Four Approaches To The Ramayana

That can help us better understand the epic

By Chaitanya Charana Dasa

When we approach an ancient epic like the Ramayana, how can we best learn from it? What would be its relevance in today’s world given that it was written thousands of years ago and the world has changed enormously since then? To make the epic accessible to contemporary audiences, I have seen the tradition’s teachers use four broad approaches. The idea that these divine stories can be perceived in multiple ways is widely accepted in the tradition (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.1.4). The nineteenth-century philosopher-saint Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura mentions multiple approaches in his Krishna-samhita (Introduction), wherein he links three approaches with three levels of spiritual evolution among readers.

Though the four approaches we overview here have not been explicitly mentioned by any traditional teacher as far as I have seen, examples of their implicit use in different expositions on the epic can easily be discerned by reflective audiences. These four approaches are not necessarily exhaustive; the epic can be viewed in some other ways too. And these approaches are not mutually exclusive; one approach can transit into another during the natural flow of a discussion. Nonetheless, placing various approaches within a specific number of distinct categories can give us tangible and accessible tools for our study of the epic. While these approaches could be placed in a hierarchy and thereby called “levels,” I prefer to address them as “perspectives” because that terminology frees us to explore the epic in the way we find enriching without being burdened by worries about rising rapidly to higher “levels.”

These four perspectives can be summarized in the acronym LEAD: literal, ethical, allegorical, and devotional. Let’s look at them one-by-one.

Literal Perspective

Herein, we see the epic at face value and study the stories as accounts of what happened without delving into historical precision of the details or non-literal significance of story elements. While some may deem such a perspective simplistic or naive, this is the perspective through which most grand narratives throughout history have been accessed and even relished by people in general. From this perspective, the stories are primarily seen as sources of entertainment, with an optional bonus sprinkling of some life-wisdom. Given that epics like the Ramayana are considered sacred, even the entertainment derived from hearing it is considered pious. For thousands of years, parents or grandparents have told the Ramayana’s stories to their progeny. By their oral rendition of these stories, they have kept the tradition alive within the family, as have bards and raconteurs (kathakaras) beyond the family. Apart from such prose narration, the tradition has lived on, even expanded, through many other formats such as dramas, poems, paintings, and nowadays, through TV series, movies, animations, and even AI depictions. Such mass outreach keeps the stories within the horizon of the consciousness of even people who are not too interested in the tradition or the epic.

The Bhagavad-gita (6.17) acknowledges the human need for entertainment and urges that we fulfill this need in a way that is regulated so that it keeps us connected with life’s higher realities. For such healthy and wholesome entertainment, the Ramayana has been an enduring resource for millions for millennia. Whether we consider the Ramayana to be one large story or whether we look at specific incidents within it as distinct stories, there is much in the epic that is intriguing and even gripping.

Most people are likely to be introduced to the epic from this literal perspective. And most of them may not feel the need to go beyond this perspective in their conscious exploration of the epic, even when they may be unconsciously drawing some insights or inspirations from some of the other perspectives. A caveat is apt here: despite the prevalence and prominence of this perspective, it is by no means the only perspective with which the epic has been accessed. More importantly, approaching the epic from this perspective is not meant to limit our vision of the epic’s scope — there is much, much more to it than its literal recitation and reception for the purpose of entertainment.

Ethical Perspective

Herein, we view the storyline of the Ramayana as something akin to a morality play, though of course the Ramayana storyline is far more subtle and sophisticated than any morality play. In this perspective, we observe the choices made by the various characters in their specific circumstances, contemplate how those choices lead to corresponding consequences and learn thereby to make healthy choices in our circumstances. Most traditional reciters of the epics frequently bring in some such lessons in their recitations. The Bhagavad-gita (16.24) too recommends that we contemplate scripture for guiding our decision-making.

A question may arise: Are the epics ethically relevant for us, given that the circumstances in the Ramayana differ widely from our circumstances? Their non-relevance may be accentuated by two facts: several of the characters within the epics operate in arenas that seem fantastic to us; and they have abilities that may seem unbelievable to us and are largely unavailable to us. Nonetheless, despite these dissimilarities in arenas and abilities, they are similar to us in their aspirations and limitations. They exhibit desires and fears that are remarkably similar to us: they too long to love and be loved. And they too seek things similar to what we do: purpose and power and pleasure. While pursuing such things, they too are constrained by the same governing principle that we are: choices have consequences. Despite their special powers, they too are constrained in their choices by their circumstances; they too have to sometimes make choices whose consequences are unpalatable yet unavoidable; they too deliberate and discuss their choices while trying to determine the best course of action. Even if the specifics in our deliberation and discussions are likely to be different, the epics can still provide us with prototypes or frameworks for our deliberation and discussion on ethical decision-making.

Many of the characters in epics like the Ramayana are considered by the tradition to be special, even sacred. Consequently, the ethical analysis of their choices is often infused with a spirit of humility rather than superiority. That means we resist the temptation to reduce the epic’s characters to convenient labels based on some of their actions; instead, from their choices, we strive to learn principles that can inform our decision-making. Put succinctly, we focus on what is right, rather than who is right.

Such emphasis on humility among readers doesn’t mean that the epic doesn’t itself draw moral distinctions; or that some of its characters are clearly virtuous and others clearly villainous. Humility is not meant to make us morally color-blind; it is meant to help us notice moral nuances. We don’t dismiss the villains as being cartoonishly cruel; they too have some noteworthy qualities, though they unfortunately misuse those qualities. Their negative roles notwithstanding, the very fact that they are present in sacred epics makes them special. Additionally, and more importantly, a humble attitude in ethical analysis protects us from an unhealthy judgmentalism toward normally virtuous characters who sometimes make less-than-stellar choices. 

Allegorical Perspective

Herein, we see the characters in the Ramayana as far more than mere individuals in a narrative; we see them as manifestations of universal human traits and types, be they positive or negative. Thus, for example, the main negative protagonist in the Ramayana, Ravana, is widely considered to be the embodiment of the universal human frailty of lust, specifically lust that is so self-centered and self-serving as to end up becoming self-sabotaging and even self-destructive. It is this symbolism of Ravana as the embodiment of evil that is depicted in the burning of the effigies of Ravana in the spectacular visual festival of Dussehra, which is a precursor in the Indian calendar to the more widely-known festival of lights, Diwali.

While the allegorical perspective has been used by traditional commentators, many of the tradition’s contemporary teachers, especially those interacting with the modern emphasis on historicity, insist on a caveat. They assert that such an allegorical perspective, or for that matter, any non-literal perspective, needs to be seen as a complement, not a replacement, to the historical perspective. That is, they object strongly to the tendency among some circles to deem the epics as merely mythological, wherein their historicity is deemed not just questionable but even irrational and indefensible. In the pan-Indian culture, the epics have undoubtedly attained a myth-like influence, partly because they were originally written as poetry with various literary ornaments and partly because they have been retold countless times with various embellishments that align to varying degrees with the original narrative in letter or spirit. Despite their myth-like stature, the epics are, the tradition’s teachers emphasize, not merely myths devoid of historical content. To illustrate how such teachers see the allegorical and historical perspectives to be complementary, consider the character Ravana: he is considered to be a historical person who existed long ago; and he represents a mentality that is prevalent in humanity at all times.

The allegorical perspective is sometimes also referred to as a metaphorical perspective, but a more accurate word for describing this perspective may well be metonymical rather than metaphorical. Metaphors and metonyms are both figures of speech wherein one thing is used to point to something else; yet there’s a critical difference between them. In a metaphor, there is no intrinsic connection between the object that is used to explain and the object to be explained. In a metonym, however, there is an intrinsic connection between those two objects. Consider, for example, the term White House as a metonym for the American government, or specifically the executive branch of the American government. The White House is indeed a real residence that exists in Washington DC; yet consider what the term White House used in some official communications of the American government means: “The White House declared that Russia would have to pay for its attack on Ukraine.”  This does not literally mean that a white-colored house developed speaking ability and voiced a martial intention; but it does mean that something which includes and extends beyond the White House — the US government — voiced that intention. To understand how metonyms work, here’s a succinct two-pointer: what is used as a metonym is a reality; and what the metonym is used to describe is also a reality, and a much bigger reality at that. Thus when Ravana’s lust-driven obsession with Sita is described in the Ramayana, the epic is poetically articulating a historical account of what happened long ago. It is also describing the human vulnerability to get carried away by lust, even adopting means that are cruel and criminal. While the difference between the metaphorical and the metonymical might seem technical, that difference is important to prevent a reductionistic violation of the epics, wherein the rich characters are reduced to mere abstract symbols. Traditional commentators find such reductionism especially objectionable when it is applied to Rama, who is proclaimed within the epic itself to be not just a reality but the supreme reality: the almighty divine descended on earth for demonstrating the path of dharma or divine dutifulness.

Devotional Perspective

Herein, everything that happens within the epic is seen ultimately as a manifestation of the divine will for the purpose of reciprocating love. The technical term for such reciprocations of love is lila, phrased in English as divine play or pastime. When we view the Ramayana only as lila, we see all the characters as players who are orchestrated as per the divine plan to play their ordained roles, be they white or black or gray. This perspective is especially adopted by exalted devotees who have realized that the Lord’s love for everyone is the highest reality of existence. Such great devotees are not particularly concerned with the specifics of historicity, the subtleties of morality or the profundities of symbolism. They simply delight in beholding and holding within their hearts the activities of their Lord and of all those who have the blessed opportunity to interact with the Lord.

At first glance, this devotional perspective, which is sometimes also called the transcendental perspective, may seem very similar to the literal perspective. But there is an enormous difference in the level of consciousness between those adopting the literal perspective and those adopting the transcendental perspective. Literalists are often seeking only entertainment — for them, the Ramayana is just one among many sources of entertainment; and they may consider such sources to be equal and interchangeable. Their unidimensional interest in entertainment is reflective of their unevolved consciousness. Transcendentalists, in contrast, have realized that the Ramayana, unlike any other source of entertainment, depicts the highest realities of existence — therefore, their love for Rama makes them so attracted to the Ramayana that they have no interest in any mundane entertainment. Their exclusive and intensive attraction to the Lord’s lila is reflective of their sublimely evolved consciousness.

Additionally, literalists may not have the reflective or rational capacity to approach the epic from ethical or allegorical perspectives. In contrast, transcendentalists do have those capacities — and can expertly expound on the epic’s moral implications and symbolic interpretations when their service requires them to do so. Still, they are naturally not as attracted to these perspectives as they are to the devotional perspective. While the tradition considers the transcendental perspective to be the most evolved approach to the Ramayana, it also cautions us against prematurely jumping to this perspective. If we artificially pretend or mistakenly believe that they have pure love for God, as do the transcendentalists, we may become indifferent to ethical and allegorical insights from the epics, when such insights can actually help us where we are in two tangible ways. First, we can learn valuable principles of living that can aid us in our journey through this world, especially in being less distracted or degraded by the world’s avoidable entanglements. Second, when our distractions are thus reduced and, simultaneously when our ethical and rational faculties are more developed by contemplating those perspectives, we can better focus on striving for spiritual growth. Thus, we can progress toward developing the pure love for God that provides authentic entry into the transcendental domain.

The transcendental perspective can sometimes seem sentimental or even anti-intellectual if it is not understood properly or if it is explained by individuals who do not have the tools to dive into the epic from multiple perspectives. Such people may explain (away) some of the questionable choices of some of the characters in the epics by stating that it is all simply the Lord’s lila — an approach that can understandably alienate thoughtful readers. What’s wrong with this approach? In metaphysics, God’s plan is an ultimate overarching explanation for all that happens, somewhat similar to how gravity is the overarching explanation for the falling of objects in physics. Without the presence of gravity, objects won’t fall; yet when we are investigating the cause of the fall of specific objects, gravity may not be the most relevant explanation. Suppose a committee of experts is appointed to investigate the cause of a plane crash, and suppose someone deems the committee redundant because the cause is already known: the plane crashed due to gravity. The experts would dismiss such an explanation as a non-explanation. While it is true that the plane wouldn’t have crashed if there had been no gravity, they still need to enquire what led to the crash of that particular plane at that particular time when it had been designed to fly even in the presence of gravity.

Similarly, when the transcendental explanation that everything is the arrangement of the Lord is unreflectively used to explain everyone’s every action in the epics, then that can seem to thoughtful readers to be less of an explanation and more of an excuse. Anything that explains everything in general may well end up explaining nothing in specific. Acknowledging such a concern, thoughtful teachers of the tradition assert that the Lord’s plan is indeed a valid explanation for all that happens; yet it is by no means the only explanation. Why not? Because God has given everyone free will; and when they use that free will in specific situations, they have their own motivations that are worth exploring. That a particular action done by a particular character was within the plan of the Lord does not mean that that character did not have their personal motivations for those actions or that those motivations can’t be subjected to ethical scrutiny or symbolic interpretation. Therefore, the devotional perspective does not overrule or outlaw other perspectives — by appreciating this, we can become empowered with an array of tools to dig deep into the epic and mine the treasures of meaning hidden within it.

Among the four perspectives, most readers of the epics can arguably derive the most benefit from the ethical perspective, while being mindful that there exists a higher transcendental perspective. Indeed, much of the enduring inspiration that the Ramayana has provided across all of India, even much of South Asia, has been from the ethical perspective. To mention just a few of the stellar virtues of some of the Ramayana’s leading characters, consider the dutifulness of Rama, the selflessness of Sita and the fearlessness of Hanuman. These have become iconic images that have informed, formed and reformed the hearts of all those who have made the Ramayana the guiding light of their lives.

Chaitanya Charana Dasa is the associate-editor of Back to Godhead (US and Indian editions). To read his daily Bhagavad-gita reflections, please subscribe to Gitadaily on his website, thespiritualscientist.com.