{|Siya ke Ram - Episode Distortion & Frustration Thread 1|} - Page 101

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Even though this is not the thread for it, but since it seems appropriate for the discussion, I just want to point out that I don't view Lord Krishna's actions, particularly in Kurukshetra, as wrong.

Lord Krishna's incarnation was not to show humankind ideal behavior. That was for Lord Ram to teach. Krishna wanted to teach humankind how to deal with unrighteous people. Krishna's motto was always "tit for tat". Sometimes, you have to deal with unrighteous people the same way they dealt with you. We may make the argument that, but doesn't that make us no different, but we have to look at the intention behind the act. If sometimes unrighteous means are necessary in order to vanquish wrongdoers, and it's for the welfare of society, then yes unrighteous means are required.

People like to sympathize with characters like Karna and Duryodhan, because it's the trend of modern society to sympathize with the "negative characters", but we have to look at their actions also. Their actions are what brought about their unrighteous deaths.

Yes, the Kauravas did die in an unrighteous manner: Bhishma, Dronacharya, Karna, Duryodhana, etc, but each person who died did not live a righteous life. Perhaps we can take Bhishma off the list since his "death" was pre-planned by himself, but starting with Dronacharya, each of the Kauravas performed many unrighteous deeds in their life. So they were killed accordingly.

Lord Krishna was a big Karma Yogi. He treated someone the way they wanted to be treated. If someone considered himself to be his devotee, like Arjuna and the other Pandavas, he treated him with love and affection like God does to a devotee, but if someone considered him their enemy and behaved likewise, like Duryodhana who foolishly tried to imprison him during his peace treaty mission, he treated him like an enemy too.

Is it wrong for God to punish people for their deeds? Isn't that what God does?

Although Ram was very Godly in nature, his character was portrayed as a human, whereas Lord Krishna, though human in nature, never referred to himself as human. He always accepted that he was God, and his behavior and miracles were such as well.

Everyone knew he was God, even the Kauravas, and yet they let their thirst for power blind their senses.

Lord Krishna used every unrighteous means to destroy the wicked people on Earth, and the Pandavas were simply a medium. Even though Lord Krishna never picked up a weapon, there was no need for him to, because he drove the entire war through the Pandavas. They were his devotees, his servants, and they were simply a medium used by God to achieve the purpose of his incarnation.

Nothing God does can be deemed unrighteous. Sometimes, unrighteous means must be used to defeat unrighteous people.

Even today, we cannot deal with rapists, murderers, terrorists in a peaceful manner. We have to deal with them unrighteously if we want to eradicate evil in our society.

We need another Lord Krishna.

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Even though this is not the thread for it, but since it seems appropriate for the discussion, I just want to point out that I don't view Lord Krishna's actions, particularly in Kurukshetra, as wrong.

Lord Krishna's incarnation was not to show humankind ideal behavior. That was for Lord Ram to teach. Krishna wanted to teach humankind how to deal with unrighteous people. Krishna's motto was always "tit for tat". Sometimes, you have to deal with unrighteous people the same way they dealt with you. We may make the argument that, but doesn't that make us no different, but we have to look at the intention behind the act. If sometimes unrighteous means are necessary in order to vanquish wrongdoers, and it's for the welfare of society, then yes unrighteous means are required.

People like to sympathize with characters like Karna and Duryodhan, because it's the trend of modern society to sympathize with the "negative characters", but we have to look at their actions also. Their actions are what brought about their unrighteous deaths.

Yes, the Kauravas did die in an unrighteous manner: Bhishma, Dronacharya, Karna, Duryodhana, etc, but each person who died did not live a righteous life. Perhaps we can take Bhishma off the list since his "death" was pre-planned by himself, but starting with Dronacharya, each of the Kauravas performed many unrighteous deeds in their life. So they were killed accordingly.

Lord Krishna was a big Karma Yogi. He treated someone the way they wanted to be treated. If someone considered himself to be his devotee, like Arjuna and the other Pandavas, he treated him with love and affection like God does to a devotee, but if someone considered him their enemy and behaved likewise, like Duryodhana who foolishly tried to imprison him during his peace treaty mission, he treated him like an enemy too.

Is it wrong for God to punish people for their deeds? Isn't that what God does?

Although Ram was very Godly in nature, his character was portrayed as a human, whereas Lord Krishna, though human in nature, never referred to himself as human. He always accepted that he was God, and his behavior and miracles were such as well.

Everyone knew he was God, even the Kauravas, and yet they let their thirst for power blind their senses.

Lord Krishna used every unrighteous means to destroy the wicked people on Earth, and the Pandavas were simply a medium. Even though Lord Krishna never picked up a weapon, there was no need for him to, because he drove the entire war through the Pandavas. They were his devotees, his servants, and they were simply a medium used by God to achieve the purpose of his incarnation.

Nothing God does can be deemed unrighteous. Sometimes, unrighteous means must be used to defeat unrighteous people.

Even today, we cannot deal with rapists, murderers, terrorists in a peaceful manner. We have to deal with them unrighteously if we want to eradicate evil in our society.

We need another Lord Krishna.

Originally posted by: Adishakti

no offense to anyone , but all I want to say it is that instead of using words like original and distortion the correct terms to use should be popular and less popular.

Originally posted by: ---Anu---

We are criticizing this show which is no less distorted. I happened to catch a scene of SMMH just today noon. Heavens! That show is

Any thoughts on that show of Ramayana?

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Even though this is not the thread for it, but since it seems appropriate for the discussion, I just want to point out that I don't view Lord Krishna's actions, particularly in Kurukshetra, as wrong.

Lord Krishna's incarnation was not to show humankind ideal behavior. That was for Lord Ram to teach. Krishna wanted to teach humankind how to deal with unrighteous people. Krishna's motto was always "tit for tat". Sometimes, you have to deal with unrighteous people the same way they dealt with you. We may make the argument that, but doesn't that make us no different, but we have to look at the intention behind the act. If sometimes unrighteous means are necessary in order to vanquish wrongdoers, and it's for the welfare of society, then yes unrighteous means are required.

People like to sympathize with characters like Karna and Duryodhan, because it's the trend of modern society to sympathize with the "negative characters", but we have to look at their actions also. Their actions are what brought about their unrighteous deaths.

Yes, the Kauravas did die in an unrighteous manner: Bhishma, Dronacharya, Karna, Duryodhana, etc, but each person who died did not live a righteous life. Perhaps we can take Bhishma off the list since his "death" was pre-planned by himself, but starting with Dronacharya, each of the Kauravas performed many unrighteous deeds in their life. So they were killed accordingly.

Lord Krishna was a big Karma Yogi. He treated someone the way they wanted to be treated. If someone considered himself to be his devotee, like Arjuna and the other Pandavas, he treated him with love and affection like God does to a devotee, but if someone considered him their enemy and behaved likewise, like Duryodhana who foolishly tried to imprison him during his peace treaty mission, he treated him like an enemy too.

Is it wrong for God to punish people for their deeds? Isn't that what God does?

Although Ram was very Godly in nature, his character was portrayed as a human, whereas Lord Krishna, though human in nature, never referred to himself as human. He always accepted that he was God, and his behavior and miracles were such as well.

Everyone knew he was God, even the Kauravas, and yet they let their thirst for power blind their senses.

Lord Krishna used every unrighteous means to destroy the wicked people on Earth, and the Pandavas were simply a medium. Even though Lord Krishna never picked up a weapon, there was no need for him to, because he drove the entire war through the Pandavas. They were his devotees, his servants, and they were simply a medium used by God to achieve the purpose of his incarnation.

Nothing God does can be deemed unrighteous. Sometimes, unrighteous means must be used to defeat unrighteous people.

Even today, we cannot deal with rapists, murderers, terrorists in a peaceful manner. We have to deal with them unrighteously if we want to eradicate evil in our society.

We need another Lord Krishna.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Rama never had any wife other than Sita. However, contrary to what they showed in Sagar's Ramayan, Rama NEVER gave Sita a vow to be monogamous. He just happened to be monogamous, and that acquired a myth of its own, what w/ that vow and everything




Here is one, where after RLS have left Ayodhya, but before the death of Dasharath and Bharath's return, Rama's conversation w/ Sumantra and Lakshman:



In short, Rama was fearful that Kaikeyi would become power drunk and start persecuting Kaushalya and Sumitra, which is why he wanted to send Lakshman back to Ayodhya. That quite contradicts the Kaikeyi bhakt that the Sagars painted him out to be.

I know that the ACK isn't the last word, but if one reads the ACK Dasharath, Kaikeyi, as a result of being his favorite queen, was quite arrogant in her dealings w/ Kaushalya and Sumitra. If this serial has painted Kaikeyi as black, it's not really far off. But Kaikeyi DID love Rama before Manthara turned her against him.

Difference b/w Valmiki's & Tulsidas' Rama - see my previous post on this page.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I actually caught up w/ the episodes until yesterday's, and I somehow disagree w/ some of the observations in this thread about Sita & Urmila, at least.

I know this is a YMMV thing, but I found Urmila much more attractive than Sita. In fact, Shrutakirti too! Lakshman, who was Dhrishtadyumna in ⭐️B, looks really unattractive here, even though he was hot bro there. But the big thing where I disagree w/ most posters here is that I didn't find Urmila as badly depicted as Sita. Since nothing has been written about Urmila's character - other than what one can extrapolate about her from the average character profile of a treta yuga population of Mithila - nothing is strictly speaking a distortion.

But I found Sita to be depicted as somewhat insecure, which everyone knows she wasn't. During Parashurama's confrontation w/ Rama, she looked worried, like he'd kill her would be hubby and make her permanently unmarriagable, if not a widow. In yesterday's episode, when Rama was eating, she felt it necessary to ask him how he liked the food. What did she expect - that he'd say that it's too spicy or too sweet or too sour? Of course he'll say that he liked it. But more precisely, nobody in her place - least of all her - would bother asking: from his countenance, she'd figure out whether he liked it or not.

I actually enjoyed the Lakshmila scene - Urmila going there to find out Rama's likes, and Lakshman being the 'obstacle'. I liked Urmila ranting about Lakshman to Sita 😈😆 Incidentally, Lakshman telling Urmila that he was Dasharath nandan - while technically correct, was misplaced: usually, if someone came w/ such a request, it was understood that she was talking about the ELDEST Dasharath nandan. Lakshman's response on that one was totally out of place w/ Lakshman's character.

Also, I found Mandavi tossing Ravan's doll hilarious - particularly it landing @ Rani Sunaina's feet, and she picking it up & looking sternly. I thought she'd scold Mandavi for still playing w/ Ravan's doll, but instead, she was pissed @ Rama & Lakshman not being hosted in the palace, and coming down on the Rajarshi like a ton of bricks.

Incidentally, doesn't this serial show Maharaj Kushadwaj and his queen as Mandavi & Shrutakirti's parents? The way Maharani Sunaina confronts ALL of them makes it a tad strange.