Maayaa Siitaa? Maayaa-Gopiis? Inconsistency??

[Guest guest]

Camp: Sri Mayapur Candrodaya Mandir, Navadwip Dhama, Nadia, WB, INDIA

Nityananda Prabhu's Appearance Day Vyasa-Puja Festival & Magha Month Vrata

 

Dear Krishna Susarla,

 

Please accept my best wishes. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Thankyou for your question cited below with my comments.

 

> Hare Krishna. Dandavats.

>

> In Shrii Chaitanya Charitamrita (Madhya-liilaa, Chapter 9), Lord Chaitanya

> explains that Raavana never kidnapped Siitaa. This He did by citing the

> shruti:

>

> na sa.mdR^ishe tiShThati rupamasya cha chakshuShaa pasyati kashchanainam |

> hR^idaa maniShaa manasaabhikl^ipto ya etad viduramR^itaaste bhavanti || KU

> 2.3.9 ||

>

> The Transcendental Personality of Godhead is beyond the purview of occult

> vision. Nobody can behold Him with the physical eye. But He can be

> apprehended through a pure transparent mind imbibed with intuitive wisdom

> borne out of unalloyed devotional practices in the very core of one's own

> unstinted heart - those who have really got such vision, have gained final

> beautitude (kaThopaniShad 2.3.9).

>

> naiva vaachaa na manasaa praaptu.m shakyo na chakShuShaa |

> astiiti bruvato'nyatra katha.m tadupalabhyate || KU 2.3.12 ||

>

> The Supreme Godhead can be apprehended neither by speech, nor by mind nor

> by eyes. How can He be realised otherwise than from those wise persons who

> have positively realized Him through their intuitive wisdom by dint of

> unalloyed devotion to Him (kaThopaniShad 2.3.12).

>

> (translations are from Twelve Essential Upanishads, Volume I, by Tridandi

> Sri Bhakti Prajnan Yati)

>

> His reasoning, apparently, is that because Siitaa's form is spiritual,

> just as is the form of Lord Raamachandra, it was not possible for Raavana

> to see Her what to speak of kindnap Her (because no materially conditioned

> entity would be able to).

>

> Thus the Lord says:

>

> iishvara-preyasii siitaa -- chid-aananda-muurti |

> praakR^ita-indriyera taa.nre dekhite naahi shakti || CC ML 9.191 ||

>

> Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu continued, "Siitaadevii, the dearmost wife of

> the Supreme Lord Raamachandra, certainly has a spiritual form full of

> bliss. No one can see her with material eeys, for no one material has such

> power." (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, madhya-liilaa, 9.191)

>

> sparshibaara kaarya aachhuka, naa paaya darshana |

> siitaara aakR^iti-maayaa harila raavaNa || CC ML 9.192 ||

>

> "To say nothing of touching mother Siitaa, a person with material senses

> cannot even see her. When Raavana kidnapped her, he kidnapped only her

> material illusory form (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, madhya-liilaa,

> 9.192).

>

> From this evidence, numerous doubts arise.

>

> 1) According to the version of events related by Aatma-Tattva daasa (which

> I believe is recorded on his Untold Stories from the Raamaayana tape

> series), Raavana approached the cottage in which Siitaa-Maata was

> residing. He did see her there, and beckoned her to leave the protective

> circle left there by Lakshmana. It was only at the point when she crossed

> the circle that She was replaced by the Maayaa-Siitaa. Thus, Raavana still

> saw Siitaa, which contradicts the evidence given above.

 

When Sita crossed the "Lakmsan rekha" some flames shot up. It is stated

that Agni-deva swapped the Maya-Sita for the real Sita at that point.

 

Apart from those details the point you are doubtful about is seeing the Lord

or His internal potency. When the Lord is present on the earth as an Avatar

then everyone can see the Lord. However depending on their advancement in

Krishna consciousness or God realization they see the Lord in different

ways. This is described in the pastime of Lord Sri Krishna entering the

arena of Kamsa in Mathura. Apart from the Lord's pastimes no one can see

the Lord and the katha upanisad's statements stand. During the Lord's

pastimes the Lord shows some aspects of His glories to the conditioned souls

present, but only the pure devotees are able to go deep into his glories.

 

> 2) To say nothing of Raavana, Suurpanakha who was Raavana's sister, was

> the first of their family to see Siitaa herself. She was also a demon and

> thus unqualified to see Her, yet she did. How can this be reconciled with

> the Katha Upanishad quote and Lord Chaitanya's own instruction in this

> regard?

 

During the Lord's Avatar so many persons saw Him! Lord Sri Krishna was seen

by millions of people during the Kurukshetra battles, isn't it? This aspect

of seeing the Lord during His visits to this earth was mentioned in your

first question. One can also see the Lord in His arca-avatar form as the

Worshipable Deity which is considered an incarnation of the Lord, but

visible.

 

> 3) Even more distressing than the previous two points, there is clear

> evidence that at least one other demon touched Mother Siitaa well before

> the whole Maayaa-Siitaa incident. I refer you to the Raamaayana of

> Vaalmiiki, aaranya-kaaNDa, Canto 2. In this chapter, the attack by the

> demon Viraadha on Raama, Siita, and Lakshmana is described:

>

> siitayaa saha kaakutsthastasmin ghoramR^igaayute |

> dadarsha girishTa.ngaabhi.m puruShaada.m mahaasvanam || 4 ||

>

> gabhiiraakShya.m mahaavaktra.m vikaTa.m vikaTodaram |

> biibhatsa.m viShama.m diirgha.m vikR^ita.m ghoradarshanam || 5 ||

>

> vasaana.m charma vaiyaaghra.m vasaardra.m rughirokShitam |

> traasana.m sarvabhuutaanaa.m vyaaditaasyamivaantakam || 6 ||

>

> triin si.mhaamshchaturo vyaaghraan dvai vR^ikau pR^iShTaan dasha |

> saviShaaNa.m vasaadigdha.m gajasya cha shiro mahat || 7 ||

>

> avasajyaayase shuute vinadanta.m mahaasvanam |

> sa raama.m lakShmaNa.m chaiva siitaa.m dR^iShTvaa cha maithiliim || 8 ||

>

> amyadhaavat susa.mkruddhaH prajaaH kaala ivaantakaH |

> sa kR^itvaa bhairava.m naada.m chaalaya.mnniva mediniim || 9 ||

>

> a.nkenaadaaya vaidehiimapakramya tadaabraviit |

> yuvaa.m jaTaachiiragha rau sabhaaryau kShiiNjiivitau || 10 ||

>

> praviShTau daNDakaaraNya.m sharachaapaasipaaNinau |

> katha.m taapasayorvaa.m cha vaasaH pramadayaa saha || 11 ||

>

> Raama (a descendant of Kakutstha) together with Siitaa saw in tha forest

> full of wild animals a dreadful man-eating ogre of terrific voice, looking

> like a mountain-peak, having deep eyes, a huge mouth, a fierce belly,

> despicable, uneven, tall, abnormal, presenting a terrible sight, wearing a

> tiger's skin wet with fat and sprinkled with blood, molesting all beings,

> resembling the god of death with his mouth wide open, tying three lions,

> four tigers, two wolves, ten spotted deer and the big head of an elephant

> with tusks and wet with fat to an iron lance, and roaring in a terrific

> voice. He saw Raama, Lakshmana and also Siitaa, the princess of Mithilaa,

> and attacked them with great anger as Kaala, the destroyer of people,

> attacks them. He made a terrific sound as though making the earth tremble,

> took the princess of Videha country (Siitaa) in his arms, went afar and

> then said, "You two having matted hair and wearing a bark-garment, and

> still having a wife with you, with your life coming to an end, have

> entered the Dandaka forest taking arrows, bow and sword in your hands.

> Again, how are you two ascetics staying with a woman?

> (vaalmiiki-raamaayaNa, aaraNya-kaaNDa, 2.4-11).

>

> I also checked the Sanskrit against another version I have, which is in

> postscript form (and available for download from the HSC site). There were

> some minor differences, but the text as a whole was there. Hence, I don't

> think this can be regarded as interpolation. Furthermore, the translation

> and Sanskrit are from the Gita Press edition of this work, which Srila

> Prabhupada apparently thought highly of. I remember this because one

> Prabhupada disciple named Karnaamrita dasa was attempting to do his own

> translation, and he states that he checked his translation against the

> Gita Press one on Srila Prabhupada's advice.

>

> In any case, here we have several problems:

> 3a) this demon Viraadha was clearly not qualified to see or touch spirit,

> yet

> 3b The account of events clearly states that he saw Raama and Lakshmana,

> as well as Siitaa,

> 3c) and that Viraadha also touched Siitaa, took Her into his arms, etc.

>

> This does not seem consistent with the idea that a Maayaa-Siitaa had to be

> present in order to be kidnapped by Raavana. Why is it that we use the

> Maayaa-Siitaa explanation to explain how Raavana apparently kidnapped

> Siitaa, yet we do not employ such an explanation here? If we accept the

> Katha Upanishad quote, then this demon Viraadha should not have been able

> to *see* Siitaa, what to speak of kidnap Her. Yet he did do exactly that,

> according to Vaalmiiki.

 

Seeing the Lord during His avataras (incarnations) is the difference.

Whether Sita was replaced or not with a Maya Sita devi isn't mentioned

probably since Rama and Laksman freed Her immediately in Their presence.

The reason it became a controversy was the moral codes of those days stated

that if a wife was living away from her husband in some other man's custody

then her chastity could be questioned. Since the real Sita didn't go at all

with Ravana that question shouldn't have arisen. This was revealed during

the "test of fire". During the Lord's pastimes everyone on the planet can

see the Lord, still the example of Vidura Saint, although he could see the

Lord regularly, he wanted to advance in Krishna consciousness so that his

devotion and realization of Lord Sri Krishna would be enhanced. So the pure

devotees have a deeper realization of the Lord when He is present in His

Avatara pastimes then others who can also see a form of the Lord.

 

> So we have several problems here. Raavana, Suurpanakha, and Viraadha also

> saw Siitaa, in spite of being materially conditioned living entities. And

> Viraadha clearly touched and kidnapped Siitaa, well before She was

> replaced by the Maayaa-Siitaa (as mentioned by the Kuurma Puraana). How do

 

Already explained.

 

> Finally, I want to point out a verse I read from Shriimad Bhaagavatam -

> 2.7.33 in which Lord Brahmaa tells of how the demon Shankachuuda kidnapped

> the gopiis after the raasa dance. Again, one must necessarily wonder - if

> the gopiis are expansions of the pleasure potency and thus have spiritual

> forms, how did this demon Shankachuuda kidnap them? Were there

> "Maayaa-Gopiis" also?

 

Also Kaliya the serpent, Hiranya-kasipu and other Demons sometimes touched

or grabbed the Lord, what to speak of see Him, prior to their deliverance.

That is the specialty of the Lord's descents to this world.

 

> I would very much appreciate if you could clarify these inconsistencies

> and establish the Gaudiya Vaishnava view in this regard.

>

> your servant,

>

> - Krishna Susarla

 

I hope this was helpful and removed your doubts.

 

I hope that this finds you in good health.

 

Your well wisher,

 

Jayapataka Swami