Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Comments on Rama and Sita

From the Bhakti List Archives

Jaganath.Bharadwaj • January 21, 1996 


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.