The Ravan in you


Every human being has a darker side in himself. We all are born that way, whatever you pretend, greed, malice, envy become a part and parcel of life.

We all battle the evil side inside us and the forces between good and evil and throw us into dilemma, which way is right? Which way is wrong?

These feelings haunt us through out the life and at every walk of life, the more good we do, the more worse situation we go in. In the end, Ravan reaps all the benefits and Ram has to lose his wife and children.

When we plunge deeper into Ramayana, not the Ramanand Sagar Ramayana, but the actual story, we find that Ravan was never the evil one, he also juggled between the forces of good and evil. He did succumb to the darker side, when his sister was humiliated by Lakshman. But, still Ravan never forced himself on Sita, even if he fancied her like crazy, which tells us, he was good. Or was he?

Then there was Lakshman, who always succumbed to the evil side and did not make a fuss about it. He did not like his brother sent down into the forest, and joined him, disobeying his parents. Then when Shurpanakha proposed him for marriage, he sliced her nose. Ramanand Sagar may try hard to convince you that Lakshman was a good boy, cutting the nose of a demon princess in the untamed land far away from your kingdom, does show that you need help buddy.

What happen to, in Rome, do the Romans?

Had he managed to handle the situation decently and properly, his dear brother's dear wife would never be kidnapped. Did he accept this later? No sir, he did not. Hence he was a Ravan.

Hanuman had a Ravan in him too, he entered Lanka and burned the place down to satisfy his own ego. Ram had already pronounced a war on Ravan, entering the enemy territory and burning the place down is not ethical in any military doctrine. Hence Hanuman also was the Ravan in the story.

Then we come to Ram, he is the only person who has no Ravan in him and hence he suffered the most. He completely obeyed his father, left his kingdom to stay in the jungle, he then saw his wife getting kidnapped by Ravan, waged a war against him, defeated him and won the wife back. But all that was waste, because when the time came in the full court house, he had a brief moment of choosing between good and evil, in the court. He could ask the dhobi to shove it up and accept his wife. But was that good or bad?
He left his wife, was it Good or bad?

So you see everyone has a Ravan inside you, maybe except Ram, but then isn't Ram the one who loses everything? So is being Ram worth the risk?
You may never answer these questions, because some answers are meant to be personal, keep them with you.
My answer is seen in my signature thought.



19 comments

  1. All I remember is abhishek bachhans movies.
    First it was 'the monkey inside you" and now its " the ravan inside you ".

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What happen to, in Rome, do the Romans?"

    ROFL :D :D .... anyways its widely known fact that winners write the history i.e. if the ravan's side(read 'some other tribe living down at the southern part of then India') had won ... ram would have been the bad guy

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very profound thoughts, Sid!! Yes, we human beings have the Ravan inside us...but Hanuman, Lakshman had that too... Liked the logic explained!! :)
    Cheers :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Profound thoughts!! Yes, we humans have the Ravan inside us! But Hanuman and Lakshaman had that too... liked the logic!! :D

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ram was a jackass.He dumped his pregnant wife in the dense forest for God's sake.Now who does that?
    Raavan was infinitely better than him or Lakshman or Sita.
    Remember the time Sita spotted the golden deer(who was actually Maarich)?At the time she actually accused Lakshman of having unbrotherly feelings towards her when he refused to leave her unguarded.
    So in a way even she was evil.

    Nice post btw.And your layout....God my browser stopped responding for a few minutes.Aaarrrghhh!It takes a helluva time to load.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I wasnt a bit surprised on reading a post written by none other than the Ravan himself.

    Hail Ravan


    btw, you have been tagged...
    http://jainchandni.blogspot.com/2010/06/wardrobe-tag.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well… Ramayana is certainly not fiction/mythology. There are innumerable evidences strewn all around…

    But… several versions of the Ramayana exist. ‘Valmiki Ramayana’, ‘Krittibashi Ramayana’, Kalidas’ ‘Raghuvansham’, Tulsidas' 'Ram Charit Manas' and so on and so forth. Now I hear one of the top politicians and so-called dalit leader Veerappa Moily is coming out with “his version”…

    Plus… our understanding/interpretation of our epics… is not complete. And we try to make “modern versions” out of them!

    What is described as “vannar” in the Ramayana is interpreted as “monkey”. This is incorrect. “Van” means “forest” and “nar” refers to “human”. Therefore… “vannar” is “forest dwelling human” or “human with ape nature”.

    Therefore... Hanuman too was not a monkey or ape as is commonly believed. He too was a 'van nar'. Perhaps a chieftain/king or someone held in very high esteem and with a lot of influence among the 'van nars'.

    Similarly, “Jambaban/Jambuban” is depicted as a bear. This again is wrong. In ancient times… Bharatvarsha was referred to as “Jambu dweepa”… named after a type of fruit… found in abundance here. So, Jambaban was someone belonging to Jambudweepa… an ancient person perhaps.

    Also… Sita is thought to be the daughter of Mandodari (Raavan’s main Queen) in a story reminiscent of Karna and Kunti. They are said to have looked so alike… that even Hanuman was confused!

    So, we are yet to understand... the motive(s) behind Raavan's action... i.e., the kidnapping of Sita.

    Also... Raavan did not have 10 heads per se. He is believed to have had 10 kingdoms... each of which was represented by a different crown. Therefore, his kingdom could not have been restricted to the area covering modern-day Sri Lanka alone.

    Also he was a great scholar... and was well versed in all the 4 Vedas and the 6 Upanishads. Therefore, he was considered to be the equivalent of 10 scholars. Hence he was called "Dasananan"... meaning "one with 10 heads".

    "Raavan" means "he of the terrifying roar".

    Raavan’s character had a lot of depth. He was not one-dimensional. He is said to have had many shades – a master of the shastras, vedas and upanishads; a devout worshipper of Lord Shiva; a great chanter of the Sama Veda; an excellent musician who could also play the 'Veena' very well; a valiant conqueror who took Lanka from (his step-brother) Kubera; a demon who brought Lord Brahma to his knees; a beast who aggressively pursued many women from Vedavathi to Rambha... many forcefully.

    Infact, Vedavathi is said to have been reborn as Sita... to take her revenge. While Rambha was betrothed to his step-brother Kubera's son. Yet this did not stop Raavan from taking her by force. Her pleadings that she was like a daughter to him... fell on deaf ears.

    Raavan was cursed and could not touch Sita. He was cursed by Kubera's son... to whom Rambha was betrothed...(after Raavan ravished her). Some suggest... Mandodari protected Sita.

    Yet after Ram defeated and killed him... he did not show disdain or insult Raavan. He accepted him as a great King... one with several qualities. Raavan belonged to the Sun's lineage from his father's side. Even Lord Ram was a Suryavanshi Kshatriya. Sri Ram performed a penance/puja after defeating and killing Raavan.

    Most of us have to depend on so-called ‘scholars’, ‘translators’ and ‘experts’ to understand our epics… since we are not familiar with the sanskrit language. There lies the crux.

    Now… “Purush” refers to a “man”. But “Purush” actually meant the “Supreme Being” of which/whom our souls were/are a part of…

    You can see how “changes” have happened…

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well… Ramayana is certainly not fiction/mythology. There are innumerable evidences strewn all around…

    But… several versions of the Ramayana exist. ‘Valmiki Ramayana’, ‘Krittibashi Ramayana’, Kalidas’ ‘Raghuvansham’, Tulsidas' 'Ram Charit Manas' and so on and so forth. Now I hear one of the top politicians and so-called dalit leader Veerappa Moily is coming out with “his version”…

    Plus… our understanding/interpretation of our epics… is not complete. And we try to make “modern versions” out of them!

    What is described as “vannar” in the Ramayana is interpreted as “monkey”. This is incorrect. “Van” means “forest” and “nar” refers to “human”. Therefore… “vannar” is “forest dwelling human” or “human with ape nature”.

    Therefore... Hanuman too was not a monkey or ape as is commonly believed. He too was a 'van nar'. Perhaps a chieftain/king or someone held in very high esteem and with a lot of influence among the 'van nars'.

    Similarly, “Jambaban/Jambuban” is depicted as a bear. This again is wrong. In ancient times… Bharatvarsha was referred to as “Jambu dweepa”… named after a type of fruit… found in abundance here. So, Jambaban was someone belonging to Jambudweepa… an ancient person perhaps.

    Also… Sita is thought to be the daughter of Mandodari (Raavan’s main Queen) in a story reminiscent of Karna and Kunti. They are said to have looked so alike… that even Hanuman was confused!

    So, we are yet to understand... the motive(s) behind Raavan's action... i.e., the kidnapping of Sita.

    Also... Raavan did not have 10 heads per se. He is believed to have had 10 kingdoms... each of which was represented by a different crown. Therefore, his kingdom could not have been restricted to the area covering modern-day Sri Lanka alone.

    Also he was a great scholar... and was well versed in all the 4 Vedas and the 6 Upanishads. Therefore, he was considered to be the equivalent of 10 scholars. Hence he was called "Dasananan"... meaning "one with 10 heads".

    "Raavan" means "he of the terrifying roar".

    Raavan’s character had a lot of depth. He was not one-dimensional. He is said to have had many shades – a master of the shastras, vedas and upanishads; a devout worshipper of Lord Shiva; a great chanter of the Sama Veda; an excellent musician who could also play the 'Veena' very well; a valiant conqueror who took Lanka from (his step-brother) Kubera; a demon who brought Lord Brahma to his knees; a beast who aggressively pursued many women from Vedavathi to Rambha... many forcefully.

    Infact, Vedavathi is said to have been reborn as Sita... to take her revenge. While Rambha was betrothed to his step-brother Kubera's son. Yet this did not stop Raavan from taking her by force. Her pleadings that she was like a daughter to him... fell on deaf ears.

    Raavan was cursed and could not touch Sita. He was cursed by Kubera's son... to whom Rambha was betrothed...(after Raavan ravished her). Some suggest... Mandodari protected Sita.

    Yet after Ram defeated and killed him... he did not show disdain or insult Raavan. He accepted him as a great King... one with several qualities. Raavan belonged to the Sun's lineage from his father's side. Even Lord Ram was a Suryavanshi Kshatriya. Sri Ram performed a penance/puja after defeating and killing Raavan.

    Most of us have to depend on so-called ‘scholars’, ‘translators’ and ‘experts’ to understand our epics… since we are not familiar with the sanskrit language. There lies the crux.

    Now… “Purush” refers to a “man”. But “Purush” actually meant the “Supreme Being” of which/whom our souls were/are a part of…

    You can see how “changes” have happened…

    ReplyDelete
  9. Roshmi made my work easy...
    I second most of her opinions , though i have few apprehensions .

    As your intention is to convey your perceptions, i think here it is not necessary to dwell deeper into the mythical ramayana. So, am containing myself here.

    PS : I have more complaints against ram than anyone else in ramayana

    ReplyDelete
  10. something serious on ur blog this time..

    I totally agree to ur views...we all hv a good and bad side..its just that how we behave n how it is perceived by others, that matterd the most..!!

    Good take...keep writing.. !! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Durga
    //All I remember is abhishek bachhans movies.
    //First it was 'the monkey inside you" and now its " the ravan inside you ".
    This is my muvie!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Naveen
    //ROFL .... anyways its widely known fact that winners write the history i.e. if the ravan's side(read 'some other tribe living down at the southern part of then India') had won ... ram would have been the bad guy
    I wish it was....:P

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Shilpa Garg
    //Very profound thoughts, Sid!! Yes, we human beings have the Ravan inside us...but Hanuman, Lakshman had that too... Liked the logic explained!!
    Cheers to you too...as naveen said, history is written by winners.... and hence we need to look beyond history.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Samadrita said...
    //Ram was a jackass.He dumped his pregnant wife in the dense forest for God's sake.Now who does that?
    Raavan was infinitely better than him or Lakshman or Sita.
    Remember the time Sita spotted the golden deer(who was actually Maarich)?At the time she actually accused Lakshman of having unbrotherly feelings towards her when he refused to leave her unguarded.
    So in a way even she was evil.
    well, thats part of history, I did not mean Ravan was evil. Mind you. Evil is a big word.

    //Nice post btw.And your layout....God my browser stopped responding for a few minutes.Aaarrrghhh!It takes a helluva time to load.
    Arey how come ya, for others it loads faster... o_O

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Chanz
    //Well, I wasnt a bit surprised on reading a post written by none other than the Ravan himself.
    Well, well, I will surprise you tomorrow.... then

    //Hail Ravan
    I do hope I am hailed here...:P

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Roshmi
    That was some info eh, would you like to write a post on ramayana for me?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Mahesh Kalaal.
    //Roshmi made my work easy...
    //I second most of her opinions , though i have few apprehensions .
    Would like to hear about them...:D

    //As your intention is to convey your perceptions, i think here it is not necessary to dwell deeper into the mythical ramayana. So, am containing myself here.
    Er... elaborate pls.

    //PS : I have more complaints against ram than anyone else in ramayana
    Well to be frank, I don't

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Urvashi
    //something serious on ur blog this time..
    Just a thought

    //I totally agree to ur views...we all hv a good and bad side..its just that how we behave n how it is perceived by others, that matterd the most..!!
    Thanks...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nice read... And some insightful comments.

    ReplyDelete

What do you think about the post? Have your say, like, dislike or even hate me. Tell me.

You might also want to Subscribe to RSS feeds or follow me on Twitter (@sidoscope) or on facebook

I don't need weapon, I have a sharp tongue.

Home

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *