Cosmic Thoughts: RAMAYAN- A CRITICAL EYEVIEW

Friday 26 June 2015

RAMAYAN- A CRITICAL EYEVIEW

Ram had been banished for 14 years, as common human psychology, we unburden ourselves by burdening our subordinates. Similar act was done by Ram, further banishing Sita and then Luxman consecutively.

Another proof that Ram, Hanuman and Sugreev did injustice to Vali and Anagd:--

Angad says to Hanuman in KK/Sarg 55/3-4, "Which Sugreeva has arrogated his elder brother's wife when that elder brother is still alive and well, where she is morally his mother-like, an empress and a lady love of that elder brother, thus he is despicable, and which Sugreeva closed the mouth of the cavity when his brother in all his belief assigned and stationed him alone at the mouth of the cavity to fightback the demon Dundubhi if he tries to escape, all the more when his own brother is still inside the cavity, thus he is nefarious, how then he can be said as one conversant with moral rectitude?

This is the clear picture of Sugreev.

And this is the true color of Hanuman too, he knew everything but he let go the injustice go on against Vali and Angad.

AND THIS IS THE CLEAR PICTURE OF RAM, THE GREAT, WHO KILLED VALI JUST FOR HIS SELFISHNESS AND DETHRONED ANGAD AND HANDED-OVER THE KINGDOM TO SUGREEV INSTEAD OF ANGAD.

Hanuman a LIAR:--- After burning Lanka, when Hanuman returns, in Sunder Kand/58/108, Hanuman tells to Vanars that Sita told him that if not rescued she will after "TWO" months.

In Sunder Kand /65/25, Hanuman tells to Ram & Sugreev that Sita told him that if not rescued she will after "ONE" months.

Ram killed Ravna, rescued Sita but could not keep her with himself.

Krishna killed Narkasura, rescued 16000 queens, married them all & kept with himself.

Both were Avatars of Vishnu, God.

What message one gets, only confusion.

Hence Hindus are confused, no clarity, no vision, only philosophies moving circularly.

Arjun does not wanna get the kingdom because he cares for relations, but Krishna teaches him to ignore the relations.

But what Sri Ram ji did? He went to the jungle for 14 years without any fault of his own, just because he cared for his father.

What Krishna taught Arjuna, Jabaal taught the same to Ram, that none is father, none is son, relations are worldly. And Ram rebuked him.

But it seems that Ram felt his mistake and tried to rectify it through Arjuna in the next incarnation as Krishna

Ram and Sita drank wine and ate meat too.

Valmiki Ramyan/ Uttar Kand/Sarg 42/ 18-19

Ram killed Civilians in his war against Ravan:-- Ram and his allies Vanars burnt kids, their mothers and fathers alive during war against Ravan. Valmiki Ramayan/ Yudhkand/ 75

Today is Budha Jayanti..telling something...not known generally.....see:----

Ram Considers BUDHA as THIEF in Valmiki Ramayan

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध -

स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि !

तस्माद्धि यः शक्यं प्रजानां

स नास्तिके नाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् !!

जैसे चोर दंडनीय होता है इसी प्रकार बुद्ध भी दंडनीय है तथागत और नास्तिक (चार्वाक ) को भी यहाँ इसी कोटि में समझना चाहिए इसलिए नास्तिक को दंड दिलाया जा सके तो उसे ,उसे तो चोर के सामान दंड दिलाया ही जाय .परन्तु जो वश के बाहर हो उस नास्तिक से ब्राह्मण कभी वार्तालाप ना करे ! श्लोक 34 सर्ग 109 वाल्मीकि रामायण अयोध्या कांड .

As the thief be condemned so Budha. Tathagat (another name of Budha) and atheists also fall in the same category. And the atheists who can not be controlled must not even be talked with. Ayodhya Kand/Sarg 109/ 34

A few question raised:----

Can Ram and Budha, both be considered great by Indians?

Was Ramayana written after Budha?

Are atheist like thieves and be condemned? What is difference between today's Taalibani Blasphemy Laws and Ram's words declaring atheist equivalent to thieves?

Ram and Sita drank wine and ate meat too.

Valmiki Ramyan/ Uttar Kand/Sarg 42/ 18-19Ram killed Civilians in his war against Ravan:-- Ram and his allies Vanars burnt kids, their mothers and fathers alive during war against Ravan.Valmiki Ramayan/ Yudhkand/ 57Male domination in Valmiki Ramayan:-- Ravan has been killed, Ram is back in Ayodhya, we see magnanimous meeting of Bharat and Ram, but do we see a similarly great or even an emotional meeting of Laxman and Urmila, his wife, a meeting after 14 long years, NO, no need even to mention.

Anti Shudra Commnets in Valmiki Ramayan--- Uttar kand/74-- It is Narad, who declares that Shudras are not expected to do penance (तपस्या), they are to serve the other people only, and if a Shudras indulge in penance , it is something very dangerous for the society and the king himself.

Acting upon the great suggestion of Narad, the sage, Ram the God kills Shambook, the Shudra, who was wrongly indulging in penance.

RAMAYAN SHOULD NEVER BE LISTENED, SEE WHY:--- (6) Narad is telling, " O sages, men or women, whosoever listen listen Ramayan 8 times, they get benefit 9 fold more than a COW SACRIFICE.

Prelude to Bal Kand/ 5th chapter/33, Valmiki Ramayan, published by Gita Press Gorakhpur.

What were these Yagyas performed by Rishi, Munis, protected and performed by Ram, the great, himself ?

Not only animals were sacrificed in these Yagya but even sometimes humans could be sacrificed. Here is the story of sale of a boy Shunshepa as yagya-animal (बलि का बकरा) and rescued by Vishwamitra.

A lot of edible items were burnt in the fire of these Yagyas, just to make happy imaginary Gods and the ones who tried to stop this nonesense were Rakshas, Yakshas and Ram was a God because he conformed to these Genius acts.

Valmiki Ramyana/ Bal Kand/Sarg 61-62.

Uttar Kand of Ramayan not added to it by someone else later-on as considered by many people. The glimpses of Uttar Kand has been described briefly in Bal Kand/Sarg3/38-39 already.

You may get amazed to see that Uttar Kand has not been added in onlineValmiki Ramayan, why, because it shows Ram more gruesome.

Sati Practice in Ramayan/ Valmiki Ramayan/Uttar Kanda/17/15--Vedvati's mother enters the fire cremating the dead body of her husband.The friends who are getting my statuses deleted by reporting, I ask them to check Valmiki Ramyan themselves and if still have some question, have discussion, debate with me, welcome.

Hanuman, not a Celibate:-----

After killing Ravan, when Hanuman meets Bharat and informs him that Ram was coming, Bhrata said that he would give some gifts to Hanuman.

Bharat words,"O the gentle one! Are you a divine being or a human being, who have come here out of compassion? To you, who have given this agreeable news to me, I shall give in return, for the pleasant tidings, a hundred thousand cows, a hundred best villages, and for wives, sixteen golden complexioned virgin girls of a good conduct, decked with ear-rings, having beautiful noses and thighs, adorned with all kinds of jewels, with charming countenances as delightful as the moon and born in a noble family."

16 Virgin Girls for Hanuman, Valmiki Ramayan.

And it seems there would have been innumerable slave girls in the hands of the king to give away to anyone.

Great Raghukul!!

YK/125/44-45

How Raghuvanshi ruled:----Bharat offering 16 virgins to Hanuman:---After killing Ravan, when Hanuman meets Bharat and informs him that Ram was coming, Bhrata said that he would give some gifts to Hanuman.

16 Virgin Girls for Hanuman, Valmiki Ramayan.

And it seems there would have been innumerable slave girls in the hands of the king to give away to anyone.

Great Raghukul!!

YK/125/44-45

The ones, who are called Valmikies, descendants of Valmikies should know that Ram did not give a shit to the testimony of Valmiki about the sanctity of Sita and still asked for Sita's examination.

Check your role models dear me.

Sita banishment :--- There was no compulsion for Ram to banish Sita as such, he helped Sugreev in getting his wife back, the wife who lived with his brother Vali.

He helped Sage Gautam and Ahalya live together, who willingly indulged in sex with Indra. Both Sugreev and Gautam accepted their wives.

But Ram could not keep his wife with himself even after a publicly open fire test.

He had many other options. He could have kicked the kingdom but No!

He could have re-arranged an open public trial, he could call Sita and the people who doubted Sita, in the open trial and let both sides clarify themselves, but No!

He actually calls for such a trial but when, after banishing her, when he listens from Valmiki's mouth that Sita is pure, and there is no doubt upon her sanctity, then, but by that time Sita has understood that there was no use in indulging in such tests, hence instead of embracing Ram, the best among men, Maryada Purushottama, the God himself, she embraces death.

Ram never ate pre-tasted berries of Shabri/ Shudra Female Sage:--- Shabri comes in Valmiki Ramyan/Aranya Kand/74. Nowhere Ram is eating berries here

Ram Considers BUDHA as THIEF in Valmiki Ramayan

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध -

स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि !

तस्माद्धि यः शक्यं प्रजानां

स नास्तिके नाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् !!

A few question raised:----

Can Ram and Budha, both be considered great by Indians?

Was Ramayana written after Budha?

Are atheist like thieves and be condemned? What is difference between today's Taalibani Blasphemy Laws and Ram's words declaring atheist equivalent to thieves?

Wine & Meat consumption in Ancient India:-- Sita says to Ganga river "Oh, goddess! After reaching back the city of Ayodhya, I shall worship you with thousand pots of spirituous liquor and jellied meat with cooked rice well prepared for the solemn rite."No LAXMAN REKHA in Valmiki Ramayan.....ADDED LATER ON 'PERHAPS' TO SHOW THAT IT WAS MISTAKE OF SITA, A WOMAN, IF SHE GOT ABDUCTED.

How I studied Ramyan:-- I left everything out of Valmiki Ramyan. There are many things which we all hear from the very birth about Ramayan but surprisingly absent from Valmik Ramayn.

1) Ram ate pre-tasted berries of Shabri, a low caste woman.

2) Vali had any boon to drain half the power of his opponents.

3) Angad was sent to Ravan Darbaar as messenger.

4) Dhobi (Washerman) talked ill about Sita and due to which Sita had been banished by Ram.

These things had been added later on in Ram-Katha. May be present in Tulsi Das's Ram Charit Manas.

But I suggest you all my dear friend, to rely upon Valmiki Ramayn only, which had been considered the original story of Ram.

I relied upon Geeta Press Gorkhpur's physically printed edition and online Valmiki Ramyan. The content in both the versions is same (I noticed only one place where the content differed in both the versions) but sometimes translation differs. And I notice that there are some mis-translation in both the versions, done intentionally to conceal seemingly controversial aspects of this text.

Some knowledge of Sanskrit, studied in school time too helped. Moreover Sanskrit to Hindi online dictionary also helped at some places.

Ram killed Vali just for his selfishness:--- See how Ram justifies shooting at Vali, he replied to dying Vali that he has killed Vali because Vali had kept his younger brother's wife.

But Ram never asked that why Vali did so. Vali did this because Sugreev the great, did the same "sin" to Vali, Sugreev kept Vali's wife Tara.

See what Sugreev is telling Ram,"When Vali repulsed the buffalo-shaped demon Dundubhi towards Malaya mountain, then that buffalo entered the cave of Mt. Malaya, and even Vali entered therein wishing to kill that buffalo. [4-46-3, 4]

"Vali then kept me at the mouth of the cave as I was an amenable brother, but Vali did not exit from cave even after one full year. [4-46-5]

"I was dumbfounded to see that cave is then fully filled with blood, and then a venom like anguish called the loss of my brother agonised me. [4-46-6]

"Then I concluded that 'my brother is unmistakably killed,' and then I fixed a mountain similar boulder in the mouth of that cavity with a thinking that it will be impossible for that buffalo to exit and it will get destroyed within that cave itself. [4-46-7, 8a]

"Unhopeful of Vali's aliveness then I arrived in Kishkindha, and on getting the very magnificent kingdom of Kishkindha, and also Ruma along with Tara, I was peaceably staying there with friends. [4-46-8, 9]

NOW RAM THE GREAT NEVER KILLED SUGREEV AFTER KNOWING THIS, WHY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING VIRTUOUS IN KILLING VALI, VALI HAD BEEN KILLED JUST BECAUSE RAM NEEDED HELP OF SUGREEV IN KILLING RAVAN.

Ram did not banish Sita because of public opinion, he was not worried of public opinion ever.

What to say of Public opinion, he was not ever worried of killing innocent Public, he got Civilians of Lanka, mothers, kids, all burnt alive. [ValmikiRamyan/Sarg-75]

Did he care, what will be the public opinion of Kishkindha people when he killed Vali without any reason?

Did he care, what will be the public opinion when after killing Ravan, he asked Sita to go with Laxman, Sugreev, Bharat, Shatrughan or anyone, anywhere?६-११५-१८/६-११५-२२/ ६-११५-२३

And be it noticed that after killing Vali and Ravan, Kishkindha and Lanka both were under the flagship of Ram, the people of these places belonged to Ram. Ram already declares this to dying Vali that whole Earth and its inhabitants belong to Ikshvaku dynasty.[4-18-6]

Question to Ram over Killing Vali :---- Ram tells dying Vali, "It is to be known by him who treads the way of righteousness that he has three fatherly personages, namely his own father, his elder brother, and the one who accords education to him."

But after the death if Vali, Sugreev marries Vali's (a father figure for Sugreev) wife Tara and Ram allows this, how come, only Ram jaane.

It is also said that it is alright if a widow gets married with the a brother of the dead.Hence there is nothing wrong in Sugreev's marriage with Tara.But elder brother did not "die" here, he was "killed" and his widow Tara had been married to Sugreev, his son-like younger brother-in-law, the murderer of her husband.

And it is highly inconceivable that Ram killed Vali for this issue.

Ram, the one who made fun of Shurpnakha's demand of marrying her and defaced her (Ram and Laxman used Shurpnakha as shuttle cock of Badminton and when she gets too much annoyed then Ram derogatorily tells Lakshman that it is not good to joke with "Anarya". It seems Ram and Laxman aggrieved her knowingly but as she was alone and a woman, over powered her and insulted her, defaced her--Aranya Kand/17/25--18/19), the one who got sleeping Lankan kids and their mothers burnt alive during war against Ravan (Valmiki Ramayan/ Yudhkand/ 57), the one who asks his wife Sita, after killing Ravan, to go with Sugreev, Lakshman or anyone else in the world and the one who abandons Sita in the jungle without any of her fault.

Question to Ram over Killing Vali :---- Rama with all solemn ceremony, has made a league of alliance with Vali's younger brother whom he regards as a dear friend and almost as an equal, and now he winds up his reasons for killing Vali by coolly saying: 'Besides you are only a monkey, you know, after all, and as such I have every right to kill you how, when, and where I like.'

Was Hanuman a Celibate/ Was Raghukul so great as assumed, let us check:-----

After killing Ravan, when Hanuman meets Bharat and informs him that Ram was coming, Bhrata said that he would give some gifts to Hanuman.

16 Virgin Girls for Hanuman, Valmiki Ramayan.

And it seems there would have been innumerable slave girls in the hands of the king to give away to anyone.

Great Raghukul!!

YK/125/44-45

रघुकुल रीत सदा चली आयी, प्राण जाई वचन न जाई, सच में क्या?

Raghukul reet sada chalee aayee, Really?????

AK/107/3---The entire Valmiki Ramayan is based on this single shlok, Ram himself is telling Bharat, "Our father promised your grand father that he would give kingdom to you only."

Ram himself acknowledged the fact.Then why did Dasratha got ready to coronate Ram instead of Bharat and why did Ram got prepared for coronation?

Raghukul reet sada chali aayee.....Maryada Purushotam...

Can't you find something wrong in Ram's words here? Just check.

Valmiki Ramayan/Yudh Kanda/1/7-9----RAM IS SERMONIZING HANUMAN, SEE HOW FINELY.

Ram is classifying the servants into different categories.

"That servant to whom his master entrusts a difficult task and who performs it with zeal is said to be a superior person."

"The one who is ready and capable but who yet does no more than his master extracts from him is called a mediocre person."

"The one who is well and able and yet does not carry out the instructions of his master as directed is said to be the least of men ."

Ram talks about servants , but not about the remuneration of that masters ought to give to their servants, there are not distinctions like best, mediocre and base among masters. Masters are always best, all of them to the first category.

Male domination in Valmiki Ramayan:-- Ahalaya indulged in adultery with Indra, on being caught, her husband Sage Gautam cursed Indra to lose his scrotum and his wife Ahalaya to become invisible for one and all.

Here we see Gautam cursing Ahalya and Indra both but do we see any story of Indra's wife Shachi cursing Indra or Ahalya anywhere?

NO, the right of cursing was within males only. A husband was a husband even though he cheated. A wife was worthy of being cursed on cheating but not a husband.

It seems that Ram was not much amused with the idea of one wife that is why as Krishna he breaks every record of having multiple wives.

Even Valmiki was not much satisfied with this "one-wife" idea, he offers bribe of multiple good women to the readers of the Ramayan in 6-128-124.

RAMAYAN SHOULD NEVER BE LISTENED, SEE WHY:--- (5) Narad is telling, " O sages, men or women, whosoever listen listen Ramayan 8 times, they get benefit 5 fold more than a MAN SACRIFICE.

Prelude to Bal Kand/ 5th chapter/32, Valmiki Ramayan, published by Gita Press Gorakhpur,

Wine & Meat consumption in Ancient India:-- Rishi Bhardwaj says to Bharat & his companions, "O, wine-bibbers! Drink the wine, however much you desire! O troops stricken with hunger! Let milk thickened iwth rice and the meats which are very much fresh, be eaten (as you will)".

Brahmans were MEAT EATERS in Ancient India:----

Sita tells Ravana who is in guise of a Brahman, "Be comfortable for a moment, here it is possible for you to make a sojourn, and soon my husband will be coming on taking plentiful forest produce, and on killing stags, mongooses, wild boars he fetches meat, aplenty." (Aranya Kand/47/ 22-23)

"Such as you are, oh, Brahman, you may make mention of your name, parentage and caste, in their actuality. For what reason you are wandering in Dandaka forest lonesomely?" Thus Seetha questioned Ravana. [3-47-24]

Now These two continuous paragraph tells that Sita is offering meat to Ravna the Brahman.

Rishi Bhardwaj says to Bharat & his companions, "O, wine-bibbers! Drink the wine, however much you desire! O troops stricken with hunger! Let milk thickened with rice and the meats which are very much fresh, be eaten (as you will)".

Modern Day Politics in Ramayan:---See the scene below, presented in Ramayan by Valmiki, these scenes will make you laugh, will tell you that there were prostitutes in Raghukul Rajya, there were ditches on roads and there is not much difference between present-day system and that day political system.Politicians using money or influence to gather crowd for some purpose, Officers or local politicians getting roads cleaned, decorated on arrival of some greater guy or gal.

"Hearing the news of a great happiness from Hanuma, Bharata the truly brave ruler and the destroyer of enemies, commanded (as follows) to Shatrughna, who too felt delighted at the news." ६-१२७-१

"Let men of good conduct, offer worship to their family-deities, sanctuaries in the city with sweet-smelling flowers and to the accompaniment of musical instruments." ६-१२७-२

"Let bards well-versed in singing praises and Puranas (containing ancient legends, cosmogony etc.) as also all panegyrists, all those proficient in the use of musical instruments, PROSTITUTES all collected together, the queen-mothers, ministers, army-men and their wives, brahmanas accompanied by Kshatriyas (members of fighting class), leaders of guilds of traders and artisans, as also their members, come out to see the moon-like countenance of Rama." ६-१२७-३/ ६-१२७-४

Hearing the words of Bharata, Shatrughna the destroyer of valiant adversaries called together, laborers working on wages, numbering many thousands and dividing them into gangs, ordered them (as follows):६-१२७-५

"Let the CAVITIES on the path from Nandigrama to Ayodhya be levelled. Let the rough and the even places be made flat."६-१२७-६

"Let the entire ground be sprinkled with ice-gold water. Let some others strew it all over with parched grains and flowers."६-१२७-७

"Let the streets in Ayodhya, the excellent City, be lined with flags. Let the dwellings (on the road-side) be decorated, till the time of rising of the sun."६-१२७-८

Hahahahah...... does not it seem modern day politics?

Uttar Kand of Valmiki Ramyan not an interpolation as considered by many people:---

Here is a proof.

चतुर् विंशत् सहस्राणि श्लोकानाम् उक्तवान् ऋषिः |

तथा सर्ग शतान् पंच षट् काण्डानि तथा उत्तरम् ||१-४-२

Sage Valmiki said Ramayana in twenty four thousand verses, in six hundred chapters, in six books, likewise an end-piece too. [1-4-2]

कृत्वा तु तन् महाप्राज्ञः स भविष्यम् सह उत्तरम् |

चिन्तयामास कोन्वेतत् प्रयुंजीयाद् इति प्रभुः ||१-४-३

Though that great scholar composed thus with leading and sequel legends, that godly saint thought over thus 'really, who will render all this ballad...' [1-4-3]

A contradiction in Ramayan:--- Ramayan is a story of Ram, one wife man, in an era of multiple wives but it seems Valmiki himself did not like the idea of one wife much hence he offered a benefit of multiple SUPERIOR WOMEN to the listener.

Valmiki a confused writer:----Valmiki is not very conscious of exactness of time in his writing. In [1-1-97], he tells us Ram ruled for 11000 years, in Yudha Kanda/128/95, he tells us that Ram ruled for 10,000 years but in Yudha Kanda/128/106 he tells us that Ram ruled for 11000 years.

Tampering with Valmiki Ramayan:----In Valmiki Ramayan, which is considered the most valid record of Ram's life, the following things are non-existent but very much heard -said in our society.

1) Ram ate pre-tasted berries of Shabri, a low caste woman.

2) Vali had any boon to drain half the power of his opponents.

3) Angad was sent to Ravan Darbaar as messenger.

4) Dhobi (Washerman) talked ill about Sita and due to which Sita had been banished by Ram.

These things had been added later on in Ram-Katha, why, with little brain work reasons can be figured out.

Hanuman telling Sita about Ram in Ashok Vatika "Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in the evening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged for him." -----Sunder Kand/36/41

Ram was eating meat, at many places in Valmiki Ramayan it is written but these words seem to be confirming that he used to drink wine also.

रघुकुल रीत सदा चली आयी, प्राण जाए पर वचन न जायी -- Bullshit!

Sri Ram Chander Ji Maharaj was not only a "meat eater" but a "promise breaker" too.

He promises to his mother that during the period of Banvaas in 14 years, "I shall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and honey". Valmiki Ramayan/ Ayodhya Kand/ Sarg 20/29

But sarg Ayodhya kand/ 52/102 says, "Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha, Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and taking quickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama and Lakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening."

And Ayodhya Kand/ 55/33 says, "Thereafter having travelled only a couple of miles the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many consecrated deer and ate in the river-forest of Yamuna."

And Ayodhya Kand/96/1,2 says, "Having shown Mandakini River in that manner to Seetha, the daughter of Mithila, Rama set on the hill-side in order to gratify her appetite with a piece of flesh. Rama, whose mind was devoted to righteousness stayed there with Seetha, saying; "This meat is fresh, this is savoury and roasted in the fire."

Laxman's comments against women in General, he is saying these words to Sita though:---

उत्तरं नोत्सहे वक्तुं दैवतं भवती मम।।3.45.28।।

वाक्यमप्रतिरूपं तु न चित्रं स्त्रीषु मैथिलि।

स्वभावस्त्वेष नारीणामेवं लोकेषु दृश्यते।।3.45.29।।

Mythili! I do not intend to reply to you. To me you are a deity form to be adored. Such unworthy words from women are not surprising. Such a nature is seen among women.

विमुक्तधर्माश्चपलास्तीक्ष्णा भेदकराः स्त्रियः।

न सहे हीदृशं वाक्यं वैदेहि जनकात्मजे।।3.45.30।।

श्रोत्रयोरुभयोर्मेद्य तप्तनाराचसन्निभम्।

Women are whimsical, inconsistent, sharp tongued and are capable of breaking word; O Janaki ! Your words are like red hot darts to my two ears .I can not bear any more.

धिक्त्वामद्य प्रणश्य त्वं यन्मामेवं विशङ्कसे।

स्त्रीत्वलदुष्टं स्वभावेन गुरुवाक्ये व्यवस्थितम्।।3.45.32।

You are exihibiting woman's natural callous nature, fie upon you. While I am obeying my brother's order you are doubting me like this .You may be ruined.

RAMAYAN SHOULD NEVER BE LISTEND, SEE WHY:--- See how Valmikidescribes the phal-shruti (benefits of) of Ramayan:-- On hearing the epic, the menstruating women give birth to excellent SONS. The adorer and the reader of this ancient epic gets relieved of all sins and obtains longer life. ६-१२८-११७

The epic is to be listened by warrior-class, after offering their salutation with their heads bent low, from Brahmans every day regularly. There is no doubt that the listener and the reader of this entire Ramayana will get lordship and the birth of a SON. ६-१२८-११८/ ६-१२८-११९

This means Ramayan should never be listened to keep the Nature's work balanced, otherwise we will find all the boys and no girls.

Shurpnakha Episode, see the aspects unseen generally {VR/3/17}:---

See what Ram says to her, "I too wish to know about you. Whose wife are you? What is your name? Or, whose daughter are you? By the way, you are with a most enthralling personality, and then you must be a demoness. [3-17-18]

Much had been already described by Valmiki about ugliness of Shurpnakha, then how come Ram say that she had a great personalty?

Brahmans MEAT EATERS, proof in "Valmiki Ramayan":---

"Once upon a time verily cruel demon brothers Vaataapi and Ilvala were here together, and they the dreadful demons, they say, used to be Bhraman-killers. [4-11-55]

"Disguising in Bhraman's semblance and speaking sophisticatedly that Ilvala used to invite Brahmans for the purpose of obsequial ceremonies, where Brahman are fed after usual ceremony to appeases their manes. [4-11-56]

Then Ilvala used to make his brother Vaataapi into a ram, perfect that ram's meat into deliciously cooked food, and used to feed Brahmans according to obsequial rites and deeds. [4-11-57]

"When those Brahmans are surfeited with that ram's meat, then Ilvala used to shout loudly, "oh, Vaataapi, you may come out." [4-11-58]

"Then on listening his brother's words Vaataapi used to lunge out bleating like a ram, tearing and rending the bodies of those Brahmans. [4-11-59]

"This way they the guise changing demons always ruined thousands of Brahmans together, greedy for raw-flesh as they are. [4-11-60]

VALMIKI TELLING LIE IN RAMYAN, SEE YOURSELF:---

"On reverencing the kingdom for ten thousand years plus another one thousand years, i.e. for a total of eleven thousand (11,000) years, Rama voyages to the abode of Brahma... [1-1-97]

Having enjoyed the kingship for ten thousand (10,000) years, Rama performed a hundred horse-sacrifices, in which good horses were sacrificed and numerous gifts bestowed. ६-१२८-९६

Was Sita's wedding with Ram a self choice marriage (स्वयंवर):----- Sita's father Janak raised the condition that whosoever will be able to handle a special BOW will marry Sita . A lot many kings had tried but failed. Ram succeeded and consequently got married with Sita. Sita never saw Ram before marriage. Do you call it a self choice marriage (स्वयंवर)? ValmikiRamayan/66-73

Lies in the Valmiki Ramayan:---

Luv Kush, taught by Valmiki himself, singing,"Accompanied with such of those effectual and good-natured ministers the exalted king Dasharatha RULED THE EARTH. [1-7-20]

He that most generous one among men, Dasharatha, while observing through spies, and to protect people righteously, and to give a good governance to them, he forsook unrighteousness and became a generous king avowed to truthfulness alone, and thus he that Dasharatha RULED THE EARTH, which rulership is renowned in all the three worlds. [1-7-21,22]

Emperor Dasharatha has not encountered either a superior or an equal in his kingship, and to him there are many friends, subdued are his provincial kings and eliminated is thorniness by his own valour. He thus RULED THE WORLD like Indra would in Heaven. [1-7-23]

Now see was Dasrath RULER OF EARTH......

"Tell me all that, oh, god, how I have to carry on when warring with those evil minded demons, for the demons will be delirious by their audacity, isn't it..." Thus Dasharatha asked Vishvamitra insistently. On hearing those words Sage Vishvamitra replied this way. [1-20-14b, 15]

"One born in Paulastya dynasty, an extremely mighty and exceedingly brave demon named Ravana is there, and he with the boon given by Brahma, and accompanied with many other demons is torturing the triad of worlds, contemptuously. [1-20-16, 17a]

"Unequivocally that chief of demons is the brother of Kubera and the son of sage Vishravasa, thus we hear. [1-20-17b, 18a]

"That formidable Ravana is not a devastator of rituals by himself, even so, two very mighty demons called Mareecha and Subaahu will cause devastating hindrances to rituals, instigated by him." Thus Sage Vishvamitra said to Dasharatha. [1-20-18b, 19]

Thus when he is said so by that sage Vishvamitra, then the king Dasharatha spoke to the sage, "I myself am not capable of standing against that evil minded Ravana, in truth, where is the question of deputing my young Rama to confront him? [1-20-20]

"Gods, demons, celestial beings like gandharva-s, yaksha-s, winged and reptile beings are incapable to bear the brunt of that Ravana in fight, why tell again about humans. [1-20-22]

"But that Ravana depletes the valour of valorous opponents in a battle, oh, eminent sage, either with my entire forces, or with all my sons I am inadequate to grapple with all his forces, or with him, individually. [1-20-23, 24a]

This RULER OF EARTH, DASRATH himself admitting that he is inadequate to face Ravan with his entire forces.

RAM NOT AN IDEAL------Ram an Avatar of Vishnu, predecessor to Krishan, be also thrown away forever.

Why? Please see.

Ram considered God, Maryada Purushottama.

Is he God? An avatar? A Maryada Purushottam (best among men)? Is he someone to be worshiped ?

No! I see Ram as a killer, tormentor of women, a bad husband, a bad father and a bad king.

He killed Tataka in his teenage without any fault of hers.

He killed Vali for no fault. What fault Vali did, if ever it was a fault, had been done by Sugreev first.

He defaced Shurpnakha for no clear fault of hers, wishing for marrying someone is never wrong. If not willing to accept her proposal, Ram could have handled her gracefully but he made fun of her. He used her as a shuttlecock between himself and Laxman. And ultimately defaced her showing extreme atrocity.

He killed civilians of Lanka, women, kids all burnt alive.

He midst of Vanrars and others insulted his wife and asked her to go away with anyone, anywhere.

He killed Shambook,an innocent shudra, only because he was shudra doing penance.

He invaded neighboring countries which were not hostile to him at all and possesses them after killing their people.

He banished his pregnant wife, even after a fire test.

He banished his brother Laxman, who served him through out life.

His brother Luxman committed suicide.

His wife committed suicide instead of undergoing a second public insult.

He committed suicide along-with a lot many allies and Ayodhya people.

What is to be learnt from his life story, should we become blindly obedient to our parents and even go to the jungle or jail on their command, without any fault of ours?

Should we kill someone like Vali, just because someone tells us that the one is villainous and be killed?

Should we mock at a female or male if he/she approaches us for marriage and eventually deface him/her?

Should a winning country kill the Civilians of the defeated country?

Should we leave our wives knowingly perfectly well that she is faultless?

Should we let our new born kid and wife to die, let them be food of animal?

Should we kill someone because the one is considered belonging a low caste?

Should we kill anyone for the sake of our progress, the ones who never harmed us at all?

Ram, he is sermonizing hither and thither in Ramayan but his deeds are not sermons like, they tell us a horrible story.

His wife denied him eventually, she embraced death instead of embracing him. How can he be considered a God, an avatar?

Considering all these factors, I deny Ram as God, I deny him as an avatar, I deny him as Maryada Puroshottam (best among men), I deny him even as Good man.

Hence Ram, Ramayan and every thing attached with Ram be bade Good Bye

All my inferences are based on Valmiki Ramayan, any doubt, I can render exact shalok number...kindly stay away from ill words, you will be blocked and do not steal also, it is a copy right matter.

Tushar Cosmic

Sati Practice in Ramayan/ Valmiki Ramayan/Uttar Kanda/17/15--Vedvati's mother enters the fire cremating the dead body of her husband.

Uttar Kand of Ramayan not added to it by someone else later-on as considered by many people. The glimpses of Uttar Kand has been described briefly in Bal Kand/Sarg3/38-39 already.

You may get amazed to see that Uttar Kand has not been added in online Valmiki Ramayan, why, because it shows Ram more gruesome.

Anti Shudra comments in Ramayan:--

Sita says that only the Brahmans have the right to education. VR/Sunder Kand/Sarg 21/17

RIGHT TO EDUCATION, ONLY TO BRAHMANS, YOU SEE!

Why I talked on Ramayan:---

Because it is not something that has past. It is present in our society, every year Ram Leelas are played and Ravan burnt. In every nook and corner Ram is worshiped in the temples. Ram is very much present in our society.

Because imagination or a true story, no issue, its impact on society is a truth.

Books are the most dangerous tools to keep the humans under slavery, see Manusmriti, Bible, Quran, Ramayan all are tools, used to keep the human mind slaved.

Hanuman, not a Celibate:-----

After killing Ravan, when Hanuman meets Bharat and informs him that Ram was coming, Bhrata said that he would give some gifts to Hanuman.

16 Virgin Girls for Hanuman, Valmiki Ramayan.

And it seems there would have been innumerable slave girls in the hands of the king to give away to anyone.

Great Raghukul!!

YK/125/44-45

A scene similar as shown in 26/11, a movie based on Mumbai Attacks by Kasab and others, in Ramayan:---

Kumbhkarana was killing Vanars, they were fleeing for their lives, see how Angad is alluring them to die,""If our longevity is short, we shall lie down, being killed by the enemies, on the earth and reach the realm of Brahma (residence of pious spirits), which is difficult to be attained by bad warriors."

"O monkeys! We shall obtain glory by killing our enemies in battle or if killed on the other hand, we shall enjoy the heaven, attained by the warriors."

You will be surprised the same logic were given to Kasab and other Mumbai attackers, I watched in the movie 26/11.

Ram was eating meat, at many places in Valmiki Ramayan it is written but these words seem to be confirming that he used to drink wine also.

रघुकुल रीत सदा चली आयी, प्राण जाई वचन न जाई, सच में क्या?

Raghukul reet sada chalee aayee, Really?????

AK/107/3---The entire Valmiki Ramayan is based on this single shlok, Ram himself is telling Bharat, "Our father promised your grand father that he would give kingdom to you only."

Ram himself acknowledged the fact.Then why did Dasratha got ready to coronate Ram instead of Bharat and why did Ram got prepared for coronation?

Raghukul reet sada chali aayee.....Maryada Purushotam..