RAMAYAN DAILY DISCUSSION THREAD - Page 112

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Another question

Did Seshanag have 7 heads or 1000? The picture above brought this question back to mind.

I used to think that Sesha had 7 heads and was the serpent Vishnu rested on. Vasuki - the king of the serpents, had 1000. One thing that surprised me is that in both Matsya and Kurma avatar, Vishnu solicited the services of Vasuki rather than Sesha. In Matsya avatar, Vasuki was used as the chain to attach the saptarshi boat to Matsya's 'horn' and used to take them to safety, while in Kurma avatar, Vasuki was used for the churning of the ocean. In fact, the story behind Shiva's name Nilkantha was that by churning, Vasuki released a lot of venom from his 1000 mouths which poisoned a lot of asuras, so to prevent that project from getting aborted, Shiva came and drank all that poison himself, turning his throat blue. Looks like Vasuki, and not Sesha, was the father of Sulochana - Indrajit's pativrata wife.

Anyway, do I have the head count of Vasuki & Seshanag right?

Originally posted by: Khalrika

I was very busy yesterday and I just saw both April 1st and April 2nd episodes.

Here is my take on both:

Pros:

2. Debina is awesome as Sita. I loved that bhajan she sang in the ashram.👏👏

This is consistent with the Sagar script of everybody knowing that Rama was Vishnu. But that brings up a very curious twist - if everyone knew that Rama was Vishnu, wouldn't everyone have automatically known that Sita was Lakshmi? And if the latter was known, would they have been casting aspersions on her?😕😕😕

Originally posted by: Khalrika

3. I really liked Janak yesterday and today. His reaction was the best-as a father he is unhappy but as a king he understands Ramji's decision. You know, I have always liked Maharaja Janak and his way better than Maharaja Dashrath (even though Kalra rocked as Dashrath.😃) 👏👏👏

Yeah, I liked Janak showing both his sides - his anger at Sita's exile AND his empathy with Rama's predicament.👏👏👏 Only thing I didn't like today was his treatment of Malavika - that was totally uncalled for. Particularly since Malavika stated that she'd call on Mithilans never to marry off their daughters to Avadhis,👏 who in this case were the real villains who caused Sita her hardship 😡😡- she didn't say anything vile about Rama. 😕😕😕

Similarly, if Sunaina didn't wish to see Rama, it was wrong of Janak to try and force her. Other than that, I liked Janak's performance here.👏👏👏

Originally posted by: Khalrika

4. Who is the new Sunaina? Why was she screeching in the beginning like Karkati? I miss the old Sunaina and the old Mallavika. 😭😭😭

This is less than fair to her. 👎🏼Here is someone who's just learnt that her pregnant daughter has been exiled. Even if she were to agree with the rationale behind the decision, why should she be expected to welcome the person who carried it out? She was well within her rights not to want to see Rama. The more strange thing I found here was Rama, who was very particular about following protocol, chose to violate that here and walk into her chamber uninvited.😕😕😕

Also, if Malavika chose to privately mourn, I didn't see why Rama had to go there and make her spit it out what she thought of him. I never knew Rama as someone who forced his presence on anybody, and yet, that's exactly how he was being cast out here.

Originally posted by: Khalrika

5. Finally, with Sunaina's dialogue, when she sees Ram off from Mithila, the Sagars have stated the philosophy hidden in this crisis. Ram and Sita are not separated at all. Where there is Ramji, there is Sitaji. Where there is Sitaji, there is Ramji. This is why Vishnu has Mahalakshmi in his heart. It is the same with Radha and Krishna. Where there is Radha there is Krishna and vice versa.

Psst - Krishna & Radha were never married - in fact, Radha was already married to someone else, even though Krishna seranaded her.

At any rate, I didn't like them showing Sita appearing in Sunaina's dream and disowning her. There is a consequence for everything, and while Rama did what he felt compelled to, it was only natural that Mithila would cease to look at him honorably. It was unreasonable to expect that in the context of Sita's exile, Rama would be welcomed to the city as its son-in-law.

What the Sagars are showing is female self-flaggelation on steroids.🤢🤢🤢

Originally posted by: Khalrika

It upsets me😕, always, when people don't understand this deep philosophy hidden in our stories and have knee jerk reactions to Sita's vanvas. 😡

The philosophy of Rama-Sita being one, Bhrigu's curse, etc are one thing, but the people who to this day express outrage at Sita's vanvas have a very good point - the justice of it all. Granted that Sita was a queen and that by exiling her, Rama was also indulging in self-flaggelation of a psychological kind, but to focus only on that misses the larger and more important point.

What if, say, the Avadhis were to have the same problem with another woman who was innocent, but whom they suspected of being _______ (fill in the blank with any heinous sin). Would Rama have then been expected to mete out justice, or would he have punished her just in order to keep his subjects happy? Keeping subjects happy couldn't have been the be all and the end all of any ruler's duties - if the subjects of any ruler wanted him to do adharm of any kind, do you think he'd have obliged?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

This is consistent with the Sagar script of everybody knowing that Rama was Vishnu. But that brings up a very curious twist - if everyone knew that Rama was Vishnu, wouldn't everyone have automatically known that Sita was Lakshmi? And if the latter was known, would they have been casting aspersions on her?

Yeah, I liked Janak showing both his sides - his anger at Sita's exile AND his empathy with Rama's predicament. Only thing I didn't like today was his treatment of Malavika - that was totally uncalled for. Particularly since Malavika stated that she'd call on Mithilans never to marry off their daughters to Avadhis, who in this case were the real villains who caused Sita her hardship - she didn't say anything vile about Rama.

Similarly, if Sunaina didn't wish to see Rama, it was wrong of Janak to try and force her. Other than that, I liked Janak's performance here.

This is less than fair to her. Here is someone who's just learnt that her pregnant daughter has been exiled. Even if she were to agree with the rationale behind the decision, why should she be expected to welcome the person who carried it out? She was within her rights not to want to see Rama. The more strange thing I found here was Rama, who was very particular about following protocol, chose to violate that here and walk into her chamber uninvited.

Also, if Malavika chose to privately mourn, I didn't see why Rama had to go there and make her spit it out what she thought of him. I never knew Rama as someone who forced his presence on anybody, and yet, that's exactly how he was being cast out here.

Psst - Krishna & Radha were never married - in fact, Radha was already married to someone else, even though Krishna seranaded her.

At any rate, I didn't like them showing Sita appearing in Sunaina's dream and disowning her. There is a consequence for everything, and while Rama did what he felt compelled to, it was only natural that Mithila would cease to look at him honorably. It was unreasonable to expect that in the context of Sita's exile, Rama would be welcomed to the city as its son-in-law.

What the Sagars are showing is female self-flaggelation on steroids.🤢🤢🤢

The philosophy of Rama-Sita being one, Bhrigu's curse, etc are one thing, but the people who to this day express outrage at Sita's vanvas have a very good point - the justice of it all. Granted that Sita was a queen and that by exiling her, Rama was also indulging in self-flaggelation of a psychological kind, but to focus only on that misses the larger and more important point.

What if, say, the Avadhis were to have the same problem with another woman who was innocent, but whom they suspected of being _______ (fill in the blank with any heinous sin). Would Rama have then been expected to mete out justice, or would he have punished her just in order to keep his subjects happy? Keeping subjects happy couldn't have been the be all and the end all of any ruler's duties - if the subjects of any ruler wanted him to do adharm of any kind, do you think he'd have obliged?

Khalrika, I agree with you. Radhaji never married Shri Krishna, but she was an avatar of Maha Lakshmi along with Rukmini. There is a story behind why she never married Shri Krishna, but in Srimad Bhagavatham it says that she was an avatar of Lakshmi.

Originally posted by: sita11

@ vibs -thanks 😊

my take on 2nd aprils episode

gurmeet as usual was superb ,he spoke so much with his expressions👏

the actor who is playing raja janak was fabulous 👏

wow !! our ramji tolerated such insult with such grace👏

the new sunaina is more beautiful than the earlier one & she was good 😊

i wonder why malvika costume all time the regular one😕

i rememebr malvika wore the same costumes in all the janakpur scenes & now wen the actress who played malvika is changed then too she was shown in tht regular malvika costume ,

sagars falling short of costumes or what man?????😕

Friday April 3

Sagars look like they are out to develop a love-hate relationship with us - love them one day, hate them the next. I simply hated today's episode!!!👎🏼

Major boo-boos:

1. Shri Hari is shown with Lakshmi-ji resting on Sesha. Of course, this is eye candy, but totally contradicts the avatar theory. Unlike Hanuman, who was a partial avatar of Shiva (born from one of Shiva's limbs?), Rama and his brothers were full avatars i.e. when they were on earth, there was no Vishnu in Vaikuntha, and likewise with Sita. But here, Vishnu is shown enjoying the spectacle of Sita getting ready to give birth, and actually appearing before her, freezing time and telling her to be both parents to her kids, while Lakshmi-ji just cooly waits for him on Sesha.🤔
2. Just like in the theory of Rama having to be ignorant of his divine origin for Brahma's boon to Ravan to be true, similarly, for Bhrigu's curse on Vishnu to be true, Vishnu himself would have to be the recipient of the curse. If Vishnu took birth himself as Rama, as actually happened, and then underwent his separation from Sita, the curse was fulfilled. But if he simply cloned himself, as is being shown here, he was making a mockery of the curse, since Bhrigu cursed Vishnu, not Rama (if Rama was a clone of Vishnu as is shown here). This serial makes it out as Vishnu just took that curse and dumped it on his clone Rama🤔🤔🤔 Also, had this actually been the case, why would the devas have clamored for Rama towards the end of his reign - there would have been no absense of Vishnu that would have spurred such a demand from their end.
3. No sign of Rama going to war with Lavanasura, and already his kids are born🤔🤔🤔 They were born the night Shatrughan rested at Valmiki's ashram (7-66). But here, they are shown as being born on Rama navami. Such a coincidence would have been mentioned in Valmiki. Is it? Also, are the Sagars not going to have the kids named that night, or what???🤔
4. Relatively minor point - if Kaikeyi, Kaushalya, et al were in a temple, why were they wearing their footwear?😕😕😕 (Wouldn't the actors have been mindful of this, even if their directors weren't?)

Pros: The babies looked absolutely cute!!! Too sad pitashri couldn't witness thier coming😭

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Friday April 3

Sagars look like they are out to develop a love-hate relationship with us - love them one day, hate them the next. I simply hated today's episode!!!👎🏼

Major boo-boos:

Shri Hari is shown with Lakshmi-ji resting on Sesha. Of course, this is eye candy, but totally contradicts the avatar theory. Unlike Hanuman, who was a partial avatar of Shiva (born from one of Shiva's limbs?), Rama and his brothers were full avatars i.e. when they were on earth, there was no Vishnu in Vaikuntha, and likewise with Sita. But here, Vishnu is shown enjoying the spectacle of Sita getting ready to give birth, and actually appearing before her, freezing time and telling her to be both parents to her kids, while Lakshmi-ji just cooly waits for him on Sesha.🤔 Just like in the theory of Rama having to be ignorant of his divine origin for Brahma's boon to Ravan to be true, similarly, for Bhrigu's curse on Vishnu to be true, Vishnu himself would have to be the recipient of the curse. If Vishnu took birth himself as Rama, as actually happened, and then underwent his separation from Sita, the curse was fulfilled. But if he simply cloned himself, as is being shown here, he was making a mockery of the curse, since Bhrigu cursed Vishnu, not Rama (if Rama was a clone of Vishnu as is shown here). This serial makes it out as Vishnu just took that curse and dumped it on his clone Rama🤔🤔🤔 Also, had this actually been the case, why would the devas have clamored for Rama towards the end of his reign - there would have been no absense of Vishnu that would have spurred such a demand from their end. No sign of Rama going to war with Lavanasura, and already his kids are born🤔🤔🤔 They were born the night Shatrughan rested at Valmiki's ashram (7-66). But here, they are shown as being born on Rama navami. Such a coincidence would have been mentioned in Valmiki. Is it? Also, are the Sagars not going to have the kids named that night, or what???🤔
1. Relatively minor point - if Kaikeyi, Kaushalya, et al were in a temple, why were they wearing their footwear?😕😕😕 (Wouldn't the actors have been mindful of this, even if their directors weren't?)

Pros: The babies looked absolutely cute!!! Too sad pitashri couldn't witness thier coming😭