The Glory of Polytheism

[JR]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Smt. Jayashree,

I get the impression that any criticism of the itihaasas is "ridiculing" those works, in your vocabulary. But there are works of criticism by eminent scholars on both Ramayana and Mahabharata. The books which I referred
to here are good examples.

If what you want is that nobody should criticise, then there is an easy way out; start your thread under the section "Religion" instead of under 'Geneal Discussions'. No one will comment on any topic there and only "ayes" will go on congratulating and backslapping one another. That may be the ideal place for you.

Dear Sangom ji,

So I see, you 'cleverly' clipped all those sections asking you about Shrutis and Smritis and that Mahabharata being a "Smriti" and chose to answer my valid query regarding your earlier-stated comments as if they do not fall under the category of 'ridiculing'.

Perhaps you have no answer to my question regarding Shrutis and Smritis or don't know how to answer them, but clipping them for your convenience doesn't show the right etiquette, FYI!

If saying disgusting things like your comment on "Kunti" already mentioned in this thread and on "Veda vyasa being a pervert" do not fall under the category of "ridiculing" then what category they fall into, I don't know!

I have nothing else to add in this thread, carry on!

HARE RAMA KRISHNA!

 

[biswa]

You are very right. And that is why I remain a hindu, because I feel this is the most inclusive religion.

Great!!! This is exactly the point of this thread. Polytheism = inclusiveness. Monotheism = exclusiveness, you need special admission to the church. On the other hand, anyone can call themselves Hindu, worship any deity they want, or perhaps none at all, and it is A-ok.

Our ability to accept all, including atheists, is our strength.

 

[biswa]

Whose approach.

I meant the idea that "thou shall not question our prophets and our scriptures" even if they are thousands of years old.

 

[biswa]

And now to post a counter-point to Sangom ji's assertions. It may be that Rama, Krishna, Buddha are not Vedic deities. But it should still be ok to worship them in polytheistic Hinduism. The so-called "Vaishnava deities" are in fact worshipped by many, many Hindus, because most do not view themselves as Vaishnava or Shaiva, but just Hindus.

If we so please, we should be free to represent the divine in any stone, whether it is residing in a temple or just lying by the side of the road.

 

[prasad1]

What is the veracity of ithihasa. Ithihasa is history written bu a biased person.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

So I see, you 'cleverly' clipped all those sections asking you about Shrutis and Smritis and that Mahabharata being a "Smriti" and chose to answer my valid query regarding your earlier-stated comments as if they do not fall under the category of 'ridiculing'.

Perhaps you have no answer to my question regarding Shrutis and Smritis or don't know how to answer them, but clipping them for your convenience doesn't show the right etiquette, FYI!

If saying disgusting things like your comment on "Kunti" already mentioned in this thread and on "Veda vyasa being a pervert" do not fall under the category of "ridiculing" then what category they fall into, I don't know!

I have nothing else to add in this thread, carry on!

HARE RAMA KRISHNA!

Smt. Jayashree,

I reproduce your entire post below including the "clipped portions":

Dear Sangom ji,

I agree with majority of what you say. However, I beg to differ from the comment "If spirituality, whatever it may mean, is to be grown or reared up under 'hothouse' conditions, then it will only end up as sham religiosity" -- please see, believing in Valmiki's Ramayana and Vedavyasa's Mahabharata are not 'sham religiosity', but the 'foundation of Vaishnavism'. There is a difference between the 2. For example, if someone were to believe in Manusmriti which I heard to lay foundation for many beliefs unsuitable for present age, then that would tantamount to 'sham religiosity'. But not ithihasas that were given to the Vaishnava community (and the entire mankind) for their benefit and upliftment by those accepted as seers and sages of the yore! Because if we question these accepted standards of work, and continue our questioning mode exclusively into each and every accepted work, we would only become atheists and not a 'thiest who questions' like your kind self believes!

There have been various categorizations of puranas and ithihasas, some are termed 'Sattwika puranas' and some others 'Rajasic' and some 'Tamasic' and there is varying amounts of trust and belief vested upon those. Some puranas are totally termed 'Bogus'. So while we are at our own jurisdiction to believe or disbelieve stories from such puranas, we are not at a liberty to question those coming from good, sattwic puranas for they have been approved to be 'correct'! Besides, ithihasas such as Vyasa Bhagawan's Mahabharata are 'Smriti' and thus it is one of the foundational stones for Hinduism.

We do not question shrutis (sattwic puranas) and smritis (ithihasa including Mahabharata), for then we lose our entire foundation and Hinduism would crumble!

But perpectives differ and I leave it at that, at this point. The only message that I would stick to, is that we should be mindful of the sensitivities of the other sect/other party and not ridicule their time-accepted standards of work such as the ithihasas and puranas. If even saying this is wrong, I have really nothing to add.

Thank you very much for pointing me to those works, I will read them when I get a chance, and I am eager to look into post #57 here next .

Sincerely,

According to most authorities the word "Sruthi" means only the three vedas (Atharva veda excluded) in their Samhithas, Braahmanas, Aranyakas and upanishads not included in these but affiliated to the said veda. Puranas and itihaasas are just that puraanas and the word smriti is usually applied to cover the Institutes of Law given by Manu, Yajnavalkya, Aapasthamba, Yama, etc., who were all ginally by Manu, Yjjnavalkya, and other great legislators who were supposed to have been inspired, and to have based their precepts on the Veda and divine revelation, though the laws they promulgated were called Smriti, ' what is remembered,' in contradistinction to Sruti, 'what is heard or revealed,' and to
Acara, ' established usage ;' the very essence of Smriti being that it was delivered memoriter by human authors, and not directly revealed, as explained in Manu II. IO, see Sruti; in its widest acceptation Smriti is said to include the Vedangas, the Sutras or aphorisms both Srauta and grihya, the institutes of Manu and other inspired law-givers, the ItihSsas,
such as the Ramayana and Maha-bharata, and the Purlnas, but the term Smriti is more usually restricted to the metrical codes of Manu, Yajnavalkva, Parisara, &c. only.

The itihaasas, therefore, may be considered only just as important to mankind as the Law codes of Manu, Yajnavalkya etc., are. Without knowing this and having cocooned yourself inside a vaishnava mental prison, you now insist that the entire world should think according to your terms. This is the typical "My way or the highway!" attitude. So, having understood your mindset earlier itself, I thought to leave the matter untouched, but in the typical "ā bail mujhe mār" style, you have raked up the same point/s.

To put it in simple terms, for you (and perhaps for other equally enlightened vaishnavas) the itihasas may be even higher authority than the vedas themselves, but, for the rest of the world they are just itihasas (iti + ha +aasa = thus indeed it was) or a recounting of old events.

We are now living in the 21st. century but about 26 centuries ago, Buddha, Mahavira, the Charvakas, etc., had started questioning the vedas. More than that Yaaska who wrote the Nirukta or the unsaid meaning of the words in the vedas, commented that those who claimed to know the vedas did not know its meaning and import; they just parroted it.
So, criticising vedas or vedists is a very old tradition within hinduism and there is no point in taking a "touch me not" attitude in this regard. If you (and other Vaishnavites hold the itihasas as good as or even greater than the vedas, that is your look out. But the hindu world outside especially the shudras have absolutely no love lost for these sacred texts. Hence, when you participate in this general discussions section, it is better to keep all your predilections away or else it will be better if you refrain from coming into this section.

 

[sangom]

And now to post a counter-point to Sangom ji's assertions. It may be that Rama, Krishna, Buddha are not Vedic deities. But it should still be ok to worship them in polytheistic Hinduism. The so-called "Vaishnava deities" are in fact worshipped by many, many Hindus, because most do not view themselves as Vaishnava or Shaiva, but just Hindus.

If we so please, we should be free to represent the divine in any stone, whether it is residing in a temple or just lying by the side of the road.

Shri Biswa,

May be I have not been clear, but I have not said that Rama, Krishna, Buddha should not/cannot/ are not to be worshipped. I was only trying to explain the difference between Vishnu who is a vedic deity and the other non-vedic deities. And yes, in the past, no havis was to be given to any of the non-vedic deities. Havirbhaaga or share in the havis has to be offered into the sacred fire with the words "swaahaa" (swaahaa = su +aahaa = auspicious +we call, invite you, in short, a 'welcome').

Hope my pov is clear now.

 

[JR]

Namaste Sangom ji,

It is not really about your right to question the ithihasas, puranas or even the vedas themselves... it is the question of "questioning the deities themselves". When people are so eager and rather cheerful to "question" other's devatas, they keep silent and want others to admire their own devatas!

Regards,

 

[JR]

Shri Biswa,

May be I have not been clear, but I have not said that Rama, Krishna, Buddha should not/cannot/ are not to be worshipped. I was only trying to explain the difference between Vishnu who is a vedic deity and the other non-vedic deities. And yes, in the past, no havis was to be given to any of the non-vedic deities. Havirbhaaga or share in the havis has to be offered into the sacred fire with the words "swaahaa" (swaahaa = su +aahaa = auspicious +we call, invite you, in short, a 'welcome').

Hope my pov is clear now.

FYI, I know of a person who does homam everyday and offers guidelines with mantras for doing homam to many deities, including the "non-vedic" deities in your list - namely Shri. Ram, Shri. Krishna, Shri. Hanuman and so forth.

Astrology & Spirituality Resources

If they are non-vedic to whom no havis is to be offered, I wonder where this author got their respective mantras from?!

Maybe its a question for him!!

 

[renuka]

Originally Posted by sangom
You are very right. And that is why I remain a hindu, because I feel this is the most inclusive religion.




Dear Sangom ji,


Do you still consider yourself a Hindu?

For me right now I feel for statistical purposes I am a Hindu(cos we have the state religion when we fill up forms here)..but in the real sense if anyone were to ask me my religion these days I would just remain silent and not reply.

I feel there is no such thing as religion in the real sense.

What we call Hinduism today is a conglomerate of Matams(opinions) which has proved rather successful for certain aspects of live and its not a rigid doctrine to start with and very inclusive to as you rightly said,

After a while one chooses to be free from everything and rather be a part of a whole picture and let the cycle of life turn on its own.

So calling oneself a Hindu or anything else might not really even make a difference.

For example today its Diwali out here and I dont feel right celebrating anything which still harbours on the difference between good and bad..light and darkness and some Asura or the other being killed.

Isnt there a neutral celebration where someone or some concept lived and never died and both light and darkness were not sees as foes?

I wonder.

Whatever said and done..it surprises me that you still consider yourself a Hindu. I thought you would choose to remain neutral.

 

[biswa]

Renuka,

Your POV should be accommodated in Hinduism and should be acceptable to other Hindus. What feelings you attribute to Diwali is entirely up to you. For me personally, it is worth celebrating something some times, rather than never celebrate anything at all. We can forget the asura story and just think of distributing joy to ourselves and others.

 

[biswa]

JR ji,

I don't think you should ever have to defend your religious beliefs, as long as you are respectful of other variations of religious beliefs (which you are, I am sure). That is a core requirement of polytheistic Hinduism and is a central tenet of the glory of our religion.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

Your POV should be accommodated in Hinduism and should be acceptable to other Hindus. What feelings you attribute to Diwali is entirely up to you. For me personally, it is worth celebrating something some times, rather than never celebrate anything at all. We can forget the asura story and just think of distributing joy to ourselves and others.

Biswa ..you dont understand what I wrote I feel..by not celebrating anything in specific it does not mean one is missing out the fun.For me life itself is a daily celebration.

But I must admit I have a soft corner for Asuras..so I dont feel that right to celebrate something which involves the death of an Asura cos basically the Asuras did nothing acutely wrong..its just that they stopped Rishis doing some Homa!LOL Big deal!LOL

May be Asuras were following a Non Vedic Sans Homa religion and the Rishis did not like it and these fights started.

Anyway Happy Diwali to you.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

JR ji,

I don't think you should ever have to defend your religious beliefs, as long as you are respectful of other variations of religious beliefs (which you are, I am sure). That is a core requirement of polytheistic Hinduism and is a central tenet of the glory of our religion.

My opinion is that people who are disrespectful of majority of Hindus are the agnostic/advaitic type of Hindus. The only belief acceptable to them is the formless deistic Brahman. They think somehow their own belief is more logical/rational etc and berate the idol worshippers. In that sense, it is they who are more like the jihadists.

 

[Naina_Marbus]

Great!!! This is exactly the point of this thread. Polytheism = inclusiveness. Monotheism = exclusiveness, you need special admission to the church. On the other hand, anyone can call themselves Hindu, worship any deity they want, or perhaps none at all, and it is A-ok.

Our ability to accept all, including atheists, is our strength.

I agree with you 99%. But I disagree with your statement that

Our ability to accept all, including atheists, is our strength.

needs to be modified to "Our ability to accept all, including atheists, is our unique cultural identity.
If it was "Strength", we failed miserably to stop Tipu Sultan. Here is a sample report of what he did to the Hindus, as reported by Father Bartolomaco, a Portuguese traveller and historian.

[FONT=&quot]“First a corps of 30,000 barbarians who butchered everybody on the way… followed by the field-gun unit under the French Commander, M. Lally. Tipu was riding on an elephant behind which another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women were hanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necks of mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammadans and similarly their men were forced to marry Mohammadan women. Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam, were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varappuzha, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varappuzha river by boats”(Voyage to East Indies by Fr.Bartolomaco, pgs 141–142)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tipu Sultan writing on 19 January 1790, to Badroos Saman Khan, says :”I have achieved a great victory recently in Malabar and over four lakh Hindus were converted to Islam. I am now determined to march against the cursed Raman Nair (Dharma Raja Karthika Thirunal Rama Varma). (Historical Sketches of the South of India in an attempt to trace the History of Mysore, Mark Wilks Vol II, page 120)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Wikipedia article on Tipu Sultan, Mysorean_invasion_of_Kerala

 

[prasad1]

My opinion is that people who are disrespectful of majority of Hindus are the agnostic/advaitic type of Hindus. The only belief acceptable to them is the formless deistic Brahman. They think somehow their own belief is more logical/rational etc and berate the idol worshippers. In that sense, it is they who are more like the jihadists.

i respect your opinion. I am advaitin, but i accept that others may have different pov. I am an active member of my community participating in Temple construction with various moorties.

 

[biswa]

Naina ji, I understand the point you are making. It is true that many Indian rulers were militarily and politically weak and it so happened that most of them were Hindu. However there are counter-examples: Rana Pratap, Prithviraj Chauhan, and the latest: Narendra Modi.

But perhaps we should separate Indian weakness from Hindu identify? Did faith play a role in the weakness of the Calicut people or even in the internal squabbling of the Rajputs?

 

[auh]

But perhaps we should separate Indian weakness from Hindu identify? Did faith play a role in the weakness of the Calicut people or even in the internal squabbling of the Rajputs?

I think that the "polytheistic" faith failed to unite its followers against a "monotheistic" invasion... It is but a character!

 

[sangom]

FYI, I know of a person who does homam everyday and offers guidelines with mantras for doing homam to many deities, including the "non-vedic" deities in your list - namely Shri. Ram, Shri. Krishna, Shri. Hanuman and so forth.

Astrology & Spirituality Resources

If they are non-vedic to whom no havis is to be offered, I wonder where this author got their respective mantras from?!

Maybe its a question for him!!

Madam,

That is why I wrote (in my post to Shri Biswa), "And yes, in the past, no havis was to be given to any of the non-vedic deities. Havirbhaaga or share in the havis has to be offered into the sacred fire with the words "swaahaa" (swaahaa = su +aahaa = auspicious +we call, invite you, in short, a 'welcome')." Along with changing times, the coming into being of newer and newer cults like the Hare Krishna, etc., I was feeling that the old world rules might have changed by now. Hence I carefully wrote " in the past", meaning, till some 50 or so years ago.

Hence, the question should now be addressed to someone well versed in the Poorva meemaamsa; I think the Jeeyars or your Vaadhyaars may be the right authorities. In any case, homams to Rama, Krishna, Anjaneya etc., have not yet become commonplace among we smaarthas. I don't know if someone somewhere has already started performing such homas among our people.

 

[JR]

Madam,

That is why I wrote (in my post to Shri Biswa), "And yes, in the past, no havis was to be given to any of the non-vedic deities. Havirbhaaga or share in the havis has to be offered into the sacred fire with the words "swaahaa" (swaahaa = su +aahaa = auspicious +we call, invite you, in short, a 'welcome')." Along with changing times, the coming into being of newer and newer cults like the Hare Krishna, etc., I was feeling that the old world rules might have changed by now. Hence I carefully wrote " in the past", meaning, till some 50 or so years ago.

Hence, the question should now be addressed to someone well versed in the Poorva meemaamsa; I think the Jeeyars or your Vaadhyaars may be the right authorities. In any case, homams to Rama, Krishna, Anjaneya etc., have not yet become commonplace among we smaarthas. I don't know if someone somewhere has already started performing such homas among our people.

Thank you for the reply, Sir.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Sir,

They were demons alright. They took to Shiva worship ONLY because Shiva is easily pleased and gives out extremely powerful boons and thus they prayed to him to get these boons. Ravana is infact a gatekeeper of Vaikuntha and a worshiper of Sri Vishnu. He took the demonic avatara so as to redeem himself from the curse of the sanatkumaras to otherwise undergo 7 lifetimes on earth, should they choose to be devoted to Sri Vishnu. So there is no point here in claiming that our Vaishnava ithihasas are wrong because the demons were devotees of Shiva. Besides, there are many true devotees of Shiva such as Appar, Sundarar, Sambandar, Manicckavachagar, the 63 Nayanmars, Avvaiyar, Karaikal Ammaiyar and so forth which no Vaishnava scripture says anything wrong about! It is only those have rakshasa tendencies who having gotten the boons from Shiva, tormented everyone on earth, that our Vaishnava scriptures talk about, and there is nothing wrong in that!

Regards,

Madam,

Your reply is not convincing as to why Asuras are cited as Shiva devotees. Assuming all demons are Shiva devotees, why did Vishnu come in the picture and remove all of them? Is Lord Shiva powerless or Vishnu the Commander in Chief of Shiva?

There are so many versions of Ramayana. But, Ravana was depicted as a Shiva devotee in all such works. Famous cine and drama artist R S Manohar, a post graduate in History, performed a drama entitled 'ELANGESWARAN' in which he was highlighted differently.

Probably, the reason is that while Vishnu may find a place in Sanskrit, Shiva may be in other languages. In order to prove the superiority of Sanskrit, which, I presume, was being spoken mainly by Brahmins during Vedic time, such depictions might have been made.

With warm regards,

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Originally Posted by sangom
You are very right. And that is why I remain a hindu, because I feel this is the most inclusive religion.

For example today its Diwali out here and I dont feel right celebrating anything which still harbours on the difference between good and bad..light and darkness and some Asura or the other being killed.

Isnt there a neutral celebration where someone or some concept lived and never died and both light and darkness were not sees as foes?

I wonder.

Madam,

Jains and Buddhists are also celebrating Deepavali. I think, on this day, Mahaveera attained Nirvana.

For some, Deepavali is celebrated due to killing of a Asura to bring peace.

The Late Kripanantha Variyar once said that, as Lord Shiva is in Pancha Boothas of which one is light, Deepavali perfectly matches with Shiva worship. Deepavali means - Deepa + Avali (Varisai) - Varisiyaka Deepam.

I think you may find this as neutral celebration. If not, please forget. No harm.

 

[JR]

Madam,

Your reply is not convincing as to why Asuras are cited as Shiva devotees. Assuming all demons are Shiva devotees, why did Vishnu come in the picture and remove all of them? Is Lord Shiva powerless or Vishnu the Commander in Chief of Shiva?

There are so many versions of Ramayana. But, Ravana was depicted as a Shiva devotee in all such works. Famous cine and drama artist R S Manohar, a post graduate in History, performed a drama entitled 'ELANGESWARAN' in which he was highlighted differently.

Probably, the reason is that while Vishnu may find a place in Sanskrit, Shiva may be in other languages. In order to prove the superiority of Sanskrit, which, I presume, was being spoken mainly by Brahmins during Vedic time, such depictions might have been made.

With warm regards,

Maybe because Vishnu is the preserver and in this role, he takes Avataras to preserve the peace on earth. While Lord Shiva might have the power to vanquish them, he may not really do that, as he was the one who gives out the boons in the first place.

Anyway, ithihasas such as Ramayana are part of smriti and to me shruti and smriti are like 2 eyes of Hinduism and I won't question them. With yourself and Sangom ji having clarified your standing regarding how you view smriti, I leave it to your discretion to view them as you please. But, it should be borne in mind that there are also Vaishnavas in this forum who do not question, for instance, 'Arunachala Mahathmiya', who are benevolent and silent who do not malign saiva works, and it is only customary to reciprocate the good gesture in return! This is written in good taste and intended to bring out the best in both of us, Shaivas and Vaishnavas.

Sincerely,

 

[sangom]

Madam,

Your reply is not convincing as to why Asuras are cited as Shiva devotees. Assuming all demons are Shiva devotees, why did Vishnu come in the picture and remove all of them? Is Lord Shiva powerless or Vishnu the Commander in Chief of Shiva?

There are so many versions of Ramayana. But, Ravana was depicted as a Shiva devotee in all such works. Famous cine and drama artist R S Manohar, a post graduate in History, performed a drama entitled 'ELANGESWARAN' in which he was highlighted differently.

Probably, the reason is that while Vishnu may find a place in Sanskrit, Shiva may be in other languages. In order to prove the superiority of Sanskrit, which, I presume, was being spoken mainly by Brahmins during Vedic time, such depictions might have been made.

With warm regards,

Shri Chandru,

The adjective or honorific "Asura" has been given to some of the devas, too, in the rigveda.

"In the Rigveda, two generous kings, as well as some priests, have been described as asuras. One hymn requests a son who is an asura. In nine hymns, Indra is described as asura. Five times, he is said to possess asurya, and once he is said to possess asuratva. Agni has total of 12 asura descriptions, Varuna has 10, Mitra has eight, and Rudra has six. Bhargava gives a count of the word usage for every Vedic deity." (Asura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Therefore, the Deva-Asura divide is not so simple as black and white, although lay persons, children, etc., with only a superficial idea of hinduism, gathered purely from elders at home, the pravachanakartas and the stories from the puranas/itihasas, may be of the confirmed view that all asuras are very bad and all devas, very good.

Unless you are also a person with a closed mind, it should be possible for you to understand that all these are pure, imaginary stories, dished out in the past to a vast populace through Pundits and Pravachanakartas so as to "engulf & devour" more and more people into the fold of this religion. In a sense they were the equivalent of Tamil Cinema during the DMK's ascendance period in TN, imo.

I don't know as to what extent the original Valmiki Ramayana depicted Ravana as a Shiva devotee. But the following extract from the blog Discovering God by tracing his foot prints: Dispelling the Misconceptions about Rama may be relevant here :—

"I was recently attending a satsang by Swami Tattvavidananda, where he said that the original Ramayana by Valmiki does not contain any reference to Rama asking Sita to undergo an agni-pariksha nor does it mention the incident involving Rama’s discarding his wife in the forest. In fact the entire Uttara kanda is an extrapolation of the original work. It was not written by Valmiki. Over the years several interpolations have been interjected into the original Ramayana. These additions have been made to the Ramayana to further the interests of certain groups. The ulterior motive behind introducing these interpolations is quite apparent. For instance, in some editions of Ramayana, Ravana has been portrayed as a Shiva devotee. I was always intrigued as to how a Shiva devotee could abduct someone else’s wife. Valmiki’s Ramayan did not present Ravana as a Shiva devotee. During the medieval times in India, there was a great rivalry between the devotees of Vishnu and Shiva regarding who was superior. Of course each of the groups believed that their god was superior to the others! The portrayal of Ravana as a devotee of Shiva and representation of Rama as an avatar of Vishnu is clearly an interpolation brought about by this rivalry. The original Ramayana by Valmiki does not present Ravana as a devotee of Shiva nor does it depict Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu. It is said that Valmiki resisted the temptation to present Rama as a god incarnate. He did not bring god to the level of a man but rather showed how man through his noble deeds could rise to the level of god. If Ram were god, renunciation of his kingdom would be meaningless. What is so great about a god giving up a kingdom or living a life of austerity?


Fortunately for us, the publication of Valmiki Ramayana by Geeta Press presents the writings in its original version and clearly identifies the interpolations that were subsequently added. It is a tribute to the integrity of Geeta Press that it does not count the interpolations among the verses attributed to Valamiki. For a learned Sanskrit scholar the difference between the original writings of Valmiki and subsequent interpolations are as distinct as day and night. It is time to reintroduce Valmiki’s original Ramayana into the mainstream Indian life. This great epic in its pristine glory inspires each of us to imbibe the great qualities of Rama and lead an exemplary life. If we renounce the negativities in ourselves, then, we would raise ourselves to the level of a divine being.
I was recently attending a satsang by Swami Tattvavidananda, where he said that the original Ramayana by Valmiki does not contain any reference to Rama asking Sita to undergo an agni-pariksha nor does it mention the incident involving Rama’s discarding his wife in the forest. In fact the entire Uttara kanda is an extrapolation of the original work. It was not written by Valmiki. Over the years several interpolations have been interjected into the original Ramayana. These additions have been made to the Ramayana to further the interests of certain groups. The ulterior motive behind introducing these interpolations is quite apparent. For instance, in some editions of Ramayana, Ravana has been portrayed as a Shiva devotee. I was always intrigued as to how a Shiva devotee could abduct someone else’s wife. Valmiki’s Ramayan did not present Ravana as a Shiva devotee. During the medieval times in India, there was a great rivalry between the devotees of Vishnu and Shiva regarding who was superior. Of course each of the groups believed that their god was superior to the others! The portrayal of Ravana as a devotee of Shiva and representation of Rama as an avatar of Vishnu is clearly an interpolation brought about by this rivalry. The original Ramayana by Valmiki does not present Ravana as a devotee of Shiva nor does it depict Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu. It is said that Valmiki resisted the temptation to present Rama as a god incarnate. He did not bring god to the level of a man but rather showed how man through his noble deeds could rise to the level of god. If Ram were god, renunciation of his kingdom would be meaningless. What is so great about a god giving up a kingdom or living a life of austerity?

Fortunately for us, the publication of Valmiki Ramayana by Geeta Press presents the writings in its original version and clearly identifies the interpolations that were subsequently added. It is a tribute to the integrity of Geeta Press that it does not count the interpolations among the verses attributed to Valamiki. For a learned Sanskrit scholar the difference between the original writings of Valmiki and subsequent interpolations are as distinct as day and night. It is time to reintroduce Valmiki’s original Ramayana into the mainstream Indian life. This great epic in its pristine glory inspires each of us to imbibe the great qualities of Rama and lead an exemplary life. If we renounce the negativities in ourselves, then, we would raise ourselves to the level of a divine being."

I think the position is clear now.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Maybe because Vishnu is the preserver and in this role, he takes Avataras to preserve the peace on earth. While Lord Shiva might have the power to vanquish them, he may not really do that, as he was the one who gives out the boons in the first place.

What is the role of Brahma, the Creator? It seems he has not done his role properly. I don't know how many staunch Shiva worshippers, who believe Shiva is the only Supreme God, will endorse the above point.

But, it should be borne in mind that there are also Vaishnavas in this forum who do not question, for instance, 'Arunachala Mahathmiya', who are benevolent and silent who do not malign saiva works, and it is only customary to reciprocate the good gesture in return!

How many Iyers in this Forum and outside questioned when Shiva devotees were shown as demon. Since Polytheism is deep rooted among Iyers, many may even believe so. Even Sankara Mutts - Sringeri and Kanchi - support this probably for survival. Only very few Iyers like me raise objection on this controversial depiction.

This is written in good taste and intended to bring out the best in both of us, Shaivas and Vaishnavas.

This is the result of questioning. For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction!