Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 58

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

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?

http://www.historicalrama.org/historicalrecords.html

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.)

Originally posted by: ananyacool

😲😲😲 So much of discussion gone into??😭😭😭

Anyways.....

@Vibhishna: BIG congratulations on 600+ 👏

@Chandra bhaiya: I dunno whether either me or Vibhishna can individually overtake you in becoming a Goldie but our posts, together have already overtaken that of urs😉

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.)

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Didn't Kush rule Dakshin Kosala with Kushasthali as capital?? I believe he didn't rule the Ayodhya which Ram ruled. Raghuvamsa describes that Kush wasn't ruling Ayodhya and the diety of Ayodhya(gram-devta) once appeared in his dream and describes the pathetic condition of an abandoned city which was once teeming with prosperity.....thus Kush again decides to shift back to Ayodhya.

and Lav and Kush or for that matter even Ram(after Sita's exile) couldn't reject Kingship according to the custom of treta yuga denying Kingship was as good as a sin; They couldn't deny ruling as it was their prime duty.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Lakshman was not in an obligation to accept, specially by birth he was younger to Bharat and there's difference between denying Kingship and crown prince post; Ram on his own accord asks Lakshman to be a crown prince.

I think u're being hard on gram-devta 😲 ahem! anyways.....

Sixteenth canto of Raghuvamsa describes about Kush's conversation with Gram-devta, Kush's marraige with Kumudvati and his rule in Ayodhya and how he dies battling a rakshasa( name not known) Seventeenth canto : Rule of Atithi and it accounts that he was even more illustrious then his father Kush

Raghuvamsa accounts till one descendant of Kush-Agnivarna.

Am not sure whether Ayodhya was a part of Kushasthali. Sorry

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

I agree that the people of Ayodhya did not deserve to go to Vaikunta with Rama, but that's just me. What made Shri Ram Maryada Purushotham was his ability to forgive. He forgave the people of Ayodhya for their sin of making false allegations on Devi Sita, because they were equal to his children. Shri Ram was the ocean of Mercy, and he once proclaimed that he would even forgive Ravan for the insult of abducting Sita, had Ravan returned Sita with honor and asked for forgiveness from Shri Ram (can you imagine Ravan doing that?😉😆).

And I think Kush accepted Ayodhya as not to hurt his father's feelings and insult his acestors. Just because the people of Ayodhya sinned by speaking falsely about Sitaji, that did not make the sacred land of Ayodhya cursed. It was the people who sinned, not the land, so why should they take their anger out on the land by refusing it? Also, what about the descendants of those who spoke ill of Sita Devi? Shri Ram ruled the people who insulted Sita, so wouldn't Kush and Luv rule the descendents of them? Why take their anger out on the descendents, who were after all innocent?

Many Kings of the Ikshvaku Vansh were valiant, victorious, and renowned. They all ruled Kosala with Ayodhya as their capital city (I think). Ayodhya was the site where Rama performed many Ashvamedha yagnas, thus making the land even more sacred, Ayodhya was the place where Raja Dasharath performed the holy Putrakameshti Yagna, and Ayodhya was the site where King Raghu performed 100 Ashvamedha Yagnas. Ayodhya was a very holy city, and despite being the place where Sita was insulted, I think Kush did not want to insult the valour of his ancestors, and reject the place which was the birthplace of his father, Lord Vishnu himself.

Sita Mata herself forgave the people of Ayodhya before invoking the Earth Goddess, so why should Kush feel angry at Ayodhya when his mother herself was not?

And I don't think Vibhishna was referring to Shri Ram's divinity when he said Ramji may have known beforehand of Sitaji's exile. In the Treta Yug, a woman's virtue and chastity was given much importance. Shri Ram, knowing (not by his divinity but by his experience as a human living in the Treta Yuga) that people would doubt Sita's chastity because she lived in Ravan's city for 10 months, had Sita go through the Agni Pariksha for her own benifit.

But would this erase the doubt from people who had not seen the Agni Pariksha? Probably not. Shri Ram may not have known definitely that Sita may had to undergo an exile, but I believe he knew of the posibility, and that possibility may have created a gnawing worry for him, and when he heard the washerman commenting on Sita's virtue, his possible fears proved true.