Vibhishana Saranagati -- a query

[Guest guest]

A Rama-bhakta not on this list asks this very interesting

question:

 

------------------------

 

Dear Bhaagavataas,

 

Have had a nagging doubt after listening to VeLukkudi's lectures. The

topic is Vibhiishana sharanaagati from Srimad RaamaayaNam ( what else

could you expect from me? ). According to repeated statements from the

upanyaasakar - SriRaama did NOT "protect" when he was away from

Seetha-devi. Even Maariicha was killed a distance away from her and so

were the Raakshasaas in Janasthaana etc. Vaali claims that the Lord is

bereft of his KaaruNyam since he is separated from Piraatti and hence

he was needlessly killed.

 

The upanyaasakar says there are some who challenge that Sugriva was

accepted by the Lord as his friend - in the absence of Sita - but

refutes it by saying that Sugriva offered the AabharaNas of the Mother

to the Lord first and hence he followed the tradition of reaching the

Lord thru the mediation of the Mother. He states that with Hanumaan

too it is only after Hanumaan had the darshan of the Mother in Ashoka

vana that he calls himself - Daasoham Raamasya - as opposed to

announcing himself as dhootoham Raamasya. I verified this in the

recent reading of the Sundara-Kaandam. This is true - I was amazed to

see this.

 

But the problem I have is that those two are perhaps explanations I

could come up with if I did a little detailed reading of the Srimad

RaamaayaNam. Not something only the elders needed to point out. In my

view the knotty problem is VibhiishaNa sharanaagati - which VeLukkuDi

does NOT address and for which I for one cannot find any intercession

from the Mother for SriRaama to accept him ignoring Sugriva, Angada

and Jaambavaan's advice to have him killed. Hanumaan is the only one

who speaks in favor of accepting VibhiishaNa.

 

So the question is did Piraatti act as a purushakaara in Vibhiishana

sharanaagati? If so where and how?

 

-------

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaagavathaas,

Here is my humble 2 cents contribution to this hallowed discussion.

I can quote one other instance. Did not Lord Raama grant liberation

to Devi Ahalya (or Gautami) from her sage-husband's curse even before

He was united in wedlock with Shri Seetha?

The bottomline is that the Lord is never separated from the Divine Mother.

She always resides in His heart. This apparent temporary separation of

the Divine Couple is only a divine drama enacted (maybe for Loka kalyaanam).

 

I hope I have contributed something to this thread.

 

Pranaams,

-Ram.

 

-------

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

 

|A Rama-bhakta not on this list asks this very interesting

|question:

|

|------------------------

|

|Dear Bhaagavataas,

|

|Have had a nagging doubt after listening to VeLukkudi's lectures. The

|topic is Vibhiishana sharanaagati from Srimad RaamaayaNam ( what else

|could you expect from me? ). According to repeated statements from the

|upanyaasakar - SriRaama did NOT "protect" when he was away from

|Seetha-devi. Even Maariicha was killed a distance away from her and so

|were the Raakshasaas in Janasthaana etc. Vaali claims that the Lord is

|bereft of his KaaruNyam since he is separated from Piraatti and hence

|he was needlessly killed.

|

|The upanyaasakar says there are some who challenge that Sugriva was

|accepted by the Lord as his friend - in the absence of Sita - but

|refutes it by saying that Sugriva offered the AabharaNas of the Mother

|to the Lord first and hence he followed the tradition of reaching the

|Lord thru the mediation of the Mother. He states that with Hanumaan

|too it is only after Hanumaan had the darshan of the Mother in Ashoka

|vana that he calls himself - Daasoham Raamasya - as opposed to

|announcing himself as dhootoham Raamasya. I verified this in the

|recent reading of the Sundara-Kaandam. This is true - I was amazed to

|see this.

|

|But the problem I have is that those two are perhaps explanations I

|could come up with if I did a little detailed reading of the Srimad

|RaamaayaNam. Not something only the elders needed to point out. In my

|view the knotty problem is VibhiishaNa sharanaagati - which VeLukkuDi

|does NOT address and for which I for one cannot find any intercession

|from the Mother for SriRaama to accept him ignoring Sugriva, Angada

|and Jaambavaan's advice to have him killed. Hanumaan is the only one

|who speaks in favor of accepting VibhiishaNa.

|

|So the question is did Piraatti act as a purushakaara in Vibhiishana

|sharanaagati? If so where and how?

|

|-------

|

 

-------------------------

-------------------------

SHRI RAMA JAYAM

Ram G Mohan Call me:

Software Engineer E-mail: rgmohan

Hughes Software Systems Phone no: 0124-346666

Gurgaon(HARYANA) - 122015 Ext: 2422

-------------------------

-------------------------

"Let noble thoughts come from all sides."

[Guest guest]

This really is a very interesting question, and I hope that it will

generate some interesting discussion on the subtle nuances of prapatti as

illustrated in Srimad Ramayanam.

 

I do know of one popularly held belief among SriVaishnavas in Andhra, but

am not sure whether it has been confirmed by our AchAryans. This belief

holds that since he sent his daughter Trijata to care for Sita Piratti in

the ashOka vanam, Vibheeshanar indirectly performed kainkaryam to Her first

before performing prapatti to Perumal.

 

I look forward to further discussion on this very interesting topic.

 

dAsan,

 

Mohan