Ramayana QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao tadipatri (KT) , Smt.Meera Tadipatri (MT), Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT).

A very many thoughts have been mixed here. I have edited the prior mails and retained the portions that needed to see the flow of thoughts that came in. Kaikeyi, being mother of a great soul like Bharata, going to muktiis also mentioned. Let us not bring too many things here.

To summarize the issue -

When a female demon like tATaki is killed, why spare Kaikeyi and Manthara, who were instrumental in sending Sri Rama to the forest?

The reasons given were

R1. If Bharata commits that act, Lord Sri Rama will not tolerate and desert him as the “killer of woman”.

(The consequent doubt is – why did Sri Rama kill a woman like tATaki.?)

R2. Only good came of the act of Kaikyi and Manthara

When a ruler dispenses the punishment, the following things must be considered

1. What is the act that is done

2. What is the intent of the doer

3. What kind of punishment is fit for that act and that intention

4. From that punishment what benefits will be there for the society

One must note that things like “eventually something good coming out of such acts” need not be considered in determining the punishment. So R2 cannot be given as the reason. For R1 see further below.

For giving “maraNadaNdana”, one must be certain that such is the best act and right punishment. If that person (even if a woman) poses a danger to the society, then it is the duty of the person-in-charge to act accordingly.

Sri Rama's hesitation to kill “tATaka” and Vishvamitra asking Sri Rama not to hesitate to kill her are the indications to the society that one must consider all those points.

The acts of Kaikeyi and Manthara did not pose immediate threat to the society.

One of the main causes is the selfishness. In case of Manthara, she had hatred for Sri Rama also. Even so, it is not proper to kill them. Then what about the words of Bharata (R1)?

We must realize that Bharata himself knows the dharma well and knows that they must not be killed. His words have the following purpose

1. His acknowledging the fact that Lord Sri Rama is instrumental in his dharmaprajna both from inside (as antaH preraka) and from outside

as the elder brother, guide and mentor.

2. His awareness as to what Sri Rama's thoughts are wrt this case and those women.

3. His bhrAtR^ibhakti

4. His instruction to Shatrughna and inturn to the society how one must look at various facts before acting. A hasty action can be disastrous.

This is how we must see R1 (above)

Kaikeyi is punished accordingly by the very feelings she has to go thru by the behavior of Bharata towards her.

Manthara is punished by her own destiny.

The intent of both Kaikeyi and Manthara are rendered futile by the act of Bharata that he made the “pAduka of Sri Rama” as the ruler and he acted as a representative only of the will of Sri Rama symbolized by the pAdukas.

Shambhuka

jaN^ghanAmA.asuraH pUrvaM girijAvaradAnataH | babhUva shUdraH kalpAyuH sa lokaxayakAmyayA | tapashchachAra

durbuddhirichchhan.h mAheshvaraM padam.h || 9.20||

As you can see, the main differences from what you said are:

a. Shambhuka is an asura named 'jangha'.

b. The main reason for Rama killing jangha is the latter's desire to become maheshvara; to marry umA (so I read elsewhere), whose boon had earned him the boon of having a kalpa long life.

MT: He is killed because:

1. Evil intention to harm the world by doing tapas.

2. Desiring the padavi for which one doesn't have the yogyata is a sin [cf. Bhimasena killing Virochana's sister who does tapas to get the post of Aditidevi MBTN # 19.40]

3. Due to his immortality, no one could punish him for killing the innocent brahmin boy nor could stop him.

How many times do we see devataas give boons to the ineligibles, and Vishnu solve the consequent problems !!

MT: Those who give the boons are tAttvika devata-s who knowingly give such boons to show the evil nature of the daitya-s, to aid their dushhta sAdhana, and to show the sarvottamattva of Bhagavan.

He just says that there was a daitya in the body of Shambhuka who was killed by Lord Rama. While this seems to be an obvious way to resolve the issue, the issue remains whether this is just a ploy to somehow justify a wrong in the Ramayana, or whether there are other Puranic evidences in support of the position taken by Madhvacharya.

MT: It is implied in the Valmiki Ramayana itself. Bhavaprakashika edited by Sri Prabhanjanacharya has given a pointer in the footnote – verse reference seems to be a typo though.

Shambuka tells Rama that he is doing tapas to attain divinity and Indraloka with his body.

As already pointed out, one should have the yogyata for attaining “divinity” and the post of Indra.

Valmiki Ramayana # 7.67.2-3

shUdrayonyAM prasUto.asmi tapa ugra.n samAsthitaH |devatvaM prArthaye rAma sasharIro mahAyashaH || 2||

na mithyAha.n vade rAjandevalokajigIShayA |shUdraM mA.n viddhi kAkutstha shambUkaM nAma nAmataH || 3||

2. In Rama Avatara, after Marriage while Rama travelling to Ayodhya, we understand he had fight with Parasurama ( towards breaking of damaged siva danusu during Sita suyamvara) and finally Parasurama (6th avatara) gave the Vishnu Dahnusu to Rama (7th Avatara). How in one avatara both forms appear

MT: “aheyam anupAdeyaM yadrUpaM nityamavvyayaM...”[cf. The full quote of tantra-bhAgavata quoted by Acharya in his tAtparya-nirnaya 1^st skandha third adhyaya]

Bhagavanta-s all rUpa-s/avatara-s are anAdi andananta – always present everywhere. He neither “takes” nor “gives up” at any time.

If so what does it mean by “taking” or “giving up”?

Tantra bhAgavata says that it is from the perspective of an ignorant man [mUDa buddhyapexaya]. When He becomes “seen” [vyaktimeva] it is called as “taking up”.

How come He is not “seen” all the time?

Due to the avarana shakti of Laxmi's DurgarUpa, He is not”seen”. When Bhagavan removes this avarana, which is under His full complete controll, one sees His rUpa/avatara as per yogyata.

How in one avatara both forms appear

MT: Also, there are many such incidences – Krishna-Vedavyasa; Parashurama-Krishna; Hari-Krishna-Narayana.

and more dilamma is how they both fight against each other? Any reference from Vedic and Acharya's texts ( with explanation, please).

MT: Acharya has clarified this in his mahabharata-tAtparya 4.55ff

There was an asura by name Athula who asks for a boon that he should not die. Such a boon is not possible so gets boon from Chaturmukha Brahma that:

1. he should pervade the world [lokamaya].

2. He should live as long as [he thinks] Bhagavan is not defeated.

Also, he has a boon from Shiva that:

1. he should stay in Vishnu's body.

Bhagavan Parashurama “asks” Rama to discharge His arrow and kill the asura hiding in 'His body'. The asura perceives the

defeat of Bhagavan Parashurama and gets out of Bhagavan's 'body'. Shri Raama's arrow hits and kills the asura.

Bhagavan is “one” in all His rUpa-s. To instill uttama-j~nAna to the bhakta-s and to delude the asura-s and to create doubt in the minds of nitya samsarins, Bhagavan enacted this leela.

He then blessed the bhakta-s by showing His sarvtaa-athyanta-abheda by 'merging' [samsleshana] with Bhagavan Shri Raama. Then, He 'leaves' to Mahendragiri.

I have 2 questions in mind for which I seek reply to understand correctly from esteemed members

1. There goes story that Shiva ( Rudra ) once grown very big & huge, so that Brahma devaru & Narayana murthy could not find the end of Rudra's head & feet. Such is the supremacy of Rudra ( Shiva ). There are many poems & books in Tamil. Is this true? Any evidence / proof of such from our texts, vedas, etc?

2. In Rama Avatara, after Marriage while Rama travelling to Ayodhya, we understand he had fight with Parasurama ( towards breaking of damaged siva danusu during Sita suyamvara) and finally Parasurama (6th avatara) gave the Vishnu Dahnusu to Rama (7th Avatara). How in one avatara both forms appear and more dilemma is how they both fight against each other? Any reference from Vedic and Acharya's texts ( with explanation, please).

PT: For the first question, yes Shiva is very high in our Taratamya. After Vishnu, Lakshmi, Brahma, Vayu, Saraswati (Brahma's consort),

Bharati (Vayu's consort), Garuda, Shesha – Shiva is the most supreme. Perhaps the learned scholars on the list can give quotes as to where the

Taratamya order is explicitly stated in Upanishads/Vedas.

The episode you are referring to is I think from a tamasic purana.

We have to be careful with stories that come from Puranas, because Puranas are classified as Satvic, Rajasic, Tamasic. By whom? None other than Veda Vyasa himself!

We can also rationalize this. How did Shiva obtain his position? Itis through the grace of Vishnu,as per our siddhanta. There are also plenty of examples where Shiva's boons are not enough to protect his devotees (like Gandhari, Ravana). Clearly there is some higher power than him. But we don't find a single case where Vishnu's boons cannot protect his devotees.

Krishna clearly states “ahaM tvaa sarvapapebhyo mokShayiShyaami” - I will free you from all sins. And Krishna also says “mattaH parataraM naanyat kincidasti dhananjayaH” -- O Arjuna, there is nothing whatsoever higher than me. So why would such a Krishna, when displaying the Vishvarupa, with the entire universe contained within him, have difficulty finding the beginning and end ofa Shiva linga?

One of my favorite shlokas in the Hari Vayu Stuti describes the encounter between Bhima & Hanuma, as well as that between Rama & Parasurama...with the same words. I do not know any references from Vedas / Acharya's texts. However, the HariVayuStuti was composed by Trivikrama Panditacharya spontaneously upon seeing the 3 forms of Vayu (Madhva, Bhima, Hanuma) doing worship to the 3 forms of Vishnu (Veda Vyasa, Krishna, Rama).

Gacchan saugandhikaarthaM pathi sa hanumataH pucchamacchasya bhImaH |

proddhartuM naashakat sa tvamumuravapuShaH bhIShayaamaasa ceti |

pUrNaj~naanaujaso.aste gurutamavapuSho shrImadaanandatIrtha krIDaamaatraM|

tadetat pramadada sudhiyAm mohaka dveShabhaajaaM ||

This is a very beautiful shloka (please forgive any Itrans/ Sanskrit errors, and any flaws in translation). As I pointed out, it describes the encounter between Hanuma and Bhima as well as that between Parasurama & Rama.

Vayu paravaagi kathe:

When Bhima went to collect Sougandhika pushpa (a rare flower with a very beautiful smell), in his way he finds the tail of a monkey. He asks the monkey to move the tail. The monkey is actually none other than Hanuman, who pretends like he's old and can't move. Hanuman asks Bhima to move his tail aside (just the way one cannot cross another person's legs, crossing the monkey's tail can also be considered rude). Bhima, who is supposed to be very powerful, struggles to lift the monkey's tail. He is shocked..”How come after carrying Kunti and the other Pandavas on my shoulder, I can't lift the mere tail of a monkey?” (this is my own quote--I don't know if this exact phrase is there in the Mahabharata, but you get the idea). Then Hanuman says that he is Bhima's brother (both are sons of Vayu). Bhima then feels rejuvenated after being embraced by Hanuman and continues to look for the Saugandhika pushpa.

However, as pointed out later, this is all just a leela (like Krishna leela). Hanuman and Bhima are one and the same. Why do this? Because at the end, Hanuman says that he will sit atop Arjuna's chariot residing within the flag (this is very appropriate, because it shows that during Gitopadesha, Vayu devaru was right atop Arjuna's chariot listening to Krishnana sandesha)

If you recite the next verse, you can see that “praayacchasvapriyaayai prIyatama kusumam prANa tasmai namaste”.

Bhima gave that flower to his beloved Draupadi. We worship such a Mukhya Prana (Bhima is the 3^rd avatara of Vayu Devaru = Mukhya prana)

Vayuparavaagi padaccheda

bhImaH gacchaN -- while Bhima was going saugandhika arthaM

--with the objective of collecting saugandhika pushpa pathi --obstructing in his way sa hanumataH acchasya -- was that pure (accha means pure) Hanuman's pucchaM --tail

proddhartuM na ashakat --Bhima was unable (na shaknoti) to move Hanuman's tail.

Sa tu -- However HanumanamuM bhIShayaam aasa--scared him (Bhima) uravapuShaH --with his heavy body.

In other words, Bhima was shocked when he saw that the body of this monkey is heavier than he imagined.

Ca iti -- ?? I don't know the meaning of 'and thus' in this context!pUrNaj~naanaujasaH te-- Vayu deva has the name “purNapraj~na”.

He is considered the highest among the amukta jivas(unliberated souls) in terms of knowledge and strength. Ojas means strength.

Gurutama vapuShaH --The tama suffix means greatest. Bhima, who later takes avataara as Sri Madhvacharya is the highest among gurus.

Vapusha means body, but I don't understand the context here.

ShrImadaananda teertha – Bhima, Hanuma, Madhvacharya are all one and the same.

Madhvacharya is also known as Shrimadaanandateertha.

Tadetat--this incident (Bhima being scared, unable to lift Hanuman's tail) iskrIDaa maatraM -- just for show/an amusement. How do we know that? Hanuman and Bhima are one and the same!

pramadada sudhiyAM --mada is enjoyment/pleasure, pramada means much enjoyment. The extra da means giving. This episode gives much enjoyment to those who are 'sudhi', who have a good intellect.

Mohaka dveShabhaajaaM -- moha is delusion. This causes delusion(mohaka) for those who have dveSha, or hatred towards Bhima/our Itihasas.

Vayuparavaagi vishesha chintanegaLu--

What pramaaNa (evidence) can we show in support of the fact that Hanuman and Bhima are one and the same. Well, there is the obvious --the stotra was recited spontaneously by Trivikrama Panditacharya, who actually saw Madhvacharya while doing puja, and saw that Hanuman and Bhima are one and the same as his Guru Madhvacharya. But let us say someone does not accept that. Then how do we know? There is the Balittha Sukta, which is described on the Dvaita site. It is misinterpreted as referring to Agni, but it is quite clear that “maatR^iinaavishat”-- “entering mothers” does not make sense for Agni.

Also, accounts of how Hanuman brought the ring to/from Sita, Bhima is described as the destroyer of armies (pR^kShaH). The word Madhva also appears in the sukta.

But then is it not true that Bhima and Hanuman are sons of Vayu?They are actually the same as Vayu, so how can they be sons? For devatas, it is slightly different than for us. A son of a devata (you can recall the story of how Kunti obtained her children) is one and the same as the devata --aatmaa vai putraH (please correct the exact Sanskrit quote).

So clearly, the “bhImaH bhIShayaam aasa cha” (Bhima was scared),”hanumataH puccham proddhartuM na ashakat” (he couldn't move Hanuman's tail aside) – All this is krIDaamaatraM Why does the incident give pleasure to those who understand it? Because though Hanuma and Bhima are one and the same, Vayu Devaru was able to appear in 2 forms that interacted with each other. Such is his power!

Why does the incident cause confusion to those who hate Bhima,those who hate our itihaasa? They might say “Those who think Bhima is so powerful, they don't realize he couldn't even lift Hanuman's tail.

Why is Bhima so great?”. Or they might say “People think Bhima is 'Purnaprajna', but he couldn't even recognize Hanuman and acted arrogantly.” These kinds of misconceptions and delusions may not arisefor us, but rather for the “dvesha bhaajaam”, those who continuously hate/ridicule the incidents occurring in Mahabharata, or those who hate Bhima.

Hari Paravaagi Kathe -

Finally, this is where I wanted to answer the query. Shri Rama married Sita Devi and was returning when in his way Parasurama stopped him. Parasurama was angry that Rama had broken Shiva's bow. Parasurama does not like Kshatriyas and with the idea that Rama thinks he is so great, Parasurama challenges Rama to string the bow of Lord Vishnu.

Breaking the bow of Shiva may be possible, but Vishnu is greater than Shiva, so Parasurama thinks “Rama thinks he is so great, I will curb his ego”.

The story is narrated here

http://www.ramayana.com/books_excerpts_pro.htm , towards the bottom.

However, be warned that some of the content in it is horribly inaccurate. If you are really understanding this incident, you immediately realize this is all just a leela, or just for show. Why? Because Vishnu=Parasurama=Rama. They are all the same. Then why do this? Because there is a daitya residing WITHIN Parasurama. This evil asura had a boon that he wants to reside within Vishnu, thinking that no one can kill him there. That is why Parasurama asks Rama to string the bow and shoot the arrow at the asura residing in him. Rama strings the bow, Parasurama pretends to be “humbled” and the asura is killed by Vishnu in the form of Rama.

Hari Paravaagi padaccheda

gacchan – while going

saugandhika artham- su+gandha means beautiful smell. Sugandha mayavaada Sita Devi. Rama has just wed Sita Devi and is returning from the wedding.

Sa hanumataH --hanu can mean knowledge. In that knowledgeable Lord Rama'spathi --way

pucchaM --tail, but it can stand for a part of the Lord's body. Lord Vishnu is svagatabheda vivarjitaH. There is no difference between the Lord's head, feet, etc., they are all one and the same. There is some shruti vaakya where puccha is used in connection with Brahma.

Acchasya --accha, as mentioned earlier means pure. In other words, Lord Vishnu is perfect, without any flaws whatsoever.

BhImaH – bhIma literally means fearsome. Here it can be taken to mean Parasurama since he was considered to be fearsome by all the warriors.

ProddhartuM na ashakat – Parasurama was unable to scare/defeat Rama.

Sa tu --Lord Rama howeveramum bhIShayaam aasa – scared him (Parasurama).

Ura vapuShaH--vapus meant body earlier. Here it means the heavy bow (Idon't know how vapus can be translated like that). By breaking Vishnu's bow, Lord Rama scared Parasurama, in other words Parasurama was shocked that Rama could not only break Shiva's bow, but could string Vishnu's bow. Who could be powerful enough to string Vishnu'sbow? (think about it!)

pUrNaj~naana ojasaH te – Lord Vishnu is sarvaj~na=omniscient. It's because of his strength that this is possible.

GurutamavapuShaH--here, I think vapuS means form. Why is Lord Vishnu called gurutama? Because, as Veda Vyasa, he is the guru for even Sri Madhvacharya, the highest among jIvas.

ShrImadaananda teertha – this is really interesting to translate.

Shri means Lakshmi. Shrimad means “Lakshmi sametanaada”, he who is with Lakshmi. Only Lord Vishnu is with Lakshmi devi since time immemorial.

Aananda means bliss, but has a deeper meaning --svarupaananda.

In other words the innate bliss that each satvik soul will experience in Moksha. Vishnu is the one who grants that bliss, as stated in DvadashaStotra, “Vishvasthiti...aavR^iti bandha mokshAH”-- all this, including mokSha is only possible through Lord Vishnu. So in that sense, he is really “ananda teertha” (teertha means giving).

Tadetat -- the incident between Rama & ParasuramakrIDA maatram --is only for show.

In other words, Parasurama pretended to not know who Rama is. He wasn't really “bhIShayaam aasa”.

Pramadada sudhiyAM – mada is enjoyment/pleasure, pramada means much(prakR^iShTaH) enjoyment. The extra da means giving. This episode gives much enjoyment to those who are 'sudhi', who have a good intellect.

Mohaka dveShabhaajaaM – moha is delusion. This causes delusion(mohaka) for those who have dveSha, or hatred towards the Lord.

Hari paravaagi vishesha chintanegaLu --

As per the pUrNamadaH, pUrNamidam stotra, Lord Vishnu has purNaj~naana. This refers to both Rama and Parasuarama avatara. Howcan they both be pUrNaj~na? Isn't it divided among 2 avataras?

“pUrNasya pUrNamaadaaya pUrNameva avashiShyate”--

when you take something infinite (one avatara of Lord Vishnu) out of something infinite (mUla rupa, original form of Lord Vishnu), both the original and the avatara form are infinite. It's staggering to comprehend, especially since we are trying to understand the infinite with a finite mind!!

Those who are “sudhi”--wise will understand that Parasurama and Rama are both avataara-s of Vishnu. If there is some kind of “conflict” between them, obviously it must only be for show, and can't be real. They are amazed at the Lord's ability to take 2 forms and have them interact with each other, even though both are actually one and the same!

Those who ridicule the Lord and the Ramayana may scoff at the fact that we claim that Parasurama is an avatara of Lord Vishnu, but he couldn't even recognize another avatara of Lord Vishnu. What they don't realize is that this is all just a leela, it's meant to provide “moha” to those who hate the Lord, who hate our Itihaasas.

Interestingly enough, by ridiculing the Lord they are working out their sadhana. By developing hatred towards the lord they will work out their downward spiral, just the way devotees who enjoy the Lord's nATaka will develop more bhakti and work out their upward spiral.

One clarification about Parasurama--some think that he hates all Kshatriyas (warriors). How can the lord, who is karunamaya (benevolent) have hatred? He does not have 'hatred', but rather kills those kshatriyas who are a menace to society.

You'll notice that there is a bit of Vishnu sarvottamatva that is hinted at in the story (even the bad translation that I gave a link to). Stringing Shiva's bow (and breaking it) is possible, but stringing Vishnu's bow is much harder. Why did Rama break Shiva's bow? To show that he is greater than Shiva. Why didn't Rama break Vishnu's bow, the way he broke Shiva's bow? Because it was needed to kill the asura residing within Parasurama. And also why should Vishnu (Rama)break his own bow to prove a point to Vishnu (Parasurama)?!

URMILA & LAKSHMANA

The question: “Was not Lakshmana wrong in leaving his wife Urmila behind for 14 years? She was newly married left her family for Lakshmana, but Lakshmana left her. He could have taken her with him for Vanavasa, just like Sita accompanied Rama.”

KT: Before attempting an answer, let us elaborate the pUrva paksha question.

When Sita tries to accompany Sri Rama, Sri Rama tells her that the forest life is hard, dangerous and risky and that Sita has to stay in Ayodhya and serve her mothers-in-law, especially Kausalya , who is very much in need of that.

Sita devi tells that the wife has to stay where the husband stays and it is the duty of the husband to take care of his wife. She is not perturbed by the perils of the forest life. She has no other option, but to accompany and Sri Rama has no other option, but to let her. So, He lets her do that. Now, wouldn't the same rule/situation apply to Urmila and LakshmaNa?

Not really. Why? There is what is called sAmAnya dharma (general rule) and vishesha dharma (special rule). What they are and when they are to be applied? That is what is known thru dharma and dharma sukshma (subtle dharma).

Our weakness is that we are aware of general rules only and not aware of dharma sukshma and rush to apply only general rules for everybody.

If one thinks that Lakshmana was wrong in leaving his wife, a question is to be posed - “Is Sri Raghavendra swamy wrong in leaving his wife and taking sanyasa?” If one gets back saying that Lakshmana was newly married, then what about Sri Jayatirtha (purvashrama name Dhonduraya), who left his wife and took sanyasa? If one gets back, that LakshmaNa had not taken sanyasa and was still gruhastha and so bound by the duties, we have to think of visheshadharma.

All these great souls, LakshmaNa, Tikarayaru and Rayaru have come on earth with specific avatAra kArya, which they have made clear thru their words and action.

1. In case of Sri Rama, nothing binds Him and yet He does every thing as per dharma, just as He, in the form of Sri Krishna says in Gita -

'yadyadAcharati shreShTastattadevetaro janaH sa yatpramANam kurute lokastadanuvartate

na me pArthAsti kartavyaM trishu lokeshu kiMchana....”

He does it as mArgadarshana, lokaviDambana, etc.

2. His avatAra purpose itself is duShTasikshaNa and shiShTarakshaNa. Sita has to accompany Sri Rama, Ravana must attempt sitapaharaNa, the evil ones have to be obliterated.

3. In case of Lakshmana, his avatAra purpose itself is to constantly serve Sri Rama and be part of the great task of the Lord. Of course the Lord does not need any one's help, but He always gives an opportunity to his devotees to serve Him.

What is devotion or bhakti?

Acharya says :

mAhAtmyaj~nAnapUrvastu sudR^iDhaH sarvato.adhikaH | sneho bhaktiriti proktaH tayA muktirnachAnyathA ||

TikAcharya elaborates that in Srimannyayasudha -

parameshvara bhaktirnAma niravadhika ananta anavadya kalyANaguNatva j~nAnapUrvakaH svAtmAtmIya samasta vastubhyo aneka guNAdhiko antarAya sahasrenApi apratibaddho nirantara premapravAhaH

“Bhakti (Devotion to Lord) is the invariable and continuous flow of ardent affection to God, undeterred by varied frustrations in life, and reinforced by jnAna (sound knowledge) and solid conviction of His glory and greatness, as the sole independent Power, the abode of all auspicious attributes, free from foibles and vairagya (overcoming the attachment to self, one's kith and kin and other lovable assets). As such, it differs from blind belief and selfish love. It is unaffected by any number of obstacles.

It should be founded on an unshakable intellectual and emotional conviction in the Majesty of the Lord- as the embodiment of all spiritual excellences.”

Shouldn't LakshmaNa's love for the Lord exceed that for his wife? Ordinary mortals may lack that. How can Shesha devaru, who incarnated for that purpose, be not aware of that and how can he let such great opportunity slip by?

LakshmaNa's own words are

“na devalokAkramaNaM nAmaratvamahaM vR^iNe aishvaryaM pahi lokAnAM kAmaye na tvayA vinA”

(I do not desire for ownership of devaloka or amaratva or Lordship all the three worlds, without you.)

How can UrmiLa (the incarnation of VaruNi) be not aware of that and be an obstacle for the avatArakArya of her husband?

Still one may say “why can't UrmiLa accompany LakshmaNa and both of them serve Sri Rama and Sita?”

In that case, LakshmaNa's attention gets diverted and diluted as he has to take care of Urmila also.

Note that the devotion is “antarAya sahasrenApi apratibaddhaH” (unaffected by any number of obstacles). So LakshmaNa wanted to serve the Lord with undivided attention and Urmila wanted to give the full support for that.

Both LakshMaNa and UrmiLa did exactly what they are expected of and that is the dharma sUkShma.

Also LakshmaNa or the dvArapAlakas like Jaya and Vijaya are well aware that they are not really safe-guarding the Lord, but it is the Lord, who is safe-guarding them by being antaryAmi, as they are dependent and the Lord is Independent one. The Independent one does not need any protection from anyone. Then what is the purpose of this “door-keeping”? It is an opportunity to given to the devotees to serve the Lord.

What is the mUla rUpa of ViBheeshaNa?

MT: Actually, he is Kanva muni.

According to Sri KrishnaVadhootha Panditharu he is incarnation of Sri Prahlada Rajaru as stated in his work "Sri Raghavendra Tantra".

KT: I have seen that book and noted also that it is mentioned there like that. That is not true at all. It may have been a spurious insertion or some such. Bahlika raja is avatara of Prahlada. None of the Tikakarasa or Tippanikaras or dasaru mentioned that Vibhishana is Prahlada's avatara. Furher in Sri Narayana panditacharya's Amshavatara, it is mentioned that Vibhishana is Kubera's senapati, who is born as Kanva Rushi. So, if Vibhishana is Prahlada's avatAra, then Kanva Rushi also becomes Prahlada's avatAra, which is not true. In HarikathamritasAra, it is mentioned "prahlAda bAhlika rAyanenisidanu". PrahlAda was in Krutayuga. BAhlika was in DvApara yuga. Vibhishana was in Tretayuga. It would not make sense to include PrahlAda of Krutayuga and Bahlika of Dvapara yuga, but not Visbhishana of Tretayuga. So, saying Vibhishana is PrahlAda is against all pramanas.