{|Siya ke Ram - Episode Distortion & Frustration Thread 1|} - Page 102

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Read the articles, and no offense but I found it all a load of hogwash. 🤬 It doesn't shed any light into Ram's character in Valmiki Ramayan. Granted, it does cite lines from the epic, but 75% of the article is the writer's interpretation and imagination, and I for one refuse to view Ram as this bitter and extremely flawed character who punished those around him due to some sexual aggressiveness that was a result of his hatred towards Kaikeyi. Ram was maryada purushotham. He was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He was no Karna to let his past make him bitter and punish others unjustly.

This is a typical dark interpretation of the epic that many modern authors like to make, but it's in no way equivalent to Valmiki.

Originally posted by: naq5

I only wanted to know your views. nothing offensive in what u said😊

yes Ram was more ideal & more in control than Krishna. Maybe because they were dealing with different types of people & different situations. Also it could be regarding the purpose by which they took avataar.

yes but if you look at mistakes n decisions n all Ram's abandonment of sita(even though however much he was pained by it) is as debatable as some of Krishna's decisions in his life.

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: CaptainSpark

Just like they are showing in the show, Ram being closer to Kaikeyi than Kaushalya, and Kaikeyi loving Ram more than anyone else, was it really the case according to the epic? Did Kaushalya not love Ram enough. If he did, why is he inclined so much towards Kaikeyi but not his own mother?

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

How come Ram calls his mothers ie the Queens by name?

Thanks for the citation though.😊

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Sometimes when I read the epic, I do not take every single word literally. Personally, I feel it was the author (Valmiki) talking more than Ram. Like you said, Ram would never had called his mothers by name. No one did back then, but Valmiki may have written it like that for reader to understand better.

OR

In English translation, the words may have gotten changed (more likely occurrence), we need to learn what the Sanskrit version addressed them as.

Originally posted by: Arijit007

it seems that the kaikeyi problem is solved. ok, it won't go the zee tv ramayan way cause kaikeyi aproves the marriage. but what is ravan's problem? him sending katig/karkotak to mithila was not enough, now he is attacking yamlok.