Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath
I just think it depends on what we believe.😊 Some people connect to the "real Sita" concept more while some people connect with the "chhaya Sita" concept.
Personally, I believe the real Sita was kidnapped. I find the Chhaya Sita concept hard to believe because then, the suffering of Ram and Sita was all fake.🤔 I feel like we all can learn a lot from their suffering and how they bore their pain, and to think that it was all a drama for others to see doesn't hold with me.So when Sita blesses Hanuman in Sundar Kand, it was a fake Sita who blessed him?😳 Then how can that blessing be real? The Sundar Kand is really special to me and I don't want to imagine that it was Chhaya Sita who blessed Hanuman.Although Sita Haran is very painful for devotees, I still prefer to think it's the real Sita who was kidnapped. I can connect more with the characters that way.
Originally posted by: nneeiill
whether it is chaya sita or real sita hardly matters coz after all it is roop of sita maa only..
my question is...was real sitamaa abducted by ravana ? or chaya sita went in her place???
As others have said, it depends upon which is your favourite version of Ramayan, and you are free to choose your favourite. But as nneeiill said (bit tricky, typing her username correctly), real or chaya, simply doesn't matter. 😃
Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath
If the explanation was that Ravan would not be able to touch the real Sita, how could he touch her Chhaya if it was another aspect of her?I guess this is what confuses me about this version.Maybe we could look at it this way. Let's talk about two versions only, Ram Charit Manas & valmiki Ramayan, otherwise this post will be too long. 😆
Talking of RCM, when from the first page to the last, readers are reminded again & again that Sita & Ram are the Parmatma, and then, readers are also told Raavan was unable to cross Lakshman rekha (and do remember that Tulsidasji has described both Lakshman rekha & Raavan's inability to cross it, in Manas, but not where he should have ideally mentioned it, but way later in Lanka Kand, during one of Mandodari-Raavan conversations), then to say that though Raavan was unable to cross a line drawn by a parikar (Shri Lakshman) of Maa Sita, but moments after that, was able to abduct the Parmeshwari herself!!, you can see for yourself that this makes little sense. But Raavan needed to abduct someone for this play to progress, so he is allowed to abduct an image of Sita.
But this line of thinking which I've just mentioned can easily be negated by any incisive reader of RCM & Valmiki Ramayan, because a keen reader can easily point out that in Valmiki Ramayan (VR) too, from beginning till end, sage Valmiki has established again & again & again that Sita & Ram are the Supreme Being.
For example, when Valmiki describes what Mandodari says (after Raavan's death I think), he very clearly & unequivocally establishes the identity of Sita & Ram as Lakshmi & Vishnu respectively. Read those verses where Mandodari says, "Ram is the supreme yogi, the eternal supreme soul without a beginning or an end. Ram wields a conch, a disc, has Srivats (Lakshmi's mark) on his heart, unconquerable, perpetual, the never changing supreme soul of creation."
Further, Valmiki then establishes the identity of Sita by saying, "Sita is the earth of earth, Shri of Shri (lakshmi of lakshmi)", and so on. He also establishes that Sita & Ram are one, and not two, by describing both of them using same words, "Shri of Shri."
Rama is the illuminator of Sun, the God of fire, glory of glories, God of gods, even Shri of Shri (husband of mahaLakshmi.)- Sumitra-Kaushalya conversation.
Rama is the sheltering tree, the supreme refuge, the supreme protector of all, the only personality who is to be praised. – Tara telling Bali.
Devrishi Narad telling sage Valmiki, "Sita is the eternal consort of Lord Rama, most dear to him, like his own existence." (I remember Valmiki's exact words in Sanskrit, "Ramasya bharya nityam, prana sama hita.")
Sitaji telling Devi Anusuya, "I don't emerge from a mother's womb."
Devtas telling King janak, "Sita is a divine child without a match."
So when Valmiki establishes so many times the identity of Ram & Sita, then why no mention of chaya Sita in Valmiki Ramayan? I can answer this by concentrating on the primary concern of sage Valmiki when writing the Ramayan. Valmiki says right at the beginning of his book that, "Sita's story is the most important aspect of Ramayan ("Sitaya charitam mahatv").
Then he narrates the entire story to Lav & Kush. Now, as you said, it's when we don't mention chaya Sita, and when we read about Sitaji's second vanvaas & stay at Valmiki ashram, the story of Sita becomes that much more anguishing, more aching to the heart. Maybe that's what Valmiki wanted, especially when he knew that he will be recounting the story to the sons of Sita. 😊
nice post...well there are two versions of maya sita... one tht suggest lord rama made real sita disappear and placed an illusionary sita...the other version tht mentions sita entered into the fire as soon as ravana entered the cottage and chaya sita appeared, it was Janaki herself who disappeared from the scene, to reappear from the pyre at the end of the scene of her repudiation and Rama had no role in it
as every one said……… every Poet or author had his own vision and narrated the epic in his own way its their will and their creativity how they present this epic…but for me this maya sita epi appears as a safe invention to satisfy the devotees...it was for those who could not bear the abduction of a holy diety and the hard hearted image of lord rama tht was depicted later on...
if real sita disappeared and it was illusionary sita in her place the emotions and the hardship tht lord rama underwent on the separation looks artificial...lord rama was a truthful person he was one who speaks truth and righteous if real sita was safe then y did he didn't said truth to sugreev hanuman shabari ...y did he lament for sita's abduction? was it for this maya sita he entered into the friendship with sugreev? he constructed ram setu and risked the life of his devotee and friends ? was it correct not to tell them truth behind the fire pre? y everything was kept in secret ? wast was the point
and wat is the point of acknowledging sita's strength if maya sita went in her place...what would be the importance of agony of separation and the courage and the strength sita tht sita displayed in ashok van... if it wasn't real….wat an injustice it would be on sita maa if we think The greatest part of sita's tragedy didn't befall on her but tht was illusionary one ? y would one grief on her sorrow in ashok van and rejoice on her happiness? as janaki pointed the pious hanuman and sita maa meeting at ashok van wil become pointless
and then if illusionay sita went with ravana then y real sita maa had to face exile was she the real one did real sita maa went back with mother earth ?? too confusing
I believe the maya sita is a safe theory to protect sita maa and lord rama from so called false allegation tht cloud later on….. the false allegation tht ppl perceived something tht was baseless
Thts my POV no offence to anyone
Originally posted by: Krishni51
In Valmiki Ramayan Shri Ram never asked Maa Sita to give a fire test!Did he?He just disowned her and advised her to fix her mind on any of these (Lakshman,Bharat,Shatrughna,Vibhishana,Sugreeva etc.)He said "Go wherever you like. All these ten directions are open to you, my dear lady!"Maa Sita herself decided to enter the fire coz Shri Rama disowned her!Nothing like "Agni Pareeksha" was mentioned!Dasharath who came along with celestial beings said ""This act (of entering into fire) which has been done by you and which reveals your true character, my daughter, is the most difficult task to perform for other ladies and will overshadow their illustriousness."Also Shri Ram thinks himself to be a Human Being and asks the celestial beings about his identity("I think of myself to be a human being, by name Rama, the son of Dasaratha. You, as a gracious Divinity, tell me that which I as such really am like this.")
comment:
p_commentcount