Ramayan Variations

[Rishi_L]

Yo fellow Hindus, this thread is for posting any variations that exist around the world (particularly in southeast Asia) in regards to certain elements and plots found in the Hindu epic poem Ramayan. Here are my contributions:

 

The Tibetan version of Ramayan says that Sita is Dasagriva's (ie. Ravana's) daughter and was abandoned based on the advice of astrologers. One of the astrologers was Vibhishana, I think (I'm not sure though). She was then raised by the cultivators. Vishnu incarnated as Rama to kill Ravana. And as planned, Rama abdicated his throne and went to the forest to allow Lakshman to assume kingship. In Burma, the legend of Rama goes back to the 10th century. Here, Rama has been described as a pious Buddhist king. Another Buddhist addition is that Rama and Sugriva met under the shade of a Bodhi tree.

 

King Dasaratha was a great grandson of Adam. He had two wives, Mandudari and Baliadari. Ravana asked Dasaratha to hand over Mandudari, who in turn assumed an illusory form named Mandudasi to become Ravana's wife.

 

According to the Malaya Rama stories, all chief characters such as Rama, Sita, Ravana, Vali and Hanuman are related to each other. Sita is Ravana's daughter. Lakshman and Hanuman have been illustrated as great characters.

 

According to the Thai version, Hanuman was not a brahmachari (celibate) and in fact when crossing the bridge to Lanka, he made contact and fell in love with a mermaid and had children together with her and even with other celestial women as well.

 

Does anyone have any more variations of the Ramayan epic they would like to contribute?

[Guest]

i think Ravan is considered as Ravans daughter only because when Ravan decided to take Tax from the Brahmins, the brahmins couldnt pay as they had no riches. Then he decided to take blood from the Brahmins, he collected a huge barrel of blood from the brahmins bodies as tax.

 

Then things were going wrong for Ravan. Ravans ministers then told him that this was a bad sign and it was very wrong to take blood as tax and would lead to his downfall. SO Ravan decided to dispose of the barrel of blood as far as possible. His army took the barrel and put it in the soil of Mithila.

 

King Janak then when doing a yagna came accross it as the ploughing of the ground ceremony was carried out. The pot broke and Maha Lakshmi as Janki Sita was born.

 

As the tax was actually Ravans, this is only why Sita is described as his daughter.

[hindu12]

In the Jain version of the Ramayana, it was Lakshman who killed Ravana and not Rama. Rama is said to have attained Moskha for his non-violence. Also, I believe in the Thai version of the Ramayana, it is Sita they see as the embodiment of the ultimate woman. A strong a pious woman. It is her they revere and not Rama and Lakshman so much.

[Guest guest]

 

In the Jain version of the Ramayana, it was Lakshman who killed Ravana and not Rama. Rama is said to have attained Moskha for his non-violence. Also, I believe in the Thai version of the Ramayana, it is Sita they see as the embodiment of the ultimate woman. A strong a pious woman. It is her they revere and not Rama and Lakshman so much.

Thats because Jains are Nirakaar vadis.

[hindu12]

 

Thats because Jains are Nirakaar vadis.

 

?? What are you implying?

[Guest]

I am implying that Jains are Nirakaar VAdis. So what could they possibly know of Bhagwan Raam? As initially they would not believe Him to be God.

[hindu12]

 

I am implying that Jains are Nirakaar VAdis. So what could they possibly know of Bhagwan Raam? As initially they would not believe Him to be God.

 

That doesn't mean anything. They don't view Ram or Krishna as God but as heroes and laymen. That is their perception of the story.

 

Why do you have a problem with that?

 

What do you know about Rama? Are you implying you are higher then a Jain because you think you know Rama? Get a life.

[Guest]

Who said anything about "being higher" or even lower than a jain?? Im just portraying my views my friend.

 

No need to get personal about it. My point being that Valmiki is the original author, and he knows more about Shri Raam than any Jain follower would. As all other facts about Raam come from his Ramayan. So no matter what others think, the Ramayan stays the Ramayan. Originally written by Sage Valmiki.

 

By the way, yes i know Raam.

[Guest]

And Jains are Nirakar vadis. Big deal, get over it. They belive God to be Nirakaar and think karma is the goal for the human form. To be born again with a good life. As do they believe in an abode for God?

 

What is their idea of Moksh?

 

Just intrested -

[Guest guest]

 

Who said anything about "being higher" or even lower than a jain?? Im just portraying my views my friend.

 

No need to get personal about it. My point being that Valmiki is the original author, and he knows more about Shri Raam than any Jain follower would. As all other facts about Raam come from his Ramayan. So no matter what others think, the Ramayan stays the Ramayan. Originally written by Sage Valmiki.

 

 

My sentiments exactly. You can have hundreds of different versions of the Ramayana altered to suit other people's ideas but the original one is the inspiration. I only revere the Valmiki followed by the Tulsidas version of Ramayana. I believe that Valmiki is the highest authority on Rama.

[hindu12]

 

Who said anything about "being higher" or even lower than a jain?? Im just portraying my views my friend.

 

No need to get personal about it. My point being that Valmiki is the original author, and he knows more about Shri Raam than any Jain follower would. As all other facts about Raam come from his Ramayan. So no matter what others think, the Ramayan stays the Ramayan. Originally written by Sage Valmiki.

 

By the way, yes i know Raam.

 

Brother,

 

One does not need to directly imply about bieng high or low but just echo it in their very post.

 

Let me tell you a few things just in case youdid not know.

 

From my understanding and as I have read carefully,this thread is about people sharing the different versions and stories of the Ramayana thoughout South EAST Asia where these different versions mainly exist.

 

I posted the Jsin version of the Ramayana and shared their views. You came and decided to get on my case by implying that Jains do not believe in God therefore they know nothing of Rama.

 

How pathetic and low of you. That is their version and one should respect it. They can also say the same thing about your version?

 

Have you even researched the many Ramayanas? There are a few different versions that exist. No one knows which is the true or not. Even Valmikis Ramayana has been altered from ancient times.

 

The point is not which is the right or wrong version but the stories that are contained within that one can apply to their life to advance spiritually.

 

You are a Hindu, obviously you are going to think all other versions are not right and only Valmikis. Other wise you would be a Jain.

 

I personally do not know which is the right or wrong version as I do not follow the Ramayana but I do enjoy reading it and I respect all versions and hold them sacred.

 

Jains do not believe in God which is why Rama is not God. Hindus (generally) believe that Vishnu incarnates as human form to spread Dharma therfore their version of the Ramayana Rama is an incarnation.

 

The Buddhist version also differs.

 

This is not about right or wrong but you clearly came here and boasted and whined enough only because you did not agree with their version. Let it be and let others enjoy this thread for what it is SUPPOSED to be- sharing stories of the different versions of the Ramayanas and appreciating it.

[Rishi_L]

 

From my understanding and as I have read carefully,this thread is about people sharing the different versions and stories of the Ramayana thoughout South EAST Asia where these different versions mainly exist.

 

 

This thread is about the sharing of different versions of the Ramayana that exist around the world. Then I only mentioned South-East Asia afterwards because from my limited knowledge, most of the variations of the Ramayana come from places in South-East Asia like Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia. Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding. Anyway, I have even heard that there is a version of the Ramayana in which Ram crowns Hanuman as a king.

[Guest]

 

Brother,

 

One does not need to directly imply about bieng high or low but just echo it in their very post.

 

Let me tell you a few things just in case youdid not know.

 

From my understanding and as I have read carefully,this thread is about people sharing the different versions and stories of the Ramayana thoughout South EAST Asia where these different versions mainly exist.

 

I posted the Jsin version of the Ramayana and shared their views. You came and decided to get on my case by implying that Jains do not believe in God therefore they know nothing of Rama.

 

How pathetic and low of you. That is their version and one should respect it. They can also say the same thing about your version?

 

Have you even researched the many Ramayanas? There are a few different versions that exist. No one knows which is the true or not. Even Valmikis Ramayana has been altered from ancient times.

 

The point is not which is the right or wrong version but the stories that are contained within that one can apply to their life to advance spiritually.

 

You are a Hindu, obviously you are going to think all other versions are not right and only Valmikis. Other wise you would be a Jain.

 

I personally do not know which is the right or wrong version as I do not follow the Ramayana but I do enjoy reading it and I respect all versions and hold them sacred.

 

Jains do not believe in God which is why Rama is not God. Hindus (generally) believe that Vishnu incarnates as human form to spread Dharma therfore their version of the Ramayana Rama is an incarnation.

 

The Buddhist version also differs.

 

This is not about right or wrong but you clearly came here and boasted and whined enough only because you did not agree with their version. Let it be and let others enjoy this thread for what it is SUPPOSED to be- sharing stories of the different versions of the Ramayanas and appreciating it.

 

They all come from Valmiki rishis Ramayan.This Rishi as well as HAnumanji was the only author of Bhagwan Raams works. The ones that have appeared later are form VAlmiki Rishis original works, They then are changed to befit their way of dharm.

 

Each to their own. Even if Valmiki rishis Ramayan had been altered , Tulsidas Goswamis version is most defiantely not. They both match, and Tulsidas was Rishi Valmiki himself.

 

People can say whatever they like about the version of the Ramayan i follow. However the way i think and follow the faith cannot change just by their thinking. I wont stand for foolishnes, where people talk about Purshottam Narayan shri Raam as "attaining moksh". Bhagwan doesnt attain moksh He is the giver of moksh.

 

You cant advance spiritually thinking that Raam Bhagwan is a normal person thats definate. You have to see His divinity. You cant find faults in God and His works.

 

My initial point being that i was sim[ly stating that Jains theory of Dharm is totally different so they will not see Ramchandra Bhagwan as God so obviously their idea of the Ramayan would be different. I mean what dont you get about this?

 

Im not hindu, jain christian or muslim. Im the soul which has no tags.

Im just portraying my views like it or lump it my friend.

[hindu12]

 

They all come from Valmiki rishis Ramayan.This Rishi as well as HAnumanji was the only author of Bhagwan Raams works. The ones that have appeared later are form VAlmiki Rishis original works, They then are changed to befit their way of dharm.

 

Each to their own. Even if Valmiki rishis Ramayan had been altered , Tulsidas Goswamis version is most defiantely not. They both match, and Tulsidas was Rishi Valmiki himself.

 

People can say whatever they like about the version of the Ramayan i follow. However the way i think and follow the faith cannot change just by their thinking. I wont stand for foolishnes, where people talk about Purshottam Narayan shri Raam as "attaining moksh". Bhagwan doesnt attain moksh He is the giver of moksh.

 

You cant advance spiritually thinking that Raam Bhagwan is a normal person thats definate. You have to see His divinity. You cant find faults in God and His works.

 

My initial point being that i was sim[ly stating that Jains theory of Dharm is totally different so they will not see Ramchandra Bhagwan as God so obviously their idea of the Ramayan would be different. I mean what dont you get about this?

 

Im not hindu, jain christian or muslim. Im the soul which has no tags.

Im just portraying my views like it or lump it my friend.

 

Again, your bieng biased because you're Hindu. You are giving your interpretation. Which is fine! But you refuse to see the other side. If you cannot be open to other perspectives then you shouldn't be on this thread discussing the various versions of the Ramayana. You seem like you have an orthodox view. Just stick with your view.

 

It's all about perception. I personally don't agree with a word you said. You are speaking from a Hindu point of view and you refure to understand that the Jain version of thw Ramayana is from a Jain perspective and Buddhist one from a Buddhist perspective and so forth. You feel your version is right but others feel their version is right.

[Guest]

 

Again, your bieng biased because you're Hindu. You are giving your interpretation. Which is fine! But you refuse to see the other side. If you cannot be open to other perspectives then you shouldn't be on this thread discussing the various versions of the Ramayana. You seem like you have an orthodox view. Just stick with your view.

It's all about perception. I personally don't agree with a word you said. You are speaking from a Hindu point of view and you refure to understand that the Jain version of thw Ramayana is from a Jain perspective and Buddhist one from a Buddhist perspective and so forth. You feel your version is right but others feel their version is right.

Well thats again your opinion. Im just stating that the original is the VAlmiki Ramayan and all comes from there. You not understanding such shows your too biased as if you fail to not sgree wit hsuch then you are not a hindu. For if you did you would at least agree to it. Im not saying that other Ramayan versions are blasphemous etc. When did i state that im not open to what the Jains follow. Its in fact the opposote i like to learn what they follow. Each to their own.. But what im simply stating is that JAIns will not follow the original Ramayan due to this reason. i mean why cant you understand such a fact??

Others can feel what they like. Whichever version they think may be right, but the Ramayan was originally written by Hanumanji and Valmiki only. I dont agree wit ha word you said either.

[hindu12]

 

Well thats again your opinion. Im just stating that the original is the VAlmiki Ramayan and all comes from there. You not understanding such shows your too biased as if you fail to not sgree wit hsuch then you are not a hindu. For if you did you would at least agree to it. Im not saying that other Ramayan versions are blasphemous etc. When did i state that im not open to what the Jains follow. Its in fact the opposote i like to learn what they follow. Each to their own.. But what im simply stating is that JAIns will not follow the original Ramayan due to this reason. i mean why cant you understand such a fact??

Others can feel what they like. Whichever version they think may be right, but the Ramayan was originally written by Hanumanji and Valmiki only. I dont agree wit ha word you said either.

 

Actually I am not bieng biased because I was not the first one to make such a comment. I do not follow the Ramayana so you cannot tell me I am not Hindu. I follow other scriptures. Hinduism consists of many different scriptures.

 

Again, this thread is about the different variations of the Ramayana. I never said you are wrong about what you believe. You are right in your own sense but that's only because you are Hindu is what I meant to say.

 

Also, you keep refering to the "original" Ramayana as if the Hindu version bt Valmiki is right and all others are not. We do not know which is right or wrong version. For Hindus Valmiki is the original for others it is different versions. There is no right and wrong other then what percieves.

 

On the other hand, I do respect the fact that you have total faith in Lord Rama's divinity and you believe in the Valmik Ramayana.

[Guest]

Thankyou

 

My Ishtadev is Shri Krishna. But Rama is originally recorded as an avtaar before Jainism started. Valmiki was not originally a hindu. HE was an atheist. After meeting Naradji he believed in Bhagwan after His darshan.

 

I mean the Valmiki Ramayan is the most authentic and oldest. Its not been changed liek you stated. I mean do you have proof that it is changed? I mean i can say the same for the JAin version as well then. But i wouldnt as i have no proof of this. You cant state such my friend.

 

By the way the term "hindu" is a term given to the Sanatan Dharm. Are you a Vaishnav?

[Rishi_L]

The moral of the story is the same in all the versions, victory of good over evil regardless of what the deviations are.

[vimoh]

 

That doesn't mean anything. They don't view Ram or Krishna as God but as heroes and laymen. That is their perception of the story.

 

Why do you have a problem with that?

 

What do you know about Rama? Are you implying you are higher then a Jain because you think you know Rama? Get a life.

 

I agree. I personally never could understand why being a god is important. They did just fine as heroes. I think plain old men as role models do better.