Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan

First Previous

Page

119

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 16 years ago

#51

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Thanks Purvi. Yeah, just recently Bhajji and Mona Singh did a Ravan Sita dance. I read it in the news. I heard that many people were very upset. I also heard it was done as a joke but it implies Ravan and Sita had some fun in Ashoka Vatika. I was just thinking, after reading the views on the forum and after hearing about this dance, "What would have happened to Sita's honor, self-esteem, and sense of self if Ramji had not asked for the Agni Pariksha?

Just imagine the gossip in the forums, Bhajji/Mona Singh type of dances, double entendre type of humor, saas shouting at her bahu if she suspects her bahu of something (Sita did it long time ago and now I have a bahu who is doing the same thing kind of dialogues or something like who knows what Sita actually did in the Vatika for a year), and downright crude and nasty jokes all unleashed on Sita throughout the ages.

Now the majority of the anger is directed towards Ramji. I personally think that Ram avataar was the greatest among all the avaatars. No offense to any other avataar because anything Vishnuji does is great. 😃

Though I agreed with Chandra ji earlier that we can discuss it later after we had watched the episodes in which they show the scenes, I'll just put in one more point.

There is just one point I forgot to mention. Much of the common folk had mis - interpreted this incident. Apart from the rumour of whether Sita was chaste or not, there was the rumour that Ram himself needed proof - he himself tested Sita. Though Ram did not do it for this reason, by asking her to vinidcate her own honour, he did create this impression on his people. I hate it when people catch hold of a wrong concept and blow it up so big.😡

Quote

purvi

@coolpurvi

Voyager

Posted: 16 years ago

#52

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Though I agreed with Chandra ji earlier that we can discuss it later after we had watched the episodes in which they show the scenes, I'll just put in one more point.

There is just one point I forgot to mention. Much of the common folk had mis - interpreted this incident. Apart from the rumour of whether Sita was chaste or not, there was the rumour that Ram himself needed proof - he himself tested Sita. Though Ram did not do it for this reason, by asking her to vinidcate her own honour, he did create this impression on his people. I hate it when people catch hold of a wrong concept and blow it up so big.😡

yup agree with u. even I dont like hypocrate people who in the one hand criticize Ram for being so harsh to Sita and on the other hand crack jokes on Sita's abduction n her one year stay at Lanka. totally agee with waht u said. I had posted my views on this thread
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/ramayan/993083/agni-pareeksha

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#53

Originally posted by: akhl

Agnidev must have made fire cool for Sita.😊

Maybe, but even then, it was controversial. Had Sita chosen to (with the implicit consent of Rama) walk on a bed of roses, that would have turned to thorns had she been unchaste, it would have created a lot less controversy. It's the walking barefoot on fire that particularly jar modern sensibilities.

Also, Parashurama wiped out 21 generations of kshatriyas for the fault of just one kshatriya family - Kartavirya Arjuna's. Similarly, Rama too should have wiped out anybody and everybody that harbored crass thoughts about Sita. Particularly since whether Sita was chaste or not was nobody's business but Rama's. But I'll discuss that aspect more when we get to the vanvas.

Edited by Chandraketu - 16 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#54

One request to Akhl - can this thread be made a permanent sticky, since it's for discussion on ongoing doubts and controversies in the Ramayan, rather than just the topic of the week? That way, we don't create new threads for similar purposes?

Quote

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 16 years ago

#55

Originally posted by: Chandraketu
One request to Akhl - can this thread be made a permanent sticky, since it's for discussion on ongoing doubts and controversies in the Ramayan, rather than just the topic of the week? That way, we don't create new threads for similar purposes?

I was of the same opinion. It was getting too difficult to search the second and third pages for this topic everyday.

Can this topic be made sticky ?

Quote

bharat9

@bharat9

Dazzler

Posted: 16 years ago

#56

Originally posted by: coolpurvi
Great explanation Chandra, Mandodari, Sunithi, Vibhishna. So great we have such talented scholars in this forum

I just want to add few words here. We all have heard many people sayng in love " i love u more than my own life"

But Lord Ram loved Sita not only nore than his life but also more than his own honour n image. He knew that now after Agni pariksha n second exile Sita no will ever doubt her purity but world will blame him for being so unjust n uncaring towards her. Had he not done that people wud have cracked dirty jokes on her. Imagine waht kalyug people wud hav thought had He not done that. But Sita's honour n image was more important to Lord Ram more than His own honour n image. I agree with Mandodari that by doing so Ramji shifted the focus of blame, gossip, and wrong judgments by people from Sita to himself to spare Sita of any more humiliation.

This is so true that Ramji actually shifted the focus of blame upon Him instead of Sita mata!
He is a truly Maryada-Purshotama in each and every point.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#57

Originally posted by: Chandraketu
Maybe, but even then, it was controversial. Had Sita chosen to (with the implicit consent of Rama) walk on a bed of roses, that would have turned to thorns had she been unchaste, it would have created a lot less controversy. It's the walking barefoot on fire that particularly jar modern sensibilities.

Also, Parashurama wiped out 21 generations of kshatriyas for the fault of just one kshatriya family - Kartavirya Arjuna's. Similarly, Rama too should have wiped out anybody and everybody that harbored crass thoughts about Sita. Particularly since whether Sita was chaste or not was nobody's business but Rama's. But I'll discuss that aspect more when we get to the vanvas.

If Rama wiped out anyone who had cross thoughts about Sita, how would he be called a good King? People would have said that King Rama did not respect the opinion of his people, and anyone who spoke against him would get killed. Rama's reign as a King would not have been glorious if the people did not respect him.

If Rama was not a King, then whether Sita was chaste or not would have been his business only, but once he became King and Sita Queen, their business became everyone's. A King and Queen cannot have any secrets, and they have no business that the people don't know of. They became the idols for the people, and people followed their example. Rama knew Sita was chaste, all the vanaras knew Sita was chaste, and all the Gods also knew. But the people did not believe in the Agni Pariskha because they were not there to witness it. Unfortunately, that's how society is, even today. Anything they don't see, they don't believe. Women would have used Sita as an excuse for their bad conduct, and that would have tained Sita Mata's name, the honor of the Raghu Vansh and Ram, and also that of Nimi Vansh. That's why Sita's exile was necessary, though both Rama and Sita suffered a lot.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#58

Originally posted by: godisone
If Rama wiped out anyone who had cross thoughts about Sita, how would he be called a good King? People would have said that King Rama did not respect the opinion of his people, and anyone who spoke against him would get killed. Rama's reign as a King would not have been glorious if the people did not respect him.

Well, the theory doing the rounds here (which I consider very plausible, btw) is that Rama chose to divert public slander of Sita to a criticism of him. Had he done what I suggested above and massacred all the gossips, he'd still be criticized and diverting attention from innuendo about Sita, but without making her suffer. You are forgetting that in those times, kings had dictatorial powers, including in Ayodhya. So Rama was under no obligation to reward public innuendos about Sita by having her go through the Agni-pariksha.

Originally posted by: godisone
If Rama was not a King, then whether Sita was chaste or not would have been his business only, but once he became King and Sita Queen, their business became everyone's. A King and Queen cannot have any secrets, and they have no business that the people don't know of.They became the idols for the people, and people followed their example.

Sorry, but no! If a Queen conspires to change the succession plans, like Kaikeyi did, it is a public affair. But if it's a question of whether the King believes in his queen or not, that's his and his affair alone, and nobody else's. Also remember, Rama forced the public to accept Dasharath/Kaikeyi's decision, and that too on a question that directly affected them, so don't say that he had no power to force his will on the public. If he could get the public to go along with a decision that so directly affected them, then how can one claim that he couldn't have done the same with a decision that had nothing to do with them - namely what he did in his private time? Also, the queen was a mere figurehead, and not an alternate ruler, as was the case with, say, Rani Durgavati or Rani Lakshmibhai of Jhansi. There was never any question of Sita ruling Ayodhya, or running things.

Originally posted by: godisone
Rama knew Sita was chaste, all the vanaras knew Sita was chaste, and all the Gods also knew. But the people did not believe in the Agni Pariskha because they were not there to witness it.Unfortunately, that's how society is, even today.Anything they don't see, they don't believe.Women would have used Sita as an excuse for their bad conduct, and that would have tained Sita Mata's name, the honor of the Raghu Vansh and Ram, and also that of Nimi Vansh. That's why Sita's exile was necessary, though both Rama and Sita suffered a lot.

Again, no it wasn't. I'll get to it later when the subject of the vanvas comes up, but like I once pointed out, there were a lot of things Rama could have done short of exiling her.

Quote

desichica

@desichica

Dazzler

Posted: 16 years ago

#59

Hey Avinash...is it possible to make this thread a sticky, since it is very vital to discussions...it saves the whole DOTW thread!!!!!! I think it wud be good to make this sticky!!!!

Quote

ananyacool

@ananyacool

Voyager

Posted: 16 years ago

#60

Originally posted by: akhl

Agnidev must have made fire cool for Sita.😊

In Kamban's Ramayana, Kamban describes Sita entering fire was like goddess Lakshmi entering her original abode full of lotuses under her feet; fire was like lotus to Sita.

Quote

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 119

Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 6

Related Topics

Explore Topics