{|Siya ke Ram- EPIC Distortion- Frustration Thread 5|} DT Nt pg 22 - Page 72

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

saishyama

@saishyama

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#711

Originally posted by: LakshmanMila..1
We can do it saishyama !!! 😉

Sure :)

😉

Word Count: 1

Quote

Sumi

@RadhaKrishna_19

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#712

@saishyama , i agree with u totally . 😊
I didn't got the fact to hell , why lakshman was blaming himself , why he said that he did many sins throughout his life. 😕 🤢
Infact , Lakshman did absolutely correct by punishing Shurpanakha , which son will keep quiet when his mother is being attack by someone , even if someone else would there inplace of Sita , Lakshman would have done the same. He punished the lady who did crime . Also leaving Sita in forest after her abandonment , what would have Lakshman done in such a difficult situation . He was troubled on one side that how to leave his mother like Sita alone and other side , he was troubled how to disobey his brother who was like a god to him . Ram trusted on lakshman to sent Sita near valmiki ashram. It was Lakshman who did the most difficult task of leaving his mother , think, how difficult it must be for Lakshman to tell Sita about her banishment , it need a lots of courage to tell the bitter truth to Sita , also then to console his mother must be also so difficult for him keeping his pain aside. 😭
Lakshman who served his elder brother Ram and only disobeyed his brother two times in his whole lifetime - One was leaving Sita alone in hut before Sita haran because that time he was having no other choice than to follow Sita's order and the other , when he entered Ram's chamber when Durvasa arrived in Ayodhya, he decided to sacrifice his own life for saving whole Ayodhya. Such was his selflessness.
Who would have leave her wife for 14 years to serve his brother and bhabhi in exile.
Also when he left the earth by taking Jal samadhi in Sarayu, Urmila had already died by that time so she never became widow , he fulfilled his duty of husband very well except for those 14 years when he was spending his time in forest along with Ram and Sita. Also , his sons Angad and Chandraketu were rulers by the time of his parityaag.
So his all duties were completed on earth.

Showing him commiting suicide and leaving Urmila once again alone is a big insult to this great man Lakshman who was so selfless and spent his entire life serving his elder brother Ram and it cannot be forgiven in any way.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Shliya

@Shliya

Explorer

Posted: 7 years ago

#713

Very frankly not just urmila, what did the janak daughters ever do to anybody especially the makers so as to show such a terrible end. I had always understood it like this. Ram and all his brothers were avatars so of course they couldn't be killed. They took jal samadhi. By that time their mothers and wives had left their mortal body to say in simple language died. When everything was done and there was noting left to be corrected.i.e a ram rajya had been well established and there no relations left the brothers "left their mortal bodies and took samadhi"not committed suicide.

This show indirectly and many times unnecessarily championed women rights and their empowerment. And in the end they gave an impression that Ram's brothers were completely inconsiderate of their wives and went with him to end their lives. How stupid is that !!! And believing they are well alive, aren't we talking of treta yug, so would it be wrong to expect the wives following the husbands in that samadhi ??

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#714

@saishyama,

I totally agree with you.

Shurpanakha was no different from Ravan, or Jayant, or Takta, or any other asura in Ramayana who committed many crimes.

She too killed many innocent people along with Khar and Dushan, and thus she was punished as was fit.

Shurpanakha was no innocent victim. She was as bad as Khar and Dushan, as Ravan and Tataka.

She prayed on the innocent and committed many murders.

In regards to lusting after Ram and Lakshman, Lakshman did not cut off her nose because of her lust. He cut off her nose because she was attacking Sita, and as Sita was (at that moment) in no state to defend herself, he defended her like a son defends a mother.

For the makers to show that as Lakshman's sin is downright horrible and wrong. Sita Ma herself will punish them one day, for their insult towards her dear son.

For some reason, Indian society tends to think Feminism = Women superiority, and it's not. Feminism means equality, and equality means both men and women must face the consequences of their actions.

If men and women are equal, which they are, then women shouldn't be let off easily just for their gender. If they commit a crime, they should be punished just as anyone else would.

And thus, Shurpanakha deserved what she got, just like Tataka, Ravan, Khar and Dushan, etc.

Edited by ..RamKiJanaki.. - 7 years ago

Quote

Shivam...

@Shivam...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#715

I agree with all of you

one cannot just blatantly differentiate between shrupi and raavan just because their genders were differnt

both were eqaully guilty because of the similar crimes they did

1. raavan lusted for sita , shrupi lusted for the brothers

2. raavan tried to kill ram.and lakshman to get sita , shrupi tried to kill sita to get rama and lakshman

3. raavan had multiple.consorts , same case with shrupi , multiple partners

4. raavan sexually exploited women , i am pretty sure shrupi did the same with other men to satisfy her sexual desires

5. Both raavan and shrupi didnt have any respect for the praja once arogance took over them ,

6. both manupulated their relatives to get what they want

so they both were same

now let me tell u what went different

it was just that raavan was physically superior than sita ma , thereby suceeded to abuct her

shrupi couldnt do.that as the brothers were way too powerful for her , if they were normal men , i am.sure she would have forcefully married them

and please i would like to clarify that when i say raavan was physically superior than sita ma , i am not insulting sita ma and i dont.mean to say that she was weak

she was strong.in her own.way , with her inner strength and wisdom.

Edited by Shivam... - 7 years ago

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#716

Shivam, I agree with you, especially the first two points.

Many people justify Shurpanakha saying she only lusted after the brothers, so how was she wrong. I would like to ask them one thing. If Shurpanakha's lust for the two brothers isn't wrong, then why is Ravan's lust for Sita wrong? Why is he accountable for his actions, but not his sister who was of similar mindset?

It's a huge problem with our society. Men who lust after women are considered sinful (and they are), but women who lust after men are considered innocent. This transforms to rape and sexual assault also. Men who rape women are prosecuted immediately (and they should be) but when women rape men (and yes it does happen), no one believes the male victims. No one believes that a woman can rape a man.

This stems from the inherent belief that men are strong and women are weak, and thus all men are rapists and all women are victims.

But we cannot generalize people. We simply cannot. Both men and women can be rapists, both men and women can be victims. It just so happens that some men tend to rape women more, and it's unfortunate, but there are many women rapists also out there, and their crimes are brushed under the carpet.

Thus, if Ravan is guilty, so is Shurpanakha.

If people want to justify Shurpanakha and make her into a victim, they should do the same to Ravan. And if they do that, the entire point of Ramayan is gone.

So stop justifying Shurpanakha, stop making her a victim just because she's a woman.

She was sinful, she was a criminal. She was just like Ravan.

Like brother, like sister. They both were disgusting and deserved what they got.

Quote

Sanjana

@Siya-Ram

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

#717

Exactly Janu Di shoorpanakhas sin was no less compared to ravan.

Quote

Glittersnow

@Glittersnow

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

#718

respect should be given for the person for their actions their thoughts not for their gender...
the makers of this show have forgotten that...
and in their mad attempt to show every woman as sinless ...they have destroyed everything...what they should have done is show the contrast between sita and surpankha...how a woman's lust and selfishness have destroyed have destroyed the whole race...the consequence of her actions have bought downfall to her family...should have been shown...women like surpankha deserve to be punished...but alas they were busy promoting something else which even women could'nt digest...

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#719

Exactly, Aditya.

True women empowerment in this show would have been contrasting Sita and Shurpanakha, and showing how Sita Ma is everything a woman should be, while Shurpanakha is everything a woman should not be.

Instead, they showed some kitchen politics between her, Ram and Sita, with Lakshman being the main culprit in the whole affair.

CVs of this show think women empowerment means showing all women as innocent while all the men are culprits and sinners in some way or other. No man in this show was spared, not even Lord Rama himself, while all the women were justified in some way, even the criminal ones.

Quote

Shivam...

@Shivam...

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#720

Originally posted by: adiya55
respect should be given for the person for their actions their thoughts not for their gender...
the makers of this show have forgotten that...
and in their mad attempt to show every woman as sinless ...they have destroyed everything...what they should have done is show the contrast between sita and surpankha...how a woman's lust and selfishness have destroyed have destroyed the whole race...the consequence of her actions have bought downfall to her family...should have been shown...women like surpankha deserve to be punished...but alas they were busy promoting something else which even women could'nt digest...

@ sanjana and adiyaa

exactly dear , in fact so much so that mandodari said that it wasnt raavan who was main cause of lanka's downfall, it was shrupi

Yes Raavan committed sins which were unforgiving , but in the story of ramayan , the button for detonation of lanka was triggered the moment when shrupi cast her lustful eyes on Rama

As we say , u support the crime , u are criminal as well, just as raavan supported his sister .

If only a Man like vibhishan was ruling lanka , things would have been very very different

But then , the lord takes avtaar on earth only when Pot of sins becomes full

Edited by Shivam... - 7 years ago

Quote

1 ... 69 70 71 72 73

Top