Sri Ranga Sri Vol.I / 12 d/12/25/2000

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Anbil Ramaswamy,

 

Thanks for a very interesting series of articles. Though adiyen has the

original book, adiyen never got to read it. These translations are most

helpful. The previous issue actually answered a question that had been

bothering adiyen for a while. Though the answer was indirectly known to

adiyen, the mention of the answer through your series was Sriman Narayana

talking to adiyen.

 

adiyen has a doubt about the clarification of the timing of handing over of

Sri Ranganatha to Vibheeshana.

 

>==================================================================

>Part 10 A: The meaning of "IkshvAghu kula dhanam"

>--------------------------------

>The word "Kuladhanam" means "the wealth of the lineage of IkshvAghu" -

>says GOvindarAjar. Before and after the killing of RAvaNa,

>VibheeshaNa was promised and actually crowned as King of Lanka. So,

>it cannot refer to Lanka.

>

>In Uttara RAmAyaNa, we see that when the Lord was about to ascend to

>his Nitya Vibhoothi (permanent abode), Sugriva, HanumAn, VibheeshaNa

>and others offered their obeisance. When Sugriva prayed to accompany,

>the Lord readily accepted saying that he would not go leaving him

>behind. When VibheeshaNa pleaded to accompany, the Lord asked him to

>stay back and perform his duties as King till such time as the Sun

>and moon existed and so long as Srimad RAmAyaNa was being told and

>retold. He added that VibheeshaNa should continue to offer

>TiruvArAdhana to "IkshvAghu kula dhanam"

>----

>Part 10 B: A clarification on the timing of the grant of the above.

>-

>It is not correct to hold, as some do, that Sri Rama handed over the

>ArchA vigraha of Sri RanganAtha at the time of his coronation

>(paTTAbishEkam) because after this he ruled for over 11,000 years.

>Did not the GitAchAryan say that He continued to do Nityakarma

>anushTAna because if He abandoned doing it, others would follow His

>example and incur sin? Therefore, we cannot presume that Sri RAma

>failed to perform TiruvArAdhana by handing over the Vigraha at the

>time of coronation till His ascent to Paramapadam.

>

>Like his forefathers in the IkshvAghu line, he also must have

>continued his daily worship during all these 11,000 + years. It is

>only appropriate to conclude that the grant of the Vigraha at the

>time of coronation was a promise offered and kept up the promise by

>actually handing over after the 11,000 + years when he ascended to

>Nityavibhuthi. This is like the preliminary coronation done on the

>Seashore even before the war commenced and was followed by the final

>coronation after the war.

 

 

Archa moorthy worship or Salagrama worship does not constitute nitya

karmAnushThAnam, but rather anujna kaaryam. If Sri Rama did not have a

right to give Sri Ranganatha away during His lifetime, then it becomes the

property of the next heir or Lava or Kusa or whoever became king after Sri

Rama. If Sri Rama was obliged to keep and worship Sri Ranganatha throughout

His life, then did He have the right to give away the vigraham after His

tenure as King?

 

In our own times we do see the exchange of Salagramas and vigrahas among

grihasthas that follow strict Saastric guidelines. Saastras do allow

Salagramas (and adiyen presumes vigrahas as well) to be given in daanam to a

worthy recipient at an opportune moment, chanting the right mantras. Such

daanam does not in anyway violate daily karmAnushTAnam of the individual

doing the daanam. Then why should Sri Rama be prohibited from donating a

vigraham to a worthy recipient? Please clarify this doubt.

 

adiyen Ramanuja daasan,

jagan.

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com