TAMILAR' GOD RAMA

[pizzalot]

How can you say he is a Tamilar God ? Did he (Ram) know Tamil ? Why are we drawing borders for Ram who is an invader from Ayodhya ? We can celeberate the Ayodhyan in the South when they (North Indians) celeberate the Cholan or Pandiyan in the North. Until then, please do not come here and tell us about Ram. People of South always see Ram as invader. Ramayan depicts the advanced people of South as tribes and monkeys. Do you want us to praise Valmiki and his kind ? In South I see very vithiyasamana Hindutva. People who claim Rama as their own (people like you). Maybe you are related to him. Many things could happen when someone invades. But do not impose him on others who feel that they are still independent. Right now we are on an agenda to develop. Do not take us the Ayodhyan way. Got it ? Even if Southerners do not have hatred in him, you are instilling it in us by talking about him again and again.

[pizzalot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmiki

Karunanidhi seems to be correct. I was reading this from Wikipedia. It was quite shocking to me .. What do you have to say for this Deva Priya ?
"....

Valmiki has very minutely described the daily life of Rama after he became King.

The administration, as Valmiki, states, was entrusted to Bharata, his brother. He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and subjects. According to those accounts, the day was divided into two parts, up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana. Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama used to tale his meals. The food, according to Valmiki, consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a 'Prince among women's men'. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.

As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded.

The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama, which was nearby, of the sage Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital.
......
......
"

[thamizhvaanan]

Right now we are on an agenda to develop. Do not take us the Ayodhyan way.

Devapriya, why do you have to quote these things? what does it acheive? we all know that tamil culture got corrupted with vedic religion since the beginning of first millenia. We find that tamil literature is progressively secular as we go back older in date. Doesnt that point to infiltration of beleifs ?

seri, whatever be the case.. what is the point in discussing these things? Will my day get better if I accept that Rama is a tamil god

[thamizhvaanan]

To add to pizzalot's post, I also read somewhere that in valmiki ramayana it is mentioned that Rama referred to Budha as a thief. While in exile, he advises his brother to be wary of a thief in the forest who with his wily words and deceit corrupts people (Budha was a rebel against existing religion. Naturally people had all sorts of bad things to say about him) It is quite funny that even he was branded as an avatar of vishnu later on in some places (Am I right? )

[P_R]

TV, don't the King Rama and Valmiki pre-date Gauthama Buddha ?

We find that tamil literature is progressively secular as we go back older in date.

Could you elaborate further on this. I am particularly interested in the knowing about the secular nature of Tamil literature in the BC era ?

[Shakthiprabha.]

To add to pizzalot's post, I also read somewhere that in valmiki ramayana it is mentioned that Rama referred to Budha as a thief. While in exile, he advises his brother to be wary of a thief in the forest who with his wily words and deceit corrupts people (Budha was a rebel against existing religion. Naturally people had all sorts of bad things to say about him) It is quite funny that even he was branded as an avatar of vishnu later on in some places (Am I right? )

Any link for the same tv

[P_R]

Hi pizzalot.
Long time no see.

Thanks for the wiki link. It was pretty informative.

People of South always see Ram as invader.

Factually incorrect.

Whether Rama 'ought' to be worshipped is a different question. That debate would be interesting but most likely beyond the scope of this Hub. However, your statement is a sweeping generalization that (most) people of the South did not take favourably to Rama.
That's a completely different thing.

In the previous pages there was a post quoting an article by the writer P.A.Krishnan that talks about how Rama has been a celebrated and venerated in the South over the ages. Did you have a chance to read it ? Are you refuting that as incorrect ?

[P_R]

Pizzalot, re. the link I quoted by the
writer PA Krishnan.
Reasonably sure I read it in this debate. Can't locate the post. Here is the link.
The article was published in Pioneer - a mainstream journal.

[sriranga]

Right now we are on an agenda to develop. Do not take us the Ayodhyan way.

Devapriya, why do you have to quote these things? what does it acheive? we all know that tamil culture got corrupted with vedic religion] since the beginning of first millenia. We find that tamil literature is progressively secular as we go back older in date. Doesnt that point to infiltration of beleifs ?

seri, whatever be the case.. what is the point in discussing these things? Will my day get better if I accept that Rama is a tamil god

so, do you also agree Tamil culture is getting corrupted with muslim/christian beliefs?
if you are secular you gotta agree to it.

do we need to get into the tamil culture now?
if you love tamil culture, why did you learn english then?

if accepting rama as tamil god doesn't make your day better, why do you bother visiting this thread and why do you waste your day posting here?

you can be secular, but don't mock at people who are trying to develop themselves spiritually and sharing their knowledge with others who are interested in it.

[Punnaimaran]

Right now we are on an agenda to develop. Do not take us the Ayodhyan way.

Devapriya, why do you have to quote these things? what does it acheive? we all know that tamil culture got corrupted with vedic religion] since the beginning of first millenia. We find that tamil literature is progressively secular as we go back older in date. Doesnt that point to infiltration of beleifs ?

seri, whatever be the case.. what is the point in discussing these things? Will my day get better if I accept that Rama is a tamil god

so, do you also agree Tamil culture is getting corrupted with muslim/christian beliefs?
if you are secular you gotta agree to it.

do we need to get into the tamil culture now?
if you love tamil culture, why did you learn english then?

if accepting rama as tamil god doesn't make your day better, why do you bother visiting this thread and why do you waste your day posting here?

you can be secular, but don't mock at people who are trying to develop themselves spiritually and sharing their knowledge with others who are interested in it.

Dear Sriranga,

TV is sharing his knowledge with others who are interested in his view. So it may not be a waste of his day. You are entitled to your view and TV to his. And if in saying Ram is a Tamil God develops you sprirtually, I'm happy for you.

I would rather develop my spirituality by following the good virtues attributed to him than by deciding whether he is a Tamil God or a Greek one.

Regards
Punnaimaran