Did Barathazhwan doubt Lord Rama?

October 7, 2009

Dear Vasudevan Swamin

Adiyen Dasan. On your question, I had sent a detailed response to both Tiruvenkatam and Sri Vaishnavasri list. I had also marked a copy to your personal id. I did not receive any response from you on that.

YOu have stated that you have only received 2 responses from Sriman Anbil Swamin and Sriman PVVS. Perhaps you missed my third response or seeing the quality of my response you thought it is not worthy enough! Any ways I am resending the email once again for your reference.

Based on your two emails: The synthesis is: Did Baratha doubt Rama? If so did he get any punishment if at all?

The answer is a long one. But the headline news for members who do not have time to read a long email is: 'Barathazhwan never doubted Rama' - if so it would have been elaborately been dealt with by our poorvacharyas which is not the case.

Now to the logic behind this (apart from the fundamental fact that none of the poorvacharyas never thought this to be a big issue).

1. We should not 'miss the big picture' - the big picture is: Barathazhwan never aspired for the kingdom, voluntarily spent his life in equal difficulty during the 14 years coinciding with Lord Rama's exile. Forming an opinion on just a few shlokas is like being misled by the 'Headlines' in the newspaper when the underlying story could be entirely different.

2. Srimadh Thirukudanthai Andavan swamin in his Ramayana upanyasam in the early 1970s (compiled by the Andavan Ahsramam as Acharya Ramamrutham) said taking meaning from Ramayana is like taking Ratnas from the ocean - you never know what superior meaning/artham comes out of the passage.

3. Now coming to your second mail: You guide us to a shloka where you say the meaning of 'Baratha being aware of his Vamsham' and that the Vamsham in question is that of his mothers! I think this is not the correct way to look at it. Baratha belongs to Ikshvaku Kulam - sons take father's gothram for brahmanas and father's dynasty for Kshatriya. No where in any of our Itihasas or Puranas has there been a single instance where a son has taken his mother's lineage - now some very rare exceptions might be presented with but only in very exceptional circumstances for specific reasons. Generally when one talks about one's vamsham it is the father's lineage and not the mother's lineage - ours is a Patriarchial society (like the rest of the most of the world). So the line of thinking presented by you about Kaikeya vamasham's drawbacks does not hold good

It is entirely justifiable for Baratha to have thought along the lines the shloka mentions because:

1. He feared for Ikshvaku's race (and not Kaikeya race) - because he belonged to Ikshvaku dynasty. Also Ikshvaku was to who Narayana had taugth Bagavaadh Gita earlier (per Krishna's upadesam to Arjuna in the first chapter of Gita)

2. He was tutored by sage Vasishta - his guru had none other than the very best of the best taught him never to mix emotion and logic

3. Baratha feared for a second if Lor Rama himself could have done these maha apacharams then what can be said of the Baddha Atmas like us!

4. He feared for the welfare of Ayodhya - because the wrong act of one person in Treta yuga will affect the entire city of Ayodhya

5. It also showed how much he trusted his father's judgement - he believed that his father who treasured Lord Rama than his dear life would have not thought twice to hand out a punishment to Lord Rama if he does an apacharam - now that he hears Dasaratha has himself sent Lord Rama to the forest he fears the very worst

6. if Baratha infact desired the throne, the first reaction would have been that of joy and not that of doubt/fear and questions

7. it shows he is able to think logically and also shows his expertise in Raja neethi - that he is aware of situations upon whose happening alone can his brother be exiled

8. the list of offences he mentions are grave indeed - he lists them to

(i) impress upon Kaikeyi that by sending Lord Rama to exile, she has infact accused Lord Rama or one or more of these apacharams

(ii) impress upon the kaikeyi the grave apacharam she has committed by sending Lord Rama to exile

(iii) build up a logical case based on which he could punish Kaikeyi suitably (that he ventures to kill his own mother is well known)

(iv) eventually by pointing these logical reasons, all of which has not happened, he was hoping to convince lord Rama to comeback which he tries to and fails eventually

Now let us for a second say that Baratha does not think along the lines the Shloka mentions. THAT IS WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE DOUBTED BARATHA' because

1. He was afraid of Lord Rama - because Lord Rama was the elder and more powerful of the brothers - so why invite wrath of his elder brother

2. Continuing from (1) above, Baratha was a coward - an unfit kshatriya

and so on

3. Baratha lacks logical thinking capacity

4. Baratha shows nepotism - that he blindly believed Lord Rama - not good for a Kshatriya prince - they have to show the ability not to mix reason/logic with emotions

Now coming to another line of argument: let us say Baratha infact and indeed doubts Lord Rama - there is still nothing wrong in that. Take any of the 12 Azhwars - especially Thirumangai Azhwar and swami Nammzhwar in their nayika bhavans - no body could have doubted the good lord than these two Azhwars - they were overcome by bhakti that even a single moment they separated from the Lord, they doubted Lord's Satyakama and Satya Sankalpa gunas in offering sharanagathi to prapannas - they accuse the lord of wantedly being separated from them. They hurl many accusations - all because of Bhakti. So one could argue that Baratha 'Azhwan' (perhaps he got his suffix only because he like other Azhwars accuses the good lord) was so immerse in Rama Bhakti that he doesn't think twice to accuse Lord Rama

I hope all of this helps you in your quest to coming to the right conclusion

Adiyen Dasan

Ramji