• 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.

Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gopal Rao said:
How do we teach kids the morals of Ramayana today?
Click to expand...


Dear Sir,

Believe me..it is not easy to teach kids these days about the Ramayan.
Be prepared to have answers for questions like this(a kid asked this to me)

1)If Dasharatha is described to be so good and virtuous what was he doing hunting for elephants in the jungle?(where he mistook the son of an ascetic for an elephant drinking water and accidentally killed him)

2)Why did Lord Rama have to kill Ravan when all Ravan did was abduct Sita and not kill her?
So why did Ravan have to pay with his life when the offence committed by Ravan was not murder to start with.

3)Why didn't Lord Rama allow Ravan to keep Sita cos that would have involved less bloodshed and not so much loss of life.

So be prepared to have answers to a host of questions when teaching kids Ramayan these days.

My mum used to run a Bal Vikas class before where some students asked her these too:

1)Why did Lakshmana leave his wife and follow Rama to the jungle and did not think of how his wife would have felt being separated from him.

2)Why is Vibhisheena viewed as a good person when he betrayed his brother Ravan?He could have opted not to get involved in the battle but not betray Ravan.


So..going by this...I might have to start thinking for all possible questions and answers before I would even dare to teach any kid Ramayan these days.
 
Last edited:
We also would have like to ask these questions when we were children. But we did not have the freedom to do so.

Another questions which is openly asked is

Why did Rama kill Vali hiding behind a tree? Was it not a cowardly act?
 
Ramayana was originally not what we see it as today. The Balakanda and Uttara Kanda are later additons as also the Pattabhishekam scene. It described the heroic life of a certain pure Aryan prince who possibly ventured south of the Ganga-Yamuna doab region due to some 'palace intrigues' and then had to face his wife being kidnapped by a Rakshasa king, which term might have denoted some tribes or people who were equal or greater in might and development to / than the Aryans then. The story ends with Rama cultivating friendship with a monkey-like (in the eyes of Valmiki) people from the Kishkindha region, entering into a friendship pact with their prince-in-waiting Sugreeva on the condition that Rama would by hook or crook kill the king Vali and give the throne to Sugreeva, tracing the place where his kidnapped wife was, crossing the ocean by building a temporary bridge, waging war with the Rakshasa king Ravana and then returning home in full heroic glory in the aeroplane of the vanquished. In Lanka, the country of Ravana, vibheeshana (again an aspirant for the throne) turns a spy for Rama and is ultimately rewarded with the throne of a devastated Lanka!

This story was made into some sort of epic poetry by some scholar on hearing about the Greek epics and lest he be hounded out, he put his name as "vaalmeeki" or one who is inside a hill of white ants. (It is my doubt that the hill of white ants was not accidental and the author wanted to give an indication that he was at least in friendship with the fair-complexioned Greeks.) This story/epic got fairly good reception in the then aaryaavarta (abode of Aryans) of those days.

Later. when the Vaishnavite cult spread to the north from the south, some one found this Rama-story to be ideal to attract the northerners into Vaishnavism. Accordingly a lot of "dressing up", "interpolations" and "additions" were done to the original Vaalmeeki Ramayana and it became the story of the divine Vishnu avataar viz., Rama.
 
sangom,

someone asked these questions. not saying these are right. but nowadays, our standard of morality appears to be absolute.

i think, the intention, is that the human rama was flawed. but in the ultimate, he stood for good against evil. (the good being the winning side).

my grandmother, had a soft corner for ravana. she used to tell me, that rama being a kshatriya, and ravana was a poonal wearing brahmin - technically we pattars should be closer to ravana than rama :)


“1) ராமன் தாடகையைக் கொன்று யாகம் நடத்திக்கொடுத்தான்.

2) சூர்ப்பநகையின் மூக்கையும், காதையும் அறுக்கும்படி தம்பிக்கு உத்தரவு கொடுத்தான்.

3) வாலியைக் கொன்று சுக்கிரீவனுக்குப் பட்டங் கட்டினான்.

4) ராவணனைக் கொன்று விபீஷணனுக்குப் பட்டங் கட்டினான்.

5) ஐந்து மாத கர்ப்பத்தோடு சீதையை விபசாரப் பட்டம் கட்டி தனியே காட்டில் கொண்டுபோய் விட்டுவந்தான்.

இந்த ஐந்து அரும்பெருங் காரியங்களிலிருந்து ராமனிடத்தில் தெய்வத்தன்மையோ, நீதியோ, அறிவுடைமையோ, மனுஷ்யத் தன்மையோ ஏதாவது இருக்கிறதாகச் சொல்ல முடியுமா?
 
sangom said:
Ramayana was originally not what we see it as today. The Balakanda and Uttara Kanda are later additons as also the Pattabhishekam scene. It described the heroic life of a certain pure Aryan prince who possibly ventured south of the Ganga-Yamuna doab region due to some 'palace intrigues' and then had to face his wife being kidnapped by a Rakshasa king, which term might have denoted some tribes or people who were equal or greater in might and development to / than the Aryans then. The story ends with Rama cultivating friendship with a monkey-like (in the eyes of Valmiki) people from the Kishkindha region, entering into a friendship pact with their prince-in-waiting Sugreeva on the condition that Rama would by hook or crook kill the king Vali and give the throne to Sugreeva, tracing the place where his kidnapped wife was, crossing the ocean by building a temporary bridge, waging war with the Rakshasa king Ravana and then returning home in full heroic glory in the aeroplane of the vanquished. In Lanka, the country of Ravana, vibheeshana (again an aspirant for the throne) turns a spy for Rama and is ultimately rewarded with the throne of a devastated Lanka!

This story was made into some sort of epic poetry by some scholar on hearing about the Greek epics and lest he be hounded out, he put his name as "vaalmeeki" or one who is inside a hill of white ants. (It is my doubt that the hill of white ants was not accidental and the author wanted to give an indication that he was at least in friendship with the fair-complexioned Greeks.) This story/epic got fairly good reception in the then aaryaavarta (abode of Aryans) of those days.

Later. when the Vaishnavite cult spread to the north from the south, some one found this Rama-story to be ideal to attract the northerners into Vaishnavism. Accordingly a lot of "dressing up", "interpolations" and "additions" were done to the original Vaalmeeki Ramayana and it became the story of the divine Vishnu avataar viz., Rama.
Click to expand...

I have read valmiki Ramayana in its source. The way Aswamedha Yajna is described, the way Sugriv explains the different locations that monkeys have to search etc and so many other vivid details that are present in the story, I am sure it is not dressing up on a Greek epic.

I doubt Greeks would even have heard of a polar region in which sun rises only for few hours, which is what Sugriv tells Hanuman when he describes the locations that Hanuman needs to search.

It is possible that Bala-Kanda is introduced as a later addition, but the way it has been placed is, there is a lot of continuity and it is simply not possible today to authoritatively say it.

-TBT
 
sankara_sharmah said:
We also would have like to ask these questions when we were children. But we did not have the freedom to do so.
Click to expand...

Dear Sir,

I had all the freedom to ask any question when I was a child but it is just that no one gave me answers.
I always liked all the Asura characters more than the Deva characters when ever any story was narrated to me.

I still remember telling my mum "Sita should have stayed with Ravan if the final outcome would have been so bad that she gets sent away"

I also did not like the part where Sita accuses Lakshmana of having an eye on her when he refused to go look for Rama.

That was too bad I feel cos Lakshmana was just too good to both Rama and Sita.
She should have never accused him of having an eye on her!

I also remember my mum telling me that one little girl in her class had asked her why Gods do not have daughters? cos there is only Lord Ganesh and Lord Kartikeya..why no girl child?

Coming back to Ramayan...Sita is often portrayed as an all suffering female but I feel if we analyse her character well she comes across as a strong woman who finally tells off her husband that she rather die(go back into the earth) instead of being his queen once again.

She did not want to stay with a Doubting Thomas and technically "divorced" him.

That way I feel Sita was even stronger than Draupadi....Draupadi had 5 husbands who did not stand up for her at the time of need but yet she stayed with all of them till her very last breath.
She did not leave them at any point despite all the hardship she went through.

Draupadi always had Lord Krishna to pay her divine attention and to be by her side when ever she needed some support but Sita had no one..yet she survived the ordeal.

So if you ask me I would say that Sita is the only person who actually told off her husband '"I have had enough off you..off with you..I rather be dead than to be your queen".

I don't think any other female character ever had that much guts.
 
Last edited:
Come to think of it..when Rama Avatar came along with Sita ..Ravana(who was Jaya) had an eye for Rama's wife Sita.
This caused massive blood shed and loss of lives.

Then again when Ravana(Jaya) was born again as Sishupala once again he had some interest in Rukimini(Consort of Lord Krishna).Since he did not get to marry Rukmini he started hating Lord Krishna and caused some trouble on and off much to the discomfort of others.
There was some minor battle after the Rajasuya Yagna and case was closed fast.

Only when Jaya was born as Hiranyakshipu he did not desire any female cos the avatar Narasimha turned up all alone!
There was no blood shed and loss of innocent lives when there was no female involved.
It was a one to one fight Narasimha vs Hiranyakashipu.

Moral of the story: To save all trouble and hassle..avatars should consider coming as bachelors!
 
Last edited:
thebigthinkg said:
I have read valmiki Ramayana in its source. The way Aswamedha Yajna is described, the way Sugriv explains the different locations that monkeys have to search etc and so many other vivid details that are present in the story, I am sure it is not dressing up on a Greek epic.

I doubt Greeks would even have heard of a polar region in which sun rises only for few hours, which is what Sugriv tells Hanuman when he describes the locations that Hanuman needs to search.

It is possible that Bala-Kanda is introduced as a later addition, but the way it has been placed is, there is a lot of continuity and it is simply not possible today to authoritatively say it.

-TBT
Click to expand...

Dear Shri TBT,

I did not say that Vaalmeeki's Ramayana was a "dressing up" of some Greek epic. What I meant to convey was that familiarity with the epic style was obtained by some sanskrit scholar who definitely had some inspiration ( to compose in the new, shorter metre, such a huge work) and this scholar wrote what probably was a story in popular memory (like most folk tales) about the life and adventures of one Aryan prince Rama, into an epic poem. I have also no case that Vaalmeeki copied anything from any Greek books. Simply put, this first hindu epic was inspired by the epic poetry genre of the Greeks, imho.

Uttarakanda is surely a later addition as also the coronation sarga/s. I shall post the circumstances for such a conclusion within a few days - I have to type out. Incidentally Vaalmeeki does not talk about the Putrakameshti yaga.
 
Even though the actions of Avatars do not bind them but somehow if you observe Ramayan and Mahabharat it might look as if Avatars too have some "Karma"..

1)In Treta Yuga..Ravana Abducts Sita.

2)In Dwapara Yuga..Ravan is born as Sishuphala and its pay back time.. Rama who is born again as Krishna and abducts Rukmini who is supposed to be the bride for Sishupala..so Rama got back His chance and said "I know what you did last Yuga Ravana..so now you know how it feels abducting someone else's sweetheart"

3)Lakshmana was the ever obliging இளிச்சவாய் younger brother of Rama.
So next Yuga Lakshmana is born as Balarama and becomes the tempremental elder brother of Lord Krishna.
So it was pay back time again!

4)Lord Rama goes about with Eka Patni Vrata(I find that surprising when he had a polygamous father) but in Dwapara Yuga..He had Rukmini and Sathyabama as wives..no more Eka Patni!

5)In Treta Yuga Lord Rama kills Vaali somewhat unjustly but cites an excuse that Vaali is an animal and all rules do not apply for an animal.

So in Dwapara Yuga..Krishna resting in the forest near a bush and his feet get mistaken for a deer and he is shot by a hunter who is supposed to be Vaali incarnate.
So pay back time again.



One more payback aappu in Mahabharat is in case of Drona.
He unjustly asked Ekalavya for his thumb as Guru Dakshina having the interest of Arjuna in his mind.

So in the battle field Drona was killed also when he was despondent thinking his son was dead(when it was an elephant with the name Ashwattama was dead)..so Drona got back what he wrongly did to Ekalavya..do injustice and you also die with what seemed "semi injustice"

So I guess it all boils down to "We reap what we sow"
 
Once you are born as a Human Being you obey human rules. Human emotions. kama, krodha, moha ... Happiness, Sorrow, Anger etc. Death also follows.

That is the difference between Avathara and GOD.

Avatharas are a Vaishnavite concept. Neither Siva nor Devi have Avtharas. Forms. Yes. But Avatharas . No.

Valmiki envisaged Rama only as an ideal King. But Rama was made GOD later for propagation of Vaishnavism.
 
GOD is Omniscient and Omnipotent. We are all amsams of God. Not GOD. GOD does not die. Human and all other living beings do. This is my take. But then the conception of GOD varies from person to person.
 
sangom said:
Everything other than God is 'not God'.
Click to expand...

By definition of Brahman, that sentence is wrong.
This is akin to saying bigger than INFINITY, you can not have it.
The Upanishads describe Brahman as "the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change." Brahman is the source of all things and is in all things.

But like Mr. Sankara_sharmah said
But then the conception of GOD varies from person to person.
Click to expand...

In my opinion there is nothing other than Brahman.

A realized soul or a Jivanmukta may speak as Brahman, whereas mere mortals who still have their ego's intact should speak as jiva.
Anything born has to die, so an avatar in the physical body is going through a physical living. In his jivanmukta state there is no birth or death and is truly one with Brahman.
 
Last edited:
sangom said:
Dear Shri TBT, I have also no case that Vaalmeeki copied anything from any Greek books. Simply put, this first hindu epic was inspired by the epic poetry genre of the Greeks, imho.
Click to expand...

Oops! you are wrong about history and civilizations too !

Beginning of Ancient Greece was about 500 BC, which was earlier a cenfedaration of Indo-european (sanskrit/Slavic speaking ) tribes who have migrated from northern asia to europe to norway and down south to Greece/Italy. The Attic/Atheneas/Ionians led the greece to wage a war against all these tribes who also allied some tribes (phyrgians/Bhrges(Bhrigu clan), the Trojans (the hittites) on the western Anatolia/Turkey. The latter were also supported by the 2000 year old goddess, Mahishasura like worshipping , early writers (linear B) of the Crete Islands in the south of Greece. The story of Helen may be a fabrication on the characters with the real war happening, as the Early Greeks were taking over the area.

Homer's was a great inspiration for Greek Writing , Art, and literature, only becos the myths were already a mix of all past tribes. Whereas, the hittites/hurrians (with both sanskrit, persian, sumerian mixed language - Turvisa,wilusia, larshiya, purushuttam,parana etc.) had a early writing and Cretians had linear A writing (with phonetics), Newly forming Turkish (leaving out sanskrit 'sh' - truva, wiluva, lariya, ahuwa etc.) Greek only made it (troy, illiad, lycia).

Sumerians, in the south of Turkey/mesopotomia/Persian gulf were the earliest advanced civilizations (indo-dravidian) even around 6000BC, founders of agriculture and writing, whose heirs were the Mittani (indo-aryans) (whose capital was Arappa) and later the hittites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni

Then, the whole area was under Greeks, Romans, then the Hebrew/semitic and then the Arabic.

Coming to our scriptural reference, the descendents of Yayati , who lived west of India were once vedic-aryans, some of them stayed away and wre considered mlechAs/barbaric. All knowledge, philosophy, laws (Smirits) and writing originated in some form or other around central/West India. Read here the descendants of Yayati (that of Chandra Vamshi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yayati

The one branch of lineage of Anu, were the Sibi Chakravarthi, whose descendants were the kadai-ezhu vallals. who later formed the chola dyansties. These may have been the heirs of sumerians. The Solar dyansty, Ishvaku ruled the India from long time, from Central Asia throughout India and the Lunar Dynasties were kept at bay (west Punjab) who might have been the origin of western turkik/arabic cultures ;)
 
Last edited:
Interesting conversation. Everything comes from India.... Hilarious... Hope you guys enjoy it.

[video=youtube;Ln5QgeCL1fs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5QgeCL1fs[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amirtha said:
Interesting conversation. Everything comes from India.... Hilarious... Hope you guys enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Change that to 'Everything originates from NArAyana, through His vAk (vedas)'. Lol! But, that is the truth!

But, pity, Indians are least educated on their own texts and other history/culture texts.

There are two factions:

1. These people think everything comes from West and westerners are the noble Aryans. This faction, like Sangom/Prasad , though doesnot want
to be proud of Rama being Indian, feels contented by calling him a foreigner, Aryan. But, they are proud of claiming West is the
origin of all knowledge, tech, wisdom. That way, Sangom like faction, is indirectly proud of the West Aryans like Rama. But, to their dismay,
all the Vishnu avatars/Bhaktas were from Ishwaku and are natively Indian, only their saivite counterparts and the lunar lineage (chera/chola)
[except yadus/krishna) and the western indians, are the later migrants to India/south India.

2. There are these other factions, who have no knowledge of either Indian or foreign, but claims India is the best, the superpower etc.
These people cannot give concrete evidences or references. I am o.k with these. These are just ignorant, but not blind, and are not mis-leading
anyone either.
 
Last edited:
Amirtha said:
Interesting conversation. Everything comes from India.... Hilarious... Hope you guys enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Hi Amirtha,

seems like, you dont want to learn anything new, and bypassed reading my post and the references.

Simply, want to criticize the idea behind my post.

You can give relevant references and counter-argue, but cannot just disclaim the whole piece of hsitory or research.

We are not laughing stock here who spend our efforts, time and knowledge for the benefit of others.

Be respectful!!

Dont intrude serious discussions and sincere writings!
 
Govinda said:
Hi Amirtha,

seems like, you dont want to learn anything new, and bypassed reading my post and the references.

Simply, want to criticize the idea behind my post.

You can give relevant references and counter-argue, but cannot just disclaim the whole piece of hsitory or research.

We are not laughing stock here who spend our efforts, time and knowledge for the benefit of others.

Be respectful!!

Dont intrude serious discussions and sincere writings!
Click to expand...

Be respectful!!
Click to expand...
Dont intrude serious discussions and sincere writings!
Click to expand...
Sir
I think you are not respectful towards me .
Expressing my opinion in any thread is not an intrusion. I have as much right as you do in this forum.
I am expressing my opinions just like anybody else. You are welcome to believe in what you like. But others also have right to their opinions.
I have a high regard for opinion from members like Shri Sangom, Shri Prasad. In the post no #23, I don’t think point no.1 is appropriate.
About 15 yrs back also had similar view thinking about superiority of everything that is Indian. But as I got exposed more more to other cultures, I can visualise evolving cultures all over the world. No doubt Indian culture also evolving very well. For example rational thinking people like Shri Raju, Shri Sangom, Shri Raghy and Sri Prasad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top