First slOkham in VenkaTEsa suprabhAtham

[mahakavi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

कौसल्या सुप्रजा राम पूर्वा सन्ध्या प्रवर्तते (KausalyA
suprajA rAma pUrvA sandhyA pravartatE
उत्तिश्ठ नरशार्दूल कर्तव्यं दैवमाह्निकम् (uttiSTha
naraSArdUla kartavyam daivamAhnikam)

Meaning:
“Oh, the darling son of KausalyA, dawn has arrived. Please wake up, Oh tiger among men, and you have the daily rituals to be performed to propitiate the gods”.

This is how Sage ViswAmitra woke up his ward Rama at
dawn in the forest to exhort Rama to perform the daily human duties (ablution
and oblation). These two lines from Valmiki RamayaNam were used as the starting
lines for Sri VenkaTEsa SuprabhAtham (29 slOkhams) composed by PrativAdi
Bhayankaram aNNangarAcAryAr (ca 1500 CE) per the decree of his guru MaNavALa
MAmunigaL. The SuprabhAtham (literally su+ prabhAtham = “good morning”) is
recited every morning at the sayana maNTapam (slumber hall) at
Thiruppathi temple to “wake up” Lord VenkaTEswara.


Now this first slOkham was fine to wake up Rama when he was in the human form. I wonder if it is appropriate to use the first slokham to wake up Lord VenkaTEswara. He is not in human form like Rama. He is not a "tiger among men" like Rama was. He does not have to propitiate the gods since he is considered the supreme. Of course, since it was written 500 years ago it gains a hoary status.

In ValmIki's description Rama was a man (although with some divine attributes which manifested at various points of his life). That is why he said "narasArdUla" (tiger among men). Valmiki never considered Rama as a god (never mind the description of the events taking place in vaikuntam such as the celestials requesting Vishnu to take a human form etc.). Other than that most people consider Vishnu, Narasimha, Rama, and Krishna as one and the same. Rajaji describes Venkatesa as " maRaimUrti KaNNA". That concept emanates from the idea "the whole is part and part is the whole". I am not questioning the faith part of the concept---just the appropriateness of the first slokham.

If one considers the meaning of the first sloKham it is a wake-up call for Rama the sixteen-year old prince of ayodya. The call is also to do "kartavyam daivamAhnikam" (do the morning duties to propitiate the gods). I am only pointing out the ill-fit of this first slokham to Lord Venkatesa. The second slokham is fine which addresses him as "gOvinda garuDawaja..." (Govinda with the Garuda flag/banner) and which requests him to do "trilokhyam mangaLam kuru" (to bless and protect the three worlds). In that context the first two slokhams are in conflict with each other in terms of the status of the deity, if not contradict.​

 

[Govinda]

This article would be a nice read, and hope will clear your doubts.

"Good Morning, Milord!"

 

[mahakavi]

The article just dwells on divine glory. My point is clear cut. The first slokham "kausalya supraja rama..." does not belong in Venkatesa suprabhatham because it was addressed to the human Rama who is exhorted to perform the morning ritual oblations to the gods (kartavyam daivamAhnikam). The same does not hold true for Lord Venkatesa. All the ornamentations, and whether the Lord sleeps or not is all just imagination of the vaishnavaite exponents intended to arouse bhakthi in the devotees.

 

[Govinda]

The article just dwells on divine glory. My point is clear cut. The first slokham "kausalya supraja rama..." does not belong in Venkatesa suprabhatham because it was addressed to the human Rama who is exhorted to perform the morning ritual oblations to the gods (kartavyam daivamAhnikam). The same does not hold true for Lord Venkatesa. All the ornamentations, and whether the Lord sleeps or not is all just imagination of the vaishnavaite exponents intended to arouse bhakthi in the devotees.

You have made un-limited assumptions on the whole topic. Then, you blame the vaishnavas for imagination.

Here you go....

First assumption, How is Sri Rama, only a human, showing divine qualities here and there? [post #1]

Next, why cannot Lord Venkateswara be addressed as Sri Rama? In the same vein, the bride and bridegroom are considered as Visnu and Lakshmi, and the family members have to wash their feet with milk, and many perform most
marriage karmas, considering them as Lord and His consort. Should we re-consider them?

Why do you consider Lord Venkatesa, is the Almighty, but not Lord Rama? When the fore-runner of all puranas, Vishnu Purana (detailing all His avatars, and eulogizing Him as the Almighty) was penned by Parasara-muni,upon the advice of
his grand-father, Sage Vashishta (who lived with Sri Rama). How do you know Sri Rama/Vishnu, better than those sages??

The sruti, smriti talks about Vishnu's avatars. How else would you have known anything
about Lord Vishnu or is multi-forms/avataras?

When you guys, assume all other religious gods as one Almighty, Why not take the literal message on Lord
Vishnu/Narayana having many forms/names, as substantiated in Rig Veda/Maha Narayana Upa. as "Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanta" ?

Why do you assume that Lord/Almighty, does not have to wake up and see the world revolving, when the sruti clearly describes the steps of the Vikrama - the first step at morning dandhya, next at mid-day, and thrid at sunset, and the sun-rays are the dust formed from His magnificient steps. ? I undetstand, the Almighty doesnt have to perform any sandhya or propitiate other gods, but He can also be expected to wake up and perform His daily duties [as suggested in Karma Yoga topics, by Gita-Acharayan, Sri Krishna ], for the continuance of this material universe and acccept the other gods/devotees' prayers/requests and fulfilling them.

P.S:

Is Lord Rama, a man or god?
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/blogs/govinda/10529-man-god-about-lord-rama.html

 

[mahakavi]

>>Is Lord Rama, a man or god?<<

I will answer this question first. He was a man, according to VAlmIki. The slokham "kausalya supraja..." indicates that Viswamitra treats him as a young man. He tells Rama to wake up and do the daily duties that a man has to do to propitiate the gods. To repeat again: "kartavyam daivamahnikam" (daily rituals due to the gods). There you have it. If Rama were god ValmIki in the words of Viswamitra would not have asked Rama to offer oblations to the gods. Point out the slokhams where VAlmIki says that Rama is god. I am not asking for those where the references are made about the celestials going to Vishnu to take avatar. Even when the Lord takes an avatar such as Rama it is meant to be just HUMAN. Why? It is because of the condition that Ravana laid that he should not be slain by a demon, god, or anything in between. Ravana left out the provision that he could be slain by a human because he thought humans could not defeat him. That is why Rama is considered human.
You cannot have it both ways--- god or human as the situation demands. It is only much later during the medieval period such as Kamban's period Rama was called god.


P.S: I will answer your other questions shortly.

 

[Govinda]

>>Is Lord Rama, a man or god?<<

You cannot have it both ways--- god or human as the situation demands. It is only much later during the medieval period such as Kamban's period Rama was called god.

P.S: I will answer your other questions shortly.

Seems like you didn't read the blog-article I just posted?
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/blogs/govinda/10529-man-god-about-lord-rama.html

Why did Dasaratha hide from Parasu-Rama , whereas Sri Rama could face Parasurama? How was Viswamitra, so sure that Young human Sri Rama, could defeat all Rakshasa single-handedly And where were all other 'powerful' humans then? Why couldn't 'Mighty Emperor' Dasaratha fight Ravan, when the former was many times challenged by Ravana? How about the eulogies/praises of Brahma, Indra etc. on Sri Rama as Almighty ? How could human Rama promise Vaikuntam with all certainty to Jatayu, Ravana, Vibheekshana, ayodhya residents, immortality to Hanuman, if He isn't either the trust-owner or has grantor privilege ? How didn't Rama die of Nagastra sent by Ravana, whereas Arjuna could have died in the hands of Karna? How could Sri Rama be just a human with all exceptions and many more like above? Why couldn't have Rama just disguised as human, but still had the same divine nature?

 

[mahakavi]

OK, let me answer your questions in a different color.

You have made un-limited assumptions on the whole topic. Then, you blame the vaishnavas for imagination.
I am not making assumptions. I interpret the slokham in vAlmIki Ramayanam for its face value. If someone interprets a hidden meaning I can't be responsible for that.

First assumption, How is Sri Rama, only a human, showing divine qualities here and there? [post #1]

Let me counter that with another question. Why is he pining when SItA was abducted. He was running around asking the birds and animals he encounters as to the whereabouts of SItA? Why didn't he kill Ravana with "poof, you are dead" mantra if he were god? The divine qualities were either mixed in by VAlmIki here and there or they were later interpolations by other poets which has been recognized such uttara kANDam was not written by VAlmIki.

Next, why cannot Lord Venkateswara be addressed as Sri Rama? In the same vein, the bride and bridegroom are considered as Visnu and Lakshmi, and the family members have to wash their feet with milk, and many perform most
marriage karmas, considering them as Lord and His consort. Should we re-consider them?

Yes we should reconsider those concepts. Calling Lord Venkateshwara as Rama is an individual choice. As I said in my post #1 Rajaji calls him as KaNNA. Calling the groom as mahavishnu is just a tradition out of respect as well as the desire of the bride's parents that their daughter should be treated well in her in-laws' house. We all know some practices which took place/taking place towards the bride in her inlaws' houses in the past/present. Just because some people started it as a practice does not make the human as god.

Why do you consider Lord Venkatesa, is the Almighty, but not Lord Rama? When the fore-runner of all puranas, Vishnu Purana (detailing all His avatars, and eulogizing Him as the Almighty) was penned by Parasara-muni,upon the advice of
his grand-father, Sage Vashishta (who lived with Sri Rama). How do you know Sri Rama/Vishnu, better than those sages??
How do I know Sri Rama/Vishnu? I don't. Whatever I know is what I read in the puranas and religious texts. All those accounts are faith-based accounts. Nobody questions accounts based on faith. You can't rationalize those accounts. But why are you so sure that those puranas were penned by some infallible rishi. They were all hearsay only (karna parambarai, if you will). There could have been a lot of "slip between the cup and the lip" (to borrow a familiar phrase). Before the written text came into being it was a free-for-all situation. Sometimes due to transmission error and other times deliberate to introduce the transmitter's fancy.

The sruti, smriti talks about Vishnu's avatars. How else would you have known anything
about Lord Vishnu or is multi-forms/avataras?
I don't claim to know anything more than whatever the srtuti/smriti say. That does not mean one has to accept whatever somebody says "the sruti/smriti says so". "Thou shalt accept it without question". You can accept it but I don't have to. But as I said before it is faith-related matter and I will not insult somebody by questioning it.

When you guys, assume all other religious gods as one Almighty, Why not take the literal message on Lord
Vishnu/Narayana having many forms/names, as substantiated in Rig Veda/Maha Narayana Upa. as "Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanta" ?
Again you are going by what is propagated from very early times. When the written text was not in vogue anything anybody said was not absolute. Transmission error or twisting could produce anything that you want.

Why do you assume that Lord/Almighty, does not have to wake up and see the world revolving, when the sruti clearly describes the steps of the Vikrama - the first step at morning dandhya, next at mid-day, and thrid at sunset, and the sun-rays are the dust formed from His magnificient steps. ? I undetstand, the Almighty doesnt have to perform any sandhya or propitiate other gods, but He can also be expected to wake up and perform His daily duties [as suggested in Karma Yoga topics, by Gita-Acharayan, Sri Krishna ], for the continuance of this material universe and acccept the other gods/devotees' prayers/requests and fulfilling them.

People interpret lots of practices and customs according to their wishes. People say "god does not sleep because if he sleeps the universe will get destroyed". In another breath they say even if he sleeps it is "yoga nidra, and not real sleep". In the latter case you don't have to wake him up. The absolute god does not need to be appealed for help. If you are a virtual soul he will protect you come what may. If you are devious he will not help you even if you cry your heart out. That is because the Hindu dharma tells you that you reap the rewards/punishments as meted out by your karma. The gods make sure that karma is the sure thing to take you wherever you belong. I personally do not believe in saying "shankara shankara" on the deathbed. Somebody concocted the ajAmiLan story in order to suit their fancy to create an exemption (I am referring to ajAmiLan's calling his son nArAyaNa on his deathbed).

P.S:

Is Lord Rama, a man or god?
I answered this simple question before.
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/blogs/govinda/10529-man-god-about-lord-rama.html

True, I did not read your article cited above because I answered your query in a straight-forward manner.

 

[mahakavi]

Now let me ask you some questions.
1. Does god have a mother? Who is she, if there is one? If not, where did god come from? I know you will answer in a standard manner; he existed primordially. Is there any other answer?
2. Rama had a mother (Kausalya). So he was "yOnija" (born out of a womb)---right? If he were god and he had a mother does the absolute god also have a mother?
3. In your opinion, is Jesus god or not? He was born as a human. His mother was Mary and father was Joseph. The Christians claim that Joseph was the namesake father and Mary did not conceive Jesus with help from Joseph but that it was an immaculate conception when Mary was a virgin and that Joseph accepted her as his wife later. Leaving that aside, Jesus is considered as son of god but born as a human. The Christians refer to Jesus as either "Christ" or the "Messiah" but not God. They say God sent his son as Jesus to earth. Let it be. The term "Messiah" refers to a leader anointed by God. The Jews do not consider Jesus as either divine or the son of god, or the Messiah. Jesus also performed miracles---more modest when considered against Rama's adventures against the demons.

Considering all these what makes you think that Rama was God during the time of VAlmIki? The very fact that he was born out of a human womb makes him human similar in stature to Jesus. The lapse of 3000 years or so between Rama and Jesus makes the former more hoary and hence more sacred and divine. That is all. Opinions morph as time progresses and nowadays Rama is considered as god. That is how I view.

Coming to Lord Venkateshwara, even if he needs to be woken up every morning, my contention as I stated in my original post is that the "kausalya supraja........kartavyam daivamahnikam" does not belong there. If you think there is no harm in keeping it there, then you have to accept there is some other god superior to Lord Venkateshwara which is against Vaishnava philosophy. (Venkatesa samo dEvo na bhUtO na bhavishyati---right?)

 

[mahakavi]

I am sure you did not read my first post carefully before beating around the bush. VAlmIki referes to Rama as "narasArdUla" (tiger among men) in that wake-up slokham. What do you say for that?

 

[mahakavi]

Why did Dasaratha hide from Parasu-Rama , whereas Sri Rama could face Parasurama? How was Viswamitra, so sure that Young human Sri Rama, could defeat all Rakshasa single-handedly And where were all other 'powerful' humans then? Why couldn't 'Mighty Emperor' Dasaratha fight Ravan, when the former was many times challenged by Ravana? How about the eulogies/praises of Brahma, Indra etc. on Sri Rama as Almighty ? How could human Rama promise Vaikuntam with all certainty to Jatayu, Ravana, Vibheekshana, ayodhya residents, immortality to Hanuman, if He isn't either the trust-owner or has grantor privilege ? How didn't Rama die of Nagastra sent by Ravana, whereas Arjuna could have died in the hands of Karna? How could Sri Rama be just a human with all exceptions and many more like above? Why couldn't have Rama just disguised as human, but still had the same divine nature?

Counter question: If Parasurama was also an avatAr of Vishnu and Rama is another avatAr how come two different entities of the same element oppose each other and one vanquishes the other. Isn't it self-destruction which is OK in humans but not in the divine realm?
Viswamitra knew the mantras (which he preached to Rama) but he could not engage in warfare himself because that would pollute his yagna. Hence he needed an assistant to whom he gave the means to fight the rAkshasAs.

Dasharata had 60000 wives--right? Don't be led by pure poetic excesses.

The celestials praised Rama because when Ravana was killed they celebrated that event. That was the mission that was taken up in the avatAr-right? So it went through a full cycle. When you start with the celestials going to Vishnu to take avatAr and destroy Ravana and when that mission was accomplished they thanked Vishnu (imagining Rama to be Him).

Anybody can promise VaikunTham to anybody. I can do that too. Will it get done? Again promising vaikuntham to all the vanaras and all others was in accordance with the starting premise---the celestials were to be born on earth to assist rama--right? So the natural final destination is the starting place.

You said "arjuna could have died". But he didn't because it was written so.

Finally
>>Why couldn't have Rama just disguised as human, but still had the same divine nature?<<
The boon that Ravana got was to justify the human avatAr of Rama. If you use divine powers that is against the boon. So you have to be a human first and proceed from there. If you pack divine powers within your human exterior then that is tantamount to cheating. If god indulges in cheating why are we finding fault with earthlings for doing so? Sure Krishna indulged in devious means to win the war for Pandavas but the justification that people give (which can bend anyway you want) is that the "end justifies the means". Did god say "everything is fair in love and war"?

 

[Govinda]

I am sure you did not read my first post carefully before beating around the bush. VAlmIki referes to Rama as "narasArdUla" (tiger among men) in that wake-up slokham. What do you say for that?

I will answer all your questions soon., and also point out your mis-understanding and contradictions.

But, What I made up from your question from the 1 post is that,

"you have made a hat (your mind) the way you liked, and shaved your head (the shastras) to suit your hat (your liking).
Having lost the head/truth, you are struggling to reason.".

 

[mahakavi]

Read "krishna+ Venkateshwara" as Krishna = Venkateshwara in my previous post

 

[mahakavi]

My previous post disappeared. Post #12 as appears above is an edit of my previous post. When I clicked "edit" the post disappeared.
Moderator: Can you pl resurrect that post? Thanks.

 

[Govinda]

My previous post disappeared. Post #12 as appears above is an edit of my previous post. When I clicked "edit" the post disappeared.
Moderator: Can you pl resurrect that post? Thanks.

Is this your prev. post? I copied from the email/inbox:

"You are still beating around the bush. Answer my questions one by one in a straightforward manner. Do not miss the two essential phrases, viz., "narasArdUla" and "kartavyam daivamAhnikam". These two are crucial. Answer them first. Will they apply to Lord Venkateshwara? Be honest to yourself. Rama=Krishna+Venkateshwara will not wash in this particular instance. They are OK if you want to consider them same for overall interpretation in terms of avatArs.

You seem to create a delusion for yourself in order to retrieve yourself from the pit you have fallen in. Pl don't dig any deeper since the hole will get deeper too."

 

[mahakavi]

Yes, thank you Mr. Govinda.
Now read "Rama=Krishna+Venkateshwara" as "Rama=Krishna=Venkateshwara" in that post.
Rest of the contents remain the same.

 

[Govinda]

Valmiki addresses most of the emperors of Raghu Vamsa, as 'Tiger among men'. You may see such references for Sri Rama's ancestors, like Sagara (60,000 sons cursed by sage Kapila), Amshuman, Dileepa, Bhageeratha (who brought the ganges down for srardha of his lost ancestors), each of them ruled the kingdom for 60000 years.

Why do you take that 'nasaardula' literally to make Rama, a human, Whereas, you don't take the 60,000 wives of Dasaratha literally, but consider that an imagination? Is that for your convenience? or that suits your direct/obvious perception?

See, I am not beating the bush. All srutis, smritis have mentioned the avatars of Vishnu. Lord Govinda have take the avatar after the curse of Bhrigu muni and was born a human too and married the sages' daughter, to fulfill some leela. Annangaracharya didn't make anything up new. It is your perception problem, you consider one as Almighty and other not!

Seems like If the vigraha looks like human, you consider that form as human , so you consider Krishna/Rama as human, but Govinda and Ranganatha as Almighty How about the form of Narasimha?

 

[mahakavi]

OK, it is time for a rebuttal. Let me choose blue color and response beneath each of your statements.

Valmiki addresses most of the emperors of Raghu Vamsa, as 'Tiger among men'. You may see such references for Sri Rama's ancestors, like Sagara (60,000 sons cursed by sage Kapila), Amshuman, Dileepa, Bhageeratha (who brought the ganges down for srardha of his lost ancestors), each of them ruled the kingdom for 60000 years.

60000 years rule by a single individual and 60000 sons for one person ---all a figment of imagination, a lofty one at that not to be taken literally. Some poets excel in hyperbole. Of course all kings are called great warriors and heroes and "tiger among men" may be one such title given to such. So Rama was also called "tiger among men". The ancestors of Rama were all human and so was Rama and hence VAlmIki called him "narasArUla". When Dasharatha protested Viswamitra's demand for Rama it was VaSishta who advised Dasharatha to let Rama go so that the young man would benefit from the sage's wisdom and power.

Why do you take that 'nasaardula' literally to make Rama, a human, Whereas, you don't take the 60,000 wives of Dasaratha literally, but consider that an imagination? Is that for your convenience? or that suits your direct/obvious perception?

That is because Viswamitra wakes him up to do the morning rituals (kartavyam daivamAhnikam is the key there) normally done by men. If he called Rama just sArdUla (just tiger) then there would be no problem. sArdula would then be just an adjective without the appendage to man (nara). As for Dasharatha where were the 60,000 wives, anyway. All his female citizens were his wives--right? Just like Krishna had 10,000 wifes--right. In that case every gopi claimed him as her maNALan.

See, I am not beating the bush. All srutis, smritis have mentioned the avatars of Vishnu. Lord Govinda have take the avatar after the curse of Bhrigu muni and was born a human too and married the sages' daughter, to fulfill some leela. Annangaracharya didn't make anything up new. It is your perception problem, you consider one as Almighty and other not!
usalya suprajA.."Smritis and srutis are not to be taken literally either. They are some codes intended for righteous life and anything is fair game there. As for Srinivasa taking human form to fulfill Rama's promise to Vedavalli and Krishna's promise to Yasodha I won't question that because it is faith-based and I will be last one to question matters of faith. If I do it will create unnecessary problems. That does not mean I accept that premise. I just avoid it--that is all. Regarding the "kausalya suprajA.." slokham I say it does not belong with the rest of the suprabhAtham because of a totally different context. Lord Venkateshwara does not have to pay tributes to other gods (per vaishnavite doctrine) because he is the supreme. You have not answered this issue at all.

Seems like If the vigraha looks like human, you consider that form as human , so you consider Krishna/Rama as human, but Govinda and Ranganatha as Almighty How about the form of Narasimha?

Rama was born to Kausalya ( a human being), i.e, he is YOnija and the same is true of Krishna (he was born to Devaki) and hence they were human. Why did Krishna just function as Arjuna's advisor and chauffer instead of annihilating all the kauravas with his discus which he was going to do once with Bhishma but withdrew in the last minute unless he was functioning as a human? As for looking human even Venkateshwara and Ramaganatha look human. That is because the people who created these gods did not know how they looked like. When the only tool you have is a hammer you use it--right? Likewise man created god in his own image because he looked at his fellow men and thought god also looked like that.

As I said before I do not question your faith. But I am only questioning the appropriateness of the usage of certain terms.

 

[mahakavi]

I left out narasimha. It was half-man/half lion by design because of the fable created in that avatAr that Hiranyakasipu could nbot be slain by man/animal day/night, inside/outside. You have to give it to them to have devised so many escape clauses to come up with the right strategy. People who claim that narasimha describes a feature in evolution like (fish, turtle, varaha etc... through to man) are mistaken if half-,man half-lion was an intermediate species between lion and man. Not at all. The lion branched off as a canine species in the animal kingdom while the monkey kept going higher in the tree of evolution before branching off itself while the human species kept going higher.

 

[renuka]

After reading the debate here I guess Lord Venkatesh might think..
Aiyyo why is everyone thinking Rama,Krishna and Me are different?
So you guys no need to wake Me up..I will use my alarm clock.!"

 

[zebra16]

Sri Mahakavi,

While we are on the subject of the first stanza of Sri Venkatesa suprabhatam, can you clarify the following doubts of mine?

1. Is the interpretation that sage Vishwamitra woke up Sri Rama calling him "kousalya supraja rama" correct.....? As per what I have read of the epics and puraNas, the shishyas are to be awake before the guru and (sishyas) are expected to go to sleep after the guru. Why is the exception allowed in case of Sri Rama?

2. Why was Sri Rama called "narasArDhula" even while he was just a sishya under sage Vishwamitra? What parAkramam did he do at that age to earn the title?

3. Whether the avataras do or do not do daivAhnikams in their human birth? I think they do.

4. Was Valmiki just a poet or a Rishi or a Rishi & poet, according to you and according to the tradition?

Regards

 

[mahakavi]

After reading the debate here I guess Lord Venkatesh might think..
Aiyyo why is everyone thinking Rama,Krishna and Me are different?
So you guys no need to wake Me up..I will use my alarm clock.!"

I agree there is no need to wake Him up. He is not sleeping. He is in yOga nidra. He knows when to work and when to snooze!

 

[mahakavi]

Zebra16:
I do not claim much knowledge in RAmAyaNam. Let me answer to the best of my knowledge. See my response below your queries (in blue)

Sri Mahakavi,

While we are on the subject of the first stanza of Sri Venkatesa suprabhatam, can you clarify the following doubts of mine?

1. Is the interpretation that sage Vishwamitra woke up Sri Rama calling him "kousalya supraja rama" correct.....? As per what I have read of the epics and puraNas, the shishyas are to be awake before the guru and (sishyas) are expected to go to sleep after the guru. Why is the exception allowed in case of Sri Rama?

Rama and Lakshmana were not taken as shishyAs by Viswamitra (hereinafter V) but as pure kshatriyas whose duty is to protect the subjects (rishis are subjects of the kings). V took them both a long distance by foot, obviously, and it was perhaps the first morning or so and the kids (Rama was only 14 or so at that time) were tired and hence slept longer than usual (my guess). V wanted to teach several mantras to Rama and Lakshmana so that they can use those mantras in slaying the demons. When Dasharata offered to come and protect his yAga, V said "no" for two reasons (my guess again). 1. Dasharatha was old and he himself needed the help of KaikEyi when he was fighting some other king. Besides V himself was a king and he knew kshatriyas inside out. He wanted young blood. 2. He had other motives in his mind apart from protecting the yAga. He wanted to be the broker in Rama's wedding to SItA. So after successful completion of the yAga he did not return his wards to Dasharata but took them straight to Mithila to break the shiva danush and thus wed SItA. Dasharata was later sent a message to come and attend Rama's wedding.

2. Why was Sri Rama called "narasArDhula" even while he was just a sishya under sage Vishwamitra? What parAkramam did he do at that age to earn the title?

Again let us clarify. Rama was not a shishya of V. Let us call him a ward of V. V did not want his yAga disturbed. Although he could use his powers to incinerate the demons at will, he would lose his powers and has to earn more by severe penance again. So he sought the easy way out which is: bring a young kshatriya prince and teach him the asthra mantras which would enable the prince to conquer the demons. V knew that Rama had the potential and combined with the mantras he would teach him Rama would come out with flying colors. Hence the epithet "narasArdUla". Watch the prefix "nara". It is like sending a young warrior to war applying vibhUdi/kungumam on his forehed saying "veTriyODu tirumbivA veera maganE" although that kid had never been to the warfront before.

3. Whether the avataras do or do not do daivAhnikams in their human birth? I think they do.

I really don't know. They might. When Bharatha visited Rama at CitrakUTa(?) to inform their father's death Rama did the obsequies for his father. Similarly doing morning, noon, and evening rituals were required of brahmins and kshatriyas. I am not sure if Krishna did any daivamAhnikam at all.

4. Was Valmiki just a poet or a Rishi or a Rishi & poet, according to you and according to the tradition?

According to what is written about ValmIki he was a dacoit/robber in his early life and later turned to be a hermit. He was granted the power to write the story of Rama in the form of verses by Brahma, according to tradition. I don't vouch for it nor deny it.

Thanks for asking although I know very little of Ramayanam.



Regards

 

[Govinda]

I agree there is no need to wake Him up. He is not sleeping. He is in yOga nidra. He knows when to work and when to snooze!

Mahakavi,

Our Rishis knew about His potency, So does the Lord, He is aware of His own svarupam/nature.

The world revolves because of the Will of the Lord/Creator. Every wink of His eye, results in the creation of a new universe/Prakruti. But, He still goes by the vedic charter of time. He does-not require anyone to offer Him sevice or praise Him, like, parents donot wait for his kid to wake them up or do service. Yet, sometimes, I pretend to be asleep, when my son wakes up. He would feel proud that he was early, and would try all means to wake me up [like pull the blanket, tickle etc.] and would remind me of my work schedules and I enjoy them.

We have Agamas, the manual of daily or occasional Worship/Pooja rituals. Our shAstras describe the Lord as a Person of innumerable auspicious qualities. And , He must be treated as a PurushOttama (Greatest of Men) and offered obeisance. So, from the morning SuprabhAtam, to Thiru-manjanam to Aradhana to eulogy to aarti to lullaby at night, are prescribed. By doing all this, We are doing ourselves a favor to straighten our mind/self and earn His grace and 'Kadaikkann Paarvai'.

Krishna says this in B.Gita, " Though I am partial to none, Though I dont depend on anyone, I still abide in the hearts of those who are devoted to me'. All that we offer (material) is His Own, but still, the intent to Offer (incl. of Suprabhatam and Lullaby) can ONLY be considered OUR OFFERING. So, He takes that 'Devotional offering' as an excuse for His grace.

 

[mahakavi]

>>So, He takes that 'Devotional offering' as an excuse for His grace.<<

No question! So shall it be.

 

[zebra16]

Sri Mahakavi,

Thank you for your msg no. 22.

Regards