[Advaita-l] The concept of mAyA sItA

[Nithin Sridhar]

It can be further argued that, that Rama or Sita i.e. the avatara form
itself is a Lila accomplished through Maya. As Krishna says he has taken
birth using his own maya. Hence, Sita= Maya Lakshmi!! And Rama=Maya Vishnu
and hence, Vishnu & Lakshmi does not undergo any miseries but it is Rama &
Sita who undergo miseries!

-Nithin


2014-02-20 11:52 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:

> The concept of mAyA sItA is admissible to the mAdhva-s:
>
> In the BGB 14.3 both Madhva and Jayatirtha allude to this.  For them
> Lakshmi can never be subjected to misery and therefore the misery undergone
> by sItA is only an appearance, a show, and not real.
>
> Sanskrit commentary by Sri Jayatirtha
> अत्र महत् ब्रह्मेति जडाऽविद्योच्यत इति प्रतीतिनिरासार्थमाह -- महदिति।
> प्रकृतिर्महालक्ष्मीः। ननु सत्त्वं रजस्तम इति जडा प्रकृतिर्वक्ष्यते,
> तत्सन्निधानादत्रापि सैव युक्तेति चेत्, न; तत्रापि चेतनप्रकृत्यभिधानात्,
> कथमस्याः सत्त्वादिभेदभिन्नत्वं? इत्यत आह -- सा चेति। जडप्रकृतेरभिमानिनी
> तत्कार्यसत्त्वादिगुणाभिमानिन्येतद्रूपत्रयवतीत्यर्थः। ननु भगवती माहेश्वरी
> ब्राह्मी कौमारी माहेन्द्री श्रीर्भूर्दुर्गेति सप्तधा भिन्नाऽऽगमेषूच्यते,
> तत्कथं त्रिधा भिन्नोच्यते? इत्यत आह -- उमेति। आद्याश्चतस्रो भगवत्या अन्याः।
> कुतः? जीवाः। कथं तद्रूपत्वोक्तिः? तदंशयुतास्तत्सन्निधानोपेताः। कुत एतत्?
> इत्यत आह -- तथा चेति।'मम योनिः' इत्येतत्परे व्याचक्षते मम स्वरूपभूता योनिः
> कारणं विश्वस्य प्रतीत एवान्वये मम मातेत्यापत्तेरिति तन्निरासार्थमाह --
> ममेति; भार्येत्यर्थः। ममेत्यनुवादेनान्यथा प्रतीतावन्वयबाधः स्यादिति सूचयति।
> प्रतीतान्वयाङ्गीकारे'माता' इत्यपि प्रतीयेत, तत्र कथं भार्येति निश्चयः?
> इत्यत आह -- न त्विति। इति प्रतीतिः प्रसज्ज्यत इति शेषः। कुतो न? इत्यत आह --
> वाक्येति।'तस्मिन् गर्भं दधाम्यहम्' इति वाक्यशेषाद्भार्यार्थतानिश्चयात्।
> श्रुतिबलाच्चेत्याह -- तथा हीति। प्रकाशयन्ती प्रवर्तते। अनयैव
> श्रुत्याऽन्यदपि लब्धमिति प्रसङ्गादाह -- अत इति। मृषाऽयथार्थं प्रदर्शनं यस्य
> तत्तथा। इतश्चैवमेवेत्याह -- तथेति। तत्र ह्येवमुक्तम्'दग्ध्वा मायामयीं
> सीतां भगवानुग्रदीधितिः।
> रामायादर्शयत्सीतां पावकोऽसौ सुरप्रियः' इत्यादि। ननु महालक्ष्मीः
> श्रीर्भूर्दुर्गेति भिन्नेत्युक्तम्। भुवश्च'गौर्भूत्वाऽश्रुमुखी खिन्ना'
> भाग.10।1।18 इति दुःखं प्रतीयते, तत्कथं तत्? इत्यत आह -- न चेति। इयं
> भूताभिमानिनी प्रसिद्धा भूः भगवत्या रूपं न भवति, किन्त्वियमन्यैव। कुतः?
> इत्यत आह -- तथा चेति। महालक्ष्मीरूपं भूरन्या, इयं प्रसिद्धा, तस्य तस्याः।
> छाया प्रतिमा। ननु रावणहरणादिकं भवतु मायासीतायाः; वाल्मीकिदास्यं
> तावन्मत्स्यपुराणे साक्षात्सीताया एवोक्तम्'दास्ये च दुःखमवर्जनीयं'
> इत्याशङ्कां प्रमाणपूर्वकमपाकरोति -- अवापेति। श्रुतिरस्ति।'यतोऽतः' इति शेषः।
> महद्ब्रह्म प्रकृतिरित्युक्तम्, तत्र प्रमाणं वक्तुं व्यवहितत्वात्पुनः
> प्रतिजानीते -- महदिति।'महत्, ब्रह्म' इति भिन्ने पदे; ततः
> परमितिशब्दोऽध्याहार्यः। कुतः? इत्यत आह -- महतीति। तत्रैव मत्स्यपुराणे।
> अर्थक्रमेण'मम योनिर्महद्ब्रह्म' इत्यत्र व्युत्क्रमेण व्याख्यानम्।
> मत्स्यपुराणोदाहरणप्रसङ्गादत्रोपपादनमिति ।।14.3।।
>
> Sanskrit commentary by Sri Madhvacharya
> महद्ब्रह्म प्रकृतिः, सा च श्रीर्भूर्दुर्गेति भिन्ना। उमासरस्वत्याद्यास्तु
> तदंशयुता अन्यजीवाः। तथा च काषायणश्रुतिः -- "श्रीर्भुर्दुर्गा महती तु माया
> या लोकसूतिर्जगतो बन्धिका च। उमावागाद्या अन्यजीवास्तदंशास्तदात्मना
> सर्ववेदेषु गीताः" इति। मम योनिरिति गर्भाधानार्था योनिः, न तु माता,
> वाक्यशेषात्। तथा हि सामवदे शार्कराक्षश्रुतौ --
> "विष्णोर्योनिर्गर्भसन्धारणार्था महामाया सर्वदुःखैर्विहीना। तथाऽप्यात्मानं
> दुःखिवन्मोहनार्थं प्रकाशयन्ती सह विष्णुना सा" इति। अतः सीतादुःखादिकं सर्वं
> मृषा प्रदर्शनमेव। तथा कूर्मपुराणे -- 'न चेयं भूः' ब्र.सं.पु. तथा च
> सौकरायणश्रुतिः -- "अन्या भूर्भूरियं तस्य छाया भूताऽवमा सा हि भूतैकयोनिः"
> इति। "अवाप स्वेच्छया दास्यं जगतां प्रपितामही" इत्यनभिम्लानश्रुतिः।
> मत्स्यपुराणोक्तमपि स्वेच्छयैव। महद्ब्रह्मशब्दवाच्या़ऽपि प्रकृतिरेव'महती
> ब्रह्मणी द्वे तु प्रकृतिश्च महेश्वरः' इति तत्रैव ।।14.3।।
>
>
> This is not in any way different from the Advaitic view that the
> jIivatvam/samsAra for Brahman is not real but only an appearence since
> Brahman/ AtmA is never really subjected to samsAra.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I was chatting with some relatives of mine last weekend, who happen to be
> > mAdhvas, and the topic of mAyA sItA came up. It was pointed out that this
> > concept of mAyA sItA conflicts with the principle of eka-patnI-vrata (vow
> > to accept only one wife during his life) that rAma had chosen to follow.
> >
> > >In many versions of the tale, the omniscient Rama knows about Sita's
> > >impending abduction and creates Maya Sita. Such versions assert Rama's
> > >divine status, a departure from Valmiki's portrayal of Rama as a human
> > hero.
> > >[8] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Sita#cite_note-:2-8>.
> >
> > If it is argued that rAma knew that rAvaNa would kidnap sItA and hence
> > proceeded to replace her with a mAyA sIta just before rAvaNa arrived,
> > it makes him accept someone other than the real sItA as his wife,
> > albeit temporarily. Also, when he later expressed his deep grief for
> > losing sItA, it makes him grieve for someone other than his wife sItA.
> >
> > Perhaps, the only way out is the kUrma purANa story, where sItA
> > replaces herself with a mAyA version just before rAvAna's arrival to
> > rAma's dwelling in the forest and arranges for herself to emerge from
> > the agni parIkShA at the end of the war. And rAma has no knowledge
> > whatsoever that all this has taken place. However, this would mean
> > rAma was completely ignorant of this sItA-replacement and he thought
> > he had really lost her. While this explanation is fine and does
> > preserve rAma's eka-patnI-vrata, it is problematic for staunch
> > Vaishnavas who believe that rAma, being omniscient, could not have
> > been ignorant of such a secret. They are willing to sacrifice the
> > eka-patnI-vrata of rAma, a small price to pay for maintaining that
> > rAma had no ignorance of anything, especially considering his Krishna
> > avatAra when he had 16,000 wives.
> >
> > Needless to say, I feel this is a strange position to accept. It must
> > also be clarified that mAdhvas do not consider the Valmiki Ramayana as
> > the original Ramayana. This status is given to the mUla rAmAyaNa,
> > which is no longer extant.
> >
> > Anand
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>