Now A Temple Dedicated to Ravan! - Page 3

Originally posted by: Freindly_smile

dont u till now get it??wat do u call his demon-ness,he took away sita,but never did he touched her,and also when fighting with ram and his army,he fought like a warrior and not like a demon.

He was one of the world's greatest ever shiv-devotee,a great meditator of lord shiva and one of the most knowledgeble and non-superstious person.

Even in the warfield,he cud have easily tricked ram and maybe who knows the result but he didnt.

Lanka was basicaly of the asuras(dyaityta)and was forcefully confescated by the devs,so y r they not stated bad??they r not stated as tht b'coz watever happens in the world,have a inner meaning to it,even kidnapin of mother sita,and confestating of lanka,which u and me wont understand.

Hello there.. I do appreciate your good idea to protect Ravan from incorrect criticism.. Ravan was certainly a great brahman (in vinay patrika, it is said that Brahma used to go to Ravan to learn the Vedas and Shankar used to go to Ravan to get his puja done). Ravan was a great warrior as well. He was a gyani as well. He was a great shishya... and let me make it clear, ravan wasn't a Shiv bhakt, Shankar was his guru... u may argue how much u want to but that is the truth. Shankar was ravan's guru. Yes, ravan was a great guru-bhakt, if u want to say. But, he had many flaws. Let me highligh a few to you:

1. He was full of ego- and when one is in ego, he is not considered a gyaani... hence ravan is many a times commting actions that are not smart.. eg. killing rishis, destroying yagnas, killing innocent beings.
2. He was full of anger- anger buns knowledge as well
3. He forcefully kidnapped Sita... u do not hesitate to say that the devtas were evil, but u do noteven mention that kidnapping Sita was wrong...
4. Under his rule, his fellow rakshas were making living of humans very difficult.. they would eat humans, destroy their homes, kidnap their wifes... also they would stop dharmic actions..

There are many other flaws... but I do not like to look at the bad side of people... And.. before you even try to say that Ravan could have tricked and defeated Ram... haha... that is utter rubbish.. Ravan lost to 1/2 Ram, as Sita was the other half of Ram ('kahiat bhin na bhin' Ramcharitmanas)... Ram could have defeated Ravan before even coming to Lanka... go read Ramcharitmanas or Ramayan... the day he cam on Lanka's shore, he hit an arrow standing on Mount Sumeru in Ravan's rang mahal such that it hit Mandodari's ear-ring and blew Ravan's crown of his head... Ravan was no match for Ram.. u are trying to praise a human (if u donot like the word demon) while crticizing the Almighty my friend.... that is not smart of you... Ravan used to pray to his guru Shankar, and Shankar was the greatest bhakt of Ram...

The devtas were dumb people. In the Bhagavat, it the gods have been criticised heavily for being 'swa-karya kushal and swarthi'. I agree with u... but they never did ill of others... they never killed other people for the prosperity of their land... they never killed the innocent... Ravan did... The devtas didnt forcefully confiscate the daityas land... they won it in battle. There is a big difference mate. And note.. when even the devtas were full of ego that we defeated the demons... my Ravan came and destroyed there egos, but unfortunately he developed an ego himself... Yes, if u go into the details of his avataar (from Jay and Vijaya), it was all a plan to diminish evil vices from this world and create Ram Rajya, where everyone loved each other... but it is not right to project a one-sided image of Ravan... it would be better instead of making a temple for Ravan, they would spend that money in developing our country or if not that then making people aware of both, the good and the bad sides of Ravan.

There is an inner meaning, and u will get to know it when u try and make an effort to know it... before writing something down, I would advice you to try and find out the truth my dear friend... I am not taunting u or anything.. I am a 'kathakar' and speak on the Ramayan.. and hence know this..

Originally posted by: Darshils

Hello there.. I do appreciate your good idea to protect Ravan from incorrect criticism.. Ravan was certainly a great brahman (in vinay patrika, it is said that Brahma used to go to Ravan to learn the Vedas and Shankar used to go to Ravan to get his puja done). Ravan was a great warrior as well. He was a gyani as well. He was a great shishya... and let me make it clear, ravan wasn't a Shiv bhakt, Shankar was his guru... u may argue how much u want to but that is the truth. Shankar was ravan's guru. Yes, ravan was a great guru-bhakt, if u want to say. But, he had many flaws. Let me highligh a few to you:

1. He was full of ego- and when one is in ego, he is not considered a gyaani... hence ravan is many a times commting actions that are not smart.. eg. killing rishis, destroying yagnas, killing innocent beings.
2. He was full of anger- anger buns knowledge as well
3. He forcefully kidnapped Sita... u do not hesitate to say that the devtas were evil, but u do noteven mention that kidnapping Sita was wrong...
4. Under his rule, his fellow rakshas were making living of humans very difficult.. they would eat humans, destroy their homes, kidnap their wifes... also they would stop dharmic actions..

There are many other flaws... but I do not like to look at the bad side of people... And.. before you even try to say that Ravan could have tricked and defeated Ram... haha... that is utter rubbish.. Ravan lost to 1/2 Ram, as Sita was the other half of Ram ('kahiat bhin na bhin' Ramcharitmanas)... Ram could have defeated Ravan before even coming to Lanka... go read Ramcharitmanas or Ramayan... the day he cam on Lanka's shore, he hit an arrow standing on Mount Sumeru in Ravan's rang mahal such that it hit Mandodari's ear-ring and blew Ravan's crown of his head... Ravan was no match for Ram.. u are trying to praise a human (if u donot like the word demon) while crticizing the Almighty my friend.... that is not smart of you... Ravan used to pray to his guru Shankar, and Shankar was the greatest bhakt of Ram...

The devtas were dumb people. In the Bhagavat, it the gods have been criticised heavily for being 'swa-karya kushal and swarthi'. I agree with u... but they never did ill of others... they never killed other people for the prosperity of their land... they never killed the innocent... Ravan did... The devtas didnt forcefully confiscate the daityas land... they won it in battle. There is a big difference mate. And note.. when even the devtas were full of ego that we defeated the demons... my Ravan came and destroyed there egos, but unfortunately he developed an ego himself... Yes, if u go into the details of his avataar (from Jay and Vijaya), it was all a plan to diminish evil vices from this world and create Ram Rajya, where everyone loved each other... but it is not right to project a one-sided image of Ravan... it would be better instead of making a temple for Ravan, they would spend that money in developing our country or if not that then making people aware of both, the good and the bad sides of Ravan.

There is an inner meaning, and u will get to know it when u try and make an effort to know it... before writing something down, I would advice you to try and find out the truth my dear friend... I am not taunting u or anything.. I am a 'kathakar' and speak on the Ramayan.. and hence know this..

shankar is another name of shiv,and i hope thtr everybody knows tht.

neways i dont wanna argue here,coz i dont feel tht neone here includin me has equivalent knowledge compared to the subject its being discussed,no offence meant.

Originally posted by: shikha87

hunny ravan is not a demon but he is another vishnu's avatar teaching us humans what we get if get too much pride, devotion, anger and hatred. actually reading all the puranas and researching i have found out that laxman wasn't that saint at all.

so why are people thinking he is a demon as in truth he is not. vishnu only took an avatar as a ravan to teach us what happens if we try to go against god. is a teaching to us humans. And burning his sculputre or saying bad stuff about him is not good at all 🤢

sorry hunny i don't try to be rude or mean i am just saying what i have learnt

I strongly agree with u

Is there any one from srilanka i heard they had temples for Ravan for ages there.. temple for ravan is not new..

Guys, I am surprised at how much you know about history of ravan,
ramayan in gener. But my main question would be, if someone cut your
sister's nose with a sword just because she found him attractive, what
would you do. Just the fact that ravan kept sita, though he could have
done much more, without any physical contact should tell you how much
control he had over himself. No one is perfect, even sita herself asked
ram to kill a dear for his skin, whats that about? Now, in terms of ravan
and his personality, look into his childhood and you will see that he hated
caste system, something that is still being charished by most of inida to
this day, which explains why he is considered a demon. Guys understand
that if you had his knowledge and power, and someone does as little as
look at your sister the wrong way, trust me you would have done much
worse. surup nakha's nose being cut is where it all began. We need to
study history and excercise our independent judgement. Sorry to remind
you but history is a dialect, said differently, it is usually written by
winners and not losers. If ravan lost anything, it was not because of his
weaknesses, but because vibhishan, his younger brother, betrayed him.
Independence is key to understanding history as it was.

Hey mate,
haha, what u have said is all correct; but only partially. You said:

'if someone cut your sister's nose with a sword just because she found him attractive, what would you do."

Well, that is only half the truth. When she found Ram attractive, she assumeda form a a beautiful lady asked Ram to marry her. Ram said I cannot as I have woved to have only 1 wife. Then she went to Lakshman and asked him to marry her. Lakshman said that I am Ram's servant, would u marry a servant. Surpankha didnt like the idea of marrying a servant. Now note, if ur attraction changes from one man to another so quickly, that is not attraction but lust. When she got rejected by both, she came to her natural ugly form and went to eat Sita as Ram didnt marry Surpankha as he had already married Sita. Now I ask u the question, if a woman (let alone a demon) comes to eat ur wife or to injure her, I am sure u would do more than cutting her nose and ears. haha. In Sanskrit 'Pati' means 'Rakshak' or prtoector, so it was Ram's responsibility to protect Sita. Also note, Ram didnt cut her nose, Lakshman did. Lakshman is Sita's son (Sumitra, Lakshmans mum, told Lakshman that in the forest, Sita is ur mother and Ram is ur father).. so essentially a son protected his mum. Attraction is not wrong, but when attraction becomes violent... It is similar to rape if i am not exaggerating.

Secondly u said "Just the fact that ravan kept sita, though he could have
done much more, without any physical contact should tell you how much
control he had over himself."

hahaha... sry. He couldnt do much more because he was cursed by Kuber that if he forcefully touched a women, he would die on the spot (as Ravan had raped Kubers wife). You can call it self control but it was self control under fear. And mate, Ravan kept sita is not a small issue. If u find that right, then u wont mind kidnappings eh!

Then u said "No one is perfect, even sita herself asked ram to kill a dear for his skin, whats that about?"

Mate, Ramayan or in fact none of the scriptures are textbooks. They are 'granths'. You cannot read it with only a literal meaning, there is a metaphorical and philosphical reasoning to it. Firstly, the dear was golden. There are no golden dears. Marich had assumed a form of a golden dear to attract Sita and get Ram into the forest so that Ravan could kidnap her. Sita told Ram to kill the dear as it was acting to be something it wasnt (kapat or it was trying to decieve smeone). Sita is Bhakti and in Bhakti, u shouldnt try to decieve anyone. Also, Marich had been shot by Ram in Vishvamitras ashram. Ram shot an arrow without the pointed bit and when it hit Marich, he fell 400 miles (100 jojan... sry for any conversion error), far. Then Marich became a good man and started doing tapasya and jap. So he became a bhakt. In bkati u shouldnt try to decieve anyone, Sita was telling that to us.

Then u said "Now, in terms of ravan and his personality, look into his childhood and you will see that he hated caste system, something that is still being charished by most of india to this day, which explains why he is considered a demon."

No, that doesnt explain why he was considered a demon. He was a demon, look into his childhood haha... Sumali, his mother, Pulatsya everyone knew h was a demon. And his actions were that of a demon- he was destructive, got angry very quickly, stubborn... A demon in sanskrit is one with a Tamasi nature... and all of these qualities were in Ravan (some of which i said). And the caste system is not bad. Dont consider me wrong. If u read Manu Smriti (Manu, the person/king who made the caste system) made the caste system to maintain equilbirum in society. There would be no unemployment. The brahmins will maintain spritiual equilibrium, kshatriyas will maintain political and governmental stability, vaishyas economic stability and shudras woudl chip in by serving all of them. Manu said 'Janma Nam Jayate Shudra'... every person is born a Shudra... no one is born a brahmin... It were some dumb people who took the initiative and decided that brahmins are top ranked, then kshatriyas and all... I am against teh ranking... not the casting. Manu said, it will depend on the karmas and nature of the person of what he will be.

"Guys understand that if you had his knowledge and power, and someone does as little as look at your sister the wrong way, trust me you would have done much worse. "

This contradcits with what u said regarding Ravan having self-control. If u have knoledge u wouldnt misuse power. Ravans power controlled his knowledge and not the other way round and thats why though being educated he was very violent. And u think of what Ravan will do if his sister gets hurt, but not what Ram would do when his wife gets hurt.. thats harsh mate..

"surup nakha's nose being cut is where it all began. We need to
study history and excercise our independent judgement. Sorry to remind
you but history is a dialect, said differently, it is usually written by
winners and not losers." Our history was not written by a winner or a loser. It was written by Rishis who are 'samaan-chit'.. they donot prefer one over the other. And ur point regarding independent judgement is a bit problematic. This is how the caste system developed into a vicious cycle that ate up the slower caste people... it is improtant to have an indepedent judgment but also to accept different views with respect and have some truth/fat value in what u say... not just half truths! Or else ur judgment is wrong...

"If ravan lost anything, it was not because of his weaknesses, but because vibhishan, his younger brother, betrayed him." No mate, Vibhishan never betrayed him. Read the Ramayan. How many times did Vibhishan tell Ravan to give Sita back to Ram. He didnt agree. Then Ravan was the chap who himself kicked Vibhishan out of the country... Now is that smart or what... Vibhishan never betrayed Ravn. In fact, ravan's mum (Keksi) was the one who told Vibhishan to go to Ram to ask him to only kill Ravan (and his army) and not hurt the people of the city.

"Independence is key to understanding history as it was." Not to be rude, but ur independence does tell me how much u have understood history. You have understood what u liked to understand. Independence is not the key, an open mind with acceptence of all views and then a throuogh reflection of history makes ur understanding stronger. You can never know history completely if u do not accept all views.

It is clear that some of you have decided for yourself what is right and wrong, and who was good and evil, and you attack everyone who has a different opinion.

Did you even think about why they build a temple for Ravan?
Maybe they just dont want us to forget that Ravan was a great man, but turned bad later on. Just to set an example for us.

(When you compare Ravan with Kans, you have to admit that Kans was far more evil than Ravan ever was. And even Duryodhan was not a demon, but we think he was evil.)

"It is clear that some of you have decided for yourself what is right and wrong, and who was good and evil, and you attack everyone who has a different opinion."

I have never decided what i wrong and what is right... wherever i have said anything I have supported it with proof.. i have not made sweeping statements as 'some of you' have. I never attacked anyones opinion. You are still entitled to your opinion and I know how much I say something, people will not change their opinion. Forums are for discussion, and I have discussed points others have made.. never criticised anyone.

'Did you even think about why they build a temple for Ravan?
Maybe they just dont want us to forget that Ravan was a great man, but turned bad later on. Just to set an example for us."

If you have read my posts, I have agreed that ravan was a great shiv devotee. I agreed that ravan was a wise man. I agreed that he knew all the vedas... I even said (quoted from the ramcharitmanas) that Brahma used to go to Ravan to learn the Vedas ad Shankar used to visit Ravan to get his puja done. Ravan was an all=powerful person. I never said Ravan didnt have these qualities (and many others). I do know that they have anted to preserve Ravan's outlook as a good being turned bad. But, it doesnt mean that people start questioning that Ram was not bhagwan, or Ram was not prefect because he is human or Ram had negative qualities... My main and soul point has been to explain that it is fine to show the good qualities in Ravan, but why show the non-existant negative qualities in Ram.

Finally I never compared Ravan with Kans or Duryodhan. I never said that Ravan was worse than Kans or better than Kans. 'Krishna came as god, but there were non-believers! Such as Shakuni, Kans, Duryodhan.... Ravan agreed that Ram was god.. ' This is what I said.... I said Duryodhan and Kans never believed Krishna was god. Ravan knew (let alone believe) that Ram was god. You are analysing the wrong context!

I have never tried to change anyones beliefs... everyone is entitled to their own... but belief should come from the womb of truth and faith.... if ur belief has no truth, then it is not ever-lasting... it will have to change when u get to know the truth... yes, u can try to ignore!

Thinking of making a temple for Ravan is the most stupid thing anyone can ever think.
The deeds he did were not justified. Darshils 👏
Hope some of these peeps will learn something through your post. Great info 👏