WDT#11: Did Sita think of her kids before deciding to leave earth? - Page 2

Sima this topic is interesting from a mother's point of view

But if u r only talking about sita and her decision and the luv kush part. Well not many PPL believe in that part hence was in dilemma what to answer here

So I will put differently

That story is from tretayug and those times were different and there was always the purpose of the divine avtaars

But question was sita right in leaving her kids

I think yes as she had suffered enough and also she has given heir to raghuvanshi ram

She did all she could to teach her children and she wanted them where they rightfully belong to royal family

Plus her own purpose of her avtaar was over so she had to return to her abode via naaglok

But only thing I m not aware of luv kush were avtaars of any devi devta or not

Coming to present time it's kalyug

Too much happening everywhere. Sometimes mother just abandons her children either due to circumstances or due to high ambitions

A mother koi bhi ho will want best for her children but circumstances change.

Rest i think most have already said 🙂

Originally posted by: chatterbox

Sima this topic is interesting from a mother's point of view

But if u r only talking about sita and her decision and the luv kush part. Well not many PPL believe in that part hence was in dilemma what to answer here

So I will put differently

That story is from tretayug and those times were different and there was always the purpose of the divine avtaars

But question was sita right in leaving her kids

I think yes as she had suffered enough and also she has given heir to raghuvanshi ram

She did all she could to teach her children and she wanted them where they rightfully belong to royal family

Plus her own purpose of her avtaar was over so she had to return to her abode via naaglok

But only thing I m not aware of luv kush were avtaars of any devi devta or not

Coming to present time it's kalyug

Too much happening everywhere. Sometimes mother just abandons her children either due to circumstances or due to high ambitions

A mother koi bhi ho will want best for her children but circumstances change.

Rest i think most have already said 🙂

One question

Always people say Ram ji didn't knew he's awtaar of Vishnu unlike Krishna bhagwan

Did Siya knew she's a divine being?

Originally posted by: RamAayeHain

One question

Always people say Ram ji didn't knew he's awtaar of Vishnu unlike Krishna bhagwan

Did Siya knew she's a divine being?

My personal belief is both knew who they were but can't say same for others

And u see ramayan every place they say Prabhu shri ram Devi Sita Lakshmi Narayan

It's only Prabhu Leela that they don't express that they are aware of the reality

Originally posted by: chatterbox

My personal belief is both knew who they were but can't say same for others

And u see ramayan every place they say Prabhu shri ram Devi Sita Lakshmi Narayan

It's only Prabhu Leela that they don't express that they are aware of the reality

Oh yes point

I think Luv Kush would've been some incarnation too then right at least in story there has to be a mention

I don't believe in this plot but

Divine parents ke bacche bhi divine hi honge 🤔

Otherwise the human children seperating from their father first and living with their mother and seperating from their mother and living with father is so painful to imagine

Originally posted by: RamAayeHain

Oh yes point

I think Luv Kush would've been some incarnation too then right at least in story there has to be a mention

I don't believe in this plot but

Divine parents ke bacche bhi divine hi honge 🤔

Otherwise the human children seperating from their father first and living with their mother and seperating from their mother and living with father is so painful to imagine

That's the reason i said

Circumstances are the reason when mother has to leave or abandon her children in modern times but for sita she had fulfilled her duty and she didn't actually abandon or leave her children like that. She handed them in their father's care

Whole ramayan ram sita story is actually tragic.hardly any happiness

But all stories had purpose

Rest all.havr said already

Originally posted by: chatterbox

That's the reason i said

Circumstances are the reason when mother has to leave or abandon her children in modern times but for sita she had fulfilled her duty and she didn't actually abandon or leave her children like that. She handed them in their father's care

Whole ramayan ram sita story is actually tragic.hardly any happiness

But all stories had purpose

Rest all.havr said already

True 😔

Word Count: 1

I have not thought about it but I kind of feel Sita was questioned she never wanted to stay in the place where her loyalty was questioned and do not want her husband to defend her just because she is goddess or his wife. She knew that her kids were in safe hands. She was a dignified woman she proved herself correct and she chose to leave earth instead of staying with those who doubted women for her loyalty. Yes her kids needed her but she knows they have Lakshman's wife who can take care of them and also ramji being best father will be there with them.

Women characters in the epics Ramayana and Mahabharath endured harsh treatment from both society and the King. Nevertheless, they emerged untouched, demonstrated their resilience to unfair treatment, and ultimately emerged victorious!

She chose to follow Rama into the forest the first time. She chose to walk into the fire, Agnipariksha to prove her purity. Finally, she decides to defy Rama's request to return to the kingdom, as a result, she finds herself reunited with nature.

She was not prepared to accept his invitation since she could not compromise her sense of self-respect when people began to mistrust her and Ram left her based on that claim.

At last, Sita emphasized to Ram that the king's responsibility was to defend his subjects and not abandon them, treating them as a father figure to the people of the realm. 'These children are your sons and the legitimate successors of Raghu Vansh. I give them to you, Ayodhya King; take care of them and raise them to be kings in the future.'

After seeing her children accepted by Rama, Sita sought ultimate solace in the arms of her mother Earth. The Earth suddenly split apart upon hearing her plea for freedom from an unfair world and from a life that had seldom been joyous; Bhūmi then emerged and carried Sita away.

The story ends with her absorption into her mother, the earth, and her ultimate vindication.

The elevated moral fabric in Treta Yuga meant that the King and Queen had no leeway to compromise on issues related to fulfilling their duty towards their subjects. This duty was called Rajadharma.

Should a woman—or anyone—be viewed as someone who can be thrown away when one doubts her chastity, and then brought back when one believes it the other way after some time?? Mother Sita was the queen, an ideal person to all women, a brave mother who brought them up singlehandedly, and an ideal wife till her end!

Her choice to return to Mother Earth rather than follow her husband to the kingdom had a profound and lasting impact on the collective consciousness of the community.

She performed all her obligations as a devoted wife, a gracious queen, and a loving mother to her children. She finally departed this world only after transferring her sons to the King as his heirs.

Well as many here already pointed out Uttar Ramayana was an addition made much latter.

The original Ramayana talks nothing about Sita Mata leaving her kids!

Now talking about addition bit. Whenever any addition is made to anything the purpose is to educate the society on a particular issue or in other words raise a particular topic that will be a part of society in future! The addition is always made keeping the future generation in mind.

The whole Sita leaving kids and going inside the Dharti Maa serves the message that, "Prakiti K niyam se pade koi nehi, Bhagwan bhi nehi" the circle of life is as such where everyone comes with a purpose/duty and once it gets fullfilled you will have to leave! SABKO ekdin apne apno ko chhodke jana hai.

Sita Mata fulfilled all her duties towards her kids & husband even towards her Praja indirectly, after which she had to leave! While leaving she showed the world how questioning the purity of any woman, ill treatment towards any woman can lead to destruction which we have read in Mahabharata too but this is entirely a new topic!

That's my few sentences regarding this. Thanks

Uttarkand is a later addition to Ramayana but it is not an interpolation or fake narrative.

Valmiki Ramayan begins with mention of Lava Kusha as his students and the ones who recited Ramayana Publicly for the first time

If Sita was not banished to Valmiki Ashram how did Lava kusha become his students.

As Vashishtha was kulaguru of Ikshavakus and all children including Rama and his brothers as well as his brothers children studied at Vashishtha Asram, Lava kusha should also be Vashishtha's students and not Valmiki's

Second Rama's Ashwamedha is also mentioned in multiple sources. So that happens too

Its just that Valmiki stopped with coronation of Rama or rather Lava Kusha stopped the first narration at Ashwamedha sabha with the coronation. So Valmiki Ramayana is only till then.

But Rama and Sita continued to live long after that and had two children who was tutored by Valmiki. Uttarkand covers this part of the the story as given by Tulsidas.

So Uttarkand is indeed later addition but not fake as whatever is mentioned in Uttarkand is not true then how when and where were Lava kusha born. How did they grow up, most importantly how did Sita and Rama end their avatar.

As to why she left her son's. Her son's were old now, old enough to have completed their education. It was now time for the children to start their own lives as heirs..She had completed all her responsibilities. She now did not owe anything to anyone, there was no reason anymore for her to tolerate disrespect. So she left in a way that no one would dare ask her to prove her chastity again. That Aswamedha sabha was the third time she was asked to prove her chastity. Asking once itself was wrong and she had been asked thrice enough was enough