Sita whitewashed by DD in deer scene - Page 2

Originally posted by: surabhi01

And if seeta did raam that to bring golden deer skin if it not capture alive then sita was not true sita

It was Maya sita who ask golden deer skin from Lord ram if not capture alive

Ram said to seeta now it is time complete my main mission that is to kill raavan

So he ask true sita to reside inside fire and request fire not to burn true sita

And maya sita is created

And raavan kidnapped Maya( illusion ) sita and in ashok vatika illusion sita was staying . It was not real sita staying at ashok vatika and here true sita reside inside fire

And Lord ram ask agni parish because so that Maya( illusion sita get vanished and real sita come out of from fire

What? Illusion Sita? Ye kaha se padha?

It is written in tulsi daas ram charitra manas

Here tulsi daas did not mention about raam asking laxman to leave sita in forest where in valmaki ramayan it is mentioned and reason is that tulsi das don't want give tragic ending so he did not write that part sita leaving in forest with lav kush and then later going inside earth

Here is link of ram charitra manas where Maya is mentioned

https://hindi.webdunia.com/religion/religion/hindu/ramcharitmanas/AranyaKand/index.htm

Originally posted by: angel_juhi04

Yes then DD followed RCM but Valmiki one is original. RCM has modified several things. I guess they did not showed the truth to avoid negative reactions. But for me I take it as normal act for those times. Even Kali Maa wore garlands of skulls does not means she was bad. The makers researched clothing for everyone especially women but modified them because he geared how people will react seeing Sita without blouse.

RCM in general is more popular among the masses, because it's easier to understand and also describes the emotions in the epic more. Valmiki Ramayan is wonderful, but he did not focus on emotions very much, more the story. Not everyone can connect with that, although those of us who are very interested in mytho and love to research it in detail can.

Ramanand Sagar used RCM as his main source, because his serial was the first ever mythological serial ever, and he did not know how people would react to it. He had to be extra careful in how he presented the story, because if it failed and people were offended, he would lose out on his dream to present Ramayana as a show. He did say that he did not show certain events as described in Valmiki Ramayana, like Sita's agni pariksha and Sita's vanvaas in Uttar Kand, because he did not want to offend the viewers who were very much connected with the story and characters. Remember, this was the 80s, and people tended to become more offended/outraged at what they perceived as "correct" based on their personal beliefs. This was the era in which they typecasted the actors as their characters, so we can understand where Ramanand Sagar was coming from.

But we cannot deny that whatever his limitations might be, Ramanand Sagar did go beyond his dream and reached the heart of the masses, which is what's most important. The show may not have been 100% perfect and did have a few mistakes, but they were few and far between. Nothing compared to the mistakes shown in current mytho shows. 😉

Originally posted by: surabhi01

It is written in tulsi daas ram charitra manas

Here tulsi daas did not mention about raam asking laxman to leave sita in forest where in valmaki ramayan it is mentioned and reason is that tulsi das don't want give tragic ending so he did not write that part sita leaving in forest with lav kush and then later going inside earth

Here is link of ram charitra manas where Maya is mentioned

https://hindi.webdunia.com/religion/religion/hindu/ramcharitmanas/AranyaKand/index.htm

Sorry dear but only Valmiki's one is entirely true. RCM is not entirely true. He fictionised a real epic like it's some fairy tales. May be to please people who can't stand flawed content or due to Mughal influence in that period. So why to believe a 16th century modified book over something which was written lakhs of years ago? That's the reason DD may have followed RCM as audience would not be able to accept flawed content. Don't know why he modified an ancient Treta Yug epic and misguides people into wrong stories. He can't just change stories in drastic way. Fantasies can be modified to give it different ending but not real epics no matter how much wrong it showed. That's why no shows can dare to show entire thing from RCM except few things.

No, ramcharitra manas is also true only difference is that valmiki write raramayan as katha and tulsi daas write ramcharitra manas as lyric / verse

More over tulsi das has also write hanuman chalisa. And hanuman chalisa is also true when hanuman chalisa is true then ramcharitra manas is true

And hanuman ji give inspiration to tulsi daas to write ramcharitra manas

And also geeta press publish company never published false in information about ramcharitra manas

If we read ramcharitra manas published by geeta press then all information inside it is true

Geeta press published about Maya sita that means it is true as geeta press always published reliable information

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

RCM in general is more popular among the masses, because it's easier to understand and also describes the emotions in the epic more. Valmiki Ramayan is wonderful, but he did not focus on emotions very much, more the story. Not everyone can connect with that, although those of us who are very interested in mytho and love to research it in detail can.

Ramanand Sagar used RCM as his main source, because his serial was the first ever mythological serial ever, and he did not know how people would react to it. He had to be extra careful in how he presented the story, because if it failed and people were offended, he would lose out on his dream to present Ramayana as a show. He did say that he did not show certain events as described in Valmiki Ramayana, like Sita's agni pariksha and Sita's vanvaas in Uttar Kand, because he did not want to offend the viewers who were very much connected with the story and characters. Remember, this was the 80s, and people tended to become more offended/outraged at what they perceived as "correct" based on their personal beliefs. This was the era in which they typecasted the actors as their characters, so we can understand where Ramanand Sagar was coming from.

But we cannot deny that whatever his limitations might be, Ramanand Sagar did go beyond his dream and reached the heart of the masses, which is what's most important. The show may not have been 100% perfect and did have a few mistakes, but they were few and far between. Nothing compared to the mistakes shown in current mytho shows. 😉

I think DD showed banishment story which I watched years ago on TV. They shown Sita living separately with her sons and the sons for some horse fighting with many people including Ram's 3 brothers. Also Sita going in earth was shown after emotional talks with Ram and others. I guess people in 17th century were not able to accept that Ram can do mistake or women offended with him doubting Sita and banishing her with not even letting her tell people her real identity not wanting to be shamed by people. There Ram did mistake for which he paid badly as Sita did not forgave him and chose to die even leaving her son's behind showing that self-respect is above all and we can't trust a person who behaved in such away with us. Ram realized his mistake but he knew what he did was unacceptable. So it was shown that even Gods can commit mistake and as a lesson to people not repeat it😊.

Mythology shows of today are so long and fake in many ways. They are simply adding their own madalasa for TRPs. Remember Parmavtar on &TV. I wonder what it was not banned. Even seeing the ads of that show was annoying. They showed so many fake things including showing Radha younger to Krishna when actually she was 6-7 years older to him. And on Twitter many are offended with Ram killing Bali from behind saying being a dharma person he should have killed front not understanding that he had no option and how it was to show that cheating is necessary sometimes for doing something good. Just like when when someone strong attacks our loved ones we can't attack them front from front but with deceit only it's possible. Many are sympathising with Bali saying whatever he did was due to misunderstanding and he did not deserve that death. Can you believe that? They ignored that it's not right to bully and torture your brother and he was not justified in marrying his brother's wife forcibly to hurt him. Ram clearly pointed these things by saying he is telling him dharma while dying when he never followed them when he was alive. They see Bali as some western M&B fiction hero or wattpad hero😆. Those who could not digest 1 justifiable cheating I wonder how they will digest Mahabharat which had many such justifiable cheating for doing something good. May be that's the reason RCM modified true events into something else because if people act like this now then it was 17th century then.

Tulsi das was incarnation of valmiki ..

Now hanuman also wrote ramyan. When valmiki read ramayan written by hanuman then valmiki was amazed as it was very beautiful written and think it if people read ramayan written by hanuman then no one will read my ramayan

So valmiki ask hanuman to flow ramayan in ocean. Hanuman feel sad . He flow ramayan in sea but said to valmiki u have take next birth to write ramayan

So valmiki come as tulsi das in next birth and again write ramcharitra manas

Ram killed Bali behind because i Bali has boon if anyone go in front of ball then that person strength become half that is why ram did not go in front of Bali

And more over Lord give punishment to himself in next birth Lord Krishna

Behlliya whose arrow stuck at Lord Krishna feet . And that behaliya was really birth of Bali

Lord Krishna himself told about this to behaliya

Originally posted by: angel_juhi04

But it's written in main Ramayan. It's hard to believe but it's true. Her wanting deer for mattress not take away her kindness. Every person is grey in some way. See from 10th to 20th points.

https://valmikiramayan.net/utf8/aranya/sarga43/aranya_43_frame.htm

Ab jo sach hai vo hai. We can't deny it. This single scene don't make her villain just like we are not bad for eating no-veg. As I said even Mahadev wore tiger skin skirt and sat on tiger skin mattress. Few episodes ago, some rishi sat on a tiger or deer skin. So it was normal then. We all are so obsessed with Sita's kindness and sweetness that many can't imagine her doing such a thing but she did it which was not a big deal. Valmiki's version can't be lie. Right? Anyone who read proper Ramayan will know though I myself not one of them.

Juhi

You're absolutely right: this is the argument that was once there in the Ananda Sagar Ramayan thread on the Imagine TV channel 10 years ago. There was a whole bunch of people claiming that all Sita wanted was to play w/ the deer, but anybody who's seen deer on the road knows that they're not Bambi. In real life, they're pretty aggressive towards people, and have damaged cars and property: recently, on the news, they showed footage in I think Colorado where a deer while crossing the freeway just jumped over a car. They are pretty ferocious creatures, and the ones Sita saw wouldn't have been any tamer. And there's nothing 'grey' about her if she wanted to use its skin as a mattress or rug, or even use it for a few dinners.

The issue w/ the Sagars is that they tried to project their idea of what a virtuous Hindu should be on to the subjects of their serials. In reality, as you point out, there is nothing wrong w/ being non-veg, and besides, RSL et al were Kshatriyas, who were expected to be non-veg. In fact, in that era, what does one think happened to an Ashwamedha horse after it was sacrificed at the yagna? It was cooked and eaten, just like other hunted meat. Not just by Kshatriyas, but Brahmins as well. In fact, this idea of Hindus (Vaishnavs, really) being vegetarian started after the competition for adherents started in the classical age b/w Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

Problem w/ this is that let's say, N years from now, vegan becomes more and more popular and a majority diet among Hindus, and let's say that opinion shapers want to virtue-signal the rest of the population about that. They then go on to show Krishna steal soya-based cream instead of butter, and try selling that to the public. Never mind that he had the normal casein based butter when he raided the kitchen w/ his pals.

That's the problem w/ trying to rewrite history in an attempt to virtue-signal what people ought to do

It's not that Ram made a mistake and Sita didn't forgive him...if you actually refer to Valmiki Ramayana, the whole story is about a King and Queen teaching the people a lesson. Sita as a Queen taught the people to respect the common woman. She never held any anger or resentment towards Ram or the people of Ayodhya. Everything she did was for her children and to uphold women's honor. She and Ram were always on one accord. Their main goal was to teach humanity how to behave like humans, and to treat each other with love and kindness. God does not make mistakes, that goes against the basic principle of God, but in human form he works within its limitations to show humans how they can go above and beyond.

Btw, Radha was not older than Krishna. She was in fact 14 days younger than him. Paramavatar Shri Krishna was a horrible show, but that one fact they showed true. Radha being older/Krishna's aunt are all folklore that have no true basis.