Ram And Sita

[Guest guest]

Yesterday while watching the movie Hanuman,a question that has come up several times in my mind came up again.Its a simple question but I never get an asnwer to it.Ram Chandra ji who did justice with everyone ,why was he unjust with his wife,who sacrficed everything for him for years wondered with him in forests.

First of all he did an AGNI PAREEKSHA for her..why..he was unsure of sita maas character.Well if that were the case,,he too had stayed away from Sita for so long why didnt he give an Agni pareeksha too?His character could also be in doubt.

And still he wasnt satisfied he sent his pregnant wife to the forest to be eaten up by wild animals(thankfully lakshman left her in a good place).The logic is he was being just to that dhobi..but at what cost he did so much injustice with his wife

I am not being rude or disrespectful,but i really do not understand this..

Thanks

[Sephiroth]

First of all he did an AGNI PAREEKSHA for her..why..he was unsure of sita maas character.

 

No, He was sure of Sita Devi's characteristics. But it is those who are with Him who was unsure. And Fire is Sacred because no matter what you put inside, the Sacred Fire will burn and reduce it to ashes. When He put her through the test, it is to satisfy everyone of her characteristics.

 

Also, you could ask WHY do He need to do such thing? Simple - the one who suffers the most in a family when been called unfaithful is NOT the husband but the wife.

 

If society calls a husband unfaithful, the family will still be intact because the wife - symbol of chastice will be there to support the family. But if the wife is called unfaithful, the support will not be there. The wife will be tormented by those words and she will not perform her duties as mother, wife and family support.

 

Take Mother of Avatar Parasurama (the pervious Avatar). She makes earth pots everyday for her husband using the virtue of her chastice. Then one day, she accidentally admired a young knight's reflection on the water and all the pots she made begin to break. She was in agony and turmoil and not sure what to do.

 

Parasurama's father found out about this and could felt sadness of his wife. He commanded his three sons to come and asked one of them to go and kill his own mother. The first two decline and Parasurama agreed. He killed His own mother and return back and when His father asked what boon He wanted, He simply asked for His mother be restored to life (thus nullifying the sin of admiring the young knight's reflection).

 

Even today, bad name to a woman in a family will ruin the family, so women are taken care with extra care and love (as stated in Manu Smirthi).

 

And still he wasnt satisfied he sent his pregnant wife to the forest to be eaten up by wild animals(thankfully lakshman left her in a good place).The logic is he was being just to that dhobi..but at what cost he did so much injustice with his wife

 

Again, you are looking at this in a wrong way. You ignored two things :

 

1. Despite of the test of Fire before, who still questioned Sita Devi's chastice? Sri Rama? Nope, people of Ayodhya.

 

2. What happened to the Children born from Sita Devi?

 

They grow up big, strong and at young age, they managed to defeat EVERYONE and even tied up Hanuman and deliver him to their mother.

 

What does this implies? That Sita Devi is a chastice woman and children born from her was Sri Rama's and they managed to bring justice to their mother which was not given by people of Ayodhya.

 

So, this shows that when a chastice women is framed for something she didn't do, the sin will be fallen to those who framed her and justice will be given to those who are framed.

 

Also, Sri Rama, IF He trully believed that Sita Devi was guilty, He could have married again (like what so many people doing today). He didn't. Matter a fact, He made gold statues of Sita Dewi to put aside Him during the Horse yajna (just before the battle with the children started).

[Guest guest]

in the film "Hanuman", Hanumanji has a son which is born through a crocodile. But I don´t understand the logic and how... ?

[Guest guest]

I understand the logic that you are giving.But my question is that Ram ,known as Maryaada Purshottam ram..what example did he set for the "grahasta jeevan" for a normal husband and wife by doing this act of agni pareeksha and also sending his wife away to the forest.

NO 1. He did not have faith in his wife???and his faith could only be restored only after his wife passed the agnipareeksha?

NO 2.He wanted to please the dhobi more even if it was at the cost of being unjust and totally unfair to his wife.

What can we as normal human beings learn from this action,,desert your wife if your servant or neighbour says anything against her?

Thanks

[ajit12]

If you read Walmiki Ramayan[not Tulsi or any of the others] it is astounding.When Sita was released from Asokwana & brought to Ram ,Ram's Speech is typical of attitude towards women in those times.

Lord Ram says to Sita 'I have fought this war to remove the blemish on my Ishwaqu Wansh that my wife was stolen by Ravana.This war was not fought for you.You who has stayed with Ravana for more than six months how can I trust that you are pure.In fact there is no way that Ravana would have left you unmolested.I do not wish to co-habit with you .Please leave my house .You are free to marry or stay otherwise with Laxaman,BHarat,Sugriva or Bibhishan.I really do not care one way or other.'

On hearing these harsh words Sita cried,there and then she asked Laxmana to prepare for her agnidiwya[test by fire].This was done because of Ram's horrible beheviour.

I really wonder who was the gentleman,Ravan who did not touch her or Ram who behaved in this fashion.A woman who is raped also due to circumstances beyond her control is pure this is what we should be teaching our furure generations.

Ram continued the same after going to Ayodhya.He discarded a pregnant woman because the Dhobi said something.The argument given is that King has to have pure image,but then he could have handed over the kingdom to Laxman or Bharat who were equally good and should have gone to the forest with Sita.

The major reason is the belief our society had at that time that a woman gets twin children if she has slept with two men [ Refer Charak samhita & nakul and Sahdeva in Mahabharat who were twins due Madri sleeping with Ashwinikumars who were two.]

Sita was in advanced stage of pregancy where it was clear she was carrying twins.Thefore Dhobi and Ram had every doubt bout her fidelity.

The society was like that at that time so I do not blame Ram or Dhobi for what they did, but people justifying this without reading Walmiki Ramayana are to be blamed.

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

If you read Walmiki Ramayan[not Tulsi or any of the others] it is astounding.When Sita was released from Asokwana & brought to Ram ,Ram's Speech is typical of attitude towards women in those times.

Lord Ram says to Sita 'I have fought this war to remove the blemish on my Ishwaqu Wansh that my wife was stolen by Ravana.This war was not fought for you.You who has stayed with Ravana for more than six months how can I trust that you are pure.In fact there is no way that Ravana would have left you unmolested.I do not wish to co-habit with you .Please leave my house .You are free to marry or stay otherwise with Laxaman,BHarat,Sugriva or Bibhishan.I really do not care one way or other.'

 

Ram also revealed the secret (to Laxmana) that the Sita who was with Ravan was not original but a duplicate and this was indeed a play staged to kill Ravan. Secondly, when Rama made those statements he was not alone. Even if he is convinced as a king he has the responsibility to convince others too. In that sense he made the statement for all to see and understand the qualities of a king. I have also read that when Sita did Agni pravesh, the duplicate went in and original cam out (not sure if this is in Valmiki Ramayan though!). In this context if you are a king or atleast a person ruling a small village or even with a couple of subordinates then, please suggest what action would you take? Resign from the post? or leave your wife and marry again and continue as king? or leave everything else and go on piligrimage?

 

On hearing these harsh words Sita cried,there and then she asked Laxmana to prepare for her agnidiwya[test by fire].This was done because of Ram's horrible beheviour.

I really wonder who was the gentleman,Ravan who did not touch her or Ram who behaved in this fashion.A woman who is raped also due to circumstances beyond her control is pure this is what we should be teaching our furure generations.

Ram continued the same after going to Ayodhya.He discarded a pregnant woman because the Dhobi said something.The argument given is that King has to have pure image,but then he could have handed over the kingdom to Laxman or Bharat who were equally good and should have gone to the forest with Sita.

 

Dont know for sure what happened between Smt. Sita and Ravana but Ramayana does not tell that Smt. Sita was raped/molested. So, why assume that she was not pure?

Thats why we need an Aacharya to explain things. Originally all this was only learnt verbally so that you dont need to interpret but had the freedom to question and understand correctly. Today we have too many translations to cause as much confusion as possible. This is a pity.

 

The major reason is the belief our society had at that time that a woman gets twin children if she has slept with two men [ Refer Charak samhita & nakul and Sahdeva in Mahabharat who were twins due Madri sleeping with Ashwinikumars who were two.]

Sita was in advanced stage of pregancy where it was clear she was carrying twins.Thefore Dhobi and Ram had every doubt bout her fidelity.

 

Could be provided Valmiki Rayamana says that the Sita who Ravan carried was not the original Sita.

 

The society was like that at that time so I do not blame Ram or Dhobi for what they did, but people justifying this without reading Walmiki Ramayana are to be blamed.

 

Yes, agreed. Even otherwise, Ram had to follow 2 Dharmas - one as husband and the other as a king (protect his kingdom, maintain trust with the people etc). He needs to sometimes sacrifice something for the other. Normally, the smaller Dharma is sacrifised for a bigger dharma. I certainly would'nt assume/speculate everything as wrong as possible when something is unclear. Remember, one Dhobi made some comments, there might have been many more people, no doubt. But majority of the remaining people wanted Sri. Rama as king as he had built the trust. Laxman was good too but was he as good as Ram to rule the kingdom? Sri. Ram had to consider a lot of options before giving away the kingdom. May be those options as a king (bigger Dharma) out-weighed the other of sending Smt. Sita away (smaller Dharma). Again we will not get perfect answers to these questions unless we ask someone who really knows. I have just given this interpretation based on what I heard/read.

[Sephiroth]

..what example did he set for the "grahasta jeevan" for a normal husband and wife by doing this act of agni pareeksha and also sending his wife away to the forest.

 

Compared to Islamic Laws which state to stone women on suspicious of adultery, this is more humane.

 

Also, compared to what Hindus (hell, most people are doing today), they are doing exactly what Sri Rama did. They exclude their wives who are suspected to be unloyal to them and many of them seek divorce.

 

NO 1. He did not have faith in his wife???and his faith could only be restored only after his wife passed the agnipareeksha?

 

How do you know? I said already, the test of fire is to prove to others on her chastice.

 

And besides, like I said before, if He truly didn't believe her, He could have remarried (His father had 3 wives so it's not a big deal). Instead, He made gold statue of His wife and place it next to Him during the Horse Yajna.

 

NO 2.He wanted to please the dhobi more even if it was at the cost of being unjust and totally unfair to his wife.

 

No, what He did was to WAIT till Dharma return to Sita what was rightfully hers. The people of Ayodhya accuse her of being unpure when was with Ravana and for that, her own children had waged war, defeated the people of Ayodhya and defeated the heroes who were silent during her persecution. THAT is Dharma. Justice had pervailed toward the wrongly accused.

[Sephiroth]

The major reason is the belief our society had at that time that a woman gets twin children if she has slept with two men [ Refer Charak samhita & nakul and Sahdeva in Mahabharat who were twins due Madri sleeping with Ashwinikumars who were two.]

 

What sort of idiocy is this? I don't remember hearing any nonsense from anywhere that those who had twins means they had slept with two men.

 

If so, then Kundi Devi should have given birth to 5 children in one go because she married to 5 men. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

I agree i have never heard of anything of this sort.

Regarding my question I really still do not have a satisfactory answer.

thanks everyone though

[Sephiroth]

What answer do you seek which makes you satisfactory?

 

Why don't you tell me what's you expecting and maybe then I could answer accordingly?

 

Also, I don't entertain guests so much, so do you mind registering?

[Guest guest]

Do you by any chance own this site?How would I care if you entertain guests or not??? Kindly stick to answering questions and discussions if you want to...I do not think i requested "you" in any case to personally answer my questions.

Thanks

[kshatriya_108]

i stumbled on to this thread, and havent really thought about this before.

 

it is confusing. Sephiroth does give a good explanation i thought, about how the truth prevails in the end.

 

But, Ram is supposed to be God, wouldnt he know that his wife is chaste? Infact, Sita is God aswell isnt that right?

 

So would everything just be part of a divine plan to show us humans how to live life.

 

Sephiroth, you must be a big fan of the final fantasy series

[Guest guest]

Hi,

Yes I find this topic really intriguing too.Its hard to get any logical explanantion out of this incident.And if this was gods divine plan I really do not understand what we as humans have learned from it??Does it have a meaning or a message?If yes what is it

Thanks

[Guest guest]

"But, Ram is supposed to be God, wouldnt he know that his wife is chaste? Infact, Sita is God aswell isnt that right?"

 

How many times does one person have to repeat? Sephiroth clearly said that Ram knew his wife was pure, he was trying to convince the people of his kingdom of this fact.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

So could he prove that???If yes at what cost..what was the conclusion and biggest question..what does this action prove to the people lile us??what do we learn..if we at all are learning something from this action of lord rama.

And why didnt he leave with his wife instead of sending her away in that vulnerable state...???

Thanks

[Guest guest]

God performs all for Human kind. what to do and what not to do. Those without mahima of His leela question it. even Parvati questioned that if Lord Raama was incarnation of God why would He cry like he does? Well God does this for us. she later finds out. Since then Shive treated Parvati as a mother figure.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Okie..so this action of God was for mankind?To learn to do or not do certain things.So in this case as humans we learn that if a man is suspicious of his wife because of what his neighbours tell him..he should desert his wife to prove to everyone that she is chaste and pure.It doesnt seem like a very moral story to me but I am sure people must be learning this and practising the same in real life too.

thanks

[Guest guest]

The Ramayan epic often teaches us lessons from the way Lord Ram lived. While Bhagwad Gita will give us specific directions on how to live, with Ramayan, it is often that we must look at Ram's decisions and ask ourselves why he would do this, and from this way we learn lessons on how to live.

 

The lesson to be learned from this is that when you are divided between two Dharmas you must choose the biggest Dharma in order to do good. Did Ramayan say that Lord Ram sat in his room and started to cry like a weak person when he was presented with the dilemma? No, he took action, which teaches us that in a situation like this, we must remain strong.

 

Imagine Ram allowed Sita to remain in the kingdom, and did not put the people's suspiscions to rest. What kind of life would Sita have? Her reputation would be stained, and she may even be mocked by her own people. Is this lifetime of humiliation something Lord Ram wanted Sita to go through? I think not.

 

He wanted to first prove that Sita was innocent, so he put her through the fire test. The people were still not satisfied, and he knew that if they were not satisfied from this, it was not possible for them to be convinced. Lord Ram knows all, if he knew that Sita would be in danger in the place she was sent to, he would have not sent her to this place. We must also have faith in Mother Sita, if she was able to defend herself from a demon like Ravan with just a blade of grass, she would be able to defend herself from animals as well. She is as much of god as Lord Ram.

[Guest guest]

"Okie..so this action of God was for mankind?To learn to do or not do certain things.So in this case as humans we learn that if a man is suspicious of his wife because of what his neighbours tell him..he should desert his wife to prove to everyone that she is chaste and pure.It doesnt seem like a very moral story to me but I am sure people must be learning this and practising the same in real life too.

thanks "

 

Lord Ram was not an ordinary man to these people, he was their idol. He was their lord, their king. Ignorant people will take this story and look at the negative points, they will look at this story from a literal point of view, they are not looking at the LESSON being taught. Krishna warned us that this will happen in Kali Yuga.

 

Again, even if Lord Ram allowed Sita to remain at home, what type of life would she have? She would be talked about constantly. At the same time, people would lose faith in Lord Ram.

 

If Ram had allowed Sita to stay, people in this time would begin arguing "Why did Ram only care about himself and his wife, why did he abandon his duties as king?"

 

Remember, Ram made it clear to everybody that his love and faith in Sita remained strong, these are different times, you cannot ask your question in a proper manner because it is like dealing with apples and oranges.

[Guest guest]

This is the most convincing and practical answer I have received in this discussion.Thanks for trying to answer this question.I appreciate your effort.It does make sense to see it in the way you have brought this topic in.

Thanks

[Guest guest]

No problem.

[Sephiroth]

it is confusing. Sephiroth does give a good explanation i thought, about how the truth prevails in the end.

 

Nothing to be confused about. Our dear Guest here most likely someone (Muslim or Christian) who followed me from another forum where I'm active in. I usually paste information I obtain here in a Hindusm column there and this sort of people doesn't come to understand Hindusm, they came to bring chaos.

 

I guess its my fault. Should have known better.

 

If you encounter a Guest who, despite of explained properly, kept repeating the question again and again and even resorts to insults, IGNORE him please.

 

So would everything just be part of a divine plan to show us humans how to live life.

 

I think He shows what mistake we like to make before we make them. If Humans are creatures of habits (which means they repeat the same mistake over and over again), then showing mistake and consequences of their actions by this sort of epics will make them remember it and most likely, not to repeat it again.

 

Sephiroth, you must be a big fan of the final fantasy series

 

I'm a big fan of RPG actually, played many games. One of my dreams is that someday, I could help put great epics like Mahabratha and such into games (assuming that the Japanese now don't beat me to it first).

 

Did you know that Japanese Anime developers already created Ramayana Epic in cartoon version? Not sure that if you have watch it in India but I must really salute the Japanese. They really shown great respect and the very humanely characteristics of Sri Rama, Hanuman and the rest. Even Ravana shown as majestic and powerful as he meant to be.

 

Many games begin to turn toward Indian epics for inspirations so don't be surprise if you play game which has Hindusm-under tune.

[ajit12]

The basic point which everyone here is ignoring is as follows.

1] If any woman gets kidnapped due to no fault of her's and has to spend some time in captivity till such time she is rescued,the society as a whole should accept her into it's fold.

2]As bhagwan & a very popular king it is the duty of Ram to lay correct principles for the society,that is do not forsake your wife or any other lady if she is kidnapped like this.On the contrary he ended up telling the society you are right to doubt my wife so I am abondoning her,Agnidiwya or no agnidiwya.Generations to come please follow my example.

3] What about his duty towards a wife who followed him to Vanwasa ,went through kidnapping & captivity ,performed Agnidiwya for his sake?it would have been his moral & spiritual duty[One's duty during Grihastaashram] to abondon kingdom,make Bharat[who had already ruled very well for 14 years] or Laxman the king & for once show better values by following Sita into their second Vanwasa.

Gods are supposed to make better human beings of us by setting more humane and kind examples.

[Sephiroth]

1] If any woman gets kidnapped due to no fault of her's and has to spend some time in captivity till such time she is rescued,the society as a whole should accept her into it's fold.

 

Correct - because it was done against her wishes.

 

2]As bhagwan & a very popular king it is the duty of Ram to lay correct principles for the society,that is do not forsake your wife or any other lady if she is kidnapped like this.On the contrary he ended up telling the society you are right to doubt my wife so I am abondoning her,Agnidiwya or no agnidiwya.Generations to come please follow my example.

 

Wrong ... he tells the World WHAT happens to a society which doubt a virtues woman (as what happened to warriors of Ayudha in hands of Sita's children).

 

Also, if this is what Rama had told the society, then He couldn't have bothered to correct it. In Krishna Avatar, He had accepted 6,000 princesses held captived by Narakasura after killing him.

 

Gods are supposed to make better human beings of us by setting more humane and kind examples.

 

It's ain't God's fault if you choose to misunderstand your own religion for your own selfish agenda. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

You are replying to my comments, yet you have for some reason chosen not to read what I had written.

 

***As bhagwan & a very popular king it is the duty of Ram to lay correct principles for the society,that is do not forsake your wife or any other lady if she is kidnapped like this.On the contrary he ended up telling the society you are right to doubt my wife so I am abondoning her,Agnidiwya or no agnidiwya.Generations to come please follow my example.***

 

Why do you insist to look at this from a literal point of view? Do you not see the lesson that is supposed to be learned? How many times have you had to choose between two things, and have had no idea what to do? Ram is telling us that you must choose the option that leads towards stronger Dharma, in this case, the Dharma of a king (which effects his whole kingdom) was more important.

 

What if Ram decided to put Bharat as king? What does this show? It shows when you are faced with a dilemma, run away from your problem, do not take your duty, just run. What type of example would he be setting up then?

 

You must realize that Ram and Sita are both god, if Ram doubted Sita's safety, he would not have sent her, but she is god, nobody is going to be able to do anything to her.

 

Ram was not forsaking his wife, the people of the kingdom were doubting her, Ram fully trusted Sita.

 

***What about his duty towards a wife who followed him to Vanwasa ,went through kidnapping & captivity ,performed Agnidiwya for his sake?it would have been his moral & spiritual duty[One's duty during Grihastaashram] to abondon kingdom,make Bharat[who had already ruled very well for 14 years] or Laxman the king & for once show better values by following Sita into their second Vanwasa.

Gods are supposed to make better human beings of us by setting more humane and kind examples.***

 

What about the kingdom's people who worshipped and idolized Ram? I am not saying Sita did nothing special as a wife, but you need to really focus on the lesson that is being taught. God will not spoon feed you the answers, you must look in the deeper meaning, instead of doubting him.