CLN
0
What I am going to relate below has the typical flavour of the famed Vikramaditya tales, in which the Brahmarakshas poses a tough question to the great king, who, if he failed to answer correctly, had the risk of his head getting shattered into 100 pieces.
There is an orthodox Vedic scholar (a purohithar so to say). He has three sons. The eldest shows great intellectual prowess even in childhood and circumstances are such that, that he is not initiated into traditional vedic studies, as can be expected, but, despite his father being a poor brahmin purohit, he manages on his own to build a distinguished academic career in the prevailing westernised educational system, becomes a postgraduate in his subject of specialization, gets a good job and retires after serving in the Government in various positions.
The second son shows no keen interest in school studies even as a child and after only primary education, he is sent to get trained under some vedic scholars to become a purohit himself (a vadhyar, as some people prefer to put).
The third son manages to complete school education, joins college, but drops out without completing his course due to lack of interest, eventually takes a job befitting his academic qualification, takes voluntary retirement after some years of service and leads a simple life, occasionally serving some side-roles in vaideeha karyas, as is commonly done by some people who cannot manage to becomefull-fledged purohits in their own rights.
This is the background. The issue in question starts here. The father dies in a ripe old age, after having lived an honest respectable life, managing to stay away from the questionable practices some 'Vadhyars' of today find compulsion to adopt. His antimakriyas are performed in a befitting manner with Brahmamedhasamskaram, as he deserved, by the eldest son, with the other two sons also being present and assisting.
Years pass. The mother becomes quite old, weak and sick. She is still alive but is obviously in her last days. Now, the second son, who is in the same vedic traditional line as the father, claims that it was a mistake to have allowed the eldest son to perform the antimakriyas of their father, but he and he alone should have done it when the father died. He also proclaims that he alone has the right to perform the antimakriyas, when the mother passes away eventually, because he alone is qualified, having had vedadhyayanam, while neither of his brothers have it. He has declared so in no uncertain terms to both his brothers, in the presence of their mother herself and has made it clear that he will not brook any trouble from either of them!
Now, learned forum members: Here is the question for you. What is the correct solution? Who has the 'adhikaram' to do the antimakriyas of their mother - the eldest, because he is the eldest, despite his not having done vedadhyayanam? Or, is it the middle son, because he claims that he alone has the right to do them by virtue of his vedadhyayanam? Or, is it the last son, because though he deviated from the family tradition in the beginning, he is back 'in the fold', so to say, but without the vedadhyayanam of his immediate elder brother?
Now, neither I am a brahmarakshas, nor are you Vikramaditya! So, without any fear of the chance of your head shattering into 100 pieces even if you are declared wrong by others, please feel free to comment honestly what you think honestly is the solution to this problem!
There is an orthodox Vedic scholar (a purohithar so to say). He has three sons. The eldest shows great intellectual prowess even in childhood and circumstances are such that, that he is not initiated into traditional vedic studies, as can be expected, but, despite his father being a poor brahmin purohit, he manages on his own to build a distinguished academic career in the prevailing westernised educational system, becomes a postgraduate in his subject of specialization, gets a good job and retires after serving in the Government in various positions.
The second son shows no keen interest in school studies even as a child and after only primary education, he is sent to get trained under some vedic scholars to become a purohit himself (a vadhyar, as some people prefer to put).
The third son manages to complete school education, joins college, but drops out without completing his course due to lack of interest, eventually takes a job befitting his academic qualification, takes voluntary retirement after some years of service and leads a simple life, occasionally serving some side-roles in vaideeha karyas, as is commonly done by some people who cannot manage to becomefull-fledged purohits in their own rights.
This is the background. The issue in question starts here. The father dies in a ripe old age, after having lived an honest respectable life, managing to stay away from the questionable practices some 'Vadhyars' of today find compulsion to adopt. His antimakriyas are performed in a befitting manner with Brahmamedhasamskaram, as he deserved, by the eldest son, with the other two sons also being present and assisting.
Years pass. The mother becomes quite old, weak and sick. She is still alive but is obviously in her last days. Now, the second son, who is in the same vedic traditional line as the father, claims that it was a mistake to have allowed the eldest son to perform the antimakriyas of their father, but he and he alone should have done it when the father died. He also proclaims that he alone has the right to perform the antimakriyas, when the mother passes away eventually, because he alone is qualified, having had vedadhyayanam, while neither of his brothers have it. He has declared so in no uncertain terms to both his brothers, in the presence of their mother herself and has made it clear that he will not brook any trouble from either of them!
Now, learned forum members: Here is the question for you. What is the correct solution? Who has the 'adhikaram' to do the antimakriyas of their mother - the eldest, because he is the eldest, despite his not having done vedadhyayanam? Or, is it the middle son, because he claims that he alone has the right to do them by virtue of his vedadhyayanam? Or, is it the last son, because though he deviated from the family tradition in the beginning, he is back 'in the fold', so to say, but without the vedadhyayanam of his immediate elder brother?
Now, neither I am a brahmarakshas, nor are you Vikramaditya! So, without any fear of the chance of your head shattering into 100 pieces even if you are declared wrong by others, please feel free to comment honestly what you think honestly is the solution to this problem!
