Ramayan

   

chaya sita or real sita ?

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 4

Page 1
Page   of 4
Page 2 Page 4

winterdusk

Goldie

winterdusk

Joined: 24 May 2011

Posts: 1353

Posted: 15 March 2013 at 10:03am | IP Logged
hey guyz i was reading valmiki and tulsidas ramayana ...sita abduction part always confuses me...chaya sita is mentioned in ramcharitmanas and other scriptures but valmiki ramayana doesnt mention  chaya sita ...

my question  is...was real sitamaa abducted by ravana ? or chaya sita went in her place??? 

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

sherlockarti07manzilmukulnneeiill

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "chaya sita or real sita ?" 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!

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44796

Posted: 15 March 2013 at 11:14am | IP Logged
I just think it depends on what we believe.Smile 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.Ermm 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?Stern Smile 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.

The following 9 member(s) liked the above post:

shanskarStalwart.jklpwinterdusksherlockarti07manzilmukulnneeiillkoolsadhu1000

arti07

IF-Sizzlerz

arti07

Joined: 08 October 2010

Posts: 13536

Posted: 15 March 2013 at 11:24am | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

I just think it depends on what we believe.Smile 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.Ermm 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?Stern Smile 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.
so true...ClapClapClap 

The following 8 member(s) liked the above post:

jklpwinterduskStalwart.sherlockmanzilmukulnneeiillkoolsadhu1000..RamKiJanaki..

nneeiill

IF-Sizzlerz

nneeiill

Joined: 02 June 2011

Posts: 12218

Posted: 15 March 2013 at 4:47pm | IP Logged
whether it is chaya sita or real sita hardly matters coz after all it  is  roop of sita maa only..

The following 7 member(s) liked the above post:

shanskarStalwart.winterdusksherlockarti07manzilmukul..RamKiJanaki..

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44796

Posted: 15 March 2013 at 6:48pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by nneeiill

whether it is chaya sita or real sita hardly matters coz after all it  is  roop of sita maa only..
 
What exactly does Chhaya mean? It translates to "shadow" right? So does that mean it was Sita's shadow that Ravan kidnapped? If it was another aspect of Sita Ma, then why would the real Sita go with Agni Dev? It wouldn't really make a difference, would it? 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. I'd rather believe that it was the real Sita who was kidnapped by Ravan. It's more simple and meaningful that way, at least for me.

The following 6 member(s) liked the above post:

winterduskStalwart.sherlockarti07manzilmukulnneeiill

sherlock

IF-Dazzler

sherlock

Joined: 12 February 2010

Posts: 3579

Posted: 16 March 2013 at 12:11am | IP Logged
Originally posted by sanjh11

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. Big smile

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

winterdusknneeiill

sherlock

IF-Dazzler

sherlock

Joined: 12 February 2010

Posts: 3579

Posted: 16 March 2013 at 12:24am | IP Logged
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. LOL

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. Smile       

  

The following 6 member(s) liked the above post:

jklpwinterduskStalwart.nneeiillmanzilmukul..RamKiJanaki..

Stalwart.

Goldie

Stalwart.

Joined: 18 October 2012

Posts: 1400

Posted: 16 March 2013 at 8:32am | IP Logged


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.")








Edited by Krishni51 - 16 March 2013 at 9:26am

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

arti07..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.