Ramayana: Ancient Indian Epic

[Virendra]

But still nothing wrong in what Hanuman did. War had started at that point and Mahiravana was planning to execute the two Generals on Hanuman's side.

Indeed if Mahiravan employed methods unbecoming of a warrior in order to abduct both the princes unconscious.
If the other side uses all tricks of cheat book, you can't survive by pole dancing on the pole of morality and ways of combat.
Consider what happened to "by the book" native Indian armies on many occasions while fighting against invading hordes who'd do anything to win.
Result is history lying bare in front of us. You can't use standards for an enemy who doesn't recognize them at all

Regards,
Virendra

 

[pmaitra]

Actually, no. Mahiravan was a legitimate target.

From Mahiravan's point of view, Rama and Laxmana were legitimate targets as well. The operative term is 'point of view.'

Karmanya karma ja, pasheyda karmani cha karma ja, sa buddhimana manushyesu, sa yukta kritasnakarmakrit!

 

[Dovah]

From Mahiravan's point of view, Rama and Laxmana were legitimate targets as well.

Yes. No one questions Mahiravans action. Hanuman's actions were however justified.

 

[KS]

Let stop this bullshit about Married man and Lustful lady

As soon as you stop.

Married man did get married again and again in this age with abandon as did Ram's Father

If the man and woman both accepted I dont find a problem. it's their choice. Only when its one-sided the problem arises.

her Lust here is not subject to the judgement of two forest wanderers

Its entirely upto their judgement since they were the affected. A third person cant come and arbitrate.

The sequence of events is very simple :

1) A smitten lady approaches a married man. He rebuffs
2) She then approaches his brother, who again is married and is rebuffed again.
3) She becomes angry and attacks the lady love of the man
4) The man acts in defence and punished the lady
5)Rest is history.

Capiche ?

BTW since you say that is not Lust, what kind of heavenly love would she have possesed to immediately approacj Lakshman once Ram ji rebuffed her. ? Yeah true love...

 

[KS]

Of course, but then, that brings both the belligerents to the same level, and therefore, neither is superior to the other.

In other words, Hanuman has 'lowered' his standards to that of Mahiravan, or 'elevated,' if you will.

Read my post again...Can you 'defeat' subterfuge with subterfuge ?

Meaning the blame lies squarely on the one who initiated it.

 

[KS]

Holy shit they teach nowadays in the name of Ramayana...

I was initially opposed to that DU banning some particular version of Ramayana...but seeing what people spout here,I now think that is justified.

Ram ji and Laxman ji wronging an innocent girl Surpanakha..Hell yeah....

 

[Virendra]

Read my post again...Can you 'defeat' subterfuge with subterfuge ?
Meaning the blame lies squarely on the one who initiated it.

Means of combat in one battle in an ongoing war cannot be extrapolated to paint the character of the protagonists completely; without considering the context.
Besides, if Hanuman acting as morality minister had announced his arrival rightaway, what was the guarantee that the demon won't spin another trick or kill the princes momentarily. How would Hanuman accomplish his crucial mission at such critical juncture?

 

[Cliff@sea]

1) A smitten lady approaches a married man. He rebuffs
2) She then approaches his brother, who again is married and is rebuffed again.
3) She becomes angry and attacks the lady love of the man
4) The man acts in defence and punished the lady
5)Rest is history.

Capiche ?

BTW since you say that is not Lust, what kind of heavenly love would she have possesed to immediately approacj Lakshman once Ram ji rebuffed her. ? Yeah true love...

As they Say the

The Devil is in the Details .

Your oversimplification of events suits your purpose
to justify that the least amount of force these great gods could have used was to cut off the nose of a women that they deliberately enraged .

In my version these two Aryans first humiliated and ridiculed a Dravidian for seeking to marry them
and when she got enraged on this humiliation as women often do . . .
They used an inappropriate amount of force .

 

[pmaitra]

Read my post again...Can you 'defeat' subterfuge with subterfuge ?

Meaning the blame lies squarely on the one who initiated it.

Read my answer again.

Coming to 'initiating' the entire cascade of events, Cliff@Sea explained it very well.

 

[KS]

Actually Hanuman ji is the pinnacle of morality to me. Not even Ram ji comes close to him.

The only reason he did not take Sita out of Lanka on his own, though he was more than capable of doing it.

 

[LurkerBaba]

the nose of a women that they deliberately enraged .

In my version these two Aryans first humiliated and ridiculed a Dravidian for seeking to marry them
and when she got enraged on this humiliation as women often do . . .
.

That's a big load of BS. You're talking about DMK's version, which says that Hanuman was a "monkey-faced" Dravidian Dalit.

 

[KS]

Your oversimplification of events suits your purpose
to justify that the least amount of force these great gods could have used was to cut off the nose of a women that they deliberately enraged .

They deliberately enraged...how ? By not accepting her offer. You meant to say they should have committed infidelity because that poor lady got itches all over and stalkled them knowing pretty well they were married ?

In my version these two Aryans first humiliated and ridiculed a Dravidian for seeking to marry them
and when she got enraged on this humiliation as women often do . . .
They used an inappropriate amount of force .

Ok...this is where I know I must stop this debate. Because you are not here for a genuine debate.

 

[Virendra]

As they Say the
Your oversimplification of events suits your purpose
to justify that the least amount of force these great gods could have used was to cut off the nose of a women that they deliberately enraged .

Fine lets complicate the oversimplified. But then you'd put your color of interpretation and we'll put ours. Who is to judge?

They used an inappropriate amount of force .

Didn't I tell you she charged towards Sita? Would you suggest waiting further till she had finished killing Sita?

 

[Cliff@sea]

As soon as you stop.

BTW since you say that is not Lust, what kind of heavenly love would she have possesed to immediately approacj Lakshman once Ram ji rebuffed her. ? Yeah true love...

I am not saying that it was NOT Lust . . .
It could have been . . .
I t as well may not have been . . .We dont know

and More importantly Ram and Laxman had no right to punish her for harboring sexuaa desires;

 

[KS]

That's a big load of BS. You're talking about DMK's version, which says that Hanuman was a "monkey-faced" Dravidian Dalit.

That is not even DMK's position anymore.

Stalin and his wife Durga just visited a famous Vishnu temple days before regarding the Aadi festival.

 

[Virendra]

I am not saying that it was NOT Lust . . .
It could have been . . .
It as well may not have been . . .We dont know

ok I'm outta here .. good night guys .. take care

 

[KS]

and More importantly Ram and Laxman had no right to punish her for harboring sexuaa desires;

First try to say Ram ji and Laxman ji...we are talking about Gods revered by millions of HIndus.

Secondly...no..they had the perfect right to protect their loved ones from the depradations of a sex-craven widow,

 

[Cliff@sea]

Fine lets complicate the oversimplified. But then you'd put your color of interpretation and we'll put ours. Who is to judge?

That's it . . .!!
I rest my case

 

[pmaitra]

Gentlemen, can we please keep it cordial?

 

[LurkerBaba]

Re-opened. Attack the Message Not the Messenger