Joined: 31 August 2009
I like to highlight another point of view. I know that Bharat was the incarnation of the Sudarsan Chakra & Lakshman was of Seshnaag, but I only want to say that it was written in the RCM only (as per my knowledge) & it is the consideration of Tulsidasji. In the main Ramayan written by Valmiki, all the four brothers were the incarnations of Vishnu. Valmiki described Ram as the half of lord Vishnu, Lakshman as one-fourth & both of Bharat & Shatrughna as one-eighth of Vishnu. Thus in VR, lord Vishnu took incarnation as the four sons of Dashrath. the idea of considering Ram as the whole Vishnu is probably of Tulsidasji's own (perhaps he didn't want to break the lord) as in any other related books I haven't found this idea till now. I can only say that even in "Raghubangsam" of Mahakabi Kalidas & in Bengali Ramayan of Mahakabi Krittibas, both Bharat & Lakshman were the parts of Vishnu.
Again addition to my knowledge Semanti. Though it sounded familiar to me. The concept of all 4 brothers to be incarnation of Vishnu as aggregate somehow I felt was not totally unknown to me. I don't know why but I didn't feel much surprised. But even if we consider Lakshman to be incarnation of Sheshnag and still part incarnation of Vishnu, that still can be in harmony with each other in a sense because even Lord Sheshnag is the VIBHOOTI of the supreme only."Anantah cha asmi naagaanaam". Just an interpretation. And Ramji was having 12 kalas of God (Not one half of 16 though exactly but part of poornaavataar). But now this makes it also interesting when we think about Balaram who was born as incarnation of Sheshnag and also Lord was born with all his kalas with him together.
Excellent explanation again. I'm enjoying so much
you have beautifully pointed out the significance of Bharat & Lakshman as Vishnu's Astra & Chhatra . I started to think that this is the probable reason which came in Tulsidasji's mind & so he wrote them as incarnation of Chakra & Seshnaag. but it is not written in our ancient epic (VR) as I told above.
Thank you very much dear sister. I am also enjoying this a lot. Well it is possible for sure that Tulsidasi might have such feeling or insight and we all know that Tulasidasji has written RCM on the basis of his divine experiences and I believe all the sources of Ramayan can be equally true (Janaki also has same theory) because many Ramayans have taken place in different kalpas with random differences of events. But here, it is the difference of mythological origin rather than events of the story lines, the topic is even more worthy of discussion (but we also have to harmonize somehow the link of Balram's incarnation in between). Also Valmiki and Ved Vyas wrote their respective sources in contemporary time, so it is possible that they might have written their epics (Everything being correct and yet the presentation according to grasping of contemporary people of the actions of Ram/Krishna and according to their beliefs about Ram/Krishna). For example, Valmikiji might have presented Ramji as human (rather than presenting his divine leelas despite knowing them) because Ram-Sita themselves wanted to keep their play secret from public of that time and Valmikiji obviously couldn't present something in his knowledge in front of public of that time which RamSita themselves were not showing. There were no such restrictions on Tulsidasji. Vyasji hasn't mentioned about Radhika, but she was married to someone else and there was no socially known relation between Radha & Krishna and hence in front of contemporary society, without God's wish (who themselves had jointly decided to part with each other in that birth due to practical reasons) he might not have knowingly exposed that prem leela which later divine sight poets could do without any restrictions. The distinct fact of the most authentic source being contemporary should be kept in mind not just for the understanding that it can't be wrong and has to be accurate but also for the possibility that it might not have presented the total picture deliberately due to practical reason of not revealing certain things during the presence of Gods on the earth which they themselves didn't reveal. Anyhow, to support my belief concretely, I am becoming more & more eager to go through both the sources whenever I can get the chance.
Another thing I like to say. when we discussing about Ramayan, I prefer to forget that Ram is lord Vishnu & to consider him as human being, as he is a Maha-manav & didn't express himself as God in the human incarnation (unlike Shri Krishna). So when I thaught about the sacred love & sacrifice of Bharat & Lakshman, I always forget that it might be the devotion of devotee towards God, but think them only as loving brothers. in fact Valmiki who narreted the four brothers as parts of Visnu, also forgot that & described all of them as Maha-manav. our country accepted that human beings with huge reverance & later India started to worship them as God. I don't think that the glory of God is not reduced if we consider them as human. Rabindranath Tagore said, "In Ramayan, God has not reduced himself to human, but human has raised himself as God." I think that's true. if we can love each other as Bharat & Lakshman loved Ram, we'll also be raised to the level of God.
I've told several unrelated words, but my intention was to extend your views where you said that both of the two brothers remained silent to see the leela of Ram-Sita on the earth. if we consider all of the incidents of Ramayan as leela of God, then there is no the glory of that great sacrifices. this is just my opinion.
"I don't think that the glory of God is reduced" I think you meant to say this but used the negative twice in the sentence. Of course Semanti. I can understand you completely. And why Ram only? I won't mind even looking at Krishnaleela to be the actions of God on the earth acting as human wherever possible to see (keeping his Govardhanleela, Viratroop darshan etc apart). I mean his philosophical role in Kurukshetra and his role covered in the serial Mahabharat mostly enable us to see towards Krishna also from that angle. And I have also read the novel Krishnaavataar which I enjoyed a lot (even though events were imaginary or twisted to make them fit to modern world logic).
Regarding Lakshman-Bharat reaction to Agnipariksha or Sitatyag, I would still maintain the same point. Even if we take the point that Ram was human, still from the point of view of Lakshman-Bharat-Hanuman, he was God. They believed him to be God. So the strength of their faith naturally didn't allow them to react the way a common man should have reacted to any seemingly unjust act. So again I think it is perfectly fine because Agnipariksha and Sitatyag themselves can still be justified by devotee people so far as Ramji's action is concerned in Ramji's favour - even VR's harsh words by Ramji can be justified in his favour to have been uttered by him selflessly for the pride and glory of his wife taking all the burden of criticism on him (not in the favour of Ayodhya praja of course).