You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : November 1998

Re: Sita Piratti's three separations from Sri Rama

From: Krishna Susarla (
Date: Tue Nov 10 1998 - 21:15:05 PST

>Plausible accounts like Maya Sita imply the assumption that the Lord,
>even in his incarnations, should not/could not have acted in the
>manner narrated in Valmiki's Ramayana.  Bhattathiri's sentiments,
>echoed in Mohan Raghavan's excellent posting are rooted in complete,
>unquestioning faith in the Lord instead of mentally imposing upon the
>Lord one's own concept of Dharma and Adharma. Perhaps, that is why in
>His next incarnation, Sri Krishna has advised us: "sarva dharmaan
>parithyajya Maamekam sharanam vraja".  Accepting Valmiki's narration
>of the Lord's actions in true faith will enable us to learn the
>lessons which Shri Rama and Sri Sita Piratti wanted to teach us by
>thir actions and their sufferings as humans.
> We truly lose a lot by explaining away such actions by interpolating
>our own accounts based on our limited concepts of dharma.
>Dasan MK Krishnaswamy

Dear MK Krishnaswamy,

The explanation provided by me regarding the Maayaa-Siitaa was not my own,
but rather the one given by Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaaryas such as Shriila
Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja Gosvaamii. Furthermore, neither he nor the Gaudiiya
Vaishnava aachaaryas were responsible for the genesis of this explanation.
Rather, it is attributed to the Kuurma Puraana. This account of the
Maayaa-Siitaa does not contradict Valmiiki's Raamaayana; it complements it.

It is hardly an interpolation, nor is it based on "limited concepts of
dharma." Dharma isn't even the point; as I have already explained, the
relevant issues were the idea of a materialist like Raavana being able to
touch and apprehend with his material senses the spiritual form of the very
hladini-shakti of the Lord, who is inseparable from Him. Needless to say, I
am not interested in forcing the view down anyone's throat. I merely
presented the only explanation with
which I am familiar, in response to a question posed by another member of
the list. As I have been led to believe in the past that this list is not
only for Sri Vaishnava viewpoints (and please correct me if I am wrong), I
assumed that this would not be unwelcome. I also made it a point to specify
whose views I was representing, so as to avoid any potential confusion. If
even this is unacceptable, I will refrain from offering any sort of
philosophical insights from outside the Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya in the
future (needless to say, that means I will be silent, since my knowledge of
Sri Vaishnava doctrine is woefully nill!).

But in any case, while I welcome your disagreement, I will thank you to
excercise more tact in the future before labeling the views of another
venerable Vaishnava or Vaishnavas as an "interpolation" based on his
"limited concept of dharma." No matter how I look at it, this simply strikes
me as unflattering, and I would hope we can continue to maintain a standard
of inter-sampradaaya cordiality on the Bhakti List for which I have always
been impressed in the past.

adiyen Krishna Susarla