Guest Tenali Ram Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Hi, Is Ramayana mythology or history? If it's the latter, does that mean Ramayana gives us a historical account of what happened between Aryans (led by Ram) and Dravidians (led by Ravana) in ancient India? This seems to be the most common supposition, because North Indians look similar to light-skinned Europeans, whereas Dravidians in South India resemble the aboriginal tribes in Australia and elsewhere. Hope someone can give an idea as to whether this is the correct interpretation of Ramayana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Ramayana is about the lilas of lord ram who came on earth. This seems to be the most common supposition, because North Indians look similar to light-skinned Europeans, whereas Dravidians in South India resemble the aboriginal tribes in Australia and elsewhere. you mean to say indians and sri lankans are descendants of europe and australia. Excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 I do not think you have traveled in the countryside of U.P, Bihar and West Bengal. Have you ever met a North Indian from a village? Please do that and check up whether your assumption of all North Indians being light skinned is true. Please do not post political propaganda in this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Is Ramayana mythology or history? According to believers, Ramayana is a historical work that describes the avatar of Lord Ramachandra that occurred in the 24th divya yuga of the present manvantara period (vaivasvata manu). Today we are in the 28th divya yuga of the present manvantara period, which means 4 divya yugas (also called chatur yugas) have passed since the Ramayana was recorded. A divya yuga lasts 4,320,000 years, being made up of four smaller yugas: satya-yuga (1,728,000 years), treta-yuga (1,296,000 years), dvapara-yuga (864,000 years) and kali-yuga (432,000 years). Thus, roughly speaking, the Ramayana occurred around 17,280,000 years ago (4,320,000 x 4). If we take these time frames, it does not correspond to an Aryan invasion. In fact an Aryan invasion has not even been proven to have occurred at all. The Ramayana never mentions anything about Ravana being a dravidian. Over the last 100 years politicians in Tamil Nadu have made this claim for the sake of gaining votes by claiming to represent the "dravidians" who have been mistreated by the "aryans" since the time of Ramayana. There is no truth to such claims. Kumbhakarna was not a very fat south indian, and Ravana was not a south indian with 10 heads. They were semi divine personalities who ruled the world millions of years ago, at a time when the devas interacted freely with the human race. Further, the Ramayana mentions the distance between Lanka and India as having been 100 yojanas (roughly 800 miles), where as the present Ceylon is only 32 kilometers away from India. We see that both in terms of time and space, the present Sri Lanka and the Aryan invasion theory do not match with the ancient historical narrations of Ramayana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tenali Ram Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 If we take these time frames, it does not correspond to an Aryan invasion. In fact an Aryan invasion has not even been proven to have occurred at all. The Ramayana never mentions anything about Ravana being a dravidian. This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today. Plus, doesn't rg veda mention aryans and dravids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamritam CHAPTER 8 THE MASTER'S BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION AT DAKSHINESWAR March 11, 1883. MASTER (to the devotees): "Ordinary people do not recognize the advent of an Incarnation of God. He comes in secret. Only a few of His intimate disciples can recognize Him. That Rama was both Brahman Absolute and a perfect Incarnation of God in human form was known only to twelve rishis. The other sages said to Him, 'Rama, we know You only as Dasaratha's son.' I think word of the mahatmas of the recent past-those ones whom we actually KNOW to be realised is the final word. When we accept Sri Ramacandra as Supreme Brahm,the historicity of Ramayana falls into place. Dravidians and aryans are THE LAST THINGS THAT SHOULD MATTER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today Where???.lanka Mentioned in Ramayana is not South India. Plus, doesn't rg veda mention aryans and dravids? NO.Rigveda doesn't have any word called Dravidian. You gathered this from hindu hate sites. Abuse Alert: We have a hindu hater(Tenali) posing as hindu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today. Plus, doesn't rg veda mention aryans and dravids? You need to cite specific sanskrit shlokas for us to comment on. Simply saying "people in south were described like this" is meaningless. Unfortunately you may be basing you beliefs more on cartoons you watched as a kid than anything in the scriptures. The view that demons and asuras like Ravana were always dark black is just something shown in comic books and cartoons. It is in fact a racist undertone present within India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tenali Ram Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 You need to cite specific sanskrit shlokas for us to comment on. Simply saying "people in south were described like this" is meaningless. Unfortunately you may be basing you beliefs more on cartoons you watched as a kid than anything in the scriptures. The view that demons and asuras like Ravana were always dark black is just something shown in comic books and cartoons. It is in fact a racist undertone present within India. I don't know specific shlokas. I am speaking through observation. South Indians are dark and have african features, whereas North Indians are light-skinned and resemble caucasians (even the dark ones). In Ramayana, monkeys were talking like humans. But this is impossible and we all know it. So 'monkey' in Ramayan context could mean the normal south Indian/african features. THis is what I am assuming, because it seems logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I don't know specific shlokas. I am speaking through observation. Excuse me, but earlier you wrote this: "This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today." Where in the Ramayana are such descriptions found? Please back up your claims with evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today. So now you have clarified that what you meant was that Ramayana speaks about talking monkeys, and you feel South Indians look like talking monkeys. No offense meant, but I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is. Can you clarify what features of the monkeys in Ramayana resemble the features of South Indians today? Is it the monkey noses or the monkey ears or the monkey tails or the monkey hair? Your statement is better referred to as ludicrous. And if the monkeys are the South Indians, as you seems to be suggesting, then the monkeys (dravidians according to you) fought along side Rama (the aryans according to you), so there was no war between aryans and dravidians. As far as the features of the asuras (rakshasas), Kubera, Vibhishana, Indrajit, etc., all are described as effulgent and beautiful, including Ravana. Your thesis that asuras = black = dravidians is not supported in the Ramayana at all. In fact, let me ask you a question that you don't need to tell us the answer to. This is for yourself, to contemplate on. Have you ever read Valmiki Ramayana directly or are you basing all of this on things you heard here and there? If you have never read the Ramayana, then there is no point trying to argue what Ramayana speaks about. General logic would suggest first read it, then most of your questions will be answered automatically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 In fact, let me ask you a question that you don't need to tell us the answer to. This is for yourself, to contemplate on. Have you ever read Valmiki Ramayana directly or are you basing all of this on things you heard here and there? Obviously, he bases all his opinions on Google Search Pramana. Got a question about Hinduism? Google it. Question about Raghavendra Swami? Google it. Questions about the meaning of life? Google it. Google has all the answers and will never lead you astray. Whoever heard of inaccurate information on the internet? General logic would suggest first read it, then most of your questions will be answered automatically. But Christian missionaries don't follow that logic, or any other logic for that matter. They mostly Google things in their spare time, then take those results out of context and ask stupid questions on Audarya using fake pseudonyms like "Manmohan Singh" and "Tenali Ram." I think we should all go to Christian forums using names like "John the Baptist" and "Moses" and "Joseph" and ask questions like, "How is it that the all compassionate Judeo-Christian God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son?Why does the Judeo-Christian God make pharoah stubborn and then make Moses question him about releasing the Hebrews? Why does the JC God punish the Egyptians for pharoah's stubborness, which in turn was the result of God's intervetion?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tenali Ram Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 So now you have clarified that what you meant was that Ramayana speaks about talking monkeys, and you feel South Indians look like talking monkeys. It sounds racist when you put it that way. Let me clarify this a bit more. The word vanara may not refer to the monkeys we see today. It may refer to the earlier man (and he could've had features similar to Africans/South Indians). This isn't ludicrous, because modern man did have ape-like ancestors. So he could've resembled them. That's all I am trying to say, not equating south indians=monkey. I am southie myself. Anyway, southies and africans/aborigines are the few races that resemble the early man somewhat. Others, especially North Indians, don't. Isn't that a wee bit odd? Doesn't that at least point to the possibility of AIT? And if the monkeys are the South Indians, as you seems to be suggesting, then the monkeys (dravidians according to you) fought along side Rama (the aryans according to you), so there was no war between aryans and dravidians. Many Germans fought alongside Americans (against their country). Does that mean Americans and Germans didn't fight each other in world war 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 There are a couple of glaring fallacies in your racial theory. No sane person would believe that all South Indians belong to the same race. Negroid/Australoid as you claim. Anyone who has been to South India will confirm this. You do not need DNA profiling for this. Even DNA profiling has not confirmed that all South Indians or for that matter all Tamilians belong to the same race. The people of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka the other South Indian states are not at all keen to be called Dravidians. They want to emphasize their affinity with the Sanskritic Hindu culture. A study of the races of West Bengal claims that about 40% of the population there are Dravidian. According to the study the vast majority are Dravidian and Assyric. Caldwell the Christian Bishop, on whose scholarly work on Linguistics you base your racial theory, took the word Dravida from the Puranas. The term Dravida meant the country south of the Vindhyas and not a race. Ravana was the son of a Brahmin Rishi and thus a Brahmin. He was a Sanskrit scholar who wrote the famous Shiva Thandava Stotra. His mother was a Asura princess. Please read about Ravana before posting such racial claims that Ravana was a Dravidian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 The only thing I know which is a certainty about the Ramayana is after knowing it, a noble soul gets unflinching devotion for the Hero of that Great Epic. That is the only Worthy Goal to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today. Plus, doesn't rg veda mention aryans and dravids? even ravana and his brothers were not from lanka.Rakshas were not from lanka.It was actualy owned by kuber.ravan had just won it from him. Ravan himself was born in india. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canyenero Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 In my opinion Lord Ram has shown that mankind cant escape his own destiny. Even Lord Ram who knew all had to go through so much trouble. Live in the forest for 14 years fight a war etc. Jai sri ram, jai hanuman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canyenero Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Ramayan is lord Ram's leela even Nasa found proof of lord Ram's bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 In my opinion Lord Ram has shown that mankind cant escape his own destiny. Even Lord Ram who knew all had to go through so much trouble.Live in the forest for 14 years fight a war etc. Jai sri ram, jai hanuman Nice realisation. CHeers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manfromthefuture Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Even I can tune into Google Map and find the Calcutta's Howrah bridge from a Sattelite relayed photograph. A scientific explanation to the bridge which you see connecting India with Sri-Lanka is similar to that of a Island. Please read Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to understand the science behind it. Okay coming back to religion. Please visit: Did Aliens Bring Religion to Earth? I can give you 49 more links on similar topic . I am not arguing and disbelieving any religion but I am just sharing my opinion for the question on this thread. In short, my answer is no one knows if they were for real or a myth... but I definitely know that a human conscience always wants a comfort zone labelled as "God" so ---"he tends to believe what he wants to believe in and he has waged 90% of the world's wars because of his religion." - Just like me how I am believing in science now. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration: NASA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They have just shared a photograph of a landmark that connects two different destinations. It does not prove whether Ramayana was real or not. 5 different People in this thread are arguing about their own knowledge about religion (Hindu - Ramayana) but why do thee aruge for something which you are not yet sure about? If you are sure than right a book on it and publish it with a ISBN code filled with 100% legitimate proof that also shows your photographs at the places you have travelled to prove if Ramayana was true (Lanka, Ayodhya, etc.,) so that people around the world can know about something other than what you and me have learnt in the school and from our parents. Truth is even they did not know. Even Science is not sure whether it is right or not then how can religion be??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Novice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smaranam Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) but why do thee aruge for something which you are not yet sure about? If you are sure than right a book on it and publish it with a ISBN code filled with 100% legitimate proof that also shows your photographs at the places you have travelled to prove if Ramayana was true (Lanka, Ayodhya, etc.,) so that people around the world can know about something other than what you and me have learnt in the school and from our parents. Truth is even they did not know. Even Science is not sure whether it is right or not then how can religion be??? The mystical and supernatural experiences that God gives an individual being can be the ultimate . Direct or intuitive Experience given by God, is beyond science, logic, myth or not, history, norms , everything. That is why it is termed mystical. The scriptures written by sages of the past via Divine intervention they received, helps one to shape and tune the mind and intelligence to receive Divine knowledge. Avdhoot Gita : The bumblebee sucks nectar from wherever it finds [and stays non-judgemental of the rest]. Lord Dattatreya the avadhoot learnt this from the bumblebee. SB 11.8.10: Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an intelligent human being should take the essence from all religious scriptures. (Shrimad Bhagvat Canto 11) The only thing I know which is a certainty about the Ramayana is after knowing it, a noble soul gets unflinching devotion for the Hero of that Great Epic. That is the only Worthy Goal to achieve. Edited July 16, 2009 by smaranam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 SB 11.8.10: Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an intelligent human being should take the essence from all religious scriptures. (Shrimad Bhagvat Canto 11)........QUOTE Smaranam Refreshing my memory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.