Author : Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
This is about Yoga-VAshiShTha, which is also known as VAshiShTha-Yoga-Samhita, MahA-Ramayana, Arsha-Ramayana, VAshiShTha-Ramayana, Yoga-VAshiShTha-Ramayana, j~nAna-VAshiShTha, etc. Grandeur of the name is not an indication of grandeur of the work. Many names can also be an indication of many guises.
rAmaniMdakagraMthaM dhik \, paMchadveShavinirmitam |
vAlmIkihR^idayachChedam \, paMchapAtaka-kAriNam ||
रामनिंदकग्रंथं धिक् , पंचद्वेषविनिर्मितम्।
वाल्मीकिहृदयच्छेदम् , पंचपातक-कारिणम्॥
Fie! Shame! Really shame on this work, which is insulting to Sri Rama. It is built by five-fold hatred. It tears the heart of Valmiki and leads to five great sins.
It is disguised as a work to extol Sri Rama, but in reality it depicts Sri Rama in a very poor light and is a blasphemy. It shows hatred towards Vishnu, Sri Rama, Sanatkumara, Valmiki and VashiShTha. Will give all details later on.
One of the greatest literary conspiracies in the history of the mankind was the composition of YogaVAshiShTha (YV). Valmiki did not write this. VashiShTha did not write this. Someone recently viz. two or three centuries ago composed this. Whoever wrote has hidden his name and spread this as the work of Valmiki. How to expose this hidden secret and what is the proof for this?
This clandestine work, is indeed at loggerheads with Valmiki Ramayana. It depicts Vishnu and Sri Rama in a lowly manner that too in a surreptitious way that no one can notice it. What is worse! This is attributed to Valmiki himself. That is pitting Valmiki against Valmiki. Vishnu is projected as self-aggrandizing cheap personality, cursing his own devotee for a silly reason and Sri Rama was born with ignorance. Sanatkumara acted like a child and cursed Bhagavan Himself! All these are samples of insults to Vishnu, Sri Rama, Sanatkumara and Valmiki. Added to that, many logical blunders abound.
These are not empty words. I shall prove that with evidence.
Plagiarism or False Attribution or Copyright jnfringement is of two kinds. One is to claim what is not one’s own as one’s own. Second is to claim what is one’s own as that of a popular figure in order to gain publicity, popularity and wide circulation. In both the cases, instead of presenting an idea in legal, ethical and right royal path, people stoop to illegal, unethical and dubious mode or means with desperation, deception and deviousness.
Regarding false attribution of the second kind, see following link -
https://seqlegal.com/blog/false-attribution-the-moral-right
Before, I start showing the defects in a sample of four verses, I would like to mention the following. In one of the discussion forums, I mentioned that this is a spurious work and among many other reasons, this is attributed to sage Valmiki and one can see the difference in style
Ref - https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/32853/is-yog-vasistha-authentic-scripture
One reader raised a genuine doubt "Is Yoga vAshiShTha authentic scripture?" My brief comment was as follows:
Start-my comment:
The doubts raised are genuine as the style of the language points to much after 10th century only. Please show the evidence where Sankaracharya quoted YV. In fact it is other way around. YV uses the points made by Sankaracharya. Further see the funny statement in Wikipedia - YV is a philosophical text attributed to Valmiki, although the real author is VashiShTha. That is fishy. What is meant by real author and non-real author? Even there is no evidence if Vidyaranya or Madhusudana Sarasvati quoted YV. Further, there is plenty of evidence that this is neither by Valmiki, nor consistent with Valmiki version of Ramayana. While Valmiki projected Sri Rama in Ayodhya as a very tranquil, and free-from worries personality, YV depicts Sri Rama as a victim of mental dejection. Absolutely unjustified. One can see the plot developing and that too with a base of wrong picture of Sri Rama.
end-my comment.
Note: After, I have raised my objection to "real author is VashiShTha", it has been changed in Wiki as "but the real author is unknown".
The defensive argument was very funny.
Objection-start:
You have no idea what you talking about my friend. Evidence of Sankaracharya quoting YV is mentioned in Sevaashevtaropanishad (must be a big typo error) and Sānatsujātiya bhashya. What do you mean by style of language? It's written in anushtup chandas same as Ramayana. Also what do you mean by real author is VashiShTha? Maybe you should do some research before saying something. What you call as mental dejection is regarded as Vairagya by wise people.
Objection-end.
This shows how pathetically poor are these guys who try to defend YV seriously lack basic concepts. Obviously they have not even read YV as mental dejection is a negative quality presented in YV and this guy thinks that it is vairAgya, which is positive quality. SvetAshvataropanishad is shruti and is anAdi and much earlier than Sankaracharya and it mentioning the evidence of Sankaracharya quoting YV is completely ridiculous. Sankaracharya wrote Bhashya to the 10 primary upanishads only. Sankara did not write Bhashya for Svetashvataropanishad. See the wikipedia for more details - The authorship of Sankara of this Bhasya is disputed. Nakamura concludes that Sankara was not the author, for several reasons. Sankara understood Buddhist thought, while the author of the commentary shows misunderstandings of Buddhist thought. The commentary uses the terms vijnapti and vjnaptimatra, which is "a uniquely Buddhist usage", and does not appear in Sankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutras.
The guy has no knowledge of difference between Chandas(prosody) and shaili(style).
The logistics of YV is at loggerheads with the logistics of Valmiki Ramayana and both cannot be from the same author. While the Ramayana of Valmiki is a perfect epitome with an unshaken fort of logic, presented in a consistent, pleasant and flawless manner, satisfying the standards of an itihAsa, this work YV is clumsy, illogical and filled with defects, which unfortunately were suppressed very long. Even worse, this seems to undermine and destroy the very spirit of original Ramayana.
Defect-list for select four verses:
Many would have heard about sthAlIpulAka-nyAya - to check if the rice is cooked or not, one need not check the entire vessel of rice. Just picking a few morsels with a ladle and checking them as a sample is good enough.
The following is a small sample taken to prove the blunders.
1st prakaraNa - VairAgyaprakaraNa - 1st sarga - shlokas 57-60
vAlmIkiruvAcha -
sanatkumAro niShkAma avasadbrahmasadmani |
vaikuNThAdAgato viShNustrailokyAdhipatiH prabhuH || 57
brahmaNA pUjitastatra satyalokanivAsibhiH |
vinA kumAraM taM dR^iShTvA hyuvAcha prabhurIshvaraH || 58
sanatkumAra stabdho.asi niShkAmo garvacheShTayA |
atastvaM bhava kAmArtaH sharajanmeti nAmataH || 59
tenApi shapito viShNuH sarvaj~natvaM tavAsti yat |
kiMchitkAlaM hi tattyaktvA tvamaj~nAnI bhaviShyasi || 60
वाल्मीकिरुवाच -
सनत्कुमारो निष्काम अवसद्ब्रह्मसद्मनि।
वैकुण्ठादागतो विष्णुस्त्रैलोक्याधिपतिः प्रभुः॥ ५७
ब्रह्मणा पूजितस्तत्र सत्यलोकनिवासिभिः।
विना कुमारं तं दृष्ट्वा ह्युवाच प्रभुरीश्वरः॥ ५८
सनत्कुमार स्तब्धोऽसि निष्कामो गर्वचेष्टया।
अतस्त्वं भव कामार्तः शरजन्मेति नामतः॥ ५९
तेनापि शपितो विष्णुः सर्वज्ञत्वं तवास्ति यत्।
किंचित्कालं हि तत्त्यक्त्वा त्वमज्ञानी भविष्यसि॥ ६०
Let me try to give a rough translation before embarking on the defect list. The supporters of this work may delve into defending these defects in a desperate and clumsy way depicting pUrvAgraha. That is sad.
(The desire-less Sanatkumara resided in Brahmaloka. The Lord of three worlds, Lord Vishnu, the capable one, came there from VaikuMTha. - 57
He was worshiped by Brahma and the residents of Satyaloka. Perceiving him without KumAra, Lord Almighty uttered these words. - 58
SanatkumAra, desire-less thou art puffed up with ego, due to your act of arrogance. Hence be thou afflicted with desire and known by the name of Sharajanma. - 59
Vishnu was also cursed by him - whatever Omniscience thou hast, for some time, thou forsaketh that and becometh an ignoramus. - 60)
The five verses 61-65 following the above four, mention three more episodes that are not ok. In this context, I am just mentioning them to indicate how three more episodes are incorrectly mentioned. But, Since these are not in these four verses 57-60, I am not counting these in the defect-list of those four verses 57-60.
Verse 61 mentions Bhrugu cursing Vishnu for beheading his wife. This story is from Devi Bhagavata, which is not a composition by Sri Vedavyasa and is questionable.
Verse 62 mentions that Vrunda curses Vishnu will have patni viyoga as Sri Rama. This is an alteration of the popular story of her cursing Vishnu to become a stonne (SalagrAma). Not sure, why it was altered.
In verse 63, Devadatta's wife dies seeing Nrusimha. In verse 64, he curses Narahari to have separation from His wife. In verse 65, it is mentioned that Vishnu was cursed by Bhrugu, Kumara, Devasharma and Vrunda. God knows how and why the name Devadatta(in verse 63) was changed to Devasharma(in verse 65). That is also a spurious story. This author may be patting on his own back thinking “Oh, I have put together four reasons for ViShNu being born as Sri Rama and undergoing separation from His wife.” Not only has he brought in wrong reasons, but little did he realize that he was going against Valmiki, who has given the right reason for that in BaalakAMDa -
etasminnantare viShNurupayAto mahAdyutiH .
shaMkhachakragadApANiH pItavAsA jagatpatiH || 1-15-16
brahmaNA cha samAgamya tatra tasthau samAhitaH
tamabruvansurAH sarve samabhiShTUya saMnatAH || 1-15-17
tvAM niyokShyAmahe viShNo lokAnA.n hitakAmyayA
rAGYo dasharathasya tvamayodhyAdhipatervibho ||1-15-18
dharmaGYasya vadAnyasya maharShisamatejasaH |
एतस्मिन्नन्तरे विष्णुरुपयातो महाद्युतिः।
शंखचक्रगदापाणिः पीतवासा जगत्पतिः॥ १-१५-१६
ब्रह्मणा च समागम्य तत्र तस्थौ समाहितः
तमब्रुवन्सुराः सर्वे समभिष्टूय संनताः॥ १-१५-१७
त्वां नियोक्ष्यामहे विष्णो लोकानां हितकाम्यया
राज्ञो दशरथस्य त्वमयोध्याधिपतेर्विभो॥१-१५-१८
धर्मज्ञस्य वदान्यस्य महर्षिसमतेजसः।
Brahma had given the boon that Ravana will not be killed by Gandharvas, Yakshas, Devas, danavas, etc. He ignored humans, thinking that they are weak and so no need to get boon against men. So, Devatas come up with the strategy and pray Vishnu to incarnate as man in Dasharatha and terminate Ravana. So no question of any curse.
Further, this enhances the original boon to Jaya and Vijaya that in all their three births on Earth as the enemies of Vishnu, Vishnu will also incarnate and kill them so that eventually they get liberated and come back to Vishnu.
This strange author not only suppressed the right reason, but went against Valmiki himself by opposing the right reason given by Valmiki.
While the three episodes mentioned in 61-65 have their own issues, the episode of Kumara mentioned in 57-60 contains many defects, as listed below.
Start-of-the-defect-list:
1. This spurious episode segment of this spurious work does not have any source which quotes this incident - ViShNu engaging in a curse exchange with Sanatkumara. On the other hand, there is plenty of opposition.
2. If you see entire Valmiki Ramayana, there is not a single place, where it is mentioned – vAlmikiruvAcha or dasharatha uvAcha or kausalya uvAcha. That style is adopted by Sri Vedavyasa - for example Sri bhagavAnuvacha, arjuna uvacha, saMjaya uvAcha, etc. This fake author wanted to ape Valmiki and so used anuShTup meter as used in Ramayana, but then was influenced by the writings of Sri Vedavyasa and used this "uvAcha" approach.
3. trailokyAdhipati is not a smooth expression. The preferred terms are trailokyAdhipatya or trilokAdhipati.
4. Trimurtis are never projected in our scriptures as "casual travelers/ visitors". They are always presented to visit other lokAs only on very important missions. Claiming that Vishnu made a casual visit to Brahmaloka is an absurd thing.
5. The author seemed to have no proper knowledge of "niShkAmatva" (quality or state of having no desires). He created an ambiguity regarding this quality and was not sure how to project it.
6. When any God visits a loka or a collection of people, only the prime members do actual pUja. All others may just do namaskara. Otherwise it will be a mess.
7. Brahma is seated in his sabha and only the sabha members will be there. Brahma or ViSNu will not wander in the Brahmaloka. Brahmaloka is much larger than bhUloka and all the residents coming and worshiping is not even practical and no such description is made in any place.
8. Vishnu perceived "SanatkumAra without that Sanatkumara”. Perceiving Sanatkumara without Sanatkumara does not make sense.
9. Did Sanatkumara not come at all or he came, but did not worship? From the wording "vinA", it is pretty obvious that he did not even come there. Being there and not worshiping may be mistaken for "dishonoring". How can not even being there be considered as an insult?
10. Only the act of worshiping is mentioned. What about the act of just doing namaskara and not worshiping? That is not even mentioned. Is that acceptable or not? If a person did not even come, the act of namaskara also becomes irrelevant.
11. With all this dramatization, the author seemed to have a hidden agenda, which is a childish exchange of curses.
12. Vishnu is all-pervading. What if Sanatkumara was worshiping Vishnu in his own abode?
13. In all these, only the intention matters. Wasn't Vishnu not even interested in knowing the intention behind SanatkumAra not even coming there?
14. Now Sanatkumara was not even there, but how come Vishnu is addressing "the non-present" Sanatkumara - Oh Sanatkumara, thou art puffed up... The author must be kidding really.
15. Now the "non-present" Sanatkumara gives back the curse to Vishnu. That is logical absurdity.
16. If Sanatkumara was true devotee, he would not give the curse back. He would have said "Oh God, I am your devotee. I accept what ever curse you give as a blessing only." No he did not say that. That absence of devotion is a black mark.
17. For someone to get arrogance, the basic requirement is desire. Desire-less-ness and arrogance can not go together. Isn’t the Omniscient and Omni-tolerant ViShNu aware that stabdhata (arrogance) is not possible in SanatkumAra, who is niShkAma (free of desires)? It is like saying the ice is burning hot. It is not possible that some one is niShkAma (desire-less), but still stabdha (arrogant).
18. PUrvapakSa may argue - well he was desire-less, but not arrogant, but Vishnu mistook it. Wait a minute. Vishnu is Omniscient. How come He is ignorant of desire-less-ness of His devotee?
19. PUrvapakSa may argue - well Vishnu was not ignorant, He Himself became arrogant and so he behaved like that. That is even worse. Instead attributing one negative quality of ignorance to Vishnu, two negative qualities - arrogance and then ignorance due to arrogance are attributed?. Attributing any negative qualities to Vishnu is a blasphemy. It is tantamount to Hari-ninda, Hari-dvesha and Hari-dUShaNa.
20. PUrvapakSa may argue - well He did not have any of those negative qualities, but he was just pretending just as Sri Rama pretended to be sad losing Sita, so also Vishnu just pretended. That does not hold water either. "narAvatAreShu naravatpravRuttiH". The question of pretending is applicable only in avatAras. There is no pretending while in MUla rUpa.
21. Sri Venkatesa's episode comes in various purANas and there an important incident is mentioned. Bhrugu maharshi is sent by all the Rishis to find out who among Trimurtis is most worthy to be worshiped in yaj~nas. Bhrugu goes to Kailasa and Satyaloka and notices that both Shiva and Brahma are influenced by emotions and then goes to VaikuNTha and kicks Vishnu in the chest. Vishnu presses Bhrugu’s feet by uttering that his tender feet may have been hurt by the strong chest of Vishnu. So, He could tolerate His devotee kicking in the chest, but could not tolerate his devotee just not doing a formal worship during His sudden visit to Satyaloka? What an inconsistency?
22. Vishnu is extolled by His devotees as "shAntAkAraM bhujagashayanaM padmanAbhaM suresham..". So, He is a serene and tranquil one. Why is he shown as a short-tempered one? Is that right?
The summum bonum of the whole thing is that it is baseless to claim that in ViSnu there is shortage of affinity for His devotees, mindless short temper, immaturity and rash behavior. If anyone makes the claim that ViSNu behaves like that, then that is total blasphemy.
23. Why was SanatkumAra also shown as a short-tempered one? One may think that this is same as point 16. Not really. In point 16, the defect in this segment by the author of the work in wrongly depicting Sanatkumara as one lacking the right kind of devotion(absence of a positive quality) is mentioned. Here the defect in this segment by the author of the work in wrongly depicting Sanatkumara as one affected by the short-tempered nature (presence of a negative quality) is mentioned.
24. The curses that are mentioned in the scriptures are always in the form of “May this bad event happen to you”. The curses will never be in the form of “You have so and so good quality; may you lose that good quality and get the opposite bad quality.” The most horrible thing here is that both commit the same mistake. Vishnu curses that SanatkumAra may lose his niShkAmatva and become kAmArta. He curses Vishnu to lose Omniscience and become ignorant. Here the point is impropriety of both the curses.
25. Now let us talk about the qualities aspect.
The qualities are of two kinds -
25-1. Attitude or developed quality. This is an acquired quality.
25-2. Inherent quality. This is not acquired. This is the very nature.
Even for 25-1, there is a root cause of inherent quality of 25-2. In other words, qualities of 25-1 are dependent on qualities of 25-2, the conditions or circumstances or atmosphere surrounding the Jivas and the grace and will of ParamAtma.
NishkAmatva comes under a. and sarvaj~natva comes under b. Why did both of them indulge in affecting these?
26. ParamAtma is svatantra and capable of removing or changing not only NishkAmatva, but also all the other good qualities and also all the bad qualities of SanatkumAra and also all the Jivas – the acquired qualities under 25-1. Why would He waste His breath by giving the curse, when He is the controller of all those. Perhaps the author has no knowledge of all this and presumed that viSNu has no control except through the curse. So, the author did not realize that it is a wasted effort to give the curse as He can do it even without the curse.
27. Paramatma maintains the qualities of type 25-1 not as per His whims and fancy, but as per the karmas of the Jivas. All those, who give curses are also pawns in the hands of Parmatma and act as per His will, which directs the fruits of action of curse-givers and curse-receivers. Parmatma will instigate them and make them give curses. Also God will make things happen in a certain way to satisfy Karma theory.
28. Paramatma is capable of altering the qualities of 25-2 also, but He will never do that as He stands as the protector of those.
29. He is protector of His devotees. Also He is Omnibenevolent and grants the good qualities to His devotees and protects the inherent qualities. Why did He turn so cruel and curse that the good quality of His devotee may go away? That is attributing “nairghRunya dosha(absence of KaruNA-mayatva or kindness)” to the Lord. So, here Paramatma will not attempt to remove niShkAmatva of Sanatkumara.
30. Cursing that the NishkAmatva may go away leads to harm His devotee. Why will He do that for his devotees as Lord Krishna saya - na me bhaktaH praNashyati(My true devotees will never be harmed). He will not harm His true devotees. While 29. is attributing cruelty to Him, this is attibuting the promise-fail to Him.
31. No one is capable of changing the inherent qualities. God is Omniscient meaning He knows everything at all times and in all places. No Jiva has the power to remove the inherent qualities of another Jiva. By kaimutya nyAya, no one has the power to remove the inherent quality of Parmatma namely Omniscience. No one can curse the Lord to have ignorance. Paramatma is protecting the inherent qualities of all the Jivas. He is svatantra and no one need to protect His own qualities and no one can touch His qualities. SanatkumAra is incapable of changing any one's inherent quality. Changing the inherent nature of Paramatma Himself either thru curse or any other means is an impossibility. Not only he can not do, no one can do that.
32. Vishnu said to Sanatkumara that he was garvachEshTayA stabdha - puffed up with ego, due to his act of arrogance. That can happen only if the nishkAmatva of Sanatkumara has gone away. That means there is no need for Vishnu to make NishkAmatva go away. It already happened.
33. Now Vishnu has shown His ignorance by cursing Sanatkumara may lose his desire-less-ness, which he already lost due to his ego. That means there is no need for Sanatkumara to curse Vishnu as He already is showing ignorance.
34. Was Sanatkumara’s arrogance caused by niShkAmatva or some other quality? In other words, his arrogance was caused by which of these -
34-1. Presence of niShkAmatva
34-2. Absence of niShkAmatva
34-3. Presence of some other quality
34-4. Absence of some other quality
There is no mention of which one of these caused it. So, all that is in limbo.
35. Who is Sharajanma? He is Shanmukha or KArtikeya or Muruga, the son of Shiva. So, how can becoming the son of Shiva be a curse? If anything it must be considered as boon. A boon is projected as curse?
36. If the pUrvapakSa tries to wriggle out by saying "No no, Being born as Sharajanma is not the curse, but being kAmArta (afflicted by kaama) is the curse", That is even worse. Shanmukha, or KArtikeya or Muruga is afflicted by kaama? There are many ardent devotees of Shanmukha or Sharajanma. Not only they reject such a notion, the scriptures also reject that notion.
37. Shanmukha is manmatha himself.
As "maara" or manmtha, he is son of Vishnu.
As KumArasvami, he is son of Shiva.
As SanatkumAra, he is son of Brahma.
So, Shanmukha getting afflicted by Kaama is self-affliction. That is ridiculous.
38. Ambiguity is mother of confusion. kiMchitkAlaM = some time. How long is this sometime? He was aj~nAni until VashiShTha's instruction and suddenly became j~nAni? No such weird thing is mentioned anywhere in Valmiki Ramayana. In fact many statements refute such a thought.
39. Was VashiShTha aware of Sri Rama losing His Omniscience or not? If he is aware, then to restore Omniscience, VashiShTha must have Omniscience. He can not restore something he does not have. Surely he is a great j~nAni. But no one other than Paramatma is Omniscient. For restoring that VashiShTha had to be sarvaj~na, but that is not true. Sarvaj~natva is unique to Paramatma and no one else is sarvaj~na and no one is capable of restoring sarvaj~natva.
40. If he is not aware, then he is lacking Omniscience and this way also he cannot restore Omniscience.
41. If VashiShTha teaching Sri Rama is an indication of Sri Rama lacking Omniscience, then Sandipani teaching Sri Krishna is an indication of Sri Krishna lacking Omniscience. But Sri Krishna was never depicted as lacking Omniscience.
42. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna were taught as “loka viDambana”(a laukik pretence), but neither of them were depicted as lacking Omniscience or their laukik gurus granting them Omniscience.
43. The process of ending the curse of ignorance of Sri Rama is mentioned. What is the process of ending the curse of loss of NishkAmatva of SanatkumAra? How is that rectified?
44. In Mahabharata, vanaparva also, the episode of Sri Rama comes. In there and in Valmiki Ramayana, how the avataara of Sri Rama evolved, is described beautifully. It has nothing to do with the business of any curses. For elucidation, the following from Valmiki Ramayana is given. This is in BalakANDa 15th sarga, which is named as "RAvaNavadhopAyaH". As the name itself suggests - this is the divine strategy, devised by Vishnu, Brahma for helping the gods.
evamuktaH suraiH sarvaishchintayitvA tato.abravIt .
hantAya.n vihitastasya vadhopAyo durAtmanaH .. 12..
tena gandharvayakShANA.n devadAnavarakShasAm .
avadhyo.asmIti vAguktA tathetyukta.n cha tanmayA .. 13..
nAkIrtayadavaGYAnAttadrakSho mAnuShA.nstadA .
tasmAtsa mAnuShAdvadhyo mR^itirnAnyo.asya vidyate .. 14..
etasminnantare viShNurupayAto mahAdyutiH .
brahmaNA cha samAgamya tatra tasthau samAhitaH .. 16..
एवमुक्तः सुरैः सर्वैश्चिन्तयित्वा ततोऽब्रवीत्।
हन्तायं विहितस्तस्य वधोपायो दुरात्मनः॥ १२॥
तेन गन्धर्वयक्षाणां देवदानवरक्षसाम्।
अवध्योऽस्मीति वागुक्ता तथेत्युक्तं च तन्मया॥ १३॥
नाकीर्तयदवज्ञानात्तद्रक्षो मानुषांस्तदा।
तस्मात्स मानुषाद्वध्यो मृतिर्नान्योऽस्य विद्यते॥ १४॥
एतस्मिन्नन्तरे विष्णुरुपयातो महाद्युतिः।
ब्रह्मणा च समागम्य तत्र तस्थौ समाहितः॥ १६॥
(When the gods spoke to Chaturmukha Brahma, he said – there is this solution for the killing of the evil Ravana. He asked for the boon that he may not be killed by gandharvas, yakShas, devas, dAnavas, rAkshasa. I granted that boon. Due to contempt and disregard, he did not mention men. So, he is killable by man and no other way. Meanwhile the resplendent Vishnu appeared and stood next to Brahma.)
Then the gods pray to Vishnu to take avatAra as man.
For that Vishnu says -
bhayaM tyajata bhadraM vo hitArthaM yudhi rAvaNam .
saputrapautraM sAmAtyaM samitraj~nAtibAndhavam .. 27..
hatvA krUraM durAtmAnaM devarShINAM bhayAvaham .
dashavarSha sahasrANi dashavarShashatAni cha .. 28..
vatsyAmi mAnuShe loke pAlayan pR^ithivImimAm .
evaM datvA varaM devo devAnAM viShNurAtmavAn ..29..
भयं त्यजत भद्रं वो हितार्थं युधि रावणम्।
सपुत्रपौत्रं सामात्यं समित्रज्ञातिबान्धवम्॥ २७॥
हत्वा क्रूरं दुरात्मानं देवर्षीणां भयावहम्।
दशवर्ष सहस्राणि दशवर्षशतानि च॥ २८॥
वत्स्यामि मानुषे लोके पालयन् पृथिवीमिमाम्।
एवं दत्वा वरं देवो देवानां विष्णुरात्मवान्॥२९॥
(Cast off fear and may good be with you. For your benefit, I will kill the evil and cruel Ravana, who incites fear in gods and saints, in the war along with his sons, grand sons, ministers, friends, cousins and relatives and after that rule the Earth for eleven thousand years. Thus the Lord Vishnu gave the boon to the gods.)
This clear narration of Vishnu giving the boon to the gods is pathetically projected as a result of curse. What a travesty!
45. Sri Rama was born as man because of the curse of Sanatkumara is logically also ridiculous. If being born as man itself is curse, then what about becoming a Fish, or Tortoise or Boar? Were they also curses? If they are not curses, why will this be a curse? Note kaimutyanyAya (Argumentum a fortiori) here. If taking the form of animals itself is not curse, all the more taking the form of man can not be a curse at all.
46. This author forgot the simple Geeta message -
yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnirbhavati bhArata |
abhyutthAnamadharmasya tadA.a.atmAnaM sR^ijAmyaham || 4-7||
paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshAya cha duShkR^itAm |
dharmasaMsthApanArthAya sambhavAmi yuge yuge || 4-8||
यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदाऽऽत्मानं सृजाम्यहम्॥ ४-७॥
परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम्।
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे॥ ४-८॥
The Lord incarnates at His own will and not due to any curse.
47. If the pUrvapakSa turns around and says "No no, being born as man is not the curse, but losing Omniscience for sometime and becoming aj~nAni is the curse", then that is to jump out of frying pan into fire. Scriptures do not say that Sri Rama was "ajnAni" for sometime, not even Valmiki Ramayana. The claim of this work is that he was aj~nAni until he received instruction from VashiShTha. Such a very vital thing is not mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana?
48. What is worse, such a notion is refuted in Valmiki Ramayana. Narada tells SaMkShepa Ramayana (The Ramayana episode in a concise form) to Valmiki. Note what he says -
ikShvAkuvaMshaprabhavo rAmo nAma janaiH shrutaH .
niyatAtmA mahAvIryo dyutimAndhR^itimAnvashI .. 8..
buddhimAn nItimAnvAgmI shrImAn shatrunibarhaNaH .
vipulA.nso mahAbAhuH kambugrIvo mahAhanuH .. 9..
dharmaGYaH satyasandhashcha prajAnA.n cha hite rataH .
yashasvI GYAnasampannaH shuchirvashyaH samAdhimAn .. 12..
rakShitA jIvalokasya dharmasya parirakShitA .
vedavedA~NgatattvaGYo dhanurvede cha niShThitaH .. 13..
sarvashAstrArthatattvaGYo smR^itimAnpratibhAnavAn .
sarvalokapriyaH sAdhuradInAtmA vichakShaNaH .. 14..
sarvadAbhigataH sadbhiH samudra iva sindhubhiH .
AryaH sarvasamashchaiva sadaikapriyadarshanaH .. 15..
इक्ष्वाकुवंशप्रभवो रामो नाम जनैः श्रुतः।
नियतात्मा महावीर्यो द्युतिमान्धृतिमान्वशी॥ ८॥
बुद्धिमान् नीतिमान्वाग्मी श्रीमान् शत्रुनिबर्हणः।
विपुलांसो महाबाहुः कम्बुग्रीवो महाहनुः॥ ९॥
धर्मज्ञः सत्यसन्धश्च प्रजानां च हिते रतः।
यशस्वी ज्ञानसम्पन्नः शुचिर्वश्यः समाधिमान्॥ १२॥
रक्षिता जीवलोकस्य धर्मस्य परिरक्षिता।
वेदवेदाङ्गतत्त्वज्ञो धनुर्वेदे च निष्ठितः॥ १३॥
सर्वशास्त्रार्थतत्त्वज्ञो स्मृतिमान्प्रतिभानवान्।
सर्वलोकप्रियः साधुरदीनात्मा विचक्षणः॥ १४॥
सर्वदाभिगतः सद्भिः समुद्र इव सिन्धुभिः।
आर्यः सर्वसमश्चैव सदैकप्रियदर्शनः॥ १५॥
Note that in this concise account by Narada itself, so many auspicious qualities are mentioned, one can imagine how in the full text, the auspicious qualities of Sri Rama will be mentioned. Every single quality mentioned here is opposed to the qualities of aj~nAni. It refutes ignorance. For ex. how can an aj~nAni be yashasvi(celebrated or illustrious) or sarva-loka-priya (dearly loved by all the people), etc.?
(Sri Rama, incarnated in IkShvAku clan, was highly renowned, self-restrained, very powerful, illuminated, resolute, victorious, intellectual, ethical, eloquent, endowed with all riches (physical, spritual and intellectual), destroyer of the enemies, broad-shouldered, strong-shouldered, conch-like necked, having great cheeks, highly knowledgeable of Dharma, truth-abiding, always delighting in the welfare of people, celebrated or illustrious, rich with knowledge, pure, humble, proficient in Paratattva, protector of all living beings, protector of Dharma, knew the secrets of Vedas, Vedangas and all the tattvas. well-versed in Dhanurvidya, knowledgeable about the secrets of all the scriptures and their meanings, endowed with tremendous memory power, genius, dearly loved by all the people, gentle, majestic, adept. All the good people went to Him just as the rivers go to the ocean. He was adorable, honorable, impartial. It is a great pleasure just to see Him.)
Some people may argue - Oh, he got all these qualities after receiving the instructions from VashiShTha. Such arguments are puerile in nature. No such thing is mentioned anywhere.
49. It is mentioned that “for some time(kiMchitkAlam)”, the ignorance will be there. The plot development that when Vishvamitra came to Dasharatha, asking for Sri Rama and Lakshmana to save his yaj~na, VashiShTha’s instruction to Sri Rama removed his temporary ignorance(aj~nAna) and sarvaj~natva was restored. There is vagueness about this “some time”.
50. When Vishvamitra came to Dasharatha, asking for Sri Rama and Lakshmana to save his yaj~na, Dasharatha could have said “Sri Rama’s ignorance” as an excuse for not sending Sri Rama with him. But he did not say.
51. At the juncture of Dasharatha sending Sri Rama with VishvAmitra, there is no narration in any other standard work that Sri Rama was mentally dejected and needed instruction from VashiShTha, which gave j~nAnodaya to Sri Rama after the so called "kiMchitkAla".
52. According to YV, Sri Rama was aj~nAni for that vaguely specified "kiMchitkAla". Is this for a few days, weeks, months or years? Did this "kiMchitkAla" start right from birth or later in life? If it came in a bit later, then he was not aj~nAni for some time and then became aj~nAni and then came out again. What factor triggered aj~nAna ? YV gives a vague and weird reason that some pilgrimage with some brahmins triggered ignorance. This is very untenable and weird. It also mentions the factor that triggered removal of aj~nAna, which is the unjustified and fabricated incident of instruction when Sri Rama and Lakshmana were about to accompany VishvAmitra. If right from birth, then following issues also become a big issue.
53. If Sri Rama was aj~nAni, right from His birth, then let us see at possibility-1 - Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrughna were also aj~nAnis, but they were so due to a curse. This is not possible as nowhere such a curse for them is mentioned.
54. If Sri Rama was aj~nAni, right from His birth, then let us see at possibility-2 - Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrughna were also aj~nAnis, but they were so not due to any curse, but just like that. This is impossible. Why should Sri Rama need a curse to be aj~nAni and they do not need a curse to be aj~nAnis?
55. If Sri Rama was aj~nAni, right from His birth, then let us see at possibility-3 - Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrughna were not aj~nAnis. This is a weird situation, where Sri Rama was worse off than his brothers. No such thing is mentioned anywhere, not even in YV.
56. Sri Rama being aj~nAni is rejected in the following words of Ramayana as well.
VAshiShThaH paramaprIto nAmAni kR^itavA.nstadA .
teShA.n janmakriyAdIni sarvakarmANyakArayat .. 12..
teShA.n keturiva jyeShTho rAmo ratikaraH pituH .
babhUva bhUyo bhUtAnA.n svayambhUriva saMmataH .. 13..
sarve vedavidaH shUrAH sarve lokahite ratAH .
sarve GYAnopasampannAH sarve samuditA guNaiH .. 14..
teShAmapi mahAtejA rAmaH satyaparAkramaH .
iShTaH sarvasya lokasya shashAMka iva nirmalaH .. 15..
वसिष्ठः परमप्रीतो नामानि कृतवांस्तदा।
तेषां जन्मक्रियादीनि सर्वकर्माण्यकारयत्॥ १२॥
तेषां केतुरिव ज्येष्ठो रामो रतिकरः पितुः।
बभूव भूयो भूतानां स्वयम्भूरिव संमतः॥ १३॥
सर्वे वेदविदः शूराः सर्वे लोकहिते रताः।
सर्वे ज्ञानोपसम्पन्नाः सर्वे समुदिता गुणैः॥ १४॥
तेषामपि महातेजा रामः सत्यपराक्रमः।
इष्टः सर्वस्य लोकस्य शशांक इव निर्मलः॥ १५॥
(VashiShTha was highly pleased and performed NaamakaraNa and all other samskaras for those four sons of Dasharatha as prescribed. The eldest Sri Rama was a torch-bearer and spearheaded the rest and brought joy to his father. He was acceptable like Brahma for all the beings. They were all well-versed in Vedas, brave and caused auspiciousness to the world. All were rich in knowledge and had adorable qualities. Even among them, Sri Rama was truly powerful and was very dear to all and was like a spotless moon.)
57. In the entire Valmiki Ramayana, let them narrate one single incident where Sri Rama exhibited aj~nAna or ignorance. Not one such incident is there.
58. SanatkumAra was depicted as one not coming to the assembly of Brahma to worship Vishnu. The reason for his not coming was not even mentioned.
59. If the reason for not coming was that he was in some "asamprajnAta samAdhi (meditation state in which all the surroundings are forgotten)", then no rules or duties are applicable, as per the shaastras. Is Vishnu not aware of that? The author has forgotten that ViShnu is All-controller and All-doer.
60. If the reason for not coming was that he was doing some Puuja of Vishnu, then also Vishnu must be pleased with him only. There is no question of any curse.
61. If the reason was that he was involved in some other activity, that should be mentioned. No such mention is there.
62.
rAmaniMdakagraMthaM dhik \, paMchadveShavinirmitam |
vAlmIkihR^idayachChedam \, paMchapAtaka-kAriNam ||
रामनिंदकग्रंथं धिक् , पंचद्वेषविनिर्मितम्।
वाल्मीकिहृदयच्छेदम् , पंचपातक-कारिणम्॥
Fie! Shame! Really shame on this work, which is insulting to Sri Rama. It is built by five-fold hatred. It tears the heart of Valmiki and leads to five great sins.
It is disguised as a work to extol Sri Rama, but in reality it depicts Sri Rama in a very poor light and is a blasphemy. The five hatreds are as follows.
62-1. SanatkumAra-dveSha (Hatred towards SanatkumAra) : SanatkumAra was a great saint and a deep devotee, who had conquered the six vices/internal enemies known as ariShadvarga, namely kAma(desire), krdoha(anger), lobha (greed), moha(infatuation or delusion), mada(arrogance) and mAtsarya(envy). He was depicted as a short-tempered Yogi, which he was not. Nowhere was he described like that. Even worse is that he shows anger on Vishnu, whose devotee he was. What a weird thing!
62-2. ViShNu-dveSha (Hatred towards VishNu) : VishNu is projected like any mean human being or a despicable politician, who is obsessed with and insists upon self-glory and expects others to praise Him and gets upset if any one does not do it. Of course insisting upon self-glory and expecting others to praise Him is correct – like “sarva dharmAn parityajya mAmekaM sharaNam vraja.” But obsession and getting upset are negative qualities. These are not applicable to Him. Such negative qualities being in Him is not mentioned in any scripture except this one. His being affected by these negative qualities is impossible.
62-3. Sri Rama dveSha (Hatred towards Sri Rama) : Though Vishnu is same as Sri Rama, these are two forms of the same Lord. The hatred was expressed for both the forms in two different ways and two different occasions. Sri Rama was depicted as a licentious and lustful person ever indulged in the company of playful harem damsels. That was depicted as very desirable and good behavior indicating great knowledge. Then he went on a pilgrimage with Brahmins. As a result, the knowledge was lost and ajnAna or ignorance enveloped him and he lost interest in the playful harem damsels and did not relish taking showers with them. This behavior was depicted as a mental malady and undesirable one. He was portrayed as depressed person filled with ignorance. Perceiving this ignorance of Sri Rama, all the near and dear including his servants felt very sad. Then VashiShTha preached Advaita and that removed his ignorance and restored his knowledge. So, he continued his earlier licentious and lustful behavior and enjoyed the playful harem damsels as usual. That is total destruction of the character of Sri Rama.
62-4. Vaalmiki dveSha (Hatred towards Vaalmiki) : The author of this work was thoroughly confused and had no clear understanding of vairaagya or detachment. He was so deluded and had no clue whether to depict the behavior of Sri Rama as positive or negative. He could not distinguish between detachment and dejection. The mental depression was described in detail by the messenger. We can not even say that the messenger's understanding of Sri Rama's behavior was wrong as even Dasharatha also thought the same way. Such a confusion-ridden work was ascribed to Vaalmiki and that is a great insult to Vaalmiki. This is really putting him down.
62-5. VashiShTha dveSha (Hatred towards VashiShTha) : When the servant and Dasharatha were dazzled by the behavior of Sri Rama, even VashiShTha, who was crownjewel of knowledge, a mine of devotion, steadfast in renunciation, was beguiled by the behavior of Sri Rama. Even such a vairAgyamurthy thought that the licentious and lustful behavior of Sri Rama and his indulging in the company of playful harem damsels is normal and desirable and His abstention from such was considered as an issue and then VashiShTha preached Advaita to Sri Rama so that He could go back to His revelry and lascivious activities. This is terrible and really murdering the character of VashiShTha. This is really putting him down.
63. Look how the author described Sri Rama's behavior after a pilgrimage. This is tenth sarga of vairAgyaprakaraNaM.
lolAntaHpuranArIbhiH kR^itadolAbhira~NgaNe |
nacha krIDati lIlAbhirdhArAbhiriva chAtakaH || 12||
mANikyamukulaprotA keyUrakaTakAvaliH |
nAnandayati taM rAjandyauH pAtaviShayaM yathA || 13||
krIDadvadhUvilokeShu vahatkusumavAyuShu |
latAvalayageheShu bhavatyati viShAdavAn || 14||
yaddravyamuchitaM svAdu peshalaM chittahAri cha |
bAShpapUrNexaNa eva tenaiva parikhidyate || 15||
kimimA duHkhadAyinyaM prasphurantIH purA~NganAH |
iti nR^ittavilAseShu kAminIH parinindati || 16||
bhojanaM shayanaM yAnaM vilAsaM snAnamAsanam |
unmattacheShTita iva nAbhinandatyaninditam || 17||kiM saMpadA kiM vipadA kiM gehena kimiN^gitaiH |
sarvamevAsadityuktvA tUShNImeko.avatiShThate || 18||
nodeti parihAseShu na bhogeShu nimajjati |
na cha tiShThati kAryeShu maunamevAvalambate || 19||
vilolAlakavallaryo helAvalitalochanAH |
nAnandayanti taM nAryo mR^igyo vanataruM yathA || 20||
ekAnteShu diganteShu tIreShu vipineShu cha |
ratimAyAtyaraNyeShu vikrIta iva jantuShu || 21||
vastrapAnAshanAdAna-parAN^mukhatayA tayA |
parivrADdharmiNam bhUpa so.anuyAyati tapasvinam || 22||
eka eva vasandeshe janashUnye janeshvara |
na hasatyekayA buddhyA na gAyati na roditi || 23||
baddhapadmAsanaH shUnyamanA vAmakarasthale |
kapolatalamAdhAya kevalaM paritiShThati || 24||
nAbhimAnamupAdatte na cha vAMChati rAjatAm |
nodeti nAstamAyAti sukhaduHkhAnuvR^ittiShu || 25||
लोलान्तःपुरनारीभिः कृतदोलाभिरङ्गणे।
नच क्रीडति लीलाभिर्धाराभिरिव चातकः॥ १२॥
माणिक्यमुकुलप्रोता केयूरकटकावलिः।
नानन्दयति तं राजन्द्यौः पातविषयं यथा॥ १३॥
क्रीडद्वधूविलोकेषु वहत्कुसुमवायुषु।
लतावलयगेहेषु भवत्यति विषादवान्॥ १४॥
यद्द्रव्यमुचितं स्वादु पेशलं चित्तहारि च।
बाष्पपूर्णेक्षण एव तेनैव परिखिद्यते॥ १५॥
किमिमा दुःखदायिन्यं प्रस्फुरन्तीः पुराङ्गनाः।
इति नृत्तविलासेषु कामिनीः परिनिन्दति॥ १६॥
भोजनं शयनं यानं विलासं स्नानमासनम्।
उन्मत्तचेष्टित इव नाभिनन्दत्यनिन्दितम्॥ १७॥
किं संपदा किं विपदा किं गेहेन किमिङ्गितैः।
सर्वमेवासदित्युक्त्वा तूष्णीमेकोऽवतिष्ठते॥ १८
नोदेति परिहासेषु न भोगेषु निमज्जति।
न च तिष्ठति कार्येषु मौनमेवावलम्बते॥ १९॥
विलोलालकवल्लर्यो हेलावलितलोचनाः।
नानन्दयन्ति तं नार्यो मृग्यो वनतरुं यथा॥ २०॥
एकान्तेषु दिगन्तेषु तीरेषु विपिनेषु च।
रतिमायात्यरण्येषु विक्रीत इव जन्तुषु॥ २१॥
वस्त्रपानाशनादान-पराङ्मुखतया तया।
परिव्राड्धर्मिणम् भूप सोऽनुयायति तपस्विनम्॥ २२॥
एक एव वसन्देशे जनशून्ये जनेश्वर।
न हसत्येकया बुद्ध्या न गायति न रोदिति॥ २३॥
बद्धपद्मासनः शून्यमना वामकरस्थले।
कपोलतलमाधाय केवलं परितिष्ठति॥ २४॥
नाभिमानमुपादत्ते न च वांछति राजताम्।
नोदेति नास्तमायाति सुखदुःखानुवृत्तिषु॥ २५
(“Sri Rama no longer allows the playful harem girls to rock him in the cradles in the yard. He does not rejoice by pastimes like Chatak bird rejoices by the rainwater. 12
Oh king, the collection of garments, beset with the bud-shaped rubies and the bracelets and necklaces does not please him like the heaven does not please the person, who is about to fall from heaven. 13
He is sorrowful even while sitting in the gardens of vines, entertained by flowery breezes. He is sad even though the pretty maidens danced around him displaying their beauty. 14
O king, he looks at whatever is good and sweet, elegant and pleasing to the soul with sorrowful eyes, full of tears. 15
He would speak ill of the girls who would dance merrily before him, and exclaim out, ‘Why should these ladies of the harem flutter about in this way causing grief in me?’ 16
He acts like a madman who takes no delight at his excellent food or rest, his vehicles or seats, his baths and other pleasures. 17
(Why can’t a mad take delight at excellent food? It is atrocious to say that Sri Rama acted like a mad man.)
As regards prosperity or adversity, his house or any other desirable thing, he says they are all unreal, and then he holds his silence. 18
He cannot be excited by pleasantry or tempted to taste pleasures. He attends to no business, but remains in silence. 19
No woman with her loosened locks and tresses and the tempting glances of her eyes can please him, any more than a playful fawn can please the trees in the forest. 20
Like a man sold in animals in forests(to savages?), he takes delight in loneliness, in remotest areas, in the banks of rivers, dreary deserts and dense forests.
(How can a man, who is sold, have an opportunity to be lonely, etc.? Where is the question of getting joy? What is the connection?) 21
O king, his aversion to clothing, conveyance, food and presents indicates that he is following the life-style of a monk like that of an ascetic.
(What a travesty? following the life-style of a monk like that of an ascetic is a mental ailment? The condition that can be achieved by extra-ordinary effort is a weak mental torment caused by ignorance? What a dreadful portrayal? Should this kind of mind lead to joy or worry? According to this author, the monks and ascetics need to be admitted to mental hospital.) 22
He lives alone in a lonely place and neither laughs nor sings nor cries aloud from a sense of his indifference to them.
(It has already been told that he was with sorrowful eyes, full of tears. Again why say that he does not cry? What a confusion to this author?) 23
Seated in the lotus posture with folded legs, he stays silent with a distracted mind, reclining his cheek on his left palm. 24
He assumes no pride to himself and does not wish for the dignity of sovereignty. He is neither elated with joy nor depressed by grief or pain. 25”
(This author seemed to lack the knowledge of Gita.
duHkheShvanudvignamanAH sukheShu vigataspR^ihaH |
vItarAgabhayakrodhaH sthitadhIrmuniruchyate || 2-56||
samaduHkhasukhaH svasthaH samaloShTAshmakAJNchanaH |
tulyapriyApriyo dhIrastulyanindAtmasaMstutiH || 14-24|| ) 25
दुःखेष्वनुद्विग्नमनाः सुखेषु विगतस्पृहः।
वीतरागभयक्रोधः स्थितधीर्मुनिरुच्यते॥ २-५६॥
समदुःखसुखः स्वस्थः समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चनः।
तुल्यप्रियाप्रियो धीरस्तुल्यनिन्दात्मसंस्तुतिः॥ १४-२४॥
The condition that the author is portraying is in fact such a fantastic thing, that it should have been presented as the qualities to be emulated. On the contrary, the unknown author had portrayed/projeted this as mental issue and needed VashiShTha to correct Sri Rama. In fact VashiShTha need to have these qualities.
Similar descriptions are there. These are exactly what Sri Krishna instructs everyone to be like. These are desirable characteristics and behavior. This is dvandvAtIta sthiti (Beyond state of duals). But that is depicted as malady and even VashiShTha thought like that.
It is depicted that Sri Rama fooling around with playful harem damsels and that all, including, even VashiShTha thought that it is normal and desirable behavior. When Sri Rama after the pilgrimage, abstained from all that, it is depicted that all, including, even VashiShTha thought that Sri Rama was afflicted with the malady and mental ailment. Then VashiShTha imparts Advaita knowledge to Sri Rama and that restored normalcy meaning putting back Sri Rama in his behavior prior to the pilgrimage, which is continuing with sporting with the playful harem damsels (lolAMtaHpura-naaribhiH krIDA - लोलांतःपुरनारिभिः क्रीडा). This is also a great insult to Sri Rama and VashiShTha.
64. The great fortune of the graceful appearance of SrimannArAyaNana, renowned as “yogihRuddhyAnagamya”, that is not possible even by the penance of thousands of years, unobtainable even to long meditation, is made cheap by making it available to all that too unasked from casual visit to Brahmaloka. While this cheapness is projected on one side, another cheapness is projected by the immature, childish and rash behavior (in the form of improper exchange of curses). Such depiction can be done only by someone, who has very poor understanding of the Almighty, Omnipresent, All-Supreme Brahman and lacks the treasure of knowledge embedded in the Brahmasutras.
65. LakshmaNa follows Sri Rama like a shadow all the time. What happened to him, when Sri Rama was fooling around with the playful harem damsels, and when he went on a pilgrimage? Was Lakshmana also fooling around? When Sri Rama was affected by the pilgrimage and Lakshmana was not affected, why did he not complain to Dasharatha rather than the atttendant? And during that spell of ignorance, was Lakshmana alone fooling around with the damsels without Sri Rama? Every thing is so murky and dubious.
66. The author is thoroughly confused and is unable to distinguish between being sad and being beyond sadness. The tenth sarga describes that Sri Rama is in a kind of dvandvAtIta sthiti (beyond duals) and feels neither happy nor sad. But then the sarga is named as “Raghava viShAda”. How can He be beyond the feelings of happiness and sadness and also be sad at the same time?
67. If Sri Rama needed mental/intellectual treatment for being in dvandvAtIta sthiti, then all the ascetics, who strive so much to reach that dvandvAtIta sthithi and finally accomplish that state, must also undergo this therapeutic instruction so that they can come out of tha state, which they worked so hard to reach.
68. Did VashiShTha reach that dvandvAtIta sthiti? If he did not reach, then he is not an accomplished ascetic as he could not reach what other saints could reach. If he did reach, then he must treat himself so that he could extract himself out of that condition.
69. The author stood upside down and thought that the undesirable behavior of running after the harem girls is a very knowledgeable behavior and portrayed Sri Rama like that only until he set out for a pilgrimage. He was deluded that this despicable path is in deed a very knowledgeable path. So, he passed on this delusion to all the important characters like Dasharatha, VashiShTha and made them also think this wrong way only. After the pilgrimage Sri Rama behaved in a highly desirable way with detachment to those transient mean luxuries. The author was deluded that it is ignorance and happened as per the curse of Sanatkumara. Once again, he passed on this delusion to all the important characters like Dasharatha, VashiShTha and made them also think this wrong way only. VashiShTha preaches Advaita to Sri Rama so that he can go back to his original behavior, which in fact is ignorance, but as per the author it is knowledge restored. It is not restoration of Omniscience, but restoration of ignorance. What a disaster, what a terrible thing! The author forces this in the throat of the readers.
70. When Vishvamitra came, Dasharatha sent the messenger to bring Sri Rama and he described the condition of Sri Rama that had been going on for quite some time. Dasharatha heard this for the first time from the messanger. (If he had known earlier, he would have acted earlier itself). Dasharatha, who is so dear to Sri Rama did not even know about it for that long, even though he moved around Sri Rama?
71. Before going on a Pilgrimage, Sri Rama was fooling around with playful harem girls. This should have been projected as ignorance. But lo, this has been projected as knowledgeable state and desiarable and normal behavior.
72. Sri Rama goes on piligrimage with brAhmaNas. It is not clear whether he goes alone or along with Lakshmana. There is no mention of its effect on Lakshmana.
73. The piligrimage should have been projected as something that removes ignorance and bestows knowledge. But lo, Sri Rama’s piligrimage with brAhmaNas is projected as that which removed knowledge and caused ignorance.
74. If that pilgrimage had such effect on Sri Rama, what effect did it have on the Brahmanas? Did they get feelings of detachment also? Is the pilgrimage supposed to bring the feelings of detachment or attachment?
75. After the pilgrimage, Sri Rama stopped fooling around with playful harem girls and developed feelings of detachment and lost interest in materialistic things. This should have been projected as knowledge. But lo, this has been projected as ignorant state and abnormal and undesirable behavior.
76. That “ignorant state and abnormal and undesirable behavior” must have been before Vishvamitra came to Dasharatha. Poor VishvAmitra was not aware of that. Poor VashiShTha was not aware of it. Poor Dasharatha was not aware of it.
77. When Vishvamitra asked Dasharatha to send Sri Rama, he sends the messenger to fetch Sri Rama. When the messenger describes the plight of Sri Rama, then only Dasharatha came to know of it and until then he was in dark about his dear son Sri Rama!
78. All of them - Vishvamitra, VashiShTha, and Dasharatha thought that the nice and desirable behavior of Sri Rama is ignorant and abnormal. So VashiShTha gives Advaita instruction so that Sri Rama can snap out of that “feeling of detachment” and go back to “normal behavior of fooling around with playful harem girls”.
79. This modern author is so thoroughly confused between vairAgya(detachment) and manovyAdhi(depression). The former is positive and the latter is negative. Sri Rama was described to have both these as part of “ignorance”.
80. VashiShTha should actuall tell Sri Rama this – “What ever vairAgya one can accomplish with long effort and practice, you accomplished with Tirthayatra. There can not be despondency for a person with vairAgya just as water can not be inside the fire.” It is meaningless that VashiShTha instructs Sri Rama to give up vairAgya/detachment.
81. It is universally known that Lakshmana always follows Sri Rama like a shadow. Was Lakshmana with Sri Rama or not, when he was fooling around with playful harem girls? If not, then there is a contradiction that Lakshmana follows him like a shadow. Further, it means that Lakshmana is deprived of the pleasures of the company of those playful harem girls.
82. If Lakshmana was with Sri Rama, was he also fooling around with playful harem girls? If he was, the work should have mentioned that. But no such mention.
83. If Lakshmana was not fooling around with playful harem girls, then it means that he was aware of its wrongness. Was Sri Rama not aware of that? Further, there is a contradiction that Lakshmana follows him like a shadow.
84. When Sri Rama went on a pilgrimage, Was Lakshmana with Sri Rama or not? If not, there is a contradiction that Lakshmana follows him like a shadow. Further, when Sri Rama went on the pilgrimage, what was Lakshmana doing? Was he alone (without Sri Rama) fooling around with playful harem girls?
85. If Lakshmana was with Sri Rama, did the pilgrimage bring same effect or influence on Lakshmana as on Sri Rama? Here “bringing the effect” means causing the ignorance. If Lakshmana was not affected, then it means that the mental strength of Lakshmana is greater than that of sri Rama. If someone brings an objection that the curse is for Sri Rama only, but not Lakshmana, then we have to note that the curse on Sri Rama is for “kiMcitkAla(for some time)” only, but not that it is due to the pilgrimage. What is the link between the pilgrimage and the curse?
86. If Lakshmana was affected, then that is also not right. Then Lakshmana also needs instruction from VashiShTha. There is no mention of any such thing.
87. When Sri Rama returned from the pilgrimage and abstained from the sensual company of harem girls, what was Lakshmana doing? Because he was not affected by ignorance, was he alone (without Sri Rama) fooling around with playful harem girls? Or he also abstained thinking how can he have the pleasures that Sri Rama was denied? Everything is vague and unclear.
88. What about the BrAhmaNas that did the pilgrimage? Were they also affected by any kind of ignorance? What is the effect or influence of the pilgrimage on them? There is no clarity on this either. Everything is vague and unclear confusion.
89. Let them be. Did Bharata and Shatrughna, like Sri Rama, engage in the frolicsome pleasures of the harem girls or not? If not, it means that they were deprived of the carnal pleasures that Sri Rama was getting. How can there be discrimination among the princes that were brought up together?
90. If they were also engaged in those carnal pleasures, the work should have mentioned that. But there is no such mention.
91. While going through that kind of life, did Bharata and Shatrughna go on the pilgrimage or not? If not, then they would have continued with their carnal pleasure journey with the harem girls. But no such mention is there.
92. If they went, then did the pilgrimage bring the same effect and influence on Bharata and Shatrughna as on Sri Rama or not? Here bringing the effect and influence means getting ignorance. If the effect and influence was not there on Bharata and Shatrughna,then it means that their mental strength is more than that of Sri Rama.
93. Further, if there was no effect and influence, then they would have continued with their carnal pleasure journey with the harem girls. But no such mention is there.
94. If there was no effect and influence, then like Sri Rama, they also would have gotten vairagya or detachment. Then they also needed the instruction from VashiShTha. But no such mention is there.
95. Is reveling with sensual company of harem girls saintly/virtuous or not? Is that indicative of knowledge or ignorance? Is renouncing that saintly/ virtuous or not? Is that indicative of knowledge or ignorance? Is the pilgrimage virtuous or not? Is that grantor of knowledge or ignorance? Is VashiShTha’s upadesha or instruction sAdhuvAda vairAgyadiMda asAdhuvAda vEshyA-strI-saMbhogakke dAri AguvudO, asAdhuvAda vEshyA-strI-saMbhogadiMda sAdhuvAda vairAgyakke dAri AguvudO? vEshyA-strI-saMbhogaviruvudu mAnasika vyAdhiyA, adilladiruvudu mAnasika vyAdhiyA? yAvudu tAttvika-jJAnigaLu sari eMdu bhAvisuttAreyO, adakke viruddhavAgiyE I graMtha pratipAdane mADide.
96. After the marriage, did Sri Rama reveal to Sita Devi his earlier indulging in the revelry in the company of the playful palace play-girls?
97. After the marriage, did Lakshmana reveal to Urmila Devi his earlier indulging in the revelry in the company of the playful palace play-girls?
98. After the marriage, did Bharata reveal to Mandavi Devi his earlier indulging in the revelry in the company of the playful palace play-girls?
99.After the marriage, did Shatrughna reveal to ShrutakIrti Devi his earlier indulging in the revelry in the company of the playful palace play-girls?
100. If Sri Rama got the ignorance from the pilgrimage, ihenceforth won’t the ordinary people fear on going for a pilgrimage?
101. The epithet “niSkAma” is used to describe an action, but not to a person in any renowned standard text. Even in the BhagavadgIta, there are references to niSkAma-karma, but it does not apply that epithet to a person. If one makes a claim that “Who ever does niSkAma karma, he is niSkAma person”, that will lead to a big confusion only. A particular person can perform some niSkAma karmas, and some sakAma karmas. Then what? No no, what one does more he is that. If such claim is made, if one sees one hundred actions, and does forty sakAma, sixty niSkAma, will he be niSkAma? No no, if one does one hundred percent niSkAma karma, then he is niSkAma. If such claim is made, if one does 99 niSkAma and one sakAma, is it correct to say that he is sakAma? Because this much confusion can happen, the scriptures utilize niSkAma shabda for actions only, but not a person. Only the author, who does not have proper comprehension of the scriptures and the tattvaa can write a work that leads to such confusion.
102. The word used for losing Omniscience is “tyaktvA (by giving up)”. This is used when a person voluntarily gives up. If Vishnu voluntarily gives up Omniscience then it can not be curse. If it is curse, it should have been something that says that Omniscience leaves you – like “sarvajnatvaM tvAM jahAti athavA tvattaH niShkramate”.
103. If one takes any great scientist of present day or any day, certainly he is not omniscient and he is not considered as ignorant either. So losing Omniscience is not same as being ignorant. So SanatkumAra gave two curses – one is losing Omniscience – second is becoming ignorant.
104. Losing Omniscience does not imply being ignorant. But being ignorant implies losing Omniscience. It would have sufficed to curse to become ignorant and it is redundant to say “giving up” or “losing” Omniscience. It is called “Adhikya doSha”.
105. This author is thoroughly confused between absence of Omniscience and total ignorance. There are many without Omniscience and yet they are not ignorant. Likewise he is confused between ignorance and mental disease (losing mental balance and be depressed). One can be ignorant and still not mentally sick and depressed.
106. This author is confused between ignorance and imbecility because of not knowing the difference between them. A small child may be ignorant, but still smart. Then that child is not imbecile. If one is not interested in the dance and merry-making of the court women, it is enough to ignore them and turn away. Is it not imbecility to chastise them?
107. This author is confused between vairAgya/detachment and mental imbalance because of not knowing the difference between them. The vairAgya of not having interest in the company of playful harem damsels is depicted as mental imbalance or malady. What a disaster?
108. Sanatkumara gave two curses – the first one is “Losing Omniscience” and the second one is “becoming ignorant”. But the author is not satisfied with just these two. He tried to add two more curses and depicted Sri Rama as depressed and also as imbecile.
None of this kind of behavior and false representation of Sri Rama is in Valmiki Ramayana. There is not even an iota of this. There is no Sri Rama fooling around with playful harem girls. There is no Sri Rama going on any pilgrimage with Brahmanas. There is no mention that Sri Rama was affected by that pilgrimage and became all depressed. When Vishvamitra came to Dasharatha asking him to send Sri Rama, there is no such thing as the servant messenger describing the mental depression of Sri Rama and his abstention from frolicking with playful harem girls to Dasharatha. There is no such thing as Dasharatha getting worried about the mental disease of Sri Rama. There is no such thing as VashiShTha giving some special Advaita instruction to Sri Rama to remove his ignorance so that he can go back to his fooling around with harem girls. All these go against tattvajnAna and common sense and are totally unacceptable.
The readers are faced with choosing one of these two paths.
1. Valmiki was ignorant and ill-informed and did not know the real truth. This modern author is lot more informed and his confusion-ridden illogical work should replace the logical work of Valmiki. We should reject the position of Valmiki in preference to this modern author.
2. Valmki had divine knowledge and this modern author is ill-informed and had some hidden agenda, but lacked the necessary logical skills. We should reject the confusion-ridden illogical work of this modern author in preference to the logical and divine work of Valmiki.
Addendum -
Not only that twisted narration of Vishnu getting the curse of manuShya avatAra is to be debunked, the misunderstanding that Sri Rama was away from his wife most of the time – this also has to be debunked. Note that out of fourteen years of vanavAsa, after the completion of thirteen years only, Ravana stole Sita. Sita was away for less than a year. After that Sri Rama ruled the Earth along with Sita for most of the eleven thousand years. In the last few years Sri Rama sends Sita to the forest, when she was pregnant. It was the divine play that Lava and Kusha had to be reared by the sage Valmiki. Also that forms the plot for ending the avatAra. So, it is not that most of the time they were separate, but most of the time they were together and ruled the Earth. Some misguided people are projecting that Sri Rama's life was full of miseries and disasters.
Vedavyasa is considered as the incarnation of Vishnu.
vyAsAya viSNurUpAya vyAsarUpAya viSNave |
namo vai brhma-nidhaye vAshiShThAya namo namaH ||
व्यासाय विष्णुरूपाय व्यासरूपाय विष्णवे।
नमो वै ब्र्ह्म-निधये वासिष्ठाय नमो नमः॥
This work is total massacre of many tattvas. No one with proper scriptural knowledge would condone the following.
In mumukShuprakaraNa, third sarga it is said -
pitA shukasya sarvaj~no gururvyAso mahAmatiH |
videhamukto na kathaM kathaM muktaH suto.asya saH ||
पिता शुकस्य सर्वज्ञो गुरुर्व्यासो महामतिः।
विदेहमुक्तो न कथं कथं मुक्तः सुतोऽस्य सः॥
(How was it that the great Omniscient VedaVyasa, the father and guru of Shuka, did not attain bodiless liberation when his son did?)
Firstly this is absurd and incorrect. In fact, it is other way around. Shuka is not yet liberated and still has the body, while VedavyAsa, being Vishnu, is always liberated. Not only that, He is independent and giver of liberation. If He Himself is not liberated, where is the question of His giving liberation to others? It is nowhere mentioned that Vedavyasa has physical body.
(avajAnaMti mAm mUDhA mAnuSIm tanumAshritam – Only the deluded think that the Lord has material body – Both yAdava kR^iSNa and vAshiShTha kR^iSNa are same)
Even considering this invalid question as valid, instead of answering this question, VashiShTha takes off and describes creation, etc. - totally hijacking the question.)
The author is a confusion-ridden soul. While describing the melancholic behavior of Sri Rama, he said that the melancholic Sri Rama had developed complete detachment because he was wrongly thinking that this whole world is unreal (See verse no. 18 in point no. 63 above). If thinking that Sri Rama saying “sarvamevAsat” (Everything is unreal) is an issue, then why did VashiShTha say the same to correct Sri Rama? He says in mokShaprakaraNa -
"saMkalpanirmANamiva manorAjyavilAsavat |
iMdrajAlamAla iva kathArthapratibhAsavat || - 2-3-11
durvAtabhUkaMpa iva trastabAlapishAchavat |
muktAlIvAmale vyomni nauspandataruyAnavat || - 2-3-12
svapnasaMvittipuravat smR^itijAtakhapuShpavat |
jagatsaMsaraNam svAntarmR^ito.anubhavati svayam || - 2-3-13"
"संकल्पनिर्माणमिव मनोराज्यविलासवत्।
इंद्रजालमाल इव कथार्थप्रतिभासवत्॥ - २-३-११
दुर्वातभूकंप इव त्रस्तबालपिशाचवत्।
मुक्तालीवामले व्योम्नि नौस्पन्दतरुयानवत्॥ - २-३-१२
स्वप्नसंवित्तिपुरवत् स्मृतिजातखपुष्पवत्।
जगत्संसरणम् स्वान्तर्मृतोऽनुभवति स्वयम्॥ - २-३-१३"
(11 The external world appears to be real, but not so. It is making of our desires, like the glorious kingdom built inside the mind, like the illusory garland of magic show, fictitious telling tale.
12 It is false like a delirious earthquake. It is like a goblin to scare the children, like a string of pearls in the clear sky, and like the apparently moving trees viewed by a traveler in a boat.
13 It is illusory like the city in a dream, and like the imaginary flower of the sky. The whole world, just creation inside the mind, and appears to be real. Its illusory nature is experienced after the death.)
The author, who perceived that Sri Rama’s thinking like that is an issue and yet made VashiShTha say the same. That means that VashiShTha needs treatment and the view of the treatment has to be opposite of this, not same as this.
"na tu saMkalpanirmANam na manorAjyasaMgatam |
nirastakuhakaM chaiva satyArthapratipAdakam ||
sadvAtakaMpabhUriva sajjanadurjanairyutam |
muktAlIva gale dhAryam vR^ikShanirmita nAviva ||
sarvasaMvittipuravat sR^iShTisuMdarapuShpavat |
jagatsaMsaraNam bhuMkte jIvane maraNe svayam || "
"न तु संकल्पनिर्माणम् न मनोराज्यसंगतम्।
निरस्तकुहकं चैव सत्यार्थप्रतिपादकम्॥
सद्वातकंपभूरिव सज्जनदुर्जनैर्युतम्।
मुक्तालीव गले धार्यम् वृक्षनिर्मित नाविव॥
सर्वसंवित्तिपुरवत् सृष्टिसुंदरपुष्पवत्।
जगत्संसरणम् भुंक्ते जीवने मरणे स्वयम्॥"
(11. The external world is real and is not making of our desires. It is not like the glorious kingdom built inside the mind. There is no deception and is not like a magic show. It is established by the true and meaningful purpose.
12. It contains good people and bad people like the real pleasant breeze and real Earthquake. Just as we wear the real necklace of pearls on our neck, we experience its reality in our heart. It is as concrete as the boat built of the wood from the trees.
13. It is as real as the city experienced by all the inhabitants. It is as real as the beautiful flowers of God’s creation. Whether alive or dead, this world, that is experienced by all the Jivas themselves until the death and after the death, is absolutely real, even if not eternal.)
Another strange thing is that in the utilization of similes, this author is very weak. SamAnyadharma (the quality of comparison) is not obvious and clear. The upamAnas or objects of comparison are also messy. The Similes can be positive or negative. But they should make good sense and follow a clear and proper approach. Her smile is stiff like a stick. He does not talk wrongly unlike others. The first one is for two different types, but bearing the similarity. The second is for two of the same kind, but one has and the other does not. Both are fine. But this is not right – He does not like mango just as the pig likes muddy ditches. This work is filled with wrong Similes.
Ex 1 – Sri Rama does not frolic by pastimes like Chatak bird by rains. (nacha krIDati lIlAbhirdhArAbhiriva chAtakaH).
Such comparisons are given when they behave similarly. This would have been appropriate if Sri Rama actually rejoices – like – sa cha krIDati lIlAbhirdhArAbhiriva chAtakaH (Sri Rama frolics by pastimes like Chatak bird by rains.). The upamAna should have been something that does not rejoice. It is ok not to give any comparison, rather than giving a wrong comparison.
Ex 2 - Like a man sold to savages in forests, he takes delight in loneliness, in remotest areas, in the banks of rivers, wild deserts and forests.
(How can a man, who is sold, have an opportunity to be lonely, etc.? Where is the question of getting joy? What is the connection?)
This is a mess not only semantically, but syntactically also. It says “araNyeShu vikrIta iva jantuShu” which means “sold in animals in forests”. It does not make any sense. So, the commentators needed to make some sense out of it. So “jantu” is a beast. It is not possible to sell to the beast. Beast can be taken as a brutal person or a barbarian or savage. “Sold in savages in forests” is not proper. So make it “sold to savages in forests”. That means “araNyeShu vikrIta iva jantuShu” was interpreted as “araNyeShu vikrIta iva vanyebhyaH (jantusadR^ishebhyaH)”. Having interppreted that way, they may have felt that it has become all fine. But the meaninglessness continued.
The person, who is sold becomes a slave and has to slog and will hardly have any time to sit lonely. What is this someone sold to some savage in the forest? What is the need to bring savage here? Does any one have any idea as to where this author’s mind is wandering?
Ex 3 - Oh king, the collection of garments, beset with the bud-shaped rubies and the bracelets and necklaces does not please him like the heaven does not please the person, who is about to fall from heaven.
mANikyamukulaprOtA kEyUrakaTakAvaliH |
nAnaMdayati taM rAjan dyauH pAtaviSayaM yathA ||
Note that for those who are falling from the heaven, the heaven is not the saddening factor, but the fall from the heaven is the saddening factor. The English translation available is making incorrect translation in many places. There is a desperate attempt to bridge the gaps, but all that is a futile attempt only. When the original text itself is messed up, what can help? The comparison here itself is not right. the person in heaven is accustomed to heavenly joys. He is highly attached to heaven and the things in heaven. He does not like to lose them. He is worried of losing them. Sri Rama was not attached to the pleasure-yielding things and the women. He is saddened by their presence and to have them. He was not worried of losing them. This author is confused himself and has confused the readers as well.
In fact most of the Similes in this work are made incorrectly. This event of Sri Rama being depressed in this work/kAvya is a terrible misrepresentation, damaging description and irrelevent blow. All the similes in this episode are not only confusing but also demeaning and damaging the charatcter of Sri Rama.
Even CAtaka bird is capable of gaining joy from mere rain. But Sri Rama did not know how to be happy despite being a prince.
Sri Rama’s position was like that of one falling from the heaven. The one who was falling, is worried about losing the heavenly pleasures as he is obseesed with those pleasures. Sri Rama was depressed for those pleasures are there. He is disgusted of those and filled with vairAgya. These are opposite qualities and do not deserve to be compared. It creates heavy confusion. If the author’s intention was to put down Sri Rama, that is fulfilled.
Sri Rama had the delusion that everything is an illusion(asat). That is actually Advaita thought. If everything is an illusion(asat), then what worry and why worry? If the dance of the playful harem damsels is an illusion(asat), then why chastice them or curse them or yell at them?
Note that this author portrayed that Sri Rama did not have the desire, affinity or pull towards food, luxuries and the joys of being with the Harem damsels. Let it be. But here the author entangled himself in heavy confusion and meaningless knots.
1. What is the characteristic of vairAgya or detachment? If a person has detachment for certain things, then he will not feel sad if they are not there. Only this can be told. It is meaningless to say that the person will be sad or perturbed or worried by their presence. Because this author has a very defective understanding of vairAgya or detachment, he described that Sri Rama was sad and depressed by their presence.
2. That kind of vairAgya, and not chasing them is good and also a sign of wisdom. But this author has portrayed that as bad and a sign of ignorance.
3. And then presenting that Sri Rama was in a horrible state like a madman, and he lost his mind acted like a madman is a terrible and horrible thing.
4. Why should Sri Rama be worried about the things that he does not like being around him? Instead of taking the easy step of just ignoring them, why should he be worked up or worried or depressed and why chastise the playful harem damsels? It is another teriible and horrible thing even to imagine that he could not even ignore them. This implies that Sri Rama was portrayed as a kind of a fool. That is complete blasphemy. It is a crime and sinful act.
5. Losing the Omniscience does not mean losing the very basic intelligence. Loss of Omniscience is not loss of common sense. It is a disaster to claim that he did not even know the purpose and effect of the food and joys.
6. Just because he does not desire or long for food and the joys, depicting Sri Rama as a mentally affected, depressed person that needed counseling, is very absurd. But this author did exactly that.
The shower of bad Similes resumes. He is mentioned as “jaDamati” and like the tree in the forest (A very low-level being). Just as the fawns can not make the forest tree happy, the beautiful tender bodied and well-featured damsels could not please Sri Rama. He lost not only Omniscience, but lost his mind and intellect and was compared to a dull being like a tree.
Like a man sold to savages, he takes delight in loneliness, in remotest areas, in the banks of rivers and wild deserts. The original verse says “like one sold in animals”, which does not make sense. So, the commentators had to stretch it and say “like one sold to animal-like beings or savages”.
Becoming jaMtusadRusha or barbarian or savage itself is bad. Being sold to him is even worse. This terrible and horrible thing does not stop there. That slave has to slog to please that savage. He does not get any free time. Sri Rama does not have to answer anyone and he had plenty of spare time. So that kind of a comparison is ridiculous. But this author has determined to pull Sri Rama down.
When this author said that Sri Rama was like a mendicant or tapasvi, we may get the impression that finally this author is atleast trying to put Sri Rama in a little bit higher pedestal. But that is short-lived only. It is not like that also. This author has dragged that mendicant or tapasvi also down, perhaps because the author may have thought why uphold Sri Rama, in this also let us drag him down only. May be that is what the author desires. The sAmAnyadharma or common characteristic between this compared imaginary tapasvi and Sri Rama is “not having the desire for clothes, food, vehicles, etc”. This common characteristic of Sri Rama and tapasvi is depicted as mental disease by this author, but not as a great quality that has to be emulated.
If one reads all the above portrayal, description and logical analysis, it becomes obvious whether this author is a devotee of Sri Rama or a hater of Sri Rama.
Shri Krishnarpanamastu !
Comments
Post a Comment