[Advaita-l] A Question on prArabdha

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.

Thank you Anand ji for that explanation and the references.  (see below)

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Anand Hudli <ahudli at gmail.com> wrote:

> Shri Subrahmanian wrote:
> >In the above verse along with Nala and YudhiShThira why has Rama been
> >included?  With regard to the former two it could be said that their
> >prArabdha was the cause of their woes.  Did Rama too have to suffer due to
> >prArabdha?  Can prArabdha be admitted to an Avatara who is not admitted to
> >have had an 'earlier life'? Is it proper to consider Rama as a human like
> >the other two?
>
> There is excellent consistency between what the PanchadashI says and what
> the vivaraNa-prameya-saMgraha says here. Let me clarify first and say that,
> as per VidyAraNya, rAma was an avatar of Ishvara Himself, nothing
> less. Apparently, mAyA can play her tricks on Ishvara too! The vivaraNa
> prameya saMgraha says as much in the section, "mAyAvidyayorbhedanirAsaH".
> Basically, mAyA and avidyA are the same and there is no difference between
> them. If mAyA and avidyA are the same entity, then mAyA can cause
> bewilderment in whomever that is its locus, just as avidyA does. This is
> the
> idea. Now, mAyA is controlled by Ishvara who also is mAyA's Ashraya or
> locus. VidyAraNya says that there is no rule that mAyA does not create
> bewilderment in its locus (like avidyA) and cites the case of shrIrAma who
> was an avatara of ViShNu Himself, where it is observed that mAyA bewildered
> Him.
>  न च मायाया आश्रयं प्रति अव्यामोहकत्वं नियतम्, विष्णोः स्वाश्रितमाययैव
> रामावतारे मोहितत्वात् ।
> Despite being Ishvara Himself, shrIrAma was bewildered by the mAyA mriga,
> the golden deer, and did not see through the trick.
>

I think it would be best to see the human element.  It becomes artificial if
it is said 'he knew but was putting up a show that he did not know'.  It is
most natural to show Rama as human yet with all the great 16 guNas
manifesting throughout the story.  In fact that is the purpose of Valmiki.
Maybe that's why he portrayed Rama as grief-stricken when Sita was
abducted.  In fact even later, while in Kishkindha, he goes into those
moods.  Valmiki inserts several such ordinary- man moods in Rama.  For
instance, on the very first day of their exit from Ayodhya, he expresses a
kind of anger on his father and sort of laments:  This situation would not
have befallen us if only Dasaratha had been wiser.  Yet later when Lakshmana
tries to curse Kaikeyi Rama admonishes him and asks him to respect her.
These on and off moods never take away the charm from Rama.  I recently
heard a talk series by Dr.S.R.Ganesh on 'Valmiki RamayaNada kelavu
svArasyagaLu'.

>
> VidyAraNya goes on to also say there is no rule that avidyA should
> always bewilder its locus. For example, a person who sees a tree and its
> reflection in a lake simultaneously knows very well that the tree is not
> really inverted, but only appears so.
>
> Anand
>

Thank you once again to the very informative explanation, especially from
Vedanta point of view.

subbu

> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>