AdiyEn yesterday when hearing the Thirupathi-Divyadesa
vaibhavam upanyAsam by SrI Velukkudi Krishnan (thro'
audio) came across the answer for the following
question:
> > Although all 3 brothers were asuras why was
> Vibishana different
> from his brothers and was a vishnu bhaktha?
This was explained during kOnEri Pushkarini (or Swamy
Pushkarini) MahAtmiyam. In that Saraswati was doing
penance for thousands of years for attaining superior
status than Ganga. When she was doing penance, Sage
Pulastyar came on that way. Since she was doing the
tapas, she didnt welcomed the sage. Hence the sage got
angry and cursed Saraswati that, for what purpose she
was doing penance, that could not be attained!
Saraswati realised her apachAram and appologized the
maharishi for her mistake. But the maharishi said
that, he couldnot withdraw the curse(sApam) once
given. Hence Saraswati got angry, and cursed Pulastyar
that, "Your childrens would be born as asurAs and will
become enemy to Lord Vishnu ('Vishnuvai
virOdhipargal')
After hearing this curse, Pulastyar appologized to
Saraswati for his mistake. Saraswati said that "In
that, ONE child will become bhaktha to Lord".
The remaining mahAtmiyam explains how Saraswati
attained the supremeness over the Ganga as Swamy
Pushkarini in Thirumala-Thirupathi.
Hence, except VibhIshana, all others such
as Ravana, Kumbhakarna, Soorpanaka were against Lord
Rama.
If there's any mistake adiyEn appologizes for that.
adiyen
senthil.b
--- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Swamin,
>
> adiyEn's answers to selective questions:
>
> Q: How can the same jeevathma simultaneously exist
> in the form of
> two chiranjeevis.?
>
> Please refer to chith prakaranam in mumukshuppadi.
> It clearly
> mentions that one jeevaathma may exists with
> multiple bodies at the
> same time.
>
> Q: Secondly since the dwarabalakas returned to
> vaikuntam after the
> third birth the muni kumara could not attain
> moksha?
>
> Was the episode happening in Sri Vaikuntam? From
> what I know, this
> episode happened in Thirupparkadal (Vyuham) which is
> in the Leela
> Vibhuthi. One rational explanation to justify this
> would be that no
> munikumara, why munikumara, no komban:) can enter
> Sri Vaikuntam just
> like that with the mortal body. The dwarabalakas
> simply returned
> back to Thirupparkadal, that is all, I guess.
>
> Q:Thirdly why did the dwarabalakas take up the form
> of kshatria
> mortals instead of asuras in the third birth?
>
> In fact, Ravana and Kumbakarna were not kshatrias -
> they were born
> for a Brahmana in the lineage of sage Pulastya(his
> son paulastya,
> his son vaisrava, his son vaisranava etc)?!
>
> Moreover, Asuramsam is a quality and is not a
> VARNAM. It is
> sometimes attained by a curse too.
>
> So all the three brothers were Brahmanas, but two of
> them as pre-
> destined, acquired / possessed asura qualities and
> Vibheeshana was
> the left out one, who, being born as a Brahmana, had
> no reason not
> to be a Vishnu Bhakta.
>
> In fact Ravana's sister Shoorpanaka also had
> asuramsam. Who would
> have been she? ;)
>
>
> adiyEn,
> rAmAnuja dAsan
>
> --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rajagopalan Narayan
>
> <rajagopalannarayan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Although all 3 brothers were asuras why was
> Vibishana different
> from his brothers and was a vishnu bhaktha? I had
> posed this doubt
> to several upanyaskas and got a convincing answer
> from
> sri.chakravarthy iyengar.
> > Since sanathkumara cursed the dwarabalakas to be
> born on earth
> for no crime commited and only following their
> duties Lord Naryana
> punished the munikumara to suffer a similar fate
> ,to be born with
> the dwarabalakas. The difference was that the two as
> per their
> erquest were sworn enemies of the Lord while the
> munikumara
> remained a Baktha. THis was vibishana and he was
> prahalada in the
> previous birth and akroora in the next birth. I
> undrstand the basis
> for this is found in Vishnudarma.
> > This led to another doubt-Both vibishana and
> prahalada are
> chiranjeevis. How can the same jeevathma
> simultaneously exist in
> the form of two chiranjeevis.?
> > Secondly since the dwarabalakas returned to
> vaikuntam after the
> third birth the muni kumara could not attain
> moksha?
> > Thirdly why did the dwarabalakas take up the form
> of kshatria
> mortals instead of asuras in the third
> birth?Adiyens ignorance be
> kindly pardoned by the members of the forum.
> dasan-narayanan
> > Sri Narayandesikaya Namah
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com.
> Check it out.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
Azhvar EmberumAnAr JeeyAr ThiruvadigalE Saranam
http://www.vedics.net
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:ramanuja-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:ramanuja-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |