Guest guest Posted October 12, 1998 Report Share Posted October 12, 1998 Mani wrote:------------------------ Dear Bhaagavataas, .... 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. Mani: In the case of Sugriva, his offering of Piratti's Abharanas to the Lord was interpreted as purushakaaratvam. Is it not possible to interpret in the same vein - Vibishana's pleading in Ravana's court for the release of Piratti - enough to elicit Her Purushakaaratvam. I thought Mohan Sagar's interpretation is somewhat along the same lines. However, the difficulty in that interpretation is - can X's act be considered as a ground for protecting Y. Vijayaraghavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.