(Bal. 1.35)
The author of Bhāgavata calls him तीर्थास्पदं शिवविरञ्चिनुं शरण्यम् (11.5.33), i.e. he is embodiment of pilgrimage, and Śiva and Brahmā offer prayers to him. He is the refuge of all.
In the Brihad-dharmottara-purāna the author attributes the following virtue to him:
वनवासगतो रामो यत्र यत्र व्यवस्थितः।
तानि चोक्तानि तीर्थानि शतमष्टोत्तरं क्षितौ।।
(Purva-bhag : 14.34)
During the exile wherever Rāma stayed, all places became pilgrim sites—108 in all on earth.
In the first chapter of this work it has been shown how Ayodhyā has been a perpetual city and in the first chapter of the second volume it has been shown how Rāma’s worship has continued in this country for two thousand years. If Ayodhyā has been considered a holy city and a pilgrim place by Hindus, it is mainly because of its association with Lord Rāma’s birth. Ayodhyā has been accepted as the birthplace of Rāma not only by the Hindus but also by the Muslims. A sanad issued by the Mughal Emperor Akbar on a day following the Rāmanavami in 1600 A.D. and renewed by the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah in 1723 reads as follows:
“It is declared that in the exalted reign on the 5th day of the Shawwal (month) of 1135 A.H., i.e. on 8th July, 1723 this sanad was issued by Naqbatuddin Muaaid Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khankhana Bahadur Jung Turkhan who was a man of high pomp and grandeur, of high aim, who is spoken very high of and who is revered like a Hazrat in each country.
This insignificant writer, who is native of the holy place, which is the maulud (जन्मभूमि) of Rāma, is reducing it in writing with pen. By order, it is confirmed that six bighas of land in the province of Oudh granted for the construction of the Hanuman Tila is given to Abhayarāma after comparing it with the deed issued on the 13th Ramjan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 27th March, 1600 (which was a day after the Ramanavami).”
The sacrosant nature of Ayodhyā can be understood from the following verse of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāna:
अकारो ब्रह्म च प्रोक्तं यकारो विष्णुरुच्यते।
धकारो रुद्ररूपश्च अयोध्या नाम राजते।। (1.60)
The three letters, viz. ‘A’, ‘yo’ and ‘dh’ of Ayodhyā symbolise Brahmā, Vishnu, and Rudra respectively.
Thus, there should be no dout that Ayodhyā has been universally regarded as a sacrosanct place and the birthplace of Rāma. In para 4070 Justice Agarwal has written that the worship of that place has been continuing for the past several centuries. In para 4071 Issue No. 24 (Suit-5) was raised whether the worship of the deity has been there since time immemorial or not. It has been discussed in para 4072 and decided in para 4073. It has been decided by Justice Agarwal that since the worship of the deity had been noticed by Joseph Tieffenthaler in the middle of the 18th century and thereafter it has been mentioned in several books and Gazetteers, it may be accepted that the worship of the deity was going on for such a long time that it amounts to ‘time immemorial’. In the light of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya described in the Skanda-Purāna and the Rudra-yāmala, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa the existence of the present birthsite and the worship of the deity have got a tradition of almost a thousand years. The word ‘immemorial’ has been described in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (p. 775) in the following words:
“adj. (formal or literary) that has existed for longer than people can remember: an immemorial tradition ¤ My family has lived in this area from time immemorial (= for hundreds of years)”
Where is the historical tampering in the finding? Distortion of facts on the part of Aligarh Historians does not help writing history in right perspective. It is rather creating conundrum.
2.2 Some references to Rāma in inscriptions
In paragraph 2.2 the Aligarh Historians have written that “none of the Sanskrit inscriptions at or relating to Ayodhyā before 1528 contain any reference to Lord Rāma directly by that name or to any sanctity attaching to Ayodhyā on account of its being the place of his birth.” In fact, it is, in their usual style, a mendacious statement. In order to rebut the misleading propaganda of the Aligarh Historians, one inscription of the 7th century from ancient Champa, i.e. modern Vietanam is quoted to prove that Rāma was regarded as the incarnation of Lord Vishnu since time immemorial. There was a temple of poet Vālmīki, the author of Rāma saga, in ancient Champa in the 7th century A.D. There is an inscription of King Prakāśadharman who ruled Champa from 653 to 678 A.D. The legible portion of the inscription reads as follows:
यस्य शोकात् समुत्पन्नं श्लोकं ब्रह्माभिपूजति।
विष्णो पुंसः पुराणस्य मानुषस्यात्मरूपिणः।।
(रामस्य च) रितं कृत्यं कृं येनाभिषेचनम्।
कवेराद्यस्य महर्षेर्व्वाल्मीकेश्रु ++ रिह।।
(पूजास्थानं) पुनस्तस्य कृत ++ य ++।
प्रकाशधर्म्मनृपतिः सर्व्वारिगणसूदनः।।
विद्याशक्तिक्षमालक्ष्मीकीर्तिधैर्य्य-(गुणान्वितः)।
+ त्य एष जगत्कान्तश्शारदेऽन्तरिते नृप।।
This inscription of King Prakāśadharman is unique in the sense that it mentions the temple of the Ādi-kavi Maharshi Vālmīki at Tra-Kieu and describes the hero of the poet’s epic as the human form of Purāna-purusha Vishnu, meaning, thereby, Rāma is the incarnation of primeval Vishnu. Some historians, not well versed with Sanskrit, are slightly at a loss in making the exact ‘anvaya’ and comprehending the right meaning. The correct ‘anvaya’ of the first two lines is: यस्य शोकात् समुत्पन्नं विष्णो पुंसः पुराणस्य मानुषस्यात्मरूपिणः श्लोकं ब्रह्माभिपूजति Brahmā praises his (Vālmīki’s) sorrow-originated śloka (verse) related to the human form of Purāna-purusha (primeval) Vishnu, i.e. Rāma.
After I translated this inscription and read a paper on Ayodhyā in Patna I happened to see a material on web prepared by scholars under the aegis of French School of Asian Studies (École française d’Extrême-Orient, EFEO) under the project Corpus of the Inscriptions of Campā (CIC). I am glad to find that my translation, equating Rāma and not Vālmīki with the incarnation of Lord Vishnu in the inscription, gets support from this article. It is meticulously deciphered and articulately translated. Details of this inscription have been provided in the article from which the following information is furnished below:
Support Low pedestal; sandstone; h. 54 cm × w. 54 × d. 12.
Text The inscription runs over two lines along two of the four vertical faces of the object. The sequence is face A (“left”, two lines), face B (“right”, two lines). Written in Sanskrit.
Date 6th century Śaka (7th CE).
Origin Settlement of Trà Kiêu (Quàng Nam).1
This piece was found by J.Y. Claeys at Trà Kiêu in 1927 (see Claeys 1927). Thereafter, it was entered in the EFEO Museum in Hanoi, before 1937 (IC vol. I, p. 273), and was registered there as B 2, 38. The museum staff subsequently assigned a new number to it and the current inventory number LSb 42277.
Edition(s) First published, with French translation, by Mus 1928; whence, translated into English, Golzio 2004: 11-12.Re-edited from the EFEO estampage, with new translation, in ECIC V: 434-437, whence the present edition.
/> Facsimile
Estampage of the inscription of King Prakāśadharman.
Estampage : EFEO n. 508.2
The following text was edited by Arlo Griffiths and Dominic Goodall.
Face A.
(1) (siddham)
I. Anus+tubh
yasya śokāt samutpannam¢ ślokam¢ brahmābhipū(jati)
[vi](shnoh) pun¢sah purānasya manu(jasyā)tmarūpinah
II. Anus+tubh
(2) [rāmasya](ca)ritam¢ krts[n]am¢ krtam¢ (yenābhisādhanam¢)
kaver ādyasya mahars+s+er vv(ā)lmīkeś cāvaner iha.
Face B.
III. Anus+tubh
(1) (pūjāsthānam¢) punas tasya krta -----------------------
prakāśadharmmanrpatis sarvvāriganasūdanah
IV. Anus+tubh
(2) vidyāśaktiks+amālaks+(m)īkīrttidhairyya[gunā]n(v)i(tah)
(jaya)ty es+a jagatkāntaś śārade ntarite [v]i[dhau]
Translation
Having restored here the place of worship for the primordial poet and great[est] sage of the earth, Vālmīki, from whose anguish was born the verse that Brahmā praised, (and) who has composed the complete, ... (abhisādhana?) acts of Rāma, the human own/bodily form of the ancient male, Vishnu, this king Prakāśadharman, who subdues all (worldly and internal) foes, who is cherished by the world (or: the goddess Earth), being endowed with the virtues of knowledge, power, forbearance, wealth, fame, and patience, is victorious as the beloved of [all] creatures, the autumnal moon having been eclipsed (by his glory)!
Commentary
The text alludes to, and even directly replicates phrases from, the Bālakānda of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana. रामस्य चरितं कृत्सं¢÷ (I. 2. 30) See the observations of Mus 1928. The new reading of stanza II presented here adds significantly to the extent of our poet’s dependence on Vālmīki, and simultaneously removes the need to presume, as did Pal Mus, that Vālmīki is being identified as Vis+nu. For the significance of the expression arigana, see the commentary on C. 137. Since the word pūjāsthāna in the inscriptions of Prakāśadharman seems to refer each time either to the inscribed pedestal itself or to the place where that pedestal was installed, one cannot follow the reasoning in Trān Ký Phu’o’ng 2000 identifying this ‘place of worship’ as the different and more famous pedestal from Trà Kiêu that is decorated with elaborate sculptural reliefs.”
The suggested reading अभिसाधनम् here is, indeed, better than अभिषेचनम् which was the reading by Paul Mus in his article “Études indiennes et indochinoises. I. L’inscription à Valmiki de Prakaça- dharma (Trà-ki?u),” BEFEO, 28 (1928), 147-152. The reading अभिषेचनम्, is not appropriate because it means annoiting, sprinkling. These scholars write that the reading अभिसाधनम् can be understood either as an adjective with the sense ‘propitiating’ (cf. Monier-Williams s.v. abhisidh) or as a noun, ‘propitiation’, in apposition to charitam. These scholars, therefore, tentatively proposed interpreting this quarter-verse to mean ‘who composed, [as an act of] worship/propitiation, the complete Acts of Rāma’. It is a very good and correct interpretation. Even the reading of Sanskrit verses is very apt. They are reproduced below in the Devanāgarī scirpt!
Besides, there is an inscription of King Yaśovarman who ruled Kambupurī (Cambodia) between 889 and 900 A.D. In an elegant double-intendre the Cambodian King compares himself with Rāma and takes pride in protecting his kingdom, as Rāma had protected Ayodhyā. In the same verse both Ayodhyā and Rāma are mentioned and that, too, in distant Cambodia.
सुमत्रसुहृं सीताभूषणां सुविभीषणाम्।
जुगोप यः कम्बुपुरीमयोध्यामिव राघवः।।
The verse may be translated into English like this:
He (Yashovarman) protected Kambupurī like Rāma protected Ayodhyā. Kambupurī had the wise counsel of the King’s well wishing friends; whereas Ayodhyā had Sumantra, the charioteer. Kambupurī was ornamented with ploughing the land whereas Ayodhyā had the jewel in the form of Sītā. Kambupurī was awe-inspiring to his enemies and Ayodhyā had the presence of Vibhīshana.
This inscription is related to Ayodhyā. Thus, in distant Cambodia Ayodhyā is prominently mentioned in a royal edict in the 9th century.
Again another inscription of another Cambodian King Rajendra Varman (944-968 A.D.) found at Pre Rup. (K806), a monument in the Angkor Area mentions Rāma in the following verse:
मारीच इव रामस्य नामाद्येकाक्षरश्रवात्।
स्यारिराजो वीरोऽपि जगामानन्यजां भियम्।।
Rajendra Varman’s every rival king used to dread facing from him like Māricha who used to panic by hearing the first letter of Rāma’s name.
In another inscription dated 1157 A.D. King Jayahari Varman proclaims that since Rāma’s glory was pervading in all directions the opposite forces ran away.
रामस्य कीर्तिं च पुनर्जिगीर्षुः दिक्षु स्थितेऽनुप्रतिदिक् प्रयाता।
(No. 74 Myson State Inscription)
Nearer home, the Aligarh Historians are advised to read the translation of the Vishnu-hari inscription in the Xth chapter of this book. They may also go through the inscription of King Jaya dated 1213 A.D. It was discovered from a south column of the gopuram of Nāgeśvara temple at Chembrolu village under Vaptala taluk of the Krishna district and published in the Epigraphia Indica, vol. V, pp. 143-48. In this inscription of distant south the valiant Rāma has been remembered with reverence 300 years before 1528 A.D.
तस्मादिक्ष्वाकुरासीत्तदुपरि सगरस्तत्परस्तात्ककुत्स्थ
स्तस्मादूर्ध्वं दिलीपस्तमनु दशरथस्तत्सुतो रामचद्रः।
यद्वीरश्रीविलासा बिससमतुलितोदग्रकैलासजाग्र-
द्दोक्रीडातुङगलङकासुभटविघटनास्ते दिगन्ते प्रथन्ते।
From him (Brahmā) was born Ikshvāku. Thereafter Sagara, Kakutstha, Dilīpa, Daśaratha and Rāmachandra were his direct descendants. The splendour of Rama’s bravery, which eliminated warriors of Lan¢kā, elevated on account of their manual action, which lifted Kailāsa looking like a lotus stalk, may spread (or is spreading) in (all) directions.
Besides, the Rewa inscription of Malayasim·ha dated 1193 A.D. speaks of Rāma temple at Rewa on the bank of the Narmada River. The temple was built by the King Malayasim·ha and it is mentioned in the inscription that by worshiping it, one accesses the feet of God.
तीव्रं तपो दुखकरं प्रकृत्या सिद्धा व्रजन्तो दिवमूर्ध्वमुच्चै।
यद्रामदेवालयवन्दिता ये प्रायेण ते विश्वपदं प्रयाताः।। (lin 27)
Siddhas go to high heaven, having performed fierce painful austerities, (but) those who worship at the shrine of Rāma, built by him (Malayasim¢ha), they mostly obtain the feet of God (without endeavour) (27) (translated by R.D. Banerji, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, vol. 23, p. 139).
Thus, it is proved that there are many Sanskrit inscriptions which contain references to Lord Rāma directly.
2.3 Inscriptions of Dhanadeva and Belgaum
In para 2.3 they have cited the inscription of Dhanadeva which contains only two lines and is in the memory of his father Phalgudeva for building a house or a flag-post. How could Rāma’s saga have been depicted in t
his brief inscription (1st century B.C.) of a different nature? Here the word is ketanam+ and not niketan. But neither means shrine. Ketanam+ means an abode or a banner.
Similarly, in a brief memorial inscription of Belgaum in Karnataka raised for a Brahmana who hailed from Ayodhyā but settled in the south, Aligarh Historians have vainly tried to trace Rāma’s worship in these words:
“A memorial inscription at Belgaum, Karnataka, of AD 105 (published in Epigraphia Indica, XXXIX, pp.183-188), is inscribed on a memorial pillar raised for a Brahman of the Kashyapa gotra hailing from Saketa (Ayodhya) who is praised for his knowledge of the Yajurveda and performance of sacrifices, but with no reference anywhere to his worship of Lord Rama or even devotion to Vishnu.” (p. 21)
For the better appreciation of the context and non-reference to Lord Rāma’s worship the entire pillar inscription is quoted below with English translation:
स्वस्ति सोमयशसः स्कम्भः [1] मौलबन्धुवर्गेण काठज्ञस्य सोमयशसः स्भों निष्ठापितो गाढं अशीतिवाजपेयकाम्यक्रतुयाजिनः अनेकयज्ञहोमधूमग्राहितदिसाभागस्य अनक्षवेद्यस्य साकेतकस्य बलपार्यसखस्य कास्यपसगोत्रस्य स्वर्गतस्य [1] दिवसे 10000, 802 [11]
This pillar of Late Somayaśā, who belonged to Kāsyapa gotra and was a friend of Balapārya, was firmly established by the Maulibandhu family. 80 wish-fulfilling sacrifices were performed by Somayaśā, a scholar of Katha Śākhā, and smoke arisen out of many sacrifices was spread by him in all directions. Nothing was unknown to him. On the ten thousand eight hundred second day (of the śaka calender).
It is really wonderful to trace Rāma’s worship to a brief pillar inscription erected by the kith and kin of Balapārya to commemorate the death of a scholar from Ayodhyā who had settled in the distant South. Maulah (मौलाः) is mentioned in the Manusmriti (VIII. 62). Kulūka Bhat.t.a has explained it as तद्-देशजाः, i.e. born in that country (territory) and Medhātithi has explained it as जानपदाः तद्-देशाभिजनाः, i.e. inhabitants of that country. Somayaśas has been called the friend of a gentleman (ārya) named Balapa. The apa, i.e. Dravidian appa ending in the name of Balapa shows that he was a Dravidian and probably he might have taken the lead in installing this pillar inscription. The Smritis enjoin the installation of a stone (पाषाण-स्थापन) for the dead person by his son or relative during the first ten days after the death of the person. Our historians’ search for the mention of the name of Rāma in the last rites of a dead scholar of Ayodhyā who had left the holy city long back and settled in Belgaum area of the Karnataka territory is really amusing.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 87