What happened to Mandodari after Ravan died? - Page 2

No problem, Sita11. We all get into rages at times, and I was really angry too with that horrible post about Sugriva and Vibhishana, but thanks for closing that topic!😊 And with other topics, as long as they are only discussions and don't directly abuse the Ramayana, I don't think there is any need to be harsh. That's just my opinion though...

Originally posted by: godisone

No problem, Sita11. We all get into rages at times, and I was really angry too with that horrible post about Sugriva and Vibhishana, but thanks for closing that topic!😊 And with other topics, as long as they are only discussions and don't directly abuse the Ramayana, I don't think there is any need to be harsh. That's just my opinion though...

Thanks again!

Hi,
Thanks for tackling this issue real well. I am a silent reader, because once I had tried to discuss the concept of "Chhaya Sita" and I got many harsh replies from these same persons-- is Ram doing "Nautanki" after Sita is abducted. I hope Dr. Sagar's group should be able to put everything into right perspective, when the "Agnipariksha" issue comes up.

Actually, my feeling is --many people still build their concept of Ram as Arun Govil or Gurmeet Chowdhury., but not as " Maryada Purushottam".

"Ram Rameti Rameti, Rame Rame Manorame
Sahasranaam Tattulyam Ram naam varanane"

Lord Rama is an avatar with 12 kalas, and Lord Krishna of 16 kalas. In his Ram Avatar, Bhagwan Vishnu tried to teach people what the ideals in life are, He never ever showed HIS Divine nature in His Ram avatar, as contrast to His Krishna Avatar,where one gains knowledge about HIS viswaroop". As Ram He wanted to teach us Maryada---the maryada being an ideal child, maryada as a husband, maryada as a friend, brother and even as an opponent in the battle field--in summary what the duties of a person should be as one passes through different phases of life. He is the epitome of perfection as Ram, He is full of patience, dignity. He could have killed Ravan without anyone's help, but He took the path which a normal person would take, He walked bare-foot, He searched for His beloved wife in every possible way and overcame every obstacle with dignity and courage.
In later episodes, many incidents will be shown-- like when Ravan applies " Naag" weapon on Ram-Laxman. Lord Ram could have freed Himself easily, but He let Gorud do the job. Same about Ahiravan and Mahi ravan, is not the Lord capable enough to free Himself from Patal Lok, but He let Hanumanji do the job.
All these cannot be termed "Nautanki" right?

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Hi,
Thanks for tackling this issue real well. I am a silent reader, because once I had tried to discuss the concept of "Chhaya Sita" and I got many harsh replies from these same persons-- is Ram doing "Nautanki" after Sita is abducted. I hope Dr. Sagar's group should be able to put everything into right perspective, when the "Agnipariksha" issue comes up.

Actually, my feeling is --many people still build their concept of Ram as Arun Govil or Gurmeet Chowdhury., but not as " Maryada Purushottam".

Lord Rama is an avatar with 12 kalas, and Lord Krishna of 16 kalas. In his Ram Avatar, Bhagwan Vishnu tried to teach people what the ideals in life are, He never ever showed HIS Divine nature in His Ram avatar, as contrast to His Krishna Avatar. As Ram He wanted to teach us Maryada---the maryada of a child, maryada as a husband,maryada as a friend, brother and even as an opponent in the battle field--in summary the duties of a person as he passes through different phases of life. He is the epitome of perfection as Ram, He is full of patience, dignity. He could have killed Ravan without anyone's help, but He took the path which a normal person would take, He walked bare-foot, he searched for His beloved wife in every possible way and overcame every obstacle with dignity and courage.
In later episodes, many incidents will be shown-- like when Ravan applies " Naag" weapon on Ram-Laxman. Lord Ram could have freed Himself easily, but He let Gorud do the job. Same about Ahiravan and Mahi ravan, is not the Lord capable enough to free Himself from Patal Lok, but He let Hanumanji do the job.
All these cannot be termed "Nautanki" right?

Originally posted by: bhopalyellow

thanks frnd for this peaceful information.....😃

hey sita di....plz chill out ,waiting for more of ur chupies...😃

Hey,
I am not trying to criticise anyone. I just could not restrain myself from commenting this time as Sita had used harsh words for luv_khwaish/charu. More so, as I had read her comments before in Jai Shri Krishna forum and to someone who wrote little out of the track for Shri Krishna and those seemed very arrogant.

But I still appreciate her sincerity, it is beacuse of them that we get to see the Ramayana sitting in the US.
Sorry about any misunderstanding,

i too heard and read at many places, that mandodari married Vibheesana.
and she is one of the 'panch kanya'.
And mostly that i find on net.
But i don't know the truth.

And even if someone marries, it doesnt' mean the 'normal marriage of husband and wife'. Sometimes kings marry for some other political reasons. Those marriages are different.

Actually i don't care, whether she married Vibheesana or not.
I like her, bcoz she was against Ravana.

But as many of the ppl have this 'wrong information'.
it will be helpful if someone can tell me, something authentic abt it.

i don't have Valmiki Ramayan, and i don't know sanskrit.

I like this topic, bcoz there are so many wrong informations, so if some ppl know the truth and have read the original books, they can give some proof and logic. so that, later if anyone in the world wants to know the truth, he/she can find that on net.

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Thanks for tackling this issue real well. I am a silent reader, because once I had tried to discuss the concept of "Chhaya Sita" and I got many harsh replies from these same persons -- is Ram doing "Nautanki" after Sita is abducted. I hope Dr. Sagar's group should be able to put everything into right perspective, when the "Agnipariksha" issue comes up.

Actually, my feeling is --many people still build their concept of Ram as Arun Govil or Gurmeet Chowdhury., but not as " Maryada Purushottam".

"Ram Rameti Rameti, Rame Rame Manorame
Sahasranaam Tattulyam Ram naam varanane"

Lord Rama is an avatar with 12 kalas, and Lord Krishna of 16 kalas. In his Ram Avatar, Bhagwan Vishnu tried to teach people what the ideals in life are, He never ever showed HIS Divine nature in His Ram avatar, as contrast to His Krishna Avatar,where one gains knowledge about HIS viswaroop". As Ram He wanted to teach us Maryada---the maryada being an ideal child, maryada as a husband, maryada as a friend, brother and even as an opponent in the battle field--in summary what the duties of a person should be as one passes through different phases of life. He is the epitome of perfection as Ram, He is full of patience, dignity. He could have killed Ravan without anyone's help, but He took the path which a normal person would take, He walked bare-foot, He searched for His beloved wife in every possible way and overcame every obstacle with dignity and courage.
In later episodes, many incidents will be shown-- like when Ravan applies " Naag" weapon on Ram-Laxman. Lord Ram could have freed Himself easily, but He let Gorud do the job. Same about Ahiravan and Mahi ravan, is not the Lord capable enough to free Himself from Patal Lok, but He let Hanumanji do the job.
All these cannot be termed "Nautanki" right?

U misunderstood me n Rajnish. I made no personal comments on u or on any character or on anyother. all my comments were on that issue or concept only. I read those books before writing so. Ram took birth has human being. Vishnu imposed his own maya on him. According to Valmiki Ramayan Ram was unawae abt his future happenings n sufferings. Do we find krishna of Mahabahrat crying n lamenting like this on the sorrow of his near n dears one? no? because he was above maya n is a purna avtar. The mission of the two avtar were a bit different. Through Ram a ideal human life was shown. Vishnu n Laxmi took incarnation as Ram n Sita to purify this earth. Wherever they went that place became pure.

Ramayana means journey of Ram n Sita

Some writers termed Sita as maya(illusion) whereas Valmiki described Sita as self-same Ram or very self of Ram.

Ram too birth as human he didnt knew what will happen in future. It is according to Tulsidas that Ram knew everything. Thats why ull find mention of Chhaya Sita in it. But in Valmiki Ramayan Ram didn't know abt his future.

Through Sita Valmiki has shown the strength of women. One who bravely faced Raavan in Ashok Vaatika was Real Sita n not a illusion(Maya). In Valmiki Ramayan both Ram Sita had equal importance while in Ramcharit Mana only Ram is given importance n Sita is shown as someone inferior to him who has no key role to play in the story. Sita doesn't need protection from Agnideva to protect herself. She's much greater then him. By her Satitva she even cooled down fire.

If Ram was one who knew everything about his future then there is nothing inspiring in Ram's life. If Ram was one who knew everything about his future then Ram can't be our ideal because Gods can be worshiped but not followed. Gods can't be our ideal. A human being has capacity to follow a human being only not God. Dharma imposes many duties on human being. Lord Vishnu took birth as human being with human limitations n showed us an ideal human life. He didn't took those great n unselfish decision because he knew every about future. He happily accepted exile, fought with evils, wage war with Ravan not because he knew everything but because he wanted to follow dharma. Ram-Sita showed that human beings have capacity follow dharma and dharma does not impose any impossible duty on human.
Valmiki has shown Ram as human. Ram suffered all pains for Dharma. He showed that avoiding hardship can't be a excuse for violating Dharma. He didn't suffer all these pains because he knew everything. The way Ram lamented for dasrath in his death no way suggest that he knew everything. He cried for Sita like a madman. He recollected her every moment. He wept like a orphan collapsing on earth on Jataayu's death.

Pls dont interpret my words wrongly.

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Actually, my feeling is --many people still build their concept of Ram as Arun Govil or Gurmeet Chowdhury., but not as " Maryada Purushottam".

for me only Lord Ram is Lord Ram. I cant think of comparing him with any one. Lord Ram can be compared with Lord Ram only. want to qpute something from Tulsidasji : "Raghuvar Ki Chabi samaan raghuvar chabi baniya"

Originally posted by: Omshanti1111

Hey,
I am not trying to criticise anyone. I just could not restrain myself from commenting this time as Sita had used harsh words for luv_khwaish/charu. More so, as I had read her comments before in Jai Shri Krishna forum and to someone who wrote little out of the track for Shri Krishna and those seemed very arrogant.

But I still appreciate her sincerity, it is beacuse of them that we get to see the Ramayana sitting in the US.
Sorry about any misunderstanding,

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

U misunderstood me n Rajnish. I made no personal comments on u or on any character or on anyother. all my comments were on that issue or concept only. I read those books before writing so. Ram took birth has human being. Vishnu imposed his own maya on him. According to Valmiki Ramayan Ram was unawae abt his future happenings n sufferings. Do we find krishna of Mahabahrat crying n lamenting like this on the sorrow of his near n dears one? no? because he was above maya n is a purna avtar. The mission of the two avtar were a bit different. Through Ram a ideal human life was shown. Vishnu n Laxmi took incarnation as Ram n Sita to purify this earth. Wherever they went that place became pure.

Ramayana means journey of Ram n Sita

Some writers termed Sita as maya(illusion) whereas Valmiki described Sita as self-same Ram or very self of Ram.

Ram too birth as human he didnt knew what will happen in future. It is according to Tulsidas that Ram knew everything. Thats why ull find mention of Chhaya Sita in it. But in Valmiki Ramayan Ram didn't know abt his future.

Through Sita Valmiki has shown the strength of women. One who bravely faced Raavan in Ashok Vaatika was Real Sita n not a illusion(Maya). In Valmiki Ramayan both Ram Sita had equal importance while in Ramcharit Mana only Ram is given importance n Sita is shown as someone inferior to him who has no key role to play in the story. Sita doesn't need protection from Agnideva to protect herself. She's much greater then him. By her Satitva she even cooled down fire.

If Ram was one who knew everything about his future then there is nothing inspiring in Ram's life. If Ram was one who knew everything about his future then Ram can't be our ideal because Gods can be worshiped but not followed. Gods can't be our ideal. A human being has capacity to follow a human being only not God. Dharma imposes many duties on human being. Lord Vishnu took birth as human being with human limitations n showed us an ideal human life. He didn't took those great n unselfish decision because he knew every about future. He happily accepted exile, fought with evils, wage war with Ravan not because he knew everything but because he wanted to follow dharma. Ram-Sita showed that human beings have capacity follow dharma and dharma does not impose any impossible duty on human.
Valmiki has shown Ram as human. Ram suffered all pains for Dharma. He showed that avoiding hardship can't be a excuse for violating Dharma. He didn't suffer all these pains because he knew everything. The way Ram lamented for dasrath in his death no way suggest that he knew everything. He cried for Sita like a madman. He recollected her every moment. He wept like a orphan collapsing on earth on Jataayu's death.

Pls dont interpret my words wrongly.


for me only Lord Ram is Lord Ram. I cant think of comparing him with any one. Lord Ram can be compared with Lord Ram only. want to qpute something from Tulsidasji : "Raghuvar Ki Chabi samaan raghuvar chabi baniya"

Thanks for the healthy discussion, really appreciate it. Previously what happened was everything except discussion.

Let me write the complete verse of Tulsidasji that you have written
"Tulsidas ati anando dekh ke mukhar bindo
Raghuvar chhabi ke saman Raghubar chhabi baniya"...

"thumoko chalato Ramchandra bajeto paijaniya..."

Originally posted by: sita11

the author of the post has not asked u abt the marriage !!!!!!