WWW.VAISHNAVISM.

ORG

In defence of Sri Rama

A study of the greatness of Sri Rama
D. Harish Kumar

www.vaishnavism.org

Copyright
The contents of this book can be freely distributed as long as the original source is mentioned.

www.vaishnavism.org

Preface

This work was compiled to clarify certain questions raised by the secularists concerning the epic Ramayana and the noble character of Sri Rama. This great Indian figure, revered by millions of devout hindus has been the target of periodic attacks by secularists and other anti-hindu forces who are out to defame hindu heroes, hindu history and hindu mythos. Their aim is to systematically degrade heroes whom the hindusamaj has held in high esteem, to debunk them and demoralize the hindu society, inject feelings of guilt, and present a caricature of hindu religion and culture to its ardent lovers and admirers. Clearly, this trend needs to be countered by the right thinking members and this work is an effort in that direction.

In this brief work, I present some of the topics raised by the anti-hindu forces to prove Sri Rama was less than noble and in the process attack the foundations of our dharma. These mainly relate to the incidents of Agni Pariksha of Sita, the killing of Vaali/Bali and Shambuka. I present the counter-arguments, and expose the tactic of the secularists, which is taking things out of context, and view the events of yore through the prism of modern values/sensibilities.

I have primarily relied on the exposition of the Epic by Madhva, among the traditional Vedantic exponents and Sri Aurobindo, amongst the modern exponents. In fact, Sri Aurobindo himself enters into a spirited defence of Rama in his characteristic fashion, combining yogic insight with plain commonsense. He does an admirable job of knocking down the debunkers.

The author can be contacted at harishkumar09@yahoo.co.in

www.vaishnavism.org

Contents

COPYRIGHT PREFACE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE AGNI PARIKSHA OF SITA HIS TREATMENT OF BALI THE SLAYING OF SHAMBUKA EPILOGUE GLOSSARY

2 3 4 5 5 8 10 14 16

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

Introduction
I find that as far as the Ramayana is concerned there are three points that are repeatedly raised to prove that Lord Rama was not infallible and had many faults and many of his actions are not acceptable to modern sensibilities. They are: 1. His suspecting of his wifes chastity, 2. His killing of Shambuka who was doing penance and lastly, 3. His deceitful killing of Vaali.

All these are given as examples of his less than noble conduct and are often compared with Ravanas noble character, for he never violated Sita when she was in his custody.

The Agni Pariksha of Sita

The First one is of course regarding the Agni Pariksha. Before we go further we should know the story of Ramayana. Rama is the avatar of Lord Vishnu and he came to this world as Rama to set an example to human kind. And in the case of the Avatar, his consort Sri Lakshmi also descends to aid the Lord in his divine works. She had incarnated as Sita to fulfill His plan. As the omnipotent Lord , Rama certainly knows that Sita was untouched. Neither can Sita be touched by any mortal or immortal, asura or rakshasha or man as she is the adhipathi of this universe. Thus the concept of his suspecting is wife here is a meaningless one. Clearly Rama was eager to establish that his wife was pure and fit for the throne of Ayodhya. And it was to this end that he asked her to undergo the Agni Pariksha which was meant to elevate the status of Sita amongst his subjects. Thus he actually shows how an ideal King should be, one who keeps the feelings of the public in mind. We must realize that in those days much was expected of kings, quite unlike todays elected democratic rulers whose misdemeanor we have come to expect. Rama has thus established the code of conduct for an ideal king and by his act becomes flawless and worthy of respect.

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

Madhva states that at the time of abduction, the soul of Lakshmi Devi left her body and it was occupied by Indra, the Lord of the Heavens. After the return of Sita, Agni Pariksha was used as an opportunity to burn down the temporary body of Sita, which was then replaced by the permanent one.

Aurobindo commenting on Lord Rama:

It was his business to be not necessarily a perfect, but a largely representative sattwic Man, a faithful husband and a lover, a loving and obedient son, a tender and perfect brother, father, friendhe is friend of all kinds of people, friend of the outcast Guhaka, friend of the Animal leaders, Sugriva, Hanuman, friend of the vulture Jatayu, friend of even Rakshasa Vibhishana. All that he was in a brilliant, striking but above all spontaneous and inevitable way, not with forcing of this note or that like Harishchandra or Shivi, but with a certain harmonious completeness. But most of all, it was his business to typify and establish the things on which the social idea and its stability depend, truth and honour, the sense of Dharma, public spirit and the sense of order. To the first, to truth and honour, much more than to his filial love and obedience to his fatherthough to that alsohe sacrificed his personal rights as the elect of the King and the assembly and fourteen of the best years of his life and went into exile in the forests. To his public spirit and his sense of public order (the great and supreme civic virtue in the eyes of the ancient Indians, Greeks, Romans, for at that time the maintenance of the ordered community, not the separate development and satisfaction of the individual was the pressing need of the human evolution) he sacrificed his own happiness and domestic life and the happiness of Sita. In that he was at one with the moral sense of all the antique races, though at variance with the later romantic individualistic sentimental morality of the modern man who can afford to have that less stern morality just because the ancients sacrificed the individual in order to make the world safe for the spirit of social order. Finally, it was Rama's business to make the world safe for the ideal of the sattwic human being by destroying the sovereignty of Ravana, the Rakshasa menace. All this he did with such a divine afflatus in his personality and action that his figure has been stamped for more than two millenniums on the mind of Indian culture, and what he stood for has dominated the reason and idealising mind of

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

man in all countries, and in spite of the constant revolt of the human vital, is likely to continue to do so until a greater ideal arises. And you say in spite of all these that he was no Avatar? If you likebut at any rate he stands among the few greatest Vibhutis. You may dethrone him nowfor man is no longer satisfied with the sattwic ideal and is seeking for something morebut his work and meaning remain stamped on the past of the earth's evolving race. When I spoke of the gap that would be left by his absence, I did not mean a gap among the prophets and intellectuals, but a gap in the scheme of Avatarhoodthere was somebody who was the Avatar of the sattwic Human as Krishna was the Avatar of the overmental SupermanI can see no one but Rama who can fill the place. In Aurobindos view Rama came to complete an evolutionary task , the establishment of an orderly society where a sattwic type was established firmly over and above the Rakshashic type. And also social order and ethics were more important than the individual freedom. So that on this stable foundation future races can enjoy individual freedom (with which they criticize Rama himself).

One should understand the circumstances in which Rama came to this world. The society was dominated by rakshasic people whose primary aim in life was self-gratification. The vitalisic part of the being was the most dominant. In such society characterized by disorder, he had the task of bringing in order and discipline. It is thanks to His work, today we can afford to have all the freedoms and rights, because He and His people sacrificed their rights and freedoms to create a stable society. If today, modern women have the freedom to live as they want and criticize Rama for his treatment of Sita, they have to thank Rama first for creating the stable society, which enabled the future races to focus on individual development and give freedom of speech/action to one and all. Modern women, more than anybody else, owe a debt of gratitude to Sri Rama, for he created a stable society which gave the modern races the confidence to experiment with new ideas such as womens liberation, gender equality and other such ideals.

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

His treatment of Bali

The Second issue on which Rama is criticized is his treatment of Vaali/Bali. He was the monkey king who usurped the throne of Sugriva.

Madhva states that it is adharmic to kill sinners in a dharmic fashion. It is a sin to kill a sinner dharmically. It is dharmic to kill a sinners in an adharmic fashion. Sinners dont deserve a dharmic death. Madhva lays great emphasis on yogyata or deservedness of individuals.

A deva or a daivic person has the yogyata to be treated respectfully or fairly especially at the time of his death. But an asuric or a Rakshashic individual cannot claim similar status.

Vaali was a sinner so he did not deserve to be killed from the front. He was therefore killed from behind. But on the other hand Ravana was one of the dvarapalakas of Vaikuntha who was cursed thrice to be born on earth and battle the Lord so he was basically of a divine nature. So Rama faces him squarely and defeats him and disarms and even asks him to come back tomorrow well-armed. The humiliation of Ravana is recorded by the tamil poet Kambar Kadanpattarnenjam pol kalanginaanyelangaivendhan , indru poi naalaivaaendruvittane (Ravana felt humiliated, when Rama asked him to return morrow armed with better weapons). When the Avatar descends, it first of all frees the earth of all evil doers and creates an atmosphere suitable for Yoga. Vishnu also uses this opportunity to take back all his closest devotees and especially the great souls who had been cursed to be born on earth to fulfill his plan for the cosmos.

Aurobindo on the killing of Vaali/Bali by Rama:

Volume: 12 [CWSA] (Essays Divine and Human), Page: 495 Ravana's mind thought it was hungering after universal sovereignty and victory over Rama; but the aim his soul kept its vision fixed upon all the time was to get back to its heaven as soon as possible & be again God's menial. Therefore, as the shortest way, it hurled itself against God in a furious clasp of enmity.

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

At any rate Rama has proved his bravery in his fight against Ravana and also in his fight against the demons who tried to thwart the yajna of Vishwamitra. There was no need to prove it against an underserving infra human like Vaali. Volume: 22-23-24 [SABCL] (Letters on Yoga), Page: 415 No, certainly notan Avatar is not at all bound to be a spiritual prophethe is never in fact merely a prophet, he is a realiser, an establishernot of outward things only, though he does realise something in the outward also, but, as I have said, of something essential and radical needed for the terrestrial evolution which is the evolution of the embodied spirit through successive stages towards the Divine. It was not at all Rama's business to establish the spiritual stage of that evolutionso he did not at all concern himself with that. His business was to destroy Ravana and to establish the Rama-rajyain other words, to fix for the future the possibility of an order proper to the sattwic civilised human being who governs his life by the reason, the finer emotions, morality, or at least moral ideals, such as truth, obedience, co-operation and harmony, the sense of domestic and public order,to establish this in a world still occupied by anarchic forces, the Animal mind and the powers of the vital Ego making its own satisfaction the rule of life, in other words, the Vanara and Rakshasa. This is the meaning of Rama and his life-work and it is according as he fulfilled it or not that he must be judged as Avatar or no Avatar. It was not his business to play the comedy of the chivalrous Kshatriya with the formidable brute beast that was Bali, it was his business to kill him and get the Animal under his control.

If we judge Rama by our human standards, bullets for karsevaks and biriyani for terrorists , Rama certainly does not come out very well. But Rama belongs to the divine world and in that world there is a difference between divine and demonic, the two are not equal (never equal according to Madhva) and the treatment is different for both of them.

Vishnu as both Rama and Krishna upheld the divine law. As Rama he upheld it by his actions and as Krishna he did not directly participate in the wars but he always advised his servants to

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

kill the asuras by deceit and trickery. Thus Bhimasena was advised by Krishna to hit Duryodhana below the waist and kill him which also helped fulfill Bhimasenas vow that he would shatter the sinners thighs. Also when killing Keechaka ,Arjuna dresses as a lady to seduce the rakshasha, and once inside the trap , he is eliminated by Bhima . Again Bhimasena, after killing Dushashana tears up his body to pieces. When Bhishma objects to this as an act of barbarism Krishna comes to the defence of Bhima and states that a sinner like Dushashana only deserved that kind of a death, he deserves to be torn apart and scatterd in the battlefield and not given a decent treatment. But when it came to Shishupala, the reincarnation of Ravana , or more precisely the dvarapalaka , Krishna allows him to abuse him a hundred times and after that kills him with his Chakra.

The Slaying of Shambuka

The Third issue on which Rama is often attacked is his slaying of Shambuka. We are told that Shambuka was a shudra who was doing penance and Rama did not like a shudra performing tapasya, so he was killed off, due to caste prejudice. The shudra is prohibited from doing tapasya/asceticism, and he should only follow his caste duties. The secularists maintain that Rama killed Shambuka to uphold varnashrama dharma, or the birth based caste system, in which shudras are prohibited from performing penance. But they do not tell you why Shambuka was doing tapasya. The reason for the tapasya is given by Shambuka himself, and we will study this elaborately.

The killing of Shambuka appears in the Valmiki Ramayana, Book 7, the 'Uttarakanda' [Final Chapter], sargas 73-76. Three scene-setting sargas are paraphrased, and then the crucial one is presented in full:

(73) When Rama is reigning as a virtuous king, a humble aged Brahmin comes to him, weeping, with his dead son in his arms. He says that Rama must have committed some sin, or else his son would not have died. (74) The sage Narada explains to Rama that a Shudra is

10

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

practicing penances, and this is the cause of the child's death. (75) Rama goes on a tour of inspection in his flying chariot, and finds an ascetic doing austerities, and asks who he is.

"(76) Hearing the [inquiring] words of Rama of imperishable exploits, that ascetic, his head still hanging downwards [as part of his austerities] answered: 'O Rama, I was born of a Shudra alliance and I am performing this rigorous penance in order to acquire the status of a God in this body. I am not telling a lie, O Rama, I wish to attain the Celestial Region. Know that I am a Shudra and my name is Shambuka.' As he was yet speaking, Raghava [Rama], drawing his brilliant and stainless sword from its scabbard, cut off his head. The Shudra being slain, all the Gods and their leaders with Agni's followers, cried out, 'Well done! Well done!' overwhelming Rama with praise, and a rain of celestial flowers of divine fragrance fell on all sides, scattered by Vayu. In their supreme satisfaction, the Gods said to that hero, Rama: 'Thou hast protected the interests of the Gods, O Highly Intelligent Prince, now ask a boon, O beloved Offspring of Raghu, Destroyer of Thy Foes. By thy grace, this Shudra will not be able to attain heaven!'" (583-84)

The Ramayana of Valmiki trans. Hari Prasad Shastri (London: Shanti Sadan, 1970): 3:579-85.

Now it is clear from the above verses that Shambuka was not performing penance to attain moksha, but to enter into Indras domain, in this material body. Now this is prohibited for anybody, not just a shudra. One is allowed into heaven only in their spiritual bodies and not material bodies. Shambuka makes no attempt to hide the real reason for his tapasya (unlike the secularists). He is very clear that he is not aiming for spiritual cleansing or moksha, but to enjoy heavenly benefits in the material body. Madhva maintains that he was actually an asura, who was attempting to usurp Indras heavenly position, by unnatural methods. Rama slayed shambuka to protect the devas from the asuras. The type of tapasya that shambuka was performing was tamasik tapasya, which has an evil motive. Rajasik tapasya is what we perform to obtain material benefits. Satvik tapasya leads us to moksha. It is performed with good and pure intentions in the mind.

11

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

Prior to Shambuka, one more person, Trishanku, attempted the same endeavor. The story is mentioned in the same Valmiki Ramayana, in the Bala Kanda. It is as follows:

Trishanku, the son of Prithu, was a king in the Solar Dynasty, the same dynasty as Sri Rama. Trishanku wished to ascend to heaven in his mortal body -- just like Shambhuka -- and requested his Guru Vasishta to perform the needful rites to achieve this goal. Vasishta refused for it was against the laws of nature for someone with a mortal body to enter heaven. Upon refusal, Trishanku approached the sons of Vasishta to help him. The request of Trishanku in spite of the refusal by their father angered the sons of Vasishta and they cursed Trishanku with a debilitating disease. Trishanku was forced to leave his country and wander the lands.

During his wanderings, Trishanku met sage Viswamitra. Upon hearing the plight of the king, Guru Vishwamitra who was a rival of Guru Vasishta accepted Trishanku's request and agreed to perform the rites required to send Trishanku to heaven with a mortal body.

The yagnas (rituals) began and by the power of the great sage, the King Trishanku started ascending to heaven. The Devas were alarmed by this unnatural occurrence and under the leadership of Indra decided to not let Trishanku enter through the gates of heaven in this mortal self. Indra using his powers caused Trishanku to fall back to earth. (excerpted from Wikipedia, and corroborated by other hindu sources)

No concession was shown to Trishanku, because he was a Kshatriya. The Gods who rejoiced at the slaying of Shambuka, kicked out the Kshatriya who attempted a similar exercise. There was no caste based discrimination by the Devas under the leadership of Indra.

Later, Vishwamitra, to get the better of Vashista, with whom he had a running feud, created a parallel heaven for Trishanku to reside in, but ensured that he would reside in it upside down, thereby not superseding the heaven created by Indra.

12

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

Throughout hindu puranas we find recorded innumerable attempts by all kinds people, humans, asuras and Rishis to ascend to heaven in their material bodies and they have belonged to all the castes and they have all been punished for their endeavors.

Again if Rama disliked shudras, why did he eat the half-eaten fruits, tasted and given to him by the tribal like Shabari, who is below the shudras in the caste hierarchy? Why did he bless Guha, who was an outcaste? Rama also slew Ravana who was Brahmin, and belonged to the topmost caste. But he killed him nevertheless for his evil deeds.

13

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

Epilogue
I cannot think of a better closing than quoting Aurobindo:

Volume: 22-23-24 [SABCL] (Letters on Yoga), Page: 413 I have no intention of entering into a supreme defence of RamaI only entered into the points about Bali etc. because these are usually employed nowadays to belittle him as a great personality on the usual level. But from the point of view of Avatarhood I would no more think of defending his moral perfection according to modern standards than I would think of defending Napoleon or Caesar against the moralists or the democratic critics or the debunkers in order to prove that they were Vibhutis. Vibhuti, Avatar are terms which have their own meaning and scope, and they are not concerned with morality or immorality, perfection or imperfection according to small human standards or setting an example to men or showing new moral attitudes or giving new spiritual teachings. These may or may not be done, but they are not at all the essence of the matter.

Also, I do not consider your method of dealing with the human personality of Rama to be the right one. It has to be taken as a whole in the setting that Valmiki gave it (not treated as if it were the story of a modern man) and with the significance that he gave to his hero's personality, deeds and works. If it is pulled out of its setting and analyzed under the dissecting knife of a modern ethical mind, it loses all its significance at once. Krishna so treated becomes a debauchee and trickster who no doubt did great things in politicsbut so did Rama in war. Achilles and Odysseus pulled out of their setting become, one a furious egoistic savage, and the other a cruel and cunning savage. I consider myself under an obligation to enter into the spirit, significance, atmosphere of the Mahabharata, Iliad, Ramayana and identify myself with their time-spirit before I can feel what their heroes were in themselves apart from the details of their outer action. As for the Avatarhood, I accept it for Rama because he fills a place in the schemeand seems to me to fill it rightlyand because when I read the Ramayana I feel a great afflatus which I

14

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

recognise and which makes of its storymere faery-tale though it seemsa parable of a great critical transitional event that happened in the terrestrial evolution and gives to the main character's personality and action a significance of the large typical cosmic kind which these actions would not have had if they had been done by another man in another scheme of events. The Avatar is not bound to do extraordinary actions, but he is bound to give his acts or his work or what he isany of these or alla significance and an effective power that are part of something essential to be done in the history of the earth and its races.

All the same, if anybody does not see as I do and wants to eject Rama from his place, I have no objectionI have no particular partiality for Ramaprovided somebody is put in who can worthily fill up the gap his absence leaves. There was somebody there, Valmiki's Rama or another Rama or somebody not Rama. Also I do not mean that I admit the validity of your remarks about Rama, even taken as a piecemeal criticism, but that I have no time for today. I maintain my position about the killing of Bali and the banishment of Sita in spite of Bali's preliminary objection to the procedure, afterwards retracted, and in spite of the opinion of Rama's relatives, necessarily from the point of view of the antique dharmanot from that of any universal moral standardwhich besides does not exist, since the standard changes according to clime or age.

Volume: 22-23-24 [SABCL] (Letters on Yoga), Page: 419 I am afraid your picture of him is quite out of focusyou efface the main lines of the characters, belittle and brush out all the lights to which Valmiki gave so much value and prominence and hammer always at some details and some parts of shadow which you turn into the larger part of Rama. That is what the debunkers dobut a debunked figure is not the true figure.

15

www.vaishnavism.org

In defence of Sri Rama

Glossary
Asura A being which distorts the truth and projects falsehood in the mental plane Agni Pariksha Trial by fire Avatar Descent. Refers to the descent into earth plane of the Supreme Godhead Vishnu Adhipathi One who owns and presides Dharma Law (of nature), intrinsic quality Deva A divine being Daivic of a divine nature Dvarapalakas door keepers Kshatriya One who defends the divine law with his physical and administrative strength Karsevak One who offers worship prior to the construction of a temple Rama-rajya Rule of Rama, considered the ideal rule Rakshasha A being which operates in the lower vital planes and is prone to lust, anger and violence. Sattwic Pure. One of the three modes of nature, the other two being passion and inertia. Vanara of the type of an ape Vibhuti A great achiever or realiser. Vaikuntha literally, no anxiety, the residence of Vishnu Yogyata deservedness Yoga Union (with the divine) Yajna worship, also a particular ritual of worship, involving offering ghee into a fire-altar

16

www.vaishnavism.org