Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

[kaushik]

Hi all,
Ramayana as we all know, stands tall through ages as one of the greatest epics in Indian history. It is very important that the immense values & insights that Ramayana has garnered to its readers are passed on to genrations to come as well. At this juncture, it would be good to clarify on the origin of Ramayana, that of Valmiki's composition.
Was it a real string of incidents passed on to us through Valimiki?? or was it from some divine vision that kindled him?

Please do share your valuable thoughts on the same.THanks in Advance!!

[Sudarshan]

Ramayana is an itihAsic presentation of jnAna yoga - seven chapters allegorically narrating the seven bhUmika-s of jnAna yoga ( vide varAha upanishad), namely, shubeccha, vichAraNa, tanumAnasi, sattvapatti, asaMsakti, padArta bhAvana and turya. vAlmiki is the theory of jnAna yoga itself and Ramayana is his own autobiography on Self Realization. The characters you find in Ramayana are one's encountered by vAlmiki during his yogic progress.

[kallol]

Looking at the narration and comparing with reality, it seems it is history. May be puched with some imaginations.

[dhyandev]

http://sarojbala.blogspot.in/2012/06/scientific-dating-of-ramayan-era.html

[JayaRadhe]

Namaste!
I believe most of it to be historically accurate with some allegorical figures. That is, I believe Sita-Ram, Hanuman, Lakshman, Ravana, etc... all existed and that the events went down similar to what is recounted. However, I think that such things as Ravana having ten heads and ten arms are allegorical. Then ten heads representing amassed knowledge and the ten arms representing his prowess in battle. However, that is just my own opinion based on my reading of the scripture.

[philosoraptor]

Yes, Ramayana is a real historic narration. Or at least, that is the viewpoint of the traditionalist, not always so popular with modern crowds. There is plenty in the Ramayana which defies our myopic conception of reality: unchaste women being turned to stone and then redeemed by divine grace, flying & shape-changing monkeys, giant demons whose very presence corrupts the land in which they live, mystic weapons which can release destructive effects rivaling those of modern weapons of mass destruction, talking vultures, a Sanskrit-speaking bear with a life-span of several-million years, and yes, lest we not forget, a ten-headed demon.

There is nothing in the Ramayana to suggest that the author had intended any of this to be allegorical only. The opening chapters indicate that the author visualized the entire sequence of events, which had occurred in the recent past as he was a contemporary of Rama Himself. He gave shelter to Sita and was present when she gave birth to Rama's twin sons, even instructing them in the Vedas.

Ours is not a dry religion. There are plenty of supernatural events to challenge the mind and the heart. If you believe in the existence of an omnipotent Deity, it's not hard to accept that such things could have occurred, since a truly all-powerful Deity could bend the laws of reality to suit His needs. And why shouldn't He? Instead of an enemy tribal chieftain, He chose a ten-headed villain who was so powerful he caused the devas to cower. Instead of a ho-hum army of conscripts fighting for His cause, He chose an army of talking, flying, shape-changing monkeys!

God has the ultimate sense of style.

[JayaRadhe]

Yes, Ramayana is a real historic narration. Or at least, that is the viewpoint of the traditionalist, not always so popular with modern crowds. There is plenty in the Ramayana which defies our myopic conception of reality: unchaste women being turned to stone and then redeemed by divine grace, flying & shape-changing monkeys, giant demons whose very presence corrupts the land in which they live, mystic weapons which can release destructive effects rivaling those of modern weapons of mass destruction, talking vultures, a Sanskrit-speaking bear with a life-span of several-million years, and yes, lest we not forget, a ten-headed demon.

There is nothing in the Ramayana to suggest that the author had intended any of this to be allegorical only. The opening chapters indicate that the author visualized the entire sequence of events, which had occurred in the recent past as he was a contemporary of Rama Himself. He gave shelter to Sita and was present when she gave birth to Rama's twin sons, even instructing them in the Vedas.

Ours is not a dry religion. There are plenty of supernatural events to challenge the mind and the heart. If you believe in the existence of an omnipotent Deity, it's not hard to accept that such things could have occurred, since a truly all-powerful Deity could bend the laws of reality to suit His needs. And why shouldn't He? Instead of an enemy tribal chieftain, He chose a ten-headed villain who was so powerful he caused the devas to cower. Instead of a ho-hum army of conscripts fighting for His cause, He chose an army of talking, flying, shape-changing monkeys!

God has the ultimate sense of style.
I don't discount the miracles in the Ramayana (Ahalya returning to her natural form, Hanuman taking on non-human proportions, Rama breaking Shiva's bow...), I merely question whether such things as Ravan having 10 heads cannot be explained metaphorically. Tell me, when Krishnaji marries Jambavati in the Bhagavatam, do you think he actually married a bear, or do you think she might be referred to as such for some other reason (such as it being the name of her clan)? I choose to think it was symbolic.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

>>>> "Why 14 Years?" <<<<

I know I am taking a break right now, but when checking a thread in respect of a Member who sent a message I received, I saw this item and I just cannot resist to add an idea. So forgive me for again not living up to the standards of Lord Rama and King Dasarath in keeping a “oath”. I am not a Brahmana so I tend to be here and there if you will.

Rama would have dharshan with Kala Purusha. It is said, Kala Purusha at the notification of Brahma took the form of a Rishi and asked Lord Rama to come to a private place to have a discussion in a tent or room, and that no one should disturb this discussion which was to request Rama to end His Avatar. This is part of His duty as I am told that Kala Purusha keeps track of the “clock” or time measurement. This discussion took place after the 14 year exile. The Rishi can be the Personification of Time from the human view. All things are eaten by Kala. Of course Time is Shiva the Great God, so what is inferred here is that Kala Purusha Deva is not in CHARGE of Time which is by Shiva, but He tracks the “universal clock” if you will which pertains to Karma. And the “clock” said, the time is due, the time has been measured.

This is a point that seems to connect with me, because when Rama was having this dharshan, the Muni Durvasa forced His way into the room even though Rama commanded to Lakshman that during this Dharshan no one is to enter at the consequence of banishment or death, of which the “door” was being guarded by Brother Lakshman. Muni Durvasa is considered an Aspect of Shankara. So in one way, we can see that Time Itself can force its way in no matter what the “clock” says.

Also it is important to remember that Rama is the Great Devotee (Bhakta) of Shiva – some may argue with me regarding this and I have not fully realized all Aspects of the “Trinity”, but this is firmly explained to me and I submit to it. This is my religious understanding in so regarding.
This clock affects in particular the humans, but also all beings including those with merit and animals with merit such as the cow.
Ram took to the 14 years to save his Father’s honor. This is the larger reason, it was in the name of honor, and Honor is not limited by time. And Ram is the Perfect Man. Lord Rama indeed did (and does) feel and understand man, and pain. He is always 100% Deva, but He is simultaneously 1 part Deva and 1 part Man in that Dasaratha gave half the divine nectar or honey (pAyasam) to Kausalya who gave us Lord Ramachandra. So this is not a contradiction to be half man and half Deva and also 100% Deva. This is my religion, in so regarding, you may disagree but my mind will not be changed.

Rama can be part of the human experience. For example, after Sita went into the Earth due to the nit-picking and back-stabbing of some who lived in The Kingdom, foolish humans such as we see to this very day in society but which even existing in a Kingdom which was a Paradise, these gossipers could not stop claiming She was not pure because She was with Ravana and thus was in violation of “rules”. Later Rama jumped into the River Sharayu where He showed us one way to take Samadhi but not take life. In this same manner, Trailinga Swami left by taking Samadhi in the Ganga at Kashi by sinking into the Ganga jal. This can be a perfectly accepted method for Yogis, Mystics, and Avatars, and even in some cases Bhaktas.

I do not know for a fact the answer to the question, why 14? - but I think I can volunteer a guess though I fully admit this is dubious perhaps.
Though the premise being that fourteen is enough years to allow Bharat to become fixed in the minds of the people as their only King, fourteen is an interesting number - it is my understanding that there are 14 “worlds” or dimensions in the universe. 7 are where humans are allowed to practice yoga and the Path and Bhakti and even Arhantship or Moksha, and 7 are where unrighteous can go if they are full of negative energy that causes obstacles to such humans and other living-soul-based beings who want to practice the Path which includes Bhakti Yoga. While this is not hell, it is not a nice place to be, and I would not want to go there. The lower one goes into the 7 lower dimensions, the higher is the ego. The higher one goes into the 7 higher dimensions, the less ego. Heaven in Swarga Loka is not the final dimension, there are four more above it.

So some may say perhaps the 14 years can represent the 14 dimensions which we may all find ourselves in one day or another day passing while on the Journey. I will also mention without authority, there are 2 letters in the Name of Rama, there are 2 letters in the Name of Sita, 3 letters in the Name Lakshman, 3 letters in the Name Bharat and 4 letters in the Name Shatrughna. All are the Honor of His Father including Lord Ramachandra’s beloved Wife. They add up to 14. Queen Kaikeyi requested the banishment of 14 years. Perhaps without realizing it, it was symbolically a strike on the Honor of the King, which all fours Sons and Sita composite the Universe of the King. So even her plans were a dishonor to Bharat as well because all of them together represent this “Universe” of the King.

Some say the shoe or sandal is dirty and there are so many rules they can quote in this regard. But Bharat established the wooden shoes of Ram on the throne. What is dirty to one is Sacred to another, for it is the question of Who stood in those sandals and not the dirt on them. Mother Ganga is never dirty no matter how much it is polluted. Rama can go to all 14 dimensions if He so chooses and He is not dirty. Rama can lift up any child in the universe, and He is never dirty and the child is blessed. It is only disrespect to Honor that can put oil in the milk.

Rama is the Perfect Man, for all, no matter who your ancestors are. If you Honor Lord Ram, you will then have a way to Honor all of your ancestors who also get benefit. All of Humanity is in Ram, that is my religion.

I believe that the Ramayana is an Historical Account. Meaning all of it is true. The events each show us a deep mystery or mystic truth as well. It is these truths that we can realize which are the Buddhi behind these very real events.

To me, my Lord Hanuman is the First Messenger. For He brought first word to Mother Sita who was held in the Garden, that Rama is coming.

Rama is coming. Even today, Hanuman can be the First Messenger to you.

[JayaRadhe]

I believe that the Ramayana is an Historical Account. Meaning all of it is true. The events each show us a deep mystery or mystic truth as well.
Hari Aum Tat Sat! May we all take a lesson from ShivaFan, a real saint among sinners.

[philosoraptor]

I don't discount the miracles in the Ramayana (Ahalya returning to her natural form, Hanuman taking on non-human proportions, Rama breaking Shiva's bow...), I merely question whether such things as Ravan having 10 heads cannot be explained metaphorically. Tell me, when Krishnaji marries Jambavati in the Bhagavatam, do you think he actually married a bear, or do you think she might be referred to as such for some other reason (such as it being the name of her clan)? I choose to think it was symbolic.

Pranams,

Although Jambavan is a bear, Jambavati was never described in the bhAgavatam as a bear, so the question does not arise.

Raavana having 10 heads cannot be explained metaphorically because context does not support it. Vaalmiiki explicitly states that he revealed a ten-faced, twenty-armed form to Sita just prior to abducting her:

sa.nrakta nayanaH shriimaan tapta kaa.ncana bhuuSaNaH |
krodhena mahataa aaviSTo niila jiimuuta sannibhaH || 3-49-7
dasha aasyo vi.mshati bhujo babhuuva kSaNadaa caraH |

That celebrated Ravana whose eyes are bloodshot as he is ensorcelled by desperate fury transmuted his form into a ten-faced, twenty-armed night-walker wearing golden ornaments of purified gold and appearing as a black tempestuous cloud. [3-49-7, 8a]

There is also the fact that Raavana is traditionally understood to have literally 10 heads and this can been seen in art forms spanning centuries. Some are of the opinion that he only manifests all 10 heads at certain times such as in battle. But the point is, it is not traditionally understand as merely metaphor without literal basis.

[JayaRadhe]

Pranams,

Although Jambavan is a bear, Jambavati was never described in the bhAgavatam as a bear, so the question does not arise.

Oh, okay. She's just the human daughter of a talking bear. Gotchya. And, of course, when Krishnaji says things like, "Among fish, I am the shark," he means that literally, too. And, obviously, when the Bhagavatam says things like, "The sun is pulled by seven horses on a one-wheeled chariot through the sky, and we have divided the months according to the number of spokes on the wheel," we are meant to take that literally. After all, symbolism doesn't exist in the scriptures, so that must be the case.


Raavana having 10 heads cannot be explained metaphorically because context does not support it. Vaalmiiki explicitly states that he revealed a ten-faced, twenty-armed form to Sita just prior to abducting her:

sa.nrakta nayanaH shriimaan tapta kaa.ncana bhuuSaNaH |
krodhena mahataa aaviSTo niila jiimuuta sannibhaH || 3-49-7
dasha aasyo vi.mshati bhujo babhuuva kSaNadaa caraH |

That celebrated Ravana whose eyes are bloodshot as he is ensorcelled by desperate fury transmuted his form into a ten-faced, twenty-armed night-walker wearing golden ornaments of purified gold and appearing as a black tempestuous cloud. [3-49-7, 8a]

I've read the Valmiki Ramayan. I don't think this eliminates my earlier theory. Sita's vision of Ravana's true nature doesn't have to be him literally turning into this weird ten-headed, twenty-armed monster. I'm sure it was just Sita seeing how dangerous Ravana was and Valmiki went on to express it poetically, since he chose to express Ram-lila through a poem and symbolism is often used in poems.


There is also the fact that Raavana is traditionally understood to have literally 10 heads and this can been seen in art forms spanning centuries. Some are of the opinion that he only manifests all 10 heads at certain times such as in battle. But the point is, it is not traditionally understand as merely metaphor without literal basis.
Oh, I forgot that there was no such thing as symbolism in iconography! Silly me!

[smaranam]

Jay Radhe, Jaya Radhe :)


However, I think that such things as Ravana having ten heads and ten arms are allegorical.

Note of Caution: I saw this in the TV Serial RAvaN:

Vishrava Muni, RAvaN's father, was a spiritual scientist. He invented a bead, 'maNi' that had fractals and many refracting, reflecting facets. He showed it to Kaikeshi, when she was pregnant with Ravan, Vibhishan and their 2 other siblings

He decided to give this maNi to RAvaN ... or after he passed away, when Kaikeshi, Ravan's mother sensed danger-death for her son in battle, she gave him his father's secret maNi and asked him to wear it around the neck.

This maNi, when rubbed and moved at an angle, would reflect image of his face and create 9 images. Thus the ten heads were 9 reflections and one real head.

As a LeelA i.e. divine pastime, Shri Raam also stopped to think for a moment, which one is his real head.

When Shri Raam, on unanimous opinion with the Rshis and all, finally released the bramhAstra on rAvaN, rAvaN reflected "Shri Raam is sending the bramhAstra on me? If i send one they will collide in mid-air, and it will cause major destruction. No I certainly do not want this." So he embraced his death.

RavaN's mistake was his out-of-proportion ahaMkaar about his illusiory capability as a Raksha, thinking he is all-powerfull and can compete with Shiva and VishNu.
He tried to uproot the entire Himalaya, and Shiva taught him the required lesson, but kept him going, till he finally met death at the hands of Shri Raam i.e. VishNu.
(Unfortunately he was taught this attitude by the maternal grandfather - a daitya, who had planned the politics of getting Vishrava Muni to marry his daughter so that the heir will "fight and destroy VishNu" - ridiculous as that sounds, but this is how daityas and asurs think.)

Anyways, that was more rAmAyaN than necessary.

Coming back to the ten heads. Is there anything to learn from this allegorically as well? I am sure there is - such as the 10 vices, personalities, egos, or ambitions of RAvaN? I do not have any shAstra commentary on this though. It is just a thought.

rAma rAmeti rAmeti rame rAme manorame
sahastranAma tattulyam rAma nAma varanane

Hare KrshNa~

[Omkara]

The 'nine reflections' theory has been doing the rounds lately.I don't think it is supported by the ramayana though.If I recall correctly,some western scholar came up with it a few years ago, in a book that speculates on 'what actually happened which was later turned to myth etc. etc.'

She was interviewed in Times of India.I remember reading the interview.There was a whole load of bs repeating the old pro babri masjid arguments too(funny how scholars of marxist persuation bring up the topic anytime the topic veers even remotely close to the ramayana)

Sad that the quality of tv shows is getting so degraded.

[smaranam]

And, of course, when Krishnaji says things like, "Among fish, I am the shark," he means that literally, too.

Oh VibhUti Yog, my favorite GitA chapter.

What He means is whatever stands out, is actually outstanding, shines out extraordinarily in its own category is Me as in - an instance, vibhUti, a spark of Me. In fact, when we say avatArs or expansions, there are shaktyAvesha (empowered beings) , aMsha (part) and vibhUti (beings or entities fueled by His spark - aMsh, vibhUti).

vibhUti = manifestation of His spark.

In the end KrshNa says

BG 10.40 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/10/40/en): O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.
BG 10.41 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/10/41/en): Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.
BG 10.42 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/10/42/en): But what need is there, Arjuna (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/a/arjuna), for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.
And Who is His splendor? Lakshmi, Shri. The Godess of Fortune.

Let's see off the top of my head:

Among the 12 Aditya I am VishNu
Among the 11 rUdra I am Shankar
Among the achala, immovable I am Himalaya
Among the mountains I am Meru
Among the objects in the sky I am the moon
Among the archers and governers of weapons I am Shri Raam
Among the secrets I am the silence (maun)
Among the hymns of sAma-ved I am bRhat-saama
Among the daityas I am Prahlaad
Among divine [vedic] rhythms (cHhanda) or poetry I am Gayatri

I am nIti (righteous way) among seekers of victory,
Among indrIya (sense organs) I am the mind
I am shri-splendor, medha-intelligence, vANi-speech, kshamA-forgiveness [quality of], dRti-steadfastness, smRti-memory ...

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya~

[smaranam]

The 'nine reflections' theory has been doing the rounds lately.I don't think it is supported by the ramayana though.If I recall correctly,some western scholar came up with it a few years ago, in a book that speculates on 'what actually happened which was later turned to myth etc. etc.'

She was interviewed in Times of India.I remember reading the interview.There was a who,e load of bs repeating the old pro babri masjid arguments too.

Sad that the quality of tv shows is getting so degraded.

That is why i wrote the Note of Caution about the TV Serial source. Now that you mention it the producer was some Khan.
And the beginning part of the serial also tried to show Ravan in a positive light as if sending a message that our scriptures wrongly show him in bad light.

Well, RAvaN had Yogic powers too. So how about this: when his ego could not fit in one head they expanded into 10 to make room for it :) Also, it helped him confuse the enemy in battle.
Jaya Radhe, Let us not forget Ravan was one of the gatekeepers in VaikuNTha who had to complete three births here. So again, not an ordinary being. These are such trivial things for the Supreme Lord.

hare KRshNa

[smaranam]

Oh, okay. She's just the human daughter of a talking bear. Gotchya.

If Hanuman, a vAnar can be a great Yogi and great devotee, why can't a wise bear Jambavan have a wise daughter who is a devotee at heart?

Hanuman, Jambavan and Jambavati were no ordinary beings. They were the devotees of the Supreme Lord who were participating in His Leelas on earth.

It is the AtmA inside that KRshNa looked at - always. He never said - this one is ugly.
I also read that as soon as Shri KrshNa put the varmaalA around Jambavati she turned into a beautiful princess. This means she evolved, she overcame her material deha with spiritual, at the Supreme Lord's touch.

We all agree that the 8 wives were liberated, and others who became KRshNa's wives immediately attained liberation. Anyone attains liberation at His touch.

KrshNa wouldn't care even if she was a bear, He would love her dearly, but it would be too hard for the DwArakAvAsis to accept, and He did not want to shock anyone.

Also, Saamb, JAmbavati's son, was very very dear, especially dear to KRshNa.


Shri KrshNa Govinda Hare MurAre
he NAtha NArAyaNa VAsudeva

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

I take it Shatrarjun with thousand arm is a no then, I use to wonder how the hell would he use them, cloth it? But then I said how does sentapide have hundred of legs?
I suppose a Bhakta will always wonder in amazement and marvel the creation, saying nothing is impossible for God. While jyani would want to rationalise everything. Personally I like to think the author would like us to believe in what he has narrated.

On a different note, can anyone tell me if Ram is explicitly mentioned as an avtar of Vishnu in Valmiki Ramayan. I am more use to Tulsidas Ramayan the manas, although I have in my possession valmiki Ramayan, I have read it but I was not looking for that ref then, anyone with know shed some light on it please. Many thanks.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

Pranam
I suppose a Bhakta will always wonder in amazement and marvel the creation, saying nothing is impossible for God. While jyani would want to rationalise everything. Personally I like to think the author would like us to believe in what he has narrated.
In my opinion, being a jnani or a bhakta should make no difference in believing in the itihasic history. None of the famous Vedanta acharyas had a problem believing in the itihasa and purana. The mistake is often made to equate being a jnani with western post enlightenment rationalising scepticism. I have seen a few very arrogant people who think they are on the path of jnana yoga, because they work with their mind, but this does not make one a jnani. These people would ridiculously believe they can do a Myers-Briggs personality test to find out whether they are a jnani or bhakta.

The difference between jnana and bhakti is blown out of proportion in Neo-Hinduism. Most jnanis were also bhaktas as is evident from the literature of the Jnana yogis that is available to us and the vedas and shastras themselves where bhakti and jnana are beautifully blended. The influence of Buddhism has also helped to create a false dichotomy between jnana and bhakti, as is seen in literature that is highly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, like the Yoga Vasishta. This might be a little off topic, but I wanted to comment on it, because I think this false dichotomy has been ingrained very deeply and has become a common misconception.


On a different note, can anyone tell me if Ram is explicitly mentioned as an avtar of Vishnu in Valmiki Ramayan. I am more use to Tulsidas Ramayan the manas, although I have in my possession valmiki Ramayan, I have read it but I was not looking for that ref then, anyone with know shed some light on it please. Many thanks.

Jai Shree KrishnaYes, there are a few references in the Valmiki Ramayana saying that Rama is Vishnu, some are explicit and some inexplicit. I will look them up, or perhaps philosoraptor can deliver them faster.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sahasranama

Point well taken thanks, I wait for the reference thanks again.

Jai Shree Krishna

[ShivaFan]

Namaste!

I have a collection of various books on Sacred Texts, and writings regarding Hinduism and aspects of, stored in a fire-safe security storage. It’s a pretty large collection, some of it hard to get these days.

In this collection, there are many “Versions” of the Ramayana, including of course the Tulsidas and Valmiki versions, the Adhyatma Ramayana, Ananda Ramayana, and so on. I believe I have at least five versions, as well as obscure versions, a couple of study versions on the Thai, Cambodian versions. I have a large collection of “commentaries” on the Ramayana, on aspects of Ram or Hanuman, from many authors old and new and saintly and “scholarly”. Brahmins and Gurus brought Ramayana all over the world, and while I do not have a copy of it I have been looking for a Chinese versions which I am pretty sure does exist and is not simply a “Buddhist rendition”.
To make clear, I do not think all of these are “authorized”, but many have given me great joy.

I am not big on using “shot gun” methods of “verse quotations”, as some can see that is not really my style, which probably speaks to some as being simple in my opinion, which probably I am, certainly I am simple to approach because as some of my friends say, “Mr. B, you are simple” (especially when they want to whip up a plate of food for me). But I was sort of considering pulling out some of these “books” just for reference so that I might start to quote some items from Sacred Texts and other commentaries, but then I am sort of hesitant.

Actually, if I did start to pull out boxes of “books”, there would probably be some on the Forum who would want to behead me for torturing everyone, or even actually behead me for crimes against the entire world order. So generally, I torture others with stories and such instead.

But I only mention the Ramayana part of the “collection” in that, now that I think of it – I do not recall that most of the “originals” in text came with “pictures” and “graphics” (sure, editions of the Ramayana printed today may include pictures and graphics, but I am talking about the “originals”, the real “original editions” --- and boy, would I like to get my hands on one of those palm leaf and other originals because they are priceless, even just one page!) ….

So for example Ravan’s Ten Heads. I do not think any of the originals showed a picture of Ravana. Yes, I have seen very ancient stone carvings showing Ravana with 10 heads.

I believe the Ramayana is history (yes, I know you are thinking – “here he goes again”). So I believe in 10 heads. But I am not sure what that would look like. I also believe that everything in the Ramayana not only is history, but has profound messages and even mystic messages and teachings for me and everyone else.

So for example, a couple of times I sort of imagined meeting Ravana, and I am not saying “meditation on Him” or such, just some real consideration and kind of saying “Hi” to Him. To tell the truth, I know any personal ideation on these matters has no relevance or authority. But to also tell the truth, while I fully understand Ravana is a demon, there is a “gut” feeling in me that He is actually not as bad as some think.

- Fantasy -

In this imagined “meeting” with Him, I sort of found a situation where I pictured myself in very nice “room”, big, nice stone hall like building and reception, and like I am already there and on my knees with my (single) head bowed down. And Ravana is “right there” probably about 50 feet away, but I didn’t look right at Him. And then there is a voice, only one voice, saying something. But when a second voice came, from the same Him, the voice sounded different, and even talked to the first voice. And so on. And at one point, a confusion of voices from the same Him were talking at the same moment, and some were even giving orders to Rakshasa assistants in the hall. I did look up in this imagination, and I did see multiple looks back from the same Him, and even a mirror behind where it seems a “head” was talking from the back of “His heads” if you will.

Now this was all fantasy and not a vision, that is the fact. But I do know, that exactly How Ravana looks, I have no idea, but also it may not be what some think.

- End of Fantasy "Section" :) -

In terms of “versions”, just to mention there are many Saivas who do not believe in Avatars at all. And now that I think about it, the word is used a lot in commentaries I have but I don’t recall that I actually read the word “avatar” in the most popular Sanskrit editions (translated for me, since I cannot read Sanskrit other than some words and such). So, maybe the “word avatar” is not used, or is it?

So yes, to some who may have been commenting on my understanding that “Ram is a devotee of Shiva” – that is, and will be my firm understanding, any dissuasion from this by terms such as “making up theory” or throwing text quotes at me, or even vague statements such as “should not be allowed” and such really isn’t going to intimidate me to change.

In fact, to shock some even more, or maybe raise the interest of some even more, here are some of the understandings taught to me, and no I won’t throw a bunch of quotes from Sacred Texts to back up these understandings (but don’t forget those boxes in the fire-safe storage, I may still want to torture everyone yet!):

* Rama is a devotee of Shiva. He prayed to the Lingam, he worshipped the Lingam.

* Hanuman is Shiva. In fact, many of the personalities in the Ramayana, including monkey and bear and heroes and others, were Devatas and Devi come down to Bhumi Mother Earth in different forms during those historical times.

* Ravana is a “demon”, but He is also a devotee of Shiva. He did many evil things, but He is not entirely “evil”, and possessed great Royal powers and mystic powers. He is One, but He had a “problem” in that He was also “Many” competing powers within Himself. He is both to be considered an enemy, but also a higher intelligence than we are.

* That there is more to this than just “avatar” in these histories. And that, we will find out more in the future.

Hope that doesn’t make anyone mad at me!

Om Namah Sivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

First of all, I thank the OP for starting this thread and then disappearing completely.

If some people have doubts about Lord Ram's life and His lila, then they would scrutinize every thought, every historical event, every bit of Divine knowledge in what comprises the Hindu scriptures. Under such circumstances what is Hinduism - just a bunch of make-believe stories? And how are they Hindus - because of their childlike faith in some fairy tales?

Pranam.

[Viraja]

Rama and his ancestors worshipped Sri Ranganatha, the idol of whom was brought from Sathyaloka. This idol was later passed on to Tamil king DharmaVarma of that time and that is how Sri Ranganatha Swami temple at SriRangam came to be.

From http://srivaishnavam.com/divyadesam108/description/srirangam.htm:

"Ishvaagu, Son of Manu of Surya Kula, Prayed Brahma & obtained Lord Naaraayanaa’s Thiruvaaraadhana Vigraha which Brahma himself was worshipping; he brought the same to Ayodhyaa and he as also all other King’s of that Dynasty upto Lord RAmapiran were offering Pooja and Prayers to this Deity; when Vibeeshanaa was leaving for Lanka after RAma’s coronation as King, RAmaa gave this Deity to him because of the great affection he had for VibEshanA; While VibEshanA was passing over Cauvery near Srirangam he felt tired and landed there for rest; after some time when he was starting, he tried to lift the deity & couldn’t do it; the King of that place at that time, Dharma varma, consoled VibEshanA who started to stay there itself; the Lord appeared in the dream of VibEshanA, told him that he would like to stay where he was (to fulfil the genuine desire of Dharma varma who when he visited Ayodhya on an occasion, upon seeing the great Deity, wished how blessed he and his place would be, to have the Lord at his country ), to not to worry and that he should go to Lanka;the Lord also promised him that he would always be looking in the direction of his country (Lanka). Besides the Lord was also fulfilling a promise he had made to Cauvery upon being pleased with her penance, that she would get a greater importance than the Ganga ( who had become very egoistic upon being known as the holy River and slighted other rivers which resulted in Cauvery’s appeal thro’ very rigorous penance to the Lord, to help her decorate him suitably to become more valuable than Ganga) by allowing her to garland his Bhooloka Vaikundam ( which Srirangam island is known as).
Later Dharma varma built a small Temple around the Sriranga Vimaana; with the passage of time the Temple had got covered up by sand; another King of the Dharmavarma descendancy, while on a hunting mission in the forests (which he used to go alone for, at times ) encountered a tiger and was shocked to notice that he had come for hunting, totally forgetting the weapons required; as the tiger also had spotted them by then and the horse was reacting with scare, he saw a miracle happen; the tiger bowed in his direction and disappeared in a flash; the horse took to heels and after some time stopped under a tree over a sand mound, requiring rest; while the King was feeling that there was some thing extraordinary happening, he heard a parrot sitting on the tree repeating the following verses:
Kaveri Virajaa seyam, Vaikuntham Rangamandiram
Sa Vasudeva Rangesah, pratyaksham paramam padam
Vimanam pranavakaram, veda srungam mahadbhutam
Sriranga sayi Bhagavan, pranavartha prakasakah.
( Meaning: The river Cauvery is verily the Viraja in Vaikuntham; the SriRangam Temple is the Vaikuntham itself; Lord Rangesah is none else but Vasudeva himself and this is indeed God’s eternal abode.)
He ( hence forth known as Kili Chozha as he got this bhagya or great chance because of a parrot, known as Kili in Tamil ) went back to his place, came back to that spot with required resources and upon excavating the place, found the Vimana intact; filled with joy he renovated the Temple restoring its full former glory. The Kili Mandapam which signifies this aspect is located in the 2nd Praakaaram."

[Viraja]

Ofcourse, Sri Ram worshipped the Athmalingam at Rameswaram to get rid of the Brahma-Hathi dosha from killing Ravana.

Similarly, after plucking out the 5th head of Brahma, Lord Shiva also prayed to Sri Mahavishnu at ThirunAngUr divyadesam to get rid of brahmahathya dosha.

[philosoraptor]

In my opinion, being a jnani or a bhakta should make no difference in believing in the itihasic history. None of the famous Vedanta acharyas had a problem believing in the itihasa and purana. The mistake is often made to equate being a jnani with western post enlightenment rationalising scepticism. I have seen a few very arrogant people who think they are on the path of jnana yoga, because they work with their mind, but this does not make one a jnani. These people would ridiculously believe they can do a Myers-Briggs personality test to find out whether they are a jnani or bhakta.

The difference between jnana and bhakti is blown out of proportion in Neo-Hinduism. Most jnanis were also bhaktas as is evident from the literature of the Jnana yogis that is available to us and the vedas and shastras themselves where bhakti and jnana are beautifully blended. The influence of Buddhism has also helped to create a false dichotomy between jnana and bhakti, as is seen in literature that is highly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, like the Yoga Vasishta. This might be a little off topic, but I wanted to comment on it, because I think this false dichotomy has been ingrained very deeply and has become a common misconception.


All of the above is well said, and very timely too!

The above posting has the official "philosoraptor seal of approval."

:-)

[philosoraptor]

Ofcourse, Sri Ram worshipped the Athmalingam at Rameswaram to get rid of the Brahma-Hathi dosha from killing Ravana.

I would like to know where this is mentioned in Valmiki-Ramayanam.

[philosoraptor]

If some people have doubts about Lord Ram's life and His lila, then they would scrutinize every thought, every historical event, every bit of Divine knowledge in what comprises the Hindu scriptures. Under such circumstances what is Hinduism - just a bunch of make-believe stories? And how are they Hindus - because of their childlike faith in some fairy tales?

Pranam.

Namaste, this is precisely my point. Thank you for putting it so concisely, a virtue I often lack.

regard,s

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,


Oh, okay. She's just the human daughter of a talking bear. Gotchya.

And this is difficult to believe, how? You don't seem to have any difficulty with the idea of engaging an English-speaking, Sanskrit-reading dinosaur in debate.



And, of course, when Krishnaji says things like, "Among fish, I am the shark," he means that literally, too.

He means that the shark among fish represents Him and is one of His "vibhUti-s," which is exactly what Arjuna asks Him to list (see gItA 10.16).


And, obviously, when the Bhagavatam says things like, "The sun is pulled by seven horses on a one-wheeled chariot through the sky, and we have divided the months according to the number of spokes on the wheel," we are meant to take that literally. After all, symbolism doesn't exist in the scriptures, so that must be the case.

Symbolism exists, but whether something is intended to be taken symbolically or not is a function of what the author intended, and not on how palatable or unpalatable the literal value of the statement may be to us.

There is no evidence to suggests that Jaambavaan being described as a bear is symbolic. If you really read the Raamaayana, you would know the context in which his origin is discussed - it occurs after Brahmaa directs the devas to create the army of monkeys:



maayaa vidaH ca shuuraam ca vaayu vega samaan jave |
nayaj~naan buddhi sa.mpannaan viSNu tulya paraakramaan || 1-17-3
asa.mhaaryaan upaayaj~naan divya sa.mhanana anvitaan |
sarva astra guNa sa.mpannaanan amR^ita praashanaan iva || 1-17-4
apsarassu ca mukhyaasu gandharvaaNaam tanuuSu ca |
yaksha pannaga kanyaasu R^iksha vidyaadhariiSu cha || 1-17-5
ki.mnariiNaam cha gaatreSu vaanariinaam tanuusu cha |
sR^ijadhvam hari ruupeNa putraan tulya paraakramaan || 1-17-6

"Let monkey-shaped progeny equalling Vishnu's valour be procreated from the physiques of prominent apsara-s and gandharva-s, from the girls of yaksha-s and pannaga-s, and also thus from the bodies of kinnaraa-s, she-vidyaadharaa-s, she-riksha-s and she-monkeys, and they shall be wizards of miracles and audacious ones, in travel they shall have air's speed, bestowed with intellect they shall be the knowers of ideation, and with their divine physique they shall be ineliminable, they shall be endowed with all the assaultive aspects of all missiles, and they shall be untiring in their efforts, like you who thrive on amrita, the ambrosia, unmindful of thirst and hunger. [1-17-3, 4, 5, 6]


Then in the very next verse it is stated:



pUrvam eva mayaa sR^iSTo jaa.mbavaan R^ixa pu~NgavaH |
jR^i.mbhamaaNasya sahasaa mama vakraat ajaayata || 1-17-7

"I have already created the eminent bear Jambavanta in earlier times, as he suddenly came forth from my yawning face. [1-17-7]


So now the question: if Brahmaa told the devas to procreate and create monkey-progeny, and in the next verse mentions his previous creation of the bear Jaambavaan, then why are the monkeys really monkeys, but the bear is not a bear? Or are you of the opinion that the monkeys were also humans, and that their being described as monkeys is also a metaphor? And that all those Vaishnava acharyas and millions of other Hindus from ages past were not as sharp as you in picking that up?

For the life of me, I don't know why Jaambavaan the bear has a human daughter. I looked for clarification in the texts and eventually in the Puraanic Encyclopedia and could find none. Perhaps Jaambavaan, like Hanumaan, is a shape-changer and can assume human form and procreate in this fashion. Or, the human daughter was adopted by him. That's surely not so hard to believe in a culture where people can suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy stories of boys being raised by apes (Tarzan) or boys being raised by wolves (Jungle Book?).



I've read the Valmiki Ramayan. I don't think this eliminates my earlier theory. Sita's vision of Ravana's true nature doesn't have to be him literally turning into this weird ten-headed, twenty-armed monster.

Let's review the text, which you claim to have read:



sa.nrakta nayanaH shriimaan tapta kaa.ncana bhuuSaNaH |
krodhena mahataa aaviSTo niila jiimuuta sannibhaH || 3-49-7
dasha aasyo vi.mshati bhujo babhuuva kSaNadaa caraH |

That celebrated Ravana whose eyes are bloodshot as he is ensorcelled by desperate fury transmuted his form into a ten-faced, twenty-armed night-walker wearing golden ornaments of purified gold and appearing as a black tempestuous cloud. [3-49-7, 8a]


So this verse specifically describes Ravana transforming from a benign form to a very malignant one, explicit stating that it has ten heads. Now for JaiRadhe's commentary:



I'm sure it was just Sita seeing how dangerous Ravana was and Valmiki went on to express it poetically, since he chose to express Ram-lila through a poem and symbolism is often used in poems.

That would make it a lie, objectively speaking, and there are logical problems with that analysis. First, it was not Sita's "vision" - the poet explicitly states that Ravana did this. Second, there is nothing about having multiple heads that indicates danger - rather, it's our memory of Ravana as a dangerous foe that makes us associate danger with his having 10 heads. Chatur-mukha Brahma is also depicted as having multiple heads, but no one understands this to mean he is a deadly warrior. Third, he already showed how dangerous Raavana was by depicting him killing Jataayu. Well, you probably do not accept that Jataayu was a bird whose gargantuan brother got his wings burned off by flying too close to the sun - am I correct? If so, I wonder what that symbolizes, and why the poet felt it necessary to invoke that symbolism in the context of searching for Sita....

There is also something incredibly trite about the logic that:
a) He expressed Ram-lila through a poem,
b) Symbolism is often used in poems, and therefore
c) Raavana having ten heads is a symbol

Specifically, it assumes that if symbolism is being invoked, it precludes reality. There is a well known metaphor of Gitacharya Krishna on the battlefield to the effect that the five horses He drove symbolize the five senses and the chariot symbolizes the body, but no one asserts on this basis that He did not really drive Arjuna in a chariot pulled by 5 horses. The well-known episode of Rama killing Vali (who was guilty of usurping Sugriva's wife) clearly foreshadows His later killing of Raavana (who was guilty of the same offense), yet everyone accepts that He did this and that it was not merely a symbolic fiction. Second, your decision to assign only symbolic value to Ravana's having 10 heads is not consistent with your willingness to accept that Hanumaan was a talking monkey and that Ahalya was in fact turned to stone. Why are some supernatural events acceptable but not others? I am sure we would all like to know the rational behind it.

For the life of me, I don't understand why having ten heads is inherently more difficult to believe than being turned to stone (and back) or being a talking monkey who can fly and change sizes. But this could just be because I am not a dabbler in magic spells and don't know much about that kind of stuff. Oh wait, maybe the issue is *you* do know about that kind of stuff.... are you perchance, a witch?

If so, do you have a spell that can turn me back to being a human? You see, I wasn't always a velociraptor....

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Also, I'm just curious to know something:

If Valmiki falsely depicted Ravana as a ten-headed demon to indicate in a symbolic way how dangerous he was, then........

.....am I supposed to be scared the next time I see a Siamese twin?

Because those two-headed individuals are definitely out there when it comes to their ways of doing things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKWApOAG2g), but it never really occurred to me to think of myself as being in imminent danger when I'm around one of them....

[Eastern Mind]

deleted

[philosoraptor]

Vannakkam: I think the real test of a scripture is whether or not by reading it, it makes you a better person. There seems to be some 'scriptures' (not of the SD variety) that just get people all riled up.

I knew of one group of people whose entire religious activity was to get together once a week, sit around in a large circle, and take turns reading verses of the Ramayana. No discussion, just reading. I knew a couple personally, and I didn't notice any changes for the better in them. Maybe the change was just too slow for tired old eyes to notice.

Aum Namasivaya

Trust me when I say you would not want that to be the real test of a scripture. I read lots of scriptures, but I'm not a better person. Rather, I tend to get more insight into my flaws.

I wouldn't want my character weaknesses to imply a lack of authenticity in the scriptures I read.

regards,

[Viraja]

EMji,

IMHO, (with regards to reading scriptures changing one for the better) - A LOT OF SADHANA IS NEEDED.

For material gains itself, one would require a sadhana of so many rounds of say, Gayathri Ramayanam for so long...

If someone were to become a muni by reading Ramayan, then one should do so many rounds of reading it for say, 20 yrs or so and this I think would bring out the better in him/her by the grace of Sri Rama.

Just my thought :)

Aspirant

[yajvan]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

Of all the wonderful posts I see above I do not see any mention of gāyatrī mantraḥ that is sprinkled
within the rāmāyaṇa. The rāmāyaṇa consists of 24,000 verses - does this 24 not ring a bell ( 8 x 3 ) :

oṁ tat saviturvarenyam
bhargo devasya dhīmahi |
dhiyo yo nah pracodayāt ||


praṇām

[ShivaFan]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Of all the wonderful posts I see above I do not see any mention of gāyatrī mantraḥ that is sprinkled
within the rāmāyaṇa. The rāmāyaṇa consists of 24,000 verses - does this 24 not ring a bell ( 8 x 3 ) :

oṁ tat saviturvarenyam
bhargo devasya dhīmahi |
dhiyo yo nah pracodayāt ||


praṇām


Namaste and Thank you Yajvan!

The Gayatri Mantra is indeed beautiful!

I wonder ... if some would say I am not allowed to read these beautiful mantra words, because I am not this, or that?

Hey! Actually I am not this or that! Didn't some great yogi from Sri Lanka tell me that in His example and teachings, that "You are not that" ? Didn't some great yogi from Kashi say the same, that I am not this body.

The Ramayana opens so many doors. For me it does. It is UNLIKE any other History Book. This History Book also opens doors, and lets me go through such doors to the other side.

It is the very power it possesses that we can believe in Lord Hanuman as a very real personality, that there truly was an Army, that the Bridge to Lanka was built!

Jai Hanuman!

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

The picture below is taken in the United States of America. My wife and myself came upon it in an area where new homes are being built.

There are two streets facing each other.

One is called RAM.
The other is called SITA.

Below is a thumbnail graphic of the street signs.

Many Americans are coming to Hinduism. Just see the sign. This is the power of the Ramayana. I hope they will be welcomed.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

I wonder ... if some would say I am not allowed to read these beautiful mantra words, because I am not this, or that?

Hey! Actually I am not this or that! Didn't some great yogi from Sri Lanka tell me that in His example and teachings, that "You are not that" ? Didn't some great yogi from Kashi say the same, that I am not this body.

Pranams ShivaFan,

This being a thread about the Ramayana, I realize the only reason for your interjecting the above is to take another not-so-subtle jab at our religious culture, and that's fine really. However, you might want to come to terms with certain points:

First, the Vedas are traditionally passed down in an oral tradition from guru to disciple. Thus, the restrictions technically refer to "hearing."

Second, the hearing of the mantras from a guru through the formal system of education was restricted to male brahmacharis of the brahmin, kshatriya, and vaishya varnas. The restriction did not apply to others casually hearing mantras chanted at religious events, as is evident from the fact that women and shudras were present at yagnas (some of which I quoted elsewhere).

Third, Sri Vedavyasa specifically compiled the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and the Puranas so that those who were not qualified to study the Vedas (women and shudras) could still understand the essence of the Vedas. Note in this regard that the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas are not second-class texts. They contain the essence of the Vedas and are relished by those who correctly understand the devotional purports of the shruti. There is a verse in the Bhagavata Purana which explains that "Atma-rAma-s" (the enjoyers of the self) ever relish the hearing of this sacred Purana. So these texts aren't just for women and shudras - they are also for advanced souls of all castes and genders.

Fourth, you are not your body - that is true. But in the religion of sanAtana-dharma, you still have obligatory duties based on your body. Those duties apply even if one has actually attained self-realization, which involves actual realization, not merely intellectual understanding that one is not the body.

Fifth, the chanting of the gAyatrI mantra is supposed to be done in the brahma-muhurta (hours before sunrise) daily, and the failure to do this by those who are obligated constitutes a sinful act on their part. Now, I can't understand why one would want to have the duty that is prescribed for someone else, which only gives sinful results if not performed. It's like asking for homework for a class that you already got an A+ in, and which can only lower your grade if not completed perfectly.

Finally (and this is key), those who get fixated on the idea that they are not permitted to do this or that, and lose sight of the things that they are able to do which have the same end (like studying the Bhaagavatam) are completely missing the point. Sri Krishna's directive is for us is to do the duties that were prescribed for us even if performed imperfectly, and not to perfectly do the duties prescribed for someone else (gItA 18.47). Without following the scriptural regulations, one cannot attain the the supreme destination (gItA 16.23-24). All these obligatory duties are for the ultimate purpose of serving Him (bhAgavata 1.2.6-10). There is no question of surrendering unto Him if one is fixated on selecting duties based on one's personal preference instead of His stated preferences as revealed in shAstra. To put it another way, it is a very sickly mentality which says, "no, I don't like this duty which will please Him, I want that duty instead." This is a typical Western mentality which measures one's worth on the basis of one's material activities rather than on the actual bhakti one has.

I am, as I am writing this, reminded of the example of the Vrindaavana yagna-patnis whose husbands were performing a sacrifice to attain the opulence of birth in svarga. These men, despite their Vedic learning, did not recognize Sri Krishna as their Lord when He came begging for food, and instead persisted with their sacrifice which had materialistic desires as their end. Their wives, on the other hand, immediately acquiesced to Sri Krishna's request and correctly understood His identity as the Supreme Lord. They got the ecstasy of having His personal darshan and the opportunity to serve Him directly, while their husbands later repented their folly.

This is an important lesson for those who foolishly assume that some duties are inherently "better" than others. This is nonsense. It is the devotion with which one does that duty that counts.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste and Thank you Yajvan!

The Gayatri Mantra is indeed beautiful!

I wonder ... if some would say I am not allowed to read these beautiful mantra words, because I am not this, or that?

Yes, but this was not the thought behind the post...it has little to do with who one is. It has every thing to do with the subtle teachings ( on top of teachings) that is found in the rāmāyaṇa .

praṇām

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosopherator

You have made a very grave mistake in judgment. You make reference to “our” in religious culture.

But there is no “our” in your terms. I am part of the “our”. Myself, my family, children, relatives on both sides of the family. We are Hindus. That you cannot change within a mindset that is also not-so-subtle, but will not isolate me or anyone like me from “our” religious culture.

You are looking at your religious culture. I am part of it, and that will not change.

I am standing right next to you, and you are standing right next to me. My eyes are looking into your eyes, and your eyes are looking into mine. Hinduism is much more than what you may think.

I love you very much. My family loves you as well. Because you are saying you are a Hindu. That is what I am, and all of my family. I love you for that.

I very much mean that I have been told by some, that I am not allowed to read the beautiful words of the Gayatri mantra, simply because I am this or that. But I know what I am, and I take to heart the teachings of Guru, and all of the enlightened Saints for that matter. Sometimes a person may not understand another, a lot of that has to do with bodily consciousness.

But I certainly not going to try and “teach” you. However, it won’t matter if you have another list of “first, second, thirds or fourth”. There are also more coming, which you may not want to welcome. But that won’t change what is already happened, and what is going to happen.

So thank you for some of your thoughts, but I already understand your opinion and do not need to be told again since I am not sure that you are in any authority to give me “firsts” or “seconds”, but I know your heart is in the right place. So I do not have anything personal against someone that is part of my religious culture.

Om Namah Sivaya

Namaste Yajvan!

Thank you for that clarification. That it has little to do with who one is, and everything to do with the subtle teachings that hold like a Mother’s Hand the direct teachings of the Ramayana, is so satisfying to what is really a not-so tangible truth (and truths) that make our culture of Hinduism complimented by not only a glorious past, but the future itself.

The street sign (thumbnail) as shown in my post above, where we see two streets in America, one called Sita and the other called Ram, only speak to how very much these subtle truths are right here is America, and all over the world. We are all so excited to participate in this journey.

Jai Mother Saraswati!

Today has been a wonderful day. Because I have come even closer to Lord Shiva.

[Viraja]

　

Of all the wonderful posts I see above I do not see any mention of gāyatrī mantraḥ that is sprinkled
within the rāmāyaṇa.


Namaste Yajvanji,

The Gayathri I was referring to is a short sloka, containing 24 verses, telling the story of entire Ramayana with each verse beginning with the next subsequent letter of the Gayathri Mantra. Supposed to bring the benefit of reciting both Ramayan and Gayathri Mantra together.

Pranam,

Aspirant

[Viraja]

The picture below is taken in the United States of America. My wife and myself came upon it in an area where new homes are being built.

There are two streets facing each other.

One is called RAM.
The other is called SITA.



ShivaFanji,

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA. How wonderful! Luckily, the names of RAM and SITA are easy enough to remember and say too! :)

Pranam.

Aspirant

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Philosopherator

You have made a very grave mistake in judgment. You make reference to “our” in religious culture.

But there is no “our” in your terms. I am part of the “our”. Myself, my family, children, relatives on both sides of the family. We are Hindus. That you cannot change within a mindset that is also not-so-subtle, but will not isolate me or anyone like me from “our” religious culture.

You are looking at your religious culture. I am part of it, and that will not change.

I am standing right next to you, and you are standing right next to me. My eyes are looking into your eyes, and your eyes are looking into mine. Hinduism is much more than what you may think.

I love you very much. My family loves you as well. Because you are saying you are a Hindu. That is what I am, and all of my family. I love you for that.

I very much mean that I have been told by some, that I am not allowed to read the beautiful words of the Gayatri mantra, simply because I am this or that. But I know what I am, and I take to heart the teachings of Guru, and all of the enlightened Saints for that matter. Sometimes a person may not understand another, a lot of that has to do with bodily consciousness.

But I certainly not going to try and “teach” you. However, it won’t matter if you have another list of “first, second, thirds or fourth”. There are also more coming, which you may not want to welcome. But that won’t change what is already happened, and what is going to happen.

So thank you for some of your thoughts, but I already understand your opinion and do not need to be told again since I am not sure that you are in any authority to give me “firsts” or “seconds”, but I know your heart is in the right place. So I do not have anything personal against someone that is part of my religious culture.

Om Namah Sivaya



Namaste ShivaFan,

As I have indicated before, you are really missing the point, and by typecasting me as the "Hindu chauvinist" and yourself as the "victimized enlightened soul," you are merely reinforcing your misundertanding.

Traditional Hindu culture is based on the Vedas and their supplementary texts. Note that I did say "traditional" in this regard. There are many newer Hindu movements which give lip service to these scriptures but introduce new ideas to fit the popular views of their times. Doubtless you would be more attracted to one of these newer "Hindu" religions, and that is fine. What I want you to recognize is that, while playing the "discrimination" card, you are criticizing a thousands-year-old culture merely because its concept of dharma and class-relations do not match your own. The fact that you made it a point specifically to do this on a thread that had nothing to do with varnaashrama makes it obvious that you have a bone to pick. The fact that you specifically avoided two other concurrent threads that were discussing this very subject, suggests that you don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, other than that you are not permitted to read the gayatari mantra (which is actually false, since the gayatri is now all over the internet these days) and want everyone to see you as an aggrieved party.

To understand any science, you have to first put aside all deeply-entrenched, prior assumptions and look dispassionately at the evidence. Sanaatana-dharma is no different, and it has its own authoritative scriptures upon which one must base one's conclusions. Of course, as previously mentioned, you may be more interested in a newer more fashionable verson of Hinduism than in traditional sanaatana-dharma, and that is fine. Just recognize that you aren't impressing many people with this behavior.

regards,

[JayaRadhe]

Namaste,

Namaste.


And this is difficult to believe, how? You don't seem to have any difficulty with the idea of engaging an English-speaking, Sanskrit-reading dinosaur in debate.

This was actually pretty funny. :D
However, I do regret to inform you that I don't literally believe that you are a dinosaur. I'm sorry. :(


He means that the shark among fish represents Him and is one of His "vibhUti-s," which is exactly what Arjuna asks Him to list (see gItA 10.16).

Exactly. He is using a metaphor, something often done in poetry.


Symbolism exists, but whether something is intended to be taken symbolically or not is a function of what the author intended, and not on how palatable or unpalatable the literal value of the statement may be to us.

Where in the Bhagavatam is it specifically stated that its statements about the sun should be taken metaphorically? Since it doesn't expressly state that it is intended to be a metaphor, should we just accept it as literal fact that the sun is pulled by seven horses across the sky in a one-wheeled chariot, simply because the Bhagavatam states it?


There is no evidence to suggests that Jaambavaan being described as a bear is symbolic. If you really read the Raamaayana, you would know the context in which his origin is discussed - it occurs after Brahmaa directs the devas to create the army of monkeys:

They are called Vanaras, which has been taken to mean many things, such as that they are men inhabiting the forest (vana-nara). It can also mean that they are animals like men (va-nara). Then again, of course, it can also mean monkey or ape (vanara).



Then in the very next verse it is stated:


So now the question: if Brahmaa told the devas to procreate and create monkey-progeny, and in the next verse mentions his previous creation of the bear Jaambavaan, then why are the monkeys really monkeys, but the bear is not a bear? Or are you of the opinion that the monkeys were also humans, and that their being described as monkeys is also a metaphor?

See above for my opinion of the vanaras. As far as Jambavan is concerned, I already told you that I don't think he is a literal bear. I think the bear was a symbol of his clan or something along those lines. When Buddha is referred to as the Lion of the Shakyas, no one actually assumes he's a lion. Same for Jambavan. If you want to believe that Krishna married a talking bear's human daughter, go for it.


And that all those Vaishnava acharyas and millions of other Hindus from ages past were not as sharp as you in picking that up?

One of the most highly respected Vaishnava acharyas, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur in his commentary on the Bhagavatam, has said that no book is without its errors and we should not accept everything in any book simply because its author is highly esteemed. So, I'll go with what he said, since that is the only logical position in regards to the scriptures. Now, if you can find me a respectable acharya who has said to take absolutely everything that's not explicitly stated to be a metapor literally, then I'll take that into consideration.


For the life of me, I don't know why Jaambavaan the bear has a human daughter. I looked for clarification in the texts and eventually in the Puraanic Encyclopedia and could find none. Perhaps Jaambavaan, like Hanumaan, is a shape-changer and can assume human form and procreate in this fashion.

Where in the Bhagavatam does it say she's a human? The most literal way of looking at it would be to assume that she's also a bear, since, after all, her whole family are bears and she is a princess of bears. Since we have to accept everything at face-value, we should just accept that she was a bear and Lord Krishna married her and had ten bear-human sons with her.


Or, the human daughter was adopted by him. That's surely not so hard to believe in a culture where people can suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy stories of boys being raised by apes (Tarzan) or boys being raised by wolves (Jungle Book?).

"Suspend disbelief"? So, we should just lie to ourselves when we read strange statements in the scriptures and not try to dig any deeper. We should read the Ramayana and the Bhagavatam in the exact same way we would read a fictional children's book by Rudyard Kipling. Anything, so long as you don't question it!



Let's review the text, which you claim to have read:

Yep. I said that, and I have read it.



So this verse specifically describes Ravana transforming from a benign form to a very malignant one, explicit stating that it has ten heads. Now for JaiRadhe's commentary:

I've already addressed this... let's continue.



That would make it a lie, objectively speaking,

No, it wouldn't. It would make it a poetic metaphor. You know what though, we should probably just "suspend disbelief" and lie to ourselves in regards to this.


and there are logical problems with that analysis. First, it was not Sita's "vision" - the poet explicitly states that Ravana did this.

Yes, it does state this. And, he also appeared as black rain cloud. He was actually a black rain cloud with twenty arms and ten heads. We can assume he looked something like this:
http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g466/JaQueetaClamDigga69/ravana.png


Second, there is nothing about having multiple heads that indicates danger - rather, it's our memory of Ravana as a dangerous foe that makes us associate danger with his having 10 heads. Chatur-mukha Brahma is also depicted as having multiple heads, but no one understands this to mean he is a deadly warrior.

I already stated that I felt the ten heads were symbolic of his knowledge (I feel the same way about Brahma's four heads) and the twenty arms were symbolic of his strength. I don't know about you, but if I were kidnapped by a strong, intelligent villain, I'd feel pretty endangered.


Third, he already showed how dangerous Raavana was by depicting him killing Jataayu.

Yes, displaying his great knowledge and prowess in battle. Hence the reason it would make sense that Sita would only "see" this after witnessing Jatayu's death.


Well, you probably do not accept that Jataayu was a bird whose gargantuan brother got his wings burned off by flying too close to the sun - am I correct? If so, I wonder what that symbolizes, and why the poet felt it necessary to invoke that symbolism in the context of searching for Sita....

The Ramayan does state that Sita was very friendly with the forest animals, being Prakrti incarnate. Maybe Jatayu was one of her pets. Sita has full control over all nature. If she wanted a bird to fight for her, she could by all means make him. This is a display of Sita's majesty. In regards to Jatayu's brother, I've always been reminded of the legend of Icarus. Many ancients interpreted his "flight" and subsequent "fall" as a metaphor for his hubris, leading to his punishment by the gods. So, maybe Jatayu's brother thought himself to be greater than his creator and was punished for it. In that case, it would foreshadow Ravana's fall at the hands of Ram.
However, you are right. I do not literally believe that a giant vulture somehow flew through the atmosphere, into outerspace, and got close enough to the sun to burn off his wings. I think it's pretty self-explanatory as to why I wouldn't believe that that was true. Kind of like how I don't literally believe the Bhagavatam when it says the sun circles around the earth on a one-wheeled chariot and spends the night in hell.



There is also something incredibly trite about the logic that:

a) He expressed Ram-lila through a poem,
b) Symbolism is often used in poems, and therefore

c) Raavana having ten heads is a symbol

Well, if it makes absolutely no sense, then it's generally either:
1. a lie.
2. a metaphor.
3. a miracle.
I choose to think the Ramayan is true. Therefore, I feel as though stories about ten-headed men walking around among regular people, giant vultures flying into the sun, talking bears whose daughters are God's wives, suns pulled on chariots encircling the earth, etc... are metaphors. I do not think they are miracles because they do nothing to increase God's glory, which is the purpose of a miracle.


Specifically, it assumes that if symbolism is being invoked, it precludes reality. There is a well known metaphor of Gitacharya Krishna on the battlefield to the effect that the five horses He drove symbolize the five senses and the chariot symbolizes the body, but no one asserts on this basis that He did not really drive Arjuna in a chariot pulled by 5 horses.

I don't hold that symbolism always precludes reality. Sita is the symbol of the perfect devotee. She is also the perfect devotee. She is both real and symbolic. Some symbolism can be taken from real events, some can't. However, things such as a sun pulled around the earth by seven horses obviously are not real, they are metaphorical only. I feel the same about men with ten heads and twenty arms. Honestly, I wouldn't even have called your comments about everything in the Ramayan being literal were it not for your absolute certainty and your insistance that anyone who disagrees with you doubts God's power, is trying to dry out Hinduism, and is non-traditional.


Second, your decision to assign only symbolic value to Ravana's having 10 heads is not consistent with your willingness to accept that Hanumaan was a talking monkey and that Ahalya was in fact turned to stone. Why are some supernatural events acceptable but not others? I am sure we would all like to know the rational behind it.

Once again, Hanuman is a vanara, which has several translations. Ahalya's curse and redemption were both acts of God on an individual that served the purpose of teaching her. What purpose does Ravana literally having ten heads and twenty arms serve? What was God trying to say by doing that one? It doesn't serve a purpose. Since it serves no purpose for it to be literally true, I feel that it is a metaphor



For the life of me, I don't understand why having ten heads is inherently more difficult to believe than being turned to stone (and back) or being a talking monkey who can fly and change sizes.

Mostly because having unnecessary limbs serves no purpose for God. Hanuman changing size is a miracle of God and displays his greatness. Ahalya suffering for her sin and her subsequent redemption serve as a teaching tool. Having twenty-seven extra limbs serves no purpose. It doesn't increase God's glory, just as a sun pulled around the earth by seven horses on a chariot does not increase God's glory. They are both metaphors.


But this could just be because I am not a dabbler in magic spells and don't know much about that kind of stuff. Oh wait, maybe the issue is *you* do know about that kind of stuff.... are you perchance, a witch?

Yes. I'm a witch. I've been working magic spells ever since I started talking to you. Just call me Putana.


If so, do you have a spell that can turn me back to being a human? You see, I wasn't always a velociraptor....

regards,

Regards! :)

[JayaRadhe]

Also, I'm just curious to know something:

If Valmiki falsely depicted Ravana as a ten-headed demon to indicate in a symbolic way how dangerous he was, then........

.....am I supposed to be scared the next time I see a Siamese twin?

Because those two-headed individuals are definitely out there when it comes to their ways of doing things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKWApOAG2g), but it never really occurred to me to think of myself as being in imminent danger when I'm around one of them....
Sigh... I already said I thought the ten heads of Ravana represented his knowledge. Knowledge can actually be very scary when it is used to the wrong ends (look at the atomic bomb). I already addressed this in my first post, which is why I don't understand why you keep harping on it. Or, are you actually just suggesting that Ravan was some kind of "siamese decaplet" superman? Because, in that case, the abductor of Sita wasn't Ravana. They were actually Ravana, Joe, Bob, Rick, Dave, John, Tom, etc...

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,



Exactly. He is using a metaphor, something often done in poetry.


No, He is listing His vibhUtis, as mentioned earlier in the chapter in BG 10.16. You are assuming that we must assume it is a metaphor without context to support it. My point is that the context clearly indicates that He is listing His vibhUtis, so we have a clear basis for employing a slightly non-literal interpretation of chapter 10. Whereas, in the other examples you mentioned, there is no contextual support given by the author for using a non-literal interpretation.



Where in the Bhagavatam is it specifically stated that its statements about the sun should be taken metaphorically? Since it doesn't expressly state that it is intended to be a metaphor, should we just accept it as literal fact that the sun is pulled by seven horses across the sky in a one-wheeled chariot, simply because the Bhagavatam states it?

The answer is, it does not give context to suggest that the statements were to be taken metaphorically. So, we are meant to believe that the author is describing a reality which we cannot perceive. Just FYI, the exact same astronomical paradigm is given in viShNu purANa which was authored by parAshara muni. The details are exactly the same, which is odd for something that we were supposed to just know was merely a poetic metaphor.

Also, the idea that the devas act in ways which cannot be perceived by the unpurified senses is mentioned in viShNu purAna 5.2.6.

Do you also find it ridiculous that Indra would command storm clouds to rain a deluge on the govardhana-puja, and therefore take it as merely a metaphor for a really bad storm that had nothing to do with the devas? Because, if you read the these astronomical descriptions carefully, it is evident that they drive home the point that all these natural phenomena are controlled by intelligent beings (devas), and that even these devas are minute sparks compared to the glory of Sri Krishna parabrahman. In other words, describing the astronomical phenomena as the work of servants of the Supreme Lord is an indirect way of further driving home His majesty and omnipotence. Claiming that they are metaphors is very contrary to the context of the statements. Please remember the opening verses of the Bhagavatam which state that the scripture will deal with the highest truth: dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam. Did you ever wonder what a "metaphor" whose purpose was to teach astronomy was doing in the Bhaagavatam? It makes no sense to say that the Bhaagavatam deals with the highest truth and then devote entire chapters to discussing time and astronomy. Unless, the point of those chapters is to emphasize how worshipable Bhagavaan is. The chapter on units of time does this by pointing out the immense life span of devas and then Brahmaa, and then pointing out that these are nothing compared to the Supreme Lord who is beyond time. And the chapter on astronomy does this by showing us that even the Lord's servants are immeasurably powerful and glorious, as they are involved in things like arranging the orbits, etc - yet even this is nothing compared to the greater power of the Lord Himself, which we cannot conceive of directly. But we can begin to understand it by understanding the immense powers of His servants in this world.



They are called Vanaras, which has been taken to mean many things, such as that they are men inhabiting the forest (vana-nara). It can also mean that they are animals like men (va-nara). Then again, of course, it can also mean monkey or ape (vanara).

See above for my opinion of the vanaras. As far as Jambavan is concerned, I already told you that I don't think he is a literal bear. I think the bear was a symbol of his clan or something along those lines. When Buddha is referred to as the Lion of the Shakyas, no one actually assumes he's a lion. Same for Jambavan. If you want to believe that Krishna married a talking bear's human daughter, go for it.

"vAnara" traditionally is understood to mean monkey. That the "vAnaras" in Raamaayanam were monkeys as opposed to human forest-dwellers is obvious from the descriptions of them as having tails. You may be aware for example that humans don't have tails. Hence, you cannot get away from the idea that the vAnaras are monkeys, and therefore you cannot get away from the idea that Jaambavaan was described as a bear in the very same context in which the creation of the monkeys was mentioned.



One of the most highly respected Vaishnava acharyas, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur in his commentary on the Bhagavatam, has said that no book is without its errors and we should not accept everything in any book simply because its author is highly esteemed. So, I'll go with what he said, since that is the only logical position in regards to the scriptures. Now, if you can find me a respectable acharya who has said to take absolutely everything that's not explicitly stated to be a metapor literally, then I'll take that into consideration.

The above statements are crass sectarianism at its worst. First, the "most highly respected" Bhaktivinod Thakur is actually only respected in the Gaudiya sampradaya, Bengal, and in ISKCON and its sister organizations. Hardly any Vaishnva Vedaantins outside these circles know much about him or even care to know. Second, he did not write a commentary on the Bhaagavatam. The comments you alluded to came from a work of his known as Sri Krishna-samhita, which he wrote as a way of bridging the gap between theistic Vaishnavas and nAstika academic scholars. Third, Bhaktivinod Thakur himself was employed by the British Government and grew up being heavily influenced by Christianity and Western thought - all of this is mentioned in his own biography and is not disputed by anyone. Of course, one can be a collaborator in an occupation and still repent, and that is not the point. The point is, there was historical context for him to say some very non-traditional things, whether they were really his views or merely for utilitarian purposes. There is no reason to take his opinion as an example of traditional Vaishnavism, while at the same time ignoring the followers of Raamaanuja, Madhva, et. al.



Where in the Bhagavatam does it say she's a human? The most literal way of looking at it would be to assume that she's also a bear, since, after all, her whole family are bears and she is a princess of bears. Since we have to accept everything at face-value, we should just accept that she was a bear and Lord Krishna married her and had ten bear-human sons with her.

The Bhaagavatam does not mention that she was a bear or a princess of bears. It only mentions that she was Jaambavaan's daughter. It does not say how exactly this could be; I gave two possible explanations previously. But the point is, Jaambavaan is traditionally understood to be a bear (and this is clearly confirmed in shAstra as quoted previously) and Jaambavatii is traditionally understood to be human (as is evident from the fact that she bore 10 sons to Sri Krishna).



Yes, it does state this. And, he also appeared as black rain cloud. He was actually a black rain cloud with twenty arms and ten heads.

No, the words used are "niila jiimuuta sannibhaH" which is clearly adjectival. Used as a substantive meaning that he transformed into a storm cloud would contradict the description that he was "dasha aasyo vi.mshati bhujo" (having 10 heads and 20 arms)



"Suspend disbelief"? So, we should just lie to ourselves when we read strange statements in the scriptures and not try to dig any deeper. We should read the Ramayana and the Bhagavatam in the exact same way we would read a fictional children's book by Rudyard Kipling. Anything, so long as you don't question it!

These are bizarre words, coming as they are from someone who rejects Manu-Samhita as a corrupted text of recent origin, and yet accepts without question the authority of Chaitanya Upanishad and the Bible.

regards,