Been hearing how terrible Ravana was and how big a war Rama fought to kill this terrible demon king, in the epic Ramayana.
That was the childhood till early 20s version, when we had time and thought bad is BAD and good is all that we need on this Earth. No Ravanas but only Ramas.
Come 30s, didn't have time or any orientation towards good or bad since we been both as per life's circumstances.
But by 40s, one has seen good lot of 'bads' and 'goods' in life to realize not every bad is BAD and not all that looks, feels, smells, tastes, sounds, reads, walks, talks, seen good is indeed GOOD.
It is this U-turn philosophy that made me think... Asura King Ravana was not all that bad for these (few) reasons I picked from the mythology Ramayana, written by Sage Valmiki and many others.
(Glad during those days there were no copyrights! Else Sage Valmiki would have spend his next three births filing and fighting copyrights cases to protect Valmiki Ramayana!)
Coming back to King Ravana, these few points cannot be proved wrong and if Ravana was so evil to be burnt down, he shouldn't have had these (few) in him in the first place:
1) King Ravana did not attack Ayodhya and declare war on King Rama
2) He went to Panchavadi forest based on his sister Surpanakha complaint on how Rama and Lakshmana played pranks on her, humiliated her and later Lakshmana chopped off her nose
(True, Surpanakha went to attack the petite Sita.. yeah, you are right Surpanakha asked for it from Lakshmana... could have very well returned home after the pranks!)
3) He went there not in any intention to kidnap Sita but to avenge his sister's humiliation (like any elder or younger brother does in school, college or even after that... sister's dignity at stake is something no brother can tolerate!)
4) Kidnapping Sita could also have been for the reason to lure the brothers to Lanka, his own kingdom and fight it out with them on his own territory where he is more powerful than in Panchavadi which is the brother's territory
5) He didn't have to give 12 months deciding time to Sita to make her his own. He was a devotee of Lords, devas, had enough powers to force himself on Sita, force marry her than give her time
6) He went to meet Sita every morning to see if her mind has changed and is ready to accept him as her husband, with his wife Mandodari...never alone
7) He did not dump Mandodari till his death in spite having got Sita in Lanka
On the other hand, Rama and Lakshmana could have avoided the prank on Surpanakha, in stead while one of the two brothers were engaged in letting Surpanakha know, they cannot marry her, they could have sent a messenger to Lanka. They could have passed a message to King Ravana to come and fetch his stubborn and unreasonable sister and take her back home.
True, Lakshmana chopped off Surpanakha's nose when his mother-like Sita was being attacked. Had they sent to Ravana to take her back, the chopping, crying, kidnapping, war could have been avoided.
King Rama and the husband Rama would have lived happily with the Queen Sita and wife Sita, after 14 years of exile. Instead, even after 14 years of exile, the King banished the Queen in Sita to prove his Dharma to his citizens, at the same time the husband in Rama made parallel arrangement to take care of his pregnant wife Sita at a sage's ashram. So much chaos and unhappiness!
Which makes me wonder who had more good in him... King Ravana or King Rama?
That was the childhood till early 20s version, when we had time and thought bad is BAD and good is all that we need on this Earth. No Ravanas but only Ramas.
Come 30s, didn't have time or any orientation towards good or bad since we been both as per life's circumstances.
But by 40s, one has seen good lot of 'bads' and 'goods' in life to realize not every bad is BAD and not all that looks, feels, smells, tastes, sounds, reads, walks, talks, seen good is indeed GOOD.
It is this U-turn philosophy that made me think... Asura King Ravana was not all that bad for these (few) reasons I picked from the mythology Ramayana, written by Sage Valmiki and many others.
(Glad during those days there were no copyrights! Else Sage Valmiki would have spend his next three births filing and fighting copyrights cases to protect Valmiki Ramayana!)
Coming back to King Ravana, these few points cannot be proved wrong and if Ravana was so evil to be burnt down, he shouldn't have had these (few) in him in the first place:
1) King Ravana did not attack Ayodhya and declare war on King Rama
2) He went to Panchavadi forest based on his sister Surpanakha complaint on how Rama and Lakshmana played pranks on her, humiliated her and later Lakshmana chopped off her nose
(True, Surpanakha went to attack the petite Sita.. yeah, you are right Surpanakha asked for it from Lakshmana... could have very well returned home after the pranks!)
3) He went there not in any intention to kidnap Sita but to avenge his sister's humiliation (like any elder or younger brother does in school, college or even after that... sister's dignity at stake is something no brother can tolerate!)
4) Kidnapping Sita could also have been for the reason to lure the brothers to Lanka, his own kingdom and fight it out with them on his own territory where he is more powerful than in Panchavadi which is the brother's territory
5) He didn't have to give 12 months deciding time to Sita to make her his own. He was a devotee of Lords, devas, had enough powers to force himself on Sita, force marry her than give her time
6) He went to meet Sita every morning to see if her mind has changed and is ready to accept him as her husband, with his wife Mandodari...never alone
7) He did not dump Mandodari till his death in spite having got Sita in Lanka
On the other hand, Rama and Lakshmana could have avoided the prank on Surpanakha, in stead while one of the two brothers were engaged in letting Surpanakha know, they cannot marry her, they could have sent a messenger to Lanka. They could have passed a message to King Ravana to come and fetch his stubborn and unreasonable sister and take her back home.
True, Lakshmana chopped off Surpanakha's nose when his mother-like Sita was being attacked. Had they sent to Ravana to take her back, the chopping, crying, kidnapping, war could have been avoided.
King Rama and the husband Rama would have lived happily with the Queen Sita and wife Sita, after 14 years of exile. Instead, even after 14 years of exile, the King banished the Queen in Sita to prove his Dharma to his citizens, at the same time the husband in Rama made parallel arrangement to take care of his pregnant wife Sita at a sage's ashram. So much chaos and unhappiness!
Which makes me wonder who had more good in him... King Ravana or King Rama?
