RAMAYAN DAILY DISCUSSION THREAD - Page 118

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Khalrika

I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. I missed last night's episode and was hoping to catch it this morning, but NDTVI now plays fast & loose with TV timings - they are genuinely🤬

On the 18000 gold coins refusal, Valmiki explicitly asked K-L to decline it, as Ananya points out below. Now you may have your own interpretation of why he asked them to, but the way I read it, the reason for that was that they were Kshatriyas, and therefore accepting alms like that from a king would be a violation of kshatriya behavior. Note that this would be different from what they'd do in the gurukul, where they'd learn begging in order to inculcate a sense of humility, but beyond that, it would have been disgraceful for a kshatriya to accept alms, let alone beg for them.

Yeah, but at what age did RLBS do those things? 6? I know Valmiki doesn't mention their age, but they would have been around, say, 8 when they left for Gurukul, and returned when 14 (since Taraka happened at 15). Here, we are talking about babies at this point. RLBS weren't sent to Vashishtha's ashram when they were toddlers.

They aren't listening to us on all the other things, so what made them chicken out here?😲😲

Exactly - granted Treta Yuga wasn't 21st century, but neither was it Denmark, where kids are left outside restaurants in strollers. This stuff is unbelievable.

Not only that, but in Rama rajya, there was no paucity of things anywhere in the kingdom - everybody was prosperous. Rama also made it a point in particular to make sure Brahmins were well fed and supplied, and these supplies were more often then not in kind - clothes, cows, pottery, etc. Having cows was a major status symbol, and cows in those days were like GOOG stocks (when Rama was exiled, he reassured Kaushalya reminding her of the number of cows that were there in her name). So it's unthinkable that even ordinary villagers had to live a life of hardship, particularly in Rama rajya.

At what age range did such activities take place?

Yeah, but K-L didn't, and weren't asked to ask for those things in kind either. Reason was probably that Valmiki did not want them to end up accepting alms from their father, which would have disgraced their lineage. Had they been Brahmin kids, they'd probably have accepted gifts in kind. Note that during the yagna, they only accepted the fruits and berries that were distributed to the rishis.

But like I said above, since they were Kshatriyas and Valmiki probably knew that the right thing for them was to be returned to Rama once Sita was gone, he had them not accept anything, as true kshatriyas.

Except that in this serial, all the gossips were happening around the ashram

Precisely! Again, I respect the opinion of those who are liking things the way it's currenly being shown, but it's nothing close to the Ramayan we all know & love. Incidentally, I too knew quite a number of things differently, but when I read the original Valmiki for references and find out something that contradicts what I knew earlier, I usually readily embrace it (unless it's something bizarre about Sita getting married at 6, or Narad telling Rama that practice of agriculture spreads adharma)

I can understand (though not agree) if the Sagars were to use some version other than Valmiki that's generally known and recognized, be it Tulsidas, Kamban, Vyasa, et al. But the stuff they are using is unrecognizable to any of us, and most of it is simply lifted from the previous serial, which though better, itself did its own inventing. As it is, this chapter in Rama's life is controversial to begin with, and when they start throwing in their own inventions, it makes a chapter that's difficult to understand only worse. That's the reason so many of us are having a major problem with this storyline.

Today's episode - they showed Kaushalya bringing to Rama his 6 nephews (okay, I won't crib about Sumitra or Kaikeyi not being there, let alone UMS). It was touching to see his love for all of them, and embrace them.🤗 Somehow, I didn't think the kids chosen were attractive, but that's just me.😔

One thing I wondered about this - would bringing to Rama his nephews be an act of love 🤗, or hurt him more 🥺? On one hand, he's missing his kids, so giving him the opportunity to love his nephews - what could be sweeter than that?😍 OTOH, when he saw them, he remembered Sita and where his kids must be, and that brought tears to his eyes (and mine as well).😭😭😭

This part of todays episode was touching. I'll comment on the snake in the written update thread later.

Originally posted by: sita11

i know khlarika what u meant by saying tht u were not knowing that many of us were watching the show for script also !!!

yup !!! i am a great fan of gurmeet ,rajni chandra ,ankit,vikram sharma😛

but i am a true HINDU also & upto a certain extent only !!! we can ignore the changes in the script of the show but sagar shd take care of the emotions & feelings of RAM BHAKTS also ,they hv shown such a blunder by showing luv-kush born on RAM NAVMI !!!! 🤢

iny-miny changes cud b tolerated but such major bloopers in the holy story of a holy epic cannot b tolerated !!!!!

& i am mentionin jai shri krishna show here as that is also a mytho show by sagars !!!!

Lalitha

Why can't they follow only one Ramayana? Where is it written that the epic has to include things from everybody? I have no problem if someone just takes a single version, and runs with it to the end zone. But making a composite of things creates something that's barely recognizable. And that's exacerbated when one considers that people - particularly teenagers - assume that what appears on TV is what's authentic.

I'd be happiest with somebody going with Valmiki wall to wall. Similarly, if they decided to go with Tulsidas, or Vyasa, or Kamban, or Krittivaas, that would be okay as well. Why this hard and fast rule that it has to incorporate really bizzare twists from every nook and corner - like in the main part where Indrajit's severed hand wrote a farewell message to Sulochana - a needlessly grizzly insertion?

These composites just don't make sense. E.g. one version has Ahiravan, and another has Mahiravan. The Mahiravan storyline is completely different from what/ was shown. Since that's the case, why couldn't they simply show Ahiravan, and drop Mahiravan altogether, instead of totally distorting the Mahiravan story?

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

Well said Sita!👏 I think the majority of us here are true Hindus first and then fans of the serial.

I understand that directors cannot follow one version of Ramayan 100% and I don't mind if they use some scenes from other versions, but it must make sense!

In some versions of Uttar Kand, there is no Lavanasur, so okay, the Sagars chose not to show his story, but why did they introduce him and Karkati then? Did they change their mind mid-way and therefore waste some episodes which could have been devoted to sweet family scenes? Like I said, I don't have a problem if they use scenes from other versions, but it should make sense and the Sagars' biggest problem is that they're accumulating all these scenes (some of their own invention and some from versions other than Valmiki Ramayan or Ramcharitmanas) which in the end, do not fit together.

I agree with Chandraketu that the Old Ramayan first invented the scene with Sitaji volunteering to exile herself, and that ruined the perfect flow in which the serial was being taken, but really, that's the only major blooper I found in that show. After that, the Sagars used scenes from either Valmiki or Ramcharitmanas, they showed the story of Lavanasur, and everything else was fine. They did not distort the characters of Ram and Sita like they're doing here (I suppose Ram's character is fine now, but I do not like how Sita was being portrayed in the last episode). The only other things wrongly shown (in my opinion) in the Older Ramayan were Sita coming to Ram's court and going to the Earth there (but I did not find that too bad, because it gave her a chance to bid farewell to the rest of her family😳), and the Ayodhyavasis seeking her forgiveness before she left (even though I'm not sure if that happened, I did not mind that scene because it made me more understanding towards Ramji's action of taking them with him when his avatar ended😉😳).

Khalrika

I didn't read either Sita or Lalitha accusing you of not being a true Hindu - they were only using that as a rationale for resenting what's being shown. Like you, I too go to the sources for what I know, but that doesn't in my mind justify showing major distortions of the epic on the small or big screen. And in the case here, while you may have a point that they were showing a variation of the Ananda Ramayan by having Vishnu appear before Sita, what they (maybe unwittingly) ended up doing was depicting Rama as someone other than Vishnu, and it's in that context I read that they are talking about being Hindus first, and fans/viewers afterwards, since such a depiction from a Hindu standpoint borders on blasphemy.

Again, don't take this as me doubting the bona-fides of anyone who agrees with the serial - I'm just saying that I can see where they're coming from.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

The epi was a lil better than yesterday😊 'twas nice to see that Sitaji was like any other normal mom who is protective of her kids😊 We see a 'sea change in her attitude today.

The kids Lav-Kush are so very naughty!! poor old nani aww she has to run after those naughty kids😃

Agree with u Chandra bhaiya, the scene where Ramji meets his brothers sons n suddenly remembers Sita n his kids is so poignant😭😭 it made my eyes moist and very well portrayed by Gurmeet👏

Yup the construction worker-women do that and unfortunately poverty makes them do that but what they showed in the serial ,poverty was thrust upon herself by Sitaji. And the scene I was talking about was when she is in the garden n leaves the babies under a tree open to air...

If the serial wants to show that Sitaji did something like that and she wanted her sons to learn in a very hard way then why make her live in Valmiki ashrama?? She would be able to that living all alone by herself.

We too don't mean that rishis were poor ,the serial made it look that way!

The old lady walking 10 kroshas and getting the bed spread for the babies in charity just try to say that the rishi ashramas were dependant on charity from people for every small thing

The plight of construction workers and their kids is well known😭 but even they would definitely take care of their children in every possible way..

and its also not that we're thinking from the 21 st century perspective . Again its shown in the serial. Sitaji is portrayed at times as the woman of 21st century; She slapped a rakshasi in one of the epi, didn't that portray 21st century thingy??

Even in one of the promo the queen mothers ask Dashratha that whether he didn't feel it necessary to ask them before declaring Ramji's cornonation as crown prince??

Theres a scene where Kaushalya is saying that why women have to leave their father's home n go with their husbands after marriage , don't think women of treta yuga did say this.

At one point the modern views of today are portrayed n at times very orthodox views are thrust upon. Surely they lack consistency in portrayal.

I understand ur sentiments, Khalrika di, when you're trying to explain why there weresuch scenes n the reason behind it, I apologize if I'm sound rude