DEIVATHIN KURAL # 88 (Vol # 6) Dated 24 Nov 2012
DEIVATHIN KURAL # 88 (Vol # 6) Dated 24 Nov 2012
(These
e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti
Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier
part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam,
Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we
are going ahead from page No 596 of Volume 6 of the Tamil original. The readers
may note that herein ‘man/he’ includes ‘woman/she’ too mostly. These e-mails
are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com
updated constantly)
31. Often Nandikeswara used to get suddenly
angry. He pounced on our ÃchãryãL and
pulled the palm-leaf manuscript in his hands, that in the scuffle, out of the
100 slokas the last 59 were taken away and only the first 41 were left in the
hands of our ÃchãryãL. Don't you feel
annoyed at Nandikeswara's behaviour? He
could have been more diplomatic. After
all ÃchãryãL was only carrying what had been gifted to him by the Divine Couple
of Pãrvati & Parameswarã themselves! I
would however be thankful to Nandikeswara, you know why? You listen to the balance story.
32. 'AmbãL gave
with her Anugraha and in that we have lost more than half! She gave it thinking of the welfare of the
public at large, like handing over to a trustee. It is sad that I have not been careful enough
and foreseen this eventuality.' Thinking
on these lines our ÃchãryãL
was feeling bad. He was one who was all
the time thinking of the benefit and welfare of the common man that he was
famous with the epithet, 'संकरं
लोक संकरं',
pronounced as 'Sankaram loka sankaram', meaning 'the do-gooder benefactor of
the worlds', spending every moment of his life for that purpose only! So his sadness was genuine and warranted. But AmbãL
spoke to him by an ethereal announcement, "Sankara! Do not feel bad and fret. It was my intention that you should compose
and write the missing 59 slokas yourself.
At once like opening of the flood-gates, he poured out 59 poems
describing AmbãL
from
head to foot and completed the 100 poems.
32. The first 41 Slokas are all Mantra Sãstrãs,
which only a few people can comprehend and do dhyãna
with very stringent rules for chanting.
That part of the Stotram is concerned with Mantra Yoga, KuNdalinee Yoga
and such highly esoteric and abstruse ideas that even the slightest deviation
from the procedure could have negative effects.
It is not correct to view it flippantly as after all it is in
worshipping our Universal Mother, and so, why are we being too strict about
it? That is why She has caused these
stringent methods to be created, which has to be done absolutely faultlessly
only. When there are very easy
approaches such as visit to temples, chanting of Stotras, singing of devotional
Keertans
and Bhajans available; if we undertake Japa, Yoga and Sri Chakra Pooja and then
do them carelessly, we are only asking for trouble! Mother is bound to take it as mischievousness
on our part and dole out punishments accordingly. We should leave such procedures as meant for
some who are seriously keen on those methods.
33. Our ÃchãryãL
instead of being kind only to some portion of the society had universal love
for all types of people. There is a poem
in the Kannada language that he is 'one who turned sinners into saints'. So, instead of letting her remain only in the
form of abstruse mantras, he described her from the head to foot (केशादि
पादं)
as
a picture of beauty that could be conceived and enjoyed by all who read or hear
the poems. Thus AmbãL's beauty it seems took an Avatara as his poem 'Soundarya
Lahari' (सौन्दर्य
लहरि
– the very word सौन्दर्य
means beauty). There is a
tradition calling the last 59 poems as सौन्दर्य
लहरि
and the earlier 41 poems together are called as 'Ãnanda
Lahari' (आनन्द
लहरि).
Reading
the scripture methodically, that is known as 'PãrãyaNam'
(पारायणम्),
though
the first part is 'Ãnanda
Lahari' and the second part is 'Soundarya Lahari', the whole book together is
known as सौन्दर्य
लहरि
only.
34. The story I told you about our ÃchãryãL's
visit to Kailās,
is given in Mãrkandeya Samhita in poetical form. Closely following that story in Mãrkandeya
Samhita word to word in prose form, is Ãnanda
Gireeya Sankara Vijayam. There are also
other versions on how the poems of Soundarya Lahari came into being. There are people who believe that the whole
work is conceived and written by our ÃchãryãL
only. Even if it were true that he
brought the first 41 slokas from Kailās,
there is nothing wrong in attributing the authorship to him. Firstly because he
is the one to bring it out from Kailās,
a place unapproachable for most of us!
You may note that other Rishis too who were the Seers aka 'मन्त्र
द्रष्टा',
have been accredited with authorship of the mantra, though they are only
responsible for making the mantra known to the world. By that logic our
ÃchãryãL
can be considered as the author for the whole of Soundarya Lahari. There is yet another reason for this. If the original
Soundarya
Lahari is the work of Parameswara, our ÃchãryãL
being an Avatara of the same Parameswara, there is nothing wrong in accrediting
him with the authorship.
35. The first 41 slokas are full of subtle
points of Mantra Saastra, Kundalinee Yoga concepts and very secret aspects of
worshipping Maha Tripura Sundari aka Sri Vidya
system (paddati – पद्दति),
very useful for aspirants in that line known as 'Sri Vidya Upãsaka'. Still it is the second part which is remarkable
for beauty, sweetness, selection and suitability of words and their meaning,
profundity and sagacity, that people can read repeatedly and enjoy! If you look at the statues made in olden
times whether in stone or metal or a mix of clay and limestone, say if there is
a slight damage, it is well neigh impossible to repair and restore it to the
original shape. Similarly in the
Soundarya Lahari slokas it is impossible to take out a word and replace it with
any other word. The fact that our
ÃchãryãL lost more than the half of the slokas from what AmbãL had given,
worked out in our favour as otherwise, we would have been denied the power of
the expression of our ÃchãryãL, for us to read, enjoy and thereby become
devotees of AmbãL! So we should all be
thankful to Nandikeswara.
Why
This Drama of Snatching of the Palm-Leaf Manuscript?
36. 'But why
should AmbãL have given an old set of poems, then get part of it
lost and then ask him to compose and make it complete? She could have simply ordered him to sing in
praise of her, isn't it? We can never
know her reasons for what did happen.
But some ideas occur to me, which I wish to share with you all. For worshipping AmbãL there is Mantra Yoga Paddati and the Bhakti Marga
method. People in Mantra Yoga method should
not look down upon the devotees in the other path – "Look at them! They have no discipline, systematic
procedures, intensity of worship and restrictions on diet and behaviour; as we
have. Simply singing Bhajans and
Keertans is no worship I say!"
Similarly those in the Bhakti Marga should not be thinking ill of the
Sri Vidya Upãsaka-s, like saying, "Not knowing as to how to look at AmbãL as our own Mother, appreciating her beauty, endearing
qualities and power deeply engrossed in devotion, these people are simply
chanting mantras and involved in Yantra Pooja, as though they are going to
achieve Maha Siddhis! It is all too
pathetically selfish, isn't it?"
There is more than one path for same destination. Each method is as suitable to individual preferences. There could be some who are equally
interested in both the approaches. So it
is possible that our Universal Mother AmbãL could have decided that she should have one Grantham
for both types of devotees of Hers. She
could have wanted that the devotees in the Bhakti Marga should have some
exposure to matters such as, Mantra Sãstrãs, Kundalinee Yoga and Sri Chakra Upãsana; which are like endowments of our Nation's hoary traditions. Even without proper initiation such as taking
'Deeksha' / 'दीक्षा', simply reading them as Stotras they may benefit to
some extent, she could have thought. With
that when you add a portion with poems of high quality literary content soaked
in true devotion, it would be a wholesome treat indeed, as per Her evaluation
and decision!
37. Now you may have
yet another view, such as, "Why bring in such an avoidably funny behaviour
by a respectable person as Nandikeswara?
AmbãL could have simply ordered our ÃchãryãL
to write such a book as per specifications as She wanted! Our ÃchãryãL had all the knowledge as
required, I am sure!" Such an
argument can also be given reply to. We
do not know as to what were there in the portion snatched by Nandikeswara. May be they were not meant for the human
world and suitable for other types of existences. So AmbãL could have thought of taking out
only the portion suitable for human beings and then add some poems purely on
the subject of devotion. More than all
this, in this way with the first part as having been written by Kailãsa Sankara
and the second half by Kãladi Sankara, by making them co-authors of the book,
their oneness has been underlined. May be
AmbãL might have wanted to combine the Stuti by God and the Stuti by God's
Avatara and make it into one book with the drama of Nandikeswara.
38. Again you could raise yet another
doubt. You could say, "Why make
Nandikeswara waylay our ÃchãryãL? AmbãL
could have simply handed over only the 41 Slokas and told him, "These 41
Slokas I have taken out of a book authored by Siva himself. The balance 59 slokas are not required for
people on earth. Since it has been taken
out of a Sadakam containing 100 poems, you write 59 slokas and add to this and
give it publicity as a Sadakam."
If that is your question, then my answer is that AmbãL just could
not have done that! Though Kailãsa
Sankara and Kãladi Sankara are one and the same, the action by AmbãL as
suggested in the above question would have been a double insult to both! In the garb of an Avatara, our ÃchãryãL was
humility personified. That is why he has
gone searching for them all the way to Kailãsa to pay his obeisance to
them. Now to give him a portion of the
Sadakam by Siva, asking him to complete it wold mean, a total lack of decency
and tact. That would mean a lack of
understanding on her part, the ideal of 'Vinaya' that our ÃchãryãL was
projecting. But if a situation is
created in which ÃchãryãL happens to lose a portion of the book, then to tell
him to make it up, would have been quite decently normal simultaneously
projecting the fact of their oneness to the world at large! Hence the drama by Nandikeswara was necessary!
(To
be continued.)
Smbhomahadeva
Labels: posted by Lt Col KTSV Sarma
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home