Initially this question might appear to be duplicate of this question but I have some separate doubts which aren't addressed in that question.
- According to Vālmikī, Śrī Rāmacandra abandoned Sītā to dissuade his subjects from thinking that a man can accept his wife who had been previously kidnapped by another man without considering the fact if she had been violated or not. However Śrī Rāma Himself had witnessed Sītā's trial by fire ordeal & heard the evidence from celestials. Instead of banishing Sītā, why didn't He issue a public clarification on Sītā's character (which becomes even more questionable if the Māyāsītā is taken into account) ?
- Padma Purāṇa attributes the slander on Sītā's character to a washerman, which in turn was the consequence of Sītā's karma. Yet what caused Śrī Rāma to give greater importance to a washerman's personal opinions over the testimony of celestials ?
- In both cases, Śrī Rāma was anxious to save His public image, but as an absolute monarch answerable only to dharma (as laid down in śāstra & interpreted by qualified brāhmaṇas), why didn't He took efforts to subdue such slander ? Manu states that a śūdra should be fined or should have his tongue cut off in case of him insulting a kṣatriya (regardless of the fact whether the śūdra was speaking truth or not). So why didn't He apply his powers to protect Sītā's reputation ?
These questions lead to these conclusions
- Śrī Rāma never loved Sītā. This is impossible because They are verily Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa incarnate.
- Śrī Rāma had fallen prey to ignorance under influence of māyā, causing Him to mistake the unreal (Sītā's lack of chastity) to be real, like any other normal human. But this is also impossible as He isn't a mortal human like us.
So what is the correct conclusion ?
