Vol. 6 Book of War yuddha kANDa Chapter 19, sarga 19, verses 2 to 4 , SlOkAs 2 to 4.
khAt papAta avanim hriSTo bhaktair anucaraiH saha sa tu rAmasya dharmAtmA nipapAta vibhISaNaHa.
pAdayoH AaraNa anveShI caturbhiH saha rAkSasaiH abravIt ca tadA rAmam vAkyam tatra vibhIShaNaHa dharma yuktam ca yuktam ca sAmpratam sampraharShaNam
anujo rAvaNasya aham tena ca asmi avamAnitaH bhavantam sarva bhUtAnaam SaraNyam SaraNam gataH.
parityaktaa mayaa lankaa mitraaNi ca dhanaani ca bhavad gatam hi me rAjyam ca jIvitam ca sukhAni ca. (rAma said to vibhIshaNa:-) tasya tadvacanam shrutvA rAmo vacanamabraviit :- vacasaa sAntvayitvainam locanAbhyaam pibanniva aakhyaahi mama tatvena rAkshasAnAm balAbalam. (6-19-7).
Context rAvaNa abducted sItA. hanumAn traced sItA in lanka. rAma built a bridge across Sea and reached lanka. It was just before the war. rAvaNa's younger brother vibhIshaNa advised rAvaNa to return sItA to rAmA and make a truce. rAvaNa didn't heed vibhIshaNa's advice. vibhIshaNa and his four followers approached rAma and took refuse with him.
Gist vibhIshaNa with his men joyously (sampraharshaNam) fell at the feet of rAma and placed himself at the disposal of rAma. Now, rAma asked vibhIshaNa: "Tell (AkhyAhi) me the true strengths and weaknesses of the demons."
ybrems rAma clearly knew what he wanted! He wanted to know the secrets of demons, through the (traitor??) vibhIshaNa. Nothing more, nothing less!
question: You are too unreasonable towards rAma and vibhIshaNa. Explain
Ans: rAma was supposedly maryAdA purushOttama (ramA was the embodiment of courtesy and ethics). rAma as a true maryAda purushOttama should have asked vibhIshaNa to go to some other land and spend rest of his life peacefully, contemplating on Lord Shiva, the God of demons (daityas). Instead, rAma preferred to extract secrets of demons from vibhIshaNa and obtain his help in annihilating one's (vibhIshaNa's ) own brother. Had lakshmaNa or bharata done this type of thing, how rAma would have treated them? Younger brothers rendering slavish service to elder brothers cannot be restricted only to ikshvAku dynasty. The ethic should apply to all brothers.
We can compare here, vAlmiki rAmAyaNa and vyAsa bhArata.
99 kauravas were the younger brothers of duryOdhana. When mahAbhArata war broke out between pAnDavas and kauravas, none of them deserted duryOdhana, and took refuge with pAnDavas. All the brothers died in the war, with duryOdhana being the last to die.
In the same way, two alternatives were available to vibhIshaNa. 1. Fighting on the side of his brother rAvaNa and sacrificing his life, just as kumbhakarNa did. (kumbhakarNa too advised rAvaNa against war, but did not persist with his advice. He did not use the opportunity to join rAma's bandwagon. We can see how noble was kumbhakarNa when compared to the traitor vibhIshaNa.).
2. Leaving to a desolated place and lead a secluded life, till the outcome of rAma-rAvaNa war, consolidates. There would have been no need for him to return to lanka, had rAvaNa won the war. Why didn't vibhIshaNa choose this alternative? Why didn't rAma render this advice to vibhIshaNa? rAma is eulogised as being capable of vanquishing the entire world with his arrows. Did he need the info of demons from vibhIshaNa, really? Should a maryAda purushOttama sink to a level of encouraging traitors?
No wonder, there are a few tribes in Central India, who abhore vibhIshaNa and adore rAvaNa.