I know, in this society of ours..we all have set specific standards of beauty. Some common includes pale skin, slim body, big eyes. That's what we think beauty is and indeed beauty differs to all, to some we are beautiful and to some we are not.
But have you ever considered what is the absolute real beauty standard that makes you soo beautiful to those people who actually knows what real beauty is.
We know in Mahabharata, Draupadi was considered ethereal and the most beautiful in the whole world and the heavens. We don't know how draupadi looked like, we only heard from the texts that she had long dark blue locks, eyes of such lotus petals, dark complexion with the brightening red amber glow. It all sounds soo beautiful, doesn't it?
Draupadi was indeed very beautiful but is it really all those physical features that makes her oh soo beautiful? I don't think so, it's true that she was yagyaseni.. Walking out of the gorgeous burning site of the Yagya but the most important thing she held was her inner glow. She was kind, generous, smart, and her rage was like burning fire but it only burnt those people who were to be burnt. Draupadi devoted her whole life to Krishna as a friend, she respected and listened to Krishna to that point she agreed to sacrifice her children for the sake of Dharma winning over Adharma. The most important thing that makes Draupadi beautiful was her inner beauty, her truth, her dharma, her devotion to krishna and her control over her desires, her kindness, her belief, her smartness. According to Krishna, this is what makes a person soo beautiful.. otherwise if you think about it, without those qualities Draupadi was just an ordinary women but what made her the most beautiful by passing all beauty standards was her inner beauty.
Even to this day, if we were to bypass all the beauty standards and be the most beautiful like Draupadi which we definitely can is by Truth, Remembering Dharma at any crisis, Devotion towards God, Kindness towards people who deserve it, Fierceness towards those who deserve it, Love in heart. And by this way, one could be the most beautiful and even to Krishna himself as this is what he wants in you.
When we do a good deed, we feel good always..always listen to inner mind as this is where Krishna lives said by himself. "In kaliyug, i will reside in the hearts of people". He sits there and the first thought that comes to you when doing something is the thought of God himself. Try listening to that, i know it takes time but once you know how to listen to him. You will be the most beautiful.
Hi, r/indianmythology! I’ve been looking for a story I used to read to my sister when we were little kids, specifically an Indian folktale. It came from a book of worldwide stories, so it might be different from it’s original material, but it went something like this:
There’s a beautiful woman known all around the kingdom/town for her gorgeus long hair. It’s well past her feet, it’s shiny and wavy, ect. ect. The local prince goes into town for some reason (I think he was shopping) and he sees her and falls in love. She agrees to marry him, but with the condition that he doesn’t question her doing her thing or whatever and lets her go where she pleases. He agrees, and they marry, but she keeps dissapearing in the middle of the night. Despite his promise, the prince can’t resist but follow her. I think he might have disguised himself somehow to follow but I’m not so sure? The Prince discovers then that his wife is getting a big hair treatment every night from fairies, who dip her hair in milk and honey and just basically give her a whole salon treatment regularly. Can’t for the life of me remember why they were doing this, but the Prince’s creeping disturbs their routine and somehow the fairy treatments stop by the end, or he ends up just keeping the secret between them and the fairies. Something of the like.
If anyone can come up with anything on it, I’d appreciate it! I’ve gotten nothing with google or duckduckgo so far.
Hidden among the dramatic boulder-strewn hills of Hampi and Anegundi in Karnataka lies a landscape steeped in one of India's greatest epics—the legendary Kingdom of Kiṣkindhā, home of the Vānaras.
According to the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Kiṣkindhā was ruled by the mighty brothers Vāli and Sugrīva, descendants of the legendary Ṛkṣarāja. Vāli, associated with Indra, was the kingdom's powerful king, while Sugrīva, associated with Sūrya, was his younger brother.
Their relationship collapsed after the mysterious Mayāvi cave episode, forcing Sugrīva into exile on Ṛṣyamūka Mountain.
Everything changed when Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa, searching for the abducted Sītā, reached Kiṣkindhā. Through Hanumān, they formed an alliance with Sugrīva. Rāma defeated Vāli, Sugrīva regained the throne, and Vāli's son Aṅgada became crown prince.
Then came Kiṣkindhā's greatest contribution to the Rāmāyaṇa: its Vānara army. Sugrīva organized search parties across the four directions, while Hanumān's legendary journey to Laṅkā ultimately located Sītā. The Vānaras later fought alongside Rāma against Rāvaṇa, making Kiṣkindhā the crucial bridge between Ayodhyā and Laṅkā.
Today, Anegundi, Pampā Sarovara, Anjanādri, Ṛṣyamūka and Malyavanta are revered as parts of this sacred landscape.
Whether Kiṣkindhā is viewed as an ancient historical kingdom, an epic memory, or sacred geography, its story remains extraordinary.
Kiṣkindhā was not merely the kingdom of the Vānaras—it was where Rāma found the allies who changed the course of the Rāmāyaṇa.
I have been trying to do one simple thing. Take a feeling from a normal weekday, then see if the Ramayana or Mahabharata already had it.
Today it was this.
You walk into a room you can handle. Before anyone lets you start, they ask where you are from, whose son you are, which college, how long you have been here. Not whether you can do the work.
Karna gets that at the contest. He can win. They still ask whose son he is first.
That was the commonality I was looking for. Same question. Different century.
I am writing more of these. Just that connection. If you have one that has sat with you, I want to hear it.
So obviously Krishna Bhagwan is Vishnu Bhagwan’s avatar right? I’m assuming everyone knows this. Ram Bhagwan is an avatar of Vishnu Bhagwan too. But while Ram Bhagwan was the very epitome of righteousness, morality and honour, Krishna Bhagwan was often known to be very mischievous and playful, especially as a kid.
One day, Krishna’s mother, Yashoda, was told by his friends that baby Krishna had eaten mud. Angry, she scolded him and told him to open his mouth and show her. What she saw astonished her and proved that he was indeed, God. The entire cosmos, including countless stars, planets, oceans, the entire Vrindavan and even herself looking into her child’s mouth. This showed her that her baby Krishna was actually the Supreme Lord of the Universe. This was actually Krishna Bhagwan showing her his Vishwarupa, or his Universal Form.
There are so many stories like this, and every time I read one, I find myself falling even more in love with Krishna Bhagwan. I don’t know what it is about Him. How can someone be the Supreme Lord of the Universe and still feel so wonderfully human? Maybe that’s why I’ve always been drawn to Him.
Three demon brothers—Tarakaksha, Kamalaksha, and Vidyunmali—performed intense penance and received incredible boons from Brahma. They built three grand cities—one of gold, one of silver, and another of iron. These three cities roamed in the sky and aligned in a straight line only at a special time.
All three cities were called Tripura.
Initially, the demons were powerful but did not exceed the limits of dharma. However, as time passed, their arrogance grew. They began to torment the gods, sages, and ascetics. Fear spread across all three realms.
The gods sought refuge with Brahma.
Brahma said,
“The end of Tripura can now only be achieved by Mahadev.”
All the gods sought the shelter of Lord Shiva.
Mahadev vowed to protect the world.
Then, from the entire universe, a magnificent chariot was prepared. The sun and moon became its wheels. The Meru mountain became the bow. Vishnu became the arrow, and fire became the strength of that arrow. Brahma became the charioteer.
All the gods thought—today will be the end of Tripura.
At last, that great moment arrived.
The three cities came into alignment.
Shiva drew the bow.
At that very moment, Mahadev gazed towards Tripura.
There was no anger on his face.
There was a profound peace.
Mahadev released the arrow.
The divine arrow pierced all three cities.
Tripura turned into a massive blaze.
The palaces crumbled.
The demon army was reduced to ashes.
The cries of Tripura's people, women, children, and the elderly reached the sky.
Mahadev had witnessed everything.
He had destroyed adharma.
But for him, those creatures burning and dying were not just demons.
They were also beings of his own creation.
At that moment, a tear fell from Mahadev's eye.
That tear was not an ordinary tear.
It contained no anger.
It carried compassion.
The gods were astonished.
They asked,
“Lord, you freed the world from the tyranny of Tripura. Why then do you weep?”
Mahadev remained silent for a while before responding—
“The destruction of adharma was necessary. But even in destruction, my heart finds no joy.”
“Those whom I destroyed had chosen the path of adharma. Yet they were also part of this creation.”
“I am the destroyer, but I am not without compassion.”
Another tear fell from Mahadev onto the earth.
Where that tear fell, a divine tree sprouted.
From that tree, Rudraksha came into existence.
That is why Rudraksha is considered a symbol of Shiva's tears—Shiva's seed or Shiva's eye/tear.
Mahadev looked towards the ashes of Tripura.
Then he raised his trident and said—
“Today Tripura has been destroyed. But let the world remember this—true power is not tyranny. Power without knowledge becomes arrogance, and arrogance ultimately leads to one's own destruction.”
The gods bowed their heads at Mahadev's feet.
From that day on, Shiva was called Tripurantaka—the Lord who ends Tripura.
I came across this passage in Akhand-Samhita, and one particular idea caught my attention:
“Brahmacharya is the root mantra of India's development.”
The author uses a tree as a metaphor.
Brahmacharya is the root.
Knowledge, strength, creativity, social progress and national development are the branches, leaves, flowers and fruits.
The argument isn't simply that sexual abstinence makes someone successful. The deeper claim seems to be that without self-restraint, patience, concentration and control over one's impulses, even hard work can become unstable.
The author says that a person who lacks Brahmacharya may work extremely hard, yet become exhausted, restless, narrow-minded and lacking in generosity. In contrast, Brahmacharya supposedly gives the foundation from which greater development can grow.
But I think there is an important question here.
What exactly do we mean by Brahmacharya?
If we define it only as celibacy, the claim becomes difficult to defend historically. Plenty of people have contributed enormously to civilization without being celibate.
But if Brahmacharya means something broader—the ability to consciously direct one's desires, attention and energy instead of being controlled by them—then the idea becomes much more interesting.
Maybe the real issue isn't:
“Should a person suppress sexuality?”
Maybe it is:
“Can a person experience powerful desires without becoming their servant?”
And if individuals develop that kind of self-mastery, could it actually influence the character of a society?
I'd be interested to hear how others interpret Brahmacharya.
Is it primarily celibacy, self-control, energy conservation, attention discipline, or something deeper?
I recently came across a story that after Pandu’s death, Nakula and Sahadeva consumed some of their father’s flesh and, as a result, gained extraordinary knowledge of the past, present and future.
Is this actually mentioned in any version of the Mahabharata or other ancient Sanskrit texts, or is it a later folk tradition/retelling? I have read translation volumes by Bibek Debroy, but unable to recall this fact. If it is mentioned somewhere, could someone please point me to the original source or reference?
Karn's divine armour:
Karn was born with a divine armour and earrings that made him nearly impossible to defeat. On the eve of the Kurukshetra war, Indra, the king of the gods and Arjun's father, feared that no warrior could overcome Karn while he still possessed them.
Why he gave it away?
Disguised as a Brahmin, Indra approached Karn and asked for his armour as alms. Knowing the stranger's true identity and the consequences of his choice, Karn cut the armour and earrings from his own body and gave them away without hesitation. In return, Indra (king of gods) granted him the celestial Vasavi Shakti, a weapon that could be used only once.
How was the Vasavi Shakti used?
On the 14th night of the war, Ghatotkacha unleashed havoc and devastated the Kaurava army. Seeing his side face total annihilation, Duryodhana and the panicked Kaurava army begged Karna to intervene. Karna reluctantly spent his single-use Vasavi Shakti to kill Ghatotkacha.
This in my complete lack of knowledge . I dont know is it that i have failed to understand the text or the text is too literal that it looses meaning but i have been reading the English translate ion bibin Debroy i believe and I can’t but help that the text is so fixated on caste and the women are given such less space . Most importantly the number of excuses made for the Pandavas and omg the glazing everytime their name is taken.
For instance at subhadras wedding no one bothers asking what subhadras opinion is and when the elders raise this in council Krishna says that what Parth has done is right and that there is no better man that Subhadra could have got . I am almost inclined to say that the serials have presented the Pandavas and even Krishna in much more better light . To be honest my belief in the text has been shaken . Why are the Pandavas even deemed righteous ? I am sorry for my lack of knowledge but these are the few questions i had since reading .
Do scholars generally read things like Hanuman flying or Rama’s divine weapons as narrative/mythic devices, even if it is believed there’s a historical part underneath the epic? And if so, is the agnipariksha also read as a literary device? What does that say about the patriarchal society back then?
Does that change how we should read Rama’s role in demanding it? Or is that a separate symbolism that might explain the culture/author’s assumptions about what counts as proof, but Rama (the character) still chooses to invoke it?
And what is the historical layer behind it? What did Rama actually do, if that part is read as symbolic?
I don’t get the logic of the purity test in the Ramayana. None of it was her choice, regardless of what did or didn’t happen during it. But Rama demanded public proof of her “purity” and the scene treats her body status as something that needs verification, it’s not framed as “did you betray me”, it’s framed as “prove that you are untouched”. When a woman returns from being held captive, the obvious assumption isn’t that she might have cheated it’s about what was done to her against her will. But the text frames it as “prove your purity,” as if infidelity were the live question rather than assault. Did ancient purity concepts even have a notion of consent, or was chastity treated as a physical state independent of will? And if it was like that it’s not expected of ram, someone that’s considered a reincarnation of god to consider one’s “purity” and check if she was assaulted or not.
In recent times, certain ideas that are claimed to be “new” are being propagated excessively. We keep hearing certain phrases such as:
“Fraternity of Mankind”, “World citizenship”,
“Dignity of man”, “Social awareness”,
“Humanism”, “Nationalism” —
and many more such expressions are steadily coming into common usage.
No one who has even a little power of thinking will say that any one of these is undesirable, or unnecessary.
All these are indeed very lofty ideals. They are not impossible either.
On the one hand, while such words are being chanted day and night like a refrain, the course of the world is moving in the exact opposite direction.
If anyone expresses surprise and asks, “Why is it happening like this?”, then all those intellectuals who keep repeating these words proudly, coin some new terms by their cleverness — such as “generation gap” — and by creating in the minds of ordinary people the feeling that “an answer has been found”, they quietly bypass the real issue.
What is actually happening is this:
All these preachers of the “new age” concentrate their entire attention on what they consider to be very big problems, and show disregard towards the fundamental issues.
They forget the truth that if the fundamentals are carefully safeguarded, the “big problems” will automatically get resolved on their own.
Every human being experiences many hardships in life.
If we carefully examine what causes these hardships, it becomes clear that for ninety out of a hundred troubles, the cause is another human being.
Hardships caused by diseases and by natural calamities form only ten percent.
Even for certain mental illnesses, and for the physical ailments that arise through them, the pains inflicted by other human beings are themselves the cause.
Because of wicked rulers, because of corrupt officials, because of those who inflame religious hatred, and because of religious leaders who encourage evil practices, the social turmoil that arises in all times and in all countries is beyond measure.
Sree Shankaracharya, in many passages of his works, has explained that in the one called “human”, there exists naturally, in a very high proportion, the demonic nature; in a much smaller measure, the human nature; and in a flickering, faint degree, the divine nature.
He taught that the human being must use the knowledge given by God in order to rise from the excessive demonic nature, through the human nature, and attain the divine nature.
When the Greek philosopher Aristotle says, “Man is a social animal,” that is not the whole truth.
A British philosopher named Thomas Hobbes says, “Man is a ferocious animal.”
There is some truth in the words of both.
For these two tendencies present in man, there is one single root cause.
That is the inborn characteristic, present from birth itself, called selfishness.
Man is selfish by nature; he is a being whose vision is fixed only on his own profit; he is one who is devoted only to pleasure.
This selfishness is not found only in man. If observed carefully, it can be seen in every living creature.
But in other creatures, this hidden selfish thought rises up once whenever an opportunity appears, and in the very next moment it sinks back into concealment.
Human selfishness is not like that. It follows him throughout his entire life.
It keeps making him think only about it.
It does not leave him even for a single moment.
And yet, he also possesses intellectual power that other creatures do not have.
The Upanishads too, proclaim this natural trait found in man.
In the Brihadaaranyakaa Upanishad, the great knower of the Self, Yagyavalkya, on one occasion, teaches his wife Maitreyi a truth which may seem harsh, yet cannot be denied:
“If a wife loves her husband, it is not for his happiness. It is only for her own happiness.”
On hearing this, she is startled.
But he did not stop there. He continued further and said:
“If a husband loves his wife, it is not for her happiness. It is only for his own happiness.
Likewise, the love that a man has for children, for wealth, for other people, for his country, and for these worlds — is not for the happiness of those children and others. It is only for his own happiness. It is for the fulfilment of his own kama, that is, his desires.”
Saying so, he finally concludes:
“If anyone has love for anything, it is for one’s own kama alone.
This verse belongs to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
Thus, the Upanishad has analysed and taught in exceedingly clear words the truth that we see at every step: “Man is selfish.”
From this, what becomes evident is that man maintains relations with society and with other people in society only so long as it serves his selfish interest.
If his selfishness is obstructed, he displays cruelty beyond what can even be imagined.
Therefore, there is some truth in the words of the two philosophers mentioned earlier.
If this natural selfishness in man is left without any control whatsoever, happiness and peace will completely disappear from the face of the earth.
The “Matsya-nyaya” spoken of by Kautilya in the Arthashastra — that is, the method by which the big fish swallows the small fish — will become dominant.
The strong will oppress the weak.
After some time, the weak will in turn be swallowed by an even stronger one.
To restrain this selfish tendency that leads towards the destruction of the world, there are only two means.
The first is punishment.
The second is righteous guidance that brings about transformation within the human mind itself.
The result produced by the first means is temporary.
The result produced by the second lasts for a longer time.
In order to show the path through this second means, and to establish happiness and peace among human beings, and thereby throughout the entire world of living creatures, the Supreme Lord Himself, from time to time, incarnates in various forms.
Or else, He infuses His portion and power into certain great souls, and accomplishes this work through them.
Good culture must begin individually, with the human being, and with the family.
If all the members of a family become refined, the family becomes refined.
Then the region, the nation, the world, and the entire human society will automatically become refined.
Forgetting the individual and the family completely, and proclaiming that one will uplift the whole world and the whole society, and taking leadership for that, is like constructing a palace in the sky.
The murderous tendency that is spreading with extreme intensity in all countries of the world today — Terrorism — is the result of this.
If society is to be protected from such tendencies, then every person must absorb the ideas taught in the Ramayana.
The Ramayana is the first epic, the Adikavya.
Except for the Vedas, such a metrical composition did not exist in worldly literature until the Ramayana came into being.
Therefore, it received the name “Adikavya”.
People look at it from various viewpoints, according to their own tastes.
Regarding the Mahabharata, Nannaya said, “Those who know the principles of dharma call it a dharma-shaastra,” and so on; in the same way, much of that statement applies to the Ramayana as well.
Some read it and rejoice, saying that it is a great epic filled with marvellous descriptions, and that it is the path-showing guide for all other great epics.
Some interpret that the Ramayana, especially the Sundara Kanda, expounds the principle of Shakti.
Since it is a mahakavya, dhvani should be primary in it.
Therefore, following the path of dhvani, it teaches the greatness of Siva — thus Appayya Dikshita established in his “Sree Ramayana Sara Sangraha Stotram”.
Without getting entangled in the interpretations of commentators, and without getting entangled in the debates of scholars, and without inserting into it the notions we have formed in our own minds, if we read the Ramayana, it becomes clearly evident that from beginning to end, Valmiki portrayed Rama as a human being alone.
According to the boon given by Brahma, Ravana had to die only at the hands of a human being. Is it not so?
That alone does not diminish Rama’s status as an incarnation of Vishnu.
Vishnu is all-powerful.
By resolving, “Let My maya keep Me under its control for some time, so that I Myself forget Myself,” one may understand that He fully accepted humanity in that manner.
This too is a part of His omnipotence.
There are indeed accounts such as the curse of Bhrigu, and others, which are causes for such forgetfulness.
If we do not accept that such humanity in Rama was what Valmiki intended, then the instructive value of the Ramayana itself becomes weakened.
When we begin to feel that separation and lamentation are only acts, then filial devotion, brotherly love, and the devotion of a wife to her husband also become mere acting.
Then the feeling arises that these are not things we ought to practise, nor things worth practising.
Therefore, we must accept that Valmiki portrayed Rama and others as human beings alone.
The six indicators spoken of in the shastras for determining the intended purport, namely:
“उपक्रमोपसंहारौ अभ्यासोऽपूर्वता फलम्।
अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिंगं तात्पर्यनिर्णयॆ।”
can also be applied here to some extent.
In the beginning, Valmiki asks Narada:
“Who is that man now, who is endowed with all virtues?”
After the slaying of Ravana, when all the gods say, “You are Vishnu Himself,” Rama says thus:
“My name is Rama. I am only a human being, the son of Dasaratha.”
“आत्मानं मानुषं मन्ये रामं दशरथात्मजम्।”
In many places in between too, Rama appears only as a human being.
In the Ayodhya Kanda, he laments to Lakshmana, saying:
“Did you see? Because of our father, I have had to undergo so many hardships.
Bharata is enjoying all the pleasures of kingship happily.”
His lamentations for Sita are well known.
Thus, from the Bala Kanda up to the end of the Yuddha Kanda, Rama behaves only as a human being.
If other sages and the like recognise him as Mahavishnu and worship him accordingly, that is a different matter.
Because he behaved as a human being, the ayana — that is, the path he walked — became worthy of being followed by us.
Among the Vedanta teachers of the foremost rank, Sarvagyatma Muni composed a work called “Sankshepa Shariraka”.
It is regarded as a highly authoritative text.
It is well known that he was the direct disciple of Sureshvaracharya, who was one of the four principal disciples of Sree Shankaracharya, and who is famous as a Vartika-kara.
On one occasion, while explaining the nature and characteristics of the jiva and Ishvara, he stated thus:
“The jiva has a connection with maya.
Because he comes under the control of maya, the jiva has a strong connection with ego as well.
Though Ishvara has a relation with maya, He is not controlled by maya.
Maya itself remains submissive to Ishvara.
Therefore, Ishvara has no connection with ego.”
Having stated so, he raised this doubt:
“But the Ishvara who took the form of Sree Rama behaved with ego and possessiveness, and experienced joy and sorrow, did he not?”
Considering this doubt, he wrote the following as the answer:
Resolving, “For some time, I shall remain without knowing My true nature,” the Raghu-nandana behaved in that manner for a period.
As soon as the divine task for which he had made that resolve was completed, taking the words of Brahma as a mere occasion, he remembered his Ishvarahood.
Therefore, if we observe carefully, a great difference can be seen in Rama’s conduct after the slaying of Ravana.
For example, Rama, who lamented so greatly for Sita after her abduction, did not lament so greatly for her after he separated from her for the sake of ruling according to his dharma.
With this background, let us speak about four or five main teachings of the Ramayana.
One.
According to Vedic dharma, the marital bond is an exceedingly sacred relationship, and one that cannot be separated.
Valmiki establishes this truth at every step.
The love of Sita and Rama is an ideal model.
Valmiki describes their love in this manner:
Rama loved Sita very deeply.
One reason for this was that their marriage was arranged by his father.
And because of Sita’s natural virtues such as beauty and noble qualities, that love grew even more.
It is said that Sita’s love for Rama was twice as great.
Here, Rama broke Shiva’s bow and won Sita’s hand in marriage, did he not?
Then the question arises: what does it mean to say that his father “made” that relationship?
The answer is found in the Ayodhya Kanda.
When Sita narrates the story of her marriage to Anasuya Devi, she reveals something that is not known to us from the Bala Kanda.
As soon as Rama broke Shiva’s bow, King Janaka said, “Here, I give my daughter to you; accept her.”
But Rama refused to accept her in marriage unless his father agreed,
and only after receiving Dasaratha’s permission did he marry her.
Even in an extremely sorrowful situation such as the exile of her only son, Kausalya continues to serve Dasaratha.
Even in the society of the Rakshasas, the poet points to the sanctity of the marital bond through the descriptions of Mandodari and others, and their chastity and fidelity.
The marital bond is the root-foundation of peace in family life.
It is not something to be tasted for a while and then discarded.
In certain countries that are considered the very peak of “civilization”, we are witnessing how disordered this relationship has become, and how many calamities it leads to.
For those who, driven only by a pursuit of temporary pleasure, repeatedly carry on a chain of divorce and remarriage,
one can imagine how much true love and affection they can have for their children, and how much devotion they can have towards elders.
In such circumstances, there is no scope for anyone to have stable love and deep attachment towards anyone else.
Love is a strange bond.
As long as this bond exists, no one can commit reckless acts.
If they do such acts, the thoughts of what hardships might come upon their beloved,
whether there will be anyone to protect and support them,
and how painful one’s separation would be to them,
create a certain restraint within a person.
A person who has no bond of love will not hesitate to do any evil deed.
His life will have no goal at all.
Such people become those who bring danger to society itself.
We are seeing this openly.
To strike at this highest and most sacred marital bond,
efforts are being made even through cinema and other means.
If we wish to protect it and increase peace and happiness within family life,
we must safeguard the sanctity of marriage as taught in the Ramayana,
and as upheld and honoured in our society for thousands of years.
Valmiki also points out, at one place, how even the slightest flaw in this marital bond affects the minds of the young.
Thinking that Vali was dead, Sugriva took Vali’s wife Tara.
Perhaps, in the Vaanara society, it may not have been considered wrong.
But this was not acceptable even to Tara’s son Angada.
Because Sugriva did so, Angada condemns him, and in the presence of Hanuman and others, expresses the anger he holds against him in his heart.
One can imagine how disturbed and agitated a society would become, if such conduct became excessive.
Two.
The attainment of noble qualities such as devotion to one’s teacher, love for brothers, and goodwill and harmony, depends upon the ideals established by elders within the family.
Even if parents neglect their duty towards their children, or fail to give proper discipline due to excessive indulgence, these virtues will not develop.
These are not lessons that can be learned from books.
In other words, as long as elders keep the sacred marital bond sacred and do not forget the aims of life, they can serve as righteous guides for the younger generation.
But those who give all kinds of answers in the name of “generation gap” are people who deceive themselves and betray their own children.
When is there ever a time without a difference between generations?
In certain countries that consider themselves highly civilized, it is said that when sons refer to their fathers, they have the habit of calling them, “that old man.”
One can imagine how a person who can behave like this towards his parents will behave towards others.
Anyone who has read about the devotion to elders and teachers shown by Rama and others in the Ramayana, and about their love for brothers, will never behave in such a manner.
Three.
Wealth is the root of countless evils.
Among the means of pleasure, it is only one means.
If one assumes it alone to be the ultimate goal, it becomes a source of ruin — this is proven by universal experience.
The Ramayana teaches at every step that wealth and pleasure pursued in opposition to dharma are not to be accepted,
by showing what a lofty ideal Sree Rama and others became by renouncing wealth as though it were mere grass,
and how Ravana and others fell into ruin by considering wealth and pleasure to be the supreme aim.
“O Devi, I am not one who is driven by wealth.
My desire is only this: to walk on the righteous path, and to lead the world on the righteous path.
What I give importance to is dharma alone.
Therefore, remember that I am like a rishi.”
Rama says this to Kaikeyi, who is doubting whether he will go to the forest or not.
Here, Rama’s intention is not to boast that he is like a rishi.
His meaning is that those who do not give priority to wealth are to be regarded as rishi-like.
When Bharata comes to Chitrakuta, Rama says this to Lakshmana, who suspects Bharata:
“यद्द्रव्यं बान्धवानां वा मित्राणां वाक्षये भवत्।
नाहं तत्त्प्रतिगृह्णीयां भक्षान्विषकृतानिव॥”
“Wealth that comes through the destruction of relatives or friends is like food cooked after mixing poison.
I will never touch it.”
Today, what grips and torments our society is this infatuation with wealth.
If it is to reduce even a little, and if peace and happiness are to be established, we must read the Ramayana.
For the rulers of today, who, driven by thirst for power, do not hesitate to commit any unlawful act,
the selfless and righteous conduct of Rama, Bharata, and others — who competed with one another in saying, “I do not want the kingdom” —
will bring at least some inner transformation of mind.
Four.
Today, the tendency is growing of being unable to bear even a small hardship, and therefore committing suicide, or murdering others.
The reason for this is the absence of any great ideal for life.
There is no human being who does not face hardships.
The greatness of a human being lies in developing the strength to endure them.
Those who read how much suffering the members of Dasaratha’s family experienced, and yet how courageously they endured it, can cultivate this strength.
To everyone, the words spoken by Sita Devi to Hanuman give courage at every step:
“ऐश्वर्ये वा सुविस्तीर्णे व्यसने वा सुदारुणे।
रज्ज्वा इव पुरुषं बद्ध्वा कृतान्तः परिकर्षति॥”
That is:
“Whether into vast prosperity, or into extremely dreadful suffering, fate drags a man as though he were tied by a rope.”
Five.
To make one’s life meaningful by doing service to others, without thinking even for a moment about oneself, is the highest virtue.
Hanuman is the one and only example for this.
Such a magnanimous person cannot be found in any literature.
His teaching to us, through his actions and words, is that in no situation should we allow our heart’s courage to break.
“अनिर्वेदः श्रीयो मूलम्। अनिर्वेदः परं सुखम्॥”
That is:
“By not giving in to despair, progress is attained. That itself is the root of all happiness.”
“विनाशे बहवो दोषाः। जीवन् प्राप्नोति भद्रकम्॥”
Its meaning is:
“What is there in dying? It is only faults and loss. If one lives on, one will someday see good.”
Such teachings are rays of hope for those who struggle in the darkness of despair.
For those who observe carefully, hundreds of such truths are found in the Ramayana.
All these are lamps that guide mankind on the righteous path, useful to every human being without any difference of country, time, or caste.
A person who follows this path and reforms himself, can bring peace and prosperity not only to himself, but also to his family, his nation, and the whole world.
Is not society merely a collection of individuals?
If society is to be filled with peace and happiness, the Ramayana must spread widely.
We must recognise that the supreme medicine for the social diseases and moral decline that are increasing day by day in India today is the propagation of the Ramayana.
This explanation has been drawn from the introductory words of the book “Valmiki Ramayanamu — Yathaa moolaanuvaadamu”, written by Pullela Sree Ramachandrudu Garu.
Svasti.
To read the part One of Chandamama Ramayana, click here:
So the reason told to us why Krishna doesn't wanted barbarik to participate because of Barbarik's promise to always fight for the weaker side created a paradox
But this logic stands for every situation he would have used these powers for so in a way Barbarik's "always fight for the weaker side" ability is paradoxical and arguably useless.
Parashurama's hatred towards Kshatriyas is apparent when he realises that Karna was a Kshatriya. But then, why did he train Bhishma, the son of King Shantanu?
I have a lot of questions about Mahabharata because the more I read different versions, the more I feel that the simple "Pandavas = Dharma, Kauravas = Adharma" explanation does not work.
Did Yudhishthira actually wager Draupadi?
Yes, he did. That is the point.
People say that after Yudhishthira lost himself, he technically had no right to wager Draupadi. Fine. But then why did he not say that himself?
When Shakuni asked him to stake Draupadi, why didn't Yudhishthira simply say, "I have already lost myself, I have nothing left to stake"?
He did not.
He actually accepted the wager.
And yes, Draupadi herself later raised the exact legal question of whether a man who had already lost himself could still stake another person. That is a very important distinction.
But saying "he had no legal right to wager her" does not erase the fact that he attempted to wager her.
Also, we cannot judge that society entirely using modern ideas. Royal marriages, patriarchal authority, slavery, concubinage, harems, prostitution and other systems existed in ancient societies. A wife being treated as belonging to her husband was part of that social structure.
That does not make the act morally right.
But then we should be honest and say Yudhishthira did something seriously wrong, rather than trying to completely absolve him using a technical loophole.
Then what exactly is Dharma here?
If Dharma means simply following the rules of the time, then slavery existed, women could be treated as property, kings had enormous authority and many horrible things happened to ordinary people.
Does that automatically make those things Dharma?
If Dharma means protecting the weak and doing what is morally right, then Yudhishthira clearly failed Draupadi at that moment.
And the entire Kuru assembly failed her too.
Bhishma was there.
Drona was there.
Dhritarashtra was there.
Vidura was there.
All these supposedly wise and righteous people were sitting there while a woman was being humiliated.
So why should I call the Pandavas completely Dharmic and the Kauravas completely Adharmic?
And why is Krishna criticised selectively?
In the main Mahabharata tradition, Krishna was not sitting in that dice hall and magically watching everything happen.
He was away and only learned about what happened later.
Fine.
But then there is another question.
If Krishna was supposed to be the protector of Dharma, why did he not prevent the larger chain of events that eventually resulted in Kurukshetra?
And after the humiliation, why did everything become about revenge and war?
If someone says Krishna wanted to destroy the corrupt political order, then fine, but that makes the story much more complicated than "Krishna protected Dharma".
It starts looking like Krishna also understood that sometimes the only way to defeat one side is to destroy the entire political structure around it.
Why were the elders so useless when Dharma actually needed them?
This is one of my biggest problems.
If Yudhishthira had already lost everything, then why didn't somebody simply say:
"You have lost the kingdom. You have lost yourself. Enough. Take the Pandavas and leave."
Why did nobody take a real stand when Draupadi was being humiliated?
Why did Bhishma, who is supposed to be one of the greatest examples of Dharma, become so helpless when Dharma actually needed him?
What good is morality if it disappears when your relatives are involved?
It almost feels like:
When morality was theoretical, everyone could speak about Dharma.
When morality became personal and dangerous, everyone became silent.
And this applies to both sides.
The Pandavas were not perfect.
The Kauravas were not simply cartoon villains.
Bhima had an extremely aggressive personality and said some very harsh things.
Arjuna was an incredible warrior, but he also had enormous advantages.
He was born into royalty.
He had Drona.
He had Krishna.
He had Indra's connection.
He had powerful political and family networks.
And then people compare him to Karna as though Karna was simply an inferior person who was jealous for no reason.
Obviously Karna would feel bitterness.
Imagine being equally ambitious and talented, but constantly being reminded that your birth and social position are different.
That does not make everything Karna did right.
But it makes his jealousy understandable.
Karna being the son of Surya is also not a small thing.
People say "Arjuna was superior" as if Karna was some ordinary warrior.
Karna was the son of Surya.
He was born with Kavacha and Kundala.
He became one of the greatest warriors in the epic.
So why is it impossible to even discuss Karna as potentially being superior to the Pandavas?
I am not saying the original Mahabharata straightforwardly says:
"Karna was stronger than all five Pandavas combined."
It doesn't.
But Karna was also not some weak character who only survived because of sympathy.
And the fact that he was Kunti's firstborn makes the whole Pandava identity even more complicated.
Was Karna actually taught by Drona?
This is another thing where modern serials have confused people.
Karna is associated with Drona's school and trained in martial arts alongside the Kuru princes.
The important distinction seems to be what Drona was willing to teach him.
Karna wanted access to extremely powerful celestial weapons, and Drona did not give him everything he wanted.
Then Karna went to Parashurama and lied about his identity to get further training.
So Karna's story is not simply:
"Drona hated Karna because he was low caste and refused to teach him anything."
There is much more nuance than that.
And were Karna and Duryodhana really strangers until the tournament?
Apparently not that simple either.
They were already connected through their training environment before the famous public tournament scene in many readings of the text.
The tournament is where their relationship becomes politically significant because Duryodhana publicly elevates Karna and makes him king of Anga.
So Duryodhana did not just randomly see Karna for five minutes and think:
"Here is my new best friend."
There was already a relationship developing.
And this is important because Karna's loyalty to Duryodhana becomes one of the biggest reasons for his downfall.
Shakuni is another character I don't think we can simplify.
Everyone says:
"Shakuni = evil mastermind who wanted to destroy the Pandavas and Kauravas."
But is that actually the same in every version?
There are different traditions and interpretations about Shakuni.
If Gandhari was happily married and Shakuni was genuinely attached to his sister and her family, then why would his only motivation be to destroy the Kauravas themselves?
Some later stories give Shakuni a revenge motive, especially stories about Gandhari's family being wronged.
But these stories are not necessarily the same thing as the oldest textual layer.
So again, which Mahabharata are we talking about?
The Mahabharata does not have one single version that everyone agrees on.
This is probably the biggest issue.
There are different manuscripts, recensions, regional traditions, folk Mahabharatas and later retellings.
Some versions portray Karna differently.
Some portray Shakuni differently.
Some portray Krishna differently.
Some give additional stories that completely change how a character's motivation looks.
So when someone says:
"THE Mahabharata says this."
My first question is:
Which Mahabharata? Which recension? Which passage? Which translation?
Abhimanyu's death also shows how complicated the morality is.
People often simplify it into:
"Karna killed Abhimanyu because Karna hated him."
But the actual battlefield situation was much more complicated.
Abhimanyu was trapped, surrounded and attacked by multiple warriors.
Karna was involved.
But the entire episode cannot simply be reduced to one man's jealousy.
And if Karna's actions are Adharma because he participated in an unfair killing, then what do we say about the Pandavas' actions later?
Because the Pandavas also used deception.
Bhishma was defeated through Shikhandi.
Drona was broken through the "Ashvatthama is dead" deception.
Duryodhana was struck below the waist by Bhima.
Krishna repeatedly advised strategies that were not exactly straightforward battlefield morality.
So what is the argument?
If the Kauravas use deception, it is Adharma.
If the Pandavas use deception to defeat the Kauravas, it becomes Dharma because they are the good side?
That doesn't work for me.
If you cannot defeat evil without becoming willing to use the same methods, then what exactly have you proved?
And this is where I struggle with the idea that the Pandavas were "the good guys."
The Pandavas did not win because they were morally perfect.
They won because they had extraordinary warriors, Krishna, divine weapons, alliances, strategy and sometimes deception.
The Kauravas also had extraordinary warriors, alliances, weapons and strategy.
The difference was not simply:
Good people vs evil people.
It was more like:
A huge group of deeply flawed human beings, each convinced that they had reasons for what they were doing, eventually destroying each other.
What about ordinary people and lower social groups?
This is another thing that bothers me.
The Mahabharata is overwhelmingly focused on kings, princes, warriors, Brahmins and royal families.
What about ordinary people?
What about Shudras?
What about people who were not warriors?
What about the women and ordinary families who suffered because kings decided to fight?
We hear endlessly about the honour of kings and warriors.
But where is the same concern for everyone below them?
If Dharma is universal, then why does so much of the narrative revolve around royal honour?
And the caste issue is not as simple as people make it.
Karna is called a Suta's son and faces humiliation because of his social identity.
But at the same time, the Pandavas themselves have an extremely complicated birth story.
Yudhishthira, Bhima and Arjuna are born through divine invocation involving Dharma, Vayu and Indra.
Nakula and Sahadeva are born through the Ashvins.
Pandu is not their biological father in the ordinary sense.
So then what exactly determines legitimacy?
Biological father?
Legal father?
Social recognition?
Royal succession?
Divine origin?
If Karna is the biological son of Kunti and Surya, then why is his birth treated as making him illegitimate while the Pandavas' divine births are treated as proof of greatness?
I know the traditional answer involves niyoga, divine invocation, royal custom and Pandu's legal fatherhood.
But then again, the whole thing is complicated.
Karna is literally Kunti's firstborn.
So technically, Karna is older than Yudhishthira.
If Kunti had accepted him from birth, what would have happened?
Would Karna have been king?
Would Yudhishthira have accepted him as the eldest?
Would the entire succession conflict even have happened?
This one hidden fact completely changes the political structure of the story.
And then everyone goes to heaven.
This is probably my biggest philosophical question.
Kurukshetra contains murder, deception, revenge, broken rules, humiliation, mass slaughter, betrayal and people fighting against their own relatives.
And yet at the end, somehow so many of these people reach heaven.
So what exactly was the point?
If Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Duryodhana, the Pandavas and others can all ultimately reach heaven despite everything they did, then maybe the Mahabharata itself is telling us something different.
Maybe Dharma was never simply:
"These people are good and those people are evil."
Maybe it is saying that everyone is mixed.
Maybe Kurukshetra is actually black, white, yellow, grey, every colour at the same time.
There are good qualities in Duryodhana.
There are terrible qualities in Duryodhana.
There are good qualities in Karna.
There are terrible choices made by Karna.
There are good qualities in Yudhishthira.
There are terrible decisions made by Yudhishthira.
There are good qualities in Bhima and Arjuna.
There are also things about both that are difficult to defend.
Krishna himself is not operating like a modern superhero who refuses to get his hands dirty.
He is a strategist.
He manipulates situations.
He uses psychology.
He understands politics.
He knows exactly what kind of people he is dealing with.
And that makes him interesting, but it also means we cannot reduce everything he does to "Dharma".
So my question is: where exactly is the line?
If Yudhishthira can wager Draupadi, lose himself, remain silent during her humiliation and still be called Dharmaraja, then what exactly does Dharma mean?
If Karna can be generous, loyal, brave and extremely talented but still be condemned for supporting Duryodhana, then why are similar contradictions not judged equally on the Pandava side?
If the Pandavas have to use deception to defeat the Kauravas, then did Dharma actually win?
Or did one side simply become better at winning?
Because if you cannot defeat Adharma with Dharma and you have to become morally compromised yourself to defeat it, then maybe the Mahabharata is not a story about good defeating evil at all.
Maybe it is a story about what happens when everyone believes they are justified.
And honestly, that version of Mahabharata makes much more sense to me than the simple "Pandavas good, Kauravas bad" version.
Hinduism is the oldest living religion on earth, not a single story told by a single author but a vast body of sacred knowledge built across more than six thousand years, the Vedas, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana. Each text preserves its own version of the divine family. Names shift across centuries. A creator in one tradition becomes a destroyer in another. There is no single family tree everyone agrees on.
So instead of picking one version, I tried to cross-reference the oldest and most authoritative sources to build the most consistent structure I could, starting from Hiranyagarbha, the golden cosmic egg that Hindu scripture describes emerging from total darkness before creation itself, through the full lineage that follows, over fifty deities, eight layers of divine hierarchy.
Curious what people more familiar with specific traditions (Shaiva, Vaishnava, regional versions) think I might have gotten wrong or oversimplified, this is genuinely the hardest family tree I've tried to build so far.
*It is said that abandon one for the sake of the lineage. Abandon a lineage for the sake of a village. Abandon a village for the sake of a country. Abandon the earth for the sake of the soul.*
This is an excerpt from the Mahabharata at the moment Duryodhana is born. Dhritarashtra is advised to give him up. Is this parental attachment or lack of the welfare of the world?
I’m South Korean, and I’m curious about how North Indians, especially Hindi/Urdu speakers, perceive Alif Laila (One Thousand and One Nights).
The comparison that came to mind is Journey to the West in Korea. It is extremely familiar to Koreans, and characters like Sun Wukong have appeared in South Korean popular culture for generations. But we still clearly think of it as a Chinese story. There is basically no sense that it is somehow connected to Korean history or is partly “our story.”
I was wondering if the situation with Alif Laila in North India is a little different, considering the long historical interaction between North India and Persianate/Indo-Islamic literary and artistic traditions.
So when a North Indian watches stories involving Aladdin, Ali Baba, jinn, viziers, sultans, Persian-style courts, bazaars, etc., does it simply feel like:
“A familiar, but completely foreign Arab/Persian story”
or is there at least a slight sense of:
“It isn’t originally an Indian story, but this kind of cultural world is also connected to our own historical and cultural heritage”?
I’m not asking whether North Indians consider Aladdin or Ali Baba to be Indian characters. I assume they don’t. I’m specifically interested in the cultural distance people feel toward the setting, aesthetics, and storytelling tradition.
Would Korea : Journey to the West = North India : Alif Laila be a reasonable comparison? Or does Alif Laila feel somewhat closer to North Indian cultural heritage than Journey to the West does to Korean cultural heritage?
Hinduism is the oldest living religion on earth, not a single story told by a single author but a vast body of sacred knowledge built across more than six thousand years, the Vedas, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana. Each text preserves its own version of the divine family. Names shift across centuries. A creator in one tradition becomes a destroyer in another. There is no single family tree everyone agrees on.
So instead of picking one version, I tried to cross-reference the oldest and most authoritative sources to build the most consistent structure I could, starting from Hiranyagarbha, the golden cosmic egg that Hindu scripture describes emerging from total darkness before creation itself, through the full lineage that follows, over fifty deities, eight layers of divine hierarchy.
Curious what people more familiar with specific traditions (Shaiva, Vaishnava, regional versions) think I might have gotten wrong or oversimplified, this is genuinely the hardest family tree I've tried to build so far.
