EVERY INDIAN has heard the story of the Ramayana and is likely to have read a couple of books on the epic. Many sequences have been etched in the memories of people across generations around the country. However, many such ‘popular’ sequences do not occur in Vālmīki’s original. Later-day poets have made creative improvisations and in many cases added value to the original without losing the vision provided by the ṛṣi-kavi. Here is a list of a few such episodes.
We have always heard that Sage Gautama cursed his wife Ahalyā to turn into a stone for being complicit in an affair with Indra. However, the original says that she was cursed to remain invisible to all creatures, feeding on air and starved for food.
Kālidāsa in his epic poem Raghuvaṃśa for the first time, says that she had turned into stone. This, in fact, serves to suggest that she had remained unaffected by the world and was on an introspective journey. Popular retellings also state that she was brought back to life when Rāma stepped on the stone, or rather, when the dust from Rāma’s feet touched her. This naturally adds value to Rāma’s personality; a mere touch of his feet (or their dust) can help positive values dawn upon a woman who has been like a stone to the world for long years.
The original, however, says that Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa fell at her feet and that she looked like a brilliant flame enveloped by smoke. None of the versions of the story, however, deny that Rāma met Ahalyā before he married Sītā; it is interesting to note that the young lad repairs a broken marriage before he gets into wedlock.
In many popular retellings of the epic, we hear that Rāma participated in the Sītā-svayaṃvara along with many other suitors; some versions also say that Rāvaṇa, the king of Laṅkā was a suitor as well. He tried his hand (all twenty hands, in fact!) in lifting Śiva’s bow but was not successful. Sītā and the other women laugh at his fallen sense of pride and this becomes motivation for Rāvaṇa to abduct Sītā later on.
However, Vālmīki’s Ramayana clearly states that Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa went to Janaka’s court with Viśvāmitra as per the sage’s advice. Viśvāmitra kindles Rāma’s curiosity about Śiva’s bow. Rāma picks up the bow and strings it in no time and the bow snaps in his hand. He is then offered Sītā in marriage.
The epic does not say anything about Rāvaṇa’s participation in the svayaṃvara; in fact, there is no mention of a formal svayaṃvara ever arranged for Sītā’s wedding. There is also no evidence in the epic of Sītā having lifted the bow while playing ball with her friends.
The original says that Bhagavān Śiva had used the bow in the past during Dakṣa’s yajña when Pārvatī immolated herself for being humiliated by her father.
In some versions of the Ramayana, we hear that Śūrpaṇakhā who was besotted by Rāma’s appearance came to him disguised as a beautiful woman. The original, however, says that she approached him in her ghastly form as a rākṣasī. The folk tradition has extrapolated the fact that rākṣasas can take any form at will and has imagined Śūrpaṇakhā to have come in a charming appearance. This actually adds to her deceptive nature; it also shows that rākṣasas who cannot think beyond the physical body and material pleasures try to win over people through deception.
In the original Ramayana, Lakṣmaṇa does not draw a line (nor does he draw three) in front of their hut for the protection of Sītā before he goes looking for Rāma.
In fact, none of the Sanskrit versions of the Ramayana speak of the lakṣmaṇa-rekhā. However, it is a great value addition to Lakṣmaṇa’s character and reflects his intense devotion to his brother Rāma. A mere line drawn by Lakṣmaṇa was so powerful that Rāvaṇa, who had conquered the three worlds, could not cross it. In other words, Lakṣmaṇa’s integrity could keep away even the vilest of beings.
In Vālmīki’s original, Rāvaṇa abducts Sītā on a magical chariot pulled by donkeys – this chariot is different from the puṣpaka-vimāna. Rāvaṇa seizes Sītā by her hair in his left hand and her thighs in his right.
Jaṭāyu slays the charioteer, kills the donkeys and smashes the chariot. Rāvaṇa falls onto the ground still clutching Sītā. While this is the version provided in the original, most regional retellings say that Rāvaṇa abducted Sītā on the puṣpaka-vimāna.
Some versions also say that Sītā’s pātivratya was so great that Rāvaṇa couldn’t even touch her – blazing energy effused from her body; Rāvaṇa, thus chopped off the earth around her and placed it in his flying chariot. This version naturally adds strength to Sītā’s character; her chastity was so great that an evil rākṣasa could not even touch her; also, Sītā, who was born out of mother Earth could never be separated from her.
Some versions of the story also say that it was Vedavatī in the disguise of Sītā, who was abducted by Rāvaṇa and that the real Sītā was handed over back to Rāma by Agni on the battlefield. The original epic has no evidence for this. The Uttara-kāṇḍa, however, states that Rāvaṇa had tried to molest Vedavatī in the Kṛta-yuga and she was reborn as Sītā in the Tretā-yuga to avenge the pain she was subject to.
None of the Sanskrit Ramayana say that Sītā was the daughter of Rāvaṇa.
In the Araṇya-kāṇḍa, Rāma comes across Śabarī who was craving to see him. Many versions of the epic say that the devout lady had grown blind with age and picked fruits, berries, and flowers every day, expectantly waiting to offer them to Rāma.
When Rāma finally arrived at her āśrama, she wished to offer him the best of the berries she had collected; but as she was blind, she could only tell their quality by tasting them. She thus bit the berries, checked for their ripeness and offered only the best ones to Rāma. While Rāma happily consumed them, Lakṣmaṇa was offended because the old tribal lady was offering berries ‘contaminated’ with her bite. Rāma, however, consoled Lakṣmaṇa and told him he consumes anything offered through true and pure devotion.
This is a great virtue, it hails Śabarī’s devotion but shows Lakṣmaṇa in a bad light. This does not occur in the original Rāmāyaṇa. Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa meet Śabarī; she offers them forest produce with great devotion. Finding her life thus fulfilled, she immolates herself and reaches svarga.
In some versions popular in the folklore, it is said that Rāvaṇa ill-treated Hanūmān who had come as a messenger of peace to his court; he does not offer a seat to Hanūmān and brushes aside his words as he is a mere vānara.
In order to subdue the rākṣasa’s ego, Hanūmān lets his tail grow long and winds it to make a tall seat on which he sits higher than the lord of the rākṣasas.
The episode shows that devotion to the Divine always provides bolstering support to the devotee; moreover, a dhārmic person need not fear anything. Some versions also say that it was Aṅgada who was mistreated and therefore manifested a long tail. Neither of the episodes occurs in the original epic.
The story of Rāma establishing Śiva-liṅga at Rameśvaram on the way to Laṅkā or on the way back does not occur in the original Rāmāyaṇa; however, the story is heard in various sthala-purāṇas as well as in the oral tradition.
This is a good value addition to the story as it reflects the harmony between Bhagavān Śiva and Bhagavān Viṣṇu; also, it indicates that every human and super-human must acknowledge a power superior to them and pay their humble salutations before undertaking important tasks.
It might be interesting to the reader to note that many other elements which have entered popular culture do not occur in the original.
For instance, nowhere in the Rāmāyaṇa is Rāma referred to as Rāmacandra.
The Ayodhyā-kāṇḍa tells us the story of Daśaratha inadvertently killing a brāhmaṇa lad who was taking care of his aged parents; the parents curse him that he would die out of grief for his son as well. The original epic does not mention the name of the lad. He is, however, famous in the folklore as Śravaṇa-kumāra.
The vānaras fight the rākṣasas using stones, boulders, trees, and their own claws as weapons; they don’t wield manmade weapons such as the mace or the sword. However, in most popular depictions, Hanūmān, Sugrīva, Jāmbavān, and other vānaras are depicted holding the mace; while this is not wrong, it is a deviation from the original.
Many versions of the story say that Lakṣmaṇa was sleepless and fasted all through their stay in the forest; while this adds value to Lakṣmaṇa’s personality as a devout brother, it is a deviation from the original.
The critically constituted text of the Rāmāyaṇa does not mention Hanūmān’s encounter with Laṅkiṇī.
The original epic does not mention Rāma as the seventh avatāra of Mahā-viṣṇu and in fact, does not mention any chronology of avatāras. Nevertheless, throughout the epic, we see Rāma being called an avatāra of Bhagavān Viṣṇu.
The Uttara-kāṇḍa states that the citizens of Ayodhyā had expressed suspicion about Sītā’s character, while in many popular versions, it is said that a washerman had expressed his reservations. The version with the washerman emphasises the fact that the actions of the king have ramifications on people belonging to all walks of life.
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.
