Sri Aurobindo
Letters of Sri Aurobindo
Volume 2. 1934 — 1935
But krodha [wrath] also? Says not the Gita, Sattvatat-sañjāyate Jñānam (from the Sattvaguṇa1 arises wisdom). And Rama’s wrath is of the most unwise, nay puerile brand, pardon me. Take for instance his insulting Sita the second time (after Valmiki’s testimony at that) by commanding her to give more proofs of her chastity before the rabble whereupon she seeks shelter into the earth. Instantly Rama’s love which was conspicuous by its absence a moment ago, becomes flamboyant avyavasthitachittasya prasādopibhayaṅkara [even the grace of the volatile is catastrophic, says the sage] and he shouts krodhaśokasamāviṣṭa [overpowered with anger and grief] (a quizzical Avatar that!) to Mother Earth, “Anaya tvaṃ hi tāmsītām mattoham maithilīkṛte” [Restore that Sita of mine for I am out of my senses]. Qu’en dites-vous? Can a truly sāttvik man be in the throes of such an insane passion of rage? Also I find myself in a typhoon of confusion to puzzle over your admission of such a thing as an unconscious avatar. For that to me seems a contradiction in terms – an impossibility: that of an Avatar being blind! Good Lord, then the Upanishad was wrong after all in ridiculing the trustfulness of the “blind who are led by the blind”!
Then why does the Gita praise the sāttvik so enthusiastically? I should have supposed that a sāttvik man could not behave as insanely as a tāmasik type? Also I do not quite follow your analogy about the normal moments of Sri Chaitanya. For it is a fact that he had his super-normal (or superconscient if you will) moments too and it was that which made all the difference in the world, did it not?
Why should not Rama have kāma [lust] as well as prema [love]? They were supposed to go together as between husband and wife in ancient India. The performances of Rama in the viraha of Sita are due to Valmiki’s poetic idea which was 
also Kalidasa’s and everybody else’s in those far-off times about how a complete lover should behave in such a quandary. Whether the actual Rama bothered himself to do all that is another matter.
As for the unconscious Avatar, why not? Chaitanya is supposed to be an Avatar by the Vaishnavas2, yet he was conscious of the Godhead behind only when that Godhead came in front and possessed him on rare occasions. Christ said “I and my father are one,” but yet he always spoke and behaved as if there were a difference. Ramakrishna’s earlier period was that of one seeking God, not aware from the first of his identity. These are the reputed religious Avatars who ought to be more conscious than a man of action like Rama. And supposing the full and permanent consciousness why should the Avatar proclaim himself except on rare occasions to an Arjuna or to a few bhaktas or disciples? It is for others to find out what he is – though he does not deny when others speak of him as That, he is not always saying and perhaps never may say or only in moments like that of the Gita, “I am He.”