Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 39

Vibs

Excellent description. However, I must have one of my rare disagreements with you on one point.

Vibhishan did become king of the Rakshashas: they were the inhabitants of Lanka. It's noteworthy that Rama didn't return Lanka to Kubera and his Yakshas (?) You are right that there were only a few left. But the ones killed in Krishna avatar don't seem to have dated back from treta yuga - not Narakasura, not Banasura (who wasn't killed), not Shambara, and neither any of the ones killed by Bhima - not Bakasura, not Hidimba, not Kirmira, not Alambusa. So Rama did not wipe out the rakshashas.

The only reason for killing Kumbhakarna was the Jaya/Vijaya curse - other than that, Kumbhakarna was relatively harmless, and only did whatever he did on the day he'd wake up at Ravan's behest. I don't fully agree with Godisone that it was as necessary to kill Indrajit & Kumbhakarna as it was to kill Ravan - just that it was impossible to do it. Indrajit was not noted as a bully - his war against Indra was one to save his father, rather than conquer Devalok, and I have a theory that only a virtuous soul attains a pativrata stri like Sulochana, who ranks right up there with Sita, Savitri, Anusuya, et al (and above Kaushalya, Draupadi, Mandodari, among others) More to the original point, it was impossible to kill Ravan there just by Sita's touching him.

That brings to mind another side question. In this serial, when Ravan is talked out of taking on Rama directly by Akampana and Vibhishan, Mandodari, in her anger later at Shurpanakha, tells her that if Ravan were to engage Rama in combat, he'd definitely win. Vibhishan too seemed to alude to that somewhat reluctantly, as he agreed with Akampana that winning a combat against Rama would not bring him any glory, since Rama was a mere mortal (a bizzare argument, given that Rama had just wiped out Khar and Dushan). Does anybody actually think that Mandodari & Vibhishan was right, and that if Ravan had gone there with just Indrajit (to take on Lakshman), Shurpanakha (to abduct Sita) and a few more warriors, like, say, Atikaya, that Rama would have prevailed against them? In other words, was the abduction of Sita (aside from fulfilling Vedavati's curse) a necessary pre-requisite for Rama to be victorious against Ravan?

I'd think that Rama being a mortal would be enough, but I'm interested to hear how many think Ravan would have prevailed, particularly since he did suffer defeats in the past, including a stalemate with Rama's ancestor Mandhata.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

I have wondered about that too. Was Ram angry at the situation where he had to speak harsh words to Sita for the sake of the outside world? He is being forced to do things, to appease the gossip-mongering world, he would not have done otherwise. Also, Valmiki says that when Sita entered Agni (and it is agni pravesha and not agni pariksha) the Vanars started wailing in grief. At that time, Ram turns around to face the area where Sita entered the fire. Here Valmiki writes that Ram's face was filled with confusion. Why was that? At that point is he not sure that Sita will come out unharmed? Why was he confused? Also, why is it that Valmiki did not give any hint as to the mental make-up of Ram at that time? Why is the whole thing left to the readers to interpret? ❓
❓

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

First of all, apart from being a religious text, Ramayan is also an epic novel. I think it was Maharishi Valmiki's way of creating suspense in the scenes.

Ram was not angry that he had to do it but he was very sad that he had to put his wife through it. Though he never doubted Sita he would have wondered if it would hurt her. Probably that is the reason for the confusion - my own guess. If I am wrong please excuse me and correct me.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Actually, Vibishna that make a lot of sense. If Rama is seen as angry it does not make sense at all. His silence is due to sadness (even turning away his face due to sadness) makes for a better explanation. Thanks! 👏⭐️ I never thought of that. 😆

Your explanation also makes the confusion part easier to understand. I only wish Valmiki had given some insight into the mind of Rama at that time.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Vibs

Excellent description. However, I must have one of my rare disagreements with you on one point.

Vibhishan did become king of the Rakshashas: they were the inhabitants of Lanka. It's noteworthy that Rama didn't return Lanka to Kubera and his Yakshas (?) You are right that there were only a few left. But the ones killed in Krishna avatar don't seem to have dated back from treta yuga - not Narakasura, not Banasura (who wasn't killed), not Shambara, and neither any of the ones killed by Bhima - not Bakasura, not Hidimba, not Kirmira, not Alambusa. So Rama did not wipe out the rakshashas.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

The only reason for killing Kumbhakarna was the Jaya/Vijaya curse - other than that, Kumbhakarna was relatively harmless, and only did whatever he did on the day he'd wake up at Ravan's behest. I don't fully agree with Godisone that it was as necessary to kill Indrajit & Kumbhakarna as it was to kill Ravan - just that it was impossible to do it. Indrajit was not noted as a bully - his war against Indra was one to save his father, rather than conquer Devalok, and I have a theory that only a virtuous soul attains a pativrata stri like Sulochana, who ranks right up there with Sita, Savitri, Anusuya, et al (and above Kaushalya, Draupadi, Mandodari, among others) More to the original point, it was impossible to kill Ravan there just by Sita's touching him.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Rama's age at the time of Vishwamirta asking Dashrath to take Rama with him to kill Tataka. This translation is from the Gita Press (2 really really fat books) Srimad Valmiki Ramayana:

Dashrath is telling Vishwamitra:

" My lotus-eyed Rama is less than 16 years old yet. I, therefore, do not perceive his capacity to contend with the Rakshaasa. Here is my army, one Aksauhini strong, whose maintainer and controller I am." And so on and so forth.

Aksauhini is 21,870 soldiers on elephants, 21,870soldiers on chariots, 65,610 soldiers on horseback, 109,350 foot soldiers.

So, if Rama was not "yet" 16 years old when he left with Sage Vishwamitra to kill Tataka then it is logical to say he was 15 years old and nearing his 16th year. The word "yet" is the operative word here. If someone says they are not, for example, 26 years old "yet," it means they are 25 and nearing their 26th birthday.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

First of all, apart from being a religious text, Ramayan is also an epic novel. I think it was Maharishi Valmiki's way of creating suspense in the scenes.

Ram was not angry that he had to do it but he was very sad that he had to put his wife through it. Though he never doubted Sita he would have wondered if it would hurt her. Probably that is the reason for the confusion - my own guess. If I am wrong please excuse me and correct me.