Also, as far as “lives lost” business – hinduism does not see the loss of life as evil – it is seen as part of the natural order of things. No life is ever truly lost. But by killing for selfish / egoistic reasons, you develop attachment to the action (or alternately, inaction), thereby incurring sin – and bondage to the cycle of life/death. Life lost in battle is glorious for a solider – he dies in the performance of his duty. It is not so short-sighted as the philosophies of those who babble on and on about “world peace”, while all the time claiming their right to free will and the rights of individuals. Free will is diametrically opposed to a condition of “peace” where everyone cooperates for a greater good. Free will, especially when ruled by the lower ego, seeks the greatest good for the individual. World peace implies that people subdue what’s good for themselves in order to ensure the continuity of the greater good of the world. In a world where absolute greed exists, you also have “world peace” of sorts – but that assumes you accept that battle is peaceful. The battle between two things, in which the strongest wins – can also be seen as a kind of peace in and of itself. I’m not saying that either situation is good or bad – there is a balance to be struck – and at the end of the day, nothing is actually wrong with the world. Hinduism simply says that it is not the world that is messed up, but our view of it. Things cannot be other than what they are, given who/what/how we are. We simply have to find our own peace within ourselves, and not let the tempest of the world shake us from that center – but at the same time, we must not sink into apathy – balance (buddhi yoga) – is key.

Forgive any errors in sentence structure, my computer is shit, and I don’t have patience to correct all of this.

We also talked about this here.

Hmmm, so Sita’s abduction provided Rama a smoking-gun reason to attack Lanka rather than launching an outright pre-emptive war. That way, it also made it a whole lot easier to form a coalition with the monkey and bear armies. Nice.

Has anyone else read Kamal Haasan’s short story based on Sita’s trial by fire? There’s a decentish translation here.

I like that. I need to think a bit more over that idea.

An addendum to my previous sentence would be…..”or for the defence of those unable to defend themselves”.

In the case of the latter, it still begs the question of exactly what made Ravana so “bad”. Just having a huge ego ? Arrogance isn’t sufficient reason to kill someone. Because he was tyrannical towards his subjects/citizens, or had engaged in unwarranted acts of aggression against other kingdoms (not just Ayodhya) ? If either (or both) of these were true, then one could suggest that in fact Ravana himself had still engaged in the “first move”, and that Rama’s subsequent war against him was justified. However, the question of why he should have waited until Sita was abducted before launching the offensive would still be valid in this case.

According to most standard Ramayanas, Sita was found by King Janaka of Mithila while ploughing a field as part of a ceremony. Her origins are not explained. There are alternative Ramayanas which claim her to be Ravana’s daughter. I read about these in ‘Many Ramayanas’ by Paula Richman, which was actually mentioned on this blog. The book is available online in its entirety.

Sita was born so there would be a reason to kill Ravana–Ravana was told [in classic Hindu Epic Style] that his daughter would cause his death

In that vein, one could actually credit the ‘real’ reason for Ravana’s death to his own sister, Soorpanakha. Didn’t Ravana kidnap Sita ostensibly in revenge for his sister’s gruesome mutiliation by Ram and Lakshman?

My point is that the ‘real reason’ explanations are not entirely satisfactory, IMHO, because they can be taken to absurd lengths. They are definitely valid interpretations, of course.

Because force, especially if it involves invading someone else’s territory, should only be used in self-defence and after the opponent has “made the first move” ?

I like that. I need to think a bit more over that idea.

I’ve never heard that before either, although it does put a somewhat Oedipal Greek-tragedy spin on the story, doesn’t it ?

References verifying this statement would probably be a good idea at this point, if anyone knows of any suitable sources…..

Sita was born so there would be a reason to kill Ravana

Hmmm. Why should Ravana be killed ? Because he was “so evil” ? If so, then why not launch a pre-emptive attack rather than wait for Sita to be kidnapped ?

Hmmm (again). Because force, especially if it involves invading someone else’s territory, should only be used in self-defence and after the opponent has “made the first move” ? If so, there are some interesting parallels to certain world events in recent times……

Waaahhh come again?

Sita was Ravana ‘s daughter ????????