Rama's banishment of Sita
From the Bhakti List Archives
• January 18, 1996
I could'nt wait at the sidelines anymore! So, here goes ..... This is in response to some of the points raised by John Grimes: 1) Rama has already paid the price for doing sita's bidding in going through the agony of separation. You only have to read through Valmiki's detailed narration ( in unabridged form) of Rama's suffering to appreciate it. Rama didn't have to banish himself. In the days of the Ramayana ( and even today ) any married woman who spent a long time (or, for that matter, a short time) in another man's house was considered tainted( whether she was tainted or not). She was banished for this reason, not for kidnapping. 2) I agree with your, "to banish Sita is a utilitarian solution - the greatest good for the greatest amount of people" theory, but it was necessary even when it was unfair to Sita. This is the price royalty have to pay for the "other privilages" they enjoy over lesser mortals like us. Why do you think Princess Diana wants out of the marriage? She simply cannot handle the protocalls associated with being "royal". 3). As to Sugriva's incident, I don't have an explanation. Incidentally, you might recall Rama kills Vali by hiding behind a bush - against all rules of combat. I am sure it would be a piece of cake for Rama to come out in the open and finish off Vali just as easily as you and I could exterminate a mosquito. I suspect Valmiki, being a very wise saint, had good reason portray the incident the way he did. M. Sheshadri
- Next message: Sampath Rengarajan: "(Fwd)"
- Previous message: Jaganath.Bharadwaj_at_nrecatao.nreca.org: "Dowry and Adharma"
- Next in thread: Vijay Srinivasan: "Re: Rama's banishment of Sita"
- Maybe reply: Vijay Srinivasan: "Re: Rama's banishment of Sita"
- Reply: Parthasarathy Ranganathan: "Re: Vali vadam"
- Maybe reply: Jaganath.Bharadwaj_at_nrecatao.nreca.org: "Re: Rama's banishment of Sita"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]