Grossly misinterpreted 'Laxman Rekha' - Page 2

he wanted to protect sitaji
thats it

This concept is good only when not misinterpreted.

But I hate this concept only because it is misinterpreted n some people blame Sita for crossing it.
Hope u'll understand why I objected it.

Yes, purvi, I agree that the concept as it is interpreted at present is bad.
But I am asking about the story itself.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

This concept is good only when not misinterpreted.

But I hate this concept only because it is misinterpreted n some people blame Sita for crossing it.
Hope u'll understand why I objected it.

Ramayana is one of the greatest epic of india. if there is something great then few elements use the concept 4 there own purpose. and if the matter is something abt ramayan which people believe its every teaching as moral and must be followed then then if some of its concept is misinterpreted then its become strongest weapon 4 those elements.lakshman rekha is one of that concept. in every text its written that lakshman has drawn the rekha for sita protection but few elements interpreted it wrongly 4 the sake of there own benefit (i hate those people jo apni ullu sidha karne ke liye ramayan jaisa holy book ka bhi aarth badal de😡😡). but we must believe in original and real concept. and if its believed in that way i find there nothing to hate. we all know whatever lashman and sita did was not wrong (couz i hope we never gonna believe in such ill concept )

Rajnish,
Laxman rekha is not mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan.

Originally posted by: akhl

Rajnish,
Laxman rekha is not mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan.

ya i know its not mentioned in valmiki ramayan but its mentioned in tulsidas's ramcharitramanas😊 .it was not mentioned in aranyakand but However in Lanka Kanda of the Ramcharitmanas, (35.1) mandodari rebukes ravana on his boisterous claims of valour by hinting that his claim of strength and valour is shallow for he could not even cross a small line drawn by Shri Rama's younger brother Lakshmana.Radhey Shyam Ramayan mentions that the crossing of Lakshaman Rekha by Sita was done absent-mindedly by an anxious Sita only to honour the great Indian tradition of "????? ???? ???" (Atithi Devo Bhava): the guest is embodiment of a Deva (divine entity). Sita crosses the boundary line only to give alms to Ravana once he insists that alms cannot be accepted across a barrier as having a boundary in between was against the principle of free will of the donor.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

This concept is good only when not misinterpreted.

But I hate this concept only because it is misinterpreted n some people blame Sita for crossing it.
Hope u'll understand why I objected it.

BUT here we all know tht LAKSHMAN REKHA was drawn only for SITAJI'S protection .LAKSHMAN JI was sooooooooooooooooooooo concerned for his mother SITAJI 😛.

no body HERE is misinterpreting LAKSHMAN REKHA ,we all are GREAT RAMAYAN LOVERS over here !!! 😛

hi i think is really great topic
i see two viewpoints

what i also think here
lakshman rekha became famous becos of this
and by this rekha ppl make the meaning that a woman shud not cross the line of her dignity and always under all circumstances maintain it
though sadly ppl take it as curbing of freedom for woman that is not right

but in ramayan it was i think for both purposes
now dont come and hit me i m a woman so lookin at it from point of woman

lakshman made the rekha for sita's safety
not to curb her freedom
but also wanted sita to remember her own dignity of being lord ram's wife and queen of ayodhya

always notice lakshman keeps his head bowed in front of her never raises to look at her

someone up there said for a person safety we say dont go out dont do this
it doesnt mean we r curbing the freedom
it just maintains keep safe
and in this case safety and dignity both were significant

thas my view
no intention to offend anyone here