Tambrams should embrace Ravana as their own- not reject him

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Rama and Ravana have been discussed in hundreds of debates. It shows the Indian fascination for mythology. There are also a hundred ramayanas or more.
The popular story is that Ravana kidnapped Sita, Rama's wife. Is this correct? In the modern context it is wrong , so it is silly in my view to justify ravana's actions.
Rama was well within his right to kill Ravana.
In my view he was well within his right to reject Sita, ( are we not reminded of the modern context of divorce). Though we see it as morally unacceptable for him to test Sita. Sita I would assume had the option to go where she liked. This action of Rama, makes us question his open-mindedness.

Did Rama ascertain Sita's view before waging a war with Ravana. As per Valmiki Ravana he did through Hanuman as a messenger.

So atleast if we are following the story of the popular Ramayanas, I think the case against Ravana atleast is wrapped up. It would be silly for us to defend Ravana in today's context.

I feel these discussions on supporting Ravana is only likely to infuriate the people of the cow-belt and is best avoided. Why is there a need for the TB forum to embrace Ravana when he was rejected by their own ancestors. I myself do not see any sense in the support of Ravana by dravidian movement.

I can understand the case of Shoorpanaka or Sita or Vali. But Ravana? No way it is idle talk.

 

[ashwin_ash]

my grandmother, always told me, that being saivites, we are closer to ravanan, than to raman. ravanan was a poonal wearing brahmin whereas rama was a meat eating kshatriya. (anyone remember the deer being killed at sitha's request)?

yet there was no image of ravana in her household, only rama - at pattabishekam.

Even I think the same...Ravana wore the poonool and was vegetarian (in Sri Lanka they consider him a veggie, dunno about India), Rama liked the "choicest meats" his wife cooked for him. Maybe this is why tambrams are headed towards extinction (iyers atleast, iyengars will survive by converting all NBs to their caste..one of the foremost iyengar preacher is DA Joseph lol), because they choose the wrong gods to worship, and hence are denied blessings.

 

[ashwin_ash]

Rama and Ravana have been discussed in hundreds of debates. It shows the Indian fascination for mythology. There are also a hundred ramayanas or more.
The popular story is that Ravana kidnapped Sita, Rama's wife. Is this correct? In the modern context it is wrong , so it is silly in my view to justify ravana's actions.
Rama was well within his right to kill Ravana.
In my view he was well within his right to reject Sita, ( are we not reminded of the modern context of divorce). Though we see it as morally unacceptable for him to test Sita. Sita I would assume had the option to go where she liked. This action of Rama, makes us question his open-mindedness.

Did Rama ascertain Sita's view before waging a war with Ravana. As per Valmiki Ravana he did through Hanuman as a messenger.

So atleast if we are following the story of the popular Ramayanas, I think the case against Ravana atleast is wrapped up. It would be silly for us to defend Ravana in today's context.

I feel these discussions on supporting Ravana is only likely to infuriate the people of the cow-belt and is best avoided. Why is there a need for the TB forum to embrace Ravana when he was rejected by their own ancestors. I myself do not see any sense in the support of Ravana by dravidian movement.

I can understand the case of Shoorpanaka or Sita or Vali. But Ravana? No way it is idle talk.

As for the Dravidian movement, they snatched Ravana as a Brahminical symbol, and converted him as one of their own, thus trying to deny Brahmins a powerful idol to emulate. But the good part is, Iyers and other Saiva Brahmins are becoming more aware of their heritage and are atleast making efforts to reclaim their symbols. An example, though out of context, would be Rajasthan Brahmins who use the very violent Parasurama as their idol.

However, Shaivite Brahmins need to do more, and make use of the imagery of their powerful ancestors such as Parasurama and Ravana (even though he might have been a mythological character, he was the epitome of power and manhood) to avoid extinction.

 

[renuka]

Rama and Ravana have been discussed in hundreds of debates. It shows the Indian fascination for mythology. There are also a hundred ramayanas or more.
The popular story is that Ravana kidnapped Sita, Rama's wife. Is this correct? In the modern context it is wrong , so it is silly in my view to justify ravana's actions.
Rama was well within his right to kill Ravana.
In my view he was well within his right to reject Sita, ( are we not reminded of the modern context of divorce). Though we see it as morally unacceptable for him to test Sita. Sita I would assume had the option to go where she liked. This action of Rama, makes us question his open-mindedness.

Did Rama ascertain Sita's view before waging a war with Ravana. As per Valmiki Ravana he did through Hanuman as a messenger.

So atleast if we are following the story of the popular Ramayanas, I think the case against Ravana atleast is wrapped up. It would be silly for us to defend Ravana in today's context.

I feel these discussions on supporting Ravana is only likely to infuriate the people of the cow-belt and is best avoided. Why is there a need for the TB forum to embrace Ravana when he was rejected by their own ancestors. I myself do not see any sense in the support of Ravana by dravidian movement.

I can understand the case of Shoorpanaka or Sita or Vali. But Ravana? No way it is idle talk.

Its not idle talk..it might make some good story for some movie..well may be like this..we can have a movie where some guy unearths some Ancient Mahabharat book and opens and reads it.
But he forgets to read the fine print warning at the 1st page that says "Read with caution..do not make any wish as you read"

And this guy doesnt read that warning and reads the Mahabharat he found and at the same time wishes how would it have been if Raavan was also in the battle field of the Kurus and next moment everything comes to life..

the whole battle begins but wait a sec..Raavan doesnt remember much but gets back some of his memory when he sees the Kapidwaja(Monkey flag) of Arjuna's chariot.
But some how Draupadis looks remind him of Sita and he is yet again in his mission to get a female and the Pandavas have a real powerful enemy this time!!
So we can slot in some of the story by Jaykay as flash back scenes.

So what happens next in the battle of Ra One(Raavan) and Panch Five(Pandavas)??

 

[ashwin_ash]

Hmm..sounds funny...but see or read Cho's enge brahmanan...scary because Cho's done his research..and implies that Tambrams might be headed towards extinction in the not too distant future unless they regain awareness about their rich heritage, violent and non-violent. You might also be interested in knowing that Mahatma Gandhi, that most peaceful man, wrote his own version of the Bhagavad Gita (it sells well even today) and never says that using violence to protect one's Dharma is wrong.

 

[renuka]

Hmm..sounds funny...but see or read Cho's enge brahmanan...scary because Cho's done his research..and implies that Tambrams might be headed towards extinction in the not too distant future unless they regain awareness about their rich heritage, violent and non-violent. You might also be interested in knowing that Mahatma Gandhi, that most peaceful man, wrote his own version of the Bhagavad Gita (it sells well even today) and never says that using violence to protect one's Dharma is wrong.

Ahimsa paramo dharma, Dharma himsa tathaiva ca.

('Non - Violence is the greatest Dharma,So too is all righteous violence')

 

[ashwin_ash]

Iyers and Brahmins are supposed to be pure vegetarian, Hitler was vegan, Pol Pot of Cambodia was a vegan, Cain who murdered Abel was a vegetarian, Genghis Khan was vegetarian, Parasurama a veggie, Ravana too...ha ha ha..wonder why Brahmins have to be peaceful, and let others mock them...in cinema and in real life too.

 

[renuka]

Hmm..sounds funny...but see or read Cho's enge brahmanan...scary because Cho's done his research..and implies that Tambrams might be headed towards extinction in the not too distant future unless they regain awareness about their rich heritage, violent and non-violent. You might also be interested in knowing that Mahatma Gandhi, that most peaceful man, wrote his own version of the Bhagavad Gita (it sells well even today) and never says that using violence to protect one's Dharma is wrong.

Just one more thing..everyone is supposed to be "extinct" eventually isnt it when we gain spiritual insight?
I mean that we should discard all forms of bodily identification etc including caste,race,religion etc..so why worry about leaving any legacy behind?

just come to this world..do what we have to do and exit.

 

[renuka]

Iyers and Brahmins are supposed to be pure vegetarian, Hitler was vegan, Pol Pot of Cambodia was a vegan, Cain who murdered Abel was a vegetarian, Genghis Khan was vegetarian, Parasurama a veggie, Ravana too...ha ha ha..wonder why Brahmins have to be peaceful, and let others mock them...in cinema and in real life too.

I dont really feel being vegetarian has that much influence on our mind.I am also a veg but my mind can run in all directions even weird directions which I dont see in my more meek non vegetarian friends.

 

[ashwin_ash]

I dont really feel being vegetarian has that much influence on our mind.I am also a veg but my mind can run in all directions even weird directions which I dont see in my more meek non vegetarian friends.

Hmm..your insights are interesting...and by extinction, I meant it will be sad if there comes a day when Tambrams as a race cease to exist. Life is interesting, why gain spiritual insight too early? Why are there different races like Chinese, white, black, indian, brahmin, vaisya, sudra etc etc? Why aren't all plants and animals the same? Why do we have lions, elephants, tigers, banyan, coconut, oak, cypress etc? I hope you get my point here. Diversity is what makes life interesting..the thought of one race disappearing is not too pleasant..hence all the allusions and imageries..

 

[Nara]

!

....Both Ram and Ravan, are imo great spirits, great souls...perhaps each one of them can deliver what an individual seeks. ...

I am not too impressed with Rama, he was too uptight about a promise even his father did not want to keep. He didn't value his woman's love and cared more for what others may think. But, none of this can make what Ravana did anything a vie bit better than totally contemptible.

It is silly to question whether Sita went willingly or not. The only account we have are stories told and retold, and they all say Ravana abducted her. Now, those who express any sympathy for this monster Ravana need to have their head examined.

Those who see similarities with Illiad must account for the fact Helen was the wife of the brother of the king, not the king himself and that she went willingly not abducted. We can't just change the story of Sita and force fit it with Illiad to suit one's pet theory. If this can be permitted, why not change the story of Helen and say the reality was that Helen was really abducted by Paris, and that she was deeply in love with Menelaus.

IMO, it does not matter how we view Rama, I for one think Rama was a wimp and didn't stand by the woman who loved him dearly, but what Ravana did was evil. To abduct a woman against her will cannot be just glossed over. Anybody who expresses any sympathy, let alone adoration, for what Ravana did is plain and simple stupid and crazy.

To me, all this is not about Rama or Ravana, it is about Sita. She loved Rama. Ravana tried to take her away. Rama cared more about his own honor that she sent her away when she was pregnant. So, I say to all those who are talking about Rama or Ravana, you people are sick. Look at the story from Sita's POV. The two men in her story were asses in their own ways. Those who try to admire either of them deserves to be despised.

Cheers!

 

[Jaykay767]

I am not too impressed with Rama, he was too uptight about a promise even his father did not want to keep. He didn't value his woman's love and cared more for what others may think. But, none of this can make what Ravana did anything a vie bit better than totally contemptible.

It is silly to question whether Sita went willingly or not. The only account we have are stories told and retold, and they all say Ravana abducted her. Now, those who express any sympathy for this monster Ravana need to have their head examined.

Those who see similarities with Illiad must account for the fact Helen was the wife of the brother of the king, not the king himself and that she went willingly not abducted. We can't just change the story of Sita and force fit it with Illiad to suit one's pet theory. If this can be permitted, why not change the story of Helen and say the reality was that Helen was really abducted by Paris, and that she was deeply in love with Menelaus.

IMO, it does not matter how we view Rama, I for one think Rama was a wimp and didn't stand by the woman who loved him dearly, but what Ravana did was evil. To abduct a woman against her will cannot be just glossed over. Anybody who expresses any sympathy, let alone adoration, for what Ravana did is plain and simple stupid and crazy.

To me, all this is not about Rama or Ravana, it is about Sita. She loved Rama. Ravana tried to take her away. Rama cared more about his own honor that she sent her away when she was pregnant. So, I say to all those who are talking about Rama or Ravana, you people are sick. Look at the story from Sita's POV. The two men in her story were asses in their own ways. Those who try to admire either of them deserves to be despised.

Cheers!

Dear Nara,

Let me give you more inputs on this. Read my posts under religion to see the comprehensive connection between Ramayana & Troy.

Lanka/Troy controlled all sea routes, protected by invincible Walls & Warrier Princes - Indrajit/Hector.
Wife is kidnapped, triggers an extra-ordinary war !
Indrjit/Hector both kill Lakshmana & Achilles (in the form of Patroclus).
Achilles gets a shield from God to fight Hector (read the original Homer's story), Lakshmana goes to Indra & gets a protective Shield & Spear.
Ravana/Priam are defeated only after thier invincible sons are killed.
Helen/Sita are NOT harmed in Lanka/Troy
Ravana/Paris are both called Tripura Sundara - most handsome man in the 3 worlds !!
Greek kings gang up to fight with Priam/Hector. Similarly Rama gangs up with Sugriva/others to fight Ravana.
Lanka exists till today, all places in Ramayana exists in india. But Troy does not exist - confirmed by the Greek themselves & by modern researchers. Infact it was considered silly to go to war for a wife in Greek/Rome !! - read the many analysis on Troy !! But it is very plausible in a tribal/clan dominated India !

So Troy has to be the Lanka Version of Ramayana. Just becos some characters are different does NOT invalidate this thesis !!

Cheers !

 

[renuka]

I am not too impressed with Rama, he was too uptight about a promise even his father did not want to keep. He didn't value his woman's love and cared more for what others may think. But, none of this can make what Ravana did anything a vie bit better than totally contemptible.

It is silly to question whether Sita went willingly or not. The only account we have are stories told and retold, and they all say Ravana abducted her. Now, those who express any sympathy for this monster Ravana need to have their head examined.

Those who see similarities with Illiad must account for the fact Helen was the wife of the brother of the king, not the king himself and that she went willingly not abducted. We can't just change the story of Sita and force fit it with Illiad to suit one's pet theory. If this can be permitted, why not change the story of Helen and say the reality was that Helen was really abducted by Paris, and that she was deeply in love with Menelaus.

IMO, it does not matter how we view Rama, I for one think Rama was a wimp and didn't stand by the woman who loved him dearly, but what Ravana did was evil. To abduct a woman against her will cannot be just glossed over. Anybody who expresses any sympathy, let alone adoration, for what Ravana did is plain and simple stupid and crazy.

To me, all this is not about Rama or Ravana, it is about Sita. She loved Rama. Ravana tried to take her away. Rama cared more about his own honor that she sent her away when she was pregnant. So, I say to all those who are talking about Rama or Ravana, you people are sick. Look at the story from Sita's POV. The two men in her story were asses in their own ways. Those who try to admire either of them deserves to be despised.

Cheers!

Very surprising to see a man looking at things from a female's POV!!LOL
Funny post thats all I can say.

 

[ashwin_ash]

Personally, I admire Ravana as a Brahmin who poked his fingers in the eyes of a non brahmin, and also taught him a lesson. Ditto to Parasurama.

 

[ashwin_ash]

And Ravana also needs to be admired because he's a Brahmin who kicked Shani and broke his leg for life (Shani limps, thats why he moves so slowly).

 

[renuka]

Sita had every chance to escape if she wanted.
When Hanuman offered to take her back to Rama..she refused cos she wanted Rama to come kill Raavan.

If she had accepted Hanumans offer of transporting her to Rama..she could have avoided loss of lives of many and also its better for Rama cos he does stand a risk of being wounded by Raavan too.

And if Rama had still requested the fire ordeal then Sita had an option to decide what she really she wanted..

1)To go thru the test for the sake of Rama

2)To go back to Lanka and be Raavan's queen

3)To say bye to both Rama and Raavan and head back to her fathers place.


P.S..this posts of mine is purely for discussion purposes that is if Ramayan was just a story.
I do not intend to disrespect Rama,Sita or Ravan as I hold all 3 with high regard.

 

[Jaykay767]

Sita had every chance to escape if she wanted.
When Hanuman offered to take her back to Rama..she refused cos she wanted Rama to come kill Raavan.

If she had accepted Hanumans offer of transporting her to Rama..she could have avoided loss of lives of many and also its better for Rama cos he does stand a risk of being wounded by Raavan too.

And if Rama had still requested the fire ordeal then Sita had an option to decide what she really she wanted..

1)To go thru the test for the sake of Rama

2)To go back to Lanka and be Raavan's queen

3)To say bye to both Rama and Raavan and head back to her fathers place.


P.S..this posts of mine is purely for discussion purposes that is if Ramayan was just a story.
I do not intend to disrespect Rama,Sita or Ravan as I hold all 3 with high regard.

Hi Renuka,

Good One !. Agree, this is not intended to direspect anyone. !

However all rishis/saints/commentators have taken sides in this WAR either on the side of Rama or Ravana. As I said earlier, this war splits the society !!

Any war that kills millions of innocents is WRONG at ALL LEVELS irrespective of who wages this & however great the cause may be.

I am sorry, I dont see winning a wife back as a great cause in the first place & that too if it involves the lives of millions !!

Cheers,
JK

 

[Jaykay767]

Both Rama & Ravana are @ fault in this war. Their first & foremost duty is to protect the innocent & save their lives. !!

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

More than enough proof that we should be treated according to our actions and not according to our births or castes.
Ravana wore a poonool but behaved like an asura.
Rama behaved like a Deva. So whom should we worship??

my grandmother, always told me, that being saivites, we are closer to ravanan, than to raman. ravanan was a poonal wearing brahmin whereas rama was a meat eating kshatriya. (anyone remember the deer being killed at sitha's request)?

yet there was no image of ravana in her household, only rama - at pattabishekam.

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Dark Gods are fair in mind and thoughts.

Fair race is also fair in mind and thought.

So it is only fair that the fair race must worship the fair gods.

Fairness does not mean the skin complexion but the inner worth of the person.

Satan is called the Dark prince.

Has anyone seen his colour and complexion?

It is his deed which has earned him the title 'dark' in front of his name.

A more recent example is from Harry Potter.

The 'Dark Lord' is by no means dark complexioned-

but is dark in all his deeds.

Dear Biswa,

Suggest you read my posts.

Rama Krishna Shiva Vishnu are all Dark Gods per all texts - Vedas, Sashtras, Ramayana, Mahabarata, temple inscriptions, folk tales etc... & why do a so called fair race worships dark gods !!

Regards,
JK

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Our Goddess Kannagi burned the city of Mdaurai with all the people living in it to avenge her husband's death.
She is now a Goddess Karppuk Kadavul Kannagi.
How do you justify this?
We also what kind of a husband Kovalan had been!
Did he really deserve this kind of avenging?

Dear KRS,

wow !. so u are saying killing millions of innocent, ransacking the city, burning it is okay since someone's wife runs away !!.

so should a guy go to war tomorrow if the wife runs away with another man & kill the innocents in the process ???

what logic is this ?

Cheers !
JK

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

So no one is ready to find out what Sita had in her mind.

She did not have to suffer in hunger and be under constant threat,

"You will either come to decorate my bed or to my dining table as my tasty breakfast!"
but for her love to Rama.
If she had accepted Ravan, we won't be worshipping her as a Goddess now!
It is only the trials that prove our real worth - not the happy idle times.

No matter what anyone says I still simply adore Raavan.About coveting someone else's wife..what is the big deal?
If someone likes something he has to try to get it isnt it?
Its like Try Try and keep trying till you succeed.
He liked her so he was trying his level best but some how she never developed Stockholm syndrome.

I remember 2 weeks ago my son had seen a movie about the battle of Rama and Raavan and my son asked me.."Amma why Raavan had to be killed for taking away Seeta?His crime was not murder..he didnt kill Seeta so why did he pay with his life?"
"If I were Rama I would have told Raavan keep her and I would have married another person"

Then I asked my son "but Rama loved Seeta dearly..wont you want your wife back?"

My son answered.."If its going to involve so much bloodshed..then No..cos Raavan must have loved Seeta a lot to go thru all this trouble so let him be happy too..Seeta will eventually like him"

 

[ozone]

my grandmother, always told me, that being saivites, we are closer to ravanan, than to raman. ravanan was a poonal wearing brahmin whereas rama was a meat eating kshatriya. (anyone remember the deer being killed at sitha's request)?

May be She was refering to the asuric qualities but was been modest hwell:

yet there was no image of ravana in her household, only rama - at pattabishekam.

She knew what the real god is made of - judged by their deeds, not just by the caste.

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

We reap what we sow.

Ravan planted evil and sowed the same evil.

I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

What is then use of mastering ten most difficult Arts and sciences - if he cannot control his lust for a married woman and an unwilling woman at that - despite his harem being overcrowded already by women from every race!!!

 

[suraju06]

I have been reading the retold story of Ravanayanam aka "illiad in Tamil". The following conclusions are drawn as the moral of the story:

1. If the local thug comes and kidnaps your wife when you are away at office dont bother to go to war with the thug. Wars are divisive and damaging and so should be avoided at all cost even at the cost of your wife and your honour.
2. If your another neighbour comes and tell you " war that kills millions of innocents is WRONG irrespective of who wages this & however great the cause may be", be happy that you are lucky to have such a neighbour and go and grab his wife. He wont come to war with you because war is a war irrespective of whether you fight your local thug as enemy or your country fights another country and he will leave you alone saying "I dont see winning a wife back as a great cause ".
3. If your neighbours are all this type then there is nothing better because you can keep grabbing the wives of all of them one by one.

Para thaaram parama sukham. Jai Jai Ravanaprabho.