Рама и Лакшман. Моя любимая тема. Да, Чандра всегда всё выкручивает до какой-то сверхъестественной сложности. А на деле, всё гораздо проще. Кто был Раме ближе, Сита или Лакшман?
И если вопрос Хануману: "Кого ты больше любишь, Ситу или Раму?" - вызывает улыбку, то вопрос, кого больше любил Рама, Ситу или Лакшмана, вызывает , по крайней мере у меня другие эмоции. Впрочем, ладно, проматывайте!
читать дальше
This brings to mind a different question. After Lakshman had passed on, Rama decided that he couldn't take it anymore and asked Bharat to succeed him, while he went and joined Lakshman. Why didn't he simply do that w/ Sita - after the yagna, hand things over to Bharat or Lakshman, ask them to transition things to their own kids and to K-L as well before joining him? How come Sita's passing was bearable for him, but Lakshman's wasn't? Isn't one of the lessons from the Ramayan that a spouse is supposed to be an eternal companion, and closer than a sibling?
True it does, but in many instances Ram himself declares that he valued Lakshman more than he valued Sita.
When Lakshman was hurt in the battlefield and showed no signs of life, Ram lamented saying "I can find another like Sita among the best of womankind but I can never find another brother like you."
My guess was that Sita was already separated from him for a long time but Lakshman was always with him. He had given her up - though the separation and the knowledge that she is no more is painful he had already been away from her.
Probably when Lakshman too left him, he couldn't take it anymore. Even when Sita was separated from him, he found little comfort in Lakshman's company. Probably he felt that he couldn't carry on when the only person who had been his shadow (except the 1 year he was away from him) had gone away from him.
I am not saying that Sita was less devoted to Ram than Lakshman but Ram must have been more affected by the loss of Lakshman than when he lost Sita.
That's a good explanation, although somehow, I find it hard to justify, even though I can understand it.
One thing - when Rama promised Ka'al that he'd execute anyone who sees them, that was a promise he followed in a modified way - instead of executing Lakshman, he disowned him, and Lakshman went and was taken by Indra to Vaikuntha. So once Rama had disowned Lakshman, when he decided that he could no longer live w/o Lakshman and would go to join him, wasn't he breaking his vow? Granted, he didn't take a vow to disown him, but since that was his substitution for an execution, how exactly did he fulfil that promise by following Lakshman once he was gone? Under terms of this vow, he should have continued to rule as though nothing had happened, so that it also looked like he had actually disowned Lakshman. If he had executed Lakshman and then decided to give up his life, that would have been one thing, but since he disowned Lakshman, wouldn't joining him be symbolic of repossessing him? Or was the fact that Lakshman was no more a fulfillment of the 'execution' requirement, and therefore, Rama was at liberty to repossess him? ErmmErmmErmmErmmErmm
Quite complicating . . .
As per what I have read already, Maharishi Vashista suggested that in the case of noble souls, disowning the person is the same as executing the person. According to the books I have read, Ram, totally aghast on realising the fact he has to kill his own brother or atleast make sure he died called his ministers and his Guru to advise him on the matter. Some versions say that it was Guru Vashishta himself who suggested it. Some versions say it was Hanuman who suggested it. I prefer to follow the former - no offence to any versions. Ram agreed to this thinking that atleast Lakshman would live even if he was away from him.
The same type of explanation was given by Lord Krishna too when Arjuna sought to kill his brother Yudhishtra after the latter insulted him and his bow on being defeated by Karna in the battlefield.
There may be other instances in our Mythology and Puranas similar to these two.
I don't think Ram was breaking his vow. I do not know where it is stated in the norms, rules and regulations of the ancient society, but Maharishi Vashishta says that banishing/disowning or giving up Lakshman is as good as executing him/giving him a death sentence. By banishing Lakshman, he did fulfill the conditions.
The condition was to execute any person who had seen them or heard them talk - nothing more was specified. Whether Ram continued to rule or not does not matter after he had fulfilled the condition of executing the person who trespassed the meeting. After giving Lakshman his punishment, Ram was free to continue living or end his life. Nothing was mentioned of punishing himself (Ram) or there was nothing in the conditions laid by Kaal that Ram should not rejoin his brother.
Lakshman was punished and that was what the conditions stated. I don't think anything else was required to be fulfilled. As long as Ram did not recall Lakshman to Ayodhya or give him back his status in family and society, he did not break the vow.