Questions on Ramayan - Page 3

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

It's highly unlikely that they are neanderthals because then some skeletons must have been found because if they were indeed present here some may have died in forests or not cremated? 

Also aren't they supposed to be from Eurasia? Difficult that they were in India.. Not possible without anthropological evidence. 

Definitely not possible. Plus Neanderthals ended around 50k years back. If Ramayana is true, it can not be so old, that was stone age and definitely no advancements

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Definitely not possible. Plus Neanderthals ended around 50k years back. If Ramayana is true, it can not be so old, that was stone age and definitely no advancements

Thanks for the answers! Posted new doubts in the last page too. Do let me know if u have any explanations 😆

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Thanks for the answers! Posted new doubts in the last page too. Do let me know if u have any explanations 😆

Actually I had responded to them within quote. Perhaps you didn't notice since there was no difference in question n response font

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Actually I had responded to them within quote. Perhaps you didn't notice since there was no difference in question n response font

Oh sorry let me check 😆

Just read your replies @FP-

I have not found a Ramayan to quote from online like MB. So I could not check and I really don't know where to look so that's why asking for help. I have watched most TV serials show Sita insulting Lakshman, and hence he went.. 

However if she did not then how come Lakshman was forced to go? 

I have also heard lakshman rekha is not there in Valmiki Ramayan. Heard Pattanaik say this. Is this true? 

About the Agnipariksha part, his subjects were asking for something cruel and unfair. First of all agnipariksha cannot prove anything but keeping the divine aspect here, is it viable to make a woman suffer this way while there was no test for the men.. As a good king and queen isn't it necessary to make it clear to the people that this is wrong and hypocrisy. Neither Ram nor Sita did that. IMO this isn't justified. 

Also can y'all tell me more about what was up with the women they left in Ayodhya. The three queens, Urmila? Not talking about Bharat and Shatrughan's wives as they were there. 

Agni Pariksha didn't prove anything but that is the cruel way the truth was judged in primitive days. Hell even today you would find videos circulating of women forced to touch red-hot iron by tounge to prove their chastity.

Now to be honest we understand that in today's scenario even if a woman in Seeta's condition was touched by her abductor, her chasity shouldn't be considered tarnished, but by the standards of those days, such woman were considered criminals, now if SriRam didn't punish Seeta for her "crime" how could he be a fair ruler? This was the Doubt of public. Being the rulers it was their duty to clear any doubt. 

He left her but never remarried, even not during the Ashwamedh Yagya at a time when it's a must. He had a gold idol of Seeta. It was a tight slap on the face of the people who had objected her. 

Plus I think they knew where Seeta is. They never visited Valmiki Ashram earlier but Shatrughan visited it on his journey towards Madhapur/Mathura. It seems they knew Seeta is there he went to take blessings, just they didn't declare it

Yes Lakshman Rekha isn't there in Valmiki Ramayana it's there in Tulsidas RamCharitManas

Seeta definitely chides, scolds and puts off Lakshman to ensure he leave to look for Ram, but she didn't put the point about him wanting to take her as wife

I understand that what Ram did was not in anyway to  harm Sita or for his own gains unlike say Yudhishthir in dice hall. However as a good ruler isn't it necessary to also bring reform in his kingdom rules and explain that what happened to Sita was not her fault so it was not wrong and she can't be punished. 

Kings were considered to be gods/representatives of God on earth. Why could not he have done what is right than what his praja thinks is right- which is unfair. It seems to me that he cared more about proving himself a good ruler and cared more about his praja than about his own wife. Technically he is doing injustice to his wife and choosing his people over him which I feel was not right.. 

Rather as a right ruler he should have pointed out this  unfairness isn't it? That is also the duty of a good ruler I feel. 

See this video guys exactly what I was saying these people make unnecessary claims

https://youtu.be/4BIPhASrTu8

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I understand that what Ram did was not in anyway to  harm Sita or for his own gains unlike say Yudhishthir in dice hall. However as a good ruler isn't it necessary to also bring reform in his kingdom rules and explain that what happened to Sita was not her fault so it was not wrong and she can't be punished. 

Kings were considered to be gods/representatives of God on earth. Why could not he have done what is right than what his praja thinks is right- which is unfair. It seems to me that he cared more about proving himself a good ruler and cared more about his praja than about his own wife. Technically he is doing injustice to his wife and choosing his people over him which I feel was not right.. 

Rather as a right ruler he should have pointed out this  unfairness isn't it? That is also the duty of a good ruler I feel. 

I think during those days it wasn't possible to go completely against the set norms. He did have his responsibility towards the citizens too

Saying that many people claim that Uttar Kand isn't real. They say it wasn't a part of the original Ramayana but was added later to malign it. They give multiple proofs for it. 

Although I don't think that the entire Kand could be later addition, but many portions certainly is. Shambuk killing definitely doesn't seem to be a part of the original Ramayana since it doesn't go with Ram's character at all