Двое меня! И не разделяйте!
читать дальшеBut there was one thing - Why he had to banish her to the forest instead of sending her?
If he had stripped her of her status or sent her back to her father, he'd have made it clear to the world that he himself did not accept her as the queen. He banished her because his subjects did not want her for his queen not because he wanted to punish her. The whole point of doing his duty would have gone to dust if he had made sure she was safe somewhere plainly in the sight of the people. Under the circumstances, the best he could do was to provide her a safe refuge and fulfill his duty as a husband. Would Sita have accepted to live as Ram's wife stripped of her title as queen? Would she bear the shame of being sent away to her father's home? This would have been an ultimate disgrace to her. As his wife, she was his responsibility. She was pregnant too at that time. But the Queen of Ayodhya had to accepted universally by all people. No matter what happened, she still would be his wife till they both chose to end the relationship. His responsibility was to take care of his wife's needs and he did just that.
Sorry, the italicized point you made above isn't invalidated were he to have either demoted her, or sent her to Mithila (incidentally, how would being sent to Mithila - her parent's home - have been any more shameful than sending her to a stranger Valmiki? Rama wouldn't have been indebted to Janak, but he certainly ended up indebted to Valmiki). He had already decided to strip her of her title as queen - that happened automatically when he sent her to Valmiki's ashram. Had he done what I was 'suggesting', the people of Ayodhya would still have gotten their wish - Sita wouldn't have been queen - but at the same time, Sita would still have had what she always wanted - the company of Rama. She wouldn't have been in sight of the people - there were private quarters in the palace, and the prople who resided there weren't there in full visibility of the people at the Ayodhya court, the way Maharani Sita was. By doing this, Rama would have fulfilled both his duties as king (by removing Sita as queen) and as husband (by assigning her to Kaushalya, she would have had his company whenever he visited Kaushalya). Remember - Sita didn't care for royal titles, and would happily have sacrificed that title had she been allowed to continue to serve her husband in some capacity, shorn of the luxuries.
In fact, here's a counter argument one can make. Kaushalya belonged to Rama. Janak belonged to Sita. Had Rama sent Sita to either of them, he'd not have been putting himself in debt on anybody. But by sending her to Valmiki, he made his entire family indebted to Valmiki. Wouldn't it have been better if he had kept her within the family, sans the Ayodhya maharani title?
Ram accepting his kids was understandable too. As the Suryavanshis followed the practice of the eldest ruling his father's kingdom, Ram had accepted his kids. The people had finally accepted their queen's chastity and now Ram can also continue the ancient practice his family had followed. Its true that Bharat or Lakshman's sons could have taken up the mantle of being the King of Ayodhya, but his family would have preferred Ram's sons to do that.
That last part is incorrect - as Mando pointed out, the people never accepted her chastity, even after she took the vow. Rama accepting his kids without unconditionally accepting Sita was not understandable: either he publicly repudiated his subjects on Sita's chastity, in which case, his desire for his kids was acceptable, or he publicly accepted the unstated desires of his subjects to see that proven, in which case, his desire for the kis was unacceptable. Also, note that not all Suryavanshis had their eldest succeed them, for varying reasons, and it was one that Rama himself didn't really care for. That explains why he was too happy to give the kingdom to Bharat when it was desired of him, and why he left Bharat as yuvraj even after he got back his sons. In fact, after the demise of Lakshman, he first offered Bharat the throne. He should have pre-forced the issue by having Kush and Luv installed in their own kingdoms after Chandraketu and Angad were, and then gone through this process of seeing Ka'al and Durvasa.
The other evidence that Rama didn't care too much for this tradition of the eldest succeeding the throne was there in how he himself acted - not only did he force Shatrughan to become the ruler of Madhupura, but he had each of his nephews installed in kingdoms of their own, and even had Luv crowned. Had this been such a sacrosanct tradition, Rama would have crowned Kush the emperor of his kingdom, and had all his brothers become his courtiers and followers, instead of creating 7 more dynasties.
If a husband sends his wife back to her father's home (for good), the society will think that he was not willing to live with her anymore. When a woman is given in marriage, she belongs to her husband and will not be sent back unless there is some auspicious event for which both of them attend as a couple or if the husband is displeased - in this case she comes back alone. This is what King Aswapathi did to his wife (Kaikeyi's mother). After being made a queen and then taking back her title would not have solved anything. We all know that Sita never cared for titles or status. But taking it back will be a humiliation. If she was never given the title right from the beginning it was a different issue. Either way, the people would have talked - Ram himself did not accept her fully. If Ram had married more than once, he could have made another wife the queen and Sita could have stayed with the family. But she was his only wife and not making her the queen is a humiliation in front of everyone's eyes. Its would have been even worse to ask her to step down from the throne.
I was under the impression that the people accepted her chastity. They must have - atleast after Sita went into the Earth. I agree that Ram was the one who first made the change of dividing the kingdom. Some books say that he did so to avoid what happened in his life to any of his sons or nephews (Something I am not sure whether I'd believe) He accepted his sons and gave them their own kingdoms. I agree he did not follow the practice of primogeniture but accepting his sons was the right thing to do after his wife had proved herself once again - this time infront of his own people.
Stripping Sita of her title as queen, but letting her stay in the palace would be more of an insult than anything. True, Sita did not care for her title, neither did Ram, but stripping her of her title would mean that Ramji agreed with the false allegations of the praja. The same thing with sending Sita to Mithila. That would be the biggest insult of all. One must think with the mindset of Treta Yug. Today, sending someone back to parent's house is not that bad. I don't think it's even done today, because the woman can just divorce her husband, but anyhow, back in my parents' and even grandparents' days, it was looked down upon immensely if a girl was sent back to her parents' home. Think how it must have been in the Treta Yug! If Sita was sent back to Janak Pur, the Mithila Praja's sympathy for her may have vanished and they could have blamed her by saying she brought dishonor upon her father's family.
And sending sita back to Mithila would mean Rama acknowledges the Praja's words and believes them himself. So no. I don't think Shri Ram had any option but exiling her. He was Raja Ram, and by then, he knew he was Lord Vishnu because Lord Brahma told him. He knew best, and he took a decision that would save Sita's honor and also the honor of the Raghukil at the same time. Who are we to say he had other options?
And plus, Sita was a strong independent woman. She did not need someone to rely upon. She did not need the royal luxuries of her father's home to be happy. And an ashram was better for her anyway, because it could provide the peace of mind which her father's home would not longer give her. And anyway, how would she live peacefully among all the luxuries without being reminded of her husband constantly? The first time she saw Shri Ram was in the Pushpa Vatika. How would she ever be able to go into that garden again without being reminded of her beloved husband? And Ramji lifted the Shiv Danush in Mithila, and Sita got married to him in Mithila. Mithila would have all the memories of Ram in it. She would never be able to live in Mithila peacefully.
And also, after Sita returned to Bhomi Devi, the praja did accept her chastity, because she proved it to them in front of their own eyes.
If he had stripped her of her status or sent her back to her father, he'd have made it clear to the world that he himself did not accept her as the queen. He banished her because his subjects did not want her for his queen not because he wanted to punish her. The whole point of doing his duty would have gone to dust if he had made sure she was safe somewhere plainly in the sight of the people. Under the circumstances, the best he could do was to provide her a safe refuge and fulfill his duty as a husband. Would Sita have accepted to live as Ram's wife stripped of her title as queen? Would she bear the shame of being sent away to her father's home? This would have been an ultimate disgrace to her. As his wife, she was his responsibility. She was pregnant too at that time. But the Queen of Ayodhya had to accepted universally by all people. No matter what happened, she still would be his wife till they both chose to end the relationship. His responsibility was to take care of his wife's needs and he did just that.
Sorry, the italicized point you made above isn't invalidated were he to have either demoted her, or sent her to Mithila (incidentally, how would being sent to Mithila - her parent's home - have been any more shameful than sending her to a stranger Valmiki? Rama wouldn't have been indebted to Janak, but he certainly ended up indebted to Valmiki). He had already decided to strip her of her title as queen - that happened automatically when he sent her to Valmiki's ashram. Had he done what I was 'suggesting', the people of Ayodhya would still have gotten their wish - Sita wouldn't have been queen - but at the same time, Sita would still have had what she always wanted - the company of Rama. She wouldn't have been in sight of the people - there were private quarters in the palace, and the prople who resided there weren't there in full visibility of the people at the Ayodhya court, the way Maharani Sita was. By doing this, Rama would have fulfilled both his duties as king (by removing Sita as queen) and as husband (by assigning her to Kaushalya, she would have had his company whenever he visited Kaushalya). Remember - Sita didn't care for royal titles, and would happily have sacrificed that title had she been allowed to continue to serve her husband in some capacity, shorn of the luxuries.
In fact, here's a counter argument one can make. Kaushalya belonged to Rama. Janak belonged to Sita. Had Rama sent Sita to either of them, he'd not have been putting himself in debt on anybody. But by sending her to Valmiki, he made his entire family indebted to Valmiki. Wouldn't it have been better if he had kept her within the family, sans the Ayodhya maharani title?
Ram accepting his kids was understandable too. As the Suryavanshis followed the practice of the eldest ruling his father's kingdom, Ram had accepted his kids. The people had finally accepted their queen's chastity and now Ram can also continue the ancient practice his family had followed. Its true that Bharat or Lakshman's sons could have taken up the mantle of being the King of Ayodhya, but his family would have preferred Ram's sons to do that.
That last part is incorrect - as Mando pointed out, the people never accepted her chastity, even after she took the vow. Rama accepting his kids without unconditionally accepting Sita was not understandable: either he publicly repudiated his subjects on Sita's chastity, in which case, his desire for his kids was acceptable, or he publicly accepted the unstated desires of his subjects to see that proven, in which case, his desire for the kis was unacceptable. Also, note that not all Suryavanshis had their eldest succeed them, for varying reasons, and it was one that Rama himself didn't really care for. That explains why he was too happy to give the kingdom to Bharat when it was desired of him, and why he left Bharat as yuvraj even after he got back his sons. In fact, after the demise of Lakshman, he first offered Bharat the throne. He should have pre-forced the issue by having Kush and Luv installed in their own kingdoms after Chandraketu and Angad were, and then gone through this process of seeing Ka'al and Durvasa.
The other evidence that Rama didn't care too much for this tradition of the eldest succeeding the throne was there in how he himself acted - not only did he force Shatrughan to become the ruler of Madhupura, but he had each of his nephews installed in kingdoms of their own, and even had Luv crowned. Had this been such a sacrosanct tradition, Rama would have crowned Kush the emperor of his kingdom, and had all his brothers become his courtiers and followers, instead of creating 7 more dynasties.
If a husband sends his wife back to her father's home (for good), the society will think that he was not willing to live with her anymore. When a woman is given in marriage, she belongs to her husband and will not be sent back unless there is some auspicious event for which both of them attend as a couple or if the husband is displeased - in this case she comes back alone. This is what King Aswapathi did to his wife (Kaikeyi's mother). After being made a queen and then taking back her title would not have solved anything. We all know that Sita never cared for titles or status. But taking it back will be a humiliation. If she was never given the title right from the beginning it was a different issue. Either way, the people would have talked - Ram himself did not accept her fully. If Ram had married more than once, he could have made another wife the queen and Sita could have stayed with the family. But she was his only wife and not making her the queen is a humiliation in front of everyone's eyes. Its would have been even worse to ask her to step down from the throne.
I was under the impression that the people accepted her chastity. They must have - atleast after Sita went into the Earth. I agree that Ram was the one who first made the change of dividing the kingdom. Some books say that he did so to avoid what happened in his life to any of his sons or nephews (Something I am not sure whether I'd believe) He accepted his sons and gave them their own kingdoms. I agree he did not follow the practice of primogeniture but accepting his sons was the right thing to do after his wife had proved herself once again - this time infront of his own people.
Stripping Sita of her title as queen, but letting her stay in the palace would be more of an insult than anything. True, Sita did not care for her title, neither did Ram, but stripping her of her title would mean that Ramji agreed with the false allegations of the praja. The same thing with sending Sita to Mithila. That would be the biggest insult of all. One must think with the mindset of Treta Yug. Today, sending someone back to parent's house is not that bad. I don't think it's even done today, because the woman can just divorce her husband, but anyhow, back in my parents' and even grandparents' days, it was looked down upon immensely if a girl was sent back to her parents' home. Think how it must have been in the Treta Yug! If Sita was sent back to Janak Pur, the Mithila Praja's sympathy for her may have vanished and they could have blamed her by saying she brought dishonor upon her father's family.
And sending sita back to Mithila would mean Rama acknowledges the Praja's words and believes them himself. So no. I don't think Shri Ram had any option but exiling her. He was Raja Ram, and by then, he knew he was Lord Vishnu because Lord Brahma told him. He knew best, and he took a decision that would save Sita's honor and also the honor of the Raghukil at the same time. Who are we to say he had other options?
And plus, Sita was a strong independent woman. She did not need someone to rely upon. She did not need the royal luxuries of her father's home to be happy. And an ashram was better for her anyway, because it could provide the peace of mind which her father's home would not longer give her. And anyway, how would she live peacefully among all the luxuries without being reminded of her husband constantly? The first time she saw Shri Ram was in the Pushpa Vatika. How would she ever be able to go into that garden again without being reminded of her beloved husband? And Ramji lifted the Shiv Danush in Mithila, and Sita got married to him in Mithila. Mithila would have all the memories of Ram in it. She would never be able to live in Mithila peacefully.
And also, after Sita returned to Bhomi Devi, the praja did accept her chastity, because she proved it to them in front of their own eyes.
@темы: Рамаяна