They should not change the truth - Page 7

Ok, here is what i think, Ramayana is a tale, whether it happened or not is another topic, but i don't think people are learning from the story as one should. The whole story is about killing the evil inside you not about killing Ravana or protraying Ravana as evil, or even about portraying Rama as god or good. The whole story is about defeating and keeping control over the evil within you. I know there are stories about how the Sita that was obducted by Ravana wasn't the real sita etc., etc., however, if we start using this logic then the whole story basically becomes pointless. I think the story is much deeper then alot of people percieve it to be. The lesson one learns is that even though Ram killed the evil Ravana, he couldn't kill the Ravana within him, thus, one needs to kill the rakshas within us to conquer evil. No matter how many evil outsiders we kill we have not finished off evil unless we conquer the evil within us. Once i started asking all these relevant questions to one of the guru's here in our local temple here about hinduism. About some of the stories in our scriptures that don't justify or qualify worshiping these so called gods because their deeds totally went against what we as a present society practice out of our so called values and always strive to go a step further. The guru couldn't give a reasonable answer to my questions so eventually he said "samarth ko na dosh gosain" meaning "might is right". Does that mean if you can do something within your reach "like going out and killing and raping people, invading other countries and killing innocent people" it's ok because you can do it, the fact that you can do it makes it ok, makes it right. I don't believe in that explanation at all. That is why when you listen to most gurus they always tell you that god is beyong reason, beyond gyan, beyong budhi, because they don't have the answers for the questions that today's generation is asking. They need stupid people to run their shop. If you start asking too many questions then you basically become an outcast, this is not just true in hinduism but all other religions, more so in other religions. So what i say friends is that all these religions of the world and all their scriptures are outdated, we in the present have evolved more then these idols we have kept worshiping all these centuries. So, there's really no need to be "lakeer da fakeer", one should choose their own path and decide for themselves what is good or bad according to present values that our parents have instilled in us and what our atma tells us.

What I ment by saying that Ravan did the right thing by kidnapping sita was that he had to do it, so that Ram could begin the war and kill Ravan.

That is what I ment. I agree with sonnyunlocker; that is what my mum said too.

Again: Knowledge is the essence of Hinduism. That is the real religion. It is not just about 'believing'or worshipping.

sonnyunlocker,
Good point, I agree 1st we have to kill Ravan within us. However I do believe and worship our history, god; whether it happened or not. It may have been outdated but one can surely learn how to live life. And I do believe that is one good source where you can gain your knowledge too. These gurus may not be perfect and they may not have answers to your questions, that does not mean we have to completely ignore our history and give up saying it is outdated. Perhaps that is the one of reason why Hinduism is going down and other religion are growing but anyhow everyone has their right to believe and do different things. Too much freedom is not good too, you loose control.
This topic is for those who believe in our real Ramayana to discuss whether what they showing in Ravan is acceptable and digestible or they showing it just for shake of it. So please please lets not become philosophers, and enjoy the show.

Devia,
I enjoyed some of the points you made. I agree with you Ram came to earth as a human therefore he was not perfect. Everyone had a destiny to fulfill and when they fulfilled that destiny humans depicted the storyline as good versus evil. Which on the forefront it is that but there are also many layers involved, usually overlooked or not concentrated upon, that need to be understood as well.

Mainkaun,
I'm truly amazed by you. I don't think anyone has been able to put a crack in that confidence of yours to make you rethink your beliefs. Although I think it's admirable that you believe in this so much I also thought your statement, "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.", was a little foolish. I don't think that anyone can truly challenge you with facts and figures because facts and figures change in religion with every person you talk to, every region you go to. However to contradict your statement by basis of science, you have to remember that people of the old days thought the earth was flat, about 99.9%. But although the majority believed that it wasn't true.

We have had many prejudices in society that some people still believe to be true. Fact is we're all human. On that not has anyone read A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry? I thought it fantastically written.

How do facts and figures change in religion? I think people's belief change not facts. Remember here we are talking about religion, not science.

Lets try to stick to the point and not criticis what should be our beliefe. From now on please please lets talk about show.

We would like to see some reasons behind you and Devia or anyone else saying "Ram came to earth as a human therefore he was not perfect". I agree he came as a human on earth but how he was not perfect? What did he do that was not perfect Vs what Ravan did was perfect?

I know it is difficult to believe that Ram was not perfect, but he did some things that was not good at all.

He made an agreement wit Sugriva, and killed king Vali, while Sugriva and Vali where in a duel. That was not right. The whole point is this: Whe worship Krishna, because he is God. We do not worship Ram. We do not pray to Ram. He was a human, therefor he was not perfect. No human is.

Ravan was evil and had to be stopped. But Ram could only start the war, if Ravan would fullfill his duty of kidnapping Sita. Therefor, Ravan did what he had to do. He was not perfect, but he did what he had to do. Don't forget that Ravan was a great and just king. He was evil because he became proud and tought he was god.

Wow, there have been many comments... it took me a while to read all of em... great going guys!!!

Haha, 'It is difficult to believe that Ram was not perfect' as a sweetl;y harsh sentence to me.

Devia, I would assume u worship Krishna (correct me if I am wrong). Well, in the Gita Krishna told Arjun (in the Vibhutyog) 'Ramah ShastraBhrutamaham'. that is 'Arjun, from all the ideal weapon holders, I am Ram'... If Krishna is God, and Krishna is Ram, from logic, Ram is God. In the Ramcharitmanas, Tulsidas uses several words to show the 'prabhuta' or godliness of Ram... or rather Ram as god (translation from Hindi to English, or for that matter from Sanskrit to any other language gives lots of problems... this is where, i feel people have misunderstood many of the shastras). He occasionally calls Ram 'Hari', 'Bhagvan', 'Vyapak'... Everyone in the Ramcharitmanas beliefs, agrees and knows Ram to be GOD. Be it Shankar, Dashrath, Kaushalya, hanuman, Laxman, Bharat, Vibhishan, Sugriv, Parshuram, all the Rishis (Vashisth, Vishwamitra, Shrungi, Valmiki, Matang, Agastya...) and even RAVAN. Sati (beloved consort of Shiv) did once think that Ram was only human and not God... and challenged Shankars words and went to test Ram's divinity... all that happened was that Sati took the form of Sita and Ram recognized her to be Shiv's consort (who had come to test Ram).. When Sati went back, Shiv found out that she had taken Sita's form... and thus Shiv did not accept her as his wife (though didnt tell her directly as it would hurt Sati)... Sati found out and took a new birth as Parvati to gain the position of being Shankars wife again and then agreed that Ram was actually god...

When Surpankha (ravan's sister) went to Ravan and told him that a MAN (RAM) had killed Khar, Dushan and all their demons with one arrow. Ravan straightaway corrected Surpankha and said "Khar Dushan Mo Sam Balwanta, Tinhahi Ko Marai Binu Bhagwanta'... 'Khar and Dushan are as mighty as me. Who can kill them other than God himself!!" Ravan agreed that Ram was God... now if u believe that Ravan was a scholar, then u have to believe that Ram was not a human, but was god....

And who said we do not worship Ram. Ask any mother, and she would prefer her son to be like Ram. That is worshipping. I am not denying that Krishna is not god... he is my prime deity mate. But no mother will want her child to be like Krishna... because Krishna came with all the superpowers of god... Ram came to us people as a person (but he was god) and this is why u will see Ram cry (for Sita), u will see Ram roam the forests in the search of Sita, u will see Ram wait for the ocean to give way to get to Lanka... But note that Krishna came in the Dwapara yug and Ram was in the Treta Yug... in the Treta Yug, everyone agreed that Ram was god even though he came in the form of a human... Ram would tell everyone that he is a human, but noone would agree that he is human, they would insist (rightly) that Ram was god... Krishna came as god, but there were non-believers! Such as Shakuni, Kans, Duryodhan.... Ravan agreed that Ram was god.. Mate, if ur enemy agrees that u r god, then u r god. simple as that. It is easy to convince people who like u (ur friends), but not ur foes! Krishna was god who came to earth as a god, Ram was god who came to use a human, so that we could follow the ideals he set.

You said that Ram did many wrongs. I am sorry to say, but u r not correct. I won't say that u r wrong (because u have a right to ur belief), but u r not correct (this does make rational sense, if u have studied philosophy). List all the things u think that Ram did wrong, and I will show u that they all were right...

But u mentioned how Ram killed Vali. Let's start like this. Why did Ram kill Vali? Sugriv tells Ram "Ripu Sam Mohi Maresi Ati Bhari | Hari Linhesi Sarbasu Aru Nari||" In the Ramayan Ram killed two people, Vali and Ravan, both of which had captured and tried to marry a chaste woman who was already married to someone else without their willing too!! Vali robbed Sugriv off his wife and Ravan captured Sita. Ram killed Vali hiding behind a tree because Ram wanted to show the world that if u misbehave with a woman or then even though I am god, i wont mind shooting u with an arrow hiding behind a tree!! This is Ram's and Sanatan Dharm's protection of women. From the Ramcharitmanas:
|Dharam Hetu Avtareu Gosai, Marehu Mohi Byaadh Ki Nai" Vali asks Ram, why did u shoot me hiding behind a tree, like a hunter would kill a wild beast? I know that you have taken form of a human Ram to establish Truth and Dharam, but isnt what u did wrong? What sin had I commited?" See, even Vali accepted that Ram was god. Now listen to what Ram says, "Anuj Badhu Bhagani Sut Naari. Sunu Sath Kanya Sam Eh Chari|| Inhahi Kudrushti Bilokahi Joi| Tahi Badhe Kachu Pap N Hoi|| Ram says, "Vali, u wretch, a younger brother's wife, a sister, daughter in law and one's own daughter are all alike. One would incur no sin by killing him who looks upon any of these with an evil eye.' This is the precise reason why Ram killed Vali, because Vali made Sugriv's wife his own! Now dont tell me u think that what is wrong with that! haha, i wont be surprised if u think that nothing is wrong with that! Ram was essentially teaching us humans that punishing people who misbehave with women is not wrong, even 'I', Ram = god would kill a wretch like Vali shooting an arrow hiding behind a tree! Now see, Vali did not continue to argu with Ram... Vali agreed with what Ram said, and then 'Sunahu Ram Swami San Chal Na Chaturi mori'... "Listen ram, my shrewdness cannot avail against my master." Vali accepted his mistake! And look at Ram. Even though he is god, he didnt misuse his power and turn the laws of Karm uspide down. Because Ram killed Vali hiding behind a tree, Krishna was killed by a hunter in the forest when the hunter thought that Krishna was a deer. This also shows that Ram is Krishna!

And sorry, Ram never wanted to start a war. In the ramcharitmanas, at every possible moment Ram asked Ravan to give Sita back, and he would leave ravan without killing him! Just before the war was about to start, Ram sent Angad (Vali's son) as a Raj Dut to ask Ravan to give Sita back. Ram never wanted to start a war, he was looking to peace (as Sita = Bhakti = peace). And u dont realize how simply u said Ravan had to do what he did (by kidnapping Sita). I just cant believe how u can accept Ravan kidnapping Sita, and u cannot accept Ram killing Ravan or Vali for saving Sita (and Tara)!

And finally... HAHAHA Ravan was a great and just king.. I am sorry (i dont know if i am politically correct or not), but Hitler was good for Germany too! Under Hitler's rule, unemployment in germany was 0, the ecnomy was doing great, Germany had exanded 3 times it size! Hitler was a good ruler too then! Was he a just ruler though? No!!! Similarly, Ravan wasnt a just ruler. If he was, why did he kick Vibhishan out of Lanka? If he was, why did he not fight Ram to get Sita, why did he kidnap her (we learn from a king of what to do... if the king kidnaps someone's wife, people in Lanka will think taht it is right to do so).. If he was a just king, why did he force Marich to help him kidnap Sita? Ravan was as just a king, as just Hitler was to his nation.

I am sorry if my comments hurt anybody. I dont mean to. Again, I will stick with what i have always said. Ram is par perfect. We should learn from Ravan's good qualities but should not show the false bad qualities in Ram to show the false good qualities in ravan.

|| RAM ||

Adding on to what i wrote... i read one of the comments say that some pandits do not know the answers to the question the young generation asks them. They do not, because either they have not completely read the shastras or are false gurus. I would like u to be aware of them. But i would also want u to learn, not to ask questions for the sake of asking questions or to show ur superiority or the wrong in anyone. Ask because of curiosity to learn. Not to show that someone is wrong. Ask the questions u have asked those gurus to me, (I am not saying that I am a guru) and I will try and answer all of em to u. If i dont know the answer i'll say so, and try and find out.

PPandey sir, haha, u liked A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry not because it was fantastically written, but because it agreed with ur beliefs! Haha, and that is human nature. Certainly, I like ramcharitmanas because it is close to my nature. And certainly, there have been many prejudices in our society. In Sanatan/Hindu Dharam as well. But we should not fire the whole concept of Sanatan Dharam because of some unlearned people who called tehmselves 'gurus' came up with concepts on the name of Dharam to get fame and other pleasures... It is not that fault of Sanatan Dharam that prejudice has come up in society, it is because of people like us who have not been aware of what is going on. If we had read the scriptures, then noone would be able to mislead us... Now people think that what some wrong-heads do is written in the shastras... well that is utterly rubbish. As a part of the new generation, we should now remove wrong concepts not with harsh words. We should remove prejudice with respect. Why to loose ur cool for some misleading statements!

Finally, Sanatan Dharam is on the basis of science. What Einstein and modern scienetist tell us is all outer science. There is a science within us, that is stored in these shastras.. And i can guarantee u, that science can never prove that god does not exist. Nor can it prove that god does exist. Sanatan Dharam is not about proving anything (Sidhi) it is about purifying everything (Shudhi).

I am not a blind follower. Sanatan Dharam is as much about knowledge, as much as it is about reightousness, chastisity/purity and practicality. As my sadguru taught me Sanatan Dharam is the 'science of behaviour'. Ramcharitmanas itself has the word manas = mind... that is thh science of the mins (which u call physchology these days).

Ok Darshills you caught me :)
I know religion can't be explained by science because at the moment it's too intangible but I was just using science as an example.

Amaging.

I was trying to say it but could not word it properly but you did it ....
"......i would also want u to learn, not to ask questions for the sake of asking questions or to show ur superiority or the wrong in anyone. Ask because of curiosity to learn. Not to show that someone is wrong...."

I would add one more thing- Ram was Maryadapurus and Krishna was Puranpurus - what that mean - Do what Ram did in his life and do what Krisha said in Gita.


The other reason why Ram kill Vali hiding behind the tree was that Vali has blessing that Vali would gain double power of the person whoever try to fight face to face with him. But the real reason was that he wretched his younger brother's wife.

Ravan was also present at Sita's swayanwar and he was not able to lift the Shiv Dhanush and Ram did. So he took it personaly and decided to take revange that is why he kidnaped Sita. If Ravan was such a great and powerfu (indeed he was Shiv Bhakat); why could not he lift Shiv Dhanush?