PDA

View Full Version : Banishment of Sita



WTyler
25 July 2011, 12:52 AM
Can someone please explain to me the purpose of the banishment of Sita? I also have heard that some Vaishnavs don't take it as true? Regardless, what is Rams basis for her banishment, besides finding her unclean after staying with Ravana?

Let's chat about this!

Thanks.

Divine Kala
25 July 2011, 02:52 AM
I don't know much, I'm not a Vaishnava, but I believe Rama sent Sita away not because he found her unclean but because some among his subjects did. Because he was a good king, he exiled Sita to placate his subjects. >.> As I am not a Vaishnava, I find it what Rama did distasteful and I know many Indian women who view him as a horrific husband. Men want to be like him but women do not want to be like Sita! They do not want to be married to a man like Rama! I am also told it is seen as bad luck to name a person Sita because of the suffering she endured during her life.

Arjuni
25 July 2011, 03:12 AM
Namasté,

A while back, I went looking for information on this very topic, and found a very interesting, detailed writing that stuck with me. The author does not claim to have the absolute truth of the matter, but rather to explain and explore some ideas about why everything unfolded as it did. Perhaps it will help with the question, as it did for me.

http://prekshaa.blogspot.com/2010/03/abandoning-of-sita.html (http://prekshaa.blogspot.com/2010/03/abandoning-of-sita.html)

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

kallol
25 July 2011, 03:39 AM
The link provided by Indraneela, provides a beautiful analysis of the decision taken.

The broad aspect of this decision is the two characters : King and Husband.

The Dharma of the two are different and their subjects are also different. However the difficulty or conflict comes when these two characters are in one body.

That is why we are unable to distinguish the justice behind this. As most of the time we look from Husband POV or a confused (whether husband or King) POV.

The fact that the Avataras descend to restablish the rule of justice should be kept in the background to analyse the incident.

Any incident looks different - when percieved from Micro POV and Macro (holistic) POV.

The whole of Hinduism encourages us to move our POV from the micro to Macro level (Biswarupa darshan - to percieve the entirity in the mind) and then derive the micro levels.

Love and best wishes

Ramakrishna
25 July 2011, 03:53 AM
Namaste WTyler,

It is important to realize that Sri Ram knew that Sita was pure, but it was many, if not most, of the people of Ayodhya who believed her to be impure.

In order to perform his dharma as king, Sri Ram banished Sita to the forest. Sri Ram was the perfect embodiment of all aspects of dharma. Even though he knew with 100% certainty that Sita was pure, the people of his kingdom did not believe so and that would have created social unrest and upset the moral fabric of the kingdom. As king, it was his duty to put his people above the interests of himself.

There was also the option of abandoning the throne and going into exile with Sita, but by doing that he would have been abandoning his dharma as King.

I think above all, this whole situation shows how performing one's dharma does not always seem pleasurable and happy. Imagine how Sri Ram must have felt to banish his dear wife even though he knew that she was pure. But he also knew that he was a King above all, and that he had to perform his dharma as king. And he executed it perfectly. Remember, in the end they are united once again in perfect bliss, although to each other, Rama and Sita never are and were never separated.

Jai Sri Ram

Ramakrishna
25 July 2011, 04:00 AM
Namaste DK,


As I am not a Vaishnava, I find it what Rama did distasteful and I know many Indian women who view him as a horrific husband. Men want to be like him but women do not want to be like Sita! They do not want to be married to a man like Rama! I am also told it is seen as bad luck to name a person Sita because of the suffering she endured during her life.

This is interesting, I never knew that. It is my understanding that Sri Ram was an example of the perfect man and Sita was an example of the perfect woman. They both are embodiments of perfection and dharma.

Certainly if I was a woman, I would want to be married to God incarnate, to a perfect man such as Sri Ram!

Jai Sri Ram

WTyler
25 July 2011, 04:05 AM
Thank you for your replies!

Just how were they reunited? Believe it or not, the version I read completely omitted her banishment. She was fire tested and then the lived happily ever after. In the banishment versions I just heard she was sent back to mother earth, were they reunited once he "died"?

wundermonk
25 July 2011, 06:00 AM
Here (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-15/vintage-wisdom/29532754_1_sita-ravana-vishnu) is a different take on the issue.

Divine Kala
25 July 2011, 07:29 AM
Namaste DK,



This is interesting, I never knew that. It is my understanding that Sri Ram was an example of the perfect man and Sita was an example of the perfect woman. They both are embodiments of perfection and dharma.

Certainly if I was a woman, I would want to be married to God incarnate, to a perfect man such as Sri Ram!

Jai Sri Ram

Really? You would want to be forcibly separated from your husband for a year by a man trying to seduce you, refuse his advances in the hopes that you are rescued, be rescued and become pregnant with your husband's child and then be exiled from the kingdom you love (because your love is such for your husband that all that he loves you love) because people doubt you're purity?

Really?

You forget that in the end Sita puts her foot down. She has had enough of men telling her what to do and where to be. She calls out to her Mother, the only person who can possibly understand, to be taken home and she leaves.

Sita seals Rama's doom in the eyes of other women because her patience finally runs out. She does not say 'I will suffer all the injustices heaped upon me until the term of my natural life' she says 'I suffer no more the injustices you have heaped upon me. I go home to my mother, who will accept me whether I am pure or impure, whether I am old or young. I go back to the only being that has always accepted me for what I am and never questioned it'.

No matter how much you love a person you must eventually put your foot down - there comes a time when you can no longer suffer injustices.

In the Shaiva tradition, Sati does the very same thing by throwing herself in to the fire of the homa. She says 'enough, if you will not stand up for your honour, and if you, my father, shall continue to offend my husband's - and thereby my own - honour, I shall show you both the folly of your ways'. By self immolating she disappears, yes, but gives herself the chance of a stronger position in the life she takes as Parvati and teaches both Daksha and Shiva important lessons.

smaranam
25 July 2011, 08:34 AM
Namaste

For all who do not know about the Agni-Sita and Real-Sita : (It is in Kurma Puran and Chaitanya Charitramrut)

http://www.krishna.com/blog/2009/04/4/ramayana-lord-chaitanya

The Kūrma Purāṇa states that this shadowy Sītā was placed into a fire as a test of chastity. It was Māyā-sītā who entered the fire and the real Sītā who came out of the fire

This pastime is elaborated in the Madhya lila of the Caitanya Caritamrita as follows.

CC Madhya 9.200 -212: There, among the brāhmaṇas, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu listened to the Kūrma Purāṇa, wherein is mentioned the chaste woman's narration. Śrīmatī Sītādevī is the mother of the three worlds and the wife of Lord Rāmacandra. Among chaste women she is supreme, and she is the daughter of King Janaka.

When Rāvaṇa came to kidnap mother Sītā and she saw him, she took shelter of the fire-god, Agni. The fire-god covered the body of mother Sītā, and in this way she was protected from the hands of Rāvaṇa.

Upon hearing from the Kūrma Purāṇa how Rāvaṇa had kidnapped a false form of mother Sītā, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu became very satisffied.

The fire-god, Agni, took away the real Sītā and brought her to the place of Pārvatī, goddess Durgā. An illusory form of mother Sītā was then delivered to Rāvaṇa, and in this way Rāvaṇa was cheated.

After Rāvaṇa was killed by Lord Rāmacandra, Sītādevī was brought before the fire and tested.

When the illusory Sītā was brought before the fire by Lord Rāmacandra, the fire-god made the illusory form disappear and delivered the real Sītā to Lord.


-----------

And, Divine Kala, Sita did not say to BhuDevi (Mother Earth) that please take me away the way i am - pure or impure. She said, "if I am indeed pure, may my Mother, this Earth, take me back in Her veil." As soon as She said that the earth cracked open and let Her in much to the sadness, anger and dismay of Lord RAm and others. The only time that Shri RAm showed anger was at this time - loss of His beloved Sita.

Remember this is all Leela. Sita is Lakshmi and RAm is Shriman NArAyaN.


Jai SiyA-RAm
om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

Jainarayan
25 July 2011, 09:32 AM
I don't know much, I'm not a Vaishnava, but I believe Rama sent Sita away not because he found her unclean but because some among his subjects did. Because he was a good king, he exiled Sita to placate his subjects.


Namaste WTyler,

It is important to realize that Sri Ram knew that Sita was pure, but it was many, if not most, of the people of Ayodhya who believed her to be impure.

In order to perform his dharma as king, Sri Ram banished Sita to the forest. Sri Ram was the perfect embodiment of all aspects of dharma. Even though he knew with 100% certainty that Sita was pure, the people of his kingdom did not believe so and that would have created social unrest and upset the moral fabric of the kingdom. As king, it was his duty to put his people above the interests of himself.

These are the versions I've read in various places. As God he had to know that in the end both He and Sita would be vindicated in Their actions. And They were. But there was one more doubt the people had, and that was in Sri Hanuman's obeisance and worship of Sri Rama-Sita. When the people scoffed at how someone could have such unswerving and unyeilding devotion, that was when He ripped open His chest to show Sri Rama-Sita within His heart. At that, all doubt was removed.


Thank you for your replies!

She was fire tested and then the lived happily ever after.

She survived the fire, as Lord Rama knew She would. He never doubted Her, and She knew that.

At least these are the stories I know.

WTyler
25 July 2011, 11:15 AM
I am not asking why she was fire tested. I understand the fire test, I think the fire test was fine and I have heard of the Sati Switcheroo version.

Though, I kind of just see Ram banishing her as kind of a jerk move. :/

I agree that it wasn't very loving. I see the tear between King dharma and Husband dharma, though, I would like to think that God could please his people as well as his wife. Very interesting subject, I suppose.

Sahasranama
25 July 2011, 11:22 AM
Vishnu was cursed to stay seperated from Lakshmi when he took an incarnation as a human being in Rama avatara. One can speculate about the morality of it, but I have no interest in doing this. Some interesting links about this have already been provided. Seperation (viraha) is an important aspect of Bhakti. The gopis most ecstatic state of devotion was when they were seperated from Krishna. That is when their mind was filled with the supreme. Some western artists like Nina Paley don't understand this and tried to turn the Ramayana into a sob story and Rama into a male chauvinist, but it's not a sob story. It's a story about viraha bhava, about dasharatha's longing for Rama, Rama's longing for Sita and Sita's longing for Rama.

Jainarayan
25 July 2011, 11:34 AM
Though, I kind of just see Ram banishing her as kind of a jerk move. :/

I agree that it wasn't very loving. I see the tear between King dharma and Husband dharma, though, I would like to think that God could please his people as well as his wife. Very interesting subject, I suppose.

Before I delved more into the story (I haven't read all of it yet), I was also shocked by His behavior. But then I realized, as I said earlier, as God, He knew how it would play out, and it was a lesson for His unfaithful subjects. And for us.

And consider that Sita, being an incarnation of MahaLakshmi could have exerted just as much power as Sri Rama. They could have both easily swayed the people by Divine power. But that was not the purpose of the whole event.

Or I'm just making this all up as I go along. :o

Jainarayan
25 July 2011, 11:36 AM
Namaste Sahasranama...


Vishnu was cursed to stay seperated from Lakshmi when he took an incarnation as a human being in Rama avatara. One can speculate about the morality of it, but I have no interest in doing this. Seperation (viraha) is an important aspect of Bhakti. The gopis most ecstatic state of devotion was when they were seperated from Krishna. That is when their mind was filled with the supreme. Some western artists like Nina Paley don't understand this and tried to turn the Ramayana into a sob story and Rama into a male chauvinist, but it's not a sob story. It's a story about viraha bhava.

Did not know this. Thanks.

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder".

sunyata07
25 July 2011, 12:04 PM
Namaste,

When I first read about the Ramayana, I was also confused at this part of the story. It's hard to argue about the rights and wrongs of this situation because as it was pointed out by other members, Rama had his raja dharma to follow. I can't imagine how his situation could be juxtaposed with any modern day analogy, but I imagine his suffering undergoing the decisions on what to do about the growing unrest amongst his people was very great. You tend to forget about Rama's side of the story when it comes to Sita's banishment or at least I did. What resolve and conviction as a ruler it must have taken to decide - against all the immense love for his wife - to place Sita to live in the forest so she could have a chance at a life of dignity and peace.

I used to be more sad than angry or annoyed at Rama's actions. Maybe with a greater knowledge of Ramayana and its meaning, this sadness will subside. After all, Vishnu and Lakshmi cannot be separated - They are two halves of the Divine Whole. In essence the same is true of Sita and Rama, but one could argue it is a mark of great love and concern for Them to not want to see them apart - in the same childlike way that a young audience hopes dearly for the hero and his lady to live happily ever after.

Om namah Shivaya

WTyler
25 July 2011, 01:06 PM
Thank you again, for all of your replies.

I find the esoteric meaning of it beautiful. As someone already mentioned--it reflects the longing for God as the Gopis did Sri Krishna. This longing can be compared to our longing for God, this similar longing was also seen when Sita was captured.

Both God (Ram) and the Soul (Sita) wanted to be in union. A similar comparison can be made to her banishment, just this time we learn about the complexity of dharma and about the unfair separation, but the love that still exists. On a symbolic standpoint I can see it's beauty, but I'm afraid on a literal standpoint, I cannot.

So, should I just approach this in the esoteric sense, rather than the literal?

Ramakrishna
25 July 2011, 11:08 PM
Namaste DK,


Really? You would want to be forcibly separated from your husband for a year by a man trying to seduce you, refuse his advances in the hopes that you are rescued, be rescued and become pregnant with your husband's child and then be exiled from the kingdom you love (because your love is such for your husband that all that he loves you love) because people doubt you're purity?

Really?


Yes.

I don't see how you can view Lord Rama as a horrible husband. You seem to forget that he brought an entire army and started an entire war to liberate his wife and bring justice to the one who abducted her. Not many husbands would do that...



You forget that in the end Sita puts her foot down. She has had enough of men telling her what to do and where to be. She calls out to her Mother, the only person who can possibly understand, to be taken home and she leaves.

Sita seals Rama's doom in the eyes of other women because her patience finally runs out. She does not say 'I will suffer all the injustices heaped upon me until the term of my natural life' she says 'I suffer no more the injustices you have heaped upon me. I go home to my mother, who will accept me whether I am pure or impure, whether I am old or young. I go back to the only being that has always accepted me for what I am and never questioned it'.


As Smaranamji said, this is not exactly what happened.

Sure, on the surface of it, what Lord Rama did to Sita seems horrible. But you need to look at it from a Hindu perspective, from a dharmic perspective. Lord Rama perfectly performed his dharma as king by banishing Sita to the forest. He did not do it with any hate in his heart for Sita, and he knew the entire time that she was pure. But rather he did it for the people of his kingdom, for the well-being and prosperity of the society as a whole. He put the interests of the people ahead of his own interests. The kingdom could not have had a queen whom the people openly doubted and questioned. You have to remember that what Lord Rama did was about dharma and as king, putting the interests of his people above himself. Even after the banishment, they were never truly separated from each other, as Sita was always in Rama's heart and Rama was always in Sita's heart. In the end, she did not prove her purity to Rama by returning to Bhumi, since he already knew of her purity, but she proved it to everybody else including all those who had doubted her. Sita is an example to many many Hindu women of the perfect woman, the embodiment of perfection and virtue.

Jai Siya Ram

devotee
26 July 2011, 12:03 AM
My take on his issue is this :

Sometimes you have to make personal sacrifice for others to see reason. Sita already had the test of fire while coming back from Sri Lanka. The first question arises is, "Why Sita had to undertake this test at all ?". The answer lies in understanding the social value system in those times. The King cannot make sweeping changes when his own interests were involved ... because he is a party to the issue & people would certainly doubt that decision is affected due to favouritism and that would undermine the sense of justice of the King.

There were not all who subscribed to the view of the washerman who raised this issue when Sita returned back to Ayodhya. Though this was the belief system in Ayodhya those days & what washerman said was normally believed but when it was applied to Sita it gave a shock to majority of the population who were against this. Washerman was vehemently criticised for his act and attitude ... Rama was asked by many not to take this step. Rama appears to be a heartless person who banished his own wife when she was pregnant. ... But Rama very well knew that this can only be done to Sita who could not be harmed even if such an action was taken against her. He didn't want that this tradition to continue and some other woman had to undergo this treatment due to such a system of injustice prevailing in the society.

There is no record how this act of Rama actually helped woman's status in Hindu society immediately during his time. However, by seeing that there is no Hindu who considers this as an act of justice, I can safely conclude that this act instilled a sense of rebellion in common people against such a system against woman in Hindu society and that is why such system/thinking/attitude towards women is not seen in Hindu society.

If you want to expose the ridiculousness of a system ... take it to height of absurdity so that everyone can see the flaws clearly which otherwise remains not-so-clear.

OM

devotee
26 July 2011, 12:10 AM
I would like to mention here that many scholars believe that Uttar Kand part where this is narrated was nowhere in the original Ramayana written by Valmiki. It was added later ... may be due to social compulsions during those times. The same thing is also said about Shmbook killing episode too.

OM

kallol
26 July 2011, 03:28 AM
It is because of the deep philosophies (derivations from the Upanishads) embedded into these epics (and in general, in the content of the scriptures), the "Knowledgeables" say that our ignorance is out of our lack of holistic knowledge.

One can have doubts - but those doubts are linked to the ability to percieve (behold bigger ecosystem in mind) rather than the veracity of the scriptures. So the doubts need to be cleared by seeking clarifications.

It might take long time to even assimilate this, however the facts slowly sink in with more and more knowledge.

Love and best wishes

TatTvamAsi
27 July 2011, 02:53 PM
I don't know much

And thus spake "Divine Kala". :rolleyes:

Sahasranama
27 July 2011, 10:09 PM
I would like to mention here that many scholars believe that Uttar Kand part where this is narrated was nowhere in the original Ramayana written by Valmiki. It was added later ... may be due to social compulsions during those times. The same thing is also said about Shmbook killing episode too.

OM

Killing Shambuka is a great illustration of the concept of the Bhagavad Gita. One should do one's svadharma and not paradharma. It was with the grace of Rama that Shambuka did recieve his goal. Tapasya is done with mukti in mind. Anyone who is killed by Rama will recieve mukti, so killing Shambuka was a done by his grace alone, so that Shambuka's desire to get mukti would be fulfilled.

devotee
27 July 2011, 11:01 PM
Killing Shambuka is a great illustration of the concept of the Bhagavad Gita. One should do one's svadharma and not paradharma. It was with the grace of Rama that Shambuka did recieve his goal. Tapasya is done with mukti in mind. Anyone who is killed by Rama will recieve mukti, so killing Shambuka was a done by his grace alone, so that Shambuka's desire to get mukti would be fulfilled.

I can't expect anything better from you, seeing your past activities on this forum.

OM

Sahasranama
27 July 2011, 11:20 PM
I don't know much, ... I find it what Rama did distasteful You have no right to be Hindu in the first place. It's better that you start worshipping the fantasy figure you painted.

WTyler
27 July 2011, 11:25 PM
I never knew that you were kind of a dick, Sahasranama. Learn something new every day. : )

Seriously though, what do you mean by fantasy figure? And why does Divine Kala have no right to be Hindu? I'd love to know your thought process.

Sahasranama
27 July 2011, 11:43 PM
I am not going to put up with people who think Rama's action were distasteful. Wether it was meat eating, sending Sita out to the hermitage or killing Shambuka. Bunch a pseudo-Hindus cannot stand to hear about the stories of Rama.

devotee
27 July 2011, 11:49 PM
I am not going to put up with people who think Rama's action were distasteful. Wether it was meat eating, sending Sita out to the hermitage or killing Shambuka. Bunch a pseudo-Hindus cannot stand to hear about the stories of Rama.

No, Rama's action were not at all distasteful. It is the act of manipulation which appears to have contaminated our sacred texts.

... and Pseuo-hindus ? Ah ! That will certainly be decided by you, imho. No surprises. :)

OM

WTyler
28 July 2011, 12:03 AM
Well if it tells you anything, my ignorance upon the topic of the Banishment are now clear and I fully understand. So thank you for all your support, and the more responses even make it more clear to me.

kallol
28 July 2011, 12:52 PM
You have no right to be Hindu in the first place. It's better that you start worshipping the fantasy figure you painted.

If you are a Hindu, then define how can you banish someone outside Hinduism ?

Hinduism is known for putting up questions. Whole of Upanishads and Gita is that only. So what made you think that questioning a particular action is prohibited in Hinduism ?

If you do not like someone's stand point then you should understand that all are unique and are at different point of the journey.

With your post you have denigrated Hinduism.

Pray to God for giving you more patience.

Love and best wishes

TatTvamAsi
28 July 2011, 01:51 PM
If you are a Hindu, then define how can you banish someone outside Hinduism ?

Hinduism is known for putting up questions. Whole of Upanishads and Gita is that only. So what made you think that questioning a particular action is prohibited in Hinduism ?

If you do not like someone's stand point then you should understand that all are unique and are at different point of the journey.

With your post you have denigrated Hinduism.

Pray to God for giving you more patience.

Love and best wishes

Kallol,

With due respect, Sahasranama has taken exception to certain people denigrating Sri Rama on whimsical grounds and shaky reasoning. That is perfectly legitimate and actually good because these people, like Divine Kala, have no idea about the intricacies of the Ramayana and they interpret it with their highly limited understanding. Their questions are NOT the same as a knowledgeable scholar questioning based on solid philosophical grounds.

The contention here is that when interpreted from our viewpoint, this "banishment" looks cruel and inhumane. That is because we think of everything at an individual level; not at the society's level. As mAryadA PuruSotaMan, Sri RAma's Raja Dharma required him to act according to the dharma of society in his kingdom. Hence, the Shambhuka episode. Hence, the banishment of SitA.

Some people writing nonsense like Sri RAmA was a "horrible husband" is just simply erroneous and deeply offensive to Hindus. They simply cannot understand the nuance in the actions of Sri RAmA. There are so many instances like this episode in our Scriptures. Yet, do we say that Sri Krishna was a pimp because he made love to many gOpIs? If some idiot asks that, what would be your response? "Discussion"? Or a swift kick in the teeth? I prefer the latter, with steel-toed boots as well! :)

We must definitely allow discussion. Yet, the discussion has to come from sincerity and not righteous indignation and/or pseudo-intellectualism.

Namaskar.

Ganeshprasad
28 July 2011, 04:13 PM
Pranam Kallol

I echo TTA post above



Hinduism is known for putting up questions. Whole of Upanishads and Gita is that only. So what made you think that questioning a particular action is prohibited in Hinduism ?

If you want to refer to Bhagvat Gita, then you may want to check chapter 4.34
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

there was hardly an inquiry, statement were made and Lord Ram was pronounced guilty, and you wonder about the reactions.


Jai Shree Krishna

charitra
28 July 2011, 05:35 PM
Most posts have clarified well but none have brought up one important event that took place in Ramas life in post banishment era: Aswamedha Yagam (AMY).Lets talk about it.

The yaga was an open air ritual/ puja performed by kings that extends over a period of months, during which time the King establishes and reaffirms the borders of lands that would enjoy his patronage & protection; additionally the smaller kings in adjacent kingdoms will have to recommit their loyalty to the empire. A horse is properly decorated with all the insignia displayed on its body and then it is let loose to roam around. A small band of soldiers follow it and protect it in the wilderness and more importantly prevent capture of the majestic stallion. Such of those who are tempted will be forewarned of the consequences and are given a chance to take oath of allegiance to the king. I hope you get the idea.

King Rama was advised by his court to carry out the AMY after his return from Lanka, and he promptly accepted their motion. There is a problem now. A king has to sit alongside his wife throughout the duration of months of puja, and no exceptions will be entertained. Rama has always believed that sita was his wife for life; sita knew it just as such. He thrashed all unsolicited remarriage advice. In public view with all his subjects witnessing, Rama then has had sita sitting next to him the entire time and carried out the yagam. Well it was Sita’s life-size statue as a matter of fact. Story goes on till he finds sita again. Thats for another day.

Thus Rama educated his own very people, who forced him to take up the tormenting action of banishment on Sita, that they have no influence on his swadharma or Pati dharma (spousal).That it will be his decision to keep his wife in his heart forever. This story abundantly serves a proof of his conviction and loyalty to only one wife he ever had. King Rama lived a single man until he ended his avatar!! Rama bashers must revisit this chapter in uttarayan for their own enlightenment. Namaste.

kallol
28 July 2011, 09:53 PM
Kallol,

With due respect, Sahasranama has taken exception to certain people denigrating Sri Rama on whimsical grounds and shaky reasoning. That is perfectly legitimate and actually good because these people, like Divine Kala, have no idea about the intricacies of the Ramayana and they interpret it with their highly limited understanding. Their questions are NOT the same as a knowledgeable scholar questioning based on solid philosophical grounds.

The contention here is that when interpreted from our viewpoint, this "banishment" looks cruel and inhumane. That is because we think of everything at an individual level; not at the society's level. As mAryadA PuruSotaMan, Sri RAma's Raja Dharma required him to act according to the dharma of society in his kingdom. Hence, the Shambhuka episode. Hence, the banishment of SitA.

Some people writing nonsense like Sri RAmA was a "horrible husband" is just simply erroneous and deeply offensive to Hindus. They simply cannot understand the nuance in the actions of Sri RAmA. There are so many instances like this episode in our Scriptures. Yet, do we say that Sri Krishna was a pimp because he made love to many gOpIs? If some idiot asks that, what would be your response? "Discussion"? Or a swift kick in the teeth? I prefer the latter, with steel-toed boots as well! :)

We must definitely allow discussion. Yet, the discussion has to come from sincerity and not righteous indignation and/or pseudo-intellectualism.

Namaskar.


Dear All,

We are only dealing with immaturity. Each lower level is immature compared to the higher ones.

Even in our family, we as children questioned our parents hard. Our children do the same to us. So do we banish the children ? But slowly and surely teh children become mature in their own way - may be different that parents.

I have a feeling that we want all of the people in the forum to be in the same page as a few are. Does it not bring in the similar fanatical trends as the Abrahamic religions ? How are we different ?

I define anger as our inability to convince the other guy. This means we ourselves are not fully conversant with the universal philosophy behind the actions of Rama. Just believing and not wanting go into depth of the philosophy (which should be universal) leads to a feeling of insecurity which in turn leads to violent reactions.

If someone is questioning, it gives us an opportunity to introspect and learn more. It is good for us and our soul.

The second cause can be that someone is knowingly denigrating Rama. Which I believe is not the case. However even in this case, with anger, we cannot change their mind. Can we ? Rather we are making someone relate Hinduism (which is more than Rama or Krishna) to ones anger or a religion which is as obstinate as the Abrahamic ones.

Think on what is our purpose. The SD is only to make ourselves better and does not make us missionaries. Our attachment to Rama or Krishna as an obsession is making our mind hate someone, get angry, etc. Is this the objective of SD ? Is this the way you want to purify your mind ?

Will Shankaracharya, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, etc would like you to react in the same way ?

If the answer is NO then introspect why NO ?

Love and best wishes

devotee
28 July 2011, 10:49 PM
Ram se bada Ram ka naam |
Bhaj le Ram, bhaj le Ram ||
Tere bigade banenge kaam |
Bhaj le Ram, bhaj le Ram ||

==>Ram's name is greater than Ram. So, recite "Ram-Ram" repeatedly.
All your spoiled chances will get straighten out .... recite "Ram", recite "Ram".

What a waste of time ! This Uttar Kand of Ramayana has always been suspected to be a manipulation by vested interests. Why are we trying to take out oil out of sand ? The sand will only destroy our vision. People will always believe what they want to believe. Why bother ??

So, recite the name of "Ram" & be happy !

OM

smaranam
01 August 2011, 04:33 PM
Some people writing nonsense like Sri RAmA was a "horrible husband" is just simply erroneous and deeply offensive to Hindus. They simply cannot understand the nuance in the actions of Sri RAmA. There are so many instances like this episode in our Scriptures. Yet, do we say that Sri Krishna was a pimp because he made love to many gOpIs? If some idiot asks that, what would be your response? "Discussion"? Or a swift kick in the teeth? I prefer the latter, with steel-toed boots as well! :)

We must definitely allow discussion. Yet, the discussion has to come from sincerity and not righteous indignation and/or pseudo-intellectualism.

Namaskar.

Namaste

As TatTvamAsi is implying here, that phrase has no relevance whatsoever in the context of Shri KrushNa and Gopis.

The Gopis and KrushNa merely danced, embraced, and sang in pancham svar (fifth note - sa re ga ma pa), glorified each other and the nature, universe, sun moon stars creepers, flowers, cows, mountains ... thru' their poetry, metaphors, alliterations etc. There was NO trace of anything sexual. By the way they were KIDS. KrushNa was eight+, Gopis were around that same age going up to say 12.

There was no trace of material aspects of kaam in the Gopis, and KrushNa is AtmArAm so no question of possibility of kaam bhAvanA arising in Him. He was graciously giving His association to the Gopis by hearing their prayers via KAtyAyani vrat (that may KrushNa be their husband). What about the Gopis ? Not a trace of selfish desire (kaam) in them. Only prem (selfless desire to please KrushNa).

** Plus, the Gopis were not in their physical bodies when they met KrushNa ! They were at home, "in bed" acc. to to their family members. Their minds and ATMA went to seek union with Him.

** Another point, no such thing is mentioned or implied in shAstra (scriptures)
1. Bhagvatam (Canto 10, rAspanchAdyAy - five chapters on rAs lilA)
2. HarivaMsha secion of MahAbhArat
3. Bramhavaivarta purAN

The filling and frosting was added by prakrit poetry, rasik saints and devotees (like Jayadev's GeetGovind), and later on thru' the Goswamis' Literature (Gaudiya). The Indian audience took this in the right stride, and it was all pure till this point. It was RasiktA, and not kaam or a material-world love story.

When it fell in the hands of the Western world, particularly the British and Christians, they could not understand or comprehend the rasik elements between AtmA and paramAtmA, and took everything in a very perverted sense. Today also, we see the most perverted messages on this topic on Christian websites. Perhaps it is our duty to write to them and educate them ?

The material world is indeed a topsy turvey perverted reflection of the spiritual world. The kaam beej is present in the spiritual world in a very pure form, and gets reflected in the material jagat in a perverted way.

I agree that calm explanation or education is the right way, not anger or resentment.

Some say there is a lot more to Hinduism than Shri RAm and KrushNa.

? Is there anything outside of Shri RAm and KrushNa ? Anyone who thinks so does not understand Shri KrushNa.

Shri KrushNa Govind Hare MurAre
he nAth nArAyaNa vAsudeva ~

Tapasya
03 August 2011, 05:45 AM
Namaste,

I humbly offer below my opinion on the query raised. Tounderstand the reasons for the action we need to understand Sri Rama and SitaDevi in the context of Hindu Dharma and the profound symbolism of the union.

Here, the commentary below verse 26 is significant:

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga73/bala_73_frame.htm (http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga73/bala_73_frame.htm)

What can we understand from this? Sita Devi is the daughterof Bhoomi Devi and therefore belongs to the earth (Sita relates to furrow).(Both Devi’s are of course incarnations of Lakshmi Devi). Note also that SitaDevi spends most of her life, after Her marriage, in the forests.

Maha Vishnu in the form of Sri Rama was born on this earthfor a primary purpose (to eliminate Ravana) and Lakshmi Devi, as Sita Devi,took birth for the same purpose (note laksya means objective). Note also that SriRama represents atma and Sita Devi Jiva and that Sri Rama represents Akasha andSita Devi Prithvi.

What happens when the primary purpose is achieved? (Symbolically(within Vyavaharika) the atma could be seen in terms of a separation from the jiva). On earth Sri Ramaand Sita will part to subsequently reunite in Vaikunda. Thus, Sita Devi returnsto the forest to raise two children (Lava and Kusha who also pertain to theearth) and thus complete the second part of Her purpose. Once this is completedshe then returns symbolically to Her mother (who is really Herself). Note alsothat Sita is Vaidehi – through Her pativrata She has transcended Her duties of wifehood(patnitva) and subsequently Her duties of motherhood (matritva).

(I think we can compare this with Ganga Devi and Her descentto earth to be wife of Maharaja Shantanu to give birth to the Vasus and toimmediately return them back to swarga).

After Sri Rama reunites with Sita Devi (subsequent to thedeath of Ravana), He appears to speak to her in a detached manner. At thisstage Sita Devi is addressed as vaidehi or maithili or Janaki (all epithetswhich pertain to Her being daughter of Maharaja Janaka. King Janaka is a greatSiddha, belonging to the Videha’s, and as such claimed mastery over the art of body-consciousnessseparation (videha – describes state of bodylessness). Sita Devi demonstratesthese siddhi’s during agni pariksa, during her time in the asoka vatika andduring Her final vrata (at which point the jiva returns back to Its source and theatma remains).

At a more generic level we need to understand the Ramayana aspointing to the spiritual adhistana of Hindu vivaha (marriage). It represents asacred union in the physical plane the ultimate aim of which is for both of themarriage partners to achieve moksha (or at the very least represents the meansby which both can transcend the physical plane). Sita Devi has, however,transcended the need for a sthula sharira and thus merges back with Prithvi Deviwhence She came. In due time when Sri Rama reverts back to His vishvarupa (afterHe gives up His stula sharira in the Sarayu) Lakshmi Devi then returns to Vaikundawith Him. (In fact Sarayu also claims His anuja and many others prior to theirreturn to Vaikunda). Also, in a similar way, the adhistana of the Ramayana isthe Gayatri mantra – i.e. a sacred union the purpose of which is to enable theknower to transcend the physical plane.

Spiritual responsibilities increase exponentially withspiritual evolution. Failure to abide by these responsibilities (of spiritualsthana) has as exponentially increasing adverse effect on the individual, theworld and empirical reality itself. We see this in Ravana. Ravana is, afterall, the son of the sage Vishrava, the grandson of sage Pulastya (one of theprajapati’s) and therefore the great grandson of Brahma Himself. Just like SriRama he is a great Siva devotee (e.g. Ravana wrote the Shiva Tandava stotram). Hehad received the blessing of Brahma and Mahadeva. However, though his daityasvabhava filters through, Ravana is no ordinary asura (see Shiva Lila below). Hehas mastered the Vedas. His actions had enormously adverse spiritualconsequences. Nonetheless, after Sri Rama kills Ravana, Bhagavan Himself issubject to Brahmahatya dosha (the sin of killing a brahmana) and must performappropriate penances. The separation of Sri Rama and Sita Devi may be also seenas part of the penance.

A corollary of Ravana’s sins on the earth (and in particularhis disrespect of Bhoomi devi) is that the earth needs to be purified. At thesame time the killing of a Mahabrahmana also manifests as a great sin on theearth. Thus it is inevitable that Sita Devi must also spend time with BhoomiDevi after Ravana’s destruction (to purify of the earth). [All humans commit asin by walking on earth. This is why Hindus ask for pray for forgiveness(Kshamasva) each morning. Our ahamkara which causes us to lie and cheat weighsus down. Form this we know that Ravana’s sins against Bhoomi devi are so muchgreater]. [By the way, since Sri Rama is devoid of ahamkara, what this means isHis feet would not touch the ground unless He wills it – but I cannot remember anythingto support this].

This then leads to me onto this plea. As with Sruti, I do notbelieve that it is possible to understand the Ramayana (or the Mahabharata)with human intelligence (i.e. It cannot be understood with academic toolsbecause such tools are, by definition, tainted by senses). There is a limit tothe usefulness, even in Vyavaharika, of pratyaksa. Those very few people whounderstand even a small portion of the Ramayana in a meaningful way will be, bydefinition, silent - as they are already in savikalpa samadhi.

This then leads me to a plea. To criticise Sri Rama is ofcourse blasphemous and the result of ahamkara. Please note that we cannotachieve spiritual progress without Ishvara anugraha. I am therefore certain ofone thing - for a Hindu spiritual aspirant to do so will result in the manifestationof extremely negative karma dosha. This karma manifests from (and in) thought,speech and physical action. (By the way please note in thiscontext the example of Ravana’s attempt to bring Mount Kailash to Lanka an aptmetaphor– please see below). You might also argue that academics and others criticiseSri Rama all the time within the perspective of some form of textual deconstructionor other intellectual abhyasa. Well, such persons will do what they will do andwill be inevitably subject to, and consumed by, their consequent karma dosha overmany subsequent lives.

There are many other deeper meanings that are considerably beyondmy present ability to understand, let alone explain, and these must be left tothose with the dhyanaphala to elucidate as and when appropriate.

http://www.dlshq.org/download/lordsiva.htm
(See Lord Shiva and His Lilas andRavana)
Pranam

Sudas Paijavana
26 September 2013, 06:00 PM
delete

Anira
13 November 2013, 01:24 AM
Namaste Friends

Growing up, this part of the Ramayan always plagued me. To me, as a girl growing up in a liberal society, this was such a violation of women's rights...but it felt so wrong to question the ways of the Lord...and so it was that I was always tossing around my emotions when it came to this topic...until I watched Ramanand Sagar's Luv Kush series.

Shri Ram disguised Himself, and mingled among the people to ascertain what they were saying about Him. He struggled with his emotions and wanted to abdicate the throne. In the end, it was Sita Mata who convinced Him that abdicating was not an option and that His duty as a King came first. He never banished her. Sita Mata made that decision for Him.

Please watch the YOU tube episode of this (link below), but I will also suggest watching the episodes leading up to this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXZigdcFQlY&list=PLF5CC30349E53E5F3

Jai Shri Ram!