Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

  1. #1
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Exclamation Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    Namaste,

    My relatives were visiting with us until about a week ago and we had several discussions about Sanatana Dharma, India, and the connections thereof etc.

    During one of the conversations, the notion of "illogical" or rather, unsavory events of the MahABhAratA and the RAmAyanA came up.

    For example, the slaying of Vali (some say "Bali") at the hands of RAmA when Vali had not crossed RAmA.

    --> What was the justification for this?

    Another example, perhaps the most egregious, is RAmA asking Lakshmana to abandon SItA in the forest when she is pregnant.

    --> What was the justification for this?

    I tried arguing in favor of RAmA with the following:

    1.) We cannot judge and analyze the events of another yugA from this present yugA. It is analogous to analyzing a dream, or rather the events in a dream, in the waking state.

    2.) What RAmA did was in the best interest of EVERYONE, and is thus known as Maryada Purushottaman, and so was in accordance with Dharma.

    My relative claimed that since RAmA had said, "Aham mANuSam maNye", he was not a fully realized being and thus acted as any other righteous king would have in those days in Bharat (India).

    Yet, RAmA is an avatArA of ViSnU and so how can we say he was not "realized"?

    Is this actually corroborated in Yoga VasiSTa where RAmA is the siSyA of VasiSTa and is told (by VasiSTa) that he has not yet realized the "infinite consciousness of the Supreme". Yet, he was around 16 years of age when studying with VasiSTa. So, was he fully aware later on?

    So, the question is, how does one "explain" or justify these seemingly unsavory incidents in the RAmAyanA? Was Sri RAmA fully realized as Sri Krishna was (especially since Krishna was a pUrna Avatar)?

    There are several other incidents in the RAmAyanA that we can discuss as the thread progresses.

    I would like to discuss similar events in the MahAbhAratA in another thread.

    *Please note, I am not denigrating the RAmAyanA or Sri RAmA in anyway; this should be obvious but I wanted to make it absolutely unequivocal.

    I want to better understand the explanations for these events from the real Hindu perspective. What do our AcharyAs say about this? What do the current saints say about this? What do you all say about this?

    Please discuss freely but respectfully.

    Namaskar.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    Rama was never not fully realised. The yoga vasishta was not authered by valmiki, though it predates Shankaracharya, it is a relatively modern text . It describes a pre-Shankara version of advaita through the means of stories and fables. The yoga vashishta is not authoritive on the history or the nature of Sri Rama. Having said that, the yoga vasishta mentions that Vishnu was cursed to become ignorant of his own nature by the kumaras.

    Sri Rama tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita "na me dvesho'sti na priya." But Sugriva took refuge in Sri Rama and therefore he was obliged to protect his devotee. In His lila he also needed the help of Sugriva and Hanuman.

    In the Adhyatma Ramayana which is part of the Brahmanda purana, it is described that Vishnu's mission on earth had been fulfilled, the time had come for Sri Rama to return to vaikuntha. The devatas thought that if Sita returned first Sri Rama would follow. Therefore Sri Rama send Sita to the Ashrama of Valmiki and Sita dissapeared through a portal of the earth towards vaikuntha and Sri Rama followed. The drama surrounding the event of an ethical dillema was only part of His lila. The Rama Charit Manas of Tulasi Das was based on the Adhyatma Ramayana, but Tulasi Das omitted this story from his Ramayana. Apparently, he was also unsure of the morality of the event or thought that it would be misinterpretated.
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 13 October 2010 at 06:28 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté Sahasranama


    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Sri Rama tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita "na me dvesho'sti na priya." But Sugriva took refuge in Sri Rama and therefore he was obliged to protect his devotee. In His lila he also needed the help of Sugriva and Hanuman.
    I would be greatly interested in reading the verses where śrī rām talks to arjuna in the bhāgavad gītā - can you advise on the verses?

    praṇām
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #4
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    Hari Om

    Namaste Yajvan ji,

    I know your post is sarcasm, you have probably read the Bhagavad Gita over and over and know most of the verses by heart, if not all of them.

    Sri Rama talks to Arjuna in the form of Sri Krishna. In the same way a Shaivite might say, Shiva talks to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté Sahasranama

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Hari Om

    Namaste Yajvan ji,
    I know your post is sarcasm, you have probably read the Bhagavad Gita over and over and know most of the verses by heart, if not all of them.

    Sri Rama talks to Arjuna in the form of Sri Krishna. In the same way a Shaivite might say, Shiva talks to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita.
    My post was not so much from the sarcasm point of view, but from the possibility that just perhaps a translation of the bhāgavad gītā through the eyes
    of śrī rām as the teacher vs. kṛṣṇa may have been undertaken. I think this would be delightful.

    Just as the rāmāyaa takes on a new feel when viewed through the light of the adhyātma rāmāyaa ( my version is by svāmī tapasyanada).

    praṇām
    Last edited by yajvan; 10 February 2011 at 06:00 PM.
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #6
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Rama was never not fully realised. The yoga vasishta was not authered by valmiki, though it predates Shankaracharya, it is a relatively modern text . It describes a pre-Shankara version of advaita through the means of stories and fables. The yoga vashishta is not authoritive on the history or the nature of Sri Rama. Having said that, the yoga vasishta mentions that Vishnu was cursed to become ignorant of his own nature by the kumaras.
    What is the chapter/verse that says Vishnu was "cursed" by the Kumaras? I'm keen on reading it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Sri Rama tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita "na me dvesho'sti na priya." But Sugriva took refuge in Sri Rama and therefore he was obliged to protect his devotee. In His lila he also needed the help of Sugriva and Hanuman.

    In the Adhyatma Ramayana which is part of the Brahmanda purana, it is described that Vishnu's mission on earth had been fulfilled, the time had come for Sri Rama to return to vaikuntha. The devatas thought that if Sita returned first Sri Rama would follow. Therefore Sri Rama send Sita to the Ashrama of Valmiki and Sita dissapeared through a portal of the earth towards vaikuntha and Sri Rama followed. The drama surrounding the event of an ethical dillema was only part of His lila. The Rama Charit Manas of Tulasi Das was based on the Adhyatma Ramayana, but Tulasi Das omitted this story from his Ramayana. Apparently, he was also unsure of the morality of the event or thought that it would be misinterpretated.
    Well, one can explain many seemingly illogical acts/events using scripture so I will play devil's advocate here; without using circular logic, that is, scripture, how can one legitimize these 'unsavory' acts in the Ramayana?

    And, I agree with the notion that many saints and even modern day Hindus leave out those events in the Ramayana so as to not appear morally confused.

    I guess we just have to take it for what it's worth and just concentrate on the greatness of Sri Rama's actions elsewhere. It just seems odd that not only can these 'events' be used against Hindus, but if we are unsure of its importance or even legitimacy, we can be in a prickly situation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Location
    Bangalore
    Age
    36
    Posts
    199
    Rep Power
    80

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    One thing is certain. Rama can never go wrong. Sounds a bit illogical, but there is also one ananda ramayana where the acts of shri ram are justified. AND Sita,inspite of whatever shri rama did,always said her husband was right!The thing is,Rama like many of the kings of this country,put dharma above himself.That's the reason i cry like a child everytime i read ramayana. There is also one incident when after defeating ravana,rama doubts sita and puts her to agni pariksha. After the whole thing was done,shri ram stands there crying, and says he knew sita was pure but for the sake of the race,or dharma, he had to do that.
    jai shri ram
    Sarva DharmAAn Parityajya

  8. #8

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    Namaste,

    I put forward below my views on the slaying of Vali. As far as I am concerned, we need to understand the Ramayana at different levels, and appreciate that key elements are also profound metaphors, to answer the question. We also need to understand Vali from the perspective of his character and from what these metaphors imply.


    1. Vali, son of Indra, was a great Siva Bhakta (as was Sri Rama and other Dasa avatars) as well as being a great and noble king who obtained the boon that he would receive half the strength of any enemy in a battle. Vali performs his nitya karma’s dutifully including literally travelling to all four oceans to perform Sandhyopasana. What this means is that he was performing arghya pradana (offering Surya Deva sanctified water while reciting the Gayatri mantra), Gayatri Japa and Suryopasthana across four oceans. Surya is of course Atma. Vali is therefore dutifully performing daily rites to eliminate Ahamkara such that the Atma alone remains. Of course, we also note that Sri Rama belongs to the Suryavansha clan and is therefore descended from Surya and is of course an avatar of Maha Vishnu (symbolised by Surya). These clues alone point to the fact that the one of the key metaphors of Kishkhinda Kanda is the pursuit of Atma Bodha by Vali.


    2. The boons Vali had received in effect made him invincible since he could not be killed by an enemy in direct battle. Invincibility is often associated with Ahamkara. In Vali’s case this Ahamkara manifested through uncontrolled anger. This Ahamkara leads him to commit two significant “sins” – the persecution of his younger brother, Sugriva and the fact that he forcibly takes captive Ruma, Sugriva’s wife.


    3. In the Ramayana Vali fights and kills the Rakshasa Dundhubi and then flings the dead body into the air. Drops of blood from the body fall onto the ground where the Sage Matanga has his ashrama. Vali is duly cursed by the sage. Vali’s enmity towards his brother Sugriva could be pinpointed to the incident with the Rakshasa Mayavi (son of Dundhubi). Vali and Sugriva chase the Rakshasa into a cave, Vali asks his brother to stand guard at the entrance. Sugriva does so for a year but, on seeing blood pouring from the entrance, is persuaded that his brother is dead and blocks the cave with a boulder. Those who persuade him to do all of this also request him to take over the kingdom and Sugriva does so reluctantly. In the meantime Vali, after destroying Mayavi, returns to find his kingdom ruled by Sugriva (who is also Surya’s son). Though Sugriva falls at his brother’s feet, Vali’s anger overwhelms him leading to Sugriva fleeing for his life.


    4. Mayavi then represents illusion and Dundhubi (Kettledrum), who is the size of mountain, represents falsity of sensory perception – both sound and visual. [Prior to provoking Vali, Dundubhi (father of Mayavi) attempts to fight with Himavan,king of the mountains, where Tapasvins are resident. Himavan appears before the Rakshasa in the form of a Tapasvin and informs Dundhubi that he should fight with Vali. That is to say, Tapasvins have transcended sensory falsity and have inverted their egos. However, where emotions are not controlled the senses will play havoc – i.e. Dundhubi against Vali.


    5. If we open up the symbolism, Vali then entered the cave to destroy his ego by inverting his senses. (By controlling the indriyas, one obtains control over the tanmatras resulting in the control of supervenient Ahamkara). After all, one habits a cave to meditate and to achieve this very purpose. Vali practices extreme ascetism for a year. In my view, towards the end of this period, Vali is engaged in self-exsanguination tantra as a means to control his ego. These techniques are heterodoxical to Vedic communities because blood is impure and the prana released are disruptive to those engaged in orthodox meditation. It is for this reason that the Sage Matanga places a curse on Vali. The reason Sugriva awaits outside is to prevent negative prana from seeping out of the cave in the circumstance that Vali does not survive his rituals. After a year of effort, Vali has apparently succeeded until he finds the cave blocked and his brother not awaiting his return as ordered and his uncontrollable anger returns. [Many years ago as a child I was told a story of a congregation about a river of sages and yogi’s of whom, I believe, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was one. As the sage waited to cross the river by boat, one of the accompanying ascetics walked across the water to the other side. Ramakrishna Pramahamsa was asked why he did not do the same. His reply was that the yogi had wasted twelve years of penance by engaging in the theatrical act. The yogi should have paid the boatman the few anna to achieve the same end and in doing so enable the boatman to perform his karma. Penance and asceticism, therefore, does not necessarily negate Ahamkara. (I recount this from childhood memory so some facts may be incorrect but the moral holds)].


    6. In the forest Sugriva asks for and receives Sri Rama’s protection i.e. Sri Rama agrees to help Sugriva defeat his brother. In the first battle Sri Rama is unable to help Sugriva because he cannot differentiate between Sugriva and Vali. In the second battle Lakshmana places a garland made out of the creeper Gajapushpi around Sugriva. [Both Sugriva and Vali are subject to Ahamkara but Sri Lakshmana provides the means of symbolic differentiation]. Vali’s intellect, despite his wife Tara’s (star) best attempts to illumine the truth of the situation, is still clouded in anger. This then represents the embers of his Ahamkara that he needs to extinguish before he achieves Moksha. At this stage the symbolism manifests around the freeing a great soul (Vali) and it is not about restoring a lesser individual (who demonstrates greater AhamKara later in the Ramayana) to the kingdom. In this way, Vali has a similarity to Karna, son of Surya and great Surya bhakta, who in the performance of the final Tyaga destroys the remnants of his Ahamkara. Once again, on the elimination of his Ahamkara Vali’s destiny was to achieve Moksha at the hands of the supreme; during the Mahabharata war Bhishma wished the same of Sri Krishna’s via Bhagavan’s Sudarsana chakra.


    7. Surya Deva, as we know, symbolises Maha Vishnu and is central to the Ramayana. In fact Maharishi Agastya teaches Sri Rama the AditaHridaya prior to the commencement of battle with Ravana. Once again, Surya is the Atma – i.e. which alone exists once all AhamKara has been extinguished.


    8. The pertinent questions to ask are: why does Sage Vyasa state that that the battle between Vali and Mayavi takes a year? Why does Sugriva need to wait outside the cave? What does Mayavi and Dundhubi symbolise? What does Vali’s battle with Mayavi in the cave symbolise? What does the garland represent?


    9. The key distinction between a Sura, a Manushya and an Asura is to be found in the granularity of Ahamkara of each entity. Ahamkara adds “gravity” to the projection that manifests as the gross or subtle body. This is why the most weightless i.e. Sura are in Swarga and those most attached are in Naraka. Vali achieved the ultimate distinction of being delivered by the Supreme to Swarga and, in due time, to Vaikunta itself. He achieved that for which he strived from the beginning. Our perception that Sri Rama has committed some wrong in the killing of Vali is based on our own Ahamkara.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    Quote Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi View Post
    What is the chapter/verse that says Vishnu was "cursed" by the Kumaras? I'm keen on reading it.
    I apologise for replying so late to your question, but I happen to have this text right in front of me at the moment and the information you are asking for is the vairagya prakaranam, sarga 1 beginning from shloka 55. You might have already found it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2011
    Posts
    258
    Rep Power
    208

    Re: Unsavory Acts in the RAmAyanA --A Big Conundrum--

    I know many of you might be upset by my point of view so please forgive me. I believe the Vedas are the prime source for all things Hindu, then the Epics like Ramayana and Mahabharta and the reason for my belief is that although the epics are the backbone they are not entirely "uncorrupted and authentic" because if you look at their origins one will see that the texts had obviously changed to a certain degree over time. And before everyone flies off the handle this is not denying the events which took place but its merely stating that writers often exaggerated and changed real events. Much like Shakespeare when he wrote "Julius Caeser". His description of the event was certainly very accurate but he did add some embellishment and added more drama to the story. I don't believe that the epics are 100% unchanged and authentic and should be taken literally but I also don't believe the neo-Hindu view that these events are merely symbolic.


    Namaste.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •