I think mandar is just playing around with pallavi. If he wanted to something to her he would have done like he did to aai.. hope cvs bring better suspense than khoda paahadh nikala chua case. 😆
🏏IPL 2026: RCB vs LSG, 23rd Match,Bengalaru 15 Apr 7:30pm IST🏏
MEHER's DEATH 15.4
🏏IPL 2026: MI vs Punjab, 24th Match, Mumbai, 16th April 7:30pm IST🏏
Beautiful song; track of the year is here
I think mandar is just playing around with pallavi. If he wanted to something to her he would have done like he did to aai.. hope cvs bring better suspense than khoda paahadh nikala chua case. 😆
Originally posted by: AnushkhaA
Wait, so basically he is justifying the patriarchical strains of Ramayana as a result of a chinese whisper happening between Rishis? 😅😅😅
You know it may have some element of truth but then whether the Ramayana has been tampered with or not... is a mere speculation based on continuity according to him. It's a moot point anyways. We will form our theories on the basis of the texts available to us right? There is no concrete proof of it being changed in any bad/good way.. ergo paradoxically we won't know whether the original version was any better or not.
Anyways. Thanks for the video. That was pretty informative. 😃
For Sita tyaag part, archeological proofs r there that it wasn't in original written story and added much later. Thus its very much open to debate as who added what is not actually known. Even someone pointed out about Raavan which is picked from folklores sang in areas and are picked up as facts which is a very dangerous thing. So anything if has proof in written form at the oldest of times is much better info to adhere and ponder upon. Even original was written on leaves so old scripts found are not original but since less time passed between two of them, so chances of tampering is less.
Regarding agni pariksha, he told all the theories prevalent and how that part could have been tempered. But what he reasoned is more of the point to think about. In whole epic if at no instance behavior of Ram wasn't anything but to ideal state then how at that single point it deviated. And when put in same condition before with sughreev he didn't said anything like that then what was the reason for sudden behavior change. Thus there are lot of open points.
Nature of a person dont change in a day or second. Either he acted whole life and that was the truth or that was the lie and his life was the truth. Both options are open for people to believe in.