Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 96

loveanime

I too read different versions as a kid, particularly ACK's. Even within that genre, there were conflicts between different books. Like the ACK VALMIKI had the story of Kush & Luv singing, followed by Sita's vow, whereas the ACK THE SONS OF RAMA had them capture the horse and fight, and no account of their singing.

Since Valmiki was the original, I've replaced everything I originally believed with whatever is in Valmiki's version. Thanks to a lot of people, particularly Ananya, for describing what it says - it is certainly a brushfire thru all the confusion.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

But there was one thing - Why he had to banish her to the forest instead of sending her?
If he had stripped her of her status or sent her back to her father, he'd have made it clear to the world that he himself did not accept her as the queen. He banished her because his subjects did not want her for his queen not because he wanted to punish her. The whole point of doing his duty would have gone to dust if he had made sure she was safe somewhere plainly in the sight of the people. Under the circumstances, the best he could do was to provide her a safe refuge and fulfill his duty as a husband. Would Sita have accepted to live as Ram's wife stripped of her title as queen? Would she bear the shame of being sent away to her father's home? This would have been an ultimate disgrace to her. As his wife, she was his responsibility. She was pregnant too at that time. But the Queen of Ayodhya had to accepted universally by all people. No matter what happened, she still would be his wife till they both chose to end the relationship. His responsibility was to take care of his wife's needs and he did just that.

Sorry, the italicized point you made above isn't invalidated were he to have either demoted her, or sent her to Mithila (incidentally, how would being sent to Mithila - her parent's home - have been any more shameful than sending her to a stranger Valmiki? Rama wouldn't have been indebted to Janak, but he certainly ended up indebted to Valmiki). He had already decided to strip her of her title as queen - that happened automatically when he sent her to Valmiki's ashram. Had he done what I was 'suggesting', the people of Ayodhya would still have gotten their wish - Sita wouldn't have been queen - but at the same time, Sita would still have had what she always wanted - the company of Rama. She wouldn't have been in sight of the people - there were private quarters in the palace, and the prople who resided there weren't there in full visibility of the people at the Ayodhya court, the way Maharani Sita was. By doing this, Rama would have fulfilled both his duties as king (by removing Sita as queen) and as husband (by assigning her to Kaushalya, she would have had his company whenever he visited Kaushalya). Remember - Sita didn't care for royal titles, and would happily have sacrificed that title had she been allowed to continue to serve her husband in some capacity, shorn of the luxuries.

In fact, here's a counter argument one can make. Kaushalya belonged to Rama. Janak belonged to Sita. Had Rama sent Sita to either of them, he'd not have been putting himself in debt on anybody. But by sending her to Valmiki, he made his entire family indebted to Valmiki. Wouldn't it have been better if he had kept her within the family, sans the Ayodhya maharani title?

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Ram accepting his kids was understandable too. As the Suryavanshis followed the practice of the eldest ruling his father's kingdom, Ram had accepted his kids. The people had finally accepted their queen's chastity and now Ram can also continue the ancient practice his family had followed. Its true that Bharat or Lakshman's sons could have taken up the mantle of being the King of Ayodhya, but his family would have preferred Ram's sons to do that.

That last part is incorrect - as Mando pointed out, the people never accepted her chastity, even after she took the vow. Rama accepting his kids without unconditionally accepting Sita was not understandable: either he publicly repudiated his subjects on Sita's chastity, in which case, his desire for his kids was acceptable, or he publicly accepted the unstated desires of his subjects to see that proven, in which case, his desire for the kis was unacceptable. Also, note that not all Suryavanshis had their eldest succeed them, for varying reasons, and it was one that Rama himself didn't really care for. That explains why he was too happy to give the kingdom to Bharat when it was desired of him, and why he left Bharat as yuvraj even after he got back his sons. In fact, after the demise of Lakshman, he first offered Bharat the throne. He should have pre-forced the issue by having Kush and Luv installed in their own kingdoms after Chandraketu and Angad were, and then gone through this process of seeing Ka'al and Durvasa.

The other evidence that Rama didn't care too much for this tradition of the eldest succeeding the throne was there in how he himself acted - not only did he force Shatrughan to become the ruler of Madhupura, but he had each of his nephews installed in kingdoms of their own, and even had Luv crowned. Had this been such a sacrosanct tradition, Rama would have crowned Kush the emperor of his kingdom, and had all his brothers become his courtiers and followers, instead of creating 7 more dynasties.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Sorry, the italicized point you made above isn't invalidated were he to have either demoted her, or sent her to Mithila (incidentally, how would being sent to Mithila - her parent's home - have been any more shameful than sending her to a stranger Valmiki? Rama wouldn't have been indebted to Janak, but he certainly ended up indebted to Valmiki). He had already decided to strip her of her title as queen - that happened automatically when he sent her to Valmiki's ashram. Had he done what I was 'suggesting', the people of Ayodhya would still have gotten their wish - Sita wouldn't have been queen - but at the same time, Sita would still have had what she always wanted - the company of Rama. She wouldn't have been in sight of the people - there were private quarters in the palace, and the prople who resided there weren't there in full visibility of the people at the Ayodhya court, the way Maharani Sita was. By doing this, Rama would have fulfilled both his duties as king (by removing Sita as queen) and as husband (by assigning her to Kaushalya, she would have had his company whenever he visited Kaushalya). Remember - Sita didn't care for royal titles, and would happily have sacrificed that title had she been allowed to continue to serve her husband in some capacity, shorn of the luxuries.

In fact, here's a counter argument one can make. Kaushalya belonged to Rama. Janak belonged to Sita. Had Rama sent Sita to either of them, he'd not have been putting himself in debt on anybody. But by sending her to Valmiki, he made his entire family indebted to Valmiki. Wouldn't it have been better if he had kept her within the family, sans the Ayodhya maharani title?

That last part is incorrect - as Mando pointed out, the people never accepted her chastity, even after she took the vow. Rama accepting his kids without unconditionally accepting Sita was not understandable: either he publicly repudiated his subjects on Sita's chastity, in which case, his desire for his kids was acceptable, or he publicly accepted the unstated desires of his subjects to see that proven, in which case, his desire for the kis was unacceptable. Also, note that not all Suryavanshis had their eldest succeed them, for varying reasons, and it was one that Rama himself didn't really care for. That explains why he was too happy to give the kingdom to Bharat when it was desired of him, and why he left Bharat as yuvraj even after he got back his sons. In fact, after the demise of Lakshman, he first offered Bharat the throne. He should have pre-forced the issue by having Kush and Luv installed in their own kingdoms after Chandraketu and Angad were, and then gone through this process of seeing Ka'al and Durvasa.

The other evidence that Rama didn't care too much for this tradition of the eldest succeeding the throne was there in how he himself acted - not only did he force Shatrughan to become the ruler of Madhupura, but he had each of his nephews installed in kingdoms of their own, and even had Luv crowned. Had this been such a sacrosanct tradition, Rama would have crowned Kush the emperor of his kingdom, and had all his brothers become his courtiers and followers, instead of creating 7 more dynasties.

So many posts here and that too in quick succession 😎

Originally posted by: ananyacool

So many posts here and that too in quick succession 😎

Thanks Vibs, Chandra bhaiya for versatile explaination...👍🏼👏

Agree Deepa, the avadhis wanted Ramji to severe ties from Sita ma ...and even if the Mithilavasis had sympathies with Mata Sita , it is that Mata Sita herself wouldn't have chosen to be at her maternal home with that (false) accusations.

Even today the people of Janakpur hold Avadhis responsible for what Mata Sita had to suffer and they always hesitate to find a "U.P" wala husband😈 for their daughters.

Their folk songs and worship of Ramji is in form of a 'protest'