Riddle of Rama

 

 

There are n numbers of the followers of Shree Ram. He is known for his Characteristics and for the principles. He is known for moral behavior. He is one from whom we people get the inspiration to follow the noble path. He is one who inspire people of every age group to follow the path of “Dharma”. It is unfortunate that Dr. Ambedkar has fallen in riddle in case of virtues Shi Ram also. Let’s discuss and examine logics of Dr. Ambedkar In case of Riddle of Shri Ram along with the story mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, which Dr. Ambedkar considered simple and has said that there is nothing sensational about it.

 Dr. Ambedkar in his riddle of Rama has mentioned that Dasharath had three wives, Kaushalya, Kaikai and Sumitra besides several hundred concubines.

Vedic principle is only for only one wife. Dhasharatha was having three wives and this is against the Vedic principles. However claim of Dr. Ambedkar is that he was having hundreds of concubines stands nowhere. Story mentioned in the Ramayana does not support the claim of Dr. Ambedkar. In the 6^th Sarg of Balkand of Ramayana while explaining about the Dasharath, Valmki has said him “Jitendraya” i.e. one who control his wishes.

बलवान निहितामित्रो मित्रवान विजितेन्द्रिय।  बालकाण्ड षष्ठ सर्ग श्लोक – ३

If Dasharath was having several hundreds of concubines, as claimed by Dr. Ambedkar he would not have been called “Jitendriya” by Valmiki.

 

Dr. Ambedkar proclaims that Rama’s birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born form a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is allegorical glass to cover the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kaushalya by the sage Shrung although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife.

Claim of Ambedkar is totally baseless. He accuses Kaushalya of having unethical relationship with sage Shrung however fails to provide any corresponding facts about his claim. Ignoring different chapters in Valmiki Ramayana on the birth of Rama and putting forward own baseless story is the allegorical glass in real sense which Ambedkar was using.

Dashrath was not having child. Sage Shrung was invited to perform the Yagya to cure the disease. And different Kings along with the all four “Varns” were invited by Dasharath on this Occasion.

ततः सुमन्त्रमाहूय  वसिष्ठो वाक्यमप्रवीत

निमन्त्रयस्व नृपतीन पृथिव्यां ये च धार्मिकाः

ब्राहम्मणान क्षत्रियान वैश्यान शुद्रांश्चैव सहस्रशः।

१९/२०  बालकाण्डे त्रयोदश सर्ग

 He invited noble people from all the countries. Dashrath asked Sumant to go to Mithila to invite King “Janak” in the same way King of Kahi and king of Kaikay and in-laws of Dashrath was also invited along with his son. Lot of people from different countries were invited to take part in the “Putresthi” yagya. Valmiki says in 13^th Sarga of Balkand that Dasharath requests to invite all the kings of south India. He further ask Sumant to invite  all the Kings of this earth along with their relatives and supporters. Invitations were send to all the kings and their relatives as per the directions of the Dasharath.

दाक्षिणात्यान नरेन्द्रांश्च समस्तानानयस्व ह

सन्ति स्निग्धाश्च ये चान्ये राजानः पृथिवीतले

तानानय यथा क्षिप्रं सांऊगां सह्बान्धवान्

एतान दुतैर्महाभागैरानयस्व नृपाज्ञया।

२८/२९  बालकाण्डे त्रयोदश सर्ग

Further Valkimi states in “Balkand” that Rishi Shrung perform the putreshti Yagna. He says that “O King! I will perform the “Putreshti yagna” with the Mantras of Atharveda. Purpose of this yagya will be fulfilled on following the process given in Atharveda.

यष्टिं ते हं करिष्यामि पुत्रियां पुत्रकारणात

अथर्व शिरसि प्रोक्तैर्मन्त्रै सिद्धां विधानतः।

२ पंचदश सर्गः बालकाण्ड

At the end of the Yagna Sage Shring prepares the medicine and ask Dashrath to go to their wives and provide the medicine. He assures Dashrath that his wish of having son will come true.

भार्यानामनुरपाणामश्रीतेती प्रयच्छ वै

तासु त्वम् लप्य्स्यसे पुत्रान यदर्थं यजसे नृप।

२० बालकाण्डे षोडश सर्गः

It is clearly stated in the Valmiki Ramayan that it was a mammoth organization in Ayodhaya in which kings from whole world was invited along with their relatives. “Putreshti Yagna” was performed by the Rishis. On the basis of that medicines were prepared by the Rishis and handed over to Dashrath to get his wish fulfilled.

In the light of above facts baseless allegation of Dr. Ambedkar stands nowhere. Neither the facts of Ramayana supports his claims nor has he given any basis of what he has written. It seems complete baseless result less attempt to malign the image of Noble person Shree Ram.

Dr Ambedkar further writes that  “Valmiki states in his Ramyanana by emphasizing the fact  that Ram is an Avatar of Vishnu”.

It is something which he has written on the basis of adulterate verses of Ramayana. Stand is not made on the basis of adulterated verses. As the Rama is called incarnation of Vishnu on the same basis Mahatma Buddha is also declared incarnation of Vishnu. But the verses of Bhagavat puran (Pratham Skandh, third Chapter) declaring Mahatma Buddha as incarnation of Vishnu will not be acceptable to any of the follower of Buddha or the follower Ambedkar as the adulterated verses doesn’t have any base.

Dr. Ambedkar writes that according to the Valmiki Ramayana Sita is not the natural born child found by a farmer in his field while ploughing it and presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janka. It was there superficial sense that Sita could be said to be the daughter of Janaka.

This claim is again on the basis of adulterated verses. Dr. Ambedkar has ignored deliberately or un deliberately verses of Ramayana stating that Sita was the daughter of King Janak and his wife.

Swami Vidyanand saraswati writes that how it can be considered that Sita was born from earth when in Valmiki Ramayana at many places Sita is called “Aatmaj”  of Janka (वर्धमानां मम आत्मजः।  बालकाण्ड ६६/१५ , जनकात्मजे (युद्ध ११/१८ ), जनकात्मजा ( रघुवंश १३/७८ )

“Aatmajah” stand for generated from his own body.

During her stay in forests, Sita discusses with Anusuiya in the Aashrama of Atri Muni that :

प्राणी प्रदाने च यत्पुरा तवाग्नि सन्निधौ

अनुशिष्टम् जनन्या में वाक्यं तदपि में धृतम।

अयोध्या कांड ११८ /८-९

Whatever advises given to me by my mother at the time of my marriage I have not forgotten that. I have adopted all that in my behavior.

Whether in this statement, of describing the advices at the time of marriage, Earth can be called the advisor?  Whether it was earth who weep while sending Sita with the Rama? Tulaseedas even has noted the name of her mother as  Sunayana.

जनक वाम दिसि सोह सुनयना,

हिमगिरि संग बनी जिमी मैना।

रामचरितमानस ३५६/२

In the Ramayana at the time of marriage name of 22 forefathers of Rama have remembered in the same manner name of forefathers of Sita have been also remembered. If earth would have been the mother of Sita in that case who would be called the forefathers of earth?

Sita coming out of the earth is a gross gossip which Dr. Ambedkar has used in riddle. It is total hearsay. Neither the Valmiki Ramayana Support this fact nor the common sense.

Dr Ambedkar further states that according to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha. He further states that “Among the Aryans marriage between brothers and sisters were allowed.

This is again the imagination of the Dr. Ambedkar and the writer of Buddha Ramayana. Ancient text that is available about the Rama is Valmiki Ramayana. And other books about the Ram were written in later years. But that Ram and Sita was brother and sister is not supported by any of the version of Ramayan.

In supporting his views Dr. Ambedkar has proclaimed that in Aryans marriage between brothers and sisters were allowed. This is again completed baseless allegation which Dr. Ambedkar has put forward. It shows the ignorance of Dr. Amebdkar regarding the topic he was writing.

Oldest law of this earth is Manu Smriti. Aryans have been following it up for sagas to sagas. Let’s see what Manu Smriti says about the marriage part.

असपिण्डा च या मातुरगोत्रा च या पितुः

सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनां दारकर्मणि मैथुने

“A girl, who is not descended on his mother’s side within the sixth degree and does not bear the same family name (Gotra) as his father’s. is eligible for marriage.” MANU 3: 5.

In the absence of evidence about the allegation, and in the presence of clear law of Manu who can say that Sita and Rama was brother and sister?

 

Dr. Ambedkar further says that Rama was not monogamous and was having many wives along with lot of concubines. But the reference provided by Dr. Ambedkar does not confirm his allegation that Shri Ram was having many wives or concubines.

 

Dr. Ambedkar has alleged Rama to abandon Sita in a state of pregnancy and for the murder of Shambuk etc.

This again a combinations of adulterated verses on which Dr. Ambedkar has relied. He has forgotten to consider that Valmiki has written Ramayana as it was elaborated by Narada to him. Narada had elaborated story up to the Lanka war. In that case how Valmiki would have written the Uttar kand .Full of these rubbish stories used to malign the images of Rama.

In the Balkand 1^st Sarag , Naradas says :

नंदीग्रामे  जटाम हित्वा  भ्रातृभि सहितो नघ :

रामः सीतामनुप्राप्य राज्यम पुनर वाप्तवान्।

After completing his tenure of forest stay Rama took hair cut at Nandi village and lived in the Ayodhya.

Swami Vidyanand Saraswati writes that when story was heard by Valmiki upto the stage of coming back to Ayodhya, how one can claim that Rama abandon the Sita in the stage of pregnancy and murdered Shambuk. All these stories are baseless and part of adulteration. There is not base of these stories mentioned in Balkand of the Valmeeki Ramayan.  Tulasee das has also completed his Ramcharitmanas on the Yuddha kand and all these baseless stories does not have their place in Ramcharitmanas.

As well as in the Mahabharat, Ramayan story is mentioned with the name of “Ramopakhyan” and their also story of ram is completed on the Yudhdh kand. All other stories are not in Mahabharat also.

We can conclude on the facts given from Valmiki Ramayana, Ramcharitmanas and from the Mahabharat that the claims raised by Dr. Ambedkar on Rama are baseless and does not stand anywhere and these are either not supported by any verses of the Ramayana or are written on the basis of adulterated version in the same way as Mahatma Buddh is said as avatar of Vishnu. 🙂