Source: http://valmikiramayan.net
2.1.12 Whenever he finds some time even while practising archery, Rama used to converse with elderly people, elder by way of conduct or wisdom or age or with good- natured people.
Comment: Our ancestors seem to have a much better definition of 'elder' than we do.
2.2.16 Dasaratha says to the group of kings, “This is my desire. Yet, let there be thinking on any other beneficial way. Thinking by impartial neutral people will be distinctive and well developed through grinding of opposing views.”
Comment : A great lesson for all wannabe leaders! But uncle of Bharata (King of Kaikeya) and father of Sita (King Janaka) were not invited for this meeting to decide whether Rama should be coronated as the next king. Also, although Dasaratha thought it fit to consult so many kings, he did not consider consulting his own sons in this matter.
2.8.28 Manthara says to Kaikeyi, “You sent Bharata to his maternal uncle's house even in his childhood. By being nearer, love is born even on inanimate objects. By sending Bharata to a distant place, you made Dasaratha to have no affection towards him.”
Comment : Out of sight, out of mind!
2.10.17 On entering Kaikeyi's chambers, being possessed of power of lust, that king who came with object of sexual pleasure, was distressed in not finding his beloved wife and enquired the people there.
2.10.33 Dasaratha says, “Oh, Kaikeyi! Do not weep and get your body dried up. If you tell, I shall kill a person who is exempt from death or shall release a person who is worthy to be killed. I shall make a poor man prosperous or a rich man, destitute”
Comment : If Dasaratha was really a man of his word as is portrayed by popular media, he could have never said this to his wife. In Indian history, only Bhishma seems to be the one who strictly adhered to whatever he said but then we know its consequences!
2.12.61 Dasaratha says, “Without Rama, Bharata will not in any case take possession of the kingdom of Ayodhya as I think him to be stronger in virtue than even Rama.”
Comment : Dasaratha seems to have a very high opinion of Bharata whereas others seem to have grave doubts about his inclinations, as will see below.
2.12.68 Dasaratha says, “Oh, Kaikeyi! Whatever Kausalya, who was always desirous of showing kindness to me, who was blessed with a pet son, who speaks kind words and who deserves to be kindly treated, was waiting on me like a maid-servant, like a friend, like a wife, like a sister and like a mother. But, for your sake, she was never treated kindly by me.”
2.15.25 Then, Dasaratha woke up and spoke these words to Sumantra, who was eulogising him, who was skilled in giving advice and who was his charioteer.
Comment : In Mahabharata also, we see kings having very wise charioteers who are capable of giving great advice (eg. Sanjaya).
2.19.40 When Rama entered, Kausalya's palace was filled with great joy. At that time, Rama did not show any displeasure for the mishap occurred in truth. He behaved like that because he had doubted about the possible shock to his friends even of fear of their life, if he showed any perturbation.
Comment : Rama seems to be very sensitive towards others' emotions, but he also knows where to stand firm to his principles even if it ends up hurting others!
2.20.38-39 Kausalya says, “Oh, Rama! I have not seen any happiness or prosperity earlier, while my husband is in power. I believed that I could see them at last when my son comes to power. I have to hear so many disagreeable words from my fellow-wives who are inferior to me and who pierce my heart with their words though I am a better and virtuous wife among them.”
2.20.42 Kausalya says, “My husband always held me down, without giving me any independence and treat me equal to or even lower than the servants of Kaikeyi”
2.23.16-17 Lakshmana says to Rama, "Only a confused and cowardly person depends upon destiny. Brave men with self-respect do not honour the destiny. That person who is capable of keeping off destiny by human effort, does not have regret in the sense of not being failed by destiny."
2.23.36 Lakshmana says to Rama, "Oh, Lord! Today, the strength of my excellent arrows is capable of making you sovereign and making Dasaratha devoid of power."
Comment : Lakshmana seems to have much more reverence for his brother than his own father. But his ideals also seem to be quite different from Rama. It shows how much room for diversity was present in ancient times.
2.26.6 Sita sprang up from her seat and trembled by seeing her husband stricken with sorrow, his mind perturbed with anxiety.
2.26.19 Rama spoke thus to Sita, who is lamenting : Oh, Sita! My venerable father is sending me to a forest in exile.
Comments : Rama is clearly capable of displaying the usual human emotions. Its a pity that future generations reduced such a great man to the level of an Avatara!
2.26.25 Rama says to Sita, "Before setting forth to the lonely forest, I came to see you. I should not be praised at any time in the presence of Bharata. Men endowed with power and fortune indeed do not tolerate praise of others. Therefore, my virtues should not be extolled by you in front of Bharata."
2.27.9 Sita says to Rama, "My mother and father taught me of different matters long ago. I need not be told now, how to deal in any way with anyone."
2.29.8 Sita says, "Oh Rama, the very wise! Besides, formerly in my father's house it was heard by me from the month of brahmanas that I was destined to stay really in a forest."
2.29.15 Sita says, "Oh, Rama! May all be well with you! I am waiting for a journey to the forest. A work-out of adventurist is really delightful to me."
Comment : Sita is clearly not a simple girl who blindly obeyed her husband. She seems to have her own set of ideals and has the courage to follow them as well.
2.31.12-14 Rama says to Lakshmana, "That emperor of great splendour, who used to shower blessings on the people as a cloud sends down rain on the earth, stands circumscribed by cord of love. That Kaikeyi daughter of king Aswapathi, after obtaining this kingdom, will certainly not accord good treatment to her step-wives, who are at grief. Bharata on acquiring the kingdom will be devoted to Kaikeyi and will not think of sorrowful Kausalya or Sumitra."
Comment : Its very strange that Rama is showing so much doubt regarding Bharata's character when Dasaratha believes Bharata to be more virtuous than Rama.
2.34.13 Encircling Kausalya, three hundred fifty women, steadfast in their vow (of devotion to their husband), with their eyes reddened, went there slowly.
Comment : Really!! Dasaratha had 350 wives!
2.37.23 Vasistha says to Kaikeyi, "Oh, the woman without decorum! Seetha the princess shall not proceed to forest. She will occupy the throne, which was awarded to Rama."
Comment : This is a very interesting statement. Although we don't hear about women having been crowned in ancient times, its good to see that the society was open to that possibility.
2.38.1 On seeing Seetha wearing bark of trees like a helpless woman, eventhough protected by her husband all the people there loudly cried out: "Fie upon you, Dasaratha!"
Comment : The people of Ayodhya seem to have much more respect for Rama than their own king, Dasaratha!
2.40.47 Rama said to Sumantra, "You can say to the king that you did not hear (his call), even when scolded (later). seeing their grief for a long time is quite unbearbale."
2.46.30-31 In order to elude the citizens, Rama spoke to Sumantra as follows: "Oh, charioteer! You mount the chariot and go northward. Proceed for a while quickly and bring back the chariot again. Remaining careful, do it in such a way that the citizens may not be able to locate me"
Comment : Rama knows very well that a little deception and dishonesty is sometimes necessary to achieve a desired goal for the greater good.
2.53.8-10 Rama says to Lakshmana, "Aged and (therefore) helpless, deprived of my presence, what will he do, dominated as he is by his passion for Kaikeyi and who has fallen into the clutches of Kaikeyi. Reflecting on this misfortune of the king and his mental derangement, I deem that passion alone is greater than early gain and religious merit. hat man however deluded, what father on account of a woman, at his own will and pleasure, abandon a son like myself?"
2.53.13 Rama says to Lakshmana, "He who pursues sensuous pleasures neglecting his real interests and discipline soon comes to distress; in the same way as king Dasaratha has."
2.59.19 Dasaratha says to Sumantra, "This act has been done by me in haste due to infatuation for the sake of a woman, without consulting with friends or ministers or with interpreters of sacred texts."
Comment : I think these verses best show the reason for Rama's hasty departure to the forest. I think more than upholding his father's words, Rama was perhaps disgusted by his father's lustful tendencies which led to so much weakness of character. And perhaps this is why Ramakrishna used to so strongly speak against greed for lust and gold. In both our great epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, its an insatiable greed for lust and gold that was the primary cause for so much havoc.
2.71.22 Bharata says, “The parks which used to beam with men streaming forth on all sides, having given up sporting in the morning after entering them in thee evening having spent the whole night in sport, now appear to me otherwise.”
Comment : People in ancient India seem to be used to a vibrant night life! Suddenly current times don't feel so modern any more!!
2.101.20 Rama says, “The great king is the master, who has a discretion either to make me reside in the forest, wearing bark robes and a black antelope skin or to sit on the throne, O gentle brother!”
2.101.22 Rama says, “How can I do otherwise, while both my parents of virtuous nature ask me to go to the forest?”
Comment : Rama is clearly not speaking the truth. Neither his father nor his mother asked him to go to the forest. The decision was conveyed by Kaikeyi. Both Dasaratha and Kausalya tried hard to persuade Rama to not go to the forest.
2.103.1 Hearing those mournful words relating to the death of his father, spoken by Bharata, Rama fainted away.
Comment : Rama again displays usual human reactions, which actually make him much more relatable than the images of perfection that his devotees like to draw.
2.106.15 Bharata says to Rama, “A son who honours only a good deviation (from righteousness) of a father is accepted as a real son in this world. He who acts otherwise than this would be facing a quite reverse situation.”
Comment : Bharata was a very practical man but at the same time very honourable!
2.106.34 Seeing that wonderful staunchness in Rama, the people of Ayodhya felt sorrowful and at the same time, experienced joy. They became distressed that he was not going to Ayodhya and felt rejoiced to see his firmness of resolve
2.108.10 Jabali says to Rama, “Dasaratha is none to you nor you in anyway to him. That king is another and your are another. Hence, do what is told by me.”
2.108.14 Jabali says to Rama “These people say, 'The eighth day should be given up to sacrifices for the spirits of our ancestors.' See the waste of food. What will a dead man eat?”
Comment : Its not only modern youth who show signs of revolt against the prevailing customs.
2.109.5 Rama says, “What sensible man, able to discern what is just and what is unjust, in this world, would respect me, if I am ignoble resembling as noble, bereft of honesty, impure, having no good qualities but appearing like the one having good qualities, ill-behaved but appearing as well-behaved abandoning righteousness and getting hold of unrighteousness in the guise of piety, creating confusion in the world and disregarding rules of conduct. If I behave in this manner faithlessly, to whom can I advise a prescribed conduct? How would I attain heaven? This entire world would follow its own whims, for, whatever the conduct of the kings may be, such will be the conduct of their subjects.”
Comment : Attaining heaven seems to be seen as the highest goal during those times. Even the Pandavas attain to heaven only after their death in Mahabharata. From other sources also we know that the idea of 'Moksha' was a later development. Yoga Vasistha surely has a detailed description of Moksha but this text is not a part of the Valmiki Ramayana.
2.109.33 Rama says to Jabali, “I accuse the act done by my father in taking you into his service, you with your misleading intelligence, a firm atheist fallen from the true path.”
Comment : It seems that atheism was not respected during those times. Indians were perhaps quite tied up to Vedas. Many people like to believe that Advaita can accommodate atheism but thats not true. This is perhaps why modern scholars feel so much more drawn to Buddhism since thats one school of philosophy that is clearly atheistic.
2.111.6 Vasistha says to Rama, "You ought not to be lacking in reverence to your mother who is aged and possessing a noble conduct. By carrying out her words, you will not deviate from the path of the virtuous."
Comment : Rama clearly doesn't accept this advice and stands firm on his decision to live in the forest for 14 years. It shows that Rama took advice from others, but his final decision was his own and he had the courage to stand firm come what may. This is a great ideal for our youth to follow.
One thing that is clear from the above is that Ramayana is not as simplistic a text as is usually portrayed in popular media. The complexity of Mahabharata is quite obvious but that of Ramayana is a lot more subtle. Both the texts have their own salient features and are a great source of inspiration. Though Krishna is perhaps the smartest guy to have ever been born on this planet, Rama is perhaps a much better ideal to follow. Krishna had only one objective : make pandavas win the war by any means whatsoever! But Rama displays much more idealism without being impractical. In today's world, we routinely hear respectable corporations getting hit by huge scandals generated due to unethical practices at the highest level of management. Perhaps its time to switch from the 'success by any means' model to something thats more sustainable and honourable. Rama's life is the solution to many of our modern problems!
Following your mundane logic, how would you justify killing of Vali from a hideout, and subjecting Sita to fire ordeal to prove her chastity, soon after she was rescued from captivity?
ReplyDeleteVali's killing and Sita's fire ordeal are surely two of the most challenging events to explain. Thanks for bringing it up!
DeleteAs for Vali, I really like the partial explanation provided at the end of 4.18.26 in the source site itself:
"What all Rama wanted is the 'search for Seetha...' not bring her to his fore. Elimination of Ravana is to be done by Rama alone, for which Seetha is to be located first. If a truce is struck between Vali and Rama, Vali straightway goes to Ravana and asks for Seetha. If Ravana yields Seetha there is no cause left for his elimination. Ravana for sure refuses to yield her. Then a combat ensues between Ravana and Vali. But Vali can combat one-to-one in a duel and he may not encounter a magical war of Indrajit or Kumbhakarna. Then all the demons will combine to eliminate Vali, thus the epic concludes there haphazardly. Other way round, if Vali seeks help of Ravana and his military to combat Rama, Vali's forces and Ravana's forces will come down on a handful warriors like Rama, Sugreeva Hanuma, and Jambavanta et al. Then the whole of monkey force will be with Vali, and these few warriors will be routed down mercilessly. Above all, Rama has promised Sugreeva to eliminate Vali, the abuser of tradition, and Rama becomes blameworthy if he fails in his word. Hence the simplest formula 'enemy's friend is my enemy too...' works well and Rama followed that only."
http://valmikiramayan.net/utf8/kish/sarga18/kishkindha_18_frame.htm
As for Sita, given the harsh words that Rama speaks to her on her release from captivity clearly shows that he is quite upset with her for some reason (perhaps since she crossed the Lakshman rekha despite strict instructions not to do so). The way the fire ordeal is narrated in the text, it also seems that it was not by some divine intervention but that Sita was saved only by one of the bystanders (Agni brings her from fire in his arms).
But yes, both these events need lot more deep thinking in order to be properly explained.
Btw, I really liked the phrase 'mundane logic'. I truly believe that the highest truth is almost obvious and that's what makes it so hard to understand. Thanks!
Response received from Mr. Asish Raha through email (part 1):
DeleteIt is difficult to accept the reasons advanced by Rama in justification for killing Vali from a hideout, by mundane (not divine) logic. Let us rcount the reasons first.
1. Vali by snatching his younger brother’s wife Ruma after expelling Sugriva for treachery, committed a grave sin, as younger brother’s wife was to be treated like daughter, according to Manu’s code. Therefore, Vali deserved death penalty for his incest.
2. Rama made a friendship pact with Sugriva to kill Vali and to make Sugriva the king of Kiskindha and in return Sugriva was to help Rama defeat Ravana and rescue Sita from captivity. As a Kshatriya, Rama was duty-bound to honour his commitment.
3. Vali, being a monkey did not deserve face to face duel and deserved to be hunted from a hideout.
As for the first reason, we find the following flaws:
i) It is well known principle of natural justice known and recognized since the time of Manu that no person shall be condemned unheard. Rama condemned Vali to death without hearing Vali’s defence and based entirely on Sugriva’s one-sided version.
ii) Sugriva was banished from kiskindha for treachery, as instead of helping Vali or finding out whether Vali survived the cave battle with a demon called Mayavi, he blocked the opening of the cave with a huge boulder, and occupied the throne declaring that Vali was dead. Even assuming that Vali really died in the hand of the said demon, Sugriva as the younger brother ought to have taken revenge for the death, if not by himself, but with his army. He did nothing and found it convenient to accept the death of his elder brother, so as to occupy the throne. His act was correctly treated as treachery by Vali.
iii) Even though death penalty was prescribed for treachery, Vali spared his life out of affection. Sugriva on the contrary plotted death of Vali. Rama ought to have seen through the game of Sugriva.
iv) Sugriva after occupying the throne assuming that Vali was killed by the demon (when Vali was actually alive) married Tara, his elder brother’s wife, who, according to Manu’s code was to be treated as mother, whether or not she was widowed. Thus Sugriva also committed incest. The snatching of Ruma after Sugriva was banished was in revenge or retribution and not out of last. Vali, in fact, had deep love and profound respect for his wife Tara (named as one of the Panchkanya) and had not shown weakness for any other woman, including Ruma. Incidentally, after Vali was killed, Sugriva once again married Tara, and Rama did not object. This is inexplicable, as Manu’s code did not permit that.
v) Rama’s third reason sounds contradictory to his first reason in that if Vali being an inferior species did not deserve a face to face duel and was rightly hunted down from a hideout, how would he justify application of Manu’s code to monkeys. It appears that marrying brother’s wife was common and permissible among monkeys.
Response received from Mr. Asish Raha (part 2):
DeleteLet us now deal with the second reason. In making a pact to kill Vali and to anoint Sugriva on the throne of Kiskindha, didn’t Rama go against Manu’s code that recognized the rule of primogeniture for succession to the throne? Vali being elder and more valorous was the rightful claimant to throne. Thus the pact with Sugriva was immoral and unethical, solely motivated by self-interest of Rama. How could such compromise be reconciled to the supreme sacrifice of Rama for the sake of truth?
As for the third reason, as is already pointed out above, if Vali was treated as an inferior species for whom the human standard of not killing a warrior from a hideout was not to apply, surely Manu’s code could not have applied to monkeys. Secondly, Rama’s pact of friendship with Sugriva was a clear contradiction of his above stance, as friendship happens between equals only. Rama went on record to say that he treated Sugriva not only as his equal, but as no less than Lakshmana. If that were so, his logic of treating Vali as hunt-worthy monkey does not stand our scrutiny, even admitting of some obvious exaggeration.
While on the question of Sita’s fire ordeal as proof of her chastity, was it not insulting to Sita? Let’s compare Rama’s insistence vis-à-vis Krishna’s acceptance of 16k women rescued by him from captivity of Narakasura when their husbands refused to accept them back going by Rama tradition. Krishna symbolically married them to give them protection and respectability, without insisting on fire ordeal or any other proof of chastity. Whose example was more reasonable, Rama’s or Krishna’s? The former followed the tradition, while the latter broke away from it by setting a new tradition.
However, as I mentioned in the beginning, going by mundane logic, the killing of Vali and subjecting Sita to fire ordeal would not appear to be justifiable. However, we also have to look into deeper reasons, if any, for above acts of Rama and should not be judgmental based on our limited understanding.
Thanks for your comments. Here is my response:
Delete"Thus the pact with Sugriva was immoral and unethical, solely motivated by self-interest of Rama. How could such compromise be reconciled to the supreme sacrifice of Rama for the sake of truth?"
All the objections you have raised have the above basic assumption at its core. I don't agree with this assumption that Rama was a perfect being who did all his actions for the sake of some absolute truth. For me, Rama was a great man who lived during those times and great men have imperfections and self-interests. There is nothing wrong with that. The notions of perfection and absoluteness are unnecessarily thrust upon him by his devotees. In Ramayana itself, when Vasistha tries to tell Rama that he is an Avatar of Vishnu, Rama disagrees and says he is son of Dasaratha. The devotees like to ascribe this to Rama's humility but I think we need to respect Rama's opinion and treat him as a human being only. Rama also didn't really follow the tradition at all times and shows ample instances of departure. Rama didn't really have to set any new tradition since we find many equally respectable characters in Ramayana who have their own code of conduct which is quite different from that of Rama. So, the society during Ramayana's time seems to be much more open and developed to me than during Mahabharata's time. Its very clear that to me that Mahabhrata represents the lowest point in India's history and things were much better both before and after that period.
As for Sita, Rama never told her to go through any fire ordeal. It was she herself who decided to jump into fire since she was hurt by Rama's harsh words. Sita again is not a symbol of perfection and had her own human limitations.
As for Manu's code, I don't think the society during Ramayana's or Mahabharata's time really cared much for that.
"As for Sita, Rama never told her to go through any fire ordeal. It was she herself who decided to jump into fire since she was hurt by Rama's harsh words. Sita again is not a symbol of perfection and had her own human limitations."
DeleteThis is not true. From Valmiki's Ramayana we find that Rama by publicly doubting her chastity and by abandoning her, provoked Sita and left her with no option but to go for Agni Pariksha. Lakshmana at her instance and with approval of Rama prepared the pyre for Sita. When Sita entered the fire, Rama did nothing to stop her. When the devas who appeared on the scene vouched for Sita's purity, Rama pleaded his helplessness in the name of tradition. When he was reminded that he was Vishnu avatara, he expressed his surprise. It is only after Agni Deva certified Sita's cahstity, that Rama accepted her back.
Interestingly, it can be seen from Ramayana, that Rama had to be reminded time and again that he was Vishnu avatar, which he had evidently forgotten. By contrast, Krishna never needed to be reminded that he was Vishnu avatara, which he was aware of from the very beginning, as per Mahabharata and Bhagavata. This explains why Krishna was called Purna avatara as he remembered his past and knew his future.
"This is not true. From Valmiki's Ramayana we find that Rama by publicly doubting her chastity and by abandoning her, provoked Sita and left her with no option but to go for Agni Pariksha. Lakshmana at her instance and with approval of Rama prepared the pyre for Sita. When Sita entered the fire, Rama did nothing to stop her. "
DeleteIts certainly true that Rama used very harsh words for Sita but I don't think he was provoking her to jump into fire. But yes, I am not sure why Rama did nothing to stop her. One reason could be that Sita jumped into fire too quickly without giving Rama enough reaction time and someone who was standing closer to the pyre saved Sita. As for Rama's approval to prepare the pyre, perhaps he didn't think that Sita will actually jump in. This is very normal human behaviour.
"When the devas who appeared on the scene vouched for Sita's purity, Rama pleaded his helplessness in the name of tradition."
Rama uses this argument of 'tradition' quite often despite himself departing from it many times. Its like how modern CEOs take all decisions on their own but say that the 'management won't agree' when they have to disagree politely. Rama was far from being a helpless man!
"Interestingly, it can be seen from Ramayana, that Rama had to be reminded time and again that he was Vishnu avatar, which he had evidently forgotten. By contrast, Krishna never needed to be reminded that he was Vishnu avatara, which he was aware of from the very beginning, as per Mahabharata and Bhagavata. This explains why Krishna was called Purna avatara as he remembered his past and knew his future."
I actually don't believe in this concept of Avatara. Also, the Uttara Kanda where the Vishnu Avatara aspect of Rama is stressed upon a lot is believed to be a later addition by many scholars.
"One reason could be that Sita jumped into fire too quickly without giving Rama enough reaction time and someone who was standing closer to the pyre saved Sita. As for Rama's approval to prepare the pyre, perhaps he didn't think that Sita will actually jump in. This is very normal human behaviour."
DeleteIt seems you are attempting to re-construct the scene by your imagination, which should be avoided when you are interpreting what is written. In Valmiki's Ramayana there is no such indication that sita jumped into fire too quickly. First of all, fire was not there when Rama suspected her chastity and conveyed his decision to abandon her. Upon that Sita asked lakshmana to prepare the pyre which obviously could not have been done without Rama's approval. Secondly, the pyre cannot be prepared instantly and it takes time to arrange for it with wood and fuel. Valmiki does not say that Sita suddenly jumped into fire. She took time to enter into fire after a prayer to fire god, and Rama got ample time to stop her but did not, and let her undergo the test as per the tradition.
"Rama uses this argument of 'tradition' quite often despite himself departing from it many times."
Please give some examples when Rama departed from tradition.
"I actually don't believe in this concept of Avatara. Also, the Uttara Kanda where the Vishnu Avatara aspect of Rama is stressed upon a lot is believed to be a later addition by many scholars."
Valmiki's Ramayana in several places referred to Rama as Vishnu avatara. Sita's fire ordeal was one such occasion when Rama was clearly told by devas that he was Vishnu avatara. Besides, the essence of Ramayana was avatarhood of Rama and that was precisely the reason why Valmiki composed it even before Rama was born, as he is believed to have seen the future. Even if we stick to the text of Valmiki, Rama's avatarhood is found to be emphasized quite often. We of course have a right not to believe in what he has written, and to treat Rama as nothing more than an extraordinary human being. But it would not be correct to re-construct events or incidents by our imagination which would amount to distortion of facts as narrated in original text.
There are many aspects which are beyond our comprehension. For instance, the identity of monkeys who had human qualities, and ability to fight, love, rule and converse like human cannot be comprehended. But since we do not understand this monkey character, we have no right to reject the monkeys, as described by Valmiki, as entirely fictitious, or as mis-represented tribals, assuming that Valmiki did not know the difference between tribals and monkeys. This strange monkey phenomenon defies any explanation, and to my mind, it is more important than debating over an abstract proposition as to whether Rama was an avatara or otherwise.
"It seems you are attempting to re-construct the scene by your imagination, which should be avoided when you are interpreting what is written."
DeleteYes, I do like to use my imagination once in a while and I don't see anything wrong with this. There are many things written in the text which according to me are absurd if taken at face value. Either these are later interpolations or incorrect representation of events by the author himself. All humans are prone to error no matter how spiritually evolved they are. Of course, others might not find these parts to be absurd and are free to believe in the text as it is. Now, how do I know that my imagination is a better representation of events? I can certainly never be sure about it since I have not witnessed the events myself. All I can say is that my imagination in certain situations makes more sense to me than whats written in the text. Others are free to disagree!
"Please give some examples when Rama departed from tradition."
Rama's killing of Vali and the way he departed from Ayodhya while his father was running after his chariot are perhaps the best examples.
"There are many aspects which are beyond our comprehension. For instance, the identity of monkeys who had human qualities, and ability to fight, love, rule and converse like human cannot be comprehended. But since we do not understand this monkey character, we have no right to reject the monkeys, as described by Valmiki, as entirely fictitious, or as mis-represented tribals, assuming that Valmiki did not know the difference between tribals and monkeys."
Valmiki used the word 'vaanar' and its up to us to interpret what this word means. Here are two possibilities that I have read about which make sense to me:
1. Perhaps there was actually a species mid-way between monkey and man which got wiped out in due course of time.
2. 'Vaanar' could mean 'nar' (human) who lived in 'van' (forest).
But, as you have said, in either case, language is a major hurdle. How did all these various human and human-like species know each other's language? When every Indian state of current times has a different language, how is it possible that the entire sub-continent during such ancient times spoke the same language when communication barriers were much larger? Perhaps there were interpreters present whom Valmiki didn't mention for some reason.
"Rama's killing of Vali and the way he departed from Ayodhya while his father was running after his chariot are perhaps the best examples."
DeleteRama justified the killing of Vali from a hideout on three grounds and each ground, according to him, was in accordance with the tradition. Therefore, there was no conscious attempt by him to depart from tradition. Hence your example surely does not fit the case that Rama consciously violated the tradition.
"Valmiki used the word 'vaanar' and its up to us to interpret what this word means. Here are two possibilities that I have read about which make sense to me".
Our problem is that Rama considered Vanara as an animal which can be hunted by a human, just as a deer. Hence it is clear he did not treat Vanara as a human. At the same time he made friendship with Vanara Sugriva and had no difficulty in conversing with him and his monkey brigade, including Hanumana. The latter was well versed in Vedas. Vali's wife Tara was named as one of the memorable Panchkanyas, other four being undisputedly human. Thus our confusion is well confounded. In the above context your first hypothesis that Vanara could have been a lost species is worth consideration. Your second proposition that Vanara might be a forest dweller human tribe would be less likely as they seemed to be quite civilized and Kiskindha was not a forest but a township with palace & royal set up.
"Perhaps there were interpreters present whom Valmiki didn't mention for some reason."
It is inconceivable that Rama in exile was accompanied by an interpreter to converse with Vanaras or Rakshasas, or vice versa. Even Sugriva was in exile with his companions when he met Rama. From the narrative of Valmiki it appears that language was not an issue at that time, and perhaps sanskrit was known to both Vanaras and Rakshasas, the two lost species. Ravana & Bibhishana like Hanumana were well versed in Vedas. The origin of both the species was sourced to either a sage or some devas, and both spoke sanskrit.
"Rama justified the killing of Vali from a hideout on three grounds and each ground, according to him, was in accordance with the tradition. Therefore, there was no conscious attempt by him to depart from tradition."
Delete"Our problem is that Rama considered Vanara as an animal which can be hunted by a human, just as a deer. Hence it is clear he did not treat Vanara as a human."
Rama doesn't always give correct reasons for his actions. He is no less diplomatic than Krishna.
"From the narrative of Valmiki it appears that language was not an issue at that time, and perhaps sanskrit was known to both Vanaras and Rakshasas, the two lost species."
Yeah, I can accept that the royal vaanaras like Sugreeva, Hanuman, etc were well versed in Sanskrit. But what about the vaanara soldiers and the ogres in Ashoka Vatika? How did Rama interact with the army? How did Sita converse with those rakshashis? What about the usual conversations that people had in Ayodhya? It is hard to accept that everyone in the sub-continent knew Sanskrit at that time. As per my understanding, Sanskrit was known only to those who studied the Vedas.