• 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.
Maricha changed himself into a most captivating deer. Its face was like a glowing, golden, topaz from which gleamed its amethyst eyes. Its hair was golden in colour with spots which looked like silver and glistened in the sun. Its dainty, branching, antlers were dazzling and seemed to be set with gems. Its hooves looked like black, polished onyx. Its neck was long and curved and it had a tantalising way of tilting its head at an angle and gazing sideways through its beautiful eyes. It suddenly appeared on the lawn in front of the ashrama and frisked and danced around, giving long looks in Sita's direction.
At times it would stop and pretend to be nibbling at the grass and at times it would step softly, as if afraid of being caught. The other deer which were grazing nearby, sensed that this was no ordinary deer and ran away in panic. In his old days Maricha would have loved to eat one of them. He kept looking at the ashrama, for Sita was not outside. Just then, she came out to gather flowers for their morning worship. The deer came close to her and stood still with bent head as if grazing. The morning sun fell in golden shafts on its skin and brought it into flaming life. Sita stood absolutely still when she saw it. She could not believe her eyes. She had never seen such a fascinating creature in all her days in the forest. Though her hand went automatically to pluck the flowers, she could not take her eyes off the little deer, which took care to see that it was always within her gaze.


It did the most absurd things to beguile her. It pranced and frolicked and turned its long neck to look sideways at her. It appeared almost human in its enchanting ways. She ran forward to try and catch it but it avoided her grasp adroitly and skipped off and stood just a few feet in front of her. Again and again she tried to grasp it, but it skillfully avoided her. She tried to tempt it with bits of grass and leaves. Sometimes it would pretend to nibble at it but the moment her other hand came up to catch it, it would prance off like a filly, with a tantalising backward glance. She chased it round and round the lawn, forgetting the flowers she had come to pluck. Her flower basket had fallen to the ground and the flowers were lying forlornly on the grass. At last she was quite dejected and called out to Rama and Lakshmana. Hearing her voice raised in appeal, both of them came running out of the house.


Raising her charming face to him she said, "Rama, please capture this deer for me. Look how beautiful he is. Such an enchanting figure! I've never seen anything like it. I must have him for myself. Please catch him for me. He is so clever that he has dodged every effort of mine to catch him, but I am sure you can do it".

MantraOnNet.com - Ramayan: Book 3: Aranya Kanda - Book Of Forest Canto V - The Golden Deer


Dear Shri Prasad,

The Valmeeki Ramayana says also that Lakshmana, in the very first available chance, told Rama that he suspected the golden deer to be the rakshasa maarica. Sita says "if you cannot ensnare the deer, at least kill it, and we can take its golden skin back to our palace and keep it as a rare show piece". Rama finally kills maarica who shouts "Ha seetaa, Ha Lakshmana" imitating Rama's voice and Rama smells some great trouble for Seeta. Even then he kills another deer for food and taking its meat, walks back to the hut. Such seems to have been Rama's insistence on timely meat food!
 
These are the opening slokas (2 onwards) of Valmiki Ramayana. He wants to know from Narada who has these qualities. Narada enlightens him and the whole epic is a validation of the questions raised by Valmiki. Rama does not need protection from simple mortal souls like me. The collective faith of bharata/ex-bharata vasis including tamils (and subset of tambrams) on the divinity of Rama will remain.

कोन्वस्मिन्साम्प्रतं लोके गुणवान्कश्च वीर्यवान् ।
धर्मज्ञश्च कृतज्ञश्च सत्यवाक्यो दृढव्रत:।।1.1.2।।

"In this world of now who is that great person endowed with excellent qualities, prowess, knowledge of righteousness, gratitude, truth and firmness in practice of vows?"

चारित्रेण च को युक्तस्सर्वभूतेषु को हित: ।
विद्वान्क: कस्समर्थश्च कश्चैकप्रियदर्शन: ।।1.1.3।।

Who is that great person endowed with good conduct, who is the benefactor of all living beings, who is a learned man (knower of everything which is to be known), competent (capable of doing things which cannot be done by others) and who is solely delightful in appearance (causing happiness to everyone)?

आत्मवान्को जितक्रोधो द्युतिमान्कोऽनसूयक: ।
कस्य बिभ्यति देवाश्च जातरोषस्य संयुगे ।।1.1.4।।

Who is that one who is courageous, conquered anger etc, endowed with splendour and free from envy? Who is that, when excited to wrath, even the devatas are afraid of (let alone foes)?

Dear Shri sarang sir,

I must first of all express my profound thanks to you for grading my post as "brilliant" though with a sting attached. Once again, I am reminded of the jackal in the fable which starts howling once it hears others of its ilk, howl; similarly, now I find there are some rear guard members (very much like the tail-enders of cricket team) coming in and trying to protect Rama, the God by filling the pages with hokum, venom and frustration, and that looks much skunk-like, imo. No harm, if some people think that Rama needs to be cemented down in this fashion, in all his divine glory, in the minds of 'fence-sitters'.

Wish you all the best.
 
Post # 200


The word 'integrity' means, in, common parlance, the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. The statement here is that, "After all Dasaratha was not surrounded by anyone when he supposedly gave his 'word'! But even at the prospect of losing his son to 14 years in forest he could not bring himself to twist his own word he had given."
It is necessary to consider what the 'word' was and in what circumstances it was given. Kaikeyi was very much younger compared to Dasaratha (of his probable daughter's age, some accounts I have read say so) when the latter promised Aswapati, the king of Kekaya and father of Kaikeyi, that her son would be crowned king of Ayodhya. It was not a promise given by Dasaratha to the paramour in a secluded moment (as seems to be imagined by the above post) but a promise given in the open court of Aswapati, a strong political ally of Ayodhya; and his seven sons (brothers of Kaikeyi) must have been in the court when the alliance was finalized between the two kings who were political allies.

Kaikeyi's mother was banished from the kingdom by her husband. (This is a separate story.) She was raised by her wet nurse, Manthara, who accompanied Kaikeyi to Ayodhya as a trusted maid upon her marriage to Dasaratha. So, Manthara, an illiterate lady, had only Kaikeyi's welfare in her mind at all times.

Dasaratha one day announces his desire about coronation of Rama before the assembly of people. All people in the assembly unanimously and delightfully accept it while describing all of Rama's virtues. Dasaratha, glad after hearing the words of assembled people, requests Vasishta and Vamadeva to start arrangements for the anointing ceremony of Rama. Vasishta and Vamadeva order the officers present there to make all arrangements, describing them in detail. Dasaratha then orders Sumantra to bring Rama to the assembly. After letting Rama know of his desire, Dasaratha then advises Rama on how to rule the kingdom for the benefit of the people. Dasaratha decides to coronate Rama as the prince the next day. He asks Sumantra to bring Rama to his presence once again. After Rama arrives, Dasaratha expresses to Rama his desire to anoint Rama as a prince the very next day. He cites various bad dreams and inauspicious signs as the reason for his haste. Rama thus informed by his father, goes to his mother's house and informs her of the good news. Kausalya becomes delighted at the news and gives Rama her blessings. On the wish of King Dasaratha, Vasishta goes to Rama's palace and asks him to perform fast that night along with Seetha. Vasishta returns to Dasaratha's palace and informs him about this. On the way to the king's palace Vasishta observes the festive atmosphere in Ayodhya anticipating Rama's coronation the next day. People from different directions arrive in Ayodhya to be there on the grand occasion. Manthara feels very sad after hearing about anointment of Rama for the princely kingdom. She tells Kaikeyi about the coronation of Rama. Kaikeyi becomes delighted and gives Manthara one of her jewels. Manthara tries to convince Kaikeyi of the possible misfortune that could occur to Kaikeyi and her family if Sri Rama becomes the King. Although Kaikeyi's initial reaction is to praise Rama's qualities; her mind is slowly but surely poisoned by Manathara's sinful words.

It may be observed that Bharata had gone to his uncle's palace in Kekaya and Dasaratha did not even wait for Bharata's return for anointing Rama. But ,essengers were sent to Kekaya with great gifts :

अत्र विंशति कोट्यः तु नृपतेर् मातुलस्य ते ।
दश कोट्यः तु सम्पूर्णाः तथैव च नृप आत्मज ॥ २‍७०‍५

atra viṃśati koṭyaḥ tu nṛpater mātulasya te |
daśa koṭyaḥ tu sampūrṇāḥ tathaiva ca nṛpa ātmaja || 2-70-5

("O, prince! In these jewels and clothes, a worth of hundred crores is to be given to the king Kekeya and likewise a worth of ten crores in full to your maternal uncle.")

The messengers hurry Bharata to immediately return to Ayodhya and when Bharata takes leave of his maternal grandfather (the king of Kekaya) and Yudhaajit, his maternal uncle, he is gifted by them with 1600 horses and two thousand gold coins. It is probable that Aswapati suspected some succession row in Ayodhya and that was why he sent 1600 horses and also some of his trusted attendants with Bharata.

रुक्म निष्क सहस्रे द्वे षोडश अश्व शतानि च ।
सत्कृत्य कैकेयी पुत्रम् केकयो धनम् आदिशत् ॥ २‍७०‍२०

rukma niṣka sahasre dve ṣoḍaśa aśva śatāni ca |
satkṛtya kaikeyī putram kekayo dhanam ādiśat || 2-70-20


The king Kekaya generously gave as gifts to Bharata, two thousands coins of gold and sixteen hundred horses.
Bharata reaches Ayodhya after seven nights.

तथा अमात्यान् अभिप्रेतान् विश्वास्यामः च गुण अन्वितान् ।
ददाव् अश्व पतिः शीघ्रम् भरताय अनुयायिनः ॥ २‍७०‍२१

tathā amātyān abhipretān viśvāsyāmaḥ ca guṇa anvitān |
dadāv aśva patiḥ śīghram bharatāya anuyāyinaḥ || 2-70-21

Likewise, Aswapati sent some attendants, who were dear, reliable, endowed with virtues and inmates of his palace with Bharata (to accompany him on the return journey)

From the foregoing, it may be seen that Dasaratha did not either remember his promise of kanyāśulka given to his father-in-law, or else, he tried to hasten with the coronation of Rama when Bharata was not present. It is doubtful whether Dasaratha would have himself remembered about his promise if Kaikeyi, at the instigation of Manthara, had not compelled him through the boons granted to her.
I, therefore, feel that there was nothing to show any extra-ordinary integrity in the character of Dasaratha, as Valmiki Ramayana now stands. (Even any of us would have had to succumb to the wife's demands if not for anything else, to avoid displeasure and an armed invasion by Kekaya kingdom on Ayodhya.)


If we leave aside the subsequent deification of the character Rama, it should be clear to any one who reads Ramayana as a simple story told in poetry, that if Rama had insisted upon becoming heir to the throne as planned by Dasaratha, overriding Kaikeyi's demands, he would have had unstinted support only from Lakshmana and Shatrughna. Even if Bharata had allied with Rama, it is doubtful whether Kekaya king would have taken the treatment meted out to his daughter meekly. Even the people of Ayodhya might feel that the promise given to the Kekaya king as to kanyāśulka as also the boon to Kaikeyi were broken by Dasaratha. This could have lowered the dynasty in the eyes of the common people. Perhaps Rama as a simple human prince, did weigh all these factors in his mind and agreed to the exile as the politically most expedient course for him to follow.
Sr Sangom

Once again in my view, your 'analysis' if I can even call that misses the big picture. There was no word given to anyone in the story about sending his son to forest - the so called 'boon' was told to be given in private which was binding in Dasaratha's mind.

Also who cares what common Joe Blow may or may not understand about the word Integrity. It has a very profound meaning for those who care to think deeply. Morals which are subjective has nothing to with it and it is much different from the word honesty...

Your கை சரக்கு analysis of what Rama might have thought makes him look weak which is not how his character is portrayed. But you are entitled to your views of course.

One can go through learning even topics like Science , earn advanced degrees and yet live in a literal level using shallow understanding. But when one thinks about essence of a topic be it in Science (specialized area of knowledge) or in the domain of universal knowledge, the insights one gets from deep analysis is its own reward.

To communicate the point about insights, 'funda thinking' etc with an example let me use words of a well known scientist.
Feynman, a Nobel prize winner was eccentric and enjoyed life because of his inherent curiosity of life. Here is an excerpt of interviews done by BBC while Feynman was alive. One could also find 'paper-pushing' bureaucrats teaching Science and they are capable of shallow thinking only. Let us contrast that with words of this interesting man.


Christopher Sykes, the Filmmaker Behind the Beloved Richard Feynman Documentaries | Brain Pickings
 
<edited, removed and just stop with your nonsense posts.... one more and your account will be banned. Have a problem with somebody, take it outside the forum and sort it out. >
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Praveen,

If a post deemed abusive gets deleted by the moderator, then the responses to such abusive posts which are often equally abusive should also get deleted. Otherwise, it would appear partisan to the viewers.
 
Dear Sangom Sir,


I will have no problem if, for example, the sentences cited by you were as follows:
அடடா ஓ அடடா, அழகு என்னைக்கொள்ளை கொண்டது அடடா ஓ அடடா
ஐயோ நீலமேனி ஐயோ நிறை கொண்டதென் நெஞ்சினையே ஐயோ, ஐயோ செய்யவாய் ஐயோ என்னைச் சிந்தை கவர்ந்ததுவே ஐயோ
Even in the above the second is probably archaic and is not in use now. But we may consider it as right in the context of the vedic passages. But even so you see, nobody has used it more than twice at a time but the habu and bham bham have been repeated many more times. If we try repeating ஐயோ or அடடா or ஐயகோ as many times, I think even in the olden days it would not be acceptable.


When I read your post I could only see a person who has already made up his mind that the haavu haavu are all senseless, unintelligible noise. Whatever reasoning is possible has come to a dead end and I am left in a state where I am சிண்டை பிச்சுண்டு இருக்கேன். I am reminded of a neighbour I had. One day when I came out of my house I saw him walking down the road. I smiled at him and asked என்ன சார் சௌக்யமா இருக்கீங்களா? He replied நான் சௌக்கியமா இருந்தா என்ன இல்லைன்னா என்ன? I thought he must be in some serious trouble and to continue the conversation said, இல்ல நான் கேட்டது தப்புன்ன மன்னிச்சுக்குங்க. He said மன்னிச்சா என்ன . மன்னிக்கலைன்ன என்ன பண்ணுவீங்க? I could not open my mouth. I withdrew without a word.
:bored::bored:


econdly, we do not know the linguistics of the saama veda age.

This is the only most sensible input in your post and I agree.

Cheers.
 
Dear Sangom Sir,




When I read your post I could only see a person who has already made up his mind that the haavu haavu are all senseless, unintelligible noise. Whatever reasoning is possible has come to a dead end and I am left in a state where I am சிண்டை பிச்சுண்டு இருக்கேன். I am reminded of a neighbour I had. One day when I came out of my house I saw him walking down the road. I smiled at him and asked என்ன சார் சௌக்யமா இருக்கீங்களா? He replied நான் சௌக்கியமா இருந்தா என்ன இல்லைன்னா என்ன? I thought he must be in some serious trouble and to continue the conversation said, இல்ல நான் கேட்டது தப்புன்ன மன்னிச்சுக்குங்க. He said மன்னிச்சா என்ன . மன்னிக்கலைன்ன என்ன பண்ணுவீங்க? I could not open my mouth. I withdrew without a word.[/COLOR]:bored::bored:




This is the only most sensible input in your post and I agree.

Cheers.

hi suraju sir,
if u continued the conversation....it will like this.....சாபிட்டேள ..........நான் சாப்பிட்ட என்ன ....சாபிடலேன என்ன........கேட்டது தப்பா போச்சு.......தப்பா போச்சுன்னா ...போகலைன்ன என்ன ?.......
 
Last edited:
கால பைரவன்;172191 said:
Dear Praveen,

If a post deemed abusive gets deleted by the moderator, then the responses to such abusive posts which are often equally abusive should also get deleted. Otherwise, it would appear partisan to the viewers.

கால பைரவன்ji,

I have time and again asked, requested and pleaded with members not to respond to abusive posts and instead report them. Otherwise it is impossible for me to go back 3 to 4 pages and figure out which post is first abusive and which is not. Sometimes it so happens replies are interlinked to another topic and things are said in the heat of discussion. To be frank, it is extremely impossible for me to cross-reference posts, figure out who said what and when and how etc...

So when somebody reports a post, i only see that and the posts before it...Not something buried 10 pages before...

I do not think it is extremely difficult to show some restraint... When one is willing to wait for so many things in personal life, a day or two over here is not going to change things nor is the world is not going to end if an immediate rebuttal is not given...
 
These are the opening slokas (2 onwards) of Valmiki Ramayana. He wants to know from Narada who has these qualities. Narada enlightens him and the whole epic is a validation of the questions raised by Valmiki. Rama does not need protection from simple mortal souls like me. The collective faith of bharata/ex-bharata vasis including tamils (and subset of tambrams) on the divinity of Rama will remain.

कोन्वस्मिन्साम्प्रतं लोके गुणवान्कश्च वीर्यवान् ।
धर्मज्ञश्च कृतज्ञश्च सत्यवाक्यो दृढव्रत:।।1.1.2।।

"In this world of now who is that great person endowed with excellent qualities, prowess, knowledge of righteousness, gratitude, truth and firmness in practice of vows?"

चारित्रेण च को युक्तस्सर्वभूतेषु को हित: ।
विद्वान्क: कस्समर्थश्च कश्चैकप्रियदर्शन: ।।1.1.3।।

Who is that great person endowed with good conduct, who is the benefactor of all living beings, who is a learned man (knower of everything which is to be known), competent (capable of doing things which cannot be done by others) and who is solely delightful in appearance (causing happiness to everyone)?

आत्मवान्को जितक्रोधो द्युतिमान्कोऽनसूयक: ।
कस्य बिभ्यति देवाश्च जातरोषस्य संयुगे ।।1.1.4।।

Who is that one who is courageous, conquered anger etc, endowed with splendour and free from envy? Who is that, when excited to wrath, even the devatas are afraid of (let alone foes)?

Dear Shri Sarang sir,

Once again, I have to tell you all with all humility at my command, that the purpose of my writing my views/observations is not to change the belief or mindset of people. All I want is to go on record with what is actually found in the Vaalmeeki Ramayana text as we have it today, so that, some one of the younger generation may come to know, if he happens to stumble upon these pages. I am sure that Shri Praveen has said many times in the past that any view can be expressed in this GD section, as long as it is done politely. From that pov, what you have written above is unexceptionable. My only comment is that the rhetorics like "Rama does not need protection from simple mortal souls like me. The collective faith of bharata/ex-bharata vasis including tamils (and subset of tambrams) on the divinity of Rama will remain." reveals the fear, like that of a person with lot of black money stashed away in the house, when an IT raid party comes in to the house :). Such remarks may be avoided in future, to make your statements more effective and appealing, imho.

Do you think my writing my views will deprive Rama of his divinity in the mind of the public when a person of the stature of EVR could not succeed in so doing?

It is however seen that the same Valmiki, who apparently did not know anything about Rama, and to whom Narada gives the story of Rama in a nutshell, tells as follows in the Uttara Kanda:

[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, Arial Unicode MS Standard]7.048.017a tāsāṃ tad vacanaṃ śrutvā vālmīkir idam abravīt
7.048.017c sīteyaṃ samanuprāptā patnī rāmasya dhīmataḥ
7.048.018a snuṣā daśaradhasyaiṣā janakasya sutā satī
7.048.018c apāpā patinā tyaktā paripālyā mayā sadā
7.048.019a imāṃ bhavatyaḥ paśyantu snehena parameṇa ha
[/FONT]

(Valmiki: Ramayana 7)

It seems therefore that Valmiki knew Dasaratha, Janaka, Rama, Sita etc. Then where was the necessity for Narada to relate the entire story in the Balakanda? It will appear that either the Balakanta or Uttara Kanta was a later interpolation and the composer did not care to see the minute lines and dots and was worried only with the big picture, as Shri tks puts it.
 
Do you think my writing my views will deprive Rama of his divinity in the mind of the public when a person of the stature of EVR could not succeed in so doing?

Dear Sangom Sir,

Your have thrown incendiary material into this forum now and have thrown a lighted match stick too. Please read further without complaining:

"A person of the stature of EVR"--yeah, the stature of EVR is quite well known to Tambrahms and that is perhaps the reason why he could not succeed. To recall the facts of that man's stature:

1. He was a 3rd standard drop out-a spoilt kid from a rich family.
2. He would garland the Picture of Rama and Vinayaka with a garland of chappals to make fun of brahmins and Hindus but will not dare do that with any other religions. This is called the fear of retribution and the person who suffers can not claim any stature.
3. He will eloquently champion the cause of women's lib in meeting after meeting with gullible cadre applauding him all the way but would quietly marry a girl far far younger than him when he is past 60 and deny the girl her basic human right to have blissful and happy life.
4. He would give eloquent lectures about Hindi being an instrument of suppression in the hands of north Indians and yet would let out his property at a token rent to run Hindi classes in his native place.
5. Sell hatred opiate against a minority brahmin community day in and day out and yet would never lift even his little finger when dalit agricultural workers were burnt alive by rich mirasdars of his own caste in the rice bowl of Tamilnadu called Tanjore District-the place is Keelvenmony.

And this beats me completely-why should people who are well read and well informed call him a man of stature as if he had an invincible hallo around him. Either he was a jadugar or these people are-you know what.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
This thread got sidetracked from the beginning.

Now Ramayana has other characters who could be role models. The most popular character from Ramayana is NOT Rama but Hanuman. There are thousands of Hanuman temples all over India. In the Devi temples of Himachal Pradesh there is invariably a statue of Hanuman. Many forms of Hanuman are worshiped by Tantriks also.

What has made Hanuman so popular?

How about Kumbakarna? Is he not the embodiment of Loyalty?

There are many more characters in Ramayana from whose story we could draw morals?

Shall we attempt that?
 
Here is a rendering of Hanuman Chalisa By Krishna Das. Celestial Music. Nice pictures. Hanuman looks cute as a kid.

[video=youtube;IJGV9h2AZ0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJGV9h2AZ0s[/video]
 
This thread got sidetracked from the beginning.

Now Ramayana has other characters who could be role models. The most popular character from Ramayana is NOT Rama but Hanuman. There are thousands of Hanuman temples all over India. In the Devi temples of Himachal Pradesh there is invariably a statue of Hanuman. Many forms of Hanuman are worshiped by Tantriks also.

What has made Hanuman so popular?

How about Kumbakarna? Is he not the embodiment of Loyalty?

There are many more characters in Ramayana from whose story we could draw morals?

Shall we attempt that?

I agree with your post to an extent.
We should accept and discuss ramayan as a book review. The passion is generated only by giving it a "devine" connotation. The moment you make it "devine", there is no room for argument.
 
This thread got sidetracked from the beginning.

Now Ramayana has other characters who could be role models. The most popular character from Ramayana is NOT Rama but Hanuman. There are thousands of Hanuman temples all over India. In the Devi temples of Himachal Pradesh there is invariably a statue of Hanuman. Many forms of Hanuman are worshiped by Tantriks also.

What has made Hanuman so popular?

How about Kumbakarna? Is he not the embodiment of Loyalty?

There are many more characters in Ramayana from whose story we could draw morals?

Shall we attempt that?

Dear Shri Sharmah,

I agree that this thread got side-tracked. The OP was titled "Teaching Morals of Ramayana to Kids" and the thread starter had asked one simple, single sentence question, viz., "How do we teach kids the morals of Ramayana today?"


Once again I am starting with a caveat; these are my personal views and are not intended to bring any change in public perception, devalue Rama's supposed divine (avataara) nature or anything like that. But if some members perceive this as a looming threat, I cannot help it. Anyway, I may not respond to questions, comments, etc., regarding this post.


Valmiki Ramayana as I wrote in my post #6, "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."


Because of this somewhat unusual history, Valmiki Ramayana has many inconsistencies which any diligent student of our times, who is not brain-washed by religious blindness, will be able to detect, with some amount of time and effort. I am not very conversant with the other versions of Ramayana like Ananda Ramayana, Adbhuta Ramayana, Adhyatma Ramayana, etc. But, so long as Valmiki's Ramayana is not completely discarded by the religious-minded, the discrepancies in that text are likely to enter into any discussion of morals of Ramayana.


The uttara kaaNDa, which some scholars opine, was a later addition, was the outcome of a general feeling at some point in time, to the effect that Rama's accepting Seeta as his consecrated wife, had set a wrong example and people were, in general, becoming more and more permissive about the sexual wrongs of women. This is born out by the following extract from uttara kANDa :


"
Hearing the sweet accents of Rāma, Vadra, with aquiescent mind and folded palms, said :-“Hear, O king, I shall relate to thee all those unpleasant things frequently dwelt upon by people in court-yards, markets, public roads, forests and gardens. Indeed Rāma hath accomplished a wonderfully hard work ; our ancestors, the celestials, the dānavas-none heard of constructing a bridge over the ocean? Rāma hath slain the irrepressible Rāvana with his army and brought over the monkeys, bears and Rākhasas to his own side. Having discomfitted Rāvana, in the encounter Rāma hath released Sitā, but not being the least enraged on account of her being touched by Rāvana he hath brought her to his own city. Rāvana did forcibly place sitā on her (sic) lap ; how can then Rāma enjoy delight in her company? Having taken her to the city of Lankā, Rāvana did keep her in the Asoka forest and Sitā was brought under the control of Rākśasīs. Still Rāma hath not been worked up with hatred by (sic)Sitā. From now we shall also brooke the bad conduct of our wives--for the subjects always tread the footsteps of their King. O King, the subjects thus talk of many things in cities and provinces."


(Valmiki Ramayana, Prose translation : M.N. Dutt)

Hence, people of that era, during which this Uttara Kanda was composed did not probably find any morally good thing in the Ramayana but, on the contrary, criticized it, we should conclude. In a subsequent period, possibly, the advantages of projecting Rama as a divine avataara of Vishnu might have once again commended itself to the minds of the religious power centres; accordingly, the matter contained in the original uttara kanda was given least prominence in later periods and the Pattabhisheka was taken as the end of Ramayana and new versions created. (Ramcharitmanas has a different scheme of things, Pattabhisheka comes in Uttara Kand but sita's banishment does not figure therein, imho.)

I believe, therefore, that each era has to sift the epic according to the need of the times and find out what morals are relevant to the era. Possibly, a moral like, "once your wife is kidnapped, banish her - don't accept her even temporarily" will not suit our times; but, "even if your wife is kidnapped and pressured by some one else to marry him, accept her after releasing her and don't give any credence to "what will 4 people say?"(நாலுபேர் என்ன சொல்லுவா?)", may be one morals that will be acceptable and relevant to the present times.
 
Sangom,

We are talking about children here. I got my first exposure to Ramayana through my grand mother. She always emphasized how good a brother Lakshmana was and how Kumbakarna told Ravana that his action were wrong, but sacrificed his life in the battle. How good Bharata was that he kept the throne empty with Rama's slippers.

My children came to know Ramayana through Amar Chitra Katha. Those comics were good. In fact my son used to read the comics and tell us about them.

The versions read by the children would all be the modified versions.

The questions raised by Renuka in her post #2 were genuine. I added one more question in my post #3. Then we started posting our own doubts about Ramayana.

The history of Ramayana helps us in finding the answers to these questions. But the history should not really bother us.

Is it possible to find a rational or at least plausible answers to these questions?

May be. May be not. Let us explore.

Vali vadham: Rama met Sugriva first. I think it was a planned move by Sugriva. What Rama got was only Sugriva's version of the dispute. Rama promised to put Sugriva on the throne. Rama could not have killed Vali in a straight fight. But he had to keep his promise to Sugriva. So he killed him hiding behind the tree.

We can find answers only if we are not swayed by our belief that RAMA is GOD and could do no wrong. I worship RAMA. I believe that he is GOD. But I am not swayed into believing that Rama of Ramayana could do no wrong. A look at the stories from Puranas makes any one wonder "How can Gods do such ungodly things?"

So let us keep aside our belief in RAMA as God and analyze Ramayana to find the answers to our questions.
 
Vali vadham: Rama met Sugriva first. I think it was a planned move by Sugriva. What Rama got was only Sugriva's version of the dispute. Rama promised to put Sugriva on the throne. Rama could not have killed Vali in a straight fight. But he had to keep his promise to Sugriva. So he killed him hiding behind the tree.

Dear Shri Sharma,

Rama met sugreeva because Kabandha, after his body being incinerated, attained his celestial form as Danu and then as per his earlier promise that he would give a clue about Sita if his kabandha body was burnt up, tells Rama to go and meet sugreeva in Kishkindha. This way, sugreeva gets a certificate from Danu (Kabandha) whereas Vaalin does not have any. But Vaalin was uncertified and, moreover, he was friendly to Ravana, perhaps. Hence, Rama did not enter into a truce with sugreeva blindly.

We can find answers only if we are not swayed by our belief that RAMA is GOD and could do no wrong. I worship RAMA. I believe that he is GOD. But I am not swayed into believing that Rama of Ramayana could do no wrong. A look at the stories from Puranas makes any one wonder "How can Gods do such ungodly things?"
So let us keep aside our belief in RAMA as God and analyze Ramayana to find the answers to our questions.

I do not honestly believe that today's kids will benefit in facing their future life, from morals strained out of Ramayana. Even my children were very fond of the Amar Chitra Katha and similar comics about our religious stories, and used to ask many sharp questions (for which we elders did not have convincing answers) and I think the present day youngsters are born and they grow in a still more highly advanced scientific environment which may make them nod their heads to whatever we say up to some age of theirs but, the more we give the dated inputs from our scriptures during such helpless period, the more are they likely to throw away the whole baggage and even embrace some other faith (which may be equally bad, but they wouldn't have been pestered with all its moralizing in their young ages.) when they reach 18. I for one believe it better to give as much less of religiosity to our children unless you have earned a lot for them to inherit and you will not mind your kids taking up pravacanam or priesthood for their livelihood — I do not wish my grandchildren to go that way.
 
History Centrism ...and Universal principles

Hindu traditions largely based on Vedic teaching is not based on 'History Centrism'.
That is the term coined by Rajiv Malhotra who is well known for his Philanthropy.


  • Both Islam and Christianity are preached as divine revelation, and hence depend on historicity of certain events in the lives of their founders.
  • The Vedas embodying knowledge that is not available by other means of human access and exist as words do not have authorship, and their validity is completely independent of the lives of their authors. Besides timeless knowledge embodied in Vedas are realizable here and now and hence history of their origin is irrelevant. The Vedas use large amount of words but most of those do not necessarily have relevance in our lives today. But the knowledge taught is very much relevant
  • All epics while thought to be based on history based figures can be seen to be embellished which makes them interesting. But the teaching do not contradict the essential knowledge in the Vedas. For example Ramayana has very imaginative set of stories in Yoga-Vasishtam.
  • Sri Krishna is presented as a historical figure by someone called Vyasa but he is presented as Bhagavan only in the 700 verses comprising the B.Gita. This is done on purpose and the teaching provide practical means to learn some of the teachings of the Upanishads. Sri Krishna in Bhagavatham is a Bhakta's imagination of Sri Krishna and we have no problem with both accounts since we are not history centric
  • All teachings that have any meaning in our lives have no dependence on the container which is a story like Ramayana and Mahabharatha
  • Morals are very culture dependent and hence what we should be teaching are the universal principles embodied in these epics. Universal principles are those act on us regardless of our acknowledgement of them.
  • [FONT=Lucida Grande, Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Trying to subject Ramayana to History oriented analysis is foolish in my view and is an attempt to mimic western thoughts on Hindu Epics. There is a subservient Buddhi in our Hindu thinking that may be due to Western domination of Hindus over centuries. Who cares if the story is embellished, why care if someone added many sections. The only thing that matters is if the whole epic hangs together in the overall theme and is helpful in providing direction in our lives and aligned with teachings in Vedas. [/FONT]
  • Arguing about whether Rama really existed is a useless exercise in my view and it is even more irrelevant to concoct details of such a figure beyond what is available in the epic ...

 
Let me recall my experience in a Hindu religious forum, one of the biggest and long standing. It had sections on Hinduism, Tantras, Mantras, Vedas and all the other aspects of Hinduism. Thousands of posts, thousands of questions and answers. Since it was a Hindu forum the so called rationalists were not encouraged. They were driven out.

Many of the questions which were asked were about Puranas. These questions were from Westerners who had taken to Hinduism. They read the Puranas as they believed in the Puranas. They asked questions when some the Puranas told about Vishnu defeating Siva, Siva defeating Vishnu, and some Rishi defeating both Siva and Vishnu. Puranas contradicting one another. They could not understand.They posted questions out of anguish. They posted because they believed in the Puranas.

We had no answers. Some of the members including myself asked to consider the Puranas as stories. Others came out with excerpts from other Puranas contracting the Purana about which the question was asked.

But the fact is that there are no answers.

All believing Hindus have to accept this.

There is no point in saying that it is the fault of your Guru, your attitude, your lack of capacity to understand. These kind of answers only makes things worse for all believers. Adding insult to injury.

Matters are worse here because this is not a religious forum.

Talking about Hinduism and Vedas, Hinduism is a parliament of religions from Animism to Ahimsa. Though the Vedas are the foundation of Hinduism, Hinduism of today contains a large number of non-Vedic material. When we discussing Hindu Philosophy in the class, it was pointed out that one Philosophy had borrowed some portions from another. I still remember my professor's words. "Hinduism has grown by adapting and assimilating good ideas from many sources. It is only because of this adaptability that Hinduism has survived in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic country like India."
 
Amzing! We want our grand children to be their own masters and decide what they want to do or which profession they want to pursue. In the same breath, we do not want them to pursue anmikam related professions even if their inclination and desire lead in that direction. Well, these professions too pay well for some; one can see many kids, boys and girls, doing pravachanam in astha and sanskar (in tamil channels too). They do a good job. I know half a dozen MBAs giving up their corporate jobs to become priests and 'vathyars'. As in other professions, hereditary following may decline, but new entrants will fill the void successfully.

Last week there was an article on six senior multinational/public sector executives who have quit their lucrative careers and return to the orthodox way of life. One should think twice before labeling them as hypocrites.

Do support such professions, professionals and the institutions which produce them - priests, archakas, patasalas/ gurukuls.

Dear Shri Sharma,

Rama met sugreeva because Kabandha, after his body being incinerated, attained his celestial form as Danu and then as per his earlier promise that he would give a clue about Sita if his kabandha body was burnt up, tells Rama to go and meet sugreeva in Kishkindha. This way, sugreeva gets a certificate from Danu (Kabandha) whereas Vaalin does not have any. But Vaalin was uncertified and, moreover, he was friendly to Ravana, perhaps. Hence, Rama did not enter into a truce with sugreeva blindly.



I do not honestly believe that today's kids will benefit in facing their future life, from morals strained out of Ramayana. Even my children were very fond of the Amar Chitra Katha and similar comics about our religious stories, and used to ask many sharp questions (for which we elders did not have convincing answers) and I think the present day youngsters are born and they grow in a still more highly advanced scientific environment which may make them nod their heads to whatever we say up to some age of theirs but, the more we give the dated inputs from our scriptures during such helpless period, the more are they likely to throw away the whole baggage and even embrace some other faith (which may be equally bad, but they wouldn't have been pestered with all its moralizing in their young ages.) when they reach 18. I for one believe it better to give as much less of religiosity to our children unless you have earned a lot for them to inherit and you will not mind your kids taking up pravacanam or priesthood for their livelihood — I do not wish my grandchildren to go that way.
 
(1) I am addressing this post to all the forum members here and not to any individual member.

(2) wherever I am using the term member henceforth in this post it would mean a member in general and not any particular member. This is the case even if the words represent the posts of a member here.



Let me recall my experience in a Hindu religious forum, one of the biggest and long standing. It had sections on Hinduism, Tantras, Mantras, Vedas and all the other aspects of Hinduism. Thousands of posts, thousands of questions and answers. Since it was a Hindu forum the so called rationalists were not encouraged. They were driven out. Many of the questions which were asked were about Puranas. These questions were from Westerners who had taken to Hinduism. They read the Puranas as they believed in the Puranas. They asked questions when some the Puranas told about Vishnu defeating Siva, Siva defeating Vishnu, and some Rishi defeating both Siva and Vishnu. Puranas contradicting one another. They could not understand.They posted questions out of anguish. They posted because they believed in the Puranas. We had no answers. Some of the members including myself asked to consider the Puranas as stories. Others came out with excerpts from other Puranas contracting the Purana about which the question was asked.

There are answers to all such apparent contradictions. Only it needs knowledge on the part of those who venture to answer the questions by westerners. My not knowing answers can not be an excuse for my telling questioners that there are no answers. Either I have to delve deeper into the religious tenets,scriptures, itihasa puranas or I should tell them that I do not know and withdraw.

But the fact is that there are no answers.All believing Hindus have to accept this.

This is not the truth. Knowledgeable believers of religion will not accept this. If one does not know he has to go to a good teacher first to learn more. That is the solution. Ignorance may be bliss but ignorance or that bliss can not be freely disbursed to others.

There is no point in saying that it is the fault of your Guru, your attitude, your lack of capacity to understand. These kind of answers only makes things worse for all believers. Adding insult to injury.

For one who is in search of knowledge these answers will not be insult or injurious. They will be only proddings to learn more.

Matters are worse here because this is not a religious forum. Talking about Hinduism and Vedas, Hinduism is a parliament of religions from Animism to Ahimsa.


If animism is defined first automatically it will become clear there is no comparison between animism and Hindu religion.

Cheers.


 
After all these discussions there are no answers to any of the questions raised by Renuka. Answers which would be understood by children.

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.
 
puranas are historic events recorded for eons and eons of time. at one yuga lord Shiva was defeated by lord Vishnu . in another yuga vice versa .
must see the broad picture.
if narrow mindedly we stick to small time we couldn't understand .

some time Pakistan win some times India win sometimes srilanka win. like that.
 
Dear Sangom Sir,

To me Ramayana is not just a chronicle which recorded the history of a local chieftain who lived in some small kingdom of Bharath. So we will never be able to agree on that because your view is just the opposite of what is mine. But the general summary you have made of what is good or bad for children is disputable wisdom.

today's kids will not be benefited in facing their future life, from morals strained out of Ramayana. Even my children were very fond of the Amar Chitra Katha and similar comics about our religious stories, and used to ask many sharp questions (for which we elders did not have convincing answers)

There is certainly benefit in learning morals. Morals always stands one in good stead. Since you have quoted from personal experience, I too quote one: After my college education I went to a big city in India to work as a scientist in one of India's premier research organisations. You can say I was a young scientist with a questioning mind. I had a friend who had graduated from one of the IITs working in the same organization and we were room mates too. I got to know him well over a period of time because of friendship and close association in work. He had all sorts of bad habits and I had none. My questioning mind found him to be lacking in morals only because he had parents who never bothered about him. When we used to walk together round round the King circle park in Mumbai though the animal in me tempted me to take a cue from him and enjoy a pot it was the morals that I had learned from my parents that held me back. I would have become rudderless if I too had followed my friend. It is a pathetic story that ended when he committed suicide later. So I have been teaching morals to my children from their young age with the help of all that is there in our scriptures-includes puranas, itihasas-and it is found useful though probing questions were asked and answered. I wont advise any member here to give up this route of creating values in the minds of children. Later when they grow up and the questions come back to disturb them, they will find their own answers. If they were unfortunate not to find answers and become atheists or find answers in other faiths and convert, it is their take. I and all parents will be failing in our duty if we do not teach religious values-values as found in our religion-to our children. We owe it to our children.

the present day youngsters are born and they grow in a still more highly advanced scientific environment which may make them nod their heads to whatever we say up to some age of theirs but, the more we give the dated inputs from our scriptures during such helpless period, the more are they likely to throw away the whole baggage and even embrace some other faith (which may be equally bad, but they wouldn't have been pestered with all its moralizing in their young ages.) when they reach 18.

Scientific environment gives the children the unique advantage to question every thing before accepting it. So they would not accept whatever is dished out unless they are convinced about the truth and value in it or at least convinced that their parents know better and so can subject them to detailed analysis later. They also will understand that every knowledge available will not fit into the dating concept. Is there any faith which tells its members not to teach anything to children about religion? At that age moralizing is not seen as pestering. It becomes that later when you have grown older and have come to see the world in the light of your bitter experiences in life. Even then it is only an effort to find scape goats for one's own failures.

I for one believe it better to give as much less of religiosity to our children unless you have earned a lot for them to inherit and you will not mind your kids taking up pravacanam or priesthood for their livelihood — I do not wish my grandchildren to go that way

One can be a teacher, a businessman, a scientist, an Engineer, a Doctor or any thing you name and yet be very knowledgeable also in religion, its scriptures and itihasa puranas. The two are not mutually exclusive. So I will give enough of religious knowledge to my grandchildren when they arrive and yet also ensure that they do well in whatever field they choose to excel in this world. I think the religious values will act as the anchor if and when there are temptations coming their way to lose the coordinates and drift.
 
Last edited:
I repeat my posts here

#236
This thread got sidetracked from the beginning.

Now Ramayana has other characters who could be role models. The most popular character from Ramayana is NOT Rama but Hanuman. There are thousands of Hanuman temples all over India. In the Devi temples of Himachal Pradesh there is invariably a statue of Hanuman. Many forms of Hanuman are worshiped by Tantriks also.

What has made Hanuman so popular?

How about Kumbakarna? Is he not the embodiment of Loyalty?

There are many more characters in Ramayana from whose story we could draw morals?

Shall we attempt that?

#240

Sangom,

We are talking about children here. I got my first exposure to Ramayana through my grand mother. She always emphasized how good a brother Lakshmana was and how Kumbakarna told Ravana that his action were wrong, but sacrificed his life in the battle. How good Bharata was that he kept the throne empty with Rama's slippers.

My children came to know Ramayana through Amar Chitra Katha. Those comics were good. In fact my son used to read the comics and tell us about them.

The versions read by the children would all be the modified versions.

The questions raised by Renuka in her post #2 were genuine. I added one more question in my post #3. Then we started posting our own doubts about Ramayana.

The history of Ramayana helps us in finding the answers to these questions. But the history should not really bother us.

Is it possible to find a rational or at least plausible answers to these questions?

May be. May be not. Let us explore.

Vali vadham: Rama met Sugriva first. I think it was a planned move by Sugriva. What Rama got was only Sugriva's version of the dispute. Rama promised to put Sugriva on the throne. Rama could not have killed Vali in a straight fight. But he had to keep his promise to Sugriva. So he killed him hiding behind the tree.

We can find answers only if we are not swayed by our belief that RAMA is GOD and could do no wrong. I worship RAMA. I believe that he is GOD. But I am not swayed into believing that Rama of Ramayana could do no wrong. A look at the stories from Puranas makes any one wonder "How can Gods do such ungodly things?"

So let us keep aside our belief in RAMA as God and analyze Ramayana to find the answers to our questions.

Hardyu any response to these.

rather than finding answers to the questions raised by children we seem to be more interested in scoring brownie points.

brownie point definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso Collins
 

Dear Shri Sankara Sharmah,

Ramayna definitely teaches morals and kids can be taught. Here's what I would have told the kids for the queries raised to Smt.Renuka.

My replies in bold.


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)
All kings go for hunting and Dasaratha being a king also hunted animals. He was not doing a wrong deed as a king by hunting. But he was good and virtuous to his people. He was doing his duty to the people.


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.

Sita is Rama's wife and it was Rama's duty to protect his wife. Ravan did not kill Sita but Sita being Rama's wife, wanting to marry her is wrong. Also If Rama had not killed Ravan , Ravan wouldn't have sent Sita back to Rama. So Ravan had to pay with his life for the offence he committed.

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.


One has a duty towards one's wife and she comes to you trusting you will protect her. If everybody remained silent fearing force then only adharma will rule. To uphold dharma some bloodshed can be allowed to take place.


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.


Injustice was done to Rama. The sufferings that Rama would undergo is a consequence of that injustice. Lakshmana was outraged by that injustice and it was as if injustice had been committed to him. So if Rama had to suffer, it was natural that Lakshmana too underwent sufferings and he could besides be of support to Rama. Lakshmana did let his wife alone but consider if all the brothers had left Rama in the lurch wouldn't have kaikeyi's injustice to Rama totally prevailed and sort of going totally unprotested. Though Lakshmana was wrong in leaving his wife alone, he avoided doing a greater wrong by accompanying Rama to the jungle.



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.



Simple. Dharma has to prevail. Since Vibheeshana helped Rama who was fighting for justice, he is considered good. It was also more righteous to help dharma prevail than not providing that help when you can.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top