Of Inlaws and Outlaws

[Guest guest]

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 <sadagopaniyengar 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 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