Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 8th, 2016, 12:35 AM   #11

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 3,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
To me it seems like he was interested in knowing her status so that he could have a romantic relationship with her. Since Rama and Lakshmana were far away from society, in the forests, the social stigma associated with having a relationship with a Rakshasi would no longer apply.
If I were to have a one-night stand with a women, her marital status would not make any difference. Stigmas never bother the sexually driven, they do restrain those who go by 'dharma' even if there is no one who would know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
In which way would it be stalking? She just met Rama once. Its not like she continued to follow him everywhere he went.
You are missing out on the second word, ‘pestering’. How many times she insisted on making her request even after Rama refused it. Evidently, for Rama, the proposal was silly, to say the least. With Lakshman, probably the third time was enough.

Yes, I went to Valmiki’s Ramayana and the description there is enough to cool down the sexual ardor of any person. I do not see in the story that the brothers were attracted to her.

अहम् शूर्पणखा नाम राक्षसी कामरूपिणी ll
अरण्यम् विचरामि इदम् एका सर्व भयंकरा l
रावणो नाम मे भ्राता यदि ते श्रोत्रम् आगतः ll
वीरो विश्रवसः पुत्रो यदि ते श्रोत्रम् आगतः l
“I will tell you truth, Rama, nothing but truth, I am a guise-changing demoness named Shūrpanakha, and I will be freely moving in this forest in a solitary manner and unnerving all. My brother is valorous and mighty Ravana, the king of demons and the son of Vishravasa, if ever you have heard of him.”

Shūrpanakha was not beautiful if we go by what Rama said:

इमाम् विरूपाम् असतीम् अतिमत्ताम् महोदरीम् l
“She is freakish, knavish and overtly ruttish fat woman”

In Shūrpanakha’s thinking Mother Sita’s slimness was ugly:

इमाम् विरूपाम् असतीम् करालाम् निर्णत उदरीम् |
अनेन सह ते भ्रात्रा भक्षयिष्यामि मानुषीम् ||
"Shall I eat up this disfigured, dishonest, diabolical human female with a hallow stomach along with him, that brother of yours to make you free.

She not only said that but advanced towards Mother Sita to harm her:

इति उक्त्वा मृगशावाक्षीम् अलात सदृश ईक्षणा |
Speaking that way she that torch-eyed Shūrpanakha dashed towards the deer-eyed Sita.

Tying up Shūrpanakha would not have helped. She was form-changing. She would have got out of any rope that bound her. That is why Lord Rama had to instruct Lakshman to cut her nose and ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
There are other instances where Valmiki describes Rakshasis as having pig faces and horse faces. To me that is simply racist. Nobody can have a pig face.
I do not deny that.

Last thing, stories are stories. We must not read too much into them. And we should not make fun of what is ours. That makes us weak. Let us look at the good teachings that are contained in Lord Rama’s story.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; December 8th, 2016 at 12:44 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 8th, 2016, 01:09 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
But while the literary discussion is useful, I would warn against criticizing people by implying that their perceptions of the story are incorrect, just as the OP would not appreciate being told her own interpretation is somehow invalid or incorrect. One can provide the analytical and textual support to show that many contradictory interpretations are valid. This is what makes this literature fascinating.
I agree. I should not have stated my interpretation as the absolute truth!

Quote:
Ved Vyasa, Kripa/Kripi, Bhabhruvahan of Manalur (among the many other children of Arjun) are all examples of prominent births outside of traditional wedlock. Colloquially the equivalent of One Night Stands. Lets not forget that All the Pandavas and Karna were for all practical purposes also One Night Stands. Infact the Mahabharata is arguably a story of the conflicts of the children of such births, seeing as how Pandu, Dhritarashtra and Vidur were all the products of Niyoga, which is by definition a sort of one night stand (quite literally). In contrast, the only non-Aryan examples I can think off are Ghatotkatcha and Iravan. The Aryans would seem to outnumber the Non-Aryans in the Mahabharata on the issue.
Yes, but people like Veda Vyasa were not orthodox brahmins/aryans like Valmiki and Rama. They were quite liberal. When I mentioned Aryans, I referred to the orthodox ones like Karna and Rama. They hated sexual relationships with people like Rakshasas. They also were against polyandry...

Babhruvahan, Gatotkacha, and Iravan were born from princesses outside of India. And the fathers were Arjuna and Bhima. The pandavas were liberal in terms of sex. Also, I don't think Niyoga counts in our discussion because it was necessity to propagate the race, and not sex for pleasure. The birth of Karna was literally a rape of Kunti by Surya dev. For the birth of the pandavas, Kunti had to go outside of the domains of ancient india into the Uttara Kurus where free sex was practiced. In ancient India, the rules were stricter on women, and thats why Kunti had to leave India and go to Uttara Kuru to have sex with other men to produce the 5 Pandavas.

Karna was an orthodox Aryan and really disliked having relationships with Rakshasas. This speech by him to Shalya shows the reason he hated the Rakshasas (Sakala was inhabited by rakshasas):

There is a town of the name of Sakala, a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the Jarttikas. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the liquor called Gauda, and eat fried barley with it. They also eat beef with garlic. They also eat cakes of flour mixed with meat, and boiled rice that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none. Their women, intoxicated with drink and divested of robes, laugh and dance outside the walls of the houses in cities, without garlands and unguents, singing while drunk obscene songs of diverse kinds that are as musical as the bray of the ass or the bleat of the camel. In intercourse they are absolutely without any restraint, and in all other matters they act as they like. Maddened with drink, they call upon one another, using many endearing epithets. Addressing many drunken exclamations to their husbands and lords, the fallen women among the Vahikas, without observing restrictions even on sacred days, give themselves up to dancing.

The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices.'"

Karna Parva Section 44

As you can see, Karna who was an orthodox Aryan, hated this excess freedom given to female Rakshasas... Areas like Hastinapura, Panchalas, Angas, Kosala were equally as orthodox. So thats why I said that Rakshasiis had more freedom than their Aryan counterparts.

Quote:
In the Ramayana, Hanuman has a son of this sort of union. Not too many other examples I think.
Yes, the union occurs in Lanka when he goes to meet Seetha. Likely it was due to intercourse between Hanumana and Seetha. There are lots of evidence that Hanumana was sexually attracted to Seetha in Lanka. When he returns to his fellow Vanaras, he addresses Seetha as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks. The Hanumana burning Lanka incident is symbolism. The fire represents his uncontrolled sexual desire/passion he unleashed on Seetha and other residents of Lanka. But it is a fact that Lanka was not burned down. When Rama and Lakshmana saw Lanka for the first time (prior to conquering it), they described it as a very beautiful place. If Hanumana actually burned down the entire place, then it wouldnt appear so beautiful to the brothers...

Quote:
Can't have been an affair if the only encounter was the first one.
Yes, Valmiki hides the future encounters between them and makes the Rama-Shurpanakha meeting seem like a single incident. I propose that after she met Rama for the first time, they met often, and had a romantic affair. The affair broke off when he refused to marry her.

If we go by my claim, then their affair started after their first meeting, so Shurpanakha stalking Rama is out of question.

Quote:
My own reading of the story is that Rama causes the suffering. I tend to see the Ramayana as a tale of tragedy caused by Rama's arrogance. Each of the major episodes can be traced to it. Rama breaks Shiva's bow, causing Parsurama to intervene. He kills Tadaka and her sons (into whose territory Vishwamitra was intruding as per my reading) and starts the initial conflict with the Rakshasas. His mistreatment of of Tadaka is why Maricha lures him away, while his mistreatment of Surphanaka is why Ravana got involved. All his actions cause suffering to others. Vanaras and Rksas die to wage his wars, as do the Rakshasas who must then be ruled by a blood traitor and oath breaker. His wife and brother suffer for his refusal to do his duty and accede to the will of his people and his dharma and defy his father. His brothers suffer, since they must perform his dharma in his absence. His wife suffers for his personal suspicion, and that of random strangers even. My own reading sees Rama as an extremely negative character. But it is my reading. Its my interpretation with my morals. Its not an objective truth
I agree with you. My personal belief is that Ravana was a much better character than Rama. Yes he did abduct Seetha, but we have some evidence that she sent Rama after the golden deer on purpose so that she would have an opportunity to go to Lanka. Valmiki associates her decision of sending Rama away with deceit/fraud/cozenage. And anyways, it was common for kshatriyas at the time to forcefully abduct women and later marry them. Bhisma, Arjuna, and Duryodhana all did that. So blaming Ravana for that is not correct...

Quote:
Says who. There's clearly literature to the contrary When Ugly, Fat, and/or Plain Women Get the Hot Guy (93 books)
So would you be turned on with a woman with a potbelly, bad face, bad voice, etc...? Valmiki also claims that Shurpanakha is wry-eyed. But when Rama later describes her physical appearance, he says she has broad eyes... Someone is definitely lying...

Quote:
Or maybe it was Luv and Kusha who were racist. This is after all their rendition. Or maybe some later author added that in? You can't rule all this out.
I consider Uttara Kanda a later addition, but yes it could be some later authors that added that text... Who knows. We don't have the original Ramayana written by Valmiki with us.
Milin is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 01:34 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
If I were to have a one-night stand with a women, her marital status would not make any difference. Stigmas never bother the sexually driven, they do restrain those who go by 'dharma' even if there is no one who would know.
Who said Rama wanted to have a one night stand? He wanted to have an affair with her till he is in the forest. He wanted to know if she is single so that she would be ok with the affair. Stigmas do bother the sexually driven people. If a person has sexual drive when he sees his girlfriend in a shopping mall, would he have sex with her there or wait for her to go home and then have sex? The social stigma prevents the guy from having sex in the mall.

Quote:
You are missing out on the second word, ‘pestering’. How many times she insisted on making her request even after Rama refused it. Evidently, for Rama, the proposal was silly, to say the least. With Lakshman, probably the third time was enough.
After Rama refused, he redirected her to Lakshmana. After that she went to Lakshmana. She never insisted on the request after Rama refused.

Quote:
Shūrpanakha was not beautiful if we go by what Rama said:

इमाम् विरूपाम् असतीम् अतिमत्ताम् महोदरीम् l
“She is freakish, knavish and overtly ruttish fat woman”
That is part of the bias I am saying that Valmiki shows. The part where Shurpanakha rushes to kill Seetha are clearly lies by Valmiki. This quote is mentioned after she rushes to kill Seetha and hence is not really reliable. Prior to that, Rama praises Shurpanakha's beauty:

एनम् भज विशालाक्षि भर्तारम् भ्रातरम् मम |
असपत्ना वरारोहे मेरुम् अर्क प्रभा यथा || ३-१८-५

"You woo him, oh, broad-eyed one, this brother of mine as your husband like sunshine seeking the Mt. Meru, then oh, great-waisted one, you will be without a co-wife " So said Rama to that demoness. [3-18-5]

Quote:
In Shūrpanakha’s thinking Mother Sita’s slimness was ugly:

इमाम् विरूपाम् असतीम् करालाम् निर्णत उदरीम् |
अनेन सह ते भ्रात्रा भक्षयिष्यामि मानुषीम् ||
"Shall I eat up this disfigured, dishonest, diabolical human female with a hallow stomach along with him, that brother of yours to make you free.
As I have said in the link, this should not be taken literally. This is Valmiki's bias to show Rakshasas as cannibals. They did eat meat but would not consume human flesh. The surprising thing is that this is mentioned by Shurpanakha without being provoked by Rama, even prior to her first meeting Lakshmana. There is no reason for us to believe that she would go and threaten to kill Seetha and Lakshmana at this point, even before interacting with them or receiving a refusal from Rama (at the time this verse was said, Rama had not yet refused to marry Shurpanakha).

If we take out Valmiki's bias from this text, the main take away point is that Shurpanakha threatened to cause pain to Lakshmana and Seetha. In my interpretation, this pain would arise as a result of her telling Lakshmana and Seetha about the affair with Rama.

Quote:
She not only said that but advanced towards Mother Sita to harm her:

इति उक्त्वा मृगशावाक्षीम् अलात सदृश ईक्षणा |
Speaking that way she that torch-eyed Shūrpanakha dashed towards the deer-eyed Sita.
In my link I have interpreted this as rushing to Seetha to tell her about the affair with Rama and Lakshmana. Read the link my original post.
Milin is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 05:15 AM   #14

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 3,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
Yes, the union occurs .. so beautiful to the brothers...
You are being more like Wendy Doniger, who is only interested in interpreting everything in terms of illicit sex, to whom even a spoon will mean a phallus. How did you come to have this mentality? This is a history forum, I do not think it is a forum for yarn-spinners. Of course, stories can be interpreted in all ways. The way they are interpreted also reflects on the education, upbringing, family background, and religious belief of the interpreter. So, I do not know where the fault lies.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; December 8th, 2016 at 05:37 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 08:07 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
You are being more like Wendy Doniger, who is only interested in interpreting everything in terms of illicit sex, to whom even a spoon will mean a phallus. How did you come to have this mentality? This is a history forum, I do not think it is a forum for yarn-spinners. Of course, stories can be interpreted in all ways. The way they are interpreted also reflects on the education, upbringing, family background, and religious belief of the interpreter. So, I do not know where the fault lies.
Well, since Rama and Lakshmana didnt see a burnt Lanka, but instead saw a beautiful one, it most likely was not burnt down. So then what does Hanumana burning down Lanka with his tail/penis mean (the words used for tail in the text can also be translated as penis)?

If we look at Sundara Kanda Section 55 and remove the context of Lanka being burnt down and in isolation look at this statement of Hanumana, there is solid evidence that he could not control his passion for Seetha:

धिग् अस्तु राजसम् भावम् अनीशम् अनवस्थितम् |
ईश्वरेण अपि यत् रागान् मया सीता न रक्षिता || ५-५५-१६

"Let there be shame upon the passionate way of my thinking, which breeds helplessness and instability. fir, eventhough capable as I am, Seetha could not be saved by me due to my passionate fondness (for her)."

The sanskrit word रागान् means to be "passionately fond of" or "attached to".

So this verse suggests that Hanumana was worried that his passionate fondness for her could be the reason for her destruction. He could not control his passion/desire for her, and had rough sex with her. He thought that Seetha may have died from the rough sex (due to tearing)...

We also have evidence that Sita initially realized Hanumana's sexual desire for her and backed off. But she forgave Hanumana very very quickly, and then asked him to describe the physical appearance (she specifically says arms and thighs) of Rama and Lakshmana to increase her sexual drive.

See how she realizes Hanumana's initial advances and backs off (Sundara Kanda Section 34):

तयोः समागमे तस्मिन् प्रीतिः उत्पादिता अद्भुता |
परस्परेण च आलापम् विश्वस्तौ तौ प्रचक्रतुः || ५-३४-७
तस्याः तत् वचनम् श्रुत्वा हनूमान् हरि यूथपः |
सीतायाः शोक दीनायाः समीपम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३४-८
यथा यथा समीपम् स हनूमान् उपसर्पति |
तथा तथा रावणम् सा तम् सीता परिशन्कते || ५-३४-९
अहो धिग् धिग् कृतम् इदम् कथितम् हि यत् अस्य मे |
रूप अन्तरम् उपागम्य स एव अयम् हि रावणः || ५-३४-१०
ताम् अशोकस्य शाखाम् सा विमुक्त्वा शोक कर्शिता |
तस्याम् एव अनवद्य अन्गी धरण्याम् समुपाविशत् || ५-३४-११

Seetha showed wonderful friendly disposition towards Hanuma who approached her. Both of them also conversed with each other in full confidence. Hearing that reply of Seetha who was afflicted with grief, Hanuma the army-chief of monkeys endeavoured to draw nearer to her. In as much as that Hanuma drew nearer to her, in the same way, that Seetha suspected him as Ravana. "O shame! It was my guilt to tell him all this to him. He is indeed that Ravana, who obtained another guise." That Seetha, having faultless limbs, leaving that branch of Ashoka tree and as emaciated with grief, sat down on that ground itself.

Then, Hanumana praises Rama a bit and Sita forgives him much faster than one would think. She then asks Hanumana to describe the physical beauty (specifically the arms, and thighs) of Rama and Lakshmana (to increase her sexual drive). Even Hanumana noticed that the request was awkward and that Seetha wanted to know Rama/Lakshmana's physical appearance for her own pleasure:

कीदृशम् तस्य संस्थानम् रूपम् रामस्य कीदृशम् |
कथम् ऊरू कथम् बाहू लक्ष्मणस्य च शंस मे || ५-३५-४
एवम् उक्तः तु वैदेह्या हनूमान् मारुत आत्मजः |
ततो रामम् यथा तत्त्वम् आख्यातुम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३५-५
जानन्ती बत दिष्ट्या माम् वैदेहि परिपृच्छसि |
भर्तुः कमल पत्र अक्षि सम्ख्यानम् लक्ष्मणस्य च || ५-३५-६

"Of what kind was the appearance of that Rama and of Lakshmana? Of what kind was their form? How were the thighs? How were the arms? Tell me." Hearing the words of Seetha, Hanuma, the son of wind-god, then started to describe Rama according to his actual state (as follows): "O Seetha having eyes resembling lotus leaves! By my fortune, you are enquiring about the appearance of Rama your husband and Lakshmana, eventhough you know about them. Alas! what a pleasure!"

Hanumana then realized that Seetha wants to increase her sexual drive and facilitates in the process by going on to even describe Rama's penis and scrotum:

त्रिस्थिरः त्रिप्रलम्बः च त्रिसमः त्रिषु च उन्नतः |
त्रिवलीवान् त्र्यवनतः चतुः व्यन्गः त्रिशीर्षवान् || ५-३५-१७

"He is ever firm in three limbs (viz. the breast, waist and fist), long in three (viz. the breast, waist and fist), long in three (viz. the eyebrows, arms and soles), uniform in three (viz. his locks, testical and knees, elevated in three (viz. his breast, rim of his navel and lower abdomen), coppery in three of the navel and the lower abdomen), coppery in three (viz. the rims of his eyes, nails, palms and soles), soft in three (viz. the lines on his soles, hair and the end of the membrane virile) and always deep in three (viz. the voice, gait and the navel)."

All this evidence suggests sexual attraction and possibly consensual sex between Seetha and Hanumana. Also, Hanumana addresses Seetha as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks. If he was not having sex, how would he know the structure of those body parts? How could he describe them as being attractive?
Milin is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 08:55 AM   #16
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,741

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
Well, since Rama and Lakshmana didnt see a burnt Lanka, but instead saw a beautiful one, it most likely was not burnt down. So then what does Hanumana burning down Lanka with his tail/penis mean (the words used for tail in the text can also be translated as penis)?

If we look at Sundara Kanda Section 55 and remove the context of Lanka being burnt down and in isolation look at this statement of Hanumana, there is solid evidence that he could not control his passion for Seetha:

धिग् अस्तु राजसम् भावम् अनीशम् अनवस्थितम् |
ईश्वरेण अपि यत् रागान् मया सीता न रक्षिता || ५-५५-१६

"Let there be shame upon the passionate way of my thinking, which breeds helplessness and instability. fir, eventhough capable as I am, Seetha could not be saved by me due to my passionate fondness (for her)."

The sanskrit word रागान् means to be "passionately fond of" or "attached to".

So this verse suggests that Hanumana was worried that his passionate fondness for her could be the reason for her destruction. He could not control his passion/desire for her, and had rough sex with her. He thought that Seetha may have died from the rough sex (due to tearing)...

We also have evidence that Sita initially realized Hanumana's sexual desire for her and backed off. But she forgave Hanumana very very quickly, and then asked him to describe the physical appearance (she specifically says arms and thighs) of Rama and Lakshmana to increase her sexual drive.

See how she realizes Hanumana's initial advances and backs off (Sundara Kanda Section 34):

तयोः समागमे तस्मिन् प्रीतिः उत्पादिता अद्भुता |
परस्परेण च आलापम् विश्वस्तौ तौ प्रचक्रतुः || ५-३४-७
तस्याः तत् वचनम् श्रुत्वा हनूमान् हरि यूथपः |
सीतायाः शोक दीनायाः समीपम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३४-८
यथा यथा समीपम् स हनूमान् उपसर्पति |
तथा तथा रावणम् सा तम् सीता परिशन्कते || ५-३४-९
अहो धिग् धिग् कृतम् इदम् कथितम् हि यत् अस्य मे |
रूप अन्तरम् उपागम्य स एव अयम् हि रावणः || ५-३४-१०
ताम् अशोकस्य शाखाम् सा विमुक्त्वा शोक कर्शिता |
तस्याम् एव अनवद्य अन्गी धरण्याम् समुपाविशत् || ५-३४-११

Seetha showed wonderful friendly disposition towards Hanuma who approached her. Both of them also conversed with each other in full confidence. Hearing that reply of Seetha who was afflicted with grief, Hanuma the army-chief of monkeys endeavoured to draw nearer to her. In as much as that Hanuma drew nearer to her, in the same way, that Seetha suspected him as Ravana. "O shame! It was my guilt to tell him all this to him. He is indeed that Ravana, who obtained another guise." That Seetha, having faultless limbs, leaving that branch of Ashoka tree and as emaciated with grief, sat down on that ground itself.

Then, Hanumana praises Rama a bit and Sita forgives him much faster than one would think. She then asks Hanumana to describe the physical beauty (specifically the arms, and thighs) of Rama and Lakshmana (to increase her sexual drive). Even Hanumana noticed that the request was awkward and that Seetha wanted to know Rama/Lakshmana's physical appearance for her own pleasure:

कीदृशम् तस्य संस्थानम् रूपम् रामस्य कीदृशम् |
कथम् ऊरू कथम् बाहू लक्ष्मणस्य च शंस मे || ५-३५-४
एवम् उक्तः तु वैदेह्या हनूमान् मारुत आत्मजः |
ततो रामम् यथा तत्त्वम् आख्यातुम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३५-५
जानन्ती बत दिष्ट्या माम् वैदेहि परिपृच्छसि |
भर्तुः कमल पत्र अक्षि सम्ख्यानम् लक्ष्मणस्य च || ५-३५-६

"Of what kind was the appearance of that Rama and of Lakshmana? Of what kind was their form? How were the thighs? How were the arms? Tell me." Hearing the words of Seetha, Hanuma, the son of wind-god, then started to describe Rama according to his actual state (as follows): "O Seetha having eyes resembling lotus leaves! By my fortune, you are enquiring about the appearance of Rama your husband and Lakshmana, eventhough you know about them. Alas! what a pleasure!"

Hanumana then realized that Seetha wants to increase her sexual drive and facilitates in the process by going on to even describe Rama's penis and scrotum:

त्रिस्थिरः त्रिप्रलम्बः च त्रिसमः त्रिषु च उन्नतः |
त्रिवलीवान् त्र्यवनतः चतुः व्यन्गः त्रिशीर्षवान् || ५-३५-१७

"He is ever firm in three limbs (viz. the breast, waist and fist), long in three (viz. the breast, waist and fist), long in three (viz. the eyebrows, arms and soles), uniform in three (viz. his locks, testical and knees, elevated in three (viz. his breast, rim of his navel and lower abdomen), coppery in three of the navel and the lower abdomen), coppery in three (viz. the rims of his eyes, nails, palms and soles), soft in three (viz. the lines on his soles, hair and the end of the membrane virile) and always deep in three (viz. the voice, gait and the navel)."

All this evidence suggests sexual attraction and possibly consensual sex between Seetha and Hanumana. Also, Hanumana addresses Seetha as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks. If he was not having sex, how would he know the structure of those body parts? How could he describe them as being attractive?
Although your post does not deserve to be replied, I am posting this so others can get an idea of your thought process and intention:

From Sundara KAnda Sarga 55 (Where Hanuman burns Lanka not comprehending that SIta would be stuck in Ashoka Vana):

धिग् अस्तु राजसम् भावम् अनीशम् अनवस्थितम् |
ईश्वरेण अपि यत् रागान् मया सीता न रक्षिता || ५-५५-१६


dhik astu = Shame on me (Dhikkar); raajasam bhaavam = the passionate way of thinking (one that pushes us to act and not reflect); aniisham = no control; anavasthitam = unstable; yat = for; iishvareNa api = even though capable; siitaa = SIta; na rakSitaa = could not be saved; mayaa = by me; raagaat = passion of anger.

Shame on me as my passionate way of thinking (with no reflection), that leads to loss of control and instability, for, even though capable of, I could not save SIta because of the passion of anger.

Looking at the previous verse (5.55.15):
mayaa khalu tat eva idam roSha doShaat pradarshitam
prathitam triShu lokeShu kapitam anavasthitam

mayaa = by me; khalu = verily; tat = that; eva = only; idam = this;
rosha = anger; doshaat = due to weakness; pradarshitam = exhibited;
prathItam = is famous; trishu = three; lokeshu = worlds; kapitam = apishness; anavasthitam = instability;

Due to the weakness for anger, I have exhibited this apishness that is famous in the three worlds for instability.

This should give a context and background for the next verse 5-55-16 that this poster has atrociously mis-translated.
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 09:09 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Although your post does not deserve to be replied, I am posting this so others can get an idea of your thought process and intention:

From Sundara KAnda Sarga 55 (Where Hanuman burns Lanka not comprehending that SIta would be stuck in Ashoka Vana):

धिग् अस्तु राजसम् भावम् अनीशम् अनवस्थितम् |
ईश्वरेण अपि यत् रागान् मया सीता न रक्षिता || ५-५५-१६


dhik astu = Shame on me (Dhikkar); raajasam bhaavam = the passionate way of thinking (one that pushes us to act and not reflect); aniisham = no control; anavasthitam = unstable; yat = for; iishvareNa api = even though capable; siitaa = SIta; na rakSitaa = could not be saved; mayaa = by me; raagaat = passion of anger.

Shame on me as my passionate way of thinking (with no reflection), that leads to loss of control and instability, for, even though capable of, I could not save SIta because of the passion of anger.

Looking at the previous verse (5.55.15):
mayaa khalu tat eva idam roSha doShaat pradarshitam
prathitam triShu lokeShu kapitam anavasthitam

mayaa = by me; khalu = verily; tat = that; eva = only; idam = this;
rosha = anger; doshaat = due to weakness; pradarshitam = exhibited;
prathItam = is famous; trishu = three; lokeshu = worlds; kapitam = apishness; anavasthitam = instability;

Due to the weakness for anger, I have exhibited this apishness that is famous in the three worlds for instability.

This should give a context and background for the next verse 5-55-16 that this poster has atrociously mis-translated.
There was a reason why I told you to consider that verse in isolation... It is clear that Hanumana never burned down Lanka, so the fire he unleashed is symbolic and we should not take it literally.

And also raagan is an adjective that describes one who is passionately fond of , or attached to another person. Take a look at the translation:

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

The translator shows his bias when he translates the verse as "passion of anger". He just assumed the passion would be due to anger. The word raagan does not mean anger.

And you also referred to the previous verse, 5.55.15. In that verse, rosha is translated as anger. But it can also be translated as passion (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit).

So the verse can also be translated as follows:

Due to the weakness for passion, I have exhibited this apishness that is famous in the three worlds for instability.
Milin is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 09:10 AM   #18
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Although your post does not deserve to be replied, I am posting this so others can get an idea of your thought process and intention:

From Sundara KAnda Sarga 55 (Where Hanuman burns Lanka not comprehending that SIta would be stuck in Ashoka Vana):

धिग् अस्तु राजसम् भावम् अनीशम् अनवस्थितम् |
ईश्वरेण अपि यत् रागान् मया सीता न रक्षिता || ५-५५-१६


dhik astu = Shame on me (Dhikkar); raajasam bhaavam = the passionate way of thinking (one that pushes us to act and not reflect); aniisham = no control; anavasthitam = unstable; yat = for; iishvareNa api = even though capable; siitaa = SIta; na rakSitaa = could not be saved; mayaa = by me; raagaat = passion of anger.

Shame on me as my passionate way of thinking (with no reflection), that leads to loss of control and instability, for, even though capable of, I could not save SIta because of the passion of anger.

Looking at the previous verse (5.55.15):
mayaa khalu tat eva idam roSha doShaat pradarshitam
prathitam triShu lokeShu kapitam anavasthitam

mayaa = by me; khalu = verily; tat = that; eva = only; idam = this;
rosha = anger; doshaat = due to weakness; pradarshitam = exhibited;
prathItam = is famous; trishu = three; lokeshu = worlds; kapitam = apishness; anavasthitam = instability;

Due to the weakness for anger, I have exhibited this apishness that is famous in the three worlds for instability.

This should give a context and background for the next verse 5-55-16 that this poster has atrociously mis-translated.
There was a reason why I told you to consider that verse in isolation... It is clear that Hanumana never burned down Lanka, so the fire he unleashed is symbolic and we should not take it literally.

And also raagan is an adjective that describes one who is passionately fond of , or attached to another person. Take a look at the translation:

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

The translator shows his bias when he translates the verse as "passion of anger". He just assumed the passion would be due to anger. The word raagan does not mean anger.

And you also referred to the previous verse, 5.55.15. In that verse, rosha is translated as anger. But it can also be translated as passion (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit).

So the verse can also be translated as follows:

Due to the weakness for passion, I have exhibited this apishness that is famous in the three worlds for instability.
Milin is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 09:13 AM   #19
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: Shekhawati, Rajasthan
Posts: 34

Very imaginative interpretation, I must say, from the OP...I am 100% sure that none of it is remotely true..but he/she has really let his/her imagination run wild here
Marushi is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 09:18 AM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,741

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
There was a reason why I told you to consider that verse in isolation... It is clear that Hanumana never burned down Lanka, so the fire he unleashed is symbolic and we should not take it literally.

And also raagan is an adjective that describes one who is passionately fond of , or attached to another person. Take a look at the translation:

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

The translator shows his bias when he translates the verse as "passion of anger". He just assumed the passion would be due to anger. The word raagan does not mean anger.

And you also referred to the previous verse, 5.55.15. In that verse, rosha is translated as anger. But it can also be translated as passion (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit).

So the verse can also be translated as follows:

Due to the weakness for passion, I have exhibited this apishness that is famous in the three worlds for instability.
Context and intent is the key. Otherwise we end up seeing your kind of translations. For God's sake, this is not KAmasUtra, this is Ramayana. Understand the intent of VAlmIkI's Ramayana.
Aatreya is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
hate, ramayana, shurpanakha



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hate against non-american people in USA sharly55 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 9 June 30th, 2014 06:32 AM
Do people of India hate Ghandi? Commander Asian History 62 March 20th, 2011 04:17 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.