Ask A Buddhist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bakmoon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another quick question, how can you promise us that we can acquire a happiness that comes from mental concentration? Do you see what I am saying?

You can’t. If we are to achieve happiness from mental concentration, it comes from the Grace of God not from our effort of mental concentration. You are claiming we can acquire happiness from mental concentration.

I am claiming not if it is not by the Grace of God. Thats where we are so separated in this.
I finally found the quote that I was looking for in Aquinas. You say that all happiness, both natural and supernatural, comes directly from God. This seems to conflict with the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas Aquinas Sum I-II:
I answer that, Imperfect happiness that can be had in this life, can be acquired by man by his natural powers, in the same way as virtue, in whose operation it consists: on this point we shall speak further on (Question [63]). But man’s perfect Happiness, as stated above (Question [3], Article [8]), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the vision of God’s Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but also of every creature, as was shown in the FP, Question [12], Article [4]. For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De Causis; Prop. viii) that “it knows things that are above it, and things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance.” But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man, nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.

josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FS/FS005.html#FSQ5A5THEP1
Aquinas is saying that although all happiness is ultimately from God, and that it is impossible to attain perfect happiness through one’s own natural power, it is never the less possible to attain imperfect happiness (which is what we have been calling natural happiness in our discussion here) through one’s own natural power. In other words, the direct cause of imperfect happiness can be one’s own natural powers.

Why cannot a Catholic use these natural powers in the form of Buddhist meditation to further their imperfect happiness in this life? You seem to find it unacceptable for a Catholic to seek any imperfect happiness in a way that is not centered on Christ, but Catholics licitly do so all the time. There is nothing wrong with a Catholic seeking imperfect happiness by watching a football game, reading poetry, looking at art, eating good food, etc… but none of these things are in themselves centered on Christ any more than Buddhist meditation is, so why are these things acceptable yet Buddhist meditation is not?
 
I don’t know what religion the Buddha would have identified with before he set off on his journey. He may have considered himself to follow the Brahmin religion of the times, or maybe something else. The term Hinduism is a bit anachronistic to use when talking about the time of the Buddha because Hinduism itself was still developing quite a bit.

The biggest difference in my opinion would be that Buddhism is an atheistic religion, whereas almost all forms of Hinduism are theistic.
I think I’ve covered this before. Buddhism and Jainism are nastika, while Hinduism is astika. You can sometimes see those two terms translated as ‘atheistic’ and ‘theistic’ respectively but that is not entirely accurate (since again as I mentioned before there are Hindu schools of philosophy which are ‘atheistic’ in the eastern sense - come to think of it, I think the different Hinduisms have gotten most bases covered :p): rather those two terms denoted whether one accepts the Vedas as authoritative (astika ‘it is so’) or not (nastika ‘it is not so’).
 
Would you consider Buddhism a way of life or a religion just like Catholicism?
 
Samatha meditation is a true technique of Buddhist meditation, however it is not unique to Buddhism. Samatha is used by Catholic mystics as described in Vouthon’s post; it isn’t called samatha though.

You seem to be confusing the object that is the focus of meditation with the technique for meditation. Jesus would be the object of Lectio Divina. Metta could be the object of Buddhist meditation. Samatha is a technique.

Some people become very anxious when they meditate regardless of the subject of mediation. People who become anxious or depressed during or after meditation should stop. People suffering from scrupulosity probably shouldn’t meditate except in the presence of a priest who could help with anxiety.

I never said that Lectio Divina wasn’t necessary. It seems that it would be very useful for Catholics.

rinnie,
I think I have covered this as clearly as I am able.
You did, You did real good, Thank you for all of the effort you put into your posts. I truly appreciate all the time and effort you have given. This is truly from my heart to yours.😉
 
Are you claiming that all happiness is directly caused by God, even natural happiness? So when someone sees something beautiful and happiness arises in their heart, this happiness was not caused by the sight but was the direct result of God’s grace? Is that what you are saying?
Well actually yes I am.😃 Because even if the happiness was caused by the sight guess who created the sight? You got it! The Lord Almighty creator of heaven and EARTH!😃

And happiness is also a emotion given to us by the grace of God, Yes.

The breath that you take right at this moment is also a result of the grace of God.
 
For many years I have been interested in Hinduism. The Buddha, as I understand, was originally a Hindu. What would you say are the central differences between these two faiths? I’ll be interested in your reply.

Thank you
As Bakmoon mentioned, Hinduism (or ‘Hinduisms’) per se did not exist yet during the historical Buddha’s lifetime. What existed then was Vedism (aka Brahmanism), the native religion of the Indo-Aryan (aka Vedic) peoples, as well as non-Vedic ‘heterodox’ movements (often ascetic ones) collectively known as shramana. Both Buddhism and Jainism are considered offshoots of the shramana tradition (as opposed to ‘orthodox’ Brahmanism), and certain shramanic ideas (like yoga, samsara and moksha) helped metamorphose Vedism into Hinduism.

I could go on and on about the Vedic religion but this will do for now methinks. 😊
 
I think I’ve covered this before. Buddhism and Jainism are nastika, while Hinduism is astika. You can sometimes see those two terms translated as ‘atheistic’ and ‘theistic’ respectively but that is not entirely accurate (since again as I mentioned before there are Hindu schools of philosophy which are ‘atheistic’ in the eastern sense - come to think of it, I think the different Hinduisms have gotten most bases covered :p): rather those two terms denoted whether one accepts the Vedas as authoritative (astika ‘it is so’) or not (nastika ‘it is not so’).
I know that the Buddha would have identified himself as part of the Shramanic tradition after leaving home, but I was just saying I don’t know what he would have called himself prior to leaving home. Maybe he was very devoted to the Gods of the Brahmin pantheon, maybe he was interested in the wandering Samana ascetics, or maybe he considered himself to be non-religious at that time. I don’t personally know.
 
Well actually yes I am.😃 Because even if the happiness was caused by the sight guess who created the sight? You got it! The Lord Almighty creator of heaven and EARTH!😃

And happiness is also a emotion given to us by the grace of God, Yes.

The breath that you take right at this moment is also a result of the grace of God.
The key word difference here is the word “Direct”. Of course a Catholic understanding requires that one believe that God is indirectly the cause of natural happiness because he is ultimately the creator of all natural things, but the issue is whether or not He is the direct creator of natural happiness. I hold that Catholic teaching says that this is not necessarily so, and that natural happiness has a direct cause which is part of the natural world, and that God is the indirect cause by virtue of having created the universe.

To re-examine the situation of seeing something beautifull, let’s look at the example of a sunset. Bob sees a sunset and becomes happy. The direct cause of this natural happiness is the seeing of the sunset, and God is the indirect cause because he created Bob and the entire universe. However, the act of seeing is still the direct cause of this natural happiness.

Why cannot Buddhist meditation be the same way? Bob sits down and meditates, concentrating his mind and gaining natural happiness. The direct cause for this is the mental concentration, and the indirect cause of this is God, because God created the universe, and if he didn’t, there would be no Bob. But the concentration is still the direct cause of the natural happiness.
 
I finally found the quote that I was looking for in Aquinas. You say that all happiness, both natural and supernatural, comes directly from God. This seems to conflict with the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Aquinas is saying that although all happiness is ultimately from God, and that it is impossible to attain perfect happiness through one’s own natural power, it is never the less possible to attain imperfect happiness (which is what we have been calling natural happiness in our discussion here) through one’s own natural power. In other words, the direct cause of imperfect happiness can be one’s own natural powers.

Why cannot a Catholic use these natural powers in the form of Buddhist meditation to further their imperfect happiness in this life? You seem to find it unacceptable for a Catholic to seek any imperfect happiness in a way that is not centered on Christ, but Catholics licitly do so all the time. There is nothing wrong with a Catholic seeking imperfect happiness by watching a football game, reading poetry, looking at art, eating good food, etc… but none of these things are in themselves centered on Christ any more than Buddhist meditation is, so why are these things acceptable yet Buddhist meditation is not?
You seem to be contradicting what you are saying here. You stated that all happiness comes from God. I agree that is true.

Then you are saying we can have Imperfect happiness on our own without God. How is this possible if ALL happiness comes from God. Is not imperfect happiness and perfect happiness still a kind of happiness. And was it not stated that ALL happiness comes from God?

Let me tell you something. There is NO perfect happiness in this world its impossible.

Perfect happiness cannot be obtained until you live with God in heaven period.

Here is my proof. Show me one person in this world that can tell you they are living in complete perfect happiness. Just one. And I will show you someone who is lying to you.

It was proven on some kind of program the effects of happiness, like say a new car etc, last for about 6 to 8 months Max, and its over.

Perfect happiness is forever. Everlasting. Complete.

That is why people in this world, especially the filthy rich and movie stars etc are so into drugs and killing themself. Because they are missing God. There is not ONE thing in this world material they cannot buy, they have it all and are still missing something, Thy cannot accept they cannot have it all. They either want power or material things. And even when they acquire it they are miserable. If they only knew contentment is the best we can get.

The reason a Catholic cannot use this Buddhism meditation to acquire even imperfect happiness is because God is indeed the source of all happiness as you quoted.

So listen to what I am trying to tell you, because this post is about over.

Jesus came to this world and was killed. He was perfect! If they crucified him, they will us. Jesus said remember we are not of this world because this is NOT our world, If this was our world they would not want to kill me. But remember when the world hates you remember they hated me first.

The closer you are to God in this world the further from perfect happiness you will be. Simply because this is not his world nor ours.

Perfect happiness will be in heaven when we can talk to our Lord face to face.

No EYE has seen, no EAR has heard what God has ready for those who love him.

I asked my Dad one day, why is it the more people cheat, steal. lie and kill the more they get. He told me not to worry and resent them to pray for them. Because this is indeed their world. The world loves them and they love this world because this world is all they will have. Its short lived.

But he said when you are cheated, etc to celebrate because your reward is not comming here it will be in heaven with God. To let God sort it out. To accept your cross, carry it proud and honor and obey your Lord.

But let me say you I love your guys, and the truth that you do have and share with others. Never believe I disagree with all of your actions. I don’t. I just pray that someday you can all see what I see, and learn to love and follow Christ so we can all live together in eternal life and eternal complete happiness. That is all I want for all of us.
 
The key word difference here is the word “Direct”. Of course a Catholic understanding requires that one believe that God is indirectly the cause of natural happiness because he is ultimately the creator of all natural things, but the issue is whether or not He is the direct creator of natural happiness. I hold that Catholic teaching says that this is not necessarily so, and that natural happiness has a direct cause which is part of the natural world, and that God is the indirect cause by virtue of having created the universe.

To re-examine the situation of seeing something beautifull, let’s look at the example of a sunset. Bob sees a sunset and becomes happy. The direct cause of this natural happiness is the seeing of the sunset, and God is the indirect cause because he created Bob and the entire universe. However, the act of seeing is still the direct cause of this natural happiness.

Why cannot Buddhist meditation be the same way? Bob sits down and meditates, concentrating his mind and gaining natural happiness. The direct cause for this is the mental concentration, and the indirect cause of this is God, because God created the universe, and if he didn’t, there would be no Bob. But the concentration is still the direct cause of the natural happiness.
Because God is always the cause of Good rather direct or indirect.
 
No Catholic should ever point another Catholic away from Christ or his Church.

While I have no disrespect for Buddha, he came into this world to live, and all he left was his wisdom and teachings. Wisdom and teachings will not get me into heaven.

Jesus Christ was the only person who came into this world for one reason and one reason only. To Die. Christ came to die, not for his sins, because he had none, but for mine.

Buddha never promised me etermal life, Buddha never claimed he was the way the light. Jesus claimed HE was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Buddha never claimed to be the body and blood to give me eternal life. Christ claimed his was.

Buddha never took away death, Christ did. Christ said we will live forever if we believe and follow him.

Christ cured the sick, I have never seen Buddha ever cure anyone or claim that he could. I could go on and on,

But the point is Christ is the way the truth and the light. Why would I send someone away from the light which is Christ and his Church to find light? It is useless. It makes no sense.

Why would I tell someone who has the light to walk away from the light into darkness? If they have Christ and his Church they have all that they need.

The word of God says the Church is the pilar of ALL TRUTH. Christ said he and his Church are one.

Buddha searched for truth, he never even claimed to have it, alone claim to be it. Christ did!
 
:hug1: We can always be friends, and kind to oneanother. We can disagree but we must always find it in our hearts to love as Christ taught us.

The greatest command. Love one another as I have loved you!😉
 
Also correct. Buddhism took around 200 years to develop its distinctly Chinese schools after it arrived in China. Before then, there were copies of the then existing Indian schools. A similar thing is happening in the West, with some pretty faithful imports, and a lot of “try it and see” work on developing something to suit conditions in the modern West. That “try it and see” approach is well in accord with Buddhism; see the much quoted Kalama sutta. Buddhism emphasises practice over faith, and within practice it emphasises practices that work for the particular individual.

rossum
Acknowledged Rossum, but also bear in mind that many of the more hierarchical versions of Buddhism would add “try it and see…and know that we possess the true Dharma.”

I neither condemn or condone the standpoint. I merely acknowledge that it exists.
Bakmoon and I follow Theravada and I was a moderator on an international Buddhist forum. I consider both of us to be standard Theravada.
You wouldn’t happen to be a refugee from E-Sangha would you? 😛

(To the Catholics, E-Sangha was an attempt by a rather motivated Buddhist to bring together a giant community of laity and monastics together from all different schools and denominations.

By your own experience with the attempt to have an Orthodox Christianity forum on CAF, i’m sure you can appreciate the fact that the experiment did not end well…

and yes i held a presence there, as here, as well as many other places.

Have questions, will travel. ;)).

But in all seriousness, to answer your question directly - much of the i guess you can call them “conservative” types have emanated out of the East Asian and Tibetan branches of the Buddhist tree if you will. (although, the Sri Lankan branch of Theravada at times reaches their levels of polemic).

From my outsider/observer standpoint, much of it involves questions about what were the true teachings of the Buddha and what is the role of lineage and transmission of your teachings.

And that leads into a whole gamut of opinions and arguments that easily mirror what occurs here on CAF, or the Jewish forums i frequent, or Daoist ones…etc…etc…etc…

But as i’ve said before - I don’t have a horse in that race so to speak, any more than I have one in the debates that occur here about Sola Scriptura or if the ancient Christian Church was Roman-led or under an co-equal Pentarchy or if the current burning of Sufi Saints tombs in Timbuktu are a blasphemy against Islam/true expression of the faith.

I’m just the guy in the hardware store looking at your collective hammers and seeing if what is written on the label accords with the buyer’s experience.
 
Would you consider Buddhism a way of life or a religion just like Catholicism?
The concepts of rebirth and nibbana make Buddhism a religion although not in a theistic sense of the word.

Catholicism when practiced with devotion is a way of life.

Therefore the answer to your question is YES to both for both.
 
You seem to be contradicting what you are saying here. You stated that all happiness comes from God. I agree that is true.

Then you are saying we can have Imperfect happiness on our own without God. How is this possible if ALL happiness comes from God. Is not imperfect happiness and perfect happiness still a kind of happiness. And was it not stated that ALL happiness comes from God?

Let me tell you something. There is NO perfect happiness in this world its impossible.

Perfect happiness cannot be obtained until you live with God in heaven period.

Here is my proof. Show me one person in this world that can tell you they are living in complete perfect happiness. Just one. And I will show you someone who is lying to you.

It was proven on some kind of program the effects of happiness, like say a new car etc, last for about 6 to 8 months Max, and its over.

Perfect happiness is forever. Everlasting. Complete.

That is why people in this world, especially the filthy rich and movie stars etc are so into drugs and killing themself. Because they are missing God. There is not ONE thing in this world material they cannot buy, they have it all and are still missing something, Thy cannot accept they cannot have it all. They either want power or material things. And even when they acquire it they are miserable. If they only knew contentment is the best we can get.

The reason a Catholic cannot use this Buddhism meditation to acquire even imperfect happiness is because God is indeed the source of all happiness as you quoted.

So listen to what I am trying to tell you, because this post is about over.

Jesus came to this world and was killed. He was perfect! If they crucified him, they will us. Jesus said remember we are not of this world because this is NOT our world, If this was our world they would not want to kill me. But remember when the world hates you remember they hated me first.

The closer you are to God in this world the further from perfect happiness you will be. Simply because this is not his world nor ours.

Perfect happiness will be in heaven when we can talk to our Lord face to face.

No EYE has seen, no EAR has heard what God has ready for those who love him.

I asked my Dad one day, why is it the more people cheat, steal. lie and kill the more they get. He told me not to worry and resent them to pray for them. Because this is indeed their world. The world loves them and they love this world because this world is all they will have. Its short lived.

But he said when you are cheated, etc to celebrate because your reward is not comming here it will be in heaven with God. To let God sort it out. To accept your cross, carry it proud and honor and obey your Lord.

But let me say you I love your guys, and the truth that you do have and share with others. Never believe I disagree with all of your actions. I don’t. I just pray that someday you can all see what I see, and learn to love and follow Christ so we can all live together in eternal life and eternal complete happiness. That is all I want for all of us.
Did you read my quote from Aquinas? Let me give it again.
Aquinas Sum I-II:
Whether man can attain happiness by his natural powers?



I answer that, Imperfect happiness that can be had in this life, can be acquired by man by his natural powers, in the same way as virtue, in whose operation it consists: on this point we shall speak further on (Question [63]). But man’s perfect Happiness, as stated above (Question [3], Article [8]), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the vision of God’s Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but also of every creature, as was shown in the FP, Question [12], Article [4]. For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De Causis; Prop. viii) that “it knows things that are above it, and things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance.” But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man, nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.

Sum I-II, 5, iv
josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FS/FS005.html#FSQ5A5THEP1
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, the Doctor of the Church whose philosophy was declared to be the “perennial philosophy” at the Second Vatican Council and whose teachings are required to be studied as part of theological training seminarians go through to become priests held that imperfect happiness can be the result of human effort. Just look at the emphasized lines in my quote. That is clearly what it says.
 
=TheAtheist;9655035]
You wouldn’t happen to be a refugee from E-Sangha would you? 😛
(To the Catholics, E-Sangha was an attempt by a rather motivated Buddhist to bring together a giant community of laity and monastics together from all different schools and denominations.
By your own experience with the attempt to have an Orthodox Christianity forum on CAF, i’m sure you can appreciate the fact that the experiment did not end well…
and yes i held a presence there, as here, as well as many other places.
Have questions, will travel. ;)).
Poor E-sangha was hacked so thoroughly that it could not be restored. What made E-sangha interesting was the number of nationalities represented in its membership as well as the many variations of Buddhist traditions. We had members from every continent including Africa and South America. If one thinks its difficult to understand the posts of others on this site imagine having 1/4 the membership speaking English as a second language. Most members were Australian, American and European.

Although whenever 87,000 members get together there are bound to be a few disagreements, it was not disagreements that took down E-sangha but a hacker.

Now E-sangha has been replace by two sites run by an individual as an act of dana (charity). There are no ads and all efforts to offer donations are rejected by the owner. The owner follows the Theravada school but supports both a site for Theravada and the site for Mahayana and Vajrayana. All the old gang is one place or the other.

Did you post much on E-sangha? I was pretty much gone the year before it was hacked.
But in all seriousness, to answer your question directly - much of the i guess you can call them “conservative” types have emanated out of the East Asian and Tibetan branches of the Buddhist tree if you will. (although, the Sri Lankan branch of Theravada at times reaches their levels of polemic).
From my outsider/observer standpoint, much of it involves questions about what were the true teachings of the Buddha and what is the role of lineage and transmission of your teachings.
And that leads into a whole gamut of opinions and arguments that easily mirror what occurs here on CAF, or the Jewish forums i frequent, or Daoist ones…etc…etc…etc…
But as i’ve said before - I don’t have a horse in that race so to speak, any more than I have one in the debates that occur here about Sola Scriptura or if the ancient Christian Church was Roman-led or under an co-equal Pentarchy or if the current burning of Sufi Saints tombs in Timbuktu are a blasphemy against Islam/true expression of the faith.
I’m just the guy in the hardware store looking at your collective hammers and seeing if what is written on the label accords with the buyer’s experience.
Transmission is a Vajrayana thing. Theravada doesn’t have it and I don’t believe Mahayana has it. Lineage is important only when seeking ordination. It has to do with the rules for monks and nuns called the Vinaya. Lineage isn’t really important to laypeople.

The differences in various Buddhist traditions is pretty subtle and IMO not worth the bother since the differences are mainly about semantics and ceremony. Theravada is believed to be the oldest remaining school of Buddhism yet it makes no claim of being the one true Buddhism. I’m sure one can find Theravadins who make the claim but that is not the opinion of the tradition itself. It also has the fewest official ceremonies: ordination and rains retreat for monastics and uposatha. All other ceremonies are purely cultural. Theravada reminds me of the Quakers.

Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) reminds me the most of Catholicism. There is a strong hierarchy and lots of ceremonies. Mahayana falls somewhere between Theravada and Vajrayana when it comes to hierarchy and ritual.
 
The differences in various Buddhist traditions is pretty subtle and IMO not worth the bother since the differences are mainly about semantics and ceremony.
Spoken like a true Theravadan.

And in that spirit, i’d prefer to pass over the questions stated above. After all, like here on CAF, i was a Guest rather than a participant.

Back to hardware testing. 😃
 
BTW, I note with some interest that the Jatakas contain rather interesting versions of the Rama and Krishna legends. 😉

The legend of Rāma, prince of Ayodhya, is a highly famous one in the Indian subcontinent and in southeast Asia. Rāma is a highly popular figure, revered for his unending compassion, courage and devotion to religious values and duty (dharma). To top it all off, Rāma is also worshipped as a deity and a maryāda puruṣottama the ‘perfect man’, often considered as an avatar of the preserver god Vishnu, to the point that some Indian funerals feature the chanting of the phrase Rām nām satya hai “Rāma’s name is truth” while the body is carried to the cremation ground.

The primary source for the Rāma legendarium is often considered to be the Sanskrit epic Rāmāyaṇa, traditionally considered to be composed by the sage Valmiki. which is one of, if not the, oldest of the Rama-katha (‘stories of Rāma’). However, throughout the ages there are so many versions of the basic story (sometimes even substantially contradicting one another), as the tale is constantly told and retold over and over again, with each narrator adapting the tale as he sees fit. So while lip service is often paid to the Rāmāyaṇa, many people nowadays have never even read the work - which is written in a dead language anyway - but are familiar with the story through one of its many retellings (such as TulsidasRāmcharitmānas written in the Awadhi dialect or Kamban’s Tamil Ramavatharam, the Thai Ramakien, the Malaysian Hikayat Seri Rama, etc.) and dramatizations (one notable example being the famous 1980s TV drama Ramayan - so famous, in fact, that virtually most of India literally stood still just to watch it!) And even if they do, their prior knowledge often tends to color their reading of the epic.

Let’s give here a general summary based on Valmiki’s Rāmāyaṇa, since many of the authors of the later Rama-kathas themselves look upon Valmiki as an authoritative source or a story to which they disagree, and which is the one that has caught the attention of most Western scholars.

After being childless for a long time, Daśaratha, king of Kosala, the capital of which was the city of Ayodhya, at the advice of his ministers decides to hold a special sacrifice, which causes his three wives to conceive sons. Firstborn among them was Rāma, son of Kausalyā. His other two queens, Kaikeyī and Sumitrā, meanwhile, were the mothers of Rama’s half-brothers Bharata and the twins Lakṣmaṇa and Śatrughna. The boys are then reared as the princes of the realm, receiving education from the scriptures and in warfare.

Rāma begins his career as a warrior, as a youth, when he successfully defends the sacrifice of the sage Viśvāmitra from demons that threaten its success. He and his brother Lakṣmaṇa receive further instructions from Vishvamitra in the meantime, as well as possession of supernatural weapons. Subsequently, Rama wins his bride Sītā (the daughter of Janaka, king of Mithila) in a contest by lifting and stringing - and in the process breaking - an enormous bow that once belonged to the god Rudra (Śiva), something which only Rāma was able to do.

Upon retirement, Daśaratha expresses his desire to crown Rāma, so beloved by the citizens of Ayodhya, as his successor. On the eve of the coronation, Kaikeyī — her jealousy aroused by a hunchbacked maidservant called Manthara — claims two boons that Daśaratha had long ago granted her. Kaikeyī demands Rāma be exiled for fourteen years, while the succession passes to her son Bharata. The king has no choice but to accept, and Rāma himself calmly submits to his fate and heads off for the forest, with Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa tagging along with him. Daśaratha eventually dies out of grief.

Meanwhile, Bharata, who was on a visit to his maternal uncle, learns what has happened and would have nothing to do with it. He visits Rāma in the forest and requests him to return, but the latter, determined to carry out his father’s orders to the letter, refuses to return before the period of exile. Bharata then goes back to Ayodhya with Rāma’s sandals, and keeps them on the throne, while he rules as Rāma’s regent.

The threesome journeys deep into the forest southward along the banks of river Godavari, where they settle down and live an ascetic lifestyle. One day they are visited by a demoness (rākṣasi) named Surpanakha who falls in love with Rāma and boldly offers herself to him in marriage. When Rāma refuses she deems Sītā to be the obstacle and tries to eat her. Lakṣmaṇa cuts off her nose and ears and she flees to her brother Rāvaṇa, king of the faraway island kingdom of Lankā. Rāvaṇa had gained a boon from the gods that rendered him invincible from any being except for humans (considered too weak and insignificant to be worthy of any attention) and had used this same power to defeat and harass the gods themselves.

When Surpanakha complains of the cruelty of the two princes and tells of the extraordinary beauty of Sītā, her words arouse in Rāvaṇa a passionate desire for Sītā. By enlisting the aid of another rākṣasa (whom Rāma once defeated during Viśvāmitra’s sacrifice), who takes the form of a golden deer, Rāvaṇa manages to lure Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa away from their hermitage. Rāvaṇa then successfully abducts Sītā under the guise of a wandering ascetic and carries her off to Lankā.


Rāvaṇa kidnapping Sītā
In the course of their quest for the place where Sītā has been taken and for allies to help him fight against Rāvaṇa, the two brothers find themselves in Kiṣkindhā, the citadel of ape-like humanoids known as vanaras. There Rāma meets Hanuman, minister to the exiled prince Sugrīva, who, like Rāma, had lost both wife and kingdom. Hanuman becomes a faithful devotee of Rāma, and Sugrīva and Rāma make a pact that if Rāma will help Sugrīva ‘regain’ the throne and wife from his brother Vali, Sugrīva will in return help Rāma in his quest. During a duel between Sugrīva and Vali, Rāma conceals himsef behind a tree and shoots Vali from his position of hiding with an arrow, an act in violation of the warrior’s code.

Sugrīva, who now has regained what he lost, soon forgets his promise and spends his time in debauchery. It was up to his clever wife Tārā to pacify the enraged Lakṣmaṇa, and Sugrīva sends off search parties in every direction. Finally they receive information that Sītā has been imprisoned in Lankā.

After learning about Sītā, Hanuman assumes a gargantuan form and makes a colossal leap across the vast ocean to Lanka and locates her in Rāvaṇa’s palace. After seeing Sītā being alternately wooed and threatened by Rāvaṇa and his servants, he gives Rāma’s signet ring to her as a sign of good faith. He offers to carry Sītā back to Rāma, however she refuses, preferring that Rāma himself come and avenge the insult of her abduction.
 
Hanuman allows himself to be discovered and brought before Rāvaṇa’s court, where his tail is set on fire. He escapes his bonds and, leaping from roof to roof, sets the city on fire and returns back with information about the city provided by Rāvaṇa’s renegade brother Vibhīṣaṇa. The vanaras construct a stone bridge so the army could cross the ocean. Upon arrival in Lankā, a lengthy battle ensues, producing many casualties on both sides such as Rāvaṇa’s brother, the carnivorous ‘gentle giant’ Kumbhakarṇa, and Rāvaṇa’s son Indrajit (‘conqueror of Indra’, since he defeated the king of the gods himself). Rāma eventually ultimately manages to kill Rāvaṇa in one-to-one combat, since, as a human, he was the loophole to the latter’s near-invincibility) Rāma then installs Vibhīṣaṇa on the throne of Lanka.


Rāma riding on Hanuman (right) fighting Rāvaṇa (left)

On meeting Sītā, Rāma asks her to undergo the agniparikṣa (test of fire) to prove her purity, since she had stayed at Rāvaṇa’s palace, which he passes. proving her chastity. Rāma, Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa return back to Ayodhya, and Sītā gains the throne after the fourteen-year period of exile has expired.

Continuing rumors about Sītā’s chastity, however, causes Rāma to banish the now-pregnant Sītā from his kingdom. She finds refuge with the sage Vālmīki (traditionally considered the author of the epic) and in his hermitage gives birth to twins named Lava and Kuśa (cf. kuśilava ‘wandering bard’), who are brought up in ignorance of their identity.

Later, Rāma holds a ceremony during the royal horse sacrifice (aśvamedha), which Valmiki, with Lava and Kuśa, attend. The twins sing the Rāmāyaṇa, taught to them by their teacher, in the presence of Rāma and his vast audience. When Lava and Kuśa recite about Sītā’s exile, Rāma becomes grievous, and Vālmīki produces Sītā. Sītā chooses to abandon this world and return to the bosom of the earth, from which she originally came. (The name Sītā meant ‘furrow’, which was where Janaka found her while ploughing as a part of a sacrificial ritual). Rāma then learns that Lava and Kuśa are his children, and later hears from a messenger of the gods about his divine origins (each of the four brothers have been endowed, to various degrees, with the essence of the god Viṣṇu, who opted to become human to bypass the boon given to Rāvaṇa). Bereft by Sita’s loss, Rāma then chooses to end his earthly life as well in the river Sarayu beside the city, at which he and two of his surviving brothers (Lakṣmaṇa having died some time ago beforehand) revert to their original form. His mission over, Viṣṇu goes back to heaven along with everyone who accompanied Rāma to the river, who were all granted divine status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top