Discussing Hinduism

[Aupmanyav]

Hope you mention 'Brahma Sutras'. Best wishes again.
Of course, my type of atheistic Hinduism is very personal.

 

[Jiddanand]

आ सकलाद् ब्रह्म। There is nothing in the Brahm Sutras.

 

[Jiddanand]

Brahm is The great Bhram i.e. Delusion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, it is mentioned in RigVeda. Perhaps existence and non-existence are the same. In that case, there is no difference between Brahman and 'absolute nothing'.

 

[Shantanu]

Next week I am leading a 2 hour group discussion on hinduism in a group of 10 people. Its a weekly study of major world religions based on a book by Stephen Prothero. I will be briefly discussing certain sections from the Upanisads, Gita and some poetic works of Bhakti saints to provide a brief flavor to the various aspects of Hinduism.

If you have small sections from other scriptures that you particularly like, please refer them to me (with a brief explanation of what the scripture means in context).

I think you should include a section that says that the majority of HIndus learn about life and living from traditions and those who seek greater knowledge go to see gurus. Gurus are those who have studied reality and formulated their own ideas some or all of which may be attributable to scriptures. It is not certain that any of the gurus know the truth but whatever they do know and people recognise give them a following. This becomes their religion. Hinduism allows such individual pursuits.

 

[sayak83]

I think you should include a section that says that the majority of HIndus learn about life and living from traditions and those who seek greater knowledge go to see gurus. Gurus are those who have studied reality and formulated their own ideas some or all of which may be attributable to scriptures. It is not certain that any of the gurus know the truth but whatever they do know and people recognise give them a following. This becomes their religion. Hinduism allows such individual pursuits.

Will do. Thank you.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I have read the Ramayana but prefer the Mahabharata a bit more which I find provides a richer analysis of dharma and the human condition. But I will certainly incorporate this quote and your descriptions in my discussions. Thanks.

Namaste,

I would say that the Ramayana is more attune to practical Hinduism and more wide spread then the Mahabharata. Ramayana (Ramas travels) has traveled across south east Asia and have been incorporated in many different cultures and become tradition for many south Asians, not only the Indians. It is definitely more popular in everyday Hinduism then the Mahabharata. The Dharma of Ramayana is straight forward and not as subtle as in the Mahabharata. The glory of Bhakti is more prominent in the Ramayana. The ethics of War are different compared to Mahabharata but the essence of Dharma is still there, Dance, poetry and tradition of many Hindus across the world are more influenced by Ramayana then any other texts. In Thailand for example Ramayana is known as Ramakien and influences their traditional culture.

The Ramayana teaches the ethics (Dharmah) of War and the Dharmah (Responsibility) of those in power also the Purushastras are clearly advised and narrated in the Ramayana, When Hindus think of our Purushastras their first thought is the Ramayana (At least among the Hindus in Fiji), In Fiji it is tradition to listen to the Ramayana, mostly in the form of songs because that is tradition and Ramayana being Poetry its natural to sing it, we have a strong tradition of Hanuman Bhakti as well, where once a year we conduct Hanuman Puja and establish the prayer Flag (Which has a picture of Hanuman Ji) in our homes, we (My family specifically) sing a song while hoisting up the flag (Which signifies the Flag and Marker and works as a reminder of Dharma), we all hold the Bamboo pole and while placing it in the ground we vow to uphold Dharmah in our self and in society.

The Ramayana is deeply rooted in our Hindu society. Please consider this if one is going to discuss Hinduism.

Dhanyavad

 

[sayak83]

Namaste,

I would say that the Ramayana is more attune to practical Hinduism and more wide spread then the Mahabharata. Ramayana (Ramas travels) has traveled across south east Asia and have been incorporated in many different cultures and become tradition for many south Asians, not only the Indians. It is definitely more popular in everyday Hinduism then the Mahabharata. The Dharma of Ramayana is straight forward and not as subtle as in the Mahabharata. The glory of Bhakti is more prominent in the Ramayana. The ethics of War are different compared to Mahabharata but the essence of Dharma is still there, Dance, poetry and tradition of many Hindus across the world are more influenced by Ramayana then any other texts. In Thailand for example Ramayana is known as Ramakien and influences their traditional culture.

The Ramayana teaches the ethics (Dharmah) of War and the Dharmah (Responsibility) of those in power also the Purushastras are clearly advised and narrated in the Ramayana, When Hindus think of our Purushastras their first thought is the Ramayana (At least among the Hindus in Fiji), In Fiji it is tradition to listen to the Ramayana, mostly in the form of songs because that is tradition and Ramayana being Poetry its natural to sing it, we have a strong tradition of Hanuman Bhakti as well, where once a year we conduct Hanuman Puja and establish the prayer Flag (Which has a picture of Hanuman Ji) in our homes, we (My family specifically) sing a song while hoisting up the flag (Which signifies the Flag and Marker and works as a reminder of Dharma), we all hold the Bamboo pole and while placing it in the ground we vow to uphold Dharmah in our self and in society.

The Ramayana is deeply rooted in our Hindu society. Please consider this if one is going to discuss Hinduism.

Dhanyavad

I know that Ramayana is well loved in Hinduism and in many places is the most liked book among all Hindu books. But the fact is, I prefer and know the Mahabharata far better Ramayana. I know the story of course and have read the Valmiki version, but it does not create as much impact in me as Mahabharata does. So, while I do not deny Ramayana's importance and will certainly mention that fact, I am unable to make the story come alive in the same way I can do for Mahabharata.
The discussion has been postponed by a week due to sickness of our host, so maybe it would be nice for you and me to have a dialogue about Ramayana so that I can know better what you appreciate and love the most about it. I will be honest, I am critical about how Rama treats Sita and while he may have been an ideal king, its difficult to see how he could have successfully discharged his duties as a husband to his wife and as a father to his sons given that he exiled Sita in pregnant condition. How is this dharma? Yuddhisthira did a 12 years penance to expiate his wrong of dishonoring his wife by staking her in a dice game, but to exile your pregnant wife due to mere suspicion and public opinion? I would like to know what Ramayana says about this matter and what you think about it.

 

[निताइ dasa]

In Fiji it is tradition to listen to the Ramayana, mostly in the form of songs because that is tradition and Ramayana being Poetry its natural to sing it, we have a strong tradition of Hanuman Bhakti as well, where once a year we conduct Hanuman Puja and establish the prayer Flag (Which has a picture of Hanuman Ji) in our homes, we (My family specifically) sing a song while hoisting up the flag (Which signifies the Flag and Marker and works as a reminder of Dharma), we all hold the Bamboo pole and while placing it in the ground we vow to uphold Dharmah in our self and in society.

I completely agree. I was born in Fiji myself, and Fiji-Indian Hindus have a great great attraction to Ramayan and Ramachandra Bhagavan in particular. The only katha they generally give is from Tulsidasji's Rama Charitramanas and they have great love of singing the bhajans in kirtan. My great uncle left his body during a Ramayan katha. Particularly during the holi (Phalgun Masa) everyone gets together to celebrate and play holi. I remember those occasions were some of my happiest moments in my childhood, doing kirtan together of the Lord's pastimes . Below is one such chautal:

"Sada ananda rahe yaha tare pyare mohana, mohan khele faag lal, man mohana"

"It is always bliss where you are, my dear Mohan (Krsna). Mohan is playing with the colors, O one who enchants my mind"

"Khelat Khelat bichara gaye pyare mohana, radha lihine utaayi lal man mohana"

"Playing, and Playing, my dear Mohan becomes left behind. Radha comes and picks Him up, O one who enchants the mind"

 

[sayak83]

I completely agree. I was born in Fiji myself, and Fiji-Indian Hindus have a great great attraction to Ramayan and Ramachandra Bhagavan in particular. The only katha they generally give is from Tulsidasji's Rama Charitramanas and they have great love of singing the bhajans in kirtan. My great uncle left his body during a Ramayan katha. Particularly during the holi (Phalgun Masa) everyone gets together to celebrate and play holi. I remember those occasions were some of my happiest moments in my childhood, doing kirtan together of the Lord's pastimes . Below is one such chautal:

"Sada ananda rahe yaha tare pyare mohana, mohan khele faag lal, man mohana"

"It is always bliss where you are, my dear Mohan (Krsna). Mohan is playing with the colors, O one who enchants my mind"

"Khelat Khelat bichara gaye pyare mohana, radha lihine utaayi lal man mohana"

"Playing, and Playing, my dear Mohan becomes left behind. Radha comes and picks Him up, O one who enchants the mind"

Interesting. I know that Tulsidas Ramayan is very poetic and beautiful. But it omits the episode where Sita is sent to exile. So perhaps that version avoids some of the problems the Valmiki Ramayan has.
The line you quoted is not from Ramcharitmanas right? Its about Krishna, not Rama.
I reads the Bengali translation by Krittibas and later the Valmiki version in english.

 

[Shantanu]

Rama treats Sita and while he may have been an ideal king, its difficult to see how he could have successfully discharged his duties as a husband to his wife and as a father to his sons given that he exiled Sita in pregnant condition. How is this dharma? Yuddhisthira did a 12 years penance to expiate his wrong of dishonoring his wife by staking her in a dice game, but to exile your pregnant wife due to mere suspicion and public opinion? I would like to know what Ramayana says about this matter and what you think about it.

You need to understand the freedom of Hinduism. Let me see if I can explain this to clarify to you what dharma is.

Fulfilling one's dharma does not mean that one has unquestioned devotion to one's spouse. Marriage is a social mode of convenience in which a man and woman come together and develop a family with children. One should not be attached to ones wife and vice versa. All attachments are adharmic leading to less than ideal existence. To fulfil one's dharma correctly the two partners have to live independent lives within the family: the husband is an individual, and the wife is an individual. Each partner has his and her independent mind. Those minds take directions from their respective gods. If a sattvic mind is married to a tamasic mind there will always be friction in the marriage. If the differences between the two minds cannot be conciliated then one has to part company. From what I know of Ramayana, Rama suspected that Sita had not been faithful to him and may have been a depraved character in some respects and so terminated the marriage in the manner that he considered was appropriate at the time. Today this would be divorce. There is nothing sacrosanct about marriage. There is no evidence to suggest that marriage is anything more than a human construct that is not a Divinely-guided association between a man and a woman for monogamy. You should know that Krishna is known to have flirted with lots of gopis and may even have married two (Radha and some other ?). A person has to live by his principles of truth and justice and fight for these beliefs throughout his life. That is dharma. This means subjecting even your wife to a thorough scrutiny of her character and actions and deciding whether it is right for the association to continue. If your wife cannot prove to you that she has been faithful or does not have other character flaws the marriage is suffering a collapse. One has to go it alone when this happens. I dharma there are no duties to anyone other than yourself, not to wife, not to children, not to kingdom, not to people, etc. The person simply has to fulfil his own needs for an ideal existence upholding the principles that he fights evil in all its manifestations to live Godly existence. For a man to be regarded as purushottam he has to have an individual relationship with God through his mind. That association is sacrosanct and overrides all other considerations, as in the case of Ram.

The story of Rama is therefore the depiction of the perfect human being in the male form. That is why Ram is considered to be an avatar of Sri Krishna as God. He could do no wrong for the story shows that He is God himself living in the human form through his individual life.

Ramayana should therefore be regarded as equally important to individual Hindus to live out their lives as the Mahabharatta. They tell us different things. Mahabharratta is about the battle between two cousins (Kauravas and Pandavas) to assert their rights in the material world. Krishna avatar in the Mahabharatta shows the way for the individual to fight evil to assert one's rights. Additionally it contains the Bhagavad Gita in which there is considerable information on the Nature of God. We get to know all this through the story of Ram in the Ramayana also. The two epics are reinforcing truths about dharma. Hinduism is incomplete if both are not included to compare and contrast. This needs thorough analysis.

You should also note that Ramayana predates Mahabharatta as far as I know by hundreds of years maybe. So it was God depicting himself in a different light in a new yuga and stating things about Himself to make it explicitly clear that we are not alone in the universe as human beings. He comes in a major way from time to time. That is the Reality that Hinduism believes.

 

[sayak83]

You need to understand the freedom of Hinduism. Let me see if I can explain this to clarify to you what dharma is.

Fulfilling one's dharma does not mean that one has unquestioned devotion to one's spouse. Marriage is a social mode of convenience in which a man and woman come together and develop a family with children. One should not be attached to ones wife and vice versa. All attachments are adharmic leading to less than ideal existence. To fulfil one's dharma correctly the two partners have to live independent lives within the family: the husband is an individual, and the wife is an individual. Each partner has his and her independent mind. Those minds take directions from their respective gods. If a sattvic mind is married to a tamasic mind there will always be friction in the marriage. If the differences between the two minds cannot be conciliated then one has to part company. From what I know of Ramayana, Rama suspected that Sita had not been faithful to him and may have been a depraved character in some respects and so terminated the marriage in the manner that he considered was appropriate at the time. Today this would be divorce. There is nothing sacrosanct about marriage. There is no evidence to suggest that marriage is anything more than a human construct that is not a Divinely-guided association between a man and a woman for monogamy. You should know that Krishna is known to have flirted with lots of gopis and may even have married two (Radha and some other ?). A person has to live by his principles of truth and justice and fight for these beliefs throughout his life. That is dharma. This means subjecting even your wife to a thorough scrutiny of her character and actions and deciding whether it is right for the association to continue. If your wife cannot prove to you that she has been faithful or does not have other character flaws the marriage is suffering a collapse. One has to go it alone when this happens. I dharma there are no duties to anyone other than yourself, not to wife, not to children, not to kingdom, not to people, etc. The person simply has to fulfil his own needs for an ideal existence upholding the principles that he fights evil in all its manifestations to live Godly existence. For a man to be regarded as purushottam he has to have an individual relationship with God through his mind. That association is sacrosanct and overrides all other considerations, as in the case of Ram.

The story of Rama is therefore the depiction of the perfect human being in the male form. That is why Ram is considered to be an avatar of Sri Krishna as God. He could do no wrong for the story shows that He is God himself living in the human form through his individual life.

Ramayana should therefore be regarded as equally important to individual Hindus to live out their lives as the Mahabharatta. They tell us different things. Mahabharratta is about the battle between two cousins (Kauravas and Pandavas) to assert their rights in the material world. Krishna avatar in the Mahabharatta shows the way for the individual to fight evil to assert one's rights. Additionally it contains the Bhagavad Gita in which there is considerable information on the Nature of God. We get to know all this through the story of Ram in the Ramayana also. The two epics are reinforcing truths about dharma. Hinduism is incomplete if both are not included to compare and contrast. This needs thorough analysis.

You should also note that Ramayana predates Mahabharatta as far as I know by hundreds of years maybe. So it was God depicting himself in a different light in a new yuga and stating things about Himself to make it explicitly clear that we are not alone in the universe as human beings. He comes in a major way from time to time. That is the Reality that Hinduism believes.

For the record, I am simply questioning the version of Ramayana that does contain the fire test and the later exile of pregnant Sita. I am not sure if you have read the relevant parts of the poem there. I would like to know what reasons Rama had (in that version of the story) to act in such a way towards Sita. In Valmiki Ramayana at least, Sita did absolutely nothing to deserve such a treatment, as attested by Hanuman's witness, testimony of the Gods at the time of the fire test and Valmiki himself when Rama still decides to exile her (and valmiki gives her and her sons shelter). Valmiki Ramayana is the oldest composition, and the associated stories in the Uttara Khanda are considered authentic by believing Hindus in most of India at least. What I am asking is to provide a justification for Rama's action here that is faithful to dharma and faithful to the text, not make up imaginary character flaws and evidence that is mentioned nowhere in any text.
Mahabharata contains no mention of Radha or the Gopis. Its in a separate text called Bhavatam (I think) whose tenor and manner of interpretation is very very different from Mahabharata. I remember hearing a secondary legend (probably from Bhagavat Purana) that Krishna married 10,000 wives and split himself into 10,000 clones every night so that he could be a dutiful husband to all. Obviously associated with Bhakti philosophy and allegorical about the presence of God for everyone, but even if you take it literally, if you could do that, then sure you are absolutely justified in having 10,000 loving spousal relationships simultaneously.
Arjuna of course dutifully traversed the entire subcontinent marrying and siring sons left and right (one suspects for the practical reason that every kingdom in India can claim a descent from the Pandavas), but he gets punished for his promiscuity by being forced to hide for a year as an impotent transgender during their exile. He is significantly humbler and reflective after that experience.

 

[Shantanu]

For the record, I am simply questioning the version of Ramayana that does contain the fire test and the later exile of pregnant Sita. I am not sure if you have read the relevant parts of the poem there. I would like to know what reasons Rama had (in that version of the story) to act in such a way towards Sita. In Valmiki Ramayana at least, Sita did absolutely nothing to deserve such a treatment, as attested by Hanuman's witness, testimony of the Gods at the time of the fire test and Valmiki himself when Rama still decides to exile her (and valmiki gives her and her sons shelter). Valmiki Ramayana is the oldest composition, and the associated stories in the Uttara Khanda are considered authentic by believing Hindus in most of India at least. What I am asking is to provide a justification for Rama's action here that is faithful to dharma and faithful to the text, not make up imaginary character flaws and evidence that is mentioned nowhere in any text.
Mahabharata contains no mention of Radha or the Gopis. Its in a separate text called Bhavatam (I think) whose tenor and manner of interpretation is very very different from Mahabharata. I remember hearing a secondary legend (probably from Bhagavat Purana) that Krishna married 10,000 wives and split himself into 10,000 clones every night so that he could be a dutiful husband to all. Obviously associated with Bhakti philosophy and allegorical about the presence of God for everyone, but even if you take it literally, if you could do that, then sure you are absolutely justified in having 10,000 loving spousal relationships simultaneously.
Arjuna of course dutifully traversed the entire subcontinent marrying and siring sons left and right (one suspects for the practical reason that every kingdom in India can claim a descent from the Pandavas), but he gets punished for his promiscuity by being forced to hide for a year as an impotent transgender during their exile. He is significantly humbler and reflective after that experience.

As a secular person you have no business to come to this DIR under false pretences and disrupt our faith. It is against the rules of Religious Forums.

 

[Shantanu]

It's not a question of the magnitude of problems, but of netiquette. On a forum it's not polite to hijack other peoples threads.

Where did you learn to be polite to all?

 

[sayak83]

As a secular person you have no business to come to this DIR under false pretences and disrupt our faith. It is against the rules of Religious Forums.

Hindus can't be secular? I am a Hindu, and secular, an Indian, a Brahmin and a follower of Nyaya-Vaisesika school of Hindu philosophy who considers Mahabharata to be the best treatise on human condition and ethics ever written anywhere in the world. I am asking the simple question of how Rama upholds dharma in his treatment to Sita when he is criticized for his actions by the text itself. The question came for the simple reason that i have never connected with Ramayana the same way i had been able to with Mahabharata and when the question came up, I wanted a clarification from a person who knows and loves the Ramayana. Your accusation of me insulting Hinduism is ridiculous and baseless. Ramayana is also Dharmashastra and critical analysis of the actions of the protagonists to flesh out the ideas of Dharma is what the readers are supposed to do.

 

[Shantanu]

Hindus can't be secular? I am a Hindu, and secular, an Indian, a Brahmin and a follower of Nyaya-Vaisesika school of Hindu philosophy who considers Mahabharata to be the best treatise on human condition and ethics ever written anywhere in the world. I am asking the simple question of how Rama upholds dharma in his treatment to Sita when he is criticized for his actions by the text itself. The question came for the simple reason that i have never connected with Ramayana the same way i had been able to with Mahabharata and when the question came up, I wanted a clarification from a person who knows and loves the Ramayana. Your accusation of me insulting Hinduism is ridiculous and baseless. Ramayana is also Dharmashastra and critical analysis of the actions of the protagonists to flesh out the ideas of Dharma is what the readers are supposed to do.

Then in your Religion title you should be truthful and write that you are Nyaya-Vaisesika atheist, in the same way that Aup has written that he is a strong atheist and a advaitist, not propound the virtues of western secularism by selectively interpreting parts of Hindu scripture as justifying that kind of secularism. What is your comment on that?

 

[निताइ dasa]

am simply questioning the version of Ramayana that does contain the fire test and the later exile of pregnant Sita. I am not sure if you have read the relevant parts of the poem there. I would like to know what reasons Rama had (in that version of the story) to act in such a way towards Sita. In Valmiki Ramayana at least, Sita did absolutely nothing to deserve such a treatment, as attested by Hanuman's witness, testimony of the Gods at the time of the fire test and Valmiki himself when Rama still decides to exile her (and valmiki gives her and her sons shelter)

Ok, this dilemma also came up in the Hinduism subreddit a few months ago. Anyway this is how it is generally answered. Both the Agni Pariksha and also the exile of Sita are both deemed authentic by our school. There are actually several reasons for each of these events that I would like to discuss:

Agni Pariksha

The Sita who entered into the fire, was not the real Sita, but a replica (Maya Sita). It was this Maya Sita that was abducted by Ravana while the actual Sita stayed with Agni deva. Only Rama Himself and Agnideva knew this secret. This is confirmed in the Kurma Purana:

sītayārādhito vahniś
chāyā-sītām ajījanat
tāṁ jahāra daśa-grīvaḥ
sītā vahni-puraṁ gatā
parīkṣā-samaye vahniṁ
chāyā-sītā viveśa sā
vahniḥ sītāṁ samānīya
tat-purastād anīnayat

"When he was petitioned by mother Sītā, the fire-god, Agni, brought forth an illusory form of Sītā, and Rāvaṇa, who had ten heads, kidnapped the false Sītā. The original Sītā then went to the abode of the fire-god. When Lord Rāmacandra tested the body of Sītā, it was the false, illusory Sītā that entered the fire. At that time the fire-god brought the original Sītā from his abode and delivered her to Lord Rāmacandra"

Srila Valmiki does not explicitly mention this fact, but it is hinted in Tulsi das's Ramayan and revealed in Kurma Purana.
(edit: I found the exact quotation from Ramacharitramanas (Lanka Khanda Doha 107)):

"sitå prathama anala mahu° råkhi, prakata kinhi caha amtara såkhi"

"Sita had previously been placed within the fire, Sri Rama (the witness of all) sought to bring her back"

Exile of Sita

Okay, before the avatar of Ramachandra, Brhigu Rishi had cursed Lord Visnu (as Lord Visnu had killed his wife, in order to defeat the demons who were taking shelter at her residence) that He would have to spent many many years in separation from His own consort (Lakshmi or Sita). In order to fulfill the prophecy, Sita Maa had to be sent to exile. Another reason that was given in that debate was that As a king, His (Ram's) primary duty was to take care of the issues of the Kingdom. The accusations against Sita were indirectly an attack against His dynasty and therefore He had to take drastic measures, whether those rumors against Sita Maa were true or not (and we know they were false).What He was trying to show, is that when one becomes a King, one becomes a servant of the people. One cannot let the attachments of wife and family influence political decisions. A king has to sacrifice a great deal, and the service of his people is his highest dharma. This is the kind of ideal Lord Rama was showing. It is sad, but that is why Ramachandra is called "dharma avatara" everything is did was in accordance with Dharma Shastra.

 

[sayak83]

Then in your Religion title you should be truthful and write that you are Nyaya-Vaisesika atheist, in the same way that Aup has written that he is a strong atheist and a advaitist, not propound the virtues of western secularism by selectively interpreting parts of Hindu scripture as justifying that kind of secularism. What is your comment on that?

That title would be incomprehensible to anybody but a handful of Indians. And I am not really an atheist either. I do not have a fixed belief about what is the exact form that best describes (and we can only describe approximately) the essence of reality (if there is one, i.e. if Nagarjuna's arguments to the contrary can be resisted). I do know that aspects of Hindu dharma/darsana and Buddha dharma/darsana, (along with science, but science itself is consonant with Nyaya-Vaisesika, so that is fine) has provided me with the best way to unfold its layers. So I have faith in the efficacy of the dharmic religions and philosophy. Finally, Indian secularism has a different definition from Western (from properly France's) secularism. Indian secularism is based on the pillar edicts of Asoka, and therefore predates Western concepts by 2000 years. I am secular in this sense and in this sense only.
12th Major Rock Edict
The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, honours all sects and both ascetics and laymen, with gifts and various forms of recognition. But the Beloved of the Gods do not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the advancement of the essential doctrine of all sects. This progress of the essential doctrine takes many forms, but its basis is the control of one's speech, so as not to extoll one's own sect or disparage another's on unsuitable occasions, or at least to do so only mildly on certain occasions. On each occasion one should honour another man's sect, for by doing so one increases the influence of one's own sect and benefits that of the other man; while by doing otherwise one diminishes the influence of one's own sect and harms the other man's. Again, whosoever honours his own sect or disparages that of another man, wholly out of devotion to his own, with a view to showing it in a favourable light, harms his own sect even more seriously. Therefore, concord is to be commanded, so that men may hear one anothers principles and obey them. This is the desire of the Beloved of the Gods, that all sects should be well-informed, and should teach that which is good, and that everywhere their adherents should be told, 'The Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the progress of the essential doctrine of all sects.' Many are concerned with this matter - the officers of Dhamma, the women's officers, the managers of the state farms, and other classes of officers. The result of this is the increased influence of one's own sect and glory to Dhamma.

 

[Shantanu]

That title would be incomprehensible to anybody but a handful of Indians. And I am not really an atheist either. I do not have a fixed belief about what is the exact form that best describes (and we can only describe approximately) the essence of reality (if there is one, i.e. if Nagarjuna's arguments to the contrary can be resisted). I do know that aspects of Hindu dharma/darsana and Buddha dharma/darsana, (along with science, but science itself is consonant with Nyaya-Vaisesika, so that is fine) has provided me with the best way to unfold its layers. So I have faith in the efficacy of the dharmic religions and philosophy. Finally, Indian secularism has a different definition from Western (from properly France's) secularism. Indian secularism is based on the pillar edicts of Asoka, and therefore predates Western concepts by 2000 years. I am secular in this sense and in this sense only.
12th Major Rock Edict
The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, honours all sects and both ascetics and laymen, with gifts and various forms of recognition. But the Beloved of the Gods do not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the advancement of the essential doctrine of all sects. This progress of the essential doctrine takes many forms, but its basis is the control of one's speech, so as not to extoll one's own sect or disparage another's on unsuitable occasions, or at least to do so only mildly on certain occasions. On each occasion one should honour another man's sect, for by doing so one increases the influence of one's own sect and benefits that of the other man; while by doing otherwise one diminishes the influence of one's own sect and harms the other man's. Again, whosoever honours his own sect or disparages that of another man, wholly out of devotion to his own, with a view to showing it in a favourable light, harms his own sect even more seriously. Therefore, concord is to be commanded, so that men may hear one anothers principles and obey them. This is the desire of the Beloved of the Gods, that all sects should be well-informed, and should teach that which is good, and that everywhere their adherents should be told, 'The Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the progress of the essential doctrine of all sects.' Many are concerned with this matter - the officers of Dhamma, the women's officers, the managers of the state farms, and other classes of officers. The result of this is the increased influence of one's own sect and glory to Dhamma.

You are just too full of contradictions to be discussing Hinduism: how can a Brahmin be a secularist of any description?

 

[sayak83]

Ok, this dilemma also came up in the Hinduism subreddit a few months ago. Anyway this is how it is generally answered. Both the Agni Pariksha and also the exile of Sita are both deemed authentic by our school. There are actually several reasons for each of these events that I would like to discuss:

Agni Pariksha

The Sita who entered into the fire, was not the real Sita, but a replica (Maya Sita). It was this Maya Sita that was abducted by Ravana while the actual Sita stayed with Agni deva. Only Rama Himself and Agnideva knew this secret. This is confirmed in the Kurma Purana:

sītayārādhito vahniś
chāyā-sītām ajījanat
tāṁ jahāra daśa-grīvaḥ
sītā vahni-puraṁ gatā
parīkṣā-samaye vahniṁ
chāyā-sītā viveśa sā
vahniḥ sītāṁ samānīya
tat-purastād anīnayat

"When he was petitioned by mother Sītā, the fire-god, Agni, brought forth an illusory form of Sītā, and Rāvaṇa, who had ten heads, kidnapped the false Sītā. The original Sītā then went to the abode of the fire-god. When Lord Rāmacandra tested the body of Sītā, it was the false, illusory Sītā that entered the fire. At that time the fire-god brought the original Sītā from his abode and delivered her to Lord Rāmacandra"

Srila Valmiki does not explicitly mention this fact, but it is hinted in Tulsi das's Ramayan and revealed in Kurma Purana.
(edit: I found the exact quotation from Ramacharitramanas (Lanka Khanda Doha 107)):

"sitå prathama anala mahu° råkhi, prakata kinhi caha amtara såkhi"

"Sita had previously been placed within the fire, Sri Rama (the witness of all) sought to bring her back"

Exile of Sita

Okay, before the avatar of Ramachandra, Brhigu Rishi had cursed Lord Visnu (as Lord Visnu had killed his wife, in order to defeat the demons who were taking shelter at her residence) that He would have to spent many many years in separation from His own consort (Lakshmi or Sita). In order to fulfill the prophecy, Sita Maa had to be sent to exile. Another reason that was given in that debate was that As a king, His (Ram's) primary duty was to take care of the issues of the Kingdom. The accusations against Sita were indirectly an attack against His dynasty and therefore He had to take drastic measures, whether those rumors against Sita Maa were true or not (and we know they were false).What He was trying to show, is that when one becomes a King, one becomes a servant of the people. One cannot let the attachments of wife and family influence political decisions. A king has to sacrifice a great deal, and the service of his people is his highest dharma. This is the kind of ideal Lord Rama was showing. It is sad, but that is why Ramachandra is called "dharma avatara" everything is did was in accordance with Dharma Shastra.

Firstly thank you for providing a reply. These have been a controversial point my question had been a fair point. Would you agree that the explanations, right or wrong, has a deux-ex-machina feel to it? Imagine explaining this to a group of people who are being introduced to Hindu ethics. Its not very convincing for many. Why would the supreme lord of creation decide to accept a curse? There is no lesson in dharma that these episodes teach, even if the back story of the curse and fake sita are accepted. Finally, being a King is not a popularity contest, a Dharma King leads and leads his people to the ethical way, not ride opinion polls like current political leaders. Since when did Krishna cared what people said about him in his many many decisions, or Siva for that matter in that entire Daksha-Sati episode? There are problems here and its leads to my reluctance in handling Ramayana in detail as I am unsure how to think about these. But I will not say further. I freely admit, I have devoted more attention to Mahabharata and maybe later when I read Ramayana closely, I may find solutions. Best.