Of Inlaws and Outlaws

October 12, 2006

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

Of In-laws and Outlaws

Which would you say is the most maligned relationship between human beings? We hear of estrangement between fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, between husband and wife and brothers and sisters. However, these relationships, by themselves, do not suggest a potential for misunderstanding. Among the myriad associations people form during their sojourn on this planet, there is one single relationship which, ab initio, has immense potential for misunderstanding and bad blood. This is the one between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Though the ideal tenor of the relationship between the newly-wed bride and her mother-in-law should be one of daughter and mother, each lavishing upon the other love and affection as behooves the relationship, what actually prevails, in many a case, is a diametrically opposite emotion. Whatever be the psychological or other reason behind the phenomenon, it has become a norm for mother-in-law and daughter-in-law not to get on with each other. In its mild form, this takes the form of a misunderstanding, which, if it festers long enough without resolution, graduates into disharmony and discord, ultimately leading to a parting of ways between the two women, in the form of "Thani Kuditthanam". Without taking sides and without going into the merits of the matter, we find that as a matter of routine, the two women fail to hit it off together, often preferring to hit at each other. Neither does the mother-in-law realize that she herself had once been a daughter-in-law, nor does the latter consider the sure prospect of herself becoming a mother-in-law in course of time. (Of course, there are any number of families where the newly-married girl and the boy's mother move as daughter and mother, each caring very much for the other-but unfortunately, such families are in a minority.) Would it not therefore be appropriate to term those who do not adhere to the norms of such relationships as "Outlaws", rather than In-laws?

In comparison, the role of a Father-in-law appears much more benign, with none casting generalized aspersions on him. If a joint family splits after marriage, with the newly-wed couple deciding to set up home separately, you can be sure that it would have nothing to do with the Father-in-law. I remember having come across a mantra in the Atharva Vedam for ensuring cordial relations between the women in the household, but none appears to be either necessary or stipulated in the case of the Father-in-law. To tell you the truth, my own father-in-law was an excellent person (well-known for his long spell of kainkaryam for the Tirukkoshtiyur Teppotsavam) with whom I enjoyed the best of relationships, till he passed away a couple of years ago. We hardly ever hear of the Father-in-law being the cause of discord in the family, much less for its break-up. All that he ever reminds us of is a father-figure, lavishing genuine love and affection on the bride and trying to make her life comfortable in the new environs and at times trying to compensate for his wife's rudeness (whether or not justified) by being extra nice to the newcomer.

Lest this be mistaken as a discourse on social and familial mores, for which I am least qualified, let me get down to brass tacks, which is to highlight the roles of some Fathers-in-law, portrayed in the scripture.

While discussing any familial subject, it is Srimad Ramayanam that comes to our mind first, as it portrays ideal relationships-- that between father and son, between brothers, among friends, between a wedded couple, etc. Each of these relationships is portrayed in the Epic with a finesse and subtlety that makes it a model for all to follow for all times. It is hence no surprise that the role of a Father-in-law too comes in for due comment at appropriate junctures.

Let us first consider the conduct of the Emperor of Kekaya, the father of Kaikayee and the Father-in-law of Dasarata Chakravartthy. The moment he receives notice of Sri Rama's proposed union with Sri Sita, Dasaratha is so head-over-heels with joy, that he doesn't even consider notifying and inviting his close relatives for the wedding: perhaps the short notice had something to do with it. However, the fact remains that Dasaratha did not invite his Father-in-law for the wedding. It would have been bad enough had the wedding been only for Rama, but the fact that Bharata too was to be married makes the omission rather unpardonable, as the latter was a dear grandson of the Kekaya raja. Consider what an insult this would be deemed as, in the context of current practices, where even close relatives expect a personal invitation and are not satisfied with a mailed one! One can very well imagine the Kekaya monarch's fury at not being invited for his own grandson's wedding. However, there was no such fury or fireworks. In fact, the first Yudhajit (Bharata's maternal uncle) comes to know of the wedding is at Ayodhya, where he reaches after Dasaratha and party have left for Videha, the venue of the marriage. And when Yudhajit meets Dasaratha at Mithila, all he conveys to the latter is his happiness over the event and his father (Kekaya Raja's) warm regards and good wishes. Contrasted with his daughter's later behaviour, the Emperor of Kekaya, as Dasaratha's father-in-law, appears to have exhibited great statesmanship and genuine affection, in ignoring his lack of invitation for his own grandson's marriage.

And as far as Janaka Maharaja was concerned, he appears to have had the unique distinction of being the father-in-law to the Lord Himself. Added to this was the privilege of having four of his daughters married off to four illustrious sons from the Ikshvaaku dynasty simultaneously. Just as He chose His father with considerable care in the Ramavatara, the Lord appears to have devoted equal care in the choice of His father-in-law, for Janaka was no ordinary monarch. He was a Brahma Gnaani, having attained the ultimate wisdom through the extremely difficult path of Karma Yogam ("Karmena eva hi samsiddhim aastitaa Janakaadaya:"-the Bhagavat Gita). His detachment from worldly things and attachment to the Paramatma was such that he remained totally unmoved by the news that his palace was on fire. Such is the greatness of this monarch that he is mentioned frequently and with appreciation in the Shruti. He is reputed to have performed innumerable sacrifices and having given away fortunes by way of Dakshina-"Janako ha Vaideho bahu dakshinena yagyeneje" says the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad. The Raja's penchant for performing Yagas and Yagyas incidentally yielded him the ultimate fruit-while tilling the Yagya bhoomi once, he found Sri Sita, the Universal Mother, whom he brought up lovingly as his daughter. He was an extremely fair and just emperor, known for his scrupulous adherence to the right path-"Sa esha raajaa Janaka: sarvam dharmena pasyati"(Mahabharatam). Not only was he personally upright and a paragon of virtue, he was also able to inspire his subjects too to toe the narrow but straight path of Dharma, with everyone adhering to his or her duty scrupulously-"anugrihnan prajaa: sarvaa: sva dharma nirataa: sadaa". The Emperor's strict and impartial enforcement of the rule of law was such that he would not spare his own son, had the latter erred-

"Sa esha Janako raajaa durvrittam api chet sutam

Dandyam dande nikshipati tathaa na glaati dhaarmikam"

He is rightly praised as the embodiment of Dharma, as one whose wisdom was boundless and whose spiritual attainments were impressive-"Janako Maithilo raajaa mahaatmaa sarva tattva vit". It is hence no wonder that his glory had spread in all the three worlds-"Tattvagya: Janako raajaa lokesmin iti geeyate". It is little surprise for us to learn that this emperor was a treasure house of wisdom, for, whenever he encountered mahatmas and maharshis, he made it a point to humbly seek from them the supreme knowledge. We thus come across several mentions of him having fallen at the feet of Yaagyavalkya, Paraasara, Vasishtta, et al, in his unending quest for the ultimate wisdom-so much so that he is praised as one who knows to ask the right questions-"Prasna vidaam vara:". One of his pronouncements stands as a guiding beacon to those aspiring for Liberation-the emperor, though reputed for his adherence to Karma, tells us that there is no liberation without divine wisdom, which, in turn, can be acquired only through an Acharya-

"Na vinaa gnaana vigyaanam mokshasya adhigamo bhavet

na vinaa Guru sambandham gnaanasya adhigama: smrita:"

Janaka appears to have developed, through his impeccable karma anushttaanam, an enviable equanimity and poise, hard to attain for even the most evolved souls. Having brought up Sita with immeasurable love and affection, we do not find him overly sorrowed at the parting after Her wedding. The Maharaja accepts it as an inevitable fact of life, having reconciled himself to the same. Compare this with the attitude of Dasaratha, who is desolate and devastated when Sri Rama leaves for the forest and ultimately dies due to putra shokam. We should not conclude from their respective attitudes that Dasaratha's love for Rama was deeper or more profound than that of Janaka for Sita. It was just a question of bearing even unbearable separation with composure, which Janaka had developed and Dasaratha had not. Though one doesn't want to compare, Janaka towers head and shoulders above Dasaratha in all departments of life-it would therefore appear that Piraatti's choice of a father was much better than the Lord's. It is no wonder that of all the appellations he coins for Sri Sita, Valmiki delights most in calling Her "Janakaatmajaa".

Another distinguished father-in-law Emperuman chose with much care and consideration, is Sri Vishnuchitta, later known as Periazhwar. Having instilled in his divine daughter the delights of Krishnaanubhavam, Sri Vishnuchitta found Her unwilling to accept mundane mortals for a husband-"Maanidavarkku endru aagil vaazhakillen kandaai Manmathane!". And the moment Vatapatrasaayee told him that He preferred the garlands worn first by Andal, Sri Vishnuchitta knew for sure that he was destined to become father-in-law to the Lord. And when the call came from Sri Ranganatha for delivering Andal in bridal suit for the divine wedding at Srirangam, Azhwar complied, albeit with reluctance. Though he was elated at the exalted match, nevertheless he was saddened at the prospect of losing the dear child whom he had found amidst bushes of Tulasi and brought up lavishing boundless love and affection. We thus find him lamenting, "Oru magal tannai pettren, Tirumagal pol valartthen, Tirumaal kondu ponaan". While ordinary human fathers are indeed saddened while giving their daughters off in marriage, they have at least the consolation that they could visit her or she them from time to time, providing for occasions for joyous reunion. However, in the case of Periazhwar, the parting with Andal was permanent, She having joined the other Mahishis of the Lord at Sri Vaikunttam, not to be seen again in flesh and blood, as long as Azhwar inhabited the earth. We are therefore able to empathize with Periazhwar-if even ordinary girls are capable of inspiring pangs of parting in their fathers, consider how much a spiritually precocious and eminently lovable lass like Andal must have caused in Sri Vishnuchitta! Azhwar's sorrow was not only that he had lost a daughter, but also at the separation from an eminent Bhaagavatai, for whom "unnum soru, parugum neer, tinnum vettrilai" were all Kannan. He had lost not only a lovable daughter, but also a devotee par excellence with whom he could share the delights of Krishna anubhavam, with whom he could rhapsodize about Emperuman and His leelaas, with whom he could explore the unfathomed depths of the Lord's auspicious attributes. It is all very well for the father to be told that he has been able to get the best of grooms for his daughter, one employed in the West and minting money-the pangs of separation remain just the same. Similarly, even though it was to the Lord that Sri Periazhwar gave his daughter in marriage; he was none the less sad at the parting with Kodai. His words, "Tirumaal taan kondu ponaan" drip with poignancy, portraying fully the feelings of a doting father and of an eminent Bhaagavata. It is this which makes Azhwar the object of worship for not only mortals, but also for celestials-"Svasuram amara vandyam". In a lighter vein, we might say that the celestials knew what was good for them. Many a person has come to grief because he has ignored the in-laws in a family. The in-laws often represent the "Purushakaaram" essential for obtaining favours from the head of the family. By wisely opting to adulate Azhwar, the Devas ensured that due protocol was observed and that they were well spoken of in the Lord's court.

As we have seen above, fathers-in-law are normally nice persons, with whom one generally has no quarrel. Would it therefore surprise you to learn that the Lord did pick up a quarrel with His father-in-law, and in fact threatened all sorts of mayhem? I am not joking-it did happen. Sri Mahalakshmi is known as "Samudra Raaja Tanayaa", as She emerged out of the Milky Ocean, when Devas and Asuras churned the same in search of Amritam. She is thus the daughter of the ocean and the Samudra Raaja Her father. It is this very same Samudra Raajaa to whom Sri Raghava performed Saranagati on the shores of Tiruppullaani, praying for the deep waters to part, so that the Vaanara Sena could march to Lanka in its mission for the rescue of Sri Janaki. And when the deity of the waters did not respond to His entreaties, Sri Raghunandana was naturally angry and told Lakshmana to bring His bow, so that He could dry up the ocean with a single arrow, making it possible for the army to march on the ocean bed across to Lanka-"Sosayishyaami Saagaram-padbhyaam yaantu plavangamaa:". It is only then that Samudra Raja realized the perils of ignoring a son-in-law, that too one of matchless might like Sri Raghava, and appeared before Daasarathi, conveying his consent for the bridging of the ocean.

It is not often that a son-in-law is compared with his father-in-law. However, in Sri Rama's case, it is interesting to note that when Narada searches for a simile to describe the Lord's inscrutability, unfathomability of mind, etc., he hits upon Samudram as the apt example-"Samudra iva gaambhheerye, dhairye Himavaan iva".

It is practically impossible to speak about the Lord's fathers-in-law during the Krishanaavataaram, for He had no less than 16007 Mahishis ("Shodasa aasan sahasraani sthreenaam anyaani Chakrina:" says the Sri Vishnu Puranam). It would perhaps require a separate volume (in fact several of them) to write about such a huge number of fathers-in-law. However, in this avatara, the principal Consort was Sri Rugmini and by implication, the pride of place among the Lord's fathers-in-law should have been that of Bhishmaka, the father of Sri Rugmini. However, due to sheer stupidity, contrariness and misplaced hate, this Bhishmaka Raja ruling over Kundinapuram, was totally against giving his daughter in marriage to Sri Krishna and wanted, instead, to marry Her off to Sisupaala (of all people) who was the sworn enemy of Sri Krishna. And the marriage was accordingly fixed and invitations sent out. In the guise of attending the marriage, the resourceful Krishna managed to abduct Rugmini and marry Her, before Sisupala could tie the knot. The enraged Bhishmaka, along with his son Rugmi, chased Sri Krishna and His entourage, only to be roundly vanquished in battle. Bhishmaka is thus perhaps the only one of the Lord's fathers-in-law without the distinction and glory that would willy-nilly attach to one who has given his daughter in marriage to none other than the Paramatma.

Jaambavaan, the ancient and distinguished king of bears, was another father-in-law of Sri Krishna, albeit by accident. Sri Krishna entered Jaambavaan's cave in search of Syamantaka Mani (a stone of much magical prowess), which He was wrongly accused of stealing from one Satraajit. (It would appear that the Lord has had to battle with such charges of stealing right from childhood in Krishnaavataaram, the Gopis having begun the tirade with accusations of stealing butter and other dairy products-"Vennai undaan ivan endru esa nindra Emperumaan"). When He found the precious stone in the bear's cave, being tossed about in play by a bear cub, Sri Krishna appropriated it for returning the same to the rightful owner Satraajit. However, Jaambavaan, who returned to the cave just as Krishna was leaving, mistook Him again as having to come to steal the Syamantaka Mani and battled with Krishna for 28 long days, before he realized that it was none other than Sri Rama Himself, in a different form, that he was battling with. Jambavan, as a gesture of peace and reconciliation, offered his daughter Jaambaavati to Sri Krishna in marriage, thus becoming the Lord's father-in-law.

The same episode of the Syamantaka Mani was the cause of Sri Krishna adding another person to His bulging bevy of fathers-in-law. Satraajit, who had unfairly accused Krishna of having stolen the Syamantaka Mani, was put to shame when Krishna recovered the stone from the bear cub and restored it to Satraajit. The latter was consumed by remorse and repentance and racked his brains for ways of atoning for the sin of flinging false accusations at the Emperor of Dwaaraka. After much thought, Satraajit decided that the only suitable recompense he could offer Sri Krishna was to give his daughter in marriage. And thus came about the wedding of Sri Satyabhaama with Sri Krishna. It is thus a coincidence that both the principal fathers-in-law of the Lord in Krishnaavataaram, were not at all disposed well towards Krishna, at least initially.

Another of the Lord's numerous fathers-in-law is Raja Nagnajit of Kosala Desam. Like Janaka Maharaja, Nagnajit too imposed tough conditions for marrying off his daughter Naagnajiti and told Sri Krishna to prove His prowess first by taming seven untamable, wild and virile bulls. It would appear that this Naagnajiti is none other than Sri Nappinnai, as the episode of bull-taming for winning Nappinnai's hand is chronicled by several Azhwars.

There have been several Rishis too, who have been privileged to be father-in-law to the Lord. First and foremost among them is Sage Bhrigu, the son of Varuna Bhagawan ("Bhrigur vai Vaaruni:"). Sri Mahalakshmi, in one of Her avataras, was born as his daughter and was known as Bhaargavi and ultimately married Sri Mahavishnu. Sage Mrigandu was another such Rishi, as whose daughter Bhoomi Piraatti was born. Stthala puraanam has it that when the Lord sought the hand of the seven year-old Bhoomaa Devi from Mrigandu, the latter told Him that the tender girl did not even know how much salt was to be added to various food items and would as such make a poor spouse. The Lord said, "No problems. I would love to have even salt-less prasaadam from Her hands" and thus came about the tirunaamam "Uppiliappan". Whether He is "Oppiliappan" or "Uppiliappan", the Lord tastes sweet and delightful to devotees.

A perusal of the local lore at other Divya Desams would reveal the fact that the Lord has had a wide variety of fathers-in-law in His arcchhaavataaram, ranging from monarchs and maharshis, to ordinary mundane mortals. In fact, even till date, at every wedding, it is the Lord who is seen, welcomed and propitiated, in the form of the son-in-law, for the Groom is considered as the personification of Sri Mahavishnu. This being the case, the Lord's fathers-in-law are really countless.

Considering all this, wouldn't you say that of all the in-laws, the father-in-law is the best? The fact that there are no widespread mentions in the scripture of the Lord's mothers-in-law, for instance, would seem to support this conclusion.

Srimate Sri Lakshminrisimha divya paduka sevaka Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

dasan, sadagopan

October 14, 2006

*Srimathe ramanujaya Namaha*

*Sri Vara Vara MunayE namaha*

*Sri vAnAchala munayE namaha*

**

*That was once again a very excellent article from Sri Sadagopan Iyengar

swamy. This mail has been in adiyen's mail box for about 2 days but only

today adiyen read through it. That was probably parthasarathi's sankalpa .

Since this is the time in India, there is a great celebration going on. The

thirunakshatra celebration of another* *father-in-law. All of you will be

wondering who it is? It is none other than HH Sri Onnana vanamamalai

Ramanuja Jeeyer swamy celebrated as ponnadikkAl Jeeyer swamy who is regarded

as a father-in- law to vanamamalai deivanayaka perumal. PonnadikkAl Jeeyer

swamy was born on the kanyA punarvasu star.*

**

*We read about many father-in laws but deivanayakan in archavataram enjoys a

lineage of father-in-laws. All the jeeyers of vanamamalai mutt following

the onnana swamy are considered to be fathers of Sirivaramangai nachiyar and

deivanayakan is their mappillai. Till date on this divine day of her

father's thirunakshatram sirivaramangai thayar with her divine consort

deivanayakan visit her father's place, the vanamamalai mutt. The then

jeeyer take the role of the father and invite the divya dampathis just like

a father will invite his daughter. A real divine experience. Though we are

miles away from this divine happening let us all join mentally to visit

vanamamalai and try to experience the joy of welcoming the divine couples.

*

**

*Adiyen is related to the mutt and hence to the divine couples due to the

acharya sambhandham and really rejoicing this divine feeling. Last year it

so happened that our revered acharya had to stay in thiruvallikeni during

this thirunakshatra celebration. Swamy after the ghosti said with hard

feelings,"Though adiyen is present here physically all my thoughts are in

vanamamalai. My daughter and son-in-law will be visiting our place today.

Thanks to the technology. I am being updated through mobile phone whatever

preparations are going over there" Oh My god! we were able to sense his

feelings greatly from his words. Swamy was totally immersed in sorrow to be

away during the divine occassion. Today adiyen remembers that and feels for

not being able to be in vanamamalai or even in thiruvallikeni to be part of

the divine celebration. Now adiyen is able to understand the divine

arulicheyal of swamy nammazhvar's mangalasasanam to vanamamalai "anguRRen

allEn enguRREn allEn vunnai kAnum avAvil veezhindhu nAN enguRREnumallEN "*

**

*Azhvar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam*

* Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam*

**

*Adiyen ramanuja dAsee*

*Sumithra Varadarajan*

**

/06, sadagopaniyengar (AT) vsnl (DOT) net <sadagopaniyengar (AT) vsnl (DOT) net> wrote:

> Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

>

> *Of In-laws and Outlaws*

>

> * *

>

> Which would you say is the most maligned relationship

> between human beings? We hear of estrangement between fathers and sons,

> mothers and daughters, between husband and wife and brothers and sisters.

> However, these relationships, by themselves, do not suggest a potential for

> misunderstanding. Among the myriad associations people form during their

> sojourn on this planet, there is one single relationship which, *ab initio

> *, has immense potential for misunderstanding and bad blood. This is the

> one between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Though the ideal tenor of

> the relationship between the newly-wed bride and her mother-in-law should be

> one of daughter and mother, each lavishing upon the other love and affection

> as behooves the relationship, what actually prevails, in many a case, is a

> diametrically opposite emotion. Whatever be the psychological or other

> reason behind the phenomenon, it has become a norm for mother-in-law and

> daughter-in-law not to get on with each other. In its mild form, this takes

> the form of a misunderstanding, which, if it festers long enough without

> resolution, graduates into disharmony and discord, ultimately leading to a

> parting of ways between the two women, in the form of "*Thani Kuditthanam*".

> Without taking sides and without going into the merits of the matter, we

> find that as a matter of routine, the two women fail to hit it off together,

> often preferring to hit *at* each other. Neither does the mother-in-law

> realize that she herself had once been a daughter-in-law, nor does the

> latter consider the sure prospect of herself becoming a mother-in-law in

> course of time. (Of course, there are any number of families where the

> newly-married girl and the boy's mother move as daughter and mother, each

> caring very much for the other—but unfortunately, such families are in a

> minority.) Would it not therefore be appropriate to term those who do not

> adhere to the norms of such relationships as "Outlaws", rather than In-laws?

>

> In comparison, the role of a Father-in-law appears much more benign, with

> none casting generalized aspersions on him. If a joint family splits after

> marriage, with the newly-wed couple deciding to set up home separately, you

> can be sure that it would have nothing to do with the Father-in-law. I

> remember having come across a *mantra* in the *Atharva Vedam* for ensuring

> cordial relations between the women in the household, but none appears to be

> either necessary or stipulated in the case of the Father-in-law. To tell you

> the truth, my own father-in-law was an excellent person (well-known for his

> long spell of *kainkaryam* for the *Tirukkoshtiyur Teppotsavam*) with whom

> I enjoyed the best of relationships, till he passed away a couple of years

> ago. We hardly ever hear of the Father-in-law being the cause of discord in

> the family, much less for its break-up. All that he ever reminds us of is a

> father-figure, lavishing genuine love and affection on the bride and trying

> to make her life comfortable in the new environs and at times trying to

> compensate for his wife's rudeness (whether or not justified) by being extra

> nice to the newcomer.

>

> Lest this be mistaken as a discourse on social and familial mores, for

> which I am least qualified, let me get down to brass tacks, which is to

> highlight the roles of some Fathers-in-law, portrayed in the scripture.

>

> While discussing any familial subject, it is Srimad Ramayanam that comes

> to our mind first, as it portrays ideal relationships-- that between father

> and son, between brothers, among friends, between a wedded couple, etc. Each

> of these relationships is portrayed in the Epic with a finesse and subtlety

> that makes it a model for all to follow for all times. It is hence no

> surprise that the role of a Father-in-law too comes in for due comment at

> appropriate junctures.

>

> Let us first consider the conduct of the Emperor of Kekaya, the father of

> Kaikayee and the Father-in-law of Dasarata Chakravartthy. The moment he

> receives notice of Sri Rama's proposed union with Sri Sita, Dasaratha is so

> head-over-heels with joy, that he doesn't even consider notifying and

> inviting his close relatives for the wedding: perhaps the short notice had

> something to do with it. However, the fact remains that Dasaratha did not

> invite his Father-in-law for the wedding. It would have been bad enough had

> the wedding been only for Rama, but the fact that Bharata too was to be

> married makes the omission rather unpardonable, as the latter was a dear

> grandson of the Kekaya raja. Consider what an insult this would be deemed

> as, in the context of current practices, where even close relatives expect a

> personal invitation and are not satisfied with a mailed one! One can very

> well imagine the Kekaya monarch's fury at not being invited for his own

> grandson's wedding. However, there was no such fury or fireworks. In fact,

> the first Yudhajit (Bharata's maternal uncle) comes to know of the wedding

> is at Ayodhya, where he reaches after Dasaratha and party have left for *

> Videha*, the venue of the marriage. And when Yudhajit meets Dasaratha at *

> Mithila*, all he conveys to the latter is his happiness over the event and

> his father (Kekaya Raja's) warm regards and good wishes. Contrasted with his

> daughter's later behaviour, the Emperor of Kekaya, as Dasaratha's

> father-in-law, appears to have exhibited great statesmanship and genuine

> affection, in ignoring his lack of invitation for his own grandson's

> marriage.

>

> And as far as Janaka Maharaja was concerned, he appears to have had the

> unique distinction of being the father-in-law to the Lord Himself. Added to

> this was the privilege of having four of his daughters married off to four

> illustrious sons from the *Ikshvaaku* dynasty simultaneously. Just as He

> chose His father with considerable care in the Ramavatara, the Lord appears

> to have devoted equal care in the choice of His father-in-law, for Janaka

> was no ordinary monarch. He was a *Brahma Gnaani*, having attained the

> ultimate wisdom through the extremely difficult path of *Karma Yogam* ("*Karmena

> eva hi* *samsiddhim aastitaa Janakaadaya*:"—the *Bhagavat Gita*). His

> detachment from worldly things and attachment to the *Paramatma* was such

> that he remained totally unmoved by the news that his palace was on fire.

> Such is the greatness of this monarch that he is mentioned frequently and

> with appreciation in the *Shruti.* He is reputed to have performed

> innumerable sacrifices and having given away fortunes by way of *Dakshina*

> —"*Janako ha Vaideho bahu dakshinena yagyeneje*" says the *Brihadaaranyaka

> Upanishad*. The Raja's penchant for performing *Yagas* and *Yagya*s

> incidentally yielded him the ultimate fruit—while tilling the *Yagya

> bhoomi* once, he found Sri Sita, the Universal Mother, whom he brought up

> lovingly as his daughter. He was an extremely fair and just emperor, known

> for his scrupulous adherence to the right path—"*Sa esha raajaa Janaka*: *sarvam

> dharmena pasyati*"(*Mahabharatam)*. Not only was he personally upright and

> a paragon of virtue, he was also able to inspire his subjects too to toe the

> narrow but straight path of Dharma, with everyone adhering to his or her

> duty scrupulously—"*anugrihnan prajaa: sarvaa: sva dharma nirataa: sadaa*".

> The Emperor's strict and impartial enforcement of the rule of law was such

> that he would not spare his own son, had the latter erred—

>

> "*Sa esha Janako raajaa durvrittam api chet sutam*

>

> * Dandyam dande nikshipati tathaa na glaati dhaarmikam*"

>

> He is rightly praised as the embodiment of Dharma, as one whose wisdom was

> boundless and whose spiritual attainments were impressive—"*Janako

> Maithilo raajaa mahaatmaa* *sarva tattva vit*". It is hence no wonder that

> his glory had spread in all the three worlds—"*Tattvagya: Janako raajaa

> lokesmin iti geeyate*". It is little surprise for us to learn that this

> emperor was a treasure house of wisdom, for, whenever he encountered *

> mahatma*s and *maharshi*s, he made it a point to humbly seek from them the

> supreme knowledge. We thus come across several mentions of him having fallen

> at the feet of *Yaagyavalkya,* *Paraasara*, *Vasishtta,* *et al*, in his

> unending quest for the ultimate wisdom—so much so that he is praised as one

> who knows to ask the right questions—"*Prasna vidaam vara*:". One of his

> pronouncements stands as a guiding beacon to those aspiring for

> Liberation—the emperor, though reputed for his adherence to *Karma*, tells

> us that there is no liberation without divine wisdom, which, in turn, can be

> acquired only through an *Acharya*-

>

> "*Na vinaa gnaana vigyaanam mokshasya adhigamo bhavet*

>

> * na vinaa Guru sambandham gnaanasya adhigama: smrita:"*

>

> Janaka appears to have developed, through his impeccable *karma

> anushttaanam*, an enviable equanimity and poise, hard to attain for even

> the most evolved souls. Having brought up Sita with immeasurable love and

> affection, we do not find him overly sorrowed at the parting after Her

> wedding. The Maharaja accepts it as an inevitable fact of life, having

> reconciled himself to the same. Compare this with the attitude of Dasaratha,

> who is desolate and devastated when Sri Rama leaves for the forest and

> ultimately dies due to putra shokam. We should not conclude from their

> respective attitudes that Dasaratha's love for Rama was deeper or more

> profound than that of Janaka for Sita. It was just a question of bearing

> even unbearable separation with composure, which Janaka had developed and

> Dasaratha had not. Though one doesn't want to compare, Janaka towers head

> and shoulders above Dasaratha in all departments of life—it would therefore

> appear that Piraatti's choice of a father was much better than the Lord's..

> It is no wonder that of all the appellations he coins for Sri Sita, *

> Valmiki* delights most in calling Her "*Janakaatmajaa*".

>

> Another distinguished father-in-law Emperuman chose with much care and

> consideration, is Sri Vishnuchitta, later known as Periazhwar. Having

> instilled in his divine daughter the delights of *Krishnaanubhavam*, Sri

> Vishnuchitta found Her unwilling to accept mundane mortals for a husband—"

> *Maanidavarkku endru aagil vaazhakillen* *kandaai Manmathane*!". And the

> moment *Vatapatrasaayee* told him that He preferred the garlands worn

> first by Andal, Sri Vishnuchitta knew for sure that he was destined to

> become father-in-law to the Lord. And when the call came from Sri Ranganatha

> for delivering Andal in bridal suit for the divine wedding at Srirangam,

> Azhwar complied, albeit with reluctance. Though he was elated at the exalted

> match, nevertheless he was saddened at the prospect of losing the dear child

> whom he had found amidst bushes of Tulasi and brought up lavishing boundless

> love and affection. We thus find him lamenting, "*Oru magal tannai

> pettren, Tirumagal pol valartthen, Tirumaal kondu* *ponaan*". While

> ordinary human fathers are indeed saddened while giving their daughters off

> in marriage, they have at least the consolation that they could visit her or

> she them from time to time, providing for occasions for joyous reunion.

> However, in the case of Periazhwar, the parting with Andal was permanent,

> She having joined the other *Mahishis* of the Lord at Sri Vaikunttam, not

> to be seen again in flesh and blood, as long as Azhwar inhabited the earth.

> We are therefore able to empathize with Periazhwar—if even ordinary girls

> are capable of inspiring pangs of parting in their fathers, consider how

> much a spiritually precocious and eminently lovable lass like Andal must

> have caused in Sri Vishnuchitta! Azhwar's sorrow was not only that he had

> lost a daughter, but also at the separation from an eminent *Bhaagavatai*,

> for whom "*unnum soru, parugum neer*, *tinnum vettrilai*" were all Kannan..

> He had lost not only a lovable daughter, but also a devotee par excellence

> with whom he could share the delights of Krishna *anubhavam,* with whom he

> could rhapsodize about Emperuman and His *leelaas*, with whom he could

> explore the unfathomed depths of the Lord's auspicious attributes. It is all

> very well for the father to be told that he has been able to get the best of

> grooms for his daughter, one employed in the West and minting money—the

> pangs of separation remain just the same. Similarly, even though it was to

> the Lord that Sri Periazhwar gave his daughter in marriage; he was none the

> less sad at the parting with *Kodai*. His words, "*Tirumaal taan* *kondu

> ponaan*" drip with poignancy, portraying fully the feelings of a doting

> father and of an eminent *Bhaagavata*. It is this which makes Azhwar the

> object of worship for not only mortals, but also for celestials—"*Svasuram

> amara vandyam*". In a lighter vein, we might say that the celestials knew

> what was good for them. Many a person has come to grief because he has

> ignored the in-laws in a family. The in-laws often represent the "*

> Purushakaaram*" essential for obtaining favours from the head of the

> family. By wisely opting to adulate Azhwar, the Devas ensured that due

> protocol was observed and that they were well spoken of in the Lord's court.

>

> As we have seen above, fathers-in-law are normally nice persons, with whom

> one generally has no quarrel. Would it therefore surprise you to learn that

> the Lord did pick up a quarrel with His father-in-law, and in fact

> threatened all sorts of mayhem? I am not joking-it did happen. Sri

> Mahalakshmi is known as "*Samudra Raaja Tanayaa*", as She emerged out of

> the Milky Ocean, when Devas and Asuras churned the same in search of *

> Amritam*. She is thus the daughter of the ocean and the *Samudra Raaja*Her father. It is this very same

> *Samudra Raajaa* to whom Sri Raghava performed *Saranagati* on the shores

> of *Tiruppullaani,* praying for the deep waters to part, so that the *Vaanara

> Sena* could march to Lanka in its mission for the rescue of Sri Janaki.

> And when the deity of the waters did not respond to His entreaties, Sri

> Raghunandana was naturally angry and told Lakshmana to bring His bow, so

> that He could dry up the ocean with a single arrow, making it possible for

> the army to march on the ocean bed across to Lanka—"*Sosayishyaami

> Saagaram—padbhyaam yaantu plavangamaa*:". It is only then that *Samudra

> Raja* realized the perils of ignoring a son-in-law, that too one of

> matchless might like Sri Raghava, and appeared before Daasarathi, conveying

> his consent for the bridging of the ocean.

>

> It is not often that a son-in-law is compared with his father-in-law.

> However, in Sri Rama's case, it is interesting to note that when Narada

> searches for a simile to describe the Lord's inscrutability, unfathomability

> of mind, etc., he hits upon *Samudram* as the apt example-"*Samudra iva

> gaambhheerye, dhairye Himavaan iva*".

>

> It is practically impossible to speak about the Lord's fathers-in-law

> during the Krishanaavataaram, for He had no less than 16007 *Mahishis *("*Shodasa

> aasan sahasraani* *sthreenaam anyaani Chakrina*:" says the *Sri Vishnu

> Puranam*). It would perhaps require a separate volume (in fact several of

> them) to write about such a huge number of fathers-in-law. However, in this

> *avatara,* the principal Consort was Sri Rugmini and by implication, the

> pride of place among the Lord's fathers-in-law should have been that of *

> Bhishmaka*, the father of Sri Rugmini. However, due to sheer stupidity,

> contrariness and misplaced hate, this *Bhishmaka Raja* ruling over *

> Kundinapuram*, was totally against giving his daughter in marriage to Sri

> Krishna and wanted, instead, to marry Her off to *Sisupaala* (of all

> people) who was the sworn enemy of Sri Krishna. And the marriage was

> accordingly fixed and invitations sent out. In the guise of attending the

> marriage, the resourceful Krishna managed to abduct Rugmini and marry Her,

> before *Sisupala *could tie the knot. The enraged *Bhishmaka*, along with

> his son *Rugmi,* chased Sri Krishna and His entourage, only to be roundly

> vanquished in battle. *Bhishmaka* is thus perhaps the only one of the

> Lord's fathers-in-law without the distinction and glory that would

> willy-nilly attach to one who has given his daughter in marriage to none

> other than the *Paramatma*.

>

> *Jaambavaan*, the ancient and distinguished king of bears, was another

> father-in-law of Sri Krishna, albeit by accident. Sri Krishna entered *

> Jaambavaan*'s cave in search of *Syamantaka Mani* (a stone of much magical

> prowess), which He was wrongly accused of stealing from one *Satraajit.*(It would appear that the Lord has had to battle with such charges of

> stealing right from childhood in *Krishnaavataaram*, the Gopis having

> begun the tirade with accusations of stealing butter and other dairy

> products—"*Vennai undaan* *ivan endru esa nindra Emperumaan*"). When He

> found the precious stone in the bear's cave, being tossed about in play by a

> bear cub, Sri Krishna appropriated it for returning the same to the rightful

> owner *Satraajit*. However, *Jaambavaan*, who returned to the cave just as

> Krishna was leaving, mistook Him again as having to come to steal the *Syamantaka

> Mani* and battled with Krishna for 28 long days, before he realized that

> it was none other than Sri Rama Himself, in a different form, that he was

> battling with. *Jambavan*, as a gesture of peace and reconciliation,

> offered his daughter *Jaambaavati* to Sri Krishna in marriage, thus

> becoming the Lord's father-in-law.

>

> The same episode of the *Syamantaka Mani* was the cause of Sri Krishna

> adding another person to His bulging bevy of fathers-in-law. *Satraajit*,

> who had unfairly accused Krishna of having stolen the *Syamantaka Mani*,

> was put to shame when Krishna recovered the stone from the bear cub and

> restored it to *Satraajit*. The latter was consumed by remorse and

> repentance and racked his brains for ways of atoning for the sin of flinging

> false accusations at the Emperor of Dwaaraka. After much thought, *Satraajit

> *decided that the only suitable recompense he could offer Sri Krishna was

> to give his daughter in marriage. And thus came about the wedding of Sri *

> Satyabhaama* with Sri Krishna. It is thus a coincidence that both the

> principal fathers-in-law of the Lord in *Krishnaavataaram,* were not at

> all disposed well towards Krishna, at least initially.

>

> Another of the Lord's numerous fathers-in-law is *Raja Nagnajit* of *Kosala

> Desam*. Like *Janaka Maharaja*, *Nagnajit* too imposed tough conditions

> for marrying off his daughter *Naagnajiti *and told Sri Krishna to prove

> His prowess first by taming seven untamable, wild and virile bulls. It would

> appear that this *Naagnajiti* is none other than Sri *Nappinnai*, as the

> episode of bull-taming for winning Nappinnai's hand is chronicled by several

> Azhwars.

>

> There have been several Rishis too, who have been privileged to be

> father-in-law to the Lord. First and foremost among them is Sage *Bhrigu,*the son of

> *Varuna Bhagawan* ("*Bhrigur vai Vaaruni*:"). Sri Mahalakshmi, in one of

> Her avataras, was born as his daughter and was known as *Bhaargavi *and

> ultimately married Sri Mahavishnu. Sage *Mrigandu* was another such Rishi,

> as whose daughter *Bhoomi Piraatti* was born. *Stthala puraanam *has it

> that when the Lord sought the hand of the seven year-old *Bhoomaa Devi*from

> *Mrigandu*, the latter told Him that the tender girl did not even know how

> much salt was to be added to various food items and would as such make a

> poor spouse. The Lord said, "No problems. I would love to have even

> salt-less *prasaadam* from Her hands" and thus came about the *tirunaamam*"Uppiliappan". Whether He is "

> *Oppiliappan*" or "*Uppiliappan*", the Lord tastes sweet and delightful to

> devotees.

>

> A perusal of the local lore at other Divya Desams would reveal the fact

> that the Lord has had a wide variety of fathers-in-law in His *

> arcchhaavataaram*, ranging from monarchs and *maharshis*, to ordinary

> mundane mortals. In fact, even till date, at every wedding, it is the Lord

> who is seen, welcomed and propitiated, in the form of the son-in-law, for

> the Groom is considered as the personification of Sri Mahavishnu. This being

> the case, the Lord's fathers-in-law are really countless.

>

> Considering all this, wouldn't you say that of all the in-laws, the

> father-in-law is the best? The fact that there are no widespread mentions in

> the scripture of the Lord's mothers-in-law, for instance, would seem to

> support this conclusion.

>

> Srimate Sri Lakshminrisimha divya paduka sevaka Srivan Satakopa Sri

> Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

>

> dasan, sadagopan

>

October 15, 2006

Pranams,

Excellent article, thoughts , and coordinating these two. All of us in our rituals (good, bad, joy or sorrow) have Sriman Narayanan (as "Vishnu Swa roo bee") with us, as witness. In our sAmPradhayam, we adore, love the lord than, and fear him. In a way we are all Peri- Alwars".

Not taking much time, in current Yugha, starting from PEri Alwar, as mentioned by your learned self, there have been lot of Father-in Law relationship.. I am not qualified to give illustrations or lectures. However I am eager to share this.

In Thirumali, Sri Ananth Alwar is regarded as "Mama Nar".

His "Vah Zhi Thirunamam", we start, "Mala IL Vengada VaR Ku MAma Nar Vah Zhi ".

On 2 occasions, Lord Srinivasa (Son in-law) visits Sri Ananth Alwars house (Thiru Mala Ligai) on the hills. This happens to be his (Ananth Alwar's Bridha Vanam too).

Earlier days, it used to be on the "Ratha Utsava Day", ( Now got shifted to the day next to "Theertha Vari".)

This day is signified as the day the lord married, "En THIRU Magal"( Sri Lakshmi decorating the( Thiur Marr Boo) holy chest area of the Lord), daughter of Anathalwar. This day the lord is taken in " Ap Pradhak Shanam" way, it is now called as " Bagh / Back " Savaree. Utsavam.

Even today On the Ratha Utsava days, the "Thiru The ir (Temple Car) stops at the junction of the Bridha Vanam, The descendents of Ananth alwar offer Arathi and one "Uthi re yem" as sambavana to the Son In Law. And Arathi is performed.

Second day is on the day of demise of Sri Ananth Alwar, (Thiru Adi Poor am)..

Both the days, "Malai and Thiru Parivattam and Sri Sata Kopam" is offered to the tree (believed to be Ananth Alwar).

Since it is considered to be the Brindha vanam of Ananth Alwar, even today " Lagoo Puniya Vachanam" is done to the Sri Satari", once the deity steps out of the Brinda vanam. The archarkar, who offered the Sri Satari, takes bath in the push karanee, before entering the temple again.

What is highlighted, (I guess, is the recognition given to the devotee for the devotion, as a moral to all of us. )

- Except to Thiurchanoor Thayar, (only on Panchami Theertham) Perumal¢s garland is not offered to any one, exception being Anath Alwar (Father in law).

Also Great Sri: U.VE. Purisai SRI Ranga Chariar Swami belonged to this family.

Purisai Swami was the composer of the great "SRINIVASA GADHYAM".

His direct disciples include, amongst others, Sri Gad dhi Ananth Char Swami, H.H. Sri Injee Mettu Swami, (during his poorvatsramam, Sri. U.VE Ranganadha Chariar Swami) and had highest regards for this swami, Sri.U.Ve. Kabisthalam Desika Chariar Swami".

If in order, I can upload the photographs of this Brindhavanam, Mariyadhi. , After your approval.

Dasan.