रामायण: क्या सीता परित्याग तर्कसंगत है? | Hinduism: Was Banishment of Sita a Logical Incident?

क्या सीता परित्याग तर्कसंगत है? ऐसा सोचते ही दो बातें पहले ही आ जाती हैं - क्या धर्म के मामले में "तर्क" का प्रयोग व्यावहारिक है? और क्या "रामायण" को सिर्फ धर्म ग्रन्थ मानना चाहिए या फिर एक ऐतिहासिक अनुलेख भी? पहले, धर्म में तर्क पर आते हैं। किसी भी विषय में यदि तर्क का प्रयोग न किया जा सके तो वह विषय क्या एक सिर्फ "अंध विश्वास" में परिवर्तित नहीं हो जाती? 

मैंने स्वामी विवेकानंद आदि को पढ़ा है। इससे मैंने सीखा कि हमारे धर्म में तर्क करना अच्छा माना गया है। शाश्त्रार्थ के ऊपर पंडित लोग तो कई दिनों तक बहस किया करते थे। आदि शंकराचार्य ने भी किया था। यह ज्ञान मार्ग है। सिर्फ "भक्ति मार्ग" में ही "अंध विश्वास" ठीक माना गया है शायद। पर सिर्फ अंध-विश्वास किसी भी धर्म को आगे नहीं ले जा सकता। अंध विश्वास की कमजोरी को क्रिस्चियन मिशनरीजन ने काफी उपयोगी माना है। वे तर्क के आधार पर हमारे भगवानों को गलत साबित करते थे और लोगों को अपने धर्म को खराब समझाकर धर्मान्तरण कराते। अगर हम खुद ही तर्क करके अपने विश्वास को व्यवहारिकता के आधार पर रखकर प्रतिष्ठित रखेंगे तो कोई बाहरी हमें बेवकूफ नहीं बना पायेगा। 

अब सीता के परित्याग और "उत्तर कांड" या "उत्तर रामायण" के ऊपर आते हैं। रामायण में बहुत सी घटनाएँ हैं जो व्यक्तिगत रूप से मुझे पसंद नहीं हो सकती हैं - जैसे राजा होकर भी उन्होंने केवट को गले लगाया, जो भी जैसा भी हो उनके शरण में आया तो उन्होंने अपनाया - ये सब मुझे "अनावश्यक" और "अति भावुकता" लगी। पर उन्होंने किया और मैंने माना - मैंने इन घटनाओं में अच्छे पक्षों को देखा और इनमे अच्छा सन्देश देखा। इससे ये घटनाएँ मुझे श्री राम की महानता के उदाहरण लगे। पर सीता त्याग और उत्तर रामायण में मुझे एक भी अच्छाई नजर नहीं आई। मैंने खोजकर पढ़ा इस बारे में - तो चक्रवर्ती राजगोपालाचारी और अन्य विद्वानों का लिखा पढ़ा कि उत्तर रामायण बाद में जोड़ा गया खंड है, वाल्मीकि के मूल रामायण के कई शताब्दिओं बाद उसे वाल्मीकि रामायण से जोड़ दिया गया। तब मुझे बात समझ में आई। मैं ऐसा मानूंगा और इसके कारण हैं: 

श्री राम का जन्म एक "आदर्श राजा" का जीवन दर्शित करने के लिए ही नहीं हुआ था। राजा हरिश्चंद्र "आदर्श राजा" का जीवन सन्देश दे चुके थे। तो फिर रामावतार को किस रूप में समझें? जैसा श्री कृष्ण ने गीता में कहा, जब-जब धरती पर पाप की अधिकता होती है, भगवान पाप का नाश करने हेतु अवतार लेते हैं। यही विष्णु के हर अवतार ने किया, नरसिंघ से लेकर परशुराम अवतार से कृष्ण अवतार तक - बुद्ध ने भी अपने तरीके से पाप का नाश ही किया। 

इसीलिए हमें राम के जीवन को विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों से तुलनात्मक रूप में देखना और समझना चाहिए। शिव जी से तुलना नहीं कर सकते, शिव विनाशक हैं, विष्णु पालनकर्ता - राम के जीवन को किसी और देवता से तुलना न करके, विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों के साथ देखकर ही समझना चाहिए।

तो मेरा समझना है कि राम अवतार धरती से राक्षसों (अधर्म) के विनाश और धर्म की स्थापना के लिए हुआ था। (हनुमान जी के अवतार का भी कारण यही था - और श्री राम के कार्य में हाथ बँटाना था।) रावण वध से पहले उन्होंने असंख्य राक्षस मारे और रावण वध के साथ राम अवतार का प्रयोजन पूरा हो गया - ऐसा समझा जा सकता है। तो रावण वध के बाद ,अयोध्या लौटकर राजसिंहासन पर बैठकर राम अवतार ख़त्म हो जाना चाहिए था। विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों को देखकर सोचिये - उनका "प्रयोजन" पूरा होने पर सब चले गए थे। अवतार एक खास प्रयोजन के लिए ही होता है और उसके बाद उसकी जरुरत नहीं रहती। जैसा परशुराम ने भी कहा कि राम के आने पर मेरा प्रयोजन नहीं बचा अब। जैसे राम के आने पर परशुराम अवतार का प्रयोजन समाप्त हो गया, वैसे ही रावण वध और सीता को वापस लाने के बाद राम के अवतार का प्रयोजन समाप्त हो जाना चाहिए था।

"सीता त्याग" से राम के अवतार का कोई प्रयोजन पूरा होता नहीं दीखता। मुझे इसमें सिर्फ एक सन्देश समझ में आता है और वो है कि "अगर प्रजा गलत सोचे तो राजा को प्रजा की गलत धारणा को सुधारने के बदले प्रजा को सही साबित करने के लिए खुद के धर्म का त्याग कर देना चाहिए"। इसे निम्नांकित बातों से समझें: 

१. राम का धर्म था सीता की रक्षा करना 

२. राम ने शादी के समय सीता की रक्षा का वचन दिया था और अग्नि के समक्ष प्रतिज्ञा ली थी 

३. सीता निर्दोष थीं और निर्दोष को सजा देना अधर्म है 

४. प्रजा की धारणा गलत थी और अगर राम सीता का त्याग कर देते तो प्रजा की गलत धारणा सही हो जाती - "देखो सीता ने कुछ गलत किया था, तभी तो राम ने उनका त्याग किया?", लोग ऐसा सोचते 

५. सीता की अग्नि परीक्षा हो चुकी थी और इस कारण फिर से परित्याग की घटना अतार्किक लगती है 

इन कारणों से मुझे सीता परित्याग की घटना तर्कसंगत नहीं लगती। श्री राम के धर्मपरायण जीवन से यह घटना और ऐसे व्यवहार की कल्पना तर्क संगत नहीं लगती। यही लगता है कि यह कहानी बाद में जोड़ी गई है, जैसा सी. राजगोपालाचारी जी ने भी लिखा है। क्या ऐसा "बाद में जोड़ना" संभव था? हिन्दू सनातन धर्म के सारे ग्रन्थ पहले "मौखिक" रूप में ही थे, लिखा उन्हें बहुत बाद में गया। पुस्तक रूप हमारे ग्रन्थ में तो हाल में प्रिंटिंग के अविष्कार के बाद आये। मौखिक से लिखित रूप में भी लेखन एक बार में नहीं हुआ, और इसी दौरान त्रुटियों या जोड़-तोड़ की पूरी सम्भावना रही होगी। 

कुछ लोगों के ख्याल से सीता त्याग प्रभु राम की ही एक "लीला" थी और इससे श्री राम की कोई शिकायत नहीं होती। ऐसा भी माना जा सकता है। 

खैर, मैंने जो पढ़ा और अपने विचार से सोचा, उसे तर्क के आधार पर तौल कर अपनी धारणा बनाई है कि सीता परित्याग की घटना तार्किक नहीं लगती। 

- राहुल तिवारी 

Earlier Posts in this Series: 

Did Seeta’s Exile really Happen?

Shri Ram Never Banished Ma Sita to Forest 

Shri Ram Never Banished Ma Sita to Forest

Ramayana, Rama's journey or Rama's way was originally told to the world by sage Valmiki. Valmiki is revered as Adi Kavi, i.e. world's first poet, for he wrote Sanskrit's first shloka. Valmiki authored Ramayana which is called Valmiki Ramayana, one of the two greatest epics of Bharat (India). In Valmiki Ramayan, Rama is not referred to as God but is called 'The Supreme Man' (narapungav). Valmiki tells the story of Prince Rama of Ayodhya, who leaves claim on the throne in order to obey his father and goes to live inside the forest where his wife is abducted by mighty king of Lanka, Ravana. Rama raises an army consisting of monkeys (Vanara Sena) and other animals of the forest, invades Ravana's Lanka and brings his wife back after killing Ravana in a battle. Valmiki Ramayana does not tell anything like Ram abandoning his wife Sita later in his life. 

It is said that Great Sage (Maharishi) Valmiki was contemporary to Rama. It is said that his original name was Ratnakara who was reformed and did great penances taking Lord's name. He was lost in such deep penance that an anthill grew around him and hence he is called as 'Valmiki', literally meaning 'one who sits in an anthill' in Sanskrit. Rama met Valmiki during his period of exile and had interaction with him. Later on, Valmiki taught Ramayana to Lava and Kusa, Ram and Sita's sons. 

There is a popular perception that Rama abandoned Sita and sent her to live in the forest because people had started to put doubts on her purity since she had stayed for many years in a faraway land of Lanka inside captivity of Rakshanas King Ravana. But the matter of fact is that Valmiki does not tell anything like this. Also, great scholars have called this perception of exile a piece of imagination. 

I would quote noted scholar and freedom fighter C. Rajgopalachari in his book 'Ramayana'; Epilogue; from Pages 475-476:

“I have followed the story of the Price of Ayodhya as told by Vaalmeeki. There was a legend current among people that after recovering Seeta, for fear of scandal, Raama sent her away to live in the forest. This pathetic episode must have sprung from the sorrow-laden imagination of our women. It has taken shape as the Uttarkaanda of Raamaayana... how can we comment on a work composed thousands of years ago and coming down to us in palm-leaf manuscripts subject to corruption?"

K. R. Sundararajan, professor of theology at St.Bonaventure University in New York, writes in his book "Hindu Spirituality: Vedas Through Vedanta, Volume 1", Page 106-107 [here]:

"Uttara Kaanda is considered by scholars to be a larger addition to the orignial story of Valmiki, possibly added during the third century AD. many scholars also believe that there are interpolations in the first book, especially those passages which depict Raama as a human manifestation of the god Vishnu, which could be assigned to the first century AD. It is generally held that Ram in the "original" Valmiki epic was depicted only as a human hero and that those passages, mainly in the Baal Kaanda, where his divine roots are traced and his links with Vishnu emphasized, are to be considered later additions to the story. However, these interpolations, which were made shortly after the period of Valmiki, show us something signigicant about the Hindu perception on Rama. Ram is no ordinary hero; rather he is superhuman and his story, the Ramayana, is a sacred story."

Several versions of Ramayana exist because characters of Ramayana became part of people's life and consciousness and all creative writers, poets, and artisans tried to present the characterizations in different shades and forms using their creativity. During the 12th century AD, Kamban wrote Ramavataram in Tamil basing his text on Valmiki Ramayana. During early 14th century Saptakanda Ramayana was written in Assamese by Madhava Kandali. Valmiki's Ramayana also inspired the Sri Ramacharit Manas by Tulasidas in 1576, an Awadhi language epic written in Bhakti tradition. Gujarati poet Premanand wrote a version of Ramayana in the 17th century and Ramayana was also written in Marathi by Sridhara in the 18th century. Not even Hindus, but Muslims have 'Mappila Ramayana' which deals with the story of Sri Rama, part of Mappillapattu, a genre of songs popular amongst the Muslims in Kerala and Lakshadweep. Buddhist have their own variant of Ramayana, which perhaps was used to propagate their own ideas like celibacy and denouncing marriage. There is also a Jain Ramayana. But the fact remains that all others were written after Valmiki Ramayana. Some authors and poets only elaborated and developed the characters from Valmiki's epic, while some totally changed the story or added completely new portions, which were at times not much appreciated by some others. 

The following is mentioned on HARE KRISHNA-HARE RAM [website] and also [here]: 

Many Hindus, like the followers of Vaishnavism, consider the entire section of Uttar Kand in Ramayana to be interpolated, and thus they do not accept the authenticity of the story claiming that Sita was banished. A general narration of Ramayana does not state it so. It says that Sita later lived in her father's kingdom of Mithila with her sons Lava and Kusha as per the North Indian (especially in present day Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) custom that children be brought up in their nanihaal, or maternal grandmother's place. Sita and her sons later lived at Valmiki's ashram for the boys' education and military training.

The whole of Valmiki Ramayan is presented in translated form at the website: http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ This website also quotes a book by Ramakrishna Mission and mentions: 

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]

Two other very good points are mentioned at this [blog]: 

There are two proofs that Uttar Kand in Valmiki Ramayan is not the original part of Ramayan and it has been added later:  

1) Fal-Shruti evidence: Fal-shruti of a book (of religious importance) describes that what spiritual or other benefits one can get after reading that book or chapter. Exactly fal-shruti is either given at the end of a book or at the end of each chapter in some books. In valmiki Ramayan we can see that fal-shruti is given at the end of yuddh kand and not after each chapter. And that also describes the importance of reading whole RAMAYAN not yuddh kand alone. It means that the whole book ends with the end of yuddh-kand. But when the fal-shruti describes the benefits of reading RAMAYAN and Ramayan ends with it, why would the book proceed again with Uttar Kand? 

(2) Difference in language: When linguists tested the language of Valmiki Ramayan, they stated that there is a clear difference in the language of uttar-kand and the language of rest of the Ramayan. It seems that there is a difference of minimum two centuries between them.

While going through many references and texts and reading what great scholars like C. Rajgopalachari have said after having first hand experiences of reading authentic religious and historical texts, I would like to conclude personally that Uttar Kand seems clearly a later addition to the original text and we should not criticize anything basing our arguments on the stories mentioned in it. 

- Rahul Tiwary 

Note: Views expressed are personal and do not represent views of any person or organization associated with the author. Author is not responsible for authenticity of the references and websites mentioned as source. 

Ramayana and Mahabharata by C. Rajgopalachari

If you are thinking about reading any epics, or thinking about recommending some to your kids or younger ones, I would highly recommend Ramayana and Mahabharata as presented by C. Rajagopalachari. The learned scholar and a wonderful narrator has presented the old stories in most scientific ways and his books are very relevant for the young and modern day readers.

Here are the flipkart links to the two books. You can get the books also at major book stalls. If you like e-books, you can search to download free copies of the same, if you can get.

Ramayana: http://www.flipkart.com/ramayana-8172763654/p/itmdyu5jj7zhvryg

and

Mahabharata: http://www.flipkart.com/mahabharata-8172763689/p/itmdyyxtcvpzxxf9

 

Ram Setu and Contribution of a Squirrel

In his article titled “I am not a Statistic”, (ET, 11 Feb 2011), Devdutt Pattanaik writes a wonderful episode with a very nice lesson for all of us to learn. I think this lesson is only a drop from the ocean of Ramayana.

.

The bridge was being built across the sea. This would enable Ram’s army to reach the island-kingdom of Lanka and rescue his wife who was held captive there. This was no ordinary army - this was an army of animals. Vultures had identified the location of the island. Bears were serving as the architects.
.

Monkeys were the workers implementing the construction, carrying huge boulders and throwing it into the sea. Work was hectic. The monkeys were jumping and screeching everywhere to ensure everything was being done efficiently and effectively when suddenly there appeared amongst them a tiny squirrel carrying a pebble. This little creature also wanted to contribute to the bridge-building exercise.
.

The monkeys saw him and laughed. One even shoved the squirrel aside considering him a nuisance. But when Ram saw the squirrel, he was overwhelmed with gratitude. He thanked the tiny creature for his immense contribution. He brushed his fingers over his back to comfort him. This, it is said, is what gave rise to the stripes on the squirrel’s back that can be seen even today, a sign of Ram’s acknowledgment of his contribution.
.

Statistically speaking, the squirrel’s contribution to the bridge was insignificant. But he had given it his 100%. Does it matter? Not as far as the bridge construction is concerned, for sure. But to Ram it did. He sensed that the squirrel’s devotion was second to none. The material contribution may not have been as great as the others but his emotional contribution was as high. That mattered.
.

You can read his complete article at this Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/6y6dajy
.

At the end of his article, the author is concerned and says that the tragedy of modern management is that it is teaching us “not to be” Ram. But I am sure until there are writers like him, all is not lost.

.

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana by Khushwant Singh

Perhaps the only Indian (self-proclaimed) Atheist I have read properly is Khushwant Singh. But when I read what he wrote about the great Indian epic of Ramayana and its place in our society, I loved all his words. Here it is:

.

Lessons from Ramayana

.
It could be said that Indian children start imbibing the Ramayana with their mother’s milk. It is the first story they hear in their childhood. It has found its way into their vocabulary. Their most popular greetings are Ram Ram, Jai Ramji Ki, Jai Sitaram. We are reminded about it every year through performances of Ramlila which take place in all towns and cities ending with the burning of effigies of Ravana, Kumbhkarana and Meghnad on Dussehra.

.
Then there are Bharat Milap and Diwali. The reason is simple. For us, Sri Ram is God personified, his wife Sita, our mother goddess, Lakshman, the loyal brother and Hanuman the faithful servitor. They represent the powers of goodness. Their enemy Ravana and his brothers represent the powers of evil.

.
In essence, the story is of goodness prevailing over evil. We carry it to the end of our days on earth. When our dead bodies are taken out to cremation grounds, one mourner chants Ram Naam Satya Hai - the name of Rama is the truth; other mourners reply: Sat bolo gut hai - speak the truth and attain salvation.

.
Taken from: Khushwant Singh’s review of ‘The Story of Ram and his friends in the forest’, written by Pratibha Nath and illustrated by Sujasha Dasgupta (Rupa). HT, Dec 12, 2010 http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ethics-of-journalism-and-lessons-from-Ramayana/Article1-637347.aspx

Ramayana: A Love Story

Ramayana can be taken in many ways, but I think it’s also a love story. It’s a love story of a prince who had to be separated from his wife when already banished from his kingdom and then he fights with evil forces and hardships to find and regain his love. When Seeta was abducted by Ravana and Ram was gathering army of monkeys and bears, at one point of time he says something like this, “They say that with passage of time our love and pain of separation calms down, but I have not felt any such relief…” How could he, when his love for Seeta was purest and divine? Rishi Valmiki describes it well. At another point, the prince says, “Whenever I see a beautiful thing, I feel how much Seeta would have enjoyed this!” And then he cries… The prince, who could move mountains and dry up oceans by his mighty arrows, cries in the memory of his beloved wife… At many places throughout Ramayana, the distressed Rama is shown to be consoled by his younger brother Lakshamana. Often Rama starts lamenting wondering how princess Seeta, his beloved wife and daughter of the great king Janaka, would be surviving amidst dreadful Rakshashis and demons. He is shown neither be hiding his feelings from his followers, nor letting his sorrow carrying him away from his righteous path. Seeta, on the other side, waits for her love every moment and spends every passing day in hope that that day would end her wait. Her love for Ram is so great and honourable that even for a moment she is not diverted.

Rishi Valmiki who was the first person to write about Rama’s story and to introduce Ramayana to this world, doesn’t mention anything about Sita’s exile to the forest after she and Ram had reunited, so we can take this for granted that once Ram restored Sita, they spent years of happy life together. As they say at the end of love stories: “And they lived happily ever after.”

After Ramayana, so many stories, poems, plays, and movies have been written and made, telling a love story in very similar lines: there are two lovers, and one villain; lovers get separated and hero fights to get back his love. In the end, they are reunited and live happily ever after… But no love story is as powerful, as divine and as elevating as the one between Ram and Seeta… It’s because Ramayana stands as a torch of light showing us the righteous way of life, and reminds us of the very high levels of moral standing that we should practice in life…

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 23

Reproducing a part from the book which I believe all of us should read and understand:

Now, a word to those of our times who read Raamayana and Bhaarata and other Puraanas. In these works, there are frequent references to Devas and Raakshasas. The latter were wicked, had no regard for dharma, and revelled in evil deeds. Asuras were also like Raakshasas. But even among Raakshasas there were a few wise and virtuous people. There spring up bad men even in the best of races and vice versa. On the whole, Asuras and Raakshasas were those who rejoiced in doing wicked deeds. It is a pity that some people in their ignorance identify the Asuras and Raakshasas with ancient Indian tribes and races – a view not supported by any literary work or tradition or recorded history.

The conjencture of foreigners that Raakshasas were the Dravidian race, is not borne out by any authority in Taiml or other literature. The Tamil people are not descendents of the Asuras or Raakshasas.

The Devas were generally upholders of dharma and took on themselves the task of putting down the Raakshasas. According to the Puraanas, they had at times to deviate from dharma in dealing with the Raakshasas, some of whom had attained great power through tapas.

The Devas were generally good; and those among them who swerved form the path of righteousness paid the price for it. There was no separate code of conduct for the Devas; the law of karma admits of no distinction between the Devas and others. The law dealt with the Devas as with others.

Wedded to virtue as the Devas generally were, lapses on their part appear big to us, like stains on white cloth. The Raakshasas’ evil deeds are taken for granted and do not attract much attention, like stains on black cloth.

The honest, when they happen to go astray, should evoke our sympathy. It is however the way of the world – but it is not right – to condemn in strong terms casual lapse on the virtuous, while tolerating habitual wrong-doers.

It should be noted that in the Puranas we see the gods getting entangled in dilemmas of dharma. Indra and other devas are shown often as committing serious sins. Why did the sages who told the Puranas involve themselves in such difficulties? Their aim was to awaken people to a sense of the dangers of adharma. Else, the sages need not have deliberately attributed sinful acts to their own heroes and created difficulties for themselves.

Some persons take pleasure in jumping to wrong conclusions from the incidents in the Puraanas. They argue, “Raavana was a very good king. Vaalmiki has falsely accused him of wicked deeds.” They ask: “Did not Raama act unjustly on a certain occasion? Did not Seeta utter a lie?” and the like.

Valmeeki could well have omitted incidents which are not edifying. Both Raama and Raavana were first presented to us by the poet Vaalmiki. There was no earlier work referring to Raavana that can be quoted to contradict Vaalmiki and stamp him as being partial to Raama, Seeta and the Devas, and twisting facts to deceive people. Vaalmiki’s Raamayana is the fountain source of the story of Raama; in it, one comes across seemingly wrong deeds.

Calm consideration of such situations would show that they are just portrayals of similar difficulties in our day-to-day life. It is for us to benefit from the moral trails contained in them. The lesson of the Ahalya episode is that, however deadly one’s sin, one may hope to be freed from its consequences by penitence and punishment. Instead of condemning others for their sins, we should look within our own hearts and try to purify them of every evil thought. The best of us have need for eternal vigilance, if we would escape sin.

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap VIII, Ahalya; P40-42)

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 22

Fate is weird. We would never be able to understand fully, why things happened the way they happened. The author describes it in a wonderful paragraph when Kaikeyi’s mind was changed by evil minded Manthara:

And, yet, as Dasaratha told Raama, even the purest of minds is mutable. When fate conspires with bad counsel, any one of us might be corrupted. And this happened to Kaikeyi. The gods in Heaven had received an assurance, and the sages had performed tapas for the destruction of Raavana. What we call destiny, therefore, ordained that Kaikeyi’s pure heart should be changed by Manthara’s evil counsel. So says Kamban in the Tamil Raamayana in his own inimitable style.

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XII, Manthara’s evil counsel; P62)

So true…

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 21

Fate and Karma

Life is weird. At one point, the author describes the unfortunate end of the mighty and righteous king Dashratha:

As described by Valmeeki in the early page of the epic, Dasaratha was one who had mastered all the Vedas and Shaastras, was a farsighted person, the hero of many battles, the performer of many sacrifices, follower of dharma, a far-famed king with many friends and no foes, one who had conquered his senses. His power was like Indra’s. His wealth was like Manu. Fate had ordered that such a one should exile his beloved son and die of a broken heart, with none by him in his last moments but two faithful women stricken by himself with a common sorrow.

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XXIII, Last moments; P132-133)

Before his death, King Dashratha recalled an old happening when he had killed a young man (Shravan Kumar) by mistake and his old dependent parents had died learning this, but only after cursing the king of a similar fate. Therefore, we can understand why such an unfortunate fate descended over the righteous king…

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 20

When Hindus die, their children offer shraadha to them and do some rituals for the peace of the departed souls. I found reference to a similar gesture when Raama came to know about Dahsaratha’s death:

The princes, with Seeta and Sumantra went to the river and offered libations for the peace of the departed soul of the king. After other customary ceremonies, the princes returned to the cottage. They help each others’ hands and relieved their sorrow by loud lamentation.

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XXVII, The brothers meet; P169)

It means the custom is so very old.

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 19

Leaving the body when purpose is over
At two places in Ramayana, I found instances of rishis entering into fire in order to get them free from their bodies. But in both the cases, they were very sure about their purpose having finished, after years of penances and collecting strength through Yoga. The same is not applicable to people like us.

When the princes came, Sabari produced the fruits she had gathered and kept for them, and described and showed to them the wonders of the Matang aashrama. Then with their leave, she kindled a fire and entering it ascended to heaven.

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XL, Left eyelids throbe; P258)

They proceeded to the aashrama of Sarabhanga. Indra was there with other gods, talking to the rishi. Knowing that Raama had arrived, he cut short his talk and went away. Then Raama, with his brother and wife, approached the rishi and humbly saluted him.

The old ascetic said: “It is for you I have been waiting. It is time for me to leave the body but my wish was to see you first. And so I have been waiting. Now my desire is fulfilled, I pass on to you all the merit of my penances.”

Raama answered: “My Lord, should I not earn my own merit? How can I receive what you have earned? I have renounced everything to live in the forest. Advise me where I can best find an abode in the forest and send me forth with your blessing.”

The rishi knew the secret of Raama’s avatar and told him: “Learn from the sage Suteeksha where in the forest you should dwell.”

Then Sarabhanga kindled a fired and entered it. The gross body perished in the flames and a youthful ethereal form rose from the pyre and floated up the heavens.
(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XXIX, Viraadha’s end; P182-183)

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 18

Ram killed the vaanara king Vaali while hiding behind a tree. He had to do so, because Vaali had got a boon from Indra which gave him power to absorb the strength of his opponent when seen in sight. Therefore Raama had no choice but to kill him while not being seen himself. Vaali as such was a good king. But he had ego and his ego made him drive his own brother Sugreeva out of his kingdom. Sugreeva wanted to redeem his honour and his wife which all Vaali had captured, without any real wrong done on the part of Sugreeva. Raama had entered into friendship with Sugreeva and promised Sugreeva to get back his kingdom and wife. Therefore, Vaali had to be killed first. Here is how the author explains this:

Owing to the protective virtue of Indra’s necklace, Raama could not have met Vaali face to face and vanquished him, just as Raavana could not be conquered by the gods. Raama could kill Vaali only when himself unseen. And still the question stands, why should Vaali have been killed at all?

Perhaps the answer is to be found in what Kabandha said to Raama in gratitude for being released from his curse. “Through Sugreeva’s friendship you will recover Seeta” – Sugreeva’s help, not Vaali’s. And so Raama went in search of Sugreeva, found him and pledged his friendship and consecrated by fire. Sugreeva had committed no unforgivable offence against Vaali; yet vaali, with his supernatural strength, persecuted his brother. Hearing the latter’s complaint, Raama had pledged his word to kill Vaali and restore to Sugreeva his wife and make him king as his part of the contract of alliance. Thereafter, Raama had no alternative. To kill Vaali from cover became an inevitable necessity.

Raama erred in running after the magic deer to please his wife. Consequent to this, difficulties and sorrows and conflicts of duty pursued him. If we keep in mind that when God takes a lower and limited form by His own ordinance, limitations follow and we should not be confused thereby. This is my humble view as against other explanations propounded by the pious.


(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XLIII, The slaying of Vaali; P281)

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 17

Diversity

When Hanuman ji went to Lanka, he saw the city and its people. He also checked Raavana’s army. Ramayana describes at one place like this:

All the warriors were clad in armour. Some were handsome, some ugly; complexions varied from fair through brown to black. Some figures were very tall, others very short. Thus Hanumaan saw that the population had been drawn from a wide area with varying climates and that the army had been recruited from the pick of many nations.

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap XLVIII, The search in Lanka; P317)

It is apparent that there was "diversity" in Lanka. Even in those times, they did not believe in ‘racial supremacy’ or ‘regional chauvinism’, as happens today in many parts of the world (including many states of India).

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 16

Wrong Path is Easier

It is often understood that the wrong path is easier, to attain a short-term goal. Students cheating in exams can pass easily, while those who rely on their own have to give in months of hard labour. One can get his work done by bribing the authorities, but the one who doesn’t give in, has to make lots of efforts in order to get what he wants. Still, there is a greater good in following the path of dharma. This message comes out from the following episode in Ramayana.

Hanuman ji went to Lanka to find the whereabouts of Sita ji. They met and Hanuman ji was to return. Then an idea came to his mind – what if he carries away Sita ji from the sky route, on his back? That would save all the efforts of Ram and Lakshaman and would even prevent a war! But Sita ji didn’t agree. This is what she said, apart from mentioning that it would be dangerous thing to do:

“Apart from that Hanumaan, if you snatch me away stealthily from the Raakshasas it would be no credit to the valour of my lord. The honour of the Kshatriya race demands that he should come and fight and vanquish Raavana and redeem me as the prize of the victory. Would Raama have me stolen back even as Raavana stole me from him? No, my son, return and quickly bring Raama here with Lakshamana and the Vaanara army. Let my lord’s arrows destroy Lanka and send Raavana to Yama’s abode. His victory is certain. Like the fierce sun at the hour of doom, Raama’s arrows will burn the Raakshasa people to ashes.”

(C. Rajagopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LIII, Seeta and Hanumaan; P353)

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 15B

If Only

There is a very interesting episode when Hanuman ji is goes to Lanka, is captured and brought in front of Ravana. What he sees, is described below:

Clad in silk of golden hue, with the royal crown on his head, the jewels inlaid in it shining brilliantly, Raavana sat there, a figure of dazzling splendour. The whole court was brilliant with shining gold and gems, pearls and silk. His dark body, lit up by the marks of royalty, looked like a great radiant hill.

“Alas!” thought Hanumaan full of anger, wonder and pity. “If only this great one had not swerved from the path of dharma, not even Indra could equal him. What a form, what radiance, what strength! Trusting to the boon he had secured, he took to wicked ways and has lost his happiness and forfeited his greatness.”
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LVII, Lanka in flames; P369)

So true… Power without righteousness or dharma corrupts us… Ravana is a symbol of how one could pull oneself so low if carried away by ego.

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 15

Sympathy with Bad Characters

I guess all of us would at one point or the other, sympathise with characters like Duryodhana or Karna in the Mahabharata, or even Meghnad or Ravana in the Ramayana. C. Rajgopalachari explains this so well that I am simply presenting his text to explain:

Great poets in all languages delineate with sympathy even their bad characters allowing gleams of goodness to shine through occasionally, for nature has not made anybody wholly and unredeemably evil.

The poet’s aim is to direct the reader’s mind into the path of Good, the satvik way. For this purpose they use all their skill and power in developing even their raajsik and taamasik characters.

The reader who is held by raajasik and taamasik qualities, naturally tends to sympathise with such characters; much more so readers below the average who are untouched by the saatvik element. They would regard the deeds of the hero and other saatvik characters as mere fiction invented for blind worship, and identify themselves with the raajsik and taamsik characters and even claim these as their own kith and kin. They would find themselves attracted by such characters and follow their doings with considerable interest.

‘Paradise Lost’, the English epic on a Biblical theme, is famous throughout the world. In this poem Milton delineates the Almighty and Jesus, His spiritual son and human incarnation, as well as several orders of angels. But the most impressive character in the great epic is Satan who rebelled against God and brought sin and death into this world. Critics of English poetry admire Milton’s wonderful success in the characterisation of Satan. Similarly, the great dramatic poet Shakespeare has created a wonderful characterisation of Shylock, the usurer and miser. Even such embodiments of despicable qualities are presented by the poets as possessing courage, determination, energy and other good qualities which attract us and serve as a bright background to their blackness. In Vaalmeeki’s portraits of Raavana and Kumbhakarna too, we notice the same artistic skill. The cook who meets all tastes shows his skill in making out of bitter vegetables an attractive dish. So does the poet show his skill in portraying evil.
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXI, Anxiety in Lanka; P390)

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 14

Ordinary VS Higher Morality

Kumbhakarna, a brother of Ravana, didn’t approve of Ravana’s act of abducting Seeta. He believed that if Ravana wanted revenge of Lakshamana’s insult to Rakshasi princess Surpanakha, he should have challenged Rama and Lakshamana personally and fought a one-on-one battle to avenge. But when Ravana sees danger ahead and asks Kumbhakarna for help, in the end he doesn’t deny his brother. Despite knowing that he was protecting the wrong doing, he went ahead to fight for Ravana, because Ravana was his brother and his king. But the same didn’t happen with Vibheeshana. Knowing that Ravana had done wrong, he tried to persuade Ravana to return back Seeta and apologise to Ram. When Ravana goes to war with Ram, Vibhishana chose not to support him despite he being his brother. So who out of Kumbhakarna and Vibheeshana was right? C. Rajgopalachari gives a wonderful explanation in brief:

Kumbhakarna acted according to his ordinary morality. This was a simple thing which everybody could understand. But Vibheeshana followed a higher morality. The path he chose was more difficult and likely to be blamed.

He knew (how could anyone else know?) his inward suffering at the thought of Ravana’s evil doings. Ordinary people could not sympathise with his situation. Even today, people find it hard, without elaborate explanation, to appreciate Vibheeshana aright.

(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXV, The doctrine of surrender and grace; P411)

At another point, the author explains it again, for those who even today criticize Vibheeshana:

Men are restrained from evil by the wholesome fear that if they commit sin they would forfeit the affection and goodwill of their friends and kinsmen. This fear is a strong incentive to good behaviour and its removal would be a serious loss in society. All this is forgotten by those who argue that Vibheeshana was a ‘traitor’. Raavana was the first, unfortunately by no means the last, to dub him by that name. Those who are anxious to retain the support of kinsfolk while pursuing evil ways disapprove of Vibheeshana’s conduct. But Vibheeshana was not afraid of being a traitor. He would have nothing to do with adharma. His course was, however, not easy as we shall see.
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXIV, The vaanara’s doubt; P405-406)

I am convinced. If we support family members even if they do evil acts, we follow ordinary morality. Better not to encourage adharma and to practice higher morality. As the author says, “In a conflict of duties, each one follows his own nature.”

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 9

It is very interesting to see what Raama thought of Raavana.

When Raavana was killed, Vibheeshana started lamenting seeing his brother’s body fallen on the ground. Raama spoke:

“Raavana fought like a true warrior and fell fighting like a hero! Death has washed his sins. It calls for no mourning. Raavana has entered Heaven.”

Raama cleared all confusion from Vibheeshana’s mind and made him do the funeral rites for his departed brother.

Said Raama: “It is for you now, his brother, to do the rites. Death ends all enmity. I, his former foe, even I can rightly perform his obsequies. Your brother is my brother too, is he not?”

(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Ch LXXIII; End of Raavana; P462-63)

If we go back in time, in the initial stage of the war, once Raama had left Raavana unhurt. Here is the episode:

Then Raama, riding on Hanumaan’s shoulders, gave battle to Raavana. The Raakshasa king was sorely wounded. His golden crown was broken. So was his chariot. Deprived of every weapon, he stood before Raama.

“You may go now,” said Raama. “You have fought well today. Go away and rest and come back tomorrow, refreshed and with weapons.” And Raavana retreated shamefacedly to the city.

(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Ch LXX; Raavana’s Defeat; P442)

What comes clear from these incidents apart from the many other virtues of Raama; is also the fact that Raam held high views of the good part of Raavana’s character. This is right; because none is all evil as none is all good. Therefore if Rama appreciated and respected Ravana as a warrior; he only elevates his own position in our minds and hearts…

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 8

There is a very interesting episode where Ravana’s spies are captured and brought before Raam. How does he react?

Mercy, Confidence or Statesmanship?

The Rakshasa spies assumed the shape of Vaanaras and coming to Raama’s camp and mixing with the other Vaanaras looked all around. But Vibheeshana, discovering their disguise, caught hold of them and produced them before Raama. They pleaded that they were mere messengers sent by their king and prayed for release.

Raama said: “Show them our army. Let them have a good look around before they return. Give them free and full opportunity to see our strength. And Oh you Raakshasa messengers! When you go back to Raavana, tell him, “The strength on which you relied when you carried Seeta away is to be put now to the test. Your fortress, your city, and your army will be destroyed. Raama’s darts will pierce your body.’ Yes, convey this message to your king.”

The spies heard Raama’s words and agreed to convey them to their master. Then, impelled by force of habit, they said: “Victory to thee!” The Vaanara army took this to be a fine omen.

(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Ch LXVIII; Seeta’s joy; P427)

Is not it astounding! Why would someone allow enemy’s spies to see his own arrangement? I think Raama’s gesture speaks full of confidence. Loads of confidence in fact. But apart from confidence, I also see statesmanship. Such a confident gesture from Raama might have frightened Raavana and when conveyed with the strong message which Raama sent for him, it could have either resulted in Raavana changing his mind; or at least starting fearing Raama; both of which were in Raama’s favour. But at the same time, the incident also speaks of compassion and mercy.

- Rahul

Lessons from Ramayana – Part 7

We often wonder at the relation or distinction between God and Nature. Here is an important portion which comments on the same.

Nature and God

There is a principle expounded here. As Raama stood bow in hand, the ocean god bowed before him with clasped hands and said:

“Dear Raamachandra! Earth, air, ether, water, fire – these five elements must follow the eternal laws of their nature. Tempted by pleasure or reward or frightened of punishment, can I ever swerve from my nature? Can water harden and become stone? Or can I reduce my depths into a shallow pond for your easy crossing?”

Thus the ocean king protested with all politeness to Sri Raama.

Vaalmiki puts into the mouth of the ocean king a fundamental of our religious philosophy. He explains the primordial relationship between God and Nature. God’s law operates in and through nature. The laws of nature were created so that the universe may proceed by itself. So too the law of Karma. The five elements, all objects without life as well as all living creatures, must follow their own permanent laws.

According to the Hindu Shaastras, Nature itself, the sequence and chain of cause of effect, the properties of matter, and the law of Karma, all are ordained permanently by God.

Nature itself is a witness to God. He is not proved by a suspension of the laws of nature.

This is expounded clearly in the 9^th chapter of the Bhagawat Gita:

“Under my supervision Nature gives rise to all that exists – movable and immovable – and the universe evolves from this cause.”

This is put briefly by Vaalmeeki in the speech of the ocean king.

(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Ch LXVI; The Great Causeway; P418-419)

- Rahul