Dashrath had a daughter

I wanted to mention this because this is not well known. Many think that Dashrath had four sons and no daughter. But, according to Valmiki Ramayan, Dashrath had a daughter named Shanta. Dashrath gave her for adoption to his friend king Romapad, who was childless. Shanta was married before Ram and his brothers were born. Shanta's husband Rishyashringa was the main priest in the yagya after which Ram, Bharat, Laxman and Shatrughn were born.

WOW!! I had never heard of this before. Thanks so much. We are really learning a lot from this show about our religion.

Yup, I was actually expecting them to show Shanta coz I thought the first time we see Dasharath here it'd be during his early marital life. Instead Ram is already 16+ and Dasharath himself is pretty old too!!! 😕 The age situation is really odd. 🤔

Even though they have shown Ram and Narayan to be the same, nothing miraculous was shown or mentioned about Ram's birth. I suppose he was born the normal way in this version, especially considering the significantly different ages of the brothers. 🤔

Yup.......They didn't show Shanta in the show.........

Actually......I don't think they showed her in any of the television versions........Even the tv show Ramayan doesn't mention Shanta........

Well, as for the show Ravan, so much inaccurate information has been shown that I don't really get shocked anymore....now it's just like.....w/e.......

When I saw the first few episodes, when Sulochana supposedly goes to battle, I was so shocked I didn't watch the show again for weeks........but now.....I don't really care....

Originally posted by: islandboy401

When I saw the first few episodes, when Sulochana supposedly goes to battle, I was so shocked I didn't watch the show again for weeks........but now.....I don't really care....

Ha ha I was actually fascinated by their decision to show that event. That was a clear indicator that for once, we'd be getting an on-screen adaptation of the epic that would not stick to the popular version. It promised something new, fresh and different. Whether their decisions and choices have been correct or not is a separate debate but considering the show on its own (ie forgetting the differences) I must say it managed to be pretty enjoyable. 😊 That is until the script started going haywire recently. 🤔

BTW: Pramila goes to war in Michael Madhusuan Dutt's version (Meghnadbadh Kavya). He took the Pramila character from the Bengali version of the Mahabharat (in which Pramila is a warrior queen encountered by Arjun in the Asvamedhparva) and adapted her as the Pramila of the Ramayan. Sulochana (Pramila) goes to war in the Javanese version also if I remember correctly. Perhaps these were the sources for the serial's writer. 😊

I would have liked it more if the serial showed stories commensurate with commonly accepted stories i.e. stories in Valmiki Ramayan, Puranas. But that is just my personal preference. Creatives have every right to have different views. They can say that they want to focus on less known versions. However, whatever they show should be self-consistent. The self-inconsistency I have noticed in this serial is that: -
Ravan was initially shown as positive. But it was shown that God had already taken incarnation. It does not make sense to say that God incarnated to kill somebody who was good. They should have shown Ravan turning negative before Ram incarnation.

They showed that the tapasvis were indulging in unethical practices. But then they show that God incarnated to help those tapasvis. It would have been more appropriate to show that there were both good and bad tapasvis; Ravan started torturing bad, but later he tortured good also. Or, they could have found some other means of showing consistency.

What I mean is that somehow the creatives can give justification for showing stories different from popular versions. But one episode of the serial must not contradict another episode.

^ Exactly. The script went berserk once the adult stage of Ravan's life began. It is as if we are watching a different serial now. 😕

As far as God incarnating and all, perhaps in this version it would have been better if they had remained silent about Ram's divinity (note: I said "silent" not "deny his divinity outright" ie they should leave it open to interpretation rather than spelling it out like they did). That way it would not contradict the role of Vishnu from the young Ravan stage to the current adult stage. Technically Valmiki portrayed Ram as a human hero too (esp if we take into account that most of the Balakanda and the whole of the Uttarakanda are now thought to be later additions). Think about it: they never showed or mentioned anything about Ram's birth either. At the very least, it would not have been so inconsistent. If the producers/channel have indeed presurrized the writer to change the script then he has my sympathies. They have ruined the narrative. 😕