6

Here is an excerpt from Mahabharata for the proof that Vibhishana being given a boon of immortality.

Saying, 'It shall be so' 'Brahma then addressed Vibhishana, 'O my son, I am much pleased with thee! Ask any boon thou pleasest!' Thereupon, Vibhishana replied, 'Even in great danger, may I never swerve from the path of righteousness, and though ignorant, may I, O adorable Sire, be illumined with the light of divine knowledge!' And Brahma replied, 'O scourge of thy enemies, as thy soul inclines not to unrighteousness although born in the Rakshasa race, I grant thee immortality!'

Now my question is, why did no Rakshasa (like Malyavan & Sumali) consider Vibhishan to be the most worthy to rule them as he is the only descendant of the Rakshasas that gained immortality. He may have become an ally of Rama later on but in the beginning of his life early on he used to support Ravana and help the Rakshasas. Since he was given immortality he should have been more powerful than even Ravana.

1

Vibhishan got immortality as per Ramayana too as discussed in the following post:

Gods granting immortality

But according to Uttarakhanda of Ramayana, Ravana also got a boon from Lord Brahma and

he was incapable of being slain by Nagas, Yakshas, Daityas, Danavas and the Devas.

  1. This not required that an immortal have to be more powerful than others. For instance, there were many powerful warriors than Kripacharya in Mahabharata.

  2. The very first thing was to snatch Lanka from Kubera. And as you mentioned in your question that "his soul inclines not to unrighteousness" so how could he snatch Lanka from his elder brother.

  3. How he could be king when his elder brother Ravana was there? This is not strong point though but still can be considered as valid.

  • 1. Ravan too has an elder brother called Kuvera (who he took Lanka away from). Some sources say he had more elder brothers like Sahastra Ravan & Ahiravan. So the whole elder brother younger brother trust and respect theories don't mean much. 2. The difference is that Vibhishana cannot die but Ravan can. Vibhishan is protected from death at the hands of ALL life forms. 3. In my question their would be a what-if-scenario that Vibhishan would be forced to become the ruler as all Raksasas will realize that he is the foremost. That Ravan would willfully give the throne to Vibhishan. – Knowledge Seeker Feb 10 '18 at 10:54
  • @TheLogicalFanatic 1. This actually matters atleast for righteous persons like Vibhishan but this doesn't matter for people like Ravana... 2. Both Ravana & Vibhishan were half Rakashas & half Brahmin.. As Vibhishan never wanted to go against righteous life..to an extent he didn't live like a Rakashas.. 3. Vibhishan was more righteous than Ravana but not more powerful.. as said earlier immortality doesn't make someone more powerful? After all Rakshasas wanted a powerful leader not righteous one.. if Vibhishan would hv been king he could hv killed those sinful Rakshasas first... – YDS Feb 10 '18 at 17:26
  • And if you think immortality makes one more powerful then Kripacharya would have been the first Army chief of Kaurvas.. – YDS Feb 10 '18 at 17:27
  • Immortality was never a goal for the Kouravas. But immortality was always a goal for Rakshasas, the cases are different. That's why it makes more sense if they would coronate Vibhishana as their king as he was immortal just like Visnu, Indra and the Devas etc. I don't consider the Raksasas sinful but i do believe that it would make more sense for them to make the same man (Vibhishan) their king that achieved the same gift (immortality) that they never ever achieved. That not even Ravan could achieve. – Knowledge Seeker Feb 11 '18 at 2:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .