Rama - The story of a history
A structure without cement
 We have been discussing that one of the important conclusions that Brockington draws on the basis of Ramopakhyana of Mahabharata is that Rama was not depicted as an avatar of Vishnu and that Ramopakhyana does not portray him that way, which evidences the fact that Valmiki’s ‘core book’ did not – till the time of the composition of Mahabharata, which according to him was composed during the first century BC – contain this concept of an avatar.
“Ramopakhyana is contemporary with the middle of the second stage,” he contends (the second stage refers to the second of the five stages of the process of ‘evolution’, which, according to him, the Valmiki Ramayana has undergone to reach its present form) and says, “and precedes the addition of Bala and Uttara Kandas, probably forming the source of their nuclei. Nevertheless, the religious attitude expressed in its narration of Rama’s birth is clearly similar to that of the third stage (and also the beginning of the Ayodhya Kanda and end of the Yuddha Kanda) so again there is a suggestion of some overlap between the second and third stages.”
Simply put, ‘Rama as an avatar’ (which is the connotation couched under the long-winding phrase “the religious attitude expressed in its narration of Rama’s birth”) developed in the third stage in the process of ‘evolution’. The Ramopakhyana is a contemporary of the ‘second stage version’ of Valmiki Ramayana. “Yet the Ramopakhyana is not likely to have been the innovator in this respect,” he adds, meaning, though the concept visualising Rama as an avatar was taking shape parallelly, this ‘idea’ was not triggered in by Ramopakhyana, because, “the rationale of its inclusion at that point in the Mahabharata is that Rama is human and that is its overall attitude.”
‘Such an idea seems to have been taking shape at that time,’ he infers, ‘however, the Mahabharata version of Ramayana did not include it in its text.’ Listen to him in his own words. “It is more probable that ides of Rama’s divinity were beginning to be current in the milieu in which the Ramayana circulated, without as yet being accepted into the text, and that the Ramopakhyana from outside was less inhibited about including them, despite some inconsistency with its own basic position.”
If one goes through this particular portion in the Mahabharata, one is tempted to buy the argument of Brockington, blind-folded. As we mentioned earlier, Markandeya narrates the Ramopakhyana to Dharmaputra in the Vana Parva, when the Pandavas are undergoing their exile. ‘Even such a great soul as Rama suffered exile in the jungle,’ Markandeya tells Yudhishthira. The whole purpose of this narrative is to tell the Pandavas that they were not alone in their misfortune and there were more or similar instances in earlier times and there were kings who had undergone periods of misery and suffering. It is with this in view, in fact, the story of Nala is related to them earlier by sage Vrihadaswa, in order to tell Dharmaputra that there lived a king who lost his all – like him – in a game of dice and regained it later, after undergoing miseries of an untold nature.
 With such a purpose in view, Markandeya tells this to Yudhishthira. “O bull of the Bharata race, even Rama suffered unparalleled misery, for the evil-minded Ravana, king of the Rakshasas, having recourse to deceit and overpowering the vulture, Jatayu, forcibly carried away his wife Sita from his asylum in the woods. Indeed, Rama, with the help of Sugriva, brought her back, constructing a bridge across the sea, and consuming Lanka with his keen-edged arrows.” (Mahabharata, Vana Parva, Section 272 – translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli) On this, Dharmaputra wants to know the story of Rama and here is how the birth of Rama is narrated by
Markandeya.
"Markandeya said, 'Listen, O prince of Bharata's race, to this old history exactly as it happened! I will tell thee all about the distress suffered by Rama together with his wife. There was a great king named Aja sprung from the race of Ikswäku. He had a son named Dasaratha who was devoted to the study of the Vedas and was ever pure. And Dasaratha had four sons conversant with morality and profit known by the names, respectively, of Rama, Lakshmana, Satrughna, and the mighty Bharata. And Rama had for his mother Kausalya, and Bharata had for his mother Kaikeyi, while those scourge of their enemies Lakshmana and Satrughna were the sons of Sumitra. And Janaka was the king of Videha, and Sita was his daughter. And Tashtri himself created her, desiring to make her the beloved wife of Rama. I have now told thee the history of both Rama's and Sita's birth.” (Ibid)
This portion does not speak anything about the
‘aswamedha’ and the ‘putra kameshti’ sacrifices conducted by Dasaratha; the emergence of the
‘payasa’ from the sacrificial fire and the way the king shared it among the queens. It just says Dasaratha, son of king Aja, had three queens, by whom he had four sons. And it also does not say anything about the celebrated
‘ayoni sambhava’ that Sita is. It just says that she is the daughter of king Janaka of Videha. The narration of birth ends there, which is emphasised by the Rishi’s saying, “I have now told thee the history of both Rama's and Sita's birth,” who then moves on to narrate the birth of Ravana and his ancestry.
That lends credence to the claims of Brockington, indeed. But then, as we have always been emphasising, it is always necessary to look at the picture in toto rather than basing our conclusions on a sloka here and a sloka there. That is where the whole structure of the eminent scholar of Ramayana collapses. A well tessellated platform; but without cement.
|
