They should not change the truth - Page 3

Originally posted by: ukrn

Rama used brahmastra to kill ravan. In Valmiki's story that was the end of Ravan. Anyway this story is from a different point of view and entertaining. It's worth enjoying without going into its authenticity

Hi mate... i am not sure about Valmiki Ramayan.. but in the Ramcharitmanas it is said: 'Kheichi Sarasan Shravan Lagi Chade Sar Ektis || Sayak ek nabhi sar sesha, apar lage bhuj sir kari rosha."
Ram let fly 31 shafts, one arrow (agni-ban) sucked up the amrit/nectar in the navel of raavan, 10 cut his heads and 20 cut his arms.. and then ram hit one more arrow which cut his body in two and then raavan died....
Ram was certainly against using the brahmastra. he even stopped Lachiman from using it against Meghnad... but there may well be different versions which i bow my head too..
What i wanted to point was that, raavan didnt think that 'i will not shoot a brahmastra because it will destroy the world'... it is not right to place a character...

Originally posted by: Darshils

Hi mate... i am not sure about Valmiki Ramayan.. but in the Ramcharitmanas it is said: 'Kheichi Sarasan Shravan Lagi Chade Sar Ektis || Sayak ek nabhi sar sesha, apar lage bhuj sir kari rosha."Ram let fly 31 shafts, one arrow (agni-ban) sucked up the amrit/nectar in the navel of raavan, 10 cut his heads and 20 cut his arms.. and then ram hit one more arrow which cut his body in two and then raavan died....Ram was certainly against using the brahmastra. he even stopped Lachiman from using it against Meghnad... but there may well be different versions which i bow my head too.. Whati wantedtopoint was that, raavan didnt think that 'i will not shoot a brahmastra because it will destroy the world'... it is not right to place a character...

wow interesting how you can read and understand Ramcharitmanas. amazing!

Now thats the reality Darshil. Ram never used brahmastra and Ravan was Brahamaji's pautra but that does not mean he was mahatma.

The story line not appearing to be real for Feb 4th episode. Rushi kul eating non-veg? Exploiting common people such as farmer?? And on top Visnu supporting Ravan against all Deva?? I can't see this as real.

Originally posted by: mainkaun

The story line not appearing to be real for Feb 4th episode. Rushi kul eating non-veg? Exploiting common people such as farmer?? And on top Visnu supporting Ravan against all Deva?? I can't see this as real.

Hi friend

It is true that rishi's used to eat non veg. In Mahabharat, In Ramayan and In the most authentic Vedas it is clearly mentioned that Aryans(Rishis) used to eat nonveg. They were afterwards affected by the philosophy of ahimsa from Buddhism and Jainism and the opposition to non-veg appeared in Hinduism.

You can confirm it.

I strongly disagree. That was the main difference between rishi and rakhas. I agree they were doing bali in hawan but eating meat part is kind of tough part to believe. So far they showing Ravan was good guy compare to rishi and dev. And he was right in his own way, humm. Can not digest that part either.

Hi mate,
Not anywhere in the Mahabharat or Ramcharitmanas is there a scene where rishis are eating meat. But yes, u were correct in saying that in Manu-smriti, it is said that rishis did eat meat... however i need to clarify a few things... so keep reading..
1. ahimsa is not just a budhist or jain idea... it is the second soul of the veda (after satya).. and budh and jain idealisms developed very well picking ahimsa to be there foundation from Sanatan dharm...

2.i like it that the manu-smirit did not rule out meating eat (i am veg...).. the reason i like it is because some people make comments saying that hindu dharma is very strict and u lose ur independce following it... this is utter rubbish... never once have the vedas declared that u should not do something... they only tell us that if we do it ... this will happen... NB. where orders have been given... read the whole chapter and u'll get to know that a guru ordered HIS shishya to do something AFTER the shishya asked for help....hindu dharma is as strict as u want it to be... the more u live naturally the higher up the ladder u'll go.. also.. this shows that hindu ideology accepts everyone... unlike others..

3. manu-smriti makes it very clear.. that eating meat allows for vices to come into u... eg. ur mind become unstable and animal-like.... so it says that a sresth vyakti i.e. an erudite being will not eat such things and be satvik aahari ... eat vegetables and fruits only...

4. not all aryans are rishis... u made a sweeping statement there... be very careful mate

5. certainly... there were some rishis... which i wouldnt call them rishis... who only performed yagnas and other activities for personal gain... a rishi doesnt do anything for personal gain...

I would advice u to read the bhagvad geeta... where bhagvan sri krushna tell arjun about the 8 qualities of a vipra/rishi.... after reading that u'll know that some of these were not rishis... ravan was right in injustfying the flaws of some of these people... but he was wrong in generalizing it.... Vashishta, Vishwamtra, Parashurama, Agastya and others are names of maharishis who have these qualities and did not do lowly acts

Very well explained Darshils. "....never once have the vedas declared that u should not do something... they only tell us that if we do it ... this will happen..." ---Some people mis-interpreat it and start thinking everyone used to eat meat - that is what I disagreed to.

Originally posted by: pathaksp

i heard that sulochana went for war against laxman but i think war does not exist btw sulochana & laxman.the reason is there.but i dont know the reason.

Sulochana was Nag kanya. Lakshman was Nag incarnation. She realised that Lakshman is her Father.

Lakshman was her father in previous incarnation.