EXAMPLE from NATURE ........right or wrong

yesterday when I heard sita and ram discussion ...she took example from nature regarding individual existence in forest ...she tried to justify her point by showing animals behavior ...
NOW my point of discussion is it right for us humans to take examples of nature? ...animals which are different from us biologically ...
she took the example of female animals and their alone survival in forest dangerous environment and also protecting her kids without the help of male counterpart ...but aren't these animals biologically different from us ...they are designed to stay alone ...they can never stay together ...this is their way existence ...they have evolved during centuries for this lifestyle ...nature have choosen this for them ...but we humans ...we are different... we are evolved for stay in groups ...this is our way of existence ...nature have chosen this lifestyle for us ...
WHY is saying it here is ...because she said she can ensure her survival for long time in forest without any help ...but is it possible ...she is talking about a place where rakshaas live ...and they generally attack in group ...can she fight back a whole group of those fierce being ...and will survive for sure ...don't u think her survival chances are very less(and also any member of that area is afraid to go alone) ...
let's leave her come to present situation ... any human thinking of going alone deep in a forest (I mean reserved are where fierce animals persist) ...and thinks that he /she can survive ...I agree we all have a potential to fight back and survive all alone ...but don't you think our enemy is designed(I am using this word here to define their body structure and habits) this way only ...think u encounter with a group of lion ...what are chances that u will survive ...they will surely try to kill you for food & safety ...that too in night ...their strong zone and our weak zone ...and at the same time if u encounter with a tiger what are your survival chances (of course more than group of lion) ...we all know lion and tiger are equally fierce fir bhi jungle ka raja tho sher he khalata ha ...because lions are bigger threat for us as compared to tiger ...[under these situation even well trained people try to reach a safe place i.e. a village or colony of people for help, ensuring survival ]...
now coming to nature rules ...elephant stay in group and tiger alone ...we consider tiger(carnivorous) dangerous but elephant(herbivorous) not that much ...but have u ever observed a tiger/lion group messing with a group of elephants ...no because he/she know they are potential threat him/her ...every animal have it own equation ...
also tribals...they survive in forest because they stay in group ...attack in group, well trained for those conditions, have ancestoral knowledge ...but still they also die in encounter with animals...
NOW coming back to show when lakshman (general thinking) said about sita(anyone without training or knowledge) safety was out of concern that she (anyone) need time to adapt to forest conditions...when others at ashram(human nature to find easy way and safe to stay in large group) said was also their way of protecting her ...[which I found totally unjust ...because she is not alone and is with two people who are well known to these type of conditions and experienced ]...and in a way she will be proved strength to them ( women require less energy and are more mentally stable under food scarcity, again a biological advantage)... she will also learn survival tactics in their company ... why I am saying it because all 3 have each other company and they covers up each other disadvantage effeciently, a perfect group ... asharm people cannot protect themselves and their children how are they able to protect her better than the raghukul brothers ...
ALSO...,coming to EPIC it never gave any message against nature and its decision ...it always shows to survive in wild (under nature, not artificial environment made by us) humans have to stay in GROUP (ram was never alone in any battle ...he always have company guidance) ...if they split apart all of them are more vulnerable ...like what happened at the time of SITA HARAN ...ranvan was quite clear with his strategy ...first split them then attack ...he send mareech ...ram go behind him alone ...he was successful in creating illusion ...then lakshman and sita also split up ...and till the time lakshman reach ram ...ravan fooled sita with his maya(illusion) ...and they(all) fall in his(ravan) trap ... again for finding sita and fought with ravan .. they took help of whole army ...RAVAN DIED because he di separated from his brother( insulted him and throw him out of city) ...which later joined ram (for total different reason) and ravan's whole clan approx destroyed ...except vibhishan because he was more adaptive ...
see I here want to say if you are evolved to stay in group better do that ...instead of comparing yourself with others who are evolved to stay alone ( they can never survive in group ...and they don't even try so)...I agree one should change according to circumstances ...
but what I want to say in short is NATURE CHOOSES EVERYONE ONES LIFESTYLE ...we are evolved in that way ...everyone tries to adapt to changing nature ...but their capacity is limited ...that's why older species are replaced by new one ...its nature cycle no one can change it ...so better adapt accordingly for maximum survival ...
NOTE : this is not meant for comparison of ability of man and women survival in wild alone i.e. who is better ...or to offend sita ma or any other epic character in any way..
what I want to question is human thinking to control nature according to its wish??? ...to quote examples from nature without understanding its circumstances its decision????
it is a qs on present day human thinking (both men and women) the way they are hell bent on controlling nature and decide its rule ...but actually we are from nature ...not nature from us ...our survival depends on it not its existence on us ...so act according to its rule ...not make our own ...
we are gifted with great reasoning power to understand nature not to regulate it ...
p.s. if you read please review ...whether you agree or disagree with me

Very good observation Rex.

Originally posted by: jayvenk

Very good observation Rex.

The point CV wanted to make was good. But well if one sits back and thinks it over and scratches the surface a little the difference between animals and humans is huge.

One major difference is animals don't rape and don't kill for fun, A MAN does both.

There are animals that do live in groups

Elephants lions monkeys wolves

And yes when attacked they do defend in groups.

The babies are normally protected and outside ring is made iof the alpha.

I agree with you jayvenk ...all I want to convey is ...taking example from nature is wrong ...they have their own rule ...and regarding humans there are many flaws which you pointed out right ...but one should fought them back as humans ...no need to include animals(nature) in between

@Rex 2 things. About fighting. See it is not about comparing humans and animals. But understanding our strength. I have put it in DD's thread a woman is most ferocious when she is protecting. Mother Nature who guards her kids against every odds. It is very difficult to beat a mother who will do anything to protect her child. Whether it is animal or it is human this nature of woman is same. She will go any extend to protect the one she loves. Anything she will do. Right or wrong is secondary. That's why she is called Durga. So instead of telling you can survive alone, understand when you will be able to do it. Only when you protect. It is not abour survival, it is not about justice, but about protection.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

@Rex 2 things. About fighting. See it is not about comparing humans and animals. But understanding our strength. I have put it in DD's thread a woman is most ferocious when she is protecting. Mother Nature who guards her kids against every odds. It is very difficult to beat a mother who will do anything to protect her child. Whether it is animal or it is human this nature of woman is same. She will go any extend to protect the one she loves. Anything she will do. Right or wrong is secondary. That's why she is called Durga. So instead of telling you can survive alone, understand when you will be able to do it. Only when you protect. It is not abour survival, it is not about justice, but about protection.

</div>

What is the beauty of Lakshman saying no to Nidra or sleep. He wants to protect. How is Hanuman reaching Lanka and be there as a spy alone, how he manages to bring to Sanjeevani. Again it is protection. He want to protect Ram. And he knows Ram's protection is in knowing Sita is safe, Lakshman is safe. He obeys Prakriti's laws completely to achieve his mission, unlike Lakshman who breaks Prakriti's law.

Same is with Krishna. He is sitting there to protect Arjuna. In protecting Arjun, he is protecting dharma.

Both Hanuman and Krishna uses Adharma methods for protection. Hanuman enters Lanka stealthily, he burns Lanka, he destroys Ashoka vatika. Krishna creates illusion bringing Jayadrath in direct line of fire. But understand that they are not breaking Prakriti's laws.

Problem is when we mix sanskriti with prakriti. Understand the law of Prakriti. Take that learning and use it rightly within the sanskriti.

<div>Both Hanuman and Krishna teaches this. They do it alone.

I agree with you completely you justified it correctly ...
that krishna and hanuman do things alone to protect dharma ...they knew their strength and others weakness ...also a mother is most fierce creature when it is upto the protection of her child ...( in present context I read a news where a mother moved the car to protect her child, 2-3years ago)...at that time she uses every inch of her strength/capability ...
they both found others weakness knowing themselves (understanding prakriti)...and a mother she just react and fulfill her task using every single life experience ...they use every hook and crook according to themselves ... not by quoting someone others capabilities ...they learn lifetime and react ...in right time at right place according to situation and their knowledge

Shruthi u explanation is spot on.

I think Sita was just questioning the stereotype society has of women and she used animals as example.

humans are gregarious in nature and dats the key for their survival and success as well as species (of course, no denying that intelligence has made the physically weak humans sit at the top of evolution :)) ...but yes, it is not about man or woman to say that they can survive alone, it is abt the whole human species. one human cannot survive alone.

As symbolism yes the message was clear. But that clarity is for viewers who are looking way beyond the spoken words. Or say reading between the lines.

Originally posted by: jayvenk

As symbolism yes the message was clear. But that clarity is for viewers who are looking way beyond the spoken words. Or say reading between the lines.

For most it might have been a comparison between animal and man.

For the basics there is no difference between humans and animals we are the same.

But that is where it stops. The basics. Beyond that we are poles apart.

Just my POV.