Wednesday, March 17, 2010


BOOK 1 : Section of Childhood (Bala Kaand`a)

sarvadaa abhigataha sadbhihi
samudra iva sindhubhihi
aryaha sarvasamaha ca eva
sadaiva priya darshanaha

This is the very first chapter of the Ramayana. Valmiki wanted to know from Narada who was the greatest person in this world. Narada was quoting Rama as the ideal man.

An ocean allows all the rivers approaching it to join it.
Rama like the ocean, is equally accessible to everybody. He is a feast to eyes.


*Why Rama was so unkind to S`ambuuka, who was a fourth-caste man? Rama killed Sambuka without hearing his side of things. Didn't Sambuka deserve a feast-to-eye appearance?
*Did Rama treat Vali and Sugriva equally? Rama helped Sugriva, because S. promised to send forces for searching Sita. Rama killed Vali without giving him an opportunity, to explain his side of things. This was against natural justice.

What a great egalitarian and equalist?


balaji said...

Why dont u dare to talk about Quran and Bible why do u talk only about Hinduism..U cannot read bible when it crosses 100 pages do u know read it if u can.. why dont u speak about that If u have the real guts my friend..dont jus speak about one religion if ur idealogy is common then apply to all religions if u are speaking only about hinduism then ur idealogy is not common its only a Anti-Hindu idealogy do u understand..

Multisubj Yb TruthSeeker said...

Shri Balaji: Pl. see my reply at post No. #001A.

vitahavya said...

is killing of sambuka there in valmiki ramayana? have you checked?

yes about bali and sugriva i agree

vitahavya said...

OK. but there is one little problem. if you were to check the purva ashrama of valmiki, he was robber (presumably he was also of a low caste). yet he is advised by narada to chant rama nama mantra and he becomes so immersed in it that ant hills grow around him. if varna-ashrama dharma was so established in those "good old days" like kriti and treta, why didn't some on think of killing valmiki/ratnakara?

2. varna-ashrama dharma is for all the four varnas; thus theoretically even shudras were (or should have been) eligible for sannaya. shambuka in his old age was following ashrama dharma.

3. the problem with the story additionally is rama personnally rushes to find the source of "disturbance" and "punishes" him on the spot. however, in case of the ashvamedha horse, he sends one brother after another to recover it. one would have thought recovery of horse would have merited a personal response from him for it impinges directly on his claim to suzeranity over other kings. further in case of shambuka he personnaly decides to "investigate" whereas in the case of sita, he was content with a report of a mere spy. this whole thing looks so fantastical and incongrous. very clearly a later day addition me thinks