Ramayana: What exactly is the greatness of Rama and why he should be revered?

firstly understand that understanding GOD is far away from our perception.Whatever GOD did in ramayana was done to set an example to a common man

-feltra  -  Your name indicates that you are not from Sanaatana Dharama otherwise known as Hinduism (or) being from this Dharma you want to be anonymous. Whatever may be your intentions, you have given an opportunity to present my view on your question, rather to say to clear  the widespread misconceptions on Sri Rama.  I prefer calling Rama as Sri Rama, as I revere him not as a God, but a human being rose to the status of  God. Thanks for giving me this opportunity. ---------------- 1.   I am reproducing your statement below, so that I may not misquote your statement. My own take is that of all the Gods in Hindu mythology Rama deserves the least to be looked up to and revered. On the contrary, Sri Rama deserves the highest place.  You can go through my article for clarification. 2.   Sri Rama was not incarnation of Vishnu.  He was a prince and King of Kosala Kingdom.  3.   You wanted answers starting from Point No.3.    Again, I am  reproducing your statement . While in search of Sita, he killed Vali from the back.  And why did he do that?  Very Good question.  I have gone through many commentaries on this issue provided by various scholars.  Many of them, tried to explain his conduct that being a King's (Bharata) representative, he discharged his duty, in punishing an erred person. Some other people tried to explain based on some Puranic stories. However, the answer to this question is very lengthy.  You may go through my answer posted in the Quora itself.  Sri Rama never deviated from Dharma. 4.   Coming to Sita praityaga episode followed by Sita's entering into the pyre. Be assured that these episodes are interpolations, inserted by Vaishnavaites to elevate the status of Vedic God Vishnu to the status of SUPREME GOD. You can go through my article on this subject. 5.   Yours points 5 & 6. Srimad Ramayana ends with the coronation of Sri Rama as the king of Kosala Kingdom.   This episode was described in the ultimate Sarge of Yuddha Kanda in Ramayana.  Sita's banishment and other stories form part of UTTARA KANDA.  This total Kanda (book) is ABSOLUTE interpolation. You can go through the following article. 6.    Next comes your statement. And now for my pet peeve: The 1 Strike For ie. Rama "obeyed" his Dad - has been drilled into the Indian ethos as "you should obey your elders unquestioningly" - and IMHO this has been and continues to be THE single biggest factor in our general spineless-ness.   And we all know that the "elders" have no reason to change, having "settled" in their lives. Srimad Ramayana was presented to the World by Sage Valmiki, for the following reasons. 1.   To present family values in a story form 2.   To advise the importance of the concept - A man for his woman only, and a woman for his man only.-  Two different concepts, Ekapatnivrata (having one wife only) and pativrata (following her husband) clubbed together 3.   To follow Dharma If human beings in India or outside India do not pay heed to the advice of  Sage Valmiki in respect of the above issues, it is upto them for reaping the results. All the best.

Many times, these questions arise from one who don't or trying to understand Sanathana Dharma. I try to answer this as best as I can, First, Lord Rama never said he is GOD. It all the rushis around him said. When Lord Siva prised him then there must be something. Lord Rama is symbol of righteousness. The pretext to story of Lord Rama is also very much important to understand the rest of the story. Lord Rama born in "Suryavamsha". All the kings in that vamsa were adherent advocates of Dharma. So it is in their immense duty of all the lineage to follow Dherma. From your first point to the second what ever happened in the story of Ramayana, establishes following qualities of Rama. 1. He is a adherent follower of Dharma 2. Son of great king, means Kshatriya. 3. Follower of great lineage of kings 4. Gruhastha (married to Sita) 5. Avatar of Vishnu Now point 3, Vaali is brother of Sugriva. As one of the commentator rightly pointed, in sanathana dharma elder Brother is like father and younger brother is like son. With that Vaali become some one who lustfully took control of his daughter-in-law. That is against Dharma. Now as Kshatriya Rama should oppose this. There comes a boon that Vaali has, he can take away half of the energy of his opponent in direct combat. As I said earlier Rama is avatar of Vishnu and if he go to direct combat then half of Lord Vishnu's energy goes to him. That makes a evil person into more indestructible evil. Though a dharma of war never permits killing some one indirectly, he did killed Vaali because of greater Dharma that to prevailed. When there is a question of rightfulness of two rightful actions occur then one should follow that action which causes greater good. In this case, killing Vaali brings greater good than fighting him in direct combat and possibly losing (since Vaali receives half of his energy). Point 4: In the entire story, Lord Rama was always accompanied by many sages and people. His brother Laxmana was always there with him like his own shadow. Therefore the daily activities of Lord Rama is well known. During Shurpanakha episode, Lord Rama accompanied by none other than Sita herfelf. Therefore there is no question of having fling with someone. But after Sita apaharana, no one know the details of Sita. Even Lord Rama didn't know about her whereabouts. Therefore as a future King of Ayodhya he must prove that their queen is pure. It is part towards "Raja Dharma" and "Kshathriya Dharma" than something personal. He is well aware of that, he need to answer the people of his kingdom as a future king about all his actions. Point 5: As a King, he is accountable to all his actions. When a citizen of his kingdom raises some doubts about his actions then he can do two things; 1. Renounce the kingship 2. Gain the trust from his people by doing what ever necessary. Lord Rama tried the first one but none of his brother are ready to takeover the kingship. Then he left with no option to gain the trust. As per Dharma the relation ship between kings and their subjects is like Father the his Children. In this case he cannot pronounce justice, simply because Sita is his Wife. Therefore the justice will soon get color of partiality also only King can pronounce justice. So there is no other alternative then send her to forest no matter how painful it could be. Point 6: After sending Sita to forest, Lord Rama never tried to learn about her whereabouts. That shows how strong he is at his decisions. When he learned Lava and Kusha are his offsprings, he is ready to take them with him to Kingdom. But he cannot do same with Sita because of previous reasons. Now, with no kids and husband there is rally no purpose of her to alive. That way Maa Laxmi ended her character of Sita. By that time her kids well aware of the story and burden of being a King. Lord Rama and Sita lead their kids by example. Now why Lord Ram is and should worshipped. 1. Lord Rama, shown how a faithful son should act like. 2. Lord Rama, shown how as a gruhastha should follow your dharma 3. Lord Rama, shown as a Kshatriya how you should protect your subjects and act against the corrupt persons 4. Lord Rama, shown as a King how you should lead your people by example and follow Dharma at every step of life and many things. Finally, how humble you should in the life. Even though he is fully aware of his real identity he is never arrogant about it. As a son, student, husband, Kshatriya, father, brother and finally as a King, how a person should act and follow the Dharma is shown by the character of Lord Rama. That's why he is GOD to many people including to me.

feltra,after looking at ur article, im reminded about a quote which goes" Wise men speak because they have something to say,FOOLS because they have to say something". so no point in arguing with u,just wanted to share a thing with guys who've replied to this posts. 1) At the time of Vali‟s death, before he left his body, Rama went close to him. There was an argument between Vali and Rama. Vali said, “Rama, You are a king, and I am a monkey. Are You justified in killing me like this?” Rama said, “Oh, Vali, you know you are a monkey, good! I am a king. Understand that kings hunt, and we kill animals. You are a monkey, so I can kill you. There is nothing wrong with that, since kings hunt regularly.” Vali lost the first argument. 2)Then he made a second argument. “Rama, You are not the king now. Your brother Bharat is the king. You are here in the forest with us now. How can You kill me?” Then Rama replied, “No, Vali, this forest comes under the jurisdiction of our kingdom. Therefore, since My brother is the king, it is My duty to uphold the dharma, the code of conduct. Therefore, I killed you.” 3)Then Vali made his third point. He said, “Rama, You sought the help of my brother Sugriva to attack Ravana. You wanted his help, so You decided to kill me. Rama, You are not intelligent at all. My brother Sugriva is a weak fellow. I have hurt him several times. He will run away with the very mention of my name. Sugriva is such a coward and You wanted his help. How foolish You are, Rama! You could have asked me to help You. I am more powerful. In fact, Your enemy Ravana is also afraid of me. I rolled him like a mat, kept him under my armpit, and gave him a bath in the holy ocean a number of times. Ravana is afraid of me, because he is aware of my strength. You could have asked for my help.” Rama replied, “I wanted your brother Sugriva‟s help, because Sugriva and I are comrades in distress. Both of us lost our kingdom, and are suffering due to separation from our wives. You have kidnapped your brother‟s wife; Ravana has abducted mine. So I know his suffering. Therefore, I am helping him, and wanted his help. Not that I do not know that you are more powerful. Your brother knows what suffering is. This is about friendship.” 4)Then, he came up with another argument. “Ramachandra, is it proper on Your part to shoot the arrow while standing behind a tree. Why couldn‟t You stand in front and kill me. Why did You hide? Is that valour; is that chivalry?”.Rama replied, “Look here, Vali! I‟m aware that the necklace of pearls around your neck was given to you by Brahma in response to your penance. I know that no one can fight with you standing in front of you, as long as you are wearing that necklace. I wanted to honour the boon granted by Brahma, so I had to shoot you standing behind the tree. It is not that I don‟t know this much about dharma in a battle.” 1)Now I come to the second part. Bharatha was Rama‟s younger brother. When he found out about Rama‟s exile, and that he himself was to be crowned the king, he cried. He loved Ramachandra so much that he immediately wanted to kill his mother. Then Vashishta the sage said, “No, no, you cannot kill your mother; it is the worst of the sins. A man like you, born into a noble family and a noble clan, cannot do it.” Bharatha, along with a battalion of the army, left Ayodhya crying, and proceeded to the top of the Chitrakoota mountain on which Rama, Sita and Lakshmana were staying at that time. He approached Ramachandra, fell at His feet, and washed them with tears. Baba described the arguments between the two brothers, which I want you to listen to and appreciate. Bharatha said, “Swami, You are the eldest member of the family. This kingdom belongs to You; I cannot be the king. Please come back to Ayodhya and rule all of us.” Rama said, “No, Bharatha, I cannot.” “Why?” “I should follow my father‟s command.” “What is the command of our father?” “His command is that you should be the king and I should go to the forest. I cannot take back that kingdom. I have to keep the promise and uphold the principle of truth. I should follow the command of my father.” Thus one point is lost. 2)Then Bharatha made a second point. BHARATHA SURRENDERS HIS KINGDOM TO RAMA “Oh brother, alright, I accept that I am the king. As a king I have the right to forsake the kingdom. I am surrendering my kingdom as the ruler and giving it to You. Please come back and rule the kingdom.” Then Rama laughed and said, “No, Bharatha, you do not have the right to surrender like that and give Me the kingdom. It is father‟s command that you should be the king, and I should be in exile.” That is how Bharatha lost the second argument. 3)Then he made the third argument.  5 Bharatha said, “Swami, alright! Father Dasaratha previously said that You were going to be the King of Ayodhya the next morning. This decision was made after consulting everyone, and the kings appreciated the nomination.” “Later the same night, Dasaratha, after talking to Kaikeyi, revised his opinion and wanted me to be the king and You to go to the forest. Brother Rama, Dasaratha wanted You to be the king and gave the orders as the Emperor of Ayodhya. Later this same Dasaratha, in the capacity of a husband, was carried away by our stepmother Kaikeyi. Out of his infatuation with her, he reversed the previous order and wanted me to be the king and You to go to the forest. So You should follow the command of King Dasaratha, not that of Dasaratha, the infatuated husband of Kaikeyi!” This was a powerful argument. Rama replied, “No Bharatha! Do you think there are two Dasarathas? Do you think we have two fathers, one Dasaratha asking Me be the king, and another Dasaratha asking Me to go to the forest? There is just one Dasaratha: he is the king outside, and the father in the royal palace. It is the same person! Do not make such arguments. Please go back and rule the kingdom.”  Finally Bharath said, “Swami, alright, I yield to Your command. After fourteen years, I want You to return. I will not stay in Ayodhya. I will stay in the village of Nandi and rule the whole kingdom for fourteen years. I will be in charge during Your absence. I will keep Your padukas (sandals) on the throne, and serve the kingdom in Your holy name. You should return immediately after fourteen years. If You do not, I will jump into the fire and commit suicide.” Then Rama gave him His sandals and Bharatha returned. o"Ramo Vigrahavan Dharma" you think sages are fools to make this stmt,do u have any idea about depth and magnanimity of this stmt,you will be amazed, if you are serious and yearning to know about Lord Rama and his story,make sincere efforts otherwise you will look like all those fools who questioned Galileo and Socrates on their Wisdom.Having born in this great nation,live upto its stature do not make fun of our scriptures with dirty interpretations and I have intentionally not spoken about Lord Rama & Mother Sita relationship,because there is no point in speaking about Algebra when you hardly know numbers.

I am not sure, if this answer will serve coming as it is so late in the day. However, I am giving it a shot. Also, it doesn't really answer your question; it might offer a different perspective. In my opinion, Rama was perhaps later revered, but the popularity of earlier Ramayana doesn't have anything to do with Rama being a God (I don't think he was, or not a realised one like Krishna--aware of his actions, but that is irrelevant). Rather it has to do with a simple story, well told, of family drama, fililal, brotherly and romantic (as strong as the other two) bond, and the struggles of a man while he tries to balance duty with love. What makes the story excellant that while from Rama's perspective he may have taken the best decisions, from the reader's perspective he did commit injustices and wrongs, and yet he wasn't a tyrant or a selfish person. I think it is a story most people in the earlier era could relate to. It told of a perspective that is straightforward, instead of the actual, more complex picture--perhaps, as some people have suggested in another qn (about which being the greater epic), the people were less evolved then and had simpler perspectives, and yet it is still complex in portraying his struggles. If he was indeed God (and as per our Vedanta, everyone is God, so not sure why that matters), probably his point was to let folks know the suffering associated with human life rather than the best way to leave. If you want to look at the best way to leave, there are many other, much better role models--King Rishabha, King Prithu, King Bharata and so on. Regarding your points (I'll offer my perspective from assuming that Rama was a human):   1. In Valmiki Ramayana, when Ram is told by Kaikeyi that he needs to go to the Forest because Bharata is to be king and that is a boon she asked for, Ram responds with delight--says that mother Kaikeyi is so loving, she wants me to enjoy life while she allows Bharata to bear the burden of kingship. Now, this could be mere sweet talking. However, the middle part of the story suggests that this is indeed the case. Rama was very happy in the forest with Sita (perhaps, he may not have been so happy without Sita, can't say); he used to point out the beauties of the forest to her. He used to stand in Godavari and revel in the river's beauty. He used to enjoy visiting rishis and having philosophical talks with them. Doesn't this suggest that his action may not have been from a blind following of his father's word, but that he was also following his heart (provided he had faith in Bharata's ability to rule, which I think he had).   That kinda makes Rama seem selfish in following his heart's desire, and he could be construed as such if you don't remember that the king had four sons, and Bharata could very have ruled quite as well as his father. So, Rama was not leaving the kingdom orphaned like Mahendra and Sanghamitra did (Asoka's children--that however is history not myth). Also, see, if you consider his father's word, the word was that Bharata will be king permanently, not for just 14 years, but Rama's exile would be 14 years. Am not sure why Kaikeyi put an end limit to the exile (perhaps hoping that Bharata can consolidate his rule in that time, and not wanting Rama to suffer more than is required), but she did only to exile; not to the rule. So, if he was following his father's word, he shouldn't have taken back the kingship. He perhaps did it because Bharata wanted him to and he is also a loving brother.   Another point may be that Rama wanted to avoid a civil war which could have lead to lose of life. His mother Kaikeyi, who had until now considered him her favourite son had suddenly turned sides. If you think of his as human (and not a omniscient being), he couldn't predict what Bharata's reaction would be (despite knowing him and loving him). If Bharata went with his mother you would have a civil war, wouldn't you? Considering that he didn't think much of kingship anyways, and may perhaps have had trust in his brother's ruling abilities, he could've thought that the best way forward is leaving. [The only thing against this is that Rama sent Bharata back when the latter came to take him back. Am not sure why he did that. perhaps, because he trusted Bharata's abilities and thought he could enjoy his exile for some time. Or perhaps, that part of the story is made up to add drama--the fact that Bharata came to him too request his return rather than just to visit him and clear the air.] It could also be that the point of the exile was diplomacy rather than step motherly treatment. Rama was sent to make friends with and conquer the people south of Ayodhya; which again explains Bharata's visit. I am not making a case for Aryan invasaion mind you. I am just pointing out that imperialism and conquest were the ways of life for kings of that era, and that makes sense. nothing to do with race. 2. Rama visited a lot of rishis during his time before Sita Apaharan. This may not look like a big deal, or great, however, Valmiki Ramayana, am sure doesn't portray it as something to be revered. It is worthy of respect because Rama went to these places as a seeker and person who respected and revered these rishis instead of as a king/prince who thought of them as his subjects. He used these visits perhaps to further his knowledge. Perhaps for diplomatic purposes, considering that some of these rishis had weapons, and could hence have been diplomats themselves. Killing rakhasas is not the only great thing a ruler can do. He was humble and he respected knowledge. That is worthy of respect. 3. Did he even know much about Vaali before meeting Sugriva--enough to know that Vaali would've helped him retrieve Sita? Perhaps not. From Sabari (I believe) to Hanuman everybody he met pointed him towards Sugriva. Even before meeting Hanuman, the story he heard suggested that Vaali was a bad, autocratic brother. Consdiering how high in his esteem brotherly relationship is, he may have thought that Vaali will not help him with his quest, because, seriously, how can a guy who treated his younger brother in such a way be trusted? If you consider it from a strategic point of view, it may also make sense to support the less stronger brother because he is more controllable. Or, at least less of a threat. And if you think that Rama's friendship with Sugriva was a strategic decision, then the killing of Vaali--the how of it--makes sense. Because, after the oath of friendship, from Sugriva's perspective or from the perspective of their alliance, Vaali needed to be killed no matter what. It wasn't a trial; it was a rebellion; and in rebellion, eliminating the threat is what matters. [Besides what is the big deal with where you use the weapon from? Killing is killing, and it is bad. So, if you go buy the rules of rulers and conquests, Rama didn't do anything wrong.] If you consider that Ruma thing, that perhaps is a good excuse, but apparently Sugriva ended up taking Vaali's wife (Tara) so how's that much better? The point from the story supporting this is what happened when Vibhishana approaches Rama and takes his protection. Sugriva was strongly against it and said so, saying someone who betrays his brother cannot be trusted. At that time, Rama doesn't say anything; but he looks at Lakshmana and smiles (meaningfully). The smile--kind of a "Look who's talking" one-- indicates that Rama was well aware of the problematic considerations regarding Sugriva's rebellion and went with it for strategic decisions and he was doing the same with Vibhishina (it ended up helping him, didn't it?). Vibhishina gave him the insider's knowledge on Ravana's strategies and those helped Rama win the war.   4. Rama denouncing Sita. Well, he loved Sita, there is no doubt about that. That is why he agreed to take Sita into exile against his better judgement, because Sita wanted to go with him [You can say that it was a sense of duty that prompted Sita to ask to go, but I think  that is demeaning her love (and his), and also a patriarchal interpretation of her wishes (that her dutiful nature prompted her to ask to go with him and his agreement was also because of that and it was not a husband giving in to his wife because he loved her). She wanted to go because she loved him and wanted to be with him. Her pleasure at his agreement shows that; and she was very happy during exile too (not the stereotypical spoiled princess who loved luxury)].   However, he also thought much of his duty as a ruler. And as a ruler of the times (when the society was a hundred or a thousand times more patriarchal than it is now), he perhaps understood that taking back Sita after her stint in Ravana's home will not be much appreciated by his subjects. Consider here, that he was in South in a diplomatic mission; or that he meant to return to Ayodhya as ruler because Bharata wanted him to. So he knew his future is that of a king. And as a king, he couldn't be considered weak or hen pecked. Consider, that he was brought up by a king who thought so less of women that he gave his daughter away, despite lamenting the lack of offpsings thoughout (to him offsping was son, not daughter). That he respected and loved Sita despite that speaks either about his character or Sita's character or both.   That being the case, he chose duty over his wife and hence, denounced her. After all, there is no way to prove her purity, is there? If the Fire Test took place, that proved her chastity to him (a proof I think he wasn't looking for) and he hoped perhaps that that could be used to allay his subjects' doubts. If it is just poetic extrapolation, then perhaps he gave in after Sita's lament, and her decision to commit suicide by jumping into the fire because he loved Sita.   The story after crowning is not considered to be part of original Ramayana by many. So, perhaps, that didn't happen. If it did, the reasons are the same as above. Patriarchal notions, combined with his sense of duty, which required him to put his people's wishes first. The trail was perhaps not considered because, who know where it'd lead. What is the punishment for an adulterous wife in those times? If you consider that Ravana was under no compulsion to respect Sita's wishes, she may well have been raped, which means she was no longer the pure wife. What kind of conviction could Rama have had to decide that Sita would be proved not guilty? Not much, I think. Which is probably why he sent her to Valmiki's Ashrama where he knew that she would be at least be safe and in peace if not happy--unhappy because he left her not because she had to live there. (She had even wanted to go there to visit). He had the option of abdicating like King Edward, but I think that may also have compromised his subjects' trust in their ruler. Also, he may not have wanted to transfer the burden to Bharata, now that he knew the full extent of it. The fact that Rama's decision was not the most just or even right in the minds of enlightened people is indicated by Valmiki's treatment of Rama when he asks Sita to do the fire test again. Also, by the fact that Sita refuses. I think both at the end of battle with Sita, and here, it is Sita who prevails--which makes me think that the poet wasn't a chauvnist, no matter the times. Okay, that is about it. ;-)

The question itself is not provocative but the explanation is. The questioner should understand such questions will be considered a great blasphemy and liable to capital punishment in many major religions in the world esp. Abrahamic religions (Of course Christianity has changed now from such extreme views at present but not fully). The answers from all the writers shows the magnanimity they acquire from characters like Rama.As your specific points of the questions have been answered but I understand not to your full satisfaction. It is not possible to satisfy a person who want to replace a story book for an Ithihasa (epic) to understand spiritual truths. The word itihAsa splits as iti-ha-Asa and means thus-verily-happened and such an account can not be replaced by any Triology books.Honourable Srinivas Sastri gave a word of caution to the readerof Ramayana when he said: "Deal Rama not as a man in whom there was all knowledge, all propriety, all virtues from the very beginning and unfailing till the end. That is not the way to read his life but as a man who struggled,was tempted, who has his weakness."Valmiki did not want to treat the problem of Dharma in abstraction but wanted to give a demonstration of Dharma in action. Hence he wrote this beautiful song Ramayana. One meets therein personalities from among men, monkeys, birds and other primates who demonstrate from their views,feelings, behaviour and actions the heights of stature a person may rise to. It is in this sense that Sri Rama is an embodiment of Dharma in action. Therefore, Valmiki is very fond of using the expression that Rama is a living Icon of Dharma (Ramo Vigrahavan Dharmah).Maaricha, while speaking to Ravana-(Aranya Kandam 37-13):raamo vigrahavaan dharmaH saadhuH satyaparaakramaH | raajaa sarvasya lokasya devaanaam iva vaasavaH || 3-37-13"Rama is the embodiment of Dharma,he is an equable person with truthfulness as his valour, and as with Indra to all gods he is the king of entire world. [3-37-13]Lord Rama is considered the embodiment of dharma – every act of His worth emulating without reservations. Be it His ready acceptance of father’s order for exile, rejection of Bharata’s fervent pleas for return, sticking to ekapatnivrata, giving shelter to Vibhishana,everywhere His decisions reflect His ardent desire to stick to dharma at all costs.As he is the king of entire world, he punished Vali and this has been explained in almost all the answers.As he is the embodiment of Dharma, let us understand what Dharma is.Dharma is defined in a general way as:"That on which the existence and prosperity of this universe as well as fair dealing depend is Dharma."That which is for the good of this universe is Dharma. Thissignifies that Dharma is virtue that is to be practised by each individual.These virtues are identified and listed for giving proper guidance to humanity.[Note:"Existence and prosperity of this universe" is the key sentence here. The Dharma ofthe individual is the "existence and prosperity" of the individualself. Higher than that is the Dharma or duty to the family. Higher than that isthe Dharma to the community. Higher than that is the Dharma to all the citydwellers. Higher than that is the Dharma to the entire nation. Higher than thatis the Dharma to the entire human race. Higher than that is the Dharma to allcreatures, to the whole universe. The higher category supersedes the lowercategory.]Rama says: "When the oppressed seeks relief, at the handsof a virtuous and capable person, it is supreme Dharma to protect thesurrendered even at the cost of one’s own life." Rama revealed thissupreme Dharma by saying that even if the surrendered person is Ravana himself,he would save even those that deserve to be killed.When mother Kaushalya and also the citizens of Ayodhya pleadwith Rama not go to the forest, Rama replies that Dharma lies in obeying thewords of the father and that he, being devoted to Dharma, cannot transgress thewords of his father.(Rama is not yet a king.) At this stage Rama’s Dharma is thatof a son. After returning from the forest, upon being crowned as King, Rama’sDharma as a king takes precedence over his own self or over his family. Theinterest of the kingdom or the nation is above that of the individual or thefamily of the individual (now crowned as king.) In the interest of the kingdom,Rama would sacrifice his own life; would sacrifice his family life (banish hiswife Sita).Rama says: "I can renounce my life, Lakshmana, and you, Sita, but I cannot break my promise.Valmiki shows, by using extreme examples, how Dharma assumes different roles according to the changed circumstances. Contrast the Dharma of Rama as a son (not yet a king) with Rama as a King. Rama as a son did not have the relationship between king and subjects as when citizens of Ayodhya plead with Rama not to go to the forest.]In one of the passages describing the words of Sita, thesignificance of Dharma is expounded. Sita asks Rama to practise Dharma of theTapovana (of the Rishis and the ascetics) so long as he dwells in the forestand to take to the bow and arrow after returning to the capital. Sita wantedRama to follow the path of the hermits and not to engage himself in vanquishingthe demons that troubled the sages.Rama, who was steadfast in Dharma says that it is the Dharma ofa Kshatriya to redeem the world from suffering and sorrow. Dharma is not a moodof helpless passivity but dynamic activity against the offenders of Dharma.The following is from the Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda,9-30,31."Wealth comes out of Dharma. Happiness comes out ofDharma. Everything is obtainable from Dharma. Dharma is the essence of thisuniverse. The adept attain Dharma by disciplining themselves by the conditionsof Dharma, with great effort; one cannot get happiness from happiness.".Dharma is eightfold as: "Sacrifice, Vedic study, Charity,Penance, Truth, Fortitude, Forgiveness, Non-desire."The following ten are characteristics of Dharma (DharmaLakshanam).Fortitude, forgiveness, restraint, non-stealing, purity,control over sense organs, intelligence, knowledge, truth, absence of anger.‘Dharma’ is a term which could be understood but which cannotproperly be translated into any other language. This word comes from the root‘DRI’ which means supporting. That which is the support of this universe isDharma. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14.says:"Yet he did not flourish. He created that Dharma which has an excellent form. This Dharma is the controller of Kshatriya. Therefore, there is nothing higher than that. Even a weak man hopes to defeat a strong man by Dharma as one does through the king. Dharma is verily Satya or truth. A speaker of truth is said to speak Dharma or a person speaking Dharma is said to speak truth. Both these are but righteousness."The glory of creation was not complete without Dharma. Dharma may mean action approved by the scriptures. It may also mean the unseen result of such action. Dharma has different shades of meaning and signifies different things acording to the context. It may mean a Sadhana or a means and then it signifies righteousness. It may also mean in another sense the very Principlewhich is the support or ground of everything else in this universe. In thissupreme sense ‘Dharma’ means the Supreme Being who is the support of everyother thing.Sri Rama is described as the very embodiment of Dharma in both these senses.Adi Kavi (the first poet laureate) Valmiki wrote Ramayana notonly to sing the melodious glory and story of Sri Rama, the Prince of Ayodhya,but to present to the posterity a practical philosophy of life, a vision ofTruth, by telling how to lead a pious life, within the prevailing conditions ofone’s existential conditions.It has a pragmatic message for a busy man how to go about his daily life so that he would not only acquire his needs here, but also get what he deserves hereafter. The Bard of ancient lore sang into Ramayana songs of sacrifice, heroism, service, love,suffering, pathos and songs of sane advice, and made it a long epic and a perennial source of inspiration and enculturing influence upon the readers

I really respect your inquisitiveness. But it would be good if you try to hear Ram katha from devotees and than you can put your questions to them. but if you try to hear it from atheists it will cause your falldown. Why rama killed vali from behind? (some part has been well answered by Mr. i add some part which i read from your comments to his answer.) According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another’s land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. this means that they can even be killed without going through the etiquette/rules of fighting/War. eg. Suppose Man is raping someone's wife/daughter/girl do you mean to say that he should simply wait call police while he is continuing raping. Or you want him to say "Stop all this nonsense, fight with me like Men to Men" To kill these person unlawfully is the Law. And same has been done while killing Karna. What do you think that Ram requires monkey's Army to win the battle to the best of the Demon Ravan.? Lord Ram had already proven his power when khardushan send some 14 thousand or lacs demons to kill him.(i m not sure whether they are thousands or lacs) He simply by one arrow killed all those 14 thousands/lac demons. Do you mean to say that he is not powerful enough to kill Ravan on his own.? NO he simply employed devotees in his service so as to give them credit. Mother Sita Agni Pariksha Doubt? if you would had read valmiki ramayan than you will find that actually Mother Sita was given to Agni Dev to keep her as daughter (before ravan kidnapping) And therafter comes the chaya sita (not actual sita) because if ravan would had touched the actual sita ,he would had burned to ashes at the same time because a chaste wife aquires so much power due to his service to the husband that no sinful person can touch her. In the disguise of Agni pariksha he actually take back the original sita from Agni Dev. Why Rama Renounces Sita? Sita is lakshmi himself and most chaste wife. only mad person will renounce this kind of wife. So yes Ram is Mad but for the welfare of general people. But being husband is his second responsibility and king is the primary. Just to show from his eg. that unchasteness  shall not be accepted as this pollutes the nation. he renounces his wife he gave up his own pleasure for the sake of his country people. secondary reason That He wants to give highest pleasure to Mother sita. same pleasure which. krishna gaves to the people of vraj vasi when he left vraj (vrindavan) i.e. Love in Seperation. it's the highest of all the pleasures. well there are all the answers for you enquiries but it's recommended that you should hear them from Bonafide Devotees.