Flawed Character of Rama

[Guest guest]

You're a crackpot. Krishna is Purushottama, you'd better learn to accept his teaching. Or you'll suffer. Ever heard of the term Nitya Samsarin? Be careful, or you'll be pushed into the darkest regions of hell.

 

If a commie talks about proletariat class, you hindu fools drool over him, whereas if God himself comes to your rotten country and talks of division of labor (which is what caste system or Chaturvaryna is), you ridicule him. You hindu fools are getting what you deserve from Muslims-I am actually happy. You deserve it. A nation that doesn't accept Krishna deserves to get thrashed, and I am happy pakistan is doing a good job thrashing India and Hindus in particular.

[Guest guest]

Most of us are an individual with qualities, philosophies etc. And the role we play in society is only a packaging. These are considered as two seperate things or many seperate things.

 

In Rama it's difficult to seperate the son, the brother, the king, the husband, the father etc. And most of all the divinity, self-less sincerity and grace in all the roles. All these are in him, none of them as a packaging. So Rama may not be acting with reasoning at mundane level for us to rationalize. He may be well above.

 

The rajya and citizens were happy and thanked Rama's grace never endingly (but for any lack of his grace there would have been cynicism for sure). Rama touched each house & human being. Rama's integrity was unquestioned and he led by example. We may not be able to see the reasons you ask, I guess.

 

[Guest guest]

Hello there,

 

I am glad someone else besides me has sought clarification on Rama's actions and as such I'm glad you have raised these issues here. I am born and raised a Hindu.However, like you,I have numerous questions about the validity of the actions of puranic characters and god forms. It does not diminish my faith in Divinity... just raises questions as to the authenticity of facts in some of our texts.

 

I am not about to make conclusions about Rama's deeds in relation to the Vali/Sugriva matter or how he treated Surpanakha *yet*, as I am still in search for those answers. Perhaps my Faith supercedes my thirst for a logical explanation, but that does not mean I have stopped searching for views and answers in my own time. For instance, I understand what one individual stated in response to you, I can accept many of Rama's actions,e.g. with the Vali/Sugriva issue. I agree that today's person should not be judged by laws of the past.

 

However, in the case of Rama's actions towards Sita, I must say I get no satisfaction from being informed that a woman has to follow the laws of the Kshatriya etc, as we are in this case focusing on Rama as the person in question, NOT Sita. Good for her that she came out unscathed but that does not give Rama the green.

 

Throughout this discussion thread, I notice that there are at least partially acceptable answers (not necessarily 100% accurate I'm sure) for almost all of your questions, but the way Rama handled Sita is responded to inaddequately...You see, all other events seemed to have two versions to the story, indicating it is possible that some of these historic events were misinterpreted / falsified as they were conveyed, giving rise to the possibility that those conveying these stories could have misrepresented Rama's actions. But the story on the treatment of Sita remains the same, no matter who has interpreted or conveyed Ramayanam. Rama DID doubt Sita and he DID ask her to prove her chastity in the fire ceremony. This bothers me. This part has been enacted in children's plays, sung in songs and glorified....but when I ask people why, NO ONE seems to be able to provide a satisfactory answer, which I, a devout Hindu woman, can accept!

 

I hope someone both, knowledeable and wise will respond to this soon. Thanks.

 

Shoba - Malaysia

 

 

_____

 

 

question: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.

 

answer:you are trying to judge yesterday's men by todays standards,laws and acts.That is not fair.Because if tomorrow's men judge you by tomorrow's standards where will you go?you can call george washington as a slave owner,since he had slaves or you can call him as father of america.whatever laws people of those days had they followed it.Rama as a ruler upheld those laws.If those laws look odd now-well its not Rama's mistake or people's mistake.

 

[Guest guest]

{A nation that doesn't accept Krishna deserves to get thrashed, and I am happy pakistan is doing a good job thrashing India and Hindus in particular}

 

As a matter of fact it is Pakistan which gets thrashed by India. They've lost all the wars they have started with India! The fact that you say you are happy what pakistan does to India makes me wonder if you are even Indian, let alone Hindu in the first place. Pakistan does not accept Krishna, yet you're happy that a country with majority Hindu are being attacked by muslims? I guess you must've then been delighted when pakistani muslim terrorists massacred devotees and monks at the Akshardham temple in Gujarat a few years back? Those devotees were innocent and they all were vaishnavas who believed in Krishna just as you claim to believe. Yet going by what you said you must've been happy to hear of their massacre!

 

To refresh your memory.

 

http://www.rediff.com/news/akshar.htm

 

http://www.akshardham.com/news/2002/akshardham/report.htm

[Guest guest]

I made that post in anger. Don't jump down my throat.

 

Besides, who cares if India is majority Hindu. Are they majority Krishna bhaktas? If not, I couldn't care less whether India survives or not. India exists for Krishna's sake, not the other way around. As long as 'hindus' refuse to accept Krishna, I'll refuse to accept India and hindus. The reason why India has degraded is because they've given up on krishna, so Krishna has given up on them.

 

So I don't give a camel's a$$ if pakis thrash India, they prolly deserve it. BTW, Pakis don't claim to be hindus, so why would anyone expect them to love Krishna? But hindus abusing Krishna is unforgivable, that's why all bad things happen to India.

[Guest guest]

First of all Krishna doesn't give up. Not every Hindu is a Krishna bhakta, there were Rama Bhaktas before the incarnation of Krishna, so should you call them all Vishnu bhaktas?

 

{But hindus abusing Krishna is unforgivable, that's why all bad things happen to India.}

 

Why doesn't it happen to the Indian who deserve it? That is the loony-lefties. Why do they cause so much problems and get away with it?

 

If you care to find out about things then your fight is really with the Indian Marxists, leftists and commies. They are at the root cause of stiring up trouble amongsts all Hindus and they get away with it. It's not just Christians and Muslims who create problems for Hindu it's the Marxists also. The Marxists in India are quite different from Marxists in other parts of the world. Their level of self-hate is is very high and they hate all things Indian, they want to be something else. Even the positive aspects of Indian culture they hate, just because it's Indian, they think it's inferior. It's their influence in the media which always has an anti-hindu bias.

 

There are also some very westernised Indians who are also a problem as by their lifestyle, it's a wonder that they are even called Hindus. You can be a Hindu in any part of the world but when your give up your morals, principals and beliefs you don't deserve to be included in the Hindu community. These people still call themselves Hindus just because of the family they are born in, but they don't believe or practice anything from the Hindu tradition.

 

But the problem is also with certain members of the Hindu community. You have casteist Hindus whe deserve to suffer due to the oppression they give to lower castes. Yet due to their power and India's corruption, they get away with it. And of course there are problems with the cowardly pacifist Hindus themselves some of who believe that defending yourself from an attack is an act of violence, that should never happen. They would prefer to see their wife raped than even attempt to fight off the attacker because they are scared they may get hit, let alone killed.

[BinduMadhav]

Dvaitin wrote:

 

------------

Besides, who cares if India is majority Hindu. Are they majority Krishna bhaktas? If not, I couldn't care less whether India survives or not. India exists for Krishna's sake, not the other way around. As long as 'hindus' refuse to accept Krishna, I'll refuse to accept India and hindus. The reason why India has degraded is because they've given up on krishna, so Krishna has given up on them.

-------------------------

 

I am a great devotee of Krishna myself, but such posts reek of disdain for others and should be condemned. If the majority of India do not worship Krishna, does it mean that India should be condemned? Then how about the rest of the world? Not too many people outside India worship Krishna; so shouldn't Krishna give up or destroy the destroy the rest of the world too?

 

-----------------------

So I don't give a camel's a$$ if pakis thrash India, they prolly deserve it.

-----------------------

 

Boy, you must be a caucasian ISKCONite male living in America not to care if Pakis thrash India. You know what is unforgivable? Posts such as yours.

[aqua3]

Dear Shoba-Malaysia,

 

Seeing your interest in the topic under discusion, I thought I can share some of my mails on different issues in Ramayana, including agni pravesh, sita's exile, vaali vadam and Sita's lamnet whether she has committed any offence to have come to be separated from RAma, with specific reference to her worry ' sthreeyam purusha vigraham' (is it because I told Rama when he refused to take me to van vaas, that not knowing that he is a woman in man's garb, my father has married me to him, that I am now suffering separation from him with no sign of Rama turning up to release me' - a worry expressed by Sita in Ashoka vana in Sundhara khanda). These mails have already been published in other groups and they are detailed and voluminous to be reproduced here. If you are interested, please give your mail ID, I will send them to you. For immediate reference, you may read my mail in this group itself under the thread Vaali vadam (or Vaali and Rama).

 

regards,

jayasree

[jayan008]

If somebody, like me or the person who posted this subject, say that we would not have thrown our wife on some baseless allegations, please consider this...we are not Rama...it would hardly cause even a ripple for the general public, the society or the nation, when compared to the position Rama was in.

 

Here the common people, who revere Rama as the incarnation of Vishnu, the people's King, the Noblest of all of the Bharat Varsh, has started talking about the purity of his wife i.e., their very own Queen, Sita. It was no doubt the work of evil-minded people who had spread this misinformation. Enemy need not always be from outside the Country, there are always many in the Country itself.

 

Rama had foreseen this and hence he had asked Sita to give the 'Agni-Pariksha' to prove her purity, so that the matter never come up.... but you cannot stop evil minded people from spreading false information and slowly people started talking and believing in it…

 

Rama did not ask Sita to leave the very next day he heard of such rumour talk amongst his citizens, but it had spread to such an extent that it was out of his control to stop each and every man from talking or discussing it.....The affect was so enormous that people started showing their dislike openly towards their King for being ruled by a Queen whose purity was doubtful…this was detrimental to the kingdom, and the evil mindeds almost succeeded in their attempt, because when people lose faith in their leader there would be no unity and no trust amongst people……in such an extreme situation he consulted all his senior ministers, elders and teachers, who left him with the choice of taking a decision as to his or the nation’s betterment. Finally, after considering all the pros and cons he chose to abandon Sita,,,,,this is not cruelty, this is sacrificing one’s love for the nation and its people…this can only be understood by a person who is such hugely revered, has great responsibility and who is looked upon to deliver and sacrifice for the people and the followers whom he stands for and in doing that take care that the common people are not misled into their own doom even if it meant sacrificing his own life, loved ones or liking……the effect of Rama's action was that the rumour ended and the tension eased up and a possible revolt by the evil minded people by support of the common citizens on false allegation was ended once and for all.

 

[krishnadasa]

Belive me if Bharath is taken over by Muslims /pakis, then there will niether be any place for ISKCON nor for ISKCONites(or for that matter any temples will cease to exist), all will be converted forcefully (as it happened before) to follow islam and their prophet. as its righty said in hindi, na rahega baas , na bajegi basuri.

 

SO the conclusion is that, people in bharath have always liked Krishna, and they will forever. and about the condition of bharath, hey common don be a materilastic fool, spiritual condition is still good here, still people visit temples, still they worship krishna and still all the rites are performed according one's own capacity.

 

Still people marry with whom they are going to live (unlike US or europe), still although they are not so well to do with their material life, the upliftment for the higher planets (if not to Vaikunta) is assured . But for the eupeans and US people , they will be damned to the lower most hell cos of their materialistic , animilistic life. pityfull he he!

 

Srila Prabhupada was such a great soul, that he tried to lift u all, but it was not for all i guess (or might be only for those devotees who by their past sins took birth in Mlecha land and Srila Prabhupada came to deliver them)

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada

All glories to Srila Madhwa

 

All glories to all the Vaishnawa bhaktah vrinda

 

hari hari bol

 

Hari hari bol

[Guest guest]

A sanyasi is considered renounced once he has reduced all his desires from the outside world to nothing.

 

Following the beautiful karma samnyasa in BG, even Marriage can be considered a means to renunciation.

 

The proof of love in the marriage is NOT about showing off your love infront of the world and your close friends & then lining up surprises for eachother with holiday packages.

 

The true love for each other between a couple is manifest, when they minimize all needs for themselves from the outside world. The couple see complete completeness & fulfillment between eachother (BTW bringing bread to their families by doing duties based on their natural capability, not out of greed and envy).

 

Bad & dirty karma is created by married and sometimes pious looking couple in many ways

-The parent's anxiety of children forgeting to look after them in old age..and therefore brain washing them every opportunity right away.

-or bride's parents reaching out to their daughter to pour all their worries and insecurity

- or instigating the daughter to go challenge her in-laws or husband to proove her point etc..

- the husband being corrupt with society to please his wife, daughter or son with jewellery or admissions which only black money can buy

 

There are many ways of doing bad karma upon society by a couple just to prove to each other that they continue to love eachother. There is no moksha for such couples, as the bondage to the worldy affairs goes deeper and deeper as the couple grows older. Their pious seeming bhakti to spouse, their focus on astrology, is not going to make them any better to overcome bondage.

 

Rama and sita should be considered in love, to such an extent that they even were willing to renounce the necessity to physically live together, if that were to please the society or rajya.

 

Those people who follow bhakti yoga aspire for the leela state and in that state the supreme relationship considered with the lord is that of a fiance. The condition of having to live-in physical proximity with the lord is also renounced.

 

The devotee overcomes the particular inquisitiveness in seeing the lord, overcome the habit of judging if lord is happy or unhappy with the devotee, overcomes the habit of looking at the lord if he is feeling tired today or depressed today or happy with the world today.... etc.

 

Sita's love with Rama was leela. Rama was lord himself. As a married couple they cast minimum karma upon society, with their true love manifested.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Rama DID doubt Sita and he DID ask her to prove her chastity in the fire ceremony. This bothers me. This part has been enacted in children's plays, sung in songs and glorified....but when I ask people why, NO ONE seems to be able to provide a satisfactory answer, which I, a devout Hindu woman, can accept!

 

 

 

According to Kurma Purana, the false Sita took the place of Mother Sita who remained with Agni-deva when Ravana kidnapped her and she (the false sita) entered the agni from where Mother Sita then appeared.

[Guest guest]

From Kurma Purana:

 

 

sitayaradhito vahnis

chaya-sitam ajijanat

tam jahara dasa-grivah

sita vahni-puram gata

pariksha-samaye vahnim

chaya-sita vivesa sa

vahnih sitam samaniya

tat-purastad aninayat

 

 

"When he was petitioned by mother Sita, the fire-god, Agni, brought forth an illusory form of Sita, and Ravana, who had ten heads, kidnapped the false Sita. The original Sita then went to the abode of the fire-god. When Lord Ramacandra tested the body of Sita, it was the false, illusory Sita that entered the fire. At that time the fire-god brought the original Sita from his abode and delivered her to Lord Ramacandra."

 

 

 

[ranga]

Hi,

 

First of all your basic assumption is Rama is a cheat.

 

If you had genuine doubts about Bhagavan's character,you would have humbly raised the opinions with due respect to that great Maha Vishnu,Bhavagavan Ramachandra.

 

A flawed character always looks for faulty things even in divine.But a perfect character like Rama never failed to appreciate even Ravana his enemy for his valour.

That is Rama's quality and this is your qualtiy to find fault with Rama.

 

Think of how many good he did, Vibeshana charanaagadhi and Jatayu Moksham,Bharadha abayam,Kaikeyi incident and all.Who will perform funeral rites to a bird? This bloody Vali and Ravana will kill poor messengers for carrying a bad news for them.

 

 

You can have doubts about Divine's actions because we are all mortals but your tone is verily demonic as Krishna calls in Gita.

 

Better you dont believe God,become a true atheist and say "Rama never existed" rather than cunningly barking at him.

[BinduMadhav]

Ranga wrote:

 

"Better you dont believe God,become a true atheist and say "Rama never existed" rather than cunningly barking at him."

 

I like your standing up for Sri Rama, whom I greatly admire. But you are not thinking straight here. People may believe that Rama never existed and yet be Theistic. Rama's existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

 

Sri Rama was just a human being. I have to admit that he did have a few earthly faults. Why get upset at Rajashekharji for pointing them out? After all, he agrees that Lord Rama had many wonderful virtues that many of us can only aspire for.

[jayan008]

You are right, when one is critical of a person, he always find negative traits of that person's actions.

 

The problem with most people are that instead of understanding the circumstances which led to such an action / understanding the position of the person who has taken a decision, people directly come to a conclusion.

 

They only look at from their view point and make silly comments. Given a chance these people would be the first to run away rather than make an important decision in their life which affects other people.

 

A decision of a King or in the present age that of a President/PM has a great effect to the general population of that country. He just can't take a decision which seem fit to only him. The sentiments of the people he is ruling, in general, is also to be considered. He cannot be selfish and think his own well being. Leaders ruling for their own well being and selfish motives can never have the trust of their own people and will perish forever never to be known.

 

Great people have always been criticised, because there are few who could really understand them.

 

[Guest guest]

not a mere human being. He appeared as a human being, which is what the term avatar means. Avatar means "he who descends." Evidently, a man cannot descend, because he can only follow the evoltionary process, ascending process. Only the Purushottama can descend.

[Guest guest]

I have read some stupid posts here stating that Rama abandoned seetha cause that was Dharma during

those days that a captured women should kill herself..what nonsense?Y should she kill herself for no fault of his?Is

it a avatar like Ramas duty to change the dharma and lead by example?

Bhavadgita readers say common men like us cant understand it and Krishna says that himself.then y bother

writing and publishing it,if it is just for a set of people then y is it called a universal book..and who are these

set of people who will get this enlightment?this sounds like emperors clothes.

Mr Rajasekhar,i respect ur views,its so true that Rama has flaws so has Krishna and Bhavagadgita has lot

of theories that contradict and it sounds more like a dictators verses than any kind so called god..either it

was a flawed version or Rama and Krishna themselves are mean gods or lesser gods.

They call u a fool but the truth is they dont have answer to ur post and they just think kissing gods ass

will give them moksha?

If finding fault makes us in fault then what about them who call others fool or find fault in ravana or vaali?

[Guest guest]

Posterity has judged Rama both favourbly and unfavourbly. Even so, he is revered as God. Even Kabir called God, Ram. To him, Ram was the impersonal God. A god's whose he believed granted salvation. Most hindus here would agree with me so far.

 

Yet, hindus or others are free to judge the historical Rama and see whether his actions are befitting. That is a right granted to the worshipper. For personalities are judged, with attraction there is also aversion. Such an act of assesement cannot be compared with deriding a supposed incarnation of God. What we need to ask is whether we would hold the same standards of morality to ourselves and others. And i totally support Rajeskar, who has the moral integrity to question. Fear not Rajeskar, Rama himself will be pleased as will Hanuman. A true bhakta questions his God or his Ishta and if one form is not befitting, lo there are others.

[Guest guest]

Some people can both understand and follow Gita -- Wise

 

Some people can understand it but can't follow -- Lazy or coward

 

Some people can't understand it but blindly follow--average person

 

Some people can neither understand nor follow it--below average person

 

Some people find fault with it -- Fools

[krishnadasa]

<Fear not Rajeskar, Rama himself will be pleased as will Hanuman>

Good advice yet not healthy, for inqusition is fruitful only infront of a certified Guru, or else the answers tend to delude

 

< A true bhakta questions his God or his Ishta and if one form is not befitting, lo there are others.>

 

A TRUE bhakhtha is the one who has got no doubts abou his revering diety, not otherwise. Once one starts following and all of a sudden he leaves and picks the other , then that bhakthi is wandering, its not focussed and would be like pouring water over a rock, which wud never settle down.

 

 

hari hari bol

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishnadasa,

 

A TRUE bhakhtha is the one who has got no doubts abou his revering diety, not otherwise. Once one starts following and all of a sudden he leaves and picks the other , then that bhakthi is wandering, its not focussed and would be like pouring water over a rock, which wud never settle down.

 

Point taken. I concur. By definition, a bhaktha has bhakthi and has a relationship with his ishta and as such his ishta is his ideal. The ishta is implicitly perfect for the bhakta. For some, the focus is on an aspect of Ishta eg Krishna as Gopala. In such a mood, the bhakta can question the ishta on other aspects that he does not understand or that which he disagrees.

 

Bhagavan will never be offended for the bhakta is dear to him.

 

In a similar vein, he who loves Krishna can still be offended by Rama and question Krishna as a Saki.( friend). That too is a mood.

An inferior mood ? perhaps. But to question the lord in such a way would require intimacy, that is prema.

 

Dear KrishnaDasa, i believe you understand where i am coming from.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think the true bhaktah as per u r idea is the one who saw the emperors clothes,someone who wont question it no matter what

And as far as people who dont understand Bagavadgeetha r fools is concerned...one question for u the genius who understood it.

If everything is gods will and everyone is piece of god then where is one being a fool and other a genuis to understand bagavadgeetha?

 

[Guest guest]

Also what is this differnte levels of relationships with god,prema intimacy and all other levels..arent everyone equal in front of god,y this bias and prejudice towards his own children?

Dont u people think ur all taking this personal and assuming whatever u guys say becomes the word of god..how can u all manipulate the versions and answer for em anyway?

[Guest guest]

So u mean to say lord rama didnt know it was original seetha and the whole fight with ravana was a waste..if agni can send a false seetha y cant he make that false seetha disappear from ravanas court?y this waste of killing in both sides occur..o i see its because ravana had to be killed right?if so then y not challenge him for a battle and kill him or kill him in sleep like killing vaali from behind the tree