Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 95

Originally posted by: loveanime

Yeah why didn't she just do that. Take another Agni pariksha or some other oath, we would had our happy ending. But I guess that defeats the purpose of the moral of this story.

I guess what Ram is saying that if you don't have trust it doesnt matter how many pariksha's you take the trust is still lost forever. And also from Sita's point of view is it ok for her to be humiliated just to remain queen of Ayodhya. How great was her love for her beloved Ram, at what cost would she undergo this humiliation just to be with him. They would be together still by soul even if they dont live together, but by Subjecting Sita to another Pariksha would their relationship be ever the same or as pure and true. He would have to witness her humiliation, which would subject him to a life long guilt that he had to do that to her, and she would have to subject herself to this humiliation and she would never be able to look him in the eye or even face her family or her prajja because either they would feel sorry for her or they would still doubt her and she would spend the rest of her life worrying and dreading.

In the end that is what happened. Ram I think to some extent got desperate seeing Sita, he was like she is here I cant loser her now, I can be with her all she has to do is give one last test. But Sita knew it would not work and remembered her reason for being banished in the first place, it is like they were back in square one and she had no choice but to leave him.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

' Take Agni-pariksha or an oath' is easier said than done. Mata Sita was several months pregnant when she was left at Valmiki's ashram.

The people of Ayodhya had lost faith in their queen so ther wasn't any point in taking an agnipariksha or oath. Ramji doesn't 'divorce Sita ,they separated. thats the difference.

Later Ramji accepts Lav-Kush as his sons among the people who gathered at ashwamedha yajna , even before Mata Sita took an oath. Then she didn't have anything to prove. She took an oath because Ramji asked to.

Originally posted by: Mandodari

You are right Ananya. There is nothing to prove because even the people of Ayodhya see that Luva and Kusa are the splitting images of their father. At least in Valmiki, Rama just wants her to take an oath saying she stayed with Valmiki for those 12 years after she separated with her and that she did not seek shelter with anyone else. Valmiki also gives an oath saying Sita stayed at his ashram and she was treated like his daughter there. This oath of Valmiki is accepted. Ram also mentiones that he needs the oath as a king even if he knows personally that his Sita is pure. Sita being queen had to answer to her subjects even if they were 😈😈😈 like the Ayodhyavasis.
Sita just had to say she did not stay with anyone else for the 12 years. What was the need for her to go into the earth? I don't get it. Unless, the avatar had to end and this was the means to do it just like Sage Druvasa's curse hurried Lakshman off to heaven thereby forcing Ramji to leave for Vaikunt.

I think this oath taking by Sita and Sage Druvasa's curse to Lakshman was the catalyst that caused the Ram avatar to come to an end, that is all.

Originally posted by: loveanime

Isn't that part of the tragedy of Ramayan. The two people he loved the most leaving him, his wife and brother the two halves of his soul. Sita going to earth, and Lakshman getting cursed and him accepting death, then Ram too is desperate to leave after all that.

I guess Sita going to earth was inevitable because her role in the epic had come to an end, she was more like there to teach her prajja a lesson and make them repent, and when they did repent she forgave them and she left. Lakshman too had done his duty of serving his brother, and before that Ram was also deciding to leave Earth so in a way Lakshman being cursed was meant to be because he cant stay without Ram so it was like a gift for Lakshman to join his brother in Vaikunt. In the end it is a happy ending for all.

Originally posted by: ananyacool

Sita mata went into the earth because she felt humiliated😭 and decided that was it she had to do something which was permanent . She felt so humiliated that she was sure that restoring her the queen hood wasn't enough and her wounds wouldn't heal.

Mata Sita entering the earth is quite metaphorical; she emerged from earth and went back into it. IMO after she heard of another oath being asked ,she must have been heart broken,shocked and must have given up her life after her oath taking 😭

Just imagine taking an oath in an assembly full of people and in presence of her two teenaged sons, how humilating it must have been for her😭

Originally posted by: Mandodari

I don't know Ananya. I am a mom and I would never leave my son no matter what happened. I've had my share of problems in life, some major, but no matter what u never leave ur kids. It wasn't as if the kids were grown-up and married or something like that. They were only 12 and they needed their mother. I have the same problem with Ramji. Okay, he sent Sita away but why abandon his sons? He knew she was pregnant. He sent her to Valmiki ashram specifically because she had asked about living in Vanvas. He fulfills the wish of a pregnant woman. Lakshman tells her that when he leaves her outside the ashram.
There are lots of inconsistencies in the Uttarkhand which is why, I guess, many experts believe that Uttarkhand was not written by Valmiki at all.

Mandodari

Sita's reasons for leaving were completely understandable. Since she was being asked to swear to her chastity in front of everybody, she was taking a boatload of humiliation. Let's say she had taken an oath that had her survive it: what would have been the result? Not only would she have been accepted by Rama again, but she'd have been forced to sit with him on the throne of Ayodhya. In other words, the trade she'd have made would have been - her honor in lieu of the throne, a completely unacceptable proposition. Had she been offered an unconditional restoration of her honor and status, she'd more likely than not have accepted it. But this oath was a poison pill that ensured that it didn't happen.

Rama recognized this the moment she took the oath. He thought that by making her take the oath, he'd end this controversy for good, which he did (one way), but I also believe that had he known the cost, he'd either have accepted Valmiki's proof of her chastity, or have disregarded the demands for her return and instead sent her back to Valmiki, either with or without her kids. I also don't see why as far as the succession went, it was essential for him to get back his kids - Bharat was his yuvraj, he had kids of his own, and throw in Lakshman's, and the Raghu dynasty was fine even without Rama having any kids. It defies any ethical logic that Sita wasn't worthy of the throne, but her sons were.

Also, since the question was about Sita's chastity, did anybody who see the kids doubt that they were Sita's? How assinine were they? There was never any doubt that they were Sita's, and their resemblence to Rama convinced everyone that they were his (although I read somewhere that they had Sita's looks and Rama's valor). At any rate, while there were a few things that should have changed the ground realities of public opinion on Sita in those 12 years, point remained that Rama could have secured a future for Kush & Luv outside Ayodhya (like he eventually did) without invoking Sita's oath. After all, if kingdoms could be procured for the sons of Mandavi & Urmila, how difficult would it have been to similarly create kingdoms for the sons of Sita, where Rama wasn't previously the king, and therefore the inheritance question would have been irrelevant? She could have gone with them and been the rajmata of that place.

You are also right that the people of Ayodhya didn't repent, and I wouldn't have given them a quarter even if they did. After all, they caused all this misery, and if they were truely repentant, they'd have accepted their mistake without Sita's needing to take an oath. The fact that they didn't would have made any post oath apologies a lie, since they'd just have been reacting to the evidence, but wanting to avoid its fatal consequences.

As for why Rama sent Sita away when he did, he could have waited until she had the babies and then exiled her, but then, she'd have definitely ended her life, just like she said she would. If the Avadhis could doubt Sita's chastity, they'd have doubted Kush & Luv's parentage, so he'd then have had to disinherit them. Plus, like you point out, they needed their mother, so such an act of depriving them of their mother shortly after they were born would have been even more cruel than what he actually ended up doing. However, I don't think it was necessary for him to send Sita to Valmiki's. He could have sent her to Mithila with a letter of explanation to Janak, who'd have been happy to accomodate her. He could have stripped her of the title of queen, made her a maid of Kaushalya, and thereby given the rajmatas the private happiness of having Sita with them, and seeing their kids grow up. While asking Lakshman to leave her near Valmiki's ashram was more merciful than leaving her in the middle of the jungle, as is popularly believed, I don't think that was the best decision, even for the circumstances. Also, one of the side effects of his decision was the perception of an assumption of guilt unless proven innocent - a terrible message to send to any society.

Plus, on the question of Sita leaving her kids, she knew that from then on, they'd have their father and rest of the family to love and take care of them: for maternal affection, they'd have their 3 grandmothers and 3 aunts. She did know that they were in safe hands. As for why she didn't look at anyone - Rama, Kaushalya, Kush, Luv, et al, it's possible that she didn't want their last images of her to be that of her sorrowful face.

Okay, off my soap box! For now

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Mandodari

Sita's reasons for leaving were completely understandable. Since she was being asked to swear to her chastity in front of everybody, she was taking a boatload of humiliation. Let's say she had taken an oath that had her survive it: what would have been the result? Not only would she have been accepted by Rama again, but she'd have been forced to sit with him on the throne of Ayodhya. In other words, the trade she'd have made would have been - her honor in lieu of the throne, a completely unacceptable proposition. Had she been offered an unconditional restoration of her honor and status, she'd more likely than not have accepted it. But this oath was a poison pill that ensured that it didn't happen.

Rama recognized this the moment she took the oath. He thought that by making her take the oath, he'd end this controversy for good, which he did (one way), but I also believe that had he known the cost, he'd either have accepted Valmiki's proof of her chastity, or have disregarded the demands for her return and instead sent her back to Valmiki, either with or without her kids. I also don't see why as far as the succession went, it was essential for him to get back his kids - Bharat was his yuvraj, he had kids of his own, and throw in Lakshman's, and the Raghu dynasty was fine even without Rama having any kids. It defies any ethical logic that Sita wasn't worthy of the throne, but her sons were.

Also, since the question was about Sita's chastity, did anybody who see the kids doubt that they were Sita's? How assinine were they? There was never any doubt that they were Sita's, and their resemblence to Rama convinced everyone that they were his (although I read somewhere that they had Sita's looks and Rama's valor). At any rate, while there were a few things that should have changed the ground realities of public opinion on Sita in those 12 years, point remained that Rama could have secured a future for Kush & Luv outside Ayodhya (like he eventually did) without invoking Sita's oath. After all, if kingdoms could be procured for the sons of Mandavi & Urmila, how difficult would it have been to similarly create kingdoms for the sons of Sita, where Rama wasn't previously the king, and therefore the inheritance question would have been irrelevant? She could have gone with them and been the rajmata of that place.

You are also right that the people of Ayodhya didn't repent, and I wouldn't have given them a quarter even if they did. After all, they caused all this misery, and if they were truely repentant, they'd have accepted their mistake without Sita's needing to take an oath. The fact that they didn't would have made any post oath apologies a lie, since they'd just have been reacting to the evidence, but wanting to avoid its fatal consequences.

As for why Rama sent Sita away when he did, he could have waited until she had the babies and then exiled her, but then, she'd have definitely ended her life, just like she said she would. If the Avadhis could doubt Sita's chastity, they'd have doubted Kush & Luv's parentage, so he'd then have had to disinherit them. Plus, like you point out, they needed their mother, so such an act of depriving them of their mother shortly after they were born would have been even more cruel than what he actually ended up doing. However, I don't think it was necessary for him to send Sita to Valmiki's. He could have sent her to Mithila with a letter of explanation to Janak, who'd have been happy to accomodate her. He could have stripped her of the title of queen, made her a maid of Kaushalya, and thereby given the rajmatas the private happiness of having Sita with them, and seeing their kids grow up. While asking Lakshman to leave her near Valmiki's ashram was more merciful than leaving her in the middle of the jungle, as is popularly believed, I don't think that was the best decision, even for the circumstances. Also, one of the side effects of his decision was the perception of an assumption of guilt unless proven innocent - a terrible message to send to any society.

Plus, on the question of Sita leaving her kids, she knew that from then on, they'd have their father and rest of the family to love and take care of them: for maternal affection, they'd have their 3 grandmothers and 3 aunts. She did know that they were in safe hands. As for why she didn't look at anyone - Rama, Kaushalya, Kush, Luv, et al, it's possible that she didn't want their last images of her to be that of her sorrowful face.

Okay, off my soap box! For now