They should not change the truth - Page 6

Haha... thanks for reading what I have been writing😊 . I just read the Ramcharitmanas with love and hence have gained little of what I have.

Mainkaun,
You were mmm partially right in saying that Vishnu and Lakshmi got a curse and thats why the scene of Sita's kidnapping and her vanishing into the Earth.. But I didn't write that because I am not very sure, and it is my nature not to say anything, when am not completely sure. In The Krishna Avtaar (which is after Ram avtaar), once Rishi Durvasa did come to Dwarika (Krushna's abode) and stayed there for some time... Durvasa asked Krishna to promise him, that he (krishna) would accept eveyrhting Durvasa did (Durvasa wanted to test Krushna's patience and his love for Rishis).. So he did lots of eccentric (haha) things in the city (eg. burned down the guest room in Krushna's pallace.. NB. this doesnt mean that Rishi Durvasa was eccentric, he only wanted to show the world the love Krishna had for Rishis, and his patience which is one quality of Rishis: they aim to show positive qualities of others to the world).. one day Durvasa sat on a chariot (rath) and put the rope around Krushna and Rukmini and told them to show him around the city... Krushna did as he was told, but soon Rukmini got thirsty.. Krushna using his sudarshan chakra made a hole in the ground through which a fountain of water came out and rukmini drank it to quench her thirst... Durvasa got angry and cursed Krishna (as he didnt offer it to the guest i.e Durvasa) that the water of Dwarika will become salty (and this is really the case.. eadable/drinkable water in Dwarika has to be brought from different places.. as the water in Dwarika is very salty) and also cursed them that they will have to be parted.. thus Krishna and Rukmini couldnt stay together.. but Krishna avtaar is after Ram so that coudlnt be the case...

Yes, Narad (in the Ramcharitmanas) did give a shrap to Vishnu. The story is lengthy, so in short... Once Narad got egoistic and went to Shiv and said that Kamdev (good of lust.. i believe love is pure) had broken Shankar's samadhi/dhyan/meditation but Kamdev wasn't succesful in even touching Narad.. Vishnu thought that Narad has become egoistic, I have to do something to remove this vice from him and thus devised a plan.. One day Narad was roaming the earth and saw a beautiful place (Mayapuri- City of Illusion- constructed by the Maya of Vishnu).. it was beautiful and thus went in.. then he saw a huge palace and went into it and heard that in some time the princess was going to be wed and she was finding a suitable prince/husband (like a swayamvar).. When Narad saw the princess (Mohini avtaar of Vishnu), he got so attracted he wanted to marry her (Kamdev hit him(with his arrow of lust)).. he went to Vishnu and asked for his looks/figure.. literally the physique of 'Hari'... (Hari is a name of Vishnu but also means monkey haha).. so Vishnu gave Narad the face of a monkey.. and Narad thought that he was looking like Hari (as in Vishnu).. he went to Mayapuri, sat in his seat and when the princess came to him, she made a disgusting face and moved on to the next person... Shankars gan were there and were making public fun of the looks of Narad.. One of the gans/tutees told Narad to look at his face in a mirror/water.. when Narad did, he saw that his face was of a monkey! He cursed the gans of Shankar to become demons (Ravan and Kumbhkaran) and ran straight to Vishnu... Narad criticised Vishnu and asked for a reason for giving him the face of a monkey... and without listening to Vishnu cursed him to be born on Earth with monkeys as clan members and suffer the pain of seperation from his wife.. hence, Ram was born with Laxmi (Sita) as his wife and monkeys as his helpmates... Now I am not very sure whether the curse gets over till both return back to Vaikunth (abode of Vishnu) or till Ravan kidnaps Sita.. if the former is the case than yeah, one reason why Sita vanished into the Earth maybe accounted to this.. Now this was one reason why Ram took birth, and Ravan took birth... There are 3 other reasons (all of curses) why Ravan took birth (which are much longer) and 4 other reasons (3 of which are because Vishnu gave boons to his bhakts and 1 of which is beacuse of a curse) why Ram was born...
NB. Why Vishnu gave the form of a monkey (Hari) to Narad wasnt wrong.. Narad had become egoistic and Vishnu had to remove this ego and hence took the help of his own Maya... Also when Narad asked for the form of Vishnu, he also said 'do that which will be good to me'... to fulfill both boons, Vishnu had to do this.. and finally when Narad gave the curse to Vishnu, immeditaely after that, Vishnu removed the illusion over Narad and when Narad understood what he had done, he begged for pardon to Vishnu.. Vishnu consoled him saying, I wanted u to give me this curse...

In essence, i didnt write that to be one of the reasons in my orginal post, as I was and am not completely sure. But i am glad u (mainkaun) pointed it out as a possibility.

ppandey, i liked one of the lines u said: "I just like seeing the reasoning behind everything." I loved that sentence... it is good to know the reasoning behind things to get to the truth, but it is necessary that the reasoning doesnt make a person a (wo)man of words... It would be better fot the individual and the country and perhaps the world if s/he can accept the positive qualities and live them...

Finally, as many of u have liked this discussion forum (thanks to mainkaun to start it and everyone who has read the posts and/or participated).. I have also liked it as it has allowed me to strengthen my faith (in Ram ofcourse lol)... I like the concept of looking at Ravan's positive qualities (which I have done in depth and have written an essay (in Hindi)) but it is important to 1. keep in mind the negative traits of Ravan so that we can know him completely and 2. in trying to show the good in the bad, show the bad in the good... that is, show that Ram had negative qualities... I dont mind people making temples of Ravan to pray for his good qualities... but I do mind people commenting on Ram's character... Even Ravan in the Ramcharitmanas agreed that Ram was Narayan/god himself.. and this Ravan said without even seeing Ram.. when Surpankha got her nose and ears cut and Khara and Dushan were killed by one arrow of Ram, Ravan straight away knew that Ram must be god himself as none other had teh ability to even shot an arrow at Khar or Dushan.. Ravan then said "Hot Bhajan nahi tamas Deha, Man Kram Bachan Mantra Dradh Eha"... I cannot worship the Lord and gain Moksha/Mukti as I am a demon and have many vices.. I will have to fight him and when i will die through his hands will I attain Moksha... this is what Ravan himself said!

Again, thanks for reading... Also.. it is right in saying that everyone interprets things in their own way, but interpretation is only possible when there is space for it... eg. if i say that the cat is black, literally the color of the cat is black, but u can interpret it metaphorically (in a poem) that the cat is evil! But If i add another sentence to it and say, that the cat is loved by everyone and is very cute... straightaway, ur interpretation that the cat is evil is void... similarly, in these mythologies there are spaces for interpretation eg. Ravan symobolizes ego... but if there is one senetnce that shows Ravan to be humble, then I will have to take my word back! This is how literal analysis goes... u cannot make sweeping statement on the basis of one statement... u have to be sure that a contradictory statment elsewhere hasnt been made...

I have gone too far now.. wow.. that was 45 minutes gone... I hope u enjoy reading this as much as I have in writing... Cheers!
|| RAM ||

Thank you. I Think that they should not have modernised the story so much because it loosses the touch.I also thought what crap they showed in the beginning episodes.But now they are telling the story of raavan's childhood which is quite interesting in comparison to star plus prithviraj chauhan.I also wanted to add after reading some replies that yes Rama did not use Brahmastra to kill ravan .Brahmastra is so powerful that it can destroy anything else too.

But i would like to tell you Raavan was indeed a great shiv bhakt.

Indeed he was great shiv bhakt, he wrote his own shiv strotra.

This topic has been a awesome, especially thanks to Darshils.

Maybe it's a little late, but I'd like to react 😳

Many people heard Valmiki's Ramayana. They have seen the Ramayana of Ramanand Sagar. I did too. But some books and tales are different. I think that the maker of Ravan wants us to see the story from another view. Valmiki's Ramayana is very idealistic.

It is true that in ancient times it was common to eat meat. It's very clear in the Mahabharata. Everyone ate meat. They would go for a hunt (like king Shantanu) Maybe the Rishi's did not. I don't know that for sure.

Ravan was not really bad. He worshipped the gods and therefore he got his reward from Shiv. He had to do the things he did because it was necesarry. He had to kidnap Sita. Ram was also not perfect. We like to believe that, but het was not. He was human. And we are likely to forget that. But he came on earth as a human not as a god, unlike Krishna.

I'd like to add one more thing: It is easy to say 'monkey'. Hanuman was not a monkey. I'd like to believe that Hinduism is one religion that believes in evolution. Not long ago I saw on National Geographic 'Ultimate Survivor'. They make it clear that the human as we know lived together with different 'humanlike species'. I think Hanuman and the army of king Bali, was one of them.

Fact is that all this happened a very long time ago. And there are a lot different story's. And everyone has his own view and truth. Therefore you can't say that they should not change the truth, because what you believe is your truth. I believe that Ravan kidnapped Sita and that Ram saved her. Because he had to. Ravan changed from a good human being in a man who believed that he stood above the gods. Ram came to stop him and he came as a human being, and humans are not perfect.

This is my believe..

😊

Devia,
I agree with you that everyone has different opinion and belief. However I do think that if 9 out of 10 people believe & thinking in same direction that means there has to be some value and that is the truth. Because 1 person believe differently we do not have to change the storyline.

I keep hearing that the maker of Ravan wants us to see the story from another view, what is that another view?? I do agree that Ravan was great Shiva Bhakt, but besides from that what other good think he did.

If you think Ram was not perfect (as a humane being) and Ravan was then please give us your reasoning. We would like to know more.

Well to me, after watching Raavan, I think he really isn't that bad. He did take Sita and fight with Ram. Other than that, he was great. He helped the needy and almost never mis-used his powers. He is evil and I don't deny that but he was that evil!

He was a great man.

Just my point of view!!

Okay; I do not think that Ravan was perfect. Not at all. But I do think that Ranm was not perfect either. What I ment to say is that Ravan had to do those things. He was a great Shivbhakt, but then his mind suddenly changed. He was just a pawn of fate. But on the other hand, he was a great king. (umi82990)

By example: Judas betrayed Jezus, and everybody despies him for his act. But Judas had to.

Just like Ravan had to do what he did. I like to think he was only born to abduct Sita 😆

The maker of Ravan wants us to see the story from the side of Ravan, because everyone thinks he was evil. He was not. He was not evil because he abducted Sita. He did it because it was the right thing to do. And we all like to forget that. WE make Ravan evil.

Ram was not perfect. Because he was human. He did not came on earth as a god. He came as an human. He was nobel, yes. He was honest and a good MAN. But he also made mistakes. He did not trusted Sita nor Valmiki on the end. He divorced Sita and when Valmiki told him that he had two sons he did not believe it.

It is not about who was perfect and who wasn't. The Ramayana is a story. And it has value to us. That doesn't make it true. Even if 9 out of 10 believes it. Hinduism is about knowledge. Not about worshipping the gods or just BELIEVE. Knowledge is the essence of our believe and if a director thinks that we are making a mistake if we say that Ravan was evil, and he wants us to know his truth than we should appreciete that. Because he is making a contribution to our knowlegde.


😊

One side you talking about knowledge other side you talking about destiny. They don't go together.

How can you say that kidnapping someone's wife is right thing to do?? Do you hear what you saying? Do not just argue because you like to, have some reasons behind it.

As far as Ram trusting Sita, I think Darshil has very well explained it. Also Ram never divorce Sita, read Darshil's post he gave good explanation about Ram sending Sita to Vanvas. In short he did it because he wanted to prove that 1st he is kind then husband.

Not only Hinduism but any religion is about worshipping the gods, trust, believe not about knowledge. In short there are some facts, history that we have known for years and we just do not want to see it differently because of one's specific view.