Ramayana - Another Great Epic

Hi Raghu,

Thanks for the indications but I do not live in UK...
Anyway found a few good online translations of Ramayanam. I'll definitly buy one when I have the occasion.

I'll definitly check the thread about Mahabartham. Because for me, it is the most difficult one to understand... i.e. what is good, what is bad... Losing a Kingdom in such a way... then fighting to get back something you have willingly put at stake...

Till now (I'm quite young) I've voluntarily kept myself from going too "deep" into the Mahabaratha because I was affraid of not having answers to my questions... But now I'm hopeful that there'll be many people that will be able to answer my questions
(if they have not already been answered) thanks to this forum.

Cheers,
Vasanth.

.
.Ramayana & Mahabharatha God-made LIFE-DRAMAS..

...Practical Guidance to Commonman of Humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaz

Hi Raghu,

Thanks for the indications but I do not live in UK...

Anyway found a few good online translations of Ramayanam. I'll definitly buy one when I have the occasion.

I'll definitly check the thread about Mahabartham. Because for me, it is the most difficult one to understand... i.e. what is good, what is bad... Losing a Kingdom in such a way... then fighting to get back something you have willingly put at stake...

Till now (I'm quite young) I've voluntarily kept myself from going too "deep" into the Mahabaratha because I was affraid of not having answers to my questions... But now I'm hopeful that there'll be many people that will be able to answer my questions
(if they have not already been answered) thanks to this forum.

Cheers,
Vasanth.

---

Welcome dear friend Vasanth,

Basically we have to remember that the Awatharas like Ramayana and Mahabharatha are LEELAS... God's Play on Earth...

...to explicitly show in a SIMPLE MANNER to Humanity... in addition to Gospels and Preachings...

What is Life?...Why we are born?...How to face the Circumstances of sorts?... practically??...

...Especially under Paradoxical or Dilemma Situations of Dharma-Sangata???...

Thus these Epics are NOT JUST MEANT FOR ONLY HINDUS...

..but also the whole Global Society.. of Mankind of any Religion, Nation or such Vivi-sections of the World Society.

.When Good people change their due Right-track... what happens is, Ramayana.

When Bad elements and Wicked People rise up to Power.. what happens is, Mahabharatha...

...the so called FIFTH VEDA documented by Lord Vigneswara.

Well. our Dear Friends...especially the Youth...

...after reading these Two whole Threads initiated by Mr Raghu.. on Ramayana and Mahabharatha... which is Self-explanatory

...Please put forth your Comments, Doubts and Questions...

... in a Wise and Open-minded manner.

We all are happy to reply to you... in as simple Language as possible.
.

I was going through Rajaji's retelling of the Ramayana and I found it surprising the way he dealt (or as a matter of fact not properly dealt) with the Vali episode...

If I understood correctly...

1. According to Valmiki the justification was that Sri Ram being from a noble family did not have to face "an animal" before killing it... "when a hunter hunts a beast, he does not wait for a face to face before killing it..." It is also hinted that Sri Ram would have been in a delicate position had Vali surrendered to him... in which case the promise he made to Sugreeva could be have been threatened...

2. In the other version it is justified by saying that Vali has commited crimes that are atroucious and so he lost his "right" to have a proper confrontation with Sri Ram...

I feel that the first version is quite demeaning... if we think about how Hanuman helped the Lord... Did I understand correctly or am i completly wrong about this?

Can anyone throw some light on this issue/episode of the Ramayana? Rajaji (such a good devotee of Sri Ram) just admitted that the Lord's actions in this particular case are not justifiable... so it is quite disturbing

I tried the links provided by Mr Hari Krishnan but they do not seem to be working anymore...

Vaz,

The act of Sri Rama killing Valee from behind is actually an assault on his valour . It questions the fundamentals of his bravery & war skills. Apparently , Rama knew of Valee’s strengths & boon that whomsoever he faces against, he gets the power of becoming equal to the opponent & hence the act of Rama hitting Valee from an unknown place.
This is the reason why even Sri Rajaji was upset with the act of Rama who is known for setting the highest standards on any aspect of life >>> be it respect to parents or Guru or treating a friend or a foe or treating a woman with respect or administering his subjects…. Sri Rama had been a model for all of us.
So, whatever may be the justification attemped by writers like >>> Valee took away the wife of Sugriva or throwing out Sugreeva etc etc.
You know, what was the first question asked by Valee to Rama ??
How come you have done this act ! Of all the persons !! Valee was more shocked by the attitude of Rama becaz, Valee highly regarded Rama as a man of highest standards .

Remember the same Rama later proved his class when he asked an almost finished Ravana to go back and come the next day !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakkeeran

Rama knew of Valee’s strengths & boon that whomsoever he faces against, he gets the power of becoming equal to the opponent & hence the act of Rama hitting Valee from an unknown place.

---

Wasn't Vali's boon that he would obtain half of the strength of the opponent who faces him, in addition to his own strength. This is not 'equal strength'. This gives him an unfair advantage and makes it impossible for him to be defeated by anyone who faces him from the front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaz

I was going through Rajaji's retelling of the Ramayana and I found it surprising the way he dealt (or as a matter of fact not properly dealt) with the Vali episode...

If I understood correctly...

1. According to Valmiki the justification was that Sri Ram being from a noble family did not have to face "an animal" before killing it... "when a hunter hunts a beast, he does not wait for a face to face before killing it..." It is also hinted that Sri Ram would have been in a delicate position had Vali surrendered to him... in which case the promise he made to Sugreeva could be have been threatened...

2. In the other version it is justified by saying that Vali has commited crimes that are atroucious and so he lost his "right" to have a proper confrontation with Sri Ram...

I feel that the first version is quite demeaning... if we think about how Hanuman helped the Lord... Did I understand correctly or am i completly wrong about this?

Can anyone throw some light on this issue/episode of the Ramayana? Rajaji (such a good devotee of Sri Ram) just admitted that the Lord's actions in this particular case are not justifiable... so it is quite disturbing

I tried the links provided by Mr Hari Krishnan but they do not seem to be working anymore...

---

I had already written about this, but let me post it once again.

Vali asks Rama why he should kill him, when he had no cause for enmity whatsoever.

Rama explains the whole "stealing away the wife being against dharma" concepts.

Vali retorts by saying "We are vanaras. These dharmas dont apply to us. We are animals"

Please note that this is Vali's own statement in which he says I am an animal and human dharmas dont apply.

Rama then replies, "If you are only an animal, and these dharmas dont apply to you, then there is no dharma against hunting animals. Neither is there any dharma that one should face the animal while killing it."

Vali acknowledges the logic in this.

Eventually, Vali recognises the validity of Rama's actions, and seeks the boon of Moksha from him. He also calls Angada his son by his side, and explains to him how Rama is the Lord Himself, and bids him aid Rama in his mission.

Now, let me come to my telling statement (which I invariably make at the conclusion of this episode)

If the victim, Vali, did not have any complaints finally and was convinced that Rama did not do anything wrong, why are we breaking our heads over whether this was right or wrong?

:-) Jay Shri Ram !

Whether the affected party Valee himself accepts the verdict is immaterial. It doesn’t justify Rama’s established traits.

Rama is a wonderful character & infact a role model to us but in case of Valee, there is a clear flaw & dent in his trait.

Why Rama didn’t talk to Valee & initiate peace process between the 2 brothers ?

How come he presumed that killing Valee is the only solution to this Sugriva issue ?

Instead, he could have disarmed Valee & should have attempted for truce between the 2 brothers.

Ram could have easily advised Valee to put an end to his misdeeds.

The way he approached Ravana , he could have done that to Valee also. ( He sent messengers through Angadha as a final attempt to stop the war ). He was so graceful on day 1 when he advised a defeated Ravana to go back, take rest & come again !

After all, as regards the nature of crime >>>> was similar in the case of both Valee & Ravana .

The act of Rama in the case of Valee is UNILATERAL .

If one analyzes the background of Valee, before he had that misunderstanding with Sugreeva, there was nothing negative about Valee.

None of the subjects criticized Valee

If Valee had been a bad guy really, his wife would not have admired him .

Valee was so mighty powerful that he even tamed Ravana apparently .

Did Rama check with any of the subjects of Valee ?? ( even after the explanation from Hanuman )

Valee had no direct impact on the path of Rama. It was purely on his commitment to Sugriva that Rama had to kill him. I strongly feel that Rama should have tried for a truce between the 2 brothers. Instead, he killed Valee unilaterally.

Lets assume a hypothetical situation that Rama approaches Valee & tries to establish peace but Valee refuses to oblige. This might have left with no option for Ram but to fight against Valee. Here, the question of equal strength & competency comes. I think, he had pre-empted this & decided to eliminate Valee.

The great Rama , well known for his famous SARANAGADHI philosophy, unfortunately didn’t apply his principle on Valee.

SADLY, RAMA KILLED SOMEONE WHO HAD NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO HIS LIFE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRS

That is the problem. So many versions. I have even heard of one version where Sita is Ravanna's daughter; the deva whom he took by force left her near King Janaka's palace.

---

Actually, I watched a movie regarding this version last evening.
When Mandodari delivers a baby girl, Brahma proclaims to Ravana that this child will destroy Lanka/him. Therefore, Ravana will plot to throw the child into the river without his wife's knowledge. Though he did order the child to be disposed, his heart was still longing for his daughter. Ravana was a devoted father who was keeping tabs on his daughter’s well being as she was growing up. Each time he wanted to reveal the truth to the world, his brothers would stop him indicating what will the world think of a scheming King who even disposed his child for his own sake.

His ego(?) prevails and he decides not to reveal this even to his wife after she suspects that Ravana intends to cavort Seetha. Of course, he was aided by his brother who insisted that Ravanan should keep it a secret. Only to have this very brother to join Rama later during the war.
---------------
Soorpanakai, comes in only to test Rama's virtue and comes back to report to her brother that Seetha in good hands, with both her husband and brother in law being chaste. Ravana is relieved to hear this. It is Soorpanakai who suggests to Ravana that he should bring Seetha to Lanka and explain to her the truth. Unfortunately, things get out of hand with Rama closing on with his army after Seetha was brought to Lanka.
---------------
Ravana goes to Lord Shiva to release him from the ‘pain’ he is suffering.
Lord Shiva tells to him that even the Lord cannot undo this as it was a curse of a chaste lady. Lord Shiva then discloses to the shocked Ravana that at one point Ravana had laid his eyes on a female hermit who was meditating to become Lord Vishnu’s consort. Angered by Ravana’s behaviour she curses him that she will be back to destroy him and self immolates thereafter.

And thus she is born as Seetha to avenge Ravana.
---------------
In the beginning of the movie, Ravana (shown in the guise of a hermit(?)) speaks to (?) indicating that Valmiki & Kamban misrepresented his story. In the end, Maha Vishnu shows his form to Ravana and acknowledges his intentions. If I got it right, Ravana is then granted to be born as Sisupala (?).