Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 I do understand that a lot of Hindus worship Rama. But does everyone agree that Rama's character is flawed? Consider: (a) When a sexually excited Shurpanakhi approached Rama for fulfillment of her desires, Rama and Lakshmana teased her incessantly until she felt that with Sita's demise, Rama will marry her; at which point, Lakshmana cut off her ears and nose. Is this worthy of a mature character? Why didn't Rama just tell her to go away instead of joining his brother in a tease game? (b) When he was told about Vali, instead of telling Sugriva to apologize to his brother, he decided to hide behind bushes and shoot Vali. Let's face it: Sugriva was at fault here. He had been ordered by Vali to wait at the mouth of the cave when Vali chased the demon into it; but when he saw the blood flowing out, instead of running to his brother's help, Sugriva closed the mouth of the cave with a huge boulder and returned to the kingdom, married Vali's wife and started enjoying the luxuries of a king. Vali was somewhat immature here, Sugriva was at fault but Rama was outright criminal. © What kind of civilized person makes his own wife go through a Trial by Fire? And, Rama obviously does not believe in taking care of a pregnant wife. Although she had proved her innocence, Rama kicks her out and comes across as a true boor here; he uses Lakshmana to drop off a pregnant Sita in the forest. If he was truly great, he would have renounced the kingdom, let Bharatha become King and would have lived a happy life with Sita. But nooo. He had to continue to be a King. What reasons does he offer? A King has duties. Like he was the only King in the world. Did the world come to a stop when Rama committed suicide in Sarayu? Not at all. There is no question that Rama was quite a mature person since he obeyed the command of his father and all that; but was he godly? Oh God, no. He might have been a great worshipper of Shiva but that does not make him any less guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 a) Lord Ramachandra is The Supreme Lord, Vishnu-Tattva, there is absolutely NO fault in His character. God is absolute, so anything The Supreme does cannot be understood by people of mundance intelligence such as yourself. You are trying to understand a subject matter when you actually have no intelligence to understand. Your in school and trying to understand something which a University student would know. You don't even know who God is. And here you are critisizing The Supreme Lord? Do you even see your own ignorant nature? This is conclusion of Krishna also in the Gita- Bg.9.11 Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be. Hare Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Jai Ganesh Re (I do understand that a lot of Hindus worship Rama. But does everyone agree that Rama's character is flawed?) It is obvious you are not a Hindu. Re (Consider: (a) When a sexually excited Shurpanakhi approached Rama for fulfillment of her desires, Rama and Lakshmana teased her incessantly until she felt that with Sita's demise, Rama will marry her; at which point, Lakshmana cut off her ears and nose. Is this worthy of a mature character? Why didn't Rama just tell her to go away instead of joining his brother in a tease game?) You been watching films. Re ((b) When he was told about Vali, instead of telling Sugriva to apologize to his brother, he decided to hide behind bushes and shoot Vali. Let's face it: Sugriva was at fault here.) You have become judge and jury without the knowing the full story. Re ( returned to the kingdom, married Vali's wife and started enjoying the luxuries of a king.) check your facts first before making any post here, he never married Vali's wife it was vali who did the dirty when he returned.Ram killed vali for this sin. You are way off the mark about Lord Ram, so i want comment. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 "It is obvious you are not a Hindu." How did you draw that conclusion? And yes, I do watch films, not the X-rated ones. If I have become the judge and jury without knowing the full story, I welcome you to enlighten me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Dear fool, If I have become the judge and jury without knowing the full story, I welcome you to enlighten me. we know you are not here to get enlightened. So why not you go to your way and we go our way ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 "we know you are not here to get enlightened. So why not you go to your way and we go our way ?" My dear Sir - If you do not know how to reply, my suggestion to you is to keep those fingers off the keyboard. Calling people "Fool" when you neither understand the question nor the complexity of the problem does not reflect well on your intelligence. I Don't think you can drive me away so easily. If you have any arguments, state them, otherwise, follow my suggestion and go take a cold shower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 My dear Sir - If you do not know how to reply, my suggestion to you is to keep those fingers off the keyboard. Calling people "Fool" when you neither understand the question nor the complexity of the problem does not reflect well on your intelligence. I Don't think you can drive me away so easily. If you have any arguments, state them, otherwise, follow my suggestion and go take a cold shower. Why all this game mr. rajashekar. Why not state your real name and religion here. If you are really Hindu, we would be interested in answering you. We know you are a anti-Hindu hate filled nut. So infact you need a cold shower. As for the rational, behind Lord Rama's actions, I am least interested in explaining to a religious bogot and a fool like you, since both of us know that you are here to abuse the character of Lord. So why don't you fool just get lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Dear Prabhu, you'r right this man should not call you fool and you can stay and chat but insulting Ram and his charactre is not good. Ram is Lord and all demigods like Shiv bow to him. Ram is Paramathm. Ram is pure and cant do any wrong. So please stop insulting Ram. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 "Why all this game mr. rajashekar. Why not state your real name and religion here. If you are really Hindu, we would be interested in answering you." This interesting comment from a fear-filled guy that calls himself "Guest"? Why do you think I call myself Rajashekhar? Do you think Rajashekhar is a very common name that Muslims or Christians use? Use a little common sense, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 This interesting comment from a fear-filled guy that calls himself "Guest"? Why do you think I call myself Rajashekhar? Do you think Rajashekhar is a very common name that Muslims or Christians use? Use a little common sense, my friend. Rajashekar may a name in Hinduism, but what is your real name pal. May identity is not your issue. If you need a answer why not mention your real name ? Talk about fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajashekhar Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 "Rajashekar may a name in Hinduism, but what is your real name pal. May identity is not your issue. If you need a answer why not mention your real name ? Talk about fear." Rajashekhar IS my real name, my good confused friend. This is the last reply I will be writing on this subject, since I don't consider this a useful or interesting discussion. Like I said, if you have any points to make, do it; or hold your peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Jai Ganesh ("It is obvious you are not a Hindu." How did you draw that conclusion? ) By your attitude towards Ram. Re (And yes, I do watch films, not the X-rated ones.) So you saw the humor in the film and took that as gospal but did not hear why Ram asked Laxman to cut her nose and ears.First she came in disguise asked Ram to merry her but Ram refused saying he is One Patni Man, so she desides to kill Mother Sita and that was the reason for her punishment. Re (If I have become the judge and jury without knowing the full story, I welcome you to enlighten me.) If you are honest in your inquiry you will find that i had already pointed out an error in your story of sugriv marrying his brothes wife. Go read Ramayan first, get your story right before you make any accusation.And if you want to learn you ask and not make wild accusation, do not base your judgement on watching films. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 thanks ganeshprasad ji, for giving good responses to this person. it is not that there are no answers, as you know, but we do not waste time with anti-hindus who just come to strat a fight/argument, and are not willing to learn. unless one shows a sincere desire to learn and has respect for hinduism, i usually avoid responding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Rajashekhar IS my real name, my good confused friend. This is the last reply I will be writing on this subject, since I don't consider this a useful or interesting discussion. Like I said, if you have any points to make, do it; or hold your peace. I apologize for my arrogance. The case of Sita is that, if Lord Rama did not make her walk through fire, the atheists would claim that Mata Sita had lostt her purity. By the action of Lord Rama, this disgusting doubt was once and for all put to conclusion. To show Sita Mataji's purity, HE made HER walk through fire. Impure souls cannot do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Did the world come to a stop when Rama committed suicide in Sarayu? Not at all. where the hell did you get this nonsensical idea ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Devotees,I request you guys to give answers to the questions of Mr.Rajasekar and then find fault with his language and intentions.I agree that he should not have used some words like "flawed nature of Ram" and "ram is criminal",but still let us answer him first. Here are the answers sri.Rajasekarji question:(a) When a sexually excited Shurpanakhi approached Rama for fulfillment of her desires, Rama and Lakshmana teased her incessantly until she felt that with Sita's demise, Rama will marry her; at which point, Lakshmana cut off her ears and nose. Is this worthy of a mature character? Why didn't Rama just tell her to go away instead of joining his brother in a tease game? answer: When surpanaka approached Rama he refused her in decent words.She kept on insisting him and he directed him to his brother laxmana.Laxmana too rejected her.Till this moment both of them were decent to her. In stage 2,surpanaka sees seetha and says "only because of this beautiful girl you guys reject me,now let me kill her" and she tries to kill sita.Sita runs to ram and laxman and they catch surpanaka.According to law of ksathriyas punishment for trying to kill a queen is death.But since surpanaka is a female,they show mercy and cut off her nose and ears. what wrong did you find her?Rama acted lawfully.He even showed mercy to surpanaka by not killing her.He just applied the law. question 2:(b) When he was told about Vali, instead of telling Sugriva to apologize to his brother, he decided to hide behind bushes and shoot Vali. Let's face it: Sugriva was at fault here. He had been ordered by Vali to wait at the mouth of the cave when Vali chased the demon into it; but when he saw the blood flowing out, instead of running to his brother's help, Sugriva closed the mouth of the cave with a huge boulder and returned to the kingdom, married Vali's wife and started enjoying the luxuries of a king. Vali was somewhat immature here, Sugriva was at fault but Rama was outright criminal. answer:First let me very strongly object to you calling Ram as criminal.YOu have no right to judge the lord in this manner.Anyway I give you the answer in the hope of you reforming your attitude. Vali is a monkey.He can be hunted.In hunting hiding behind trees and shooting an animal is allowed.The laws of war dont apply to animals but apply only to humans.It is also very funny of you to judge between sugreeva and vali.Vali forcibly took away sugreevas wife.sugreeva thought that vali was dead and closed the cave and came back running.for that vali tried to kill sugreeva and took his wife. Further sugreeva asked surrender to lord Ram.Lord Ram has said that "whoever says 'i surrender to you', i will save him.this is my pledge".So he saved sugreeva to keep up his pledge. And next guerilla warfare is an accepted strategy of war.Lord Ram followed that.What fault did you find here?Shivaji followed this against aurangazeb.Russians followed this against napolean and hitler. question:What kind of civilized person makes his own wife go through a Trial by Fire? And, Rama obviously does not believe in taking care of a pregnant wife. Although she had proved her innocence, Rama kicks her out and comes across as a true boor here; he uses Lakshmana to drop off a pregnant Sita in the forest. If he was truly great, he would have renounced the kingdom, let Bharatha become King and would have lived a happy life with Sita. But nooo. He had to continue to be a King. What reasons does he offer? A King has duties. Like he was the only King in the world. Did the world come to a stop when Rama committed suicide in Sarayu? Not at all. answer: I seriously doubt your intentions in writing like bharatha and seetha.Praying to lord ram to save you I answer this question also. In ksathriya dharma the virtue of a pure woman when she is captured by enemies is dying.Many Indian queens like chitoor rani padmini jumped in fire when enemies came to them.Rama symbolically showed to the world that sita failed to follow this dharma and as a compensation he made her to do it in front of all.If queens themselves dont follow ksathriya dharma who else will follow it? As far as Rama chasing his wife to forest it is actually not in valmigi ramayana.It is based on utharakand which is folklore.Rama suiciding in sarayu is your dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Rajsekhar Ji, Emotional love for a particular form of God makes one deride his another form. Please do not emulate many others who denigrate The Param Atman -- the one Soul, by denigrating his purna manifestations. The Purna manifestations are purna since they do not have their ego's desire but their ego is fully under control of Saktiman purusa (whoever that may be). SRI BRAHMA SAMHITA Book 1 TEXT 8. niyatih sa rama devi tat-priya tad-vasam tada tal-lingam bhagavan sambhur jyoti-rupah sanatanah ya yonih sapara saktih kamo bijam mahad hareh Devi is the desire, the seed, and the faculty of cognition of Hari – Mahat. And She, the Sakti – the regulator (Niyati) is under the control of lingam rupi eternal Bhagwan Shambhu. She is the potency of Mahat Hareh. So, if I find fault in Rama, I am finding fault in Saktiman Purusa. At least a Shiva bhakta will not do it. Neither will a true Vishnu bhakta do it. Though, devotees from either side may dispute, which was before? the AUM (the all - Vasudeva-Aditi) or the Pragnya who speaks forth AUM? But trying to pull one or the other is pulling one self down, because Lord is the Self. He is the pure consciousness "I" within. Visnu breaks the chastity of Shankhachuda's wife to help Bhava Bhavani defeat Shankhachuda. And he gets a curse in the process. Do not you see the love? We are fools that we try to see who is higher, from our low levels. Where I see great love, some will, surely comment: that Visnu does it for his devotees 'Siva-Parvati'. I know the style of such devotees. They are immature. They do not know that Maruts -- the sons of Shiva are all the time helping Indra and Visnu. The fact is: A purusha who knows ATMA gets all help from his senses. And such a purusha who knows Atma will do whatever Lord desires him to do. That immature Vaisnavas distort the Brahma Samhita verses should not impell you to follow their footsteps.Follow Ganesh Ji (-- though he does not agree to me). My love for you. You will definitely transform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 ******** Re (I do understand that a lot of Hindus worship Rama. But does everyone agree that Rama's character is flawed?) It is obvious you are not a Hindu. ********* Many in this very thread are abusing Lord Siva. Are they Hindus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 See what language real Hindus use while addressing others. ***** Dear fool, ******* This was used to address Rajasekar. And guests, who do not themselves use identifying names ask veracity of Rajasekhar's name. Funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajashekhar Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 "answer: When surpanaka approached Rama he refused her in decent words.She kept on insisting him and he directed him to his brother laxmana.Laxmana too rejected her.Till this moment both of them were decent to her. In stage 2,surpanaka sees seetha and says ...." It is apparent that you (and others like Ganeshprasad) look at the story from a defensive position or almost protective position, while I am looking at it somewhat objectively. When the drama is playing out, everyone is a human. A few thousand years later, some of the players of the drama may assume a legendary, or even divine status. That is what has happened to Rama, Krishna and Jesus Christ. Apparently, religion affects man very strongly and for a religious person, his/her hero can do no wrong. But if you read a story of a rich man living in New Delhi, whose wife is accused of infidelity and because of that the rich man throws her out (although she is pregant), I am sure your good senses would prevail and you would condemn the rich man. However, in the case of Rama, apparently other motives like Kshathriya Dharma come into play and Rama is relieved of all burdens except the ruling of the kingdom (although there were NO enemies trying to invade Ayodhya) and he is free to throw his pregnant wife out. But you are correct that it is in Uttara Kanda that this story is explained; but in Valmiki Ramayan, Uttara Kanda is part and parcel of the main text. Other explanations you give (such as a monkey is fit to be hunted) are totally unacceptable. Rama was not hunting Vali; he was aiming for him, with the intention of killing him so he could install Sugriva as the King of Kishkindha. Rama even offers another explanation that you have not mentioned: That as a rep of Bharatha, he has to restore 'Dharma'. To me, such an attitude from a hermit who is in the forest for a purpose sounds oddly egotistic and opportunistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Jai Ganesh Re (It is apparent that you (and others like Ganeshprasad) look at the story from a defensive position or almost protective position, while I am looking at it somewhat objectively. ) No i am looking at the facts as presented by Valmiki rishi, Tulsidas Goswami, Vyasdev and many saints,Shree Ram is proclaimed through the ages by many as parabrahman,he is above the gunas there is no objectivity there but you know all about that dont you. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajashekhar Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 "No i am looking at the facts as presented by Valmiki rishi, Tulsidas Goswami, Vyasdev and many saints,Shree Ram is proclaimed through the ages by many as parabrahman,he is above the gunas there is no objectivity there but you know all about that dont you." I sure do. By the very definition of the word Brahman, a Prabrahman or Brahman has to be devoid of attributes. Rama does has attributes. For example he is "Seethaapathi", "Raaghava", "Slayer of Vali", "Teaser of Shurpanakhi", "Deserter of Sita" etc etc. It is a myth to think of Rama or Krishna or any human or animal as Brahman, as long as they were inside their mortal bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Jai Ganesh Pranam Atanu Re (Many in this very thread are abusing Lord Siva. Are they Hindus? ) Most certainly not, I can understand the difference in worship of each group but gross abuse as presented in this thread is unacceptable. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 "I sure do. By the very definition of the word Brahman, a Prabrahman or Brahman has to be devoid of attributes." param means supreme... it is an attribute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Jai Ganesh Re (I sure do. By the very definition of the word Brahman, a Prabrahman or Brahman has to be devoid of attributes.) You do not know brahman,you are just trying to understand with your logic that which is beyond your capacity. Parabrahman can not be less then its creation. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.