• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Why for Sita

Status
Not open for further replies.

kr subramanian

Active member
Dear Friends,
I had gone through Ramayana and also heard story from mychild hood . Some of my doubts still pondering me , I think< can be resolved by you learned members of this forum.

In ramanaya we praise Seeta for her shedding all Sukha of the palace and following steps of Rama and thus becoming example to all women. My question is that is it not more difficult to shed all sukhas when surrounded by them than living in forest without any . To live in a heaven like a saint , i think is more difficult , than to live in forest as saint. I only want to bring the picture of Urmila wife ofLakshmana, who had to stay in Palace and who was not given any weightage in Ramayana.
 

C RAVI

Well-known member
Dear Friends,
I had gone through Ramayana and also heard story from mychild hood . Some of my doubts still pondering me , I think< can be resolved by you learned members of this forum.

In ramanaya we praise Seeta for her shedding all Sukha of the palace and following steps of Rama and thus becoming example to all women. My question is that is it not more difficult to shed all sukhas when surrounded by them than living in forest without any . To live in a heaven like a saint , i think is more difficult , than to live in forest as saint. I only want to bring the picture of Urmila wife ofLakshmana, who had to stay in Palace and who was not given any weightage in Ramayana.

Sri Kr Subramanian ji,

Your thoughts in this is really impressive and thought provocative...

I think Urmila was not given any weight age in Ramayana as the Hero of the epic was Sri Ramar and characters associated close to Sri Raman in his details life was enough to set examples to mankind.

In this detailed life of Sri Ramar, examples were set in terms of relationship/love between bothers, true love between spouse, true love of a Bakhtha, true love and respect between guru and his shishya as well the rights and duties of one self that need to be performed considering Dharmam.

If Urmila's plight in the palace was focused, than Sri Lakshmanan may be considered guilty of isolating his wife and make her suffer for the sake of his brother Sri Ramar. This is just my POV.

In fact Urmila did not put much resistance to her husband's going with Sri Ramar nor did she insisted her husband - Sri Lakshmanan, on allowing her to accompany him. This is what I have learnt in the story of Ramayana.

Thus I feel the plight of Urmila was not considered important to be highlighted
 

Raghy

Well-known member
Dear Friends,
I had gone through Ramayana and also heard story from mychild hood . Some of my doubts still pondering me , I think< can be resolved by you learned members of this forum.

In ramanaya we praise Seeta for her shedding all Sukha of the palace and following steps of Rama and thus becoming example to all women. My question is that is it not more difficult to shed all sukhas when surrounded by them than living in forest without any . To live in a heaven like a saint , i think is more difficult , than to live in forest as saint. I only want to bring the picture of Urmila wife ofLakshmana, who had to stay in Palace and who was not given any weightage in Ramayana.

Sri. K R Subramaniyan,

Personally I never considered that Sow.Sita left the 'comforts' of the palace to 'endure' the hardships of the forest. It was the other way around. She was in love with Sri.Rama. She enjoyed the life in the forest where she knew she could get Rama's love unhindered from other duties as a king. In Uthara Ghanda, I heard that Sow.Sita lamented the loss of such nearness and happiness she enjoyed during the 'vana vaasam'.

As per Valmiki ramayana, I was told that Sow.Urmila wanted to go with Lakshmana. But Lakshmana did not like to have a diversion in the form of Sow.Urmila; he wanted to stand guard for Sri. Rama and Sow.Sita. Lakshmana 'gave away' all the quota of his sleep to Sow. Urmila. So, the story says, Sri.Lakshmana did not sleep for 14 years; Sow.Urmila had double dose of sleep for 14 years. If I am not wrong, I remember reading from Rajaji's Ramayana, both Sri.Laksmana and Sow.Urmila were commended and honoured for their sacrifices.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Ramayana for me was a divine role play for whole of mankind with lessons and trials and tribulation in every step Lord Rama walked.( and His main role was to liberate Jaya & Vijaya in the form of Ravana and Kumbhakarn)

But if I am going to look at Ramayana from a purely human perspective I feel that Sita Devi was sometimes over rated.
Dont get me wrong,this is just a personal view if Sita Devi was just a mere mortal but in realilty I know she is a personification of Maya Sakthi.

She is always extolled as pure but she also used unkind words on Lakshmana who had never even looked at her face and only looked at her feet proved by the fact he could not recognize her necklace and only recognize her anklets.
Poor Lakshmana who toiled so hard without sleep etc.

Women in those days (and to a certain extent even now) were considered ones property and prized possesion.
The owner(Husband) made the decision and she just tagged along.

See even Draupadi was just Arjuna's prized possesion.
On a human perspective Draupadi could have told Kunti that i cant be divided and shared but she too could not as she was bound.
Imagine in the Kaurava court she could ask the elders how could Yudhisthira put her as a stake when he had already lost himself but she didnt ask Kunti Devi why she needed to be divided when only Arjuna had rightfully won her and not the other 4 Pandavas.


Here again i put a disclaimer because i commented on the mahabharat purely as a human perspective.
in reality i understand that Draupadi represented the Kundalini Shakti and needed to be wedded to the Pancha Pranas represented by the 5 Pandavas.
 
Last edited:

Nara

Well-known member
Here again i put a disclaimer because i commented on the mahabharat purely as a human perspective.
in reality i understand that Draupadi represented the Kundalini Shakti and needed to be wedded to the Pancha Pranas represented by the 5 Pandavas.

Dear friend Renuka, I really don't understand where this is coming from. Please do not misunderstand me, I have no animus against people of faith. Almost everyone I love and care for are of faith.

But, I feel compelled to speak against this, just as much as the outrageous and irrational claims of our Christian brothers and sisters.

To me Draupati should be the role model of all women today, not Sita Devi or Savithri, or Arundathi. She was bold, she stood up to the stupid and shameless court in Hastinapuri, did not mind poking fun at the expense of Duryodhana, and did not mind taking up five husbands and lording over them all. She is the புதுமைப் பெண் of Bharathi, epitomized by:

நிலத்தில் யார்க்கும் அஞ்சாத நெறிகளும்
திமிர்ந்த ஞானச் செருக்கும்


Let us not imprison her within some kundalini shakthi that needed to be divided, please!
 

renuka

Well-known member
Dear friend Renuka, I really don't understand where this is coming from. Please do not misunderstand me, I have no animus against people of faith. Almost everyone I love and care for are of faith.

But, I feel compelled to speak against this, just as much as the outrageous and irrational claims of our Christian brothers and sisters.

To me Draupati should be the role model of all women today, not Sita Devi or Savithri, or Arundathi. She was bold, she stood up to the stupid and shameless court in Hastinapuri, did not mind poking fun at the expense of Duryodhana, and did not mind taking up five husbands and lording over them all. She is the புதுமைப் பெண் of Bharathi, epitomized by:
நிலத்தில் யார்க்கும் அஞ்சாத நெறிகளும்
திமிர்ந்த ஞானச் செருக்கும்
Let us not imprison her within some kundalini shakthi that needed to be divided, please!


Dear Respected Sir,

I had mentioned that Draupadi repersents Kula Kundalini Shakti in my above post.
That explanation I had taken from God Talks with Arjuna :The Bhagavad Gita by Paramahansa Yogananda

ParamahansaJi had mentioned the Panca Pandavas represented the 5 Pranas and also the 5 elements.
Yudhishtira (akasha tattva)
Bhima(vayu tattva)
Arjuna(tejas tatva)
Nakula(ap tatva)
Sahadeva(kshiti tatva)

It wasnt my own explanation Sir.

renuka
 

Nara

Well-known member
It wasnt my own explanation Sir.

Dear friend, I was sure that you got it from some source. But in my personal POV such explanations diminish what Draupati stands for, at least in my mind.

Peace, and please, do not put me into the category of "respect", one I don't want it to get to my head :), but seriously, I am just as much a participant here as you are!! I hope to be your friend more than anything else.

Cheers!
 

renuka

Well-known member
Dear NaraJi,

Even I always looked up to Draupadi but at times her behaviour was quite difficult to understand.
She could forgive Ashwattamma who killed the Upapandavas so unrighteously but vowed revenge for being insulted during attempted disrobing in the court of Kauravas.
Her sons life were gone but she could forgive.
Disrobing didnt threaten her life but she vowed revenge.

your friend
renuka
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
K

kr subramanian

Active member
Dear renukaji I hope in this thread we were to see sita with Urmila and not other icons. Because we have many examples which cnfuses us. For instance see the plight of Ahalya. For no fault of her (as Indira came in the form of her husband in night when there were no electricity, and when she had least expectation of some body else coming) she was cursed. Regarding Indira it can be another thread to discuss for he was only cursed for being with another`s wife but in Ramayana Bali was killed on the pretext that he wanted Thara, sugreeva`s wife. (Please note here they are not even human beings)
 

C RAVI

Well-known member
Dear renukaji I hope in this thread we were to see sita with Urmila and not other icons. Because we have many examples which cnfuses us. For instance see the plight of Ahalya. For no fault of her (as Indira came in the form of her husband in night when there were no electricity, and when she had least expectation of some body else coming) she was cursed. Regarding Indira it can be another thread to discuss for he was only cursed for being with another`s wife but in Ramayana Bali was killed on the pretext that he wanted Thara, sugreeva`s wife. (Please note here they are not even human beings)


Sri Kr subramanian ji,

Well said.....

The discussions in this particular thread I feel need to revolve around your points only pertaining to the grant of importance to Sita Devi and not to Urmila, to gain more understanding of the reasons and its validity.

Even the focus, views and opinion on these specific points I feel would be many.
 

suraju06

Well-known member
Sita was the incarnation of Lakshmi as Rama was the incarnation of Sriman Narayana. Lakshmi is also known as Anapayini meaning one who never parts with SrimanNarayana. Even when she was compelled to part with Rama and be in Ashokavanam, she was always thinking about Rama.

அருந்தும மெல்லடகு யாரிட அருந்துமென வருந்தும்
விருந்து கண்டபோது என்னுருமோ என்று விம்மும்
மருந்தும் உண்டுகொல் யான் கொண்ட நோய்க்கென மயங்கும்
இருந்த மாநிலம் செல்லரித்திடவும் மீண்டு எழாதாள்

This is what Kamban had to say about Sita in the Ashokavanam. So it was a choice by Sita to be with Rama when he had to go to the forest. Whether it was out of free will or pressure of circustances is all irrelevant because we are looking at the purana with the benefit/curse of today's comforts and values acquired. This answers the original question in this thread also. To be in Ayodhya living like a hermit because of Rama was away would have just proved a point or two to the world whereas going away and living with Rama was a free expression of the natural self by Sita.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Dear RaviJi and KR Subramanian Ji,

I will stay in context the next time.
Its just that I was giving a comparative analysis of the standing and rights of women and maybe i got carried away a little.
I will stay in the journey of Rama and not venture into Kurushetra.

regards
renuka
 
Subramanian,

I agree Urmila is a great character, but you can not compare her with Sita.

  • The Ramayana describes Sita as an incarnation of lakshmi.
  • Sita came from earth and went back to earth. She did not have natural birth or death.like mortal (Draupadi born out of fire, but she was not pure enough to go to heaven along Yudhishtira)
  • Sita had strength to move Siva Dhanushu.
  • She was the reason for Ravana’s death.
  • She refused to escape with Hanuman and waited until Rama saved her. Kamban added as Sita said to Hanuman ‘sollinal suduven Ilangaiyai’
  • When Ravana set fire on Hanuman's tail, he did not feel the pain because of Sita’s blessing.
  • After war, Hanuman asked permission from Sita to kill all Rakshashas who tortured her, but Sita forgave all.
  • She proved her purity by entering into fire.
  • In Uttara Kanda, she gave strength to Lava/Kusha to won Rama’s army.
  • Before you blame Sita, you need to understand Lakshmana’s character. His only dharma is to protect Rama/Sita. He was extremely adamant on this. He did not care bout his own wife. He did not get anybody’s permission to leave Ayodhya. Even Rama was not able to stop him. Rama convinced him to go back to Ayodhya all the way until Chitrakoota, but he did not listen. Sita tried all other means to send him away and finally she used that harsh word. I also provided below the exact text from Valmiki Ramayana
On identifying the grievous voice that is identifiable with her husband's voice, Seetha spoke to Lakshmana, "you go at once, and check up on Raghava. I have heard the loud yelling voice of highly fretful Rama whereby my heart, or my very entity, is not abiding in its place, and it will be apt of you to protect such a brother of yours who is screaming in the forest.
"He might have come under the subjugation of demons as with a bull coming under the seize of lions, hence, you hurry up so as to near such a brother of yours who is seeking protection." So said Seetha toi Lakshmana.
Although she spoke a lot to him in this way, Lakshmana on his part has not moved out remembering his brother's order to stay guard to Seetha, and hence that Janaki, the daughter of Janaka, who is already agitated for Rama further spoke to him in the paradox of his not going out of hermitage.
"You are like a foe of your brother in friend's mien, Soumitri, as you are not making a move towards a brother even if he is in an emergency. Because of me you wish Rama to be completely destroyed, and only because of your cupidity for me you are not following up on Raghava. It is definite.

Author’s comment :

The 'real' woman in Seetha is coming out. From now on, she goes on talking unhesitatingly, unilaterally and even abusively because her mind is fuddled with the thought 'some damage is being done to her husband.'
 

C RAVI

Well-known member
Subramanian,

I agree Urmila is a great character, but you can not compare her with Sita.

  • The Ramayana describes Sita as an incarnation of lakshmi.
  • Sita came from earth and went back to earth. She did not have natural birth or death.like mortal (Draupadi born out of fire, but she was not pure enough to go to heaven along Yudhishtira)
  • Sita had strength to move Siva Dhanushu.
  • She was the reason for Ravana’s death.
  • She refused to escape with Hanuman and waited until Rama saved her. Kamban added as Sita said to Hanuman ‘sollinal suduven Ilangaiyai’
  • When Ravana set fire on Hanuman's tail, he did not feel the pain because of Sita’s blessing.
  • After war, Hanuman asked permission from Sita to kill all Rakshashas who tortured her, but Sita forgave all.
  • She proved her purity by entering into fire.
  • In Uttara Kanda, she gave strength to Lava/Kusha to won Rama’s army.
  • Before you blame Sita, you need to understand Lakshmana’s character. His only dharma is to protect Rama/Sita. He was extremely adamant on this. He did not care bout his own wife. He did not get anybody’s permission to leave Ayodhya. Even Rama was not able to stop him. Rama convinced him to go back to Ayodhya all the way until Chitrakoota, but he did not listen. Sita tried all other means to send him away and finally she used that harsh word. I also provided below the exact text from Valmiki Ramayana
On identifying the grievous voice that is identifiable with her husband's voice, Seetha spoke to Lakshmana, "you go at once, and check up on Raghava. I have heard the loud yelling voice of highly fretful Rama whereby my heart, or my very entity, is not abiding in its place, and it will be apt of you to protect such a brother of yours who is screaming in the forest.
"He might have come under the subjugation of demons as with a bull coming under the seize of lions, hence, you hurry up so as to near such a brother of yours who is seeking protection." So said Seetha toi Lakshmana.
Although she spoke a lot to him in this way, Lakshmana on his part has not moved out remembering his brother's order to stay guard to Seetha, and hence that Janaki, the daughter of Janaka, who is already agitated for Rama further spoke to him in the paradox of his not going out of hermitage.
"You are like a foe of your brother in friend's mien, Soumitri, as you are not making a move towards a brother even if he is in an emergency. Because of me you wish Rama to be completely destroyed, and only because of your cupidity for me you are not following up on Raghava. It is definite.

Author’s comment :

The 'real' woman in Seetha is coming out. From now on, she goes on talking unhesitatingly, unilaterally and even abusively because her mind is fuddled with the thought 'some damage is being done to her husband.'

Sri Ramansrini ji,

Hats off to your wonderful narrations justifying the subject of this thread. :first:
 

Nara

Well-known member
Her sons life were gone but she could forgive.
Disrobing didnt threaten her life but she vowed revenge.

Dear friend Renuka,

At the risk of contaminating the purity of this thread, let me sneak in one comment on what you have said. Men want women to be like Sita, or Urmila, et al. complete dedication to husband. But, IMHO, Draupati should be the role model for the younguns -- she can stand up to the arrogant men and even grant forgiveness to the undeserving, because, because she felt like it. Go girl, I say.

Why sita? Why even Urmila? I say Draupati.

Cheers!

p.s. an orthodox reasoning probably is that Aswaththama was a Brahmin, and Acharya's son.
 

sapthajihva

Active member
............but in Ramayana Bali was killed on the pretext that he wanted Thara, sugreeva`s wife. (Please note here they are not even human beings)
Shri subramanian, we cannot justify things in a different yuga with the practices and law of the current day.

To clarify - Thara is Vali's wife.

The story goes back a bit - Vali went after the asura Mayavi, who challenged him to single combat. Sugreeva accompanied him; in due course, Mayavi entered a cave and Vali went in after him inspite of Sugreeva's protests. After a fortnight (am unsure of the exact count), Sugreeva heard screams and blood spilling out from within the cave. Hastiliy, thinking that Vali was killed, he blocked the cave with a boulder and returned home sadly, mourning for his brother. He was duly crowned king. And, according to the laws of vanaras, the widow of a brother was added to the brother's harem. (this is not applicable for humans).

Meanwhile Vali after vanquishing Mayavi was perplexed to see the entrance blocked. In a rage, he concluded that Sugreeva had use the opportune moment to usurp the throne. He came out seething with fury and wanting to kill Sugreeva.

On seeing his brother alive, Sugreeva was overjoyed beyond bounds, but Vali was looking for blood. Sugreeva's pleas that he mistook Vali to be defeated was not heeded. In the end, Sugreeva took refuge in Matanga ashram (Vali was cursed and hence he could not enter the place).

Vali forced Roma (Sugreeva's wife) to his harem, even while his brother was alive, and this was adharmam.

Hope this clarifies.

Regards,
 

C RAVI

Well-known member
Dear friend Renuka,

At the risk of contaminating the purity of this thread, let me sneak in one comment on what you have said. Men want women to be like Sita, or Urmila, et al. complete dedication to husband. But, IMHO, Draupati should be the role model for the younguns -- she can stand up to the arrogant men and even grant forgiveness to the undeserving, because, because she felt like it. Go girl, I say.

Why sita? Why even Urmila? I say Draupati.

Cheers!

p.s. an orthodox reasoning probably is that Aswaththama was a Brahmin, and Acharya's son.

Sri Naraji,

Your observations are apt to apply in a practical life of we ordinary human beings.

I think in present scenario many guys are not like Sri Ramar and they are just full in not expecting their wife to be like Sita Devi (a divine lady, much mindful of her chastity and pativarta).

Many of the females are not life Sita Devi and they are just full in not expecting their husband to be like Sri Ramar (Eka patni follower and maintaining his chastity).

In this present materialist world they just want to fulfill their duty in a legal way.

It is better for good girls to be like Draupati (she is a perfect lady with courage and determination) and good guys to be like Sri Ramar (following Dharma, intellectual, spiritual, courageous and determinant, great worrier against adharmam with the sense of keeping patience and love & respect to all) for a good family setup.

 

sapthajihva

Active member
...................

Author’s comment :

The 'real' woman in Seetha is coming out. From now on, she goes on talking unhesitatingly, unilaterally and even abusively because her mind is fuddled with the thought 'some damage is being done to her husband.'
This is an incorrect conclusion about Sitha's character. The talk was only to compel Lakshama to go after Rama. Nothing more, nothing less.

In fact, Lakshama always looks only at Sitha's feet as a mark of respect and bhakthi.

If Lakshama does not leave, how could Ravana abduct Sitha? It is believed that Sitha let herself be abducted so that the world be freed from Ravana's clutches (and also the many women that Ravana held captive).

Letting imagination run riot is not the way to understand our Ithihasas.

Regards,
 

renuka

Well-known member
I had read another version before that mentioned that the actual Sita had gone into Fire and out emerged the Maya Sita from the same fire and this took place when she managed to send Lakshmana to go looking for Rama.
Ravana had abducted the Maya Sita and not the actual Sita.
So when this Maya Sita was recovered from Lanka, Rama had the fire ordeal to get back the actual Sita from the fire.
 

Nara

Well-known member
.... and good guys to be like Sri Ramar (following Dharma, intellectual, spiritual, courageous and determinant, great worrier against adharmam with the sense of keeping patience and love & respect to all) for a good family setup.

Dear Ravi, Rama, the dharmO vighraghavaan, having forced ordeal by fire on Sita and later sending her away when she was pregnant, can never be my hero.

If we are to have a hero from the ithihasa purnas, it must be Vidura, the only one to stand up for ordinary dharmam, not some dharma shashthra dharmam like Rama did, against the overwhelming power structure of the day.

Cheers my friend Ravi....
 

sapthajihva

Active member
To the original question in the thread:

Life in the forest is not easy, if we think it to be so. Harsh lands and dense forests had to be traversed... Making such a decision, leaving away the comforts is itself a big task for us mortals...

Moreover, there are subtle differences in the characters of Ramayana... Why did not Bharatha follow Rama? Why only Lakshamana? Bharatha never disobeys Rama, whereas Lakshamana always wants to serve Rama.

I go with Shri Raju's comment on Sitha - she could never willingly part with Rama.

Rama and Sitha were avatars, and hence the story praises their character more... Some even praise Bharatha for his devotion and say that he is the crown jewel...

We should cherish all the noble characters and try to follow at least a few of those noble ideals in our life.
 

Nara

Well-known member
... Why did not Bharatha follow Rama? Why only Lakshamana? Bharatha never disobeys Rama, whereas Lakshamana always wants to serve Rama.....

According to SV thinking, Shatrughna is the best of all, anagan. This is described in a very nice way in the avathaarikai to the commentary on the prabhandham Kanninun Siruththambu -- this prabhandham is dedicated to the praise of Nammazhvar, a bhagavatha, not bhagavan.

Service to Bhagavatha is supposed to be superior even to service to Bhagavan. Lakshmana insisted he will accompany Rama and had his way. Bharatha wanted Rama to return, but accepted his command. So Bharatha is better than Lakshmana. But, for Shathrughna, his lord was not even Rama, but the Bhagavatha, Bharathan. Further, Shthrughna's dedication to Bharatha was such that Bharatha need not even consult with Shathrughna -- when he went to his uncle's place he just took Shathrughna with him as if he would take a suitcase. That is, nobody asks the suitcase whether it wants to accompany you in the journey. Likewise, he took Shathrughna with him, even though it was Bharatha's uncle and not Shathrughna's.

I can fret out the book and post the actual Tamil text from the commentary later, is there is interest.

Cheers!
 

sapthajihva

Active member
According to SV thinking, Shatrughna is the best of all, anagan............

Service to Bhagavatha is supposed to be superior even to service to Bhagavan. Lakshmana insisted he will accompany Rama and had his way. Bharatha wanted Rama to return, but accepted his command. So Bharatha is better than Lakshmana. But, for Shathrughna, his lord was not even Rama, but the Bhagavatha, Bharathan.
Cheers!
I agree...

This is evident from the moment they were born and were placed in separate cradles... The infants cried incessantly... The order was realigned a bit, Lakshamana near Rama and the crying lessened in intensity, nevertheless it continued. Only when Lakshamana was placed with Rama in the same cradle and likewise Shatrugna with Bharatha did the crying stop.

My point was that there are innumerable lofty meanings to be had from the ithihasas as they are given to us... Instead of wondering whether Sitha was really better than Urmila, we could do justice by living out some of those ideals.

Regards,
 

Raghy

Well-known member
I don't know... Of all the characters from Ramayana, after discussing with my wife, we think that 'Hanuman', the vaanaram was the best of the lot. Humility, capability, initiative, obedience and perseverence. Well, we vote for Hanuman.
 

sapthajihva

Active member
'Guhanodu Aivar Aanom'.

Hanuman is Vayuputra and was born with immense powers; moreover, he had acquired boons from Suryadeva too...

What about Guhan? He was a hunter, of low birth and uneducated, and yet, with he matched the four brothers in humility, service and devotion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks