You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : October 1998

Re: Vibhishana sharanaagati

From: Mani Varadarajan (
Date: Tue Oct 13 1998 - 15:34:36 PDT

Before reading any responses to his question, my friend
had a few further comments:


Seeing that no one has answered - I shall venture to say my two
cents worth. This is something that has particularly struck a
chord in my heart - especially when it came to Sri Raama. I do
not particularly care when this is brought up with respect to the
Para, Vyuha, Archa and the other Vibhava avataras of the
Lord. But Sri Raama is special.

I feel a physical blow when someone claims that Raama did not
have KaaruNyam when he was without Mother Seetha. I guess some
Sri Vaishnavaas particularly like to labor the point of the
Piraatti being the compassionate one. I like to respectfully
differ. Here are my repertoire of examples from my limited
reading of the Srimad RaamaayaNam.

1.) Jataayu - Sri Raama on seeing the remains of his battle with
Ravana and seeing a giant body in the darkness initially
"mistakes" it to be the demon that had kidnapped Seetha and lifts
his bow to finish it off. Coming closer he hears Jataayu's faint
cries. Everyone knows what the Lord did after that. Jataayu went
to the Lokas that even Dasaratha did not get. No Sita
here. (Strike one for Sri Raama) Now this can be explained away
by saying - afterall Jataayu died trying to protect the
Mother. But this is all stretched. If Maariicha died simply
because he was a couple miles away from Seetha and if the 14000
guys at Janasthaana died because they were just out on an open
ground a furlong away from the cave where Sita was - this does
not make sense.

2.) Shabari - No contact with Siita at all. None whatsoever. So
where did she go? Okay - so her aacharyan Matanga Maharishi had
already promised her the higher lokas before Sri Raama blessed
her with his presence.  I guess the Sri Vaishnavaas would claim
that the "U" kaaram in the OM signifies both the Piraatti and the
Aacharyan since they do identical work. In my view - this is
stretched even more taut than the first one.

3.) Sri Raama's protection of the spies sent by Raavana. If one
were to say that he only was a disciplining force bereft of the
Mother - he could have had those two guys killed (Shuka and

4.) Sending back Raavana himself without killing him on the first
day of the battle. He kept giving him innumerable chances to come
under his protection and only disposed him off at the end seeing
Raavana adamant in his stand.

5.) And I have one more - Raama was not even Sri Raama when he
ran into Maariicha first. He killed Subaahu and dumped Maaricha a
hundred yojanas away into the Ocean. Did not kill him then - but
waited until Siita was a couple miles away to finish him off -
after a gap of 23 years???? Raama, you are not being logical.

These are the ones at the top of my head. Doubtless there are
many more.  My point is simply this. While it cannot be argued
that Piraatti is Purushakaara and bears no sentiment other than
KaaruNyam, it is not true to say that the Lord who has KaaruNyam
as one of his KalyaaNaguNaas - leaves it to be dormant until the
Mother awakens it with her presence or her words mediating in
favor of the Jeevaatma. I would disagree to think of the Lord as
simply a stern disciplinarian meting out justice in a detatched
manner - when the Mother is not around and then turning on his
syrup of KaaruNyam when he listens to her.

But I guess when upanyaasakars talk on these points ( and they
are very sweet ) they do tend to use more emotion than logic and
stress a point by painting a deliberately darker picture on the
other side. BTW, in the Srimad RaamaayaNam too when Bhagavaan
Vaalmiki talks about scholars debating in the afternoons of the
Ashwamedha yaaga - he says one party would deliberately start a
debate criticising some aspect of the Divine - the other party
would defend it and in the end both would bask in the collective
experience of the exposition of those qualities.