Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Sep 2012 01:14

harbans wrote:
India is the land and origin of Dharma:..Righteousness, Compassion, Equality, Search..Truth. 5 words..Ramay ji.

Hinduism is the embodiment of that Truth - the cosmic consciousness, the destination of the Dharmic path you described above.

Dharma is just a path and journey, whereas Hindusim is the seeker, the journey and the destination combined.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2012 01:16

Honestly, we can hardly find Hindus by the above definitions. /Sad Perhaps one might only find them in honest lower contended middle-class onlee [again a rarity].

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Sep 2012 01:25

No SaiK garu, it is not difficult at all.

Every one of us are part of that cosmic consciousness, whether we agree/aware or not. One is a Hindu when one is aware of this simple truth and stands as him/herself and agrees that every other and every thing has same consciosness as I am and proclaims it without any inhibition.

Dharma is the path/medium thru one which treats, interacts, and affirms the cosmic consciousness in the other being, human or not.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2012 01:30

It may not be difficult, and that is not my contention. The scope is ill-defined in the sense, a simple example would be persons thinking what they think is right ignores any call from external source to corrections and self-righteousness continues to move forward with a genuine happiness, having conquered the cosmic consciousness.

Individuals just don't understand many things in life.. remove the human being, I agree to whatever you say. You might want to add humans into the definition, very selectively.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 09 Sep 2012 02:05

Harbans,

What is 'Dharma'? Who are 'Dharmics'?

----

Partha ji,
excellent post on Gadayuddha and interesting link on Padmavyuha.

rkirankr ji,
very good points on Gadayuddha.

To add one more point on Gadayuddha:
Yuddhishtira(Dharmaraja) gave a chance for Gadayuddha in the first place. He even promised that if Duryodhana won it, he would retain the kingdom. A very very generous offer considering the evils committed by Duryodhana towards Pandavas.

Lord Sri Krishna severely reprimanded Dharmaraja for this unnecessary and unqualified generosity. Duryodhana practised Gadayuddha for 13 years under the tutelage of Balarama(Lord Krishna's brother) and became proficient. In fact, Duryodhana was practicing against an iron idol of Bhima(so, he was practising excclusively to face Bhima). Bhima, on the other hand, became rusty due to lack of practise. Of course, Bhima's physical power was unmatched. So, Gadayuddha was a contest between strength and skill.

Actually, Duryodhana had ran away from the battlefield and hid in a lake using the skills he learnt in the last 13years. Pandavas learnt this and landed on the shore of Duryodhana and provoke him to fight. Duryodhana is unwilling to fight in the beginning but finally gets ready after much insulting.

The same Duryodhana was eager for a war. He refuses to part with even 5 villages. He did not waver from his ambition when his greatgrandfather(Bhishma), his teacher(Drona), his friend(Karna), his 99 brothers(including Dusshasana) fell in the war. But, he suddenly gets cold feet when the time for his own death has come.... And he tries to sell it to Pandavas as a 'generous peace offer'. This hypocrisy and selfishness is a feature of Duryodhana. But, ultimately, he does get ready when his ego is pricked by the insults. This fragile and sensitive ego(fueled by his insecurity vis-a-vis Pandavas) defines Duryodhana.

Yuddhishtira, on the other hand, declares that if any of the Pandavas are captured or killed, he will stop the war immediately. There is no doubt that Yuddhishtira nurtured the ambition to be a king just like Duryodhana. The difference is that Duryodhana is ready to sacrifice everything else(including morality) at the altar of his ambition, Yuddhishtira is not ready to do so.

Bhima, like Duryodhana, has a huge ego. The difference is that Bhima is ready to make his ego subservient to his elder brother's(Dharmaraja's) advice.

Finally, Duryodhana did fight splendidly in the Gadhayudha. He matched Bhima blow for blow. So, Bhima did violate the rules and hit him on the thigh.

This was the result of Duryodhana's bad karma(like attempt to disrobe Draupadi). And Lord Sri Krishna is the neutral dispenser of the results of Karma to each individual. There is no point in blaming Krishna for giving a result that Duryodhana has earned by his own effort.

The whole game plan of Duryodhana and his father was that they would use all methods(fair and unfair) while the Pandavas would only play by the rules. This attitude encouraged Duryodhana to war. But, Lord Sri Krishna tried to forewarn them in His truce message that the war would be fought in Kali Yuga, so it won't be straightforward.

Duryodhana expects Pandavas to fight fairly, but his own conduct is completely unfair throughout his life including the war. When he is paid in his own coin, he complaints. There is nothing wrong in cheating a cheat or killing a murderer/terrorist.

Did not Duryodhana participate in killing Abhimanyu? What if Pandavas had killed Duryodhana in the same fashion without giving him any chance for the Gadayuddha? What would Duryodhana have done if the roles were reversed?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Sep 2012 20:53

harbans wrote: India is the land and origin of Dharma:..Righteousness, Compassion, Equality, Search..Truth. 5 words..Ramay ji.

Adding to previous post, even Christians and Muslims define their Dharma in those lines. Go ask them. Search for what Truth in what manner is the question. For abrahamics the truth exists beyond them. For Hindus the truth includes them.

There are numerous ways we can present ourselves, our society and our dharma to others. The right way is to stand as our true selves - without any disguises and pardas/curtains.

The objective here, for Hindus, is not to convert others. The idea is to show them the sat-swarupa of ourselves, our society and our dharma and by doing so making them self aware of their own selves, their society and their dharma.

When that happens the Hindu dharma tells us that, since Satyam is singular and infinite, all the various Dharmas must merge into that Satyam.

By trying to ape others and getting their acceptance, we will not only make ourselves fools but also go astray from our own dharma. This is exactly what happened in the past few centuries.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2012 21:51

I dont understand the Dharmic compulsion to treat ADharmics per Dharmic rules even in war. I think the rules apply before war for one hopes that by some remote chance the Adharmic will turn the corner. The misplaced adherence to Dharmic rules falls under Apatra Dhanam or undeserving charity.

Krishna was very clear on many times in the War when the Adharmics should be subject to their own medicine: Bhisma with Sikhandi, Drona with the slogan Aswattama is dead, Karna when his chariot wheel sunk in the mud, Duryodhana and breaking his thighs.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Sep 2012 21:58

^ +1.

But the discussion is about whether a Hindu has to change his name, colors, and identity in this process or not.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Sep 2012 22:08

I dont understand the Dharmic compulsion to treat ADharmics per Dharmic rules even in war.

Ramana Ji, the Dharmic is ruthless in treating Adharma. Krishna showed and allowed some rules to be flexed. When Rama was in exile and protecting Vishwamitra and his Ashram he was ruthless with those that tried to disturb the seers meditations. Sita even mentioned this to him. Krishna was hard on Arjuna who claimed 'Dharmic' immunity that killing cousins and family members shamed him. Parsuram was ruthless too in dealing with Adharma. Protecting Dharma has always been stressed to involving ruthlessness. Rama, Krishna did that. Protecting the real seekers. Bhagavad Gita's first word is Dharma...this is a misconception people have that Dharma is some dove towards Adharma.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Sep 2012 22:11

^ But Rama/Krishna/Parasurama/Adisamkara/RamanaMaharshi/Kanchiseers did not give up Hindu memes like you suggested, right?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Sep 2012 22:15

Adding to previous post, even Christians and Muslims define their Dharma in those lines.

They do? That's great! But i see some results in the former after Renaissance, not the Islamists. Islamists don't believe in Equality and Truth. They believe in the Shabda..not Pratyaksha or Anumaana..that can reflect truth. Equality was never ingrained in the doctrine, however many Muslims will try and tell you that. Jews, Christians are abhored. Kufr is meat. What equality does the doctrine talk about. While the Dharmic Rg Veda says one God many seers call by different names, they say if you don't belive in Jesus or Allah or Xefghingkj you go to hell. That is equality, that is Truth? Just mouthing something and meaning it in doctrine are 2 different things. YOu don't mouth mercy and next line say hunt jews behind every tree and kill them.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Sep 2012 22:17

But Rama/Krishna/Parasurama/Adisamkara/RamanaMaharshi/Kanchiseers did not give up Hindu memes like you suggested, right?

They defined themselves by their pursuit to establish Dharma. They never claimed to be Hindu.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 09 Sep 2012 22:24

harbans wrote:
I dont understand the Dharmic compulsion to treat ADharmics per Dharmic rules even in war.
Ramana Ji, the Dharmic is ruthless in treating Adharma. Krishna showed and allowed some rules to be flexed. When Rama was in exile and protecting Vishwamitra and his Ashram he was ruthless with those that tried to disturb the seers meditations. Sita even mentioned this to him. Krishna was hard on Arjuna who claimed 'Dharmic' immunity that killing cousins and family members shamed him. Parsuram was ruthless too in dealing with Adharma. Protecting Dharma has always been stressed to involving ruthlessness. Rama, Krishna did that. Protecting the real seekers. Bhagavad Gita's first word is Dharma...this is a misconception people have that Dharma is some dove towards Adharma.

+1.
Indeed, it is misconception. Some more examples:
Lord Sri Rama killed Vali, Tataka(woman) and Ravana(Brahmin from father's side). All of them were slayed in a ruthless manner. Of course, He did give them one chance to redeem before proceeding with the punishment.

But, this 'Dharma' you are talking about is Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. Buddhist Dharma or Jaina Dharma is not the same. I think the idea that Dharma is a dove came from Buddhist and Jain view of Dharma.

Jainism and Buddhism stress on Ahimsa as primary 'Dharma'. Hinduism also places great importance on Ahimsa but realises that absolute Ahimsa is simply impossible(not just impractical). For example, a very existence of one creature leads to the death of many others.

Therefore, Hinduism comes up with the concept of Sva-dharma. Sanyasis are expected to follow the concept of Ahimsa in strictest manner, while others are expected to abjure from injuring others as much as possible in course of performing their Sva-Dharma.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Sep 2012 22:26

Duryodhana expects Pandavas to fight fairly, but his own conduct is completely unfair throughout his life including the war. When he is paid in his own coin, he complaints. There is nothing wrong in cheating a cheat or killing a murderer/terrorist.

Johnee Ji, when Rama Killed Vali, while dying he said you cheated, Rama told him you play the rules of Matsya Nyaya, i play them too with those who play by the rules of Matsya Nyaya..don't complain. Simple. This squeamishness in Battle and the shame to eliminate Adharma is going on since Arjuna started weeping at the beginning of the battle even as the Armies sized up in battle. Krishna was right. Arjuna was wrong and his dilemnas though human were ripped by Krishna. A General weeping at the start of an Indo Pak war and bleating about blood and loss of life should not be a General in the first place. You want the Satvic values to prevail and people free to seek the Truth and God..fight to maintain it with all your fcukin might.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Sep 2012 22:43

But, this 'Dharma' you are talking about is Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. Buddhist Dharma or Jaina Dharma is not the same.

Not Hinduism again..

Dharma will protect when it is protected or you make the right kind of noises in verse and action. But it will injure when you don't. That is nature. Not protecting Dharma and the values it seeks to protect in humans will lead injury. India is being injured today because it rejects Dharma in many ways through it's so called secular manifestations..Vashista or Vishwamitra were seekers.. Rama protected them with ruthlessness. Our State must protect seekers. Even diverse view points. America does that in it's Dharmic quest to protect in it's own charter those that seek life, liberty and happiness. The American founding fathers chose Dharmic concepts to base their future civilization, and Ram/ Krishna rewarded them and lakshmi and Saraswati both touched America. They fought against Fascism which seeked to overturn Dharmic values..they were rewarded and appreciated. India was not because of it's mediocrity. We should have spilt blood to protect Dharmic Tibet from Adharmic Han Commies. We chose not to. We should have spilt blood and united to protect ourselves under the onslaught of the Islaimist those centuries we chose not to rally under those banners. So we were injured..by not protecting Dharma in our lands. Ram and Krishna only exhorted followers to uphold and stand by those that seek, are compassionate, good normal human beings against the Thug an Rogue civilizations and concepts that will emerge. We failed. We are not lost yet. We have to re establish Dharma in this land of ours..even if it means questioning some terminology.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2012 23:41

somehow, I don't feel good reading stories like harishchandra and ramayana just for the sufferings of mr. honest and mrs. integrity respectively. It hurts why sita mata should suffer like that. why?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Sep 2012 23:55

somehow, I don't feel good reading stories like harishchandra and ramayana just for the sufferings of mr. honest and mrs. integrity respectively. It hurts why sita mata should suffer like that. why?

Yes. You are right. Rama himself slipped. But Rama personified a State. Rama Rajya. When he went to from Ayodhya to Lahore to fight some kids who halted his Aswamedha and defeated the soldiers accompanying the Aswa/ Horse..he too had to beat a retreat. Luv and Kush had dharma more on their side so they won. This is a very crucial point always stressed by Krishna and Rama himself even at the point of portraying himself failing. Dharma always wins. Luv Kush were on the right side of Dharma. More pious and even the state espoused by Rama can slip. Krishna's message in the BG is very significant..dharma will win. It happens between a father and son too at some point of time. Lifes ravages weaken the resolve of the father and the Son in his prime strengthens it. Defending Dharma is a full time job whichever Yuga one is. Is it not?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 Sep 2012 01:28

SaiK wrote:somehow, I don't feel good reading stories like harishchandra and ramayana just for the sufferings of mr. honest and mrs. integrity respectively. It hurts why sita mata should suffer like that. why?

Ram & Sita as the King & Queen of people accepted the decisions.

Sita mata did raise Luv and Kusha. Ram always considered Sita as his wife, and in Ashwamegha installed as a King a golden statue of Sita next to him as his wife for the yagya.

A Youtube video from Ramayana serial for this too (link).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2012 01:36

well, all that said and done.. my question was more towards Sita. Why or what is the message for us from Sita? leaving Rama aside for this question.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 Sep 2012 01:43

SaiK wrote:well, all that said and done.. my question was more towards Sita. Why or what is the message for us from Sita? leaving Rama aside for this question.

Not an expert but can not separate King and Queen, royalty and society, and so on.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Sep 2012 01:48

SaiK wrote:well, all that said and done.. my question was more towards Sita. Why or what is the message for us from Sita? leaving Rama aside for this question.

The essential message from Sri Rama and Sita Amma is: Bear your Karma with grace, dignity and courage without wavering from Sva-Dharma.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2012 01:56

So, the bearing the karma is given for all? or is it driving by doing corrective actions - which is doing dharma or at least doing nothing negative.
Sure, that is one learning, but I am missing the lessons for the sufferings etc. is that required?

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Sep 2012 02:24

SaiK wrote:So, the bearing the karma is given for all? or is it driving by doing corrective actions - which is doing dharma or at least doing nothing negative.
Sure, that is one learning, but I am missing the lessons for the sufferings etc. is that required?

Karma has 3 parts:
a) Prarbdha: Action which is now ready to give results. This is like cash or credit card in the pocket for Jeeva.
b) Agami: Potential results of present actions. This is like a future investment for Jeeva.
c) Sanchita: Huge pile of past actions and results. This is like a bank for the Jeeva.

Agami and Sanchita can be destroyed through rituals like puja(worship), stotra(eulogy), Dhyana(meditation), Dhana(charity), ...so on.

Prarbdha has to be compulsorily enjoyed/suffered. Prarbdha is responsible for the present birth.

When a person acquires or realises gyanam, then he views the world as Maya or illusory. For such a person, material pain and pleasure are same. So, he is unmoved.

For others(who are yet to reach the state of gyanam), the pains and pleasures have to be beared without wavering from Sva-dharma. Pain and pleasure are inevitable for everyone. Thats the reason we have stories where even the Gods in heaven/Swarga face threats from Rakshasas or others. And remember that Swarga is an exclusive pleasure zone. So, if there is pain even in exclusive pleasure zone, then it is obvious that pain will be there on the earth.

A human life is a result of approximately equal amounts of punya(merit->pleasure) and paapa(sin->pain). So, a human life will be a mixture of approximately equal amounts of pleasure and pain. The specialty of human life is that human beings can work for Moksha unlike most other beings.

Only Bhuloka(Earth) and Brahmaloka are feasible for trying to achieve Moksha. The other 12 lokas(including Svarga) are not.

Sri Rama's avatar had two primary aims:
a) To slay Ravana.
b) To live an ideal human life so that human beings have a role model.

To fulfill the (b), Sri Rama had to endure all the difficulties and showcase that even during all these difficulties one should not waver from one's sva-dharma. Sita Amma's teaching is the same. Her sva-dharma is Paativratyam. Primarily, Sri Rama's sva-dharma is Kshatriya(King), Putra(Son), and Satya(Truth).

Anyway, Sri Rama and Sita Amma had a long enjoyable time in Ayodhya according to Valmiki Ramayana. This part is only briefly outlined. The concentration is on those parts where Rama and Sita suffered because that is the true test and thats where the true lessons for humanity are.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Sep 2012 03:20

harbans wrote: Not Hinduism again..

If you do not like that term, you are free to ignore it. As I said, it is in vogue as a popular synonym of Sanatana Dharma(not just any 'Dharma'). So, please bear with me if and when I use it...

Dharma will protect when it is protected or you make the right kind of noises in verse and action. But it will injure when you don't. That is nature. Not protecting Dharma and the values it seeks to protect in humans will lead injury.

Dharmo rakshati rakshitah... right.

But, which 'Dharma'? Sanatana Dharma? Baudha Dharma? Jaina Dharma? or even the latest pretenders like Isai 'Dharma'?

As I understand, you are contesting the usage of the term 'Hinduism' and want people to adopt 'Dharma' to replace it. You reason that the term 'Hinduism' is not large enough to accommodate certain differing views, while 'Dharma' will be acceptable to all. Also, you say that there ids a lot of confusion about what exactly 'Hinduism' is.

So, I quoted a post of mine where I tried to outline what Hinduism is(according to the traditional and orthodox view). There is complete clarity about what is Hinduism and what is not Hinduism. The primary point is that Vedas are the basis of Hinduism. If you accept Vedas, you are a Hindu, otherwise not. Simple.

You quoted another definition of 'Dharma' because you claimed that it was more encompassing and less confusing. In that quote, the author says that Dharma is 'all embracing' and no 'human regent' is fit enough to be 'prophet' of claimed revelations(including the ones in Vedas). This position of the author contradicts the position of Hinduism.

I replied that there was no needs for the definition of Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma) to be 'more encompassing' or 'all embracing'. Strictly, speaking no ideology can be 'all embracing'. If any ideology defines itself as 'all embracing' it leads to too much confusion especially if it faced threats from various directions. I pointed out that this definition is more confusing than the one I posted.

I said that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other Indic religion(or philosophy) can work with each other to collectively face the threat from Abrahamic religions without having to change their primary ethos. To work together one needs to have common interests, thats all.

Then, I asked you what you meant by 'Dharma'.

Then you posted the following:

harbans wrote:
If 'sanatana dharma is all-embracing' as the author claims, then Islam, Judaism, X-nity,...etc would also must be embraced, no? If everything is being embraced, then what exactly is Hinduism defending itself from?
That's the question i put to Nakul a post or two above yours.

Ok, so you do agree that Santana Dharma or Hinduism cannot be all encompassing?

I posted Jain's article to show that various strands of Dharmic thought can be got under one umbrella.

2 points:
a) What is the need to get various strands of 'Dharmic' thought under one umbrella?
You don't want to acknowledge that many of the so-called strands of 'Dharmic thought' already accept that they are part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. Some of the other strands of 'Dharmic thought' are not part of Hinduism. Fine.

What your are saying(and what Jain is saying) is that Hinduism should give up its fundamentals(Vedas) so that it is acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'.

b) Various indic religions can work together without them having to give up their fundamentals.

The majority would happily endorse such.

Which majority? Hindu majority? Secular majority? World majority?

If you say 'Dharmic' majority, then you have to explain which 'Dharma'...

I don't agree with everything in the article. Yet the author makes a crucial distinction..see last quote..

I didn't get what that crucial distinction is. Please explain...

One should accept a definition based on whether it is correct or wrong. And not whether it is 'more encompassing' or less encompassing.
Agree. Thats why i used more encompassing. I want to include Jains, Sikhs, Hindu's, Buddhists, Arya Samaji's, Dvaits, Advaits which are different strands of thought within the Dharmic fold under one umbrella.

You don't want to acknowledge that many of the so-called strands of 'Dharmic thought'(like Dvaits, Advaits, and so on) already accept that they are part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. Some of the other strands of 'Dharmic thought'(like Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists) are not part(or don't want to be part) of Hinduism. Fine.

What your are saying(and what Jain is saying) is that Hinduism should give up its fundamentals(Vedas) so that it is acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'. Why would Hinduism do that and negate itself?

So, you keep talking about 'Dharma' without clarifying which 'Dharma' you are referring to. You go on to say that your definition of 'Dharma' will bring all strands of 'Dharmic thought' under that umbrella. That can only mean that one or all of those strands would have to give up their fundamentals.

In simple terms, according to Hinduism: Buddhism or Jainism or any other ism(that does not accept Vedic authority) is not Dharmic.

I understand that such a stand will not be appreciated by others. But thats how it is. I would imagine that Buddhist and Jaina stands would also be similarly exclusive. That means, according to Buddhism, Hinduism would be wrong.

But the point is that these differences were resoled or reconciled or put to test using a well established mechanism: Free and fair debates.

On the other hand, Abrahmic creesds depend on force and fraud to spread themselves instead of proving the superiority of their philosophy or religion in a proper debate.

This is the chief difference between Indic religions and Abrahamic religions.

Something that can evolve to a preamble, constitutional, instituted approach for Governance. I want someting in that Constitution of Bharat to say more than the Dharma Chakra in the middle of the Indian flag. Dharma i defined in 5 words just yesterday to Ramay Ji. Those 5 words can form the value basis of the constitution. It was a start and once i find it will add it here to this post.

Ok. So, you want a definition that can cover all Indic religion and philosophies. Fine. I support your effort. But, why are you wasting your time in asking Hindus(or Buddhists or Jains) to remould their religion to suit your definition? Instead, you can simply create a definition based on the common traits of all Indic religions like belief in Karma, reincarnation and moksha(or nirvana).

Coming back to your present post:

India is being injured today because it rejects Dharma in many ways through it's so called secular manifestations..

I would have agreed. But, now I think it would be better if you clarify what you mean by 'Dharma'? Which Dharma are you talking about? Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism) or Baudha Dharma or Jain Dharma or Charvaka Dharma or ...?

Vashista or Vishwamitra were seekers..

Vashishta was a Brahmarshi. Vishwamitra attained the same status through prolonged perseverance.

Rama protected them with ruthlessness. Our State must protect seekers. Even diverse view points.

This is where the glitch is. Sri Rama did not protect all seekers. He protected only those seekers which acted according to the diktats of Veda. Sri Rama killed Shambuka(a seeker). Sri Rama does not tolerate the atheistic teachings of Jabali and goes to the extent of saying that His father, Dasharatha, erred by appointing Jabali as a minister. All this according to Valmiki Ramayana.

Actually, we find that Hinduism's portrayal of Rama, Krishna and other personalities differs from the portrayals of Buddhism, Jainism, and so on.

So, you should not merge Santana Dharma with other 'Dharmas' or vice versa. Such merging leads to confusion.

AFAIK, the ruthlessness is not supported by Buddhism or Jainism, which stress on absolute Ahimsa(at least in theory). It is only Hinduism(Sanatana Dharma) that accepts violence as a valid tool.

AFAIK, early Buddhism rejected the Vedic authority because of violence in Vedic rites. So, this is a major difference of opinion(on validity of violence in certain scenarios).

America does that in it's Dharmic quest to protect in it's own charter those that seek life, liberty and happiness.

You are working with a very loose definition of 'Dharma'

The American founding fathers chose Dharmic concepts to base their future civilization, and Ram/ Krishna rewarded them and lakshmi and Saraswati both touched America.

Richness or power does not mean that one is dharmic presently. Ravana was rich and powerful while Rama was in exile. Does that mean kidnapping Sita was 'Dharmic'?

Saudi is blessed by crude oil(and consequently Lakshmi), so by your logic Rama and Krishna must have rewarded them. Are Saudis also 'Dharmic'?

Present luxuries or troubles are not necessarily the result of present actions(if we go by Karma theory). Present status is the result of past actions(including past lives).

They fought against Fascism which seeked to overturn Dharmic values..they were rewarded and appreciated.

There are umpteen instances in history where America did many Adharmic things.

India was not because of it's mediocrity. We should have spilt blood to protect Dharmic Tibet from Adharmic Han Commies.

Yes, India should have done that due to variety of reasons.

We chose not to. We should have spilt blood and united to protect ourselves under the onslaught of the Islaimist those centuries we chose not to rally under those banners.

True.

So we were injured..by not protecting Dharma in our lands.

True. But, which Dharma?

Ram and Krishna only exhorted followers to uphold and stand by those that seek, are compassionate, good normal human beings against the Thug an Rogue civilizations and concepts that will emerge.

Hmm...no. Rama and Krishna say a lot more. Part of their teaching is to defeat rogue ideologies and thug civilizations. But teachings are not limited to only this aspect. Some of their teachings clash with teachings of Baudha Dharma and Jaina Dharma(at least according to Hindu portrayals like Vyasa Mahabharata and Valmiki Ramayana).

Portrayals of Rama and Krishna according to other Indic religions can clash with Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma).

We failed. We are not lost yet.

Yep.

We have to re establish Dharma in this land of ours..even if it means questioning some terminology.

Which Dharma do you want to establish? Please don't give loose airy fairy definitions. Please clearly explain what you mean by 'Dharma'?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Sep 2012 04:07

Can you pls. X-post in deracination. We should have this terminology discussion there. Just my 2 paisa.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2012 05:35

johneeG wrote: Anyway, Sri Rama and Sita Amma had a long enjoyable time in Ayodhya according to Valmiki Ramayana. This part is only briefly outlined. The concentration is on those parts where Rama and Sita suffered because that is the true test and thats where the true lessons for humanity are.

Any idea how many years?

like X:Y, where X they enjoyed, and Y they suffered. Good posts there John-ee-G.. except your x-tian handle [of course there are others - not sure what is the motivation like Marten, Carl, SamG, et al - proselytized handles ], you articulate about dharma quite elegantly.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2012 08:05

SaiK< According to Malladi Chandrasekhar Sastri and Shanmukha Sarma, the time that Sita was in Lanka was less than a year.As you might recall the vanvas was for 14 years. You can do the ratio and proportions.

Iravati Karve in Yuganta thinks Sita's life in vanvas was an idyllic time compared to Draupadi's uring vanvas.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 10 Sep 2012 08:15

SaiK wrote:
johneeG wrote: Anyway, Sri Rama and Sita Amma had a long enjoyable time in Ayodhya according to Valmiki Ramayana. This part is only briefly outlined. The concentration is on those parts where Rama and Sita suffered because that is the true test and thats where the true lessons for humanity are.
Any idea how many years?

like X:Y, where X they enjoyed, and Y they suffered.

I'll tell you what I understood, please correct me where I am wrong:
According to Valmiki Ramayana(Malladi Chandrasekhar Sastri and others):
Sri Rama was about 16 years when He married Sita Amma. I am not sure of Her age. But, She was younger than Him.

After marriage till Dasharatha's proposal for coronation(which ended with Sri Rama's exile), Sri Rama and Sita Amma lived happily in Ayodhya.

I would imagine that Sri Rama was about 30 years when He left for forest for 14 years. After 13 years in the forest, Sita is kidnapped by Ravana and placed in Lanka. Sita was freed just in time when the period of 14 years was about to end. So, Rama and Sita were seperated for 1yr.

Then, Sri Rama was coronated as the King and Sita as the Queen. Sri Rama ruled Khosala for next 11000 years. Sita ansd Rama were happily together for all this time except the last 10 year period.

The last 10 year period was spent by Sita in Valmiki's Ashram. Sita was pregnant at the time She was left at the banks of Ganga. Sita Amma gave birth to twins in Valmiki Ashrama. The twins were named Lava and Kusha by Valmiki. Valmiki was also the tutor of the kids. He taught them the epic Ramayana which he had authored.

Finally, Sita disappeared into the earth, the same place from where She was divinely born. Soon, Sri Rama, along with entire populace of Ayodhya entered Sarayu by undertaking a vrat and gave up their bodies.

So, X(the time that they were together and enjoyed):

11000(Total ruling period)-10(last 10 years of separation)+14(after marriage and before exile) ~= 11000 years(Approx).

Now, Y(the time they spent in physical difficulties):
14 years in jungle for Rama.
13 years in jungle and 1yr in Lanka for Sita. And 10 yrs in Valmiki Ashrama. Total 24years.

Finally, Z(the time they were separated):
1yr when Ravana kidnapped. And 10 yrs in Valmiki Ashrama. Total 11yrs.

The ratio:
X:Y:Z= 11000:14:11 for Sri Rama
X:Y:Z= 11000:24:11 for Sita Amma

or
time they enjoyed:time they suffered= 11000:24.

About Harishchandra: He continues to be in Indra Sabha which is difficult to obtain for other Kings(even the righteous ones). Harishchandra also ruled and lived happily for a long time on earth and the amount of time suffered by him is relatively less(compared to the time he enjoyed). But the intensity of the troubles was too much. I don't know exact time periods.

Good posts there . you articulate about dharma quite elegantly.

Thanks, saar.

John-ee-G.. except your x-tian handle [of course there are others - not sure what is the motivation like Marten, Carl, SamG, et al - proselytized handles ],

Maybe its Hindu Taqqiya...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2012 08:57

Thanks (I think that is about 10 months or so), but she also separates from Rama living at Valmiki ashram later on.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Sep 2012 11:33

For the question of what is Dharma - The answer is "Ramo Vigrahavan Dharma". The conduct of Rama is Dharma. The failure of the Dharmic kings is their failure to understand the nature of Islam. We made a mistake of of assuming that our Islamic invadershave the same values as us. When Shivaji understood they do not the game was over. When we played the same ruthless game we destroyed them. When we failed we created Pakiland and stil suffering. There are 3 Million Muslims in Kashir vally. 1200 Millon Indians. Why Kashmir is so time consuming issue? We are not roothless with the issue. When people know we are ruthless and inhuman we find many issue we face simply vanish.

Fear of relaliation, fear of ruthless action and the ability and will to inspire fear is improtent. Romans had that and their civilization survided for a thousands of years and to till date. India had that for most of its history - We destroyed Cyrus, Samaramis and Alex-3 armies almost efforlessly. We driven Huns back wne evern Rome fell. We stopped Islamic armies for hundreads of years before the Mistake (is it?) of Prudhviraj. We simply lot is in stupid Gandhiyan India and now we are at this stage.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 10 Sep 2012 22:28

John-ee-G.. except your x-tian handle [of course there are others - not sure what is the motivation like Marten, Carl, SamG, et al - proselytized handles ],

arre bhai, Carlo 'smi, sanskrita-kshaya-krt!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Sep 2012 22:37

Thanks for that ratio John.e^2 ji. I shall start applying those values into few of those in various things I can. I am sure, there is something (secret recipe for dharmic life) here..

The ratio:
X:Y:Z= 11000:14:11 for Sri Rama
X:Y:Z= 11000:24:11 for Sita Amma

or
time they enjoyed:time they suffered= 11000:24.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2012 22:44

About Harishchandra: He continues to be in Indra Sabha which is difficult to obtain for other Kings(even the righteous ones). Harishchandra also ruled and lived happily for a long time on earth and the amount of time suffered by him is relatively less(compared to the time he enjoyed). But the intensity of the troubles was too much. I don't know exact time periods.

Harischandra ruled for tens of thousands of years. He spent few tough years when he had to pass test on his "Satya Vrata".

He gets to be a member of Indra Sabha because he was one of the Shat-Chakravatis who did Rajasuya. This is the reason why Dharmaraja was also encouraged to do it by Pandu (sent message thru Narada).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2012 23:06

From memory reading "Pedda Balashiksha":
Shat-Chakravartis = Bharat, Ikshvaku, Sagara, Shibi, Rantideva, Harishchandra

is this list correct?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 10 Sep 2012 23:50

Johnee G will reply back in some time. Some pts have addressed in the other thread. Encompass Dharma for State to include offshoot definitions.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 11 Sep 2012 01:49

SaiK wrote:Thanks for that ratio John.e^2 ji. I shall start applying those values into few of those in various things I can. I am sure, there is something (secret recipe for dharmic life) here..
The ratio:
X:Y:Z= 11000:14:11 for Sri Rama
X:Y:Z= 11000:24:11 for Sita Amma

or
time they enjoyed:time they suffered= 11000:24.

Saar,
it is heartening to know.

Secret to Dharmic life is:atmavat sarva-bhutesu yah pasyati sa panditah
One who sees all beings as similar to oneself is a pandita.
i.e. A pandita thinks in following manner: all beings are like me. Just as I crave for pleasure and avoid pain, similarly other beings crave for pleasure and avoid pain. Just as I want good things to happen to me, others also want good things to happen to them. I like to be respected and appreciated, others want the same. I don't like to be insulted or harassed, others have similar feelings. So, don't do to others what you don't want others(all beings) to do to you and do to others(all beings) as you would have them do to you.

This outlook forms the basis of Dharmic conduct. When you put yourself in others' shoes and feel for them, you are bound not to harm them. Because no one harms self.

Dharma has been summarized by Vyasa thus: Paropakaraya Punyaya, Papaya Para Peedanam.
Helping others is punya(merit/Dharma) and harming others is papa(sin/Adharma)

By following Dharma with such an outlook over the time will give rise to following knowledge:
The self(Atma) in me is the same as self(Atma) in all beings.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Sep 2012 02:18

johneeG wrote: Dharma has been summarized by Vyasa thus: Paropakaraya Punyaya, Papaya Para Peedanam.
Helping others is punya(merit/Dharma) and harming others is papa(sin/Adharma)

Note to self: That papaya para peedanam doesn't apply to Adharmics and Asuras.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2012 02:22

Same here.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Sep 2012 02:32

quite logical to understand applying adharmic actions.

Secret to Dharmic life is:atmavat sarva-bhutesu yah pasyati sa panditah
One who sees all beings as similar to oneself is a pandita.

This one liner is enough to convert all of us into one caste. The word similar is the key!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2012 08:33

RamaY and Carl

Alan Washburn, Moshe Kress - Combat Modeling
Published: 2009-08-26 | ISBN: 1441907890 | | 288 pages |

Combat Modeling is a systematic learning resource and reference text for the quantitative analysis of combat. After a brief overview, authors Washburn and Kress present individual chapters on shooting without feedback; shooting with feedback; target defense; attrition models; game theory and wargames; search; unmanned aerial vehicles; and terror and insurgency. Three appendices provide a review of basic probability concepts, probability distributions, and Markov models; an introduction to optimization models; and a discussion of Monte-Carlo simulations. This is a book that can be used as a military manual, reference book, and textbook for military courses on this vital subject. The authors also provide a link for downloading Microsoft Excel workbooks they’ve developed and that are used throughout the book that include VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) code for certain functions or commands. Drawing on their many years of experience at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, Washburn and Kress have created a reference that will provide the tools and techniques for analysts involved in the underpinnings of combat decisions.

Would like to use the models and check out the Mahabharata War.
On numbers alone the Kauravas would have won. But around the tenth day the tide turned.