Ankur Accusation

Kanika has done a good job suming up questions and few justifications.But
there are certain points she misses.
One explanation that Rama didnt challenge Vali because the latter wasnt
skilled in Dhanurvidya straightway can be eliminated by 2 instances.
1.When Shurpanaka attacks sita Rama ures Lakshamana to disfigure her.He
attacks Shurpanaka with sword even when the Latter isnt carrying any arms.
2.In Viradha killing no mace to mace protocol is followed.There is a clear
mention of both Rama & lakshman fighting with Bows and Arrows and Swords
with Viradha's spears.(Do you want me to get the exact quotes?)Even while
killing Khara's deamons Rama uses his bows and arrows against their mace
swords and spears. So either there was no such protocol or Rama showed
complete disregard for them.
Also not taking a duel due to otra and yet killing the same person becomes
illoical in itself.So as of now there is no satisfactory answer to why
didnt Rama take the more honorable way of challenging Vali.If one
has to believe that He didnt take up in order to deny Vali a chance of
surrendering would only suggest Rama as a person who didnt even ive
chance to his enemies to surrender.
Now comming to his explanation to Vali.The entire explanation will cause you
to raise a eyebrow at least.
He begins with saying that Bharat is the king of the land.And then trying to
justify himself says he followed what Manu has prescribed and ives the Quote
raajabhiH dhR^ita daNDaaH ca kR^itvaa paapaani maanavaaH |
nirmalaaH svargam aayaanti santaH sukR^itino yathaa ||
which says when King punishes a human his sins are washed off and that
sinner can go in Heaven. So who exactly is the king?Was Rama a king
when he killed Vali? Another thing to note here is that he treats Vali like a
Human criminal.
But yet to respond to Vali's question that how could he kill him when Vali was
looking away from him Rama says Vali is not a human but an animal.And the
way he explains this is :
pradhaavitaan vaa vitrastaan visrabdhaan ativiSThitaan ||
pramattaan apramattaan vaa naraa maamsa ashino bhR^isham |
vidhyanti vimukhaam ca api na ca doSo atra vidyate ||
Translation : Meat eating people will undeniably kill animals, either
they are speedily sprinting or standing steadily, fully dismayed or
undismayed, vigilant or unvigilant, and even if they are facing away,
in that there is no sacrilege.
Meaning there is no shame for meat eaters to kill an animal even when the
animal is not looking towards them. AND YOU STILL THINK RAMA DIDNT
EAT NON VEG?
In Valis question we clearly find a reference to non ve eating culture as
well.He says
pa.nca pa.nca nakhaa bhakSyaa brahma kSatreNa raaghava |
shalyakaH shvaavidho godhaa shashaH kuurmaH ca pa.ncamaH ||
Translation : Raghava, five kinds of five-nailed animals, viz., a kind of wild
rodent, a kind of wild-boar, a kind of lizard, a hare and fifthly the turtle are
edible for Brahmans and Kshatriya-s. (Needless to say Rama was Ksatriya)
Now lastly coming to the sins of Vali for which Rama punished him.Rama is
very clear on this account.He says :
yaviiyaan aatmanaH putraH shiSyaH ca api guNoditaH |
putravat te trayaH ci.ntyaa dharmaH caiva atra kaaraNam ||
Thranslation : An younger brother, a son, and a disciple with good
characteristics, these three are to be deemed as one's own sons, for such
matters take base on rectitude alone.
at etat kaaraNam pashya yat artham tvam mayaa hataH |
bhraatur var.htasi bhaaryaayaam tyak{}tvaa dharmam sanaatanam ||
Translation: Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you… you
misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition
So according to Rama younger brother should be thought as a son and
behaving lustily towards her amounts to capital punishment.But yet Rama
himself suggest Sita to marry Laxman or Bharat...both his youner brother.
(even if it is with heavy heart)Does it ake any sense then???And this is not
only when he suspects Sita to be impure, but also we find him saying similar
stuff in Ayudhya Kanda Ch 19 Verse 7. He says to the queen this words :
aham hi siitaam raajyam ca praaNaan iSTaan dhanaani ca |
hRSTaH bhraatre svayam dadyaam bharataaya apracoditaH ||
Translation : Without being asked, I myself would have gladly offered even
Sita with kingdom, even my life, loved ones and wealth.
Rama says that younger brothers should be seen as son which autoatically
implies they are like son to Sita to. Even thinking of the concept of mother
marrying a son seems to poor for even human beings ...leave aside Gods
Now
Let me Kanika speak,
It wasn't exactly an unprovoked incident. As in it is not like Rama and
Lakshmana went about attacking women!
Initially when Surpanaka told her intentions to Rama he didn't take it seriously
and just joked about it and told maybe you can try for Lakshmana. Then
Lakshmana also jokingly said he is just a servant to Rama and Sita and can't
accept the proposal. This is just typical and normal behaviour - in the sense
nobody would really know how to react when a girl you have never met or known
suddenly comes and proposes to you!!
But Surpanaka wasn't taking all of this jokingly and wanted to attack and kill
Sita, so as to get Sita out of the way, so that Rama can then be with her.
This is when Surpanaka was attacked by Lakshmana. She was after all a
demoness and the three of them had already interacted and fought with many
demons before to know exactly what they are capable of. So it was either
attack Surpanaka or to let her attack Sita.
Read this episode here:
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga18/aranya_18_frame.htm
If you read Bala Kanda and the episode of Tataka, then you will see how
hesitant Rama was to attack the female demoness Tataka unprovoked. It is
only after Vishwamitra's explanations and assertions of why Tataka needs to
be killed did Rama agree to attack the woman demoness.
Read this episode here:
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga25/bala_25_frame.htm
So please get your facts straight before you raise unwanted allegations against
Rama and Lakshmana.
The world is already trigger happy and ready to bash Rama at the slightest
instance, without really understanding the situations or the reasons for what
Rama did. Rama is probably the most misunderstood character in our history,
all because of ignorance and lack of knowledge and bias against Him.
Read Dhanurveda law no 4 in my doc of vali vadha

@ALL
I think he doesnt even read my posts. I pin pointed the verse in Valmiki
Ramayana which says that. And comes up claiming he proved everything. This
sort of arguing reminds me of Zakir Naik.

@am I talking latin? dont you read my posts? All you mentioned was utter
bulnder quoting in the name of verses. I even wrote the verses you mentioned.
There cant be anything more stupid than to say you proved. You seriously have
a problem.
Claim no 2:
Khara and Dushan fought with spear and mace…………….
Where did you read that ….and it is architecture of ur brain

Look at war protocol bhittvaa tu taam adaam baaNaiH raaghavo dharma

vatsalaH |
smayamaanaH kharam vaakyam sa.mrabdham idam abraviit || 3-30-1

1. dharma vatsalaH raaghavaH= virtue, patron, Raghava; taam adaam baaNaiH

bhittvaa= that, weapon, with arrows, having smashed; smayamaanaH= while
smiling; samrabdham kharam= to flustering, Khara; idam vaakyam abraviit=
this, sentence, spoke.

On smashing the weapon with arrows Raghava spoke this sentence to Khara
smiling him out of temper, without assaulting weaponless and flustering Khara,
because Rama is the patron of virtue following the protocol of righteous war.
[3-30-1]

This seems to be a roundabout meaning. But to explain why the epithet dharma
vatsala to Rama is given, this beating round the bush is necessary. So also,
many epithets used in this epic have relevance to the circumstances,
characters, or their actions. These cannot be explained without the support of
commentaries, and unfortunately commentaries skip these minor details
assuming that the readers are capable enough to grasp them in the course of
narration, which resulted otherwise at a later time. We therefore request
pundits to consolidate the relevancy of each the inordinate epithet used to the
situations narrated somewhere like web, if it is going to cost a fortune on
printing and stationary. Explaining them occasionally is unnoticed, and they
appear to be redundant

sa sarvaaH ca disho baaNaiH pradishaH ca mahaarathaH |

puurayaamaasa tam dR^iSTvaa raamo api sumahat dhanuH || 4-28-6
sa saayakaiH dur.hviSahaiH sa sphulingaiH iva agnibhiH |
nabhaH cakaara avivaram parjanya iva vR^iSTibhiH || 4-28-7

6. mahaa rathaH saH= great-chariot fighter, he that Khara; sarvaaH dishaH

ca pra dishaH ca= all, stretches, and, inter-stretches, also; baaNaiH
puurayaamaasa= with arrows, started to fill; tam dR^iSTvaa raamaH api=
him, on seeing, Rama, even; su mahat dhanuH puurayaamaasa= [his] very,
great, bow, started to pull the bowstring - take aim [in reciprocation]; saH=
he [Rama]; dur vi SahaiH= not, verily, endurable - unendurable ones; sa
sphulingaiH agnibhiH iva = with, sparks, [tongues of] fire, like; saayakaiH=
with [such] arrows; parjanyaH vR^iSTibhiH nabhaH iva= Rain-god, with
torrents, as with; a+ vivaram= without, leeway; cakaara = made [chocking the
sky.]

That great chariot-fighter Khara then started to fill all the stretches and
inter-stretches with arrows, seeing that even Rama reciprocally started to
take aim with his bow Rama, and then filled and made the sky less of leeway

with verily unendurable arrows that are like tongues of fire emitting sparks,
as with Rain-god chocking the sky with torrents, less of latitude. [4-28-6, 7]

khara was a maharathi highest category of Dhnur veda expert maharathi

means those warrior who are capable of fighting 10000 warriors!

CLAIM NO 3 Meat eating part

Kshatriyas ate means he too ate

1.Kshtriyas used to have many wife he didn’t.

2,Kshtriyas were not knowing Narayanastra he had

It like saying American girls smoke so kanika must be smoking I do not

smoke……..

Claim no 4 AND 5

Earlier I was thinking now I am sure you are not going through my post….

@all

I think he doesnt even read my posts. I pin pointed the verse in Valmiki
Ramayana which says that. And comes up claiming he proved everything. This
sort of arguing reminds me of Zakir Naikand few idiots in mathematics
community.
Go through my sita post again and why you repeat same question

Am I talking latin? dont you read my posts? All you mentioned was nonsense
and bulnder . I even wrote the verses FOR you There cant be anything
more stupid than to say you proved. You seriously have a problem.

Mr Ankur I am not trying to be rude but it is nonsense and next time

Don’t address me I wnt respond