What is the authenticity of Lord Rama’s pastimes that are not mentioned in the Ramayana?

From Karuna Sindhu P

The scriptures themselves say that the Lord’s pastimes are unlimited, whereas we also say that we can’t accept every story about the Lord as authentic. So what is the basis for deciding the authenticity?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question.
What is the Vedic perspective? Question from Karunasundar Prabhu. From the scriptures, we know that Krishna performs so many pastimes, only some of which are given in the scriptures. And here, we also say that we should consider as authentic only the pastimes which we are given in the scriptures.
But what about pastimes which are told by in other traditions? Are they considered to be unauthentic? Couldn’t they be also pastimes of Krishna which are authentic but are not given in the scriptures? And there are books published, some books published by ISKCON devotees say on the Ramayana which contain some of the pastimes about some pastimes which are not there actually in the Ramayana. So, are these considered authentic or not? Answer. The Lord’s pastimes are definitely not frozen in the sense that it is not that they are limited only to one book.
And Chaitanya Chaitanya Tamas contains a very explicit statement that although Chaitanya Chaitanya Tamas is a huge book with almost 24,000 verses, still Krishnarashtra Yastra says that in the future, Yastra will write more exhaustive on the pastimes of Lord Chaitanya. So, in that sense, we can’t freeze and say that certain pastimes are authentic or certain pastimes that there can be no other pastimes of the Lord apart from what are described in this particular book. So, that is not the mood.
But at the same time, there has to be some broad understanding because it is always possible that somebody with one’s poetic imagination or literal imagination may come up with some stories and similar pastimes of the Lord. So, for being able to discern, the first and most important criteria is that the pastimes which have been talked about, they should not contradict the storyline of the original pastime given in the first source. So, for example, the most authentic source for Krishna’s pastimes is the Bhagavatam.
The most authentic source for Lord Ram’s pastimes is the Valmiki Ramayana. Now, beyond that, there are certain pastimes which are not mentioned specifically in the Valmiki Ramayana, but they don’t contradict with the overall storyline of the Valmiki Ramayana. For example, there can be the pastime of Sabari.
Now, Sabari gets a referral mention in the Valmiki Ramayana, but exactly what all happened in the meeting with Sabari and Lord Ram is not mentioned so much in Vritti. That is mentioned in other literature. So, this literature can be other Puranas.
Ram Nida has described various other Puranas also. And apart from that, we understand that Smriti is not a closed-ended book. Smriti is actually open-ended.
The very word Smriti is that which is remembered. So, Smriti is always fixed. Nobody can expand the four Vedas.
The four Vedas are fixed. But the nature of the Smriti is that the Acharya has explained. So, for example, the Tantric and Tantra pastimes are there and they are expanded by Jiva Goswami in Gopalachandra and they are elaborated by Sanatana Goswami in Vaishnava Sotosha or Chakravarti Paginsa Darshan.
Now, we will see that what they described does not contradict what is originally described in the Bhagavatam, but explains it further. So, first of all, it should not contradict this direct storyline. And secondly, it should not contradict the philosophy.
So, if somebody says that somebody brings in some pastime which conveys a philosophical message that is directly contradictory to what is taught throughout the book, then that is not considered to be a valid addition or that is not considered to be a valid pastime. So, basically, we have to take the original book which is there as the fundamental authority. And in general, when a scripture that is understood, there is a standard hermeneutic.
Hermeneutic means a principle for understanding. That is, that there is a nirnayak shastra and there is a nirnayatara shastra. Nirnayak means that which will decide and nirnayatara is that which needs to be decided.
So, the nirnayak shastra has a higher authority and nirnayatara shastra has a subordinate authority. So, when we are talking about the pastimes of the Lord, that is Krishna’s pastimes, the nirnayak authority with nirnayak shastra is Bhagwat. For Lord Ram’s pastimes, the Valmiki Ramayana with nirnayak shastra.
And if there are other pastimes which do not contradict the storyline or the philosophy of the nirnayak shastra, but they illuminate it further. So, Lakshman Rekha concept is also not mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, but it illustrates some philosophical conceptions, philosophical concepts. So, that is not necessarily considered to be wrong at all.
The Acharyas, many of the Sri Vaishnava Acharyas have talked about it. In our Sampradaya, our Sampradaya Acharyas are primarily focused on Krishna and they have elaborately written about Krishna’s pastimes. They do not talk so much about Ram’s pastimes.
So, therefore, when we want to understand Lord Ram’s pastimes, we can look at the other Sampradaya Acharyas’ commentaries also and see what they have explained. So, as long as certain pastimes do not, the pastimes which may not be mentioned in the original scripture or the nirnayak shastra, but they do not contradict the storyline and the philosophy, we can accept them as further embellishments of the original pastimes. Thank you very much.