• 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.

Ramayana is Real, Say Experts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sri tks Sir

Your post no 67 is appreciated

You got lot of knowledge and patience to explain the Greatness of Sri Rama and Ramayana


When the OP itself is based on expert opinion, anyone countering it must be equally an expert and they must have published accredited article well received by scholars and professional in the field of religion.

These two members are arguing without any expertise and they look like persons trying to make rope out of sea shore sand .


Many number of Articles are written by well known scholars and published in the web

Lessons on Dharma- Developed by Jean Johnson, New York University.

http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~vemuri/classes/freshman/RamayanaSynopsis.htm

Lessons from Ramayana- Righteousness and Tolerance
http://www.wisdomtimes.com/blog/lessons-from-ramayana-righteousness-and-tolerance/

Moral lessons you can learn from Ramayana

http://cvrajan.hubpages.com/hub/Moral-lessons-you-can-learn-from-Ramayana

Corporate Lessons from Ramayana

http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/corporate-lessons-from-ramayana

Lessons of Indian Epics: Following Dharma

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/lessons-indian-epics-following-dharma

and many more web publications



Timeless wisdom contained in Ramayana and the Mahabharata – continue to hold the subcontinent under their sway even centuries after they were written.

Argument can not go to the the lowest level when a member urges youth not to follow the lessons from Ramayana.

If a member does not appreciate the wisdom as told in Ramayana, he can just ignore reading it.

Sanskrit Language has many hidden meaning and Valmiki's Ramayanna is written in Sanskrit only.

Many of us are not well versed with this language of Sanskrit and a members catching a few phrases from here and there ( says from Ramayana, he has not given any link to it) gives a meaning which may not be accurate also.

ultimately what matters is this: Whether Sri Rama is an Avatar or not is to be decided by Millions of Hindus.

Sri PJ - My suggestion is to continue the good work you do by sharing what you find.
There were prior discussions where specific verses were discussed.
I will reply to those verses sharing my perspective.

Religion is a personal thing and in the end that is all that matters - our sincerity, our devotion and our understanding.
We can share what we know. It is up to others to decide to take it or leave it!

Millions of Hindus do think Sri Rama is a personification of Dharma. They need to worship Sri Rama not just by going to temples and observing rituals but by embracing Dharma in their own life by standing against corruption in their own life.
 
Already Satya Sai Baba's successor in a border village of Karnataka is drawing huge crowds and a hall with facilities much more glittering and ostentatious has been built for this successor at a cost of hundred crores or more!

Any source/proof/news article to support this?
 
Please read what is written in this site mentioned above

Parthi Sai This is not a true Sai Baba site. There is a price to pay for any confidence wrongly begotten. There is only one Sathya Sai Baba. He has been and always will be, but not in the way you and cohorts from Mundentown portray Him. For shame. What is it that Christians say, Repent! Be careful of these fraudsters, the days of this false group of pseudo profits is almost at an end. This is simply a group of con-artists garnering money inappropriately in Swami's good name.


Anyone can claim that He/ she is the successor of Sri Sathya Sai Baba

Sri Sathya Sai Baba has not appointed any Successor to him,


However this has nothing to do with OP.


http://www.sathyasai.org/intro/premasai.htm
 
Last edited:
The scientific article titled Genetic Affinity of the Bhil, Kol and Gond Mentioned in EpicRamayana


by Gyaneshwer Chaubey , Anurag Kadian, Saroj Bala, Vadlamudi Raghavendra Rao

is published in PloS and the link to the paper is here.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127655
You can read the Huffington post article here
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/open-magazine/the-epic-riddle-of-dating_b_7669636.html

and the Huffington post article concludes by saying
One thing will remain constant, however, as it has over thousands of years: perspectives on the two great epics will keep multiplying.

Please read the last paragraph of the Huffington post (better yet, read the whole article and see it for yourself). If you rely on a scientific study, a lot more (at least according to various researchers mentioned) needs to be done.

One has to be open minded to hear the arguments.
 
Post # 42 from Shri auh :

Excellent. I wholly support the views!

Post # 43:

Ramayana might have taught good morals (as against the many bad morals also which it contains!) which were cherished some time in the long past by people like ex-hunter Valmiki et al. But when studied from the pov of the 21st. century world, it has few morals to teach but many wrong ideas to tell the people.

Ramayana glorifies a Mir-Jaffar-like Vibheeshana who is extolled as the acme of goodness!

Rama has no qualms asking his wife to pass through the "fire-test" again and again, but even then he comes out as a congenital doubting husband who banishes his (faithful) wife slyly, in the forest and she has to deliver her only son Lava when she had only Valmiki to take care of her. (Kusa's birth is from a piece of Kusa grass!)

Rama tells his mother Kousalya that once he (and Sita and Lakshmana) entered the forest for Vanavasa, they would subsist on roots and fruits, but as soon as they enter the forest (after crossing the ganga in Guha's boat), Lakshmana kills four deer and the three of them eat up all the edible portions in just one meal! Thus Ramayana teaches the good moral that telling a lie to one's mother is not a bad thing, but even the god's avatar will do so!

Hanuman has returned from lanka, with the news of Sita's survival as hostage in lanka. Rama, lakshmana, sugriva, hanuman, angada and a billion others of the vanara army have reached the seashore. They now have to build a bridge across the sea so as to reach lanka.

At this point what is Rama thinking about?

Chapter No. 5 of the Yuddha Kanda gives us the answer.

verse 10: Passionate or desire-filled, I and Sita with her charming thighs are resting on the same Earth. (Though we are separated, we are joined by Earth). It will be enough.

verse 11: When will I behold the lotus-eyed Sita of great hips, defeating the enemies?

verse 14: When will the large, bulging, quivering (vibrating/gyrating) and palm-fruit like breasts of Sita touch me?

If the Supreme God's avatar and the Maryada Purusha can be fantasising on Sita and her beautiful thighs, great hips, large, bulging, quivering (vibrating/gyrating) and palm-fruit like breasts, etc., lesser mortals can readily follow this moral and hence there is no harm if someone else also does similarly!

There are very many such instances. All these will be easily perceived by our next generation youngsters. Hence the urgent need is to not advise anyone to follow the ideals of Ramayana.

Sri Sangom -

My response below.

This is a follow up from my Post #75.
Not attempting to present contrarian view (post #68) necessarily but to understand what might be the truth.

When opposing points are raised about our scriptures some might think the best response is to avoid and ignore such posts. That is a fine response for many but my views are as follows.

If someone
  • has taken the time to do research,
  • presenting something thoughtful as opposed to a 'scatterbrain' response,
  • not advancing a prejudiced point of view on a person based on caste/creed/national origin/gender etc but rather focused on issues primarily
  • not presenting the same views again and again even after a resolution is reached
  • not resort to personal attack or characterize someone's motivation
and if I have something to share I have no issues in engagement

While this point is not relevant to this post, I want to share that it is not worth to keep ongoing animosity against anyone in any forum including in life itself. People change and retention of some bad interaction is only detrimental to our health. No one is that significant unless we allow them to cause stress :-)

I used think that I should not be party to engagement in a discussion where a given scripture of extraordinary wisdom gets trashed. If the trashing is done on purpose repeatedly then I may not engage with them just like not engaging with someone if they cannot separate issue oriented debates from personal attacks.

I do not care if I am attacked - I just think it is immature and not worth wasting my Quadrant 4 time :-)

However I think that based on the bulleted list it is fine to engage and I am nobody to feel some scripture has to be saved. It shines on its own merit

Now onward to the substance of the topic and issues itself

I want to assert some general points first without further qualifications. In order to oppose them or agree with them one needs to delve deeper. They are not points of beliefs!


  • Rama a historical figure (amply described with references by Sri PJ) described by a poet many centuries ago and viewed through the passing of time as one who showed the world what it means to uphold Dharma
  • The word Dharma is not easy to understand. Just like the word Karma, it is least understood (I provided references to Sri Sankara's commentary in the context of verse in B. Gita in another post in another recent thread in the General Section). Any of these words when fully understood will lead to true knowledge. It is like all roads lead to Rome :-). This does not mean there are multiple PATHS to Isvara, it is to simply assert the interconnectedness of these words which cannot be further explained.
  • Human beings can understand abstraction but cannot relate to it. Hence Ramayana can serve to illustrate what leading a life of Dharma means. What appears as contradiction are more of a paradox and when one pursues them fully they will be able to see the profundity embedded in the story
  • Rama is presented as a hero in Valmiki Ramayana. Same Rama is presented by same Valmiki in Yogavasishta as an extraordinarily wise boy for his age. One has to integrate both along with notion of Isvara (which is subject to understanding and not belief) for a rational person to take Sri Rama as providing guidance in our lives.
  • For one who believes Sri Rama as a deity, they do not need any further understanding other than realize that it is a personification of an ideal called Dharma and that the best way to worship is to uphold Dharma as they understand it in their own life. The idea is not to make mockery of the word Dharma by becoming a cheat and negotiator of favors from god :-)
  • In post #56 there are some seeming references to Buddha in Valmiki Ramayana. I do not comment on such things because I look upon any of the scriptures to see if it has a value to my vision for life. Sri Sankara's commentaries include all kinds of perspectives (Purva Paksha debating points). For some reason they do not mention Buddhist views though there are references to Sunyavada. Some may say Sri Sankara may have lived before Buddha or there may have been two Buddhas. These are for people wanting to earn silly PhDs in useless programs providing opportunities to write a book :-).

All I want to do is share my understanding that there are no 'bad morals' in Ramayana as described by Valmiki. I am not an expert in Ramayana or Sanskrit but have an understanding based on total context.


  1. A leader who serves as a role model, usually holds himself to a higher standards of scrutiny. This is true today as it was during Sri Rama's time. Therefore comparing how he conducted himself in the story as opposed to how he dealt with others more kindly does not cause any issues as doing Adharma. Vibheeshana was against his brother kidnapping someone else's wife behind the person's back. This is seen as Adharma in those days and he was against it. Sri Rama after winning the war speaks most respectfully of the departed Ravana. He does not keep the newly won kingdom. There is nothing in the story to suggest any adharma was done. My knowledge is based on minimal reading of Rajaji's work and no more. There are other experts in the forum who can explain this better. Bottom line: There is no adharma in any of the actions including subjecting himself and his wife to higher standards of tests consistent with his role.
  2. Ramayana is a poem providing Nava Rasa. There is even humor as to how the Vanaras were fighting taking one Rakshasa and using him to beat another etc. In describing the romantic feelings what better way is there to describe this than Sri Rama's love to Sita. Somehow physical attraction in all beings is viewed negatively by our own upbringing. The attraction itself is part of universal dharma as to how life procreates life forms. When our mind thinks of immoral ideas when reading a description it is the projection of our mind and is a reflection of our Raga-Dvesha. A man and his wife expressing and feeling sexual interest in each other is part of Prakrithi. Sri Rama as an ideal who is personified as Dharma did not do anything adharmic even if he thought about Sita in a sensual manner
  3. This leaves the whole topic of what Sri Rama said to his mother and his eating meat. Let me follow this in the next post at a later time


(தொடரும்)
 
“The Iliad” is usually considered to be the earliest work in the whole Western literary tradition, and one of the best known and loved stories of all time. Through its portayal of the epic subject matter of the Trojan War.

I do not have any problem in questioning any part of it, and I do not get offended if others criticize it. As it does not deal with my gods. I have no emotional attachment.

Similarly if we accept "ramayana" and "mahabharat" as epics and leave out the part about Avatar of Vishnu we will not have any problem. The moment we ascribe God into equation we create problem. If it was an ancient novel and nothing more, we would not hurt people's sentiment.
 
Last edited:
“The Iliad” is usually considered to be the earliest work in the whole Western literary tradition, and one of the best known and loved stories of all time. Through its portayal of the epic subject matter of the Trojan War.

I do not have any problem in questioning any part of it, and I do not get offended if others criticize it. As it does not deal with my gods. I have no emotional attachment.

Similarly if we accept "ramayana" and "mahabharat" as epics and leave out the part about Avatar of Vishnu we will not have any problem. The moment we ascribe God into equation we create problem. If it was an ancient novel and nothing more, we would not hurt people's sentiment.

The reality is that vast majority of people take Sri Krishna and Sri Rama as God.

Religion is a personal thing and that needs to be respected provided they do not impose their views on others or cause harm.

Those that think of Ramayana as a work like anything else like "The Iliad" should be welcome to think so without imposing those ideas on others.

In other words, it is all about live and let live !
 
"Rama and Krishna are Gods".....believed by many people.

They believe, worship and offer prayers for the betterment of their own, their family and kith & kin. They never expect others to follow suit.

But there are some religious fanatics. These category, whether they worship or not in true sense, force others/expect others to subscribe to their line of thinking forgetting the
independence in religious belief.
 
"Rama and Krishna are Gods".....believed by many people.

They believe, worship and offer prayers for the betterment of their own, their family and kith & kin. They never expect others to follow suit.

But there are some religious fanatics. These category, whether they worship or not in true sense, force others/expect others to subscribe to their line of thinking forgetting the
independence in religious belief.

I do not think any "religious fanatic" is at work, except one's own ignorance coupled with ego. Person A believes that "Rama and Krishna are Gods". Person B says Valmiki Ramayana depicts a Rama as a character who will tell lie to his mother, will think more about the beauty and sexuality of Sita and fantasise about her when there are millions of Vaanaras are assembled before him and are awaiting his directions about building a bridge to Srilanka.

There is more. After Sita is kidnapped by Ravana, Rama becomes so forlorn with his separation from Sita that he wails, more or less continuously, about Sita, her beautiful body and so on but throughout the whole sojourn in the forests and return to Bharata's Ashrama (or even thereafter) this great Rama never even once enquires about how Lakshmana feels about his separation from Urmila nor tries to comfort Lakshmana by words.

If Rama was so unconcerned about his brother Lakshmana who abandoned everything in order to give him (Rama) support during his exile, war, etc., what kind of concern will Rama have for the ordinary human bhakta who has not even seen him?!

Person B points out the various "feet of clay" of the Rama Character. This troubles person A because it is "my Rama", "my God", etc. Is it not then a case of ignorance (imagining a character from a certain story book to be God) and ego (my God has been exposed to be with feet of clay!).
 
The scientific article titled Genetic Affinity of the Bhil, Kol and Gond Mentioned in EpicRamayana


by Gyaneshwer Chaubey , Anurag Kadian, Saroj Bala, Vadlamudi Raghavendra Rao

is published in PloS and the link to the paper is here.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127655
You can read the Huffington post article here
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/open-magazine/the-epic-riddle-of-dating_b_7669636.html

and the Huffington post article concludes by saying
One thing will remain constant, however, as it has over thousands of years: perspectives on the two great epics will keep multiplying.

Please read the last paragraph of the Huffington post (better yet, read the whole article and see it for yourself). If you rely on a scientific study, a lot more (at least according to various researchers mentioned) needs to be done.

One has to be open minded to hear the arguments.

It is not at all clear from the PLOS paper as to how the genetic analysis of Bhils, Kols and Gonds will shed light on the historicity of Rama.

The second paper also is ambivalent.
 
It is not at all clear from the PLOS paper as to how the genetic analysis of Bhils, Kols and Gonds will shed light on the historicity of Rama.

The second paper also is ambivalent.

Exactly - The newspaper(s) interpret the results as they want (at least that has been my expereince or what I have seen). The second is Huffington newspaper article - not a religious one - but try to present both sides of the issues. I think the links in the first post http://www.indiadivine.org/ramayana-is-real-say-experts/
is too quick to reach a conclusion (IMHO)
 
The reality is that vast majority of people take Sri Krishna and Sri Rama as God.

Religion is a personal thing and that needs to be respected provided they do not impose their views on others or cause harm.

Those that think of Ramayana as a work like anything else like "The Iliad" should be welcome to think so without imposing those ideas on others.

In other words, it is all about live and let live !

You are right.
But we had killings in the name of building Ram Mandir. We waste time and resources to Rama and Krishna causes. Nobody spends real money in the name of Trojan War heroes. So there is a difference.
 
You are right.
But we had killings in the name of building Ram Mandir. We waste time and resources to Rama and Krishna causes. Nobody spends real money in the name of Trojan War heroes. So there is a difference.

Well, the three major religions Judaism, Islam and Christianity have been fighting major wars over a small piece of land called Israel.

This is due to history centricity of their religions.


Ramayana is a not a history document but it is poem about a historical figure.
Our ancestors never paid attention to history to describe timeless aspects described in our scriptures including the great epics.
Bringing history centricity not just to the context of Ramayana but to Sri Rama itself is a western notion that can cause fights.

I have not followed all the news about Ram Mandir - resolution includes moving away from history centricity of an ideal called Sri Rama and resorting to mutual respect of beliefs.

Beliefs are not rationally chosen - it comes from upbringing and host of other factors that we may have no control over.

One may not believe Ramayana as a description of divinity and another person may do so.

Neither person is superior for their beliefs. It is just a belief after all.
 
The reality is that vast majority of people take Sri Krishna and Sri Rama as God.

Religion is a personal thing and that needs to be respected provided they do not impose their views on others or cause harm.

Those that think of Ramayana as a work like anything else like "The Iliad" should be welcome to think so without imposing those ideas on others.

In other words, it is all about live and let live !

Those that think of Ramayana as a work like anything else like "The Iliad" should be welcome to think so without imposing those ideas on others.
If somebody posts in a forum like this one (www.tamilbrahmins.com) his view that the historicity of Rama is not proved, or that the literary character of Rama from valmiki ramayana comes out as that of an ordinary prince with several deficiencies which make it difficult to believe that Rama, even if he had really existed, could have been no more than an ordinary human being (and nothing more) do you think that it is "imposing those ideas" on others? Which rules of this forum mandate such a conclusion? Is it not a fact that in a forum like this contrarian views are bound to be expressed and that does not at all compel anybody to alter his pet views or prejudices?

I feel that the so-called "inflammable" members have themselves no more than veneer of microscopic belief in Rama as the God, that the moment an opposite view is expressed which cannot be logically countered by them, they become restless and fly out in all directions to sting, like from a disturbed bee hive. The truth is these people have no knowledge of Sanskrit, or Ramayana, but have been gullible to swallow, unquestioningly, whatever their elders and religious pundits "feed" them with.
 
Those that think of Ramayana as a work like anything else like "The Iliad" should be welcome to think so without imposing those ideas on others.
If somebody posts in a forum like this one (www.tamilbrahmins.com) his view that the historicity of Rama is not proved, or that the literary character of Rama from valmiki ramayana comes out as that of an ordinary prince with several deficiencies which make it difficult to believe that Rama, even if he had really existed, could have been no more than an ordinary human being (and nothing more) do you think that it is "imposing those ideas" on others? Which rules of this forum mandate such a conclusion? Is it not a fact that in a forum like this contrarian views are bound to be expressed and that does not at all compel anybody to alter his pet views or prejudices?

I feel that the so-called "inflammable" members have themselves no more than veneer of microscopic belief in Rama as the God, that the moment an opposite view is expressed which cannot be logically countered by them, they become restless and fly out in all directions to sting, like from a disturbed bee hive. The truth is these people have no knowledge of Sanskrit, or Ramayana, but have been gullible to swallow, unquestioningly, whatever their elders and religious pundits "feed" them with.

I think most forums thrive when there are well thought out contrarian ideas.

As a general statement, by the phrase 'imposing ideas on others', I mean castigating someone for not agreeing with them. I do not think you did that.

Questioning if Sri Rama as described in Valmiki Ramayana being 'divine' is fine in a forum.

Much of my response has been to share my perspectives as to how it is possible to have a notion of divinity for many Hindus.
By not embracing western ideas of history centricity, which is an alien notion for Hinduism and by understanding that one can worship the personification of an ideal, there are no issues.

It is then possible to discuss, differ, and debate historical accuracy of descriptions in an epic as well (though I personally have no interest in such an analysis).

My point is that Ramayana as an epic which is already believed by most Hindus can serve to be a positive force if the 'devotees' can understand that the best way to worship is to follow Dharma in their own life.

For that it is important to see if there are adharmic actions by Sri Rama as described the by the poet.

My response to your questions have been along these lines only to show that no adharmic activities are described as far as I can understand.

My take is that those that believe without analysis are welcome to do so (and are not superior or inferior to others because of their beliefs).
 
Meat eating vs commitment to not eat meat by Sri Rama - contradiction

Follow up to my post 81

One of the items that have come up in the past is about the vow supposedly made by Sri Rama to his mother before leaving for the forest and not honoring it.
I want to address this aspect as well as the Dharma aspects of meat eating.

The story is supposed to have taken place around 500 BCE or earlier. Meat eating was prevalent for survival and certainly so for the Kshatriya Varna which Sri Rama was part of.

While I really had no interest in reading the verses of Valmiki Ramayana, during another thread about two years ago, I learnt from Sri Sangom about consumption of meat occurring in Valmiki Ramayana. He actually produced specific verses then.

The claim I want to address now is that somehow adharma was implied by the sequence of events. In my understanding, there was no acts of Adharma.

Once again, concept of Dharma is a not a simple concept. Debates and discussions of this kind can help clarify what is meant by this word, and also provide what it means to live a life of Dharma.

In nature, one life form consumes another. This itself is an expression of Dharma. When we breath we kill many germs which are all Jivas of some kind. We eat plants and fruits which amounts to killing also. What is adharmic is to kill and waste (including plants).

It is also adharma to cause pain like it will cause pain to us in animals while we have other options. Saving our life in a jungle means dealing with 'kill or be killed' law. It is adharmic to create suffering in our own body by not eating as well.

So when no other options are available killing an animal to eat is perfectly Dharmic. Animals do not kill others for fun, they do so by and large only when they are hungry. So if Sri Rama ate meat to survive in a jungle when no options are available, then it is not adharmic. It is abiding by the law of the jungle.

Similarly, sexual interest is basic law of nature and is dharmic. It is adharmic when pain is *not minimized* as a result of our actions to anyone. While we have guidelines in Vedas about speaking truth etc, there are no commandments in our teaching. This is because human beings are endowed with wisdom as to know what is right in a *given circumstance*. This context is very important to understand what is Dharma and what is adharma.

Rama grieving and thinking about Sita in sensual manner is not Adharmic regardless of when it took place. Lakshmana's wife is safe and he made supreme sacrifice in going to the jungle. But she is safe in the palace. Just because a poet leaves out all the conversations does not mean we should think that in the story (real or imagined) that concern for his brother was not there. These are pure reflection of our mind. We see the world we are conditioned, not the way it is.

There are NO adharma acts committed regardless.
=========================================================================
Let us look at a verse (I can be corrected) that led Rama to make the so called 'vow of veganism' to his mother


चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने |
मधु मूल फलैः जीवन् हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् || २-२०-२९
29. vatsyaami = I shall livevane = in forest; vijane = bereft of people munivat = like sagechaturdasha = fourteen varshhaaNi = years hitvaa = leaving off aamishham =meat; jiivan = living madhu muulaphalaiH = with honey; rootsand fruits.
"Ishall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, leaving offmeat and living with roots, fruits and honey".


Sri Sangom may be referring to the following verses about meat consumption by Rama, Lakshmana and Sita



क्रोशमात्रम् ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मनौ || २-५५-३३बहून्मेध्यान् मृगान् हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने |
33. tataH = thereafter; gatvaa = having travelled;kroshamaatram = only a couple of miles; bhraatarau = the two brothers;raamalakshhmaNau = Rama and Lakshmana; hatvaa = killed; bahuun = many; medhyaan= consecrated (edible as per Shastras); mR^igaan = deer; cheratuH = ate;yamunaavane = in the river-forest of Yamuna.

Thereafter having travelled only a couple of krosas,the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many edible varieties of deer andate in the river-forest of Yamuna.

The verb root चर (cara) means"to eat" as also "to move, to go" and certain othermeanings like to graze, etc., which may not fit in here. If we take theescapist route of 'go' as the correct one, we will come to the meaning—

Thereafter having travelled only a couple of milesthe two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many edible varieties of deer andwent to the river-forest of Yamuna.



तौ तत्र हत्वा चतुरः महा मृगान्।वराहम् ऋश्यम् पृषतम् महा रुरुम्।आदाय मेध्यम् त्वरितम् बुभुक्षितौ।वासाय काले ययतुर् वनः पतिम्॥ २-५२-१०२


Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha,Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and takingquickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama andLakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.




रोहितान् वक्र तुण्डान् च नल मीनान् च राघव॥ ३-७३-१४पंपायाम् इषुभिः मत्स्यान् तत्र राम वरान् हतान्।निस्त्वक्पक्षानयसतप्तानकृशान्नैककण्टकान् - यद्वा -निः त्वक् पक्षान् अयस तप्तान् अकृशान् न अनेक कण्टकान्॥ ३-७३-१५तव भक्त्या समायुक्तो लक्ष्मणः संप्रदास्यति।भृशम् तान् खादतो मत्स्यान् पंपायाः पुष्प संचये॥ ३-७३-१६

"Oh, Rama in that Pampa Lake there are bestfishes, red-carps, and blunt-snouted small porpoises, and a sort of sprats,which are neither scraggy, nor with many fish-bones. Lakshmana willreverentially offer them to you on skewering them with arrow, and on broilingthem on iron rod of arrow after descaling and de-finning them. [3-73-14b, 15,16a]

पद्म गन्धि शिवम् वारि सुख शीतम् अनामयम्।उद्धृत्य स तदा अक्लिष्टम् रूप्य स्फटिक सन्निभम्॥ ३-७३-१७अथ पुष्कर पर्णेन लक्ष्मणः पाययिष्यति।


"While you eat those fishes to satiety,Lakshmana will offer you the water of Pampa Lake, which will be in the bunchesof flowers of that lake, and which will be lotus-scented, pellucid, comfortablycool, shiny like silver and crystal, uncontaminated and that way pristine, bylifting it up that water with lotus leaf, making that leaf a stoup-likebasin... [3-73-16b, 17, 18a]


=======================

Let us understand if there are any contradictions in terms of the verse 2.20.29 by examining the context.

When Sri Rama in the story announced his desire to keep the word of his father and leave for the jungle, it is possible for one to have a doubt that he might change his mind after leading a few days of harsh environment of a jungle. This is like some people who made vow to go to India for good from America only to return within 2 years. Nothing wrong with them, but they ensured they had return plans and infrastructure intact to get back.

What is very moving in the story is that Sri Rama, a prince systematically dismantles his entire infrastructure of possessions. He gives them all away but does not insist Sita do so (she kept her ornaments) when she joined him to go the jungle. Sri Rama ensure that there is no possibility of him returning for any reason. He made a commitment to lead a life of Tapas and not one seeking for any pleasures. If he enjoyed meat he was ready to give up. That is all the verse means. It does not say he will never eat meat to survive. The verse means that he is not seeking enjoyment or relishing meat.


In fact there are other verses Sri Rama reiterates his vow (to be understood as when options exist). The vow does not mean to die and kill oneself which is adharmic in this context also.


कुश चीर अजिन धरम् फल मूल अशनम् च माम् |विद्धि प्रणिहितम् धर्मे तापसम् वन गोचरम् || २-५०-४४

"Knowme as under a vow to be an ascetic, wearing the robes of bark and deerskin andby piety, I am determined to live in the forest by eating roots and fruitsonly."

पित्रा नियुक्ता भगवन् प्रवेष्यामः तपो वनम् |धर्मम् एव आचरिष्यामः तत्र मूल फल अशनाः || २-५४-१६
"Oh,Venerable sage! Commanded by our father, we are entering a lonely forest topractise asceticism, living on roots and fruits."

न मांसं राघवो भुङ्क्ते न चापि मधुसेवते |वन्यं सुविहितं नित्यं भक्तमश्नाति पञ्चमम् || ५-३६-४१

"Ramais not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in theevening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged forhim."


The last one is from a later Kanda.

To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line
 
Last edited:
Sri Sangom Sir,

Hanuman has returned from lanka, with the news of Sita's survival as hostage in lanka. Rama, lakshmana, sugriva, hanuman, angada and a billion others of the vanara army have reached the seashore. They now have to build a bridge across the sea so as to reach lanka.

At this point what is Rama thinking about?

Chapter No. 5 of the Yuddha Kanda gives us the answer.

verse 10: Passionate or desire-filled, I and Sita with her charming thighs are resting on the same Earth. (Though we are separated, we are joined by Earth). It will be enough.

verse 11: When will I behold the lotus-eyed Sita of great hips, defeating the enemies?

verse 14: When will the large, bulging, quivering (vibrating/gyrating) and palm-fruit like breasts of Sita touch me?

If the Supreme God's avatar and the Maryada Purusha can be fantasising on Sita and her beautiful thighs, great hips, large, bulging, quivering (vibrating/gyrating) and palm-fruit like breasts, etc., lesser mortals can readily follow this moral and hence there is no harm if someone else also does similarly!

Sir, You have used the word thinking to explain what probably went through Rama's mind in some of the slokAs of Yuddha kanda.

So, this has to be taken as imagination of vAlmiki as to what RAmA was probably thinking at that time because it was not said aloud for vAlmiki to hear.

I think we are exhorted to follow the conduct and words of the MaryAdA PurushA rather than what the author or poet imagines to be thoughts of Sri rAmA so we should exclude such passages from the morality or immorality issues.
 
Please read what is written in this site mentioned above

Parthi Sai This is not a true Sai Baba site. There is a price to pay for any confidence wrongly begotten. There is only one Sathya Sai Baba. He has been and always will be, but not in the way you and cohorts from Mundentown portray Him. For shame. What is it that Christians say, Repent! Be careful of these fraudsters, the days of this false group of pseudo profits is almost at an end. This is simply a group of con-artists garnering money inappropriately in Swami's good name.


Anyone can claim that He/ she is the successor of Sri Sathya Sai Baba

Sri Sathya Sai Baba has not appointed any Successor to him,


However this has nothing to do with OP.


http://www.sathyasai.org/intro/premasai.htm

Shridi Saibaba, the first Baba, has not appointed any successor. The second Puttabarthi Saibaba, the second Baba, came on his own. To follow the first two, the third one need not be a successor of the first or two.

There is a talk about three Sai Babas, being emanated from Lord Shiva. Two have already arrived and the third one is probably from Karnataka.

I don't know how far it is true.
 
Sri Sangom Sir,



Sir, You have used the word thinking to explain what probably went through Rama's mind in some of the slokAs of Yuddha kanda.

So, this has to be taken as imagination of vAlmiki as to what RAmA was probably thinking at that time because it was not said aloud for vAlmiki to hear.

I think we are exhorted to follow the conduct and words of the MaryAdA PurushA rather than what the author or poet imagines to be thoughts of Sri rAmA so we should exclude such passages from the morality or immorality issues.

Sri Narayanan,

In bAlakANDa, sarga-2, we find this verse:

मत् च्छन्दात् एव ते ब्रह्मन् प्रवृत्ते अयम् सरस्वती | १-२-३१

रामस्य चरितम् कृत्स्नम् कुरु त्वम् ऋषिसत्तम |
धर्मात्मनो भगवतो लोके रामस्य धीमतः || १-२-३२

वृत्तम् कथय धीरस्य यथा ते नारदात् श्रुतम् |
रहस्यम् च प्रकाशम् च यद् वृत्तम् तस्य धीमतः || १-२-३३

रामस्य सह सौमित्रे राक्षसानाम् च सर्वशः |
वैदेह्याः च एव यद् वृत्तम् प्रकाशम् यदि वा रहः || १-२-३४

तत् च अपि अविदितम् सर्वम् विदितम् ते भविष्यति

The gist of the above verses is that Brahma appears before Valmiki and commands him to "narrate" रामस्य चरितम्. Brahma also assures Valmiki that he should narrate the story of Rama as heard by him (Valmiki) from Narada and that in order to enable him (Valmiki) to do this truthfully, everything about the adventures (वृत्तम्), even the plight of Vaidehi which is either revealed or un-revealed so far, and whatever legend that has happened, all that will also be known to you, even if it were to be unknown, as yet... [1-2-33b-35a] (सर्वम् विदितम् ते भविष्यति).

Brahma further assures Valmiki:

न ते वाक् अनृता काव्ये काचित् अत्र भविष्यति || १-२-३५
कुरु राम कथाम् पुण्याम् श्लोक बद्धाम् मनोरमाम् |

न ते वाक् अनृता काव्ये काचित् अत्र भविष्यति = not a single word of yours will be unfounded (untruth) in this epic.

With such sort of assurance from Brahma, the Creator of the universe, himself, how can any Ramabhakta worth his salt get a doubt like the one you have posted? apachAram...apachAram!!

This is what I have always been pointing out; almost all of us luxuriate in mooDhabhakti!

Coming to another line of argument, and assuming that Brahma was only speaking a lie or that Valmiki, in order to increase the circulation of his poem, had simply pushed in all of the above, imaginary slokas, is it not then a situation wherein whatever Valmiki says about Rama's actions, spoken words, food eaten, etc., as well as the supposed thinking (thoughts passing the mind) are all equally Valmiki's imagination and nothing more. In such a situation, how can we say that Valmiki's imagination of Rama's action, words, food etc., are true but he did not have the ability to correctly imagine rama's thoughts? If one is bunkum then the rest is also all bunkum; will it not be?

Please read and understand Ramayana, first, before blindly worshipping Rama as a God. That is my appeai to you all.
 
< Clipped >

न मांसं राघवो भुङ्क्ते न चापि मधुसेवते |
वन्यं सुविहितं नित्यं भक्तमश्नाति पञ्चमम् || ५-३६-४१
"Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in theevening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged forhim."


The last one is from a later Kanda.

To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line[/QUOTE]

Yes, the last one is from SundarakANDa and it reveals yet another "dhArmic" activity in which Rama possibly engaged in, but, after Sita was kidnapped, stopped the activity, viz.,"indulging in spirituous liquor". Just as this particular dhArmic activity, Rama also had given up meat-eating, says Hanuman to Sita when he meets her in asokavana.

न एव दंशान् न मशकान् न कीटान् न सरी सृपान् |
राघवो अपनयेत् गत्रात् त्वत् गतेन अन्तः आत्मना || ५-३६-४२

(With his mind wholly devoted to you (i.e., Sita), Rama is not even driving away forest-flies from his body, nor mosquitoes nor insects nor reptiles from his body.)

नित्यम् ध्यान परो रामो नित्यम् शोक परायणः |
न अन्यच् चिन्तयते किंचित् स तु काम वशम् गतः || ५-३६-४३

(Rama always cogitates on something or the other. He is forever engaged in sorrow. He is enamoured with the god of love and thinks of nothing else.)

And so on and so forth go the certificates for good conduct given by Hanuman to Sita.

Yet, our learned friend says, "To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line." Hence, the Ramas (husbands) of the world eat meat, drink spirituous liquor, etc., until somebody kidnaps your wife; that is perfect Dharma!
 
< Clipped >

न मांसं राघवो भुङ्क्ते न चापि मधुसेवते |
वन्यं सुविहितं नित्यं भक्तमश्नाति पञ्चमम् || ५-३६-४१
"Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in theevening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged forhim."


The last one is from a later Kanda.

To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line

Yes, the last one is from SundarakANDa and it reveals yet another "dhArmic" activity in which Rama possibly engaged in, but, after Sita was kidnapped, stopped the activity, viz.,"indulging in spirituous liquor". Just as this particular dhArmic activity, Rama also had given up meat-eating, says Hanuman to Sita when he meets her in asokavana.

न एव दंशान् न मशकान् न कीटान् न सरी सृपान् |
राघवो अपनयेत् गत्रात् त्वत् गतेन अन्तः आत्मना || ५-३६-४२

(With his mind wholly devoted to you (i.e., Sita), Rama is not even driving away forest-flies from his body, nor mosquitoes nor insects nor reptiles from his body.)

नित्यम् ध्यान परो रामो नित्यम् शोक परायणः |
न अन्यच् चिन्तयते किंचित् स तु काम वशम् गतः || ५-३६-४३

(Rama always cogitates on something or the other. He is forever engaged in sorrow. He is enamoured with the god of love and thinks of nothing else.)

And so on and so forth go the certificates for good conduct given by Hanuman to Sita.

Yet, our learned friend says, "To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line." Hence, the Ramas (husbands) of the world eat meat, drink spirituous liquor, etc., until somebody kidnaps your wife; that is perfect Dharma!

Sri Sangom

Let us analyze your conclusion
"Hence, the Ramas (husbands) of the world eat meat, drink spirituous liquor, etc., until somebody kidnaps your wife; that is perfect Dharma"

to see if it makes sense based on the overall context of what is being taught in our scriptures (knowledge focused scriptures particularly).

Often we reach conclusion by emotion and then justify them by some way which appears logical to our mind.
The ad industry knows this very well and hence everything is about emotional appeal in ads. No wonder people pay huge amount of money for 99.9% water in the colas!

When it comes to religious scriptures, there are people who blindly accept anything that is said to be 'godly' which explains the popularity and exploitation of godmen .

Then there are those that reject because they may have subjectively formed an emotional reaction to a scripture at some point in their lives and then use some form of reason to justify their rejection.

Both are at the same level of reaction in my view.

First I need to make a correction to my statement "To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line" This has to be rewritten as "To claim that there are Adharma taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line"

The reason for this correction is that what is considered immoral is subjective and is based on timeframe and place (and culture, local norms etc).

Dharma a more complex concept to understand is based on universal principles. Here there are samanya dharma which is self evident as true without need of any scriptures. The particularization of this as local-dharma is "time and place dependent" but cannot violate universal principles of samanya dharma.

Our scriptures assert four fold pursuits of life (Pursharthas) - namely Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moskha. These could be orthogonal pursuits in the sense that human mind endowed with freewill experience can pursue anyone in the absence of focus on others. However the laws of Dharma is thought to ensure appropriate reactions when Dharma is not followed. This need not be believed but with extensive discussion fully understood.

Pursuit of Dharma for an ordinary person is to understand the limits of pursuits of Kama and Artha. I will leave Moksha from this discussion as it has no immediate relevance for the discussion here.

One cannot confuse the two Purushartha Kama and Dharma. In other words pursuits of pleasure (Kama) is NOT prohibited for a human being. Our ability enjoy is a special endowment and we need to ensure we do not abuse it for our own good.

Therefore sex or drinking liquor by itself do not cause issues unless they violate local Dharma of one's life (which has to be in line with overall samanya dharma of universal principles).

Wine tasting and drinking wine in moderation is a perfectly fine thing to do in most of the western society provided one does not abuse the drinking. I personally do not drink, dislike the idea & smell, never had any desire, and I do not condemn my friends if they drink (without causing issues). It is not adharmic if no harm is caused to anyone being that it is in moderation.

Drinking in considered taboo in certain TB families and they are right within reason especially if they are pursuing knowledge requiring Satvic mindset for most of the time.

So if Sri Rama, a Kshatriya, is thought to have had liquor, it is not violation of local dharma of his time or does not contradict any universal Samanya Dharma.

If Sri Rama is thought to have had sensual interest in his wife per the poet, that is also pursuit of Kama without violating any Dharma of any kind.

Our Hindu society of today's world has lot of hang ups. I think that a person of high integrity who does not abuse anyone verbally or otherwise is far more dharmic than the temple going moralist who are judgemental of others probably pursuing corruption as a way of life.


There is lot more thing to say in the context of Moksha but I want to limit the response. One needs a proper teacher to interpret the verses in order to read source materials of any scriptures in my view.

Wrong conclusions are inevitable for most people and if one has visceral, emotional and negative model about life in one's mind, the scripture like Ramayana is not suitable for them to learn from.

The statement "Hence, the Ramas (husbands) of the world eat meat, drink spirituous liquor, etc., until somebody kidnaps your wife; that is perfect Dharma" cannot be supported logically.

Besides reference to someone stopping enjoyment of any kind only when someone kidnaps one's wife is just a emotion driven sarcastic statement and therefore has no basis.



Bottom line : Concept of Dharma is not easy to appreciate, and Ramayana does not have any passage violating Dharma. Instead it has many parts to teach this complex concept and how to apply in our lives. Personification of Dharma as a deity and superimposing on a historical figure is useful for a society to relate to concept of Dharma with reverence, which can only help their lives.

Notwithstanding my critique and some contrarian views in part to what Sri sangom presented, I do want to applaud him because when he brings up apparently troublesome verses in such a detailed manner, it makes us all pause and think.

If one is involved in delusional worship they will be forced to think and therefore grow in their quest.
 
If Sri Rama’s Character is not worth emulating, then there must have been many articles written by many and found in WEB.

Sri Rama is believed as an Avatar of Sri Maha Vishnu worth worshipping by Millions of Hindus; it is
their Faith. Ever since Valmiki wrote Ramayana, surely many Sanskrit scholars must have read and re read Ramayana many times, and yet none of them wrote anything against Sri Rama’s Character?

The Language of Sanskrit words have many inner meanings and only a crooked mind can allege improper meaning to malign Sri Rama and Ramayana


Sir Rama was not only an Indian legend but a global phenomenon and yet there can be nothing more shameful than living in India, being a Brahmin and denigrating one of its greatest role models: Sri Rama
 
If Sri Rama’s Character is not worth emulating, then there must have been many articles written by many and found in WEB.

Sri Rama is believed as an Avatar of Sri Maha Vishnu worth worshipping by Millions of Hindus; it is
their Faith. Ever since Valmiki wrote Ramayana, surely many Sanskrit scholars must have read and re read Ramayana many times, and yet none of them wrote anything against Sri Rama’s Character?

The Language of Sanskrit words have many inner meanings and only a crooked mind can allege improper meaning to malign Sri Rama and Ramayana


Sir Rama was not only an Indian legend but a global phenomenon and yet there can be nothing more shameful than living in India, being a Brahmin and denigrating one of its greatest role models: Sri Rama

Sri PJ

Our Hindu tradition of teaching and learning is about questioning. Unlike western religions which are dogmatic and some our own traditions are dogmatic, the foundation of our knowledge is rooted in questioning.

Web resources are written by people. Books are written by people. The wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone which is how it is designed. None of these are to be considered an authority.

Blind worship is fine in my view provided they do not put down other views. We do not want a christian to put down Hindu religion. In the same manner you cannot put down in an open forum someone for questioning the content of Ramayana especially when the questioning is done with specifics.

Sri Sangom cited several verses to make his point. My response was based on content and hence my contrary views constitute a reasonable response. You can see in this thread that when respectfully confronted with facts there is actually respectful and possibly useful dialog.

When you come to an open forum you have to expect all kinds of view points and cannot denigrate anyone for their views. That itself is adharma.

If your belief is based on your conviction there are no issues. If they are not there is an opportunity to learn.


The issue talked about was not if Sri Rama is a hero but if he is divine based on on actual verses in Valmiki Ramayana
 
Sri tks Sir

I appreciate your point, but at the same time, probably you missed to see my point also.

My point is that whatever sangom Sir has pointed out citing some few Verses from Valmiki Ramayana, must have been read by many Sanskrit Scholars, but NONE OF THEM criticized Sri Rama and His Divine attributes;

Surely sangom sir is not the only one and first person who is mastered Valmiki Ramayana.

If Sri Rama is not Divine and only a Hero, Why there is not much against Sri Rama as divine written by any
well known writers.

This is my point.

Can he write his views about Sri Rama in Newspapers and other publications?


what are his other publications?

Has he done any research work and published any articles about Sri Rama based on his knowledge of reading Valmiki Ramayana?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top