Banishment of Sita

[Jainarayan]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jainarayan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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