Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

It is funny that Mr. Gopal Rao the originator of this post disappeared.

Can we stop taking every discussion so personal. The points raised are all valid. Let us keep the discussion to the topic and not take it so personal.

The originator must have had more than he could stomach and he would definitely have quit reading this forum also. But then just as the vedas existed coeval with Parabrahman, any opinion against this presumption will also be fought till eternity. That is the lakshana of a true tabra, I believe. (BTW, am I not also one of this kind?!

 

[sangom]

Is there a chance that this assessment applies to thyself?

For example, from your post#110


Is this not a reference to members arguing here? Are you not trying to belittle them?

Ironically, the post that you 100% agreed upon is another crass example of being abusive, calling names and belittling the members of this forum in every possible way.

From post #137



For good measure, the word "PITY" is included. What arrogance!

He who lives in a glass house shall not throw stones.

In this Forum there has been a convention that if a post is addressed to one member then another member should not come in between. I like to follow that convention.

 

[tbs]

6. हा बु हा बु हा बु . . .

हा बु हा बु हा बु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा बु ब्रह्म जज्ञानं प्रथमं पुरस्तात् ।
वि सीमतस्सुरुचॊ वेन आ वात् ।
स बुध्निया उपमा अस्य वा यि स्थाः।
सतस् च योनिं असतस् च वा यि वः ।
हा बु हा बु हा भु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा वु वा।
ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमान् ।


hi
i think its from SAMAVEDA SAMHITA PART.......

 

[tks]

caused the sudden withdrawal of TKS.

Sri KB

I am not a very regular visitor but keep up with browsing if a topic is somewhat interesting. Plus my work takes 60 to 70 hours a week often which coupled with my time management skills prevents me from coming here often to post.

Whenever I have read your posts on topics which interests me I find you have insights and are very logical in your analysis. Hence I am responding to your comment about my 'suddent withdrawl'.

I had explained my reasons for not participating in the discussions on this thread when I said about withdrawing discussions on this topic with Sri Sangom- As usual it has nothing to do with motives assigned by Sri Sangom subsequently.

I actually had prepared a long response to his post about some priest Dakshina etc and chucked that aside after seeing one of his post blaming some Brahmins of the past. Sri Samgom like all others are actually welcome to have any view but I became convinced at that point that substantive discussion is not possible with someone who holds a belief system.

In my view Sri Sangom has a set of beliefs like everyone else but I became convinced that those beliefs prevent him from having a rational discussion that requires deep thinking and analysis. He may not agree with my statement but my intent is not to make him or anyone see any different view.

It is one thing to know that a person dont know something. It is another when one does not know what they dont know ...

There are some topics that are best learnt under proper conditions after satisfying pre-requisites. If someone asks me what my PhD thesis was which is an inconsequential work after more than three decades now, I could probably explain some high level ideas. If someone takes a strong position that something is incorrect in what I said I would ask them to get proper background in Physics and Mathematics to have a discussion.

I found that attempts to learn the profound teaching of Upanishads more challenging than any work I have ever done. If it was a belief system based entity it would be trivial since no learning would be involved.

Just like this forum, the Veda as a body of poems has lots of aspects - some for specific purpose, some profound teaching and lot of areas that are not applicable to our life styles today.

All upanishads arising from all Vedas do not teach divergent things. One needs to be able to have the skills to abstract and understand. Without background on questions I had posed in this thread earlier and without ability to abstract it is not possible to make sense of the whole thing. Those who can only understand literal things will be frustrated.

The Upanishads attempts to convey what is inexpressable, provide shape to the formless, and teach through right choice of words what is beyond words. The Kena Upanishad reference I mentioned conveys this idea in a powerful manner.

If someone reads say a verse of Kathopanishad 4.1 it may translate to "the Lord destroyed the senses towards inside and turned them outward"
This is a meaningless statement by the way it is stated. Why should the Lord destroy senses, what senses etc ..

In a proper setting it may take 3 weeks to explain a few verses - 20 days to build the context, one day to teach the actual verse.

Because the 'whole is in the part' - just like every cell has DNA structure that has the intelligence to create the whole body, many verses often have the whole essence of Vedanta in just the one verse. To truly understand the verse one needs to know everything else so that one can get the context. But then to know everything else one has to go through all the teachings. This is a Catch-22 situation and is often resolved by learning from someone who has the full context and they can teach the whole verse fully and eventually understand the whole. The question then is how did that person get the whole picture - from his or her teacher. This is one of the reasons why there is a need for teacher and emphasis on Guru Parampara. The first teacher symbolically is called Lord Dakshinamurthi who is poetically described to have communicated by Mudras in silence!

While a forum of this kind is not a place for scholarly discussions on such topics in my view (and I hope people are not impressed by citations from many places in this era of Google and facilities to copy & paste - that has nothing to do with scholarship) one has to have some basics before they can take a strong position in any topic area.

Between having limited to time for thoughtful posts and realizing that strong positions were being taken without having earned the rights to do so in my view I decided to bow out.

I hope people continue debating and adding to the discussions.

Regards.

 

[sangom]

It is one thing to know that a person dont know something. It is another when one does not know what they dont know ...

Shri tks,

I take strong exception to the above innuendo, which is directed at myself, although it is contained in a post addressed to KB and usually I do not respond to such posts.

If after all your bombastic claims of having understood the profoundest teachings of the vedas and the upanishads, this is the calibre up to which you could raise yourself, then I pity the guru who accepted you as disciple and (as per your claims) taught you all those esoteric knowledge. If that guru is still alive and sees how his disciple has ultimately shaped, he will surely hang his head in shame.

May I remind you that there is another category of people and the adage goes,

We know that we know because we can't recall what we don't know

At times it is just good to KNOW that we just don't know and seek knowledge.

But lord help us from the one who thinks he know it all.

If someone reads say a verse of Kathopanishad 4.1 it may translate to "the Lord destroyed the senses towards inside and turned them outward"
This is a meaningless statement by the way it is stated. Why should the Lord destroy senses, what senses etc ..

In a proper setting it may take 3 weeks to explain a few verses - 20 days to build the context, one day to teach the actual verse.

There is no fourth adhyaaya or vallee in Kathopanishad. The reference seems to be II-1-1 which goes as:—

परान्चि खानि व्यतृणत् स्वयम्भूः
तस्मात् पराङ् पश्यति न अन्तरात्मन् ।

कश्चिद्धीरः प्रत्यगात्मनं ऐक्षत्
आवृत्तचक्षुः अमृतत्वं इच्छन् ॥

parānci khāni vyatṛṇat svayambhūḥ
tasmāt parāṅ paśyati na antarātman |

kaściddhīraḥ pratyagātmānam aikṣat
āvṛttacakṣuḥ amṛtatvaṃ icchan ||

And, if it required 20 days of preparation for students like you to understand the central meaning of this verse 9and also that it has reference to the Yoga darsana (as I was taught), then I can understand why you feel like one of the category from whom only the Lord can help us!

Because the 'whole is in the part' - just like every cell has DNA structure that has the intelligence to create the whole body, many verses often have the whole essence of Vedanta in just the one verse. To truly understand the verse one needs to know everything else so that one can get the context. But then to know everything else one has to go through all the teachings. This is a Catch-22 situation and is often resolved by learning from someone who has the full context and they can teach the whole verse fully and eventually understand the whole. The question then is how did that person get the whole picture - from his or her teacher. This is one of the reasons why there is a need for teacher and emphasis on Guru Parampara. The first teacher symbolically is called Lord Dakshinamurthi who is poetically described to have communicated by Mudras in silence!

While a forum of this kind is not a place for scholarly discussions on such topics in my view (and I hope people are not impressed by citations from many places in this era of Google and facilities to copy & paste - that has nothing to do with scholarship) one has to have some basics before they can take a strong position in any topic area.

Between having limited to time for thoughtful posts and realizing that strong positions were being taken without having earned the rights to do so in my view I decided to bow out.

I hope people continue debating and adding to the discussions.

Regards.

Sir, according to the way I have been taught by my teachers and elders, I must respectfully request you to descend to non-scholarly levels and disseminate whatever knowledge you possess. In fact I read your posts with great interest.

 

[zebra16]

In this Forum there has been a convention that if a post is addressed to one member then another member should not come in between. I like to follow that convention.

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

I am not aware of such a convention existing in this forum. Though some posters do seek indulgence of the existing posters to permit entry, I do think it is counter productive to permit only one to one exchange between two members.

What are the other readers supposed to do if they do have something to say on the topic at hand? If only two members are to exchange views on a given topic, then would forum posting between the two be required?

 

[sravna]

In my view Sri Sangom has a set of beliefs like everyone else but I became convinced that those beliefs prevent him from having a rational discussion that requires deep thinking and analysis.

....

It is one thing to know that a person dont know something. It is another when one does not know what they dont know ...

....

If someone asks me what my PhD thesis was which is an inconsequential work after more than three decades now, I could probably explain some high level ideas. If someone takes a strong position that something is incorrect in what I said I would ask them to get proper background in Physics and Mathematics to have a discussion.

.....

One needs to be able to have the skills to abstract and understand. Without background on questions I had posed in this thread earlier and without ability to abstract it is not possible to make sense of the whole thing. Those who can only understand literal things will be frustrated.
.....

....


Regards.

It seems like Shri.TKS has a lot of pride over his ability to abstract and his ability to think deeply. I have seen this pride of his coming out in quite a few of his posts. With all due respects to his education and age, I see the humility that a proper vedic knowledge would have imparted sadly missing.

 

[renuka]

II see the humility that a proper vedic knowledge would have imparted sadly missing.

Dear Sravna,

I beg to differ here.First and foremost I feel TKS Ji is just point blank sorts.

Ok now you said that proper vedic knowledge would impart humility?

Let me tell you a conversation I had once with a priest who is well versed in Vedic knowledge from India.
He was talking to me about Grantham Script for Sanskrit cos he thought I only knew Devanagari script.I know some Grantham but not that much.

So he was telling me all about it and was writing it to show me.
I listened attentively and then I happened to notice that there was a mistake in one of the letters he wrote and I was wondering is he right or wrong or am I right or wrong?

No one else was there only me, him(wife) and my husband cos he had invited us over to his house for dinner.

Then to my surprise he became a bit upset when I asked him "Is this written like this or like that?"

He said "Do you really think you know more to me? "

When I went home I checked up a book and I realized that he was wrong after all but he did not have any humility.

So technically even vedic knowledge does not always confer humility.

 

[sarang]

Readers are requested to insert usual disclaimers - IMHO, IMDHO. MY POV, I believe, this is not written to offend the views or sensibilities of readers, any resemblance to real or imaginary living or itihasic persons is only incidental - etc. Interesting reading!

Perhaps vijay or jaya or podigai tv can be requested or sponsored by 'anti rama' erudite scholars with acquired samskrit knowledge to do pravachan during evening peak hours (morning slots are already taken by the faithful). Or a place intrigue serial will wean away the serial addicted tamil population and demystify the past.

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

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

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

 

[sarang]

Even Rama was angry, dejected, depressed, and experienced all emotions, positive and negative. He was angry with all the gods, trees, rivers and mountains as they did not respond to his grief and tell him what happened to sita. He swore to dry up the ocean when the samudraraja did not offer help to cross the ocean during his 3 day tapa. But Lakshmana was always there to cool him. Uncontrolled anger exhibited by Viswamitra and Parasurama are well known.

It seems like Shri.TKS has a lot of pride over his ability to abstract and his ability to think deeply. I have seen this pride of his coming out in quite a few of his posts. With all due respects to his education and age, I see the humility that a proper vedic knowledge would have imparted sadly missing.

 

[sangom]

6. हा बु हा बु हा बु . . .

हा बु हा बु हा बु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा बु ब्रह्म जज्ञानं प्रथमं पुरस्तात् ।
वि सीमतस्सुरुचॊ वेन आ वात् ।
स बुध्निया उपमा अस्य वा यि स्थाः।
सतस् च योनिं असतस् च वा यि वः ।
हा बु हा बु हा भु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा वु वा।
ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमान् ।


hi
i think its from SAMAVEDA SAMHITA PART.......

Shri tbs,

You are right partly. It is from saamaveda, Jaiminiya Aranyaka geyagaana, which is how the aaranyaka is called.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

There are some topics that are best learnt under proper conditions after satisfying pre-requisites.

Please let us know what are the pre-requisites and what are the proper conditions.

 

[sangom]

Even Rama was angry, dejected, depressed, and experienced all emotions, positive and negative. He was angry with all the gods, trees, rivers and mountains as they did not respond to his grief and tell him what happened to sita. He swore to dry up the ocean when the samudraraja did not offer help to cross the ocean during his 3 day tapa. But Lakshmana was always there to cool him. Uncontrolled anger exhibited by Viswamitra and Parasurama are well known.

Rama is not only angry but also is portrayed by vaalmeeki, as a person who was very much overcome by lust. So he (Rama) has been shown as seeing Sita's thighs in the trunk of the Kakubha tree and in banana stalks, her breasts in the ripened fruits of the palm tree, etc.

 

[sangom]

Readers are requested to insert usual disclaimers - IMHO, IMDHO. MY POV, I believe, this is not written to offend the views or sensibilities of readers, any resemblance to real or imaginary living or itihasic persons is only incidental - etc. Interesting reading!

Perhaps vijay or jaya or podigai tv can be requested or sponsored by 'anti rama' erudite scholars with acquired samskrit knowledge to do pravachan during evening peak hours (morning slots are already taken by the faithful). Or a place intrigue serial will wean away the serial addicted tamil population and demystify the past.

Dear Shri sarang,

The "sting" in the above post has come out quite well and probably, very effectively too, for those who would like to sting!. But you have forgotten our much revered EVR and his 'keemaayanam' of the olden days. I distinctly recollect most tabras reviling the book in public but secretly buying/sharing the book among several families. One orthodox tabra who used to read sundarakaaNDa as per prescriptions, daily, said, after reading keemaayanam, "இப்படியெல்லாம் எழுதியிருக்கார்ன்னு தெரியவே தெரியாதே!" (He was, of course, referring to vaalmeeki and not EVR.)

May be if DMK or Shri Stalin perceive any need for re-introducing keemayanam in the public dialogue, they may be able to reserve the most prime time in one of their TV channels. I doubt very much if vijay (star association) or Jaya (anti-DMK) will welcome your suggestion, as of today.

Sir, the problem with being "religious" is that, such a state of mind makes a human being impervious to anything other than what the religion approves, except when it is a question of livelihood vs starvation death. Tabras have, over the last one hundred years or more, jolly well thrown out (discarded) very many of the religious beliefs, practices and personal disciplines, which they once adhered to, for the sake of jobs under the govt., under private employers and even for the sake of a much better life in foreign shores; and nobody seems to feel any sense of guilt in all these things. But when the true contents of a text like vaalmeeki raamaayana is brought to the notice of people, then it becomes 'anti-rama'. So, are the hindu fanatics any different from the Islamic fanatics? The only message seems to be, "we believe rama was/is god; any thing, even the true words of vaalmeeki raamaayana, if it goes against this belief, will be opposed, tooth and nail, as symbol of our religious zealotry." Replace rama with Quran and you will have the fanatical islam!

 

[ozone]

Dear Shri Sangom,
With all due respects to you, I have the following observations/questions.

Sir, the problem with being "religious" is that, such a state of mind makes a human being impervious to anything other than what the religion approves, except when it is a question of livelihood vs starvation death.

Your comment that when it comes to livelihood people are willing to forgo religion appears fair.
What I am unable to understand is when something said in the religion and it is not affecting the livelihood as you claim, how is this imperviousness affecting the rest of the stuff. What in your opinion should these Tabras do?

Tabras have, over the last one hundred years or more, jolly well thrown out (discarded) very many of the religious beliefs, practices and personal disciplines, which they once adhered to, for the sake of jobs under the govt., under private employers and even for the sake of a much better life in foreign shores; and nobody seems to feel any sense of guilt in all these things.

It appears that your decision to discard these were because they did not make sense to you, and not because of the general livelihood reasons that others seem to have. Thats fine, but arent you trying to claim that your reason for discarding is much holier or greater than the rest and others should follow the same? Is that position right?

But when the true contents of a text like vaalmeeki raamaayana is brought to the notice of people, then it becomes 'anti-rama'.

I think the problem some of us witness is that the contents of these text are rephrased (twisted?) and highlighted in a way it looks bad (with claims to be true), and not for the original purpose these have been preserved for. May be you see new perspective and reasoning, but they are different from the original intent and serves us no purpose in propagating them back at us. Yes, the religion in us is blinding us and the people dealing with them have no issues in being that way. When the OP is about how to Teach Morals from the Ramayana, your highlighting those texts that dont help that teaching doesnt in any way help the cause.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,
With all due respects to you, I have the following observations/questions.

Dear Shri ozone,

The post which you are citing above was addressed by me to Shri sarang and not to you. I feel the tendency to clasp such posts and then posting rebuttals/doubts is not a desirable tendency. Normally I will not answer such posts, in future. But in order not to displease you, I give my comments below.

Your comment that when it comes to livelihood people are willing to forgo religion appears fair.
What I am unable to understand is when something said in the religion and it is not affecting the livelihood as you claim, how is this imperviousness affecting the rest of the stuff. What in your opinion should these Tabras do?

The question is not very clear to me. But I assume that your point is, "when certain aspects of religion are not affected by search for livelihood, how does the imperviousness affect such (unaffected) aspects?" If my understanding is right, my opinion is that people should think about how truthful to religion they have been, have they not discarded many things held as very important once upon a time (child marriage, gurukulavaasam, not going for clerical service but only as teachers - even lawyers, vakils, munsiffs, judges, etc., used to be considered as tainted or fallen brahmins in the olden days and Sastrigal families would not have marital alliance with the families of such people, I have heard - and many other things)? So, what is the harm in knowing the real contents of our religious scriptures even if some such things may be uncomfortable truths? What is the use in putting up a high level of intolerance merely in order to show their religious zeal? This is what I would like people to think. I feel you will agree that such high emotions are clear indications that nobody usually goes deep into the scriptures and those who do pravachanams etc., are not 100% faithful to the text of the scriptures but to a certain pre-concieved scheme of things, and when the unquestioning believers are faced with stark truths they lose their mental equilibrium, mainly because their faith in religion is built on shaky grounds.

It appears that your decision to discard these were because they did not make sense to you, and not because of the general livelihood reasons that others seem to have. Thats fine, but arent you trying to claim that your reason for discarding is much holier or greater than the rest and others should follow the same? Is that position right?

I like to inform you that the reason for my discarding many of the holy beliefs is that I wanted to really learn and know what our scriptures are, what do they tell, what are the reasons for our beliefs, customs, etc. My efforts on these lines convinced me that many of the beliefs have no real basis in our religion and that these are more akin to changing fashions of clothes etc. But people mistakenly believe that there is something very holy, esoteric, etc., in such beliefs. I do not regard that the reasons for my discarding religious practices are holier; my only question is, if the religious beliefs can be discarded for the sake of livelihood, why should there be such a zeal to oppose any religious truths which may not be palatable? After all I am not, and I cannot, compel anyone to change his or her beliefs.

I think the problem some of us witness is that the contents of these text are rephrased (twisted?) and highlighted in a way it looks bad (with claims to be true), and not for the original purpose these have been preserved for. May be you see new perspective and reasoning, but they are different from the original intent and serves us no purpose in propagating them back at us. Yes, the religion in us is blinding us and the people dealing with them have no issues in being that way. When the OP is about how to Teach Morals from the Ramayana, your highlighting those texts that dont help that teaching doesnt in any way help the cause.

Shri ozone, I have not twisted or rephrased any content here, nor have I twisted the context. In fact you are free to read the original vaalmeeki ramayana text and point out to me where I have paraphrased or twisted anything. The sad truth is that the priesthood decided to make Rama as an avataara of vishnu. This is what you refer to as "the original intent", I believe. For this purpose they utilized the personality of Rama and the story from vaalmeeki's aadikaavya, added and altered in many places and created a somewhat modified story which is a real tragedy of ancient India's womanhood. But the people who reworked the original text did not do a good job and so many tell-tale signs of the devious plan are still visible, if only some one studies the text without prejudices.

I am surprised at your words, "Yes, the religion in us is blinding us and the people dealing with them have no issues in being that way." If we lose our normal sight and develop even a bit of short- or long- sight, we rush to the ophthalmologist, why? Why don't we say the same refrain " I have no issues in being that way."? That is the 'imperviousness' bestowed by religion and may be okay. But then why should such people rise up in anger when someone says, "see, if you get your sight back, you will see a much more beautiful world around you". And, last but not least, Shri Praveen has said many times that there is room in this forum for all types of views.

And, today, one more new moral from the Ramayana has come out from one BJP, MP. He says women should not cross the Lakshmana Rekha for dress, and if they do, they will be liable for kidnapping and rape. Hope our religious people will unconditionally agree with this since it is a moral from Ramayana.

 

[suraju06]

Dear sangom sir,

Your post # 149 please refer:

I think we had a discipline in this forum that a post addressed to some member by his handle, should not be answered by some one else. I always ask for excuse if I breach this. You seem to take over every post which is convenient for you to reply, impute motives and try all the methods to make the discussion incendiary so that ultimately your defeat gets unnoticed. Perhaps this is also a part of the all inclusive vedic knowledge which makes the sacrificers to set fire to the yaagashaala at the end of the yaagas!

And my statement seems to have come true with some members with their known antipathy towards certain views taking part in this discussion, of late.

Since you have raised two basic issues here I would like to get them settled first before carrying on the conversation.

1. Can a third member intervene without the permission of one of the two members in a conversation?

My view: (a) Once a member has posted his views the matter is public and so every one has a right to add his views. Once it is posted in the public forum it is the right of every member to offer his views and participate in the conversation. If a member wants to have a private conversation he should use the PM route or should clearly say that he does not want a third member to intervene. This can also take the form of ignoring the intervening member's post.

(b) Asking for an excuse and intervening without waiting for an acceptance makes the excuse a formality and what is worse, a presumption/joke. Anyway it is no excuse at all.

(c) When the post under question refers to a third member or his views then automatically the third member gets the first right to reply intervening in the conversation.

2. Everyone here takes only that post to which they think they can contribute by a reply. This includes you too. I don't think you are answering every post in this forum. Dear Sir, you know pretty well what is incendiary for this forum. It is nothing but bashing a particular community. All other inputs are for probing, cajoling, understanding and learning. Now I leave it to you to reflect and find out who is bringing into the discussions here incendiary material. The members will be the best judges on this. If you think you have defeated me I am only happy about that as that gives me an opportunity to continue to converse with you. And the அவபிரதம் you are talking about (the setting fire to yaagasaala) comes only after the curtain is drawn. Here we have not yet drawn that.

3. I think we do not have a control over who posts a reply to our posts here. So an otherwise sleeping member suddenly waking up and contributing something is also something beyond any one's control here.

If you think my position as explained above is incorrect I would request Mr. Praveen give his decision on the issue, particularly the one mentioned in point 1 above by me.

I reserve my right to continue to intervene and post on any topic here until I am asked not to do by any one party to the conversation. I also reserve my right to intervene when my views are quoted in any post here.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Post #163

Rama is not only angry but also is portrayed by vaalmeeki, as a person who was very much overcome by lust. So he (Rama) has been shown as seeing Sita's thighs in the trunk of the Kakubha tree and in banana stalks, her breasts in the ripened fruits of the palm tree, etc.

What is wrong with in this? Lust is intense sexual desire. And what is wrong in either the intensity or the sexual part of the desire? A casanova inside the bedroom may come out and say it is bad to have lust. But that is called hypocrisy. Having lust is natural to human beings and Rama was an avatar in the human form. You can not expect him to go and deposit his semen inside the nostrills of a horse and produce Aswini Devas( I am not writing this. This is from one of our puranas and the Deva is one of the socalled trimurthies) as that is beyond human efforts. Even modern day Tamil poets have sung "இளநீரை தாங்கி நிற்கும் தென்னை மரம் அல்ல, இதற்கு மேல் இலக்கியத்தில் வார்த்தை இல்லை சொல்ல" and we applaud the poet. So it is absolutely harmless and natural that Rama was lustfull and said those words. It requires a special mindset(?) to make fun of it or rubbish it.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

I reserve my right to continue to intervene and post on any topic here until I am asked not to do by any one party to the conversation. I also reserve my right to intervene when my views are quoted in any post here.

Cheers.

I will even go one more step, I reserve the right to post, and no party other than the moderator has the right to deny me that right.

 

[prasad1]

Rajuji post #168,
Is this discussion valid in this thread. What moral are we teaching to the children ages 4-10 with this kind of writing?

 

[suraju06]

Dear Prasad,

We have come far away from the OP. So it is fair to write that. Cheers.

 

[praveen]

my replies in red below.

Since you have raised two basic issues here I would like to get them settled first before carrying on the conversation.

1. Can a third member intervene without the permission of one of the two members in a conversation?

My view: (a) Once a member has posted his views the matter is public and so every one has a right to add his views. Once it is posted in the public forum it is the right of every member to offer his views and participate in the conversation. If a member wants to have a private conversation he should use the PM route or should clearly say that he does not want a third member to intervene. This can also take the form of ignoring the intervening member's post.

(b) Asking for an excuse and intervening without waiting for an acceptance makes the excuse a formality and what is worse, a presumption/joke. Anyway it is no excuse at all.

(c) When the post under question refers to a third member or his views then automatically the third member gets the first right to reply intervening in the conversation.

As suraju mentioned in (a) any one can post his/her views to any topic/reply as long as it is related to the coversation. One can choose to ignore certain member(s) replies and continue the conversation.

3. I think we do not have a control over who posts a reply to our posts here. So an otherwise sleeping member suddenly waking up and contributing something is also something beyond any one's control here.

Only if the sleeping member has the required number of posts, his/her replies are shown immediately. Otherwise they are not moderated. So, even if someone has registered 3 years ago and has made a post only today, it has to be moderated before it goes live. This moderation sometimes can take a day or maybe two or even more, depending on my availability and access.

I reserve my right to continue to intervene and post on any topic here until I am asked not to do by any one party to the conversation. I also reserve my right to intervene when my views are quoted in any post here.
.

Same as (a). Anyone can post in any thread as long as it is open to comments.

As always, if any post is too personal, attacking or name calling, then do report it at once. Do not jump in with all guns blazing. i do not read all the topics so i will miss them. Report them so that i look at it as soon i am online.

 

[sangom]

Post #163



What is wrong with in this? Lust is intense sexual desire. And what is wrong in either the intensity or the sexual part of the desire? A casanova inside the bedroom may come out and say it is bad to have lust. But that is called hypocrisy. Having lust is natural to human beings and Rama was an avatar in the human form. You can not expect him to go and deposit his semen inside the nostrills of a horse and produce Aswini Devas( I am not writing this. This is from one of our puranas and the Deva is one of the socalled trimurthies) as that is beyond human efforts. Even modern day Tamil poets have sung "இளநீரை தாங்கி நிற்கும் தென்னை மரம் அல்ல, இதற்கு மேல் இலக்கியத்தில் வார்த்தை இல்லை சொல்ல" and we applaud the poet. So it is absolutely harmless and natural that Rama was lustfull and said those words. It requires a special mindset(?) to make fun of it or rubbish it.

Cheers.

Rama goes to the forest and Sita accompanies him. Lakshmana also accompanies but his wife Urmila does not. (I am not going into the details because those are unnecessary here imo.) Hence when Sita is kidnapped, Lakshmana has already spent close to 13 years in the forest tending to the comforts of Rama and Sita but he has been alone. Rama and Lakshmana are of the same age, both are young men. Our culture requires that the elder brother regard the younger brother as though the latter were his son. It was based on this same cultural values that Sumitraa said,

रामम् दशरथम् विद्धि माम् विद्धि जनक आत्मजाम् |
अयोध्याम् अटवीम् विद्धि गच्छ तात यथा सुखम् || २-४०-९

(Look upon Rama to be Dasaratha. Look upon Seetha the daughter of Janaka as myself. Consider the forest as Ayodhya and depart happily, my son! when bidding adieu to her son.)


And so Rama's wailing over the loss of Sita, within hearing distance of Lakshmana, will be akin to a father describing his deceased wife's beauty within hearing distance of his son. If such a conduct on the part of an ordinary, run-of-the mill father is okay for the those who deify Rama here, then I have nothing more to say. Mine is indeed a different mindset. I did not seek to make fun or rubbish Rama's unacceptable conduct; I condemned it.

 

[Govinda]

Rama goes to the forest and Sita accompanies him. Lakshmana also accompanies but his wife Urmila does not. (I am not going into the details because those are unnecessary here imo.) Hence when Sita is kidnapped, Lakshmana has already spent close to 13 years in the forest tending to the comforts of Rama and Sita but he has been alone. Rama and Lakshmana are of the same age, both are young men. Our culture requires that the elder brother regard the younger brother as though the latter were his son. It was based on this same cultural values that Sumitraa said,

रामम् दशरथम् विद्धि माम् विद्धि जनक आत्मजाम् |
अयोध्याम् अटवीम् विद्धि गच्छ तात यथा सुखम् || २-४०-९

(Look upon Rama to be Dasaratha. Look upon Seetha the daughter of Janaka as myself. Consider the forest as Ayodhya and depart happily, my son! when bidding adieu to her son.)


And so Rama's wailing over the loss of Sita, within hearing distance of Lakshmana, will be akin to a father describing his deceased wife's beauty within hearing distance of his son. If such a conduct on the part of an ordinary, run-of-the mill father is okay for the those who deify Rama here, then I have nothing more to say. Mine is indeed a different mindset. I did not seek to make fun or rubbish Rama's unacceptable conduct; I condemned it.

Dear Sangom Sir,

Sorry, I took a break. I am back again.

Sri Rama's words:

"Without you, I do not want ascendency to heaven ,nor do I desire immortality, nor do I wish for sovereignity over the globes."
"I was indeed permitted by you earlier. How is it that you are prohibiting me now?"
"Oh Lakshmana! If you proceed to the forest along with me now, who will support Kausalya or the illustrious Sumitra?"
"Oh, Lakshmana the knower of righteousness! Thus, your devotion towards me will have been fully demonstrated by you. By honouring the elders, a great unqualled religious merit will accrue to you."


Sri Lakshmana's Reply:

"Oh, Rama the valiant! Bharata being inspired by your splendour of morality will respect Kausalya and Sumitra. There is no doubt in this matter."
"Kausalya obtained (by grant) thousand villages , which are dependent on her. Hence, that venerable Kausalya can maintain even thousand people like me."
"Taking my bow and arrows and carrying a spade and a basket, I will walk in front of you showing the path."

These words of Lakshmana, convinced Rama to allow Lakshmana accompany Him.

Physical relation is only for the mortals like us, becos we are driven by vAsana. For Rama, Sita, and the brothers, the rishis/sages, the purpose of the Lord is more worthy.
It is very much possible, that the first creations (sanat kumaras, sages) was not supporting the Lord on pro-creation (multiplying the universe, for the salvation of the jivas).
So, Brahma had to instill the bewilderment (maya, beauty of woen/nature) and dopamine receptors, to multiply, else every jivas' inherent nature is more at being inward-Self than to mingle. Now, with too much dopamine, we moved far-away from self.

Your perception has gone awry. In your same logic, why didn't Lakshmana leave the couple alone? Then, why didn't they have their progeny in the forest (those 14 years?).

Goddess Lakshmi's parattatva must be beautiful, so there is no wrong in each other's admiration. We should be eulogisizng the divine couple every second.

Lord Vishnu's leela, is to involve and experience every one of His devotees' love/emotions/service to Him. So, are the reasons for those sorrow, whinning, expression of fear, defeat, inability, separation etc. throughout Ramayana.

 

[SSJ]

surprise to see, people in this forum talk with lots of disconnect on Ramayana.
Pl see Ramayana which happened abot 5000 years back. We have lots of social changes and our views on right & wrong also changed a lot. For example the Gandhian principle which was appreciated about 60year back is questioned in less than 60 years period after MK Gandhi's death. What we can say about the principles & social pracitse of 5000 year old culture.
There are lots of research done on Ramayana. The questions and doubts raised today are infact discussed and debated in Ramayana itself. It is one of the best epic written in the world without any bias on Aryan or male dominations etc.,
The killing of Vali is discussed very clearly among Vali, Rama, Vali's wife, lakshmana etc., I am not going to elaborately discuss the points at this moment.
The villain Ravana was infact portrayed as very pious person. Valmiki describe the greatness of Ravana in various chapters, but he does not respect the female and it is consider as major crime on those days and the punishment is capital one.( probably once again in Delhi now).
I request all of us to look into the website bharatgyan for further details