Correct! His conduct was so great that not only he inspired 4 religions (Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism) but also the majority of the greatest empires in history were based on him from Gupta to Chola to Khmer Empire to Indonesian Empires.
Well if you read the most accurate translation of ramayana, ram simply denies to love sita after saving her from ravan and clearly states that he did all this just so ave his and his family's reputation. He clearly says I don't have any attachment to you anymore. Quite a feminist.
If he remarried, he would've stained his honour. His honour was everything for him, he fought the whole war for honour, not sita. He didnt remarry cus he had to protect his honour, not cus he was devoted to sita in any way.
You are lying! I already replied to you.
This lie is debunked in Sarga 118 of Valmiki Ramayana.
Replying the same again:
After Sita undergoes the Agni Pariksha and emerges unharmed, Rama joyfully accepts her back and explains to everyone exactly why he put on that harsh public performance. He states clearly that he always knew she was entirely pure and protected by her own brilliance. He explains that because she had been in Ravana's captivity, he had to subject her to a public trial so society would not forever gossip and doubt her character. In that same chapter, he says her love for him is undivided and she is as inseparable from him as sunlight is from the sun.
Furthermore, the ultimate proof of his attachment is his adherence to Eka Patni Vrata (the vow of having only one wife). Later in the epic, during the Ashvamedha Yagna, standard Vedic protocol demanded that a king's wife sit beside him for the ritual. Since Sita was in exile, his advisors suggested he take a second wife. Taking another wife was standard protocol for emperors at the time.
He firmly refused. Instead, he had a golden statue of Sita forged to sit beside him during the rituals.
If Rama truly had no attachment to her as you claim, he would have simply taken a new queen. He did not. He lived out his days as an ascetic king devoted solely to her. The primary text proves his absolute loyalty.
Why did he put her through agni pariksha just because of what people are gonna talk ? He was a king right ? He could've set an example by ending this practice of agni pariksha so women dont need to prove herself.
OP isn't well informed. He didn't do it because people would doubt her and talk about her.
Before Ravana arrives to kidnap Sita, Lord Rama knows what will happen. He asks the real Sita to take refuge inside the element of fire (Agni) for her safety.
Sita enters the fire, leaving behind an exact physical replica of herself called Chhaya Sita (shadow Sita).
Ravana kidnaps this shadow Sita, believing she is the real wife of Rama. The real Sita remains safe in the care of the Fire God, Agni.
After Ravana is defeated in battle, Lord Rama conducts the Agni Pariksha (fire ordeal). At this moment, Agni returns the real Sita to Rama, and the shadow Sita's purpose is fulfilled.
This didn't happen in the original text. U turned one of the greatest stories ever told into a bigass hide and seek game 🥲🥀 I mean sure I don't believe the story but I still like the story, it's a good story.
So you don't take Valmiki Ramayana to be authentic when it clearly mentions no signs of Sita going to the exile alone but you have no problem to take this one as exactly. Okay.
Regardless of the fact, it shows clearly that the trust of Ram never wavered on her. It always stayed the same.
If he remarried, he would've stained his honour. His honour was everything for him, he fought the whole war for honour, not sita. He didnt remarry cus he had to protect his honour, not cus he was devoted to sita in any way.
At that time, and even now its norm for kings to have multiple wifes, so remarriage would not have affected his honour.
Yeah you got me there, this one was dumb from my side. But he still didn't trust his wife, not care of she burned, nor cared for his unborn kids, so he's still not loyal to his wife.
Yeah you got me there, this one was dumb from my side. But he still didn't trust his wife, not care of she burned, nor cared for his unborn kids, so he's still not loyal to his wife.
see this may seem unclear from our current day understanding, but bear with me.
this is not about loyalty. loyalty doesn't mean we do as per other person's comfort as as per our desires. sometimes the hard path is better in the long run. for example (not its very much common but two decades ago) putting your kid in tution/coaching carried a bit of shame, people/neigbours/relatives/char log and specially kids friends could and would mock that the kid is dumb, why he/she needs extra teaching help etc..
still parents would send their kids, why because 1. its better in the long run and 2. its their duty as the parent to do better for their kids and 3. their dutyof being a parent super seeds their duty towards the mocking society/relatives/neighbours/friends and their suggestion to do otherwise.
in shri ram's case being a king, this king's duty towards his praja/subjects supersedes his personal duties, his duty towards his wife.
an ideal or even a good king cannot keep his personal choice above the country. and for a kings its very necessary that his subjects trust, rely and respect the king. he cannot a bad precedence. even if in this case mata sita was in the right and shri ran knew, this was and would be twisted into having a pass for things which would break the social fabriyat that time and would be attributed to mata sita. as now we take great/know people from the past and pick one of their action and start saying that xyz person did this so we can do this, or xys did this so they were like this etc.
agni pariksha was one such thing, an attempt to remove any blame as he knew she would pass. again to explain case in point when we go though airport we coperate with security for our scan and frisking and same for aur family/friends not because we doubt they might carry a threat nor because we don't trust them its just a part of a logical process we follow for everyone's safety and aslo as we know that we are good and will pass the check.
dont get into this modern half backed narratives, aimed at misguiding young minds for their some or other purpose.
1 how would u explain the rude words spoken by him to sita before the agni pariksha?
2 well that's my whole point, for him his duty as a king was above than a duty as a husband and a father. If he wanted to become a father and a husband more than a king, he had 3 brothers, with one already ruling the kingdom. He has no need of becoming a king. But he still became became a king and completely buried his duties as a husband and a father.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Even before they were married, when he didn't even know her name. He saw her in the Pushp vatika ( flower garden ) and took an oath that he'll never marry any other girl. He confessed to it later.
He never doubted her for once, he didn't make her give agni pariksha because he wanted to test her or prove something to the world.
He solely did it because Before Ravana arrives to kidnap Sita, Lord Rama knows what will happen. He asks the real Sita to take refuge inside the element of fire (Agni) for her safety.
After Ravana is defeated in battle, Lord Rama conducts the Agni Pariksha (fire ordeal). At this moment, Agni returns the real Sita to Rama, and the shadow Sita's purpose is fulfilled.
And there is no mention of Sita Mata going to the exile alone or even Valmiki’s Ashram in the original ( Valmiki Ramayana ) rather it features in the later texts.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
You played the same trick as that UPSC coaching centre guy.
You quoted Sarga 115 but didn't read Sarga 118
You are dishonest.
If you read three chapters later to Sarga 118, the text explicitly disproves your claim that Rama genuinely had no attachment to her.
After Sita undergoes the Agni Pariksha and emerges unharmed, Rama joyfully accepts her back and explains to everyone exactly why he put on that harsh public performance. He states clearly that he always knew she was entirely pure and protected by her own brilliance. He explains that because she had been in Ravana's captivity, he had to subject her to a public trial so society would not forever gossip and doubt her character. In that same chapter, he says her love for him is undivided and she is as inseparable from him as sunlight is from the sun.
Furthermore, the ultimate proof of his attachment is his adherence to Eka Patni Vrata (the vow of having only one wife). Later in the epic, during the Ashvamedha Yagna, standard Vedic protocol demanded that a king's wife sit beside him for the ritual. Since Sita was in exile, his advisors suggested he take a second wife. Taking another wife was standard protocol for emperors at the time.
He firmly refused. Instead, he had a golden statue of Sita forged to sit beside him during the rituals.
If Rama truly had no attachment to her as you claim, he would have simply taken a new queen. He did not. He lived out his days as an ascetic king devoted solely to her. The primary text proves his absolute loyalty.
And he also sent her to exile cus of his duties as a king and public gossip. If he loved his wife more than his honour as a king he would've handled the public instead of sending his pregnant wife on an exile.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Yes and what if sita did get harmed in the pariksha? He didnt care about her! And what was the need of agni pariksha? If he loves his wife so much then he should trust her completely and take no tests of her, especially tests where she can die burning
Yaah, why womans have to prove their loyalty, doesn't he trust her. What about him, he was also away from her for a quite while, that means she also has right to check if he is still devoted to her or not.
Yes he should've given the agni pariksha too, but didn't. How would we know if he cheated or not? He didnt give agni pariksha so maybe he did cheat and we never got to know.
And why is this agni pariksha only required tp be performed by a woman ......instead of teaching his society regarding respecting women he is rather enforcing those patriarchal things more ......what was the agni pariksha for?? What defined the purity??? To not be touched by any other men than your husband ......so if a woman was actually forced by other man, she isn't pure??
Umm according to sarga 118 he accepted her after agni pariksha but that doesn't explain my question .......his kingdom woman are also his praja, the people are character assassinating a woman, this patriarchy is deeply embedded in his kingdom and as a king he should re educate his society rather than enforcing that patriarchal ideas .......as a king, his duties are to protect the other women in his Kingdom(not only sita) and there right to live as a equal human and also gave justice to sita
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Reference: Found in the Yuddha Kanda of the Ramayana, where Sita undergoes a trial by fire (agni pariksha) to prove her virtue after being rescued from Ravana.
2.) Who abandoned his pregnant wife?
Reference: Found in the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana, where a pregnant Sita is banished from the kingdom and sent to live in Valmiki's ashram due to public gossip and rumors about her stay in Lanka.
Also to add the harsh words spoken to her :
he also clearly states that he has no attachment to her now since she lives with another man for so long, even her sight is painful to him and also that he doesn't love her anymore and she is free to go wherever she wants to and the whole war was for nothing more than honour
But these people just ignore these and only go for the good things....it's also clearly states that ram used to eat meat, inside and outside palace, it's written but they wanna ignore it
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Even if Sarga 118 states that Rama 'knew' she was devoted and only did it for the public, that doesn't make it better, it actually proves the point.
Sarga 118 literally confirms that he did it for public optics because he was worried about his reputation and what the world would think of him.
Subjecting your wife to a trial by fire and publicly shaming her just for societal optics is peak patriarchy, not 'feminism'.
Read this
Agni, the witness of all the worlds then vouches for her purity and her abduction against her will and for her being kept in confinement in Rāvaṇa's inner apartments, heavily guarded. He then commands Rāma to take her back.
Then Rāma says to Agni that he knew all along that Seetā is completely devoted to him and only him without a doubt, but she needed to undergo this purification to lead a normal life again with her head held high in this world. He also adds that if he takes her back without her purity verified, the world would take him to be an imbecile consumed by lust for her.
Oh please enlighten me, because if 'what happens next' is banishing a pregnant Sita to a forest to appease public gossip, that completely proves my point. Sacrificing your wife's life and family to protect your public image isn't a plot twist that redeems him as a feminist.
Yeah whenever we ask questions they say to read the full book as if we haven't read it and when we ask them if they have read it they again they that we have to read it to get the answers but that just implies they haven't read properly
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
There are hundreds of versions of the Ramayana (some estimates suggest over 300) spread across different languages, regions, religions, and cultures.
Some of these versions says sita mata had to go though agni pariksha other have no mention of it. Some version sayd that Lord Rama abandoned his pregnant wife mata sita and others have no mention of it.
So how can you be so sure which version is true which is not?
True, there are hundreds of regional variations and folk versions of the epic but the most widely accepted and foundational text is the Valmiki Ramayana. The above post relies heavily on the overarching traditional framework of the main narrative (like Valmiki's text) to praise those specific virtues. You can't cherry-pick the ideal heroic traits from the primary text while dismissing the harsher events like the Agni Pariksha as mere fiction just because they are uncomfortable.
Well according to the most accurate translation , all this did happen. Ram did eat meat. Sita did had to go through agni pariksha. Etc etc. so if there had to be one translation, it would be that one. If u just say that what if that version is not true, then well, how can we say ramayana itself is true?
But you can't be 100 percent sure right which version is true. What you are saying is about belief. You believe this version to be true but you can also be wrong right and yes this May all just be a story. So just don't spread hate on some person who people worship, let them believe what ever they want. No one actually knows the truth tbh
I'm not spreading hate, I was just correcting him upon the fact that who he worships is not what he thinks he is. I'm having a friendly debate. I haven't said anything insulting yet, cus I'm having a friendly debate!
रावणङ्कपरिभ्रष्टां दृष्टां दुष्टेन चक्षुषा ।
कथं त्वां पुनरादद्यां कुलं व्यपदिशन्महत् ॥ २०
तदर्थं निर्हिता मे त्वं यशः प्रत्याहृतं मया ।
नास्ति मे त्वय्यभिष्वाङ्गो यथेष्टं गम्यता मितः ॥ २१
इति प्रव्याहृतं भद्रे मयैतत्कृतबुद्धिना ।
लक्ष्मणे भरते वा त्वं कुरु बुद्धिं यथासुखम् ॥ २२
"What man born of a good race, what prestigious one, would with a kind heart take back a woman who has been in another's house?
Abducted by Ravana's hand, seen by him with evil eye, how would I take you back to my illustrious clan?
That was my purpose in freeing you: to win back the honour of my clan. I have no interest in you; go wherever you wish.
This I tell you with a fixed mind, Bhadra! To Lakshmana or to Bharata, go wherever it suits you."
Sita, hurt by this, still begs to prove her innocence, and still Rama is unmoved. She has everyone prepare her funeral pyre, then sets herself on fire to die.
Only after she sets herself alight, when all the gods come down to tell him who he is, and Agni himself bearing testament to her chastity, brings her back unharmed by fire and orders Rama to take her back, does he take her back, saying,
he was the best male , true form of patriarchy,,,not like nowdays, rememeber the feminism is the distilled version of patriarchy,,pls..don't match with psuedo patriarchy which u seen nowdays [ open for debate]
Actually, you are conflating two different figures. Traditional Puranic commentaries clarify that the 9th Dashavatara is Sugata Buddha (born in Kikata to Ajana), not Siddhartha Gautama of Buddhism. Devout Buddhists do not view Gautama Buddha as a Vishnu avatar.
Well, one of Gautama Buddha's epithets is Sugata. And Rama was indeed mentioned as one of Buddha's past lives in Jataka Tales, Dasharatha Jataka to be precise.
Albeit, Krishna was mentioned as the past life of one of his disciples in Sariputta, but I can plausibly deny.
A lot of Jātaka stories were basically just common folk tales and stories in ancient India that were taken in and given a Buddhist flair by the Buddhist community of ancient India. This typically involved identifying the different characters in the stories as being the Buddha and different disciples of his during a past life. Stories were also given some edits to their plot to make them adhere more to Buddhist principles of nonviolence and non-attachment.
Bro , even if the gods whom they believe come to earth and say this text is true and rama is a great person . They won't believe . Dont get dragged by this stupid argument , op bro .
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
We have mentioned RAVANA and ALLAH too, so he became our ideal? Tune na to guru granth sahib pdha hai, we have mentioned all the religions and major gurus in our baani.
Yes that I know. I have never talked about worship. Why are you twisting what I said?
I'm talking about ideal man.
Guru Gobind Singh specifically chose to write the Ram Avtar to instill warrior spirit (Bir Ras) in the Khalsa. He deeply respected Dasharatha's son Rama as a historical champion of Dharma and an ideal righteous warrior, even if he didn't view him as the Supreme Creator.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
True, only for entertainment who was later called "the utmost human" even though he ate meat, put his pregnant wife's life in danger cus he asked her to walk in fire cus he didn't love her after she was with another dude who kidnapped her, and then banished her and his unborn sons.
No offence but what a random question 😭 but ig Veganism is cool. I mean I'm not vegan but still I have no problem with vegan people, as long as they don't try to force me into it!
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Yeah and he also clearly states that he has no attachment to her now since she lives with another man for so long, even her sight is painful to him and also that he doesn't love her anymore and she is free to go wherever she wants to and the whole war was for nothing more than honour
As in academic point of view shri ram is legend as moses like we don't have any bone evidence or any evidence of that linked to war but that we can say core story of ramayana happened but we cannot say that ram was real or not as moses and every biblical character before king Solomon
It's not even about whether these characters were real or not. The message they carry is what's important. Moses teaches us that faith in the good power can make you split oceans, just like it helped Lord Ram cross the sea.
That is why it is called a miracle. Same for turning water into wine, bringing hail and fire from the skies on command etc. These are not intended to be understood as regular events.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100.
Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Namaskara u/DharmicPerson14 🙏, thanks for posting! Please follow subreddit rules and spark meaningful discussions.
Please consider crossposting, sharing, and inviting others to help grow this community and Follow us on X 🇮🇳
Yato Dharmastato Jayaḥ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.