DOTW-Ram accepted to go on exile - Page 2

Originally posted by: akhl

Camella,
It was real Sita who brought up Luv and Kush. After Ravan was killed, then Sita went for agni pariksha. Chhaya Sita entered fire. Lord Agni took Chhaya Sita with him and returned real Sita to Ram. Thus real Sita went to Ayodhya with Ram. So, it was real Sita, who was banished, who lived to Valmiki's ashram, who brought up Luv and Kush.

umm..akhl..im pretty sure abt the fact tht chaaya sita brought up luv-kush 😕because in the tamil n tulsidasji's ramayan it is written tht sita was already transported through the patal-lok to vaikunthlok before the whole exile took place n even in the old ramayan they show lord ram getting angry wid dharti mata after sita's samadhi and then lord brahma cuming and telling lord ram tht he should calm down as sita ( godess lakshmi incarnate) had already gone to vaikunthlok looong back..so chaaya sita is the one who brought up luv-kush..neway..as they say each one beleives sumthing..leave it😊

Originally posted by: akhl

I am making this as DOTW. If some of you have some other idea for DOTW, then let me know.😉 I will make that as DOTW and this will be like any other ordinary post.😊

For some reason, I have not been able to watch any serial (including Ramayan) for a few weeks. I am not watching on TV and I am not watching through Internet.😭 But, from update, I came to know that Ram has accepted to go to forest.

What do you think about this decision of Ram?

• One way of looking at it is that it shows Ram's respect towards his father, love towards his younger brother. It shows that he had absolutely no greed for throne.
• But there is another way of looking at it. It is said that if you deserve something and somebody stops you from getting it, then you should fight for it. Otherwise, you are supporting injustice. Ram deserved to be king. Still he did not fight for it. Rather, he happily gave up his right to the throne. Do you think it amounts to tolerating and hence supporting injustice?
• One more way of looking at it is that it was all a divine plan. But suppose, for the sake of argument that Ram had not been an incarnation of God. Was it still correct for him to go on exile?
• Or, may be if you still another way of looking at it.

How do you interpret Ram's action? Happy discussing.👍🏼

It was not a question of justice n injustice. In Hindu religion a son has pious obligation (putra dharma) to respect his father's pledge (vachan). A son must discharge his father's obligation. In Hindu jurisprudence moral obligations takes precedence over legal rights. So Ram followed his Putra Dharma.

Suppose, for the sake of debate that Ram ji was not God incarnate. He was a human being with all the qualities that Lord Ram of Ramayan had except that he was not God incarnate. This means he was a perfect candidate for becoming the king of Ayodhya.

Then, was it OK for him to agree to go on exile? Or, do you think he should have opposed Kaikeyee?

Ram did the right.
I think all of us know the 'story of Nachiketa' from Upanishid. Nachiketa was not a God incarnate. He happily agreed to go to Yama Loka (abode of God of Death) for his father's 'vachan'(promise)

Thanks to all of you for participating. All here agree that Ram did the right thing by accepting to go on exile. You have given diverse reasons to justify Ram's decision. All the reasons are very good.👏

I went through your posts and came up with the following summary: -

Ram incarnated on Earth as human being for a specific purpose. The purpose was to rid Earth of the evil actions of Ravan. Therefore, Manthra instigating Kaikeyee; Kaikeyee asking Dashrath to send Ram on exile; Sita and Laxman accompanying Ram - were all the part of a grand divine plan. Therefore, Ram did the right thing by going on exile because it was a part of the plan.

Ignoring the incarnation perspective and thinking what an ordinary mortal do also tells us that Ram's decision was right and anybody in his place should have made the same decision. For Ram, royal luxuries were of no importance compared to the love for his father Dashrath and hence the respect for Dashrath's promise. Ram did not want to enjoy the luxuries of being a king and put a blot on Dashrath's name that Dashrath did not keep his promise.

A question can be asked as to why Ram tolerated the injustice? The answer is that for others it might be injustice but for Ram, it was not because the luxuries were of no importance to Ram. For Ram, being a king did not mean enjoying the luxuries that come with ascending the throne. Rather, for him, being a king was a responsibility towards one's subject. Kingdom was not for king's enjoyment but it was for the benefit of people. Therefore, rather than asking if there was injustice towards Ram, we should ask if there was injustice towards the people of Ayodhya that they were denied a good king. There would have been injustice if some incapable person had become the king. But Ram knew and knew correctly that Bharat would be a very good king. Ram was a better candidate for becoming king, but Bharat was also a very good king. Therefore, even though the citizens of Ayodhya had to bear the pain of the separation from their beloved Ram, they were not denied their right to have a good king.

Considering all perspectives, we find that Ram's decision to fulfill the demands of his mother Kaikeyee was a great decision. 👏