Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sangom Sir, you have said this in post #12



And in post#29



Your interpretation of the data available is that:
1. There existed a king or a chieftain by name Rama in the northern part of Bharathvarsha (I am avoiding the word India because it will rile up my friend Prasad) and his story is the same as Ramayana and was a part of the folklore of those times.
2. Valmiki was some energetic poet who had a taste for writing poetry and was inspired by the Greek tradition set in motion by Homer with his Iliyad and Odyssy in Hexameter verse. So our friend Valmiki wrote this epic Ramayana influenced by Greeks. So it is just a story of a mortal.
3. In support of this we have speculation that Homer lived in 850 BC. Alexander came to India in 340 BC and our friend Valmiki lived some time after all this and had the benefit of knowledge of existence of Iliyad and Odyssy and had the inspiration to pen his epic in the short but complex anushtup metre in Sanskrit.

Dear Sir, This is one line of argument about the epic which looks at the epic from the angle of the beginingless and endless continum called TIME to the exclusion of every thing else that is associated with the epic. So I start with the question ‘what if’. Yes.What if the epic was indeed a story borrowed from the folklore? What if the grammatical anushtup metre verse form had its inspiration from the Hexameter verse form of ancient Greece? Though I have differences about your interpretation of the origin of the epic, its being a mirror image of Iliyad or Odyssy in its form etc., I am not questioning you about that now. I am leaving it aside. I take something else in your interpretation which is altogether different. You are trying to reduce the epic Ramayana to a mere chronicle/a folk lore whereas it is for millions of Indians the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here.







The moss covered rocks that you have dismissed with disdain pertains to the faith of millions of people in Bharathvarsh. As different from the God idea that exists in other faiths, the Hindu faith had always been responding to the needs of the faithfull followers with many personal Godheads.
(1) You can be a very well educated and well informed individual delving deep into its vedas and upanishads and indulging in study and discussion of the brain teasing but empty advaita
(2) You can be a Rshi who has given up interest in worldly possessions and is engaging in deep meditation to ‘realize’.
(3)You may not be that fortunate and happen to be an ordinary Hindu who has a need to have some tangible form of the God idea so that he can pray and ask for forgivence of all his misdeeds (because ethics and morals are common for every one)
(4)You may be an unlettered labourer who subsists but who at the end of the day remembers that he has some surplus to spend and wants to imitate his master and so looks to a God to whom he can offer a cigar and a bottle of Toddy(because they are the luxuries that he can think of)

All the above four category of people have an opportunity to have a Godhead of their liking in the Hindu religion. It is here that Rama the hero of the Epic Ramayana comes in. Whether there existed a Rama in flesh and blood at any time on this earth is of no consequence to the Hindus who worship him as God. When there was a need to have the God idea represented in anthropomorphic form there was no better way than to take a leaf from the folk lore and adopt its best hero with all kalyana gunas as the God. The Icon Rama with bow and arrow may not be very important but the idea he represents is important. He is the God idea for millions in the anthropomorphic form which is easy to understand, comprehend and deal with. This form and many other forms –including the rarefied form of nirguna brahmam-are the representation of God and that transformed Ramayana from just another Iliyad or Odyssey to a religious itihasa. I can give you here the complete idea I have tried to convey, by these simple tamil words. While explaining what the five forms of the God are Pillailokacharyar says:

பூகத ஜலம் போலே அந்தர்யாமித்துவம்; ஆவரண ஜலம்போலே பரத்துவம்; பாற்கடல் போலே வியூகம்; பெருக்காறு போலே விபவம்; அதிலே தேங்கின மடுக்கள் போலே அர்ச்சாவதாரம்.

I can further elaborate on this with his own words but the post will become very lengthy. If our erudite Sangom Sir, keeps ruminating about the universal consciousness spoken about by Sankara while refusing to accept that there can be a God, my friend Vedabhothakam Arulsingh keeps thinking about the significance of the three entities spoken about in Bible –the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost, and my another friend Khursheed Ahmed keeps wondering secretly what his God will look like. I am free from all this pain. I worship Rama my personal God with full faith. I am at peace with myself. This is not a peace I got in exchange for any compromise. With all the intellect that God has given me I have understood the complexity of the problem well and yet has chosen the பெருக்காற்றில் தேங்கிய மடுவான அர்ச்சாவதாரம் deliberately as it makes excellent sense to me. And so dear Sir, all that is said in Ramayana makes sense too to me. It is not moss accumulated over millennia. Ramanuja, by the way, did not discard all the time-honored views. It was not as if he threw overboard everything which was time-honored and made path-breaking new discovery of a religion. It appears you have a penchant for getting recruited to anything new just because it is new.



Again TIME. It is very convenient. As if a beauty of yesterday can not remain a beauty today because of TIME. Opinions and views have to be condemned for their being OLD (a derivative of TIME). The west is indeed rational and logical and that is why they had pogroms, apartheid and Hiroshima and Nagasaaki inflicted on the humanity. They are rational that is why they have suicide cults killing themselves or have KKK killing others for silly reasons of color of skin. They are very logical and that is why the briefcase with the button is carried by their chieftains wherever they go-it needs just a push of the button to let loose thermo nuclear and other WMDs on “enemies”. Please understand that west is just a direction and the people who live there are having all the weaknesses that the people in East south and north have. I have personal experience dealing with some of those from the “west” with hare brains who were stupidity personified.

And my friend Prasad said in #30



We are, I think, talking here about India which was once the geographical area called Bharathvarsh.

Cheers.

Dear Shri Raju,

What is your point as I was mesmerized by your presentation?!

 

[suraju06]

Mr. Raju Sir,
I have great respect for your knowledge and you present it very eloquently. I do not say it lightly.
You have a misconception that when I differ from your point of view, then somehow I am anti-India, or I admire the west more than the East. Put aside your preconceived notion about my point of view and just read what I am writing. I write what I feel, and I am honest about it. There are great things that we do not know that we can learn everyday. A gem found anywhere has the same value.
Please give credit to your audience, not all of them are fools.

Dear friend Prasad,

I recognize and respect that every one here has a right to have a view. I also understand that it is a manifestation of their firm belief and clear understanding of the matter. I do not take them lightly. I have absolutely no preconcieved notions whatsoever about others here. When I wrote about Bharathvarsha in my earlier post it was only to point out that the landmass called Bharathvarsha which subsequently became India was existing for millions of years before 1947. Nothing more nothing less. To say India did not exist before 1947 while discussing about the Hindu religion is like saying, while discussing-say anthropology, America did not exist until Columbus landed there or that Tanzania did not exist on the face of earth until the two countries Tanganyika and Zanzibar came together in the 20th century. I respect your right to write whatever you know and want to write. I only request you to recognize my right to present what I want to about the matters discussed here. It is my right. You are a friend of me and I am sure you will understand. No hard feelings please.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Shri Raju,

What is your point as I was mesmerized by your presentation?!

Dear Sravna,

Analyzing Ramayana from the stand point of time and historicity and looking at Ramayana as a itihasa singing the praise of God Rama as an avatar are two divergent lines of argument and can result in quite diametrically opposite interpretation of the incidents, characters and underlying philosophy of Ramayana. So it would be better to be restrained while evaluating Ramayana from a historical pov.

This is what I have said.

Cheers.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Analyzing Ramayana from the stand point of time and historicity and looking at Ramayana as a itihasa singing the praise of God Rama as an avatar are two divergent lines of argument and can result in quite diametrically opposite interpretation of the incidents, characters and underlying philosophy of Ramayana. So it would be better to be restrained while evaluating Ramayana from a historical pov.

This is what I have said.

Cheers.

Dear Shri Raju,

Sure I agree. As you rightly point out the people who analyze Ramayana from the standpoint of time and historicity need to be sensitive to the feelings of the people who hold Rama as an avatar. These people should not consider knowingly or unknowingly that their approach is unbiased.

 

[prasad1]

Dear friend Prasad,

I recognize and respect that every one here has a right to have a view. I also understand that it is a manifestation of their firm belief and clear understanding of the matter. I do not take them lightly. I have absolutely no preconcieved notions whatsoever about others here. When I wrote about Bharathvarsha in my earlier post it was only to point out that the landmass called Bharathvarsha which subsequently became India was existing for millions of years before 1947. Nothing more nothing less. To say India did not exist before 1947 while discussing about the Hindu religion is like saying, while discussing-say anthropology, America did not exist until Columbus landed there or that Tanzania did not exist on the face of earth until the two countries Tanganyika and Zanzibar came together in the 20th century. I respect your right to write whatever you know and want to write. I only request you to recognize my right to present what I want to about the matters discussed here. It is my right. You are a friend of me and I am sure you will understand. No hard feelings please.

Cheers.

I fully concur with your POV. I have no problem in discussing any issue. I do not discount an argument just because I do not like the person making the argument. It belittles the argument by dismissing the other person as "westerner" or malech.
No hard feelings at all.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Sravna,

Analyzing Ramayana from the stand point of time and historicity and looking at Ramayana as a itihasa singing the praise of God Rama as an avatar are two divergent lines of argument and can result in quite diametrically opposite interpretation of the incidents, characters and underlying philosophy of Ramayana. So it would be better to be restrained while evaluating Ramayana from a historical pov.

This is what I have said.

Cheers.

I too feel that Ramayana and Mahabharata should be used for their underlying philosophy. The history is murky at best.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir, you have said this in post #12

And in post#29

Your interpretation of the data available is that:
1. There existed a king or a chieftain by name Rama in the northern part of Bharathvarsha (I am avoiding the word India because it will rile up my friend Prasad) and his story is the same as Ramayana and was a part of the folklore of those times.
2. Valmiki was some energetic poet who had a taste for writing poetry and was inspired by the Greek tradition set in motion by Homer with his Iliyad and Odyssy in Hexameter verse. So our friend Valmiki wrote this epic Ramayana influenced by Greeks. So it is just a story of a mortal.
3. In support of this we have speculation that Homer lived in 850 BC. Alexander came to India in 340 BC and our friend Valmiki lived some time after all this and had the benefit of knowledge of existence of Iliyad and Odyssy and had the inspiration to pen his epic in the short but complex anushtup metre in Sanskrit.

Dear Sir, This is one line of argument about the epic which looks at the epic from the angle of the beginingless and endless continum called TIME to the exclusion of every thing else that is associated with the epic. So I start with the question ‘what if’. Yes.What if the epic was indeed a story borrowed from the folklore? What if the grammatical anushtup metre verse form had its inspiration from the Hexameter verse form of ancient Greece? Though I have differences about your interpretation of the origin of the epic, its being a mirror image of Iliyad or Odyssy in its form etc., I am not questioning you about that now. I am leaving it aside. I take something else in your interpretation which is altogether different. You are trying to reduce the epic Ramayana to a mere chronicle/a folk lore whereas it is for millions of Indians the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here.







The moss covered rocks that you have dismissed with disdain pertains to the faith of millions of people in Bharathvarsh. As different from the God idea that exists in other faiths, the Hindu faith had always been responding to the needs of the faithfull followers with many personal Godheads.
(1) You can be a very well educated and well informed individual delving deep into its vedas and upanishads and indulging in study and discussion of the brain teasing but empty advaita
(2) You can be a Rshi who has given up interest in worldly possessions and is engaging in deep meditation to ‘realize’.
(3)You may not be that fortunate and happen to be an ordinary Hindu who has a need to have some tangible form of the God idea so that he can pray and ask for forgivence of all his misdeeds (because ethics and morals are common for every one)
(4)You may be an unlettered labourer who subsists but who at the end of the day remembers that he has some surplus to spend and wants to imitate his master and so looks to a God to whom he can offer a cigar and a bottle of Toddy(because they are the luxuries that he can think of)

All the above four category of people have an opportunity to have a Godhead of their liking in the Hindu religion. It is here that Rama the hero of the Epic Ramayana comes in. Whether there existed a Rama in flesh and blood at any time on this earth is of no consequence to the Hindus who worship him as God. When there was a need to have the God idea represented in anthropomorphic form there was no better way than to take a leaf from the folk lore and adopt its best hero with all kalyana gunas as the God. The Icon Rama with bow and arrow may not be very important but the idea he represents is important. He is the God idea for millions in the anthropomorphic form which is easy to understand, comprehend and deal with. This form and many other forms –including the rarefied form of nirguna brahmam-are the representation of God and that transformed Ramayana from just another Iliyad or Odyssey to a religious itihasa. I can give you here the complete idea I have tried to convey, by these simple tamil words. While explaining what the five forms of the God are Pillailokacharyar says:

பூகத ஜலம் போலே அந்தர்யாமித்துவம்; ஆவரண ஜலம்போலே பரத்துவம்; பாற்கடல் போலே வியூகம்; பெருக்காறு போலே விபவம்; அதிலே தேங்கின மடுக்கள் போலே அர்ச்சாவதாரம்.

I can further elaborate on this with his own words but the post will become very lengthy. If our erudite Sangom Sir, keeps ruminating about the universal consciousness spoken about by Sankara while refusing to accept that there can be a God, my friend Vedabhothakam Arulsingh keeps thinking about the significance of the three entities spoken about in Bible –the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost, and my another friend Khursheed Ahmed keeps wondering secretly what his God will look like. I am free from all this pain. I worship Rama my personal God with full faith. I am at peace with myself. This is not a peace I got in exchange for any compromise. With all the intellect that God has given me I have understood the complexity of the problem well and yet has chosen the பெருக்காற்றில் தேங்கிய மடுவான அர்ச்சாவதாரம் deliberately as it makes excellent sense to me. And so dear Sir, all that is said in Ramayana makes sense too to me. It is not moss accumulated over millennia. Ramanuja, by the way, did not discard all the time-honored views. It was not as if he threw overboard everything which was time-honored and made path-breaking new discovery of a religion. It appears you have a penchant for getting recruited to anything new just because it is new.



Again TIME. It is very convenient. As if a beauty of yesterday can not remain a beauty today because of TIME. Opinions and views have to be condemned for their being OLD (a derivative of TIME). The west is indeed rational and logical and that is why they had pogroms, apartheid and Hiroshima and Nagasaaki inflicted on the humanity. They are rational that is why they have suicide cults killing themselves or have KKK killing others for silly reasons of color of skin. They are very logical and that is why the briefcase with the button is carried by their chieftains wherever they go-it needs just a push of the button to let loose thermo nuclear and other WMDs on “enemies”. Please understand that west is just a direction and the people who live there are having all the weaknesses that the people in East south and north have. I have personal experience dealing with some of those from the “west” with hare brains who were stupidity personified.

And my friend Prasad said in #30

We are, I think, talking here about India which was once the geographical area called Bharathvarsh.

Cheers.

Dear Shri Raju,

A very excellent post, from the pov of yourself and people who think on similar lines. But I feel that the vast majority of people who will reserve a cigar and a bottle of toddy at the end of a hard day's work, to offer to Rama, will not be disturbed by what discussions go on in this internet forum. I also doubt very much whether people like you will allow the cigar and toddy into the Rama temple/s.

The truth seems to me to be that people like you cannot take criticism of any sort which perhaps have the effect of shaking your own weakly built belief system. Therefore, you keep your own kind of briefcase with a push-button so that such kind of verbal WMD can be unleashed on any one who writes anything not acceptable to you.

You have no logical arguments to show that my views about Ramayana are erroneous; your only threat is that millions of people hold a different view and so I also should fall in line. In what way is this different from the religious intolerance we witness in some other religions?

Let the members who feel the same way as you do, write to shri Praveen to ban me. That will be a good idea, is it not?

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Again I am disappointed. You did not get me right.

The truth seems to me to be that people like you cannot take criticism of any sort which perhaps have the effect of shaking your own weakly built belief system. Therefore, you keep your own kind of briefcase with a push-button so that such kind of verbal WMD can be unleashed on any one who writes anything not acceptable to you.

I can repeat the very same sentences to you about your belief system too.

You have no logical arguments to show that my views about Ramayana are erroneous; your only threat is that millions of people hold a different view and so I also should fall in line. In what way is this different from the religious intolerance we witness in some other religions?

I have already given my arguments logically to show that your story of Rama being a local chieftain in a folk lore and he was picked up from that to be elevated to God's level by Valmiki and that Valmiki got his inspiration from Homer are all mere speculations. An intelligent mind can make many such speculations and present them as truth. But accepting them as truth or not is in the hands of the audience. I have not expressed my intolerance to your speculation anywhere. I have just said, while speculating it would be better to remain within limits. And I have given my arguments as to why Rama as an avatar is worshiped by Hindus. I do not understand where did you read a fatwa in all this. Did you expect that people will accept as gospel truth every thing you put down here and just say Amen?

Let the members who feel the same way as you do, write to shri Praveen to ban me. That will be a good idea, is it not?

Dear Sangom Sir,I respect you for your views and the way you express them. But please understand that criticism of your view is not an attack on you personally. I do not feel so insecure about my views that I should request for banning you. And about the other members who think like me please understand I am a lone wolf and I do not gang up. I do not even respond to the likes my posts receive. So there is no elaborate scheming. I am writing this here because you as well as some other members here have frequently referred to the likes that posts receive and have used downright insulting terms like jalras in that context. If you have doubts about my claim you can refer to Praveen by a PM and check up whether I have a gang here. Please continue with your posts as they give a completely different perspective to the subjects. But, without getting offended, please let me also present my hard hitting counters. I believe there is enough space in this forum for both the views.

Cheers.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

The thread is about Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids.

Morals are taught from stories. Not beliefs.

So the question of Beliefs Vs History does not arise. Story is what is written What we have done is to point out how difficult it is to teach morals from Ramayana.

It is difficult but not impossible.

But you have to be very selective in choosing the stories/episodes.

Valmiki portrays Rama not as a supernatural being, but as a human with all the attendant shortcomings, who encounters moral dilemmas but who overcomes these by simply adhering to the dharma--the righteous way. There are several instances narrated in Valmiki Ramayana which cast shadows on the pristine character of the hero and reinforce the theme of Ram struggling with mortal flaws and prejudices whilst struggling to follow the path of dharma. When Rama killed Vali ( See Vali vadha for a detailed description of the event) to aid Sugriva regain his throne, it was not in fair combat, but while hiding behind a tree. When Sita was freed from Ravana's prison, Rama forced Sita to undergo an ordeal by fire to prove her purity and later as the king, Rama killed the Shudra Shambuka for performing a yogic penance not in keeping with his perceived low station in the society, though this latter incident is contested and may have crept in because of reinterpretation later on.

From Yahoo Answers

 

[sankara_sharmah]

The thread is about Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids.

Morals are taught from stories. Not beliefs.

So the question of Beliefs Vs History does not arise. Story is what is written What we have done is to point out how difficult it is to teach morals from Ramayana.

It is difficult but not impossible.

But you have to be very selective in choosing the stories/episodes.

Valmiki portrays Rama not as a supernatural being, but as a human with all the attendant shortcomings, who encounters moral dilemmas but who overcomes these by simply adhering to the dharma--the righteous way. There are several instances narrated in Valmiki Ramayana which cast shadows on the pristine character of the hero and reinforce the theme of Ram struggling with mortal flaws and prejudices whilst struggling to follow the path of dharma. When Rama killed Vali ( See Vali vadha for a detailed description of the event) to aid Sugriva regain his throne, it was not in fair combat, but while hiding behind a tree. When Sita was freed from Ravana's prison, Rama forced Sita to undergo an ordeal by fire to prove her purity and later as the king, Rama killed the Shudra Shambuka for performing a yogic penance not in keeping with his perceived low station in the society, though this latter incident is contested and may have crept in because of reinterpretation later on.

From Yahoo Answers

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Again I am disappointed. You did not get me right.

After reading this post, I feel perhaps what you now say is right.

I can repeat the very same sentences to you about your belief system too.

As you may probably have known by now, I have gone through all the phases and beliefs of an ordinary tabra in his life and whatever belief/s I have now, have been arrived at after much of reading/contemplation and after weighing the trustworthiness of these new beliefs. So, if someone questions, pooh poohs my beliefs, I will not be affected unless somebody proves that whatever I believe now is logically false and, therefore, foolish.

But the point here does not seem to me to be about my belief system; this has very much to do with my saying that Ramayana is or, was originally, an epic in the genre of the Greek epics; the name aadikaavya was earned by it because of this very factor. According to you such an opinion is not acceptable because of certain reasons. Just as you say, at the conclusion of this post, "I believe there is enough space in this forum for both the views.", is it not reasonable that while giving "hard hitting counters", this principle of "enough space in this forum for both the views" (I will say, all kinds of views) is also kept in mind?

I have already given my arguments logically to show that your story of Rama being a local chieftain in a folk lore and he was picked up from that to be elevated to God's level by Valmiki and that Valmiki got his inspiration from Homer are all mere speculations. An intelligent mind can make many such speculations and present them as truth. But accepting them as truth or not is in the hands of the audience. I have not expressed my intolerance to your speculation anywhere. I have just said, while speculating it would be better to remain within limits. And I have given my arguments as to why Rama as an avatar is worshiped by Hindus. I do not understand where did you read a fatwa in all this. Did you expect that people will accept as gospel truth every thing you put down here and just say Amen?

I agree that my statements are/were speculations. But what exactly is intended by saying that "while speculating it would be better to remain within limits" is not clear, what are the limits and how to judge or know these? I can understand that speculation should not degenerate into the obscene or vulgar; you have
also not pointed out exactly where my speculations have breached these permissible limits except the umbrella statement "You are trying to reduce the epic Ramayana to a mere chronicle/a folk lore whereas it is for millions of Indians the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here." You also say, in your present post, "An intelligent mind can make many such speculations and present them as truth. But accepting them as truth or not is in the hands of the audience." It looks to me, therefore, that you had already usurped the right of the audience into yourself while writing the first post. (This gave me the
impression of a Fatwa.) That was why I said, as a message to all those who happen to read these posts, to write to Shri Praveen if they so desire and get me banned. I have used the words, "Let the members who feel the same way as you do, write to shri Praveen to ban me." There is no insinuation of gang, jalra or
anything in those words; the only deficiency is that I used the word "members" instead of "those who read" because I felt (may be wrongly) that only members can PM shri Praveen.

Dear Sangom Sir,I respect you for your views and the way you express them. But please understand that criticism of your view is not an attack on you personally. I do not feel so insecure about my views that I should request for banning you. And about the other members who think like me please understand I am a lone wolf and I do not gang up. I do not even respond to the likes my posts receive. So there is no elaborate scheming. I am writing this here because you as well as some other members here have frequently referred to the likes that posts receive and have used downright insulting terms like jalras in that context.

If you have doubts about my claim you can refer to Praveen by a PM and check up whether I have a gang here. Please continue with your posts as they give a completely different perspective to the subjects. But, without getting offended, please let me also present my hard hitting counters. I believe there is enough
space in this forum for both the views. Cheers.

As regards gang, jalra, etc., I have given the correct position above.

I presume that you are a young man with a lot of knowledge in our scriptures and other religious lore; you also are a believer in the truths propounded by such scriptures. May be such people are needed by our society very much in order to sustain its present momentum. But you will agree that our society is
undergoing changes, due to emigration to other countries, marriages with local population there, causing inter-religious mixing, advancements in science and many other reasons. The OP of this thread and the second post from Smt. Renuka clearly bring out the manner in which the present generation of kids (at least some of them) look at the Ramayana story. Therefore, it may so happen that our future generation/s may not be satisfied with the overriding explanation that Raamaayana is "the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here" and therefore no probing questions should be put about its contents.

I do not expect, in today's milieu, that people will accept as gospel truth every thing which I put down and just say Amen. But,to the small extent that young people have started questioning some of the time-honoured views , I request that non-conformist views such as mine may also kindly be allowed to exist in some obscure corner of the net universe, and these need not be "smoked out" completely by very hard-hitting counters.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

I quote you:

I presume that you are a young man with a lot of knowledge in our scriptures and other religious lore; you also are a believer in the truths propounded by such scriptures. May be such people are needed by our society very much in order to sustain its present momentum. But you will agree that our society is
undergoing changes, due to emigration to other countries, marriages with local population there, causing inter-religious mixing, advancements in science and many other reasons. The OP of this thread and the second post from Smt. Renuka clearly bring out the manner in which the present generation of kids (at least some of them) look at the Ramayana story. Therefore, it may so happen that our future generation/s may not be satisfied with the overriding explanation that Raamaayana is "the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here" and therefore no probing questions should be put about its contents.

I think this is a new subject on which we can discuss leaving aside the origin of Ramayana. I am neither very old nor am I very young. I know a little bit of our scriptures and other itihasa puranas. And I am a believer. I come here frequently, apportioning a certain amount of my time, to learn and to understand different perspectives. Cutting the preliminaries I am coming directly to the point. In a fast changing world the children as usual look to elders/parents for guidance because that is a source which is trust worthy for them. How many of the elders today (I am speaking about the parents and grand parents here, not about the elderly people in general) know adequately about our heritage, our belief system or about the values taught in our scriptures? Or how many do try to find them out? Many of us are Hindus just because our parents and grand parents and great grand parents were all Hindus. Many of us are similarly Iyers, Iyengars, Brahmins etc., etc., When a child in all innocence and curiosity asks a tough question about Rama (like why he killed Vali etc.) it is not necessary that we should give him a readimade, kept ready answer. It is enough if we try to explore along with him/her and find an answer- by exploring what is right and wrong, how right and wrong are relative to time, what is the universal right or wrong for all time and circumstances etc., The answer may be completely at variance with what is generally accepted by the society but the child will learn that she/he will have to think about it some time later to arrive at her/his own finding. When our ancestors knew this they advised their wards “thathvijijnaasasva”, “tapasaa brahma vijijnasasva” etc., and did not offer condensed knowledge straight. But they knew what they were doing and so did it. But the parents today may not be able doing that and hence feel they have been bowled. I think the failure is that of parents and not of the children. Nor is it a case where the children have asked a original, never asked before, probing question. There are even parents who gloat over the seemingly impossible questions the child asks. I think it is very important that parents should speak a lot to their children whenever an opportunity presents itself. The isometrics are so complex that only this much can be said here in limited space within limited time.

I do not know whether this strikes a resonating chord somewhere and brings forth something brilliant. I look forward to that.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Raju sir,
I believe you are defining me by your quote

Many of us are Hindus just because our parents and grand parents and great grand parents were all Hindus. Many of us are similarly Iyers, Iyengars, Brahmins etc., etc.

I have followed exactly what you prescribe

it is not necessary that we should give him a readimade, kept ready answer. It is enough if we try to explore along with him/her and find an answer- by exploring what is right and wrong, how right and wrong are relative to time, what is the universal right or wrong for all time and circumstances etc., The answer may be completely at variance with what is generally accepted by the society but the child will learn that she/he will have to think about it some time later to arrive at her/his own finding.

I also endose your views

I think it is very important that parents should speak a lot to their children whenever an opportunity presents itself.

I have nothing brilliant to say, but when the child comes back with a brilliant question I do not try to shut them down. I try to find some wise council in books, internet or smart people like you. I do have problem in defending our scriptures, when I know that they too are documents of human origin. I do not feel that I have to defend everything written in scriptures. I do not believe in the devine nature of all scriptures including Hindu scriptures.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Prasad,

I do have problem in defending our scriptures, when I know that they too are documents of human origin. I do not feel that I have to defend everything written in scriptures. I do not believe in the devine nature of all scriptures including Hindu scriptures.

Now shall we explore this together?

Let us formulate our position first in affirmative statements:

1. We have problems defending our scriptures.

2. We have reasons for our inability.

3. They are:
a. They are documents of human origin. Humans are fallible. So scriptures are fallible. So we are unable to defend the scripture.
b. We do not believe in the divine nature of all scriptures. This includes Hindu scriptures too.

4. Any way We do not have to defend everything written in scriptures.

Now what are the questions that come to our mind when these statements are read?

Immediately the following questions come to our mind:

1. How did we reach the conclusion that the scriptures are of human origin-written by human
beings? Shall we look at the proof available? Will they stand the scrutiny?
2. Shall we leave other scriptures? Shall we look at Hindu scriptures alone for the present?
3. Shall we not defend even if something good and unique is presented in the scriptures?
4. What do we mean here by the word scriptures? What is all written there? Do we have to defend all that is written there? If we do not have to, what do we leave and what do we take? What are the criteria? Shall we set a criterion?

Dear Prasad, this is what I said jointly exploring with children. This can be applied to grown ups too if there is a need to explore something. If you are interested please give your answers to the questions framed here. Then we will see how we can explore together.

Cheers.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Prasad,



Now shall we explore this together?

Let us formulate our position first in affirmative statements:

1. We have problems defending our scriptures.

2. We have reasons for our inability.

3. They are:
a. They are documents of human origin. Humans are fallible. So scriptures are fallible. So we are unable to defend the scripture.
b. We do not believe in the divine nature of all scriptures. This includes Hindu scriptures too.

4. Any way We do not have to defend everything written in scriptures.

Now what are the questions that come to our mind when these statements are read?

Immediately the following questions come to our mind:

1. How did we reach the conclusion that the scriptures are of human origin-written by human
beings? Shall we look at the proof available? Will they stand the scrutiny?
2. Shall we leave other scriptures? Shall we look at Hindu scriptures alone for the present?
3. Shall we not defend even if something good and unique is presented in the scriptures?
4. What do we mean here by the word scriptures? What is all written there? Do we have to defend all that is written there? If we do not have to, what do we leave and what do we take? What are the criteria? Shall we set a criterion?

Dear Prasad, this is what I said jointly exploring with children. This can be applied to grown ups too if there is a need to explore something. If you are interested please give your answers to the questions framed here. Then we will see how we can explore together.

Cheers.

:yo: :thumb: :clap2:


ray2:

 

[prasad1]

1. How did we reach the conclusion that the scriptures are of human origin-written by human
beings? Shall we look at the proof available? Will they stand the scrutiny?
Scholars have determined that the Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally committed to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C.

Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 BC (the early Vedic period). There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures of ca. 2200–1600 BC.
While it is highly likely that the bulk of the Rigvedic hymns were composed in the Punjab, even if based on earlier poetic traditions, there is no mention of either tigers or rice in the Rigveda (as opposed to the later Vedas), suggesting that Vedic culture only penetrated into the plains of India after its completion. Similarly, there is no mention of iron as the term ayas occurring in the Rig Veda refers to useful metal in general.The "black metal" (kṛṣṇa ayas) is first mentioned in the post-Rigvedic texts (Atharvaveda etc.). The Iron Age in northern India begins in the 10th century in the Greater Panjab.


Various sources including Wikipedia.

Scrutiny?????


2. Shall we leave other scriptures? Shall we look at Hindu scriptures alone for the present?
3. Shall we not defend even if something good and unique is presented in the scriptures?
Good is a relative term. It depends on time and place. Ashvamedha yagya may have been good for Rigveda people, but it is not necessarily so now. I am sure someone can interpret and put a new spin on old documents. On the basis of the face value of what is written, these documents are dated. If you have errors in one portion of a thesis, the entire thesis is thrown out.
4. What do we mean here by the word scriptures? What is all written there? Do we have to defend all that is written there? If we do not have to, what do we leave and what do we take? What are the criteria? Shall we set a criterion?
Hindu religion or sanatan Dharma is like a cafeteria. There are hundred of choices.
I have made some decisions which makes me eliminate meat dishes.
So now I have limited my selections.
I do not strong smelly products and family tradition reduces my selection.
Further my body is allergic to certain products so I got to cut out more items.
Given these condition I may only have few items I can eat.

Similarly I found that I can accept most of Gita's teaching, similarly I am able to accept most of Adi Shankara's works. I have no problem of distilling the philosophy of Advaita. Kabir, Vivekanada, Mahatma, Chinmaya are some of the thinkers I admire.
In a nutshell that is my personalized religion, as of today. It is still evolving, as I am not a jivenmukta yet.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Raju,
You may question my sources, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is 3rd, or 4th hand. I did rely on research done by others. I am not as well versed in Sanskrit to do original research. I like this book and have used it as a reference here.
The Real Definition of Hinduism | 19,000 Years of World History
A 19,000 year fascinating real tale of History, Religion, and Culture, compiled after Two Decades of Research.
As if the writer were giving a lecture to 6 billion people about their origins...Author has incorporated massive amounts of knowledge and research here - Foreword Clarion Reviews
19000 Years of World History: The Story of Religion
Prithviraj Rathod

Once upon a time, India used to face frequent immigration of foreign tribes. Scores of tribes came in and frequently mingled with the natives. These new incoming tribes brought in new deities and religions with them – the atmosphere became highly polytheistic because of this. In order to arrest this excessive polytheism, an institution of seven sages called Saptarshis was formed. They formed a compendium of hymns called Vedas. And they declared that just about any god cannot be worshipped. For a deity to be worshippable or be considered as a Hindu god, he or she must be present in Vedas or be associated with one of the deities present in Vedas. So, if a new tribe immigrates into India and wants its deity to be considered as a Hindu God, the deity must be declared as a manifestation of one of the deities present in Vedas. Other options were also available apart from manifestation - the new deity could be declared as the son or wife or daughter or husband of the deity present in the Vedas. This was the restriction enforced by the Saptarshis. Please note that when I talk about Vedas here, I am talking only about Vedas proper and not appendages to Vedas, such as Upanishads. Often, a Hindu scholar quotes from Upanishad attached to a Veda and claims that his quote is from the Veda. However, the original definition of Hinduism did not include Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, or any other appendages to Vedas. The definition included only the hymns of Vedic Samhitas, not the appendages. A deity could be considered a worshippable Hindu deity only if –


1) a deity has a dedicated hymn in the Vedic Samhitas. Ex - Purusha, Rudra, Sri, Indra, Agni, Vayu, etc.


2) a deity is associated as the incarnation or manifestation of another deity having a dedicated hymn in Vedic Samhitas. Ex- Ram and Krishna could be considered Hindu deities only because they got associated with Purusha of the Vedas, as his incarnations.


3) a deity is associated as the son or daughter or wife or husband or father or mother of another deity having a dedicated hymn in the Vedic Samhitas. Ex- Ganesha and Parvati do not have much of Vedic presence – they became Hindu deities only because they got associated as the son and wife of Rudra of the Vedas.


4) a deity draws his or her divinity as a blessing from another deity having a dedicated hymn in Vedic Samhitas. Ex- Hanuman, Raghavendra, Jalaram etc.


Apart from these, there was another restriction that was placed on these deities. A structure can only be as strong as its foundation. Similarly, a deity cannot be considered superior to the Vedic deity that he or she got associated with. That sort of a thing defeated the very purpose of enforcing these restrictions, and was therefore not allowed. So it is not allowed that Krishna be considered superior to Narayana, or that Ganesha or Parvati be considered superior to Rudra.


These restrictions were strictly enforced by Saptarshis for thousands of years. At the time of the three-century drought of 2200 BC, millions died of hunger. Unable to bear the brunt of nature’s fury, a large number of Indians left for foreign shores. In the resulting societal turbulence of the time, the institution of Saptarshis got destroyed, and atheistic cults like Buddhism and Jainism took over Indian civilization. Later, when Hinduism started making a comeback under the supervision of Sankaracharya from 5th century BC onwards, there were no Saptarshis to enforce the earlier restrictions. New interpretations of the religion emerged. Sankaracharya’s six form theology, where six deities - Vishnu, Ganesha, Rudra, Skanda, Sakti, Surya – could be considered as equals of each other, broke the sanctity of the earlier definition of Hinduism, paving way for considering Ganesha or Parvati to be superior to Rudra if the devotee so desired. Others followed the example of Sankaracharya. Krishna’s devotees started considering him to be superior to Narayana, as encapsulated in ISKCON’s philosophy today. Not just this, more and more deities not associated with Vedas started being incorporated into Hinduism in the last two millennia, especially so in the last few decades.

Going by these findings the origin of Vedas is clear, it was a document created and maintained by a committee of rishis, who were human beings. They were not devine in nature.
According to my philosophy of Advaita philosophy there can not be a devine document.

 

[Amirtha]

How do we teach kids the morals of Ramayana today?

[FONT=&quot]Teach the kids how to be righteous like Bharathan. He was only character which inspired me. He was the real hero in the Ramayana. Another character is Sita. She taught how to be a person of good principle.

Kind Regards
[/FONT]

 

[suraju06]

Dear Prasad,

I read both your posts. Now I am having second thoughts about going ahead with the exploration. I can get something written on a ‘gora kagaz’ after exploring the truth along with the holder. But I find what I have here is a paper which is already filled up. And what more, it is filled up with something beautiful. An exploring mind is recording faithfully whatever it is finding in its journey of exploration. May be it will wipe out what is written earlier periodically to write something new and more beautiful. Why should I intervene? I appreciate your readiness to explore. I remember the upanishadic words ‘sathapO (a)thapyatha, sathapasthapthva’. So I stop the exploration together here. Please continue with your journey. All the best.

Cheers.

 

[tks]

Sri Prasad

In your posts #66 and #67 with a possibly a scientific mindset you were explaining your understanding and belief that Vedas are of human origin. This obviously opposes the teaching that Vedas are apauruṣeya ("not of human agency") which is central to our teaching. This is not an idea to be believed in.

Apauriseya is often equated to "divine" action and hence appeals to those who believe in the mystery of Isvara. Words like "divine" are kind of vague because it is hard to have a clear definition of what is being communicated with that usage. It is probably equated with a concept of God a person may carry in their mind which often may have nothing to do with reality or truth as taught in our Vedas.

Some may go as far as believing that these "divinely" created Mantras in the Vedas have special vibrations and there are people that want to spend time immersing their life in those vibrations.

Fortunately for people who want to be rational and use their faculty of viveka this concept of apauruṣeya is not all that hard to grasp. Since you have stated that your views are evolving I hope you will follow through.

I am pressed for time to write a long post at this time. If there is further interest I may make find time to at least write one more post.

I know the topic area of this thread is about 'How to teach Ramayana to children" so this discussion may appear to have limited relevance. The only thing I can say is that children are lot more rational than adults who tend to be (more often than not) brainwashed into a belief system. All they can do often is to brainwash the children also into their belief system.

In that sense any discussion that is more rational and logical (even to understand those concepts that lie outside traditional logic) is likely to be relevant to any adult seriously wanting to teach lessons from epics such as Ramayana.

Regards

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

e=mc2 is it human work or divine revelation?

 

[sankara_sharmah]

e=mc2 is it human work or divine revelation?

Yes. It is.

Divine revelation to whom? The humans. The humans put it in writing or spread the knowledge obtained by Divine revelation. Ramanujam the Mathematician used to get the solutions to mathematical problems in his dream.

Poems , literature and knowledge of any kind is divine revelation. But the revelation is made through he medium of humans whom we call Rishis, Authors, Inventors etc.

 

[suraju06]

[h=2]E=mc[SUP]2 is science and so is a given fact. Whereas the given fact is not [/SUP]E=m[SUP]2[/SUP]c[/h]is Divine wish.

Cheers.
[h=2][SUP]

[/SUP][/h]

 

[sangom]

எறும்பு ஊர ஊரக் கல்லும் தேயும் is a Tamil adage and means that even an ant can scratch a stone by continuously moving on it. In a similar way, a human being will be able to unravel any tough problem relating to this world/universe if he/she is bent upon finding that solution with single minded concentration and sincerity. I do not believe in any "divine revelation" in the sense that a superior God sitting high above chooses a fit person and tells him/her the solution, but if we consider that something which never occurred to anyone else till then, has struck one particular person's intellect, to be divine revelation, then we ought to seriously consider why that "divine something" has been singularly partial to the white people since centuries, and why nobody from this land of apaurusheya vedas, Narayana and His vaak, etc., seem to fare very badly. Is God anti-Indian, anti-Hindu?

If so, is it not time we rethink our religion?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I do not understand what you mean when you say that God has been partial to the White people with regard to divine revelation. Is there any greater intellectual achievement than our own philosophical works? For example I would rate Sankara's Advaita light years ahead of Newton's theory of gravitation with regard to the mental capacity required for the work. So goes with many of our other works that require really formidable intellect.