Question - Page 7

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#61

@ rsnarula67

Thank you very much for ur inputs mam.. ur observations and views are very much in sync with what has been posted so far on this thread with few more (very important, intriguing) points and perspective added from ur side...

1. Vishnu's partiality towards devas as compared to Shiva:

Lol.. yes, m guilty as charged..the dkdm effect..n its even more pathetic bcoz I myself have a lot of complaints towards dkdm for their ill fabricated fan fictions of our epics and legends..so yes, that was wrong..but having said that , it wasn't just dkdm ( it may have contributed to my beliefs) but my general understanding since childhood.. I came across several instances (again nothing concrete , may have been fan fictions, can't remember exactly though) wherein asuras worship Mahadev exclusively for the reason that they( o god , that would make me an asur..lol) view Vishnu as being partial towards devas.. Shiva even lives a simplistic life among ghosts and goblins as compared to Vishnu's luxurious lifestyle ( of course since goddess Lakshmi is his other half..😆).. so this kind of iconography, appearance and lifestyle difference of Vishnu-Shiva further strengthened my belief.. however, as mentioned earlier, all those doubts have been put to rest by earlier clarifications in this thread..

2. Cast system originating in Vaishnavism:

There is a very fine line between my first and second question..u can say that my first question together with my observation of general society contributed towards this question..as in Shiva's n Shakthi's acceptance of everyone from every cast is reflected in the lifestyle of the respective supreme deities .. whereas Vishnu again owing to his luxurious lifestyle (goddess Lakshmi) 'seemed to me' lesser accommodating of lower cast.. plus the whole initial Shiva-Daksh equation together with general observation of society greatly contributed towards this question.. however, all of those questions as mentioned earlier in this thread have been effectively put to rest..

3. Justification of Sri Rama's actions towards Devi Sita

This by far was the most difficult question to get rid off satisfactorily.. but as was mentioned earlier, what seemed to b an impossible task has been turned into a positively easy task by the members of the forum.. if u read my earlier recent posts in this forum, u ll know that I have already arrived at a very satisfying conclusion regarding justifying Sri Rama's actions towards Devi Sita ..but that does not include justifying Sri Rama's decision as a king, if u read my earlier posts, u ll know y ..In fact , it all comes down to just one thing, "it was important that Lord Rama commit this mistake bcoz it teaches us that anybody can commit mistake in his life but has to pay accordingly, even gods r not an exception to this rule, Sri Rama (and the evil praja) suffered enormously"..

However, u did bring up something new in this context..something that nobody else probably deemed appropriate to point out.."Devi Sita punished Lord Rama and the praja in the end by leaving them forever thereby teaching them (us) a lesson"

Edited by Akash005 - 11 years ago

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#62

Originally posted by: rsnarula67
- There is a phrase "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown".
- This is a leela of Lord Vishnu, who went through great tribulations as Lord Ram, to show us how to conduct ourselves when in position of authority. It emphasises that a person who is in authority has to be beyond reproach in personal and public life. With personal life also including wife, brothers etc
- Just as we expect the concerned ministers in our Government, and their families to be beyond reproach even today. Although, this is just our expectation, never happens.
- Ram Rajya is all about the King being the Sevak of the people (not the ruler)
- Lastly, there were three times that Sita Mata faced this situation (it was never Rama the husband who had any doubts about her purity or needed any proof of it)

I agree that Lord Rama was an ideal king..it is true that "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown".. it is also true that in Ram Rajya ( ideal rajya , wish our current government followed it😕) the king was not to rule his subjects but to serve his subjects by giving them always a supreme preference than his own family or friends...but can u plz tell me how can siding with an ignorant (evil) praja lead to their welfare?..

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#63

I intend to read the complete thread, as soon as I get the time - as it is all rather long. But what I have read so far is quite enlightening.

Re your question regarding the Praja

I don't think it is per se siding with an evil praja.

Moreover, nowhere is it ever stated that the Praja is evil.

The Praja is human, with all the weakness of humanity.

The King pays the price for this weakness of character in his Praja.

He is aware of how much his Praja loves him, and perhaps also hopes that his decision will force the Praja to rethink their behaviour.

In the bigger picture - we are the Praja. It was our fingers which were pointing and it was our loose tongues. It is I feel a life lesson for us, for our personal conduct.

After all, the Ramayan teaches to conduct ourselves in life as per Dharma - and I always understand Dharma in the scriptures to be referring to Justice. So we have to be "just" in personal and public life.

Frankly, I need to read up a little bit more and learn more. Am still very green. Much of my thoughts I feel are not fully developed - due to a lack of depth in knowledge.

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#64

@ rsnarula67

Actually its quite the opposite, I feel ur thoughts r nicely developed.. bcoz I have been posing questions about the king's dharma over n over again in this thread ( which u will come to know eventually when u get the time to read the views on this lengthy thread..my views r especially lengthy..😆..so advance apologies for that..😊), still haven't been able to defend Sri Ram on this front, in fact people defending Sri Rama's kingly decision had to finally conclude that he MAY in fact have been wrong in taking this decision as a king(only for the sake of my understanding, they may or may not still belive he was right in his decision)..n we can all actually learn from that..

But again , u did bring up something new here, yes i agree that in this context we r actually the praja with all the human weaknesses n we should derive proper lessons from it, but there's something u said that intrigued me further..Sri Rama was aware how much his subjects loves him and 'perhaps' he was hoping that after taking the decision of separating from Devi Sita the praja would rethink their behavior.. hmm..how though?.. is it bcoz praja will c their beloved Sri Rama's suffering without his wife, together with their own suffering of missing their beloved queen from the kingdom??.. either ways, dont u think that it would have made a better impact on the delusional praja if Sri Rama as a king never decided to separate from Devi Sita under the pressures of his subjects, instead firmly stand by his chaste wife to make his praja realize their mistakes n lead their lives with a better perspective..

Quote

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#65

Lenghty posts I think was inevitable, as the questions posed by you are really "wringers" in a way, especially the third question. No two people actually agree on the reasoning/correctness.

This is also the reason I have not read all the posts in a hurry -as I want to be able to imbibe all the thoughts very well and not just skim over.

Besides my posts are also rather long😊

=====

Coming to your thought re Lord Rama standing by Sita Mata, here are my thoughts:

I think he did stand by his wife, in a very personal way
- Publicly - he exiled her; Personally -he never renounced her.
- Publicly and Personally - He never remarried.
- Publicly and personally - Even when he was being advised/forced at the time of the Yagya, he

opted for a Statue of Sita Mata to be made to sit with him.
- Publicly - He carried out his duties as a King; Personally - He opted to live like a hermit, just like his wife was living at Sage Valmiki's hermitage.

Additionally, it also was at great personal cost to him too - separation from his beloved wife and his unborn children.
Don't forget even Lakshmana never agreed with this decision, although he obeyed and took her to the forest. On the personal front he was truly alone.

Basically, by these actions he is showing his Praja that he knows that his wife is chaste, and is standing by her (figuratively) as her husband. So he ensured no fingers are pointed at his wife or at the throne; at the same time he is making it clear that he believes and knows his wife is chaste; thereby forcing the Praja to think (and maybe discuss the way we are).

I feel that :
As a King, Lord Rama's first duty is towards his Praja and Country. Once he has been coronated and taken the oath of office (so to speak), he has to take into account the far reaching fall out of his actions.
To stand by his wife in public and ensure no fingers are pointed to the throne - Lord Rama would have to renounce the throne. Lord Rama has previously given up the throne, in favour of his brother; so he knows that none of his brothers would ascend the throne, while he was still living (even if he goes to the forest with this wife). It could then perhaps result in a replay of the 14years Vanvaas, when Bharat refused to ascend the throne. Lakshmana would accompany him and also Shatrughan would not ascend the throne.
At the time of the Vanvaas, Bharat not ascending the throne but administering Ayodhya on behalf of Lord Rama in his absence worked - because there was a definitive timeline after which the King would return. Also, there was no point of difference between Raja and Praja.
Administration of a country on behalf of a King who has renounced the throne forever, would work in the short term; but in the long term it would end in internal strife and chaos, leading the country to ruin. Can a just and dutiful King take a decision which could potentially lead to the ruin of his country? Would that be Dharma? I think not.

So it is a choice between personal (himself and his wife) and public (welfare of country and people). So ultimately it is "sacrifice of self for the larger good".

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#66

Originally posted by: rsnarula67

Coming to your thought re Lord Rama standing by Sita Mata, here are my thoughts:

I think he did stand by his wife, in a very personal way
- Publicly - he exiled her; Personally -he never renounced her.
- Publicly and Personally - He never remarried.
- Publicly and personally - Even when he was being advised/forced at the time of the Yagya, he

opted for a Statue of Sita Mata to be made to sit with him.
- Publicly - He carried out his duties as a King; Personally - He opted to live like a hermit, just like his wife was living at Sage Valmiki's hermitage.

Additionally, it also was at great personal cost to him too - separation from his beloved wife and his unborn children.
Don't forget even Lakshmana never agreed with this decision, although he obeyed and took her to the forest. On the personal front he was truly alone.

Basically, by these actions he is showing his Praja that he knows that his wife is chaste, and is standing by her (figuratively) as her husband. So he ensured no fingers are pointed at his wife or at the throne; at the same time he is making it clear that he believes and knows his wife is chaste; thereby forcing the Praja to think (and maybe discuss the way we are).

I feel that :
As a King, Lord Rama's first duty is towards his Praja and Country. Once he has been coronated and taken the oath of office (so to speak), he has to take into account the far reaching fall out of his actions.
To stand by his wife in public and ensure no fingers are pointed to the throne - Lord Rama would have to renounce the throne. Lord Rama has previously given up the throne, in favour of his brother; so he knows that none of his brothers would ascend the throne, while he was still living (even if he goes to the forest with this wife). It could then perhaps result in a replay of the 14years Vanvaas, when Bharat refused to ascend the throne. Lakshmana would accompany him and also Shatrughan would not ascend the throne.
At the time of the Vanvaas, Bharat not ascending the throne but administering Ayodhya on behalf of Lord Rama in his absence worked - because there was a definitive timeline after which the King would return. Also, there was no point of difference between Raja and Praja.
Administration of a country on behalf of a King who has renounced the throne forever, would work in the short term; but in the long term it would end in internal strife and chaos, leading the country to ruin. Can a just and dutiful King take a decision which could potentially lead to the ruin of his country? Would that be Dharma? I think not.

So it is a choice between personal (himself and his wife) and public (welfare of country and people). So ultimately it is "sacrifice of self for the larger good".

Again a very different take on the 'king's dharma'.. n I must say, it gave me a lot to think about..one of the reasons that I feel that u r putting forth such unique points is that u havnt read the previous views on this thread..so it is actually working out well that u r yet to read the previous otherwise I may never have got to c this interesting perspective on the king's dharma..

O I c it now..there in fact seems to b something there after all !!.. hmm, Publicly Sri Rama separated from his wife for the sake of his praja and to honour his kingly duties; publicly and personally he has showed that he truly believed in his wife's chastity by never remarring and giving up his own comforts which was in a way a message to his praja that yes, their beloved king had taken this decision for their sake n the praja may after all have been wrong about their Queen.. a grave mistake on the part of praja and an enormous sacrifice on the part of their king as well as an enormous injustice done to their queen..hmmm..but I m wondering y would Sri Rama never separating from his wife publicly or personally be considered as dishonouring or renouncing his throne and praja?.. is that how the kingdom worked?.. if the king doesn't stand by wrong gossips of the praja , he should in turn renounce his throne??.. it may or may not have been like that, m not sure.. after all Ram Rajya is considered an ideal rajya but who knows how exactly things worked there?.. but if that is how it worked, then it sure wasn't an ideal kingdom...bcoz Sri Rama separating from his wife for the sake of his praja is equivalent to father giving up all his property and money for the sake of his spoiled gambling son with the hope that when there is no money left the son will probably understand his mistakes..as a father , he should have taken a firm stand and showed his son the error of his ways and not give up all the money n property with the hope that the son may learn afterwards n that he would still b good father since he decided to honour his spoiled son's wishes.. would u call such a father, a good father?.. is that what a good father should do?.. is that what Sri Rama as an ideal king should have done for the sake of his praja?..

Quote

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#67

The point is maintaining the sanctity of the "chair".😊
We are now in Kalyug, but we still expect that a person in authority resigns at times when they are in question - for example, we expect the Railway Minister to resign when there is a rail accident, we expect the Aviation Minister to resign when there is an Air Crash, so on and so forth.
Similarly, when the kin of a minister is in question, we expect the minister to either take action against the kin OR resign from the chair to prove the innocence of his kin.
We expect, doesn't happen 😭

Looking at it from the above perspective, how does the King prove "chastity" to his Praja? Especially a Praja who is aware of the Agni-Pariksha; and who supposedly love their King? Does he renounce the throne and hold corner meetings? Absolutely not - because it would dishonour Sita Mata much more. Just renouncing the throne (potentially leaving the country to reach its ruin - for reasons I stated in previous post), and moving to the forest - not likely to din sense into the Praja.

How can he make his Praja see sense? He chose the method of actions speaking louder than words. His actions as a husband who has absolute faith in his wife, says much more. His actions as a King (Sevak of the Praja) also speaks - the Praja has to reflect on their words/actions and also be more responsible. If the King has a responsibility towards the people, the People have a responsibility towards their King. Irresponsible and baseless allegations - easy to make, but could lead to great tragedy. In this case, the decision of Lord Rama, limited the tragedy to his immediate family only. His actions as a husband gives the Praja the template to guide them to rise above their petty thoughts. So he is guiding the Praja to reach the right conclusions.

Lord Rama did not love the throne, but he had to uphold his duty to the throne - protection/welfare of the country & Praja.

So in the given situation, at the given time - he did what was best and most suitable.

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#68

@ rsnarula67

Wow..just wow!.. beautifully explained!.. my "taamsic" ( u ll know what I mean when u read the previous posts) brain has finally started to come around in justifying Sri Rama's decision as a King ( which by the way is something I never thought it would..😆).. I guess a fresher, modern perspective like urs is what it needed to finally start seeing things that only others did so far( another step towards spiritual development I suppose😃.).hmm..but there is one thing that still bothers me though , if Sri Rama was the king, Devi Sita was the queen of Ayodhya..n may b in those days queens opinions in administration of a kingdom wasn't counted when there was a king around to take care of things, but shouldn't Sri Rama have discussed things with his wife, b4 he decided to separate from her for the sake of his praja..I know it would have been only too painful to discuss such things with his wife but the alternative wasn't any less painful either..I mean he did make it sure that Devi Sita reaches Valmiki's ashram safely in the forest but as far as Devi Sita was concerned she had no idea what was going on, where she was going and y she was going..no idea that her husband had separated from her..n the way she found out was horrible!..

Quote

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#69

Yippee! Did I really do that!!!😊

===

In my opinion he must definitely have discussed it with her.

Reason for the opinion is that when he was exiled for 14years Vanvaas, he did not intend to take her with him. It is she who prevailed on him and accompanied him.

By this it is clear that he was not a husband who just ordered his wife about.

So I feel she understood the compulsions (after all she is also the Queen) and not just accepted - but was in fact a part the decision.

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#70

Originally posted by: rsnarula67
Yippee! Did I really do that!!!😊

===

In my opinion he must definitely have discussed it with her.

Reason for the opinion is that when he was exiled for 14years Vanvaas, he did not intend to take her with him. It is she who prevailed on him and accompanied him.

By this it is clear that he was not a husband who just ordered his wife about.

So I feel she understood the compulsions (after all she is also the Queen) and not just accepted - but was in fact a part the decision.

Haha..actually yeah!.. u did give me lot to think over!👏

I mean I was really really stubborn over not justifying Sri Rama's decision as a king..I came up with my own justification in support of my statement..I felt that as a King he should not have encouraged the ignorance of his subjects..instead he should have taken a firm stand by standing by his wife publicly and guide his subjects away from their ignorance and help them lead their lives with a better perspective.. I felt that by separating from Devi Sita publicly he actually unintentionally confirmed all the doubts cast over her character ..n that is y Devi Sita knew that no amount of agni pareekshas could undo the damage thereby leading it to the final tragedy..I still have another doubt though, according to u Lord Rama separated from his wife publicly to avoid dishounring his throne ( u gave contemporary examples to support the statement which in fact made all the difference for me).. but going by the same logic , lord Rama did indeed dishonour his throne later in the absence of his wife wherein he did not give in to pressures of getting married again instead he created a golden statue for the havan rituals.. so going by the same logic, did he not deny the praja their right/ambition/ happiness of having a new Queen for them?.. going by the same logic wasn't it the king's duty to give the praja a new Queen??..Sri Ram certainly drew lines here..he took a firm standing to show his devotion towards his wife..ur opinion is this kind of devotion shown by Sri Rama after separating from his wife publicly for the sake of his praja would in turn have made praja realize their mistakes..but there is a strong possibility that instead of realising their mistakes the praja would continue with their ignorance n think that " poor king is still devoted to his cheating wife".. bcoz by renouncing his wife publicly, Sri Rama had unintentionally confirmed all the ignorant speculations of the praja..now coming back to my original point, if the king's dharma told Sri Rama that he must in fact renounce his wife publicly for the sake of his praja, y did the same king's dharma not tell him that it was important that he remarry for the sake of his praja?.. praja after all needs a queen too..wouldn't denying the praja a queen b adharma as per the King's dharma??

@bold...😲 😲 😲 ????.. what??.. if that is the case then y blame Sri Rama at all??.. it was a mutual decision??.. Sherlock( a highly knowledgeable forum member) did point out that I should read our dharma texts to get an idea about what it means to b a king as well as a QUEEN.. but even he didn't go as far as saying that Devi Sita was actually a part of this decision herself..that is a fairly new perspective yet again 😕..but this time m not sure what to make out of it..I mean u did say that u 'feel' that it would have been like that... so I would feel better about accepting it if someone seconds ur statement.. I mean as far as I know, yes, Devi Sita was the one who insisted on being a part of vanvas with her husband, but when she was brought to the valmiki's ashram she was completely unaware of her husband's decision to separate from her..

Quote

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question - Page 7

Related Topics

Explore Topics