Priya Bhatija to play Rukmini in Dwarikadeesh - Page 4

Originally posted by: _Vrish_

Rehan

 

Rama's existance has been dated @ ~5000BC, which is earlier than the dates you provided.  Of course, if one goes by the theory of the Aryans being native to India, it gets around that issue.

 

I thought Sati meant devotion to the ultimate well-being of a husband, and the pativrata term is tied w/ it.  As a result, women like Savitri, Sita et al are considered Satis, even though they didn't cremate themselves on their husband's deaths (they may not have even survived them).  Sati didn't immolate herself due to Shiva's death - she did so due to Shiva being insulted by her father.  Or maybe to repent for having disobeyed Shiva.

I guess you are referring to Astronomical calculations as per Ram's signs? If Krishna's Astronomical signs are considered, either he was born in 9000 BCE or 600 AD while theoretically his birth date should be around 3000BCE. In any case, keeping the 4 Yugas in mind, Ram should have predated Krishna by atleast 864,000 years. 😆That's why I keep on saying that taking 'holy' scriptures at their face value is anything but sensible. They all were man-made and 95% fictional and hence they are vulnerable to mistakes as well. Imbibe some values from them if you can, but considering them or their stories as divine or supreme truth would be plainly foolish.

You are right. Sati was never a 'practice'. It was merely a title given to devoted women. It was after Islamic invasion the women were, often willingly and most of the time forcibly, immolated to 'save' them (and their family's honour) from falling prey to Muslims. But I don't think Sati immolated herself for disobeying Shiva. IMO, she thought that Shiva and other Gods were silently tolerating Daksh's insults due to the fact that Daksh was her father so she wanted to remove herself from Shiva's ways so that he could punish Daksh.

BTW, the native-Aryan theory is absurd and perhaps a jingoistic propaganda similar to Hitler's. Aryan genes and languages indicate their origin in Central Asia. The major native Indian race was Dravidas who were pushed back to Deccan while the northern part was called Aryavarta.
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 12 years ago

...
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 12 years ago

I don't mean to insult anyone by saying this but I was under the belief that this thread was created to discuss the actress who is to portray Rukhmini in the new show.

Why are we having discussions regarding the validity of the puranas, what Sati is, or what form of bhakti is appropriate?

I think it is evident that most of us here are practicing hindus, and these points are very sensitive. I actually consider myself to be a Krishna bhakt, and most of the forum's members are also very devout people. I would assume that they might be as offended as I am. So instead of subjecting others to your own theories and beliefs of religion, why not stick to the point of the thread?

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

I guess you are referring to Astronomical calculations as per Ram's signs? If Krishna's Astronomical signs are considered, either he was born in 9000 BCE or 600 AD while theoretically his birth date should be around 3000BCE. In any case, keeping the 4 Yugas in mind, Ram should have predated Krishna by atleast 864,000 years. 😆That's why I keep on saying that taking 'holy' scriptures at their face value is anything but sensible. They all were man-made and 95% fictional and hence they are vulnerable to mistakes as well. Imbibe some values from them if you can, but considering them or their stories as divine or supreme truth would be plainly foolish.

You are right. Sati was never a 'practice'. It was merely a title given to devoted women. It was after Islamic invasion the women were, often willingly and most of the time forcibly, immolated to 'save' them (and their family's honour) from falling prey to Muslims. But I don't think Sati immolated herself for disobeying Shiva. IMO, she thought that Shiva and other Gods were silently tolerating Daksh's insults due to the fact that Daksh was her father so she wanted to remove herself from Shiva's ways so that he could punish Daksh.

BTW, the native-Aryan theory is absurd and perhaps a jingoistic propaganda similar to Hitler's. Aryan genes and languages indicate their origin in Central Asia. The major native Indian race was Dravidas who were pushed back to Deccan while the northern part was called Aryavarta.

^^ When you say 'sacred', I guess you mean close to authentic or the original version, right? For me anything which gives real and pragmatic wisdom, rather than 'chant names and get Moksha' theory, is sacred. One more thing, when you say Vashistha's Ramayan would have been more authentic as he was Ram's guru, do you suggest that stories of epics are real and non-fiction? Please clarify this (through PM, as we have already gone off topic). Many later Ramayans are different mainly because they are either based on or heavily influenced from Adhyatmic Ramayan, which is more of Puranic nature rather than Epic, just like later versions of Mahabharat have more Godliness owing to the influence of Harivamsa and Bhagwad Puran.

Yeah Hitler's example might have been too extreme,😆 but somehow I see that native Aryan theory was propelled by Hindu nationalists and not secular or neutral sources and it was more of a political agenda rather than scientific thesis.
Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 12 years ago

i should have posted my original question in this thread instead:

The lead pair looks evil 😆 

Edited by aishi.muffin - 12 years ago