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
Glad that at least someone knows the truth. I am happy that like me you are not blind believer of whatever shown on TV. I can't believe Tulsidas was reincarnation of Valmiki. Really? A person of Treta Yug reincarnated in 17th century. If RCM version is true rewritten by reincarnated Tulsidas then why will Valmiki write different stories in the 1st place? Why he will do so if he had to make changes lakhs of years later? I tried explaining my point but I can't argue further after a point because I don't want to get into any fights or termed as Hindu mythology hater for daring to speak the bitter truth instead of pretending everything to be perfectly white instead of little shades of grey. Sita was not shown blouseless according to makers who researched Ramayan clothing because they feared people's reaction. Why can't we just accept flaws of past Yugs and learn from it instead of pretending or obsessing over the fact that everything was ideal? Don't call me mythology hater but a 400-500 pages of book can't actually guarantee how the characters lived then or what all happened in their life just like if we are told to write a biography about someone close to us we won't write everything about them. Even in Mahabharat, they whitewashed Drona in Eklavya issue but people not ready to accept that lie was shown because they don't want to research in books or internet but simply follow TV ir they will bring different ridiculous theories. Don't know about whether they ate ashwamedha horse as meat or not but Sita wanting deer for mattress is true. RCM looks false in many ways. It was rewritten to suit what people wanted to happen. Or may be due to influence of Mughal rule at that time. Just like Shakuni's family sufferings stories cannot be believed which is said to be told by different folks in the same way RCM cannot be believed over Valmiki's version. I have no intention to insult the holy books of my own religion but it's wrong to discuss the actual things in original books than what we are made to blindly believe from the shows.
Cricket
Marathi TV
Ufff Yeh Love Hai Mushkil
Jhanak
