Talk:Rama/Archive 1

I've changed this by adding material that seems less 'Fundamentalist' in its attitude to the historicity of Rama and the reliability of the Ramayana as history.

Paul

Does being 'less' fundamentalist mean denying the presence of the Historic Ram? Or is it the fundamentalist who sees every one else as one too, only reverse. [[Ekabhishek 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)]]

NOTE TO ALL CONTRIBUTORS: Rama is a sacred figure to all Hindus, so please be aware of the sacred grounds you tread while editing, and do not use academic liberty to malign or downgrade Hindu history. No need to create unnecessary controversies where none is needded. Please edit with reverence and respect to a Hindu religious figure. Ekabhishek 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What western historians miss out on

It is a pity that so many people who know Rama only as a literary figure will never get to know the Bhakti Rasa of Rama, what inspired Tulsidas and Valmiki to write their epics. Ekabhishek 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Politics of Religion

It is interesting that you can read about Allah and Jesus in the Wikipedia without any political commentary when much of the worlds politics centers around these religions and yet have a good chunk of an article on Rama devoted to giving a personal political opinion and commentary.

This is a colonial and imperial bias that has little to do with the culture of Rama who is revered by Muslims in the South East, the Sufi poet Kabir, Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs as an icon for Eastern civilizations and thought in much the same way the Homer epics have influenced the West.

You're right. In the near future (as I am busy with college work) this page should be redone in accordance with the principles that guided the writing of pages on Christ and Allah and other such figures.--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:34, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to state that it is quite obvious if the time line states that the epic that is 'Ramayana' occurred during circa 7000BC, the reincarnation of Vishnu that is Rama cannot be considered as an Indo Aryan. The Aryan push through to the Indus valley civilization did not occur till much later.

There is much more to Ravana than how he is portrayed (an evil Dravidian King/Demon). The North Indian portrayal of this epic is quite skewed and very anti-dravidian.- Kuga Palaniandy

• Let's stop calling Ram, a myth, instead he is an historic figure. Please Check out the following: Astrological study of the Date of Ram's Birth also Times of India

Myth is what we call other people's religion. -Joseph Campbell. Ekabhishek 07:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Sita

An interesting clarification on the kidnapping of Sita, the creation of maya or shadow Sita can be found in Adhyatma Ramayana. It also clarifies rather beautifully the age old of misconception about the fire ordeal of Sita. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekabhishek (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added text on Kidnapping of Sita. - Shilpa Choudhari

Note that in many Hindu traditions that there are variations on how this was carried out. for instance in the Dvaita tradition, Sita left behind a prakriti (think mannequin) form and Indra controled the mannequin while Sita went to Kailas. In the Ramanuja tradition Vedavati is the Sita that is kidnapped.-arjunb

Except in most of the scriptures i've seen Vedvati dies after Ravanna tries to molest but not before cursing him that her future incarnation will be his downfall, and was reborn as Sita

She was known as Vedavati in the Krta Yuga, O Rama!' paused sage Agasthya, who was narrating the story to Sri Rama. 'She again appeared in the Treta Yuga as the daughter of the high-souled Janaka. Since she came out of the furrow, she is called Sita. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.47.25 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Plus the usage of a mannequin or a stand in in fact hurts the story of Sita, because one of the aspects of her story is that in spite of all the hardships she endured her love for Rama never wavered, by replacing her with somone else you take that part of her story away, basically it becomes the other person who endured the hardships and should be respected, not Sita

Large slab of text which is a copyvio

It appears that the user User:203.199.120.7 copied a massive chunk of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's essay "The Riddle Of Rama And Sita" [2]. It didn't take long for me to find this. This user has been blocked for 24 hours, and I'll be listing them Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Please don't revert or rollback my changes. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is debate, existing mainly in the Western countries, as to whether he was a real or mythical king in ancient India. In Eastern countries, he is largely regarded as real.

I was suprised to see that there is a question about whether Rama was a real king. Not to sound fanatic, but I did notice that similar quesitons are not being posed about other legendary figures eg Jesus or Muhammed . Can anyone enlighten me as to why this distinction - NuttySocrates

ALso I have taken the liberty of deleting the line. Please revert changes if necessary and please justify why this line is valid. Thanks . NuttySocrates

Same goes the for the bit about Parashurama. It is acknoledged that he is a complete avatara of Vishnu just like Rāma and Krishna, any article on the conflict between Rāma and Parashurama must be referenced to a Purana or a seperate author. It seems the version posted on this page is incorrect but I can't verify its veracity. -arjunb

I'd like to point out that Wikipedia does have a lengthy article--Historicity of Jesus--on the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure or not. I'm not aware of whether there are similar debates about Mohammed or not, but if there are, Wikipedia should reflect that. The same goes for Rama. Nareek 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing to create an article titled the Historical Ram, so please pool in Ekabhishek 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've merged Historical Ram back here. This has no notability whatsoever outside the Sethusamudram controversy, and probably shouldn't be more than a footnote. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

article should be as big as jesus christ!

Ram is a very a important figure. This article should be much more detailed. He's had a huge impact on south asia and southeast asia. --Dangerous-Boy 06:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that no mention of Diwali was there which is an important festival linked with his life. I added it there. I feel that the mention of Rama in Wiki is small although he is one of the most revered Gods among Hindus. The description should be more detailed about his life history, the values that he stands for and how much he popular he is among Hindu deities.Abahuguna 05:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely idle to mention Jesus either. The role of the Maryada Puruṣottama has been compared to the suffering of Jesus for the redemption of the world. Might also mention that a common salutation in Hindi, and I think other Northern langs as well, is राम राम!; thus attesting to the popularity of Him. Khirad^talk 14:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool down guys...wiki is about sharing knowledge...not showcasing our religion...so please be rational in editing articles

sri rama

The form of sri rama in devanagari was missing so I put it up. --Shell 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rāma's Arrow

I am sorry to say but the entire portion on Rāma's encounter with Parashurāma is incorrect. Needs to be cleaned up and fixed due to inaccuracies in the article according to classical Hindu Theology.arjunb

Renaming Rama to Rāma

Thoughts on the recent renaming of this article from Rama to Rāma please? My immediate concern is that it (the article) may become largely invisible to searches, since few people will know or think to search for the latter form with its symbols. I've also previously posted my proposals on transliteration at [3] . Few people have commented on it, but if the proposals there are accepted, then Rama is the existing primary transliteration. See also Ravana. Imc 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Review

He gives the sacred, sacrificial nectar to his three wives according to their seniority: Kousalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi.

Was that the order, or was Kaikeyi second ?

Sage Vishwamitra takes the two princes to the Swayamvara ceremony for Sita.

Was it a proper swayamvara ? In the regional version that I know, it is more like challenge that anybody could try any time - not a competition as in the case of Draupadi or a selection by the bride as in Raghu's marriage of Indumathi. Tintin (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) It was that order. Sumitra was offered a portion of the nectar, then Kaikeyi, and then Dasaratha gave the remainder to Sumitra again. Although technically Bharata is the youngest, one can argue that Shatrughna is.

(2) Janaka was extremely particular in finding Sita's hubby, so he set an impossible task. Most kings failed or did now show up, and Rama and Vishwamitra's party arrived a couple of days before the ceremony was supposed to end. Rama's Arrow 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

meaning of "Raam naam satya hai"

i think the implied meaning of "Raam naam satya hai" is - God's name (thats how God is symbolised for reference) alone is Truth (also meaning permanent or unchangable or imperishable) while everything else (here in this case the physical body which symbolises materialistic pocessions) is false (impermanent). Otherwise no fun in saying "Raam's name is Truth" (the literal meaning) Ramashray 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hey Ram..." or "Ha ram Khor" as Gandhi's last words: Controversial

In 'Why I assassinated Gandhi' book by Gopal Godse, a brother of Nathu Ram Godse, writes that Gandhi didn't say such words. Moreover, he says that it was all the propaganda of Congress party to win Hindu sentiment. Sunil 19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but we can't exactly take it out of the article, remember this is Gandhis assissin we are talking about. Very interesting however. I feel that we should let it remain as Controversial--Seadog^{Please review me!} 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well latest medical research shows that it is impossible for a person to say or murmur something when shot by a bullet... so Gandhi saying "Hey Ram" is not medically valid...

Wouldn't be depend on where he was shot? Maybe he said it when he saw the assassin with the gun? We will never know. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Gizza here in the manner that it would have to depend on where he was shot. — Seadog 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rama Rajya

Being an important subject (at least symbolically and philosophically, if not historically), the subheading of Rama Rajya should be divided and made a different article. I do not have enough information myself but there are various points which can be discussed. For example the way Rama ruled and the idea of karma, plus compare it with the idea of the Golden Era (the idea in Christianity where people live in a perfect world, I hope I am on the right track) etc. Atleast for the time being Rama Rajya should be added as a term which would at least show up in the search results and point (redirects) towards this article...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaiyach (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Myth or real?

I was surpised to find that Rama's birthdate was mentioned as early as 7000BC... i think some hindu fanatic has written this article...Its believed that Indus valley civilization happened during around 3000BC and Aryans came later...So how does Rama, who is an Aryan crops up in 7000BC...? Someone please clean this article...

There are no claims made which says that Ram was an arya.. In fact I think you are confused with the word Arya itself which has a different meaning in Hindi. This epic is said to have taken place way before the Indus Valley Civilization or the arrival of Europeans in India. Read about the Ram Rajya - the kingdom of Ram which is supposed to have lasted for about 11 thousand years... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaiyach (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Wrong Pronounciation of Ram

The the Pronounciation is mentioned as "Rarhm"? To the bext of my knowledge, it is "Ram". --- Sanjay Chitnis 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In Sanskrit the 'a' is pronounced, making it Rarma, but many Hindi speakers will drop the a, making it Rarm. Regards Gouranga(UK) 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gouranga. But my question is regarding the "rh" part in "Rarhm". I am OK with either "Ram" or "Rama". But why add "rh" in between? is it as per some scientific notation of pronounciation? Regards .. --- Sanjay Chitnis 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sanjay in that it should go. I imagine the reasoning behind "arh" is that those who speak English as a first language would tend to pronounce the "a" in Ram in the same way as in "Black," and "Dam." The "arhm" was obviously a non-formal attempt to fix this problem but Wikipedia is based on formal transliteration. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, we shouldn't say that Rama is pronunced as Ram? Can we add a formal IAST pronunciation note somewhere? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have (hopefully) clarified the different transliterations and pronunciations in the first sentence. I also copyedited the rest of the first paragraph and realised that there are some serious problems in writing style at the moment. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

When did Ram become Rama, or Lakshman become Lakshmana, and Ravan became Ravana?!.. is it when many non-Hindi/English speaking people started writing the history of Ram?...I wonder Please let's not loose his name, at least. Imagine any Ram bhajan with Rama replacing Ram! Ekabhishek 10:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In original Sanskrit, the names are spelt (and pronounced) Rama and Lakshmana. Hindi speakers generally drop the a's. Both ways are thus correct, depending on your language. It has nothing to do with English historians? [4] Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Source you are refering to is merely in Romanized Sankrit, so if you read original Sanskrit you will never find, Ram written as Rama. No Sankrit Mantra mentions Ram as Rama, ever. Ekabhishek 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I used that verse as an example because if you pronounce the fifth line of the verse as "Ram, Lakshman, Bharat" (without the a's) then it just doesn't fit in with the poetical Sanskrit meter. In this instance the 'a's have to pronounced. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 21:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I disagree. Rama is the Sanksrit version. I agree with Gouranga. In Vishnu sahasranama, there is no word Ram.

Raj2004 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Vishnu Sahasranama, there is राम. When this is Romanised in terms of IAST, it becomes Rāma. It is important to realise that the "a" at the end of Rama is not pronounced like the "a" at the end of India. It is a schwa, so it is pronounced similar to Lakshmi and Hari. It is also unstressed most of the time, which is why in modern Indian languages it is hardly pronounced and thus becomes Ram, Krishn, Lakshman, Shiv, etc. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. In many modern languages such as Kannada, only Rama is used.

Raj2004 14:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that the.n. What do people in Karnataka names their sons as? Ram or Rama? I should have said most or maybe many then. I am almost certain that every North Indian language drops the a. Not sure about the South ones. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The terminal a is quite clearly pronounced in the south Indian pronunciation of Sanskrit. So we say "rama navami" not "ramnavmi", "sahasranama" not "sahasrnam", and so on. FWIW, the pronunciation of the terminal a is probably closer to IPA ɐ than the schwa you folks use in the northern pronunciation of Sanskrit.

As far as kids' names go, we usually add our language's masculine nominative suffix to the name. So in Tamil and Malayalam, the name'd be "raman". In Telugu it'd be "ramulu". In Kannada, it would be Rama. -- Arvind 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Thanks, Arvind, Also, Kannada is one of the most heavily Sanskritized languages, unlike Tamil. I read somewhere that 40% of Kannada's words are Sanksrit in origin.

Raj2004 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ram Setu

This article on Rama says "Varuna promises that he would keep the oceans still for all of Rama's army to pass, and Nala constructs a bridge (Rama's Bridge) across to Lanka. Rama justifies his angry assault on the oceans as he followed the correct process of petitioning and worshipping Varuna, but obtaining the result by force for the greater good.

Now when one clicks on the Rama's Bridge link, it goes to an article which has been recently re-named by some users as Adam's Bridge and has contents which clearly makes a suggestion that the Rama's bridge is a extremist Hindu or Sangh Parivar/Bajrang Dal agenda.

I fail to understand how a religion and faith-based article like Rama and the line mentioning the Ram Setu (bridge) is linking to a article which is named completely different and talking as if the whole story about Rama and the setu as an extremist agenda. Isn't this equivalent of say the Christianity article linking to an article on Easter which a) calls Easter by some other name and then b)talks about Easter & Resurrection (another unproven faith-based issue) as extremist Christian agenda? I do not have a problem with the article making it clear that its a 'Hindu Belief'

I and some other users have tried to re-name the article based on WP:NCON but have been pushed down by a couple of others. One user has tried to create another article on the Rama Setu (as per hindu belief) but it was re-directed to Adam's bridge. Now, I strongly feel that since this article on Rama is linking to Rama's bridge, that article should definitely be named Rama's Setu or Rama's bridge. This can be done by creating another article about Rama Setu or by changing the name of the Adam's bridge article and making it NPOV by including Hindu beliefs. It is highly inaccurate and offensive to call thousands of years old belief of a billion people as an extremist agenda or labelling it as Sangh Parivar/Bajrang Dal etc. As most people might be aware, Hindus have been believing in Ram Setu much before Sangh Parivar came into existence. Even today non-sangh hindus and hindus outside India who have no connection with Indian politics believe in Rama and Ram Setu. With that being said, I strongly feel that this internal link in this article is highly inappropriate.RainDew 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Bridge could indeed be a disambiguation page between Adam's Bridge (the article on the geographical feature) and Rama Setu (Ramayana), giving an account of the epic narrative. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were one of the editors on that page who continuously redirected "Rama's bridge" to "Adam's bridge" saying that it was a fork? Anyway, making a new article named Rama Sethu is a welcome change and that would solve the controversies. RainDew 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rama Setu is an historical as well a geographical feature, it is known as Adam's Bridge only amongst westerners, who named it so, with no references original name. And now to claim Adam's bridge as its true name, would be a deplorable act! Ekabhishek 15:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rama is the guru of Shiva and Shiva is the guru of Rama

According to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna):"Rama is the guru of Shiva, Shiva is the guru of Rama".82.123.51.141 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)alexisbaba