Re: Comments on Rama and Sita
From the Bhakti List Archives
• January 24, 1996
On Jan 20, Jaganath.Bharadwaj@nrecatao.nreca.org 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@srirangam.esd.sgi.com. For all administrative requests, mail mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com. To access mailing list archives, send a message containing *only* the single word "help" (no quotes) to: bhakti-request@srirangam.esd.sgi.com +----
- Next message: krish: "moksha"
- Previous message: Jaganath.Bharadwaj_at_nrecatao.nreca.org: "Re: Krish's comments"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]