Accusations by Ankur (http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?

uid=7243841388498853823):

Lets begin with Rama's character .We all know him mariyada purushottam...or an ideal person to be
emulated...But does he really deserve to be called that?
Rama ate meat and drank liquor is well mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan.
na mA.nsa.n rAghavo bhu~Nkte na chApi madhusevate |
vanya.n suvihitaM nityaM bhaktamashnAti pa~nchamam ||
Translation : "Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in the evening,
he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged for him."Sundara Kanda
Was Rama an ideal husband?Well he failed to protect his wife is known.But he should have had at least
fought with ravan for her sake.
In Kishkindha sarga in Chapter 1 Rama is actually telling Laxmana of his sexual experience with Sita...how
much passion she arose in him and like the peacocks he to would have been approached by sita for love
making if she werent kidnapped.This is the verse..Verse 43 Kishkindha sarga Chapter 1!
maam api evam vishaalaakshii jaanakii jaata sa.mbhramaa |
madanena abhivarteta yadi na apahR^itaa bhavet ||
Is ther any sense of morality in discussing wifes sexuality with younger brother?And that too a brother
who has forsaken his own wife for his brothers sake???
Rama failed to protect his wife.It was his moral responsibility to find her back and keep her.But this is
what he says to sita after meeting her for the first time after killing Ravan.
"I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy, your captor. I have recovered my honour
and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military powers and I am glad my labours have
been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour."...He continues to insult her for
no fault of hers.And even says that he doesnt not desire her to come back...

He tells her at point blank range that

tadarthaM nirjitaa me tvaM yashaH pratyaahR^itaM mayaa |
naasth me tvayyabhiShvaN^go yatheShTaM gamyataamitaH !! Verse 20 Chapter 115 Yuddha Sarga
Translation : You were won by me with that end in view (viz. the retrieval of my lost honour). The
honour has been restored by me. For me, there is no intense attachment in you. You may go wherever
you like from here.
Well till this part everything is commonly known...But what is completely unacceptable is this :
tadadya vyaahR^itaM bhadre mayaitat kR^itabuddhinaa |
lakShmaNe vaatha bharate kuru buddhiM yathaasukham ||
hatrughne vaatha sugriive raakShase vaa vibhiiShaNe |
niveshaya manaH siite yathaa vaa sukhamaatmanaH || Verse 22 & 23 Chapter 115 Yuddha Sarga
Rama proposes Sita to Start thinking about marrying someone else and even proposes names of
Laxman, Bharat , Shatrugan Sugreev or Even Vibhishan! And all this Rama doesnt speak alone..but he
says in front of enttire public gathering.
This is the kind of treatment he meted out to Sita.
I thik this is all for now.I will talk about more aspects of Rama's life latter (Lack of time).But should we
emulate a person who is a meat eater and drinks wine..who discusses his wifes sexuality with his
younger brother and who offers options to his wife to marry?The ball is in your court now...

And just before some people fall back on blaming the western people for wrong translations...Let me tell
you all these verses can be found out in original Sanskrit and translation by indian Sri Desiraju
Hanumanta Rao (Bala, Aranya and Kishkindha Kanda ) and Sri K. M. K. Murthy(Ayodhya and Yuddha
Kanda)
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/index.html
GAURAV SPEAKS :

So, u’ve a doubt over Lord Rama not being Maryada purushottam. Let’s see.

Lord Ram immediately went to exile without even a trace of regret on his face. Does this not show the
obedient and the dutiful son he was? Again, he had so much love for his younger brother that he gave
away the kingdom at a mere command of his parents. How many people do u see like that?

Not only that, when Bharat was head-over-heels for Shri Ram to return back & accept the kingdom, the
latter refused because he wasn’t greedy for the kingdom. How many people do u see like that & how
many brothers are there in today’s world who would do that.

Hence, ur allegation that Shri Ram wasn’t a moral man is BASELESS. Next, u can’t judge a picture merely
from a scene. You go for a movie. There might be a scene or two that isn’t according to your liking, but
you judge the whole movie based on how it was & not just a single scene, isn’t it ?

Consequently, read the endorsement of Rama’s character:

idò(a c k…zlI ramae xmR AaTma xmR vTsl>,

lúm[> c mhateja> suimÇ AanNd vxRn>. 5£36£12

"Rama the righteous man who is true to his promise and Lakshmana of
great splendour who enriches the joy of Sumitra are fortunately safe." (sundar
kand – chapter 36 – verse 12)

Also given in : http://www.ramayanaepic.com/sarga_k5_s36.htm

Coming to the verses u’ve quoted.

n ma<s< ra"vae -u“e n caip mxusevte,

vNy< suiviht< inTy< -mîait pÂmm!. 5£36£41

u’re talking of these 2 words. First of all, please understand that Sanskrit language has various
meanings & the same word can meaning different things twisting the shloka entirely.

Here the word ma<s< CAN MEAN MEAT AS WELL AS PULP OF A FRUIT/ROOT BUT HERE IT DOES

NOT MEAN MEAT. It means pulp of a fruit or root. Also, mxu HERE IMPLIES TO HONEY & NOT
ALCOHOL.

First of all, they’re living in the forest. So from where will they get alcohol (if at all they ever
though of drinking) & then, Shri Ram had vowed to live as a life of an ascetic & that means
no indulging in royal feasts.

Maasam means meat and it also means pulp of a fruit or root. Roots are quite
commonly roasted in fire and eaten.

Sloka 5-36-41 can also mean that Raghuvamsi never eat meat nor do they
drink liquor.

In order to prove u the genuineness of what I’ve said, let’s take another verse:

See what Lord Ram is saying Kaushalya mata before leaving for exile. This is ayodhya kaand
chapter 20 verse 29

ctudRz ih v;aRi[ vTSyaim ivjne vne,

mxu mUl )lE> jIvn! ihTva muinvdœ Aaim;m!. 2£20£29

Aaim;m! = enjoyable sense object like kingdom; it also means immense sense gratification and very
pleasant and dear sense objects

See, the diet he will have to take after giving up this kingdom…. mxu mUl )lE> i.e. mxu = honey

(and not alcohol) , mUl = roots , )lE> = fruits

Hence, the verse says that he would have to live like a sage in the forest for 14 yrs, leaving
behind his kingdom & sustain on fruits, roots & honey, which is considered as a sattvik diet for a
rishi/muni/sage/sadhu
Moving on……… u say :-

In Kishkindha sarga in Chapter 1 Rama is actually telling Laxmana of his sexual experience with
Sita...how much passion she arose in him and like the peacocks he to would have been approached by
sita for love making if she werent kidnapped.
This is the verse..Verse 43 Kishkindha sarg a Chapter 1!
maam api evam vishaalaakshii jaanakii jaata sa.mbhramaa |
madanena abhivarteta yadi na apahR^itaa bhavet ||
Is ther any sense of morality in discussing wifes sexuality with younger brother?And that too a brother
who has forsaken his own wife for his brothers sake???

Let’s analyse this verse u’ve quoted.

mam! Aip @vm! ivzala]I jankI jat s<æma,

mdnen Ai-vteRt yid n Apùta -vet!. 4£1£43

This is Kishkinda Kand, chapter 1 verse 43

ivzala]I jankI = large eyed sita

the verse says : the large-eyed sita (daughter of janaka) too would
approach me through love had she not been abducted.
Now, let us see what really is happening in this scene…..

Shri Ram is missing his wife just like a man would miss, if his wife is abducted. He
would think of her, talk to his friends and relatives of how much he is missing & how
much he loves her, etc.If the man sees a romantic couple in front of him, he would also
long to be with his wife. This doesn’t depict sexual nature. Only perverts think of sexual
frenzy when someone is in pain. He longed to be together with his wife.

Now in the previous verses, he sees the birds in the forest & the description talks of the
love between a peacock and a peahen. It talks of how the pair of birds are enjoying
themselves and the season presents a romantic outlook. Seeing them, Shri Ram is
badly missing his wife & he wished that had his wife not been kidnapped, he would have
also enjoyed the company of his wife.
Also look…. He is all alone in the forest and has no whereabouts of his wife & doesn’t
know in what condition will she be. Hence, whom will he share? The only person is his
brother.

The words “approach me” does not convey the meaning of sex here but mutual love.

A sexual pervert can even misjudge the revered love of a mother for her son to be
incest & that is why the hindu scriptures are to be understood through reverence & NOT
perversion !!

Moving on !! u say :-

Rama failed to protect his wife.It was his moral responsibility to find her back and keep her.But this is
what he says to sita after meeting her for the first time after killing Ravan.
"I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy, your captor. I have recovered my honour
and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military powers and I am glad my labours have been
rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour."...He continues to insult her for no fault
of hers.And even says that he doesnt not desire her to come back... He tells her at point blank range that
tadarthaM nirjitaa me tvaM yashaH pratyaahR^itaM mayaa |
naasth me tvayyabhiShvaN^go yatheShTaM gamyataamitaH !! Verse 20 Chapter 115 Yuddha Sarga
Translation : You were won by me with that end in view (viz. the retrieval of my lost honour). The honour
has been restored by me. For me, there is no intense attachment in you. You may go wherever you like
from here.
Well till this part everything is commonly known...But what is completely unacceptable is this :
tadadya vyaahR^itaM bhadre mayaitat kR^itabuddhinaa |
lakShmaNe vaatha bharate kuru buddhiM yathaasukham ||
hatrughne vaatha sugriive raakShase vaa vibhiiShaNe |
niveshaya manaH siite yathaa vaa sukhamaatmanaH || Verse 22 & 23 Chapter 115 Yuddha Sarga
Rama proposes Sita to Start thinking about marrying someone else and even proposes names of
Laxman, Bharat , Shatrugan Sugreev or Even Vibhishan! And all this Rama doesnt speak alone..but he
says in front of enttire public gathering.
This is the kind of treatment he meted out to Sita.

Let’s analyse the situation here 

Indeed Lord Ram loved his wife a lot. This is why, as we’ve seen, he was so restless
and in pain. Now, before we analyse what u’ve written, let’s see a bit of background.

Check yuddha kanda, chapter 114 and verse 17

 tamagtamupïuTy r]aeg&hicraei;tam!,

h;aeR dENy< c rae;í Çy< ra"vmaivzt!. 6-114-17

Hearing that Seetha had arrived after living long in the abode of a demon, Rama was filled with joy,
indignation and felt miserable too all the three emotions at the same time.

A fantastic verse : he feels all the 3 qualities at the same time… Ever thought why? He
is joyful for meeting his wife after such a long period of separation. He is indignant or
angry because his wife had to go through this rough phase & he would have to make
his wife go through the trial or the ‘Agni Pareeksha’ and this is what that made him
miserable too.

Now, if he had felt that his wife has become impure & wasn’t worthy of taking back, then
why would he have fought such a big war in the first place? Hence, it wasn’t that his
wife was impure or anything, but he knew the kind of remarks the people would put on
bhagwati Sita. Hence, to free her from any POSSIBLE BLAME IN THE FUTURE, it was
very important to receive an OPEN testimony of the purest i.e Agni dev.

In fact, when u read the vyasa ramayan, it is clearly stated that shri ram had created an
image of sita and the real sita was sent in the protection of agni dev. The agni
pareeksha was to retrieve the original sita back & in the process, get the agni dev testify
that bhagavati sita is pure & blameless.

Now, was he enjoying insulting her or was there some other reason?

pZytSta< tu ramSy smIpe ùdyiàyam!,

jnvadÉyaÔa}ae bÉUv ùdy< iÖxa. 6-115-11

The heart of King Rama, as he saw Seetha, (the beloved of his heart) near him, was torn for fear of
public scandal. (chapter 115 verse 11 yuddha kanda)

This shows that his heart was getting torn apart as he saw her. He knew that there was definitely a
public talk possible and people could speak ill against Sita & hence, he was FORCED to make her go
through it to avoid any blame-game in the future.
Having said so, let’s move to the stuff u’ve written:

Check verse # 2 in the same chapter.

@;ais inijRta ÉÔe zÇu< ijTva r[aijre,

paEé;a*dnuóey< myEtÊppaidtm!. 6-115-2

"You are won back by me, after conquering the enemy in the battle-
field, my dear lady! That which is to be done through human effort, has been
accomplished by me."

Now, perverted minds will always try to pick out flaws but forget that while translating, u
can’t keep emotions intact. If something is written in Sanskrit, it is possible u MAY NOT
find a suitable word for it in English. So, if someone lost his love… what’s the opposite
of “lost”? It is ‘won back love’. It is not the fault of the protagonist or the shloka but the
perverted mindset of the reader. So, those who think that Shri Ram “won” back Sita as
though she was some spoil of war are perverts in the worst sense & obviously, their
standard of English is also pathetic for they do not understand that ‘winning back you
wife in a battle’ means releasing her from captivity after winning the war.

Your next accusation is that he is insulting her and doesn’t ask her to come back !! I
think it is quite clear by now that what is there in the heart of shri Ram & what he
intends to do & that is why he hasn’t asked her to come back, as yet.

Go through chapter 116, verse 21

s iv}ay mnZDNd< ramSyakarsUictm!,

icta< ckar saEimiÇmRte ramSy vIyRvan!. 6-116-21

 Understanding the inclination of the mind of Rama, hinted by the
expression in his face, that valiant Lakshmana prepared a pyre, in deference
to the wishes of Rama.

This verse clearly shows that Shri Ram didn’t really want Sita mata to
go through this trial but was forced to. Why? Let’s see.

Did Lord Ram have a doubt over her chastity? Was he a mere mortal?
If u see chapter 118, verses 13 to 19, u’ll read that he never doubted her but
made her undergo this trial (and hence spoke such harsh words contrary to his
wishes) for the world to see the righteousness of Shri Ram, so that neither he
nor mata sita is accused of anything, be it lust.

It is very hard to set benchmarks & one has to undergo severe trials for that.
What may be normal for a common man may not be the same for someone
who sets benchmarks. Hence can u compare the life of Lord Ram to a normal
man…. Not really. Hence, the whole leela was set so that no one ever (be of
much corrupted mindset) accuse Bhagwati Sita of infidelity.

A common man may not have to go through such a trial but Shri Ram and
mata sita were NOT common people.

Again, go through chapter 117 verses 13 to 31, where Lord Brahma himself
reveals the true identity of Shri Ram, that he is no one other than Lord
Vishnu & devi Sita is Goddess Lakshmi. So, would God ever make a wrong
decision or have doubt?

The ever-knowing God CAN’T go wrong or have a perverted mindset or

insult his wife like a mere mortal. Each & every action of his has a deep
reason, which we can understand only by true faith.

Hence, I’ve disproved all ur charges so far and there-by establishing my

stance that Lord Ram was indeed Maryada purushottam & Lord Vishnu
himself & not a mere mortal.
Finally, I also suggest that u read the thread
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#CommMsgs?cmm=16352&tid=5391642321392744716
(Clarifications on Shri Ram) to know more on Ram & ravan.