[Advaita-l] A Question on prArabdha

Anand Hudli ahudli at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 10:57:32 CDT 2010

Shri Subrahmanian wrote:
>In the above verse along with Nala and YudhiShThira why has Rama been
>included?  With regard to the former two it could be said that their
>prArabdha was the cause of their woes.  Did Rama too have to suffer due to
>prArabdha?  Can prArabdha be admitted to an Avatara who is not admitted to
>have had an 'earlier life'? Is it proper to consider Rama as a human like
>the other two?

There is excellent consistency between what the PanchadashI says and what
the vivaraNa-prameya-saMgraha says here. Let me clarify first and say that,
as per VidyAraNya, rAma was an avatar of Ishvara Himself, nothing
less. Apparently, mAyA can play her tricks on Ishvara too! The vivaraNa
prameya saMgraha says as much in the section, "mAyAvidyayorbhedanirAsaH".
Basically, mAyA and avidyA are the same and there is no difference between
them. If mAyA and avidyA are the same entity, then mAyA can cause
bewilderment in whomever that is its locus, just as avidyA does. This is the
idea. Now, mAyA is controlled by Ishvara who also is mAyA's Ashraya or
locus. VidyAraNya says that there is no rule that mAyA does not create
bewilderment in its locus (like avidyA) and cites the case of shrIrAma who
was an avatara of ViShNu Himself, where it is observed that mAyA bewildered
 न च मायाया आश्रयं प्रति अव्यामोहकत्वं नियतम्, विष्णोः स्वाश्रितमाययैव
रामावतारे मोहितत्वात् ।
Despite being Ishvara Himself, shrIrAma was bewildered by the mAyA mriga,
the golden deer, and did not see through the trick.

VidyAraNya goes on to also say there is no rule that avidyA should
always bewilder its locus. For example, a person who sees a tree and its
reflection in a lake simultaneously knows very well that the tree is not
really inverted, but only appears so.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list