Pinned Tweet
This is me, btw.
कलहप्रियः सदा वीरः, शान्तिर्नैव मनोगता।
यत्र नास्ति विवादोऽपि, तत्रापि स विवादयेत्॥
Shastras are accepted word to word & are highest of pramana.
As said in gita itself
य: शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य वर्तते कामकारत: ।
न स सिद्धिमवाप्नोति न सुखं न परां गतिम् ॥23॥
तस्माच्छास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते कार्याकार्यव्यवस्थितौ ।
ज्ञात्वा शास्त्रविधानोक्तं कर्म कर्तुमिहार्हसि ॥24॥
Most Hindus are so confused about their own religious identity that they borrow the codes of piety from the more performative abrahamic religions.
Suddenly borrowed ideas like being orthodox, following a book to the T, accepting no interpretations become the metric to judge how devoted you are.
They pine to borrow stuff like blasphemy to punish people who try to interpret religion & its scriptures. While doing that they become the same people they profess to dislike :)
Purport of itihas is to expound either on dharma,as Madhurya ,or to show the unbound nature of Ishwara as Aishwarya leela.
Any distortion to it,by those not apt for it (i.e. not Mahatmas) are bound to take away that element.
What is left is a fancy story, to satisfy one's sense.
creator_op retweeted
Brilliant point by @SuhagAShukla ji. Read this to understand how subversion of our epics starts from academia and moves into mainstream art. Don't be desperately and embarassingly grateful that a movie has been made on our epics if the intent is to subvert and distort.
Ramayana is in the news so Audrey is “loosely translating” with her lurid takes again…
Valmiki never wrote "harem pet" or "furniture cover." Just as he never said Sita calls Rama a “misogynist pig.”
Here's what the text says.
On the living deer, Aranya Kanda 3.43.16:
अन्तःपुरविभूषार्थो मृग एष भविष्यति
antaḥpura-vibhūṣārtho mṛga eṣa bhaviṣyati
"This deer will be an ornament of the inner palace." Not “harem.” Sita is talking about after the exile, when they're back in Ayodhya. The word is vibhūṣā, ornament. It's a marvel to bring home to Bharata and the queen mothers. It isn't a "pet," and it isn't a harem plaything. We also know that Rama never took another wife, let alone kept a harem.
On the slain deer, 3.43.19:
शष्पबृस्यां विनीतायामिच्छाम्यहमुपासितुम्
śaṣpa-bṛsyāṃ vinītāyām icchāmy aham upāsitum
"I wish to sit on its golden skin, spread over a seat of tender grass." A bṛsī is an ascetic's grass seat. She's a forest-dweller in exile, picturing herself sitting beside Rama. That isn't upholstery or a "furniture cover." Rama even pictures the same scene himself a few verses later (3.43.34).
So "harem pet" and "furniture cover" aren't translations. Each one picks the most lurid or trivial reading available so that Sita comes off as decadent and vain. The text doesn't support either.
We've seen this before. In 2018 Truschke "loosely translated" Sita at the agnipariksha as calling Rama a "misogynist pig." Robert Goldman, the translator she cited, disowned it.
She starts from a Sanskrit word, takes the most loaded English you can find, and presents it as scholarship. That's academic malpractice.
And it’s a pattern.
creator_op retweeted
If you know the capacity of movies for political messaging & use it to elevate politicians,& still call it "just a movie" when it subverts our Itihasas,your priorities are pretty clear. Fealty to politicians & Itihasic liberalism- some Hindutva this is, if it can be called that.
Akhilesh is such a naive guy. Truly the only competitor to Rahul baba.
Yogi ji will now most certainly contest from Ayodhya and the discourse will shift from being caste based to religion based. 6 December is approaching anyway.
✍️
Anything but taking the feedbacks positively & making a good movie.
Btw, this is what an avg. guy catches about Ravan's character in the movie. There are 100s of such edits, just within a day.
Trads may not like what I say below
But the fact is that modern audiences and critics don't relate well to very straightforward good vs evil narratives
They seek nuance. Hence this attempt to refashion some of the antagonists as men with troubled pasts etc
Obviously rAmAyaNa is anything but simplistic. It has a great deal of nuance and subtlety. But much of that is in the various samvAdas (dialogues), expositions, sub-plots, meta-narratives, embedded stories etc
But when you televise it, you tend to focus on the main narrative cutting out the rest. And that can come across as "simplistic".
Hence these creative liberties. Am OK with that. It's better than critics and audiences panning it as a simple fairy tale.
Nolan did the same with Odyssey. He turned a martial bronze age tale into a cogitation on civilizational collapse and psychological turmoil turning Odysseus into a PTSD-tormented soul.
But for me it's OK. We have to live with modernity and modern people. We can't wish them away.
Ram ji himself ordered Lakshman to do so, because Sita ji was attacked.
इमां विरूपामसतीमतिमत्तां महोदरीम्।
राक्षसीं पुरुषव्याघ्र विरूपयितुमर्हसि॥
“O Lakṣmaṇa, best of men! You ought to disfigure this hideous, wicked and exceedingly insolent Rākṣasī, who has a large belly.”
बोले चितइ परसु की ओरा।
रे सठ सुनेहि सुभाउ न मोरा॥
बालकु बोलि बधउँ नहिं तोही।
केवल मुनि जड़ जानहि मोही॥
बाल ब्रह्मचारी अति कोही।
बिस्व बिदित छत्रियकुल द्रोही॥🤬
.
.
.
.
लखन कहेउ मुनि सुजसु तुम्हारा।
तुम्हहि अछत को बरनै पारा॥
अपने मुँह तुम्ह आपनि करनी।
बार अनेक भाँति बहु बरनी॥ 🤗
Sita ji used so many adjectives for Ram ji. They could've used that in the dialogues.
आर्यपुत्र, नरवरात्मज, पुरुषर्षभ, राघव,नाथ, धीमत्, विशालाक्ष, नरव्याघ्र, महाप्राज्ञ, महाबल, प्रभो, अनघ, रमण, महीपते, नरर्षभ, महावीर्य,अक्षोभ्य, , काकुत्स्थ, परबलार्दन, दशरथात्मज, नृशार्दूल
This quoted post is unavailable.
Lakshman did propose to kill/imprison Dasratha.
प्रोत्साहितोऽयं कैकेय्या स दुष्टो यदि नः पिता।
अमित्रभूतो निःसङ्गं वध्यतां बध्यतामपि॥
Infact, he went as far as to say he would make ayodhya devoid of humans if it stands against Ram.
निर्मनुष्यामिमां कृत्स्नामयोध्यां मनुजर्षभ।..
In N. Malhotra's #Ramayana,
Lakshman apparently says he’d behead Dasharatha & Kaikeyi to make Ram king, and calls Kaikeyi a “rakshasi”... 💀
Seriously, where are they pulling these references from, or are they just making up random shytt on their own? 🤦♂️
Btw, in the Namita Malhotra's Ramayan, when Surpnakha met Ram ji for the 1st time.
Sita ji after after looking at her eyes, said with a big smile.
"Wo aap par mohit ho gayi hai" 🥵
Parashuram ji did Ram ji's Parikrama though.
रामं दाशरथिं रामो जामदग्न्यः प्रशस्य च ।
ततः प्रदक्षिणीकृत्य जगामात्मगतिं प्रभुः ॥
Also Adhyatma Ramayan has a section, where he asks Ram ji in boon, the devotion of his feet.
त्वद्भक्तसङ्गस्त्वत्पादे दृढा भक्तिः सदा स्तु मे ॥
I am very disappointed by that one scene in the Ramayana.
It shows Lord Parashurama bowing before Lord Rama. How is it possible for the sixth avatar of Lord Vishnu to bow before the seventh avatar of the very same Lord Vishnu?
Lord Parashurama never bowed before anyone.
Is this written in the Valmiki Ramayana??
Btw, for anyone wonder what "that" is. Following are the words of devi Sita to Lakshmana.
She calls him, stain on the family, Anarya, secret enemy and what not.
Even accusing him, that he wishes to "get Sita" after Ram is out of the way or a conspirator with Bharat.
Lol, cause they are paid + typical RW don't have much brains & never read or care about scriptures/ rules of their religion in general. Hence they always have the rhetoric "hinduism is so open reee". So that they can use it later to fit their narratives.
But nevermind.
Lot of people are critical of me criticising the Ramayan movie.They should understand that the purport of Ram Katha is expound on Dharma for beings. (मर्त्यावतारस्त्विह मर्त्यशिक्षणं)
Movie is very decent. Makers tried to do as much as they could.
But my criticism is shastric 1/3
Bhagvan Ram was the very statue of Dharma, the most righteous of all. Even to behold his very sight, could free humans from the circle of life and death.
Where as Maa Sita, was the Pativrata of highest form. The very form of Lakshmi.
How can I forsake of what they are? 2/3