-
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
- Thread starter kr subramanian
- Start date
- Status
Can you say anyof our gods tobe Brahmin
Where Mr. Subbuji... where did i take up the brahmin issue? What's the pt in directing this question to me? I just don't know why u aske me this question? Can u plz tell me why?
sangom
0
Kindly give the url for the blog.
Greetings Sri Sangom,
This blog is in our forum. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/blogs/hayyram/240-3.html.
Regards
This blog is in our forum. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/blogs/hayyram/240-3.html.
Regards
Greetings,
Two slokas which are said to be contradicting to one another (can be seen all over the internet!)
kusha ciira ajina dharam phala muula ashanam ca maam |
viddhi praNihitam dharme taapasam vana gocaram || 2-50-44
“Know me as under a vow to be an ascetic, wearing the robes of bark and deerskin and by piety, I am determined to live in the forest by eating roots and fruits only.”
tau tatra hatvaa caturaH mahaa mR^igaan |
varaaham R^ishyam pR^iSatam mahaa rurum |
aadaaya medhyam tvaritam bubhukSitau|
vaasaaya kaale yayatur vanaH patim || 2-52-102
Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and taking quickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.
It appears Rama has taken a vow not to eat meat in the first sloka and in the next they actually broke the vow and eat. I do not know if the translations are correct. Learned member can shed some light on this.
Regards
Two slokas which are said to be contradicting to one another (can be seen all over the internet!)
kusha ciira ajina dharam phala muula ashanam ca maam |
viddhi praNihitam dharme taapasam vana gocaram || 2-50-44
“Know me as under a vow to be an ascetic, wearing the robes of bark and deerskin and by piety, I am determined to live in the forest by eating roots and fruits only.”
tau tatra hatvaa caturaH mahaa mR^igaan |
varaaham R^ishyam pR^iSatam mahaa rurum |
aadaaya medhyam tvaritam bubhukSitau|
vaasaaya kaale yayatur vanaH patim || 2-52-102
Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and taking quickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.
It appears Rama has taken a vow not to eat meat in the first sloka and in the next they actually broke the vow and eat. I do not know if the translations are correct. Learned member can shed some light on this.
Regards
S
samarapungavan
Guest
Namaskaram
Samarapungavan:
The one I have quoted is from Gita press Gorakhpur edition
Regards,
SriRamajayam
Samarapungavan:
The one I have quoted is from Gita press Gorakhpur edition
Regards,
SriRamajayam
sangom
0
Jabali is correct. It was a typo. But you have still not clarified who were those buddhists who were treated as thieves and punished accordingly in Rama's time, an earlier yuga according to the mythology.
You give the slokas and translations which definitely make your post appear formidable! The lineage as given in the slokas may be summarised as under, I think:-
Nimi>Mithi>Janaka->Udaavasu>Nandivardhana>Suketu>Devaraata>Brihadratha>Mahaaviira>
Sudhriti>Dhristaketu>Haryashva>Maru>Pratiindhaka>Kiirtiratha>Devamiidha>Vidhubha>Mahiidraka>
Kiirtiraata>mahaaroma>Swarnaroma>Hrasvaroma>Janaka-II
After giving all these details you have not addressed my observation that the Janaka of Brhadaaranyakopanishad and Valmiki Ramayana are not one and the same nor proved that they are the same person with evidence. For example(I am not saying so), could it not have been Janaka-I, son of Mithi?
I will get a copy read and then get back with my comments.
Last edited:
sangom
0
Dear Janam,
It is there in Valmiki Ramayana. In this context pl. see my posts:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/4695-rama-positive-negative-3.html#post52887
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/4695-rama-positive-negative-2.html#post52686
As you might have seen from the comments from various members in this thread, there are people - may be the majority - who tend to see Ramayana as a holy irrefutable scripture, Rama as a true "avataaram" of Vishnu, all actions of Rama justified one way or another by convoluted arguments and interpretations, and even Vali vadham justified because Vaali himself accepts his mistake. On the other side there are a few like me (I suppose) who question and accept only if the answers are satisfactory to our mind and intellect (Incidentally one member has cited this as Gandhi's principle also, in another thread in this forum). To me it appears that the ordinary human hero of a poem (Adi kaavya, as it is called) has been transformed into a divinity by suitable interpolations and changes. Vaali, Raavana or any one else for that matter could be made to say such words if someone wrote the script, just as the hero of a modern movie could be killed in the end or brought back to life, acoording to requirements, by the script writer. I tend to believe that people have been taken for a ride for centuries on such newer and newer gods, for the priesthood for meeting its own exigencies, in this case, the need for placating the Kshatriyas who perhaps fell out with the Brahmanas in those days.
Last edited:
Greetings Sri Sangom,
I came across the website you have sited where the hindu scriptures are questioned. In My previous post, I mentioned one of those and requested if any learned member can comment back on that since I do not know Sanskrit.
But I read in RajaJi's book where he mentioned that " during vanavasam, they can only eat the fruits and vegetables and clean meat prepared by themselves only and not cooked by somebody..."
Kshatriyas are not vegetarians. I do know the complete meaning of the sanskrit verse
kusha ciira ajina dharam phala muula ashanam ca maam |
viddhi praNihitam dharme taapasam vana gocaram || 2-50-44
I do not always believe this, as this current generations and previous generations are no saints. As we see now, generations after generations, the good behavior and good thoughts are diminishing only. If the ancient people are bad, today's people are the worst and close to animals. Atleast the ancient people respected the nature, but today's human foolishly and recklessly are abusing and destroying the nature, leaving a very bad world for the gen next.
I do not know interpolations are done in those days, but these days I am witnessing people giving false mark sheet to get higher education entry upon the parent's advise.
In that respect I dont see any harm in godifying Raman and Ramayana atleast to teach the current parents, once there was தர்மம் நியாயம்..
Regards
I came across the website you have sited where the hindu scriptures are questioned. In My previous post, I mentioned one of those and requested if any learned member can comment back on that since I do not know Sanskrit.
But I read in RajaJi's book where he mentioned that " during vanavasam, they can only eat the fruits and vegetables and clean meat prepared by themselves only and not cooked by somebody..."
Kshatriyas are not vegetarians. I do know the complete meaning of the sanskrit verse
kusha ciira ajina dharam phala muula ashanam ca maam |
viddhi praNihitam dharme taapasam vana gocaram || 2-50-44
I do not always believe this, as this current generations and previous generations are no saints. As we see now, generations after generations, the good behavior and good thoughts are diminishing only. If the ancient people are bad, today's people are the worst and close to animals. Atleast the ancient people respected the nature, but today's human foolishly and recklessly are abusing and destroying the nature, leaving a very bad world for the gen next.
I do not know interpolations are done in those days, but these days I am witnessing people giving false mark sheet to get higher education entry upon the parent's advise.
In that respect I dont see any harm in godifying Raman and Ramayana atleast to teach the current parents, once there was தர்மம் நியாயம்..
Regards
S
samarapungavan
Guest
Samarapungavan:
On the buddist being treated like thieves I don't know. I will have to read the sloka and get back.
I heard last week from Sri Rangaji's (Sri Anna Krishnapremi's son) during his Ramayana upanyasa that "Janaka" mentioned in the vedas refers to dynasty of Raja Rishis. Only scholars who know both the Vedas and Ramayana thoroughly can give an opinion on this. I am not one. I was just doing my regular Parayanam of Sri Ramayanam and I hit upon this sarga and thought to share this with you.
Regards,
S
samarapungavan
Guest
Dear Shri Sangom,
You seem to be emotional on Vali Vadham and also judgemental. You have concluded that Vali Vadham is a crime. It has to be decided based on law of the land. The argument is whether Rama followed the law of the land or not.
Let's approach this with facts that we agree on first and what the law of the land is at that point in time. Let's take Rama as the king of Ayodya banished to the forest and see if what he did is right. We will have to answer the following questions if we were to ascertain what's right/wrong.
1. What is the punishment to be meted to Vali for the trangressions made according to law
2. Is Rama as king of Ikshvaku empowered according to law to take action on Vali
Here I am assuming that we agree that in those days it was kings who sat and gave judgements according to dharmasastras.
So it would be good to read the full text for all of us and get conversant with Dharmasatras before making judgements.
Rgds
You seem to be emotional on Vali Vadham and also judgemental. You have concluded that Vali Vadham is a crime. It has to be decided based on law of the land. The argument is whether Rama followed the law of the land or not.
Let's approach this with facts that we agree on first and what the law of the land is at that point in time. Let's take Rama as the king of Ayodya banished to the forest and see if what he did is right. We will have to answer the following questions if we were to ascertain what's right/wrong.
1. What is the punishment to be meted to Vali for the trangressions made according to law
2. Is Rama as king of Ikshvaku empowered according to law to take action on Vali
Here I am assuming that we agree that in those days it was kings who sat and gave judgements according to dharmasastras.
So it would be good to read the full text for all of us and get conversant with Dharmasatras before making judgements.
Rgds
sangom
0
Dear Shri Janam,
I am sorry, I cannot understand exactly what you want to convey. Hence my comments may not be what you expect. The verse cited above by you, the meaning of which you say you know (I do know the complete meaning of the sanskrit verse), talks about eating (aSanam) fruits (phala) and roots (moola) only, and eating meat does not figure there at all, whereas Rama and co., started eating meat the very next day after crossing Sarayu. The point whether Kshatriyas were permitted to eat meat, only meat prepared by them during "vanavaasa", etc., are points not relevant to the present issue, which is, why Rama who is the emdodiment of truth and never swerving from his word (oka mATa, as Thyagaraja sings) did not say to Kausalya that he would eat meat also? It looks like he wanted to emphasize the pathos to his mother. Whatever that may be, Rama should have stuck to his words and eaten only fruits and roots once having spoken thus to his mother.
AFAIK our dharmasastras have not considered "vanavaasa" in their rules. Vaanaprastha, which seems to be a modified form of "vanaprastha" - one who has set out to the forest - is one of the four stages of life prescribed but after vaanaprastha one is not supposed to reenter worldly life, as Rama did. So the rules, if any, prescribed for Vaanaprastha will not apply here. Whether Rajaji cites any authority in support of his statement, " during vanavasam, they can only eat the fruits and vegetables and clean meat prepared by themselves only and not cooked by somebody...", I do not know. If he does not, how can we take his words for granted? Was he an authority on Dharmasastras?
Your idea is, once again, not clear. What is the likely linkage between "this current generations and previous generations are no saints" and " I do not always believe this"? To me it looks as if you discount all that is said by the current and previous "generations"; so from which generation or point of time would you repose your faith? Again, if you "do not always believe this", does it mean that you believe at times? If so why only occasionally, and not always?
These are very general statements and you have not adduced any evidence to support your claims. Even if allowing (but not accepting) your statement for the sake of discussion, why is generation after generation becoming worse? If I say that it is due to people having been taken for a ride for centuries on newer and newer gods, who have been depicted as increasingly compromising dharma for attaining certain objective (end justifies the means, as Krishna does on innumerable occasions) as per the design of the priesthood for meeting its own exigencies, will that not be a valid argument?
I concede that nature was less exploited in ancient times, but exploited it was. But just like an ant's bite on the rhinoceros' skin, no visible damage could be seen for a long long time. Burning விறகு for cooking, burning parts of forests for charcoal (கரியடுப்புக்கு), using large quantities of timber for dwellings (especially of the well-to-do), killing animals for sacrifice as well as routine food, polluting rivers by using the river for cleaning after the toilet, throwing dead bodies in the Ganges as per religious beliefs sanctified by the priesthood right from the days of the Puranas, etc., etc., have been there for centuries if not more. So who respected nature and whom to start believing? As western science, especially the medical science progressed, the longevity of humans increased tremendously, there were more mouths to be fed and more people wanted all the comforts possible and so the exploitation of nature also increased, that is all.
A false mark sheet, I believe will be an entirely cooked up one, not an interpolated thing, because such interpolations are easily detected now. If in the same way some body were to make a false Ramayana with the main outline intact (Dasaratha, 4 sons, marriage, vanavaasa, abduction, killing of Ravana and return to ayodhya for crowning) without any superhuman aspects of Rama, I would prefer such a "false" Ramayana!
You are saying that even if Ramayana is to teach the parents of today that there once existed தர்மம் நியாயம், "godifying" Rama is OK. But, first, why is it necessary to "godify"? The same result can be achieved by treating it as a moral poem and just that, very much like Aesop's fables and Panchatantra which will have better or at least equal appeal to the child's mind (I don't think by teaching today's parents any useful result will be achieved since their parents also had access to Ramayana and should have taught their children to lead a life like Rama) than the Ramayana without its halo.
Anyway by your own admission Ramayana has been ineffective in stemming the moral degradation of people over generations.
sangom
0
Dear Shri Samarapungavan,
I am not at all emotional about Vali vadha; I only mentioned the old incident narrated by Shri Sastri in which the audience became emotional. Probably you have transposed it on me! I did not say it was a crime. As regards being judgmental, yes, I am not convinced about the justifications of Rama's action in killing Vali from hiding.
Please let us not rush headlong. Which king sitting where and punishment for whom? Will you agree if Vali had killed Rama, and justified his action as retribution for his (Rama's) siding with Sugriva and hence, becoming Vali's enemy, as the king sitting (or standing!) and meting out punishment for working against the king (Vali himself)?
Hence, before we do what you propose, certain more fundamental points essential to the two a priori conclusions you seem to have made, have to be considered and agreed upon. I enumerate these below:
1. Do you agree that Rama's pattabhishekam (enthronement as king) was decided upon / announced by Dasaratha when Kaikeyi asked for fulfilment of the boons given to her in the past?
2. Was Rama to be enthroned as king of Ayodhya / Kosala?
3. What was the geographical extent of Kosala / Ayodhya? Did it cover Kishkindha?
4. Where, according to you, was Kishkindha situated? Was the Rishyamuka mounatin a part of Kishkindha? Do you agree that the present day Vijayanagara, more particularly the place Anegundi, near Hampi in koppal district, North Karnataka, is indicative of Kishkindha?
5. Who was the king of Ayodhya at the time of Vali vadha - Rama or Bharata? If you say Rama, pl. explain the basis? If he was king, what was the need for a second Pattabhishekam after his return from Lanka? Without being crowned, can any one be an acceptable king to the people, unless he is a conqueror?
6. In what way was Rama empowered to dispense the "law of the land" in Kishkindha? Which law did he dispense - Ayodhya's or Kishkindha's? In both cases what authority did Rama have to do so?
7. Was Vali a "vaanara"?
8. Was Vali the king of Kishkindha?
9. Were "vaanaras" of Kishkindha kingdom governed by the laws of Ayodhya? Were "vaanaras" governed by the Hindu Dharmasastras?
10. Was Rama crowned as king of Kishkindha in order that he may assume the role of law dispenser (whether it was the law of the Kishkindha land or Ayodhya land)?
11. Did not Rama make a pact with Sugriva to the effect that if Rama killed Vali and enthroned Sugriva as king of Kishkindha, Sugriva would in return help Rama in his search for Sita? If yes, was not the role of Rama in killing Vali, merely that of a mercenary (for kind, not cash) and not that of a conquering Kshatriya?
12. Since Vali could not have ever been killed by Rama in a dharma yuddha (straight, face-to-face fight), was not his action that of a mere mercenary, and nothing more? What right had he (Rama) to justify his action as dharmic, except that it was expedient for him to help Sugriva, a weakling compared to Rama, whereas Vali, who was invincible except in an ஒளிப்போர், might not have helped Rama?
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
Dear Shri sangom,
I heard somewhere that Dasaratha made a promise to Kaikeyi's father, as a condition for marrying Kaikeyi who was half his age, that a son through Kaikeyi will follow him to the throne, Is this mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana?
If this so, the very act of Dasaratha sending Bharatha away and then announcing a quick and hurried Pattabhishekam for Rama, seems quite suspicious.
Even if we permit, for the sake of discussion, the argument that Rama was only meting out justice according to law, what Dharmashashthra law allows sniper type meting out of justice?
Cheers!
sangom
0
O.K. now it is clear. The said Sloka means:
Know (viddhi) me (maam) [as one] [whose] food (aSanam) [will be] phala (fruits), moola (roots, tubers), [who will wear] sacred grass (kuSa), bark strip (cheera), hide of goat, antelope (ajinam), and [following] as laid down by dharma (dhaRme pRaNihitam) [living in] the forest limits (vana gOcharam) like ascetic (taapasa).
That is know me that I shall live within the forest limits, clad in grass, bark or hide, eating fruits and roots,
following the dictates of Dharma, as ascetic.
Here Rama not only does not mention meat-eating but adds that he will live the life of an ascetic, and since ascetics are not allowed to eat meat, Rama's eating meat is against his own words and against Taapasa dharma, inspite of the so-called justification by CR. It is at best only சப்பைக்கட்டு. Hence Rama broke dharma on the very first evening after entering the jungle!
sangom
0
Dear Nara,
You are correct. It is as under:
पुरा भ्रातः पिता नः स मातरम् तॆ समुद्वहन् ।
मातामहे समाश्रौषीद्राज्यशुल्कम् अनुत्तमम् ॥ अयो. ९९-३
(purA bhrAtaH pitA naH sa mAtaram te samudvahan|
mAtAmahe samASRousheed rAjyaSulkam anuttamam|| Ayodhya Kanda, 99-3)
Meaning is roughly,
Long ago, dear brother, our father, at the time of marrying your mother, had promised his father-in-law the ultimate in bride-price, the kingdom itself.
Rama narrates this past event to Bharata when the latter meets the former at Chitrkuta and tries to convince him to come back to Ayodhya and be the king and Bharata criticises Dasaratha's delusional action in submitting to the dictates of Kaikeyi, etc.
Your view is correct according to me. Dasaratha appears as a king without guts and also overcome by his infatuation for Rama, that he sends Bharata away to his uncle and announces Rama's Pattabhishekam, in a devious manner. But anyway, that's okay since Dasaratha does not claim to be Purushottama and personification of Dharma, as Rama is depicted.
Thank God, Dasaratha did not make a similar promise to Sumitra's father also, when he married for the third time since the other two were childless (for the same reason he married Kaikeyi, who was, as you rightly say, very young for him.)
Friends,
Regarding veg-nonveg issue - When the mankind were wandering in the forest before civilisation - they were eating everything raw . There were no differenciation between veg and non veg. Their only aim was to satisfy the stomach and sex. Later on only after inventiion of fire and wheel they began to eat cooked food ,and even after many years only started settled life.Then only Gothra and Kula came into existence. That means all our forefathers were non veg.
Regarding veg-nonveg issue - When the mankind were wandering in the forest before civilisation - they were eating everything raw . There were no differenciation between veg and non veg. Their only aim was to satisfy the stomach and sex. Later on only after inventiion of fire and wheel they began to eat cooked food ,and even after many years only started settled life.Then only Gothra and Kula came into existence. That means all our forefathers were non veg.
Greetings Sri Sangom,
caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam || 2-20-29
sa shhTchaaashhTau cha varshhaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
aasevamaano vanyaani phalamuulaishcha cartayan || 2-20-31
In the above verse, Rama clearly tells his mother that he would eat roots,fruits and honey.
I am interested to know the other times when Rama ate meat during the vanavaasam. (how many times he broke this particular vow!)
caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam || 2-20-29
sa shhTchaaashhTau cha varshhaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
aasevamaano vanyaani phalamuulaishcha cartayan || 2-20-31
In the above verse, Rama clearly tells his mother that he would eat roots,fruits and honey.
I am interested to know the other times when Rama ate meat during the vanavaasam. (how many times he broke this particular vow!)
sangom
0
Dear Janam,
To the best of my knowledge there are one or two more references, but this may not be correct. I would suggest that you go through the blogs of truthseeker to which I have referred in post No.12 in this thead; he gives the other references, which considered together would give the reader the impression that Rama & Co. were never interested in fruits/roots/honey. The blogger has even calculated (as a joke) how many animals would have been consumed during vanavaasa!
sangom
0
Dear Janam,
Somehow I omitted the following from my post #48 above.
caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam || 2-20-29
vatsyaami =I shall live vane =in forest, vijane =bereft of people munivat =like sage chaturdasha =fourteen varshhaaNi =years hitvaa =leaving off aamishham =meat, jiivan =living madhu muulaphalaiH= with honey, roots and fruits.
“I shall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and honey”.
Rama here makes a specific statement that he would live off meat!
Somehow I omitted the following from my post #48 above.
caturdasha hi varSaaNi vatsyaami vijane vane |
madhu muula phalaiH jiivan hitvaa munivad aamiSam || 2-20-29
vatsyaami =I shall live vane =in forest, vijane =bereft of people munivat =like sage chaturdasha =fourteen varshhaaNi =years hitvaa =leaving off aamishham =meat, jiivan =living madhu muulaphalaiH= with honey, roots and fruits.
“I shall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and honey”.
Rama here makes a specific statement that he would live off meat!
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Female cook wanted in karapakkam Rajiv Gandhi salaiNeed a part time female home cook in karapakkam chennai
- Krishna65 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Others] Daily food deliveryNeed daily Tamil Brahmin vegetarian food delivery at Electronic City in Bengaluru.. any pointers...
- ksr1561 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Fulltime care person neededLooking for a fulltime lady who can look after 80 yr old person who has dementia. She can manage...
- vashok (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Free [Bride Wanted] Bride WantedLooking for Bride - Family Oriented and brought up from Cultured Family
- SRIKANT S -(Bride Wanted) (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
