• 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

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?

Sri PJ

I did not miss your point.

First the sanskrit translation Sri Sangom provided are from legitimate sources. It is not his own and he did not make them up.

I am not a scholar, but I am not sure if you read that I went to the same sources, responded with specifics and answered his interpretations to show how they can be looked at.

I am not asking anyone to change their mind because religion is a personal thing.

The scholars of the past and today do not see any issues with any of the verses that Sri Sangom quoted (or I quoted). I actually gave reasons why there are no issues. You may want to re-read them.

The real question is - Are you bothered by the translations? Do they affect your image of Sri Rama as described in Valmiki Ramayana? why so?


You may not want to delve deep into Valmiki Ramayana verses and that is perfectly fine.

If we want to read and understand, then the verses will make us think as to what is implied. I have minimally provided some explanations why the verses do not pose any issues and how Sri Rama can still be viewed as a personification of Dharma.

There are lot of blind believers in the world. Discussions of specifics are not suited for everyone.

Writing in newspapers does not prove anything because there are too many views.


The contrary views actually enhance our understanding in any topic. But we cannot bad mouth a person for providing differing views.

The source scriptures can be misinterpreted easily and hence one needs a qualified teacher to get the correct understanding.

For most people, blind belief is harmful and belief with some understanding is probably most beneficial.

With this in mind I can say that one must follow Dharma to the best extent in order to truly worship Sri Rama. The other thing is to stay away from source scriptures without the guidance of proper teachers.

In the end only you can answer as to what bothers you about the translations provided

Regards
 
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?

Dear Shri PJ sir,

As much as I hate to intervene (esp, after our last conversation), I have to do so now. :-)

The point, sir, is that you are simply hell bent on attacking the messenger instead of the message. What has the point that Rama was not a divinity got to do with publications? You are merely attempting to degrade the poster with your, if I may say, abusive posts that question the integrity of the poster.

I will repeat again - the posts and links and articles you have quoted are not substantive proof that Rama was a divinity. Neither does it prove that Ramayana happened. At best it would only be good enough to state that the tribes, flora and fauna mentioned in the Ramayana exist. It cannot be inferred to mean that Ramayana is real.

And lastly, since you seem to side with Shri tks, if I may gently point out that he has not accepted that Ramayana is real and that Rama is a godhead. :-) You have to read between the lines, no?
 
Sri PJ

I did not miss your point.

First the sanskrit translation Sri Sangom provided are from legitimate sources. It is not his own and he did not make them up.




In the end only you can answer as to what bothers you about the translations provided

Regards


Sri tks Sir

Thanks for your elaborate reply.

i am not a scholar in Sanskrit . so i am not able to answer to this question.

Since Sanskrit is a language with many hidden meaning.
 
Dear Shri PJ sir,

As much as I hate to intervene (esp, after our last conversation), I have to do so now. :-)

The point, sir, is that you are simply hell bent on attacking the messenger instead of the message. What has the point that Rama was not a divinity got to do with publications? You are merely attempting to degrade the poster with your, if I may say, abusive posts that question the integrity of the poster.

I will repeat again - the posts and links and articles you have quoted are not substantive proof that Rama was a divinity. Neither does it prove that Ramayana happened. At best it would only be good enough to state that the tribes, flora and fauna mentioned in the Ramayana exist. It cannot be inferred to mean that Ramayana is real.

And lastly, since you seem to side with Shri tks, if I may gently point out that he has not accepted that Ramayana is real and that Rama is a godhead. :-) You have to read between the lines, no?

auh Sir

OP is about proving Ramayana as Real by experts; Also my other posts giving links to Ramayana as real.

Later on I added many links to prove sri Rama's Attributes


i did not see that tks sir " has not accepted that Ramayana is real and that Rama is a godhead."




 
Last edited:
Dear Shri PJ sir,

As much as I hate to intervene (esp, after our last conversation), I have to do so now. :-)

The point, sir, is that you are simply hell bent on attacking the messenger instead of the message. What has the point that Rama was not a divinity got to do with publications? You are merely attempting to degrade the poster with your, if I may say, abusive posts that question the integrity of the poster.

I will repeat again - the posts and links and articles you have quoted are not substantive proof that Rama was a divinity. Neither does it prove that Ramayana happened. At best it would only be good enough to state that the tribes, flora and fauna mentioned in the Ramayana exist. It cannot be inferred to mean that Ramayana is real.

And lastly, since you seem to side with Shri tks, if I may gently point out that he has not accepted that Ramayana is real and that Rama is a godhead. :-) You have to read between the lines, no?

Dear mischievous :-)

No need to read between the lines .. Just reading the lines will do :-)
My lines are:

I have stated explicitly many times that Sri Rama (worshipped by millions over the centuries) is personification of Dharma and a society benefits with proper teaching of Ramayana.

Ramayana is not a history document but is an Ithihasa meaning 'it happened like this' (based on historical figures as narrated by a poet with poetic license). Therefore historical analysis of context (time, place) in the epic could be researched for those interested.

Also Sri Rama's attributes have to be understood from Valmiki's work on Ramayana and Yogavasishta..
 
Sri tks Sir

Thanks for your elaborate reply.

i am not a scholar in Sanskrit . so i am not able to answer to this question.

Since Sanskrit is a language with many hidden meaning.

I understand - Sanskrit is a precise language with meaning embedded in the word. There can be multiple interpretations based on certain rules of grammar only within isolated instances (but usually not when the whole text is considered).

The English translation could be interpreted. Some have said that Mamsa is not meat but essence (as in Mamsa of a Mango). So there are alternative interpretations.

The essence and value of Ramayana is not altered by any of the translations. The only issues are with subsequent interpretations and you can see my views on Sri Sangom's interpretations (not the actual translations presented from web resources).

In any case, my own take is for a Rama Bhaktha there is no need to prove anything. Meditating on Rama Nama keeping in mind that Sri Rama is all about Dharma is all a devotee needs to get the benefits of tranquil mind!
 
.
In any case, my own take is for a Rama Bhaktha there is no need to prove anything. Meditating on Rama Nama keeping in mind that Sri Rama is all about Dharma is all a devotee needs to get the benefits of tranquil mind!

Ramayana probably an ancient Jungle Book So many animal used in an anthropomorphic manner to give moral lessons!

The tales in the book (and also those in The Second Jungle Book which followed in 1895, and which includes five further stories about Mowgli) are fables, using animals in an anthropomorphic manner to give moral lessons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book

Now a doubt - Jambhavan a monkey or Karadi? How he joins Sugreeva & other Vanara?
 
Dear mischievous :-)

No need to read between the lines .. Just reading the lines will do :-)
My lines are:

I have stated explicitly many times that Sri Rama (worshipped by millions over the centuries) is personification of Dharma and a society benefits with proper teaching of Ramayana.

Ramayana is not a history document but is an Ithihasa meaning 'it happened like this' (based on historical figures as narrated by a poet with poetic license). Therefore historical analysis of context (time, place) in the epic could be researched for those interested.

Also Sri Rama's attributes have to be understood from Valmiki's work on Ramayana and Yogavasishta..

Forget about what Rama personifies and what millions believe it to be.

Do you believe logically that there is conclusive proof of Rama's divinity and godhead as shri PJ or any other would tend to believe so? That Rama is an avatara of Vishnu who resides in a thousand headed serpent in an ocean of milk? No beating around the bush please... :-)
 
Ramayana probably an ancient Jungle Book So many animal used in an anthropomorphic manner to give moral lessons!

The tales in the book (and also those in The Second Jungle Book which followed in 1895, and which includes five further stories about Mowgli) are fables, using animals in an anthropomorphic manner to give moral lessons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book

Now a doubt - Jambhavan a monkey or Karadi? How he joins Sugreeva & other Vanara?

Yes.
Aesop's fables has got god more similarities. I agree with TKSji's opinion:
In any case, my own take is for a Rama Bhaktha there is no need to prove anything. Meditating on Rama Nama keeping in mind that Sri Rama is all about Dharma is all a devotee needs to get the benefits of tranquil mind!

I am very thrilled by Sangomsji's intellectual arguments, which shake the very core of our (mis) understanding about religion.
I do not believe that Ramayana is Historical or religious document. It is Novel based on historical locations. There might be some moral values which were appropriate for that place and time. Some of those values have some meaning even today.
 
In those days, one could just simply say, "many many years long ago, there once live a king..." and the people starved of any other entertainment, would readily gobble up the piece.
 
Forget about what Rama personifies and what millions believe it to be.

Do you believe logically that there is conclusive proof of Rama's divinity and godhead as shri PJ or any other would tend to believe so? That Rama is an avatara of Vishnu who resides in a thousand headed serpent in an ocean of milk? No beating around the bush please... :-)

Only after you answer the question as Yes or No (no other options) - Have you stopped physically abusing (beating) your wife ? :-)
 
Last edited:
Forget about what Rama personifies and what millions believe it to be.

Do you believe logically that there is conclusive proof of Rama's divinity and godhead as shri PJ or any other would tend to believe so? That Rama is an avatara of Vishnu who resides in a thousand headed serpent in an ocean of milk? No beating around the bush please... :-)

I know the question was posed to TKSji, but my answer is simply NO. But there can be some significance to the story and characters.
 
Yes.
Aesop's fables has got god more similarities. I agree with TKSji's opinion:


I am very thrilled by Sangomsji's intellectual arguments, which shake the very core of our (mis) understanding about religion.
I do not believe that Ramayana is Historical or religious document. It is Novel based on historical locations. There might be some moral values which were appropriate for that place and time. Some of those values have some meaning even today.

Many reputed scholars have opined in the past that most probably Valmiki (whosoever he might have been) composed the story of Rama in Sanskrit and that too in a poetical metre "anuShTup" which was new at that time of Valmiki. This Ramacharitham or story of Rama was subsequently grabbed by our religionists (read, brahmin scholars) and they added the bAlakANDa and uttarakANDa according to their own imaginations with a view to making Rama look like divine and they succesfully brainwashed our vast millions of gullible, illiterate people into believing what they wanted, viz., Rama was an avatar of Vishnu.

I believe that most probably, the abovesaid adaptation exercise happened after the time of Ashoka and the acme of buddhism because

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध |
स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विध्हि |
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् |
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् २-१०९-३४

yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |
stathāgataṃ nāstikamatra vidhhi |
tasmāddhi yaḥ śaṅkyatamaḥ prajānām |
na nāsti kenābhimukho budhaḥ syāt 2-109-34

Here, Rama tells jAbAli, a nastika, after hearing his arguments as to why Rama should ascend the throne and not go forward to fulfil the promise made by his father, Dasaratha, to Kaikeyi. The verse clearly means that a buddhist should be treated on par with a thief (yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |). However our clever translators find out convoluted methods of translating this so that the aforesaid simple and clear meaning does not circulate. One such can be found here.

Hence, Valmiki Ramayana as we know it today, has been given its present contours only after Ashoka's time, although we cannot definitely say whether or not some folk tale on one Rama existed from time immemorial and people shared it by word of mouth or folk songs, etc.

However, there are irrefutable internal evidences in the present forms of the Valmiki Ramayana — the Bombay and the Bengal text to show that VR has been altered very much. (It is likely that the scribes who were charged with these projects did not compare notes and nobody cared to ensure that the whole humungous poem was brilliantly uniform, without incongruities.)

My limited effort, in this thread, was only to show that Rama does not come out as a maryAdApuruSha for us in this 21st. century A.D., to follow completely. For instance, from the modern, feminist pov there is this:

Sita warns Rama that he will be blamed in all ages for his rejection of his ‘lawfulloyal wife’ which is mentioned in K.SrinivasaIyengar’s ‘‘Sitayana:Sita’s Fire’’ as,
‘ will in all future time set the patternof vulgar, selfish, prideful,one-sided, pitiless desecrationofsupportless womankind’.(Sitayana:Sita’s Fire,p.171)

Secondly, we have a much respected character from itihasa, Yudhishtira who has said, unequivocally,
तर्कोऽप्रतिष्ठ: श्रुतयॊ विभिन्नाःनैकोऋषिर्यस्यवचः प्रमाणम्धर्मस्य तत्वं निहितं गुहायाम्महाजनॊ यॆनगतस्सपन्थाः
tarko:'pratiṣṭha: śrutayo vibhinnāḥnaikoṛṣiryasyavacaḥ pramāṇamdharmasya tatvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyāmmahājano yenagatassapanthāḥ
(Logic cannot apply to it - Dharma -, the vedas have differibg views on it, there is no single rishi who is the authority on Dharma; the way of Dharma is really secret and unknowable; we can only follow the great persons in our lives.)
Rama could very well have been the example to be followed in those olden days of Valmiki, but it is worth studying VR in depth and finding out how far Rama conforms to an ideal man for today.
 
Only after you answer the question as Yes or No (no other options) - Have you stopped physically abusing (beating) your wife ? :-)

Ah, there the chink shows!

All I asked was a simple question, to which you have equated quite a different analogy that is unsuitable to the argument here. If I were to ask you whether the story as depicted in the movie "xyz" is real, what would you answer? It is another matter as to whether there are morals or teachings of dharma that is to be adopted/adapted by the teeming millions.

The steps that have stood firm for you now start to crumble, and hence the inability to give a direct answer. :-)
 
I believe that most probably, the abovesaid adaptation exercise happened after the time of Ashoka and the acme of buddhism because

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध |
स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विध्हि |
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् |
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् २-१०९-३४

yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |
stathāgataṃ nāstikamatra vidhhi |
tasmāddhi yaḥ śaṅkyatamaḥ prajānām |
na nāsti kenābhimukho budhaḥ syāt 2-109-34

Here, Rama tells jAbAli, a nastika, after hearing his arguments as to why Rama should ascend the throne and not go forward to fulfil the promise made by his father, Dasaratha, to Kaikeyi. The verse clearly means that a buddhist should be treated on par with a thief (yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |). However our clever translators find out convoluted methods of translating this so that the aforesaid simple and clear meaning does not circulate. One such can be found here.
One explanation to this, as I have heard from Shri Velukudi Krishnan, is that the term "Buddha" is only a title and has existed even before the advent of the "Gautama" Buddha. Hence the authenticity of the above verse !
 
Forget about what Rama personifies and what millions believe it to be.

Do you believe logically that there is conclusive proof of Rama's divinity and godhead as shri PJ or any other would tend to believe so? That Rama is an avatara of Vishnu who resides in a thousand headed serpent in an ocean of milk? No beating around the bush please... :-)

OK - you want a direct answer - I will *again* :-)

Wrong assumptions in the question

1. There is no such thing as believing logically - belief and logic do not go together,
2. I have said divinity is subject to understanding only and our Upanishad teaching can make this very clear to *understand* as explained by a competent teacher. So it is not my belief and I have not stated a belief.
3. Rama's divinity therefore from an understanding point of view assumed there are many divinities floating around which is not the case
4. I have said that religion and God are intensely personal. Therefore what any particular person believes cannot be analyzed. Large number of people believe Sri Rama signifies (notwithstanding exceptions) personification of an ideal called Dharma.
5. Avatara loosely means 'coming down to earth' to restore dharmic imbalance as part of self correction in nature. Regardless of who the Rama the historical figure was, positive influence of the story has happened to over billions of people in the last 2500 years or so if one were to believe approximate dating of when Valminki Ramayana was produced. It has given meaning to the word Dharma for many ordinary people. This understanding qualifies 'Rama' as described in the Ramayana to be an Avatara. I do not know what you mean by Vishnu - the meaning of the word is that it is something all pervasive. So you have an assumption about Vishnu that I may not share

There are many more assumptions inherent in the question and hence it has no answer:-)

Now have you stopped beating your wife :-)
 
Many reputed scholars have opined in the past that most probably Valmiki (whosoever he might have been) composed the story of Rama in Sanskrit and that too in a poetical metre "anuShTup" which was new at that time of Valmiki. This Ramacharitham or story of Rama was subsequently grabbed by our religionists (read, brahmin scholars) and they added the bAlakANDa and uttarakANDa according to their own imaginations with a view to making Rama look like divine and they succesfully brainwashed our vast millions of gullible, illiterate people into believing what they wanted, viz., Rama was an avatar of Vishnu.

1. I believe that most probably, the abovesaid adaptation exercise happened after the time of Ashoka and the acme of buddhism because

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध |
स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विध्हि |
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् |
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् २-१०९-३४

yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |
stathāgataṃ nāstikamatra vidhhi |
tasmāddhi yaḥ śaṅkyatamaḥ prajānām |
na nāsti kenābhimukho budhaḥ syāt 2-109-34

Here, Rama tells jAbAli, a nastika, after hearing his arguments as to why Rama should ascend the throne and not go forward to fulfil the promise made by his father, Dasaratha, to Kaikeyi. The verse clearly means that a buddhist should be treated on par with a thief (yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |). However our clever translators find out convoluted methods of translating this so that the aforesaid simple and clear meaning does not circulate. One such can be found here.

Hence, Valmiki Ramayana as we know it today, has been given its present contours only after Ashoka's time, although we cannot definitely say whether or not some folk tale on one Rama existed from time immemorial and people shared it by word of mouth or folk songs, etc.

However, there are irrefutable internal evidences in the present forms of the Valmiki Ramayana — the Bombay and the Bengal text to show that VR has been altered very much. (It is likely that the scribes who were charged with these projects did not compare notes and nobody cared to ensure that the whole humungous poem was brilliantly uniform, without incongruities.)

2. My limited effort, in this thread, was only to show that Rama does not come out as a maryAdApuruSha for us in this 21st. century A.D., to follow completely. For instance, from the modern, feminist pov there is this:

Sita warns Rama that he will be blamed in all ages for his rejection of his ‘lawfulloyal wife’ which is mentioned in K.SrinivasaIyengar’s ‘‘Sitayana:Sita’s Fire’’ as,
‘ will in all future time set the patternof vulgar, selfish, prideful,one-sided, pitiless desecrationofsupportless womankind’.(Sitayana:Sita’s Fire,p.171)

Secondly, we have a much respected character from itihasa, Yudhishtira who has said, unequivocally,
तर्कोऽप्रतिष्ठ: श्रुतयॊ विभिन्नाःनैकोऋषिर्यस्यवचः प्रमाणम्धर्मस्य तत्वं निहितं गुहायाम्महाजनॊ यॆनगतस्सपन्थाः
tarko:'pratiṣṭha: śrutayo vibhinnāḥnaikoṛṣiryasyavacaḥ pramāṇamdharmasya tatvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyāmmahājano yenagatassapanthāḥ
(Logic cannot apply to it - Dharma -, the vedas have differibg views on it, there is no single rishi who is the authority on Dharma; the way of Dharma is really secret and unknowable; we can only follow the great persons in our lives.)
Rama could very well have been the example to be followed in those olden days of Valmiki, but it is worth studying VR in depth and finding out how far Rama conforms to an ideal man for today.

I had taken a few days off in the summer and hence this thread has been source for my Q4 time :-)

Sri Sangom -

I numbered the post to refer to it.

I have immense respect to you as a person for your widespread exposure to our scriptures.
You & I have had no issues presenting contrarian views forcefully :-) In fact your views have made a thread much more interesting.

I respect your belief as much as I respect all those people who believe that Vishnu is sitting in a bed of serpent etc (which some people can give a very effective symbolic interpretation).

Historical analysis as to who was divine tend to rarely have intellectual content because divinity by its definition is timeless being the cause of time itself.

To put it more forcefully historical analysis of divinity is for losers :-)

Historical analysis of some context in a book is fine though I have no interest in that. Our tradition did not care to keep recorded history for those scriptures that are supposed to reveal timeless truths.

Religion is a personal thing and a scripture regardless of its origin may or may not have relevance in one's life. Beliefs and unsupported opinions cannot be debated.

But interpretations can be and in the past instances I was not convinced with the interpretations you had given (and I had given my views as to why)

The question to anyone is if a scripture
  • has value in their life and
  • if their belief or understanding does not cause damage to other people.

If the answer is yes to both, then they can even worship what is called a devil using satanic scriptures in my view

Showing what others believe is wrong by another belief under the name of intellectualization tantamounts to 'intellectual masturbation' - the process may be fun but output is useless even for the person :-)

Anyway my vacation time is coming to close - but immensely enjoyed the engagement :-)

Regards
 
OK - you want a direct answer - I will *again* :-)

Wrong assumptions in the question

1. There is no such thing as believing logically - belief and logic do not go together,
2. I have said divinity is subject to understanding only and our Upanishad teaching can make this very clear to *understand* as explained by a competent teacher. So it is not my belief and I have not stated a belief.
3. Rama's divinity therefore from an understanding point of view assumed there are many divinities floating around which is not the case
4. I have said that religion and God are intensely personal. Therefore what any particular person believes cannot be analyzed. Large number of people believe Sri Rama signifies (notwithstanding exceptions) personification of an ideal called Dharma.
5. Avatara loosely means 'coming down to earth' to restore dharmic imbalance as part of self correction in nature. Regardless of who the Rama the historical figure was, positive influence of the story has happened to over billions of people in the last 2500 years or so if one were to believe approximate dating of when Valminki Ramayana was produced. It has given meaning to the word Dharma for many ordinary people. This understanding qualifies 'Rama' as described in the Ramayana to be an Avatara. I do not know what you mean by Vishnu - the meaning of the word is that it is something all pervasive. So you have an assumption about Vishnu that I may not share

There are many more assumptions inherent in the question and hence it has no answer:-)

Now have you stopped beating your wife :-)
I will deconstruct your replies to show that they are not answers of any sort.

1. The query was specifically raised to you since your replies were evasive. There is "belief", which you have, sort of underlined many assumptions with (in previous posts). Since you tended to combine the two by quoting that "Rama is worshipped as a godhead by millions of hindus for centuries" (this goes hand in hand with belief, at least for those "millions") etc., and, otoh, talked about reasoning and logic, I coined the phrase. You choose whichever is convenient to you. But please do answer the simple question? Did, the Rama of Ramayana, exist as a God, not in people's imagination/beliefs, but as an physical manifestation of "the" Narayana from "paarkadal"? If you believe/logically conclude, is it substantially proved to all and sundry, just as any proven experiments in science? I have carefully worded this so that you cannot find escape clauses! :-)

2. I use divinity in the sense as it is ascribed to Rama, et al - as an avatar (physical manifestation), that vanaras were somehow devas born to aid Rama in the annihilation of Ravana, that Sita was Vishnu's consort etc. I think, this must be easy to understand now.

3. Not clear as to what is to be understood here and I leave it.

4. There you go again! I will remind you of point 1 above. Beliefs are personal, alright, but when somebody claims that there is conclusive proof to his belief, it has to be critically evaluated. We need not talk about other things here. I may also gently point out to you that the statement "Large number of people believe Sri Rama signifies (notwithstanding exceptions) personification of an ideal called Dharma." is believed with another underlining belief - that he was a real avatar, and not just a story.

5. We are now playing with words here. Then I may also point out to you that a person called "Sri Rama" does not exist at all - there is one explanation used for Rama - 'ramayati iti ramaha"; can be interpreted to mean "one who pleases" or "is pleasing to look at", and hence there is no one person by that Rama. Let us not get there. :-)

My opinion, after all that you had to say so far, is that you are apprehensive about your stance and hence the lack of a forthright answer. Or perhaps, you know that there is no way of proving, beyond any doubt, that a God called Rama did live as per the Ramayana. And afraid to voice out, for your own beliefs still hold you, albeit, faintly.

:-)
 
I had taken a few days off in the summer and hence this thread has been source for my Q4 time :-)

Sri Sangom -

I numbered the post to refer to it.

I have immense respect to you as a person for your widespread exposure to our scriptures.
You & I have had no issues presenting contrarian views forcefully :-) In fact your views have made a thread much more interesting.

I respect your belief as much as I respect all those people who believe that Vishnu is sitting in a bed of serpent etc (which some people can give a very effective symbolic interpretation).

Historical analysis as to who was divine tend to rarely have intellectual content because divinity by its definition is timeless being the cause of time itself.

To put it more forcefully historical analysis of divinity is for losers :-)

Historical analysis of some context in a book is fine though I have no interest in that. Our tradition did not care to keep recorded history for those scriptures that are supposed to reveal timeless truths.

Religion is a personal thing and a scripture regardless of its origin may or may not have relevance in one's life. Beliefs and unsupported opinions cannot be debated.

But interpretations can be and in the past instances I was not convinced with the interpretations you had given (and I had given my views as to why)

The question to anyone is if a scripture
  • has value in their life and
  • if their belief or understanding does not cause damage to other people.

If the answer is yes to both, then they can even worship what is called a devil using satanic scriptures in my view

Showing what others believe is wrong by another belief under the name of intellectualization tantamounts to 'intellectual masturbation' - the process may be fun but output is useless even for the person :-)

Anyway my vacation time is coming to close - but immensely enjoyed the engagement :-)

Regards


yam (சேனைக்கிழங்கு) flower of this Forum! LOL
 
I will deconstruct your replies to show that they are not answers of any sort.

1. The query was specifically raised to you since your replies were evasive. There is "belief", which you have, sort of underlined many assumptions with (in previous posts). Since you tended to combine the two by quoting that "Rama is worshipped as a godhead by millions of hindus for centuries" (this goes hand in hand with belief, at least for those "millions") etc., and, otoh, talked about reasoning and logic, I coined the phrase. You choose whichever is convenient to you. But please do answer the simple question? Did, the Rama of Ramayana, exist as a God, not in people's imagination/beliefs, but as an physical manifestation of "the" Narayana from "paarkadal"? If you believe/logically conclude, is it substantially proved to all and sundry, just as any proven experiments in science? I have carefully worded this so that you cannot find escape clauses! :-)

2. I use divinity in the sense as it is ascribed to Rama, et al - as an avatar (physical manifestation), that vanaras were somehow devas born to aid Rama in the annihilation of Ravana, that Sita was Vishnu's consort etc. I think, this must be easy to understand now.

3. Not clear as to what is to be understood here and I leave it.

4. There you go again! I will remind you of point 1 above. Beliefs are personal, alright, but when somebody claims that there is conclusive proof to his belief, it has to be critically evaluated. We need not talk about other things here. I may also gently point out to you that the statement "Large number of people believe Sri Rama signifies (notwithstanding exceptions) personification of an ideal called Dharma." is believed with another underlining belief - that he was a real avatar, and not just a story.

5. We are now playing with words here. Then I may also point out to you that a person called "Sri Rama" does not exist at all - there is one explanation used for Rama - 'ramayati iti ramaha"; can be interpreted to mean "one who pleases" or "is pleasing to look at", and hence there is no one person by that Rama. Let us not get there. :-)

My opinion, after all that you had to say so far, is that you are apprehensive about your stance and hence the lack of a forthright answer. Or perhaps, you know that there is no way of proving, beyond any doubt, that a God called Rama did live as per the Ramayana. And afraid to voice out, for your own beliefs still hold you, albeit, faintly.

:-)

Hi Sri auh

Just noticed this post which has a question.

I have to 'answer' you for now with more clarification questions, sorry:-)




My use of examples (e.g have you stopped taking the pills that make you stupid, just say yes or no) is to illustrate that a question may contain assumptions which can render it meaningless. Also forcefitting an answer to appear simple also cannot be done.

If pointing this out comes across as evasive, apprehensive or afraid, so be it.


Let us examine your newly framed question without escape clauses :-)


Alas, it too has assmputions that make it unanswerable ..


"Did, the Rama of Ramayana, exist as a God, not in people's imagination/beliefs, but as an physical manifestation of "the" Narayana from "paarkadal"? If you believe/logically conclude, is it substantially proved to all and sundry, just as any proven experiments in science? I have carefully worded this so that you cannot find escape clauses! :-)
So let me ask only YOUR assumptions in the question - no wiggling around while answering about what I said. This is only about your assumptions:


1. What does "exist as God" mean??
2. What does the word God mean to you?
3. what does 'exist' mean to you?
4. What acts described in Ramayana make you feel that others think of him as God?
5. Does 'exist' mean he only existed then or still existing from a timeline point of view?
6.Did he exist before Ramayana also or
7. Did he exist only when he was born?
8. If Rama was physical manifestation of ""the" Narayana from "paarkadal" in your question, during the time Rama roamed on the earth in the story, was the Paarkadal empty of "the" Narayana?
9. Describe one scenario with any so called God as you understand, even if it is imagined, as to what would constitute a proof for you to be satisfied. It can be completely imaginary. For example if a Godmen said he can make gold from thin air, I will design a room into which he will be strip searched, sent to a room and ask him to produce a gold ring. So you have to propose an experiment the outcome of which will completely convince you.
10. What does the word "Dharma" mean to you though that is not in your question without escape clauses.




I know you think I am being evasive. Since I have this honor already, let us see if you can answer very precisely the above 10 questions and I will give an YES or NO to your first question.

If I understand the second question after you answer the above I will answer that too :-)

Fair?

OK the ball is in your court :-) If my replies are delayed it is not that I am ignoring, I may have to travel..
 
Last edited:
यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध |
स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विध्हि |
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् |
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् २-१०९-३४

yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |
stathāgataṃ nāstikamatra vidhhi |
tasmāddhi yaḥ śaṅkyatamaḥ prajānām |
na nāsti kenābhimukho budhaḥ syāt 2-109-34

Here, Rama tells jAbAli, a nastika, after hearing his arguments as to why Rama should ascend the throne and not go forward to fulfil the promise made by his father, Dasaratha, to Kaikeyi. The verse clearly means that a buddhist should be treated on par with a thief (yathā hi coraḥ sa tathā hi buddha |). However our clever translators find out convoluted methods of translating this so that the aforesaid simple and clear meaning does not circulate. One such can be found here.

Dear Sangom ji,

Just would like some clarification..as far as I know the word Bauddha is used to denote a Buddhist or the Buddhist school of thought keeping with the rules of grammar. Just like followers of Shiva become Shaiva..Vishnu becomes Vaishnava..likewise Buddha becomes Bauddha.

Here to word Buddha is used..so how does it sum up to mean Buddhist?

So is the word Buddha here merely denoting intellect or the process of thinking becos if one takes a look at the verse before this..there Lord Rama is angry with Jabali and uses the word Visamastha Buddhim meaning a misleading intellect..so the next verse is a continuation of the scolding Jabali receives and Rama compares the intellect of Jabali as of a thief and a wise one never takes advice from a Nastika.

Can you let me know how the word Buddha here can ever be Buddhist? I feel the word Buddha here can only mean Intellect.
Cos then it wont really match with the previous stanza.

Correct me if wrong.
 
Last edited:
One explanation to this, as I have heard from Shri Velukudi Krishnan, is that the term "Buddha" is only a title and has existed even before the advent of the "Gautama" Buddha. Hence the authenticity of the above verse !

In various posts by you in this thread, I feel you have not made any comment on the repeated claim that the word Dharma is difficult to understand.

Is the claim a fact or is it a belief? Looks incredible that Manu and many others wrote Dharma Shastras, Rama lived out Dharma, Krishna preached Dharma on the battle field, vedas are full of it, purANAs talk about it, yet nobody thought of simplifying it in about 4000 years of Hindu civilization and they avoided the difficult topic all through.
 
Dear Sangom ji,

Just would like some clarification..as far as I know the word Bauddha is used to denote a Buddhist or the Buddhist school of thought keeping with the rules of grammar. Just like followers of Shiva become Shaiva..Vishnu becomes Vaishnava..likewise Buddha becomes Bauddha.

Here to word Buddha is used..so how does it sum up to mean Buddhist?

So is the word Buddha here merely denoting intellect or the process of thinking becos if one takes a look at the verse before this..there Lord Rama is angry with Jabali and uses the word Visamastha Buddhim meaning a misleading intellect..so the next verse is a continuation of the scolding Jabali receives and Rama compares the intellect of Jabali as of a thief and a wise one never takes advice from a Nastika.

Can you let me know how the word Buddha here can ever be Buddhist? I feel the word Buddha here can only mean Intellect.
Cos then it wont really match with the previous stanza.

Correct me if wrong.
hi

sometimes in sanskrit....bud dhatu....bodhayati iti budhha......so buddha means to understand too.....like in sanskrit.....

SAINDHAVAM ANAYA.....IN CONTEXT OF FOOD...ITS MEANING SALT.....OR NORMAL MEANING HORSE.....
 
Dear Shri tks,

There is futility in your arguments in the context of the subject being discussed. Your attempt to debate with me is about my understanding and not about the common understanding (like shri PJ, for example :-) ). (not to mean that I am on a higher pedestal than Shri PJ - the word "common understanding" is used just as a differentiator) This derails the discussions, imo, since your aim is in the next field. I am not here, in this thread, to debate what or who is god and whether such a thing or concept or entity exists - real or imagined. If you want, we can debate in another thread, which we have done several times over.

I am opposing the view of Shri PJ (and presumedly, of others like him) who worship an individual because of the view that Rama is supposedly an incarnation (physical manifestation, in their view) of a physical supreme god who physically exists somewhere else (a place called kailasam or vaikuntam, for example), and that there are devas who reside in a place called swargam, and that there is a place called "narakam". There are various fantastical elements in the Ramayana - for example, Kumbhakarana slept for six months, and Hanuman flew from Lanka to Himalayas and uprooted an entire mountain, and that talking monkeys had an entire kingdom of their own, hanuman knew "nava-vyakaranam" etc. The topic of discussion is strictly confined to this.

Please note that it is not my view of God that we are debating here and it would be worth to keep this in mind.

Hi Sri auh

Just noticed this post which has a question.

I have to 'answer' you for now with more clarification questions, sorry:-)

My use of examples (e.g have you stopped taking the pills that make you stupid, just say yes or no) is to illustrate that a question may contain assumptions which can render it meaningless. Also forcefitting an answer to appear simple also cannot be done.
Does this equate to the query "Is Ramayana real?" still? In the backdrop of my explanation!

In remote parts of Andhra, people still worship NTR as Rama ! In the same way they worship the Rama of Ramayana. We are not talking about "personification" here, or about ideals. Just the topic of worshipping the Rama of Ramayana as real.

If pointing this out comes across as evasive, apprehensive or afraid, so be it.
It is not my view of god that we are debating here, and hence you appear evasive.

Let us examine your newly framed question without escape clauses :-)
Alas, it too has assmputions that make it unanswerable ..

So let me ask only YOUR assumptions in the question - no wiggling around while answering about what I said. This is only about your assumptions:

1. What does "exist as God" mean??
2. What does the word God mean to you?
3. what does 'exist' mean to you?
4. What acts described in Ramayana make you feel that others think of him as God?
5. Does 'exist' mean he only existed then or still existing from a timeline point of view?
6.Did he exist before Ramayana also or
7. Did he exist only when he was born?
8. If Rama was physical manifestation of ""the" Narayana from "paarkadal" in your question, during the time Rama roamed on the earth in the story, was the Paarkadal empty of "the" Narayana?
9. Describe one scenario with any so called God as you understand, even if it is imagined, as to what would constitute a proof for you to be satisfied. It can be completely imaginary. For example if a Godmen said he can make gold from thin air, I will design a room into which he will be strip searched, sent to a room and ask him to produce a gold ring. So you have to propose an experiment the outcome of which will completely convince you.
10. What does the word "Dharma" mean to you though that is not in your question without escape clauses.

I know you think I am being evasive. Since I have this honor already, let us see if you can answer very precisely the above 10 questions and I will give an YES or NO to your first question.

If I understand the second question after you answer the above I will answer that too :-)

Fair?

OK the ball is in your court :-) If my replies are delayed it is not that I am ignoring, I may have to travel..
As I have explained this is parallel to the topic we are debating in this thread. But I will comply.

Since you seem to come from planet "Ubex Sxtr Avbo", I am sure it would be difficult for you to comprehend the way we Indians use the english literal. If I were to start explaining, I am afraid then it would lead to grammatical interpretations, which is beyond the scope of this forum. :-)

So, I propose an easy way to do this. You start explaining the terms that you have queried, in whatever english you can, and I will attempt to understand and debate on that.

Fair?

The balls are in your court :-)

I dont mind if you reply to this even after a year. I understand that there might some time involved in learning the language ;-)
 
Last edited:
In various posts by you in this thread, I feel you have not made any comment on the repeated claim that the word Dharma is difficult to understand.

Is the claim a fact or is it a belief? Looks incredible that Manu and many others wrote Dharma Shastras, Rama lived out Dharma, Krishna preached Dharma on the battle field, vedas are full of it, purANAs talk about it, yet nobody thought of simplifying it in about 4000 years of Hindu civilization and they avoided the difficult topic all through.

Maybe because I would have felt that such a comment was not necessary or relevant to the debate on hand.

From what I have read and understood, "Dharma" is somewhat equivalent to "maximum universal benefits"; a set of actions or systems that ensure the maximum benefit to all beings, regulated by further sub-clauses (time, situation and society dependent). Now, this itself is debatable, and, even if accepted, is subject to various interpretations.

It cannot be simplified, imo, and the more you simplify it, the more it would seem as parochial. :-)

Democracy, perhaps, is the greatest and closest example of Dharma in the present day! And surprisingly it came from a country that never read the Gita or the Dharma Shastras. :-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top