Hrithik says he was not offered Ram in Ramayan - Page 11

Originally posted by: angrybread

Looking at Thunder's breezy responses because hritik mentioned something and as per my understanding on him being a male ...i can only say fangirls aise hi badnaam hain 😳 Had it been someone else in place of Hritik then Thunder would be thundering and lightening strikes would be happening now 😆

Jo banda accused rapist ko benefit of doubt deta hai woh suddenly feminist ban gaya iss thread mein..sab kuch apna Bhagwan Hrithik ke liye🤣

Originally posted by: Cpt.DudleySmith

Picture bani nahin aur Hindu pehle se hi intolerant ban gaye 😆. Let other religions have their equivalents of Lajja and Raavan before we start bemoaning the fact that you can't make Ramayan with Ram in "grey shades", shall we?

Aha! See we were tolerant once upon a time. 😆 Abhi koi Raavan banaye toh.

Originally posted by: Cpt.DudleySmith

Picture bani nahin aur Hindu pehle se hi intolerant ban gaye 😆. Let other religions have their equivalents of Lajja and Raavan before we start bemoaning the fact that you can't make Ramayan with Ram in "grey shades", shall we?

Seriously picture bani nahin and everyone is already 'Dont distort my faith' yada yada. Also why though. 😆 Woh medieval age mein hain toh hum bhi wahaan wapas chale jaye kya lol. Why are we competing with them anyway.

Originally posted by: angrybread

I don't want to sound insensitive and don't want to insult any religion but I guess all the ones being killed for an animal are just for joy 🤪you can't continue living in the same world you lived 10-20 yrs ago and your statement is not a fact in today's realities .

Am thankful for your opinion, even though it may be contrary to mine.

It's also more of a testament of the change in governance. Now that we have a pro-hindutva government, it is even more likely that people will be more intolerant. How many sadhus have been convicted of wrongdoing despite existence of proofs? Instead you see witnesses executed like in Asaram case. Of course, the above is a more extreme example but just goes to show how people of today live in more fear of expressing their views and live like a 'frog in a well' than say in the yesteryears when people are considered to be 'more primitive and traditional' in their views.

Btw Rama is a fictional character even though the places and events mentioned do have a historical significance.

Originally posted by: AllThatCritique

Aha! See we were tolerant once upon a time. 😆 Abhi koi Raavan banaye toh.

Ban bhi jaayegi pit bhi jaayegi. Under this so-called intolerant Gobarmint a movie like Haider release bhi hui aur national award bhi jeeti. Phir bhi kuchh log intolerance ki nautanki se baaz nahin aayenge. Do wake me up when other religions have their Lajjas and Raavans though.

Originally posted by: Shailesh_Rathi

Actually, not true. Also isn't there a hypocrisy in your statement? Lord Vishnu or Krishna may be grey but not Rama who was a likewise human avatar, how's that even possible? There have been a few authors who strongly mentioned this in their writings. And those authors are highly respected in the literary field for saying the truth. But like people mentioned in this thread, public in India cannot handle that as a truth.

This guys writes it better than I can on this topic. https://myanasworth.wordpress.com/tag/rama-good-or-bad/

"If I remove the halo of ‘Avatara Purusha’ from Ram’s head, he comes across as a very average and self centred man. He cared for his reputation more than he cared about those he loved. To him his duties as a king took precedence over his duties as a human being. Yes, he loved his wife and was devoted to her but there was no acceptable justification for the way he treated her. He fulfilled his duties as a king and ruler but he miserably failed in his duties as a husband, father and human being. Sita was his responsibility as much as his kingdom – so why did he not take that responsibility seriously. Because, this didn’t offer a path to everlasting glory?? What kind of a man would banish his pregnant wife for a whim. Why Sita tolerated this, I will never understand. Yes there are many explanations in the book but personally, I can relate to Draupadi’s fiery and feisty nature more than I can to Sita’s earthy patient nature. Now, if treating a person with kindness is a yardstick for being ‘good’, Ram fails miserably. They say of all the sins in the world ‘hurting a woman’ is the worst sin. By this definition he is sinner too!

By contrast, Ravan who is personified as evil himself is not so evil when you read the story. Yes he is smitten by Sita’s beauty and falls in love with her. He abducts her hoping that one day she will agree to accept him. Yes, by the moral standpoint of current day society, capturing another man’s wife is wrong and to capture an unwilling woman is wrong but there ends the streak of evil. He is portrayed as a god fearing, learned man with a good heart. Not once does he force himself upon Sita. He could have. Of course, there is the notion that he didn’t do so because of the curse upon him that if he forced a woman, that would bring about his destruction. Even so, I’d like to think that on face value of the facts presented in the book, he had more conviction and was much more in tune with his finer emotions that Ram. Yes, there are shades of evil but he is largely a good man.

My fascination for these sorts of stories is that when you look at the characters, there is no person who is entirely good or entirely bad. It is people like us who develop these cliché’s and stereotypes. There are shades of grey and it is the shades of grey that make humans so fascinating.

Maybe I am not the only one who thinks these kind of ‘offbeaat’ thoughts! Mani Ratnam’s Raavanan certainly presents all my thoughts beautifully on screen."

Ravan doesn't touch Sita because he was cursed by some other woman ( when he was trying to molest her) that his head will burst into pieces if he touches any woman without consent. If you consider this as virtue, God bless you. Valmiki Ramayana mentions Ravana as someone who used to molest women on a regular basis until this incident when he gets cursed. My God! I can't believe I'm reading this comment. Aaj kal ki ladkiyan may be will find virtues in such a horrible man Phaminism ki jai ho

Originally posted by: Shailesh_Rathi

Am thankful for your opinion, even though it may be contrary to mine.

It's also more of a testament of the change in governance. Now that we have a pro-hindutva government, it is even more likely that people will be more intolerant. How many sadhus have been convicted of wrongdoing despite existence of proofs? Instead you see witnesses executed like in Asaram case. Of course, the above is a more extreme example but just goes to show how people of today live in more fear of expressing their views and live like a 'frog in a well' than say in the yesteryears when people are considered to be 'more primitive and traditional' in their views.

Btw Rama is a fictional character even though the places and events mentioned do have a historical significance.

I don't understand your response even though i agree with bold part .

Originally posted by: Shailesh_Rathi

Actually, not true. Also isn't there a hypocrisy in your statement? Lord Vishnu or Krishna may be grey but not Rama who was a likewise human avatar, how's that even possible? There have been a few authors who strongly mentioned this in their writings. And those authors are highly respected in the literary field for saying the truth. But like people mentioned in this thread, public in India cannot handle that as a truth.

This guys writes it better than I can on this topic. https://myanasworth.wordpress.com/tag/rama-good-or-bad/

"If I remove the halo of ‘Avatara Purusha’ from Ram’s head, he comes across as a very average and self centred man. He cared for his reputation more than he cared about those he loved. To him his duties as a king took precedence over his duties as a human being. Yes, he loved his wife and was devoted to her but there was no acceptable justification for the way he treated her. He fulfilled his duties as a king and ruler but he miserably failed in his duties as a husband, father and human being. Sita was his responsibility as much as his kingdom – so why did he not take that responsibility seriously. Because, this didn’t offer a path to everlasting glory?? What kind of a man would banish his pregnant wife for a whim. Why Sita tolerated this, I will never understand. Yes there are many explanations in the book but personally, I can relate to Draupadi’s fiery and feisty nature more than I can to Sita’s earthy patient nature. Now, if treating a person with kindness is a yardstick for being ‘good’, Ram fails miserably. They say of all the sins in the world ‘hurting a woman’ is the worst sin. By this definition he is sinner too!

By contrast, Ravan who is personified as evil himself is not so evil when you read the story. Yes he is smitten by Sita’s beauty and falls in love with her. He abducts her hoping that one day she will agree to accept him. Yes, by the moral standpoint of current day society, capturing another man’s wife is wrong and to capture an unwilling woman is wrong but there ends the streak of evil. He is portrayed as a god fearing, learned man with a good heart. Not once does he force himself upon Sita. He could have. Of course, there is the notion that he didn’t do so because of the curse upon him that if he forced a woman, that would bring about his destruction. Even so, I’d like to think that on face value of the facts presented in the book, he had more conviction and was much more in tune with his finer emotions that Ram. Yes, there are shades of evil but he is largely a good man.

My fascination for these sorts of stories is that when you look at the characters, there is no person who is entirely good or entirely bad. It is people like us who develop these cliché’s and stereotypes. There are shades of grey and it is the shades of grey that make humans so fascinating.

Maybe I am not the only one who thinks these kind of ‘offbeaat’ thoughts! Mani Ratnam’s Raavanan certainly presents all my thoughts beautifully on screen."

I am not being hypocrite here, Ram isn't a grey character, he is just upright. There is a huge difference in that one. Ram never did anything with wicked or underhand intent, like Krishna or Vishnu and that is what seperates grey from goody boys. His equation with Sita and all that follows, he has been criticized since ages, rightfully but it was never grey. It was more like him demanding same level of sacrifice and uprightness from Sita, that he put himself on.

Raavaan jaise haazar movies banao, kiya problem hai, lekin agar Ramayana banaoge aur Ram ko grey banaoge just for the sake of, than obviously people are gonna get pissed. Should people get pissed? IMO No, that is an artists interpretation, but if you know that people will get pissed, why carry on with it just to prove a stupid point. Making a grey Ram Ramayana isn't going to change the world anyways or do anything significant, other than massage egos of people who are making it.

Originally posted by: AllThatCritique

Seriously picture bani nahin and everyone is already 'Dont distort my faith' yada yada. Also why though. 😆 Woh medieval age mein hain toh hum bhi wahaan wapas chale jaye kya lol. Why are we competing with them anyway.

No but humnein hi apne holy figures ka mazaak udwaane ka theka le rakha hai kya? People are proven to be tolerant enough that re-imaginations like Lajja and Raavan have gone through without much problems. No need to make the actual Ramayana through the perverted liberandu gaze.

Yes, by the moral standpoint of current day society, capturing another man’s wife is wrong and to capture an unwilling woman is wrong but there ends the streak of evil.

Uggh , capturing another man wife is wrong from moral standpoint of all ages not current society.

You can't go capture other women , even in Gupta empire