Questions on Ramayan - Page 2

This content was originally posted by: proteeti

he was probably the first proper anti-hero character. He realizes what he/his dad is doing is wrong but still employs the best of techniques to make that happen.

Saying because you're a Bengali, have u read Madhusudan's masterpiece? I can't help but harbour a soft spot for Meghnath. I wanted to know if there's any basis to this as per epic but it seems he isn't a grossly bad character here unlike the Karna in KK Sambad and the one of the epic. 😆

Is Veerbahu a real Ramayan character btw, or Bhadra as mentioned by Anand Neelkantan?

And what about Mandodari? She seems to be an interesting character from the literature and work that I have come across. I also want to know the ravan's death secret story and how hanuman apparently tricked Mandodari into saying it? Elaborate please Pro 😂

Sorry for too many questions,😳 but few things about Sita as per what I know till now, how true they are.. 😆

1. Considering Sita was Ravan's daughter, was she aware? 

2. Is it true that she insulted Laxman accusing him of having romantic feelings for her when Laxman refused to listen to her and go for Ram's help? 

3. I always had a helpless image of Sita who was more of a damsel in distress and also someone who is very forgiving quiet and not demanding at all, how true is this? I mean as per epic is this the character of hers? 

4. As per Pro, Sita did want Ravan to pay for what he did. This makes her character arc similar to Draupadi's as well. That too contradicts with the image that she didn't have any desires or demands and also didn't want to punish people. However this is so contradictory to the events after Ram's return. 

5. She willingly accepts agnipariksha, not questioning his husband for once? She accepted when Ram banished her to Valmiki's ashram without speaking up once.. Why? Or am I wrong and she did speak up? 

And two very dumb not so serious questions-

She threw all her jewellery down but surprisingly left her chudamani. Why? 😆

When did Ram- Sita get the time to consummate their marriage because I hardly see the time. He banished her after return from Lanka so.. 😛

This content was originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Sorry for too many questions,😳 but few things about Sita as per what I know till now, how true they are.. 😆

1. Considering Sita was Ravan's daughter, was she aware? 

Since the Ravan's daughter point is mentioned in very few books, removing divinity no where it's mentioned she knew about it

2. Is it true that she insulted Laxman accusing him of having romantic feelings for her when Laxman refused to listen to her and go for Ram's help? 

I don't think she did. Will check and come back with this point

3. I always had a helpless image of Sita who was more of a damsel in distress and also someone who is very forgiving quiet and not demanding at all, how true is this? I mean as per epic is this the character of hers? 

As per Shakt traditions she was the driving force behind Ram killing Ravan. In fact there is a mention that she tells Ram n others about Shatramukhi Ravan (Ravan with thousand heads) and asks them to kill him, they all try and lose out at the end Seeta takes Shaktiroop n kills the demon. Anyhow she wasn't that demure, such demure people can't resist the bid king in whose custody she is

4. As per Pro, Sita did want Ravan to pay for what he did. This makes her character arc similar to Draupadi's as well. That too contradicts with the image that she didn't have any desires or demands and also didn't want to punish people. However this is so contradictory to the events after Ram's return. 

5. She willingly accepts agnipariksha, not questioning his husband for once? She accepted when Ram banished her to Valmiki's ashram without speaking up once.. Why? Or am I wrong and she did speak up? 

No she willingly accepts both the time. She knows that she isnt only the wife of Ram but the wife of the crown prince, she nerds to comply with her expectations. The public needs to trust hee

 She was actually fulfilling the duties of a queen both the times

And two very dumb not so serious questions-

She threw all her jewellery down but surprisingly left her chudamani. Why? 😆

Maybe for the exact same reason she used it, to have an identification mark

When did Ram- Sita get the time to consummate their marriage because I hardly see the time. He banished her after return from Lanka so.. 😛

They ruled fir for something prior to banishing

To add Rambha had cursed Ravan that he can't touch an unwilling woman

And Hanuman being non human is not something anthropological finding (although many are trying to link them with Neanderthals) just aa there is none for Rakshas. 

Such mentions are in the epic

This content was originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

To add Rambha had cursed Ravan that he can't touch an unwilling woman

And Hanuman being non human is not something anthropological finding (although many are trying to link them with Neanderthals) just aa there is none for Rakshas. 

Such mentions are in the epic

Two probabilities, one is that he was non Aryan human, which means a different tribe. 

Or he was a different species. Can't be monkeys I guess. But he technically did have a tail... So yeah

This content was originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Two probabilities, one is that he was non Aryan human, which means a different tribe. 

Or he was a different species. Can't be monkeys I guess. But he technically did have a tail... So yeah

Monkeys are called Kapi if they were monkeys they need not be called Vanar (Van+Nar)

There were multiple species mentioned along with Vanars Asur, Rakshas, Daitya, Danavs(we now consider all as same but they aren't), Nagas, Panis, Yakshas, Gandharvas etc. Most probably all were non Aryan tribes/civilizations. Since Danavs made beautiful buildings I think they might have been the remainders from Indus Valley civilization

Vanars could definitely be one of them. I somehow feel they were called by their Totem names

This content was originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Monkeys are called Kapi if they were monkeys they need not be called Vanar (Van+Nar)

There were multiple species mentioned along with Vanars Asur, Rakshas, Daitya, Danavs(we now consider all as same but they aren't), Nagas, Panis, Yakshas, Gandharvas etc. Most probably all were non Aryan tribes/civilizations. Since Danavs made beautiful buildings I think they might have been the remainders from Indus Valley civilization

Vanars could definitely be one of them. I somehow feel they were called by their Totem names

Yes so if it is a totem name then they were all human right? I guess that's the most common conception and viable also... 

Nagas was definitely a totem name. Gandharvas were probably a class of musicians just like Danavs are architects as u said i guess

I always felt rakshash daitya danav etc are all different non Aryan tribes whom they considered half human or monstrous because of their xenophobic racist attitude. 

What do you think of Rakshashas ie Ravan's praja? 

This content was originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Yes so if it is a totem name then they were all human right? I guess that's the most common conception and viable also... 

Nagas was definitely a totem name. Gandharvas were probably a class of musicians just like Danavs are architects as u said i guess

I always felt rakshash daitya danav etc are all different non Aryan tribes whom they considered half human or monstrous because of their xenophobic racist attitude. 

What do you think of Rakshashas ie Ravan's praja? 

Yes they have to be humans if you believe it to be true else it's just fiction.

As of Daitya Danav Nagas, Apsaras and of course Devas they all have their origins from Kashyap rishi a human so I guess we are clear they were different human clans later given same ancestory to remove friction

The groups which they didn't find homogeneity was given a monstrous outlook

Rakshas were originally not bad in earliest texts. I somehow feel that they are related to Yakshas, not just similarly in names but also Ravan n Kuber are brothers. 

This content was originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes they have to be humans if you believe it to be true else it's just fiction.

As of Daitya Danav Nagas, Apsaras and of course Devas they all have their origins from Kashyap rishi a human so I guess we are clear they were different human clans later given same ancestory to remove fiction

The groups which they didn't find homogeneity was given a monstrous outlook

Rakshas were originally not bad in earliest texts. I somehow feel that they are related to Yakshas, not just similarly in names but also Ravan n Kuber are brothers. 

Kuber is supposed to be a God or something? I have heard of Ravan's story of how he took away Lanka and Pushpak Viman from Kuber but how come Ravan is Brahmarakshasha and Kuber is God? Different mothers? 

I also agree Hanuman, Sugreev etc were human beings, but what do u make of the tail because it has an important significance in the story ie Lanka destruction. 

This content was originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Kuber is supposed to be a God or something? I have heard of Ravan's story of how he took away Lanka and Pushpak Viman from Kuber but how come Ravan is Brahmarakshasha and Kuber is God? Different mothers? 

I also agree Hanuman, Sugreev etc were human beings, but what do u make of the tail because it has an important significance in the story ie Lanka destruction. 

That is why the Hindu apologists have come up with the a (pseudo Scientific) theory that Vanars were actually Neanderthals and Neanderthals had tails, it didn't have any bone hence the present day scientists during skeletons reconstruction we think that Neanderthals lacked tails. They say that no Neanderthal skeleton is found in India because Hinduism/India had the practice of cremation leaving no ruins

This theory is absolutely stupid, not just because there is nothing to suggest that Neanderthals had their presence in Indian subcontinent but also because reconstruction isn't just basis skeleton reconstruction. 

Anyhow coming to the discussion, Jain Ramayana has them being Humans

Actually the Adivasi retelling has them being humans who wore Dhotis is such style as the end was always lose and flowing

Kuber is the treasurer of Devtas. He is a Yaksh. Ravan is the son of same father as Kuber but has s Rakshasi mother Kekasi. I think this is a symbol to show common ancestory of both Yaksh and Rakshas

This content was originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

That is why the Hindu apologists have come up with the a (pseudo Scientific) theory that Vanars were actually Neanderthals and Neanderthals had tails, it didn't have any bone hence the present day scientists during skeletons reconstruction we think that Neanderthals lacked tails. They say that no Neanderthal skeleton is found in India because Hinduism/India had the practice of cremation leaving no ruins

This theory is absolutely stupid, not just because there is nothing to suggest that Neanderthals had their presence in Indian subcontinent but also because reconstruction isn't just basis skeleton reconstruction. 

Anyhow coming to the discussion, Jain Ramayana has them being Humans

Actually the Adivasi retelling has them being humans who wore Dhotis is such style as the end was always lose and flowing

Kuber is the treasurer of Devtas. He is a Yaksh. Ravan is the son of same father as Kuber but has s Rakshasi mother Kekasi. I think this is a symbol to show common ancestory of both Yaksh and Rakshas

It's highly unlikely that they are neanderthals because then some skeletons must have been found because if they were indeed present here some may have died in forests or not cremated? 

Also aren't they supposed to be from Eurasia? Difficult that they were in India.. Not possible without anthropological evidence.