Ramayana - Another Great Epic

**Surya** · 10th June 2005, 03:39 AM

Nice!!!

8)

**Google Adsense** · 10th June 2005 03:39 AM

**viggop** · 10th June 2005, 11:04 AM

I thought that Rama did not know till the last that he was an avatar of Vishnu.When was this told to him?and why?
Was there any change in Rama's behaviour after this was known to him?

**Raghu** · 10th June 2005, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by viggop

I thought that Rama did not know till the last that he was an avatar of Vishnu.When was this told to him?and why?
Was there any change in Rama's behaviour after this was known to him?

Viggop,

U r Right, Rama never knew he was an avatar of Lord Vishnu, till the end, when he walks into that River!

**aravindhan** · 10th June 2005, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by viggop

I thought that Rama did not know till the last that he was an avatar of Vishnu.When was this told to him?and why?
Was there any change in Rama's behaviour after this was known to him?

In the Valmiki Ramayana, Brahma tells him during Sita's fire ordeal that he is Vishnu and was born to defeat and kill Ravana. Again, you can read a translation here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry490.htm

**Raghu** · 10th June 2005, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by aravindhan

Originally Posted by viggop

I thought that Rama did not know till the last that he was an avatar of Vishnu.When was this told to him?and why?
Was there any change in Rama's behaviour after this was known to him?

In the Valmiki Ramayana, Brahma tells him during Sita's fire ordeal that he is Vishnu and was born to defeat and kill Ravana. Again, you can read a translation here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry490.htm

Aravindan, Ramanand Saagar's Ramayan is based on Valmiki Munivar's version, but in this series, as far as I know, Lord Bhramha does not reveal at the point when Sita devi crosses the fire, but when Rama's time was up in the world, and when he goes to this riber(can not remember the name) along with residence of Ayodhya.

It's really confusing with different contradictions in each versions

**viggop** · 10th June 2005, 07:26 PM

Raghu
the river is Sarayu.I think it is a tributary og Ganga in Ayodhya

**aravindhan** · 10th June 2005, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Raghu

Aravindan, Ramanand Saagar's Ramayan is based on Valmiki Munivar's version, but in this series, as far as I know, Lord Bhramha does not reveal at the point when Sita devi crosses the fire, but when Rama's time was up in the world, and when he goes to this riber(can not remember the name) along with residence of Ayodhya.

Raghu, I think I explained that Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana is NOT entirely based on the Valmiki Ramayana, though people wrongly think it to be.

It's really confusing with different contradictions in each versions

If you're looking for consistency, I suppose it could be confusing. If you look at it as a collection of legends, as I do, the different versions should enrichen our view of the Rama-tradition.

For example, an Indonesian Ramayana legend has Manabaya (a son of Ravana born after he is killed by Rama) ressurect Meghananda, form a new army, and march against Ayodhya after Sita's exile. In this version, Sita is Ravana's daughter (a common theme in non-classical versions of the Rama-legend - there is a Kannada version where Ravana gives birth to her through a sneeze), and her sons refer to Manabaya as their "uncle", thus turning the impending war into a kinstrife, much like the Mahabharata.

Similarly, the Telugu folksongs collected in the Strila Ramayanapu Patalu and the Janapadageya Ramayanamu give an entirely new dimension to the main characters and events of the Ramayana. In one of these songs, Surpanaka decides to avenge herself on Rama and Sita, so she dresses herself as a female hermit, visits Sita and asks her to draw a picture of Ravana, which she then gives life. Sita and the others try their best to destroy the picture, but they are unable to. So Sita hides it under her bed, but Rama finds it and banishes her to the forest, despite being told by everyone exactly how the picture came to be there. As a result, Lava and Kusha are extremely hard on him when they eventually meet again.

And there are also Hindi works from the 17th century which clearly show that there was at some stage a very strong rasik-sampraday tradition for Rama in UP, followers of which used to believe in ras-lila from Rama, much like the ones for Krishna, but with the added twist that unlike Krishna, Rama was both a "maryada-purush" and a "lila-purush".

There are so many more examples. Rama-legends from the lower castes, for example, have some fairly constant themes running through them which differ from the classical Ramayanas quite considerably. Then there are the Jain legends, where it is Lakshmana, not Rama, who kills Ravana, and which link the Rama-legend to the Jain notion of the Vasudeva-Baladeva-Prativasudeva triad. I would go to the extent of saying that the attempt to find a "single" Rama-legend which we can then say represents what "really happened" is a relatively recent phenomenon.

**Surya** · 10th June 2005, 10:12 PM

Quite interesting!!!

Raghu ji,
Which rishi is it that tells Ram that he is the avatar of Vishnu in the end?

**viggop** · 11th June 2005, 11:02 AM

Also,the people in thailand believe that present day Bangkok is Ayodhya and Rama was born there.
Buddisht Jataka tales says that Rama and Sita were brother and sister and they married each other(much like the ancient pharoahs of Egypt who marry their sisters).So,there are different versions of Ramayana in India.