Reason why Vaishanava Avatars(Not GODS)are targetted

[realist31 0]

Very Simple ,Vaishanava GODS like Rama or Krishna were not as perfect as a GOD is,they are avatars and not parabrahm like the Trinity of gods.

Rama killed Vaali hiding behind the trees,no matter what you say to justify it,it still shows Vaalis powers are more superior to Ramas and it makes it seem he has no way to kill Vaali other than by deciet

Same way Krsna sided Pandavas even though Pandavas were far from perfect,how else do u explain the arrogance of Bheema and Arjuna all along Mahabaratha and still Krsna side them and also kill Kauravas by pure deciet and treason.

So that is why these Avatars(Not GODS)are targetted

 

Rama and Krishna died like mortals they are not GODS but Avatars.They were also bound by their actions(Karma of the past)and were not invincible.

 

Krishna could not even save Abhimanyu,all he did was save Pandavas but he had lot of double standard.

 

He never revelaed Karnas identity to Arjnua but revelaved Arjuna was Karnas brother to Karna

He hampered Karna in more than one way and never cared to think about the insults Karna was put that prompted him to side Duryodana

He enjoyed sensual pleasures and that makes me more mortal.

 

Narayana is ultimate god and worth of worship but if you take Rama or Krishna they had lots of flaws,not as much as common humans have but still they had likes and dislikes

 

Krishna talks about how not to have EGO and says he wont support arrogant people and support only humble and righteous people,what about Bheema and Arjuna who were arrogant and also Yudhistra and other pandavas lusted for Panchali before Kunti asked them to share her..

 

Visnu is supreme not his avatars.

[Beggar 0]

Bhagavad Gita As It Is <center>Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge</center>

 

TEXT 11

 

 

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

avajananti--deride; mam--Me; mudhah--foolish men; manusim--in human form; tanum--body; asritam--assuming; param--transcendental; bhavam--nature; ajanantah--not knowing; mama--Mine; bhuta--everything that be; maha-isvaram--the supreme proprietor.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.

 

PURPORT

 

From the other explanations of the previous verses in this chapter, it is clear that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although appearing like a human being, is not a common man. The Personality of Godhead, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the complete cosmic manifestation, cannot be a human being. Yet there are many foolish men who consider Krsna to be merely a powerful man and nothing more. Actually, He is the original Supreme Personality, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (isvarah paramah krsnah); He is the Supreme Lord.

There are many isvaras, controllers, and one appears greater than another. In the ordinary management of affairs in the material world, we find some official or director, and above him there is a secretary, and above him a minister, and above him a president. Each of them is a controller, but one is controlled by another. In the Brahma-samhita it is said that Krsna is the supreme controller; there are many controllers undoubtedly, both in the material and spiritual world, but Krsna is the supreme controller (isvarah paramah krsnah) and His body is sac-cid-ananda, nonmaterial.

Material bodies cannot perform the wonderful acts described in previous verses. His body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge. Although He is not a common man, the foolish deride Him and consider Him to be a man. His body is called here manusim because He is acting just like a man, a friend of Arjuna's, a politician involved in the Battle of Kuruksetra. In so many ways He is acting just like an ordinary man, but actually His body is sac-cid-ananda-vigraha--eternal bliss and knowledge absolute. This is confirmed in the Vedic language also (sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krsnaya): "I offer my obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, who is the eternal blissful form of knowledge." There are other descriptions in the Vedic language also. Tam ekam govindam: "You are Govinda, the pleasure of the senses and the cows." Sac-cid-ananda-vigraham: "And Your form is transcendental, full of knowledge, bliss and eternality."

Despite the transcendental qualities of Lord Krsna's body, its full bliss and knowledge, there are many so-called scholars and commentators of Bhagavad-gita who deride Krsna as an ordinary man. The scholar may be born an extraordinary man due to his previous good work, but this conception of Sri Krsna is due to a poor fund of knowledge. Therefore he is called mudha, for only foolish persons consider Krsna to be an ordinary human being because they do not know the confidential activities of the Supreme Lord and His different energies. They do not know that Krsna's body is a symbol of complete knowledge and bliss, that He is the proprietor of everything that be and that He can award liberation to anyone. Because they do not know that Krsna has so many transcendental qualifications, they deride Him.

Nor do they know that the appearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in this material world is a manifestation of His internal energy. He is the master of the material energy. As has been explained in several places (mama maya duratyaya), He claims that the material energy, although very powerful, is under His control, and whoever surrenders unto Him can get out of the control of this material energy. If a soul surrendered to Krsna can get out of the influence of material energy, then how can the Supreme Lord, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the whole cosmic nature, have a material body like us? So this conception of Krsna is complete foolishness. Foolish persons, however, cannot conceive that the Personality of Godhead, Krsna, appearing just like an ordinary man, can be the controller of all the atoms and of the gigantic manifestation of the universal form. The biggest and the minutest are beyond their conception, so they cannot imagine that a form like that of a human being can simultaneously control the infinite and the minute. Actually although He is controlling the infinite and the finite, He is apart from all this manifestation. It is clearly stated concerning His yogam aisvaram, His inconceivable transcendental energy, that He can control the infinite and the finite simultaneously and that He can remain aloof from them. Although the foolish cannot imagine how Krsna, who appears just like a human being, can control the infinite and the finite, those who are pure devotees accept this, for they know that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore they completely surrender unto Him and engage in Krsna consciousness, devotional service of the Lord.

There are many controversies amongst the impersonalists and the personalists about the Lord's appearance as a human being. But if we consult Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, the authoritative texts for understanding the science of Krsna, then we can understand that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is not an ordinary man, although He appeared on this earth as an ordinary human. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, First Chapter, when the sages inquire about the activities of Krsna, it is stated that His appearance as a man bewilders the foolish. No human being could perform the wonderful acts that Krsna performed while He was present on this earth. When Krsna appeared before His father and mother, Vasudeva and Devaki, He appeared with four hands, but after the prayers of the parents, He transformed Himself into an ordinary child. His appearance as an ordinary human being is one of the features of His transcendental body. In the Eleventh Chapter of the Gita also it is stated, tenaiva rupena etc. Arjuna prayed to see again that form of four hands, and when Krsna was thus petitioned by Arjuna, He again assumed His original form. All these different features of the Supreme Lord are certainly not those of an ordinary human being.

Some of those who deride Krsna, who are infected with the Mayavadi philosophy, quote the following verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam to prove that Krsna is just an ordinary man. Aham sarvesu bhutesu bhutatmavasthitah sada: "The Supreme is present in every living entity." (Bhag. 3.29.21) We should better take note of this particular verse from the Vaisnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Krsna. Jiva Gosvami, commenting on this verse, says that Krsna, in His plenary expansion as Paramatma, is situated in the moving and the nonmoving entities as the Supersoul, so any neophyte devotee who simply gives his attention to the arca-murti, the form of the Supreme Lord in the temple, and does not respect other living entities is uselessly worshiping the form of the Lord in the temple. There are three kinds of devotees of the Lord, and the neophyte is in the lowest stage. The neophyte devotee gives more attention to the Deity in the temple than to other devotees, so Jiva Gosvami warns that this sort of mentality should be corrected. A devotee should see that Krsna is present in everyone's heart as Paramatma; therefore every body is the embodiment or the temple of the Supreme Lord, and as such, as one offers respect to the temple of the Lord, he should similarly properly respect each and every body in whom the Paramatma dwells. Everyone should therefore be given proper respect and should not be neglected.

There are also many impersonalists who deride temple worship. They say that since God is everywhere, why should one restrict himself to temple worship? But if God is everywhere, is He not in the temple or in the Deity? Although the personalist and the impersonalist will fight with one another perpetually, a perfect devotee in Krsna consciousness knows that although Krsna is the Supreme Personality, He is all-pervading, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita. Although His personal abode is Goloka Vrndavana and He is always staying there, still, by His different manifestations of energy and by His plenary expansion, He is present everywhere in all parts of the material and spiritual creations.

[realist31 0]

You might quote whatever from Bagavad Geetha but you have to understand the flaws i mentioned did exist and Bagavad Geetha is Krishna verse and he isnt going to call himself inferior,you have to have a neutral view to judge someone.

Imagine if Lord Shiva did these mistakes in his avatars,wont you criticize him and ask for explanation as to why he did it.

We have the brain and we are allowed to question god for what he did,only he can answer it and you cant judge people who target the avatars as they do based on the epics.

Are you suggesting that these Avatars are beyond criticism or questioning,that would make them more like Dictators isnt it?

In Shiva Purana shiva plays a leela in which Nakeerar questions his poem and shiva accepts his mistakes,maybe the people who target Rama and Krishna are like Nakeerar and maybe god might say they are right in the criticism,how do you know?

 

GOD Never expects us to be his Yes man,then it would be like Christians who cant do anything other than follow 10 commandments or else they burn in hell,that isnt Hinduism

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Visnu is supreme not his avatars.

 

It is probably OK to think like that, but why does Lord Vishnu appear as such "imperfect" avatars? Essentially to help us, and to have some entertainment by being "imperfect".

[realist31 0]

 

It is probably OK to think like that, but why does Lord Vishnu appear as such "imperfect" avatars? Essentially to help us, and to have some entertainment by being "imperfect".

 

Think about it this way,we all are created by god (i believe Visnu and Shiva both being supreme)and lets say Visnu creates us,none of us are perfect,that doesnt make him imperfect,sameway his Avatars were certainly not perfect,you dont have to just say they are perfect out of fear,that is what the people who target the avatars are doing,pointing their flaws and that is perfectly ok,they are not saying Rama is bad,they are saying Rama did a bad thing,that is shooting Vaali from behind,no matter whether he is avatar or not we have the right to say that,dont we?Otherwise he will become a dictator and we will be praying him out of fear and not love,so where is the Bakthi there?

 

So its ok to Criticise Avatars,but Parabrahman Visnu is flawless,and no Southindian movie has made fun of him,so instead of Twisiting this thing lets accept the truth as it is..

[tackleberry 1]

 

It is probably OK to think like that, but why does Lord Vishnu appear as such "imperfect" avatars? Essentially to help us, and to have some entertainment by being "imperfect".

According to MadhvAchArya, the arguments pointing to alleged flaws in the Lord suffer from upajIvya virodha. Put simply, it goes like this, if we consider the oft-repeated accusation that Rama was a coward and lacked powers, because he killed Vali hiding behind a tree etc. etc.

 

Inference or anumAna: Rama is a coward

Source of Inference (hetu): Vali Episode

Source of this hetu: RAmAyaNa, which NEVER says Rama is a coward.

Conclusion: anumAna contradicts the source of its hetu, and therefore renders itself invalid. Technically, it's called upjIvya virodha.

 

The same logic provided by Madhva can be extended to ANY accusation regarding the Lord's alleged flaw, doing which we can render the opponent's argument invalid and meaningless.

[eshwaar101 0]

 

You might quote whatever from Bagavad Geetha but you have to understand the flaws i mentioned did exist and Bagavad Geetha is Krishna verse and he isnt going to call himself inferior,you have to have a neutral view to judge someone.

Imagine if Lord Shiva did these mistakes in his avatars,wont you criticize him and ask for explanation as to why he did it.

We have the brain and we are allowed to question god for what he did,only he can answer it and you cant judge people who target the avatars as they do based on the epics.

Are you suggesting that these Avatars are beyond criticism or questioning,that would make them more like Dictators isnt it?

In Shiva Purana shiva plays a leela in which Nakeerar questions his poem and shiva accepts his mistakes,maybe the people who target Rama and Krishna are like Nakeerar and maybe god might say they are right in the criticism,how do you know?

 

GOD Never expects us to be his Yes man,then it would be like Christians who cant do anything other than follow 10 commandments or else they burn in hell,that isnt Hinduism

to u they were flaws but to me they were transedental past times

[Kulapavana 0]

 

...they are not saying Rama is bad,they are saying Rama did a bad thing,that is shooting Vaali from behind,no matter whether he is avatar or not we have the right to say that,dont we?Otherwise he will become a dictator and we will be praying him out of fear and not love,so where is the Bakthi there?

 

Personally, I do not see any fault in that episode - not because I'm afraid to criticize an avatara of Lord Vishnu, but because I do not see any fault in this behavior given the situation in which Rama was placed.

 

I am also not stupid enough to think that my vision is perfect, or that my knowledge of the situation is complete. And even if I thought Lord Krsna's behavior was not perfect by all standards, so what? Does that negate the fact that He is the Supreme Lord who descended here out of His free will?

 

Finding faults is easy for me, but I have to also be honest.

[realist31 0]

 

Personally, I do not see any fault in that episode - not because I'm afraid to criticize an avatara of Lord Vishnu, but because I do not see any fault in this behavior given the situation in which Rama was placed.

 

I am also not stupid enough to think that my vision is perfect, or that my knowledge of the situation is complete. And even if I thought Lord Krsna's behavior was not perfect by all standards, so what? Does that negate the fact that He is the Supreme Lord who descended here out of His free will?

 

Finding faults is easy for me, but I have to also be honest.

 

Visnu is supreme but his Avatars are not is what i am telling and reasons are given,just cause you may not agree still doesnt mean they are not flaws,i dont see any other reason other than fear to question GOD(not realising Rama wasn't GOD,in Ramayana he is said as a King,a warrior and maybe a Avatar where does it say he is god,if he was god why did he die,in Krishanavatar why did he pay for his sin of shooting vaali from behind by getting killed by the archer who was Vaali in the next birth?Why did he pray Lord Shiva to fight Ravana?)

 

I am not finding faults either but what he did wasnt a act of bravery or he wasnt all that invincible,Visnu is but not Rama,think it this way,we are all created by Visnu,but none of us are perfect,same way Rama was above us but below Visnu or Shiva or any GOD.

 

Avatar is not GOD so need to be exempt from criticism and Rama did pay for his sins in his next birth,so what does that imply.

 

Hari Om Namachivaya

[realist31 0]

 

Bhagavad Gita As It Is <center>Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge</center>

 

TEXT 11

 

 

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

avajananti--deride; mam--Me; mudhah--foolish men; manusim--in human form; tanum--body; asritam--assuming; param--transcendental; bhavam--nature; ajanantah--not knowing; mama--Mine; bhuta--everything that be; maha-isvaram--the supreme proprietor.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.

 

PURPORT

 

.

 

This is exactly how people like SaiBaba get away,by calling all the nonbelievers as fools and people in Maaya

 

Saibaba tells us he also came from above in a Transcendental form and is supreme,so are we going to accept that as well?

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

This is exactly how people like SaiBaba get away,by calling all the nonbelievers as fools and people in Maaya

 

Saibaba tells us he also came from above in a Transcendental form and is supreme,so are we going to accept that as well?

So now Lord Krishna is nothing more than a conartist? Is that what you mean?

[realist31 0]

 

So now Lord Krishna is nothing more than a conartist? Is that what you mean?

 

I didnt say that,but u tell me what difference is Krishna who said or reportedly said he is pure and all mighty,because anyone in a book or verse can say and die like he did,am i right?

 

Bagavad geetha calls people fools

 

Baba calls people fools who question him

 

Bible calls people sinners if they dont follow 10 commandments

 

Islam i dont even wanna go there

 

Every man or cult call the questioner a sinner or being in maaya,u tell me how different is Krishna who lived and died like everyone superior to the creator Visnu or parabrahm or anyone.

 

U didnt see first hand all his leelas?Neither did i?

 

In 100 years even Sai Devotees might claim he was GOD like Krsna,how different is he from Krsna is all i am asking?

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

I didnt say that,but u tell me what difference is Krishna who said or reportedly said he is pure and all mighty,because anyone in a book or verse can say and die like he did,am i right?

 

Bagavad geetha calls people fools

 

Baba calls people fools who question him

 

Bible calls people sinners if they dont follow 10 commandments

 

Islam i dont even wanna go there

 

Every man or cult call the questioner a sinner or being in maaya,u tell me how different is Krishna who lived and died like everyone superior to the creator Visnu or parabrahm or anyone.

 

U didnt see first hand all his leelas?Neither did i?

 

In 100 years even Sai Devotees might claim he was GOD like Krsna,how different is he from Krsna is all i am asking?

Krishna is Vishnu. I don't see why you differentiate between Them. They are one. If I change clothes, I'm not a different person. If I go by my middle name or a nickname, I'm not a different person. I'm still the same. I would quote the Gita when Krishna says that He remembers all of His past activities (since He's God), but you obviously don't trust anything in it.

I didn't realize you were talking of Shridi Sai Baba. He never claimed to be God. Sathya Sai Baba claims that. Shridi Sai Baba was a devotee of Lord Krishna. He never claimed otherwise, and he certainly never called anyone a fool who refused to call him God (a claim he never even made for himself).

[cbrahma 0]

 

This is exactly how people like SaiBaba get away,by calling all the nonbelievers as fools and people in Maaya

 

Saibaba tells us he also came from above in a Transcendental form and is supreme,so are we going to accept that as well?

If Saibaba tells us he is god then he has to prove it. Can he lift Govardhana Hill with one finger? Can he exhale universes from his pores? He he subject to birth death old age and disease?

That's why sastra needs the support of guru and sadhu.

[shvu 1]

 

If Saibaba tells us he is god then he has to prove it. Can he lift Govardhana Hill with one finger? Can he exhale universes from his pores? He he subject to birth death old age and disease?

That's why sastra needs the support of guru and sadhu.

 

Mohammad did not do any of these either. Yet Prabhupada had no problems calling him an avatar. Rama, The Buddha, Narasimha, etc., did not lift the goverdhan. Can we conclude that they are not avatars?

 

Why the special tests for Sai Baba while being lenient in the case of Mohammad?

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

According to MadhvAchArya, the arguments pointing to alleged flaws in the Lord suffer from upajIvya virodha. Put simply, it goes like this, if we consider the oft-repeated accusation that Rama was a coward and lacked powers, because he killed Vali hiding behind a tree etc. etc.

 

Inference or anumAna: Rama is a coward

Source of Inference (hetu): Vali Episode

Source of this hetu: RAmAyaNa, which NEVER says Rama is a coward.

Conclusion: anumAna contradicts the source of its hetu, and therefore renders itself invalid. Technically, it's called upjIvya virodha.

 

The same logic provided by Madhva can be extended to ANY accusation regarding the Lord's alleged flaw, doing which we can render the opponent's argument invalid and meaningless.

 

I am not aware of Rama being accused of cowardice in this episode. On the contrary it was the smart move, as he would have failed to win a head-on battle with Vali by virtue of the latter's unique abilities.

 

So I do not see any problems here.

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

If Saibaba tells us he is god then he has to prove it. Can he lift Govardhana Hill with one finger? Can he exhale universes from his pores? He he subject to birth death old age and disease?

That's why sastra needs the support of guru and sadhu.

That doesn't matter to realist. He needs to see Krishna do these things with his physical eyes, since he can't trust the scriptures on anything I guess, since he thinks that Lord Krishna was a liar and a conartist (sorry realist if I'm wrong... I'm just inferring... kinda like how you were inferring that Lord Rama was a coward).

[realist31 0]

 

That doesn't matter to realist. He needs to see Krishna do these things with his physical eyes, since he can't trust the scriptures on anything I guess, since he thinks that Lord Krishna was a liar and a conartist (sorry realist if I'm wrong... I'm just inferring... kinda like how you were inferring that Lord Rama was a coward).

 

What is wrong in expecting proof?Would you believe a Superman comics to be real?Rama was not a coward but his act certainly was that of a coward,how else you describe it,again Rama was never mentioned as GOD and just a Avatar,how many times should i say that,he prayed Lord Shiva to fight Ravana and died like mortals,does god die?

And again this is all in the epics and what proof do we have they existed,and tell me what is wrong in expecting proof?And yea what is wrong in wishing to see the miracles for real before believing them?

Woudl you believe if Saibaba says he will appear in the moon and not appear there for you?

I just dont understand what is wrong in asking proof.Please enlighten me in that aspect.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

Sripada Tripurari Maharaja,

...in the Bhagavata,

although other avataras have been mentioned along with a description of Their characteristics, Krsna's characteristics have not been mentioned. Yet if anyone insists that His characteristics have been described earlier, they can only be referring to the word bhagavan (rama-krsnav iti bhuvo bhagavan aharad bharam [sB 1.3.23]), which is not used when describing any of the other incarnations. In the paribhasa-sutra (SB 1.3.23), the characteristic of Krsna as svayam bhagavan is described, reiterating with emphasis what has been cited earlier (SB 1.3.23), ... Furthermore, the fact that this description has been left until the end of the description of the incarnations serves to emphasize the conclusion that Krsna alone is svayam bhagavan, and for this reason it has been placed there. As per the rules of literary composition, facts meant to be emphasized should be placed at the end of the composition. The fact that Krsna is mentioned earlier is not sufficient reason to conclude that this verse is not also ultimately about Him. Even if the grammar is somewhat awkward, which we are not willing to concede to, the author of the Bhagavata, Vyasadeva, has compensated for that in his statement yasmin prat-slokam abaddhavaty api. Here abaddhavaty means irregularity in composition. Vyasadeva has said that in such literature even if there is any irregularity in composition, it should not be allowed to get in the way of the urgency of the message. The urgent message of the Bhagavata is that Krsna is the ultimate expression of Godhead, the reservoir of all transcendenal loving exchange (rasa). There are ten subjects discussed in the Bhagavata. The first nine are asrita, dependents requiring shelter, and the tenth is the asraya, the object providing shelter. Among the asrita is isanukatha, discussion of the incarnations of Godhead. The asraya, however, is their source and shelter, svayam bhagavan Sri Krsna. No one can argue that the Bhagavata does not reach its apex in the discussion of Krsna-lila. This discussion constitutes the entire Tenth Canto, which is almost three times longer than any other canto. Krsna and his family members are also the exclusive subject of the Eleventh Canto. Together these two cantos make up more than half of the entire Bhagavata. Why so much attention to Krsna? Because Krsna is the asraya-tattva, the summum bonum of the Bhagavata, and thus even Narayana is his plenary portion. Sridhara Svami has stated this in his commentary on the Bhagavata:

 

 

dasame dasamam laksyam

asritasraya-vigraham

sri-krsnakhyam param dhama

jagad-dhama namami tat

"The Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata reveals the tenth subject, who is the shelter of all. He is known as Sri Krsna, and he is the ultimate source of all the worlds. Let me offer my obeisances unto him."

 

 

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

What is wrong in expecting proof?Would you believe a Superman comics to be real?Rama was not a coward but his act certainly was that of a coward,how else you describe it...

 

Like I said earlier, that is not the act of a coward. It was the smart move. During Shivaji's times, the marathas were not equipped to battle the huge Mughal army. So instead of direct combat, they engaged in guerilla warfare and found a lot of success which would most certainly not have been possible if they had fought them head-on. Does that make the Marathas cowards?

 

 

I just dont understand what is wrong in asking proof.Please enlighten me in that aspect.

 

I believe Rama and Krishna (if they existed) lived and died like regular humans. They were born just like other humans are born, they grew up over time just like everyone else, shaved, ate, slept, etc., just like everyone else. I had posted here earlier once that they would have even had internal organs like a liver, etc., which was met with shock and dismay by the pious devotees of this forum. Somehow, for some reason, to them an avatar can only have externally visible organs.

 

But all that aside, what kind of proof are you asking for? What kind of proof do you think is possible?

 

Cheers

[realist31 0]

 

Like I said earlier, that is not the act of a coward. It was the smart move. During Shivaji's times, the marathas were not equipped to battle the huge Mughal army. So instead of direct combat, they engaged in guerilla warfare and found a lot of success which would most certainly not have been possible if they had fought them head-on. Does that make the Marathas cowards?

 

 

 

I believe Rama and Krishna (if they existed) lived and died like regular humans. They were born just like other humans are born, they grew up over time just like everyone else, shaved, ate, slept, etc., just like everyone else. I had posted here earlier once that they would have even had internal organs like a liver, etc., which was met with shock and dismay by the pious devotees of this forum. Somehow, for some reason, to them an avatar can only have externally visible organs.

 

But all that aside, what kind of proof are you asking for? What kind of proof do you think is possible?

 

Cheers

 

So you urself feel there is a good chance they may not have existed and it may be a comic book story right?Even if they did exist u still agree they were just like u and me and mortal enough to suffer and die of old age or whatever,then u tell me why should they be above criticism?

 

Guerilla warfar for a human maybe smart,for god or a avatar does sound like cowardise,the whole concept of Rama being a avatar itself is blown when u compare him with any other king like Shivaji.So either way u accept he was mortal(this if he existed)so there is no reason for him not being above criticism.

 

If ur enemy does it then its cowardise if we do it its act of smart bravery,that is how we r all conditioned,arent we,i mean all humans..

 

Atleast u accept he was mortal.

 

As far proof,well u tell me wont u expect proof for something that is out of the ordinary or would u believe Superman and Batman also existed.

 

The onus is on those who claim that something exists to prove it with acceptable proof,today u can accept the world is round cause there are satellite pictures,where is the proof that Heaven or Hell exists?That Kailasa or Vaikunta or Heaven exist?

 

Dont u think Rama had that responsiblity to leave some proof so that people who use their brains like me would also get enlightened rather than believe anything that is written.

 

All in all at least the fact that he was a mortal is accepted..

[tackleberry 1]

 

I am not aware of Rama being accused of cowardice in this episode. On the contrary it was the smart move, as he would have failed to win a head-on battle with Vali by virtue of the latter's unique abilities.

 

So I do not see any problems here.

 

Cheers

 

Let's see. In your case, the inference is: Rama made a smart move because he didn't have the capacity to defeat Vali. In another person's argument, the inference could be: Rama is a coward because he hid behind a tree.

 

Both arguments are flawed, because your inferences contradict the source (upajIvya) of its hetu. Bottom line, no matter what the anumAna is (whether your inference that Rama couldn't have defeated Vali, or another inference that Rama was a coward), if it contradicts upajIvya, it's flawed.

[Dark Warrior 0]

The Vali Episode is misconstrued by most people. There is a simple explanation:

 

1) Vali asks Sri Rama 6 questions before dying, upon which Sri Rama clearly answers them.

 

2) Vali is pleased with the answers, and hails Rama as the Supreme Being before he dies.

 

I do not remember all the 6 answers that Sri Rama gave Vali, but here are two of them:

 

1) Vali had taken Sugriva's wife. He had chased away Sugriva even when the latter had apologised to him. In doing so, Vali had behaved like a common animal, filled with lust and pride.

 

Sri Rama told Vali that an animal deserves to be killed only this way, and Vali did not deserve the honor of a dignified death.

 

2) It was Rama Rajya, and on behalf of Bharata, he had the right to punish all wrong-doers. Vali had tried to kill Sugriva even after the latter had literally fallen at Vali's feet, asking for forgiveness. Therefore, Vali was punishable.

 

There is also another hidden meaning. Rama didn't want to give Vali the chance to recognise who He was (Supreme Lord Vishnu). If before Rama could get the chance to kill Vali, if Vali surrenders to Lord Rama's lotus feet, then the Lord would not be able to administer Dharma. He cannot kill a surrendered soul.

 

Before coming to fight Sugriva, Tara warns Vali about Rama, but Vali laughs it off saying, 'I know who Rama is. I know that He would never do wrong, being the embodiment of Dharma'.

 

So, if Rama had challenged Vali to a one-on-one fight, Vali would have lost. And it is quite possible then, that Vali will recognise who Rama really is, and will fall at Rama's lotus feet for Surrender. Sri Rama did not want to give this chance to Vali.

 

Too many people have misunderstood this episode, and quite frankly, there is nothing adharmic r even unnatural about Rama killing Vali the way He did. Even Vali asks for Rama's forgiveness and blessings before he dies, as he becomes satisfied with Rama's answers.

[Dark Warrior 0]

Many people think Srimad Ramayana is a tale spun by Valmiki. Do they actually know how many concepts of Vedanta this great Ithihasa teaches?

 

Here are a few examples:

 

1) Valmiki, when describing how Rama, Sita and Lakshmana walk through the forest, always mentions them as such, 'Sita followed Rama, and Lakshmana followed Sita'.

 

Sri Periyavacchan Pillai questions why this particular order of 'Rama, Sita, Lakshmana' is followed. Why not, 'Lakshmana, followed by Rama and Sita', or other such combinations?

 

Answer: Rama is Akara (A). Sita is (U). Lakshmana, being the Jiva, follows the holy couple (M). AUM = OM.

 

Thus, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana represent OMkara, the holiest symbol of Vedic truth.

 

2) It should be noted, that during Rama avatara, NOBODY could resist chanting Sri Rama's glories. Shurpanaka, a demoness praised Rama. Vali praised Rama before and after the fatal battle. Tara, wife of slain Vali, praised Rama. Ravana also praised Rama ('I know the brother of Bharata is great'). Mandodari praised Rama, even after He killed Ravana!!

 

3) Rama acted and behaved like a normal human. But there were some instances where He accidentally revealed His divinity:

 

Vishvamitra tells Dasharatha, 'aham vEdmi mahAtmAnam RAmam satya parAkramam'. Sri Vaishnava acharyas have given 11 different meanings for this sloka, indicating the divinity of Lord Rama.

 

Compare this sloka of Vishvamitra to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

 

AtmA are draStavyaH srotavyaH mantavyaH

nididhyAsitavyaH |

 

The Self, my dear, should be seen -- should be heard about, thought about, and lovingly meditated upon.

 

-- Yajnavalkya to his beloved wife Maitreyi, Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad.

 

Therfore, it is clear that Vishvamitra regularly meditated on Sri Rama daily, as is confirmed by 'Aham Vedmi...'

 

Consider the following verse:

 

- Yaa gati: yagjnaseelaanaam aahitaagnEs cha yaa gati: /

aparaOvartinaam yaa cha yaa cha bhoomi pradaayinaam//

mayaa tvam samanujnaatO gachcha lOkaan anuttamaan //

 

“I permit you to go to the highest worlds to which those who habitually perform yagjnas, those who perform “agnihOtra” with “aahitaagni”, those by total dedication to the Lord, leave this Prakriti maNDalam never to return and those who gift away “bhoomi” are ordained to reach – to that world (Paramapadam), I hereby dispatch you.”

 

This is Sri Rama, giving Moksha to Jatayu. A Sri Vaishnava acharya, Sri Kurathalvan, studied this and lovingly questions Sri Rama:

 

Oh! Lord! I am asking you one question. When you appeared as Sri Rama you called yourself a mere human being and as a man ran after the mysterious deer at the behest of your dear wife. When you got separated from her, you became so shaken and shattered that you did not know where she had gone.

 

This being so, how did you know how to send JaTaayu, the bird to Paramapadam? Don’t you see the contradiction in your actions in the two cases?”

 

You went about asking every sentient being and insentient thing like cow, bird, hill, river, cloud etc whether anyone of them had seen Sri Sita. And, that you would destroy the whole world, if you cannot find Sri Sita. Did you not have even the commonsense of ordinary folk when you swore to destroy the world, being after all a mere human being for whom this is beyond his Capacity?

 

“Oh! Lord! You broke the seven Saala trees that grew up like a huge mountain and threw the pieces down to the nether worlds, all with the minimal force of a single arrow. It is worth noting that the strong monkey, Vaali could not even shake a single branch of a single tree out of the seven. And, you went in search of friendship with Sugreeva who was physically driven from pillar to post by the same Vaali. How do you reconcile this contradiction?”

 

Oh! Lord! You are the one who is not bound by the cycle of birth and death. You ,Who in a second's anger made the Ocean King come and fall at Your lotus Feet to surrender, also fell to the cruel arrows of Indrajit? How did You let it happen?

 

Also You haven't even crossed the ocean to win evil Ravana, You didn't even know His might, but You made a friend in his younger brother and already crowned him the emperor of Lanka? How did You do it?

 

Strictly speaking, Sri Rama was simply, 'The butter-thief in disguise'. Hidden mischief, as referred to by Sri Vaishnavas.

 

 

There you go. If you think Ramayana is a mythological story of a heroic man, then why would the author go to the extent of 'hiding' this hero's godly status, rather than highlighting it, as most poets do?

 

Furthermore, look at the number of people who have surrendered/ or have been liberated by Lord Rama:

 

- Bharata & Lakshmana, as well as Shatrughna.

- Hanuman.

- Sugriva.

- Jatayu.

- Vibhishana.

- A Yaksha, who was actually a Gandharva/Deva under a curse.

- The rishis of Chitrakoota, whom Rama protected from demons.

- Vishvamitra.

- Guha.

- Ahalya.

 

And the list goes on. Srimad Ramayana is the essence of the Vedas, with Saranagati being its prime subject. It is history, if we accept it. And do I even need to mention the different types of service rendered to Rama by the likes of Hanuman, Bharata, Shatrughna, Lakshmana, Guha, etc.? Its endless.

[Dark Warrior 0]

One last post. Bhagavata apachara (Offense to devotees) is also dealt with in Srimad Ramayana.

 

Consider Lakshmana. He was such a great bhagavata, who never left Rama's side. Therefore, when he saw Bharata coming with his troops, he thought Bharata had plans to kill Rama. Lakshmana became angry and confused.

 

As it turns out, Bharata was a great devotee and only wanted to give back the Kingdom to Rama. Upon hearing lakshmana's doubts, Rama chastises Lakshmana.

 

Rama tells Lakshmana to go away from Him. Sri Rama, who never gets angry, becomes furious with Lakshmana, who had always been at Rama's side. So severe was the Lord's anger that Lakshmana was extremely upset and disturbed.

 

So, understand - The Lord never got angry at offenses done to Him (when Kaikeyi made Him leave). He was kind to even Kaikeyi. But when someone even doubted Bharata, a Bhagavata, Lord Rama became furious. And He did not even consider the fact that the offender was none other than His dear brother (and Adi Sesha), Lakshmana.

 

Another incident - During the battle in the skies with Ravana, Rama was hoisted on the back of Hanuman. Rama was never perturbed by Ravana's arrows. The Lord did not try to kill Ravana, but merely deflected the arrows, smiling serenely all the time.

 

Ravana then attempted to rouse Rama. He targeted the arrows at Hanuman. Immediately, Lord Rama's face changed. The Lord became angry and His face became pitiless. He let loose an arrow which immediately killed Ravana.

 

So, here again, the Lord demonstrates that He may even tolerate offenses to Him. But when His devotees are harassed, He never forgives the offender.