Ramayana is Real, Say Experts

[P.J.]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

auh sir

Probably you did not go through my entire reply, you Please go them my other evidences before you counter me.

 

[sangom]

Sir,

What you quote are instances of poetic excellence of Valmiki.

If you go through Kamba Ramayana there are more such instances of poetic excellence; or at least read once CNA's "Kambarasam". More interesting.

I hope you will not refuse to accept at least that there are morals also in Ramayana.

Again quoting the existence of "Kaamaththuppaal", no one will ever said "Thirukkural" is not teaching morals.

Shri yesmohan,

I am sorry that the two examples cited by me cannot be considered by any normal reader as bringing out "poetic excellence" of Valmiki."Poetic Excellence" means, in my view, excellence in the poetry part by means of 'alnkaras', use of words, rhymings, etc. In this case I have not furnished the relevant verses and I don't think you have gone through them. In case you have, kindly explain the lyrical, poetic, figures of speech, etc., due to which you say the above examples are 'poetic excellence'.

In any case, a poet/composer cannot start describing Pillayar and end up making that Pillayar into a Korangu! and then claim it is his "poetic excellence".

 

[renuka]

Valmiki Ramayan is indeed interesting to read..the flow is excellent that you can literally "see" the scenes unfold in your mind..so whatever said and done Valmiki is indeed a great mega serial poet.

I am enjoying every bit of Valmiki Ramayan that I am reading these days.

Just finised the Bala Kandam and could not help noticing a stark difference between Rama and the next avatar Krishna.

That is in Ramayana..Lord Rama hesitates to aim at Parashurama cos Parashurama is related to Vishwamitra.

Here Lord Rama gives in to relative sentiments cos Vishwamitra is the Mama of Parashurama.

But in Dwarpara Yuga..Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to go ahead and do his duty and fight and not give in to Mama/machan sentiments.

Wonder why the difference?

 

[sangom]

PJ sir,

Relax.

Perhaps you have not got the drift of the argument so far, and hence you deem, by yourselves, that Ramayana is solidly proved!

Well, you are most definitely wrong.

The sumerian story, which you have related need not be true at all. It is merely an interpolation and nothing else. When Megasthenes came to India, he found many similarities between the Greek myth of the Hydra and that of Kalinga (and between Hercules and Krishna, I think). Now this can either mean,

1)That hydra and kalinga are both imaginary, spun by different people in different regions
2)That hydra and kalinga are both imaginary but one has derived from the other, when a tribe separated and settled elsewhere
3)That hydra and kalinga did exist, separately, and the myths are the only proofs till date
4)That hydra and kalinga did exist, but as only one, and the names got split due to settlement elsewhere
5) Only one of them existed and the other was imaginary (and co-incidentally, are similar)

As you can see, interpolations and musings and inferences are only vague at best and can never provide a concrete proof.

Secondly, I hope you have the habit of reading novels. I will consider one as an example - "The day of the jackal by Frederick Forsyth". The thriller novel is based on real life events, based on the assassination attempt on Charles de gaulle. The novel depicts the political scenario, the places, the people etc in great and good detail. But for all that, the novel is, in essence a work of fiction. Imaginary.

Similarly, Valmiki could have travelled places and written about it in his story of Rama. Or there could be many Valmikis, who each contributed to the flora and fauna described in Ramayana. The point is that even though the scenes and period and even characters could be real, the main plot can be a work of fiction.

Just because there is a "murungai maram" in Vikramaditya stories, do you believe the story in which he is supposed to have lived a thousand years on a special "divine" throne gifted to him by Indra?

Proof is something that establishes an event (here, the Ramayana) without the need for any interpolation, and without leaving room for doubts. I wonder if there can be any proof for the Ramayana ! Especially, with tall claims about the divinity of Rama and Sita.

Rest assured that by critically questioning the epic, one need not necessarily belittle it.

Just the other day, you opened a thread in which people have built temples for Amitabh Bhaccan and Sachin Tendulkar. Such people would be least bothered by facts that point out that AB and ST are but normal people; for them, and in their pov, AB and ST are god! So is Rama to millions of hindus, perhaps. Fear not for such devotion is hardly moved by facts!



Best regards,

In the Aranya Kanda Chapter 109 verse 34, Rama refers to Buddha, the Tathagata. Hence, going by the arguments in support of real ramayana, I believe valmiki ramayana must be real and must have been composed after Buddha attained enlightenment and came to be referred to as Tathagata, or long before these things happened Valmiki must have seen these 'future' developments in his jnanadrishti. Do you agree?

 

[P.J.]

auh Sir

Please read my posts 49 also before replying

Those who have released papers on their findings about Sri Rama and Ramayana are highly qualified scholars, and members should know whether you have any such released any Thesis contesting Rama or Ramayana is only a Fiction?

Anyone can argue without any basis, or without any research work, saying Rama is a fictional Character, Ramayana is a hear say Story, but that will not convince learned members anywhere.

Please let the members know what are your research work on Ramayana and Sri Rama and whether any University, or Public Forum has accepted your findings and released it to public.

 

[auh]

In the Aranya Kanda Chapter 109 verse 34, Rama refers to Buddha, the Tathagata. Hence, going by the arguments in support of real ramayana, I believe valmiki ramayana must be real and must have been composed after Buddha attained enlightenment and came to be referred to as Tathagata, or long before these things happened Valmiki must have seen these 'future' developments in his jnanadrishti. Do you agree?

I believe you are referring to the below"

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

34. yathaahi tathaa hi = It is an exact state of the case; saH = that; buddhaH = a mere intellection; choraH = (is deserves to be punished) as a thief; viddhi = and know; naastikam = an atheist; atra = here; tathaagatam = to be on par with a mere intellectual; tasaat = therefore; yaH = he who; shaN^kya tamaH = is the most suspectable; prajaanaam = (should be punished in the interest of) the people; na syaat = In no case; buddhaH = should a wise man; abhimukhaH = consort; naastikaa = with an atheist.

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

* It is the word that is responding to the chanllenge, which we call intellection. Truth/God is very subtle. A mind that is caught in the net of words/arguments cannot understand truth/God.

I also checked and found that tathagatha has a meaning as "he who comes and goes in the same way". Hence, I am not sure if it could be inferred that Rama referred to "Gautama" Buddha.

Otoh, if it were to refer to GB, then I suppose what you have said above is a possibility. It could be also that the verse is an interpolation after (or during) the period of GB.

 

[P.J.]

So many evidences to Prove Sri Rama and Ramayana are Real

14 pictures that tell us Ramayana might have actually happened

http://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/ramayana-actually-happened/

Rama and the Ramayana- lessons in Dharma

http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~vemuri/classes/freshman/RamayanaSynopsis.htm

Did Ramayana really happened or it is just a Myth?

http://www.factshunt.com/2013/09/did-ramayana-really-happen-or-is-it.html

Astronomical date of the Ramayan

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/ramayan/rama_vartak.html

Proof and evidences of Ramayana in Sri Lanka

http://www.mallstuffs.com/Blogs/Blo...=Proof and Evidences of ramayana in sri lanka



I can go on adding more such research work to prove that Ramayana was actually happened

 

[auh]

auh sir

Probably you did not go through my entire reply, you Please go them my other evidences before you counter me.

auh Sir

Please read my posts 49 also before replying

Those who have released papers on their findings about Sri Rama and Ramayana are highly qualified scholars, and members should know whether you have any such released any Thesis contesting Rama or Ramayana is only a Fiction?

Anyone can argue without any basis, or without any research work, saying Rama is a fictional Character, Ramayana is a hear say Story, but that will not convince learned members anywhere.

Please let the members know what are your research work on Ramayana and Sri Rama and whether any University, or Public Forum has accepted your findings and released it to public.

The links you have given do not appear to give any infallible proof as to the existence of Rama of the Ramayana. Please re-read the links in light of what I have said in my earlier post.

As for proof:

Those who claim the fantastical should prove first that their tall claims are true. Merely stating a myth and stating that someone has to be qualified to criticize it is a hollow assertion. If I were to say that the jarawa tribe had the power to bring back the dead to life, thousands of years ago, with a special mantra, and that they have now gone forgotten the technique, would you believe it to be true?

The "learned" members start with the presumption that Ramayana is real, without realizing that they have to first prove it to believe it. When you first heard of Ramayana, what proof did you ask sir?

 

[auh]

So many evidences to Prove Sri Rama and Ramayana are Real

14 pictures that tell us Ramayana might have actually happened

http://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/ramayana-actually-happened/

Rama and the Ramayana- lessons in Dharma

http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~vemuri/classes/freshman/RamayanaSynopsis.htm

Did Ramayana really happened or it is just a Myth?

http://www.factshunt.com/2013/09/did-ramayana-really-happen-or-is-it.html

Astronomical date of the Ramayan

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/ramayan/rama_vartak.html

Proof and evidences of Ramayana in Sri Lanka

http://www.mallstuffs.com/Blogs/Blo...=Proof and Evidences of ramayana in sri lanka



I can go on adding more such research work to prove that Ramayana was actually happened

Which scientific body in the world has accepted that Ramayana is a real story and that Rama was a divine being (and that he went on to kill a ten headed Ravana)? With proof.

All the links point to inferences only. Merely piling on internet links do not constitute proof.

Sir, I have also noticed that you have no clarifications or counter to offer to my posts.

 

[P.J.]

Which scientific body in the world has accepted that Ramayana is a real story and that Rama was a divine being (and that he went on to kill a ten headed Ravana)? With proof.

All the links point to inferences only. Merely piling on internet links do not constitute proof.

Sir, I have also noticed that you have no clarifications or counter to offer to my posts.

auh sir

So you do not have any Scientific research papers released anywhere, nor you have any scholarly qualification to disprove Rama or Ramayana

Like you many will go on argue, it will never be accepted by the majority of Hindus.

So no point in continuing conversation with you any more

 

[auh]

auh sir

So you do not have any Scientific research papers released anywhere, nor you have any scholarly qualification to disprove Rama or Ramayana

Like you many will go on argue, it will never be accepted by the majority of Hindus.

So no point in continuing conversation with you any more

ha ha, this post is a joke.

That Ramayana happened is but a belief to begin with. On what bais did you assume that it is true in the first place. Your posts convey nothing except to evade any attempt to prove/disprove Ramayana.

You are now like - "These grapes are sour"

 

[P.J.]

ha ha, this post is a joke.

That Ramayana happened is but a belief to begin with. On what bais did you assume that it is true in the first place. Your posts convey nothing except to evade any attempt to prove/disprove Ramayana.

You are now like - "These grapes are sour"

you neither have any scholarly articles to show Rama and Ramayan are only a Fiction, nor you have any scholarly article written and released by you in the web;
I have shown many links in support my view, but you have none!!

Simply arguing for the sake arguing is like Child repeating the same argument.

If you have any accredited web articles in support of your view, we can continue our conversation, otherwise, i am not for that.

 

[tks]

With the advent of a scholarly section I will take more time to post on topics like Guru, Bhakthi etc which are relevant to the discussion here. Rather than wait let me respond here and connect the dots if needed later.

Shri tks,

You could not have asked anything more easier; let me elaborate below:

Deification is different, very different from reverence. From merely respecting an individual for his qualities, which might be healthy, when we start to ascribe god-like status, the individual gains the axis of attention; values become secondary. The disadvantage in the latter is that the follower tends to believe that he/she can do away with wrongdoings by being in the deity's favour. As an example, a devotee may pray to Rama early morning and go on to establish an unfair trade practice (perhaps, in his shop). He does so because he feels that Rama is god and hence flawless, but we are mortals and hence fallible. This is a common occurence we see in our daily life - the vast majority belong to this category. The idea that a value is important, is lost out in the extravagant glorification of the individual and his background; as is happening with the story of the Ramayana. And with Rama.

It is the same with other religions too - Jesus, as a historical figure is debatable as there are various accounts of his life. Jesus rose to godhood to propagate an ideal; unfortunately as we know now, christians are more focussed about being a christian than about unconditional love. They are more obsessed with a place in heaven than making the world a better place for the less fortunate.

About muslims, the less said the better. The idea of a god has terrible and far reaching consequences.

From among all the religions, and the religious, imo, only those who have surpassed the idea of a personal godhead would be able to have a true "samadarshanam". And for that we have to let go of gods and their aura.


I believe that the example above is more fit to be used as a case for my argument than yours.


Personification of an idea is dangerous. As an example, to say that "dharma" is important is ok provided we explain why; to say that Rama as a god, and he upheld dharma, and hence, dharma is important is mere foolishness. The moment one accepts Rama as god, dharma becomes secondary. This is how the mind works. How else, do you think, that this country of Ram-bhakts was subject to looting and marauding by outsiders; how can this country of Ram-bhakts become a cesspool of corruption and selfishness. It is because the "personification" stands, larger than life, between the devotee and "dharma".

If the example is making your point then we are in agreement or I have not communicated my point very well. I will try once more.

Much of humanity is in a state of delusion (a separate thread perhaps) and our scriptures help remove the delusion. This is the starting point of my thesis . Delusional worship is common place all over the world. One can use scriptures or worship a manifesto as it was in so called during the communist revolution.

With your example you just reiterated my point that "Ignorant deification degrades intellect! "

To make sure you do not superimpose the current delusional reasoning prevalent on scripture like Ramayana, I gave an example of the US constitution which happens to be not just a document.

It is an attempt at an ideal and is a product of intellectual activities of the mind. However its effectiveness in achieving certain results has to do with unlocking the emotive capacity of its citizens.

To care for my aging father couple of decades ago I had to become a US citizen. The first point of oath required was that I should be prepared to take arms (and be ready to die) to uphold the constitution of the USA. Here the value of the country and all its people is deliberately superimposed on this ideal, which has helped unlock the emotive power of its people. I will not elaborate more here since in another thread/post I plan to expand on this point.

The statue of liberty is another one on which the American idealism is overlayed.

In India we build temples and superimpose idealism on a Vigraha or image.

The magician God who will do anything is your view of God. It has no basis and if you dont believe such a model of God we are in agreement
I am also in agreement that you do not have a vision of Isvara as described in our scriptures which is subject to understanding

As an example, to say that "dharma" is important is ok provided we explain why; to say that Rama as a god, and he upheld dharma, and hence, dharma is important is mere foolishness. The moment one accepts Rama as god, dharma becomes secondary. This is how the mind works. How else, do you think, that this country of Ram-bhakts was subject to looting and marauding by outsiders;

To make sure there is clarity to my point, this kind of reasoning is by mind/intellect which therefore is incorrect at many levels. I could agree about how the mind could work with your line of reasoning. The point I am trying to communicate is a different paradigm altogether - What scriptures like Ramayana do when properly taught is to unlock the emotive capacity of a person.

From among all the religions, and the religious, imo, only those who have surpassed the idea of a personal godhead would be able to have a true "samadarshanam". And for that we have to let go of gods and their aura.

This idea of Samadharshanam cannot be achieved by anyone by intellectual reasoning alone. In fact it can be shown by detailed discussions to have no basis. Without true Bhakthi by intellectual wisdom alone this statement can be shown to be wrong. For that one needs lot more discussion. It cannot happen by delusional kind of Bhakti which will obviously lacking in the ability to assert wisdom/discrimination of a person.

To have more substantive debate you have to be able to understand the above even if you do not agree. If you are able to understand the points made which would require lot more infrastructure then we can pursue this line of discussion further. I am not asking you or anyone to believe the statements I made.

Coming back to the story of Ramayana, you have said that it "teaches the power of making and keeping commitments". The story is full of lopsided decisions taken by an emotional prince just to create a huge drama. Imagine if we had a king and a prince like Dasaratha and Rama. The father, just to please his wife, would banish the prince and himself die, leaving the kingdom helpless and thoroughly exposed to invasions, revolts and riots.

Commitments are important only in so far they serve the best interests of all or the majority - that is dharma. Not unilateral decisions taken by a monarch based on harem talk. The action of Rama is a wrong instance of dharma, I would say.

Moreover the single effect of Dasaratha caused a separation between wife and husband (Rama-Sita, Lakshamana-Urmila), besides making widows of his numerous wives!

We have to understand that Dharma is more important than Rama, but to do that first one has to cross over Rama.

The story when taught properly does not have any lopsided views except that one is free to project one's likes and dislikes on any story. In other words we see the world the way we are, not the way it is!

I do not know if you have managed a large organization (several layers of reporting structure with leaf node being very educated) and individual contact to each person in your organization is not possible.

Projecting my likes and dislikes on this scripture using my minimal experience, let me tell you how I understand what you call are lopsided decisions.

I used to care about what my organization did when I was not around (away even for extended business trips) than what they did when I was physically around.

This forces one to build the infrastructure needed to have resilience. In other words my goal was to make myself unnecessary. The unique duty of the role at the head of an organization is to actually create the right mission, vision, values, principles, detailed direction and help unlock the emotive capacity of the organization.

Only Mafia organizations and organizations like in Iraq are built wherein the person at the helm has to be present all the time. Otherwise the organization will go under.

What Rama and Dasaratha did in their own personal example communicates lot more forcefully to the country than what they did in day to day management. Children also learn from what we do not what we say or being in proximity.

So Dasaratha can die, Rama can leave and there are succession plans in place using modern jargons to explain the point.

Similarly Rama subjected himself and his wife Sita to lot more self scrutiny than he would do to others to serve as the role mode;

Today US President is bestowed with ability to pardon anyone and reverse court decision mandated punishments.

Our system of government world wide allows for a person to become billionaires. Less than 100 people area having more wealth today than many countries of the world combined - all done legally. In another era this will all be seen as lopsided.

A great king having the ability to give boon is understandable and we should not project our lopsided system to an era which is supposed to have happened 500 BCE or earlier.

Dharma is not an easy concept to understand - it is not about just justice as we understand. Only a scripture when taught properly can unlock the meaning which will mean the right message to one's intellect and to one's emotive capacity.

So the arguments about lopsided decisions are based on incorrect teaching and does not have anything to do with the scripture itself.

The above are pretty hard beliefs. And convincing as they may sound to you, contain no great secret. Perhaps if one were to diligently record all conversations that happen about god or isvara or brahman that happen in tamilbrahmins.com, then in another thousand years or so, if preserved, they might very well become another upanishad - tabra upanishad ! But this is besides the point we are discussing.

I started the discussion by saying that these are subjects that one can understand. A small sampling by me over two decades have taught me that understanding is easier but what is taking a long time is to shed wrong notions. If you come and say that is all hard beliefs without any other basis I accept your view. But I consider the statement itself to be a belief.

When it comes to a belief there are reasonable ones and does not contradict known knowledge (e.g., multiverse) vs unreasonable ones (e.g., someone created a gold ring from thin air). Your belief in this instance appears to be unreasonable to me and hence I cannot discuss this further.

Why should anyone do anything to a deity, when he knows not of its existence? How does lighting a lamp help him ipso facto, keeping aside his cultivated conditioning of what it means to him?

Teachings about dharma are always important, but why deification? You have not convincingly provided proof that deification of an idea, as in Ramayana, would be more helpful, than merely propagating the idea itself?

The mess of religions are proof enough of god and various deifications; we only have to open our minds and look around. What more does one need?

One has to understand that as human beings we have basic capacity of intellect, wisdom and emotive capacity. This point is central to understanding this topic area.
I have answered the questions in this post.

If there are substantive counter points that take into account what I have already stated here and earlier, I will be happy to respond.

Regardless, it is always fun to engage with you

Regards

PS: I type directly, when I am retired I will be writing with better grammar and better sentence structure!

 

[auh]

Shri tks,

Thanks for your time to respond and I appreciate it. I will now crunch your post to the extract and opine on them.

It seems to me that there are very many 'labels' that are used differently by you and me. For example, you use the term 'ignorant deification'; then I would understand to mean that there is something called 'enlightened deification'. And I would then venture to think that the 'enlightened' necessarily need not deify (though they may of their own volition). Are you in agreement with this line of reasoning? If not, there is something I am missing out.

About, bhakthi, perhaps, we need to define what it is before there can be any opinion on this.

By Samadarshanam, I meant a state of understanding of ourselves and the inter-relatedness with all the things around us, and not. One cannot have this status by being inclusive for then it would be delusional.

I also understand that you do not subscribe to the idea that a divinity like Rama or Krishna could have existed but perhaps you choose not to voice so since it is beneficial to those that believe, for they convey certain ideals.

Regarding the point about intellect: If you hold the view that there is something to be comprehended beyond intellect, then the onus is on you to prove it. Failing which it loses its locus standi. As you will understand, such a task is mutually contradictory.

When I extrapolate certain instances, it means I am only talking about probabilities (assuming that it is a valid possibility!) and hence it should not be wrongly inferred as my beliefs. Personally, I have revised my beliefs quite a few times, and have now completely erased it. I have no concrete beliefs but only a set of guidelines, built on the previous experiences of critical reasoning and feedback. I have been conversing with many in this forum with this mindset. And it does not mean that I am closed to new ideas that are logical and can be proved (within the confines of the subject matter we are talking about).

Now I will rest my case with the below:

The ideals spoken in epics like Ramayana or Mahabharatha belong to a period. It would therefore be wise to not think them as factual if one were to expand on the ideals. But the catch is that there are many contradicting actions by the heroes or 'dharmic' characters that would be subject to intense scrutiny by the current/future generation. One cannot ask anyone who reads it to have 'xyz' parameters of understanding on the epics for then it would remain hardly read, and thus lose its position as an emotive appeal (if you say so). (They will remain on the stands like another 'marvel' comic book.) The vast majority who read it will have innumerable doubts about the entirety of the supposedly divine characters and their results, and it is not practical to expect every reader to go to a gurukul or a guru to gain the true understanding of what it means. The majority, probably, would not be bothered.

Hence, deification probably might have worked in a previous era - of this also I am not sure since the vast majority of our countrymen are of dubious characters and morals, who will not hesitate to cheat the other in the blink of an eye if it were to favour him/her. The exception is, sadly, in the minority. With the trend of the generation to be more open minded, looking to throw back redundant rituals, customs and practices, deification will only hamper their thinking and lead to more harm than good. This is my considered opinion.

Best Regards,

P.S. When I retire, I probably will dictate the words, but that is a looooooong way off !

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

Thanks for your time to respond and I appreciate it. I will now crunch your post to the extract and opine on them.

1. It seems to me that there are very many 'labels' that are used differently by you and me. For example, you use the term 'ignorant deification'; then I would understand to mean that there is something called 'enlightened deification'. And I would then venture to think that the 'enlightened' necessarily need not deify (though they may of their own volition). Are you in agreement with this line of reasoning? If not, there is something I am missing out.

About, bhakthi, perhaps, we need to define what it is before there can be any opinion on this.

By Samadarshanam, I meant a state of understanding of ourselves and the inter-relatedness with all the things around us, and not. One cannot have this status by being inclusive for then it would be delusional.

2. I also understand that you do not subscribe to the idea that a divinity like Rama or Krishna could have existed but perhaps you choose not to voice so since it is beneficial to those that believe, for they convey certain ideals.

3. Regarding the point about intellect: If you hold the view that there is something to be comprehended beyond intellect, then the onus is on you to prove it. Failing which it loses its locus standi. As you will understand, such a task is mutually contradictory.

When I extrapolate certain instances, it means I am only talking about probabilities (assuming that it is a valid possibility!) and hence it should not be wrongly inferred as my beliefs. Personally, I have revised my beliefs quite a few times, and have now completely erased it. I have no concrete beliefs but only a set of guidelines, built on the previous experiences of critical reasoning and feedback. I have been conversing with many in this forum with this mindset. And it does not mean that I am closed to new ideas that are logical and can be proved (within the confines of the subject matter we are talking about).

Now I will rest my case with the below:

4. The ideals spoken in epics like Ramayana or Mahabharatha belong to a period. It would therefore be wise to not think them as factual if one were to expand on the ideals. But the catch is that there are many contradicting actions by the heroes or 'dharmic' characters that would be subject to intense scrutiny by the current/future generation. One cannot ask anyone who reads it to have 'xyz' parameters of understanding on the epics for then it would remain hardly read, and thus lose its position as an emotive appeal (if you say so). (They will remain on the stands like another 'marvel' comic book.) The vast majority who read it will have innumerable doubts about the entirety of the supposedly divine characters and their results, and it is not practical to expect every reader to go to a gurukul or a guru to gain the true understanding of what it means. The majority, probably, would not be bothered.

5. Hence, deification probably might have worked in a previous era - of this also I am not sure since the vast majority of our countrymen are of dubious characters and morals, who will not hesitate to cheat the other in the blink of an eye if it were to favour him/her. The exception is, sadly, in the minority. With the trend of the generation to be more open minded, looking to throw back redundant rituals, customs and practices, deification will only hamper their thinking and lead to more harm than good. This is my considered opinion.

Best Regards,

P.S. When I retire, I probably will dictate the words, but that is a looooooong way off !

Sri auh - Thanks for your response.

I numbered some of the section to respond to what you have stated/asked.

1. Yes, I am guilty of inventing labels but there is only one message - it is to separate delusion from reality.
Reality itself is not easy to understand though our scriptures do provide a precise definition. It is not obvious because one has to understand this reality from a state of delusion which is the starting point for all human beings.

Even the above assertion itself will seem hollow for most people and will be rejected. To know one is in delusion itself is a phenomenal step.

It does not mean we are delusional as in the case of a mental patient . The world we live NOT all imagined as in a dream.

Seeking superpowers to explain this seemingly world of opposites and contradiction with associated suffering is natural.

There are delusional way to thinking of this super power we can call God. With proper effort and study and as one begins to recognize what this delusion all means, the idea of God changes to one of understanding.

I use the word Isvara to denote the God that is understood. In fact it is the only reality there is. But it is discoverable and understandable.

I do not plan to debate this point and just making these statements without attempting to provide further clarity. For more I will refer to qualified teachers. The starting point for any effort is that one must want to see reality as reality I have purposefully not answered the exact question but provided the answer to what may be causing the question.

2. If someone asks you "Just say yes or no only - have you stopped beating your spouse". The only response possible is silence. Unless a question is well formed there are no answers. When the assumption inherent in a question is resolved the question itself becomes meaningless. That is the response to this point.

Having said this, I feel religion and idea of Isvara is a personal thing. If someone is able to relate to a God and believe in a scripture let them, provided their thinking does not cause harm to others. Similarly I respect the atheists and agnostics. I do not consider myself a theist or an atheist or an agnostics based on what I understand those terms to mean.

If someone 'beats up' someone else for their belief I feel I could jump in to shine light on the issues My weakness!

3. If you ask me to prove you have a head on your shoulder, how can I do that . Perhaps I can hold a mirror and explain how a mirror works. That is what our Sastras and qualified Gurus do. I am not a qualified teacher though I have never hesitated to share whatever little I know to anyone who is sincere and serious. That is why I take time to explain and be wordy (my weakness) . I do listen to learn and to provide a proper response. This forum itself has limitations and is not conducive for teaching.

4. Ithihasa means ' it happened like this' and is supposed to be based on historical figures and embellished by a poet. After all people could not be conversing in poems set to a meter! The author was not there when the characters were taking.

The embellishments add value and provide the reader to experience the Nava Rasas ! They cannot be therefore taken as a historical documents though they can refer to historical contexts like place and time. Their value does not lie in their historical accuracy of the place and time.

The fact that there are 'seeming contradictions is actually the strength of the Itihasas. One must have opportunity to debate and discuss for the profound meanings to sink in.
You are right that such a thing is not possible always as a starting point.

Therefore we have a notion called Shraddha which is loosely and incorrectly translated as faith. It is perfectly alright for a person to take the Shastras as truth in the beginning and make the effort to understand the seeming contradictions. Without Shraddha one would simply write off the story as nonsense and will not make the effort and therefore not gain any value. Later they will be able to discover how the seeming contradictions get resolved but most will not follow through. They may simply be happy to be delusional and feel they have Bhakthi.

Today we have a Bhakthi cult which is an easy way out for most people.

Mutts and other organizations need to invest in creating a teacher certification program.

In the absence of such a program, the delusional people will do delusional things with or without the scriptures. Today's youngsters in India's middle class and upper middle class are clueless for most part about any of the scriptures but they also want a magic God.

5. The cheating and adharma will continue and no can do anything about it. However all we can do is to invest in ourselves to come out of delusion. That act alone will have indirect help to many people in an enormous manner. All great leaders like Vivekananda, or Ramana Maharishi did not go out to make contributions to others. By their own effort for their own growth they ended up having enormously positive results for large number of people and will continue for generations.

Though I have no expectations about myself doing any good by anything I write here, I take the time to explain so that someone may get the same clarity I think I achieved in some limited areas. So the investment of enormous effort for personal growth could have indirect effect but I have no expectations.

Bottom line - Forget others, Just make effort to know that the world is in equilibrium and we are not driving anything but being driven. However we have the experience of free will which can be leveraged to come out of delusion

Peace!

 

[P.J.]

Dear Sri tks Sir

Proving whether Ramayana is real or not should be only on evidences , and i have given many evidences, supported by accredited articles; the members believe that Ramayana is only a Fiction have nothing to support their empty argument except repeating the same argument and criticizing morals taught in Ramayana.

Fortunately for themselves, they are in such a Forum where Free writing is allowed and majority of members keep away from such discussion knowing fully well that these few are not going to make even a small ripple in the ocean of believers.They are also fortunate that they are not posting their views in a any north Indian Forum, or any other South Indian Brahmin Forum, where i am sure they will be shown the door permanently.

 

[tks]

Dear Sri tks Sir

Proving whether Ramayana is real or not should be only on evidences , and i have given many evidences, supported by accredited articles; the members believe that Ramayana is only a Fiction have nothing to support their empty argument except repeating the same argument and criticizing morals taught in Ramayana.

Fortunately for themselves, they are in such a Forum where Free writing is allowed and majority of members keep away from such discussion knowing fully well that these few are not going to make even a small ripple in the ocean of believers.They are also fortunate that they are not posting their views in a any north Indian Forum, or any other South Indian Brahmin Forum, where i am sure they will be shown the door permanently.

Dear Sri PJ

You are one of the most active members contributing in many sections bringing topics of interest to all the members here. I have benefitted from your posts.
They also have helped to generate debates which in turn helps in more participation and thinking by the members.

There is tremendous diversity in human thinking which is why even in scientific communities there are widely different perspectives and theories to explain the same observation. There are scientists that think that climate change is not caused by human actions for example.

Value of epics like Ramayana in today's life can be shown unequivocally. Even some of the so called troublesome aspects (e.g., killing of Vali) can help to stimulate debates about what is Dharma. Debates and discussions are the only thing by which we learn how (and why, when ) we apply a universal principles in our lives. It will need good teachers to make this happen in our day today lives which is lacking.

I think almost everyone here will agree with the evidence you have gathered from various resources and presented that indeed the historical contexts referred to in Ramayana could be accurate.

The real question that people like Sri auh and Sri Sangom have put forth is the characterization of Sri Rama as a divine being. Also Sri Sangom has pointed to few verses in Valminiki Ramayanam that in his interpretation does not support the view that the historic figure may not be equated to a divine being.

I have two comments on this.

1. I think opposing views are useful for everyone to reach clarity provided the opposers do not have a hidden agenda due to their prejudice. What I mean is that some people have a hatred towards people of certain group - caste, race, place of origin, place of living, gender etc etc .

If there is no overt agenda then a debate is enhanced if one answers the queries.

With Sri auh I think I answered some of his concerns (I think though he may or may not be satisfied) and there are others he may want more information. The discussion did go into core of what we can consider as divinity etc though such a language was not used. It was only a respectful exchange. In the end I do not think anyone can change anyone's views or beliefs. We do not choose what to believe - it just happens. However good discussion and analysis can point us to the right direction even in the midst of our beliefs.

For those that are serious about self growth, which means they even recognize the problems of human existence, they may be impacted positively by such discussions about epics like Ramayana.

I plan to respond to Sri Sangom's post and his interpretation as well. Again the idea is not to change anyone's mind but enhance the debate and discussion by being specific and descriptive while responding the actual issues raised.

I do not think any more evidence of historical context will address their queries because their queries are about apparent contradictions within Ramayana in its message itself and in characterizing Sri Rama as an Avatara of God.

Regardless of outcome of any debate I want to thank you for enabling a good debate to be taking place

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri PJ

You are one of the most active members contributing in many sections bringing topics of interest to all the members here. I have benefitted from your posts.
They also have helped to generate debates which in turn helps in more participation and thinking by the members.

There is tremendous diversity in human thinking which is why even in scientific communities there are widely different perspectives and theories to explain the same observation. There are scientists that think that climate change is not caused by human actions for example.

Value of epics like Ramayana in today's life can be shown unequivocally. Even some of the so called troublesome aspects (e.g., killing of Vali) can help to stimulate debates about what is Dharma. Debates and discussions are the only thing by which we & how learn why and how we apply a universal principle in our lives. It will need good teachers to make this happen in our day today lives which is lacking.

I think almost everyone here will agree with the evidence you have gathered from various resources and presented that indeed the historical contexts referred to in Ramayana could be accurate.

The real question that people like Sri auh and Sri Sangom have put forth is the characterization of Sri Rama as a divine being. Also Sri Sangom has pointed to few verses in Valminiki Ramayanam that in his interpretation does not support the view that the historic figure may not be equated to a divine being.

I have two comments on this.

1. I think opposing views are useful for everyone to reach clarity provided the opposers do not have a hidden agenda due to their prejudice. What I mean is that some people have a hatred towards people of certain group - caste, race, place of origin, place of living, gender etc etc .

If there is no overt agenda then a debate is enhanced if one answers the queries.

With Sri auh I think I answered some of his concerns (I think though he may or may not be satisfied) and there are others he may want more information. The discussion did go into core of what we can consider as divinity etc though such a language was not used. It was only a respectful exchange. In the end I do not think anyone can change anyone's views or beliefs. We do not choose what to believe - it just happens. However good discussion and analysis can point us to the right direction even in the midst of our beliefs.

For those that are serious about self growth, which means they even recognize the problems of human existence, they may be impacted positively by such discussions about epics like Ramayana.

I plan to respond to Sri Sangom's post and his interpretation as well. Again the idea is not to change anyone's mind but enhance the debate and discussion by being specific and descriptive while responding the actual issues raised.

I do not think any more evidence of historical context will address their queries because their queries are about apparent contradictions within Ramayana in its message itself and in characterizing Sri Rama as an Avatara of God.

Regardless of outcome of any debate I want to thank you for enabling a good debate to be taking place

Shri tks,

We both know that we have contrarian views on this topic. Yet I have to congratulate you for you measured and mature post. My congratulations for the same.

Putting my own views about Valmiki Ramayana, may I say that even if incontrovertible evidences are brought forth, for Shri Rama having lived actually and walked this earth, the way Valmiki has depicted Rama is at best as a hero (and that too a hero from the north of India) who was able to garner the unstinted (and blind) support of ape-like south indians and could vanquish a powerful enemy king who kidnapped Sita and held her in captivity, compelling her to become his wife. This story outline does not come out as anything more than a hero's biography. A later, and more recent example of such folk hero turning into a deity or god is Ayyappa of Sabarimala. We have another and slightly older example of another hero "eeThala" turning into Vitthala of Pandharpur.

Ayyappa was a folk hero of the malai arayans of the Sabarimala area whereas eeThala was a folk hero of the masses of the Karnataka-Maharashtra border areas.

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

We both know that we have contrarian views on this topic. Yet I have to congratulate you for you measured and mature post. My congratulations for the same.

Putting my own views about Valmiki Ramayana, may I say that even if incontrovertible evidences are brought forth, for Shri Rama having lived actually and walked this earth, the way Valmiki has depicted Rama is at best as a hero (and that too a hero from the north of India) who was able to garner the unstinted (and blind) support of ape-like south indians and could vanquish a powerful enemy king who kidnapped Sita and held her in captivity, compelling her to become his wife. This story outline does not come out as anything more than a hero's biography. A later, and more recent example of such folk hero turning into a deity or god is Ayyappa of Sabarimala. We have another and slightly older example of another hero "eeThala" turning into Vitthala of Pandharpur.

Ayyappa was a folk hero of the malai arayans of the Sabarimala area whereas eeThala was a folk hero of the masses of the Karnataka-Maharashtra border areas.

Sri Sangom

Thank you for your comments.

That is the reason I was saying that deifying that happens to an ideal and deliberately superimposed on a human form (even if it is a historical person) can be helpful.

Deifying a real person requires history of miracles as in biblical religion. Their religion is defined entirely by history and history centricity is core to their existence.

In India we never paid attention to recording history, and the ideals are personified and superimposed on human form (which again is a concoction of an artist).

My only take is that epics like Ramayana in the hands of a right teacher can have a tremendously positive effect

Regards

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

We both know that we have contrarian views on this topic. Yet I have to congratulate you for you measured and mature post. My congratulations for the same.

Putting my own views about Valmiki Ramayana, may I say that even if incontrovertible evidences are brought forth, for Shri Rama having lived actually and walked this earth, the way Valmiki has depicted Rama is at best as a hero (and that too a hero from the north of India) who was able to garner the unstinted (and blind) support of ape-like south indians and could vanquish a powerful enemy king who kidnapped Sita and held her in captivity, compelling her to become his wife. This story outline does not come out as anything more than a hero's biography. A later, and more recent example of such folk hero turning into a deity or god is Ayyappa of Sabarimala. We have another and slightly older example of another hero "eeThala" turning into Vitthala of Pandharpur.

Ayyappa was a folk hero of the malai arayans of the Sabarimala area whereas eeThala was a folk hero of the masses of the Karnataka-Maharashtra border areas.

Sri Sangom - one more comment ! Sometimes it may not be wise to dig into the history too much. It is like going to a restaurant and peeking in the kitchen. The nice presentation may be masked by feelings of how the food was prepared

Luckily Hindus do not have recorded history for standard deities. Except for Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, most ancient deities look like human beings but with 4 hands etc. The historical analysis of personification of an ideal can never lose the aura of divinity .

However more recently, there are godmen who have resorted to miracles in order to be worshipped. Not sure how history will shape the worship of such people in the future, say 500 years from now

 

[sarang]

However more recently, there are godmen who have resorted to miracles in order to be worshipped. Not sure how history will shape the worship of such people in the future, say 500 years from now

Depends on whether the institutions and traditions these satgurus established survive, have worthy disciples who take on the mantle of the guru, and continuity is maintained. We have several shaivite and vashnavite mutts which have enviable continuity. Rajneesh ashram has no spiritual head approved by rajaneesh, so it will not survive. Sai, ma amrutanandamayi or srisri may survive for a couple of generations, with no one to head and perpetuate their philosophy.

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom - one more comment ! Sometimes it may not be wise to dig into the history too much. It is like going to a restaurant and peeking in the kitchen. The nice presentation may be masked by feelings of how the food was prepared

Luckily Hindus do not have recorded history for standard deities. Except for Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, most ancient deities look like human beings but with 4 hands etc. The historical analysis of personification of an ideal can never lose the aura of divinity .

Shri tks,

The point I wish to emphasize is not whether Rama can or cannot be deified, but only that the Rama as he comes out in the Valmiki Ramayana just does not appear to be good enough for the purpose. It is however good that most hindus do not know Valmiki's Ramayana well and are satisfied with some regional version, in most of which Rama has been assiduously elevated into a god-like character.

I also feel that even if there was a certain Rama known to the masses in the misty past before the vedas even, the character presented by Valmiki was not one of a deified Rama but, at best, a hero king.

However more recently, there are godmen who have resorted to miracles in order to be worshipped. Not sure how history will shape the worship of such people in the future, say 500 years from now

We are living in an era when religion is pure business. Hence any of these godmen/godwomen who get, even fortuitously, a manager with good business acumen, will stand to gain and may eventually end up as yet another avatara of Vishnu; the only thing to do will be to create an asura or rakshasa who was destroyed by the said avatara!

Already Satya Sai Baba's successor in a border village of Karnataka is drawing huge crowds and a hall with facilities much more glittering and ostentatious has been built for this successor at a cost of hundred crores or more!

 

[CHANDRU1849]

However more recently, there are godmen who have resorted to miracles in order to be worshipped. Not sure how history will shape the worship of such people in the future, say 500 years from now

Such miracles were performed in Rama's and Krishna's time also. We cannot deny that Rama and Krishna had put a solid foundation for creation of godmen, and in some cases godwomen also, at periodic intervals.

The present day godmen may not have following after 500 years but there will be no shortage of godmen and godwomen at that time, as we are known for producing such people every 50 or 100 years.

 

[P.J.]

Sri tks Sir

Your post no 67 is appreciated

You got lot of knowledge and patience to explain the Greatness of Sri Rama and Ramayana


When the OP itself is based on expert opinion, anyone countering it must be equally an expert and they must have published accredited article well received by scholars and professional in the field of religion.

These two members are arguing without any expertise and they look like persons trying to make rope out of sea shore sand .


Many number of Articles are written by well known scholars and published in the web

Lessons on Dharma- Developed by Jean Johnson, New York University.

http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~vemuri/classes/freshman/RamayanaSynopsis.htm

Lessons from Ramayana- Righteousness and Tolerance
http://www.wisdomtimes.com/blog/lessons-from-ramayana-righteousness-and-tolerance/

Moral lessons you can learn from Ramayana

http://cvrajan.hubpages.com/hub/Moral-lessons-you-can-learn-from-Ramayana

Corporate Lessons from Ramayana

http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/corporate-lessons-from-ramayana

Lessons of Indian Epics: Following Dharma

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/lessons-indian-epics-following-dharma

and many more web publications


Timeless wisdom contained in Ramayana and the Mahabharata – continue to hold the subcontinent under their sway even centuries after they were written.

Argument can not go to the the lowest level when a member urges youth not to follow the lessons from Ramayana.

If a member does not appreciate the wisdom as told in Ramayana, he can just ignore reading it.

Sanskrit Language has many hidden meaning and Valmiki's Ramayanna is written in Sanskrit only.

Many of us are not well versed with this language of Sanskrit and a members catching a few phrases from here and there ( says from Ramayana, he has not given any link to it) gives a meaning which may not be accurate also.

ultimately what matters is this: Whether Sri Rama is an Avatar or not, is to be decided by Millions of Hindus.

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

The point I wish to emphasize is not whether Rama can or cannot be deified, but only that the Rama as he comes out in the Valmiki Ramayana just does not appear to be good enough for the purpose. It is however good that most hindus do not know Valmiki's Ramayana well and are satisfied with some regional version, in most of which Rama has been assiduously elevated into a god-like character.

I also feel that even if there was a certain Rama known to the masses in the misty past before the vedas even, the character presented by Valmiki was not one of a deified Rama but, at best, a hero king.


We are living in an era when religion is pure business. Hence any of these godmen/godwomen who get, even fortuitously, a manager with good business acumen, will stand to gain and may eventually end up as yet another avatara of Vishnu; the only thing to do will be to create an asura or rakshasa who was destroyed by the said avatara!

Already Satya Sai Baba's successor in a border village of Karnataka is drawing huge crowds and a hall with facilities much more glittering and ostentatious has been built for this successor at a cost of hundred crores or more!

Sri Sangom -

Belief is a strange thing - it cannot be taught or mandated.
Our Upanishad do not rely on belief as is commonly understood by the term.

What a society needs for its upliftment are role models to unlock the emotive power of the masses.
An ideal is something that many people can rally on which uplifts everyone.

Ramayana, regardless of what version, can be useful to personify complex ideas like Dharma and make them realizable for ordinary people.
Even Rajaji's சக்ரவர்த்தி திருமகன் will do for this purpose. There are not many epics that has the capacity to bring out the best in people when taught properly.
But it is not a scripture that some will resonate with.

When it comes to religion and God it is a personal thing for an average person. Live and let live is the best policy and the most respectful thing to do - provided they are not out to convert others to their thinking.

For those that want to read Valmiki Ramayana there is more discussion needed to see if there better interpretation that explains what may be viewed as troublesome verses.
For example there are verses about meat consumption.

In an era where people rewrite history all the time with their own biographies, it is admirable that a a volume of work has maintained its form seemingly over 2500 years or more. There was no attempt to change any verses it seems. At best people created their own version of Ramayana. This speaks to the greatness of Hindu thinking in my view.

There are many that take Sri Rama as an Avatara personifying Dharma. I think there are ample descriptions from even Valmiki Ramayana to support the case of Dharmic thinking. If there are troublesome aspects it is possible to have conversations about them. This will promote thinking as opposed to blind belief.

In other words it is possible to use Ramayana as a useful scripture for the country of India to rise to great heights leveraging the followers. They need to know that Upasana of Sri Rama means leading a corrupt free life regardless of what others do.

In the absence of a thinking culture, the delusional Bhakthi will take over resulting in further deterioration of mind.

I did not know about this Sathya Sai Baba's successor. Wow !