Jabali was one of the ministers of King Dashrath - Page 2

@mnx12: Thank u. So jabali was not atheist, he followed advaitham.

I feel Ram avatar was actually not only to destroy Ravan, kumbhakarna and to establish dharma, but to give a clarity for dvaitham and advaitham.

Ramayana as we know it today is not the work of one person, rather a lot has been added to it along the years to bend it to suit the beliefs of that time. For example today we are seeing a Ramayana with a liberal point of view to appeal to the people of today.

Originally posted by: Arshics

Ramayana as we know it today is not the work of one person, rather a lot has been added to it along the years to bend it to suit the beliefs of that time. For example today we are seeing a Ramayana with a liberal point of view to appeal to the people of today.

Rama's statement calling atheists fools is also probably a later addition to suit the beliefs of a phase where atheism was condemned.

I cannot connect Rama calling anyone a fool for his religious beliefs

Exactly. Even I felt the same. This is why I raised that question. If u pick a phrase from the whole text, it may give a different meaning altogether. I think the same happened in this context.

This is what I found :

the last paragraph reg Rama's anger / response - gives some food for thought.

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

Rama's response[edit]

Valmiki's Ramayana contains a section that describe's Rama angrily denouncing Jabali, which includes the following verses:


Ramayana (2:109:34)[2]

Translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith[3]

Translation by Shyam Ranganathan[4]

Translation by D. H. Rao & K. M. K. Murthy[2]


(2-109-33)

|
|
|
- (2-109-34)


My father's thoughtless act I chide
That gave thee honoured place,
Whose soul, from virtue turned aside,
Is faithless, dark, and base.

We rank the Buddhist with the thief,
And all the impious crew
Who share his sinful disbelief,
And hate the right and true.
Hence never should wise kings who seek
To rule their people well,
Admit, before their face to speak,
The cursed infidel. (2-109-34)


I denounce the action mentioned below, of my father, who picked up you as his councilor-priest, a staunch unbeliever, who has not only stayed away from the path of dharma but whose mind is set on a wrong path opposed to the Vedic path, nay who is moving about in this world with such an ideology conforming to the doctrine of Chaarvaaka, who believes only in the world of senses as has been set forth in your foregoing speech.

It is a well-known fact that a follower of Buddha deserves to be punished precisely as a thief [because such a heretic robs people of their faith in a Vedically moral universe]; and know a nastika to be on a par with a Buddhist.
I accuse the act done by my father in taking you into his service, you with your misleading intelligence, a firm atheist fallen from the true path. (2-109-33)
It is an exact state of the case that a mere thought deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspect, and should be punished in the interest of the people. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist. (2-109-34)


In these and subsequent verses, Rama becomes so angry that he denounces his own father for keeping Jabali as an adviser.[4] He accuses Jabali of being an atheist, and states that those following the nastika path deserve to be punished. In the subsequent verses, he emphasizes the importance of following the dharma. Jabali then retracts his statements, saying that he was merely arguing like a nihilist to convince Rama to come back, but he is not actually a nihilist.[5] Vashistha supports Jabali, stating that he was speaking in the interest of Rama.[6]

These verses depicting Rama's anger are considered a later insertion in Valimiki's original text. Every canto of Ramayana ends with one long shloka written in a different metre, compared to the other verses. However, the version of the canto containing these verses contains six long shlokas in a different metre. The dialogue between Rama and Jabali is finished in the first shloka, in which Rama is not depicted as annoyed. However, the next few shlokas re-open the dialogue abruptly, and the tone of the conversation contradicts the tone of the earlier dialogue.[7] In his translation, Griffith calls these lines "manifestly spurious" and cautions that these need to be "regarded with suspicion". August Wilhelm Schlegel, who translated Ramayana to German (1829), also called these lines fake, and later regretted not having excluded them from his translation.[3][5]

Originally posted by: adi2512

These verses depicting Rama's anger are considered a later insertion in Valimiki's original text. Every canto of Ramayana ends with one long shloka written in a different metre, compared to the other verses. However, the version of the canto containing these verses contains six long shlokas in a different metre. The dialogue between Rama and Jabali is finished in the first shloka, in which Rama is not depicted as annoyed. However, the next few shlokas re-open the dialogue abruptly, and the tone of the conversation contradicts the tone of the earlier dialogue.[7] In his translation, Griffith calls these lines "manifestly spurious" and cautions that these need to be "regarded with suspicion". August Wilhelm Schlegel, who translated Ramayana to German (1829), also called these lines fake, and later regretted not having excluded them from his translation.[3][5]

Thank u adi2512.
@bold: This clears the doubt.

How do Griffith and Ranganathan bring in 'Buddhist' to equate that w/ Atheism? Buddhism was nowhere in the picture in the era in question.

Jabali was in the same camp as Guha, Sumantra and others who wanted Rama to return, and he was among the most aggressive in asserting that Rama should. The stuff about the Atheism seems peripheral: Rama considered breaking his father's word the equivalent of Athiesm. But aside from that, there is little to suggest that Rishi Jabali was an Atheist.

I never knew that Jabalpur was named after him

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

How do Griffith and Ranganathan bring in 'Buddhist' to equate that w/ Atheism? Buddhism was nowhere in the picture in the era in question.

I understand, here, a "Buddhist " is not mentioned as a follower of Gautam Buddha ( who obviously not existed earlier then ), but a school of thought, which is different to the Vedic / brahminical thought.

It is apparent that revolutionary ideas contradicting the prevalent norms, existed back then too...and the word " Buddha" that is found in the original Sanskrit verse too is directed at a person who followed this different thought process.

I found this excerpt on the internet, which gives an insight into the situation back then, though not very much sure of the time period. But it can be very well believed that the situation would have been present @ period of Rama too...for it coincides with the thought process of Jabali.

---------------------
Philosophical roots

Historically, the roots of Buddhism lie in the religious thought of ancient India during the second half of the first millennium BCE.[90] That was a period of social and religious turmoil, as there was significant discontent with the sacrifices and rituals of Vedic Brahmanism.[note 15] It was challenged by numerous new ascetic religious and philosophical groups and teachings that broke with the Brahmanic tradition and rejected the authority of the Vedas and the Brahmans.[note 16][91] These groups, whose members were known as shramanas, were a continuation of a non-Vedic strand of Indian thought distinct from Indo-Aryan Brahmanism.[note 17] Scholars have reasons to believe that ideas such as samsara, karma (in the sense of the influence of morality on rebirth), and moksha originated in the shramanas, and were later adopted by Brahmin orthodoxy.

This view is supported by a study of the region where these notions originated. Buddhism arose in Greater Magadha, which stretched from Sravasti, the capital of Kosala in the north-west, to Rajagrha in the south east. This land, to the east of aryavarta, the land of the Aryas, was recognized as non-Vedic.[99] Other Vedic texts reveal a dislike of the people of Magadha, in all probability because the Magadhas at this time were not Brahmanised.[100][page needed] It was not until the 2nd or 3rd centuries BCE that the eastward spread of Brahmanism into Greater Magadha became significant. Ideas that developed in Greater Magadha prior to this were not subject to Vedic influence. These include rebirth and karmic retribution that appear in a number of movements in Greater Magadha, including Buddhism. These movements inherited notions of rebirth and karmic retribution from an earlier culture.

At the same time, these movements were influenced by, and in some respects continued, philosophical thought within the Vedic tradition as reflected e.g. in the Upanishads.[102] These movements included, besides Buddhism, various skeptics (such as Sanjaya Belatthiputta), atomists (such as Pakudha Kaccayana), materialists (such as Ajita Kesakambali), antinomians (such as Purana Kassapa); the most important ones in the 5th century BCE were the Ajivikas, who emphasized the rule of fate, the Lokayata (materialists), the Ajnanas (agnostics) and the Jains, who stressed that the soul must be freed from matter.[103] Many of these new movements shared the same conceptual vocabulary"atman ("Self"), buddha ("awakened one"), dhamma ("rule" or "law"), karma ("action"), nirvana ("extinguishing"), samsara ("eternal recurrence") and yoga ("spiritual practice").[note 24] The shramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed they possessed revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. Moreover, they declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy of the brahmans to enrich themselves by charging exorbitant fees to perform bogus rites and give useless advice.[104]

A particular criticism of the Buddha was Vedic animal sacrifice.[web 18] He also mocked the Vedic "hymn of the cosmic man".[105] However, the Buddha was not anti-Vedic, and declared that the Veda in its true form was declared by "Kashyapa" to certain rishis, who by severe penances had acquired the power to see by divine eyes.[106] He names the Vedic rishis, and declared that the original Veda of the rishis[107][note 25] was altered by a few Brahmins who introduced animal sacrifices. The Buddha says that it was on this alteration of the true Veda that he refused to pay respect to the Vedas of his time.[108] However, he did not denounce the union with Brahman,[note 26] or the idea of the self uniting with the Self.[110] At the same time, the traditional Hindu itself gradually underwent profound changes, transforming it into what is recognized as early Hinduism.

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

Hope this helps to shed some light as to why this word " Buddha / Buddhist " is used.