Debunking Riddles in Hinduism part-1(Lord Rama)
Introduction:- BR Ambedkar quotes various Hindu texts to criticize Hinduism. He discusses a variety of topics, including the contents, the authority, and the origin of the Hindu texts such as the Vedas; the absurdities, the contradictions, and the changing nature of the Hindu beliefs; and the discriminatory varna and the caste system, and criticize the Avatars like Rama & Krishna among other topics. This present article only focused on Various Arguments he raised against Lord Rama and we will see whether those arguments were right or just his biaseness against Hinduism. Let's see
Rebuttal:- Valmiki himself clearly stated that Lord Vishnu incarnated on earth to punish the wicked Ravana. Then why he was not worthy of worship ? Moreover who decides who is worthy of worship or not ?
Valmiki Ramayana Ayodhya kanda 2.1.7:-
Claim#2:- Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical glass to cover the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife.
Rebuttal:- How did he came into such weird conclusion? Such miraculous birth stories were common in Ancient world just like Jesus born from a Virgin and interestingly Ambedkar's own idol Lord Buddha's birth story was also miraculous.
Many wondrous and marvellous events attended his conception and birth. The most detailed of the canonical accounts of these marvels and miracles are found in the Acchariya-b,bhūta Sutta such as follows:-
Here from above description it is clear Buddha was not born through the
birth-canal(Vagina) like a normal child. He was born “womb-free” (ayonija). Being born womb-free, he was not traumatized by the pains of birth and other impurities.
Bodhisattva was born from the right side of his mother Māyā.
So, not being born through the birth canal reflects a concern about Buddha's “ultimate purity", that's why it was stated that he was born without any stain of blood, humours etc.
Now how will Ambedkar explain this if he was alive ?
Comes to the next point, in Valmiki Ramayana similarly portrays Lord Rama as someone who was not ordinary human being like the same way Buddha was depicted in Buddhists texts. So as per Hindu scriptures when Lord born in material world it was just his mere appearance, in reality neither he was born nor he was died, he just manifested infront of us by his own will.
"Thus, the Lord’s birth is different from material birth. It is the Lord’s appearance in the world in imitation of material birth, and sometimes not in imitation at all. As is said in the Sruti, “The Unborn takes birth in many ways” (Mudgala Upanisad 3.1)
In Valmiki Ramayana it was described Devatas urge Visnu to incarnate in human form to destroy Ravana. Then in that Yajna of Dasarath A celestial being from Prajapatya emerges from the sacrificial fire and gives a vessel containing payasam- which his wives partake the payasam and become pregnant.
Those verses are beautifully described in Traditional Commentaries of Valmiki Ramayana for example:- Amruta Kataka explained those verses as such :-
Claim #3:- According to Buddhist Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha......The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules [ Among the Aryans marriages between brothers and sisters were allowed] of marriage.
Rebuttal:- As per almost all Indologists Valmiki Ramayana is the oldest version of Ramayana.....Both the Buddhist and Jaina Ramayanas are later than that.
In the Buddhist version there are many other errors and such weird descriptions, like In that Ramayana (Dasaratha Jataka), Dasharatha was king of Benares and not Ayodhya.
About Rama's exile Dasharatha sent the three to a hermitage in the Himalayas for a twelve-year exile. (Which is again wrong as per Valmiki Ramayana the duration was of 14 years.)
After nine years, Dasharatha died and Lakkhaṇa and Sita returned. Rāmapaṇḍita, in deference to his father's wishes, remained in exile for a further two years. This version does not include the abduction of Sītā. There is no Ravana in this version, or the Rama-Ravana war.
Another thing is in this version is notable for regarding Rama as a bodhisattva (on the path to Buddhahood)
And the most interesting point about this Buddhist Ramayana is that here Buddha declared he was himself Lord Rama in one of his previous lives as follows:-
“At that time the king
Suddhodana was king Dasaratha, MahAmAyA was the mother, RAhulA’s mother was Sita, Ananda was Bharata, and I myself was Rama pandita "
~Buddha ,Dasarath Jataka 461/96 ;Sutta-pittak /kuddhakNikaya(~300 BCE)
So those who believe in this Buddhist Ramayana story will they accept this too that Buddha was Rama in his previous lives ?
So, this clearly shows that Valmiki Ramayana pre-dated buddhist Ramayana, because in there you will not find such references like Rama claimed that he was Buddha in any of his previous lives.
Regarding Sita's parenthood it stated she was goddess, her birth as per most scriptures, specifically the original Valmiki Ramayan is said to be non-uterine (ayonija), still the day of her being discovered by king Janaka.
Janaka describes Sita's birth as non-uterine(ayonija) similar like Buddha here as follows:-
Later, when I was ploughing the ritual field then raised by the plough [from the furrow is a baby girl... since she is] gained while consecrating the ritual-field, she is named as Seetha, and thus she is renowned... [1-66-13b, 14a]
Hers is a non-uterine birth as she surfaced from the surface of the earth, but fostered as my own soul-born girl and I determined [to give her in marriage to a bridegroom where his] boldness is the only bounty, [I receive in that marriage...] [1-66-14b, 15a]
Sita narrates to Devi Anusuya:-
मिथिला अधिपतिर् वीरो जनको नाम धर्मवित् |
क्षत्र धर्मण्य् अभिरतो न्यायतः शास्ति मेदिनीम् || २-११८-२७
"A king of Mithila kingdom, named Janaka who was valiant and a knower of righteousness, was devoted to the duty of his warrior class and was ruling the earth in a fitting manner."
तस्य लान्गल हस्तस्य कर्षतः क्षेत्र मण्डलम् |
अहम् किल उत्थिता भित्त्वा जगतीम् नृपतेः सुता || २-११८-२८
"While he was furrowing a territory of land, holding a plough in his hand, it is so said that I came forth, splitting up the land, as a daughter of that king."
Then after
अन्तरिक्षे च वाग् उक्ता अप्रतिमा मानुषी किल |
एवम् एतन् नर पते धर्मेण तनया तव || २-११८-३१
"It is said that voice resembling that of a human being in the air above me rang out, saying": "O, King! Let it be so. This divine child without a match is a daughter to you, rightly."
Claim#4:- One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common. For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers*[ Ayodhyakanda Sarga VIII sloka 12] to the many wives of Rama. These were of course in addition to his many concubines.
Rebuttal:- This is simply misinterpretation of a verse. The context of that chapter is a monologue by Manthara, who was at that time in the process of poisoning Kaikeyi's mind.
Here look in comment the translator explained this.
Moreover the words Manthara spoke are to be noted:-
She says:-
Hrshtah Khalu Bhavishyanti Ramasya Paramah Striyah|
Aprahishtah Bhavishyanti Snushaas Te Bharata-kshaye||
Here, she says, Bhavishyanti, which means, "Will become". So, here do not indicate that Rama had multiple wives. Manathara refers to a possible future where Rama being a King would marry other women.
Furthermore, in the Uttara Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana, the priests of Rama advise him to marry someone else, so that he would be able to perform the Ashvamedha Yajna, which would not have been said if Rama had multiple wives. Even at this point, Rama refuses to marry and instead seats beside him a golden image of Sita.
Even this is supported by other Hindu scriptures as well.
Śrimadbhagavatam 9.10.54
एकपत्नीव्रतधरो राजर्षिचरित: शुचि: ।
स्वधर्मं गृहमेधीयं शिक्षयन् स्वयमाचरत् ॥ ५४ ॥
Lord Rāmacandra took a vow to accept only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in His character was good, untinged by qualities like anger. He taught good behavior for everyone, especially for householders, in terms of varṇāśrama-dharma. Thus He taught the general public by His personal activities.
Claim#5:- This murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was most cowardly act for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.
Rebuttal:- We all know According to the Ramayana, when Sugriva approached Lord Rama for help in taking his kingdom and wife back from his monstrous brother Vaali, Lord Rama helped him by killing Vaali from behind without his knowing, while the combat between him and Sugriva was going on.
Vali questions logically about it, even at his dying stage. The questions and accusations are as below:-
1] By killing one who is facing away, what worth is achieved by you?;
Rama's answer:- "I am abiding by the ethicalness practised by my father and forefathers, but you revile me without the knowledge of rightness, just by clinging to your rancour." Thus said Rama to dying Vali. [4-18-43]
Dharmaakuutam, the only commentary on Ramayana insofar as dharma is concerned explains that for us.:-
"When it is said by Rama that 'today only I will kill Vali...' then it may be countered by saying, 'then why killing him from distance, why not confront him?' If Rama comes to fore, fear may grip Vali, then he may take Ruma, Sugreeva's wife, and to insult, Sugreeva further, Vali may go to a distant place with her. Or, he may seek shelter with Ravana. Or, he may even take refuge in Rama like Sugreeva. Or, on seeing Sugreeva with enough support, he may summon all his Vanara army to fight with Sugreeva and his supporters. Then it will prolong for a time. Then the promise of Rama made to Sugreeva to accord his wife and his kingdom by killing Vali, also prolongs. Justice delayed is denied. Otherwise, if Vali surrenders to Rama, as the killing of a refugee is not a merited act, Rama has to pardon Vali. Whether Vali takes refuse or not, killing Vali on that day itself, and establishing Sugreeva in Kishkindha are the promises made by Rama, at the time of befriending Sugreeva. The word given is to be kept up. So Rama did it and there is no unrighteous deed done by Rama."
This is also clarified by Madhvachary in his Mahabharata Tatparya nirnay 6.19-20:-
Another point is :-
The reason Rama didn't face him and challenge him to combat was because vali had obtained a special boon from Brahma which enabled him to take away half the strength of the opponent he faced:-
आहूय वालिनं ब्रह्मा ददौ वरं अनुत्तमम् । प्रतीपवर्तिनोभूयात् अर्ध बलं अरिन्दम ॥
Inviting Vali, Brahma gave him an excellent boon. On confrontation with an opponent Vali will conquer half of his strength.
Knowing this through Sugreeva, and honouring Brahma's boon Rama did not come face to face with Vali. This is said at Valmiki Ramayana 4-16-27, and 4-16-31. The same is the situation when Hanuman is bound by Brahma missile in Sundara Kanda, where he obliges Brahma's decree.
Other certain things which many peoples unaware of that :-
Vali said:- "Though Tara dissuaded me I met with my brother Sugreeva in a duel as though aspiring elimination at your hand.." On saying thus to Rama that vanara, Vali the lord of monkeys' paused for a while. [4-18-57b, 58]
Here this statement indicates he already aware that Rama was with Sugreeva but he himself wanted death in Rama's hand, so he came for duel with Sugreeva.
2] You have not punished the wrongdoer;
Rama's answer:- "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]
"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]
"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]
4] In your country or city I did no misdeed;
Rama's reply:- "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]
"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]
"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]
Even in Ayodhya Kanda II, 1-674-17 Rama said '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.
"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]
"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]
5] Non-guilty being is hurt;
Rama's answer:-
"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]
"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]
"Like a blind by birth counselling with similarly blind, you being a vacillant, on your counselling only with frantic minded vacillant monkeys, what can you really fathom about right and wrong? [4-18-16]
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]
"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]
"Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you... you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. [4-18-18]
10] Unnecessary killers are hell-goers;
Rama's answer:- "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]
'When kings impose proper punishment on the humans who have sinned, they become sinless and enter heaven as with the pious souls with good deeds.' So says one verse of Manu. [4-18-31]
" 'Either by punishment or by clemency a thief will be absolved from sin, but the king who does not impose proper punishment will derive the blot of that sin.' So says the other verse of Manu. [4-18-32]
killing a sinner is no sin and no hell is ensuing thereby...' is the reply, establishing Vali's sin.
13] I would have brought back Maithili in one day.
Rama's answer:- "My association with Sugreeva is as good as that with Lakshmana, nevertheless it betided with an understanding to regain Sugreeva's wife and kingdom, and he will give succour to me. [4-18-26]
Bringing Maithili from the captivity of Ravana would have averted Vali's death - so Vali thought. But who will bring Ruma, wife of Sugreeva, and give her back to Sugreeva? Vali does not consider this, and in this alone Vali's transgression is said to have been proved. Thus any truce between Vali and Rama is an impossible and improbable proposition.
"I gave a promise to Sugreeva at the time of befriending him in the presence of vanara-s, and how is it possible for my kind to dishonour a given promise? [4-18-27]
In Aranya Kanda he tells Seetha, that he even leaves his life than to feign his promise. 4-10-18.
Hence there is no question of his going back on the word given to them that crave for his mercy.
"Thereby you have to infer that a befitting punishment is given to you, owing to all these great reasons that abound with virtue and with supreme value. [4-18-28]
Source:- Valmiki Ramayana Kiskindha kanda sarga 17
9] How do you face criticism by scholars?
Interesting Vali later himself praised Rama and accepted that what Rama did was right.
Vali is much distressed at heart of hearts when Rama has said categorically in that way, whereby, deriving certitude about rightness he found no incorrectness with Rama. [4-18-44]
That lord of vanara-s then replied Rama with adjoined palms, "oh, best one among men, what all you have said is that way proper, undoubtedly. [4-18-45]
"Indeed an ignoble cannot disprove a nobleman, Raghava, and with regards to the undesirable and improper words I have unwittingly spoken earlier, in that mater too it will be truly unapt of you to make me blameworthy, as I spoke them in anguish and ignorance. [4-18-46, 47a]
"You alone are the knower of recourses and their real nature, namely probity, prosperity, pleasure seeking, and emancipation; dharma, artha, kaama, moksha ; and you take delight in the welfare of subjects, and your faultless intellect is clear in accomplishing ends by judging the causes and effects. [4-18-47b, c]
"Oh, Rama, the knower of probity, I am the one who digressed from the rightness and a forerunner among such transgressors, such as I am, give absolution even to me with words abounded with rightness." Vali is thus saying to Rama. [4-18-48]
Claim #6:- Here Ambedkar talks about After war When Rama meet Sita how he behave with his wife, Here Ambedkar wants to say Rama have got Sita as a prize in a war after conquering his enemy Ravana the captor of Sita. He just recovered his honour and punished his enemy. People have witnessed his military prowess and he glad his abours have been rewarded. He just came there to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour, he did not take this trouble for Sita's sake.
Ambedkar pointed out Rama said Sita that he suspected her chastity and uses very harsh words against her.
To prove his points he quoted two verses from Valmiki Ramayana Yuddhakanda Sarga 115.
Then after Ambedkar talks about Sita's Agnipariksha, which she did to prove her chastity.
Rebuttal:- Cherry picking from any Scriptures is harmful, Ambedkar conscously avoid what written after those verses.....Rama clarified himself infront of Lord Brahma and all other gods that he never doubter Sita's chastity. Then why he used such harsh words ? And what's the reason behind Agnipariksha?
Here is the answer:-
अवश्यं चापि लोकेषु सीता पावनमर्हति |
दीर्घकालोषिता हीयं रावणान्तःपुरे शुभा || ६-११८-१३
"Seetha certainly deserves this pure factory ordeal in the eyes of the people in as much as this blessed woman had resided for a long time indeed in the gynaecium of Ravana.
बालिशो बत कामात्म रामो दशरथात्मजः |
इति वक्ष्यति मां लोको जानकीमविशोध्य हि || ६-११८-१४
"The world would chatter against me, saying that Rama, the son of Dasaratha, was really foolish and that his mind was dominated by lust, if I accept Seetha without examining her with regard to her chastity."
अनन्यहृदयां भक्तां मचत्तपरिवर्तिनीम् |but
अहमप्यवगच्छामि मैथिलीं जनकात्मजाम् || ६-११८-१५
"I also know that Seetha, the daughter of Janaka, who ever revolves in my mind, is undivided in her affection to me."
इमामपि विशालाक्षीं रक्षितां स्वेन तेजसा |
रावणो नातिवर्तेत वेल मिव महोदधिः || ६-११८-१६
"Ravana could not violate this wide-eyed woman, protected as she was by her own splendour, any more than an ocean would transgress its bounds."
प्रत्ययार्थं तु लोकानां त्रयाणाम् सत्यसंश्रयः |
उपेक्षे चापि वैदेहीं प्रविशन्तीं हुताशनम् || ६-११८-१७
"In order to convince the three worlds, I, whose refugee is truth, ignored Seetha while she was entering the fire."
न च शक्तः सुदुष्टत्मा मनसापि हि मैथिलीम् |
प्रधर्षयितुमप्राप्यां दीप्तामग्निशिखामिव || ६-११८-१८
"The evil-minded Ravana was not able to lay his violent hands, even in thought, o the unobtainable Seetha, who was blazing like a flaming tongue of fire."
Another point is we often judge from ordinary human lense Which should not be used all the time, because no ordinary human being came alive from fire.
Claim#7:- some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she must have conceived from Ravana while she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife.
Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means—namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice in a most treacherous manner.
This shows that he had made up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without waiting to consider whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame.
Rebuttal:- The reason was already there in Valmiki Ramayana behind the banishment of Sita, which Ambedkar don't know about:-
I will explain in short the chapters 43 - 50 of Book 7 (Uttarakanda) of The Valmiki Ramayana.
Chapter 43: It all started after Rama asked his friends - “What are the people of Ayodhya talking about their king? O Bhadra, please tell me everything, good and bad without hesitation.
“O Great King, your people are very pleased with you. They praise you for your valour and your victory over Dashagreeva (Ravana). They wish for the prosperity of you and your family. But there are a few things that some of them do not admire about you. They say - “Rama should not have built the bridge and pass over the sea god. This has never happened before, nor by the devas neither the asuras. How could he kill Ravana, a Brahmana and perhaps all the monkeys were in his spell, in his control to do that.”
But most of all, they are not pleased with your decision to accept mother Sita after she stayed with Ravana for such a long time.
“How can a person stay with a woman whose purity has been stained? First Ravana forcefully grabbed Sita, kept her in his lap and flew her away in his airplane.
He then kept her hostage in Ashoka Vatika along with those maids, he keeps for entertainment. After staying with the asuras for so many years, how does Shree Rama not hate her? From now on, we would also have to tolerate this nonsense from our wives - as citizens have a tendency to follow their king.”
Rama was aghast on hearing the perception of his people. He was disappointed and broken, and wished to see his brothers at once. He asked his keepers to send word for them immediately.
Chapter 44: The keeper went to inform his brothers by visiting their respective palaces. All of them reached Rama's palace within no time. They were scared as well as anxious.
Chapter 45: Rama informed his brothers everything he heard that the common folk said about him.
“My dear brothers!” said Rama, “Don't you remember how Sita stepped into the fire to prove her purity and how in front of all the devas Agni had declared her character unstained? In this manner, in the island of Lanka, in front of all the devas she was handed over to me by Devaraja Indra himself. My inner soul too considers Sita as pure, therefore I brought her with me. But now, this rumour has been spread across and this is why my heart is extremely sorrowful.
#Note:- Here is another proof that Rama personally never doubted her character.
*The person whose infamy becomes the topic of discussion among people, falls in the lower realms (narakas), and he remains there as long as his disfamy is been recited. (V.R. 7|45|12)
Dishonour is condemned by the Gods; honour is revered in the world and, it is on account of fair repute, that great souls act. As for me, so greatly do I fear dishonour that I would renounce my life and you yourselves on its account, O Bulls among Men, how much more therefore is it incumbent on me to separate myself from the daughter of Janaka. See therefore in what an ocean of grief I have fallen! There is no misfortune greater than this.
#Note:- This verse which Ambedkar quoted in his book but he consciously avoid a word and presented it according to his own plan to portray Lord Rama in a negative light,...I re-write the statement How Ambedkar presented Lord Rama's words and I will again share what exactly written in Scriptures to compare both Statements.
"All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset, Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it in tact. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita.". ......This is what Lord Rama said to his brothers as per Ambedkar
The exact verse in Valmiki Ramayana says :-
"Dishonour is condemned by the Gods; honour is revered in the world and, it is on account of fair repute, that great souls act. As for me, so greatly do I fear dishonour that I would renounce my life and you yourselves on its account, O Bulls among Men, how much more therefore is it incumbent on me to separate myself from the daughter of Janaka. See therefore in what an ocean of grief I have fallen! There is no misfortune greater than this. ~ Translation by Hari Prasad Sashtri
(Valmiki Ramayana Uttarakanda, Chapter 45)
See the difference :- The highlighted statements Ambedkar conscously avoid where Rama also said for the fear of dishonour he can even renounce his own life as well.
Ambedkar only shows that Rama said:- To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita
Another thing is there it is clear Rama said these words in extreme grief so we should not take those words in literal sense it was Arthavada or declamatory statement, as it is clear from his words:- "See therefore in what an ocean of grief I have fallen! There is no misfortune greater than this" .....But Ambedkar also didn't quoted such lines he presented that Rama said these in a very straight way without any grief in his heart for Sita.
Gitapress Hindi translation:-
Bibek Debroy's Translation from Valmiki Ramayana CE:-
Let's continue the story....
To-morrow, at dawn, O Saumitri, take my chariot with Sumantra as your charioteer and, causing Sita to ascend it, leave her beyond the confines of the kingdom.
"......O Sumitrakumara Lakshmana! I want you to take Sita along with you in your chariot and drop her outside the boundaries of this kingdom. On the other side of Ganga, on the banks of the Tamasa, lies the ashrama of the sage Valmiki.
Raghunandana! Leave Sita near the ashrama of Valmiki and return back to Ayodhya. Sumitranandana! Please obey my command. I do not wish to hear any further argument in this regard.
Formerly she appealed to me saying, ‘I wish to visit the sacred retreats of the banks of the Ganges’, let her wish be fulfilled!”
Rama's eyes were filled with tears as he spoke. His heart was filled with grief and sorrow and his Voice was trembling.
Chapter 46: Lakshmana informed Sita that they would soon be meeting the sages. Happily, Sita got ready and assembled the gifts she had collected to offer them. They both reached the ahsrama by crossing the river.
Lakshman said:- “Mother, I am just obeying brother's command. I do not wish to say this, but you have been exiled by brother.”
Sita was aghast. Those words felt like a lightning bolt of fate had just struck her life and once again, she had to spend her entire life in the absence of her Lord Husband.
Lakshman said :-“Your purity was questioned by some of the citizens and thus, brother had to take this decision of sending you to the woods to spend the rest of your life with the sages. He did not allow me to speak in your favour. I was helpless. Please forgive me.”
Chapter 47: Sita was found crying on the banks of the river by some kids of the ashrama. They informed the sages and Valmiki along with the Gurupatnis welcomed her to the ashrama. Sita narrated her story to Valmiki.
Chapter 48: Lakshmana ascended his chariot and asked his charioteer Sumantra to proced to Ayodhya. Sumantra obeyed the command.
“O Sumantra”, said Lakshmana, “I cannot bare the grief mother Sita has to face for the rest of her life. What wrong had she done? Why did brother sacrifice her for he knew she was innocent? This was never the way my brother ruled. Is this justice? Is this Dharma?”
“O Sumitrakumara!” said Sumantra, “Your brother has done something he did not have control over. He is bound by fate. Sometimes we humans cannot understand the actions of Vidhi. Please do not think much about it and have faith in your brother.”
Lakshmana expressed his displeasure in Rama's decision and asked, “Is this what Vidhi has planned for innocent beings? What crime had mother committed in her previous birth for which she has to face this type of fate? How will she live without brother? Tell me!”
“O Veera! I remember, when your father had visited the ashrama of Vasishta, he found sage Durvasa meditating in his ashrama.
He offered his homage to sage Durvasa and asked him with folded hands, “O Mahatma! I wish to know about my future. Will I have a son? How his character would be? How his married life would be? How many sons will he have?”
“O Veera Dasharatha!” said Durvasa, “You will have four sons, all blessed with calmness, valour, compassion and might. Your eldest son will be the best of all, with a wife, that will bear him two precious sons. But your dearest son, unfortunately will have to face the pangs of Seperation from his loved ones. He will abandon you for a promise, abandon his wife for a curse and also his brothers after he rules Ayodhya for a long time.”
What was the curse that made brother so helpless? Why did you not tell me this before?” asked Lakshmana.
Chapter 51:- “Long time ago”, said Durvasa, “there was a fight between the devas and the asuras. The asuras very secretly approached sage Bhrigu's wife and convinced her to give them shelter.
When Narayana came to know about this act of her's, he became furious. He chopped of her head immediately with his Sudarshana Chakra.
Bhrigu came to know about Narayana's act and he cursed him, “O Narayana! My wife was innocent and she did not deserve this type of treatment from you. You punished her for providing someone shelter. I curse you to be born as a human and face the panks of separation from your wife. There will come a day, when you will have to punish your wife for something she has never done. Your wife would be innocent and you would have no choice, but to live without her.”
In anticipation that his curse wouldn't affect Narayana, he meditated on Narayana for several years. When Narayana appeared before him, he asked him to accept the curse.
“As you wish” said Narayana, “I do accept the curse and will abide by it in my next life, in Treta. I will be born as Rama, in the clan of Manu and Lakshmi, born as Sita shall be my beloved wife. I will abandon Sita in my next life as a consequence to your curse.”
As a result of Bhrigu's curse, your brother has to face the separation of his beloved wife. In this, he was truly helpless and was abiding by fate.
*Conclusion:- So in little Summarised form, it was due to curse of Sage Bhrigu lord Vishnu promised to born on Earth as a human form Lord Rama and face the seperation of his beloved wife Sita(Maa Laxmi). It was just a divine play.
Note also that Rama never married again. Note also that husband and wife are required to jointly participate in sacrifices and rites. For every sacrifice that Rama undertook thereafter, a golden statue of Sita’s was kept, so as to comply with this requirement. So even they were seperated by fate they hold each other's hands forever.
Moreover morality is based on perspective.
The same allegations what Ambedkar raised against Lord Rama can also be used for his own idol Lord Buddha,....He also left his wife and little kid and his old father overnight. Was that ethically right ?
Claim#8:- This is probably the most henious accusation against of our Lord Rama.....Here Ambedkar says :- Valmiki has very minutely described [ Uttara Kanda Sarga 42 sloka 27] the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that account the day was divided into two parts. Up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of the Zenana he joined the company of jesters and when he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana [ Uttara Kanda Sarga 43 sloka I].
Rebuttal:-
The above arguments are Nowhere Exists in reality except Ambedkar's own imaginations let's see:-
1) Ambedkar quoted:- [ Uttara Kanda Sarga 42 sloka 27] the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that account the day was divided into two parts. Up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana(Harem).
Here is the above mentioned verse Translated by Gita Press:-
Let's see another translation by Hari Prasad Sashtri:-
Here is Bibek Debroy's translation:-
Here also Bibek Debroy translated it is "Inner-quarters".
From all the above three translation nowhere it said anything about any kind of Zenana/Harem. It simply means his personal or private room where he lived after completing his daily Duties.
But still if anyone have any kind of wrong intention they ofcourse make this private/personal room into something else by their own imaginary Interpretations. So, for them let's this crystal clear that it was just his personal room and nothing else. Here is the clear proof :-
This is from the section where Rama made preparations for Asvamedh yajna where Rama asked his mothers and brothers(princes) to came out from those inner quarters for the Ritual ceremony.
So, it clears it was just his personal room where he lived with his family nothing more than that. Valmiki Ramayana CE Uttarakanda Chapter 82 by Bibek Debroy.
Here as per Gita Press Translation you see here it said Rama delighted them with gifts for their performance.
Another thing is in Valmiki Ramayana Uttarakanda 43.1, it was also a room where where Rama along with his close companions used to discuss things
Look the reference and above pic carefully This is what Ambedkar quoted and said When he got tired of the Zenana he joined the company of jesters and when he got tired of jesters he went back to the
Zenana [ Uttara Kanda Sarga 43 sloka I].
I am unable to find any such verse in Valmiki Ramayana Uttarakanda. Nowhere I find this kind of verse.
2) Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama, used to take his meal. The food according to Valmiki consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaller. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts ['ibid.. Sarga 42 sloka 8.]. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Rama as a 'Prince among women's men '. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.
Here I will show you what exactly written in those specific chapters.
Hari Prasad Sashtri Translation:-
I don't see anything illicit or meanness in it.. Moreover Rama & Sita both they were delighted by the celebrations. No explicit reference of anything meaness in this context.
Well, all kings in palaces had just rooms, where they are entertained with music, dance etc. But I don't think there's anything sexual happening in case of Rama, unless if it's explicitly mentioned.. The verses makes it clear that Rama was loyal to Sita, and compares the couple with Vasishta and Arundhati who are symbol of ideal couple in Hindu marriages.
He may have drank wine, he was a Kshatriya after all and Kshatriyas are allowed to do so. Also I don't see anything relating to Rama being a womanizer in this context. The context of those verses itself compares Rama and Sita to Vasishta and Arundhati, symbol of ideal couple even today in Vedic marriages..
Ambedkar said as per Valmiki Rama was a 'Prince among women's men '. Based on a verse.
Here is the original Sanskrit verse.
Note the underlined word, "Ramayamas".
Here are some translation of that verse:-
Hari Prasad Sashtri Translation:-
Here Valmiki described that Rama delighted those Apsaras, Kinnaris who were entertaining both Rama & Sita.
But the question is how he delighted them ?
Let's see another translation:-
This interpretation of Gita press actually holds a ground because along with other scriptures as well as Valmiki Ramayana itself, proper maintainance of servants is a duty of a good king.
Valmiki Ramayana :-
भृत्यानाम् भरणात् सम्यक् प्रजानाम् परिपालनात् |
अर्थ आदानाच् च धार्मेण पिता नः त्रिदिवम् गतः || २-१०५-३३
"Our father reached heaven because he maintained his servants properly, protected his subjects and realised the taxes in the manner prescribed by scriptures from them."
In Brahma purana 216.59 "One who fosters his Servants he gets the Heaven along with the Vimanas"
Bibek Debroy's translation Valmiki Ramayana CE Uttarakanda Chapter 41:-
Here Rama along with Sita was delighted by those entertainment.
So, not a single translation says anything about sexual intercourse or anything illicit. The verses makes it clear that Rama was loyal to Sita, and compares the couple with Vasishta and Arundhati who are symbol of ideal couple in Hindu marriages.
Claim 9:- Rama killed a Shudra named Shambuka
Rebuttal:- I already discussed this in full details here 👇
http://thesarvadaman.blogspot.com/2023/03/reason-behind-ramas-slaying-of-shambuka.html
Comments
Post a Comment