chatanga1 Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 How are we to take these? As undisputable? Words that have come from Sachkhand to alleviate our suffering? The reason I ask, is that I have noticed what I beleive to be a slight error in one of Bhai Gurdas' vaaran. in one the the vaaran, "vibhikan" (brother of Ravan) is said to be from a rakhsas cul, (as is Ravan), but they were actually from a Brahman cul, from the cul of Palist Rishi. who was married to a rakhsasni( their mother), but their cul was always recognised as Brahman cul. any thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I am not sure that they were of a Brahmin family. Their progenitor was the Rishi Pulastya which means smooth-hair, Rsi Pulastya was a Son of Brahma and known as a Prajapati. A Prajapati is an intermediate creator of beings, an in-forming active intelligence if you like. Even though they were the offspring of Brahma they were not really part of the Brahmin caste. Because Rsi Pulastya is the father of the Rakshash kul in a metaphysical sense not physical, much like if a put my ideas about a subject into a book I can call that book my son because I have created it. So even though Pulastya was a Son of Brahma he ideated or created the Rakshash Jati. So he is their metaphysical father he did not create through physical coopulation. The Hindu geneaologies are allegorical and not purely a one dimensional historical narrative. So Bhai Gurdas is correct in calling Ravana and his brother Rakshash . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 bro, youve lost me. Pulastya rishi was a Brahman or rishi by birti yes? He certainly wasnt a rakhsa. And how was he not Ravans father in the physical sense? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Forget what i wrote above. I just found out that Raam after killing Ravan has to do Shiv Pooja to rid himself of the paap of Brahmin Hatya. So Ravan et al. were Brahmins. But even after admitting this fact I still see a chink in the armour of Mr Chatanga's argument. I do not see how Brahmin and Rakshash are mutually exclusive. If Prahlaad a demon can be a Bhagat then why cannot a rakshash be a Brahmin. As Bhai Gurdas says the Kul was Rakshash. Kul means family. tribe, race or community. Jaat means hereditary or what one is born into. So the Rakshash could be a race or a community made up of Brahmins Kshatriya etc. Therefore Ravana is Rakshash Kul and Brahmin jaat. I think that must vindicate Bhai Gurdas, if any doubt as to how such a creature as a Brahmin Rakshash could exist please allow the omniscient wikipedia to allay any doubts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmarak%E1%B9%A3asa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAL 07 Posted May 20, 2013 Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 How are we to take these? As undisputable? Words that have come from Sachkhand to alleviate our suffering? The reason I ask, is that I have noticed what I beleive to be a slight error in one of Bhai Gurdas' vaaran. in one the the vaaran, "vibhikan" (brother of Ravan) is said to be from a rakhsas cul, (as is Ravan), but they were actually from a Brahman cul, from the cul of Palist Rishi. who was married to a rakhsasni( their mother), but their cul was always recognised as Brahman cul. any thoughts? Well obviously he became a Rakhshash since his mother was one. If a black man has offspring with a white woman the children will be half caste. Simple so i wouldnt say Bhai Gurdas is wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted May 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Pal bro, the focus is on the cul, not actually Ravan. He did become a rakshas as we all know, but the area of discussion is Ravans cul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAL 07 Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 In your first post you state that the brahmin rishi married a rakhsas, so the offspring can be said to be rakhsas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.