Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 100

The following is from Yahoo groups, it was shared with me by my friend.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

There was no such legally recognised right to elect , right ot speech n expression in those days as it exits tody in may of the civilised nations. the existence of such right totally dependent on the will of the ruler. In case of subjects of Raghuvanshi ruler such right existed because of custom or convention of this dynasty. But that too dependent upon the will of the ruler. Danda a suryaanshi was exile because of public complaind against him. Dasrath decided to make Ram king because public wanted that. I agree avadhis had no right in private life of their king. But no king how powerful he may be can ever stop his subject form thinking anything or can stop such thought from getting spread or can ever compell them to truly respect or worship anyone on whom they have doubt. Even Hitler cud not do that.

True, but that's exactly the rationalization people use to justify Sita's exile. On one hand, you're (accurately) pointing out that people didn't have a say in what their rulers did, and on another, you're suggesting that Rama had to acquesce to the unreasonable demand of his subjects that he not only strip his wife of her title, but get rid of her altogether. Somehow, it's just not adding up.

When Rama was exiled, he didn't hesitate to upbraid his subjects for speaking out against their King Dasharath (or didn't he?) If that was true, he could just as easily have explained things to them in a public open debate? Or was that so inconceivable?

[QUOTE=coolpurvi] Why u want to Sita to be like one of those forgotten 350 queens? Public slander affected Ram because Sita was his ego. Sita desrved respect from subjects. Ram wanted to praja to respect her n worship her for her greatness n satitva. Is comfort everthing? Ramayan wud have never been happy ending had it not happened. Did prosecuting all Avadhis for defaming Sita or severe punishment wud have served the purpose? I think no

B'cos she'd have had Rama's company as a result. She was his private life. If giving her a stature similar to the forgotten 350 could have given her the happiness of Rama's company during his private time, why would you want to deny her that? She didn't care whether she was queen of Ayodhya or not, so why is that more important to you than whether she had what she treasured the most - Rama's company? Reason she was unhappy at Valmiki's was not that she wasn't in a palace, but that she was away from Rama.

He rejected public demand to remarry to show them that he abandoned her only because he is king of this country but as husband he respects her. I dont agree with u thathe blindly acquiesced to everything his subjects wanted. A good king is one who can foresee future n can take apt decison in present. Lord Ram had a object behind all his decisions. He knew how to react in response to any public demand n waht will be its future results.

The only explanation for his exile of Sita was his blindly acquiescing to whatever his subjects wanted. Otherwise, there was no justifiable reason for this decision.

On one hand, people are saying that Rama had to send Sita away - not merely strip her of her title - b'cos his subjects objected to him having any relationship with her. OTOH, you're saying that he was asserting his marital duties by not re-marrying. But he was clearly trumping his marital duties with his royal duties by getting rid of her, and suddenly, when it comes to re-marrying, his marital vows take precedence?

Even he couldn't have it both ways - either his marital vows trumped his royal duties, in which case, he should have overruled his subjects on the question of getting rid of Sita, while acquiescing to their wish that she not be their queen, or they didn't. If his royal duties trumped his marital vows, which is the rationale always used, then when he was asked to re-marry, he couldn't refuse on the grounds that he respected his wife and his marriage.

Also note that there is no reference to his having a statue of Sita during this Ashwamedha yagna, so the wife's presence was only essential if she was accepted by her husband. The statue only gets mentioned in 7:99, after Sita's passing, and with reference to future yagnas. In other words, the question of re-marriage didn't even come up. However, I only mentioned it because in the same breath that popular folklore justifies his exiling her, they justify his not re-marrying - 2 completely inconsistent decisions.

Edited by Chandraketu - 16 years ago

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

The circumstances also matter. There's a difference in going toa parent's house for protection and because your husband sent you. It would have been a disgrace for Sita, because it would seem as if Rama was disowning her and believing the allegations made by his praja. But the Pandavas were exiled, and Indraprastha was no longer theirs. Theyhad no home or property to call their own.Their wives had no protection, so it would not be disgrace at all to stay in their parents' home. What do you expect? Them trying to seek protection from Duryodhan?

So there's a difference between beingexiled to a parents' home by a husband and going on your own accord with the husbands' permission, or sometimes, along with him. So you can't compare Sita with Subhadra.The praja neverdoubted her, and she was not the chief queen of Indraprastha.Draupadi was the chief queen, and she went into exile with her husbands. Moreover, there never came a time whenSubhadra's chastitybecame a doubt, and a possibilty of her exile arose.

Andof course customschanged drastically between Treta and Dwapar Yugs, just like they changed drastically between Dwapar and Kali Yugs.Ulupi does not even come into consideration when comparing with Sita. Ulupi was what, the 2nd wife of Arjun? AndArjun was the3rd brother, so he was not even King. Where she spent her time was beyond the care of theIndraprastha praja. Moreover, she was a Naga Kanya, and theircustoms differed from humans, just like the Vanaras customs differed from humans.

I wasn't talking about the period that the Pandavas were in exile - at that time, Krishna had Subhadra, Abhimanyu and Panchali-putras, Dhrishtaketu took Nakul's wife to Chedi, Jarasandha's son Sahadev took the Pandava Sahadev's wife to Magadh, and so on. I was talking about after the war, and after the Ashwamedha yagna, when Subhadra went with Krishna to Dwaraka, Uloopi went to Nagaland. Note that I didn't use Chitrangada as an example, because she is clearly different: her father agreed to Arjun marrying her only on condition that her son be his heir and not the Pandavas', and that she stay in Manipur even after Arjun left.

My argument was that Rama could have explained the whole situation to Janak, and ask him to take Sita indefinitely under his protection. That would have avoided the odium of Sita looking like she was spurned, while also avoiding the ridiculous image of him taking charity from Valmiki.

Also, it's needlessly slanderous to assume that people of any and every other kingdom would have been as lowly as the Avadhis: in the absense of any such evidence, there is no rational reason to assume that. Casting such aspersions on the people of other kingdoms is as slanderous of their character as the Avadhis casting aspersions on Sita. In the absense of any such evidence, one has to assume that people of other kingdoms were pure, and that the people of Ayodhya were scum. Sorry, but there's no other way I read this.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Yup, I second this.😊

Purvi always has wonderful,satisfactory explainations⭐️

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Though he is known as Vishvaksena in the parivara - devatha group of Vishnu, he has been mentioned as Vinayaka by Valmiki, making us conclude that he was worshiped in Rama's times for this special trait in removing vignas / obstacles.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Vishvaksena = Vinayaka? Are you sure.....

Bcoz Vishvaksena as per the Guru Parampara of Srivaishnavism is the commander-in-chief of Vishnu's army, also known as "Senai Mudhaliar" in Tamil. During any cermonial procession of Vishnu in the temples, it is Vishvaksena who goes ahead of the Lord to inspect the route that the Lord will be taking.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Ok rocha............I did not want to pay heed to your posts, but then was amused that you did not understand Ram&Sita's respective roles.

Firstly, please realise that as husband & wife, they never separated. They were very much with each other in every walk of their lives. As a husband, it was Ram's duty to rescue Sita which he did and accepted her as a husband. But now that he is a king, King takes priority over all other roles. As a king, he was not expected to have such a queen who is talked of in this way.

He is the example and role model of every citizen of the state. "Yathaa raajaa thathaa prajaa" (As a king, so the subjects...)

And also, he knew that people spoke ill of Sita alone and not him, which pained him even more. And hence he took the decision. Sita too, acted as a queen was expected to do, realising that she would be taken as an example in every household. Now, when you say Sita was also his subject...true..but Sita did not counter argue bcoz she realised the dilemma between a husband & a king. Though she could have encountered the king, she realised the state in which her husband was and as an understanding wife, she accepted the judgement.

Had Ram really rejected Sita, as per your words, he would have not not installed her golden statue for the yagna, rather would have had another living wife sitting beside him for the yagna.....

Hope you understand it atleast now................

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

S_rocha, I don't mind explaining my points and view to people who are genuinely puzzled and would like an explanation and would be receptive enough to listen to all the points and not stay adamant and try to convince others as to what they say is true. - This is my policy and I'm not blaming anyone (including you) by saying this. I don't blame anyone neither support nor go against anyone unless I have a very good reason.

Chen2chic had explained so well already. I am adding some points to that post.

Ram was a king and he had to saitisfy his subjects as it was his duty as a good king. He might have very well continued to do what he wanted ignoring what his subjects said but Ram was not that kind of person.
Ram was considered to be an ideal man by all of the people and not without reason.

First of all, a man (that too a king who was born into the mighty house of the Sun) had a reputation to live up to. His fame and honour being tarnished he'll not only put himself down but also the name of his house that has won praises throughout the ages. A slightest blemish will be blown up to a big issue. Not only that, Ram wished that his fame and the Suryavanshi's must be carried over through the future ages and any honourable man would have wished for the same. Hence, he could not allow even a small blemish on his honour. For that, his people must not find a single fault in him and his rule. Its is definitely not easy.

Secondly, Ram did not test Sita. It was Sita who decided to enter the fire. Ram, when Sita was brought in front of him told her that he had done his duty and that she was free to go anywhere she wanted. Sita on hearing these words chose to enter fire and asked Lakshman to build a pyre and entered it with an oath of chastity saying that if she was entirely pure, Agni Dev should protect her. She came out unscathed and was accepted by Ram. The reason Ram had spoken thus was not because he doubted Sita but as the norms of the society those days were completely against a woman leaving the house especially spending even one night alone in another man's home. Thus he had to uphold his duty or else people would have said that he loved the woman (Sita) so much to accept her again blindly. Ram never doubted Sita. This step also proved to the world that she was the most chaste in all the world.

Thridly, the reason Ram chose to banish Sita was this. Ram could not answer the rumours - the people had spoken so badly and he had no answer. The people were against Kaikeyi but she had asked for the two boons that was promised to her. I am saying that what she did was correct. She had changed and realised her mistake and had paid dearly for what she did. A king can forgive a person who had realised her mistake and give them a second chance. When this was so with any ordinary person, he cannot be so harsh to his mother. The people have to accept the king and the queen. Sita was Ram's wife and his responsibility. She was Ram's wife whether he banished her or not. But she could never be the queen when the people did not accept her. Ram fulfilling his duty as a husband did not abandon her just anywhere in the forest but near a gret sage's ashram so that she will be cared for and also fulfilling the norms of banishing her to the forest.

The reason I said that Ram could not answer the rumours is this -

The washerman had asked his wife "Do you think I am Ram to accept back a wife who had spent her nights away from home in another man's house?"

When the this issue spread, the rumours (from the men) were - "Now we have to tollereate our wives leaving the homes at night and speaking back that Ram himself accepted Sita back after she stayed at another's home for so long and why shouldn't you?" A king had to be the example to his subjects. When people had asked is it alright for the women folk to spend nights away from home what will Ram answer?
When the people of his country and others say that this is a country ruled by a good king whose queen had spent her days in another man's home what will Lord Ram say? When the people from other countries say that the kingdom might have women who follow their queen, how can Ram answer them and his people.

Of course he can say that she was taken back after a test of fire but they didn't believe that as well. To ask Sita to prover herself again and again would be an ultimate insult to her chastity. When the people did not believe the proof she had already given, they would definitely not believe any words from Ram either.

But posting the doubts of the people, I do not believe these rumours. I am just posting what I have thought about.

Again I say this, I don't mind helping anyone who wants to learn more but I'd consider it a wate of time if the person is not receptive enough. If there are things you don't agree you can give valid reasons as to why you disagree.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

The following is from Yahoo groups, it was shared with me by my friend.

@ Vibs : You were asking about the Ganesha worship in Ramayna (of Valmiki, I suppose)

Vinayaka worship has been an integral part of worship by means of homa / yajna.

The seeds of Vinayaka worship is traced to customary recital in all rituals of the Rig vedic mantras "gananam ganapatim havamahe.." (2.23.1) and 'vi su sida ganapate..' (10.112.9) In the beginning of any ritual, Vinayaka is consecrated by sankalpa and prayed for removing obstacle.

One of the earliest mention about Vinayaka worship can be traced to Valmiki Ramayana, wherein it has been mentioned by Valmiki in Pattabhisheka sarga in Yuddha kanda, that 'devatas like Vinayaka stand fixed (reside) in the house of one where Ramayana is recited or heard.' ("Vinayakaa cha saamyanti gruhE thishtanti")

This means where Ramayana is recited or where Rama nama is sung, Lord Vinayaka takes care to see that the person does not get any obstacles in his endeavors.

Though he is known as Vishvaksena in the parivara - devatha group of Vishnu, he has been mentioned as Vinayaka by Valmiki, making us conclude that he was worshiped in Rama's times for this special trait in removing vignas / obstacles.

( I don't know the orginal author of the above article, acknowlegements to whosoever has written it)

Originally posted by: ananyacool

YES, very much!

When Vishnu, in form of Venkateshwara is worshipped,before the procession takes place, Ganesha/Vinayaka is invoked and worshipped as "Vishvaksena" as he is the embodiment of 'Pranav'-Omkar.

Originally posted by: S_rocha

This is just excellent explanation from Vibhision and chek2chic👏, Now whoever has doubt on sita and Ram relationship and the reason for her banishment, they need to read this two explanation. It just awesome, thanks vibhision and chen2chick for taking your time in explaining this👏