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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:SriRangaSri-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:SriRangaSri-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |