Desicritics Comments on Childhood Memories and Rama's Virtues - True Hinduism?

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Mon, 14 May 2007 04:14:23 EDT

Thanks, Ashok, very objective opinion. Will pick up these translations and look out for a hopefully objective review soon, including of your own retelling:)

Comment by Ashok Banker

Mon, 14 May 2007 03:48:16 EDT

Deepti, you are right in saying there is no one true interpretation, but I'm not talking about interpretations, I'm talking about the original text as written by Valmiki himself. Or even Kamban's beautiful Thamizh version, in which the Tamil poet made several significant changes and even left out the entire seventh kaand for much the same reasons I did in my retelling--because the exile of Sita is patently a later addition and does not fit in with the rest of the epic. If you want a good translation, in my mind, the best is the abridged translation by Arshia Sattar. On a separate note: I wish more people would take time out to actually read a good translation of Valmiki Ramayana rather than getting into arrogant flame wars based on half-baked (and almost always inaccurate) assumptions about what the epic is really 'about', mostly inspired by vague memories of the TV soap version or children's storybook retellings--and even those in turn inspired by Tulsidas's commentary, which, by the way, is _not_ a translation or retelling of the actual Ramayana by Valmiki but simply a brilliantly imaginative religious recasting of the basic story and characters. If you make a checklist of the actual Ramayana story, and the assumptions that most people have about what the story contains, almost everyone commenting on it on blogs and on the internet would fail! I've seen entire websites like sepiamutiny devoted to this kind of half-baked inflammatory trash. It's sad how few people want to know the facts before commenting on them. At least you can correct that mistake, and read before you write, Deepti!

Comment by Aaman

Wed, 9 May 2007 10:40:20 EDT

They call me Trinity, in short.

Comment by Ed Viswanathan

Wed, 9 May 2007 10:08:14 EDT

Namasthe Deepti Lamba: Bravo....You have written a very thought provoking narration of childhood memories of Ramayana. Why did Rama abandon Sita? Why did Rama put the wishes of his people before justice and truth? Wasn't this miscarriage of justice? When I was growing up in India, those were the same questions I had. My question to my mother was 1. How can Rama abandon Sita since Sita who was abducted by Ravana was Maya Sita not the real Sita? 2. How can Rama abandon Sita since Ravana could not even touch Maya Sita? If he has done that he would have burnt crisp. Ravana did NOT make a physical advance towards Sita. Only way Rvanana could have touched Sita, if she willingly allowed him to do so. But on the part of Sita she never for a moment let any other man enter her thoughts other than Rama. So Why ma,Rama abandon his very beloved wife? Of course, like every one else my mother evaded my questions. Only answer is Rama was an avatar [GOD] as well as a MAN. Rama was a householder and he was going through Grahasthya Dharma. You can see Rama acting as a typical man through out Ramayana. The way he dealt with Kaikeyi and later the sad way he approached his mother Kausalya to tell her that he won't be becoming a king but is going to forest etc indicate Rama is acting as a typical man. Like a typical man, Rama wept for his abducted wife, exactly behaving like an ordinary husband. When God comes down and takes a form, God is some what limited in capabilities pertaining to that form God has taken. Only POORNA AVATAR we see is Lord Krishna whom Prapupada of ISKON calls ABSOULTE PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD. The ten Vishnu Avatars are in parallel to "Darwin's Theory of evolution." First God came as Matsya [fish ---living in water ], then as Kurma [turtle – living in water and land ] then as Varaha [ boar –living in land] then as Narasimha [ half man and half animal ] then as Vamana [ Homo Erectus –short –child ] then as Parasurama [ Young man –fighter ] then as Rama [ House holder – Grahasthya ] then as Krishna [ Poorna Avatar ] then as Buddha [ old man – Sanyasa ] and finally as Kalki [ destroyer] Thanks for reading www.amiahindu.com

Comment by A.K Rathor

Tue, 8 May 2007 15:04:02 EDT

Rama was fortunate that at his time there was no DV. Else he too would have got the taste of it. Conclusion - KaLyug is far Better than Satyug at least for Feminists. Fem-Yug(Next to Kalyug) - Ram's will get extinct. It will only be Sita's and Rawan's.

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Tue, 8 May 2007 11:38:16 EDT

That very notion brings in this whole concept of 'who is a Muslim and who is NOT' which outcastes all reformers, critics and liberals out of that religion forever, without giving it an opportunity to reform from within. Reforming a religion is not a piece of cake. Only a brave soul without the fear of persecution can bring about much needed changes. Even Buddha faced a lot of heat in his life time but he persisted and so did Christ. I'm not giving a catechism lecture here but Sujai it takes guts to have a stand alone spirit when put to test and there are people who continue to fight for freedom despite death threats being levied against them.

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 8 May 2007 11:36:05 EDT

Deepti Lamba: In #18, I had call it quits to that argument with you. However, few other commenters have raised questions on what I have said in this post and also in my previous posts. The later comments from my side were only directed at those questions. There is a local redress and a holistic addressing. While I was engaging you on such a local interpretations, I was discussing with others on a holistic level (which included your local example).

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Tue, 8 May 2007 11:19:36 EDT

Sujai, I don't know why the same query about the true Hindu has been bought up. In all religions the term true disciple/beliver is used - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and even Hinduism and the definition is open to interpretation. I state it again there are people who believe in arcane practices and continue to indulge in them and they consider themselves to be true Hindus but when the majority of Hindus have deemed such acts to be heinous and against humanity they are then not considered to be the true representators of their faith. All religions have their share of zealots and at least in our faith voices of reason can speak up without the fear of fatwas. Give credit where its due Sujai.

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 8 May 2007 02:13:12 EDT

#29, No-Sujai: (funny name, once again) I explain Islamic fundamentalism. I don't condone it. I explain to others (being the other here). Coming to Hindu fundamentalism, being one of them (Hindu), I combat it. I have no soft corner for Islamic fundamentalism. I would dread to be a Muslim- my views would take me straight to hell ;-) I would like to protect myself and my kids from fundamentalists who want to hijack Hinduism away from us and make Hinduism an intolerant religion. Using words like 'true Hindu' is anathema to me and I believe it makes Hinduism as dogmatic as other religions out there. My question was simple- Why can't a person be good because he is good? Why should he be good because he is a 'true Hindu'. I don't think it is a compliment. I don't think being 'true Muslim' is a compliment either, but it is most commonly used to describe a good Muslim. That very notion brings in this whole concept of 'who is a Muslim and who is NOT' which outcastes all reformers, critics and liberals out of that religion forever, without giving it an opportunity to reform from within. Many Hindus, who are NOT fundamentalists and who do not prescribe to such organizations, innocuously introduce notions and terms which are in turn capitalized by fundamentalists to further their cause. 'True Hindu' is one of such terms. It has far reaching consequences than some of you can imagine. As I said in Why do we criticize our nations? "Overzealous people in an obsessive effort to combat their enemy become just like their enemy - the other side of the coin. The Hindus who fight Islam want to portray Hinduism as monotheistic and rigid just like Islam but on the opposite side (which according to them is a good side). The Indians who fight Pakistan want to curb all voices of dissidence within its nations just the way Pakistan does. The Americans who fight terrorism want their citizens to be grateful of their nations to become just like their enemies- dogmatic and authoritarian, curbing people's freedom on the name of Patriotic Act."

Comment by Proud Infidel

Tue, 8 May 2007 02:07:55 EDT

No-Sujai, The guy's a nut... dont waste time with him... better go out for a walk with your dog... it pays... it gives you exercise, peace of mind, good health... but it's not worth wasting time debating with people whose personal integrity (lack of it) has been exposed numerous times in the columns around here... the guy has been stripped naked and caught with his undies down but instead of covering himself up, he continues to run around the place shamelessly like a kid...

Comment by Diganta

Tue, 8 May 2007 02:06:48 EDT

Thanks Sujai, it again points out how backward we were, and shows me the greatness of social reformers. However, I cannot term it as a part of 'Hinduism' since Vedas doesn't have any reference to Kali as god. But it again shows how 'inhumane' our society became before the reforms. Thanks a lot once more for your references [:)].

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 8 May 2007 01:25:25 EDT

Aaman, #24: Yes, you are right Aaman. My sources are from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Goons ;-)

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 8 May 2007 01:24:32 EDT

diganta, #25: Link: NY Times Even 200 years ago, when a boy was killed every day at a Kali temple in Calcutta... Link: A history of human sacrifice cannibalism In the nineteenth century, a child was killed every day at the Kali temple in Calcutta. Link: Internet Encyclopedia of Religion Formerly human sacrifice was the essential of her ritual. The victim, always a male, was taken to her temple after sunset and imprisoned there. When morning came he was dead: the priests told the people that Kali had sucked his blood in the night. At Dantewara in Bastar there is a famous shrine of Kali under the name of Danteswari. Here many a human head has been presented on her altar. About 1830 it is said that upwards of twenty-five full-grown men were immolated at once by the raja. Cutting their flesh and burning portions of their body were among the acts of devotion of her worshippers.

Comment by Chandra

Mon, 7 May 2007 23:42:23 EDT

One of the beauties about our 'religion' is that there are a billion versions of it. You choose to follow whatever version you like to. However, If your version is in conflict with any universal human values, be guranateed you are following the wrong version. DLs version is what I call a beautiful version.. rgds

Comment by No-Sujai

Mon, 7 May 2007 21:54:09 EDT

Sujai, It is you who are a warped anti-Hindu. You reveal a sheer hatred and double standard in every comment on every post that pertains to religion. You want to give the benefit of the doubt to Islam while you have harsh standards on Hinduism. None of your points had any relevance to Deepti's post. Sati was never the norm in India - it was the exception. The burning women on the stake in medieval Europe for witchcraft was comparable - one feminist estimated that at millions over a 300 year span. Read Mary Daly. Deepti spoke of her remarkable grand father and his progressive views. And you responded with the following: "Should a true Hindu put his wife through agni pariksha to see if she has been adulterous or not? "Should a true Hindu share his wife with his brothers because of certain weird confusion? "Should a true Hindu practice Varnas and make sure lower caste are kept out of village? "Should a true Hindu practice human sacrifice to appease goddess (Durga or Kali)?" This is irrelevant and mocking. As Rajkumar writes in comment # 22: "It is sad that self-proclaimed atheist hounds and vultures spout their highly selective venom at any Hindu narrative by invoking the usual bogeyman". Hindu fundamentalism would disappear if not fueled by the anti-Hindu prejudice of people like you. You explain Islamic fundamentalism a lot. Why not try to explore the causes for the Hindu then!!!

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Mon, 7 May 2007 15:06:28 EDT

Ashok, the issue is that there is no one true interpretation. It like a real life story made so many times by different directors that the truth got waylaid somewhere along the line. Could you please refer a good translation of the epic? Thanks for taking the time out to comment. Diganta, then there is the wheel of Karma or what Robert Jordan calls the Wheel Of Time.

Comment by diganta

Mon, 7 May 2007 14:24:46 EDT

Ashok has told the same thing I was about to write. The Uttara Ramayana, that includes the exile of Sita, is in fact appended sometimes later. It was not a part of 'actual' Ramayana. That's why, in the Ramayanas of South-East Asia, this part is not found. See the link for Indonesian Ramayana : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakawin_R%C4%81m%C3%A2ya%E1%B9%87a

Comment by Ashok

Mon, 7 May 2007 14:14:48 EDT

Hi Deepti, thanks for sharing this insight into your past and your mind. The beauty of our ancient epics is that each one of us approaches them individually, and not always from the exact same angle. In the case of the Sita exile incident for example, I think that most people misrepresent the incident completely as an example of chauvinism, or even of dharma. I believe it was neither, and that our modern assumption of this incident is actually a myth that's sprung up around the original tale itself. So some people instinctively believe that Rama did something totally unforgivable by exiling Sita while others insist that he fulfilled his dharma. My take on this is neither of these two simplistic extremes: I won't explain it here because it will be controversial, to say the least. But what I will say is that there is a missing piece to the puzzle, and because most people ignore that very obvious piece, they jump to the wrong conclusion. In fact, the Sita banishment incident was neither an example of Rama's adherence to dharma, nor was it his 'inevitable chauvinism' manifesting itself as some insist. If Rama had banished Sita, whatever the reason, I could never find it in my heart to forgive him for it, which probably makes me a male feminist. But I honestly don't believe he exiled here at all. The key lies in Uttara Kaand, in Valmiki's own words. You have only to read it carefully in a good translation (not a retelling, mind you, or a comic book adaptation) to know what really happened. Brace yourself. It's not what everyone mistakenly assumes!

Comment by diganta

Mon, 7 May 2007 14:03:44 EDT

Excellent write-up, you've described the true spirits of Hindu philosophy. But, I think the bias against women is part of all religions. I am happy that we had a long journey to implement the three key points - truth, wisdom and justice - thanks to reformers. We strive to establish them today.

Comment by Aaman

Mon, 7 May 2007 13:55:17 EDT

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Goons:)

Comment by diganta

Mon, 7 May 2007 13:51:31 EDT

In Kolkata, a child was murdered everyday to appease her. - Sujai, where from did you get this information?

Comment by Rajkumar

Mon, 7 May 2007 13:37:26 EDT

Deepti: Very nice and touching post. Thanks for sharing your experience with your grand father. The shared experience one has in growing up in a Hindu family is indeed joyful. It is sad that self-proclaimed atheist hounds and vultures spout their highly selective venom at any Hindu narrative by invoking the usual bogeyman. best,

Comment by Sujai

Mon, 7 May 2007 12:58:58 EDT

No-Sujai: Hindu fundamentalism arose in response to attitudes such as yours. Hmm. Really? Now you will tell me that untouchability arose because of excessive Dalit's aggression and that sati arose because of excessive feminism! No wonder, I keep fighting Hindu fundamentalism- because it is based in warped logic.

Comment by Sujai

Mon, 7 May 2007 12:56:25 EDT

No-Sujai: (funny name) Why is it that you use different standards when discussing Hinduism and Islam? Unlike most people here who would rather berate and criticize others, I prefer criticizing what I represent- I am an Indian Hindu, therefore I criticize Indians and Hindus. I leave criticizing Muslims to their own people. Also, I indulge in criticizing those who are in a powerful position and can inflict greater damage through their irresponsibility. I don't derive fun in criticizing Dalits because it doesn't give me pleasure. I don't derive fun in criticizing Palestine because it doesn't give me pleasure. And I believe a human could be described good without having to resort to statements like- 'He is a true Hindu' or 'true Muslim'. In that context, I am an atheist, fighting irrationality with reason! I hope I have clarified my position! (not that it would really matter. That's being an optimist, trying to fight prejudice with reason) ;-)

Comment by No-Sujai

Mon, 7 May 2007 12:27:31 EDT

Sujai: Why is it that you use different standards when discussing Hinduism and Islam? Deepti had a beautiful lovely anecdote and all you had to do was to spoil the tone with your irrelevant mocking questions! Now had did that contribute to a healthy discussion? Hindu fundamentalism arose in response to attitudes such as yours.