Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

[sankara_sharmah]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thank You, srvna. Excellent

 

[sangom]

I repeat my posts here

#236


#240



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 Sharmah,

I understand you well. And I don't think it is easy for the pro-Rama members here, also to provide rationally convincing answers to many of the questions. But since, you have brought up this topic, again, I am trying to give my views (as I would answer if such questions are put to me by kids):

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)

Hunting was supposed to be a royal pastime in India from ages past. But usually no king, in practice, used to go hunting alone unless it was into some thickets and the king was sure that he would not have to face any fierce animal. Best for hunting were deer of various kinds described in VR and Rama was an expert in killing these and eating the flesh; Sita meticulously cleaned the skins of the killed animals, dried them for their domestic use.

Dasaratha heard some noise, probably he was afraid and so sent an arrow in the direction of that noise, killing the son of the ascetic who was filling his pot in the river. Elephants do not usually make any noise while drinking water from river or pond (as you can see in Kerala, easily). Hence this is all a made-up, fabricated story to justify the death of Dasaratha as the result of a curse, instead of plainly telling that he (Dasaratha) was a king who hankered for a male heir and since he seemed to be not able to get a son {impotent is the apt word, but I am couching it in different words for kids} with Kausalya and Sumitra even though very old, he marries Kaikeyi, a very affection-less woman and finally forgets his promise to Kaikeyi's father and pays for all such blunders by dying in grief. We should learn from the mistakes of Dasaratha.

2)Why did Lord Rama have to kill Ravan when all Ravan did was abduct Sita and not kill her?

Those were very backward days and Rama's only weapons were bow and arrows. The rakshasas seem to have been an equally, if not more advanced, group of people. (Ravana had a flying chariot which the Ikshvaku clan did not have.) Hence Rama had no chance to merely get Sita released from Ravana's custody. So he took the help of sugreeva and the infinite number of monkeys to launch a frontal attack on Ravana's country, kill all the people except Vibheeshana who had become a traitor to his own country and allied himself with Rama (hoping that if Rama wins he may make Vibheeshana, the king; otherwise Vibheeshana will either get killed or would have to escape death at the hands of Ravana, as best as he could). Vibheeshana's wager or bet succeeded.

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.

Firstly nobody bothered in those days about killing. Rama, Sita and Lakshmana regularly killed deer for their food although they could have subsisted on fruits and roots, edible leaf, etc. Secondly, as prince of Ayodhya, if Rama had meekly returned after 14 years without Sita, he would have been made fun of by all the people as a coward.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Thank You, sangom.

A request to the members. Please do not post any criticism of the answers. Instead Please post your alternate answers.

 

[sangom]

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.

Yes, we all want our grandchildren to decide for themselves which profession they wish to follow. But this does not mean that we cannot have our own, personal, likes and dislikes, preferences.

As to your last sentence, I wish to state that a very poor tabra, distantly related to me and was poojari in a private temple-cum-vaathyaar, was ticked off by the temple authorities with no compensation for his nearly 50 years service. I arranged for payment of a monthly amount regularly from my own funds till his life time. But in the larger picture (as our respected Shri tks might say) I don't think there is any need for supporting the categories you mention, because they help only to increase the religious zealotry in the society.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Sharmah,

I understand you well. And I don't think it is easy for the pro-Rama members here, also to provide rationally convincing answers to many of the questions. But since, you have brought up this topic, again, I am trying to give my views (as I would answer if such questions are put to me by kids):

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)

Hunting was supposed to be a royal pastime in India from ages past. But usually no king, in practice, used to go hunting alone unless it was into some thickets and the king was sure that he would not have to face any fierce animal. Best for hunting were deer of various kinds described in VR and Rama was an expert in killing these and eating the flesh; Sita meticulously cleaned the skins of the killed animals, dried them for their domestic use.

Dasaratha heard some noise, probably he was afraid and so sent an arrow in the direction of that noise, killing the son of the ascetic who was filling his pot in the river. Elephants do not usually make any noise while drinking water from river or pond (as you can see in Kerala, easily). Hence this is all a made-up, fabricated story to justify the death of Dasaratha as the result of a curse, instead of plainly telling that he (Dasaratha) was a king who hankered for a male heir and since he seemed to be not able to get a son {impotent is the apt word, but I am couching it in different words for kids} with Kausalya and Sumitra even though very old, he marries Kaikeyi, a very affection-less woman and finally forgets his promise to Kaikeyi's father and pays for all such blunders by dying in grief. We should learn from the mistakes of Dasaratha.

2)Why did Lord Rama have to kill Ravan when all Ravan did was abduct Sita and not kill her?

Those were very backward days and Rama's only weapons were bow and arrows. The rakshasas seem to have been an equally, if not more advanced, group of people. (Ravana had a flying chariot which the Ikshvaku clan did not have.) Hence Rama had no chance to merely get Sita released from Ravana's custody. So he took the help of sugreeva and the infinite number of monkeys to launch a frontal attack on Ravana's country, kill all the people except Vibheeshana who had become a traitor to his own country and allied himself with Rama (hoping that if Rama wins he may make Vibheeshana, the king; otherwise Vibheeshana will either get killed or would have to escape death at the hands of Ravana, as best as he could). Vibheeshana's wager or bet succeeded.

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.

Firstly nobody bothered in those days about killing. Rama, Sita and Lakshmana regularly killed deer for their food although they could have subsisted on fruits and roots, edible leaf, etc. Secondly, as prince of Ayodhya, if Rama had meekly returned after 14 years without Sita, he would have been made fun of by all the people as a coward.

WOW a little too honest, but in true spirit of knowledge.

 

[sravna]

I think it is better to be even hypocritical because at least you want to project yourself as good. You do not want to be seen as bad. The real problem nowadays is you do not care if you are seen as bad and it is even seen as a positive to be seen as bad.

But I am not advocating either of the above. I am saying being good is not an utopian ideal and it can be practiced. But one should not fall into the trap that it is only an utopian ideal and think that those who say that they abide by higher values are necessarily being insincere or hypocritical.

 

[praveen]

A request to the members:- We have a wide varied member audience who might not share the same views as yours. What is ok with you need not be ok with other. So, if you are going to post against something that is accepted as default, please word them very very carefully and please provide a disclaimer that the views are only for discussion purposes and not necessarily meant to mock/criticise anybody/anything.

 

[prasad1]

A request to the members:- We have a wide varied member audience who might not share the same views as yours. What is ok with you need not be ok with other. So, if you are going to post against something that is accepted as default, please word them very very carefully and please provide a disclaimer that the views are only for discussion purposes and not necessarily meant to mock/criticise anybody/anything.

Mr. Praveen,
I generally support your position, but I beg to differ on this post.
This topic is in general discussion section. The posts have gone off topic, but are very educational.
This section by definition is for discussion only.
Please hold your mighty pen, it is my request.

 

[C RAVI]

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.

Perfect replies to the queries of Kids, Shri Sravna..

The questions that were presented here were also prevailing among we siblings in our younger age. We have asked such questions to our parents and grandparents and got all most the similar answers. I could recollect all that after going through your post. Thank you very much for presenting them here.

We were also told that Rama had to kill Vaali not just to support and help his friend Sugreeva so as to get support in turn for himself from Sugreeva BUT also had the justification of upholding Dharma. Vaali did not believe his own brother Sugreeva at all and considered him treacherous though Sugreeva pleaded guilty and tried to make Vaali understand his confusions/misunderstanding that Vaali and Mayavee might have killed each other in cave in their year long fight. Consequently Vaali attacked Sugreeva and forced him and the team of his monkeys to flee Kishkindha once for all and remained an enemy of Sugreeva for ever.


As a Hindu our self, having not converted our self to other faith or having not adopted atheism, we have our duty and moral obligation to instill moral goodness from the epic stories of Ramayana, Mahabharatha etc into our kids in the right perspectives. It would not make any sense to present a bad/negative picture and laugh at these most valuable epic stories along with our scientifically inclined kids/future generation and continue to identify our self as Hindus.

Belittling our own religious and spiritual greatness while identifying ourselves as Hindus and Theist would not sever any purpose to our self and to lead our future generation.

As Shri Raju has rightly said, it's our duty to present the moral goodness from these epic stories to our kids to our best possible level, without giving up. As the kids grow they can have their own research and determine on their own as what appeals them the most and what not.

 

[sangom]

We were also told that Rama had to kill Vaali not just to support and help his friend Sugreeva so as to get support in turn for himself from Sugreeva BUT also had the justification of upholding Dharma. Vaali did not believe his own brother Sugreeva at all and considered him treacherous though Sugreeva pleaded guilty and tried to make Vaali understand his confusions/misunderstanding that Vaali and Mayavee might have killed each other in cave in their year long fight. Consequently Vaali attacked Sugreeva and forced him and the team of his monkeys to flee Kishkindha once for all and remained an enemy of Sugreeva for ever.

Dear Shri Ravi,

The portion in bold fonts is a boomerang, imho. Though Valmiki Ramayana may say, and you may completely believe in this "Dharma" sthaapanam mission of Rama, the concept of "Dharma" varies from one group of population to another and also from one era to another. Today, outfits like Taliban and similar ones are trying to do what exactly Rama is supposed to have done in the Ramayana days, we do not perceive their methods as having the "justification of upholding Dharma". The Islamic terrorists are motivated by exactly similar ideas of establishing what they perceive as Dharma. Just as Rama killed a number of Rakshasas who were minding their own lives in Lanka and, in the process, caused so much loss of lives to the Vaanara population as well, these terrorists under their leader are attacking and killing innocent people. But we do not approve this as Dharmasthaapanam by some new-age Rama. If Vaali who had not even seen Rama could be killed for the sake of Dharmasthaapanam, at least our pro-Ramayana people here should have sumpathized with Ajmal Kasab, whose mission was similar to that of Hanuman who set the whole Lanka city ablaze, but could escape without being caught or killed.

BTW, what Dharma did Rama uphold in killing Vaali? Will you kindly amplify?

Again, for just one invading Aryan, Lakshmana, when wounded in the battle field, as a result of some weapons used against him by Ravana, Hanuman was sent for fetching "sanjeevani" to revive him, but the great epitome of all virtues did not feel bad at all towards the millions over millions of vaanara soldiers who died fighting his war. How do any person with conscience justify such a racist, discriminatory attitude of a virtually, all-compassionate avataar?No wonder Bishop Caldwell felt that the Dravidians had always been "lesser people" for the Aryans of the north.

As a Hindu our self, having not converted our self to other faith or having not adopted atheism, we have our duty and moral obligation to instill moral goodness from the epic stories of Ramayana, Mahabharatha etc into our kids in the right perspectives. It would not make any sense to present a bad/negative picture and laugh at these most valuable epic stories along with our scientifically inclined kids/future generation and continue to identify our self as Hindus.

Belittling our own religious and spiritual greatness while identifying ourselves as Hindus and Theist would not sever any purpose to our self and to lead our future generation.

As Shri Raju has rightly said, it's our duty to present the moral goodness from these epic stories to our kids to our best possible level, without giving up. As the kids grow they can have their own research and determine on their own as what appeals them the most and what not.

All these rhetorical stand, claims and all might serve you, at best, during your life time. But you will see that changes in the world scene, changes in political, religious, territorial, etc., areas are all very fast as compared to the past, and it will not serve much useful purpose to turn out religious zealots as our future generations. That will only make the world a battle field on religious grounds. I agree that we need not present a bad picture of our scriptural heros but this happens when an impartial view is not accepted, so it becomes necessary to emphasize that the divine heros had, of course, feet of clay.

 

[praveen]

Mr. Praveen,
I generally support your position, but I beg to differ on this post.
This topic is in general discussion section. The posts have gone off topic, but are very educational.
This section by definition is for discussion only.
Please hold your mighty pen, it is my request.

Prasadji,

I am not asking members to stop discussing. I am only requesting them to word them sensibily so that people don't "spin" off different meanings or get a negative opinion about somebody. Thats all. I would be the last person to come out and start editing/deleting stuff... I am by all means for all discussions - for, against or even modern views on old notions

 

[sangom]

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.

1. Hindu traditions largely based on Vedic teaching.
2. The Vedas use large amount of words but most of those do not necessarily have relevance in our lives today.
3. But the knowledge taught is very much relevant.

It will therefore, be safe to conclude, on the authority of Shri tks, that most portions of the vedas do not have relevance today. In the remaining small portion also, only those which seek to teach us "knowledge" alone is relevant to us. But we have not yet done this exercise and codified the small portion of the Vedas which are relevant or even minimally to today's times.

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.

" Ramayana has ... stories in Yogavasishtam."; This statement is not clear.
On what basis or hypothesis is the statement made? Does this mean that the contents of Yoga Vasishta are all in accordance with vedic teachings? BTW, what are the "essential knowledge in the Vedas", please?

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.

Not true, imho. In Draupadee Vastraapaharana, Jayadratha's killing and a few other occasions also Krishna is not depicted as a mere Yadava king.

There is a subservient Buddhi in our Hindu thinking that may be due to Western domination of Hindus over centuries.

Is that why some Hindus do servitude to westerners in their own home (country)?

 

[Govinda]

Ref Post# 252

Ramayana, Hunting and Meat-eating:

The period of Ramayana is considered to be a million years old. Those days, like the mammoths of ice age, these wild elephants may have been numerous. Like the asuras (not human tribes, the cannibalistic ape race) may have harmed the feeble first human race (Ishwaku). The Ishwaku's are the black skinned race, are the dravidians themselves (also aryans, being more civilized/noble etc.) The so-called emperors had to do the hunting to remove those wild species around the city skirts.

Plus, they hunted and carefully skinned their skins for the sages/hermitages (yoga-mat) and the rishis (as there were more hermitages (mediation/yogis) and there were more forests/cold weather then). We have Bhagavad gita verse 6-11, that insists on using asthiram-Asanam (firm seated) for meditation, which includes a cloth on deer skin on a seat of Kusa grass!.


Ram and Lakshmana hunted many deers (speckled antelopes), first worshipped, sacrificed/hunted and removed only the pure parts (skin without flesh). This link has the verse references. But, I don't see that they have consumed them. The valmiki-ramayana website guy (valmikiramayan.net) must be some iyer -perumal dweshi to find fault with vaishnavites/Vishnu supremacy.


Aranya 68,32 -Offered deer flesh/Pinda to the gods/departed soul of Jatayu, chanted Narayana Suktam. That Ramayana site guy, criticizes that Rama used the vedic ritual for bird's moksha. Actually Aruna is charioteer/bird brother of Garuda (sons of Vinata), Aruna's ons are Jatayu and Sampati, who helped in the Sri Rama's adventure of finding Sita. They must be high-souled and as per our vedic sampradaya, it is the soul that is granted moksha not the gross form! Then, vali, ravana, kumbhkarna are all granted heaven and are given rituals.

Aranya, Sarga 73, Demon Khabhanda describes the natural richness of Pampa lake/Krounca forests, he describes the swift flying birds that couldn't be hunted are glutinous like ghee and the fishes in the lakes brimming with lotuses and uncontaminated waters are over-populated for eating. Obviously, he is a demon, how else can he describe the nature to Ram/Lakshmana! It does not suggest that Ram/Lakshmana ate them

Kishkinda Sarga 17, verse 39. Vali, he addresses Rama as 'Brahma Kshitryena' as adjective, and says 'Being a ape, he cannot be eaten, though five kinds of five nailed animals can be eaten' . But, the author mis-interprets. Vali extols Rama of his virtuous qualities . He uses polite words with a sincere question on Rama's propriety (wy should such high-souled person, not fight me face to face?] But that website author, considers them as 'vyaaja ninda' [euphemistic]. Vali describes Dasaratha as '"Born to a great-souled Dasharatha how can you be felonious, deceitful or disposed to a false modesty subconsciously, and an evildoer? " you should have assigned me for that purpose in the first instance itself, and I would have brought that evil-minded demon Ravana, the abductor of your wife in one day, that too without killing him in any fight, but by fastening him by neck, and I would have presented Maithili to you. I would have brought Maithili at your order even if she is lodged in oceanic waters or in nether worlds, as with the White Horse of Vedic lore. [Hayagreeva Avatar of Vishnu].

[Vali had a higher opinion and knowledge about Dasaratha and Rama. ]

I would consider using that website only for the verses, but evaluate the meaning/context properly. If you have healthy eyes, you can only see things, but only a healthy mind can perceive things well and a clear intellect can reason better [ofcourse, those are bestowed only to those with good karma !]

 

[Govinda]

Post #252

1. Dasaratha Impotent, those kings are just humans!

"Meanwhile, in that darkness and not within the react of the eye, I heard the sound of a pitcher being filled up, the sound of which appeared like that of an elephant." There is no fabrication, he heard some sound, he guessed that could be an elephant (what else could anyone guess in a deep forest?). His unforeseen/un-planned action resulted in a consequence. It is a moral, that hurting anyone fires back.

Plus, how do you know Dasaratha is impotent? He had a daughter Santa thru kousalya. In fact, Rama is upset with his dad for losing his mind over sensual pleasures [potent!] with young wife. How do you say Kaikeyi is affection-less women? Kaikeyi was very helpful and nice to the king, and saved him in a critical moment (of losing the chariot axle), and the king felt proud. All these are natural/normal emotions. It is just that Mandara came up with a evil plan, and convinced Kaikeyi for a different goal.

The minissters for the great soul from Ikshvaku kings of Emperor Dasharatha, are epitomised ones of their tactfulness, adroitness and are always obliged to undertake welfare activities of their king and the kingdom. Dhristi, Jayantha, Vijaya, Suraashtra, Raashtravardhana, Akopa, Dharmapaala, are seven, and Sumantra are the eight righteous minsters. The court had these saints -Vashishta, Vamadeva, Suyajna, Jabaali, Kaashyapa, Gautama, Maarkandeya, Deerghaayu, and then Kaatyayana are the scholarly Brahmans acting as religious ministers, and along with them there are also Brahma-sages who are always the ancestral ritual scholars for Dasharatha's family. Read more about their nature, duties and abilities.

Dasaratha's Learned Court

2. Ravana had a chariot, Rama was poor, Vibhikshana had to escape for life!

Here are the lists of hundred of powerful missiles from all gods, Vishwamitra gifted to Rama. Link!

In Dandaka forest, the early days, Rama says this to Lakshmana ""Enraged, I can subdue with my arrows single handed not only Ayodhya but also the earth. But it is not a question of valor here.". He is single-handledly powerful!

The gods, celestial musicians and kinnaras thought that the battle was not equal between Rama standing on the ground and Ravana fighting from a chariot, and the illustrious Indra, sends a chariot, armor and bow. Indra and other gods granting chariot!

Ishwaku were the rules of central Asia/India. Ishwaku had 100 sons and one is kukshi (Rama's ancestor), another Videha(janaka's ancestor). The famous kings in the tree are Anaranya (ravana tried to challenge him), Dundhumaara (Vishnu avatar,Demon-killer), Mandhatr(Vishnu avatar) [married lunar lineage from west India], Bharata, Asita (fought the Haihaya kings] was killed, Sagara [fought dad's enemies and makes yavana-s tonsured, shaka-s or so-called Scythians, as half-tonsured, and paarada-s/persians as shaggy haired ones, thus stripping of their Kshatriya-hood.],Bhagiratha that built dams , ..kakustha(Vishnu avatar), ..Raghu, dilipa, Ambarisha(Vishnu devotee), ..Aja, ..Dasaratha. Ishwaku Lineage.

Vibhikshana did his duty of informing Ravana/Indrajit about their immoral acts and expressed his fear of Rama's powers. After they criticized him, he spoke these golden words, ""Those who have an ill composed mind and who get conceded to the occasion do not assimilate the words of prudence, spoken by a well wisher. Men who forever speak pleasing words are easy to be obtained. But one who speaks of useful but unpleasing words as also the one who listens to them, are rare to be obtained. I fear the noose of yama and Rama's arrows for you. As an elder brother, bear the words spoken by me, who desire your welfare. Guard this city and yourself along with demons, by all means. Let all be well with you. I am departing. Be a happy person without me." Looks like, Vibhikshana wanted to be on the side of dharma!!

3. Rama could have left Sita, instead of killing so many demons!

The purpose of the Avatar itself was to kill Vali and Ravana duo (& kumbakarana). The famous of haihaya king was Kartavirya Arjuna, who was a great devotee of Dattatreya, who ruled for thousands of years. His prayed for a mighty son, thousand armed Kartavirya. He killed many kshatriyas of India (possibly Solar & mixed ones), he asked the Brahmans to return their resources. This guy and Vali scared the heck out of Ravana. The only way for a peaceful rule, was the descendant of Vishnu. Parashurama made the brahmins as niyogis (6000 niyogi) to produce the heirs of the kshatriya widows. Then, he killed Kirtavirya. The next avatar was
to remove Ravana. [Vali is part of the trio power].

 

[tks]

1. Hindu traditions largely based on Vedic teaching.
2. The Vedas use large amount of words but most of those do not necessarily have relevance in our lives today.
3. But the knowledge taught is very much relevant.

A) It will therefore, be safe to conclude, on the authority of Shri tks, that most portions of the vedas do not have relevance today. In the remaining small portion also, only those which seek to teach us "knowledge" alone is relevant to us. But we have not yet done this exercise and codified the small portion of the Vedas which are relevant or even minimally to today's times.


B) " Ramayana has ... stories in Yogavasishtam."; This statement is not clear.
On what basis or hypothesis is the statement made? Does this mean that the contents of Yoga Vasishta are all in accordance with vedic teachings? BTW, what are the "essential knowledge in the Vedas", please?

C) Not true, imho. In Draupadee Vastraapaharana, Jayadratha's killing and a few other occasions also Krishna is not depicted as a mere Yadava king.



Is that why some Hindus do servitude to westerners in their own home (country)?

Response to A) For most people if they try to understand B.Gita and with a right teacher attempt to reconcile teaching of all 18 chapters then there is very little need for them to go to the source scriptures. Also there are very few Upansishads that are studied anyway and that is enough since they all teach the same thing but from different perspective.

Besides this there are ritual portions that are in use during key events and they keep our Sastrigals employed. Except for people doing research that is adequate in my view.

Response to B) By and large whatever little I have read Yogavasishatam I found that with the right interpretations they are in alignment with Vedic teaching. The stories in Yogavasishatam transcend notions of Time that we have from our experience. By the way while Science is not the topic of Vedic teaching, the latest understanding Physics has provided in the last 10 years is getting to be finally aligned with the model of Time and Space that is taught in the Upanishads. It is a big topic by itself and I am not making this statement lightly just to say Vedas are great or any such thing.

What is 'The essential knowledge of Vedas' - that is the proverbial $60000 question Best is to learn from proper teacher after satisfying the pre-requisites....

Response to C) You are right. Epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharatha have been embellished over time and stir our imagination. Many descriptions defy laws of Physics. By and large Sri Krishna is portrayed as a historical figure - you are right there are places where he is shown to be endowed with magical powers but then everyone seem to have all kinds of powers in the war with their Mantra powered missiles ! For us the stories provide a framework to teach B. Gita, Moksha Dharma-Parva etc in addition to keep us captivated with an imaginative story.


Regards

 

[sangom]

Ref Post# 252

Ramayana, Hunting and Meat-eating:

The period of Ramayana is considered to be a million years old. Those days, like the mammoths of ice age, these wild elephants may have been numerous. Like the asuras (not human tribes, the cannibalistic ape race) may have harmed the feeble first human race (Ishwaku). The Ishwaku's are the black skinned race, are the dravidians themselves (also aryans, being more civilized/noble etc.) The so-called emperors had to do the hunting to remove those wild species around the city skirts.

Plus, they hunted and carefully skinned their skins for the sages/hermitages (yoga-mat) and the rishis (as there were more hermitages (mediation/yogis) and there were more forests/cold weather then). We have Bhagavad gita verse 6-11, that insists on using asthiram-Asanam (firm seated) for meditation, which includes a cloth on deer skin on a seat of Kusa grass!.


Ram and Lakshmana hunted many deers (speckled antelopes), first worshipped, sacrificed/hunted and removed only the pure parts (skin without flesh). This link has the verse references. But, I don't see that they have consumed them. The valmiki-ramayana website guy (valmikiramayan.net) must be some iyer -perumal dweshi to find fault with vaishnavites/Vishnu supremacy.

. . .

I would consider using that website only for the verses, but evaluate the meaning/context properly. If you have healthy eyes, you can only see things, but only a healthy mind can perceive things well and a clear intellect can reason better [ofcourse, those are bestowed only to those with good karma !][/QUOTE]

Dear Shri Govinda,

About one's Karma, none of us can know and that is the beauty of nature!! Whether I have good or bad Karmas which make me see what you try not to see, in our scriptures, we do not know. But I can claim this much in my favour; and it is that I have passed through many of the belief stages in which you seem to be now. And then I found that in this world there are so many religions/belief systems which are mutually antagonistic and, if really, religion is god-given, then all these religions count the same in the "bigger picture" - as shri tks puts it usually - of human life, then it will mean that religon may not count at all. That is how I have become an agnostic and a non-believer in religion/s. But imho, such thinking also perhaps requires a special type of Karma. (Are we sure that Hindus or Vaishnavites or perumaaLists are definitely getting a better deal in this world or in the other worlds, after death? Is there any clear evidence?)

Be that as it may, I come to meat/flesh-eating of Rama-Lakshmana-Sita. (All these are from the same source which you have quoted from.)

tāṃ tathā darśayitvā tu maithilīṃ girinimnagām |
niṣasāda giriprasthe sītāṃ māṃsena candayan || 2-96-1

Having shown Mandakini River in that manner to Seetha, the daughter of Mithila, Rama set on the hill-side in order to gratify her appetite with a piece of flesh.


idaṃ medhyamidaṃ svādu niṣṭaptamidamagninā |
evamāste sa dharmātmā sītayā saha rāghavaḥ || 2-96-2

Rama, whose mind was devoted to righteousness stayed there with Seetha, saying; "This meat is fresh, this is savoury and roasted in the fire."

In the above-said verse, most commentators (I have 4 commentaries with me fyi) are forced to accept that the word "medhyam" means "fresh" but actually it means eatable (not inedible, or not prohibited for eating); and that is why we have the word "amedhyam" meaning something banned for eating (in common parlance, faeces). Since Rama is saying in the just previous sloka that he would satisfy Sita's appetite with flesh (sītāṃ māṃsena candayan), there is no need to
obfuscate/prevaricate the meaning of the second verse and it can be easily understood that Rama whose mind was ever devoted to righteousness, was strict in ensuring that Sita ate only the 'halaal' portions (of course as per the hindu saastras) of the meat of the killed deer. (But obviously the killing was not 'halaal'.)

Now we may go on to some of the other slokas and decide whether flesh was eaten or the poor animals were simply killed as a cruel pastime of the Rama-Lakshmana duo.

तत्र रामम् भयम् तीव्रम् आविवेश विषादजम्।
राक्षसम् मृग रूपम् तम् हत्वा श्रुत्वा च तत् स्वनम्॥ ३-४४-२६
tatra rāmam bhayam tīvram āviveśa viṣādajam |
rākṣasam mṛga rūpam tam hatvā śrutvā ca tat svanam || 3-44-26

26. On killing that demon in the form of Golden Deer, and also on hearing his yelling, Rama is as if under a spell with a frantic fear caused by his own gloom. [3-44-26]

निहत्य पृषतम् च अन्यम् मांसम् आदाय राघवः।
त्वरमाणो जनस्थानम् ससार अभिमुखः तदा॥ ३-४४-२७

nihatya pṛṣatam ca anyam māṁsam ādāya rāghavaḥ |
tvaramāṇo janasthānam sasāra abhimukhaḥ tadā || 3-44-27


27. Raghava then on killing another spotted deer and on taking its flesh, he hurried himself towards Janasthaana. [3-44-27]

Even when Rama had been under a spell due to fear (bhayam tīvram) and gloom (viṣāda), he was meticulous in killing another deer and "on taking its flesh" he hurries back to his residence. Compare this what any ordinary mortal - not a paradigm of maryaadaa or dharma, would do if he suspects that his wife has come in great danger? In all probability he will not feel any hunger or thirst till some steps are taken by him to verify if his wife is really safe, or, if she had been kidnapped or something like that. Need I say anything more?

. . . to be continued

 

[sarang]

What is the issue? Rama promised to bring his wife the deer, alive or dead. Since the original spotted deer turned into a rakshasa, and Rama/sita are not nara/rakshasa bakshnis, he killed a genuine deer and brought its meat. Even in such uncertain circumstance, he did not forget to fulfill the promise he made and did not give evasive replies like - I forgot, was busy, no time and a host of such excuses.

Such deconstruction will only lead to more amedhyam skipping all the flowers and fruits.

The last line of the post is the most illuminating realization.

. . .

I would consider using that website only for the verses, but evaluate the meaning/context properly. If you have healthy eyes, you can only see things, but only a healthy mind can perceive things well and a clear intellect can reason better [ofcourse, those are bestowed only to those with good karma !]

Dear Shri Govinda,

About one's Karma, none of us can know and that is the beauty of nature!! Whether I have good or bad Karmas which make me see what you try not to see, in our scriptures, we do not know. But I can claim this much in my favour; and it is that I have passed through many of the belief stages in which you seem to be now. And then I found that in this world there are so many religions/belief systems which are mutually antagonistic and, if really, religion is god-given, then all these religions count the same in the "bigger picture" - as shri tks puts it usually - of human life, then it will mean that religon may not count at all. That is how I have become an agnostic and a non-believer in religion/s. But imho, such thinking also perhaps requires a special type of Karma. (Are we sure that Hindus or Vaishnavites or perumaaLists are definitely getting a better deal in this world or in the other worlds, after death? Is there any clear evidence?)

Be that as it may, I come to meat/flesh-eating of Rama-Lakshmana-Sita. (All these are from the same source which you have quoted from.)

tāṃ tathā darśayitvā tu maithilīṃ girinimnagām |
niṣasāda giriprasthe sītāṃ māṃsena candayan || 2-96-1

Having shown Mandakini River in that manner to Seetha, the daughter of Mithila, Rama set on the hill-side in order to gratify her appetite with a piece of flesh.


idaṃ medhyamidaṃ svādu niṣṭaptamidamagninā |
evamāste sa dharmātmā sītayā saha rāghavaḥ || 2-96-2

Rama, whose mind was devoted to righteousness stayed there with Seetha, saying; "This meat is fresh, this is savoury and roasted in the fire."

In the above-said verse, most commentators (I have 4 commentaries with me fyi) are forced to accept that the word "medhyam" means "fresh" but actually it means eatable (not inedible, or not prohibited for eating); and that is why we have the word "amedhyam" meaning something banned for eating (in common parlance, faeces). Since Rama is saying in the just previous sloka that he would satisfy Sita's appetite with flesh (sītāṃ māṃsena candayan), there is no need to
obfuscate/prevaricate the meaning of the second verse and it can be easily understood that Rama whose mind was ever devoted to righteousness, was strict in ensuring that Sita ate only the 'halaal' portions (of course as per the hindu saastras) of the meat of the killed deer. (But obviously the killing was not 'halaal'.)

Now we may go on to some of the other slokas and decide whether flesh was eaten or the poor animals were simply killed as a cruel pastime of the Rama-Lakshmana duo.

तत्र रामम् भयम् तीव्रम् आविवेश विषादजम्।
राक्षसम् मृग रूपम् तम् हत्वा श्रुत्वा च तत् स्वनम्॥ ३-४४-२६
tatra rāmam bhayam tīvram āviveśa viṣādajam |
rākṣasam mṛga rūpam tam hatvā śrutvā ca tat svanam || 3-44-26

26. On killing that demon in the form of Golden Deer, and also on hearing his yelling, Rama is as if under a spell with a frantic fear caused by his own gloom. [3-44-26]

निहत्य पृषतम् च अन्यम् मांसम् आदाय राघवः।
त्वरमाणो जनस्थानम् ससार अभिमुखः तदा॥ ३-४४-२७

nihatya pṛṣatam ca anyam māṁsam ādāya rāghavaḥ |
tvaramāṇo janasthānam sasāra abhimukhaḥ tadā || 3-44-27


27. Raghava then on killing another spotted deer and on taking its flesh, he hurried himself towards Janasthaana. [3-44-27]

Even when Rama had been under a spell due to fear (bhayam tīvram) and gloom (viṣāda), he was meticulous in killing another deer and "on taking its flesh" he hurries back to his residence. Compare this what any ordinary mortal - not a paradigm of maryaadaa or dharma, would do if he suspects that his wife has come in great danger? In all probability he will not feel any hunger or thirst till some steps are taken by him to verify if his wife is really safe, or, if she had been kidnapped or something like that. Need I say anything more?

. . . to be continued[/QUOTE]

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

I have a question for you, please. When I read Valmiki Ramayana ( VR), I did not think Valmiki wrote it like he was trying to portray Rama as an avatar. That's my thinking anyway.

Now that this debate is going on with full tilt, I am requesting to kindly say what is the aim of this discussion, please.

I am quite sure, majority of the persons may not have read Valmiki Ramayana; your quoting VR may be new to many members, may be shocking to some members. Since I was a Sundara Kanda parayani, I am aware of some of the controvertial slokas.

I really think it would help if you write your aim and message for your analysing VR. There is a risk people may think you are just trying villify VR. I know that is not the case. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[prasad1]

Every year since 2009, Adishakti has been hosting Ramayana festivals that present interpretations of the epic in a wide range of genres - using traditional and modern idioms from literature and folklore.


The Ramayana has been interpreted in numerous ways over the years. In southern India there are at least seven versions in Sanskrit derived from the ancient scriptures, nearly 20 versions in regional languages and at least 10 Asian avatars.


The epics have been tweaked to cater to local sensitivities in many of the versions. Paula Richman, in her book "Many Ramayanas: The Diversity of Narrative Traditions in South Asia", explores the different retellings of Ramayana - the story of Lord Ram, his wife Sita and Ravan - from the different communal and socio-cultural perspectives of India.

Deccan_Herald

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Many R錫m錫ya騨as: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia - Paula Richman - Google Books

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

I have a question for you, please. When I read Valmiki Ramayana ( VR), I did not think Valmiki wrote it like he was trying to portray Rama as an avatar. That's my thinking anyway.

Now that this debate is going on with full tilt, I am requesting to kindly say what is the aim of this discussion, please.

I am quite sure, majority of the persons may not have read Valmiki Ramayana; your quoting VR may be new to many members, may be shocking to some members. Since I was a Sundara Kanda parayani, I am aware of some of the controvertial slokas.

I really think it would help if you write your aim and message for your analysing VR. There is a risk people may think you are just trying villify VR. I know that is not the case. Thank you.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

I am not at all trying to vilify VR, nor am I accepting it as a scripture which cannot be questioned. In case you have not followed the entire course of this thread, may I say that I wrote my views about VR in this post. The one point I did not write therein was that, as Smt. Renuka had said in post # 2, it will be difficult to find convincing and rational answers to many doubts which today's kids may raise.

Shri suraju06 entered the scene in post # 49 with his reservations on/objections to the type of analysis which I am subjecting the VR to. From then on many new and extraneous points came in and the discussions have taken the course as it now is.

I consider that VR as a text has many deficiencies in supporting the avataara image of Rama which the public mind now firmly has. Unfortunately, however, VR is the text/scripture considered as par excellence at least in south indian brahmin circles and many people firmly believe that all their notions about Rama are supported by the contents of VR, which is not true. Adhyatma Ramayana, Ananda Ramayana, Mantra Ramayana, etc., are the more suitable texts which project Rama's divine avataara status though these texts differ from VR in many places. I want to point out this disjuncture or confusion in the public mind.

For example Ramcharitmanas which is recited by many brahmins also in the north, adhyatma Ramayana of ezhuthachan which is now very popularly recited daily throughout the month of ADi in Kerala in many households, etc., are different from VR.

So, I feel it is time to keep VR as an example of the earliest sanskrit poetry and follow adhyatma ramayana or even Kamba Ramayana for daily reading etc. Otherwise it is like sowing a cucumber seed and expecting a pumpkin from it, imho. VR when compared with the other versions of Ramayana will bring out how much Vaalmeeki's hero has been morphed to get the popular Rama of today. To that extent I do not agree with the scriptural status given to VR.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Only Samhitas are Vedas

There are many Indian Vedic Scholars who consider only the Samhitas as Vedas.

Mantras are Meta words which have no meaning. Any meaning is only an interpretation because the Mantras act thorough Sound Vibration. The correct chanting of the Vedic Mantras is absolutely essential for the Mantras to produce results.

This the reason for insistence on learning Vedic chanting.

A belief in Veda also should include a belief in the Power and efficacy of the Mantras. Almost all the Hindus do.

This is a widely held belief and I can offer no proof. I believe in this.

Mantras originated in the Vedic tradition, becoming an essential part of the Hindu tradition and a customary practice within Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism.

 

[sangom]

New avatars of Ramayana reflect modern times

The Indian epic Ramayana is moving beyond convention to more profound retellings to reflect new realities.

Ruminate on this: Kumbhkaran, the giant sibling of the demon king Ravana in the epic had to grapple with excess sleep all his life. Sleep got into the way of his contribution to the battle between Lord Ram and Ravan, leading to his death.

Lakshman, the sibling of Lord Ram, battled sleeplessness - or rather the guilt attached to the act. "My sleep, what does it mean.. That I sleep for 14 years or I get 14 years of sleep in one night? Is sleep the only way to find out," muses an agonised Lakshman as he fends off sleep. Kumbhakaran, on the other hand, is bothered about his sleep cycle that he monitors on his wrist watch.

(Please go to the link for the full report)

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Raghy,

I am not at all trying to vilify VR, nor am I accepting it as a scripture which cannot be questioned. In case you have not followed the entire course of this thread, may I say that I wrote my views about VR in this post. The one point I did not write therein was that, as Smt. Renuka had said in post # 2, it will be difficult to find convincing and rational answers to many doubts which today's kids may raise.

Shri suraju06 entered the scene in post # 49 with his reservations on/objections to the type of analysis which I am subjecting the VR to. From then on many new and extraneous points came in and the discussions have taken the course as it now is.

I consider that VR as a text has many deficiencies in supporting the avataara image of Rama which the public mind now firmly has. Unfortunately, however, VR is the text/scripture considered as par excellence at least in south indian brahmin circles and many people firmly believe that all their notions about Rama are supported by the contents of VR, which is not true. Adhyatma Ramayana, Ananda Ramayana, Mantra Ramayana, etc., are the more suitable texts which project Rama's divine avataara status though these texts differ from VR in many places. I want to point out this disjuncture or confusion in the public mind.

For example Ramcharitmanas which is recited by many brahmins also in the north, adhyatma Ramayana of ezhuthachan which is now very popularly recited daily throughout the month of ADi in Kerala in many households, etc., are different from VR.

So, I feel it is time to keep VR as an example of the earliest sanskrit poetry and follow adhyatma ramayana or even Kamba Ramayana for daily reading etc. Otherwise it is like sowing a cucumber seed and expecting a pumpkin from it, imho. VR when compared with the other versions of Ramayana will bring out how much Vaalmeeki's hero has been morphed to get the popular Rama of today. To that extent I do not agree with the scriptural status given to VR.

In our Balvihar we teach a simplified Ramayana When children ask difficult questions (which they do) we give honest answers. This too causes problem for us. Recently a parent was upset that we answered a Child's question about Rama eating meat honestly. That child it seems now insists on eating meat, and the vegetarian parents are upset. LOL

 

[sangom]

In our Balvihar we teach a simplified Ramayana When children ask difficult questions (which they do) we give honest answers. This too causes problem for us. Recently a parent was upset that we answered a Child's question about Rama eating meat honestly. That child it seems now insists on eating meat, and the vegetarian parents are upset. LOL

Dear Shri Prasad,

If you will like to follow the adage "satyaṃ brūyāt priyaṃ brūyāt | na brūyāt satyaṃ apriyam ||", there is a way out, I feel. Rama before taking leave of Kausalyaa, tells her "from tomorrow we will be eating fruits and roots, and wearing barks; thus we will lead the lives of hermits for 14 years, tries to create enough pathos but starts eating meat soon after crossing Ganga. So you could hereafter say this portion, instead of the truth.