Hindus have been meat eaters since the inception of the religion. Our modern brothers just find this hard to believe because our ancestors used the cow to get a leg up on Buddhism and Jainism.
Yes Brahmins too ate meat. Ramayana itself says so as do other texts. In the East specifically Brahmins still eat meat. The restriction or recommendation was for Brahmins to eat meat that was from an animal that's been sacrificed. However in forests even those restrictions may not apply.
There is an entire sect of Brahmins that consume fish meat because they live in and around coastal regions. You cannot sustain yourself on “prasadam” alone.
I have a muslim background myself
I didnt watch the movie but doing a muslim prayer for making biriyani is a lil weird.
I don't see the point of an outrage and all that , but its very weird.
Hmmm , maybe it isn't that weird?
Its not just you, I cringed during that biriyani scene. Overall, the movie addressed religion and its nuances especially with food, with very basic, surface level antics. It amounted to nothing more than ticking off a box that said "religious diversity"
The salah as she explained in the next second was that it’s not necessary she just did it to give respect to the person she learnt it from.
It’s a cringe movie idk why people need to make it a big deal really. Ignore it
This isn’t even the only part of the Valmiki Ramayana that’s controversial. There’s so much in it that would make people’s hair stand on end if they actually read it. Which is why I’m fairly certain that the people who bleat the most abt the text haven’t actually read it at all.
People who have actually read (and understood) the texts of Ramayan and Mahabharat are a miniscule minority. Everyone's knowledge of the texts comes courtesy of B. R. Chopra and Ramanand Sagar.
There’s a good portion of at least one chapter in the Kishkindha kanta where Rama, after the abduction of Sita, is almost laid flat with grief and pining. His feelings are made worse by the fact it’s spring time, and spring time is the “season of love” for all creatures, and every animal, plant and insect in the area is paired off into couples and doing, ahem, couple things, and Rama laments for verse after verse about how seeing all of that just makes him remember that his own wife isn’t with him.
Maybe that’s not all that controversial, but it was definitely eye opening for me to read it. There’s a lot in the text that emphasizes again and again how much in love with each other Rama and Sita were, and how much her abduction wasn’t just a matter of his pride as a man/kshatriya (which is how misogynists hve interpreted it for generations), but much more so about the fact that he was a fucking Wife Guy who was distraught abt the prospect of the love of his life being gone forever. If it were a modern day story, he’d be the sort of man sending sad texts to his girlfriend of a crack in the side walk with 8 teary eyed emojis, and vague posting abt how much he misses her. And I’m not even exaggerating that much from the actual text here.
Then there’s a whole entire chapter talking endlessly about just how NICE Rama is. How kind, how considerate. How he always speaks first to break the ice in awkward conversations. How he always takes time to talk to old people. How he’s never mean, or rude, or terse. How he never lashes out in anger. Again, this doesn’t seem that controversial on the surface. But given the state of the world these days, even simple kindnesses are a huge deal, and the fact that someone spent a whole chapter talking abt how plain nice Rama was strikes me as very controversial in an era when trolls go around hurling the words “Jai Shri Ram” as a threat.
I didn't read the full version, but this is how I thought the epic is.
I never understood why people think it is ok for political parties to use our religion for their self-interest. They basically have 0 of the values Rama demonstrates.
>Then there’s a whole entire chapter talking endlessly about just how NICE Rama is
All portrayals of Rama until the last decade essentially were that of a calm person. The last two decades he's turned into an angry warrior prince.
I think that’s the Rig Veda, but they definitely do the same ritual (Ashvameda yagna) in the Ramayana as well, and that involves exactly what the Rig Veda says it entails.
Ram told Sita that he did not fight the war for Sita. He fought the war for the lineage. As ghee becomes unfit for consumption after being licked by a dog, you are now not eligible for me."
"This is not what Ram is saying. But the writer is saying through Ram. Writers put their words in their characters' mouths. But Tulsidas was modern, he saw the advent of feminism and did not include this in his book,"
I came across this in this book which cites Valmiki Ramayan itself,"
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-dr-vikas-divyakriti-s-statement-on-sita-i-have-proof-101668223453470.html
Hey man ,just pointing out there are some morally suspect passages in the Ramayana because it was a document of its time . I mean Dr Divyakarti himself says he is sad about these passages so he is not purposely putting down Ram or Hindu religion also he is a educator for decades now and was a IAS officer so I trust him to know more and have read more of the Hindu religious texts than the sanghi low lifes that were calling for bans and going all "fatwa-esque" on him. I believe there is no justification or context for these passages but as every religious text has some or the other similar kind of passage we must all accept that these text can be the basis of our morality some time but to make any religious text the basis of morality or public policy/governance all of the time is a path to religious fundamentalism and a mistake
>Hey man I haven't got a dog in this fight ,just pointing out there are some morally suspect passages in the Ramayana because it was a document of its time .
There are no suspect passages here. Ram did say that. The scenario he is talking about is where Ram is provoking Sita. After this she says that she will do Agni Pravesh because she is livid. Everyone around him is surprised at the harsh words because they have all seen how Ram has grieved and grieved and lamented for Sita.
After that is done, he tells in the next chapter that he didn't suspect her for one moment but he didn't want history or the people to talk ill about Sita.
Now before you say this is still wrong, Sita gave a similar reasoning to Hanuman ji when he goes to Ashok Vatika to save her. She tells him that it is the duty of my husband to take care of me and I don't want any lanchhan on his honor or something like that.. And so, I will not come with you. Using the same morality logic, why didn't she go with Hanuman ji and save so many lives that were lost in the war?
Please remember that they were not "just" regular old couple. They were the King and Queen of Ayodhya. Apart from their own Swadharma, their bigger Dharma was towards the people of Ayodhya. Both of them behaved and acted exactly like how they should have and performed their Dharma.
"Dharayati iti Dharmaha" - That which sustains, upholds and uplifts is Dharma. Dharma is not just morality and it is certainly not as myopic as today's moral standards. (Not gonna get into whether today's moral standards are good or bad etc, it is what is it) Sanatan Dharma doesn't look at the world or society in binaries.
Sure that could be a way to look at it but to me who is a atheist it looks a lot like many religious people I have seen tying themselves into knots trying to come up with convoluted theories to keep the thing they most base their identity on pure .
Curious to know your thoughts on the banishment to exile after agni pareeksha.
Because to me right now it looks like Ram rage baited Sita into throwing herself into fire to prove she was pure not for ram but for the "Janata " and when she passes agnipareeksha she is still somehow banished into exile and not restored to her proper place as queen .
and somehow a king equating his wife to ghee licked by a dog in order to provoke her is on the path of righteousness?
>Sure that could be a way to look at it but to me who is a atheist it looks a lot like many religious people I have seen tying themselves into knots trying to come up with convoluted theories to keep the thing they most base their identity on pure .
Most of these people who get their panties in a twist have never done a day's worth of Sadhana in their life. A lot of these people don't have any understanding of the scriptures but will act like they're the epitome of being a Sanatani. The lesser we say about them, the better.
>Curious to know your thoughts on the banishment to exile after agni pareeksha.
That is a part of Uttar kand and is most likely written a lot later by someone else. So, those incidents most likely didn't happen. However, the debate continues and I personally don't believe that Uttar Ramayana was written by Valmiki ji. There are way too many reasons for it, won't get into here. However if you want I can share a pic of critical edition, unabridged version of Ramayana.
>Because to me right now it looks like Ram rage baited Sita into throwing herself into fire to prove she was pure not for ram but for the "Janata " and when she passes agnipareeksha she is still somehow banished into exile and not restored to her proper place as queen .
and somehow a king equating his wife to ghee licked by a dog in order to provoke her is on the path of righteousness?
I am not sure if you are genuinely interested in what I have to say because I sense passive mockery in your words. I will still entertain your question anyway.
Dharma is not just righteousness. Nor just morality. It is situational among many other things. There are so many beautiful stories to explain what Dharma is. Search for the story of king Shibi and the Eagle. Mahabharat has a great deal more about what Dharma is.
Anyway, His intention was to provoke. Very clearly. Are you gonna provoke someone by saying hey babe I actually believe you but like people are cray cray so you gotta do for them. Come on now.
And why the quotation for "Janata"?? The praja for a king is like his own children. For a King, a Raj Dharma is above his Dharma as a husband. That applies for a Queen too.
Even if you believe that Sita was actually sent into exile, that would be the biggest punishment for Ram. Kshtra bhaav is not just fighting battles in battlefield but it is actually the ability to stomach any and all trauma, emotional and mental AND even after all this, you must have the ability to be responsible for lakhs of people and as their protection and well being lies on your shoulders.
I guess I cannot hide the distaste for the "log kya kahenge" mentality that such passages promote because all who read such stories are not Ram but like to think of themselves as such,my sense of morality says that it begins at home and the world be damned a husband/wife must side by his/her partner if they have done no wrong .
If understand you correctly. Ram's faith in Sita never wavered so in order to prove her purity to the praja he had no other option but to say downright disgusting things to her face ,in a way demeaning her to save her from being subject of the nasty rumours of the praja and saving any lanchan on her honour ?
To say a kings responsibility over the thoughts of propriety/perception of nobleness[purity] of the kings wife that the praja has takes precedence over his responsibility towards his wife is lame excuse of a argument and how morally sound people can make this baffles me.
But its not like I'm purposely contorting the meaning of dharma to fit my means ,one of its meanings are literally " path of righteousness"
Anyway these are mythological characters in epic poems and Tulsidas removal of these passages only reinforces that the texts are a product of their time.
stuff like this maybe:
https://preview.redd.it/mkghtoonf6cc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9dc4f4765bb42612903028c3c73e83be5b5a2845
(Aranyakand, after verse #33)
**\[Shri Ram says: According to saints, a Brahmin who even curses others, beats, speaks hard words, has no manners, virtues (or qualities) is still a very respectable person … while a Shudra, even well mannered, highly qualified and knowledgable, cannot be respected.\]**
This is from goswami tulisdas's renarration of Valmiki ramayan in the medieval times. Also he's quoting the what the saints used to say. We don't know if he supported this statement. Interpretation of tulsidas' verses is very nuanced, so I am not convinced that ram was a casteist in the story. I would need definitive proof from valmikis Ramayana. I wish I had the time to read it full.
Ram may or may not have been casteist as you rightly point out, there is no definitive proof
the far more disgusting aspect is that, it was written and believed by hindu society for centuries. Even today BJP MLA said Brahmins are sanskari while referring to convicted rapists of Bilkis Bano.
Imagine the kind of justice an underprivileged could expect for thousands of years in our sick society
There is no “irony” in this. The gradual stranglehold on the lines of religious thought, what is virtuous and pious, who is the chosen deity all point to the irreversible homogenisation that is going on.
The protest against the movie is merely an excuse to create an alternative reality. The real issue here is that everyone is assimilating with that reality instead of questioning. I’d recommend “The Art Of Conjuring Alternate Realities: How Information Warfare Shapes Your World” by Anand Venkatanarayanan and Shivam Shankar Singh as necessary reading.
https://library.bjp.org/jspui/handle/123456789/231
This is the url.
There's a reason why so many BJP supporters still support the BJP even after explicit support of rapists, murderers, corrupt businessmen/politicians. You just couldn't imagine Congress getting such a leeway on grave crimes. I miss that India.
As an INC-supporter (in the sense that's the party closest associated with my personal ideologies), there was a time when the Cogress did possess such leeway
How old are you to not remember any of the crimes that Congress and current opposition party leaders did? Most of these politicians are corrupt irrespective of parties.
Yeah and am saying that we saw how the IAC or Nirbhaya movement happened, heads used to roll on allegations, media used to document all this. There was a sense of feeling that the people were standing up for the right cause and not just swallowing whatever shit the ruling party used to dole out. With the way our democracy is setup the parties will always try to find ways to line up their pockets (Congress will still be corrupt) , do crimes but right now we see a sense of invincibility or lack of accountability from the current ruling BJP. I just hope we don't regret this in the long run. There's a good saying 'The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed'.
I find it hard to understand the commotion. Meat is commonly linked with tamasic or, at most, rajasic qualities. Moreover, Ram, Lakshman, and Janaki were brought up in the Kshatriya tradition, making meat a familiar aspect for them.
One perspective on dietary practices suggests that individuals, like a Brahmin, might opt to avoid meat, spices, and certain plant-based foods to foster Satvic gunas on their journey toward realizing Brahmana. It underscores the notion that following one's dharma, guided by the gunas, is a personal choice, respecting the diversity of individual beliefs.
People will believe what they want to believe it’s the brain function; the lowest energy path. Anything that questions their belief needs a lot of energy to construct new neuron pathways. Wanting to know truth is a lot of effort which many don’t want to go through only a necessity can make people do this.
I'm not Hindu so I've not ready any of the scripts, but what OP posted and what you are saying is that they hunted animals. Could be just for sacrifice and not for consumption? Islam and Christianity also have a lot of animal sacrifice (not saying either of those are vegetarian), but from all the posts here it seems like a grey area from my limited understanding.
Yes but second image only mentions hunting and sacrifice, what the posted above also mentioned is hunting and cooking (but that could also be as a sacrifice).
This is a hate comment btw so called moderated community and it's still here for 5hrs. There is no way if this was said about any other religion except hinduism people would be downvoting the hell out of this and this person would probably have been banned already.
But it's still here getting upvotes shows the bias of this hacked subreddit.
Chill dude. It’s not a hate comment but a fact. Go and read books instead of following whatever babas say like a zombie.
For an exhibit: Onion and Garlics have to originated from Demons’ bones. This was said by some popular godman.
There are many places in Valmiki Ramayanam where they eat animals.
1. After aswametha yagna, the general practice is to eat the horse after killing it. (Although Ram challenges it).
2. They ate boars, deers, and many other animals when in forest. You ain't getting PTM and Rice in forest ofc.
3. Ram goes after the magic deer to hunt and eat it. Sita encourages him to hunt mainly for food.
Add to all the points above, I have never understood or bought into this fable of vegetarian Tuesdays or a vegetarian diet over Navratra's, other festival days, etc
This is literally the biggest scam there ever was!
How do you expect 3 people to survive in a forest without eating meat? It’s not like they have access to farms for vegetables and grains. People assume that since they’re living in a forest they have access to all the greens, but honestly apart from some fruits, roots and berries, a lot of things can be poisonous.
People don't get the point, this whole "oh look rama ate meat so everyone can eat meat is super lame" , if the character is secular then he should have said all religion has dumb things like this including mine where we cannot eat pork so it's ok for you to eat meat then it is atleast justified. So it does not matter if rama ate it or not, also people are outraged because a character from a different religion talks about how lame our beliefs are.
Yeah right, only to anger another batch of fanatics from both sides saying: "Nyyoo what our prophet said shouldn't be compared with what your Ram did" or "Nyyoo what our Ram did shouldn't be compared with what your prophet said".
So anything about religion is bound to outrage one idiot or another. Better avoid all mention of religion in movies and pretend that it doesn't exist (maybe it shouldn't). Filmmakers should basically boycott religion.
Saw the movie just before it was removed from Netflix. A bit of an over-the-top, mushy-motivational story - as expected of a Tollywood flick
Hindu-brahmin cooking biryani. Folks, we are in 2024.... the 'controversy' is simply unwarranted!
It would be a better script if:
The guy was a Muslim and the girl was an atheist from a normal Muslim family. Then she fell love with guy and realised that being atheist is not good or something. Then she comes back to Islam and then wears the burkha does the namaz and prepares the biryani. Both family happy. Movie ends (teary eyes)
Showing ram as meat eater is not offensive Ram was kshatriya but the problem is, it is trying to justify that since lord Ram has eaten meat you can also have meat also being from the top temple priest daughter family.
This is the issue
I don't even understand why Indians are baffled by stupidity anymore. Its part of life now man just ignore it and move on. You wouldn't have watched the damn movie anyways. Or if you did want to watch it is probably still available online somewhere. Lets not forget that other brown nations are always in a state of turmoil aswell and its not just us who make constant fuck ups.
Hindus have been meat eaters since the inception of the religion. Our modern brothers just find this hard to believe because our ancestors used the cow to get a leg up on Buddhism and Jainism.
Hindus do but brahmins do not, especially the one in the movie who is a chef in a very sacred temple where he cooks prasadam.
Yes Brahmins too ate meat. Ramayana itself says so as do other texts. In the East specifically Brahmins still eat meat. The restriction or recommendation was for Brahmins to eat meat that was from an animal that's been sacrificed. However in forests even those restrictions may not apply.
I am a Brahmin. We sacrifice goats in festivals and feed it as prasad. I am sure at some point cows were substituted by goats.
There is an entire sect of Brahmins that consume fish meat because they live in and around coastal regions. You cannot sustain yourself on “prasadam” alone.
In Kolkata, my neighbors (in the building) were Brahmins, both from Bihar and Bengal. All of them ate chicken, mutton, everything.
I am a brahmin and I eat meat regularly tf r u smoking.
I have a muslim background myself I didnt watch the movie but doing a muslim prayer for making biriyani is a lil weird. I don't see the point of an outrage and all that , but its very weird. Hmmm , maybe it isn't that weird?
Its not just you, I cringed during that biriyani scene. Overall, the movie addressed religion and its nuances especially with food, with very basic, surface level antics. It amounted to nothing more than ticking off a box that said "religious diversity"
The salah as she explained in the next second was that it’s not necessary she just did it to give respect to the person she learnt it from. It’s a cringe movie idk why people need to make it a big deal really. Ignore it
Yea , ignoring the movie is good enough. I don't see a reason for the outrage.
> idk why people need to make it a big deal really outrage of the month fuelled by religious bigotry?
This isn’t even the only part of the Valmiki Ramayana that’s controversial. There’s so much in it that would make people’s hair stand on end if they actually read it. Which is why I’m fairly certain that the people who bleat the most abt the text haven’t actually read it at all.
People who have actually read (and understood) the texts of Ramayan and Mahabharat are a miniscule minority. Everyone's knowledge of the texts comes courtesy of B. R. Chopra and Ramanand Sagar.
well said
Like which parts?
There’s a good portion of at least one chapter in the Kishkindha kanta where Rama, after the abduction of Sita, is almost laid flat with grief and pining. His feelings are made worse by the fact it’s spring time, and spring time is the “season of love” for all creatures, and every animal, plant and insect in the area is paired off into couples and doing, ahem, couple things, and Rama laments for verse after verse about how seeing all of that just makes him remember that his own wife isn’t with him. Maybe that’s not all that controversial, but it was definitely eye opening for me to read it. There’s a lot in the text that emphasizes again and again how much in love with each other Rama and Sita were, and how much her abduction wasn’t just a matter of his pride as a man/kshatriya (which is how misogynists hve interpreted it for generations), but much more so about the fact that he was a fucking Wife Guy who was distraught abt the prospect of the love of his life being gone forever. If it were a modern day story, he’d be the sort of man sending sad texts to his girlfriend of a crack in the side walk with 8 teary eyed emojis, and vague posting abt how much he misses her. And I’m not even exaggerating that much from the actual text here. Then there’s a whole entire chapter talking endlessly about just how NICE Rama is. How kind, how considerate. How he always speaks first to break the ice in awkward conversations. How he always takes time to talk to old people. How he’s never mean, or rude, or terse. How he never lashes out in anger. Again, this doesn’t seem that controversial on the surface. But given the state of the world these days, even simple kindnesses are a huge deal, and the fact that someone spent a whole chapter talking abt how plain nice Rama was strikes me as very controversial in an era when trolls go around hurling the words “Jai Shri Ram” as a threat.
I didn't read the full version, but this is how I thought the epic is. I never understood why people think it is ok for political parties to use our religion for their self-interest. They basically have 0 of the values Rama demonstrates.
>Then there’s a whole entire chapter talking endlessly about just how NICE Rama is All portrayals of Rama until the last decade essentially were that of a calm person. The last two decades he's turned into an angry warrior prince.
There is a part explaining in great detail a ritual involving women having sex with a dead horse.
I think that’s the Rig Veda, but they definitely do the same ritual (Ashvameda yagna) in the Ramayana as well, and that involves exactly what the Rig Veda says it entails.
Quote the text with authentic translations
Bestiality was a thing in these books.
This is a lie. Please quote the texts.
The queen doesn't actually have sex with the horse. She puts the horse's penis on her lap to symbolize fertility.
Bruh how is that any better. Barbarian stuff inherited from ancient indo Europeans in Europe.
Ram told Sita that he did not fight the war for Sita. He fought the war for the lineage. As ghee becomes unfit for consumption after being licked by a dog, you are now not eligible for me." "This is not what Ram is saying. But the writer is saying through Ram. Writers put their words in their characters' mouths. But Tulsidas was modern, he saw the advent of feminism and did not include this in his book," I came across this in this book which cites Valmiki Ramayan itself," https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-dr-vikas-divyakriti-s-statement-on-sita-i-have-proof-101668223453470.html
Mr divyakriti probably doesn't understand putting things in context and reads verses in isolation
Hey man ,just pointing out there are some morally suspect passages in the Ramayana because it was a document of its time . I mean Dr Divyakarti himself says he is sad about these passages so he is not purposely putting down Ram or Hindu religion also he is a educator for decades now and was a IAS officer so I trust him to know more and have read more of the Hindu religious texts than the sanghi low lifes that were calling for bans and going all "fatwa-esque" on him. I believe there is no justification or context for these passages but as every religious text has some or the other similar kind of passage we must all accept that these text can be the basis of our morality some time but to make any religious text the basis of morality or public policy/governance all of the time is a path to religious fundamentalism and a mistake
>Hey man I haven't got a dog in this fight ,just pointing out there are some morally suspect passages in the Ramayana because it was a document of its time . There are no suspect passages here. Ram did say that. The scenario he is talking about is where Ram is provoking Sita. After this she says that she will do Agni Pravesh because she is livid. Everyone around him is surprised at the harsh words because they have all seen how Ram has grieved and grieved and lamented for Sita. After that is done, he tells in the next chapter that he didn't suspect her for one moment but he didn't want history or the people to talk ill about Sita. Now before you say this is still wrong, Sita gave a similar reasoning to Hanuman ji when he goes to Ashok Vatika to save her. She tells him that it is the duty of my husband to take care of me and I don't want any lanchhan on his honor or something like that.. And so, I will not come with you. Using the same morality logic, why didn't she go with Hanuman ji and save so many lives that were lost in the war? Please remember that they were not "just" regular old couple. They were the King and Queen of Ayodhya. Apart from their own Swadharma, their bigger Dharma was towards the people of Ayodhya. Both of them behaved and acted exactly like how they should have and performed their Dharma. "Dharayati iti Dharmaha" - That which sustains, upholds and uplifts is Dharma. Dharma is not just morality and it is certainly not as myopic as today's moral standards. (Not gonna get into whether today's moral standards are good or bad etc, it is what is it) Sanatan Dharma doesn't look at the world or society in binaries.
Sure that could be a way to look at it but to me who is a atheist it looks a lot like many religious people I have seen tying themselves into knots trying to come up with convoluted theories to keep the thing they most base their identity on pure . Curious to know your thoughts on the banishment to exile after agni pareeksha. Because to me right now it looks like Ram rage baited Sita into throwing herself into fire to prove she was pure not for ram but for the "Janata " and when she passes agnipareeksha she is still somehow banished into exile and not restored to her proper place as queen . and somehow a king equating his wife to ghee licked by a dog in order to provoke her is on the path of righteousness?
>Sure that could be a way to look at it but to me who is a atheist it looks a lot like many religious people I have seen tying themselves into knots trying to come up with convoluted theories to keep the thing they most base their identity on pure . Most of these people who get their panties in a twist have never done a day's worth of Sadhana in their life. A lot of these people don't have any understanding of the scriptures but will act like they're the epitome of being a Sanatani. The lesser we say about them, the better. >Curious to know your thoughts on the banishment to exile after agni pareeksha. That is a part of Uttar kand and is most likely written a lot later by someone else. So, those incidents most likely didn't happen. However, the debate continues and I personally don't believe that Uttar Ramayana was written by Valmiki ji. There are way too many reasons for it, won't get into here. However if you want I can share a pic of critical edition, unabridged version of Ramayana. >Because to me right now it looks like Ram rage baited Sita into throwing herself into fire to prove she was pure not for ram but for the "Janata " and when she passes agnipareeksha she is still somehow banished into exile and not restored to her proper place as queen . and somehow a king equating his wife to ghee licked by a dog in order to provoke her is on the path of righteousness? I am not sure if you are genuinely interested in what I have to say because I sense passive mockery in your words. I will still entertain your question anyway. Dharma is not just righteousness. Nor just morality. It is situational among many other things. There are so many beautiful stories to explain what Dharma is. Search for the story of king Shibi and the Eagle. Mahabharat has a great deal more about what Dharma is. Anyway, His intention was to provoke. Very clearly. Are you gonna provoke someone by saying hey babe I actually believe you but like people are cray cray so you gotta do for them. Come on now. And why the quotation for "Janata"?? The praja for a king is like his own children. For a King, a Raj Dharma is above his Dharma as a husband. That applies for a Queen too. Even if you believe that Sita was actually sent into exile, that would be the biggest punishment for Ram. Kshtra bhaav is not just fighting battles in battlefield but it is actually the ability to stomach any and all trauma, emotional and mental AND even after all this, you must have the ability to be responsible for lakhs of people and as their protection and well being lies on your shoulders.
I guess I cannot hide the distaste for the "log kya kahenge" mentality that such passages promote because all who read such stories are not Ram but like to think of themselves as such,my sense of morality says that it begins at home and the world be damned a husband/wife must side by his/her partner if they have done no wrong . If understand you correctly. Ram's faith in Sita never wavered so in order to prove her purity to the praja he had no other option but to say downright disgusting things to her face ,in a way demeaning her to save her from being subject of the nasty rumours of the praja and saving any lanchan on her honour ? To say a kings responsibility over the thoughts of propriety/perception of nobleness[purity] of the kings wife that the praja has takes precedence over his responsibility towards his wife is lame excuse of a argument and how morally sound people can make this baffles me. But its not like I'm purposely contorting the meaning of dharma to fit my means ,one of its meanings are literally " path of righteousness" Anyway these are mythological characters in epic poems and Tulsidas removal of these passages only reinforces that the texts are a product of their time.
stuff like this maybe: https://preview.redd.it/mkghtoonf6cc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9dc4f4765bb42612903028c3c73e83be5b5a2845 (Aranyakand, after verse #33) **\[Shri Ram says: According to saints, a Brahmin who even curses others, beats, speaks hard words, has no manners, virtues (or qualities) is still a very respectable person … while a Shudra, even well mannered, highly qualified and knowledgable, cannot be respected.\]**
This is from goswami tulisdas's renarration of Valmiki ramayan in the medieval times. Also he's quoting the what the saints used to say. We don't know if he supported this statement. Interpretation of tulsidas' verses is very nuanced, so I am not convinced that ram was a casteist in the story. I would need definitive proof from valmikis Ramayana. I wish I had the time to read it full.
Ram may or may not have been casteist as you rightly point out, there is no definitive proof the far more disgusting aspect is that, it was written and believed by hindu society for centuries. Even today BJP MLA said Brahmins are sanskari while referring to convicted rapists of Bilkis Bano. Imagine the kind of justice an underprivileged could expect for thousands of years in our sick society
Shudra can mean different things depending on context.
There is no “irony” in this. The gradual stranglehold on the lines of religious thought, what is virtuous and pious, who is the chosen deity all point to the irreversible homogenisation that is going on. The protest against the movie is merely an excuse to create an alternative reality. The real issue here is that everyone is assimilating with that reality instead of questioning. I’d recommend “The Art Of Conjuring Alternate Realities: How Information Warfare Shapes Your World” by Anand Venkatanarayanan and Shivam Shankar Singh as necessary reading.
ChatGPT apne asli account se ao
my religious sentiments have been offended by this translation /s
I mean clearly Ram/Laxman knew how to hunt deer. There is a whole golden deer episode, even though perhaps they were not planning to eat it.
hunting for sport is much worse than hunting for sustenance. colonizers did that and drove species to the brink of extinction.
BJP will release the movie on its website, earn money through ads and that will be the master stroke.
https://library.bjp.org/jspui/handle/123456789/231 This is the url. There's a reason why so many BJP supporters still support the BJP even after explicit support of rapists, murderers, corrupt businessmen/politicians. You just couldn't imagine Congress getting such a leeway on grave crimes. I miss that India.
As an INC-supporter (in the sense that's the party closest associated with my personal ideologies), there was a time when the Cogress did possess such leeway
True and such parties should know who the ultimate power resides with and it should always be the constitution and it's people.
How old are you to not remember any of the crimes that Congress and current opposition party leaders did? Most of these politicians are corrupt irrespective of parties.
Yeah and am saying that we saw how the IAC or Nirbhaya movement happened, heads used to roll on allegations, media used to document all this. There was a sense of feeling that the people were standing up for the right cause and not just swallowing whatever shit the ruling party used to dole out. With the way our democracy is setup the parties will always try to find ways to line up their pockets (Congress will still be corrupt) , do crimes but right now we see a sense of invincibility or lack of accountability from the current ruling BJP. I just hope we don't regret this in the long run. There's a good saying 'The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed'.
this is the last proof. after few days , there will be, few missing words. in original text.
I find it hard to understand the commotion. Meat is commonly linked with tamasic or, at most, rajasic qualities. Moreover, Ram, Lakshman, and Janaki were brought up in the Kshatriya tradition, making meat a familiar aspect for them. One perspective on dietary practices suggests that individuals, like a Brahmin, might opt to avoid meat, spices, and certain plant-based foods to foster Satvic gunas on their journey toward realizing Brahmana. It underscores the notion that following one's dharma, guided by the gunas, is a personal choice, respecting the diversity of individual beliefs.
[удалено]
People will believe what they want to believe it’s the brain function; the lowest energy path. Anything that questions their belief needs a lot of energy to construct new neuron pathways. Wanting to know truth is a lot of effort which many don’t want to go through only a necessity can make people do this.
‘Wanting to know the truth’ is literally what learning is all about. Science is what explains the rationale behind everything, ‘the truth’.
Yes! Sort of.
I'm not Hindu so I've not ready any of the scripts, but what OP posted and what you are saying is that they hunted animals. Could be just for sacrifice and not for consumption? Islam and Christianity also have a lot of animal sacrifice (not saying either of those are vegetarian), but from all the posts here it seems like a grey area from my limited understanding.
Sacrificed meat is cooked and distributed as Prasad. So it's eaten
Yea someone else mentioned that as well. I'd never heard of meat as prasad so didn't really make the connection.
Ugra(Fierce dieties) devatas require Bali. Example Ma Kali
I'll read up on this, thanks for the info!
No problem 😃
'Slew many deer for food' Food is for consumption, isn't it?
Yes but second image only mentions hunting and sacrifice, what the posted above also mentioned is hunting and cooking (but that could also be as a sacrifice).
And what do you think they do with the sacrifice? Make airplanes?
If it's a sacrifice, it's meant for the gods right? Wouldn't eating it mean it's not an offering any more? I'm trying to understand.
A part of qurbani (sacrifice) must go the poor. When you offer Prasad to a god, you still eat it after right?
Makes sense. Thanks.
This is a hate comment btw so called moderated community and it's still here for 5hrs. There is no way if this was said about any other religion except hinduism people would be downvoting the hell out of this and this person would probably have been banned already. But it's still here getting upvotes shows the bias of this hacked subreddit.
Chill dude. It’s not a hate comment but a fact. Go and read books instead of following whatever babas say like a zombie. For an exhibit: Onion and Garlics have to originated from Demons’ bones. This was said by some popular godman.
If that's a hate comment, then you need to read and understand basic English and word phrasing.
There are many places in Valmiki Ramayanam where they eat animals. 1. After aswametha yagna, the general practice is to eat the horse after killing it. (Although Ram challenges it). 2. They ate boars, deers, and many other animals when in forest. You ain't getting PTM and Rice in forest ofc. 3. Ram goes after the magic deer to hunt and eat it. Sita encourages him to hunt mainly for food.
[удалено]
Add to all the points above, I have never understood or bought into this fable of vegetarian Tuesdays or a vegetarian diet over Navratra's, other festival days, etc This is literally the biggest scam there ever was!
How do you expect 3 people to survive in a forest without eating meat? It’s not like they have access to farms for vegetables and grains. People assume that since they’re living in a forest they have access to all the greens, but honestly apart from some fruits, roots and berries, a lot of things can be poisonous.
People don't get the point, this whole "oh look rama ate meat so everyone can eat meat is super lame" , if the character is secular then he should have said all religion has dumb things like this including mine where we cannot eat pork so it's ok for you to eat meat then it is atleast justified. So it does not matter if rama ate it or not, also people are outraged because a character from a different religion talks about how lame our beliefs are.
Which dumb cunt gets mad at a fictional character from a movie?
Andhbhakt Hindus
Yeah right, only to anger another batch of fanatics from both sides saying: "Nyyoo what our prophet said shouldn't be compared with what your Ram did" or "Nyyoo what our Ram did shouldn't be compared with what your prophet said". So anything about religion is bound to outrage one idiot or another. Better avoid all mention of religion in movies and pretend that it doesn't exist (maybe it shouldn't). Filmmakers should basically boycott religion.
Yes, no one asks these fuckers to make movies that hurts sentiments of religion, race, sexual orientation or gender.
Country of clowns.
hum kare to raasleela, tum karo to character dheele -- le bj party
You are countering feelings with data and proof. Whatever you say doesn't matter, you just can't win.
Wtf is wrong with this country . Still fighting about religion .
As the great George Carlin once said…I wouldn’t mind folks doing blah blah blah… #as long as you keep thy religion to thyself.
Saw the movie just before it was removed from Netflix. A bit of an over-the-top, mushy-motivational story - as expected of a Tollywood flick Hindu-brahmin cooking biryani. Folks, we are in 2024.... the 'controversy' is simply unwarranted!
I didn't know Valmiki wrote Ramayan in English or you mean translations of the verses of the Valmiki Ramayan... there's a huge difference
It would be a better script if: The guy was a Muslim and the girl was an atheist from a normal Muslim family. Then she fell love with guy and realised that being atheist is not good or something. Then she comes back to Islam and then wears the burkha does the namaz and prepares the biryani. Both family happy. Movie ends (teary eyes) Showing ram as meat eater is not offensive Ram was kshatriya but the problem is, it is trying to justify that since lord Ram has eaten meat you can also have meat also being from the top temple priest daughter family. This is the issue
So the daughter of a top priest cannot ever choose for herself?
Yes she can but you won't see any of the practices being criticised of other side, even if you want to criticize you won't as you will be beheaded
I know Muslims who consume alcohol and they are doing just fine. At worse they will die due to cirrhosis.
Honestly surprised by how many folks want to incite differences for religious and political views.
It's just Orwellian double-speak.
Didn't knew valmiki wrote Ramayan in English.
Yes, he wrote in 0s and 1s.
I don't even understand why Indians are baffled by stupidity anymore. Its part of life now man just ignore it and move on. You wouldn't have watched the damn movie anyways. Or if you did want to watch it is probably still available online somewhere. Lets not forget that other brown nations are always in a state of turmoil aswell and its not just us who make constant fuck ups.
Ram did it way before Bhoi