Originally posted by: shruthiravi
7/10/2016
it is not Ram, but the laws are outlived. It is not Ram, but laws need change. While the law remains the same. To ensure law is changed Sita should not be called back.
Throughout the uttarkhand there is an underlying message rules are not just meant to be followed blindly
Ram delivers on the vachan to his praja that he will rule as per the law and to his wife that he will only have one wife. Sita banishment is based on the law of Ayodhya. A woman who stayed in other man's premise is impure. So Ram the king and Ram the husband becomes correct in keeping the murti and not searching Sita.
This was an avatar to show no matter what one can stay on the right path and ram does exactly that keeping the slightest to the largest form of dharm intact.
Now Sita's dialogue 12 years back she was the cause of sadness and now she is the cause of happiness. See when Mahalakshmi is send away from a home can anybody be truly happy. Will the kingdom have prosperity in real sense. They thought by having her as Queen the maryada is getting polluted, but after her banishment these people were afraid to look inward and lived in misery. She is the cause of happiness. Because Sita who went away 12 years back had lot of questions, unanswered grievances, still it is the vachan that Ram gave to her and her kids that kept her going. But Sita of today has her questions answered when she sees the murti and she blesses Ayodhya. That means true happiness will comeback. By staying true to her Raghunandan has ensured she brings only happiness to Ayodhya.
Now I get it when Sita went they were again in the pretence of happiness.
Let us come back to Luv-Kush. Actually they reminded me in a way of Arjuna standing against Bhishma in MB. What is the difference between Arjuna and Luv-kush. Why Arjuna had to be given knowledge of dharma by Krishna, why Luv-Kush didn't need it. Reason is perception. Luv-Kush doesn't know who Ram is. For them he is an unjust king. Arjun knows who is Bhishma to him. His Pitamaha. Interestingly Luv-Kush are Ram's blood children, while Arjuna has no blood connect with Bhishma. Still Arjuna hesitates to take the bow. If they had grown up in palace, their perception would have been different. They would have imbibed the toxic Raghukul ki maryada. But growing up in a pristine environment has instilled in them a sense of dharma that is inline with rules of Prakriti.
That's why Narayan had to take different avatars to break perception. Contrasting as that of ram and Krishna
Same principle Krishna tells Arjuna. You are not fighting the person, what they are trying to protect.
The essence of Gita
If you look they tell Laxman if he really cared for Sita, he should have stayed with her and took care of her. He shouldn't have left her in jungle because the king told so. In the question to Laxman Luv-Kush tell him if he had wanted, he could have raised the voice against the adharma that is being done to Sita. When adharma happened to Ram and when at the receiving end was Kaikeyi all the 3 brothers were quick to punish her and show their allegiance with dharma. But while on the receiving end was a woman and it is the man who did adharma why the same voice didn't come out. It was a beautiful question on gender disparity. How the so called people who tell who follow dharma are also biased. Ram's hands were tied. As he is the judge. But were the hands of brother's tied. Bharath argued on Dharma with Ram. Why they couldn't have argued on Dharma with Ram again. Here is the beauty of Rama. He had given his brothers freedom to defend his bhabi if they had wanted, whereas Yudhi takes away that freedom from his brother's when he makes them slave one after another. Unfortunately none of the brothers rise to the occasion.
Sita rekha is mentioned in few versions well now I understand why skr didn't take that up. Even if that was there they should have questioned ram. They felt for their brother but didn't understand him, he wanted them to question. Laxman bharat and shatrughn boiled against kaikeyi. Only ram was different and he brings about a difference
Parallel is Abhimanyu in Chakravyuha. 16 year old is brutally murdered to protect the system. Parallel is Soumya judgement. Technicality is used to defend a criminal like Govindachamy. Used to protect the perpetuators of a worst crime against a woman. Rape.
Even worst is an understatement for rape. Hope Sowmya gets justice. The people who'd defend such criminals why do they study law in the first place.
Ram was the judge of Nirbhaya case. He had to go as per law. But his brothers and other Ayodhya vasis could have discussed the futility of such a law, questioned Ram, challenged Ram. They didn't do it because according to them what Ram did was dharma. Same thing with Panchali. When she raves and rant the whole kurusabha stands mute because they feel what is happening to her is dharma.
They think ram is dharm if they had really had absolute surrender for ram. They would have understood his intend. Events are gods responsibility. Experience is mans responsibility
A Valmiki was needed to awake luv-Kush towards Dharma. A Krishna was needed to awake Arjuna towards Dharma. We have to see awakening always happens through a third party who observes both sides neutrally and then comes to the decision of what needs to be changed.
👏 This is one of my favourite analysis. My aim is to be a lawyer. Will follow the direction that God shows but I don't know if that really is my niyati. Precisely this is one of my favourite analysis. since I am using phone I couldn't differiantiate the text I Theo and what u originally posted sorry for that. IF 🤢 my post got deleted yesterday.
Book Talk
Bigg Boss 19
