Sita Piratti's three separations from Sri Rama

[Guest guest]

Sriman Mohan Raghavan's unqualified Bhakti is revealed in his statement:

 

"I believe that one can only truly begin to understand just how much

the Divine Couple really love each other and every one of us by

meditating on how much pain they must have felt. The ones who are

described as inseparable as the fragrance and the flower, as the sun

and the light, were separated for so many months for the sake of the

ignorant souls of this world, only to have to undergo such a horrible

test to set an example to these same unworthy souls."

 

A similar sentiment has been expresed by Narayana Bhattathiri in his

Narayaneeyam, Ch.35:10 -- "This incarnation of Thine is to teach

mankind (marthya shikshaartham) that pain of separation

(vishleshaarthih) and banishment of the innocent (niraagas-thyajanam)

will surely happen (niyatham bhaveth) on account of excesive

attachment to Dharma (kaamaDharmAdhisakthyaa)."

 

Plausible accounts like Maya Sita imply the assumption that the Lord,

even in his incarnations, should not/could not have acted in the

manner narrated in Valmiki's Ramayana. Bhattathiri's sentiments,

echoed in Mohan Raghavan's excellent posting are rooted in complete,

unquestioning faith in the Lord instead of mentally imposing upon the

Lord one's own concept of Dharma and Adharma. Perhaps, that is why in

His next incarnation, Sri Krishna has advised us: "sarva dharmaan

parithyajya Maamekam sharanam vraja". Accepting Valmiki's narration

of the Lord's actions in true faith will enable us to learn the

lessons which Shri Rama and Sri Sita Piratti wanted to teach us by

thir actions and their sufferings as humans.

 

We truly lose a lot by explaining away such actions by interpolating

our own accounts based on our limited concepts of dharma.

 

Adiyen

Dasan MK Krishnaswamy

[Guest guest]

>Plausible accounts like Maya Sita imply the assumption that the Lord,

>even in his incarnations, should not/could not have acted in the

>manner narrated in Valmiki's Ramayana. Bhattathiri's sentiments,

>echoed in Mohan Raghavan's excellent posting are rooted in complete,

>unquestioning faith in the Lord instead of mentally imposing upon the

>Lord one's own concept of Dharma and Adharma. Perhaps, that is why in

>His next incarnation, Sri Krishna has advised us: "sarva dharmaan

>parithyajya Maamekam sharanam vraja". Accepting Valmiki's narration

>of the Lord's actions in true faith will enable us to learn the

>lessons which Shri Rama and Sri Sita Piratti wanted to teach us by

>thir actions and their sufferings as humans.

>

> We truly lose a lot by explaining away such actions by interpolating

>our own accounts based on our limited concepts of dharma.

>

>Adiyen

>Dasan MK Krishnaswamy

 

 

Dear MK Krishnaswamy,

 

The explanation provided by me regarding the Maayaa-Siitaa was not my own,

but rather the one given by Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaaryas such as Shriila

Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja Gosvaamii. Furthermore, neither he nor the Gaudiiya

Vaishnava aachaaryas were responsible for the genesis of this explanation.

Rather, it is attributed to the Kuurma Puraana. This account of the

Maayaa-Siitaa does not contradict Valmiiki's Raamaayana; it complements it.

 

It is hardly an interpolation, nor is it based on "limited concepts of

dharma." Dharma isn't even the point; as I have already explained, the

relevant issues were the idea of a materialist like Raavana being able to

touch and apprehend with his material senses the spiritual form of the very

hladini-shakti of the Lord, who is inseparable from Him. Needless to say, I

am not interested in forcing the view down anyone's throat. I merely

presented the only explanation with

which I am familiar, in response to a question posed by another member of

the list. As I have been led to believe in the past that this list is not

only for Sri Vaishnava viewpoints (and please correct me if I am wrong), I

assumed that this would not be unwelcome. I also made it a point to specify

whose views I was representing, so as to avoid any potential confusion. If

even this is unacceptable, I will refrain from offering any sort of

philosophical insights from outside the Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya in the

future (needless to say, that means I will be silent, since my knowledge of

Sri Vaishnava doctrine is woefully nill!).

 

But in any case, while I welcome your disagreement, I will thank you to

excercise more tact in the future before labeling the views of another

venerable Vaishnava or Vaishnavas as an "interpolation" based on his

"limited concept of dharma." No matter how I look at it, this simply strikes

me as unflattering, and I would hope we can continue to maintain a standard

of inter-sampradaaya cordiality on the Bhakti List for which I have always

been impressed in the past.

 

adiyen Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

I just wanted to clarify that in offering the Maayaa-Siitaa explanation, I

was not attempting to refute any other understanding such as the two fine

ones given below. On the contrary, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, in his

commentary on the Ninth Canto of Shriimad Bhaagavatam, offers both

explanations for the "separation" of Siitaa-Maata from Her Lord.

>Sriman Mohan Raghavan's unqualified Bhakti is revealed in his statement:

>A similar sentiment has been expresed by Narayana Bhattathiri in his

>Narayaneeyam, Ch.35:10 -- "This incarnation of Thine is to teach

>mankind (marthya shikshaartham) that pain of separation

>(vishleshaarthih) and banishment of the innocent (niraagas-thyajanam)

>will surely happen (niyatham bhaveth) on account of excesive

>attachment to Dharma (kaamaDharmAdhisakthyaa)."

 

In the Bhaagavatam it is stated:

 

bhraatraa vane kR^ipaNavat priyayaa viyuktaH striisa.nginaa.m gatimiti

prathaya.mshchachaara || bhaa 9.10.11 ||

 

Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's translation:

 

Then Lord Raamachandra wandered in the forest with His brother Lakshmana as

if very much distressed due to separation from His wife. Thus He showed by

His personal example the condition of a person attached to women (bhaagavata

puraana 9.10.11).

 

And Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport, "Whether in the forest or at

home, if one is attached to women this attachment is always troublesome, as

shown by the Supreme Personality of Godhead by His personal example."

 

Note that this is *one* understanding of the pastime of Lord Raamachandra

apparently allowing His wife to be taken from Him. Now for the next one:

>"I believe that one can only truly begin to understand just how much

>the Divine Couple really love each other and every one of us by

>meditating on how much pain they must have felt. The ones who are

>described as inseparable as the fragrance and the flower, as the sun

>and the light, were separated for so many months for the sake of the

>ignorant souls of this world, only to have to undergo such a horrible

>test to set an example to these same unworthy souls."

 

Srila Prabhupada then goes on to write:

 

"Of course, this is the material side of strii-sangii, but the situation of

Lord Raamachandra is spiritual, for He does not belong to the material

world.... He is not subject to the conditions of the material world. The

separation of Lord Raamachandra from Siitaa is spiritually understood as

vipralambha, which is an activity of the hlaadinii potency of the Supreme

Personality of Godhead belonging to the shringaara-rasa, the mellow of

conjugal love in the spiritual world. In the spiritual world the Supreme

Personality of Godhead has all the dealings of love, displaying the symptoms

called saattvika, sanchaarii, vilaapa, muurchchhaa and unmaada. Thus when

Lord Raamachandra was separated from Siitaa, all these spiritual symptoms

were manifested.... Feeling separation from one's beloved is also an item of

spiritual bliss.... Materially those who are attached to women suffer, but

spiritually when there are feelings of separation between the Lord and His

pleasure potency the spiritual bliss of the Lord increases."

 

After continuing to refute the possibility of Lord Raamachandra lamenting as

if He were merely an ordinary, conditioned living entity, Srila Prabhupada

then offers the explanation of maayaa-siitaa, which he also goes over in

more detail in his translation of Shrii Chaitanya Charitamrita.

 

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that one need not see the

presentation of a differing view necessarily as a challenge to the existing

ones. Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are able to appreciate all three viewpoints. So

there was no intention on my part of trying to defeat any existing

commentary on the subject. Frankly, this subject is a heart-rending one for

any devotee of the Lord, and discussing these views is exactly the kind of

activity that devotees should partake in. It was exactly in a similar

context that Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu presented the relevant manuscript

of the Kuurma Puraana to a devotee who was similarly grieving.

 

Again, if I have transgressed the bounds of etiquette in again presenting

viewpoints from outside the Sri Sampradaaya, then adiyen begs the

forgiveness of the devotees and will refrain from doing so in the future.

 

adiyen Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Krishna Susarla wrote:

> As I have been led to believe in the past that this list is not

> only for Sri Vaishnava viewpoints (and please correct me if I am wrong), I

> assumed that this would not be unwelcome.

 

I suppose I should comment on this. We all benefit when

views other than our own are aired, but I want to be careful

that this list remains a forum for discussing the Sri Vaishnava

tradition. In other words, viewpoints of non-Sri Vaishnava

philosophers are welcome, as long as they are discussed in the

context of Sri Vaishnavism. Lengthy independent expositions of

views outside the context of Sri Vaishnavism are not appropriate

in this list.

 

To take the specific example of the Kurma Purana verse before us,

it is enlightening and informative to know that there are other

explanations for Sita's agni-pravesa. It is also important to

understand how Sri Vaishnavas view the mAyA-sIta opinion, given

that it occurs in a Purana. I think the discussion has already

come this far. However, further discussion of this and how it

relates to Bengal (Gaudiya) Vaishnavism should be carried on in

private email, in my opinion.

 

I hope these guidlines are clear.

 

Thanks,

Mani