The Ramayana Contradictions

[Jodhaa]

Namaste!

I read the Ramayana for the first time a few months back and it has become one of my favorite narratives of all time. I find it completely inspiring and beautiful and I think there is a tremendous amount to learn from it.

But there is one thing that troubles me about it, and I want to know if anyone has insights into this apparent contradiction in the story. I will try my best to be brief.

I found myself enamored of Rama as a character. I admired his courage and his love for Sita, and I was cheering him on the whole story...

....Until the end, when he banishes the pregnant Sita to the wilderness in order to regain the respect of his people.

Suddenly, I felt betrayed and angry at Rama. Even more so because despite this great sin (as I perceived it) I still wanted to admire him for all his good qualities. The trouble I am having is that the Rama that worried so much for his beloved Sita while searching for her, the Rama who fought so bravely for her, does not seem like the same Rama I read about in the Uttara Kanda - or the last book of the Ramayana. Not once during his search for her does he lament about his lost honor or the tarnish to his reputation. He worries only for her safety and wishes only to be with her again.

I can understand his initial doubt in her purity when he saves her. God incarnate he may be, but he is still a man bound by the senses - including the illusions/suspicions of the mind. But why bend to the suspicions of his people a second time? After she has literally had a trial by fire and come out truthful? He may be a king, with responsibilities to his people - but he was a husband first.

It is also my understanding that The Uttara Kanda was added much later to the Ramayana. Is it possible that the last book was written during a time when people were more conservative and couldn't justify a wife returning to her husband after living with another man?

I have tried to justify Rama's behavior at the end many, many times. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But my mind keeps coming back to one thought. If a man did this act today - abandoned his pregnant wife in the woods - he would be viewed as a monster, not as the ideal man.

Thank you for reading my post. I hope to start an illuminating discussion. I certainly don't intend to offend. I think it's important to ask hard questions sometimes. Like I said, The Ramayana is one of my favorite narratives and I'd love to have more insight on it.

Thank you!

[Believer]

Namaste,

Suddenly, I felt betrayed and angry at Rama. .........Not once during his search for her does he lament about his lost honor or the tarnish to his reputation. He worries only for her safety and wishes only to be with her again.

God incarnate he may be, but he is still a man bound by the senses - including the illusions/suspicions of the mind.

I hope to start an illuminating discussion.
What can be said when a person, new to Hinduism, thinks that she/he has the intellect and the right to evaluate God's actions?

We are the products of our environment, our religious/spiritual training and most of all our station in life. When one is raised in a feminist environment, everything is looked at from the point of view of a man being fair to the woman in his life at all costs. Forgotten is the fact that the MAN in this context is God incarnate. He is not doing anything as an ordinary human being, but performing acts to show what is idealism. A king is beholden to, responsible to and lives for one thing only, and that is the welfare of his subjects. A boss is also the biggest servant of the people he lords over. Without them, he is not a boss. Without the subjects, there is no king. The family is part of the kingdom, not the firsts among the kingdom. The selfish notion of placing ones family above all else has to be transcended. It is your duty, your dharma that reigns supreme, not yourself, or your loved ones.

The only illumination in this discussion is that the starting point - thinking of the Lord as a mere human - and trying to evaluate His actions is very, very wrong. When it comes to Divinity, one must try to understand why things were done in a particular way, not bring ones ego into the picture and think that she/he has the intellect to judge the Lord himself. He acted the way did because of the accusation of a single subject and not because He had any doubts about Sita's chastity. He is bound by His dharma, His first and foremost obligation to His subjects, NOT to his wife - perhaps a difficult concept to grasp in this me-my-mine world, but we are talking about the Divine teaching a lesson, not about a soft-hearted mortal looking out only for her/him-self and her/his family.

It would be advisable that any future doubts be phrased in an inquisitive tone rather than an accusatory one. One does not say rotten things about the Divinity as if they were your equals and you have the right/intellect to judge Them. By being incarnated in this material world, They are here to teach by show and tell, not to be judged per selfish human standards. Ramayana is not a script for a Hollywood production in which the characters are puppets in the director's hand. It is a scripture, an account of the Divine Lila, to be learned from and not subject to human evaluation. Gods descend to the earth to teach, not to learn or be critiqued by mere mortals.

Pranam.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: The mind can always find something wrong with anything. There is a whole area of the brain called the critical room. :) The first analogy, although simplistic, I heard on this was that of a stunningly gorgeous model/actress. Beautiful in all regards, excellent actor, etc. Admirable, shall we say, from many angles. But ... she had a crooked tooth.So more was written on the crooked tooth than on anything else. Seinfeld did skits on this, and half of Jerry's relationships failed because he couldn't get away from that one fault, and it was usually a minor item.

Another was the man with the near perfect lawn that had one re-occurring weed. So he spends all his time on the weed, forgetting the rest of the lawn is perfect.

This can be applied to a lot of things. Even in debate here we'll see comments like ... "That was an excellent analysis, and I agree with it, but ...

And then the response is a long rant on the 'but' part. Maybe that's just the nature of the mind.

So its up to you.

Aum Namasivaya

[Jodhaa]

Namaste,

What can be said when a person, new to Hinduism, thinks that she/he has the intellect and the right to evaluate God's actions?

He is bound by His dharma, His first and foremost obligation to His subjects, NOT to his wife - perhaps a difficult concept to grasp in this me-my-mine world, but we are talking about the Divine teaching a lesson, not about a soft-hearted mortal looking out only for her/him-self and her/his family.

It would be advisable that any future doubts be phrased in an inquisitive tone rather than an accusatory one. It is a scripture, an account of the Divine Lila, to be learned from and not subject to human evaluation. Gods descend to the earth to teach, not to learn or be critiqued by mere mortals.



Namaste, Believer

First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my thread. I am only sorry you took such a negative view of my inquiry. My intention was not to insult. As I stated in my initial post, I love the Ramayana and hold its story in profound respect.

However, if the purpose of the epics is to teach us the right path, how can we learn anything if we cannot understand the motives of the individuals involved? You say we are not to judge the behavior of God or hold him to our selfish human standards. But are we not all a part of the divine? Is not the spark of the divine in all? To judge Rama, are we not just taking a harder look at ourselves?

I would never judge Rama actions as irredeemable wrong, because that would be hypocritical of me. We all must make difficult choices - sometimes there is no "right" answer. Or at least the right answer is often the most difficult one. My quest is to understand how the author (or possibly authors) of the Ramayana meant to reconcile these two actions of Rama.

Many of the lessons in the Ramayana are timeless - loyalty, friendship, steadfastness, courage.

But the world does change. Peoples views change. I think the Ramayana can still be applied today as a moral guidepost for many, but I also believe,that like any text, it has to be evaluated based on the context of the time it was written in. This is why I still want to admire Rama. I know the mandates of the society he grew up in are vastly different then my own.

Perhaps you are correct that my view is selfish. I am willing to acknowledge the possibility. But my sincere questions come from a well meaning place. I think all viewpoints are valuable - that is one reason why there are so many different people in the world - so we can gain new perspective on things. If you label someone a feminist or selfish, you have made a judgement call that will effect your ability to really hear what they are trying to say.

I thank you sincerely, for the time you took to respond to my questions, though they clearly displease you.

Peace to you, Believer.

[Jodhaa]

Vannakkam: The mind can always find something wrong with anything. There is a whole area of the brain called the critical room. :) The first analogy, although simplistic, I heard on this was that of a stunningly gorgeous model/actress. Beautiful in all regards, excellent actor, etc. Admirable, shall we say, from many angles. But ... she had a crooked tooth.So more was written on the crooked tooth than on anything else. Seinfeld did skits on this, and half of Jerry's relationships failed because he couldn't get away from that one fault, and it was usually a minor item.

Another was the man with the near perfect lawn that had one re-occurring weed. So he spends all his time on the weed, forgetting the rest of the lawn is perfect.

This can be applied to a lot of things. Even in debate here we'll see comments like ... "That was an excellent analysis, and I agree with it, but ...

And then the response is a long rant on the 'but' part.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste, Eastern Mind,

Thank you for your response. Your words have a ring of truth .... but (:))...

Perhaps my question is on too sensitive a subject. Perhaps it is better to engage in a smaller group, where my words cannot be misunderstood. I do not wish to have my quest for understanding turn into an argument. I'm a better thinker than a fighter.

Thank you- Peace!

[Arjuni]

Namasté,

Jodhaa, some good points have been made in reply to your post so far.

We call Rāmāyaṇa in English an 'epic,' and that word leads to the idea that it's just a story for entertainment and poetry. As Believer has pointed out, it is much more than that.

If you do wish to analyse it further, I have found this discussion (http://prekshaa.blogspot.ca/2010/03/abandoning-of-sita.html) interesting, for helping me to open my mind and think about the story in a new way, when I was just starting out and feeling very confused.

Consider, also, that a religious story which many Westerners revere is one of God sending his child amongst ignorant people to be tortured and murdered. On a literal human level, it seems less horrifying only because it's familiar. Yet the people devoted to that story find a number of deeper meanings in it.

The actions of the Divine as portrayed in Rāmāyaṇa also have much to teach, if one leaves behind modern cynicism and looks with respect and open-mindedness, to reach for the higher lessons that are there in such rich abundance.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[Jodhaa]

Namasté,

Consider, also, that a religious story which many Westerners revere is one of God sending his child amongst ignorant people to be tortured and murdered. On a literal human level, it seems less horrifying only because it's familiar. Yet the people devoted to that story find a number of deeper meanings in it.

The actions of the Divine as portrayed in Rāmāyaṇa also have much to teach, if one leaves behind modern cynicism and looks with respect and open-mindedness, to reach for the higher lessons that are there in such rich abundance.



Thank you for your response Indraneela. I will look at the link you have provided when I have an opportunity. (I am leaving for the weekend in a few hours and would want to give it my full attention)

You're analogy from Christianity is appropriate. Although I will wax a little childish for a moment and say two wrongs don't make a right - The existence of apparent cruelty in one faith does not vindicate it's existence in another - it just means both scenarios are apparently cruel. (I am saying this having not read the discussions you have linked me to, however. I look forward to getting more insight)

I also know that for many, the Ramayana is very sacred and is more than just a story. But I think it's status as an important text makes it even more crucial that we look at it from many angles. If we use it to influence our lives, that is a very powerful tool. Let us not misuse it.

Thank you so much for your response! I really appreciate your patience with me as I endeavor to learn more.

Peace!

[vikz22]

namasté

first i must thank the members of this forum for their response to Jodhaas question.

i must admit, when learning the story of Ramayan, this is something which troubled me greatly, along with parts of the mahabarata:

One of the reasons i took great pleasure in reading the Bhagavat Gita was in my mind i thought (being a mere mortal) Arjuns reservations in not fighting were admirable, and i was wondering how he could be convinced otherwise, and why his position seemed so worng?

thats when i read the Gita, and all became clear, such beautiful language used, truly is such an inspiration, and i finally understood the reason,

the reason for my little aside there is, i too, felt like jodhaa here, in terms of i was wondering how it would be possible for Ram to "appear to" abandon his wife, his one true love, in the manner that he did. Like the Bhagavat Gita itself, i was hoping the forum members here would illuminate me in that sense and i feel that Jodhaa meant the same as well and meant no offense to anyone in the manner of the post.

i must add that, the reasons i would ask the questions is NOT because i'm looking for faults in our religion, but i want to remove any mis interpretations from my mind that i may have.

i would like to thank Indraneela as well for the link presented, that has cleared up a lot of issues for me, but if the forum members would permit me, i would like to ask one question.


from the link, it shows, even though as much as Ram loved Sita, he could not go against his Dharma, his duty as a King and ruler of his people, and had to do what is in the best interest of his people, a decision which, in purely a mere mortal point of view, must have been the most difficult he ever made.

Now, can i ask, if the populas felt this way about Sita, (which i can't imagine myself, in that position, would ever think, of my loving queen, the wife of my King!), and for this reason, Ram had to send Sita away, (maybe i'm wrong here, please correct me if this is the case), so hypothetically, if for instance, the populas took a disliking to say lakhsman, would he also suffer the same fate? for the greater good? Because we know well of the devotion of Sita to Ram and vice versa, but here two innocents are made to suffer due to the belief of those without the knowledge of what happened (the people).

from a purely personal view, My anger is aimed at the people, because how could they think that of their queen, and the wife of a king they so adored! It was a situation that Ram should never have been put in.

i apologise if this question is offensive, its never my intention for that, any clarification would help immensely

i am at the behest of the more learned


thanks


Vikash

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Namaste!

I read the Ramayana for the first time a few month,--- I find it completely inspiring and beautiful and I think there is a tremendous amount to learn from it.

Oh really?


_____
Suddenly, I felt betrayed and angry at Rama. Even more so because despite this great sin----

God incarnate he may be, but he is still a man bound by the senses - including the illusions/suspicions of the mind. -------


I have tried to justify Rama's behavior at the end many, many times. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But my mind keeps coming back to one thought. If a man did this act today - abandoned his pregnant wife in the woods - he would be viewed as a monster, not as the ideal man.



Thank you!

I am having trouble understanding the intention of Jodhaa, does Ram need your approval ?

How will you ever understand Ram if you think he is capable of sin, that he is under the influence of senses or imply that he is a monster?

For those who know Ram as God would also know that he is inseparable from his Sakti, rest is what ever lesson we take from his lila, certainly not what you conclude by reading Ramayan once and suddenly it becomes best, your favriote. now why don't I believe that!

Jai Shree Krishna

[Jodhaa]

Pranam

I am having trouble understanding the intention of Jodhaa, does Ram need your approval ?

How will you ever understand Ram if you think he is capable of sin, that he is under the influence of senses or imply that he is a monster?

For those who know Ram as God would also know that he is inseparable from his Sakti, rest is what ever lesson we take from his lila, certainly not what you conclude by reading Ramayan once and suddenly it becomes best, your favriote. now why don't I believe that!

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad!

Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps I am not being clear enough in my posts. I will endeavor to fix that in the future.

Why is it not possible to appreciate a work but still question parts of it? Why must it be all or nothing? The world is comprised of shades of gray.

I think my word choice is causing confusion.

My reference to the word "monster" and "sin" was merely to illustrate the possible difference in perception of Rama's actions between the time the story was conceived and the perceptions of many people in today's world. Certainly not all people, but many.

Thank you again for your response.

[philosoraptor]

....Until the end, when he banishes the pregnant Sita to the wilderness in order to regain the respect of his people.

Suddenly, I felt betrayed and angry at Rama. Even more so because despite this great sin (as I perceived it) I still wanted to admire him for all his good qualities. The trouble I am having is that the Rama that worried so much for his beloved Sita while searching for her, the Rama who fought so bravely for her, does not seem like the same Rama I read about in the Uttara Kanda - or the last book of the Ramayana. Not once during his search for her does he lament about his lost honor or the tarnish to his reputation. He worries only for her safety and wishes only to be with her again.

I can understand his initial doubt in her purity when he saves her. God incarnate he may be, but he is still a man bound by the senses - including the illusions/suspicions of the mind. But why bend to the suspicions of his people a second time? After she has literally had a trial by fire and come out truthful? He may be a king, with responsibilities to his people - but he was a husband first.

It is also my understanding that The Uttara Kanda was added much later to the Ramayana. Is it possible that the last book was written during a time when people were more conservative and couldn't justify a wife returning to her husband after living with another man?

I have tried to justify Rama's behavior at the end many, many times. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But my mind keeps coming back to one thought. If a man did this act today - abandoned his pregnant wife in the woods - he would be viewed as a monster, not as the ideal man.

Thank you for reading my post. I hope to start an illuminating discussion. I certainly don't intend to offend. I think it's important to ask hard questions sometimes. Like I said, The Ramayana is one of my favorite narratives and I'd love to have more insight on it.

Thank you!

Jai Sri Ram!

The narrative of the Uttara-khanda in which a pregnant Sita is banished to the forest is troubling even to the devotees.

In this context, it is worth pointing out a few things.

First, the content of the Uttara-khanda is quite controversial even among Vaishnavas. There are some Vaishnavas who regard the entire Uttara-khanda as interpolated. That being said, there are references to the banishment of the pregnant Sita even in other mainstream sources such as this one (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/9/11/10), and so I am not sure how convincing it would be to simply ignore it.

Second, Rama is not "bound by his senses." As He is the supreme Brahman Naaraayana Himself, He is completely transcendental to the influence of matter, even when He behaves as if bound. Thus, His decisions are not based on flawed thinking influenced by the gunas.

Third, according to the (admittedly controversial) text, even Lakshmana objected strongly to the banishment. Similarly, at the end of the Lanka war, all the devatas headed by Brahma were aghast when Rama refused to accept Sita back, and noted that His behavior was unprecedented. Thus, this is not a case of misogyny or double-standards.

Fourth, again according to the text, the banishment of Sita was not carried out to protect Rama's honor, but to protect the people of Ayodhya. The concern was that some would take to irreligious behavior because of their wrong perception that Sita was unchaste and was taken back by Rama. According to several smRiti texts I have read, adultery is grossly sinful and the idea of taking back an adulterous spouse is not endorsed. It should be noted in this connection that Ahalya was only accepted back by Gautama Rishi when she was purified by Rama's touch, as his own curse foretold. Otherwise, the idea of taking back an adulterous spouse is not generally seen in our scriptures.

Fifth, the text itself indicates that Rama grieved both before and after Sita's banishment, carrying on only for the sake of doing His duty. As you have correctly pointed out, He pined for Sita during her captivity in Ravana's palace. It makes no sense to suggest that His feelings changed suddenly after that.

When including Uttara-khanda along with the rest of the Ramayana, the entire text reads like a grand tragedy. Sita and Rama remain in constant rememberance of each other even when in physical separation, and this concept of devotion in spite of separation is found in the Puranas, most notably the Bhagavata Purana. Rama always lived for the purpose of uplifting the people, whether it was in accepting his father's unfair command, rescuing his wife from a villain, or banishing his wife because of an imagined offense. He always put aside His own enjoyments for this purpose.

Note that I am merely explaining it from this particular point of view only to offer a theoretical framework for understanding it.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Mixed in with the apologetic notes are the irreverential comments like, 'the scenario is cruel', 'we should look at the Ramayan from many angels', 'the time the story was conceived', and more. There is a built in attitude of bringing Ramayan down to the level of a comic book on Tarzan, conceived by an author to amuse and entertain people. When the scripture is not given its due respect, what is the point of tendering apologies?

Anyway, to use the Western lingo, Ram's 'one true love' was not Sita, but His subjects. A king's/ruler's/politician's only reason for being alive is to serve the people. If the present day presidents and prime ministers and their functionaries could grasp and act on that, the world would be a different place. For any person new to Hinduism, he/she has to have an open mind, so that they can drop their prejudices and learn what Ram is exemplifying by His actions, not 'demand' that the times have changed and the scripture needs an update. Sanatan Dharma means 'eternal law' formulated by the Divine, not a law authored by a legislative assembly that gets massaged every so often. Giving up one's ego and being in a submissive/receptive state is a pre-requisite to learning anything at all. So long as the ego is fighting the new philosophy and wants to critique everything, nothing will get past the intellectual filter.

Pranam.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Jodhaa


Namaste Ganeshprasad!



Why is it not possible to appreciate a work but still question parts of it? Why must it be all or nothing? The world is comprised of shades of gray.

I think my word choice is causing confusion.

My reference to the word "monster" and "sin" was merely to illustrate the possible difference in perception of Rama's actions between the time the story was conceived and the perceptions of many people in today's world. Certainly not all people, but many.

Thank you again for your response.

perhaps i was also too quick to judge you, not without reason though, words like sin, monster or God under control of maya is an alien concept with a Hindu. it would be heartless for anyone not to feel for mother Sita, you have every right to question the shades of gray that you perceive but it could have been handle with care.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Anyway, to use the Western lingo, Ram's 'one true love' was not Sita, but His subjects. A king's/ruler's/politician's only reason for being alive is to serve the people. If the present day presidents and prime ministers and their functionaries could grasp and act on that, the world would be a different place. For any person new to Hinduism, he/she has to have an open mind, so that they can drop their prejudices and learn what Ram is exemplifying by His actions, not 'demand' that the times have changed and the scripture needs an update. Sanatan Dharma means 'eternal law' formulated by the Divine, not a law authored by a legislative assembly that gets massaged every so often. Giving up one's ego and being in a submissive/receptive state is a pre-requisite to learning anything at all. So long as the ego is fighting the new philosophy and wants to critique everything, nothing will get past the intellectual filter.


Well said, all of the above.

Read in this way, the Uttara-khanda reads like a tragedy. Both Rama and Sita sacrificed for the people of Ayodhya for the greater good of uplifting them. This is, I believe, the way the author intended us to read and understand it, whether that author is indeed Valmiki himself or a later contributor. I tend to think it was real on that basis, as the theme of sacrificing for the sake of leading the people is a recurrent one in the Ayodhya-kanda also.

regards,

[Jodhaa]

Namaste everyone!

First I want to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion.

Since being away for a few days I have had the opportunity to give this topic some thought, as well as consider your reactions to it.

I realize now that I should not have been surprised by the emotional reactions, given the emotional nature of my initial post. I was merely trying to give an honest reaction to my initial experience upon reading the end of the Ramayana. Emotional detachment may be an ideal that we strive for, but in reality, if we ignore the emotions that build up in us, we are being dishonest with ourselves and there can be no real growth.

In my mind, it is better to be emotionally honest, then to soften and sugar-coat an analysis into dishonesty.

I'd also like to paraphrase a few of the criticisms here and respond to them in one place, rather then confuse by dropping them in different places through-out the discussion. Paraphrased words will be in bold, my response in regular font.


"One cannot judge the actions of God according to human ideas of morality."

God has given us these amazing literary tools by which we can begin to grasp at how to live the true path. God is the source of morality. If we must understand God's actions by a measuring stick separate from our own, that implies we are somehow separate from God. That there is a part of God which we are not, and vice verse. We know this to be completely untrue, according to our belief.

My criticism of Rama's actions are not to make him wrong, or to wish the story to end in some other way than it did - but to make sure I don't misunderstand what I am reading. I know there is more to his actions than a straight-forward narrative - there is symbolism, metaphor and subtlety. I know it is there. But I am having difficulty seeing it. That is the source of my questioning.

"Of course you don't get it! You're narrow-minded!"

This observation makes me smile actually. If I were truly narrow-minded and closed off from the lessons of the Ramayana, I would have tossed the book aside immediately and dismissed it as false. Narrow-minded people do not bother to ask questions. They don't want to know if they are missing something. They are unwilling to entertain a viewpoint different from their own. And yet here I am -reaching out to those I know must see more than I do.

If the end of the Ramayana causes you no discomfort, and no spiritual unrest, consider yourself truly blessed. You have understood something that many have missed (including me) and you can move confidently forward.

"The Epics are not here for your entertainment."

Certainly that is not their first or predominant purpose. But I would be a liar if I said I wasn't extremely enthralled, entertained and invested in the story. What better way to teach important lessons than to make it interesting to learn? That is part of what makes the Ramayana so important. Anyone can write shallow, meaningless entertainment with no backbone or soul. But the Ramayana is both an extremely useful tool for spiritual growth, AND an amazing story. There is no reason why it can't be both. And there is no reason why its entertaining quality must reduce its value. Storytelling, especially oral storytelling, has been an honerable vocation as well as form of entertainment and teaching for thousands of years. Just because modern entertainments (soap operas, movies, comic books) may lack substance, that doesn't discredit the entire concept.

It would certainly be much easier to just break the Ramayana down into bullet points about morality. But I don't think it would be the same literary and religious treasure it is today.


____________________________________________

To those whom I have insulted with this or any other reply:

Please remember that not everyone grows up with this story. This is not a part of every persons cultural history. One would think (at least I would think) that anyone asking even very difficult or irreverent questions would be welcomed. Those hard questions give you the opportunity to dispel misconceptions and to win the hearts of those who may not understand you. Your hurt feelings are understandable - I was admittedly hurt by a few of the responses here. But please find it in yourselves to breath deep and embrace the opportunity to educate. For my part, I know now that I must address my misunderstandings with more care to my wording.


Again, thank you to all who have responded. I know I did not give you a good first impression of me.

There is some useful information here that I need to read over and think about before I can get back to addressing my initial problems with the End of the Ramayana. I shall post again shortly.

Peace!

[Jodhaa]

namasté

first i must thank the members of this forum for their response to Jodhaas question.

i must admit, when learning the story of Ramayan, this is something which troubled me greatly, along with parts of the mahabarata:

One of the reasons i took great pleasure in reading the Bhagavat Gita was in my mind i thought (being a mere mortal) Arjuns reservations in not fighting were admirable, and i was wondering how he could be convinced otherwise, and why his position seemed so worng?

thats when i read the Gita, and all became clear, such beautiful language used, truly is such an inspiration, and i finally understood the reason,

the reason for my little aside there is, i too, felt like jodhaa here, in terms of i was wondering how it would be possible for Ram to "appear to" abandon his wife, his one true love, in the manner that he did. Like the Bhagavat Gita itself, i was hoping the forum members here would illuminate me in that sense and i feel that Jodhaa meant the same as well and meant no offense to anyone in the manner of the post.

i must add that, the reasons i would ask the questions is NOT because i'm looking for faults in our religion, but i want to remove any mis interpretations from my mind that i may have.

i would like to thank Indraneela as well for the link presented, that has cleared up a lot of issues for me, but if the forum members would permit me, i would like to ask one question.


from the link, it shows, even though as much as Ram loved Sita, he could not go against his Dharma, his duty as a King and ruler of his people, and had to do what is in the best interest of his people, a decision which, in purely a mere mortal point of view, must have been the most difficult he ever made.

Now, can i ask, if the populas felt this way about Sita, (which i can't imagine myself, in that position, would ever think, of my loving queen, the wife of my King!), and for this reason, Ram had to send Sita away, (maybe i'm wrong here, please correct me if this is the case), so hypothetically, if for instance, the populas took a disliking to say lakhsman, would he also suffer the same fate? for the greater good? Because we know well of the devotion of Sita to Ram and vice versa, but here two innocents are made to suffer due to the belief of those without the knowledge of what happened (the people).

from a purely personal view, My anger is aimed at the people, because how could they think that of their queen, and the wife of a king they so adored! It was a situation that Ram should never have been put in.

i apologise if this question is offensive, its never my intention for that, any clarification would help immensely

i am at the behest of the more learned


thanks


Vikash

Namaste Vikash

Thank you for your support. I knew I could not be the only one who felt misgivings about this subject. I must read the link provided by Indraneela before responding further, but I want to thank you.

[Jodhaa]

If you do wish to analyse it further, I have found this discussion (http://prekshaa.blogspot.ca/2010/03/abandoning-of-sita.html) interesting, for helping me to open my mind and think about the story in a new way, when I was just starting out and feeling very confused.

The actions of the Divine as portrayed in Rāmāyaṇa also have much to teach, if one leaves behind modern cynicism and looks with respect and open-mindedness, to reach for the higher lessons that are there in such rich abundance.




Namaste, Indraneela

Thank you for this link. It was very concise and easy to follow and it has helped answer a few of my questions. I still find myself stuck on a few points, but I will elaborate in my next post more thoroughly.

Peace

[Jodhaa]

Originaly from Indraneela:

"If you do wish to analyse it further, I have found this discussion (http://prekshaa.blogspot.ca/2010/03/abandoning-of-sita.html) interesting, for helping me to open my mind and think about the story in a new way, when I was just starting out and feeling very confused."

I want to thank Indraneela for this link. It was extremely informative and enlightening. It did ease my mind about many things, but there is one area that still troubles me.

I accept that both Rama and Sita made a great sacrifice for the people of Ayodhya and that both suffered greatly. But Rama's relationship to his people is repeatedly described as that of a father to his children. To this end, Does Rama allow his people to believe that Sita was unfit to be queen even though he knows she is pure in very way that matters? By following his Dharma, and forcing Sita to leave, does he not reinforces this idea of Sita's impurity by casting her out? Does he not allow his people to believe a lie, albeit unintentional and well meaning?

I suppose the alternative to this wouldn't have been possible - that is, trying to convince the people of Sita's purity. The logistics would have been insurmountable.

I'm still working through this, but if anyone has any thoughts I would appreciate it greatly!

Thank you!

[Jodhaa]

i must add that, the reasons i would ask the questions is NOT because i'm looking for faults in our religion, but i want to remove any mis interpretations from my mind that i may have.

i would like to thank Indraneela as well for the link presented, that has cleared up a lot of issues for me, but if the forum members would permit me, i would like to ask one question.


from a purely personal view, My anger is aimed at the people, because how could they think that of their queen, and the wife of a king they so adored! It was a situation that Ram should never have been put in.


Vikash

[/quote]Consider, also, that a religious story which many Westerners revere is one of God sending his child amongst ignorant people to be tortured and murdered. On a literal human level, it seems less horrifying only because it's familiar. Yet the people devoted to that story find a number of deeper meanings in it.[/quote]



I have been thinking over various comments from this topic and the two comments above occurred to me together and it made me realize something and I wanted to share it before it slipped away.

What occurred to me, is that in both the story of the sacrifice of Christ and the story of the abandonment of Sita, the final weighing judgement is based upon the opinion of "The people". The people are effectively "us" - with our faulty logic and misconceptions.

In both stories, it can be said that the people - rather then trying to learn the truth or correct their thinking, relied upon their supposedly beloved rulers to save them via sacrifice. In both stories, it is hopeless to convince the people that they are making a mistake in judgement. The only solution is to show them their mistake through the loss of the greatest gift they were ever given - for the Christians, Christ - for the Ayodhyians, Rama-Sita. (Symbolically).

The lesson is for the people (i.e us, or the audiences of later times). The message is that there will be greatness that lives among us for a little while, and if we don't realize , or we neglect to understand it, we will repeat the mistakes of the past, cause injury to our teachers and therefore injury to ourselves as a society.

I would like to say that thinking of the the story of the Ramayana in this way lifts a weight off my shoulders because I can feel complete compassion for Rama as well as Sita- rather then eyeing Rama with suspicion. The question then becomes "Was Rama the "Ideal" man?" - I think he was as ideal a man as his people allowed him to be.

Am I getting closer? It feels right. Although, feelings are not facts, as I have learned. Thoughts?

[Omkara]

Vikash has asked here that if the populace did not like lakshman,would Rama have sent him away too?

The answer is,Rama banished the person his subjects did not want as their queen.He was simply doing has duty as a king by submitting to the wishes of his subjects.

In a dharmic polity,a ruler is accountable to hus subjects.The traditional hindu coronation ceremony included a ritual where the king would stand before his subjects and proclaim that he is supreme and that there is no one above him.Then the priest would whack him thrice with a stuck,saying "No,for you,too are subject to dharma."

There are examples in our scriptures of rulers being replaced for incompetence and misrule like king vena and nahusha.

A public official must be above reproach.Sita,though she was chaste, waa suspect in the eyes of the people,and in a dharmic polity, a king is subject to the will of the people.

Rama's sacrifice may seem too terrible to us,but that is why he is perfect and we are not.

[Omkara]

Btw Jodha,which version of the Ramayana did you read?I would recommend readibg the translation of the original acailable very cheap from Gita Press rather than retellings or abridgements.

[vikz22]

Vikash has asked here that if the populace did not like lakshman,would Rama have sent him away too?

The answer is,Rama banished the person his subjects did not want as their queen.He was simply doing has duty as a king by submitting to the wishes of his subjects.

In a dharmic polity,a ruler is accountable to hus subjects.The traditional hindu coronation ceremony included a ritual where the king would stand before his subjects and proclaim that he is supreme and that there is no one above him.Then the priest would whack him thrice with a stuck,saying "No,for you,too are subject to dharma."

There are examples in our scriptures of rulers being replaced for incompetence and misrule like king vena and nahusha.

A public official must be above reproach.Sita,though she was chaste, waa suspect in the eyes of the people,and in a dharmic polity, a king is subject to the will of the people.

Rama's sacrifice may seem too terrible to us,but that is why he is perfect and we are not.


thanks Omkara for your response, it has clarified things greatly! :)

[Jodhaa]

Btw Jodha,which version of the Ramayana did you read?I would recommend readibg the translation of the original acailable very cheap from Gita Press rather than retellings or abridgements.


Namaste Omkara!

Thank you for your replies. The version I read was translated and retold by Ramesh Menon. It is quite a lengthy prose version. I know the original is an epic poem but I was not able to find a complete version of it. Many of the poetic versions are abridged. So I felt it was better to have a more complete prose retelling than a poetic version with actual missing pieces. But I will look up your reference and see if I can get my hands on a copy. Many thanks!

Peace.

[Omkara]

You can download a full translation for free on this website itself from the hdf library.Go to the top of the page and click the library button.
A translation is also available at www.valmikiramayan.net

[Jodhaa]

You can download a full translation for free on this website itself from the hdf library.Go to the top of the page and click the library button.
A translation is also available at www.valmikiramayan.net (http://www.valmikiramayan.net)

Thank you, Omkara!

[Seeker123]

Namaste!

....Until the end, when he banishes the pregnant Sita to the wilderness in order to regain the respect of his people.

Thank you!


Uttarakanda is considered a later addition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayan...rarajan-106-11
The Valmiki Ramayana book published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has only 6 kandas. Uttara Kanda is supposed to be the 7th kanda which has the controversial Sita banishing episode.

On a different note Rama lived as a human. Only in the 6th Yuddha Kanda do all Devas come and reveal he is the Vishnu. We can get into arguments as to how that is possible etc etc. but the main take away from Ramayana is that Rama is the embodiment of Dharma and as humans we should aspire to follow Dharma like Ram rather than just praying to Ram as God without following Dharma.

[Jodhaa]

On a different note Rama lived as a human.

Thank you for your contribution Seeker.

I had been avoiding the question of whether Rama should be discussed in terms of his "human-ness" or his divinity. But since you have brought it up I will comment.

It is my personal belief that Rama's humanity makes him even more admirable rather than just considering his actions as the divine. Still, I have been receiving mixed messages about how to approach Rama.

Some say because of his divinity, Rama did not face the troubles of human emotions and false thinking. But Rama displays quite a bit of emotion in the Ramayana - to the point of tears. I don't read this as weakness. I think his divinity allowed him to be a better person - if that makes any sense at all. He was a more realized human being throughout the story, and then fully realized at the end.


Peace.

[philosoraptor]

Rama is the Supreme Brahman Himself. His "humanness" is an act, a mere sport on His part. He doesn't need to be told He is the supreme person, because He knows that by virtue of His omniscience. When He takes avatAra it is for the purpose of restoring dharma and annihilating miscreants. All of this has to be understood properly.

If memory serves, the devas informing Him of His supremacy took place in the context of their urging Him to take back Sita after the defeat of Ravana.



kartaa sarvasya lokasya shreShTho jJNaanavataaM prabhuH |
upekShase kathaM siitaaM patantiiM havyavaahane || 6-117-6
kathaM devagaNashreShThamaatmaanaM naavabuddhyase |

"How do you, the maker of the entire cosmos, the foremost among those endowed with knowledge and an all-capable person, ignore Seetha who is falling into the fire? How do you not recognize yourself to be the foremost of the troop of gods?"

ante chaadau cha lokaanaaM dR^ishyase cha paraMtapa || 6-117-9
upekShase cha vaidehiiM maanuShaH praakR^ito yathaa |

"O the destroyer of the adversaries. You are seen (to exist) at the beginning and at the end of creation. Yet, you ignore Seetha, just like a common man."

siitaa lakShmiirbhavaan viShNurdevaH kR^iShNaH prajaapatiH || 6-117-28
vadhaarthaM raavaNasyeha praviShTo maanuShiiM tanum |

"Seetha is no other than Goddess Lakshmi (the divine consort of Lord Vishnu), while you are Lord Vishnu. You are having a shining dark-blue hue. You are the Lord of created beings. For the destruction of Ravana, you entered a human body here, on this earth."

tadidaM nastvayaa kaaryaM kR^itaM dharmabhR^itaaM vara || 6-117-29
nihato raavaNo raama prahR^iShTo divamaakrama |

"O Rama, the foremost among the supporters of righteousness! The aforesaid purpose of ours has been fulfilled. Ravana has been killed. Return to your divine abode, with a rejoice."



In other words, while Rama was intent on His course of action for as yet reasons unclear, the devas were merely trying to tell Him that He had accomplished the purpose of this avatAra and could take back Sita now.

But still Rama did not do so until her chastity had been demonstrated to all present by the intervention of Agni-deva.



avashyaM chaapi lokeShu siitaa paavanamarhati |
diirghakaaloShitaa hiiyaM raavaNaantaHpure shubhaa || 6-118-13

"Seetha certainly deserves this pure factory ordeal in the eyes of the people in as much as this blessed woman had resided for a long time indeed in the gynaecium of Ravana.

baalisho bata kaamaatma raamo dasharathaatmajaH |
iti vakShyati maaM loko jaanakiimavishodhya hi || 6-118-14

"The world would chatter against me, saying that Rama, the son of Dasaratha, was really foolish and that his mind was dominated by lust, if I accept Seetha without examining her with regard to her chastity."

ananyahR^idayaaM bhaktaaM machattaparivartiniim |
ahamapyavagachchhaami maithiliiM janakaatmajaam || 6-118-15

"I also know that Seetha, the daughter of Janaka, who ever revolves in my mind, is undivided in her affection to me."

imaamapi vishaalaakShiiM rakShitaaM svena tejasaa |
raavaNo naativarteta vela miva mahodadhiH || 6-118-16

"Ravana could not violate this wide-eyed woman, protected as she was by her own splendour, any more than an ocean would transgress its bounds."

pratyayaarthaM tu lokaanaaM trayaaNaam satyasaMshrayaH |
upekShe chaapi vaidehiiM pravishantiiM hutaashanam || 6-118-17

"In order to convince the three worlds, I, whose refugee is truth, ignored Seetha while she was entering the fire."

na cha shaktaH suduShTatmaa manasaapi hi maithiliim |
pradharShayitumapraapyaaM diiptaamagnishikhaamiva || 6-118-18

"The evil-minded Ravana was not able to lay his violent hands, even in thought, o the unobtainable Seetha, who was blazing like a flaming tongue of fire."

neya marhati chaishvaryaM raavaNaantaHpure shubhaa |
ananyaa hi mayaa siitaa bhaaskareNa prabhaa yathaa || 6-118-19

"This auspicious woman could not give way to the sovereignty, existing in the gynaecium of Ravana, in as much as Seetha is not different from me, even as sunlight is not different from the sun."

vishuddhaa triShu lokeShu maithilii janakaatmajaa |
na vihaatuM mayaa shakyaa kiirtiraatmavataa yathaa || 6-118-20

"Seetha, the daughter of Janaka, is completely pure in her character, in all the three worlds and can no longer be renounced by me, as a good name cannot be cast aside by a prudent man."


If there is any one consistent feature of Rama's behavior, it is that He does precisely what must be done to set a good example for the rest of us. This He does even when it involves great personal sacrifice on His part. Why is this so? Because a king should also behave like this, that is to say, put the material and spiritual needs of his subjects above even his own. He has to have the respect of the people and cannot be seen as one who transgresses dharma while requiring others to follow it.

Certainly Rama could have heeded Brahma's advice and simply ended His pasttimes then and there. But as regards to the character of Sita and His own character as a husband, He had yet another lesson to teach. The wife in Vedic culture is dharma-patni. A man is not eligible to perform sacrifices without his dharma-patni. Hence her character is as important as his. Though He would have no doubt about her character, it is the people and the devas who might. Hence, the agni-pariksha.

[Jodhaa]

Once again, Philosoraptor, like many other in this thread, you have explained beautifully and clearly.

Now that I have understood this concept more clearly I do realize how it was so difficult for me in the beginning. The Western mind, in general, demands that "love conquer all" for the alternative seems depressing and hopeless. But in reality, love is not so simple. And where love and duty intersect it gets very complicated.
Now, of course, in the Ramayana, Love indeed does triumph, just not in the way most people expect or are used to.

Thank you again!

Peace.

[devisarada]

Namaste Jodhaa,

Perhaps next time you will ask your questions with less anger and more humility.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


But still Rama did not do so until her chastity had been demonstrated to all present by the intervention of Agni-deva.

...Hence, the agni-pariksha.

Did I not read somewhere that through all this time the three, Rama, Sita and Agni were "in on it"? That is, all three knew that Sita would pass the trial by fire, because Agni knew as well as Rama that Sita was chaste, and He (Agni) would not harm Her. It was just a show and "performance" for the subjects, as Rama and Agni never doubted for a moment Sita's faithfulness.

[Jodhaa]

Namaste.



Did I not read somewhere that through all this time the three, Rama, Sita and Agni were "in on it"? That is, all three knew that Sita would pass the trial by fire, because Agni knew as well as Rama that Sita was chaste, and He (Agni) would not harm Her. It was just a show and "performance" for the subjects, as Rama and Agni never doubted for a moment Sita's faithfulness.


I suppose it could be read as such. Although, if Sita was "in on it" she seemed quite grief stricken during the whole process.

[Jainarayan]

I suppose it could be read as such. Although, if Sita was "in on it" she seemed quite grief stricken during the whole process.

If my understanding was correct and the whole thing was a charade to "punk" Rama's subjects, She would have to play that part. I too have felt sorry for Srimati Sita, especially when She appealed to Bhumidevi to take Her. But I think this whole thing is a lesson for us to reflect on who and what God really is, and what we should do, regardless of our attachments. I think only now I see (maybe wrongly) that Lord Rama was showing us that no matter how much we love someone or something, that attachment must be broken for "the greater good", i.e. dharma. :dunno: I don't know, some of this stuff I make up as I go along. I'm no scriptural scholar, just a simple-minded bhakta. :o

[Jodhaa]

If my understanding was correct and the whole thing was a charade to "punk" Rama's subjects, She would have to play that part. I too have felt sorry for Srimati Sita, especially when She appealed to Bhumidevi to take Her. But I think this whole thing is a lesson for us to reflect on who and what God really is, and what we should do, regardless of our attachments. I think only now I see (maybe wrongly) that Lord Rama was showing us that no matter how much we love someone or something, that attachment must be broken for "the greater good", i.e. dharma. :dunno: I don't know, some of this stuff I make up as I go along. I'm no scriptural scholar, just a simple-minded bhakta. :o

I take your meaning on the word "punk", but it does make it sound like Rama was trying to trick everyone - I don't think that's what his intention was. It's a shame that the world at the time had to be convinced of Sita's purity.

I think one of the lessons is that when humanity fails to evolve we end up hurting those that have come to rescue us from ourselves. Of course, one can only act on the knowledge one has at the time, but hopefully after repeated mistakes, we, as a species will finally learn from our mistakes.

Thank you for you reply, jainarayan!

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


I take your meaning on the word "punk", but it does make it sound like Rama was trying to trick everyone - I don't think that's what his intention was. It's a shame that the world at the time had to be convinced of Sita's purity.

Trick might be a little stronger than I'd like to use or convey in this case, because He had no malice aforethought. I use the word "punk" to indicate proving someone wrong (especially when they deserve it :p). This charade, if it was indeed a charade, was probably the only way to show His subjects Sita's purity. He didn't rule with an iron fist, so I think a royal proclamation banning the gossip would be out of character.

[Jodhaa]

Namaste.



Trick might be a little stronger than I'd like to use or convey in this case, because He had no malice aforethought. I use the word "punk" to indicate proving someone wrong (especially when they deserve it :p). This charade, if it was indeed a charade, was probably the only way to show His subjects Sita's purity. He didn't rule with an iron fist, so I think a royal proclamation banning the gossip would be out of character.

;)Understood =). I guess I just think of that terrible show "Punked" that used to be on MTV.

As I've begun to understand the messeges in this story, Rama's motives and intentions are clearer to me and no longer seem unkind. I assumed that the love his people bore for him would make it easy to convince them that Sita was pure. But sadly it seems public opinion outweighed their love, at least in this case.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

There is nothing in the text to indicate that Sita was "in on it." Such an interpretation would detract from the significance of the event.

When Rama rescues Sita after months of anxiety over her safety, He adopts a stoic expression while Sita is brought before Him and tells her that she may now go wherever she likes, being free. This response shocks all the devas and other well-wishers present, as it does Sita, who protests that she has no other Lord and would not wish to be anywhere else. When Rama still does not take her back, she resolves that she would rather enter fire rather than have some other Lord besides Rama. No one can understand why Rama is behaving like this, not even the devas headed by Brahma.

I already discussed the apparent reason for the behavior - to uphold dharma and demonstrate the purity of Sita. However, there is another point to consider. Sita is not just the ideal wife. She is the ideal prapanna, and her example should be taken as illustrative of sharanAgati. By refusing to go anywhere else she was demonstrating the one-pointed devotion of the prapanna who only accepts Narayana as her Lord and no one else. Thus, her actions were not merely an act; they were quite sincere. After undergoing so many difficulties, namely going into the forest with Rama, being kidnapped by Ravana, being harassed and threatened in so many ways by Ravana, and finally being rescued by Rama only to face the prospects of not being able to rejoin Him as was her fondest wish, Sita would still not renounce her Lord. The Ramayana is therefore, in many ways, the story of Sita. And her example is meant not just to inspire women, but to inspire all of us who desire His grace and follow the path of sharaNAgati.

There is a verse attributed to the Bengali saint Sri Chaitanya that goes as follows:

"I know no one but Krishna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me brokenhearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord, unconditionally."

This verse captures the essence of Vishnu-bhakti that is taught in our scriptures. It is not just "love." It is unconditional devotion. The Lord need not reciprocate in order to earn the devotee's devotion. In actuality, the Lord does reciprocate by granting so many blessings to the devotee, and still He feels it is not enough. And so in the end He simply grants Himself to His pure devotee. But, the point is, the devotee's love is not conditional on these things. And that is why it is "devotion," and not the more vulgar reflection of it which we know of in this world as "love."

[Omkara]

Hi,I think the adhyatma ramayana says that sita was 'in on it'.I have no idea how many vaishnavas accept this but I know madhvaas and ramanandis accept it It is found in one of the 18 mukhya puranas,but I seem to have forgotten which one.

[Jainarayan]

Pranams,

There is nothing in the text to indicate that Sita was "in on it." Such an interpretation would detract from the significance of the event.




Hi,I think the adhyatma ramayana says that sita was 'in on it'.I have no idea how many vaishnavas accept this but I know madhvaas and ramanandis accept it It is found in one of the 18 mukhya puranas,but I seem to have forgotten which one.

Yes, this is what I was referring to, though my memory mangled it a bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhyatma_Ramayana I'm not debating the validity of it, or the versions, or undercutting the original Ramayana, just pointing out that I read something like this somewhere.



Similarly, according to this text, real Sita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita) was never really abducted by Ravana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravana). Rama being the all-knower in this version, has premonition about the abduction, and thus instructs Sita to invoke Agni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni), the God of Fire and creates an illusionary self, or Maya Sita, thus when Ravana finally appears, Sita plays along the character, and illusionary Sita is abducted, and is regained after the fire ordeal, once Ravana is killed. [2] (http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft6870073m&chunk.id=d0e947&toc.id=d0e792&brand=eschol)


[2] (http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft6870073m&chunk.id=d0e947&toc.id=d0e792&brand=eschol) http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6870073m&chunk.id=d0e947&toc.id=d0e792&brand=eschol

[Omkara]

It is from thr Brahmanda Purana.I have a translation of the Brahmanda Purana in ebook format.I will be uploading it on my online livrary soon.Perhaps then we can go deeper into this with the text at hand.

[philosoraptor]

Just to clarify, I was referring of course to the rAmAyaNa of vAlmIki. I am less familiar with other versions and their authoritativeness (or lack thereof).

[Omkara]

To download Brahmanda Purana
http://www.archive.org/download/BrahmandaPurana/BrahmandaPuI.pdf

[philosoraptor]

That's awesome! Thank you!

Any chance of getting the other AITM translations in PDF format? I have purchased most of them in print, but it would be nice to have a format which I could read on a portable device when I'm on the move.

[Seeker123]

Thank you for your contribution Seeker.
I had been avoiding the question of whether Rama should be discussed in terms of his "human-ness" or his divinity. But since you have brought it up I will comment.

It is my personal belief that Rama's humanity makes him even more admirable rather than just considering his actions as the divine. Still, I have been receiving mixed messages about how to approach Rama.

Some say because of his divinity, Rama did not face the troubles of human emotions and false thinking. But Rama displays quite a bit of emotion in the Ramayana - to the point of tears. I don't read this as weakness. I think his divinity allowed him to be a better person - if that makes any sense at all. He was a more realized human being throughout the story, and then fully realized at the end.
Peace.

Yes in Valmiki Ramayana Rama is portrayed as if he did not know he was divine. He cries, gets really angry to the point of saying he will annihilate the 3 worlds, gets depressed and is consolated by Lakshmana. On the other hand with Krishna he is potrayed as if he knew he was divine right from the beginning - in Gokula many times he uses Maya to make people forget of any divine act he had just done. This is not to demean Rama in any way. Both are avtaras of Vishnu no doubt and we need to learn from these wonderful epics.

[Jodhaa]

Yes in Valmiki Ramayana Rama is portrayed as if he did not know he was divine. He cries, gets really angry to the point of saying he will annihilate the 3 worlds, gets depressed and is consolated by Lakshmana. On the other hand with Krishna he is potrayed as if he knew he was divine right from the beginning - in Gokula many times he uses Maya to make people forget of any divine act he had just done. This is not to demean Rama in any way. Both are avtaras of Vishnu no doubt and we need to learn from these wonderful epics.

Agreed - both Rama and Krishna, by virtue of being fundamentally the same, are still beautiful for their unique qualities. I know less about Krishna because I have only read the Gita - and from what I can tell, his story is spread across many sources. It will take me a while to read them all.

Peace!:)

[Omkara]

I'd recommend the krishna coriolis series by ashok banker at www.akbebooks.com

[vikz22]

hey guys,

i'm reading the Ramayana translated and written by C. Rajagopalachari,

is this version good?

[Jodhaa]

I'd recommend the krishna coriolis series by ashok banker at www.akbebooks.com (http://www.akbebooks.com)


Namaste, Omkara,

Thank you for the recommendation! I shall look into it!

Peace!

[philosoraptor]

hey guys,

i'm reading the Ramayana translated and written by C. Rajagopalachari,

is this version good?

It's ok. I read it years ago. Frankly I thought he did a better job with the Mahabharata. I strongly recommend getting the Gita Press version of the Ramayana which is unabridged but still very readable.

[vikz22]

It's ok. I read it years ago. Frankly I thought he did a better job with the Mahabharata. I strongly recommend getting the Gita Press version of the Ramayana which is unabridged but still very readable.

thanks,

i read the mahabarata version by him as well, but i will check the Gita Press version

[twista88]

Namaste, Omkara,

Thank you for the recommendation! I shall look into it!

Peace!

Hi Jodhaa,

I understand yr questions and sentiments. To aid u in understanding certain actions of Lord Rama, there is a book called "The Secrets of Different Ramayanas". (http://www.mlbd.com/BookDecription.aspx?id=10824) You may google up this book and review its content.

I have purchased this book and managed to understand certain actions of Lord Rama. I will try to upload this on the net, currently I am trying to locate a suitable platform that can host this uploads.

Contact me if u require more info.

Regards,
Ravi

[twista88]

To all who need more clarification regarding the Ramayana, pls google this book, u may purchase it if u wish.

Title: The Secrets of Different Ramayanas

Supreme Brahman (Lord Rama) is never affected by maya, whatever HE does there's always a good reason behind it.

No one is made to understand the lila of the Supreme, not even Lord Shiva, Lord Brahma and all other celestial beings. That is why Vedic scriptures like the Ramayana and Bhagvad Gita are known as Bhakti Granth (Book of faith and devotion). Through this we obtain wisdom, knowledge and eventually salvation.

The Supreme Lord never interferes with our free will HE only lays down the truth and advices to abide by it, it is humans who leave whimsically that bring about so much harm to ourselves and the world, just look around and you'll know. But still HE is guiding us and rescuing us from trouble whenever we sincerely call upon HIM. But when the world is in utter chaos and too much evil is on the rise, HE incarnates and restores order again and again for our benefit. HE never expects anything from us, except love, faith, devotion and most importantly to abide by Dharma as much as possible. When Dharma is protected, it will in-turn protect us.

Just my 2 cents :)

[philosoraptor]

The Supreme Lord never interferes with our free will HE only lays down the truth and advices to abide by it, it is humans who leave whimsically that bring about so much harm to ourselves and the world, just look around and you'll know. But still HE is guiding us and rescuing us from trouble whenever we sincerely call upon HIM. But when the world is in utter chaos and too much evil is on the rise, HE incarnates and restores order again and again for our benefit. HE never expects anything from us, except love, faith, devotion and most importantly to abide by Dharma as much as possible. When Dharma is protected, it will in-turn protect us.

Just my 2 cents :)

[/SIZE]

Actually, twista, there are some situations in which the Lord does interfere with free will. For example, harassing or kidnapping a devotee. After Ravana kidnapped Sita, Rama interefered with his free will in a very terminal sort of way....

:-)

[Omkara]

How do you come up with these?:D

A little bit more perspective on the OP,I think the conclusion that Rama expected,anticipated,and even intended Sita's abduction and her subsequent banishment is inevitable if Rama is omniscient.He would know that the deer was a trap,why did he go after it?

He has His own plans.The war that took part in Lanka was but a small part of a greater war being fought across various planes of existence.Perhaps all these events serve a purpose we cannot understand completely.

[Jodhaa]

Hi Jodhaa,

I understand yr questions and sentiments. To aid u in understanding certain actions of Lord Rama, there is a book called "The Secrets of Different Ramayanas". (http://www.mlbd.com/BookDecription.aspx?id=10824) You may google up this book and review its content.

I have purchased this book and managed to understand certain actions of Lord Rama. I will try to upload this on the net, currently I am trying to locate a suitable platform that can host this uploads.

Contact me if u require more info.

Regards,
Ravi

Namaste Ravi,

Thank you for offering a reference. Anything that can expand my view of the epics is greatly appreciated.:)

Peace!

[Jodhaa]

How do you come up with these?:D

A little bit more perspective on the OP,I think the conclusion that Rama expected,anticipated,and even intended Sita's abduction and her subsequent banishment is inevitable if Rama is omniscient.He would know that the deer was a trap,why did he go after it?

He has His own plans.The war that took part in Lanka was but a small part of a greater war being fought across various planes of existence.Perhaps all these events serve a purpose we cannot understand completely.

Namaste Omkara,

Thank you for your contribution! What you are saying certainly must be true if we believe Rama is God and God is omnscient. I suppose then the question becomes, if this was all a part of a larger plan in which Rama - the king, the man and the God, knew that everything would work out in the end, why all the internal suffering? Why the tears? Certainly ordinary human beings are subject to doubts, because most of us are not entirely confident that everything will be okay in the end - or at least we aren't capable of taking a long enough view in order to take comfort in that fact.

But God is beyond this isn't he? I guess what I'm getting at is that Rama is God come to earth for the benefit of the world, but there has to be some human element in his being, else he would be immune to strong negative or positive emotions. If these negative events and emotions don't afflict him truly, then where is the sacrifice? What is the significant of his separation from Sita, if he truly can't be separated from her in any way that really matters? In essence, if God doesn't care, why should we?

Is it possible for God to be beyond emotion and detached while at the same time being psychologically invested and vulnerable to emotional pain? I suppose the short answer is 'yes' since God is capable of anything. But then, is the lesson that we are capable of the same? Is the only difference between Rama and one of us that he mastered the balance between his humanity and his divinity, and the rest of us are still struggling?

These are just thoughts swirling in my mind and I'm not sure there are real answers to them. I appreciate that everyone has been so thoughtful with their responses. I'm sure it's not easy being patient with questions that have undoubtedly been asked before, many times.

Thank you all!

Peace!

[Omkara]

Qrguments about this very question have been going on for milennia among vaishnavas and between Vaishnavas and other sects.
A very interesting debate about it has been raging here for weeks now.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9998

It actually boils down to-
Does God have a personality or not?

[Jodhaa]

Qrguments about this very question have been going on for milennia among vaishnavas abd between Vaishnavas and other sects.
A very interesting debate about it has been raging here for weeks now.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9998


Thank you Omkara. I will have a look!

[twista88]

Namaste Omkara,

Thank you for your contribution! What you are saying certainly must be true if we believe Rama is God and God is omnscient. I suppose then the question becomes, if this was all a part of a larger plan in which Rama - the king, the man and the God, knew that everything would work out in the end, why all the internal suffering? Why the tears? Certainly ordinary human beings are subject to doubts, because most of us are not entirely confident that everything will be okay in the end - or at least we aren't capable of taking a long enough view in order to take comfort in that fact.

But God is beyond this isn't he? I guess what I'm getting at is that Rama is God come to earth for the benefit of the world, but there has to be some human element in his being, else he would be immune to strong negative or positive emotions. If these negative events and emotions don't afflict him truly, then where is the sacrifice? What is the significant of his separation from Sita, if he truly can't be separated from her in any way that really matters? In essence, if God doesn't care, why should we?

Is it possible for God to be beyond emotion and detached while at the same time being psychologically invested and vulnerable to emotional pain? I suppose the short answer is 'yes' since God is capable of anything. But then, is the lesson that we are capable of the same? Is the only difference between Rama and one of us that he mastered the balance between his humanity and his divinity, and the rest of us are still struggling?

These are just thoughts swirling in my mind and I'm not sure there are real answers to them. I appreciate that everyone has been so thoughtful with their responses. I'm sure it's not easy being patient with questions that have undoubtedly been asked before, many times.

Thank you all!

Peace!

Hi Jodhaa,

I am happy to help whenever I can.

When GOD (Lord Rama) descended on earth, he came here as a son, prince, husband, disciple, brother, etc. He lived life as a human and a role model at the same time for humans, that is why he was seen to be affected by maya in several ways.

In truth he never was affected, the whole saga is HIS Leela, if he could annihilate and liberate Ravana, do u really think he wasnt aware of things happening around HIM?? The fact that besides Lord Rama none of the deities could confront Ravan and defeat him, this speaks a ton as to Lord Rama's true identity. Little facts like this can remove ones doubt.

Similarly, only when HE appeared as Lord Narasimha was Hiranyakashipu defeated and eventually liberated. At times a million facts can bewilder a person not because there are contradictions rather it is about ones ability to understand spiritual events and wisdom.

Peace and blessings :-))

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Omkara,

Thank you for your contribution! What you are saying certainly must be true if we believe Rama is God and God is omnscient. I suppose then the question becomes, if this was all a part of a larger plan in which Rama - the king, the man and the God, knew that everything would work out in the end, why all the internal suffering? Why the tears? Certainly ordinary human beings are subject to doubts, because most of us are not entirely confident that everything will be okay in the end - or at least we aren't capable of taking a long enough view in order to take comfort in that fact.

But God is beyond this isn't he? I guess what I'm getting at is that Rama is God come to earth for the benefit of the world, but there has to be some human element in his being, else he would be immune to strong negative or positive emotions. If these negative events and emotions don't afflict him truly, then where is the sacrifice? What is the significant of his separation from Sita, if he truly can't be separated from her in any way that really matters? In essence, if God doesn't care, why should we?

Is it possible for God to be beyond emotion and detached while at the same time being psychologically invested and vulnerable to emotional pain? I suppose the short answer is 'yes' since God is capable of anything. But then, is the lesson that we are capable of the same? Is the only difference between Rama and one of us that he mastered the balance between his humanity and his divinity, and the rest of us are still struggling?

These are just thoughts swirling in my mind and I'm not sure there are real answers to them. I appreciate that everyone has been so thoughtful with their responses. I'm sure it's not easy being patient with questions that have undoubtedly been asked before, many times.

Thank you all!

Peace!

Good questions. If you ask people with traditional beliefs, they will staunchly defend the concept of the avatar. The foregone conclusion is it must all be true. So any inconsistency is only because we are not understanding it correctly or we lack the right spirit. When you look at it this way, questions are really pointless.

if you post this question on an academic thread, the response will be different. Avatars are created by people, a concept very common in India. Most scholars believe the avatar Rama was backed by a historical Rama, who may have lived around 800 BC. The work may have originally been purely historical, but eventually picked up Vaishnava accretions and Rama was deified - like Krishna, Buddha, Swami Narayan, Sai Baba and several others.

In my opinion, the concept of an avatar or a personal God (with human-like behavior) are flawed because they detract from the concept of all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent God. It is also not clear, how people of present times are expected to benefit from this work. If Rama displayed heroic behavior, he also had a darker side to him, which included killing Vali from hiding and banishing a pregnant Sita. The overall persona of Rama is one of a regular human and is not super-human in any way. However, if one is emotionally attached to the text, then it is easy to see divinity in anyone. It also puts one in a defensive mode.

You should go with your preference - traditional or critical. One is not better than the other. It just comes down to what works for you.

[Jodhaa]

If you ask people with traditional beliefs, they will staunchly defend the concept of the avatar. The foregone conclusion is it must all be true. So any inconsistency is only because we are not understanding it correctly or we lack the right spirit. When you look at it this way, questions are really pointless.

if you post this question on an academic thread, the response will be different. Avatars are created by people, a concept very common in India. Most scholars believe the avatar Rama was backed by a historical Rama, who may have lived around 800 BC. The work may have originally been purely historical, but eventually picked up Vaishnava accretions and Rama was deified - like Krishna, Buddha, Swami Narayan, Sai Baba and several others.

In my opinion, the concept of an avatar or a personal God (with human-like behavior) are flawed because they detract from the concept of all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent God. It is also not clear, how people of present times are expected to benefit from this work. If Rama displayed heroic behavior, he also had a darker side to him, which included killing Vali from hiding and banishing a pregnant Sita. The overall persona of Rama is one of a regular human and is not super-human in any way.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Shiv. These divergent opinions have battled it out in my mind for a while and I think I still need to wrestle with it more. If God gave us a logical mind, an emotional mind and a spiritual mind, there would hopefully be a way to reconcile them all. (But that would be logic speaking of course;))

I have formed some opinions of my own, which I won't divulge here, only because I know they may upset some again and that would not help the conversation move forward. I respect those that have come to an understanding of these stories. I still have some soul searching to do, as well as some re-reading and praying. If I keep searching I am hoping God will be kind enough to provide an answer when I am ready to receive it.

Peace!

[Viraja]

These divergent opinions have battled it out in my mind for a while and I think I still need to wrestle with it more.

I have formed some opinions of my own, which I won't divulge here, only because I know they may upset some again and that would not help the conversation move forward. I respect those that have come to an understanding of these stories. I still have some soul searching to do, as well as some re-reading and praying. If I keep searching I am hoping God will be kind enough to provide an answer when I am ready to receive it.

Peace!

Namaste Jodhaa,

It might be of some comfort to many of us to know, at the time of suffering, why we came to suffer that, meaning what we have done in the past life to earn the suffering. Likewise with gods too it might be of interest to know what they have done to do or earn a certain karma.

Once Sage Bhrigu's wife offered shelter to asuras (demons) when there was a war between devas (heavenly beings) and the asuras. Due to this, the demon race survived. Lord Vishnu was very angry with Bhrigu's wife for doing this, she being a heavenly being and asuras being the embodiment of wickedness. Hence he threw his disc at her and had her head cut down. Upon this, sage Bhrigu cursed Vishnu that in his forthcoming avatara as a human being on earth, he will face separation from his wife. It is said that this is the karma which is why Lord Rama had to get separated from his wife Sita upon Sita's banishment, although Lord Rama could have brought forth his fate himself.

[Jodhaa]

Namaste Jodhaa,


Once Sage Bhrigu's wife offered shelter to asuras (demons) when there was a war between devas (heavenly beings) and the asuras. Due to this, the demon race survived. Lord Vishnu was very angry with Bhrigu's wife for doing this, she being a heavenly being and asuras being the embodiment of wickedness. Hence he threw his disc at her and had her head cut down. Upon this, sage Bhrigu cursed Vishnu that in his forthcoming avatara as a human being on earth, he will face separation from his wife. It is said that this is the karma which is why Lord Rama had to get separated from his wife Sita upon Sita's banishment, although Lord Rama could have brought forth his fate himself.

Namste, Aspirant,

Thank you for that explanation. I had not heard that story. It certainly explains the Karma Rama incured, although is raises other questions for me now;) Did Bhrigu's wife offer shelter because the asuras were guests, despite their wickedness, and therefore hospitality was required? Or did she offer shelter because she wanted wickedness to succeed? The distinction is important (at least to me). In the first case, her act was done out of duty and compassion. That would make Vishnu's reaction seem a bit excessive. If it is the latter, then Vishnu was dispensing justice and his curse and subsequent separation from Sita when he became Rama would make him a more sympathetic person.

I thank you again for this information! It is an important detail.:)

Peace!

[Viraja]

Namaste Jodhaa,

Sage Bhrigu's wife was the mother of Sukracharya, the perceptor of the demons and hence it appears she was protecting her clan. Full story here: http://www.telugubhakti.com/telugupages/Sages/Bhrigu.htm.

Also though Vishnu's action might appear excessive, in the end he was only able to give the pain of beheading to Bhrigu's wife. She was promptly brought back to life by Bhrigu. :p

[Jodhaa]

Namaste Jodhaa,

Sage Bhrigu's wife was the mother of Sukracharya, the perceptor of the demons and hence it appears she was protecting her clan. Full story here: http://www.telugubhakti.com/telugupages/Sages/Bhrigu.htm.

Also though Vishnu's action might appear excessive, in the end he was only able to give the pain of beheading to Bhrigu's wife. She was promptly brought back to life by Bhrigu. :p


Oh, so when Bhrigu cursed Vishnu he was just being vindictive. Nice.:p Thank you for the link to the full story.:)

Peace!

[twista88]

Thank you Omkara. I will have a look!

Namaste Jodhaa just wanted to share my views with what Somashekhar said.

"" Namaste Somashekhar,

I understand your view point as I was once bewildered my what I read in the Ramayana. But if you look closely, did he really kill Vali, Ravana?? Rather he liberated them, from your nick I can infer that you are a devotee of Lord Shiva, so if I would to look at Ramayana then Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma are responsible for what happen, if they did not grant Ravana his powers then all this would not have happen.

But in Vedanta, humans are also responsible for their actions, Ravana only worshiped GOD for powers and was devoid of Dharma after getting his boon. Compare and contrast Vibhisana who stood by dharma putting himself at risk of execution at Ravana's hand when he opposed all the misdeeds of Ravana. Vibhisana chose to standby Lord Rama and righteousness. Ravana received his fruit of labour through tapasya which Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma granted him, thats why true devotees never ask for material gains or for power. They ask only for wisdom and GOD's grace. Even Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma in several scriptures stated the same thing, there many Rishis who worshiped them for faith and devotion but never asked for anything.

As far as the appearance of Lord Rama is concerned, he came in Treta Yuga which is approximately a million years ago, in Valmiki's Ramayan he stated elephants were the size of hills and birds were large enough to cover the sunlight wherever the flew. Living beings evolve over hundreds of thousand of years - millions of years and not overnight. It is crucial to discern the sources of info on Vedic text because of intentional distortions by colonialist and those who oppose the Vedic faith.

There is a deep meaning to Vali's killing, he was devoid of Dharma, mighty and very wicked. Lord Rama told Sugreeva to fight for his right and to not fear, he did exactly as told. The meaning of this episode is that life is a constant battle at every step and u will have to face it, there's no running away but dont fear as GOD is with you and GOD helps those who abide by Dharma. All that died at Lord Rama's hand were liberated so in reality it was a blessing in disguise. GOD will also annihilate those miscreants who torment good loving people and who aim to destroy Dharma.

Goddess Sita is not a human, she is Goddess, thus no pain comes to her arising from her banishment, moreover Lord Rama exemplified Dharma of a leader where people came first over personal relations, a washer man questioned her chastity which Lord Rama knew to be perfect and pure but had to make a very difficult choice to send her off to an ashram. On the same note both of them came her to fulfill a task and they did it, now it was time for them to return to their abode. I recommend a book, titled
"The secrets of different Ramayanas". You may google it up and purchase it, I already have the book and would upload it online soon for all to read and have their queries answered.

There was once it was stated that Lord Krishna was here some time between 2-3 thousand years ago but eventually archaeologist found the holy city of Dwarka and agreed with the Vedic scriptures.

It is not a question of what works for you and how you perceive things, its about GOD and truth. If I follow your ideology then should I accept that the world is flat or that the sun sinks into water just because my human and materialistic eyes perceives it that way?? If the world is degraded should I follow this degraded way??

Just my 2 cents!

Peace and blessings :-)) ""

[twista88]

Good questions. If you ask people with traditional beliefs, they will staunchly defend the concept of the avatar. The foregone conclusion is it must all be true. So any inconsistency is only because we are not understanding it correctly or we lack the right spirit. When you look at it this way, questions are really pointless.

if you post this question on an academic thread, the response will be different. Avatars are created by people, a concept very common in India. Most scholars believe the avatar Rama was backed by a historical Rama, who may have lived around 800 BC. The work may have originally been purely historical, but eventually picked up Vaishnava accretions and Rama was deified - like Krishna, Buddha, Swami Narayan, Sai Baba and several others.

In my opinion, the concept of an avatar or a personal God (with human-like behavior) are flawed because they detract from the concept of all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent God. It is also not clear, how people of present times are expected to benefit from this work. If Rama displayed heroic behavior, he also had a darker side to him, which included killing Vali from hiding and banishing a pregnant Sita. The overall persona of Rama is one of a regular human and is not super-human in any way. However, if one is emotionally attached to the text, then it is easy to see divinity in anyone. It also puts one in a defensive mode.

You should go with your preference - traditional or critical. One is not better than the other. It just comes down to what works for you.

Namaste Somashekhar,

I understand your view point as I was once bewildered my what I read in the Ramayana. But if you look closely, did he really kill Vali, Ravana?? Rather he liberated them, from your nick I can infer that you are a devotee of Lord Shiva, so if I would to look at Ramayana then Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma are responsible for what happen, if they did not grant Ravana his powers then all this would not have happen.

But in Vedanta, humans are also responsible for their actions, Ravana only worshiped GOD for powers and was devoid of Dharma after getting his boon. Compare and contrast Vibhisana who stood by dharma putting himself at risk of execution at Ravana's hand when he opposed all the misdeeds of Ravana. Vibhisana chose to standby Lord Rama and righteousness. Ravana received his fruit of labour through tapasya which Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma granted him, thats why true devotees never ask for material gains or for power. They ask only for wisdom and GOD's grace. Even Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma in several scriptures stated the same thing, there many Rishis who worshiped them for faith and devotion but never asked for anything.

As far as the appearance of Lord Rama is concerned, he came in Treta Yuga which is approximately a million years ago, in Valmiki's Ramayan he stated elephants were the size of hills and birds were large enough to cover the sunlight wherever the flew. Living beings evolve over hundreds of thousand of years - millions of years and not overnight. It is crucial to discern the sources of info on Vedic text because of intentional distortions by colonialist and those who oppose the Vedic faith.

There is a deep meaning to Vali's killing, he was devoid of Dharma, mighty and very wicked. Lord Rama told Sugreeva to fight for his right and to not fear, he did exactly as told. The meaning of this episode is that life is a constant battle at every step and u will have to face it, there's no running away but dont fear as GOD is with you and GOD helps those who abide by Dharma. All that died at Lord Rama's hand were liberated so in reality it was a blessing in disguise. GOD will also annihilate those miscreants who torment good loving people and who aim to destroy Dharma.

Goddess Sita is not a human, she is Goddess, thus no pain comes to her arising from her banishment, moreover Lord Rama exemplified Dharma of a leader where people came first over personal relations, a washer man questioned her chastity which Lord Rama knew to be perfect and pure but had to make a very difficult choice to send her off to an ashram. On the same note both of them came her to fulfill a task and they did it, now it was time for them to return to their abode. I recommend a book, titled
"The secrets of different Ramayanas". You may google it up and purchase it, I already have the book and would upload it online soon for all to read and have their queries answered.

There was once it was stated that Lord Krishna was here some time between 2-3 thousand years ago but eventually archaeologist found the holy city of Dwarka and agreed with the Vedic scriptures.

It is not a question of what works for you and how you perceive things, its about GOD and truth. If I follow your ideology then should I accept that the world is flat or that the sun sinks into water just because my human and materialistic eyes perceives it that way?? If the world is degraded should I follow this degraded way??

Just my 2 cents!

Peace and blessings :-))

[Jodhaa]

Just my 2 cents!

Peace and blessings :-)) ""


Namste, Twista,

Thank you for your insightful response. I appreciate it! I need to read over it again though, and think on it before responding, because my initial response is just a repeat of some of my earlier posts so perhaps I need to think of a better way to word it. Thank you again!

Peace!

[devotee]

Namaste Jodhaa,



I read the Ramayana for the first time a few months back and it has become one of my favorite narratives of all time. I find it completely inspiring and beautiful and I think there is a tremendous amount to learn from it.

But there is one thing that troubles me about it, and I want to know if anyone has insights into this apparent contradiction in the story. I will try my best to be brief.

I found myself enamored of Rama as a character. I admired his courage and his love for Sita, and I was cheering him on the whole story...

....Until the end, when he banishes the pregnant Sita to the wilderness in order to regain the respect of his people.

Suddenly, I felt betrayed and angry at Rama. Even more so because despite this great sin (as I perceived it) I still wanted to admire him for all his good qualities. The trouble I am having is that the Rama that worried so much for his beloved Sita while searching for her, the Rama who fought so bravely for her, does not seem like the same Rama I read about in the Uttara Kanda - or the last book of the Ramayana. Not once during his search for her does he lament about his lost honor or the tarnish to his reputation. He worries only for her safety and wishes only to be with her again.

I can understand his initial doubt in her purity when he saves her. God incarnate he may be, but he is still a man bound by the senses - including the illusions/suspicions of the mind. But why bend to the suspicions of his people a second time? After she has literally had a trial by fire and come out truthful? He may be a king, with responsibilities to his people - but he was a husband first.

It is also my understanding that The Uttara Kanda was added much later to the Ramayana. Is it possible that the last book was written during a time when people were more conservative and couldn't justify a wife returning to her husband after living with another man?

I have tried to justify Rama's behavior at the end many, many times. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But my mind keeps coming back to one thought. If a man did this act today - abandoned his pregnant wife in the woods - he would be viewed as a monster, not as the ideal man.

Thank you for reading my post. I hope to start an illuminating discussion. I certainly don't intend to offend. I think it's important to ask hard questions sometimes. Like I said, The Ramayana is one of my favorite narratives and I'd love to have more insight on it.


Your points are absolutely valid and please don't get perturbed by some of the comments here. I had similar issues with Rama's actions. However, Rama was a Puroshottama (the Ideal Man) and not a complete Avatara of God (It is said that Ramavatara was only with 75 % (12/16 KalAs) God's kalAs like Krishna (with 16/16 KalAs i.e. 100 %). So, his actions must be seen to be bound within the limitations of time at Rama's period.

Let's assume that Rama doesn't heed to people beliefs of his time and keep Sita with him. What message would have gone to the common men in his kingdom ? People might me talking loose and all his good governance would have been lost because of people losing faith in him. So, he had to undergo pains to make people realise that :

a) a King must not set a different rule for himself and his family which is not for the common masses
b) this practice was evil (i.e. banishing one's wife for no fault of her) ... he was successful in that as this system has no trace at all in today's Hindu society. Only Rama could make such a great sacrifice and only mother Sita could endure all these pains for such a big reform in Hindu society.

I think, now you can forgive Rama for his seemingly weaknesses that he showed ! :)

OM

[Jodhaa]

Namaste Jodhaa,



However, Rama was a Puroshottama (the Ideal Man) and not a complete Avatara of God (It is said that Ramavatara was only with 75 % (12/16 KalAs) God's kalAs like Krishna (with 16/16 KalAs i.e. 100 %). So, his actions must be seen to be bound within the limitations of time at Rama's period.

Let's assume that Rama doesn't heed to people beliefs of his time and keep Sita with him. What message would have gone to the common men in his kingdom ? People might me talking loose and all his good governance would have been lost because of people losing faith in him. So, he had to undergo pains to make people realise that :

a) a King must not set a different rule for himself and his family which is not for the common masses
b) this practice was evil (i.e. banishing one's wife for no fault of her) ... he was successful in that as this system has no trace at all in today's Hindu society. Only Rama could make such a great sacrifice and only mother Sita could endure all these pains for such a big reform in Hindu society.

I think, now you can forgive Rama for his seemingly weaknesses that he showed ! :)

OM

Namaste, Devotee,

Thank you for your response. Your comment about Rama's Kalas makes sense. It does relate to my thought that Rama - while an extremely moral person - was still bound a little by his human existence. I know that's something that many people disagree with, but if his displays of emotion from the story are any evidence he has to be at least a little human. This goes for Sita as well. One cannot feel loss without attachment. (In fairness I have only read one version of the Ramayana and while it was complete, it was a modern prose version. I have made a point to attempt to read the version published by Gita Press. Perhaps the way in which Rama is portrayed is slightly different)

You are also correct that the practice of abandoning/banishing one's wife is not accepted widely anymore. So this is perhaps evidence that even if the practice was acceptable in Rama's time, as people learned the truth about Sita over the centuries, they realized the gravity of this practice.

I have another question, but I'm not sure if I've asked it already so I need to go back and look over my posts. But thank you again to everyone, for your replies. This is helping me gain new understanding.

Peace!

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Somashekhar,

I understand your view point as I was once bewildered my what I read in the Ramayana. But if you look closely, did he really kill Vali, Ravana??

Yes, on looking closely, he did kill them.


As far as the appearance of Lord Rama is concerned, he came in Treta Yuga which is approximately a million years ago, in Valmiki's Ramayan he stated elephants were the size of hills and birds were large enough to cover the sunlight wherever the flew. Living beings evolve over hundreds of thousand of years - millions of years and not overnight. It is crucial to discern the sources of info on Vedic text because of intentional distortions by colonialist and those who oppose the Vedic faith.

There is no evidence that colonialists intentionally distorted Indian history or scriptures. Such accusations are pointless, if they cannot be backed by motives and facts.


There is a deep meaning to Vali's killing

The point was not about killing Vali, but killing him from hiding.


Goddess Sita is not a human, she is Goddess, thus no pain comes to her arising from her banishment, moreover Lord Rama exemplified Dharma of a leader where people came first over personal relations

What is the takeaway from this incident? Are we supposed to behave the same way? After all, Rama is touted as the ideal man, implying others need to emulate him.


There was once it was stated that Lord Krishna was here some time between 2-3 thousand years ago but eventually archaeologist found the holy city of Dwarka and agreed with the Vedic scriptures.

Dwarka was never lost to be discovered. It has always been known (Jamnagar district, Gujarat). Also, Dwarka is not mentioned in any of the Vedas.


It is not a question of what works for you and how you perceive things, its about GOD and truth. If I follow your ideology then should I accept that the world is flat or that the sun sinks into water just because my human and materialistic eyes perceives it that way?? If the world is degraded should I follow this degraded way??

Your first line on perception contradicts following statements. Truth is what you perceive and in the absence of objective evidence, it will not be the same for everyone. Some people find it easy to believe in talking monkeys and some do not. I say, whatever works for you is fine, as there is no evidence to prove the existence of the talking monkey.

Regards

[ShriBala]

Namaskar.

The take home message for me from Ramayana is this: Get to the level of a lord Rama/ Sita devi/ Hanuman ji and then thrash out the issue of what Lord Rama did was right/wrong.

Until then, time merrily ticks away.

No guarantee of a human birth in the next janma, let alone a follower of Sanatana dharma

So, stop yakking and get on going with the 'spiritual' work.

[devotee]

Namaste,

Why did Rama kill Baali ? If we take the literal meaning of Ramayana, Baali was killed by Rama hiding behind the Palm trees. The legend is that it was necessary as anyone who came in front of Baali had to forgo half his strength to Baali and therefore, Baali could never have been defetaed by anyone in a fair battle.

On the other hand, all allegations against Baali like taking the wife of Sugriva and his kingdom etc. were not so big which could warrant a monkey death sentence as whatever he did was common among the monkeys. Moreover, Baali could have defeated Ravan alone without any help from anyone and could have saved Rama a lot of trouble and bloodshed of the war !

So, why did Rama kill Baali ? My take on this is this :

Ramavatar was for destroying all demons or demoniacal beings who were a threat to dharma-adhering people. The nuisance of the demons and such mighty warriors like Baali was so great that it was difficult for any simple being to lead a peaceful life. There was no one on the earth who could have got rid of these demons and the mighty warriors so that the simple people could lead a peaceful life on earth. Baali had high ahamkaar of his strength and he never missed a chance to use it against anyone for his own personal benefits like his own brother. So, if Baali was left out and Ramavatar would have ended without Baali's end, it would have not brought peace on the earth. So, Rama could not have left Baali alive ... as long as anyone is against Dharma-adhering simple people and if that one is too powerful to be overcome by common human strength, it is God-incarnate's task to finish him. If we remember, that is why Veervarak was killed by Lord Krishna before Mahabharata began even though he didn't commit any crime per-se.

Now, once Baali was to be killed, how to kill him if would gain strength of his opponent if the opponent came in front of him ? Therefore, it was necessary to kill him by hiding oneself .... there was no way out unless Rama would have decided to act like Krishna and use his Godly power, which Rama never did throughout his period of incarnation. He always acted like human and not a complete God's avatar as Krishna did.

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

There is another meaning of killing Baali by hiding behind the Palm trees as I was told by a Vaishnava saint here in Varanasi. which is Advaitic in nature. But that will be a digression from the main topic. :)

OM

[Seeker123]

Namaste:

Vaali asked Rama why he killed him from hiding. Rama replied that humans hunted animals from hiding, for example humans caught elephants using concealed pits. I think Rama's explanation is logical. No need to complicate IMHO.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

In regards to why Rama shot Vali from behind, this discussion has some interesting conversation in the thread "Why Sri Rama killed Vali from behind" on this forum.

I haven't read the entire content of the current thread "Ramayana contradictions" but I might later, however basically I see no contradictions whatsoever, and have had every single anomaly answered to me that is sometimes common to many on a first dive into this wonderful history, but one thing is for sure, once you dive in then it so easily becomes a passion of your life there after. So I may read this and maybe volunteer some ideas regarding contradictions, but also i tend to want to be careful about this since i do not want to disturb others.

In regards to why ( also so other thread " from behind" ) in brief, Rama said:

Sakrud eve prapannaya tavasmeeti ca yacate
Abhyyam sarva bhootebhyo dadamyetad vratam ma ma -

“All those beings that seek My Shelter and plead for My Mercy, and tell you now and declare I am yours, I shall certainly offer My Protection to All of them. This is My vow.”

So, what I have been taught is that, what Ram said is true, and so while Vali had both good and bad qualities, there is no doubt if Rama stood directly in front of Vali, then Vali would have requested the Shelter of Ram, upon which Ram would have accepted and gave Vali the Shelter. So this is why. Yet, in the end, Vali received the Shelter of Ram at the moment Vali lay to leave his body.

Om Namah Sivaya

[dogra]

Indeed the 7th Utter Kanada is a later addition, and also contains the shambuka episode which clearly contradicts Lord Rama staying with Sharabri who was a poor person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka


Scholars such as Purushottama Candra Jaina,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka#cite_note-1) Bhagawan Singh[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka#cite_note-2) and John Brockington[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka#cite_note-3) writes that this story "is of late origin". The story is considered to be of dubious origin due to the following reasons:

The text of Ramayana, as reflected in the 70 or so existing commentaries varies highly. The story does not appear in any of the other 14 or so Sanskrit versions of Valmiki Ramayana.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka#cite_note-5)
The story does not find mention in summaries of Ramayana in puraNas or the Mahabharata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata).
Hindu texts have never cited the episode of Shambukavadha to debar Sudras from tapasyaa.
The entire Uttarakanda itself is suspected to be a later addition due to:
Inferior poetic quality of the verses.
Occurance of the phala-stuti at the end of the sixth kANDa.
Even many Harijans themselves reject the claim that Rama ever killed any Shambuka. For example, Harijan members of the Ramnami Vaishnava sect claim that this was a later insertion for the upper-castes to assert their superiority.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka#cite_note-6)

[devotee]

Even many Harijans themselves reject the claim that Rama ever killed any Shambuka. For example, Harijan members of the Ramnami Vaishnava sect claim that this was a later insertion for the upper-castes to assert their superiority.

I also suspect the same thing. Rama who had no hesitation in eating half-eaten berries from the hands of Sabari, an tribal woman-saint, who had no record of acting so-called lower castes ... how can he kill Shambooka ?

OM

[dogra]

I also suspect the same thing. Rama who had no hesitation in eating half-eaten berries from the hands of Sabari, an tribal woman-saint, who had no record of acting so-called lower castes ... how can he kill Shambooka ?

OM
Think it is quite cler this 7th Chapter is not by Valmiki but someone else, and hence should not include this.
Also have noticed anti hindu elements using shambuka episode to denigrate Sanatan Dharma, and have informed them of this fact, and Shrabri episode which further proves that the 7th chapter is later addition.

[Omkara]

Rama uses rich words of praise for sabari's tapasya,which totally contradicts the shambuka episode. Madhavacharya in his commentary states that Rama killed Shambuka because his austerities were aimed at causing harm to Ayodhya.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste dear Jodhaa

It is your love for Mother Sita that plays the sense of the heart, and because of this love I believe you would not have been among those who in Ram's Raj could have had paradise complete but it was our foolish nature that drove Mother Sita back into the embrace of Mother Bhumi Earth.

It was the conceit of those such as myself who think we know more about character and contridiction than God. The blessed of Ram's Kingdom could not hold their tongues from gossip, they falsely accused Sita Devi of being unchaste. This is our nature, we are taught the truth but then apply the truth to compare one against another out of self vanity and not out of human progress towards the divine.

I am as guilty as the next.

I blame ourselves, and I never blame Lord Rama. Ram has taught us many lessons, think of this as one more lesson of The Perfect Man who went into the jungle leaving His Father beloved, that sacrifice, and we could have demanded He stay.

But He went. And I am not one who beleves that the truth of Her banishment is a later interpolation. We did this to Sita, deep in our psyche which still needs to grow. Ram loved and loves Sita. She came from the Earth, She returned to Her Mother and not death. She is always with us, and always with Ram. She could have been our Queen forever, but we are fools. But Ram does not want us to stay here. As wonderful and perfect was His Raj, we have another place to go. So Ram does not want us to idle our time. There are many, far shores still to go.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Jodhaa]

Namaste dear Jodhaa

It is your love for Mother Sita that plays the sense of the heart, and because of this love I believe you would not have been among those who in Ram's Raj could have had paradise complete but it was our foolish nature that drove Mother Sita back into the embrace of Mother Bhumi Earth.

It was the conceit of those such as myself who think we know more about character and contridiction than God. The blessed of Ram's Kingdom could not hold their tongues from gossip, they falsely accused Sita Devi of being unchaste. This is our nature, we are taught the truth but then apply the truth to compare one against another out of self vanity and not out of human progress towards the divine.

I am as guilty as the next.

I blame ourselves, and I never blame Lord Rama. Ram has taught us many lessons, think of this as one more lesson of The Perfect Man who went into the jungle leaving His Father beloved, that sacrifice, and we could have demanded He stay.

But He went. And I am not one who beleves that the truth of Her banishment is a later interpolation. We did this to Sita, deep in our psyche which still needs to grow. Ram loved and loves Sita. She came from the Earth, She returned to Her Mother and not death. She is always with us, and always with Ram. She could have been our Queen forever, but we are fools. But Ram does not want us to stay here. As wonderful and perfect was His Raj, we have another place to go. So Ram does not want us to idle our time. There are many, far shores still to go.

Om Namah Sivaya

Thank you for your explanation, Shivafan,

I have taken everyone's responses to these questions and spent a lot of time meditating on them, as well as asking God for understanding. What you say now is a very eloquent way of putting the conclusion I have come to about Rama. Whether the last book of the Ramayana is a later addition or not, is not important. I realize now that there are important lessons for us to learn from it. I now feel content because I have an answer to these questions that erases me doubt. It is wonderful because there was a terrible argument going on inside my mind:

"Rama is such a perfect example of character, heroism, devotion and courage!"

"But he is a scoundrel for abandoning Sita!"

I now know that the truth is the first thought with a small addition, "He was as perfect a man as his people allowed him to be. He (and Sita) sacrificed their life together in order to appease the (however ill-advised and unenlightened) needs to their people."


An enormous thank you to ALL who have contributed. I know it is a sensitive subject, but appreciate your patience. And you should know that it is not in vain. I have learned much!

[dogra]

Here we have Shabri peisode which goes to heart of the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabari

Rama went only to Shabari's ashram because of her sincere devotion.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabari#cite_note-keshavadas_123-4) On seeing Rama, Shabari became ecstatic and said, "There were so many exalted yogis waiting for Your darshan, but You came to this unworthy devotee (...) This clearly shows that You will neither see whether a devotee lives in a palace or humble hut, whether he is erudite or ignorant (...) neither see caste nor color. You will only see the true bhakti (...) I do not have anything to offer other than my heart, but here are some berry fruits. May it please you, my Lord." Saying so, Shabari offered the fruits she had meticulously collected to Rama. When Rama was tasting them, Lakshmana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmana) raised the concern that Shabari had already tasted them and therefore unworthy of eating. To this Rama said that of the many types of food he had tasted, "nothing could equal these berry fruits, offered with such devotion. You taste them, then alone will you know. Whomsoever offers a fruit, leaf, flower or some water with love, I partake it with great joy." Lakshmana also had a great experience tasting the fruits. Pleased with Shabari's devotion, Rama blesses her with His vision and grants her . Shabri also tells Sri Rama to take help from Sugriva and where to find him. The Ramayan says that Shabri was a very bright and knowledgible saint. Moksha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha) (liberation).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabari#cite_note-keshavadas_123-4)