Mythological Masti

   

Mythological Shows - Suggestions / Help Desk (Page 5)

Post Reply New Post

Page 5 of 20

lola610

Viewbie

lola610

Joined: 03 November 2008

Posts: 7410

Posted: 11 February 2011 at 10:37am | IP Logged
The surya one :D

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Mythological Shows - Suggestions / Help Desk (Page 5)" in Mythological Masti forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 43255

Posted: 11 February 2011 at 5:11pm | IP Logged
Hmm, you guys have a point...I guess we need a DT first before deciding anything, but for some reason our forum doesn't have one yet.Confused

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 18800

Posted: 22 April 2011 at 11:07am | IP Logged
Originally posted by lola610

^^ yeah exactly, random curiosities that probably have one concrete answer would go in this thread. Where there's room for debate, there's an idea for a whole thread. I personally think almost all our stickies right now deserve to be imp topics but guess we can figure that our later. Cool question btw, I too wanna know why :S


So now that you are the DT, let us know whatever you decide.  My only opinion - if you decide on multiple threads, like the who, what, when... make them permanent in the announcements section.  Otherwise, just have a single 'Doubts & Discussions' thread in the Announcements section, and  leave it there.  If a topic is broad enough, one can always open a new thread!

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

lola610..RamKiJanaki..

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 43255

Posted: 22 April 2011 at 3:26pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Vrish_

Originally posted by lola610

^^ yeah exactly, random curiosities that probably have one concrete answer would go in this thread. Where there's room for debate, there's an idea for a whole thread. I personally think almost all our stickies right now deserve to be imp topics but guess we can figure that our later. Cool question btw, I too wanna know why :S


So now that you are the DT, let us know whatever you decide.  My only opinion - if you decide on multiple threads, like the who, what, when... make them permanent in the announcements section.  Otherwise, just have a single 'Doubts & Discussions' thread in the Announcements section, and  leave it there.  If a topic is broad enough, one can always open a new thread!
 
I'm all for the single 'Doubts and Discussions' thread...having too many for each category of question would make too many threads and the forum would look crowded.
 
Yeah, broad topics can have separate threads devoted to them, so it shouldn't be a problem for the TM to decide.


Edited by JanakiRaghunath - 22 April 2011 at 3:26pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

lola610

lola610

Viewbie

lola610

Joined: 03 November 2008

Posts: 7410

Posted: 22 April 2011 at 10:17pm | IP Logged
Ok, single sticky thread it is!
The TM (Vrish, wanna do the honors since you did it at RF?) can just include the following in the first post:
1) links to the two predecessors from RF,
2) an explanation of the types of doubts that belong in this thread versus those that are more interpretive and deserve their own thread
3) how about a rule on not dissing sources? I know that we have members from a lot of diverse regional backgrounds and sects/schools of philosophy... all of which hold different variations of of the same scriptures in the highest regard - so I think some sort of rule about finding sources that might resolve a particular doubt, but not commenting on their authenticity (or lack thereof) as that might offend someone who's of a sect that relies on that particular text, off-the-way as it might be. What do you guys think?


Edited by lola610 - 22 April 2011 at 10:23pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Urmila11..RamKiJanaki..

Urmila11

Senior Member

Urmila11

Joined: 11 December 2010

Posts: 688

Posted: 23 April 2011 at 4:55am | IP Logged
Very well said Lola! I'm def in it! Liked the 3rd point you gave.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

lola610..RamKiJanaki..

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 18800

Posted: 23 April 2011 at 1:51pm | IP Logged
Lola

I'll get to it.  Points 1 & 2 are not difficult.

On #3 (you really know me well by now LOL) I am okay w/ not dissing sources, but there is a caveat here.  Your suggestion seems to imply an equivalence b/w all versions of any story - something I've never agreed w/.  For instance, if one looks @ the Ramayan as a fairy tale, then it's legitimate to say that Valmiki is as good as Vyasa is as good as Kamban is as good as Krittivas is as good as Tulsidas...  But if one looks @ it historically and analytically, one will prefer some versions over others for any host of reasons, like the ones that contemporaries are more likely to be historically accurate than those who came millenia later.

Why do I mention this?  It's not to be contentious, but rather to point out that different sources sometimes, if not often, have conflicting accounts of several events.  According to Valmiki, Sita was left @ his ashram by Lakshman, not merely abandoned in the jungles, as is stated by some of the other accounts and popularly believed.  That's a pretty big issue, and not just authenticity, but sometimes integrity of the authors can come into question, like they do w/ the authors of the Ananda Ramayan.  Yeah, some of the differences can be trivial, like Sushena being Sugriv's uncle in Valmiki, vs Ravan's physician in Tulsidas.  But more often then not, they matter.

So here's what I'd suggest - when providing answers, it will be incumbent on whoever is providing the answer to cite the sources used - be it an original Vyasa, a copy of the Bhagwat Puranas or even an Amar Chitra Katha lying @ home.  No need to comment on authenticity of those sources, beyond stating that they are the sources, so long as it doesn't give an impression that the general belief is that all versions are equally authentic.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

lola610..RamKiJanaki..

lola610

Viewbie

lola610

Joined: 03 November 2008

Posts: 7410

Posted: 23 April 2011 at 2:18pm | IP Logged
Yesss, quite the people-reader I am GeekLOL j/k... I understand and may even agree with your point of view w.r.t. certain texts. So yeah, we should try to preclude subjectivity towards the sources either way, whether it be positive or negative. Question asked, answers found in whatever sources have one, and original poster goes, "ooo, interesting, thanks!" without any one of them saying, "we're all about the source that Post B's answer came from at my house, it's the word of God - who cares that it was written yesterday - that's the one I'll go with!" Nor will there be any "the author of the source that Post C's answer came from was all hopped up on Soma while writing it, def not falling for that one!" Of course, you will find a more concise and sophisticated way to convey all that when you make the thread than I just did since I'm simultaneously working on a research proposal... I trust you LOL That sound ok?


Edited by lola610 - 23 April 2011 at 2:30pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Mythological Masti Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.