Dharma Between Divine Will
and Human Choice
Rama’s Silent Revolution
Simplified and
faithful rendering of
the Adi Kavya-31
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
This portion of Ayodhya Kanda stands
as one of the most profound explorations of Dharma (duty, righteous path, moral
law, quality, or one's essential nature, purpose) in world literature. What
unfolds here is not merely a family conflict or political conspiracy, but a
searching inquiry into whether human life is governed by personal effort,
divine will, or a mysterious convergence of both. Rama’s calm acceptance of his
father’s orders, Lakshmana’s fiery resistance, and Kausalya’s maternal anguish,
together create a moral laboratory in which righteousness is tested under
extreme emotional pressure. In the modern age to many for navigating duty,
injustice, and helplessness in rapidly changing societies, this episode offers
enduring clarity rather than easy answers.
Dasharatha’s Minister Sumantra approached his King cheerfully and
urged him to rise for the auspicious coronation ceremonies. But Dasharatha,
overwhelmed by unbearable grief, lay silent and motionless, was unable even to
respond. Observing this helpless state, Kaikeyi seized the moment and asserted
control, directing Sumantra almost commandingly to go at once to Rama’s palace
and bring him there, speaking as though the king himself had issued the order. This
signifies that, when authority loses its moral anchor, it often survives only
through borrowed voices.
Though Kaikeyi spoke with confidence, Sumantra hesitated to
immediately obey her instructions. His loyalty was to the king, not to command
spoken in the king’s name. Only after Dasharatha, broken and powerless, faintly
confirmed Kaikeyi’s instruction, did Sumantra depart. As he moved through
Ayodhya’s decorated streets, adorned with flags and
banners, his heart filled with joy, assuming that only auspicious events
lay ahead. Even sincerity can be unaware of the silent collapse of justice.
The royal roads were spotless, filled with elephants, horses, and
chariots, and crowded with citizens rejoicing in anticipation of Rama’s Coronation.
Rama’s Palace excelled like a mountain peak. Passing through the joyous crowds,
Sumantra entered the inner chambers where Rama sat on a golden couch, radiant
and composed. With reverence, Sumantra conveyed that Dasharatha and Kaikeyi
wished to see Rama immediately. Rama informed Sita of the summons. She followed
him to the doorway, her mind filled with auspicious thoughts, and after
offering her consent and blessings, watched Rama depart with Sumantra toward
Kaikeyi’s palace. On the way Rama also saw the
spotless clean great Royal Road. Often, the most hopeful moments stand
closest to irreversible change.
Rama entered his father’s presence and bowed respectfully. He saw
Dasharatha’s face drained of life and Kaikeyi seated beside him. After touching
Kaikeyi’s feet, Rama stood quietly. Dasharatha, choking with tears, could utter
only one word ‘Rama.’ Seeing his father’s pitiable condition, Rama was alarmed and
feared that he himself might be the cause of this distress. Turning to Kaikeyi,
Rama humbly asked why his father, who had always been affectionate, appeared
displeased and silent. He expressed that his mind could not be at peace without
understanding the reason and requested her to clarify what he should do. For
the righteous, uncertainty itself becomes a form of suffering.
Kaikeyi replied that Dasharatha had something in his mind but
lacked the courage to express it, fearing it might pain Rama. She assured him
there was no danger but hinted that the matter would be disagreeable to hear. She
then said that if Rama desired, she herself would reveal it. She explained that
Dasharatha had once granted her two boons, which now required fulfillment by
Rama alone. Having agreed earlier, the king now repented said Kaikeyi and insisted
that Rama must first assure his father of obedience before she disclosed the
boons.
Rama felt hurt, because Kaikeyi doubted his integrity. He firmly
declared that whatever his father desired, however difficult it might be, he
would unquestionably obey. Only then did Kaikeyi reveal, in harsh and
calculated words, about the
battle between devatas (Gods) and demons and in the process Dasharatha
conceding her two boons when he was saved by her from dangerous situation
twice. Asking to fulfil those two boons, said Kaikeyi, she told him that Bharata was to be crowned king and Rama was to depart
immediately to the Dandaka forest for fourteen years.
Though Kaikeyi spoke cruelly, Rama remained calm and unperturbed.
Dasharatha, however, was deeply shaken. Rama addressed Kaikeyi as ‘Dear Mother’
and declared that he would fulfill the king’s promise at once, wear bark
garments, matted hair, and leave for the forest immediately. He urged her not
to harbor anger toward either himself or Dasharatha, stating that it was his
unquestionable duty and responsibility to obey his father’s command without
judging it.
Rama further clarified that he felt neither joy at the prospect of
coronation nor sorrow at its denial. Kaikeyi, pleased, said she would send
messengers to bring Bharata from his maternal uncle’s house and instructed Rama
to proceed meanwhile. Rama assured her that forest life was no hardship to him
and that he would not wait for Bharata’s arrival. Rama declared that father and
mother were equal to him and that a father’s command carried the same authority
as a mother’s word. Even if Dasharatha did not command him directly, he would
still fulfill Kaikeyi’s word. He however, requested permission to first inform his
mother Kausalya and wife Sita. Dasharatha, overwhelmed, remained silent.
Rama bowed at the feet of both Dasharatha and Kaikeyi,
circumambulated them respectfully, and departed with Lakshmana toward
Kausalya’s residence. Though stripped of royal privilege, Rama’s composure
remained unchanged. Lakshmana, restraining grief and anger, followed him. Rama
entered his mother’s auspicious
house and saw Kausalya engaged in rituals for his coronation.
On seeing her son, she rushed forward and embraced him. Rama bowed at her feet.
Hesitating to reveal the painful truth, he gently began speaking of his
impending forest life.
With humility, Rama told Kausalya that a great shock was
approaching and that he was soon to live in the Dandaka Forest for fourteen
years, subsisting on fruits, honey, and roots and to be seated on
Kusha Grass like a sage. He said Dasharatha had
ordered Bharata’s coronation. Hearing this, Kausalya collapsed. Rama quickly
lifted her and comforted her. Regaining consciousness, Kausalya lamented
bitterly, blaming herself for Rama’s suffering. Had he born to some other pious woman other than her, perhaps, he would
have been much happier and that mother would also be happy said Kausalya. She said she had never known happiness and now foresaw only enslavement
under Kaikeyi.
Kausalya declared that, she could not live fourteen years without
seeing Rama. Lakshmana, unable to bear Kausalya’s sorrow, condemned Kaikeyi and
criticized Dasharatha’s judgment. Lakshmana felt dejected and argued
that Rama should not be influenced by a woman’s words, that there was no fault
in Rama warranting exile, and urged Rama to seize the kingdom with his support.
He further said that, the king with perverted mind,
of old age, can talk anything. Lakshmana advocated that, even before others get
to know about the entire matter, Rama should make the dominion his own.
Lakshmana strongly felt that, when both he and Rama stand together none can
exhibit greater valor than them.
Rama stated that, for a son, both parents were equal, but the
father’s command had precedence. He could not violate it. He bowed before
Kausalya and sought her blessings, clarifying that obedience to one’s father
was an established righteous path on earth. Turning to Lakshmana, Rama
acknowledged his affection and valor but explained that once a promise is made,
whether to parents or to the righteous, it must not be broken. He urged
Lakshmana to restrain anger and not intensify Kausalya’s grief. True heroism
preserves harmony, not turmoil.
Sri
Rama again turned to his mother Kausalya and said that, he had decided to go to
forest and requested her permission, for invoking blessings on him and bid
farewell. He confirmed that he shall be
back from the forests after fourteen years and after fulfilling his promise
made to father. Rama turned to Lakshmana and told him that, he had joined
Mother Kausalya in upsetting and worrying him with his grief-stricken words,
and questioned whether it was justified. Rama made it clear that this
contradicts quality of a good friend and quality of a valorous person. Sri Rama
then wanted to circumambulate to his mother with all devotion before going to
forests.
Rama however, wanted once again
to convince his brother Lakshmana and told him to hold back his anger and
grief. Withdrawal of
coronation arrangements to him was not an insult and in fact, it enhanced their
prestige said Rama. ‘Everyone will project how much obedient we are to our
father by going to forests as ordered of father. Problems are not of permanent
nature. Once own glory is everlasting. Do not give scope for doubt whether Rama
will go to forests or not. Hence, in accordance with the wish and desire of
Kaikeyi I have decided to go to forests and right now I would like to proceed’
confirmed Sri Rama.
With reverence to Andhra Valmiki Ramayana and its author
Vavilikolanu Subbarao, this invaluable exposition concerns as to what happened
after Kaikeyi ordered Rama to go to the forest and expressed her desire, projecting
it as Dasharatha’s own, that Bharata be crowned in Rama’s place. The Ramayana
is filled with RASA (emotional essence or aesthetic sentiment evoked in the
reader or audience) coupled with great deep meaning. There is nothing in it
that is unnecessary. Every incident in it deserves to be understood. In Ayodhya
Kanda, this particular episode has lot of importance when understood properly.
Kaikeyi demanding Rama’s exile, asking that Bharata be crowned,
herself conveying this to Rama as though it were Dasharatha’s will, Rama
immediately preparing to obey his father’s command and approaching his mother
Kausalya for permission and blessings, and, in that context, Kausalya and
Lakshmana condemning Kaikeyi and objecting to Rama’s going to the forest, becomes
the backdrop against which Rama explained to Lakshmana many matters relating to
Dharma, Adharma (unrighteousness or immorality) Morality, Justice, and Righteousness.
Rama declared that there exists a divine principle superior even
to Dharma, that Kaikeyi should not be hated as a deceiver, that she bears no
fault in this matter, that Dasharatha did not truly intend Rama’s coronation,
that Kaikeyi did not truly create the obstacle, that Rama himself bears no
blame for going to the forest, and that all these are purely acts of the
Divine.
Rama explained, with examples, how the play of destiny operates.
He said that such far-reaching reflection itself arises only by divine
inspiration. Otherwise, how could Kaikeyi, who had committed no offense against
him, suddenly develop the desire to afflict him without cause? Among the three
queens, Rama had never perceived even the slightest difference in affection
toward him. Until the previous day, Kaikeyi neither loved her son more nor
loved Rama less, nor did she harbor any hostility toward him.
Can anyone explain why such feelings arose suddenly in her heart
that very day? Who other than the Divine could transform such deep affection
into opposition overnight? That Kaikeyi, who loved Rama even more than her own
son, should speak harsh words to him without any fault on his part and send him
away to the forest? Rama answering these questions said, this cannot be the
work of any human agency, but it can only be the working of destiny. Rama
continued by saying that Kaikeyi was not wicked by nature. If she were truly
cruel by disposition, then such cruelty would have manifested from her very
childhood.
Kaikeyi was born into a noble lineage, into a great royal family,
and grew up among the virtuous. Along with her birth came dignity and
refinement. It was said that character follows lineage. How can one say that a
woman born in a great clan, raised among the noble, and surrounded by the
virtuous was naturally dishonorable? Even in mines of sacred stones, ordinary
pebbles are found. Even in the ocean, poison was born. If Kaikeyi were
inherently cruel, how could she have earned fame as a seat of charity and
compassion? Such fame could never arise from innate wickedness.
Rama further explained that Kaikeyi developed resentment toward
her co-wives, which indeed appeared blameworthy. But she did not hate them as
individuals. She hated the condition of rivalry itself. If they had not been
co-wives, she would not have hated them. She did not hate all women. Even
consecrated kings, fearing that fellow rulers may harm their welfare, attempt
to suppress rivals. Does that not happen? Kaikeyi, who was capable of giving
generously to anyone, why would she desire another’s wealth?
Why would a woman endowed with compassion dare to act with such
cruelty? Why would she oppose her husband? Why would she speak such painful and
degrading words to one dear to her? Could she have done all this unless the
Divine had impelled her? If such conduct were natural to her, Rama said, why
did it not appear earlier? Therefore, the Divine, which was so powerful,
unimaginable, and irresistible, cannot be comprehended or opposed by anyone. No
one can stand against it. It was the Divine alone that caused Kaikeyi to
develop such intent, caused misfortune to befall Rama, and that had brought
about all this.
Lakshmana asked what was the proof for the existence of such a
Divine power and whether human effort cannot prevent such outcomes. Rama replied
that when an action was taking place, one cannot see the Divine at work or know
what it was doing. Only when the result manifests does the Divine become
visible, shaping the outcome exactly as it wills. Since the Divine is seen only
in results and not as a separate, visible cause, humans are unable to overcome
it. How can one fight something whose form, method, and operation are unknown?
If one knew beforehand that at a certain time, for a certain outcome, the
Divine had prepared specific means, then perhaps resistance would be possible.
But such knowledge is never available.
Rama explained that the Divine was not perceived in the form of
action but only in the form of results. Therefore, inference alone becomes the
proof of its existence. We can only imagine it through the strength of
intellect. No action occurs without a cause. What is called ‘Causeless’ merely
means that the cause is unknown to us, not that no cause exists. Therefore,
happiness, sorrow, comfort, distress, peace, anger, gain, loss, birth, death,
and countless other outcomes, all of which we assume arise without cause, have
the Divine as their root cause. This, Rama asserted, is unavoidable.
Rama said, even those sages who perform severe austerities,
acquire immense knowledge and power, observe strict vows, remain peaceful and
desireless, and live in forest hermitages, too cannot defy the Divine. Some
among them, without warning, fall prey to desire or anger, destroy
long-practiced disciplines, lose restraint, and fall from their state. Is this
not the work of destiny? Where is the defect in their human effort? Have we not
heard how even Vishwamitra fell momentarily to passion and anger? Did not Shiva
himself experience such lapses? Unexpected events occurring suddenly, and
well-anticipated actions failing, all these, Rama said, were nothing but divine
workings. This is the truth.
Having thus reflected with clarity and certainty, not merely
because of others’ advice, but through his own inner reasoning, Rama concluded
that this was a divine act. He understood that there was no fault of his own in
this, that Kaikeyi was merely an instrument, and that only the Divine
accomplishes outcomes. Therefore, he felt no sorrow or affliction. He told
Lakshmana not to grieve that prosperity had departed and poverty had come.
In Rama’s view, the innumerable royal pleasures and forest life were
both righteous paths. Both appear equal to him. In fact, when viewed properly,
forest life itself appeared pleasant. Royal life was pleasure in the form of
sorrow, while forest life was sorrow in the form of pleasure. Though royal
enjoyment appeared joyful at first, it was bound with suffering in its
maintenance. Forest life, Rama said, is free from anxiety, free from danger,
and bestows spiritual merit.
Though it appears painful initially, it gradually yields
happiness. No one gives happiness or sorrow to another. We assume that others
cause them, but that is ignorance. Claiming ‘I did this’ is mere ego. Every
person is bound by the results of their own actions. Kaikeyi, therefore, had no
inherent fault. When people possessed by spirits or suffering from severe
illness utter abusive words, it is attributed to the disease, not to the
person. Similarly, the Divine made Kaikeyi speak such harmful words. There is
no use in being angry with her.
After hearing Rama’s explanation, Lakshmana disagreed and said
that he would not accept such a Divine that instigates conspiracies. How can
such a force be called Divine or worthy of worship? Those who lack strength and
brilliance attribute everything to destiny because they lack the power and
intelligence to accomplish tasks. To avoid blame, they place responsibility on
the Divine.
The strong, the valiant, and those who seek glory do not even
think of destiny. They accomplish their aims through effort and earn fame. What
can destiny do to such people? Lakshmana argued that a powerful and courageous
person, through valor, can drive destiny away and accomplish his work without
suffering. Rama said destiny is supreme. Lakshmana said human effort is
superior. Thus, the debate arises between Divine will and human endeavor,
appearing as though they stand in opposition.
As stated in the Mahabharata, the world should take the Divine as
its support and should not remain indifferent to human effort (Purushakaram):
In a spiritual context, it refers to the active, voluntary effort one
makes for spiritual growth or salvation, such as Saranagathi (surrender).
A person should not refrain from performing the actions he is supposed to do,
thinking that God alone will bestow the results. When such statements are seen,
it appears as though human valor is stronger than the Divine. Rāma, however,
said that the Divine alone is powerful. Thus, a mutual opposition between the
Divine and Human Effort seems to be visible. How is this so?
Without human effort, the Divine does not accomplish any task. Likewise,
without divine assistance, no task bears fruit. Therefore, if any result is to
be attained, both are necessary. If this is so, why did Sri Ramachandra Murthy
not permit human effort? According to his view, human endeavor is futile and the
Divine alone accomplishes the task. If he truly held such an opinion, he would
not have exerted human effort to recover Sita. He would have remained idle,
believing that the Divine itself would bring Sita back.
Human effort that is contrary to dharma is not acceptable to Sri Rama.
The first casualty of Lakshmana’s human effort would have been Dasharatha. He
would have become one who tormented his father for the sake of the kingdom.
Therefore, Rama did not agree. Rama was not opposed to human effort. Likewise,
Lakshmana, not wanting that his elder brother go to the forests and suffer
hardships, argued with Rama with good intention so that he might somehow remain
in Ayodhya, but he was not opposed to the Divine. In such a case, should
Lakshmana’s argument be considered righteous reasoning or fallacious reasoning?
From the history of Sita, Rama, and Lakshmana in the Ramayana, and
from their words, the teaching that emerges is this: since the Divine is more
powerful than human valor, one should serve the Divine alone. This very same
teaching is stated in the Mahabharata as well. Therefore, human beings should
not defy the Divine and rely solely on human effort. Instead, they should take
refuge in the Divine and, according to their capacity and according to the
scriptures, perform their own duties selflessly.
In every age, the conflict between destiny and self-will reappears
in new forms, but the inner test remains the same. Rama’s response in Ayodhya did
not sanctify passivity, nor did it celebrate defiance. It established a higher
discipline where action was purified of ego and aligned with moral order. To
the modern mind trained to equate resistance with strength and compliance with
weakness, his choice appeared paradoxical. Yet Rama demonstrated that
unrestrained assertion fractures Dharma as surely as blind surrender.
True power lies in discerning when effort must advance and when it
must bow, when speech must rise and when silence must protect righteousness. In
a world impatient for outcomes and intoxicated by entitlement, Rama’s conduct
restores an older, sterner wisdom: that character, not conquest, is the final
measure of human greatness. This is the principal lesson one must learn from
the Ramayana. The teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is also the same. There seems
to be no doubt that every word spoken by Rama applies to everyone at all times.
Thus, this chapter establishes that Dharma is neither blind
surrender nor reckless assertion of will. Rama stands as the embodiment of
moral clarity, demonstrating that true righteousness lies in disciplined action
aligned with higher order. In a world increasingly driven by entitlement and
impatience, his example teaches restraint without weakness, obedience without
fear, and faith without passivity. The Ramayana reminds that when human effort
walks hand in hand with divine order, life itself becomes a path of Dharma.
>>> Photographs Courtesy Rama Bhakta Vijaya Raghava Dasu
{{From my Published Book ‘Simplified
and Faithful Rendering of the Adi Kavya’
Valmiki Ramayana: The Greatest Epic
(Bala and Ayodhya Kandas)}}
(This Book
is free of cost for all those who are interested to read the English Version of
Valmiki Ramayana, provided they collect it from me in person preferably.
Mobile: 8008137012)
