12-20-2005, 12:58 AM
sarangadhara,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Interesting discussion going on , there is one incident from the uttarakanda of the ramayana . the nature of the incident is dubious , many claim it to be a late addition of dravidian movement propaganda machine ramaswami .yet kalidasa mentions it in his raghuvamsa and Bhavabhuti in uttara rama charitra , if these works were also tampered with am not sure of.
This incident has been used to browbeat the hindus about the caste system ,once again i repeat my personal opinion is the incident is of dubious nature but often questions are raised against so want to have a strong answer to defend .
The incident in question is Shambuka Vadha
In rama rajya the son of a young brahmin couple dies a untimely death , in ancient india if a son dies before the father , it means grave unjustice is happening and the king is held responsible , when the issue is brought befor lord rama and he is accused of the boy's death , Lord rama gets agitated and is informed it might be due to the penances of shambuka who being a chandala is not entitled to learn the vedas. and he having learnt them in secret overhearing them , is practising austerities in the forest to attain swarga and to enter it with his physical body. Rama flies into a rage , proceeds to the forest and slays Shambuka ,who while dying praises rama and the dead boy comes back to life.
Rama is hailed by the present devatas from the sky.
This flies against all the message of the ramayana , shabari a tribal is a great devottee , the king of the bhils is a great friend of rama and a great devotee and many more incidents. then why shambuka ???? is this incident real at all ?? or totallly a falsification of the actual fact.
if it happened what is the actual take , wish to see senior members respond with a good debunking with references .
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> would give me a chance to get back to those lefties after all these years.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I noticed several responses to your mention of Shambuka Vadha. It has been suggested that the incident has been interpolated. I have my own take on this incident. It is my contention that the word Sudra has been used in two ways in Hindu scripture. It has been used in the sense of Jati and it has been used in the sense of Varna (Character type). This dual use is very confusing. Ramayana is a prime example where this dual usage is found. Shabari, Guhak were people of Shudra Jati. Shambuka was a Shudra by Varna. A careful perusal of the Ramayana story makes it clear that Shambuka was attempting to harm the denizens of Deva Loka. You have given a short synopsis of the Shambuka story. Let me fill in some of the details to show how when you read the ENTIRE story and NOT a politically truncated story that a completely different picture emerges.
<b>THE ACTUAL STORY</b>
<i>It is indeed true that the incident starts with the death of a son of a young brahmin couple . It is also true that the incident is interpreted to mean that some grave injustice is happening. It is also true that the issue is indeed brought befor lord rama, It is indeed true that Lord Rama is informed that it might be due to the penances of shambuka who is a Shudra. It is at this point that the details given in the story actually matter. Lord Rama is now told that in Krita Yuga a Shudra is not entitled to do Tapsya and that this restriction is NOT there in Kali Yuga. Lord Rama went to the forest and saw Shambuka doing Tapasya. Shambuka told Lord Rama that he is a Shudra and he is doing Tapasya to take over Deva Loka. When Lord Rama heard that Shambhuka was trying to conquer Deva Loka he beheaded Shambhuka. Then Indra and other Devas appear and shower flowers over Lord Rama. It is quite clear from the story that Indra and other Devas were relieved that Rama stopped Shambhuka from trying to conquer Deva Loka. Devas told him that since Shambhuka's unethical power grab of Deval Loka has been stopped, the son of the Brahmana is now living.
</i>
Several questions arise after reading through the story. Why is it that during that Yuga, Shudras wern't allowed to do Tapasya? Why is it that just a person A is affected and even dies when some other person is doing something bad? Such a thing will make a mockery of the theory of Karma. If because I do anything bad, you get affected then that will make salvation impossible. All these things suggest that a literal reading of the story is fraught with grave danger. The writer of this story does NOT want us to read this story literally. So how can one read the story? My suggestion is that one should replace the word Shudra here by person with Tamasa Guna. Then the story makes perfect sense. A person with Tamasa Guna was not allowed to do Tapasya during that age because he would inflict great damage to dharma. Remember that Gita defines the work done under the influence of Tamasa Guna as," And that work which is performed under delusion, without any regard to consequences, loss, injury to others, and to one's own capacity - is said to be born of Tamas" (Gita 17.25). Shambhuka was definitely NOT an innocent person and was doing Tapasya to harm others.
One can not also accept that Shudras , in the sense of Jati, were not allowed to do Tapasya during that time. If I recall correctly Rama appeared before Guhaka at the point of Guahaka's death. The point of all Tapasya is to see God at the moment of death. The whole story does not make sense if the word Shudra is taken to mean people who are called Shudras by our society. It does make sense if the word Shudra is taken to mean a person of Tamasa Guna.
There is one other point here. You may well say that one shouldn't keep changing the meaning of a term in order to interpret the scripture. My answer to that is that there is at least ONE other example in Hindu scripture where one is forced to interpret the word Shudra differently in order to keep two parts of Shuti in harmony. Adi Shankaracharya has himself done it. It is another matter that Adi Shankara's attempt is not correct as pointed out by Vivekananda. You will find the details in the website given below.
[url=http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=3981][/url]
Gangajal
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Interesting discussion going on , there is one incident from the uttarakanda of the ramayana . the nature of the incident is dubious , many claim it to be a late addition of dravidian movement propaganda machine ramaswami .yet kalidasa mentions it in his raghuvamsa and Bhavabhuti in uttara rama charitra , if these works were also tampered with am not sure of.This incident has been used to browbeat the hindus about the caste system ,once again i repeat my personal opinion is the incident is of dubious nature but often questions are raised against so want to have a strong answer to defend .
The incident in question is Shambuka Vadha
In rama rajya the son of a young brahmin couple dies a untimely death , in ancient india if a son dies before the father , it means grave unjustice is happening and the king is held responsible , when the issue is brought befor lord rama and he is accused of the boy's death , Lord rama gets agitated and is informed it might be due to the penances of shambuka who being a chandala is not entitled to learn the vedas. and he having learnt them in secret overhearing them , is practising austerities in the forest to attain swarga and to enter it with his physical body. Rama flies into a rage , proceeds to the forest and slays Shambuka ,who while dying praises rama and the dead boy comes back to life.
Rama is hailed by the present devatas from the sky.
This flies against all the message of the ramayana , shabari a tribal is a great devottee , the king of the bhils is a great friend of rama and a great devotee and many more incidents. then why shambuka ???? is this incident real at all ?? or totallly a falsification of the actual fact.
if it happened what is the actual take , wish to see senior members respond with a good debunking with references .
<!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> would give me a chance to get back to those lefties after all these years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I noticed several responses to your mention of Shambuka Vadha. It has been suggested that the incident has been interpolated. I have my own take on this incident. It is my contention that the word Sudra has been used in two ways in Hindu scripture. It has been used in the sense of Jati and it has been used in the sense of Varna (Character type). This dual use is very confusing. Ramayana is a prime example where this dual usage is found. Shabari, Guhak were people of Shudra Jati. Shambuka was a Shudra by Varna. A careful perusal of the Ramayana story makes it clear that Shambuka was attempting to harm the denizens of Deva Loka. You have given a short synopsis of the Shambuka story. Let me fill in some of the details to show how when you read the ENTIRE story and NOT a politically truncated story that a completely different picture emerges.
<b>THE ACTUAL STORY</b>
<i>It is indeed true that the incident starts with the death of a son of a young brahmin couple . It is also true that the incident is interpreted to mean that some grave injustice is happening. It is also true that the issue is indeed brought befor lord rama, It is indeed true that Lord Rama is informed that it might be due to the penances of shambuka who is a Shudra. It is at this point that the details given in the story actually matter. Lord Rama is now told that in Krita Yuga a Shudra is not entitled to do Tapsya and that this restriction is NOT there in Kali Yuga. Lord Rama went to the forest and saw Shambuka doing Tapasya. Shambuka told Lord Rama that he is a Shudra and he is doing Tapasya to take over Deva Loka. When Lord Rama heard that Shambhuka was trying to conquer Deva Loka he beheaded Shambhuka. Then Indra and other Devas appear and shower flowers over Lord Rama. It is quite clear from the story that Indra and other Devas were relieved that Rama stopped Shambhuka from trying to conquer Deva Loka. Devas told him that since Shambhuka's unethical power grab of Deval Loka has been stopped, the son of the Brahmana is now living.
</i>
Several questions arise after reading through the story. Why is it that during that Yuga, Shudras wern't allowed to do Tapasya? Why is it that just a person A is affected and even dies when some other person is doing something bad? Such a thing will make a mockery of the theory of Karma. If because I do anything bad, you get affected then that will make salvation impossible. All these things suggest that a literal reading of the story is fraught with grave danger. The writer of this story does NOT want us to read this story literally. So how can one read the story? My suggestion is that one should replace the word Shudra here by person with Tamasa Guna. Then the story makes perfect sense. A person with Tamasa Guna was not allowed to do Tapasya during that age because he would inflict great damage to dharma. Remember that Gita defines the work done under the influence of Tamasa Guna as," And that work which is performed under delusion, without any regard to consequences, loss, injury to others, and to one's own capacity - is said to be born of Tamas" (Gita 17.25). Shambhuka was definitely NOT an innocent person and was doing Tapasya to harm others.
One can not also accept that Shudras , in the sense of Jati, were not allowed to do Tapasya during that time. If I recall correctly Rama appeared before Guhaka at the point of Guahaka's death. The point of all Tapasya is to see God at the moment of death. The whole story does not make sense if the word Shudra is taken to mean people who are called Shudras by our society. It does make sense if the word Shudra is taken to mean a person of Tamasa Guna.
There is one other point here. You may well say that one shouldn't keep changing the meaning of a term in order to interpret the scripture. My answer to that is that there is at least ONE other example in Hindu scripture where one is forced to interpret the word Shudra differently in order to keep two parts of Shuti in harmony. Adi Shankaracharya has himself done it. It is another matter that Adi Shankara's attempt is not correct as pointed out by Vivekananda. You will find the details in the website given below.
[url=http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=3981][/url]
Gangajal