Sita

[Guest guest]

>Regarding Krishna Praba and Vijay Srinivasan's comments per Sita:

 

Certainly there have been many "explanations" or proposed explanations put

forth through the centuries in an attempt to explain/justify/make

comprehensible or meaningful the events which took place in regards to

Sita. I did not propose any "solutions" - I merely stated some queries that

my students have put forth. In the classroom (and outside of it) I have

been known to attempt my own interpretations and defend them vociferously

with all the weapons at my command - quoting scripture; logic; analogy;

devotion, etc. In this instance, however, I merely was sharing some

enquiries which University raise for our mutual contemplation. Some of the

points I find often unexamined.

 

On one point, let me apologize. It was not Sugriva (as I had mistakenly

stated) but Valli that Rama asked to forgive his wife. Rama asked Valli to

forgive Tara for "being with Sugriva" and to take her back. One may attempt

to explain this as the dharma for Rama is not the dharma for Valli - but I

find that unsatisfactory. If the point is to protect the nation's citizens

from adulterous ideas, and to uphold the honor of the King, then it

pertains to Kings everywhere does it not?

 

Per the deer incident, it was precisely because of the deer incident that

she was "touched" (in some sense or other) and thus put through fire ordeal

and finallly even banished (as the story goes). As Vijay says, the incident

may have been essential - and Sita may have repented for it - and Rama may

have been remorseful over it, but the point of the student's enquiry is,

"If Sita was put through the fire ordeal because she had been with another

man, Rama, too, must bear part of the blame for he, too, was part of the

cause." The question is not that the divine is inexplicable or that Rama

and Sita were divinity in disguise or that both underwent mental agony -

the question is, why does Sita have to undergo the fire ordeal and Rama

gets away with his behavior.

 

John Grimes

 

---

John Grimes, Dept of Philosophy, NUS

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

>The issue of

>when the substitution was supposed to have occurred is not known

>clearly from shaastric evidence available to me. I was led to believe

>by some that it occurred just after Lakshmana left Siitaa but before Raavaana

>kidnapped Her. However,

 

The Devibhagavata purana (acording to Puranic encyclopedia) says that Agni

appeared and took Sita away a few days before the golden deer Mariica

appeared.

 

The Maadhva position may also be the same: KT Pandurangi writes "The events of

Sri Rama being misled by Mariica, Siitaa longing for the deer, Sita being

kidnapped by Ravana etc. are merely lokavidambana."

 

Presumably the Gaudiya position is also the same.

 

This sequence implies that the Sita who accused Laksmana (Sri Ramanuja to be?)

of illictly desiring Her as his wife was not the real Sita but the jiva. This

makes logical sense, I don't think Sri-devi would ever accuse Ramanujacharya

of that.

>Also, I do not know if the maayaa-Siitaa represents an actual illusion, a

>jiivaa taking Siitaa-maata's place, or some sort of expansion of Siitaa.

 

Devibhagavata portrays her as a real jiva, who was Vedavati in the last life

and Draupadi in the next life. The jivatma and post cremation ashes of

Vedavati were taken from the South and abandoned in Mithila. When the real

Sita was born, Her Prakrti (i.e. matter and jiva of Vedavati) are associated

with Her Divine body until the separation (by Agni?) before the kidnapping. In

a sense, one may say that this prakrti is Sita's expansion according to the

Devi-bhagavata purana account.

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktas,

 

I think we have discussed the mAyA-sItA story to exhaustion.

We now know several versions of this story, thanks to the

many correspondents who have contributed.

 

Let's move on to new topics.

 

Thanks,

Mani