Maayaa Siitaa? Maayaa-Gopiis? Inconsistency??

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna. Dandavats.

 

In Shrii Chaitanya Charitamrita (Madhya-liilaa, Chapter 9), Lord Chaitanya

explains that Raavana never kidnapped Siitaa. This He did by citing the

shruti:

 

na sa.mdR^ishe tiShThati rupamasya cha chakshuShaa pasyati kashchanainam |

hR^idaa maniShaa manasaabhikl^ipto ya etad viduramR^itaaste bhavanti || KU

2.3.9 ||

 

The Transcendental Personality of Godhead is beyond the purview of occult

vision. Nobody can behold Him with the physical eye. But He can be

apprehended through a pure transparent mind imbibed with intuitive wisdom

borne out of unalloyed devotional practices in the very core of one's own

unstinted heart - those who have really got such vision, have gained final

beautitude (kaThopaniShad 2.3.9).

 

naiva vaachaa na manasaa praaptu.m shakyo na chakShuShaa |

astiiti bruvato'nyatra katha.m tadupalabhyate || KU 2.3.12 ||

 

The Supreme Godhead can be apprehended neither by speech, nor by mind nor by

eyes. How can He be realised otherwise than from those wise persons who have

positively realized Him through their intuitive wisdom by dint of unalloyed

devotion to Him (kaThopaniShad 2.3.12).

 

(translations are from Twelve Essential Upanishads, Volume I, by Tridandi

Sri Bhakti Prajnan Yati)

 

His reasoning, apparently, is that because Siitaa's form is spiritual, just

as is the form of Lord Raamachandra, it was not possible for Raavana to see

Her what to speak of kindnap Her (because no materially conditioned entity

would be able to).

 

Thus the Lord says:

 

iishvara-preyasii siitaa -- chid-aananda-muurti |

praakR^ita-indriyera taa.nre dekhite naahi shakti || CC ML 9.191 ||

 

Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu continued, "Siitaadevii, the dearmost wife of

the Supreme Lord Raamachandra, certainly has a spiritual form full of bliss.

No one can see her with material eeys, for no one material has such power."

(shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, madhya-liilaa, 9.191)

 

sparshibaara kaarya aachhuka, naa paaya darshana |

siitaara aakR^iti-maayaa harila raavaNa || CC ML 9.192 ||

 

"To say nothing of touching mother Siitaa, a person with material senses

cannot even see her. When Raavana kidnapped her, he kidnapped only her

material illusory form (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, madhya-liilaa,

9.192).

 

>From this evidence, numerous doubts arise.

 

1) According to the version of events related by Aatma-Tattva daasa (which I

believe is recorded on his Untold Stories from the Raamaayana tape series),

Raavana approached the cottage in which Siitaa-Maata was residing. He did

see her there, and beckoned her to leave the protective circle left there by

Lakshmana. It was only at the point when she crossed the circle that She was

replaced by the Maayaa-Siitaa. Thus, Raavana still saw Siitaa, which

contradicts the evidence given above.

 

2) To say nothing of Raavana, Suurpanakha who was Raavana's sister, was the

first of their family to see Siitaa herself. She was also a demon and thus

unqualified to see Her, yet she did. How can this be reconciled with the

Katha Upanishad quote and Lord Chaitanya's own instruction in this regard?

 

3) Even more distressing than the previous two points, there is clear

evidence that at least one other demon touched Mother Siitaa well before the

whole Maayaa-Siitaa incident. I refer you to the Raamaayana of Vaalmiiki,

aaranya-kaaNDa, Canto 2. In this chapter, the attack by the demon Viraadha

on Raama, Siita, and Lakshmana is described:

 

siitayaa saha kaakutsthastasmin ghoramR^igaayute |

dadarsha girishTa.ngaabhi.m puruShaada.m mahaasvanam || 4 ||

 

gabhiiraakShya.m mahaavaktra.m vikaTa.m vikaTodaram |

biibhatsa.m viShama.m diirgha.m vikR^ita.m ghoradarshanam || 5 ||

 

vasaana.m charma vaiyaaghra.m vasaardra.m rughirokShitam |

traasana.m sarvabhuutaanaa.m vyaaditaasyamivaantakam || 6 ||

 

triin si.mhaamshchaturo vyaaghraan dvai vR^ikau pR^iShTaan dasha |

saviShaaNa.m vasaadigdha.m gajasya cha shiro mahat || 7 ||

 

avasajyaayase shuute vinadanta.m mahaasvanam |

sa raama.m lakShmaNa.m chaiva siitaa.m dR^iShTvaa cha maithiliim || 8 ||

 

amyadhaavat susa.mkruddhaH prajaaH kaala ivaantakaH |

sa kR^itvaa bhairava.m naada.m chaalaya.mnniva mediniim || 9 ||

 

a.nkenaadaaya vaidehiimapakramya tadaabraviit |

yuvaa.m jaTaachiiragha rau sabhaaryau kShiiNjiivitau || 10 ||

 

praviShTau daNDakaaraNya.m sharachaapaasipaaNinau |

katha.m taapasayorvaa.m cha vaasaH pramadayaa saha || 11 ||

 

Raama (a descendant of Kakutstha) together with Siitaa saw in tha forest

full of wild animals a dreadful man-eating ogre of terrific voice, looking

like a mountain-peak, having deep eyes, a huge mouth, a fierce belly,

despicable, uneven, tall, abnormal, presenting a terrible sight, wearing a

tiger's skin wet with fat and sprinkled with blood, molesting all beings,

resembling the god of death with his mouth wide open, tying three lions,

four tigers, two wolves, ten spotted deer and the big head of an elephant

with tusks and wet with fat to an iron lance, and roaring in a terrific

voice. He saw Raama, Lakshmana and also Siitaa, the princess of Mithilaa,

and attacked them with great anger as Kaala, the destroyer of people,

attacks them. He made a terrific sound as though making the earth tremble,

took the princess of Videha country (Siitaa) in his arms, went afar and then

said, "You two having matted hair and wearing a bark-garment, and still

having a wife with you, with your life coming to an end, have entered the

Dandaka forest taking arrows, bow and sword in your hands. Again, how are

you two ascetics staying with a woman? (vaalmiiki-raamaayaNa,

aaraNya-kaaNDa, 2.4-11).

 

I also checked the Sanskrit against another version I have, which is in

postscript form (and available for download from the HSC site). There were

some minor differences, but the text as a whole was there. Hence, I don't

think this can be regarded as interpolation. Furthermore, the translation

and Sanskrit are from the Gita Press edition of this work, which Srila

Prabhupada apparently thought highly of. I remember this because one

Prabhupada disciple named Karnaamrita dasa was attempting to do his own

translation, and he states that he checked his translation against the Gita

Press one on Srila Prabhupada's advice.

 

In any case, here we have several problems:

3a) this demon Viraadha was clearly not qualified to see or touch spirit,

yet

3b The account of events clearly states that he saw Raama and Lakshmana, as

well as Siitaa,

3c) and that Viraadha also touched Siitaa, took Her into his arms, etc.

 

This does not seem consistent with the idea that a Maayaa-Siitaa had to be

present in order to be kidnapped by Raavana. Why is it that we use the

Maayaa-Siitaa explanation to explain how Raavana apparently kidnapped

Siitaa, yet we do not employ such an explanation here? If we accept the

Katha Upanishad quote, then this demon Viraadha should not have been able to

*see* Siitaa, what to speak of kidnap Her. Yet he did do exactly that,

according to Vaalmiiki.

 

So we have several problems here. Raavana, Suurpanakha, and Viraadha also

saw Siitaa, in spite of being materially conditioned living entities. And

Viraadha clearly touched and kidnapped Siitaa, well before She was replaced

by the Maayaa-Siitaa (as mentioned by the Kuurma Puraana). How do we explain

these inconsistencies?

 

Finally, I want to point out a verse I read from Shriimad Bhaagavatam -

2.7.33 in which Lord Brahmaa tells of how the demon Shankachuuda kidnapped

the gopiis after the raasa dance. Again, one must necessarily wonder - if

the gopiis are expansions of the pleasure potency and thus have spiritual

forms, how did this demon Shankachuuda kidnap them? Were there

"Maayaa-Gopiis" also?

 

I would very much appreciate if you could clarify these inconsistencies and

establish the Gaudiya Vaishnava view in this regard.

 

your servant,

 

- Krishna Susarla