Why did Rama reject Sita?

So, I was trying to understand how in Lord Rama’s pastime, his Altha was to be a king, but he, his role was, I mean he was Lord himself, so his Parmartha also is like, it’s like kind of serving his own self, right? He’s the Lord. And in that context, I want to understand when Mother Sita was, when he told Lakshmana to meet Mother Sita in the ashram, when she was carrying the avankur. So, would you like to elaborate like in this context, like what was played out in his mind and it was, what was his priority, you know, in terms of his Altha and Parmartha? Would I like to elaborate? No.

Some pastimes are very difficult to understand and sometimes you cannot get, to get a satisfactory understanding of this. All that you can get is the least unsatisfactory understanding. So, I will share with you the understanding that I find least unsatisfactory.

I have written books on the Ramayana and I’m trying to write future also and this is, I have many scholars in the Ramayana, in our tradition, outside the tradition, I have talked with them, tried to read the traditional commentaries, whatever are available, but it is a very difficult pastime to go through all of it. So, we talked about it. The key point is that there is context.

Generally speaking, the principle is that if an action does not make sense, if I do good, if I am polite with you and you are rude with me, I can say that you are a terrible person or I’m a, I’m a worthless person. Or I can say maybe we have some history from behind, because of which this is happening. So, there are, that way, the world makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense in this context.

So, in the immediate context, there is no way you can make sense. If a man abandons his pregnant wife over an unproven allegation or rather an allegation that has been proven to be false, that man would not be considered even an ordinarily responsible person, what to speak of an ideal person. And if a civilization or a culture considers such a person to be ideal, that civilization should be condemned.

So, the point is that in the immediate context, there is no denying that it does not make any sense. So, if we consider only the dynamic of the husband-wife relationship, the context of the husband-wife relationship. So, then, so this is the immediate context, the husband and wife relationship.

So, in this context, it’s no sense at all. So, then sometimes we may have to put it in a bigger context. Lakshana Prabhupada says that sometimes in a family, the mother-in-law may chastise her own daughter to instruct her daughter.

So, that daughter may say, I am not doing anything wrong, but I am being chastised and she also understands, this is not meant for the daughter. So, like that, sometimes you speak one thing to one person, but somebody else is hearing. That thing is not meant for that person, that thing is meant for the other person.

But this person can become indignant. Why are you speaking this to me? I never did this. Understand, I have a purpose.

I’ll tell you later. It’s like that. So, in the context, it does not make any sense.

So, now we can broaden the context. So, there are four levels of broadening that are possible. The first level of broadening is that Lord Ram is a husband, but he’s also a king.

Now, he has a relationship with the healer. And in one sense, in that cultural context, for Lord Ram to be with his wife, who was suspected of something inappropriate, that would have reflected that he was attached to her. And he was excessively attached to her.

And because of that Rajdharma, he had to choose between Rajdharma and pati. And he chose the Rajdharma at that particular time. And that is a sacrifice.

It is. Now, if you see, so one context is Rajdharma, he has chosen as more important than the patidharma. So, it is clear that he is not rejecting her as a person.

And how do we know that? Three things. First is he does not remarry. He’s a king, he could easily remarry.

Now, he maintains her word to him. His word to him that I’ll be a king. Apart from that, not only does not he maintain his word to her, he also does not think it’s a royal duty.

When he has to perform yajna, the brahmanas say you need to have your wife with you. So, he actually creates a golden effigy of her. And he puts that golden effigy next to her.

So, now, which person do you even like? If you keep the photo of a person in your home, we keep the photo of people whom we love and respect. Now, if somebody has disgraced our family, sometimes some cultures are very reputation conscious or honor conscious. And if some person has disgraced that family, they will actually like deny the existence of that person.

They will not keep any photo in public. Even if there are albums, they will delete that person’s photo from there. Like erase that person’s existence.

Far from erasing her existence, Lord Ram actually makes an effigy of her and puts that in the yajna. Yajna is a place where he is putting that there itself is an indication that he has not rejected her. So, not only has he not rejected her, he does not even believe that accusation.

Because if he considers her impure for a pure activity like a yajna, he will not put her there. And even the brahmanas don’t object to it. So, it is not her purity that is being asked.

And the third thing is, and although the word banishment can be used, that he banished her, it’s not in the same sense in which Ram himself was banished. Because he sent her to Valmiki’s ashram. And Valmiki’s ashram was in Lord Ram’s yajna.

So, it is not that Valmiki’s ashram was being troubled by Rakshasas or being predators and she wasn’t physically there. So, in one sense, she was indirectly in his protection. So, now, what exactly about the Raja Dharma? This is where Indian culture, American culture are different.

The idea of a person renouncing his family for the sake of the larger good. That’s something in Indian culture it’s understood. The current Indian Prime Minister, he has a wife but he doesn’t, he has never spent much time with his wife.

He doesn’t have children. So, even Gandhiji was materially renounced. Some killers were not.

But in the Indian ethos, like giving up the family for the sake of a larger cause is something which is accepted, even respected. But I’ve seen in America, people just don’t understand this. Because America, they have a culture of the first lady.

That, you know, it’s like you cannot be the president unless you have a, every politician generally, especially top politicians, they have to go with their family. And often they will put, they’ll proudly say, although I am the president, my family comes first. And so that, that is a very different value system.

So, to some extent, the idea of Lord Ram sacrificing pati dharma for raja dharma, it’s understandable for Indians. For Americans, it becomes much more difficult to understand. But this, in the bigger context, now how would it have affected his being a king? It’s a very cultural, contextual thing.

So, at that particular time, there was a particular time when purity of women was considered extremely important. Anyone, even in Europe, in the European tradition, the Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. So, that was, you could say, it’s an unfair standard of purity that is expected of a woman.

And especially in her case, she was not consenting at all. And all that is true. But every culture has its own ways of functioning.

Now, what is that in the first context? That the raja dharma is prioritized over the pati dharma. Having said this, none of the acharyas who have commented on the Ramayana, or even the tradition of the Ramayana, considers this as the behavior to be normalized and adopted by everyone. India has one of the strongest family structures.

In the West, families are falling apart. In India also, it’s happening, unfortunately. But it’s much lesser.

The family structure is very resilient. And no book has inspired the Indian mind as much as the Ramayana. So, if a core teaching of this book is that reject your wife over an unsubstantial allegation, then that culture would not have been so family-friendly, or family support would be so family-emphasizing.

So, within the tradition itself, from the story of the Ramayana, certain teachings are emphasized, certain teachings are not emphasized. And the Ramayana commentators of Sri Vaishnava tradition, they say that even Lakshman’s following Ram is not to be imitated. That Sita is going with Ram, then they are a family unit.

That is to be imitated. Lakshman’s following Ram is glorious because Ram is God. But Lakshman’s following Ram is actually unfair for Ramayana.

So, he’ll take her with him. So, even that is not to be imitated. So, that’s why one of the key principles in understanding a text is to see how the tradition that has emerged from the text understands the text.

So, this is certainly not something to be imitated. Now, the second context you could put it in is the context of previous life. Like I said, the Lord does not have a previous life and that is true.

But there is a story given in the Ramayana itself of a case where I won’t go into the full story, but Bhrigu Muni, his wife, I think her name is Kirti. So, there is a demon who has been chased by, who has been terrorizing the universe and that demon has been chased by, finally at a particular opportune time, Lord Vishnu borders him, is about to kill him. The demon flees and takes shelter in the ashram of Bhrigu Muni, where Khyati is there.

He says, please save me. And Khyati says, I will protect you. And Vishnu says, no, this is a terrible demon, I have to kill him.

Vishnu’s Khyati says, no, he has taken shelter of me, I am not going to kill him. Lord Vishnu says that this is a terrible demon. If we don’t kill him at this time, he will continue terrorizing and destroying the universe.

I have to kill him right now, this is the only time available. He says, no, I cannot let him, he has taken shelter of me. Then he says, for the sake of the universe, I have to kill you to kill him.

He says, whatever you do, I am not going to let you. Then Lord Vishnu kills Khyati and then he comes back. He is aghast.

Lord Vishnu says, this is what happened and I can revive Khyati right now for you. He says, how could you have killed a woman, you were meant to protect her. He says, just as you have caused me to suffer separation from my wife, I curse you, that you will suffer separation from your wife.

So, now the Lord is beyond all curses, but the Lord of Greece fully accepts that curse. So, that curse later comes back. So, when a curse from previous life acts, it may seem to have no rationale in this life.

So, that is another bigger context. So, Sita herself was blameless, but it was something from the previous life that was blamed. And the third is, so that is the context of the book itself and the mood of the book or the mood of the larger leela.

See, in general, the Ramayana’s mood is the mood of sacrifice. That, you see, Ram did not have to go on exile. Ram could have rebelled against his father and father.

But Ram did not do that. So, you know, Dasharatha is not a victimizer and Ram is not a victim. Both of them are caught in a circumstance.

Now, to some extent, we can understand this circumstance, but at least even now, the idea of honoring one’s word is something which people do respect. Although I have seen young people ask the question, just clearly, why did Ram even have to go to the forest? He said, you know, Dasharatha had given a word at a particular time. He said, this is blind obedience to somebody else’s word.

So, we could say that, we could question that also. But at least it’s understandable. Now, what happens is this is seen as noble, Ram’s nobility, Ram’s selflessness.

But Ram doesn’t become bitter towards Dasharatha and Dasharatha does not, is not angry with Ram. There is no fault on Ram’s side. So, that same spirit of sacrifice that Ram and Dasharatha, when Sita goes with Ram, Sita is giving up, Sita is giving up the kingdom, Lakshman is giving up the kingdom, that mood of sacrifice is the consistent theme of the Ramayana.

And finally, what Dasharatha does to Ram, Ram has to do to Sita. So, it is not that Ram is the victimizer and Sita is the victim. Just that Dasharatha is not the victimizer and Sita is not, Ram is not the victim.

Both Ram and Sita are caught in a circumstance. That circumstance is an unfortunate circumstance. And both of them have to participate in a sacrifice.

It’s a painful sacrifice. Just that Dasharatha does not celebrate when Ram goes away. Ram does not celebrate, oh this impure woman in my life, I got rid of her.

There is absolutely no celebration. And just as Ram is not bitter towards Dasharatha, Sita is heartbroken when Ram rejects her. Ram rejects also is a strong word, but Ram abandons her, whatever you want to say.

But she understands, she is heartbroken. At a level of emotion, she is completely shattered. But I understand why he has done this.

And the test that she accepts is that she does not poison her children’s mind about her. If there is a messy divorce in which, say one person feels that the other person has betrayed me, has manipulated me, has wronged me, and quite often the children are poisoned by it. So she does not do that.

So is she pained by it? Is she heartbroken by it? Definitely. But is she bitter? Is she vindictive? Not at all. So the mood of sacrifice, of putting a larger principle above one’s personal pleasure, that is the consistent mood of Ram.

This is Jata. You could have said that, why should I fight against Raavan? He is clearly younger than me, faster than me. Sita does not fight against him.

She is like, how can I just stand by and let him be abducted? Whatever it means by that, I have to try to fight it. So it is a sacrifice. The sacrifice can come in many different forms.

The broader principle of sacrifice is what has been discussed. So these three contexts, the context of a larger dharma, the context of the previous life, and the context of the purpose of the Leela, can help us make sense of that pastime to some extent. Still, the problem comes with twofold.

One is that this pastime is often seen through the feminist lens, that Ram is a man, and he is a male authority figure, and Sita is a woman, and she is victimized. Unfortunately, there have been many instances of patriarchal abuse of power, and then that all becomes very messy. But it does not have to be seen through that lens.

So when we see through that lens, then it becomes outrageous, unacceptable and outrageous. But that is not the lens that the Ramayan is seen through. That is not the lens in which the Ramayan tradition is encouraging us to So as I said, it has never become the norm in Indian society that a woman should be abandoned or rejected because of some unsuspecting actions.

So that is one problem. And the second is that quite often there are some traditions, some commentators who say that this pastime is interpolation. Now, even there are some scholars who go in that favor, and they say it’s interpolation by some people.

Now, no one would be happier than me if this were interpolation in one sense. It would be a big relief. But it’s difficult to make that argument because the traditional Uttarkhand, sometimes people say the whole Uttarkhand is interpolation.

But our prominent Acharyas have not spoken like that. In the Srivastava tradition, they have written commentaries on this. And there are songs about Sita’s agony, Ram’s agony.

So this is definitely an inconvenient part of our tradition. But then, convenience is not necessarily the way we learn about lessons of transcendence. So if somebody wants to take that interpolation argument, I mean, it’s up to them.

But generally in the tradition, that’s not what has been taken.