Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

  1. #41

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Namaste,
    Namaste.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.
    However, I do regret to inform you that I don't literally believe that you are a dinosaur. I'm sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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!


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Let's review the text, which you claim to have read:
    Yep. I said that, and I have read it.


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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:


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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!

  2. #42

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    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...

  3. #43

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Pranams,

    Quote Originally Posted by JayaRadhe View Post
    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,
    Last edited by philosoraptor; 04 August 2012 at 09:41 PM.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. A Personal Library of Hindu Sanskrit Texts Translations
    By saidevo in forum Dharma-related Websites
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 30 September 2018, 06:06 AM
  2. Sage Valmiki Ramayana - A Great Epic
    By Arvind Sivaraman in forum Itihasas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12 January 2011, 07:01 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 12:32 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 June 2007, 09:40 PM

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
  •