Dvividha in Srimad Bhagavatam

[Guest guest]

This mail has caught me at a very wrong time! I am left with just ten minutes

to start for work. Let me quickly say what I want to say and come back to this

mail later.

 

These two brothers, Mainda and Dwivida, do great deeds in Ramayana and are the

favourities of Hanuman. In fact, in Kamba Ramayana, Hanuman assigns them to go

to Vibishana when he walks into their camp for the first time and is attacked by

other monkeys.

 

Coming back to your question. Dwivida might have been a devotee of Sri Rama. I

would like to draw your attention to the earlier Slokas in the same canto

(Discourse LXVII of Book Ten) in Srimad Bhavagavata.

 

"Possessing (as he id) the strength of ten thousand elephants, the monkey now

and then took his stand in mid ocean and splashed such a volume of water with

his hands as to submerge the territories adjoining the shore. The villain used

to knock down trees in the hermitages of great sages and profaaned their

sacrificial fires with excrement and urine." (Sloka 5 and 6).

 

Devotee or no devotee. If the mind goes astray and if the person misbehaves, he

deserves to be eliminated. And in this case, the misdeeds have obviously

exceeded tolerable limits.

 

Being a devotee does not grant a blanket immunity, after all!

 

Shall write again on this.

 

Regards,

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

 

-

"Mani Varadarajan" <mani

<bhakti-list>

Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:31 AM

Dvividha in Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

|

| A question from a friend of mine:

|

| > I happened to be reading the Srimad Bhagavatam this

| > morning and came across the episode where Dwivida gets

| > killed by Balarama.

|

|

| > I am disturbed to see this contradiction and am even more

| > disturbed as to how the Lord's devotee could die in this

| > way.

|

| Anyone have any ideas?

|

| Mani

[Guest guest]

I sent a mail this morning on this. As far as I can recollect, the names of

Mainda and Dwivida are mentioned in the Yuddha Kanda in Valmiki Ramayana. Canto

76 is devoted to these brothers, who kill Yupaksa and Sonitaksa respectively.

The following is the translation of Sloka 16 of the said canto:

 

"Protecting Angada on all sides, Mainda and Dwivida too **(maternal uncles of

the prince)** took up their position by his side with intent to exhibit each his

own martial skill."

 

I would be obliged if information on:

 

1) Where Valmiki mentions that they are the sons of Aswini Devatas

2) Where it is mentioned that they quaffed Amrita

 

can be given by the scholars of this august assemblage.

 

Kamban mentions these two names in four or five places. But the above

information is absent in Kamba Ramayana.

 

Regards,

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

 

-

"Mani Varadarajan" <mani

<bhakti-list>

Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:31 AM

Dvividha in Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

|

| |

| > Second, Valmiki writes that Mainda and Dwivida were the

| > sons of the Aswinis and had quaffed Amrita. How then

| > could Dwivida be killed?

|

|

| Anyone have any ideas?

|

| Mani

|

[Guest guest]

A question from a friend of mine:

> I happened to be reading the Srimad Bhagavatam this

> morning and came across the episode where Dwivida gets

> killed by Balarama.

> Two problems with that. First, how could a devotee of Sri

> Raama who fought for him in Lanka cause himself to be

> killed by Balarama? (It is the same Dwivida since Vyaasa

> mentions that he was the brother or Mainda and a

> counsellor to Sugriva - the Lord of the Monkeys)

> Apparently, this Dwivida had befriended Naraka too.

> Second, Valmiki writes that Mainda and Dwivida were the

> sons of the Aswinis and had quaffed Amrita. How then

> could Dwivida be killed?

> If you have any clue about these, please let me know. If

> you know some knowledgeable souls that could explain

> this, please ask them.

> I am disturbed to see this contradiction and am even more

> disturbed as to how the Lord's devotee could die in this

> way.

 

Anyone have any ideas?

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri

SrimathE nigamAntha mahadesikAya namaha

> Why did Ajaya and Vijaya who were with Chaturbhujams and divya-

> sariram, and right in Sri Vaikuntam be killed by Varaha Perumal and

> Narasimha perumal when they at one point in Sriman Narayana's abode

> itself ?

 

The dwara-pAlakas Jaya and Vijaya (not Ajaya) were at Karya Vaikuntam not

Sri Vaikuntam. There *is* a difference between Karya Vaikuntam and Sri

Vaikuntam. We have discussed this topic many times. Yet surprisingly, many

people seem to have misinformed facts even after disucussing the same topic

few months back!

 

Ref: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jun2000/0035.html

> Maybe one reason could be that, they sided with the wrong persons

> over time: Bhishma with Duryodhana, Dvivida with Narakaasura, Ajaya

> and Vijaya prevented Sanaka kumaras from entering Vaikunta by

> speaking harshly. Probably all this was destined as a leelai by God

> himself.

 

Bhishma was bound by a vow to protect the KauravAs. There is nothing

surprising that he had to side the Kauravas. Infact, Yudhistira approaches

Bhishma to ask Bhishma himself how to defeat him (Bhishma) in the war. It is

Bhishma who instructs the Pandavas to use Sikhandi!

> But the good point is that they all got killed at the hands of the

> lord and watching the lord while they breathed their last. Even Vaali

> finally says that he is happy because he was killed by Rama himself,

> with an arrow that had the Rama-naama on it and with the Rama-

> Swarupam right in front of his eyes. His anthima-smarana was the

> highest that one could ask for. So he died happily.

 

You might want to read the tAra gitA found in the adhyAtma rAmAyana on this

:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/tAra_gita/tara_gita_toc.htm

 

Please note that Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam is regarded as the highest

authority on Ramayanam. The AdhyAtma ramayanam was inspired by the Valmiki

Ramayanam

 

The best commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam in Sri Vaishnava Sampradayam is the

Viiraraghaviyam.

 

Regards,

 

Malolan Cadambi

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Namaskarams.

 

There is a general belief that one should not read Srimad Bhagavatham at

home and can only do parayanam of it in Temples.

Is this a correct belief ? Do we have any strict regulations on reading

Bhagavatham at home ?

 

thanks,

Anand.

 

[ No, there is no such restriction. Sections of Srimad Bhagavatam

are recommended for regular recitation, such as the Krishnavatara

Ghatta from the 10th chapter, or Rukmini's letter to Krishna,

or Prahlada's Narasimha Stuti. More discussion on this matter

should probably take place in the sv-rituals group, which members

can join by visiting //sv-rituals

-- Mani ]

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams to you first.

 

It seems to be the same vanara. I don't know what to

say on immortality part (Immortality may have levels

and even Indra's life is much shorter compared to Lord

Brahma as we all know. Anyway he lived for an yuga and

in some sense justfied Valmiki.

 

All said and done, there are lot of differences in the

time concept of valmiki and Bhagavatham. Krishna lived

for 120 years only and Valmiki talkes about few ten

thousands of years for Rama.

 

Valmiki says Kashyapa did tapas for 1000 deva years to

get vamana while Bhgavatham talks about his wife doing

it just for few days.

 

Poets have a tendency to cross realties of time and

space all said and done.

 

Anyway, all this are to improve bhakthi and we need to

really look at the principles they stand for. Vedas

usually talk about praying the Gods to grant trouble

free 100 years of life and that is very convincing.

 

warm regards,

Balaji S.

 

--- Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote:

>

> A question from a friend of mine:

>

> > I happened to be reading the Srimad Bhagavatam

> this

> > morning and came across the episode where Dwivida

> gets

> > killed by Balarama.

>

> > Two problems with that. First, how could a devotee

> of Sri

> > Raama who fought for him in Lanka cause himself to

> be

> > killed by Balarama? (It is the same Dwivida since

> Vyaasa

> > mentions that he was the brother or Mainda and a

> > counsellor to Sugriva - the Lord of the Monkeys)

> > Apparently, this Dwivida had befriended Naraka

> too.

>

> > Second, Valmiki writes that Mainda and Dwivida

> were the

> > sons of the Aswinis and had quaffed Amrita. How

> then

> > could Dwivida be killed?

>

> > If you have any clue about these, please let me

> know. If

> > you know some knowledgeable souls that could

> explain

> > this, please ask them.

>

> > I am disturbed to see this contradiction and am

> even more

> > disturbed as to how the Lord's devotee could die

> in this

> > way.

>

> Anyone have any ideas?

>

> Mani

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all who responded. I forwarded some of the early

comments to my friend who posed the question and he had

this reply:

 

----

 

The reference to Dwivida and Mainda drinking nectar with

the permission of Brahma is in Yuddha Kanda Sarga 28,

slokas 6 and 7.

 

Though I can understand why Sri [Hari] Krishnan states amaratvam

to be transitory, it is not the same thing in the case of

the Devas - who lose their bodies only during pralaya. It

is totally different from getting killed - even if it is

at the hands of an avatara of the Lord.

 

The deeper question though is that these two had no

reason to be given permission to drink Amrita by Brahma.

If it was just a matter of the monkeys helping Sri Raama,

then on Sri Raama's request to Indra, the dead and

wounded monkey armies were already sprinkled with amrita

and brought back to life. There was no need for Brahma to

permit these two to specially drink the stuff, when he

should have known that it was going to be sprinkled over

them anyway.

 

As for Dwivida befriending Naraka and all the other

atricities he committed of turning rivers and breaking

into townships - I would argue that this is quite typical

of monkeys and what they did in Madhuvana was somewhat in

the same vein - laying waste to anything they set their

eyes on.

 

The disturbing point here is that this character has

served the Lord, knows him and has been graced by him,

but unlike the case of Jambavan, he does not get the

opportunity to recognise that he is up against the one he

served in a different form, in a different era. I would

have thought that his kainkaryam would have counted for

atleast a warning from the Lord and a chance to recognise

Him.

 

I guess the convoluted point I am trying to make (through

all my confusion) is that even Bhakti and kainkaryam dont

seem to be enough to stop someone from drifting. The Lord

does not seem to come to correct this and we ourselves

are powerless to control our senses (which is why we

surrender to Him and serve Him). So how can we be saved?

 

The other pricking issue is that if we call it Bhagavat

sankalpam - then again it seems to me that the Lord is

not really fixed in His resolve - first permitting this

guy to drink Amrita (Did He not know how Dwivida would

turn out later?) and then disposing him off at a later

time.

 

The struggle thru all these paragraphs for me is in

trying to figure out the limitations of human endeavour

and the extent of the Lord's Grace and what happens to

the soul subsequent to service at the Lord's feet - why

should he then drift at all?

 

I hope you see that I am not writing any of this from the

point of view of idle argument. These are questions

relevant to us and about our vigilance on how to guard

ourselves against slipping (assuming we are on the right

track in the first place).

 

Now how does that fit in with "maarjhaala kishore

nyaaya"?

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mani Varadarajan,

 

Thanks for the reference. I have this to say on para 2 of your response (as

given hereunder).

 

Yuddha Kanda Sarga 28 shows us Sarana introducing the Vanara warriors to Ravana

from a distance. Rama has just entered Lanka, constructing Sethu. There can

therefore be no question of 'Brahma permitting Mainda and Dwivida' to drink

nectar because they helped Rama, because when this introductory remark was made,

the war had not even started.

 

This must be a reference to a very old incident. When the Ocean of Milk was

churned for Amrita, the Devas requested Vali to help them in their effort. Vali

did so and it was with his help that the task was accomplished. Kamban mentions

this in several places.

 

kazaRu thEvarOdu avuNar kaNNin n-inRu

uzalum man-tharaththu uruvu thEya mun

azalum kOL arA akadu thIvida

suzalum vElaiyaik kadaiyum thOLinAn

 

is what Hanuman says of Vali by way of introduction to Rama. Now, Kamban is

known for his erudition. 'kaliviyir periyan kamban' and he cannot be wrong. It

is possible that as his brothers-in-law, Mainda and Dwivida accompanied him and

had Brahma's permission to have a taste of the nectar. It is only my inferance

and I do not have evidence for this, now.

 

There are scholars in this forum who can throw more light on this.

 

Regards,

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

 

-

"Mani Varadarajan" <mani

<bhakti-list>

Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:02 AM

Re: Dvividha in Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

| The reference to Dwivida and Mainda drinking nectar with

| the permission of Brahma is in Yuddha Kanda Sarga 28,

| slokas 6 and 7.

|

| The deeper question though is that these two had no

| reason to be given permission to drink Amrita by Brahma.

| If it was just a matter of the monkeys helping Sri Raama,

| then on Sri Raama's request to Indra, the dead and

| wounded monkey armies were already sprinkled with amrita

| and brought back to life. There was no need for Brahma to

| permit these two to specially drink the stuff, when he

| should have known that it was going to be sprinkled over

| them anyway.

|

[Guest guest]

My friend who posed this question in the first place

read all that was written and had this to say in

reaction:

> Dear Mani,

>

> Sri Balaji is a devout person. But somehow, I am not

> happy - not for the sake of Dwivida or Vaalmiki or

> Vyaasa. I see this going back to hit some core points

> that have to do with us. It is not just the fact that he

> went or the way he went. It is a question on the way we

> lead life, on Saranaagati, on Bhakti, on Kainkaryam.

>

> Perhaps I am making a big deal out of nothing. But these

> are still questions that lead me to think that one is not

> quite "safe" even after surrendering and performing

> loving service to the Lord.

>

> How could this be possible? Surely there must be

> something basically wrong in the way I am approaching

> this whole issue, since this contradicts core doctrines.

>

> Not for a moment do I doubt the truth of the words of

> either Vaalmiki or Vyaasa. I also have no doubts that the

> Lord is eternally gracious on to us. Then how does he not

> stop our minds from drifting? I am - atleast I was

> utterly convinced that no matter how much harm we tried

> to do to ourselves by doing things that are not to His

> liking - he would always come and straighten our

> Mano-vrittis out so we came back on line.

>

> I am not convinced that Dwivida did so much wrong that

> the Lord had to punish him without even a warning.

>

> What hope remains for the likes of me then?

>

> Perhaps I am being needlessly despondent and perhaps this

> is just a story in the puraana. But try as I might, I

> cannot convince myself to let it go that way.

>

> BTW, there is no pralaya between yugas - just between one

> chatur-yuga and the next.

 

> > bhakti-list, balaji srinivasan <sri_balaji> wrote:

> > Namaskarams to you first.

> >

> > It seems to be the same vanara. I don't know what to

> > say on immortality part (Immortality may have levels

> > and even Indra's life is much shorter compared to Lord

> > Brahma as we all know. Anyway he lived for an yuga and

> > in some sense justfied Valmiki.

> >

> > All said and done, there are lot of differences in the

> > time concept of valmiki and Bhagavatham. Krishna lived

> > for 120 years only and Valmiki talkes about few ten

> > thousands of years for Rama.

> >

> > Valmiki says Kashyapa did tapas for 1000 deva years to

> > get vamana while Bhgavatham talks about his wife doing

> > it just for few days.

> >

> > Poets have a tendency to cross realties of time and

> > space all said and done.

> >

> > Anyway, all this are to improve bhakthi and we need to

> > really look at the principles they stand for. Vedas

> > usually talk about praying the Gods to grant trouble

> > free 100 years of life and that is very convincing.

> >

> > warm regards,

> > Balaji S.

[Guest guest]

Please accept my namaskarams first.

 

I understand your friend's feelings. Lord's work is

very enigmatic and not to be grasped by people like

us. After all whoever dies by Lord's hand definitely

reached salvation. Going by that, Dwivida must have

reached lord's abode for sure. Dwivida was creating

lot of trouble and that is when Bhagwan had to kill

him. All of us are in different stages of spiritual

evolution and to take 'Saranagathi' without doubt one

needs ultimate faith and high degree of evolution. I

am very far from it. But we should love god though he

may put us through some tests "valaruthu sudinum

malatha kathal kondan maurthuvan paal" can be the

attitude.

 

On another issue I got confused "Jaya and Vijaya" came

back to earth as asuras - from Nithya vibuthi where is

fall? After lot of introspection I felt it is all

Lord's leela and every artiste plays the script given

by the director. That convinced me as a true devotee

never falls.

 

When a devotee gets confused he should take total

surrender to Lord Krishna. Mind is a very powerful

distractor and it provides enough logic to rebel with

faith. Know that Mind is controlled by austerities

and guru seva.

 

A person who is trying to reason out may do better by

reading upanishads and Gita rather than puraanas.

 

BTW, these are the prescriptions I try for myself and

found of some use.

 

 

warm regards,

Balaji S.