• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

Rama - Positive and Negative

Status
Not open for further replies.
From my childhood I was told stories of Rama as one who was truthful/honest who obeyed his parents. He was single wifed and gem of a character. He was ready to sacrifice anything for the welfare of the country and countrymen. He was a person to keep up his words etc etc.
Recently one of my Hindu friend ( as we had a discussion of Nalambalam visit -ie visiting temples of Rama Bharatha Lakshmana and Satrugna on the same day during this month was treated to be auscipious)He was of the opinion that
Rama was a indecisive person.
He was always carried away by the words of others.
For example - He was called by Guru to kill asuras and went with him. Later when Guru instructed he broke the Bow and married Sita.
He without expressing his opinion obeyed his father and went to Forest without thinking what will be the future of the country.
Your opinion ????
Eventhough he was knowing he asked Sita to go through fire just after war to confirm her purity.
ON the words of Hanuman he killed Bali
On the words of a washerman he discarded his wife and let her alone in a forest.

Like this he quoted many examples from Ramayana and wanted to establish his point.
 
One is quite sure Sri Rama will not come for defending himself.
So anything can be said about him. Persons who try to defend for Sri Rama
cannot stand for him and explain something which happened many thousand years ago.

The critics are really nice to Sri Rama. By opposing him, they indirectly accept that Sri Rama was there. Not like others who say there was nobody as Sri Rama.

Many such "pattimantrams" are continuing for many years and many generations since thousnads of years, everytime a " புத்தம் புது" copy is released. This will go on ,on,and on. That is the best part of it.

Thirumuruga Kripananda Variyaar used to say that "Aasthikam " is actually spread by 'Naasthikas". Aasthikas used to keep to themselves with their beliefs . But Naasthikas question,ridicule and provoke them which in turn gives opportunity for aasthikaas to learn and talk more about aasthekam and religion, and they become more convinced and stay with better conviction, and many more new are attracted to aastheekam. Blessing in disguise.



Greetings.
 
Shri Kr Subramaniam,

There are also folks who point out that Rama killed Shambhuk. However, they overlook that Rama ate half-eaten berries offered by Sabari (who by present day standards would be a tribal dalit).

Imo, killings and stuff in war, cannot be judged since everything is fair in war. As such its really not possible to judge the past and how things were then. People generally are bothered about the present; and about things that affect them in the present.

Btw, for all the talk about who defeated whom, ppl overlook that there also used be a system where the defeated group is absorbed by the victor. Imo, when it comes to identities from the itihaasas, only names have remained (like fossils). And with all the changes over centuries, i do not think the names really represent lineage of any sort in the present time. So there is no point in dalits identifying themselves with Shambhuk or considering Rama as their aggressor.
 
I too joined this forum with an idea to discuss such points but later thought i should be a witness to all this discussion. we have(our friends both smarthas and vaishnavas have debated over this ) but could not come to conclusion but said that we should not ask unneccessary question and Ramayanam speaks about our dharma and SriRama was aliving example who showed what to be followed and what is the net result. (we should not question because we will be labelled veen vidhandavatham)
 
Dear Subramaniam Ji,

Sri Rama inspite of so many people asking him not to go to the forest , still decisively sticks to his decision:
Reason : Pitru Vakya paripalanam.

Sri Rama fights Thaataka and Mareecha based on Sri Vishwamitra's advise,
Reason:- Acharya devo bhava

Sri Rama kills Vali after ascertaining the facts (Vali's misdemanor with Sugriva's wife Ruma and making her his wife and banishing Sugriva to the forest (after Sugriva unknowingly closes the tunnel where Vali/Dhundubi fight). manu smriti ordains capital punishment for such a crime, which Rama quotes in Kishkinda kaandam while responding to Vali on Vali being felled by Rama's arrow.(tasyo dando vada smritaha). Vali also argues that he is a monkey and these Dharamas don't apply to him. else where we find that Vali speaks like a Hanuman and he also performed trikala Sandhyavandana(as is known during his encounter withh Ravana). All this has been countered by SriRama and Vali finally accepts his crime and surrenders to Rama.

Sri Rama was banished to the forest for 14 years and he was asked to take care of the forest (kingdom) by kaikeyi. He was still the king of Ikshwaku dynasty and had to establish Dharma in the forest

So there is no doubt that Vali has to be awarded capital punishment, and Rama has the right as emperor of Ikshwaku to award that punishment.

Why did he kill him then hiding behind?

I got myself once during Sri Sri Anna Krishna Premi swami's upanyasam.

The Rahasyam is SiRama could have waged/challenged Vali since killing Vali require less of his prowess than 14,000 Rakshasas at Dandakavanam led by Kara/Dhushana.

But unlike the Raakshasas who kill/eat the Rishis and poor people, vanara sena which would eventually be called in case of war with Rama/Lakshmana, were flawless and doesn't require any punishment.

Rama thought that even if generations will speak ill of him (Vali was killed by Rama from behind), Dharma has to be restored by killing Vali


Sri Ramajayam
 
Dear Sir,

Obeying the Guru is not indecisiveness and on the contraray it is the respect given to the guru.
By obeying the Guru only good things materialised. The first test is only to establish the greatestness of mata sita to the
world and common people. It is better to understand the meaning of the actions by Lord Ram
where one will find each every action is only for universal good.

Rgds,
Mohan
 
It is interesting and heartening to note that Rama's seemingly reproachable behaviour at various times was never glossed over in any of the versions of his exploits. In spite of those, if he still comes across, centuries later, to be relevant enough to be revered as God and as a "Maryada Purushottam", it only means he must have been a very amazing person (I am, of course, assuming that he really existed). I have yet to, however, read a good defence of his atrocious actions (twice!) against Sita.
 
Respectable members,

Legend (or purana) has it, Ravana did not think that a human could win him in a war or could kill him; so, he did not seek any boon to safeguard himself against a human (Naran in sanskrit). Rama overpowered him in a war. He was just a human being.

Whether we look at Rama rationally or with Bakhthi, he was just a human being. Human beings come with the usual human personalities and imperfections. In my opinion, it does not make any sense to analyse the perfection/imperfections of Rama.

I consider Gugan and Sabari connections say volumes about Rama's nicer qualities. In my opinion, Rama should have treated Sita more respectfully and equitably; Killing Vali was not exactly a nice deed to write home about; following sashtras without rationally analysing them was not exactly an act of wisdom.

But, at the end of the day, the bottom line is, Rama was just a human being. So, we need not exactly expect a perfect person either.

Cheers!
 
I am a little amused. Sri Rama takes the trouble of waging war against a demon king who took his wife captive (after pining for her, building bridges and what not) only to bring her back and not treat her nicely because he was cross with her. Does not make any sense to me.
 
Dear Samarapungavan,
Sri Rama kills Vali after ascertaining the facts (Vali's misdemanor with Sugriva's wife Ruma and making her his wife and banishing Sugriva to the forest (after Sugriva unknowingly closes the tunnel where Vali/Dhundubi fight). manu smriti ordains capital punishment for such a crime, which Rama quotes in Kishkinda kaandam while responding to Vali on Vali being felled by Rama's arrow.(tasyo dando vada smritaha
For this argument ,even though it is out of this post. I would like to draw your attention towards Indira who went after a Rishi~s wife (ahalya) and escaped any capital punishment. while the lady was punished to become a stone.. He was also a powerful King but only defence would be he was loyal to Gods.
 
Dear Happy Hindu,

Which God can we say as Brahmin? All are Kshatriyas at the top most and /Yadavas/Tribals (who stay in mountains). We can say only of Vamana avatara whom we are not worshipping commonly.
 
I was really surprised to note that a thread on such a topic has been started. Ramayana is a literary work attributed to one Valmiki. There is no evidence to show that both were real personalities. For one who looks at Rama and Ramayana, without the coloured glasses of religious conformity and blind belief, the moment you start reading Valmiki Ramayana and with simple clear (not convoluted) meaning, it is nothing more than a literary work and in that respect it may be very excellent. (I am not qualified to judge this since I don't know anything about literature, poetry, etc.). The characters in that story have imperfections, but somehow the personality of Rama was projected as the supreme example of man on earth, and that character was endowed with some of the qualities which were probably held in high esteem in those times. Example, pitruvaakya paripaalanam; note that Parasuraama was made (by the author/s) to kill his mother on the orders of his father. The opinion of some researchers is that at one point in our ancient history, the people who fought and were in constant danger of death in war (whom we call Kshatriyas) felt that the Brahmins were enjoying too much and turned against them. Brahmins created the Parasurama and (mentally, in their fertile imagination) made him exterminate all the Kshatriyas 21 times all over the world, including Kshatriya foetuses in the womb. As a part of the subsequent rapprochement with the Kshatriyas, we got Ramayana with a small caveat added simultaneously, viz., Parasurama, but, again, perhaps as a sop to the Kshatriyas, and to upgrade Rama as an avatar of Vishnu, they added the episode of Rama breaking Vishnu's bow (in the hands of) Parasurama. As part of the same truce we find Janaka and a few Raja Rishis like Janaka, Visvamitra, etc., who were approached by brahmins for gaining higher knowledge.

Valmiki's Ramayana depicts Rama as a mere mortal. Rama's promotion to divinity was possible because of Adhyatma Ramayana, and its commentaries which explained every action of Rama as beyond reproach. We still read and recite Valmiki Ramayanam. Tulsidas' Ram Charit Manas is based on Adhyatma Ramayana, but Tulsi stops his Manas without the Uttara Kanda, thus saving the large number of our North Indian devotees from having to learn of Rama's cruelty to Sita. Perhaps even Tulsi found it beyond his ken to justify those actions of Rama.

For an exhaustive look at the various shortcmings of valmiki ramayana pl. see:

RAMAYANA YB

The blogger states his objectives as under:-

"#000 FOREWORD - INTRODUCTION - OBJECT OF THIS BLOG


1. To Answer questions on Valmiki Ramayana from the original text. These questions are ducked over by speakers and experts on Ramayana, because these answers are considered sacrilegious and will not help in getting listeners. Financially, these blogs are not viable. The temple authorities, Press and TV channels are afraid of touching these delicate issues because they do not help increase visitors and revenue.

2. To prevent innocent people (who have not read complete original Ramayana), from being misled by Godmen who exploit the gullible devotees for collecting donations.

3. I often get advice from readers:"Won’t you find anything good in Ramayana? Why do you always find fault with Ramayana?"
Ans 1: The need for finding faults is arising only because we are asked to behave like Rama or Lakshmana. Women are asked to behave like Sita. The traditional writers and speakers show Kausalya as 100% good and Kaikeyi as 100% bad, whereas people are slaves of circumstances. It has therefore become necessary to search truth by digging deep.
Ans 2: Valmiki wrote 24,000 verses of Ramayana. At least 1,000 verses contain beautiful descriptions of nature, the seasons. These verses in their aesthetics compare well with the poetry of Wordsworth and other nature poets. Better we say that their works are to be compared to the verses of Valmiki in view of their ancestry. The Ramayana speakers and writers ignore them because they are driven by a blind desire to convey only religious preachings. They are not interested in other things. If I pick the nature poetry of Valmiki, this blog becomes very lengthy and turn out to be unreadable."
 
.... we should not ask unneccessary question and Ramayanam speaks about our dharma and SriRama was aliving example who showed what to be followed and what is the net result. (we should not question because we will be labelled veen vidhandavatham)

Dear madam, this is indeed true, any uncomfortable line of questioning sooner or later leads to the questioner getting labeled. I hope you don't feel that kind of constraint in this forum.


...There are also folks who point out that Rama killed Shambhuk. However, they overlook that Rama ate half-eaten berries offered by Sabari (who by present day standards would be a tribal dalit).

Imo, killings and stuff in war, cannot be judged since everything is fair in war.

Dear HH, I don't agree (won't be surprising to many I am sure :)). Rama treated Sabari very well, that is good, but that cannot absolve responsibility for Shambhuka's murder. Note that it was not in the midst of battle. Brahmins complained to Rama that the untimely death of a child was due to Shudra performing tapas. There was no fight, Shambuka was murdered in cold blood as he stood answering Lord Sri Rama.


...Valmiki's Ramayana depicts Rama as a mere mortal. Rama's promotion to divinity was possible because of Adhyatma Ramayana,

Interestingly enough, Ramayana is not a Hindu epic alone, the story is told and retold by even Jains and Buddists. Only the Hindus made Rama out to be god.

Cheers!
 
the labeling as jains,buddhists,sikhs,i slam,christians,...etc are all personality based.we do not have rama ism?rama neethy?even hindus is from river sindu,which became indus to indu to hindu from hindi.when our religions name itself is labelled by islam,christians...what to say character from that geographical area.memory is transferred from one another thru mnemonics tools.written scripts are one such tools.archetecture is yet another tool.the most potent of all is,oral transmission,which was done using meters or chandas,in raagas,with talams and pallavis.just because some imbecile in power questions lord rama and his existance,we should not become his/her jalras.the right to have a belief system,is a universal right.to come and say,only my belief system is true and other belief systems are not true,goes against nature.but these days,its fashionable to go against nature and be unnaturally natural.kali yugam at its 5112 years of existance only,still we have 428 000 years to go.kali yuga purana has been written to show,what all will happen in future.what we see now,is only a nano-tip of the iceberg.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interestingly enough, Ramayana is not a Hindu epic alone, the story is told and retold by even Jains and Buddists. Only the Hindus made Rama out to be god.Cheers!
Vasudeva & Baladeva's story is told in the Buddhist Ghatajataka. Our version in the Bhagavata seems to have been inspired by both Ghatajataka and the story of Danae and Perseus in Greek mythology.
 
Dear Sir,

It only reflects the state of individual. Whatever the intention of manipulating the Ramayana,
the fact will not change that whatever the Lord Ram has done is for universal good.
If the individual cannot grasp the real meaning and bending on giving wrong impressions, it only reflects
the state of individual.

Rgds,
Mohan
 
Dear madam, this is indeed true, any uncomfortable line of questioning sooner or later leads to the questioner getting labeled. I hope you don't feel that kind of constraint in this forum.




Dear HH, I don't agree (won't be surprising to many I am sure :)). Rama treated Sabari very well, that is good, but that cannot absolve responsibility for Shambhuka's murder. Note that it was not in the midst of battle. Brahmins complained to Rama that the untimely death of a child was due to Shudra performing tapas. There was no fight, Shambuka was murdered in cold blood as he stood answering Lord Sri Rama.




Interestingly enough, Ramayana is not a Hindu epic alone, the story is told and retold by even Jains and Buddists. Only the Hindus made Rama out to be god.

Cheers!

nara,

quoting out of context is an art,which you have skillfully deploed to undermine brahmin's as well as the scriptures.lord rama was a role model,just choam noamsky or darwin or evr or mu ka or mgr....in bharath,its a tradition to honor god-status.i find nothing wrong with it.i am sure you are a super role model yourself,but totally out of leagues with exalted being like lord rama.lord rama is immortal,while you & me, are mortal.let's not kid ourselves and go overboard ,with India bashing and in particular Indians bashing and even more particular the god's of Indians,which is approx 33 crores in number from puranas,and still growing,if we take into consideration the status of acharyals,avatars,ammas,nuns,fathers,popes,imams,moulvis,sastris...etc
 
"Valmiki's Ramayana depicts Rama as a mere mortal. Rama's promotion to divinity was possible because of Adhyatma Ramayana, and its commentaries which explained every action of Rama as beyond reproach. We still read and recite Valmiki Ramayanam. Tulsidas' Ram Charit Manas is based on Adhyatma Ramayana, but Tulsi stops his Manas without the Uttara Kanda, thus saving the large number of our North Indian devotees from having to learn of Rama's cruelty to Sita. Perhaps even Tulsi found it beyond his ken to justify those actions of Rama."


Dear Shri sangom Ji,

Maharishi Valmiki has clearly mentioned that Sri Rama was an Avatara of Narayana, though Rama himself mentions,
"Atmaanam Manusham manye" - that he is very much a human being, Acharyas has commented this as Avatara vidambanam.

In the sixteenth sarga of balakandam (devanam vishnum prathi raavanaya nararupena avatharanya prarthana) the following sloka appears:

ithyetat vachanam sruthva suranaam vishnurathmavan
pitharam rochayamaasa tada dasaratham nrupam

Vishnu wanted to have King Dasaratha as his father. So this is one example of Rama Avatara among the numerous slokas in the original Valmiki Ramyana itself apart from numerous references in Srimad Bhagavatam, Padma puranam and other puranas.

Again in the eighteenth sarga(Sri Rama Janana gattam normally recited during Ramanavami) in the balakandam the following slokas appear:

vishnor ardham mahabaagam putram ikshvaku nandanam
lohithaksham mahabaahum rakthoshtam dundubhisvanam
Kausalya susubetena putrena amitha tejasaa
yatha varena devanamidithirvajra paanina
Bharatho nama kaikeiyam jaignye sathya parakramaha
sakshaad vishnor chathurbhagaha sarve sumudhito gunaihi
Atha Lakshmana Satrugnau sumita janayath sutau

The same sloka appears in Padma purana with some modifications.

Again in the Ramapattabisheka sarga (Yuddhakaandam 128th sarga)


priyathe sathatham ramaha sahi vishnu sanathanaha
Adhidevo mahabahur Harir Narayana Prabhuhu
Sakshaad Ramo Raghusreshataha sesho Lakshmana Uchyate.

Here Valmiki says that While Rama is Vishnu Avatara, Lakshmana is sesha (Adhisesha)

So it's crystal clear that Rama is an Avatara from the original Valmiki Ramayana itself.

That Rama lived as an ideal humanbeing is waht valmiki has attempted to portray as Rama himself as a charatcer in the Ramayana, looks upon himself as a human being.


Regards,

Sri Ramajayam
 
sai ram

It is really very informative and enlightening to read these kind of discussions and am very sure that every one of us will be discussing all these points at home ( hope that is the purpose) which should benefit the younger generations.
 
Dear KR subramanian Ji,

Indra was also punished by Gautama Maharishi's saapa. Valmiki bhagawan has explained this in great detail. (It's not capital punishment though, but worse than that - pl read the Valmiki Ramayana for details).

Regards,

Sri Ramajayam
 
So i see many ppl shouting @ shambhuka vada episode... btw... look @ the situation... where shambuk says "I have committed in numerable sins..., now I want to expatiate my sins and conquer the heaven with this body. know me O Ram! I am a Shudra named Shambhuka.". Now he wanted to invaded heavens... in each manvantars the posts of Indra is alloted to specific persons, for eg.. i heard that Mahabali Raj will be the next devinder. Look at the fate of Trishanku, who wanted to go to inderlok without casting off his body. And we have all 7 kandas in ramcharit manas. Gosainji also mentions the story of kakubushundi.
Bhagats like Bhagat Ramanand, Kabir, Sain, Raja Pipa, Raidas, Dhanna, Sadhana, Namdev, etc., praise Ram. Know that these people are from different castes, Ranging from Brahman(Ramanand) to a Dalit chamar(Raidas), a nai (Sain). Now their couplets are stored in Sri Guru GRanth Sahib. I can personally qute 1000s of references from the same.
The Gurus themselves worshipped Vishnu. Look at the devotion of Prahlad is praised and Narhari is worshipped by Guru Nanak to Guru Arjan Dev in Guru Granth Sahibji.
Take a look at the Dasam Granth's Chaubis Autar (Dasam Granth was composed by Dasvwn Padeshah Shri Guru Gobind Singh ji)... In Ram Avatar section we will never come across shambhuk episode. So I'd rather say... Ramchanderji (Even Sikhs used to refer to Him as such, with a good respect) is perfect, AND HE is Maryada Purshottam.

If you want more reference... then I shall quote it instead.
 
Dear KR subramanian Ji,

Indra was also punished by Gautama Maharishi's saapa. Valmiki bhagawan has explained this in great detail. (It's not capital punishment though, but worse than that - pl read the Valmiki Ramayana for details).

Regards,

Sri Ramajayam
Dear Samarapungavan Ji --Even though out of this thread I would draw your attention to one or two points. I had just quoted one or two incidents only to draw your attention.

Eventhough Mahabali was a great good ruler he was dethroned only to accomodate Indira . What wrong has this asura did to be dethroned?
Again Ravana was also a good ruler and safe guarded his people.
Comparing to many deva rulers asura rulers were more decsiplined.
 
Dear srikrish85 = Can you say anyof our gods tobe Brahmin? As brahmin our role was only to praise the ruler. and pray on behalf of him to God. We were onlydoing Pujas. When the work quantum of Vysya and Sudhra could be quantified and paid our work was not so. Kshatriya~s work could also be measured and paid. BRAHMIN~S WORK COULDNOT BE MEASURED. HENCE THE KING ORDERED THAT IN ANY POOJA BRAHMIN SHOULD BE FED FIRST. IN ANY FUNCTION BRAHMIN SHOULD BE GIVEN DONATION (IN CASH OR KIND). THIS WAS TO PROTECT BRAHMIN~S FAMILY. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE HIM TO CONTINUE WITH POOJA AND READING FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE KING AND SOCIETY.
SO KILLING ANYBODY DIRECT IS OUT OF QUESTION FOR BRAHMIN. BUT HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN BRINGING UP AND DOWN ANY KINGDOM (FOR EXAMPLE - CHANAKYA)
 
"Valmiki's Ramayana depicts Rama as a mere mortal. Rama's promotion to divinity was possible because of Adhyatma Ramayana, and its commentaries which explained every action of Rama as beyond reproach. We still read and recite Valmiki Ramayanam. Tulsidas' Ram Charit Manas is based on Adhyatma Ramayana, but Tulsi stops his Manas without the Uttara Kanda, thus saving the large number of our North Indian devotees from having to learn of Rama's cruelty to Sita. Perhaps even Tulsi found it beyond his ken to justify those actions of Rama."


Dear Shri sangom Ji,

Maharishi Valmiki has clearly mentioned that Sri Rama was an Avatara of Narayana, though Rama himself mentions,
"Atmaanam Manusham manye" - that he is very much a human being, Acharyas has commented this as Avatara vidambanam.

In the sixteenth sarga of balakandam (devanam vishnum prathi raavanaya nararupena avatharanya prarthana) the following sloka appears:

ithyetat vachanam sruthva suranaam vishnurathmavan
pitharam rochayamaasa tada dasaratham nrupam

Vishnu wanted to have King Dasaratha as his father. So this is one example of Rama Avatara among the numerous slokas in the original Valmiki Ramyana itself apart from numerous references in Srimad Bhagavatam, Padma puranam and other puranas.

Again in the eighteenth sarga(Sri Rama Janana gattam normally recited during Ramanavami) in the balakandam the following slokas appear:

vishnor ardham mahabaagam putram ikshvaku nandanam
lohithaksham mahabaahum rakthoshtam dundubhisvanam
Kausalya susubetena putrena amitha tejasaa
yatha varena devanamidithirvajra paanina
Bharatho nama kaikeiyam jaignye sathya parakramaha
sakshaad vishnor chathurbhagaha sarve sumudhito gunaihi
Atha Lakshmana Satrugnau sumita janayath sutau

The same sloka appears in Padma purana with some modifications.

Again in the Ramapattabisheka sarga (Yuddhakaandam 128th sarga)


priyathe sathatham ramaha sahi vishnu sanathanaha
Adhidevo mahabahur Harir Narayana Prabhuhu
Sakshaad Ramo Raghusreshataha sesho Lakshmana Uchyate.

Here Valmiki says that While Rama is Vishnu Avatara, Lakshmana is sesha (Adhisesha)

So it's crystal clear that Rama is an Avatara from the original Valmiki Ramayana itself.

That Rama lived as an ideal humanbeing is waht valmiki has attempted to portray as Rama himself as a charatcer in the Ramayana, looks upon himself as a human being.


Regards,

Sri Ramajayam
Dear Shri Samarapungavan,

Our perspectives, as you will have noticed by now, are different. You implicitly believe that the Ramayana book gives an authentic account of the life of Rama, correct to the minutest detail, and relate the true life of a divine avatara of Vishnu. All that is stated are/were hundred percent true and there is no error, redaction, interpolation, etc. I, on the other hand, while not finding fault with the faith people have in the godhead of Rama, or any other deity for that matter, try to enquire into the history of our religious lore. Hence we are bound to have differences of opinion. My attempt is to give the “other side of the coin” so that when we talk about our glorious past, the greatness of Hinduism, etc., people also become aware of this other side. Otherwise what we see is a pitiable blind acceptance of whatever has been dished out for centuries in order to keep the people blissfully ignorant.

I have read Rt. Hon. V.S. Srinivasa Sastri's 'Lectures on the Ramayana' and in that he says he gave a series of lectures in Madars (probably Mylapore) in the 1930's and when he said Vali vadham could not be justified, the audience got enraged and threw the chairs at him. (Since I read the book long ago, the details may be different, but the central point is that Sastri depicted Rama as a plain human being, not divine at all.)

“The Satapatha Brahmana and Brhadaranyaka Upanishad mention King Janaka several times. In these ancient religious writings, he is a sage and a philosopher. He is in no way related to Sita. This Janaka and the other Janaka, father of Sita, are separated by eighteen generations.”
_Legend of Ram: antiquity to janmabhumi debate, Sanujit Ghose

Interpolations to Ramayana are certain. Some of those must have been even post-Buddha since there is a specific mention of Buddhists being punished as thieves in Ayodhya Kanda. Bharata persuades Rama to come back to Ayodhya. A long conversation between the two is told. Javali, a learned man tries to argue and convince Rama that he need not give weightage to do ‘pitruvaakya paripaalanam’.

Rama is not convinced, and quoting Vedas, praises the virtues of sacrifice, charity and penance, founded upon truth. In his reply Rama says among other things, “As a Buddhist is punishable like a thief….”.


As a result of the linguistic and philological studies, scholars opine that both Bala Kanda and Uttara Kanda are most probably later interpolations, in order to endow the hero of the “Adi kAvya” with a divine hue. From Ayodhyakanda to Yuddhakanda, it is no where mentioned that he was God or had attributes of the divine (Vishnu amsa). He is shown as an ordinary person with human attributes who cries when his wife is taken away and at no time utters a soothing word to Lakshmana who also lives alone, without any complaint. This shows how much of a self-centred character Rama was, and how insensitive he was to the “viraha” of his brother Lakshmana.

Even in Yuddha Kanda the last sloka is sarga-116, sloka-90, which reads as under:
[FONT=&quot]सर्वे लक्षण सम्पन्नाः सर्वे धर्म परायणाः[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]दशवर्ष सहस्राणि रामो राज्यम् अकारयत् ॥६-११६-९०[/FONT]

(sarvE lakshaNa sampannAH sarvE dharma parAyaNAH
daSavaRsha sahasRANi rAmO rAjyam akArayat)

(Maharishi University Collection)

There may be addition of Phala Sruti in the version you refer to or it may contain more sargas. The version I have, is supposed to be authentic. I would like to know the particulars of the version, publisher, etc., for my information.
 
Last edited:
... My attempt is to give the “other side of the coin” so that when we talk about our glorious past, the greatness of Hinduism, etc., people also become aware of this other side. Otherwise what we see is a pitiable blind acceptance of whatever has been dished out for centuries in order to keep the people blissfully ignorant.

Dear Shri sangom, another masterpiece, today's edition ....

Here is a nice movie about Sita and Rama Sita Sings the Blues (1 hour 20 min).

This is the same movie I cited a few months back, I am giving the link again for the benefit of new members.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top