The Ramayana Contradictions

[philosoraptor]

....Until the end, when he banishes the pregnant Sita to the wilderness in order to regain the respect of his people.

Suddenly, I felt betrayed and angry at Rama. Even more so because despite this great sin (as I perceived it) I still wanted to admire him for all his good qualities. The trouble I am having is that the Rama that worried so much for his beloved Sita while searching for her, the Rama who fought so bravely for her, does not seem like the same Rama I read about in the Uttara Kanda - or the last book of the Ramayana. Not once during his search for her does he lament about his lost honor or the tarnish to his reputation. He worries only for her safety and wishes only to be with her again.

I can understand his initial doubt in her purity when he saves her. God incarnate he may be, but he is still a man bound by the senses - including the illusions/suspicions of the mind. But why bend to the suspicions of his people a second time? After she has literally had a trial by fire and come out truthful? He may be a king, with responsibilities to his people - but he was a husband first.

It is also my understanding that The Uttara Kanda was added much later to the Ramayana. Is it possible that the last book was written during a time when people were more conservative and couldn't justify a wife returning to her husband after living with another man?

I have tried to justify Rama's behavior at the end many, many times. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But my mind keeps coming back to one thought. If a man did this act today - abandoned his pregnant wife in the woods - he would be viewed as a monster, not as the ideal man.

Thank you for reading my post. I hope to start an illuminating discussion. I certainly don't intend to offend. I think it's important to ask hard questions sometimes. Like I said, The Ramayana is one of my favorite narratives and I'd love to have more insight on it.

Thank you!

Jai Sri Ram!

The narrative of the Uttara-khanda in which a pregnant Sita is banished to the forest is troubling even to the devotees.

In this context, it is worth pointing out a few things.

First, the content of the Uttara-khanda is quite controversial even among Vaishnavas. There are some Vaishnavas who regard the entire Uttara-khanda as interpolated. That being said, there are references to the banishment of the pregnant Sita even in other mainstream sources such as this one, and so I am not sure how convincing it would be to simply ignore it.

Second, Rama is not "bound by his senses." As He is the supreme Brahman Naaraayana Himself, He is completely transcendental to the influence of matter, even when He behaves as if bound. Thus, His decisions are not based on flawed thinking influenced by the gunas.

Third, according to the (admittedly controversial) text, even Lakshmana objected strongly to the banishment. Similarly, at the end of the Lanka war, all the devatas headed by Brahma were aghast when Rama refused to accept Sita back, and noted that His behavior was unprecedented. Thus, this is not a case of misogyny or double-standards.

Fourth, again according to the text, the banishment of Sita was not carried out to protect Rama's honor, but to protect the people of Ayodhya. The concern was that some would take to irreligious behavior because of their wrong perception that Sita was unchaste and was taken back by Rama. According to several smRiti texts I have read, adultery is grossly sinful and the idea of taking back an adulterous spouse is not endorsed. It should be noted in this connection that Ahalya was only accepted back by Gautama Rishi when she was purified by Rama's touch, as his own curse foretold. Otherwise, the idea of taking back an adulterous spouse is not generally seen in our scriptures.

Fifth, the text itself indicates that Rama grieved both before and after Sita's banishment, carrying on only for the sake of doing His duty. As you have correctly pointed out, He pined for Sita during her captivity in Ravana's palace. It makes no sense to suggest that His feelings changed suddenly after that.

When including Uttara-khanda along with the rest of the Ramayana, the entire text reads like a grand tragedy. Sita and Rama remain in constant rememberance of each other even when in physical separation, and this concept of devotion in spite of separation is found in the Puranas, most notably the Bhagavata Purana. Rama always lived for the purpose of uplifting the people, whether it was in accepting his father's unfair command, rescuing his wife from a villain, or banishing his wife because of an imagined offense. He always put aside His own enjoyments for this purpose.

Note that I am merely explaining it from this particular point of view only to offer a theoretical framework for understanding it.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Mixed in with the apologetic notes are the irreverential comments like, 'the scenario is cruel', 'we should look at the Ramayan from many angels', 'the time the story was conceived', and more. There is a built in attitude of bringing Ramayan down to the level of a comic book on Tarzan, conceived by an author to amuse and entertain people. When the scripture is not given its due respect, what is the point of tendering apologies?

Anyway, to use the Western lingo, Ram's 'one true love' was not Sita, but His subjects. A king's/ruler's/politician's only reason for being alive is to serve the people. If the present day presidents and prime ministers and their functionaries could grasp and act on that, the world would be a different place. For any person new to Hinduism, he/she has to have an open mind, so that they can drop their prejudices and learn what Ram is exemplifying by His actions, not 'demand' that the times have changed and the scripture needs an update. Sanatan Dharma means 'eternal law' formulated by the Divine, not a law authored by a legislative assembly that gets massaged every so often. Giving up one's ego and being in a submissive/receptive state is a pre-requisite to learning anything at all. So long as the ego is fighting the new philosophy and wants to critique everything, nothing will get past the intellectual filter.

Pranam.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Jodhaa

Namaste Ganeshprasad!



Why is it not possible to appreciate a work but still question parts of it? Why must it be all or nothing? The world is comprised of shades of gray.

I think my word choice is causing confusion.

My reference to the word "monster" and "sin" was merely to illustrate the possible difference in perception of Rama's actions between the time the story was conceived and the perceptions of many people in today's world. Certainly not all people, but many.

Thank you again for your response.

perhaps i was also too quick to judge you, not without reason though, words like sin, monster or God under control of maya is an alien concept with a Hindu. it would be heartless for anyone not to feel for mother Sita, you have every right to question the shades of gray that you perceive but it could have been handle with care.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Anyway, to use the Western lingo, Ram's 'one true love' was not Sita, but His subjects. A king's/ruler's/politician's only reason for being alive is to serve the people. If the present day presidents and prime ministers and their functionaries could grasp and act on that, the world would be a different place. For any person new to Hinduism, he/she has to have an open mind, so that they can drop their prejudices and learn what Ram is exemplifying by His actions, not 'demand' that the times have changed and the scripture needs an update. Sanatan Dharma means 'eternal law' formulated by the Divine, not a law authored by a legislative assembly that gets massaged every so often. Giving up one's ego and being in a submissive/receptive state is a pre-requisite to learning anything at all. So long as the ego is fighting the new philosophy and wants to critique everything, nothing will get past the intellectual filter.

Well said, all of the above.

Read in this way, the Uttara-khanda reads like a tragedy. Both Rama and Sita sacrificed for the people of Ayodhya for the greater good of uplifting them. This is, I believe, the way the author intended us to read and understand it, whether that author is indeed Valmiki himself or a later contributor. I tend to think it was real on that basis, as the theme of sacrificing for the sake of leading the people is a recurrent one in the Ayodhya-kanda also.

regards,

[Jodhaa]

Namaste everyone!

First I want to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion.

Since being away for a few days I have had the opportunity to give this topic some thought, as well as consider your reactions to it.

I realize now that I should not have been surprised by the emotional reactions, given the emotional nature of my initial post. I was merely trying to give an honest reaction to my initial experience upon reading the end of the Ramayana. Emotional detachment may be an ideal that we strive for, but in reality, if we ignore the emotions that build up in us, we are being dishonest with ourselves and there can be no real growth.

In my mind, it is better to be emotionally honest, then to soften and sugar-coat an analysis into dishonesty.

I'd also like to paraphrase a few of the criticisms here and respond to them in one place, rather then confuse by dropping them in different places through-out the discussion. Paraphrased words will be in bold, my response in regular font.


"One cannot judge the actions of God according to human ideas of morality."

God has given us these amazing literary tools by which we can begin to grasp at how to live the true path. God is the source of morality. If we must understand God's actions by a measuring stick separate from our own, that implies we are somehow separate from God. That there is a part of God which we are not, and vice verse. We know this to be completely untrue, according to our belief.

My criticism of Rama's actions are not to make him wrong, or to wish the story to end in some other way than it did - but to make sure I don't misunderstand what I am reading. I know there is more to his actions than a straight-forward narrative - there is symbolism, metaphor and subtlety. I know it is there. But I am having difficulty seeing it. That is the source of my questioning.

"Of course you don't get it! You're narrow-minded!"

This observation makes me smile actually. If I were truly narrow-minded and closed off from the lessons of the Ramayana, I would have tossed the book aside immediately and dismissed it as false. Narrow-minded people do not bother to ask questions. They don't want to know if they are missing something. They are unwilling to entertain a viewpoint different from their own. And yet here I am -reaching out to those I know must see more than I do.

If the end of the Ramayana causes you no discomfort, and no spiritual unrest, consider yourself truly blessed. You have understood something that many have missed (including me) and you can move confidently forward.

"The Epics are not here for your entertainment."

Certainly that is not their first or predominant purpose. But I would be a liar if I said I wasn't extremely enthralled, entertained and invested in the story. What better way to teach important lessons than to make it interesting to learn? That is part of what makes the Ramayana so important. Anyone can write shallow, meaningless entertainment with no backbone or soul. But the Ramayana is both an extremely useful tool for spiritual growth, AND an amazing story. There is no reason why it can't be both. And there is no reason why its entertaining quality must reduce its value. Storytelling, especially oral storytelling, has been an honerable vocation as well as form of entertainment and teaching for thousands of years. Just because modern entertainments (soap operas, movies, comic books) may lack substance, that doesn't discredit the entire concept.

It would certainly be much easier to just break the Ramayana down into bullet points about morality. But I don't think it would be the same literary and religious treasure it is today.


____________________________________________

To those whom I have insulted with this or any other reply:

Please remember that not everyone grows up with this story. This is not a part of every persons cultural history. One would think (at least I would think) that anyone asking even very difficult or irreverent questions would be welcomed. Those hard questions give you the opportunity to dispel misconceptions and to win the hearts of those who may not understand you. Your hurt feelings are understandable - I was admittedly hurt by a few of the responses here. But please find it in yourselves to breath deep and embrace the opportunity to educate. For my part, I know now that I must address my misunderstandings with more care to my wording.


Again, thank you to all who have responded. I know I did not give you a good first impression of me.

There is some useful information here that I need to read over and think about before I can get back to addressing my initial problems with the End of the Ramayana. I shall post again shortly.

Peace!

[Jodhaa]

namasté

first i must thank the members of this forum for their response to Jodhaas question.

i must admit, when learning the story of Ramayan, this is something which troubled me greatly, along with parts of the mahabarata:

One of the reasons i took great pleasure in reading the Bhagavat Gita was in my mind i thought (being a mere mortal) Arjuns reservations in not fighting were admirable, and i was wondering how he could be convinced otherwise, and why his position seemed so worng?

thats when i read the Gita, and all became clear, such beautiful language used, truly is such an inspiration, and i finally understood the reason,

the reason for my little aside there is, i too, felt like jodhaa here, in terms of i was wondering how it would be possible for Ram to "appear to" abandon his wife, his one true love, in the manner that he did. Like the Bhagavat Gita itself, i was hoping the forum members here would illuminate me in that sense and i feel that Jodhaa meant the same as well and meant no offense to anyone in the manner of the post.

i must add that, the reasons i would ask the questions is NOT because i'm looking for faults in our religion, but i want to remove any mis interpretations from my mind that i may have.

i would like to thank Indraneela as well for the link presented, that has cleared up a lot of issues for me, but if the forum members would permit me, i would like to ask one question.


from the link, it shows, even though as much as Ram loved Sita, he could not go against his Dharma, his duty as a King and ruler of his people, and had to do what is in the best interest of his people, a decision which, in purely a mere mortal point of view, must have been the most difficult he ever made.

Now, can i ask, if the populas felt this way about Sita, (which i can't imagine myself, in that position, would ever think, of my loving queen, the wife of my King!), and for this reason, Ram had to send Sita away, (maybe i'm wrong here, please correct me if this is the case), so hypothetically, if for instance, the populas took a disliking to say lakhsman, would he also suffer the same fate? for the greater good? Because we know well of the devotion of Sita to Ram and vice versa, but here two innocents are made to suffer due to the belief of those without the knowledge of what happened (the people).

from a purely personal view, My anger is aimed at the people, because how could they think that of their queen, and the wife of a king they so adored! It was a situation that Ram should never have been put in.

i apologise if this question is offensive, its never my intention for that, any clarification would help immensely

i am at the behest of the more learned


thanks


Vikash

Namaste Vikash

Thank you for your support. I knew I could not be the only one who felt misgivings about this subject. I must read the link provided by Indraneela before responding further, but I want to thank you.

[Jodhaa]

If you do wish to analyse it further, I have found this discussion interesting, for helping me to open my mind and think about the story in a new way, when I was just starting out and feeling very confused.

The actions of the Divine as portrayed in Rāmāyaṇa also have much to teach, if one leaves behind modern cynicism and looks with respect and open-mindedness, to reach for the higher lessons that are there in such rich abundance.

Namaste, Indraneela

Thank you for this link. It was very concise and easy to follow and it has helped answer a few of my questions. I still find myself stuck on a few points, but I will elaborate in my next post more thoroughly.

Peace

[Jodhaa]

Originaly from Indraneela:

"If you do wish to analyse it further, I have found this discussion interesting, for helping me to open my mind and think about the story in a new way, when I was just starting out and feeling very confused."

I want to thank Indraneela for this link. It was extremely informative and enlightening. It did ease my mind about many things, but there is one area that still troubles me.

I accept that both Rama and Sita made a great sacrifice for the people of Ayodhya and that both suffered greatly. But Rama's relationship to his people is repeatedly described as that of a father to his children. To this end, Does Rama allow his people to believe that Sita was unfit to be queen even though he knows she is pure in very way that matters? By following his Dharma, and forcing Sita to leave, does he not reinforces this idea of Sita's impurity by casting her out? Does he not allow his people to believe a lie, albeit unintentional and well meaning?

I suppose the alternative to this wouldn't have been possible - that is, trying to convince the people of Sita's purity. The logistics would have been insurmountable.

I'm still working through this, but if anyone has any thoughts I would appreciate it greatly!

Thank you!

[Jodhaa]

i must add that, the reasons i would ask the questions is NOT because i'm looking for faults in our religion, but i want to remove any mis interpretations from my mind that i may have.

i would like to thank Indraneela as well for the link presented, that has cleared up a lot of issues for me, but if the forum members would permit me, i would like to ask one question.


from a purely personal view, My anger is aimed at the people, because how could they think that of their queen, and the wife of a king they so adored! It was a situation that Ram should never have been put in.


Vikash

[/quote]Consider, also, that a religious story which many Westerners revere is one of God sending his child amongst ignorant people to be tortured and murdered. On a literal human level, it seems less horrifying only because it's familiar. Yet the people devoted to that story find a number of deeper meanings in it.[/quote]



I have been thinking over various comments from this topic and the two comments above occurred to me together and it made me realize something and I wanted to share it before it slipped away.

What occurred to me, is that in both the story of the sacrifice of Christ and the story of the abandonment of Sita, the final weighing judgement is based upon the opinion of "The people". The people are effectively "us" - with our faulty logic and misconceptions.

In both stories, it can be said that the people - rather then trying to learn the truth or correct their thinking, relied upon their supposedly beloved rulers to save them via sacrifice. In both stories, it is hopeless to convince the people that they are making a mistake in judgement. The only solution is to show them their mistake through the loss of the greatest gift they were ever given - for the Christians, Christ - for the Ayodhyians, Rama-Sita. (Symbolically).

The lesson is for the people (i.e us, or the audiences of later times). The message is that there will be greatness that lives among us for a little while, and if we don't realize , or we neglect to understand it, we will repeat the mistakes of the past, cause injury to our teachers and therefore injury to ourselves as a society.

I would like to say that thinking of the the story of the Ramayana in this way lifts a weight off my shoulders because I can feel complete compassion for Rama as well as Sita- rather then eyeing Rama with suspicion. The question then becomes "Was Rama the "Ideal" man?" - I think he was as ideal a man as his people allowed him to be.

Am I getting closer? It feels right. Although, feelings are not facts, as I have learned. Thoughts?

[Omkara]

Vikash has asked here that if the populace did not like lakshman,would Rama have sent him away too?

The answer is,Rama banished the person his subjects did not want as their queen.He was simply doing has duty as a king by submitting to the wishes of his subjects.

In a dharmic polity,a ruler is accountable to hus subjects.The traditional hindu coronation ceremony included a ritual where the king would stand before his subjects and proclaim that he is supreme and that there is no one above him.Then the priest would whack him thrice with a stuck,saying "No,for you,too are subject to dharma."

There are examples in our scriptures of rulers being replaced for incompetence and misrule like king vena and nahusha.

A public official must be above reproach.Sita,though she was chaste, waa suspect in the eyes of the people,and in a dharmic polity, a king is subject to the will of the people.

Rama's sacrifice may seem too terrible to us,but that is why he is perfect and we are not.