Author: Srinivasan Pranesh

(Tamil discourse of the same is at the bottom of this article)

Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata are the two great Epics and eyes of Bhārata Deśa. They are great because they depict the glories of Rāmā and Kṛṣṇā, the two great incarnations of Mahā Viṣṇu. They preach Dharma-adharma (righteousness and unrighteousness) to the people and show us the right way of living with all morals.

Few people who have hatred towards Varṇāśrama dharma, spread the thoughts like these Epics were the mythology spread by Brāhmaṇās to show themselves as supreme and to dominate the society, which are baseless. Such criticisms are not new and exist from time immemorial from Cārvāka (materialist/atheist) period. Cārvāka is believed to be given by Deva Guru Bṛhaspati for some reasons, which is not detailed in this post.

Taking such criticisms serious and to convince the haters, even some scripturally learned people who assume themselves as highly intellect but don’t know the implication of their speeches, take a stand that Rāmāyaṇa was composed by Vālmīki who was a hunter himself and Mahābhārata was composed by Vyāsa who was born to a fisher woman and hence a fisher man himself. By saying so, they want to show that these epics are not composed by Brāhmaṇās and can be very well accepted by the haters of Brāhmaṇās. They forget that they are speaking about the two big foundations of Hindu scriptures.

We are not haters of hunters and fishermen; If God wills, anyone can write. However, history shall not be twisted to please someone. Whom are we going to please by saying this? Do they think the haters will become devotees of Rāmā and Kṛṣṇā just because they hear those epics were given by a hunter and a fisherman?

Haters are always haters because they have vested interests, may be political or money oriented; Devotees are always devotees; Despite several criticisms, see the amount of people visiting temple to pray Rāmā and Kṛṣṇā. Middle people who have genuine doubts and in dilemma may be clarified for their firm belief. That is all.

Even before Vālmīki composed Rāmāyaṇa, the Mūla Rāmāyaṇa in 100 crore verses existed from time immemorial and preached by Viṣṇu Himself to Chaturmukha Brahma. Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa was composed by Vālmīki after he had Darśanā of Chaturmukha Brahma which is much lesser in length compared to Mūla Rāmāyaṇa.

It is not right saying Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa was given by a hunter. Vālmīki is a great Maharṣi and is known to be a contributor of some Ṛg Vedic Hymns (one among the seers who grasped eternal Vedās and preached to humans). In Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Uttara Kāṇḍa, Vālmīki introduces himself to Rāmā as follows.

प्रचेतसोऽहं दशम पुत्रो राघवनन्दन |

pracetaso’haṃ daśama putro rāghavanandana |

He introduces himself as 10th son of Pracetas and says he never lied in his life. He says Rāmā shall trust him in the matter that Lava and Kuśa are Rāmā’s sons only.

Some scholars opine that this Pracetas is none other than Varuṇa.

Whatever, Vālmīki is not born a hunter and is born to a Brāhmaṇā.

In Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa, preached by Śivā to Umā Devi, Vālmīki says his story himself. He clearly states he was born to a Brāhmaṇa, however married a hunter lady and had children through her. He led his survival by robbing the people who passed by the forest. Once Sapta Ṛṣīs were followed by him with the intention to rob. Sapta Ṛṣīs advised Vālmīki to check with his family if they will share the fruits of sins because they survive from that robbery and they will stay there till Vālmīki will be back. Vālmīki did and his family refused to share the fruits of sin incurred by robbery. Vālmīki got purified thoughts as he understood the real nature of family members and returned back to the Sapta Ṛṣīs. They advised him to chant name of Rāmā continuously till they return back to the same place. Vālmīki who can’t even chant that as such, chanted “Marāmarāmarāmarā….”, which sounded “Rāmarāmarāmarāma……”. When those sages returned again, he was covered by an ant hill which is known as Vālmīka in Sanskrit. As he broke the ant hill and came out, he was called Vālmīki. He himself admits that he became a great Ṛṣī only because of Śrī Rāmā.

He composed Rāmāyaṇa, after elevating to such a level and with the blessings of Chaturmukha Brahma. Casually saying a hunter composed Rāmāyaṇa, only shows that such preachers neither understood the importance of Rāmāyaṇa nor Vālmīki.

Coming to Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vedavyāsa Devā is 100% incarnation of Mahā Viṣṇu Himself. Great souls become Vyāsa in every Dvāpara Yuga. In this Manvantara, Mahā Viṣṇu Himself incarnated as Vyāsa in 3^rd, 7^th, 16^th, 25^th and current 28^th Dvāpara Yugās. We are now in 28^th Kali Yuga. Mahābhārata in 28^th Dvāpara Yuga was not just written by Vedavyāsa as it happened but Mahābhārata happened as Vedavyāsa composed. Original Mahābhārata is made of 60 lakhs verses and the human world has got only 1 lakh, because humans are eligible only for that. Mahābhārata is a great Epic and Vedavyāsa openly challenges that everything is covered in it and there is nothing outside, which is not covered in Mahābhārata. He was almost 600 years old when Dhr̥tarāṣṭra was born. Let us see the background of Vedavyāsa incarnation.

Once upon a time, Durvāsa Mahaṛṣī handed over to Indra, a garland of Mahā Lakṣmī as Prasāda. Indra who didn’t offer due respect to the garland, placed it on Airāvata (his elephant) and the elephant threw it on the ground and stamped it. Durvāsa became angry by this behaviour and cursed Indra that he loses all his Aiśvarya. Daityās used this opportunity and covered the worlds of Indra. To regain all Indrā’s lost wealth, the milky ocean was churned using mount Mandāra as churning rod and Vāsuki snake as rope, with Devās and asurās on either side as churners. As a result, Mahā Lakṣmī appeared again and finally Dhanvantarī appeared with Nectar. Most of us know this. However, while churning the milky ocean, the first thing that came out was Kālakūṭaviṣa, the poison which was the form of Kali, along with Kali’s wife. Mukhya Prāṇa Vāyu who incarnated as Hanuman, Bhīma and Madhva, who will be the next Chaturmukha Brahma, drank the poison with full vīrya, keeping it in a golden bowl and also digested it effortlessly. Śivā also wanted to participate in this and hence a few drops after removing its vīrya were offered by Mukhya Prāṇa Vāyu to Śivā. On consuming it, Śivā became intolerable to it and had effects. When it reached the neck portion, his wife Pārvati caught hold of his neck and ceased the poison getting inside further. There onwards, Śivā is also called Neela Kanta (the blue necked). This clearly shows that Viṣṇu, Lakṣmī and those deities who can come to the post of Chaturmukha Brahma along with their respective consorts, called Para Śukla Traya alone can eradicate Kali and rest all below them are influenced by Kali. So, the spread of Kali started from the time milky ocean was churned and the influence of Kali is worst in Kaliyuga.      

The curse given by sage Gautama also became an instrumental cause, for a quicker spread of Kali. Once upon a time, there was severe famine for 12 years. Hence, many sages arrived at Gautama’s hermitage because Gautama was able to grow crops because of his yogic powers. After 12 years, the sages wanted to get back to their original places, however Gautama got so attached to them and refused to send them back. The sages who were upset made a plan. They prayed Ganapati who came in the form of a calf of cow and started grazing the crops. Gautama just picked a grass and threw on the calf, which didn’t even touch the calf however the calf fell down and acted expired. The sages criticized Gautama as murderer of cow and left his hermitage. They suggested that Gaṅgā water when touches the dead body of calf can bring the calf back to life and left the place. When sage Gautama penanced, Śivā appeared and agreed to let some amount of Gaṅgā flow towards his place. This water became a river and named Godāvari later. This is why Godāvari is also called Vṛtta Gaṅgā. The river water brought back the calf to life. Later, Gautama with a peaceful mind recollected what happened and understood that the sages tricked him to leave the place. So, he cursed that even Brāhmaṇās in Kaliyuga lose their intellect and this curse became an instrumental cause for spread of Kali. This way, both Devatās and humans were influenced by Kali. To help everyone regain the lost knowledge and to preach all, Mahā Viṣṇu Himself incarnated as Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vedavyāsa Devā.

Coming to His incarnation, we all know that sage Vaśiṣṭha’s son was Śakti and Vaśiṣṭha’s grandson was Parāśara Mahaṛṣī, who was a Brāhmaṇa. Parāśara did penance to please Viṣṇu. As a result, Viṣṇu appeared and granted him a boon that He will be incarnated as the son of Parāśara. Parāśara was asked to approach and marry Satyavatī.  

Satyavatī was not born to a fisherman. There lived a King named Uparicaravasu. Once he went to forest to hunt deer and suddenly remembered the beauty of his wife, resulting in semen ejaculation. He didn’t want to waste it, hence kept it on a leaf and sent via a bird to his wife. The bird was attacked by another bird on the way and the leaf fell into Yamuna River. The semen entered into the body of a fish. The fish was actually a cursed Apsaras woman. The fish became pregnant. Later when some fishermen caught the fish, they found the fish was pregnant and surprised to see the fish delivered twins, one boy and one girl. The fishermen took children to their fishermen King and he knows the children belong to Uparicaravasu. He handed over the twins to Uparicaravasu. Uparicaravasu kept the boy for himself and gifted the girl to the fishermen King. The fisherman became her foster father and she always smelled like a fish because she is born of a fish. This is the background of Satyavatī.

When Parāśara Mahaṛṣī married Satyavatī and just touched her, she started smelling very good. Uparicaravasu participated in the marriage and completed kanya dhāna of Satyavatī. Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vedavyāsa Devā incarnated as their son. Satyavatī remained a virgin. Viṣṇu never stays in womb during His incarnations. He is not biologically born via sexual intercourse and neither stayed in womb for 9+ months. That was a straight entry into womb and exit. Vedavyāsa Devā had no DNA of Parāśara Mahaṛṣī as in the case of normal humans and hence Satyavatī also remained a kanya. Unlike a normal Brāhmaṇa child who usually have their Upanayana (ceremony of sacred thread and initiation in Gayatri Japa) reaching 7 years, Vedavyāsa Devā grew to the extent of growth of 7 years old in just 7 days, had Upanayana from His father and left His parents. This need not be objected as non-scientific because the one who incarnated is absolutely Independent God, who is not bound by any rule of nature. He infact controls the nature. Then, Parāśara Mahaṛṣī also left Satyavatī. She remained a virgin and was completely eligible to marry Śāntanu later.

Vedavyāsa Devā, as He left His parents in 7 days, promised them that He will appear in front of them, the moment they think about Him.

Vedavyāsa Devā, who is the Supreme God Himself is beyond all classifications like Brāhmaṇa, fisher man etc. However, for debate’s sake, if someone wants to prove Vedavyāsa Devā is a fisher man, then it is to be noted that fisherman was only foster father of Satyavatī. Vedavyāsa Devā incarnated to Parāśara Mahaṛṣī who was a Brāhmaṇa and Satyavatī, a Kṣatriyā lady. By all means, Vedavyāsa Devā is Brāhmaṇa only and not a fisherman. However, He was not a biological child and an incarnation who wanted to give a high status of being father and mother of Viṣṇu to Parāśara Mahaṛṣī and Satyavatī.

Hence, history is to be understood properly and we shall not spread wrong information to the people, in order to please some haters who intentionally hate and criticize our great Epics.       

Sarvam Shri Kṛṣṇārpaṇamastu!

by Srinivasan Pranesh

Date Posted: 12-Jan-2026

Was Rāvaṇā good or evil?

There are several beliefs in this regard. Haters of Rāmā obviously says Rāvaṇā is good; Some people pray Rāvaṇā as God; Some says, Rāvaṇā is a gentle man because he didn’t even touch Sītā, but mistake is that of Rāmā because He let Lakṣmaṇā cut Śūrpanakhā’s nose and hence Rāvaṇā abducted Sītā for revenge; Some people say Rāvaṇā was a devotee of Śivā and hence Rāmā killed him because He wanted Vaiṣṇavism to flourish; Some people say Rāvaṇā was a Tamilian and hence Rāmā from North India killed him because of language bias and so on. All these are baseless beliefs with political and vested interests to dilute the belief of innocent people in Rāmāyaṇa and to do character assassination of Rāmā. Anybody who has got mouth can speak, however all those need not be necessarily true. Such attempts can never succeed among devotees of Rāmā and the learned ones because they know Rāmā is God.

Was Rāvaṇā a gentleman who didn’t intend to touch any woman? Mistake was done by Śūrpanakhā and hence she got punished. She already lost her husband, thereby a widow. Without any discipline, she approached Rāmā who already married Sītā and was highly disciplined with the principle to live with Sītā alone. When Rāmā diverted Śūrpanakhā to Lakṣmaṇā, she immediately approached Lakṣmaṇā to marry him, which clearly shows she was interested only in sex and wanted a male to get married. Such a woman deserves nose cut. What is Rāmā’s mistake in this. Ok. Let us discuss on the abduction. Whom Rāvaṇā abducted was not original Sītā at all. We will come to that later in the subsequent FAQs. However, Rāvaṇā was not aware of that while abducting Sītā. But, is Rāvaṇā a gentleman and abducted only Sītā?

Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa 1^st sarga of Sāra-Kāṇḍa, mentions abduction of Kauśalyā by Rāvaṇā before her marriage with Daśaratha, on hearing that their son (Rāmā) will be the cause of his death. He kept Kauśalyā in a box. With the blessings of Brahma, both Daśaratha and Kauśalyā got married.

Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Uttara-Kāṇḍa, clearly states, carried away by the beauty of Vedavati, who was a tapasvini and daughter of Kuśadhvajā, Rāvaṇā tried to abduct her and harassed her. This clearly shows Rāvaṇā has got no discipline and never hesitates to abduct women for his own benefits and desires.

Even in case of Sītā, Rāvaṇā wanted to abduct her because she was beautiful and Śūrpanakhā’s nose cut was not the main cause. Śūrpanakhā was only instrumental in this. He knows he is cursed and hence didn’t dare to touch Sītā. Once upon a time, he was also interested in marrying Pārvati, wife of Śivā. He is not a gentle man at all.         

Is Rāvaṇā a devotee of Śivā and hence Rāmā killed him? Śivā himself is a devotee of Rāmā. Why would he kill devotee of a devotee? In fact, it is Viṣṇu ajña (order) to Śivā, to project himself as Parabrahma or Supreme God, to delude the undeserving ones to understand the real essence of Vedās. Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa 9th sarga of Sāra-Kāṇḍa clearly says, Rāvaṇā pleased Śivā with his music and asked for two boons. One is Ātma Liṅga to be taken to Lanka and the second boon was, Pārvati to be Rāvaṇā’s own wife. Is this the staunch astonishing devotion to Śivā, that the haters of Rāmā mention? As per Ānanda Rāmāyaṇa, Viṣṇu diverted Rāvaṇā towards Mandodarī and saved the divine couple.

The people who claim that Rāvaṇā was a Tamilian and hence Rāmā from North killed him, just show their hatred to Sanskrit scriptures. Such haters brand Rāvaṇā as a Tamilian, to use him as a hatred means towards Rāmā and Sanskrit, to trigger the emotions of Tamilians of today for political reasons. However, those people forget the fact that Rāvaṇā was also born to a ṛṣi. He belongs to Mahaṛṣi Pulastya Vaṃśa (lineage). He was cursed to be an Asura. To those who claim the Lanka belongs to the Tamilian Rāvaṇā, Lanka was not built by Rāvaṇā. He took it over forcibly from his elder brother Kubera, who was born to the same father but different mother. We all know the Śiva Tāṇḍava Stotra authored by Rāvaṇā is in Sanskrit. So, the war happened between two Sanskrit speaking Kings only and not between Sanskrit speaking and Tamil speaking. Only the common people who know nothing about Rāmāyaṇa would fall for such tricks of vested interests. As an author of this article, I would proudly say 64 generations of my known ancestors belong to Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu has got a very glorious, rich history and culture. Tamilians shall not be defamed by connecting them to Rāvaṇā, for the sake of showing hatred to Sanskrit language and for the political interests.

Having said enough about Rāvaṇā’s evil nature, was he really good or evil? Though he deserves a death in the hands of Rāmā, let us not conclude him as evil. He is both good and evil. This is unbiased view without any vested interests in the background. One may wonder how?

We all know the curse of Sanakādi Mahaṛṣi’s to Jaya and Vijaya, the gate keepers of Vaikuṇṭha. They had to take three births in this world as Asurās and had to be killed by Viṣṇu Himself, by showing enmity to Viṣṇu and His devotees. However, Jaya and Vijaya are devotees of Viṣṇu by nature. Devotees of Viṣṇu are devoted from their souls and not just externally devoted. In this case, the nature of souls cannot be changed at all. Then how can they show hatred to Viṣṇu? Viṣṇu Himself does not change nature of souls, in which case how can a curse that cannot override Viṣṇu’s will do it.

Here, Śrī Madhvācāryā clearly explains what it was, in one of his Sarvamūla Granthās named Mahābhārata Tātparya Nirṇaya.

There were two demons named Ādi Hiraṇyakaśipu and Ādi Hiraṇyākṣa. Demons ever hate Viṣṇu because that is their soul’s very nature. When Jaya and Vijaya took three incarnations in this world, these two demons were also present in the same body respectively. Thus, the bodies of the three pairs of incarnations, Hiraṇyākṣa and Hiraṇyakaśipu killed by Varāha Swāmy and Nṛsiṃha Swāmy respectively, Rāvaṇa and Kumbhakarṇa killed by Rāmā, Śiśupāla and Dantavakra killed by Kṛṣṇā, all had two souls in same body. This is called Jīvadwaya Āveśa, which means two souls in one body, one stays dominated and other stays suppressed at a time. This is similar to a ghost entering into one’s body and take possession of the body, suppressing the existing soul that owns the body. In case of Jaya and Vijaya, they continuously suffered this in all three births taken by each. Ādi Hiraṇyakaśipu and Jaya were present in same body while Ādi Hiraṇyākṣa and Vijaya were present in the same body.

One may ask how can we believe in such statements? In first place, Śrī Madhvācāryā is an incarnation of Mukhya Prāṇa Vāyu who is our next Chaturmukha Brahma. He is best among souls and who knows better than him except Universal Mother Lakṣmī and Viṣṇu Himself (who are superior to him). There is no ajñāna or ignorance in Śrī Madhvācāryā, hence his words can be trusted as such. He gave these from Mūla Rāmāyaṇa which is present in the world of Devatās and composed of 100 crore Ślokās.

Also, this can be clearly understood from Purāṇās. Let us take Bhāgavata Purāṇā 7^th Skanda for example. Hiraṇyākṣa was killed by Varāha Swāmy. When their mother Diti and Hiraṇyākṣa’s wife were in sadness, Hiraṇyakaśipu preached beautiful words of wisdom (Jñāna Upadeśa) to them. Among several advises, below is one which is very astonishing and possible to be done only by Mahā Jñānis.

Once upon a time, King of Uśīnara was killed in a battle. His wives were weeping in grief. They didn’t get prepared for his final rites but kept on weeping in grief. Lord Yamā, the Lord of Death, who saw this, appeared like a kid who was abandoned by parents and spoke these words of wisdom. He said on seeing the weeping widows, “What a surprise? These people are elderly than me and have seen many deaths. They will also face death one day. Death is inevitable. Why are they in grief knowing all these?”

Lord Yamā further continued the below.

“We are indeed blessed, because though we are abandoned by our parents, we are not feeling sorry. Though we are helpless, we have not been eaten by the wolves. The God who shields us in the womb is our savior, where ever we are.”

“Anything that is under the protective care of God may remain in same place even when dropped on the way. Anything, even when secured in the house may get lost if God thinks so. Likewise, a person living in jungle is alive when protected by Him, whereas a person protected by relatives at home may die if he is doomed by Him.”

What beautiful advice these are! Such words of wisdom spoken by Lord Yamā once upon a time, were preached by Hiraṇyakaśipu to the wife and mother of Hiraṇyākṣa. However, the next moment, he invites his servants and says Indra is their enemy and anything that is done to please him and Viṣṇu are to be prohibited. He says, he will take revenge for his brother’s death.

Are these not mutually contrasting characters? Words of wisdom in one moment and words of hatred the very next moment. He was not a mad man. When words of wisdom were spoken, it is to be understood that Jaya was dominant and when the words of hatred were spoken, it is to be understood that the demon Ādi Hiraṇyakaśipu suppressed Jaya and became dominant. This is two souls in one body. Such happened to both of them during the incarnations.   

Viṣṇu killed them in all three incarnations, there by releasing and delivering Jaya-Vijaya to good worlds and the demons to hell.

Some philosophers say, even demons like Pūtanā attained Mukti because they keep thinking of God alone in the form of hatred. So, demons also go to Mukti. This is absolute stupidity. Even the animals of lower sense like cow and deer don’t allow a tiger willfully to attack them, knowing a tiger is dangerous. How can God who is Omniscient, get pleased by such haters who try to poison Him and hate Him, though He is immortal? Also, a devotee does lot of sādhanā and sacrifices to please God and attain him. If a person can attain same fruits even through hatred, then what is the use of devotion and following Dharma (righteousness). For many people, hatred will seem easier than following Dharma. Hence, there is no way God can be attained via hatred. Hatred will lead one to hell only.

Then, how to understand the Purāṇās stating even demon like Pūtanā attained Mukti? We shall understand that there were two souls in one body (Jīvadwaya Āveśa) wherever it is mentioned that demons attained Mukti. In case of Pūtanā, Urvaśī was also present in the same body because of Kuberā’s curse. When Pūtanā was killed, Urvaśī attained liberation and reached higher worlds while Pūtanā, the demon was sent towards eternal hell.

Hence, if we sincerely analyze the nature of Jaya and Vijaya in their three incarnations, they had to stay with demons in the same body, which itself was a big punishment to make their curse effective, however they didn’t show hatred to Viṣṇu. Good nature and words of wisdom were from Jaya and Vijaya whereas the evil nature was from the demons present in the same bodies. This is the reason we say Rāvaṇā was both good and evil. However, all his acts to abduct women, to fight against Rāmā, to ask Pārvati be his wife and any such evil acts of adharma, were those of the demon present in the body and not that of Jaya.

Let us understand this and reject any criticisms against Rāmā, trying to project Rāvaṇā as a big hero. Rāmā is blemishless and of infinite auspicious attributes.    

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

Sarvam Shri Kṛṣṇārpaṇamastu! by Srinivasan Pranesh

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

Hari Sarvottama! Vāyu Jīvottama!

This website is created for Madhva Siddhānta Prachāra and is owned by Srinivasan Pranesh of Chennai. The website includes various articles, discourses and e-books on Madhva Siddhānta and related matters. Menu to access various subjects can be found at the top right corner of this home page. Feedback and comments can be provided after each post or by clicking the contact page.

Sarvam Śri Śrīnivāsārpaṇamastu!