Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 2/?

The Dasharatha Jataka



2. And here follows the relevant Jataka - "Dasaratha jAtaka" - badly plagiarised from The Ramayana, and ending with how the Bauddhified clone of Rama was a past-life of the Buddha.



wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/the-jataka-volume-iv/d/doc80635.html

The Jataka, Volume IV



Contents / No. 461.: Dasaratha-Jātaka. No. 461.: Dasaratha-Jātaka.

[1]



"Let Lakkhaṇa," etc.—This story the Master told in Jetavana about a landowner whose father was dead. This man on his father's death was overwhelmed with sorrow: leaving all his duties undone, he gave himself up to his sorrow wholly. The Master at dawn of day looking out upon mankind, perceived that he was ripe for attaining the fruit of the First Path. Next day, after going his rounds for alms in Sāvatthi, his meal done, he dismissed the Brethren, and taking with him a junior Brother, [124] went to this man's house, and gave him greeting, and addressed him as he sat there in words of honey sweetness. "You are in sorrow, lay Brother?" said he. "Yes, Sir, afflicted with sorrow for my father's sake." Said the Master, "Lay Brother, wise men of old who exactly knew the eight conditions of this world[2], felt at a father's death no grief, not even a little." Then at his request he told a story of the past.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Once upon a time, at Benares, a great king named Dasaratha renounced the ways of evil, and reigned in righteousness. Of his sixteen thousand wives, the eldest and queen-consort bore him two sons and a daughter; the elder son was named Rama-paṇḍita, or Rama the Wise, the second was named Prince Lakkhaṇa, or Lucky, and the daughter's name was the Lady Sītā[3].



In course of time, the queen-consort died. At her death the king was for a long time crushed by sorrow, but urged by his courtiers he performed her obsequies, and set another in her place as queen-consort. She was dear to the king and beloved. In time she also conceived, and all due attention having been given her, she brought forth a son, and they named him Prince Bharata.



The king loved his son much, and said to the queen, "Lady, I offer you a boon: choose." She accepted the offer, but put it off for the time. When the lad was seven years old, she went to the king, and said to him, "My lord, you promised a boon for my son. Will you give it me now?" "Choose, lady," said he. "My lord," quoth she, "give my son the kingdom." The king snapt his fingers at her; "Out, vile jade!" said he angrily, "my other two sons shine like blazing fires; would you kill them, and ask the kingdom for a son of yours?" She fled in terror to her magnificent chamber, and on other days again and again asked the king for this. The king would not give her this gift. He thought within himself: "Women are ungrateful and treacherous. This woman might use a forged letter or a treacherous bribe to get my sons murdered." So he sent for his sons, and told them all about it, saying: "My sons, if you live here some mischief may befall you. Go to some neighbouring kingdom, or to the woodland, and when my body is burnt, then return and inherit the kingdom which belongs to your family." Then he summoned soothsayers, and asked them the limits of his own life. They told him he would live yet twelve years longer. [125] Then he said, "Now, my sons, after twelve years you must return, and uplift the umbrella of royalty." They promised, and after taking leave of their father, went forth from the palace weeping. The Lady Sītā said, "I too will go with my brothers:" she bade her father farewell, and went forth weeping.



These three departed amidst a great company of people. They sent the people back, and proceeded until at last they came to Himalaya. There in a spot well-watered, and convenient for the getting of wild fruits, they built a hermitage, and there lived, feeding upon the wild fruits.



Lakkhaṇa-paṇḍita and Sītā said to Rāma-paṇḍita, "You are in place of a father to us; remain then in the hut, and we will bring wild fruit, and feed you." He agreed: thenceforward Rāma-paṇḍita stayed where he was, the others brought the wild fruit and fed him with it.



Thus they lived there, feeding upon the wild fruit; but King Dasaratha pined after his sons, and died in the ninth year. When his obsequies were performed, the queen gave orders that the umbrella should be raised over her son, Prince Bharata. But the courtiers said, "The lords of the umbrella are dwelling in the forest," and they would not allow it. Said Prince Bharata, "I will fetch back my brother Rāmapaṇḍita from the forest, and raise the royal umbrella over him." Taking the five emblems of royalty[4], he proceeded with a complete host of the four arms[5] to their dwelling-place. Not far away he caused camp to be pitched, and then with a few courtiers he visited the hermitage, at the time when Lakkhaṇa-paṇḍita and Sītā were away in the woods. At the door of the hermitage sat Rama-paṇḍita, undismayed and at ease, like a figure of fine gold firmly set. The prince approached him with a greeting, and standing on one side, told him of all that had happened in the kingdom, and falling at his feet along with the courtiers, burst into weeping. Rama-paṇḍita neither sorrowed nor wept; emotion in his mind was none. When Bharata had finished weeping, and sat down, towards evening the other two returned with wild fruits. Rama-paṇḍita thought—"These two are young: all-comprehending wisdom like mine is not theirs. [126] If they are told on a sudden that our father is dead, the pain will be greater than they can bear, and who knows but their hearts may break. I will persuade them to go down into the water, and find a means of disclosing the truth." Then pointing out to them a place in front where there was water, he said, "You have been out too long: let this be your penance—go into that water, and stand there." Then he repeated a half-stanza:



"Let Lakkhaṇa and Sītā both into that pond descend."



One word sufficed, into the water they went, and stood there. Then he told them the news by repeating the other half-stanza:



"Bharata says, king Dasaratha's life is at an end."



When they heard the news of their father's death, they fainted. Again he repeated it, again they fainted, and when even a third time they fainted away, the courtiers raised them and brought them out of the water, and set them upon dry ground. When they had been comforted, they all sat weeping and wailing together. Then Prince Bharata thought: "My brother Prince Lakkhaṇa, and my sister the Lady Sītā, cannot restrain their grief to hear of our father's death; but Rama-paṇḍita neither wails nor weeps. I wonder what can the reason be that he grieves not? I will ask." Then he repeated the second stanza, asking the question:



"Say by what power thou grievest not, Rāma, when grief should be?

Though it is said thy sire is dead grief overwhelms not thee!"



Then Rāma-paṇḍita explained the reason of his feeling no grief by saying,



"When man can never keep a thing, though loudly he may cry,

Why should a wise intelligence torment itself thereby?



[127] "The young in years, the older grown, the fool, and eke the wise,

For rich, for poor one end is sure: each man among them dies.



As sure as for the ripened fruit there comes the fear of fall,

So surely comes the fear of death to mortals one and all.



"Who in the morning light are seen by evening oft are gone,

And seen at evening time, is gone by morning many a one.



"If to a fool infatuate a blessing could accrue

When he torments himself with tears, the wise this same would do.



"By this tormenting of himself he waxes thin and pale;

This cannot bring the dead to life, and nothing tears avail.



"Even as a blazing house may be put out with water, so

The strong, the wise, the intelligent, who well the scriptures know,

Scatter their grief like cotton when the stormy winds do blow.



"One mortal dies—to kindred ties born is another straight:

Each creature's bliss dependent is on ties associate.



"The strong man therefore, skilled in sacred text,

Keen-contemplating this world and the next,

Knowing their nature, not by any grief,

However great, in mind and heart is vext.



"So to my kindred I will give, them will I keep and feed,

All that remain I will maintain: such is the wise man's deed[6]."



In these stanzas he explained the Impermanence of things.



[129] When the company heard this discourse of Rāma-paṇḍita, illustrating the doctrine of Impermanence, they lost all their grief. Then Prince Bharata saluted Rāma-paṇḍita, begging him to receive the kingdom of Benares. "Brother," said Rāma, "take Lakkhaṇa and Sītā with you, and administer the kingdom yourselves." "No, my lord, you take it." "Brother, my father commanded me to receive the kingdom at the end of twelve years. If I go now, I shall not carry out his bidding. After three more years I will come." "Who will carry on the government all that time?" "You do it." "I will not." "Then until I come, these slippers shall do it," said Rāma, and doffing his slippers of straw he gave them to his brother. So these three persons took the slippers, and bidding the wise man farewell, went to Benares with their great crowd of followers.



For three years the slippers ruled the kingdom. The courtiers placed these straw slippers upon the royal throne, when they judged a cause. If the cause were decided wrongly, [130] the slippers beat upon each other[7], and at that sign it was examined again; when the decision was right, the slippers lay quiet.



When the three years were over, the wise man came out of the forest, and came to Benares, and entered the park. The princes hearing of his arrival proceeded with a great company to the park, and making Sītā the queen consort, gave to them both the ceremonial sprinkling. The sprinkling thus performed, the Great Being standing in a magnificent chariot, and surrounded by a vast company, entered the city, making a solemn circuit right-wise; then mounting to the great terrace of his splendid palace Sucandaka, he reigned there in righteousness for sixteen thousand years, and then went to swell the hosts of heaven.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





This stanza of Perfect Wisdom explains the upshot:





"Years sixty times a hundred, and ten thousand more, all told,

Reigned strong-armed Rāma, on his neck the lucky triple fold."

[8]



The Master having ended this discourse, declared the Truths, and identified the Birth: (now at the conclusion of the Truths, the land-owner was established in the fruit of the First Path "At that time the king Suddhodana[9] was king Dasaratha, Mahāmāyā[9] was the mother, Rāhulā's mother[10] was Sītā, Ānanda was Bharata, and I myself was Rāma-paṇḍita."







- Footnotes:

1.

Edited and translated by V. Fausbøl, The Dasaratha Jātaka, Copenhagen, 1871. The story is like that of the Rāmāyana, except that here Sītā is the hero's sister, not his wife.

(At least those who penned the footnotes don't pretend there is any other original Ramayana than the Valmeeki one. See how it compares the later Jataka with "the Rāmāyana", which speaks of the Valmeeki original self-evidently.)



[...]

7.

This last incident is an addition to the narrative in the Rāmāyana, ii. 115, nor is it found in Tulsī Dās’ Hindi version.

(Don't know why the footnotes even bother to list a few additions and instances of divergence, when it has ignored other ones.)



9.

Gotama Buddha's father and mother.



10.

Gotama Buddha's wife.

Clearly, as any *Hindu* should be able to see, and despite Elst's attempts to present otherwise (by conveniently leaving out the crucial details of the alleged Rama in the Jataka), this earliest Buddhist clone of Rama - like the other even later Buddhist clones and like all Jain clones of Rama - is Not the same as the Rama of the Hindus, i.e. not the same as the Rama et al seen in the Valmeeki original or other HindOO Ramayanas, all steeped firmly in the Hindoo tradition. Both Jainism and Buddhism are talking about entirely different things (from the Hindoo original), both having not only plagiarised but also having nothing to do with the ancient Hindu tradition of Rama seen in Valmeeki, which last is however echoed in every local Hindoo rendition of the Ramayanam down to brief references too.*



Besides the fictional Buddhist clone of Rama still having a lot to reincarnate (paradoxically with his anatman) - being only a "Bodhisatva - before he could finally apear as the Buddha and attain nirvana, and besides the obvious case of the Bauddhified clone of Sita being rewritten as a sister, and the other change mentioned in footnote 7, here are some other obvious ones:



- "Benares" not Ayodhya and exiled to a forest in the Himalaya. Both seem to be places of Buddhist long-term evangelisation at the time that the Buddhist story (Dasaratha Jataka) was set. Benares is frequently declared as a backdrop in the Jatakas.



- The fictional Buddhist clone of Dasharatha thinks nothing of breaking his word to his wife. Whereas the original Hindoo Dasharatha ultimately died for his word. And Rama too refused to break his word to his father - holding truth paramount - despite everybody from his brother and mothers and preceptors pleading for him to return on his father's passing. Like Dasharatha was bound by his word - to be true - so too, Rama, following the example of his ancestors, kept his word. The Buddhist version subverts the importance of the oath truly given in Vedic religion.



- Makes it seem like it was Dasharatha who wanted Rama to go.



- On return from the exile, the Buddhist clone of Rama is made the king while the Buddhist clone Sita - who is here his sister - is made the "queen consort", i.e. the sister is made to marry the brother, contrary to ancestral religion. (Wonder if they were merely trying to aggravate Hindus? Reminds me of a Jain version that tried the same too. Subversionists often colluded in offending - as they do even today, see "Shramanism" and "ur-Shramanism" peddlers). Incest tends to be disallowed in Vedic religion.



- No Ravana etc arc at all. The Buddhist copy starts and stops at plagiarising the Ayodhyakanda of Valmeeki's original. This fact, by the way, is telling for reasons to come in a later post.

Presumably plagiarising anymore would make the single Jataka too long and involved perhaps: too many "morals" to impart. So they pillaged parts of the Ramayanam and strung together several Jatakas therewith, though this one is the one 'closest' to the original Hindoo Ramayana of the Vedic religion.



- Total inversion of Rama's character and actions here. In the real Ramayanam, the real Rama is devastated by the loss of his father and faints on hearing of his passing. Rama, Lakshmana and Sita all cry/mourn. See valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga103/ayodhya_103_frame.htm



The fact that the Buddhist spin has Rama deliberately not fainting - it is made the "pivot" of the story and the dialogue/sermon/lecture that follows - shows that it intentionally departed from the original here. Nothing is made of Rama fainting or mourning in the original Ramayanam - it is assumed natural and expected: Rama loved his father deeply and is predictably devastated by the realisation of the loss - but far too much is made of the Bauddhified Rama specifically Not fainting, showing that it is a gross copy, made to depart only so that questions would naturally get asked about this point of divergence ("why didn't Rama faint?" [while his behaviour got projected onto Lakshmana and Sita]).



Unlike the Buddhist copy who could never exist, Rama loved his father. Sure, Rama is generally filled with equanimity, especially where his own fortunes and situation are concerned, but he's not some robot like the Bauddhified clone (who is obviously invented). Rama is Not a Sannyasin and *cares* about this life and this world and to make it a better world for all in the Now and the Here, which will allow a better pursuit among all concerning the Beyond. And Rama is happy to be happy with his family and friends, instead of going on about some Buddhist lala-land/afterstate, which after-state was also badly copied from Hindu religion and subverted.

Rama even had IIRC tears when Bharata and his mothers and subjects departed. He was heartbroken at the separation from his wife, he was tormented by very real fears for the loss of his brother Lakshmana and overjoyed when the latter was resuscitated. He was angry with wrong-doers. Not some late-Indian post-Vedic new-agey character from the many new-agey religions doing the rounds in the Shramanist era. He was not unemotional or unfeeling, but lived a full life, following THE Dharma=Vedic Dharma alone, to set a true example. His heroism was derived from his great care for the world and to do right by it and by all, and to be a compass for the native heathens of Hindoo lands.



Anyway, none but new-agey "Hindus" will insist that the original Rama of the Hindoos' religion and the Bauddhified Rama of the Buddhist Jatakas (or any Buddhist or Jain Rama clones) are one and the same. So let that be an end to Elst and the like trying to brainwash/subvert modern Hindus into blindly swallowing that the Buddhist (or Jain) clones have anything to do with the original Hindu Rama.