DOTW: Stories from Uttarkhand - Page 7

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Varna and Caste are NOT the same

Varna is aptitude , a mental attribution.

Caste or Jati refers to the birth of a human being. Jati is derived from 'J^ata' which means 'Of birth'

During the first three yugas (Satya/Krita, Treta and Dwapar) a person of Shudra Varna was not allowed to perform tapasya; which was a rule .

a person of shudra jati was allowed to take up austerities . Stark examples of this are Shabari and 'Satyakam' Jabali

(Jabali was one of the priest in Ramji's court. He didn't know who his biological father was and his mother jabala was of shudra jati, yet Jabali could obtain education and knowledge from rishi Gautam. He earned the title of Satyakam not because he just spoke the truth always but he dared to call a spear a spear; he was a great reformist and a thinker par excellence.)

Now coming to why only Shambuka was punished??

Shambuka told Lord Rama that he is a Shudra and he is doing Tapasya to enter Deva Loka 'sa-sharira'- as it is, with body (7-76-2)

I do not speak false, O' Kakustha but I want to conquer Devaloka and thats why I have undertaken severe penance. ( Tapa ugra samaasthitam) 7-76-3

Entering devaloka as it is?

This privilege was only given rishi Sharbhanga who denied it because he wanted to meet Rama. Shabari too obtains salvation not only because she hosted Rama but for her austerities

Note that a tapasya always has to be done with a good intention ; of helping the world . Whereas Shambuka doesn't seem to have one.

Rishi Vishwamitra too had to go rigourous penance for several years to become a "Brahmarishi"

When Lord Rama heard that Shambhuka was trying to conquer Deva Loka he beheaded Shambhuka. Then Indra and other Devas appear and shower flowers over Lord Rama. It is quite clear from the story that Indra and other Devas were relieved that Rama stopped Shambhuka from trying to conquer Deva Loka. Devas told him that since Shambhuka's unethical power grab of Deval Loka has been stopped, the son of the Brahmana is now living.(7-76-7 to 11)

(I am sorry but just couldn't ignore this troll accusing; this is one issue that Ram-bashers use as an ultimate weapon against Ramji)

Sorry if anyone doesn't like it ,I'll edit my post)

Originally posted by: Rajnish_Kumar

Though i always had a different opinion regarding this story of shambuk. From the day i read this story i belived this was not a part of Original Valmiki ramayan but was latter added by some crooks just to bring the caste issue. The reason why I belive its latter interpolation and not original cuz this story is very uncharacteristic of Ram as in Previous chapter of Ramayana. When Going through few article in net I found this is not only my belive but few more school of thought belive the same. Even many Harijans themselves reject the claim that Rama had killed any Shambuk. For example, Harijan members of the Ramnami Vaishnava sect claim that this was a later insertion for the upper-castes to assert their superirity. There is few points which made me to conclude why this shambuk incident could not had been a part of original Valmiki Ramayan. The reason being as Valmiki was himself Bhil Adiwasi and then became brahmin and sage by performing austerities and learned veda. Many sages are examples of this like Maharishi Parashar who was son of a fisherwomen. If these sages are allowed to do tapasya and read veda to become brahmin why not shambuka.
Then Ram was himself not casteist type and would not put people to death for such trivial thing. The best example of this is Sabri incident who was herself a poor sudra women. Ram accepted and ate food given by her. she also attended salvation by meditating and was sooo dear to Ram. Ram accepted food touched and tested by her. his this decent behaviour proves that ram have no reason to kill sudra on basis of caste for reading veda.
Actully few school of thought even belives that whole of uttar ramayan is not an original part of Valmiki Ramayan but latter interpolation. The reason being phalasutris and difference in quality of verses in privious six kanda and final seventh uttar kanda. Phalasutris are verses which attached as a finale to all scriptural texts and Stotras listing the benefits that would accrue to the persons who recite, read or hear the relevant texts. In Valmiki ramayan Phalasutris occur at the End of sixth kandam.
Beside there is few tradition which hold different story regarding death of shambuk. According to this story shambuk was rebirth of Shamba. shamba was rakshasha who was performing penance to accquire power to seduce Parvati. He was cursed to be reborn as shambuka. On his prayers and apology he was relived that he would attain salvation in that birth by being killed from Ram. So shamba was born as shambuka and was delibrately voileted dharma to be killed by Ram.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Now, there is no mention of the horse, or people following the horse, or the 2 sons tying up the horse, or anything like that in this translation. Where does that version which is shown in all the movies and serials come in? Which version of Ramayan is it in?

🥳

Ananya!!!👍🏼

Welcome to the Goldie club!!!!!👏

🥳

Originally posted by: S_rocha

sambuk story

Lord Rama, the sat-purusa (ideal man) & the great upholder of dharma, upholds the dharma of slaughtering an innocent Sudra only because he was performing asceticism (tapas). Low-castes like Sudras were not allowed to perform austerities or penances as Brahmins were, because the whole universe could go out of balance when caste divisions are not adhered to. Therefore, Sambuka, only because he was born as a Sudra and was performing the svadharma (caste duty) of a higher caste than his own, was slain by Rama as a sacrifice:

Conveniently left out of this description are the circumstances of why Rama had to go after Shambuka in the first place. 7:73 has the account:

One day an old Braahman came there crying with the dead body of his son in his arms and said - "Kaal has taken my son untimely - only at the age of five years. I never tell lies, nor I trouble anybody, then why my son has died in his childhood? Hey Raajan, Is this the happiness in your kingdom? My son has died because of Raam's sin, there is no doubt about it. Now either make him alive, or I will leave my body here at your gate with my wife. And then you will be responsible for Brahm Hatyaa (killing of a Braahman). When any Raajaa does some kind of sin, then only the public dies untimely. It is only because of Raaja's sin that this boy has died. Because Raam became Raajaa of Ikshwaaku Vansh, that is why this kingdom is without its master." That Braahaman was defaming and blaming Raam for his son's death and crying continuously.

It's legitimate to ask whether in order to resurrect a dead (Brahman) baby, it was worth killing a living adult. But to ignore that part of the story altogether is plain sophistry.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

S_rocha: are you sure that 7-88-89 is the story of Shambuka?? Or is it another (deliberate) mistake of your's??🤢

You obviously have copy-pasted this translation from a site full of grossly misinterpreted verses . How is that you post without cross-verifying?? 😡😡

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Ramji hears the songs for many days. There is a lot of whispering among the avadhis because the 2 boys are a splitting image of Ramji. At the end, out of curiosity, Ramji asks about the composer. The 2 boys say that Valmiki taught them. Through the song Ramji comes to know that they are his sons. He then asks Valmiki to bring Sita and asks her to show that she stayed true to him when she lived apart in Valmiki's ashram. 😕 Valmiki vouches for her. Ramji says he knows that Sita is pure but he needs her oath to appease the (my opinion here) the 😈😈😈 avadhis. 😡😡😡
Sita gets upset and calls for Bhoomi devi who splits open the earth. Sita sits on the seat with her and goes into the Bhoomi.

Ramji finishes the aswamedha sacrifice with both his sons by his side after Sita goes into the bhoomi.

Note that there is no mention of the people of Ayodhya repenting for what they did to Sita. In fact, is it even there in the original text, verse wise?