On Marayada Purushottam, Sita Mata, Agni Pariksha and Vaali Vadh
Dear All: This post is a “lazy post”…i.e. a collection of comments on another post which branched off on the topic of Bhagwaan Shri Ram, Sita Mata, Agni Parikshaa, Vaali Vadh etc.
I have excerpted the comments and opened this new thread since they offer (I feel) a very good basis for a thought-provoking discussion on a highly controversial but sensitive topic …and is an issue I believe must have engaged the minds of many Hindus and Indians.
Without further ado, here is the collection of comments starting with this one by Nanda, which kicked off the discussion on Shri Ramchandra.
Please do email this thread/link [ https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/03/28/agni-pariksha-vaali-vadh/Â ] to your friends and acquaintances who may have views on this topic…I am sure there must have been a debate on this in the past too…I would like to make this post and comments a repository of such discussions…and hopefully by the end of it, we will come to a sensible conclusion(s). You can also use the “Tell a Friend” button at the bottom of the post – on the left – to email this thread very easily to your friends/others.
Thanks for your participation and sharing your thoughts openly and freely during the debate – and for keeping this dialogue very civil and polite and maintaining a standard that makes me really feel proud about my readers.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
.
*** Excerpted Comments Begin (CAUTION: Long Post) ***
# 21 @Patriot,
Morals can be taught without refering to religion, the question is how much a tender mind can understand that moral. For ex, I teach my mid how a man should live, respect elders, love everyone etc, by referring to characters of Rama. The moment we workship Rama, he understands he is worshiped because of his character.
Comment by Nanda | March 24, 2009
***
# 22 @ Nanda:
The way I see it is that Ram was not a particular champion of morals, given how often he chose his personal advancement and gratification over doing the right thing. The only stellar thing that he did was to ensure that his father’s vows were kept, despite the old man urging him to take the kingdom by force.
Else, a litany of immorality:
1. Killing Vali while hiding and without engaging him in direct combat or issuing a direct challenge to him.
2. Listening to only one side of the story – Sugriva’s – before dispensing “justice†to ensure that Sugriva’s (ex-Vali’s) army will be on his side.
3. Allowing a traitor, Vibhishan, to take refuge in his camp. Even if you allow that Vibhishan was a conscientious objector and not just a smart man who wanted the throne, it was still wrong to draw down on his knowledge of Lanka and a common war deceit.
4. Not allowing Hanuman to rescue Sita, instead sending innumerable people to their death in a battle of personal egos.
5. Humiliating Sita, after freeing her from captivity – I wonder if (in theory), an agni-parikhsa can distinguish between rape and seduction. And, if it was rape, what would Ram have done? Abandoned Sita?
Hmmmmm, not much morals there, eh? Please do not accuse me of lampooning or vulgarising the epics again. The questions are honest, and I have never found any cogent answers to them.
…
Comment by Patriot | March 24, 2009
***
# 25 @Patriot,
…Unlike what you see from Ramayana, when I teach my child I see the good things from Ramayana. for ex, how he respected elders, how the brothers loved each other, how he accepted surrender of enemy’s brother, how he gave respect to even a poor citizen, how he respected Sabari irrespective of caste, how he fought violent people and how he protected peaceful rishis, how he kept his father’s words etc.
Ram’s actions have been discussed millions of times since ages and there have been countless interpretations and multiple moral values have been derived from them. It would be worthwhile to know Ramayana in full. For ex, you probably didn’t know that Vali gets half of his enemy’s power in fight, which warrents the enemy to attack hiding. May be Karl Marx and EVR (LOL !!) will go face to face and get kicked.
Btw, In that aspect, since you mentioned you have searched many places, please try the following works, they might guide you in your quest. Please don’t think I’m trying to push the responsiblity on you, similar to what you thought when I said I had read Sanskrit version of Mahabharatha in an earlier discussion.
1. Vivekatilaka of Udali Varadaraja
2. Tatvapedika by Maheshwara Thirtha
3. Ramayana Bhushana by Govindaraja (very good one)
4. Ramanaya Tilaka of Nagesh Bhatt
5. Ramayana Siromani of Bansidar
6. Amritha kataka by Madava yogi
7. Commentary by Periyavachan Pillai (i love his style)
We can continue this after you read these. Else it would make sense to start with EVR (LOL !! sorry i couldn’t stop) before going to Ram.
Comment by Nanda | March 24, 2009
***
# 25
Re. Patriot’s comments:
4. Not allowing Hanuman to rescue Sita, instead sending innumerable people to their death in a battle of personal egos.
=> It has been a while since I read Ramayana, but wasn’t it Sita herself who refused to go with Hanuman? Besides, Ramayan needs to seen in the larger context of Vishnu and Lakshmi reincarnating themselves to take care of evil Ravan. Which means, a battle with Ravan till his death was inevitable.
5. Humiliating Sita, after freeing her from captivity – I wonder if (in theory), an agni-parikhsa can distinguish between rape and seduction. And, if it was rape, what would Ram have done? Abandoned Sita?
=> Yes, rejecting Sita was problematic, but according to Valmiki’s Ramayan, Ram didn’t ask for any agni-pariksha after he defeated Ravan. It was Sita who decided to end her life because Ram didn’t want her. Regarding rape, Ravan had a curse that his head would explode and he would die if he tried to rape a woman.
I also didn’t like Ram so much when I read Ramayan as I saw his desertion of Sita not once, but twice, as problematic; as well as killing Vali while hidden. But that comes from the framework of seeking 100% perfection in someone and/or accepting that everything he did was good. Once that framework is abandoned, then one can start seeing good in Ram (duty, brotherly love, obedience towards his dad, taking only one wife instead of many as his dad did) and there’s plenty to emulate and aspire towards, instead of seeing only his few faults and totally rejecting him. Take what’s good, don’t take what’s not good – simple as that. *shrug*
Comment by Kaffir | March 24, 2009
***
# 27 @Kafir,
I have given answer to the killing of vali. There is no other way to defeat vali in a fight. If a fighter can absorb half of opponents power with no effort, then the fight is no longer a fair fight. I assume both you and patriot will agree to it. In such an unfair fight, you cannot expect only one person to be fair. So, Rama’s action of killing vali hiding, is the right thing in that context.
Comment by Nanda | March 24, 2009
***
# 28 @Kafir
-Continuation.
Before its mistaken, my comment was not based on valmiki ramayan. As per valmiki ramayan, vaali himself got convinced with the dharma behind a human kshatriya like Rama killing a vanara without directly engaging the vanara.
It makes for wonderful reading the above commentaries I’ve posted in #24.
…
Comment by Nanda | March 24, 2009
***
# 30 @ Patriot: Re. Shri Ram’s treatment of Sita Mata, I have some material that has been waiting to be converted into a post for more than two years (thanks to PS who painstakingly compiled it for me)…
This has prompted me to revist that information and write a post on it…hopefully soon.
***
All: Thanks for a very engaging discussion…Nanda, thanks in particular for the list at #24..I should look up some of these books.
Comment by B Shantanu | March 25, 2009
***
# 32 @ Nanda:
(you say that) “you probably didn’t know that Vali gets half of his enemy’s power in fight, which warrents the enemy to attack hiding.â€
I was certainly not aware of this and none of the versions I have read include this thesis. All the versions that I have read either justify the killing of Vali as justice for Sugriva and/or on grounds of realpolitik.
Even if this was true (sources?), I do not understand how it was Ram’s fight? Except to garner a army? At poor Vali’s cost?
And, am happy to read the books that you have recommended – I trust that these are available in English (or Bengali) translations?
@ Kaffir:
“It has been a while since I read Ramayana, but wasn’t it Sita herself who refused to go with Hanuman? Besides, Ramayan needs to seen in the larger context of Vishnu and Lakshmi reincarnating themselves to take care of evil Ravan. Which means, a battle with Ravan till his death was inevitable.â€
True, I read the above, too that Sita asked for Ram to rescue her, instead of Hanuman carrying her off. But, Hanuman goes back and recounts the entire story to Ram – who could have insisted that Hanuman go back and rescue Sita – and, if Ram insisted, Sita could have hardly refused then, could she? (Pativrata and all that) But, Ram does not insist and instead marches on Lanka. So, at least, a sin of ommission, not commission.
And, as far as the avatar part goes, nowhere in the Ramayana does either Ram or Sita claim to be avatars – that was post-facto rationalisation, then?
“It was Sita who decided to end her life because Ram didn’t want her.â€
Even worse – punish the victim.
“Regarding rape, Ravan had a curse that his head would explode and he would die if he tried to rape a woman.â€
Yes, I have always thought that this was a very convenient curse in the Ramayana – don’t remember if there was ever a mention about who cursed Ravan? And, if Ram knew about this curse, then the poor man must have been worried about seduction, if he asked for agni-pariksha, right?
…
Comment by Patriot | March 25, 2009
***
# 33 @ Nanda:
Also, if what you say is true about Vali, then that does not tally with the records of his fight with the rakshasha (forgot his name now) during which Sugriva kept vigil, and then finally shut the cave mouth. If he indeed got 50% of his enemy’s strength, would that fight also have not been over pretty quickly, without causing a dharm-sankat for Sugriva?
Comment by Patriot | March 25, 2009
***
# 34Â @Patriot, questions are good. 🙂
I’m not defending Ram, as I mentioned in my earlier comment. My philosophy is to take what’s good, and there’s plenty of good in Ram’s actions, again, as I mentioned earlier. If brothers today showed even a fraction of love for each other as Ram showed for his brothers Bharat and Lakshman, that would be enough.
As for Hanuman carrying Sita, here are her words:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry377.htm
And here are Ram’s words when he meets Sita after slaying Ravan:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry488.htm
Excerpt: “And thou art hateful as the light
That flashes on the injured sight.â€
Which implies that the fault lies with Ram (injured sight) while Sita is pure as light. So, Valmiki is pretty clear here that it is Ram who is laboring under his shame and is at fault, and Sita is spotless.
As for their avatar, what I know is that Ram and Sita were not aware of their special status and it was only when Sita tried to burn herself that Ram found out his nature. Both of them were destined to live like normal human beings, whereas the other avatar, Krishna, knew his special status and the purpose of his avatar. I don’t know if Ram knew about Ravan’s curse or not, and to repeat, he did not ask for agni-pariksha – at least not in Valmiki’s version.
Comment by Kaffir | March 25, 2009
***
# 36 @Patriot, I used to labor under the misconception that Ram asked Sita to prove her innocence after he defeated Ravan, and I’ve wondered about it when some say that Ramayan promotes wives acting like doormats, but on re-reading parts of Ramayan lately (I first read it in my childhood), I’m finding that Sita was actually a very strong and independent character who made her own decisions. So, I can only attribute it to some misconception and misunderstanding of Valmiki’s Ramayan by people which propagated that image of Sita and/or wives.
It’s a complex tale with many nuances, and yes, it will probably be found lacking in some aspects if today’s societal standards are applied to it, but it is by no means as simplistic and reductionist as it is made out to be by some.
Comment by Kaffir | March 25, 2009
***
# 37 @ Kaffir:
Thanks for the clarifications and notes. I, too, need to re-read the Ramayan.
I think a lot of the issues about Sita’s ill-treatment arises from Tulsidas’ Ramayan – which may have re-interpreted parts of Valmiki’s Ramayan.
I do remember someone (do not remember the source) saying that Valmiki’s Ramayan ends with Ram returning to Ayodha, whereas Tulsidas has the stories of Luv and Kush in it.
Comment by Patriot | March 25, 2009
***
# 38 @ Kaffir:
Thanks for the link to the English translations of the verses – if those verses indeed be correct, then Ram’s behaviour was even more despicable than I originally thought.
As, I said before, this was a war of personal egos (and machismo) where countless were led to their death so that Ram could fulfill his vow.
I wonder what King Janak would have said (if he was alive) to Ram on finding his daughter so insulted by the husband she chose and loved?
And, I never said Sita was weak – in fact, in Tulsidas’ Ramayan, Sita refuses the second agni-pariksha and says instead to her mother (Earth) that she should receive her if she is without sin and she is tired of being insulted and being asked to prove her innocence. (Maybe, this was an allegory for how all of us treat this Earth?)
The whole point is the ascribing of the title “Maryada purushottam†to Ram – I take that as a personal insult to all males who work to protect their wives, given his treatment of Sita.
Comment by Patriot | March 25, 2009
***
# 40 Patriot: It seems that you have not understood Lord Rama correctly. He is the epitome of what a perfect ruler should be. Being a King, his primary duty is towards the State and the “Peopleâ€. That is why he took such an action of sending his wife away, for which many accuse him. Nowhere in the Ramayana it is stated that Rama hated his wife, committed any atrocities on her. On the contrary he loved her. But his duty towards his Country and his subjects was supreme.
He went on exile, without a whimper of protest, for fourteen years just to fulfill his father’s wishes. Even Dasharatha would have liked if Rama disobeyed his wishes. But Rama is the embodiment of all that is good. He never asked Sita or Lakshmana to accompany him. It was the affection of the wife Sita and brother Lakshmana who insisted they accompany Rama. Now how Bharata outshines everybody else with his devotion to his elder brother is made clear in Ramayana.
Through the narration of this Ithihasa Valmiki has tried to show the people of Bharata varsha the best possible way to live and conduct themselves. It is easy to pinpoint certain aberrations in anything and in every good person and good deed. But think 1) Who can let go the Kingship without even a whimper of protest 2) Which ruler will even think of satisfying each and every one of the subjects, even if it results in sending his wife away. (Note that he did not take any second wife after sending Sita away. The only accusation can be that he treated Sita badly. But even Sita did not think that way. Further it was their personal life against which the wishes of the subjects reigned supreme).
But present day morals are different. Myself, my wife, my children are important, in that order. The rulers rule the country for themselves, their kith and kin and cares too hoots for the subjects. Hence, if you look through the present day morals whatever Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, Bharata did were wrong. Epitome of stupidity !!!
A Malayalm saying: The prayer is when the deluge comes myself, my wife and a goldsmith (for making jewellery to my wife) only be saved.
Comment by KSV SUBRAMANIAN | March 25, 2009
***
# 41 “..Sita refuses the *second* agni-pariksha..â€
@Patriot, I can see in your comments how hard it is to change one’s misconceptions and perceptions, though I mentioned it twice in my comments. 🙂 (Unless you didn’t read what I wrote or are doing it intentionally.)
Ram did not ask for any agni-pariksha in Valmiki’s Ramayan (original), and what you think is the “second†agni-pariksha was the first time when Ram asked her, and that too, in other versions of Ramayan, including Tulsidas’s, that I am aware of.
Comment by Kaffir | March 25, 2009
***
#42Â @ Kaffir:
Sorry, I am still thinking of Tulsidas’ Ramayana ….. if Valmiki’s version is the correct one, then you are absolutely right.
@ KSV:
Thanks for your comments – but, was Sita not a subject in Ram’s rajya, as well? To send her off, while pregnant, without any recourse, on the basis of gossip/slander is justice? Or is it that Sita did not have any rights, being Ram’s wife? And, how was Sita being sent away relevant from the well being of the kingdom perspective, too?
This is what I could not understand.
And, re: Ram’s exile – I highlighted that upfront as a stellar deed.
If you say that Ram was a mixture of good and not-so-good deeds, I would agree. I cavil when it comes to calling him the ultimate personification of goodness. That is my limited point.
PS: BTW, I appreciate how open we are to dialogue, even on “sensitive/emotional†topics.
Comment by Patriot | March 26, 2009
***
# 43 @Patriot,
I think KSV’s clarification has already answered your questions.
Your statement sees Rama and Sita as two different people with individual goals. But they has same goal like ’samani va aashuti samana hrudayani vah’. This husband-wife is again an example of how united they should be even while taking bad decisions. Both Rama and Sita were convinced that it was the right thing to do, though it may not be the happiest thing for their married life. Its the sacrifice they do for a higher good, which is the public’s confidence on the king. Thats why we even now attribute Rama as blemishless. Both rama and sita saw there was a higher good which you probably missed.
“I appreciate how open we are to dialogue†– But I still think your questions are not honest. There are better ways to put questions. If I were in your position, I would frame the question as ‘what is the higher good which made them take this unselfish decision’. In this case, I am asking for answer without any assumption. Also, if you notice all your questions, you’ve already decided what answer you want to get. I avoided those questions for that reason.
I do not mean to take names 🙂 but just a humble and honest suggestion so you can get answers easily for your questions…
Comment by Nanda | March 26, 2009
***
# 44
This husband-wife is again an example of how united they should be even while taking bad decisions. Both Rama and Sita were convinced that it was the right thing to do, though it may not be the happiest thing for their married life.
Nanda, I’m not sure if any of the popular versions (Tulsidas) actually mentioned that both were united while taking the decision, or thought that it was the right thing to to. Besides, if you use “bad decision†in one sentence, and “right thing to do†in the next, that’s contradictory. 🙂
First, the decision to banish a pregnant Sita to the forest was taken unilaterally, and Sita was not consulted regarding what her views were – either as a subject or a wife. Second, the decision was conveyed and executed indirectly through Lakshman, without giving Sita a chance to have her say. Third, I’m not sure that Sita was happy or satisfied with that decision.
I think most people will agree that Ram’s decision to send Sita away based on what he heard from a citizen was wrong and one would have to go to great lengths to justify it. In my opinion, that doesn’t take anything away from Ram’s other positives, but I have no problem admitting that this specific decision of his was wrong and he went overboard in executing his duties as a king. He was a human being, not a perfect being.
Madhu Kishwar has written a couple of interesting essays on this issue, which a google search should turn up.
Comment by Kaffir | March 26, 2009
***
# 45 @Kafir,
The ‘bad decision’ i referred is from a marital relationship point of view. The ‘right thing to do’ is from the dharmic point of view. There is no contradiction, its just the context that is different.
I am referring to valmiki ramayan. This is also present in Kamba ramayan. Rama is an ideal monarch and at the same time, an ideal husband. In classical representations of a monarch, his responsibilities to his subjects are paramount and though Sita is also a subject, she is a better half and the couple understand each other better than a king-citizen understanding. Also, both Rama and Sita are knowledge in what is righteous duty of a person and which dharma takes precedance over what. She shows her agreement when she says to Lakshmana ‘it may be fitting for Rama to send me to forest to appease public opinion. May be follow the dharma of a Monarch indeed (which is beyond self including wife). May he attain fame by upholding this dharma. More important than my suffering is the fact that his honour should remain intact. Never will Sita be guilty of bringing dishonour to Ramâ€.
Here we need to understand that, she is not telling this for benefit of Rama as a husband, but by the first two statements she accepts this to uphold King’s dharma. She refers to this at a later part of uttara kanda as well.
You are thinking ‘rama went over board’, it is because you give more preference to one’s wife than one’s praja. This is a contradictory to a monarch’s dharma as sita herself says ‘eschewing mine and thine’. The beauty here is both of them knew what is important for high good.
I have to tell that there are many local folk interpretations sympathizing for Sita and there are many worshiping practices as well. These are very well accepted because the position taken by these folk interpretations are from viewpoint of a Sita’s bhaktha. It is accepted when they blame Rama out of bhakthi to Sita. But purely from a dharmic debate, Rama stands crystal clean as mentioned above.
Comment by Nanda | March 27, 2009
***
# 46 Nanda,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I do understand that Ram was performing his duty as a king and his actions are meant as an example (or a standard or an ideal to strive for) for those who today claim to be public servants and leaders, in how to conduct themselves and perform their duties.
Comment by Kaffir | March 27, 2009
***
# 47Â @Nanda:
“There are better ways to put questions. If I were in your position, I would frame the question as ‘what is the higher good which made them take this unselfish decision’.â€
Does the above not show your inherent bias?
How am I know if a decision is unselfish? To me, Ram’s decision looked pretty selfish.
And, upholding gossip from a subject is a higher dharma than justice? I am sorry but I really do not understand this viewpoint.
…
Also, my subsequent questions on Vali stand.
…
@ Nanda & Kaffir:
It also appears to my (curious) mind that Sita’s words to Ram, through Laxman, can be taken as sarcasm?
I know, I know …..
Comment by Patriot | March 27, 2009
***
# 51:
“And, upholding gossip from a subject is a higher dharma than justice?â€
– I think there is fair enough argument for why maintaining public order is a high dharma than self’s family for a King. You tend to touch ‘one person gossip’. But I realise that a one person’s gossip can turn to a nasty thing if untouched. Thats where ‘Rama Rajya’ stands aloof from any other rule in the world ever. Thats why he is flawless. This is a lesson for Leaders and aspiring Leaders, including Freedom team.
– How is it injustice to Sita and selfish for Rama. Isn’t rama loosing his wife as well. Valmiki ramayan says he lamented the separation of Sita everyday. This is the same Rama who went to war for the sake of same Sita. So, the ’selfish’ is not correct as He stood loosing as well. Second, ‘Injustice’ is a very inappropriate word because of the very same reason above.
Rama could have very well punished the washerman’s wife. If he had done that, then that is ‘injustice’. There are two key things to understand, leader’s responsibilities and the husband-wife relationship.
“Does the above not show your inherent bias?†– You and readers can compare my question and your question and see which has a predecided opinion.
Our politicians save crores of money for their family, should learn from Ramayan about Ruler’s dutys and priorities.
Comment by Nanda | March 27, 2009
***
#52 @ Nanda:
I realise that I am looking at this from a “modern†perspective, but here are my further thoughts on this:
1. A commoner says he will not keep his wife in his house for sleeping with some one else (presumed adultery) even if Ram were to keep his.
2. Is this not slander on the character of Sita? Does Sita not have recourse to any justice in this matter
3. Does public order not demand that slander and calumny, the vilest of our verbal crimes, be punished rather than be pandered to?
4. I can not see how the above makes Ram flawless – seems like a miscarriage of justice to me, instead.
5. “But I realise that a one person’s gossip can turn to a nasty thing if untouched. Thats where ‘Rama Rajya’ stands aloof from any other rule in the world ever. Thats why he is flawless. This is a lesson for Leaders and aspiring Leaders, including Freedom team.â€
So you would advocate punishing the subject of the gossip, however innocent, instead of the gossiper?
6. And, finally, if you are arguing that Sita being Ram’s wife loses her recourse to justice because Ram is the king, then that is another matter, leading to a different course of arguments.
My understanding is that Valmiki’s Ramayana ends with Ram returning to Ayodha – there is no exile of Sita in his epic?
How does the washerman’s wife enter into the picture? Because she *may* have committed adultery?
And, corrupt politicians loot the taxpayer’s money, because that may be their objective in entering politics – the best business for otherwise illiterate people?
Hence, pointing out Ram’s deeds to them may not help – they may only focus on the killing of Vali, you know. : )
Comment by Patriot | March 27, 2009
***
# 53 @Patriot
First of all, you referred it as ‘gossip’, actually its not gossip, its opinion. A gossip-er can be punished, but a person cannot be punished for opinion, just like you having an opinion on Rama. Again, the philosophy here is, family life is sacrificed here to protect the reputation of the kingdom and its public’s opinion on the king. This is the context. Doubts and misconceptions can be clarified, but opinions are difficult to change. For ex, if I do not know the difference between sacrificing my personal family life and doing injustice to a woman, then I cannot understand this great sacrifice of Rama and Sita. I would humbly suggest you could research on this topic before getting into Ram’s actions, because this is the basic to understand Ram’s actions.
ya, politicians objective is to make money, but for whom, its their family 🙂 So they should look at Ram’s sacrifice, even if they don’t believe in Ram 🙂
I wish our politicians focus on the killing of Vali, atleast we could have felt safer in India than being afraid of jihadis and missionaries 🙂
Comment by Nanda | March 27, 2009
***
# 54
What I understand is the, questions from atheists on Rama’s actions may be genuine. But the conflict of understanding is not in Rama’s actions, but in the underlying basics of Dharma. Sita’s episode is a great example for this. Even in modern day politics, if a leader has to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the public trust on the party, whether he should do it or not? It is absolutely fine to ignore minority’s mistrust, but afterall thats what differentiates a leader and an un-disputed leader 🙂
Comment by Nanda | March 27, 2009
***
# 55
@ Nanda:
The washerman did not express an opinion, he slandered Sita.
And, the victim of the slander was punished, instead of the perpetrator.
This is your sense of public order? And, justice?
Also, you have not answered my questions on Vali:
1. sources for Vali getting 50% of enemy’s strength
2. Why did he struggle to kill the rakshasha for so long, if he got 50% of his strength – after all, this is what precipated Sugriva’s action of blocking up the cave.
Comment by Patriot | March 28, 2009
*** End of Excerpted Comments ***
Pl. continue the discussion through the comnents section below.
Nanda, Patriot, Kaffir, KSV, Indian, Others: Thanks for a thought-provoking and stimulating discussion.
.
Related Posts: “Who is this Ram?†– Will Thiru Karunanidhi look at this evidence? , The search for a historical “Rama”
The Curious Case of the “Kidipede Ramayanaâ€Â , “Three Hundred Ramayanas†& “The Jewel of Medinaâ€Â and Why is Bhagwaan Shri Ram called Maryaada Purushottam?
When you read Ramayanam, You study it with your own prejudices and nuances. You cannot understand some decisions for the same reason you cannot understand Nuclear Physics. You did not dig deep enough 😉
Even if we Assume that Rama made some bad decisions in his life you cannot judge him on those alone, having taken out of context. There are many exemplary deeds done by him and if you have to really judge the character of Rama weigh everything to get true picture. Moreover Rama is a human avatar so he will be bound by fallacies of human nature.
I am joining a little late in the discussion and wouldn’t want to interrupt the already going on back and forth reply streaks. But would like to bring in a new point of view and information that God Shri Ram didn’t just happen to take birth randomly in Raja Dhashrath ji’s family, then walk the whole distance from Ayodhya (one of the seven most Holiest cities for Sanatan Vedic Dharm Anuyayi) to Shri Rameswaram and the always accused act of listening to a Dhobi.
Consider this. God Shri Ram, the Purshotam didn’t just randomly choose to take birth in Raja Dhashrath ji’s family. To understand God Shri Ram you have to understand his ancestors. No offense, but I think what most of us know is not more than what we have either seen in Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayan or heard from our Grand-Parents or Parents. Mostly these were just the beautified version attractive to young mind like Arrow shooting, ugly daemons, etc. It was awesome to watch it but it was not complete message and I don’t blame them (Sagar Arts) for it. We all talk about knowing about God Shri Ram. How many of us know the names of his ancestors? How many of us know the names of wives of God Shri Ram’s brothers? How many of us know that it is also said that he had a sister? How many of us know that God Shri Ram belonged to the Surya Vansh and was the 64th ruler of this dynasty? We know by heart the Mughal hierarchy but not this.
Lords of Ring movie trilogy left out allot of story which were based on just three books but there have been countless derivations and translation done on God Shri Ram ji’s character from primary source Shri Valmiki Ramayan and the next best source Goswami Tulsidas ji’s Shri Ramcharitmanas. So how can we expect Ramanand Sagar ji to cover the whole ocean called as Shri Ram in 72 episodes. So it had all the beautiful attractive parts while the main work done by God Shri Ram was left out.
Now coming back to why was he born in Raja Dhashrat’s family. Shastr (Holy Vedic Scriptures) explain that generations are like waves of the ocean. Before a big wave comes there are smaller big waves which make foam and then the big one arrives. We need to understand God Shri Hari Vishnu and his bigger purpose to incarnate as God Shri Ram which was not just to kill Ravan but to take forward the work done by his ancestors: Raja Dashratha, S/o Raja Aja, S/o Raja Raghu, S/o Raja Dilip and so on.
Each one of them were great Kings in their own might but we never care to look at their characters & qualities because of our myopic view. It was the solid foundation and great ground work done by these Kings i.e. their Punya that God Shri Ram was born in their Kul (dynasty).
Historically, our Vedic Rishis did allot of ground work in bringing people up and together. They used to travel long distance not to see some Niagara Falls but to have in-person people to people contact taking message of indwelling God, hence, they did God’s work. So did God Shri Ram. You think he didn’t know that that Deer was not real and their can’t be a Golden Deer. He could have very well killed Ravan instead of going through length and breadth of Aryavrat. But he didn’t.
We know what happened during first one year of his exile and we know what happened during last one year of his exile but have we cared to look into what he did during those 12 years. He wasn’t just sitting around wasting time just outside the city border. He met countless people and brought them up by giving them Asmita just like what our Rishi’s did. He went to them as one of them. Hence, Shabri incident which is just a minuscule example of it.
Now the infamous Dhobi incident. Have you guys/gals ever realized that this is one of the best example of Freedom of Speech in Bharat’s History where a Dhobi, a normal lower-middle class (caste system of the west, but no one minds being categorize as this cause Angrez said its fine) citizen can just walk up to a King and say something about his wife. Can you dare do that to a politician in today’s modern, progressive, secular and contemporary day-and-age? Yeah, wasn’t one person charged with some felony for opening a I hate community against Antonia Maino or no-locus-standi cases were brought against people saying truth about the empress. For all those corrupt Lallu lover’s try saying something about Rabri on his face and tell us if he hugs you or shrugs you in a Kaal Kothri. Try debating on some other Abrahamic religions and their mythological characters and wait for their reactions. We all remember Rajan Zed’s prayer in US Congress and those Evangelic Christian “Taliban” (the new loose buzzword of today thanks to Renuka Chowdhury) who interrupted him.
But anyways, back to Treta Yug, so Dhobi exercised his freedom of speech without any threat or consequence of persecution. How about that! Is God Shri Ram’s character still despicable.
It is such weird mentality of today’s world that we live in especially Indians have such unnecessary low esteem and always look up to the west (thanks to Jawahar Nehru). We have this thinking that if something Indian seems too good and pure or if some Indian seems too nice and spotless then there must be something wrong with it/him. It’s not your fault, we have been taught to question everything because we are the Y-generation. Why this and Why that. Please don’t take me wrong, debates are fine. They are ingrained part of our Vedic culture but questioning with the sheer purpose to just debase & criticize the other is wrong.
The point is that Jiske jaisi preeti usko waise Shri Ram milenge. As Goswami Tulsidas ji says “Nana Bhati Ram Avtara, Ramayan Sat Koti Apara”. Just think about it, if Shri Valmiki or Goswami Tulsidas ji wanted they would have only pointed out the good characteristics and no reference at all to anything that can be construed as bad. But they didn’t because God Shri Ram was incarnated in a human form and humans can make mistake. He is Purshottam because he a 100 times better than us. Now his avtar, his work, his characteristics are like an ocean. If you want, you can take good from it and if you want, you can take bad from it. It’s in your eyes and the onus is on you to do your self development.
If you want more info, please let me know. But please read his full true non=Nehruian history before passing short sighted judgments like he is great or despicable.
Happy Navtr to everyone and Shri Ram Navmi is coming up soon. Thanks Shantanu for this platform to debate one of the greatest Historical figure of all time in human history.
॥जय माता दी॥ ॥जय शà¥à¤°à¥€ राम॥ ॥Jai Mata Di॥ ॥Jai Shri Ram॥
(1) One can also blame Sri Rama of killing Bali by deceit. Neither Valmiki nor any other narrators of Ramayana ever tried to justify the same. There was no other way of killing Bali. Sri Rama cannot take any devious form and in a straight fight Bali is sure to win as he gets half the strength of Rama. But the wrong is done. The beauty of this is that both Sri Rama is once again born as Sri Krishna and Bali as Shambara , the hunter. The end of Sri Krishna comes with an arrow from Shambara. This clearly shows that you cannot escape from the sin you commit whether you are an incarnation of God or some ordinary mortal like me/us. One has to suffer for any kind of sin commited by oneself. May be not in this birth, but surely in the next birth. No repentance is going to save. The only way to escape is not to commit a sin. Bhakti, pooja etc., may lessen the suffering, but can never be an escape from the punishment. This is the message I get from the above.
(3) It is not a question of putting a traitor to the throne. It is after ascertaining whether Vibhishana is fit to be in the thrown to take care of the welfare of the people at large, he was anointed as the king. This Rama could ascertain from various sources.
secondly, somebody from a family of questionable and devious behaviour wants to come out and reform oneself, what is wrong in offering help. On the contrary it is against ethics and principles not to accept such a person.
Thirdly, after annihilation of the cruel rulers somebody should be there to look after the Kingdom and its subjects. Rama found a perfect person in Vibhishana.
Fourthly, Rama found Vibhishana a good and perfect ally.
Nobody has found any blemish in the character of Vibhishana except the spacious allegation that he is a traitor.
Nice discussions!
@ Blogger – the way I read the Ramayana was that Ram overheard the washerman throwing his wife out of his house, and saying that he is not Ram to keep an adulterous wife in his house.
So, no question of freedom of speech.
I repeat my question: The washerman slandered Sita, and Ram punished the victim of the slander. How was this right?
@KSV – RE: Vali – pls see my additional questions about Vali to Nanda – there is a dichotomy here that I can not understand.
Great point about Shambhara (sp?)- I had not connected the dots there.
About Ram being reborn as Krishna, I was reminded of this joke:
Nehru dies and goes to heaven – God tells him that since he was overall such a good guy, he gets to choose his punishment and takes him to various rooms – he sees Hitler being flogged continuously, Stalin being prodded with red hot stakes, etc until he comes to room where he finds Gandhi sitting with a bootalicious blonde on his lap.
Nehru is delighted – he says, I want Gandhi’s punishment. God shakes his head and says sorrowfully “My dear child, that is the girl’s punishment!”
Cheers
@ KSV:
RE: Vibhishan (deserves a differnt post, I thought)
So, you would agree that the Indian Mujahideen are following in the just and rightful footsteps of Vibhishan? And, you would support their actions?
In times of war, conscientious objectors can choose to remain neutral – if they join the opposite side, then they are rightfully called traitors.
Cheers
And, a funny thing occurred to me reading Blogger’s comments about dynasties – so, we have to continue to wait for multiple generations of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to exhaust themselves before we can be free of them? (64th generation – my imagination boggles!)
Cheers
@Vinay:
I have not said Ram is all good or all bad – in fact, it is the title Maryada Purushottam that I am cavilling against.
And, as I mentioned before, the only really stellar thing that Ram did was to ensure that he kept his father’s words to Kaikeyi, despite his father urging him to seize the kingdom.
Name any other really outstanding deed from Ram.
Cheers
And, on Vali, people are skipping the fundamental question:
Why was it Ram’s fight?
And, if he took it up to deliver “justice” to Sugriva, he did it after hearing only one side – and, if this is his quality of justice, how just was he really?
As Vali says before dying (paraphrased): ” Lord, if you had wanted my armies to fight for you, all you had to do was *ask* me”
@ Patriot (#6): Where did Indian Mujahideen come in this picture? Which group/country is India at war with?
Also, re #7 and re. #8: It is VERY easy to make fun, lampoon, condemn, disparage and generally run down each and every aspect of an ancient belief system that we loosely call “Hinduism”.
In spite of that, this faith has survived, flourished, reformed itself and spread across territories since the past several millenia…
There must be something to it, no?
And exactly what purpose is being achieved by making fun of sacred texts, ancient stories, the numerous Gods and Goddesses in “Hinduism”?
I welcome debate and I welcome the search for answers but please let this not degenerate into making fun of others beliefs and passing half-sarcastic remarks…as well a general unwillingness to look the other side.
I would urge everyone to treat the subject of this discussion with sensitivity and respect…Be aware that there are not many faiths that would allow so much room for such a debate.
More on this over the course of this weekend…I still have not managed to read the entire thread of comments posted above.
Thanks All.
@ Shantanu:
“In spite of that, this faith has survived, flourished, reformed itself and spread across territories since the past several millenia…”
Religion is the opium of the masses – Karl Marx.
He got lots of things wrong, but he got that one right!
Shantanu, I do believe that I have looked carefully at the other side’s answers, before posing my questions. However, if you think that I overstepped the mark in any way, my apologies to all readers – the idea is not to offend, but to look at things rationally and in the “modern” context.
RE: Indian Mujahideen – the context is the actions of Vibhishan – KSV was justifying his actions on the ground that he left a tyrannical and evil family to join the forces of good. And, hence, he is not a traitor.
The Indian Mujahideen also thinks that the Indian state is tyrannical and oppresses muslim citizens, and thus joins our enemies (the good side in its opinion) in seeking to hurt us (the bad side in its opinion).
I hope that is clear now.
Let us keep in mind that history (assuming Ramayan is history) is always written by the victors – so, what you read about Ravan and his actions could be coloured by the bias of the victors in the war. I remember reading somewhere in your blog itself that there is one version of Ramayana where Ravan is the good learned brahmin, while Ram the covetous warrior looking to annexe his kingdom? And that, Sita is his wife in this version?
And, I think #7 and #8 are fair questions – #7 draws upon the foolishness of revering one dynasty (instead of individuals) while denigrating another. And, #8 is an open-end question – you can also try to answer it, Shantanu!
Cheers
Dear Patriot: Comparison of Vibhishan to that of Indian Mujahideen is far fetched. Pray, where Indian Mujahideen is headed to ? Pakistan ? Then are IM is going to be annointed as next rulers in India. Pakistan had over 24% and Bangladesh 30% hindus. Where are they now ? Don’t you think the same fate will befall the hapless who do not subscribe to their ideology when IM is installed as rulers in India ? Have you ever heard that Vibhishna did an ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka. Please don’t compare the incomparable. Surely, you have every right to question and ridicule my thinking and justification. But comparing Vibhishana to that of I.M. is ridiculous.
Now your additional question to Nanda.
Mayavi is the name a of Rakshasa, who is the son of Maya. He was, rather you can say, itching for a fight with anybody. He went to Kishkindha and threw a challenge to Bali and invited him for a dual. Bali (Vali) naturally took the challenge. Bali and Mayavi while fighting entered a cave. Bali asked Sugriva to wait at the entrance and when he see milk coming out he should think that Bali has won. But if blood comes out of the cave he should take it as Bali is killed and shut the cave with a big stone. You all know the rest of the story. (I am quoting names etc. from the Adhyatma Ramayana of Ezhuthachhan in Malayalam)
Now about the “half of the strength†that Bali is supposed to get. Bali can get the strength in a direct fight. But here he is fighting a Rakshasa who is adapt at fighting taking various forms. He is Mayavi in the real sense. Even in the present times you can see many mighty people are being humbled by people with devious means. But it takes time for a valiant fighter to defeat persons with devious means like Mayavi. Ultimately he (Mayavi) was defeated.
I am just a layman. I have put forward what I have been imbibed from my grandparents, parents and others. It may be right in the perspective of many. The have the liberty to analyze and understand.
But you quote Marx. Don’t you think Marxism itself has become the opium of certain jerks. Marx said about the dictatorship of the proletariat. We had many marxist empires. Were they dictatorship of the proletariats, though surely they were dictatorship. Please try to score browny points quoting Marx and the likes of him whose too were instrumental in the killing of lakhs of people. Can we forget the dance of death in Cambodia by Pol Pot ? Let us leave Marx and communism and proceed with our discussion.
@ KSV:
I do agree that the comparison of IM with Vibhishan was a far-fetched analogy – but, the whole point of taking something to its most absurd form is to demonstrate the weak foundation of the previous logic – You celebrate Vibhishan because you are taking everything from the POV of Ram – but, that is not a neutral POV. You have to look at the other side of the argument, as well, if you are interested in debate.
I am no follower of Marx and I am completely with you about the harm that was caused in general by the followers of Marx and continue to be caused in our country to this date. So, no arguments on that score …… but I did think that Marx hit the nail on its head with his comment about religion.
And, RE: Bali, thanks for your explanation re – Mayavi – but, again sorry to belabour the point – Mayavi, even as a magical being, would have had a finite amount of energy or strength – this could be displayed in various forms, but the total energy in his system would remain constant (as the physcists would say) – therefore, it is fair to expect that Bali would possess 50% of his strength at all times, irrespective of the forms taken by Mayavi? Therefore, what forms Mayavi takes/can take becomes irrelevant to the discussion? I am assuming that Mayavi was all strength and limited intelligence – else, he could have taken the form of a fly and flown into Bali’s ear channel and detonated his brain with his strength?
I think I will take a rest now, else Shantanu will send his assassins after me!!! : )
Cheers and thanks all for the discussion.
@Patriot, if you are simply going by the pithy phrase which is repeated ad infinitum (“Religion is the opiate of the masses.”), and if you haven’t, I’d invite you to read the full paragraph that puts that sentence in context. I tell you, this quoting without context and reaching conclusions based on one sentence by removing it from its context are the bane of discussions.
@Patriot, what did Marx mean by his statement? I mean, how do you interpret it? That everything pertaining to religion needs to be rejected because it is an opiate? Or was it a criticism of certain rituals of organized religion? Did Marx do a thorough study of all the religions of the world before he made that statement, or was he speaking about the ones he grew up with/around?
Patriot: Just a few more sentences on the Agni Pareeksha of Sita Mata. As per the Adhyatma Ramayana (Malayalam) it was Sita who asked Lakshmana to prepare the Agni Kunda and not Sri Rama or anybody else.
I have also heard that Ravana could abduct only the Maya Sita and not the original Sita. Sita Devi is the incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi. And when the Maya Sita entered the Agni Kunda, the Agni Deva brought forth the original Sita.
There are hundreds of versions of Ramayana. But there is a common thread in every one of them, the virtues of Lord Rama which can be emulated by others. It is because there are many virtues which can be imbibed Ramayana stood the test of times. We have seen many iconoclasts. Many icons were broken. But it is also a fact for every icon broken they resurrected many more, for there cannot be a vacuum.
As for Hindu scriptures, they are for the general good of the people. One can accept or reject. Nowhere there is any compulsion. Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita (Ch. 18.63) clearly states that (though addressed to Arjuna) “Iti Gyanamakhyatam guhyadguhyataram maya, Vimrusyaitadaseshena yathechhasi tatha kuru” (Thus has this wisdom, more secret than secrecy itself, been imparted to you by Me. Fully pondearing it, do as you like”) Note what Krishna says “Fully pondering it, do as you like”. There is no compulsion. Analyse with all the knowledge you have gathered and if it is good for you and for the world and people at large, you may follow it (you have the liberty to reject it too). Absolutely there is no compulsion.
@Patriot Nehru-Gandhi dynasty
It depends. If you think they have done anything good for Bharat in 75 years (excluding MK Gandhi who I think was a little overrated too) then wait for it. My answer to your question if we should wait is No. They are a curse on the nation and lets not perpetuate it. See you took what you wanted to take from it. I said Surya vansh did good for the people and it was the punya of that, that God Shri Ram came. If you look at it closely the Nehru-Gandhi-Maino dynasty is getting worse with every generation. So what’s your point here.
Like I said, it’s in your eyes and it’s up to you what to take from it. If you want to be fixated about pointing the bad, then be my guest. I can’t do anything about it. I am picking up the good qualities for my self development as life is too short and already filled with so many bad qualities, so why worry about more bad ones.
As far as the Dhobi (washer man) is concerned, Sita Mata may have been ‘punished’ but my point was about freedom of speech. Shri Ramayan that I have read, in that God Shri Ram questions to Dhobi who in returns says what he said but without the fear of being punished or persecuted. How is that not freedom of speech? You didn’t answer what Lallu would do if you say something about Rabri on his face. Whether he chooses to ignore it or not is his prerogative but the fact that you will survive presenting your views is the freedom of speech. But remember today’s laws look at it on case by case basis and freedom of speech also doesn’t mean just go out and libel mindlessly. But I hope you get the point here.
There have been far worse role models with execrable qualities ranging from Pedophile to Womanizer to Bandits, etc. but no, joining hands with a ‘traitor’ to stop a demon from mindlessly killing Rishis and others (just like Indian Mujahideen and other terrorists does) or listening to a citizen who exercised his free speech makes God Shri Ram ji’s character despicable. Yeah right.. Take it easy.
@ Patriot: You said (in your comment # 11) that “#8 is an open-end question – you can also try to answer it, Shantanu!”…
I promise I will, Patriot…Bhagwaan Shri Ram is our “Kula-Devataa”…this is the least I can do…
Snowed under work and various things at the moment but I promise an answer by Shri Ram-Navami (next Friday)
UPDATE: Pl. see this post: Why is Bhagwaan Shri Ram called Maryaada Purushottam?
From what I understand of Ramayana, here are my explanation. In general I believe, the reasoning for Rama’s action should come from clear understanding of Dharma, without that it is always going to be controversial.
Vali Killing: Vali kidnapped his brother’s wife and lived with her. In reality a younger brother’s wife should be treated like a daughter, and it is animal behaviour to kidnap her or live with her. Rama kills Vali for reasons mentioned by KSV, but also because an animal is usually hunted hidden, not from front. Here Vali due to his actions is only considered an animal. And even if that was justified, Rama gets his punishment in the next life. Whether one wants to believe in karma, reincarnation is another point.
Vibhishana: Vibhishana considers his dharma to leave his brother who has committed errors. He tried changing Ravana, but to no avail. Also coming out guaranteed that the lineage wasnt dead, and according to different versions Vibhishana was never interested in getting the kingdom. Now for Rama’s point, anyone who comes for protection cannot be denied protection. That is a dharma of a warrior. Even if Ravana comes for protection Rama cannot fight him. Now comparing it to current world events is futile since no one follows their dharma.
Agni Parikhsha and later sending Sita to Vanvas: I really dont know what would be Rama’s reasons. But I chose to see it in a different light. Had Rama not asked Sita for agnipariksha or sent to the forest, the world then and after would have questioned Sita forever. A dhobi could question the king and queen, what about others. Even if Rama showed he trusted Sita, it wouldnt silent anyone. Now with Rama raising it, it made him the villain forever, but Sita became revered after proving her worth. Does anyone dare to doubt or even question Sita even now?
I don’t think it makes much sense to interpret the Ramayana or Mahabharata without reference to core Hindu beliefs, since both these epics merely reiterate those beliefs. One of the central beliefs of Hindus is the concept of Karma, where actions have consequences and the consequences need not be equal to the actions. That is what Lord Krishna says in the the Bhagavad Gita in the the lines starting with “Karmanyeva adhikarasthay….”
Central to our belief system is the the idea that while we can be authors of action, we do not directly determine the result–the results therefore can be equal to, greater or less than what we expect.
When the Sita episode or the Vali episode in the Ramayana is examined keeping in mind the concept of Karma, we realize that both Sita and Vali got the result of their individual actions.
In the case of Sita, she accuses Lakshmana of the vilest of deeds–that of desiring the demise of his own brother Rama in order to possess her. Her words, especially in the Valmiki Ramayana, are extremely harsh, going so far as to say that the only reason Lakshmana came to the forest with them was his desire for her. Thus it is not surprising that Rama in turn questions her chastity after she has spent a year in Ravana’s kingdom. ( As a side note, I would like to know which husband in India today would accept his wife after she spends year in another man’s house ).
As far as the Surgriva incident is concerned, here Rama acted the same way that countries act when they become allies. Since Rama had given his word to support Sugriva in return for his help in finding Sita, he had to fight on behalf of Sugriva against Vali. He had no personal stake in defeating Vali as such and fought because he was an ally of Sugriva. Such actions happen even today where Britain sends troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, not because they were attacked on 9/11 but because they are the allies of the U.S.
By the way, the reason that Rama was and still is the Maryada Purushottama for millions of Hindus is not that he was a perfect man but because he was a principled one. He was one who lived according to principles and dharma even at the cost of his personal happiness.
@ Shantanu:
It seems I have caused offence. Since that was not my intent, you and other readers have my sincere apologies.
The issue as I see it is that I debate with my mind, with the objective being increase in knowledge (win or lose the debate, that is immaterial to me). But, in matters of religion, I can see that you and a lot of your readers also bring their hearts to the debate. And, then my comments are seen to be hurtful.
I do not have a solution for this issue, short of not posting on these topics.
@ Kaffir:
You are good! No, I have indeed not read the entire text in which Marx makes his famous statement. From what I have read in excerpts, Marx was referring mainly to the rituals of religions, and that too of the Roman catholic church. I will read it, in its original now.
But, having said that, *I* have certainly appropriated Marx’ remarks as being appropriate for all *organised* religions and organised religious behaviour. I am not commenting on personal worship or personal spiritualism.
@KSV:
Thanks for your comments. If you look in the original set of comments, Kaffir pointed me to English translations of the same set of verses, which you are referencing.
@Vidhya:
Thanks for your comments – very good points re: Sita and Ram’s actions re: Sita. It raises a lot of questions about the morals of the then prevailing society re: women, but your points are very interesting about Ram ensuring that Sita is free from slander, through his actions.
I am not convinced about Bali – Ram heard only one side of the story from Sugriva, and then meted out his form of “justice”. To my mind, Ram’s approach on this issue was born out of pragmatism, rather than principles.
And, I notice that both you and KSV seem to agree that the “vanars” in Ramayana were literal, and not allegorical.
@Harapriya:
You would then accept that the victim of rape was to be blamed, rather than the perpetrator?
RE: fighting for Sugriva – see my comments above and previously. No principles in action there, except self-interest.
Cheers
@Vidhya:
One further thought on Ram’s actions – if he indeed loved Sita so much, and he did not want to exile her to the forests for the slander of some other folks – why did he not give up the throne, and become a common man? Then, he and Sita could have gone anywhere they wished? And, it is not that the kingdom would suffer – by all accounts, Bharat had proved himself to be an able administrator?
And, the other point for which there is no answer is, in the first instance, why punish the victim?
Thanks
Vaali had a boon that anyone coming face to face with him in battle would lose immediately half his powers to Vaali. There is a deeper symbolism and spiritual lesson embodied in this characterisation. Now, what it represents is that an individual coming in close contact with his/ her object of lust loses half his/her ability to overcome the temptation. This is rather obvious in a sexual context.
This holds greater relevance in politics. It is this tendency which gives rise to the quote – Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Indeed, it requires a very strong personal value system to resist making compromises to reach and hang on to the seat of power, especially when one is in close proximity to it.
I had stayed away from Shantanu’s site for some personal reasons of mine but had from time to time enjoyed the email feeds that keep coming into my gmail inbox.
This particular thread forced me to come off my hibernation for two reasons.
1) lets assume that this patriot is genuinely interested in knowing asnwers to his questions and that he isnt another EVR or dravida kazhagam emissary?
2) whatever the agenda of people in asking questions it is our inate duty to spread the truth around.
As someone rightly pointed out most of our knowledge about ramayan is based on the serials which we see in doordharshan or recently in the secular ndtv. this cant be considered the true version.
my mother is a PhD in tamil and can quote all the 10 thousand songs of kambaramayan ( the tamil version) by heart. this version of ramayan ends with his coronation at ayodhya after the killing of ravan.
ottakoothar had written two thousand songs of uttar ramayan which covers the time after the coronation – the dhobi incident and sita devis exile and the birth of lava and kusha.
now with due respects to all concerned, i quote kambaramayan and i can substantiate my arguement with original verses of kambar.
patriots main grouse was that no one answered the killing of vaali.
sadly most of the learned people here miss the main point.
a dying vaali lambasts bhagwan sree ramaa in more than 12 songs totally dedicated to vaali vadham ( the vanquishing of vaali)
a silent raama does not even reply to vaali. the reply comes from lakshmana. he says – and this should answer patriot –
vaali asks raama is it justifiable under manu smiriti ( rules of manu) that you killed me while you were hiding??
the explanation has nothing to do with vaali getting 50% of the opponents strength ( while this is true, lakhsmana had a better reason)
vaali behaved like a wild animal in forcibly taking over his brothers wife – sugreevans wife rumai. by this act ( which animals do when they over run their enemy territory – they forcibly take over all the females of their rival males)vaali loses his identity of being a human and becomes a wild animal.
and according to manu smriti and common sense, a wild animal is always hunted from a hidden position.
maybe patriot likes to hunt a tiger or a lion face to face but bhagwan sree raama hunted down a wild animal and there was absolutely nothing wrong in doing so.
secondly about sita devis agni pariksha – yet again it is patriots lack of knowledge of ramayan that makes him ask this question – if anyone read the kamba ramayan it is very clear.
kambar quotes the story of vedavathi saabam – the curse of vedavathi – in this context.
before the birth of raama and sita devi, vedavathi was the daugther of a rishi ( i forgot his name) – but this is mentioned in kamba ramayanam – she grew up in the forest and is a beautiful glowing beauty – she is in deep meditation – praying to lord mahavishnu – when ravana comes and tries to take her by force – as soon as he touches her, she becomes an epitome of fury and curses ravana that if he were to touch another woman ever against her wishes – his head will explode into smithreens – and so saying she jumps into a fire and kills herself.
when she dies she keeps thinking of maha vishnu – and what we think at the time of our death, determines our next birth, so she meets mahavishnu and asks him why fate was so harsh on her she also says she wants to maary maha vishnu. vishnu replies that he has sree devi in his chest and he can think of no other lady other than devi – but since the raama avatar was imminent, he says during the raama avatar, for a particular time – he will hide sreedevi and take satyavati as his consort.
and so when sita devi oversteps the lakhsman rekha, sree devi disappers and satyavati appers in her place and she is the one who is abducted by raavan to lanka and she is the one who in the end brings about raavans rightful destrcution and the decimation of his empire- what started in the fire – ended in it when she immolates herself after ravanas death and out of the fire comes sita devi.
bhagwan raama knows this and all the facade of rama doubting sitas chastity and pushing her into the fire is the explanation of a fool whoc cant see the true reason behind this.
if we are to accept that a lady can jump into a burning pyre and come out clean then we should also accept kambars arguement it was satyavathi who jumped in and sree devi / sita devi who came out.
this is destiny and fate. there are so manyb things which happen in life which dont make sense at that time but in the overall big picture it fits in and makes sense. nothing in life happens arbitrarily – its all part of a grand plan.
so is ramaayana. if satyavathi hadnt jumped into the fire, shree rama would have had the compulsion of having another wife – being the highest and ourest form of man – he dint do that. this way satyavathi becomes sree ramas consort – though she is separated from him physically – and also satyavathi ultimately destroyes the evil ravana. the case of justice and dharma having the last laugh.
this is mentioned by kambar – in his kamba ramayanam – and we in our limited understanding might scoff and laugh at this logic – but with our understanding of science and technology being so myopic and based on hardly 50 years of research – can in no way judge the possibilities of an entire yugam.
what was a maayakannadi once is the video call today – we can see people continents away by looking at a screen.
what was pushpaka vimanam once is the space rockets and boeings of today.
if twenty years ago some one would have said i can sit in dubai and perform a cryosurgery on a person sitting in maldives people would have laughed but today its possible.
people like karunanidhi and veeramani and his clones dont scoff at ramayana becos they doubt it – they scoff at it becos they fear it.
and it is kanchi acharya issue which brought a high flying jayalalitha to the rotting dust bin and it is the ramar sethu issue which will destroy karunanidhi and tr baalu.
time and again, people who have abused and harrassed the satvik hindus have always faced their waterloo. its an undeniable fact.
it is one thing to actually have an interest in ramayan and ask doubts ( i hope patriot belongs to this group) * let me mention i totally appreciate the civil and very intellectual level of debate on this issue , patriot inclusive* but it is another to call seeta a prostitute and that she eloped with raama and what not which all of us tamils have repeatedly heard from DK and DMK at every single oppurtunity. the election commision under manmohan and sonia will ofcourse maintain a thunderous silence on the public madmouthing of hindu gods and similar issues, going to the extent of filing an affidavit in the supreme court questioning bhagwan raamas existence, becos karunanidhi and veeramani are not varun gandhi – is another issue.
( i just wonder if similar questions were raised by patriot against the virgity of mary or the antics of mohammad or allah how civil the replies would have been?)
@ Patriot
One way to get answers is to put questions to the author of the epics. In this case Valmiki. Since he is apparently not available at present in human form, you may try seance.
Lot of people believe in communicating with departed souls. Try it before rejecting it.
The other way is to seek answers studying, contemplating and seeking guidance from realised persons.
Here is an attempt to answer your questions.
>>>1. Killing Vali while hiding and without engaging him in direct combat or issuing a direct challenge to him.
Vali could be killed only by Rama while it is engaged in fighting Sugriva.
And only by killing Vali could Rama get the forces of Vanar Sena which was necessary to make the bridge across the ocean.
If Rama had issued challenges and engaged in direct combat the fight would have gone on without end. But that was not desirable considering he had to rescue Sita from the clutches of Ravana.
Speedy ending of Vali and thus getting the help of Sugriva, Hanuman and Vanar Sena was necessitated by the more urgent purpose of rescuing Sita.
>>>2. Listening to only one side of the story – Sugriva’s – before dispensing “justice†to ensure that Sugriva’s (ex-Vali’s) army will be on his side.
Can you realistically expect someone who is rushing to save his abducted wife from the clutches of a villain to take time and listen to stories and dispense ‘justice’ ?
>>>3. Allowing a traitor, Vibhishan, to take refuge in his camp. Even if you allow that Vibhishan was a conscientious objector and not just a smart man who wanted the throne, it was still wrong to draw down on his knowledge of Lanka and a common war deceit.
Vibhishan was a pious, God-fearing person and against Ravana’s abduction of Sita. And it was Ravana who exiled Vibhishana from Lanka. And that is when he came to take refuge with Rama. There was no traitorousness involved.
Casting aspersions on Vibhishan seems presumptuous and inappropriate.
“it was still wrong to draw down on his knowledge of Lanka and a common war deceit” really does not have a meaning in the context. In a war every side uses all knowledge available to them pertaining to the opposite side and their defences.
If Rama was starting the war merely to add on to his empire, his actions could be questioned.
Here he is engaged in an act of rescue of his wife from the hands of an immoral person.
If he had not utilised the knowledge given by Vibhishana, he would have been guilty of neglect of his duty.
>>>4. “Not allowing Hanuman to rescue Sita, instead sending innumerable people to their death in a battle of personal egos.”
It has already been mentioned in the previous comments of the thread that it was Sita who send away Hanuman back saying only Rama could rescue Sita. That is important and central to Ramayana. The killing of Ravana, Kumbhakarna, Meghanada and the ‘innumerable people’ are all incidental and necessary.
Else what is going to stop Ravan from abducting Sita again?
To say it is a battle of personal egos is misplaced.
By contrast, the antics of the present Indian govt of not protecting its citizens despite numerous repeated attacks in its soil on its integrity and on its citizens would appear comical if it was not so sad and criminal.
Coversely, by their dogged persistance in going after Osama and Mullah Omar, American forces show adherence to the example of Ramayana.
It would be therefore correct to postulate that Americans are truer followers of Sri Rama than the present day Indians.
>>>5. “Humiliating Sita, after freeing her from captivity – I wonder if (in theory), an agni-parikhsa can distinguish between rape and seduction. And, if it was rape, what would Ram have done? Abandoned Sita?”
Why should it be termed humiliating?
Why should it not be termed as proving of the exact opposite, exalting ?
The wonder (in theory) that followed, in that statement, appears mischevious, to put it mildly.
Such unwarranted liberties with ancient indian texts and its venerated icons, which are held with the highest respect by millions in this country, as done here, leaves it open to others to wonder if such people who appears to take so much freedom in ‘wondering’ ‘mischevious’ things are in the habit of wondering similarly about the root cause of their own origins and further, pondering upon the applicability of agni pariskha on that issue (putting it without disrespect to anybody). If they are of such habits in public alone should they indulge such ‘wonder’-ing behaviours with venerated icons.
The case of M F Hussain comes to mind.
Why doesn’t such champions draw their own Gods and their Prophets in nude and in questionable positions before embarking on doing similar things to others Gods?
In the present case, many consider the icon under discussion to be mother-like as stated in the heading of this blog itself.
There are limits to taking artistic freedom and intellectual liberties with such respected personages.
As regards Sita’s second exile, Rama’s duty as king being superior to his duty as husband has been mentioned before in other comments.
To imagine that Sita had opposing views to that of Rama about going into exile is not in keeping with the character of Sita as depicted in Ramayana.
Rama’s story is a study in adherence to duty.
As a son, duty towards his father, as a husband, duty towards his wife and as a king, duty towards his subjects.
Rama is therefore the icon of dutifulness.
That is why he is called Maryada Purushottam.
The import is in learning about the quality of dutifulness that Rama displayed and internalising it in our lives.
It is a part of our cultural and of more significance, spiritual heritage. Let us respect it and learn from it.
Those who tend to color the epic with a jaundiced eye stands to lose the message in the story.
@Patriot,
Speaking for myself, I don’t find your questions hurtful or insulting, as
a. they give me an opportunity to re-learn/refresh my knowledge (and re-examine my perspective) of Ramayan which I’d read during my teenage years,
b. they provide some food for thought on these issues you ask, and give me an opportunity to read excellent comments from fellow-commenters who are more knowledgeable and have a better understanding, and
c. I get to look at an issue from different perspectives (Ram as king, Ram as husband, Ram as brother…), instead of sticking to one single perspective (Ram as husband did injustice to Sita) and making that perspective the over-riding one and not even acknowledging other perspectives as valid.
So, as long as questions are asked with an intention of honest inquiry, and not with an intention of causing mischief or “pissing on others” (and I’m not saying you asked questions with mischief in mind), it’s all good. 🙂
More importantly, it also highlights the lack of this kind of knowledge and discussion in societies while children are growing up. I wish I’d had someone knowledgeable to discuss such issues when I’d read Ramayan, as I also “rejected” Ram because of some of these questions. Of course, at that age, it’s difficult to have an understanding of different roles people have to play, and that there may be some conflict of interest between those roles.
@Patriot,
One way to understand this issue of Ram’s actions is that whether we like it or not, and whether it’s fair or not, perceptions do matter. So, Ram’s action can be seen as doing what he thought was best as a king – and making a great personal sacrifice in the process – to ensure that there was no blame on his rajya.
I realized this aspect when many years ago, I attended a mandatory sexual harassment training at my workplace. I was surprised to learn that it’s not just the action, but mere perception of an action irrespective of the intention that can constitute as sexual harassment. So, even if my intentions are above-board, but if an action of mine is perceived as harassment, then that makes it so. That keeps the organization blameless and makes it a relatively safer place to work while avoiding lawsuits and such, though it is easy to see that such a policy can be unfair to some, and it makes people give a second thought to their actions when interacting with their co-workers at their workplace. It’s a sacrifice that some employees will have to make to ensure that the organization works smoothly, and it works on the black&white principle, rather than shades-of-gray principle.
@ Patriot (#22): No offence taken (- assuming the intent is genuine curiousity and better understanding)…
All: Thanks for sharing your thoughts…I am learning a lot…and am truly grateful for the opportunity to host the dialogue on this blog…
will respond later..
@Patriot. Telling a woman that she would blame a victim of rape is truly a vile thing to state but not really surprising from one who seeks argument for the sake of argument and not to gain any knowledge. Whether Sita was or was not raped is open to discussion since no version explicitly states it. Rama’s doubt about Sita is fairly understandable though, since he does not know what actually happened in Lanka. Secondly, I don’t think Rama himself ever perceived of himself as an avatara purusha the way Krishna did. Thus, he does give in to human reactions and emotions.
One thing that does surprise me about Hindus is how critical they are of their religious figures. On a balance, compared to the religious icons of western religions, our religious incarnations rarely extol mass murder of non-believers or even endless war against those who do not follow them.
Most of our religious figures are fairly good chaps who make a few mistakes here and there perhaps. Yet Hindus, in their attempt to be objective , I suppose, do go overboard in their criticism. One wonders if this is still the remanants of a colonized mind.
@Patriot,
Rama might not have gone to the forest with Sita for two reasons: 1) For a king kingdom and subjects come first than family, so he cannot foresake it for Sita even though Bharata is an able ruler.
2) If Rama’s actions were to prevent slander forever how would he going to the forest with Sita stop slander. What one dhobi raised would be still raised by anyone. It did not stop even when people knew about the first agni pariksha, since they did not see it. The slander was stopped only when Sita commanded Bhumi devi and went with her. Also if Rama was selfish he would have married, and not suffer alone losing the love of his life.
Your questions are very valid, and all of us have raised it at some points. However sometimes it is difficult to view past actions with the current prism. What was the situation then, compulsions and problems Rama faced when taking such decisions is not clear. I prefer to see it this way, there are always questionable actions till we understand the big picture. Let us take the good things and leave the bad lessons.
@ Harapriya:
I did not know you were a woman – and, as such the comments were general in nature, and not sexist. When I comment, I am looking at my interlocutor as another person, without gender coming into the question. I trust that clarifies matters.
“but not really surprising from one who seeks argument for the sake of argument and not to gain any knowledge”
You are ascribing base motives here, just because the questions are inconvenient.
And, in the modern context, hinduism is not the only religion that inspires and tolerates dialogues, and questions its icons.
The recent book, albeit fiction, The DaVinci Code goes further than what we have discussed here – interestingly, the only country that thought seriously about banning the movie was India! Not even Italy. Hindu Atheist had pointed out this link earlier:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
I had pointed out this link, too:
http://www.venganza.org
Christianity and Buddhism have a long and ingrained tradition of dialogue – between master and disciple or between master and non-believer. Judaism, while closed to people outside the faith, also has a tradition of internal dialogue.
So, among the major religions, you can only point the finger to one religion, which has no such tradition and indeed is pretty repressive about dialogue and discussion. But, it is also still a young religion, yet to mature.
Cheers
@ Kaffir:
You are right about perception – and how sometimes perception is more important than reality. Markets certainly behave on this maxim.
My thanks to Nanda, KSV, Kaffir, Harapriya and Vidhya – I have certainly learned a lot through this discussion. A special thanks to Vidhya (appropriate nick) for the fascinating reply on Sita’s exile – that has been my key takeaway from this discussion.
And, Shantanu, I still await your list!!
Regards to all.
@ Patriot,
Thanks! However the real credit goes to another person who actually gave this perspective on Sita’s exile. It did give me a different perspective to the questions I had. My only contribution is answering specific questions using that perspective.
Cheers
incognito hits the bulls eye with his correct appraisal of partriots “wonder” about sita devi being seduced or raped.
only a sick mind can conjure such “wonder” ful thoughts and the rebuff that incognito gave patriot has silenced him for good.
seriously speaking do such people “wonder” about their roots and ask for angipariksha? and do they also wonder about other religions or is it that their mind is so obsessed with hindu gods alone?
its pretty pathetic that we as hindus have to explain what our Gods did to dispel the theoretical wonderings of such people.
as someone rightly pointed out the person in question seems to have decided what answers he wants for his questions. I seriously hope and pray such souls derive pleasure from what they intend to unleash becos it must be pretty lonely being so mentally and morally defunckt.
@ drsurya and incognito:
You call yourself religious and spiritual and then hurl abuse at an interlocuter?
Good luck with your religious studies, then.
cheers
@ drsurya/incognito:
I forgot to add – the taliban have high-level vacancies for people of your obvious talent and erudition.
Cheers
@ Nanda –
This entire discussion started with your view that morals can be taught mainly (only) within a religious context …. while you claim that is a necessary condition, it appears to me, based on recent remarks, that being religious is *not* a sufficient condition!
LOL!!!
Cheers
So, among the major religions, you can only point the finger to one religion, which has no such tradition and indeed is pretty repressive about dialogue and discussion.
@Patriot,
This may be a recent development, as shastrarth used to be part of the tradition, from what I’ve read. And Adi Shankaracharya himself debated with scholars of different schools.
@Patriot. I am not ascribing any base motives to your arguments. I am simply stating the obvious. Just as you cannot convince me that Rama was a cruel unprincipled man, I am fairly sure that I will be unable to convince you that He was a compassionate and principled human being. A wise person once said that for those who believe, they need no proof and for those who do not believe, there can never be any proof (no matter what evidence is presented).
Anyway, since a man is remembered not by the lessons he learnt, but by what he taught, I am sure Sri Rama will be remembered for a long time–even if the only lesson he teaches the present generation is to be less suspicious of the wife.
@ Patriot-22
>>>”The issue as I see it is that I debate with my mind, with the objective being increase in knowledge…”
That claim is not borne out by facts.
1. If you really approach issues applying your mind as you claim, you would appreciate the purpose of the epics.
You would appreciate the wealth of ethical, moral and spiritual values that are spread by the epic.
2. If you had applied your mind you would perceive the reverence that millions in this country have for the characters in these epics. You would comprehend that, as the title of this blog post says, one of the two main characters in this epic is venerated as mother. Millions derive inspiration from these central characters.
If you really apply your mind as you claim, it is impossible to miss these things and you would naturally respect the sensibilities of those millions.
People who apply their minds do not ‘wonder‘ about their own biological origins and the applicability of agni-pariksha to settle the issue. The liberties that you have taken in speculating unwarranted, inappropriate and misplaced wonderings as you have done here indicate that you have not applied your mind, or if you have applied it, that raises questions about your mind and worse.
>>>”But, in matters of religion, I can see that you and a lot of your readers also bring their hearts to the debate. And, then my comments are seen to be hurtful.”
When your habit of wonderings and past activities in that direction with regard to issues pertaining directly to you was questioned, you accuse others of abuse and equate them with taliban.
Doesn’t this indicate that, contrary to your claim, it is you who is not debating with your mind ?
>>>”I do not have a solution for this issue, short of not posting on these topics.”
Allow me to suggest a different solution- learn to really apply your mind.
@ Patriot-36, 37
>>>“..You call yourself religious and spiritual…”
Where exactly did this ‘You‘ call ‘yourself‘ religious and spiritual?
>>>”.. and then hurl abuse at an interlocuter?”
Reply to this is evident in the reply to comment no 22 above.
To make it more explicit, read on-
You indulged in unnecessary and disrespectful ‘wonderings‘ in public about venerated figures who are role-models to millions. When your wonderings, and past such activities were questioned, you accuse others of abuse and equate them with taliban.
What is revealed here is duplicity.
>>>”…I forgot to add – the taliban have high-level vacancies for people of your obvious talent and erudition.”
You would know that. Wouldn’t you.
Would be better if you also knew to apply your mind constructively.
Allow me to reiterate what was stated in the begining of comment no 26 –
The way to get answers to spiritual, moral and ethical questions is by (a) studying, (b) contemplating and (c) seeking guidance from realised persons.
Not by casting aspersions on venerated figures and publicly indulging in irresponsible and misplaced ‘wonderings’ that clearly violate sense of decency.
@ Incognito –
I pointed you to the taliban, because you behave like all religious fanatics – attack the person, rather than the argument. Hence, you and “Dr” Surya would be in very good company there.
As I have mentioned before, I am looking at the epics from a rational and “modern” perspective – while this is a forum for discussing “hindu” topics, so far, it has not been a fanatical one, saying that the epics can only be studied from a single angle or prism only. I am bringing my perspectives to the table, which you do not like – you have two options then – one, to ignore what I am saying, and two, to put your perspectives before other readers, WITHOUT USING ABUSE.
If you can not do either, then your mental faculties are no different from the various religious bigots that go around claiming that their view is the sole world view that everyone else should follow.
And, as far as the title of the discussion goes, that was Shantanu’s view – given that he has let my posts stand, I would have to imagine that while he may find my posts to be hurting his view, he does not doubt my intent. Why don’t you ask him?
Historical versus Socio-Allegorical: If one believes that the events of the Ramayana were historical facts then the interpretations will be rather different than if one were to read the Ramayana as a social-allegorical commentary. If it were, as I believe, a social-allegorical commentary, then the social mores of the time have to considered. The tale of Shabari, for example, shows that caste was perhaps not a big deal at that time. The Vali issue can be argued, as Krishna did in the Mahabharata, that all is fair in war when evil has to be vanquished. The Sita episode can be viewed in many ways – from a feminist’s standpoint, social standpoint, personal ego (that Rama was so concerned about his image as the perfect/noble man that he couldn’t bear the thought of even a lowly dhobi casting aspersions so he decided to show the world how noble he was) standpoint and so on.
The implication is that “good†has to be therefore morally and ethically “right†ie dharma must be protected. But dharma is contextual so it requires a huge amount of self-awareness to exercise it “rightly†within a certain social-political context. The very interesting thing about the legends of Hinduism is that their historicity has no bearing on the message. Whether Patanjali existed or not has no bearing on one practicing Yoga. Similarly with the great epics etc. Rajiv Malhotra has an eloquent argument on this.
However, if one were to assume that the epics etc were all historical facts and events then one would have to read them literally with the assumption that Valmiki too was a historical figure and somehow rendered the events with utmost accuracy. In my view, there are groups attempting to cast Hindu legends in ways similar to the Semitic religions (single book, single god, single prophet, single church, canonical texts etc) and there are obvious problems with this approach.
The beauty and uniqueness of Hinduism lie in its inherent pluralism (multiplicity of approaches) and secularism (religion as a personal faith of introspection / communion with the infinite with no imposition of rules). There have been through the ages, as also now, movements to revise these characteristics of Hinduism and impose views on others which isn’t the philosophy of Hinduism.
If the events of the Ramayana and the behaviour of its chief protagonists are to serve as models and guides of ‘perfect’ behaviour for all times – then one must necessarily answer Patriot’s questions about Ram’s treatment of Sita as a husband and his ‘tactics’ in staffing his vanara army.
I strongly feel that guides to spiritual practice e.g. Bharat’s rich traditions like the Gita and the Yoga Sutras to name just two, are what we must be justifiably proud of and more importantly must put to use in our own lives to honor them. With epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata which at best throw up context-laden allegories that need to be interpreted to satisfy thinking persons’ queries it becomes an open house – maybe as intended by the writers; so that healthy debate and the application of reason and logic will bring the society of the moment closer to a morality that suits its needs the best.
Right now if this is a debate Patriot is winning it rather easily!
Hrishi: Does it matter much whether one is winning or losing. Can you find even a sentence in any of the epics which has a modicum of compulsion to follow a particular line. You can take it as period specific. If you find anything which is in conflict with modern day thinking, you can very well change or choose not to follow. But in Ramayana there is a basic thread. They have tried to set some examples for making a better society. It is easy to find fault, but setting some examples is very difficult. Ramayana is not about husband and wife relationship. As far as I know it is about how a king should conduct himself i.e. for the common good of the subjects even inflicting personal inconvenience.
As regards Lord Rama’s treatment of Sita Devi: Rama did not ask Sita Devi to accompany him to the forest. On the contrary on the insistence of Sita Devi, Rama finally agreed. It is already mentioned that Lord Rama never asked Sita Devi to do an Agni Pareeksha. She did it voluntarily. I have already mentioned this earlier. Both these are clearly mentioned in the Adhyatma Ramayana of Ramanujan Ezhuthachhan in Malayalam. Please quote otherwise from any other version.
You also talk about the tactics in staffing his vanara army. What you mean by that. Sugreeva assured the support of Vanara army in return for the support of Lord Rama to install Sugreeva as the King of Kishkindha. What is wrong in that.
You know, there is a practically unknown woman in Ramayana: Urmila, the wife of Lakshmana. Think of her. How she would have spent fourteen long years alone while Lakshmana was away.
Please, the discussion should not be for winning or losing but how this epic or for that matter from Vedas to the current day books by various saints can be made useful for a better life in the society. Hinduism is a dynamic religion. There is no hard and fast rules set out to follow. There is no excommunication for not following a set of rules in Hinduism. You can find people worshiping different deities in different parts of India which one may not have heard even. Charvakas existed in this religion. This religion accepted knowledge from all sources. That is why we could accept easily all the scientific inventions and discoveries.
Let us debate to increase our knowledge. To do away with superstition and such other undesirable practices, mainly the present day casteism. But not to win or lose. I wish we all win.
Not relating to anything above but I don’t want to miss this -When I was in school, one group performed modern Ramayana in which Sita eloped with ravana by her wish and Rama as a villan. Though no body was mad at it but this shows how things can get distort by presenting and writing for entertaining the specific audience.
@ Patriot
>>>”…you behave like all religious fanatics – attack the person, rather than the argument.”
What is the attack that you claim victim of Patriot?
A question whether you are in the habit of ‘wonderings‘ such as you have displayed here is not attack by any means. And it does not justify equating the questioner with Taliban.
Are you feeling so insecure that any question put to you seems like an attack on your person ?
>>>’As I have mentioned before, I am looking at the epics from a rational and modern perspective…”
Your claiming so does not mean that it is so.
Some introspection to dis-illusion yourself may be in order.
>>>’…while this is a forum for discussing hindu topics,…”
Really ?
While you are at it, you may like to dis-illusion yourself on this misconception too.
>>>’…it has not been a fanatical one..‘
Correction.
It has not been religiously fanatic. That is because the ancient indian culture is singularly secular.
However fanaticism can be of other forms too. Such as that displayed by people who claim themsleves to be rational and modern. A prime example of one such outside the cyber world is the one heading a govt in a southern state of our country who is fanatically against ancient indian culture while claiming rationality.
Glimpses of such behaviour have been observed in this blog occasionally with the proponents likewise claiming immunity from questions with false claims to rationality and modernity.
>>>’…saying that the epics can only be studied from a single angle or prism only.‘
Exactly. The aforementioned group refuse to ‘study’ the epics other than from their self-claimed prism of rationality and modernity.
>>>’I am bringing my perspectives to the table, ‘
But nobody should question those perspectives else they will be charged with ‘attacking the person’ and declared a ‘fanatic’ and ‘taliban’ ?
>>>’which you do not like – you have two options then – one, to ignore what I am saying, and two, to put your perspectives before other readers‘
There is a third option, clarify things by putting questions to you.
>>>’WITHOUT USING ABUSE‘
Ulta chor Kotwal ko dante.
Who is abusing others as taliban, fanatic etc.. ?
>>>’If you can not do either, then your mental faculties are no different from the various religious bigots …‘
Why do you think that if others do not follow what you say, then their mental faculties are ‘no different from religious bigots’ ?
>>>’And, as far as the title of the discussion goes, that was Shantanu’s view‘
Are you unaware that millions in this country consider Sita as Sita-Mata ?
@Incognito:
Insecurity probably exists in your mind, because you were only *one* of *two* people who sought to bring parentage and personal attacks into your posting. Others seemed to be okay in discussing the matter in a civil manner with me.
“Your claiming so does not mean that it is so”
Actually, it does. Indubitably. And, your saying anything else has even lesser meaning, if you care to think about it.
“A prime example of one such outside the cyber world is the one heading a govt in a southern state of our country who is fanatically against ancient indian culture while claiming rationality.”
Take it up with that particular personality. Nothing to do with me.
And, if Shantanu wants to make this a single-view, religious site that does not tolerate contrary questions, I will just go elsewhere. Why do you not *ask* him this question? After all, the platform is his.
“The aforementioned group refuse to ’study’ the epics other than from their self-claimed prism of rationality and modernity.”
This is *your* assumption.
“Who is abusing others as taliban, fanatic etc.. ?”
Compared to what you said about me, that is fairly mild, isn’t it? And, I drew some conclusions based on your statements, which I referenced. Why do you not go back and read your posts. And, I also have the right of reaction on my side.
“Why do you think that if others do not follow what you say, then their mental faculties are ‘no different from religious bigots’ ?”
Given that others on this blog followed me perfectly and responded *intelligently* leading to us having a civilised conversation, do you not think that the above was an appropriate inference?
“Are you unaware that millions in this country consider Sita as Sita-Mata ?”
How is this relevant to this particular discussion? I am not discussing with millions of people. I was trying to have a civil conversation with some learned people on this particular blog, who have read much more than me. If they did not take offence, why are you shouting so much?
And, Incognito, I actually ignored your and “Dr” Surya’s first set of comments – I did not think it was worth my while replying to them, as I could not see them moving the discussion forward (and I was right about that).
But, “Dr” Surya’s subsequent gloating post forced me to respond. You may want to take it up with him, instead, you know.
@ Patriot-48, 49
>>>’…you were only *one* of *two* people who sought to bring parentage and personal attacks into your posting‘
You are again making allegations without substantiating.
What *one* of the *two* people did was to ask you if you are in the habit of treating your personal issues in the same ‘rational’ and ‘modern’ way in which you have treated Sita Devi.
Why does it give you feelings of personal attack?
Is it your conscience that is troubling you about what you speculated about Sita Devi ?
>>>’Others seemed to be okay in discussing the matter in a civil manner with me.‘
What was uncivil in the aforementioned question that one of the two people put to you?
>>>’“Your claiming so does not mean that it is so”. Actually, it does. Indubitably. ‘
Yeah.
By the same token you should not doubt anyone claiming to be God.
And you claim to be rational.
>>>’And, if Shantanu wants to make this a single-view, religious site that does not tolerate contrary questions, I will just go elsewhere. ‘
What makes you think that Shantanu has any such plans ?
And why are you needling Shantanu needlessly?
>>>’“The aforementioned group refuse to ’study’ the epics other than from their self-claimed prism of rationality and modernity”. This is *your* assumption.‘
Borne out by facts.
>>>’Compared to what you said about me, that is fairly mild, isn’t it?‘
How can it be mild or fair If you call a person, who asks you whether you are in the habit of treating your personal issues in the same ‘rational’ and ‘modern’ way as you treated Sita Devi, taliban and fanatic ?
>>>’And, I also have the right of reaction on my side.‘
So apart from appropriating the ‘rational’ and ‘modern’ side for yourself, you have also appropriated the ‘right of reaction’ to yourself.
So what do you leave for others? Nothing?
Others who don’t follow your footsteps have nothing ?
>>>’Given that others on this blog followed me perfectly and responded *intelligently* leading to us having a civilised conversation, do you not think that the above was an appropriate inference?‘
Yes dear. You do get such mistaken notions.
Such as that others on this blog followed you perfectly as if you were some great teacher to whom such following is a, in your own words, given and responded intelligently as if they are some exotic species that you are cataloging based on their responses.
Sometimes your attitude does betray itself despite the haughty sophistication that you have put on.
>>>’leading to us having a civilised conversation,‘
What is uncivilised in asking you if you are in the habit of treating your personal issues in the same ‘rational’ and ‘modern’ way in which you treated Sita Devi ?
>>>’do you not think that the above was an appropriate inference?‘
Not only that such inference is utterly misplaced, the question assumes even more significance-
Why do you think that if others do not follow what you say, or in your own words, follow you perfectly, then their mental faculties are ‘no different from religious bigots’ ?
>>>’“Are you unaware that millions in this country consider Sita as Sita-Mata ?”How is this relevant to this particular discussion? I am not discussing with millions of people.‘
You are when you are discussing on a public forum such as here.
But you are trying to avoid answering the question.
>>>’I was trying to have a civil conversation
And I was praying that you get some good sense to start one.
>>>’…with some learned people on this particular blog, who have read much more than me.‘
Seems like you are also trying to get some sympathy here.
>>>’If they did not take offence, why are you shouting so much?‘
Yes indeed why?
What right do those who do not follow you perfectly and respond *intelligently* have?
What right indeed do they have to ask you questions, which incidently sound like ‘shouting’ to you?
>>>’And, Incognito, I actually ignored your and Dr Surya’s first set of comments – I did not think it was worth my while replying to them, as I could not see them moving the discussion forward (and I was right about that).
But, Dr Surya’s subsequent gloating post forced me to respond. You may want to take it up with him, instead, you know.‘
Yeah, you were large hearted enough the first time to ignore your’s truly’s transgression of questioning your habit.
But now that your eminence has been forced by Dr Surya to show the error of our ways, I should take it up with Dr Surya. Yeah.
…(and I was right about that)…
You seems to be living in a world where you are right about everything.
Whatever floats your boat, Incognito.
You are the perfect representation of logical thinking, and I was utterly wrong.
And, Incognito, you may also want to read the following article:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/defamation-of-religion-passes-at.html
I would urge others on this blog to read this, as well.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
patriot,
thanks for exposing yourself and your double standards pretty well in this forum. apart from being a laughing stock you have also now degraded yourself pretty well with your rabid rantings.
about oppurtunities available in taliban, im sure you will know the latest openings there
…
i did not want to glorify your pretty pathetic rantings with a reply cos i personally believe your churlish “wonder”ings dont even warrant a civil reply.
while it is very well for you to wonder whether sita devi was raped or seduced if incognito and I ask you very valid questions for which you are stumped for answers, all you do is abuse, cry and kick up a fuss.
you are quite funny man. whilst there are many people here who still tolerate your pungent questions and give clear replies and will rebuff your malignant ideas, there are also people like me you can see thro people like you and will be ready to clarify a few things if you still dont understand.
be a man and get the message. and what are you arguing about? should be ashamed of yourself
…
and you are free to crap here, i am out of here dont even expect me to respond to your vomitus in future.
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
Dr Surya: Please exercise restraint in your responses…I realise this is a highly emotive issue…but I hope we can keep this discussion focused on the issues without getting abusive.
Thank you for your understanding.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
namasthe,
vAli vadh –
For a number of years I was nagged immensely on this issue of vAli vadh. I did not ask anyone knowing fully well what they would say (so I thought) But the simple fact was that I let the nag continue AND I had not bothered to the read vAlmiki rAmAyaNa. It appears I had read the prescribed text but was content to pass exams with exam guides and even claimed knowledge of rAma – I still am in a way because I do know sanskrit – This translation or rather annotated text has helped me resolve dichotomy to a limited extent.
this could be eye openers to many debating away
Book IV : Kishkindha Kanda – The Empire of Holy Monkeys
Chapter [Sarga] 18
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
@ doesntmatter: Thanks for your comment. Pl. avoid posting the full chapter. If you have a URL link, please post it in the comment…otherwise I would appreciate a brief summary with a link to the main document. Hope you understand.
on seeing rAvaNa for the first time – sri rAma exclaims – “aho teja” – what brilliance – it is by the light of your brilliance I will kill you.
After killing rAvaNa sri rAma says – “now my fight with adharma has ended. He tells vibhIshaNa – perform all the rites that is befitting a great king”
jai rAmji ki
namasthe,
understanding sanskrit is not such a big deal – even if you are convent educated or graduate from an overseas university – if your mother tongue is any Indian language. Reading and reading again sanskrit speaks to you.
googling or yahoo anything you dont understand – a whopping 95% of our scriptures in sanskrit are NRI – etexts on the world wide web. bhArat tragically has about 5% available resources.
It is a pity that the moderator snipped of the beautiful chapter explaining everything by Valmiki and translated by Desiraju Hanumantha Rao. Googling or web search will help finding same.
namasthe this is url that is a must read before debate on Sri Ram.
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga18/kishkindha_18_frame.htm
I agree with Hrishi’s comments on debating on epics -“With epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata which at best throw up context-laden allegories that need to be interpreted to satisfy thinking persons’ queries it becomes an open house – maybe as intended by the writers; so that healthy debate and the application of reason and logic will bring the society of the moment closer to a morality that suits its needs the best.”
The epics werent the final words and are always subject to interpretation since they relate to different societal paradigms. In this context I pose a question which anyone can explain, in reality play devil’s advocate:)
In Ramayana, in many versions I see the concept of Pativrata being emphasized. In simple terms this means the wife takes the husband as the ultimate truth and serving him is more important than even serving God. The husband is considered the path to moksha. But if we take upanishad or Gita into context, everyone is part of the supreme reality, and everyone can consider everyone else as the part of supreme reality. In that case shouldnt the husband also take the wife as path to moksha? Serving the wife should be the ultimate truth for him, but why isnt that emphasized anywhere? In Ramayan whether the discussion is Sita’s with Anusuya or Sita’s other utterances it is along these lines.
Only in the final agniparikhsha she goes agaisnt her husband and goes to Bhumi devi. Before that even her going to the forest (though arguing with Rama) was due to this pativrata. So when she finally surrenders to Bhumi Devi isnt the divine mother becoming her path for moksha and not husband:)
Continuing that thought , while I did give an explaination for Patriot’s question for why Rama did not goto forest with Sita, had it been any other circumstance would Rama have gone to the forest since it was his “Patnivrata dharma”?
While Rama loved Sita very much and was true to her, no doubt about that, he still did not consider her like God. Compare this with Sita who considered her husband as God. Literally speaking if one argues Rama was incarnation of Lord Vishnu, isnt Sita incarnation of Lakshmi?
Sorry to be jumping in so late, but I think Patriot’s questions are valid. I don’t agree with Patriot’s conclusion that Ram was not honourable.
I’d like to try to answer one of Patriot’s questions (I don’t know about the others). Specifically:
2. Why did he struggle to kill the rakshasha for so long, if he got 50% of his strength – after all, this is what precipated Sugriva’s action of blocking up the cave.
The answer is this: Just because one is more powerful than another, doesn’t mean the fight will be easy or short. It just means the outcome is certain.
since we’re trying to be ultra-precise, let’s spell out the details. I’m going to base it on a mathematical model from video gaming. Suppose a person’s “power” is divided into two parts: hit points and damage. Hit points are related to how many blows a person can take before dying. Damage tells you how much damage a single blow does. For our purposes damage can be 1, and hit points can be HP.
Suppose Vali’s original hit points are VHP, and the Rakshasa’s hit points are RHP. Vali gets half the opponent’s hit points so at the beginning of the fight he has VHP + RHP/2 hit points, while the Rakshasa has RHP/2 hit points. But suppose RHP >> VHP. E.g., RHP = 100,000 and VHP = 1000. Then at the beginning of the fight the Rakshas has 50,000 and Vali has 51,000.
So you can see they are still somewhat evenly matched, but Vali would win eventually. Of course, I am assuming the Rakshas was originally far more powerful than Vali. I don’t know whether this was actually true — I’m just trying to point out that it is meaningless to expect a *precise* reason why the fight lasted so long.
Entertaining, no?
The more interesting question is, how did Sugreeva expect a mere boulder to hold a Rakshas who defeated Vali?
The more interesting question is, how did Sugreeva expect a mere boulder to hold a Rakshas who defeated Vali?
LOL. AG, you’re a hoot.
It’s quite possible that Sugreeva chose a boulder that would snugly fit into the cave hole and it would take superhuman effort to remove it from the inside. Maybe it was rolled from some height before it hit the mouth of the cave, thus ensuring a very tight fit because of its momentum. Or maybe he placed some rocks or smaller boulders after closing the cave to prevent the big boulder from being rolled back, or make it near impossible according to his calculations. Maybe he thought that with no air going into the cave, the Rakshasa would die of asphyxiation (certain assumptions here regarding no other air vent in the cave).
@ doesntmatter (#58): I will try and post excerpts from your link later…
***
@ Vidhya: While doing some background reading, I came across an old article written by Madhu Kishwar on Sita and her depiction in the epics…I am sure you (and other readers) will find it very interesting..Excerpts some time next week.
***
@ AG (#61): Thanks…I loved that!
***
@ Kaffir: Thanks for carrying it to the next step!
@ AG:
Very good on the mathematical model – I had thought of this as well – starting points are widely different, and hence the fight went on for so long.
But, here’s a further question on the videogame fight – Why do you assume that RHP’s points get reduced by 50%? According to Nanda, Bali gets half of his opponents’ strength, but he does not say that this strength flows from the opponent?
And, how about modelling in skill factors? In games, how much damage the opponent takes depends on where you hit the guy? A head shot with a sniper rifle usually drops the guy!
Cheers
@ Kaffir:
If the rakshasha won, could he not use the handdle of bali’s mace as a lever?
Rememember, the (circular section) diameter of the boulder (assuming perfect sphere) has to be greater than the height of the entrance of the cave at its highest point. Else, the boulder would just roll into the cave.
Therefore, the boulder can be moved only outwards (in one direction) and you have a lever.
Cheeers
@ B Shantanu
Thanks, I must say this is a great blog. A lot of interesting stuff in your posts as well as the comments.
@Kaffir and @Patriot
😀 Thanks for taking the modeling another step ahead. Good points about leverage. Maybe Sugreeva wedged a tree trunk or something against the boulder so it couldn’t move outwards. Maybe it’s because the guy inside the cave would have been weakened by the fight and didn’t have enough air, as Kaffir suggested!
However, we must take into consideration that the ultimate authority on these events – Amar Chitra Katha – says nothing of the sort. >-(
@Patriot
I think Nanda’s explanation does assume that the opponent loses half his strength to Vali. Otherwise Vali is not at a clear advantage i.e. we’d have RHP = 100,000 and VHP = 51,000. Skill matters too as you say, but I was trying to simplify…
But obviously, the epics aren’t meant to be analyzed this closely. The moral lessons are more important! To me, personally, Ram is Maryada Purushottam not because of the highlights but because of his general demeanour and personality (impressions formed mainly from reading various “Bala Ramayan”s and Ramesh Menon’s fairly faithful retelling of Valmiki). The moral ambiguities in the highlights underline the fact that there is no absolute truth: the washerman’s, Ram’s, and our modern perspective are all different. (By the way, I think Vali vadh is perfectly acceptable in the modern – Western – way of thinking, where victory is what matters.)
dear shantanu,
reg the above post please find below two links which deal with the subject thoroughly.
1. http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/06/symbolism-of-vaali-vadham.html
2. http://pksundar.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/01/vaali-vadham-murder-most-foul.htm
rgds/sridhar
It was an Avatar who preached Karma througtout. Its everywhere. He was not a magician but a normal person who came know by His extraordinary qualities. He showed us that though having vast struggles and problems He never ignored truth. He always followed that.
Just feel yourself in His place and you will find Him very very ideal on all occations. I mean to say, that what would have been your choice of actions, if you faced by such circumstances as Rama was.
Explanation from Aurobindo’s perspective
Please find below the explanation of the Agni Pariksha from Sri Aurobindo’s perspective
http://rapidshare.com/files/430410824/In_defence_of_Lord_Rama.pdf
Hi all,
Regarding killing vali hidden:
1. Rama though incarnation of Lord, is human form as Ravan when asked for a boon asked he should not get death from Gods or Rakshasa but did not mention human as he thought what can a mere human defeat him.
2. Vali is considered as vanara (vali is not human) which means u can hunt an animal hidden.. It is considered as hunt.
3. There is no other way to kill such strong army of vali. And vali was not a saint he was bad person he needed to be killed. (Just for heck of seeing Rama as not a perfect person , people want to take sides of Vali who is bad)
Regarding seetha being sent to forest and gossips about her.
1. In valimiki ramayana there is no where wriiten its just one dhobi. It is people at that place who used to talk about sita. In the public areas like market. It is not kust one person.. not one dhobi but many.
It was society.
2. Whatever happened it is their personal life. Here people are seeing it with all the modern view. This injustice and injustice to wife comes to modern view . We have to understand that sitha loved rama very much, we cannot describe in words the respect and love they both had on each other. They were like single soul in 2 bodies.
3. When mother sita (the earth ) feels bads for her daughter and scolds Rama and his people for offending her daughter. Sita ewould not like even her mother to dishonour Rama and his people. Then who are we.
4. One last thing , no matter how much you try to convince people they talk same thing again and again. It will never end. Rama would not like to bring this dishonour to his wife forever.
5. Rama never suspected sita, sita knew this. So there no point of injustice here at all.Sita never thought rama did injustice to her Rama knew about this. They had knew each others heart. They had very good understanding. No matter even if they are separated they live in each others heart. That is important.
From A feminist understands Rama some excerpts:
I am somewhat certain that this subject will interest Indians and Indologists more and therefore, will not annoy my primary audience by detailing the story of the Ramayana and the particular event in it that is my focus – the trial by fire (Agnipariksha) of Seeta. However, for those not in the know, here is the link to a synopsis of the epic since, further reading will necessitate knowing the story.
The Agnipariksha is a much contested event in the Ramayana. Women of my mother’s generation were probably the first to publicly question the reasons for Rama’s implausible and inexcusable behaviour with the virtuous Seeta. Every time this subject comes up for debate; women lead the discussion with righteous indignation and men of all ages cower in uncomfortable silence. Those that join ranks with the women are usually given withering glances for their unwelcome support and they too subside into a collective silence. I’ve been a stereotypical participant too for the most part of my life; graduating from annoyed arguments with my grandmother to hurt and disappointment with men and their deified ilk.
More recently though, I have begun to wonder if our behaviour is more automatism and less reasoned synthetic thought. A vitriolic exchange between two strangers on Twitter, that floated into my inbox in the collateral exchange of information that social media excels at, jolted me out of my self-absorption with Rama to write the counterpoint to the popular telling of the tale. I am not being contrarian though the title suggests otherwise. This is also not a third wave feminist attempt to right the imbalance of the narrative. I can best describe it as an exercise in humility from two starting points. One, the collective ignorance of our culture, its literature, philosophy and religion (I am not interested in the politics of the why. To my mind, it is more important to accept the ignorance and make every attempt to plug the knowledge gap with all the advantage of post-modern, post-colonial thought at our command), and two, the uneasy paradox of a rich cultural tradition that respected, indeed worshipped, woman-kind, yet was accepting of of its most noble Ram’s flawed treatment of Seeta; herself, a deified woman. The analysis of his actions in the Agnipareeksha is binary. It is either that he is Rama, beyond reproach and our disquiet only reveals our deficient spirituality. To the determined questioner; some vague reference to Dharmic principle is touted. Or, it reeks of lazy reductionism. A man who did a good woman a grave wrong; a story whose historical precedent is endlessly repeated in any discussion of women’s rights. Neither explanation satisfies any of my souls. Not the woman, not the feminist, the ethicist, the Indian, the Hindu or the spiritual seeker. While some part of my dissatisfaction might stem from my own arrogance; it can’t be denied that poor reasoning and lax analysis cement doubt. By positing an interpretation that might serve as explanation; I join these worthy warriors in the defense of Rama. Because, I think, we have read our Rama wrong.
1. Rama, as the epic goes, was the ideal man. He was an avatar, taken in order to serve as an example to mankind that we were not limited by the scope of our abilities. That the human limits of nobility and virtue were elastic and could ever be extended in the striving for a good life. He was born to lead. By example. The Ramayana largely keeps his human dimension in the centre with fewer supra-human anecdotes than say, Krishna in the Mahabharata. The point of the Ramayana is that boundless virtue can exist in the human condition. God does not need to be a higher ‘other’. God can be you. A human.
2. Oppression of the Indian woman is a much flogged narrative of our history. The Ramayana is a shining beacon of evidence to the contrary. This popular epic has Seeta choose her husband in a Swayamvara. A unique and elevating right given to women of the period. A man was put through an obstacle course to win over a woman’s heart; a useful exercise that taught men that they had to earn the hand of the woman they sought in marriage. That, a wife was not an entitled right or a possession. (Progressives and conservatives will agree that recent generations have callously disregarded these fundamental codes of gender conduct). Anecdotes of mutual respect abound in the Ramayana. It is not just in the Swayamvara episode that we see Seeta exercising her will. She makes her own (and unobstructed) decision in many instances – to accompany Rama in exile, to cross the Laxmana Rekha, her conduct of protest in Lanka, her decision to leave the palace for Valmiki’s Ashram and her final act of choosing to enjoin with the Earth over a material existence. Her character is that of a strong and powerful woman imbued with the power of mind, virtue and choice. The misinterpretation of Seeta as oppressed victim of a hegemonic patriarchy might well be a case of finding a problem to fit the solution.
3. As a husband, Rama was exemplary. Few are the narratives in real life or mythology, classical or recent, when a man takes himself to war for a wife. He didn’t have a ready at hand army and had to commandeer one in his defense. The Trojan War might seem like a historical correspondent; but it has many versions (Sappho’s probably, the most popular) that narrate Helen as falling in love with Paris and eloping with him to Troy on her own accord. The Ramayana has versions too. Yet, not one of them differ in their telling of the inglorious abduction of Sita and her haughty disdain for Ravana’s exhortations and/or temptations. In that, and in the detailing of the reasons for the Lankan War, there is no discord amongst any of its versions. This then is history’s greatest tale of the dedicated love and commitment of a man to a wife and to a marriage.
4. The Agnipariksha: And so, the war is won coinciding with the end of the exile and Rama is now no longer just a husband. His responsibility extends to that of King and his actions determine the moral and social fate of his people. It is in the human condition to gossip about the personal lives of others. It is equally in our nature to judge. As a King, he could not allow the Queen to become the subject of malicious rumours. A dissolute monarchy loses the moral authority to govern. So enter the Agnipareeksha. A solution of the times to put wagging tongues to rest. A solution he would not have taken unless he was aware of its outcome. A solution she would also not have agreed to without integrity at her command. Is this my subjective interpretation? No. I’m just invoking Occam’s Razor. Even though Rama himself had no doubt in his mind; his duty to quell the doubts of his people needed to be discharged. It was a decision of leadership. There is a difference of opinion as to whether she did it grudgingly or with the understanding of Rama’s predicament; in any case her reaction does not absolve Rama of the criticism of his action and I should not digress.
Cut to modern times. Despite how far we’ve come from that era, do we still not expect our leaders to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard? In the circumstance of a misconduct; our leaders step down from Office. Are expected to or are made to. The flag-bearers of Office are representative of our collective consciousness and are held to trial for lapses of execution. Our modern age has not diverged from these customary expectations. And so, a Petraeus resigns, a Clinton is impeached and a Dominque Strauss Kahn is jailed and fired. All these men were made answerable to a judgmental and judging public. Do not so many of us, despite our great admiration and respect for her, wish that Mrs Clinton had taken a stance more in-keeping with ‘our’ sense of being wronged than her own?
The question is also asked as to why Rama did not abdicate? Like Edward did for Mrs Simpson. Would it not have been a more honourable thing to do? To sacrifice country for love? Indeed, yes. To my mind, he would have abdicated; if he doubted she would pass the test. Abdication and resignation are not a route to anything but an escape in the face of omission. And so, tongues would have wagged more. That he did not abdicate is evidence of his lack of doubt and is proof that the simplest interpretation is indeed the right one.
What then does Rama teach us through the Agnipareeksha?
To honour, respect and believe in your spouse.
To not doubt your spouse.
To not succumb to public opinion but to be consciously aware of it and conduct oneself in a moral and ethical fashion in keeping with your values.
To have the wisdom to confront public opinion only when in possession of the high moral ground.
That Dharma is contextual. That the life of the householder (Grihastha) incorporates many roles. That context and circumstance determine which role takes precedence.
To keep the personal separate and divorced from the professional. Rama adhered to the highest standard of professional conduct by not allowing his personal belief interfere with public perception. When he and Seeta put themselves through the most severe investigation of the time; they raised the integrity bar.
In a typically brilliant poem, Gerontion, TS Eliot described history as having contrived corridors. Our hoary history has yawning gaps in continuity and information with much lost in the telling and the retelling of a tale. As its descendants, we are left struggling to fill the void with explanations, interpretations and revisions; most of which are replete with bias that serves our own agendas. Despite these intellectual calisthenics; it is a testament to the literary and spiritual merit of the Ramayana that it still actively survives amongst us. In its countless daily recitations across the country, there is a reaffirmation of faith and love. Of the story, its characters, the land and yes, of God.
And below some excerpts from the comments section:
>>>Madhav: By the way one point I forgot to make previously. Rama could have also married again. Remember his own father had married thrice. If Rama did not love Sita, I wonder how he could have stayed true even after sending her to Valmiki’s ashram in the end.
>menkris says:
Indeed! I’ve also read that much like Bharatha used Rama’s sandals as a symbolic representation of (Rama’s) right of ascension; Rama also used a statue of Seetha as a representative symbol for all religious and other duties that required her presence as his wife and Queen.
>>>horace:Isnt it sita’s father who decrees that who ever lifts the bow marries his daughter? how is that choosing? even if you can justify the agnipariksha how do you justify abandoning her in a forest just because some idiot said something wrong about her?
>menkris says:
Thank you Horace. The Agneepareeksha (as I’ve understood and read it) was not arranged by the bride. All the preparations – who was to be invited to participate, the nature of the obstacle course the prospective grooms would be put through, the diplomatic negotiations between kingdoms, were all a communal and family affair in which the bride played an active part and had a right of say. After all this was done and the event was actually set in motion; from thereon, it was the bride and the bride alone who was the final arbiter of choice. As for your last question; I have addressed it in the essay about the importance of role playing and context. About public perception and the role of the King. I also don’t see the Agneepareeksha as something that only she went through. I think it was an ordeal that they ‘both‘ had to undergo. The travails of public office are such that once you are cast in the shadow of the dark side of doubt; a leader either wipes his name clean or abdicates. Rama couldn’t abdicate because that would’ve immediately sealed Seetha’s fate. They therefore put themselves through the ordeal knowing well that it might rear its ugly head again. It is not for nothing that it is said: Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.
>>>Arpita Phukan Biswas says:
Really? I am astounded! Anyway, I have one question for you- do you agree that the Ramayana puts a rather high and questionable stake on a woman’s (and mind you, only a woman’s for any male characters are allowed to take more than one wife) purity in her sexuality and sexual loyalty? And I’m not sure if this obsession with sexual purity is truly culturally historical.
And that is what is problemmatic about Rama’s actions. Furthermore, Seeta’s sexuality is her business, and at the most if she agrees, then Rama’s. No one else’s. This is not to say that today’s society is unreproachable. It is only to indicate that we have an unhealthy obsession with other people’s sexual lives. For if it is not anyone else’s business to determine how many children should a couple have, where should the children study, what should they wear, where should they go for their honeymoon, what should they eat etc., then it is not anyone’s business how a couple manages their sexual lives. The one thing that stands out as symbolic in this Agnipariksha is this very connection of purity to sexuality. Why, if Seeta was raped- would she cease to be pure? Or even if Seeta consensually had a physical relationship that Rama had no problems with? Why then isn’t Krishna impure or tested for his purity- he can be conveniently godly? His obsession with women, and naked bathing women are tales fondly spoken off.
>menkris says:
Thanks for writing Arpita. I couldn’t quite believe I’d escaped the ire of another feminist and I’m delighted that I finally ran into one. Thanks for standing up!
I’ve considered your comments, I understand your point of view but don’t quite agree and here’s why:
1. The relationship between the sexes (sexual, social, cultural, intellectual, financial and political) has evolved over time. Both sexes have made giant strides in achieving a more egalitarian partnership. Where we are in the 21st CE is not anywhere close to where we were in the early 20th CE even; let alone the time of Rama. It is therefore, neither sensible nor rational to apply or to extend our modern sensibilities to the time of the Ramayana.
2. To specifically address sexuality:
[Since thought stems from context and from a personal one more importantly: I am a physician with a background in the biological sciences. I have an abiding passion and involvement in the natural sciences. Exposure to the science of nature has taught me to view biology and sexuality in an abstract and holistic sense that transcends gender.]
I believe that the social sciences have had control over the narrative of sexuality and gender issues for too long now. The time has long come when the stage must be ceded to biology. Why? Because while social sciences interpret; biology simply, ‘is’. Biology frames the gender debate and fosters understanding between the sexes while the social sciences have long separated them and created a terrible environment of discord. Let me elaborate:
A lot of our ‘understanding’ of our spiritual and cultural history is in the realm of interpretation. Much of this is what we’ve been taught too. Neither you nor I nor any other person, can dogmatically state with any degree of confidence that we are in the *know of the sexual/cultural mores of a historical period. We infer from varied sources and those inferences are subjective to interpretations which in turn are informed by bias. Yet, historians and sociologists constantly interpret our story negatively. Within the framework of the current, of course the past seems ghastly and wretched. To keep our period’s appalling gender discord as the context for the interpretation of our epics is retrograde and retrogressive. And that is why I said, we are going backwards in time to find the problem to fit the solution.
The naturalist perspective: Biology is not interpreted. Biology is raw, real and visible. A male cannot give birth. A female does. A female does not worry about gene transmission; with her, it is natural. A male has to. He needs the vehicle of her body to transmit his genes and ensure their survival. This is the fundamental reason why both sexes view and treat sexuality, differently. This can never change. It never will. There is no point arguing with it.
There is another aspect of history that is conveniently ignored. War. Until very recently in our history; war was commonplace enough that every generation experienced it. Men went to war. Not women. Men died. Young men, mostly. Before going to war, they married for progeny. After war, they married more women, since there were so few of them and the gender ration was skewed. How much of the gender relationship of the time was driven by war and/or violence and less by sexuality? Do we know? Yet, we dogmatically proclaim that it was discrimination.
Were men and women treated differently (in varied contexts)? Indeed, yes they were. But it is we who add the element of discrimination. Of oppression. Of subjugation. We add these without being actually in the ‘know’.
From the facts of the Ramayana:
1. We know Rama had one wife. Despite multiple separations; he had one wife. Despite temptation; he had one wife. We know Seetha had one husband. Despite separations, temptations and exhortations. They were both monogamous. Worthy mentions of polyandry in the Mahabharatha – Kunthi, Draupadi and Sathyavathi. Possibly even Ambika, Ambalika and a palace female help.
2. His father had four wives. But we do not know why. We also do not know if they had other husbands. The Ramayana does not tell us they did. It also does not tell us that they did not. Anything beyond this is therefore in the realm of assumption.
Understanding biology is not condoning gender inequality. It only teaches us to view history and men with a benign eye. Not with malice and affront. Not with a perpetual sense of being wronged.
Gender inequality should strictly apply to our time and ours alone. Because that is all that we know, we experience and we comprehend. The past however can be understood through biology. Our generation has transcended history’s interpretations because of engineering – social, technological and biological. We should be expecting equality from our men. Not of or from Rama.
Why do we revel in an assumed victimhood when our biology so clearly has given us a greater power. It is for us to recognize that power wisely and steer ourselves and our own to higher ground.
>>>Subra says:
Nice post. Rama, Lakshmana, their descendents or followers did not censor Valmiki’s work and expunge even the most “controversial†parts to this day. It would have been so easy to cover-up and revise – something that was done time and time again in Abrahamic and Marxist books. why?
Leaving such incidents in, in itself is enough to convince me that if at all there are honest and workable solutions to the crises and dilemmas we face in our personal, private, and professional life, we are so much more likely to find them by rereading the Ramayana than almost anywhere else.
>menkris says:
That’s an excellent point, Subra. I am not sure about the ref to other religions and also don’t think any religion needs to be comparative. Religion is for religion’s sake. Spirituality is for the self. Right? IF I knew how to highlight your comment; I would. I really liked your take. I had not thought of it while writing or before. Thank you very much!
>>>Subra says:
The comparison was introduced not to brag, but to inform ourselves of the nature of the available alternatives to us (that are actually globally more popular numerically) before hastily rejecting the Ramayana for having “imperfectionsâ€. Empirically, India and many parts of South-east Asia still venerates the Ramayana more or less like they did for the past 2000 yrs and 800 yrs of the brutal occupation. This result was achieved organically – without anybody censoring it (as mentioned earlier), or ramming Ramayana down the throats of our ancestors, or equally importantly, down the throats of those who dogmatically rejected it. There is a case to be made that India is naturally democratic because the Ramayana always was.
>menkris says:
Thank you again Subra. For a wonderful detailing of your thought. If at all, you ‘should’ brag for throwing light on an excellent analytic point. I would like to, with your permission, add it as an edit (referencing you) in the main article. May I?
In Bharat vs India: Mohanrao Bhagwat might need to go back to school, Rajesh Pandathil mentions:
..3) Dandaka Forest : This place figures in Aranya Kanda in Ramayana, the story of Bhagwat’s hero Lord Rama, the epitome of correctness and dharma. It was from here that Dravidian princess Surpanakha, the sister of Ravana (grand son of Tataka, whom Lord Rama had killed earlier), fell in love with Rama. Along with his brother Lakshmana and wife Sita, Rama humiliated her. When Surpanakha became furious, Lakshmana mutilated her, by chopping off her nose and breasts.
4) Valmiki Ashram: In Uttara Kanda, this was the place where Lakshmana abandoned Sita at the insistence of Lord Rama after she was rescued from Lanka and after her agnipariksha. Now, it is a tourist spot.
I have left the following comment on the post:
Dear Rajesh: Here’s an open invtation to debate referencs to Prabhu ShriRam here: http://j.mp/XqxFUO Look fwd to yr response. Thnx #Sita
Dear Rajesh: May I invite you to a debate on my blog on these questions? If you are amenable, pl leave a brief comment on this post https://satyameva-jayate.org/20… and I shall frame my arguments on this article. Thanks.
Shantanu
P.S. Please note that I am not a member of the RSS or any related organisations.
and have also sent the following tweet (re. this remark by Sh Kailash Vijayvargiya):
And just to be clear: I complete disagree with Sh #Vijayvargiya. I think he may need to re-visit the scriptures #Sita #LaxmanRekha
From The Rape of Our Epics: Part 1 by Sandeep,
…
However, an honest reading of our epics in fact yields the exact opposite conclusion: treat women badly, and you will suffer horribly. Which is why Nilanjana’s piece abandons honesty and indulges in the aforementioned techniques of deceit in plenty. Let’s examine them, one by one, starting with the very first sentence.
…
Nilanjana’s piece is chiefly concerned with how “both epics offer an insight into the way rape works in India.†In her own words,
The first thing to notice here is the choice of words: “rape†and “sexual assault.†However, a reading of the primary texts reveals that none of the five stories that Nilanjana quotes have elements that come anywhere near what can be called “rape†and “sexual assault†as we shall see. Like I said, it’s clever word play so the question we need to ask is: how does Nilanjana Roy define “rape†and “sexual assault?†Without a clear answer to this, it’s easy write what she does.
Nilanjana Roy characterizes the five stories as such because she employs that other classic trick: imposing the morals and values of today to a period in the ancient past, a classic illustration of Seneca’s “What once were vices are manners now.†What Roy also tries to do is hold the views of a few “pseudo-Hindus†as representative of most (“widespread viewsâ€) Hindus. Indeed, if that were true, we need to look at the number of women in urban India who step “out in public†to go to work. That number as Nilanjana knows, is quite high. Doesn’t that mean the menfolk in the family of these women are okay with their women crossing the Lakshman Rekha? Do these men fall under Nilanjana’s “pseudo-Hindus†and “widespread views†category? If not, exactly who are these “pseudo-Hindus?†If not, exactly how widespread is “widespread?†Also, what about those Hindu men who regard women as worthy of worship, a conception higher than respect? Are they also pseudo-Hindus because the same epics have shaped this view of women in them?
Justice to Sita
But before we go there, we need to look at how Nilanjana characterizes Sita.
As we see, she doesn’t characterize Sita but borrows the misguided opinions of Namita Gokhale and Arshia Sattar. In other words, can we conclude that Nilanjana has no original opinion of Sita?
Now, what exactly are Namita and Arshia’s credentials to hold forth on Sita? Because an honest, objective reading of the Ramayana does not yield the characterization they have put forth. Of all the things I’ve read about Sita, characterizing her as a single mother is both the funniest and the most ridiculous one. One wonders if Namita Gokhale time-travelled, toured all of India in Sita’s era, did a census of all mothers and found that Sita was the first single mother. Needless, like Roy, Gokhale too tries to retrofit today’s social and moral notions to the past. Which is why it is quite illuminating to examine this paragraph at length.
The sentence “leaving a marriage where she’s no longer treated with respect,†is pretty revealing. Let’s see what the primary source, the Uttara Ramayana says, in the sequence of events. Rama in his position as a king—and not as a husband—first abandons a pregnant Sita in the forest. By Arshia and Roy’s reasoning, this means Rama did “leave the marriage†first. If that’s true, was he treated with disrespect by Sita, following the same reasoning? Then the sage Valmiki takes her to his hermitage. Lava and Kusha are soon born. Now, by Namita Gokhale’s reasoning, this supposedly makes Sita the “first single mother.†And then, after the lapse of much time, Rama and Sita meet each other whereupon Rama asks her to get back with him. She rejects him and reverts to her mother, the Mother Earth, which means she leaves her mortal life. This in turn means that Nilanjana’s claim that “building a life without [Rama]†is false.
And so, in the final reckoning, we get the following when we stick to their reasoning: by the time Rama and Sita meet again, it is Rama who has already “[leave] the marriage,†Sita is already a “single mother,†and she leaves the mortal world, leaving no scope for, as Nilanjana claims, “building a life without [Rama].â€
In other words, Namitha Gokhale, Arshia Sattar, and Nilanjana Roy, have all falsified the epic so that it fits into their tailored conclusions about Sita. The truth is that Sita, throughout the Ramayana, has no word of reproach for Rama. The truth is that Sita encouraged her children to learn, sing, and disseminate Ramayana. Would she do this if she had felt that Rama treated her with disrespect? Would she do this if she had rejected Rama?
The truth also is that Nilanjana Roy et al are obsessed with delivering justice to Sita in whom they see as the first/earliest Indian (?) Woman to be wronged by Man. This is less about Sita than it is about Woman and it comes straight from a juvenile strand of feminism that holds Man to be the oppressor of women till Eternity. Anything is fair game according to this strand: epics, novels, poems, movies, even porn. A Nation of Victims is a classic that brilliantly explains how this phenomenon works. And so, Justice to Sita at any cost, even if it means falsifying the Ramayana, even if it means reading the Ramayana selectively, and even if it means indulging in intellectual dishonesty.
An honest reading of the original Ramayana reveals that Sita held Rama in the highest esteem throughout the epic. Consider this: Rama lived in a time where polygamy was socially accepted. Indeed, Rama’s father had himself taken three wives. Despite this, Rama married just one woman. He discouraged her from accompanying him on exile. But when that failed, and throughout the period that she was in exile with him, he protected her, pampered her, and treated her like a baby. After Ravana abducted her, Rama made it his life’s mission to get her back, and pined for her every moment. He didn’t as much as look at any other woman. Indeed, the verses in which he describes his life without Sita are heart rending and must be made mandatory reading for any man who wants to learn how to treat his wife. Equally, Cantos 25—40 of Sundara Kanda show exactly how highly she regards Rama, and how intensely she loves him.
Even if we ignore all this, what does the fact that Rama kills a hugely powerful king and destroys his empire in order to rescue his wife tell us about Rama? What does the fact that mere monkeys formed an army and staked their lives to quell this powerful king who had coveted another man’s wife tell us? What value system does this impart to us? More importantly, what does that tell us about a culture which continues to emulate him as the ideal man, king, and husband—a culture that includes millions of men who emulate him thus?
Yet what are the only things that people like Nilanjana Roy find in the epic? Stains of blood, violence, rape, sexual assaults, dead bodies, and the supposed injustice meted out to Sita by Rama. What does that tell you about how the minds of the Justice-Deliverers-to-Sita work?
Be that however it may, given all these facts, the real point is that Nilanjana Roy fails to show us how Sita’s abduction by Ravana and her abandonment by Rama qualify as “rape†and/or “sexual assault,†which is what her piece sets out to do among other things..
Do read in full.
How can we judge the acts to great personalities/incarnations by the worldly standards of logic and morals?
A reading of the matter above gives a great insight about the question at hand..thanks all.
Every act of such great a personality as Rama/Krishna shouldn’t be critically examined. Ramayana/Mahabharata have many great virtues which should be grasped and accommodated into our acts with prudence.
Rama had vowed to keep his Maryada(limits).Sitaji is his wife.Both are having high principles.Each one and both jointly conserve the ground rules of matrimony.
Ravan is the home breaker.He snatches the idyllic life of that unpolluted lady.He says in lanka:it is you crossed the limits,I did not force you.read;tvam dharamalopam api karishyati’.It is that villain who has the gumption to say, you crossed the ‘rekha’.
Now what has Rama to do?
If he takes her back without agni pariksha, does he do justice to Urmila,Mandavi and Sritakirti who also lead ascetic lives in Ayodhya?
And what about his mother kaikeyi, she married the ageing king in her youth and was a chaste lady.Kamban calls her:theiyvakarpinal(divinely chaste lady)
Amidst such women of propriety,how can he take Sitaji, who has lived in another man’s house for 10 months?We say, justice has not only to be done, but it has to be seen to be done.Only then people will believe.It has to be transparent.
So, for re entry itself, aginpariksha is inevitable.
What about later ‘tiraskar’ of Sitaji?
That was done by Raja Ramachnadra.Raja ramachnadra, the descendant of Raja Harischandra,who made his wife work as a menial in order to keep up his word of Truth to Sage Vishwamitra.
When the dhobi’s tongue wagged, he thought:may be his voice is representative of many hidden voices in the land.
No words spoken, no indictment.Just a parting of ways.He had abandoned family life for himself.He was content with kanchana Sita.
Sitaji led the virtuous life at Ashram.That was how chaste ladies who were for some reason deserted by husbands lived.
That was how Madhavi lived after Kovalan abandoned her in Silappathigaram.
That was how Shakuntala lived when Dushyanth simply forgot to take her back.
I see in it a rare poetry.I see will power of the women with an unconditional love even if it is unreciprocated.I think that is the ideal way for a woman who is seperated.Seeking another spouse is not worthy at all.Things like stepfather and all is not not welcome even in Western societies.
Ram is not insecure.He is happy with Kanchan Sita.
Sita is not insecure.She has the memory of that wonderful occassion of breaking of bow, for her sake, at Mithila in her memory to cherish.
Today, husband works in dubai.Wife lives in Tirunelveli.
What do they have to live with?Photographs and letters.That is what is Kanchana Sita.And both have chastity.What more is needed?
Excerpts from Gazing upon the Mythic Woman, By Devadutt, Published in Devlok, Sunday Midday, Jan. 20, 2013:
…
The West looks at religious books as tools of indoctrination. When the British saw texts and imagery that they classified as Hindu, they found reasons to justify the white man’s rule. When the American scholars saw the same texts and imagery they found reasons to enforce their version of democracy. When the feminists saw the same texts and imagery they saw the cause of patriarchy. Likewise, even leftists saw the texts and imagery, they saw the cause of feudalism. In the same vein, the Right-wing sees these texts and imagery and they only see their version of glorious golden India.
But there is another way of looking at these texts and imagery. Attempts to present this way of seeing is condemned as challenging the dominant hegemonic Western template and is dismissed as an exercise in apology and defence.
So you feel gagged. You keep quiet.
The more you study Indian scriptures, the more you realize that things are not what they seem: a rock is not a rock, a tree is not a tree, Ram is not a man, Sita is a not a woman, Hanuman is not a monkey, violence is not violence, lovemaking is not lovemaking. It is whatever the beholder makes it out to be (very post modern). But the point is for the beholder to become wiser, witness himself watching and interpreting, become aware of every bias, outgrow the need for prejudices, while empathizing with others who do so, not attempting to correct them. The more the observer expands his mind and widens his gaze, the less he will cling to the literal and the prejudicial. He will see the spirit of the form, the formless idea beyond the shape and the name. Then the representation does not matter, for reality reveals itself. This is called darshan.
Darshan is not seeing objective reality; it is the ability to see subjective reality and the subject. The thought behind the image as well as the thought behind the interpretation of the image.
Yes, Hindus worship rocks. But no, Hindus do not worship rocks. Yes, Hindus worship Ram who abandoned his wife. But no, Ram did not actually abandon his wife. Yes, Draupadi was disrobed by men in public. But Draupadi is not actually a woman and Krishna is not actually a man. These conflicting confusing ambiguous Indian statements made by many a scholar makes sense one you learn to do ‘darshan’.
So the same Ramayan can come across as a patriarchal document, matriarchal document, gender-neutral document, spiritual document, uplifting or degrading appointment, depending on the nature of the observer’s gaze. Like the idol of the deity in a Hindu temple, meaning comes from the devotee. As many devotees, as many evenings. There is not just the one.
From some tweets by Sridhar-ji
Two ideas that @sgurumurthy tweeted about Ethics in Warfare & Hinduism allowing open discussion. Book on Vali Episode (“A Review by B Ramakrishna Row”). In 106 pages the book takes one through all sides of the *Vali Episode* || The Book starts with Vali’s four accusations ||
And ends thus, Vali apologising to Rama and asking him to take care of his son Angad ||