Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai - 31st July 2025 EDT
MERI MUMMA GEETU 31.7
TRIALS OF BOND 30.7
Param Sundari song Pardesiya out now
Kumkum Bhagya New Season | Episode Discussions Thread #5
🏏India tour of England 2025: 5th Test: Eng vs India- Oval, London🏏
Emotional support 😢 animal 😍😍🥰🥰🥰 silly boy ☺️☺️☺️
New Time Slot
Paravarish
After so long we see Katrina with Vicky
Anupamaa 31 July 2025 Written Update & Daily Discussions Thread
Chhaava continues to remain the biggest HIT of 2025
Dhadak 2 - Reviews And Box Office
War 2 Run Time 3h 5m
National Awards For Vikrant Massey Rani Mukerji
Katrina Kaif Pregnancy Rumours
Jodi name for Mihir-Tulsi
Rohan Khan Wiki, Age, Height, Biography, Family
AR Murugadoss Blames Language Barrier For Sikandar Failure
My Box Office Predictions for Son of Sardar 2
Originally posted by: nneeiill
@ganga.
yea those are valid questions when u say ram should have taken some responsibility to put some sense into his praja..
earlier i always used to think why RAM did like that.? that was the only act which i never felt satisified with. Recently arti tried to explain about the reason behind his decision...same as what most of u here mentioned..coz for King his duty for his praja rules over any family bonds or ties...
since then am more or less convinced myself that both ram and sita equally suffered ...though i dont know if any of the scriptures explains rama's side of story ...story in the sense his longing, lonliness etc...
They say, RAM wanted to teach his praja, the after effects of their wrong thoughts towards Sita. They lost not only their queen, but their king too and also the ramrajya. that was the only way for him to make them realise their wrong doings.
am not comparing but to say..when Jesus was crucified .. he says "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." He gets crucified for the sake of his people...to make them understand...for some reason i find rama's act also on the same line... again am not comparing ..just my rantings.
@Ganga and All...this topic leaves many questions!It is a never ending debate as people point hands at or reason with Ram on his decision to send Sita away on exile when she was pregnant with their children
Now this is a very popular story that many talk mainly about it when the subject is Ramayan.
I might have to post a disclaimer each time and on each line if ever I have to express my individual opinion on it. As a woman, I strongly object to that episode in Ramayan.
You object it.its natural the primary feeling most of the women get here!But I appreciate you for expressing it in a proper way!We can find people cursing Ram and raising unnecessary issues on his character taking this as base!Reading more of what is written in various texts and their innumerable interpretations, would only be an attempt to "convince" myself that it was the king's decision not the husband's will. The attempts have always gone in vain.
Even this can't "convince" me.
Ok let us think this to be a King's decision.The King is the first citizen of the country so is the Queen!This is a matter of Justice for all!How can Sita or Ram be left behind!
Coming to King Ram's decision to "please" ( kindly note that the use of the word "please" is my inability to find a better word), or rather let me put it that King Ram tried to placate his subjects by putting his wife, like Sherlock has mentioned the first citizen of his kingdom in trouble. Of course she is wronged. Lakshman was also wronged when in fact he disobeyed him keeping in mind the larger good.
I would like to say that the practice runs in their family. Dasharath was in a moral dilemma when he had to choose between sending his son on exile and keeping his word to his wife. He is known as the man who kept his word, but he was an unsuccessful king. I am happy that this version of Ramayan showed Dasharath telling his son that he is still the rulerof the kingdom and it's his duty to prevent any misfortune from happening without falling into certain people's conspiracies. Ram was shown to be insisting on carrying out the orders which neither his father nor Ayodhya's king had as yet pronounced. But such an argument falls flat when one goes by the belief that Ram had to go on exile to attain his purpose in this life, that to eliminate the evil.
Similarly, King Ram disowned his queen for the sake of his subjects. Then I would like to raise the question was it not a king's duty to educate his masses rather than sending Sita (one of his subjects) on exile. Doesn't he have a share of responsibility to leave the mortal world after enlightening his subjects? Shouldn't changing the mindset of his community towards progressive thinking, be one of the aspects of the "Ram rajya". This argument is invalidated if one goes by the belief that Shri Ram's time on earth was predestined. He came on one mission, it's over and its time up.
This is the question which raises in my mind when I think of the story!Ram Rajya means not only good food,cloth or ideal ruling of the subjects (ruling only physical bodies never!)it is also the control of Ram(essence) over each soul!Each and every act and deed should be under his control!Earlier we have posted Meghnadh(Storm of thoughts) and Ravan(Ego) which are to be slained.Why would Ram or Lakshman be quite if they are raising in the mind of their subjects!
For all the sufferings that he had to undergo in his life as Ram for the sake of eliminating evil, Shri Ram eventually lost his wife, children and his brother in the process and yet his subjects were not liberated from the malice (evil) conquering their minds when he decided to take Jal Samadhi following Lakshman's departure from this world.
This is a major difference we see in the two grand epics Ramayan and Mahabharat. Ram and Krishna are both incarnations of Vishnu. As Ram, the teaching was to follow the path of righteousness, for Dasharath it was about keeping his word and sticking to it even at the cost of a personal loss and for Ram to appease his subjects at the cost of losing his wife and children and in the second instance losing his beloved brother even if Lakshman was thoughtful about the public welfare. However Vishnu in Krishna Avatar does not mind taking a detour from the principled path of virtue to win the war.
Actually they show Ram shooting an arrow at Vali standing behind a tree!They say to slain the evil taking a detour from the path of virtue is not wrong!But not sure how far they are correct!😕
😕
It's about selective appreciation of the advanced teachings the events in Ramayan imparts.
I always wish all the matters be clear for us!
Found this on bloggers.com...it has good references hence posting here!
Lord Ram Never Banished Ma Sita
Ramayana, Rama's journey or Rama's way was originally told to the world by sage Valmiki. Valmiki is revered as world's first poet, for he wrote Sanskrit's first hymn. Valmiki authored Ramayana which is called Valmiki Ramayana, one of the two greatest epics of India. In Valmiki Ramayan, Rama is not referred to as God but is called 'The Supreme Man' . Valmiki tells the story of Prince Rama of Ayodhya, who leaves claim on the throne in order to obey his father and goes to live inside the forest where his wife is abducted by mighty king of Lanka, Ravana. Rama raises an army consisting of monkeys and other animals of the forest, invades Ravana's Lanka and brings his wife back after killing Ravana in a battle. Valmiki Ramayana does not tell anything like Ram abandoning his wife Sita later in his life.
It is said that Great Sage Valmiki was contemporary to Rama. It is said that his original name was Ratnakara who was reformed and did great penances taking Lord's name. He was lost in such deep penance that an anthill grew around him and hence he is called as 'Valmiki', literally meaning 'one who sits in an anthill' in Sanskrit. Rama met Valmiki during his period of exile and had interaction with him. Later on, Valmiki taught Ramayana to Lava and Kusa, Ram and Sita's sons.
There is a popular perception that Rama abandoned Sita and sent her to live in the forest because people had started to put doubts on her purity since she had stayed for many years in a faraway land of Lanka inside captivity of Rakshanas King Ravana. But the matter of fact is that Valmiki does not tell anything like this. Also, great scholars have called this perception of exile a piece of imagination.
Noted scholar and freedom fighter C. Rajgopalachari in his book 'Ramayana'; Epilogue; from Pages 475-476:
"I have followed the story of the Price of Ayodhya as told by Vaalmeeki. There was a legend current among people that after recovering Seeta, for fear of scandal, Raama sent her away to live in the forest. This pathetic episode must have sprung from the sorrow-laden imagination of our women. It has taken shape as the Uttarkaanda of Raamaayana... how can we comment on a work composed thousands of years ago and coming down to us in palm-leaf manuscripts subject to corruption?"
K. R. Sundararajan, professor of theology at St.Bonaventure University in New York, writes in his book "Hindu Spirituality: Vedas Through Vedanta, Volume 1", Page 106-107
"Uttara Kaanda is considered by scholars to be a larger addition to the orignial story of Valmiki, possibly added during the third century AD. many scholars also believe that there are interpolations in the first book, especially those passages which depict Raama as a human manifestation of the god Vishnu, which could be assigned to the first century AD. It is generally held that Ram in the "original" Valmiki epic was depicted only as a human hero and that those passages, mainly in the Baal Kaanda, where his divine roots are traced and his links with Vishnu emphasized, are to be considered later additions to the story. However, these interpolations, which were made shortly after the period of Valmiki, show us something signigicant about the Hindu perception on Rama. Ram is no ordinary hero; rather he is superhuman and his story, the Ramayana, is a sacred story."
Several versions of Ramayana exist because characters of Ramayana became part of people's life and consciousness and all creative writers, poets, and artisans tried to present the characterizations in different shades and forms using their creativity. During the 12th century AD, Kamban wrote Ramavataram in Tamil basing his text on Valmiki Ramayana. During early 14th century Saptakanda Ramayana was written in Assamese by Madhava Kandali. Valmiki's Ramayana also inspired the Sri Ramacharit Manas by Tulasidas in 1576, an Awadhi language epic written in Bhakti tradition. Gujarati poet Premanand wrote a version of Ramayana in the 17th century and Ramayana was also written in Marathi by Sridhara in the 18th century. Not even Hindus, but Muslims have 'Mappila Ramayana' which deals with the story of Sri Rama, part of Mappillapattu, a genre of songs popular amongst the Muslims in Kerala and Lakshadweep. Buddhist have their own variant of Ramayana, with story as curious and fictitious as saying Ram and Sita were bro-and-sister, which perhaps was used to propagate their own ideas like denouncing marriage, etc. There is also a Jain Ramayana. But the fact remains that all others were written after Valmiki Ramayana. Some authors and poets only elaborated and developed the characters from Valmiki's epic, while some totally changed the story or added completely new portions, which were at times not much appreciated by some others.
The following is mentioned on Hare Ram Hare Krishna Website:
Many Hindus, like the followers of Vaishnavism, consider the entire section of Uttar Kand in Ramayana to be interpolated, and thus they do not accept the authenticity of the story claiming that Sita was banished. A general narration of Ramayana does not state it so. It says that Sita later lived in her father's kingdom of Mithila with her sons Lava and Kusha as per the North Indian (especially in present day Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) custom that children be brought up in their nanihaal, or maternal grandmother's place. Sita and her sons later lived at Valmiki's ashram for the boys' education and military training.
Valmiki Ramayan:
While stabilizing the original text of Ramayana, historians surmised that portions of two Books, namely Book I, Bala Kaanda and Book VII, Uttara Ramayana (not listed above) are later additions - "The first and the last Books of the Ramayana are later additions. The bulk, consisting of Books II--VI, represents Rama as an ideal hero. In Books I and VII, however Rama is made an avatara or incarnation of Vishnu, and the epic poem is transformed into a Vaishnava text. The reference to the Greeks, Parthians, and Sakas show that these Books cannot be earlier than the second century B.C..." [The cultural Heritage of India, Vol. IV, The Religions, The Ramakrishna Mission, Institute of Culture].
Two other very good points are mentioned:
There are two proofs that Uttar Kand in Valmiki Ramayan is not the original part of Ramayan and it has been added later:
1) Fal-Shruti evidence: Fal-shruti of a book (of religious importance) describes that what spiritual or other benefits one can get after reading that book or chapter. Exactly fal-shruti is either given at the end of a book or at the end of each chapter in some books. In valmiki Ramayan we can see that fal-shruti is given at the end of yuddh kand and not after each chapter. And that also describes the importance of reading whole RAMAYAN not yuddh kand alone. It means that the whole book ends with the end of yuddh-kand. But when the fal-shruti describes the benefits of reading RAMAYAN and Ramayan ends with it, why would the book proceed again with Uttar Kand?
(2) Difference in language: When linguists tested the language of Valmiki Ramayan, they stated that there is a clear difference in the language of uttar-kand and the language of rest of the Ramayan. It seems that there is a difference of minimum two centuries between them.
While going through many references and texts and reading what great scholars like C. Rajgopalachari have said after having first hand experiences of reading authentic religious and historical texts, I would like to conclude personally that Uttar Kand seems clearly a later addition to the original text and we should not criticize anything basing our arguments on the stories mentioned in it.
Tulsidasa's Ramcharitmanas also does not mention anything like Sita's Exile
In this context, it would be interesting to know that even Tulsidas didn't mention anything like Sita's alleged exile and abandonment by the hands of Ram. Tulsidas's Ramcharitamanas ends with the coronation of Ram and his glorious rule with Sita and Lakshman by his side. He does not mention anything like alleged Sita's abandonment. First poet Valmiki had written Ramayana in Sanskrit, while Tulsidas made it available to the common folks with his work in Awadhi language. Both are wonderful creation of literature and helped shape this world's consciousness. But the point remains the same, that Sita's exile never happened.
The seventh Kaand named as 'Uttar-Kaand' is the Finale of the Maanas. All the results of Shri Ram's adventures as well as the results of devotion to Shri Ram are explained here. Hence, the word 'Uttar' which means 'result' or 'answer' has been applied by Tulsidas.
In the opening passages of Uttar-Kaand, Tulsidas narrates the meeting of Hanumanji with Bharat and the conveying of the message of Shri Ram's return to Ayodhya. The story of Shri Ram's arrival and his coronation is then described. Tulsidas then describes the account of Shri Ram's reign in Ayodhya. Tulsidas briefly mentions the birth of Lav and Kush and the birth of the children to the other three brothers. He then closes the story of Shri Ram and ends his adventures through the dialogue between Lord Shiva and Parvati.
Krishni,
In fact Shri Ram killing Vali standing behind a tree was something that skipped my mind. Well, that episode in itself raises another question. Was Ram forced to take that detour for his own sake because Sugriv and his army would help him in his mission to find Sita. Keeping in mind the argument of "larger good", let me put it differently. Was Ram convinced to take the detour so that Sugriv will help him in his life's mission, that of reaching Ravan to eliminate him.Ram wanted the ideal governance for his state. An ideal state would be one where wisdom prevails among the countrymen along with the essentials or added luxuries. Ram's subjects lacked the wisdom and indulged in spreading rumors. If they had any doubts, the affectionate and considerate king that Ram was, they should have approched him and clarified their doubts. The state hadn't achieved the freedom where countrymen can walk up to their king and lay their doubts to rest. So the state of Ayodhya is far from being called the IDEAL under Shri Ram's rule. This is purely my opinion based on my understanding of ideal governance and it is in no way intended to hurt public sentiments.Arti, agree and there is no doubt Ram suffered in Sita's absence. I would attribute that as a consequence to his own actions. Ram remained loyal to Sita and in a way he kept his promise to her to remain "ek patni vrata", he followed the lineage of "praan jaye par vachan na jaye".
Great!!!!! You people decided to have such engrossing discussion on a day I honestly have no time to spend here. But since I may remain offline for a few days starting tomorrow, I just have to scribble some sentences quickly before logging out.
My-Simi & Krishni51 have raised questions which come naturally to anyone reading Uttarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. Krishni51 has then written a very informative post on the material available on net about Uttarkand. The most important point is the Fal-shruti evidence that is mentioned there. Also, as has already been noted, versions of the Ramayan such as Ramcharitmanas make no mention of that incident. Thanks to arti07 for her post on Shri Ram's suffering.
As I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, whether incident of Queen Sita being send to forest by King Ram, actually took place, can be contested in many ways. A member has made a very pertinent comment upthread, "It's about selective appreciation of the advanced teachings the events in Ramayan imparts."
This comment reminds me of what Shri Krishna told Uddhavji (mentioned In ShriMad BhagWat). In a nutshell, any act of divine play (leela) will be interpreted in a Sattvic manner by a person of Sattvic intellect, in a Rajsi manner by a person of Rajsic intellect, and similarly for a person of Tamsic intellect. Only a Bhakt will perceive it the way it is meant to be perceived. I was once told something similar by a sage, who told me that the one & only purpose of listening, reading or viewing the divine play is to develop love in the lotus-feet of ShriSitaRam. If I am unable to do that, I am simply wasting my time & effort. He further said that if Shri Bhagvan & Bhagvati will act & behave in exactly the same manner as they behave in their sanatan abode, and if their servants will treat them exactly the same way as they treat them, with love and respect, in their divine abode, their won't ever be any leela in the maayic realm. Remember, the guy playing Raavan was a gate-keeper at Mom's palace, and he landed with up the role of chief villain in that divine play! Similarly, in the last episode of the show, I mean the TV show we are supposed to be discussing on this forum, Mom cursed the four witnesses. While some may say that she acted too harshly on her kids, I can say that all she wanted to do is tell us that while a mother will always be compassionate towards her kids, that doesn't meant she won't punish them if she perceive that they are blatantly wrong.
So I think the challenge before us then is even if we are unable to perceive divine play as a bhakt, at least we try & perceive it with a Sattvic intellect.
Finally, a member has asked something about the Lord killing Bali, the elder bro of Sugriva. Shri Ram himself explained the reason behind killing Bali in that manner, so there is no scope for multiple interpretations there. Bali, after thrashing Sugriva to his heart's content and throwing him out of his kingdom, kept Sugriva's wife as his mistress. Lord Ram told Bali clearly that for a person who doesn't consider the wife of his younger brother as his younger sister, and in fact, goes ahead and makes her his mistress, there is only one punishment, and that is death penalty. Further, such a person may be killed in any manner, that act will still be considered a just act.
Bye for now.
Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon
Hindi TV Shows
Bigg Boss 19
