Stupidity is really crossing limits in today's world. People are interpreting the events, that are ages old, in their own ways, and that too, by cherry - picking things.
People are ‘criticising’ those things about which they have done zero research. I have no knowledge about Theory of Relativity. Hence, I will never criticise it. Simple!
Firstly, I would like to thank my Quoran friend for providing me an opportunity to write about this. He had sent me this link[1] and asked me to write a post refuting foolish claims in it. It's a post on Word Press. I am writing this, on my part, because the same propaganda is everywhere.
My answer is based on three authentic Ramayanas :
- Valmiki Ramayana
- Adhyatma Ramayana
- Ramcharitmanas
- This is because Ramayana occurs in different Aeons (Kalpas).
- Starting with women. I am a female, and a proud feminist as well as a meninist. In that article, the poster has written this regarding the women during Ramayana :
Now that we are talking about women, let’s talk about it in details. The biggest faults lied in the attitude of the society towards the women. Women were the things that were least cared for in the whole story. Although the story boasts of fighting a war for a woman’s honour, the principal characters and the traditions completely were inattentive towars women’s rights and their needs.
Well, he says that “Women were the things that were least cared for in the whole story.”. Women are “things”? Seriously? This shows the cheap mentality of the one who tried to put fake allegations on the most excellent man ever.
This claim is extremely stupid. It was a woman for whom Sri Rama, with His wife and brother, were exiled for fourteen years.
When Sri Rama was exiled, Devi Sita had to plead Sri Rama to accompany Him. He didn't want His wife to accompany Him, because of the difficulties. This shows how much He loved Her.
Now, women were even allowed to rule during those days. Don't believe me? Well, it's your choice! Read further to find out!
When Kaikeyi heartlessly gave the barks to Devi Sita to wear, Maharshi Vashishta was enraged. He didn't want to Devi Sita to go to the forest. Rather, He wanted Her to rule the kingdom. He also said that if Sita went to the forest, the city - dwellers would go, too.
"Oh the evil minded Kaikeyi, who have exceeded your limits, who have brought disgrace to your family! You are not establishing justifiable standard and you misled the king.
"Oh, the woman without decorum! Seetha the princess shall not proceed to forest. She will occupy the throne, which was awarded to Rama."
"A wife is very self to all, who constantly care for their wives. As Seetha is Rama's self, she can rule the earth."
"Or rather, if Seetha goes to forest together with Rama, we also will follow suit. This city too will go[2]."
He further wanted Devi Sita to wear Royal Clothes, if She went to the forest :
"Moreover, putting aside the bark of trees, give excellent jewellery to your daughter-in-law, Oh, Kaikeyi! the bark of trees is not ordained for her" Thus saying so, Vasishta prevented that wearing of garment by Seetha.
"Oh, Kaikeyi! It was solicited by you, the dwelling in the forest of Rama only. Let Seetha, to be decorated daily, be adorned with ornaments and live in the forest along with Rama."
"Let Seetha go with excellent conveyances, well accompanied by attendants, with all costumes and useful accessories. Her exile was not indeed solicted by you, while asking for boons[3]"
Women even fought wars. Mata Kaikeyi got boons from King Dasharatha, because She had protected Him in a war.
"Oh, Rama! During a battle and a great war between celestials and demons long ago, I protected your father who was pierced by darts. Then, he gave me two boons."[4]
- Further, he writes :
It is often said that in early india, women had the choice to select their bridegrooms as in the case of sita. But was it so No, it can be clearly seen by the demand put forward by Sita’s father, Janaka when he announced that to marry his daughter, the man would have to put a string on Shiva’s bow. What if Sita didn’t want to marry a powerful archer or a prince? Well the answer is nobody really cared. Because soon after the marriage of sita and Rama, three other sisters of Sita were married to the three brothers of Rama without caring the least about their choices.
This is what happens when you debate about The Theory of Relativity, but don't know who proposed it! Sri Vishnu and Devi Mahalakshmi incarnated as Sri Rama and Devi Sita. They were born to be married to each other. Devi Sita didn't reject because She loved Sri Rama from Her heart. In other versions, it is beautifully described as to how they blushed by seeing each other in a garden. The bow could only be broken by Sri Rama and nobody else. And who said that no permission was taken? According to scriptures, both the bride and the bridegroom have to agree for marriage. Otherwise, they aren't married.
Valmiki Ramayana is written in a formal style. In Ramcharitmanas, Goswami Tulsidas ji described how they looked at each other and smiled, during their marriage. This proves that both loved each other. This foolish claim is again busted.
Just to point out the propaganda that Ramayana is misogynistic, narratong an incident in which Sri Rama eliminated a molester, Vali.
Vali was eliminated by Sri Rama because he had wrongfully lusted on Devi Ruma, Sugreeva's wife. When Vali questioned Him, He spoke :
"Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you... you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking the perpetual tradition. [4-18-18]
"While the great-souled Sugreeva is still alive, you with your habit of sinful acts have lustily misbehaved with Sugreeva's wife Ruma, who should be counted as your daughter-in-law. [4-18-19]
"Thereby, oh, vanara, this punishment is imposed on you, for your dissolute sinning in abusing your brother's wife, thereby for your transgression of tradition and virtue. [4-18-20]
"I foresee no other kind of control other than punishment to him who conducts himself contrary to the society and who is deviant of conventions. [4-18-21]
"As a Kshatriya emerged from a best dynasty I do not tolerate your wrongdoing, and the punishment to the one who lustfully indulges with his daughter, or with his sister, or with the wife of his younger brother is his elimination, as recalled from scriptures. [4-18-22, 23a][5]
Further, if I said about women, Sri Rama believed that mother and motherland were superior to heaven (not present in the Critical Edition) :
अपि स्वर्णमयी लङ्का न मे लक्ष्मण रोचते |
जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी ||
Translation: "Lakshmana, even this golden Lanka does not appeal to me. Mother and motherland are superior even to heaven."
- Next, he says :
Second incident of simple patriarchy was seen when lakshmana cut off the nose and ears of shurpanakha. Rama didn’t even care about asking or questioning lakshmana about it.
Things like these say as to why we need men's rights in India, too. When Shurpnakha approached Sri Rama for marrying her, she said these horrible words :
"I can excel all of them by my bravery, oh, Rama, and on seeing you for the first time I had a notion that you being the choicest among men you alone are my husband, hence I neared you. [3-17-24]
"I am endowed with such preponderances and I can operate with my independent might, as such you become my everlasting husband by the way, what can you bring off with Seetha. [3-17-25]
"Unlovely and unshapely is this one, such as she is, this Seetha is unworthy to be your wife, and I am the lone one worthy to be your wife, hence treat me as your wife. [3-17-26]
"Shall I eat up this disfigured, dishonest, diabolical human female with a hallow stomach along with him, that brother of yours to make you free.
"Afterwards, you can lustily ramble about Dandaka forest along with me while enjoying yourself on various mountaintops in the sky and in forests on the earth." So Shuurpanakha said to Rama[6]. [3-17-28]
Hearing her words, He gently denied Her by saying in a humorous way :
"Oh, honourable one, I am married and this is my dear wife, thus it will be distressing for your sort of females to live with a co-wife. [3-18-2]
"He is my younger brother named Lakshmana, he is with a good conduct, good looking, a promising and valiant one, and he is without a wife. [3-18-3]
"He is without a wife and in need of a wife he is youthful, good-looking and he can become a fitly husband of yours, fit enough to your kind of features[7]. [3-18-4]
Next, she approached Sri Lakshmana :
"I with my best complexion will be your deserving wife meetly to you charm, you can happily take a jaunt all over Dandaka forest along with me." So Shuurpanakha ran after Lakshmana. [3-18-7]
"How you wish to become a female servant, oh, [black] lotus-coloured one, by becoming the wife of a servant like me? I am just a vassal of my adorable brother[8]. [3-18-9]
Sri Lakshmana also denied her gently. In a humorous tone, He further asked her to approach Rama. Then, Shurpnakha got frustrated and sought to kill Devi Sita :
"Tenacious of her who is disfigured, dishonest, diabolical, hallow-stomached old wife of yours you are not regarding me high. [3-18-15]
"Now I wish to eat up this human female right before your very eyes, and then I can blithely make merry along with you, without the botheration of a co-wife." Said Shuurpanakha to Rama. [3-18-16]
Speaking that way she that torch-eyed Shuurpanakha dashed towards the deer-eyed Seetha in high exasperation as a great meteor would dash towards Rohini, the brightest star in the sky. [3-18-17][9]
And then, when Sri Rama asked Sri Lakshmana to mark note of Devi Sita, He sought to protect Her.
And then, Sri Lakshmana chopped off her ears and nose.
If a girl, goes out to buy chilly flakes and while returning, she feels that somebody tries to mess with her by taking advantage of the situation, what should she do? She should throw the chilly flakes into the eyes of that person.
And this is what Sri Lakshmana did. He didn't say a thing when Shurpnakha was talking with Sri Rama, but when she tried to attack Devi Sita, He took a step.
- Now, whatever he wrote about Agni Pravesha was a disgusting, outrageous and foolish lie :
Things again turned gloomy when Sita returned back after the death of Ravana. The so called great Rama asked her to give ‘agnipariksha’ to prove her purity or chastity. I just have a question even if something wrong might have happened with her forcefully in Lanka, did it make her less deserving for Rama’s love?
Firstly, that's not “Agnipariksha”. It's actually “Agni Pravesha”.
Second, I throw an open challenge. If anybody is able to prove that, in Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Rama had “asked” for any such purity test, I will stop writing about Ramayana from that day onwards.
Sri Rama never asked for any test. He only spoke a few harsh words. He only disowned Her. Hearing His words, Devi Sita asked Sri Lakshmana to create a pyre. And then, She entered the pyre. Agni Pravesha was Her own decision[10].
Everybody, present over there, were crying. But, Sri Rama was firm. Why? Because He trusted Her. He was confident enough about Her. When She returned, Sri Rama was wet with tears of joy. He said that He knew about Her chastity. But, His intentions were different. He wanted to show to the three worlds that His wife was the purest. No spot was on Her[11].
According to Adhyatma Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas, it was Chhaya Sita who was kidnapped, not the real Devi Sita. Through the Agni Pravesha, the real Devi Sita was returned to Sri Rama.
- Next lie is, about Uttarkanda :
The final nail in the coffin was the incident of sending pregnant Seeta in exile. This was done when Rama got a secret information from his spies about a washerman who threw her wife out of the house and took a jibe at the king. Rama, instead of punishing the man for his vicious act, showed solidarity with him by sending her own pregnant wife into forest without any suitable reason. And guess what, Sita followed her without a single objection. Because that’s what women were supposed to do.
From where is the washerman coming? The poster doesn't even know that the washerman story only comes in Padma Puran. In Valmiki Ramayana or Adhyatma Ramayana, no such washerman is mentioned in the Uttarkanda. Moreover, in Ramcharitmanas, they both are blessed with two kids in the palace itself. Devi Sita doesn't leave the palace.
He highlights that Devi Sita obeyed Him without objection. Huh! She was a strong and a brave lady. Kaliyugi modernists can't understand Her bravery. Leaving the palace, accordingly, was Her decision.
Uttarkanda according to Valmiki Ramayana :
In Valmiki Ramayana, Devi Sita had wished to spend time with seers in forest. Sri Rama wanted Her wish to be fulfilled.
Next, Sri Bhadra, His Vidushi, or humorous courtier, reported Him about what His people thought about Him, upon His enquiry. He said about the positive things. Then, upon Sri Rama's insistence, He elucidated the negative things also. One of them was about Devi Sita.
Next day, He asked His brother, Lakshmana to fetch Devi Sita near the hermitage where Maharshi Valmiki lived. Reason? She would live peacefully over there. Her children would also receive proper education there. And Her wish would also be fulfilled.
Uttarkanda according to Adhyatma Ramayana :
According to Adhyatma Ramayana, it was more precisely their mutual decision. The deities were awaiting the return of both. Devi Sita ingormed about this to Sri Rama. Then, Sri Rama said that He had a plan. He would exile Her. After many days, in the court, He would ask Her to take an oath and then, She would enter the earth. After a few days, Sri Rama would also return. Devi Sita agreed. It was their mutual plan with a reason.
So, it was their mutual decision. Nobody told Her to leave the palace.
- Another baseless point, Ashwamedha Yajna :
One more crucial point to be added to the flaws is the conducting of ashvamedha yajna by Rama. This shows that Rama, as a king was an expansionist and didn’t care about the sovereignty of other rulers and their people.
Here, He has called Sri Rama to be an “expansionist”. However, as per Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Rama ruled the entire earth! So how is the story of “expansion” coming?
He did the Rajasuya Yajna for the benefit of His own people as per Ramayana. Nothing sort of expansion is mentioned.
Credits : Shashwat Gupta and Priyansh Jain
- Next lie highlights Shambhuka :
In many versions of ramayana, there is a story which further augments the theory of hierarchical caste divide in Rama’s kingdom. According to the tale, one day a young man of a brahmana family died in Rama’s kingdom. He asked his principal advisor vashishtha to find out why this happened because it was said that nobody died in young age in his reign. Vashishtha said that a shudra is worshipping in a cave far away and this leads to the imbalance in the system. Hence the untimely death of a brahmana youth. Rama at once ordered for his bow and arrows. He used the magical arrows to kill the worshipping shudra and the dead youth was restored to life. What was this if not sheer and blatant casteism? Then comes the episode of sugriva. Rama helped Sugriva by killing his elder brother Bali, that too immorally.
My question is, from where is casteism coming in Treta Yuga? Shudra was a “varna” and not caste.
Shambhuka was doing Tapas for greed. He wanted to conquer heaven. For him, a child died. Many other heinous things would have happened if he weren't eliminated.
I am a student. Can I sit on the Principal's chair? No! I would be expelled from my school in that case.
He was a Shudra by profession, not caste. Maharshi Valmiki was a hunter, initially. Later, He became a Brahmin by varna. He composed Ramayana and that too, in Sanskrit. This single incident defies all the false claims.
And who said that non - Brahmins and non - Kshatriyas couldn't go to heaven? Shabari attained heaven through Her pure salvation and devotion. Whereas, Shambhuka was in greed.
While Shabari ascended to heaven with her own divine self-resplendence, Raghava who is with Lakshmana started to cogitate over the magnificence of Matanga disciples. [3-75-1][12]
- Next lie by this T. V. Serial fan is about Mata Shabari :
Another incident which is glorified to portray the society as egalitarian is the incident of shabri who offered berries to Lord Rama and his brother Lakshmana. It is said that Lord Rama didn’t believe in any inequalities and his kingdom was also just. But the glorification of this event suggests something different. If it was such a normal routine for a king to have food at a dalit’s house why was shabri uncertain about Rama not accepting her offerings because of her caste. Even when Rama ate the berries, his brother Lakshmana threw them away escaping the eyes of shabri.
Well, these are mere folklores that have nothing to do with reality! According to Valmiki Ramayana, they normally sought refuge at Her hermitage. Sri Rama had a normal conversation with Her and left. Shabari only lived in a secluded area. Nothing sort of casteism is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana or any authentic version. Casteism of Devi Shabari is another hype created by T. V. Serials. Her varna isn't mentioned in Ramayana. So, it's wrong to conclude casteism from it.
- Well, another baseless and hilarious claim is about Lord Hanuman (I laughed for 3 good minutes after reading this) :
Often right winged ‘experts’ claim that ‘ram raajya’ was a period of absolute equality where a tribal king hanuman garnered such praise and admiration from Lord Rama. A deep insight into the matter explains the other side which is quite gloomy. The relation between Rama and hanuman completely suited the narrative of caste system and the hierarchy that comes with it. Hanuman who was a tribal was completely loyal and submissive to a kshatriya ruler- Rama. He would accept his orders without any hesitation or questioning. This perfectly served the narrative that the shudras and tribals should be submissive and loyal towards kshatriyas who were meant to be the kings.
Lord Hanuman was none other than Lord Shiva. He was a pure - hearted devotee of Sri Rama at His own will. From where is this left - wing “expert” bringing these BS claims? He was a “janeudhari” as per Hanuman Chalisa. He wasn't a tribal.
Most importantly, He was an Eka Patnivrata. He was only devoted to Devi Sita, nobody else other than Her.
Another thing that we often fail to notice is, Sri Rama lived a secluded life after She had left. Polluted minds can't fathom His emotions.
He had the option of remarrying. But, He remained devoted to Devi Sita alone, instead.
Devi Sita and Sri Rama were not different. Sri Rama says :
"This auspicious woman could not give way to the sovereignty, existing in the gynaecium of Ravana, in as much as Seetha is not different from me, even as sunlight is not different from the sun."
My comment section is open for a healthy debate. But, these conditions are to be met :
Only those who have read Valmiki Ramayana, Adhyatma Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas, qualify for a debate.
- Those who are research scholars of Wikipedia and fans of the “most authentic” serials, don't qualify for a debate.
🙏🏻🙏🏻
0 Comments