Ramayana doubt...

[Guest guest]

SrImate rangarAmAnuja mahAdeSikAya nama:

 

In a recent mail by Sri Krishnaswamy there were a few comments by Rajaji:

 

"In Valmeeki's work Rama is portrayed as a great and unique man, not as an

incarnation of God. True, in some chapters there are references to him as

an avataar of God"

 

"Even during Valmeeki's days, the idea was prevalent, to some extent, that

Rama was an avataar. Centuries later, Kamban and Tulsidaas sang the

Ramaayana, and by that time it had come to be accepted that Sri Rama was

an avataar of Vishnu."

 

I had held similar views in the past about his divinity. However, even on

my (very) limitedly reading/hearing the RaamaayaNa, I found instances

where he acted as an avatAra and not "merely" an ideal man. These

typically subtle instances, (unlike the more explicit ones like

Brahma/Garuda revealing Rama's avatAra, that Rajaji seemingly refers to)

seem more to be inadvertent ( :-) ?) slip-ups on the part of Sri Rama in

keeping up the act, rather than deliberate incorporations by poets or

popular folk stories.

 

Amongst the many such instances the one that, to me, has been the most

striking and definitely the subtlest is Sri Rama's behaviour when Bharata

takes up a vow to fast unto death (in order to force Rama to return to

AyodhyA) and sits on Kusha grass. Keeping in mind that none of the

Raghukula people gave up their vows that easily, Sri Rama gives a very

peculiar "prAyashchittam" after coaxing him to give up his obstinacy:

 

"uttiShTha tvam mahAbAho mAm ca spRisha tathodakam"

--"Oh might armed one! Get up, touch *me* and water"..

 

Now, I do not see how touching one's elder brother or a debtor (as

reading the slokas preceding this one in the Ramayana could contextually

indicate) is any way of breaking a solemn vow of fasting unto death.

 

Are there actually Smriti statements that justify breaking one's vow in

this fashion?

If not, Sri Rama speaks in this instance in a manner very different from

what would be expected of a man (even an ideal one).

 

I would be very grateful if learned members could elucidate

on how this verse has been interpreted by our AcAryas or commentators.

I would also be very grateful if bhaktas could privately send me

more such instances that I am sure are sprinkled throughout Valmiki

Ramayana..

 

adiyen rAmAnuja dAsan