First episode, first mistake- Page 2

i kno..how is this possible..this is weird!?!? 😕

Originally posted by: achyutsingh

I wonder if anyone picked up the big goof on the very first episode.

It showed Lord Ram Coming to battle in a Chariot.

. Lord Ram never had a chariot in the entire Battle and there is a "sholka" in Ramayan which says that Lord Ram used to sit on Lord Hanuman's shoulders in the Battlefield. U people must have seen a picture of Lord ram and Laxman Sitting on Lord Hanumans Shoulders in every Temple.

He got a Chariot only when Ravan came to fight with him and that Chariot was given to him by Lord Inder.

SO the Director should not make such big Mistakes while making a serial on Mythology.

totally agree😳

Im really surprised with ure deep knowledge into such things. Its very good to know.

I didn't notice it in the first episode... 😳
And I didn't even know about the chariot. Good to learn something. 😊

I hate Ravan being refferred to as a myth, even the official website calls it a myth. Myth in my terms questions the subjects existence. Hindu legand is more appropriate shame they choose to do this.

I hate Ravan being refferred to as a myth, even the official website calls it a myth. Myth in my terms questions the subjects existence. Hindu legand is more appropriate shame they choose to do this.

I noticed it but this serial is in many respects different from Valmiki Ramayan and other popular Ramayan versions like Ramacharitmanas, Kamb Ramayan, Adhyatm Ramayan.
According to Valmiki Ramayan, Ram gets onto a chariot on the final day of the war. The chariot is sent by Indra and is driven by Indra's charioteer Matali.
There are many versions of Ramayan. The serial may contradict some and agree with some.

Yea. After thousands of years, there are many versions of the Ramayan.

But this is a valid point.

Originally posted by: Jaymin01

I hate Ravan being refferred to as a myth, even the official website calls it a myth. Myth in my terms questions the subjects existence. Hindu legand is more appropriate shame they choose to do this.

The word "myth" has multiple meanings:

[quote]1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.
Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms.

b. As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre.

2. a. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious). Cf. LEGEND n. 8.

c. A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.[/quote]

https://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00320409?query_type=word &queryword=myth&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_ type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=fq8y-st6Pze-7982 &hilite=00320409

You are thinking in terms of meaning 2a whereas in academics when scholars refer to "myths" they are using meaning 1 (and often 2c - exaggeration/idealization of truth).

When it comes to "sacred stories" the word "myth" by itself does not necessarily imply that the stories are true or false. At the most it one can say that they are/were considered true by people for whom the stories have religious/cultural importance. 😊