Reason behind Rama's slaying of Shambuka
Shambuka-vadha is a simple incident which has been twisted to generate greatest confusion about Rāmāyana and Hinduism. Many people do mental gymnastics but don't find an explanation. However, with sincerity and devotion, we can find an explanation in Ramayana itself. Let's look at this incident. Why did Lord Rāma kill Shambūka? What did Shambūka say? Was this killing justified? What words were said exactly by him? Is this story an interpolation ? Let's see.
An aged Brahmana brought the dead body of his very young son to Rāma’s presence and complained that the death of his young boy had happened in Rāma’s kingdom only because of some grievous misconduct on Rāma’s part (7.64.9).
After knowing the reason of young boy’s death from his advisors, Rāma went searching for Shambūka (a shūdra) who was doing ugra tapas (सुमहत् तपः) while hanging upside down. Rāma cut off his head and that, as already predicted by Rāma’s advisors, the young boy came back to life (तस्मिन् मुहूर्ते बालोऽसौ जीवेन समयुज्यत, 7.67.5).
The Sambuka episode of Ramayana cannot be a medieval or modern creation as it is cited as a popular story in Mahabharata.
In the Grdhra Gomayu samvada (dialogue between vulture and jackal) in Apaddharma-parva, the jackal mentions the killing of Sambuka by Sri Rama.
श्रूयते शम्बुके शूद्रे हते ब्राह्मणदारकः।
जीवितो धर्ममासाद्य रामात्सत्यपराक्रमात्॥ Mahabharata CE 12.149.62
"It has been heard that Rama, truthful in his valour, killed the shudra Shambuka, resorted to dharma, and brought a brahmana child back to life."
Now the point is Sambuka was killed not because of his caste / tapas only. He was punished as he was engaged in tamasik tapas which was harmful to the society.
As per Ramayana, Sambuka wanted to reach the heaven in his physical body and become a deva.
the point which is missed by almost everyone is that what was the motive of Shambūka’s tapas?
According to the description of Rāmāyana (T, Uttarakānda, sarga 75), Shambūka was hanging upside down. Further, according to Padma-Purāna (1.35.75-77), Rāma says that Shambūka’s tapas seemed to be Āsura (आसुर), i.e. for the destruction of the world. He was doing very ugra tapas (सुमहत्तपः, Rāmāyana, T, Uttarakānda, sarga 75).
When Rāma asked the purpose of Shambūka’s tapas, he replied that he was doing tapas for attaining divinity (i.e. to become Deva himself) in his mortal body :
देवत्वं प्रार्थये राम! सशरीरो महायशः।
(T, 7.75.1)
Shambūka further says that he is doing tapas in order to conquer the Deva-loka :
न मिथ्याऽहं वदे राम! देवलोकजिगीषया।
(T, 7.75.2)
See how tamasik tapas causes infant deaths mentioned in Vishnu Purana:-
अशास्त्रविहितं घोरं तप्यमानेषु वै तपः।
नरेषु नृपदोषेण बाल्ये मृत्युर्भविष्यति ॥ Vishnu Purana 6.1.40
In consequence of horrible tapas not enjoined by scripture, and of the vices of the rulers, children will die in their infancy.
'Asuric Tapas' is described in the Bhagavad Gita 17.5-6. Also
"अशास्त्रविहितं घोरं तप्यन्ते ये तपो जना: |
दम्भाहङ्कारसंयुक्ता: कामरागबलान्विता: || 5||
कर्षयन्त: शरीरस्थं भूतग्राममचेतस: |
मां चैवान्त:शरीरस्थं तान्विद्ध्यासुरनिश्चयान्
"Some people perform stern austerities that are not enjoined by the scriptures, but rather motivated by hypocrisy and egotism. Impelled by desire and attachment, they torment not only the elements of their body, but also I who dwell within them as the Supreme Soul. Know these senseless people to be of demoniacal resolves." (17.5-6)
The story of Sambuka as found in the Uttarakanda of Valmiki Ramayana and in Mahabharata and other Puranas do not contradict each other. Moreover, the Puranas condemn the kind of अशास्त्रीय तपस् that Sambuka was engaged in.
Shambūka begins by saying that he is engaged in fierce austerity & he wants to become *a God in this very body*
(देवत्वं प्रार्थये राम सशरीरो)
न मिथ्याहं वदे राजन्देवलोकजिगीषया
शूद्रं मां विद्धि काकुत्स्थ शम्बूकं नाम नामतः
"I do not lie, O King, From my desire to conquer the world of the Gods. Know me, Kākutstha, as a Shūdra known by the name of Shambūka"
Even Sri Madhvacharya in his Tatparya-nirnaya says that Sambuka aspired to attain the status of Rudra and to become husband of Parvati.
तपश्चकार दुर्बुद्धिरिच्छन् माहेश्वरं पदम् ।
अनन्यवध्यं तं तस्माज्जघान पुरुषोत्तमः॥
~Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya 9.21
Should he be allowed to conquer deva-loka?
We must also remember even Lord Rama's own ancestor King Triśaṅku in Bālakāṇḍa of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, wanted to go to svarga while retaining his human body he also failed. But one can argue he wasn't killed like Sambuka, the reason is In Uttarakāṇḍa's śūdra Śambūka wanted to become a deva (greater goal) while retaining his human body. Both faced their share of repercussions.
Moreover A passage ascribed to Katyayana, advises the king to punish a Sudra who takes to renunciation (Katyayanasmrti, 486).
It is true that Shudras were probably barred from doing tapasya, this passage of Katyana Smriti echoes in Valmiki Ramayana where Sambuka was slain.
In Rāmāyana, it's explicitly mentioned that Shudras will perform Tapas in Kali-Yuga.
भविष्या शूद्रयोन्यां वै तपश्चर्या कलौ युगे ।
—Rāmāyana 7.74.27
The story of Shambūka did not happen in Kali Yuga, did it? He did not have adhikāra in *his time* to do it, it wasn't his yuga dharma to do it. Why conflate practices of different yugas ?
Practicing austerities and becoming renouncers are listed among the six practices that cause the downfall of Sudras and women. Atri Smrti, 136-37.
This is what Karapatri Swami wrote after examining all the sources:-
“शास्त्रों में तप का विधान चतुर्थ वर्ण के लिए नहीं है... वैदिक चातुर्वर्ण्यधर्म का उल्लङ्घन करने के कारण ही... शूद्र शम्बूक... को दण्ड दिया गया था।”
“कोई भी बुद्धिमान् यह भलीभाँति समझ सकता है कि... शूद्र अपना कर्म छोड़कर ब्राह्मण का कर्म करने पर अपराधी क्यों न होगा?”
Source: Karapatri Swami, Rāmāyaṇa-mimāṃsā, p. 609-10
Sources repeatedly state that the practicing of austerities by Sudras is a sure sign of the Kali age. Brahmanda Purana, 1.31.60
In short, the fourth varṇa is not authorised to practice penance. Śambūka transgressed this rule. Hence, Rāma punished him.
Kalidasa's Raghuvaṁśa (15.42–57):
“transgression (of varna duties)” (अपचार) and “unauthorised to do penance” (तपस्यनधिकारित्वात्)
Vallabha, the writer of its oldest extant commentary: “शूद्रस्य द्विजधर्माचरणं लोकव्यसनकरम्”
Dinakara, another commentator: Same opinion (quotes Yajnavalkya)
Uttararāmacarita (Act 2): the social background of Shambuka is again highlighted. However, starting from Kālidāsa’s works, all the works show that Shambuka attained heaven as a result of being punished by Rāma (either as a king or as Vishnu).
Even in Skanda Purana as well:-
Now another question comes does shudras were prohibited from Doing Tapasya during Treta Yuga?
Answer:- In the same Valmiki Ramayana Ayodhya-Kanda, Dasaratha recalls the story of how he accidentally killed a child of a blind tapasvins in the forest and was cursed as a result. The last words, the boy told him that he was the son of a Vaisya father and a Sudra mother. So a Vaisya and a Sudra were doing Tapas.
Valmiki Ramayana 2.63:-
Another example is famous Shabari.
Some commentators of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa on Śabarī
Govindarāja :- "She was in the 4th āśrama (saṃnyāsa) and was Pratilomaja(mixed-caste)."
Govindarāja :- "She was in the 4th āśrama (saṃnyāsa) and was Pratilomaja(mixed-caste)."
Maheśvara Tīrtha :- "She was a Śabara woman in the 4th āśrama."
Mādhava Yogī : "The word 'Śabarī' denotes her attribute (hence, a Śabara woman)."
Ref.:-Their commentaries on a verse from the 1st Sarga of Bālakāṇḍa, especially on the expression 'śabarīṃ dharmacāriṇīm'.
Then why did Narada said tapasya of Shudras during Treta Yuga was a sin ?
According to Srlkara’s bhasya on Vedantasutra 1. 3. 34:- the order of sannyasa, the peculiar rules of which are recommended by Vedic texts, is only for the three varnas, while mere nyasa (abandonment of worldly pleasures and desires) can be resorted to by women, Siudras and mixed castes.
It means Sannyasa which was based on Varna-asrama rules was prohibited for shudras, because that required Vedic Upanayana and rituals. But Shudras could took "nyasa" (abandonment of worldly pleasures and desires).
Another point is Caṇḍeśvara in his Vivādaratnākara notes that although saṃnyāsa for Śūdra isn't stated by Śruti(Veda) & Smṛti, it is accepted via Śaiva Āgama, where it is found as stated.
He further says that those dharmas which have not been stated by Śruti & Smṛti, but have been stated by Śaivas and so forth, should be definitely protected by the king.
He has said this while commenting on Kātyāyana's verse:
प्रव्रज्यावसितं शूद्रं जपहोमपरन्तथा।
वधेन शासयेत्पापं दाप्यो वा द्विगुणं दमम्॥
Ref.: Vivādaratnākara, Daṇḍotkarṣāpakarṣāditaraṅga.
Make things much more clear:-
"Just as Vidura and the like, adhikāra of women in Yoga is possible. In place of it's aṅgas like Yajña, (they can perform) service to Guru."
- Govindarāja (conclusion of his commentary on Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa 3.74, episode related to Śabarī)
Just to make some things clear:-
- Shambūka wanted to become a God
- Shambūka wanted to conquer the world of the Gods
- Shambūka's ugra tapas led to death of a five-year old child
- Shambūka was anadhikrit to perform tapas in his yuga dharma
Comments
Post a Comment