Ramayana is Real, Say Experts

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

I feel Dharma is individualistic based on your "andhar athma" cannot be codified by others for you ! and is relative or mutually excludive - What is not dharma is adharma . Similarly Adharma again what is not Dharma! Unlike dharma crimes are codified in Penal codes with corrective punishment as well

 

[sangom]

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.

AFAIK the word buddha means recognised, observed, known, understood, completely conscious, enlightened, clever, wise, knowing, wakened, awakened, etc. Hence, the word buddha merely denoting intellect or the process of thinking, etc., is not appropriate; the correct word would have been "buddhi".

"buddhaH tathAgataM" does not appear to be a mere coincidence of two words, when Gautama, the Buddha was famously called tathAgata also. The words "buddhaH tathAgataM" does not mean buddhist but only buddha, the tathAgata; if my posts have given the interpretation that these two words indicate buddhists, straight away, then that was wrong and I apologize. The verse in question means, in my view:

"Buddha, tathAgata and a thief are alike (and should be punished alike) because, you see, the buddha is a nAstika (and) therefore, is the most suspectable of the people (शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम्). In any case, a wise man should never face an atheist."

It is by implication only that the alleged punishability is extended to buddhists (atheists) because Rama was facing jAbAli and not buddha himself. Please note also, the use of the word "budhaH" in the second half to denote 'wise people'. Why was the word 'buddhaH' not used there so that the verse read,

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

If a confirmed Rama bhakta so desires, the verse can be interpreted in a convoluted manner saying,

a mere intellectual argument deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the poeple. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist.

This is exactly what we get in the website www.valmikiramayana.net

 

[sangom]

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.

Shri Narayanan,

As stated in Mahabharata, in the words of Yudhishtira, 'dharmasya tatvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyām mahājano yenagatassapanthāḥ'. I personally feel that the word "dharma" was a ploy effectively utilized by our scripture-writers, to confuse the gullible public and making them believe that there is something well-defined and clear about "dharma". It means, according to me, the ideal man or woman as accepted generally by the public, from age to age. In one of the remote past times, Rama and his deeds signified dharma, possibly and so Rama became a folk hero in the minds of the people, irrespective of castes. When buddhism started waning (when the Sunga dynasty started ruling) and idolatry started gaining more popularity than hitherto, somebody must have thought of compiling the well-known saga of Rama into a sanskrit poem. The new anushTubh meter was not something very great; in fact, sahasraSeerShAH puruShaH | sahasrAkShaH sahasrapaat | sa bhUmiM viSvatO vrutvAtyatiShTaddaSAngulaM|| is in anuShtubh metre only.

Subsequently, when the vaishnava schism within the larger hindu panaroma, gained popularity, adhyAtma rAmAyaNa was composed and included in the brahmANDa purANa, being a dialogue between Siva and Parvathy. Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas in awadhi language became very popular and inspired adhyAtma rAmAyaNa being compiled in many other regional languages and helped to subserve the spread of hinduism and more especially vaishnavism.

We have one old post in our TBF archives regarding the ephemerality of what we call sanAtana dharma and I reproduce it here for the benefit of those who might have not read it.

(http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...natana-dharma-when-did-start-2.html#post92432)

15-08-2011 10:13 AM #18
saidevo

namaste shrI Sangom, Nara and others.

I don't feel a need to agree or disagree with people (like Nara and Sangom) who dispute the application of the term sanAtana in sanAtana dharma in the geographical sense of being 'universal', as applied and practised all over the world.

I wouldn't also seek to defend against the perception that our Hindu religion has not been sanAtana in the chronological sense too, since there never has been only ONE religion even throughout India in the past.

• My personal opinion on the geographical sense of the word is that the precepts of dharma in life and the concepts of mokSha--liberation, through a graded level of advancement, as spelled out in our religion is not found in any other religion; yet anyone can follow them irrespective of their religious/social/personal affiliations and attain the purpose of birth and life, so, in this sense our religion is sanAtana dharma--universal religion.

• All traditions and sects of the Hindu religion have the Vedas as their base with the strong belief that the Vedas are sanAtana, anAdi--eternal, and apauruSheya--not of human origin. In this chronoligical sense, sanAtana stands as an adjective to describe the eternal nature of our religion.

Beyond this, I agree that there is most likely no usage of the term sanAtana dharma in that combination to refer to a single religion, in our shAstras. At the same time, it is also a fact that we cannot wish away the term which is today used universally to refer to our religion! Some of us might mourn this state of affairs, some of us might even take cudgels of active propaganda against it, but I don't think it is likely to change that name of our religion.

*****

The incident in the mahAbhArata I had in mind is one that relates to the sages UddAlaka and his son Shvetaketu, which is quoted in J.Muir's book about Ancient India from Sanskrit texts
http://www.archive.org/download/orig...krit01muir.pdf

To quote him from pp 418-419 of the first volume:

212 This incident is alluded to in the Adip., section 122. It is there stated that in the olden time women were subject to no restraint, and incurred no blame for abandoning their husbands and cohabiting with anyone they pleased ... A stop was, however, put to this practice by Uddalaka Shvetaketu, whose indignation was on one occasion aroused by a Brahman taking his mother by the hand, and inviting her to go away with him, although his father, in whose presence this occurred, informed him that there was no reason for his displeasure, as the custom was one which had prevailed from time immemorial.

The verse in question occurs as follows in the ITX transliteration at:
ITRANS Text

mahAbhArata, Adi parva 114.13:
kruddha.n taM tu pitA dR^iShTvA shvetaketumuvAcha ha |
mA tAta kopa.n kArShIstvameSha dharmaH sanAtanaH || 13 ||

Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation of the verses in context:
Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi..

"One day, in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women."

Some brAhmaNa and strI indeed! I am reminded of the promiscuity shown (and proabably exhorted) in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men'.



If you ask me, the ideal Man or woman for us to be made a model of today, has to be determined by each one of us. Rama can be the ideal for some, no problem about that.

 

[renuka]

AFAIK the word buddha means recognised, observed, known, understood, completely conscious, enlightened, clever, wise, knowing, wakened, awakened, etc. Hence, the word buddha merely denoting intellect or the process of thinking, etc., is not appropriate; the correct word would have been "buddhi".

"buddhaH tathAgataM" does not appear to be a mere coincidence of two words, when Gautama, the Buddha was famously called tathAgata also. The words "buddhaH tathAgataM" does not mean buddhist but only buddha, the tathAgata; if my posts have given the interpretation that these two words indicate buddhists, straight away, then that was wrong and I apologize. The verse in question means, in my view:

". Please note also, the use of the word "budhaH" in the second half to denote 'wise people'. Why was the word 'buddhaH' not used there so that the verse read,

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

Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you for explanation..if the word buddhaH tathAgataM is taken to mean only Lord Buddha then it makes perfect sense.

But I have another doubt here..Yes..I did note the usage of words "budhaH' in the 2nd half of the verse and not 'buddhaH'..but a thought came to me that both these word come from the same root word and the decision to choose to use either one is could be to keep up with the Anusthup Chanda.

Cos the word बुद्ध will have a different Laghu and Guru than बुधः and might actually help to keep within the Chandah.

I cant fully remember the rules of Laghu and Guru of Anusthup Chanda but would have to look it up eventually so that the exact meaning of this verse would be solved.
If you or anyone who remembers the rules of Anusthup Chanda kindly try to decipher if the usage ofबुद्ध in both places in the stanza would still be within the Chanda.
If I get time I will try to look up my Chandah book.

 

[renuka]

Lord Rama is indeed strange!

In Ayodhyakandam ..Rama tells Kaikeyi that He would go to the forest and even without even being asked He would gladly even give Sita along with the Kingdom,wealth,loved ones and even His life to Bharata and is willing to give everything to Bharata.

Whoa! This is something I never knew till today!

So Eka Patni Rama did not mind even offering Sita to Bharata!

Then why the big fuss that Ravana took away Sita? If He was willing to give Sita to Bharata then what difference would it have made who had her?How come an Eka Patni Vrata person did not even mind if he needed to give His wife to His brother.

I really wonder..now the question is how did Lord Rama became to be called Maryada Purusha when He was even willing to offer His wife to His brother when Bharata himself had no such thoughts.

It seems Lord Rama had hardly any regards for Sita.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Lord Rama is indeed strange!


So Eka Patni Rama did not mind even offering Sita to Bharata!

Then why the big fuss that Ravana took away Sita? If He was willing to give Sita to Bharata then what difference would it have made who had her?How come an Eka Patni Vrata person did not even mind if he needed to give His wife to His brother.

Taking into account your above statement, since Bharatha is not on par with Ravana - handsome, intelligent, very versatile etc. - Rama preferred him, as he has similar stature.

 

[renuka]

Taking into account your above statement, since Bharatha is not on par with Ravana - handsome, intelligent, very versatile etc. - Rama preferred him, as he has similar stature.

I dont think its about looks here..but just the uneasy feeling that Rama was willing to even offer Sita to Bharata yet He was called Maryadha Purusha.

That way I really prefer Ravan now...he has not offered his wives to anyone..he only took away another persons wife and wanted to keep her well and that too he was gentleman enough to wait for her consent and did not marry her by force.

But here Rama was not thinking of Seeta's opinion before even telling Kaikeyi that He wont mind offering Seeta to Bharata.

Valmiki Ramayan has so many details not mentioned in other Ramayans.

 

[auh]

Doc, and how come the rakshasas who tormented the rishis left shabari alone?

 

[renuka]

Doc, and how come the rakshasas who tormented the rishis left shabari alone?

Haven't reached those chapters yet...the VR is really vast..I could take one year to finish it cos I write it down as I read it so that it would be retained longer in my mind.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you for explanation..if the word buddhaH tathAgataM is taken to mean only Lord Buddha then it makes perfect sense.

But I have another doubt here..Yes..I did note the usage of words "budhaH' in the 2nd half of the verse and not 'buddhaH'..but a thought came to me that both these word come from the same root word and the decision to choose to use either one is could be to keep up with the Anusthup Chanda.

Cos the word बुद्ध will have a different Laghu and Guru than बुधः and might actually help to keep within the Chandah.

I cant fully remember the rules of Laghu and Guru of Anusthup Chanda but would have to look it up eventually so that the exact meaning of this verse would be solved.
If you or anyone who remembers the rules of Anusthup Chanda kindly try to decipher if the usage ofबुद्ध in both places in the stanza would still be within the Chanda.
If I get time I will try to look up my Chandah book.

Smt. Renuka,

Let me correct myself. buddhaH tathAgataM may not make correct grammar. (Pl. correct me, if I am wrong.) What I meant was that the use of the words buddaH and tathAgata (M) does not seem to be a coincidence.

The verse may be analyzed as,

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धः = Just as a thief, so is buddha
तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि = Understand tathAgata to be a nAstika (atheist). (This is very similar to the more famous रामं दशरथं विद्धि...etc.)
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् = therefore the most suspectable among (of) the people.
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुद्ध स्यात् = a wise person in no case (should) face a nAstika (atheist).

 

[CHANDRU1849]

But here Rama was not thinking of Seeta's opinion before even telling Kaikeyi that He wont mind offering Seeta to Bharata.

Valmiki Ramayan has so many details not mentioned in other Ramayans.

He was also not sure of himself. After the war, when villagers suspected Sita, due to her detention, Rama asked to undergo Agripariksha, instead of siding with her.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

Let me correct myself. buddhaH tathAgataM may not make correct grammar. (Pl. correct me, if I am wrong.) What I meant was that the use of the words buddaH and tathAgata (M) does not seem to be a coincidence.

The verse may be analyzed as,

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धः = Just as a thief, so is buddha
तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि = Understand tathAgata to be a nAstika (atheist). (This is very similar to the more famous रामं दशरथं विद्धि...etc.)
तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् = therefore the most suspectable among (of) the people.
न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुद्ध स्यात् = a wise person in no case (should) face a nAstika (atheist).

Dear Sangom ji,

I tried my best to do an Anvaya Rachana and this is the best I could manage..(it could be slightly flawed ..corrections welcomed)



यथा हि चोरः तथा हि स बुद्धः

नास्तिकं तथागतम् अत्र विध्दि

तस्मात् हि यः प्रजानां शङ्क्यतमः

बुधः नास्तिके न अभिमुखः स्यात्


Now the question is "what is the exact meaning of tathAgata"?


Monier Williams Dictionary gives the meaning of tathAgata as:

1) Being in such a state or condition,of such a quality or nature.

2)He who comes and goes in the same way as the Buddhas who preceded him



So I guess it depends how one chooses to see this stanza..if one goes with the tathAgata as in the 1st meaning..than the word Buddha becomes to mean intellection.

But if one goes with the 2nd meaning..then Buddha here means Lord Buddha.

So which is it?


If we go with meaning No 1 then the stanza becomes to mean:

"Just like a thief so is intellection..understand here the Atheistic state"

Since Rama was supposed to be born in Treta Yuga so the 2nd meaning that is "He who comes and goes in the same way as the Buddhas who preceded him" might not be really possible but even more confusing is the Lankavatara Sutra talks of Ravan as a Buddhist.

In fact there is a line from the Lankavatara Sutra that goes "Ravana,Lord of Lanka,O'Mahamati asked a two fold question of the tathAgatas of the past who are Arhats and perfect Buddhas"



Enough confusion for the day!LOL

But it was nice to dissect a stanza in detail and at least try to understand something.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

I tried my best to do an Anvaya Rachana and this is the best I could manage..(it could be slightly flawed ..corrections welcomed)



यथा हि चोरः तथा हि स बुद्धः

अत्र नास्तिकं तथागतं विध्दि

तस्मात् हि यः प्रजानां शङ्क्यतमः

बुधः नास्तिके न अभिमुखः स्यात्


Now the question is "what is the exact meaning of tathAgata"?


Your explanation of tathAgata does make sense.

Even more confusing is the Lankavatara Sutra talks of Ravan as a Buddhist.

In fact there is a line from the Lankavatara Sutra that goes "Ravana,Lord of Lanka,O'Mahamati asked a two fold question of the tathAgatas of the past who are Arhats and perfect Buddhas"



So when did the Ramayan actually occur?

Nobody can say when Ramayana occurred and whether it occurred at all. I believe that Rama must have been a folk hero who became a divinity in course of time, for the common folks. But Valmiki Ramayana must have been composed during the period when the hinduism of the vedic variety was regaining its lost glory, after the Maurya rule came to an end and the Sunga Dynasty took over.

Though the name of Valmiki, a tribal or highway robber, is widely held to be the composer, there is no independent evidence to substantiate this belief. Most probably, this is a ploy used by our religious scripture writers to ensure a large following for Rama.

Ravana is also worshipped by more than one class of brahmins in India; some of them reportedly offer shrAddh for Ravana too.

 

[renuka]

Nobody can say when Ramayana occurred and whether it occurred at all. I believe that Rama must have been a folk hero who became a divinity in course of time, for the common folks. But Valmiki Ramayana must have been composed during the period when the hinduism of the vedic variety was regaining its lost glory, after the Maurya rule came to an end and the Sunga Dynasty took over.

Though the name of Valmiki, a tribal or highway robber, is widely held to be the composer, there is no independent evidence to substantiate this belief. Most probably, this is a ploy used by our religious scripture writers to ensure a large following for Rama.

Ravana is also worshipped by more than one class of brahmins in India; some of them reportedly offer shrAddh for Ravana too.

Dear Sangom Ji,

I had edited my post and added the meaning of tathAgata" from Monier Williams dictionary and also made some changes in the anvayarachana.

But thank you for the reply anyway.

 

[tks]

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.

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.

It is not my view of god that we are debating here, and hence you appear evasive.

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 ;-)

Sri auh

I will answer whatever I understand your question to be (actually I have stated my understanding many times already but it may not have stood out, I guess)

First, you have escaped by not even writing even one-liner response to the questions. It was your question supposedly with no escape clause (for me) but it resulted in liberally bestowing many escape clauses for yourself hahaha (by the way recent survey has stated that LOL is for oldies & useless people only and is not indicator of humor anymore, it is now replaced by hahaha) hahaha

There are key points I was trying to make but did not succeed.

One was to show how assumptions embedded in a question or expressing a wrong model in our mind can cause a question that cannot be answered because the question becomes meaningless.

Second words we use may have some common understanding or misunderstanding but it is not possible to have meaningful discussion to a question, if one cannot even have a one liner description for words used in the very question!

Our scriptural teaching in topics such as god are based on very precise meanings and often are not translatable to other languages. There are laws that are very precise (as precise as as laws in other branches of knowledge such as those we call science).

Second, topics of this kind are meaningful only there is a purpose.

In fact, there is a need to have clear understanding of four fold items - What is the subject about (Vishaya), why study that subject (Prayojana), How, where & when be clearly understood by satisfying the prerequisites to undertake the study (Adhikaritvam), and finally a clear understanding of the relationship between the above three entities (sambandha).

This applies to all field of study including study of our scriptures. If these are not clear, then meaningless discussions are possible which I had used a term IM earlier (not instant messenger) Or one can have delusional discussions (DD)

With meaninglessness as our focus, and lack of rigor as the guide let me answer the question (a summary of what I had stated in this thread) and try to make some sense .

1. God, if believed to be a miracle maker where the miracle is defined as defying laws of nature, then such a god does not exist
2. God is not a person but personification is useful for those with clear purpose
3. Rama of Ramayana could very well be a historical figure but for those that have a clear purpose and hence worship a deity called Rama, history should be irrelevant (and should say History is for losers in this context)
4. "Is Ramayana real" is a favorite past time for IM activities only. Even the word real cannot be described accurately, but Ramayana as a text can teach the notion of Dharma easily for most people. In that sense it is real. For that to happen they should stick to simple books like that of Rajaji. If one wants to read finer points of Dharma directly from Valmiki Ramayana then they will need a qualified teacher.

So let us answer your question now

1. 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"?
2.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!

Answer to Q1: Though a meaningless question, based on my understanding of your definition of the various words used the answer is NO

But based on understanding of what Rama is, what role Ramayana can play in our lives and what the meaning of word Vishnu is etc all that I have stated in this thread itself, the answer is YES but I have to hasten to add that our true nature is divinity also (and hence we are all capable of realizing that Rama in our heart)

Q2 : Makes sense to discuss only if the four fold aspects (Vishaya, Prayojana, Adhikaritvam, and Sambandha) are fully understood which is not the case here.


Let me give you the pleasure of the saying last word so you can say the answer is evasive and does not prove a thing

Best,

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

I tried my best to do an Anvaya Rachana and this is the best I could manage..(it could be slightly flawed ..corrections welcomed)



यथा हि चोरः तथा हि स बुद्धः

नास्तिकं तथागतम् अत्र विध्दि

तस्मात् हि यः प्रजानां शङ्क्यतमः

बुधः नास्तिके न अभिमुखः स्यात्


Now the question is "what is the exact meaning of tathAgata"?


Monier Williams Dictionary gives the meaning of tathAgata as:

1) Being in such a state or condition,of such a quality or nature.

2)He who comes and goes in the same way as the Buddhas who preceded him



So I guess it depends how one chooses to see this stanza..if one goes with the tathAgata as in the 1st meaning..than the word Buddha becomes to mean intellection.

But if one goes with the 2nd meaning..then Buddha here means Lord Buddha.

So which is it?


If we go with meaning No 1 then the stanza becomes to mean:

"Just like a thief so is intellection..understand here the Atheistic state"

Since Rama was supposed to be born in Treta Yuga so the 2nd meaning that is "He who comes and goes in the same way as the Buddhas who preceded him" might not be really possible but even more confusing is the Lankavatara Sutra talks of Ravan as a Buddhist.

In fact there is a line from the Lankavatara Sutra that goes "Ravana,Lord of Lanka,O'Mahamati asked a two fold question of the tathAgatas of the past who are Arhats and perfect Buddhas"



Enough confusion for the day!LOL

But it was nice to dissect a stanza in detail and at least try to understand something.

Smt. Renuka,

The word intellection means, as per google, the action or process of understanding, as opposed to imagination. Hence, if we take tathAgata in the second line to mean intellection, that will give us "understand intellection is atheist". Do you really feel this makes any sense? Or, is it another form in which Rama forbids any kind of intelligent discussion at all? If so the fourth line, बुधः नास्तिके न अभिमुखः स्यात्, will mean 'learned people should never come face to face with those who are intellectual.'

Once again it begs the question, who is then a बुधः?

 

[auh]

Shri tks,

...Let me give you the pleasure of the saying last word so you can say the answer is evasive and does not prove a thing

And so it shall end...

BR

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

The word intellection means, as per google, the action or process of understanding, as opposed to imagination. Hence, if we take tathAgata in the second line to mean intellection, that will give us "understand intellection is atheist". Do you really feel this makes any sense? Or, is it another form in which Rama forbids any kind of intelligent discussion at all? If so the fourth line, बुधः नास्तिके न अभिमुखः स्यात्, will mean 'learned people should never come face to face with those who are intellectual.'

Once again it begs the question, who is then a बुधः?

Dear Sangom ji,


An Atheist mostly has an evidence based intellect that is they tend to deny anything that they can not perceive via their senses.

Religion on their other hand at times believes in a direct revelation that by passes the senses.

So may be in that context intellection is considered "Atheistic".


बुधः here could mean Wise instead of learned cos learning is not always the same as wisdom
A learned person might have stored information in his brain and it could just stop there.

Wisdom on the other hand is not always dependent on formal education.Wisdom is shaped by experiences and also deep understanding.

This is what I feel.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,


An Atheist mostly has an evidence based intellect that is they tend to deny anything that they can not perceive via their senses.

Religion on their other hand at times believes in a direct revelation that by passes the senses.

So may be in that context intellection is considered "Atheistic".


बुधः here could mean Wise instead of learned cos learning is not always the same as wisdom
A learned person might have stored information in his brain and it could just stop there.

Wisdom on the other hand is not always dependent on formal education.Wisdom is shaped by experiences and also deep understanding.

This is what I feel.

Smt. Renuka,

The discussion of jAbAli with rama had nothing to do with religion per se; this can be seen from jAbAli's words themselves. Even, evidence-based intellect was not in question, because the issue was whether rama should honour a pledge given to kaikeyi by dasaratha. I therefore feel that the scribe was here trying to hit at Buddha and nAstikas although contrived and convoluted explanations may be found suitable for the religious-minded people.

 

[mraghavan]

It is unbelievable, almost shocking, to learn how Brahmins prefer Ravana over Rama. I hope it's a joke.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

The discussion of jAbAli with rama had nothing to do with religion per se; this can be seen from jAbAli's words themselves. Even, evidence-based intellect was not in question, because the issue was whether rama should honour a pledge given to kaikeyi by dasaratha. I therefore feel that the scribe was here trying to hit at Buddha and nAstikas although contrived and convoluted explanations may be found suitable for the religious-minded people.

Dear Sangom ji,

Then there are a few possibilities..that is:

1)Rama did not actually say that and it was added in at a later date to hit back at Nastikas and at Buddha.

2)Ramayana was written after Buddha was born and after the Buddhist school of thought had a firm foot hold.

 

[renuka]

It is unbelievable, almost shocking, to learn how Brahmins prefer Ravana over Rama. I hope it's a joke.

I dont think it should be shocking cos Ravan himself is a Brahmin.I feel many love Ravan for his outstanding character of being the classic Anti-hero yet a hero in his own right.

Me being a Non Brahmin myself I am crazy for Ravan....he seems to be the most interesting character in the Ramayan. Singing the Shiva Tandav Stotram composed by Ravan gives a person such a kick cos its just so beautiful and powerful.It has some an upbeat feeling of power and knowledge of Ravan in his praise for Lord Shiva.

After all no Ravan..No Ramayan.

Lord Rama is fine but He is just too good..sometimes too good can not be captivating enough.

Especially for a female..females love BAD BOYS! So Ravan is King!

 

[tbs]

I dont think it should be shocking cos Ravan himself is a Brahmin.I feel many love Ravan for his outstanding character of being the classic Anti-hero yet a hero in his own right.

Me being a Non Brahmin myself I am crazy for Ravan....he seems to be the most interesting character in the Ramayan. Singing the Shiva Tandav Stotram composed by Ravan gives a person such a kick cos its just so beautiful and powerful.It has some an upbeat feeling of power and knowledge of Ravan in his praise for Lord Shiva.

After all no Ravan..No Ramayan.

Lord Rama is fine but He is just too good..sometimes too good can not be captivating enough.

Especially for a female..females love BAD BOYS! So Ravan is King!

hi

too good is not good for girls,,,,i agreed...very difficult sanskrit words in shiva thandava stotram....he was playing SAAMA VEDA

IN VEENA......BEST VEENA PLAYER IN WORLD.....WITHOUT RAVANA...THERE IS NO RAMAYANA..LOL

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

I dont think it should be shocking cos Ravan himself is a Brahmin.I feel many love Ravan for his outstanding character of being the classic Anti-hero yet a hero in his own right.

Me being a Non Brahmin myself I am crazy for Ravan....he seems to be the most interesting character in the Ramayan. Singing the Shiva Tandav Stotram composed by Ravan gives a person such a kick cos its just so beautiful and powerful.It has some an upbeat feeling of power and knowledge of Ravan in his praise for Lord Shiva.

After all no Ravan..No Ramayan.

Lord Rama is fine but He is just too good..sometimes too good can not be captivating enough.

Especially for a female..females love BAD BOYS! So Ravan is King!

I have to agree If I am Ravaneswara She is Reukasura she wrote once !!

 

[sangom]

It is unbelievable, almost shocking, to learn how Brahmins prefer Ravana over Rama. I hope it's a joke.

Times are changing and it seems as though the society is slowly, but surely waking up to "alternate points of view". Recently, a Malayalam book titled Ravana has been released and I am told it sketches the pov of Ravana, the defeated party. Similarly, there were books giving povs of Bhima (the No.1 man who was overshadowed by the womaniser Arjuna because krishna preferred him) about Mahabharata happenings; that book is titled "reNDAM UzhaM" and is an award winner. A number of years ago another Tamil book titled Kumbhakarnan came which gave Kumbhakarna's pov of Ramayana.