Why did people of Ayodhya doubt Sita Maiya?

Page

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

Why did the people of Ayodhya, who were pure and selfless, doubt the purity and chastity of Sita Maiya, their own queen and one who was equal to their mother?

I think this is a really interesting question to reflect on, because it brings forth both the elements of fate and human suspicion. I do believe fate had a strong part in the exile of Sita Mata in Uttar Ramayan, but I think there was also an element of human doubt and suspicion involved in it. It is a common tendency for humans to doubt things/people whenever a situation arises they deem untoward. There was no doubt in Sita Devi's chastity, yet she, who was the embodiment of purity and virtue, was doubted and exiled. When she, who was the incarnation of Maha Lakshmi, suffered thus, is there any hope for us? What then can be said of us, mere humans who follow the example set by Gods?

We all know that the reason Shri Ram was exiled was because the goal of his avatar was to rid the world of Ravan, King of Lanka, but after Ravan was killed, why couldn't Sita Mata and Ramji live happily ever after? Didn't they suffer much already? Why did they have to undergo more suffering? What was the necessity of it?

I think there's a story when Sumantra, charioteer of Ramji, told Lakshmanji about a war between the Asuras and Lord Vishnu many years ago. I don't know the full details of the story,. but in it, the Asuras take the shelter of a wife of a sage, who agrees to give them protection. Lord Vishnu, angry at her for giving protection to sinful ones, kills her. When the woman's husband finds his wife dead, he curses Lord Vishnu that he too will suffer the separation of his wife. Lord Vishnu smiles and revives the woman, accepting the curse. The sage feels regret that he cursed Lord Vishnu, and asks if the curse can be retrieved, but Lord Vishnu says that's impossible, so he will be reborn along with Goddess Lakshmi in an avatar to redeem the curse along with fulfilling a plan of the Gods.

If this story is true, I think it provides a good reason for the exile of Sita Maiya, but I want to know if there are other stories like this or other factors which caused our mother's exile. My main question is, what are the reasons for the exile of Sita Mata? And what were the names of the sage who cursed Lord Vishnu?

I also have another question. Who was the washermen who started the doubting of Sita Maiya's chastity? Was he an incarnation of someone?

Quote

Frequent Posters

Aishwarya

@muffins2waffles

Inactive

+ 5

Posted: 17 years ago

Yes, I think that's a really interesting question. Does anyone know the name of the washerman who doubted Sitaji's purity? Maybe he was an incarnation from someone in previous pouranic stories? Does anyone know?

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

monica may

@kira ford-001

Navigator

Posted: 17 years ago

yah!!!!!! everyone mistook her. she is very pity.

do anyone think dat ramji did correctly?????????

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: kira ford-001

yah!!!!!! everyone mistook her. she is very pity.
do anyone think dat ramji did correctly?????????

When it comes to the point where we question "Did RajaRam do correctly?", personally, I think he did what he had to do. I don't know our scriptures front to back, so I can't exactly say if he did correctly or not, but in Ramanand Sagar's LuvKush, Kush questions Ram why he exiled Mata Sita when he believed she was pure. Kush questions his father, Ram's motive, by asking that since he (Ram) was Sita Mata's husband, didn't he have responsibility to protect her? Wasn't it his Dharma to believe in his wife rather than the talks of other people? As an answer to Kush's question, Ram says that there's only one difference between a King's Dharma and an ordinary man's Dharma. A King has no relations: father, mother, brother, sister, wife, son, daughter, are supposed to be secondary only to his subjects. For a King, his subjects are his children, his subject's happiness and satisfaction his aim in life. For an ordinary man, family is first and then society. An ordinary man's duty is to protect his mother, father, wife, siblings, and children, and only after that is everything else, but for a King, everything is opposite.

If what the Sagars showed in the LuvKush serial is right, then that is the reason for Sitaji's exile. The subjects of Raja Ram were not satisfied with their queen, and found faults in her, so to keep them satisfied, Ram had to exile SitaMa. Now, if an ordinary man's wife was doubted, and that man had full trust in his wife, then he could stand by her and defend her, but Raja Ram had not choice but to exile Sita Mata, because his first duty was towards his subjects. But, Shri Ram was not to blame, because he was so grieved by Sitaji's exile that he lived the life of a hermit in his own palace, sleeping on the floor on kusha grass, eating simple meals, and refusing any sort of entertainment. He was such an ideal husband, because instead of marrying another woman (like many people advised) when he was performing Ashvamedha, he had a golden idol of Maharani Sita made, and for every yagna he performed during his rule, he placed that idol of Sitaji in his wife's spot. I don't think any blame can be put on Shri Ram at all for Sitaji's exile. It was all the fault of Ayodhya's people, and of course, fate.

😊JaiRajaRam! JaiSitaRam!😛

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

What the Sagars showed re: the exile of Sita was totally inaccurate. Sita had no inkling that she would be abandoned, let alone urge Rama to abandon her, as depicted in the serial. What happened (as per Valmiki) is that Sita, on the occasion of her pregnancy, wanted to go to the forest and visit some sages, so that their wisdom would be imparted to her offspring. During this time, Rama gets to learn about public aspersions cast on Sita, and then tells Lakshman to leave her in the forest. Lakshman took her to the forest on the pretext of fulfilling her wishes, and when it is time to abandon her, he tells her what's transpired in Ayodhya, and why he has to leave her. Sita fainted at this news, and said that she would have ended her life, except for the fact that by doing that, she'd also be terminating Rama's lineage. Then she is left and found by Valmiki, and in his ashram, she gives birth to Kush and Luv co-incidentally on the same night that Shatrughan is encamping there en route to Madhupura in his expedition against Lavanasura.

I understand the curse that Vishnu received, and why this had to happen, but the script is terrible. It's true that a king's first duty is towards his subjects, but even if Rama had handed over the kingdom to Lakshman and stepped down and accompanied Sita to the forest, the Raghu dynasty wouldn't have unravelled. While Lakshman had declined being the yuvraj, had he been told that the choice was that he make a sacrifice and let Rama retire with Sita and assume the throne, or that Rama & Sita's happiness be ended, he'd probably have accepted the throne, since Rama's happiness meant everything to him.

Also, I understand this was 5000BC and those were simpler times, but even there, there was a vast spectrum of choices between allowing Sita to remain the maharani of Ayodhya, and abandoning her in the forest - choices from stripping her of her royal status but providing her a home of her own, sending her back to Mithila, making her an attendant of Kaushalya - choices that would have allowed the family to experience the joys of giving Kush & Luv a complete family, rather than make them hermits in Valmiki's ashram. Much as I love, respect and worship Shri Rama, I don't agree with this decision of his. Also, he was a God, and could have overruled his people, telling them that Sita had already gone through Agni-pariksha, and that was the end of that matter. It's not a valid argument that he had to follow whatever his people wanted - had they wanted him to launch a genocidal expedition and conquer the world, would he have been obligated to follow that? A king's duty was to guide his people towards dharam, not just do whatever they wanted.

The other terrible aspect to this was the assumption of 'guilty unless proven innocent' rather than the 'innocent unless proven guilty' standard that seemed to be in operation here.

Edited by Chandraketu - 17 years ago

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

I understand the curse that Vishnu received, and why this had to happen, but the script is terrible. It's true that a king's first duty is towards his subjects, but even if Rama had handed over the kingdom to Lakshman and stepped down and accompanied Sita to the forest, the Raghu dynasty wouldn't have unravelled. While Lakshman had declined being the yuvraj, had he been told that the choice was that he make a sacrifice and let Rama retire with Sita and assume the throne, or that Rama & Sita's happiness be ended, he'd probably have accepted the throne, since Rama's happiness meant everything to him.

Also, I understand this was 5000BC and those were simpler times, but even there, there was a vast spectrum of choices between allowing Sita to remain the maharani of Ayodhya, and abandoning her in the forest - choices from stripping her of her royal status but providing her a home of her own, sending her back to Mithila, making her an attendant of Kaushalya - choices that would have allowed the family to experience the joys of giving Kush & Luv a complete family, rather than make them hermits in Valmiki's ashram. Much as I love, respect and worship Shri Rama, I don't agree with this decision of his. Also, he was a God, and could have overruled his people, telling them that Sita had already gone through Agni-pariksha, and that was the end of that matter. It's not a valid argument that he had to follow whatever his people wanted - had they wanted him to launch a genocidal expedition and conquer the world, would he have been obligated to follow that? A king's duty was to guide his people towards dharam, not just do whatever they wanted.

The other terrible aspect to this was the assumption of 'guilty unless proven innocent' rather than the 'innocent unless proven guilty' standard that seemed to be in operation here.

You say that Ram was God so he could have overruled his people. That's true, but in the Ram Avatar, Ram always denied being God, because he wanted to show people how to be when faced with human sufferings. And I don't agree that sending Sitaji back to Mithila would have been a good option. Not at all, because back in those days, sending a wife back to her parents' house was considered a disgrace not only to the wife, but to the wife's family as well. And Ram would not want to insult Maharaj Janak's family by sending Sitaji back, #1, because sending Sitaji back to Janak's household would mean he (Ram) doubts Sitaji's purity too, #2, Urmila, Sitaji's sister, was still a daughter-in-law of the Raghu-vansh, and insulting Maharaj Janak would be insulting her too.

Also, what good would it do if Ram sent Sitaji to serve Mata Kaushalya? No offense, but I don't see the logic in that, b/c Sitaji served Mata Kaushalya anyway everyday. And the the praja would not have been satisfied, b/c Sitaji would still be in Ayodhya.

I don't think the script of Uttar Ramayan is terrible at all. I think it's tragic, yes, but there are sooo many morals in it. And I don't think one can criticise Ram for his action. I certainly feel pity for Sitaji, but she is a great tyagi who gave up her personal enjoyment to uphold the dignity of the Raghu-vansh. She didn't want anyone's pity. And one can't criticize Ram, because he did what he had to do. About the "genocide comment", of course Ram would not have done that, but in the instance of Sitaji, it was different, because his Dharma changed once he became king. And a King's duty is not to shut his subjects' mouths when they expressed their opinion. What if the subjects found something lacking in their king's rule? Is it the Dharma of the King to shut the mouths of his subjects and tell them he is ruling fine?

And the subjects didn't believe that Sitaji underwent the AgniPariksha, because none other than Vanaras saw her do it. What should Ram have done? Made Sitaji do another AgniParikshna in her pregnancy? That would have been a downright cruel act.

Yes, a King's duty is to guide the people to follow Dharma, but when something is said of the Maharani, who is supposed to be the mother of the kingdom and an example to all the women in it, the situation must be thought over very carefully. If Ramji had insisted over and over that Sitaji was pure and he was going to disregard the praja's opinon, people would have said he was not a good king, or one who is ruled by a woman. Remember, when Ram was being exiled by Kaikeyi, Ayodhya's Praja blame King Dasharath for the calamity, because he was letting Kaiekyi do what she pleased. Many called him a womanizer, and Ramji had to convince them otherwise before they respected their king again.

Ramji had no choice but to exile Sitaji, for the sake of his house's dignity. Do you know the story of King Harishchandra, who was the ancestor of Ramji? For the sake of truth and his house's honor, he sold his wife and son in the market. The story of King Harischandra is very tragic, but the morals in it are endless, just like in the Ramayan.

It is very hard to understand some of the actions that Kings performed in our puranas, but the explanations are also really knoweldgeable. For example, many don't understand why Ramji exiled Sitaji, or why Draupadi married all of the Pandavas, or why the Panadavas stayed mute during Draupadi's cheer haran.

All I'm saying is that nothing must be said against Ramji for Sitaji's exile. It wasn't his fault. It was all the fault of Ayodhya's praja.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

I have a question for everyone. Is the story Ramanand Sagar showed in Uttar Ramayan inaccurate? Did Sitaji convince Ramji to exile her, or did she not know? Please answer this question.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 17 years ago

godisone

Your second post first - in Valmiki's Ramayan, Sita had no inkling that she'd be abandoned. Even in Tulsidas, Sita had no inkling that she'd be abandoned, and Tulsidas depicts Lakshman as pretty much a monster - feigning sickness and leaving Sita in a dense forest, and making his escape (which is why I have zero respect for Tulsidas). I see Sagar's script as an attempt by him to insulate Rama from the depiction as a heartless husband who gave his wife the ultimate penalty.

On your first post, I just mentioned some, but not all, possible alternatives for Rama that he could have used. In any of them, Sita wouldn't have remained Maharani, but the choice he did make - leaving her in the forest and abandoning her for good - is one I could only have agreed with in the scenario that there were no alternatives. Granted, sending her back to Mithila was not an option, but the objection that the people had was Sita being their queen - there wasn't a demand that she should be made to suffer, or be expelled from Ayodhya, et al. The equivalence you draw with Kaikeyi is not valid - there, Kaikeyi was overriding the people's will, whereas here, the people simply objected to Sita being the queen. And that could have easily been achieved - the example I put of making Sita Kaushalya's attendant, for instance, was one where she and the family wouldn't have been made to suffer, but at the same time, the desire of the people to see her lose her crown would have been fulfilled. I don't buy your logic that Sita remaining in Ayodhya was unacceptable to the people. If anything, Valmiki was a total stranger, and by allowing Sita to become a burden on him, Rama didn't do the reputation of the Raghu family any favors.

Also, Rama didn't know that he was Vishnu until after the war, when Brahma appeared before him and revealed it to him. In the Uttarkand, in the beginning of the chapter, Rama, Sugriv, Vibhishan and all their followers meet a bunch of rishis and hear the entire story of Ravan, Vali and Hanuman - in fact, this is the original source of how we know the story of Ravan's war with Kubera, Indrajit's victory over Indra, et al.

Sorry, unlike you, I don't see this as a binary decision that Rama had to make. There are a lot of things in between that he could have done, and ensured that Sita at least didn't have any physical suffering in his absence, even if he could have done nothing about her emotional trauma. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

Edited by Chandraketu - 17 years ago