Rama's treatment of Sita

[Guest guest]

I read with great interest Vidyasankar's and Sreekrishna's

notes on this subject. I think both of you have explained

the situation quite well, in an abstract sense. However, if

we look at Valmiki's text itself, Rama's treatment of Sita is

still very troubling in several ways. From a purely emotional

standpoint, one cannot but feel deeply hurt for Sita. Sri

V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, a great lecturer on Valmiki's Ramayana,

says that many a great bhakta have openly wept while hearing

these words of Rama.

 

But let's evaluate this from a rational standpoint. When

Sita sees Rama for the first time after Ravana's death, there

is no joy, no exultation in Rama's eyes. In fact, one may say

that he is detached to the point of being rude. Yet there

is more than just this. He says that Sita now has the option

of living with Lakshmana or Sugriva, as she is no longer fit

to be his wife, having lived with another man for so long.

It is not clear whether he is telling her to join Lakshmana

as the latter's wife, but giving even room for such doubt

is troublesome.

 

See here the deep mistrust and disgust in Rama's words. I cannot

explain nor understand how he could be so cruel. ``dharmo vigrahavaan''

yes, but is not part of dharma to be impartial, to weigh all

the evidence, and to have trust in someone as stainless as Sita?

At the end of the war, not a single person had any doubt in

Sita's fidelity. Not a single person, save Rama. This situation

is entirely different from the one with the dhobi in the Uttarakanda.

 

To say that Rama was acting in character as a purely rational

being is also not correct. After Sita's abduction, Rama was often

depressed to the point of being suicidal. He wept deeply at the

loss of his love, and displayed emotions that any normal, righteous

human would.

 

I would like to know what great Rama-bhaktas like Govindaraja,

Periya Vacchaan Pillai and others have said on this topic. It seems

that this is the biggest black mark on Rama's character.

 

[i set aside the Uttara Kanda abandonment as being a later addition

to Valmiki's epic. I know this is like cutting the Gordian knot,

but there is far too much textual evidence that indicates that this

portion, though great poetry, was not written by Valmiki's hand.

Dealing with Rama's behavior there is a separate problem.]

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Mani wrote:

> we look at Valmiki's text itself, Rama's treatment of Sita is

> still very troubling in several ways. From a purely emotional

 

Beyond a point, we have to put up with some amount of misogyny

present in all our ancient literature, I think. In Valmiki's

Ramayana, the women are consistently represented as subordinate and

in some places, quite inferior to men. Sita and Rama are no exceptions

to this. From the point of view of our modern sensibilities, this

strikes us as wrong. But we can't pretend that this supposed inferiority

of women to men is not present in Skt. literature.

> See here the deep mistrust and disgust in Rama's words. I cannot

> explain nor understand how he could be so cruel. ``dharmo vigrahavaan''

> yes, but is not part of dharma to be impartial, to weigh all

> the evidence, and to have trust in someone as stainless as Sita?

 

I agree. Rama's words to Sita at the end of the war do strike one as

unnecessarily cruel. One way of understanding them is to view them as

setting the background for the agni-parIkshA that Rama asks Sita to

undergo. He could not have asked her to go through the agni-parIkshA

without initially being cruel to her, right? Another rationalization

would be to view the episode as one where some of Sita's prArabdha-karmas

were being worked out. In that case, Rama has no choice but to be cruel,

in order for the karma to take effect.

 

On the whole, the working of dharma in the Valmiki Ramayana is very rigid.

There is no room in Valmiki's poem for the "avanum nokkinaan, avaLum

nokkinaaL" romance of Kamban. There also do not seem to be any instances

of the working of karuNA in Valmiki. The concept of right duty dictates

the relationship between husband and wife also. Except for Rama's anguish

at losing Sita, there are not many depictions of tenderness between them.

 

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> To say that Rama was acting in character as a purely rational

> being is also not correct. After Sita's abduction, Rama was often

> depressed to the point of being suicidal. He wept deeply at the

> loss of his love, and displayed emotions that any normal, righteous

> human would.

> Mani

Namaskaram

I am not so as to comment on this issues but these are some of

my owm opinions on which all are welcome to comment.

Regarding ramayana I am of strong belief that the behaviour of Rama as a

human being casts a doubt about his divinity.

But In his talks Ramana Maharshi says that the actions of person who has

realised his self may seem ordinary but he beyond them. As with respect

to Rama's behaviour as common man, he has acted as human do in such

conditions. As respect to his treatment towards Mother Sita, I feel that

we cannot comdemn it without the complete knowledge and understanding of

the scriptures. I think it is also valid to raise the question that is

it correct for draupadi to marry five brothers? This questionable in our

society where the wife of brother is equivalent to a Mother.

But this doubt can be clarified by a person who is well versed in the

scriptures. I had this question cleared from a great learned pundit who

answered this question on a Telivision interview.

 

with love

shashi

********************************************************************************

********************************************************************************

Shashikanth Hosur Email:shashi

Dept Of Industrial Engg shashi

Texas A&M University shashikanth

 

Home:(409) 691 8644

Fax: (409) 846 5468

office :(409) 845 0441

!OM!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your right is to work only, but never to the fruit thereof, nor let your

attachment be to inaction.

 

- BhagavatGita 2:47

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Love All and Serve All

--- Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba

 

********************************************************************************

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996 vidya wrote:

> Mani wrote:

> without initially being cruel to her, right? Another rationalization

> would be to view the episode as one where some of Sita's prArabdha-karmas

> were being worked out. In that case, Rama has no choice but to be cruel,

> in order for the karma to take effect.

> Vidyasankar

Namaskaram

I feel that the divine lord is very merciful. If only mother

Sita had not taken the Agni-parkshi and Lord Rama had accepted then would

we have recognised her as a Great Pativrata and given that distinct place

in our culture. Rama who is the divine in form

wanted to show Her Greatness and hence I feel that he took to this action.

 

Who can but only the one who one with him understand His actions?

 

with love

shashi

********************************************************************************

********************************************************************************

Shashikanth Hosur Email:shashi

Dept Of Industrial Engg shashi

Texas A&M University shashikanth

 

Home:(409) 691 8644

Fax: (409) 846 5468

office :(409) 845 0441

!OM!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your right is to work only, but never to the fruit thereof, nor let your

attachment be to inaction.

 

- BhagavatGita 2:47

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Love All and Serve All

--- Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba

 

********************************************************************************

[Guest guest]

On Jan 17, 8:49pm, Shashikanth Hosur wrote:

> But In his talks Ramana Maharshi says that the actions of person who has

> realised his self may seem ordinary but he beyond them.

 

This discussion is purely in the context of Rama as

a the embodiment of dharma. As such, we are taught

to look to Rama's behavior as a guide. To say that

his behavior is ``beyond our understanding'' is a copout.

> I think it is also valid to raise the question that is

> it correct for draupadi to marry five brothers?

 

This is not the question that was raised. The morality

of polyandry from an absolute standpoint is not the question

Lakshmi asked. Rather, it is whether it is not misogynistic

for the epic to judge Draupadi as a loose woman because she

married five husbands, despite the fact that she was forced

into such a wedding. And whether it was proper to judge

her in that way considering men were allowed to marry as

many times as they wished.

 

The dharma that is outlined in the Mahabharata and Ramayana

is never as clear as our elders and acharyas make it seem.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> On Jan 17, 8:49pm, Shashikanth Hosur wrote:

> > But In his talks Ramana Maharshi says that the actions of person who has

> > realised his self may seem ordinary but he beyond them.

>

> This discussion is purely in the context of Rama as

> a the embodiment of dharma. As such, we are taught

> to look to Rama's behavior as a guide. To say that

> his behavior is ``beyond our understanding'' is a copout.

I am not saying that his behaviour is beyond our understanding. How is it

possible for us judge a person of such a stature when we ourselves are

incomplete. For a man who is detached where is the question of sorrow.

Thats what Ramana Maharshi points out.

********************************************************************************

********************************************************************************

Shashikanth Hosur Email:shashi

Dept Of Industrial Engg shashi

Texas A&M University shashikanth

 

Home:(409) 691 8644

Fax: (409) 846 5468

office :(409) 845 0441

!OM!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your right is to work only, but never to the fruit thereof, nor let your

attachment be to inaction.

 

- BhagavatGita 2:47

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Love All and Serve All

--- Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba

 

********************************************************************************

[Guest guest]

> I am afraid this statement is not valid in the context that all the

avathaaram> takes place

> as per the God's own will including that of PIRATTI's who is an eternal part

o> HIM for "EVER".

 

This was in the context of a rationalization of Sita's banishment on the basis

of karma. Both Mani and Sempath Rangarajan pointed out that karma would be

inapplicable to Sita as a periya pirATTI.

 

Coming from an advaitic background, this raises an interesting point for me.

Aren't all jIvas supposed to be eternal parts of Him and for ever, according

to the SarIra-SArIrin analogy. But the ordinary jIvas are subject to the

workings of karma. How come SrI is not subject to karma? If she is a special

jIva, does she still hold a special position in terms of enjoyment of

brahmAnandam? I thought that according to viSishTAdvaita, unlike in dvaita,

there is no Ananda tAratamyam.

 

When discussing these kinds of questions, we are constantly shifting back and

forth between mythology and theology/philosophy. Take for example, the story

of Siva incurring the sin of brahmahatyA by severing one of Brahma's heads.

This story is designed to set Siva as superior to Vishnu and Brahma, but still

He does incur karma.

 

Is there any official explanation for why SrI should not likewise incur karma?

 

Vidyasankar