Shambuka Story: Vindicating Rama

 

Shambuka Story: Vindicating Rama

The Shambuka story is one of the controversial portions in the Ramayana, assuming Uttara Khanda is canonical. While I do think Uttarakhanda is a latter addition to the Valmiki Ramayana, I still believe its core narratives were from the same tradition as the main Valkmiki Ramayana. The Shambuka story is basically Rama killing Shambuka for doing austerities as a Shudra (something prohibited in the Treta Yuga), which led to the death of a brahmin boy. This incident has sparked uproar for its seeming casteism. This blog post will try to vindicate Rama and try to show the histoircal and theological context that this narratives plays out in. 

When Rama encounters Shambuka, he asks him who he is and what he is doing. When Shambuka confirms Rama's suspicion, he kills him on the spot with his sword.    

Chapter 76 of the Uttarakhanda

"“O Rama, I was born of a Shudra alliance and I am performing this rigorous penance in order to acquire the status of a God in this body. I am not telling a lie, O Rama, I wish to attain the Celestial Region. Know that I am a Shudra and my name is Shambuka.”

As he was yet speaking, Raghava, drawing his brilliant and stainless sword from its scabbard, cut off his head. The Shudra being slain, all the Gods and their leaders with Agni’s followers, cried out, “Well done! Well done!” overwhelming Rama with praise, and a rain of celestial flowers of divine fragrance fell on all sides, scattered by Vayu. In their supreme satisfaction, the Gods said to that hero, Rama:—

“You have protected the interests of the Gods, O Highly Intelligent Prince, now ask a boon, O Beloved Offspring of Raghu, Destroyer of Your Foes. By your grace, this Shudra will not be able to attain heaven!”

Hearing the words of the Gods, that hero of the region of truth, with joined palms, addressed Purandara of a Thousand Eyes, saying:—

“Since the Gods are gratified with me, let the son of that brahmin be resuscitated! Accord me this, the greatest of all favours! It is on account of my negligence that this child, the only son of that brahmin, has died before his time. Give him back his life! May prosperity be yours! I have promised that I would restore his son to this Twice-born, do not let my words prove false!”

Thus spoke Raghava and the foremost of the Celestials, full of joy, gave him this reply, enhancing his felicity:—

“O Kakutstha be happy! This very day that child has received new life and has been restored to his parents. The child was resuscitated at the instant that the head of the Shudra fell."

Now, other than Shambuka's caste, the other factor overlooked is that Shambuka was trying to acquire the status of a god while in a corporal body. Just like the case of Trishanku, this act is seen as sacrelige. However, that being said, Shambuka's caste was the primary factor for Rama slaying him. 

In order o understand why Rama did what he did, we must consider the role of a King that Rama assumes. In the Ancient Indian ideals of kingship, a kingis sworn to uphold the law of the land, which in turn is based on the dictums of the Shastras. As a king, Rama is not above, nor even equal, to Dharma, including Varnashrama Dharma. This was the "checks and balances" for that abosulte monarchy. Hence, Shambuka's transgression of doing a Tapasya as a Shudra in the Treta Yuga (as it is permited in Kali Yuga) was something Rama was bound to rectify, whether he liked it or not.  

Narada tells Rama:

"The practice of unrighteousness, be it in the city or the country, brings about misfortune and the monarch who does not mete out an immediate punishment, goes to hell, of this there is no doubt." (Uttara Kanda, Chapter 74)

Rama is not Krishna to tamper with the norms of human society. Being in the form of a mortal man on Earth, he has to act as per Narada's teaching.  

In the Uttararamacaritra, when Rama is about to kill Shambuka, he laments that his right hand (addressed to in third person as if a sentient being) had not trouble exiling Sita, but is hesitating at striking Shambuka. Here, Rama is distancing himself from the deed of killing Shambuka to uphold the Varnashrama Dharma (or "brahmincal codes of Dharma"). lamenting how he is doing a task he doesn't want to do, even if it is "Dharmic" [1]. Bhavabhuti's version can be seen as challenging caste norms, it doesn't break down caste heirarchy all together, as Rama speaks for Shambuka and not with him [1]. 

However, all of this is to say is that this incident can't be used to call Rama a "casteist" since as a king, he had no choice but do what he did.  On a brighter note, in this version, when Shambuka dies, he is magically reborn as a divine being, and Rama blesses him to enjoy the fruits of his austerities, showing how Karmically complex this is [1].  

Now, at least theologically speaking, none of this was an attempt to preserve "brahminical supremacy" or any thing like that, even if it may look that way. This brings me on to why Vedic people were pedantic about Shudras dealing with the Vedic mantras or Tapasya.

Amidst all this discourse on whether Rama was a casteist or not, not one seems to notice the fact that Shudra doing Tapasya magically caused the death of a brahmin boy (something considered very ominous in Vedic society) and that killing Shambuka magically bought the boy back to life. Canonically, monkeys and birds can talk and a woman can burn fire itself, so why would a brahmin boy magically dying by Shambuka be so far fetched.

If this was to be considered a violation of order, it was one of cosmic order and not "braminical order". Though admitedly, social order, with Brahmins on the top, was seen as subset of cosmic order. However, we can't just reduce this to "brahmin conspiracy against the lower castes" as the primary explanation. The reason this was a threat to world order was that the portents caused by a Shudra doing austerity, or Vedic chanting for that matter, were considred as real and not metaphorically breaking down abstract rigid social constructs. Neither are these portents punishments for "offending the sanctity of the Vedas", because the Vedas are not sentient entities.  

In the Ananda Ramayana, another retelling of the epic, concepts of pollution and ridgid social heirarchy are tempered. For example, there was a seen a monk hurled a rock at a dog for being poilluting and Rama declared the monk as unjust [1]. However, even here, Rama still ended up killing Shambuka for his austerities as a Shudra. In this version however, multiple people of different Varnas and from both genders die ad not just a brahmin boy [1].In this version, Rama says to Shambuka that he must kill him in order to revive the people who died, but that he will offer him a boon for his austerities [1].  Hence, even with the concept of hedgemonic heirarchy partly muted, there was something still portentous about a Shudra doing Tapasya. 

The reason is that Vedic mantras and Asceticism were not things for show, they are believed to wield real, mighty power. In Mimamsa, words-- mantric words-- have actual power to bring about effects. They were like proto-spells and proto-charms, primitive magic. A similar belief of the power of speech is found in the Celts. The Nordic Galdr were ritual chants to aminpulate reality. Returning to Mimamsa, when one chants Mantras, they create Apurvas, which unseen potencies for effects. For example, when one chants mantras while doing a Yajna to bring rain, a potency or potential--that is an increase in probability-- for rainfall is created. That potency may manifest immediately or in the far future. 

When an ritually incompetant person, like a Shudra or uninitiated Brahmin, chants these powerful Mantras or does related ritual practices, either they effects don't manifest (like a Muggle doing magic) or the effects manifest deliteriously (like a spell cast gone wrong), somtimes impacting other people. 

Shambuka, ritualistically a Shudra, doing potent austerities genereted adverse Apurvas that manifested in the death of a Brahmin boy. He literally did a magic ritual that he wasn't worthy to do and that magic ritual backfired. Therefore, Rama, in order to contain the omen, had to kill Shambuka to "reverse the curse". This has nothing to do with upholding Brahminical supremacy.

In fact on that note, the problem with blaming the Shastras directly for people to judge based on caste, especially for case slike this, is that the Shastras aren't some sort of oligarchs commanding people what to do. Rather they are textbooks that reveal the metaphysical and supernatural nature of reality. They outline that doing certain things will generate certain effects, and any prohibition they may say is in the context of not wanting people to face these karmic effects. In simple terms, the Shastra doesn't instruct "a Shudra shouldn't chant the Vedas", but rather teaches "a Shudra chanting the Vedas will bring adverse potencies" (and it goes without saying no one wants to risk adverse potencies).  

Of course, in real life it begs the question of whether Mantras and Tapasya really have those potent powers fabled in the legends. The theological explanation is that in the Kali Yuga, the powers are no longer potent. As some may know, ne of the mordern explanations for the Vedic animal sacrifices is that the Brahmins could revive the slaughtered animal by chanting the mantras, and in the Kali Yuga, no brahmin has that power, thus maing animal sacrifices prohibited in this era. From a histroical prespective, I do belive brahminical hegemony is at play, but that fear of adverse effects of chanting the Vedic mantras was the dominant factor, and only infused with the idea of Brahmical order, rather than vice versa.   

Citations:

1) https://digitalcommons.oberlin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=honors