DOTW:Would you have criticized Rama if....

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Poll

he hadn't exiled Sita, hadn't asked for Agni praveshna or her shapat?

Frequent Posters

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 16 years ago

#31

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

In Valmiki Ramayana, Ramji instructed Lakshman to leave Sita in the vicinity of Valmiki's ashram so that she would always be taken care of. He did look into her comfort. He knew the whereabouts of both her and his kids always.

You're right - we had discussed this before when we were discussing why Ram had to banish Sita. As a husband he did what he could for her - by leaving her near an ashram of a great sage he not only ensured Sita's safety but also the education of his child(ren) who would be born to her.

Quote

Vibhishna

@Vibhishna

Dazzler

+ 3

Posted: 16 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

@bold -I think this wud not hv happened like this if there were no Sita exile. People might have revolted against Luv kush. I'll always prefer people respecting Ram -Sita n whole raghuvansh without having any doubts, ques or fear of punishment. I think the way God wrote the story is the BEST. Book cannot make one God in the eyes of people if contemprary public do not think so. God is one whom we trust beyond all doubts. It was must to wash all kinds of doubt abt Sita from the minds of public. She was Avtar of Goddess Laxmi. Do u think it wud have been better if incarnation of Goddess laxmi returned to Vaikuntha like this. Today if kalyug people consider Sita a PURITY herself its only becoz of the parikshas she gave. those incidents of Her life made Her one of the Greatest figure of indian epic. Its sacrifises n parikshas which makes one great. Ram had the duty of protecting the honour n image of his dynasty,His wife His unborn kids. What happened was the only apt way to do this.All I want to say is that Ramayan is not hindi flimy romantic story or a fairy tale written by Valmiki.

I am not sure if people would have openly revolted against Luv Kush - my guess is that they would have brought them up in their gossips like a standing joke - the way the washerman asked his wife "Do you think I am Ram to accept the woman who has stayed in another man's house as my wife?"

I do agree that even today we speak so highly of Ram and Sita becasue of the many tests that they both went through.

The reason we can think that Ram could have ignored the rumours (though we all very well know that he wouldn't have done that) is that one way to squash the rumours is to ignore it. But I very much doubt if it would have any effect on the people. Even if the time in Ayodhya was very eventful with one thing or the other, the people would bring up this issue whenever possible.

Quote

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

Deepa

@chen2chic

Navigator

Posted: 16 years ago

#33

Wonderful points/arguments so far....

Ram was thoroughly right in his duties as a King. And as a King, he expected his subjects to give his queen the same love and respect which he recieved. The people of Ayodhya had immense love for Ram which is why they were not ready to accept Sita as their queen. They thought Sita was tarnishing Ram's image. Little did they realise that Sita was not different from Ram. They could not raise themselves to the level to understand Sita's purity, hence Ram & Sita had to lower themselves to their subjects' level and undergo this turmoil.

And as already said, Ram & Sita happily live ever after was not the purpose of this avatar.

Quote

Khalrika

@Khalrika

Voyager

Posted: 16 years ago

#34

Sorry, the word "inappropriate" does not gel also. As I said earlier this is not a secular work. It is a religious work and has to be interpreted in the religious context.

The most important philosophy discussed here in the guise of Ramji taking all his subjects who asked to go with him is this: Vishnuji will do anything for his Bhakts as long as it asked with a pure heart. This theme is played in all Hindu writings. Also, one of the main things of Bhakti yoga is to renounce everything and then follow Bhagwan. Another point, unlike abrahamic religions, in Hinduism one does not have to wait for death to get to Vaikunt. I think all the great saints like Meera bhai, the southern saint Andal, and others did not wait for death. They got to go with the Paramatma before they officially died. There are innumerable stories in our purans where even ordinary people got to Vaikunt when alive because of the grace of Vishnuji. In fact, this way of going to Vaikunt is very much welcomed and considered holier than going after death. It is considered a gift from the Divine to be able to go that way.

In other avatars this did not happen because no one asked to follow Vishnuji. It was only in Ram avatar some avadhis who were his great devotees asked to follow him and he blessed them.

Sorry but criticizing a religious work without understanding its underlying philosophy is in itself inappropriate. Also, I think Hindu thought can stand on its own without having to use a secular yardstick or the point of view of other faiths yardstick to measure it.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 16 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: Khalrika
It is a religious work and has to be interpreted in the religious context.

This is a great point Khalrika.👏 Ramayana and Mahabharata are definitely historical events, yes, but they are most of all, religious works. To try to understand these in a modern secular sense will eventually prove impossible.

The Avadhis commited a great sin by making false allegations against their queen, but they did regret it after Sita made her vow. Though it does not say so in Valmiki Ramayana, if they had not regretted their sin, Ram would not take them to Vaikunt, would he? Plus, Ram treated them more as God would his devotees than a normal King would his subjects.

Quote

Khalrika

@Khalrika

Voyager

Posted: 16 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

This is a great point Khalrika.👏 Ramayana and Mahabharata are definitely historical events, yes, but they are most of all, religious works. To try to understand these in a modern secular sense will eventually prove impossible.

The Avadhis commited a great sin by making false allegations against their queen, but they did regret it after Sita made her vow. Though it does not say so in Valmiki Ramayana, if they had not regretted their sin, Ram would not take them to Vaikunt, would he? Plus, Ram treated them more as God would his devotees than a normal King would his subjects.

Yea, the avadhis do truly repent in the end. So, this is again a religious theme. No matter what mistakes u do as a human if there is true repentance u will be forgiven and blessed.

Quote

Kal El

@Kal El

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 16 years ago

#37

True, it is difficult for most people to separate the religious POV from the main historical issues due to the fact that after so many centuries and transformations of both the texts and religious beliefs, the two texts have become almost inseparable from religion. Unfortunate from the academic POV which needs to be neutral.

However, even from a religious POV, it must be remembered that different people interpret the same religion and religous text(s) in different ways. What is acceptable to one is not so for another. That is the nature of religion. Beauty in diversity.

The Valmiki chronicle of Emperor Rama's life is predominantly human with the religious notions of Ram as Narayan Avatar kept to a minimum. It appears to be from a transitional period when Vishnu and Shiva were starting to gain the prominence that we now take for granted. This creates an unique dichotomy in Valmiki's poem in the present form (which is not 100% the original since it has undergone changes over time; we only have manuscripts dating back to the 11th century C.E.) between the notion of idealized human figures and divine incarnations. The later versions and adaptations are far more open about the divine context because the religious and changes had taken hold by then.

Of course after centuries of religious transformations, most people could no longer look at it from a purely human POV and hence the beliefs that the Rama avatar had to be as human as possible, both to account for Ravana's boons (or lack thereof, since he didn't ask for protection against humans and animals) and to serve as the ideal man which would not be possible if he proclaimed Godhood from day one. It is a perfectly valid belief and I have nothing against it. It is quite beautiful in fact. 😳

Personally though, I prefer to try and go by Valmiki's predominantly human presentation of the story (in fact, if we account for interpolated verses, the divine context is even further reduced). To each their own. 😊

Edited by Kal El - 16 years ago

Quote

AngelTeen

@AngelTeen

Stunner

+ 8

Posted: 16 years ago

#38

For me, Sita's agni pareeksha was unncessary but even if Ram had to ask her to do it to satisfy Ayodhaya and carry out his Raj dharam, then there was no need for him to exile Sita or ask for shapat...that is when one has to criticise him...

He should have balanced raj dharam and his duty towards his wife..

Quote

rajnish kumar

@_rajnish_

Inactive

Posted: 16 years ago

#39

Originally posted by: AngelTeen
For me, Sita's agni pareeksha was unncessary but even if Ram had to ask her to do it to satisfy Ayodhaya and carry out his Raj dharam, then there was no need for him to exile Sita or ask for shapat...that is when one has to criticise him...

He should have balanced raj dharam and his duty towards his wife..

Sita herself gave agnipariksha and it was not unnecessary. We cannot judge situation of those times with today. Ram is not called Maryada Purushottam for nothing. He always respected the existing tradition (Maryada) of that time.To prove her chastity Sita has successfully undertaken Agnipariksha. This was necessory for her to be accepted as a queen of Ayodhya. Ram supported Agnipariksha as it was only way to prove her chastity though he never ever doubted sita. Agni Pariksha was the noblest of the Maryada (best tradition) prevailing at that time and only very chaste, pious and pure person could have passed this test.it has religious sanctity and while other evidence might lack corroborative witnesses, Agni Pariksha was performed by Sita in front of entire army. Agni Pariksha, can neither be ignored or rejected by the King. So it was indeed necessory
Regarding Balance between RAj dharm and and duty towards wife it was not possible for this situation for a true maryada follower king. When people started attacking sita chastity Ram consulted Royal family regarding gossips. He has to satisfy his subjects in every way. This is the first duty of a king. The only credible evidence that need to be looked at was Agni Pariksha. While Sita has testified that to prove her loyalty and chastity she has successfully undertaken Agni Pariksha test, peoples argued that this age old ritual did not in any way certify the loyalty or chastity of any woman. It was true that it required some special skills but those skills in no way certify the loyalty or chastity of a female. They requested that this test for such purpose be abandoned and hence forth decision on such matters may be taken on the bases of physical evidence.😡. So Ram has no options left he has to go on taking such decision of which both ram and sita suffered. The tradision demanded this and he has to accept. Was there any alternative left where people could be satisfied. NO and so he bannished sita to satisfy avadhis.

Quote

Rajdeep Chakraborty

@rajdeep4u

Explorer

Posted: 16 years ago

#40

It is easy to sit on throne but hard to remain faithful and honest to the throne..

With the incarnation of Parashuram Lord Vishnu destroyed the kshatriya or Rajkul.. so to refrain all Kshatriya's from the path of anachar

and as shri Ram he Shown the Manav samaj how to lead a pure life and to the Kshatriya Kings the true path of maintaining the duties and responsibilities of a king

What ever Shri Ram is justful from the perspective of a king... but to proove he punished not only Mata Sita and Lav Kush but also himself.