Rama's banishment of Sita

[Guest guest]

One point that seems to have been missed in the discussions so far is

that there were two instances when Sita entered a fire. One was

before Ravana showed up to kidnap her and the second time was in

Lanka after Ravana was killed. In the first instance Mahalakshmi

left the earth and was replaced by a Jivatma Vedavati. Ravana did

not have the Bhagyam of carrying away Mahalakshmi. In the second

instance Vedavati was replaced and the original Sita was reunited

with Rama. Incidentally Vedavati was raped by Ravana long time ago

which led to Ravana being cursed by Brahma. It is for this reason

alone that Ravana waited for Sita to voluntarily marry him. Rama due

to his Ekapatni Vrata could not accept Vedavati as His wife. But

because of His Parama Karuna, He married Vedavati when she came as

Padmavati in the Srinivasa Avataram. This is told in the Puranas

dealing with Venkatesha avataram as published by TTD.

 

Lord Krishna on the other hand married 16,000 princesses who had been

imprisoned by an evil king and who would have been shunned by the

rest of society if Lord Krishna had not married them.

 

It is important to note that Ramanujacharya in more than one work has

described Narayana as the "Lord of Sri" and "opposed to all that is

inauspicious". Narayana whether in Vaikuntham or as an avatAra on

earth can never do anything wrong and He always has a reason for

whatever He does. He can never be accused of doing anything that is

not right. Just as the supreme court is not bound by the precedent

that it sets, Rama is not bound by the rules that He has made for us.

In fact even Mukta jivatmas are not bound by these rules.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

I could'nt wait at the sidelines anymore! So, here goes .....

 

This is in response to some of the points raised by John Grimes:

 

1) Rama has already paid the price for doing sita's bidding in going

through the agony of separation. You only have to read through Valmiki's

detailed narration ( in unabridged form) of Rama's suffering to

appreciate it.

Rama didn't have to banish himself. In the days of the Ramayana

( and even today ) any married woman who spent a long time (or, for that

matter, a short time) in another man's house was considered tainted(

whether she was tainted or not). She was banished for this reason, not

for kidnapping.

 

2) I agree with your, "to banish Sita is a utilitarian solution - the

greatest good for the greatest amount of people" theory, but it was

necessary even when it was unfair to Sita. This is the price royalty

have to pay for the "other privilages" they enjoy over lesser

mortals like us. Why do you think Princess Diana wants out of the

marriage? She simply cannot handle the protocalls associated with being

"royal".

 

 

3). As to Sugriva's incident, I don't have an explanation. Incidentally,

you might recall Rama kills Vali by hiding behind a bush - against all

rules of combat. I am sure it would be a piece of cake for Rama to

come out in the open and finish off Vali just as easily as you and I could

exterminate a mosquito. I suspect Valmiki, being a very wise saint, had

good reason portray the incident the way he did.

 

 

M. Sheshadri

[Guest guest]

On Jan 18, 5:05am, Jaganath.Bharadwaj wrote:

> One point that seems to have been missed in the discussions so far is

> that there were two instances when Sita entered a fire. One was

> before Ravana showed up to kidnap her and the second time was in

> Lanka after Ravana was killed. In the first instance Mahalakshmi

> left the earth and was replaced by a Jivatma Vedavati.

 

This version of the story is only found in Tulsidas's

Ram Charit Manas and has no basis in Valmiki's original.

Having a ``maaya'' Sita adds no interest to the story

and should not be given much weight. According to

Valmiki, the one and only Sita was forcibly abducted

to Lanka by Ravana with his own hands.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

On Jan 18, 5:05am, Jaganath.Bharadwaj wrote:

> In fact even Mukta jivatmas are not bound by these rules.

 

Once again, I must insist that you clarify this statement.

What is a ``mukta jivatma''? If the jIva mukta is still living

in a conventional sense, according to Visishtadvaita, by

definition this jIva is not a mukta. A jIva can only be

considered released if it is in Vaikuntha.

 

Unlike Advaita, Visishtadvaita does not have a concept

of jIvanmukti.

 

Mani