You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Oct 2006

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00054 Oct 2006

 
Oct 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


 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/
 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list