Why was Mahabali killed?

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sir, your post appears to be a repeat of post 55 perhaps by mistake. But anyways, if puranas and epics are works of fiction, it would mean that all talk of geneology, gotras, descent, is fictitious. And that the chatur-varna system is and was based on fictitious stories. Anyways, i do think that epics and puranas were "created / scripted / produced" by certain groups to promote themsleves in certain ways.

Epics and Puranas are Hindu Mythology.

Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every religion and most old nations have their own Mythology.

Do you think that all the people who posted here believe that there is another world below called Pathala where some people known as Asuras live?

We have all studied about Mythology in our school. All of us believe in Myths. But then there is a vast difference between Myth and Fact.

In the absence of any history, Indian historians have had to depend on our Mythology. Even social historians have done that. But that is all mere speculation because Myths are not facts.

 

[sangom]

Sangom sir, this is wrt post 48. The problem is when someone is raised to godhood the public wishes to see them as "perfect". Not as 'conditioned humans' but as 'absolute perfectness'. But it does not matter really. I feel every human does benefit an other human in some way or the other and hence the benefactor becomes a god to the beneficiaries. I do believe there is something called 'goodness' in every single person and hence there is God in each one of us. There is also some 'power' unseen and unknown...

Smt. HH,

I don't have any problem with any of the points written above by you, till I come to the last word, "unknown". When that power which you refer to is "unknown" how far are we honest in spinning so many tales about that unknown power, by way of the myriad scriptures? Secondly, even if granting for argument, that when a "someone" is raised to that unknown godhead, how is it justified to see that raised fellow as "perfect" in all respects? Since god is an unknown power is it correct to say it has to be perfect? There is neither a priori reasons for forming such a conclusion; nor do observed facts support such a hypothesis. Hence, the only reason remaining is probably, "This is my God, and my God is perfect", and so, by indirect implication, I tend to partake a share of that perfection. Is this not the true position?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

I recite portions of Devi Mahatmyam daily. As you are all aware it deals with the fight of MAA with Asuras.

Now if you ask me whether I believe in Asuras?

The answer is in two parts.

1. As a Bhaktha I do believe in the story.

2. As a individual who can differentiate between Myth and fact, I do not.

This is not contradictory as it seems.

We needs Myths for our religious beliefs. The Mythical story was written to emphasize the power of MAA and her ability to overcome the forces of Evil.

The Asuras are today within me. Kama, Krodha, Loba etc. I try to overcome these Asuras with the blessings of MAA.

Sangom,

Most people believe in Mythology because it sustains their religious beliefs. Not because they think it is a fact. Again not all people believe that their conception of GOD is perfect. Though religious teachers do try to emphasize that the GOD they are trying to sell is perfect, not all people are taken by that. Especially these days.

 

[sangom]

I recite portions of Devi Mahatmyam daily. As you are all aware it deals with the fight of MAA with Asuras.

Now if you ask me whether I believe in Asuras?

The answer is in two parts.

1. As a Bhaktha I do believe in the story.

2. As a individual who can differentiate between Myth and fact, I do not.

This is not contradictory as it seems.

We needs Myths for our religious beliefs. The Mythical story was written to emphasize the power of MAA and her ability to overcome the forces of Evil.

The Asuras are today within me. Kama, Krodha, Loba etc. I try to overcome these Asuras with the blessings of MAA.

Sangom,

Most people believe in Mythology because it sustains their religious beliefs. Not because they think it is a fact. Again not all people believe that their conception of GOD is perfect. Though religious teachers do try to emphasize that the GOD they are trying to sell is perfect, not all people are taken by that. Especially these days.

Iniyan,

Children believe (nowadays) in spiderman, phantom and other comic strip heros. As part of that belief package they do start believing also in the trouble makers, evil characters, etc., in those comics. But this "make-believe world" does not enthuse them any more after they reach a certain stage of brain/mind/body development; if we remind them of their childhood beliefs in such areas thereafter, they usually are either put-off or get plain angry with us for belittling them.

Religion serves, in some similarly mysterious way, to stultify the intellectual/ mental growth of adults who manage to crawl out of the comic books; but the difference lies in the fact that while small kids are sure to come out of their make-believe world at some stage, adults are sure to get deeper and deeper into the quicksand of religion, the more they try to come out of it

 

[Nara]

Orthodox: Lakshmana is an avatara of Adisesha. He can do no wrong. Meenakshi attacked Sita.

Feminists: This show the low esteem that women were held.

Caste researchers: Meenakshi was a Rakshasa. She was a tribal native to the soil. Lakshmana was a Kshatriya. This is an indication of how badly the tribals/indigenous people were treated.

Rationalists: Lakshmana is an Avatara of Adisesha. This indicates how Gods did ungodly things.

Dear Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

With due respect, it seems you have taken all the above roles in your past posts. May be I am mistaken, but, the way you present your points I infer a certain belief on your part that these are true events, like the religious orthodoxy. Quite rightly, like the feminists, you decry Lakshmana's treatment of Surpanaka (you keep referring to her as Meenakshi, if this is mentioned in some purana or other, it is surely a later insertion and a mischief to sow trouble between Shivites and Vaishnvaites). Like the ones who you see as Rationalists (true rationalists will never say gods did ungodly things as that would imply accepting the existence of gods), you also say the gods did ungodly things!

We all know these are just stories, some of us are ready to admit it. Also, in the absence of any written history, we try to wring out at least a hazy picture of what it must have been like from these epics. From the fictional events described in the ancient epics like VR and MhB we can reasonably infer, though not with a high degree of certainty, that there were at least two different cultures coming into contact with each other and having conflicts. In one culture, a woman's place was to obey her husband and never be independent. On the other hand, the rakshasa women are portrayed as independent if they wanted to be. From SoorpaNaga episode we can infer that those women were not shy about initiating amorous contact with men, and that did not make them bad women among her people. (BTW, if SoorpaNaga was Meenakshi, then wouldn't Rama be her brother? Then she wanting to marry Rama makes no sense!!)

On the one hand we have some fire worshiping people encroaching into the land of rakshahas with the support of warriors who did not mind killing or maiming women. On the other, we have rakshashas who don't mind abducting women, even if they were married, but not force themselves on them.

IMO, it is a good idea to strip the divinity of all the characters and teach these epics to our kids like it is Illiad, with Rama as Menelaus, Agamemnon as Lakshmana (I know, Menelaus was the younger one), Helen as Sita, Paris as Ravana, Troy as Sri Lanka, and so on -- the similarities are eerie don't you think? Do you think Valmeeki and Homer were narrating the same story?

Cheers!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Hello,

I am leaving on a holiday tomorrow morning. No internet, no newspapers (may be only for the election results). So I will be not be seen till 25th May.

This is in case some one starts wondering whether I have stopped posting.

See you then.

 

[kunjuppu]

Hello,

I am leaving on a holiday tomorrow morning. No internet, no newspapers (may be only for the election results). So I will be not be seen till 25th May.

This is in case some one starts wondering whether I have stopped posting.

See you then.

have a good vanavaaasam nacchi. and come back refreshed and (mental) swords sharpened

 

[Brahin]

hi brahin,

welcome to the forum. i would desist from commenting on sangom's 'gyan' if i were you.

one only has to read his extensive postings here to form an opinion. these postings speak for themselves. please do read sangom in his entirety and then comment. self effacement, sir, is a skillset, and not one to be mocked. i will stop here.



renuka has copyrighted the poem. pls acknowledge authorship. thanks

Dear Kunjuppu ji thanks for welcoming me.....If writing against religion is knowledgeable than sangom is knowledgeable

 

[sangom]

Dear Kunjuppu ji thanks for welcoming me.....If writing against religion is knowledgeable than sangom is knowledgeable

Brahin,

Writing on any subject/topic or against any subject/topic has to be judged by the contents, and not on the prima facie basis of what it is about or against. Writing against religion in a forum full of staunch religionists of varying hues, is not an easy matter. Hence a modicum of knowledge has to be necessarily conceded to those who write against religion also. Hope you will find this a reasonable stand.

 

[sangom]

IMO, it is a good idea to strip the divinity of all the characters and teach these epics to our kids like it is Illiad, with Rama as Menelaus, Agamemnon as Lakshmana (I know, Menelaus was the younger one), Helen as Sita, Paris as Ravana, Troy as Sri Lanka, and so on -- the similarities are eerie don't you think? Do you think Valmeeki and Homer were narrating the same story?

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not know anything about Homer or Illiad but, can there not be a possibility that after Alexander's time, some of the Indian Pundits became familiar with the greek epic and truly copied it to subserve their purpose?

 

[Nara]

... Writing against religion in a forum full of staunch religionists of varying hues, is not an easy matter.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think what Brahin is saying is, true knowledge is religious knowledge, all other knowledge means very little if any. I think he is right, in the sense, if there is to be religious followers, the first thing to be done is negate any other source of knowledge. The Abrahamic tradition holds that the root sin of humanity is eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In other words, seeking to acquire knowledge is a sin.

Many "Hindus" pride themselves that their religion is open to knowledge and they quote a rik as proof. You are better suited to comment on that. But, from a practical stand point, time and time again, knowledge is put down in Hinduism as well.

Knowledge is roundly criticized as narrow. One has to go beyond mere knowledge into the realm of intuition, the only path to perceive the "whole truth" just like that. The great rishi Vyasa himself puts down knowledge and prefers anushtanam -- he is supposed to have said somewhere all the knowledge of even great scholars will disappear in an instant like a bird leaving the nest of its mother once it learns to fly, never to return. There is a story in SV literature that derides the vast knowledge of a Vedic scholar who is unable to firmly assert that Lord Ranganatha is the supreme Brhman.

So, "Hinduism" only pays lip service to knowledge, it constantly puts down and even forbids anything beyond what they consider "true" knowledge, the religious kind. All other knowledge is useless -- like that of the boatman's knowledge that the scholar so condescendingly scoffed at. Brahin is not coy about accepting this premise and I appreciate that.

Let me leave you with a Thirukural #720:

அங்கணத்துள் உக்க அமிழ்து அற்றால் தம்கணத்தர்
அல்லார்முன் கோட்டி கொளல்.

உக்க அங்கணத்துள் = poured into the drain
தம்கணத்தர் அல்லார் = ones who are unequal (in knowledge/maturity)
​

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

.....If writing against religion is knowledgeable than sangom is knowledgeable

brahin,

'writing against religion' is indeed a heavily loaded statement. you will have to qualify that a bit deeper, for us to understand what you have in your mind.

is it religion as such? hinduism? tambram practises or traditions of yore? i am just giving you some leads. please explain to us what you mean, in whatever context you made that statement. we can then go from there. ok?

next comes courtesy and forum modicums. just as we welcome folks here, we would also like to treat them civilly.

i do not necessarily like the stand of many of the others here. i have fought with many of them. but i feel proud, that i do not harbour any hard feelings towards the individual in them.

each one of us, is unique, a product today of our experiences and knowledge of yesterdays. what we learn today, will have an impact on us tomorrow, whether we accept it or not. this is my core value in life. accept change as it occurs, and most times you are not even aware of the changes within you.

our self needs to be like the windows of the house, letting in the breeze from all directions, and gently swaying with it, and appreciating it for the various scents. once in a while, the breeze does bring in bad odour. but we do not want to be that bad odour in this forum, do we?

it is best that we avoid name calling, addressing others by epithets, and worse of all, attributing characterestics to their person, based on what little we know about them. being here for a few days, i am 100% certain, that you do not know anything about sangom. or me. or for that matter, anyone else in this forum.

there is nothing wrong with that. that is only correct, because you are a new member here. get to know us please. let us also have the pleasure of knowing you, for i am quite sure, you have quite a story to tell.

you will find folks here, whose views may coincide with that of yours, many with whom you share some or most of the ideals, and some whom you passionately disagree. no matter what, i think, we all should strive to be friendly, courteous and above all have strong mutual regards for each other.

that should be our goal. mr. praveen the owner of this forum, has welcomed everyone here, irrespective of their national or ethnic origins or caste or creed. KRS our moderator, ensures that we follow the decorum that is befitting the dignity of this forum.

together we can work to abide by praveen's vision of this forum, as well as not come under the scrutiny of KRS

once again, welcome to the forum. personally, i hope you enjoy this company, for everyone except me, i guarantee, is very interesting. i, for one, tend to lecture once in a while and preach, an example of which, is this post.

 

[CLN]

Dear Mr. Kunjuppu,

Your post #87, even if it is a little longish, exudes the essence of the way this Forum has been developing over the years, excellently well.

Joining a Forum, any Forum for that matter, is very similar to being born as a baby. Although, in reality, the world is old and the baby is new, for the baby, it is the other way round. The baby is not conscious of its newness, but for it, it is the world that is new and it starts looking at the world freshly. So, it interprets and interacts with the world around based only on its own ever-expanding knowledge and experience. When the growing child naturally defies and questions the elders, the latter, are not supposed to really get irked or irritated, but showing maturity and understanding, they try to pacify and advise the child. But, depending upon the samskriti prevailing in the family, the child reacts, of course, in different ways. Responsible parents and relatives, are mature enough not to be put off, though they may chastise the immature child at times, but they know well enough, that as the child grows, he / she will develop better understanding. So the mature and seasoned elders keep patient and tolerant. So goes (and grows) the world! Of course, within this general scenario, all shades and hues co-exist, making the world as colourful and diversified as it really is. I guess the analogy is complete!

 

[happyhindu]

Why are we overlooking the point, endorsed by many scholars and researchers, that there was a phase of expansion of the vedic (Aryan) Hinduism? Is it not possible, for example in this case, that Mahabali was a king of a small territory coinciding somewhat with the present day Kerala, which was populated by alien-featured Nagas (Nairs) or some other tribes? Aryans who differentiated people on the basis of skin colour, flat nose, etc., could have made asuras out of them just as they did in their NW homelands long time ago (say one millennium).

The "charge" against Bali, viz., his desire for indra's post could have been one of getting assimilated into the Aryan four-caste society, where the said king whoever he might have been, would be looked upon as a very great and brave warrior, no less. The Aryan brahman, the puny fellow description is just to maximize effects by comparison IMO, went and asked for "three paces" (and this is a time-honoured tale linked to the early rigvedic Vishnu and somewhat inseparable, like A.Raja and 2G Spectrum, BHO and OBL, etc.). What might have happened, to my limited intelligence, is that this king was driven off from the higher reaches of the south-western ghats, and also from the slopes - thus Vishnu=Aryans - got the two areas (worlds) freed from asuras and that king was confined to the plains near the seashore. Is this not a feasible interpretation?

Dear Sir,

I shall try to answer this. But before i begin, must say that whatever am gonna write is from my limited exposure. Everything is subject to sudden and abrupt changes based on availability of varied / new info (and surely there is a lot of exploration to do as yet so this view may also change).

1) The Vishnu of 3 steps of the Rigveda imo has nothing to do with the Puranic story of Mahabali. The Rigveda verses merely says
1.a) In RV.6.49 that Vishnu 'measured the earth 3 times for distressed persons'.
1.b) In RV 7.100 that Vishnu travelled the earth for the possession of the land of Manu.

There is atleast a 1000 year gap between the vedic period and puranic period. Rigveda does not mention Bali, or any person or any story.

From Malati Shengde's work also it is rather clear that Vishnu travelling the earth 3 times in the Rigveda has nothing to do with the Vamana Purana story (as explained from Page 69 to 74 of this: The Civilized Demons: the Harappans ... - Google Books ).

However, imo, these "3 steps of Vishnu" was merely (ab)used to create the "Vamana figure" by the Bharadwajas at a later date.

Sentence 1.b to me merely means Indra-Vishnu waged wars and conquered land belonging to the Nagas. Am in agreement that the 'land of Manu' belonged to the Nagas. I feel Manu was a Naga or (from the south-dravidian group that had admixed with austroasiatic (naga) speakers). Manu's son, Iskhwaku (aka Rishabha) also were such 'Nagas' (imo).. Because many characters in the geneology of Rama are Naga characters (Takshaka, Ahinaga, Nishada, or they are linked with Naga characters (ex: Kusha married a Naga princess).

To understand the Vamana story, i prefer to compare the cave paintings of Mahabalipuram with the Vamana Purana story. One is the option which i mentioned in post 38. But here is an alternative which i think makes more sense.

From the Mahabalipuram mandapa-gudis we can resonably conclude the following:

A) The Varaha-Perumal panel shows Vishnu as Varaha subduing a Naga. The panel basically revolves around the story that a Serpant (Naga) had taken away earth and so Varaha delves into the ocean, subdues the Naga and rescues Bhoodevi (depicted sitting on Varaha's lap in the panel). This possibly is indicative of either or both points below (since there is evidence for both):

A.a) dravidian speakers killed off austroasiatic (proto-naga) speakers; This was too far back in time in late mesolithic or early neolithic, so instead of this, the point below makes more sense.

A.b) the panel is indicative of dravidian divergence, where south-dravidian lingusitic group (tamil) and central-dravidian linguistic group (telugu) diverged off in seperate directions and kept fighting later in tribal squabbles. This is very much possible. Both had admixed with austro-asiatic (naga) speakers, but south-dravidian (tamil) supposedly had admixed (that is killed off the men and mated with the women) so much that it left no trace of a seperate austroasiatic tribe or group amongst its speakers (so this group cud be the 'nagas' depicted in the Varaha Perumal panel who were defeated by the central-dravidian speakers).

2) The Vamana Purana story goes that Mahabali was banished with the 3rd step. However, the Trivikrama-Vishnu panel of Mahabalipuram depicts no such banishing feature. Here is the Trivikrama Panel: Cave Temples of Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu - Archaeological Survey of India It is impossible to say which one in that carving is Mahabali.

Further explanation on the Trivikrama panel is given here (Page 96 to 106): Principles of composition in Hindu ... - Google Books

Somehow all authors try to fit in the Trivikrama panel depiction with the Vaman Purana story, although in the Mahabalipuram caves

1) There is no image of Mahabali in the Trivikrama panel. There are 2 images on the right side of the panel (under Trivikrama's left leg). One seems to be a man fleeing, and another is a man falling. We are told (by art historians in various books on the basis of Vamana Purana) that the falling man represents Mahabali. But on what basis he is identified as Mahabali, we don't know. Trivikrama's raised leg is being touched by a man with a crown in a sitting position. For all we know, this sitting man with the crown could be Mahabali.

2) We do not see Trivikrama placing his leg on the head on any figure in the cave-carvings.

3) Trivikrama is not dressed as a brahmin. Instead he is holding weapons in his 8 arms. Such a Trivikrama Vishnu (with 8 arms holding weapons) is not mentioned anywhere in Vamana Purana.

4) Dating wise, i agree with the points that (a) the mahabalipuram caves pre-date the Vamana Purana story; and (b) the Mahabali banishing account was introduced into Vamana Purana around the 9th century. The Vamana Purana story basically makes no sense, why would Vishnu banish his own devotee.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Epics and Puranas are Hindu Mythology.

Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every religion and most old nations have their own Mythology.

Do you think that all the people who posted here believe that there is another world below called Pathala where some people known as Asuras live?

We have all studied about Mythology in our school. All of us believe in Myths. But then there is a vast difference between Myth and Fact.

In the absence of any history, Indian historians have had to depend on our Mythology. Even social historians have done that. But that is all mere speculation because Myths are not facts.

I do not know if they are totally mythology.

I used to write off all puranas as pure mythology and products of an over-active imagination. Not anymore. There may be some reason why they were written.

Its quite obvious that 'earth" for puranic writers merely meant the region where they stayed. And paatala simply was the land to the south of that region. The geography is imo fairly well defined (esp in the Brahmanda Purana).

Am beginning to see puranas as possible-stories pertaining to some specific squabbling groups..

 

[happyhindu]

Smt. HH,

I don't have any problem with any of the points written above by you, till I come to the last word, "unknown". When that power which you refer to is "unknown" how far are we honest in spinning so many tales about that unknown power, by way of the myriad scriptures? Secondly, even if granting for argument, that when a "someone" is raised to that unknown godhead, how is it justified to see that raised fellow as "perfect" in all respects? Since god is an unknown power is it correct to say it has to be perfect? There is neither a priori reasons for forming such a conclusion; nor do observed facts support such a hypothesis. Hence, the only reason remaining is probably, "This is my God, and my God is perfect", and so, by indirect implication, I tend to partake a share of that perfection. Is this not the true position?

Sir,

The "unknown" simply means what we do not know...i feel there is some 'energy', which man has not yet understood...am not able to describe it. I did not mean to say that such 'energy' is 'perfect'. Its impossible to describe characteristics of something we do not even know.

I agree with you that it is not justified to see anyone as "perfect" (esp, in our conditioned form). There is nothing called perfection (to me).

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think what Brahin is saying is, true knowledge is religious knowledge, all other knowledge means very little if any. I think he is right, in the sense, if there is to be religious followers, the first thing to be done is negate any other source of knowledge. The Abrahamic tradition holds that the root sin of humanity is eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In other words, seeking to acquire knowledge is a sin.

Many "Hindus" pride themselves that their religion is open to knowledge and they quote a rik as proof. You are better suited to comment on that. But, from a practical stand point, time and time again, knowledge is put down in Hinduism as well.

Knowledge is roundly criticized as narrow. One has to go beyond mere knowledge into the realm of intuition, the only path to perceive the "whole truth" just like that. The great rishi Vyasa himself puts down knowledge and prefers anushtanam -- he is supposed to have said somewhere all the knowledge of even great scholars will disappear in an instant like a bird leaving the nest of its mother once it learns to fly, never to return. There is a story in SV literature that derides the vast knowledge of a Vedic scholar who is unable to firmly assert that Lord Ranganatha is the supreme Brhman.

So, "Hinduism" only pays lip service to knowledge, it constantly puts down and even forbids anything beyond what they consider "true" knowledge, the religious kind. All other knowledge is useless -- like that of the boatman's knowledge that the scholar so condescendingly scoffed at. Brahin is not coy about accepting this premise and I appreciate that.

Let me leave you with a Thirukural #720:

அங்கணத்துள் உக்க அமிழ்து அற்றால் தம்கணத்தர்
அல்லார்முன் கோட்டி கொளல்.

உக்க அங்கணத்துள் = poured into the drain
தம்கணத்தர் அல்லார் = ones who are unequal (in knowledge/maturity)
​

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Thank you for the excellent post. I presume that the said Kural means "One who utters wise advice to a hostile crowd is pouring nectar (amrita) into the drain". I take your advice and shall try to abide by it. But, FYI, Brahin (only an m short of "Brahmin"!) has already decreed (here) that my writing, being "half gyaan", is more poisonous than snake venom. So, after all my action has not been strictly to pour nectar down the drain, or else, the venom that my writing is, is becoming an insecticide inside the drain

 

[sangom]

brahin,

'writing against religion' is indeed a heavily loaded statement. you will have to qualify that a bit deeper, for us to understand what you have in your mind.

is it religion as such? hinduism? tambram practises or traditions of yore? i am just giving you some leads. please explain to us what you mean, in whatever context you made that statement. we can then go from there. ok?

next comes courtesy and forum modicums. just as we welcome folks here, we would also like to treat them civilly.

i do not necessarily like the stand of many of the others here. i have fought with many of them. but i feel proud, that i do not harbour any hard feelings towards the individual in them.

each one of us, is unique, a product today of our experiences and knowledge of yesterdays. what we learn today, will have an impact on us tomorrow, whether we accept it or not. this is my core value in life. accept change as it occurs, and most times you are not even aware of the changes within you.

our self needs to be like the windows of the house, letting in the breeze from all directions, and gently swaying with it, and appreciating it for the various scents. once in a while, the breeze does bring in bad odour. but we do not want to be that bad odour in this forum, do we?

it is best that we avoid name calling, addressing others by epithets, and worse of all, attributing characterestics to their person, based on what little we know about them. being here for a few days, i am 100% certain, that you do not know anything about sangom. or me. or for that matter, anyone else in this forum.

there is nothing wrong with that. that is only correct, because you are a new member here. get to know us please. let us also have the pleasure of knowing you, for i am quite sure, you have quite a story to tell.

you will find folks here, whose views may coincide with that of yours, many with whom you share some or most of the ideals, and some whom you passionately disagree. no matter what, i think, we all should strive to be friendly, courteous and above all have strong mutual regards for each other.

that should be our goal. mr. praveen the owner of this forum, has welcomed everyone here, irrespective of their national or ethnic origins or caste or creed. KRS our moderator, ensures that we follow the decorum that is befitting the dignity of this forum.

together we can work to abide by praveen's vision of this forum, as well as not come under the scrutiny of KRS

once again, welcome to the forum. personally, i hope you enjoy this company, for everyone except me, i guarantee, is very interesting. i, for one, tend to lecture once in a while and preach, an example of which, is this post.

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I would vote your post for the best post prize this month. Your lecture, or preaching is so delicious !

I agree Brahin does not want his brand of religion to be questioned or written against. We have a few other members also of the same nature and since you may know them better than I do, I am not naming names here. But Brahin, to me, seems to be turning over a new leaf here also; he is intolerant to whatever is against his rather narrow pov, not exactly "religion" as you and I (and many others here) understand the word in its broader context. Brahin therefore has all the signs IMHO, for making a new godman and a new cult. May be he would, in due course, take over Puttaparthi as the satyasatya sai baba, who knows,

 

[Brahin]

Brahin,

Writing on any subject/topic or against any subject/topic has to be judged by the contents, and not on the prima facie basis of what it is about or against. Writing against religion in a forum full of staunch religionists of varying hues, is not an easy matter. Hence a modicum of knowledge has to be necessarily conceded to those who write against religion also. Hope you will find this a reasonable stand.

Dear All i dont think i am the only" impolite" person here & dear sangom its easy to write or speak against god but its difficult to follow so dont take easy path.....

 

[Brahin]

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I would vote your post for the best post prize this month. Your lecture, or preaching is so delicious !

I agree Brahin does not want his brand of religion to be questioned or written against. We have a few other members also of the same nature and since you may know them better than I do, I am not naming names here. But Brahin, to me, seems to be turning over a new leaf here also; he is intolerant to whatever is against his rather narrow pov, not exactly "religion" as you and I (and many others here) understand the word in its broader context. Brahin therefore has all the signs IMHO, for making a new godman and a new cult. May be he would, in due course, take over Puttaparthi as the satyasatya sai baba, who knows,

Dear Sangom why u want me to take over puttapathi tell me ur place i will come there only

 

[Brahin]

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I would vote your post for the best post prize this month. Your lecture, or preaching is so delicious !

I agree Brahin does not want his brand of religion to be questioned or written against. We have a few other members also of the same nature and since you may know them better than I do, I am not naming names here. But Brahin, to me, seems to be turning over a new leaf here also; he is intolerant to whatever is against his rather narrow pov, not exactly "religion" as you and I (and many others here) understand the word in its broader context. Brahin therefore has all the signs IMHO, for making a new godman and a new cult. May be he would, in due course, take over Puttaparthi as the satyasatya sai baba, who knows, [/QU

 

[sangom]

Dear All i dont think i am the only" impolite" person here & dear sangom its easy to write or speak against god but its difficult to follow so dont take easy path.....

Brahin,

IMO, following, that too unquestioningly, anyone, is easier for certain type of people whereas it is like death for some others. We may find this general difference in the two adjacent states Kerala and Tamil Nadu themselves. While Keralites will never tolerate a leadership style of the two Kazhagams, Tamil Nadu people have no apparent problem in doing so. In Kerala no movie actor or actress can even dream of getting the public adulation which Rajanikanth or Kamalahasan get in TN. This probably is the only state which constantly makes fun of its top political leaders (including those at the national level) in mimicry programmes aired in the channels world-wide.

Having been born (though as a tabra) and brought up (again as a tabra) in Kerala, perhaps the Kerala trait of "questioning" is in my genes. I do not consider my questioning to be wrong, bad, evil or sinful.

With that intro. may I say that, cotrary to what you hold, I feel that following god or whatever is said on God's behalf is rather the easier path IMO, than criticising god. (If, as you say, criticising god is easy, will that not mean that god offers so much to criticize him/her/it? In fact I am fully aware that neither I criticize god in reality, nor do you follow god in reality, because both of us don't know God, … absolutely. I plainly admit that I don't know god and criticize what many equally ignorant people like me have written up as god's revelations, while you try to cover up the fact that god is as much an unknown quantity to you (as it is to me) and try to project yourself as a very devout religionist, apparently playing second fiddle to a more devout religionist, IMHO, in this forum.

Hence my request and possibly humble suggestion, to you is that please come to this forum, listen to whichever view points or topics you feel interested in and try to question logically, instead of making bland and self-adulating statements like “Dear All i dont think i am the only" impolite" person here” or empty monitions like “dear sangom its easy to write or speak against god but its difficult to follow so dont take easy path.....”This, I think will do you a world of good though you have chosen to plunge directly into the discussions as soon as you joined this forum perhaps. Kindly take this as a piece of advice from an old person who has seen, met and has mixed with many more people (and also seen or heard of the departure of many from this world), than even a busy doctor in his entire career.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom why u want me to take over puttapathi tell me ur place i will come there only

I never even dreamt that your services are available on call

 

[CLN]

i never even dreamt that your services are available on call

lol

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.Sangom,
The role of a Doctor is to save the lives of Living beings.So a busy Doctor will be extremely busy in saving the lives.There is not even a remote possibility of a Busy Doctor seeing too many persons leaving this world when the final call comes unlike You and me.
This reminds me of an incident in 1980 or 1981 when I saw 13 Anand Margis (10 gents and three ladies reported to be Principals of different
Schools run by AM) getting killed by a mob (mostly vegetable vendors who sit beneath the Baligunj bridge daily in the morning) when they were travelling in Taxis on the Baligunj Bridge,KOLKATTA to go to their Leaders residence in the morning to greet him on his birthday.
Daily I had to pass through that place in the morning and evening and it took a long time for me to erase the incident from my mind.