[Advaita-l] Raama and advaita - a mocker
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 22:34:02 EDT 2017
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Kalyan via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Alright, read the question as being asked in the vyavahArika realm. Rama, being an incarnation of Vishnu, the Ishwara, did he leave his original upAdhi of sarvajnatva for the incarnation duration? I hope this question is sufficiently well posed for advaitins.
If you are asking a Vyavaharika question this question is not for
Advaitis only but for everybody like Visistadvaitis, Dvaitis and so
on. It is like asking a question in Physics or Chemistry. Valmiki
Raamaayana will have the answer. Unlike Krishna Raama did not show
Sarvajnatva in his Avatara. Otherwise He could have avoided chasing
the Golden deer. He could have detected real Seeta was not kidnapped
but Maayaa Seeta and not felt grief and cried. In Krishna Avatara also
Brahma kidnaps all the Gopa boys and calves for some time. But Krishna
did not cry like Raama. He immediately knew Brahma has kidnapped them.
He created new boys and calves. Nobody knew this but only Balaraama
Some people say Raama was only acting like a ordinary man to show how
to be ideal man but He knew everything. Some people like Iskcon say
Krishna only is Poorna Avatara and others are Amsha Avataras. You can
read all arguments on all sides and decide.
> On Mon, 4/10/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Raama and advaita - a mocker
> To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Monday, April 10, 2017, 3:16 PM
> not unnecessarily complicating the issue. Your question,
> restated below, presupposes that ignorance is something that
> you "really suffer" from and that the said
> ignorance is "genuine."
> I'm saying that when you want an
> answer about the Ramayana from Advaita Acharyas (as opposed
> to general people who have an affinity to advaita), your
> questions should not be ill-posed.
> Suppose I say, "no, Rama was
> only acting out his role as a man in that avatara, so he did
> not really suffer from ignorance." That will leave room
> for the possibility that other men really suffer from
> ignorance. However, it is not as if another jIva, whom we do
> not consider an avatara-purusha, "really suffers"
> from ignorance. Obviously however, when we say that even
> bandha-moksha vyavahAra operates only in the mithyA realm,
> that special exemption of Rama from ignorance will be an
> imperfect, if not an incorrect answer, coming from an
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list