Jump to content

Talk:Ravana: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Ck.mitra (talk | contribs)
Line 45: Line 45:


Ravana was indeed a brahmin by birth,as far as the Dravidian issue is concerned i don't think there is anything to say on it, anymore even they know it ,southindians accepted Hinduism that is that, since today everything is a political agenda it is a shame,
Ravana was indeed a brahmin by birth,as far as the Dravidian issue is concerned i don't think there is anything to say on it, anymore even they know it ,southindians accepted Hinduism that is that, since today everything is a political agenda it is a shame,

I have seen a temple in Kerala in the name of Manthara; you can also see it in Google maps. But what about her caste?chami 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


== Ravana History ==
== Ravana History ==

Revision as of 17:27, 8 January 2023

Template:Vital article

Unintelligible sentences and disastrous syntax

Many articles on hinduism are really distressing. The writers' knowledge of grammar is too often poor, and their writing irritatingly incorrect and shabby!

Even a Tyrant may have some good qualities but still is a bad person.

The fact is that even if a bad tyrant has some good qualities does not mean that he is not overall a bad person. Some, for example, communists may say Stalin was good for his reforms but it does not exonerate him to such extent that he is indeed a good person. Hitler is another example. Hitler was an evil man although some say that he helped Germany recover economically. Also, Lord Ram only invaded Lanka after diplomatic efforts failed. Second, Vibhushana, was not treacherous and fled in order to avoid being killed by Ravana for opposing him. even if one argues he was treacherous, to stand idle in face of evil is to support evil. That's why he is praised as symbol of righteousness. Karna, despite having some good qualities, is faulted for siding with Duryudhana even though he knew the Pandavas' cause was just. This shows the contrast between Karna and Vibesshana. That's why it was proper for him to oppose Ravana. It is uncontested that Ravana abducted Rama's wife, Sita Devi and no amount of glorification can exonerate Ravana on that point.

Same with Duryudhona in the Mahabharata. He had some good qualities and was a great warrior even though he was overall on the whole, a bad person. Bhima, on the other hand, had some bad qualities but he was overall a good person.

Human beings are complicated creatures and show shades of gray. One should look at the overall character to determine whether he is a good person or bad.

Also, the Allies in world war II bombed dresden and did bad acts but overall they were the 'good' guys. To say wanton destruction of Lanka is an unfair characterization. In any war, even a just war, cities will get destroyed. Raj2004 3 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

The ultimate reward is going to heaven and enjoy! The Pandavas failed the great test. Also Rama's overall treatment of his married wife is shameful. What will be called the overall character? chami 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talkcontribs)

Notion of Ravana as good is recent byproduct mostly of Dravidian movement

Many people in the south elevated Ravana as good as part of the Dravidian movement which feared domination from the North. see http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2012/stories/20030620003609800.htm also, even in Thailand and Bali's version of Ramayana view Ravana as a bad man.

second, one reader in rediff, site, http://mboard.rediff.com/board/board.php?boardid=news2005jun13sai&page=4 said the following about Ravana: "(One writer, Sivaswamy, sic) He should have some basic knowledge of Dravidian movement (which is limited to Tamil Nadu). Only this movement has attempted to idolize Ravana, merely because: Ravana is supposedly a "Southerner" (he was King of Sri Lanka which has long ceased to be part of India, anyway). Rama was a "northerner" and on top of it an "aryan" and therefore for a Dravidian movement there is a pathological hatred against Rama. What is forgotten and surprising too, is that in this process this Dravidian Movement which has been attempting to idealise Ravana (only to spite the Northerners and the Believers) forgets conveniently that Ravana was also a Brahmin! How come then that this brahmin haters have turned to become a brahmin lover (only in the case of Ravana?)."

Just to give a Neutral point of view

Ravana was indeed a brahmin by birth,as far as the Dravidian issue is concerned i don't think there is anything to say on it, anymore even they know it ,southindians accepted Hinduism that is that, since today everything is a political agenda it is a shame,

I have seen a temple in Kerala in the name of Manthara; you can also see it in Google maps. But what about her caste?chami 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ravana History

Ravana History starts long years in Sri Lanka with same as Rama history in India. so First Languange is in world Tamil. so Sri Lankan Tamil people is strongly believe Ravana is Tamil King