Talk:Ravana

Since when did Ravana had multiple arms

I thought he only had multiple heads he is from the Asura Tribe of lanka.

Even a Tyrant may have some good qualities but still is a bad person.

The fact is that even if a bad tyrant has some good qualities does not mean that he is not overall a bad person. Some, for example, communists may say Stalin was good for his reforms but it does not exonerate him to such extent that he is indeed a good person. Hitler is another example. Hitler was an evil man although some say that he helped Germany recover economically. Also, Lord Ram only invaded Lanka after diplomatic efforts failed. Second, Vibhushana, was not treacherous and fled in order to avoid being killed by Ravana for opposing him. even if one argues he was treacherous, to stand idle in face of evil is to support evil. That's why he is praised as symbol of righteousness. Karna, despite having some good qualities, is faulted for siding with Duryudhana even though he knew the Pandavas' cause was just. This shows the contrast between Karna and Vibesshana. That's why it was proper for him to oppose Ravana. It is uncontested that Ravana abducted Rama's wife, Sita Devi and no amount of glorification can exonerate Ravana on that point.

Same with Duryudhona in the Mahabharata. He had some good qualities and was a great warrior even though he was overall on the whole, a bad person. Bhima, on the other hand, had some bad qualities but he was overall a good person.

Human beings are complicated creatures and show shades of gray. One should look at the overall character to determine whether he is a good person or bad.

Also, the Allies in world war II bombed dresden and did bad acts but overall they were the 'good' guys. To say wanton destruction of Lanka is an unfair characterization. In any war, even a just war, cities will get destroyed. Raj2004 3 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Notion of Ravana as good is recent byproduct mostly of Dravidian movement

Many people in the south elevated Ravana as good as part of the Dravidian movement which feared domination from the North. see http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2012/stories/20030620003609800.htm also, even in Thailand and Bali's version of Ramayana view Ravana as a bad man.

second, one reader in rediff, site, http://mboard.rediff.com/board/board.php?boardid=news2005jun13sai&page=4 said the following about Ravana: "(One writer, Sivaswamy, sic) He should have some basic knowledge of Dravidian movement (which is limited to Tamil Nadu). Only this movement has attempted to idolize Ravana, merely because: Ravana is supposedly a "Southerner" (he was King of Sri Lanka which has long ceased to be part of India, anyway). Rama was a "northerner" and on top of it an "aryan" and therefore for a Dravidian movement there is a pathological hatred against Rama. What is forgotten and surprising too, is that in this process this Dravidian Movement which has been attempting to idealise Ravana (only to spite the Northerners and the Believers) forgets conveniently that Ravana was also a Brahmin! How come then that this brahmin haters have turned to become a brahmin lover (only in the case of Ravana?)."

Just to give a Neutral point of view

Ravana was indeed a brahmin by birth,as far as the Dravidian issue is concerned i don't think there is anything to say on it, anymore even they know it ,southindians accepted Hinduism that is that, since today everything is a political agenda it is a shame,

Ravana as Rakshasas

In the article it is repeatedly mentioned that the king Ravana as a Rakshasas. The fact is Ravana was never a Rakshasa but a Brahmin. People out of ignorance called him a Rakshasa. Though in some scriptures Ravana is called a person of "Rakshasa charcter" or simply "evil character" because he kidnapped someone else's wife . But it does not make him a Rakshasas. Rakshasas are demonic beings and maneaters. I am deleting content saying Ravana as a Rakshasa Rotor37 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)