Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

A limited response to post #197 by Sri Samgom where he writes:

"that they will not be at the mercy of some unspecified 'lot of infrastructures' and under the compulsion of searching for 'fundas' and 'genuine scholaship' and similar such rhetorical requirements."


My original set of questions many posts ago were - what is the topic area about and what is the one problem it is trying to solve? These are not questions coming from some high minded status but answering properly requires that one has digested what one has been exposed to over the years.

I am sure there are many flaws in many of our religious traditions.
Our culture and tradition is not history-centric unlike other traditions (like Christanity, Islam, Judaism etc).


For us it is irrelevant if Sri Rama was a truly historical figure in order to learn from Ramayana what is needed for our growth today. Since this thread is about Ramayana and how to teach to kids , let me use an example.


One of the universal principles governing our lives and in leading a conflict free life is a the principle of Integrity. The word Integrity is often misused and misunderstood and for clarity of this principle one needs a good teacher.


For an ordinary person this universal order of Integrity can be best taught by going through the epic Ramayana.
After all Dasaratha was not surrounded by anyone when he supposedly gave his 'word'! But even at the prospect of losing his son to 14 years in forest he could not bring himself to twist his own word he had given. He ended up dying because he could not bring himself to go against the principle of Integrity.


The son Rama ended doing his duty and did not demand his rights. In a world when people are fighting over rights. Ramayana emphasizes doing one's duties first. This is part of universal order also.


Sri Rama with all the flaws of a human being is portrayed as living a life of Dharma embracing many universal principles that is part of Isvara's order.


By leaving in controversial areas like killing of Vali, the epic actually allows one to debate situations that may be true dilemmas in life. It is not important if Rama is proved right because he is an Avatara but the dilemma posed and discussion aids in our growth.


Any book and even a text book becomes obsolete within a decade or two. Text books of Physics at undergraduate levels have evolved and do not teach basic physics the same way (e.g. so called cetrifugal force).


A piece of work if it survives and is referred to in 100+ years it is a huge deal in our ever changing world. There are western works that have survived time.

We have these great epics and B.Gita, and Upanishads that can be applied to our lives today after thousands of years. Many verses of Gita by a skilled teacher can bring out how universal principles are applied in dealing with day to day situations. When my children were teenagers growing up in America they had several years of teaching as to how the principles apply to their teenage lives and how one can resolve and be conflict free in dealing with realistic situations.


That is because our key scriptures explain certain universal principles of Isvara's order that will always be relevant.


To me picking up a verse here and there and noting some grammatical formation to prove what may be a vile interpretation of a work that is more than 1000 years old is kind of silly. Also if there are more than one interpretation possible why not pick the one that fits the overall context.


For example Horses are used as a metaphor for emotions in the Drshatanta of Charriot. This occurs in many places.


Overcoming weaknesses in decision making by conquering emotions is a concept that is taught. So one interpretation of Ashvamedha Yagna could be a ritualistic approach for self growth getting rid of effect of emotions in our lives. Or it could be that some people in past era killed horses .. Regardless of whether they did or not how does it contribute to our growth with interpretation that our ancestors loved to kill horses. Holding on to such interpretations and thinking that our foundational scriptures are flawed is again silly in my view.


Future generations like my children want to question anything and everything. Those that are serious and steadfast in their search for truth today will discover universal principles that are invariant under time and place.


When I talk about fundas and genuine scholarship I am talking about someone who is able to understand the big picture.


If someone has their nose next to a great painting and asks why this line is broken, why there is smear in this paint what can you tell them? All you can tell them is to get their nose out of that place and come back and get the big picture. Then you see this creation of this masterpiece.

 

[suraju06]

Dear SSarma,

Your post# 191 for reference:

I am proud to be a Shaktha.

Why not. By all means. I am happy about that and I have no objection.

My Guru was a Sannyasi of the Saraswathi order of Dasanami Sampradhaya. He was considered an expert in Vedas, Tantras and Sri Vidya in particular. He was an Avadhuta. He was running two Veda Patasalas. He accepted me as a Shishya.

Thank you for the info. But you have not given his name.

Though my Guru was well very well known in Tamil Nadu and had lakhs of followers, he never considered himself to be GOD. He never stopped us from asking questions.

If he had considered himself a God he would never have been an Acharyan. But you had the freedom to consider him equal to a God because he gave you Jnanam. Whether you did that or not is for you to think about.

You do not accept the Dasanami sampradhya of sannyasa order, Smarthas and Sakthas. You do not accept my Guru though he did have a number of Sri Vaishnava followers.

I do not accept a million things. Why should it matter here? You do not know me. I accept smarthas, Sakthas, jains, budhdhists, christians and Muslims all as my friends. But why should you bother about that? I do not know who is your Guru. You have not yet told me that.

But then what you are saying is that I should become a Sri Vaishnava and become a Shishya under a Vaishnava Acharya. You have quoted a Sri Vaishnava text

When did I say that you should become a Vaishnava. I would be happy if you remain whatever you are. That would be better for you as well for Vaishnavam. I have quoted the Nyasa Vimsathi because I thought there is a relevant passage in that grantha which gives a general answer to the general question raised by you. If Shankaracharya or anyother dasanami sanyasi had said something similar and if I had come across that I might have quoted that too.

I can not possibly do that nor can the members of this forum. Asking one to change his religion is too heavy a price to pay for getting an answer in the forum.

Please do not get excited. As I said you will be happy without converting to Vaishnavam and Vaishnavam will be happy without you in its fold.

Cheers.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Sri Sharmah - Your post #181 and #162: I was not ignoring your question, I never got around to responding. I quickly catch up on few threads when I have time and respond to one or two. Also I was not sure if your question was a rhetorical one or one seeking explanation of what I had written. Prerequisites for any study depends on an individual, their background and their maturity level based on life experiences.


Sri Raju in post #188 has given a good summary in my view which can be abstracted and applied without changing any religious traditions.


Patanjali teaches us activities that can help with daily preparations. I have found Daily meditation for at least 15 to 20 minutes, and similar effort at doing Pranayama and some Yoga postures to be helpful.


A kind attitude towards all beings is a learned behaviour that helps in our growth. This does not mean being weak or being a push over in our interaction with others. Treating others so there is minimal injury, and applying the so called golden rule in our relationship with others helps us with our growth.


Developing a right attitude towards daily activities with clarity along the lines of what B.Gita teaches is a hard thing to learn but is possible with the help of a right teacher.


Understanding what Dharma is in our lives (and this has little to do with just conducting some rituals) and leading a conflict free life by being natually aligned with Dharma is needed for growth.


I use the term universal principles to be equivalent to universal Dharma that exists and acts on regardless of our disposition towards them.


If one wants to understand our scriptures - especially the verses in certin Upanishads or B.Gita - in a way that is applicable to our lives today then one needs to hone one's ability to abstract the literal translations.


Questioning anything and everything is key and any teacher that encourages that and is able to provide satisfactory answer is a great teacher.




The above list is not complete but I wanted to give a brief response. My apologoes for not having responded sooner to a direct request for a reply.

Sadasiva samarambam,

Dattatreya madyamam,

usmathacharya paryantham,

Vande Guru parambaram.

Sri.TKS,

Please go through this site about Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom.

Data, Information, Knowledge, & Wisdom

Internet is more about data and information than Knowledge. Especially social forums like this where people with different background and inclination participate. This is not a religious forum.

Your observations are correct for acquiring knowledge. But we are not disseminating Knowledge here, only information. Whether the information transforms to Knowledge depends on understanding. Knowledge is a deterministic process.

Most of the members who join in this form do so for getting information relating to Rituals and Culture.

What some of us are doing are presenting alternate Points of View. Alternate Points of View/interpretations of scriptures, history.

While most of the members just read these posts some of the members present their own point of view.

I for one am not interested in convincing anyone about my POV or converting any one to that.

It is possible that in the heat of the moment some times I would have forgotten that.

About Vedas

Please see my post #105

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/10615-teaching-morals-ramayana-kids-11.html

My post #106 is a sort of challenge. I have posted in some religious forums in the hope that some one would post another POV. But so far no one has responded.

And also my post #140

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/10615-teaching-morals-ramayana-kids-14.html

That was written because of my anguish and frustration.

The oral tradition kept the Vedas alive for thousands of years. The doctrine of Apauruṣeya was needed then to continue the tradition. That is why even translations were prohibited for long. The meaning of thee Vedas is not taught in the Veda patashalas. You read the commentaries by the Acharyas to find the meaning.

But those days are gone. I believe that in order to continue the Vedic tradition, it has to be taught to all the castes and the good and the bad aspects discussed in public.

I have a few Web sites and Blogs where I try to disseminate information which could lead to understanding and knowledge of Hinduism. Only people who are interested visit those. I have written a lot about GURUS and acquiring Knowledge through Gurus. People who are interested find my writings through Google.

For most of you Religion is something which you practice for some hours daily. But for me it is almost 24/7 obsession.

Many of the forum discussions here are more like a patti Manram where a lot of heat is generated but no light is thrown.

 

[zebra16]

Shri tks sir,

Like the devil quoting the scripture (at least some of you may feel so) may I echo the popular sloka with a slight alteration:
संप्राप्ते सन्निहिते काले नहि नहि रक्षति मत विभ्रान्ति:| (saṃprāpte sannihite kāle nahi nahi rakṣati mata vibhrānti When the appointed time comes, religious zealotry will not save anyone.

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

For the sake of completeness let me add that when the appointed time comes, neither reason, nor rational thinking nor rational analysis, nor alternative reading nor new interpretation will save anyone too. It would be good to understand that these too have their limitation.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Sri. Raju,

I do not have to prove anything to you.

I have replied to Sri.TKS in my earlier post. I have no intention of getting into a Vidhanda vadam with you.

Good Bye.

 

[ozone]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

For the sake of completeness let me add that when the appointed time comes, neither reason, nor rational thinking nor rational analysis, nor alternative reading nor new interpretation will save anyone too. It would be good to understand that these too have their limitation.

I thought that statement was meant to mean 'true-to-life' opinions have a different effect.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

For the sake of completeness let me add that when the appointed time comes, neither reason, nor rational thinking nor rational analysis, nor alternative reading nor new interpretation will save anyone too. It would be good to understand that these too have their limitation.

Dear Shri Narayanan,

I agree with your opinion completely, but, you will probably agree - since you ought to be quite conversant with the stories of jaTabharata, ajAmiLa, etc., - that habits as well as mindsets cultivated diligently through a life time will most likely supercede all other things, at the time of reckoning. Viewed from this point, I believe that any so-called great attachment to religion is likely to hinder the smooth progression from life to after-life, if there is one. While I have absolutely no idea about what happens at death and subsequently, to a human being, I have seen a few cases of overly religious people suffering a lot (though there was no medical reason); one person possibly thought that his favourite deity would come and give him darsan while another was continuously reciting some mantras even when he was semi-conscious only. At the other end of the spectrum, I have witnessed very peaceful death without even much notice, to some people who were not religiously dogmatic. That was what caused my remarks.

Once again, the question is not about "saving" anyone from the moment of death (amritatva) but helping at that time. Even in the Ramayana, Lakshmana advises Rama very sanely, in the following verse:

मृगो हि एवम् विधो रत्न विचित्रो न अस्ति राघव |
जगत्याम् जगतीनाथ माया एषा हि न संशयः || ३-४३-८

mṛgo hi evam vidho ratna vicitro na asti rāghava |
jagatyām jagatīnātha māyā eṣā hi na saṃśayaḥ || 3-43-8

("Oh, Raghava, this kind of amazing animal with gemlike dapples is nonexistent in the world, isn't it. Hence, oh, lord of the world, this is truly a phantasm. No doubt about it." So said Lakshmana to Rama. [3-43-8])
(source : Valmiki Ramayana - Aranya Kanda - Sarga 43 )

You see, Lakshmana here is relying on his reasoning powers, pure and simple. But Rama takes a detour and justifies his hunting of the dear by giving justifications like what we usually hear from pravacanakartas, and finally gets trapped by fate, is another story. IMHO, our reasoning power is the best beacon light to guide us even in the final moments.

 

[sangom]

I thought that statement was meant to mean 'true-to-life' opinions have a different effect.

Dear ozone,

I don't get you, but, may be my post # 206 explains.

 

[ozone]

Dear ozone,

I don't get you, but, may be my post # 206 explains.

Yes, Sir, I had the same jaDabharatans story in mind.

 

[sangom]

Yes, Sir, I had the same jaDabharatans story in mind.

Very sorry, ozone, I wrote 'jaDabharata' by carelessness; it should have been "jaTabharata". I have since corrected my post, pl.

 

[sarang]

1. Evil Mantara can say anything because she is against Rama. Instead of taking her words, as retold by Valmiki, the analyst should also explore what was said by Rama, Sita, Vashishta and the people of Ayodhya.
2. Detailed commentaries by Amrutkatika, Shiromani are available to those who are honest and interested in learning. If EVR, ATR and anna are the aadarsha purushas, then only keemayana will be the result.
3. Rama's eka patni vratam is jagat prasiddam - mantara cannot change that. Perhaps, even she could not refer to Sita in ekavachanam; use of bahuvachanam is an accepted practice when referring to elders, respected persons and those high above in social ladder.
4. Summary of Amrutkatika's commentary is as follows:
Consequently, all the fortunate ladies of Rama’s household will feel highly rejoiced, while, as sequel to Bharata’s fall in status, Bharata’s women feel sad and grieved.”

I am sure Nakkeran publications will be interested in sponsoring a a scholarly volume on Valmiki Ramayana by the learned scholar. I am sure the publication will be a financial success and will get a wide review on all secular media.

Dear Sir,

Now that Shri Praveen has made ir clear that anyone can comment on any post, I wish to point out that the following sloka exists in Valmiki Ramayana :—

हृष्टाः खलु भविष्यन्ति रामस्य परमाः स्त्रियः |
अप्रहृष्टा भविष्यन्ति स्नुषास्ते भरतक्षये || २-८-१२

(Rama's wives will get delighted. Your daughters-in-law will be unhappy because of Bharata's waning position.)

These are Manthara's words to Kaikeyi. The use of the plural स्त्रियः, shows clearly that Rama had more than one wife even at that time, just as Bharata too had. But, Rama's life became such that for 14 years he had vanavaasa and so we do not hear anything about his other wives. In those days, these other wives or स्त्रियः, did not count for much, and had only a secondary role as compared to the Pattamahishi/s or consecrated regal queens. That is why we hear only about the three queens of dasaratha though he had many more स्त्रियः, as brought out in the following verse:

अर्ध सप्त शताः ताः तु प्रमदाः ताम्र लोचनाः |
कौसल्याम् परिवार्य अथ शनैः जग्मुर् धृत व्रताः || २-३४-१३

 

[sarang]

There is more than just mayamaan. Rama knows it is maricha who must be killed for harming anf killing rishis.

एतेन हि नृशंसेन मारीचेनाकृतात्मना।
वने विचरता पूर्वं हिंसिता मुनिपुङ्गवाः।।3.43.38।।

The great sages were tortured and killed by this cruel, evil-minded Maricha while he was wandering in the forest.

उत्थाय बहवो येन मृगयायां जनाधिपाः।
निहताः परमेष्वासास्तस्माद्वध्यस्त्वयं मृगः।।3.43.39।।

Many kings who were great archers and who set out for hunting after rising (in the morning) were killed by him. Therefore this animal deserves to be killed.

Dear Shri Narayanan,

I agree with your opinion completely, but, you will probably agree - since you ought to be quite conversant with the stories of jaTabharata, ajAmiLa, etc., - that habits as well as mindsets cultivated diligently through a life time will most likely supercede all other things, at the time of reckoning. Viewed from this point, I believe that any so-called great attachment to religion is likely to hinder the smooth progression from life to after-life, if there is one. While I have absolutely no idea about what happens at death and subsequently, to a human being, I have seen a few cases of overly religious people suffering a lot (though there was no medical reason); one person possibly thought that his favourite deity would come and give him darsan while another was continuously reciting some mantras even when he was semi-conscious only. At the other end of the spectrum, I have witnessed very peaceful death without even much notice, to some people who were not religiously dogmatic. That was what caused my remarks.

Once again, the question is not about "saving" anyone from the moment of death (amritatva) but helping at that time. Even in the Ramayana, Lakshmana advises Rama very sanely, in the following verse:

मृगो हि एवम् विधो रत्न विचित्रो न अस्ति राघव |
जगत्याम् जगतीनाथ माया एषा हि न संशयः || ३-४३-८

mṛgo hi evam vidho ratna vicitro na asti rāghava |
jagatyām jagatīnātha māyā eṣā hi na saṃśayaḥ || 3-43-8

("Oh, Raghava, this kind of amazing animal with gemlike dapples is nonexistent in the world, isn't it. Hence, oh, lord of the world, this is truly a phantasm. No doubt about it." So said Lakshmana to Rama. [3-43-8])
(source : Valmiki Ramayana - Aranya Kanda - Sarga 43 )

You see, Lakshmana here is relying on his reasoning powers, pure and simple. But Rama takes a detour and justifies his hunting of the dear by giving justifications like what we usually hear from pravacanakartas, and finally gets trapped by fate, is another story. IMHO, our reasoning power is the best beacon light to guide us even in the final moments.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sarma,

I quote you:

I do not have to prove anything to you.
I have replied to Sri.TKS in my earlier post. I have no intention of getting into a Vidhanda vadam with you.Good Bye.

Yes of course. You do not have to prove anything to any one. Now I understand what a vidhanda vaadam is! And by all means good bye. But I will use my right to intervene in any conversation if there is something to be pointed out. You may opt not to reply.
Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Please refer to post #189 by you:

Words like वाह्, ஐயோ, சபாஷ், அடடா, lo, etc., are not repeated so many times to express any kind of sentiment. Again, such exclamations are not used both before and after a statement, as we see here. I am, therefore, sorry to say that the clarifications you have given above do not seem to explain rationally, what is possibly the role of the words habu, bham, vaa, etc., in the above portion of the sāmaveda āraṇyaka.

In this assertion, I think, you are wide of the mark. We do use such exclamatory words without any rule to follow. It is added before and after a sentence too like-Wah re wah, kya shair banaya, wah wah, ஐயகோ காந்தி அயர்ந்து சாய்கின்றார் ஐயகோ ஐயகோ, அடடா ஓ அடடா, அழகு என்னைக்கொள்ளை கொண்டது etc. So the more number of time you add the word, the effort is to express the intensity of the experience. Moreover there is a vaishnava grantham by name அமலனாதிபிரான் in which the Thiruppaanaazhwar has expressed his wonderment at the beauty of Sri Renganatha repeatedly by using the word like நீலமேனி ஐயோ நிறை கொண்டதென் நெஞ்சினையே என்றும், செய்யவாய் ஐயோ என்னைச் சிந்தை கவர்ந்ததுவே etc., and learned Acharyas of Vaishnavism have confirmed that this is nothing but the haa vu haa vu of Samaveda because Azhwar was going before Sri Renganatha which was equivalent to going before paramapathanathan and the ஐயோ ஐயோ is the haa vu haavu. These acharyas were people who were well versed not only in Tamil and prabhantham but also in Sanskrit and vedas. So my claim is quite rational.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

I thought Sita wanted the dear as a pet not a dead meat. So Rama knowing that It was Marichi, deliberately trick Sita, and kill the dear she wanted as a friend. If I did that to my wife, I would be in the dog house for ever. Is that the morals we want to teach our children?

Instead of showing off our superior knowledge, and one upmanship let us come down to the OP of the thread.:focus:

 

[sangom]

Post # 200

For an ordinary person this universal order of Integrity can be best taught by going through the epic Ramayana.
After all Dasaratha was not surrounded by anyone when he supposedly gave his 'word'! But even at the prospect of losing his son to 14 years in forest he could not bring himself to twist his own word he had given. He ended up dying because he could not bring himself to go against the principle of Integrity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The son Rama ended doing his duty and did not demand his rights. In a world when people are fighting over rights. Ramayana emphasizes doing one's duties first. This is part of universal order also.

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

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Please refer to post #189 by you:



In this assertion, I think, you are wide of the mark. We do use such exclamatory words without any rule to follow. It is added before and after a sentence too like-Wah re wah, kya shair banaya, wah wah, ஐயகோ காந்தி அயர்ந்து சாய்கின்றார் ஐயகோ ஐயகோ, அடடா ஓ அடடா, அழகு என்னைக்கொள்ளை கொண்டது etc. So the more number of time you add the word, the effort is to express the intensity of the experience. Moreover there is a vaishnava grantham by name அமலனாதிபிரான் in which the Thiruppaanaazhwar has expressed his wonderment at the beauty of Sri Renganatha repeatedly by using the word like நீலமேனி ஐயோ நிறை கொண்டதென் நெஞ்சினையே என்றும், செய்யவாய் ஐயோ என்னைச் சிந்தை கவர்ந்ததுவே etc., and learned Acharyas of Vaishnavism have confirmed that this is nothing but the haa vu haa vu of Samaveda because Azhwar was going before Sri Renganatha which was equivalent to going before paramapathanathan and the ஐயோ ஐயோ is the haa vu haavu. These acharyas were people who were well versed not only in Tamil and prabhantham but also in Sanskrit and vedas. So my claim is quite rational.

Cheers.

Dear Shri raju,

I will have no problem if, for example, the sentences cited by you were as follows:

அடடா ஓ அடடா, அழகு என்னைக்கொள்ளை கொண்டது அடடா ஓ அடடா

ஐயோ நீலமேனி ஐயோ நிறை கொண்டதென் நெஞ்சினையே ஐயோ, ஐயோ செய்யவாய் ஐயோ என்னைச் சிந்தை கவர்ந்ததுவே ஐயோ

Even in the above the second is probably archaic and is not in use now. But we may consider it as right in the context of the vedic passages. But even so you see, nobody has used it more than twice at a time but the habu and bham bham have been repeated many more times. If we try repeating ஐயோ or அடடா or ஐயகோ as many times, I think even in the olden days it would not be acceptable.

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

 

[zebra16]

Shri tks sir,

For some time now, I have been suspecting that this might be at the root of all the perceived intolerance to any non-conformist views expressed here. I must thank you, first of all, for spelling out this fear in such clear and simple words, and then ask all the readers of this forum as to why such a fear arises if the hindu religion is really built upon very firm and logically unassailable foundations? The existence of this fear, this suspicion, that a rational opinion about some part/s of our scriptures is likely to convince readers about the hollowness of the conformist, orthodox interpretations, reveals the true state of affairs. In fact, when I read your post citing "a lot more infrastucture" and so on, I was reminded of the adage, ஆடத் தெரியாத ***யாளுக்கு தெருவு கோணல் (āṭat teriyāta ***yāḷukku teruvu koṇal) meaning, a bad workman finds fault with his tools!
.

Dear Sri Sangom,

I read many of your posts for the different perspective that one may have about the scriptures. Some of your posts are anti-establishment oriented with which I do not agree with and I have no problems with that either.

Now what is this fear that you are talking about that most of the readers have about the doubtful or rather shaky foundations that Hindu religion is built upon, is what I cannot understand. I have no fears (and guess many of the readers too feel the same way) that hinduism can be sustained only if the contrary views are to be suppressed and not allowed to surface.

You yourselves have quoted charavakas scoffing at vedas, yaska saying that some portion are meaningless, nayva nyayakas tearing apart the vedas on logical grounds, buddhists and jainas caring too hoots for the revered vedas and vaisheshikas propounding atomic theory.

Inspite of all these tumultuous periods, the hindu religion has stood ground so where is the need of fear? I or anybody cannot uphold the religion any more than a lizard sitting atop the "gopuram" can hold the foundation of the pillar tight and everyone realises that, I suppose. So to me it appears that fear psychosis is absent.

As regards rational thinking and reasoning, i can only say that a human being is capable of doing only two things, viz. thinking and dreaming without resorting to use of any of the material part of this world. Neither the great scientist like Einstein, nor great rationalist like EVR or Abraham Kovoor, nor the revered jeevan mukthas had all rational or reasoned dreams. Many of their dreams would have been utter nonsense like all of us have. If sleeping is one of the natural state of human being, irrationality is also a part of human being. Cultivated rationality or reasoning ability can get one only thus far and no farther, I feel. It is not a panacea to all the ills of the world nor to that of Hindu religion.

 

[sarang]

Keemayanam and misrepresentation and distorted analysis is considered profound knowledge. Right way to teach morals is to tell the good and the bad, merits and demerits and assist in getting an understanding and conviction. Anyway Rama did not trick Sita. I hope the following slokas will throw some light and clear the misunderstanding.

जीवन्न यदि तेऽभ्येति ग्रहणं मृगसत्तमः।
अजिनं नरशार्दूल रुचिरं मे भविष्यति।।3.43.18।।

Rama! The tiger among men if this great deer beautiful deer can not be caught with life his beautiful hide will be mine.

निहतस्यास्य सत्त्वस्य जाम्बूनदमयत्वचि।
शष्पबृस्यां विनीतायामिच्छाम्यहमुपासितुम्।।3.43.19।।

When this animal is killed I desire to spread its golden skin on a tender grass cushion and sit.

I thought Sita wanted the dear as a pet not a dead meat. So Rama knowing that It was Marichi, deliberately trick Sita, and kill the dear she wanted as a friend. If I did that to my wife, I would be in the dog house for ever. Is that the morals we want to teach our children?

Instead of showing off our superior knowledge, and one upmanship let us come down to the OP of the thread.:focus:

 

[ozone]

Sir your arrogance shows your foolishness.
You have no concept of public debate, or morality. How do you think you are going to teach any one else morality. This is not the first time that you have shown your arrogance.
As some one said before the extra o makes you a big zero.

thanks. thanks

and oh! thanks again for your politeness

 

[sangom]

1. Evil Mantara can say anything because she is against Rama. Instead of taking her words, as retold by Valmiki, the analyst should also explore what was said by Rama, Sita, Vashishta and the people of Ayodhya.
2. Detailed commentaries by Amrutkatika, Shiromani are available to those who are honest and interested in learning. If EVR, ATR and anna are the aadarsha purushas, then only keemayana will be the result.
3. Rama's eka patni vratam is jagat prasiddam - mantara cannot change that. Perhaps, even she could not refer to Sita in ekavachanam; use of bahuvachanam is an accepted practice when referring to elders, respected persons and those high above in social ladder.
4. Summary of Amrutkatika's commentary is as follows:
Consequently, all the fortunate ladies of Rama’s household will feel highly rejoiced, while, as sequel to Bharata’s fall in status, Bharata’s women feel sad and grieved.”

I am sure Nakkeran publications will be interested in sponsoring a a scholarly volume on Valmiki Ramayana by the learned scholar. I am sure the publication will be a financial success and will get a wide review on all secular media.

Dear Shri Sarang sir,

As I have clearly stated in post # 197, that I am not coming into this forum either to display what skills I have nor to earn approbation as a scholar. Hence, all your comments about "learned scholar", "Nakkeran publications" etc., will at best serve as signals about your own personality and mindset, imho. I think nothing more need be said.

I hope you have correctly reproduced Amrutakataka in stating—

"Consequently, all the fortunate ladies of Rama’s household will feel highly rejoiced,..."

Why the use of the plural (ladies) here? If this is read side by side with the words "Bharata's women", does it not become clear that even Madhava Yogin, 250 years or so ago subscribed to what Valmiki wrote literally? Kindly enlighten all of us.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Sangom,

I am not disputing what Valmiki has written. I have not read Valmiki's original Ramayana.

But the fact remains that Rama has become synonymous with Eka Patni Vrata. He has been extolled for that.

Sri. Gopal Rao is going to teach Ramayana from one of the popular versions. None of the present versions dispute Rama having only one wife.

I think we should leave it at that.

 

[sarang]

Brilliant what if analysis! But highly warped!!

Post # 200

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

 

[sangom]

Originally Posted by sangom
Post # 200

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

Brilliant what if analysis! But highly warped!!

Dear Shri sarang sir,

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

Wish you all the best.

 

[prasad1]

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


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


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

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