Atulit Baldhamam - Shani Parihar and Sundar Kanda

[Guest guest]

Hope there w'd be many wise members with enough study of epics but

however seems nobody has read SundarKand, otherwise, origin and context

of controversial chaupai was presented by members. I am surprised that

nobody has mentioned that the chaupai quoted by Osho is taken from

Sunadar Kanda

 

The people must understand that the context, in which a dialogue between

two patras (characters) begins arguments and counter arguments, such

arguments has momentary significance, Never, no critic takes it as

author's wishfull message, but if somebody has intentions to make

controversy out of the context, instead of the doing an intellectual

healthy criticism of core wisdome of the text, he picks up a sensational

part, like the one Osho has taken.

 

In the description of an incident like a road raze or a scene of fight

when two parties are involved in verbal fighting, a character called

Samudra, doesnt listen to Rama's humble request to give a way to reach

Lanka, lastly, when he is threatened for consequences, Samudra begs

forgiveness from Rama saying - " Oh lord, it's good that i m given lesson

(mind it - " Seekh = learning " ) .

 

Samudra says - " Prabhu Bhal Kinhi, Monhi Seekh Deenhi, Marjada puni

tumhari keenhi, Dhol Ganwar Sudra Pashu Nari, Sakal Tadna Ke Adhikari "

 

Somebody should understand the context, lord Rama had not beaten (beaten

= Tadana) Samudra, but was given a warning, admonishing, Samudra says in

this chaupai, " lord, it's good that i m given a lesson as a drum,

idiot, sudra and women should be given admonishing.

 

Above was not the occasion where Samudra said that, above was not said

either by Rama or Tulasidasa. Pls note that famous shloka that extols

Sri Hanuman Ji - Atulit Baladhamam Hema Shailabhdeham .... is the

written by Tulasi Dasa in the very beginning of sunadar kanda, Osho or

somebody has not commented on that.

 

In another occasion, when Osho wanted to comment on Gandhi, he

criticized goat's milk, these are just ways of expression to achieve a

goal achieved. It's members to decide the validity of making such a

controversy. I wish to make it clear, that I m not against Osho or

anybody but felt there is a need to clarify the matter.

 

Similar things are quoted in western world, John Taylor (1580-1654)

wrote: " A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree,

The more you beat them the better they be. "

 

Utkal.

[Guest guest]

Wanted to add one more thing - " From the 100s of the years, this

chaupai of Sundar Kanda was made a center of controversy to ridicule

Ramacharit Manas, however, almost every astrologer has been suggesting

the recital of Sundar Kanda for Shani Dosha Parihar, If ulook at

chaupai, as discussed in forums across the india, authorities said that

" Tadan " was " Taran " indeed, one " R " changes the meaning of the chaupai " .

 

It's not known that how proof reading was done those days.

 

However, It's quite surprising why Osho picked up only one controversial

part to ridicule Ramcharita Manas.

 

Utkal.

 

 

 

 

, " utkal.panigrahi "

<utkal.panigrahi wrote:

>

>

> Hope there w'd be many wise members with enough study of epics but

> however seems nobody has read SundarKand, otherwise, origin and

context

> of controversial chaupai was presented by members. I am surprised that

> nobody has mentioned that the chaupai quoted by Osho is taken from

> Sunadar Kanda

>

> The people must understand that the context, in which a dialogue

between

> two patras (characters) begins arguments and counter arguments, such

> arguments has momentary significance, Never, no critic takes it as

> author's wishfull message, but if somebody has intentions to make

> controversy out of the context, instead of the doing an intellectual

> healthy criticism of core wisdome of the text, he picks up a

sensational

> part, like the one Osho has taken.

>

> In the description of an incident like a road raze or a scene of fight

> when two parties are involved in verbal fighting, a character called

> Samudra, doesnt listen to Rama's humble request to give a way to reach

> Lanka, lastly, when he is threatened for consequences, Samudra begs

> forgiveness from Rama saying - " Oh lord, it's good that i m given

lesson

> (mind it - " Seekh = learning " ) .

>

> Samudra says - " Prabhu Bhal Kinhi, Monhi Seekh Deenhi, Marjada puni

> tumhari keenhi, Dhol Ganwar Sudra Pashu Nari, Sakal Tadna Ke Adhikari "

>

> Somebody should understand the context, lord Rama had not beaten

(beaten

> = Tadana) Samudra, but was given a warning, admonishing, Samudra says

in

> this chaupai, " lord, it's good that i m given a lesson as a drum,

> idiot, sudra and women should be given admonishing.

>

> Above was not the occasion where Samudra said that, above was not said

> either by Rama or Tulasidasa. Pls note that famous shloka that extols

> Sri Hanuman Ji - Atulit Baladhamam Hema Shailabhdeham .... is the

> written by Tulasi Dasa in the very beginning of sunadar kanda, Osho or

> somebody has not commented on that.

>

> In another occasion, when Osho wanted to comment on Gandhi, he

> criticized goat's milk, these are just ways of expression to achieve a

> goal achieved. It's members to decide the validity of making such a

> controversy. I wish to make it clear, that I m not against Osho or

> anybody but felt there is a need to clarify the matter.

>

> Similar things are quoted in western world, John Taylor (1580-1654)

> wrote: " A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree,

> The more you beat them the better they be. "

>

> Utkal.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji,

 

I thank you for the wiseness and knowledge I see now protruding from

your postings and it gives me great happiness to see you writing thus.

 

You are right about this context. Samudra devta does say this in the

context we are referring to. This is just like a Catholic going to

Church and asking for forgiveness in the Confession Box, and just like a

Husband who has drunk heavily in the night, and created furore in the

house and family peace, and in morning when wife shouts at him, he after

gaining his senses, tells her " You are right i deserve this

admonishing " .

 

By the way, Sundarkand is read daily in my house since last 10 years, I

am personally reading this since last 20 years, and I do not read

anything without understanding the scenario, meaning or the screenplay

behind every doha.

 

Thanks once again for a good post.

 

regards/Bhaskar.

 

 

, " utkal.panigrahi "

<utkal.panigrahi wrote:

>

>

> Hope there w'd be many wise members with enough study of epics but

> however seems nobody has read SundarKand, otherwise, origin and

context

> of controversial chaupai was presented by members. I am surprised that

> nobody has mentioned that the chaupai quoted by Osho is taken from

> Sunadar Kanda

>

> The people must understand that the context, in which a dialogue

between

> two patras (characters) begins arguments and counter arguments, such

> arguments has momentary significance, Never, no critic takes it as

> author's wishfull message, but if somebody has intentions to make

> controversy out of the context, instead of the doing an intellectual

> healthy criticism of core wisdome of the text, he picks up a

sensational

> part, like the one Osho has taken.

>

> In the description of an incident like a road raze or a scene of fight

> when two parties are involved in verbal fighting, a character called

> Samudra, doesnt listen to Rama's humble request to give a way to reach

> Lanka, lastly, when he is threatened for consequences, Samudra begs

> forgiveness from Rama saying - " Oh lord, it's good that i m given

lesson

> (mind it - " Seekh = learning " ) .

>

> Samudra says - " Prabhu Bhal Kinhi, Monhi Seekh Deenhi, Marjada puni

> tumhari keenhi, Dhol Ganwar Sudra Pashu Nari, Sakal Tadna Ke Adhikari "

>

> Somebody should understand the context, lord Rama had not beaten

(beaten

> = Tadana) Samudra, but was given a warning, admonishing, Samudra says

in

> this chaupai, " lord, it's good that i m given a lesson as a drum,

> idiot, sudra and women should be given admonishing.

>

> Above was not the occasion where Samudra said that, above was not said

> either by Rama or Tulasidasa. Pls note that famous shloka that extols

> Sri Hanuman Ji - Atulit Baladhamam Hema Shailabhdeham .... is the

> written by Tulasi Dasa in the very beginning of sunadar kanda, Osho or

> somebody has not commented on that.

>

> In another occasion, when Osho wanted to comment on Gandhi, he

> criticized goat's milk, these are just ways of expression to achieve a

> goal achieved. It's members to decide the validity of making such a

> controversy. I wish to make it clear, that I m not against Osho or

> anybody but felt there is a need to clarify the matter.

>

> Similar things are quoted in western world, John Taylor (1580-1654)

> wrote: " A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree,

> The more you beat them the better they be. "

>

> Utkal.

>