Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Jun 2009 19:11

Krishnapremi-ji,

You are 100% right. What I was getting with my little story is that those were the actions of Rama. There could be other possible solutions. Every problem offers (almost) infinite solutions. But there could be only one Dharmic solution. And in Ramanaya, in my opinion, bhagavan Rama shows us the path.

What Ramayana, in my opinion, says is that; be strong, and do not hesitate to fight against Adharma (This is Rosha, different from Krodha - couldnt find equivalent english words).

Here Vali's actions demand proper judgement and suitable punishment. Rama did what Dharma says. Rama would have forgiven him if it was upto him. But Rama's purpose is not to show how he lived HIS life. His purpose is to show what Dharma is. We can definitely ponder on alternative solutions. But will they pass the Dharmic test? Same goes with Sita Agnipariksha and other equally interesting situations.

Rama and Sita maata showed us what it takes to live a Dharmic life. That is why they became gods for the rest of humanity (if you want to use the evolutionary logic). Ramayana says they were Vishnu and Lakshmi incarnated on earth in human form for "Dushta sikshana Sishta rakshana and Dharma samsthapana".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2009 20:05

Krishnapremi,
Don't Vaali's action make him an "attatayi"? And Lord Krishna gave the prescribed punihsment in the Bhagvad Gita.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 14 Jun 2009 16:10

Rama : Portrait of the Prince as a Prisoner of Darkness

Interesting analysis of Ram's childhood and psyche...

Raam was one of the greatest political geniuses ever produced by India..

Imagine a foreign prince, supporting a rebel faction contending for throne of a kingdom far away (sugriva contending for Kishkindha). Raam killed off Vaali because by this he ensured that Sugreev's Kishkindha will forever remain indebted to Raam. Vaali was too strong to be controlled by Raam. Vaali had defeated Raavan, Raam could never have been able to manipulate him. And it was impossible to defeat Vaali in single combat as well. From political point of view, assassination of Vaali makes sense and did much good for Raam and his short term and long term plans..

He utilised resources and army of Kishkindha, defeated another powerful king (Raavan) without spending a single penny from treasury of Ayodhya and expending life of a single soldier of Ayodhya. Installed a friendly king who was subservient to Raam and not Sugreev.

When he left for exile, he had nothing.. When he returned, he had full might of two powerful kingdoms backing him.. Even if Bharat wanted to rule, Raam had made him an offer Bharat could never have refused. There was no one in contemporary times having a might to take on the joint forces of Kishkindha and Lanka.

This was the political genius of Raam.

Krishna, who is typically seen as sly politician and master manipulator, does not have any incidence comparable to this one in his resume..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jun 2009 07:12

This is all Marxist analysis and should be trashed. Let them do one for Yahweh an talk to us.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 15 Jun 2009 07:28

ramana wrote:This is all Marxist analysis and should be trashed. Let them do one for Yahweh an talk to us.

Just because they are incapable of criticising yahweh, does not mean that we should not look at our literary and historical characters as human beings..

The link is not mine.. but rest everything is my view on the political aspect of Ramayana. And I am pretty sure that I am not a Marxist and a communist. There are some good things in this approach which you referred to as Marxist analysis. Need not be castigated simply because it is called as marxist style.

And regarding criticising yahweh

Richard Dawkins wrote:The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 15 Jun 2009 17:04

Chiron,
There is not a shred of evidence to support your claim on Ramas statecraft in Central India.

According to Valmiki,Rama was the epitome of Dharma.It is beyond him to do all this political machinations.

As to the link you have given on Rama's 'childhood' it was pretty devastating,atleast for me.I have listened to traditional expositions,i have also done paraayana of some sargas like Narada Vakyam,Rama Jananam,Sundara Kandam,Rama Pattabhishekam.Nothing in my background has prepared me for this attack.

Unfortunately I have not done paraayana of entire Ramayana,my sanskrit is not good enough,to decide whether the hypothesis of the author has any truth in it.

Infact,I was not aware of Bharatas grandfather's demand.There is no reason to believe Sri Rama's childhood was 'unhappy'.The fragmentary shlokas seem to indicate Kausalya's unhappiness.There is no doubt Kaikeyi was the Kings favourite.But was there so much unhappiness?

Let us not forget Itihaasas and Puraanas have their quota of poetic exaggerations.In an epic of 24000 shlokas it is not impossible to pick out a few shlokas which are different from popular perceptions. But is that the general sense?

The 'anal-yst' has picked out one shloka from the Yuddha Kandha wherein Sri Rama voices certain apprehensions about Bharatha.But one can pick a thousand instances where Sri Rama praises Bharatha as the epitome of brotherly love.In the Ramayana,only in a few nevertless very important shlokas is Sri Rama represnted as Vishnu,others portray him as a righteous Nara.There are many shlokas of Rama and Sitas Vilaapa(lamentations).

At this point,I took up the Valmiki Ramayana in my house and checked a few shlokas quota therein.Though the numbering was slightly different,the shlokas were verbatim correct.Remember even Valmiki Ramayana is preserved in multiple rescensions.

Regrarding Ramas comment on ascertaining Bharathas resolve to hand over the kingdom is most natural in the context.When I read the magnificient epic,all my doubts melted away.Remember Sri Rama in the Ramayana is first and foremost a Dharmic Veera.

Chiron,
I think you must make an effort to read Ramayana in the original.I am not asking for a literal reading a la pentacosta church,I am sure you will appreciate its spirit.

I am making no judgements on the Surpanakha or Ayomukhi episode.It was pretty painful for me reading the link.I have thoroughly enjoyed articles debunking Jesus,but when it is one's own faith,it is not easy.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Jun 2009 18:23

What do political machinations have to do with being the complete upholder of Dharma or not? Political machinations themselves may or may not be Dharmic.

I for one cant see an issue with Shri Rama slaying Bali with "chal", remember there are two parts of Dharma Shri Rama has to uphold -- one is the eternal dharma or the sanatana dharma, one is the application of the Dharma in upholding the current social mores. So he has to leave Sita physically or has to slay Bali in a manner that Sugreev becomes the king of Kishkindha.

This is different from the Ram who in the van sees nothing wrong in breaking down false social ostracism by going with a Mallah or eating Sabari's bers.

In fact one message of Dharma that Ramayan hammers home is that the "dharma" is same for everyone regardless of social stature. This it does over and over again in many examples. People are equal including the supreme being when incarnated on earth.

The nobility can be scarified to keep the social greater good -- in fact it can be said earth is the greatest and all its citizens worthwhile equally.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jun 2009 20:09

All, Brill Publications of Netherlands has an Indology series. Very expensive. I found an e-book on Karna in one of the upload sites. Looks like a lot of serious stuff/research is going in Indology still even after teh Colonial project is over.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 15 Jun 2009 20:18

ramana wrote:All, Brill Publications of Netherlands has an Indology series. Very expensive. I found an e-book on Karna in one of the upload sites. Looks like a lot of serious stuff/research is going in Indology still even after teh Colonial project is over.

Ramana sir please post the link in EBooks thread

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 16 Jun 2009 00:21

x-posted from ebooks thread

The Sanskrit Hero Karna in Epic Mahahabharata

Sarasvati Riverine Goddess of Knowledge From the Manuscript-carrying Vina-player to the Weapon-wielding Defender of the Dharma

The New Cambridge History of India

The Ramayana Revisited

The Languages of East and Southeast Asia

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/reco ... movie.html

Ramayana & MahaBharat in onehttp://book ... &resnum=12

Many Religious Books

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Jun 2009 00:22

ramana wrote:This is all Marxist analysis and should be trashed. Let them do one for Yahweh an talk to us.

Chrion ji

We have a Ramayana in telugu called "Ramayana Visha Vriksha" (Ramayana, the poisonous tree) by a leftist writer, Ms Ranganayakamma. She reads the world (and in the process, Ramayana) from a class struggle perspective and she has to find the two sides (feudals and the exploited) in everything she comes across. Your reference reminds me of that Ramayana.

The point is, one can interpret Ramayana anyway they want. It shows their karma, samskara, and jnana.

A student must read Valmiki Ramayana (the original) to get their own understanding, perspective instead of looking the world from someone else's colored glasses. The is especially important when the original version is available.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 16 Jun 2009 00:49

RamaY wrote:
ramana wrote:This is all Marxist analysis and should be trashed. Let them do one for Yahweh an talk to us.
Chrion ji

We have a Ramayana in telugu called "Ramayana Visha Vriksha" (Ramayana, the poisonous tree) by a leftist writer, Ms Ranganayakamma. She reads the world (and in the process, Ramayana) from a class struggle perspective and she has to find the two sides (feudals and the exploited) in everything she comes across. Your reference reminds me of that Ramayana.

The point is, one can interpret Ramayana anyway they want. It shows their karma, samskara, and jnana.

A student must read Valmiki Ramayana (the original) to get their own understanding, perspective instead of looking the world from someone else's colored glasses. The is especially important when the original version is available.

The first Ramayana ,told the story in the perspective of God and praised the Lord, the second told the story in light of family values and bhakti.
The communist tells the story in the light of his own agenda and poisonous intent. See the difference in the same story, that happens when a non believer enters to write abouT Supreme Being and Religion. A communist should be kicked firstly by commies themselves how he/she could write to explain a religious text or story,while its their duty to wash its traces from people's minds, but if that doesn't happens,you can know the real intent,that they are unable to wash away positiveness ,hence trying more negativeness.

Then somebody asked ,who needs communists ?
Answer: those who want to spread venom in the society in the form of division by caste,culture,morals etc. That's what you will see in what they write. I am saved that I didn't studied in any commie infected university,otherwise one's perception of general things gets infected by bs.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 16 Jun 2009 06:38

RamaY Ji,

I have been fortunate to have read Ramayana and MBh in Sanskrit...

Really, I do not see anything wrong in Raam being a politically shrewd person in the situations which I quoted in my first post. In fact, modern leaders who invoke his name time and again should try and inculcate the Chankian understanding of Raam in their behaviour...

And, many times I get a feeling that the exile of Raam was a planned event to decrease the influence of Raakshas nation in Dakshinapatha. Raakshas nation is shown as a highly developed state in southern part of India along with Vaanar Kingdom.

While reading Vaalmiki Ramayana, one thing which struck my attention was that there were many Vaanar people who were capable of being air-borne. They had the technology of designing and building a bridge on sea (if we temporarily ignore the part where writing Raam's name on stone made the stones buoyant.)

Raakshas people too were technologically quite advanced. The Astra-Shastras which Raam got from Vishwamitra, many of them were possessed by Raavan and Indrajit as well. OTOH, they possessed lot diverse arsenal of weapons. The Vimana technology was the monopoly of Raakshas people.

Vaanar and Raakshas were both to the south of Dakshinapatha. And both were mutual enemies. Death of Vaali removed the threat of Raavan and with time, Raavan would have invaded Kishkindha and subjugated weaker Sugreev. Raam utilized this narrow window where he could eliminate Vaali, make Sugreev subservient and while his influence on Sugreev was fresh, utilize his resources and army to defeat the mutual enemy, Raavan. Vaali would never have served Raam's interest and initiated an all-out invasion on Lanka at the behest of Raam.

Modern Indian leadership must learn from Raam.

Krishna says in Mahabharat, Dharma is very complex.. Even the mightiest of people get confused while understanding the nature of Dharma.. Yet, it is so simple, even an ignorant person performs his dharma effortlessly...

It was Raam's dharma towards his Kosala kingdom and his wife that he was following. No where, is his conduct in any conflict with Dhaarmicness...

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 16 Jun 2009 18:13

Interestng info on ravan's origins

The Madras Presidency is the habitat of that Tamil race whose civilisation was the most ancient, and a branch of whom, called the Sumerians, spread a vast civilisation on the banks of the Euphrates in very ancient times; whose astrology, religious lore, morals, rites, etc., furnished the foundation for the Assyrian and Babylonian civilisations; and whose mythology was the source of the Christian Bible. Another branch of these Tamils spread from the Malabar coast and gave rise to the wonderful Egyptian civilisation, and the Aryans also are indebted to this race in many respects. Their colossal temples in the South proclaim the triumph of the Veera Shaiva and Veera Vaishnava sects. The great Vaishnava religion of India has also sprung from a Tamil Pariah — Shathakopa — "who was a dealer in winnowing-fans but was a Yogin all the while". And the Tamil Alwars or devotees still command the respect of the whole Vaishnava sect. Even now the study of the Dvaita, Vishishtâdvaita and Advaita systems of Vedanta is cultivated more in South India than anywhere else. Even now the thirst for religion is stronger here than in any other place.

extracted from Aryans and Tamils , SV Complete Works Volume IV , p296
http://www.tamilnation.org/heritage/vivekananda.htm

A gentle yet clear brushing off of the cobwebs of the so-called Aryan theory and all its vicious corollaries is therefore absolutely necessary, especially for the South, and a proper self-respect created by a knowledge of the past grandeur of one of the great ancestors of the Aryan race - the great Tamilians.

We stick, in spite of Western theories, to that definition of the word "Arya" which we find in our sacred books, and which includes only the multitude we now call Hindus. This Aryan race, itself a mixture of two great races, Sanskrit-speaking and Tamil-speaking, applies to all Hindus alike. That the Shudras have in some Smritis been excluded from this epithet means nothing, for the Shudras were and still are only the waiting Aryas - Aryas in novitiate.

Though we know Pandit Savariroyan is walking over rather insecure ground, though we differ from many of his sweeping explanations of Vedic names and races, yet we are glad that he has undertaken the task of beginning a proper investigation into the culture of the great mother of Indian civilisation - if the Sanskrit-speaking race was the father.

We are glad also that he boldly pushes forward the Accado-Sumerian racial identity of the ancient Tamilians. And this makes us proud of the blood of the great civilisation which flowered before all others--compared to whose antiquity the Aryans and Semites are babies.

We would suggest, also, that the land of Punt of the Egyptians was not only Malabar, but that the Egyptians as a race bodily migrated from Malabar across the ocean and entered the delta along the course of the Nile from
north to south, to which Punt they have been always fondly looking back as the home of the blessed.

This is a move in the right direction. Detailed and more careful work is sure to follow with a better study of the Tamilian tongues and the Tamilian elements found in the Sanskrit literature, philosophy, and religion. And who are more competent to do this work than those who learn the Tamilian idioms as their mother-tongue?

As for us Vedantins and Sannyasins, we are proud of our Sanskrit-speaking ancestors of the Vedas ; proud of our Tamil-speaking ancestors whose civilisation is the oldest yet known; we are proud of our Kolarian ancestors older than either of the above - who lived and hunted in forests; we are proud of our ancestors with flint implements-the first of the human race; and if evolution is true, we are proud of our anaifial ancestors, for they antedated man himself. We are proud that we are descendants of the whole universe, sentient or insentient. Proud that we are born, and work, and suffer - prouder still that we die when the task is finished and enter for ever the re

Many sources indicate that sumali the father of kaikasi (who was mother of ravana),was the ruler of a sumerian kingdom([present day Iran and Iraq).

The discovery that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil, in fact possibly the Tamil of First CaGkam is certainly the most momentous event in the history of not only the Tamils, the Dravidians but the whole of India. It is this discovery that is putting an end to Aryan Invasion Theory that was propounded and fostered by many Europeans more as a story of re-reading the past to present a glorious picture of the Europeans even in the deep past. It is unfortunate that this theory was also allowed to flourish even in India especially among the Brahmanahs and other upper caste Hindus in the North, which led to the neglect and marginalization of Tamil literature culture and so forth.

With the discovery of Sumerian as Archaic Tamil and the study of the large number of literary texts already made available by the archaeologists, we can see Agamic Hinduism with its worship of Siva Tirumaal Ambal Muruka and so forth as ALREADY present in a matured form in Sumeria, ancient Iraq of more than four thousand years ago, which was also a TEMPLE centered culture. Thus Agamic Hinduism goes to the beginnings of civilization itself. It also emerges that the language Rig Veda, Rigkrit, and hence Sanskrit is also another variant of this SumeroTamil and hence perhaps the whole range of languages in India basically Dravidian!

http://www.siddha.com.my/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000060.html
Link proposes that ravan's ancestral origins(of his mother) were from sumerians.
So if anyone says that southern part of India had a kingdom of rakshahas ,is not entirely true as it was the kingdom that may have been formed after ravana's influence(or sumerian) on ceylon and subsequent colonizations and not before that,.

So the ab originals of that region were vanars and not rakshahs,is clearly demarcated in Ramayana itself as a clue and needs analysis as why the vanara kingdom ultimately went into war against rakshahs ,the colonials

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Jun 2009 20:27

Chiron Ji,

We can learn anything we want from a great epic such as Ramayana and Mahabharata.

The only problem in applying non-existent geo-political dimensions is that such a discussion would invite unnecessary interpretations of the epic and make it controversial, especially when the epic applies to entire Bharata Varsha.

Another point is the debate on whether Rama is a god or a human. I will give you two references:

1. “Ramo’ vigrahavan Dharma” (Rama is the embodiment of Dharma) by Maricha {God-consciousness (Nirguna Parabrahma) created this universe and entered this universe in the form of Dharma, the eternal laws of nature. Rama being the embodiment of dharma, acts by Dharma and with Dharma).

2. And by Akampana (one of Ravana’s minister who escaped from the Janasthana war) in Aranya Kanda.

asaadhyaH kupito raamo vikrameNa mahaayashaaH |
aapa gaayaaH tu puurNaayaa vegam pariharet sharaiH || 3-31-23

Rama does not tolerate the upheaval of the system thus he becomes infuriated kupitaH as and when anything unwarranted occurs. And this fury is a getup to Rama, but it is not his innate nature because ramayate it raamaH 'he who delights is Rama...' Thus he cannot always become furious. He is invincible just by brute-force vikrameNa a+saadhyaH . Thus he is approachable only in accordance with the set systems of attaining him. Further the word asaadhya is not coupled with any other sub-words upapada so he is invincible even to Brahma, Rudra, Indra et al. By this Vishnu's trivikrama incarnation is indicated. He can stop, or bifurcate the plethoric river stream just by his intention, leave alone arrows. bhay˜naka ˜varta þat˜kul˜ nadŸ m˜rgam dadau sindhu× iha þriya× pate× -- bhaagavata In Bhaagavata the tumultuous river gave way to carry Krishna to the other side. Thus the incarnation of Krishna, in earlier times, or in the forthcoming eras, is suggested. - Tiirtha. As a river gives way to fishes to swim, his matsya 'Fish...' incarnation is also suggested.

sa.mhR^itya vaa punar lokaan vikrameNa mahaayashaaH |
shakataH shreSThaH sa puruSaH sraSTum punar api prajaaH || 3-31-26

The word shR^STi does not mean crafting anything anew. It is from sR^ij 'releasing out...' The innate souls jiiva are not created anew, they are ever there. But they emerge out of Brahman and resolve in Him according to their karmic cycle. This is Gita's concept. He 'creates worlds again...' indicates that in earlier eras also he is the Creator. vikrameNa is not always 'by valorousness' but 'just by contemplation...' He can create, rather evolve from his within, because he is mahaa yashaH 'glorious...' since Veda-s say eko ha vai naaraayaNa, paraa asya shakti, etasya vaa a ksharasya How can a man do all these thing? For this it is said saH shreSThaH puruSaH 'he is more than, better than, transcendent, to humans...' but not 'best among men' as routinely said above. The word punaH 'again' is used twice, one belongs to the earlier dissolutions and creations and another to the forthcoming ones. Tiirtha.

Thus Rama not only can destroy the entire creation, but also is capable of recreating them if desired. Thus he is nothing but the god-consciousness. Rama did not became god after he came in that avatara (incarnation). He is God-consciousness that came to earth in human form to demonstrate how a man can live per Dharma.

Kindly contemplate on this.

***

In Ramayana (Valmiki Ramayana) Rama explains Vali that the entire Dandakaranya is under the jurisdiction of Raghu Rajya (that is Ayodhya kingdom), currently being ruled by his brother Bharata, thus has the authority to act on his (Vali’s) adharma as a representative of Bharata. This is what Brihaspati-ji/Ramana-ji were talking about the core kingdoms and peripheral tribal areas.

Ravana on the other hand did not invade Earth (Bharatavarsha) because he did not think it is worth his time as he already has conquered all the upper planes (lokas). He just ensured that the asura presense here and there in Bharatavarsha to harass the Rishis whenever they did yajnas to please Vishnu. In one of the instances, Ravana calls Rama “ son of land lord”, where as he is lord of Tribhuvana (three worlds).

***

Technological innovations:

If one reads the first kanda of Ramayana, the birth of Rama details how different devas and dikpala (lords of directions) came on to earth in human and vanara forms to assist Rama in his fight against the great asura Ravana. In that sense the entire Ramayana is a plan to establish Dharma on earth.

And in Sundara Kanda, it was explained that the Pushpaka vimana is so large that Ravana made it his Antahpura, with its own multiple buildings, lawns, gardens etc. We can imagine it as the mothership that we were seen in Independence Day movie. That mothership had smaller ships and planes that were used for individual movements but the entire mothership is transportable. Rama uses the entire mothership, pushpaka vimana, to take entire Vanara sainya, Rakshasa sainya (under Vibhishana) in his return trip to Ayodhya.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Jun 2009 03:22

x-posting from the Nukkad dhaaga

Bade wrote:The other rumor I have heard is that Iyers are local to the land, whereas Iyengars are largely transplants from the north.

Had an Iyengar roomie a Dilli-Billi with family roots in Tirupati who was the fountainhead of this information. The other rumor was that Iyers were upgraded brahmins, sort of enrolled into the fold to fill a vaccum in the recent past.

Dunno how much of truth in the story but not unbelievable, since there were no brahmins in kerala ( most of south too ) except the loner types in the jungles (Agastya ?) before Namboodiris came to Kerala from the North in large groups.

Anujan wrote:Thats not entirely true. Iyengars are defined to be those who follow Visishtadvaita philosophy of Sri Ramanujacharyar. Ramanujacharyar was born in tamilnadu in Sri Perambadur (the same place RG was assasinated). He spent much time in Kanchipuram and Sirangam and a twelve year exile in Melkote, in Karnataka. In fact, Ramanujacharyar's recommendation for the "diet" for Lord Ranganathan is still followed in the Sri Ranganathan Temple in Srirangam (near trichy)

Iyengars are from the "North" in the sense that there are a lot of Iyengars in Karnataka and Andhra as well. Ramanujacharyar traveled extensively there as well.

Maybe you are confusing vadakalai with tengalai ?

Iyengars fall into two main branches "Vadakalai" and "Thenkalai" (northern branch and southern branch as SwamyG put it)

The most prominent difference is the mark that they wear on their forehead, vadakalai with "U" shaped and thenkalai more like a "|_|" shaped.

Now culturally the difference is that thenkalai have traditionally patronized, written and taught with a greater emphasis on tamil* whereas Vadakalais have emphasized sanskrit more. However, this is not to say that they did one to the exclusion of the other. For example, Vadakalai Iyengars regard thiruppavai--written in tamil--highly. In fact, the Nalayira dhivya prabandham, the compendium of work by the twelve Alwars--all of who are tamil--are regarded highly by both sects.

As an aside, Alwars are regarded to be the most exalted saints of vaishnavism and credited with energizing the Bhakhthi movement. One of the Alwars is Aandaal who is revered and worshipped with great devotion and affection. Along with characters like Kannagi, I have found numerous instances of women being treated just as equal to men.

Anyway, the doctrinal difference between Vadakalais and Thenkalais are so arcane and delicate (including such things as whether Lakshmi is divine or just special and if the abode of vishnu--vaikuntha--has a hotel lobby for people to wait or in fact if the lobby is just a outhouse) that I am not sure that anyone understands the difference anymore

*Bade-saar

Let me come to the crux of my post. The reason why I gave a complex explanation filled with tamil tongue twisters to refute the fact that Iyengars settled from the north is simple. It is because there is a narrative promoted by the dravidian parties that Tam Brams are somehow "Aryans" and invaded the darker tamil-preferring "Dravidians" and this is the raisin-dieter of the parties like DK, DMK etc. The dravidian parties tried to mix dark skin, tamil and OBC into the umbrella of "Dravidians" and Fair skin, Sanskrit and Brahmin into the umbrella of "Aryans". In fact one of the insane examples they cite is the oppression of dark skin, (presumably tamil speaking) southie Ravana by the fair, sanskrit speaking northie Rama**.

To a fair extent, they were successful. Brahmins do liberally use sanskrit words and are more likely to be educated in Sanskrit. This I believe is not because of their origins, but because of a need to study the original Hindu texts like Ramayana, Gita and the Vedas, which they would cite during frequent tharkams (or debates) over philosophical points.

The funny thing is that, initially, this narrative did not catch on much because much of tamil literary works upto that point was done by the Thenkalai Iyengars, who were great proponents of Tamil. In fact, beautiful, subtle complex religious works in tamil were written by Brahmins (not by accident. they tended to be the more religious and more educated lot. And they composed their work on the language of the land -- tamil) and one of the greatest tamil poets, Subrahmanya Bharathi, is a Brahmin.

To negate this the Dravidian parties started professing atheism, thereby demonizing the Brahmin religio-scholars who had contributed to the tamil language. For a while, they were so successful that everybody started believing that Brahmins were "from the north" and now conveniently forget the contributions of the Brahmins towards tamil language and literature.

**Conveniently forgetting the fact that Ravana was the foremost proponent of Saama Veda (in sanskrit) and got boons from Shiva through it and Rama's next avatar was Krishna, the northie with the super dark skin.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 17 Jun 2009 14:51

Deleted.
I feel I am responsible for some discussion with which i am unhappy.

Chiron,
Nothing personal.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 17 Jun 2009 16:35

krishnapremi wrote:Chiron,
Since you have read the Ramayana in Sanskrit,do you think the following opinions
1)Rama had a 'unhappy' childhood
2)Rama had political motives in killing Vaali
3)Rama's remarks to Hanuman on Bharatha while returning to Chitrakuta were 'abnormal'(or do they seem natural given the way Rama is portrayed.)

can be inferred from the text .

You have given a link where 1) and 3) are raised.

We all have a right to opinions.But are 1),2) and 3) legitimate inferences from the text.

Krishnapremi ji,

I am not sure about Raam's unhappy childhood... I read this PoV for the first time in the link I provided..

Regarding Raam's political motives in killing Vaali, I feel they are obvious. Look at the justification which Raam gives to Vaali when Vaali asks him," For what crime have I received this punishment". Raam justifies his action by saying that Vaali is a Shakha-Mriga (Animal living on trees).

Apart from political reasons, there was no other motive of Vaali's death. Vaali on deathbed says that if Raam would have come to Vaali directly, he would himself have rescued Seeta from clutches of Raavan. This means,

1. Either Raam did not know about Raakshas-Vaanar rivalry and humiliating defeat that Raavan suffered at the hands of Vaali (which is not the case).

2. Or, his aim was perhaps much more than just rescuing Seeta which necessitated all out invasion on Lanka and elimination of Raavan from political scenario of contemporary Bhaarat. Vaali needed to be eliminated because he won't do Raam's bidding like Sugreev did. After all, Raam was an exiled prince of a powerful kingdom of Aryavarta.

Now the point is, whether to consider Ramayan and Mahabharat as part of India's legitimate history or not. If we consider these texts as history of India (which I sincerely contend), then we have to remove the supernatural part about Vishnu's incarnation and other stuff which is obviously hyperbolous and poetic. There is a definite historicity in these two stories.

In case one considers them as pure mythology, then all the inferences and arguments which I have put forth about politics does not hold true.. Whatever Raam did was his Leela..

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 17 Jun 2009 17:28

Chiron wrote:
Krishnapremi ji,

I am not sure about Raam's unhappy childhood... I read this PoV for the first time in the link I provided..

Regarding Raam's political motives in killing Vaali, I feel they are obvious. Look at the justification which Raam gives to Vaali when Vaali asks him," For what crime have I received this punishment". Raam justifies his action by saying that Vaali is a Shakha-Mriga (Animal living on trees).

Apart from political reasons, there was no other motive of Vaali's death. Vaali on deathbed says that if Raam would have come to Vaali directly, he would himself have rescued Seeta from clutches of Raavan. This means,

1. Either Raam did not know about Raakshas-Vaanar rivalry and humiliating defeat that Raavan suffered at the hands of Vaali (which is not the case).

2. Or, his aim was perhaps much more than just rescuing Seeta which necessitated all out invasion on Lanka and elimination of Raavan from political scenario of contemporary Bhaarat. Vaali needed to be eliminated because he won't do Raam's bidding like Sugreev did. After all, Raam was an exiled prince of a powerful kingdom of Aryavarta.

Now the point is, whether to consider Ramayan and Mahabharat as part of India's legitimate history or not. If we consider these texts as history of India (which I sincerely contend), then we have to remove the supernatural part about Vishnu's incarnation and other stuff which is obviously hyperbolous and poetic. There is a definite historicity in these two stories.

In case one considers them as pure mythology, then all the inferences and arguments which I have put forth about politics does not hold true.. Whatever Raam did was his Leela..

Chironji,
Whether Ram was a avataar or not does not anyway remove the importance of the text. If Ram is avataar of Vishnu , still his leela can be considered as his way of showing ordinary abduls like us about straatagee in politics and life in general.

One more thing is that whether Ramayana or Mahabharatha , the end result in both is that the victors strive to unify Bharatha, but they did not extend it beyond certain boundaries. So there surely was a concept of what "our" desh is and what other's "desh" is.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 17 Jun 2009 20:09

rkirankr wrote:Chironji,
Whether Ram was a avataar or not does not anyway remove the importance of the text. If Ram is avataar of Vishnu , still his leela can be considered as his way of showing ordinary abduls like us about straatagee in politics and life in general.

One more thing is that whether Ramayana or Mahabharatha , the end result in both is that the victors strive to unify Bharatha, but they did not extend it beyond certain boundaries. So there surely was a concept of what "our" desh is and what other's "desh" is.

Importance of Ramayan and Mahabharat is beyond any doubts.. They have a lion's share in shaping the very core-identity of Bhaarat. Just that, people tend to look at the poetic nature of description and tend to pass them off as mythological stories. I sincerely contend that they are the history of Bhaarat. Raam and Krishna were as real as Chandragupta Maurya and Samudragupt.

Just that their records are shrouded with exaggerated descriptions owing to poetic nature and tradition of passing them through the generations by means of oral renditions. And since they are smritis and not Shrutis, their authenticity cannot be guaranteed as accurately as that of Vedas. Vedas were meticulously preserved. There is uniformity all over India when it comes to reciting Vedas. The sequence of verses, pronunciations and many times even the hand gestures associated with the verses are uniform throughout Bhaarat. This stringency was not applied to recital of Ramayan and Mahabharat and Bhagvat Puranas.

I agree with your unification theory.. Raam dispatched Bharat to consolidate Gaandhaar and Kaikey regions and bring them firmly under influence of Dharma or Raam's empire or Indic civilization. Raam's role in post Lanka conquest was definitely the one unification and assimilation.

Krishna, OTOH, I am not sure about. Firstly, he was not a king of any kingdom. Yet, he was one of the most important and influential characters of his contemporary time. So there was no way he formally tried to bring Bhaarat under one domain under his banner. Curiously, he did not even try to do this under the banner of his kingdom. Instead, he chose to patronize Pandavas and fulfil this aim (Re-establishment of Dharma) through them. However, Pandavas had free-will of their own, and owing to this free will, they chose to squander away everything thing which they (and hence Krishna) had achieved in game of dice. Without that game, Bhaarat would have been different. However, the self-destructive cycle which was initiated due to one night of gambling led to events which were out of Krishna's hands. In 18 days of Kurukshetra's great war, entire elite of Bhaarat, was wiped out. 4 million elite warriors killed off in 18 days !!!

The Bhaarat's unification that was achieved post war by Pandavas was not of much use. Bhaarat was already weakened so much that after Krishna's death, when Arjun was bringing back his wives to Hastinapur along with other women-folk, the Mlenccha tribes looted them on the way to Hastinapur from Dwarika. Most of the times, the term "Mlenccha" specifically is used for foreign barbarians.

One more interesting thing is that Raam is revered in lands beyond Bhaarat. Especially in South-East Asian nations, Raam and his stories are quite popular. This is not the same with Krishna, AFAIK. Krishna is popular in India, that too as Krishna-the lover (in form of Radha-Krishna) OR as Krishna-The philosopher (Originator of Geeta), not as Krishna-the warrior or Krishna-the King (which he was not). This has perhaps something to do with the destructive war associated with the contemporary people. Same goes with Pandavas. Whoever the king-maker was, the peace was established in the name of Emperor Yudhishthir. His name is not seen outside the domains of Bhaarat. As a matter of fact, King Vikramaditya's name is supposedly found in an inscription of Turkey as Just ruler of Hind. Same goes with Ashok. Same goes with Raam. But not for Yudhishthir.

JMT

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 17 Jun 2009 21:35

hate to reply to every post.But...

Suppose the system is totally aged and rotten.It has to go.Who has the energy to extend the 'desh'.

One has to know and preserve the 'essentials' to even survive.We can worry about growth later.

This can happen to any system.We ARE thankful to Krishna that we are still here and have retained the distilled essence and even more of our incredible past.We have celebrated love... and life.We have been able to dream again , begin new cycles ....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Jun 2009 22:19

Another aspect about Ram's behavior in Vali vadh is that Sugreev was his "sharanagata" Ram had to do what was needed to protect him, including killing Vali by "chal" if needed. The basic concept of Dharma is that clearly different Dharma's have different weight ages when in conflict, and their relative weights are enumerated or given guidance for by Ramayana, MB and Shrimad Bhagavat Gita

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Jun 2009 02:53

Vali is no ordinary person. His is son of Indra.

atha ukSitaH shoNita toya visravaiH
supuSpita ashoka iva acalodgataH |
vicetano vaasava suunur aahave
prabhra~nshita indra dhvajavat kSitim gataH || 4-16-39

That Indra's son Vali, dampened with blood and sweat, then looked like just felled Ashoka tree which has stemmed up and so far standing high on a mountain with fully bloomed clusters of its blood-red flowers, and when his anima is undone he even looked like the flagstaff on which a flag is raised in honour of Indra, but which is altogether dislodged and abandoned on the ground. [4-16-39]

Lady Tara is the granddaughter of Brihaspati, the Jupiter and wife of Vali and she is one of the exemplary females in this epic. She is entered only thrice in the vast of this epic, presently here, next at the fall of Vali and later to pacify the ire of Lakshmana. But her personality for analytical intelligence does not exit from the minds of readers. Here she advises Vali not to confront Sugreeva, as long as Rama stands guard to him. Further she says after a logical discourse and reasons, why not Sugreeva be made the Prince Regent of Kishkindha, even at this juncture, where she foresees a calamity to Vali. But Vali, maddened in his intellect by his brawny might slights her far fetching advice.

na asahaayam aham manye sugriivam tam iha aagatam |
avaSTabdha sahaayaH ca yam aashritya eSa ga.rjati || 4-15-13

"I do not think that Sugreeva has come here unaccompanied, and on whom he is dependant must be an unflinching support foregathered by Sugreeva. [4-15-13]

a.ngadaH tu kumaro ayam vanaa.ntam upanirgataH |
pravR^ittiH tena kathitaa caaraiH asiit niveditaa || 4-15-16

"Son Angada said this account when he returned from forests, and to him spies are said to have reported this. [4-15-16]

ayodhya adhipateH putrau shuurau samara durjayau |
ikshvaakuuNaam kule jaatau prathitau raama lakshmaNau || 4-15-17
sugriiva priya kaamaartham praaptau tatra duraasadau |

Those that are born in Ikshvaku dynasty, sons of the king of Ayodhya, valiant and unconquerable ones in war, called Rama and Lakshmana are there in this country. These two unassailable ones have chanced there at Sugreeva's place to fulfil the longing desire of Sugreeva. [4-15-17, 18a]

To that Vali Says:

na ca kaaryo viSaadaH te raaghavam prati mat kR^ite |
dharmaj~naH ca kR^itaj~naH ca katham paapam kariSyati || 4-16-5

"Also, you need not bother about Raghava's doing some harm to me, as I wonder how a diligent man and knower of virtue can commit sin. [4-16-5]

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 18 Jun 2009 11:49

Chiron wrote:
Importance of Ramayan and Mahabharat is beyond any doubts.. They have a lion's share in shaping the very core-identity of Bhaarat. Just that, people tend to look at the poetic nature of description and tend to pass them off as mythological stories. I sincerely contend that they are the history of Bhaarat. Raam and Krishna were as real as Chandragupta Maurya and Samudragupt.

Just that their records are shrouded with exaggerated descriptions owing to poetic nature and tradition of passing them through the generations by means of oral renditions. And since they are smritis and not Shrutis, their authenticity cannot be guaranteed as accurately as that of Vedas. Vedas were meticulously preserved. There is uniformity all over India when it comes to reciting Vedas. The sequence of verses, pronunciations and many times even the hand gestures associated with the verses are uniform throughout Bhaarat. This stringency was not applied to recital of Ramayan and Mahabharat and Bhagvat Puranas.

I agree with your unification theory.. Raam dispatched Bharat to consolidate Gaandhaar and Kaikey regions and bring them firmly under influence of Dharma or Raam's empire or Indic civilization. Raam's role in post Lanka conquest was definitely the one unification and assimilation.

Krishna, OTOH, I am not sure about. Firstly, he was not a king of any kingdom. Yet, he was one of the most important and influential characters of his contemporary time. So there was no way he formally tried to bring Bhaarat under one domain under his banner. Curiously, he did not even try to do this under the banner of his kingdom. Instead, he chose to patronize Pandavas and fulfil this aim (Re-establishment of Dharma) through them. However, Pandavas had free-will of their own, and owing to this free will, they chose to squander away everything thing which they (and hence Krishna) had achieved in game of dice. Without that game, Bhaarat would have been different. However, the self-destructive cycle which was initiated due to one night of gambling led to events which were out of Krishna's hands. In 18 days of Kurukshetra's great war, entire elite of Bhaarat, was wiped out. 4 million elite warriors killed off in 18 days !!!

The Bhaarat's unification that was achieved post war by Pandavas was not of much use. Bhaarat was already weakened so much that after Krishna's death, when Arjun was bringing back his wives to Hastinapur along with other women-folk, the Mlenccha tribes looted them on the way to Hastinapur from Dwarika. Most of the times, the term "Mlenccha" specifically is used for foreign barbarians.

One more interesting thing is that Raam is revered in lands beyond Bhaarat. Especially in South-East Asian nations, Raam and his stories are quite popular. This is not the same with Krishna, AFAIK. Krishna is popular in India, that too as Krishna-the lover (in form of Radha-Krishna) OR as Krishna-The philosopher (Originator of Geeta), not as Krishna-the warrior or Krishna-the King (which he was not). This has perhaps something to do with the destructive war associated with the contemporary people. Same goes with Pandavas. Whoever the king-maker was, the peace was established in the name of Emperor Yudhishthir. His name is not seen outside the domains of Bhaarat. As a matter of fact, King Vikramaditya's name is supposedly found in an inscription of Turkey as Just ruler of Hind. Same goes with Ashok. Same goes with Raam. But not for Yudhishthir.

JMT

I heard a discourse from a very good scholar and he brought out these points.
In Ram's time Jnana or knowledge was still clear, people knew what was dharma or adharma and the boundary. Only issue was adharmis were getting powerfull and dharmic forces had no leadership . So Ram provided the leadership. So Jnana was present but right Karma had to be done.
During Krishna's time Jnana itself was reduced and people in general were confused as to what is dharma and what is adharma. This is because unlike the previous yuga adharmic force had subverted dharma itself and hence the confusion. This was prevalent even among highly intellect people. Like for eg , Bheeshma's dilemma - he was loyal to throne, but never thought whether he was the reason why adharma was firmly entrenched on the throne due to his protection. The venerable acharyas were silent during Draupadi's humiliation. Only one to oppose was Vidura. Contrast this with Vibheeshana (though he is considered by some as traitor), but he was clear as to which side represented dharma. Did not bother about criticism.He knew that Ravana's continuation would spell doom. He sided with the Dharma.

So Krishna's mission was to rekindle the right knowledge and destroy confusion. He was a Jnana yogi who made others do right Karma based on the right Jnana. Rama was a Karmayogi who did the right Karma based on the already present right Jnana.

Just my thoughts

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Jun 2009 12:04

And what is needed for Kaliyuga? What does Kalki purana say?

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 18 Jun 2009 12:17

Sanku wrote:And what is needed for Kaliyuga? What does Kalki purana say?

As for as I know (I may be wrong here. Please excuse) Kalki avatar will happen at almost the very end of Kaliyuga and adharmic forces will be destroyed. After the end of Kali yuga , sathyuga or sathya yuga will start. At the moment we are still in the beginning and have to wait at atleast for 4 lakh+ years. So no help now

What we need now is a leadership which has right Jnana and has to do the right Karma based on right Jnana.
Anyone on the horizon?

Ok Ok admins please do not fire the hellphyre , will not start political discussion here

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Jun 2009 12:45

rkirankr wrote: At the moment we are still in the beginning and have to wait at atleast for 4 lakh+ years. So no help now

There is some ambiguity in what I have read about the Yuga cycle, I mean the basic cosmic cycle of Bramha's day and everything is all right and fairly straightforward and is almost exactly the same as assumed ages of universe and everything.

However the cycles themselves are subdivided, and there are schools of thought which say that the Saty yug cycle etc also refer to sub cycles with the main cycles.

I have been looking for documentation on this, a paper I believe was presented few years back in a Delhi symposium too "The Chaturayuga cycle and cosmic age" but I cant seem to find it online anywhere.

Would appreciate if any one has any gyan on this.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 18 Jun 2009 12:48

Sanku wrote:
rkirankr wrote: At the moment we are still in the beginning and have to wait at atleast for 4 lakh+ years. So no help now
There is some ambiguity in what I have read about the Yuga cycle, I mean the basic cosmic cycle of Bramha's day and everything is all right and fairly straightforward and is almost exactly the same as assumed ages of universe and everything.

However the cycles themselves are subdivided, and there are schools of thought which say that the Saty yug cycle etc also refer to sub cycles with the main cycles.

I have been looking for documentation on this, a paper I believe was presented few years back in a Delhi symposium too "The Chaturayuga cycle and cosmic age" but I cant seem to find it online anywhere.

Would appreciate if any one has any gyan on this.

I had some material. Will search and post it in this form

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Jun 2009 02:21

The easiest age to attain, realize or see Supreme Lord is Kalyug . So its not all that bad . Do the paaps and still get Moksha . Eat and keep the Mithai... all tons of it.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Jun 2009 03:25

rkirankr wrote:So Krishna's mission was to rekindle the right knowledge and destroy confusion. He was a Jnana yogi who made others do right Karma based on the right Jnana. Rama was a Karmayogi who did the right Karma based on the already present right Jnana.

Just my thoughts

Very nice analysis.. Thank you...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2009 00:35

Ramay and all look at this site on Sri Yantram. Quite serious stuff going on.

http://www.sriyantraresearch.com/

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jun 2009 03:06

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-M9mc3H ... fter_zero/

Sri Yantra explained in the Hindu experience

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 20 Jun 2009 12:46

Acharya wrote:http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-M9mc3H ... fter_zero/

Sri Yantra explained in the Hindu experience

At the end of the video:

"Camera: Ariel Rothschild!!!"

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Jun 2009 22:04

ramana wrote:Ramay and all look at this site on Sri Yantram. Quite serious stuff going on.

http://www.sriyantraresearch.com/

Thank you Ramanaji! I just started my journey into SriChakra recently using Jagadguru's SaundaryaLahari as the map-guide. This enriches my study.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jun 2009 22:23

References to Tamil - Dynasties, Countries, in Mahabharatha

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 24 Jun 2009 00:18

What is the real meaning of the kaliyuga, what will be the consequences of it.?
Throughout the religious texts we see that Dharma was predominant and right decisions in favour of humanity were always taken, but with the advent of kaliyuga it stopped,
but I think the reason behind having kaliyuga was different , it has to be cracked from the religious texts to know what does it actually means for the world.
1. who is kali ?
2. who is Kalki ?
3. who will win?
There are contrary views on that subject,
and the correct view is unknown.

SandeepA · Post by **SandeepA** » 24 Jun 2009 07:04

Found this website during random searches on places related to Ramayana.

http://www.jatayusculpture.com/

I think its more like a theme park. I am really curious on understanding the exact route Lord Rama took during his exile and how we commemorate such places today.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 24 Jun 2009 16:54

Samay wrote:What is the real meaning of the kaliyuga, what will be the consequences of it.?
Throughout the religious texts we see that Dharma was predominant and right decisions in favour of humanity were always taken, but with the advent of kaliyuga it stopped,
but I think the reason behind having kaliyuga was different , it has to be cracked from the religious texts to know what does it actually means for the world.
1. who is kali ?
2. who is Kalki ?
3. who will win?
There are contrary views on that subject,
and the correct view is unknown.

From whatever I know
The entire universe undergoes a cycle of creation and destruction. In each of these cycles the various souls undergo cycles of birth and death and do sadhana to achieve salvation as per their individual capacities(This last part varies with interpretation of different darshanas such advaita, dvaita and vishistadvaita etc)
In each cycle Lord Brahma (the four faced) has 100 years. He is born from the navel of Vishnu(Again there is difference in interpretation as to who is supreme , let us not go into that)
In 100 years of life span of Brahma, the universe goes through various cycles of Kalpa
One kalpa has 4 yugas (Sathya, treta , Dvapara and Kali). Among the Dharma, Jnana is abundant in sathya and least in Kali.
Kali as per purana is a daithya or demon and is lowest in the entire jeevas(If the supreme lord whoever it is Vishnu , Shiva or Brahma or anyother is highest then Kali is lowest). He influences in this time period of kaliyuga.

Kalki is the avatar of Vishnu (the last among 10 popular avatars or reincarnations). He represents the highest ideal of Dharma. He will incarnate at almost end of Kaliyuga and destroy adharma and adharmic ideologies. So again a cycle will start from sathya yuga.
This cycle will continue till Brahma attains 100 years(You guessed it there is a relative difference between our time scale and Brahma's time scale).
As far as I gathered info , we are in 29th kaliyuga

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Jun 2009 18:04

rkirankr -> As per the english translation of Bhagvatam I have read

1 Brahma's day Kalpa has 1000 divyayugas

1 Divyayuga is made up of 1,728,000 years Kryta(satya) yuga, 1,296,000 years Treta Yuga, 864,000 years Dvapura Yuga, 432,000 years Kali Yuga.

1 Brahma's day has 14 Manus, Varaha and Narasimha avatar happenned in Svyambuva manu's time. Each Manu rule is approxumately 71 DivyaYugas which is also the life of Devas.

Present Indra is Purandhara. Rama and Krishna avatar happenned in the current Divya Yuga for whic the Manu is Vaivasa Manu, 7th Manu 26th Divya Yuga.

Kakli Avatar will come at the end of this Kali yuga(age where quarrel is promininent) which has about 426,000 years to go.

Kali is the presiding deity of this yuga whose principle residences include where there is excessive gold, illicit relationships, meat eating, gambling and intoxication.

Brahma as far as I know, his first 50 years are over and is in his 2nd half of life which in Human terms is about 411 trillion years

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 24 Jun 2009 19:34

Aditya_V wrote:rkirankr -> As per the english translation of Bhagvatam I have read

1 Brahma's day Kalpa has 1000 divyayugas

1 Divyayuga is made up of 1,728,000 years Kryta(satya) yuga, 1,296,000 years Treta Yuga, 864,000 years Dvapura Yuga, 432,000 years Kali Yuga.

1 Brahma's day has 14 Manus, Varaha and Narasimha avatar happenned in Svyambuva manu's time. Each Manu rule is approxumately 71 DivyaYugas which is also the life of Devas.

Present Indra is Purandhara. Rama and Krishna avatar happenned in the current Divya Yuga for whic the Manu is Vaivasa Manu, 7th Manu 26th Divya Yuga.

Kakli Avatar will come at the end of this Kali yuga(age where quarrel is promininent) which has about 426,000 years to go.

Kali is the presiding deity of this yuga whose principle residences include where there is excessive gold, illicit relationships, meat eating, gambling and intoxication.

Brahma as far as I know, his first 50 years are over and is in his 2nd half of life which in Human terms is about 411 trillion years

Yeah you are right. I did not go into the numeric details. If there is any fact wrong in my post, then error is purely mine and I apologize