Question - Page 2

Originally posted by: viper83

your not bugging anyone, instead broadcasting a question in the boards that can be emotional question or seen as a degoraotry towards a deity Like Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva and Goddess Shakti. For question on Vaishnavism you can ask some people you can ask surya or Urmila11, or lola610, or varaali or me about vaishnavism I believe correct if i am wrong.

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

Thanks. Why don't you PM them and see?

Originally posted by: varaali

Akash-

This is my opinion on your 3rd question (regarding Lord Rama's actions)

Lord Rama usually gets the flak for 'abandoning' his wife, that too when she was carrying his child.

IMHO, he didn't do anything un-husband- like while sending Sita away. He acted in the best manner he could- protecting both his wife and the dignity of the throne he sat on. The reasons why I say so are as follows-

OK, some people in Ayodhya were gossiping about the purity of his wife's character. There was nothing he could do about it. He cannot shut people 's mouths.

He also knows that eventually Sita will also come to hear about the gossip and this was the kind of idle talk which will only increase with the passage of time, not diminish. Would it do good for Sita, in her state of pregnancy to be listening to what each Tom, Dick and Harry had to say about her character.

If Rama was worried about his wife, he was even more worried about his unborn child. What would it's condition in the womb be, if its mother was worried, dejected and upset?

By sending Sita away, he ensured that she would at least not get to hear the latest on the gossip front.

He does not abandon her in the middle of no where. He specifically instructs Lakshmana to leave her near Valmiki's ashram, fairly certain that she would be given sanctuary there.

And the Chakravarti Maharaja that he is, wouldn't his spies have come and told him about Sita's safe arrival in the ashram, the subsequent birth of his sons?

Rama knew that Valmiki's word was the law in his ashram and the rishi certainly would not permit permit people engaging in idle gossip. Moreover the pure and spiritually charged environment of the ashram would have been a far better place for Sita to spend the remainder of her pregnancy that be cloistered in the royal palace with all its intrigues, plots and shadowy characters. Who could say that there won't be another Manthara?

Secondly,I disgree with the way the TV serials have shown Rama as tyaag- ing his wife. Rama does not tyaag his wife. Rama severs all relations with Lakshman, towards the end, but never ever does he renounce his wife.

The other point which usually comes up in this kind of discussions is Luv and Kush were deprived of palatial comforts in their childhood. For the first five years, yes. But even the most royal of princes would have had to go to some Gurukul in their sixth year. So even if L-K were born and reared in the palace, they would eventually have had come to a hermitage.

Thirdly- So why does Rama once again ask his wife to prove the purity of her character towards the absolute end?

He knew that the old gossip will once again rear its ugly head. He didn't want his wife's character to be talked about flippantly. He knew how pure and devoted she was to him; he didn't want X Y and Z commenting on her. So he asks her to take one more test- to shut these people's mouths once for all.

That's how a man's mind works.

Unfortunately, that's not how a woman's heart works.

In her heart of hearts, Sita knew that the gossip monster can never be set to rest. And she was pained to see how her husband was suffering because of the stigma being cast on her. She wanted to relieve him from the pain once for all.

She knew that she was pure and devoted.

He knew that she was chaste and divine.

She knew that he knew

And That was all that mattered to them.

Originally posted by: varaali

The other point which usually comes up in this kind of discussions is Luv and Kush were deprived of palatial comforts in their childhood. For the first five years, yes. But even the most royal of princes would have had to go to some Gurukul in their sixth year. So even if L-K were born and reared in the palace, they would eventually have had come to a hermitage.

Originally posted by: varaali

OK, some people in Ayodhya were gossiping about the purity of his wife's character. There was nothing he could do about it. He cannot shut people 's mouths.

Rama knew that Valmiki's word was the law in his ashram and the rishi certainly would not permit permit people engaging in idle gossip. Moreover the pure and spiritually charged environment of the ashram would have been a far better place for Sita to spend the remainder of her pregnancy that be cloistered in the royal palace with all its intrigues, plots and shadowy characters. Who could say that there won't be another Manthar

Originally posted by: Akash005

Its just that its hard to contain my doubts n anxieties about the same when I finally got an appropriate platform to express n clarify such doubts..but if worst comes to worst n my 3rd question never gets sufficiently clarified, I ll just forget that I had ever had such questions n I ll force myself to forget all the points I myself brought up n read ur beautiful post over n over again, so that I can go on loving my religion n beliefs without any doubts with the help of blissful influence of ur post..👏

Originally posted by: Surya_krsnbhakt

@bold No, don't ever do that, the very purpose of such leelas is to question them and you get to learn much more in the process. So, whatever you do, don't stop questioning. It is the very nature of the human mind, and the very purpose of the Vedas. Questions lead to answers not only for you, but for everyone who answers them, since we too get to learn much. And it was because of such curiosity that Maharshi Valmiki wrote the Ramayana, and curiosity that led to the Bhagavatam, and curiosity of the rishis in Naimisharanya that led to the narration of everything known to us, viz. the Mahabharata, the Vedas and the many Puranas and Upapuranas.

This quest is most likely to remain open-ended till one of the two things happen.

1. You get bhakti in the lotus feet of Lord SitaRam (coz once that happen, all doubts melt away automatically)

Or

2. You find a "Shotriya Brahmneesth BhagvadBhakt" ready to clarify all your doubts (but then, finding such a person in today's world is more difficult that finding needle in the haystack)

Note that I'm not discouraging you in anyway. There is no problem if doubts persist in your mind, nor there's any problem in discussing divine play endlessly. But thinking that all the doubts about each and every incident of the divine play needs to be resolved to our satisfaction here and now, (which means they need to be resolved at the level of our present intellect and understanding, which then depends upon our current position on the path of dharma, if we are on the path of dharma in the first place, that is).

Reminds me of what my idol, my hero, The Joker said to Batman in "The thin white duke of death". The Joker told Bats there, "what gets me laughing every time is your bone deep conviction that somehow, all of this has to make sense."

anyways, the first thing is, why we so look forward to making perfect sense of only our chosen incidents from the divine play? Talking of Ramayan, we have flying monkeys, talking bears, talking mountains!!! A Sanskrit speaking vulture who dies while trying to protect his human daughter-in-law, ten headed demon, three headed demons, demons with face of foxes and donkeys, clouds showering warm blood instead of raindrops, etc. Yet only certain incidents catch out attention. Naturally because those incidents of our choosing help us view God as human like us, so that's perfectly ok. But even when viewed as human, many actions of the Lord appear super human during divine play. Lord Krishna married 16, 108 times, then had 10 kids from each wife, then smilingly watched each and every of his kid kill each other in Prabhas, stared finishing off evil when He was 6 days old, etc. Very few people are exercised about all this, yet 105 out of 100 persons have an opinion about "Raas Leela."

Talking about this incident under discussion, I asked you in my previous post (the one you found "unsatisfactory")😆 to look up about meaning of being a king, gave you some places to look at. If you would have taken that trouble, would not have resolved your doubts, but would have given you points to ponder.

Shri Raam decided what is the right thing for him to do in a particular case as a "Dharmaarudh" King. Maybe he erred in his judgement, OK. But the one and only person best placed to decide whether he committed a "grave injustice" on his wife, is Maa Janaki. And what is her opinion about her husband? Again, I'll have to say, read the Ramayan from start to finish and find out.

Then, there's the point about rationale behind any divine play. (Many more points can be discussed, but then I can't type that much, so let's take just one).

For the all powerful and all capable personality whose wish is the only reality, to take some form and appear "doing things" there needs to be some rationale. It certainly cannot be the kiddish ones like "HE came to kill invincible Raavan or kansa or this immortal guy or that immortal fellow." The reason is, what bahkts call the "Prem Siddhant" that Lord dances to each and every tune of those who love Him. Its not just devotees of the Lord saying this, Lord Himself announces, "I'm a slave of my devotees." ("Aham Bhakt Paradheenam.") thus, only and ONLY for his bhakts, He appears before them, live like them, among them, so on. "Prem-ras Siddhant" is quite lengthy to elaborate actually.

If that the rationale behind divine play, what is the Supreme Lord telling his devotees in this incident under discussion? Maybe something as profound as what He said in Bhagvad Gita, "Extremely subtle are the nuances of dharma." Thus, "I tried to decide my dharma as a King, giving first priority to the citizens, last to my family, thought that even if I fail in my dharma as a husband, I'll succeed as a King. But maybe I failed in both."

Or

something as useful to us as what a saint once told me. He said, "Who can be more benevolent than my Ramji? To warn us humans not to base our decisions on the opinions of petty minded gossip mongers, and to remind us that Maa Sita's greatness is beyond comprehension even for the likes of Brahma, Ramji has taken upon himself eternal criticism. Without doubt, there's no one more benevolent than Him."

Ok, enough typing for the day. And this post was not meant to clear your doubts, just like my previous post was not meant for that purpose, primarily because I'm not qualified to clear anyone's doubts, I know so little!!! 😆😆

So let your quest continue. Bye.