Page
of
1Lord of bears Jambuvan, Meghnad was our foe while he lived. But that enemity ends with his death. Civilized men do not even dishonor a slain enemy. The dead body should be returned to the elements that created it. The right to a being's last rites belongs to the son, the brother, the father or the uncle. Thus, only they have the right to this dead body. To fulfill his father's desire, this warrior laid down his life. The body of this great warrior and devoted son should not go before his mother in such a disrespected condition. [He and Lakshman then place his body garment over Indrajit's to have him honorably covered] Hanuman, leave him with due honor at Lanka's main gate, so that the demon soldiers can carry him inside (and he can be duly honored).When he delivered this sermon, Jambuvan looked embarrassed, Vibhishan, without whom this victory would have been impossible, was moved to tears, and the vanars looked like they had learnt another salutary lesson.
Originally posted by: Chandraketu
I liked the monolog that Sunil Lahiri selected, outrageously protesting the Agni pariksha, but not the one Govil selected - about Ravan's durdasha, at least in the sense that Rama did have better lines. My own favorite is the one after Indrajit's death, when Jambuvan asks Rama for permission of the vanars to mutilate Indrajit's body, given the naag-paksh darts he had used on them both and the shakti against Lakshman. This response of Rama is what I personally found most touching, and a true representation of the greatness of Shri Rama (see from 3:00 onwards)
Lord of bears Jambuvan, Meghnad was our foe while he lived. But that enemity ends with his death. Civilized men do not even dishonor a slain enemy. The dead body should be returned to the elements that created it. The right to a being's last rites belongs to the son, the brother, the father or the uncle. Thus, only they have the right to this dead body. To fulfill his father's desire, this warrior laid down his life. The body of this great warrior and devoted son should not go before his mother in such a disrespected condition. [He and Lakshman then place his body garment over Indrajit's to have him honorably covered] Hanuman, leave him with due honor at Lanka's main gate, so that the demon soldiers can carry him inside (and he can be duly honored).When he delivered this sermon, Jambuvan looked embarrassed, Vibhishan, without whom this victory would have been impossible, was moved to tears, and the vanars looked like they had learnt another salutary lesson.
Originally posted by: godisone
I have one question. In the old Ramayan, the Sagars showed that right before Indrajit died, he had gone to take leave of his parents and wife one last time before he departed the world, because he knew he was going to be killed. Indrajit then tried to convince his father to surrender to Shri Ram before it was too late, because he finally realized the truth about Shri Ram, but Ravan wouldn't listen, saying that with a son like Indrajit, who was going to defeat him. Is it true that Indraji really realized the truth about Shri Ram before he died?
No, I've never read that anywhere either, nor have I seen that anywhere, except in this serial. Kumbhakaran, it's true, did oppose Sita's captivity just like Vibhishan did, but Indrajit is never shown holding that opinion. If there is a Ramayan version out there that has that he did, I'd sure like to know about it.
What is true however is that Indrajit did release those 3 ultimate astras against Lakshman, and they did end up doing no damage. What also happened (as per Valmiki) was that Vibhishan also joined Lakshman in fighting him.
Originally posted by: godisone
I also respect Indrajit's wife Sulochana, because she was a brave lady who promised her husband not to cry when he died. She was also a Pativrata like Mandodari, because she advised her husband for his good even when he didn't like her advice and immolated herself on his pyre after his death.
Originally posted by: godisone
I don't like saying this over and over, but I'm really disappointed with the Indrajit in this new Ramayan, because Indrajit was supposed to be this strong fierce warrior with whom Shri Ram and his army had a hard time defeating, but this new Indrajit looks like a clown (I'm sorry if you are a new Indrajit fan). I don't mean to be rude continuously😳, but I really hope he improves in the future and stops caring about his hair so much. It's more irritating than funny.
Originally posted by: Chandraketu
No, I've never read that anywhere either, nor have I seen that anywhere, except in this serial. Kumbhakaran, it's true, did oppose Sita's captivity just like Vibhishan did, but Indrajit is never shown holding that opinion. If there is a Ramayan version out there that has that he did, I'd sure like to know about it.
What is true however is that Indrajit did release those 3 ultimate astras against Lakshman, and they did end up doing no damage. What also happened (as per Valmiki) was that Vibhishan also joined Lakshman in fighting him.
Please tell me that I'm misreading you and that you don't mean that - respecting her for immolating herself on his pyre (another thing I don't recall ever reading), which is how I'm reading the sum of your remarks. Not to digress, but one of the points I have noted elsewhere outside this forum (on how rooted sati is in Vedic tradition) is that sati was an unheard of practice that early in Vedic history, and that nobody in the Ramayan did it - not Kaushalya, not Tara, nobody. If there is evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. (In the Mahabharat, it's true that Madri immolated herself, but that was due to her holding herself responsible for Pandu's death. The Mahabharat and the Puranas seem to differ on whether Rukmini and Krishna's other wives committed Sati - in the Mahabharat, some of Krishna's wives cremated themselves, some of them retired to the forests and the 1600 wives he had captured from Narakasura drowned themselves in the Saraswati, and all this happened after Arjun had brought them back to Mathura/Indraprastha. In the Puranas, all of Krishna's wives are said to have committed Sati, as well as the elderly males in the family, like Ugrasena and Vasudeva in Dwaraka itself. It can be argued whether that constitutes sati or not.)
I admire pativrata stris to a point, but the ones who try to achieve that status by committing sati, no.
I find it more funny than annoying, but I agree with you that it's very out of character with the real Indrajit. On this one, I think Vijay Arora in the old serial did this role better.Oh, I definitely didn't mean to imply that I respected her for immolating herself!😕 That's crazy! I just meant that I respected her for not marrying someone else. Anyway, I don't even know if that episode is correct, b/c in the end of the Yuddha Kanda in the old Ramayan, Ramanand Sagar himself said that this story is not in Valmikiji's Ramayan, that's why he didn't show it. He only heard about it from a version of Ramayan somewhere in Noth India, so he only mentioned it. Anyway, it probably didn't happen, because like you said, no one else in Ramayan immolated themselves, although I heard somewhere that Mandodari did (I'm not sure if it's true).In Krishna Avatar, only Rukmini and Satyabhama immolated themselves on Krishna's pyre. All the other wives of Krishna got kidnapped by bandits on the way from Dwaraka to Hastinapura, when Arjuna was taking them with him as per Krisna's wishes. His Gandiva, which annihilated many great warriors in the Kurukshetra, did not work against a few measly bandits.
Originally posted by: godisone
Oh, I definitely didn't mean to imply that I respected her for immolating herself!😕 That's crazy! I just meant that I respected her for not marrying someone else. Anyway, I don't even know if that episode is correct, b/c in the end of the Yuddha Kanda in the old Ramayan, Ramanand Sagar himself said that this story is not in Valmikiji's Ramayan, that's why he didn't show it. He only heard about it from a version of Ramayan somewhere in Noth India, so he only mentioned it. Anyway, it probably didn't happen, because like you said, no one else in Ramayan immolated themselves, although I heard somewhere that Mandodari did (I'm not sure if it's true).
Thanks for clarifying this one! I agree with you here. I'd like to find out more about Sulochna and Indrajit, and what made her so special and him so lucky.
Originally posted by: godisone
In Krishna Avatar, only Rukmini and Satyabhama immolated themselves on Krishna's pyre. All the other wives of Krishna got kidnapped by bandits on the way from Dwaraka to Hastinapura, when Arjuna was taking them with him as per Krisna's wishes. His Gandiva, which annihilated many great warriors in the Kurukshetra, did not work against a few measly bandits.
Originally posted by: Chandraketu
Thanks for clarifying this one! I agree with you here. I'd like to find out more about Sulochna and Indrajit, and what made her so special and him so lucky.
I'm assuming that this one is from the Puranas? From a Bengali version of the Mahabharat I read, Satyabhama and some other queens went into vanvas, Rukmini, Jambavati and some others of the main 8 immolated themselves and the 1600 others drowned themselves.
The Yadav girls that Arjun failed to protect weren't Krishna's wives, but rather the unmarried womenfolk of Dwaraka. I don't think Pradyumna's wife Mayavati, Krishna's daughter and Kritavarma's wife Charumati, and others were abducted and married off. It seems just that the Yadav girls - previously available only to other Yadavs in Dwaraka, got abducted and married off by the tribes who did what Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Ashwatthama et al couldn't do.
Also, not to nit pick, but technically, a Sati was only when a woman cremated herself on her husband's pyre, not if she separately committed suicide, right? Krishna's body was never found, since after Jara killed him, the devas took him to Vaikuntha, just like Indra did for Lakshman. Arjun came and did the funerals for Pradyumna, Satyaki, et al and not finding Balaram and Krishna, he assumed them dead and did their rites as well. The day after he arrived, Vasudev died, and presumably, so did Ugrasena. If this definition was strictly applied, the Mahabharat didn't have any instances of Sati either.
Anyway, sorry for going so far off tangent - back to the original topic!
Originally posted by: godisone
Even if what you said is true, Mahabharat still had an instance of Sati: what about Madri?
comment:
p_commentcount