beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 5 hours ago, coffee_rules said: . He had to protect and choose Raja Dharma over Purusha Dharma for the greater good of the society. Wife was not his praja or part of society? What example does the king set for the praja? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 5 hours ago, coffee_rules said: . If his citizens felt that he was so attached to Sita as to keep her despite her impurity, then they would, consciously or subconsciously, use Rama’s alleged attachment to rationalize their own attachments to unworthy things. He made her go through agni pariksha. What was that for? Was it not a test for ' purity'? Attachment to wife and unworthy things are in the same category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 8 hours ago, dial_100 said: 1000 salutations to Mata Sita who was a Sakshat Shakti herself. She didnt crybaby like modern feminists are. (ummm mmm we are not allowed to do this and we are not allowed to do that, my husband abandoned me). She had just spent 14 years in jungles. She could have easily freed herself from the clutches of ravana. But Rama had to put an end to ravana's misrule. More than killing ravana, it was destroying his ego that was the moral of the story. She didnt need a support or help. She was not weak. She was extremely capable to raise her two sons which she proved by how she raised them. Feminist should stop apaprachar that Shri Sita was abala nari and she would need a support of these ....leave it. Shri Ram himself is worshiped and praised by Shri Shiva. Shri Shiva, whose name even cannot be brought on my tongue without me being perfectly cleansed (not worldly cleansing like bathing etc. It is inner cleansing). I am incapable to imagine and comprehend what Shri Ram would be and that Shri Shiva meditated on him. The meaning of word Maryada purushottama is not easy to comprehend for human. Despite being the most powerful fighter in the war against ravana, he gave him numerous chances to surrender and accept his mistake. Never lost his patience, never let his emotions take over his judgement, never misused his powers. Shri Ram had incarnated on the earth in a human form. You and I both are humans. I will leave rest to your imagination. abandon : 1. cease to support or look after (someone); desert. That is the problem with us. Call women strong and Goddess like and justify the unfairness meted to them....because we called them strong ,they can deal with it. Ram gave Ravana many chances ...but didn't give the same chance to Sita even after making her go through agni pariksha. It is like a teacher failing a brilliant student who passed...just so that some loser can feel better. There is nothing fair about that as a king,husband or even as a human. That definition of abandon seems to fit the situation . Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 32 minutes ago, beetle said: That is the problem with us. Call women strong and Goddess like and justify the unfairness meted to them....because we called them strong ,they can deal with it. Ram gave Ravana many chances ...but didn't give the same chance to Sita even after making her go through agni pariksha. It is like a teacher failing a brilliant student who passed...just so that some loser can feel better. There is nothing fair about that as a king,husband or even as a human. That definition of abandon seems to fit the situation . Whats also important to realize, is that by this time(of return to Ayodhya), according to the story, Ram was already recognized as divine avatar. Divine avatar who does not use 'innocent until proven guilty' for his own wife ! he could've easily- VERY easily- used this axiom to defend Sita and the countless women down the ages by setting an example. Yet, he chose to fail as a husband and dispenser of justice to the accused (Sita). Ram dropped the ball, no if and or buts about it. And now, the religious zealots will go on and justify it, because it presumes God-ship to Ram and since Ram failed in this morally and ethically, they will come up with BS to justify their presupposition of infallibility of Ram. Christians, Muslims all do this with their God or religious figures, Hindus are no exception. Laaloo and beetle 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: 'innocent until proven guilty In Sita's case ,it was 'guilty after proven innocent '. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, beetle said: In Sita's case ,it was 'guilty after proven innocent '. When it comes to infidelity accusations, especially against hot women, its always guilty until proven innocent. Ram was just an ordinary dude in this regard. Edited October 23, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: When it comes to infidelity accusations, especially against hot women, its always guilty until proven innocent. Ram was just an ordinary dude in this regard. Sita passed the agni pariksha ....still she was not given the innocent certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboysfan Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 are you guys seriously arguing over the motives of fictional people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 1 hour ago, beetle said: He made her go through agni pariksha. What was that for? Was it not a test for ' purity'? Attachment to wife and unworthy things are in the same category? Read who wrote The first edition of Ramayana (Valmiki) and then the Uttara kanda, there is at least a 500 year difference between these two. Yes, there are disconnects, but the idea to focus on is idealism and not practicality based on modern day ethics. Ramayana is part of thretha yuga. You want to apply that logic to your modern day upbringing and issues like Feminism? We need to look at the positives of ithihasa. Also, a lot of it is lost in translation. Colonial ch*tiyas have translated Ramayana based on their biases and pre-conceived notions and you are arguing on those translated works. The important verse in Manu Smriti says, this Smriti is not a rule book, it has to be changed based on current times and practicality. But the first reference to Manu Smriti will brand you as as Manuwaadi, Savarnawaadi, Brahmanwaadi. Go Figure! That is how Hindu reform happens. ChristoIslamoFeminism wants to be dogmatic. My way or High Way! Shunya and Stradlater 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 2 hours ago, beetle said: Wife was not his praja or part of society? What example does the king set for the praja? Conflict of interest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Read who wrote The first edition of Ramayana (Valmiki) and then the Uttara kanda, there is at least a 500 year difference between these two. Yes, there are disconnects, but the idea to focus on is idealism and not practicality based on modern day ethics. Ramayana is part of thretha yuga. You want to apply that logic to your modern day upbringing and issues like Feminism? We need to look at the positives of ithihasa. Also, a lot of it is lost in translation. Colonial ch*tiyas have translated Ramayana based on their biases and pre-conceived notions and you are arguing on those translated works. The important verse in Manu Smriti says, this Smriti is not a rule book, it has to be changed based on current times and practicality. But the first reference to Manu Smriti will brand you as as Manuwaadi, Savarnawaadi, Brahmanwaadi. Go Figure! That is how Hindu reform happens. ChristoIslamoFeminism wants to be dogmatic. My way or High Way! What has basic fairness got to do with ages or time? Forget about gender here. Basic human fairness says that if you make a person go through a test and the person passes that test then it is a pass. You can't make a person go through fire and then fail the person to please some loser in the kingdom. That is unfair in all ages. Lets not even start talking about manu now.....that is a whole different slimy slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Just now, coffee_rules said: Conflict of interest! I say it is the easier way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Read who wrote The first edition of Ramayana (Valmiki) and then the Uttara kanda, there is at least a 500 year difference between these two. Yes, there are disconnects, but the idea to focus on is idealism and not practicality based on modern day ethics. Ramayana is part of thretha yuga. You want to apply that logic to your modern day upbringing and issues like Feminism? We need to look at the positives of ithihasa. Also, a lot of it is lost in translation. Colonial ch*tiyas have translated Ramayana based on their biases and pre-conceived notions and you are arguing on those translated works. what is 'ideal' about forcing your wife to take a fire-test on hear-say accusations, then banish her despite passing ?! Yes, colonialist chootiyas...the same old 'its not our fault, evil English people twisted everything' knee-jerk reaction. Because no indian knows how to read Sanskrit and we are only dependent on white people to teach us Sanskrit, right ? And if we cannot criticize it because Ram is not good enough by modern standards, then why is Ram still relevant ?! You are basically saying that Ramayana is obsolete and inapplicable today - so its just a fairytale in today's context...correct ? 5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: The important verse in Manu Smriti says, this Smriti is not a rule book, it has to be changed based on current times and practicality. But the first reference to Manu Smriti will brand you as as Manuwaadi, Savarnawaadi, Brahmanwaadi. Go Figure! That is how Hindu reform happens. ChristoIslamoFeminism wants to be dogmatic. My way or High Way! The smriti says so because its a smriti literature, not shruti ! Ramayana, Mahabharata - they are all smritis ! beetle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Conflict of interest! there is no conflict of interest in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Its not in his praja's interest for him to uphold unsubstantiated suspicion = banishment. It makes his women praja suffer. There is only one credible angle to this conflict of interest : Ram was a coward and afraid that there is going to be a coup to get rid of him if he does not satisfy his praja's insane whims. Only then does it make sense for a God-king to say 'screw ethics, i am going with my people's insanity - otherwise its my neck on the line'. beetle and Laaloo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, beetle said: What has basic fairness got to do with ages or time? Forget about gender here. Basic human fairness says that if you make a person go through a test and the person passes that test then it is a pass. You can't make a person go through fire and then fail the person to please some loser in the kingdom. That is unfair in all ages. Lets not even start talking about manu now.....that is a whole different slimy slope. its called double-jeopardy in legal terms. In ancient times, these type of tests or such were common but if you survived, all the power to you, you walk free. This is why in the medieval ages people duelled - the concept was 'we will let God deciede if they are innocent or not - if they win the fight, God clearly wants them to live because they are innocent'. This is also why Jesus was crucified by the romans - he wasnt the only one crucified, they crucified thousands upon thousands - sometimes slaves, sometimes war prisoners to serve as a fearful example. But they ESPECIALLY crucified anyone claiming to be of divine origin or messenger of Gods - they didn't just crucify Jesus, they also crucified random oracles who claimed to know Jupiter's mind (Roman version of Indra, king of Gods) and such. Being rationalists, their reasoning was ' ok. we will nail you to a pole. If you are divine or you have this God's special favor, surely you will either save yourself or your God will save you'. But Rama's example is a very, VERY rare case of someone passing the test and still getting penalized. Edited October 23, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Its a seperate topic alltogether, but what will REALLY piss off the hinduvtas is the growing consensus amongst historians (both indian and foreign) that Ramayana is not an Indian origin tale but a mesopotamian one that was imported into India in the last 2500 years or so. The culture clash is also evident, where Mahabharata's moral relativism & sexual openness ( which is representative of ancient India) is in stark contrast to a much more middle-eastern 'perfect man with no flaws whatsoever and super-conservative marriage archetypes' is on view. Laaloo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Its a seperate topic alltogether, but what will REALLY piss off the hinduvtas is the growing consensus amongst historians (both indian and foreign) that Ramayana is not an Indian origin tale but a mesopotamian one that was imported into India in the last 2500 years or so. The culture clash is also evident, where Mahabharata's moral relativism & sexual openness ( which is representative of ancient India) is in stark contrast to a much more middle-eastern 'perfect man with no flaws whatsoever and super-conservative marriage archetypes' is on view. Yeah, from your commie prescribed peer-reviewed historic accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Yeah, from your commie prescribed peer-reviewed historic accounts. No, there is simply far more evidence of it in mesopotamian culture than India. It will start becoming mainstream in the next few years - i will give you that long to prepare for your wailing when its out. I am just giving you an early head-start. Edited October 23, 2018 by Muloghonto Laaloo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Global.Baba Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 I don’t think women who are truly religious are dying to visit sabarimala all of a sudden just because the Supreme Court gave permission. There are sometimes some unwritten rules. If tommorow Supreme Court says it is ok to eat Non veg during Hindu festivals, it is not going to effect the guy who keeps fast anyways nor is it going to change anything to a non religious person Its just all the other idiots doing this drama. Faith, believing in omens, superstitions all are close cousins so this verdict will have no impact than some political mileage for all involved. rkt.india 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts