Flawed Character of Rama

[Guest guest]

Abuse is abuse. All abuse is gross. There is no subtle abuse.

 

 

Rig Veda itself says that Dashratha putra will be known as Brahman to earthlings. There is absolute certainty about that.

 

You are correct to say that one with limited mind cannot percieve parambrahman.

 

 

But then on the other hand, do we need to abuse the sages who have stated that there is no second in the fourth state (your signature line)?

 

[Guest guest]

I forgot to say namaskar. So, I repeat it twice here.

 

 

See, below how the word nirgunam is changed in the so-called true translation.

 

 

SB 3.32.28

jnanam ekam paracinair

indriyair brahma nirgunam

avabhaty artha-rupena

bhrantya sabdadi-dharmina

 

SYNONYMS

jnanam-knowledge; ekam-one; paracinaih-averse; indriyaih-by the senses; brahma-the Supreme Absolute Truth; nirgunam-beyond the material modes; avabhati-appears; artha-rupena-in the form of various objects; bhrantya-mistakenly; sabda-adi-sound and so on; dharmina-endowed with.

 

TRANSLATION

Those who are averse to the Transcendence realize the Supreme Absolute Truth differently through speculative sense perception, and therefore, because of mistaken speculation, everything appears to them to be relative.

 

 

Nirgunam is shown to mean - beyond the material modes. And then "nirgunam" is not used in the translation at all.

 

 

 

Also "avabhati-appears; artha-rupena-in the form of various objects; bhrantya-mistakenly; sabda-adi-sound and so on; dharmina-endowed with" is translated as .

 

 

 

If this is corrrect then let it be so.

 

Let the less discriminative abuse using wrong translations. And let 'chor date kotwal ko' prevail.

 

 

Namaskar.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

Jai Mahadeva

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I forgot to say namaskar. So, I repeat it twice here.

 

 

See, below how the word nirgunam is changed in the so-called true translation.

 

 

SB 3.32.28

jnanam ekam paracinair

indriyair brahma nirgunam

avabhaty artha-rupena

bhrantya sabdadi-dharmina

 

SYNONYMS

jnanam-knowledge; ekam-one; paracinaih-averse; indriyaih-by the senses; brahma-the Supreme Absolute Truth; nirgunam-beyond the material modes; avabhati-appears; artha-rupena-in the form of various objects; bhrantya-mistakenly; sabda-adi-sound and so on; dharmina-endowed with.

 

TRANSLATION

Those who are averse to the Transcendence realize the Supreme Absolute Truth differently through speculative sense perception, and therefore, because of mistaken speculation, everything appears to them to be relative.

 

 

Nirgunam is shown to mean - beyond the material modes. And then "nirgunam" is not used in the translation at all.

 

 

 

Also "avabhati-appears; artha-rupena-in the form of various objects; bhrantya-mistakenly; sabda-adi-sound and so on; dharmina-endowed with" is translated "as because of mistaken speculation, everything appears to them to be relative".

 

 

No mention is made of "One Nirgunam Brahman mistakenly appears as variuos objects and sounds to senses".

 

 

If this misrepresentation is corrrect then let it be so.

 

Let the less discriminative abuse using wrong translations. And let 'chor date kotwal ko' prevail.

 

 

Namaskar.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

Jai Mahadeva

 

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Namaskar Atanu

Re

(I forgot to say namaskar. So, I repeat it twice here.)

 

 

I accept your namaskar because it gives me a reason to resiprocate Namaskar.

 

Re

(Abuse is abuse. All abuse is gross. There is no subtle abuse.)

 

If you put it that way i agree.

 

Re

 

But then on the other hand, do we need to abuse the sages who have stated that there is no second in the fourth state (your signature line)?

 

This is a different ball game, it is a question of realisation,if you want we may exchange our understanding with respect, some place else, this thread is an insult to Lord Ram it our duty if we can defend it, but i can not bare to read what has been written.and for the record i do not like what some people write about Lord Shiva either.

 

Re

(See, below how the word nirgunam is changed in the so-called true translation.)

 

Some people have their agenda, shagun and nirgun is two side of the same coin.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

At your place it must be day time? In India this poor Atanu is sleep less. Now, I will go to sleep now.

 

******* Some people have their agenda, shagun and nirgun is two side of the same coin **************

 

 

Yes Sir.

 

 

Namo Vasudevayya

Namo Sivayya

 

The two sides of one coin. One who sees the both sides together sees the Param.

 

That is some Upanishad. I have forgotten which.

 

Good night.

[Guest guest]

question: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.

 

You arent being objective,you are being subjective like me and ganeshprasad are.Nobody can seperate themselves from their feelings,culture and bias to be objective.It isnt possible.

 

question: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.

 

answer:context,context,thats the key.This seetha pregnant story is not given in valmiki ramayana,valmiki ends ramayana with rama's coronation.

 

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.

 

My grand father had 2 wives and lived with them in the same house.can I stop talking to him?Am I justified if i call him as a polygamist and loafer?he lived in different times and had different rules.

 

after another 100 years if world suddenly recognizes that animals have right to live and stop killing animals.If they call us muderer's for killing animals is that justified?

 

rule is simple:Dont judge yesterdays men by today's laws.

 

question: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.

 

answer:Actually by what law did what rama did was wrong?If he did not bypass any law what fault did you find in his actions?

 

Did he go against vedas in killing vali?No.He did not.If you say he did, show the verses in vedas which says so.Did he bypass the laws of the kingdom?no.He lived in a jungle where only the laws of jungle operated.

 

Did not krishna in mahabharatha ask arjuna to cut the hand of purichravas who was fiting with sathyagi from behind?Did not arjuna do that?

 

 

The standard which you apply against Rama is your own standards.Rama did not break any law.He helped a person who surrendered to him.Guerilla warfare is an accepted war strategy all over the world.

 

you lose out dude.

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Namaskar Atanu

 

Re

(At your place it must be day time? In India this poor Atanu is sleep less. Now, I will go to sleep now.)

 

Well it is 9pm in London.

 

You should go to bed early

It must be very hot this time of the year.

 

 

Namo Vasudevayya

Namo Sivayya

 

Re

 

(The two sides of one coin. One who sees the both sides together sees the Param.)

 

To be able to see that, there has to be a second, within the one without a second.

 

Re

(That is some Upanishad. I have forgotten which.)

 

I am sure you will remember later.

 

Good night.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Rajashekhar]

["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"

 

I meant Para, not Param. The typo was my mistake.

 

Anyway, therein lies the philosophical problem with the concept of Brahman. When someone defines Brahman as one without attributes, Brahman is already defined, and therefore the Brahman is no longer Brahman.

[Guest guest]

I meant Para, not Param. The typo was my mistake.

--parabrahman, parambrahman is the same word

 

When someone defines Brahman as one without attributes, Brahman is already defined

--only you interprete the word brahman is this way. Brahman is simply "spirit, transcendence, absolute".. then you can talk of nirguna (no-qualities) brahman or saguna (full of infinite qualities) brahman

 

the same for parambrahman (or parabrahman)

-----

 

[Guest guest]

 

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.

 

 

 

You do! Nice to see

 

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

 

 

 

Happened and will happen all the time. Sometimes it won't even take thousands of years, before divinitystatus is reached, if you get my drift /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

 

yes...when people have a divine hero, he can do no wrong even when he is caught on camera haha ! if we look at Rama s behavior we must admitt that there are some flaws (to normal human standards ).No mistake aboutthat. vaishnavas can come up with all explanations for this but the flaws are still there.

[Guest guest]

Namaskar

 

******* To be able to see that, there has to be a second, within the one without a second ************

 

It is pleasant to discuss with you. This we have discussed earlier.

 

I had cited what my Guru had said: till one is not Self realised there is another. But on Self realisation, who is to see whom?

 

Seeing another is through eyes which cannot reach THAT. But what internal eyes see?

 

 

 

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

 

 

II-iv-12: As a lump of salt dropped into water dissolves with (its component) water, and no one is able to pick it up, but from wheresoever one takes it, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is but Pure Intelligence. (The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.

 

II-iv-13: Maitreyi said, ‘Just here you have thrown me into confusion, sir – by saying that after attaining (oneness) the self has no more consciousness’. Yajnavalkya said, ‘Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing, my dear; this is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi’.

 

II-iv-14: Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what ? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known – through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?

 

 

 

Now, I have not obtained this inner eye yet. So, I myself do not know. But are the sages telling lies.

 

Argument on these accounts to show that Sankara was employed by Vishnu to mislead world has basis? Are these not in bad taste? In fact, YV verses say that Rudra uses Soma as socket of his bow and Visnu-Agni as the bow to liberate beings of their three bodies.

 

Contradicting Vedas is ok?

 

Reading Gita, Vedas and Upanishads and then solving the zig saw puzzle when one truly sees that the shagun and nirgun are two sides of the same coin one has already lost the small self.

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Namaskar Atanu

 

Re

(Now, I have not obtained this inner eye yet. So, I myself do not know. But are the sages telling lies.)

 

sages do not lie.

but if there is no i what is there to see or obtain?

 

Re

(Argument on these accounts to show that Sankara was employed by Vishnu to mislead world has basis? Are these not in bad taste? In fact, YV verses say that Rudra uses Soma as socket of his bow and Visnu-Agni as the bow to liberate beings of their three bodies.)

 

It is in a bad taste, there is no basis for such an insult.

Sankracharya reestablished the Vedas, Vedas are considered Apursaya and faultless so how can his Brahman realisation in adwaita be unvedic?

 

Re

(Contradicting Vedas is ok?)

 

No

 

Re

(Reading Gita, Vedas and Upanishads and then solving the zig saw puzzle when one truly sees that the shagun and nirgun are two sides of the same coin one has already lost the small self. )

 

I do not know of loosing the small self, but reading and following the above text one becomes self realised.

All i know is i am useless i need his mercy to understand the truth.

 

Jai Bhole Jai Shree Krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

It is obvious that you are trying to find flaw in the character of Rama, as you are not hindu.

 

Hindu relegion doesn't believe in Sexuality, that to with sister. if you see, shurpanaka was Vibhishan's sister and Rama and Vibhishan's were brothers. This is the result of putra kamesti yaga. If your sister ask for sexual intercourse will you have with her. If you are any one practicing it, they are animals.

[Azygos]

Rama came for a mission....to uphold righteousness and destroy the evil of Ravana and maintain Dharma

 

Brahman has no attributes.......admitted.....but the personal god has attributes....and the incarnation of god must have attributes like any other person.....

 

Every incarnation has both an earth consciousness and a god consciousness. At normal times, the earth consciousness prevails. Only at certain times, does the god consciousness prevails. That is why Krishna in Mahabharata reveals he is god to arjuna only at very few places. The dominance of earth consciousness in the god incarnation helps him to acheive the mission that he came for, which would not be possible in the god consciousness mould.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

[Guest guest]

Very interesting thread, but maybe this site isn't the place to discuss the points you have posted. People get very passionate here.

 

{Did the world come to a stop when Rama committed suicide in Sarayu?}

 

I've heard that Rama ended his earlthly life by going into a river and never coming out again. Can anybody here prove this otherwise? And if it is so, isn't that suicide? But suicide is against Hinduism! And if he is an incarnation of God and we have to follow his example, isn't this a bad example he set?

 

Also I've heard that Rama killed a shudra for hearing Vedic mantras. This is a common criticism of Rama and I would like the others here to throw some light on it. Is it really written in the Ramayana that this happened? And if so why did it happen as the same Rama ate the half-eaten fruits of a shudra woman who was his greatest devotee?

[maadhav]

Two points come to mind:

 

1) Here as elsewhere, the Hindus can easily talk about flaws of god's incarnation as if talkig about an ordinary person. Thank about flaws of Allah on a muslim forum, and see what happens; or talk it near a mosque, and see what heppens. (Don't do, unless you are well armed and prepard to win over an armed attack.)

 

2) Rama walked into Sarayu, but it was not a suicide. It was a way to end his lila. Most suiciders are failures, or have experienced a great loss, and feel that it is not worth living any more. Rama did not fail, and was not miserable.

he is sat-chit-anamada. Rama is not dead. he just walked into river and went out of our sight.

 

Hindus do not worship a dead god.

One who dies is not god in Hindus' view.

 

[aqua3]

For the people of yore whose yogic power had been powerful, no weapon, or disease or old age could become the cause of making them shed their mortal coil. Those who enter vAnaprastha, would go on minimal food such as fruits that fall off from the trees. Gradually they shift to further shrinking, by fasting unto death while on meditation. Similarly entering the agni to shed the mortal body is one practice. Shabari entered into agni after Rama left.These acts are not considered as suicides. Otherwise they can not shed their bodies.

 

It is in the light of this one must view RAma entering the sarayu. He, as Narayana created a pramEyam to be born and lose the wife midway but no such prameyam existed for his exit, whereas krishna exited by means of a prameyam. When the time came for his exit Rama chose this route which is however, a means to transport whatever is offered into it to the designated place. The power of apah, or water is such that.

 

About the controversy on shudra, a shudra is one 'who grieves'. In chandokhya upanishad, the king JAnashruti, known for his great works was addressed as a shudra by the sage Raikva, because he was grieving for not having the knowledge of Brahman. In ancient days this is how it was seen.

[maadhav]

per krishna in gita,

shudra is a laborer who serves the other three varnas.

he/she does not have gunas for a brahmana, kshatriya, or vaishya.

[aqua3]

"One who grieves' is the original purport cum derivation of the term shudra. That the varnas came to stay by birth is what happened with progression of yugas. It is in the light of this, the incident in RAmayana, which however has no mention in valmiki Ramayana, must be seen. The castes are smrithi based and the interpretation of the same in texts is left to the individual.

[aqua3]

Another clarification.

 

The Gita verse (18-44) on shudra is about what he does as a result of his 'swabhava'. Swabhavajam karma paricharya Athmakam. Here Sri Krishna talks about the duties/ works of the 4 varnas that they discharge on account of their swabhava. The swabhava of a shudra is grieving.

[Guest guest]

"....per krishna in gita,

shudra is a laborer who serves the other three varnas.

he/she does not have gunas for a brahmana, kshatriya, or vaishya..."

 

so that means Krishna supported slavery.

[maadhav]

<< so that means Krishna supported slavery. >>

 

do all who do labor are slaves, child?

your mother did labor to get you in this world.

was she a slave?

some US presidents also cut wood by an axe sometimes.

are/were they slaves?

 

if you are a hater of krishna, coming as a child,

then it wont help any one.

if you have sincere desire to learn, we would help.

else it would be waste of time.

 

[maadhav]

<< The Gita verse (18-44) on shudra is about what he does as a result of his 'swabhava'. Swabhavajam karma paricharya Athmakam. Here Sri Krishna talks about the duties/ works of the 4 varnas that they discharge on account of their swabhava. The swabhava of a shudra is grieving. >>

 

each varna is determined by one's guna and karma.

this also means their swabhav.

 

now, any varna that experiences suffering from another(s) will grieve/complain, and act to solve his/her problem(s).

if a shudra has no means to fight/solve his/her problems, he will simply grieve/complain to get relief. if no one gives justice to any varna, then that varna (person or group) will take arms, and do something/right or wrong, at the cost of his/her life.

 

krishna in gita does not say to remain inactive and lethargic/passive when there are problems.

all varna can take this message.

 

even bhima was no thappy with yudhisthira's way of handling injustices from kauravas. so he was grieving/complaining, but remained united with him. once a right goal is chosen, unity is needed to achieve it.

 

in a city of bharat a few decades ago, the shudras all went to strike for higher pay, and stopped their janitorial work. this could cause outbreak of deseases and deaths. in response, the whole city, including leaders, began to do the janitorial work themselves. in a day or two, the shudras came to senses, and began serving.

 

no hindu has interest to keep a shudra a shudra for ever.

when a shudra attains qualification, he/she gets proper work per his new guna and karma.

 

sorry i went tangent a bit.

 

[bhadramoorthi]

============

do all who do labor are slaves, child?

your mother did labor to get you in this world.

was she a slave?

some US presidents also cut wood by an axe sometimes.

are/were they slaves?

=============

here you are comparing two completely different entities.

you compare a mother's labour at birth and a president's cutting of a tree with the life-long suffering of slaves.

if the president held axe for some time, it is in no way similar to doing slavery for the uppercastes the whole life just bcoz one was born in a family which the prominent men say 'is the backward caste'.

instead of abolishing such caste systems, your mythic hero supported them,isnt it?

suppose you were born in such a family which krishna classified as sudras. will u be happy to do slavery till you die?

what is the basis of that classification?

i know it is wealth.

 

==============

 

if you are a hater of krishna, coming as a child,

then it wont help any one.

if you have sincere desire to learn, we would help.

else it would be waste of time.

===============

 

i dont have prob with a mythological super-star.

but when people justify even the most henious things did by that hero, then i begin to think against it.

the same way i dont believe in odin, thor,or osiris nor support their deeds.

[maadhav]

no comparison would be perfect. i know that.

 

<< suppose you were born in such a family which krishna classified as sudras. will u be happy to do slavery till you die? >>

 

the vedic people had no slavery as it was in the islam and xian and ancietn egyptworld. so, shudra should not be compared to a slave. no shudra was a slave. that is history.

 

are you a hindu?

if so, please know our vedic dharma and culture well before making pre-mature and anti-hindu comments.