Ranbir quits alcohol for Ramayana while eating rum cake - Page 8

I had the same thought and someone on the forum told me that they put the cake on fire and you are left with a burnt cake, alcohol being an inflammable and volatile substance, would most likely burn with the top layer of cake

Originally posted by: TotalBetty

Can anyone who has actually read the book confirm?

As far as I heard, only Lakshman was celibate.

And Lord Ram & Sita ji were not vegetarians

EDIT: Okay the meat eating part is up for debate but haven't heard the celibate part until now

Lord Rama and Devi Sita observed Brahmacharya during their exile, but they were married so I am not sure if Brahmacharya would necessarily mean that they were celibate

Originally posted by: TotalBetty

That's what Ranbir is doing, if you read the article

Did he say that? Can you point me to his statement pls?

Giving up carcinogens like alcohol is good for the body. Giving up meat is good for the environment. However, the notion that these choices follow Rāma's example is unsupported by the text of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa.

In Ayodhyākāṇḍa 50.15-19, as soon as they decide to stay in Citrakūṭa, Rāma orders Lakṣmaṇa to kill a black antelope and cook the meat for yajña. In Ayodhyākāṇḍa 78.9-16, Guha greets Bharata with fish, meat, and wine. Bhāradvāja offers wine and meat to Bharata's army in Ayodhyākāṇḍa 85.18-65. In Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa 17.34, Vālin reminds Rāma that of the five-clawed animals, just five species are edible for brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas: śalyaka = porcupine, śvāvidha = rhinoceros, godhā = lizard, śaśa = hare, and kūrma = tortoise. And in Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa 18.35, Rāma replies as if he would eat monkey meat anyway: narā māṃs'ārthinaḥ = men seeking meat are not at fault.

The word eka-patnī occurs only once, at Sundarakāṇḍa 26.13, when Sītā laments that her one-wifehood is meaningless. In the context of Sītā describing her own morals, the word probably means someone who has only been one man's wife, and not someone who is the only wife to accompany her husband. In the very next verse (Sundarakāṇḍa 26.14), Sītā reproaches Rāma, implying that he has other women waiting for him to return to Ayodhyā and she knows what they look like:

pitur nideśaṃ niyamena kṛtvā vanān nivṛttaś carita-vrataś ca

strībhis tu manye vipul’ekṣaṇābhiḥ saṃraṃsyase vīta-bhayaḥ kṛt’ārthaḥ

Your father’s command fulfilled with regularity, when you’ve returned from the woods and pursued your observance, I believe you’ll enjoy yourself together with wide-eyed women, your fear dispelled and your goal achieved.

https://www.indiaforums.com/fanfiction/chapter/45897

As for celibacy, Rāma repeatedly compares Sītā's breasts to gourds, palm fruit etc. in the presence of Lakṣmaṇa. They weren't ashamed of whatever marital intimacy went on in exile.

Rather than giving up things that Rāma enjoyed, a better vow for someone who wants to portray Rāma's story authentically (script writer, director, producer, actor, costume designer ...) would be to learn Rāma's language = Saṃskṛta and get a sense of his character from Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa. The religion to which a person is born shouldn't matter; if you live and work and create art in India, Rāmāyaṇa is your heritage. How can you defend it without knowing what it is?

Originally posted by: TotalBetty

Hey, nobody expects him, asked him to do that

HE announced (or his PR) that he's going to do that

"He's going to give up.alcohol, meat, late night parties... Align himself with the virtues of Rama to immerse himself in the character..."

But agree, connecting rum cake with alcohol consumption is funny

Regarding rest of your post, not sure what that's got to do with this topic

Why bring ARR and other people's religion?

Unless somebody else here qlready brought that up, I have not read all the posts in this thread

P.S. And Hans Zimmer is a Zionist? Did not know that.

Again not sure why bring that up in this topic

And how is anyone sure he hasn't done so??

Except for that one incidence of rum cake (where rum is poured on top of cake which and when the cake is put the burning the alcohol evaporates to leave behind a burnt surface, so don't know if that is an alcoholic's delight anymore ), what is the confirmation that he hasn't abstained from the said things as per his or his PR's announcement??

Why bring those people to topic?? Well when somebody has already brought heavily weighted words like "hurting sentiments" so I don't see why others can't counter it..

Originally posted by: BrhannadaArmour

Giving up carcinogens like alcohol is good for the body. Giving up meat is good for the environment. However, the notion that these choices follow Rāma's example is unsupported by the text of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa.

In Ayodhyākāṇḍa 50.15-19, as soon as they decide to stay in Citrakūṭa, Rāma orders Lakṣmaṇa to kill a black antelope and cook the meat for yajña. In Ayodhyākāṇḍa 78.9-16, Guha greets Bharata with fish, meat, and wine. Bhāradvāja offers wine and meat to Bharata's army in Ayodhyākāṇḍa 85.18-65. In Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa 17.34, Vālin reminds Rāma that of the five-clawed animals, just five species are edible for brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas: śalyaka = porcupine, śvāvidha = rhinoceros, godhā = lizard, śaśa = hare, and kūrma = tortoise. And in Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa 18.35, Rāma replies as if he would eat monkey meat anyway: narā māṃs'ārthinaḥ = men seeking meat are not at fault.

The word eka-patnī occurs only once, at Sundarakāṇḍa 26.13, when Sītā laments that her one-wifehood is meaningless. In the context of Sītā describing her own morals, the word probably means someone who has only been one man's wife, and not someone who is the only wife to accompany her husband. In the very next verse (Sundarakāṇḍa 26.14), Sītā reproaches Rāma, implying that he has other women waiting for him to return to Ayodhyā and she knows what they look like:

pitur nideśaṃ niyamena kṛtvā vanān nivṛttaś carita-vrataś ca

strībhis tu manye vipul’ekṣaṇābhiḥ saṃraṃsyase vīta-bhayaḥ kṛt’ārthaḥ

Your father’s command fulfilled with regularity, when you’ve returned from the woods and pursued your observance, I believe you’ll enjoy yourself together with wide-eyed women, your fear dispelled and your goal achieved.

https://www.indiaforums.com/fanfiction/chapter/45897

As for celibacy, Rāma repeatedly compares Sītā's breasts to gourds, palm fruit etc. in the presence of Lakṣmaṇa. They weren't ashamed of whatever marital intimacy went on in exile.

Rather than giving up things that Rāma enjoyed, a better vow for someone who wants to portray Rāma's story authentically (script writer, director, producer, actor, costume designer ...) would be to learn Rāma's language = Saṃskṛta and get a sense of his character from Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa. The religion to which a person is born shouldn't matter; if you live and work and create art in India, Rāmāyaṇa is your heritage. How can you defend it without knowing what it is?

@bold: this! But that’s too much to grasp for these superficial people who call themselves Bollywood.

Thank you @NoraSM.

NoraSM quoted me and promptly went into hibernation, so I am answering it here

That's what I read in Quora. Some said said brahmacharya means celibacy while some said not necessarily

They were kshatriyas and married couple. During vanvas Lord Ram did kill some demons who were causing trouble, even before the Lanka war

Anyway it doesn't matter, it all started cz somebody mentioned celibacy here.

Don't want to discuss further as some find it uncomfortable.

Originally posted by: Nishita123

Did he say that? Can you point me to his statement pls?

If you read the article posted by TM, sources very close to him say that

If it's not true then hope RK steps up and refutes that and puts an end to this.

Originally posted by: bashful_moon

And how is anyone sure he hasn't done so??

Except for that one incidence of rum cake (where rum is poured on top of cake which and when the cake is put the burning the alcohol evaporates to leave behind a burnt surface, so don't know if that is an alcoholic's delight anymore ), what is the confirmation that he hasn't abstained from the said things as per his or his PR's announcement??

Why bring those people to topic?? Well when somebody has already brought heavily weighted words like "hurting sentiments" so I don't see why others can't counter it..

How are you sure he has done? 1 incident hai which says he hasn't

Originally posted by: TotalBetty

If you read the article posted by TM, sources very close to him say that

If it's not true then hope RK steps up and refutes that and puts an end to this.

This is age old tactics

Uski Puri PR team har platform pe bol rahi hai ki he has quit everything youtubers are paid to say the same

If we ask they'll be like usne to kabhi bola hi nahi

Colored Text