AcArya rAmAmRtam - Nov 05 - 2

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImate ra’ngarAmAnuja mahAdeSikAya nama:

SrImate SrInivAsa rAmAnuja mahAdeSikAya nama:

SrImate vedAnta rAmAnuja mahAdeSikAya nama:

SrI ra’nganAtha divya maNi pAdukAbhyAm nama:

SrI ra’ngarAmAnuja mahAdeSika divya pAdukAbhyAm nama:

 

AcArya rAmAmRtam - Nov 05 - 2

Translation of

SrImad rAmAyaNa upanyAsam in tamizh by SrImad

tirukkuDandai ANDavan

 

As published in SrI ra’nganAtha pAdukA by

SrI U.Ve. nATTEri kiDAmbi rAjagopAlAcAriyAr (Editor

of SrI ra’nganAtha pAdukA)

 

SrImad ANDavan tiruvaDi,

kalyANi krshNamAcAri

 

 

=====================================

SrI:

AcArya rAmAmRtam

SrImad rAmAyaNa upanyAsam by SrImad tirukkuDandai

ANDavan

 

I have a doubt relating to that. vibhIshaNan

performed SaraNAgati! My doubt is about what for did

he perform SaraNAgati. deSikan is raising this

question in his abhayapradhAna sAram – Did he perform

SaraNAgati for getting the kingdom, or did he perform

SaraNAgati in order to get moksham by performing

kainkaryam to bhagavAn? Our AcAryan has concluded

that he did SaraNAgati for kaimkaryam. If we look at

rAmAyaNa Slokams, a Slokam says “rAjyArthI”. This

gives the meaning that he is only after rAjyam. Even

when A’njaneyar speaks, He objects to jAmbavAn’s

statement that vibhIshaNa did not come at the right

time and says “rAjyam prArthayamAna:”. There are lots

of wonderful meanings in this section. That is what

was meant when we said yesterday - “kAmArtha guNa

samyuktam dharmArtha guNa vistaram samudramiva

ratnADhyam sarva Sruti manoharam “ – that there are a

lot of intricate meanings in abundance.

 

VibhIshaNan does SaraNAgati. Why are they analyzing

that? They are discussing whether to accept him or

not. Someone says that anybody can be taken in, but,

not one who has come from the enemy’s camp. Each

person says something different. When JAmbavAn was

asked “What do you think?”, he says “It is okay to

take in someone who comes from the enemy camp, but

adeSa kAle samprAptam – “He did not come at the right

time. He kept quiet for 10 months and did it occur to

him to come only today? He did not come in the right

place and the right time”.

 

A’njaneyar was asked. Immediately, sugrIvan said

“You don’t have to ask him. Do as You wish”. He

told rAma: “You will think what he says is divine.

Since he has returned after already seeing Your

Consort, only his words will carry weight with you.

So, what he says is what you will take. You will not

take what we all say”. A person who brings news from

the wife is definitely great. Even kALidAsan says

“kANtASleshAt atigasubaga: kAminAm dUtalAbha:” – an

astounding statement. “We do not even need to have

things we desire close to us; it is people who convey

news about those desired things who are even more

special”.

 

rAman says to SugrIva: “No. Let me ask HanumAn”.

HanumAn listened to everything and said: “He is a very

good person. The time he came is the most appropriate

time, and the place is the most appropriate place”.

SrI rAman said that vibhIshaNa must be accepted

without fail. Immediately, sugrIvan said “You will

only listen to his words. I already said that

earlier. What I said has come true now. So, You are

saying the same thing that A’njaneya said”. rAman said

“I did not have the same thought as he did”;. SugrIva

countered: “You say he (vibhIshaNa) should be

accepted. A’janeya said the same thing”. BhagavAn

said that was not His opinion. He said: ”Do not see

the ‘decree’ in the ‘judgement’; look at the

‘wording’. Anjaneyar said - “He does not have any

faults; he can be accepted; he is flawless”. My

opinion is: ”Whether he has fault or he is faultless,

he has sought refuge, and he should be accepted. So,

this is not Hanuman’s opinion and this is not the

opinion of any of you;. This is my ‘judgement’”. This

is one side.

 

Besides, did he come for rAjyam? Or, did he come for

kaimkaryam? Hanuman says “rAjyam prArthayamAna:”.

There are other Slokams; there is one by vibhIshaNa

AzhvAn.“bhavadgatam me rAjyam ca jIvitam ca sukhAni

ca” – rAma! You are everything for me. I pray only

to you for rAjyam, Sukham etc. How do you decide now?

Only ‘judges’ can decide. We should decide whether to

take the vAdi’s (defendant) side or prativAdi

(prosecution) side. People have made big ‘argument’

about this. There may be a big book. It has been

decided “he did SaraNAgati only for kaimkaryam”. They

all argue for argument’s sake – but, he did SaraNAgati

only for kaimkaryam.

 

There is a very interesting discussion here.

“samudramiva ratnADhyam”, right? My AcAryA raised a

small question. ”People go to vaikuNTham, right?

JivAtmAs join bhagavAn; the two are with each other.

Sastram says – the jIva-s do dAsa kRtyam. Our elders

ask us to look to rAmAyaNam for example of (dAsa

kRtyam). We should carefully look at this. sugrIvan

performs SaraNAgati to rAman and is inseparably with

Him and is singularly involved in happily doing

kaimkaryam to Him primarily. When vibhIshaNan does

SaraNAgati, bhagavAn says he should be accepted. But

sugrIvan says no. Thus, there is this kind of

difference of opinion. And we are asked to look to

rAmAyaNam for an example of how it (dAsa kRtyam) will

be in vaikunTham after the jIva attains moksham.

Will there be similar difference of opinion between

perumAL and the person who goes there?” ValmIki

says “sugrIvam SaraNam gata:”, “taraNi suta SaraNAgati

paratantrIkRta svAtantrya”. Both move very intimately.

Both rAman and sugrIvan have said - “ekam du:kham

sukham ca nou” . They have become friends with agni as

the witness. If these two have this kind of difference

of opinion, there will be differences of opinion in

vaikuNTham also. Is it appropriate to look at examples

likes these (to know how the jIva and bhagavAn will

interact with each other in vaikunTham).

 

What does the AcAryar say? The AcAryar says that both

sugrIva and rAma are expressing the same opinion. He

said that sugrIvan’s opinion that “vibhIShaNan should

not be taken in”, and rAman’s opinion, are the same.

How? VibhIshaNan said “no” and rAmar said “take him

in”; aren’t the two opinions different? How are you

saying both are having the same opinion? “Both are

giving their opinions based on the same thought in

mind. Therefore their opinions are the same. The

decisions involving ‘Yes, we should accept him’ and

‘No, we should not accept him’ are made based on the

same reasoning. Why did rAman say that he should be

acceped? Because, when one comes saying SaraNam, he

should be protected. When one offers surrender, one

must necessarily be protected. There is no higher

sAstram superior to that. ‘tam mAtA pitruhantAram api

pAti bhavArti hA’. “If one has murdered his father

and mother, and if he comes to Me and says SaraNam,

then I have to protect him. That is SAstram; there is

no higher dharmam than that.”

 

“na go pradAnam na ca bhU pradAnam

na dravya dAnam na ca hema dAnam “

 

rAma’s position is: “It has been declared that it is

not superior if one donates cows; it is not superior

if one donates land. It is not superior if one donates

gold. But ‘abhayapradAnam pradAnam’ - when one comes

and surrenders, giving protection to him is the most

superior. So, I should protect when one comes and

surrenders; I will not leave the person who

surrendered unprotected”.

 

sugrIvan also says “I said ‘No’ to accepting

vibhIshaNa only because I also wanted to protect the

person who did SaraNAgati. You did SaraNAgati to me.

So, is it not necessary that I protect You? “What if

this person who has come from the enemy camp drops a

stone on Your head when You are sleeping?”

 

Thus, the guiding principle is the same for the one

who says “no” and the one who says “yes” - protection

of the surrenderer is the dharmam.

 

In this, let us look at the question “Did rAman do

SaraNAgati to SugrIvan, or did SugrIvan do SaraNAgati

to rAman? The heading (for upanyaAsam) in papers says

“sugrIva SaraNAgati”. (Based on samskRt grammar), this

can mean “sugrIva’s SaraNAgati”, or “SaraNAgati to

sugrIva”. It can be said either way – SugrIvan did

SaraNAgati to rAman or rAman did SaraNAgati to

SugrIvan. It can be said SaraNAgati to SugrIvan or

SaraNAgati of SugrIvan. How is that?

 

sugrIvan did not do SaraNAgati to rAman. It was rAman

who did SaraNAgati to SugrIvan. “taraNi suta

SaraNAgati paratantrI kRta svAtanrya:!“ (says swAmi

dESikan in raghuvIra gadyam).

 

“aham caiva ca rAmaSca sugrIvam SaraNam gatau”

 

“esha dattvA ca vittAni prApya cAnuttamam yaSa:

lokanAtha: purA bhUtvA sugrIvam nAthamicchati ||

yasya prasAde sakalA: prasIdeyurimA: prajA: |

sa rAmo vAnarendrasya prasAdam abhikAnkshate ||”

 

What a Slokam! When it is vAlmIki’s Slokam, honey

will be dripping from it. He is such a beautiful poet.

Sweet poet. That is why kamban said

 

“vAngarum pAdam nAngum vagutta vAlmIki enbAn

tInkani SevigaL Arat tEvarum parugac ceydAn “.

 

yasya prasAde sakalA: prasIdeyu: imA: prajA: |

sa rAmo vAnarendrasya prasAdam abhikAnkhsate ||

 

That rAman, whose blessings are craved for by whole

world, is praying for a monkey’s blessing. What

atrocity is this?

 

“aham caiva ca rAma: ca sugrIvam SaraNam gata:” – thus

it is rAman who has performed SaraNAgati to sugrIvan.

 

 

SugrIvan is saying that vibhishaNan should not be

taken in, for the sake of protecting the surrenderer.

What if vibhIshaNan does something in the night?

“You are saying we should take in vibhIshaNan! I have

to only protect the person who surrendered to me.

Both of us have the same ‘aim’. We are just saying it

in different words. What is important is the

protection of one who has surrendered.

 

Thus there are lots of intricate meanings -

“samudramiva rathnADhyam sarva Sruti manoharam”. I am

going to say vyAkyAnam only for this Slokam. I have

not prepared for anything else. Had other things to

do; I have to fill the time now; so I have to say

something or the other! (AcAryan laughs! Everyone in

the audience enjoys this humor and laughs!)

 

=======================

To be continued………