Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Banishment of Sita

  1. #31
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    Quote Originally Posted by kallol View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,450
    Rep Power
    92

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    Pranam Kallol

    I echo TTA post above

    Quote Originally Posted by kallol View Post
    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
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    February 2011
    Location
    st louis, usa
    Posts
    695
    Rep Power
    1519

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    491

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    Quote Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi View Post
    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

  5. #35
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    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
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  6. #36

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    Quote Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi View Post
    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 ~
    Last edited by smaranam; 01 August 2011 at 08:34 PM. Reason: Our duty to educate them
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  7. #37

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    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

    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

  8. #38

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    delete
    Last edited by Sudas Paijavana; 17 January 2014 at 08:53 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    March 2013
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Age
    48
    Posts
    16
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Banishment of Sita

    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=sXZi...CC30349E53E5F3

    Jai Shri Ram!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Radha and Sita
    By Peshalah in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13 July 2011, 11:14 PM
  2. Sita Ram! Happy new years ;) im new
    By HinduRican in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11 February 2011, 05:12 PM
  3. Jai Sita Ram!
    By aneil in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05 October 2010, 06:31 PM
  4. Jai Sita Ram
    By Aartee in forum Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26 October 2008, 02:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •