Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ancient_indian_astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

Expand Messages
  • Santhosh
    Dear all, After Arjuna and Karma, now people are after Rama s skin I guess. Love Santhosh _____ From: ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 46 , Nov 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      Dear all,

       

      After Arjuna and Karma, now people are after Rama’s skin I guess.

       

      Love

      Santhosh

       

       


      From: ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com [mailto: ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Chakraborty, PL
      Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:54 PM
      To: ' ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com '
      Subject: RE: [ancient_indian_astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

       

       

      Dear Shankar-ji,

       

      I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing.

       

      Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went

      there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive.

      Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree.

       

      Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing

      only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara

      empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified.

      Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped

      Rama to conquer Lanka easily.

       

      Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization.

      He did what he felt needed.  Otherwise, he could not have

      supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow

      Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should

      give "explanation" for all the things he did.

       

      Anyway, let us agree to disagree

       

      regards

       

      Chakraborty

       


      From: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: ancient_ indian_astrology @yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli
      Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM
      To: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

       

      Dear Bhaskar ji,

      "Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.
      there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army
      and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his
      chest would not be adharmic."

      I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy.

      " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be
      fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."

      That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi.

      Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative.

      Shankar

       


      From: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ yahoo.co. in>
      To: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:15:54 PM
      Subject: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

       


      Sir ji,

      With full respect to you, as a lovable good member of the forum, I wish
      to talk practical as well as ethical.

      // Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. //

      Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.
      there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army
      and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his
      chest would not be adharmic.

      // Punishing the unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. //

      True.

      // Deceiving the unrighteous to get righteous to power, is dharmic. //

      Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be
      fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so.

      //Deceiving someone for gaining power when the current ruler is able to
      protect the righteous, is unrighteous. //

      true.

      Love n regards,

      bhaskar.

      --- In ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com, ShankaraBharadwaj
      Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

      >
      > Dharma or the natural righteous order is of different levels. It could
      be individual (vyakti), professional (vritti), collective (samisti) or
      emergency (apat). In the last two, ends do justify means. In the first,
      ends do not justify the means. There is no blanket rule on this.
      >
      > Harming an enemy to make a friend happy, is adharmic. Punishing the
      unrighteous to save the righteous, is dharmic. Deceiving the unrighteous
      to get righteous to power, is dharmic. Deceiving someone for gaining
      power when the current ruler is able to protect the righteous, is
      unrighteous. It all depends what the means is and what the ends are.
      >
      > Shankar
      >

       

      This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway,
       New Delhi , India . The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. 
        

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2536 - Release Date: 12/01/09 02:35:00

    • Sunil Bhattacharjya
      Dear Chakrabirtyji, I think nobody tries to justify the way of killing killing of Baali unreservedly. It is said that  Lord Ram got the punishment for that
      Message 46 of 46 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Chakrabirtyji,

        I think nobody tries to justify the way of killing killing of Baali unreservedly. It is said that  Lord Ram got the punishment for that action in his next incarnation.But mind that if Lord Ram would have openly invited Baali for a combat the whole vanara side would have joined the battle. Tell me why Baali should accept a duel with Lord Ram? So Lord Ram took a discreet step for the sake of greater good so that he should be able to restore two women (ie. Ruma ans Sita) to their rightful place, through a path of least resistance. Had there been an open confrontation there would have been loss of more lives and it would have also delayed Lord Ram's mission to recover Mother Sita. It is a case doing a bad thing in view of or for facilitating a bigger good work.

        Secondly Sugriva married Tara as per the vanara custom (and that was not a forceful action) when Bali was assumed to be dead. Once a queen always a queen. That is how the king's widow is married to the next king but what is the justification of Baali's forcefully keeping Sugriva's wife?

        Thirdly Lord Ram had declared war against Ravana. So any action to facilitate that should be okay. Because Meghnada did not fight a normal war and you know that. he could hide behind the cloud and all that. Do you think that to be fai?. So killing Meghnada in an unfair way is not really unfair.

        It is a question of doing smaller bad things to facilitate a greater good things. Your concern that  a better way should have been explored is appreciated but was it really practicable? Do we know the social and the personal dynamics under those situations? How do you think that Baali would have peacefully agreed to part with Sugriva's wife? I also undertsand that if anybody invited Baali for a combat then Baali's sterngth increased and the opponent's strength decreased. Such was the boon Baali had. So you have to consider this fact too.

        Regards,

        Sunil K. Bhattacharjya



        --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2@...> wrote:

        From: Chakraborty, PL <CHAKRABORTYP2@...>
        Subject: RE: [ancient_indian_astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?
        To: "'ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com'" <ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:21 AM

         

        Dear Shankar-ji,
         
        Yes, I do agree that you have taken a consistent stand.
         
        It also appears that I am not good enough to appreciate
        the finer nuances of Dharma.  It is like X pronounces
        that he is  going to war against Y. The poor Y is not even
        aware about X or his so called Dharma. And then X kills
        Y while hiding. And we are justifying it.
         
        Calling someone in a temple to come out and fight..
        who is not even fully prepared...I remember ULFA
        tried to KPS Gill out of  Kamakhya Temple...and
        was rightfully denounced.
         
        Probably, ordinary mortals like us, have a romantic
        idea about Dharma and dharmic actions..which is
        jarred by actions of great persons.
         
        Anyway, your reply, although quite logical, does
        not gell with my inner sense of Dharma.
         
        regards
         
        Chakraborty
         
         
         
         


        From: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ancient_ indian_astrology @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli
        Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:22 PM
        To: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com
        Subject: Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

         

        Dear Chakraborty ji,

        "
        A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out
        punsihment   does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree.
         
        A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly.
        "

        Rama's taking higher moral stand and assuming the place to punish Vali was open - there was nothing secretive about it. Only his act of *executing the punishment* was from behind the tree - which is the difference between motive and instrument. He had the right motive and an "improper" instrument for execution - which does not defeat his raja dharma (On another count, availing such a boon to remain unbeaten does not really constitute veera dharma, therefore there is no need for anyone to follow veera dharma against Vali. This was also why there was no requirement for veera dharma against Bhishma who came in with an iccha mrityu, or against Karna before he shed his natural armor. But that is a different topic.).

        "
        Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not
        roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'.
        Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of
        any Rajya. "

        In the beginning of vana vasa itself, Rama announces that he would carry out the campaign for Dharma, to destroy the Asuras and the unrighteous, as a representative of Bharata the king. This is how (as a representative of Bharata) he introduces himself to the Rakshasas too, while fighting them. He repeats this declaration multiple times, and there is nothing hidden in it.

        We are here agreeing that the whole vana vasa was a part of his grand campaign - but my point is that none of his acts defeated dharma - if we evaulate in what capacity he took each of the decisions.

        "
        None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly
        a paradigm of Raj-dharma."

        Where veera dharma was applicable, Rama stood by that. Where raja dharma or kshatra dharma was applicable, he stood for that too. Veera dharma was not required with Vali, raja dharma was - he stood by that. Veera dharma was required against Khara-Dushanas at Janasthana, he fulfilled it. Raja Dharma demanded that he eliminates the Asuras and protects sadhus (which is actually the Dharma of every kshatriya irrespective of whether he is a king or not), he fulfilled it.

        "He
        allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some
        other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing
        all rules of engagement. "

        Lakshmana did not attack Indrajit at Nikumbhila against veera dharma. He merely went there and gave call for combat, which Indrajit obliged as a warrior. Lakshmana did not destroy the yaga or attack while Indrajit was doing the yaga. As a genuine warrior he gave a call for combat, waited as Indrajit comes out to fight with his armor and weapons, only then hit him. On the other hand as I said, taking the help of divine boons to win a war or defeat an opponent without relying on one's valor, is itself not veera dharma. So calling Indrajit for a combat out of Nikumbhila is not really unrighteous.

        "
        He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta
        and changing the religious landscape."

        Well many Asuras are great devotees, but being a great devotee and being committed to righteousness are totally different things. Out of ruju vartana and daiva cintana, the first thing always comes first.

        "
        PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only.
        But I will learn few things in the process
        "
        Same here. Agreeing or disagreeing is not really important :)


        Shankar


        From: "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>
        To: "ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com" <ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com>
        Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 3:00:56 PM
        Subject: RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

         

        Dear Shankar-ji,
         
        A Raja who sits on judgement and awards / carries out
        punsihment   does it on "OPEN", not hiding behind a tree.
         
        A person taking a 'higher moral stand' does it openly.
         
        Also, Rama abdicated his throne and he was not
        roaming as a Raja....rather someone on a 'vana vass'.
        Neither he was carrying out anything on behalf of
        any Rajya. Neither his action was anyway to influence
        any of  the subjects of his erstwhile kingdom.
         
        So, Raj-dharma, at that moment, was not existent. Unless
        he had a hidden agenda......
         
        Rather, his actions were rather different. He killed
        all the Asura / rakshasa in his area. He allowed Lakshmana
        to cut 'nose' of a rakshasa lady (who happens to be sister
        of Ravana). If we take a different perspective, it would appear
        that he was on an 'expansion' mode....spreading his brand
        of civilization and eradicating 'Rakshasa civilization' . He
        allowed Laksamana to attack Indrajit in Nikumvila or some
        other YajnaShala while Indrajit was doing a yajna, bypassing
        all rules of engagement. 
         
        He was also removing one of the most powerful Shiva Bhakta
        and changing the religious landscape.
         
        None of these can be called veer dharma. Nor exactly
        a paradigm of Raj-dharma.  (Unless we want to comapre
        with present day Rajneeti where anything is acceptable).
         
        regards
         
        Chakraborty
         
        PS... Probably we will keep disagreeing only.
        But I will learn few things in the process


        From: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ancient_ indian_astrology @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli
        Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:26 PM
        To: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com
        Subject: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

         

        Dear Chakraborty ji,

        "Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. "

        There is a difference between veera dharma and raja dharma. The rules for a warrior on field are veera dharma. What a king should do to punish the unrighteous, is raja dharma. Rama did not follow veera dharma, he subordinated it to his raja dharma. Secondly, veera dharma is applicable when one fights another - not when one takes the higher moral stand and *punishes* another.

        Hope this clarifies.

        Shankar


        From: "Chakraborty, PL" <CHAKRABORTYP2@ iocl.co.in>
        To: "ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com" <ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com>
        Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 12:53:55 PM
        Subject: RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

         

        Dear Shankar-ji,
         
        I beg to differ on your views on Vali's killing.
         
        Rama did not follow any Kshatriya Dharma there. He went
        there surreptiously. Vali was not even aware of Rama or his motive.
        Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree.
         
        Whetehr Vali or Sugriv was on wrong side... Rama, after hearing
        only Sugriva, can not judge. Okay, he needed the help of Vanara
        empire (Kishkindhya) ....but the means employed here is not justified.
        Even Vali on death throne said that he (Vali) could have helped
        Rama to conquer Lanka easily.
         
        Rama probably had a bigger aim...to spread/change civilization.
        He did what he felt needed.  Otherwise, he could not have
        supported "nasika chedan" of Shurpanakha. We follow
        Rama blindly...but that should not mean that we should
        give "explanation" for all the things he did.
         
        Anyway, let us agree to disagree
         
        regards
         
        Chakraborty


        From: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ancient_ indian_astrology @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli
        Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:53 AM
        To: ancient_indian_ astrology@ yahoogroups. com
        Subject: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Is it right to kill a Brother ?

         

        Dear Bhaskar ji,

        "Harming an enemy would make me happy initially. friend is secondary.
        there is nothing adharmic about that. Enemy is a Enemy. If I am in army
        and my friend got hurt by an enemys bullet and I hit two bullets in his
        chest would not be adharmic."

        I do not think we are disagreeing here - the example you took is not of "harming", but of "reciprocating" or "retaliating" or even "defending" as the case may be. In which case it is not adharmic. The question again, is of who is the assailant and who is on the wrong side - my friend or his enemy. If my friend is at fault, my job ends with defending him. If the other side is wrong, then I am right not only in defending him but eliminating the enemy.

        " Deceiving in any form is adharmic and not dharmic. Any fight should be
        fair. the mean should not be unethical however much the ends may be so."

        That is the difference between vyakti dharma and raja dharma. It is adharma for a vyakti, but not in raja dharma. In raja dharma the purpose should be righteous, means is not bound to be righteous from an individual's perspective. Of course, it has its own parameters to evaluate - such as who is the benificiary, who is the sufferer and which of them is righteous. This difference is not known to many, which is why they are confused with morality - most glaring example of recent times being Gandhi.

        Killing Vali by deceit does not make Rama adharmic, because Vali was on the wrong side as well as because Rama was dealing with the whole empire of vanaras and not just an individual. He was setting right a wrong that was previously done. On the other hand, though done for kingship, the assault by Dhartarasthras on Pandavas does make them adharmic, because that was not a corrective but a positively unrighteous initiative.

        Shankar

        This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. 


        This Message was sent from Indian Oil Messaging Gateway, New Delhi, India. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. 


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.