kR^itvaa ma.ntravit vijaya eSiNii |
a.ntaHpuram saha striibhiH praviSTaa shoka mohitaa || 4-16-12

Then she who is a hymnodist that Tara has performed a hymnal bon voyage wishing triumph to Vali, and entered palace chambers along with other females, disoriented by her own sadness. [4-16-12]


The swastyayana is a Vedic formality performed by the mothers / wives of the combating gallants at the time of the departure of heros to battlefields, by placing red tilaka on forehead, aarati , with camphor burning, akshata , sprinkling grain on head, handing him his bow or sword, all with respective Vedic hymns. The weaponry of these heroes will be in the custody of their wives, for they have to worship the weaponry that brings victory to their husbands. Seetha also gives Rama his bow and sword in Aranya Kanda, on his departure to forests from Suteekshna's hermitage as at 3-8-18.




Ravana Seeing Vali perform Sandyopasanam.(Uttara Kanda)

Tatra hemagiriprakhyam tarunarkanibananam | 7-34-13
Raavano vaalinam drishtva sandhyopasanatatparam ||

Ravana saw Vali who resembled like a golden mountain and whose countenance shone like the newly risen sun, absorbed in performing his sandhyopasanam.

Ithyevam mathimasathaya Vaali mounamupasthitaha | 7-34-18
japann vai naigaman manthraansthathau parvatharadiva


Regards,
Making up his mind thus, Vali remained standing like the king of mountains, silently repeating vedic mantras.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,
Please find my post below in response to your questions. ​

Rama’s pattabishekam is stalled because of Kaikeyi’s boons

Dear Samarapungavan,

Regarding pattabhisheka, I had prepared a write-up already and am posting it below. It is fairly lengthy, like your posts. So, I will deal with the remaining points separately.

As some urgent repair works to our house have started, my replies may be delayed for a week or two pl.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This thread has the title “Rama – Positive and Negative”. The positive side of Rama has been what every one has been hearing for centuries. So, any write-up giving adulation of Rama will be superfluous, to say the truth. It is time that we look at Rama a little bit critically and see whether his characterization has been faultless in the adikaavya of Valmiki, the Valmiki Ramayana (VR) which was the seed from which so many regional versions, with slight variations, have sprung up.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let us consider the matter of the initial pattaabhisheka (PA) of Rama as the king of Kosala. Bharata had already left Ayodhya and gone to his maternal grandfather's kingdom for a while. Dasaratha then decided to crown Rama and called him to inform him of the decision. He tells Rama, among other things, that he has had some bad dreams and observed ill omens. He says thus:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]प्रायेण हि निमित्तानामीदृशानाम् समुद्धते ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]राजा हि मृत्युमाप्नोति घोरम् वापदमृच्छति ॥[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]तद्यावदेव मे चेतो न विमुञ्चति राघव ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]तावदेवाभिषिञ्चस्व चला हि प्राणिनाम् मति: ॥ अयो. का. ४-१९-२०[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]pRAyeNa hi nimittAnAm Idr^SAnAm samudbhave |[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]rAjA hi mRutyumApnoti ghoram v'ApadamR^cchati ||[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]tad yAvad eva me ceto na vimuhyati rAghava |[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]tAvad eva abhishi~jcasva calA hi pRANinAm matiH || Ayo. Ka. 4.19-20S[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Meaning[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Usually such omens (portents) indicate the impending death of a king or great misfortune to him. Oh, Rama! Hence, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]before my mind gets changed, get you anointed to the crown. Are not the minds of men unstable?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, Dasaratha is apprehensive of his mind changing and urges Rama to get crowned [/FONT][FONT=&quot]immediately[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Why should Dasaratha be afraid of a change of mind coming over him? Rama was the eldest of the four sons and hence the rightful heir to the throne. His coronation as king should, therefore, be the rightful decision according to Dharma. If so why should Dasaratha fear his own mind taking a different decision, which would be contrary to established Dharma? This can be understood only in the light of the bride-price he had promised to Kekaya king for getting Kaikeyi as his wife. But VR is silent about this at this stage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dasaratha continues:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]अद्य चन्द्रोभ्युपगतः पुष्यात्पूर्वम् पुनर्वसू ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]श्व पुष्ययोगम् नियतम् वक्ष्यन्ते दैवचिन्तकाः ॥[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ततः पुष्यॆऽभिषिञ्चस्व मनस्त्वरयतीव माम् ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]श्वस्ताहमभिषॆक्ष्यामि यौवराज्ये परंतप ॥ अयो. का. ४.२१-२२[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]adya candrobhyupagataH pushyAtpUrvam punarvasU |[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sva pushyayogam niyatam vakshyante daivacintakAH ||[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]tataH pushyEऽbhishi~jcasva manastvarayatIva mAm|[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SvastvAham abhishEkshyAmi yauvarAjye paramtapa || Ayo. Ka.4.21-22[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Today the moon is entering punarvasu, which comes before pushya. Astrologers inform that tomorrow it conjoining pushya is certain. Hence, get anointed for the crown on the day of Pushyami star. My mind is urging me, as it were, to expedite things. O, annihilator of the enemies! I shall anoint you as prince regent tomorrow.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the next two slokas Dasaratha advices Rama about fasting for the night and obstructions normally blocking such functions, thus: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]That is why, with self control, you along with your wife should observe fast for this night from now onwards, and sleep on a couch made of Kusha grass."

And,

“Generally, there are many obstacles for such type of functions. Hence, your friends should guard you vigilantly from all directions.”

He then reveals his mind a little more, to Rama.

[FONT=&quot]विप्रोषितश्च भरतो यावदेव पुराद् इतः ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]तावदेवाभिषेकस्ते प्रासकालो मतो मम ॥[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]कामम् खलु सताम् वृत्ते भ्राता ते भारत: स्थितः ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ज्येष्टानुवर्ती धर्मात्म सानुक्रोशो जितेन्द्रियः ॥[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]किम्तु चित्तम् मनुष्याणाम् अनित्यम् इति मे मतिः ।[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]सताम् च धर्मनित्यानाम् कृतशोभि च राघव ॥ अयो. का. ४. २५-२७[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]viproshitaSca bharato yAvadeva purAditaH |[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]tAvadEvAbhishekaste prAsakAlo mato mama ||[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]kAmam khalu satAm vRutte bhrAtA tE bharataH sthitaH |[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]jyeshTAnuvartI dharmAtmA sAnukroSo jitendriyaH ||[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]kim tu cittam manushyANAm anityam iti me matiH |[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]satAm ca dharmanityAnAm kR^tASobhi ca rAghava || Ayo. Ka. 4. 25-27[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is my opinion that your coronation should take place when Bharata is away from this city. Bharata, your brother, goes according to his eldest brother. He is righteous, compassionate and has the senses under control. He verily follows the path of good people. But it is my opinion that minds of men are inconstant. Oh, Rama! the ever righteous, endowed with goodness, are best presented with an accomplished fact.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How do we explain this odd behaviour of Dasaratha? He has four sons, Rama is the eldest, born of the first royal queen, Kausalya, and legal heir to the throne by law. Why should the king be so nervous about it and why should he do it secretively as if he was afraid of Bharata[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s presence during the coronation? In the normal course one would have expected Dasaratha to recall Bharata from Kekaya, and fix an auspicious date soon after his return, etc. Why all this inexplicable hurry?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]VR does not give any inkling. But later, in Ay. K., Sarga 99, Sloka 3, Rama reveals to Bharata the fact that Dasaratha had promised Kaikeyi[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s father (the king of Kekaya) at the time of marrying her that the kingdom would be given to Kaikeyi[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s son.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now we come to the main issue. VR is silent about this [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]rAjyaSulkam[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] promised by Dasaratha when he talks to Rama about coronation, but Rama, nevertheless is aware of it at Chitrakuta! How can we explain these? There are only two or three possibilities, according to me.[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]Rama, being an avataara of Vishnu the omniscient, has all along been aware of everything, including his father[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s promise. But he opts to keep quiet when he sees the kingdom coming his way and is not bothered about the trespassing of Dharma by his father (breaking a promise). this view will not at all find acceptance since Rama has been elevated to the divine, by now.
   [/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]Dasaratha must have revealed to Rama his pledge of bride price also while talking to Rama about the urgency for the crowning, but if the slokas remained in that place, readers would have immediately sensed Rama[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s desire for kingdom and said that Rama should not have accepted Dasaratha[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s offer of kingdom to him; he (Rama) should, instead, have talked Dasaratha out of the pattabhishekam idea, about Dharma being upheld, etc., and so the relevant slokas could have been removed from that stage of the story but the poor editors who were eager to turn an ordinary poem into a holy scripture, forgot its consequences and allowed the Chitrakuta revelation of Rama to Bharata to remain intact because, they found it exemplary of Rama[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s Dharma consciousness and greatness. A shoddy job on the part of the editors, probably![/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]The redactors who made the original Rama into an avataar invented this bride-price idea suddenly and put it in the mouth of Rama in the Chitrakuta scene so as to close the topic convincingly and to give a halo to Rama, but they forgot the palace scene referred to above and did not remove the slokas depicting dasaratha's fear of Bharata etc. Again a hasty and careless job of manipulating text to subserve some unstated motive![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is very peculiar behaviour for a king for whom everything is supposedly going so well. Why is he so urgent and so much in a hurry to crown Rama in Bharata's absence? It's very odd to leave Bharata out of such an important function. What, is there going to be no good moment in the future at all (astrologically that is) to crown Rama after Bharata's return? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The most disturbing part is when dasaratha says that Bharata is a righteous man and obedient of his elder brother and yet, he is convinced that even the best of men can change their minds on impulse. He feels that it is best to make the pattabhishekam an accomplished fact so that when Bharata returns, everything is already complete and done with. This extreme nervousness on Dasaratha's part, especially his anxiousness regarding Bharata, is odd, to say the least. At this time Kaikeyi has not even mentioned the boons, all is supposedly well in the royal household and yet Dasaratha is nervous. If everything is going well why such unfounded anxiety about Bharata?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The significance of the bride-price pledge given to Kaikeyi[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s father (and which is made to be revealed to Bharata and others by Rama, in Chitrkuta,) comes here. Dasaratha is so fond of Rama that he wants to crown him and that has the support of custom; but his promise of bride price kept haunting his conscience and hence all the apprehension about Bharata.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now we consider the Kaikeyi-asking-for-boon/s part. Why should Kaikeyi & Manthara have to go for boon/s when the former pledge alone would have been sufficient to get Bharata crowned?In fact the references to the boons are themselves not consistent. In Sarga 9 Manthara is seen reminding Kaikeyi about the boons since the latter had forgotten about them. But Ayodhya Kanda, Sarga 9, Sl. 22-23, (29 in some versions) shows Manthara telling, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]When the great king helps you up himself and offers you a boon, then you must ask him for this one, first making sure he swears to it: "Banish Rama to the forest for nine years and five, and make Bharata, the bull among kings, king of the land." She is talking of getting a boon, a new one, and not about old boons.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then in Sarga 10, Sl.21, (this appears at sarga 11, sl. 13 in some other versions, so you will have to search and find out) we find Kaikeyi saying, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let the three and thirty gods, with Indra at their head, hear how you, in due order, swear an oath and grant me a boon.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sl. 24 (26 in some version) says, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]this mighty king, who is true to his promise, who has great valour, who knows righteousness and who has good equanimity of mind, is giving boon to me. Let the celestials hear it for my sake.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Please note how Kaikeyi is talking about a boon just granted to her, in the present tense, and is not referring to boons given in the past. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is it not probable that the idea of the boons was introduced into the original adikaavya story, and all references to the brideprice pledge in that scene were removed, in order to absolve the new-look Dasaratha of deceit when he decided to crown Rama breaking his pledge of bride-price, and shift the entire blame to the Kaikeyi character instead? If the pledge is taken into account, Kaikeyi demanding the brideprice is not wrong on its own; Dasaratha had given his word and it was her right to claim the pledge. In later versions of Ramayana, the notion of Manthara being divinely manipulated (Saraswati making her say those words to Kaikeyi) has also been introduced so as to absolve Manthara also of guilt ! Was this boon story, therefore, an earlier attempt to do the same for Dasaratha and preserve his image as a very righteous king befitting the avatar Rama's paternity?[/FONT]

 

[Nara]

[FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This thread has the title “Rama – Positive and Negative”.

It is time that we look at Rama a little bit critically [/FONT]

Dear Shri sangom, I read your post with great interest. Your research is thorough, logic is unassailable, conclusions are irrefutable.

Thank you, Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Thank you, Shri Nara

 

[laxmikrsna]

From my childhood I was told stories of Rama as one who was truthful/honest who obeyed his parents. He was single wifed and gem of a character. He was ready to sacrifice anything for the welfare of the country and countrymen. He was a person to keep up his words etc etc.
Recently one of my Hindu friend ( as we had a discussion of Nalambalam visit -ie visiting temples of Rama Bharatha Lakshmana and Satrugna on the same day during this month was treated to be auscipious)He was of the opinion that
Rama was a indecisive person.
He was always carried away by the words of others.
For example - He was called by Guru to kill asuras and went with him. Later when Guru instructed he broke the Bow and married Sita.
He without expressing his opinion obeyed his father and went to Forest without thinking what will be the future of the country.
Your opinion ????
Eventhough he was knowing he asked Sita to go through fire just after war to confirm her purity.
ON the words of Hanuman he killed Bali
On the words of a washerman he discarded his wife and let her alone in a forest.

Like this he quoted many examples from Ramayana and wanted to establish his point.

Your friend must understand that in the time period that the story relates to, when the spoken word was regarded sacred. A king had an open life.
Unlike today where everything of the so-called representatives of the peoples' offices are deemed "privilege" and cannot be approached by ordinary people ...in that time any person could ask anything of the king.
The code of dharma was strictly followed. The dharma of the king was to protect...so Rama went to protect the sages at their request with that only he had the capability to face the evil powers. Besides, it was his duty. All the instances in Ramayana were widely debated in the story itself and every time the Sages had to intervene to say what the rule is.
Apart from all this, one must realise that there was a purpose for this avatar. The purpose was to return the path of righteous to earth. When Asuras and Asuric power was overbearing ,Ravana ..a powerful man but the embodiment of lust and all the other rakshashas were disturbing the way of dharma, the avatar had to come to defeat the evil...only possible if Rama went to the forest. As a king he had a duty to his people to prove that his wife was pure..he never doubted her a second otherwise he never would have gone in search of her.
Today can we question anything that our rulers do without fear of retribution ?
Against the spoken word in those days, today unfortunately even signed documents have no value...they can be forged and the duplicate can be claimed as the original. How many people have taken the oaths in our governments....do they really value the same ?
how many oaths do we take in our marriages ...who understands these let alone value them.
When things are not clear, let us try to take the positive lessons out of our epics. If they were only time-pass stories, they would have not stood the test of time over all these years.

Krishna

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Samarapungavan,


My comments on the next two points are given below pl.

I have summarized my points below and also provided the appropriate sloka references after the set of statements.

1.This earth with its mountains, woods, and forests, even along with the authority to condone or condemn the animals, birds, and humans on it belongs to Ikshvaku-s.(4-18-6)

These are Rama’s words to Vali and this particular sloka is in answer to Vali’s question about how Rama could kill him from hiding, in an adharmic manner and that too in his (Vali’s) own country. This is more a self-praise like “I am the monarch of all I survey”, than a statement of fact or of custom, generally accepted by people or endorsed by an impartial third party. These words could have carried some weight if Rama had uttered them after formally waging a war (for, may be no reason other than just extending his small Kosala kingdom which, all sources indicate, was no more than a small piece of land – a fraction of today’s Uttar Pradesh - on either side of the Sarayu river and nothing more) against Kishkindha, and after vanquishing Vali in a face-to-face, dharmic fight. As they stand in VR now, these words appear no better than the boast of a successful killer.

2. Bharatha offers the throne back to Rama. (2-105-4)

. Rama praises the greatness of Bharata and asks him to take care of the throne(king of human beings), while he will take care of the Vanarajyam.(2-107-17)

If one reads the whole sarga 107, one will find a subtle change in the tone of Rama’s address of Bharata as the sarga progresses. It is “O, My brother!”, "O, Tiger among men!”, "O, excellent among men!”, "O, Bharata!”, "My dear brother!”, etc., and then suddenly changes to "O, prince!”, "O, King!” and the relevant words (slokas) clearly give an inescapable impression that Rama is feeling his loss of the comforts of the palace and the position of the prince regent, vis-à-vis the windfall that has come the way of Bharata. That is why, as any normal human being with human weaknesses might have reacted, he makes unwarranted comparisons of Bharata’s good luck and his own bleak existence. I reproduce the relative slokas below:

ayodhyaam gaccha bharata prakR^itiir anuranjaya |
shatrughna sahito viira saha sarvair dvijaatibhiH || 2-107-15

"O, the valiant Bharata! Go to Ayodhya along with Shatrughna and all the Brahmanas and give joy to the people there."

pravekShye daNDaka araNyam aham apy avilambayan |
aabhyaam tu sahito raajan vaidehyaa lakShmaNena ca || 2-107-16

"O, King! I too, without delay, will proceed to Dandaka forest along with Seetha and Lakshaman."

tvam raajaa bhava bharata svayam naraaNaam |
vanyaanaam aham api raaja raaN mR^igaaNaam |
gacCa tvam pura varam adya samprahR^iShTaH |
samhR^iShTaH tu aham api daNDakaan pravekShye || 2-107-17

"O, Bharata! You become the Lord of men. I will become the emperor of the wild beasts of the forest! Return now to the excellent city of Ayodhya full of joy and I also full of joy will enter Dankada Forest!"

chhaayaam te dina kara bhaaH prabaadhamaanam |
varShatram bharata karotu muurdhni shiitaam |
eteShaam aham api kaanana drumaaNaam |
chaayaam taam atishayiniim sukham shrayiShye || 2-107-18

"O, Bharata! Let the (royal) white umbrella provide a cool shadow for your head, repulsing the rays of sunlight. I will take shelter comfortably under the abundant shadow of these forest-trees."

The statement, “you go and rule over the men, I will become the emperor of wild beasts…” as also the other comparisons (you go to ayodhya with Satrughna and the brahmanas and give joy to the people, {while} I will go to dandaka forest with Sita and Lakshmana {only}, you enjoy the cool shadow of the royal white umbrella while I will shelter under the trees) definitely indicate a tinge of disappointment and jealousy on the part of Rama. This seems characteristic of Rama (as depicted by Valmiki) just as he tries earlier to create pathos in front of Kausalya and says he would live off meat for 14 years and live the life of an ascetic eating only honey, fruits and milk only, and breaks his word on the very next opportunity by eating meat!
Even if one were to accept the contention that Rama was the emperor of the animals we have to know at least whether—
1.there was any emperor or at least any official of the Kosala kingdom doing this job at the time Rama took over as the Chief Conservator of Forests? And,
2.after Rama goes to Lanka for war / returns to Ayodhya, anyone else takes over charge from him?
I think, but I have not done a thorough reading, there is no indication in VR about such a system in existence in the kingdom of kosala. We should therefore have to conclude that the talk of “emperor of the animals” was just to compare Bharata's good fortune with his own misery, as stated above, and nothing more.

A majestic Rama should properly have been portrayed as advising Bharata to return to Ayodhya; at best he could have added in a dispassionate manner, that he would be proceeding to dandaka, just as a matter of information to his brother. The following sloka made up by me from the existing ones would have given the requisite majesty to Rama's character: The rest of the slokas 15-18 should not have been there.

ayodhyaam gaccha bharata prakR^itiir anuranjaya |
pravekShye daNDaka araNyam aham apy avilambayan ||

The fact that all these slokas still find a place in VR indicate, IMO, that Valmiki most probably had depicted Rama as a normal human being but in the midst of all the efforts to make him an avataar, many such finer points were overlooked by the later re-writers: or, it may be that the old version was very familiar to the people and so these verses found their way in the rewritten version also just because this was orally transmitted for a long time before being written down.

 

[sangom]

Continued from Post #57 above pl.

Here it is relevant to note what Valmiki himself says about the episode (Sugriva sakhyam) in KiSkindha Kanda.

rAjasUya aSvamedhaiH ca vahniH yena abhitarpitaH |
dakSiNAH ca tathA ut.hsR^iSTA gAvaH Sata sahasraSaH || 4-5-4
tapasA satya vAkyena vasudhA yena pAlitA |
strii hetoH tasya putro.ayam rAmaH araNayam samAgataH || 4-5-5

"By whom the ritual fire is well worshipped in Vedic rituals like rAjasUya, aSvametha, and thus cows in hundreds and thousands are donated in those rituals, by whom this earth is ruled devoutly and truthful to his word, such Dasharatha’s son is this Rama, who has to come to forests owing to a woman... [4-5-4, 5]

tasyAsya vasato∫raNye niyatasya mahAtmanaH |
rAvaNena hR^itA bhAryA sa tvAm SaraNam AgataH || 4-5-6

"Ravana stole the wife of this principled one and great soul Rama when dwelling in forests, such as he is, he came seeking your refuge... [4-5-6]
Here Hanuman is telling Sugriva that Rama has come seeking the refuge (SaraNam AgataH) of Sugriva. This once again confirms the conclusion that Sugriva (whose royal title was doubtful at that point of time)was an independent person, not a subject of the Kosala king and was under no obligation to the latter. Therefore, the words uttered by Rama cannot, by any stretch of commonsense, be taken to really mean that the Ikshvakus had rulership over Kishkindha, let alone the entire world, of which he merely boasts. (...to be continued)

 

[samarapungavan]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Read your responses.It's upto you to accept Pramanaas(slokas) from VR. The sovereignity of Ikshvaku is mentioned in other puranas like the Mahabharata and bhagawatam as well.

Thanks & Regards,

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Read your responses.It's upto you to accept Pramanaas(slokas) from VR. The sovereignity of Ikshvaku is mentioned in other puranas like the Mahabharata and bhagawatam as well.

Dear Shri sangom, you ended your last post with (... to be continued). Even though Shri. samarapungavan has signed off, I request you to continue as promised -- I am sure it will be interesting for many like me.

Thank you ...

 

[anandb]

Continued from Post #57 above pl.

Here it is relevant to note what Valmiki himself says about the episode (Sugriva sakhyam) in KiSkindha Kanda.

rAjasUya aSvamedhaiH ca vahniH yena abhitarpitaH |
dakSiNAH ca tathA ut.hsR^iSTA gAvaH Sata sahasraSaH || 4-5-4
tapasA satya vAkyena vasudhA yena pAlitA |
strii hetoH tasya putro.ayam rAmaH araNayam samAgataH || 4-5-5

"By whom the ritual fire is well worshipped in Vedic rituals like rAjasUya, aSvametha, and thus cows in hundreds and thousands are donated in those rituals, by whom this earth is ruled devoutly and truthful to his word, such Dasharatha’s son is this Rama, who has to come to forests owing to a woman... [4-5-4, 5]

tasyAsya vasato∫raNye niyatasya mahAtmanaH |
rAvaNena hR^itA bhAryA sa tvAm SaraNam AgataH || 4-5-6

"Ravana stole the wife of this principled one and great soul Rama when dwelling in forests, such as he is, he came seeking your refuge... [4-5-6]
Here Hanuman is telling Sugriva that Rama has come seeking the refuge (SaraNam AgataH) of Sugriva. This once again confirms the conclusion that Sugriva (whose royal title was doubtful at that point of time)was an independent person, not a subject of the Kosala king and was under no obligation to the latter. Therefore, the words uttered by Rama cannot, by any stretch of commonsense, be taken to really mean that the Ikshvakus had rulership over Kishkindha, let alone the entire world, of which he merely boasts. (...to be continued)

Shri. Sangom,

A masterly analysis, no doubt. My knowledge of Ramayana is pretty rudimentary so I read your analysis with great interest. As Shri. Nara mentioned, your piece has been constructed quite logically and carefully. My knowledge base is zero to try and refute those arguments so I will not even attempt that. What I find difficult to contend with is your opinion that it was probably a mere long poem exalted to a cult like status for its protagonists. In fact the epics we have grown up with comes with all types of characters in all shades of black, white and gray. I don't think anything was hidden or highlighted to make any of the characters look perfect including the avatars of Rama and Krishna and there lies the beauty of these epics. So even if Rama and Krishna were avatars of Vishnu, born as human beings they were susceptible to those limitations.

And of course nothing of this, including your arguments, can be proved because they happened such a long time back. This is also true in the case of the life of Christ or Prophet. Record keeping was not perfect and actually there is nothing called as perfect record keeping because even in these high tech days records including audio, video and written can be doctored.

That leaves us with the fact of how these epics have come to be passed on to so many generations with many versions and regional variations. In spite of the variations, the spirit in which it is understood has remained the same. Rama has inspired countless number of saints over the generations singing praises about him and millions of bhaktas over countless centuries. Would an ordinary poem inspire such thoughts over generations? I personally doubt the "ordinariness" part.

BTW, your analysis can become a part of a dissertation topic or an intellectual discussion.

 

[sangom]

Shri. Sangom,

A masterly analysis, no doubt. My knowledge of Ramayana is pretty rudimentary so I read your analysis with great interest. As Shri. Nara mentioned, your piece has been constructed quite logically and carefully. My knowledge base is zero to try and refute those arguments so I will not even attempt that. What I find difficult to contend with is your opinion that it was probably a mere long poem exalted to a cult like status for its protagonists. In fact the epics we have grown up with comes with all types of characters in all shades of black, white and gray. I don't think anything was hidden or highlighted to make any of the characters look perfect including the avatars of Rama and Krishna and there lies the beauty of these epics. So even if Rama and Krishna were avatars of Vishnu, born as human beings they were susceptible to those limitations.

And of course nothing of this, including your arguments, can be proved because they happened such a long time back. This is also true in the case of the life of Christ or Prophet. Record keeping was not perfect and actually there is nothing called as perfect record keeping because even in these high tech days records including audio, video and written can be doctored.

That leaves us with the fact of how these epics have come to be passed on to so many generations with many versions and regional variations. In spite of the variations, the spirit in which it is understood has remained the same. Rama has inspired countless number of saints over the generations singing praises about him and millions of bhaktas over countless centuries. Would an ordinary poem inspire such thoughts over generations? I personally doubt the "ordinariness" part.

BTW, your analysis can become a part of a dissertation topic or an intellectual discussion.

Dear Anand,

Thank you for your compliments. As regards the question whether Valmiki Ramayana (VR) was a mundane epic saga which was tailored subsequently to make it a divine scripture, it is the general consensus of the scholars, and not my invention at all. In the website dedicated solely to VR [www.valmikiramayan.net] maintained by two well-known scholars, they observe as under:
"While stabilizing the original text of Ramayana, historians surmised that portions of two Books [Kaandas], namely Book I, Bala Kaanda and Book VII, Uttara Ramayana (not listed above) are later additions - "The first and the last Books of the Ramayana are later additions. The bulk, consisting of Books II--VI, represents Rama as an ideal hero. In Books I and VII, however Rama is made an avatara or incarnation of Vishnu, and the epic poem is transformed into a Vaishnava text. The reference to the Greeks, Parthians, and Sakas show that these Books cannot be earlier than the second century B.C......"[ The cultural Heritage of India, Vol. IV, The Religions, The Ramakrishna Mission, Institute of Culture ].
However Book I, Balakanda is considered to be an original version except for some injected stories. Story starts from the fifth chapter of Book I, and tradition demands it to be read with the others. This stipulation is not obligatory to Uttara Kaanda, a later kaanda, wherein Sita's expulsion to forest takes place. Theologists worship Sri Rama as a God incarnate, philosophers make him the philosophical Absolute, while at the same time, materialists, condemning the above, appreciate the lyrical values of Ramayana, but as a great devotee-singer said "Whoever calls you in whatever way, you are that One"."

You will thus find that while these scholars exclude some 4 chapters of Baalakaanda, others opine that the entire Baalakaanda is a later addition, because, it seems, there are some versions of the Ramayana in some parts of the country which include the required background in the beginning of Ayodhya Kaanda. (You may be aware that the many versions were studied and a critical edition has been finalized which the scholarly community accepts as the one nearest to what the original composition of VR would have been. This what they refer to as "stabilizing" in the above remarks.)

I was always unconvinced about many of the acts of both Rama and Krishna as not befitting someone whom we look to as equal to God and eulogize (in their sahasranaamams, ashtoththarams, etc.,) with adjectives equating them with the highest God. So, after my retirement I slowly started reading and have now come to the conclusion that anyone who studies with an impartial mind, religion, will find it in the end more the work of interested humans and not much of the divine. Naturally one will find many such illogical items in both Mahabharata, Ramayana, and other Puranas.

There is a couplet in Malayalam by one of its most unassuming poets who made poems mainly for children. His name was Kunjunni Mash (short for Master):
வெளிச்சம் துக்கமாணுண்ணீ தமஸ்ஸல்லோ ஸுகப்ரதம் (Oh child ! Light is a sorrow; it is darkness which is comfortable). This is another way of saying "ignorance is bliss".

 

[anandb]

Shri. Sangom,

This is not just for the epics. These controversies exist for almost any text irrespective of religion. The point is there is so much of literature that abounds but why only certain texts like the epics evoke the feeling of divinity. As I said anything can be said and refuted. It is no big deal at all. I will rather remain ignorant in bliss as divinity in something I believe is definitely big deal for me.

 

[kunjuppu]

.... I will rather remain ignorant in bliss as divinity in something I believe is definitely big deal for me.

anand,

maybe you will be surprised to hear this from me, but i agree with you 100%. when it comes to faith, i find it best, to accept the mysteries of the faith, and not to worry about logic or reasoning to understand everything and disect it.

if we do that, then it would not be 'faith'. would it?

 

[Nara]

.. As I said anything can be said and refuted. It is no big deal at all. I will rather remain ignorant in bliss as divinity in something I believe is definitely big deal for me.

Dear Anand, I am sure you will agree with me that Shri sangom's thorough presentation is well within the scope of this thread with the title "Rama - Positive and Negative", i.e. deliberate and gratuitous putting down of Rama is not the intent. I understand and respect your wish to overlook or even choose to remain ignorant of some anomalies. At the same time, I am also sure that you will not stand in the way others who may want to know more, like I do.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Shri. Sangom,

...The point is there is so much of literature that abounds but why only certain texts like the epics evoke the feeling of divinity.

Dear Anand,

I feel any text, particularly one in sanskrit, having description of some characters, can, with the requisite amount of revision, interpolation, alteration, etc., could have been made into an epic. Ramayana was one of the earliest successful attempts. Mahabharata could not be so used because it had become a gargantuan text with a war and end of lives, plus there were five equal characters of whom to project one was a little difficult. Still Arjuna and Krishna have been underlined, so to say, there in the Mahabharata, (and krishna was given the necessary halo through his Gita). Of these, Krishna was selected (probably to give a Yadava avataara, instead of Arjuna, which would have meant yet another Kshatriya after Parasurama and Srirama) and, to impress the people who were more into the pleasures of the world, a separate new text Bhagavata was written/composed. Still later, some sections of society wanted the man-woman relationship to have more emphasis (probably as an antidote to the growing attraction of the Tantrik system with its Panchamakara) and the Brahmavaivartha purana (BVP) which gives birth to a completely new Goddess, Raadhaa, was composed; the wedded wife Rukmini (and Satyabhama) of the Mahabharata was given a clean go-by. The BVP itself, though one of the Puranas, did not come much into limelight because it had an overdose of eroticism which perhaps the society did not relish in subsequent periods and so it continues merely to justfy the origin of Raadhaa. Still, the equally erotic "Gita Govinda" is very popular just as Raadhaa kalyaanams based on singing the Gita Govinda are. (Rukmini kalyaaams are not that popular.) To get away from the stigma of over-eroticism, commentators talked about divine love, and not sexual love which was depicted in raasaleela, Gita Govinda, etc. But if one reads BVP, one would know exactly what was the role of Radha and Krishna. Since it was extremely difficult to justify the BVP episodes as depicting divine love, that text was discarded and archived, especially since Chaitanya had very successfully promoted Raadhaa-Krishna cult even otherwise.

Today perhaps it is little more difficult to rewrite Sanskrit texts to create new avataaras or gods. But living gods can be created with equal or more ease. From that point of view, the ancients seem to have been more difficult to be convinced and so less gullible, perhaps.

Lastly, we have some historically recent gods / goddesses emerging from literary texts. "Kannakiyamman" is one. But the text has not become a scripture, I don't know why? In tune with current demands, a Kannakiyamman in a temple in TVM city has now become rajarajeswari; this is a metamorphosis within the last 50 years. But still some aspects of Kannaki story find a place in the the annual festival celebrations of that temple.

 

[anandb]

anand,

maybe you will be surprised to hear this from me, but i agree with you 100%. when it comes to faith, i find it best, to accept the mysteries of the faith, and not to worry about logic or reasoning to understand everything and disect it.

if we do that, then it would not be 'faith'. would it?

Shri. Kunjippu,

Thanks. Unexpected support indeed.

 

[anandb]

Dear Anand, I am sure you will agree with me that Shri sangom's thorough presentation is well within the scope of this thread with the title "Rama - Positive and Negative", i.e. deliberate and gratuitous putting down of Rama is not the intent. I understand and respect your wish to overlook or even choose to remain ignorant of some anomalies. At the same time, I am also sure that you will not stand in the way others who may want to know more, like I do.

Cheers!

Shri. Nara,

I am standing in nobody's way to post anything. I just replied to Shri. Sangom's post. I also understand that putting down Shri. Rama is not the intent. I don't have problems with someone who can say that Shri. Rama was even less human than you and me. After all it is their POV even if based on facts. I am pretty confident about myself and my EQ on these issues so it does not affect me. I rest my case on this though I will continue reading with interest Shri. Sangom's posts on this thread.

 

[anandb]

Dear Anand,

I feel any text, particularly one in sanskrit, having description of some characters, can, with the requisite amount of revision, interpolation, alteration, etc., could have been made into an epic. Ramayana was one of the earliest successful attempts. Mahabharata could not be so used because it had become a gargantuan text with a war and end of lives, plus there were five equal characters of whom to project one was a little difficult. Still Arjuna and Krishna have been underlined, so to say, there in the Mahabharata, (and krishna was given the necessary halo through his Gita). Of these, Krishna was selected (probably to give a Yadava avataara, instead of Arjuna, which would have meant yet another Kshatriya after Parasurama and Srirama) and, to impress the people who were more into the pleasures of the world, a separate new text Bhagavata was written/composed. Still later, some sections of society wanted the man-woman relationship to have more emphasis (probably as an antidote to the growing attraction of the Tantrik system with its Panchamakara) and the Brahmavaivartha purana (BVP) which gives birth to a completely new Goddess, Raadhaa, was composed; the wedded wife Rukmini (and Satyabhama) of the Mahabharata was given a clean go-by. The BVP itself, though one of the Puranas, did not come much into limelight because it had an overdose of eroticism which perhaps the society did not relish in subsequent periods and so it continues merely to justfy the origin of Raadhaa. Still, the equally erotic "Gita Govinda" is very popular just as Raadhaa kalyaanams based on singing the Gita Govinda are. (Rukmini kalyaaams are not that popular.) To get away from the stigma of over-eroticism, commentators talked about divine love, and not sexual love which was depicted in raasaleela, Gita Govinda, etc. But if one reads BVP, one would know exactly what was the role of Radha and Krishna. Since it was extremely difficult to justify the BVP episodes as depicting divine love, that text was discarded and archived, especially since Chaitanya had very successfully promoted Raadhaa-Krishna cult even otherwise.

Today perhaps it is little more difficult to rewrite Sanskrit texts to create new avataaras or gods. But living gods can be created with equal or more ease. From that point of view, the ancients seem to have been more difficult to be convinced and so less gullible, perhaps.

Lastly, we have some historically recent gods / goddesses emerging from literary texts. "Kannakiyamman" is one. But the text has not become a scripture, I don't know why? In tune with current demands, a Kannakiyamman in a temple in TVM city has now become rajarajeswari; this is a metamorphosis within the last 50 years. But still some aspects of Kannaki story find a place in the the annual festival celebrations of that temple.

Shri. Sangom,

Our POVs on this issue don't and will never match and so is a dead-end as far as I am concerned. But, sir, continue posting and I will keep reading though I will not reply.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Anand,

I admire your tolerance. To be frank, I also do not have any agenda to dissuade people from worshipping
Rama or Krishna or any other deity, for that matter, because it is a matter of faith. My attempt is to trace how an ordinary literary work depicting events in the life of a prince (real or fictional, we don't know), was taken up, and transformed into an epic of divine proportions. IMHO, this may be true of all, if not most, of the world religions. Usually, I discuss these matters only with like-minded people, but when Shri K.R. Subramanian started this thread with the title "Rama, Positive and Negative" I thought I can share my thoughts with others who may lend their eyes to read! Anyway, other than the usual few points like the Sambuka episode, Vaali vadham, Sita's agni-pareekasha, sending Seetha to the forest (which, incidentally, does not appear in the critical edition since it ends with Yuddha Kaanda), etc., there is no criticism but only how the character of Rama has been elevated to that of an avataara.

 

[Nara]

...I am standing in nobody's way to post anything. I just replied to Shri. Sangom's post.

Yes, I should have said "I am sure you won't mind" which is what I was thinking, but wrote what I wrote. I am sorry.

Cheers Anand

 

[sangom]

The encounter with Kabandha

Dear Shri Nara, Anand,

Shri Samarapungavan, as you say, seems to have signed off. Since you wanted that I don’t stop, I am giving below some of my further observations.

The topic of "Vaali vadham" remained unreplied. I recapitulate the points which I made in post # 40, which are relevant to this issue.

3. What was the geographical extent of Kosala / Ayodhya? Did it cover Kishkindha?

4. Where, according to you, was Kishkindha situated? Was the Rishyamuka mounatin a part of Kishkindha? Do you agree that the present day Vijayanagara, more particularly the place Anegundi, near Hampi in koppal district, North Karnataka, is indicative of Kishkindha?

5. Who was the king of Ayodhya at the time of Vali vadha - Rama or Bharata? If you say Rama, pl. explain the basis? If he was king, what was the need for a second Pattabhishekam after his return from Lanka? Without being crowned, can any one be an acceptable king to the people, unless he is a conqueror?

These questions remain unanswered. I shall deal with them in due course.

6. In what way was Rama empowered to dispense the "law of the land" in Kishkindha? Which law did he dispense - Ayodhya's or Kishkindha's? In both cases what authority did Rama have to do so?

In reply to this Samarapungavan made the points that 1) as the Ikshvaaku king, Rama was empowered to enforce Dharma throughout the world and punish transgressors, and, 2) Vaali had transgressed Dharma by not letting Ruma to go with Sugriva when he was driven out of the kingdom by Vaali, he must have had carnal relations with her and has committed incest, thereby.

I have already dealt with the first of these and have shown that it was only Rama’s own boast about himself, after killing Vaali and while answering his charges against unjustly killing him from hiding.

Now let us retrace our steps a little, figuratively, and go to the scene of Kabandha’s liberation (from curse by Ashtaavakra and subsequent punishment by Indra). Kabandha, the headless torso with extremely long arms, a mouth in the stomach and one eye in the chest, grabs Rama-Lakshmana (R-L) duo, one in each of its arms and is about to eat them. At this point VR describes Rama’s and Lakshmana’s reaction to the situation in some detail. Initially when Kabandha grabs both of them (and they are unable to free themselves from the demonic grip of Kabandha) and says they are about to satisfy his hunger, Lakshmana is very much anguished and dejected, as he had been sheltered (by Rama) from boyhood. Rama also, who was somewhat unaffected in the beginning, loses his courage and says to Lakshmana, with a wilted face, thus:

kR^icChraat kR^icChrataram praapya daaruNam satya vikrama || 3-69-47-b
vyasanam jiivita antaaya praaptam apraapya taam priyaam | 3-69-48-a

"Oh, truly valiant Lakshmana, now coming to pass is a worst catastrophe, after a worse catastrophe, after a catastrophe...namely, the expiration at the hands of this demon presently, and the expropriation of Seetha previously, and the expulsion from kingship, still previously... nonetheless, without coming across that ladylove, this disastrous despair of ending our lives is coming about... 3-69-47b, 48a”

na hi bhaaro asti daivasya sarva bhuteSu lakSmaNa || 3-69-49
shuuraaH ca balava.ntaH ca kR^ita astraaH ca raNa aajire |
kaala abhipannaaH siidanti yathaa vaaluka setavaH || 3-69-50

Oh, Lakshmana, to show its impact on each and every being God is unencumbered and unremitting... may he be a brave one or a brawny one... or, may they be those that have perfected their archery... when Time draws near, they collapse... as with a sandy levee... [3-69-49b, 50]

The words of Rama are those of any ordinary human being when faced with an impending disaster or death. Rama appears to the reader as just another man in this scene.

Kabandha desires to be incinerated (alive) so that he will regain his original Gandharva form and says:

aham hi mati saacivyam kariSyaami nara R^iSabha || 3-71-19
mitram caiva upadekSyaami yuvaabhyaam sa.mskR^ito agninaa | 3-71-20-a

"Oh, most excellent man Rama, if I were to be incinerated by you two in fire, I will advise you about the next course of your action and about your prospective friend..." [3-71-19b, 20a]

Rama & Lakshmana do as requested by Kabandha and, upon his body being lit up by fire, he gets his lustrous Gandharva form. “Seated in a dazzling celestial aircraft yoked with swans, which endows renown because it takes the occupants to the realms of Brahma, and sitting in that celestial aircraft he (Kabandha) said this sentence to Rama, while his own great glimmer and glitter beamed forth in all ten quarters. [3-72-6, 7]”:-

[FONT=&quot]"Oh, Raghava, hear, in short, from me how you will regain Seetha... oh, Rama, everything will be analysed by principles (tatva), six such yuktis are available in this world... and when a person is touched down by a spell of nemesis, he shall adore (another) one who is equally in such spell of nemesis... [3-72-7b, 8] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, Rama, you along with Lakshmana went into a spell of nemesis, and thus you have become an underprivileged one, and that spell alone has landed you these dire straits, in the form of abducting your wife... [3-72-9] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Oh, Rama, listen to what I tell... a vanara is there by name Sugreeva, who is vengefully reneged by his brother Vali, the son of Indra... [3-72-11] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That self-respectful valiant Sugreeva is living on the Mt. Rishyamuka, a best mountain available in the lambent fringes of the Pampa Lake, along with four other vanara-s. [3-72-12] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He, that Sugreeva, is a masterful one among vanara-s, highly mettlesome, self-resplendent, and illimitable is his self-radiance... and he is also truth-bound and culture-bound... a mastermind, master-hand and a taskmaster... [3-72-13] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He is a capable adventurer, a courageous exploiter and incomparable one in intrepidity and a brave one in incursions, and his personality will be coruscating ever and anon, for he is the son of Sun-god... but he has been banished by his self-conceited brother owing to the reasons of kingdom... [3-72-14] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, Rama, he will be your associate and an aid in searching for Seetha, and he conducts himself in your wellbeing, hence let not your heart yield to agony... [3-72-15] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, tigerly Ikshvaaku, further nothing can be countermanded in this world which is indeed ineluctable, and it is impossible to countervail against Time, isn't it... [3-72-16] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, bold one, you go straight from here to that great mighty Sugreeva, and oh, Raghava, on going from here now, promptly you fraternise with Sugreeva... and [/FONT](so as) [FONT=&quot] not to bode any ill of unfriendliness among you two, you make him a friend before blazing Fire, making that Fire as an Attestor of your friendship... [3-72-17, 18a] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You shall not look down on that lord of monkeys taking him as a lowly simian, because that Sugreeva is a valiant one, a guise-changing wizard and presently he is in the need of a bolsterer, and if you render help he will be obligated to you for ever... [3-72-18b, 19] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now you two are capable enough to effectuate the desired task of Sugreeva, isn't it... whether his own purpose is achieved through you or not, he will effectuate your task... [3-72-19b, 20a] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, Raghava, right away and candidly you make that monkey Sugreeva, a wanderer in the forest, sheltering himself on Mt. Rishyamuka, as a friend of yours taking an oath on your weapon besides the Fire-witness... [3-72-21b, 22a] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]With his expertise that straightforward monkey Sugreeva is indeed conversant with all of the strongholds of anthropophagite demons in the world in their entirety... [3-72-22b, 23a] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He makes the monkeys to purposefully rake over the expansive rivers, extensive mountains and their impassable cliffs and caves in locating your wife... [3-72-24b, 25a] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, Raghava, he expedites giant bodied monkeys in all directions to search for her, who is agonised by your parting, and he quests after the residence of Ravana for that comely lady Maithili... [3-72-25b, 26] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whether that unreprovable ladylove of yours, Seetha, is located on the tops of Mt. Meru's peaks, or abiding on the planes of nadir of the earth, he that defiant one among fly-jumpers, Sugreeva, on entering there and annihilating the demons, he again bestows Seetha to you..." So Kabandha continued his advise to Rama regarding Sugreeva. [3-72-27][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Whether that unreprovable ladylove of yours, Seetha, is located on the tops of Mt. Meru's peaks, or abiding on the planes of nadir of the earth, he that defiant one among fly-jumpers, Sugreeva, on entering there and annihilating the demons, he again bestows Seetha to you..." So Kabandha continued his advise to Rama regarding Sugreeva.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [3-72-27[/FONT][FONT=&quot]][/FONT]
Note :
I have mostly relied on the translation given in the website www.valmikiramayan.net. Slight alterations have been made by me to bring out the meaning better.
The words of Kabandha seem to be prognostication partly and simple statements of Sugriva’s sublime qualities. However there is no mention about Kabandha knowing Sugriva/Vaali in the past. Hence we may take it that the entire talk of Kabandha, the gandharva, is originating from his superhuman ability to know the future. The question which naturally arises in one’s uninitiated mind is why Kabandha could not reveal the exact location of Sita, and thus save the vaanaras of the tedious search in all directions.
As per VR, Kabandha then glorifies Pampaa, the next destination of R-L, and then taking their leave, proceeds to the heavens.

In Adhyatma Ramayana, Kabandha does not give any advice/suggestion to R-L. Instead he, after regaining his lustrous body, circumambulates Rama and utters several slokas in praise of him, equating him to the Supreme Hiranyagarbha, Viraat etc., and involving a lot of philosophy. It is Sabari who directs R-L to Sugriva. We will consider it later.
For ready reference, I give below the translation of a few initial verses of praise by Kabandha:
Having circumambulated Rama and prostrated himself low on the ground, he said in faltering voice with devotion.
The gandharva said, “O Rama, my desire is to hymn your praises with reverence, of you who are beginningless, limitless and beyond speech and thought.
Your true form is unmanifest and different from the two bodies (gross and subtle). Your form is intelligence itself. All the rest that is manifest is non-intelligent and not-self. How then can the mind which is distinct from you and non-intelligent, know you?...
You are the goal to be attained by all. The worlds are known as your body, the nether worlds (paataala) is your feet and the mahaatala is your heel….
Indra and the other devas who uphold the world are your arms, and the four directions are your ears. The Aswinikumaras are thy nose, and Agni, thy mouth. The sun is your eye, and the moon, thy mind, they say. Kaala (time) is your frown and the lord of speech, your intellect…
Kabandha goes on in this vein, in the style of “paadaadikesa stutis”. Towards the end, he says, “Sankara who is omniscient, along with Parvati, always meditates upon your form. Living in Kasi, his mind ever at peace, he advises those who are on the verge of death, to chant the name Rama, Rama, which will make one cross the ocean of samsaara and which denotes the meaning of “tat tvam asi” ”.
….After a few more verses in which Kabandha continues his praise of Rama, we come to the end when Rama says as under:
“O, Devagandharva, I am pleased with your devotion to and praise of me. You now go to my supreme abode, the eternal self. Those who meditate reciting this hymn of praise which you have uttered, constantly and with single-point concentration and devotion, will, on leaving off this world which is the result of ignorance, come to Me who am always known as their own self.”

It will be seen how a simple incident in the VR has been altered completely and Rama elevated to the status of the Supreme Self (Brahman) in the words of Kabandha, a Devagandharva (not when he was a demon due to curse). Similar praise by various respected personages such as Agasthya, Viswamitra, Vasishta, Jatayu, Sabari, Parasurama, Vibhishana, Hanuman etc., find prominence in Adhyatma Ramayana.

I am reminded of the following:
In promotion and of advertising, a testimonial or show consists of a written or spoken statement, sometimes from a person figure, sometimes from a private citizen, extolling the virtue of some product. The term "testimonial" most commonly applies to the sales-pitches attributed to ordinary citizens, whereas "endorsement" usually applies to pitches by celebrities.
Who says our ancestors were unaware of this truth?

 

[Nara]

....Since you wanted that I don’t stop, I am giving below some of my further observations.

Thank you Shri sangom, I read this post with great interest and will look for the next one with equal interest.

Just one observation, even if one were to concede Rama had jurisdiction over Kishkinda, why would a King mete out justice, in a land over which he has sovereignty, by hiding behind a tree.

Only when Rama is elevated to the state of தர்மோ விக்ரஹவான், one gets into these conundrums. If we see him as a noble man with his own limitations and imperfections, then we are free of having to come with justifications, and the story also becomes more interesting.

I feel some sympathy for Rama though. He did not want to be seen anything other than a mere human. He did not want to be elevated to Godhead. I get the impression that all he wanted to do was to live up to what he was taught as Dharma. He killed unarmed women when he was told that is Dharma. He obeyed his dad's ridiculous promise to send him to forest because he was taught that was Dharma. He used all the means at his disposal to find and free Sita, and immediately thereafter forsook her because that is what was Dharma in his mind. On the basis of a washer-man's rebuke he sent Sita away, because he thought that is Dharma of a Raja. He comes across as a man who is stuck in a black and white world, unable or incapable of taking the nuances of situations into account.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Thank you Shri sangom, I read this post with great interest and will look for the next one with equal interest.

Just one observation, even if one were to concede Rama had jurisdiction over Kishkinda, why would a King mete out justice, in a land over which he has sovereignty, by hiding behind a tree.

Only when Rama is elevated to the state of தர்மோ விக்ரஹவான், one gets into these conundrums. If we see him as a noble man with his own limitations and imperfections, then we are free of having to come with justifications, and the story also becomes more interesting.

I feel some sympathy for Rama though. He did not want to be seen anything other than a mere human. He did not want to be elevated to Godhead. I get the impression that all he wanted to do was to live up to what he was taught as Dharma. He killed unarmed women when he was told that is Dharma. He obeyed his dad's ridiculous promise to send him to forest because he was taught that was Dharma. He used all the means at his disposal to find and free Sita, and immediately thereafter forsook her because that is what was Dharma in his mind. On the basis of a washer-man's rebuke he sent Sita away, because he thought that is Dharma of a Raja. He comes across as a man who is stuck in a black and white world, unable or incapable of taking the nuances of situations into account.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Rama after he was elevated as தர்மோ விக்ரஹவான், comes out as an indecisive person, as you correctly put it. The trouble was, according to me, the popularity of VR among the learned people and it could not be completely overhauled. And, there seems to have been some emergency or urgency which led to a hurried, slip-shod job of recasting the original after writing Adhyatma Ramayana, so as to justify that AR is VR only and not different. Just like Bhagavatam after Mahabharata, which was a more systematic and well thought out job, except the Raasaleela addition which could be easily explained as depicting Parakeeya Bhakti, when people's taste became more victorian, perhaps!

But I am more interested to know (from some real researcher/s) what was the motive and the exigency for promoting Rama as divinity when the scribes had probably made Parasurama one already. Was not that selling? Was it due to that reason Bhargava rama was symbolically shown as having been defeated by Dasaratha Rama? There is a traditional belief that Dasaratha married 1000 girls, one each year, since Parasurama spared a kshatriya for the first year of his married life. Was there a kshatriya fall out with the brahminical interests which had to be appeased by a more perfect avataar who was born as kshatriya and did not exterminate them? Anyway, I marvel the creativity of our ancient scribes in doing, undoing and reshaping gods. I don't know if the Abrahamic religions were equally ingenious.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Thankyou very much for these informative posts. Looking forward to more.

Some say the Ikshvakus were sugarcane farmers. Please also post your views on it. Wud the Ikshvakus be just tribal farmers doing their farming on small (or restricted) areas along the Sarayu ???...

Regards.