Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 102

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

The Avadhis did have a right to who their queens were, or weren't. But they didn't have any rights or inputs into the private lives of their kings. Like Dasharath had 350 wives other than KSK, but nobody ever bothered about them. Sita's status could have been like them. In fact (while it's not in Valmiki), even Rama drew the line at a point - when some suggested that he re-marry, he rejected such popular desires. So it's not like he blindly acquiesced to everything his subjects wanted. And if he denied them the 'right' to a new queen, he would have been on the same legal plane in denying them the 'right' to a divorced/separated Sita.

Returning to parent's home was a disgrace? Somebody might want to mention that to Subhadra, who even after marriage spent most of her time at Dwaraka, except for the 12 years that the Pandavas ran Indraprastha. Same for Uloopi, who never went to Indraprastha. In fact, even after the war, Subhadra seemed to have spent most of her time in Dwaraka, except for the time that Parikshit was born and before: when Krishna returned to Dwaraka after the Ashwamedha yagna, Subhadra went with him. Did the customs change so radically between treta and dwapar yugas?

Whether Sita was queen or not was a public issue. Whether she remained Rama's wife or not was nobody's business but theirs.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

One thing I have a doubt with:

If the Praja of Ayodhya were so offended with Sita Mata being queen, why didn't they protest to her being made queen during the Rajyabhishek? It was rather cruel of them to doubt her a whole two years later, don't you think? And especially when she was pregnant. I can never understand how they were so heartless.

They did not protest to her being made queen, so they had no right to protest her being queen once the Rajyabhishek was already over.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

I was gone from this topic from thursday and how many posts? WOW! I am a little late in this discussion because of my absence but I had to say this. I agree wholeheartedly with Chandra. What was the need for Sita to sit on the throne along with him? Kaushalya, Sumitra, and Kaikeye did not do so even though they were principle queens. No one thought any thing of it. Ramji could have done the same for Sita and kept her with him. I don't think Sita would have cared about the crown. We know for sure that he would not have married again so Sita could have stayed in the palace just as his wife.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

It was not only to being queen that the people of Ayodhya protested to, but being Ram's wife in general. Ramji was Raja Ram, so whether or not he made his wife "the queen", she was still "a queen" because she was the wife of a King.

The people of Ayodhya were saying how the women in their kingdom would now find it alright to stay long lapses from home in another's house, because Sita, the wife of Raja Ram, did so. (Of course, they conveniently forget that she was abducted against her will😡😒). That was one of the reasons Ramji had Sitaji exiled. He did not want the women in his kingdom to get the wrong message of his wife's great sacrifice and the pain she went through in Lanka, and use it as an excuse to misbehave themselves.

The people in Ayodhya were of the opinion that Ramji should not have accepted Sitaji back. period. Whether or not she became queen of Ayodhya, she was still Shri Ram's wife, and they did not like the fact that their King accepted a woman back after she was in another's house for 10 months (again, they got their facts wrong, because Sita was in the Ashok Vatika, not Ravan's Palace😒).

I'm definitely not saying that what the people of Ayodhya did was right, but I'm just saying that taking away her title as queen would not have helped any, because she would still be Shri Ram's wife, and she would still be in Ayodhya (which the Ayodhyavasis didn't like😭😡).

And I don't agree that Ramji was in Valmikiji's debt when Valmikiji took Sitaji to his ashram, because Sage Valmiki adopted Sita as his daughter before he did so, and a daughter is never in debt to her father. Also, ashrams were places of peace for the society, and not only brahmins, but anyone who sought solace could go there. No one would be in debt if they stayed there for long stretches of time, because they all had a hand in the chores. No one ever spent a day with nothing to do, because there was constantly something to do, some chore to finish. Sitaji worked hard in Valmikiji's Ashram when she stayed there, and did all her work on her own. She never depended on anyone, and she never got anyone to do anything for her, therefore clearing away any debt to Valimikiji if there had been any.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Vibs, You should spam a lil bit, now on😉😆

I suggest this from my experience 😉

Vibs

You can still beat that other discussion thread to the goldie post😃😃

Ananya is right - go on a posting rampage👏👏👏

Originally posted by: S_rocha

One more doubt, Ram is God if it is so why didn't he recognized maarich in deer avtar. Why he'd been fooled by Maarich. A god been fooled by a mere Ashur. Why didn't he recognised Maarich in disguise in the form of deer. If he would have recognised the whole of Sita abduction, distruction due to war and Sita further bannishment could had been avoided. But it surprise me being GOD he was fooled by an ashura

Sarath

I'm glad you asked this question, and since you've shown by your response to Vibs & Chen2chic that you are happy to learn, I'm more than happy to explain this one. I have no idea about how much of Ramayan you're familiar with, but here it is anyway.

Ravan had received the boon from Brahma that immunized him from being killed by devas, gandharvas, kinnaras, apsaras, rakshashas, asuras and almost every other creature known, and including Vishnu and Shiva as well. He however did not seek immunity against men or vanaras, since he considered that redundant. While he did have his brushes with death in his encounters with Vali and Mandhata, truth is that nothing threatened him.

So when the devas approached Vishnu, he decided that to kill Ravan, he'd have to take an incarnation/avatar as a man. Note that unlike his previous incarnations, from Matsya to Parashurama, he never was in the dark regarding who he was, and where he only assumed those avatars for a short while (except Parashurama), in this case, it was not possible. Ravan had clearly insured himself from Vishnu, so had Vishnu simply changed into a man like Parashurama or Krishna who had full knowledge of his divinity, that would have been no different than simply changing forms, which for a god would have been like changing clothes. Therefore, to take this avatar, not only could Vishnu not know who he was, he couldn't take his knowledge with him, but as a man, would have to patiently acquire it from the various rishis like Vaishistha, Vishwamitra, Agastya, Atri, etc. As a result, unlike Krishna, one never sees Rama with a sudarshan chakra, or Vishnu's mace, or any such divine accessory. In fact, Rama never got to know that he was Vishnu until after Ravan was killed, when Brahma revealed it to him following the agni-pariksha.

This not only answers your question above about why Rama couldn't recognize Mareecha - it also explains a lot of things about Rama. Some of the controversial decisions that he took, which you've sometimes raised, have sometimes been answered in the following way - since Rama was a human, his judgement was not infallable, and he too made his share of mistakes (something that has been openly argued occasionally).

Another point - the above non-divine profile of Rama, as presented by Valmiki, fits the Brahma boon far better than the versions from others where he knows who he is - which is why, I personally, believe Valmiki at the expense of the others. Some of the things attributed to him, such as sending Sita to be abandoned in the forest - are not there in Valmiki (in Valmiki, Rama asks Lakshman to leave her near Valmiki's ashram.) In fact, I think that even after it was revealed to him that he was Vishnu, he continued to believe that he was a mortal, and continued to act accordingly: that would explain why he failed to anticipate Sita's reaction when he asked her for her vow at the Ashwamedha yagna.

Hope this made it clear.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

The more reason the Avadhis should not gone to heaven with Ramji. This is a part I do not understand at all. If someone has an explanation to help me understand this logic, please do so.
This is the other thing that I do not understand. The law is not rigid. A law that applies to one situation will not apply to another. In Sita's case, even if she stayed in another man's house for a long time, she was abducted there and kept under his control. Shouldn't the law operate according to the facts of the case. What applies to Sita will not neccessarily apply to another hypothetical case if the woman had done something wantonly. Was the law so rigidly applied in Treta Yug? What about applying the law on a case by case basis?

Mandodari

Fully agree with ya!!!👍🏼

You are right for more than one reason:

1. Sita was abducted and held against her will;

2. Re: her chastity, what was the legal standard even then? Was it innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent? Because the latter is how it turned out in Sita's case.

3. Another legal standard - okay, I'll admit guilty to thinking like 21st century rather than treta yuga, but wasn't there a conflict of interest involved? How could Rama be expected to make a decision on Sita - shouldn't that have been escalated to, say, Vaishistha, and let him give a ruling? After all, if Rama decided to keep Sita, it would be said that he was being partial to his wife, and if he decided, as he did, to get rid of her, it would be said that he was compelled to do it to demonstrate how he put his royal duties above his personal desires.

There's a reason that in juries, people who are related to parties in cases are waived from jury dury - conflict of interest. If I was being tried for a hit and run in Redwood Shores, there's no way my wife would be allowed to serve on that jury. And vice versa.

There was simply no way Rama could be impartial in this case for the simple reason of being Sita's husband (he'd either have favored Sita, thereby looking like he was being partial to his wife, or disfavored her, in which case he'd have looked like he was deliberately discriminating against her for the sake of his reputation), and shouldn't have been in the position to judge in the first place. So give it to an imparital third party adjudicator.

4. Why didn't the Avadhis object when she was being crowned, as Lalitha asked?

Originally posted by: Mandodari

This has been puzzling me a lot. Why didn't Rama join Sita in the ashram after abdicating the kingdom in favor of Bharat? I am sure if he made it an order Bharat would have listened. According to a link posted by Ananya from Encyclopedia Indica and the analysis of the Ramayan in it, Rama was very much at home with Rishi/muni thanks to spending 14 years of his youth/formative years in vanvas. The writer says that it was left to Bharat, Lakshman, and Shatrughan to conquer new kingdoms for the Raghukul dynasty. Why didn't he just leave and stay with Sita? Why sacrifice her for the Ayodhyavasis? In the end, Ayodhyavasis are taken along too when the avatar ends. Why so much importance to these worthless subjects of his?

Mandodari

I used to wonder about this as well; however, thinking about it, it seems to suggest itself. Since the objective here was to make the people of Ayodhya perfectly happy (since his rule was supposed to be ideal and perfect), his quitting the throne would have caused public unhappiness, and therefore have defeated the purpose of removing her from the throne in the first place. Otherwise, you are right - even Lakshman, who declined the yuvraj, would have been happy to swallow that poison for the sake of his bhaiya's and bhabi's happiness.

As for why he took the subjects with him, I agree with you on this, but have one theory why he did so. Ethically/morally, Kush and Luv wouldn't have been comfortable ruling the same people who had insulted his mother, because that would have been an insult to her memory in and of itself. Rather than put them in such a dilemma, Rama decided to solve that by taking them with him, so that none of his sons or nephews would have to accommodate them. So he did what he did, but I still think that allowing them to accompany him to Vaikuntha was a little much - after all, Vaikuntha belonged to the same Sita whose chastity had to be proven, and therefore they certainly didn't deserve to end up there. I do wish once the transfer was made, Vishnu had Yamaraj come and pick them up, and take them to where they belonged - Yamalok.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Ravan had received the boon from Brahma that immunized him from being killed by devas, gandharvas, kinnaras, apsaras, rakshashas, asuras and almost every other creature known, and including Vishnu and Shiva as well. He however did not seek immunity against men or vanaras, since he considered that redundant. While he did have his brushes with death in his encounters with Vali and Mandhata, truth is that nothing threatened him.

So when the devas approached Vishnu, he decided that to kill Ravan, he'd have to take an incarnation/avatar as a man. Note that unlike his previous incarnations, from Matsya to Parashurama, he never was in the dark regarding who he was, and where he only assumed those avatars for a short while (except Parashurama), in this case, it was not possible. Ravan had clearly insured himself from Vishnu, so had Vishnu simply changed into a man like Parashurama or Krishna who had full knowledge of his divinity, that would have been no different than simply changing forms, which for a god would have been like changing clothes. Therefore, to take this avatar, not only could Vishnu not know who he was, he couldn't take his knowledge with him, but as a man, would have to patiently acquire it from the various rishis like Vaishistha, Vishwamitra, Agastya, Atri, etc. As a result, unlike Krishna, one never sees Rama with a sudarshan chakra, or Vishnu's mace, or any such divine accessory. In fact, Rama never got to know that he was Vishnu until after Ravan was killed, when Brahma revealed it to him following the agni-pariksha.

This not only answers your question above about why Rama couldn't recognize Mareecha - it also explains a lot of things about Rama. Some of the controversial decisions that he took, which you've sometimes raised, have sometimes been answered in the following way - since Rama was a human, his judgement was not infallable, and he too made his share of mistakes (something that has been openly argued occasionally).

Another point - the above non-divine profile of Rama, as presented by Valmiki, fits the Brahma boon far better than the versions from others where he knows who he is - which is why, I personally, believe Valmiki at the expense of the others. Some of the things attributed to him, such as sending Sita to be abandoned in the forest - are not there in Valmiki (in Valmiki, Rama asks Lakshman to leave her near Valmiki's ashram.) In fact, I think that even after it was revealed to him that he was Vishnu, he continued to believe that he was a mortal, and continued to act accordingly: that would explain why he failed to anticipate Sita's reaction when he asked her for her vow at the Ashwamedha yagna.