|You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : January 1996|
Date: Sun Jan 21 1996 - 02:19:01 PST
K. Sreekrishna's comments on Ramayana do not agree with Visishtadvaita philosophy on the following grounds. Rama and Sita cannot commit apacharams. They own everything and they make laws. They are themselves not bound by the laws except where the choose to follow the laws. Attaining Moksha does not mean getting rid of pain and suffering. In fact there is untold pain and suffering in the hearts of devotees when they feel separation from Bhagavan. I have been told by one individual who has experienced this separation that there is sweetness even in this pain. Happiness and pain for jivatmas in the state of perfection is in relation to experiencing the company of and separation from the Lord of Sri. This has nothing to do with Karma in which the pain is because of our forgetting our relationship with the Lord of Sri. Secondly Rama never ceased to be an Avataram because He is a Poorna Avataram unlike Parsurama or Kapila. In the case of Rama there is no jivatma through whom Bhagavan displays His leelas. 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. If only the Ramayana is to be considered, then the indication of Rama being Bhagavan is only hinted at, while in at least two places Rama denies that He is God. In that case we will have to conclude that He is a mere human and we would not be discussing why He behaved that way towards Sita. Jaganath.