Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 57

Vibs

Congratulations on 600!!! Way to go!

Did Vyasa author the Krishna Puranas as well?

Re: Tara & Sugriv, I used to doubt that Tara married Sugriv, but reading 4-33-39:49, both the description and Lakshman refer to Sugriv as Tara's husband. If that's the case, would Tara have superceded Roma in seniority as a result of being Roma's didi when she was Vali's wife, or would she have been junior to Roma? It's unclear from the references. Nonetheless, when Sita was returning with Rama and Rama showed her Kishkindha, she asked that Tara and the vanara women accompany them: she didn't say Roma. Wonder whether that meant that even if Sugriv was king, Tara, rather than Roma was chief queen?

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Thanks Chandraketu.

One doubt - What happened to Tara if Ruma was made the queen? Were they both queens of Kishkindha?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

No, it's not. As you might guess, being a fan of Lakshman & Urmila, I took the name of one of their sons.

Re: Vyasa, I now see why you put equal weight to him as Valmiki, even though I still don't. I happen to believe in Dashavatar, and not in the 24-avatar, which would contradict the Dashavatar. (Reason I don't believe Vyasa as being an avatar is that Vishnu would have had to in the dwapar yuga replicate himself as both Krishna and Vyasa. I also don't comprehend the 'class of people' reasoning you put forth in the last para.

What I was asking in Vyasa's case was divine revealation for just the Ramayan, not the other scriptures, particularly due to its conflicts with Valmiki. I don't doubt the authenticity of what he wrote in the Mahabharata, or the Puranas that he authored (did he author all of them?) But due to the conflicts between Vyasa & Valmiki's account of Rama avatar, I feel compelled to ask this. No disrespect to Vyasa otherwise intended - please don't take it that way.

Originally posted by: bharat9

Thanks you for answering my question.
i always that that nobody knew about Sita Devi's pregnancy. I heard/read it some where that when Sita ji went to the exile she couldnt bear it and wanted to end her life at that time but then when she came to know her pregnancy she lived for her kids.

Originally posted by: Rajnish_Kumar

hi candra,
i really dint ment to offend you but your post revels it did, my sincere apologies. actually i read less than even 1% of hindu scriptures of which i understood even less than !% which take us in the world of nano 😃and i got 52% in nanotechnology😆, so i know littile more than nothing. I always respected your knowledge👏 and so my sincere apologies if i offended you😭. only i can say now i will give details of my each point in earliyr thred tomorrow, as its 2:45 IST and still don't know what m i doing🤣.
anyways i really fried chatter di head a big time and she is nt online now, so ask her i wud made her braid roast chiked if she wud not reply me tomorow 😆

Oh no, no offense taken: if anything, I thought I had offended you by questioning Vyasa's divine sources, and doubting his avatar: my apologies if that was the case😔. As far as knowledge goes, you are far ahead of me - don't be unduly modest - I don't know half the things about yugas, rituals and a whole bunch of stuff that you periodically post. Much of what I know are memories of my kiddie days when I was sunk in ACK's, and later in any written material on the Ramayan or Mahabharat or other Puranic stories (and these days, it's on the fly reference to websites 😃) (One more 'disagreement': It's not 2:45 IST - it's 2:00AM IST as I post - looking at the clock on the corner of my screen. 😆)

Nanotech? That's neat. One area that's seemingly on the borderline of Physics & Biotech. Me myself am right now brushing up on networking technology.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

Yes, everyone knew. Even the people of Ayodhya knew. Yet, they still talked about Sita Mata like that and had no pity for her.😭

I have a question. Was it only the people of Ayodhya who were super super super super strict about the chastity of their Queen? Because in the Kishkindha Kanda, after Vali died and Sugriva was made King, his wife Ruma (who Vali abducted and had *ahem* *ahem* yeah) was made Maharani, the people of Kishkindha had no problem with her being Queen, as far as I know at least. Was it because they were vanaras and they were more lenient, or was it just that the people of Ayodhya were different?

I never understood that part of Ramayan. Why was Ruma accpted as Maharani when a Mahasati like Sita Devi was not? Not to insult Ruma or anything, but I was just confused.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

This decision of Sita Devi, I feel, is a proof for her strong character and that she too fulfilled her duties as a queen and wife. Though her people never accepted her as a queen, she made sure she nurtured the future heirs of Ayodhya and left he earth only after she left the kids in her husband's care.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

That brings to mind a related question: why did Kush (& Luv) agree to accept Ayodhya throne at all? Couldn't they have simply told their father: "Look, we are not worthy of being kings of the kingdom that couldn't honor our mom as queen w/o humiliating her, and we aren't accepting the 'reward' at the price she paid. If we have to rule any kingdom (either due to your wish or hers), let it be outside this accursed land, like bhaiyas Taksha, Pushkal, Chandraketu and Angad." Words to that effect, but more respectfully made than how I did. I don't think Rama would have either disagreed, nor forced them to take it against their will.

I doubt it. I think we are reading too much into his divinity - more likely, he was probably shocked beyond belief that his subjects could be as lowly as to think in such terms.

No, like today, it was always the custom to have a plan B i.e. succession plan if anything happened to the King. Like Yudhisthir made Bhima the Yuvraj when he was crowned king of Hastinapur, and he kept it that way even after Parikshit was born. A better question to ask might be "Why did Rama (and Yudhisthir) not replace Bharat (and Bhima) with Kush (and Parikshit) the moment they were united with them (in Kush's case) or of age (in Parikshit's case)?" Maybe bcos that might be humiliating for Bharat losing the title, although from a kingdom's pov, it may have been better had Kush been yuvraj before being made king.

I don't think he knew it all along. This is one of those aspects that depends on what Rama knew about his divinity. If one believes Valmiki's version that he didn't, then it's safe to say that he didn't anticipate all this, and therefore, didn't experience any pain of this before it happened. If one believes Vyasa's version, however, then what you speculated may have happened. But had Rama known about his divinity, he wouldn't have been emotionally torn by exiling Sita, don't you think?

Undoubtedly. But Kush deserved a better kingdom than Ayodhya. He shouldn't have been left the scions of those lowlives (and no, those lowlives didn't deserve the right to accompany Rama to Vaikuntha: Rama should have asked Yamaraj to take them wherever.)

Ananya

In that case, how did Lakshman deny the yuvrajship of Ayodhya? I recognize that Rama couldn't turn down the kingdom after Sita's exile or passing, but Kush & Luv had every right to say that they weren't worthy of a kingdom that didn't find their mother worthy, no?

Also, Kush got Dakshin Kosala, which included Ayodhya, didn't he? He moved to a new capital Kushavati that was hastily made for him after Lakshman's passing (probably located in the Vindyas?).

Also, I think Gramdevata was pretty shameless for asking the son of the same Sita that her subjects insulted to come back and rule them. Kush should have told her something about Ayodhya suffering the consequences for its sins, rather than just oblige.

P.S. I knew Raghuvamsa as describing the rule of Dilipa, Raghu and Aja, and I thought it stopped there. Did it also cover the rule of Dasharath, Rama, Kush, and if so, where did it end? Brihadbala?