Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 37

Originally posted by: godisone

Good observation Chen2chic
Good explanation Ananya!

Originally posted by: rajnish_here

thanks ananya for explaining it so elaborately👏
I read one more reason why viraadh took sita away from Ram. The reason is Ram has never killed any Rakshas in the presence of Sita - Subaahu, Taadakaa, Viraadh, Khar, Dooshan, Mareech, or anyone including Ravan... for She is the benevolent one to all sinners and pardons them if surrendered in faith at Her feet, being the incarnation of Lakshmi.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Thanks Ananya, godisone & Rajnish for your responses and thnx Ananya for the detailed explanation. I did not know the Viraadh incident was depicted only in the Valmiki Ramayan. Thanks for that piece of info.

And also I feel as per Valmiki, Sita has been portrayed as a lady with immense guts and devotion to her Lord Shri Ram.

But speaking further, I feel both the above facts ie Viraadh's capturing Sita and Ravan capturing Maya Sita would not hold good in the same version, right?

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Thanks Rimi, Lalitha, Deepa.

Rajnish: I missed the point that Ram didn't kill any rakshasas in front of Sita thanks for adding it .

Deepa: I think Viraadh episode is there in Ramcharitmanas too but don't know how its explained there.

Lalitha: Yes the concept of chaya or maya Sita is more than that Ravan couldn't touch her.

First of all its the devotees who had that objection : How could Ravana take hold of Sita?! Its their hatred towards Ravan , they couldn't imagine Ravan touching Sita plus Ram-Sita are divine and they have knowledge about their divinity, only in versions like Ramcharitmanas , Kamban Ramayan, Adhyatma Ramayan and all the other prominent versions like Krittivaas Ramayan etc. ..while its not so in Valmiki's.

The older version of Ramayan was shown in late 1980s?

The concept of Chaya Sita might have worked well then ...You can see that in the current serial there are many aspects included that go well in todays times. Also Sagars have shown many things 'differently' from their previous Ramayana so they possibly couldn't have repeated the same chaya Sita concept plus it isn't very convincing to today's sceptic youth.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

So much of discussion and I missed it. 😭

Sure. Its coming up . . . 😛

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Sure. Its coming up . . . 😛

Its just that I'm caught up with some work right now. Will put forth my opinions soon.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Sorry for late reply in this matter.

Thanks Vibs for correcting me, you're right, Bharat and Shatrughna stayed at Kekaya for 12 long years. Also I misquoted the verse its:

baala eva hi maatulyam bharato naayitastvayaa |
sannikarshhaachcha sauhaardam jaayate sthaavareshhvapi ||

(2-8-28) not 2-8-25 as said earlier

The verse loosely translated: Manthara says(Kaikeyi) "you sent Bharata away to your maternal home in his childhood itself , by sending him thus you've made Dasharatha have no endearment towards Bharata. (Do you know??)by being close even a life less thing gets attached to oneself.

I think this explains that since Bharat was away for such a long time everybody misunderstood him (Kaushalya, Dasharatha,Lakshman , Kaikeyi too might not have thought that Bharat would react in a way he did. Rama too must have misunderstood him [2-53])

I don't know much about BRC Ramayana , all I remember that Sita met Urmila before leaving to forest not sure whether she met Mandavi n Shrutakirti.

Vibs you can join the discussion any time, isn't it? 😊

and Rajnish, nice name given to this discussion "dheer veer gambhir"😉