There are so many misconceptions created by the hyper-intellectual wing with vested interests, indeed whatever Rama spoke at that time after he was reunited with Sita after the grand war with the demon Ravana was unexpected but it was only to prevent a public scandal. One must note that Rama never told in words to Sita to prove anything to the world.
In fact, Rama never wanted anything of her at all, he didn’t command her to jump in the fire, nowadays you will find many ignoramuses portraying Ramayana in such as disgusting manner, they have never read a word from Valmiki Ramayana and ranting non-sense.
Even in the west, we have Caesar who rejected his wife on the pretext-” My wife should be above suspicion”
What Rama did was all politics, why would he bloody hell fight to save Sita if he indeed doubted her conjugal fidelity !!
People don’t understand and blame Rama, this event is a leadership lesson on how the life and conduct of leaders, prime ministers, politicians, and their families should be above any shadow of a doubt.
Had Rama not been a king, he would have not been obliged to prove Sita’s eligibility to be the Queen, he would have done the same what he did with Ahilya, Sugreeva’s wife Ruma, people again forget if he as a king stood for these women and brought them back to the mainstream society and got them accepted by their families or husbands, then what on earth will force him to express unwillingness to accept Sita, the answer is -Sita is not the only wife of Rama but a to-be Queen of Ayodhya, standing with her, supporting her, speaking on her behalf and vocally declaring Sita’s purity, people would think-Rama is providing favoritism to Sita because she is his wife, he is using his political powers to validate Sita in front of everyone, they will say Rama is speaking on behalf of Sita or accepting her back open-handedly and making her Queen not because Sita is sinless, righteous,(no wrong is done on her part, she was forcibly kidnapped) but only because Sita is his wife.
In that case, people would have called names to Sita and labeled Rama as being blind with desire.
Now don’t rant nonsense about why Rama cared for public opinions, read leadership treatises, you will know leaders become great only because they had the trust of people in them.
Rama, in this avatar, was executing dharma. Some of the warriors who had fought with him had impure thoughts regarding Sita, and so he decided to show Sita’s greatness to the world. That the fault lay with the accusers and not Sita is declared by him in the next shloka:
prāptacāritrasaṃdeha mama pratimukhe sthitā |dīpo netrāturasyeva pratikūlāsi me dṛḍham || (~VR 6.115.17)
“You, with a suspicion arisen on your character, standing in front of me, are extremely disagreeable to me, even as a light to one, who is suffering from a poor eye-sight.”
On the face of it, this seems like Rama is insulting Sita. But analyze the shloka. Rama says Sita is like a great light, that he cannot see due to poor eye-sight. If one with poor eye-sight cannot see the Sun, then does the fault lie with the pure and bright Sun or the poor eye-sight which limits vision? It is the latter. Thus, by this analogy, Rama tacitly lays blame on those who had doubts about Sita’s purity and actually praised Sita.
“Their love was not being tested. It was his leadership and his dharma that was being tested, and it takes a mature eye to look at the two separately.
The king has a responsibility as a king and also a responsibility as a husband. But I believe Ramayana is unique because it gives us examples of what happens if both of them are in conflict. It was Rama’s dharma as a husband to free Sita from Ravana’s clutches. But it was also his Dharma that asks him to uphold his authority as a king. There is no love loss between Rama and Sita throughout the episode of Agni Pravesh. I believe it is more of a struggle of the couple to prove their love to the masses so that the queen’s authority is not questioned. It is natural for us today to say I don’t give a damn but society was more intruding back then.
King Dasarath loved his son very much, but he sent him to the forest because he gave two boons to his wife. We are trying to analyze from today’s point of view. But Ramayana is all about following dharma, set in a timeline where people gave utmost importance to truth, duty etc.
Opposed to the general beliefs, Sita was an aggressive woman who fiercely criticized Rama before Agni Pravesh, She was very outspoken. If you would have read Valmiki Ramayana, you will know Rama ordered Sita to stay in the palace, but she didn’t follow his orders.
Many TV serials portray Sita as a submissive woman who just said “Ji Prabhu”, and nodded her head to each and every order Rama gave to her, this is completely wrong.
Attaching the word “submissive” to the one who was capable to reduce such a horrendous demon into ashes through her ascetic powers seems so preposterous to me.
She came out of Lanka totally unscathed, no one talks about that.
She was merely sacrificing her glory to grant that glory to Sri Rama, just like the sages who requested Sri Rama to kill demons, despite the fact that sages in those times were capable to kill their offenders or issue curses to them.
Rama cried like a madman, wanting to give up his life if he does not find Devi Sita, he was merely living his life in the hope that he will be reunited with Sita, Rama was not toxically masculine, he cried, cried a lot. Agni Pravesh was completely an idea of Devi Sita. Rama certainly did not tie her up and commanded her to jump in the fire. Least of all, Sri Rama got accused of agnipareeksha when all he did was stand aside and let Sita share the limelight to show her Tapas to the world.
Rama wanted to establish Sita’s glory to the world at the cost of his own honor and it is Tapasya that is the prominent aspect of this Agni Pravesh incident. But this opinion is not shared by many. The Rama who softened the rough road for Sita by walking ahead of her, the Rama who addressed her as “kshanamapi soumya na jeeveyam vinaa taam asitekshanaam”, The rama who almost became a lunatic enquiring to tigers and trees about Sita…. That Rama who couldn’t enjoy the monsoon season because Sita whose lips resembled Bimba fruits and bosom resembling lotuses wasn’t with him….
Will that Rama suspect her?
Sadly because of the immense lack of cultural education predominant among the secondary school, baccalaureate and bosses graduated Hindus of today, there is this normal misinterpretation that Sri Rama constrained Sita to submit Agni Pariksha (fire immolation to demonstrate her immaculateness). In the event that you read the verifiable work of Valmiki Ramayana, it is very evident that Sri Rama reveals to Sita when she is liberated that he satisfied his obligation and protected her from her abductor and she is allowed to do what she needs and go with whoever she picks and quiets down after that. That is the thing that a King-in-holding up should do per the law and customs of his time. She, per the law and customs of her time, should vocally pronounce her plan promptly to decide to go with her rescuer spouse announcing vocally her virtue. That was it, that was all that she needed to do. Why, for what reason did she need to do that? Since there were a large number of her future subjects encompassing her holding back to see and hear her. Kishkinda was inside Ayodhya domain as Sri Rama explains to a withering Vali., Firework like Sita took Rama’s words at face value at first, She became wrathful, questions/abuses her husband verbally (Sri Rama remained silent & took her abuse) and out of the blue calls for an Agni Pariksha (out of her own will) and froths at the mouth shelling out her resolve to go through it. (Sri Rama stayed quiet and never replied to her taunts) and all of a sudden requires an Agni Pariksha and froths at the mouth dishing out her purpose to go through it. Sri Rama permitted her to have her method obviously without opening his mouth. What’s more, individuals of today have the nerve to consider him an enemy of women’s activists. I feel sorry for them for they didn’t plainly get what women’s feminism is all about.
Rama held a very high status in the society where so many people follow him as their leader. Most of his friends and relatives succumb to the strong rumors that his wife might have had an illicit relationship and that’s why she must have run with him, ditching her husband. The man honestly loves his wife and totally believes her, but he was forced to maintain certain moral standards to show to those who follow him because he could not in any way quell the rumors..
It’s all politics and Rama even though loved Sita and trusted her had to look at his public image, he clearly tells Sita that he is saddened but his whole clan’s name will be besmeared by the public, and he had to do it because people can’t just cast doubt on their emperor or his wife or else there will be riots everywhere, soldiers won’t take commands if they thought their commander or king to be impure or nonchalant, the rival kings may use it for deceit or exaggerations or anything can happen so he actually asked Sita to marry any other guy and live happily ever after but then Sita herself took the decision which again was stopped by all other gods but Sita didn’t listen and then she came out as pure, you idealist left-wingers born of good times with lack of Ambition in life can think of it as wrong but a king has to do what he has to do for the greater good …
Sita insists she will follow her husband to the forest, despite his opposition in Ayodhya Kanda.
Women in Hindu narratives have displayed agency in various contexts, in keeping with “liberation” feminism.
Many people don’t know that-
This Ramayana is not the story of Rama. It is raama ayana and becomes raamaayaNa when compounded. Again raama is not the epical hero Rama alone. Seetha is also raamaa as said by Sumantra in Ayodhya, Ch. 60, 10th verse:
baalaa iva ramate siitaa a baala candra nibha aananaa |
raamaa raame hi adiinaatmaa vijane api vane sati
‘like a young girl Seetha, with not so young moon’s face, [i.e., like the full moon,] is delighting herself even in uninhabited forests with Rama…’
Thus this epic is called raamaa raamayoH ayanam raamaayaNam ‘the peregrination of Seetha and Rama…’ where the first word raamaa with elongated end syllable belongs to Seetha and the second raama with shortened end syllable belongs to Rama, and thus this is the peregrination of both Raamaa and Raama.
Indian woman is no sacred cow. For that matter, no woman is of that kind, unless compulsorily conditioned to be like that. A woman can be said as cow-faced-tigress, as: go mukha vyaaghra, [not in dissent.] She prowls, growls and howls at others if her interests are contradicted. Thus, Seetha’s is not only a sacred cow but also a shrewd lioness princess, and her rash talking is not new or instantaneous at this place alone. She said something against Kaikeyi with Sumantra, which, Sumantra does not report to Kausalya in Ayodhya Kanda, chapter 60, and verse 14. One full chapter, Aranya Kanda of 9th is catered to Seetha’s haranguing Rama when Rama wanted to wage an unprovoked war. She does not spare even her own husband if the contemplated deed is contrary to her thinking, and because she is countering her own husband she includes a saving clause, ‘I have spoken in all my womanliness… it is up to you to decide….’ otherwise it will be a straight tongue-lashing.
MahaRishi Vashishta considered Devi Sita to be as capable a Queen as King Rama, he considered no difference in making Sri Rama ruler or Devi Sita the sole ruler.
It shows how liberal-minded our Rishis were.
TV serials forget Devi Sita was trained to be a leader, she knew Raj Dharma, Kshatriya Dharma or administrative education.
Devi Sita was Vaidehi (whose existence is beyond this material plane), she was Ayonija so she was divine, she was not born in Manushya Yoni, no one can touch her against her will. Goddess Sita got herself kidnapped by Ravana in order to rescue the entire humankind, she does not require to be rescued by anyone. If she was so weak as some people portray her nowadays, she could have taken a shortcut and gone to Rama with the help of Hanuman Ji, but she was a principled Kshatriya woman who weighed every logic before taking any decision. Read her replies to Hanuman, she cited strategic fallacy in Hanuman’s proposal of carrying her on his back, she is so intelligent.
This shows how mentally strong she was. She was the epitome of righteousness, patience, courage, and wisdom.
Valmiki Ramayana is the primary source known about Devi Sita and Sri Rama.
If we go by the original epic, Sri Rama never hid his emotions, Devi Sita clearly spoke her mind, she was not a timid woman who just said “ji prabhu”, tv serials no doubt are trash but modern novels take too much liberty some times. Nowadays, due to TV serials, people think Devi Sita was just an easily controllable wife, Rama was just a highly patriarchal man who knew nothing except his duties. In fact Rama used to cry aloud in pain, unlike our society where mothers teach their children “Men never cry”, he was the one who cried like a madman after Sita was abducted, now will I say he is a crybaby? As per the epic Rama and Sita were the same soul moving in two different bodies, they even started resembling each other,, I repeat both suffered a lot in their life. Whenever Sita cried, Rama cried twice for her, sometimes he showed it publicly in front of Vanaras too, and sometimes he used to hide them for his kingly duties.
Also, I want every one of you to note that the society of that time laid great stress on eligibility. Ram has to prove his eligibility for everything time and again – be it killing Tadaka and subahu, winning the swayambar or a lot of other incidents that followed.
When Hanuman reached Lanka and offered to rescue Sita, she would have jumped on this opportunity (in our age); however, she asked Ram to prove his valor and strength once again by stamping his authority through his valor and strength. Keeping aside the divinity aspects, it is safe to presume that Ram might have ended up losing his life in the effort.
After proving his eligibility after defeating Ravan, he asked Sita to reciprocate the gesture. This is a be-all and end-all of the episode.
Many Indians are unaware of the fact that another name for Ramayana is Seethaya Charitam Mahata-The Sublime Legend of Sita, the male dominant society of today ignored Devi Sita’s capabilities.
Will serials show this-
Word of Hanuman Ji
“That Seetha can even burn away the fire by her penance, true utterances, and undivided devotion towards her husband. Fire does not ignite her.
Devi Sita’s own words from Sundara Kanda
“O Ravana! Although you are suited to be burnt into ashes, not having the mandate of Rama and preserving austerity, I am not reducing you into ashes with my glory.”
नापहर्तुमहं शक्या त्वया रामस्य धीमतः |
विधिस्तव वधार्थाय विहितो नात्र संशयः || ५-२२-२१
21. dhiimataH = wise; raamasya = Rama’s; aham = I; na shakyaa = am not capable of being; apahartum = abducted; tvayaa = by you; vidhiH = (this) act; vihitaH = has been made; tava = for your; vadhaarthaaya = slaying; atra = in this; na saMshayaH = there is no doubt.
“Wise Rama’s I am not capable of being abducted by you. This act has been made for your slaying. In this there is no doubt.”
Devi Sita even taunted Sri Rama in Ayodhya Kanda when he refused to take her to the forest for 14 years of exile, saying that he is not manly or courageous enough to protect his own wife. Indirectly, she called him a “coward” LOL. This is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana which proves Devi Sita used to even criticize and rebuke her own husband if something went against her own will.
Seetha is considered as a topmost husband-devotee and there must be some reasons for this. A devote-wife is one who abides by her wedded husband through thick and thin. The reasons for the umpteen number of divorces that are happening all around the globe are incorporated in the following simple verses:
puruSam sevate na anyam mano vaak kaaya karmabhiH |
lobhitaa api pareNa arthiaH saa sati loka bhuuSaNaa ||
dainyena praathitaa vaa api balena vidhR^itaa vaa api |
vastra aadyaIh vaasitaa vaa api na eva anyam bhajate satii ||
na anyam kaamate citte saa vij~neyaa pati vrataa ||
‘She who devotes herself to her own man, but not to any other man, with her heart, word, and deed, she alone is the jewel in the world… though enticed by others with riches or intimidated with forcefulness, or tempted with rich clothing [and others womanly fancies, but one on discarding them all] attends her own man… she who does not wish another man even in her heart of hearts, she alone is a husband-devote…’
As such, there are no extraordinary talents or traits that make an ideal woman a husband-devote, except her abidance to the sacredness of marriage as an institution. The domestic quarreling, bickering, nagging… all these persist in every home, but making a mountain of that anthill, will eventually lead to the collapse of that institution of marriage. No doubt, Seetha is a nagging, quarreling, and sermonizing, tongue-lashing woman but if it comes to her husband, she is undone without him, though he lost his empire, roaming in forests, eating trash etc., and yet she does not depart from her pledge to the institution of marriage.
Devi Sita was learned in Kshatriya Dharma, she was trained to be a leader, she was no abla naari, she was a lioness princess who could even argue with Rama. Being a devoted wife does not make anyone inferior as some hyper-intellectuals think, read what Sita said to Anusuya, Sita said Rama showered motherly and fatherly affection on her. Least of all, he got accused of so-called agnipareeksha when all he did was stand aside and let Sita share the limelight to show her tapas to the world. (Actually, those who have read Valmiki Ramayana know that the right word is -”Agni Pravesh” as opposed to the general belief). Rama never wanted Sita to come with him to take his care in the forest, Sita herself supported her husband, it was her wish, even Rishi Vashistha and all the other women never wanted her to go with Rama, they wanted her to rule as sole Queen. People do crazy things for love, LOL, she gave up “Queenhood” on her own will, no pressure of society was there on her to be a partaker of her husband’s vows.
Devi Sita was a Tapasvini, sages in those days didn’t even curse in order to preserve their austerities. Inner spiritual powers were given more importance those days than outer physical qualities or bravery in war, that’s the reason even Brahminhood or sagehood was considered even more superior to Kshatriyahood, with that being the case, if we think logically, Sita was much stronger than Rama. Period (No offense to Sri Rama, LOL we call him Siya Var Ramchandra, not the other way, Sita is never called Rama patni.
If at all she was weak, she wouldn’t have come back home to Ayodhya totally unscathed, without a single scratch on her body even after staying so many days around the barbaric demon Ravana.
In Sundara Kanda, she threatened Ravana that she can reduce him into ashes in one second through the power of her penance but she choose to preserve her austerities as Ravana was destined to be killed by a Raghuvanshi King. Still, we have intellectuals in the 21st century who think she was a helpless woman who had to be rescued by her husband. I pity their ignorance. These foolish pseudo-feminists know nothing except saying “All men are trash”, “All husbands are same”, they ridicule Rama day and night and portray Sita as a “Bechari”.These idiots don’t even know the meaning of austerities, forget about doing them. I have seen people portraying Ravana as a gentleman for not abusing Devi Sita. Sages in those times didn’t even curse, Ma Sita herself while discussing with Rama said that sages have superpowers acquired by their penances. In the same manner, Sita Ma was a true Tapasvini who had self-protecting spiritual powers with which she protected not only herself but also saved Hanuman Ji from fire. These morons while ridiculing Rama for apparently burning his wife forget that while the whole of Lanka was on fire, nothing happened to Ma Sita. But these people are true hypocrites that deride Rama on the basis of an epic that records that the heroine indeed had superpowers that were possessed only by Rishis, Siddhas, or sages at that time. But still, Sita was weak LOL
Sita was chaste, and extremely pious and she was a Tapaswini. In the absence of other wealth, her Tapasya was her wealth, and that scorched Agni himself.
(This is clearly mentioned by Maharishi Valmiki in Ramayana).
Many people don’t know that Tapasya was needed for Sita to come unscathed. Mere chastity would have meant her saree and mangalsutra (around her hand, and wrist, as was the custom then) were unburnt.
Note-This is not the last occasion Agni shivered in front of tapasya. Samvarta threatened to burn Agni in marutta’s yagnya. Agni trembled like a leaf in a tempest. He admitted that he was nothing in front of the power of brahmacharya possessed by Samvarta, a tapodhana.
When Sita was separated from Rama, he became a complete mess (threatened to destroy an entire river [Godavari] if it didn’t tell him who abducted his wife, cried several nights, and on occasions even during daylight, stopped eating until he found her again, etc.) Heck, he literally walked, barefoot, from central India all the way to the tip of southern India, a distance of 1,025 miles apprx, crossed the sea, waged war with her abductor’s kingdom, and defeated that King, all for her*. Serials have always failed to portray the deep and serene love that existed between Sri Rama and Devi Sita was not a mere pawn Till now most people bash Sri Rama based on this type of portrayal, Sri Rama was deeply in love with her, their relationship was not a mere “nodding to whatever Swami says”
Sita and Rama were like friends, they used to talk a lot, and their love involved constant communication.
How can we forget that Jayant incident from Valmiki Ramayana !!
Rama literally fired a Brahmastra at the crow for hurting his beloved wife. He became angry like a serpent when he saw Jayant (son of Indra who came disguised as a crow), hurting Sita.
According to Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Rama never stepped back from displaying his emotions.
Lakshman Rekha was popularized by Ramanand Sagar which is not mentioned at all in Valmiki Ramayana. Gosh !!
Serial makers can make a mountain out of a hole, these people conveniently ignore instances where Devi Sita questioned Sri Rama’s decisions, they ignore events like Rishi Vashistha offering the throne to Sita Ma and saying that if their Queen goes to the forest, the entire Praja will accompany her, they show stories from Uttara kanda which is a later interpolation. 6th century Ramayana stunned scholars, it does not have mention of Sita exile, why serials are stuck with such post-Gupta interpolations.
Mahabharat does not mention any exile which happened in Dwapar yuga.
(Note MBH has 3 narrations of Ramayana, it has a narration of Valmiki Ramayana of the same Kalpa, not even a slight mention of Sita’s second exile.)
Just one thing is enough to conclude Uttara Kanda is a later interpolation, as per Phalashruti of Yuddha Kanda which is too in the future tense, Sri Rama ruled for 10, 000 rules after getting coronated along with Mata Sita, its mentioned that Rama along with the help of his relatives(of-course this includes Devi Sita too) performed various kinds of Ashwamedha yajnas and other sacrifices. Then who the hell started questioning Devi Sita after 10, 000 years of sitting along with Rama in every Yajana. This is enough to show Uttara Kanda is a made-up story.
Agni Pravesh had already happened, Rama declared in Yuddha kanda that now it has been proved in 3 worlds that Devi Sita is completely righteous, Agni Dev said that it was Ravana’s misconduct who kept her as captive, he asked Sri Rama not to use harsh words for her ever after, then Rama also told his real intention was not to test Sita or not accept her, he just wanted everyone to know the glories of Devi Sita who could burn fire by her penance so Ravana was nothing in front of her.
एवम् मया महाभागा दृष्टा जनक नन्दिनी |
उग्रेण तपसा युक्ता त्वत् भक्त्या पुरुष ऋषभ || ५-६५-१८
18. puruSarSabha = O foremost of men!; mahaabhaagaa = the illustrious; janakanandinii = Seetha; dR^ShiTaa = was seen; evam = thus; mayaa = by me; (Seetha) yuktaa ugreNa tapasaa = was endowed with severe penance; tvadbhaktyaa = and devotion towards you.
“O, the foremost of men! I thus saw that illustrious Seetha, endowed with severe penance and devotion towards you.”
Notice In Sundara Kanda, Hanumana has already informed that Devi Sita was performing severe penance, so this proves Sri Rama already was aware of the capabilities of Devi Sita when she decided to undergo the trial by fire on her “own” will. That’s the reason Rama never stopped her while she decided to display her “ascetic powers”, this trial by fire paved way for Devi Sita’s acceptance as a Queen. This is a part of leadership, as per the rules of Rajyaneeti of that time, having stayed in a foreign land for so long, she was unfit to be the Queen of an empire in the eyes of the Prajaa. That’s the reason Rama could not entrust her with the kingdom’s responsibility as a Queen. In case Rama tried to change the “rule” or the “ways of the kingship” for Sita’s sake, then his Praja would have accused him of “favoritism”. That’s why Sri Rama could not speak for her sake, at the same time he could not take her to Ayodhya ignoring the public opinion, because then it would be really painful for not only Sita but also for Sri Rama to sit on the throne with false accusations being put on the Queen and the King’s partial conduct in that regard. He had only one option left-” To convey his Praja’s viewpoint or demand himself, or to speak the language of his own “Praja” so that Devi Sita gets a chance to take her to stand herself. If you read that portion, it might seem Devi Sita is taunting or rebuking Sri Rama for not accepting her, but in reality, she was questioning the society’s mindset, she was questioning the “alleged rule” itself which forced Rama to speak such words, she was rebuking a certain population standing there who were already waiting for an opportunity to put fingers on “rescued captive” rather than blaming the kidnapper’s misconduct. Whatever questions feminazis have in their mind, those very questions were asked by Devi Sita to Sri Rama (actually the society itself), she never blindly jumped into the fire. And why are you we still stuck on this issue and fighting for Sita’s sake, she was powerful enough to take her stand, she too was a princess who knew the Raj Dharma, whatever Rama did or spoke after rescuing Sita was only to prevent a “public scandal”. It is clearly mentioned by Valmiki that the heart of “King” Rama was broken into pieces and he experienced great “dilemna” out of fear of a public scandal when he saw the “beloved” of his heart standing before him after winning the war. See, till now Valmiki was using the only word “Rama”, it is only before he is about to speak harsh words to Sita, Vakmiki uses the word “King” before Rama. And notice Rama did not have an inch of “hate” or “displeasure” or “suspicion” regarding his wife in his heart of hearts. Valmiki uses the word “beloved” to show that Rama’s heart was still beating for Devi Sita only. (even while apparently he acted in such as way (like disowning her) to provoke “Sita” to take her to stand as a Queen.
“That Seetha can even burn away the fire by her penance, true utterances, and undivided devotion towards her husband. Fire does not ignite her.” This is what Hanuman said after he burnt the whole of Lanka and was anxious to know whether Sita was alive or dead, he felt depressed but later on realized the powers of Sita. This is an answer for those who say “How could Sita Survive fire”? She had already survived a fire during her stay in Lanka too, so walking through fire was not a new or terrible experience for her.
I repeat it was Ram’s Dharma. And Sita (consensually and willingly) believed that she shared that dharma with him – out of mad, mad love and not by force.
You do crazy things for love, you know. It’s not new and it’s not exclusive to Sita and Ram.
It was Sita’s choice to fall in love with Ram.
It was Sita’s choice to accompany the love of her life into a cruel exile.
It was Sita’s choice to either take up the agnipariksha or just leave.
You can’t immortalize the holy sanctity of marriage and love between a couple, because both of them chose and reciprocated and mutually agreed to every decision they took, and I think you need to fall selflessly in love with someone to understand where such feelings come from.
नापहर्तुमहं शक्या त्वया रामस्य धीमतः |
विधिस्तव वधार्थाय विहितो नात्र संशयः || ५-२२-२१
Here Devi Sita boldly declares that Ravana was not capable or strong enough to even abduct her, and forget about doing any harm to her.
As mentioned earlier, Sita said to Ravana that she was capable to burn him into ashes but she wanted Rama should come and kill Ravana (LOL Rama fought such a grand war with the greatest and the most dangerous demons of that time for her, he risked his life for his wife’s sake) … was really Sita capable to do that??… Yes Indeed without any shadow of a doubt, the answer is this Agni Pravesha… Rama said if she can come without damage from fire then Ravana couldn’t touch her even in his dream… To tell this to three worlds he was silent when Sita entered into the fire… When Hanuman informed Rama that he found Sita held as a captive in Lanka, Did Rama ask Hanuman “Is Sita still with chastity?” Rama fell down unconscious when he hear Indrajith killed Sita… (actually Indrajeet killed an illusory form of Sita, he created an illusion and played a cheap trick in order to give emotional turmoil to Rama who was undefeatable in war. Rama stood silent when she entered into the fire because he knew she will come without any damage… There was plenty of incidents in Valmiki Ramayana that shows how powerful Rama was how strong he was etc… How much Sita was capable without Rama??… The Agni Pravesha shows the spiritual strength of Sita… The author of Ramayana wrote both character very well from the beginning to end…(he not only described Rama’s valor in war but also the spritual powers of Yogini Sita).
Sita’s story is that of yoga maya, yoga mata, and is an exemplar to human females in their quest to become yoginis of the highest order.
Lord Rama was monogamous and led a chaste life. If Sita is Pativrata, then Rama too is Patnivrata.
Sita was an equal partner of Rama, stop seeing her as a victim.
Here Rama clearly Sita was his SahaDharamacharini (who walks and leads the husband in the path of Dharma/righteousness.
Appropriate and seemly is your word of caution to your blood line, oh graceful, Seetha you are the co-pursuer in dharma with me, hence you are loftier to me than my own lives…” so said Rama to Seetha.
Valmiki Ramayana, 4–10–21b,c
To all the radical feminists out there, I only want to say that Lord Ram established the concept of monogamy in at a time when polygamy was considered as a sign of prosperity of a king.
Valmiki Ramayana – Aranya kanda
Mata Sita says to Lord Ram to don’t even think about any other woman.
[3-9-5, 6]
“Oh, king, earlier this vile desire for other’s women is absent in you, nor it is there now, unobserved is such a desire in any corner of your heart oh, prince, for you are always interested in your own wife.
Even Rama as her husband made his mark in Seetha’s heart twice as good, and they both used to clearly converse about their thoughts in their heart of hearts, just by their hearts.
Valmiki Ramayana, 1–77–27b,28a
Dear pseudo-feminists, you can’t fathom how much Rama loved Sita.
Before Ravana abducted Sita, once a demon Viradha had also attacked Sita and carried her in his lap with evil intentions, then too after rescuing her, Rama happily embraced Sita (this is for all those who think Rama used to consider Sita impure after being touched by another).
After killing that stupendously mighty demon Viradha in forest, then Rama comfortingly embraced Seetha, and spoke to his brother Lakshman who is beaming forth with resplendence. [3–5–1]
Seetha, burnt by grief, having got exerted, lamented much piteously, embraced her husband and cried a lot with loud voice. [2–30–22]
Then Rama embraced her, with arms, who was depressed and had fainted as it were, spoke the following words, fully reassuring her. [2–30–26]
I would love to quote these beautiful words of Hanuman which will be a tight slap to all those who deride Rama for not being loving of Sita and for those who think Rama was a dominating husband.
“In whatever way is this lady’s appearance, the elegance of major and minor limbs, in the same way, is Rama’s. In whatever way His appearance, in the same way, is this black-eyed one’s appearance.”Valmiki Ramayana – Sundara Kanda – Sarga 15Book V : Sundara Kanda – Introduction Hanuma continues his search in the Ashoka garden for Seetha. He sees an emaciated woman surrounded by demonesses. From Her radiance and manner of clothing etc, Hanuma recognizes Her to be Seetha.
सन्तान कलताभिः च पादपैर् उपशोभिताम् | दिव्य गन्ध रस उपेताम् सर्वतः समलम्कृताम् || ५-१५-२ ताम् स नन्दन सम्काशाम् मृग पक्षिभिर् आवृताम् | हर्म्य प्रासाद सम्बाधाम् कोकिल आकुल निह्स्वनाम् || ५-१५-३ कान्चन उत्पल पद्माभिः वापीभिः उपशोभिताम् | बह्व आसन कुथा उपेताम् बहु भूमि गृह आयुताम् || ५-१५-४ सर्व ऋतु कुसुमैः रम्यैः फलवद्भिः च पादपैः | पुष्पितानाम् अशोकानाम् श्रिया सूर्य उदय प्रभाम् || ५-१५-५ प्रदीप्ताम् इव तत्रस्थो मारुतिः समुदैक्षत | निष्पत्र शाखाम् विहगैः क्रियमाणाम् इव असकृत् || ५-१५-६ विनिष्पतद्भिः शतशः चित्रैः पुष्प अवतंसकैः | आमूल पुष्प निचितैर् अशोकैः शोक नाशनैः || ५-१५-७ पुष्प भार अतिभारैः च स्पृशद्भिर् इव मेदिनीम् | कर्णिकारैः कुसुमितैः किंशुकैः च सुपुष्पितैः || ५-१५-८ 2-8.
saH maarutiH = that Hanuma; tatrasthaH = being there; samudaikSata = observed closely; taam = that Ashoka garden; upashobhitaam = shone; santaana kalataabhiH ca = by Santanaka creepers; paadapaiH = Santana trees; divya gandha rasa upetaam = with heavenly aroma and juice; samalamkR^itaam = well decorated; sarvataH = in all directions; nanndana samkaashaam = equaling the garden of Nandana; aavR^itaam = surrounded; mR^iga pakShibhi = by animals and birds; harmya praasaada sambaadhaam = congested with mansions and palaces; kokila aakula nihsvanaam = resounded with the notes of cuckoos; upashobhitaam = decorated; vaapiibhiH = with wells; kaancana utpala padmaabhiH = having golden water lilies lotuses and; bahva aasana kuthaa upetaam = with many chairs and carpets; bahu bhuumi gR^iha aayutaam = with many sub-terrain houses; ramyaam = beautiful; paadapaiH = trees; sarvartu kusumaiH = with flowers of all seasons; phalavadbhiH = and with fruit; suurya udaya prabhaam = with the radiance of raising Sun; shriyaa = by the glory; puSpitaanaam ashokaanaam = of Ashoka trees in bloom; pradiiptaam iva = as though radiant; kriyamaaNaam iva = as though being made; niSpatra shaakhaam = to be with branches without leaves; shatashaH vihagaiH = by hundreds of birds; asakR^it viniSpatadbhiH = perching again and again; ashokaiH = Ashoka trees; puSpa avatamsakaiH = citraiH puSpavatamsakaiH = with wonderful flowers as head decorations; aamuula puSpa nicitaiH = with flowers spread till the roots; sokanaashanaiH = dhttp://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/sundara/sarga15/sundarasans15.htm#VerseLocator
अस्या देव्या मनः तस्मिमः तस्य च अस्याम् प्रतिष्ठितम् |
तेन इयम् स च धर्म आत्मा मुहूर्तम् अपि जीवति || ५-१५-५२
52. asyaaH devyaaH = this lady’s; manaH = heart; tasmin = is in Rama; tasya = His heart; asyaam ca pratiSThitam = is firmly in Her; tena = for that reason; iyam = she; dharmaatmaa sa ca = that noble Rama; muhuurtam api jiivati = are able to live even for a moment.
“This lady’s heart is in Rama, His heart is firmly in Her, for that reason She and that noble Rama are able to live even for a moment.”
दुष्करम् कुरुते रामो इमाम् मत्त काशिनीम् |
सीताम् विना महा बाहुः मुहूर्तम् अपि जीवति || ५-१५-५३
53. prabhuH raamaH = lord Rama; aanayaa hiinaH = losing Her; duSkaram kuR^itavaan = has done an impossible task; dhaarayati yat = in that He still preserved; aatmanaH deham = his body; naavasiidati iti yat = in that He did not die; shokena = from grief.
“Lord Rama losing Her has done an impossible task in that He still preserved His body, in that He did not die from grief.”
तुल्य शील वयो वृत्ताम् तुल्य अभिजन लक्षणाम् |
राघवो अर्हति वैदेहीम् तम् च इयम् असित ईक्षणा || ५-१६-५
5. raaghavaH = Rama; arhati = is suited; vaidehiim = to Seetha; tulya shiila vayo vR^ittaam = with Her well matched character age and conduct; tulya abhijana lakSaNaam = with well matched pedigree and characteristics; iyam = this; asitekSaNaa = black-eyed Seetha; tam arhati = is also suited to Him.
“Sri Rama is suited to Seetha with Her well-matched character, age, and conduct; with well-matched pedigree and characteristics this black-eyed Seetha is also suited to Him.”
यदि रामः समुद्रान्ताम् मेदिनीम् परिवर्तयेत् |
अस्याः कृते जगत् च अपि युक्तम् इति एव मे मतिः || ५-१६-१३
13. yadi = if; raamaH = Rama; asyaaH kR^ite = for Her sake; parivartayet = turns upside down; mediniim = earth; samudraantaam = with the ocean at the end; jagat ca api = and the entire universe; yuktam iti = it is fair; eva me matiH = this is my opinion.
“If Sri Rama for Her sake turns upside down the earth with the ocean at the end, and the entire universe it is fair, this is my opinion.”
राज्यम् वा त्रिषु लोकेषु सीता वा जनक आत्मजा |
त्रैलोक्य राज्यम् सकलम् सीताया न आप्नुयात् कलाम् || ५-१६-१४
14. triSu lokeSu = among three worlds; raajyam vaa = kingdom or; siitaa vaa = Seetha; janakaatmaja = the daughter of Janaka; sakalam trailokya raajyam = all the kingdom of three worlds; na aapnuyaat = will not approach; siitaayaaH kalaam = a sixteenth part of Seetha.
“Among three worlds, if it is a choice between kingdom or Seetha, the daughter of Janaka, all the kingdom of three worlds will not approach a sixteenth part of Seetha.”
धर्मज्ञस्य कृतज्ञस्य रामस्य विदित आत्मनः |
इयम् सा दयिता भार्या राक्षसी वशम् आगता || ५-१६-१८
18. iyam = this She; dayitaa bhaaryaa = dear wife; raamasya = of Rama; dharmaj~nasya = the righteous one; kR^itaj~nasya = grateful one; vidita aatmanaH = knower of Self; aagataa = has obtained; raakSasii vasam = capture of demonesses.
“This She the dear wife of Rama the righteous one, grateful one, knower of Self has obtained capture of demonesses.”
इमाम् तु शील सम्पन्नाम् द्रष्टुम् इच्चति राघवः |
रावणेन प्रमथिताम् प्रपाम् इव पिपासितः || ५-१६-२२
22. raaghavaH = Rama; draSTum icchati = likes to see; imaam = this Seetha; siilasampannaam = who is endowed with excellent character; raavaNena pramathitaam = and tormented by Ravana; pipaasitaH prapaam iva = like a thirsty one for a place where water is available freely.
“Sri Rama likes to see this Seetha who is endowed with excellent character and tormented by Ravana, like a thirsty one for a place where water is available freely.”
दुष्करम् कुरुते रामो हीनो यद् अनया प्रभुः |
धारयति आत्मनो देहम् न दुह्खेन अवसीदति || ५-१६-२७
27. raamaH = Sri Rama; hiinaaH = (although) bereft; anayaa = of Her; prabhuH = that Lord Sri Rama; kurute = is doing; duSkaram = an impossible task; dhaarayati iti yad = by retaining; aatmanaH deham = His body; na avasiidati = not being depressed; duhkhena = by sorrow.
“Sri Rama although bereft of Her that Lord Rama is doing an impossible task by retaining His body and not being depressed by sorrow.”
उपवासेन शोकेन ध्यानेन च भयेन च |
परिक्षीणां कृशां दीनामल्पाहारां तपोधनाम् || ५-१९-२१
21. parikshiiNaam = wasted; kRishaam = emaciated; upavaasena = due to fasting; shokena = due to sorrow; dhyaanena = due to thought; bhayena cha = and due to fear; alpaahaaraam = (Seetha) was with limited food; tapodhanaam = (and) with austerity as wealth.
Wasted, and emaciated due to fasting, sorrow, due to thought and due to fear, Seetha was with limited food and with austerity as wealth.
What a pity !!
The general opinion is that Rama was a cruel husband.
The truth is Rama used to forget his kingly stature and didn’t even hesitate or cared for his royal honor while he used to cry inconsolably in front of so many Vanara kings.
It is mentioned by Valmiki ji that in the separation of Sita, sometimes Rama used to cry so much that he lost all his strength and fell unconscious in front of Laksmana and other Vanaras so many times.
I am quoting the words of Rama himself which are enough to end this further bashing of Rama as a merciless husband by so-called feminists.
Gather as much attention as you can, dear feminists
Rama had never hurt Sita ever in his lifetime.
नैव सा नूनमथवा हिंसिता चारुहासिनी।
कृच्छ्रप्राप्तं न मां नूनं यथोपेक्षितुमर्हति।।3.60.29।।
O lady with a sweet smile I have never hurt you. When I am in difficulty it does not behove you to ignore me.
विवशं शोकसन्तप्तं दीनं भग्नमनोरथम्।।3.61.9।।
मामिहोत्सृज्य करुणं कीर्तिर्नरमिवानृजुम्।
क्व गच्छसि वरारोहे मां नोत्सृज सुमध्यमे।।3.61.10।।
त्वया विरहितश्चाहं मोक्ष्ये जीवितमात्मनः।
O lovely lady where have you gone, leaving me here like fame deserting a crook? I am helpless grief-stricken, pitiable, pathetic, and disappointed. O lady of slender waist, leave me not. Separated from you, I will give up my life.
Here is another quote for hyper-intellectuals who think 14 year of exile was a punishment for Sita.
प्रियकाननसञ्चारा वनोन्मत्ता च मैथिली।
सा वनं वा प्रविष्टा स्यान्नलिनीं वा सुपुष्पिताम्।।3.61.15।।
Sita is madly in love with the forest. She might have entered deep into the jungle or into a fully blossomed lotus pond.
Valmiki Ramayana – Sundara Kanda
They had enjoyed the exile period.
Hearing Hanuma’s words, Seetha like the daughter of a god, slowly spoke the following words, strung together with alphabets of tears: “You tell this (following) excellent thing as a token of remembrance to my beloved husband.””There is a place inhabited by sages at a hillock in the north-eastern It was bountiful with roots fruits and water. In that place, while we were residing in a hermitage of sages, on a day long ago, we were strolling in water in parts of groves with various kinds of flowers of perfume in that hillock. You are thereupon became wet and sat at my proximity.”
Valmiki Ramayana – Yuddha Kanda
Lord Ram will never forget Sita mata.
Dear pseudo-feminists, just Sita never forget Rama while her stay in Lanka, Rama too was contemplating his mind only and only on Sita.
After the army was settled at the sea-shore, Rama spoke to Lakshmana who was by his side (as follows):
“It is so said that sorrow gets vanished with the passing of time. But my agony of not seeing my beloved is getting increased every day.”
“There is no anguish for me that my beloved is at a distance, nor that she was taken away. Her age is indeed passing away. Only about this, I am repenting.”जब गुरु वशिष्ठ जी ने कहा सीता जी ही करेंगी अयोध्या का शासन. – The Analyst वल्कल वस्त्र धारण किए हुए श्री सीताजी को देख राजा के गुरु वशिष्ठ जी का कलेजा फट गया और उनकी आंखों में आँसू आ गए। तब उन्होंने कैकेयी से कहा https://theanalyst.co.in/when-guru-vashisth-said-that-sita-will-rule-ayodhya/
I want to end this very long answer with an amazing quote that shows how much Rama respected women.
न गृहाणि न वस्त्राणि न प्राकारास्तिरस्क्रियाः |
नेदृशा राजसत्कारा वृत्तमावरणं स्त्रियः || ६-११४-२७
27. gR^ihaaNi = An apartment; na = is not; aavaraNam = a thing that protects; striyaaH = a woman; na = nor; vastraaNi = robes; na = nor; praakaaraaH = compound-walls; na = nor; tiraskR^iyaa = the concealments; na = nor; iidR^ishaaH = such; raaja satkaaraaH = royal honours; vR^ittam = Her character is her shield.
“An apartment is not a thing that protects a woman, nor robes, nor compound walls, nor concealments nor such royal honors. Her character is her shield.”
—Valmiki Ramayana 6.114.27[1]
Note: All images taken from Google Images.
Author: Undisclosed but permission granted for posting.
Sanatana Dhara 