Vibhishana sharanaagati

[Guest guest]

Before reading any responses to his question, my friend

had a few further comments:

 

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

 

Seeing that no one has answered - I shall venture to say my two

cents worth. This is something that has particularly struck a

chord in my heart - especially when it came to Sri Raama. I do

not particularly care when this is brought up with respect to the

Para, Vyuha, Archa and the other Vibhava avataras of the

Lord. But Sri Raama is special.

 

I feel a physical blow when someone claims that Raama did not

have KaaruNyam when he was without Mother Seetha. I guess some

Sri Vaishnavaas particularly like to labor the point of the

Piraatti being the compassionate one. I like to respectfully

differ. Here are my repertoire of examples from my limited

reading of the Srimad RaamaayaNam.

 

1.) Jataayu - Sri Raama on seeing the remains of his battle with

Ravana and seeing a giant body in the darkness initially

"mistakes" it to be the demon that had kidnapped Seetha and lifts

his bow to finish it off. Coming closer he hears Jataayu's faint

cries. Everyone knows what the Lord did after that. Jataayu went

to the Lokas that even Dasaratha did not get. No Sita

here. (Strike one for Sri Raama) Now this can be explained away

by saying - afterall Jataayu died trying to protect the

Mother. But this is all stretched. If Maariicha died simply

because he was a couple miles away from Seetha and if the 14000

guys at Janasthaana died because they were just out on an open

ground a furlong away from the cave where Sita was - this does

not make sense.

 

2.) Shabari - No contact with Siita at all. None whatsoever. So

where did she go? Okay - so her aacharyan Matanga Maharishi had

already promised her the higher lokas before Sri Raama blessed

her with his presence. I guess the Sri Vaishnavaas would claim

that the "U" kaaram in the OM signifies both the Piraatti and the

Aacharyan since they do identical work. In my view - this is

stretched even more taut than the first one.

 

3.) Sri Raama's protection of the spies sent by Raavana. If one

were to say that he only was a disciplining force bereft of the

Mother - he could have had those two guys killed (Shuka and

Saarana).

 

4.) Sending back Raavana himself without killing him on the first

day of the battle. He kept giving him innumerable chances to come

under his protection and only disposed him off at the end seeing

Raavana adamant in his stand.

 

5.) And I have one more - Raama was not even Sri Raama when he

ran into Maariicha first. He killed Subaahu and dumped Maaricha a

hundred yojanas away into the Ocean. Did not kill him then - but

waited until Siita was a couple miles away to finish him off -

after a gap of 23 years???? Raama, you are not being logical.

 

These are the ones at the top of my head. Doubtless there are

many more. My point is simply this. While it cannot be argued

that Piraatti is Purushakaara and bears no sentiment other than

KaaruNyam, it is not true to say that the Lord who has KaaruNyam

as one of his KalyaaNaguNaas - leaves it to be dormant until the

Mother awakens it with her presence or her words mediating in

favor of the Jeevaatma. I would disagree to think of the Lord as

simply a stern disciplinarian meting out justice in a detatched

manner - when the Mother is not around and then turning on his

syrup of KaaruNyam when he listens to her.

 

But I guess when upanyaasakars talk on these points ( and they

are very sweet ) they do tend to use more emotion than logic and

stress a point by painting a deliberately darker picture on the

other side. BTW, in the Srimad RaamaayaNam too when Bhagavaan

Vaalmiki talks about scholars debating in the afternoons of the

Ashwamedha yaaga - he says one party would deliberately start a

debate criticising some aspect of the Divine - the other party

would defend it and in the end both would bask in the collective

experience of the exposition of those qualities.

[Guest guest]

The discussion hitherto has provided interesting insights into

piRATTi's purushakaara vaibhavam, but there is an important point

that has not been addressed in these discussions, and one that Mani

has mentioned, in which context, it might be useful to re-word the

question that was originally posed:

 

Is there a role for Seetha pirATTi in vibheeshaNa sharaNAgathi as is

evident in cases such as that of kAkAsuran?

>

> Seeing that no one has answered - I shall venture to say my two

> cents worth. This is something that has particularly struck a

> chord in my heart - especially when it came to Sri Raama. I do

> not particularly care when this is brought up with respect to the

> Para, Vyuha, Archa and the other Vibhava avataras of the

> Lord. But Sri Raama is special.

>

> I feel a physical blow when someone claims that Raama did not

> have KaaruNyam when he was without Mother Seetha. I guess some

> Sri Vaishnavaas particularly like to labor the point of the

> Piraatti being the compassionate one. I like to respectfully

> differ. Here are my repertoire of examples from my limited

> reading of the Srimad RaamaayaNam.

 

Raaman is ShaadguNya paripoorNan. Is he not the ONLY ONE whom Sage

nArada identifies as guNavAn, veeryavAn, dharmagnya, kruthagnya,

sathyavAkyaha, drudhavrathaha, yukthaha, sarvabhootha hithaha,

vidwaan, samarthaha, priyadarsanaha...? AcharyaL's classify

perumAL's innumerable kalyANa guNas into two broad groups: One KOTi

(ten million) that come under his incomprehensible soulabhyam, and

the other that can be classified as part of his irrefutable paratvam

(the other KOTi).

 

The question is not whether bhagavAn has kAruNyam or not. Of course,

he overflows with kAruNyam for all of creation. Whether he will

display kAruNyam towards those that have committed

apachAram to his devotees is the real question, and should form the

context for piRaTTi's purushakaarathvam. He is, as he proclaims in

the Geetha, "sarva bhootha suhruth". When sugreeva et al. oppose

accepting vibheeshaNa, it is emberumAn who says "sakrutheva

prapannAya thava asmi.. abhayam sarva bhoothebhyO dadaami.." and then

confirms it with "yEthath dhrutham mama".... In fact, it is extremely

difficult, reading about the awe-inspiring dhArmika soulabhyam of Sri

Raama, to be not touched by his kAruNyam.

 

However, he is also nirankusha swathanthran (unfettered

independent). Since he is the one who has laid down the shAstras,

he (as he very eloquently describes in the Geetha) has to let the

course of karmA and dharmA run consistent with shAstric injunctions.

That is why the Shastras call him "dhanDadharan", one who will

enforce dharma, consistently and with impartialty.

 

It is in those instances when someone has sinned egregiously,

especially against his devotees, that the lord might not show mercy

(Who can question his swathanthryam and parathvam) and where

piRATTi's role as purushakaara bhoothai comes to the fore. Because

she wants to pardon everyone, and wants to bring back all her

children back into the fold, be they evil or misguided, if only she

can convince them to show even a soupcon of contrition. For she

represents the all-forgiving kindness inherent to the lord. It would

be instructive to remember Seetha vaakyam to Hanuman in the context

of punishing the raakshasis - na kashchin naaparadhyasi - that they

deserve forgiveness because the raakshasis were enjoined to be cruel,

by nature, association or conditioning and not because of any

inherent fault.

 

So, the real point is that piRatti's kAruNyam goes beyond that of

perumAL for she is not fettered by the need to be the enforcer of

shastras. Hence, piRatti's explicit role in the context of

vibheeshaNa sharaNAgathi might be largely irrelevant.

 

However, in cases such as those of maareecha or vaali, her presence

would have ensured that they, who had erred, may well have gotten an

opportunity to set things right (as Sri Pillai lokacharyar says -

chEthananai aruLAle thiruthum - her kindness/dayA will engender a

sense of contrition in those who have erred, thereby giving the lord

an opportunity to be the sarva bhootha suhruth.) After all, Sri

Raama would have spared rAvaNA even till the final moment, if only he

had had the sense to even begin realizing the error of his ways.

 

Aazhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar ThiruvadigaLe sharaNam

 

sridhar