karthik_v

Hare Krishna Raghuraman: Let us review verses 1:13:24-33 along with their exact translation. We will find that the truth bears absolutely no relationship to what this fraud site claims. 1:13:24: -------- Sanskrit verse: tathaa kekaya raajaanam vR^iddham parama dhaarmikam shvashuram raaja si.mhasya saputram tvam iha aanaya Word by word translation: tathaa= likewise; Kekaya+raajaanam= Kekaya's king; vR^iddham= elderly one, [old one]; parama+dhaarmikam= very, virtuous one; shvashuram= father-in-law; raaja+simhasya= of king, the lion's [Dasharatha's]; sa+putram= along with his sons; tvam+iha+aanaya= you, here, fetch. Line translation: "Likewise, King of Kekaya, an elderly, very virtuous, and also the father-in-law of our King Dasharatha, the Lion, be fetched by you along with his sons..." 1:13:25: -------- Sanskrit verse: a~Ngeshvaram maheSvaasam romapaadam su satkR^itam vayasyam raaja si.mhasya saputram tam iha aanaya Word by word translation: anga+iiswaram= Anga kingdom's, Lord; mahaa+bhaagam= very, prosperous one; Romapaadam; su+satkritam= well honoured; vayasyam= friend of; raaja+simhasya= king, the Lion [Dasharatha]; sam+aanaya= well, brought; yashashwinam= illustrious one. Line translation: "Romapaada, the King of Anga kingdom, very prosperous and illustrious friend of our King, the Lion [Dasharatha.] And that illustrious one be brought here...honouring him well..." 1:13:26: -------- Sanskrit verse: tathaa kosala raajaanam bhaanuma.ntam susatkR^itam magadha adhipatim shuuram sarva shaastra vishaaradam Word by word translation: tathaa= like that; kosala+raajaanam= Kosala's, king; bhaanuma.ntam= Bhanumanta; susatkR^itam= well honoured; magadha+adhipatim= Magadha, king; shuuram= brave one; sarva+shaastra+vishaaradam= in all scriptures, profound. Line translation: "Like that King of Kosala namely Bhanumanta, be honoured [and invited and likewise] King of Magadha, a brave one and a profound one in all scriptural knowledge..." 1:13:27: -------- Sanskrit verse: praaptij~nam paramodaaram susatkR^itam puruSarSabham raaj~naH shaasanam aadaaya chodayasva nR^iparSabhaan praaciinaan sindhu sauviiraan sauraaSThreyaam ca paarthivaan Word by word translation: praaptij~nam= Praaptijna, the king of Magadha; parama+udaaram= kind-hearted one; susatkR^itam= well honoured; puruSarSabham= king, the Sacred Bull; raaj~naH+shaasanam+aadaaya= king's, orders, taking; chodayasva= motivated by it; nR^iparSabhaan= kings, the Sacred Bulls; praaciinaan= eastern regional kings; sindhu+sauviiraan+sauraaSThreyaam= Sindhu, Sauviira, Sauraastra; ca= also; paarthivaan= kings of. Line translation: "That king of Magadha, Praaptijna, the kind-hearted, and the Sacred Bull among kings, be well honoured [and invited. Further] taking the orders of King Dasharatha and motivated by those orders, the kings of Sindhu, Sauviira and Sauraastra kingdoms may also be invited..." 1:13:28: -------- Sanskrit verse: daakSiNaatyaan narendraam ca samastaan aanayasva ha santi snigdhaaH ca ye ca anye raajaanaH pR^ithivii tale Word by word translation: daakSiNaatyaan= southern kingdoms'; narendraam+ca= kings, also; samastaan= all of them; aanayasva+ha= be invited, verily; santi= should there be; snigdhaaH+cha= friends, other; ye+cha+anye= those, also, other; raajaanaH= kings; pridhvi+tale= on earth's, surface.. Line translation: "Kings of southern kingdoms also, all of them be invited and should there be any other friends and other friendly kings on the surface of the earth..." 1:13:29: -------- Sanskrit verse: taan aanaya yathaa kSipram sa anugaan saha baandhavaan etaan duutaiH mahaabhaagaiH aanayasva nR^ipa aaj~nyaa Word by word translation: taan= them; aanaya= be invited; yathaa+kshipram= as early as; sa+anugaan= along with, followers; saha+baandhavaan= along with, their relatives; etaan= all these [kings]; duutaiH+mahaabhaagaiH= by envoys, great devoted ones; aanayasva= invite them; nR^ipa+aaj~nyaa= by king's, orders Line translation: "Them be invited as early as possible with all their followers, relatives...and all these kings be invited by envoys of great devotement...by the orders of our king... [Thus Sage Vashishta said to minister Sumantra.]" 1:13:30: -------- Sanskrit verse: vasiSTha vaakyam tat shrutvaa suma.ntraH tvaritaH tadaa vyaadishat puruSaan tatra raaj~naam aanayane shubhaan Word by word translation: vashishta+vaakyam= Sage Vashishta's words; tat= those; shrutvaa=on hearing; SumantraH= Minister Sumantra; tvaritaH+tada= expeditiously, thus; vyaadishat= ordered; puruSaan= his men, [envoys]; tatra= thither; raajnanam+aanayane= kings, to be invited; shubhaan= devout men [envoys]. Line translation: "On hearing the Sage Vashishta's those words, Minister Sumantra expeditiously ordered his envoys, devout ones, to invite all those kings...thither..." 1:13:31: -------- Sanskrit verse: svayam eva hi dharmaatmaa prayaato muni shaasanaat suma.ntraH tvarito bhuutvaa samaanetum mahaamatiH Word by word translation: svayam+eva= personally, thus; dharmaatmaa= virtuous one; prayayou= journeyed; muni+shaashanaat= by sage's, orders; SumantraH= Sumantra; twaritaH+bhuutva= brisk, be became; samaanetum= to fetch; mahii+kshitaH= earth's, rulers. Line translation: "Sumantra, the virtuous minister became brisk upon the Sage's words and personally journeyed to fetch all the rulers on the earth." 1:13:32: -------- Sanskrit verse: te ca karmaantikaaH sarve vasiSThaaya ca maharSaye sarvam nivedayanti sma yaj~ne yat upakalpitam Word by word translation: te= those; karmaantikaaH= artisans; sarve= all; Vashishtaaya+cha= to Sage Vashishta; maharSaye= to the sage; sarvam= all details; nivedayanti+sma= have, reported; yajne= in ritual works; yat+upakalpitam= that which accomplished. Line translation: "All those artisans [engaged in the ritual works] have reported to that sage Vashishta, the details of all those ritual works that are accomplished by them." 1:13:33: -------- Sanskrit verse: tataH priito dvija shreSThaH taan sarvaan munir abraviit avaj~nayaa na daatavyam kasya cit liilayaa api vaa Word by word translation: tataH= then; priitaH= satisfied; dwija+shreshtaH= Brahmin, the eminent [sage Vashishta]; taan+sarvaan= to, all of them; muniH+abraviit= the sage, said; avaj~nayaa= with disrespect; na= not; daatavyam= to be endowed; kasya+chit= to anyone; liilaya+api= deceptively, also, also; vaa= either. Line translation: "Then the satisfied Sage Vashishta, Brahmin, the eminent, spoke this way to all of them, "Nothing to be endowed to anyone with disrespect or deceptively, either..."" I don't have Satapatha Brahmana with me. Perhaps, J N Das can help you with that. Anyway, this should have convinced you not to take what all those abusive sites claim on face value. The best course is to learn from a bonafide acharya.

You don't have to regret having visited that garbage site. You are fortunate as you posted your doubt here and got it clarified. Some people don't and it is such gullible ones these sites are targetting. You have shown prudence. I wouldn't really advice you to buy a book by searching the google. Many western authors intentionally mistranslated the vedas. So, did a few Indians. In doing so, they tried to show that the vedas are mundane. Motilal Banarasi dass has a few nice collections, but I would suggest that you ask J N Das to suggest the best editions. He is an expert in this area.

I realized a factual error in the above post of mine. Chandragupta, the Gupta's grandson was Vikramaditya and not Ashoka. So, the king who patronised Buddhism and inscribed the minor edicts could have been very different (I don't know what his could have been) from the Ashoka who inscribed the major edicts that talk of protecting the Brahmins.

I realized a factual error in the above post of mine. Chandragupta, the Gupta's grandson was Vikramaditya and not Ashoka. So, the king who patronised Buddhism and inscribed the minor edicts could have been very different (I don't know what his could have been) from the Ashoka who inscribed the major edicts that talk of protecting the Brahmins.

Somebody mentioned in another thread that the edicts of Ashoka, seem to belong to 2 different people, going by its contents. I too feel that this may be true, though we can't be certain. Let us consider the major edict # 3: Why should a Buddhist king demand special generosity to Brahmins? Also see edict # 4: Again why would a Buddhist king lament the ill-treatment of Brahmins and rejoice at the restoration of respect for them? Contrast this with minor edict A: Ignore that word Hindu in the bracket, which was the British interpretation, though not wrong. But, the aversion to the polytheistic religion is obvious. So, it could be possible that the major edicts were written by the Hindu Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, the Maurya, while the minor edicts were written by the Buddhist Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, the Gupta.

Somebody mentioned in another thread that the edicts of Ashoka, seem to belong to 2 different people, going by its contents. I too feel that this may be true, though we can't be certain. Let us consider the major edict # 3: Why should a Buddhist king demand special generosity to Brahmins? Also see edict # 4: Again why would a Buddhist king lament the ill-treatment of Brahmins and rejoice at the restoration of respect for them? Contrast this with minor edict A: Ignore that word Hindu in the bracket, which was the British interpretation, though not wrong. But, the aversion to the polytheistic religion is obvious. So, it could be possible that the major edicts were written by the Hindu Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, the Maurya, while the minor edicts were written by the Buddhist Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, the Gupta.

Just to clarify the question I raised above, Minor edict # 5 talks of "the capital", which the British translated as Pataliputra. That is certainly contentious. Is there any other direct mention of Pataliputra?

Just to clarify the question I raised above, Minor edict # 5 talks of "the capital", which the British translated as Pataliputra. That is certainly contentious. Is there any other direct mention of Pataliputra?

I have another question for the members of this forum. In his edicts, does Ashoka mention Pataliputra as his capital?

I have another question for the members of this forum. In his edicts, does Ashoka mention Pataliputra as his capital?

Hare Krishna J N Das, Thanks for the wonderful post. First of all, the association of Pataliputra (Patna) with the Palibothra of Megasthenes itself was done on pure linguistic grounds without necessary historical evidences. Second, if Ashoka (grandson of CG Maurya) ruled Pataliputra, why is that none of his edicts are found in Pataliputra? Is it not a little strange that Ashoka wouldn't inscribe anything in his own capital? I am also forced to think that Megasthenes indeed visited Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. Let us consider this following from Starbos' commentary o Megasthenes Indica: Look at the mention of rice as the staple food. Rice was and is the staple food of those in the Gangetic belt and the South. Not of those in the northwest. Megasthenes doesn't even mention about wheat. So, it is probable that he visited Chandragupta, the Gupta, who ruled Pataliputra. Present day Mauryas are a Harijan community found in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and western UP. Not in Bihar, where Pataliputra is located. So, it is probable that Chandragupta, the Maurya and his grandson Ashoka, ruled along the northwestern part of India. This may raise another question. If Megasthenes indeed visited Chandragupta, the Gupta, then why does he not mention about Nalanda or Kalidasa. Valid. One explanation is that he did but those parts of his writings or no more extant. The other explanation is that he never visited India and all his decriptions are purely second hand, often erroneous. Consider the following from his wrting: In any case, Megasthenes may not be a reliable source to provide window to India's ancient past. The British who discounted Puranas, despite many irrefutable astronomical keys validating them, instead relied on Megasthenes. Strange!

Hare Krishna J N Das, Thanks for the wonderful post. First of all, the association of Pataliputra (Patna) with the Palibothra of Megasthenes itself was done on pure linguistic grounds without necessary historical evidences. Second, if Ashoka (grandson of CG Maurya) ruled Pataliputra, why is that none of his edicts are found in Pataliputra? Is it not a little strange that Ashoka wouldn't inscribe anything in his own capital? I am also forced to think that Megasthenes indeed visited Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. Let us consider this following from Starbos' commentary o Megasthenes Indica: Look at the mention of rice as the staple food. Rice was and is the staple food of those in the Gangetic belt and the South. Not of those in the northwest. Megasthenes doesn't even mention about wheat. So, it is probable that he visited Chandragupta, the Gupta, who ruled Pataliputra. Present day Mauryas are a Harijan community found in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and western UP. Not in Bihar, where Pataliputra is located. So, it is probable that Chandragupta, the Maurya and his grandson Ashoka, ruled along the northwestern part of India. This may raise another question. If Megasthenes indeed visited Chandragupta, the Gupta, then why does he not mention about Nalanda or Kalidasa. Valid. One explanation is that he did but those parts of his writings or no more extant. The other explanation is that he never visited India and all his decriptions are purely second hand, often erroneous. Consider the following from his wrting: In any case, Megasthenes may not be a reliable source to provide window to India's ancient past. The British who discounted Puranas, despite many irrefutable astronomical keys validating them, instead relied on Megasthenes. Strange!

Shvu: What makes A L Basham an objective scholar, y the way? He accepted the Aryan invasion theory without basis. Now recent researches in astronomy, archeology and genetics have completely disproven any such invasion. A L Basham asserted that Harappa was a Dravidian civilisation and by no means Aryan. That, despite the fact that the script is undeciphered and nobody has a clue. He also accepted the ridiculously late dates for the composition of vedas. Astronomy has clearly shown that the vedas were composed latest by 6000 B.C.. I am not ridiculing A L Basham. He had 2 major handicaps: One, during his time it would have been impossible for somebody (that too an Indian) to rise academically, if he didn't accept the myths of European missionaries and linguists. Boy, what on earth makes linguistic analysis an objective science! Two, he wasn't trained in astronomy, archeology, genetics and biological anthropology. It is impossible to study ancient Indian history without knowledge of these areas. In truth, history itself is only an appendage to these objective studies when you are looking at ancient Indian life. So, A L Basham was in no position to know what life they would have lead. This was further complicated by the fact that he was no Sanskrit scholar and just went by the translations of the Europeans. So, let us not make it sound as if A L Basham can provide a window to ancient Indian lifestyle. What is next Shvu, on your list? Romilla Thapar, D N Jha, Witzel?! Coming to vegetarianism, there is no mention of meat-eating as a recommended practice in Valmiki Ramayana. In the vedas (I have only read Griffith's translations, not the original), there are a few mentions. But these are also recommended for special occasions. And that should again settle the issue. Meat-eating was not a standard practice in ancient India either before or after Siddhartha Gautama. Also, please note that there are many Buddhist schools (from the pre-Mahayana times) that believe that SG himself allowed meat-eating, provided the meat wasn't cooked especially for the bikshus. In fact, that was a major reason why the Jainas used to ridicule Buddhists for hypocrisy, in debates. So, vegetarianism in Buddhism was no less or no more stringent than that in ancient Hinduism.

I was reading about the orthodox Coptic Christians of Egypt. They remain vegetarian for 200 days a year. Of course, they consider that to be a sacrifice. One may also note that they are among the oldest sects of Christianity. And that spokes person was mentioning that the Copts initially were vegetarians.

Hare Krishna J N Das Prabhuji: That is true. Valmiki Ramayana is the original and authentic description of the divine avatar of Lord Rama. Any other version, which deviates from VR isn't authentic. But, from my reading of Kamba Ramayana, I don't think it deviates from VR. In fact, it treats Rama and Sita with more deference, as KR was written during the era of Bhakti movement. It was written around 9th century AD. For example, while VR states that Ravana grabbed Sita when he abducted her, Kamban finds even this thought repulsive. So, in KR, Ravana doesn't even touch Sita. It is with that kind of reverence that Kamban approached Ramayana. Also, we should remember that Ramanujacarya, another Sri Vaishnava acarya from Tamilnadu, had no objection to KR. Instead KR parayanam (recital) is regularly done in all Sri Vaishnava temples of Tamilnadu. That is why I was referring to KR. There is also a legend that Sri Rama himself ratified Kamban's version. Very valid. I agree completely. I have read that there are many recenssions of Manu, though I haven't read any of them. J N Das prabhu, could you kindly enlighten us on this? I agree that many forms of art etc., in this age may be corrupted versions, but, what makes me wonder is why no acarya ever objected to erotic depictions in our traditional temples. I haven't heard of any objections either from the acaryas of any Vaishnava sampradaya or Advaita sampradaya. Also, when we look at ancient Tamil literature, there is an explicit treatment of sex and no acarya has ever objected to any of them either. In fact, they were patronised by them. Even if we look at the engravings in Mahabalipuram, which depict themes from Mahabharata and which were scuplted around 1300 years ago, we find a lot of eroticism. I do see a pattern when I look at many of the art and literary forms of the past. They all have eroticism inter-woven with spiritual messages. And, I am not aware of any acarya objecting to them. Instead, these works constituted the mainstream worship in temples. Of course, I must clarify another point here. Readers shouldn't think that I am advocating some Osho kind of approach towards sex. Every acarya has stated that sex is a barrier that we need to transcend to realize the Supreme. My only question is can everyone do that? Obviously not. So, artificial renunciation is more suicidal. A person who is attached to his car, cannot claim that he is beyond sex. As gHari prabhu pointed out, the best course is to take the advice of a bonafide guru, as his teachings are tailor-made for the initiated disciple. That is why I showed the example of SP, who while indicating as to what the highest ideal is, applied it to the individuals as per their merit. For example, he encouraged George Harrison to chant the holy name in every concert. He did not ask him to shave his head and join the temple. SP knew the position of the devotee and according to the nature of the devotee, applied the ideals to him. And that is what makes a bonafide guru. The point I was hinting at was that some speakers, in ISKCON, often disproportionately over-emphasise on the need to renounce sex. They do this across the board, making it a general prescription. I tend to disagree with that.

Check out on the thread Tamil Traditions, started by Gauracandra to know if ancient Tamil culture was vedic.

gHari Prabhu: That was an excellent point. Merry Christmas and a very happy new year to you!

But, why do we even classify desires into animalistic and deva-like? For example, when Indra had sex with Ahalya, it was very much lusty and cheap. Likewise, books like Kamasutra talk of the positions adopted by Indrani. So, I find this classification artificial. Tough question. But, they are found in all ancient temple engravings. If they were not authoritative, how did they get in and why nobody objected? Rama and Sita were divine couple. And the very fact that Kamban vividly describes the sexual attraction between them also shows that our ancestors didn't feel anything wrong with sex. Asexual Gods and sexually super-charged Prophets seems to be a semitic notion. There is some truth to this, but we don't know if there were any contraceptive methods practised traditionally. Perhaps some Ayurvedic expert can answer this. India didn't face epidemics like Europe, till they came in, but even then until 18th century India's population was a mere 50 million. So, there may have been methods.

I disagree with you. Even in Gaudiya Sampradaya, Rupa and Sanatana Goswami had taken Muslim names and served the nawab, till they became renunciates. Now, would you not call that influence? Those were the times of oppression and different schools of Hinduism came up certain responses. So, there was a certain influence. One clear case is women covering their head in the north. This practice finds no mention in any Sanskrit work preceding the 10th century. This came into vogue following the Islamic practice of hijab. We do find that many achryas, during this period, promoted this practice for Hindu women also. Is that not influence? On the other hand, acharyas in places like Kerala, where there was little Muslim influence, never even mention this practice.

Also, Muslim and British rule in India could have brought about rigid attitudes towards sex.

SP did state, as quoted in Lilamruta part II that sex is only for procreating KC children and is allowed only once in a month. But, he hasn't given any shastric reason for that. If we look at other schools like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva etc., they don't have any such restriction. So, I am not sure that there is any shastric basis to this. But, all schools agree that sex is a barrier we need to transcend, for realization. So, perhaps, SP was meaning this when he said that we should restrict sex for only begetting KC children. But, I don't think that he applied this rule to all and sundry. An example is the first marriage he conducted in America between Michael (Mukunda) and Jan (Janaki). They lived together and were very hip. SP intiated them and after they helped him clean up the kitchen, he asked them what are they going to do now that they are initiated. They are bound to follow the 4 regulative principles. So, naturally living together is rejected. Mukunda is perplexed and asks SP if there isn't any love in KC. SP smiles and answers "Yes, there is. So, I am asking, why don't you marry"? Now, SP was even willing to initiate people, though by the strict interpretation they weren't following 4 regulative principles then. That is because, as a guru, he was telling his audience what is ideal, but applying it to the individuals according to their state of development. So, I think SP was talking of sex once a month only, as an ideal. Not a standard that everyone should pretentiously follow. But, at the same time, many in ISKCON do emphasise on this, and I disagree with that. Sex needs are individualistic and varies from one couple to another. I haven't seen any objection in the scriptures I have read, to a couple enjoying sex between themselves. Artificial restrictions are dangerous. We can also see from very old temple engravings that they portray positions from Kamasutra and Koka shastra. If our vedic ancestors had thought that sex was bad, they wouldn't have done it. Even if you read Valmiki or Kamba Ramayana, there are vivid descriptions of beauty that can be sexually arousing. Again proof that sex was not debarred in our ancient society. Kamba Ramayana, in particular vividly describes how Sita is aroused upon seeing Rama. If we look at ancient Tamil Sangam literature, again, sex is given prominence and not suppressed. Even if we go by SB, Kamini and Prathishta-asha are the toughest obstacles to overcome. So, how is it possible for someone to overcome the desire for sex, if he is still attached to earning in dollars and getting a green card? Great acharyas advocated abstinence only for those taking to ascetic order, not for grahasthas. Atleast, there is no shastric basis for restricting sex to grahasthas.

Gauracandra Prabhu, What you said has also been stated by the likes of Swami Vevekananda and Sri Aurobindo. In fact, the vedic roots of ancient Tamil culture itself can be better understood, if we were to go through ancient Tamil literature, numismatic and archeological evidences. And folklore of course. Many scholars have stated that ancient Tamil traditions have started with vedic traditions and rightly so. Here is an article by a very renowned scholar who has researched extensively in this area. Please note that some of the dates he attributes to anient Tamil literary works may be disputed by others. That is very natural as the ancient Tamil tradition was oral like ancient Sanskrit. So, it is very difficult to state when these works were indeed composed In essense, as we go through ancient Tamil literature, we see that it is essentially vedic. There have been periods later on when Buddhism and Jainism were also patronised by the Tamil kings, but essentially the culture has been a vedic one. The following link may be very useful: http://www.voi.org/michel_danino/tamil_cult01.html

That post from Gauracandra Prabhu on Yoko was interesting. But from what I read in SP biography and Lilamruta, I thought, Yoko was always antogonistic towards KC. There was one incident when Lennon plays Hare Krishna in various melodies on his piano, while the devotees are cooking prasadam. Yoko walks down the stairs and tells John to stop 'that' as she was getting a splitting head-ache. Perhaps, she was afraid that John would give away all the wealth to Krishna!

I just finished reading the Valmiki Ramayana (Sanskrit-English) of Gita press. I don't find one verse that states that Sri Rama ever ate meat. Similarly, many of the verse numbers quoted in cheap anti-Hindu sites either don't exist or imply something very different from what these sites claim. The only place where the mention of meat is when Vali addresses Rama. Vali states that a cow has to be protected. He says that Brahmanas cannot harm other lives. Likewise, Kshatriyas cannot harm innocent people. Then Vali states that even the meat-eaters are restricted to consume only 5-clawed animals. Then he laments as to why Rama attacked him, a monkey. By no stretch, can these verses be taken to mean that Rama ate meat. If any, it only reflects on the state of a society that held meat-eating in low esteem. Hope this settles the question.