Hanuman makes it clear what upAya he follows in his conversation with bhIma in the MB. bhIma asks him, "Considering you are strong enough to defeat rAvaNa by yourself, why didn't you do so while scouting Lanka for Sita?"
mayA tu nihate tasminrAvaNe lokakaNTake . kIrtirnashyedrAghavasya tata etadupekShitam
[f I had eliminated rAvaNa who is a great obstruction for the worlds, then that fame of “being accessible to all” possessed by rAghava would have disappeared. Hence I spared rAvaNa.]+
"kIrti" means soushIlya or the quality of being accessible to all. If Hanuman had killed rAvaNa by himself, the world would think sIta was not significant enough for bhagavAn to come and kill rAvaNa, that he merely sent a servant to do the task+
Meaning from Hanuman's perspective (not sIta): Hanuman is jIva. rAvaNa is the mind. If Hanuman killed rAvaNa, it meant only that he used his own strength empowered by rAma.
So if hanuman killed rAvaNa, his own strength is the direct means, rAma is indirect means empowering him+
That would be bhakti yoga.
Then nobody would understand that bhagavAn's true nature of being the means for all, ie, his "kIrti" of being so accessible that he himself does all the work for you without any effort on your part, which is sharanAgati+
tena vIreNa taM hatvA sagaNaM rAkShasAdhamam .AnItA svapuraM sItA kIrtishcha sthApitA nR^iShu
[By killing rAvaNa & his followers & bringing sIta back to his own city, that valorous one who eliminates suffering of his devotees established his fame of accessibility among men]+
"vIra" means one who has the valor to perform everything for his devotees. So Rama is the unfailing means in sharanAgati. He eliminated both rAvaNa and his followers - meaning, if he is the means, he ensures all bad qualities along with the mind like kAma etc are uprooted.+
By doing this, rAma proved his ultimate soushIlya or accessibility of being the means.
In this manner, hanuman has also clearly stated to bhIma that he withheld his strength so that rAma could show his; which is textbook sharanAgati.//
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here is the shloka from Udyoga Parva. Karna visualizes the war as bhakti yoga with kriShNa as the object of sacrifice. He summarizes the role of duhshAsana here+
Superficial meaning: When you see the son of Pandu (bhIma) with the blood of duhshAsana roaring in anger and making sounds of victory at the same time, then will the day of the extraction of Soma commence (in this sacrifice of war).+
Despite the fact that duhshAsana was possibly more evil minded than Duryodhana, it is a funny fact that he stands for the tattva of the Vedas from a metaphysical aspect according to Karna in Udyoga Parva+
"duhshAsana" - the command or instruction that is difficult to understand or follow - represents the Vedas. Him torturing Draupadi is like the jIva subject to sorrow due to chasing after the alpa-phalans of the Vedas (traiguNya viShaya veda...gIta 2.45)+
bhIma tearing open his chest for blood - bhIma is meditation on Brahman. The Vedas are aparavidyA and by meditation which is paravidyA, they are "torn open" to reveal the nectar of auspicious attributes which is signified by duhshAsana's blood+
The reason why this pAsuram is so enlightening is because it explains why worship of other gods independently is mentioned by Krishna as "avidhi pUrvakaM", in the light of sharIrAtma bhAva. Consider this+
The body is different from the self. A person who does not know this, does various actions to sustain the body. He gains some pleasure through enjoyment of sense objects through the body, but eventually it turns to sorrow, as they are perishable.+
Even these material enjoyments which last for a short time are only enjoyed by the self, but the person does not know it, as he has no knowledge of the self+
"You are won back by me, after conquering the enemy in the battle-field, my dear lady! That which is to be done through human effort, has been accomplished by me."+
The enemy is the wicked mind (rAvaNa). samsAra is the battlefield. Note that Rama says, "that which is to be done by human endeavor (pauruShAt), has been done by me+
garuDa and Adi Seha again embody the two upAyAs. garuDa is "vedAtma" and thus he by being bhagavAn's vehicle signifies bhakti yoga. He uses his strength to carry bhagavAn. Adi Sesha however, like a prapanna, simply becomes whatever is comfortable for bhagavAn+
Since bhakti yoga is the more dominant upAya talked about in the Veda, it makes sense that there are entire sUktAs dedicated to Garuda who showcases his strength, but less mantras on Adi Sesha whose ability is more of a shadow of bhagavAn+
This doesn't mean garuDa is not a prapanna. Both are nitya sUrIs equally endowed with same knowledge and devotion. They merely exist in this way for the benefit of those following the 2 upAyAs+
In comparison to garuDa, praise of adi seSha is relatively less common in the veda.
But he is praised in the name of “Ahirbudhnya” here and there. Here is a mantra from Rg Veda that echoes mudal thiruvandhAdhi of poigai azhwar+
First, the etymology of "Ahirbudhnya" - “The serpent belonging to, ie, existing solely for the sake of bhagavAn who is the ground of all (budhna)”.
Thus, this term is a cognate of “Sesha”+
Shiva also has the name “Ahirbudhnya” – One who belongs to or comes from “Ahirbudhna” - SankarShaNa, the ground (support) of the serpent Adi Sesha. pAncharAtra speaks of Shiva as Ahirbudhnya.
But context determines which "Ahirbudhnya" is being referred to in the Vedas+