Thread by @DefiledGod

My thoughts on the "mAyA-sIta" story.

Some purANAs carry the story that sIta herself was not abducted by rAvaNa, and that agnideva protected her while a “mAyA-sIta” spent the time in ashoka vana.

I did some reading+

Firstly, it is not possible for sIta to *not* be abducted. The vAlmiki rAmAyaNa refers to itself as “सीतायाः चरितम् महत्” – the great story of sIta.

Hence, removing her abduction would nullify many tattvArthAs+

Secondly, the abduction was not by force, but of her own volition. Recall that during the battle, rAvaNa could not even move an unconscious lakShmaNa, then how could he lift sIta away?

Purely because she herself willed it to. She kidnapped him, not vice-versa!+

Then, how can we reconcile the mAyA-sIta story? As follows.

The skanda purANa relates that this mAyA-sIta was formerly vedavati, who had been practicing penances to attain nArAyaNa as her husband+

rAvaNa seized her by the hair. She cursed rAvaNa that she would be born for his destruction & entered agni.

Skanda p. says vedavati was born as mAyA-sIta, to replace sIta. Then, after performing services, she was reborn as PadmAvati to marry ShrinivAsa, the Lord of Tirumala+

So, Skanda purANa says vedavati  >> mAyA sIta >> padmAvati. And who is padmAvati, the consort of Venkateshvara? shrI mahAlakshmI herself.

This makes vedavati, and hence mAyA-sIta, identical to lakshmI herself and no other+

The vAlmiki rAmAyaNa makes this clear in uttara kANDa:

एषा वेदवती नाम पूर्वम् आसीत् कृते युगे त्रेतायुगम् अनुप्राप्य वधार्थं तस्य रक्षसः
सीतोत्पन्नेति सीतैषा मानुषैः पुनर् उच्यते

[She who was Vedavati in kR^ita yuga, was born as sIta in treta yuga for destruction of rAvaNa]+

vAlmiki skips the mAyA-sIta story and says Vedavati was sIta herself. This is kalpa-bheda. In some kalpAs, vedavati is born as sIta and is abducted.

That sIta becomes rukmiNI in dvApara yuga and padmAvati in kali. In other kalpAs, vedavati becomes mAyA-sIta and then padmAvati+

The Skanda purANa also implies that this mAyA-sIta was verily another form of sIta herself by the following shloka –

सीताया रूपसदृशीं कृत्वा

[Vedavati created a form for herself resembling sIta]+

Just as bhagavAn has no equal, neither does devI. None can imitate sIta’s form which is incomparable (एकमेवाद्वितीयं ).

IndrajIt could create an illusion of sIta, poundraka could weakly imitate bhagavAn, but noone can assume forms of bhagavAn & devI or act like them+

Thus, when skanda purANa says this Vedavati created a form that was equal to sIta, it is implying she is verily another form of mahAlakshmI. Only devI can imitate herself!+

Also, it does not mean one avatAra (vedavati) merely assumed the form of another (sIta). Vedavati also assumed demeanor, guNAs etc of sIta and for the duration of her stay, truly considered herself as sIta.

It was as wonderful as it would be if krishNa suddenly acted as rAma!+

Thus, this preserves the tattva. If we say sIta was replaced by another form of hers in some kalpAs, then whatever she said and did in ashoka vana, are truly her acts and the story is indeed “सीतायाः चरितम् महत्”.

Nobody other than lakshmI can do such acts+

The question that arises now would be – why would then, there be a need for devI herself to create another form, if in the end, it is she herself who is undergoing the ordeal?

The answer is – it is to give a mAhAtmya to her avatAra as padmAvatI+

By performing this service for rAma and sIta, lakshmI as vedavati “earned” the right to become venkateshvara’s consort.

It is a vyAja or excuse for enhancing the glory of her avatAra as padmAvati. This happens only in some kalpAs, since this excuse is not absolutely necessary+

Yet another reason is that sIta’s form is so tender and delicate, not used to harsh ordeals, that agnideva felt a paternal affection for her and wanted to protect her.

So, an “older” form in vedavati took her place, to fulfill his desire+

Lastly, “mAyA-sIta” does not mean “illusory sIta”. Because mAyA-sIta was identical to sIta herself anyway.

The term “mAyA” means j~nAna of the form of sankalpa. It was another form assumed by sIta herself, out of her will. Alternatively, “mAyA” also means “wonderful”+

Some quote devI purANa to say that mAyA-sIta became draupadi. This is not an authentic purANa, so this story need not be given credence.

Because it was devI herself appearing as mAyA-sIta, this switch is trivial and not of consequence.//