Ravanayana: Ramayana Story from Ravana's Point of View

[KS]

Ravana has the same father as Kubera. Their father was Vishrava. Vishrava's father was Pulatsya. And Pulatsya was created by Lord Brahma. Lord Brahma was born in the lotus that originated from the navel of Lord Vishnu.

I know . My commentary was just on Sabir's post that since he was from North India he was Aryan.

As for language, demons spoke sanskrit. Gods spoke sanskrit. Educated human beings spoke sanskrit. The general human folk spoke prakrit languages. Hanuman goes scouting for Sita Devi and located her at Ashoka garden in Lanka. He specifically rules out sanskrit as medium of conversing with Sita because that language would be understood by demons and also because if he spoke in sanskrit, Sita would suspect Hanuman to be Ravana. So, Hanuman speaks in a prakrit language with Sita.

That's what the Vedas would like us to believe. We have a whole bunch of Tamil speaking Gods like Lord Kartikeya over here

 

[johnee]

That's what the Vedas would like us to believe. We have a whole bunch of Tamil speaking Gods like Lord Kartikeya over here

Gods speak all langauges boss. Thats why, they are Gods. Lord Karthikeya speaks tamil for his tamilian devotees and speaks telugu for his telugu devotees.

Sanskrit is foremost and primary language according to the ancient scriptures. It is spoken by Gods, Demons, and all races. Other languages were born from this primary language...

Anyway, one can believe whatever one wants.

However, to provide currency for an outdated and anti-national theory like Aryan-Dravidian is not right.

 

[KS]

Sanskrit foremost and primary language according to the ancient scriptures. It is spoken by Gods, Demons, and all races. Other languages were born from this primary language...

A scripture written in a particular language would tell that it is the primary language but then others may have other views. Lets leave it here as the topic will surely divert to other issues.

 

[Sabir]

The conclusions are important. What conclusion does one draw ultimately based on these similarities, if they do exist?
a)A large-hearted conclusion can be that all religions teach the same truth or are based on same facts or are pointing towards a certain even in history...etc
b)A sceptical conclusion can be that one religion was influenced by another religion.

If the conclusion is b), then there will be next question who borrowed from whom? Again, based on the bias of the scholar, one can prove either way.

To me it is not important who has borrowed from whom. Because, they (the authors) were describing same events which they wrapped with their own imagination.

 

[KS]

However, to provide currency for an outdated and anti-national theory like Aryan-Dravidian is not right.

I don't believe a bit in the AIT as I consider it a justification that was peddled out to rationalise the Islamic and the British invasions. For me they are just linguistic groups which may have developed parallely and not necessarily derived from one another.

The conclusions are important. What conclusion does one draw ultimately based on these similarities, if they do exist?
a)A large-hearted conclusion can be that all religions teach the same truth or are based on same facts or are pointing towards a certain even in history...etc
b)A sceptical conclusion can be that one religion was influenced by another religion.

If the conclusion is b), then there will be next question who borrowed from whom? Again, based on the bias of the scholar, one can prove either way.

Another wacky conclusion is it maybe well the proof for a particular school of thought who say Jesus obtained his enlightenment while meditating with the sages/rishis in Himalayas during his 22-40 age of which there is no record and what is essentially a black hole and hence the similarity in mythologies.

 

[johnee]

To me it is not important who has borrowed from whom. Because, they (the authors) were describing same events which they wrapped with their own imagination.

Sabir, that means, you are large-hearted...

However, there are many religions(or its preachers) who want its adherents to believe that their religion is special. The similarities, if any, with other religions, reduces this special status. So, they will explain it by saying that other religions may have borrowed them from us. Or that we both borrowed from any earlier version and that ours is the true one while others deviated from original...

 

[johnee]

Another wacky conclusion is the proof for a particular school of thought who say Jesus obtained his enlightenment while meditating with the sages/rishis in Himalayas during his 22-40 age of which there is no record and what is essentially a black hole and hence the similarity in mythologies.

This whacky theory has been crafted by proselytisers to make christianity more attractive to Indians. It is not accepted by any eminent christian figure...

 

[Sabir]

It is difficult to say whether Aryans were foreigners or not but the theory that AIT was introduced to justify Islamic and British invasion is flawed. The powerful people do not need to justify their deeds. And the British scholars who did a great deal to find out our ancient history were mainly those orientalists who had great respect for Indian civilisation and the interest to find more of it. They were not arrogant like Maccullay , Cornwalis or Bentick.

 

[KS]

This whacky theory has been crafted by proselytisers to make christianity more attractive to Indians. It is not accepted by any eminent christian figure...

But doesn't it then reduce the "speciality" of Christianity and make it just another religion to have borrowed concepts from Hinduism ? So I dont think Christian proselytisers are behind that. MY Opinion.

 

[johnee]

It is difficult to say whether Aryans were foreigners or not but the theory that AIT was introduced to justify Islamic and British invasion is flawed. The powerful people do not need to justify their deeds. And the British scholars who did a great deal to find out our ancient history were mainly those orientalists who had great respect for Indian civilisation and the interest to find more of it. They were not arrogant like Maccullay , Cornwalis or Bentick.

I suggest the reading of Ram Swarup's Hinduism review. It available online. It sheds light on why inventing AIT was important. The point is that the europeans were justifying their rule on Indians to themselves, not to us.

 

[KS]

It is difficult to say whether Aryans were foreigners or not but the theory that AIT was introduced to justify Islamic and British invasion is flawed. The powerful people do not need to justify their deeds. And the British scholars who did a great deal to find out our ancient history were mainly those orientalists who had great respect for Indian civilisation and the interest to find more of it. They were not arrogant like Maccullay , Cornwalis or Bentick.

Did I say British scholars? I mean the left wing marxist historians in India like Romila Tahapar, Irfan Habib and johnee too has clarified that bit.. But then thats another topic and lets not deviate.

p.s.:- DNA studies have more conclusively proved that there si no big difference between the genetic makeups in North Indians and South Indians.

 

[Sabir]

Sabir, that means, you are large-hearted...

However, there are many religions(or its preachers) who want its adherents to believe that their religion is special. The similarities, if any, with other religions, reduces this special status. So, they will explain it by saying that other religions may have borrowed them from us. Or that we both borrowed from any earlier version and that ours is the true one while others deviated from original...

That is the core of problem between dispute among different religious schools because everyone tries to claim their version is original. I do not consider any of the sages as messenger of God. They were certainly great philosophers who tried to explain the mystery of universe and the proper ways to live (what they thought suitable) to their followers. However it was not their fault that their followers in later years kept on fighting regarding superiority of their belief.

 

[johnee]

But doesn't it then reduce the "speciality" of Christianity and make it just another religion to have borrowed concepts from Hinduism ? So I dont think Christian proselytisers are behind that. MY Opinion.

Speciality of christianity is based on speciality of Chirst. Christ as the sole saviour of humanity. So, the new convert is told, Christ is not teaching you anything new. He is only saying what Krishna told in bhagavad gita:" Surrender to me and you will be saved." Anything is fine, as long as it works.

Howerver, you are correct, this theory does raise several uneasy questions. Christianity, based on Christ's supposed crucification, cannot accept this theory.

 

[kalkibhagwan]

'destruction' errrr... He attained salvation which even gods yearn for..

true, some scholars also suggest that he deliberately did so to attain moksha.... But frankly he was a pain in the ass of humanity and goodwill

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The word Devil comes for the Hindu word Devas. The Christians saw the Deva as devils!

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Speciality of christianity is based on speciality of Chirst. Christ as the sole saviour of humanity. So, the new convert is told, Christ is not teaching you anything new. He is only saying what Krishna told in bhagavad gita:" Surrender to me and you will be saved." Anything is fine, as long as it works.

Howerver, you are correct, this theory does raise several uneasy questions. Christianity, based on Christ's supposed crucification, cannot accept this theory.

As long as it works? How does that work in any real circumstance?

 

[Sabir]

Did I say British scholars? I mean the left wing marxist historians in India like Romila Tahapar, Irfan Habib and johnee too has clarified that bit.. But then thats another topic and lets not deviate.

p.s.:- DNA studies have more conclusively proved that there si no big difference between the genetic makeups in North Indians and South Indians.

How can genetic study prove anything when we, the Indians are a complete mixed race. Honestly saying there is not much genetic difference between a human and other mamals. Only matter of couple of chormosoms. But in nacked eyes you can see there are presence of many races in our society even sometimes in same family.

I would like to hear from you what exactly Irfan habib or Romila Thaper have said, what logics they have given and how you counter their points..........all with proper backing.

 

[johnee]

The word Devil comes for the Hindu word Devas. The Christians saw the Deva as devils!

The Church, in its mission to spread the word, saw these Devas(or Devils) as chief hindrance, perhaps. Ultimately, Christianity and Islam triumphed on the basis of sword and not spirituality...

 

[KS]

How can genetic study prove anything when we, the Indians are a complete mixed race. Honestly saying there is not much genetic difference between a human and other mamals. Only matter of couple of chormosoms. But in nacked eyes you can see there are presence of many races in our society even sometimes in same family.

I would like to hear from you what exactly Irfan habib or Romila Thaper have said, what logics they have given and how you counter their points..........all with proper backing.

You have all you need about AIT over here.

p.s:- we all are deviating from the topic.

 

[johnee]

I don't believe it. For every one person leaving it in the West ,10 souls are "brought to light" in Africa, Asia.

However, 10 souls in Asia or Africa are not worth 1 soul in West in spiritual market. 1 soul in west has more leverage, influence, money, rights, social status than 10 souls of Asia or Africa.

Anyway, the larger point is that Church and state have history of using each other in west. Earlier, church and state coopted each other in looting the world and spreading the word in colonial times. Now, church becomes the instrument to spreading influence of the state(of west).