читать дальшеIn the original story, Sita never gave any bhashans. She just took the oath and left, w/o looking at either Rama or her kids. It was that simple. None of that 'please let me get you as my hubby everytime' BS. Чандра - я люблю тебя!!
Think about it. How would it have been fair had Sita left burdens on those who survived her? She never told K-L in this story not to blame anybody for her sacrifice, and she never asked Rama to love his subjects despite what they did to her, as depicted in the previous serial. Nor did she tell them anything about obeying their father.
And her reason for leaving, though unstated, was also pretty simple. Had she taken an oath that she'd have survived, she'd have left a message that it's okay to sacrifice one's honor in lieu of prestige, such as being the queen. She did not take the oath so that K-L would succeed the throne. Here, she's made to look like Kaikeyi - wanting the throne of Ayodhya for her own sons so badly that she's willing to die and leave a huge guilt footprint on everybody so that her sons get it. Bharat was the yuvraj - anybody think that she'd have been opposed to his sons getting the throne of Ayodhya? In fact, Kush did not replace Bharat as Yuvraj even after this incident. So how does this rationale for taking the oath even make sense? (Oh, and does anyone seriously believed that she'd have actually overriden the rajmatas?)
The Sagars - both Ramanand and Anand - have bas***dized this story (particularly this incident) beyond recognition AngryAngryAngry