I am not too impressed with Rama, he was too uptight about a promise even his father did not want to keep. He didn't value his woman's love and cared more for what others may think. But, none of this can make what Ravana did anything a vie bit better than totally contemptible.
It is silly to question whether Sita went willingly or not. The only account we have are stories told and retold, and they all say Ravana abducted her. Now, those who express any sympathy for this monster Ravana need to have their head examined.
Those who see similarities with Illiad must account for the fact Helen was the wife of the brother of the king, not the king himself and that she went willingly not abducted. We can't just change the story of Sita and force fit it with Illiad to suit one's pet theory. If this can be permitted, why not change the story of Helen and say the reality was that Helen was really abducted by Paris, and that she was deeply in love with Menelaus.
IMO, it does not matter how we view Rama, I for one think Rama was a wimp and didn't stand by the woman who loved him dearly, but what Ravana did was evil. To abduct a woman against her will cannot be just glossed over. Anybody who expresses any sympathy, let alone adoration, for what Ravana did is plain and simple stupid and crazy.
To me, all this is not about Rama or Ravana, it is about Sita. She loved Rama. Ravana tried to take her away. Rama cared more about his own honor that she sent her away when she was pregnant. So, I say to all those who are talking about Rama or Ravana, you people are sick. Look at the story from Sita's POV. The two men in her story were asses in their own ways. Those who try to admire either of them deserves to be despised.
Cheers!
Dear Shri Nara,
As you know Ramayana is, for me, a story written in a very longish way, like the super-mega serials in tv nowadays. So, if my views do not suit some people, I request their pardon.
For me, ramayana seems to have been an attempt by some sanskrit-scholar scribe who, after hearing about the Greek epics somehow, attempted his own "desi" version. It is also possible that the said scribe had some inputs about Iliad proper, he chose a poetic metre also somewhat close to the original. (This is my view as an ignoramus and I welcome corrections/criticism for my improved knowledge.)
So, when this writer wanted a very similar set-up to that of Iliad, he had to have a mainland and another land to be reached across the sea, where the hero's kidnapped wife was kept imprisoned. Our Indian scribe immediately remembered Lanka and he made his hero, Rama, wend his way through the entire south India.
I am not sure if, as jaykay postulates, african+yedda, white+black egyptian priests would have depicted their own folk, dravidians, as monkeys.
Coming to Ravana vs Rama, I think it is, once again, the victor who lays down the rules. Ravana, we say, kidnapped Rama's wife which is against Sanatana Dharma. So Rama killed Ravana. How far is this correct? Rama, in theory, lived in the treta yuga not kaliyuga. The prohibition against sexual intercourse with another's wife came about after Uddalaka Shvetaketu banned it as "kalivarjya" and there was no such rule in tretayuga, obviously. So, what wrong did Ravana commit, if as a 'rAkShasa' he wanted to enjoy a woman he desired.
I, therefore, think Rama was a mere mercenary in the hands of his character's creators, to propagate and enforce their own povs without regard to whatever had been written by their own fraternity elsewhere.
In mho, a man who does not trust his wife should not have gone to far-off Lanka to wage a war, with the help of monkeys, and subsequently abandon the pregnant wife based on some gossip. Rama is not only a wimp of the worst order but an unreliable husband too. Ravana to me comes out as a brave and devout king who was, unfortunately, ditched by vibheeshaNa.
