Ravana & Vali …Evil forces??!!


This is an adjunct to Hinduism under attack. H induism is like sponge it cushions the attack and does not break but more than that it absorbs other religion like a sponge. Sardar Panickar the Historian says Hinduism swallows other religion that is how it survives. For example it absorbed Buddhism and Jainism and there by stopped its growth in India whereas it spread in entire SE Asia and China and even in Afghanistan etc. Let us see how it is done.
Old testament ( Common to Jews, Christians, Muslims) says God made Satan and Satan started causing damage. So Man was created in Eden and preserved there. But When Adam ate the apple and broke the safety net he came under the subjugation of Satan. This is the base of Abrahamic religion common to jews,Muslims and Christians. In Hinduism there is no such devil teasing us or enticing us. But there has been an impact of these concepts and our religion has undergone some change in attitude. Let us take 2 characters From Valmiki Ramayana-Vali and Ravana.
V ali Vadh(Killing) has been analysed in this blog thread bare. But there has been objection to calling him a terrosist ( Aatataayee). This is because he has been designated as the next Indra.How can a terrorist become a King of demi gods. The answer is in Sloka ( 4-18-31) राजभिः धृत दण्डाः च कृत्वा पापानि मानवाः |निर्मलाः स्वर्गम् आयान्ति सन्तः सुकृतिनो यथा ||  ” ‘When kings impose proper punishment on the humans who have sinned, they become sinless and enter heaven as with the pious souls with good deeds.’ So says one verse of Manu..
Thus Rama himself says Vali is absolved of all sins and will go to highest heaven. Such a person cannot be called a Satan or even evil by any standard.
R avana is more complicated. In N India the Burning of Ravana, Kumbhakarna and Indrajit is celebrated as destruction of evil force. How is it? Kumbhakarna objects to Ravana’s action of kidnapping Seetha. He opts to fight with his brother unlike Bhibhishana, How can you call him Evil. Indrajit is just a good fighter and gives good fight against army trying to kill his father How can he be called evil. Now we are left with Ravana. See what Hanuman says about Ravana.
[5-51-16]–तत् भवान् दृष्ट धर्म अर्थः तपः कृत परिग्रहः |

bhavaan = you; dR^iSTadharmaarthaH = learnt about religious merit and wealth; tapaH kR^itaparigrahaH = and performed and mastered the austerities; Wealth created by Dharma.
[5-51-25]–तपः सम्ताप लब्धः ते यो अयम् धर्म परिग्रहः | ayam dharmaparigrahaH = is an outcome of your virtue; tapaH samaapa labdhaH = both of which have been acquired by you through the practice of austerities.
So Ravana whatever has been achieved is by virtue Dharma. How can this man be called Evil. Yes he did evil thing of abducting another wife. That is due to carving of passion. And even great fall into this trap.
Thus the evil if it exists in Hinduism it is within us. Ramayana shows how most powerful and most educated ( both Vali are great exponents in Vedas. Ravana has set the musical notes for Samaveda for more… ) fall pray to adharma and reap immense downfall and perish.

68 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:32:20

    Now you have left the facts of slokas and shifted over to “probalities and english saying”. May i know what english book you are referring? Because till the time you were quoting the slokas of Ramayan, it was ok and accepted for debate. Now you have started using probabilities and fitting of logics by hook or crook just to continue the debate. Is that “english saying” derived from bible or mechant of venice or some other story? If not then probably it must be your own “english saying”. If it so then it will be easy for me also to submit all rubbish and call it as “english saying”.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:40:05

      You are questioning Bibhishana’s comment about his brother.
      (a) Kidnapping other’s wife wrong he was punished for that.
      (b) Nobody kicked anybody.
      (d) The fight between Asuras and Sages is different business. Both have faought. There is no logic behind it. It is those days activities. The Asuras have fought in favour od Devas also. Bhibhishana is also Asura who is good. In Samudra madan Both deva and Asra jointly work to get Amrut. devas cheated asuras and took away everything good.
      (d) Bothe the armies died. For the sake of Rama many monkeys perished. There are some more bad news After the War Rama’s Army Plundered Lanka.
      Well those are different items. the point is Calling Ravan Evil is very extreme.

      Reply

      • Hemant
        Aug 14, 2011 @ 13:26:34

        There is no evidence that Rama looted Lanka except your imagination . There are ample evidence that Ravan use to rape Queen and virgin princess . There are four sources for that Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata (narration by Lomasa to Yudi ) Markandeya to Pandavas and Hanuman to Bhima .

        I’m lost to understand your mind who want to believe a mass murder and mass rape is not evil .

      • mghariharan
        Aug 15, 2011 @ 09:31:31

        Not in My imagination in Valmiki’s Imagination. Entire Sarga elaborates on this Ransacking sample 2 slokas below.
        विमानेषु प्रसुप्ताश्च दह्यमाना वराङ्गनाः |
        त्यक्ताभरणसर्वाङ्ग हा हेत्युच्चैर्विचुक्रुशुः || ६-७५-२४
        Getting scorched in fire, beautiful women, while lying fast asleep in their seven-storied mansions, gave up all connection with their ornaments and screamed loudly, saying “ah! Alas!”
        नारीजनस्य धूमेन व्याप्तस्योच्चैर्विनेदुषः |
        स्वनो ज्वलनतप्तस्य शुश्रुवे शतयोजनम् || ६-७५-३२
        The noise of the women-folk, who were burnt by fire and covered with smoke, roaring loudly, was heard upto one hundred Yojanas (or eight hundred miles).
        You seem to be knowledgeable how you missed an entire sarga?

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 04:19:24

        You are blaming Rama for the action of Sugreeva . It was Sugreeva who ordered this nonsense and Rama was venerated by Indrajit missiles . Also that was not a loot but an accident when some monkey torched the city and Ravan was enraged . Ravan become careless after the unconsciousness of Rama Laxman in previous Sarga . Indrajit tossed 62 crore monkeys which was genocide by any calculation .

        You are blaming the failure of Ravan defence on Rama that’s too when Sugreeva ordered torching in absence of Rama . Ravan was killed in sarga 108 and VR end in Sarga 128 ando there iso noo looting there .

  2. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:34:13

    Your point no (c) the figth between asuras and sages, let me see what you think the asuras were? First let us see your ideas about asuras. Now you will start searching some points that support asuras by any means. Still iwould like to know what you think about asura and what is the difference between sur and asur. Further, i am talking about the asuras Khar, Dushan and Subahu who killed the sages who continued their yagyas though being warned by Ravan. I am talking about this particular killing and not the killing that took place before and after Ramayan. This type of orders for killing sages definitely impresses and inspires you as a great achievement. You will also feel sometime to regulate this type of law for those people who pray or conduct pooja & yagya because according to you evil Ravan was a great person. So definitely his deeds and attitudes must be regulated in a society created by you which may get spoiled by the dharm factor taught by Lord Ram.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:42:38

      This is difficult question. Because everybody thinks that Asura are bad people and Devas are good people. Hiranyakashapu was bad asura. His son was Prahalada. Prahalada’s son was Mahabali. Vishnu took the avatara of Vamana( Pigmy) and pushed him to patala. But you will notice that Mahabali stood by his promise of giving 3 steps of Lands. Even today In Kerala the most important festival is Onam where Mahabali comes to see if people are happy. All Malayalees celebrate by organising a group lunch attended by other religious people like Christians. etc.
      Any way coming to Ramayana Please let me know Who is bad?
      Indra (the King of Devas) who has sex with Ahalya and ruins himself and her and her husband Gautama or
      Ravana who kidnaps Seetha and gives her 1 years time to change her mind and marry him.
      Of course both are bad but who is worse?

      Reply

      • dileep
        Aug 23, 2011 @ 10:49:37

        You are way way off.
        Ravana has a curse that if he toches any woman without her willing ness he will die – this happened after one incident. Please read scriptures properly or ask elders to explain it. They are compiled by great saints.
        Athi Sarvatra Varjayet. They say. Bali has done a mistake – because of which Vishnu corrected him – he did not punish him. but he gave him Pathala loka and if you read Bhagavatam Lord Vishnu wil lbe continously protecting Bali. Read and find out what mistake Bali did.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 23, 2011 @ 13:06:56

        I agree with what you have written about Ravana. Please explain what mistake Bali had done. Yes they are compiled by Saints are we not supposed to read it and understand. Why are you angry. Explain clearly. Pushing Bali to pathala is not punishment? Protecting Bali from what? after pushing him to Pathala? Our scriptures are not only sacred they are for us to understand and make our lives beautiful.
        Just the word, that Ravana is not evil but did adharma yes he did adharma. We all do adharma. Raping is not the only adharma. Lakshmana advising Rama to kill his father is not adharma. Is Lakshmana evil How do you classify evil is the question.

    • Pi Laminar
      Aug 16, 2011 @ 04:17:36

      You are blaming Rama for the action of Sugreeva . It was Sugreeva who ordered this nonsense and Rama was venerated by Indrajit missiles . Also that was not a loot but an accident when some monkey torched the city and Ravan was enraged . Ravan become careless after the unconsciousness of Rama Laxman in previous Sarga . Indrajit tossed 62 crore monkeys which was genocide by any calculation .

      You are blaming the failure of Ravan defence on Rama that’s too when Sugreeva ordered torching in absence of Rama . Ravan was killed in sarga 108 and VR end in Sarga 128 ando there iso noo looting there .

      Reply

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 09:22:34

        1.Yes no looting.
        2. Ravana was not negligent.
        यतो हतः कुम्भकर्णः कुमाराश्च निषूदिताः |
        नेदानीमुपनिर्हारम् रावनो दातुमर्हति || ६-७५-२
        “Since Kumbhakarna and his four sons were killed, Ravana cannot give any defense now”.
        3. Rama never objected to this. As a Dharma proponent he should have immediately taken cognizance. Whenever Gandhiji’s was on Hunger strike if rioting starts Gandhiji used to withdraw the fom the fight. The fight is always on 2 fronts be righteous and also kill the enemy. One of the reasons why Hazare’s fight is petering out is because he foul mouths his enemies. The enemy is careful in giving him respect which is being misunderstood as weakness. This is not weakness This is strength.
        4. Sorry No accident
        ये ये महाबलाः सन्ति लघवश्च प्लवंगमाः |
        लङ्कामभिपतन्त्वाशु गृह्योल्काः प्लवगर्षभाः || ६-७५-३
        हरयो हरिसंकाशाः प्रदग्धुम् रावणालयम् |
        “Let those dexterous monkeys, possessing the strength of lions, taking torches in their hands, rush towards Lanka quickly, in order to set ablaze the abode of Ravana.”

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 13:01:57

        3. Rama never objected to this.

        Ram was not in position to object or support and it was Sugreeva command . Indrajit missiles bereft Rama from consciousness and CIC Sugreeva order this . This was stupidity on the part of Sugreeva and this act was as good as suicide .

        Even Hanuman was helpless in front of Indrajit and Ravan and just previous day Indrajit destroyed them in just one muhurta 45 minute .

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 13:30:02

        Hanuman was very much a party to it.
        ततोऽब्रवीन्महातेजाः सुग्रीवो वानरेश्वरः |
        अर्थ्यम् विज्ञापयंश्चापि हनूमन्तमिदं वचः || ६-७५-१
        Then, Sugreeva of great majesty, the king of monkeys spoke (the following) meaningful words to Hanuma, in order to inform him what they should do next.

        If as you say this was done without the knowledge of Rama and if ( a big if) Rama’s army did adharma then Rama should have come out clean absolving himself of it. There was no such act.

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 14:09:36

        You forget to mention that there was genocide by Indrajit and Rama was not in position to object or support thanks to Indrajit missiles .

        I’m not spokesperson of Hanuman and just take it they were not human so Ravan should have been in in charge of there protection , Rama was unconscious so I’m not gonna blame him for Sugreeva stupidity since attacking Ravan when Laxmana and Rama were unconscious is suicide .

  3. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:34:34

    We will come to slokas afterwards, but let me give you a very basic and logical proof. Suppose a pandit (brahmin) after studying all the grahnakshatras of your son and says that your son’s name will start from alphabet ‘R’ and only two names are left over Ram and Ravan. Which name you will select for your son? This answer will show your fundamental attitute towards society and will also reflect your ultimate character. Dont divert this by saying that how only two names can be offered. I am saying if only these two names are left, which one you will select? React in a mature way as you are and dont skip this question.

    Reply

    • Hemant
      Aug 14, 2011 @ 13:29:46

      Indra relationship with Ahalya was adultery and Ravan rape is henious crime be it of Punjisthala Rambha or other Queen . Ahalya was knowing she is gonna intercourse with Indra . Ahalya was not knowing is a folklore

      Reply

  4. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:34:57

    Now why are you on backfoot? Once you consider Ravan as great person then he should be great in all sense and you should accept him in all the ways as i do for Lord Ram. You told Ravan did adharm but Lord Ram never did. Both were kings and powerful but evil of lust only grew in Ravan’s mind. I will compare now the main difference on being a god/dev and evil on one common factor “WOMAN AND LUST”. Shuparnakha saw Lord Ram, got attracted, offered him all the joys of youth but Lord Ram refused her clearly. Here a woman offers herself to Lord Ram but no lust grows in Lord Ram’s mind. In opposite, Shuparnakha tells about Sita, Ravan disguises into sage, visits Sita’s kutiya and by false means kidnaps her. Why lust grew in Ravan on first sight of Sita and same lust had not effect on Lord Ram though having been offered by a woman herself. This is a proof. How can you refuse your son being named Ravan / Because you know it is an evil name.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:43:30

      ven great persons have weakneses. That is why Ravana paid by life. Lust is something that comes to ordinary person also. In Gandhi’s biography He has an oppertunity to have sex and says he would have fallen for it but Rama came and saved him.
      Ravana’s action is wrong But to push the story to extreme and say that Ravana is a evil a Dracula etc. is wrong Our religion does not recoginize such forces.

      Reply

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 12:15:47

        I’m not here to defend a religion but I’d argue Ravan was worse than Dracula . The only person who can be compared is prophet Muhammad who lusted for his daughter in law just like Ravan had done for Rambha his daughter in law .

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 12:26:29

        Please quote from wher you are saying about this Rambha.

  5. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:35:27

    No,great persons may have weakness but not crookedness/criminal attitude. What all ravan did were neither weakness nor instant lust, they were well planned criminal acts which a criminal or an evil minded person can only attempt. Killing of innocent sages is very well act of evil. Day by day your topic is being driven to very new path. But it is interesting to see that when you dont have logics you switch over to probalities / fiction and now you have inserted a new character dracula. I think you are more referring to phantom comics of kids than ramayan. That is why you come across such characters like dracula and miracles (which is basic criteria for being a god, according to you only). I think you have made your own dictionary by which you have derived new character dracula. Because synonyms of evil are as follows:- bad, wrong, depraved, immoral, iniquitous, sinful, impious, wicked. Better you switch over to phantom comics where you will find dracula and all because you are totally diverted from your basic topic “why sugriva not vali”. But it is interesting to see you helpless and trying to continue debate on basis of senseless, baseless topics/characters. Your blog is not to understand ramayan, you actually want to teach ramayan the way you are liking. And just to upkeep your ego of not losing the debate, you have shifted from “why sugriv not vali” then to “greatness of sugriva”then to “shuparnkha inducing craving in Ravan” then to “Mandharai and kaikeyi” then to “funeral rites to ravan” then to “emulating krishna” then to “samundar manthan”then to “ahailya & indra”. It seems a drunken man is driving a car in a zigzag way. Where he will crash he himself doesnt know. So as you are doing. But it is interesting.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:44:26

      I have given many evidences to show that Ravana though did Adharma, was appreciated by Hanuman, Rama, Bhibhishana etc. It is greatness of Valmiki that when he wrote the story he has answered your question. First time when Akampana comes to him Ravana goes to Mareecha and is disuaded by Maareecha from attempting to fight with Rama. But Shurpanaka twists the story plants the idea of Lust in him. It is then that Ravana stops Mareecha from talking and says I did not come for advice, but do as instructed. He was aware of Rama’s strength so schemes to kidnap Seetha.
      But the point under discussion is Both Ravana and Kaikeyi did Adharma against their nature, due to wrong advice. Such people cannot be called as Evil. All the proofs that I have given are not to say Ravana did not do Adharma, but a reasonably well behaved person falls for momentary weaknesses and ruined himself and his clan.

      Reply

  6. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:35:48

    Again the momentry lust / crime is inserted. On which ground you are saying that it was momentary weakness? Ravan held Sita in custody for almost one year. Is it a momentary weakness. He could have returned Sita when his momentary excitement got settled down. Or you want to say that particular momentary weakness continued continued for year. Then how is it a momentary weakness? It is a permanent presence of lust in one’s mind. Dont submit the same logics again and again just like the parrot. Everytime this momentary weakness/lust has been proved false but you are sticking to that particular point like a small kid crying for a particular toy. According to you momentary weakness may last for years. But my logics are very clear that momentary weakness can stay for minute/hour/a day/even a week but not a year. Momentary lust dont follow plans, they are attempted instantly. What made shuparnakha attempt lusting of Ravan? Because she knew Ravan was lusty and evil. He will definitely react if she provokes him. Shuparnakha provoked a lot to Lord Ram offering all the joys of youth, Lord Ram didnot have any momentary weakness. Why this momentary weakness hit only the evil Ravan? Because he was an evil.

    Reply

  7. Prabhat Pandey
    Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:36:11

    First Vaman- Mahabali was son of Prahalad. Prahalad was one of the greates devotees of Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu promised Prahalad that his 21 generations will be care of me. The very next generation, Mahabali though being a devotee of Vishnu, had diverted to asura activities and captured the earth & heaven. When vamana appeared and took 3 promises, he was told by shukracharya that he is Lord Vishnu himself. To enlarge his level of “YASH” he attempted to fulfill his 3 promises. And only due to the promise of Lord Vishnu made to Prahalad, Mahabali was given a respectful send off to Patal and was also given command of one of the layers of Patal. Vamana didnot just push Mahabali to Patal.
    Second-Ravan and Indra. No doubt Ravan was worse than Indra and probably than anyone. What Ravan did was kidnapping Sita by force (though he could not attempt any further sin due to sati power of Maa Sita). What happened between Indra and Ahailya was a mutual understanding and no force was applied on Ahailya hence it is no where a crime/sin done by Indra. But where is your hero Sugriva who actually needed help from Lord Ram but claims that he has done all the super activities of Ramayan? Any way you can continue with Indra and Ahailya. It is also an interesting topic. Like in other topics, in this case also you will learn a lot more.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 11, 2011 @ 17:49:53

      No the point I am making is There are Asuras good and bad So also there are devas good and bad. Eliminating ASURA cannot be gods aim. Then why did he create them. Bhibhishana was good Asura. Ravana did mistakes Kumbhakarna disagreed with his brother but fought with him. Bhibhishana disagreed and went to enemy camp and helped them. So it is very complicated, Valmiki Ramaya brings all these aspects and educates us on Dharma.

      Reply

  8. Hemant
    Aug 14, 2011 @ 13:13:13

    @ Thread writer

    Shall I remind you that Ravan was rapist , rape of Punjishthala Rambha and various queen . Read the confession of Mandodari , Vali was another rapist who raped his own sister in law . Vali had habit of abducting women , this was a reason of his problem with Dumdhubhi . I do not intend to debate with you here as I am not sure you will be honest or not

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 15, 2011 @ 08:39:04

      There seems to be some misunderstanding. I am not claiming vali and Ravana are good people. They are bad people and did bad things. I have defined evil as devil or Dracula etc. as in Old testement.
      Your statement about Punjikasthala is correct refer to 6-13-11.
      Your statemen about Vali and Ruma- Sugrivas wife -is correct. Rama killed Vali for that.”Therebe he attains highest of heaven equal to a good person” Rama’s words not mine.
      Ladies problem with Mayavi ( not Dhundhubi) is correct (4-9-4).’Ladies problem’ dont exagerate it as Rape. Please specify sloka Nos wherever possible.

      Reply

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 04:30:11

        I was not giving shloka number as I can take you have read VR and we seldom met people who have actually read VR for his mass rape read Sarga 111 mandodari lamentation .

        You said [[”Therebe he attains highest of heaven equal to a good person” Rama’s words not mine.]] . These words were only solace for Tara who wanted to die . Lets read Ramayana critically .

        This kind of thinking is sickening. Some people really expect the Sugreev to love Vali because he raped his wife and called her his wife. How can anyone be so cut off from reality? These people see nothing wrong in raping wife of younger brother expect Sugreeve to be grateful to him for raping his wife . How can we co-exist with these people? They come from another world. We don’t have the same values.

  9. Pi Laminar
    Aug 16, 2011 @ 04:50:40

    aham vinikR^ito bhraatraa caraami eSa bhayaarditaH |
    R^iSyamuukam giri varam hR^ita bhaaryaH suduHkhitaH || 4-8-17

    “My brother calumniated me and stole my wife, with his fear and my anguish haunting me I am moving about this best mountain Rishyamuka. [4-8-17]

    hR^itaa bhaaryaa ca me tena praaNebhyo api gariiyasii |
    suhR^idaH ca madiiyaa ye sa.myataa bandhaneSu te || 4-8-33

    “My wife who is loftier than my lives is stolen by him, and those that are my sympathisers they are also captivated and imprisoned by him. [4-8-33]
    This is called Terrorism and Terrorist in play.

    asya tvam dharamaaNasya sugriivasya mahaatmanaH |
    rumaayaam vartase kaamaat snuSaayaam paapa karmakR^it || 4-18-19
    “While the great-souled Sugreeva is still alive, you with your habit of sinful acts have lustily misbehaved with Sugreeva’s wife Ruma, who should be counted as your daughter-in-law. [4-18-19]

    Vali being a king, he committed incest transgressing tradition .

    I’ve given only three reference there are ample.
    Oo

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 16, 2011 @ 09:26:15

      You are 100% right. I have declared he is an aatataayee. He needs to be killed and that is why he was executed ( not fought) by Rama.See my blog.
      But post killing he is absolved of this Sin. Then he can become (next )Indra.

      Reply

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 12:18:58

        I’m least concerned about sin absolved or not but to punish a rapists and a terrorists which is just and apt.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 12:25:27

        Sin is absolved by punishment only. Please read my Blog Manusmriti and rama say unless punished this sin will come to King. and it did when Rams’s forfathers did the mistake of pardoning a saint who did the mistake.

  10. Pi Laminar
    Aug 16, 2011 @ 13:44:28

    There is detail description for rape of Rambha in Uttarkanda Sarga 30, the whole chapter cover her rape but since Uttarkanda is interpolated. I’m giving you other sources to prove my point. I do not need unauthentic sources to prove my point .

    http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga60/yuddha_60_frame.htm

    shapto.aham vedavatyaa cha yadaa saa dharSitaa puraa || 6-60-10
    seyam siitaa mahaabhaagaa jaataa janakanandinii |

    “Further, I was formerly cursed by Vedavati when she was humiliated by me. The same Vedavati is born as the highly fortunate Seetha the daughter of Janaka.”

    umaa nandiishvarashchaapi rambhaa varuNakanyakaa || 6-60-11
    yathoktaastanmayaa praaptam na midhyaa R^iSibhaaSitam |

    “What was predicted by Parvati the consort of Shiva, Nandishvara the attendant of Shiva, Rambha the wife of Nalakubara and Punjikasthala the daughter of Varunda has come to pass! The words of the sages never prove false.”

    This is from Mahabharata Vana Parva
    SECTION CCLXXVIII
    Indeed, this wretch had been cursed before for his having violated
    his daughter-in-law, Rambha. This lustful wretch is not able to violate
    any woman by force. Thy husband will soon come, protected by Sugriva and
    with the intelligent son of Sumitra in his train, and will soon take.

    Ravan was regular sex offender be it of Vedavati Rambha Punjisthala or anybody else though in Sita case he fell for her and didn’t tried to force for two reason he was afraid to die of curse and secondly he might have been in love with Sita and forcing the one you love is not a mistake but blunder . Lets check out what Mandodari had to say about Ravan ””

    devaasuranR^ikanyaanaamaahartaaraM tatastataH || 6-111-55
    shatrustriishokadaataaraM netaaraM svajanasya cha |

    “He used to bring the virgin-daughters of gods, demons and human beings from here and there. He brought mourning to his enemy’s wives. He was the leader of his own people.”

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 16, 2011 @ 14:00:51

      That is why I told Uttarakanda is not in the scope of discussion. Anyway that Ravana had craving for women cannot make him evil. You cannot throw awaya Hanuman’s certificate, Rama’s certificate, and vibhishana’s certificate and declare him an evil force. He did mistakes and was duly punished for it.

      Reply

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 14:30:26

        Lord Ram

        1) Lord Ram calls Ravana, a paapaatmaa:
        http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga59/yuddha_59_frame.htm

        diSTyaayamadya paapaatmaa mama dR^iSTipatham gataH |
        adya krodhaM vimokSyaami siitaaharaNasambhavam || 6-59-31

        31. diSTyaa= by good luck; ayam= that; paapaatmaa= wretch; gataH= comes; adya= today; mama= within my; dR^iSTipatham= range of sight!; vimokSyaami= I shall expunge; krodham= my wrath; siitaaharaNa sambhavam= born of Seetha’s abduction!

        “By good luck, that wretch comes today within my range of sight! Today, I shall expunge my wrath, born of Seetha’s abduction!”

        Lord Shiva despise Ravan like this ”

        diShTyaa sarvasya lokasya pravR^iddhaM daaruNaM tamaH |
        apaavR^ittaM tvayaa sa~Nkhye raama raavaNajaM bhayam || 6-119-3

        “Fortunately has the fear born of Ravana – which increased the severe darkness on the entire world has been removed by you, on the battle-field, O Rama!”

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 15:45:33

        Ravana is a papi he has kidnapped Rama’s wife. so he can say everything. But after killing Ravan Rama says he is mine. Our religion has very high moral and ethical background and is not some flimsy thing which calls somebody witch and start with hunting. Christians started witchhunting and killed many good people and are living with this sin and bad concious. Even Galelo was blinded. I am trying to clear hear that a person doing bad things is not evil. He is at worst a sinner and we are all sinners. See what jusus said when a prositute was to be stoned. He said one who has never sinned shall cast the first stone. Our religion brings all this out in beautiful stories. Try to understand the effort valmiki has taken to write this book.
        I have no right to say against other works but a great person like Tulsidas can write only 1000 verses in his Ramayana. This is a mamoth 24000 slokas. and ony thing it discusses is Dharma. let us uderstand Dharma and forget Ravan

      • Pi Laminar
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 14:35:42

        1) Hanumanji calls Ravana a duraatmanaa :
        http://www.valmikiramayan.net/sundara/sarga58/sundara_58_frame.htm

        tasya siitaa hR^itaa bhaaryaa raavaNena duraatmanaa |
        tasyaaH sakaasham duuto aham gamiShye raama shaasanaat || 5-58-25

        25. duraatmanaa raavaNena= by the evil-minded Ravana; siitaa= Seetha; tasya bhaaryaa= Rama’s wife; hR^itaa= was taken away; raamashaasanaat= by the orders of Rama; aham= I; gamiSye= can go; tasyaaH sakaasham= near to her; duutaH= as an envoy.

        ” ‘The evil-minded Ravana took away Seetha, Rama’s wife. By the orders of Rama, I am going to her as an envoy.’

        What the Ravan did was what the bandits and the brigand used to do in the old days. One must be completely screwed up with his values to see any goodness in this utterly shameful and barbaric act of the Ravan. Killing men and possessing their women were acts of savagery. There is not a single good in such a heinous deed.

      • mghariharan
        Aug 16, 2011 @ 15:19:58

        Ravana is a villain in Ramayana. yes he is evil minded in his action. But this evil nesscame because of weakness for woman like seetha. I am ready to conceede that Ravana had weakness for women. But as I had quoted there are sloks which put it in proper perspective. Hanuman says tells Ravana that Dharma and Adharma cannot stay together.
        तत् भवान् दृष्ट धर्म अर्थः तपः कृत परिग्रहः |
        पर दारान् महाप्राज्ञ न उपरोद्धुम् त्वम् अर्हसि || ५-५१-१७
        You know about religious merit and wealth. You performed and mastered the austerities. That is why, you ought not besiege the wife of another, O great intellectual!”

        That is the message of ramayana that Ravana who by good acts produced so much wealth is goinf to loose everything by one adharma.
        This the message for people like A Raja who obtained popularity with people doing so many good things and when he becomes corrupt amassing weath for himself then he loses everythig and goes to jail.

  11. Pi Laminar
    Aug 16, 2011 @ 14:23:39

    Prahasta, the the commander-in-chief of Ravana
    1)Prahasta, the the commander-in-chief of Ravana, calls Ravana a criminal(apradhi) :

    http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga8/yuddha_8_frame.htm
    rakSaam caiva vidhaasyaami vaanaraad rajanii cara |
    na aagamiSyati te duhkham kimcid aatma aparaadhajam || 6-8-5

    Sage Valmiki: 24th compiler(Vyas) of Vedas
    http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga102/yuddha_102_frame.htm
    1) Sage Valmiki calls Ravana , a duraatmanaH :

    atikaayasya naadena tena tasya duraatmanaH |
    sarvabhuutaani vitresuH saagarashcha prachukShubhe || 6-102-55

    55. tena naadena= by that roar; tasya duraat manaH= of that evil-minded Ravana; atikaayasya= of a collossal body; sarvabhuutaani= all the living beings; vitresuH= were frightened; saagarashcha= the ocean too; prachukShubhe= got agitated.

    By that roar of that evil-minded Ravana of a collossal body, all the living beings were frightened. The ocean too got agitated.

    2) Sage Valmiki calls Ravana , a duShTaatmaa :

    etasminnantare krodhaadraaghavasya sa raavaNaH |
    prahartukaamo duShTaatmaa spR^ishan praharaNaM mahat || 6-102-48

    48-51. etasmin antare= in the meanwhile; saH raavaNaH= that Ravana; duShTaatmaa= the evil-minded; …..
    …..

    3) sage valmiki calls Ravana a papi:
    http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga11/yuddha_11_frame.htm

    sa babhuva kR^isho raajaa maithiliikaamamohitaH |
    asanmaanaachcha suhR^idaam paapaH paapena karmaNaaH || 6-11-1

    That sinful Ravana, infatuated by his desire for Seetha, became emaciated by his sinful action and by his despising of well-disposed people like Vibhishana.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Aug 16, 2011 @ 15:49:04

      Exactly. everything you have written shows when sombody becomes comes into the grip of evil thought causes destruction to himself but also to his near and dear ones. Kumbhakarna scolds Ravana twice. but helplessly goes to battle field and dies for his brother. We should understand these things and not burn him religously every year as an evil destroyed.

      Reply

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Oct 29, 2011 @ 01:23:06

        We all understand about the evil deeds of Ravana whereby for his lust and ego his brother, son and complete army was destroyed. Killing of innocent sages and raping of women cannot be compensated or forgiven the way you are trying to defend Ravan. He along with all the people who support his evil deeds should be burnt every year. This is my personal feeling for those who support Ravana deeds on their own created grounds who are totally anti social elements. Because people supporting acts of Ravana definitely have the same ill feeling but due to lack of power and fear of law they are unable to carry out those acts of killing and raping.

      • mghariharan
        Oct 29, 2011 @ 11:27:18

        Fair enough.If Ravana is being punished for his evil deed and thereby highlighting the evilness of the deed then it is correct. Please request you to explain burning of Indrajit and Kumbakarna along with him,also similarly.

  12. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 30, 2011 @ 13:52:02

    Indrajit and Kumbhkarna very well fought from the adharm side hence deserve to be burnt along with Ravana because nothing is above dharma. Indrajit and Kumbhakarna performed their duties but you very well know that truth, duty, loyalty and many more all nothing but branches of DHARMA. They might have fought as a part of their duty but they failed to save the dharama and knowingly fought from the adharma side. Vibhishan is never burnt along with them because he failed to perform his duty by not fighting from Ravan side but he moved to dharma side of Lord Rama hence people dont have ill feelings for him as compared to that of towards these three adharmi asuras.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 30, 2011 @ 16:59:14

      Kumbhakarna said it was adharma and then fought as had to. If you extend your logic we should be burning Dronacharya Bhishma et all.
      Not sound logic Come with something better, you can do it.

      Reply

  13. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 30, 2011 @ 17:40:38

    In a debate, points of opponent never sounds logical. It is very common so with you also. You yourself is telling that kumbhakarna fought from Ravan side though he was aware of the adharm done by Ravan. But knowing the adharmas done by Ravan, Vibhishan left out and joined Lord Ram. Further, regarding Dronacharya and Bhishma, it is very very foolish to compare this global war with that of a very low level family dispute which is a routine family problem. This time also you are dragging the debate to a new topic as you did many times earlier. Sir, you are most welcome for this debate also.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 30, 2011 @ 18:04:16

      The logic is simple. Kumbhakarna condemns Ravana for committing Adharma. But he had to fight for Ravana as as per Kshatriya Dharma. Indian army personnel cannot refuse to fight if ordered whether we fight for Dharma or against Dharma. Many people condemn and question Vibhishana also.
      Hinduism is not just right and wrong. There are many grey areas and these stories guide us to choose the right path in our life also. I was objecting to your logic that just because Kumbhakarna fights for Ravana he is to be burnt every year. That does not seem to be correct especially as he is compelled to fight knowing that his brother is doing adrama.

      Reply

  14. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 30, 2011 @ 19:39:25

    If Kumbhakarna was compelled for fighting from Ravana side then why this doesnt apply for Vibhishan? Ravan could have very well compelled Vibhishan also but he did not because he knew that he follows dharma not at that instant but from starting itself. Even Hanuman also noticed prior to war when he first visited Lanka for searching Sita, he found someone chanting Ram Naam and that was Vibhishan not Kumbhakarna. Vibhishan kept advising Ravan but Kumbhakaran and Indrajit didnot. In turn both of them fought for the adharma but Vibhishan did not. Hence Vibhishan is not burnt along with these cruel asuras.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 30, 2011 @ 19:59:01

      Yes your question is correct. Choosing the path of Dharma is complicated. That is why these stories are written to help us in choosing the path correctly. So we should understand it. Valmiki specifically created 2 brothers both oppose Ravana’s action. One chooses to stay and fight One chooses to fight with Rama. Infact Kumbhakarna attacks Rava in 2 separate Sargas. Just saying even if it is your own brother fight against him if he does adharam is not correct Then Bhishma and Dronacharya also are wrong. See if you can come out with some other explanation.
      Basically I am not disagreeing with you but situation warrants a better explanation. Because many people think Vibishana is doing adharma as he is revealing all Ravana’s secrets and helps Rama in defeating his own brother for the sake of kingdom. In Ramayana story for the sake of kingdom Bharatha,Sugriva and also Vibhishana does some actions so it is same story repeated with minor differences and all situations are complicated. Simply saying Kumbhakarna is fighting on the side of Adharma is not right. If he had not said Ravana is wrong then probably your answer could be accepted. But there is dharma that you must fight as a soldier taking orders and not question the authority. The decision taken by Bhishma and Dronacharya is based on that Dharma. But vidura just walks away and he also does not support the enemy. But Vibhishqana not only refused to fight but also aided the enemy. Why?

      Reply

  15. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 30, 2011 @ 20:30:17

    Sir, Vibhishan never asked Lord Ram for handing the command of lanka postwar. It was pre war decision of Lord Ram to hand over the command of Lanka to vibhishan because he was the perfect candidate for that post who recognised the path of dharma during that highly pressurised situation whereby he even faced life threat from Ravan. This case has been repeated many times during the Lord Ram’s incarnation. One is the case of Vibhishan, the other two are – handing over command of kishkindha to sugriva because though not so strong like Bali, sugriva was quite fair leader in terms of dharma and humanity as compared to his elder brother. The other one is – Handing over command of patal lok to magardwaj (son of great hanuman) after killing ahiravan, because here also the dharma factor was quite nicely possessed by him as compared to his master. As far as soldiers are concerned, it is very clear that soldiers of gaddafi, saddam hussain and many other dictators, though knew that what they are doing on command of their boss is adharma still obeyed his orders but they failed on the dharma path though they fulfilled their duties. So today also no one even thinks that vibhishan should also be burnt along with the three asuras. As he joined the Lord Ram side, his all failure of duty is covered by following dharma side.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 30, 2011 @ 21:43:23

      No I never said about Vibhishana being burnt. I am questioning Kumbhakarna being burnt every year. Vibhishana fights on the side of Dharma after he fails to convince Ravan. So agreed. The problem is only with Kumbhakarna. Would you also every year de-nigrate the soldiers who fought and died for Gaddafi and Saddam or for that matter Bin ladden or Prabhakaran. Leaders can be anlysed for Dharma. Kumbhakarna and Indrajit are just obeying orders.
      Good your points are good Keep it up

      Reply

  16. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 31, 2011 @ 00:59:47

    Yes my points are good and very good. But i think you are very much personally hurt due to the burning of these asuras. Why the world prays the statue of Lord Ram along with laxmana, sita and hanuman only? Why dont people pray the statue of trillions of monkey who fought from Lord Ram side? I will suggest this point to the committes of various temples to keep statues of all the trillions of monkeys along with Sugriva, jamvant, nal-nil and all the monkeys becuase you wont be satisfied only with the statues of Lord Ram, laksmana, sita and Hanuman as in the case of Ravan, kumbhakarna and indrajit. I think you have very weak senses that’s why you believe in the complete history and not in the theme or summary. According to you before and after a war, not only the general but the complete 16 lakh indian army should meet the president at a time. Good sense keep it up. I will request committies to give contract for the trillions of statue of the monkeys for praying at temple and trillions of statue of asuras for burning at ramleela ground, some fool will definitely accept this proposal. You have a unique sense of logics. Once again, good keep it up.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 31, 2011 @ 10:12:28

      I am not worried about burning of Asuras at all. I am worried about distortion of Hinduism. Simplification of problems lead to extremism ( I believe Christianity and Islam simplify everything as fight between god and devil) . People who go and kill Gandhi or Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi etc. simplify the problem as if killing them will solve some problem. You can prey to anybody that also wont solve any problem This blog is about understanding. If we understand things rightly we could achieve our goals faster and better. I have recd a mail on this topic which I want to put as posting So please wait till then It answers most of our questions. We can continue after that.

      Reply

      • Prabhat Pandey
        Oct 31, 2011 @ 11:42:27

        In the early stage of the debate only i was sure that you are supporter of some other religion and not hindu that is why you are against Lord Ram and feeling so sympathetic towards the asuras being burnt or killed. Your blog is not to understand ramayana but to demotivate people towards devotion to Lord Ram. You yourself seem to be some extremist against hinduism and lord Ram. But keep trying to promote islam and christianity you will never succeed. Becuase, these two religion always try to lure people to join but hinduism never offers such stupidity to promote hinduism because hinduism is base of all religion and doesnot need any promotion. I think you are comparing inspector beant singh with Lord Ram who shot the bullets to Indira gandhi and also trying to compare indira gandhi with ravan who was a threat to extremist during the operation blue star. If i am not wrong you are trying this comparision only. Please clarify.

  17. mghariharan
    Oct 31, 2011 @ 11:46:09

    Please read
    https://mghariharan.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/kumbhakarna-or-vibhishana/
    and then let us continue discussions

    Reply

  18. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 31, 2011 @ 12:44:09

    Sorry, i dont believe in referring books, e mails during the debate. Whatever you want to say just say on the spot. Moreover, i never told you to read that book, sloka or any other reference. Whatever i submit, i submit on the spot. Please do the same and submit the extract of all the blogs and references. It seems that you dont have instant knowledge and every now and then you need to refere books and other manuals to continue the debate. Please reply on the comparison of personalities as you did in your last comments and what i replied in my last comments.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 31, 2011 @ 14:18:35

      that is my reply explained that Kumbhakarna follows samya dharma whereas Vbhishana follows pradhanya dharma. The reply is specific to the matter under discussion. So please read it or I will have to cut an paste it here.

      Reply

  19. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 31, 2011 @ 15:29:53

    Sir, dharma means only dharma, please donot split dharma in various categories which is not at all criteria to calculate dharma. Dharma is not based on grading system as in schools like grade A, B….E. You very well know that Lord Krishna said “YADA YADA HI DHARMASYA GLANIR….” please note he never said YADA YADA HI SAMYA DHARMASYA OR PRADHAN DHARMASYA…”. Not only kumbhakarna fought from adharma but he also fought for the adharma knowingly. Any involvement for adharma is adharma, it may be his part of duty but overall he fought for adharma hence burnt along with Ravan and indrajit.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Oct 31, 2011 @ 20:14:43

      The entire Ramayana and Mahabharata is about Dharma in Quandary ( धर्मसन्कट) Even Yudhistra and Bhishma could not pin point what is correct. That is why I was saying all along dont make it simple. I Have uploaded manusmriti You can see in posting Vegetarian or Nonvegetarian there is no clear instructions either way. There are no 2 dharmas. You must obey your father is one dharma which Rama follows and Prahalada does not follow. depends on situations and events

      Reply

  20. Prabhat Pandey
    Oct 31, 2011 @ 20:45:43

    Sir, any matter of mahabharata is very very lower than the matter of Ramayan. As stated earlier, mahabharata is a mere family dispute and simply has been given a hype due to presence of Lord Krishna and even his role is not justified in this family dispute. The dharma factor is no where involved in mahabharata. It is mere game of politics and taking over of command which is a routine. No matter was a global threat and no adharma was done in the mahabharata. In fact more adharmas were made from the pandava’s side only. Further, There is huge difference between obeying orders of Ram’s father and Prahalad’s father. One ordered only to leave the palace and other ordered not to pray vishnu which is a clear instruction not to follow dharma. As far as vegeterian and non vegiterian is concerned, any food which includes slaughtering of life (with blood contents) is called non veg and food not involving slaughtering of life is veg.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Nov 01, 2011 @ 11:46:37

      1. Point about Mhabharata is correct. But Dharma of Kings affect society. In modern times due to capitalism individual freedom is given over importance Look around us Pakistan, nepal, Ceylon Bangladesh. People suffer due to failure of Raja dharma. Mahabharata is about rajadhanrma.
      2. You have also made difference about following fathers instructions. When it is Pradanya dharma then samanya dharma is overtaken Example Meera though married to king considered Krishna as her true husband. So you cannot reject the premises of Pradanaya dharma.

      Reply

  21. Prabhat Pandey
    Nov 01, 2011 @ 13:56:31

    Regarding Meera, you dont know difference between relations and bhakti. Bhakti is independent of maya and all relations. Who told that married women cannot be devoted towards Ram or Krishna. Totally baseless logic. Further, who told that Duryodhan was failure in kingdom and Yudhishtir would have commanded better. Yudhishtir was the one of the biggest adharmi in the history who has gambled on his brothers and even his wife. Total adharmi panadavas.

    Reply

    • mghariharan
      Nov 01, 2011 @ 18:46:43

      Meera was married to King she forsook him and accepted krishna as her husband.He even poisoned her. Forsaking husband or father like Prahalada are pradanya dharma in search of god. Normal people like us just follow samanya dharma. respecting elders and loving dear ones

      Reply

  22. Prabhat Pandey
    Nov 02, 2011 @ 19:46:14

    Today i came to know a very big hidden truth that i am in debate with Lord Hariharan, superior than supreme lord Krishna. Oh Lord Hariharan, please forgive me that i didnot recognise you for so many days. You are the actual adipurusha and the only great lord who has objected to bhakti of Meera which even supreme lord Krishna also did not dare so due to the depth of Meera’s bhakti. But today i found my god Lord Hariharan who has finally brought out the truth of bhakti and its relativity with only unmarried person. Oh god please forgive me. People say that tenth avatar of vishnu will be kalki, but now it is clear that it will not be kalki, but it will Lord Hariharan avatar residing in bangaloro lok just like vaikunth lok. Once again, i beg your pardon my lord that i dare engage in a debate with you. Lord Hariharan, the ultimate guide and path to the truth, gyan and bhakti, please i send me cassette / CD which contains the original sound of Lord Hariharan saying the rita / sita / nita or any other sandesh superior than gita sandesh generated by you.

    Reply

  23. Prabhat Pandey
    Dec 16, 2011 @ 15:44:55

    What happened Sir? You are not accepting my debate. Any special reason sir? Please tell me if you dont want i will quit from the blog.

    Reply

  24. Henna
    Jun 12, 2013 @ 17:30:31

    Ravan or Rama

    I read almost all the comments here… And what comes up here is that why Vali was given heaven post death?
    rest posted as blog

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 136 other followers