Sita as a Role Model for the Social Evolution of Hindu Women
Kali Whitlow
Valmiki’s Ramayana has served as a guide in various ways for Hindus to continue to live by. Sita’s role throughout the story has never changed, but the way readers interpret it has. While some Hindu women look up to Sita for her devotion to her husband, other women pull from the courage she shows during troubling times. Both of these characteristics are evident, but it depends on the reader as to which one gets emphasized. The Hindu women’s decision on which of Sita’s models to live by is determined by the social context that each woman uses in reading and interpreting the text. The reader’s interpretation of the text will decide which characteristics of Sita’s they will strive to model their lives after.
Both the character of Sita and the Hindu women are responsible for living their lives as the ideal wives, which entails a great amount of sacrifice on their part. When Rama is banished “to the forest for fourteen years,” Sita immediately states that she will go with him (Narayan 42). Although Rama objects at first, Sita is persistent and never hesitates in her resolve. By going with Rama, she is sacrificing a comfortable life in a home and all the commodities that go along with it. Hindu women go through a similar process when they get married. They are expected to leave behind their birth parents after marriage and seek their “so-called true parents, the parents-in-law” (Goel 649). These women often have to give up their relationships with their biological parents if their parents-in-law do not allow them to continue communicating with them. Having grown up with their birth parents, it is a great sacrifice to leave them. According to Goel, this Hindu tradition “reduces the support available” to these women, causing them to feel lonely and secluded (Goel 650). Although it is hard, they leave without hesitation because they know this is what is expected of them. Just as Sita did, they are willing to give up everything to follow their husbands. Both Sita and Hindu women sacrifice their personal needs and comforts to prove their allegiance to their husbands.
Another trait that Hindu women take from Sita is their devotion solely to their husbands. When Ravana kidnapped Sita, he used various tactics to get her to “become his prime mistress,” but Sita refused and defended herself multiple times (Narayan 132). No matter how hard Ravana tried to convince her, Sita stayed true to her marriage and did not give into his temptations. This action showed her devotion towards her husband and how hard she was willing to fight to maintain their sacred relationship. The same holds true for Hindu women when their husbands pass away. While they have the option to remarry or even to have children after their husbands’ passing, it is frowned upon to do so. They are expected to choose the “honourable course” and “pass their remaining life in widowhood” (Altekar 143). These women often feel it is necessary to respect their husbands and stay fully devoted to them even when they are no longer alive. This means that these women will live the rest of their lives without a man. Hindu women believe they are meant to live as ideal wives would and never break the devotion they have to their husbands. Although this action may cause the women to be very lonely, they sacrifice their happiness to honor their husbands. No matter how hard it may be, these women continue to do just as Sita did and persevere through their own struggles to maintain the image of ideal wives.
There is a specific group of women known as the Rajput who have been studied because of their allegiance to Sita. They consider themselves to be “descendants of this royal couple,” meaning Rama and Sita, and strive to uphold the ideal wife’s image (Minturn 172). They use Sita’s traditional Hindu actions to base their lives on. The Rajput women believe they must follow in Sita’s footsteps, or that they fail at being wives. Everything they do is modeled on Sita and she is the goddess they look up to with the highest respect and compassion. They strongly uphold the ideals of traditional Hindus, and have not given in to the more modern view many Hindu women have. This group of Hindu women is only one example of those striving to model their lives based on Sita’s devotion to her husband.
The same act of courage Sita showed towards Ravana can also be used as an example of how the Hindu women today are beginning to stand up for themselves. Sita proved that just because a man says to do something, it is not necessary for them to conform. She fought to save herself from Ravana’s tempting bribes and showed that women do have power. Sita also displayed her growing assurance in herself when Rama told her he could not be with her because he was skeptical of her purity because of the time she had spent in captivity with Ravana. Rama could not accept her back into his life if she had been unfaithful to him. Although Rama gave her an order to leave, Sita set out to prove her innocence instead. She ordered a fire to be lit and called out, “ O Agni, great god of fire, be my witness” and jumped in the fire (Narayan 162). Because the fire did not burn her, she successfully proved her purity. Instead of immediately doing what Rama told her to do, she stood up for herself and took matters into her own hands. She once again gave the Hindu women an example of how they do not have to do what a man tells them if they know they are right. Hindu women see how to behave when a troubling time comes and continue drawing from Sita’s courage to use in their own lives.
Sita’s bravery through her experiences can be seen as a model for Hindu women today who are starting to gain self-confidence independently from men. They see how she was able to stand up for herself, and they strive to do the same. Uma Bharati states that if women combine “the madhury, their femininity, with self-pride and political awareness, they can teach the whole world the path of liberation” (Basharat 245). Women in Hindu society have come a long way from culturally traditional times. They are beginning to stand up for themselves and have gained much more respect from men. There are still fundamentalists who are opposed to women asserting more responsibility within the Hindu culture. As a result of this, “many of their rights have been curbed,” which is causing many women to give up on their cause (Basharat 245). Throughout all of their struggles, the women look to Sita for continued guidance. They look back and see how Sita persevered through her hardships, which allows them to see that their goal of equality is achievable. They are reminded that if one woman can gain her self-pride through her strength and dignity, they can as well.
Although there are a few fundamentalists who oppose women’s equality, there are many politicians who are supportive of the Hindu women’s cause. As a result of their support, “Hindu women today have access to high positions of governance” (Basharat 245). They have also been allowed to receive varied degrees of education and their overall lives have improved. Women are gaining independence and becoming modernized Hindus. They are claiming “to outlaw the religious norms” and following what they believe is the right way of living (Basharat 244). Although they still respect the traditional Hindu views, they do not follow them to the extreme like in years past. Hindu women still show devotion and allegiance to their husbands, but they also pursue things that interest them. Since this is the foundation upon which women are beginning to be treated, they are not required to sacrifice as much as in the past. The women who succeed in their goal of gaining equality can only do so with the support of their husbands. Compromise between Hindu women and men is a critical element in elevating women to the stature they want. They are asking for their husbands’ help, as Sita often did. If Sita wanted something, she asked for it. The Hindu women are following that example. They are tired of being subject to men, so they are asking for their help in the journey to equality.
Sita has played a vital role in every stage of Hindu women’s history. For traditional Hindus, she set the goals for which ideal wives should make every effort to achieve. She showed them how to be fully devoted to their husbands, as well as endure the sacrifices that entails. Sita set a high standard for the ideal wife and gave the Hindu women something to strive for. Although traditional Hindus see her only as the ideal wife, some modern Hindus see Sita as a source of strength. She showed them how to stand up for themselves and that they do not have to be subject to wrongful treatment by men. She showed them that they could have self-confidence and achieve any goal they want. Through her great amount of courage, the goddess Sita has, and will continue to, serve as model for Hindu women. Whether Hindu women focus on her unfailing devotion to her husband or her independence and self-confidence, Sita’s story has shaped the evolutions which Hindu women are experiencing, as well as act as a guideline for many unique situations.
Both the character of Sita and the Hindu women are responsible for living their lives as the ideal wives, which entails a great amount of sacrifice on their part. When Rama is banished “to the forest for fourteen years,” Sita immediately states that she will go with him (Narayan 42). Although Rama objects at first, Sita is persistent and never hesitates in her resolve. By going with Rama, she is sacrificing a comfortable life in a home and all the commodities that go along with it. Hindu women go through a similar process when they get married. They are expected to leave behind their birth parents after marriage and seek their “so-called true parents, the parents-in-law” (Goel 649). These women often have to give up their relationships with their biological parents if their parents-in-law do not allow them to continue communicating with them. Having grown up with their birth parents, it is a great sacrifice to leave them. According to Goel, this Hindu tradition “reduces the support available” to these women, causing them to feel lonely and secluded (Goel 650). Although it is hard, they leave without hesitation because they know this is what is expected of them. Just as Sita did, they are willing to give up everything to follow their husbands. Both Sita and Hindu women sacrifice their personal needs and comforts to prove their allegiance to their husbands.
Another trait that Hindu women take from Sita is their devotion solely to their husbands. When Ravana kidnapped Sita, he used various tactics to get her to “become his prime mistress,” but Sita refused and defended herself multiple times (Narayan 132). No matter how hard Ravana tried to convince her, Sita stayed true to her marriage and did not give into his temptations. This action showed her devotion towards her husband and how hard she was willing to fight to maintain their sacred relationship. The same holds true for Hindu women when their husbands pass away. While they have the option to remarry or even to have children after their husbands’ passing, it is frowned upon to do so. They are expected to choose the “honourable course” and “pass their remaining life in widowhood” (Altekar 143). These women often feel it is necessary to respect their husbands and stay fully devoted to them even when they are no longer alive. This means that these women will live the rest of their lives without a man. Hindu women believe they are meant to live as ideal wives would and never break the devotion they have to their husbands. Although this action may cause the women to be very lonely, they sacrifice their happiness to honor their husbands. No matter how hard it may be, these women continue to do just as Sita did and persevere through their own struggles to maintain the image of ideal wives.
There is a specific group of women known as the Rajput who have been studied because of their allegiance to Sita. They consider themselves to be “descendants of this royal couple,” meaning Rama and Sita, and strive to uphold the ideal wife’s image (Minturn 172). They use Sita’s traditional Hindu actions to base their lives on. The Rajput women believe they must follow in Sita’s footsteps, or that they fail at being wives. Everything they do is modeled on Sita and she is the goddess they look up to with the highest respect and compassion. They strongly uphold the ideals of traditional Hindus, and have not given in to the more modern view many Hindu women have. This group of Hindu women is only one example of those striving to model their lives based on Sita’s devotion to her husband.
The same act of courage Sita showed towards Ravana can also be used as an example of how the Hindu women today are beginning to stand up for themselves. Sita proved that just because a man says to do something, it is not necessary for them to conform. She fought to save herself from Ravana’s tempting bribes and showed that women do have power. Sita also displayed her growing assurance in herself when Rama told her he could not be with her because he was skeptical of her purity because of the time she had spent in captivity with Ravana. Rama could not accept her back into his life if she had been unfaithful to him. Although Rama gave her an order to leave, Sita set out to prove her innocence instead. She ordered a fire to be lit and called out, “ O Agni, great god of fire, be my witness” and jumped in the fire (Narayan 162). Because the fire did not burn her, she successfully proved her purity. Instead of immediately doing what Rama told her to do, she stood up for herself and took matters into her own hands. She once again gave the Hindu women an example of how they do not have to do what a man tells them if they know they are right. Hindu women see how to behave when a troubling time comes and continue drawing from Sita’s courage to use in their own lives.
Sita’s bravery through her experiences can be seen as a model for Hindu women today who are starting to gain self-confidence independently from men. They see how she was able to stand up for herself, and they strive to do the same. Uma Bharati states that if women combine “the madhury, their femininity, with self-pride and political awareness, they can teach the whole world the path of liberation” (Basharat 245). Women in Hindu society have come a long way from culturally traditional times. They are beginning to stand up for themselves and have gained much more respect from men. There are still fundamentalists who are opposed to women asserting more responsibility within the Hindu culture. As a result of this, “many of their rights have been curbed,” which is causing many women to give up on their cause (Basharat 245). Throughout all of their struggles, the women look to Sita for continued guidance. They look back and see how Sita persevered through her hardships, which allows them to see that their goal of equality is achievable. They are reminded that if one woman can gain her self-pride through her strength and dignity, they can as well.
Although there are a few fundamentalists who oppose women’s equality, there are many politicians who are supportive of the Hindu women’s cause. As a result of their support, “Hindu women today have access to high positions of governance” (Basharat 245). They have also been allowed to receive varied degrees of education and their overall lives have improved. Women are gaining independence and becoming modernized Hindus. They are claiming “to outlaw the religious norms” and following what they believe is the right way of living (Basharat 244). Although they still respect the traditional Hindu views, they do not follow them to the extreme like in years past. Hindu women still show devotion and allegiance to their husbands, but they also pursue things that interest them. Since this is the foundation upon which women are beginning to be treated, they are not required to sacrifice as much as in the past. The women who succeed in their goal of gaining equality can only do so with the support of their husbands. Compromise between Hindu women and men is a critical element in elevating women to the stature they want. They are asking for their husbands’ help, as Sita often did. If Sita wanted something, she asked for it. The Hindu women are following that example. They are tired of being subject to men, so they are asking for their help in the journey to equality.
Sita has played a vital role in every stage of Hindu women’s history. For traditional Hindus, she set the goals for which ideal wives should make every effort to achieve. She showed them how to be fully devoted to their husbands, as well as endure the sacrifices that entails. Sita set a high standard for the ideal wife and gave the Hindu women something to strive for. Although traditional Hindus see her only as the ideal wife, some modern Hindus see Sita as a source of strength. She showed them how to stand up for themselves and that they do not have to be subject to wrongful treatment by men. She showed them that they could have self-confidence and achieve any goal they want. Through her great amount of courage, the goddess Sita has, and will continue to, serve as model for Hindu women. Whether Hindu women focus on her unfailing devotion to her husband or her independence and self-confidence, Sita’s story has shaped the evolutions which Hindu women are experiencing, as well as act as a guideline for many unique situations.
An Analysis of the Ramayana: Perfection Versus Individuality
Lydia Ford
In Valmiki’s ancient Indian epic, the Ramayana, the theme of ideal human beings is stressed. Valmiki uses the characters in the Ramayana as examples for Hindus to emulate while conveying social expectations and moral values to the reader. The Ramayana rejects worldly desires and teaches Hindus to strive for the ideal person, and uses the protagonist, Rama—an incarnation of the Hindu god, Vishnu—as a general example for Hindus to follow. This “ideal” Hindu model is a problematic precedent for the average person to follow, for human nature often gets in the way of perfection. However, human beings are attracted to—and often strive to meet—perfection. The model set forth in the Ramayana provides guidelines to which a person can achieve perfection, and many Hindus are discouraged from achieving “perfection” because of the impossible standard that they are expected to meet. Many people of the Hindu faith view these guidelines as hope that they, too, can meet the expectations of their society. However, in the process of becoming an ideal citizen of one’s society, independent individualism is lost.
The Ramayana offers Rama as the divine-human model for humans to follow. Rama is depicted as the ideal Hindu man with the correct and proper family values—he is a strong and generous leader, he submits to his elders’ desires, and he treats all of the “good” characters in the epic fairly. However, the portion of the story where Sugreeva and Vali battle, Rama’s moral character is undermined in his rash decision to side with Sugreeva. Rama never paused to hear both sides of the monkeys’ story; instead Rama and Sugreeva agreed that Rama would shoot and kill Vali—from his hiding place, concealed in the forest—before Rama had met Vali (Narayan 99-100). The Ramayana conveys to the reader that Sugreeva is good and that the only reason Vali was angry at him was because of a misunderstanding. The dramatic irony of this is that the reader is made aware of the tensions between Sugreeva and Vali, and has an understanding of the moral dispositions of the two brothers—Sugreeva is depicted as good, and Vali is depicted as bad—but Rama is unaware of the backstory of them when he first meets Sugreeva. Instead, Rama blindly agrees to assist Sugreeva, even though he is only taking Sugreeva’s word on what happened. The reader can easily see that Sugreeva could easily be lying about his past, but Rama, true to his nature of only doing what others want him to for “the better good”, fully trusts Sugreeva’s word. This hasty trust caused Rama to compromise his morals and kill an innocent being that had done nothing to intentionally harm him. Rama’s moral misstep caused “ordinary mortals (to) stand puzzled before the incident” (Narayan 90). Though Rama did commit murder, his murder of Vali is among the only controversial morality issues within the epic, so Rama’s ideal morality is rarely in question among contemporary media.
However, contemporary critics do question Rama’s treatment of Sita at the end of the epic, after he rescues her from Ravana. Instead of welcoming Sita back into his life with open arms—after he spent so long trying to rescue her—he first requested that she be intricately dressed to be in his presence. Sita eagerly came out of her prison to meet Rama, but was met with moodiness and impersonal coldness. Rama tells Sita that his “task is done” and that they could no longer live together, since her fidelity was in question because she had spent so long in the captivity of a stranger (148). The phase, “task is done”, conveys to the reader that Rama is fully detached from a personal—or marital—relationship with Sita. Rama only accepted Sita after she tested her fidelity by flinging herself into a pyre. This unfair treatment has sparked controversy among contemporary critics. Linda Hess describes this passage in the Ramayana as “shockingly unjust”—not just the physical act of Sita throwing her body into a fire, but the emotional toll that Rama has placed on her with his sharp, unkind words (Hess 9). Rama’s treatment of Sita suggests that Rama had succumbed to his society, and his society had influenced his personal judgment. Rama told Sita that it would not be “customary” for her to return to being his wife, which proves that he was striving to make himself outwardly appear socially acceptable, instead of showing his wife personal love. The way Rama treats Sita in the Ramayana set a precedent for Hindu men to treat their wives—often with dismissal and without validation. This societal norm within Hindu relationships is an effect of a society’s influence on a person’s individual values of a relationship. Gender roles within the Ramayana are widely accepted throughout Hindu culture, and this model of perfection depicted in the Ramayana diminishes the ability of a person to make their own decisions within Hindu society. No culture, or individual, in this world is immune to cultural and social influence, because it is in human nature to follow the ideals of society.
The ideal set for Hindus in the Ramayana is physically unattainable, yet people continue to strive for this perfect paradigm. It is impossible for a human to achieve perfection, because it is human nature to make mistakes. This ideal set forth provides a set of guidelines that a Hindu should work toward in order to be pleasing to the Hindu gods. Ruth Smith writes that self-interest within society is spawned from human nature, and that humans can never fully be “free” to act on their own, independent from societal influence (Smith 282). This means that selfishness within a society comes directly from imperfect human nature, and causes humans to be trapped within the normalcies of their societies and can no longer act for themselves without some kind of outside influence on their character or values. Human nature often hinders the path to societal perfection, which is demonstrated in the Ramayana. In the beginning of the epic, Rama showed minimal lesser human characteristics, such as greed, envy, or lust. Instead, Rama primarily showed pure, good intentions toward the characters whom he respected. However, after Rama adopts the trial by fire to prove a woman’s purity, Narayan states, “The gods…had an uneasy feeling that Rama had…lost sight of his own identity…displayed the…limitations of the human frame.” (Narayan 150). Even though Rama was a divine being, he was also a human, so it was customary for him to make mistakes. Just as Rama committed moral infractions, average mortals have worldly, human desires that keep them from reaching perfection—humans make mistakes. But, it is up to the individual to choose if he wishes to strive for perfection or not. By rejecting the characteristics, bad or good, that make a person human, a person will lose their individuality in the process, because one must make mistakes in order to achieve individuality. Because humans are susceptible to their culture’s social order, their personal choices often reflect the values of their society, instead of their values as individuals. Society shapes how people think and behave in any situation, but the less of an individual a person is, the more society will be able to corrupt him. Jeannine M. Love asserts that the only way a society can become ideal is if the rough edges of difference among the individual citizens is smoothed over in an effort to homogenize a group of people (Love 577). Human nature is not ideal, but society pushes for flawlessness with its guidelines and rules that it—as a whole, not individuals—deems right and acceptable.
The need to achieve perfection is reinforced throughout the Ramayana with Rama’s constant will to please others. Within the Ramayana, Rama always caters to others’ needs, rather than his own. Since the “ideal” Hindu society that Rama lived in ironically dehumanized him by not fully allowing him any say in how he was to live his life, Rama was not an individual, but a representation of a perfect Hindu man, and with perfection comes the lack of individuality. By only indulging others, Rama is basically a puppet that would do anything that someone would ask of him; therefore he is not an individual. Instead, Rama’s good nature is abused by his society, a society that Valmiki depicts as good and pleasing to the Hindu gods. When Rama is banished to the forest by Kaikeyi, he passively accepts his fate; he does not protest against her, but bears his punishment with dignity, and goes forth to kill Ravana. Many Hindus honor Rama’s selflessness and use it as a basic guideline as to how they should live their lives, but Rama’s lack of individuality causes the reader to ponder where individuality is derived. A perfect person in an ideal society loses the choice between individuality and idealism; his society chooses for him—indirectly—through its constant influence over the mere human’s subconscious mind through religion and culture. In the process of attaining perfection (or being “ideal”, in Rama’s case), it becomes nearly impossible for one’s individuality to stand firm, since societal influence often sways personal judgment. Because of this, the average Hindu must also face the choice of individuality or full devotion to their religion, culture, or society especially because Rama, a perfect incarnation of a god, could not achieve both individuality and perfection.
Within Hindu society, the story of Rama continues to influence many followers of Hinduism. This societal mold that shapes a culture outwardly presents dignity, idealism, and grace, yet inwardly holds the undertones of lost individuality, forbidden openly by societal norms and subconsciously rejected by individual people. Every society places emphasis on a particular set of guidelines that it deems acceptable, and few people in this world ever find their true individuality because they endeavor endlessly in the search for societal perfection and lose sight of who they truly are in the process. Every human faces the arduous task of choosing between fitting their society and standing out with their true independence.
The Ramayana offers Rama as the divine-human model for humans to follow. Rama is depicted as the ideal Hindu man with the correct and proper family values—he is a strong and generous leader, he submits to his elders’ desires, and he treats all of the “good” characters in the epic fairly. However, the portion of the story where Sugreeva and Vali battle, Rama’s moral character is undermined in his rash decision to side with Sugreeva. Rama never paused to hear both sides of the monkeys’ story; instead Rama and Sugreeva agreed that Rama would shoot and kill Vali—from his hiding place, concealed in the forest—before Rama had met Vali (Narayan 99-100). The Ramayana conveys to the reader that Sugreeva is good and that the only reason Vali was angry at him was because of a misunderstanding. The dramatic irony of this is that the reader is made aware of the tensions between Sugreeva and Vali, and has an understanding of the moral dispositions of the two brothers—Sugreeva is depicted as good, and Vali is depicted as bad—but Rama is unaware of the backstory of them when he first meets Sugreeva. Instead, Rama blindly agrees to assist Sugreeva, even though he is only taking Sugreeva’s word on what happened. The reader can easily see that Sugreeva could easily be lying about his past, but Rama, true to his nature of only doing what others want him to for “the better good”, fully trusts Sugreeva’s word. This hasty trust caused Rama to compromise his morals and kill an innocent being that had done nothing to intentionally harm him. Rama’s moral misstep caused “ordinary mortals (to) stand puzzled before the incident” (Narayan 90). Though Rama did commit murder, his murder of Vali is among the only controversial morality issues within the epic, so Rama’s ideal morality is rarely in question among contemporary media.
However, contemporary critics do question Rama’s treatment of Sita at the end of the epic, after he rescues her from Ravana. Instead of welcoming Sita back into his life with open arms—after he spent so long trying to rescue her—he first requested that she be intricately dressed to be in his presence. Sita eagerly came out of her prison to meet Rama, but was met with moodiness and impersonal coldness. Rama tells Sita that his “task is done” and that they could no longer live together, since her fidelity was in question because she had spent so long in the captivity of a stranger (148). The phase, “task is done”, conveys to the reader that Rama is fully detached from a personal—or marital—relationship with Sita. Rama only accepted Sita after she tested her fidelity by flinging herself into a pyre. This unfair treatment has sparked controversy among contemporary critics. Linda Hess describes this passage in the Ramayana as “shockingly unjust”—not just the physical act of Sita throwing her body into a fire, but the emotional toll that Rama has placed on her with his sharp, unkind words (Hess 9). Rama’s treatment of Sita suggests that Rama had succumbed to his society, and his society had influenced his personal judgment. Rama told Sita that it would not be “customary” for her to return to being his wife, which proves that he was striving to make himself outwardly appear socially acceptable, instead of showing his wife personal love. The way Rama treats Sita in the Ramayana set a precedent for Hindu men to treat their wives—often with dismissal and without validation. This societal norm within Hindu relationships is an effect of a society’s influence on a person’s individual values of a relationship. Gender roles within the Ramayana are widely accepted throughout Hindu culture, and this model of perfection depicted in the Ramayana diminishes the ability of a person to make their own decisions within Hindu society. No culture, or individual, in this world is immune to cultural and social influence, because it is in human nature to follow the ideals of society.
The ideal set for Hindus in the Ramayana is physically unattainable, yet people continue to strive for this perfect paradigm. It is impossible for a human to achieve perfection, because it is human nature to make mistakes. This ideal set forth provides a set of guidelines that a Hindu should work toward in order to be pleasing to the Hindu gods. Ruth Smith writes that self-interest within society is spawned from human nature, and that humans can never fully be “free” to act on their own, independent from societal influence (Smith 282). This means that selfishness within a society comes directly from imperfect human nature, and causes humans to be trapped within the normalcies of their societies and can no longer act for themselves without some kind of outside influence on their character or values. Human nature often hinders the path to societal perfection, which is demonstrated in the Ramayana. In the beginning of the epic, Rama showed minimal lesser human characteristics, such as greed, envy, or lust. Instead, Rama primarily showed pure, good intentions toward the characters whom he respected. However, after Rama adopts the trial by fire to prove a woman’s purity, Narayan states, “The gods…had an uneasy feeling that Rama had…lost sight of his own identity…displayed the…limitations of the human frame.” (Narayan 150). Even though Rama was a divine being, he was also a human, so it was customary for him to make mistakes. Just as Rama committed moral infractions, average mortals have worldly, human desires that keep them from reaching perfection—humans make mistakes. But, it is up to the individual to choose if he wishes to strive for perfection or not. By rejecting the characteristics, bad or good, that make a person human, a person will lose their individuality in the process, because one must make mistakes in order to achieve individuality. Because humans are susceptible to their culture’s social order, their personal choices often reflect the values of their society, instead of their values as individuals. Society shapes how people think and behave in any situation, but the less of an individual a person is, the more society will be able to corrupt him. Jeannine M. Love asserts that the only way a society can become ideal is if the rough edges of difference among the individual citizens is smoothed over in an effort to homogenize a group of people (Love 577). Human nature is not ideal, but society pushes for flawlessness with its guidelines and rules that it—as a whole, not individuals—deems right and acceptable.
The need to achieve perfection is reinforced throughout the Ramayana with Rama’s constant will to please others. Within the Ramayana, Rama always caters to others’ needs, rather than his own. Since the “ideal” Hindu society that Rama lived in ironically dehumanized him by not fully allowing him any say in how he was to live his life, Rama was not an individual, but a representation of a perfect Hindu man, and with perfection comes the lack of individuality. By only indulging others, Rama is basically a puppet that would do anything that someone would ask of him; therefore he is not an individual. Instead, Rama’s good nature is abused by his society, a society that Valmiki depicts as good and pleasing to the Hindu gods. When Rama is banished to the forest by Kaikeyi, he passively accepts his fate; he does not protest against her, but bears his punishment with dignity, and goes forth to kill Ravana. Many Hindus honor Rama’s selflessness and use it as a basic guideline as to how they should live their lives, but Rama’s lack of individuality causes the reader to ponder where individuality is derived. A perfect person in an ideal society loses the choice between individuality and idealism; his society chooses for him—indirectly—through its constant influence over the mere human’s subconscious mind through religion and culture. In the process of attaining perfection (or being “ideal”, in Rama’s case), it becomes nearly impossible for one’s individuality to stand firm, since societal influence often sways personal judgment. Because of this, the average Hindu must also face the choice of individuality or full devotion to their religion, culture, or society especially because Rama, a perfect incarnation of a god, could not achieve both individuality and perfection.
Within Hindu society, the story of Rama continues to influence many followers of Hinduism. This societal mold that shapes a culture outwardly presents dignity, idealism, and grace, yet inwardly holds the undertones of lost individuality, forbidden openly by societal norms and subconsciously rejected by individual people. Every society places emphasis on a particular set of guidelines that it deems acceptable, and few people in this world ever find their true individuality because they endeavor endlessly in the search for societal perfection and lose sight of who they truly are in the process. Every human faces the arduous task of choosing between fitting their society and standing out with their true independence.
The Ramayana: An Alarming Standard for India
Beighlie Ozmun
Valmiki’s Ramayana is widely viewed in India to characterize the perfect examples of man and wife, and many men today use the Ramayana as a guidebook on the treatment of women, though women in the Ramayana are not treated as fully human and are objectified. Men find this behavior acceptable because they see the gods and Rama as ideal men and role models. Upon closer inspection, it is discovered that the Ramayana is a harmful illustration of the treatment of women, and that these actions are an unhealthy and dangerous paradigm.
Unfair treatment of women is common, and the treatment of Indian women is no exception to the rule. A companion-like text has been written to accompany the Ramayana: the same story, but from Sita’s point of view. Telling the story from two different perspectives is a great way to flesh out the legend and give a full account of the events, though an outrage has spread across India—and how dare someone show Sita’s thoughts? It is practically unthinkable that Sita should have a voice—according to some, Sita was happy with everything that happened to her because the perfect wife does not complain. Does the lack of complaint connote contentment?
When girls are growing up in India, they are taught that they need to follow Sita’s example. These girls then aspire to nothing more than being the perfect wife: a sheep to follow her husband in blind obedience and to not go after a career of their own or live a life separate from a dominant male figure. Even education, which should be viewed as a betterment of the girl’s life, is treated as just another tool to secure a husband: an educated daughter will attract a richer, more powerful groom. As a good wife, she will endure any harassment from her husband and his family, and put her desires away so that she pleases her husband. Her whole life she will be like a servant to him, every action meant for his happiness, just as Sita served Rama. The idea of selfless devotion to one’s family—an idea taken in wholeheartedly by Indian women—has been distorted to mean that a woman must not aspire to anything, and that her only role and duty is to her family, never to herself.
The story itself is flawed in many cases, including its validation of rape: in each case where a woman is raped, the story says she deserved it—she committed some act that attracted her rapist—and then she is no longer pure and no righteous man would want or marry her. The male characters who are committing these acts are portrayed as devoted, and it is a strange juxtaposition. How does one reconcile such gruesome acts with the depiction of gods that are the embodiment of divine love? This behavior is a classic example of victim blaming, in which the perpetrator is viewed as good and the victim is viewed as a whore, asking for it, or otherwise a sinner. Women who undergo victim blaming suffer from self-doubt and a large percentage of them try to commit suicide. The Ramayana does not show compassion, sympathy, or benevolence for women who are assaulted—which is the right thing to do in these instances, but instead makes it seem as if telling a woman she is a prostitute or subjecting her to dangerous trials to see if she is “pure” is the right thing to do. When Sita is reunited with Rama after her kidnapping, the mere thought that she could have been disloyal brought about the demand that she endure a fire trial. While the fire trial makes for a dramatic and triumphant plot point—Sita was still pure, so she did not burn—in reality it is incredibly hazardous. Men tend to believe the story literally—to the point that when they have chosen a bride, they burn camphor in her palm to see if it injures her. Common sense tells that anyone would be burned if they were holding something that was on fire. Still, though, men use the “evidence” as ways to get rid of undesirable brides, or to extort more money from the woman’s parents: their daughter is not pure, but he is marrying her anyway which is so very good of him, but since their daughter is damaged, he wants more of an incentive to do so.
Rama treats Sita as property. He fights to regain her after her abduction, but once he gets her back he is easily convinced that she has been damaged, so he exiles her even though she is pregnant with his children. Is this not objectifying? Instead of valuing Sita as his wife and the woman he loves, he treats her as if she is a statue or other piece of art, only worth anything if she remains beautiful and pure. She is precious to him at first when she has been stolen, but worthless later when he thinks she has been damaged, even after she proved that her purity was intact and that she had remained loyal to him. Exiling Sita was seen as the honorable thing to do in Rama’s position, even though he knew of her innocence, and the ideal husband would have joined her in her exile as an act of love and devotion, but Rama merely cast her aside.
The psychological effects of the way girls are raised in India , and how girls and women are treated, are more substantial than one might think. A study showed that thirty percent of women who are physically assaulted attempt suicide, and this number does not take into account those who contemplate the act. When girls have such a strict standard of perfection thrust upon them from the time they are old enough to make their own decisions, they live their entire lives feeling as if every “wrong” action is damning them in the eyes of Indian society. While it is okay to strive for “perfection” in order to be one’s personal best, one can suffer from mental disorders if they do not attain that flawlessness. Depression can be deeply rooted in self-image, and girls who believe they are not perfect enough can easily fall into the disorder: this can have physical effects that include self-harm by starvation, burning, cutting, hitting, biting, and scratching, while also making the child wonder why she is alive if she is not good enough. The effects of depression are not always self-injuring, though: often people who suffer with it lose interest in ordinary activities including school, bathing, games, playing with pets, and tend to show an increased interest sleep. They will begin to question of they will get anything right, and the smallest “wrong” thing can have a much bigger effect than it should. If being like Sita is what is desired, but a girl cannot live up to those expectations, she may begin to wonder if anyone can love her, especially when she is taught that men only love a “good” wife, and Sita is the paradigm of “goodness.”
The Ramayana teaches women that they have no control over their own lives and that anything bad that happens to them is their fault, while teaching them that anything good that happens to them is a blessing or the mercy of a man. It teaches men that they have the right to women’s bodies and lives in a way that no person should have control over another. Should people really be teaching their children these ideals? That it is okay to molest a woman as long as you are a “righteous” man, then cast her aside because due to their actions she now has no worth? Is it truly acceptable to teach young girls that they are worth nothing more than a wife? They are taught that being a wife is a duty instead of what a wife really is: a life partner, an independent, nurturing figure to care for a family while pursuing her own goals and desires. While the Ramayana makes for a good story, the things it teaches are unhealthy, from the way it teaches that women are not equal to men to the way it views a woman’s role in society. The life quality for women in India would be vastly improved if only the characters in the poem were not worshipped as models of the perfect wife, woman, husband, or man. Forcing girls and young women to believe that they will only be good or have worth if they are like Sita is a certain way to turn a bright-eyed, curious child into a tool for someone’s use. Sita’s loyalty to her husband and her devotion and pure love for him should be taught to girls: it is good to love your husband with your whole heart and to remain loyal to him, but not to the extent where they lose themselves trying to be perfect for someone else.
Unfair treatment of women is common, and the treatment of Indian women is no exception to the rule. A companion-like text has been written to accompany the Ramayana: the same story, but from Sita’s point of view. Telling the story from two different perspectives is a great way to flesh out the legend and give a full account of the events, though an outrage has spread across India—and how dare someone show Sita’s thoughts? It is practically unthinkable that Sita should have a voice—according to some, Sita was happy with everything that happened to her because the perfect wife does not complain. Does the lack of complaint connote contentment?
When girls are growing up in India, they are taught that they need to follow Sita’s example. These girls then aspire to nothing more than being the perfect wife: a sheep to follow her husband in blind obedience and to not go after a career of their own or live a life separate from a dominant male figure. Even education, which should be viewed as a betterment of the girl’s life, is treated as just another tool to secure a husband: an educated daughter will attract a richer, more powerful groom. As a good wife, she will endure any harassment from her husband and his family, and put her desires away so that she pleases her husband. Her whole life she will be like a servant to him, every action meant for his happiness, just as Sita served Rama. The idea of selfless devotion to one’s family—an idea taken in wholeheartedly by Indian women—has been distorted to mean that a woman must not aspire to anything, and that her only role and duty is to her family, never to herself.
The story itself is flawed in many cases, including its validation of rape: in each case where a woman is raped, the story says she deserved it—she committed some act that attracted her rapist—and then she is no longer pure and no righteous man would want or marry her. The male characters who are committing these acts are portrayed as devoted, and it is a strange juxtaposition. How does one reconcile such gruesome acts with the depiction of gods that are the embodiment of divine love? This behavior is a classic example of victim blaming, in which the perpetrator is viewed as good and the victim is viewed as a whore, asking for it, or otherwise a sinner. Women who undergo victim blaming suffer from self-doubt and a large percentage of them try to commit suicide. The Ramayana does not show compassion, sympathy, or benevolence for women who are assaulted—which is the right thing to do in these instances, but instead makes it seem as if telling a woman she is a prostitute or subjecting her to dangerous trials to see if she is “pure” is the right thing to do. When Sita is reunited with Rama after her kidnapping, the mere thought that she could have been disloyal brought about the demand that she endure a fire trial. While the fire trial makes for a dramatic and triumphant plot point—Sita was still pure, so she did not burn—in reality it is incredibly hazardous. Men tend to believe the story literally—to the point that when they have chosen a bride, they burn camphor in her palm to see if it injures her. Common sense tells that anyone would be burned if they were holding something that was on fire. Still, though, men use the “evidence” as ways to get rid of undesirable brides, or to extort more money from the woman’s parents: their daughter is not pure, but he is marrying her anyway which is so very good of him, but since their daughter is damaged, he wants more of an incentive to do so.
Rama treats Sita as property. He fights to regain her after her abduction, but once he gets her back he is easily convinced that she has been damaged, so he exiles her even though she is pregnant with his children. Is this not objectifying? Instead of valuing Sita as his wife and the woman he loves, he treats her as if she is a statue or other piece of art, only worth anything if she remains beautiful and pure. She is precious to him at first when she has been stolen, but worthless later when he thinks she has been damaged, even after she proved that her purity was intact and that she had remained loyal to him. Exiling Sita was seen as the honorable thing to do in Rama’s position, even though he knew of her innocence, and the ideal husband would have joined her in her exile as an act of love and devotion, but Rama merely cast her aside.
The psychological effects of the way girls are raised in India , and how girls and women are treated, are more substantial than one might think. A study showed that thirty percent of women who are physically assaulted attempt suicide, and this number does not take into account those who contemplate the act. When girls have such a strict standard of perfection thrust upon them from the time they are old enough to make their own decisions, they live their entire lives feeling as if every “wrong” action is damning them in the eyes of Indian society. While it is okay to strive for “perfection” in order to be one’s personal best, one can suffer from mental disorders if they do not attain that flawlessness. Depression can be deeply rooted in self-image, and girls who believe they are not perfect enough can easily fall into the disorder: this can have physical effects that include self-harm by starvation, burning, cutting, hitting, biting, and scratching, while also making the child wonder why she is alive if she is not good enough. The effects of depression are not always self-injuring, though: often people who suffer with it lose interest in ordinary activities including school, bathing, games, playing with pets, and tend to show an increased interest sleep. They will begin to question of they will get anything right, and the smallest “wrong” thing can have a much bigger effect than it should. If being like Sita is what is desired, but a girl cannot live up to those expectations, she may begin to wonder if anyone can love her, especially when she is taught that men only love a “good” wife, and Sita is the paradigm of “goodness.”
The Ramayana teaches women that they have no control over their own lives and that anything bad that happens to them is their fault, while teaching them that anything good that happens to them is a blessing or the mercy of a man. It teaches men that they have the right to women’s bodies and lives in a way that no person should have control over another. Should people really be teaching their children these ideals? That it is okay to molest a woman as long as you are a “righteous” man, then cast her aside because due to their actions she now has no worth? Is it truly acceptable to teach young girls that they are worth nothing more than a wife? They are taught that being a wife is a duty instead of what a wife really is: a life partner, an independent, nurturing figure to care for a family while pursuing her own goals and desires. While the Ramayana makes for a good story, the things it teaches are unhealthy, from the way it teaches that women are not equal to men to the way it views a woman’s role in society. The life quality for women in India would be vastly improved if only the characters in the poem were not worshipped as models of the perfect wife, woman, husband, or man. Forcing girls and young women to believe that they will only be good or have worth if they are like Sita is a certain way to turn a bright-eyed, curious child into a tool for someone’s use. Sita’s loyalty to her husband and her devotion and pure love for him should be taught to girls: it is good to love your husband with your whole heart and to remain loyal to him, but not to the extent where they lose themselves trying to be perfect for someone else.
Rama, Christ, and the Influence of a Messiah
Colin Smith
The Ramayana has been both a timeless tale of heroism for the world over as well as a sacred text for Hinduism for the past millennia. The titular hero of the epic, Rama, is an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu, brought into existence for the destiny of destroying the evil of the world, protecting the peace and dharma. A reader with knowledge of Christianity can notice the parallels between Rama’s messianic journey and the life of Jesus of Nazareth. By noting similarities in their birth stories, theophany, cause for incarnation, and the sometimes violent actions of those who will defend them at any cost the reader can see how their story similarities can even today, if given the right social conditions, spark violent religious extremism from their faithful following.
By first looking at the stories of Rama’s and Christ’s birth according to the dogma of their respective religions, the similarities between the two begin to take shape. Freek L. Bakker begins to outline these similarities in his article The Birth of Jesus and Rama in Christian and Hindu Sacred Texts: An Exercise in New Comparative Theology. By comparing the story depicted of Jesus’s birth as told by the gospels of Luke and Matthew and the birth stories of Rama as depicted in Ramacaritmanas[1] as well Valmiki’s original, Bakker first establishes the similarities in the behavior of the heavens. Both stories depict angels, gods or other forms of celestial beings coming to witness the birth or tell others of the baby’s coming. Most worthy of note regarding the actual circumstance of their birth is the fact “…both Luke and the Manas show that the birth of the babies are accompanies by the rites common in the religions they are born in…” (Bakker 136). The Ramacaritmanas also depicts young Rama receiving gifts, similar to the well-known story of the magi as told in Matthew 2 (137).
More important than establishing the similarities of worldly events regarding their birth, one must compare why the two entities where incarnated in the first place and what importance this incarnation holds to their respective faith. Although Jesus’ theophany was never specifically mentioned in the two books previously mentioned, the actual belief that Jesus is the physical manifestation of the God of Solomon in human form became part of Christianity in “…John and in the first five councils of the 4th 5th and 6th centuries… Since then Jesus [has been] regarded as an incarnation of God” (Bakker 144). Rama has this theophany clearly defined in the opening dialogue of Valmiki’s Ramayana in which the gods discuss their reasons and means of being brought to human form. These gods’ as well as the God of Christendom’s incentives for an existence on earth yield still more similarities, as both exist to vanquish some form of evil on earth or from humankind. In the case of Rama, the evil is Ravana; in the case of Christ his existence was “… to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). Facing their foretold hardship, the two men respond in an almost identical fashion and accept the fate laid out before them.
Rama willingly accepts his father’s wishes without so much as questioning his reasoning or even inquiring upon the bearer of his father’s wishes Kaikeyi, stating “…she derives her authority from [his] father…” and deductively, this authority should be taken as law (Narayan 54). Learning of Rama’s fourteen year exile, his brother Lakshmana is angered and is prepared to strike down Kaikeyi, the woman he views as traitor to Rama. Rama asks his brother “…why are you so wild and angry?” and tells his brother to “calm [him]self,” and goes on to explain such events leading to his exile as “Fate. . .” (51-52). Following a parallel structure, so too does Jesus meet a similar betrayal. He faces his “Fate” bestowed upon him by his “father” with acceptance. He is betrayed by Judas, who “…communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray [Jesus] unto them” (Luke 22:4). These chief priests, who were according to the biblical account behind Jesus’ death, similarly to Kaikeyi, derived their authority from the father of the very man they cast out. When it comes time for Jesus to face his end and the soldiers come to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane, in a fury towards the injustice similar to that of Lakshmana his devoted disciple Simon Peter “…having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear… Then said Jesus unto Peter ‘Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’”(John 18:10-11) Although both Jesus and Rama tell their follower to refrain from these acts of violence, the actions of both Lakshmana and Simon Peter begin to establish a template for courses of violent action defending the beloved messiah’s for thousands of years to come.
By observing the violent outbursts Lakshmana and Simon Peter display in defending Rama and Jesus the reader can see how willingly a man will lay down their lives for the men they have grown to love, revere, and worship. This parallel is not only of importance in establishing similarities between the theological importance or role of the messianic figures to Hinduism and Christianity, but holds greater relevance in showing the significance this shared role has on the actions of modern day followers of the two men. In 1987 the Indian government ran a television series depicting the events of the Ramayana, called the Ramayan. The public “…bathed before watching, garlanded the set like a shrine, and considered the viewing of Rama as a religious experience” (Paula Richman (1991:3) Heinz 137). Such strong devotion, for many, led to darshan which “…entails seeing, and being beheld by, the deity… Darshan, therefore, is not a passive act of seeing; it encompasses an interaction, a relationship, a profound engagement with the sacred” (Mankekar 137).With such obviously strong sentiment towards the show and its titular Rama, the program “… overlapped and reinforced Hindu nationalism,” and since around this time modern Hindu nationalist have cited Rama and his utopian kingdom as evidence of an India under the religion of Hinduism (134). This nationalism led to disaster in 1992 when members of extreme conservative parties, still motivated by their sentiments towards Rama a couple years after the program ended, vandalized a five century year old mosque built over the site Rama was believed to have been born in Ayodhya. The resulting country-wide violence between Hindus and Muslims killed over five thousand people (Heinz 137). With Lakshmana’s angry, almost violent defense of Rama in mind, it is possible to draw connections between the source material and such extremism; given the right social conditions people are willing to lay out violence and even deadly force to defend Rama or even merely landmarks concerning him. The possible tragedy that can come from such religious devotion is first defined through Lakshmana and reinforced through the riots stemming from a swell in awareness and devotion to Rama from the Ramayan.
Although Christendom has also has its fair share of violence and unfortunate extremism in medieval times, the Crusades, or, more recently through organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, there has fortunately not been a recent outbreak of religiously motivated extremism from Christians coming anywhere close to the scale of the Hindu 1992 riots. In 2004 a Hollywood film, The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Gibson, depicts the final moments of Christ leading up to the Crucifixion. The movie was both one of the most commercially successful and controversial religious films ever made. The movie and director were said to be anti-Semitic in their portrayal of the Jewish people, which according to these critics, were depicted as responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. With recent extreme anti-Semitic comments from director Gibson showing him to be an obvious anti-Semitist, “...the issues raised by the furor over the film- about the extent of anti-Semitism in the modern world, within Christianity in particular- are…” all the more problematic (Gonshak 218). The director’s beliefs and comments can only reinforce that the cinematic tactics he implemented to portray his message show the Jewish people in a negative light to a mainly Christian audience.
The film’s depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in an extremely grotesque manner. Such violence was defended by the films advocates, who stated that the “…violence is meant to realistically show the extent of the suffering Jesus endured in order to redeem humankind” (219). The Christian population of America showed up in droves to witness the tragedy of their savior being brutally whipped, flogged, beaten, and finally, crucified to death all for their sins. Christian audience members were encouraged to identify with Jesus as he died for their sins. Seeing their God in human form tortured before their eyes could have, in much the same way Hindu darshan with Rama lead to violence towards Muslims, caused Christians to react to the injustice done to Jesus with anger and even violence. Taking this religious passion into account, the possibility that this depiction of the Jews in the film as responsible for the murder of Christ could cause an outbreak in Christian anti-Semitic violence, seems all the more plausible. Although, other than the Ku Klux Klan, a recent contemporary Christian organization has never officially positioned itself as violently anti-Semitic; the danger is there in depictions of Jesus’ death. Certain biblical verses can be depicted to actually support this claim that the Jews present at Jesus’ death were responsible for his crucifixion. Regarding the actual conviction of Jesus, both the gospels of Matthew and Mark depict Pontious Pilate (the only other possible scapegoat as he was the one who had the say in if Jesus was to be put to death) making true attempts to release Jesus, asking “why, what evil hath he done?” to which the mostly Jewish audience “…cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him…” (Mark 15:14). Furthermore both of these accounts mention the Jewish high priest as the ones stirring up the audience against Jesus. Perhaps the most blatant shift of the blame to the Jewish people comes in Matthew 27:25 in which the Jewish people are shown to say “…His blood be on us, and on our children.” With such biblical accounts, any outbreaks of anti-Semitism stemming from the movie could have been thus “justified” by the transgressors as supported by God Himself and one need look no further than any given historical holy war to see what this kind of “justified by God” message can entail. Matthew 27:25 could have easily been bended from a verse showing the folly of humankind to a rallying cry for extreme anti-Semitism.
Taking into account the similarities of the roles Rama and Jesus take in their respective religion it is important for Christians or any other religion with a similar messianic figure to learn from the anti-Muslim Hindu riots sparked by the Ramayan. Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ, thankfully, did not spark such violence and only generated controversy. However given the right social conditions that were present in India in 1992, such as a large member base of the KKK or other such white supremacy organization at the time, it very well could have. Unfortunately, despite the overall message of peace and goodwill shown, Valmiki’s Ramayana and the gospels depicting Jesus, the similar role of the two savior’s stories can generate equally similar passion and extremity from the millions of their followers.
[1] a 17th century edition of Valmiki’s original text which goes into more detail in the first two books depicting the birth and youth of Rama; sometimes referred to simply the Manas
By first looking at the stories of Rama’s and Christ’s birth according to the dogma of their respective religions, the similarities between the two begin to take shape. Freek L. Bakker begins to outline these similarities in his article The Birth of Jesus and Rama in Christian and Hindu Sacred Texts: An Exercise in New Comparative Theology. By comparing the story depicted of Jesus’s birth as told by the gospels of Luke and Matthew and the birth stories of Rama as depicted in Ramacaritmanas[1] as well Valmiki’s original, Bakker first establishes the similarities in the behavior of the heavens. Both stories depict angels, gods or other forms of celestial beings coming to witness the birth or tell others of the baby’s coming. Most worthy of note regarding the actual circumstance of their birth is the fact “…both Luke and the Manas show that the birth of the babies are accompanies by the rites common in the religions they are born in…” (Bakker 136). The Ramacaritmanas also depicts young Rama receiving gifts, similar to the well-known story of the magi as told in Matthew 2 (137).
More important than establishing the similarities of worldly events regarding their birth, one must compare why the two entities where incarnated in the first place and what importance this incarnation holds to their respective faith. Although Jesus’ theophany was never specifically mentioned in the two books previously mentioned, the actual belief that Jesus is the physical manifestation of the God of Solomon in human form became part of Christianity in “…John and in the first five councils of the 4th 5th and 6th centuries… Since then Jesus [has been] regarded as an incarnation of God” (Bakker 144). Rama has this theophany clearly defined in the opening dialogue of Valmiki’s Ramayana in which the gods discuss their reasons and means of being brought to human form. These gods’ as well as the God of Christendom’s incentives for an existence on earth yield still more similarities, as both exist to vanquish some form of evil on earth or from humankind. In the case of Rama, the evil is Ravana; in the case of Christ his existence was “… to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). Facing their foretold hardship, the two men respond in an almost identical fashion and accept the fate laid out before them.
Rama willingly accepts his father’s wishes without so much as questioning his reasoning or even inquiring upon the bearer of his father’s wishes Kaikeyi, stating “…she derives her authority from [his] father…” and deductively, this authority should be taken as law (Narayan 54). Learning of Rama’s fourteen year exile, his brother Lakshmana is angered and is prepared to strike down Kaikeyi, the woman he views as traitor to Rama. Rama asks his brother “…why are you so wild and angry?” and tells his brother to “calm [him]self,” and goes on to explain such events leading to his exile as “Fate. . .” (51-52). Following a parallel structure, so too does Jesus meet a similar betrayal. He faces his “Fate” bestowed upon him by his “father” with acceptance. He is betrayed by Judas, who “…communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray [Jesus] unto them” (Luke 22:4). These chief priests, who were according to the biblical account behind Jesus’ death, similarly to Kaikeyi, derived their authority from the father of the very man they cast out. When it comes time for Jesus to face his end and the soldiers come to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane, in a fury towards the injustice similar to that of Lakshmana his devoted disciple Simon Peter “…having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear… Then said Jesus unto Peter ‘Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’”(John 18:10-11) Although both Jesus and Rama tell their follower to refrain from these acts of violence, the actions of both Lakshmana and Simon Peter begin to establish a template for courses of violent action defending the beloved messiah’s for thousands of years to come.
By observing the violent outbursts Lakshmana and Simon Peter display in defending Rama and Jesus the reader can see how willingly a man will lay down their lives for the men they have grown to love, revere, and worship. This parallel is not only of importance in establishing similarities between the theological importance or role of the messianic figures to Hinduism and Christianity, but holds greater relevance in showing the significance this shared role has on the actions of modern day followers of the two men. In 1987 the Indian government ran a television series depicting the events of the Ramayana, called the Ramayan. The public “…bathed before watching, garlanded the set like a shrine, and considered the viewing of Rama as a religious experience” (Paula Richman (1991:3) Heinz 137). Such strong devotion, for many, led to darshan which “…entails seeing, and being beheld by, the deity… Darshan, therefore, is not a passive act of seeing; it encompasses an interaction, a relationship, a profound engagement with the sacred” (Mankekar 137).With such obviously strong sentiment towards the show and its titular Rama, the program “… overlapped and reinforced Hindu nationalism,” and since around this time modern Hindu nationalist have cited Rama and his utopian kingdom as evidence of an India under the religion of Hinduism (134). This nationalism led to disaster in 1992 when members of extreme conservative parties, still motivated by their sentiments towards Rama a couple years after the program ended, vandalized a five century year old mosque built over the site Rama was believed to have been born in Ayodhya. The resulting country-wide violence between Hindus and Muslims killed over five thousand people (Heinz 137). With Lakshmana’s angry, almost violent defense of Rama in mind, it is possible to draw connections between the source material and such extremism; given the right social conditions people are willing to lay out violence and even deadly force to defend Rama or even merely landmarks concerning him. The possible tragedy that can come from such religious devotion is first defined through Lakshmana and reinforced through the riots stemming from a swell in awareness and devotion to Rama from the Ramayan.
Although Christendom has also has its fair share of violence and unfortunate extremism in medieval times, the Crusades, or, more recently through organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, there has fortunately not been a recent outbreak of religiously motivated extremism from Christians coming anywhere close to the scale of the Hindu 1992 riots. In 2004 a Hollywood film, The Passion of the Christ, directed by Mel Gibson, depicts the final moments of Christ leading up to the Crucifixion. The movie was both one of the most commercially successful and controversial religious films ever made. The movie and director were said to be anti-Semitic in their portrayal of the Jewish people, which according to these critics, were depicted as responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. With recent extreme anti-Semitic comments from director Gibson showing him to be an obvious anti-Semitist, “...the issues raised by the furor over the film- about the extent of anti-Semitism in the modern world, within Christianity in particular- are…” all the more problematic (Gonshak 218). The director’s beliefs and comments can only reinforce that the cinematic tactics he implemented to portray his message show the Jewish people in a negative light to a mainly Christian audience.
The film’s depicts the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in an extremely grotesque manner. Such violence was defended by the films advocates, who stated that the “…violence is meant to realistically show the extent of the suffering Jesus endured in order to redeem humankind” (219). The Christian population of America showed up in droves to witness the tragedy of their savior being brutally whipped, flogged, beaten, and finally, crucified to death all for their sins. Christian audience members were encouraged to identify with Jesus as he died for their sins. Seeing their God in human form tortured before their eyes could have, in much the same way Hindu darshan with Rama lead to violence towards Muslims, caused Christians to react to the injustice done to Jesus with anger and even violence. Taking this religious passion into account, the possibility that this depiction of the Jews in the film as responsible for the murder of Christ could cause an outbreak in Christian anti-Semitic violence, seems all the more plausible. Although, other than the Ku Klux Klan, a recent contemporary Christian organization has never officially positioned itself as violently anti-Semitic; the danger is there in depictions of Jesus’ death. Certain biblical verses can be depicted to actually support this claim that the Jews present at Jesus’ death were responsible for his crucifixion. Regarding the actual conviction of Jesus, both the gospels of Matthew and Mark depict Pontious Pilate (the only other possible scapegoat as he was the one who had the say in if Jesus was to be put to death) making true attempts to release Jesus, asking “why, what evil hath he done?” to which the mostly Jewish audience “…cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him…” (Mark 15:14). Furthermore both of these accounts mention the Jewish high priest as the ones stirring up the audience against Jesus. Perhaps the most blatant shift of the blame to the Jewish people comes in Matthew 27:25 in which the Jewish people are shown to say “…His blood be on us, and on our children.” With such biblical accounts, any outbreaks of anti-Semitism stemming from the movie could have been thus “justified” by the transgressors as supported by God Himself and one need look no further than any given historical holy war to see what this kind of “justified by God” message can entail. Matthew 27:25 could have easily been bended from a verse showing the folly of humankind to a rallying cry for extreme anti-Semitism.
Taking into account the similarities of the roles Rama and Jesus take in their respective religion it is important for Christians or any other religion with a similar messianic figure to learn from the anti-Muslim Hindu riots sparked by the Ramayan. Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ, thankfully, did not spark such violence and only generated controversy. However given the right social conditions that were present in India in 1992, such as a large member base of the KKK or other such white supremacy organization at the time, it very well could have. Unfortunately, despite the overall message of peace and goodwill shown, Valmiki’s Ramayana and the gospels depicting Jesus, the similar role of the two savior’s stories can generate equally similar passion and extremity from the millions of their followers.
[1] a 17th century edition of Valmiki’s original text which goes into more detail in the first two books depicting the birth and youth of Rama; sometimes referred to simply the Manas
Cultural Influences on Portrayals of Archetypes in Beowulf and the Ramayana
Jodi Erickson
People from different cultures develop opinions and standards that correspond to the cultures they belong to. A person from Europe and a person from Asia are more likely to disagree on points such as politics, gender roles, and religion than two people from the same culture. Religious disputes, though, are more common than most. These uniquely established religions greatly influenced the development of different morals and ideals in different places; this phenomena can be seen very clearly when comparing influential epics from separate geographical and cultural locations, such as Beowulf of Scandinavia and the Ramayana of India. The respective religions and cultures that authors belong to give authors a bias toward the characters, perspectives, and ideals they see and portray as moral and heroic archetypes in their writings.
The Ramayana is a Hindu epic written by a devout Hindu. The main character is a god incarnate, and many holy figures appear in very influential roles throughout the entirety of the epic. Valmiki, the generally agreed-upon author of the Ramayana, was an Indian sage and a Hindu; he wrote about Rama, also an Indian Hindu, besides also being an incarnation of Vishnu. Beowulf, while also being an epic, is historical fiction written by a Christian Englishman about Scandinavians who were most likely still pagan at the time of composition. Beowulf’s author, while his full identity is unknown, is known to most likely be an English poet with a Christian background. Hinduism is polytheistic and has very specific roles and duties for different people that must always be upheld. This duty is called dharma. These regulations are reflected in the many religious practices and events portrayed in the Ramayana, along with the character’s strict adherence to their sacred duties as Hindus. Religion pervades every part of a Hindu’s life: work, education, social status, marriage, and family life are all regulated by tradition and dharma. Christianity is similar in the emphasis placed on tradition, but also seems to stress singular belief more than Hinduism. The characters in Beowulf, however, are of rather questionable religious background (Cavill 16). When the story of Beowulf was discovered after Henry VIII dissolved the English monasteries, only a single manuscript survived (Raffel ix). This manuscript had a name written in it: Lawrence Nowell, a sixteenth-century scholar. It is not known, however, if his name is on the document because he wrote the story, because he recorded a traditionally oral narrative into writing, or any other thing about the origin of the story. Because of this, speculation abounds as to the original religion of the characters. The poet, though, inserts many direct references to Christianity; sometimes these references are even made by characters themselves and not just as narrator’s comments, leading most to estimate that the time of composition was either just before or just after the Norman Conquest, when Christianity was just beginning to replace paganism.
The criterion for the archetypal hero figure varies between these two cultures. In Anglo-Saxon Christian culture, the ideal man is, in the most basic terms, as close to Jesus (the only man to live without sin) as he can be. In this time period, Jesus was depicted as unselfish, humble, and a great warrior (Little). Beowulf, however, is written by a man with this Christian background, but about people from the still relatively pagan north. The nameless poet tried to imbue Beowulf with these values, but in the context of the feudal world of a fantastical Scandinavia. In Indian Hindu culture, the ideal man is one who upholds his dharma (duty) at all times, worships the gods, respects all, and only fights if his dharma is to fight. In a way, Rama could be seen as a Hindu equivalent of Jesus: he is a supreme god incarnate, his life is lived perfectly to his dharma, and his story has greatly influenced all of Indian culture since the composition of his story. The Ramayana was written about a Hindu by a Hindu, so he upholds every Hindu standard without being compromised to fit into another culture, as Beowulf was.
Both Beowulf and the Ramayana present their respective protagonists as archetypal heroic figures; these characters, though, have very different characteristics. Beowulf belongs to a society that is in constant warfare, and his favorable disposition toward fighting shows this. Beowulf is also, however, one who is “well-loved” by his men, who follow him “in friendship, not fear” and who is generous with his profits, brave in all situations, strong enough to rip a monster’s limb from its body, and delights in shedding the blood of anything wicked (Beowulf line 914). Most of these aspects of Beowulf correspond to the ideals upheld in early Christianity. Rama, for his part, is a constant upholder of his dharma, even when counseled against it by his peers and advisors. When his father banishes him to the forest for fourteen years at the request of his wife, Rama concedes, ignoring the pleas of his friends, because he believes that this edict is “his [father’s] dharma, and mine [Rama’s] to uphold it” (Menon 111). Upon his banishment, because he no longer has need of them, he gives all his possessions to his servants, showing his acceptance of his lost kingship (Menon 113).
In Beowulf, however, bequeathing treasure to another is not a sign of selflessness, nor is it a way to symbolize giving up a lofty status; it is a guarantee of friendship and fealty. A synonym for “king” in this epic is “ring-giver,” and a king who does not share his treasure is a king without friends (Beowulf 35, passim). Rama also only goes to war when his dharma demands, as when Sita is abducted. Even when rescuing Sita from Ravana, Rama does exactly what he must according to his dharma (in this case, save Sita), but no more: he does not take Sita back until she has undertaken a trial by fire, proving her purity. Much emphasis, though, is placed on the bond between a husband and wife; it is seen as a holy and perfect union, and, in the case of Sita and Rama, a perfect union between perfect people. In contrast, Beowulf is portrayed as neither desiring nor needing a woman, corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon disregard for women as much more than sex objects and means of effecting peace through marriage (Stelmach).
The villains of the stories also reflect the author’s cultures. In the Ramayana, Ravana is a demon who has gained near-impervious immortality through thousands of years of worshipping the Hindu gods in return for boons. In Beowulf, Grendel is a descendant of Cain, the first murderer in the Christian religion. Ravana uses his god-granted powers to rule his kingdom and to expand his empire when possible (Menon 20). Other than this greed and his sending rakshasas (demons) to harass holy men in the jungles, though, Ravana really is not as despicable as most would expect. While he does steal Sita away from Rama and keep her from leaving, he does not physically coerce her into anything, although he makes it clear that, should she comply, he would gladly make her part of his harem. Ravana is also well-learned, a dedicated Hindu, and a devoted king. This shows that Hindu villains need not be mindless killers; they can just as easily be intelligent, reasonable men led astray in a quest for power. Grendel, on the other hand, is a horrendous beast who raids King Hrothgar’s halls every night, killing and devouring all those who slept within. Grendel is little more than a bloodthirsty animal; he is not clearly possessed of any kind of higher intelligence or morals. His mother is also beastly, but she is more cunning. The dragon Beowulf fights in the end also does not seem to possess a human intelligence; its main characteristics are the uncanny ability to know when it has been stolen from and its thirst for violent vengeance. In directly relating two of the three villains of this story to Christianity by stating they are descendants of Cain, the poet modifies his subject culture to fit a Christian ideal. The antagonists of each epic also have different reasons for being antagonists; the villains in Beowulf exhibit more signs of personal intelligence, like Grendel’s mother and the dragon, and free will. These ideas of free will and autonomy are central to the Christian faith, which states that God made all men with free will with which to choose their paths; this idea is woven throughout the Scriptures. The rakshasa demons of the Ramayana are under the direction of Ravana; this idea of natural order, called rita, is central to Hinduism and gave rise to the concepts of karma and dharma.
Valmiki’s cultural and religious bias toward the beautiful, dharma-upholding Rama is clear in his portrayal of Rama’s divinity. Beowulf’s author clearly approves of the actions and ideals of his Beowulf, but not toward the actions and ideals Beowulf would likely have made and upheld in the time he was said to live. Without the poet’s Christianization of Beowulf, he would have simply been seen as a bloodthirsty, warmongering (if superhuman) prince. The tweaks that Beowulf’s author made in making Beowulf resemble an Anglo-Saxon Jesus changed the entire perspective a Christian has when reading Beowulf; in making him and his comrades good, moral Christians, he has made them archetypes of ideal men. Rama’s clearly stated divinity also makes him an automatic archetype, and his upholding of his dharma, coupled with multiple divine blessings, show this.
The author of Beowulf directly stated that the characters were Christian and inserted multiple religious comments within much of the narration, the most notable of which being the poet’s eight line “Song of Creation,” inserted right after the introduction of something much more central to the plot: Grendel (Beowulf 90-98). The Christianizing tweak made by Beowulf’s author did not go as far as to write in direct divine intervention. Beowulf’s story is not about divine figures using Earth as their battleground; it is about mortals rising up to defeat monsters of divine proportions. Rama’s story, however, is the opposite: rather than Rama being a mortal man, he is an incarnation of the highest god of Hinduism who becomes mortal to defeat an enemy invulnerable to immortals; this is another parallel to Jesus of Christianity.
Beowulf is not written to perfectly emulate Jesus because, according to the Christian religion, no mortal man could be perfect, as Jesus was. Instead, Beowulf is written as an archetype for a mortal, more secular man, but with the added bonus of being Christian. Beowulf was not descended from any god; he had no religious affiliation besides his semi-plausible Christianity. Rama, however, is a god incarnate, and as such is the perfect man. Rama is the Hindu archetype for the perfectly spiritual man.
The authors of Beowulf and the Ramayana wrote their stories with an unconscious bias toward their respective cultures and an eye towards their potential audiences. The Ramayana, as a text by a Hindu, about Hindus, and for Hindus, contains blueprints for living the perfect dharma-fulfilling life. Beowulf, as a text by a Christian, about people made Christian, and for Christians, contains modified characteristics for the ideal hero (Beowulf), but with the added bonus of Christianity (which gives a divine reason for all his killing). These authors gave their readers perfect men (and some women) to be used as blueprints for living as the perfect people in their respective times and cultural locations.
The Ramayana is a Hindu epic written by a devout Hindu. The main character is a god incarnate, and many holy figures appear in very influential roles throughout the entirety of the epic. Valmiki, the generally agreed-upon author of the Ramayana, was an Indian sage and a Hindu; he wrote about Rama, also an Indian Hindu, besides also being an incarnation of Vishnu. Beowulf, while also being an epic, is historical fiction written by a Christian Englishman about Scandinavians who were most likely still pagan at the time of composition. Beowulf’s author, while his full identity is unknown, is known to most likely be an English poet with a Christian background. Hinduism is polytheistic and has very specific roles and duties for different people that must always be upheld. This duty is called dharma. These regulations are reflected in the many religious practices and events portrayed in the Ramayana, along with the character’s strict adherence to their sacred duties as Hindus. Religion pervades every part of a Hindu’s life: work, education, social status, marriage, and family life are all regulated by tradition and dharma. Christianity is similar in the emphasis placed on tradition, but also seems to stress singular belief more than Hinduism. The characters in Beowulf, however, are of rather questionable religious background (Cavill 16). When the story of Beowulf was discovered after Henry VIII dissolved the English monasteries, only a single manuscript survived (Raffel ix). This manuscript had a name written in it: Lawrence Nowell, a sixteenth-century scholar. It is not known, however, if his name is on the document because he wrote the story, because he recorded a traditionally oral narrative into writing, or any other thing about the origin of the story. Because of this, speculation abounds as to the original religion of the characters. The poet, though, inserts many direct references to Christianity; sometimes these references are even made by characters themselves and not just as narrator’s comments, leading most to estimate that the time of composition was either just before or just after the Norman Conquest, when Christianity was just beginning to replace paganism.
The criterion for the archetypal hero figure varies between these two cultures. In Anglo-Saxon Christian culture, the ideal man is, in the most basic terms, as close to Jesus (the only man to live without sin) as he can be. In this time period, Jesus was depicted as unselfish, humble, and a great warrior (Little). Beowulf, however, is written by a man with this Christian background, but about people from the still relatively pagan north. The nameless poet tried to imbue Beowulf with these values, but in the context of the feudal world of a fantastical Scandinavia. In Indian Hindu culture, the ideal man is one who upholds his dharma (duty) at all times, worships the gods, respects all, and only fights if his dharma is to fight. In a way, Rama could be seen as a Hindu equivalent of Jesus: he is a supreme god incarnate, his life is lived perfectly to his dharma, and his story has greatly influenced all of Indian culture since the composition of his story. The Ramayana was written about a Hindu by a Hindu, so he upholds every Hindu standard without being compromised to fit into another culture, as Beowulf was.
Both Beowulf and the Ramayana present their respective protagonists as archetypal heroic figures; these characters, though, have very different characteristics. Beowulf belongs to a society that is in constant warfare, and his favorable disposition toward fighting shows this. Beowulf is also, however, one who is “well-loved” by his men, who follow him “in friendship, not fear” and who is generous with his profits, brave in all situations, strong enough to rip a monster’s limb from its body, and delights in shedding the blood of anything wicked (Beowulf line 914). Most of these aspects of Beowulf correspond to the ideals upheld in early Christianity. Rama, for his part, is a constant upholder of his dharma, even when counseled against it by his peers and advisors. When his father banishes him to the forest for fourteen years at the request of his wife, Rama concedes, ignoring the pleas of his friends, because he believes that this edict is “his [father’s] dharma, and mine [Rama’s] to uphold it” (Menon 111). Upon his banishment, because he no longer has need of them, he gives all his possessions to his servants, showing his acceptance of his lost kingship (Menon 113).
In Beowulf, however, bequeathing treasure to another is not a sign of selflessness, nor is it a way to symbolize giving up a lofty status; it is a guarantee of friendship and fealty. A synonym for “king” in this epic is “ring-giver,” and a king who does not share his treasure is a king without friends (Beowulf 35, passim). Rama also only goes to war when his dharma demands, as when Sita is abducted. Even when rescuing Sita from Ravana, Rama does exactly what he must according to his dharma (in this case, save Sita), but no more: he does not take Sita back until she has undertaken a trial by fire, proving her purity. Much emphasis, though, is placed on the bond between a husband and wife; it is seen as a holy and perfect union, and, in the case of Sita and Rama, a perfect union between perfect people. In contrast, Beowulf is portrayed as neither desiring nor needing a woman, corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon disregard for women as much more than sex objects and means of effecting peace through marriage (Stelmach).
The villains of the stories also reflect the author’s cultures. In the Ramayana, Ravana is a demon who has gained near-impervious immortality through thousands of years of worshipping the Hindu gods in return for boons. In Beowulf, Grendel is a descendant of Cain, the first murderer in the Christian religion. Ravana uses his god-granted powers to rule his kingdom and to expand his empire when possible (Menon 20). Other than this greed and his sending rakshasas (demons) to harass holy men in the jungles, though, Ravana really is not as despicable as most would expect. While he does steal Sita away from Rama and keep her from leaving, he does not physically coerce her into anything, although he makes it clear that, should she comply, he would gladly make her part of his harem. Ravana is also well-learned, a dedicated Hindu, and a devoted king. This shows that Hindu villains need not be mindless killers; they can just as easily be intelligent, reasonable men led astray in a quest for power. Grendel, on the other hand, is a horrendous beast who raids King Hrothgar’s halls every night, killing and devouring all those who slept within. Grendel is little more than a bloodthirsty animal; he is not clearly possessed of any kind of higher intelligence or morals. His mother is also beastly, but she is more cunning. The dragon Beowulf fights in the end also does not seem to possess a human intelligence; its main characteristics are the uncanny ability to know when it has been stolen from and its thirst for violent vengeance. In directly relating two of the three villains of this story to Christianity by stating they are descendants of Cain, the poet modifies his subject culture to fit a Christian ideal. The antagonists of each epic also have different reasons for being antagonists; the villains in Beowulf exhibit more signs of personal intelligence, like Grendel’s mother and the dragon, and free will. These ideas of free will and autonomy are central to the Christian faith, which states that God made all men with free will with which to choose their paths; this idea is woven throughout the Scriptures. The rakshasa demons of the Ramayana are under the direction of Ravana; this idea of natural order, called rita, is central to Hinduism and gave rise to the concepts of karma and dharma.
Valmiki’s cultural and religious bias toward the beautiful, dharma-upholding Rama is clear in his portrayal of Rama’s divinity. Beowulf’s author clearly approves of the actions and ideals of his Beowulf, but not toward the actions and ideals Beowulf would likely have made and upheld in the time he was said to live. Without the poet’s Christianization of Beowulf, he would have simply been seen as a bloodthirsty, warmongering (if superhuman) prince. The tweaks that Beowulf’s author made in making Beowulf resemble an Anglo-Saxon Jesus changed the entire perspective a Christian has when reading Beowulf; in making him and his comrades good, moral Christians, he has made them archetypes of ideal men. Rama’s clearly stated divinity also makes him an automatic archetype, and his upholding of his dharma, coupled with multiple divine blessings, show this.
The author of Beowulf directly stated that the characters were Christian and inserted multiple religious comments within much of the narration, the most notable of which being the poet’s eight line “Song of Creation,” inserted right after the introduction of something much more central to the plot: Grendel (Beowulf 90-98). The Christianizing tweak made by Beowulf’s author did not go as far as to write in direct divine intervention. Beowulf’s story is not about divine figures using Earth as their battleground; it is about mortals rising up to defeat monsters of divine proportions. Rama’s story, however, is the opposite: rather than Rama being a mortal man, he is an incarnation of the highest god of Hinduism who becomes mortal to defeat an enemy invulnerable to immortals; this is another parallel to Jesus of Christianity.
Beowulf is not written to perfectly emulate Jesus because, according to the Christian religion, no mortal man could be perfect, as Jesus was. Instead, Beowulf is written as an archetype for a mortal, more secular man, but with the added bonus of being Christian. Beowulf was not descended from any god; he had no religious affiliation besides his semi-plausible Christianity. Rama, however, is a god incarnate, and as such is the perfect man. Rama is the Hindu archetype for the perfectly spiritual man.
The authors of Beowulf and the Ramayana wrote their stories with an unconscious bias toward their respective cultures and an eye towards their potential audiences. The Ramayana, as a text by a Hindu, about Hindus, and for Hindus, contains blueprints for living the perfect dharma-fulfilling life. Beowulf, as a text by a Christian, about people made Christian, and for Christians, contains modified characteristics for the ideal hero (Beowulf), but with the added bonus of Christianity (which gives a divine reason for all his killing). These authors gave their readers perfect men (and some women) to be used as blueprints for living as the perfect people in their respective times and cultural locations.