Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 104

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Thnx buddy! I always forget to see my score. 😃

It feels so good when someone else is watching out for you...🤗

Congrats on 300 Deepa!

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

I disappear for a few hours due to technical difficulties and when I come back I find so many much already discussed 😲

😆😆😆 Welcome back Vibs! I had the same problem today morning. I had to read so many pages before I was caught up with the rest of you. This forum is alive! 😆
😆

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

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: 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.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Congrats on 300 Deepa!

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

By the way, I think everyone here agrees that the Ayodhya vasis did not deserve Vishnu Lok, but I'm really confused by this.😕 Even Karna, Drona, and Bhishma in the Mahabharat did not get Vishnu Lok even though they died bravely on the battlefield, so why did the Ayodhyavasis despite their immense sin in making nasty allegations on Mata Sita? Is there any reason for this? A background story maybe?

And did they really get Vishnu Lok, or were they simply reborn in the Dwapar Yug or something, like maybe as Duryodhan's Army, to get killed in a gruesome way by Bhima or Arjuna?😈 Sorry, I sound really evil, but there were so many people who deserved Vishnu Lok before the Ayodhyavasis!😒

Originally posted by: chen2chic

I read somewhere that the Ayodhyavasis, inspite of their false accusations and mindset on Sitaji, had immense love and belief in Ramji. They loved him as much as their own heart and soul. And thats the reason why Ramji takes them along with him to Vaikunt. But I wonder how they differentiated Sitaji from Ramji. They were one in soul. Whatever, this in no way justifies them accusing Sita Mata.

I like this thought too 😈, that they in Duryodhan's army and are killed by Bhim or Arjun!

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

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.

Wonderful explanation, Chandraketu 👏

I agree with you that Ram continued to believe that he was mortal even after the truth was revealed to him. This is something I believe in too.

And thank you so much for recommending Flock. It has helped me a lot. Thanks again.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

I think it was 'guilty until prooven innocent', because that's how women's status was back in the Treta Yug. At least, I think that's how it was in the villages.

I don't know how true this is, or if this really happened, but in the Old Ramayan, it shows a scene where Bhadra (Ramji's spy) takes a part in the nightly conversations (or whatever they call it), and he asks one person who was bad mouthing the wife of the washerman, "Why cant we go to the King for justice? Surely Raja Ram will give us a proper verdict about the innocence of the woman."

But the Avadhi replied that the King would waste time looking into the situation. When Bhadra (I think that's his name) asks him why that's wrong, the Avadhi replied (something along the lines of), "You city people give too much thought to the guilt of a person and justice is prolonged. If a person is accused of a wrong, there has to be a basis for that accusation, or why would he/she be accused?"

Of course, these aren't the exact words, but I remember that the conversation was something like this. I don't know if this is in Valmiki Ramayan, but if it is, it tells us that village people were very narrow minded and it was 'guilty until prooven innocent' for them. The rumor of Sita's chastity was started in a village, and as it eventually spread to the city, it probably got distorted into something nasty until the city people themselves believed in it.

By the way, I think everyone here agrees that the Ayodhya vasis did not deserve Vishnu Lok, but I'm really confused by this.😕 Even Karna, Drona, and Bhishma in the Mahabharat did not get Vishnu Lok even though they died bravely on the battlefield, so why did the Ayodhyavasis despite their immense sin in making nasty allegations on Mata Sita? Is there any reason for this? A background story maybe?

And did they really get Vishnu Lok, or were they simply reborn in the Dwapar Yug or something, like maybe as Duryodhan's Army, to get killed in a gruesome way by Bhima or Arjuna?😈 Sorry, I sound really evil, but there were so many people who deserved Vishnu Lok before the Ayodhyavasis!😒

Good reasoning for the dilemma faced by Ram. I think that Ram being King was held responsible for all and he was in the limelight. Each and every one of his actions and his bearing would be noted minutely and closely and interpreted by the people. He cannot do something and say 'That is the way I am' and get away with it. A King has to be in sync with his people.

Chandraketu, you have explained the situation very well. But Ram not being allowed to judge would not be apt here. As a King, he was the highest authority and he was the last court of appeal. He has his ministers and Gurus to advice him but the final statement and the final judgement is his. When a prince is crowned as King of a nation, he is adviced by so many people as to how he should behave and how he should uphold his character, truth, justice and be a good and respectable king. After listening to all this, if he steps down and lets someone judge the issue just because his family is involved, it is a poor representation of all that was taught to him. A King should be able to judge impartially be it his family members or others, be it his friends or his enemies. He cannot soften the punishment just because his friend has committed a mistake or he cannot be cruel just because his enemy stands before him.

Besides, Ram took this decision because the majority of the people believed that he should not have brought back Sita to Ayodhya and made her his queen. Lets say that Ram had left the matter to his jury - his ministers os someone else like his Guru Vashishta. The ministers would either speak their minds or would be too scared that they would displease the king. If the person who decides, says that Sita should be banished, then it still would have been inevitable and Ram would have been put to shame - people would have said that Ram unable to decide for himself and left the matter to others. What sort of a King is he? We thought so high of him and eventually he too ends up being a slave to a woman. I don't think Ram could have faced that. If the ministers fearing the wrath of the King had spoken in favour of Sita remaining as a queen, the people would have talked that there is no justice in the country, the ministers are the Kings puppets and so on. Either way, it is the King's duty to provide justice and he cannot delegate it to someone else. If it was the case that someone had a problem with him, that is, if someone demands justice that the King has wronged him/her, then the others can decide if he does not provide satisfactory justice.

When Ram, Sita and Lakshman came back, the people would not have know what happened in the exile. Hence, all were jubilant that their hero was back with his wife and did not object to Sita being crowned. But when the stories of the exile spread, they would have had enough time to sit and gossip about it. The people sit around and gossip about anything that happens so, this must have been a hot topic as to what happend during their exiles.

I am not sure what heavenly place the Ayodhyavasis got but I think that it was too high a place for them. It was certainly incredible when Sita Devi asked Ram to love them as he would love Kush and Lav. Sita, when she went into the Earth did not think about anything else except proving herself and ceasing to exist. Now that she had proved herself (vindicated her honour even by the standards of guilty unless proven innocent) the people were probably convinced of her chastity. But I do not know if they ever repented.

My thoughts as to why Ram accepted the people to come along with him when he decided to leave the Earth - It was said that Ram gave up all desires and went to the Sarayu (probably with the satisfaction of having done his duty). A person in such a state would not remember any enemities or ties of his life.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

I read somewhere that the Ayodhyavasis, inspite of their false accusations and mindset on Sitaji, had immense love and belief in Ramji. They loved him as much as their own heart and soul. And thats the reason why Ramji takes them along with him to Vaikunt. But I wonder how they differentiated Sitaji from Ramji. They were one in soul. Whatever, this in no way justifies them accusing Sita Mata.

I like this thought too 😈, that they in Duryodhan's army and are killed by Bhim or Arjun!

I still don't get it how they were able to tear Sita Devi from Ram even within their minds . . .

I agree that this in no way justifies them accusing Maharani Sita.

In Duryodhan's Army???😡

Why not make them Lavanasur's breakfast? 😈😈😈