Shrimad Ramayan Daily Episode Discussion ~ 01 Feb, 2025 - Page 5

Originally posted by: missFiesty_69

There’s no forum in IF I haven’t stalked Aapko dekha toh 🏃‍♀️ aayi bas

Very good aap aaye bahar aaye

Arre yahan koi kuch nahi karega

Mazze lo bas

And gpt ki whacky kahaniya padho

Originally posted by: chatterbox

Very good aap aaye bahar aaye

Arre yahan koi kuch nahi karega

Mazze lo bas

And gpt ki whacky kahaniya padho

This version of Ramayan is quite different from the original or any version I have come across Which version is swastik even following ?

@b: matlab ?

Originally posted by: missFiesty_69

This version of Ramayan is quite different from the original or any version I have come across Which version is swastik even following ?

@b: matlab ?

Swastik Is not following any version

It's mix and match. That's why we r trolling

Gpt ka I will share with u link later

On those funny rakshas par whacky story banayi thi

Total hilarious

Yeh to acha hai yeh sab swastik ka "Khyaali pulav"🍚🍚🍚🍚🍚hai and most log yeh jaan chuke hai ki yeh jo dikhate hai sab sahi nahi hai...baki kal ka bhadkao session Dekhkar koi naya viewer unknown to Ramayan UK wld think parso wala Bharatji ka take even more negative by seeing kal ka episode,,thinking lo ek rotten apple ne puri tokri ke apple bigaad diye....iss matter par act na karne and king ko na bataane ko bol rahe the...yeh hai inke mature understanding wale Yuvraaj...matlab script writer ka to sir phodne ka Mann karta hai muje kabhi kabhi😂🤣😅...bakiyo ki script to galat thi hi,,,jinki thik thak likhte the unki bhi bigaad rahe🤦....

Kal wo shakuni part 2 kaisa bola,,Ramji ki parchai bhi nahi uttar de paayi,,woh bhi tab jab Laxman itna suna ke gaya tha usse... basically baat yeh hai ki brothers mein sabke dialogues ek saath aache sensible likhne jitni mehnat nahi kar paata inka writer,,,,Ek ka sahi likhegaa,,,fir dusre ka likhte time "chalo hum thak gaye kuch bhi likh do" types

Aarav Chaudhary is going to become Kesari in Veer Hanumaan show as per news....

Originally posted by: RedRobin1

Todays episode is back to Shurpanaka. Looks like the episodes cannot go on without her. No explanation is good enough least of all from Maharaja Janaka. There was no letter from Sita per original version. That is our TV version which cooks up all things.

I didn't understand what Shurpanakha was trying to do? She just had her nephew (?) killed and she's laughing in triumph... Just what was the point of her dragging that poor boy into this mess?

If they're going to show new asurs sprouting like mushrooms, might as well show Karkati's son.

Originally posted by: RedRobin1

Thank you for the explanation for Shri Ram but original version says Sita Mata was taken to the forest and not Valmiki Ashram. She was left in the forest by Shri Lakshman and it was not after midnight. She was left in the evening and she was told by ShriRam before she left that she is being taken to Ashram to enjoy the beauty of the forest. Shri Ram the king did not tell her that she was being banished and that he was renouncing her. She a pregnant lady did not know she was never going to come back to her home. What was her crime according to Raja Ram ? That the citizens of Ayodhya think badly about her? Is this how a king imparts justice? She was not told because Prabhu knew she will object to it.

She had no clue about the fact that she was being abandoned in the forest. She fainted when Shri Lakshman told her that it was his brothers orders to leave her in the forest. People from Valmiki Ashram found her in unconscious state and nursed her back to health. Bhagwan Valmiki knew the truth and hid her identity. Shri Ram grieved and observed penance. He was sad but he had to rule the kingdom. He had already ascended the throne and taken oath. He did not want to abdicate. I don’t think there is “south” version. where he asks his brothers to take over. Assuming Uttara Kandam was written by Valmiki this is how it happened. Mata did not blame Prabhu but she was a strong single parent and she wanted her children to get their birthright the throne. And the recital of Ramayan was through Valmiki and holding of the horse happened through divine will. Matas heart was broken she had no hope that she would reunite with her husband but as a mother she wanted her children to get their rights. And strangely enough per the original version nobody questioned the birthright of the children. As much as the gossip in Ayodhya happened Mata Sita had so much power that she ascended the throne and became Maharani for even for a period of time and ShriRam did not marry again ever after she was gone. That was the power of Mata. She did not want to come back. She had suffered enough injustice in the hands of Prajas and the world in general which does not consider the woman’s feelings be it Ravana or Ayodhya Nagarik who ruined the happiness of their king and queen and separated two soulmates. She was being held accountable for something she had no control over. That is she was done. And so left the earth. This is Per original version if there is a Uttara Kandam.

I never said she was taken to Valmiki's Ashram. She was left on the further banks of the Ganga, where sage Valmiki's Ashram is located. That's where the tributary Tamasa is and Valmiki Ashram is on the banks of Tamasa. It was also on the banks of the Tamasa, Ram spent his first night away from Ayodhya, when he left for his exile. The shores of the Ganga are beyond the kingdom boundaries and belongs to Guha, king of Nishadhas. He definitely wouldn't let anyone pass through without permission and he was a fierce warrior. There was no way to cross the Ganga without his aid. That's the reason people who followed Ram couldn't cross the river and follow Ram. Keeping Sita within Kosala/Ayodhya's boundary will be of no use since the banishment will be laughed upon. She had to leave the country to please the people and for her own safety and peace.

It was definitely not in the evening she was left there and certainly not in an unconscious state. Ram and Lakshmana are not that heartless as some versions make people beleive. It was either evening or dawn when they started. Sumant went with them as their charioteer. The chariot stopped on the banks of Ganga. Leaving Sumant on the shore of Ganga with the chariot, Lakshmana ferried Sita across the wide river and left her at a solitary spot near Valmiki Ashram. She did faint/was extremely distressed on hearing Ram's decision (if we go by the version in which she never knew about the decision) but she was certainly conscious when Lakshman left. Sita was a queen, she definitely knew what it requires to rule a country. Ideal rulers and their consorts are meant to be ready to sacrifice (not saying this is justifiable but expected). She very well knew how much her husband loved her. But no one can force other to like or accept them. If this is the case with common people, it's expected more of kings and queens. Her sorrow was because the test of her chastity was never accepted by the people.

If she had been told beforehand, she probably would have let go of her life then and there. Those days it was important to live with honour, just living had no value. But Sita lived on for her children and I don't think she ever wanted to go back, especially not after the subjects insulting her this. But she definitely wanted to try to give her children their rights. What happened to her is definitely not acceptable but can't help it when people are adamant on seeing a perfect picture and they never realised that she was the very definition of a perfect image.

When the Ashwamedha Yagya was announced and the sages were invited, Valmiki included, the sage instructed the twins to go and sing the Ramayana in front of the gathering and be respectful of the king and everyone present. The reason is that again, no one can forcibly be king or princes. Earlier, when Rama was exiled, people never accepted Bharata until they knew he never wanted to be king. If the king and people can accept the princes, then well and good. If not, they can choose to be sages or procure a land and rule. Those days, it was admissible to claim a land and establish a ruler if he be capable, either by self or by the king's orders/wishes.

Hence, I beleive Rama did what was best for everyone and also kept in mind everyone's honour. If he had kept Sita by him, she would face insults and contempt from the people. That will definitely not let her be happy and she can't always be shut inside a room. Rama never remarried despite the pressure, especially before announcing the Ashwamedha Yagya and that proves his solidarity to stand with Sita in this ordeal. People were adamant to have Rama as king. This sort of reasoning is confusing since this is a very modern way of thinking and Tretha Yuga probably never had people thinking this way. Even in Dwapar Yuga,when the Pandavas married Draupadi, she was accepted and welcomed and not humiliated for marrying 5 men. It was during the game that Karba humiliated her for this. No one dared to to say anything when the Pandavas were in power and many never even thought of doing so. If that was the case with Pandavas, why would people from Tretha Yuga, especially in Rama's rule, talk this way?

Many think the banishment never happened because the parts of Valmiki Ramayan mentioning it are considered to be written by someone else and added later. Valmiki centers his entire epic on Rama, everyone else is secondary. Lakshman, Sita and all other are mentioned only when Rama is in the scene. Even Shathrugan find very little mention in the epic. Thus there's a school of thought saying he doesn't mention the banishment since it puts Ram in a bad perspective.

We don't know what's the truth but can only speculate with what information we gather. It depends on the person if they want to beleive or not. I firmly believe that Rama did what was best for everyone including Sita. The pain of seperation was great but had to be done. Lakshman was in so much grief after leaving Sita, although he put on a brave face and said it would be for the better/good of her to continue the firm vows of a chaste married woman and be devoted to Rama (because of the children were to come up and expect to be accepted later, it wouldn't be possible if Sita had chosen to give up Rama. Rama and Sita giving up on each other is something we can't even think of). It was Sumant who consoled Lakshman, telling him that it was foretold during King Dasaratha's time that this would happen and it was due to sage Brighu's curse and they returned to Ayodhya.

Originally posted by: chatterbox

Le Mera hi dialogue Mera hi nickname Mera hi phrase

Aur mujhe jaisi hassi AA Rahi thi

Yahan bhi same to same

https://x.com/mahhjain/status/1885512316554535034

I. M writing here as old edt will be locked soon. By you know who 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Comedy piece lagte hai

Pehle ke shows mein rakshas jaise dikhte the .I mean the look.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

I never said she was taken to Valmiki's Ashram. She was left on the further banks of the Ganga, where sage Valmiki's Ashram is located. That's where the tributary Tamasa is and Valmiki Ashram is on the banks of Tamasa. It was also on the banks of the Tamasa, Ram spent his first night away from Ayodhya, when he left for his exile. The shores of the Ganga are beyond the kingdom boundaries and belongs to Guha, king of Nishadhas. He definitely wouldn't let anyone pass through without permission and he was a fierce warrior. There was no way to cross the Ganga without his aid. That's the reason people who followed Ram couldn't cross the river and follow Ram. Keeping Sita within Kosala/Ayodhya's boundary will be of no use since the banishment will be laughed upon. She had to leave the country to please the people and for her own safety and peace.

It was definitely not in the evening she was left there and certainly not in an unconscious state. Ram and Lakshmana are not that heartless as some versions make people beleive. It was either evening or dawn when they started. Sumant went with them as their charioteer. The chariot stopped on the banks of Ganga. Leaving Sumant on the shore of Ganga with the chariot, Lakshmana ferried Sita across the wide river and left her at a solitary spot near Valmiki Ashram. She did faint/was extremely distressed on hearing Ram's decision (if we go by the version in which she never knew about the decision) but she was certainly conscious when Lakshman left. Sita was a queen, she definitely knew what it requires to rule a country. Ideal rulers and their consorts are meant to be ready to sacrifice (not saying this is justifiable but expected). She very well knew how much her husband loved her. But no one can force other to like or accept them. If this is the case with common people, it's expected more of kings and queens. Her sorrow was because the test of her chastity was never accepted by the people.

If she had been told beforehand, she probably would have let go of her life then and there. Those days it was important to live with honour, just living had no value. But Sita lived on for her children and I don't think she ever wanted to go back, especially not after the subjects insulting her this. But she definitely wanted to try to give her children their rights. What happened to her is definitely not acceptable but can't help it when people are adamant on seeing a perfect picture and they never realised that she was the very definition of a perfect image.

When the Ashwamedha Yagya was announced and the sages were invited, Valmiki included, the sage instructed the twins to go and sing the Ramayana in front of the gathering and be respectful of the king and everyone present. The reason is that again, no one can forcibly be king or princes. Earlier, when Rama was exiled, people never accepted Bharata until they knew he never wanted to be king. If the king and people can accept the princes, then well and good. If not, they can choose to be sages or procure a land and rule. Those days, it was admissible to claim a land and establish a ruler if he be capable, either by self or by the king's orders/wishes.

Hence, I beleive Rama did what was best for everyone and also kept in mind everyone's honour. If he had kept Sita by him, she would face insults and contempt from the people. That will definitely not let her be happy and she can't always be shut inside a room. Rama never remarried despite the pressure, especially before announcing the Ashwamedha Yagya and that proves his solidarity to stand with Sita in this ordeal. People were adamant to have Rama as king. This sort of reasoning is confusing since this is a very modern way of thinking and Tretha Yuga probably never had people thinking this way. Even in Dwapar Yuga,when the Pandavas married Draupadi, she was accepted and welcomed and not humiliated for marrying 5 men. It was during the game that Karba humiliated her for this. No one dared to to say anything when the Pandavas were in power and many never even thought of doing so. If that was the case with Pandavas, why would people from Tretha Yuga, especially in Rama's rule, talk this way?

Many think the banishment never happened because the parts of Valmiki Ramayan mentioning it are considered to be written by someone else and added later. Valmiki centers his entire epic on Rama, everyone else is secondary. Lakshman, Sita and all other are mentioned only when Rama is in the scene. Even Shathrugan find very little mention in the epic. Thus there's a school of thought saying he doesn't mention the banishment since it puts Ram in a bad perspective.

We don't know what's the truth but can only speculate with what information we gather. It depends on the person if they want to beleive or not. I firmly believe that Rama did what was best for everyone including Sita. The pain of seperation was great but had to be done. Lakshman was in so much grief after leaving Sita, although he put on a brave face and said it would be for the better/good of her to continue the firm vows of a chaste married woman and be devoted to Rama (because of the children were to come up and expect to be accepted later, it wouldn't be possible if Sita had chosen to give up Rama. Rama and Sita giving up on each other is something we can't even think of). It was Sumant who consoled Lakshman, telling him that it was foretold during King Dasaratha's time that this would happen and it was due to sage Brighu's curse and they returned to Ayodhya.

Edited my previous double post as another reply

Who’s ghagra boy chatterbox ji ?