Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Ramayana

The Rāmāyaṇa, originally written by Valmiki, consists of 24,001 verses[2] in seven cantos (kāṇḍas). The Ramayana tells the story of a prince, Rama of Ayodhya, whose wife Sita is abducted by the demon (Rākshasa) king of Lanka, Rāvana. The Valmiki Ramayana is dated variously from 500 BC to 100 BC, or about co-eval with early versions of the Mahabhārata[3]. As with most traditional epics, since it has gone through a long process of interpolations and redactions it is impossible to date it accurately.

In the original Valmiki Ramayana, Valmiki wrote that Rama was nothing more than the ideal human being. However, Brahminical reshaping and manipulaton of the Ramayana eventually presented Rama as a supreme deity. The first stage includes the composition of books 2 - 6 sometime in the fifth century BCE and their oral transmission up to and including the forth century BCE. The presentation of Rama as essentially human hero.

The second stage extends from the third century BCE to the first century CE, during which time those five books were reworked and expanded. This period brings greater status for the king, for most of this period, Rama is viewed as an ethical human.

The third stage extends from the first to the third century CE, bringing with it the addition of book 1 (‘The book of childhood’) and the some what later book 7 (epilogue).

This stage is marked by the presentation of Rama as an avatar of Vishnu. This stage also produced a pronounced emphasis on Varna- Dharma: Sambuka, the Sudra ascetic, is killed by Rama in order to bring a Brahmin boy back to life.

Valmiki has very minutely described the daily life of Rama after he became King.

The administration, as Valmiki states, was entrusted to Bharata, his brother. Rama had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and subjects. According to those accounts, 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 jesters he went back to the Zenana. 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 meals. The food, according to Valmiki, consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. 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 Ram as a 'Prince among women's men'. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.

As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded.

The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama, which was nearby, of the sage Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital.

1 comment:

Wohi Ek Bhram said...

Interesting to read this story, but I firmly believe much of it is nonsense, or more accurately it appears to be a pure Brahminical invention. So called 'Brahmins' are renowned for completely altering ancient scriptures to impress their superiority over the rest of society. To say that the son of a 'Brahmin' can die because a 'Shudra' is practising spititual austerities is pure brainwashing. It says in the Shrimad Bhagvat that even Vishnu is afraid of a Brahmin's curse!! The Brahmins try to place themselves above the Paramatma. IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'BRAHMIN' OR A 'SHUDRA'. People were divided into 4 Varnas to create some order in society, each according to his/her ability and natural tendencies. Originally it did not follow that the son of a Brahmin would automatically be a Brahmin. If a Brahmin had a son who had no talents in learning, protecting society, or trade, then he was a Shudra, a performer of the more unskilled and menial tasks. The same with any of the other Varnas. Brahmins were simply the cleverest most learned people whose duty was to teach and guide everybody else. Gradually what they did was to create a rigid Caste system so that each person belonged to a Caste by birth. THESE CASTES ARE MAN-MADE AND HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO SCRIPTURES TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE. THE MOST BRAINWASHED ARE THE SO-CALLED 'BRAHMINS' THEMSELVES. If any are reading this, I suspect many of them are having convulsions and fits. The Paramatma did not create Castes. Man did for the purposes of ordering society and the system was corrupted no end by the 'Brahmins' for their own selfish ends. Therefore this story is nonsense. We do not have the original Ramayan as written by the Adi Kavi (Kavi actually means 'Creator', not 'poet' as is commonly written). There are no end of passages and stories inserted and removed in the writings of the Ancients and the Ramayan is no exception. The only way to get to the truth is deep meditation, to develop and cultivate VIVEK. The ancient Scriptures are Guides but we should not blindly believe everything we read because much has been altered by people for their own ends.