[Advaita-l] The concept of mAyA sItA

[Nithin Sridhar]

I am hearing about Mula Ramayana for the first time!! I feel, even if it
was a Maya Sita, even then it would not compromise Rama's eka patni status.

The maaya sita was actually Sita herself who appeared to be different from
Sita but who in reality is non-different from sita!!.

So, I do not see any problem in accepting the concept of Maya Sita!!

-Nithin


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
>