• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Who Has THe Right?

Status
Not open for further replies.

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!
 
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!

The eldest "living" son alone has the right to perform the kriyas. The second son's claim is untenable. Ask him to produce authority to back up his claim in the form of citation from the grihya sutra which they follow. And also find out if he has passed out of the vedapatasala with a completed course and some "birudu" like sastri, acarya, upadhyaya, mukhyopadhyaya, etc., or is he a simple drop-out after learning a bit more than the third son did. If so, he cannot even claim that he has not had "vedadhyayanam" in the proper sense. Also, any asset which is inherited by the mother will be shared equally by all three sons (except manjakkani which will go to daughter/s equally).
 
Last edited:
Friends,

I am a little surprised, nay, even disappointed to note that though 63 people have actually read this thread, only one - Mr. Sangom, thanks to his promptness - has posted a reply. I would really like to know what others too feel right in the situation.

Once again, I remind that I am NOT a brahmarakshas and you are NOT Vikramaditya! So, there is abolutely no chance of any head being blown to smithereens for expressing an honest opinion!
 
CLN,

your query, to me, moves into the realm of those familiar with our scriptures, in order to make a weighted opinion.

the fact is, i am one of those tambrams, brought up only with rituals, and that too more a mimicry at that than without any meaning.

in my case i did 4 shraddhams - for my parents and maternal grandparents, as the latter did not have any male offsprings.

i sure could have used the help of one of those brothers to help me out with my grandparents shraddham :)

about 10 years ago i went to kasi, gaya did shraddhams for all my ancestors, birds, bees and what not. since then i do not do any more shraddhams.

not quite what you are probably looking for, but i do feel bad that you did not get any more replies from others who are more erudite here.

best wishes...
 
Dear Mr. kunjuppu,

I am touched by your response. I am conscious of the fact that I am not getting hot and quick responses because the subject matter is of that nature. In fact, that is the reason why I made that flippant observation "What I am going to relate below has the typical flavour of the famed Vikramaditya tales!" in my posting. Mr. Sangom, judging from so many of his postings, is certainly a very knowledgeable person and so he was so prompt. But others too will soon follow. I am very hopeful that I will be getting more comments by and by.
 
Dear Mr. kunjuppu,

I am touched by your response. I am conscious of the fact that I am not getting hot and quick responses because the subject matter is of that nature. In fact, that is the reason why I made that flippant observation "What I am going to relate below has the typical flavour of the famed Vikramaditya tales!" in my posting. Mr. Sangom, judging from so many of his postings, is certainly a very knowledgeable person and so he was so prompt. But others too will soon follow. I am very hopeful that I will be getting more comments by and by.

Shri CLN,

It is an unwritten "edict" so to say, in the minds of our people that the right to do the final rites is that of the seemanthaputran. Since this may not always be possible (my mother's first child, a male, lived only for a few days, I was told) the right came to me. And I could keep my parents with me during their last years and also perform the rites. When my father died I spent the entire amount and refused the half share which my younger brother wanted to take. But my aunt said that the other sons have also a right to share the expenses to the extent they can and made me accept that. The same norm we followed when my mother expired two years later.
 
sangom,

an interesting thing happened when my grandma, who was the first to go, died. i was just into teens then. my mother had a sister.

there was one relative, who was titled vedaasrami, by the previous venerated head of kanchi mutt, who wanted to stop me from performing the last rites. he claimed that per vedas it should be the daughter's duty to perform the rites and not hand it over to a young boy like me.

my mother, got hysterical, and screamed that she expected me to live very long, and that doing shraddham for the long number of years did good for the pithrus. looking back 47 years ago, i remember a lot of drama, emotion and (knowing now) ignorance, as none except the vedaasrami could even read sanskrit in my family.

needless to say mom won. she was very close to her mother, and felt the longer one did shraddham the better it was for the soul.

again, needles to say, my viewpoint was not solicited. i was just told to do such. which i resented in no small amount, and probably warped my own relations to my mother. i left home in mid teens, with a vow never to return, which succeeded. not sure whcih pithrus won, but surely i lost the desire to live in my parents' home, and my parents lost their only son. the only victors were probably the pithrus.

... but these are old stories. mom too is long gone now, and memories like this pop up on an occassional related but disjointed query.

thank you.
 
Last edited:
Brahmins, who have not transferred their knowledge of Vedas to anyone, are cursed to become a Brahmarakshas. If a SiddhaPurusha does not transfer his powers to someone, he takes another birth. If they do not find anyone suitable, they can transfer their powers to a tree or a temple idol, and then transfer it back to themselves in their next birth. Learning cannot go waste; this is the Lord’s Dictum.

A Brahmarakshas is a learned being; he will ask questions – if a person gives the right answers, the brahmarakshas will be redeemed from the curse; if he does not answer well, the brahmarakshas will eat him up.

The brahmarakshas told the pilgrim, ‘I have been hungry, deprived of any wayfarers for a long time. Come to me; I will gobble you up’, to which the pilgrim responded, ‘I do not mind your eating me. But please give me a week’s time. I have offerings that a cobbler and a bandit have entrusted to me to offer to Kasi. Let me carry that out and you can eat me on my return.’ The brahmarakshas asked, ‘What if you cheat me?’ and the scholar promised him over fire that he would return.

The pilgrim proceeded to Kasi, tendered the offerings and returned to the forest path in a week. He called out loud and high to the brahmarakshas but there was no response. He started weeping, ‘It will seems as if I broke my word if the brahmarakshas does not eat me up’. A celestial appeared before him and paid his respects. The disciple questioned, ‘Who are you? And why are you offering me respect?’ to which the celestial replied, ‘Don’t you remember me? I am the erstwhile brahmarakshas; by virtue of having helped you complete your pilgrimage, I was redeemed of my curse. Thank you very much for the help’. The happy pilgrim walked onward and met a king on his way. The king got down from his elephant, and wished the pilgrim, ‘Sir! Don’t you recognize me? I was the bandit chief. After giving you the offering for Kasi Viswanatha, I was resting under a tree, when the royal elephant garlanded me as the next king.’ The overjoyed pilgrim walked on, curious to known what came of the cobbler. The cobbler had now set up a huge shop and when he saw the scholar, came running to him, thanking him for the blessing of the offering that had given him unexpected prosperity.
 
Vikram Aur Betaal
Introduction
The legend says that King Vikramaditya, in order to fulfil a vow,
was required to remove a corpse of betaal from a treetop and
carry it on his shoulder to another place in silence.
Enroute, the spirit of Betaal (in the corpse) used to narrate a
story to the king and after completing the story Betaal would
pose a query that if he (The king) knew the answer, was bound
to respond lest he will break his head into thousand pieces.
But if he does speak out, he would break the vow of silence and
Betaal would fly back to the treetop, leaving the king inches short
of his destination! The king would go after the vampire and start
all over again. And so on and on.
King Vikramaditya
In days gone by, Vikramaditya , a great king ruled over a prosperous kingdom from
his capital at Ujjain. Mighty as the sun - he was a king with immense love for
learning as well as for adventure.
King Vikram sat in his court for hours
every day, rewarding the virtuous,
punishing the evil doers, and
encouraging scholars, poets,
musicians, and artists.
During such sessions, numerous
people came to meet him. They brought
for him gifts of jewels, gold or other
precious things.
Among such visitors was a mendicant
who, on every visit, presented the king
with a fruit. The king accepted his humble gift with the same show of courtesy with
which he would have accepted a diamond from a rich merchant.
He used to hand over the fruit to the royal storekeeper. One morning, the
mendicant gave him his usual gift just when the king was going out to inspect his
stables. The king accepted the fruit all right and went out while playing with it,
tossing it up and then catching it as it came down.
It so happened that after a while the fruit fell down from his hand. Instantly a
monkey who was on a nearby tree swooped down upon it and tried to crack it with
his teeth.
The fruit broke and pop came out a handy ball of ruby. The king's surprise knew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top