Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 29

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Thanks Vibishna for setting me straight there. Like and learn! 😃 I believe, the 400 poems mention the Ramayan or have the story of Ramayan. It also mentions Ram as the incarnation of Vishnu. So, my point was that Rama was considered an avatar as early as 200 BCE. I think the greatness of Tulsidasji was that he wrote the Ramayan in the local dialect so that the aam aadmi can understand. All the other works, especially the ancient works, in Sanskrit or Tamil were written in high sounding literary language. The aam aadmi could not understand it.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Hey Vibs, I too have heard this story... actually in one of the upanyasams (discourses) on Ramayana, this is said.

It is said that the first verses of the Suprabatham were said by Vishwamitra.

The Venkatesha Suprabatham was rendered by Prativathi Bhayangaram Annangaracharyar, who was a disciple of Sri.Manavala Mamunigal (the Vaishnavite saint)

Another thing to note is that Viswamitra says "Kausalya Supraja Rama", for which the explanation in the upanyasam was - Though Rama was sent by Dasaratha to accompany the sage, he could be aptly called Dasaratha Supraja Rama in a mode to thank Dasaratha also, but if he said Dasaratha Supraja, it could also suit Lakshmana who was also the son of Dasaratha. So the sage mentions Kausalya which means that he denoted Rama only....

Originally posted by: chen2chic

O o..........looks like "Sanga Tamizh mandram" is to be formed................😉

Hey naanum adhula oru member ok? count me in...😊

Originally posted by: chen2chic

An interpretation of this is that Viswamitra had realised The Supreme in Lord Rama. As a student, though Lord Rama was anxious to serve Rishi Viswamitra, the preceptor too for his part, was keen to serve Him. He taught the two princes the hymns of Bala and Atibala displaying the Guru Shishya bhava. In order to evince his motherly love towards the Lord, he wakes up Lord Rama with these verses as a mother would wake up her son.

Rajnish

Thanks for the answer. I think Rama as an avatar of Vishnu was there even in Valmiki, as evident at the end of Yudhya-kand when Brahma appears before Rama and discloses to him that fact. What is different between the 2 - and this is a very fundamental difference that I've seen quite a few people (including myself) having an issue with - is that in Valmiki, Rama has no idea that he is an avatar of Vishnu until that point in time, and what's more, very few people (excepting some rishis, like Vaishishtha, Valmiki, Agastya, et al) know it. In Ramacharitmanas, not only does Rama seem to know it, but it seems to be common knowledge - everyone knows it.

Reason this is significant - the boon Brahma granted Ravan was that none of the gods would be able to kill him, and that included Vishnu. If Rama knew that he was Vishnu and retained all his divine powers, it wouldn't have been much different from Vishnu simply temporarily assuming a human form, but under the terms of that boon, that wouldn't have slain Ravan. For the conditions of Ravan's death to be effective, he'd have to be killed by an actual man/vanar, and in that department, with the exceptions of Kartavirya Arjuna, Mandhata and Vali, nobody could defeat him. So for Vishnu to kill him, not only did he have to be born as a man, but he couldn't retain any of the divine knowledge that his avatars, such as Krishna later, normally would have.

In fact, before he left Vaikuntha to assume birth as Rama, Vishnu asked Indra never to cross his path, so that he may remain unaware of his identity until Ravan was slain. That possibly explains why Indra didn't appear before Rama when Rama was at Rishi Sharbhang's ashram (3-5-21:24): if any of the devas met Rama, they'd have to bow to him since he was Vishnu, and that would make Ravan aware of the fact that Rama was Vishnu, and invoke the powers of his boon from Brahma. As a result, when it's sometimes shown that Ravan's associates were advising him that Rama was Vishnu, that's very unlikely, since Ravan would then have recognized that he was fighting Vishnu, and invoked his boon.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Rajnish

Thanks for the answer. I think Rama as an avatar of Vishnu was there even in Valmiki, as evident at the end of Yudhya-kand when Brahma appears before Rama and discloses to him that fact. What is different between the 2 - and this is a very fundamental difference that I've seen quite a few people (including myself) having an issue with - is that in Valmiki, Rama has no idea that he is an avatar of Vishnu until that point in time, and what's more, very few people (excepting some rishis, like Vaishishtha, Valmiki, Agastya, et al) know it. In Ramacharitmanas, not only does Rama seem to know it, but it seems to be common knowledge - everyone knows it.

Reason this is significant - the boon Brahma granted Ravan was that none of the gods would be able to kill him, and that included Vishnu. If Rama knew that he was Vishnu and retained all his divine powers, it wouldn't have been much different from Vishnu simply temporarily assuming a human form, but under the terms of that boon, that wouldn't have slain Ravan. For the conditions of Ravan's death to be effective, he'd have to be killed by an actual man/vanar, and in that department, with the exceptions of Kartavirya Arjuna, Mandhata and Vali, nobody could defeat him. So for Vishnu to kill him, not only did he have to be born as a man, but he couldn't retain any of the divine knowledge that his avatars, such as Krishna later, normally would have.

In fact, before he left Vaikuntha to assume birth as Rama, Vishnu asked Indra never to cross his path, so that he may remain unaware of his identity until Ravan was slain. That possibly explains why Indra didn't appear before Rama when Rama was at Rishi Sharbhang's ashram (3-5-21:24): if any of the devas met Rama, they'd have to bow to him since he was Vishnu, and that would make Ravan aware of the fact that Rama was Vishnu, and invoke the powers of his boon from Brahma. As a result, when it's sometimes shown that Ravan's associates were advising him that Rama was Vishnu, that's very unlikely, since Ravan would then have recognized that he was fighting Vishnu, and invoked his boon.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Chandraketu, good analysis 👏👏👏

I have read it somewhere before (I don't remember which version) that when Indra appeared before Lord Ram after Ravan was killed he told Ram that it would not have been right for us to meet at that time when you spotten my chariot (or vimana) in front of Rishi Sharbhang's ashram and that was why he immediately disappeared when he saw Ram coming towards the ashram. But I never knew that Lord Vishnu himself had told Indra not to meet him till Ravan was slain. I thikn in the Valmiki Ramayan everyone warned Ravan of Ram's might but not that he was an avtaar of Lord Vishnu. Isn't it so? I don't remember reading any dialogue of someone warning Ravan that he is Narayan.

I did find it very confusing when I first read Tulsidas Ramayan for the same reason that Ram was supposed to be a completely human manifestation to kill Ravan. It was getting really confusing to understand it all when Ram was shown to be all knowing and at the same time acting the part of a human. But it was a good book.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

How I wish I can read and enjoy all the Sangam Literature and all the ancient literature in India

😍

Sure, you are welcome Deepa ji (I hope I got your name right). This Tamil Sangam (if it is formed) will also translate the works so that others can understand and enjoy it too.

Let us get back to Ramayan, now 😉

I have been wondering . . . the great sages of those times have been educating not only princes but also the common folk. The sages teach their students what they should know - the princes were coached not only in the daily lives of the people but also in politics and administration too. How did they teach warfare?

Learning the use of weapons - the sages could have taught them. But how to use a chariot, horsemanship??? - The sages lived close to forests. Did they maintain horses and chariots too? I have read that they reared cattle and other gentle creatures in the ashram.

How did the princes learn horsemanship and how to manage a chariot. Did they learn it from their royal relatives (probably father, uncles or so?), their generals etc.?

If so who taught Lord Ram and his brothers all this?

I have read many stories of young princes learning a bit of these arts before they set foot in their Guru's Ashram. I think they must have known how to manage horses and the charitos already.

My opinion - after they had learned all of it from books or from what theyr Guru had said they must have come home (to the palace) and practised it.

What do you think about this, friends?

If anyone knows how they were actually taught, please enlighten me.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Yea! how I wish I could read all the versions of Ramayan and do only that and not have to work. The actors lives' are better because they get to play the role of Ramji and other characters from Ramayan. It is a funner (hah! made up word) way to earn a living.
Good questions you asked there. My take on it, the rishis could have had people to give this kind of training in the ashram.

I had another question. We keep hearing that Dashrath lived so many years (sometimes 1,000 or 10,000) years and Ramji rules for 11,000 years (just pulling out a number) and so on. How do we translate this to the modern age? I have read such fantastic numbers even for the rishis and such. It cannot be that, I am sure. How was age calculated in those days and how do we convert it to the modern way to understand it?