Read on Twitter
[Thread]
The Agni Pariksha is a burning topic for modern-day jihɑdist feminists
Not just the feminazis but even those whose popɑt rɑped a six year old girl, give us "gyan" on this topic
In this thread we will see what the truth is —
![[Thread]The Agni Pariksha is a burning topic for modern-day jihɑdist feministsNot just the feminazis but even those whose popɑt rɑped a six year old girl, give us "gyan" on this topicIn this thread we will see what the truth is —](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EixOoQQWsAAstXK.jpg "[Thread]The Agni Pariksha is a burning topic for modern-day jihɑdist feministsNot just the feminazis but even those whose popɑt rɑped a six year old girl, give us \"gyan\" on this topicIn this thread we will see what the truth is —")
The Agni Pariksha is a burning topic for modern-day jihɑdist feminists
Not just the feminazis but even those whose popɑt rɑped a six year old girl, give us "gyan" on this topic
In this thread we will see what the truth is —
Without a blink of eye the Agniparīkṣā is the most controversial topic of the Rāmāyaṇa
Feminazist dogs who bark 'Indian culture is deeply rooted in misogyny' often give this episode to flip the entire narrative of Rāmāyaṇa and show Rāma as villain
Example this mad woman
Feminazist dogs who bark 'Indian culture is deeply rooted in misogyny' often give this episode to flip the entire narrative of Rāmāyaṇa and show Rāma as villain
Example this mad woman
And as I refuted @CChristineFair, the story of "Rama asking Sita to do Agni Pariksha" is a false myth
While Rāma does speaks harsh words to Sītā (6.117.25), he doesn't ask Sītā to do Agniparīkṣā
Infact Sītā performed Agniparīkṣā out of her own will https://twitter.com/vedicboy/status/1302902532243468290
While Rāma does speaks harsh words to Sītā (6.117.25), he doesn't ask Sītā to do Agniparīkṣā
Infact Sītā performed Agniparīkṣā out of her own will https://twitter.com/vedicboy/status/1302902532243468290
When I pointed this out to this covert-white supremacist lady, @CChristineFair went back to her usual feminist barking calling Lord Rāma a "domestic abuser"
And when asked for source, she ran away and blocked me like a coward
https://twitter.com/vedicboy/status/1303286170848124928
And when asked for source, she ran away and blocked me like a coward
https://twitter.com/vedicboy/status/1303286170848124928
Which reminds me of another white Abrahamic lady claiming to know Sanskrit who put words in Sītā's mouth calling him a "misogynist pig" when surprisingly no such epithet occur in the entire chapter!
And when called out, she started playing woman-card
https://twitter.com/vedicboy/status/1302885989900148738
And when called out, she started playing woman-card
https://twitter.com/vedicboy/status/1302885989900148738
Coming back to the story of Agniparīkṣā as I have argued it was Sītā herself who performed the Agniparīkṣā, Rāma didn't even ask her to prove her purity or anything
Today TV-Serials try to portray Sītā as some kind of "bechari" but such portrait has no support from Rāmāyaṇa!
Today TV-Serials try to portray Sītā as some kind of "bechari" but such portrait has no support from Rāmāyaṇa!
Throughout Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Sītā is depicted as a powerful and independent woman who makes her own decisions 
She had the choice to rule the mighty kingdom of Ayodhyā, but she chose accompanying Rāma in the exile instead (2.37.23)
Agniparīkṣā too was her own decision
She had the choice to rule the mighty kingdom of Ayodhyā, but she chose accompanying Rāma in the exile instead (2.37.23)
Agniparīkṣā too was her own decision
Also it's worth noting that in other traditions, the Agniparīkṣā never actually happened
For eg Harivaṃśa Purāṇa (XLI,121-155) entirely omits it
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa (IV,4,97) says Sītā "purified by Agni" returns to Ayodhyā with Rāma
No direct mention of any "purity test"
For eg Harivaṃśa Purāṇa (XLI,121-155) entirely omits it
The Viṣṇu Purāṇa (IV,4,97) says Sītā "purified by Agni" returns to Ayodhyā with Rāma
No direct mention of any "purity test"
In Rāmopākhyāna of Mahābhārata (III, 291), Daśaratha appears in his celestial form & gives testimony of Sītā's purity along with other gods which convinces Rāma to accept Sītā back and they return to Ayodhyā thereafter 
So no Agniparīkṣā ever happened (see Vana Parva, CCXCI)
So no Agniparīkṣā ever happened (see Vana Parva, CCXCI)
King Daśaratha basically reminds Rāma of the Nalakūvara's curse that if Rāvaṇa ever approaches an unwilling woman his head should split into a hundred fragments
For this reason Rāvaṇa couldn't approach Sītā in Aśokavāṭikā against her will
(See Vana Parva, CCLXXXIV, 26-28)
For this reason Rāvaṇa couldn't approach Sītā in Aśokavāṭikā against her will
(See Vana Parva, CCLXXXIV, 26-28)
The story of Daśaratha getting revived in his celestial form is there also in the Tulasīdāsa's Rāmāyaṇa (refer 6.110.1-4) but the story of Agniparīkṣā in Rāmacaritamānasa is a bit different there.
Tulasī basically tells us the story of an "illusionary Sītā"
Tulasī basically tells us the story of an "illusionary Sītā"
In 3.23.1-2 Rāma had asked Sītā to reside in fire and leave a illusory shadow in her place 
So in Laṅkākāṇḍa CVII,7 the illusory Sītā performs Agniparīkṣā to bring back the original Sītā previously lodged in fire
(For more see Araṇyakāṇḍa-XXIII of Mānasa)
So in Laṅkākāṇḍa CVII,7 the illusory Sītā performs Agniparīkṣā to bring back the original Sītā previously lodged in fire
(For more see Araṇyakāṇḍa-XXIII of Mānasa)
This story of illusory Sītā is widely believed in the North-Indian tradition where the dohas of Rāmacaritamānasa are extremely popular.
And not just in the Mānasa, this story of illusory Sītā is also retold in Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa (see Yuddha Kāṇḍa, XIII, 19-22)
And not just in the Mānasa, this story of illusory Sītā is also retold in Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa (see Yuddha Kāṇḍa, XIII, 19-22)
The Kūrma Mahāpurāṇa (II,34) narrates this story in detail —
When Rāvaṇa took form of an ascetic Sītā took form of an illusion whom Rāvaṇa would abduct while the real Sītā took refugee in fire
So during Agniparīkṣā the illusion was burnt away and real Sītā came out of fire
When Rāvaṇa took form of an ascetic Sītā took form of an illusion whom Rāvaṇa would abduct while the real Sītā took refugee in fire
So during Agniparīkṣā the illusion was burnt away and real Sītā came out of fire
Ananda Rāmāyaṇa (Sārakānda,XII,6-11) shifts the narrative to 'Chāyā Sītā' shown as merely a shadow of the Rajas and Tamas elements (Rajatamomayi Sītā) who is abandoned by Rāma and the true Sattvic Sītā comes out of the fire
For more see 1.12.3-10 of Ananda Rāmāyaṇa!
For more see 1.12.3-10 of Ananda Rāmāyaṇa!
In Devī Purāṇa (9,XVI,31-48), Agni comes disguised as a Brāhmaṇa & informs Rāma about Rāvaṇa abducting his wife!
So he requests Rāma to give over Sītā to him while he creates a 'Chāyā' or false Sītā in her place
Thus the real Sītā remains unharmed under protection of Agni
So he requests Rāma to give over Sītā to him while he creates a 'Chāyā' or false Sītā in her place
Thus the real Sītā remains unharmed under protection of Agni
In Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta we find the story of a Brāhmaṇa who refuses to eat food on hearing that Rāvaṇa has kidnapped Sītā & might hurt her
So Caitanya consoles him that the one whom Rāvaṇa kidnapped wasn't actual Sītā but her material illusory form (Madhya Līlā 9/188-195)
So Caitanya consoles him that the one whom Rāvaṇa kidnapped wasn't actual Sītā but her material illusory form (Madhya Līlā 9/188-195)
While Kamban (VI,37,84-89) doesn't talk of any 'Chāyā Sita' or 'Māyā Sītā' yet it narrates the Agniparīkṣā episode very beautifully – as the God of Fire failing against the Goddess of Chastity 
These were about the different traditions surrounding the Agniparīkṣā.
Now coming back to the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, why did Rāma even renounce Sītā at the first place? Why did he not trust her?
And why did he speak harsh words to her like an ordinary man?
Now coming back to the original Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, why did Rāma even renounce Sītā at the first place? Why did he not trust her?
And why did he speak harsh words to her like an ordinary man?
The first explanation that comes to everyone mind is of course the "Lila of the Lord" argument!
In Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Rāma is shown as a human being subordinate to the other devas. He looks for ways to prove his human nature to the world by understating his divine attributes.
In Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Rāma is shown as a human being subordinate to the other devas. He looks for ways to prove his human nature to the world by understating his divine attributes.
Agniparīkṣā too could be another such opportunity for Rāma to distrust his wife's chastity like any ordinary human being instead of revealing his all-knowing nature to the world.
This will be evident from the following conversation of Rāma with Brahmā —
This will be evident from the following conversation of Rāma with Brahmā —
Other pandits argue that Rāma accepting Sītā without Agniparīkṣā would result in their badmouthing in the society.
In Mānasa (III,23), Rāma had foretold Sītā that the Agniparīkṣā would be done only to convince the world who would later raise suspicion on their character
In Mānasa (III,23), Rāma had foretold Sītā that the Agniparīkṣā would be done only to convince the world who would later raise suspicion on their character
This has support from Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa also —
बालिशो बत कामात्म रामो दशरथात्मजः ।
इति वक्ष्यति मां लोको जानकीमविशोध्य हि ॥ १४ ॥
The world would chatter against me, that Daśaratha's son Rāma is governed by lust, if I had accepted Jānakī without examining her chastity (6.120.14)
बालिशो बत कामात्म रामो दशरथात्मजः ।
इति वक्ष्यति मां लोको जानकीमविशोध्य हि ॥ १४ ॥
The world would chatter against me, that Daśaratha's son Rāma is governed by lust, if I had accepted Jānakī without examining her chastity (6.120.14)
Now some people will ask, if Sītā had already proved her chastity to the world then why did Rāma banish her to Vālmīki's forest? 
What was even the use of Agniparīkṣā if she was to be sent to the forest again?
The answer is simple – that it never happened!
What was even the use of Agniparīkṣā if she was to be sent to the forest again?
The answer is simple – that it never happened!
The story of Sītā exile (along with Śambūka ƙilling) is mentioned in the Uttarakāṇḍa
Today every Sanskrit scholar agrees that Uttarakāṇḍa is प्रक्षिप्त part of Ramayana which was added much later
So much that http://valmikiramayan.net doesn't even have Uttarakāṇḍa in it
Today every Sanskrit scholar agrees that Uttarakāṇḍa is प्रक्षिप्त part of Ramayana which was added much later
So much that http://valmikiramayan.net doesn't even have Uttarakāṇḍa in it
A 6th century manuscript of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa doesn't even have Uttarakāṇḍa and ends at Rāma Sītā returning to Ayodhyā
This is enough to prove that the story of Sītā's exile is a medieval era interpolation not part of the original work of Vālmīki https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/6th-century-ramayana-discovered-in-kolkata-twist-in-the-story-intrigues-scholars-278003-2015-12-19
This is enough to prove that the story of Sītā's exile is a medieval era interpolation not part of the original work of Vālmīki
https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/6th-century-ramayana-discovered-in-kolkata-twist-in-the-story-intrigues-scholars-278003-2015-12-19
Next returning to the story of Agniparīkṣā, as we have argued it was done to convince this cruel world 
Infact when Sītā was giving the fire-test, we see tears flowing from the meditative Rāma's eyes (6.119.1)
This shows that Rāma never wanted Sītā to give Agniparīkṣā
Infact when Sītā was giving the fire-test, we see tears flowing from the meditative Rāma's eyes (6.119.1)
This shows that Rāma never wanted Sītā to give Agniparīkṣā
Infact, Rama never even doubted Sita's purity —
अनन्यहृदयां भक्तां मचत्तपरिवर्तिनीम् ।
अहमप्यवगच्छामि मैथिलीं जनकात्मजाम् ॥ १५ ॥
“It was well known to me that Janaka's daughter Maithilī could never give her heart to anyone else, and that she was ever devoted to me” – (6.120.15)
अनन्यहृदयां भक्तां मचत्तपरिवर्तिनीम् ।
अहमप्यवगच्छामि मैथिलीं जनकात्मजाम् ॥ १५ ॥
“It was well known to me that Janaka's daughter Maithilī could never give her heart to anyone else, and that she was ever devoted to me” – (6.120.15)
Further —
विशुद्धा त्रिषु लोकेषु मैथिली जनकात्मजा ।
न विहातुं मया शक्या कीर्तिरात्मवता यथा ॥ २० ॥
“The purity of Janaka's daughter Maithilī is manifest in the three worlds and can never be renounced by me like a hero cannot renounce his honour” – (6.120.20)
विशुद्धा त्रिषु लोकेषु मैथिली जनकात्मजा ।
न विहातुं मया शक्या कीर्तिरात्मवता यथा ॥ २० ॥
“The purity of Janaka's daughter Maithilī is manifest in the three worlds and can never be renounced by me like a hero cannot renounce his honour” – (6.120.20)
Sītā is the soul of Lord Rāma, her shame is his shame and her honour, his honour.
She is the other part of Rāma without which he is incomplete (2.37.24)
One who sees Rāma and Sītā as distinct do not actually understand the Līlā of the Lord...
She is the other part of Rāma without which he is incomplete (2.37.24)
One who sees Rāma and Sītā as distinct do not actually understand the Līlā of the Lord...
For Rāma himself says in Yuddha Kāṇḍa—
अनन्या हि मया सीता भास्करेण प्रभा यथा ॥ १९ ॥
Sītā is to me what Sunlight is to Sun (6.120.19)
Like Sunlight cannot be separated from Sun, Ramā can never be separated from Rāma
अनन्या हि मया सीता भास्करेण प्रभा यथा ॥ १९ ॥
Sītā is to me what Sunlight is to Sun (6.120.19)
Like Sunlight cannot be separated from Sun, Ramā can never be separated from Rāma
With this message, I end my thread! 
Hope ye all made something out of it
Jai Shri Ram,
Hope ye all made something out of it
Jai Shri Ram,
