Is Rama still a Bodhisattva?

[hinduwoman]

In medieval Buddhism in India Rama was considered to be one of the Bodhissatvas. Is this true about Buddhism practiced today elsewhere?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Hinduwoman,

thank you for the post.

good qeustion that.

the answer will depend on the school of Buddhism that you happen to practice. from my point of view, yes, Rama would be a Bodhisattva, however, i would tend to think that from the Hinyana view this would not be acceptable.

[hinduwoman]

Thanks for the input.
But I am still curious whether in other countires Rama is one of the Bohhisatvas.

[premjan]

Maybe the right place to check would be Thailand. Since they still have a major city named Ayutthaya (Ayodhya). And they are supposed to be Buddhist.

I think Rama should be a Bodhisattva. Krishna probably shouldn't (he fomented war).

[hinduwoman]

I don't think Krishna was that popular when Buddhism got going. Rama on the other hand was already an established hero or deity in the areas Buddhism flourished.

[Ameena]

Hi,

I am a Lankan and here is what many of Lankans believe.

In Theravada Buddhism, there is a collection of Buddhist stories called 'Jathaka Katha'. One them is 'Dasaratha Jathakaya' in which the Prince Rama, son of king Dasaratha fight with the Ravana the king of Lanka. Since this is a Jathaka Story, Rama is a Bodhisatva. According to Lankan Buddhists beliefs, Rama was a former re-incarnation of Gautama Buddha.

(However, yet there are many people in Lanka that do not take him in high regard because he invaded Lanka.)

Just my penny's worth.

[premjan]

interesting ... in India, we say that ravana kidnapped rama's wife sita, and that was why rama had to invade lanka. what is the story on the lankan side? I suppose it would not be the same.

addressed to: ameena.

[Ameena]

Originally posted by premjan
interesting ... in India, we say that ravana kidnapped rama's wife sita, and that was why rama had to invade lanka. what is the story on the lankan side? I suppose it would not be the same.

addressed to: ameena.

Sorry for not checking this topic for the past few days.

The story was basically the same. The only difference is that Ravana was not an evil king. Mind you! this is the Lankan's version. To make a long story short, it goes like this:

Ravana was the king of Lanka and another 9 kingdoms (some were in Jambudveepa (India). He was known as Dasis (or Dasa Shirsha) meaning 10 heads, because he had ten crowns, one each for his ten kingdoms. His sister Suparnika went to Jambudweepa for some business and Laxman (brother of Rama) saw her and made some advances. She (being a Raksha princess) did some magic and he became very ill. Then Prince Rama came along to help him and chopped the nose off of Suparnika. She somehow escaped back to Lanka and complained to her brother of the ill-treatment by Rama.

So, Ravana took flight to Jambudweepa on his airplane :) called "Dandu Monara" meaning Wooden Peacock and abducted Janaki (or Seetha) to Lankapura to Punish Rama.

Rama, with the help of Vanara King "Hanuma" fought with Ravana for ten years but was not able to defeat him. Finally he bribed Ravana's 2nd brother "Vibhishana" and learned of the achilles heel of Ravana and defeated him. As promised, Vibhishana became the king of Lanka.

There is a Kavya (poetic tales) in Singhalese giving the Lankan version of this story. The name of the Kavya is "Janaki Harana" and was written by a king named Kumaradasa (a contemporray of the great Sanskrit Poet Kalidasa)

Regards

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by Ameena
There is a Kavya (poetic tales) in Singhalese giving the Lankan version of this story. The name of the Kavya is "Janaki Harana" and was written by a king named Kumaradasa (a contemporray of the great Sanskrit Poet Kalidasa) [/B]

Some Corrections..

Kumaradasa- author of JanakiHaarana lived circa 800 AD while Kalidasa is from the 400 AD.

Kalidasa was contemporary of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya.

And Janakiharana is in Sanskrit NOT singhalese.

[There is a folklore of Kalidasa murdered at the court of Kumaradasa by a jealous dancer, but it is just that- an imaginary story]

Janaki Haarana has variations from Valmiki's Ramayana, but Ravana is considered the villian in Janaki Harana, not Hero.

All authors of various Ramayana unanimously agree that Ravana is a worthy adversary of Rama . Which means that Ravana was in all ways comparable to Ramachandra. In Handsomeness, Strength, Valour, Knowledge, Piety, etc, Ravana matched Rama.

The only misgiving of Ravana was his egoistic lust for Sita which became his only bane.

I thought only Hela Nationalists identify themselves with Ravana as their Hero!

[Ameena]

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan
Some Corrections..

Kumaradasa- author of JanakiHaarana lived circa 800 AD while Kalidasa is from the 400 AD.

Kalidasa was contemporary of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya.

And Janakiharana is in Sanskrit NOT singhalese.

Yes. My mistake. It was in Sanskrit not Singhalese.


[There is a folklore of Kalidasa murdered at the court of Kumaradasa by a jealous dancer, but it is just that- an imaginary story]

This is the story that prompted me to say that he was a contemporary of Kalidasa. It seems that I am worng again here.

Janaki Haarana has variations from Valmiki's Ramayana, but Ravana is considered the villian in Janaki Harana, not Hero.

All authors of various Ramayana unanimously agree that Ravana is a worthy adversary of Rama . Which means that Ravana was in all ways comparable to Ramachandra. In Handsomeness, Strength, Valour, Knowledge, Piety, etc, Ravana matched Rama.

The only misgiving of Ravana was his egoistic lust for Sita which became his only bane.

I thought only Hela Nationalists identify themselves with Ravana as their Hero!
It is not only some Singhalese, many Tamils in Sri Lanka regard him as a hero. They think him as a Dravida King who stood against the so called Aryan Invasion into the South.
Once (few years ago) there was a furor in Central hills in Sri Lanka about building a Ravana Temple. Both Tamils and Singhalese tried to build it but for some reason furor died down.

[premjan]

Interesting. Looks like the story of Rama and Ravana focusses on two women: one is Shurpanakha who was either rebuffed or hit on by Laxmana. Actually I agree that Shurpanakha was done badly by: she lost her nose and ears due to something relatively small: her desire for Laxmana / Laxmana's desire for her. The other woman is Sita. It is hard to see who was really in the wrong. Sita was kidnapped but not molested by Ravana. On the other hand, Shurpanakha was gravely wounded by Rama and Laxmana. Looks like the story is not so straightforward as it would seem at first glance. Maybe Ravana was the real victim here.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

I don't think Ramayana focusses on SurpanakA equally with Sita.

Rama is portrayed as a common Man in Valmiki's Ramayana. And even as an Avatara in later versions, he still remains as a Man. Thus Rama is shown to have some weakness, for he is only Human. One is the Banishment of Sita from Ayodhya over a washerman's loose talk.

Lakshmanan was actually pestered by Surpanaka and although Lakshmana only cut her nose (no ears), Surpanaka fueled Ravana's egoism by making Ravana believe that only He, nor Rama is the best suitor for Sita.

As for Ravana molesting Sita, it is attributed to Sita's penence of Chastity that Ravana couldnot defeat. On the other hand, Ravana is a person of great virtue himself.

Again, we must stress the fact that Ravana, a son of a Brahmana was a great Hero who fell into the easiest trap of egoism and was therefore destroyed.

His greatness and achievements were far greater than Rama's who was only a Prince and not even a King.
Ravana had mastery over Heaven and was a great devotee of Shiva. We should also keep in mind that Ravana is one of the Gatekeepers of Vaikuntha, possessing a great privilege of being one of the few souls in constant company of Sriman Narayana.

It was not because of Narayana but because of a Sage's curse that a Vaikuntha Gatekeeper had to be born as Ravana only to find deliverance at the hands of Rama.

Ramayana does not treat Ravana as a plain Villian. Instead, whole chapters are devoted to his greatness like when Hanuman visits the Asoka gardens, spies upon Ravana and wonders at his personality, exclaiming that Ravana indeed is a great King endowed with all kinds of richness, valour, beauty and knowledge.

Surpanaka, who was filled with rage on failing to possess what she wanted, is shown to be an immature soul. It was not Ravana's love for Surpanaka that promted Ravana to kidnapp Sita. If Ravana had kidnapped Sita just to punish Rama for Surpanaka's wound, it would have been different.

Nay, Ravana was tempted to possess Sita for himself.

Surpanaka first asks Ravana to avenge her, but Ravana decrees that Surpanaka was herself in the wrong for having tried to seduce married Men. Surpanaka then decides to appeal to his ego instead of appealing to his sisterly love which proved weak against Ravana's sense of Justice.
Surpanaka goes on to exploit the greatest weakness of Mankind - Sexual attraction and Vanity.

Surpanaka describes Sita in glowing terms and says such beauty is not to be found among the Apsaras or other heavenly damsels. Therefore, Ravana who is the greatest Lord of all creatures on Earth should be the Lord of Sita too.
These tempting words, fuel the vanity of Ravana.

Ravana is the victim of his own egoism, for even Ravana himself knew pretty well that inspite of his greatness, he is doing a great evil by trying to claim a married chaste woman for himself. Yet, he could not bring himself to forget Sita nor defeat his ego. Twin weapons destroyed Ravana- firstly, Egoism and Vanity, secondly, his lust for Sita which was secondary to his Ego, but yet the root for that egoism.

--------------------
As for Tamils celebrating Ravana, it is just a reaction to North Indians favouritism for Lord Ram's worship.
This reactionary Ravanaism is only modern and purely political in scope.

[premjan]

Interesting that Ravana although a gatekeeper of Vaikuntha was nevertheless a devotee of Shiva rather than Vishnu. Maybe this is a sign of his fall. The theme of Vishnu (his incarnation Rama) defeating Shiva (or a Shaivite in this case) seems like it might be somehow meaningful or significant. Also the notion of a Kshatriya defeating a Brahmana (is that a mythological concession to the Kshatriya patrons of the poets??). It appears that Brahmanas rarely retain their mental balance either in positions of temporal power (Ravana) or when fighting as warriors (Parashurama). Maybe they should stick to intellectual tasks. Sri Lanka is not today a Dravidian nation, rather Singhalese is more related to Sanskrit than to Tamil. However, is there some echo of the Aryan-Dravidian conflict in the Ramayana? Is this an early episode of the conquest of Dasyus by Aryans? The Dravidian traditions are not originally part of Brahminical Hinduism (perhaps Shaivism is not originally Brahminical at all??) it appears. It also appears that the Dravidians are not an Aryan people at all; perhaps they are of Semitic or Meditteranean origin, given their curly hair and dark features. What is the real relation of Tamil to Sanskrit? Is Tamil older than Sanskrit? Is Sanskrit derived from Tamil? Were Dravidians and Aryans independent migrants into India? Were Dravidians derived from the original or ancestral aboriginals of India? Is there any substance to these sorts of questions that have been repeatedly raised in the course of South Indian politics? Is Dravidian culture related to Sumerian or any other?

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Premjan, you are reading too much into Shaivite, Vaishnavite Division!! and trying to connect them with Aryan and Dravidian Mythological Racisim. It would be impossible.

Maybe this is a sign of his fall.
No. Rama himself worships Shiva at Rameshwaram. Shiva is therefore called RamaNatha or Lord of Ram at Rameshwaram, Where Sita build a Lingam of Sand and the couple offered their prayers to Shiva and Parvati. No pilgrimage to Ganges, Rishikesh and Prayag is complete unless one visits Rameshwaram too.

For Vaishnavites, Shiva is the greatest Devotee of Vishnu and for Shaivites, its the other way around. Therefore there is no division of interests that can cause acrimony.

Ravana was a devotee of Shiva because of his adopted race, the Rakshasas of Asuric Origin. He is not a Brahmana like Parasurama, just a son of a Brahmana. That is, Ravana was not initiated as a Brahmana nor brought up as one.
Asuras are traditionally devotees of Shiva, but then, even Devas are worshippers of Shiva. Asuras and Devas are both prodigies of a single Mother.

There is no Aryan- Dravidian conflict in the Ramayana. Many Many english 'scholars', missionaries, dravidian supremacists, leftists and others have tried to find some minute representation of such a division, but there is none that can satisfy common sense. The effort is still on in the same lines as you try to intrepret Ramayana. The effort would be a waste of time since the stories are interwoven with elements common to both south and north India, that any attempt to force a division and demonstrate a conflict between south and north would be impossible.

Rama is dark to begin with. He is the prototype of 'Dark, Tall and Handsome' phrase.
And the Tamil Language is referred to in the Valmiki as a very sweet language, sweeter than that used in Heaven.

Rama instructs Hanuman not to go near a South Indian City on the way to find Sita in Lanka. He says that the Amrut (nectar) like language spoken there might mesimerise Hanuman into forgetting his goal and Hanuman might spend the eternity standing there and hearing the sweetness of the language.

Some pseudo scholars have tried to link the Vanavar race (of Hanuman) to the South Indians and thus prove that Ramayana treats the South Indian Dravidians as Monkeys. But this has to fail for the Ramayana also records the total anihilation and end of the Vanavar race, except for some Chiranjeevis like Hanuman. Also, the Vanavars were only Primate-like in physical form, but in many fields, they excell Humans.

Another attempt to link the forest dwelling folk in central India to Dravidians and to show that Ramayana potrays Dravidians as tribals also goes flat, for Rama has only ONE friend in all of Ramayana and this world and that friend whom Rama says is his one Half and better than all of his brothers put together is the king of those Forest Tribes. That friendship is celebrated as a mark of true companionship.

In India, the races are thoughly mixed that right now, there are absolutely no difference between S. Indians and N. Indians. Even fairness is not unique to N. Indians, for Malayalees are comparatively fairer just as the N. Indians.

Tamil Shaivism which is Saiva Siddhanta is the same as Kashmir Shaivism - Both Advaita Dwaita in Philosophy. So again, no division of Vaishnavism as Aryan and Shaivism as Dravidian.

Only the North Western most parts of India where influences of the Huns, Syncthians and such can still be recognised, for it was the frontier region that saw countless invasions from almost every nation in the then known world.

For myself, the Aryan and Dravidian racial theory is pure Bullshit.

Hinduism can never be really divided into 'Aryan' and 'Dravidian' for the simple fact that Hinduism is too too complex to have such a simple division. Hinduism can be divided into 10,0000 sects, but never into TWO.

[aditya]

I am not surprised since Buddha who was an atheist has himself been incorporated in Hindu pantheon of incarnations (avtars) as god #23.
Buddhists might have thought about doing a tit for tat.

[hinduwoman]

I am not surprised since Buddha who was an atheist has himself been incorporated in Hindu pantheon of incarnations (avtars) as god #23.
Buddhists might have thought about doing a tit for tat.
No don't think so. It is simply that in North India Ram was already revered by the common people and elite alike; so when they converted to Buddhism they simply brought along their old baggage. Even today when Hindus become Buddhists they continue the worship of their old gods.

[hinduwoman]

Re Ravan worship: in MP there is a village where Ravan is worshipped; according to legend some of his nobles fled to India and settled down here.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Lol!!
Hinduwomen.. is that true??

I can never stop wondering at Hinduism, its capacity to be an all embracing universal 'religion'.

Right from Animism of villages where the central deities of worship are sacred groves, the Nagas and the village Guardian deities... to sophisication of vendantic thought... truely Hinduism is stupendous...

If somebody would like to witness and see how it feels to be in the midst of Egyptian temples of the Pharoah times or the Sumerian, druid, norse, celtic, roman, greek and any of the majority of the OLD world's worshipping trends, they only have to come to India.. where it all survives to this day...

Topic wise, Hinduism and Buddhism overlaps to the greatest extent in Nepal on the Indian Subcontinent. Almost the whole Pantheon of Hindu as well as Buddhist gods/bodhisattvas are shared and venerated equally. So, the answer to your original question must be a big 'Yes!'.

By the way, One can easily find that the iconoclasm of Buddhist art compare with high degrees of alikeness with those of the Hindu.

[aditya]

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan
By the way, One can easily find that the iconoclasm of Buddhist art compare with high degrees of alikeness with those of the Hindu.

I think iconoclasts break the icons rather than make them.

[Sattwic]

Originally posted by aditya
I think iconoclasts break the icons rather than make them.

Mea Culpa! I wanted to say Iconography.

[aditya]

Originally posted by Sattwic
Mea Culpa! I wanted to say Iconography.

Are you the same person as Dr Jag Mohan since my comment was about his posting?:confused:

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Wow..
Yes that was Me. I had to make a new account when the transition to this new forum software was done and I got locked up somehow, so I had to create a new account with a new username.

However I successfully retrieved the password to my original account and therefore I use it. The other account under the username 'Sattwic' is unused and I never got around to find how to delete that a/c.

Today at office I logged in to the forum from my notebook (I never surf the net @ work) and the browser automatically logged in my that old account of mine from the cookies.

Sorry for the mixup.

[premjan]

are you currently in Rotterdam, or currently on the move?

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by premjan
are you currently in Rotterdam, or currently on the move?

Back to Motherland :) [mental note- gotta update the profile]
After being a hippy of sorts, roaming Europe for an anchor,
One fine day, I got up after a dream of Laddus and decided then and there that I will have to go back or else I would loose my appetite for everything else, and the thought of laddus would drive me crazy and ultimately I might die of starvation.

And here I am, loving every minute of it...

:D Vande Mataram, su-laddu-am, suphalaam malayaja shiitalaam!

[aditya]

Originally posted by premjan
are you currently in Rotterdam, or currently on the move?
Are you still in Dubai?
How long have you been there?

[aditya]

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan
Wow..
Yes that was Me. I had to make a new account when the transition to this new forum software was done and I got locked up somehow, so I had to create a new account with a new username.


I had not used this forum for a long time but my password still worked.
However my link connected to old database and it would not let me change my profile including current email address.

Finally some one helped me resolve the problem.

I was so amazed to find so many messages on Hinduism on this forum recently. I am still trying to catch up.

I have strong opinions and interests on the issues being discussed.

[premjan]

for three years going now.
Used to be in Pittsburgh.

[hinduwoman]

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan
Lol!!
Hinduwomen.. is that true??

I can never stop wondering at Hinduism, its capacity to be an all embracing universal 'religion'.

Right from Animism of villages where the central deities of worship are sacred groves, the Nagas and the village Guardian deities... to sophisication of vendantic thought... truely Hinduism is stupendous...

If somebody would like to witness and see how it feels to be in the midst of Egyptian temples of the Pharoah times or the Sumerian, druid, norse, celtic, roman, greek and any of the majority of the OLD world's worshipping trends, they only have to come to India.. where it all survives to this day...

Topic wise, Hinduism and Buddhism overlaps to the greatest extent in Nepal on the Indian Subcontinent. Almost the whole Pantheon of Hindu as well as Buddhist gods/bodhisattvas are shared and venerated equally. So, the answer to your original question must be a big 'Yes!'.

By the way, One can easily find that the iconoclasm of Buddhist art compare with high degrees of alikeness with those of the Hindu.

The various gods worshipped make everything even more confusing for the poor sociologist or historian! :D

For example in Himachal Pradesh there is a famous temple to Hidimba, the Rakshasha wife of Bhima. In other places there is a temple to Duryodhan and one to Dushashan. So the question comes in whether they were orignally gods who were merged in the epic or were the original worshippers deified their heroes.

In South India Sita and Draupadi are wortshipped as goddesses. Draupadi in particular is regarded as an independant goddess while the Pandavas are her human satellites.
Happy hunting to anyone trying to make sense of Hindu mythology!! :notworthy

[premjan]

sounds like feminism to me: fits in with the Jayalalitha ethos.

[hinduwoman]

Hopefully Draupadi if she ever ruled would have been a better example of feminist ethos than Jaylalita!

[premjan]

Margaret Thatcher may be a much better example of a successful woman / feminist than Jayalalitha. Even Indira Gandhi may have lacked wisdom to some extent.

[hinduwoman]

South India has an astonishing number of ferocious goddesses, particularly among the gramdevatas. So I would expect more female politicans from there.

[premjan]

more than in Bengal? What about Mamata Bannerjee / the example of Kali and Durga?

[hinduwoman]

Certainly Bengal is a possibility, but for the past two decades Bengal has not produced any outstanding politicans of any gender good or evil.
There are women in the CPI(M) party but very few compared to the males.

[premjan]

I think communism seems to defeat the purpose of politics (and also of economy). Hence I expect communist states to be ideologically and intellectually exhausted overall.

[hinduwoman]

Communist economy is more suited for a village or tribal economy, or paradoxically for a extremely technologically sophisticated state hwere resources are neverending thanks to machines.

Also as a philosophy it is more suited to social insects like ants than human beings.

[premjan]

in communism, man is either a cog in machine (no individual will) or not a concentrator of resources for his own consumption (not an individual economic agent).

[hinduwoman]

Originally posted by premjan
in communism, man is either a cog in machine (no individual will) or not a concentrator of resources for his own consumption (not an individual economic agent).

So true. That is why I said it is better suited for social insects than humans who are egoistic and thinks more of individual needs/greeds first.

[premjan]

the more extreme example of this concept is the notion of Gaia (where we seek for the whole earth to behave like a single organism, its ecology and human cultures too). Gaia was the Greek earth goddess, and it became a popular concept in science fiction too.