The Brahmanda Purana contains the Adhyatma Ramayana which also contains the maya-sita story.
The Brahmanda Purana contains the Adhyatma Ramayana which also contains the maya-sita story.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Quick addendum to my previous posting about vedavati. The rAmAyaNa (vALmIki) does say that vedavati became sItA - this is in the uttara-khANDa. Please disregard my previous note about the skanda purANa - I need to review what it says that clarify.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
praNAm
I am not contesting the event at all. Real SitA was abducted, acc. to Valmiki Ramayana. Fine.
I am saying, I care not of which itihas purana says what. Do we see what happened? WHO was abducted? SitA's body i.e. mAyA-sitA. Her True Self remained untouched. This True AtmA inside Her, is the real SitA whose abode is the heart and Lotus Feet of Shri RAma.
SitA was a walkie-talkie Bramhan. SitA is Shri Herself. She is alipta, achala, despite manifested itihAs.
This was my point. For once, let us step out of the books and see what happened - on the level of adhyAtma.
Just as Shri RAma and Shri KRshNa were always untouched by all the hardships and otherwise challenging and painful events in their lives from POV of ordinary humans.
Sitadevi ki jay
SiyA-vara rAmachandra ki jay
|| Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||
Pranams,
Perhaps I simply lack your level of realization. I get all my information from shAstra, and when apparent contradictions arise, I seek out reconciliation or at least explanation of why the contradiction exists. vALmIki is quite clear that real sItA-devI was abducted, real sItA-devI was tormented, and real sItA-devI showed the position of the surrendered devotee who always thinks of the Lord even during adversity.
Now, I'm still stuck at the level of trying to reconcile this with the mAyA-sItA story. Is the latter merely an interpolation? Or are both stories true, and this is merely an example of kalpa-bedha? I don't pretend that I will certainly get the answers here, but, like many issues, I find it helpful to put the issue out there and let people take it apart, discuss the merits of different points of view, etc.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
praNAm
I am sorry if I wrote something that made you say this.
What I am suggesting, and this is only a suggestion, is that these two things can be simultaneously true even if there is no kalpa-bheda.vALmIki is quite clear that real sItA-devI was abducted, real sItA-devI was tormented, and real sItA-devI showed the position of the surrendered devotee who always thinks of the Lord even during adversity.
Now, I'm still stuck at the level of trying to reconcile this with the mAyA-sItA story. Is the latter merely an interpolation? Or are both stories true, and this is merely an example of kalpa-bedha?
Truth exists on multiple levels.
adhibhautic - physical
adhidaivic - owing to Divine choice, luck
adhyAtmic - internal, Atmic
1. RAvan kidnapped SitA ---- adhibhautic truth. WHO was kidnapped? A kAyA worn by SitA mAtA. Now we are getting into sAnkhya, tattva, neti neti.
2. Unfortunate events took place - Ram ran after deer for Sita, Lakshman left... -------- adhidaivic
3. Internally SitA remained calm, surrendered to Her Lord, Shri RAm, at His Lotus Feet as always irrespective of where she was geographically - Ashok van in Lanka or the kutir (RAm's hut) in the araNya (forest).
1. shows mAyA-sitA was abducted (adhibhautic satya - physical level truth). What does mAyA-sitA mean? It means this body, and not the AtmA. The real sitA is actually the sacchidananda AtmA.
3. Shows that real sitA i.e. AtmA stayed untouched. (adhyAtmic satya - intrinsic soul-level truth)
The fact that SitA refused to go with Hanuman because She wanted Shri RAm to win Her back, for His Glory, just showed what the consciousness of the real Sita was like.
- She could have gone back with Hanuman but didn't
- She could have done multiple things to Ravan and his palace but didn't
- She could have retaliated when the rAkshasis harrassed Her, but she didn't.
This is the real sita that knew she is not a product of maya that ravan thinks she is, but eternal saccidananda AtmA.
There is no contradiction. The maya-sita story found in puranas is valid on the adhyatmic level (- this is a realizaton I had just yesterday while reading this thread - thanks to all 3 of you),
while vAlmiki describes the adhibhautic itihas and leaves it to the readers to have their realizations (read between lines) by the grace of Shri RAm and Hanuman.
Vedavati was a previous birth of Sita (Lakshmi). At that time she was doing her tapascharya for VishNu, but thanks to Ravan her tapascharya remained incomplete. She gave ravan a shaap that she will come back to avenge this, and then burned herself in the yogic fire i.e. gave up the body via a yogic process.
The same Lakshmi Devi came here as Vedavati, Sita and Padmavati.
Kalpa-bheda may or may not be there.
I also remember reading/hearing (shravanam) that Vedavati went to Lord Shiva and said "Please give me my husband back" 5 times (she was distressed). Since she said this 5 times, Shiva said tathAstu (so be it) with a secret plan, and vedavati came back as Draupadi and had 5 husbands (pandav) because of this. Some say Shiva suppressed a smile while saying tathastu. While elsewhere we see that Draupadi was Durga or Yogmaya.
Now this could as well be kalpa-bheda and/or interpretations of shastra by saints pundits acharya. Ramayana occurs in each kalpa after all.
Of course. This is what makes HDF very enriching.like many issues, I find it helpful to put the issue out there and let people take it apart, discuss the merits of different points of view, etc.
_/\_
|| Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||
Let me give you an example. You want to grow a tree in your garden (hypothetically, of gardens have trees!). So, you purchase the right type of soil, buy a plot of land, buy the seed, plant the seed, water the seed, feed it with fertilizer and then watch the tree grow.
How would you feel now, if the tree (hypothetically speaking) said, "I grew by my self-effort"? Is not the growth of the tree merely a course of nature, ie, a natural response to the actions taken by you, rather than a sAdhaNa?
Similarly, whatever we do is just the nature of the AtmA manifesting in response to bhagavAn's efforts. He provides the body. He provides a conducive birth. He gives us the sAstras. He waits for a lame excuse such as you walking accidentally into a temple (not even out of devotion) and foists punya karma on you. Then, using that punya as an excuse, he makes an AchArya appear in your life to guide you.
So, once all this has been done, and you do ths sAdhaNa, then to say "this is my self-effort" is as illogical as the tree claiming its growth is its self effort. It is the very nature of the jivA to do bhakti. It is not a self effort because it is not an alien effort taken by you, it is just a realisation of your nature.
This point is hammered home by the upanishads. On one hand, the upanshads say that the AtmA (Brahman) can be attained by hearing, seeing and meditating. On the other hand, Yama tells Nachiketa that the AtMA is only attained by those whom it chooses and not by those other means. The reconciliation is that those "means" are not really the "means", rather, it is just the manifestation of your true nature when you hear, see and meditate on sriman nArAyaNa. It is his grace which is the sAdhaNa, which is mentioned as "amrtasya sethu", ie, Brahman is the bridge.
The sAstras say that we passed through even animal births to become human? Can you imagine what sAdhaNa an animal can do to become a human in the next life? Nothing. It is bhagavAn who does the work. Perhaps, he sees an ant crawling over him in a temple and says "this creature has entered my temple" and heaps punya on it. That ant becomes a manushya in the next life, eligible for sAdhaNa. And so on.
Then, why do the sAstras call these other things like hearing, etc as sAdhaNas? All from our perspective. As we see these things as sAdhaNa, we call them sAdhaNa. But they make it clear that Brahman himself is the true sAdhaNa.
[CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
No commands from above I obey
I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
Behold! I am blackest ov the black
Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]
[B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P-JdwtK1DY[/url] [/CENTER]
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks