Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji,As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayod\hya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya.Jai Shri RamSunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote:Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?"' '" Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Bhattacharya Sahab, Well said. What and why the avatars do certain things we ordinary mortals cannot fathom, but there are strong reasons for their actions which we can realise if one reads books from Gita press where few books are specially devoted to discussions on the Why of such. regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji, > > As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayod\hya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya. > > Jai Shri Ram > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote: > > Chakraborty, PL CHAKRABORTYP2 > RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > " ' ' " > Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM >  > > > > > > Dear Shankar-ji, >  > A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries > out > punsihment  does it on " OPEN " , not hiding behind > a tree. >  > A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it > openly. >  > Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not > > roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana > vass'. > Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of > > any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to > influence > any of the subjects of his erstwhile > kingdom. >  > So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. > Unless > he had a hidden agenda...... >  > Rather, his actions were rather different. He > killed > all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed > Lakshmana > to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be > sister > of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would > appear > that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his > brand > of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He > > allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or > some > other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, > bypassing > all rules of engagement. >  > He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva > Bhakta > and changing the religious landscape. >  > None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly > > a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre > > with present day Rajneeti where anything is > acceptable). >  > regards >  > Chakraborty >  > PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing > only. > But I will learn few things in the > process > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of > ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 > 2:26 PM > To: > ancient_indian_ astrology > Subject: > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother > ? > > >  > > > Dear > Chakraborty ji, > > " Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. > " > > There is a difference between veera dharma and raja > dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do > to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he > subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when > one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* > another. > > Hope this clarifies. > > Shankar > > > > > " Chakraborty, PL " > <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in> > To: > " ancient_indian_ astrology " > <ancient_indian_ astrology> > Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 > PM > RE: > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother > ? > >  > > > Dear Shankar-ji, >  > I beg to differ on your views on Vali's > killing. >  > Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He > went > there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his > motive. > Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a > tree. >  > Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after > hearing > only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of > Vanara > empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not > justified. > Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have > helped > Rama to conquer Lanka easily. >  > Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change > civilization. > He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not > have > supported " nasika chedan " of Shurpanakha. We > follow > Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should > > give " explanation " for all the things he > did. >  > Anyway, let us agree to disagree >  > regards >  > Chakraborty > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of > ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 > 11:53 AM > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a > Brother ? > > >  > > > Dear > Bhaskar ji, > > " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is > secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in > army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in > his > chest would not be adharmic. " > > I do not think we are disagreeing > here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or > " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not > adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong > side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with > defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending > him but eliminating the enemy. > > " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and > not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical > however much the ends may be so. " > > That is the difference between vyakti > dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In > raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous > from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to > evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them > is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are > confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. > > > Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on > the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of > vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was > previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by > Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a > corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. > > Shankar > > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Sunil-ji, 1) Difficult to believe that a girl (Shurpanakha) could usurp the position of Urmila ...who was in Ayodhya anyway. Could a girl do that, forcibly marrying a strong personality like Lakshmana ? There are many other ways to ward of getting rid of a girl, rather than difiguring her for life..more like acid throwing of present days 2) Yes, Sugriva's wife was with Vaali. Before that, (presumably dead.) Vaali's wife was with Sugriva. After Vaali's death, again with Sugriva. Similarly Ravana's wife Mandodari married Vibheesana. It appears that marriage with elder/younger brother of husband was acceptable in those days (probably exists in some population of India even today) To me, a bad deed is a bad deed - irresepctive of who did it. The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, explaining the happening and suggesting proper dharmic action. If Vaali did not accept, then Rama could have killed Vaali in a fight. Anyway, these are all my personal perspective..and I guess I am a minority here. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of Sunil BhattacharjyaTuesday, December 01, 2009 3:39 PM Subject: RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji,As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayod\hya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya.Jai Shri RamSunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in> wrote: Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in>RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?"' '" Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Chakroborty ji, One has to understand the nature of the personalities before we guess about the right or wrong doings. Lakshmana was a avtar of the sheshnaga. naga has the characteristic of " Fufkarna " immediately if one comes near it. Lakshmana was known to be a very angry personage. Every one has his own way of dealing with unpleasantness. Some do it bluntly like myself, others do it in an sophisticated manner like those opposition parties when seated together in front of Media. Some others wont even talk but just slap or raise their hands in retort. About marriage between two brothers wife, do not forget we are talking about Vanara clan, on one side and the rakshasa clan on another. This is just like Devaloka people trying to set values or rules for Rakshasa loka people. And we are just ordinary Manushya loka people. We know nothing. regards/Bhaskar. , " Chakraborty, PL " <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote: > > Dear Sunil-ji, > > 1) Difficult to believe that a girl (Shurpanakha) could usurp the position > of Urmila ...who was in Ayodhya anyway. Could a girl do that, > forcibly marrying a strong personality like Lakshmana ? > > There are many other ways to ward of getting rid of a girl, > rather than difiguring her for life..more like acid throwing of > present days > 2) Yes, Sugriva's wife was with Vaali. Before that, (presumably > dead.) Vaali's wife was with Sugriva. After Vaali's death, again > with Sugriva. Similarly Ravana's wife Mandodari married Vibheesana. > > It appears that marriage with elder/younger brother of husband > was acceptable in those days (probably exists in some > population of India even today) > > To me, a bad deed is a bad deed - irresepctive of who did it. > > The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, > explaining the happening and suggesting proper dharmic action. > If Vaali did not accept, then Rama could have killed Vaali in a > fight. > > Anyway, these are all my personal perspective..and I guess > I am a minority here. > > regards > > Chakraborty > > ________________________________ > On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:39 PM > > RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji, > > As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayod\hya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya. > > Jai Shri Ram > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote: > > Chakraborty, PL CHAKRABORTYP2 > RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > " ' ' " > Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM > > > > Dear Shankar-ji, > > A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out > punsihment does it on " OPEN " , not hiding behind a tree. > > A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. > > Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not > roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. > Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of > any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence > any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. > > So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless > he had a hidden agenda...... > > Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed > all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana > to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister > of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear > that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand > of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He > allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some > other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing > all rules of engagement. > > He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta > and changing the religious landscape. > > None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly > a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre > with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). > > regards > > Chakraborty > > PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. > But I will learn few things in the process > > ________________________________ > ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PM > ancient_indian_ astrology > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Dear Chakraborty ji, > > " Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. " > > There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. > > Hope this clarifies. > > Shankar > > ________________________________ > " Chakraborty, PL " <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in> > " ancient_indian_ astrology " <ancient_indian_ astrology> > Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PM > RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Dear Shankar-ji, > > I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. > > Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went > there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. > Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. > > Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing > only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara > empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. > Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped > Rama to conquer Lanka easily. > > Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. > He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have > supported " nasika chedan " of Shurpanakha. We follow > Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should > give " explanation " for all the things he did. > > Anyway, let us agree to disagree > > regards > > Chakraborty > > ________________________________ > ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM > ancient_indian_ astrology > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his > chest would not be adharmic. " > > I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. > > " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. " > > That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. > > Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. > > Shankar > > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. > > > > > > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Chakraborty ji," A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly."Rama's taking higher moral stand and assuming the place to punish Vali was open - there was nothing secretive about it. Only his act of *executing the punishment* was from behind the tree - which is the difference between motive and instrument. He had the right motive and an "improper" instrument for execution - which does not defeat his raja dharma (On another count, availing such a boon to remain unbeaten does not really constitute veera dharma, therefore there is no need for anyone to follow veera dharma against Vali. This was also why there was no requirement for veera dharma against Bhishma who came in with an iccha mrityu, or against Karna before he shed his natural armor. But that is a different topic.). "Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. "In the beginning of vana vasa itself, Rama announces that he would carry out the campaign for Dharma, to destroy the Asuras and the unrighteous, as a representative of Bharata the king. This is how (as a representative of Bharata) he introduces himself to the Rakshasas too, while fighting them. He repeats this declaration multiple times, and there is nothing hidden in it. We are here agreeing that the whole vana vasa was a part of his grand campaign - but my point is that none of his acts defeated dharma - if we evaulate in what capacity he took each of the decisions. "None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma."Where veera dharma was applicable, Rama stood by that. Where raja dharma or kshatra dharma was applicable, he stood for that too. Veera dharma was not required with Vali, raja dharma was - he stood by that. Veera dharma was required against Khara-Dushanas at Janasthana, he fulfilled it. Raja Dharma demanded that he eliminates the Asuras and protects sadhus (which is actually the Dharma of every kshatriya irrespective of whether he is a king or not), he fulfilled it. "He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. "Lakshmana did not attack Indrajit at Nikumbhila against veera dharma. He merely went there and gave call for combat, which Indrajit obliged as a warrior. Lakshmana did not destroy the yaga or attack while Indrajit was doing the yaga. As a genuine warrior he gave a call for combat, waited as Indrajit comes out to fight with his armor and weapons, only then hit him. On the other hand as I said, taking the help of divine boons to win a war or defeat an opponent without relying on one's valor, is itself not veera dharma. So calling Indrajit for a combat out of Nikumbhila is not really unrighteous. "He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape."Well many Asuras are great devotees, but being a great devotee and being committed to righteousness are totally different things. Out of ruju vartana and daiva cintana, the first thing always comes first. "PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process"Same here. Agreeing or disagreeing is not really important Shankar"Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 Tue, December 1, 2009 3:00:56 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Wonderful replies. Bhaskar. , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote: > > Dear Chakraborty ji, > > " > A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries > out > punsihment does it on " OPEN " , not hiding behind > a tree. > > A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it > openly. " > > > Rama's taking higher moral stand and assuming the place to punish Vali was open - there was nothing secretive about it. Only his act of *executing the punishment* was from behind the tree - which is the difference between motive and instrument. He had the right motive and an " improper " instrument for execution - which does not defeat his raja dharma (On another count, availing such a boon to remain unbeaten does not really constitute veera dharma, therefore there is no need for anyone to follow veera dharma against Vali. This was also why there was no requirement for veera dharma against Bhishma who came in with an iccha mrityu, or against Karna before he shed his natural armor. But that is a different topic.). > > " > Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not > roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana > vass'. > Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. " > > In the beginning of vana vasa itself, Rama announces that he would carry out the campaign for Dharma, to destroy the Asuras and the unrighteous, as a representative of Bharata the king. This is how (as a representative of Bharata) he introduces himself to the Rakshasas too, while fighting them. He repeats this declaration multiple times, and there is nothing hidden in it. > > We are here agreeing that the whole vana vasa was a part of his grand campaign - but my point is that none of his acts defeated dharma - if we evaulate in what capacity he took each of the decisions. > > " > None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. " > > Where veera dharma was applicable, Rama stood by that. Where raja dharma or kshatra dharma was applicable, he stood for that too. Veera dharma was not required with Vali, raja dharma was - he stood by that. Veera dharma was required against Khara-Dushanas at Janasthana, he fulfilled it. Raja Dharma demanded that he eliminates the Asuras and protects sadhus (which is actually the Dharma of every kshatriya irrespective of whether he is a king or not), he fulfilled it. > > " He > allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or > some > other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, > bypassing > all rules of engagement. " > > Lakshmana did not attack Indrajit at Nikumbhila against veera dharma. He merely went there and gave call for combat, which Indrajit obliged as a warrior. Lakshmana did not destroy the yaga or attack while Indrajit was doing the yaga. As a genuine warrior he gave a call for combat, waited as Indrajit comes out to fight with his armor and weapons, only then hit him. On the other hand as I said, taking the help of divine boons to win a war or defeat an opponent without relying on one's valor, is itself not veera dharma. So calling Indrajit for a combat out of Nikumbhila is not really unrighteous. > > " > He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva > Bhakta > and changing the religious landscape. " > > Well many Asuras are great devotees, but being a great devotee and being committed to righteousness are totally different things. Out of ruju vartana and daiva cintana, the first thing always comes first. > > " > PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing > only. > But I will learn few things in the > process " > Same here. Agreeing or disagreeing is not really important > > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > " Chakraborty, PL " CHAKRABORTYP2 > " " > Tue, December 1, 2009 3:00:56 PM > RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? > > > Dear Shankar-ji, > > A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries > out > punsihment does it on " OPEN " , not hiding behind > a tree. > > A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it > openly. > > Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not > roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana > vass'. > Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of > any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to > influence > any of the subjects of his erstwhile > kingdom. > > So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. > Unless > he had a hidden agenda...... > > Rather, his actions were rather different. He > killed > all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed > Lakshmana > to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be > sister > of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would > appear > that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his > brand > of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He > allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or > some > other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, > bypassing > all rules of engagement. > > He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva > Bhakta > and changing the religious landscape. > > None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly > a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre > with present day Rajneeti where anything is > acceptable). > > regards > > Chakraborty > > PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing > only. > But I will learn few things in the > process > > > ________________________________ > ancient_indian_ astrology > [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 > 2:26 PM > ancient_indian_ astrology > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother > ? > > > Dear > Chakraborty ji, > > " Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. " > > There is a difference between veera dharma and raja > dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do > to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he > subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when > one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* > another. > > Hope this clarifies. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > " Chakraborty, PL " > <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in> > " ancient_indian_ astrology " > <ancient_indian_ astrology> > Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 > PM > RE: > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother > ? > > > Dear Shankar-ji, > > I beg to differ on your views on Vali's > killing. > > Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He > went > there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his > motive. > Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a > tree. > > Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after > hearing > only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of > Vanara > empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not > justified. > Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have > helped > Rama to conquer Lanka easily. > > Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change > civilization. > He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not > have > supported " nasika chedan " of Shurpanakha. We > follow > Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should > give " explanation " for all the things he > did. > > Anyway, let us agree to disagree > > regards > > Chakraborty > > > ________________________________ > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli > Tuesday, December 01, 2009 > 11:53 AM > ancient_indian_ astrology@ . > com > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a > Brother ? > > > Dear > Bhaskar ji, > > " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is > secondary. > there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in > army > and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in > his > chest would not be adharmic. " > > I do not think we are disagreeing > here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or > " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not > adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong > side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with > defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending > him but eliminating the enemy. > > " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and > not dharmic. Any fight should be > fair. the mean should not be unethical > however much the ends may be so. " > > That is the difference between vyakti > dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In > raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous > from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to > evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them > is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are > confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. > > Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on > the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of > vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was > previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by > Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a > corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. > > Shankar > This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Sir, There is a confusion here. When we talk of the "wife" of Sugreeva/Vali, Tara is wife of both the brothers. Ruma is the wife of Sugreeva. Tara was supposed to be with both the brothers, and as Vali necked Sugreeva out of Kishkindha he broke the agreement of "sharing". And he also kept Ruma with himself, did not send her to Sugreeva. However, one should evaluate this with respect to the prescribed code for vanaras, and not human standards (though they come very close they are not the same). Also, we should remember that Tara by the very name tells that this is an astronomical symbolism (similar to Brhaspati-Candra-Tara story or Tara-Sasanka). Shankar"Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 Tue, December 1, 2009 4:01:08 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Sunil-ji, 1) Difficult to believe that a girl (Shurpanakha) could usurp the position of Urmila ...who was in Ayodhya anyway. Could a girl do that, forcibly marrying a strong personality like Lakshmana ? There are many other ways to ward of getting rid of a girl, rather than difiguring her for life..more like acid throwing of present days 2) Yes, Sugriva's wife was with Vaali. Before that, (presumably dead.) Vaali's wife was with Sugriva. After Vaali's death, again with Sugriva. Similarly Ravana's wife Mandodari married Vibheesana. It appears that marriage with elder/younger brother of husband was acceptable in those days (probably exists in some population of India even today) To me, a bad deed is a bad deed - irresepctive of who did it. The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, explaining the happening and suggesting proper dharmic action. If Vaali did not accept, then Rama could have killed Vaali in a fight. Anyway, these are all my personal perspective. .and I guess I am a minority here. regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of Sunil BhattacharjyaTuesday, December 01, 2009 3:39 PMancient_indian_ astrologyRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji,As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayodhya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya.Jai Shri RamSunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in> wrote: Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?"'ancient_indian_ astrology'" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Shankar-ji, Yes, I do agree that you have taken a consistent stand. It also appears that I am not good enough to appreciate the finer nuances of Dharma. It is like X pronounces that he is going to war against Y. The poor Y is not even aware about X or his so called Dharma. And then X kills Y while hiding. And we are justifying it. Calling someone in a temple to come out and fight.. who is not even fully prepared...I remember ULFA tried to KPS Gill out of Kamakhya Temple...and was rightfully denounced. Probably, ordinary mortals like us, have a romantic idea about Dharma and dharmic actions..which is jarred by actions of great persons. Anyway, your reply, although quite logical, does not gell with my inner sense of Dharma. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji," A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly." Rama's taking higher moral stand and assuming the place to punish Vali was open - there was nothing secretive about it. Only his act of *executing the punishment* was from behind the tree - which is the difference between motive and instrument. He had the right motive and an "improper" instrument for execution - which does not defeat his raja dharma (On another count, availing such a boon to remain unbeaten does not really constitute veera dharma, therefore there is no need for anyone to follow veera dharma against Vali. This was also why there was no requirement for veera dharma against Bhishma who came in with an iccha mrityu, or against Karna before he shed his natural armor. But that is a different topic.). " Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. "In the beginning of vana vasa itself, Rama announces that he would carry out the campaign for Dharma, to destroy the Asuras and the unrighteous, as a representative of Bharata the king. This is how (as a representative of Bharata) he introduces himself to the Rakshasas too, while fighting them. He repeats this declaration multiple times, and there is nothing hidden in it. We are here agreeing that the whole vana vasa was a part of his grand campaign - but my point is that none of his acts defeated dharma - if we evaulate in what capacity he took each of the decisions. " None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma."Where veera dharma was applicable, Rama stood by that. Where raja dharma or kshatra dharma was applicable, he stood for that too. Veera dharma was not required with Vali, raja dharma was - he stood by that. Veera dharma was required against Khara-Dushanas at Janasthana, he fulfilled it. Raja Dharma demanded that he eliminates the Asuras and protects sadhus (which is actually the Dharma of every kshatriya irrespective of whether he is a king or not), he fulfilled it. "He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. "Lakshmana did not attack Indrajit at Nikumbhila against veera dharma. He merely went there and gave call for combat, which Indrajit obliged as a warrior. Lakshmana did not destroy the yaga or attack while Indrajit was doing the yaga. As a genuine warrior he gave a call for combat, waited as Indrajit comes out to fight with his armor and weapons, only then hit him. On the other hand as I said, taking the help of divine boons to win a war or defeat an opponent without relying on one's valor, is itself not veera dharma. So calling Indrajit for a combat out of Nikumbhila is not really unrighteous. " He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape."Well many Asuras are great devotees, but being a great devotee and being committed to righteousness are totally different things. Out of ruju vartana and daiva cintana, the first thing always comes first. " PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process"Same here. Agreeing or disagreeing is not really important Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in> Tue, December 1, 2009 3:00:56 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Santosh, Your idea of meeting as well presentation is good !!! Although if I remember correctly, Ravana did meet Rama at Rameshwaram... not exactly at a 5-Star Hotel, but as a priest for Rama. So, great foes could meet respectfully. And it was a grear gentlemanly act as well as conversation. Ravana was fully aware that that why Rama was arranging the Puja and what was the purpose. So...I leave it here. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of SanthoshTuesday, December 01, 2009 4:02 PM Subject: RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty, The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, explaining the happening you are right, they could all have met at one of the 5-star hotels at rameshwaram and using a projector and power point presentation, rama could have explained everything to vaali and if even after that he didn’t understand, probably due to lack of computer skills, have told him that he has no option but to kill him. Everything would have been so gentlemanly. Love Santhosh On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PLTuesday, December 01, 2009 4:01 PM' 'RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Sunil-ji, 1) Difficult to believe that a girl (Shurpanakha) could usurp the position of Urmila ...who was in Ayodhya anyway. Could a girl do that, forcibly marrying a strong personality like Lakshmana ? There are many other ways to ward of getting rid of a girl, rather than difiguring her for life..more like acid throwing of present days 2) Yes, Sugriva's wife was with Vaali. Before that, (presumably dead.) Vaali's wife was with Sugriva. After Vaali's death, again with Sugriva. Similarly Ravana's wife Mandodari married Vibheesana. It appears that marriage with elder/younger brother of husband was acceptable in those days (probably exists in some population of India even today) To me, a bad deed is a bad deed - irresepctive of who did it. The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, explaining the happening and suggesting proper dharmic action. If Vaali did not accept, then Rama could have killed Vaali in a fight. Anyway, these are all my personal perspective..and I guess I am a minority here. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of Sunil BhattacharjyaTuesday, December 01, 2009 3:39 PM Subject: RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji,As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayod\hya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya.Jai Shri RamSunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in> wrote: Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in>RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?"' '" Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release 12/01/09 02:35:00 This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Friend, My reply was in a lighter vein. Love and Regards Santhosh On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PL Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:58 PM ' ' RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Santosh, Your idea of meeting as well presentation is good !!! Although if I remember correctly, Ravana did meet Rama at Rameshwaram... not exactly at a 5-Star Hotel, but as a priest for Rama. So, great foes could meet respectfully. And it was a grear gentlemanly act as well as conversation. Ravana was fully aware that that why Rama was arranging the Puja and what was the purpose. So...I leave it here. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of Santhosh Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:02 PM RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty, The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, explaining the happening you are right, they could all have met at one of the 5-star hotels at rameshwaram and using a projector and power point presentation, rama could have explained everything to vaali and if even after that he didn’t understand, probably due to lack of computer skills, have told him that he has no option but to kill him. Everything would have been so gentlemanly. Love Santhosh On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PL Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:01 PM ' ' RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Sunil-ji, 1) Difficult to believe that a girl (Shurpanakha) could usurp the position of Urmila ...who was in Ayodhya anyway. Could a girl do that, forcibly marrying a strong personality like Lakshmana ? There are many other ways to ward of getting rid of a girl, rather than difiguring her for life..more like acid throwing of present days 2) Yes, Sugriva's wife was with Vaali. Before that, (presumably dead.) Vaali's wife was with Sugriva. After Vaali's death, again with Sugriva. Similarly Ravana's wife Mandodari married Vibheesana. It appears that marriage with elder/younger brother of husband was acceptable in those days (probably exists in some population of India even today) To me, a bad deed is a bad deed - irresepctive of who did it. The simpler action would have been Rama meeting Vaali, explaining the happening and suggesting proper dharmic action. If Vaali did not accept, then Rama could have killed Vaali in a fight. Anyway, these are all my personal perspective..and I guess I am a minority here. regards Chakraborty On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:39 PM RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakrabortyji and Bharadwajji, As look at it Lord Rama had protected several dharmas by killing Baali though along with one unavodable adharma of killing him from behind the forest. Baali did not trust his brother Sugriva's story that he genuinely thought that Baali died as Baali did not return even after long time and that too his doubts too appeared to have been confirmed on seeing the blood coming out of the Cave. Secondly he committed the unpardonable crime of not giving Sugriva's wife back to him. Suparnakha's crime was also similar as she was trying to usurp the rightful place of Lakshman's wife, though she was away in Ayodhya. Lord Ram killed Ravana for the same type of crime of taling away his wife. So Lord Ram gets exonerated as he succeeded in restoring Sugriva's wife to Sugriva. He restored Sita to himself and he protected Lakshmana's wife. A woman's honour is the most important thing to an Arya. Jai Shri Ram Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in> wrote: Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 (AT) iocl (DOT) co.in> RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? " ' ' " Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 1:30 AM Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on " OPEN " , not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PM ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji, " Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. " There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar " Chakraborty, PL " <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in> " ancient_indian_ astrology " <ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com> Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PM RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported " nasika chedan " of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give " explanation " for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM ancient_indian_ astrology@ . com [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji, " Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary. there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his chest would not be adharmic. " I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of " harming " , but of " reciprocating " or " retaliating " or even " defending " as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so. " That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release 12/01/09 02:35:00 This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release 12/01/09 02:35:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji,Thank you However as I said previously, it is just about understanding and expressing things clearly - that does not mean the one talking has those qualities Just to add, there is a difference between "being virtuous" and "being righteous". Virtue is a special possession. For instance one could be righteous, but his righteousness does not demand that he should have the virtue to donate - he is righteous as long as he does not steal. But if he donates, that is an additional virtue. On the other hand, having some virtues does not guarantee a person to be righteous. He could be unrighteous in some aspects and having some glorious virtues - that still does not make him very righteous, though that may make him celebrated and great. Yes, you are right - Dharma must overtake one's wish to be Dharmic, and also establish balance between one's values instead of skewing between some great qualities and some low morals. There is also some popular confusion between the nature of punya and dharma - punya comes with virtue, and overlaps with Dharma to a good extent. However they are not synonyms. This is the crux of my argument. ShankarBhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 3:13:09 PM Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shri Shankara Bharadwaj ji, A very good mail clearing all doubts. thank You. I initially mentioned that you have a lofty thinking, proved from the continous contents of your mails. Things are becoming clearer now. Dharma must overtake ones personal desires for one to be known as "Dharmic". Perfect. Love n regards, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Chakaraborty ji,"And then X kills Y while hiding. And we are justifying it."No, we are not justifying it just because X is doing his dharma. We are justifying it because Y has done a positively unrighteous thing for which X is issuing his death. If Y was not wrong and did not deserve the punishment, then X would not be justified. Here X' Dharma has become so, *because of* Y. "Probably, ordinary mortals like us, have a romantic idea about Dharma and dharmic actions..which is jarred by actions of great persons."Agreed, and that is because individual morality does not approve of these things. From an individual perspective retaliation is not a great virtue. From a ruler's or a visionary's perspective that is nevertheless right. "Anyway, your reply, although quite logical, does not gell with my inner sense of Dharma."Understood Shankar"Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2 Tue, December 1, 2009 4:51:50 PMRE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, Yes, I do agree that you have taken a consistent stand. It also appears that I am not good enough to appreciate the finer nuances of Dharma. It is like X pronounces that he is going to war against Y. The poor Y is not even aware about X or his so called Dharma. And then X kills Y while hiding. And we are justifying it. Calling someone in a temple to come out and fight.. who is not even fully prepared...I remember ULFA tried to KPS Gill out of Kamakhya Temple...and was rightfully denounced. Probably, ordinary mortals like us, have a romantic idea about Dharma and dharmic actions..which is jarred by actions of great persons. Anyway, your reply, although quite logical, does not gell with my inner sense of Dharma. regards Chakraborty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Chakrabirtyji, I think nobody tries to justify the way of killing killing of Baali unreservedly. It is said that Lord Ram got the punishment for that action in his next incarnation.But mind that if Lord Ram would have openly invited Baali for a combat the whole vanara side would have joined the battle. Tell me why Baali should accept a duel with Lord Ram? So Lord Ram took a discreet step for the sake of greater good so that he should be able to restore two women (ie. Ruma ans Sita) to their rightful place, through a path of least resistance. Had there been an open confrontation there would have been loss of more lives and it would have also delayed Lord Ram's mission to recover Mother Sita. It is a case doing a bad thing in view of or for facilitating a bigger good work.Secondly Sugriva married Tara as per the vanara custom (and that was not a forceful action) when Bali was assumed to be dead. Once a queen always a queen. That is how the king's widow is married to the next king but what is the justification of Baali's forcefully keeping Sugriva's wife?Thirdly Lord Ram had declared war against Ravana. So any action to facilitate that should be okay. Because Meghnada did not fight a normal war and you know that. he could hide behind the cloud and all that. Do you think that to be fai?. So killing Meghnada in an unfair way is not really unfair.It is a question of doing smaller bad things to facilitate a greater good things. Your concern that a better way should have been explored is appreciated but was it really practicable? Do we know the social and the personal dynamics under those situations? How do you think that Baali would have peacefully agreed to part with Sugriva's wife? I also undertsand that if anybody invited Baali for a combat then Baali's sterngth increased and the opponent's strength decreased. Such was the boon Baali had. So you have to consider this fact too.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2 wrote:Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2RE: Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?"' '" Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:21 AM Dear Shankar-ji, Yes, I do agree that you have taken a consistent stand. It also appears that I am not good enough to appreciate the finer nuances of Dharma. It is like X pronounces that he is going to war against Y. The poor Y is not even aware about X or his so called Dharma. And then X kills Y while hiding. And we are justifying it. Calling someone in a temple to come out and fight.. who is not even fully prepared...I remember ULFA tried to KPS Gill out of Kamakhya Temple...and was rightfully denounced. Probably, ordinary mortals like us, have a romantic idea about Dharma and dharmic actions..which is jarred by actions of great persons. Anyway, your reply, although quite logical, does not gell with my inner sense of Dharma. regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 4:22 PMancient_indian_ astrologyRe: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji," A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly." Rama's taking higher moral stand and assuming the place to punish Vali was open - there was nothing secretive about it. Only his act of *executing the punishment* was from behind the tree - which is the difference between motive and instrument. He had the right motive and an "improper" instrument for execution - which does not defeat his raja dharma (On another count, availing such a boon to remain unbeaten does not really constitute veera dharma, therefore there is no need for anyone to follow veera dharma against Vali. This was also why there was no requirement for veera dharma against Bhishma who came in with an iccha mrityu, or against Karna before he shed his natural armor. But that is a different topic.). " Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. "In the beginning of vana vasa itself, Rama announces that he would carry out the campaign for Dharma, to destroy the Asuras and the unrighteous, as a representative of Bharata the king. This is how (as a representative of Bharata) he introduces himself to the Rakshasas too, while fighting them. He repeats this declaration multiple times, and there is nothing hidden in it. We are here agreeing that the whole vana vasa was a part of his grand campaign - but my point is that none of his acts defeated dharma - if we evaulate in what capacity he took each of the decisions. " None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma."Where veera dharma was applicable, Rama stood by that. Where raja dharma or kshatra dharma was applicable, he stood for that too. Veera dharma was not required with Vali, raja dharma was - he stood by that. Veera dharma was required against Khara-Dushanas at Janasthana, he fulfilled it. Raja Dharma demanded that he eliminates the Asuras and protects sadhus (which is actually the Dharma of every kshatriya irrespective of whether he is a king or not), he fulfilled it. "He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. "Lakshmana did not attack Indrajit at Nikumbhila against veera dharma. He merely went there and gave call for combat, which Indrajit obliged as a warrior. Lakshmana did not destroy the yaga or attack while Indrajit was doing the yaga. As a genuine warrior he gave a call for combat, waited as Indrajit comes out to fight with his armor and weapons, only then hit him. On the other hand as I said, taking the help of divine boons to win a war or defeat an opponent without relying on one's valor, is itself not veera dharma. So calling Indrajit for a combat out of Nikumbhila is not really unrighteous. " He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape."Well many Asuras are great devotees, but being a great devotee and being committed to righteousness are totally different things. Out of ruju vartana and daiva cintana, the first thing always comes first. " PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process"Same here. Agreeing or disagreeing is not really important Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 3:00:56 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out punsihment does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree. A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly. Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'. Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence any of the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom. So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless he had a hidden agenda...... Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing all rules of engagement. He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta and changing the religious landscape. None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly a paradigm of Raj-dharma. (Unless we want to comapre with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable). regards Chakraborty PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only. But I will learn few things in the process ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Chakraborty ji,"Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another. Hope this clarifies. Shankar "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>"ancient_indian_ astrology" <ancient_indian_ astrology>Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PMRE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Shankar-ji, I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing. Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive. Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree. Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified. Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped Rama to conquer Lanka easily. Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization. He did what he felt needed. Otherwise, he could not have supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should give "explanation" for all the things he did. Anyway, let us agree to disagree regards Chakraborty ancient_indian_ astrology [ancient_ indian_astrology ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj KhandavalliTuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AMancient_indian_ astrology[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ? Dear Bhaskar ji,"Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in armyand my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in hischest would not be adharmic."I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy. " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should befair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi. Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative. Shankar This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. 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.