Ramayana - Another Great Epic

Hi viggop, your point makes logical sense for the story, it could be true that Ravana was not wanting her heart, but just her subjugation. The boon thing adds the logic for it.

But was Rama correct in suspecting sita ?, that too by making her walk on fire. Does this not manifest complete male chuvaninsm, treating women just as a sex object, that too an object with chastity. Was he not broad minded enough to accept Sita even if she was helplessly raped by ravana. What is the message that Ramayana conveys in its climax ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mahadevan

Hi viggop, your point makes logical sense for the story, it could be true that Ravana was not wanting her heart, but just her subjugation. The boon thing adds the logic for it.

But was Rama correct in suspecting sita ?, that too by making her walk on fire. Does this not manifest complete male chuvaninsm, treating women just as a sex object, that too an object with chastity. Was he not broad minded enough to accept Sita even if she was helplessly raped by ravana. What is the message that Ramayana conveys in its climax ?

---

Dear Mahadev,

This aspect was discussed long back, Shree RamaChandar asks Devi Sita to cross the fire to prove her purity to the citizens of Ayodiya, Shree RamaChandar NEVER EVER doubted his wife, this issue has been WIDELY misused or misinterpreted by most ppl

:cry: :cry:

Mahadevan
I think Sudhamma has tounched on this point in this thread.Please see the archives of this thread.

Shree RamaChandar asks Devi Sita to cross the fire to prove her purity to the citizens of Ayodiya

was Rama supportive of the view that Sita needs to be sexually pure ? personally was he convinced or not about Sita's chastity is immaterial.
Why should he prove to the people of Ayodiya that Sita was pure, is it just because he personally felt the same or was he just perpetuating (instead of opposing) male chuvanism that was existing among the people of Ayodiya.

If Rama was a noble soul, then he should told the people that even if Ravana had forefully raped Sita, Sita should not be blamed for this, and such acts should never be equated to defiling of a women's chastity, as she did not do so by her own will.

I had asked a question previously.
Is the story regarding birth of Hanuman and his childhood days part of ramayana? or is it bhagwatha purana?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raghu

Dear Mahadev,

This aspect was discussed long back, Shree RamaChandar asks Devi Sita to cross the fire to prove her purity to the citizens of Ayodiya, Shree RamaChandar NEVER EVER doubted his wife, this issue has been WIDELY misused or misinterpreted by most ppl

:cry: :cry:

---

Now, with today's knowledge you talk so! I don't have to own the imaginative power to see how it was yesterday!
I am quite sure that ramayana only discribes the culture and civilisation of that period it was written like a lot of other stuff in the greek or roman mythologies do.

It is told a blind is a visionary among ...

The nine moods of Sri Rama has been described in a Sanskrit shloka. The following is the shloka on 'Navarasa Rama':
Shrngaaram kshithinandhini viharane, Veeram dhanurbhanjane
haasyam shoorpanamukhe, Bhayam aghe, Bheebatsam anyamukhe, Kaarunyam balibhojane, Adbhutharasam sindhau giri sthapane, Raudhro raavana mardhane, Munijane shaantham
vapuh paathunah

Translation:
Love while sporting with the daughter of Goddess earth, heroism while breaking the bow, humour on seeing the face of Shoorpanaka, fear of sins, disgust for another lady's face, compassion in the kakasura episode, wonder while placing the mountain on the ocean, anger while killing Raavana, tranquility towards sages.

The agni pravesa episode too has been very extensively dealt with by Mr. Harikrishnan in his chennaionline series. I quote here some statements to make the point that Rama's behavior in this chapter, although not throughly convincing by today's standards, can still be justified.
Rama never doubted Sita - this is apparent from many subtle points, which I cannot do justice to if I go into it and so, I will just quote a couple.
Rama asked that Sita be decorated like a queen when she is brought to meet him after the war; he sends her this message with Vibhishana. He specifically asks her to dress herself up only because he knows that she would not already be so. If she had acceded to Ravana's wishes, one may take for granted that she would not anymore be wearing her old rags.
Also, after she is brought to his presence, when he addresses her, he says "the sight of your person hurts me like light hurting a diseased eye". It is quite apparent from this statement what he thought of her and also what he thought of himself for choosing to do this to her.
As to whether it was really necessary to prove her chastity to the people of ayodhya, this is how I see it - He was a king; he had already accepted the throne when Bharata visited him in the forest. He could have very well said that he trusted Sita and that should be good enough for everyone. If he had said that, I am sure, nobody would have dared to question him. But, he did not choose to be such domineering king whose word should be the law. By disowning Sita in public, he set the standard that the king is a servant of the people and that he ( in this case, the king and queen) should have standards higher than average that the public should be inspired to emulate.
I would very much have loved it if Rama had said either that he knew Sita was pure or that she being the helpless victim of rape does not taint her in anyway. But, I think, Valmiki chose to place the burden of ungentlemanly behavior on Rama to exemplify the exceptional chastity of Sita. Had Rama not acted that way, Sita would not have had such shining glory. I think, this brings out Rama's nobility more than if he had accepted her without question.

From Sudhaama's Post
=======================

(1) Seshathwam ( SEVAKAM in Tamil) =

Direct Service to God / King / Leader...
(“SEVAKAMUM” yaam paadi Varuththamum theerndhu - Thiruppaavai)

(2) Paarathanthriyam (PARHAI in Tamil =

Indirect Service by Carrying out the Orders of God / King / Leader
(Yitrai-p-“PARHAI” kolhvaan anrhu kaanh Govindha - Thiruppaavai)

Out of all others in Ramayana duly recognised by Rama for their worthy services and so invited to accompany Him to Vaikunta...

.. Only Hanumaan refused to accompany ..

.. while all others gladly accepted Rama’s offer,

.. after that Awathaara was completed and so Hanukman was left behind on Earth.

Hanuman sought to continue on Earth, because he had already tasted the pleasure of SESHATHWAM (Sevakam)

.. but yet wanted to have the pleasure of PAARATHANTHRIYAM (Parhai) also more...

.. which is preferred by his Lord Rama / Narayana .. from any of His devotees ..

.. better than the SEVAKAM (Direct service to Himself.).

"Rama asked that Sita be decorated like a queen when she is brought to meet him after the war; he sends her this message with Vibhishana. He specifically asks her to dress herself up only because he knows that she would not already be so. If she had acceded to Ravana's wishes, one may take for granted that she would not anymore be wearing her old rags."

If Sita had conceeded she would have been added to the list of Ravana's concubines, and not his queen. So the statement of Ram can be construed to be 'Rama not wanting to see sita dressed as a concubine, rather than he not wanting to see her in rags'.


"Also, after she is brought to his presence, when he addresses her, he says "the sight of your person hurts me like light hurting a diseased eye". It is quite apparent from this statement what he thought of her and also what he thought of himself for choosing to do this to her."

This is simply a very normanl human statement, when a person is imprisoned for such a long time, she would look miserably and when her hubby gets to see her in that state, such a statement looks very ordinary, definetly not noble. A noble statement would have been something that addressed her inner beauty/commitment/resolve, apparently Rama was very ordinary that scene.


"But, he did not choose to be such domineering king whose word should be the law. By disowning Sita in public, he set the standard that the king is a servant of the people and that he ( in this case, the king and queen) should have standards higher than average that the public should be inspired to emulate."

Instead of telling the correct thing vehemently he preferred to tell the wrong male chuvanistic ideas just to appease the masses, so that they thing he is not domineering ? hey his politics shames that of Amma/MK.


"Had Rama not acted that way, Sita would not have had such shining glory. I think, this brings out Rama's nobility more than if he had accepted her without question"

That was a shamefull statement, it accepts sita jumping in the pyre to prove her greatness, and Rama became more noble because of that !!!!! , is Kovalan equally noble because of the same reason ?