How can someone like Ravana more than Ram? - Page 3

Originally posted by: -Mano-

This is what I was expecting

We can have difference of opinions

But still can have sensible and useful convos

Yes I would also love to know the reasoning

Looking forward to our future interaction in this forum

Vanga Pazhagalam😉😆

PS:Konar guide was our savior wasn't it😆😆

Originally posted by: Ramyalaxmi

Unless we discuss from different aspects, we can't move forward. (just my POV).
@bold: me too

vanthuvittom 😆

@red: All time friend😛

Originally posted by: Ramyalaxmi

Hi, Good to know about Sita's mandir. Looking forward to interact with u to now abt Ravana from ur (mean Sri Lankan's) view.

My long time question: Here Sri means Lakshmi, so does it mean lakshmi island? (just to know)

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

See the problem I see is because of the wrong intrapretation of the epic and its usage at places where it shouldn't be used.

There are many people who use Ram's abandonement of Sita to subjudicate woman. And it is a fact in our society. Our movies and teleserials glorify the subjudicated, abused leading lady crying buckets of tears as Sita Maiyya.

The dumb leading man standing beside her when all such abuses are hurled at her or he himself throwing her out is compared to Lord Ram.

When it is pointed out the abduction of Sita happened because she crossed Lakshman Rekha hence woman has to be in the confines of the boundary set by men.

Women cannot walk in night, because there are some unruly men who can harm them. So Men can be irresponsible, women needs to be responsible and if anything untoward happens it is woman's fault. Point it to Lakshman Rekha. Such intrapretations in folklores, daily life and in general in society have created an agitation towards Agnipareeksha and Sita banishment. So rather than running away from such questions it is better such questions are answered which will be understandable to present generation.

If you look Ramayana, Ram kills Bali, but his wife Thara has great reverence for Ram and even instructs her son Angad to support Ram in the war against Raavan. Why would a slain man's wife support her husband's murderer.

Same is the case with Mandodari. Mandodhari is also not showing any anatagonism towards Ram.

And Ram is shown giving respect to both these women. After Raavan's death as per the story I know Ram gives clear instructions to Vanar Sena that Mandodhari should be allowed to see her husband's body and she should be treated like a queen. Nothing less.

Except for Panchali all the other 4 women which Hinduism treats as Panch Kanya are connected to Ram one way or other. Sita, Tara, Mandodari and Ahalya.

So its time for us to understand in better fashion why Ram did what he did. What was his real message to the society.

I will never believe 7th incarnation of Lord Vishnu gave the message of women subjudication, physical purity over emotional purity, giving punishment to a woman for a man's mistake. If that was the case he would have never liberated Ahalya the woman who paid the price of Indra's mistake.

So I would like to understand him better and hope CVs oblige me.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

See the problem I see is because of the wrong intrapretation of the epic and its usage at places where it shouldn't be used.

There are many people who use Ram's abandonement of Sita to subjudicate woman. And it is a fact in our society. Our movies and teleserials glorify the subjudicated, abused leading lady crying buckets of tears as Sita Maiyya.

The dumb leading man standing beside her when all such abuses are hurled at her or he himself throwing her out is compared to Lord Ram.

When it is pointed out the abduction of Sita happened because she crossed Lakshman Rekha hence woman has to be in the confines of the boundary set by men.

Women cannot walk in night, because there are some unruly men who can harm them. So Men can be irresponsible, women needs to be responsible and if anything untoward happens it is woman's fault. Point it to Lakshman Rekha. Such intrapretations in folklores, daily life and in general in society have created an agitation towards Agnipareeksha and Sita banishment. So rather than running away from such questions it is better such questions are answered which will be understandable to present generation.

If you look Ramayana, Ram kills Bali, but his wife Thara has great reverence for Ram and even instructs her son Angad to support Ram in the war against Raavan. Why would a slain man's wife support her husband's murderer.

Same is the case with Mandodari. Mandodhari is also not showing any anatagonism towards Ram.

And Ram is shown giving respect to both these women. After Raavan's death as per the story I know Ram gives clear instructions to Vanar Sena that Mandodhari should be allowed to see her husband's body and she should be treated like a queen. Nothing less.

Except for Panchali all the other 4 women which Hinduism treats as Panch Kanya are connected to Ram one way or other. Sita, Tara, Mandodari and Ahalya.

So its time for us to understand in better fashion why Ram did what he did. What was his real message to the society.

I will never believe 7th incarnation of Lord Vishnu gave the message of women subjudication, physical purity over emotional purity, giving punishment to a woman for a man's mistake. If that was the case he would have never liberated Ahalya the woman who paid the price of Indra's mistake.

So I would like to understand him better and hope CVs oblige me.

Originally posted by: Ramyalaxmi

Hi, Good to know about Sita's mandir. Looking forward to interact with u to know abt Ravana from ur (mean Sri Lankan's) view.

My long time question: Here Sri means Lakshmi, so does it mean lakshmi island? (just to know)