Laws of nature- Theory by Janak, Application by Ram

I would say yesterday's epi was quite scientific. I mean Janak talks about the laws of nature and tells that laws of nature should not be tampered with. Because nature is supreme and we should not try to control it. He gives an example also telling he was against doing Yagya for rain was because that was against the law of nature. Because nature creates everything for a reason and only if try to overcome it within the laws of nature more happiness will be there.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

I would say yesterday's epi was quite scientific. I mean Janak talks about the laws of nature and tells that laws of nature should not be tampered with. Because nature is supreme and we should not try to control it. He gives an example also telling he was against doing Yagya for rain was because that was against the law of nature. Because nature creates everything for a reason and only if try to overcome it within the laws of nature more happiness will be there.

Beautiful analysis shruthi. 👏
@bold: Yes, for me yesterday episode was more of Geophysics and planetary physics of present time.
Self-satisfaction is the utmost happiness and is hard to obtain. I saw this behaviour in both Ram and Janak.
I wrote in another thread about my few thoughts about the episode. So I dont want to be repetitive here.
Yes, the fundamental laws are the same w.r.t different frame of references, but the observation differs. Both Dhasarath and Jaank are kings (though difference in power and authority) and moreover father, but for me it seems dhasarath was more like a guru attraction towards sons while janak was more fatherly towards daughters. I don't know whether that attitude is because of gender difference. Dhasarath seems to be more keen on getting the sons ready to be a warrior and be next on the race for throne. But on the other hand, Janak was more philosophical in bringing up his daughters.

Yes Dasrath was like a guru, because he knows his sons has to take the throne, rule the subjects, defend the country against enemies.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

Yes Dasrath was like a guru, because he knows his sons has to take the throne, rule the subjects, defend the country against enemies.

Janak was philosophical because I guess his nature or the way he ruled the kingdom has ensured there are no enemies of Mithila, or satya exists in his land, people don't fight over petty things.

Because they see in their king a man who not only talks, but walk the talk. Janak's principles are not simply told, he practices them. And even if he had a son I don't think Janak would have given him different teaching. And why I feel Janak had a daughter is because, his teachings had wide applications and only a daughter can take it to different place, apply it there too.

Because only a daughter goes to a different place post marriage, but son brings home a woman from other culture and she may have tampered with the culture Janak build in.

So maybe it is nature's way of telling. I am giving you a daughter because I feel you have values that respect me. Make her spread those values.

@bold: Yes, absolutely, but it was/is not practised. What I feel is, though Sita entered Ayodhya with her principles (what she learned from parents, guru) she only followed what practised in ayodhya that too mainly by Ram. It became like shishya obeying guru rather than husband-wife taking decision together. So I actually want to see how the show project this aspect of sita standing on her principles w/o hurting husband and in-laws.
@blue: well said. Actually I want this thought to be in action.

@Ramya I strongly feel its a myth Sita followed what was done in Ayodhya. A myth that is used to subjudicate woman telling post marriage she is like a slave to her husband's family. She has come there only to service them and has no individuality. Ram-Sita was never guru-Shishya. In Ayodhya Kand Sita argues about Patni Dharm to Ram and forces him to allow her to come with him for Vanvass. I really want the show to break the myth of woman having to adapt to her husband's family leaving her individuality in the name of Sita atleast.

@shruthiravi: Yes I agree, that she argued with Ram and went with him during their exile but she didnt stand up during agnipariksha and when she was thrown out to forest hearing washerman words. These are my long time doubts which I want to get clarified. Hope show do the justice.

Yes, Sita is a beautiful portrayal but my all time favourite outstanding lady character is drupathi😊

I even heard some argument about who was the best wife between sita and mandodari. The argument was like being good wife to a good husband is not as difficult as being good wife to bad husband. Can I know your take in this?

@Ramya like you my all time favourite character is Draupadi. With just one question the woman gives her husbands a chance to fight. If she had agreed to her husband's POV in, infamous hall of dice even Lord Krishna couldn't save Pandavas from becoming slaves of Kauravas. Krishna knew the woman Panchali is and without her Dharma cannot be established. That's why he deliberately makes Panchali reject Karna, so that only Arjun marries her. If you look it is Panchali's varmala that brings Pandavas in contention who are wandering like nomads post Varnavath.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

@Ramya like you my all time favourite character is Draupadi. With just one question the woman gives her husbands a chance to fight. If she had agreed to her husband's POV in, infamous hall of dice even Lord Krishna couldn't save Pandavas from becoming slaves of Kauravas. Krishna knew the woman Panchali is and without her Dharma cannot be established. That's why he deliberately makes Panchali reject Karna, so that only Arjun marries her. If you look it is Panchali's varmala that brings Pandavas in contention who are wandering like nomads post Varnavath.

Now coming to Sita and Mandodari if you see Hinduism doesn't differentiate them. Both are part of Panch Kanya. So is Panchali. As I understood reading the lines why the Panch Kanya set up is made is, these woman were extremely pure by mind. They had chances to go astray. Sita could have choosen the powerful Ravan in Lanka. Yet she choose to remain faithful to Ram, Indra had to come in the form of Rishi Gauthama to get Ahalya as no other way can bring him near to her, Panchali had 5 husbands so in exile there was a chance to fall prey to Keechaka or Jayadrath, she doesn't and remain loyal to her 5 husbands.

Mandodari belonged to a clan where women had multiple dalliances and it was approved of. Look at Surpanakha. But she was steadfast in her devotion to one man. And Tara post the death of her husband, she obeys the rule of her clan to marry his brother. So the Panch Kanya concept itself is to highlight what society considers bad or affects chastity is not like that. It has to be look at from situational perspective. Why the women did what they did.

And if you look and seriously ask me among Sita and Mandodari who. I will say Mandodhari. Reason being after being in a clan that allows multiple dalliances, to remain steadfast in your belief is a hard task. But was Ravan a bad husband. Yes in Sita's case he doesn't hear Mandodhari. But then as per the story I know Ravan does love Mandodari. Because in the Ram-Ravan war it is Mandodhari or illusion of Mandodhari is used to break Ravan's havan. Yes to protect Mandodhari Ravan stops the havan mid way which was the intention of vanar sena.

So my reason for supporting Mandodhari is the fact that she was able to rise above her clans rule and show an alternate path for the women of her clan.

@bold: Yes, its because of draupadi only pandavas fought against adharma. For me, its not draupadi just an external/internal triggering pulse to enhance the action of pandavas, but it was her own war with her own 5 senses.
I heard a version of MB where draupadi during her swayamvar thought to marry karn for a moment. I don't believe it. Because when Dhrishtadyumna knew about his birth cause why not draupadi knew it?

@green : yes indeed. These women remained what they were and not subjected to seasonal changes.
@red:hmmm. I agree to some extent. The main issue is even though ravan was a demon he was good to mandodari, (by the way, thank u for enlightening me about havan matter, i didn't know it before) and he loved her. So its obvious that mandodari was good and caring towards ravan and she does not underwent any circumstances which could have tested her loyalty to Ravan. But in case of sita, she was tortured by Ravan & Co to oblige him, in spite of that she maintained her principles and was true to Ram.

Draupadi was not sure what to do. Because Karna was an invited guest for Swayamvar, he was a king and he was attempting to hit the fish's eye. She was not sure whether she can reject him. She looks at Krishna and he says yes understanding what she is intending to do. So Draupadi's hesitation was about whether to stand mute or say no is my take there. That's why it comes in the last second before he sends the arrow. But I have heard a version where post marriage going through trials Draupadi had thought about what would have been her life if she had married Karna.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

Draupadi was not sure what to do. Because Karna was an invited guest for Swayamvar, he was a king and he was attempting to hit the fish's eye. She was not sure whether she can reject him. She looks at Krishna and he says yes understanding what she is intending to do. So Draupadi's hesitation was about whether to stand mute or say no is my take there. That's why it comes in the last second before he sends the arrow. But I have heard a version where post marriage going through trials Draupadi had thought about what would have been her life if she had married Karna.

http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/865/do-the-scriptures-indicate-that-draupadi-regretted-not-allowing-karna-to-partici

So maybe that might have happened. But then MB and Ramayan both are open for intrapretation

@bold: well, I understood that. The statement I made that draupadi knew about her birth cause was not reply to your take, thats why I mentioned it as a separate para.
But coming back to that draupathi's regretted stuff, is somewhat not believable for two reasons
1. She knew what's her birth motive
2. She even knew about Arjun before swayamvar. (I may be wrong)

About the link, I dont think draupadi knew about the karn birth secret before his death.
I heard a story. where during exile time, unknowingly pandavas pluck a fruit from the tree which grows once in 12yrs and the rishi (forgot the name) use to have only that in whole 12 yrs. So when Krishna told pandavas and draupadi to tell the hidden truth, so that the fruit will get stuck back to tree. While everyone told the truth and draupadi was forced by the situation to admit that she thought to marry karna at that moment. This is what I meant in my post. I differ in my view.

@green: Certainly. We can always agree to disagree in our view points and can look forward.😊