Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 103

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

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: ananyacool

I had a few question:

If Ramji had left with mata Sita to forest following her public slander and Lav-Kush born in forest , would it be easy for them to claim the kingdom easily??

Would the Mata Sita's innocence would be known to everybody?

According to Raghuvamsa Kush doesn't rule Ayodhya. The gram-devta of ayodhya appears in his dream and explains the pathetic situation of abandoned Ayodhya city only then Kush agrees to shift back.

That's correct, but had Rama left them in Ayodhya, he'd have had to leave them with a king. He had already enthroned 4 of his nephews, and Shatrughan's sons had his kingdom. So despite the fact that he gave 2 different Kosalas, with their own people, wealth and cities to the 2 of them, there would still have remained the dilemma of forcing one of his sons, or both, to accept the same people who didn't accept their mother as the queen, since Bharat refused to accept.

As for your second question, that seems to be the other reason that Rama gave them different kingdoms outside Ayodhya, and different subjects than his own. Even if Sita had never taken an oath, they could still have been given those people, since they weren't previously Rama's subjects, and therefore, K/L's parentage in those cases wouldn't have been an issue. I think Rama did not want Sita's sacrifice to be their claim to the throne - that would have been beyond contemptable.

Also, both the cities fell within Rama's territory, so it's not like he sent them both to kingdoms that weren't previously his. Shravasthi was built by one of Rama's ancestors, Shravasth, while Kushavati was hurriedly built for Kush. Similarly, the cities for Lakshman's and Bharat's sons were built just before they were crowned.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Look who is Post-rampaging today!😉😆

Thanks for ur explainations bhaiya😊

Originally posted by: loveanime

Even that didnt make any sense to me. Why he took his subjects with him. How did they deserve that honor. In the old Ramayan, Ram doesnt explain his reasons I was baffled. Vishnu reuintes with Lakshmi in the Vaikunt so what happens to these subjects do they hang around Lord Vishnu or does he some them somewhere else what would Lakshmi say when she sees them. But she did forgieve them did she not.

In the Ramanand Sagar version, the subjects fall at her feet and apologize to her when Bhoomi Devi emerges from the earthquake, and she not only blesses them, but asks Rama to love them as much as Kush & Luv. A ludicrous depiction, since upto that point, those 2 aren't the most loved in Rama's life - Sita & Lakshman were.

In the original Valmiki, there is no mention of the subjects apologizing: had they done so, it would have been, since it would have vindicated Sita even more. But such an apology would have been worthless after the damage was done. I'd conclude that they did no such thing, and that all depictions to the contrary are an attempt to vindicate Sita, as if it's even necessary.

The story does have specific details about where Sugriv et al are headed, but it says nothing about the specific abode of the subjects.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

I had a few question:

If Ramji had left with mata Sita to forest following her public slander and Lav-Kush born in forest , would it be easy for them to claim the kingdom easily??

Would the Mata Sita's innocence would be known to everybody?

According to Raghuvamsa Kush doesn't rule Ayodhya. The gram-devta of ayodhya appears in his dream and explains the pathetic situation of abandoned Ayodhya city only then Kush agrees to shift back.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Chen

👍🏼on 300!

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

In the Ramanand Sagar version, the subjects fall at her feet and apologize to her when Bhoomi Devi emerges from the earthquake, and she not only blesses them, but asks Rama to love them as much as Kush & Luv. A ludicrous depiction, since upto that point, those 2 aren't the most loved in Rama's life - Sita & Lakshman were.

In the original Valmiki, there is no mention of the subjects apologizing: had they done so, it would have been, since it would have vindicated Sita even more. But such an apology would have been worthless after the damage was done. I'd conclude that they did no such thing, and that all depictions to the contrary are an attempt to vindicate Sita, as if it's even necessary.

The story does have specific details about where Sugriv et al are headed, but it says nothing about the specific abode of the subjects.