RAMAYAN JOURNEY OF THE SOUL! - Page 3

@Arti thanks for explaining this in detail...but I get a doubt if this is the point...

Originally posted by: Krishni51

@Arti thanks for explaining this in detail...but I get a doubt if this is the point...

"Had Lord Rama told not to doubt the purity of wives, the person who commented this would have first thought that Lord Rama is saying this b'cos Mata Sita is his wife."

"besides how could lord rama clear the doubts of ppl of ayodhya Had Lord Rama had told his subjects not to doubt the purity of their Wifes... , how many would have understood and digested it ?? "

Then atleast he might had the issue cleared in another way.Definitely he wouldn't leave it.Is anything there showing that man or atleast other people admitting their mistake or asking Ram where is Mother Sita...😕

I think Ram is not a person who succumbs to the situation.He never left Sita ma when he learnt that she was kidnapped he fought and got her back.He always did the appropriate.See he didn't go for second marriage.He keeps fighting for the truth and justice.

So how can there be a question of Ram giving up!😊

Originally posted by: arti07

he had his own council he thought coz there was no other way if he would have kept sita with him he would have termed as dictator who doesnt value his subjects tht would have bring dishonour to his family ...if he would have left ayodhaya with sita he would have termed as a weak king and his father and his scion would be blemished

the situation with ravana was different ravana wasnt his ppl he was one who took away sitaji he had to be punished

here his own ppl whom he vowed to look after as children doubted sitaji;s chastity and even thought tht agni pareeksha by sita was some kind of maya or black magic tht sita had learned in the aquiantance of ravana...they even asked tht y didnt lord rama took any action against crossing the lakshmana rekha she was suppose to live inside the lakshmana rekha y did sita crossed the line y was sita so attached to a golden deer in exile she was supposed to discard all the pleasures y was she so lured by a golden deer..tht was a big question imposed by the ppl y did she failed to understand the greatness of lord rama y couldnt see understand the strength of lord rama wen maricha cried for help y didnt she trusted lakshmana wen he asked to have faith on her husband y cant she recognize the demon ..if sita couldnt recognize the demons in disguise how will she protect her kingdom there were no valid answers to these questions..The strongest of love had to be put to the most burning of all acid tests simply because Rama happened to be the king and because of his penchant for Dharma, which he put above all ' above himself even. at the risk of exposing himself to strong criticism on his love, his faith and respect for his endeared wife...he did wht dharama told him to do so

What a wonderful post Krishu and Great discussions guys..just busy this week ..will join with my inputs as well

Originally posted by: arti07

Originally posted by: sherlock

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.

Thank you member Sherlock I'm happy with your reply.This is somewhat satisfying me.I said so coz you gave the acceptable point but I'm not able to fit this with the matter of discussion😕 Can you plz help me how to take it in this context😳and yes we have to perceive these with a Sattvic Intellect😊It is something like which a great saint said - "We feel that the Sun is rising and seting though it is just for appearance.All is illusion except for the Super Soul."Waiting for your reply...

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.

So now we can even conclude that Lord Krishna need not be blamed for taking a detour as it was the matter of destroying the wicked who insulted a woman publicly in a court and none rose up to support her!

Thank You for clarifying😳

Originally posted by: Krishni51

valmiki doesnt mentions lakshmana rekha in ayodha kand but there is a slight hint tht lakshmana had drawn a protection line for sitaji it is given in yudh kand where mandodari rebukes ravana saying he wasnt strong enough to cross lakshmana;s protection how will he fight with the warrior prince it means lakshmana indeed had done something to protect sita and in uttar kand too he said tht he always protected her and created a protection for her wen he was away now lakshmana feared how will she survive here wen there is no protection for her

Yes right it was mentioned this way but it was something like protection given by Lakshman not drawing a line!..he did something for the protection tht ravana couldnt enter the cottage so he persuaded sita to come outside and he abducted her outside her cottage thts wht ppl say y did sita stepped out of the cottage in absence of her husband

he cant if ppl dare think evil about sitaji y would they think good for lord rama...lord rama was a king and he had to protect the honor of his dynasty which is above all he had said so many times for him dharama is dearer than everything first is dharama then comes lakshmana and then his wife sita...he said this in aranayakand to sitaji...and dharama means kings duty he was entrusted the throne of ayodhya he never succumbed to the situation he did what was best in the pursuit of dharama noone was spared not even lakshmana it is critical situation the ppl doesnt want sita as their queen as they doubted her chastity so she was sent away he never left her in mithila as he didnt desserted her as a husband he decided to remain far away from her..he never remarried and enjoyed royal pleasures he could not go anywhere as king he was needed in ayodhya but his tell me y didnt king janak inquired about sita y didnt he brought her to palace coz as king janak knew lord rama was right...

I'm not getting this...how does this make dharma...I mean I just want to know in what way it makes dharma😕

We are keeping Sita aside and giving the dharma...where is dharma or justice for Sita...though queen she is the first lady or citizen of the country..how can she be left...isn't it the matter of justice for all😊 flord rama and sita arent separate entity they werent separate he consider her as his a part soul so by thinking about the justice of sita it would be like demanding justice for himself ... lord rama will be the last person who will demand justice for himself he never did y would he do now and i have already mentioned about sita's dream how further sita convinced lord rama tht the decision was taken to save the honour if lord rama could go to exile to save the honour of his father she had to save the honour of her family save the intregity of ayodhya and its ppl

the whole act was done to teach ppl to make them understand the importance of relationship the chastity of woman how easily ppl doubted the chastity of a woman not even mother was spared later his praja realized wht they have done wen sitaji decided to go back to mother earth no matter how much they carved they couldnt bring sitamaa back in thier lives

so many good posts..have to read them all peacefully 😳

@Arti thanks for putting your views along with me...😳But still I'm not convinced...may be its the problem with me😕