A Kantian perspective on the Ramayana
Part 2 of 5
REVERSE ANTHROPOMORPHISM
It is precisely because Rama strove so hard, so long, and so diligently, all through his sojourn on earth, to serve as a shining exemplar of Dharma… opening himself thus to even impeachment…, that today it is easy for mere humans to subject him, and his deeds — seen and as understood from the Valmiki Ramayana — to ceaseless ethical scrutiny of the most severe, forensic and carping kind.
In our readings of some of his deeds described in the Srimadh Ramaayana, and based on our own findings about their Dhaarmic quality, we directly proceed – at least deep within our own minds even if not too openly— to impeach, with blithe, presumptuous impunity, this God who roamed the forest of this world as a simple, dispossessed and disentitled man. We do so because perhaps the moral sensibility of humans suffers at times from a curious and inexplicable blind-spot …. It is a defect or discriminative failing that blurs the distinction existing between an avataara–purusha and ordinary mortal or maanusha–purusha. We thus, feel no constraint or compunction at all in holding Rama, the Almighty himself, to account for many of his deeds which in our view are impeachable.
If we paused a moment to think deeply about why Man seeks to impeach God, we might realize that it is because we are all easily prone to the temptation of what I call, reverse anthropomorphism.... It is an instinctive, visceral urge.
Anthropomorphism, we are told, is the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to god, animal, or object. The reverse of it happens when man attributes divine characteristics to himself when he arrogates to himself the power to sit in judgement over the deeds of God.
It was precisely this kind of reverse-anthropomorphic thinking which made the philosopher, Nietzsche, ask his famous rhetorical question: “Is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or, is God merely a mistake of man’s?”
“MAR-YAADA PURUSHOTTAMAN” — “BOUNDARY-SEEKER“
Rama-avatar’s impact and influence on the Indian psyche is indeed so deep and powerful that there has never been a generation in this country that was left untouched and unmoved by the life of the hero of Valmiki. Rama has come to be apotheosized in the Hindu faith since time immemorial as “mar-yaada-purushottaman“, the great soul who defined both the nature and boundaries of Dharma by exemplifying it.
One of the many meanings of the beautiful-sounding Sanskrit word “mar-yaada” is, in fact, “boundary“…. and Vishnu as Rama, so much better than in any other avataara of his, showed us all where, when, how and why the “boundaries” of moral conduct can be breached and — so sadly indeed as it very often does happen in human affairs in all ages — they get transgressed too by getting pushed deep and beyond into the badlands of Adharma.
Every deed of “raamaavataara” deals precisely with this most fundamental question of life indeed viz.: “If Dharma is that righteous conduct which is conducive to human happiness, how is one to recognize Dharma and Adharma? How is one to mark the boundaries between the two?“
Little do we appreciate the fact when we turn the pages of the Ramayana, that through many of the deeds in the “raamaavataara“, it was Rama himself who was relentlessly seeking answers for such questions. He was searching for… and in a way, he was showing us all… where the “boundaries” really lay between Dharma and Adharma… and that is exactly why we hail him, the boundary-seeker, as “mar-yaada purushottama”.
RISHI APASTHAMBA
The exemplarity of Rama’s Dhaarmic actions in the Ramayana are a reflection indeed of what the great Vedic seers of our ancient past had since affirmed too. The rishi Apastambha, who authored the “aapasthamba-sutra” (which even today is renowned in South India as an authoritative work of “dharma-saastra“) has this to say about Dharma:
“na dharmaadharmau charatha “aavaam sva” iti;
na deva-gandharvaa na pitaraha aachakshate
“ayam dharmo, ayam adharma iti” (I.20, 6)
i.e. “Dharma and Adharma do not wander about saying, “Here we are!”. Nor do the gods nor manes nor the Gandharvas declare “This here is indeed Dharma, and that there is Adharma”…
In other words, Dharma is a quality of the soul. It is invisible, and it can only be inferred.
Rama’s Dharma too is truly of extremely rarefied kind. It possesses an “invisible” Apasthambian quality which can only be inferred by us through relentless, never-ending inquiry and self-contemplation.
In the pages and episodes of the Ramayana, we see that Rama too does not go about declaring “ayam dharmo, ayam adharma iti”. In his journey of life, he seeks neither to proclaim a set of moral commandments nor to draw the boundary-lines cast in dogmatic stone between Dharma and Adharma. He is, on the other hand, focused only on exploring Dharma constantly through his very own conduct and behavior. Rama’s exemplary morality is thus not really made of run-of-the-mill, morality-tale stuff. It is so unique and inestimable… and at times, unpredictable, that his conceptions of Dharma cannot be converted into any easy prescriptive formula or preceptory catechism…. And that again is so reflective of what Rishi Apasthamba said, “na dharmaadharmau charatha “aavaam sva” iti“.
Since the Dharma of Rama is modelled entirely upon a non-preceptory, non-didactic and non-prescriptive kind of mold or edifice, none really can therefore say really anything about it with any degree of finality or conclusiveness. One can only draw broad, enlightened inferences about it. The more you subject Rama to the scrutiny of reverse-anthropomorphism, and the more severely you try impeaching him for what might seem to you to be grave lapses in Dhaarmic conduct, the more beguiled and mystified you will be by such inferences drawn.
Rama’s divinity thus always will remain covertly unique…. and so will his Dharma remain ever elusive and inscrutable to Man… And will therefore continue to remain eternally impeachable too.
(End of Part 2 — to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi