Akaal_Das

I am a Sikh, it’s my crime…

“I am a SIKH” kill me and call it…. “COLLATERAL DAMAGE”

imprison me and call it…. “SECURITY MEASURES”

exile my people and masses and call it… “NEW MIDDLE EAST”

Rob my resources, Invade my land, Alter my leadership and call it…. “DEMOCRACY”

Destroy My Sanctum Santorium call it… “DESH KI AKHANDTA”

I deserve to be humiliated.

I deserve to be harassed.

I deserve to be mauled.

I deserve to be killed.

Just because…. “I AM A SIKH”

I demand my rights, it is my crime.

I demand my dignity, it is my crime.

I demand life, it is my crime.

I am a SIKH, it is my crime.

but i feel proud to commit this crime.

I want to live, but a living life.

Not a dead man’s life.

I can die struggling for freedom rather than giving it up and living.

-http://www.sikhsiyasat.net/2010/08/15/sikhs-in-independent-india/#comment-534

akaaaaaaaaaaaaal takhat to ai avaaj...

Khalasthan Zindabad.

Any one knows the exact words of Iqbal after a Muslim was sentence to death for killing Arya Samaji

Mudate Gujri Hai Ramzo Gum Sehte Hue

Ab sharam se aati hai is Vatan ko Vatan kehte hue.

I make same changes Mudate Guzri Hai Hinduo ka Zulme Zabar Sehte hue

Ab Sharam se Aati Is Hindusthan ko Apna Vatan Kehte hue.

In haryana dalits are regularly attacked and killed yet

they hardly retaliate or threaten to leave hinduism On the other hand in Punjab Dalits and jat sikhs regularly clash and dalits always threaten to leave sikhsim and some even create their new religion

Majority of Dalits in Punjab are Hindus not Sikhs and the so called Ravidasia always register themself as Adi Dharmi a Hindu Scdule Caste . I dont know why no Sikhs organisation comeout for Dalit Support. Sikhs supported Gujjars against State government . I dont know how many of you knows that Sikhs Helped christians when Hindu mob attack them in Haryana .

http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/3d8d6eacce83bad8872564280070c2b3/118527a9dd5ef2a2872569e00040916f!OpenDocument

Hanji Harishander ji.

Veer ji there must be a way to free download this book .

I have heard about a book called "War of civilization" this book is about the current Islmic terroism . As per the writter of the book there is war going on between Muslims and Christians.

I want to download this book please provide link.

A view of a Sikh:

(http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_2/0050.html)

What do you Sikhs think of this?

Another confused Sanatani . These are biggest threat to Sikhi.

Only a minority of Hindu's hate sikhs.Yes they do hate muslims but they don't put sikhs in the bracket of muslims.

Also are you joking about sikhs not getting rooms in Delhi.Of course some people do have reservation against sikhs but then some have against Bihari's and others so at last it depend on the landlord and in present environment sikhs hardly face discrimination in gEtting rooms

kaka Ji where are u staying ? I live in Delhi and i am born and bought up in Delhi , dont tell me what Hindus thinks of Sikhs . Just two months back i was trying to find a house on rent for my cousin i was openly said at my face by Hindu Punjabi Arora that we dont give house to Sardars . This happend in West Delhi where 75 % of Sikhs lives.

For Sanatani Sikhs - These people dont know what they are , they want to be Sikh but dont want to leave Hinduism . Thanks to westen Sikhs , these fakes have been exposed.

How many of u have heard katha by Maskeen ji on shahbad " Hindu Anna Turk Kana "

Very true Tony hp Jee. Although most Hindus were good people. But the Congressi/Arya Samaji Punjabi Hindus before 1984 were a very aggressively anti Sikh. Before 1984 the tune of the Sikhs was that of Sikh-Hindu reconciliation. Sikhs would try their best in trying to flatter the Hindus. Sikhs were bending over backwards to please Hindus into accepting Punjab’s rights. But when Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala came to the scene, he did not care about being politically correct. He said it the way it was. The Arya Samaji/Congressi media in Jalandhar would do all they could to demonise Sant Bhindrawala.

Back then, Sikhs in the cities were a small minority. After operation blue star, in the big cities of Punjab such as Ludhiana city there were some areas where Sikhs would fearful to enter, Hindu goondas were very powerful in those areas. Sikh militancy did have a humbling effect on the North Indian Hindu population even to this day.

Right said Hindus hate sikhs alot . Even today finding a house on rent is difficult in places like Delhi. I dont understand what these Hinduas want . Hatred for Sikhs and Muslims is in Hindu Blood . Check out the report from Indian Minority Commission which Show Muslims and Sikhs suffers most from Raceism in India. Down with Hindu Stan . China shold should takeover this country to teach Hindus a lesson.

The writer teaches history at Miranda House, New Delhi. She comes from the Punjabi Brahmin family.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/03/04/stories/2003030400951000.htm

Many Shashtras and many Simirtis have I seen and searched them all. Nanak, they equal not Lord God's invaluable Name.” (Ang 265)

“You worship gods and goddesses, but you do not know the Supreme Lord God. Says Kabeer, you have not remembered the Lord who has no ancestors; you are clinging to your corrupt ways.” (Ang 332)

“The Pandits, the religious scholars, the teachers and astrologers, and those who endlessly read the Puraanas, do not know what is within; God is hidden deep within them. || 4 ||” (Ang 419)

“The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across? ||2||” Ang 556

“Why worship gods and goddesses, O Siblings of Destiny? What can we ask of them? What can they give us? The stone gods are washed with water, O Siblings of Destiny, but they just sink in the water.” (Ang 637)

"The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye. The spiritual teacher is wiser than both of them." (Ang 875)

"I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines. I serve the One Lord, and not any other." (Ang 1136)

"I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers. I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers." (Ang 1136)

"I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim." (Ang 1136)

"I have abandoned both the Pandits, the Hindu religious scholars, and the Mullahs, the Muslim priests. ||1||Pause|| I weave and weave, and wear what I weave. Where egotism does not exist, there I sing God's Praises. ||2|| Whatever the Pandits and Mullahs have written, I reject; I do not accept any of it. ||3||" (Ang 1158)

"They who say the stone is a god; in vain is their service. He who falls at the feet of the stone; vain goes his labor. My Lord ever speaks. The Lord gives gifts to all the living beings. The Lord is within, but the blind one knows not. Deluded by doubt, he is caught in a noose. The stone speaks not, nor gives anything. In vain are the ceremonies of the idolater, and fruitless his service." (Ang 1160)

"The blind ignorant ones stray in doubt and so deluded, deluded they pluck flowers for worship. They worship the lifeless stones and adore tombs. Their service all goes in vain." (Ang 1264)

If the Lord Allah lives only in the mosque, then to whom does the rest of the world belong? According to the Hindus, the Lord's Name abides in the idol, but there is no truth in either of these claims. ||1|| (Ang 1349)

"I do not accept Ganesha as important. I do not meditate on Krishna, neither on Vishnu. I do not hear them and do not recognize them. My love is with the Lotus feet of God. He is my protector, the Supreme Lord. I am dust of his Lotus feet." (Guru Gobind Singh)

"Mahadev called himself eternal; Vishnu called himself Supreme, Brahma called himself lord; none of them realized the Transcendent Lord. All those sages created by Hari, They propagated their own Simritis, the way by which one can enshrine the Lotus feet of Hari in mind, they did not adopt that way of meditation. Brahma produced the four Vedas but those who love the Lotus-feet of Hari rest outside the attachment of the Vedas. Prophet Mohammad was created by the Lord. He was made sovereign of Arabia. He also created a new Dharma and the circumcised (Muslims) became supreme. All were forced to meditate on his name (Mohammad Rasul). Nobody remembered the Name of the True Lord. Then I (Hari) adopted you as my Son so that you may start the Khalsa Panth. Everywhere you spread the Dharma and instruct the public not to practice chicanery. What the Hari says I (Gobind Singh) utter that, and do not subject myself to anybody’s influence. We do not worship stones, neither adopt various garbs. We do not keep matted hair nor wear ear rings. We do not subject ourselves to anyone’s influence. We perform whatever God ordains. I have come for this in the world. The Lord sent (me) to uphold Dharma. All the Avtars (Prophets) that have been before proclaimed themselves only." (Bachittar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh Ji)

"Some say the Muslim rosary, others meditate by Hindu Mala. Some read Puranas, others read Quran. Both waste themselves in the love of arguments. Lord is distinct from both." (Bachittar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh Ji)

"Ever since I have grasped Your feet, I have not thought of anybody else.

I do not accept the doctrines enunciated by various faiths, believing in Ram, Rahim, Puranas and Qoran.

The Simritis, Shastras and Vedas mention different concepts but I do not subscribe to any of them.

O God, the Sword-bearer (of justice)! With Your Grace, all that has been uttered by me has been done under Your command.

Dohra!

I have shunned every door and have entered Your door

Please hold my arm and keep my honour, Gobind is ever Your slave." (Raam Avtar, Guru Gobind Singh)

Guru Gobind SIngh Ji on Khalsa

Day and night they meditate on the Light manifest. Accept the One, and they do not contemplate anyone else. In complete love they keep the form. They never keep faith in fasts, graves, Mausoleums, pilgrimages, ritual charity, false compassion, austerity, false constraints. Except the one, the Lord, they do not recognize anyone. When the Light illuminates the Mind, only then Khalsa is known, distinct and pure. (33 Swaiyas)

The writer teaches history at Miranda House, New Delhi. She comes from the Punjabi Brahmin family.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/03/04/stories/2003030400951000.htm

Bhai Mani Singh writes in Gian Ratanavali:

Hajees asked Baba Nanak, "O Saint, are you a Hindu or Moslem?" Then Baba Nanak replied, "I am witness for both."

Gur Partap Sooraj Parkash:

First there were Hindus and Muslims, take note, there are three now. (GurPartapSurya)

On his way towards Deccan, Guru Gobind Singh reached Pushkar .The discussion that took place there is recorded this way in Surya Prakash.

Brahmins, Merchants and others came with Pandit Chaitin. Having made salutation they sat down in the assembly and asked, “What is their Caste? How we recognize them. Your companions wear unshorn hair, what we can say is their Caste? There are many new garbs, but none of them is Hindu or Moslem.” Having heard that Guru replied, “Khalsa is the third Panth in the world. It is distinct from Hindus and Moslems. They are servants of the Eternal, Immortal.” When Guru Gobind Singh met the Emperor Bahadur Shah, this discussion transpired.

Bahadur Shah said, “There are two religions, Hindus and Moslems, What appeals to you? On what you have faith, Hinduism or Islam?”

To that Guru Gobind Singh replied, "Hindu, Moslems whatever way they follow we wish them both well. The Moslems preach fasting; prayer call and five prayers are supreme for them. Hindus perform Sandhya, adoration and rites of stone Gods, and such others are acceptable to Hindus. We consider both the same way abandoning all others; we have established the Khalsa as the third (religion). Without distinction we abandon all else and seek the shelter of the Eternal, the Purusha." (Gur Pratap Surya)

Rehatnamas:

Khalsa should stay distinct from Hindus and Moslems. (Rehatnama Bhai Chaupa Singh-l0)

Khalsa should remove the domination (influence) of Hindus and Moslems. (Rehatnama Bhai Daya Singh-11)

Bhagat Ratnavli:

Not only the baptized Sikhs are separate from Hindus and others, but also stories of Sahajdhari Sikhs tell us that they abandoned other rites and customs and adopted Gurmat. For this see the explanation of the 11th Var of Bhai Gurdas. (Bhagat Ratanavali by Bhai Mani Singh)

Sikhs addressed their supplication, "O True King, the Pundits in Kashmir do not allow the Sikhs to read Bani (Word) of the Guru. They say that Sanskrit is the language of the Gods and the vernacular is the language of mortals. You have abandoned the daily rites and so we are not going to have daily relations with you." Then the Guru asked Sodhi Madho to go to Kashmir and preach Sikhism there.

Gur Bilas and Panth Parkash:

To the two religions was added the Third. Taking the support of Almighty, Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa Panth, above the Hindus and Moslems. "Forgetting all ways adopt the Khalsa Panth,” said the Tenth Guru, the Light Incarnate. (Gur Bilas)

Again distinct from the Hindus and Moslems, He said, "Establish I this Panth, powerful indeed." (Panth Parkash)

Conversation between Nadir Shah and Governor of Lahore

It (Khalsa Panth) is distinct from Hindus and Moslems. Distinct and marvelous is their sect. They perform marriage ceremony neither like Hindus nor like Moslems.

Their marriage is Anand ceremony. When a Singh (man) or Singhni (woman) dies, they prepare sacred food and distribute it. They do not perform the Hindu rites and they do not throw the bones (of the dead) in the Ganges. On the tenth day they complete the reading of the Granth and distribute the offerings to the poor. They do not wear the sacred thread, nor put the mark on their forehead. They never worship idols. They worship the One Almighty and do not make obeisance to anyone else. Vedas, Puranas and other (Semitic) books, they do not accept the authority of any. Whatever Guru Nanak said, they keep faith on that. From the same vessel they administer Amrit (baptismal water) to everyone. They all eat together and live like true brothers. They leave behind all caste, Varna, family names, Karma and Dharma of the ancestors. On the contrary, if any Sikh comes to our religion (Islam), on getting the opportunity he goes back and baptizing him they absorb him in their religion.

Tat Khalsa is the representation of the Guru “(they say) it is beyond the coming and going through the life cycles. Hindus are blind, Muslims are one eyed, but really sages are the Sikhs of the Guru” distinct from Hindus and Moslems.

All the customs are different, among them. They do not acknowledge the ghosts at all. They do not recognize graves and cemeteries. They do not go to the Ganges for pilgrimage. They do not consider impure puerperium (state after child birth).

They do not wear the Janeau and do not put the sacred mark. They do not abide by the rites of the Hindus like keeping a Bodi (tuft of hair), Dhoti and Rosary of Tulsi, performing Hom, or Shradh.

They consider their own religion to be better and if somebody calls them Hindu they get angry. They have abandoned all the customs of the Hindus. They live like real brothers, and respect each other. They are greatly united.

A Sikh always sacrifices himself for other Sikhs gladly in time of need.

Another Historic Account:

Bhai Dhesi and Bhai Jodha sought protection of Guru Arjan. They addressed their appeal thus, "O True King, the Pundits do not let us sit in Pangat. They complain, in spite of being Brahmins we have become disciples (Sikhs) of a Kshatriya. We have abandoned the language of the Gods in the Vedas and sing the songs of the Guru in Vernacular, having abandoned Janam Ashtmi, Shivratri, Ekadsi, we feed Sikhs. We have abandoned Gyatri, Tarpan, Sandhya, Pind, Patal, rites of birth and death and perform the Sikh prayer and distribute Karah Prasad after Ardas, as the rites of the dead. O Protector of the humble we have come to your shelter. You have saved us. The egoist Brahman has gone away from us. We have received gnosis and name of the Lord."

The writer teaches history at Miranda House, New Delhi. She comes from the Punjabi Brahmin family.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/03/04/stories/2003030400951000.htm

Hindu: In the Guru Granth Sahib it is written “Hindu Salahee Salah”, meaning all praise to Hindus (Vaar Aasa, Ang 465).

Sikh: Dear Hindu, do not try to deceive Sikhs by quoting half a phrase. In this hymn the Guru has not described the greatness of the Hindus. Consider it clearly, the hymn says:

Shalok, First Mehl:

The Muslims praise the Islamic law; they read and reflect upon it.

The Lord's bound servants are those who bind themselves to see the Lord's Vision.

The Hindus praise the Praiseworthy Lord; the Blessed Vision of His Darshan, His form is incomparable.

They bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, making offerings of flowers, and burning incense before idols.

The Yogis meditate on the absolute Lord there; they call the Creator the Unseen Lord.

But to the subtle image of the Immaculate Name, they apply the form of a body.

In the minds of the virtuous, contentment is produced, thinking about their giving.

They give and give, but ask a thousand-fold more, and hope that the world will honor them.

The thieves, adulterers, perjurers, evil-doers and sinners

- after using up what good karma they had, they depart; have they done any good deeds here at all?

There are beings and creatures in the water and on the land, in the worlds and universes, form upon form.

Whatever they say, You know; You care for them all.

O Nanak, the hunger of the devotees is to praise You; the True Name is their only support.

They live in eternal bliss, day and night; they are the dust of the feet of the virtuous. ||1||

Where is the greatness of the Hindu religion in the above hymn?

Hindu: Guru Gobind Singh in his Chhants calls Sikhs as Hindus.

ਸਗਲ ਜਗਤ ਮੇਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਗਾਜੈ । ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਗਲ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ ।

“In the whole world will roar the Khalsa Panth. Hindu dharma will flourish and all else will disappear.”

My dear Khalsa friend, Sikh religion is a Panth (sect) of Hindus as are Bairagis etc. they are not a Quam (distinct identity). In fact, you are making noise for nothing because you do not understand the meaning of Quam and Panth (sect). Only that is a Quam that is large in number but you are only a few million.

Sikh: My dear Hindu friend, the Chhant is not of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is written of Bhai Sukha Singh, a priest of Patna and devotee of Durga. Those who are familiar with the writings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji recognize that words used in the given source were never used by the Guru Ji in his poetry.

Still if you believe that the Chhants are the writings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji then read the following which convey just the opposite meaning:

ਮੜ੍ਹੀ ਗੋਰ ਦੇਵਲ ਮਸੀਤਾਂ ਗਿਰਾਯੰ । ਤੁਹੀਂ ਏਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪਾਯੰ ।

Graves, Hindu temples and Mosques be destroyed and that only Eternal, Hari is to be worshiped.

ਮਿਟੇਂ ਵੇਦ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਅਠਾਰਾਂ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ । ਮਿਟੇਂ ਬਾਂਗ ਸਲਵਾਤ ਸੁੰਨਤ ਕੁਰਾਨਾਂ ।

That all Vedas, Shashtras and Puranas to be destroyed. Destroy prayer call, circumcision and Quran.

ਸਗਲ ਜਗਤ ਮੇਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਗਾਜੈ । ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਗਲ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ ।

In the whole world will roar the Khalsa Panth. Dharma will flourish and all else ‘Dund’ (Hindu and Islam) will disappear.

Now will you please tell me, what is that Hindu dharma in support of which you quote these Chhants and that Dharma will prevail after all the Hindu temples, Shashtras, Puranas have been destroyed? You also know the meaning of the word ‘Dund’. It means no other religion remains, Hindu or Moslem. Only Khalsa Panth will remain. Moreover you have said that Sikhi is a sect not a Quam. We quote one more Chhant.

ਦੁਹੂੰ ਪੰਥ ਮੇਂ ਕਪਟ ਵਿਦਯਾ ਚਲਾਨੀ । ਬਹੁਰ ਤੀਸਰਾ ਪੰਥ ਕੀਜੈ ਪ੍ਰਧਾਨੀ ।

There is too much corruption in the two religions (Hindu and Islam). The third Panth (Khalsa) is made prominent.

ਕਰੋਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਤੀਸਰ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸਾ । ਜਗੈਂ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੋਧੈ ਧਰੈਂ ਨੀਲ ਭੇਸਾ ।

The Khalsa Panth is established. Sikh warriors flourish in the world, blue in their wearing.

Dear friend, the Chhants accepted by you call even the Hindus and Moslems as two Panths not Quam. What can I say more? Would you please tell me if the word ‘Quam’ just like the word ‘Hindu’ is from (in your dictionary) the Sanskrit language?

I would also like to enquire from you that what is the number required (of disciples) for a Dharma to become a Quam? And at what numerical strength Christians and Moslems were accepted as Quams?

Hindu: In your Sakhis (religious biographies) many stories prove Sikhs to be Hindus. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji sacrificed himself for Brahmins. This proves that Sikhs are Hindus.

Sikh: It has been clearly explained, as far as the Sikhs are concerned, from Gurbani and acceptable Sikh historic texts. There is no need of repetition. We accept only that Sakhis as a (valid) reference which is not against Gurbani.

To help the defenseless and troubled is the cardinal principle of Sikh religion. The compassionate Guru sacrificed himself to remove the injustice and to help those who sought refuge, which does not prove that the Gurus were Hindus. The Guru showed to Aurangzeb that his desire was to make one religion from two, i.e., to convert Hindus to Islam, but this is the Will of the Almighty Waheguru that there will be the third religion Khalsa Panth distinct from the two. The Guru did not sacrifice for Brahmins but for the whole world, as it is shown in Bachittar Natak.

He did this (sacrifice) for the sake of the Saints. He gave his head and did not utter a sigh.

You cannot say that the word ‘Sadh’ or ‘Saint’ means Hindu. My dear Hindu brother the instruction of the Guru to Sikhs is to help the weak and defenseless. Accepting this instruction of the Guru the acts of charity and favor that the Sikhs have done for the country and the sacrifices they have offered to remove injustice, history is witness to that. There is no need for me to narrate that. We consider you (Hindus), Moslems and Christians as well our own part and treat everyone in a brotherly fashion and would forever like to do that. But from religious point of view we (Sikhs) are not Hindus because our beliefs, worship and religious symbols, according to the principles of Quam are different from those of yours. Therefore the Sikh Quam is distinct like Moslems, Hindus and Christians.

LORD INDRA THE RAVENOUS DOG-EATER

Lord Indra, although the King of Vedic Hindu Gods, is a totally hopeless character:

"[indra:]'Because I was in desperate straits, I cooked the entrails of a dog, and I found no one among the gods to help me. I saw my woman dishonoured. Then the eagle brought the honey (soma) to me.' " -- Rig Veda 4:18:13.

HINDUISM TEACHES THAT WOMEN PRODUCE SEMEN

Hinduism claims that women are not only like whores by nature (ref. Manusmrti 9:14-18), but also amazingly produce semen according to the sacred dharmasastra:

"A male child is born when the semen of the man is greater (than that of the woman), and a female child when (the semen) of the woman is greater (than that of the man); if both are equal, a hermaphrodite is born, or a boy and a girl; and if (the semen) is weak or scanty, the opposite will occur." -- Manusmrti 3:49.

HINDU GODS LUST OVER A NYMPH

An apsaras is sent to seduce two demons, but instead the Hindu Gods become seduced by this nymph:

"Once the apsaras Tilottama was sent to seduce two demons from their tapas. While she danced before them, Siva and Indra wanted to see more of her, and for this purpose Siva became four-faced and Indra thousand-eyed." -- Mahabharata I:203:15-26; cf. Skanda Purana 5:3:150:18, 6:153:2-27.

LORD INDRA RAPES GAUTAMA'S WIFE

".... Indra raped Ahalya and was cursed by her husband, the sage Gautama, to lose all his prosperity ...." -- Brahmavaivarta Purana 4:47:11-45.

WHY THE GODS VANISHED

"When gods and men lived together in the world, men kept asking the gods for all that they lacked, saying,'We don't have this. Let us have it.' The gods began to hate all these demands, and they vanished." -- Satapatha Brahmana 2:3:4:4.

First of all what do you mean by 'true'. If you mean this in a historical sense, than it is not true. This event did not occur at a physical location at a particular time.

The scene you have described is a variation of a particular mythological story. The actors in this 'story' are not people like you or me. They are hypostatized or ideas made into substance. So rape incest and other immoral goings on that occur in mythologies cannot be judged from the human point of view. These occurrences are signs for events that occur and are occurring in the 'other world'. By the other world, I mean the world of archetypes or of pure forms. The world we live in is a mixed up world a world of confusion, a false world, where nothing is stable. Certain myths describe the worlds that are of a higher order of truth/reality than this false one. The strange paradoxical stories we find in ithihas' like Ramayana and Mahabharata are narrations of actual real-er events than we are able to see. It is ironic and meaningful that the word 'myth' has a derogatory meaning in todays' world.

I could go on as to how humans are the means through which certain battles are fought But i don't think this is what you wanted to hear - So yes the bhavishya Purana is considered a late concoction and spurious.

Ok , i understand , Sikhs should not give repect to these devte , who are full of Kaam and Krodh.

Lord Brahma, Visnu & Siva rape Anasuya and are cursed. This is also an origin of the holy Shiv linga as Siva is cursed to be worshipped as the linga (phallus):

"One day the sage Atri was performing tapas with his wife Anasuya. Brahma, Visnu, and Siva came and offered him a boon, but Atri remained silent, meditating. Then the three gods went to Anasuya. Siva had his linga in his hand, Visnu was full of erotic feeling, and Brahma was beside himself with desire, saying to Anasuya,'Make love with me or I will die.' When she heard this coarse speech, Anasuya made no reply, for, although she feared the anger of the gods, she was true to her husband. But they were overcome with delusion, and they raped her by force. Then she became angry and she cursed Siva to be worshipped as a linga, Brahma to be worshipped in the form of a head, and Visnu to be worshipped as feet, in order to ridicule them all, and she cursed them all to be reborn as her sons. Because of this, Siva was reborn as Durvasas." -- Bhavisya Purana 3:4:17:67-78.

Why Gita why not Bible and Quran ? The problem with Sikhs specially so called Sanatan Sikhs is they are still under the influence of Hinduism .

Just like Warish Shah Heer Ranjha is story , Valmiki Ramayan is story too . Open ur eyes Singho.

How to contact Khalsa Aid in delhi ? I want to donate but i dont trust these online donation .

Instaed of cursing Singhsabha.com why dont u answer their questions . Which i doubt u can . They show that Chandi charitar is copy paste from Markand puran what more proof u want. I am waiting for a good reply Singo.

Who did I kill? Names, dates, locations please. Otherwise don't falsely and blindly accuse.

Hindus involved in genocide . 1984 , Gujrat 2002 , Bombay 1993 and very recent Orissa . So Hindus who is ur next target ? Do u want to start the cycle agains Dalits , Budhists Sikhs and Christians . One by one Killing minorities and accept us say Long Live India .

The issue is about the validity of Sikh-Hindu Unity, and not merely some forum. Besides of which there are a thousand insulting idiots who are neither representative of Sikhi or Hindu Dharm, as I've said before. My challenge was for denouncing Sikh-Hindu Unity efforts by comments on this forum, and here I am told:

Why blame me personally for every injustice and evil thing your minds can imagine? What did I have to do with it? Do you think I go around driving tanks in my spare time waiting to park it in some Gurdwara? You cannot forgive? Where is the offense? This is the propaganda to make Hindu religion into Hindustani politics because ignorant thugs and corrupt political leaders wanted to destroy communal harmony.

But I am not guilty of some crime against you where rude and insulting speech intended to abuse my person is some representation Of Khalsa Sikhi either.

Typical Hindu after killing so many people asking where is the offence.

Listen this for Hindu offence and Sikh rebellion . Who started this we or u

http://sikhsangeet.c...-Star-1984.html

and

Why is it so hard for these fake Sikhs who in reality are vaishnites that Gurmat is against worshiping Devtas.

They talk about long hair but why they forgot that Muslims , jews and Christians warriors used to have long hair too.

All devtas are myths not more then that . Arabian Night cant be true.

There is no such thing called Sanatan Sikhism. In Sikhi there is no Sanatan , Puratan or Navintam.

Leave us alone ,u indus have destroyed our Gurdwaras , u people had killed our Brothers , raped our sisters and burn our childreen./

What u want know ?

We Sikhs are not Snakes but we have memmory of snake . Just Like snake we never forgive our enemy.

Start this topic inSikh Sangat forum u will get the reply in the language u people understand.

And Stop calling our martyers terrorist. Terrorist r u people who destroyed budhissm and unlimited tribal relegion.

When we were fighting against unjustice of Mughals we were hero and when we raise arms aginst Hindu injustice against Sikh we become terrorist. We dont need character certificate from Hindus.

Guru mera baksh de koum nu ik Bhindranwale.

And More

THE RIDDLE OF RAMA AND KRISHNA

Rama is the hero of the Ramayana whose author is Valmiki. The story of the Ramayana is a very short one. Besides it is simple and in itself there is nothing sensational about it.

Rama is the son of Dasharatha, the king of Ayodhya, the modern Banares. Dasharatha had three wives, Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra besides several hundred concubines. Kaikeyi had married Dasharatha on terms which were at the time of marriage unspecified and which Dasharatha was bound to fulfill whenever he was called upon by Kaikeyi to do so.

Dasharatha was childless for a long time. An heir to the throne was ardently desired by him. Seeing that he was unable to have a son with any of his three wives he decided to perform a Putreshti Yajna and called the sage Shrung at the sacrifice who prepared pandas and gave the three wives of Dasharatha to eat them. After they ate the pandas the three wives became pregnant and gave birth to sons. Kausalya gave birth to Rama, Kaikeyi gave birth to Bharatha and Sumitra gave birth to two sons, Laxman and Satrughana. In due course Rama was married to Sita.

When Rama came of age, Dasharatha thought of resigning the throne in favour of Rama and retiring from kingship. While this was being settled Kaikeyi raised the question of rendering her satisfaction of the terms on which she had married Dasharatha. On being asked to state her terms she demanded that her son Bharata should be installed on the throne in preference to Rama and that Rama should live in the forest for 12 years. Dasharatha, with great reluctance, agreed. Baharata became king of Ayodhya and Rama accompanied by his wife Sita and his step brother Laxman went to live in the forest.

Ravana, the king of Lanka, kidnapped Sita and took her away and kept her in his palace intending to make her one of his wives. Rama and Laxman than started search of Sita. On the way they meet Sugriva and Hanuman, two leading personages of the Vanara (monkey) race and formed friendship with them. With their help they marched on Lanka, defeated Ravana in the battle and rescued Sita. Rama returned with Laxman and Sita to Ayodhya. By the time twelve years had elapsed and the term prescribed by Kaikeyi was fulfilled, with the result that Bharata gave up the throne and in his place Rama became the king of Ayodhya.

Such is the brief outline of the story of the Ramayana as told by Valmiki.

There is nothing in this story to make Rama the object of worship. He is only a dutiful son. But Valmiki saw something extraordinary in Rama and that is why he undertook to compose the Ramayana. Valmiki asked Narada the following question:

Tell me Oh! Narada, who is the most accomplished man on earth at the present time?" And then he goes on to elaborate what he means by accomplished man. He defines his accomplished man as:

"Powerful, one who knows the secret of religion, one who knows gratitude, truthful, one who is ready to sacrifice his self interest even when in distress to fulfill a religious vow, virtuous in his conduct, eager to safeguard the interests of all, strong, pleasing in appearance with power of self-control, able to subdue anger, illustrious, with no jealousy for the prosperity of others, and in war able to strike terror in the hearts of Gods."

Narada then asks for time to consider and after mature deliberation tells him that the only person who can be said to possess these virtues is Rama, the son of Dasharatha.

It is because of his virtues that Rama has come to be defied. But is Rama a worthy personality of deification? Let those who accept him as an object of worship as a God consider the following facts:

Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical gloss to cover up the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung, although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife. In any case his birth, if not disreputable in its origin, is certainly unnatural.

There are other incidents connected with the birth of Rama the unsavory character of which it will be difficult to deny.

Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu, and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha. The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu be a complete success, arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him. There were none existing then.

The Gods agreed to carry out the command to Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against Apsaras who were prostitutes, not only against the unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras and produced the Vanaras who became the associates of Rama.

Rama's birth is thus accompanied by general debauchery if not in his case certainly in the case of his associates. His marriage to Sita is not above comment. According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha. The Ramayana of Valmiki does not agree with the relationship mentioned in Buddha Ramayana. According to Valmiki, Sita was the daughter of the king Janaka of Videha and therefore not a sister of Rama. This is not convincing for even according to Valmiki she is not the natural born daughter of Janaka but a child found by a farmer in his field while ploughing it and was presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janaka. It was therefore in a superficial sense that Sita could be said to be daughter of Janaka.

The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules of marriage. If the story is true, then Rama's marriage to Sita is no ideal to be copied.

In another sense Rama's marriage was not an ideal marriage which could be copied. One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common. For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers to the many wives of Rama. These were of course in addition to his many concubines. In this he was the true son of his nominal father Dasharatha who had not only the wives referred to above but many others.

Let us next consider his character as an individual and as a king.

In speaking of him as an individual, I will refer to only two incidents - one relating to his treatment of Vali and other relating to his treatment of his own wife Sita. First, let us consider the incident of Vali.

Vali and Sugriva were two brothers. They belonged to the Vanar race and came from a ruling family, which had its own kingdom the capital of which was Kishkindha. At the time when Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Vali was reigning at Kishkindha. While Vali was on the throne he was engaged in a war with a Rakshasa by name Mayavi. In the personal combat between the two, Mayavi ran for his life. Both Vali and Sugriva pursued him. Mayavi entered into a deep cavity in the earth. Vali asked Sugriva to wait at the mouth of the cavity and he went inside. After sometime a flood of blood came from inside the cavity. Sugriva concluded that Vali must have been killed by Mayavi and came to Kishkindha and got himself declared king in place of Vali and made Hanuman his Prime Minister.

As a matter of fact, Vali was not killed. It was Mayavi who was killed by Vali. Vali came out of the cavity but did not find Sugriva there. He proceeded to Kishkindha and to his great surprise he found that Sugriva had proclaimed himself king. Vali naturally became enraged at this act of treachery on the part of his brother Sugriva and he had good ground to be. Sugriva should have ascertained, should not merely have assumed, that Vali was dead. Secondly, Vali had a son by name Angad whom Sugriva should have made the king as the ligitimate heir of Vali. He did neither of the two things. His was a clear case of usurpation. Vali drove out Sugriva and took back the throne. The two brothers became mortal enemies.

This occurred just after Ravana had kidnapped Sita. Rama and Laxman were wandering in search of her. Sugriva and Hanuman were wandering in search of friends who could help them regain the throne from Vali. The two parties met quite accidentally. After informing each other of their difficulties, a pact was arrived at between the two. It was agreed that Rama should help Sugriva to kill Vali and to establish him on the throne of Kishkinda. On the part of Sugriva and Hanuman it was agreed that they should help Rama to regain Sita. To enable Rama to fulfill his part of the pact it was planned that Sugriva should wear a garland around his neck as to be easily distinguishable to Rama from Vali and that while the duel was going on Rama should conceal himself behind a tree and then shoot an arrow at Vali and kill him. Accordingly a duel was arranged, Sugriva with a garland around his neck, while the duel was on, Rama, standing behind a tree, shot Vali with his arrow and opened the way for Surgiva to be the king of Kiskinda.

This murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was a most cowardly act, for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.

Consider his treatment of his own wife Sita. With the army collected for him by Sugriva and Hanuman, Rama invades Lanka. There too he plays the same mean part as he did between the two brothers, Vali and Sugriva. He takes the help of Vibhishana, the brother of Ravana, promising him to kill Ravana and his son and place him on the vacant throne. Rama kills Ravana and his son Indrajit. The first thing Rama does after the fight was to give a descent burial to the dead body of Ravana. Thereafter he interested himself in the coronation of Vibhishana and it was after the coronation that he sends Hanuman to Sita to inform her that he, Laxman and Sugriva have killed Ravana.

Even when the coronation was over he did not go himself but he sent Hanuman. And what was the message he sent him with? He did not ask Hanuman to bring her. He asked him to inform her that he was hale and hearty. It was Sita who expressed to Hanuman her desire to see Rama. Rama did not go to see Sita, his own wife who was kidnapped and confined by Ravana for more than 10 months. Sita went to him and what did Rama say to Sita when he saw her? It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address his wife in such dire distress as Ram did to Sita when he met her at Lanka if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki. This is how Rama addressed het:

"I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy, your captor. I have recovered my honour and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military powers and I am glad my labours have been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour. I did not take this trouble for your sake."

Could there be anything more cruel than this conduct of Rama towards Sita? He does not stop there. He proceeded to tell her:

"I suspect your conduct. You must have been spoiled by Ravana. Your very sight is revolting to me. Oh you daughter of Janaka! I allow you to go anywhere you like. I have nothing to do with you. I conquered you back and I am content for that was my object. I cannot think that Ravana would have failed to enjoy a woman as beautiful as you are."

Quite naturally Sita calls Rama low and mean and tells him quite plainly that she would have committed suicide and saved him all this trouble if when Hanuman first came he had sent her a message that he had abandoned her on the ground that she was kidnapped. To give him no excuse Sita undertakes to prove her purity. She enters the fire and comes out unscathed. The Gods satisfied with this evidence, proclaim that she is pure. It is then that Rama agrees to take her back to Ayodhya.

And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya? Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama. It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen, Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife. This malicious gossip in the town was reported by Bhadra, the Court joker, to Rama. Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means - namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice - in a most treacherous manner. There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to ram on the spur of the moment. The genesis of the idea, the developing of it and the plan of executing are worth some detailed mention.

When Bhadra reports to him the gossip about Sita which had spread in the town, Rama calls his brothers and tells them of his feelings. He tells them Sita's purity and chastity was proved in Lanka, that Gods had vouched for it and that he absolutely believed in her innocence, purity and chastity. "All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset; Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita."

This shows that he was making up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without considering whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame. He of course does not take the manly course of defending his wife and stopping the gossip, which as a king he could have done and which as a husband who was convinced of his wife's innocence he was supposed to do. He yielded to the public gossip and there are not wanting Hindus who use this as ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king when others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch. Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brother but not to Sita, the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action. Eventually the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Women who are carrying exhibit all sorts of cravings for all sorts of things. Rama knew of this. So one day he asked Sita if there was anything for which she was craving. She replied that she would like to live in the vicinity of the Ashrama of a sage on the bank of the river Ganges and live on fruits and roots at least for one night. Rama simply jumped at the suggestion of Sita and said, "Be easy my dear, I shall see that you are sent there tomorrow". Sita treats this as an honest promise. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying out his plan of abandoning Sita. Accordingly he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use this desire of Sita as the opportunity to carry out the plan of abandoning her. He tells his brothers not to intercede on behalf of Sita, and warns them that if they came in his way he would look upon them as his enemies. Then he tells Laxman to take Sita in a chariot next day to the Ashram in the jungle on the bank of the river Ganges and to abandon her there. Laxman did not know how he could muster courage to tell Sita what was decided by Rama. Sensing his difficulty Rama informs Laxman that Sita had already expressed her desire to spend some time in the vicinity of an Ashram on the bank of the river and eased the mind of Laxman. This confabulation took place at night. Next morning Laxman asked Sumanta to yoke the horses to the chariot. Sumanta informs Laxman of having already done so. Laxman then goes into the palace and meets Sita and reminds her of her having expressed the desire to pass some days in the vicinity of an Ashrama and Rama having promised to fulfill the same and tells her of his having been charged by Rama to do the needful in the matter. He points to her the chariot waiting there and says, "Let us go!" Sita jumps into the chariot with her heart full of gratitude to Rama. With Laxman as her companion and Sumanta as coachman, the chariot proceeds to its appointed place. At last, they were on the bank of the Ganges and were ferried across by the fishermen. Laxman fell at Sita's feet, and with hot tears flowing from his eyes he said, "Pardon me, O, blameless queen, for what I am doing. My orders are to abandon you here, for the people blame Rama for keeping you in his house".

Sita, abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle, went for shelter to the Ashrama of Valmiki, which was near about. Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time, Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava. The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule. Never once in those 12 years this 'model husband and loving father' cared to inquire what had happened to Sita - whether she was living or whether she was dead. Twelve years after Rama meets Sita in a strange manner. Rama decided to perform a Yagna and issued an invitation to all the Rishis to attend and take part. For reasons best known to Rama himself no invitation was issued to Valmiki although his Ashram was near to Ayodhya. But Valmiki came to the Yagna of his own accord accompanied by the two sons of Sita introducing them as his disciples. While the Yagna was going on the two boys were used to perform recitations of Ramayana in the presence of the Assembly. Rama was very pleased and made inquiries, and he was informed that they were the sons of Sita. It was then he remembered Sita and what does he do then? He does not send for Sita. He calls these innocent boys who knew nothing about their parents' sin, who were the only victims of a cruel destiny, to tell Valmiki that if Sita was pure and chaste she could present herself in the Assembly to take a vow and thereby remove the calumny cast against herself and himself. This is a thing she had once done in Lanka. This is a thing she could have been asked to do again before she was sent away. There was no promise that after this vindication of her character Rama was prepared to take her back. Valmiki brings her to the Assembly. When she was in front of Rama, Valmiki said, "O, son of Dashratha, here is Sita whom you abandoned in consequence of public disapprobation. She will now swear her purity if permitted by you. Here are your twin-born sons raised up by me in my hermitage". "I know", said Rama, "that Sita is pure and that these are my sons. She performed an ordeal in Lanka in proof of her purity and therefore I took her back. But people here have doubts still, and let Sita perform an ordeal here that all these Rashis and people may witness it".

With eyes cast down on the ground and with hands folded Sita swore "As I never thought out of anyone except Rama even in my mind, let mother Earth open and bury me. As I always loved Rama in words, in thoughts, and in deed, let mother Earth open and bury me!" As she uttered the oath, the earth verily opened and Sita was carried away inside seated on a golden simhasana (throne). Heavenly flowers fell on Sita's head while the audience looked on as in a trance.

That means that Sita preferred to die rather than return to Rama who had behaved no better than a brute.

Such is the tragedy of Sita and the crime of Rama the God.

Let me throw some search light on Rama the King.

Rama is held out as an ideal King. But can that conclusion be said to be found in fact?

As a matter of fact Rama never functions as a king. He was a normal King. The administration, as Valmiki, states, was entrusted to Bharata, his brother. He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and subjects.

Valmiki has very minutely described the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that accounts, the day was divided into two parts, up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana. Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama used to tale his meals. The food, according to Valmiki, consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a 'Prince among women's men'. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.

As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded.

The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama, which was nearby, of the sage Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital.

Such is Rama.