WDT#11: Did Sita think of her kids before deciding to leave earth? - Page 3

A truly enlightening discussion in this thread. I genuinely loved the views expressed by friends here

I agree with the point that Uttarkaand in Ramayana is not fake or fabricated, rather it gets enforced by the start of Ramayana as Luv-Kush singing Ramayan to Raja Ram. For some reason unknown to us Sage Valmiki did not scribe this part...... Generally in all stories, the end is tied up to the start, So Valmiki must have thought of Uttarkand in his mind and accordingly made the start as Luv-Kusha reciting Ramayan.

Also, both Ram and Seeta are divine and fully aware of that divinity though they don't acknowledge it to others. How was otherwise resurrection of Ahilya from stone possible or how would Seeta lift the Shiv Dhanushya as a baby, her being aware of being born from Dharati Mata and later her coming out from Agnipariksha....... Maybe she wanted the world to realise her divinity as the Adi Shakti Energy whom fire could do no harm.

A mother's death at any given point in a child's life is painful. Especially, if the mother chooses to leave the world by her own choice, the agony is worsened. But as stated earlier by Madhuri and other participants, Seeta has already given Luv Kush the nurturing necessary to thrive independently in the world. As stated in earlier posts, her last moment is her own battle to fight..... The battle Mata Laxmi is fighting for the dignity of women in the eras to come.

We must understand what Seeta is rebelling about in her last act. Yug over Yug have passed; yet even today, a married woman faces this sword above her head.... her chastity to prove the world. Why is the same dilemma not existing for men?

In regards with Seeta having thought about her kids, then yes she did! She handed them over to Ram. Their family was such a strong family!.... Had Rama not left his subjects in the hands of Bharat And Shatrughna?..... Had Seeta not left the caring of widowed mother-in-laws in the hands of her sisters?

As stated in one earlier post, Rather Seeta is relieving Rama of having to fight societal thinking. Had the society then truly understood the divinity of Rama and Seeta? How could anybody question their purity, their love in the first place?

There are deeper connections in their story. Perhaps Rama is Vishnu taking live form to bear through Vrinda's curse..... The happily ever after was not to be for Ram and Seeta..... Ram had to go through the pain that Jalandhara had suffured owing to Vishnu's deed.

The question of chastity always falls on the woman, never the man. Sita was kidnapped against her will and Rama spent a year alone and yet it is Sita's chastity that is questioned and not Rama's

Draupadi had 5 husbands and her chasitity questioned by Karna not Arjun or her bothers who had several wives each. He himself has multiple wives yet his character is not questionable

Why so, chastity is not and was never about a woman having multiple partners. It was always about inheritance. Most men (it was never all men) did not want their wealth/property to pass on to the children they haven't borne. So they could not tolerate women having multiple partners, they would shame all women who would dare to, and being Pativrata and staying with one partner even if he is abusive or has died was hailed as being equal to Goddess Sati, even the burning of widows on pyre of the husband was encouraged for this reason, casteism by birth is another fallout of this nepotistic behaviour.

So Sita's repeated questioning was not about her chastity rather it was questioning of Lava Kusha's right of inheritance over Kosala kingdom. Rama's asking Agnipariksha was in my opinion just that. Prove she is not pregnant and hence walk through fire so that children born to her in future are not questioned. Sending Lava Kusha away to Valmiki ashram protected them from brutal humiliation they would have faced staying in Ayodhya, Rama never remarried but even that wouldn't remove the question mark on Lava kUsha's paternity

Rama sent her to exile in Valmiki Ashrama for the sake of his children, so that they will grow up in peace and citizens would be shamed of their conduct it didn't work

Then finally

Sita took samadhi for the sake of her chidren. She knew as long as she remained alive her children's inheritance will be questioned. And her death will shame everyone to accept Lava Kusha as Rama's true heirs.

She sacrificed her life for her children.

Sita actually thought about her children and there for she died for them

I won't get much into the validity of the Uttarkand because everyone has their own take on it.

1. Bhumija was on the earth for a purpose and it was complete, her reuniting with her roots was the most just and symbolic end for her self-respect, and she became an ideal for all Indian women.

2. She had fulfilled her duties properly as the palanhaar and Luv-Kush were well taken care of, both by Shri Ram (who publicly acknowledged them as his sons) and his family and the public who had witnessed their valour and regarded them as being worthy for taking forward the Ram Rajya.

3. The princes were in their Brahmacharya stage, wherein they ideally go to a Gurukul and acquire knowledge of science, philosophy, scriptures and logic, practicing self-discipline, working to earn dakshina to be paid for the guru, learning to live a life of Dharma (righteousness, morals, duties) without the interference of their parents. Given that, a mother does not play much of a role here. Post this, it is implied Luv and Kush completed their formal education and they did become able administrators of the Ram Rajya too across the North East to North West. It was not an impediment to their journey and purpose, hence, neither should they have been to their mother's journey and purpose. This could also hold true for Prince Devrata, son of Mata Ganga and King Shantanu of Hastinapura, who returned to his father to continue the legacy at the Brahmacharya ashrama age.