Ramayana – My Discontent Continues…

I was just reading Maya’s post in response to mine, and as I read some of her sentences I only got more questions and doubts…More disconnect in thoughts where some things he does are masked as having done in “Dharma” where as his most basic dharma as a man in those patrairchic times of a protector of his “Woman” and partner and home and children are all pardoned for a “greater good”. Like they say “good behaviour starts from home” should he not be also responsible of taking care of his wife and children and be negligent of them just because he is a king? How can someone trust a king who cant *even* keep his family safe?

Some sentences of Maya and my concerns below:

Vali did a blunder by taking Sugreevanโ€™s wife and kingdom. Rama acts as a means to impart a lesson to Vali. – Actually, before that Sugreeva had already taken Vali’s kingdom and wife – isnt it? That was what enraged Vali in the first place to get revenge on Sugreeva… Even accepting the fact that Vali did something wrong and needed to fulfill his karma – why Rama , who is so “Dharma incarnate” had to kill him in hiding? Why could he not go and have a duel with Vali and kill him upfront? Wasnt Rama capable? Wasnt he, being Vishnu incarnate, already aware that he needed to kill Vali? And jungle law, I thought, was facing the enemy upfront than doing anything in hiding and cunning…

He was a mere robot who didnโ€™t want to deter from the dharma from his time. – Wasnt it Adharma to kill Vali in hiding? Wasnt it Adharma to put you wife to an “Agni Pareeksha”?

Practice what he preached– As a king would he be preaching to all men in the kingdom to question their wife? Or to throw them out to the mercy of the elements just because they took shelter in someone else’s house for the night to avoid whatever natural calamity like heavy rains? Would that be called Dharma?!!

She sat there believing every day that her Rama will come to rescue her. I can only picture her as courage incarnate waiting for the war and her beloved to take her to her home.  – Absolutely!! She was waiting for him to come and take her home-she had so much faith in her husband and trust – which as a husband he could not/did not reciprocate!! Instead the minute he saw her he questioned her integrity and asked her for the “Agni-pareeksha”…
Which rule-book says – instead of protecting your wife from the other men/society/outside world, throw her out of the house – at the mercy of other men/the forest? and dont even turn back to look if she is even alive or dead? Is that what a Dharma rule book is made of? Infact, agreeing that this was during that age of patriarchic society-wasnt it the man’s responsibility of owning his wife? Not throwing her out but to be the “Man of the house” and protect her and provide for her while she lives in his “Chattra chaya”? Wasnt that one of the reasons Sita even chose to go to the forest because she believed that her place in the society was with her husband? She could have continued to stay in the palace while Rama went to the forest-nobody had asked her to go either…

Rama’s life was hell too – Hmmm…. Should we sympathise for something that he brought upon himself? As a king-I re-iterate from the last post, were his words not the final word? Especially once he was the king – could he not have set the whole thing straight in front of his subjects without doing something as extreme has banishing his pregnant wife to the forests to the animals/nature/other men’s mercy? Also, just to uphold his Dharma why should someone else, in this case, his wife suffer?!! while he continued to live in the palace where he had all physical luxury (Assuming he was unhappy emotionally) and continued to be the “King” his wife was out in the forest, giving birth and bringing up 2 small children and literally weathering all storms AND suffering mentally too?

As for consideration of the mythology – I mentioned in my previous post that some things like the monkeys and bears talking and agni-pareeksha are better read as a part of the story. The one place where I completely agree is the awesome example Maya has given in the case of Shurpanaka – forget Raakshasa or woman – the same rules of marriage should/would apply to men and women.

Maya -You already know its not personal
๐Ÿ™‚ Here you go for more sparks on your screen ๐Ÿ˜€  Infact, Im actually enjoying this discussion and will continue to agree to disagree with you… Over to you now…


11 thoughts on “Ramayana – My Discontent Continues…

  1. Of course, it is not personal! Let me think through this and come back to it before the month gets over. Meanwhile, you have a cup of vanilla ice cream topped with some almonds and chocolate sauce, okay?! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  2. *Clap clap clap*. Actually, I’ll give this a standing ovation ๐Ÿ™‚

    I always have these questions too. I can argue against Rama (and even Krishna) till Kingdom come. I don’t do it for fear of hurting sentiments. But I am thrilled to see somebody else voicing my thoughts. I have more points you can use to support your stand, but I think I will shut up and just watch ๐Ÿ˜›

  3. Pingback: Ramayana – a response | Maya

  4. Pingback: Ramayana – Impressions of Rama – the God or Human? | lifeslittletwists

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s