Question - Page 8

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#71

By not remarrying he did not dishonour the throne - as there was no question of sullying it. The question of re-marriage occurred only due to the Yagya - which would not be successful if done without his wife. So in keeping with the available option, he took the middle path (the Statue of Sita). Here I feel there is some sybolism to using the metal Gold - although I have not been able to find any direct reference or meaning to it anywhere. The other members (I have read many of the posts - and they are truly truly conversant with the scriptures and very well informed👏) would have a better idea on that.

About what the Praja will conclude - could go either way. But it is the duty of the King to try, so Lord Ram tried. Success and Failure comes only after one tries. The possibility of failure cannot be the reason not to try. Yes, he was not successful, which is why the 'third time' was the watershed.

Regarding the exile being a mutual decision - yes this is purely a 'feeling' on my part, as most of what I have read is abridged. The other members would know better how it went and what it meant.

The original Valmiki Ramayan must definitely contain a major portion on this decision. Some time back I had read an article in the TOI which had stated that there was so much detail in it - even some recipes of what was cooked in Sita Mata's kitchen. It was also stated that the physical attributes of the major characters, especially female, was so detailed that we of today's times (especially given the current Victorianised Indian sensibility) would actually be offended.

I really regret not having learnt Sanskrit. Such a large and beautiful array of Sacred texts waiting to be read - but we have to depend on the translations which many a times results in the "lost in translation" syndrome!!

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#72

Sullying the throne:

Very tricky business indeed..I personally feel that if the concerned praja were so sensitive that they would consider '' their king still being with the queen whom they doubted so much'' as "sullying the throne" ,then the same sensitive praja is very likely to consider "their king using a golden statue of his abandoned wife whom they doubted so much instead of remarrying for something as auspicious as a fire ritual" as "sullying the throne"..

Lord Rama's efforts:

I felt that as a king he should have made efforts to lead his praja to righteous path by not separating from his wife..thereby making a stronger statement about his faith in his wife and eventually making the praja understand their mistakes..n I dont c any king adharma in that ( obviously m going wrong somewhere, bcoz lord Rama believed the opposite was the right thing do).. first, Lord Rama gives priority to his praja and separates from his wife thereby confirming their suspicions about Devi Sita's chastity..then for the fire ritual he again disrespects the same praja by using a golden statue of the same queen the praja deemed unworthy of their king..in short, lord Rama disrespected his wife as well as his praja back to back..ghosh, that sounds horrible! ..I know, but logic seems to lead to that conclusion... members of the forum have been putting up with my doubts n questions so far..but m not sure if they will deem it appropriate to let me continue any more with such horrendous conclusions..

Yes I perfectly agree with u about Victorianization of our mentality in recent times...its pathetic!.. its even more so bcoz there r some beautiful explicit aspects of our religion ( Shiv Shakthi) that people now a days might not even want to talk about due to their changed closeted mentality..this was not how our religion taught us to b..

Quote

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

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#73

Ahem... My choice of words were not too good and that too creates some discussions at cross purposes. 😆

Did enjoy our tete-e-tete . Your questions also served up a lot of information for me, so thank you.😊

By the way, we are in the same boat - I still question the MO in the killing of Vali. Cannot understand it, no matter what.

Adios amigo

Edited by rsnarula67 - 11 years ago

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#74

Originally posted by: rsnarula67

By the way, we are in the same boat - I still question the MO in the killing of Vali. Cannot understand it, no matter what.

YOu don't understand why Rama killed Vali, or why he killed him secretly? What is MO,btw?

Quote

rsnarula67

@rsnarula67

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#75

@Surya_krsnbhakt

Not the why; THE HOW.

MO = Modus Operandi (I am a bit of a crime thriller buff, so the vocab sometimes creeps in...)

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#76

@ rsnarula67

Apparently, abandoning Devi Sita is not the only unfair decision that Lord Rama took..the Vali incident is also frequently talked about...so much for being the maryadapurushottam and dharma abiding godly king!..😕..I had a vague memory of the Vali incident in Ramayana, I racked my taamsic brain again n went through the story again..Lord Rama gave a direct justification in case of Vali unlike Sita abandonment incident , mainly bcoz Vali himself asked those questions to lord Rama n the answers to which were more than satisfactory to Vali.. moreover, to balance the injustice further , lord Rama gave Vali a boon to take his revenge on lord Rama in his next birth..vali was born as a hunter who was the cause of Sri Krishna's death..

As for MO (the how) about Lord Rama managed to kill Vali, its been pretty clear to me..Vali had a boon that 50% of his opponent's powers would b transferred to him in an open combat..so he practically became invincible.. even Ravan was terribly defeated by Vali.. however, lord Rama never challenged him for an open combat like a real warrior usually does..he attacked vali from behind n killed him by catching him off guard ..lord Rama's justification was that he never viewed Vali as a human or warrior to challenge him for open combat since Vali was more or less like an animal due to his adharma and vanar ancestry ( a little racist but whatever).. n king Bharat had given lord Rama permission to annihilate adharma n restore dharma..so that is y instead of fighting like a warrior, lord Rama chose to attack Vali like a hunter attacks an animal in stealth from behind..

Anyways, I found the following website where both the issues - Sita's abandonment n Vali's assassination has been discussed..go through the comments wen u can, they r especially enlightening..

http://m.speakingtree.in/spiritual-blogs/seekers/god-and-i/shri-rama-and-his-decision-to-abandon-sita-devi-in-forest

A lot of the stuff on the above website n its comments section is what has been discussed in this thread in detail..but I did find something new as well, like Sita devi was cursed by a pregnant parrot when in her childhood she separated the pregnant parrot from her male companion.. she was destined to have a similar fate due to the curse..that's fairly new..never heard b4 incident as far as I m concerned..

Edited by Akash005 - 11 years ago

Quote

Srishti

@srishtisingh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#77

I was going through the discussions and became slightly mild on my views abt blaming rama for abandoning sita. this issue always mase me not like rama much since childhood.but now as I am older nw I am open to many views and understanding different takes on this issue. I do know its not really easy to put ur words in people mouth and human tend to see negativity more than positive stuffs. rama was a king. he had to respect his praja views(like it or not, but when majority is against u, u have to submit) . also a supposedly black spot on white is much more obvious than white in black. this rumor was putting a black spot on a righteous king.he knew he could not.make people believe it was not black spot, even if he did people will say oh he is defending so strongly there must b something fishy.negativity always finds its way always -one way or other. I have seen it in real life too. yes but him never marrying again does show his trust on his wife. he knew his priority was rajdharma over pati dharma and that's what he did.
did I just defend rama? I can't believe I did 😛
seens like mb lead to much change in my view abt human characters. still sita exile is and was always sore spot for me.hence that's why rama has not been my fav incarnation despite the fact I understand him and his ideology

Quote

Srishti

@srishtisingh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#78

Originally posted by: srishtisingh
I was going through the discussions and became slightly mild on my views abt blaming rama for abandoning sita. this issue always made me not like rama much since childhood.but now as I am older nw I am open to many views and understanding different takes on this issue. I do know its not really easy to put ur words in people mouth and human tend to see negativity more than positive stuffs. rama was a king. he had to respect his praja views(like it or not, but when majority is against u, u have to submit) . also a supposedly black spot on white is much more obvious than white in black. this rumor was putting a black spot on a righteous king.he knew he could not make people believe it was not black spot, even if he did people will say oh he is defending so strongly there must b something fishy.negativity always finds its way always -one way or other. I have seen it in real life too. yes but him never marrying again does show his trust on his wife. he knew his priority was rajdharma over pati dharma and that's what he did.

ps:did I just defend rama? I can't believe I did 😛
seens like mb lead to much change in my view abt human characters. still sita exile is and was always sore spot for me.hence that's why rama has not been my fav incarnation despite the fact I understand him and his ideology

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#79

@ srishtisingh

Thank you so much 4 posting ur views on the topic..I suppose seeing the negativity instead of positivity is indeed rooted in taamsic Prakriti( c earlier posts)..I hope as I get older , I too will come around justifying Sri Rama's actions as an ideal king & as an ideal husband but I just dont c it happening anytime soon..bcoz as we get older, through life experience one gets closer to spiritual enlightenment.. n right now, it seems m far away from it.. in the meantime, I m at peace with my own justification of Sri Rama's actions ( its in the earlier posts) which I was able to do only through an active discussion on this thread..

The reasons and justifications that u put forth were the same that has been put forth on numerous occasions in defence of lord Rama.. but those reasons and justifications just dint seem acceptable to me and my faith in god..

Quote

Srishti

@srishtisingh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#80

infact akash still as a woman I don't like rama action. as its not necessary that we like what we understand. in my pov being good is really tough because situation always tests u.

Quote

1 ... 6 7 8 9 10

Question - Page 8

Related Topics

Explore Topics