#A woman's Ramayana

[janaknandini-singh999]

[cosmicrhetoric]

this is not a bad book by any means. but i am beginning to see the issues others had with it

[hindulivesmatter]

Resources to learn more about Hinduphobia, and Hindu culture.

Making a masterpost about this because I'm getting a lot of asks for it. The list will be updated!

Books to read:

Not Without My Daughter by Betty Mahmoody. This is the memoir of a woman stuck in Iran and how she has to illegally sneak out with her daughter. It doesn't focus on Hinduphobia but it does highlight the violence perpetuated by Muslims to women. This is a true story and a movie has also been made on it. Also, I just need to appreciate how well it's written, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

Aavarna by  S. L. Bhyrappa. This book basically details how Hindu history was derailed and destroyed by Mughal invaders, specifically Aurangzeb, the plot is fictional but the history is real.

All Religions Are Not the Same by Sanjay Dixit. This is a new book and I've just ordered it actually. It discusses the differences between religions and how secularism affects that.

Why I Killed Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. Includes the testimonial of the man who killed Gandhi. I'm about to read this book and I'm excited. Don't be fooled by the one-star reviews.

Hindus in Hindu Rashtra by Anand Ranganathan. Illustrates 9 examples of the hypocrisy of the current government when it comes to legalities and laws concerning Hindus.

Some people you can follow on Twitter are Dr Anand Ranganathan, The Skin Doctor, and VivanVatsa. They're all well-read on Hinduphobia and/or Hindu history.

A fantastic account on Instagram called vrindkavi posts amazing comics on Indian history and mythology.

Blogs you can follow for awareness, and learning about Hinduphobia/Hindu culture:

@rhysaka (debunking common myths, awareness, politics/geopolitics, news, culture)

@mrityuloknative (debunking common myths, awareness, politics/geopolitics, news, culture)

@main-agar-kahoon (debunking common myths, awareness, culture)

@yato-dharmastato-jayah (history and explanations, culture)

@forgotten-bharat (amazing for the history of ancient India, and culture)

@kailash-se-birha (culture, awareness)

@aranyaani (debunking common myths, awareness, politics/geopolitics, news, culture)

Interesting masterposts from other blogs:

Booklist to learn more about Hindu History by @mrityuloknative

The Ayodhya Masterpost by @mrityuloknative

Some important Hindu literature:

Mahabharata This is classified as an Itihasa text. It deals with a war between 2 royal factions and is a vehicle for describing the activities of the Avatar Krishna.

Ramayana This is also an Itihasa text. It provides the biography of Lord Rama who is considered an Avatar of Vishnu.

Bhagavad Gita This is an important text of the Vedanta school and is treated separately although it is part of Mahabharata. It provides a coherent summary of Vedanta.

Srimad Bhagavatam This is a Purana and provides a biography of Lord Krishna. This is an important text for the Vaishnava sect of Hinduism.

Shiva Purana and Linga Purana These Puranas provide the biography of Lord Shiva and are important texts for the Saivite sect of Hinduism.

Chandi or Devi Mahatmyam This is an important text for Saktas who worship Sakti or Devi. This text is really part of the Markandeya Purana.

But really, the best way to combat Hinduphobia, is to learn about our history and culture, because if you know the truth, you won't fall for the twisted narrative being peddled by the media today. If you've got to the end of this, thank you for educating yourself and learning about us.

[killallxys]

This one is for Desi women

Let's talk about radicalfemisnism in India. Now that we know how bad it is here. Economically, socially, politically we are fucked. Let's analyse something unique to us - caste and religion. I might get a lot of backlash here but I don't give a flying fuck Religion - Most women here follow hindiusm. They must also be following some festivals associated with it. I belonging to an atheist household never got exposed to these practices. 1. Indian goddesses are worshipped. But all it seems like worshipping caricatures or fetish of brahman men. They are powerful but of course at the whims of Gods. 2. Sati burned herslef for her husband thus leading to practice of sati - burning widowed women on pyre of husband. Don't you feel like an object owned by your husband? 3. Sarawsati is deemed as goddess of education but still women back then were barred from education. It was Savitri bai phule who educated women despite resistance from men.

4. Lakshmi as goddess of wealth but women were barred from having property. It wasn't until 2005 that Hindu women could own property. 5. Supreme court ordered Sabarimala temple to grant entry to women. They deemed women who menstruate as impure. Still women go to temple's to worship. Why? 6. Women aren't allowed in kitchen when menstruating or they will get cursed. Disgust for women's bodies. 7. You may have heard of stories related to Ramayana and Mahabharat. But all they portray is that women are property. Women in these stories are just properties and men involved here just fight each other for harming their property aka women. 8. The chemistry between Indian gods and goddesses is quite interesting. Although mythology, women still get raped. Brahma is a pedophile. He raped his own daughter. Vishnu disguised as the husband of a woman and raped her. Shiva was a rapist. 9. Ghungat is same as Hijab. Cover yourself. Male gaze 10. Marriage vows are misogynistic. For example kanyadaan. Your daughter is property and you hand over her to some random guy. And more

As a rad fem, I seriously condemn religions and their practice by women. Especially desi women. It's like hating yourself. The Hindu gods have great contempt for you. Rape didn't pop out of a vacuum. Now I understand why it is rampant here. Caste - 1. Devdasi was recently banned. Lower caste girls were sent to service the deity in temple. The Brahmans used to rape lower-caste women. Nice ploy under the giuse of religion. 2. Upper-caste men rape lower-caste women to show dominance. But what they are really trying to show is that UC men damaged LC men's property. 3. Upper-caste women are a special nut case. By being casteist they are still perpetuating misogyny. They think the UC men will see them as humans but they are nothing but property in their eyes. Last note : Being a radical feminist you have to address the uncomfortable to advance womens liberation. I don't care if some fraction of religion is pro woman. Religions as in here Hindu religion will never be pro woman. So take that crap with yourself. I'm not here to debate or listen to your whinings. If you're a man trying to mansplain me. FUCK OFF.

[aru-loves-krishnaxarjuna]

behnchod, madarchod, baanki maagi,, bokachoda, you fucking hoe, rot in fucking hell, you brother fucker, motherfucker, gaandu, randi, saala, harami, bohot tez samajh ta hai apne aap ko? Bhosdika, bara, saale gaand choos tu apna, kindly f yourself

Tere krishna ne terko gaali dena sikhaya hai!?!! Where are hindu women's SANSKAAR??? Tum aurte khud ko mhan samjhte ho i guess u r bhramin that's why u have superiority complex. WhatsApp university se padhna chod or real world me aa jaa

Let's start with the biggest issue I have with scriptures in Hinduism and the casual misogynistic tone in the marriage department.

Ramacharitmanas 3.4.4 - "A woman who treats her husband with disrespect even though he is old, sick, dull-headed, *wrathful* or *most wretched*, she shall suffer various torments in hell (The abode of Yama)"

Vishnusmriti 24.41 -A damsel whose menses begin to appear (while she is living) at her father's house, before she has been betrothed to a man, has to be considered as a degraded woman: by taking her (without the consent of her kinsmen) a man commits no wrong.

Valmiki Ramayana 2/24/20 - - Ram said \*"As long as a woman is alive, her husband is her god and master to her"\*

Valmiki Ramayana 2/24/25 - "Even if a woman is interested in religious vows and fastings, in addition to being the best of the excellent; if she doesn't obey her husband, she will become ill-fated!!"

Matsya Purana 154.166 - "The husband even if poor, illiterate, and devood of fortune, is like a god to his wife."Mahabharata

Anushasana Parva 146.55 - Husband alone is the God for women

Srimad Bhagwatam 6/18/33-36 - "A husband is the supreme deity for the woman. The Supreme, Lord Vasudeva is situated in everyone's heart and is worshipped through the various names and forms of the demigods by fritive workers. Similarly, a husband represents the Lord as the object of worship for a woman. A wife should be chaste and obey all orders of her husband. She should very devoutly worship her husband as a representative of Vasudeva."

Sage Ashtavakra said:Women can never be their own mistresses. This is the opinion of the Creator himself, viz., that a woman never deserves to be independent. There is not a single woman in the three worlds that deserves to be regarded as the mistress of her own self. The father protects her while she is a maiden. The husband protects her while she is in youth. Sons protect her when she is aged. Women can never be independent as long as they live.

Oh ho! Now you are asking our SANSKAAR!? Ram sikhate hai ki maryada mein rehte kaise hai.

Krishna sikhate hai ki maryada mein rakhte kaise hai.

Listen you motherfucker. I don't need to be educated on this. You dare question our SANSKAAR? WE became like THIS to PROTECT OURSELVES. WE learnt SWEAR WORDS BECAUSE MEN STARTED TO USE THEM FIRST!!!

And women can never be independent, eh? Look around the fucking world will you, ot do you use braille to type?

First you make us like this and now question US? Atleast hum aurate apne aapko mahan sigma male to nhi smjh ti, na? Aurato ko tum log hamesha 'women ☕️' karte rehte ho, unko disrespect karte ho, rapists ko support karte ho, unke saath jo unyay hota hai usko supprt karte ho, and when we stand up for ourselves, us hindu women's SANSKAAR dissappeared!? THIS is the reason why women hate men now.

Tu Insta reels se sab kuchh learn karrna band karr aur apni aakhe charo taraf ghuma, bsdk.

We can be our own mistresses, and we will be our own mistresses. Idc what anyone thinks, i stand with my opinion. Agar teri Maa nahi hoti, to tu bhi janm nhi le pata gadhere.

You know Maa Kaali as well as Maa Adi Para Shakti, right? Did they need a man to fight? Or to protect them? They protected themselves, and fought demons, monsters just to protect their children. Yea ok i agree with the 'devoted to husband' part, but if her dignity comes in question, she WILL fight back!

[rrcraft-and-lore]

Gender Fluidity, non-heterosexual, and gender variance behavior in mythology.

For the purpose of this thread, and keeping it short cuz even though this is my off month to finally rest from burn out, I've got publishing obligations, signings, and stuff to do -- we're keeping-- this to South Asian mythology:

I've already done a thread about third sex/intersex and trans (Hijra) in South Asian culture and the portrayals in a pop culture IP recently - Monkey Man by Dev Patel --

This is a short primer really:

Harihara - the union representing totality/oneness of all existence is the being born of the union of Shiva and Vishnu (who at prior to this morphs into Mohini, the female celestial temptress who Shiva becomes besotted with and tries to get intimate with), Vishnu changes back amidst this and the two fuse into a being. The ability of celestial beings | gods | goddesses to morph, change shape and gender in Vedic to Hindu mythology is well-established/normal. But there are many legends about Mohini, including the birth of her (Vishnu, his female avatar form being Mohini) son, Shasta, with Shiva. Mohini is also known as a femme fatale archetype, seducer, temptress, as well as someone known for destroying/seducing demons to their doom.

One thing to remember is that the Vedic religion and its stories are old, older than our records because the stories, songs, poetry of it all existed before written records and were transmitted orally. There are also varied versions of the epics, such as Tamil recountings of Mahabharata for example, in where one such example exists.

Krishna also takes the form of Mohini to marry Aravan (in Tamil) Iravan otherwise to give Aravan the chance to experience love before his death. There is a festival celebrated to this in the month of Chitrai (April/May) at the Koothandavar Temple dedicated to Iravan during which, Hijras (the third sex, transgender, intersex, and or eunuchs as well) celebrate Krishna/Mohini marrying Aravan and then mourn Aravan/Iravan's death as he sacrificed himself.

It must be noted that there is artwork and mention throughout the wide spread of Vedic upwards stories (and how many interpretations, takes, and varies stories there are) of same sex and yonic/non-vaginal sex relationships, births, and more.

There's also inter-being...?

Erotica/romance authors help me out here? Inter...celestial sex?

Apsara, devas, asura, humans, demigods. Look, lots of sex of all kind happens, and it's normal.

There's also the story of Arjuna to consider: when he refuses the seductive advances of Urvashi, she curses him to be a Klba, or member of the third gender. Later when Arjuna adopts the name of Brihannala, the curse takes effect as Arjuna dresses in women's clothing, and because of this, Arjuna is able to gain entrance to the kingdom of Virata in the Padma Purana and teach the high arts of music, singing, and dance, to the king's daughter and princess. Later, he is turned into a woman when he wishes to take part in Krishna's mystical dance which only women may attend.

Then there is Ila, a character cursed by Shiva and Parvati to change genders each month.

NOTE: there are MANY versions of the story of Ila, but it is canonical they changed gender -- known as Sudyumna as a woman, and Ila as a man.

Ilā is considered the chief progenitor of the Lunar dynasty of Indian kings – also known as the Aillas.

Continuing. In one story, Ila marries Budha (not Buddha the former king and founder of Buddhism), but Budha that is the god Mercury -- Budha is aware of Ila's origins as a man and changing status, but only marries Ila in his feminine state, and honoring that part of them as his wife and only when Ila is in that state. He does not enlighten Ila to the changing effect as each gender is unaware of the other and those lives.

The tale of Ila's transformations is told in the Puranas as well as the Indian epic poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

This is just a little thread. Anyways, I'm off now to sign nearly 2000 pages (won't finish today) and have an achey hand while I do more research and trying to improve the prose style I want for book three of Tales of Tremaine.

❤️ thank you. Remember, be kind.

[primordialsoundmeditation]

Today's Guidance from The Multi-Dimensional Oracle 🌌

Lakshmi ✨️🪷

✨️🩷️✨️✨️✨️

Prosperity, Career, Luck, Service

🪷✨️🪷🩷🪷✨️🪷

"Lakshmi is a Hindu goddess who represents wealth, good fortune, beauty, and purity. She is the wife of Vishnu, the god who sustains the universe.

Lakshmi is often depicted as a beautiful woman with four arms, standing on a lotus flower. She is sometimes shown with elephants behind her, anointing her with water.

Hindus believe that those who worship Lakshmi sincerely will be blessed with success and fortune. Lakshmi is especially worshipped during Diwali, a festival that commemorates the Ramayana epic." (from Google ai)

Pentacles a Rose the cards and Winter Oracle Readings

[journeytothewestresearch]

Heya, I was researching SWK's various sworn brothers because I kept hearing abt this one sworn bro of his called "The Female Demon Monkey King" and obviously with a name like that I was curious abt them. But for some reason I can't find any info abt them anywhere online, and one Tumblr post said that the Female Monkey King and the Macaque King were the same person? I was wondering if you knew anything abt that and had additional info abt the Female Monkey King?

[08-05-23: I've updated this entry. It will differ from the previous version reblogged by others in the past. See the link below for my new article on the subject.

08-06-23: Given our recent discussion, @sketching-shark and @wiings-kwami might find this interesting.]

She seems to be based on a discrepancy in Anthony C. Yu's (Wu & Yu, 2012) translation.

JTTW uses the term Mihou wang (獼猴王) three times to refer to the same character. Yu (Wu & Yu, 2012) translates this twice as “Macaque King” (ch. 3 & 4) but later changes it to “Female Monkey King” (ch. 41). Despite the original Chinese referring to the character as the “fifth brother” (wuge, 五哥), Yu (Wu & Yu, 2012) appears to represent them as a woman based solely on the association of mihou (獼猴) with female monkeys. However, not even JTTW follows this association, for out of 13 mentions of the term, over 61% refer directly to Liu’er mihou (六耳獼猴), Sun Wukong’s six-eared doppelganger. In addition, the term is even used once in the novel to refer to monkeys as a whole. 

The term mihou (獼猴) is just one of several transcriptions for a non-Chinese word used in China for millennia to mean “macaque” or “monkey.” Dynastic sources show that the association with female monkeys is a misunderstanding based on changes in dialect, along with differences in transcription. Said changes include muhou (沐猴, “bathing monkey”), muhou (母猴, “mother monkey”), and of course mihou (獼猴). Therefore, the word can be applied to either male and female monkeys.

The last point is exemplified in Buddhist literature. A 3rd-century CE Chinese version of the Dasaratha Jataka, which retells the Hindu epic Ramayana (5th-century BCE), references the great battle between the monkey king brothers Sugriva and Vali and calls the former Mihou (獼猴). A 3rd-century Chinese version of the Mahakapi Jitaka, which tells of the Buddha’s past life as a monkey king, also refers to him as Mihou wang (獼猴王). And a 5th-century variant of the same story refers to the Enlightened One as the Shan mihou (善獼猴), or “Good Macaque.”

[whippersnappersbookworm]

So I saw a lot of criticism by the Sanghis that Hindu mythology is not something one should write fanfiction about or that it's a religion, and therefore people shouldn't interpret and create stories of their own. But let me tell you something: the culture of fanfiction and re-interpretation of Hindu mythology is not at all new; it has been going on for decades.

So, as I said before in the blog, I am a Bengali, so most of the examples I will give are from Bengali literature. So Krishna is a huge part of these fandoms, and a lot of people write and draw things related to him. But this is definitely not a new thing; it has been going on since the time of Joydev's Geeta Govinda and Vidyapati's Vaishnav Padabali. There is a famous poem by Rabindranath Tagore:

শুধু বৈকুণ্ঠের তরে বৈষ্ণবের গান!

পূর্বরাগ, অনুরাগ, মান অভিমান,

অভিসার, প্রেমলীলা, বিরহ মিলন,

বৃন্দাবন-গাথা,—এই প্রণয়-স্বপন

শ্রাবণের শর্ব্বরীতে কালিন্দীর কূলে,

চারি চক্ষে চেয়ে দেখা কদম্বের মূলে

সরমে সম্ভ্রমে, —এ কি শুধু দেবতার!

Which translates to

"Are the songs of Vaishnav for Baikuntha alone?

Courting, attachment, sulkiness, sensitiveness,

Tryst, dalliances, parting and union, theme of,

The songs of Brindaban – this dream of love,

In the Shraban night on the bank of the Kalindi

The meeting of the four eyes under the Kadambatree

In blushing adoration - are these all for the Lord?

Most of the Vaishnav Padaboli and Radha Krishna Leela poets were very much influenced by their personal lives, which makes sense because they never really saw Radha Krishna with their own eyes, so obviously they need some kind of reference and muse for their works. For example, it is said that Vidyapati drew inspiration from the real relationship between a man and woman in that contemporary period for Radha and Krishna. He created the character of Radha from the very image of an adolescent, joyous young girl of that time period. His radha has a lot of human qualities. Then Chandidas, another important poet, apparently based Radha on his own lover, Rami. Rami was a lower-caste woman with whom Chandidas had an affair, but he couldn't marry her because it was not socially acceptable. Chandidas's Radha is portrayed as a sad woman, mourning for her lover from the very beginning, even before she meets Krishna, and it didn't change even when she was united with Krishna, as she was based on Rami, a woman who could never be with the man she loved due to society. Apart from them, the poets who composed Radha Krishna hymns during and after the rise of Sri Chaitanya in Bengal started including Chaitanya in their poetry. They wrote hymns dedicated to Chaitanya alongside Krishna; some of them even started crafting similar descriptions and personalities for both Radha and Chaitanya. It's from their narrative that Radha's love for Krishna symbolises devotees love for god; it was literally Krishna x Chaitanya. CHAITANYA FANFIC!!)

Apart from Vaishnav Padabali, we can also find examples of such works in Sakhta Padabali. For example, the whole concept of Durga pujo in Bengali is inspired by married women visiting their paternal family once a year with their children. The poets basically localised the mighty goddess Durga as a young girl married to Shiva, who is old and penniless. Several poets, like Ramprasad Sen and Kamalakanto (I don't remember his title), wrote hymns from the point of view of Menaka (Parvathi's mother) as she begged Giriraj (Parvati's father) to bring her daughter back. She chides Giriraj for marrying her young daughter to Shiva, who is old and penniless and roams in the crematorium with his ghost acquaintances. She worries about her young daughter suffering all alone in the Himalaya with no one to take care of. Isn't this also a kind of fanfiction? Where goddesses are made into normal women?

Also, if we talk about Mahabharat and the Ramayana, they also had fanfiction even before the rise of Wattpad and Tumblr. All the translations (except a few) adopted these epics in such a way that they could fit into their culture and contemporary society. It's a known fact that Tulsidas's Ramayan deviates a lot from the original one (Maya Sita, vegetarianism, etc.).

So in a way, it can be a retelling of some sort. So if we are shitting upon the culture of retelling and fanfiction, we should also talk about these examples, not only the modern ones. The truth is that retellings and fanfictions are necessary for these types of stories to survive. It makes sense that one modifies these age-old stories so they can fit into contemporary society. Every piece of ancient literature, be it the Greek epics, the Bible, or Hindu mythology, has its own share of retelling and fanfiction. These are not owned by a certain group of people; they don't have the right to gatekeep. People can and should explore these stories from their own point of view. They have the right to rewrite and retell the stories from a modern perspective. So before you chide a blog on Tumblr for writing Mahabharata-inspired fanfiction or incorrect quotes or bully them for writing a canonically incorrect ship,or critices them for writing self insert fic with Krishna stop and think for a second.

[blackknight-100]

if i could request a prompt, a ramayana au! where rama goes to valmiki’s ashram to request sita to come back (as he does in some retellings) and gets a glimpse into how she’s lived all of these years, if the unit she and luv-lush have become and feels decidedly like an outsider. thank you!

Hello there! Thank you for the prompt. I haven't read any such retelling where Rama goes to request her to come back (unless you mean the one when Sita goes back into the earth, and I don't think you mean that?) so I hope this piece works for you:

It is Lakshmana who drives his chariot all the way to Valmiki’s aashram and offers him a hug of encouragement. A short, stocky woman in a saffron angavastra and a bun at the nape of her neck notices them first. Rama introduces himself and his brother, and watches with a wretched feeling in his gut as she gives them both a strained smile, introduces herself as Isha, and invites Rama in. To Lakshmana she says sternly, though not ungraciously, “Perhaps, it would be better if you wait outside.”

Rama opens his mouth to protest, daunted by the thought of facing this alone, and perhaps even a little peeved by the insinuation that his brother had done wrong by his wife; but Lakshmana touches his arm, bows, and answers, “As you wish, devi.”

Isha ushers him past residents going about their daily tasks and introduces him only to those curious enough to ask. She settles him under an old banyan tree, fetches him a glass of water with jaggery, tells him to wait, and then disappears.

Not long after, she returns and takes him past a different section, around the back and to a thatched hut in a corner. Rama immediately discerns this is where Sita must live. There is a little garden around the track leading to the door, and the flourishing greenery bears the marks of her care. In the verandah is a straw chair, amateurly made but well loved. Isha, who had gone in, now comes out with two little boys, one in each hand, and nods at him. “You can go in,” she tells him, “but do not wander around alone. This is the women’s section.”

It is only when she and her charges are out of sight that he realizes those two must have been his sons. He has heard, of course, of the twins – Lav and Kush, but for the first time he knows their faces. The thought of it nearly brings him to his knees and it is with some difficulty that he drags himself in.

Janaki, as he sees her now, is much changed. No longer is she the delightful princess he met so long ago. She is thin, her face gaunt from the labour of raising her children so far from the family that was supposed to aid her. And yet she still shines brighter than the Sun that fathered the Raghu clan, and if Rama ever harboured notions of getting over his love and loss, he now knows he was sorely mistaken.

“Sita,” he murmurs, and how broken a sound it is! What use is his kingship if he cannot have what he wants with all his heart? This is the woman he has waged a war for, the one who has borne his children, and the one who he has forsaken.

“Rama,” she murmurs back, and he can hear the suppressed tears trying to burst out. But this Sita is not the blushing girl he wedded in Mithila. This Sita has lived through the humiliation of an Agni-Pariksha, has endured the ignominy of being forsaken. Sorrow has brightened the fire in her eyes, misery has pressed her lips close together. She now stands straight and tall, assured in her ability to walk through horrors untold. This Sita will not be won over by lifting a bow.

“Please,” Rama says – and what a day, that Ayodhya’s king has come to beg – “please, come back. Come home with me.”

“And then?” she asks.

“I will fix everything,” Rama promises. There is a desperation in him that he can no longer suppress. He cannot hold her eye, and he cannot look away. All around him are traces of a hard life he has not lived – three straw mats propped on the wall, an earthen pitcher draped with a moist white cloth, utensils stacked neatly on a rack. “Come home, Sita,” he pleads, and weeps.

Sita’s hands are rough on his face, marred with callouses. She draws him close to her, and he leans onwards, shuddering like a man dying as her lips touch his forehead in benediction.

“I love you,” she tells him, and it is like pressing down on a much-loved bruise, painful and intoxicating all at once. “I have loved you all my life, and I will continue doing so forever. But I cannot go back.”

Rama’s voice is a whisper when he speaks, a prayer at the temple of her soul. “Why?”

Sita laughs. It is not the same resonant sound as before, bright as a bell. This laugh is a softer tinkle, tinged with the memory of what is, and what has been. “Do I not get an apology?” she teases.

Rama opens his mouth, a hundred protestations and regrets bubbling up even as shame colours his cheeks.

Sita shakes her head. “Where is your dharma, scion of Raghu? What will the people say?”

“The people miss you,” Rama says, and Sita scoffs.

“Bharat can be King,” Rama bursts out, unable to bear the harshness of that sound. “He has done this before. I will… we will go away together. Sitey, we will make something for ourselves, I…”

There is a scuffling sound, and Sita lets go of his face. Clutching his arm, she hauls him to his feet and steps outside. The loss of her touch stings, like someone has poured ice-cold water over him and he follows her blindly, seeking that relief again.

“Maa!” It is all the warning they have before the twins dash around the corner, all muddy clothes and twigs tangled in their hair. A calf prances in right after them, mooing out to the whole world.

Sita frowns like a switch has been flipped. She gives them both a severe look. “Where is Isha? And which of you freed him?”

“I don’t know. I saw him and he was getting bored,” Lav (or was it Kush?) pouts. “And we were bored too.”

Beside him, his twin draws a line in the mud with his toes, giggling. Sita stares at it for a long while.

“Maa! Bhaiyya poked me,” the first boy complains, and Rama feels a rush of relief knowing he had not guessed wrong.

“I didn’t,” Kush protests.

Sita places a hand on each of their shoulders, herds them to the calf. “Go, return him. It is bad manners to let loose animals in the aashram.”

Lav clutches the edge of her pallu, his little lips wobbling. “I wasn’t trying to be bad.”

“I know,” Sita sighs and presses a kiss to each of their foreheads. Rama’s heart aches. They cannot be older than six years, Taksh is, after all, just five. They are just babies, really.

Kush tugs his brother’s arm. “Come,” he says, side-eying Rama. Lav quietens down and follows him.

Sita watches him watch them go. “Do you think they would be better off in the Palace?” she asks eventually.

“Not if you aren’t there,” he replies. And it is true, he thinks bitterly.

Sita twists her fingers, pulls her pallu closer. “I will think on it,” she promises, and Rama holds those words close to his heart.

“I must go now,” he says, although he wants to do anything but. Sita does not seem particularly offended though. “I will see you off,” she offers, and he thinks it’s better she has the time to reflect on everything.

Outside, Lakshmana is sitting on a rock, talking softly with Lav and Kush. The calf is sprawled across the ground with its head on his knee, making soft, contented noises from all the petting. He stands when he notices them, and the boys let out identical shrieks of alarm.

“We’re going!” Kush yells, dragging the poor creature away.

Beside him, Sita rolls her eyes. “Go faster.”

They wait till the children are gone before approaching, and Lakshmana bows down to touch her feet.

Rama watches with a foreign pang in his chest as his brother apologizes profusely to his wife, and Sita, ever-loving, pats his shoulders and forgives him with a hug. Lakshmana volunteers information about her parents and sisters and she listens with the rapture of a chataka witnessing the year’s first rains, and Rama barely manages not to be jealous.

They leave much later with well-meaning goodbyes, and Lakshmana extracts a second invitation to the aashram. When Rama gets on to the chariot, all he knows is failure and loss.

But Lakshmana does not drive them home. He leads the horses half a mile into the jungle and swings around to look at him. “You are upset,” he says. It is not a question.

“I messed up,” Rama tells him bitterly. It is hard to conceal his resentment now that the whole world is against him. He had sent away his wife to please his people, against the wishes of all his family. And now the same citizens of Ayodhya denounce and scorn him, and his brothers look to him warily, as if to guard his sisters-in-law from a similar fate. Dasaratha had chosen his wife over his people and paid for it, and now Rama pays for the contrary. What is, then, the right answer?

“Did you apologize or explain?” Lakshmana asks.

Rama bites his lip, barely refrains from losing his temper. How is this my fault? he wants to ask. Have I not suffered as well?

Lakshmana touches his arm, gives him a compassionate look. “When we had the boys,” he begins, and Rama has to smile at the thought of them, “we – Urmila and I – fought a lot. One of those times, it was my fault. I will not tell you want happened, and I hope you will not ask, because you will be very angry, but suffice to say it was bad.”

Rama sits down, blinks at him, interested now. “And then?”

Lakshmana gives him a sheepish smile. “I was too bull-headed to accept that it was my fault. But Urmila came up and said that she was sorry for acting the way she did, and that she could see my point. I was, as you can understand, mortified.”

“Huh,” Rama says, surprised. This is not how fights between Sita’s sister and Sumitra’s oldest usually end.

“Anyway, I told her that no, it was my fault, and she should not have to step back when she had been correct. And then, bhaiyya, Urmila told me something really important. She said when we fight someone we love, we should step back for a moment, and apologize even if we weren’t wrong, so we could initiate a conversation about what happened and how to prevent it.”

“…oh,” Rama says, for lack of a better response. “That is… very mature.”

His brother nods sagely. “There is never a dull moment with Janak’s daughter. But you see what I’m trying to say?” “Yes,” Rama breathes, pieces falling into place. “Let’s go back, I will tell her! Lakshmana!”

But Lakshmana merely settles back in, shakes his head. “Not today,” he advises. “Let her have some time to see what she wants. Too long we have tried to mold her into what she should have been, instead of appreciating what she was. We will come back another day.”

Rama doesn’t want to go, not to that empty Palace in Ayodhya that is no longer home. But he takes his brother’s words to heart and listens. After all, if he cannot trust Lakshmana, he can trust no one.

[mamawasatesttube]

So I Love when superhero comics explore religion and in a good chunk of the comics I've read (basically all marvel) there's an exploration of both how established human religons feel about superhumans and how different superhumans/species/aliens/robots feel about religion. But I feel like I've never seen this in DC comics or heard it mentioned by fans?? Like how do famously vocal and reactive american Christians feel about superman? Wonder woman??? And there's mentions of kryptonian religion but how deep does that lore go? Any good recommendations for this topic or just your thoughts 🤔

(Also I love your blog and the lil panels of kon you share are always adorable)

hmmmm. you may be interested in supergirl vol. 4 (mae/linda becomes an angel on earth). which is like... honestly, i didn't like those arcs that much because i personally don't really like religious stuff and i also don't think bringing christianity into superfam is Great djflk BUT, if that's what you're curious about, it might be worth a read!! you might also like superman smashes the klan. like, obvs the kkk isnt every american christian but given that there are people in it who are scared of superman when he reveals hes an alien, etc., it's also something i think.

as for kryptonian religion - their gods are... kind of real? like, kind of like how Every [mythical] pantheon is kinda real in dc (and i guess some pantheons that are part of major world religions today, i.e. that tt03 arc based on the ramayana, though i still dont know that i Loved how it was handled). chris kent becomes the vessel for nightwing and thara ak-var becomes the vessel for flamebird (which is fun bc kara's like I don't believe in these gods. meanwhile her bestie/worstie is like That's Cool . one of them is literally in my brain. its a whole thing). however, i'll definitely admit i haven't read a ton of their deep mythos and there's a lot about kryptonian religion i haven't encountered yet myself, so others might have more to add on that!

overall i think dc doesn't really get into religion or particularly real-world religions much because they don't want to alienate anyone. which is kinda like... well yeah marketability, but also i can see how people interested in stories about religion or including religious people might find that disappointing! but for me personally, i grew up in a pretty religious area and i have some degree of religious trauma, and i'm kinda sick of the whole thing, so to me, it's kind of refreshing to just be like yeah god is not a factor in this story.

(and thank you!!! have another tiny kon for the road.)

[asscrasher]

Monkey Man was phenomenal tbh. As a big fan of Hanuman I really enjoyed the incorporation of the Ramayana into the story. Incredible cinematography and sound design. The Roxanne remix was so unexpected but hot af. Gotta be one of the best soundtracks of all time. Plus some of the best queer representation I’ve seen in a non LGBT movie. Kinda played into the token magical negro archetype (but like, a trans woman instead of a black person) but the character is also given more lines than anyone else in the film so I’m here for it. And that battle scene? Yes mam! Very Promethea #20 too lol if you know you know. The whole film is clearly inspired by Only God Forgives, which pays off when the very last line in the film is “Only God Can Forgive You Now”. That little acknowledgment at the end was the cherry on top. Although the story is a bit predictable (straight up just the hero’s journey) the energy still kept me on edge. 10/10, only complaint is that he should’ve worn the mask more.

[hindulivesmatter]

(I have no one in my life to share this with, feel free to throw this ask away) I’m Jewish and as a kid the only adult to show me unconditional care happened to be a Hindu woman. Among other things she gave me a comicbook version of Ramayana to read. That and her presence in general is one of the few things I remember fondly growing up. Fast forward to over a decade later and I haven’t had any contact with Hindu stuff all but the tumblr stars aligned to end up on your blog somehow and I find out that the temple in Ayodhya is being built. I’m so happy for every Hindu who is celebrating and honestly just happy to see Rama again. I wish many blessings for everyone involved! Thank you to everyone who fights against antisemitism as well!

This is so lovely!! She sounds like a beautiful soul. I'm glad you found our corner of the internet. Thank you for being here🩷🩷

[nerdyrevelries]

A Little Princess (1995): A Tale of Orientalism

Hey friend, sit down, I want to talk to you for a moment. Remember beloved children's film A Little Princess 1995? How well do you remember it? Is it a film you watch regularly or is it just something that you have vague good feelings in connection to?

The reason I ask is that there's something you might not remember about this film. Something that you might not have realized when you watched it as a wee child. What's that, you ask? This movie is perhaps the most Orientalist piece of filmmaking I have ever seen, and the perhaps is only because I can't decide whether or not Memoirs of a Geisha gets the honor instead.

Let's take a look, shall we?

I want to start you out by showing you the opening of the film, since it may have been a while since you've seen it.

Okay, you finished? Let's analyze this clip. First of all, we've got some mysterious tinkling and stereotypical sounds of India. Text starts to scroll across the screen in a curvy font that speaks of the Orient and far off lands. Hang on, did she just say, "The mystical land of India" like she's talking about Oz or Narnia?

It really only gets worse from there. A little girl starts to tell us a small part of the story of Ramayana, an epic that is part of the Hindu faith. The images we are given make India look like a technicolor fantasy realm. And who do we have playing Sati and Rama? A white woman with a bindi and a white man who has been painted blue.

The actor who plays Rama also plays Sara's father, so I think the implication is that Sara is imagining these two as her parents (I question how many young children are even going to pick up on this detail to make its inclusion worthwhile; I certainly didn't), but the whole thing still seems racially insensitive (especially since her father is literally a colonialist. That's why he's in India.) Not only that, but they have chosen a story that is part of a religion that is still actively practiced for Sara to be telling, not a simple piece of folklore.

To add the final icing on the cake, when the story reaches an exciting part, we pull away to show the little white girl who is telling this story in 1914 India. She is telling this story not to someone else who is white but to an Indian child of her own age, who seems to be very interested in it. What's the implication here, that Sara knows this own kid's culture better than he does?

The story of Ramayana is continued throughout the film in this same dreamlike style, interspersed with the story of Sara Crewe, a little American (British in the original) girl who comes to a boarding school in her father's home country, where her fortunes change drastically when she gets news of her father's death.

Let's unpack this more. What's the purpose of having these scenes in this movie? Well, the answer to that seems to be that they want to provide the film with a feel of magic and wonder. In other words, Orientalism.

Okay, now that you're caught up, let me address a few things. Some of you might be thinking that the movie is like this because it's adapted from a novel that was published in 1905. But this simply isn't the case. Yes, Sara is from India in the book and her father is still a colonialist. He dies of "jungle fever" and Sara is later saved from poverty by Mr. Carrisford, her father's equally colonialist business partner in a diamond mine that turns out not to have gone bust, and he has an Indian servant with a monkey and is frequently referred to as "the Indian gentleman" (making the Indian gentleman actually Indian instead of a white colonialist is one of the two changes that the movie makes that I actually like.)

But you know what the book doesn't have? Ramayana. Sara's stories have nothing to do with India, sacred or not. She generally tells stories that she has made up about mermaids and things. So why does the movie have her telling a sacred Hindu story instead? I can't think of an explanation that isn't Orientalist. (And did I mention that all of the writers are this film are white?)

Your second thought might be that perhaps this is just some 90s filmmaking that aged badly! Perhaps they were trying to have more racial and cultural diversity. There are two cases where I think this is the case in the film, one of which is the Indian gentleman, and one of which I will talk about later (because I think it also needs to be discussed), but I don't think that's the case here.

As proof of my point, I'd like to show you the opening to another beloved children's classic, The Secret Garden 1993. This is also based on a book by Frances Hodgson Burnett and has a heroine who was born in India and comes to live in her parents' home country (in this case, the movie keeps the English setting.) I would also argue that the language around India and particularly the people who live there that is used in the original book is worse than the language used in A Little Princess.

So, you have two Frances Hodgson Burnett adaptations made and released in the 90s that both open with scenes of India. But the scenes feel incredibly different.

In the Secret Garden 1993, India is firmly placed in the real world. The scene also gives us important narrative information. It tells us that our heroine, Mary, is both spoiled and neglected. She doesn't do anything for herself. She doesn't even put her own stockings on. She's always angry and has frequent fits of temper, and her parents are also selfish people who have never had time for her. Finally we learn of Mary's parents' deaths and how she survives, giving us everything that we as watchers need to know before we ship her off (literally) to Misselthwaith Manor for a transformative adventure.

In comparison, A Little Princess 1995's opening treats India like it's a fantasy land, and its opening does nothing to introduce us to our main character or tell us anything about the story that we're all actually here for. The opening is just supposed to give the viewer a mythical, magical feeling of exoticism and wonder.

Before I go further, there's one more thing the movie does that I want to address. This is the change that I mentioned that I think was supposed to be good, but I think it's extremely misguided. They make Becky, originally a white scullery maid, black.

Now, I am fine with changing a character's race from what it was in the book for the sake of more diversity (it was the only thing I liked about Persuasion 2022), but I don't think Becky is the character to do it with. This is because Becky is a servant who is treated as little better than a slave. She's starved, she's illiterate, she's poorly treated, and she lives in a freezing little attic room where she is ignored by all the students of the school below.

In my opinion, the point of making a character that was originally white into a person of color—especially in a children's film—is so that people of color can see someone that looks like them represented on screen. But Becky is the only black character in the entire film. Is it really better for a little black girl to see the only girl who looks like her be the one who is treated as if she were a slave in an American setting that is supposed to be 50 years past slavery? I wouldn't want that for my child, if I was a black parent.

It didn't have to be that way, either. There was integrated education in America as early as 1831 in the north and the west, and there were rich African Americans who would have been able to afford to send their children to a fancy boarding school. They could have made some of the students of the school black. But they didn't. They just made Becky black. (The one thing I will give them credit for is that at least Becky becomes Sara's adopted sister in this version instead of her personal servant like she does in the book.)

So, what do we do with this information? Do you have to stop liking the film? Absolutely not! I may not like for reasons in addition to those listed above (I think the 90s rooftop chase scene climax is very silly), but I don't want to tell you to stop loving something that means something to you.

But I think it's important to talk about this, and it's something I have literally never heard anyone else discussing, unless I brought it up. We can like media with problematic elements (I think it could be safely said that there's no media that's entirely without them), but I think we need to acknowledge those problematic elements. It's only by confronting and not excusing the things that are wrong in the things we love that we can get better.

[ramayantika]

–✦– 𝙂𝙤𝙙𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙍𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙞��𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙒𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 –✦–

Usha's tale Lakshmi's tale

Rishika Gargi

"Without knowing that Truth which the Rishis call God, I will not be well."

A woman clad in white, face resplendent as the sun, eyes carrying a thirst to know something beyond worldly limitations -- knowledge that is simple and plain which can be easily known and heard about yet the hardest to realize.

But I am in school learning Science, Literature, History, Mathematics and Arts. I am not that wise woman from my dreams, I am just a normal girl in school who is twelve and has to study well to get first rank in my term examinations.

Truly speaking, I am not very good in Mathematics. I know English, I can write stories! I read history books out of my school syllabus and Ramayana Mahabharata. Sometimes when I am with my friends during lunch break, an unknown wave hits me. Why am I this? Who am I? Why does the earth exist? Who holds space? Why don't the planets go haywire? Why do waves exist? Sometimes, I hear an answer, but I hear the words, hear the language. I do not understand what it means.

They say, you are too young. You must not consume too much of such information. I am older now, and a friend of mine tells me the world is simple, why must you think of such complex questions? Does is it not trouble you to not know? To not question? The men in the family tell me to not concern myself with these questions. 'It's only for useless wondering mendicants who wear saffron robes and roam the world with a begging bowl. You must study hard, earn money and respect, have friends and family.'

My mother has put those sacred texts and epics under the bed. It feels as if someone snatched my teacher from me. Are my questions and thoughts really useless? I want friends, money, good food and family, but I also want that which is forbidden in their eyes. I want to know why am I here and why do I have such questions. There must be someone else who has or once had these questions.

So one fine day, the woman in white robes comes in front me holding frail papers and books. She also holds my Ramayana and Mahabharata books and ruffles my hair. Her voice sounds so divine and goosebumps arise on my skin.

"You, my child, must never stop questioning. Go beyond what you learn and see. The world is an open book. It's in your hands to turn the pages and read every word every line. This pursuit of knowledge is not easy, and in every step, you will have people saying you are not worthy to have such knowledge because some believe to possess the Truth, you must be a great seer, a great wise person. They forget that every great person started young or if not young, they started their journey once as a novice. And yes, you do not have to give up your favourite chocolate or that red gown to pursue this knowledge. Not for now. One must learn to live through all desires and stages of life. Be blessed..."

[starswallowingsea]

Book Review: Kaikeyi by Vaishnavi Patel

I ended up giving this book a 3/5 star rating based on just a craft perspective but as soon as I finished reading I ended up looking at reviews by Hindus online and well. Let's discuss below the cut.

So Kaikeyi is a retelling of the Ramayana from the perspective of Queen Kaikeyi. The Ramayana is a very important text in Hinduism and thus, assuming that Patel grew up in a Hindu household, one would expect her to be familiar with it in the same way I, as someone who grew up in a Catholic household, am familiar with the Bible.

Before I get into all of that, I would like to actually talk about the content of the book, since I am the target audience as an outsider to Hinduism looking to learn more about the stories that make up its foundations. I don't know anything about the Ramayana and I found this retelling to be very off, at least from a historical perspective.

One of the biggest issues I have with historical books is that authors really love to put their modern, 21st century views and ideals onto the narrative. It happens on all sides of the political spectrum and as a historian it makes me want to tear my hair out. I know it's unavoidable that our own perspectives shape how we write, but I wish that more people would take a step back and see how their ideas of feminism, in this case anyway, would actually have looked in the time period their book is set in.

Kaikeyi is the third wife of Dasharath and gives birth to his second son, Bharata, whom has been promised upon their wedding to ascend the throne. Kaushalya, Dasharath's first wife, also gave birth to his first son, Rama, of whom the Ramayana is actually focused on. However, while their children are growing up, we get a lot lot lot of the pushing of 21st century ideals in a historical setting. Kaikeyi is very invested in the ideas of women's rights which is fine? I guess? But it is very very hard for me to believe a woman of her standing, quite literally as the Queen of her nation, would be so class conscious and care this much about the average woman in her country without much reason.

Every single time Kaikeyi devolves into a rant about the Patriarchy and Feminism, it feels like this book would have been better suited to a modern retelling of the Ramayana rather than a historical one, though I can imagine it would still come with a lot of the same baggage re: an apparent lack of understanding of anything in the original Epic. The whole thing feels forced and like if Kaikeyi doesn't care about all women then she can't be a feminist character or reclamation or a "girl's girl" as the kids on tiktok are saying these days I think. Honestly I'd rather have a meaningful examination of her biases that are certain to actually be there if she were written to be like a person rather than a perfect ideal of Patel's feminism.

The first 2/3 of the book also felt like everything was just handed to Kaikeyi on a silver platter with very minimal pushback which just made her such an unbearable character to be in the headspace of for that period. I feel a lot of that space could have just been used better to show her stubbornness in the face of adversity that shines towards the end of the novel rather than just. Letting her passively have all of her goals handed to her with very minimal work on her part.

As a reading experience, the last 150 or so pages were probably the best to read as Kaikeyi's actions finally have real, tangible consequences for her but this is also the point where I saw a lot of Hindu readers had such an issue with this retelling of the Ramayana. Rama being portrayed as a misogynistic, war hungry prince and the erasure of Ravana's history of raping and kidnapping women were the two biggest points of contention for Hindu reviewers. I don't see why either of these changes were necessary to adapt this story for a modern, Western audience. By doing this, I believe Patel, intentionally or not, is playing into colonialist narratives about Hinduism rather than fighting them. It's also a disservice to present the Ramayana this way to both Hindu and non-Hindu readers, given that Hindus will be able to spot all the changes and disregard them, and non-Hindus are none the wiser to all the liberties Patel took with her retelling and are bound to spout them as fact if they don't look into the original.

I'd probably skip this book unless you're really into hashtag girlboss feminism retellings of fairy tales and myths, since so many of them miss the point of the original story. I can see the potential here for Patel as an author and am on the fence about trying her book coming out next month as the writing itself wasn't awful, but I'm not sure if I trust her with another myth retelling. At the very least, I suppose I can thank Patel for making me interested in reading the Ramayana at some point in the near future, so this review might have an update eventually.