Anonymous M G Hariharan said...
The sloka #2-52-102 only says they hunted 4 animals for pleasure and rested under the tree as they were hungry. Did not eat those animals. The four animals are named and are not deer- frm. Hariharan
I quote the verse here again , for ready reference :
2-52-102 Sanskrit Verse
Tau tatra hatvaa caturaha mahaa mruigaan
Varaaham Rishyam Prushatam Mahaa rurum
aadaaya meedhyam tvaritam bubhukshitau
vaasaaya kaale yayatur vanaha patim.
my view as a blogger
aadaya = taking.
meedhyam = (those which are) clean and pure.
1. What hungry persons do with clean and pure meat of animals ?
2. What they would have done with the meat , if it were not for eating ? How far and how long would they carry the meat without eating ? Just as children walking along the sands of a river collecting pebbles and colored stones found in the sand, and throwing them away after sometime !
3. Hunting for pleasure will be 'more unkind' than hunting for survival in a forest.
4. I do not find fault with Rama hunting animals for survival in the forest. They would have taken occasional non-veg. food to supplement the fruits and tubers. The question is , why do they need four deer ? It is an environmental waste.
5. Rama was rhetorically making unnecessary pledges of living like a muni (sage) before Kausalya and Guha. Kaikeyi and Dasaratha didn't stipulate it. He broke the pledge very next day.
6. Valmiki might have forgotten , what he wrote in Part 2 , i.e. Ayodhya Kanda.
7. Valmiki might have forgotten the curse given by him to the hunter who killed the krauncha bird (Ref: Maa Nishaada verse). If the nishaada was barbaric and cruel in hunting the krauncha bird , SRL (Sita , Rama and Lakshmana) would also be equally cruel because they were separating the pairs of deer.
8. Proof for the animals being species of deer :
web site : www.ValmikiRamayan.net - Ayodhyakanda - Chapter 52.
You can see from the expert translation of Shri Desiraju Hanumantha Rao, the names of the four varieties of the deer.
9. You can also see my post No. 77 where I quoted the following verse:
|3-44-27 Sanskrit Verse|
Nihatya prushatam ca anyam
maamsam aadaaya raaghavaha
sasaara abhimukhaha tadaa.
This is after the failure of the golden deer which ended up as the demon Mariicha. Rama went for a second bout of hunting. He killed another deer, carried the meat and moved towards his cottage.
Was this also for pleasure ? Or for eating by the muni Rama?
Anonymous M G Hariharan said...
Sorry they would have eaten it is your presumption.When Rama says he does not eat flesh, how can you not accept it. the sloka clearly says killed as sport. Subsequently the become hungry and rest under the tree is all that sloka says.
We must be sorry that an Ocean of Kindness (karuna nithi) kills innocent deer for sport. This is, in my view , worse than killing animals for food in forests , where sometimes it is difficult to distinguish edible fruits from poisonous or tasteless fruits.
An Ocean of Kindness can probably kill cruel animals like tigers , wolfs and lions to save the innocent deer. Who should, now, kill Rama to save the deer from merciless and wanton (four per sport) killing?
How is it that Lord Himself was so unkind?
2. SRLs were hungry. They sat under the tree. What did they eat ? Why didn't Valmiki say? He , in his 24,000 verse epic , spent dozens of verses describing moon, plants etc. He could have said that Rama and Lakshmana plucked some fruits from the tree above them and gave to banana-stack-legged Sita to eat. How about taking the medhyam? How did they dispose of the medhyam collected by them? Did they throw them off? Did they feed ants with the medhyam?
I do not find much wrong in Rama's breaking his pledge of living only on fruits.
Living in forests was difficult for a Prince and his family. There , would have been , nothing wrong in their eating one deer or fowl or rabbit per day for their survival. Minimising eating needs (one instead of four) would have made Rama a flexible , practical and at the same time a relatively compassionate Prince , though not an Ocean of Kindness.
Anonymous M G Hariharan said...
They are Kings and they can kill for pleasure. Kindness etc. that you perceive is modern and not a hindu trait. these are post budhism and jainisam qualities.
you are free to believe Rama is unkind to animals. just as gandhi thinks Rama is non violent. These are perception differences. Post your blog we are still working on some aspects of this vegeterianism.Shall revert with more clear picture.
My particular concern is not about the vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism of Rama. He can have anything as his food. The key questions are:
1. Why they were killing innocent animals wantonly?
2. See the following verse:
Verse 1-2-14 (Book of Childhood - Bala Kand`a)
Tatah karun`a veditvaat
adharmo ayam iti dvijaha
nishaamya rudatiim krounchiim
idam vacanam abraiit.
Valmiki was moved with compassion when he found the wailing female bird. This kindness motivated him to curse the hunter and commence writing Ramayana. He was depicting Rama as a champion of kindness. How was it , then , that Rama himself was killing animals separating males from females and parents from the calves ?
3. Do you mean to say that Valmiki was a product of Buddhism ?
4. Gandhi's thinking of Rama as non-violent
Gandhiji might not have read the original Sanskrit version of Valmiki Ramayana which contains the verses quoted by me. He might have read abridged Gujarati versions of Ramayana which contained retold stories and which eliminated unpleasant things about Rama. Gandhiji nearly--blindly believed Rama , just as Thyagaraja, Patnam Subrahmanya Ayer, Ramadas , Tulasi Das, Kabir et al believed Rama. Devotion is always blind-worship. People blindly adore Rajani Kanth or Salman Khan or Amitabh Bachan or some other film hero, not knowing or ignoring their shortcomings. We do not expect Gandhiji or Thyagaraja to search for facts like historical critics.
5. Better not to generalise that kindness was not a Hindu trait. It may not be a trait of Rama or Vasishta. You can see in my another post here itself , how Valmiki culled the calf "Kalyani Kapila" to feed Vasishta and his Company which included Kausalya , Sumitra, Kaikeyi, and Arundhati.
There were great Hindu kings like Sibi who gave away flesh from his body to save the life of a pigeon from a chasing vulture. Was Sibi a Buddhist ?
6. Why didn't Rama accept the meats fetched by the tribal King Guha ?
M G hariharan has left a new comment on your post "#001E Reply to Comments of Shri Hariharan":
The sloka 2-52-144 killed Objection to killing for sport. These ethical attitudes are always changing. Ramayana is during the period of living by hunting. Not agriculture. Man is only ape who eats by hunting unlike other apes (Refer to naked Ape by Desmond Moris). As a King hunting is a regular requirement to fine tune their shooting skills. This cannot be called a ethical error. Man continues to hunt today in profession. Even in Sports commonly heard term is Killer instinct. That is why good sports men are offered good job as instinctively they take right decisions during difficulties. The modern attitudes of people like Menaka Gandhi are just ultruistic posture show oneself superior for political and social reasons. Karunanidhi can be explained as being kind to even enemy Ravana.
*What for Rama is worshipped today, if he was just only a hunter?
*A killer for sport, what will he do with the slain animal on his shoulder ? Will he peel it and wear it as a garment? (Rama wore deer skins, calling himself a muni -sage).
*Every devotee calls him an ocean of kindness. This Ocean of Kindness wants to dry up the natural Oceans , rivers and lakes with his arrows, without realising that humanity survives on it. All these threats of destroying the three worlds , he makes , simply because , he suspects that some unknown Gods were complacent when some other demons kidnapped his wife.
Rama, himself, separated many-a-female-deer from lovers, by his reckless hunting in the forest. Rama, being a human , could shout and swear at the top of his voice. The deer can't and won't probably swear in the savageous manner in which Rama sweared. His claiming to have the power to block Sun and Moon were just boasts. Antelopes do not boast, while humans boast.
All my criticism centres around three things:
1. I am not particular about non-vegetarianism of Shri Rama. My concern is : Why Rama broke his pledges ? Valmiki wanted to depict Rama as a truthful person who is very determined.
satya vaakyoo dhrud`ha vrataha.(Verse 1-1-2 to 4 in Bala Kanda)
2. Why kill recklessly four animals where one would have been suffice?
3. Valmiki pretended himself to be a compassionate person and wanted to project Rama as a compassionate person. Valmiki killed the young black calf 'Kalyani Kapila' to feed the bearded sage Vasisht`ha. Rama went on killing docile deer. How can a hero a hero be called an Ocean of Compassion when he cannot pity deer. Also see the adjective used by Valmiki :
sarva bhuuteeshu koo hitaha . Portrayal: Person who does good to all livings. What good did Rama do to deer?
What good did Rama do to monkeys? Ans: Monkeys suffered thousands of injuries in Rama's war with Ravana. Rama claimed that he could destroy the three worlds with his arrows if Gods do not return Sita to him. He could have done it. Why cause misery to monkeys by separating them from their wives during the war? The wives of monkeys would have cursed him.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment :
1.You are commenting as of others say Rama is Karunanidhi. There are two types of people who comment about Ramayana. One has blins faith and do not want to discuss like we are doing. The others put slipper garland for Rama and roam on the street. Who are you if as you say you have come with open mind then address what I am saying
2. The moral ethical mistake that you are pointing is wrong because –read below. ‘ Morality is not a simple set of rules. It is a very complex struggle of conflicting patterns of values. The conflict is the residue of evolution. As new patterns evolve they come into conflict with old ones. Each stage of evolution creates in its wake a wash of problems.” Said by Robert M Prisig in Lila.
3, you said I want to emulate Rama. That does not mean you walk on the streets carrying a Bow. Understand him and then follow. You will succeed. Valmiki, knows this better than all of us. Why did he make Rama shoot at Vali hiding. When you criticize these actions you are trying to be superior to Valmiki. Are you. If not try to understand with humility.
Where is the question of superiority or inferiority?
Critics , historians and reviewers do not have audacity or humility. What for is Ramayana , if it cannot be critically studied , or explored from the point of anthropological evolutionary history and reviewed from different angles?
You may , please explain why did Valmiki make Rama shoot at Vali hiding. Shri Rama threatens to destroy the three worlds with his arrows. But he could not deal with Vali openly by asking him why did he resort to injustice to his brother.
Ikshvaakuunaam iyam bhuumiH
sa shaila vana kaananaa
mriga pakshi manushyaanaam
nigraha anugraheshu api.
Gist: This earth with its mountains , forests, animals , birds and humans belongs Ikshvaakus. The authority to favor and control also rests with them.
This verse is sufficient to show that Rama was brutally cruel. He was speaking like Lords Wellesley and Dalhousie who thought that the whole Earth belonged to Britain and that they could use any means to annihilate natives and posing as though they represented the British Queen.
Who was Bharata ? He was just a City King.
Did Bharata give any express or implied authority to Rama to poke into family politics of independent kings of the forests and kill one of the brothers without giving him at least an opportunity to explain his position? What type of justice is it? Isn't it barbaric and savage?
I do not wish , even in my dreams , that somebody should emulate Rama. We shall become cruel and fickle fellows, if we emulate Rama.
Please, just , consider with empathy:
Will you drive away your wife to forests , without giving her an opportunity to explain her side of things? Won't you at least allow her to live in your town by arranging some residence, means of livelihood and some protection? Won't you even tell her that you are deserting her? Should Lakshmana tell her this message in the forest, making three circumambulations around her and falling at her feet?
Will you ask your wife who is rescued from your enemy : "Choose among Lakshmana , Sugriiva, Vibhishana. I killed Ravana only to prove my power." (For proof, please see my post at this blog, verses 6-115-22 and 23. Present post No. 044, this number may change).
Will you allow your younger brother to come with you leaving his wife? Won't you ask him, if at all he is to come, to bring his wife? Should he go on serving you like a slave for 14 years? Won't you treat him as your equal?
Telling some kind words and embracing on one day , after using a person as a bonded laborer for 14 years, is not just sufficient. That type of token kindness and love we find in the European and the American culture.--- Desert your parents and send them printed greeting cards on the Parents' Day or the Mothers' Day.
You said: Morality is not a simple set of rules ....
I agree that morality is not a simple set of rules. Yet morality , howsoever simple or complex in the continuum , should not drift away from common sense and natural justice.
What morality is there for an exterminated Prince to claim that the entire Earth belongs to their dynasty and administer unilateral punishments to freedom loving forest dwellers, without even conducting a court? It is like the East India Company which came to India to do some buying and selling. The Company started occupying India and making opportunistic self-centered laws. The British Parliament and the American Congress claim to champion liberty, whereas their prosperity and well-being rests on ill-gotten wealth by colonizing and exploiting inadequately weaponed civilisations. Rama Brothers Ikshavaku claim of owing the Earth was also based on their carrying some bows and arrows with some magic chants (called Astras) whereas the Vanara tribals at that point of time were not well-versed in archery. They were good only at wrestling. The British had the gunpowder and explosive superiority whereas Rama had some skills of archery, which he used to kill Vali by hiding.
Summary: Simple or complex, whatever you call, rules of morality do not support the actions of Rama.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment on your post "#001E Reply to Comments of Shri Hariharan":
We seem to be talking in parallel. I am not disputing that Rama killed animals for sport. Valmiki has written it. If according to you this shows a low character in Rama then so it is. I want you to understand that you cannot read Ramayana with these sorts of modern ethical parameters and comment. Morals also change with time. Hunting is not a bad activity (Sport). Till recently it was in vogue. And is still practiced by many. Hinduism gives lots of stories to educate people on living. Some of the morals may have changed. But in general it is still applicable to life. Many situations that Rama encounters are still faced by many of us in daily life. These stories inspire us to excel in life. If as you say Rama’s character is all questionable then why are people reading these stories after 1000 years? Why it is religiously accepted and appreciated? You are belittling everything without understanding it. Hence I am saying understand and then comment.
Nowhere did I say that hunting is bad. I wanted to know why Valmiki cursed the kiraata who killed the male krauncha bird and called Rama an Ocean of Compassion in spite of his killing thousands of deer ? Why did Valmiki call Rama as a person who treats all creatures equally?
Why did Valmiki call Rama 'drid`ha vrata' , when he broke his pledge of living like a Muni, within two days of wearing jute garments and matting his hair: See verses 2-52-67 and 68:
so.aham grihiitvaa niyamam
siitaayaa lakshmaNasya cha
jat`aah kr^itvaa gamishyaami
nyagrodha kSiiram aanaya
tat kshiiram raaja putraaya
Guhah kshipram upaaharat
Lakshman`asya aatmanaH caiva
Raamaha tena akaroj jat`aaha.
OK! I am a foolish fellow who lacks humility and finds faults in everything without understanding what Rama was!
Now, please see what type of humility Rama had:
Hanuman was a great scholar who studied three Vedas. He was also a great grammarian. This Rama knew. Angada was a Prince. He was not an ordinary monkey. They deserved some respect. Isn't it?
Now, before going to Lanka for waging war, Rama mounted on the shoulders of Hanuman. Lakshmana mounted on the shoulders of Angada. They carried him for 1500 kms. from Godavari River to Ramasetu site or even across the Sea . Hanuman and Angada were tired from nearly two months long trekking in search of Sita. How could they be treated like animals to carry Rama and Lakshmana?
Pl. see my post No. 002 to read this verse :
Yaasyaami bala madhye aham
bala ogham abhiharshayan
Airaavatam iva Iishvaraha.
Angadeena esha samyaatu
Lakshman`aha ca antaka upamaha
What a Great Humility!
How many people who have been worshipping Rama for the thousands of years bother to examine how polite it was to mount on Vedic Scholars, Ministers and Princes! What Rama wanted was nothing but victory for himself. He did not bother about Hanuma or Angada or Sita or anybody else.
Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka might have learnt from Rama and Lakshmana, many ways on how to treat South Indians!
M G Hariharan has left a new comment on your post "#001E Reply to Comments of Shri Hariharan":
No No I am not belittling your understanding. The problem unlike religious books Ramayana does to discuss the subject. It is as if Valmiki has recorded the scene and voices and presented it to us. It is for us to translate and learn from it. Each person’s perspective will be different and conclusions can be different. You have asked about Vali vadh. It will be interesting to note that Sugriva did not ask Rama to kill Vali. He just wanted the quarrel to be settled amicably. But Rama says bring him in front of me I shall kill him immediately. And further Vali also says to Tara that he does not want to kill Sugriva. Only thrash him and send him back. So various interpretations can be drawn from this. As this is your Blog you are free to give your opinion. But others ideas also will contribute to understanding ethics.
Rama must have been really cruel when he said that "Bring Vali in front of me, I shall kill him immediately" , in spite of knowing that Sugriiva didn't want his brother to be slain. What Rama ought to have said as an upright king? "Bring Vali in front of me, I shall counsel him suitably, as the Ikshvaku Emperor who rules this whole Earth". The question of killing Vali would have arisen only when he refused to carry out the judicial decree of Rama to return Ruma to Sugriiva .
The animosity between Vali and Sugriiva was not owing to lack of fraternal love. Vali cohabiting with Ruma and Sugriva cohabiting with Tara appear to be a custom of Ramayana days or the Gupta period.
M G hariharan has left a new comment :
I find my comments in other columns are not being answered by you. Probably you are waiting. But I request your reply for this comment. It is a clarification regarding your comment 94/95 After Bharadwaj muni Rama again goes and kills and eats( Exactly similar to Guha episode). But the word in sloka is charathur (Charathi = Sanchara or roaming) How did you translate it as ate. So here again Just because they killed does not mean they ate it. It is to your advantage that Valmikiramayana.net also translates it as ate. Your knowledge of Sanskrit is good so please clarify.
I thank you very much for pointing out the error. I have corrected 'ate' as 'moved' in my post #095.
I added a new comment at the end of the post:
'*Do Munis go on killing deer ? How is it a part of Muni's duties?'.
I could not reply to your other comments , as I was unable to get internet connection, owing to some faulty lines with our ISP. I shall try to reply them today or in a few days, if it is not possible today.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment on the post "#093, Mother- I shall live like a sage eating root...":
I am surprised at the comment Clear character of Rama is he does noy say untruth. Many people who think they are Rams Bhakthas think they can get away with such comments. 3 times in Ramayan Rama says he does not eat meat but immediately ,hardly 15 sloka away he kils and eats. Why did Valmiki writre so. Cannot be absentminded
Sir: We cannot attribute every word in Valmiki Ramayana to the poet Valmiki and blame him. The book has undergone numerous interpolations and changes by temple preachers and priests. We cannot blame even them because they did great job by preserving the book in the Centuries when there was no paper or pen or printing press or internet.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment on the post "#087, Rama!- Human mind is unstable, though Bharat...":
Dasaratha wanted Rama to get crowned immediately when Bharatha was not present. Why he did not rebut this and give his feelings refer to sloka 2-1-23. Many times he kept his feelings to himself. When Dasaratha the king was telling him it is his decision and Rama should only follow it. So also when he is asked to go to forest, he silently complies. When he is in the presence of Lakshmana he asks him to be his mate in ruling there is n need for him to include Bharatha and Shatrugna also. Infact when Bharatha himself comes and asks to return he refuses and asks Bharatha to rule for 14 yrs until he returns. What more is needed. Regarding sloka 2-7-26 there is misunderstanding Bharatha was not sent at dawn but Rama is to be crowned at dawm. Bharatha is already very far away in the Khandhar. The map to Bharatha uncle’s place is shown, If he had just left at dawn Sumanthar will not have to go upto Khandhar to fetch him. In fact he would have hardly travelled any distance by the time Dasaratha Died. Please check it up
Real life characters or fictional characters whatever they are, they do not reveal their minds plainly in palace intrigues.
Jahangir killing his brothers.
Shah Jahan killing his brothers.
Aurangzeb killing his brothers.
Succession intrigues after Sambhaji's death in Maratha- Bharata.
-do- in Vijayanagar Empiire after Sri Krishna Deva Raaya's death among Rama Raju, Sada Siva Rayalu and Achyuta Rayalu.
Modern day palace intrigues:
Karunanidhi and his sons Azhagiri, Stali and daughter Kanimozhi.
Jagan - Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy.
Sonia - Maneka - Rajiv - Sanjay - Rahul - Priyanka.
Modern politicians hide their minds 90% and reveal only 10%. Rama was apparently better.
My personal opinion: Rama didn't leave Ayodhya voluntarily. Palace intrigues forced him. Rama was afraid that he would get killed in some manner at some place on someday, if he returned to Ayodhya even at Bharata's invitation, by Yudhajit and the Keekaya King.
About Kandhar : Keekaya Kingdom appears to be somewhere in modern Himachal Pradesh. Rama advised Bharata to conquer Kandahar, with the help of Yudhajit. Please see Sarga 100 of Uttara Kanda. I have given the verse at my post No. 058. Rama's motive according to my belief: Bharata's sons should not disturb Lava and Kusa ruling Ayodhya. Rama arranged Kingdoms to Lakshmana's sons and Satrughna's sons also. Every brother had two sons each. Rama was magnanimous to his three brothers in the sense that he didn't get them or their sons killed as was common in succession battles of monarchies.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment on the post "#096, Bharata- Do not BELIEVE WHAT WOMEN SAY":
Not correct understanding. These things are asked not advised. As elder brother he is supposed to advice. But as Bharatha is a King anointed he cannot be given unsolicited advices. So Rama asks Bharatha if he is following these things? It is a subtle way of Rama’s behavior, and shows his character and nobility. Women do cause misery as Kaikeyi under the advice of Manthara did. Their nature is very short sighted. That is a clear message in Ramayana and mahabharatha. You can of course differ based on women’s equal rights. Just look at Arundhati Roy how she blabbers and tries to cause mischief. You can get more examples. Whether to take Ramayana’s lessons or not is ones option (and repent later?)
I personally believe that temple preachers/priests inserted their preachings through the mouth of Rama.
Better not to make generalisations about men or women. Sita gave good advice to Rama when he went on killing people at the request of munis, without provocation. Was she shortsighted? Did he follow her advice? Shortsightedness or foresightedness may be an individual trait not linked to sex, race etc.
Arundhati Roy: My personal impression: She seems to be aiming at Nobel Peace Prize from the West, like those who got it in Iran, China and Myanmar.
Whether to take Ramayana's lessons or, not take and repent later
Every lesson has to be examined on merits before accepting it. A person may have to repent later, even if he follows Ramayana's lesson. Best guides are common sense, empathy, honesty and sincerity.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment at the post "#001E Reply to Comments of Shri Hariharan":
Let me summarize. We have concluded that Rama was not lying he did not eat meat in the forest. Now let us take Vali Vadha. This is the most difficult situation .Rama bhaktha’s like Tuslidas have censored this portion Meaning that he has declared Rama guilty. You said Valmiki may have forgotten in some case In this case it is worse. All guns are loaded against Rama. Even Dundubhi saya to Vali I will not fight with you now as you are inebriated (mÄm! àmÄm! 4£11£36) or Killing an unvigilant i.e. unwary person is like killing a foetus. and that is exactly what Rama did. Also Vali himself says to Tara that Rama will not do the sin of killing from back. But again Rama did exactly that Valmiki is not only forgetting but is properly in asleep. We have to understand. He is a daring author and puts the moral questions on the table and then Rama decides (according to me ) the Vali is a Rowdy and just summarily dismisses him by killing him from back. Your contention why did not Rama counsel with Vali is answered. Vali does not listen to anybodies counseling he just rushes into fight. Searches for Mayavi for 1 year to kill him. Rushes blindly, to kick off Dhundhubi, even when he is counseling, over rules Tara’s wise comments. Rama is the judge. You cannot question the Judge only his judgment. The decree is ex partes. Even today many in India do not understand the long winding judicial process to Kasab. They want him declared guilty, and killed immediately. Probably Rama is doing that.
Sir: Funny! What did Rama eat all the 14 years? I reiterate that I do not find fault with Rama eating animals or hunting. I wish to pinpoint that he broke his pledges to Kausalya, Guha , Jabali et al.
Grass ? Paddy and Wheat are grasses, which all of us eat.
Agastya advised Rama to go to Panchavati forest and that he would get deer in abundance. Pl. see my posting on this.
What for, did Rama kill another deer, after killing Maaricha? Please see my post No. 77 about the dead deer on Rama's shoulders ? What for , did he collect its meat?
As a lawyer, I wish to point out that courts in India issue ex parte decrees only when the respondent continuously refuses to receive summons or continuously abstains from the Court, in spite of receiving the summons. Audi alterim partem (Hear the other party) is the maxim followed in modern courts.
Rama has no habit of hearing to the other party. He killed S'ambuka in the same way, simply because a S'uudra was not expected to perform penance. He sent Sita to forests , ignoring that she deserves to be heard and that she was pregnant.
Kasab deserves a judicial process. Else, you will only have fake encounters. I do not know about Tamil Nadu, but we have plenty of fake encounters in A.P.
You will support Rama killing Vali without hearing him.
M G Hariharan has left a new comment on your post "#106 WHAT DIFFERENCE WE CAN FIND BETWEEN AN ABATTO...":
It is a question of Belief. On Bhakri idd day in front of my house for every Half mile more than 500 Goats are on sale for sacrifice. Is it more or less who am I to comment if I dont have faith.
Societies are like lakes, rivers and streams. Water sources stagnate when they retain water for too long-a-time. Societies atrophy, decay and perish if they retain despicable customs for too long-a-period. Societies cannot compete in retaining mud. They have to compete in cleansing themselves of inherited mud.
Anecdote: Two brothers were performing 'penance'. God appeared before one brother and asked him to choose a boon. Brother: 'Have you gone to my brother?'
God went to the younger brother and asked him to ask for a boon. Younger brother: 'Have you gone to my brother?'
God : 'Yes, I have gone to your brother. He asked me to see you first.'
Younger : 'OK. Please go to my elder brother again. Please bestow me double of what he chooses.'
God went to the elder and said : 'Your brother has asked me to bestow him, double of what you choose. Please , now say , what you want.' .
Elder brother: 'Let me lose one eye'. God granted the boon. Elder brother lost one eye. Younger brother lost two eyes.
In your comments you have said Kaikeyi is from nepal. I have tracked the messengers going to Bharata in Kaykey rajya and returning from there to Ayodya. It clearly leads to Afghanistan. Please refer to my blog http://mghariharan.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/kaikeyi-a-nepali-or-afghan/.
REPLY FROM YB
I greatly admire your tracking of Kaikeyi's nativity to Afghanistan. This makes my mind linger around one question: RAmA, YudhAjit and bharata invaded Afghanistan (kAndhAra or gAMdhAra) according to uttarA kAMDa, chapter 100. There would have been no need for this invasion, if KaikEyi was from Afghanistan. Nobody will invade their own country, unless it is occupied by some other usurper.
I do not have much interest in tracing the nativity of KaikEyi. I am interested to explore the hidden reasons behind Dasaratha trying to coronate rAmA in a hurry and before the arrival of bharata from his maternal grandfather's place. I am also interested in knowing why rAmA, yudhAjit and bharata invaded Afghanistan.
Thank you very much.