Monday, April 07, 2008

057, REPLIES TO COMMENTS, Raajya Shulkam

Shri Nitin said in his comment at my post #11 Click to see his comment. It reads: Comment:You claim to be a lawyer? i don't think u've passed the law exam LOL!!.


The University which has given me the L.L.B degree and the Bar Council which registered me as an advocate, have taken care of my passing the Law examination. Kindly do not worry. Thank you.

Comment: We do not know the condition how this promise was extracted ...whatever. we surely know that Dasharatha married Kaikeye enchanted by her beauty n that she could bear an heir for his kingdom, however in due course of time she too couldn't do so and Dasharatha had to resort to 'putrakanesti' so how is kaikeyi special?? when Manthara instigates kaikeyi she doen't even mention about the rajyashulka only she mentions about the 2 boons given by dasharatha to kaikeyi as gratitude of saving his life while warring againt timidhwaj or better known as shambharsura. The very question of rajyashulka is nullified when kaikeyi is not able to give him an heir naturally.

Ans: Raajya shulkam has nothing to do with getting children and inheritance. "Raajya Shulkam" is similar to "Kanya Shulkam" which is somewhat comparable to your dowry. You might have received your dowry for your marriage, you know how it is enjoyed/spent by the brides and grooms. Raajya Shulkam and Kanya Shulkam are the price/gift paid to the bride's father whereas vara katnam is given to the groom. Then where is the question of nullification for not getting children? If you do not get children, will you refund your dowry?

The verse in question 2-107-3 is spoken by Rama who is the protagonist of the book. I have not created it. I have written this blog post, just to draw the attention of the readers to the fact that Rama knew that the proposal to coronate him was not proper. Had Rama raised this question when first Dasaratha proposed the coronation of Rama, it would have made him a 200% Maryada Purushottama. Had he or Dasaratha raised it at the time of proposal for coronation, Vasishta and other elders might have discussed the dharma suukshmams and suggested a solution. Dasaratha wanted to do the coronation coolly before Bharata arrived, without inviting Asvapati. Even vasisht`a does not advise to invite Asvapati for the Coronation Ceremony.

The Hero Rama himself has raised the issue of Bharata's lawful entitlement to the Kingdom by virtue of Dasaratha's gifting it as shulkam. Hence the fact of Dasaratha's promise is clear. It is immaterial that Kaikeeyi or Mandhara have not raised it.

Dasaratha might have made similar promise to the parents of Kausalya, Sumitra and the 350 other wives he married. Kings make promises to break them. Didn't Rama make a promise that he will live like a sage eating only roots and fruits and break it the very next day by eating four deer in one evening? Dasaratha will do anything for satisfying women, without checking its dharma or adharma. (Pl. see 2-10-32 Dasaratha's offer to Kaikeeyi below).

Comment: So called 'truth seeker' ...u are one wretched persob full of filth and lies ofcourse.

Ans: Am I a person full of greater filth than

1. Dasaratha who inhaled the smoke emerging from the burning fat of the slain horse in Asvametham -cum- Putra Kameshti and self-satisfy that kilbishams (sins) were cleansed?
patatrin`aha tasya vapaam uddhruitya niyateendriyaha
ruitvik parama sampannaha shrapayaamaasa shaastrataha

Dhuuma gandham vapaayaaha
tu jighrati sma naraadhipaha
yathaa kaalam yathaa nyaayam
nirn`udan paapam aatmanaha

2. Kausalya who stabbed the horse three times with three gold knives?

Kausalyaa tam hayam tatra paricarya samantataha
kripaan`aihi vishashaasaha enam tribhih paramayaa mudaa

('Paramayaa mudaa' with great joy.)

Shri Nitinji, You are calling me a lier. Why don't you spend sometime studying Chapter 14 of Bala Kanda?

3. Kausalya who slept with a dead horse (I am not implying sexual intercourse. Some people inferred it. I take it as a simple sleep). Have you ever slept with a dead horse?

Patatrin`aa tadaa saardham susthiteena ca ceetasaa
avasat rajaniim ekaam kausalyaa Dharma kaamyayaa

4. Kausalya and other queens being gifted to priests?

Hootaa adhvaryuhu tathaa udgaataa hasteena samayoojayan
mahishyaa parivruittyaa athaa vaavaataam aparaam tathaa.

Fortuantely, the priests returned the queens to Dasaratha.

5. Dasaratha who was ready to kill anybody to satisfy his Queen?

2-10-32, 2-10-33
Maa rodiir maa cha kaarshhistvam devi samparishoshhan`am
avadhyo vadhyataam ko vaa ko vaa vadhyo vimuchyataam daridraha koo bhavedaadhyoo dravyavaan vaapy akinchanaha.

( Approximate translation: "O Devi! Do not weep and get your body becomes weak. If you desire, I shall kill a person who is exempt from death or shall release a person who is worthy to be killed. I shall make a poor man prosperous or a rich man, deprived".)

Friend! Do you ever make this type of promises to your wife?

You said 'You call yourself a lawyer!' Now, what type of king is this Dasaratha who is ready to kill anybody just to please his Queen?

The problem with followers of religions (all religions including Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. etc.) they do not study and research. Facts and truths are to be our guides. Not preachers, mullas and pastors. We have to look at both side of things. I am writing the things which are omitted by speakers and authors who make money by converting religion into a business. Religion and worship if reduced into businesses can rot any culture.

I want you to see the truth. A truthseeker does not take sides. I have added the suffix 'truthseeker' to my name because some people thought that I am a Christian Missionary. To make my object clear, I added it. You can correct me, if I go wrong. I am neither infallible nor incorrigible.

Note: The above is subject to corrections after reading further comments.

I am wretched because I get grief and misery when I visualise Kausalya stabbing dead/live horse three times! In Yuddha Kanda, chapter 128 Pattabhishekam (Coronation) you are told that Rama performed 100 horse sacrifices, killing as many horses. This is the same king, whom Valmiki called Karuna Payonidhi, the Ocean of Kindness. Won't you get wretched when you read that Rama, Sita and Lakshmana ate four deer in one evening the very second day they entered the forests, while posing before Guha that he would live eating fruits? How many kilograms do four deer weigh? How much did they throw away treating it as unwanted parts?

Friend! Read Ayoodha Kaanda thoroughly. You will get enlightened. Still there is no need for you to dethrone Rama from the pedestal of a God. You can continue to worship him. Finding truth and worship are two different areas. A devotee prays, worships. A lawyer, writer, searches truth and presents before people. You need not even be wretched. The wretchedness can be left to the deer, pigs etc. killed by the two brothers.


Anonymous said...

Dear Yb,

I am sure you are a real truthseeker. How I wish our younsters go through your blogs and become more rational!

The pity is that religion (any religion, for that matter) is like an opiate (as Karl Marx justly described) and people get brain-washed by it in such a way that they are incapable of rational and free thinking. To put matters in the correct perspective, I am an old brahmin brought up in an orthodox family. I had a great interest in reading and studying the various religious texts. In that process I started getting many of the doubts and opinions voiced here by you. My thinking has only resulted in my becoming a more staunch " theist" but I do not give much credit to the scriptures except as primers for those who want only the externalities of religion.

vitahavya said...

well the truth is that when dasaratha proposed marriage, ashavapati had stated that kaikeiyi's son shall become the king. most people seem to forget the inheritance laws in those good old days could be patrilineal or matrilineal. thus you have arjuna being called kaunteya (son of kuniti as it occurs more often in B.gita then as pandava) or patrilineal. ashvapati could have been following matrlineal succession rules same as chitrangada of manipur in mahabharatha. or in modern times same as in nair families in keral and very few namboodiri families in north keralaa.

or it could have been the only "legal" queen could be kaushalya. this is borne out by the fact that dasaratha gave the payasam born out of putrakamesthi to only kaushalya, who then shared it to kaikeiya and sumitra. interestingly enough, kaikeiya also gave a person to sumitra (hence sumitra getting two children). if kaikeyi and sumitra where "dharma" patnis, why then did they not sit together with dasharatha as yajamana patnis in the yaga shala?. the war of succession was it appears pre-written in their matrimonial relationships it appears. thus ashavapati knowing the actual status of kaikeyi could have been bargaining for more than what could have been the actual "entitlement".