#Ramayana rama free

The people of Ayodyha would not have accepted a Bharata who was happy to exile the beloved Rama. How would things have been different if Bharata was happy to usurp his brother and ascend the throne? However, I do not think that his rakshasa subjects deserved to die in a war that was caused by Ravana's private emotions. This would imply that he had the ability to change his course of action or alter his fate, and it is clear from the text that his love for Sita was so great that it would have torn him apart to see her go. Do you think Ravana deserved the terrible fate that befell him? Why or why not? Ravana received a number of warnings to release Sita and apologize to Rama, but he chose to ignore this advice. Likewise, Rama makes a bad choice in sending Sita away when the people of Ayodhya gossip about her, and he later regrets this evil mistake. Instead, he decided to go into exile to avoid confrontation. For example, he could have assassinated Kaikeyi and Bharata for usurping his throne in that case, maybe one of his other brothers would have assassinated him, and his kingdom would decline and suffer. Though the text emphasizes Rama's divinity, I think it would have been possible for him to choose an evil path. I think that good and evil are matters of personal choice. Do you think that being good or bad is a matter of personal choice, or are people simply born good or bad? Likewise, Ravana possess many noble characteristics, but has chosen to use them for a life of evil. The Ramayana suggests that much of Rama's greatness is the result of his choices to place dharma above his own personal interests.

#Ramayana rama free

In both cases, a long and bloody war is started over the kidnapping of a woman, but the Ramayana emphasizes the role that love plays in the struggle to free Sita. Because of a promise that the kings of Greece made with Menelaus, Helen's husband, they go to war to get Helen back. In the Iliad, the Trojan prince Paris kidnaps Helen (or does she willingly run off with him? The Iliad is less than clear on this point). In the Ramayana, Ravana kidnaps Sita, and Rama must enlist the help of the vanara army to save her out of his love for her. In both the Ramayana and the Iliad, the catalyst for war is the kidnapping of a royal woman. (For example, which of the episodes in the Ramayana have parallels in the Bible, the Iliad, the Quran?) Do these episodes accomplish the same purpose in the narrative? How do they differ? Identify one aspect of the Ramayana with that of another story with which you are more familia.

The Ramayana shares many storytelling devices with other epic poems and sacred scriptures. They kill deer and cut down grass, and Khara decides that it's time to kick them out. Suddenly, a trio of loud and noisy humans appear in this peaceful place. Khara is a brave and noble rakshasa who has carved out part of the forest for his people to live in. First, identify the point-of-view character in a particular scene, then rewrite the scene from a different character's perspective.

Develop your own version by rewriting a scene from the Ramayana from the perspective of a different character. The Ramayana exists in many different versions. Perhaps this made sense during the time that the Ramayana was written, but in the modern era, it makes more sense for men and women to have similar virtues. Rama is brave and courageous, whereas Sita's main virtues are loyalty and chastity. I think that Rama is the ideal model for both men and women. Does Sita exemplify the traits that you think women should have? Why or why not? Traditionally, Sita was regarded as the model for ideal womanhood.