maya sita n agi pariksha - Page 2

Originally posted by: rajnish_here

Dear Omshanti111 you misunderstood me and purvi di. We were only discussing our views. I don't meant to offend anyone. I was only giving my views why I don't believe in chaya sita. there were nothing wrong I wrote about God because for me thinking anything wrong for a sec about God is sin. not in my dream i can do that. ones earlier also you said that. During that time i was in habit of reading valmiki ramayan and valmiki ramayan does't support chaya sita concept. I was only saying why I don't belive in chaya sita. So why you came to conclusion that I was offending you!!.
And about brahmvaivrat puran many ppl believe its not original but latter interpretation.

Originally posted by: *king*

the king hails from tirupati, hence he knows abt tirumala n visits it often whn in india😊. thank u 4 the information anyway. but dear balaji was not an avatar of srivishnu but vishnu himself came down n did not take a avatar like rama or krishna.

is sage brighu n durvasa the same. bcoz as far as the king knows it was durvasa muni who came 2 vaikunt. his eye was punctuared by lord rgt?

*king*

Originally posted by: luv_khwaish

I'm sure NDTV Ramayan will show agnipareeksha coz as far as my knowledge goes, it's not a part of uttar kand...All the doubts will be cleared then...IF they don't show agnipareeksha, that means they are following Valmiki Ramayan...correct ? or agni pareeksha Is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan but not chaya sita?😕

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

First, I appreciate your devotion.

Dont worry about me, please note I never pointed out anyone's name nor did I complaint of anyone's ideas. This is a discussion part of the show, any doubts can be discussed, but the language should be proper, right!!! Thats one of the reasons, nobody could tolerate Sharath rocha. Many people will not have problems about his questions, but the problem was the vulgar language that Sharath had used while putting forth the questions. To sum it all, there is a decorum to everything!

Similarly,

What had hurt me was not the denial of Chayya Sita concept, but the word "Nautanki" that was a part of someone's reply. And frankly speaking, I dont remember who wrote that phrase also.

And also pls remember the knowledge that we get from "Brahmabaibartyapuran" is similar to the one that is found in "Rajgujyayog" part of The GITA. Brahmabaibartyapuran whether original or translated, the recital of it can free one from sins. And Brahmabaibartyapuran itself says that it should NOT be shared with all (Like people who eat beef, a person who sells girls) and thats the real Brahmabaitartyapuran. I chant it everyday, that the reason I am so confident of it.

God is everloving.

Moderators, pls dont think I am trying to create a fight, I 'll not write anything more about it anywhere, how much tempted I might be to do so....

And Rajnish, dont think I was trying to cause undue trouble for you. I am elder to you but still I apologise if I have hurt you...I love to read all the posts created by you and appreciate you silently, even if I dont get chance to pen it...

Similarly I have great respect for Bhamita (Sonyfan) as she always does her job silently and never ever tries to take credit for those...

Originally posted by: rajnish_here

first thanks 4 appreciation and no need for apologies caus you are elder and you din't hurt me
the word which we use has not always its literal meaning. the meaning should be understood first. It is wrong to compare what I said with post of sharath because we two have opposite intention. sharath might not have used abusive word in his post but his ultimate aim was to criticize LORD but I besides used the word "nautanki" but my aim was to praise LORD not to criticize. word should be used in the context of what it has been used for. Yes it was me who used word "Nautanki" and let me clarify here why I did.
we and purvi di were discussing was Ram suffering was real. ram wept, lamented for sita till the end of war. According to valmiki ramayan RAM din't knew he was incarnation of lord and always believed himself a normal human being. Its true as lord vishnu himself laid his maya on sri ram and ram was born with 14 kalas( other than sri krishn who was born with 16 kalas). Ram always considered himself normal human being ( but krishn always use to say he was lord). Ram was maryadapursotam. The purpose of Ram incarnation was to teach humanity ideal path which could be followed by them. Ram himself had suffered to teach humanity lesson. His suffering was real. his lamenting for sita, bharat, jatayu e.t.c was real. he din't knew future and held himself and his misfortune responsible for their suffering. If there had been chaya sita and if ram knew she is safe in hand of agnidev than for whom he lamented till the end of war. was his weeping and suffering was only a NAUTANKI not a reality. Sita was real for whom ram lamented and real sita was there in lanka. real sita showed her power of satitwa by bearing all suffering laid to her in lanka by ravan. It was real sita who remained firm and faced ravan all trouble. It was REAL sita who fought with winter, rain and terrible night sitting under the tree for about a year😭. And ram suffering was REAL and he was lamenting for her wife and her suffering being imprisoned by dust ravan😡.
I ones again used the word nautanki here as I used their. read what i wrote and try to conclude the perpose of using the word. I used it for praising lord not to criticize him. So it is wrong to compaire what I wrote with sharath. The word gets its meaning from the sentence and purpose it has been used for. And your getting offended only because of using this word is wrong. Please understand my objective of using this word
And about brahmvaivrat puran i said many ppl belive not all ppl belive. Brahmvaivrat puran is full of bhakti ras and I too like it especially the part rashleela so Plz not misunderstood me😊

I personally feel that Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsidas Ramayana are the same only, but written with different perspectives. For example, what we are experiencing today will be ancient history in the future, and the only guide people will have are books written by us. Let's take two people who write about the same thing, but with different perspectives. Not everyone thinks the same.

Originally posted by: godisone

I personally feel that Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsidas Ramayana are the same only, but written with different perspectives. For example, what we are experiencing today will be ancient history in the future, and the only guide people will have are books written by us. Let's take two people who write about the same thing, but with different perspectives. Not everyone thinks the same.

Similarly, Saint Valmiki wrote down his perspective on the Ramayana, which was that Lord Ram did not know he was God until after he had defeated Ravan and Lord Brahma told him, or that the Sita who suffered was the real Sita. Valmiki Ramayana characterizes Sitaji as a patient woman who refused to break down when in trouble, and always in her heart of hearts knew that her swami would resuce her.

Tulsidas Ramayana, which is said to have been narrated by Hanumanji to Tulsidas, tells of the Ramayana through the perspective of Hanuman (since he narrated it to Tulsidas). Tulsidas believed that Lord Ram knew he was Vishnu, but never declared it like Lord Krishna, and suffered like a human being to teach us the ideal way to live. Tulsidasji's Sita is a patient woman also, but he showed her suffering through tears and laments to Trijata while Valmikiji hardly had her crying. In Ramcharitmanas, it is Chaya Sita who is captured by Ravan, because if Ravan had touched the real Sita, he would have died on the spot due to the power of Sitaji gained through her chastity and virtue. How then would warriors like Indrajit and Kumbhakarn have been killed, along with all the other warriors of Lanka who died in the war.

I believe in both Ramayans, because the overall story is the same. The differences in there are due to different perspectives only, not because one is "more authentic" than the other. I believe both are equally authentic.

As for Lord Rama, I personally believe that he knew he was Lord Vishnu, because how could one who is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu not know of his divinity? That's just my personal opinion, and I mean no insult to Valmikiji by it.

As for the Chaya Sita concept, I really don't know what to believe. I'd rather believe Valmikiji's perspective on that, because the suffering of sita Ma during monsoon and her 10 month stay in Lanka has to be genuine. In the old Ramayan serial, during the monsoons season they show Sita being nostalgic about good times in Ayodhya, her swayamvara, and all. Why would she remember all that if she wasn't the real Sita?

but then, the Chaya Sita concept also seems valid to me, because it makes sense that if an Adharmi like Ravan had laid hands on a Mahasati like Sita, he would be burned in an instant. How then would Indrajit and Kumbhakarn die among many others?

Oh God, I'm so confused!

Originally posted by: luv_khwaish

there is no mention of Vedavati in valmiki ramayan

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Hey Rajnish,
dont ever think I am comparing you with Sharath Rocha. I am really sorry if my text has conveyed such a feeling. My apologies to you....
thanks for all the discussion.

Regarding Brahmabaibatyapuran, I recite the "Vinayak","Durga", "Laxmi" and "Saraswati" Shrotha as suggested by Lord Krishna on a regular basis. I can feel the huge impact I have got from it.

One thing out of this context, you and I share the same birthday, although you are much younger yearwise.

Anyways, I am really sorry to have brought up this topic again...
take care