Thursday, October 9, 2008
happy dussehera....
hey guys.... hru duin?? hope u all had a rokin' dusseherra ........ god me got hyper bored.... nthng to do.... jus watchng muvies on my lappy.... non stop ha ha ah.... relaxingggg before my second draft order cms in my hand he hehe........ watched sm very thought provoking muvies lik blood diamond' n maine gandhi ko nhi mara'.....liked them... nthng else ...... lif's jus gng on... last tim i njoyed the ravana burning ceremony..... where good wins over evil......but this time was nt interested to c the amount of pollution the whole process causes to the environment.......y dont ppl giv it a th8?? n plz fr me 'ram' the great was actually not one ..... who questioned sita's character.... the feminist perspective regards the incident exemplary of anthr disgraceful patriarchal practices of the past...... n trust me nthng mr than that..... is he really worthy of our reverence ??? u knw d ans rite.... ?? unless u not a ' saffron millitant'.........hop u got the catch in the statement..........?? neways njoyyyyyy !!! hav a nic day....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Happy Dussehra golu! Rama did not question Sita's character, his country's people did. He had to let go of Sita in order to set an example so that the Kings in future would follow this and consider countrymen before self. Unfortunately, that did not happen as time passed by, for humanity went towards a downward spiral. I know the whole episode was unfair to Sita, but all the women activists in the world forget that Rama suffered as much as she did. All the feminists also forgets that Rama was a king, it was not really necessary to rescue Sita at all. He could have gotten many wives. But he stuck loyal to her till the very end. Rama's duty as a ruler took precedence over his duty as a husband in this case.
Dussehera is that day in which truthness won from bad powers. Ram Chander ji is the sign of truthness and Ravan is sign of bad powers.
Learn more fro my thought on Dussehera http://mythoughtrajpura.blogspot.com
I would like to add my humble comments to this post of golu...of course Rama kept his countrymen above his own interests or should I say Sita ji's interests...of course he succeeded as a King to his Praja...but what about as a husband to his wife...was his duty as a husband got over by going to Lanka and fight to rescue her...what's the point in rescuing her if finally he allowed his wife to suffer ignominy for no fault of hers!!...the very mention of the fact that he could have gotten many wives is pathetic!!...true I agree but simply pathetic!!...Rama ji's praja questioned his wife's character...and by acceeding to their demands and asking Sitaji to undergo agnee pariksha...I feel Lord Ram also questioned Sita ji's character...If the husband won't stand up for his wife..nobody in the whole wide world will do that...
Let us forget Rama for a moment and come to the present day. We have often blamed public servants of corruption. We lament most of the times how these corrupt officials are amassing a lot of wealth and not improving the lives of people they are actually working for. Now, who they are basically working for then? Themselves, their families, their wives, kids, and their own. I am sure nobody would question their duty towards their families. By whatever arguments I have received so far, everybody should approve the above scenario.
The question was to protect Sita ji's honour coz in Shri Ram's context, that was the righteous thing to do, as per the people who commented!!..However, to compare it with bribery and corruption for the sake of one's family, would be so wrong! That I'm sure is NOT the righteous thing!! This is not the way "to perform the duty to your family". Do you thing Sitaji undergoing agnipariksha and corruption are one and the same thing?!
I have already agreed that the "Agnipariksha" and subsequent exile of Sita was unfair to her but Rama did what satisfied his people. His duty as the king took precedence over all other duties he had.
yeah..I have been trying to say in the last posts very clearly why "taking precedence" was wrong...don't think I need 2 say more on that!
I beg to differ. The first duty of a public servant is public service. Sometimes, a public servant need to take partial decisions for greater common good.
I wonder what greater common good was being served by making Sitaji undergo "agni pariksha"... satisfying the ego of common people?
Rama's people would have lost faith in their king. This was not about ego. King Harishchandra sold his wife and son to keep his word, was that wrong too?
uh huh...I don't get it...first you say it was for "the greater common good" (sounds like the great wall of China btw)...and the very next comment comes it was so that King retains the faith of his Praja...well that is sounding a tad selfish as far as the King is concerned!!..anything but the "greater common good"!! Let's just stick to the post on Shri Ram written by Golu...coz the comments pertain to that!!..However, I would like to say one should not make a vow/ give one's word about "selling" one's wife and son under any circumstance!! That is extremely sad and pathetic!! However big the cause might be!! It's okay if the wife/son wants to sell themselves...then it would be their prerogative!!
now, who's being selfish?
I'm sorry I don't get it...what do you mean by saying "now. who's being selfish"..if you meant the wife and son...the statement was meant to show that one should govern only one's own actions!! The wife should not go about selling her husband and similarly the husband should not go about selling his wife!!
Do correct me if you meant something else by "Now, who's being selfish"!
Post a Comment