Rāmāyaṇa FAQs 1: Is Rāmā God?

Date Posted: 09-Nov-2025

Is Rāmā God?

Answer to this question depends on the intent of the question. Is this asked because of (i) no belief in God (by atheists/materialists) and hence cannot accept anyone as God or (ii) no belief that there existed someone named Rāmā or (iii) a belief that Rāmā existed but was human or (iv) a dilemma whether Rāmā is God or human because He was found divine and grieving both?

(i) no belief in God (by atheists/materialists) and hence cannot accept anyone as God?

If the question is from Cāruvākā or atheists or materialists, how do they say that there is no God? Most people come up with an answer that God cannot be seen. It is easy for them to ask, “Show me God”, because all knows very well that God cannot be shown physically similar to bringing a cow and showing her to others.

Just because something cannot be seen, how can we conclude that it does not exist? Knowledge is attained via three ways viz pratyakṣa or direct perception, anumāna or inference and āgama or scriptures. An example for direct perception is, seeing fire directly and understanding it as fire. An example for inference is, seeing smoke in a distant hill and inferring that there is fire, though we can’t directly see fire. It is to be remembered that, in this example, the inference is done based on our experience in connection between smoke and fire in the kitchen or somewhere else, but is not independently producing knowledge. Scriptures here, basically means eternal Vedās and anything that does not conflict with them.

Cāruvākā (atheists/materialists) believe only in sensual perception. Anything beyond sensual perception like punya-pāpa (fruits of good deeds-sin), heaven-hell, dharma-adharma (righteousness-unrighteousness), souls, God etc are not believed by them. For them, this body is everything and God, souls etc are non-existent for because they can’t be directly perceived.

Now, believing only in pratyakṣa (direct perception), how would these atheists prove that they are right? Anything can be proven or dis-proved via a debate only because difference of opinions exists in every matter in this world. However, even to initiate a debate, they have to also believe in inference as a minimum because there cannot be debates without inference and nothing can be proven without debates. If one does not believe in inference, it means they deny their own survival theoretically. Yes. We feel hungry and feel satisfied when we eat something; next time when we feel hungry, we infer that eating can pacify hunger. We feel thirsty and feel satisfied when we drink water; next time when we feel thirsty, we infer that drinking water can pacify thirst. Say we go to a doctor for skin allergy, Doctor asks several questions and based on the answers, infers that something could have caused this allergy, he prescribes some medicines and allow us to try. If someone is doubted as dead, doctor checks body temperature, pulse and see if the person is breathing etc, infers that the person is dead in the absence of those and certifies the person is dead. Likewise, so many things in this world in our routine life is carried on by inference. If someone denies inference as means of knowledge, how stupid is it then? We shall ask them how do they survive then?

Now, we say Cāruvākā (atheists/materialists) philosophy is a failure; if they keep quiet, it means they accept they are failed and in case they initiate a debate, even then they fail because they cannot even initiate a debate without belief in inference. So, atheists, as per their own principles, can’t even participate in a debate, can just sit at a corner, perceive what they can perceive and just leave. That means, if we say Rāmā is God, they can’t initiate a debate against it, as per their own principles. If they do so, they remain defeated as per their own principles. If they keep quiet also, it is an agreement and they stand defeated.

Āgama Pramāṇa is also called Śabda Pramāṇa. Words are expressed in the form of sounds and they give different meanings. There are several meanings for each word. We have to infer appropriate meaning for right interpretation of something. Having said the atheists don’t believe in inference and śabda, how would they even teach their principles to their disciples? Their own disciples will laugh on seeing such self-contradictory principles.

Body is just made of 5 elements of nature. None of these elements have consciousness as their nature. Mere combination of these 5 elements of nature cannot bring in consciousness to body. Even if 100 blinds unite, vision cannot be produced. A mix of sugar and jaggery cannot make the combination spicy. Basically, the raw materials in combination shall have such a nature. If we agree that body is everything, then even a dead body shall be functioning. Hence, there is something beyond body, unseen, but keeps the body alive. Is that something, a soul or God is unnecessary for an atheist, because the moment it is proven that there is something beyond body that can’t be perceived, the principles of atheists fail.

As per Cāruvākā (atheists/materialists), anything that cannot be perceived are not true. Even dharma-adharma (righteousness-unrighteousness) cannot be perceived with senses. A group that don’t even believe in dharma-adharma (righteousness-unrighteousness) is a real threat and danger to the society. People are disciplined because they believe in righteousness. If you remove this element from their minds, then what stops them from committing crimes? Such atheistic principles can only build a criminal society because, human laws seek only evidence and not truth itself. So, by all means, atheism is to be eradicated. They can’t disprove Rāmā or the fact that Rāmā is God because, they are unfit for a debate in first place. Their own principles will lead them to a defeat.

(ii) no belief that there existed someone named Rāmā?

How can people say that they don’t believe in someone named Rāmā lived in this world? Because they have not seen Him? For that matter, how much of our ancestors we know? Grandfather? Great grandfather? Let us go 10 generations back. What is the proof that someone lived as our forefather in this world? We just believe based on some inference that someone should have been there as our forefather.

Inference without support from perception and scriptures may not be true. Opinion that Rāmā was non-existent and an imaginary character, is just an inference. We can infer fig comes from creeper because it is small and pumpkin comes from a tree because it is big. However, when we directly see, this is vice versa. In the matters where we cannot confirm our inference with the help of direct perception, we seek support from scriptures. We, those who say Rāmā existed in the past have scriptural and literary evidences to prove it. What evidence is on the side which says Rāmā was non-existent? If someone says literatures are weak evidences, then the party those who don’t even have literary evidences to disprove it is the weakest. In that case, literatures are to be trusted as adding strength to inference, while the opponent side is just empty handed.

Rāmāyaṇa happened in deep past. Absence of physical evidences cannot disprove it because the world keeps changing every day. If we start saying something was non-existent because of absence of physical evidences, then the principle is as similar as atheist. Even scientific facts are recorded on papers and after 200 years would these papers be called imaginary? Such an argument that Rāmā was non-existent because of absence of any material evidences is stupid. Further, there are archeological evidences that can be presented in this case. Having accepted Rāmā’s existence then there could be further questions about whether He is God or human.

(iii) a belief that Rāmā existed but was human?

If someone says Rāmā was human, how do they say it? In first place, if someone says Rāmā was human, that means they accept that Rāmā really existed. Now, on what basis the opponent argue? No human has directly seen Rāmā in this birth. So, the basis of belief in Rāmā, shall be the literary work named Rāmāyaṇa. Isn’t it? So, if someone says about Rāmā, that means they believe in Rāmāyaṇa as well. In this case, let us take Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. It clearly says Rāmā is God Viṣṇu Himself.

For example, let us see a Śloka from Bālakāṇḍam.

When Brahmādi Devās prayed Viṣṇu to incarnate on earth to end the atrocities of Rāvaṇa, Viṣṇu said as follows in Rāmāyaṇa Bālakāṇḍam, Sarga 15.

भयं त्यजत भद्रं वो हितार्थं युधि रावणम्। सुपुत्रपौत्रं सामात्यं समित्रज्ञातिबान्धवम्॥

हत्वा क्रूरं दुरात्मानं देवर्षीणां भयावहम्। दश वर्षसहस्राणि दश वर्षतानि च॥

वत्स्यामि मानुषे लोके पालयन् पृथिवीमिमाम्॥

एवं दत्त्वा वरं देवो देवानां विष्णुरात्मवान्। मानुष्ये चिन्तयामास जन्मभूमिमथात्मनः॥

bhayaṃ tyajata bhadraṃ vo hitārthaṃ yudhi rāvaṇam| suputrapautraṃ sāmātyaṃ samitrajñātibāndhavam||

hatvā krūraṃ durātmānaṃ devarṣīṇāṃ bhayāvaham| daśa varṣasahasrāṇi daśa varṣatāni ca||

vatsyāmi mānuṣe loke pālayan pṛthivīmimām||

evaṃ dattvā varaṃ devo devānāṃ viṣṇurātmavān| mānuṣye cintayāmāsa janmabhūmimathātmanaḥ||

This means, “Leave your fears. For your welfare and auspiciousness, I will battle with the cruel and evil natured Rāvaṇa, who frightens Devās and Ṛṣīs, and kill him along with his sons, grandsons, ministers, friends, kinsmen and relatives. Doing so, I will be ruling the human world for eleven thousand (11000) years and protect it. Bestowing such a boon to Devās, Viṣṇu started thinking about where to incarnate in the world of humans.”

The above clearly shows that Rāmā is Viṣṇu Himself. Similar such evidences can be shown from Rāmāyaṇa itself, however the above suffices.

The one who raises a question about divinity and supremacy of Rāmā as God, on believing in Rāmā based on Rāmāyaṇa, shall necessarily accept that He is God. Further, through His activities, He shown Himself as God. Such activities include but not limited to transforming a stone into woman, breaking Śivā’s bow to prove His supremacy over Śivā, tying the string of Viṣṇu’s bow to prove that He is Viṣṇu, granting liberation to His devotees etc. So, once you are a believer of Rāmāyaṇa, there is no difficulty to accept Rāmā is God. Despite if someone argues that a portion of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa is true and a portion is not, that is not a real debate with good intentions but vitaṇḍā vāda. Such an act of sticking to a portion of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa will not yield any fruitful results even to the opponent or lead to a victory because such an act will give room to acceptance of any portion of the literature as true and not true without any limits and basis. Hence, if one thinks of firmly establishing their side of debate, they have to accept Rāmāyaṇa as a whole in first place. Having accepted that, it is clearly evident that Rāmā is God.

(iv) a dilemma whether Rāmā is God or human because He was found divine and grieving both?

Now, a dilemma may arise for the believers who are beginners. If Rāmā is really God, He shall be ever blissful. But He is seen to be grief-stricken in some instances while separated from Sītā and so on. How can we firmly believe that Rāmā is God? These category of people believe in scriptures and believe in Rāmā as God, however they may have some difficulty to digest it. Or probably, they may think Viṣṇu is eternally blissful however grief-stricken in incarnated forms.

There is no reason not to believe Rāmā is God. If one accepts that Rāmā is God, however wants to get clarified on His grieving sometimes, then scriptures clearly answer this.

Purāṇās clearly state that God in his incarnated forms acts as if grief-stricken. This is because He wants to put the souls unfit to realize Him into delusion. However, at the same time, learned ones who are knowledgeable, understands Him as God. It is His ability to reveal Himself as God to those who deserve and put into delusion the undeserving. He is absolutely Independent and can’t be questioned.

In Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa Bālakāṇḍam, Śivā preaches Umā Devi as follows.

नाहो न रात्रि: सवितुर्यथा भवेत् प्रकाशरूपाव्यभिचारतः क्वचित्। ज्ञानं तथाज्ञानमिदं द्वयं हरौ रामे कथं स्थास्यति शुद्धचिद्घने॥

तस्मात्परानन्दमये रघूत्तमे विज्ञानरूपे हि न विद्यते तमः। अज्ञानसाक्षिण्यरविन्दलोचने मायाश्रयवान्न हि मोहकारणम्॥

nāho na rātri: savituryathā bhavet prakāśarūpāvyabhicārataḥ kvacit| jñānaṃ tathājñānamidaṃ dvayaṃ harau rāme kathaṃ sthāsyati śuddhacidghane||

tasmātparānandamaye raghūttame vijñānarūpe hi na vidyate tamaḥ| ajñānasākṣiṇyaravindalocane māyāśrayavānna hi mohakāraṇam||                       

This means, “In the Sun who is of changeless luminosity, there cannot be both day and night; similarly, in Rāmā who is the Supreme Hari of pure consciousness, how can there be both knowledge and ignorance? In Rāmā, the best of the raghūs (raghu vaṃśa), of the nature of eternal bliss and pure knowledge, there is no existence of ignorance. That Lotus-eyed God is the witness of ajñāna (ignorance) and not a victim of it. Māyā, the power causing ignorance (to others) is dependent on Him and He is not affected by it.”

From such statements, it is very clear that Rāmā is completely blissful and there is no iota of ignorance in Him.

Further, souls may enjoy or suffer based on their past good deeds and sins. What could cause sorrow in God?

Praśnopaniṣad third chapter says in case of souls,

अथ एकया ऊर्ध्वं उदानः पुण्येन पुण्यलोकं नयति पापेन पापम् उभाभ्यामेव मनुष्यलोकं॥

atha ekayā ūrdhvaṃ udānaḥ puṇyena puṇyalokaṃ nayati pāpena pāpam ubhābhyāmeva manuṣyalokaṃ||  

This means, the Vāyu through his udāna form, moving upward, leads the jīvās (souls) depending on their merits to heaven or demerits to hell. By the two, he leads them to the world of humans.

Birth of souls is due to their puṇya and pāpa.Hence, it is natural that souls get happiness and sorrow because of their fruits of Karma. They take birth because of their karma. However, in case of Viṣṇu, His incarnations are not caused by karma but on His own free will for the benefit of other eligible souls and to eliminate the evil.

In case of Viṣṇu, Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad says as follows.

एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य न वर्धते कर्मणा नो कनीयान्।

eṣa nityo mahimā brāhmaṇasya na vardhate karmaṇā no kanīyān|

This means, the greatness of Viṣṇu is eternal (beginningless and endless by nature) and does not become Superior or low by the means of virtuous and sinful karma (deeds).

Hence, it is clearly evident that incarnations of Viṣṇu are also not caused by karma as in the case of souls who experience both joy and sorrow. God is just blissful in both root and incarnated forms. There is no cause for His sorrow.

Even when the liberated souls can experience unmixed bliss, how can the God who grants it to them undergo sufferings in His incarnations? Hence, there is no reason for grief in God.

Evidences can be quoted from several works like Bhāgavata Purāṇa that there is no grief for Viṣṇu in His incarnations. We will see more and more on this as we progress with other questions and answers on Rāmāyaṇa.

If someone asks, why not God experience ignorance and sorrow in incarnated forms, while He may be ever blissful in root form, such questions can also be answered.

Vedās clearly state that there is no iota of difference between Mūla rūpa (root form) and Avatāra rūpa (incarnated forms) of Viṣṇu.

Below is the Śānti Mantra for Īśāvāsya and Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते। पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः॥

oṃ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇātpurṇamudacyate| pūrṇaśya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate|| oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ||

This means, that Mūla rūpa (root form) is pūrṇa and this Avatāra rūpa (incarnated form) is pūrṇa; From the pūrṇa (root form) the pūrṇa (incarnated form) emanates; When the pūrṇa (incarnated form) is withdrawn into pūrṇa (root form), the pūrṇa alone remains.

This clearly shows that both root form and incarnated forms are blemishless and are full of auspicious qualities. There is no iota of difference. Hence, there cannot be grief in incarnated forms.  

Kaṭhopaniṣad, 2nd Adhyāya, 1st Valli speaks on unity of various forms of Viṣṇu as follows.

यदेवेह तदमुत्र यदमुत्र तदन्विह। मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति॥

yadeveha tadamutra yadamutra tadanviha| mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati||

This means, whatever is here (incarnated forms), that is there (root form in Vaikuṇṭha). Whatever is in Vaikuṇṭha and other worlds is the same as that is here (incarnated forms). He who sees a difference in them will fall from death to death (tamas or hell).

This again shows there is no iota of difference between the different forms of Viṣṇu. All forms are blissful as root form.

From such statements, it is very clear that Rāmā is completely blissful and there is no iota of ignorance in Him.

Further, for the one who is omnipresent, where the separation happens from His wife? Rāmā never separated from Sīta. Similarly, Sīta also has no grief. All griefs in Rāmāyaṇa are just drama to delude undeserving souls, especially to give a human impression to Rāvaṇa as per his boon. Going forward, many other such questions and answers from Rāmāyaṇa, will remove such doubts from mind when read.

May Śrī Rāghavendra Swamy antargata Bhārati ramana Mukhya Prānāntargata Lakṣmī Vēṅkaṭēśvara Swamy get pleased!

Sarvam Shri Kṛṣṇārpaṇamastu!

by Srinivasan Pranesh