Prahlad's teachings against the practice of 'SATI'

JanakiRaghunath

IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 36182

Posted: 03 March 2012 at 2:17pm | IP Logged

Hey Guys,

So today, my family just finished Narasimha Avatar from BRC's Vishnu Puraan, and a scene I actually liked from the show was Prahlad's teachings against the practice of 'SATI'.

In the scene, Maharani Kayadu was getting ready to immolate herself on her husband's pyre when Prahlad asked her why she was doing it. When she answered that she was carrying out the duty of a wife, Prahlad asked her what happened to the duty of a mother? He then went on to explain how a woman was not just a wife. She was also a mother, daughter, daughter-in-law, and sister, so if Kayadu ended her life by immolating herself on the pyre of her dead husband, who no longer needed her, what would happen to those living who actually did need her, like himself? He further preached that when an individual dies, their soul no longer belongs to that body and that the bond we have with the body is also gone, so to kill one self for that body is meaningless. Prahlad's final argument was that SATI is equal to suicide, and that Vishnu himself or any of the other Gods never condone such a sin, either from man or woman, so Sati is not a right practice and doing it is no noble deed, but a sin since a woman would have failed in her duties of a mother and all other relationships (like serving her in-laws and parents) and further committed the crime of taking away her life, which no one has the right to do except God.

I don't know whether this scene actually happened in any of our scriptures, but I felt that it was really well done and teaches a great lesson to those people in India who still fill that SATI is a noble practice for a woman after the death of her husband. It is true that suicide is a great sin, and Sati is nothing different from suicide (or it could be murder when the woman is forced into it), so God can never forgive the individual who does Sati or who forces a woman to do Sati.

What do you guys think of this scene? I never expected it from Narasimha Avatar of all stories but it was well done.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Urmila11, ShivangBuch, coolpratz,

ShivangBuch

Goldie

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1008

Posted: 03 March 2012 at 10:21pm | IP Logged

It is indeed very nice and true teaching. But I prefer serials like Balika Badhu or Tarak Mehta ka Oolta Chashma (actual fictions) to give contemporary social messages rather than mytho shows. Mytho shows should stick to social messages naturally coming out of them like in Ramayan Ayodhya Kand. But epic events twisted to teach modern day lessons is not very convincing for me. By showing it through the characters of Ram or Krishna or Bhishma through their words, you are authenticating as if your argument is also correct (and not just your objective) where as this is still worthy of appreciation (only logically not always convincing) since the intention is noble (consequential ethics). IMO Mytho shows should stick to logically explain how the things were justified in Dwapar or Treta or even if not justified, it can be left open to debate (I mean what they want to convey can still be conveyed without the one sided way of showing only their way of explanation or logic is correct using a very major character of the epic) rather than creating an artificial event. I thought Kayadhu died before the death of Hiranyakashyapu as shown in movie Haridarshan. Isn't it? Or the movie is wrong?

Well what I mean to say can be better conveyed through some of the examples of teachings of BRC MB twisted from actual MB e.g. Subhadra haran was forced and not at the will of Subhadra and Krishna had his own logic behind it which was equally justifiable then. Then final preaching of Bhishma against the partition of nation to be like partition of mother. Here I liked Vrish's argument in one of the threads that if Hastinapur partition was wrong, Ram also did that wrong by dividing Kosala between his two sons Lav and Kush. Then Ram pressing Sita's legs also looks very ordinary, cheap and unwanted. Man-Woman equality can still be shown with better dignity of Ram's character of Treta scenario or the same scene and message can be given through some other fictional show and fictional characters.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 03 March 2012 at 10:26pm

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Urmila11, .Vrish., JanakiRaghunath,

JanakiRaghunath

IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 36182

Posted: 04 March 2012 at 7:02am | IP Logged

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

It is indeed very nice and true teaching. But I prefer serials like Balika Badhu or Tarak Mehta ka Oolta Chashma (actual fictions) to give contemporary social messages rather than mytho shows. Yes, I agree with you, but something like the practice of SATI I believe is not really a contemporary social message, because we haven't had many instances of it in our mythos either. The only one I know is of Madri immolating herself on Pandu's pyre, but neither Kaushalya, Sumitra, or Kaikeyi did that for Dashrath, so I do not think it was considered a virtuous practice even then. After all, even Ram and Krishna preached that suicide is a sin, and SATI is nothing more than suicide. Mytho shows should stick to social messages naturally coming out of them like in Ramayan Ayodhya Kand. But epic events twisted to teach modern day lessons is not very convincing for me. By showing it through the characters of Ram or Krishna or Bhishma through their words, you are authenticating as if your argument is also correct (and not just your objective) where as this is still worthy of appreciation (only logically not always convincing) since the intention is noble (consequential ethics). IMO Mytho shows should stick to logically explain how the things were justified in Dwapar or Treta or even if not justified, it can be left open to debate (I mean what they want to convey can still be conveyed without the one sided way of showing only their way of explanation or logic is correct using a very major character of the epic) rather than creating an artificial event. I thought Kayadhu died before the death of Hiranyakashyapu as shown in movie Haridarshan. Isn't it? Or the movie is wrong? I don't know anything about Kayadu actually...in all the movies I've seen, she has never played an important role in Narasimha Avatar other than being the mother of Prahlad...BRC's Vishnu Puraan gave her a lot of importance, far more than necessary, so I am bound to think they made up a lot of events in the story since it lasted for about 15-20 episodes...far more than necessary to show Narasimha Avatar. Wacko

Well what I mean to say can be better conveyed through some of the examples of teachings of BRC MB twisted from actual MB e.g. Subhadra haran was forced and not at the will of Subhadra and Krishna had his own logic behind it which was equally justifiable then. Then final preaching of Bhishma against the partition of nation to be like partition of mother. Here I liked Vrish's argument in one of the threads that if Hastinapur partition was wrong, Ram also did that wrong by dividing Kosala between his two sons Lav and Kush. Then Ram pressing Sita's legs also looks very ordinary, cheap and unwanted. I don't think that scene looks very cheap, as Ram was equally an ideal husband as Sita was an ideal wife, and when a husband sees that his wife is tired, to make her feel more comfortable is not wrong, and it's not really a contemporary social message either. I'm sure men in the other yugas were not cold hearted. They also cared for their wifes, so that scene from ASR did not bother me, but the scene that did was the lesson Ram gave in the end of the portrait scene when he advocates against men remarrying. I understand that the CVs were further clarifying his eka patnivrat vow, but in that scene Ram's message against remarriage seemed a bit out of place and unnecessary, so I understand what you mean when you say that some contemporary social messages seem out of place in a mytho (though having just one wife is not really contemporary since Ram was an eka patnivrat), but to make them acceptable to today's audience who will not want to watch Ramayan or Mahabharat if Ram or Krishna are not shown as caring, loving husbands who treat their wives with equality, I believe the social messages could be written better in a more believable manner that doesn't seem out of place in a story that is supposed to take place in the treta yug or dwapar yug. Man-Woman equality can still be shown with better dignity of Ram's character of Treta scenario or the same scene and message can be given through some other fictional show and fictional characters. Yes, I agree that Ram and Krishna's characters can be shown with better dignity in some scenes, but to see them portrayed through fictional characters does not have the same effect, because audience wants to see the Gods preach about equality, not the common public. When God says man and woman are equal, it holds more weight than if a fictional character says it, know what I mean? So I'm not against the new mythos having contemporary social messages that teach today's youth the morals that are necessary to survive in today's society, but they should be done in a dignified, believable manner, without any added melodrama.

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

Urmila11, ShivangBuch,

ShivangBuch

Goldie

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1008

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 12:31am | IP Logged

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

It is indeed very nice and true teaching. But I prefer serials like Balika Badhu or Tarak Mehta ka Oolta Chashma (actual fictions) to give contemporary social messages rather than mytho shows. Yes, I agree with you, but something like the practice of SATI I believe is not really a contemporary social message, because we haven't had many instances of it in our mythos either.

It is one of major issues tackled by Aarya samaaj and Brahmo samaaj in India. In that era, it was not a social issue but just an independent individual action (not a social practice) which had its own moral implications.

The only one I know is of Madri immolating herself on Pandu's pyre, but neither Kaushalya, Sumitra, or Kaikeyi did that for Dashrath, so I do not think it was considered a virtuous practice even then. After all, even Ram and Krishna preached that suicide is a sin, and SATI is nothing more than suicide.

Definitely. I don't think epics justify the action. Shiv himself terrified the world after that Sati event getting angry over what unfortunate deed Sati had to commit for her husband's honour. And I don't think famous satis like Ansuya or Savitri ever did that either though I don't know about their story ending apart from major events in which they earned the fame among devtas. Satis are the women ready to go to any extreme for the honour of their husbands. That can not be synonymous of jumping into fire after the end of mortal body of husband. It is just the name given to it because of the common behavioural characteristic of Sati's action at Daksha's sacrifice. And Madri was probably herself guilty conscious of killing her husband and was a childlike lady. We don't know whether her action was publicly endorsed or not and whether Kunti herself allowed her to do that or not (or who else was present in Pandu's ritual to allow or disallow that is the topic of its own). Probably she did but I am not sure. This can be found from KMG to extend this point of debate. And there are not many other examples that you yourself have mentioned. Misinterpretation of the action on larger scale is the problem of modern era. I don't think it was issue of that time. It was more or less the childlike emotional choice of women of that time having attachment to mortal body.

Well what I mean to say can be better conveyed through some of the examples of teachings of BRC MB twisted from actual MB e.g. Subhadra haran was forced and not at the will of Subhadra and Krishna had his own logic behind it which was equally justifiable then. Then final preaching of Bhishma against the partition of nation to be like partition of mother. Here I liked Vrish's argument in one of the threads that if Hastinapur partition was wrong, Ram also did that wrong by dividing Kosala between his two sons Lav and Kush. Then Ram pressing Sita's legs also looks very ordinary, cheap and unwanted. I don't think that scene looks very cheap, as Ram was equally an ideal husband as Sita was an ideal wife, and when a husband sees that his wife is tired, to make her feel more comfortable is not wrong, and it's not really a contemporary social message either. I'm sure men in the other yugas were not cold hearted. They also cared for their wifes, so that scene from ASR did not bother me, but the scene that did was the lesson Ram gave in the end of the portrait scene when he advocates against men remarrying. I understand that the CVs were further clarifying his eka patnivrat vow, but in that scene Ram's message against remarriage seemed a bit out of place and unnecessary, so I understand what you mean when you say that some contemporary social messages seem out of place in a mytho (though having just one wife is not really contemporary since Ram was an eka patnivrat), but to make them acceptable to today's audience who will not want to watch Ramayan or Mahabharat if Ram or Krishna are not shown as caring, loving husbands who treat their wives with equality, I believe the social messages could be written better in a more believable manner that doesn't seem out of place in a story that is supposed to take place in the treta yug or dwapar yug.

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. 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? 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. Father's vatsalya is not in pressing legs but in petting the head softly and gently. 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 in the serial, it authenticates and twists Ram's actual character and age difference and Treta scenario. That looks very unconvincing and odd. I would love to see Sumit Arora (Gomukh) pressing legs of Debina (Mayuri) living in Chidiyaghar out of innocent love because that goes very well along with the innocence of the character and the time and family customs of the time. But that doesn't go well with Ramji particularly after already watching it very sweetly & sufficiently portrayed in the older version within limits.

Man-Woman equality can still be shown with better dignity of Ram's character of Treta scenario or the same scene and message can be given through some other fictional show and fictional characters. Yes, I agree that Ram and Krishna's characters can be shown with better dignity in some scenes, but to see them portrayed through fictional characters does not have the same effect, because audience wants to see the Gods preach about equality, not the common public. When God says man and woman are equal, it holds more weight than if a fictional character says it, know what I mean? So I'm not against the new mythos having contemporary social messages that teach today's youth the morals that are necessary to survive in today's society, but they should be done in a dignified, believable manner, without any added melodrama.

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? 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. LOL

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. ROFL

Let me be very clear that I am not the supporter of wife pressing legs of husband in Kaliyug. ROFL

Well here is the link I found of Wikipedia. However, I wanted to find the names of famous Satis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

Edited by ShivangBuch - 05 March 2012 at 12:34am

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

JanakiRaghunath,

JanakiRaghunath

IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 36182

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 5:06am | IP Logged

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

Agree with you about your interpretation of Sati, so not replying to it in particular, as there's nothing for me to disagree on. Smile

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. 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. 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. 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. Confused

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? 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. 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 in the serial, it authenticates and twists Ram's actual character and age difference Age difference is debatable like I said, because different sources say different things. and Treta scenario. That looks very unconvincing and odd. I would love to see Sumit Arora (Gomukh) pressing legs of Debina (Mayuri) living in Chidiyaghar out of innocent love because that goes very well along with the innocence of the character and the time and family customs of the time. Nice example LOL

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.

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. 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. LOL

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 LOL

), so AS I think wanted to neutralize all those scenes with showing Ramji equally caring to his wife in just one scene. 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. 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. 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. ROFL

Lol, I'm also having fun, as the mytho forum seemed so dead lately. LOL

It's a good thing I created a topic which caught your attention. Wink

The following scene of Vishnu Puraan after that Kayadu incident would annoy you further, lol. Should I clarify? Let me be very clear that I am not the supporter of wife pressing legs of husband in Kaliyug. ROFL

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.

Well here is the link I found of Wikipedia. However, I wanted to find the names of famous Satis. Thanks! Will check it. Big smile

Edited by JanakiRaghunath - 05 March 2012 at 5:14am

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

ShivangBuch,

ShivangBuch

Goldie

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1008

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 6:32am | IP Logged

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

Agree with you about your interpretation of Sati, so not replying to it in particular, as there's nothing for me to disagree on. Smile

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. LOL

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. Confused

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. LOL

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 LOL

), 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. ROFL

Lol, I'm also having fun, as the mytho forum seemed so dead lately. LOL

It's a good thing I created a topic which caught your attention. Wink

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. LOL

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. ROFL

Let me be very clear that I am not the supporter of wife pressing legs of husband in Kaliyug. ROFL

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?

Edited by ShivangBuch - 05 March 2012 at 6:34am

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

JanakiRaghunath,

JanakiRaghunath

IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 36182

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 7:19am | IP Logged

I'm just replying separately since all those colors are confusing me. LOL

I do agree with what you're saying, and I definitely acknowledge that romance is not the only element in Ram-Sita or Radha-Krishna relationship, but I still categorize those relationships differently from Ram-Lakshman or Ram-Hanuman, simply because one treats their brother or friend differently from their wife or husband...one relationship is not greater than the other, and Ram gave importance to all the relationships in his life, but he also treated his wife different from his brother, his brother different from his father or mother, etc. While it is true that Ram and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu, they were human incarnations and therefore felt human emotions while on Earth. I think of Vishnu differently from Ram, because Ram felt all the human emotions as per his avatar whereas Vishnu is beyond comprehension and he doesn't feel emotions like a human. So while I also give equal importance to the devotion between Ram and Sita, Radha Krishna just as much as romantic love, I feel that Ram's devotion to Sita portrayed through his attempting to massage her legs is not against the customs of Treta Yug.

Also, Ram did not stick to all customs, especially those which were wrong. He ate the berries of Shabari though she belonged to the lower class, whereas others avoided her and even insulted her. The customs of Treta Yug were to elevate the higher classes and stay away from the lower classes, and Ram showed everyone how wrong that was by giving respect to Shabari. So if it was a custom of Treta Yug to say that husbands should never massage their wives even when they are in pain, I don't think Ram would have agreed with it, so that scene from ASR is not unbelievable to me.

Moreover, I don't think any of us will ever know what the customs of Treta Yug or Dwapar Yug really were, except for the major ones written in the scriptures, so when it comes to things like, did husbands ever press their wives' legs or backs when they were in pain, it is such a small thing that we won't really know, so as long as the characters of Ram and Krishna are kept intact when showing such scenes, I wouldn't make deal out of it. I know you consider that to be out of the character of Ram in that scene from ASR, but I didn't so in this we should just agree to disagree. Smile

Btw, you mentioned about Lakshman being in pain and Ram putting his hand on his head...if Lakshman ever was in pain, I think Ram would do anything to make him feel better, same with Hanuman, Bharat, Sugreev, or his other devotees and brothers. Ram was not that high and mighty to expect others to serve him and not return the service when his devotees are in pain. Just like he ate the half-bitten fruits of Shabari, I feel that Ram would not have hesitated to serve any of his brothers, friends, and devotees if they were in pain and came to him for comfort. Putting his hand on his devotees' head is more to assuage mental pain, not really physical...if his devotees were in physical pain, I believe that the Ramji I believe in and pray to would have served them like a devotee himself. That's how I define the statement 'God is a servant of his devotees'.

It's true that God's touch is enough to rid people of both mental and physical pain, but taking it in the sense that Ram was born a human and kept within the limitations of a human life, he would not have performed miracles like Krishna by touching people's heads and ridding them of physical pain. At least, this is what I believe. Smile

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

ShivangBuch,

JanakiRaghunath

IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 36182

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 7:20am | IP Logged

I'm enjoying this debate with you, Shivang Anna, it's been too long.

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

ShivangBuch,

Page 1 of 2

Posted: 03 March 2012 at 2:17pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 March 2012 at 10:21pm | IP Logged

Posted: 04 March 2012 at 7:02am | IP Logged

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 12:31am | IP Logged

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 5:06am | IP Logged

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 6:32am | IP Logged

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 7:19am | IP Logged

Posted: 05 March 2012 at 7:20am | IP Logged

Related Topics

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Search

Join India-forums Today!

Here's why members would love to be a part of India-Forums.com:

Join Us Close