This a report from Stephen Knapp for those who are interested
" Namaste, While the controversy in the government of India seems to continue on whether Lord Rama really existed or not, here is another short article discussing whether Lord Rama walked the earth or not. It is dated July of 2003, but contains some interesting points of consideration. Hari Om and Hari bol,
Did Rama exist? -- Nanditha Krishna
The New Sunday Express on July 6, 2003
Ayodhya is in the headlines every day. One would have to be an ostrich to avoid the subject. Was there a temple before the mosque? Archaeologists would have to answer that. Was Rama born there? The answer is a matter of belief. Did Rama exist? Yes, I am quite sure he did. Rama's life was a fact. His divinity is a matter of faith.
To doubt the existence of Rama is to doubt all literature. There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for either Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed, who are known only from the Bible and Koran respectively. Does it mean they did not exist? If Rama performs miracles such as liberating Ahalya, the Biblical story of Jesus walking on water or the Koranic tale of Mohammed flying to heaven on a horse are equally miraculous. Such stories reinforce divinity, not fact.
RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Tejas Saajny on Sep 24, 2007 05:26 PM Permalink
Thank you very much for such a long article. Every one need to read this before making any comments. could you please send this article to pnrk369@gmail.com
RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Patriot on Sep 24, 2007 05:13 PM Permalink
Jeffrey, we likeminded people should get together Great work.. keep it up..
RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by on Sep 25, 2007 07:29 AM Permalink
excellent story Jeffrey. But I believe it represents one side of the story. This story itself raises so many questions but i dont want to discuss them as everyone who has rational thinking will obviously have these doubts. Not matter it is a fact or manipulated, it is indeed a good piece.
RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 25, 2007 10:39 AM Permalink
The credit is not due to me. I am but a Nimitha
I did nothing but copy and paste for your benefit. For continued enquiry into the Ramayana, I am pasting another beautiful, deeper explanation of the vedantic significance of Ramayana
I have taken the express permission of one Sri Balakrishna of Chinmaya Mission, Bangalore, over the phone to reproduce here major portion of an article with the above subject written by Swamy Chinmayananda which had appeared in Mar/April 1999 issue of Vedanta Vani. Even if some members have already read it, it is worth going over again and ruminate its meaning as Raama Navami is fast approaching.
The article is about the hidden meanings of the different names that appear in the story of Valmiki Raamaayana .
In Ayodhya, ( yudhdha means conflict, Ayodhya means where there is no conflict ) to the king Dasharatha ( = one who has conquered all the ten indriyaas ) was born the Supreme Lord, Sri Raama (= 'That One' who is revelling in every form - ' sarve ramanti yasmin iti Raamaah ' ) as a baby.
Raama grows up in Ayodhya (without any conflicts ) and then goes out of Ayodhya with sag
RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 25, 2007 10:41 AM Permalink
cont'd
Raama grows up in Ayodhya (without any conflicts ) and then goes out of Ayodhya with sage Vishwamitra to protect the yagnaas......................
Rama gets married to Sita. Janaka is her father. Janaka found her while ploughing the mother earth,............, most improbable place to come out from. Ultimately, she goes back to mother earth. So here is someone who came from no-cause and goes back to no-cause, and this is called, in vedaanta, as ' Maaya '.
Thus Raama, the Atman, the self, gets wedded to Maaya...........Once ' Self ' gets wedded to Maaya, the Ego, ' I ' can not remain in Ayodhya. Conflict must necessarily start. Thus he goes to jungle with Sita. Jungle means the forest of pluralities, conflicts, in which you and I live today.
There, as long as Sita was looking at Raama, living in Raama, for Raama, ( Ego thinking of God only ) she never knew the difference between Ayodhya and forest. But one little moment she turned her attention outwards and there stood the Golden deer - the delusory golden deer.........................
And once we see that delusion, we do not want God, we want that delusory thing only. Sita got stung by the desire, rejected Ram, sent him away saying, " I want that Golden deer ". Rama goes. The deer is killed no doubt, but it starts crying out and Sita asks Lakshmana also to go. He hesitatingly goes..........
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 25, 2007 10:42 AM Permalink
contd
It is at this time that Ten-headed monster, Ravana, comes in the guise of a sanyasi Bhikshu. See the anti-thesis. Dasharatha, who has conquered the ten indriyaas, is in Ayodhya, and Dashamukha is in Lanka. We are like Ravana. Our attention is constantly turned outwards through the ten indriyaas. Materialism enters the bosom of a seeker in a deceitful form. Ravana, the extrovert man, with lusty living came to Sita in a deceitful form. He comes and takes her away and Sita becomes a prisoner in Lanka.
Her fall from Ayodhya to Lanka is the fall of man from greatness of divinity into the present condition of guilt, sorrow, agitation, worries and suffering. Thus you and I are Sita now in Lanka.
What did she do there ? We must also go thro the same discipline. She refused to co-operate with materialism all around. When she says ' NO ' materialism can not touch her. She remained under Ashoka tree. Shoka is sorrow and Ashoka is sorrowless. Though there is sorrow in all our minds, we refuse to recognise it. There under the Ashoka tree she contemplated on Ram with a sense of total surrender, recognising and realising the terrible mistake that she made and remained there. When we thus remain contemplating on Ram, every seeker will get intimation from the Divine, Sri Ram, that ' I am coming '. Hanuman reaches her and gives her the Symbol. Her hope increases and she is confident that Rama is coming. She awaits the arrival of Rama.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 25, 2007 10:43 AM Permalink
cont'd As Sita weeps for him, Rama also expresses sentimental emotions. Valmiki wants to communicate to us that when we cry for God, he responds. How will he go there ? He is in jungle. The only army he can have is monkeys'. We find so much of criticism in Western literature that monkeys can not make an army. But here it has to be monkeys. Human minds and thoughts are the only ally for the Lord , the Spiritual Self, for I and you to reach that state. Monkeys and human minds have the same qualities of ' chanchalatwa ' and ' asthiratwa ' ( lack concentration and attention ).
These monkeys can never be the ally of the Lord as long as they are ruled by Vali, the incorrigible lust. As long as our minds are ruled by lust we are not ready to do Ram's work. So Vali is to be destroyed and see who comes to the throne - Sugreeva. Greeva means the reins of horses. Sugreeva - the total self control ! Under Sugreeva the monkeys are available to do Ram's work and together they build the bridge - the bridge of contemplation to reach the realm of Ravana - the realm of pure materialism, to destroy the extrovertedness, destroy Ravana and take Sita to Rama.
Sita, the ego, when comes face to face with Rama, the Self, the ego disappears. Just as ' the dreamer I ' disappears before ' the waker I ' . Sita thus disappears. It is Kapila muni who tells Rama that he can not go back to Ayodhya and bring about Rama Rajya without a queen. Hence the Kapila muni makes a delusory Sita with whom Rama re
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 25, 2007 10:44 AM Permalink
cont'd
Hence the Kapila muni makes a delusory Sita with whom Rama returns to Ayodhya and rules for a short time. All men of Realisation, having realised the Truth, always come back to the world for a short time to serve as Saints, Prophets. We can not work in the world without an ego. But here, it is not a true ego, but an illusory ego. When he thus rules, Luva and Kusha are born. Similarly when a Jnani works in the world, a Bible or a Koran , a Gita or an Upanishad will necessarily emerge out of Him.
Then he gives up the world . There is no compulsion on him to give up because it is already an illusory one. It is not a real one. He gives up the world and there ends the masterpiece.
Thus Raamayana, from Ayodhya to Lanka is the process of an individualised Ego , coming into the present state of misconception that I am a limited, individualised ego, and the return of Rama back to Ayodhya from Lanka is the man's piligrimage fulfilled in the Realised Self. There after they live in the world for a short time serving the mankind and then the story ends.
Thus there is a spiritual background to the entire story fo Ramayana. That is the reason why it is so popular. The average man is happy with the story. To the mediocre man, the idealism that Rama stands for is a great education. But even the man of Realisation enjoys Ramayana , because he sees in and through the story , the entire Vedantic Wisdom, echoing and re-echoing as a melody Divine."
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 25, 2007 10:50 AM Permalink
This is the noble beauty of our scriptures. I am posting it here so that we can understand the subtle levels of meaning in this beautiful narration.
When I see the sad brainwashed brigade try to denigrate soemthing so beautiful, I wonder how much hatred hsa been inculcated into their braind and what the Hindus are missing without ever knowing it.
I hope that all of you enjoy it as much as I do.
Every time I read it, it makes me even closer to the Lord and gives me the strength to stand and lay low these "Asuras" as Lord Ram did
RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 24, 2007 11:02 AM Permalink
cont'd "The Ramayana starts with Valmiki asking Narada who was the greatest man who ever lived. Narada narrates the story of Rama, king of Ayodhya, in a few terse, factual lines. Valmiki then goes on to elaborate the story in poetry, creating the Ramayana. Creativity distinguishes the epic from Narada's news report. Rama is not a god in the epic. But we have contemporary examples of people deified in their lifetime, who need a Valmiki or Vyasa to immortalise them.
The Ramayana is geographically very correct. Every site on Rama's route is still identifiable and has continuing traditions or temples to commemorate Rama's visit. Around 1000 BC or earlier, no writer had the means to travel around the country inventing a story, fitting it into local folklore and building temples for greater credibility.
In 1975 the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) unearthed fourteen pillar bases of kasauti stone with Hindu motifs near the mosque at Ayodhya; reports of the excavations are available with the ASI. Rama was born in Ayodhya and married in Mithila, now in Nepal. Not far from Mithila is Sitamarhi, where Sita was found in a furrow, still revered as the Janaki kund constructed by her father Janaka. Rama and Sita left Mithila for Ayodhya via Lumbini. In 249 BC, Ashoka erected a pillar in Lumbini with an inscription referring to the visits by both Rama and Buddha to Lumbini.
RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 24, 2007 11:04 AM Permalink
cont'd "In 249 BC, Ashoka erected a pillar in Lumbini with an inscription referring to the visits by both Rama and Buddha to Lumbini. Ashoka was much nearer in time to Rama and would be well aware of his facts.
Rama, Lakshmana and Sita left Ayodhya and went to Sringaverapura - modern Sringverpur in Uttar Pradesh - where they crossed the River Ganga. They lived on Chitrakoot hill where Bharata and Shatrughna met them and the brothers performed the last rites for their father. Thereafter, the three wandered through Dandakaranya in Central India, described as a land of Rakshasas, obviously tribes inimical to the brothers' habitation of their land. Tribals are still found in these forests. The trio reached Nasik, on the River Godavari, which throbs with sites and events of Rama's sojourn, such as Tapovan where they lived, Ramkund where Rama and Sita used to bathe, Lakshmankund, Lakshmana's bathing area, and several caves in the area associated with their lives in the forest.
Rama then moved to Panchavati near Bhadrachalam (AP), where Ravana abducted Sita. The dying Jatayu told them of the abduction, so they left in search of Sita. Kishkinda, near Hampi, where Rama first met Sugriva and Hanuman, is a major Ramayana site, where every rock and river is associated with Rama. Anjanadri, near Hospet, was the birthplace of Hanuman (Anjaneya); "
RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 24, 2007 11:05 AM Permalink
cont'd "Sugriva lived in Rishyamukha on the banks of the Pampa (Tungabhadra); Sabari probably also lived a hermitage there. Rama and the Vanara army left Kishkinda to reach Rameshwaram, where the Vanaras built a bridge to Lanka from Dhanushkodi on Rameshwaram Island to Talaimannar in Sri Lanka. While parts of the bridge - known as Adam's Bridge - are still visible, NASA's satellite has photographed an underwater man-made bridge of shoals in the Palk Straits, connecting Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar. On his return from Sri Lanka, Rama worshiped Shiva at Rameshwaram, where Sita prepared a Linga out of sand. It is still one of the most sacred sites of Hinduism.
Sri Lanka also has relics of the Ramayana. There are several caves, such as Ravana Ella Falls, where Ravana is believed to have hidden Sita to prevent Rama from finding her. The Sitai Amman Temple at Numara Eliya is situated near the ashokavana where Ravana once kept her prisoner."
RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 24, 2007 11:06 AM Permalink
cont'd "The presence of the Vanaras or monkeys, including Hanuman, has made the authenticity of the epic suspect. But this is the most plausible part of the story. The Vanaras were obviously tribes with the monkey totem: after all, the Ramayana belongs to a period when most of India was jungle with tribal forest-dwellers. India still contains several tribes with animal totems. An early issue of the Bellary District (now in Karnataka) Gazetteer gives us the interesting information that the place was inhabited by the Vanara people. The Jaina Ramayana mentions that the banner of the Vanaras was the vanaradhvaja (monkey flag), thereby reinforcing the totemic theory. Similarly, Jatayu would have been the king of the vulture-totem tribe and Jambavan of the bear-totem tribe.
Was Lanka the modern Sri Lanka? One school of thought places Lanka on the Godavari in Central India, citing the limited descriptions of the South in the latter half of the epic. Narada does not mention Panchavati or Rameshwaram, but refers to Kishkinda and Lanka. Living in the north, it is unlikely that Valmiki knew the south. But Valmiki would know the difference between a sea and a river. Lanka, says the author definitively, was across the sea.
All the places visited by Rama still retain memories of his visit, as if it happened yesterday. Time, in India, is relative. Some places have commemorative temples; others commemorate the visit in local folklore. But all agre
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 24, 2007 11:12 AM Permalink
People only remember the very good or the very bad. Leftist historians have chosen to rubbish archaeology, literature and local tradition.
So my fellow readers of this board, enjoy htis well written piece and see how the leftist ans pseudo-seculars are hell bent on destroying anyhting that is sacred to the Hindu faith
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Is Lord Rama story a myth?
by Jeffrey Mittal on Sep 24, 2007 11:08 AM Permalink
cont'd "Time, in India, is relative. Some places have commemorative temples; others commemorate the visit in local folklore. But all agree that Rama was going from or to Ayodhya. Why doubt connections when literature, archaeology and local tradition meet? Why doubt the connection between Adam's Bridge and Rama, when nobody else in Indian history has claimed its construction? Why doubt that Rama traveled through Dandakaranya or Kishkinda, where local non-Vedic tribes still narrate tales of Rama? Why doubt that he was born in and ruled over Ayodhya?
Major settlements, including temples, were renovated several times: restoration is a 20th century development. When the main image was made of perishable materials, it was replaced by stone. For example, we know that the wooden image of Varadaraja Perumal of Kanchipuram was replaced by a stone image, for the earlier image is still preserved in a water tank. The present architecture belongs to the sixteenth century Vijayanagara style. Yet the temple was known to have existed before the Pallava period (seventh century). This is the story of many sacred sites in India. This happened to several Rama temples too.
Rama's memory lives on because of his extraordinary life and his reign, which was obviously a period of great peace and prosperity, making Ramarajya a reference point. People only remember the very good or the very bad. Leftist historians have chosen to rubbish archaeology, literatu
