About the 'Ramacharitamaanasa'
V Subrahmanian
The 'Ramacharitamaanasa' is a work studied, recited and expounded by followers of the sampradaya-s, both Vaishnavas and smarthas.
I found the following references on the 'Ramacharitamaanasa' authored by Sri Goswami Tulasidas ji:
http://www.hindu.com/br/2011/06/28/stories/2011062851001302.htm
Tradition ascribes the authorship of Adhyatma Ramayana to Veda Vyasa, since it is an integral part of the Brahmanda Purana. This work in Sanskrit, which has more than 4,000 verses, presents the story as told by Siva to Parvati. In fact, Tulsidas' Ramacharita Manas is based on it. If the style of narration sounds more puranic, with Siva responding to Parvati's questions, there is a greater accent on philosophy of the Advaita school and on Bhakti.
http://www.saieditor.com/stars/tulsi.html
Although Tulsidas was above all a devotee of Rama, he remained a follower of the more generally accepted traditions and customs of Hinduism rather than a strict sectarian, and his poem gives some expression both to orthodox monistic Advaita doctrine and to the polytheistic mythology of Hinduism - though these are everywhere subordinated to his expression of bhakti for Rama.
http://www.sankeertanam.com/saints%20texts/Goswami%20Tulsidas.pdf
Tulsi, should not, however, be considered partial to Rama in exclusion to others. He appreciated the diverse tenets of Saiva, advaita and samkhya philosophies.
The works of Tulsidas are about Sri Ram, with two exceptions: Krishna-gitavali and Parvati-mangal. Tulsidas’s magnum opus, the Ramcharitmanas, is the story of Sri Ram retold in mellifluous language—an outburst of bhakti based on his own spiritual experiences. Although the origin of the Ramcharitmanas lies in the Valmiki Ramayana, its immediate source is the Adhyatma Ramayana. What are the differences between these two Ramayanas? The Valmiki Ramayana is ancient, has 24,000 verses, and depicts Rama as the epitome of ‘human’ perfection. The much shorter Adhyatma Ramayana, a part of the Brahmanda Purana, is of a later period. It depicts Rama as Brahman itself, and is an excellent confluence of Advaita Vedanta philosophy and the Valmiki Ramayana.
http://www.indianphilosophy.cc/reviews.html
Among others, Tulsidas did teach Advaita at the core of his approach.
Vedanta, World and Maya
In the Sundarkand of Ramcharitmanas, Tulsidas says that Rama is knowable by Vedanta.[125][126]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsidas
As per Tulsidas, Rama is the efficient and material cause (Nimitta and Upadana) of the world, which is real since Rama is real.[127] In several verses of the Ramcharitmanas, Tulsidas says that the animate and inanimate world is a manifestation of Rama, and the universe is the cosmic form of Rama. Authors interpret these verses to mean that the world is real according to Tulsidas, in keeping with the Vishishtadvaita philosophy of Ramanuja.[128][129][130] However, at some places in the Ramcharitmanas and Kavitavali, Tulsidas compares the world to a night or a dream and says it is Mithya (false or unreal). Some commentators interpret these verses to mean that in Tulsidas' opinion the world is unreal as per the Vivartavada doctrine of Adi Shankara, while some others interpret them to mean that the world is transient yet real as per the Satkhyativada doctrine of Ramananda.
Prasad 2008, p. xv: Probably the most marvelous thing about the life of Tulasidasa... is his capacity for assimilating diverse tenets, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Advaita, Sankhya, etc.
Prasad 2008, p. xx: ... the Ramacharitamanasa interprets the period allegorically and from the Vaishnavite angle of a poet who "attempted to reconcile the Advaita Vedanta point of view with the Ramaite teachings of Ramananda's disciples".
http://yabaluri.org/TRIVENI/CDWEB/tulsiandtunchanapr88.htm
Both
Tulsi and Tunchan were drunk deep in the Nondualit (Advaita) philosophy of Sankara.
The essence of the philosophy is that Jeeva and
Brahman are one and the same, but what gives them separate identities is “Maya”
(the Eternal Illusion). The concept of Maya has been elucidated by both poets
with the help of the serpent–rope metaphor–“The world is an illusion but it is
taken for real as a piece of rope is mistaken for a snake”. Upholding this concept both poets have underscored the transience and nothingness of life. Tulsi has compared it
to a dream in which one lives a happy and splendrous life in a palace but everything fades into
nothingness as he wakes up. Ezhuthachhan has driven
home the idea by striking a few similes–wayfarers assembling in an inn to spend
a night and dispersing, pieces of driftwood floating in a river, water
contained in an unbaked earthen pot, etc. It is difficult to ascertain who has
excelled the other in delineating the Maya concept.
The above is only a sample.
Warm regards
subrahmanian.v
V Subrahmanian
Dear Sri Subrahmanian
For books again, caveat lector. Authors who do not have knowledge of complete works of Tulsidas and who do not know Awadhi and Braja grammar are far less reliable than authors who have read and mastered complete literature of Tulsidas and who are also Awadhi writers or poets.
Dear Sri Misra ji,
I would only say, in agreement with what you said about 'endless Advaita-Vaishnava debate' in deciphering the Shruti, in the case of the Ramacharitamanas too. All that you say about knowledge, or the lack of it, of language, grammar, etc. on the part of a commentator is the common 'menu' in such debates.
Anybody who has read both RCM and Vinayapatrika would know two things
- In the doctrine of Tulsidas, the dream state is not Mithya or unreal but it is a real temporary state. Refer सुंदरी सुंदर बरनि सह सब एक मंडप राजहीं। जनु जीव उर चारिउ अवस्था बिभुन सहित बिराजहीं ॥ RCM 1-325-14 ॥ श्रुतिकीर्ति is the स्वप्न अवस्था and शत्रुघ्न is the हिरण्यगर्भ. Tulsidas bows down to both these दासानुदास परमभागवतs many times, so he would not compare something he thought as unreal to them.
In the following verse of the BhAgavatam (UddhavagItaa 17.55) we have the illusory nature of the world-objects described:
अर्थे हि अविद्यमाने अपि संसृतिः न निवर्तते।
ध्यायतः विषयान् अस्य स्वप्ने अनर्थ आगमः यथा॥५५॥
//Even though the sense-world (of objects/subject and perceiving) is unreal, अविद्यमाने अपि, the relative existence of a man who dwells on
sense-objects is never at an end, as troubles come in dreams. (Since dreams are
admitted to be effects of the impressions of the waking state.)//
The BhAgavatam, again, in the uddhavagItA chapter 23 verse 32 teaches:
यदि स्म पश्यत्यसदिन्द्रियार्थं , नानानुमानेन विरुद्धमन्यत् ।
न मन्यते वस्तुतया मनीषी, स्वाप्नं यथोत्थाय तिरोदधानम् ॥३२॥
//Even if the illumined man sees the objects of the outgoing senses, he does not consider them as something real and other than the Self, because they are rejected by inference on account of their multiplicity - as a man, on waking from sleep, dismisses the vanishing dream perceptions. //
http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_02/06March15/02_Cover_Story/PearlsRamayana.htm
ON MAYA
You are also being told a few things about Maya. Just as our own shadow will always accompany us and will not separate from us, so also Maya will always accompany God and will not separate from Him. There is a very good illustration of this fact in the Ramayana. At the time Rama, accompanied by Lakshmana and Sita, was moving in the forest. The forest was a thick one and there were no wide roads and they could only follow a narrow path; the way they were walking was such that Rama was going in front, immediately behind him was Sita, and Lakshmana came behind Sita. In this way, all the three, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana were moving forward along a narrow path. In order to be able to recognise and understand this situation, you hold up your three fingers. The first finger represents Rama, God or Paramatma. The second finger immediately behind represents Sita or Maya. The last finger in this row of three, represents Lakshmana or the Jiva.
Paramatma, Maya and Jiva, these three are going along in a narrow path in the wild forest of life. After a little while, Lakshmana, whom we have symbolised as Jiva, has got the desire and the ambition to have a look at God or Paramatma. What is it that he has to do in order to fulfil his desire? There are only two ways of looking at Rama or getting his darshan. One is for Sita, who is in between, to move away a little and let Lakshmana have the darshan of Rama. Alternatively, if Sita insists on staying where she is, Lakshmana has to move aside a little. To get Sita to move away, he may have to push her out from the place where she is standing, but then he will be offending Rama. So what Lakshmana did was to pray to Sita in all humility and ask her to give him a chance of having darshan of Rama. Sita, in all her graciousness and in all her kindness, said, “Yes, certainly you can have the darshan of Rama,” and just stepped out a little. So if you get angry with Maya, and if you want to use force and your own strength on Maya and push her out of her place and then have the darshan of the Lord, you will not succeed. Maya then will play tricks with you. Not only that, God will not allow such a thing to be done. The only way, therefore, to fulfill your ambition is to recognise that Maya is the inseparable shadow of God Himself and pray in all humility and ask for an opportunity by which Maya will stand aside.
- In the Vinayapatrika Tulsidas clearly says कोउ कह सत्य झूठ कह कोउ जुगल प्रबल कोउ मानै । तुलसीदास परिहरै तीनि भ्रम सो आपुन पहिचानै । (Vinayapatrika stanza 111). "Some (the Dvaitins) say the world is real, some (Advaitins) say it is unreal, while some (Dvaitādvaitins) say it is both real and unreal. Tulsidas says those who leave all these three illusions truly know themselves."
So all vAda-s such as sat, asat and sadasat are to be transcended. That is the essence of the words of the stanza.
The fact is Tulsidas does not consider the world to be independent of Sita and Rama. सीयराममय सब जग जानी | करउँ प्रनाम जोरि जुग पानी ॥ 1-7-1 ॥ As the world according to him is सीताराममय, and as he bows to it, it cannot be fake or unreal. This is essentially the सत्ख्यातिवाद that आद्य रामानन्दाचार्य propounded in the आनन्दभाष्य.
It is to be known that all schools hold the world to be not independent. In Advaita the world is 'not apart from Brahman', in other words, it has no existence independent of Brahman. In Dvaita it enjoys a 'paratantra satyatva'; the सत्ताप्रदः for the world is Brahman/Vishnu. So, it has no existence of its own; it has to always exist on the borrowed existence from Brahman. In Vishistadvaita the Lord is सर्वशेषिन् and the world therefore is शेषः. It is quite reasonable that all schools agree that the sheSha cannot have an existence apart from the sheShin. Since the world cannot manifest by itself without the support of the sentient entity Brahman, it is 'ब्रह्ममायामयः’. It can take names like 'सीताराममयः, लक्ष्मीनारायणमयः, पार्वतीपरमेश्वरमयः'. In the Bh.Gita the Lords says: मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचराचरम्, मम माया दुरत्यया, मम योनिर्महद्ब्रह्म तस्मिन्गर्भं दधाम्यहम् , etc. All give a relative reality to it and do not brush it away as non-existent.
Therefore, for serious research, I would suggest you read some well researched books and not *pedias or blogs or the Hindu articles .
The 'pedia' has over a hundred source-references to its article and several other references.
regards
subrahmanian.v
V Subrahmanian
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:10:18 PM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote:Dear Sri Misra ji,
I would only say, in agreement with what you said about 'endless Advaita-Vaishnava debate' in deciphering the Shruti, in the case of the Ramacharitamanas too. All that you say about knowledge, or the lack of it, of language, grammar, etc. on the part of a commentator is the common 'menu' in such debates.
There is a difference. There is a good number of Veda and Vyakaranam scholars spread all over India. As for Awadhi scholars, you will find them only in central Uttar Pradesh. Interpreting RCM without a deep knowledge of both Sanskrit and Awadhi (it has verses in both) is a दुस्साहस at best. Even Zakir Naik interprets Shruti and concludes that Muhammad is foretold and Allah is mentioned by name. He claims he has a Sanskrit dictionary in his library to help him. Same is the case with most of your online sources.
I do not think to get to know the meaning of RCM one needs all that great scholarship in Awadhi. I am not claiming proficiency to write pages in that language but with a reasonably good Hindi and Sanskrit it is not difficult to decipher the meaning of a certain verse as shown below for example. (highlight only to identify my reply)
In the following verse of the BhAgavatam (UddhavagItaa 17.55) we have the illusory nature of the world-objects described:
Please do not divert. When the topic is RCM, why bring in Bhagavatam?
I am only showing the perfect concordance between the RCM and the Bhagavatam. There cannot be a disagreement in this matter between the two:
RCM BAlakAnDa Doha 111 chaupAI 1:
झूठेउ सत्य जाहि बिनु जानें। जिमि भुजंग बिनु रजु पहिचानें॥
जेहि जानें जग जाइ हेराई। जागें जथा सपन भ्रम जाई॥1॥
भावार्थ:-जिसके बिना जाने झूठ भी सत्य मालूम होता है, जैसे बिना पहचाने
रस्सी में साँप का भ्रम हो जाता है और जिसके जान लेने पर जगत का उसी तरह
लोप हो जाता है, जैसे जागने पर स्वप्न का भ्रम जाता रहता है॥1॥
(I copied the above from a Facebook entry as I could not get the fonts right when copied from the http://www.astrojyoti.com/pdfs/ramacharitamanas/bal98-165.pdf . (Gorakhpur) But I did cross check the reading. The translation, however, below, I could copy from the pdf.)
Compare this with the Bhagavatam verse (which I did not quote in my earlier mail):
In the Srimadbhagavatam is a verse on the mAyA-nature of the universe explained with the rope-snake analogy:
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/25/
आत्मानमेव आत्मतया अविजानतां
तेनैव जातं निखिलं प्रपञ्चितम् ।
ज्ञानेन भूयोऽपि च तत्प्रलीयते
रज्ज्वां अहेर्भोगभवाभवौ यथा ।। 10.14.25
//A person who mistakes a rope for a snake becomes fearful, but he then gives up his fear upon realizing that the so-called snake does not exist. Similarly, for those who fail to recognize You as the Supreme Soul of all souls, the expansive illusory material existence arises, but knowledge of You at once causes it to subside. //
The third line 'ज्ञानेन भूयोऽपि च तत्प्रलीयते’ specifically teaches that 'through Knowledge the falsely projected duality ceases' which is nothing but ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम्. The rope-snake analogy too is significant in the above RCM and the bhAgavatam verse. And the dream being termed a 'bhrama' which means 'unreal' in the RCM (not something that is real but only temporary as claimed earlier).Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, a bhakta of Mother Kali, mahAmAyA, has said: there are two forms of mAyA: avidyA mAyA and vidyA mAyA. The former binds. It is by taking refuge at the feet of the latter that one is released. I do not know if the following is from the pen of Tulasidas, but oft quoted:
Again, when the topic is Tulsidasa's doctrine, why bring in others?
Sri Ramakrishna had great regard for Tulasidas. I see no difference in their approaches to mAyA, just as there cannot be a discordance across saints of the sanAtana dharma following.
Sathya Sai Baba's website now. No offense, but how many Awadhi articles or poems did he author? Moreover, there is no author listed nor is there any information about editorial board, and not a single citation, so what reliability is this link.
I am surprised by your comment. I had not claimed that the article is on RCM. I have heard this bhAvArth of this episode narrated by numerous upanyasakas in different languages. I remembered that and gave a google search and found the above. I did not even say that this is from the RCM.
A verse from the Vivekachudamani would be relevant here:
Please start a new thread for all this.
Not necessary. This very thread which deals with the Advaitic nature of the RCM gets even more substantiation from the Vivekachudamani verse which is in concordance to the Vinayapatrika verse cited on the status of the world in Tulasidas's doctrine.
The fact is Tulsidas does not consider the world to be independent of Sita and Rama. सीयराममय सब जग जानी | करउँ प्रनाम जोरि जुग पानी ॥ 1-7-1 ॥ As the world according to him is सीताराममय, and as he bows to it, it cannot be fake or unreal. This is essentially the सत्ख्यातिवाद that आद्य रामानन्दाचार्य propounded in the आनन्दभाष्य.
Who will bow down to the world if they considered it unreal?
That for Tulasidas the world is unreal is evident from his own words cited above. Otherwise there is no need for it to 'vanish' upon Self/Brahman realization. He even uses the famous rope-snake illusion analogy to demonstrate the world-illusion and the subsequent removal of the illusion through knowledge. If he sees the world as सीताराममय and bows to it, it is the same as a Jnani looking upon the world as Brahman and venerating It everywhere, in everything यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति (भ.गी). Since Brahman is nirAkAra, It appearing in the various names and forms is due to the mAyAshakti. Brahman cannot appear without the shakti. So, in a world-appearance/perception Brahman and the shakti together are involved.
The 'pedia' has over a hundred source-references to its article and several other references.
Guess what, I know better since I wrote more than 80% of the English Wikipedia article on Tulsidas, in line with Wikipedia's policy of mentioning all relevant sources and staying neutral. I provided more than 150 references to this article. Check the contributors, talk page and user contribution logs if you do not believe me. This is how the article looked on July 2, 2011 with 5 references and hardly anything and you can compare it to today's version
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsidas&oldid=428839311
Despite all this, I say Wikipedia is unreliable because you have people removing and distorting content all the time, as also happened and keeps happening to this particular article.
No serious academic journal accepts Wikipedia citations.
That is ok Misra ji, I had noticed your name on that page and am glad about it. I do not see the content there involving references to the Advaitic nature of RCM a distortion for I am convinced from the RCM's sample cited above for its genuineness.
Warm regards
subrahmanian.v
Thanks, Nityanand
Nityanand Misra
I do not think to get to know the meaning of RCM one needs all that great scholarship in Awadhi. I am not claiming proficiency to write pages in that language but with a reasonably good Hindi and Sanskrit it is not difficult to decipher the meaning of a certain verse as shown below for example. (highlight only to identify my reply)
हेराई, तहूँ, महूँ, छुहे, काजु are words used only in Awadhi in very specific meanings, somebody unfamiliar with Awadhi can never get the fine meanings of these words. लुप्तसप्तमी is used in Awadhi in only certain contexts. All this is as difficult for a non-Awadhi speaker to understand.
Anybody is free to interpret, but are the interpretations any reliable? RCM is not a सरलग्रन्थ. Expounders of Manasa speak for nine days on a single Chaupai and Facebook posts or S P Tata's site is hardly a reliable source. If somebody copy pastes text from Peace TV or IRF's website to interpret Vedas, I cannot help them, and similarly I cannot help you if you rely on these sources.
I will give you a good source - for an evaluation of all interpretations of Tulsidas's view on the world, please read Uday Bhanu Singh's well researched books तुलसी and तुलसी काव्य मीमांसा. Published by Rajkamal Prakashan, New Delhi.
RCM BAlakAnDa Doha 111 chaupAI 1:झूठेउ सत्य जाहि बिनु जानें। जिमि भुजंग बिनु रजु पहिचानें॥
जेहि जानें जग जाइ हेराई। जागें जथा सपन भ्रम जाई॥1॥
भावार्थ:-जिसके बिना जाने झूठ भी सत्य मालूम होता है, जैसे बिना पहचाने रस्सी में साँप का भ्रम हो जाता है और जिसके जान लेने पर जगत का उसी तरह लोप हो जाता है, जैसे जागने पर स्वप्न का भ्रम जाता रहता है॥1॥(I copied the above from a Facebook entry as I could not get the fonts right when copied from the http://www.astrojyoti.com/pdfs/ramacharitamanas/bal98-165.pdf . (Gorakhpur) But I did cross check the reading. The translation, however, below, I could copy from the pdf.)
The author and you seem to be unaware of Satkhyativaada in Ramananda tradition. The above interpretation contradicts many verses in RCM and Vinayapatrika including सीयराममय जग, तुलसिदास परिहरै तीन भ्रम, तुलसिदास यह चिद्विलास जग, et cetera. Tulsidas is a Siddha Vaishnava, and does not indulge in Al Taqiya to say one thing at one place and soemthing contradictory somewhere else.
Please read the article attached which addresses not just this, but all examples of rope-snake and world-dream analogies in the RCM. I do not need to say this, but this comes from somebody whose mother tongue is Awadhi, who has been composing Awadhi poems for 59 years in his lifetime of 62 years, knows each and every word and usage of Awadhi, whose life is devoted to RCM having done 5000 आवृत्तिs of the epic, is the editor of a crticial edition based on 27 editions, knows all the works of Tulsidas, and is considered an authority on Tulsidas and Ramanandiya philosophy by many authors. This is not to boast or bias the reader, bur only for the reader to know the author better, just like most books or scholarly articles have a small introduction of the author.
This is the end of discussion from my side.
Nityānanda Miśra
Member, Advisory Council, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University
Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com
http://jagadgururambhadracharya.org/donate.php
|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
- Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda