Chapter Seven: Literature of the Rasika Tradition
Bhagavan Rama is the chosen deity because the qualities of both paratva and saulabhya abound in him. Paratva indicates the greatness of the chosen Lord, and saulabhya his gracious accessibility.
Madhuracharya considers the Śrī Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa “unsurpassed, faultless, eternal, and composed of rasa.”1 The entire work is wholly the life of Sri Sita.2 In Canto 16 of the Sundara-kāṇḍa, Hanuman explicitly acknowledges that Ramachandra performed every difficult deed solely for Sita’s sake.3 Thus the whole work has Sita as its cause; because it gives primacy to a woman, its governing rasa is śṛṅgāra.4
Just as Sri Ramachandra is the cause of all other avatāras, the Śrī Rāmāyaṇa is the cause of every other verbal composition—poetry, Purana, and the rest. It is self-authenticating and requires no further authority.5 Among the avatāras, Sri Ramachandra alone is the complete embodiment of śṛṅgāra-rasa, because Sri Krishna is a partial avatāra of Sri Rama. In truth, every other avatāra is merely an avatāra; Sri Rama alone is the source who descends.
As stated earlier, Madhuracharya did not regard the paramour or extramarital disposition as the cause of love’s supreme intensity. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas held the paramour disposition to be superior because—
Footnotes
-
Sundaramaṇi-sandarbha, p. 10. ↩
-
“The entire poem of the Rāmāyaṇa is the great life of Sita.” Ibid., p. 11. ↩
-
Hanuman enumerates what Rama endured for wide-eyed Sita: Bali and Kabandha were slain, Sugriva gained honour, Viradha fell in battle, Rama suffered greatly, the hosts of monkeys were sent in every direction, the ocean was crossed, and the whole earth was searched. “For her sake I would count even the destruction of the world as little.” Ibid., pp. 14–15. ↩
-
“The Rāmāyaṇa gives primacy to a woman; therefore śṛṅgāra-rasa is principally taught here.” Ibid., p. 20. ↩
-
Madhuracharya argues that, just as Rama is the cause of everything other than himself, the Rāmāyaṇa is the cause of all other literature and has Veda-like authority without dependence upon another proof. Ibid., p. 23. ↩