Was Sri Rama right in giving up Sita?

So here's everyone's favourite question in my HSC...as soon as we start to talk about the Ramayana, this eventually comes up. So, what do you all think, was it right for Sri Rama to give up Sita?

IMHO it was. I think it was a lesson in selflessness. His first duty was to his people and he gave up something he love and longed for for his people. This was his reasoning which he explained to Lakshman... and I can understand. But this reasoning has been argued against by others, so I thought I'd bring this up for discussion.

 

Yeah, this was a very sad part of Rama's life. He loved Sita more than anything.
But due to certain reasons , according to the code of conduct of those times, he left her, and this was something that hurt him deeply to the core.

And it should be mentioned that while he attended the duties of his kingdom, while he slept , he always slept on the floor, the way Sita was sleeping in Valmikis ashram, and lived a spartan life.

When he was asked to marry again by the priests in order to do a certain religious ceremony, he refused strongly.

And after Sita was swallowed by the earth, or bhoomi devi her mother, Rama left his body in the river Sarayu.

Theirs is one great love story, of how they destroyed the unrighteous together, established dharma together, and left the world together.

 

The lesson of the Ramayana is that each person must have one altar of worship, one dharma, to which they must adhere at all costs.
For Sitaji and Lakshmana it was to serve Sri Rama, for which they left their home, their family, everything and followed him to the forest.
For Bharata also it was to serve Rama, by taking care of his kingdom. It meant he was separated from the Lord of his heart, but for his dharma, he accepted it.
For Dasharatha, the dharma was to love Rama (there is a back story to that) and so when Rama left, Dashratha dropped his body.
For Rama, that altar of worship was the citizens of his land. For their well-being he would do anything. And if they wished that he give up Sitaji, he would do that also.
Further, he was protecting her by doing so. Now everyone criticizes Rama, but nobody questions Sitaji's fidelity. Rama was willing to give up his reputation to save her good name.
Also he did not just dump her in the forest somewhere. He left her in Valmiki rishi's ashram. Here she was cared for wonderfully, and the children got the best possible education. They grw up to be great warriors, defeating Rama's entire army in battle. They were also the most skilled poets and musicians, who sang the Ramayana to Rama himself!
And finally, Sitadevi herself accepted that what he did was for the best. In some Ramayanas she is glad, because she missed the forest and the ashram lifestyle and felt cramped and uncomfortable in the gaudy palace life.

 

It is a play of God. He does this to free us from our sins.

 

And if you wih to see it from a still higher standpoint, Rama never gave up Sita. Rama and Sita's bodies were separated, but their love was not the clinging of the flesh that passes for love among most people. Their love was of the nature of such deep attunement and oneness in spirit that no distance of the universe could tear them apart.
The metaphor used in the Ramayana is of the word and it's meaning. Sita is the word and Rama is the meaning. We may say they are two different things, but where one is the other must be. The meaning can never be expressed or without the word nor can the word be spoken without the meaning instantly entering the mind.

Krishna tells the Gopis, although I am in Mathura and you are in Vrindhavan, there is not an iota of separation between us, because our hearts shall always be one.

 

Mother and motherland are greater than heaven itself.

---Rama.

 

even god makes mistakes, rama was wrong

 

Hitler said similar things about the 'motherland'. Nationalism in all forms is a disease which has inflicted untold death and destruction on humanity. Sod the idea of separate nations. Who really cares? Only the brainwashed.

 

Mmm but Sri Rama did what was best for his people because he loved them more than his own life and his own desires...as opposed to Hitler that had his own personal interests fueling his dictator ship.

I think there is such a thing as positive and negative nationalism.

 

I disagree. I think nationalism is one of the biggest problems we face in this age. And inevitably, its days are numbered as the inexorable process of globalization proceeds.

What was ok thousands of years ago won't wash to-day - the stakes are simply too high to allow such delusional madness to continue.

I'm not criticizing Ram here - as I say it was probably ok back in those days to entertain concepts such as 'motherland' - it's the people who want to keep the same old and failed game going whom I am critical of.

Look for instance at the activities of Hindu nationalists - they fuel their fanaticism with just such phrases.

 

It reminds me of an argument I once overheard in a laundrette - an American lady and an Englishman were disputing whether Britain or America is 'God's country' - at the time I thought 'these people are totally insane'. My view hasn't changed.


Even more dangerous than nationalism is nationalism which believes itself sanctioned by God. It is hard for me even to see how people can be so idiotic as to entertain such ideas. I guess the idiocy is part and parcel of being brainwashed by religious and nationalistic conceptions. It is a MENTAL ILLNESS!!!

And Indian nationalists - don't forget it was precisely this which allowed the colonial Brits in the 19th century to justify to themselves their empire on the grounds that they were bringing culture and 'true religion' to all those poor savages in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

 

Mmm..I agree that fanatic nationalism is really crazy. But I don't think its wrong liking your country and wanting to do what's best for your people...buuut not in the way it is today. Its in the way that you also try to help your people without harming the peoples of other countries. I know it was different in context of teh Ramayana, but at the same time, you can see that Ram did try and keep good relations with all the peoples in the lands around him. And I think there's nothing wrong with liking your country as long as you can be aware and respect other countries keeping in mind that no matter where they live, people are all people in the end. In the similar way that I believe that there is no problem with liking your particular religion or spiritual path as long as you respect the other paths that are out there...and keep in mind that they all are looking for God in the end.

I like a lot of the principles this country was built on and that our founders stand for...I am a big Jefferson fan...but at the same time I do not like all the actions of my country in the past or the present. But I know that if we try and grow we can fix some of our mistakes and learn to live in the world. Its idealistic...but we've got to try. And I know Rama is the idealistic man and king...but they are good standards to try and live up to. Courage, mercy, and compassion are not bad ideals to try and live up to.

 

Why limit it to your own country? Why not feel the same about the planet as a whole and all it's varied people's?

It's natural to like what you are familiar with and have grown up with - certainly in some respects, I like the UK, in other ways I hate it because of what it represents both in terms of history, and it's actions today.
I dislike any kind of nationalist display, I feel it simply a divisive thing, which in the past has led to many wars, and we shoulod be ashamed that humans have acted in a manner so unbefitting to them in the past, not celebrate it.

Same is true of the USA I'm sad to say - a nation built on a basis of attempted genocide of the original inhabitants, and thereafter mainly on the bais of money 'values'. I won't say anything about Ameriica's role on the international scene today.

Back in 1949, a group of Brit diplomats sat down with a bunch of Hundu and Muslim diplomats and drew lines on the map of India, creating the State of Pakistan. Soon, the two were at war, and now both have weapons of mutual anhililation. Now, young fanatics can denounce those on the other side of the line and feel really righteous about it.
Humans are truly an insane spieces.

 

I am in total agreement snake, I am not a fan of nationalism and cannot think of a single positive thing it produces.

 

Then why don't you disown your british citizenship

 

Well, if it were not for Indian nationalists like Gandhi, and Subhash Chandra Bose, the British would still have been ruthlessly exploiting India, and other asian and african countries as well.

Every thing has its positive and negative, and same do nationalism.

 

It is only a silly misunderstanding that motherland refers to India or any particular country.
HInduism says Swadesho Bhuvanatrayam - the three worlds are my homeland and all beings are my family.
As for the quote from Sri Rama - he was speaking particularly of his joy at returning to Ayodhya after 14 years in the forest. Naturally then he was expressing his joy ar returning home, because no matter how much we wander in other countries and lands, our own homeland and hometown and culture have a special place in the heart. That does not preclude love of other cultures and countries, but home is always special.

Where do you get nationalism from that?

 

As far as nationalism, love for your people and country is very wonderful and very important. However that does not imply hate for other countries (although it seems to be commonly the case).
There are those who rise by themselves climbing higher and those who rise by dragging others down. Sadly most nationalism these days belongs to the latter category.

 

It's dog eat dog, because if it wasn't for British nationalism and imperialism, based on the sense of the superiority of the British race, they'd never have been in India to begin with.