In Defence of Sri Rama

1 www.vaishnavism.org

WWW.VAISHNAVISM.ORG

In defence of Sri Rama A study of the greatness of Sri Rama

D. Harish Kumar


Copyright

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


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 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

COPYRIGHT 2

PREFACE 3

CONTENTS 4

INTRODUCTION 5

THE AGNI PARIKSHA OF SITA 5

HIS TREATMENT OF BALI 8

THE KILLING OF SHAMBUKA 10

EPILOGUE 11

GLOSSARY 13

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 wife’s 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

Ravana’s 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 today’s 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.



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,

friend—he 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 father—though to that also—he 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



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 like—but at any rate he stands among the few greatest Vibhutis. You may dethrone him

now—for man is no longer satisfied with the sattwic ideal and is seeking for something

more—but 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 Avatarhood—there was somebody who

was the Avatar of the sattwic Human as Krishna was the Avatar of the overmental

Superman—I can see no one but Rama who can fill the place.

In Aurobindo’s 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 women’s liberation, gender equality and

other such ideals.



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 don’t 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.



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 not—an Avatar is not

at all bound to be a spiritual prophet—he is never in fact merely a prophet, he is a realiser, an

establisher—not 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 evolution—so he did

not at all concern himself with that. His business was to destroy Ravana and to establish the

Rama-rajya—in 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



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 Bhimasena’s vow that he

would shatter the sinner’s 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 Killing of Shambuka

The Third issue on which Rama is often attacked is his killing of Shambuka. We are told that

Shambuka was a shudra who was doing penance to attain salvation and he did not like the

shudra aspiring for salvation so he was killed off. But the real reason was that Shambuka was

an asura and he was aspiring for Indra’s position and he was doing penance for that. It was to

protect devas from the asura that Rama destroyed his penance. Also let us not forget Rama ate

the half-eaten fruits given to him by Shabari who was aspiring for salvation. Do you mean to

say Rama loves Scheduled Tribes but hates Shudras? This is really funny to say the least !



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 Rama—I 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 politics—but 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 scheme—and seems to

me to fill it rightly—and because when I read the Ramayana I feel a great afflatus which I



recognise and which makes of its story—mere faery-tale though it seems—a 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 is—any of these or all—a 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

objection—I have no particular partiality for Rama—provided 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 dharma—not from that of any

universal moral standard—which 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 focus—you 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 do—but a debunked figure is not the true figure.



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

In Defence of Sri Rama

Spiritual

lord rama

greatness of sri rama

noble character of sri

orgin defence of sri

return of sita

statusof sita

spirited defence of

agni pariksha of sitathe