• 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.

True history of Dravidians. Rama Krishna Shiva Vishnu are all Dark Dravidian Gods !

Status
Not open for further replies.

kunjuppu

Well-known member
Mr. K,
I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY for sale. Would you like to buy it, i can sell it to you very cheap.
thumbnail.aspx


:rolleyes:

how much?
 

sangom

Well-known member
Dear Prasad, Ramayana, Mahabarata cannot exist in vaccum. It is NOT possible to write such "unbelievably long/detailed/sub stories texts" without references to local kings, folk tales, stories, intervowen with myth. Troy story was taken as a legend/myth by all greeks, but now you know it is a Lankan version of ramayana. South dravidian kings were warring for centuries with Lanka & ransacked/burning Anuradhapura/Lanka - documented by all history books on Lanka. All cities of ramayana/mahabarata/vedas etc.. are in south india!!. The problem with this version (which fits perfectly all of them), is that it cuts of North India & they want to/are claiming for last 200+ yrs that Rama is a North Indian King. But u dont find Thai/Indonesia/etc.. claiming Rama is their King despite Ayodhya being there !!. So u will find many NOT agreeing with this. The problem of introducing a North Indian King is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL BASIS IE. NO NORTH INDIAN KING EVER CAME TO SOUTH INDIA & WAGED ANY TYPE OF WAR, LET ALONE WITH LANKA - NONE OF THE HISTORICAL FIGURES/TEXTS HAVE ANY SUCH INFO BUT MANY SOUTH DRAVIDIAN KINGS WENT TO WAR WITH LANKA !!

TRUTH needs to be told no matter what & MOST IMPORTANTLY THE SOUTH DRAVIDIANS NEED TO KNOW THEY ARE THE ORIGINATOR OF HINDUISM, JAINISM, BUDDHISM & THROUGH LANKA - ORIGINATOR OF TROY/GREEK GODS/CULTURE !. PEOPLE LIKE KUNJUPPU/ETC.. WILL NEED TO BE UNDOUBTLY PROUD ABOUT THIER CULTURE INSTEAD OF LOSING IT IN THE UNFORTUNATE ISSUE OF CASTE SYSTEM !

AND WE AS TAMIL BRAHMINS MUST BE MAGNANIMOUS ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT RAMA KRISHNA SHIVA VISHNU ARE DARK DRAVIDIAN GODS MODELLED ON DARK DRAVIDIAN KINGS & WE ARE ALSO DRAVIDIANS & NOT SOME IMPORTED ARYAN RACE !! WHICH IS THE TRUTH & ALL LEGENDS/TEXTS, HISTORICAL BOOKS, EVIDENCES POINT TO !!

"I AM HAPPY TO DEBATE, STAND CORRECTED, CHANGE MY OPINION IF ANY OF MY DATA/THESIS & DERIVATIONS ARE INCORRECT"

Satya Meva Jayathe !

Shri jaykay,

I feel that your proposition has the apparent ring of truth but not the strength to withstand rigid scrutiny. My doubts (I am just an ordinary tabra without any special knowledge or scholarship) are as under:—
  1. How come the oldest rama account is written in sanskrit by valmiki, an apparently sanskrit name rather than in a Tamil or some other dravidian language by someone like Kamban?
  2. If brahmins originated in south India and were african+yedda+etc., why did they give all respect to the vedas and other scriptures all written in sanskrit, an alien tongue, and that too from the dim past, till today? Why was it that the brahmins did not think of learning their mother tongue (whether african, yedda, or anything)?
  3. Since vishnu was named as மால் in early tamil vaishnavite devotional hymns, it probably became a custom to picturize vishnu as dark coloured, மால் perhaps meaning dark also; valmiki's aim was just to depict a prince and he does not, to the best of my knowledge, describe the skin colour of any of the four except saying mahAtEjaH (very brilliant). The depiction of Rama as dark coloured (and as green coloured in "kolu bommais" since the last few decades), is a fashion trend possibly, to give the vishnu-like attributes to Rama.
  4. In the case of M.Bh. most of the place names do not belong to south India, and there is specific reference to the south as well as some areas in the NW. I would like to know how you view this point.
  5. Just as it is possible that africans reached the south Indian shores through sea, it is also possible that Australian aboriginees might have colonized south India in the pre-historic past.
  6. Srilanka's existence was well-known to Ashoka in that he sent his children Mahinda and Sanghamitra, his children, as emissaries to Lanka. Hence, it may not be unacceptable to consider that the existence of a land by name Lanka (lankaa f. in sanskrit means an unchaste woman.) was known even in the north of India from times before Ashoka itself and with some poetic imagination, and news filtering through for generations, valmiki could have imagined an island, a very prosperous city and all that.
  7. Are all hindu gods and goddesses dark coloured? No, possibly. If so, how do we explain the change from white=bad; black=good, to sugriva being golden coloured in Valmiki ramayana itself?
 
OP
OP
J

Jaykay767

Well-known member
Shri jaykay,

I feel that your proposition has the apparent ring of truth but not the strength to withstand rigid scrutiny. My doubts (I am just an ordinary tabra without any special knowledge or scholarship) are as under:—
  1. How come the oldest rama account is written in sanskrit by valmiki, an apparently sanskrit name rather than in a Tamil or some other dravidian language by someone like Kamban?
  2. If brahmins originated in south India and were african+yedda+etc., why did they give all respect to the vedas and other scriptures all written in sanskrit, an alien tongue, and that too from the dim past, till today? Why was it that the brahmins did not think of learning their mother tongue (whether african, yedda, or anything)?
  3. Since vishnu was named as மால் in early tamil vaishnavite devotional hymns, it probably became a custom to picturize vishnu as dark coloured, மால் perhaps meaning dark also; valmiki's aim was just to depict a prince and he does not, to the best of my knowledge, describe the skin colour of any of the four except saying mahAtEjaH (very brilliant). The depiction of Rama as dark coloured (and as green coloured in "kolu bommais" since the last few decades), is a fashion trend possibly, to give the vishnu-like attributes to Rama.
  4. In the case of M.Bh. most of the place names do not belong to south India, and there is specific reference to the south as well as some areas in the NW. I would like to know how you view this point.
  5. Just as it is possible that africans reached the south Indian shores through sea, it is also possible that Australian aboriginees might have colonized south India in the pre-historic past.
  6. Srilanka's existence was well-known to Ashoka in that he sent his children Mahinda and Sanghamitra, his children, as emissaries to Lanka. Hence, it may not be unacceptable to consider that the existence of a land by name Lanka (lankaa f. in sanskrit means an unchaste woman.) was known even in the north of India from times before Ashoka itself and with some poetic imagination, and news filtering through for generations, valmiki could have imagined an island, a very prosperous city and all that.
  7. Are all hindu gods and goddesses dark coloured? No, possibly. If so, how do we explain the change from white=bad; black=good, to sugriva being golden coloured in Valmiki ramayana itself?


Dear Sangom,

from my earlier post (dravidian/aryan mix is correct but it did not happen in india becos there was no record of any aryan (white race) migration !)

Dravidians (incl. south brahmins) are descendants of Egyptian race. Egypt was ruled by Dark Paroahs & later by Greek White Race - Ptolemy etc.. But Ptolemy ruled in the name of the Egyptian dark gods. he does not impose his religion. all these are as per all western accounts. Result = mixed race of Dark + White.

so the dark race that migrated via Sea to south india were already a mixed race. But with a key difference. Dark race was numerically much higher than the white race. thats why majority of gods are dark & some gods are white. Only Egypt & Dravidian race worship thier Dead & glorify their Kings as Gods. thats why in Egypt all gods were dark, but in dravidian race you have a mix of Dark + White Gods to reflect the mixed race.

Language = Mix of African languages + Greek Language (mixed race !!). So Sanskrit was a result of Greek + African evolved over time. thats why all researchers claim Sanskrit is closer to European languages.

thats why Indra, Ravana are described as "Golden Hair" & Blue eyed (deep blue sea) - this mixed race knew the White Race well (read my post for more details). & to your point, Rama is described in the Valmiki Ramyana & in the puranas as long armed Dark Prince. - there is NO dispute on this. all researchers agree. !! However NO aryan (white) ever landed in India North or South ever, agreed by all researchers, thats how the aryan invasion was debunked. however every other evidence points to aryan mix (Sanskrit, fair skinned south Brahmins, White Gods/Kings (Ravana) explained in absolute detail - Golden Color Hair, Golden Colored Beard, White skin color as the white clouds etc.. )

finally the Brahmins are the same preists of Eygpt !!. you can see now all the connections, how powerful the eyptian priests were. why all our texts are claimed to be older than 3000 BC beyond into the Eygtian timeline, so much of similarity of our gods wih them. Shiva/Vishnu/Hanuman described as curly hairs, knotted hair etc.. endless similarity !! Also in any soceity, the minortiies are always the loudest becos of survival reasons & egyptian dark priests (mixed with white) had every reason to impose their dominance, explains why only brahmins studied the scriptures int he past, dominated all rituals (exactly like the eyptian priests) etc.. so our current TamBrah = long mix of Dark + White priests. thats why are all just fair not White !!. In any genetic mix, the majority will dominate in due course of time which is not the case here !!. No other race/culture has such overwhelming dominance like the Egyptian (later Dravidian) priests. thats why i said, we are TamBrams are a Black + White race becos egyptian priests were originally dark & thats why you have so many South Brahms who are dark today !! Since the Priests inter married with White, many of us are fair & the language that came out of this mix is Sanskrit & since we wrote all the texts, it is in sanskrit, though most of the kings were dark !! To add - we south brahmins are the descendants of the obnoxious/scheming Egyptian priests !! :( North Brahmins while they also came from south later got mixed with persians/muslims/kushanas etc. thats why the so called upper case in north is extremely fair !!

On the question that Rama came from North, where is the definition of North in our texts ??. if you put all evidences together, Vindyas are the Himalayas in Ramayana, Sanjeevini hills, Kasipuram, Kubeira (Thirumala), Vatapi (Karnataka), Ganga (Cauvery), Gangavathi are all in Andhra/Karnataka with exactly the same folk tales as in Ramyana. Agasthiyar Hills, ayothiapattinam, kailaspuram, Srivaikuntam, Dharmapuri (yama), Madurai (Mathura) in TN etc.. With such overwhelming evidence, how can one suppose that a Rama from North India today came to south & waged a war against lanka - No historical evidence of any king come to south let alone waging a war with Lanka. Enough evidence of south kings waging war with Lanka & finally sacking/burning down anuradhapura!!.

Pl dont get me wrong - I am NOT a Anti-North person, or biased. it is just that the North Indian Rama has absolutely no historical basis & confirmed/verified by all researchers !!. thats why after the archealogical evidence that NO temple existed under Babri Masjid, I am more than convinced we are looking at this incorrectly. for a small south king, North/Vadaku cannot be a distant North India of today with 1000's of kms away. Every purana/legend says our south kings went to ganga for a bath & come back. It would have taken them atleast a year to take a bath & come back here, not to mention the impassable Vindya Mountain ranges !! :) + All/Most South temples are built as pyramids like in egypt (Gopuram), but Most North temples do not have such pyramids (some do, becos of dravidian conquests) !!.

On mahabarata, i can show you all places in south - u just need to look for it. Madurai (Mathura), Hasthinapuram (Andhra), Pandavapura (Karnataka), Kishkhinda (Karnataka) etc.. Since Mahabarata came later & was written during 100++ AD by which time, darvidian kingdoms were well established in north (Ashoka, Maurya, Kalinga etc..), it is possible this could have happened in the current North India, however the same issue holds here. where there are a num of instances of people coming to south india beyond the Vindyas (to pandavapura in Karnataka, etc..) & most importantly, Hastinapuram, Kasipuram, Thirumala (Kubeira), Vaikuntam, Kailasapuram, Ganga (Cauvery), Triveni Sangam (in Erode), Madurai (Mathura - in a telling evidence, Megasthenes goes to Patliputra & then straight to Madurai - confirmed/agreed by all researchers. he says in his indica that he visited Madurai - the land of Krishna & heard of tales (possibly Ramayana/Mahabarata) that are much bigger than Illiad - story of Troy !!) etc..

& in every country, the dravidians conquered they established Ayodhya, (Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia etc..) & same also holds for North India. so thats why you have many places in North India as in Ramayana & Mahabarata.

Also Marco Polo confirms - for dravidians all gods are dark & demons are white (Ravana etc..). becos this dark race was attacked by the Whites in faraway land of Egypt!!. Also a white Ravana worships Dark Shiva becos he is a son of the mixed race !!. remember Shiva is described as dark, Parvathi as white !!

Lastly if you use this thesis, you can explain every legend, myth, story, research findings, linguistics, color, soceital position (Brahmin/priests etc..) .... & this is a highly probable theory compared to any other. so ramayana/mahabrata are true legends, but they were all based on south dravidian kingdoms & their war among themselves & with Lanka !!

frankly, lets be honest, it is impossible for someone (Valmiki) or a group of people to imagine a story like ramayana/mahabarata without any local historical context wth so many sub stories, monkey people etc.. !!.

I am positive this will withstand rigorous scrutiny, however as said earlier, happy to debate & stand corrected ! Even on the most important aspect where Egyptian's buried their dead, the greek/romans at that time burned their dead. So for Egyptian/White mixed race priests to adopt this pratice is quite likely !! so every major cultural practice is either egyptian or White or at best a logical mix. !!

Cheers !

JK
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
J

Jaykay767

Well-known member
Shri jaykay,

I feel that your proposition has the apparent ring of truth but not the strength to withstand rigid scrutiny. My doubts (I am just an ordinary tabra without any special knowledge or scholarship) are as under:—
  1. How come the oldest rama account is written in sanskrit by valmiki, an apparently sanskrit name rather than in a Tamil or some other dravidian language by someone like Kamban?
  2. If brahmins originated in south India and were african+yedda+etc., why did they give all respect to the vedas and other scriptures all written in sanskrit, an alien tongue, and that too from the dim past, till today? Why was it that the brahmins did not think of learning their mother tongue (whether african, yedda, or anything)?
  3. Since vishnu was named as மால் in early tamil vaishnavite devotional hymns, it probably became a custom to picturize vishnu as dark coloured, மால் perhaps meaning dark also; valmiki's aim was just to depict a prince and he does not, to the best of my knowledge, describe the skin colour of any of the four except saying mahAtEjaH (very brilliant). The depiction of Rama as dark coloured (and as green coloured in "kolu bommais" since the last few decades), is a fashion trend possibly, to give the vishnu-like attributes to Rama.
  4. In the case of M.Bh. most of the place names do not belong to south India, and there is specific reference to the south as well as some areas in the NW. I would like to know how you view this point.
  5. Just as it is possible that africans reached the south Indian shores through sea, it is also possible that Australian aboriginees might have colonized south India in the pre-historic past.
  6. Srilanka's existence was well-known to Ashoka in that he sent his children Mahinda and Sanghamitra, his children, as emissaries to Lanka. Hence, it may not be unacceptable to consider that the existence of a land by name Lanka (lankaa f. in sanskrit means an unchaste woman.) was known even in the north of India from times before Ashoka itself and with some poetic imagination, and news filtering through for generations, valmiki could have imagined an island, a very prosperous city and all that.
  7. Are all hindu gods and goddesses dark coloured? No, possibly. If so, how do we explain the change from white=bad; black=good, to sugriva being golden coloured in Valmiki ramayana itself?

Also the current Himalayas are Ice Clad Mountains & nothing grows there !. so Hanuman could not have gone to Himalayas & taken the Sanjeevini. However there is a Sanjeevini Hills in Andhra closer to Vindyas (& it is North of Tamil Nadu - Ayothiapattinam - the original Ayodha !!) ! So which ever way you look at it, North clearly points to North Karnataka & Andhra. Also Kannada Kings were known as Ganga Kingdoms & Gangavathi is in Karnataka near the Origin of Cavuvery River. Cauvery is called Ganga in many folk tales!! So endless similarity on this !!.
 

zebra16

Well-known member
Namaste Sri Sangom,

Shri jaykay,
  1. How come the oldest rama account is written in sanskrit by valmiki, an apparently sanskrit name rather than in a Tamil or some other dravidian language by someone like Kamban?
...
....

I have a basic doubt.

In the "amara-kosha" while giving synonyms for Vishnu, Amarasimha has not used the name of Rama as an epithet, although he gives about 35 synonyms.

Also Adi Sankara who wrote bhashyams on Geeta, Vishnu sahasranama etc. he has not done so for Ramayana nor has made any mention of aditya-hrudayam, though Narayana is his ishta-devata by all accounts. Are there any Sankaracharya-krita slokas on Rama?

Even in kanaka-dhara stotram he has not made any mention of Seeta to compare her with Sri Lakshmi, nor he has made any mention of Rama's name in comparison to Vishnu.

Since the date of composition of amara-kosha is dated somewhere in 4th century if Ramayana or Dasha-avathara was that popular during Sankara's times, he would surely have composed some stotras on Rama or some bhashyam on Ramayana or some select portions (like Aditya hrudayam etc.) of it.

If Sri Nara is reading this message, he may give some inputs from SV point of view regarding inclusion of Rama into dasha-avatara etc.

Regards,
 
Last edited:

sangom

Well-known member
I have a basic doubt.

In the "amara-kosha" while giving synonyms for Vishnu, Amarasimha has not used the name of Rama as an epithet, although he gives about 35 synonyms.

Also Adi Sankara who wrote bhashyams on Geeta, Vishnu sahasranama etc. he has not done so for Ramayana nor has made any mention of aditya-hrudayam, though Narayana is his ishta-devata by all accounts. Are there any Sankaracharya-krita slokas on Rama?

Even in kanaka-dhara stotram he has not made any mention of Seeta to compare her with Sri Lakshmi, nor he has made any mention of Rama's name in comparison to Vishnu.

Since the date of composition of amara-kosha is dated somewhere in 4th century if Ramayana or Dasha-avathara was that popular during Sankara's times, he would surely have composed some stotras on Rama or some bhashyam on Ramayana or some select portions (like Aditya hrudayam etc.) of it.

If Sri Nara is reading this message, he may give some inputs from SV point of view regarding inclusion of Rama into dasha-avatara etc.

Regards,

Shri narayanan,

Your queries are very important and difficult to be answered by an ordinary fellow like myself. Even so, I give below my opinions, point-wise:—
  • It is well-known that the Rama of valmiki was not an avatar of vishnu, until he was so elevated at a later date. It is quite probable that during Amarasimha's times (around A.D. 375), this elevation had not happened. (It is commonly held that Rama as an avataar was largely during and after the revival of the ramavat sect by saint. Ramanand (died 1411 A.D.). Hence, this may also explain, at least to a certain extent, why Adi sankara is silent about Rama.
  • We should not bring in bhashyams in this discussion. It was mandatory that each new philosophy should be shown to be in conformity with the "prasthAnatrayee" comprising the Upanishads, brahmasutra and gita; so, Sankara wrote detailed bhashyas or commentaries only on the prasthAnatrayee in order to have his advaita validated before the scholars who mattered.
 
M

Malayalakara

Guest
Hello all,
this is my first post in this forum. my background is Malayalee Christian, but I am not Anti-Hindu. Infact I see myself as a Hindu with Christian influences, the real identity. Many Indian Christians are not aware of how much Hindu tradition they are exposed too their whole life, especially in India, but also abroad. This begins with Thali necklaces and ends with the unconciously done Ramanite education for our children. I hope, I've cleared all doubts about my motivation to write something on this topic. As a Christian Hindu, I love all my Hindu brothers and sister irrespective of caste and division. I'm a software professional from Europe and I was always curious about our past and modern world. I have done much amateurish research on topics like these and i'd like to share it with you. I think many are aware of the wrongdoings of lots of scholars and intellectuals from all societies. Let's correct them here.

I will go firstly through some interesting points, sangom made here, and will comment them according to my best knowledge. I can't guarantee that everything I write is also correct.

How come the oldest rama account is written in sanskrit by valmiki, an apparently sanskrit name rather than in a Tamil or some other dravidian language by someone like Kamban?

It is well known, that Indian kings used intentionally foreign languages for official use. Why? To dominate the administration quite easily. This was part of the strategy to rule Indians, including North Indians. The kings used Prakrit to communicate with the administration, while common people spoke Dravidian languages. Maharashtra and Gujarat spoke Dravidian languages not so much time ago! Infact the status of Marathi being an Indo-Aryan language is currently highly disputed in linguistic scholarship! And even Hindi is being talked about having too many Dravidian elements to classify it as Indo-Aryan. This important information needs to be considered when we talk about a remote past North Dravidian people. It is clear to me, that in the time of Asoka, people in the North still spoke real Dravidian languages. Only gradually they switched to some other form of language, not Sanskrit, but a mixture of Prakrit and Dravidian. Sanskrit was another language which replaced Prakrit as court language across India, at the same time, when native Dravidians began to follow Prakrit.

If brahmins originated in south India and were african+yedda+etc., why did they give all respect to the vedas and other scriptures all written in sanskrit, an alien tongue, and that too from the dim past, till today? Why was it that the brahmins did not think of learning their mother tongue (whether african, yedda, or anything)?

This question is therefore easy to answer. The North Dravidians have learnt new Elite languages during the course of time, due to invasions from Central Asians, who spoke also a series of languages, Avestan, RigVedic language, Greek, Persian, Turkish. As you know, all these languages have influenced mostly the administrative class first and only later, if at all, became the language of common people. The administrative class includes the priests, the Brahmins. We know today, that IVC had a religious society with priests and rituals. It was these priests who have been captured and taught the new language first, a language, which was probably more close to Iranian Avestan, which they Dravidianized into RgVedic language. They were forced to teach different gods and morals, but they retained also the old Dravidian belief systems. There is no doubt, that Sanskrit was a forced language and later a tool to rule the masses by exclusivity. This has also happened, when Islam arrived in India. The administrative class learned Arabi Persian after the North Prakrit speakers (former Dravidians) were conquered. Only centuries later Urdu emerged as a Persianized Prakrit, which eventually will become more Persianized than now.

In the case of M.Bh. most of the place names do not belong to south India, and there is specific reference to the south as well as some areas in the NW. I would like to know how you view this point.

The story about Ayodhya made by jaykay is likely to be correct. The Guptas (empire) have sanctioned modern North Indian Ayodhya as the real place of Rama. This Ayodhya has nothing to do with the real place of Rama. We should seriously think about the real place and I think jaykay is on the right track on this matter. It's dubious, that nothing of Rama had reached Western or Eastern Asia except the places, where Dravidians arrived. We actually had much of the North conquered and our traditions have arrived there in high numbers. A simple example would be the creation of Rangolis in the North. This was an export of a Telugu monarch!

Srilanka's existence was well-known to Ashoka in that he sent his children Mahinda and Sanghamitra, his children, as emissaries to Lanka. Hence, it may not be unacceptable to consider that the existence of a land by name Lanka (lankaa f. in sanskrit means an unchaste woman.) was known even in the north of India from times before Ashoka itself and with some poetic imagination, and news filtering through for generations, valmiki could have imagined an island, a very prosperous city and all that.

Do you actually believe in this story? Sounds more like a fairy tale by A R R Tolkien! Nonsense!
 

Nara

Well-known member
...If Sri Nara is reading this message, he may give some inputs from SV point of view regarding inclusion of Rama into dasha-avatara etc.
Sorry Narayan, I just read this post. I feel a little awkward as it seems I have created an impression of wide and deep knowledge about SV. I can only plead guilty to decent level of knowledge -- I say this as I dislike false modesty more than conceit.

SV tradition as we know it, i.e. one starting from Sriman Nathamunigal and based on equal parts Azhvar Pasurams and Prastana Traiyam and their purported derivatives like Ramayana, Mh.B, and Vishnu Puranam, Rama is very much Vishnu's avathara, and a poorna avathara at that.

Swami Periyavacchan Pillai, commentator par excellence of Dhivya Prabhandam constructed a Ramayanam by using just the verses of Azhvar pasurams, and it is called Pasurappadi Ramayanam.

Even though not much of Sriman Nathamuni's own words survive today, he seems to have had visions of Rama entourage coming to his house. The details are murky as some say it was the local King that he saw as Rama himself gracing his house.

From a briefly later period, we have a poem called Atimanusha Stavam by Swami Koorathazhvan, a disciple of Bhagavat Ramanuja, in which he stresses that even though Rama himself attests to being no more than a son of Dasaratha, his actions betray his divine nature. A sample shloka #19:

अक्षुण्ण योगपथं जटायुं तिर्यञचमेव बत मोक्षपथे नियोक्तुम् ।
शक्नोषि वेत्सि च यदा स तदा कथं त्वं देवीं अवाप्तुं अनलं व्यथित विचिन्वन् ॥



This verse points to Rama granting moksham to Jadayu as an indication that he is more than just a son of Dasaratha. Other verses go on to pointing other instances from Ramayana, like kaakaasura vadam, Ahalya's release from curse, etc.

These verses seem to rebut an implied a poorva paksham that Rama was just a son of Daratha and no more. So in this sense one can see some support that Rama as an avatara was not universally accepted even as late as the time of Bhagavat Ramanuja. However, within SV, there is no question that Rama was revered as a poorna avatara of Lord Sriman Narayana.

Hope this give a glimpse from the SV side.

Cheers!
 

biswa

New member
I don't understand the skin color bit. Aren't there dark people in North India and fair people in South India? What is this theory about fair people worshipping dark gods?

To me what is is more interesting is why are 2 handed people worshipping 4 handed gods?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks