Every person's life struggle is a Mahabharatta

As we live and experience life trying to hold our nerve and meet the challenges, it seems to me that Mahabharratta constitutes the vedanta of all existing knowledge guiding us into our real life struggle to achieve dharma, or ethical living. So is Ramayana although in this epic there is no discussion of God as being the overseer of the individual's struggle for dharma (in the same way that Mahabaharrata has he Bhagavad Gita), so perhaps it is more suited to atheists.

I felt that the question is interesting enough to warrant discussion here.

That is right. We wage the war. It sometimes ends like it did for Kauravas and sometimes like it did for Pandavas.

My understanding is that between Rama and Krishna there was a significant growth of self awareness, which might explain why it feels like God is more directly involved in the events of the Mahabharata and not the Ramayana.

Rama wasn't fully aware of his own divinity until the end of his life - at least that's the impression I get. Krishna (what little I know if his life story) seems to have been aware from the beginning of his own divinity, so to that end, his interaction with other human beings would be very different than Rama's. Rama's duty was to be an example of the ideal human being - to do that, he had to be a little "Closer to home" for the rest of us to relate to him. Krishna on the other hand seems to have transcended this need to be an example and is more of an active teacher/observer.

My understanding is that Ramayana is older than Mahabharatta but both essentially teach the importance of performing ones duties. In the Ramayana we see a human story and Ram is said to be purushottam with no connection to God so that he is not an incarnation of Vishnu or God as so many Hindus believe. He is a human being living to the highest ideals. On the other hand, the Mahabharatta is a deliberately theistic piece of work in which God plays a direct role in the affairs of men by showing the Pandavas (Arjun in particular) their dharma, that is the need to live in dignity by fighting for ones rights. It tells us that God will directly intervene to make the fight a successful one regardless of the strength of the opposition, that is the evil perpetrators. So they are different stories and of the two epics only the Mahabaharatta is to be regarded as having vedantic symbolism.

The point that needs to be considered is that the lesson of Mahabharatta is vedanta where every person treats own life as being on Kurukshetra in the struggle for dharma that is blessed by God.

Fireside_Hindu said:

My understanding is that between Rama and Krishna there was a significant growth of self awareness, which might explain why it feels like God is more directly involved in the events of the Mahabharata and not the Ramayana.

Rama wasn't fully aware of his own divinity until the end of his life - at least that's the impression I get. Krishna (what little I know if his life story) seems to have been aware from the beginning of his own divinity, so to that end, his interaction with other human beings would be very different than Rama's. Rama's duty was to be an example of the ideal human being - to do that, he had to be a little "Closer to home" for the rest of us to relate to him. Krishna on the other hand seems to have transcended this need to be an example and is more of an active teacher/observer.

Click to expand...

Rama was acting as being ignorant of his divinity to fool Ravana, Ravana could only be killed by either manavas or vanaras. If Rama acted like he was GOD, Ravana would have become aware of it and he couldn't have been killed.

spiritualhitchhiker said:

Rama was acting as being ignorant of his divinity to fool Ravana, Ravana could only be killed by either manavas or vanaras. If Rama acted like he was GOD, Ravana would have become aware of it and he couldn't have been killed.

Click to expand...

Rama is known to be the purushottam, that is he does not fool people from the day he was born till the day he got to know of Ravana and later. So there is no evidence that He was God-incarnate.

Shantanu said:

Rama is known to be the purushottam, that is he does not fool people from the day he was born till the day he got to know of Ravana and later. So there is no evidence that He was God-incarnate.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting.

spiritualhitchhiker said:

That's very interesting.

Click to expand...

Did Rama get everything his own way? No, he was exiled through no fault of his own, his wife was abducted and later he got a bad reputation for not trusting his wife (Sita proves her purity by fire ordeal (Thai Ramayana mural) , so was he blessed by God?

He was one of the avatars of Vishnu, so why would he be blessed by GOD, when he is GOD himself.

Shantanu said:

Did Rama get everything his own way? No, he was exiled through no fault of his own, his wife was abducted and later he got a bad reputation for not trusting his wife (Sita proves her purity by fire ordeal (Thai Ramayana mural) , so was he blessed by God?

Click to expand...

you are being disrespectful in saying 'his wife, him,' bad choice of words. Sri Rama is nArayaNa and paramaatma and Sita Devi/ Lakshmi Devi is the mother of entire universe. When devathas as per valmiki ramayana addressed Sri Rama as nArayaNa, Sri Rama said not to address as such as Sri Rama was everything human and how a human should be but we should not forget the fact that Sri Rama is paramatma.

Ramayana took place in 24th chaturyuga, now we are in 28th Kali


1 chaturyuga 4.32 million years

Ramayana is called Saranagathi Shastra and it has the entire essence of vedas inside it if only one takes a deep look and one who understands it through a proper acharya

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa

spiritualhitchhiker said:

He was one of the avatars of Vishnu, so why would he be blessed by GOD, when he is GOD himself.

Click to expand...

I think that an avatar is not the same as an incarnation of God. In the Mahabharatta God (Sri Krishna) incarnated as Krishna on to the material world as Himself and displayed His Vishwaroopa. In the Ramayana, He did not do this. Ramayana is therefore a story of an avatar of God. This is evidenced from the fact (?) that Ram performed ashwamedha puja from what I read, did he not? If He was God himself, would he have worshipped himself through such a puja? I do not think so. Rama was therefore an avatar of God limited by his own biology as a human being blessed with divine powers and mental access to God for guidance purposes. He was an avatar of God to live as purushottam, to show how such a person should be dealing with the trials of facing injustices in the world in the appropriate manner. From this we learn lessons on dharma, that is on how to live in a detailed manner as we go through life. So Ramayana too is an example of what God wants us to know about our lives being a Kurukshetra trial of a different kind (personal battle) through which we need to do the right things to survive with dignity. And that dignity does not necessarily need us to worship God merely do our duties and righteous actions because we must live like a human being.

So Ram is to be revered as an avatar of God, not God himself. Only Krishna is to be worshipped as God (Sri Krishna).

kalyan said:

you are being disrespectful in saying 'his wife, him,' bad choice of words. Sri Rama is nArayaNa and paramaatma and Sita Devi/ Lakshmi Devi is the mother of entire universe. When devathas as per valmiki ramayana addressed Sri Rama as nArayaNa, Sri Rama said not to address as such as Sri Rama was everything human and how a human should be but we should not forget the fact that Sri Rama is paramatma.

Ramayana took place in 24th chaturyuga, now we are in 28th Kali


1 chaturyuga 4.32 million years

Ramayana is called Saranagathi Shastra and it has the entire essence of vedas inside it if only one takes a deep look and one who understands it through a proper acharya

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa

Click to expand...

I do not know wherefrom you got the notion that Sita was Devi. The concept of Devi comes from the idea of Shakti. In the Ramayana was Shakti mentioned?
Secondly, everyone has paramatma inside of them and when one realises this and lives in consultation with God the person is known as an avatar. But for God (Sri Krishna) to come alive in a person as Paramatma never happens in reality because that would be an incarnation and the human mind is limited by its finite biology whereas God is infinitely bigger and cannot be contained in the human being. It was merely conceptualised to have happened by the author of the Mahabharatta story for that is what it was: a story; as Ramayana too is but in Ramayana a human being lived as an avatar of God receiving divine guidance. So Rama was not paramatma.

Fireside_Hindu said:

Rama wasn't fully aware of his own divinity until the end of his life -

Click to expand...

You and your opinions. Lord Vishnu not being aware. Ha ha

spiritualhitchhiker said:

Rama was acting as being ignorant of his divinity to fool Ravana, ..

Click to expand...

No one was fooled, neither Rama nor Ravana. Ravana (in reality, Jaya, the gate-keeper of Vaikuntha) wanted to be back at his post after completing the Sanat Kumara curse as quickly as possible.

Shantanu said:

Did Rama get everything his own way? No, he was exiled through no fault of his own, his wife was abducted and later he got a bad reputation for not trusting his wife (Sita proves her purity by fire ordeal (Thai Ramayana mural) , so was he blessed by God?

Click to expand...

Whose leela was it if not of Lord Rama? If he was not exiled, how would Ravana abduct Mother Sita, fulfill the wishes of Shabari and emancipate Mother Ahalya, and if Ravana will not abduct Mother Sita, why would Lord Rama fight with Ravana, if Lord Rama would not fight with Ravana how would Devas and Kuber get their domains back and how would Ravana (in reality Jaya) complete the curse of Sanat Kumaras. It was all pre-arranged, no surprise for them at all. Abandonment of Mother Sita was an illustration to later kings that they should not only be honest but also seen to be honest. Can and did the Mother Sita, Shakti, ever leave Lord Rama?

(oh, forgot that I am an atheist. Was in my theist mode)

Shantanu said:

I do not know wherefrom you got the notion that Sita was Devi. The concept of Devi comes from the idea of Shakti. In the Ramayana was Shakti mentioned?
Secondly, everyone has paramatma inside of them and when one realises this and lives in consultation with God the person is known as an avatar. But for God (Sri Krishna) to come alive in a person as Paramatma never happens in reality because that would be an incarnation and the human mind is limited by its finite biology whereas God is infinitely bigger and cannot be contained in the human being. It was merely conceptualised to have happened by the author of the Mahabharatta story for that is what it was: a story; as Ramayana too is but in Ramayana a human being lived as an avatar of God receiving divine guidance. So Rama was not paramatma.

Click to expand...

^^ would not comment on that first illogical line.

what is the point you are trying to make ? Sri Rama was a human, the most perfect human and he is direct dharma himself, whatever Sri Rama does you can just follow it, but one should not forget that he is nArayaNa/Maha Vishnu/Supreme Brahman

There is a saying, "whatever Rama does simply follow it and whatever yo do for Sri Krushna becomes dharma (Ramo vigrahavaan dharma, Krishnam dharmam sanatanam)"

Aupmanyav said:

You and your opinions. Lord Vishnu not being aware. Ha ha.No one was fooled, neither Rama nor Ravana. Ravana (in reality, Jaya, the gate-keeper of Vaikuntha) wanted to be back at his post after completing the Sanat Kumara curse as quickly as possible.Whose leela was it if not of Lord Rama? If he was not exiled, how would Ravana abduct Mother Sita, fulfill the wishes of Shabari and emancipate Mother Ahalya, and if Ravana will not abduct Mother Sita, why would Lord Rama fight with Ravana, if Lord Rama would not fight with Ravana how would Devas and Kuber get their domains back and how would Ravana (in reality Jaya) complete the curse of Sanat Kumaras. It was all pre-arranged, no surprise for them at all. Abandonment of Mother Sita was an illustration to later kings that they should not only be honest but also seen to be honest. Can and did the Mother Sita, Shakti, ever leave Lord Rama?
(oh, forgot that I am an atheist. Was in my theist mode)

Click to expand...

good post, except that you used mother twice ,mother can only be one

kalyan said:

^^ would not comment on that first illogical line.

what is the point you are trying to make ? Sri Rama was a human, the most perfect human and he is direct dharma himself, whatever Sri Rama does you can just follow it, but one should not forget that he is nArayaNa/Maha Vishnu/Supreme Brahman

There is a saying, "whatever Rama does simply follow it and whatever yo do for Sri Krushna becomes dharma (Ramo vigrahavaan dharma, Krishnam dharmam sanatanam)"

Click to expand...

It is totally illogical for God to display Himself by living a full life as a human being. In the Mahabharatta, He lived like God, not like a human being.

In the Ramayana, there is no explicit consultation between Ram and God so Rama was just a human being, a very divine one at that. The dharma of a purushottam is different from the dharma that is considered to be sanatan dharma. You have alluded to that. So I cannot regard Rama to be Narayana/MahaVishnu/Supreme Brahman. I do not know if we should even consider Rama to be an avatar because an avatar is perennially in contact with God and consulting him.

To understand this fully, perhaps you can answer me one simple question: would you not say that Mahatma Gandhi was also a purushottam and equal in his dharma to what we know about Rama life in the Ramayana?

Kalyan, I will always use Mother Sita instead of writing just Sita. She is Shakti, Rama's Shakti.

Shantanu said:

In the Ramayana, there is no explicit consultation between Ram and God so Rama was just a human being, a very divine one at that.

To understand this fully, perhaps you can answer me one simple question: would you not say that Mahatma Gandhi was also a purushottam and equal in his dharma to what we know about Rama life in the Ramayana?

Click to expand...

Lord Rama was not in the habit of talking to himself.

Till the last lime I checked, you were an advaitist. I am also an advaitist. Therefore Mahatma Gandhi also was fully Brahman, just as you and myself are. Mahatma Gandhi was not as much a 'purushottama' as Lord Rama or Lord Krishna, but he was certainly better than us. All of us are bound by 'maya' to different levels, otherwise there will be no struggle. Lord Rama was not.

Shantanu said:

It is totally illogical for God to display Himself by living a full life as a human being. In the Mahabharatta, He lived like God, not like a human being.

In the Ramayana, there is no explicit consultation between Ram and God so Rama was just a human being, a very divine one at that. The dharma of a purushottam is different from the dharma that is considered to be sanatan dharma. You have alluded to that. So I cannot regard Rama to be Narayana/MahaVishnu/Supreme Brahman. I do not know if we should even consider Rama to be an avatar because an avatar is perennially in contact with God and consulting him.

To understand this fully, perhaps you can answer me one simple question: would you not say that Mahatma Gandhi was also a purushottam and equal in his dharma to what we know about Rama life in the Ramayana?

Click to expand...

From what i know by the grace of our acharya Chinna Jeeyar Swamy, If you go by strict vaidika meaning, purushottama is a strong term
Puru in Sanksrit derives from root puru sethi, puram is body , the one who resides in the shareera/body is purusha, so even insects can be called purushas. Purushottama is uttama purusha. Uttama Purusha is only one...For this we need to know what kind of Purushas exist, I don't know this but copying from/ as told by Sri Krushna in BhagawadGita, Purushottama prapti yogam chapter, he says he is only Purushottama.
Purushas are divided into

1. Uttha Purushas( the ones who does not believe in paramaatma as such and waste their entire lives on materialistic things)
2. Utthh Purushas( the ones who want to reach eternal abode of god and do his service and strive for that, these are also called mumukshus)
3. Uttara Purushas ( These dont have karmic bondage at all and live in eternal company with god like Garuda, Anantha, Vishwaksena , called as nithya suris)
4. Uttama Purusha ( Sri Krushna says he alone is Uttama Purusha/Purushottama)

avatar is also a term that says, that which came directly without any change (from avataranam) ,,,,,,Sri Krushna is born and so is Sri Rama but the qualities like soulabhyam, sauseelyam, paratvam of nArayaNa tattwam remains whatever form it assumes...I referred to nArayaNa by 'It' because nArayaNa does not refer to a male/female/napunsuka, it is actually a tattwam

and regarding Gandhi is just a jiva full of sins as we are and perhaps is more sinner than we are and is in the cycle of birth and death, many call him a british stooge for dragging bharat army into world war I for which it has no part and was responsible for millions of indian deaths. would not go far on this.

Shantanu said:

I think that an avatar is not the same as an incarnation of God.

Click to expand...

Incarnation is an English word for avatar.

Shantanu said:

I do not know wherefrom you got the notion that Sita was Devi. The concept of Devi comes from the idea of Shakti. In the Ramayana was Shakti mentioned?

Click to expand...

Concept of Devi is not exclusive of Shaktas, Shakti is the wife of Shiva, she need not be mentioned, Sita was an avatar of Lakshmi, who is Vishnu's wife. It's mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana that Sita was an avatar of Lakshmi.

Aupmanyav said:

No one was fooled, neither Rama nor Ravana. Ravana (in reality, Jaya, the gate-keeper of Vaikuntha) wanted to be back at his post after completing the Sanat Kumara curse as quickly as possible.

Click to expand...

Read Valmiki Ramayana again, there was definitely a lot of fooling going on. Ravana wasn't aware that he was one of the gate-keepers of Vaikunta, if Rama exhibited any signs of divinity, the avatar would have been futile. I also know about that curse of Sanatkumaras, it is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam.

Aupmanyav said:

Kalyan, I will always use Mother Sita instead of writing just Sita. She is Shakti, Rama's Shakti.

Click to expand...

Shakti is Shiva's wife. But it also means energy, so you can use it like that.