Created

Last reply

Replies

35

Views

4.7k

Users

19

Likes

78

Frequent Posters

whatthewhat thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#21
@Subha

The "maya Sita" was popularized by Tulsidas, I believe. It might have come from the Adhyatma Ramayana (I'd have to check that to be sure). But most people consider to be an innovation of Tulsidas (16th c).

In the Valmiki etc, the Agnipariskha is def. there...in the s. indian versions I know also.
So the reason people are jumping down your throat is that they might be following a different version! But that is no reason to attack you!

I wish we'd all be more accepting of the multiplicity of our myths!

Edited by narangi_77 - 13 years ago
Shru77 thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 13 years ago
#22
LOL... it was so funny... 🤣
Vr15h thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail IPL 2024 Participants Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 13 years ago
#23
Mira

There are a few problems that accompany the multiplicity of the mythos:
  1. No standardization - particularly problematic when different mythos have conflicting accounts of the same events. Such as one mytho saying that Kartikeya was born to kill Tarakasura, and another saying that he was born to kill Surapadman
  2. No distinction b/w mythos written contemporarily during those times (such as Valmiki for Ramayana, Vyasa for the Mahabharata and so on) vs those written millenia later, including during mediaeval times, or even ones written now by contemporary babas and sadhus. And since offending people's religious sentiments is something frowned upon, a proper analysis of what is authentic and what ain't is rendered all but impossible. For instance, if one says that parts of Tulsidas that contradict Valmiki are false, one is accused of insulting religious sentiments. Never mind that the differences are real, and the accounts given in later versions are ridiculous.
  3. Some versions which are egregiously down & out false are heavy on bhakti, and invent stories that never existed. For instance, while the original Ramayan has Rama w/ purely human powers, later saints ascribed to him miracles that never existed, and that is condoned in the name of bhakti.
The Sita Agnipariksha debate, as well as the one about her exile, has been debated ad nauseum in Imagine's Ramayan forum - once the search button works, one can find dozens of topics in that forum that thrash it to death.
whatthewhat thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#24

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Mira


There are a few problems that accompany the multiplicity of the mythos:
  1. No standardization - particularly problematic when different mythos have conflicting accounts of the same events. Such as one mytho saying that Kartikeya was born to kill Tarakasura, and another saying that he was born to kill Surapadman
  2. No distinction b/w mythos written contemporarily during those times (such as Valmiki for Ramayana, Vyasa for the Mahabharata and so on) vs those written millenia later, including during mediaeval times, or even ones written now by contemporary babas and sadhus. And since offending people's religious sentiments is something frowned upon, a proper analysis of what is authentic and what ain't is rendered all but impossible. For instance, if one says that parts of Tulsidas that contradict Valmiki are false, one is accused of insulting religious sentiments. Never mind that the differences are real, and the accounts given in later versions are ridiculous.
  3. Some versions which are egregiously down & out false are heavy on bhakti, and invent stories that never existed. For instance, while the original Ramayan has Rama w/ purely human powers, later saints ascribed to him miracles that never existed, and that is condoned in the name of bhakti.
The Sita Agnipariksha debate, as well as the one about her exile, has been debated ad nauseum in Imagine's Ramayan forum - once the search button works, one can find dozens of topics in that forum that thrash it to death.




@.Vrish.

I think we've had this convo before!
I do not believe that antiquity = authenticity 😊 And not just for text-historical reasons. Because 1. dating indian texts to find the "original" is notoriously difficult or 2. because looking to a written source as "original" is problematic anyway because the tradition is primarily oral (so what is written, no mater how early, is also a version of something).

I believe that everyone has a right to their version...and that's actually making me reconsider my attitude to this tv version too!

Your belief that these versions/variations are "ridiculous" is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I don't share it at all.

So I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. 😊

Mira





Edited by narangi_77 - 13 years ago
mnx12 thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#25

btw, who are these actors? Is the male actor MGR?

kkr531 thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Explorer Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#26

Originally posted by: mnx12

btw, who are these actors? Is the male actor MGR?



Male is Shivaji Ganesan from Tamil Nadu

and Female is Savitri from Andhra but she also acted in many tamil films



Regards
Krishna


mnx12 thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#27

Originally posted by: kkr531



Male is Shivaji Ganesan from Tamil Nadu

and Female is Savitri from Andhra but she also acted in many tamil films



Regards
Krishna


Thanks, he was Rekha's father, that means this movie must have been released at least 40 years back.
kkr531 thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Explorer Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#28

Originally posted by: mnx12

Thanks, he was Rekha's father, that means this movie must have been released at least 40 years back.



Nope Rekha's father was Gemini Ganesan, Savitri is one of the gemini ganesan's many wives
but shivaji ganesan is different from Gemini Ganesan.

regards
Krishna
mnx12 thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
#29

Originally posted by: kkr531


Nope Rekha's father was Gemini Ganesan, Savitri is one of the gemini ganesan's many wives
but shivaji ganesan is different from Gemini Ganesan.

regards
Krishna

My mistake
Vr15h thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail IPL 2024 Participants Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 13 years ago
#30
Mira

First things first - I agree to disagree here.

Just one thing about your first point - I agree that dating Hindu scriptures to trace it to its original time of creation is extremely difficult, and that the oral tradition does leave much room for error. In that sense, I agree that a lot of things that are today printed as being written by either Valmiki or Vyasa may not have been there in the original. From that pov, it is good to have a healthy skepticism about whether a certain incident is true just b'cos the available versions of 'original' texts have it.

However, that's completely different from accepting latter day accounts of the same topics, none of which state their sources. It's like let's say there was a car accident in the streets and police, after doing the arrests and everything, took eyewitness accounts of what happened. Now, it may turn out later that some or most or even all of those eyewitness accounts turn out to be unreliable, or downright fabricated.

But in such a case, the police would have to investigate further based on other clues. But one thing you can be sure they'll never do - they'll never visit people who were nowhere near the scene of the accident and ask them what happened, and use their testimony. They'd be laughed out of court if they did that. So the question of whether the eyewitnesses were reliable or not is irrelevant to the fact that people who were not eyewitnesses can not have the facts on the ground.

It's a similar situation here. Scholars would have to trace back as early as possible to find out what the original scriptures actually said, as well as what actually happened. But regardless of what they find out, I'd still say that what mediaeval texts say about them has no chance of being accurate. Much less serials that were done in the 60s to the 80s.

It would be one thing if we were just discussing Grimm fairy tales, or Hans Christian Anderson's or even Disney's. But these stories also influence religious practices, and in many cases define not just religious traditions, but also day to day living. So if some of the latter day versions are problematic, either for being misogynic or other negative attributes, they deserve to be discredited by more 'authentic' ones. Authentic as in - this was written at the time the characters being described existed, and not thousands of years later.
Edited by .Vrish. - 13 years ago

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".