any opinions...??? - Page 2

Originally posted by: nila_music

Hey all..i am silent reader in this forum...so thought of asking u guys something...well now the episodes are dealing with sita's kidnap...but want to ask u something...r u ppl justified with what lord ram did with sita devi when he heard ill things about her in ayodhya after they returned..from vanvas..u all know that lord ram sent sita devi to the forest...do u think it is correct??😕

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

I don't think there was a shred of chauvinism in the decision coz if u look at his character there is nothing chauvinistic about it .

His promise of being a one woman husband ...ek patni vrat is anything but chauvinistic . It has to be remembered that this vow was taken in an era where marraiges of kings were regarded as the best and easiest ways of making political alliances and expanding their kingdom and power .

Dasharatha himself had 3 queens .

When Sita has firmly insisted on going to the forest with him saying that her place was at his side ...he has listened to her and respected her thoughts . He had told her to stay back and look after his parents .

He has gone after the golden deer only to humour her . He himself knew that perhaps what Lakshmana suspected could be the case .

He has not remarried after she discarded her body . The vow perhaps ceased after her passing away ...but he never looked at another woman .

There is nothing remotely chauvinistic about Ram . The decision of leaving her was purely political foresight as he sensed the simmering discontent and knew that forcing thoughts on the subjects would only lead to rebellion ...it was better if the change came by it self . And thats exactly what happened . So remorseful were they that he left his wife for them that they did not make an issue of Luv and Kush's parentage and demanded themselves that they be brought back .

JR Indumathi has died suddenly and tragically . Sita's seperation is a bit different compared to the seperation of Aja and Indumati . Dsaharatha was brought up and trained by Vasistha and Bhrigu and installed as King at 15 . Aja himself lived for only 8 yrs after her death . Dasharath has not , unfortunately experienced the company of his parents just like Luv and Kush . When they experienced maternal love , the father was not there and when they experienced paternal love the mother was not there .

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

still sherlock i would love to know your thoughts .😊

Originally posted by: sherlock

Nice to know that, Kool.😊

Well, you members have already written many insightful posts, so thanks everyone. Here's what I think of the matter.

For me, Sita & Ram are one, so there's no question of them getting separated or one feeling happy or sad or wronged because of some act of other, because in their case, there is no other. They are the Supreme Personality which Veds declare they are unable to explain or describe. This is the only reality for me.😊

As for the incident under discussion, the first point is, for any reader or listener, Ramayan, or for that matter, divine play of Shri Krishna described in Shrimad Bhagavat, is either divine play OR an ancient, imaginary tale, product of fertile imagination of the likes of Ved Vyas, Valmiki, etc. I don't think there is any third option with us right now. For if anyone will try to dumb down each & every incident to the level of current human intellect & understanding, majority of incidents will make no sense. For example, how am I supposed to explain, in terms of present human understanding, a Sanskrit speaking old vulture that considers a human, Ram, his son, and Sita, as his daughter-in-law, and then lays down his life trying to protect his human daughter-in-law!? Or for example, how am I supposed to explain the strength & abilities of a 6 day old human baby who could kill a giant flying murderess!? Thus, if every reader is ultimately going to fall in either of the two categories, those who believe it to be divine play done for the benefit of bhakts, or those who believe all these to be fictional old tales, then where is the rationale for discussion? For if it is divine play for you, how you are going to interpret each & every thing in worldly terms, and if it's just an old story for you, why kill your time discussing fictional incidents?

Still, for the sake of discussion, why not take this incident as a benevolent act by Shri Ram for his bhakts, where he destroyed his life, just to tell all his bhakts for all times to come that if you are ever going to listen, & more importantly, act, based on the wrong perceptions of petty minded, ignoramus and basically foolish fellows (in this case certain residents of Ayodhya), all you'll get, are numerous sufferings and never-ending sorrow.

Or maybe he told us that when you're occupying the top-most positions of power, the conduct expected from you is vastly different from that expected from others. And when in such a position, what you feel is in the greater good of those whom you govern, you should carry it out, even if it means inflicting pain upon yourself.

Also, viewing this incident in isolation is erroneous, in my view. This sparked a chain of incidents, Sitaji reaching Valmiki ashram, Valmiki telling Lav & Kush the story of Sita, Lav & Kush ultimately telling that story to the world at large, and then Sitaji going back the way she came, from Earth. So what was the end result of this torturous turn of events? People at Ayodhya realizing the grave mistake they had committed, and the grave injustice they had perpetrated upon their queen. Was this the purpose of Shri Ram's actions all along, that everyone who once doubted, should one day realize just how wrong he/she had been? And if this was the purpose of Shri Ram all along, would this purpose have been served had Shri Ram not reacted to petty minded rumour mongers among citizens of Ayodhya?

Moreover, if we are going to view all this as a bhakt (which I do, by the way),😊 then by springing up from Earth & then disappearing into it, Sitaji literally showed us, in action, the verse of the Upnishad which says that "Sita is beyond any cause, but is the cause of all causes." 😊

Originally posted by: sherlock

Nice to know that, Kool.😊

Well, you members have already written many insightful posts, so thanks everyone. Here's what I think of the matter.

For me, Sita & Ram are one, so there's no question of them getting separated or one feeling happy or sad or wronged because of some act of other, because in their case, there is no other. They are the Supreme Personality which Veds declare they are unable to explain or describe. This is the only reality for me.😊

As for the incident under discussion, the first point is, for any reader or listener, Ramayan, or for that matter, divine play of Shri Krishna described in Shrimad Bhagavat, is either divine play OR an ancient, imaginary tale, product of fertile imagination of the likes of Ved Vyas, Valmiki, etc. I don't think there is any third option with us right now. For if anyone will try to dumb down each & every incident to the level of current human intellect & understanding, majority of incidents will make no sense. For example, how am I supposed to explain, in terms of present human understanding, a Sanskrit speaking old vulture that considers a human, Ram, his son, and Sita, as his daughter-in-law, and then lays down his life trying to protect his human daughter-in-law!? Or for example, how am I supposed to explain the strength & abilities of a 6 day old human baby who could kill a giant flying murderess!? Thus, if every reader is ultimately going to fall in either of the two categories, those who believe it to be divine play done for the benefit of bhakts, or those who believe all these to be fictional old tales, then where is the rationale for discussion? For if it is divine play for you, how you are going to interpret each & every thing in worldly terms, and if it's just an old story for you, why kill your time discussing fictional incidents?

Still, for the sake of discussion, why not take this incident as a benevolent act by Shri Ram for his bhakts, where he destroyed his life, just to tell all his bhakts for all times to come that if you are ever going to listen, & more importantly, act, based on the wrong perceptions of petty minded, ignoramus and basically foolish fellows (in this case certain residents of Ayodhya), all you'll get, are numerous sufferings and never-ending sorrow.

Or maybe he told us that when you're occupying the top-most positions of power, the conduct expected from you is vastly different from that expected from others. And when in such a position, what you feel is in the greater good of those whom you govern, you should carry it out, even if it means inflicting pain upon yourself.

Also, viewing this incident in isolation is erroneous, in my view. This sparked a chain of incidents, Sitaji reaching Valmiki ashram, Valmiki telling Lav & Kush the story of Sita, Lav & Kush ultimately telling that story to the world at large, and then Sitaji going back the way she came, from Earth. So what was the end result of this torturous turn of events? People at Ayodhya realizing the grave mistake they had committed, and the grave injustice they had perpetrated upon their queen. Was this the purpose of Shri Ram's actions all along, that everyone who once doubted, should one day realize just how wrong he/she had been? And if this was the purpose of Shri Ram all along, would this purpose have been served had Shri Ram not reacted to petty minded rumour mongers among citizens of Ayodhya?

Moreover, if we are going to view all this as a bhakt (which I do, by the way),😊 then by springing up from Earth & then disappearing into it, Sitaji literally showed us, in action, the verse of the Upnishad which says that "Sita is beyond any cause, but is the cause of all causes." 😊