Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s2: Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Rāmāyaṇa

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s2

Language: English

Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Rāmāyaṇa

c6.s2.1

*Rāmāyaṇa* of Vālmīki was written in the age of dialectic of ideologues. The ethical concepts as well as the tenets of major philosophical systems were in the process of their evolution. This is reflected in the scepticisms, discussions, dialogues and debates in which we find the characters of *Rāmāyaṇa* involved. There are sceptics and believers taking positions and counter-positions. Lokāyata and Ānvīkṣikī — these two schools of philosophy — posited challenges and raised questions on the existing practices and norms. The *yajña* ceremony was comprised of a number of performances, including *vādas*. The Putreṣṭiyajña performed by Sage Ṛṣyaśṛṅga for Daśaratha, the *vipras*, adept in oratory and having patience for arguments gathered to hold *hetuvādas*. It is said that all the members of the assembly performing the rites of the *yajña* were adept in debates.³⁶

c6.s2.2

The following debates, dialogues and discussions in *Rāmāyaṇa*, reflecting divergence of ideas, may be mentioned:

c6.s2.3

1. Discussion and debate between Rāma, Bharata, Jābāli and Vasiṣṭha on nullification of Rāma’s banishment.

c6.s2.4

2. Dialogue between Sītā and Rāma in Daṇḍakāraṇya on the vulnerability of violence and practice of non-violence.

c6.s2.5

3. Dialogue between Rāma and Sītā before Sītā’s *agniparīkṣā* (the fire test).

c6.s2.6

4. Hanumān’s debate with his own self during his search for Sītā in Laṅkā.

c6.s2.7

The first discussion directly pertains to a family matter, it is marked with heated arguments and passionate appeals but it eventually culminates in the discussions on *dharma* (morality) and ethics. It begins with Rāma’s questions to Bharata about the welfare of the family and the kingdom of Ayodhyā and through his queries he brings out discordance of ideologies and outlooks. The whole discussion here invokes policies and thought processes.

c6.s2.8

Rāma asks:

c6.s2.9

O dear one, will you confirm that you do not serve the brāhmaṇas who are Lok

c6.s2.10

1. The eternal *dharma* is greater than *rājadharma*, and he (Bharata) should follow this eternal *dharma* by giving up the royal seat in Rāma's favour.
2. King Daśaratha was not in his senses when he was beguiled by Kaikeyī.
3. Even if Rāma wishes to observe the rigour of *dharma*, he can do it better by being a king, thereby nourishing the four *āśramas* and by repaying the three debts as laid down in the scriptures.

c6.s2.11

In his rejoinder to Bharata's arguments, Rāma says that truth is the greatest *dharma*, our father stood for truth and we have also to follow him.

c6.s2.12

The passage following after this discussion is an interpolation and has been added to the original *Rāmāyaṇa* as an evidence of the conflict and debates between the followers of Vedic *dharma* on one hand and the followers of Cārvāka and Buddhist systems on the other. Jābāli, a seer and one of the counsellors in the royal court of Ayodhyā, joins this series of arguments and counter-arguments. He says:

c6.s2.13

Enough O Rāghava! Do not let thy wisdom be rendered void like a common man, thou who art distinguished for thy intelligence and virtue! Who is man's parent? From whom can be obtain anything? Man is born alone and dies alone. He who clings to another, saying — "this is my father, this is my mother" — should be regarded as one who has lost his wits. O Rāma! There is none who belongs to another!

c6.s2.14

As one who passes through a strange village, spends the night there, and the next day, leaves that place, and continues his journey, so are father, mother, home and possessions of a man; they are but a resting place, O Kākutstha, and wise do not become attached to them. Thou can't therefore abandon thy father's kingdom, O chief of men, in order to dwell in a lonely forest that is gloomy and full of thorny thickets! Come and be crowned in the prosperous city of Ayodhyā, thy locks unbound; the capital awaits thee! Come and taste the royal luxuries worthy of thee, O son of a king! Divert thyself in Ayodhyā as Śakra (Indra) in Triviṣṭapa (heaven)! Daśaratha is nought to thee now, nor thou to Daśaratha! The diseased king was one person and thou another, therefore do whatever is proper for thee to do! The seed is the only father of all beings. It is the seed and the blood from blending of which at the right time in mother's womb that man is born in this world! The king has gone where he had to go, it is the fate of all beings, do not grieve uselessly! I pity those who give themselves up especially to that which is meritorious, disregarding their own interest; I do not pity others; they suffer misery here; and in the end find extinction! Pious men say: "The eighth day should be given up to the sacrifices for the spirits of our ancestors"; the food that is offered is wasted, can the dead eat? If that which is eaten here, could enter the body of another, then let a sacrifice be offered for those who are setting out on a distant journey and they will not need provisions! The *granthas* (texts) were all made by learned men for the sake of including others to give; their doctrine is "distribute gifts, perform sacrifices, consecrate yourselves up to asceticism and renunciation!"

c6.s2.15

O Exceedingly sagacious Prince! There is no world but this; let this thought be absorbed by thee. Concern thyself with what is evident and turn the back on what is beyond our knowledge! Accept the judgement of the good and regarding that which is approved by all, accept the crown

c6.s2.16

and allow thyself to be swayed by Bharata!42

c6.s2.17

Jābāli also speaks in a tone of condemnation for the authors of the Dharmaśāstras, like Medhātithi.

c6.s2.18

Replying to him, Rāma argues for the righteous path leading to heaven. He then goes to the extent of saying:

c6.s2.19

I blame my father for having employed a man of perverse understanding like you (as minister 43) — swerving from the path of *dharma*, who has turned to frightfully atheistic with this kind of his intellect. As a thief is, so is Buddha, let it be known to you that *tathāgata* is an atheist. A man of righteous understanding should not talk in his terms.44

c6.s2.20

Rāma’s rejoinder to Jābāli is believed to be an interpolation by modern scholars. At least the remarks on Buddha do not form a genuine part of the epic. Amartya Sen rightly suggests:

c6.s2.21

The problem with invoking the *Rāmāyaṇa* to propagate a reductionist account of Hindu religiosity lies in the way the epic is deployed for this purpose — as a document of supernatural veracity, rather than a “marvellous parable” (as Rabindranath Tagore) describes it and a widely enjoyed part of India’s cultural heritage.45

c6.s2.22

Rāma emphasizes over the values of life, sacrifice, renunciation, truth and duty. His prolonged discourse here is a strong refutation of all the arguments advanced by Jābāli. Rāma points out that the apparently honest intention of Jābāli is in fact nefarious. He puts forward the view of the Dharmaśāstra that gives utmost importance to duty. A man is known for his actions. It is his actions which reveal his baseness or nobility. If Jābāli’s advice is accepted, people will start acting whimsically, the ignoble would resemble the noble, it will lead to confusion of castes. Just and unjust, evil and good are discerned only on the basis of scriptures. He (Rāma) will be setting a bad example before the world by following Jābāli’s advice. *Dharma* is the soul of governance and the subjects are also guided by *dharma*. Man is not alone, his *dharma* always goes with him. Jābāli’s counsel, couched in excellent words, is unworthy for Rāma’s noble descent. By forsaking the vow he will incur a sin. Everybody reaps the fruits of his acts.

c6.s2.23

Seeing Rāma’s stern consternation, Jābāli cleverly changes his position “I do not speak the language of unbelievers” he says, “nor am I an atheist. This is not true that there is nothing beyond this world. (I became an atheist and) considering the occasion again turned to be a believer. On other occasion I may become an atheist again. This was an occasion for me to adopt the speech of an atheist just for persuading you to return back and to please you.”⁴⁶

c6.s2.24

Vasiṣṭha joins this discussions and he recites the genealogy of Rāma’s line beginning from Brahmā and Vivasvān to Aja and Daśaratha. The purport of citing the names of all great kings of the dynasty is to emphasize over the need of maintaining the tradition of the house of Raghu, to protect the *kula-dharma*, which is *sanātana* (eternal). The requirement of *kula-dharma* (practice in the family line) in this context is that the eldest son receives the royal anointing and also the order of the *guru*. In this case he himself is one of the *gurus* and Rāma’s mother, Kausalyā is also his *guru*.

c6.s2.25

Rāma remains unshaken even over this well-formulated reasoned appeal. His reply to Vasiṣṭha’s arguments proceeds from the same position — and the argument of obeying to one’s *guru* also does not stand here because to respect the pledge given by his father Daśaratha as per his commitment to Kaikeyī, he has to continue his sojourn in the forest.

c6.s2.26

Seeing all his arguments and appeals falling apart, Bharata decides to lie down before Rāma and fast till his death if the later does not concede to his demand. Rāma tells him that this is not the *vidhi* (way of life) for a man belonging to the military class, only a brāhmaṇa is allowed to obstruct persons in this way.

c6.s2.27

Bharata makes a fervent appeal to the people of Ayodhyā who have accompanied him to dissuade Rāma from his decision to continue his stay in the forest. The people express their helplessness in doing so, they unanimously speak for Rāma, appreciating his adherence to truth and duty. Bharata then decides to return to Ayodhyā as per the advice given by the counsel of *paura-jānapadas* (citizens and dwellers of the provinces) and the sages present there.

c6.s2.28

The debate in Citrakūṭa regarding the dichotomy between obedience to father and *rājadharma* (duty of a king) is the culmination of the initial expression of Lakṣmaṇa’s outrage on Rāma’s banishment and his advice to his elder brother to refuse the orders of banishment.

c6.s2.29

Another episode in *Rāmāyaṇa* reflects the debate on the value of non-violence. How can a person shun violence completely? This is the question Sītā raises to her husband. A person can attain *dharma* by eschewing three evils born out of *kāma* (desire) — false utterance, illicit relationship and vengeance. Sītā says that there is no possibility of the first two in Rāma but the third evil, bearing hostility for others without cause may make a room in him. “Out of love and respect for you, I just want to remind you”, she further pleads, “and do not venture to instruct you, that please give up the idea of killing the demons of this forest by bearing this bow. Bearing arms and retirement to the forest do not go together. Practising war and renunciation are in opposition to each other, therefore please follow the *dharma* of *vanavāsa* (forest dwelling). The very association of a weapon would vitiate one’s mind making a room for murderous thoughts.”⁴⁷

c6.s2.30

In support of her thesis, Sītā also gives an illustration by the way of narrating the predicament of a sage, who fell from his glory just by keeping a weapon even as a trust and just holding it in his hands to avoid its loss, he developed war-like inclinations.

c6.s2.31

Rāma counters Sītā’s argument by reiterating his commitment to *dharma*. “The person of warrior class puts on the bow so that there is no cry from the helpless”, he says.⁴⁸

c6.s2.32

Elsewhere Sītā outmatches Rāma by her skill of debate in one of the most difficult and sensitive situations. After winning the war with Rāvaṇa, she is brought before Rāma at his orders in the presence of the multitude of monkeys and demons. Rāma feels the pressure of the congregation and utters most harsh words to Sītā:

c6.s2.33

O illustrious Princess, I have won thee and mine enemy has been defeated on the battlefield; I have accomplished all that fortitude I could do; my wrath is appeased; the insult and the one who offered it have both been obliterated by me. Today my prowess has been manifested; today my exertions have been crowned with success, today I have fulfilled my vow and am free. As ordained by destiny, the stain of thy separation and thine abduction by that fickle-minded titan has been expunged by me, a mortal. Of what use is great strength to the vacillating, who do not with resolve avenge the insult offered to them?

c6.s2.34

Sītā started weeping hearing these words and looking at her Rāma was torn within himself. Then he was in a rage and said:

c6.s2.35

What a man should do in order to wipe out insult, I have done by slaying Rāvaṇa for I guard my honour zealously. Thou were re-won as the southern region, inaccessible to man, was re-gained by the pure souled Agastya through his austerities. Be happy and let it be known that this arduous campaign, so gloriously terminated through the support of my friends, was not undertaken wholly for thy sake. I was careful to wipe out the affront paid me completely and to avenge the insult inflicted on mine illustrious house.

A suspicion has arisen, however, with regard to thy conduct, and thy presence is as painful to me as a lamp to one whose eye is diseased. Henceforth go where it best pleaseth thee, I give thee

c6.s2.36

leave, O daughter of Janaka! O lovely one, the ten regions are at thy disposal, I can have nothing more to do with thee! What a man of honour would give reign to his passion so far as to permit himself to take back a woman who has dwelt in the house of another? Thou hast been taken into Rāvaṇa’s lap and he has cast lustful glances on thee; how can I reclaim thee, I who boast of belonging to an illustrious house? The end which I sought in re-conquering has been gained; I no longer have any attachment for thee; go where thou desirest! This is the outcome of my reflections, O lovely one! Turn to Lakṣmaṇa or Bharata, Śatrughna, Sugrīva or the titan Vibhīṣaṇa, take thy choice O Sītā, as pleases thee best. Assuredly Rāvaṇa, beholding thy ravishing and celestial beauty, will not have respected thy person during the time that thou didst dwell in his abode.⁴⁹

c6.s2.37

Confounded by this unexpected unkindness and Rāma’s sudden outburst, Sītā summons all her strength to give a passionate, yet befitting rejoinder to the charges inflicted on her. It is a lonely woman’s defence in a cruel society of men. Even though on the verge of an emotional breakdown, and being unduly stigmatized, Sītā pleads her case and a summary of her arguments in her own words can be given in the following way:

c6.s2.38

1. All women cannot be maligned if some of them become sluts.

c6.s2.39

2. I was helpless and without any defence when Rāvaṇa forcibly carried me away and touched my body.

c6.s2.40

3. We both (i.e. Rāma and herself) have grown together and lived together for long, and even then you have failed to understand me, which is like a death to me.

c6.s2.41

4. What was the purpose of sending Hanumān to me with all the message of reassurance? Had you communicated these feelings for me that time itself, I could have ended this life of mine, and it would have saved you from all the troubles of waging a momentous war and causing such an enormous destruction.

c6.s2.42

5. Overcome with your anger, it is you who are acting like a degraded person showing the characteristics of a lowly woman in yourself.⁵⁰

c6.s2.43

A man debates with himself, the debates and ideological conflicts going on in the society are reflected in his psyche. He creates an opponent and a respondent within himself and his/her mind becomes a locale of debate. Hanumān’s contemplations during his search for Sītā in Laṅkā bring out questions and dichotomies that the society of his time undergoing through, so that he appears to be debating with himself.

c6.s2.44

Not finding Sītā anywhere in Laṅkā after continuous search, Hanumān grew pensive and in a mood of melancholy started debating with himself:

c6.s2.45

I, not having found Sītā, shall become a hermit, subsisting on fruits and roots. (Otherwise) preparing the funeral pyre on the shores of the sea, in a place abounding in roots, fruits and water, I shall enter the flames or allow myself to die of hunger; or else I will sit with a vow and let the wild beats or crows eat this body of mine. I think this also is the way of giving up this life envisaged by the seers. Or else I will drown myself in the sea if I do not see the daughter of Janaka.⁵¹

c6.s2.46

The long soliloquy of Hanumān is marked with *ūha* (confutation), *tarka* (argument) and considerations of various possibilities, and he builds up the *pūrva-pakṣa* (prima facie view) and the *siddhānta-pakṣa* (final view). He concludes by considering the other aspect:

Linked texts (1)

Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit