• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sri. tks,

The article given by you

Vegetarianism Recommended in Vedic Scripture

Basically quotes Bhagavad Gita, Manu Smiriti, Maha Bharata and Puranas. Of course stephen-knapp's definition of Vedas includes all this. According to him Bhagavatham is the main text of the Vedas. This is not accepted by a vast majority of Hindus.

Just an observation.

Understand your point.

I am not defending anyone's views including Stephen Knapp. It is one of the first hits I found talking about vegetarianism in the context of Ramayana also. It was just an example to show diversity of views exist. I did not do more search since what a historic figure did or did not do is not of interest to me. But if Sri Rama portrayed as Dharma personified then I am more interested in the understanding analysis of Vali Vadham in the overall context.


Truth is not subjected to democracy - meaning what most people accept or not is not relevant to me.

Regards
 

Shri Sangom

I want to bring about Sita. We all heared about Lakshman rekha. Lakshmana, before he left the parnasala, drew a line and asked Sita to stay inside the line. However, she didn’t. So Ravana abduct her. But in VR Seetha invite Ravana in disguise. In VR there is no mention of lakshmana rekha.
Smt. Amirtha,

Yes, what you say is right. It is only in the Adhyatma Ramayana that Rama, his brother Lakshmana, Seetaa, etc., have been given a quasi-divine picturization. Accordingly the seetaapaharana which was a completely worldly matter in VR and imo, brings out Ravana in a villain's (woman-kidnapper's) role more effectively, has been altered what with Lakshmana Rekha, Ravana unable to cross that Rekha, Seetaa being asked by Ravana to come close in order to give him (in the guise of a mendicant) alms thus crossing the Rekha and so on. These are all alterations which were done to the original story of a very human Rama, in order to project him as an avataara of Vishnu.
 
In the course of the very interesting questions and answers, it would be interesting to quote an extract from Sri Swami Sivananda on Ramayana( below). For what it is worth and means!!
The esoteric meaning of Ramayana is this:

"Ravana represents Ahankara or egoism. His ten heads represent the ten senses. The city of Lanka is the nine gated city of the physical body. Vibhishana corresponds to the intellect. Sita is peace. Rama is Jana (wisdom). To kill the ten headed Ravana is to kill the egoism and curb the senses. To recover Sita is to attain the peace whicvh the Jiva (individual) has lost on account of desires. To attain Jana is to have darsana of Rama or the Supreme Self.

He who crosses this ocean of Moha and destroys the Rakashasas—Raga and Dvesha (likes and dislikes) is a Yogin who is united with Shanti or Peace, ever rests in the Atman and enjoys the eternal bliss. Sri Rama stands for the “ Good” (Sattva); Ravana for the “Evil”. Sri Rama and Ravana fought with each other. Eventually Sri Rama became victorious. The positive always overcomes the negative. Good always overcomes evil."

Dear Shri Balakrishna Iyer sir,

Since you say that you have been following this thread, I think there may be no need to introduce myself or to "say where I come from" according to the modern parlance.

Sivananda, like many others of his tribe (i.e., saffron-clad, self-appointed and self-proclaimed world teachers, most of whom ensured a comfortable living for themselves and established some sort of business outfit around them to successfully market the so-called marketing possibilities in area of spirituality) will say such things for "audience impact", but if anyone delves deep into such pronouncements, and puts searching questions, for which they won't have any answer, they will simply try to hit back at you as if it is a mere "street-tap battle" (குழாயடிச்சண்டை).

In this particular "jargonification", as I call it, why did jnaana (I presume you are referring to this when you typed jana.) disown its peace once on suspicion and later lost it for ever? How do you think Sivananda would have answered such a doubt?

Where exactly is it stated that Lanka was a city with nine gates? I have not come across such a reference so far; may be it is my oversight.

The ten senses are the instruments which make life possible for us. Hence if all these senses are killed (complete இந்திரிய நிக்ரஹம்) it may be equivalent to a dead state and no spiritual achievement will be possible in such a state. Perhaps that is what Ramayana teaches us ; if you foolishly kill your ten senses, for the sake of gaining peace, you will ultimately end up losing whatever little peace you may have!
 
Smt. Amirtha,

Yes, what you say is right. It is only in the Adhyatma Ramayana that Rama, his brother Lakshmana, Seetaa, etc., have been given a quasi-divine picturization. Accordingly the seetaapaharana which was a completely worldly matter in VR and imo, brings out Ravana in a villain's (woman-kidnapper's) role more effectively, has been altered what with Lakshmana Rekha, Ravana unable to cross that Rekha, Seetaa being asked by Ravana to come close in order to give him (in the guise of a mendicant) alms thus crossing the Rekha and so on. These are all alterations which were done to the original story of a very human Rama, in order to project him as an avataara of Vishnu.

Mr. Bhargav of Rajasthan University gave a lecture here at the Temple, and he was of the opinion that Rama was elevated to an Avatar during 4th century AD, before that he was a human Prince.
Perceived Truth is collected knowledge, and so can be manipulated.

Ultimate Truth is universal.
 
Last edited:
Smt. Amirtha,

Yes, what you say is right. It is only in the Adhyatma Ramayana that Rama, his brother Lakshmana, Seetaa, etc., have been given a quasi-divine picturization. Accordingly the seetaapaharana which was a completely worldly matter in VR and imo, brings out Ravana in a villain's (woman-kidnapper's) role more effectively, has been altered what with Lakshmana Rekha, Ravana unable to cross that Rekha, Seetaa being asked by Ravana to come close in order to give him (in the guise of a mendicant) alms thus crossing the Rekha and so on. These are all alterations which were done to the original story of a very human Rama, in order to project him as an avataara of Vishnu.

Dear Sri Sangom,

It is incredible how you try to gloss over what Smt. Amirtha states. She states and I quote "Seetha invites Ravana in disguise" and she she assets that it is so in VR. You agree with her and say "yes, what you say is right" but do not give the verses of VR as you furnish the same while trying to provide impact for your points of view. This i feel is not objective analysis of VR.
 
Dear Sri Sangom,

It is incredible how you try to gloss over what Smt. Amirtha states. She states and I quote "Seetha invites Ravana in disguise" and she she assets that it is so in VR. You agree with her and say "yes, what you say is right" but do not give the verses of VR as you furnish the same while trying to provide impact for your points of view. This i feel is not objective analysis of VR.

Dear shri Zebra and Smt. Amrita,

Thank you, shri Narayanan, for pointing out my mistake, though I don't think so; if at all, it was an oversight on my part. But pray tell me how am I bound to give slokas when I agree with what Smt. Amirtha says and there is not even a tangential suggestion that she does not know the slokas? I give below the post by Smt. Amirtha for your ready reference :


Shri Sangom

I want to bring about Sita. We all heared about Lakshman rekha. Lakshmana, before he left the parnasala, drew a line and asked Sita to stay inside the line. However, she didn’t. So Ravana abduct her. But in VR Seetha invite Ravana in disguise. In VR there is no mention of lakshmana rekha.


How do you, Shri Zebra, interpret the highlighted portion above and come to the conclusion that I must furnish relevant slokas to substantiate essentially what she also agrees with?

Smt. Amirtha,

Yes, you are right, in VR Seetaa invites the mendicant (Ravana in disguise) because that was the usual respect or honour that was given (to be given according to the social practice of those days) to a mendicant. Since Zebra seems to know your mind (?) although you have not clearly said that you want the verses from VR, here are the verses; you can get them from Valmiki Ramayana
3-46-33,34,35,36

If you want to know the verses from where the Lakshmana Rekha episode comes, I don't have Adhyatma Ramayana in sanskrit but only the one in Malayalam, pl.
 
Dear Sri Sangom,

It is incredible how you try to gloss over what Smt. Amirtha states. She states and I quote "Seetha invites Ravana in disguise" and she she assets that it is so in VR. You agree with her and say "yes, what you say is right" but do not give the verses of VR as you furnish the same while trying to provide impact for your points of view. This i feel is not objective analysis of VR.

Shri Narayanan
Sorry I should have furnished with VR reference when I wrote the message. I was agreeing with what Shri Sangom wrote. It is not his responsibility to provide reference to what I wrote. Sorry once again. Here is my reference:

Valmiki Ramayana - Aranya Kanda - Sarga 46 

Since we are talking about whether Brahmins ate vegetarian or non-vegetarian, I want to convey that as per VR, after inviting the kabada sanyasi, Sita offered him take rest comfortably at their parnasala until her husband come back with fresh hunted meat. Aranya Kanda Sarga 47 sloga 22b &23


Valmiki Ramayana - Aranya Kanda - Sarga 47 

Kind Regards
 
I might be digressing (and again I might not be)...

Every society/culture needs its heroes. Ancient heroes to fall back on, to provide role model to the current.

The West, relies on ancient Greeks & Romans to provide the foundation of their current Americano European civilization. Again, these also change with times, as like fashions.

Take names for instance - in my early 1950s days, Shobha and Gayathri were popular. You dont hear of those being anointed now. Vishnu Vaishnavi were never heard of, but now trendy.

Same goes for morals. And populist religious movements. When I grew up in the 1950s and 60s, I have never heard of Ayyappa. Even though I am a Pattar, such things were not practised in my home. All of a sudden my father felt a need for a religious or socio religious involvement - I am yet to fathom his need and do not wish to analyze the same.

Ayyappa became a part of our household - for those days of Decemeber, the household and work routine were set aside, and Mandavelipakkam Ayyappa Samajam was our de facto abode. The months prior to it, dad spent every evening, cajoling and 'threatening' the greats and near greats of Madras to submitting their services either through money or free concerts.

He was a great success. Only TMS was able to withstand this pressure, and refused to give a free concert. The likes of Chittibabu, flute Ramani or Balamurali, all, meekly obliged the call of Ayyappa as set forth by Mandavelipakkam Ayyappa Samaj, and performed cocerts, which thanks to his gratis nature, attracted literally a thousand audience a night, spilling over to the neighbourhood homes and streets.

It is the same religiosity, that appeared to have failed the musician Sekhar's widow Kasturi, when facing family challenges, resorted to the succour provided by a muslim peer, resident of a dargha opposite Wellington theatre. To me, I think, ASDileep Kumar, turning to ARRahman, is a great loss, to our culture and faith, because, a man so gifted, nurtured by Hindus and background, through circumstances, turns his back on it, and yet profits from it, on a level, which I think can happen in no Islamic country. His music is not Islamic, and his audience is neither. But he has only a loyalty to an Islam, which he now, has changed from orthodoxy to sufi (!).

Then there are the Christian preachers, dime a dozen, in Tamil Nadu now, buying souls at the drop of a penny. With money coming freely from the evangelicals of the USA. To compete with the wahhabi money from Saudi Arabia.

So, what do we do now?

Do we denigrate our own kind of God Men or Women. Who might be providing a need based service to our folks or blanket blasphemying them as frauds.

I do not know. Nor do I have sufficient information, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Should we only denigrate Hindu God men? Do we have sufficient clout to judge God men/women across all faiths. Will this have any buyers?

To sum up, all I wish to say, is things are not really so starkly black and white. There are needs and hungers that we do not know. Our readings, we might think, gives us answers to all eventualities. Maybe it will. And again, maybe it may not.

Only the Man Above knows.
 
Smt. Amirtha,

Yes, what you say is right. It is only in the Adhyatma Ramayana that Rama, his brother Lakshmana, Seetaa, etc., have been given a quasi-divine picturization. Accordingly the seetaapaharana which was a completely worldly matter in VR and imo, brings out Ravana in a villain's (woman-kidnapper's) role more effectively, has been altered what with Lakshmana Rekha, Ravana unable to cross that Rekha, Seetaa being asked by Ravana to come close in order to give him (in the guise of a mendicant) alms thus crossing the Rekha and so on. These are all alterations which were done to the original story of a very human Rama, in order to project him as an avataara of Vishnu.

Shri Sangom

I am not going to deny that I was brought up to believe the above said. Never knew about VR side of the story. I used to read Chakaravarthi Thirumagan. I thought he was copying VR. I believed it 110%. I was fascinated with Rama and Sita dedication to each other. Even now when I read VR, I found it to be a very nice love story. Imo most of the girls want dedicated husband like that. No doubt, boys also want dedicated wife like Sita.

I speculate all these kind of avatara proposition happened after Shri Vyasa. Why I am saying this is because, (thanks to internet, Google & wiki for revealing the information and exchanging our ideas/thoughts through our fingertips) Shri Vyasa said to have divided the Vedas, compiled the Upanishads to 108, and wrote all the puranas, author of Mahabharata and Brahma sutra. One sole person did all this.

Kind Regards
 
Amirtha,

Vyasa means Compiler. There were many Vyasas. They were not the original authors. They only compiled stories which had come down through Oral tradition.
 
Dear shri Zebra and Smt. Amrita,

Thank you, shri Narayanan, for pointing out my mistake, though I don't think so; if at all, it was an oversight on my part. But pray tell me how am I bound to give slokas when I agree with what Smt. Amirtha says and there is not even a tangential suggestion that she does not know the slokas? I give below the post by Smt. Amirtha for your ready reference :

[/FONT]

Dear Sri Sangom,

You are not bound to give slokas whether I ask for it, or whether Smt. Amirtha asks for it or when somebody else asks for its. For that matter, the slokas offerred by you (quite copiously at that) were not provided by you just because someone needed them. You yourselves stated the following to be your intention of giving VR slokas (refer ur msg # 234 addressed to Sarang. To cut out the necessity of browising back the article unnecessarily, here is the exact words of your msg in this regard:

QUOTE:

Once again, I have to tell you all with all humility at my command, that the purpose of my writing my views/observations is not to change the belief or mindset of people. All I want is to go on record with what is actually found in the Vaalmeeki Ramayana text as we have it today, so that, some one of the younger generation may come to know, if he happens to stumble upon these pages.

UNQUOTE

So if you are going to be consistent with your stated objective, then i thought you should have provided the necessary slokas, whether Smt. Amirtha required it or not (for the sake of those youngsters at a future stumbling on this msg)

How do you, Shri Zebra, interpret the highlighted portion above and come to the conclusion that I must furnish relevant slokas to substantiate essentially what she also agrees with?

I do not understand why I should pay special emphasix to the high-lighted portion. Smt. Amirtha did not high light any portion of her message either for emphasis or for attention. So I read all the portions of her text as having equal importance.

Smt. Amirtha,

Yes, you are right, in VR Seetaa invites the mendicant (Ravana in disguise) because that was the usual respect or honour that was given (to be given according to the social practice of those days) to a mendicant. Since Zebra seems to know your mind (?) although you have not clearly said that you want the verses from VR, here are the verses; you can get them from Valmiki Ramayana
3-46-33,34,35,36

Notwishstanding the jibe of me being a mind reader of Smt. Amirtha, Smt. Amirtha is obviously wearing the matter that interests on her forehead. It is really a no brainer as to what Smt. Amirtha wants to talk. She sets the preamble with "I want to bring about Sita" The lakshman rekha issue is inconsequential as she herself dismisses it making a brief statement that it is not there in VR.

So what Smt. Amirtha wants to hear from you (as this msg is addressed to you) is : Let us talk about Sita and her inviting Ravana in disguise. Now Smt. Amirtha's msg is ambigously worded as it could mean (i) Sita unwittingly invited Ravana duped by his disguise; (ii) Sita knew Ravana was in disguise and yet invited him.

I thought your objectivity would ensure quoting the relevant passage of VR and give the correct position that Sita invited the mendicant and it was the deceit of Ravana that required censure.
 
Shri Sangom

I am not going to deny that I was brought up to believe the above said. Never knew about VR side of the story. I used to read Chakaravarthi Thirumagan. I thought he was copying VR. I believed it 110%. I was fascinated with Rama and Sita dedication to each other. Even now when I read VR, I found it to be a very nice love story. Imo most of the girls want dedicated husband like that. No doubt, boys also want dedicated wife like Sita.

I speculate all these kind of avatara proposition happened after Shri Vyasa. Why I am saying this is because, (thanks to internet, Google & wiki for revealing the information and exchanging our ideas/thoughts through our fingertips) Shri Vyasa said to have divided the Vedas, compiled the Upanishads to 108, and wrote all the puranas, author of Mahabharata and Brahma sutra. One sole person did all this.

Kind Regards

Smt. Amirta and all other members,

It is not my case that Rama (Lakshmana, Sita, Hanuman, etc., included - RLS for short) should be removed from the pedestal of divinity. But I think that we hindus (and more especially, the tabras who still consider themselves as "brahmanas") should know our scriptures as thoroughly as possible and they may continue worshipping the various deities with such full knowledge. If, however, knowledge (like VR says RLS used to eat meat, or that our Dharma Sastras depict a period in which meat had to be offered to the Shraaddha Brahmanas, etc.) is likely to adversely affect our attitudes towards our divine entities, it is not a complete trust in the divinity and we should re-examine our attitudes.

As regards Vyaasa, as Shri Shankara_Sharmah has very rightly said in post # 335, it is more like a designation (e.g., Prime Minister) and if the real meaning is lost to posterity, then they will (rightly, in their view) think that one person/sage called PM lived for a long time and achieved so many things for the country which is humanly impossible. And, I may add that Mahabharata was perhaps compiled as the text in its present form during a period when the vedic religion was "opening up" to newer people within the sub-continent who had been kept out of its doors till then, and the personality of Vyaasa (born to a fisher woman by a great sage Paraasara) was some sort of a signal that the new set of people were welcome aboard. In a very similar way, the personality of Vaalmeeki, a hunter transformed into a great sage was yet another such signal.
 
Dear Sri Sangom,

You are not bound to give slokas whether I ask for it, or whether Smt. Amirtha asks for it or when somebody else asks for its. For that matter, the slokas offerred by you (quite copiously at that) were not provided by you just because someone needed them. You yourselves stated the following to be your intention of giving VR slokas (refer ur msg # 234 addressed to Sarang. To cut out the necessity of browising back the article unnecessarily, here is the exact words of your msg in this regard:

QUOTE:

Once again, I have to tell you all with all humility at my command, that the purpose of my writing my views/observations is not to change the belief or mindset of people. All I want is to go on record with what is actually found in the Vaalmeeki Ramayana text as we have it today, so that, some one of the younger generation may come to know, if he happens to stumble upon these pages.

UNQUOTE

So if you are going to be consistent with your stated objective, then i thought you should have provided the necessary slokas, whether Smt. Amirtha required it or not (for the sake of those youngsters at a future stumbling on this msg)



I do not understand why I should pay special emphasix to the high-lighted portion. Smt. Amirtha did not high light any portion of her message either for emphasis or for attention. So I read all the portions of her text as having equal importance.



Notwishstanding the jibe of me being a mind reader of Smt. Amirtha, Smt. Amirtha is obviously wearing the matter that interests on her forehead. It is really a no brainer as to what Smt. Amirtha wants to talk. She sets the preamble with "I want to bring about Sita" The lakshman rekha issue is inconsequential as she herself dismisses it making a brief statement that it is not there in VR.

So what Smt. Amirtha wants to hear from you (as this msg is addressed to you) is : Let us talk about Sita and her inviting Ravana in disguise. Now Smt. Amirtha's msg is ambigously worded as it could mean (i) Sita unwittingly invited Ravana duped by his disguise; (ii) Sita knew Ravana was in disguise and yet invited him.

I thought your objectivity would ensure quoting the relevant passage of VR and give the correct position that Sita invited the mendicant and it was the deceit of Ravana that required censure.

Dear Shri Narayanan,

You have very clearly brought out your point. I thank you and apologize once again for not giving the slokas.
 
I gather from some post that, if my child had a Cancer, I should not get it treated as my neighbors may come to know. So I should hush it up and not get the child the treatment.

So we we are pointing out the cancer (Godmen) is growing among Hindus, and sapping the energy out of Hindus, and people are worried that we might expose this Cancer?
I do not care whether the same cancer may exist in other religions, it is up to them to take care of it. Let us worry about us first.
 
I might be digressing (and again I might not be)...

Every society/culture needs its heroes. Ancient heroes to fall back on, to provide role model to the current.

The West, relies on ancient Greeks & Romans to provide the foundation of their current Americano European civilization. Again, these also change with times, as like fashions.

Take names for instance - in my early 1950s days, Shobha and Gayathri were popular. You dont hear of those being anointed now. Vishnu Vaishnavi were never heard of, but now trendy.

Same goes for morals. And populist religious movements. When I grew up in the 1950s and 60s, I have never heard of Ayyappa. Even though I am a Pattar, such things were not practised in my home. All of a sudden my father felt a need for a religious or socio religious involvement - I am yet to fathom his need and do not wish to analyze the same.

Ayyappa became a part of our household - for those days of Decemeber, the household and work routine were set aside, and Mandavelipakkam Ayyappa Samajam was our de facto abode. The months prior to it, dad spent every evening, cajoling and 'threatening' the greats and near greats of Madras to submitting their services either through money or free concerts.

He was a great success. Only TMS was able to withstand this pressure, and refused to give a free concert. The likes of Chittibabu, flute Ramani or Balamurali, all, meekly obliged the call of Ayyappa as set forth by Mandavelipakkam Ayyappa Samaj, and performed cocerts, which thanks to his gratis nature, attracted literally a thousand audience a night, spilling over to the neighbourhood homes and streets.

It is the same religiosity, that appeared to have failed the musician Sekhar's widow Kasturi, when facing family challenges, resorted to the succour provided by a muslim peer, resident of a dargha opposite Wellington theatre. To me, I think, ASDileep Kumar, turning to ARRahman, is a great loss, to our culture and faith, because, a man so gifted, nurtured by Hindus and background, through circumstances, turns his back on it, and yet profits from it, on a level, which I think can happen in no Islamic country. His music is not Islamic, and his audience is neither. But he has only a loyalty to an Islam, which he now, has changed from orthodoxy to sufi (!).

Then there are the Christian preachers, dime a dozen, in Tamil Nadu now, buying souls at the drop of a penny. With money coming freely from the evangelicals of the USA. To compete with the wahhabi money from Saudi Arabia.

So, what do we do now?

Do we denigrate our own kind of God Men or Women. Who might be providing a need based service to our folks or blanket blasphemying them as frauds.

I do not know. Nor do I have sufficient information, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Should we only denigrate Hindu God men? Do we have sufficient clout to judge God men/women across all faiths. Will this have any buyers?

To sum up, all I wish to say, is things are not really so starkly black and white. There are needs and hungers that we do not know. Our readings, we might think, gives us answers to all eventualities. Maybe it will. And again, maybe it may not.

Only the Man Above knows.

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I agree with you when you say, "Every society/culture needs its heroes. Ancient heroes to fall back on, to provide role model to the current." As you will see, the topic here is not whether Rama is an epic hero and, therefore, a hero in the minds of the people, but whether Rama was not a vegetarian in his food habits. If you consider that such a discussion will ipso facto, mean that Rama can be a hero and divinity only if he was a vegetarian, then I have nothing more to say than that these two points, imo, are unrelated.

Since Hindus are accustomed to giving innumerable goats, fowls, etc., as offerings to their gods/goddesses at temples (Kaamaakhya, Kaalighat, etc.,) and we still revere as holy men those who justified animal sacrifice. Hence, I think Rama being a non-vegetarian is not going to matter for the "aam aadmi"; but for tabras who probably think that their vegetarianism gives them a kind of elevated spiritual status may feel badly let down (by Rama, of course).

From heros you seem to suddenly go over to godmen/godwomen. May be you find heros and heroines in such personalities, but AFAI am concerned hardly any of this tribe have been able to make any favourable impression in my mind, barring the lone exception of Shirdi Sai Baba. Along with Shri Prasad, I also feel that these gurus/aanandas/swamijis/ godmen/godwomen are some kind of cancerous growth in Hinduism. Our hindus who have become gullible or have misinterpreted the religion in such a way that they can "outsource" their spiritual labours to one of these gurus/aanandas/swamijis/ godmen/godwomen. Either way, these people are an unwanted development for our hindu society.

Christians at least to my best knowledge, do not have christ-men. Instead they make saints out of deceased humans and that, in my view, is very much less harmful, because in the name of such saints usually no business enterprise springs up. Muslims do not and are not allowed to afford the status of Allaahu even to their prophet; even the prophet is only a 'rasool' messenger of God and no more. So, we need not be unduly afraid of the two other major competitors in dealing strictly with such gurus/aanandas/swamijis/ godmen/godwomen, imho. These people should have a reserved area somewhere in the Himalayas where they may pursue their spiritual pursuits of every kind ;)
 
Last edited:
So what Smt. Amirtha wants to hear from you (as this msg is addressed to you) is : Let us talk about Sita and her inviting Ravana in disguise. Now Smt. Amirtha's msg is ambigously worded as it could mean (i) Sita unwittingly invited Ravana duped by his disguise; (ii) Sita knew Ravana was in disguise and yet invited him.

Shri Narayanan


First of all I did not say anything ambiguous about Sita’s inviting Ravana into the parnasals. I clearly said “kabada Sanyasi”. As per VR Sita indeed invited Ravana thinking he was a Brahmin ascetic.


Yes I wanted to talk about Lakshman Rekha(or the lack of it). Generally it was known (told) that Sita was abducted because she crossed Lashmana rekha. I was pointing out in original Ramayana, i’e, VR, there is no mention about Lakshmana rekha. Since Ravana disguised himself as ascetic Brahmin, so Sita wouldn’t suspect his intentions. In the traditional hospitality as “Athithi devo Bhava”, she invited him and gave him water to wash his feet and hands, and provided him asana to sit. From the narrations in VR I could understand Sita was worried about offending Ravana in disguise if she did not receive him properly as a Brahmin ascetic.


I don’t think I said anywhere that Sita knew Ravana was in disguise.


Only because she believed he was Brahmin ascetic after explaining her brief life history she asked Ravana what he was doing in the middle of the jungle.


Ref: VR



saH tvam naama ca gotram ca kulam aacakShva tattvataH |
ekaH ca daNDakaaraNye kim artham carasi dvija || 3-47-24



24. dvija
= oh, Brahman; saH tvam = such as you are; naama ca gotram ca kulam ca = name, also, parentage, also, caste, also; tattvataH aacakSva = in actuality, make mention of; ekaH ca = lonesomely, also; daNDaka araNye in Dandaka, forest; kim artham carasi for what, reason, you wander.


"Such as you are, oh, Brahman, you may make mention of your name, parentage and caste, in their actuality. For what reason you are wandering in Dandaka forest lonesomely?" Thus Seetha questioned Ravana. [3-47-24]



Valmiki Ramayana - Aranya Kanda - Sarga 47 
 
Vyasa means Compiler. There were many Vyasas. They were not the original authors. They only compiled stories which had come down through Oral tradition.

As regards Vyaasa, as Shri Shankara_Sharmah has very rightly said in post # 335, it is more like a designation (e.g., Prime Minister) and if the real meaning is lost to posterity, then they will (rightly, in their view) think that one person/sage called PM lived for a long time and achieved so many things for the country which is humanly impossible.

Shri Shankara Sharma and Shri Sangom
It is true as per Vishnu Purana there were many Vyaasa. But Visnu purana says there was one Vyaasa for each manvantra. That leads me to understand that there was one Vyaasa only in each individual manvantra.

Hindus traditionally hold that Vyasa categorised the primordial single Veda into four. Hence he was called Veda Vyasa, or "Splitter of the Vedas," the splitting being a feat that allowed people to understand the divine knowledge of the Veda. The word vyasa means split, differentiate, or describe.
It has been debated whether Vyasa was a single person or a class of scholars who did the splitting. The Vishnu Purana has a theory about Vyasa. The Hindu view of the universe is that of a cyclic phenomenon that comes into existence and dissolves repeatedly. Each cycle is presided over by a number of Manus, one for each Manvantara, that has four ages, Yugas of declining virtues. The Dvapara Yuga is the third Yuga. The Vishnu Purana (Book 3, Ch 3) says:
In every third world age (Dvapara), Vishnu, in the person of Vyasa, in order to promote the good of mankind, divides the Veda, which is properly but one, into many portions. Observing the limited perseverance, energy, and application of mortals, he makes the Veda fourfold, to adapt it to their capacities; and the bodily form which he assumes, in order to effect that classification, is known by the name of Veda-vyasa. Of the different Vyasas in the present Manvantara and the branches which they have taught, you shall have an account. Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara... and consequently eight and twenty Vyasas have passed away; by whom, in the respective periods, the Veda has been divided into four. The first... distribution was made by Svayambhu (Brahma) himself; in the second, the arranger of the Veda (Vyasa) was Prajapati... (and so on up to twenty-eight).
Vyasa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this manvantra I understand Vyaasa was son of Parasara Muni and father of Sukar. I could be wrong. If I am wrong kindly show me existence of many Vyaasa. Thank you.

Kind Regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amritha,

My statement of Vyasa being only a compiler is not based on any Purana. The word vyasa means split, differentiate, or describe. It is a conclusion drawn by years of research done by Sanskrit scholars. This is what I was taught in college when I studied Vedic Science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amritha,

My statement of Vyasa being only a compiler is not based on any Purana. The word vyasa means split, differentiate, or describe. It is a conclusion drawn by years of research done by Sanskrit scholars. This is what I was taught in college when I studied Vedic Science.

That's why some books are very specific and they describe Veda Vyasa as Krishna Dvaipayana to differentiate him from other Vyasas.
 
Shri Shankara Sharma and Shri Sangom
It is true as per Vishnu Purana there were many Vyaasa. But Visnu purana says there was one Vyaasa for each manvantra. That leads me to understand that there was one Vyaasa only in each individual manvantra.


Vyasa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this manvantra I understand Vyaasa was son of Parasara Muni and father of Sukar. I could be wrong. If I am wrong kindly show me existence of many Vyaasa. Thank you.

Kind Regards

Smt. Amirta,

To me your request "If I am wrong kindly show me existence of many Vyaasa" seems to be a tall order. According to the belief system, which is just pure belief and nothing more, the one single vyaasa compiled the four vedas as separate. I don't know which Purana states this but I have less belief in Puranas than in Vedas and Upanishads (again, this is my belief, you see.). But as I have said in this post that the Purusha sooktam which forms part of the Rigveda says that the three vedas rik, saama and yajus originated from the sacrifice performed by the devas, saadhyas and rishis. Purusha sookta does not even mention the name of any rishi and vyaasa is not at all mentioned therein. The rigveda does not therefore support the view that there was once only one veda which vyaasa divided into three (or four). It will therefore follow that either the rigveda itself is telling a lie or the Purana is telling a lie. You can choose which to believe.

The sooktas (hymns) of the rigveda are by tadition, ascribed to different rishis. To the best of my knowledge (I may be wrong because rigveda is supposed to have 400 rishis named after their hymns.) Vyaasa or even Paraasara is not one of those. To me this proves that both Paraasara and Vyaasa are later inventions of Puranakartas.

As regards the Manvantara theory, what I have understood from scriptures is that after each Mahaapralayam, all the jeevaatmas merge back into the brahman, and at the start of the new creation all these jeevaatmas take birth again, in accordance with their karmas. So, it is not impossible that some jeevaatma gets born as Vyaasa, once again.
 
Just a thought.

The name Rama was first given to Jamdhagni's son. Later on when Dasradha's son was named Rama, the original Rama was called as Parashurama because he carries a Parashu. In Parashurama' story he is referred to only as Rama. When the other Rama is referred he is referred as Kothanda Rama.
 
Just a thought.

The name Rama was first given to Jamdhagni's son. Later on when Dasradha's son was named Rama, the original Rama was called as Parashurama because he carries a Parashu. In Parashurama' story he is referred to only as Rama. When the other Rama is referred he is referred as Kothanda Rama.

Dear Shri Sharmah,

Just my thoughts please.

First 'bhargava Rama' destroys all the kshatriyas in the world 21 times over and he is so meticulous in this task that he did not spare foetuses in the womb of kshatriya women. That looks like a signal defeat of kshatriyas at the hands of God's own avataar, Parshu Rama. But then God had perhaps some second thought, comes again as Kothanda Rama, a 100% kshatriya himself, defeats and humbles the egoistic Bhrigurama (vishnu vs vishnu, rajni style!) and establishes Dharma all over the Bharatavarsha. Not to be left behind, Krishna saves abhimanyu in Uttara's womb from the brahmashiraastra of Ashwatthaama so that the Kuru dynasty continues.
 
Amritha,

My statement of Vyasa being only a compiler is not based on any Purana. The word vyasa means split, differentiate, or describe. It is a conclusion drawn by years of research done by Sanskrit scholars. This is what I was taught in college when I studied Vedic Science.

Shri Sankara Sharma

Thanks for writing the meaning for the word Vyaasa. But it does not mean there were many Vyaasas. The work Krishna means dark skinned. But usually when we say Krishna we don't mean all the dark skinned persons, but Vishnu's avatar Krishna. Similarly imo when we say Vyaasa we mean veda Vyaasa who compilied at his discretion the verses of veda.

Kind Regards
 
Smt. Amirta,

To me your request "If I am wrong kindly show me existence of many Vyaasa" seems to be a tall order. According to the belief system, which is just pure belief and nothing more, the one single vyaasa compiled the four vedas as separate. I don't know which Purana states this but I have less belief in Puranas than in Vedas and Upanishads (again, this is my belief, you see.). But as I have said in this post that the Purusha sooktam which forms part of the Rigveda says that the three vedas rik, saama and yajus originated from the sacrifice performed by the devas, saadhyas and rishis. Purusha sookta does not even mention the name of any rishi and vyaasa is not at all mentioned therein. The rigveda does not therefore support the view that there was once only one veda which vyaasa divided into three (or four). It will therefore follow that either the rigveda itself is telling a lie or the Purana is telling a lie. You can choose which to believe.

The sooktas (hymns) of the rigveda are by tadition, ascribed to different rishis. To the best of my knowledge (I may be wrong because rigveda is supposed to have 400 rishis named after their hymns.) Vyaasa or even Paraasara is not one of those. To me this proves that both Paraasara and Vyaasa are later inventions of Puranakartas.

As regards the Manvantara theory, what I have understood from scriptures is that after each Mahaapralayam, all the jeevaatmas merge back into the brahman, and at the start of the new creation all these jeevaatmas take birth again, in accordance with their karmas. So, it is not impossible that some jeevaatma gets born as Vyaasa, once again.

Shri Sangom

When you say "To me your request "If I am wrong kindly show me existence of many Vyaasa" seems to be a tall order", I may have to go with what is at hand. Veda Vyaasa son of Parasara supervised comilation of all the four vedas, vedanda, all the puranas, uthra mimamsa, mahabharata(MB) etc.. Veda Vyaasa belong to MB period as per the story goes. So, his entry could be much later to rigvedic period.

It look like presently we are in 28th manvantra. So Veda Vyaasa could by the soul Vyaasa for this manvantra?

Kind Regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top