Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    The Holy Land - Bharat
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    5499

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    2640

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    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/divyadesam1...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."

  3. #23
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,088
    Rep Power
    2640

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    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.

  4. #24

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    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

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

  5. #25

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspirant01 View Post
    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

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

  6. #26

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Believer View Post
    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

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

  7. #27

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by JayaRadhe View Post
    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,
    Last edited by philosoraptor; 31 July 2012 at 07:21 PM.
    Philosoraptor

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

  8. #28

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    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....
    Philosoraptor

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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    deleted
    Last edited by Eastern Mind; 31 July 2012 at 06:07 PM.

  10. #30

    Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastern Mind View Post
    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,
    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
  •