||ZDMN CC #2||Parakram Adda - Page 75

Originally posted by: Not_James_bond

https://youtube.com/shorts/vGjECr4I1K0?feature=share

This is the scene I was talking about yesterday.😂😂😂

KarMi par hi achha lag raha hai, inn par toh bilkul nahi😔

Guys I was watching Ramayan yesterday so want to ask your views on Ram ousting Sita when she was pregnant?

I know many believes that this story is fake and is added to disgraced Hinduism but still I need your answers🤨

Originally posted by: Rani_Sahiba

Guys I was watching Ramayan yesterday so want to ask your views on Ram ousting Sita when she was pregnant?

I know many believes that this story is fake and is added to disgraced Hinduism but still I need your answers🤨

I'll answer your question in the evening.👍👍👍 Pakka.

Originally posted by: Rani_Sahiba

Guys I was watching Ramayan yesterday so want to ask your views on Ram ousting Sita when she was pregnant?

I know many believes that this story is fake and is added to disgraced Hinduism but still I need your answers🤨

As far as I know, Ram didn't know Sita was pregnant then. So one cannot have a one sided opinion about his take, given his ignorance.

Secondly Ram is known to be 'maryada purshottam' which roughly translates into somebody who does is extremely righteous, doing the right thing always, the right thing for the greater good, even if it entails his own suffering.

It was the same during 'vanvaas' too, instead of fighting for his rights and not giving into the unreasonable demands of Kaikayi who was herself remorseful later on, he preferred to nibhao his dad's vachan because 'raghukul neeti sadha chali aayi, pran jaye par vachan na jayi', so neeti was always more important for him.

Now my personal viewpoint on your question-

Ram-Sita had a very poor communication, how can it be that a wife is pregnant n the husband doesn't know. Marriages don't work like that and clearly theirs was a failure too.

Ram-Sita also had wrong priorities, their priority was always other people, not themselves or their relationship.

The same man who destroyed the whole lanka to get his wife back & safe from Ravana, couldn't save her dignity n pride from his own people, didn't stand-up for her.

As Gods/Avtars they are always reasoned to be serving higher purpose, for greater good. But if a king doesn't know about his own wife, can't guard n protect n support her, is he fit to be a ruler of such huge kingdom?

Or should he be idolised as an ardent lover, a perfect family head? I can't unfortunately.

Originally posted by: peacenfun

As far as I know, Ram didn't know Sita was pregnant then. So one cannot have a one sided opinion about his take, given his ignorance.

Secondly Ram is known to be 'maryada purshottam' which roughly translates into somebody who does is extremely righteous, doing the right thing always, the right thing for the greater good, even if it entails his own suffering.

It was the same during 'vanvaas' too, instead of fighting for his rights and not giving into the unreasonable demands of Kaikayi who was herself remorseful later on, he preferred to nibhao his dad's vachan because 'raghukul neeti sadha chali aayi, pran jaye par vachan na jayi', so neeti was always more important for him.

Now my personal viewpoint on your question-

Ram-Sita had a very poor communication, how can it be that a wife is pregnant n the husband doesn't know. Marriages don't work like that and clearly theirs was a failure too.

Ram-Sita also had wrong priorities, their priority was always other people, not themselves or their relationship.

The same man who destroyed the whole lanka to get his wife back & safe from Ravana, couldn't save her dignity n pride from his own people, didn't stand-up for her.

As Gods/Avtars they are always reasoned to be serving higher purpose, for greater good. But if a king doesn't know about his own wife, can't guard n protect n support her, is he fit to be a ruler of such huge kingdom?

Or should he be idolised as an ardent lover, a perfect family head? I can't unfortunately.

Right❤️

If a man doesn’t know his wife his pregnant then also isn’t it wrong to oust your wife?

He was a god then doesn’t this increased his responsibility to set right examples, people hail him as a good king. Okay just assume he was a good king even if you don’t believe so, but he was a good king for the men of his kingdom and not for women.

If the same thing is done by a normal human being then he is a very bad person but a god can do whatever he want?

In all this only a women sacrificed everything. Why?

Originally posted by: Rani_Sahiba

Right❤️

If a man doesn’t know his wife his pregnant then also isn’t it wrong to oust your wife?

He was a god then doesn’t this increased his responsibility to set right examples, people hail him as a good king. Okay just assume he was a good king even if you don’t believe so, but he was a good king for the men of his kingdom and not for women.

If the same thing is done by a normal human being then he is a very bad person but a god can do whatever he want?

In all this only a women sacrificed everything. Why?

Probably thats why Ram is never worshipped as ideal husband, women pray for 'Shivji jaisa pati', nobody wants Ram jaisa pati.

He was 'maryada purshottam', maryada means societal norms etc., I think. So he is known to be abiding by those. The norms of society at those times were different from today's world, but as per those norms he was exemplary.

We are talking about a time when men were polygamous n women were supposed to be monogamous. His dad had 3 wifes & 4 kids, all the wifes had 1 husband, his dad, were dedicated to him & had almost no say in the way things were run in the kingdom. Their sole responsibility was confined to the palace, raising kids, household matters etc. So it was a different world altogether.

When his wife was kidnapped, he went behind her & saved her from Ravana instead of just letting her go, he loved & married only 1 woman n remained committed to her throughout the life, even when he wasn't with her, inspite of being the king, never remarried or let anyone else in his life. That was his 'personal maryada' that he followed, that following society's rules he ousted his own wife but continued loving her & remained committed to her.

His personal life & family are never worshipped or held in high regards, I think. Nobody worships Ramji ka parivaar, they worship, Ram-Sita, Hanuman, Lakshman all together in 1 pic, for Shivji, his parivaar is worshipped, Shiv parivaar, Shiv-Parvati with Ganesh-Kartikeya, even the shiv linga with brahma, ganesh, parvati, nandi etc.

His choices in personal life are never praised, the only praiseworthy was his love & commitment towards Sita.

Okkk so Kusu you asked about my views on Rama ousting Sita from Ayodya.

So let me start with you saying that many people think that ramayan is fake. Or it being a disgrace to Hinduism uhh I don't who know these people are but whether it is mythology or its history is something that is welcome to be interpreted by individuals .

I look is as a study of my culture and I view and respect it as that nor any less nor any more.

I'm someone who is an agnostic nor do I believe that God exists nor do I shun his existence. Hinduism is the only religion to have accepted and acknowledged that there is no such thing as word of god . It's said in the nasadiya sukta that never beileve or practice without analysing or understanding. Even the mahabharat isn't a word of God nor is it narrated that way , it is presented as a conversation between Arjuna and Krishna and through Arjuna we learn of the mahabharat. All lord Krishna says is that this is what I think is write now it's up to you to see, understand and if you wish and think so as right than apply if not you are free to choose your path and bear the consequences of your actions whether they are good or bad.

Our culture has never ever considered god's above questioning or felt their actions can't be held accountable . Hence there is is no place or any word for blasphemy nor in Sanskrit nor in any Indian language because as a culture we do not believed in there being one right way or path hence bhagwan ko bhi nahi baksha agar yeh laga ki woh galat hain. There is a very beautiful art form from Karnataka called as the Yakshagana that uses a contemporary adaptation of dance and drama where they play out various incidents from be it the Ramayana ,Mahabharata, panch ratri, Upanishads, Vedas etc.

Be it Rama shooting down vali, krishna running away from the battlefield or the difference between functioning of the court of the ways of bharata and rama, and a zillon other questions .

Whether Rama knew of Sita being pregnant or not depends upon which ramayan is it that you have read cause there are a thousand versions of them.

They all over time and era kept being written, rewritten as the time changed.

Like the first ramayan by valmiki does not have a Lakshman rekha that we all so refer today about being used for women, it was first used in the context by kalidas, Jataka was added into the story by Sita ram Goyal,

Like the Jain ramayan says ki it was Lakshman who killed Ravana and not ram , the Indonesian one says that it was sita who killed Ravana, insome versions Ravana is Sita's father , in some ramayan ka versions Sita was never kidnapped it was a mirage a illusion created.

There is no right version as each adapted as to their belief.

The first one which I read or the one version of the conversation between ram and Sita that is commonly found in the marathi, telugu, Assamese, bodhi version is that both rama and Sita knew she was pregnant.

It says that after the accusations made Rama was furious but it was sita who said that she wished to leave the kingdom as she did not wish to live in a place where her integrity , character and chastity was questioned. When ram asked but why leave she said it's her dharma as a wife that she defend her husband and not let anybody think any less of him as a ruler who neglected his subjects and his commitment towards his people for his wife then she added that but along with being a wife she is woman and a mother who puts she self respect above all and she goes of to a ashram in a forest.

Now I've seen many people take the word forest literally and question the cruelty of lord Rama . If you ask me if say if I was a husband of rather let my wife live in a ashram with dignity then in a lavish kingdom where she was looked dwon upon.

Let's get down to what is right or wrong and whether Lord Rama was just or not.

We must not forget that the incident we are talking about is about more than 7000 years old . Things that where considered right then will obviously be be wrong today as there is no such thing as a final ultimate righteous path. What is considered progressive today may not be applicable 10 years down the line we never know.

Coming down to Rama being a Maryadapurushuttam if you ask me if I think was he just I would say yes he was , if you say despite his behaviour towards sita I would say yes here is why we cannot forget Lord Rama is a king before he is a husband or a father. It was a era when a King was not on a titular head but a kartadharta a pita a father for his subjects. And his wife a Mother for the subjects . He as a king fullfilled his duty and accepted the kingdoms want of sending Sita away . A man who travelled 3000 miles and fought a war for her I'm sure he did not do it just cause he wanted to be a great king , he did it because he loved her and wished not to have anyone other than her as his other half as the love of his life. We can't even imagine how torn he must have been to send that one person who he loved the most, who meant to him above all away from him but he did as his duty for is subjects was above all . Ab you will say ki baakiyo ka liya saahi hua par sita pai jo anyay hua uska kya and how did he as a king be just to her toh here is how I think he was just it is his duty as a king to see that noone is discriminated against . His wife's character was questioned and had he still kept her in a place where she was questioned then that is where I would have considered him wrong. He sent Sita away to a ashram where she was in safe hands. As a husband it was his duty to stand up for his wife's dignity which he did ab you will say how by sending her away toh I'd say yes he did not banish her or kick her out he supported and respected her decision of leaving the kingdom and that takes great courage and valour.

Now you said say ki unhone Sita ko Ayodya sa bhej ka logo ki soch sahi sabit ki toh main kahungi nahi unhone iss liya nahi usa bheja kyuki logo ki soch thi par iss liye kyuki uska patni ka nazar main unka waaha sa dur jaana uchit tha. Sita not only stood up for her self respect but also fullfilled her duty as a queen she said if the kingdom does not view me as a queen so be it I shall denounce this position . She as a woman walked away with her head held high. Rama as a husband could have left with her but as a king he could not as his duty as a king , kshatriya comes first and above all.

He as a king fullfilled his duty towards his kingdom but when his subjects demanded he marry someone else he lashed out at them saying they have the right to choose who they want as a queen but have no right to decide who his wife is . He then is said to have asked for a statue of Sita to be made and placed it before his peole and said ki this is my wife and shall always be . I accept your decision as a king of you do not wish for her to be your king but as a husband I do not allow you to take away my faith , love and trust that I have for my wife.

He is known as a maryada Purushottam not because he is a god nor is he worshipped because he had great powers but because that man had it him to rise above all hardships and not give in . Had there been another man he might have blamed fate, destiny for all the wrongs in his life but he did not . He with each day become greater and wiser with each experience.

He did what to him was right and what he believed to be as right and till his last breath stood by it.

That is the satyug. What was considered as right in the satyug was not considered as right in the dwarpayug all that he did not do as Lord Rama he did as lord Krishna.

He as lord Rama did not know of being Devine but he as Krishna knew of being a almighty.

Krishna was sly, he lied, he cheated, he ran away from the battlefield he did not consider any fine line as good or bad he did it all . He is the chitchor, ranchoddas, manmohana, the Giridhar he is all that the maryada Purushottam Ram isn't.

In today's day we can sit and learn and apply from those lessons but we cannot judge as in Hinduism it is said to learn, to experience and to evolve is our dharma but to judge is not our dharma that is for no man to do .

As right and wrong are nothing but perceptions they are for ever changing there is and was not ultimate truth as it changes from person to person and with time .

What is right to one may not be right to another I come from a background where even the thought of consuming alcohol is considered as paap but in some cultures it is only practiced. This same intoxication is wrong for one god but is openly practiced by another. Except basic all agreed upon human rights nothing else can be judged as it depends upon area , time and place.

Kisi ka liya chori bhura hain toh kisi ka liya jeena ka zariya . Kisi ka liya khoon karna paap hain toh woh hain kisi ka dharma.

At a time around 7000 years back the right or wrong of the society where different which evolved with time.

Lord Rama to me is what and how a man of his word is he was faithful to his duty, his subjects , his wife .

Woh sahi hain yaa galat yeh bas kewal nazariya ka antar hain.

Mera liya agar woh uss sab ka bawajoob sita maiya ko waha apne atmasaman ko rond kar rehna ko kehta toh galat hota aur agar woh uska saath chala jaata toh galat hota kyuki woh ek pati ka pehla ek Raja hain and his dharam comes before all.

Ek fauji sarhad par apne parivaar sa dur rehkar unka liya galat karta hain par baaki desh ka liya apne apno ki kushiya kurbaan karke saahi. Ek ki khushi ka badle woh laakhon ki ifzaat karta hain.

Koi keh sakta hain ki ek fauji yaa tulna karna galat hain toh main kahungi nahi

Kyuki chahe woh khudh jaane ka fasle kaare yaa kisi ka dur rehna ka fasle ko apnaiya baat samaan ki hain jo har cheez sa upar hain aur woh prabhu sriram na haar halat main ki apne praja ki bhi aur apne patni ki bhi.

Apne raani ko phir ek baar canvas bhej kar apne praja ki aur apne patni ka fasle ki izzat karke apne patni ki.

Kyuki woh chahte toh sita maiya ko wahe rakhte aur koi kuch nahi kar paata par woh sita maa ka swabhiman ko thes pohchane ka barabar hota.

This is my views on your question kusu.

I believe we have the right to question but not judge as it is not meant to be judged but to learn .❤️

Hope I have done justice as I answered according to my views of right and wrong and am open to criticism.❤️❤️❤️🤗🤗🤗

Wow Shraddha, you have explained n put each point beautifully👏

Originally posted by: peacenfun

Wow Shraddha, you have explained n put each point beautifully👏

Thank you.🤩🤩

I really appreciate your compliment.

It's my subject of interest, I love history of indian religious and cultural practices.🤗🤩🤩

Aur ab teacher hun toh adat laag gaayi hain aisa samjhane ki.😂😂😂😂

Right and I am not judging him, I want to say that he was a god (in my viewpoint) toh if he would have taken the different stand then may be, may be our society would have been a little different from what it is now? May be women’s condition would be somewhat different.

You said that he didn’t knew he was a god but he knew that he went to Vaikunth in his original form, he knew who he was and there different instances in Ramayan to prove that.

Yeah Ram was Maryadapurushottam and the sacrifices he made was commendable, I totally respect and understand that and about Krishna I think he gave more importance to Karma over dharma while Ram was all about following dharma and your karma would never go wrong if you are following dharma.

And I am not saying Ram is wrong, cause it’s a matter of perception, I know what is right in this age is wrong for that age and vice versa. I just want to know what you all feel.