Siva or rama or any hindu god, were never born , never died, they are just imaginary and non-historic. There is no antiquity and hence fake like most vedic gods......
prove me one vedic god ever existed in real... Sorry sir, spiderman or superman doesn;t become god, though they do dominate our sentiments.
Pity poor Dravidians like asai thamby and others who cannot get over their obsession with Brahmins.
Now I understand that you love Mr. EVR or Periyar, and abusing Brahmins is your way of feeling good, but for your own sake, try to look beyond the diet of hate that EVR has fed you.
Re: Dravidian angst
by Mr Pundit on Sep 18, 2008 09:20 AM Permalink
Dravidians hate vada pav, ram, sanskrit and brahmins, because they all came from europe and hindus. Dravidians are aborginal inhabitants of India. crafty brahmins are good for claiming everything...... Tehy would even say hinduism is oldest and brahminism existed in Indus valley civilization, whereas brahmins and non of their imaginary god existed there or before 3500 years they did not exist in Bharat land.
Those moronic (what else they hardly have intelligence) North Indians who use Idly and Vada to make fun of South Indians will themselves be eating Idly and Vada since it has high nutrient content compared to the spicy pav bhaji, vada pav.
How can you eat pav bhaji, vada pav in the way these north Indian vendors make with their bare hands (hardly any cleanliness!!!). First learn some cleanliness and civilized behavior, then come and argue here you uncivilized North Indians
Re: idli, vada better than pav bahji, vada pav
by Mr Pundit on Sep 18, 2008 09:18 AM Permalink
Because north indians have come from europe and they are hindus, where as dravidians are aborginals of this land, who were not hindus before brahmins came in this land. Brahmins are related to sanskrit and sanskrit is totally different from Tamil. Tamil came from Brahmi the oldest language of dravidians and oldest language in world, nothing to do with hindus or ram etc.. So to come back to point IDLI VADA is more indegenous than vada pav or pav bhaji of non-dravidians. A non-existing europen ram cannot be worshipped among dravids. It is brahmins who adore ram the way amricans adore superman, spiderman.
Dear indiman whatever reason for your hate towards North Indian(Aryan),Ram Setu is not private property of tamilians alone neither is shiva.If you can come out of bias that is ,you can check the family deity of many of our Indian ,the North,west,east,centeral most of our kul devata is shiva and most of the holy places are also assosiated with him,ecept mATHURA,aYODHYA,dwARKA And Puri all other places of worship are related to shiva,From Amarnath,kedarnath to Rameshwar.So what is your point that your ever you refer as north indian hindus should stop worshiping Him,just to statisfy dravidian beleiving people like you?
Do tamilians call their God as Asuras?NO it is the Iranians who refer their God as ASURA and Devas special INDRA as demon.Susquetally all Iranian Kings have taken the Title of ASUras and Indians as Dev,hence Krishnadevaraya(even though you want to beleive that dravidian kings were haters of RAm and KRishna(for what ever reasons).
Re: @ indiman
by Mr Pundit on Sep 18, 2008 09:22 AM Permalink
Ram is imaginary, all vedic brahmin gods are imaginary, dravidians are non-hindus, forcibly made as dalits by brahmin forces.
Brahmins are from europe. Brahmins are not welcome with their lies and lie filled mythology. Ram is like spider man and superman of america. Trusting brahmins have made this country 85% lower class and no development in last 3000 years in india.
Justice M M Ismail, an erudite Tamil scholar especially in Kamba Ramayana, brings out the uniqueness of Kamban in the following statement: "Kamban sang the story of Rama as of God come down on earth to suffer, chasten, uplift, help and guide men. Apart from this difference in the treatment of the hero, there is considerable difference in the poetic form between Valmiki and Kamban. Kamban's Ramayana is a lyric, while Valmiki's is an epic. The lyrical sparkle of Kamban and Tulsi Das goes well with their constant reminder that Rama is the Supreme Being Himself."
Therefore Kamba Ramayana is not a translation of the Sanskrit epic by Adikavi Valmiki as both lyrics and epics are different. Epic will have detailed description and lyrical presentations will be shortened and is left for the readers to interpret.
RE:RE:MM Ismails view on Kamba and Valmiki Ramayan
by Gajanan Mohite on Jul 30, 2008 10:06 AM Permalink
For example , there is a lyric " Yeh Mahelo, yeh banavat ki Duniya" in Guru Dutt classic. One can interpret it many ways. This is brilliant lyrics. Absolute beauty. If written in prose then you have to write it in detail.
There is a lot of poverty in India, why do want to build such big mansions and live so opulently , o man!!, when you can have a home like Warren Buffet , do a lot of charity for others. So what happens is that Warren Buffet living in a three bed room home does not live opulently like the rich in India do still after this great lyrics of Sahir in a Guru Dutt film.
The point here , lyrics can be seen as a poetic comment on society and not a detailed description. That is where Valmiki scores over Kamban in terms of legal interpretation. For sheer poetry, Kamban may be great, but as it is said, all is in details, so Valmiki will be good for legal counsel.
RE:Supreme Court
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 31, 2008 12:29 AM Permalink
Though I am against bring in Ram and his army of monkeys to dispute the Canal project and try to use the name of Ram for every political move, I am against the canal project for the sake of Environment.
The people around the shore can't handle the pollution and oil spill from ships. even if it is profitable project, the cost would be the health of coastal people.
Look I have long postponed typing this article because I didn’t want to increase animosity between tamils and other indians but i think its time now. This is what I have heard about the origin and purpose of Ramayana. The cause for writing Ramayana was not to portray the victory of good over evil but that to create a victory of vaishnavites over worshippers of Shiva or in racist form maybe Aryans over Dravidians or a victory of northerners over south. This is why Ravana is portrayed as devotee of Shiva, asuras are dark in color and Rama is portrayed as fair, from Ayodhya but Asuras are from south including tamil areas in both india and srilanka. First given both Valmiki and Kamban are Brahmins. The Cholas ruled from 300 BC to 1200 AD in tamil areas including northern parts of Sri lanka. This was a golden period in tamil history. Lots of Brahmins started moving into the tamil areas from the north in this time because of the wealth and prosperity in the Chola regions. The Cholas where staunch supporters of Shiva and opposed and sometimes hated Vaishnavite beliefs. This is why they didnt build a single significant Vishnu temple (except srirangam which was built as a gift by a chola king). They built over 50 of the greatest Shiva temples ex. tanjore, gangaikonda cholapuram, chidambaram, poolanurva(sri lanka swamimalai, thirukadaiyur, Tiruvarur, thiruvaiyaru, poolanurva(sri lanka), kumbakonam ........ Now an obvious friction between the Brahmins in Chola kingdom and the Cholas w
RE:Origin of Ramayana
by RN Iyengar on Jul 30, 2008 06:47 PM Permalink
Mr. Indiman, your article (if you can call it that way!) is full of holes. 1. There is no such thing as Dravidian or Aryan; it is a myth and it has been proven by scholars; nowhere in our Vedas, are these ever mentioned. 2. Rama is never portrayed as fair. 3. Kambar (Kamban written as 'Kambar" is honorific, like adding 'ji' in Hindi) was not a Brahmin but from a weaver family. 4. Srirangam temple was not built as a gift by the Chola king! The temple has been in existence for over 2000 years.
RE:Origin of Ramayana
by deepak on Jul 30, 2008 08:19 AM Permalink
We need to fund a mental hospital for dravidians, so tamil people, as well as India could be saved from these colonial pet dogs...
RE:Origin of Ramayana
by indiman on Jul 30, 2008 06:37 AM Permalink
Now an obvious friction between the Brahmins in Chola kingdom and the Cholas was the Vishnu beliefs and the motivation of Brahmins to promote Tamil as a language. They hated the caste system in its purest form because in Chola Empire there where only thinly demarcated classes based on economics and not the actual vaishnavite caste system.
Now for the Brahmins the guardians of Vishnu worship a kingdom rooted in another religion/ god/ beleif posed a threat and they had to write an epic to gain a psychological victory over the Tamil kings, worshippers of Shiva, promoters of a language and literary works in a language other than Sanskrit. Hence arrived Ramayana, which in its ancient and purest form has no mention of Shiva as supporter of good. Why else would Ravana have to derive his supernatural powers from Shiva and then Vishnu have to incarnate himself as a human being to kill Ravana. Doesn’t it sound like an illogical waste of time for two gods to go through this excercise. Now in the current world and after Krishna deva raya installed the nayakkars in tamilnadu, vaishnavism and shaivism were intermingled but in ancient world they where distinct religions. Extrapolating to the present we can probably infer that Ram Sethu is just a farce based on a story that was required in time that existed 2000-3000 years ago. Times have changed, needs have changed, if we don’t change with times we will only be left behind.
RE:RE:Origin of Ramayana
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 30, 2008 07:17 AM Permalink
And there are no Sivaite script that talks about Ram or Vishnu. Whereas, various Vaishnavite script say that Siva gave away stupid boons to Asuras and Vishnu got to take an avatar to protect the people from those Asuras. May be it's a political move against Siva worshippers.
But I don't care what there scripts say since Siva is the creator, protector and destroyer.
RE:Origin of Ramayana
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 30, 2008 07:14 AM Permalink
I don't know if your statements are right. But Kamban (very talented in Poetry) who wrote Ramayan was not known for ethics and he was very arrogant towards our Famous Avvai paati. Onetime, our Grandma busted Kamban in front of the King and this Kamban had no answer for that.
RE:RE:RE:Origin of Ramayana
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 31, 2008 12:03 AM Permalink
Very simple. It\'s to include Vaishanavite and Sivaite into same belief. The Sivaites believe Siva is the supreme being and Vaishnavite think Vishnu is the supremem being. How did they solve the problem? By bringing in Trinity making Siva as destroyer and Vishnu as protector and Bramha as creator. you just make everything inclusive for people to accept it. Same way, Ram worshipped Siva to make Ramayan acceptable to Sivaites. In reality, the hardcore vaishnavities won\'t worship Siva. just ask around Vaishnavities who know scripts.
RE:RE:RE:Origin of Ramayana
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 31, 2008 12:14 AM Permalink
Just like Trinity. make Siva inclusive so that it's accepted by Sivaites. If you ask the real Vaishnavite who know scripts, they would never pray at Siva.
RE:Ramand Lakshman were supposed to be best Archers
by Nana Phadanvis on Jul 30, 2008 05:38 AM Permalink
What has that to do of India winning gold at olympics?
India produced Arabhhtatta the genius but how come it produced a dumb and foolish person like you? Well its the same logic..!!!!
RE:Ramand Lakshman were supposed to be best Archers
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 30, 2008 05:45 AM Permalink
The question is not about if I am fool or not. It's a very simple question. Both Ramayan and Mahabarath talk about the best Archers the world has ever seen. But, when was India won a gold in Olympics in Archery? With so much (supposed) culture and bravery behind it's history, how could no Indian can compete against world's best sportsmen? Why can't they have guts and passion to compete?
RE:Ramand Lakshman were supposed to be best Archers
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 30, 2008 06:20 AM Permalink
Nana, why no answer? I will tell you the answer. Indians can go fight the week and minority. but they never attempt to fight against big dogs like China or USA or even South Korea who has the best Archer. So much braggin about culture and bravery when half the people can't find 3 quare meals a day.
we guys are only fit to Brag about some thing that might (or not ) happend 17 thousand ago.ha!ha!ha!
RE:Ramand Lakshman were supposed to be best Archers
by r patil on Jul 30, 2008 10:53 AM Permalink
ThoondiKaaran suprisingly ur name has kaaran in it another great Archer.We had great Archer in the past it does mean we have them now.I have heard so many tamiian proud of chola kings to have expanded the empire till south east ASia.While we were number number one in both ground fight(with sword ofcourse)and navy,hope you know the KUTTUMARAN ships(i.e the katmarines)are best designe ships,So the question is why we are not the top most today? Can you answer this?
RE:Ramand Lakshman were supposed to be best Archers
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 31, 2008 12:08 AM Permalink
Even today, the some of the best Atheletes from India are from Chozha (Tamil nadu) or Chera (Kerala) empire. Our golden girl PT Usha was originally from Kerala and got trained in Tamilnadu.
We don't say Chozhas are best in the world like Mahabarath and Ramayan says. The History says that they defeated small empires through out India and middle east and annexed them. Go read history
RE:RE:Ramand Lakshman were supposed to be best Archers
by ThoondilKaaran on Jul 31, 2008 12:09 AM Permalink
not middle east but south east Asia. Even now, India is trying to win over SAARC just like the Chozhas did
by knowing all facts abt UPA, not even single hindus shud support them in coming elections .... but still there are some hindu 6s,,, they just want lick A88 of the UPA and muslims... i don't know when they will learn...
