[Advaita-l] Raama and advaita - a mocker

[Kalyan]

Thanks for those who responded.
Sri Sriram has given arguments to show that Rama was Ishwara all along, while Sri Murthy and Sri Subrahmanian have given arguments to show that Rama genuinely suffered ignorance, so he was not really Ishwara.
It looks like there is a difference of opinion on this issue among advaitins themselves, since Madhusudhana Saraswati, in his Gudartha Dipika, treats Rama as Ishwara.
RegardsKalyan  

    On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:17 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
 

 In the Panchadashi of Vidyaranya, in the 7th chapter we have a verse:

अवश्यंभाविभावानां प्रतीकारो भवेद्यदि ।
तदा दुःखैर्न लिप्येरन् नलरामयुधिष्ठिराः ॥१५५॥
156. If it were possible to avert the consequences of fructifying Karma,
Nala, Rama and Yudhisthira would not have suffered the miseries to which
they were subjected.
This verse is cited along with several other verses under the head
'bhārata' (Mahabharata?) by Sri Viśveśvara Saraswati in his Yatidharma
sangraha (p.140 print and 149 of pdf) while discussing the need for a
sannyāsin to leave things to prārabdha and not be concerned about the basic
needs for sustenance.
It appears that Vidyaranya too has cited that verse from some other source.
In the Valmiki Ramayana, Rama himself says, while lamenting: This situation
I am facing is only due to past adverse action.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Kalyan via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Alright, read the question as being asked in the vyavahArika realm.
> Rama, being an incarnation of Vishnu, the Ishwara, did he leave his
> original upAdhi of sarvajnatva for the incarnation duration? I hope this
> question is sufficiently well posed for advaitins.
>
> If you are asking a Vyavaharika question this question is not for
> Advaitis only but for everybody like Visistadvaitis, Dvaitis and so
> on. It is like asking a question in Physics or Chemistry. Valmiki
> Raamaayana will have the answer. Unlike Krishna Raama did not show
> Sarvajnatva in his Avatara. Otherwise He could have avoided chasing
> the Golden deer. He could have detected real Seeta was not kidnapped
> but Maayaa Seeta and not felt grief and cried. In Krishna Avatara also
> Brahma kidnaps all the Gopa boys and calves for some time. But Krishna
> did not cry like Raama. He immediately knew Brahma has kidnapped them.
> He created new boys and calves. Nobody knew this but only Balaraama
> knew it.
>
> Some people say Raama was only acting like a ordinary man to show how
> to be ideal man but He knew everything. Some people like Iskcon say
> Krishna only is Poorna Avatara and others are Amsha Avataras. You can
> read all arguments on all sides and decide.
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Kalyan
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Mon, 4/10/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Raama and advaita - a mocker
> >  To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
> >  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>
> >  Date: Monday, April 10, 2017, 3:16 PM
> >
> >  I'm
> >  not unnecessarily complicating the issue. Your question,
> >  restated below, presupposes that ignorance is something that
> >  you "really suffer" from and that the said
> >  ignorance is "genuine."
> >
> >  I'm saying that when you want an
> >  answer about the Ramayana from Advaita Acharyas (as opposed
> >  to general people who have an affinity to advaita), your
> >  questions should not be ill-posed.
> >  Suppose I say, "no, Rama was
> >  only acting out his role as a man in that avatara, so he did
> >  not really suffer from ignorance." That will leave room
> >  for the possibility that other men really suffer from
> >  ignorance. However, it is not as if another jIva, whom we do
> >  not consider an avatara-purusha, "really suffers"
> >  from ignorance. Obviously however, when we say that even
> >  bandha-moksha vyavahAra operates only in the mithyA realm,
> >  that special exemption of Rama from ignorance will be an
> >  imperfect, if not an incorrect answer, coming from an
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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