Ramayan

   

any opinions...???

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 4

Page 1
Page   of 4
Page 2 Page 4

nila_music

Senior Member

nila_music

Joined: 14 May 2011

Posts: 316

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 7:14am | IP Logged
Hey all..i am silent reader in this forum...so thought of asking u guys something...well now the episodes are dealing with sita's kidnap...but want to ask u something...r u ppl justified with what lord ram did with sita devi when he heard ill things about her in ayodhya after they returned..from vanvas..u all know that lord ram sent sita devi to the forest...do u think it is correct??Confused

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

arti07manzilmukul

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "any opinions...???" in Ramayan forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

koolsadhu1000

IF-Sizzlerz

koolsadhu1000

Joined: 03 July 2007

Posts: 20037

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 9:16am | IP Logged
Yes it is correct as he did it to stop political unrest in the kingdom . What the dhobi said may be rubbish but it was the voice of the common people . And he could not ignore it . He was not just a lover and a husband but also a king and the responsibility of the welfare of many homes was on his head . If he had kept his wife due to his personal belief in her , dissatisfaction would have spread  like forest fire and riots would have broken out in the kingdom where for the sake of one , many lives would be at stake . The decision he took is not popular but it had to be taken and he is called Maryada Purushottam bcoz he took many such unpopular decisions objectively by suppressing his personal feelings . See that era , try not to judge him or any character in the Ramayan by the norms of today . A woman who stayed for months with a rakshasa king who abducted her ...naturally her chastity was spoken about ...whether it was her fault or not that she was abducted is another issue . Chastity meant a lot in those days . Nobody beleved in their hearts inspite of the agni pariksha that the rakshasa had spared her just like that ...though no one was saying it openly , and the drunk dhobi's words were the pulse of the common man that Ram sensed .

He then took that tough painful decision . She on her part brought up the twins alone ...single parenting in that era . She understood his decision making process . By the time the twins were found the sentiments of the commoners had diffused ...Ram's action of leaving his wife had calmed them down . It was astute political foresight . They then did not question the birth of the twins but demanded they should be brought back . But Sita now shone as an individual  and declared she was tired of being treated like a point to be proved to the subjects ...that she had enough . She gave the twins to him , told him to take care and embraced death . She knew that era would not let her live in peace . Neither was she wrong nor he . They both kept their personal feelings aside and made some decisions . My POV strictly .


Edited by koolsadhu1000 - 14 March 2013 at 9:18am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Kalapi..RamKiJanaki..

nila_music

Senior Member

nila_music

Joined: 14 May 2011

Posts: 316

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 9:33am | IP Logged
Originally posted by koolsadhu1000

Yes it is correct as he did it to stop political unrest in the kingdom . What the dhobi said may be rubbish but it was the voice of the common people . And he could not ignore it . He was not just a lover and a husband but also a king and the responsibility of the welfare of many homes was on his head . If he had kept his wife due to his personal belief in her , dissatisfaction would have spread  like forest fire and riots would have broken out in the kingdom where for the sake of one , many lives would be at stake . The decision he took is not popular but it had to be taken and he is called Maryada Purushottam bcoz he took many such unpopular decisions objectively by suppressing his personal feelings . See that era , try not to judge him or any character in the Ramayan by the norms of today . A woman who stayed for months with a rakshasa king who abducted her ...naturally her chastity was spoken about ...whether it was her fault or not that she was abducted is another issue . Chastity meant a lot in those days . Nobody beleved in their hearts inspite of the agni pariksha that the rakshasa had spared her just like that ...though no one was saying it openly , and the drunk dhobi's words were the pulse of the common man that Ram sensed .

He then took that tough painful decision . She on her part brought up the twins alone ...single parenting in that era . She understood his decision making process . By the time the twins were found the sentiments of the commoners had diffused ...Ram's action of leaving his wife had calmed them down . It was astute political foresight . They then did not question the birth of the twins but demanded they should be brought back . But Sita now shone as an individual  and declared she was tired of being treated like a point to be proved to the subjects ...that she had enough . She gave the twins to him , told him to take care and embraced death . She knew that era would not let her live in peace . Neither was she wrong nor he . They both kept their personal feelings aside and made some decisions . My POV strictly .





well ...my opinon is that..sita devi married him..a woman marries a stranger ..have belief in him..that he would support  her in very situation in her life..n vice versa..but he also gave her vows that he will never leave her in any cost..so is it rue that duty comes first ie. ppl comes first then family?? is it not importnat that even a wife same as the ppl of that kingdom..has faith in her husband..believed that he would support her..i am not saying ram was unfair to her..he was a gr8 husband..no one can be compared to him..but as a woman think...that ur husband would send u to the forest simply coz ppl thought like that...how can it be right?? she as a woman brought with gr8 difficulty her two children...end result  she lost her self respect..that is why she didn't go back to lord ram..n yeah this is what i think..correct me if i am wrong..

Kalapi

IF-Dazzler

Kalapi

Joined: 25 August 2010

Posts: 3877

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 9:45am | IP Logged
Yes, I agree with your analysis, for it life there can be conflict between a professional and personal life and the principle of greatest good should prevail...Ram was a King first and in those days the duty wasn't taken lightly...

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

koolsadhu1000

koolsadhu1000

IF-Sizzlerz

koolsadhu1000

Joined: 03 July 2007

Posts: 20037

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 9:46am | IP Logged
My dear she married a king . He stuck by his promise ...he never remarried ...not  after leaving her nor after her death for he lived a long life after her death . But marrying a king is not marrying a commoner dear . You don't get the joys and sorrows of a common person . Ever heard of the idiom ...uneasy lies the head that wears the crown ? 

Let us take the other option .He did not listen to the dhobi's opinion and didn't leave her . What do u think  would have happened ? The matter would be diffused and would have gone away just like that ? No way . What acute political foresight Ram had ! He knew in an instant that he had no option but to leave her before him . Political unrest was threatening to break out . I  for one will not blame him . Coz that would have meant the loss of many lives .

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Kalapi..RamKiJanaki..

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 43255

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 2:24pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by koolsadhu1000

Yes it is correct as he did it to stop political unrest in the kingdom . What the dhobi said may be rubbish but it was the voice of the common people . And he could not ignore it . He was not just a lover and a husband but also a king and the responsibility of the welfare of many homes was on his head . If he had kept his wife due to his personal belief in her , dissatisfaction would have spread  like forest fire and riots would have broken out in the kingdom where for the sake of one , many lives would be at stake . The decision he took is not popular but it had to be taken and he is called Maryada Purushottam bcoz he took many such unpopular decisions objectively by suppressing his personal feelings . See that era , try not to judge him or any character in the Ramayan by the norms of today . A woman who stayed for months with a rakshasa king who abducted her ...naturally her chastity was spoken about ...whether it was her fault or not that she was abducted is another issue . Chastity meant a lot in those days . Nobody beleved in their hearts inspite of the agni pariksha that the rakshasa had spared her just like that ...though no one was saying it openly , and the drunk dhobi's words were the pulse of the common man that Ram sensed .

He then took that tough painful decision . She on her part brought up the twins alone ...single parenting in that era . She understood his decision making process . By the time the twins were found the sentiments of the commoners had diffused ...Ram's action of leaving his wife had calmed them down . It was astute political foresight . They then did not question the birth of the twins but demanded they should be brought back . But Sita now shone as an individual  and declared she was tired of being treated like a point to be proved to the subjects ...that she had enough . She gave the twins to him , told him to take care and embraced death . She knew that era would not let her live in peace . Neither was she wrong nor he . They both kept their personal feelings aside and made some decisions . My POV strictly .
 
You know, I think this is the first time I have agreed with you in this forum!
 
Your explanation is exactly why I have never faulted Shri Ram for Sita's vanvaas.
 
I think the problem is that many people analyze Ramayan by today's norms. The feminism which is rampant today is very unforgiving of Shri Ram. But we should never analyze epics of the past by the norms today. Chastity was far more valued during Lord Ram's times than it is today.
 
Today dating, live-in relationships, and " physical relations" before marriage are all acceptable and thought to be the norm, so the huge emphasis on chastity placed in Ramayan is not understandable to many people. They do not understand why the people of Ayodhya were disturbed by the thought of an unchaste queen.
 
I am definitely not saying it's Sita's fault that she was kidnapped. I just empathize with both Ram and Sita's actions in Uttar Kand, not only Sita's. Shri Ram may have exiled her, but he did not live a happy life himself. The wife whom he loved more than his own life, he had to exile her. It's comparable to Dashrath exiling Shri Ram to the forests for 14 years. Dashrath could not live without Ram. Similarly, Ram only existed as a body in Ayodhya, but his soul was with Sita.
 
It is written not only in the Ramayan but also in the Vedas, that a King has NO right over his personal life. He may be the King, but he is the servant of the people. If necessary, a King must sacrifice every relationship in his life for the sake of his people, whether it be his mother, father, brother, sister, or wife. He must even sacrifice his life if need be. Although Ram is the one who ordered Sita to be left in the forests, it was actually the people of Ayodhya who exiled her. Ignoring their words would create political unrest in his kingdom, and that would not reflect well on Ram Rajya.
 
You correctly said that Sita not only married a man, she married a King. She herself knew the limitations of a King, which is why she did not revolt when Ram exiled her. She brought up her sons to respect their father and never once blamed Ram himself. She blamed the people of Ayodhya for creating the dilemma in her husband's life, but never once did she point a finger at Ram. Sita herself was educated and well-versed in the vedas. She knew what her husband's duty as a King was, and she supported him till the very end.
 
Both Ram and Sita were ideal human beings in their own way. Ram is called Maryada Purushotham because he respected EVERY relationship in his life, including that of a King and his people. He was not only a husband. He was also a King.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Kalapikoolsadhu1000

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 43255

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 2:27pm | IP Logged
Shri Ram also fulfilled the duty of a husband. Many people think he failed as a husband because of Uttar Kand, but he did not.
 
According to Valmiki Ramayan...
 
1. He told Lakshman to leave Sita near Valmiki's ashram. This way, he ensured Sita had shelter and would be taken care of.
 
2. He never remarried. Even when people forced him because of his Ashvamedh yagna, he placed a golden statue of Sita in her place. In this way, he respected the status of a wife and taught the importance of monogamy even in the absence of Sita.
 
I also read in some version that Shri Ram slept on a bed of grass after Sita's exile. He did not enjoy any of the pleasures of royalty and lived the life of a sanyaasi since that was how Sitaji would be living. Although he wore a crown on his bed, he was a yogi in mind, body, and action.
 
Shri Ram truly respected Sitaji in every manner and form.Clap The events of Uttar Kand do not destroy his greatness in any way. In fact, I believe that he only proved himself to be a greater man because of the sacrifices he made as King.


Edited by JanakiRaghunath - 14 March 2013 at 2:31pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Kalapikoolsadhu1000

koolsadhu1000

IF-Sizzlerz

koolsadhu1000

Joined: 03 July 2007

Posts: 20037

Posted: 14 March 2013 at 3:40pm | IP Logged
 JR  just see

14 years he spent in exile

exile meant no physical intimacy , life like a brahmachari

she has become pregnant  after the exile ended ...after 14 yrs

immediately he was forced to abandon her

that means only some months they got together

after that he lived again as if he lived in the forest as he had left her in the forest

he slept daily on darbha shayya ...bed of grass on the ground , ate fruit and roots

why

coz she must be living that life in forest

then when the twins were 12 he found her but she discarded her body and he returned as a lonely man with his sons

he lived for many years after that but without a wife , a woman at his side ...his brothers had wives but he was alone

imagine his life

all he got with his spouse were the 14 yrs in the exile bas

those too had their restrictions .

It is all very well for feminists in this age to talk about rights of a woman and blame him as unfair but

just consider the opposite ...what would have happened if he had not left her by sensing the simmering discontent

as u said a king had to take the pledge of the welfare of his subjects and of not giving his personal life precedence

its exactly like the Hippocrates oath that medical professsionals take today ...difference is in those eras those oaths were honoured .

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Kalapi..RamKiJanaki..

Post Reply New Post

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.