According to Osho, Valmiki’s “writing” Rama’s life beforehand is a profound joke: Rama, as a man of maryada—strict code and restraint—was so predictable that his script could be drafted in advance. It wasn’t literal foreknowledge, but a metaphor for a fixed, serial existence where each response—Sita’s abduction, agnipariksha, banishment—was predetermined. Krishna contrasts as unpredictable.
It means Rama followed rules so tightly that anyone could guess his choices, so the poet described the pattern—not the future.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, Valmiki wrote the story of Rama’s life even before Rama was born. He, too, was God—so how did his life become bound to a predetermined sequence? This is a very well-asked question. It asks: Valmiki wrote Rama’s life even before Rama came to be.
It can be written. Rama’s life can be written. He was a man of maryada—of code and restraint. There is a joke hidden in this: when it is said that Valmiki wrote Rama’s life beforehand, it only means that Rama is the sort of person whose life can be written in advance—what he will do. He is a character. What he will do and what he will not do can be fixed beforehand. It isn’t that Valmiki literally wrote it earlier. There is a big joke hidden in this incident—and this country has made profound jokes that we fail to catch. What is hidden here is that Rama’s life is so bound that a poet like Valmiki could write it even before Rama lived. Such a serial existence. About Rama you can be certain what he will do. Even before he is born, it can be said what this man…
Questioner: it is said that valmiki wrote the biography of rama much before he happened, and rama is also known as an incarnation of the divine. So how is it that there is a sequence, a chain-like continuity in his life?
It is a good question that you have raised: How is it that Valmiki wrote the life of Rama even before he happened? It is possible, it is quite possible to write the life story of Rama, because he is a man of principles, ideals. There is a joke hidden in this anecdote of Valmiki writing the Ramayana long before Rama's existence. It means that Rama is a kind of man whose life story can be foretold. He is like a character in a drama: what he will do and what he will not do can be foreseen. Rama is an idealist, he lives according to some set rules and regulations of life, so in a way his life is pre-planned and pre-determined. It is not that Valmiki had really written his biography before he happened; it is a very profound and subtle joke which this country alone is capable…
Osho, you are quite opposed to the Ramayana story composed by Valmiki and to its characters like Rama and Sita, and on the other hand you say that Valmiki attained Buddhahood even by chanting "mara-mara." How is this contradiction? Is it possible that one enlightened man would produce a story that another enlightened man opposes?
Rishiraj Trivedi, first consider this: Balya, the Bhil, who could not even chant "Rama, Rama" properly--would he be able to write the Ramayana? A man who, while chanting "Rama, Rama," began chanting "mara, mara"--could such a person write the story of Rama? Is there any possibility? None is evident. He could not even remember "Rama" fully--just two syllables, the smallest of words--even that he forgot and started saying "mara, mara"--would such a person write the Ramayana? He was not educated. And even if he had written the Ramayana, whatever an unlettered, uncultured person writes will carry the imprint of all his lack of culture; his entire illiteracy would cast its shadow over it. So first of all, Balya the Bhil is such an uneducated man, a killer, that there is no likelihood of his composing the tale of Rama. Someone else must have written the story of Rama; yes, and…
It feels inconsistent. The man who fought a great war for Sita, who risked his life for her—on a washerman’s gossip sends her away! From this man’s actions we cannot know him. What he does will not reveal his soul. Otherwise how to reconcile the two? Who he is—if we know that, then his deeds can be interpreted. Sita’s abduction is not the cause of war; only the pretext. The war was not for Sita. The deeper understanding is: perhaps the arrangement for Sita’s abduction was made for the war to be. It looks so. Rama chases a golden deer. You would not be deceived by such a thing—gold attracts, but if you saw a golden deer you would sense deception. How could a golden deer deceive Rama? This going is organized, deliberate. Sita must be given the chance to be abducted.
Osho, it is said that Ravana too was a knower of Brahman. Was Ravana not Ravana by his own will? Was the Ramlila truly Rama’s play?
Certainly, Ravana was a knower of Brahman. And a great injustice has been done to Ravana. In the South, the renewed feeling of respect for Ravana—if it takes the right direction—could correct the mistake we made in the past. But that movement too seems to be taking a wrong turn. They have begun to honor Ravana and to dishonor Rama. There is no end to human stupidity; it sways to extremes. It never seems able to be balanced. Here you have been burning Ravana’s effigy; there they have started burning Rama. You made one mistake; now they are making another. Ravana was a knower of Brahman. It was also God’s will that he play that part. He performed it well. And it is said that when he was felled by Rama’s arrow he said, “My longing of lifetimes is fulfilled. To be slain by Rama—what greater fulfillment could there be?…