Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 23 Feb 2011 20:51

In the Vedic discourse, the cognitive centers are called the devatas or devas{ deities or gods, or luminous loci.
The Atharvaveda (10.2.31) calls the human body the city of the devas. This passage also speaks of the body consisting
of eight cognitive centers which, other references suggest, are hierarchically organized.

The devas are visualized in a complex, hierarchical scheme, with some being closer to the autonomous processes of the body and others being nearer creative centers. In analogy with outer space, inner space of consciousness is viewed to have three zones: the body (earth), the exchange processes (prana, atmosphere), and the inner sky (heavens). The number of devas is variously given, the most extravagant passages count 3.3 million.
The Brhadaran.yaka Upanisad (3.9.1) remembers a hymn that praises 3306 of them, arguing there are 33 major deities, distributed in three groups of eleven among the three zones. All these devas are taken to embody the same light of consciousness. The mind consists of discrete agents, although it retains a unity.

Since each deva reflects primordial consciousness, one can access the mystery of consciousness through any specific deva. Thus there is a deva for reading and learning,one for recognition, one for one for friendship, one for generosity, and so on.

"Gods Within" by Subhash Kak

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Feb 2011 21:00

From Pioneer:

AGENDA | Sunday, February 27, 2011 | Email | Print | | Back

Looking for a historical RamaFebruary 28, 2011 9:13:11 PM

Historical Rama
Author: DK Hari & Hema Hari
Publisher: Sri Sri Publications Trust
Price: Rs 200

Ayodhya: War and Peace
Author: DK Hari & Hema Hari
Publisher: Sri Sri Publications Trust
Price: Rs 200

The two books eloquently prove Ramayana isn’t a mythical saga, writes François Gautier

Is Lord Rama a historic personality? Literature and local legends have kept alive the image of Rama as a popular hero, a righteous man, a noble king and a God. Was he all that and more?

Here comes DK Hari and his wife, Hema, founders of Bharath Gyan, a Chennai-based research centre, who have written a book which attempts to substantiate the historicity of Rama by using a new technique of dating called Archaeo-Astronomy.

Archaeo-Astronomy examines scientific evidences such as astronomical sky charts, geological surveys, archaeological excavations, travelogues of foreign visitors to India and notes from the archives of other countries. The holistic compilation thus garnered, DK Hari says, “is the result of careful scrutiny and validation of the information from the above listed various sources and then collation of the same in an integrated, interdisciplinary manner to unravel the historicity of Rama”.

Indeed, Hari and his wife have raised various questions that occur to the ordinary mind, in the context of both Ramayana and Rama, such as the date of his birth, who was Hanuman, or how Rama Setu was built.

They mainly contend that the first official history of India, written by James Mill and Charles Grant (who never set foot on Indian soil), is full of flaws and warped all future historical records on India. For one, Mill and Grant believed that the world was created in 4004 BC, hence the Vedas, Ramayana, or Bhagavad Gita were postdated by them. They thought that it was Alexander ‘the Great’ who spread civilisation in India in 326 BC. For them, Indians were barbarians before that, even though today it has come out that Alexander was in awe of Indian achievements and wisdom. Not to forget, the Aryan invasion theory which has largely been debunked today. As a result, Rama and Krishna were categorised by Mill and Grant as ‘mythology’; and, for them, the Vedas were a litany of mumble-jumble.

If there are talks on Rama, then one cannot escape the Ayodhya topic, which forms the subject of the second booklet, Ayodhya: War and Peace, by the Hari couple. In this book, using the same archaeo-astronomy parameters, they date the foundation of the city of Ayodhya to 7,000 years ago. They recap how not only Rama, but also Lakshmana, Bharata, Shatrughna and the two sons of Rama — Luva and Kusha — are historical. Their children, they claim, “are living in our midst even today, for over the last 7,000 years they have spread to different parts of the land. Not only within India but to different parts of the world too”.

DK Hari says, “What we need today, in respect of Ayodhya, is a perspective that addresses the issue in an inclusive manner of bringing all sections together. A perspective to restore Ayodhya, as not only one of the longest surviving cities of the world, but also to focus on the lessons to be gained from Ayodhya and its long history and the values that Rama stood for.”

Some of the arguments of both the books make sense. The authors, for instance, say that 7,000 years ago the sea was three metres shallower in the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka. This must have allowed Rama and his army to build the bridge. The calculating of Rama’s birth and the listing of historical references to Ayodhya also make for sound reading.

One, however, feels that the arguments are a bit overstretched at times and that gaps are filled-up by little substantiated facts — for instance, Rama was able to fly with an ancient wing suit! Nevertheless, beliefs are often based on faith. After all, why should Christians trust that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, or that he ascended physically to heaven after being crucified — and Hindus not be allowed to believe that Rama was a historical avatar and that Ayodhya was his capital?

-- The reviewer is a French journalist based in India

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 28 Feb 2011 21:29

Scholars have been for ever trying to date Ramayanam and Mahabharatam; and trying to discover anthropological evidences. It is good, but there are some inherent dangers as well. Some interesting thoughts about historicity and past by Rajiv Malhotra and Prof S.N.Balagangadhara. I am positive people reading this particular dhaaga are aware of both these two stalwarts.

Rajiv in Sulekha

9) Major (but not all) denominations of Christianity and Islam insist on a set of historical events as being necessary to their belief system, making them history centric. Examples include: Sunni, Shiite, Ahmadiyya; Mormon, Baptist; Vatican; Presbyterian; Methodist; etc. (Many Hindutva followers would also fall under this classification, such as those that claim Ram's birthplace in Ayodhya as a necessary (not just “nice to have”) part of their religion.)

Itihas is not literal history in the Western sense. Itihas is a view of the past that is continually updated, based on the present context. As Shrinivas Tilak explains, [52]

"Hindus see the arrival of Sri Rama as a Grand Narrative (Ramayana) that is made up of symbols woven into dramatized ritual and narrative. But itihas (which traditionally comprises of Ramayana and Mahabharata) is not a question of either myth or history for it includes both. History is a linear mode of experience, relating primarily to the left-brain literal knowledge. Myth, on the other hand, is a creative and aesthetic mode of experience that derives from the right-brain, reflecting a holistic mode of consciousness. Just as the left and the right sides of the brain are bridged to act as one, so in itihas, both myth and history are subsumed."

Hence, there are many Ramayanas across India, Thailand, Indonesia, and other places, and these have changed several times. Even in Thailand, there are towns named Ayodhya, because the villagers have constructed their itihas to believe that Lord Rama lived in their midst. Bali has a monkey forest, whose monkeys are believed to be descendents of Hanuman's army. Local inhabitants who are unable to travel to the Ganga treat the Godavri and Narmada rivers as their Ganga for many rituals. Many Hindus in UK treat the river Thames as their local Ganga, without any sense of transgression.

Not being handcuffed to literalist history, itihas is pliable, fluid, and allows many versions, with no compulsion to find “one true canon.” Therefore, Western projects to write “critical editions” of Indian itihas are inherently flawed. Madeleine Biardeau cogently argued this for the Mahâbhârata (against V. Sukthankar)[53]. By a forced mapping onto Western notions of history, such projects would alter Indic traditions, in the same manner as many 19th century colonial interventions re-engineered Indian society, narratives and identities. This is cultural imperialism.

Itihas is more about identity and continuity with one's ancestors. Itihas is not seen as a necessary condition for spiritual truth-claims, because there have always been many mainstream Indian spiritual movements with no reliance upon itihas. Vaishnavism, as one of many ways of being a Hindu, comes closest to having a Grand Narrative of God's interventions in human history, i.e. via the avatars of Vishnu. But even Vaishnavism accepts multiple avatars, and the puranas are able to adapt to include Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed as avatars -- because of the pliable nature of itihas. itihas is like an ecosystem of narratives, in which new peoples may incorporate their own narratives in a mutually respectful manner.

Finally, Shiva's dance is completely ahistorical. It is the universe. There is no question of a specific time or place where a “unique” intervention by Shiva occurred, because Shiva's Shakti is engaged with us at all times and in all places, and is immanent in, and as the universe.

Having said all this, itihas can also include literal historiography in the Western sense, especially in mundane human events[54].

**************
The following are excerpts from an essay "What do Indians need: A History or the Past?" by S.N. Balagangadhara.

As we grew up and learnt our geographies and sciences, we did try to combine both: how could there be treta yuga when our species is hardly 50,000 years old? How could Bhima really have the strength of 10,000 elephants and Duryodhana merely 9999? How could Dharmaraja ‘walk’ to Swarga and, if he did, why could Trishanku not do the same? And so on as well. We went to our elders with these questions and their answers, which were no answers at all, satisfied us. And, over a period of time, we stopped asking these questions. Not because we knew the answers or that they were unanswerable. But we stopped asking such questions because we learnt, in whichever way we did so, that these were not the right questions to ask. To grow up as an Indian is to learn that these stories should be treated differently than claims from our geography lessons. Finally, we assumed an attitude that was indifferent to the facticity of these stories. We reached a stage where we could endorse the following dialogue between a Swiss-German and a Balinese (from Bichsel, Peter, 1982, Der Leser, Das Erzählen: Frankfurter Poetik-Vorlesungen. Darm¬stadt und Neu¬wied: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag. Pp. 13-14, my translation and italics):

Note: I, evily, leave out the interesting dialog so that you are forced to ask me/read the entire essay.

What happens when people make claims that ‘rama sethu’ exists, Ayodhya is situated somewhere in northern India and such like? What happens when such ‘historical’ claims begin to find their way into people’s consciousness?
In the early phases, there is happiness and euphoria. Not because we can now say, “ah, after all, everything that Ramayana says is true”. But because we feel our connections to the past have taken on tangible presence. We feel that we recognize these empirical markers because we have always been familiar with them. Dwaraka, Brindavana, Kurukshetra, Ayhodhya... these are our cities and our past. Suddenly, there is exhilaration: it merely requires a few days journey to go to Kurukshetra! However, this is merely the first phase. What happens in the subsequent phase when this claim is pushed further, as it is invariably going to be?

Consider the following scenario. It becomes common ‘knowledge’ that the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas was a tribal war, fought somewhere in the north of India some three thousand years ago. And that ‘rakshasa’, ‘vanara’ merely named some or another tribe in India. Krishna was a dark-skinned upstart from some tribe; Rama was a king somewhere up north; Draupadi was a daughter from yet another tribe that practiced polygamy, and so on. In short, we discover that our epics and puranas are badly written historiographies that chronicle the lives of ordinary human beings like you and me. We discover what we knew all along: it is not possible to train the monkeys that swing from tree to tree to build a bridge between India and Sri Lanka.

Then the ‘Dalit’ and progressive intellectuals turn up. They tell us that some or another ‘Brahminized’ poet merely described the work of the ‘slaves’ of a human king called ‘Rama’ as the work of ‘monkeys’. By calling these slaves as ‘monkeys’, they add, the ‘upper-caste’ proves yet again its disdain and contempt for and the oppression of ‘the Dalits’. As has been typical of the ‘Aryans’, the Brahmin priests were not even willing to consider such ‘slaves’ as human beings. The same argument would then get applied to the Danavas and Rakshasas: we ‘discover’ that the ‘Dravidians’ were the Rakshasas and the Danavas of our epics.

Do not mistake the point I am making here. No factoid or even a set of factoids will ever lend truth-value to these claims. They would be mere surmises and guesses. But they will get pushed across as ‘scientific’ and ‘historical’ hypotheses that very soon end up becoming ‘facts’ about the Indian past. They will acquire the same status that the ‘Indological’ truths have today. For instance, which intellectual in the world challenges the claim that ‘Buddhism’ battled against ‘Brahmanism’? Almost none. How many know of the circumstances that produced this ‘guesswork’ or even about the amount of Christian theological baggage required to sustain this claim? Alas, hardly any.

In exactly the same way, with such stories accompanying the growth of a new generation, which one of them will ever want to become a Bhakta of Rama, Krishna or Anjaneya? How many will go to their temples or even build them? When they grow up in the knowledge that ‘kurukshetra’ names a place somewhere in North India where the local tribes from the region fought a war fought during 500 B.C.E; when they grow up in the knowledge that a tribe called ‘Nagas’, from some remote part of India, also figure in an imaginary epic whose authoritative critical edition is published by some or another University Press in the US; when they ‘know’ that the local events in some remote city (Bikaner, Ayodhya...) were presented to their credulous forefathers as ‘the history’ of India; when they know all these and more, what would be their connection to what we consider as our past today?

Perhaps, they would even end up being ashamed of their past and of their stories about the past: such stories confirm the worst that the world has told about India. Indian culture and her ‘religions’ were created to inflict massive injustice on fellow-human beings. ‘Hinduism’ would, of course, be the main culprit.

We are almost past the first phase. The ideologues of the Sangh Parivar are initiating the subsequent phase. Instead of asking questions about the nature of ‘historical truth’; instead of studying the religious culture where such questions originate from; instead, that is, of understanding the relationship between stories about the past and human communities, the ideologues of the Sangh Parivar want to establish the ‘historicity’ of our epics and stories. In the process of pushing this Christian theme, these ideologues will also achieve what Islam and Christianity have always desired: destruction of the ‘pagan’ and ‘heathen’ culture that India is. What the Muslim kings and the Evangelical Protestants could not achieve over centuries, the ideologues from the Sangh Parivar will achieve in a matter of decades.

ps: If you cannot get Balu's entire essay, {where there is a will there is a way}, then ask me....I will be happy to email you.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Mar 2011 08:24

There are some studies of the impact of colonial phase protestant-Christian messing up and reconstruction of a Buddhist-Brahmin dynamic.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Mar 2011 23:22

Google book:

Bhagvata Purana pdf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Mar 2011 03:18

A commentary on Bhagavatam on the question Why Marry?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Mar 2011 11:41

there is a new 12 part comic coming out detailing the Ramayan from Ravan and his clans point of view. based on a study it says Surpanakha was born as meenakshi a beautiful lady but lost her husband in war and maybe due to some unjust norms then was forced to stay in the forest and hunt for a living. Kumbhakarna was strong but had no brains, Vivbhishana was innocent and too naive, only Ravan had the right mix of brain and brawn to become ruler...he was quite loyal to all his siblings - he was not born a prince but became ruler through own efforts.

the story starts off from when Ravan dies and moves backward in time.

--
have to say I kind of like 'flawed' characters like ravan, bheesma, drona and karna , caught between good and evil through circumstances not of their own doing...makes them more human than the 24x7 goody goody types.

partha · Post by **partha** » 07 Mar 2011 12:00

Singhaji,
Ravana kidnapped women and forced them to become his slaves. How is this "caught between good and evil through circumstances and not of their own doing"?

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 07 Mar 2011 12:09

Singhaji, Ravana was one of the few who was a scholar and also powerful and no one equal to him for ages and ages. He is supposed to have control over gods such Indra, Yama etc. So he was not "caught" in any circumstances, rather it was his own making which brought him his doom.
He is also very different from Bheeshma, Karna and Drona in the sense that though they were great warriors, but they were not the only supremos for a long time. Ravan was the only big guy around , until Lord Ram made him bite the dust.
Also Bheesma, Karna and Drona were not emperors and had to tow the line of their masters even though they did not like it

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Mar 2011 12:47

points taken. but let us see what the new comics say.

here it is:
http://campfire.co.in/Mythology_Ravana_ ... _King.aspx

some images here:
http://www.cgtantra.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27611

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Mar 2011 13:01

Puranas have different take on the Ramayana and the great Ravana himself, iirc I had read somewhere that Ravana wanted to attain moksha by dying at the hands of Lord Rama (Vishnu-avatar) and that is why he kidnapped Sita.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 07 Mar 2011 13:02

Ravana was dark and a dravidian. Rama was fair, TFTA and a north hindi speaking Aryan. He killed Ravana because Aryans oppress Dravidians.

Vote for DMK.

(Honest, I didnt make this up, this is Mr Karunanidhi's take)

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 07 Mar 2011 13:20

negi wrote:Puranas have different take on the Ramayana and the great Ravana himself, iirc I had read somewhere that Ravana wanted to attain moksha by dying at the hands of Lord Rama (Vishnu-avatar) and that is why he kidnapped Sita.

Yes that is right. The sentries at the gates of Vishnu's vaikunta were cursed to be born in the earth, which was a demotion to them. They were offered a choice wherein they can be devotees of lord and have 7 lives as pious persons or keep opposing the lord and come back to him in only 3 lives. They chose the latter as the separation from the lord in this case was for only 3 janmas.

Ravana and Kumbhakarn was the second of these 3 lives

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Mar 2011 14:25

negi wrote:Puranas have different take on the Ramayana and the great Ravana himself, iirc I had read somewhere that Ravana wanted to attain moksha by dying at the hands of Lord Rama (Vishnu-avatar) and that is why he kidnapped Sita.

As Rkirankr has said he did not want to die being killed by Rama but it was preordained as the condition when Jaya and Vijaya chose 3 lives opposing Narayana than many lives being his Devotee.

This was when the incurred the wrath of the Sanath Kumaras for blocking thier entry into Vaikuntha.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 07 Mar 2011 14:47

Singha wrote:Vivbhishana was innocent and too naive,

This fellow can be a true good role model for all the turn-coats, or traitors any nation can have

. Off course he may have his own reasons for changing sides. But that is what all these turn coats say.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Mar 2011 15:41

^^^As I once read in a espionage related book on informers-double agents - "they are all traitors basically...."

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Mar 2011 15:45

On the Ravan thingy....he was one of the greatest disciple of Lord Shiva.

The tandav stotram that he composed is a real treat to the ears and an ultimate ode to Mahadev..please to listen to a rendition here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwMyiDbQrjY

An explanation given here:http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_sa/shi ... ng_sa.html

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 07 Mar 2011 20:23

Anujan wrote:Ravana was dark and a dravidian. Rama was fair, TFTA and a north hindi speaking Aryan. He killed Ravana because Aryans oppress Dravidians.

Vote for DMK.

(Honest, I didnt make this up, this is Mr Karunanidhi's take)

But seriously, wasn't Rama dark too? In comics, they show him in blue. Even Lord Krishna was dark and is shown in blue.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Mar 2011 21:08

partha wrote:Singhaji,
Ravana kidnapped women and forced them to become his slaves. How is this "caught between good and evil through circumstances and not of their own doing"?

You are applying modern day values on to the past, no? Krishna did the same too, no? I would see these were the fringe benefits of Kings and Princes

If one looks at the rationale, Ravana was smitten, only when he saw Sita. His first reaction upon seeing his sister was to avenge the "horrible" actions of Lakshmana. The rest is an Epic.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Mar 2011 21:10

Anujan wrote:Ravana was dark and a dravidian. Rama was fair, TFTA and a north hindi speaking Aryan. He killed Ravana because Aryans oppress Dravidians.

Vote for DMK.

(Honest, I didnt make this up, this is Mr Karunanidhi's take)

Anujan saar: You might find Prof. Balu's take on this interesting: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1038649

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Mar 2011 21:37

Q: What is the necessity to date important backbone epic stories? How is it going to relate in terms of reality vs. given revelations based on mythological aspects, and vedic aspects?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Mar 2011 22:02

Singha wrote:there is a new 12 part comic coming out detailing the Ramayan from Ravan and his clans point of view. based on a study it says Surpanakha was born as meenakshi a beautiful lady but lost her husband in war and maybe due to some unjust norms then was forced to stay in the forest and hunt for a living. Kumbhakarna was strong but had no brains, Vivbhishana was innocent and too naive, only Ravan had the right mix of brain and brawn to become ruler...he was quite loyal to all his siblings - he was not born a prince but became ruler through own efforts.

the story starts off from when Ravan dies and moves backward in time.

How could unjust norms exist in Ravan's just rule

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Mar 2011 22:12

negi wrote:Puranas have different take on the Ramayana and the great Ravana himself, iirc I had read somewhere that Ravana wanted to attain moksha by dying at the hands of Lord Rama (Vishnu-avatar) and that is why he kidnapped Sita.

Ravana and Kumbhakarna are said to be second incarnation of Jaya and Vijaya; the dwarapalakas of Sri Mahavishnu.

It is their karma that made them come to earth and be the enemies of Sri Mahavishnu.

Yes Ravana was very knowledgeable and a great devotee of Shiva. He was said to have separated Vedas (He recited vedas as he lifted Kailasa mountain; every time he took a break to take a breath, that became a chapter in veda it is said) and acted as Ritvik for Mahadeva's abode (which he took as dakshina for his priesthood

)

During the course of time, they attracted all Adharmics under their umbrella. The Dharmics were too "tolerant" to take care of Ravana themselves, making grow stronger and arrogant day by day.

It forced Sri Mahavishnu take another avatar. The result is destruction of complete Asura race (with very few exceptions).

The story repeats before every Avatar.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Mar 2011 22:23

SwamyG wrote:
partha wrote:Singhaji,
Ravana kidnapped women and forced them to become his slaves. How is this "caught between good and evil through circumstances and not of their own doing"?
You are applying modern day values on to the past, no? Krishna did the same too, no? I would see these were the fringe benefits of Kings and Princes If one looks at the rationale, Ravana was smitten, only when he saw Sita. His first reaction upon seeing his sister was to avenge the "horrible" actions of Lakshmana. The rest is an Epic.

Ravana had lot of wives whom he got with their consent. He did not gain any bad karma for that. Everytime he tried to take a woman by force he won Sapas (Curses) for that behavior. Stealing of Sitadevi is the final straw in his karma. Ravana was encouraged by Surpanakha to go behind Sita as that would kill Rama automatically, and would force Lakshmana's suicide. Ravana was not smitten by Sita; if so he would have forced himself upon her. He did not touch her after he took her to Lanka.

Krishna did not take anyone by force and make them "slaves".

partha · Post by **partha** » 07 Mar 2011 22:44

SwamyGji,

Are you saying in some ways Krishna == Ravana?

RamaYji,

Ravana did not pounce on Sita because he had a shaapa because of which he would die if he did a balatkara of any woman and he of course feared for his life.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Mar 2011 22:45

I know very little but...

- It allows the general Indian thought process to look inward into their Indic history and heritage
- It brings pride to Indic mind to know their heritage and forefathers
- It makes people to understand the concept of time for what it is. From that understanding one gets to understand and appreciate Indic system and heritage. From that appreciation comes peace of mind, goes away the abnormalities like dhimmitude, corruption, self-loathing etc..

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Mar 2011 22:50

Rama gaaru: My reference was to Krishna's fight for Rukmini.

Partha: Krishna was more conniving than Ravana

Nope I am not doing ==. Just placing thoughts that in those days, the values, especially those of Princes/Kings, should not be seen with the 21st century glasses.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Mar 2011 23:57

SwamyG wrote:Rama gaaru: My reference was to Krishna's fight for Rukmini.

I guessed it. Didn't Rukmini sent a letter to Krishna requesting him to take her away from a forced marriage? Can we call this kidnapping?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 Mar 2011 00:14

Yup; only Rukmi was against their marriage. Krishna and Rukhmini were 'lovers'

. My reference was essentially to "force" that princes and kings employed when it came to carting of princesses and would-be-queens.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Mar 2011 00:51

In Mahabharatha, it is argued that a Kshatriya prince can carry a princess by force and marry her. It was allowed for kshatriyas at that time. There are numerous such examples in MB. Bhishma taking away Amba, Ambalika etc for his brothers, Krishna marrying Rukmini, Arjuna carrying away Subhadra etc.

However, it was not permitted to carry away an already married woman. Hence whether it was Ravana or Jayadratha(in MB), they were punished for their crimes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2011 01:03

You are ordained by the forces (if I may) to follow Krishna's teachings, and live your life the way Rama did. Reverse is not possible and negative since Krishna avatar is basically tell the world about he is the driver and every one of us is just devices for him. Only he can play in many mayavi roles. Rama avatar is basically role modeling for the faithful people.

So, if you have to elope.. then only Krishna can drive you to do so. But your thoughts and actions should be pure Rama ways!

.

For example: Yeshoda wants to tie krishna up for his mischievousness and she was always short of 2" of the rope. Finally, she cried and Krishna gave up. The teaching is love, and pure love (towards objectives) can get to your goals achieved.

And, Rama advised his bro Bharat not to curse his mother kaikeyi for her doings. She is far more superior mother than kousalya, since she is only protecting Rama. Per valmiki, kaikeyi had dream that whoever ruled ayodhya for the next 14 years, will get death. For the love of Rama, she sacrificed her husband to take the kingdom, and finally, sacrificed her own son bharat to take up the thrown, so that Rama will live. The thrown was take by only Rama's slippers so that no one may die for 14 years is what I heard.

I just learned that last week how a greater mother she is.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Mar 2011 01:24

Carrying away by force is 'rakshasa' marriage. BTW in Andhra Vidiki marriage one of the many rituals is tying a rope round the bride as symbolism of that form.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Mar 2011 03:24

ramana ji,
carrying away is "harana" - said to be okay for "kshatryias". Two interpretations, "carrying away a bride" after defeating her relatives in war as prize of war [which means the carrier has to specifically fight to get the girl].

"Rakshasha" is marrying an "intoxicated" or "asleep" girl - specfically cohabiting after getting the girl intoxicated. It is possible that this was a social custom in the society dubbed "rakshasha", where brides drank ceremonially, or partners chose each other in a ceremonial public festival - like say spring-fest [it seems that non-rakshasas too indulged in it - with the name Madana-mahotsava]. This practice is common in many surviving tribal societies (and in shadow or symbolic forms in more "civilized" societies).

It does appear that original "marriage" was more about mutually ackinowledged "cohabitation" rather than the modern version we have come understand.

Uddalaka-son Swetaketu's pointer was about institutionalizing the mutual commitment and faithfulness aspect [exclusive sexual and other associated relations to contracting partners only] and not really about the different forms in which cohabitaion was generally recognized.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2011 03:36

wow.. if brihaspati is not your real name, then think about changing it.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Mar 2011 03:47

Why!

Brihaspati was also the name of one of the most "materialist" philosophers of India!

Marital customs was one of the first things that drove me to look beneath the layers of the texts, as a young boy. My early contacts with tribal society and observations about "Hindu" society, and peculiarities in my own family customs showed that "marital" customs could not have been just from one single source in "Indic society". It was basically "reformed".

My first reading of Kamasutra was in search of this question (unbelievable isnt it?)- which gave me one of the many answers I was looking for [possible case of Prima Nocta in India as surviving in the concept of Kaala-ratri in some parts of India].

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Mar 2011 04:18

In Kisari Mohan Ganguly's translation of Mahabharatha, Bhishma says this when taking away the princessess:

nd taking them upon his chariot, Bhishma, that first of smiters in battle, addressed the kings, O monarch, and said in a voice deep as the roar of the clouds, 'The wise have directed that when an accomplished person has been invited, a maiden may be bestowed on him, decked with ornaments and along with many valuable presents. Others again may bestow their daughters by accepting a couple of kine. Some again bestow their daughters by taking a fixed sum, and some take away maidens by force. Some wed with the consent of the maidens, some by drugging them into consent, and some by going unto the maidens' parents and obtaining their sanction. Some again obtain wives as presents for assisting at sacrifices. Of these, the learned always applaud the eighth form of marriage. Kings, however, speak highly of the Swyamvara (the fifth form as above) and themselves wed according to it. But the sages have said that, that wife is dearly to be prized who is taken away by force, after the slaughter of opponents, from amidst the concourse of princes and kings invited to a self-choice ceremony. Therefore, ye monarchs, I bear away these maidens hence by force. Strive ye, to the best of your might, to vanquish me or to be vanquished. Ye monarchs, I stand here resolved to fight!' Kuru prince, endued with great energy, thus addressing the assembled monarchs and the king of Kasi, took upon his car those maidens. And having taken them up, he sped his chariot away, challenging the invited kings to a fight.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 08 Mar 2011 05:41

SwamyG: Krishna didn't force Rukmini, whereas Ravana did. Rukmini happily went with Krishna whereas Sita tried her very best to resist.

i feel like you should clarify your position, seriously, not good for your Karma account if you're comparing Krishna-Rukmini relationship to what Ravana did...

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Mar 2011 06:54

Ramanaji, Rakshasa kind of marriage is prohibited for Brahmins. In fact the custom you refered is there for all other sects of brahmins also. I do not know what it means.

Rukmini has written to Krishana to come and take her away from a forced marriage and he did that. There is a whole chapter in Bhagavatham on that story. If fact if a girl is not getting married she is advised to read this chapter. I wonder if it is to cause fear in the parants minds ha ha ha.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Mar 2011 06:59

The elephant in the room, however, made note of every choice, step/mis-step and made sure that the favor was returned.

Bhagavan Krishna got his Subhadra where as Bhisma got his Sikhandi.

The observation one should make is the choice of Bhagavan Krishna in Subhadra issue. Would Ravana make the same choice if someone were to 'steal' his sister/wife?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Mar 2011 07:06

Bji and Narayana Rao garu, The purohit told me that the rope business was a ritualistic way of conducting the marriage in all aspects so there is no lacuna. You might be right about harana form.

NR Can you send me Gajendra moksham discourse to

ramana_56 at yahoo com?