Disclaimer - This blog will be discussing a bit sensitive topic.. On the existence of Rama/Ramayana/Qualities of Rama etc.. Though no one discussing in this forum are experts in Hinduism, the debate is just to find the "why" part of some layman questions that raise up in mind...
- Raguraman
From: Karthic Narayanan S B
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Raguraman R; Sivaraman M - ERS, HCL Tech; Reddy; Karthik Shankara
Subject: http://hubpages.com/hub/proof-of-ramayan
Although it did not contain enough information on the proof of Ramayana, just forwarding this link as there are many people who discuss like us..
And I have added my comments on the above forum as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<< My Response to the blog >>
Narayanan,
Good photos.. But not worth considering as proof of Ramayana happenings. Recently i read from "All about Hinduism - Swamy Sivananda" book that an EPIC is mostly imagination or could be a real story added with "masala" to convey a strong message. Real stories sometimes are taken as the base, so that it could go well with the people listening to the same. They cannot digest the high level concepts directly. "Once upon a time there lived a king" method do well for our people. Also this is an efficient method to inject thought. Ramayana i believe falls under such cadre. It could be a real "spiced" story, about an honest king lived long back. Unfortunate fact is that you took the hero as God rather seeing the "spice/crux/message" of the story. This is where i say something has gone wrong. Are we taking Ramayana in the right sense? What exceptional quality did Rama have to consider him as god? Did no one else after Rama had such qualities? Why Rama alone?
The following verse is what i was searching for sometime to respond your other mail.. You are saying about one moral of Ramayana like respecting elder's words... The below verse is from Kamba Ramayana and this is what Kaikeyi said to Rama [as informed by Dasarathan] before demanding him to move to forest...
ஆழிசூழ் உலகம் எல்லாம் பரதனே ஆள நீ போய்
தாழிரும் சடைகள் தாங்கித் தாங்களும் "தவம் மேற்கொண்டு"
பூழிவெங் கானம் நண்ணிப் "புண்ணிய துறைகள் ஆடி"
"ஏழிரண் டாண்டின் வா" என்றியம்பினன் அரசன் என்றாள்
Translation - This is Kaikeyis instructions to Ram. She says, "The king has said that the Kingdom will be ruled by Bharata and you will become a mendicant ,go to the forest do penance take dip in sacred rivers and spend 14 years and then return back." --- Is this what Rama did during his 14yrs? He was literally hunting down all south Indian kings/prince [Raavana, Vaali, Indrajit etc in the name of Asuras!] on the request of few Aryan sages trying to spread their civilization down south... Is that not? First of all why did Rama come to South India when the holiest places in India like Himalayas, Varnaasi are in the east side? If he wanted to honor his mothers statement, he should have traveled to those sacred places right? Is South India more sacred than Himalayas :-)
Few other questions to find convincing answer for...
2. After killing Raavana and returning to Ayodhya, just because some common man [Washerman - as i remember vaguely] gossiped about Sita's pureness [since she was in the captivity of Raavana for some duration], Rama sent the pregnant lady out of the country doubting her trueness. Justification provided is that "as per Raja Dharma a king need to respect any comments and take action". Here are my questions on this....
a. As per Dharma, any common man has to treat his King/Queen as God. He shouldn't question/doubt their trueness on any aspects/decisions. But some commoner gossiping about the Queen made Rama to make such forced decision to send Sita out of his country? Did he think the situation from Sita's shoes? He was just thinking as a normal king or even a normal man in this situation.
b. Rama has already tested Sita by asking her to enter into fire in Srilanka itself. She has also proved herself. Still Rama doubted Sita like a common man? [Just note that Rama was also alone when Sita was in Raavana's captivity, but she still didnt ask Rama to enter in fire. Thats the belief/love she had on him... But Rama behaved like a third class man doubting his wife for the second time in Ayodhya?]
c. If Rama respects any individuals comments and honors them as the king of Ayodhya, why cant he go along with Sita to forest? He believes Sita's pureness isnt it?
d. Did he still have the lust to rule the kingdom, even without his beloved one?
e. Bharatha was ruling the kingdom properly when Rama was away in forest. Cant he do the same now? Even Raavana was killed now? No threats for Ayodhya now as well. Whats the problem in Rama giving up his kingdom and going along with his beloved one....
f. In the Raamayana serial, they showed like Rama was leading a simple life [not enjoying any luxuries] inside the palace after he sent Sita to forest. What is the moral that an individual need to get here? A man should send his wife somewhere else if "anyone" doubts her, and feel in his house for the act later? Does that make sense at all?
General Note - Sorry for any typo/logic/grammatical issues. Its already late and my brain is running out of fuel. Others, by seeing such mails, dont consider me atheist. Its not about denying the existence of God. Its all about understanding the "why" part of certain things, especially Rama being treated as God. I still appreciate one good quality of Rama.. When his father Dasaratha had 60K wifes [accepted/correct as per Raja Dharma], Rama lived for his beloved Sita. Sadly he still failed to recognize her pure love :-(
Thanks,
Raguraman R
