Guest guest Posted January 20, 1996 Report Share Posted January 20, 1996 Sat, Jan 20, 1996 01:29 AM EDT Tatachar Subj: Ramayana prapatti Here are some more thoughts about the apparent discrepancies in Valmiki Ramayana: 1. Bhagavatha apacharam by Sita towards Lakshmana (forced him out to go to Rama's assistance with abusive words at the deer episode) and Hanuman (refused to be carried by him back to Rama). 2. Sita accompanied Rama to forest, against the will of all the elders including Rama concerned. Holier than thou attitude. Because of #1 and 2, Sita had to suffer abduction and banishment. 3. Rama caused deep pain to Bharatha and Kaikaeyi (also to kausalya and Sumithra) by not returning to Ayodhya when they requested him to return. After all it is quite clear that Dasharatha never wanted Rama to go to forest. It was Kaikeyi's idea. So when Kaikeyi retracted her demand of Rama's exciled, where is the need for Rama insisting to fulfill his word to Dasharatha? As a result of the pain he caused, his judgement was blurred at the sight of the deer and Sita was abducted. 4. Rama ceased to be an avataram after fulfilling the task of killing Ravana. Then on he was just a noble King of the Raghuvamsha. (Did not remarry after banishment of Sita, although his noble father had 3 wives. The reason for this is that Dasharatha did not have progeny, so he was trying; however, Sita was pregnant at the time of banishment). 5. To make the narrtaion more dramatic, and challenging, the poet Valmiki may have introduced some of these turns and twists. 6. Just as the few cloudy days and the eclipse do not taint the Sun in any big or permanaent way, so also these turns and twists do not impact the glory of Rama. 7. These instances that are boggling to us may as well be there as dhrushti bhottus (to ward of evil eyes) for the nearly perfect characters of Rama and Sita. As we know, it is difficult to make fine jewelery with 24 carrot gold, so a small amount of inferior metal is added to work the gold! Sincerely, K. Sreekrishna(tatachar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 1996 Report Share Posted January 22, 1996 Mr. Jaganath said @@@@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@@@@@ Srirangam Srimad Thirukudnadai Andavan (Kannan Swamigal) in his Ramayana pravachanam says as follows about the inner meaning of Sita Apaharanam: Worldly desires keep us away from Paramatma. Sita's worldly ambition to have the golden deer resulted in her separation from Rama. Through this Sita showed to the world that as long as we are indulged in worldly desires, we will remain farther and farther from the Paramatama. In addition to her desire for the golden deer, Sita insulted Lakshmana(Bhagavatapacharam). The Bhagavathapachara phalam further assured her separation from Rama. Thus by her example, Sita showed to the world that Vishaya Sukhecchei (Desire to indulge in worldly things) and Bhagavathapacharam (insult to Bhaktas) would lead to Ghoravada Phala (grave consequences). (Reference: Page 119: Sri Ramakathasara - Kannada version of lectures on Ramayana by Srirangam Srimad Andavan Swamigal, Kannada translation by Mattur Krishna Murthy, Published by Shankara Murthy, Guruguha gana Nilaya, 1367, VII Main, Sriramapuram, Bangalore 560021) Whether this is a 100% valid interpretation as per Sri-Vaishnava philosophy, I believe so, but am unable to defend. Sincerely, K. Sreekrishna(tatachar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.