They should not change the truth - Page 8

oh my god ....
reading all this makes my feel like a dumbo 😳 .... i don't know so much about my own religion as you all do .....
hats off to you all 👍🏼 ...

you have stunned me 😎 .....

I read someone mentioned 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 all these religions of the world and all their scriptures are outdated, we in the present have evolved more then these idols we have kept worshiping all these centuries..."

What does everyone else think about this and why? If possible please keep this discussion close to our show.

Originally posted by: mainkaun

I read someone mentioned 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 all these religions of the world and all their scriptures are outdated, we in the present have evolved more then these idols we have kept worshiping all these centuries..."

What does everyone else think about this and why? If possible please keep this discussion close to our show.

Religion is an identity of a person. Like we cannot change our parents, same way we cannot change our beliefs. Sanatan dharam is never going to be outdated. PERIOD 😛

How come everyone is so quit here for long time. Is the show so good that no one has any comment?

Originally posted by: Darshils

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...

I read it in Ramacharitmanas. But one thing surprises me. Many years passed between the time Sati tested Rama's divinity and she was born as Parvati. Wasn't Rama incarnation over by that time?

Darshila,
I read your posts. You quote from Ramacharitmanas. I like Ramacharitmanas a lot because it is highly philosophical and devotional. But, in some places, it differs from Valmiki Ramayana - may be because Tulsidas took poetic license. Don't you think we should treat Valmiki Ramayana as more authoritative?

akhl,
Defiantly Valmiki Ramayana is more authoritative but at the end of day they both send same message, don't they?
Just curious, what are the major differences you see?

Originally posted by: mainkaun

akhl,
Defiantly Valmiki Ramayana is more authoritative but at the end of day they both send same message, don't they?
Just curious, what are the major differences you see?

The above is your reply to a post of mine. Before that I made another post. Please reply to that also. Let me come to the major differences between Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsidas Ramcharitmanas.
There are some small differences in story, but I do not consider them much important so far message is concerned.
A major difference is that in Valmiki Ramayana there is not much of focus on Ram being God. But in Ramcharitmanas, Ram is glorified as God again and again. There are some other differences, but those arise because of this difference.
In Valmiki Ramayana, there are very few places where Ram is called as God.In these places also, only a mention is made that Ram is God. When Garud came to kill snakes which had entangled Ram and Lakhsman in the war, then Garud talks to Ram as if he is a friend and not a devotee. Hanuman is shown as devoted to Ram but the way an assistant is devoted to master and not the way some are devoted to God.
On the other hand, if you open any page of Ramacharitmanas at random, there is high chance that Ram is shown as Supreme and he is glorified at length.
I find Ramcharitmanas far more devotional.

It might be true that in Ramcharitmanas Ram is glorified as God again and again - but at the end of the day they both agree that Ram was god, so the important point is that they both agree with each other at some extend.

Now going to your example of Garud & Hanuman - I see it differently -I do not think that Hanuman is shown as an assistant devoted to master. Assistant do not do anything on their own, as Hanuman has done (with his own sense) everything in his power to prove as a true devotee to Ram. But different people has different opinion.

Originally posted by: mainkaun

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.

In Valmiki Ramayana, there is a story that there were two demons who were brothers. I think there names were Ilaval and Vatapi though I am not sure. Vatapi turned into an animal and Ilaval cut it, cook it and serve it to rishis. After the rishis had eaten, Ilaval called Vatapi. Then Vatapi came out killing the rishis. Agastya wanted to stop this. He one day came to eat that food. After he had eaten, Ilaval kept on calling but Vatapi did not come. Then sage Agastya laughed and said that he had digested Vatapi. Getting angry, Ilaval attacked Agastya, but Agastya killed Ilaval.
If rishis did not eat meat, how could Ilaval make so many rishis eat meat? And how did Agastya (such a great rishi) eat meat?