[Advaita-l] The concept of mAyA sItA

[H S Chandramouli]

<< In the BGB 14.3 both Madhva and Jayatirtha allude to this.  For them
Lakshmi can never be subjected to misery and therefore the misery undergone
by sItA is only an appearance, a show, and not real.>>

My understanding is that Sri Madhvacharya did not accept the concept
of different levels of reality. There is nothing like appearence which is
not real. Then how come they conceive of sita as appearence only and not
real ? Please clarify.

Regards


2014-02-20 11:52 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:

> The concept of mAyA sItA is admissible to the mAdhva-s:
>
> In the BGB 14.3 both Madhva and Jayatirtha allude to this.  For them
> Lakshmi can never be subjected to misery and therefore the misery undergone
> by sItA is only an appearance, a show, and not real.
>
> Sanskrit commentary by Sri Jayatirtha
> अत्र महत् ब्रह्मेति जडाऽविद्योच्यत इति प्रतीतिनिरासार्थमाह -- महदिति।
> प्रकृतिर्महालक्ष्मीः। ननु सत्त्वं रजस्तम इति जडा प्रकृतिर्वक्ष्यते,
> तत्सन्निधानादत्रापि सैव युक्तेति चेत्, न; तत्रापि चेतनप्रकृत्यभिधानात्,
> कथमस्याः सत्त्वादिभेदभिन्नत्वं? इत्यत आह -- सा चेति। जडप्रकृतेरभिमानिनी
> तत्कार्यसत्त्वादिगुणाभिमानिन्येतद्रूपत्रयवतीत्यर्थः। ननु भगवती माहेश्वरी
> ब्राह्मी कौमारी माहेन्द्री श्रीर्भूर्दुर्गेति सप्तधा भिन्नाऽऽगमेषूच्यते,
> तत्कथं त्रिधा भिन्नोच्यते? इत्यत आह -- उमेति। आद्याश्चतस्रो भगवत्या अन्याः।
> कुतः? जीवाः। कथं तद्रूपत्वोक्तिः? तदंशयुतास्तत्सन्निधानोपेताः। कुत एतत्?
> इत्यत आह -- तथा चेति।'मम योनिः' इत्येतत्परे व्याचक्षते मम स्वरूपभूता योनिः
> कारणं विश्वस्य प्रतीत एवान्वये मम मातेत्यापत्तेरिति तन्निरासार्थमाह --
> ममेति; भार्येत्यर्थः। ममेत्यनुवादेनान्यथा प्रतीतावन्वयबाधः स्यादिति सूचयति।
> प्रतीतान्वयाङ्गीकारे'माता' इत्यपि प्रतीयेत, तत्र कथं भार्येति निश्चयः?
> इत्यत आह -- न त्विति। इति प्रतीतिः प्रसज्ज्यत इति शेषः। कुतो न? इत्यत आह --
> वाक्येति।'तस्मिन् गर्भं दधाम्यहम्' इति वाक्यशेषाद्भार्यार्थतानिश्चयात्।
> श्रुतिबलाच्चेत्याह -- तथा हीति। प्रकाशयन्ती प्रवर्तते। अनयैव
> श्रुत्याऽन्यदपि लब्धमिति प्रसङ्गादाह -- अत इति। मृषाऽयथार्थं प्रदर्शनं यस्य
> तत्तथा। इतश्चैवमेवेत्याह -- तथेति। तत्र ह्येवमुक्तम्'दग्ध्वा मायामयीं
> सीतां भगवानुग्रदीधितिः।
> रामायादर्शयत्सीतां पावकोऽसौ सुरप्रियः' इत्यादि। ननु महालक्ष्मीः
> श्रीर्भूर्दुर्गेति भिन्नेत्युक्तम्। भुवश्च'गौर्भूत्वाऽश्रुमुखी खिन्ना'
> भाग.10।1।18 इति दुःखं प्रतीयते, तत्कथं तत्? इत्यत आह -- न चेति। इयं
> भूताभिमानिनी प्रसिद्धा भूः भगवत्या रूपं न भवति, किन्त्वियमन्यैव। कुतः?
> इत्यत आह -- तथा चेति। महालक्ष्मीरूपं भूरन्या, इयं प्रसिद्धा, तस्य तस्याः।
> छाया प्रतिमा। ननु रावणहरणादिकं भवतु मायासीतायाः; वाल्मीकिदास्यं
> तावन्मत्स्यपुराणे साक्षात्सीताया एवोक्तम्'दास्ये च दुःखमवर्जनीयं'
> इत्याशङ्कां प्रमाणपूर्वकमपाकरोति -- अवापेति। श्रुतिरस्ति।'यतोऽतः' इति शेषः।
> महद्ब्रह्म प्रकृतिरित्युक्तम्, तत्र प्रमाणं वक्तुं व्यवहितत्वात्पुनः
> प्रतिजानीते -- महदिति।'महत्, ब्रह्म' इति भिन्ने पदे; ततः
> परमितिशब्दोऽध्याहार्यः। कुतः? इत्यत आह -- महतीति। तत्रैव मत्स्यपुराणे।
> अर्थक्रमेण'मम योनिर्महद्ब्रह्म' इत्यत्र व्युत्क्रमेण व्याख्यानम्।
> मत्स्यपुराणोदाहरणप्रसङ्गादत्रोपपादनमिति ।।14.3।।
>
> Sanskrit commentary by Sri Madhvacharya
> महद्ब्रह्म प्रकृतिः, सा च श्रीर्भूर्दुर्गेति भिन्ना। उमासरस्वत्याद्यास्तु
> तदंशयुता अन्यजीवाः। तथा च काषायणश्रुतिः -- "श्रीर्भुर्दुर्गा महती तु माया
> या लोकसूतिर्जगतो बन्धिका च। उमावागाद्या अन्यजीवास्तदंशास्तदात्मना
> सर्ववेदेषु गीताः" इति। मम योनिरिति गर्भाधानार्था योनिः, न तु माता,
> वाक्यशेषात्। तथा हि सामवदे शार्कराक्षश्रुतौ --
> "विष्णोर्योनिर्गर्भसन्धारणार्था महामाया सर्वदुःखैर्विहीना। तथाऽप्यात्मानं
> दुःखिवन्मोहनार्थं प्रकाशयन्ती सह विष्णुना सा" इति। अतः सीतादुःखादिकं सर्वं
> मृषा प्रदर्शनमेव। तथा कूर्मपुराणे -- 'न चेयं भूः' ब्र.सं.पु. तथा च
> सौकरायणश्रुतिः -- "अन्या भूर्भूरियं तस्य छाया भूताऽवमा सा हि भूतैकयोनिः"
> इति। "अवाप स्वेच्छया दास्यं जगतां प्रपितामही" इत्यनभिम्लानश्रुतिः।
> मत्स्यपुराणोक्तमपि स्वेच्छयैव। महद्ब्रह्मशब्दवाच्या़ऽपि प्रकृतिरेव'महती
> ब्रह्मणी द्वे तु प्रकृतिश्च महेश्वरः' इति तत्रैव ।।14.3।।
>
>
> This is not in any way different from the Advaitic view that the
> jIivatvam/samsAra for Brahman is not real but only an appearence since
> Brahman/ AtmA is never really subjected to samsAra.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>