Well I knew that the scene must not have bothered you and others but personally I don't agree with you here. Cheap word was may be exaggerated but the unwanted word was not inappropriate. To be an ideal husband, one doesn't need to show that one can press the legs of wife who is younger than you by 9 years. Yes, I'm not saying it's needed, and neither do I think the scene was implying that it's needed, but it's simply that if a husband does press his wife's feet, it's not degrading his dignity or self-respect. Also, if you remember the scene, Ram actually did not press Sita's feet. He was about to but Sita stopped him. She pressed his feet instead and told him that it's a wife's duty to press her husband's feet, and Ram asked her that if a husband wishes to comfort his wife in the same way, is it wrong? So Ram wrong was not really advocating husbands pressing their wives' feet and saying loving husbands should, but he was making a point that it's not wrong if they do, which I do agree with personally.
So the conclusion is that the dialog from Ramji simply was unwanted that's it. So no point in discussing or justifying the righteousness of the message.
I know out of love one can press the legs of even own youngers and children. But still Ram was a loving protector husband (more like a father than a friend). This scene was not required in the sense that Ram was Maryada Purushottam and his action was required to be shown according to the customs of that time. He could comfort his wife by putting his hands on her head. That would have been sufficient to show his Vatsalya (like that of a father) and remove the tiredness of Sita like he did with Sugreev giving him touch healing. Can you imagine Ram pressing legs of Lakshman, Bharat, Hanuman or Sugreev? They would simply die of shyness. Can you imagine Ram pressing legs of Sita in front of Rajmatas or even Lakshman? I don't think we can compare younger brothers or devoteers' status to a wife's, because scriptures describe wife as the Ardhaangini of a husband, and they do say wife and husband are equal, so though husbands serving wife is still not a normal practice even now let alone back then, pressing her legs from time to time is not such a huge deal.
Why not? All devotees of lord are also Radha's form (Dwait). According to duality, there are only two aspects of God. God and Devotee. So all devotees are forms of Radha/Lakshmi/Shiv/Sita/Shesh if Vishnu form is worshiped. There is nothing wrong in considering Sita and Hanuman in the same manner because both had devotion of Ram and had Dasya Bhav. Without Lakshman and Hanuman also, Ram was incomplete. So I see no reason in not giving the same importance to them as to Sita mata. I am firm in disagreeing here that they can definitely be compared. I don't look at social relation husband wife here but the spiritual relation of God and devotee over here. Ram can respond to all devotees with any bhav according to the situation. Madhurya bhav, Vatsalya bhav, Sakhya bhav. And only bhav differs. Love remains the same. Romance is not the only form of love. I think you are overemphasizing romance element in Ram-Sita relation. RadhaKrishna relation and Treta Maryada of Raghukul can't be same.
Even if he could do it in lonely place like it is shown, it is an artificially created event and dialog, is I guess not the wrong assumption of mine 99.99%. And Lakshman was there around them only in Aranya Kand. I am sorry but the definition of love and care can't be that narrow that if one doesn't respond to wife's service (according to the age and customary norms and natural role of husband that of protector being male) in the same language/manner, the husband is not cold hearted. I am sure even his promise to a 9 year old innocent girl on Suhaag raat night was out of caring Vatsalya as the person on the receiving end was still a little girl. That depends on which source one is following...others say Sita was 14 and Ram was 16, whereas others say Sita was actually a year older. I follow that Sita was 14, because the time between Ram being born and Janak finding Sita could not have been that long.
Of course. I have always seen Ram elder than Sita by 9 years as per RCM. 18 years marriage age, 27 years vanvas age and 41 years Ravanvadh age. And RS portrayal does go along with that (age difference) even though Deepika at the time of Swayamvar doesn't look to be 9 years old nor Arun of 18 years. Obviously for that they had to have different actors.
Father's vatsalya is not in pressing legs but in petting the head softly and gently. I've never considered Ram and Sita's relationship to be that of father and daughter's, no matter how young Sita was, lol. That's just plain weird.
Oh why weird? Fatherly means protector which he was. Caring which he was. Vatsalya which he had. I don't see anything weird. In fact, while kanyadan, father of female exactly does that. Until then he is the protector and has the responsibility. After that husband becomes the protector and has the responsibility. And as per ASR only, it is shown that Ram's self respect of not being able to protect his wife was hurt by Ravan and the pride and honour of Raghuvansh was put at stake by that. Wife can also be motherly. BHOJESHU MATA. Caring. Vatsalya bhav after seeing husband tired after entire day's work and is hungry. Any bhav in any relation is possible. You just have to broaden the way of looking from social to spiritual. Husband-wife relation is not just about romance or friendship. It has got and can have everything. The entire lot of or world of relationships/roles within it but having eternal spiritual relation. If wife is known to be ARDHANGINI of husband, even son is said to be ANSH of father. If Radha is just another form of Krishna or consort, Shesh is also another form of Vishnu.
It's ok if they still show this with Krishna because Krishna was multidimensional in relationships and playful and never bothered about social boundaries against relation of love. Having said that, Ram playing and loving within maryada wouldn't reduce his love for his wife. I know that scene was created to neutralize people's anger on Ramji coming later in Uttar kand, but to go further with this scene then, they should have also shown then that Ram himself went and dropped Sita to Valmiki Aashram with great care. Arun Govil's caring scenes are on the contrary more appropriate and lovable within Treta maryada and look even more sweet. However, one can have one's own innocent image of Ramji. One is free to see own God in one's own imagination. If you wrote the same scene as fanfiction, I would have loved it and appreciated it. But we can claim that it's AS's interpretation of Ram's character, can't we?
Of course. But ASR was not a fanfic, or was it? Even if they give disclaimer, how many of the viewers actually know about creativity of scenes?
Just like I may be writing a scene like this, a serial based on Ramayan also makes up some fictional scenes to portray their interpretation of Ramji according to the time and society. All serials do that. Even RS did that...instead of showing Valmiki's Uttar Kand, he showed Ram unable to make a decision about Sita's vanvaas and Sita having to take it up herself.
RSR only upto Rajyabhishek is originally intended by RSji and is my Ramayan that you know. UR is not my Ramayan. And even Agnipariksha scene opinion of mine you know from my BITS answers. And Uttar Ramayan portrayal of Ram was still creative but part of the story line. The Aranya Kand scene is simply far out of the way and too much advance foundation laid to defend Ram's actions later. And if RS also spoils consistency of characterization (like Agnipariksha), that I don't enjoy that I mentioned there. And as long as characterization is correct and message of epic or Geeta is correct, I don't mind creativity with events (like Krishnavataar novel).
Though AS also used this plot, it originally came from RS and some people do have a problem with it (both from RSR and ASR) because it portrayed Ram as weak and indecisive. RSji said in one of his discourses that he did not show some scenes in Ramayan because of public unrest at that time, like Valmiki's version of Sita's Agni Pariksha (which portrays Ram a lot harsher than RCM) and Sulochana immolating herself. Likewise, though I do not agree with all the RamSita scenes ASR showed (like the portrait one I mentioned before), most of them were fine and catered to the audience today.
But it should have been according to Treta rather than the today's audience. It's ok if mystic interpretation and portrayal of Gopi vastraharan is avoided to make the show universal (as RS explained in his commentary of SK after that scene), but mytho shows should reflect the society of Treta/Dwapar the way they were actually then and not the society of today.
But that doesn't go well with Ramji particularly after already watching it very sweetly & sufficiently portrayed in the older version within limits. Had Ramji been shown pressing Sita's feet in the same way Gaumukh pressed Mayuri's feet, even I would have cringed, but in the scene, he was touching Sita's knee and he did not even get to press it because Sita stopped him, so the authenticity of Ramji's character was still retained there, as well as Sita's since her character would never have let Ramji massage her.
Yes I agree. Totally. But still upto that much was also not required.
But what is man-woman equality? Woman taking the role of protecting the husband against the attack of another woman and man leaving the home of own parents and going to wife's parents' house? Should mythos have a dialog from Ram to Janak - O father in law, I don't mind leaving Ayodhya and staying with you if my parents allow me to do so because I consider man-woman are equal. Sita also can come to forest with me because she also should learn the art of archery and help me to kill the demons because I believe that man-woman are equal. Is this the definition of Man-Woman equality? I define man and woman equality as both the husband and wife acknowledging that the other is not lesser than them and is their better half. I feel that it falls on the husband and wife to decide what each other will do, and as long as neither insults the other considers themselves greater (some women are guilty of this as well as men), then their relationship is an equal one. Ram and Sita mutually acknowledged each other's greatness, and though they behaved accordingly to the customs of Treta Yuga, one simple scene with Ram attempting to press Sita's knee does not degrade his character, especially since the same serial had at least 10 scenes with Sita pressing Ram's feet, one with her washing them with her hair too.
Yes but those 10 scenes can also be skipped rather than showing this 1 scene. One may not show some social aspects of Treta now in Kali simply by avoiding them or very quickly scanning through them but the actual aspects of Treta are not required to be twisted.
That anybody can do any job of each other in general and not in exceptional case? There is specific order set and natural duties are defined for each order in an appropriate functional manner. That doesn't mean anyone's status is inferior to the other. Hanuman serving Ram out of love doesn't make him inferior in status because Lord is also the servant of his devotees. And husband should press the legs is not the message required to be given because wives also don't press the legs of husbands of modern times. That was not the message of the scene. Like I mentioned, Sita pressed Ram's feet at least 10-15 times in ASR and I remember that some modern people had a problem with one of the scenes where Sita washed Ram's feet and dried them with her hair, because they claimed it implied that women are servants to their husbands (in opposition, that was my favorite RamSita scene from the serial), so AS I think wanted to neutralize all those scenes with showing Ramji equally caring to his wife in just one scene.
Of course. That was the intention I know. Rather more than that to neutralize Agnipariksha and Sitatyag.
I know you think it is not necessary for a husband to press his wife's legs to do that, but in my opinion it's not wrong either.
I never said it is wrong but that message wasn't needed to be shown through Ram. That was very odd. And I think many of members agree with my point.
It's not the same as Sita picking up weapons and fighting with Ramji, or Ramji actually touching Sita's feet like she did, because that really was not an acceptable custom back then, whereas nowhere did it say that if a wife was in pain, husbands should not reduce it. Simpling placing a hand on her head is not enough, because that implies more of a father-child relationship which is more suitable between Ram and his brothers or Ram and his devotees than Ram and Sita.
Then Ram comforting Lakshman simply by putting hands on head is enough then? If with Sita that is not enough, why that is enough with his brothers? This is still not convincing to me. I think every relation is unique and has its own significance.
So eras change, norms and customs also automatically change. Sorry if it is getting very serious but I am actually having fun with this debate right now although I know that I am going to be villain for many members of the forum over here. Lol, I'm also having fun, as the mytho forum seemed so dead lately. It's a good thing I created a topic which caught your attention. The following scene of Vishnu Puraan after that Kayadu incident would annoy you further, lol. Should I clarify? LOL. Na na. No need to clarify. I will further complicate this debate to add to the fun for you. And in fact I have already done it by disagreeing still at places. ROFL. See now the thread name should be changed from Prahallad or Sati to Husband wife relation. Let me be very clear that I am not the supporter of wife pressing legs of husband in Kaliyug. I personally don't mind either, lol. If my husband is having body aches, I will be happy to massage him and get rid of his pain, and if I feel the same, I would wish for him to do it as well.
Of course. But that is a natural process or activity innocently and unconsciously done according to the situation rather than making it DOs and DONTs issue of morality in husband-wife relation. Love drives the appropriate actions between lovers naturally. And everything becomes fair if the love is true love. Why one should make it limited to just one relation or complicate it with gender difference?