They should not change the truth - Page 9

There may be so many diffrent version of story but the concept of rishi eating meat is hard to believe.

Originally posted by: mainkaun

There may be so many diffrent version of story but the concept of rishi eating meat is hard to believe.

That story is from Valmiki Ramayan.

there are too many verisos and it,s hard to pick what they want to show so they are just picking some from every version that,s why it like that

the story is so old and has developed many versions but i dont think that solochna went on war against laxman and the chariot bit is wrong too...lord ram never had a chariot til last day

i think more research needs to be done on the show and they need ,to make it more believable by sticking to the facts

I guess, its all about our beliefe, sometime I wonder even this Valmiki ramayan we read - is it original?

Darshil,
where have you been?

I have a question regarding Ravan's name:
- What was his original name?
- What is story behind his name Ravan & Dasanan?

Originally posted by: mainkaun

I guess, its all about our beliefe, sometime I wonder even this Valmiki ramayan we read - is it original?

Yes, it is quite possible that Valmiki Ramayan has been modified. But how do we know what is original story?

Therefore, I am posting based on what scriptures say without claiming whether those things really happened or not.

Hello people... sry was away for quite a while...

akhl, I completely agree with u that Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas is a more devotional granth (i dont like to call philosophical/religious books texts..). In one of my replies i did present with quotes from the Manas that everyone in Ramcharitmanas (including Ravana) knew and believed Ram to be God... Valmiki on the other hand calls Ram a god in a very soft tone... he prefers to call Ram a good human being (when Ram and Lachiman were roaming the forest and meeting Rishis, the Rishis tell Ram "we here everyone say that you are brahm, u r the supreme... we dont know... but we know that you are a good human..."

One reason for this difference could be due to the time period when both the texts were written... akhl, I see that you are well-versed in the Valmiki Ramayan.. so correct me if I am wrong... Valmiki Ramayan was written by Valmiki by the inspiration of Narad before Ram Avatar took place, and in the Satyug... essentially Valmiki was writing what was going to happen (and this is possible... unfortunately some people dont believe it... But from the growing interest in Yog these days and the ability of Asanas and Pranyam to improve health and stability of the mind... Patanjali (writer of Yoga Darshan) has given 8 gems of Yogas of which Asanas and Pranyam are two... if you correctly perform Apirgraha from the first gem (yam).. then it is possible to know the past, present and future of everything..) anyways... back to my point haha...

Tulsi's Ramcharitmanas was written in 1631 in the kaliyug much after Ram's Avatar... Satyug was the age of Satya/Truth only.. and what we live in now is kaliyug... so the purpose of both texts is different in a sense... In Satyug there were far many erudite people and Valmiki to avoid debates and arguments preffered to call Ram a good human that would give people good values to follow... Tulsi on the other hand presents Ramcharitmanas not to anyone else, but himself.... Thats why in the 7th shloka of the Ramcharitmanas (Balkand) he writes 'svantah sukhaya tulsi raghunath gatha'... i am writing the ramcharitmanas for personal pleasure.. he isnt ordering anyone to follow his ideas.. but yea, he wrote it in simple avadhi (old hindi) so that everyone can read it and get the gems from it...

essentially the purpose, time/era, and quite a few things are different and hence both the saints have presented the same story in different manners...

another point i would like to make... i personally feel ramcharitmanas is closer to me and more authoratative... if ppl say that Narad had inspired Valmiki then I can present that Shive had written Ramcharitmanas and presented it to Tulsi... ('rachi mahesh nij manas rakha')

Valmiki ramayan has a few mmm how can i say so that noone gets hurt... let me say that it has ideas that dont completely suit the current age.... for example the Putrakameshta Yagya done in Valmiki Ramayan is very explicit... I pay my respect to Valmiki but i dont think it is appropriate... again, i am not dissing Valmiki... i have believed that 'Valmik Tulsi Bhayo', valmiki was reborn as Tulsi... but perhaps Valmiki Ramayan should be carefully read and considered authoratative when one reaches a certain height in spiritualism... whereas Ramcharitmanas is very reader-friendly.. as in it can be read by all groups (ages, ideologies...). Valmiki ramayan maybe considered the muul (root) but Ramcharitmanas is the phuul (flower)... only the gardner deals more with the root, the house-owner looks at the beauty of the flower... similarly we should first appreciate the flower (ramcharitmanas), then when we gain some spiritual intellect should we consider Valmiki Ramayan as the authoritative granth/text....

Hmm... then akhl, u mentioned something about wasnt Ram avataar over when Sati was going to test Ram's divinity... firstly, there are millions of universe (hindu philosophy believes in the multi-universe idea which now scientists are considering!!).. and in each universe we have millions of Earths and on each earth we have a Ram Avataar every treta yug... so it is very possible that Ram was being tested by Sati then...
secondly, as I said Valmiki Ramayan was published before Ram avatar.. so by the treta yug many rishis already knew of what was going to happen... In the Ramcharitmanas, it is said that once, Shiv went to Kumbhaj (agastya) Rishi with his consort Sati to listen to Ramkatha (ramayana) and when Shiv was about to leave it came into his mind that i have just heard ramkatha and Ram Avatar is ON (Ram was finding the kidnapped Sita in the forest when Shiv finishes listeing to the katha)... Shiv thought it would be so good if I can have Ram darshan... and that is when Sati thinks that a man crying for his wife and with no luxuries (no sandals even).. how can he be god! and then she goes to test Ram... what i mean to say is, it is possible and i believe it was true...

Did u mention anything else akhl?... i'll have to go back and read ur post again... thanx for writing mate...

Mainkaun, sry for not being there for some time.. I will write what I know of from the question u asked in a few minutes... this post has taken me a long time already haha...

Originally posted by: mainkaun

Darshil,
where have you been?

I have a question regarding Ravan's name:
- What was his original name?
- What is story behind his name Ravan & Dasanan?

Hi mate, sry for being away (again)..
What was Ravan's original name... hmm.. that is a very good question... from what I know reading , Ravan's original name was 'Dasagreeva' (synonymous to Dasanan..greeva and anan mean head) meaning ten-headed... Tulsi does not write Ravan's birth in any detail but his accuracy (relative to other shastras/puranas) is phenonimal... thats why when he introduces and talks of the birth of Ravan.. he writes: ' Bhayau Nisachar Sahit Samaja || Das Sir Tahi Bees Bujhdanda | Ravan Nama Bir Bardanda||'

You would think how is this phenominal... well, in less than a chaupai he summarized Ravan's birth with such subtelty...

His original name was not Ravan but Dasagreeva meaning ten-headed... At birth he had ten heads and twenty arms (the second bit of the chaupai (in italics)).. In the first bit is hidden the well-known story of his birth... Rishi had warned Kaikesi that this is an unholy hour at dusk for union..and the issue coming out of this union will be monstrous... Kaikesi knew that she will give birth to a demon (nisachar...) and thus at the birth of the children, the first child was born with ten heads and twenty arms and was named Dasagreeva (later Ravan)... She asked the rishi if all the children will be monstrous... and the rishi said that the fourth child Veebheeshan will be virtous... for some odd reason in the serial they stated that he will be the cause of Ravans downfall haha... well it is true in a way but thats looking at the positives negative from the negatives point of view... (yes, raavan was virtuos too... and hence i have said that it is improtant to ctach raavans charitra instead of leela... as Tulsi considers Ravan an avataar also (of one of shivas gan)... although an avataar due to a curse... SO that was the story of the original name (Dasagreeva or dasanan)...

The story of how he got the name Ravan is in another thread... and I had written it some time back.. and from what I have read in that thread.. it is perfectly fine... but when I looked at a sanskrit dictionary... it also said that Raavan meant Raav + na... one who accepts all challenges is also called Ravan and thus he tried lifting Kailas and Shankar baba played a game and put the thumb of his right leg on Ravans head and Ravan could not take the force.... which has been explained in detail in the other thread mate... however if u still want.. i cant type it up in some time...

hope i have helped clear a few doubts... a few of my doubts have been cleared! cheers!

Darshils,

You have used word "authoritative". This word can have various meanings. But usually those who read your posts will feel that by authoritative, you mean accurate. I am not sure if this is what you mean or something else. If authoritative means accurate, then your statement that Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas is more authoritative than Valimiki Ramayan means that Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas is more accurate than Valmiki Ramayan. I don't think this is a proper conclusion. (Let me know if you meant something else by authoritative).

You have given reason why you consider Ramacharitmanas as more authoritative. You have mentioned explicit description of putrakameshti yajna in Valmiki Ramayan. Yes, it is true that the description is very explicit. But it does not mean that what Valmiki has written is inaccurate. At the most we can say that in current age, people will get more benefits from Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas than from Valmiki Ramayan. May be this is what you meant by authoritative? Please clarify.

Did Valmiki write Ramayan before Ramavatar? I don't think so as per Valmiki Ramayan. When Narad was explaining to Valmiki about Ram, then he was explaining as if Ram had already come on Earth. Of course, it is still possible that Rama avatar had not happened by then because of two reasons:-

1. I have read that great sages could see future. Since they could see the incidents of future the way we can see present and remember past, therefore they talked as if those incidents had already happened or were happening. In other words, they used past or present tense for future events. May be this is why Narad was talking about Ramavatar as if it had already happened though it had not.

2. It is possible that Narad had seen Ramavatar in some world (Say A) and he was talking to Valmiki in some other world (say B). He was explaining to Valmiki what he had seen in A but in Valmiki's world (i.e. B), Ramavatar had not happened.

Therefore, it is quite possible to interpret Valmiki Ramayan in such a way that Valmiki wrote Ramayan before Ramavatar. But, if we take Valmiki Ramayan literally then we come to the conclusion that Valmiki did NOT write Ramayan before Ramavatar.

I agree with your many-worlds explanation of Sati testing Ram.

Valmiki did not glorify Ram as God as much as Tulsidas. What is the reason for it? I agree with all the reasons you have given. But let me add one point. I think that Valmiki presented the story as he saw it (thorough his spiritual eyes) without interpretation from his side. He just wrote what happened with Ram. Ram behaved like a human being. Therefore, Valmiki presented Ram as a human being. When people talked to Ram, then they treated Ram as a great human being, therefore Valmiki also presented Ram as human being. Parashuram called Ram as Vishnu and glorified Ram. Therefore, while describing the encounter between Parashuram and Ram, Valmiki also mentioned Ram as Vishnu(this is one of very few places in Ramayan where Ram is explicitly mentioned as Vishnu).

There is one more possibility. As you have written and as I agree, Rama avatar has happened many times because there are so many worlds and because there have been so many Treta yugas. It is possible that all these Rama incarnations are similar but if we go into minute details, then there were some differences. May be Valmiki was describing one Ramavatar and Tulsi another.

Why only Valmiki Ramayan and Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas? Even Valmiki Ramayan(written by Valmiki) and Adhyatm Ramayan(written by Ved Vyas) differ. Adhyatm Ramayan is more devotional. Ramacharitmanas is closer to Adhyatm Ramayan than to Valmiki Ramayan.

You have written that everyone in Ramcharitmanas (including Ravana) knew and believed Ram to be God. Could you post relevant verses? As I remember, Ravan does not explicitly say that Ram was God. Rather he says that if Ram is ordinary human being, then Ravan will defeat Ram. If Ram is God, then it will be a blessing for Ravan to be killed by Ram. (Exact words may be different). So, Ravan considered both possibilities.