10 Feb 2025
1. Would it be correct on Vibhishana's part to join Shri Rama to fight against his brother?
[Smt. Priyanka asked:- Padanamaskaram Swami, I am asking these questions on behalf of my son, Atri. "Vibhishana left Lanka and joined Shri Rama (the side of Dharma) after he tried to convince Ravana of his wrongdoings but it was in vain. Ravana finally insulted him and ordered him to leave the kingdom instead. He chose God over his brother thereby choosing Dharma over Adharma as well. If Vibhishana was not asked to leave the kingdom by Ravana, and still he decided to join Shri Rama to fight against his brother Ravana, would it still be correct on Vibhiishana's part"?]
Swami replied:- Vibhiishana left Ravana based on both Pravrutti and Nivrutti. He supported justice against injustice crossing the fascination of worldly bonds like brother etc., and this is the angle of Pravrutti. Since Rama is the human incarnation of God, he went to God crossing the worldly bonds and this is the angle of Nivrutti. Nivrutti is greater than Pravrutti and Nivrutti shall be followed even if Pravrutti opposes. Here, Nivrutti is supported by Pravrutti. The insult of Vibhiishana by Ravana is only a small formality because Vibhiishana had already decided to go to God Rama.
2. Was it the right of Guru Dronacharya to ask Eklavya for his finger as Guru Dakshina?
[At Your divine lotus feet, Atri & Priyanka]
Swami replied:- I don’t understand why you are asking a question about Drona, who is not human incarnation of God like Krishna. You people think that I am responsible to answer any question about any soul of ancient age. In every age, there are good and bad souls. If I say that Drona is wrong, it doesn’t mean that I have said that God is wrong! You should ask such questions about God Rama and God Krishna and not about every Tom, Dick and Harry of ancient times. Drona is a human being and can err. I am not an advocate of Drona. I am an advocate only for God.
3. What can be told to people, who talk like the following?
[Smt. Priyanka asked: Padanamaskaram Swami, A non-religious Hindu person commented as follows - "In Christian churches, there is a facility to meet a pastor to confess your sins. Churches also have a good support group, where personal counselling help and other services are offered for free. Unfortunately, Hindu temples don't have such facilities or support system, and they focus only on performing mindless rituals. If today I want to go talk to someone to discuss about some problems I am having & get advice, there is no facility in temples".
I answered asking, "Temples have their own value and worth. If you want personal guidance, have you considered seeking a spiritual Guru? You can join an organization as well. Try to learn about different Gurus available in present times and see whom you want to approach. They may have remote support options as well".
The person replied, "Just because I want someone to talk to and get advice, I have to go through the tedious process of seeking a Guru? I don't want to go through that trouble. There are so many fake ones out there that it's hard to trust as well. There should be something easily approachable in your own city to quickly drop by. Can I go to any temple today for personal guidance from a professional that is available for public at all times? No! Even if you talk to some priest, they will again ask me to perform some rituals only as a solution".
Swami, what can be told to people who say like this? At Your divine lotus feet, Priyanka]
Swami replied:- In ancient days, very good spiritual scholars existed in temples to attend to such problems. But, now, spiritual scholars have separated their offices to their own places so that devotees can worship the statue of God in temples separately. Religion is confined to temples and spiritual knowledge for personal guidance is confined to Mathas. Devotees intending to worship can go to temples and devotees seeking spiritual guidance can go to Mathas. There are several examples showing that sometimes a government department is bifurcated into two offices for the sake of public convenience. Such action is very much appreciated by the public. This person is biased towards Christianity, hating Hinduism. If his background is understood, you need not worry about him.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★