Rani Sunaina's dilemma;sita-rama's next test - Page 2

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Queens (mothers of sons) did not attend weddings in the treta yuga. This was not a ritual that just Ayodhya followed, but all of Aryavrat. SKR wrongly pointed this out as a difference in Ayodhya's customs. If Raja Janak had a son, Sunaina wouldn't have attended the wedding in the princess's kingdom.

The reason behind this custom is that the queens' main role in all the wedding festivities was to welcome the bride on her return home. They would take care of all the arrangements at their own home, and once they welcomed the bride, other post-wedding rituals would follow which they were in charge of.

The role of women in weddings was different. While a princess was still in her natal home, it was the duty of the mother of the bride to oversee all the wedding arrangements, and after the wedding, it was the role of the mother of the groom to take over. This symbolized the transition of a woman from maiden to wife.

Mother of bride was required to be in the wedding, as she and the father both performed kanya daan, but mother of groom has no role in wedding rituals so she was busy preparing for the bride's welcome party back home. This was not something she could delegate to others, as this was her job and it was considered auspicious for mother of groom, who was like Lakshmi of the home, to welcome the new Lakshmi into the family.

Not all rituals are "ridiculous". We may not like them, but they do have a reason and it's important to understand the reason without cribbing and complaining. Of course, today it's different but lifestyle in the Vedic era was very different and we have to understand that.

Originally posted by: TOTAL-ROMANTIC

Beautiful post dear, too good.🤗 I have been saying this that im shocked,iwth Ayodhya's too rigid restrictions on females, But just you wait, our Sita & Ram will make the change dear, thats why they have highlighted this point which no one bothered to show earlier. I am so glad they are doing this. it is so touching..Love it..#SiyaKeRam

Originally posted by: willina

thank you for the explanation,😊 yes when you explain it like that it does sound beautiful,

but as I said no matter what the rules are, if someone is not happy doing it, is it right to force someone to follow it? The mothers of Ayodhya, were not happy with this ritual, but they have no say in what they want, is this right? Where does it say the mothers were not happy? SKR? Is it even a source to judge Ramayan or its characters by? As far as Valmiki writes, the mothers were happily preparing for the arrival of the bahus and spent the time while the baraat was away donating to the poor, distributing sweets to every house in Ayodhya, decoaring the palace and basically keeping busy with the rituals.

I am not talking about this show , how accurate or distorted it is, I am saying the difference of following a tradition with love, and forced to carry out a ritual...

and if it was so justified, why does it seem so wrong to me or to so many other people? Because people today live in a very different time period, and did not have the same opinions and feelings as the people in treta yuga. We cannot say people back then found certain rituals offensive just because we do today.

I just feel this issue is much more complex and needs to be handled with sensitivity and care. Agree, which the CVs are not doing well. Portraying Ayodhya as this regressive place and the Queens as these unhappy people is NOT handling it sensitively.