Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan II - Page 50

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Ananya

Chatter asks a good question. When Sita took her vow, were K-L there to witness it in the original Valmiki? If no, that alone might explain how they managed to be composed. Also, when they sung all this, were they supposed to be empty minded and not think an iota of what they were singing? B'cos if they were to sing of Sita's demise, that too would have traumatized them, even if they weren't there to witness it.

Originally posted by: Khalrika

I think according to Valmiki the kids see the golden statue of their mother and guess the truth. Ramji and the audience come to know as they sing. Also, the boys are suppposed to have a strong resemblance to Ramji. The kids do see the oath being taken. They seem to have turned out well in the end. Both of them become good kings as adults. Also, Ramji was a very good father to them from the time he takes over. As a mother I can say that little kids are very resilient and if other members of the family handle any bad situation right they do grow up ok.

That's a separate issue from the question at hand, which was whether K-L continued singing the Ramayan the very next day. Put yourself in their place. You've just seen your mother, who was the only person you knew for the last 12 years, disappear in a flash, the father who you never knew in turmoil... would you be in the condition to continue to even talk, let alone sing?

I think that for that occasion, Valmiki may have calmed them, but I don't think this singing continued - the Ramayan singing was done! I think this was probably one of the 'embellishments' by later pundits who thought they were doing Rama, K-L a favor by portraying this.

Of course, over time, things would have healed, and if they had any understandable resentment towards Rama, that would have blown over by then. Yeah, kids do prevail over ugly situations. But not in the manner as described in Valmiki 7:98-99

#500!!!

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Vibs

That is one of the things I think might have been a latter distortion. Just a psychological analysis would show it's impossible. In 2:103:3, when Rama heard the news of Dasharath's death, he fainted and collapsed on the ground like a tree that had been cut down. And one is supposed to believe that after witnessing the passing of their mother and the shock it produced in their father, his sons were unaffected enough to continue singing? And what was Brahma - another sadist in the image of the Sagar scriptwriters to ask Rama to simply ask them to sing away? I actually think that this portion, like the Shambhuka and the Kalapati de Kalanjar stories, was a later addition.

I don't think the kids knew what would happen to Sita. In 1:4:36, they seem to have sung everything until Sita's exile {Then those two singers, motivated by Rama's words, sang the ballad in maarga system, for they are well versed in it, then even Rama, who is also in the congregation, again to pacify his mind, [for the story of Seetha puts his mind to turmoil,] became interested at heart [to continue listening Seetha's story...] }, so it's not true as is sometimes claimed that they sang only until the end of the Yudha-kand. If true, they probably received that knowledge of what would happen to Rama in the aftermath of Sita's passing, not before. But no, I don't find that believable.

I also read that K-L sang the remainder of the story to the rishis and other audience, but not to RLBS or UMS or KSK. But if that was the case, how would Rama get calm if he wasn't there to listen to the rest of the story? I think that after that, he probably took them and turned them over to Kaushalya, and continued w/ the yagna.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

.

This brings to mind a different question. After Lakshman had passed on, Rama decided that he couldn't take it anymore and asked Bharat to succeed him, while he went and joined Lakshman. Why didn't he simply do that w/ Sita - after the yagna, hand things over to Bharat or Lakshman, ask them to transition things to their own kids and to K-L as well before joining him? How come Sita's passing was bearable for him, but Lakshman's wasn't? Isn't one of the lessons from the Ramayan that a spouse is supposed to be an eternal companion, and closer than a sibling? 😕

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

True it does, but in many instances Ram himself declares that he valued Lakshman more than he valued Sita.

When Lakshman was hurt in the battlefield and showed no signs of life, Ram lamented saying "I can find another like Sita among the best of womankind but I can never find another brother like you."

My guess was that Sita was already separated from him for a long time but Lakshman was always with him. He had given her up - thought the separation and the knowledge that she is no more is painful he had already been away from her.

Probably when Lakshman too left him, he couldn't take it anymore. Even when Sita was separated from him, he found little comfort in Lakshman's company. Probably he felt that he couldn't carry on when the only person who had been his shadow (except the 1 year he was away from him) had gone away from him.

I am not saying that Sita was less devoted to Ram than Lakshman but Ram must have been more affected by the loss of Lakshman than when he lost Sita.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Vibs

That's a good explanation, although somehow, I find it hard to justify, even though I can understand it.

One thing - when Rama promised Ka'al that he'd execute anyone who sees them, that was a promise he followed in a modified way - instead of executing Lakshman, he disowned him, and Lakshman went and was taken by Indra to Vaikuntha. So once Rama had disowned Lakshman, when he decided that he could no longer live w/o Lakshman and would go to join him, wasn't he breaking his vow? Granted, he didn't take a vow to disown him, but since that was his substitution for an execution, how exactly did he fulfil that promise by following Lakshman once he was gone? Under terms of this vow, he should have continued to rule as though nothing had happened, so that it also looked like he had actually disowned Lakshman. If he had executed Lakshman and then decided to give up his life, that would have been one thing, but since he disowned Lakshman, wouldn't joining him be symbolic of repossessing him? Or was the fact that Lakshman was no more a fulfillment of the 'execution' requirement, and therefore, Rama was at liberty to repossess him? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Nice Q&A, Chandra & Vibs ! Vibs - your explanation does seem fit. But just a question here. How much was the time gap bet. Lakshman's & Ram's passing. Did it happen immediately or what?