The Ramayana Condemns Strihaty Poem Analysis

'The Ramayana condemns Strihatya (the killing of a woman) for instance, as a great sin. Rama himself tells a —

Nahyenamutsahe hantum strisvabhavena rakshitam,''Being by her feminine nature, I have no heart to kill her" 85

Similarity, Bharata tells Shatrughna-Avadhyah sarvabhutanam pramadah, woman ought not to be slain by any creature.86

Hanuman too refers to a special hell reserved for the slayer of woman

Ye ca strighatinam loakvadhyaisca kutsitah 87

Khan studies that "Despite these ideals, the text tells how Rama, at the behest of Vishwamitra killed Tattaka, a woman.” He interprets it in the light of relatively pragmatic Valmikian principle by three arguments 88

First., Tattaka had murdered a number of holy priests (Bala Kanda 25-16, 19)

As a Christian has to take oath by touching the Bible, a Hindu touches the Gita before taking such oath. A fragment of the great epic of Manbharata, Gita is a religious poem that teaches a theory of devotion, the philosophy of ekayana and the doctrine of Karma. As Basharn puts it - it "teaches a fully fledged theism and is part of the more recent Hinduism, rather than of the old Brahmanism which slowly changed from a religion of sacrifice to one of devotion.93

The text forms a part of the present Mahabharata (Chapter 23-49 of the Bhishmaparva). The book is supposed to be a philosophical dialogue between Arjuna of the Pandavas and Krshna, the incarnation of Vishnu who was acting the charioteer of Arjuna. As Shakuntala Rao Shastri puts it — "Its official designation, as indicated by the Colophon is Upanishad and along with Upanishad and Brahamana it is one of the triple canons — prasthanatraya. " It is however, hard to believe that such a discourse could have been held in the midst of two armies waiting for the battle_ Shastri remarks — The battle of Kurukshetra, if it be a historical fact must have taken place some centuries before the birth of Buddha. But we do not find any trace of the fundamental teachings of Gita in the Buddhist period, The book bears traces of a post, Buddhistic age. The reputed author. Sri Krshna if he be a historic figure at all, is not known to be a great philosopher except in the Bhagavadgita"

Manu interprets it as custom handed down in succession. 105Traditionally, virtuous conduct would imply a specimen of conduct that entitled fewer sins and explicit virtues, but this appears to be subjective and judgmental. Who would determine that a particular conduct was appropriate to be deemed 'virtuous? In these, the text of Manu does not interpret it clearly and leaves us with two assumptions —first, that virtuous conduct was expected from the Brahmanas and second, their virtuous conduct and customs adopted would set the trend for the rest to follow. Thereby ordaining some kind of popular law or custom that could be imbibed by the