Monday, January 23, 2012

Again ..........

an explosive topic......

I am always amazed why it is so?
The reasons are as below:
All our Lords which we are told to follow are KINGS sons or King themselves....
1) Lord Rama - King's son ( Reason I took first Rama name is ,he is the first Lord, first Ramayana came and then Mahabharat)
2)Lord Krsihna - Son of King family.
3) Mahavir ( Jain Dharma)- King's son
4) Guatam Budhha- King's Son
5) Ashoka The great ( Preacher of Buodh religion) was himself a KING.
6) Chatrapati Veer Shivaji - Again Kings Son
7) Pandavas- All 5 Kings Son

and many more! Is it so that we have to follow someone coming from King's family  ?So why one have to follow them when they do not come from a simple family?

Why not Ram Krishna Paramhansa or Swami Vivekananda .Again Ram Krishna Paramhansa comes first because he was the mentor of Swami Vivekananda.

The question that arises is, why we have to follow what these people who were Kings or sons of Kings?

Why these all Lords are coming from Kingsely family and not from a poor or average family?Had anyone questioned that?Why our religious books shows someone who is coming from a King family?Whether all these people were there or not, means they really exist or not is another debatble topic but whoever wrote these books, why they showed person taking birth in King's family? And the anamoly is such that Mahavir, Guatam Buddha, Ashoka The Great , Shivaji all existed.We know that, even if we do not believe , for one second, that Lord Rama or Lord Krishna ever took birth on earth.
Then the question arises, why great people take birth in King family?

For that one have to read Rajneesh.I have read many books of Rajnesh and I think the reason he gave is valid.I would not like to go in any details about it here but if anyone wants to find it out then either he needs to read or hear Rajnesh.

Though Rajnesh is critisized for many things and I also agree with some of them, still I am great admireror of Rajnesh.
One need to read him.He is excellent.He himself was very well read person and that is why he was able to speak on various aspects of life and religion.I would suggest my readers to read him.Read just one book.You will love him.

But coming back to the topic, why we have to follow King's path?If we are suppose to follow what they did  then there are many other things that needs to follow of them .Why that needs not be followed?

I know the topic that I have raised is debatable and there can be many arguements but you can say that I like doing that. I love discussing things because that widens one's horizen of thinking.It sharpens one mind.

Well, I will not write anything more here.I have put a thought and I hope readers will ponder upon it and write whatever they think.I will love to read it.....It is a food of thought......



  1. Hi Rajeev,

    Nice Topic to discuss :)

    I feel Kings/Leader lead by Example... there is a saying "Yatha Raja Thatha Praja".. meaning... the common man will follow and behave what his leader-King is doing... Hence i dont feel its bad that we all follow Kings or Good beings who were Kings...

    We also follow Hanuman, Lord Venkateshwara, Shiva, Bhramha, etc who werent Kings...
    Our elders. ancestors wanted to pass on some good things for the future generations, hence they created all these stories with kings, battle, sorrow, grief, Victories, Revenge, Good Deeds and Bad..

    Its easy for kids to learn and understand stories and follow simple lessons from it.

    No Harm in it, even if Ramayana or Mahabharata did not occur in reality.


  2. Dear Rajeev,
    I think many people ponder over this question, but actually it is not required if we understand the law of karma properly. Generally people just read all these things but never really believe it and that is why they forget it the very next moment and again raise doubts over Lord and His creation.
    Coming to your question that why lords always take birth in Kingsley family, for this one must understand that taking birth in King's family does not depend on the lord but on the karma of that King. In Ramayan it is clearly written that King Dashrath was a Rishi in one of his previous birth and did lot of Tapasya and the fruit of the tapasya fructified during Ramayan by getting position of King and getting the Lord Himself as his son.
    Take the case of Krishna, He fulfilled two great people's tapasya, by taking birth as Vasudev's son and brought up by Yashoda. About Yashoda it is written that she had wished to be the mother of Lord in one of her previous birth and Krishna was the result of that.
    But still the question remains as it is, why only king's house?
    To get Lord Himself as one's son is not a joke, He takes birth as son only of pious souls and not any xyz. The person must have done lot of Punyas in his previous birth and as a result becoming King is just a by-product of that, the actual fruit of that punyas is getting the Lord as their son.