Comments on Rama and Sita

[Guest guest]

K. Sreekrishna's comments on Ramayana do not agree with

Visishtadvaita philosophy on the following grounds. Rama and Sita

cannot commit apacharams. They own everything and they make laws.

They are themselves not bound by the laws except where the choose to

follow the laws. Attaining Moksha does not mean getting rid of pain

and suffering. In fact there is untold pain and suffering in the

hearts of devotees when they feel separation from Bhagavan. I have

been told by one individual who has experienced this separation that

there is sweetness even in this pain. Happiness and pain for

jivatmas in the state of perfection is in relation to experiencing

the company of and separation from the Lord of Sri. This has nothing

to do with Karma in which the pain is because of our forgetting our

relationship with the Lord of Sri.

 

Secondly Rama never ceased to be an Avataram because He is a Poorna

Avataram unlike Parsurama or Kapila. In the case of Rama there is no

jivatma through whom Bhagavan displays His leelas.

 

Regarding Mani's comments that the story of Vedavati cannot be

considered as valid because only Tulsidas has given this story:

 

I would have agreed with Mani if only Tulsidas had mentioned this.

However this story appears in connection with Venkateshwara Avataram

and because the Purana is written by Vyasa, I consider it to be

valid. If only the Ramayana is to be considered, then the indication

of Rama being Bhagavan is only hinted at, while in at least two

places Rama denies that He is God. In that case we will have to

conclude that He is a mere human and we would not be discussing why

He behaved that way towards Sita.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

On Jan 20, Jaganath.Bharadwaj wrote:

> Attaining Moksha does not mean getting rid of pain

> and suffering.

 

This statement about moksha vitiates against the

entire tradition of Vedanta. At the *very* least,

all schools of Indian philosophy, particularly

Vedanta, hold as fundamental the idea that moksha consists

of the complete elimination of any trace of pain and

suffering. In fact, this is the very definition of

the word, as it refers to a ``release'' from the

dualities inherent in worldly existence.

 

Now, undergoing pain and suffering in this state would also

be illogical, because if moksha did not mean the end of such

an existence, why would anyone strive for it? Why would

it be called the highest goal of life? If it were also

fraught with the duality of pain and pleasure, it would

be no better than life here, which is a mixed bag as we

are all aware.

 

Specifically, according to Visishtadvaita, moksha

consists of ``paripUrNa brahmAnubhava'', an unbroken,

infinite experience of God. This vision of the Ultimate

is inherently blissful and in this state, the individual

self has an unlimited consciousness and is bereft of any

imperfection. This being the case, there can be no room

for sorrow, return to worldly existence, etc.

 

On a completely different issue, the ``maya'' Sita who

mysteriously takes the place of the ``real'' Sita before

Ravana kidnaps her:

> Regarding Mani's comments that the story of Vedavati cannot be

> considered as valid because only Tulsidas has given this story:

>

> I would have agreed with Mani if only Tulsidas had mentioned this.

> However this story appears in connection with Venkateshwara Avataram

> and because the Purana is written by Vyasa, I consider it to be

> valid.

 

I strongly urge you not to make any religious or philosophical

conclusions based on sthala puranas, most of which were written

far after even the latest of the 18 mahapuranas. Aside from the

doubtful ascription of authorship of the Venkateshvara

Avataram to Vyaasa, there is no reason to take any sthala purana's

words over that of Valmiki's.

 

Concocting a fake Sita also robs the Ramayana story of any

interest. Since you are operating on the presumption that

Rama knew everything that was happening, why would he invade

Lanka on the flimsy reason that a ``maya'' Sita was kidnapped?

If the point was to kill Ravana, why did he not just go to

Lanka without a pretext and just do it?

 

Obviously, the ``maya'' Sita story serves no purpose other

than to make the audience feel better about Sita's mistreatment.

Other than serving such an emotional need, it has no basis

in Valmiki and deserves to be discarded as such.

 

Mani

 

 

+----

To post to the list, please mail bhakti.

For all administrative requests, mail mani.

To access mailing list archives, send a message containing *only*

the single word "help" (no quotes) to:

bhakti-request

+----