DEIVATHIN KURAL # 149 (Vol # 6) Dated 30 Mar 2013

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 149 (Vol # 6) Dated 30 Mar 2013

(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 the second paragraph on page No 1021 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)

684.  When ÃchãryãL had gone for darsan, AmbãL was very much the Kãmeswari, the deity being revered in Soundarya Lahari.  Kãmeswari has the third eye in-between the eye-brows, adding to the two eyes already existing.  What is said in Lalitha Sahasranãma as 'sindoorãruNa vigrahãm' is what is mentioned here as 'sakalam aruNãbham'.  Then Lalitha Sahasranãma goes on as 'trinayanãm', that is repeated here as 'trinayanam'.   Though here ÃchãryãL has mentioned the red brilliance and the third eye; he has alluded that the earlier property was hers and that the latter was the property of her consort which has been stolen by her!  The Dhyãna sloka carries on, 'tãrã nãyaka-sekharãm smita mukheem ãpeena vokshoruhãm' – 'तारा नायक शेखरां आपीन वक्षोरुहां'.  The phrase 'tãrã nãyaka shekharãm' means that she is having the 'Lord of the stars' – that is, the moon on her head as a decorative adornment, as AmbãL is entitled to have the third eye and crescent moon as her accoutrements, as it is so given as a defining identity in the Dhyãna sloka of Lalitha Sahasranãma!

685.  It is this 'tãrã nãyaka shekharãm' that has been given as 'kutila sasi chudãla makutam' – 'कुटिल शशी चुडाल मकुटम्', in his sloka under discussion.  Still he has given her the title of a thief or so expresses his doubt very carefully!  Therein it is mentioned as a woman's body as 'ãpeena vakshoruhãm' – 'आपीन वक्षोरुहां' – meaning 'breasts that have never been suckled'!  The same thing has been referred here as 'kuchãbyãm ãnamrãm' – 'कुचाभ्यां आनंरां', that is very much AmbãL's own!  So, as entirely owned by AmbãL we have, the reddish form, three eyes, crescent moon on the head and the female body; two of which are said to be stolen and two of her own!  Though ÃchãryãL is mentioning all these four traits, two are allegedly her own and two misappropriated from her husband with corroborative evidence!  In fact, we note that out of the four, two seems to have been more clearly stolen by ÃchãryãL from her! 

686.  In Lalitha Sahasranãmam itself there is this name for AmbãL as 'tejovathy trinayanã' – 'तेजोवती त्रिनयना'!  She is also described as 'chãru chandra kalãdhari' – 'चारु चन्द्र कलाधरी' describing her as 'chandra sekhari'!  Similarly in Shyamala Dandakam when being praised as the 'Ati Devata of Sri Vidya', she is described as 'chatur bhuje chandra kalã vatamse' – 'चतुर भुजे चन्द्र कला वतंसे', again with the same idea of being decorated by the crescent moon!  So, it is quite clear that AmbãL has the three eyes and the crescent moon as part of her being and does not have to 'beg, borrow or steal' – at all!  That is how she is depicted in all old drawings by artists and in sculptures of ancient vintage.  But our ÃchãryãL seems to have made up his mind as to, "What is this Stuti of AmbãL without having some 'nindã-stuti' that is, having some dig at her and pulling of the leg?"  So, though he was known to be a 'Sarvagna' – 'सर्वज्ञ', the all-knowing ability of his, he sets aside his omniscience and talks as though he is not aware!  Normally, the general public are of the opinion that the third eye and the crescent moon belong to Siva.  So, going along with the general knowledge of the common man, ÃchãryãL is just alluding that she must have stolen the 'third eye and the crescent moon'!

687.  OK.  She has stolen!  Now the question arises as to where has she hidden the stolen property?  Where else but within her body only!  She has so decided that they have to be hidden within her.  Like Shakti is within Siva, so also Siva is within Shakti!  To make it so, her having swallowed half his body in the 'Ardha-Nãri' Sareera, Gopala Krishna Bharathiyar has sung, "பார்வதி என்றொரு சீமாட்டி – அதில் பாதியை தின்றதுண்டு", meaning that 'one Lady known as Pãrvati has been known to have swallowed a half of that'!  There is also AruNa Giri Natha's statement, "யான் ஆகிய என்னை விழுங்கி", meaning, 'having swallowed me'!  We have seen Mothers whose love for the baby known as 'Vãtsalyam', which is superior to all varieties of love, telling the baby, 'I feel like biting and munching you!'  (Smiling while saying this, PeriyavãL goes on to add that) Love in its extreme goes up to not only biting or stealing but leads to even a case of murder at times!  Our ÃchãryãL had put in just one word 'sankhe' as a doubtful case and here I have brought it up to a case of murder!

688.  In Sivãnanda Lahari (sloka No 44), not just one murder but many that Siva is supposed to have done.  Remembering that, I have brought in the subject of murder!  All done by Samhãra Murthy Siva; killing an elephant and wearing his skin, he became the 'gaja samhãra murthy' – 'गज संहार मूर्थि' mentioned as 'kreendra bhanga'.  Skinning a tiger and wearing it is another occasion – 'ghana sãrdhulana vikhandana' – 'घन सार्धूलन विखन्डन'.  Then when he came as a hunter he killed a wild boar.  Then after all, at the time of Maha Pralaya, he kills all the life forms and finishes them off – 'asta jantu' – 'अस्त जन्तू' all without any differentiation!  Even after having the skin of the elephant as the main robe and tiger skin as the lower garment at the hip, he seems to be leading a deer may be for eating later on, thought our ÃchãryãL!  So Siva looks like a lion which lives in a cave.  Both the lion and Siva aka Swami have the name of 'pancha mukha' as the lion has a broad face and Swami has five faces namely, Sadyojãta, Vãmadeva, Aghora, Tatpurusha and Isãna and hence he is also 'pancha mukha'.  Swami also lives in a cave like the Lion, but in this case, Swami lives in the cave of the heart of all living beings!  So there in Sivãnanda Lahari he has made a rhyming pun of 'Slesha Alankãra' between Swami and the Lion. 

689.  There, having killed and eaten up the elephant and the tiger, the Swami-Lion is keeping only their skin with him in evidence isn't it?  That is what came to my mind.  Similarly having swallowed that Swami, AmbãL is showing off only his 'Tri Netra' and 'Chandra Kala' for having done that, quite inadvertently.  There, having eaten their flesh in full the Swami-Lion would have left their skins licked bare and dry to show off.  Here in AmbãL-Swami case having swallowed the whole, after that body had gone inside this one wholesomely, the 'Tri-Netra' possibly sprouted out on its own.  Then we can construe that the   Chandra-Kala that was anyhow standing apart, must have re-emerged independently!

690.  In fact there was neither murder nor theft or any swallowing either!  That 'Being' known as 'Maha-Mrutyunjaya' meaning the 'Great Vanquisher of Death', whom her 'ताटङ्ग महिमा' makes imperishable even in the apocalypse, how can he such an ever- lasting entity be ever murdered?  In fact it is He who has been accused of theft in her case by poets!  If you wonder as to what must have been that case, let me tell you!  In fact, on more than one occasion, actually in one and a half cases, whatever happened due to her influence, the acclaim and credit that should have been hers, have been misappropriated by him! I am only referring to the matters of 'Kãma Dahanam' and 'Kãla Samhãra' cases, already described!  In the 'Ardha-Nãri' Roopa, since 'Kãma Dahanam' was done by the third eye, their share is half-half, which has been wholly appropriated by him!  Again in the 'Ardha-Nãri' Roopa the credit for 'Kãla Samhãra' case should go to her totally since it happened with the left leg, which is hers!  There are eight stations as Temple Towns known as 'Ashta Veerasthãnam' for his famous exploits.  Amongst them in Thiru Kurugai he is known as 'Kãma Dahana Murthy' and in Thiru Kadavur he is famous as 'Kãla Samhãra Muthy'!  It is AmbãL who has been robbed.  Her husband as 'TaskarãNãm Pati' is the head of thieves, in her case itself!  Having surrendered her body, soul and everything to him, she is the Maha Pativratã the most faithful and obedient wife!

691.  It is about her, our ÃchãryãL seeing with the poet's eyes, over flowing with literary Rasa and poetical genius has sung that she has stolen him completely!  With love and compassion she has totally absorbed him in fact.  Since he is also fully merged in her, seeing her as Kãmãkshi, we feel no deficiency or loss.  If to pray and worship the parents is a pleasure, to see the father in the mother and the mother in the father is a unique pleasure indeed!  If he is to be enjoyed as the 'Thãyum Ãnavar' (Daddy who has become Mother also) she is to be enjoyed as the 'Thanthaiyum ÃnavaL' (Mummy who has become the Father also)!  That is what happens in the case of human beings, when one passes away!  But in the case of our Universal Father and Mother, both can be revered and adored as 'one in the other'!  That is, 'you can have the cake and eat it too'!  Brhmam and Brhma Shakti instead of being two separate entities, becoming one, seen as one and experienced as one, as one 'Shiva-Shakti-aikya RoopiNi' – 'शिव शक्त्यैक्य रूपिणी'; is the meaning of the poem as well as the principle of Adwaitam!

692.  (For a few minutes PeriyavãL is closing his eyes and then carries on in a subdued voice!)  The 'Swaroopa' is all a red haze.  OK it is AmbãL and only AmbãL.  Then when we are trying to discern the different parts of the shape or figure, we are seeing the 'third eye' and then the crescent moon.  They are reminding us of 'Triyambaka'; the 'Chandra Mowleeswara' to us of the Sankara Mata.  But when we look for him, we do not see him!  Other than these two things we do not see any part of his form or body.  It is with this experience ÃchãryãL says, (in a louder voice PeriyavãL continues), "Oh I see!  Earlier after having made half of the body yours, not being satisfied, you have grabbed the other half also, is it?"  Siva Amrita cannot be divided and shared but is to be absorbed totally!  That is what AmbãL did.

(To be continued.)

Sambhomahadeva

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 148 (Vol # 6) Dated 28 Mar 2013

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 148 (Vol # 6) Dated 28 Mar 2013

(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 the second paragraph on page No 1014 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)

அம்பாளுடைய திருட்டு

The Theft by AmbãL

674.  Out of the two bodies of Swami one is completely AmbãL's as 'Sivã Tanoo' – 'शिवा तनू' as stated by the Rudram / Veda.  Then as an equal half she has one half of the body in the 'ardha naree sareeram' – 'अर्ध नारी शरीरं'.  Combining these two ideas our ÃchãryãL has made one sloka in which he has given her a title as a Thief!  Though there are occasions when Siva and Shakti are seen as two different entities and as two equal half-s of the same body, the real truth is that they are both indivisibly and inalienably one.  Two separate persons; two halves of the same body; when he is in the form of Lingam for her to be entwined around the linga-sareera as a snake; keep her as the indwelling spirit while he is seen outside as DakshiNa Murthy; as an exact opposite of that there is Durga or KaLi – are all based on some subtle and deep rooted principles of esoteric significance which are symbolically represented as so many stories!  Poets will make use of those stories for fun and entertainment sometimes.  It is one such occasion wherein our ÃchãryãL has said that AmbãL has committed an act of theft!

675.  A big theft it is, when the wife is accused of having stolen the husband's whole body and hidden it within herself.  Not only she had stolen but virtually swallowed it, it seems by the way the poet has hinted!  Let us look at the Sloka No 23:-

          "त्वया हृत्वा वामं वपुरपरित्रुप्तेन मनसा

     Tvaya hrutva vãmam vapuraparitruptena manasã

शरीरार्धं संभोरपरमपि शङ्के हृतमभूत |

sareerãrdham sambhoraparamapi shanke hrutamabhooth |

यत् एतत् त्वद्रूपं सकलम अरुणाभं त्रिनयनं

Yatetat tvadroopam sakalam aruNãbham trinayanam

कुचाभ्यां आनम्रं कुटिल शशिचूडाल मकुटम् ||"

kuchaabhyãm ãnamram kutila shashichoodaala makutam ||

676.  [Let us look at the meaning of the words of the poem after it is re-phrased. यत् = for whatever reason; एतत् त्वद्रूपं = this your figure or form; सकलम अरुणाभं = with complete reddish brilliance; त्रिनयनं = three eyes; कुचाभ्यां आनम्रं = slightly bent by the weight of the breasts;  कुटिल शशिचूडाल मकुटम् = with the crescent moon adorning the hair piled upon the head; संभो: वामं वपु: = Siva's left half of the body; त्वया हृत्वा = having already been stolen by You; अपरित्रुप्तेन मनसा = (still) having an unsatisfied mind; अपरम अपि शरीरार्धं = the other half of the body too; हृतम अभूत = has been stolen; शङ्के = so do I doubt!]

677.  Now let us look at the meaning with commentary, which hence may not be exact translations.  At the very start he gives her a title as a thief "त्वया हृत्वा" which means 'having been stolen by you'!  By you, त्वया; संभो: वामं वपु: Siva's left half of the body – having been stolen or even after having been stolen; - the poet is telling the Universal Mother, "Amma! Even after you had stolen the left half of Parameswarã's body", then what?  'Because you were not fully satisfied अपरित्रुप्तेन मनसा, you misappropriated the other half also – 'संभो: अपरम शरीरार्धं अपि हृतम अभूत' – has been stolen once – you were making it in to a habit as though – the other half has also been whacked! 

678.  In ÃchãryãL's Stotras there will be plenty of all varieties of word play.  Here in the first line there is one 'aparitruptena' in which there is one 'apari' which is made up of 'vapu: + pari = vapurapari.  Then in the second line there is one more 'aparam' as 'Sambhoraparam'.  There is much difference in the meaning of these two 'apara' and 'apari', as prefixes.  As a prefix this 'pari' gives a meaning of wholeness such as, 'pari + PoorNam = paripoorNam'; 'pari + tyagam = parityagam' and 'pari + trupti = paritrupti'.  If adding 'pari' as a prefix gives the word a sense of completeness, adding an 'a' to that 'pari' will make it half complete / incomplete!  With such a meaning, 'apari truptena manasa' meaning, 'by not having a sufficiently satisfied mind'!  The word 'aparam' in 'sareerardham aparam' has the meaning as 'the other' and in the context of 'sareerardham aparam' it means, 'the other half of the body'!

679.  It is well known that AmbãL is the left half of the body of Swami.  ÃchãryãL went to have their darsan thinking on those lines only.  He went to see the 'Ardha Nãreeswara' and what did he see?  He was prepared to have a darsan of the parents together as half-mother and half-father combined as one!  The whole figure was that of the mother – not only the left but also the other half normally known as the 'DakshiNa Bhagam'!  Father is all white / colourless – 'shuddha sphatika sankãsam' – 'शुद्ध: स्फटिक संकासं'; whereas the Mother is all red.  So, it should be a mix of the two in the combined figure!  But no!  The whole figure is all red – 'sakalam aruNãbham' – 'सकलं अरुणाभं'. Looking for a flat chest on the right side, one is disappointed again as both are full and causing the whole figure to bend ever so slightly!  That is what is mentioned as, 'kuchãbhyãm ãnamram' – 'कुचाभ्यां आनंरं'! So the net result is that 'Amma is there, but Daddy is missing!  Amma is there on this side and on that side also it is Amma only!

680.  'Ardha Nãreeswara' is one of the many divine forms isn't it?  Instead Siva – Parvathy, Nataraja – Sivakãma Sundari and in the matter of our interest of Sri Vidya there are Kãmeswara and Kãmeswari, as different divine beings!  But when they are together, as I said before, somehow AmbãL's importance gets a bit suppressed and so there are more occasions when she is giving darsan separately.  That is how she is there in Kanchipuram.  Our ÃchãryãL is play acting as though he does not know these things or play acting as though he knows only the combined form of 'half-daddy/half-mummy' form seemingly.  He has to do what is known as 'nindã-stuti' decry as though praising and praise as though decrying!  He noticed that the right side of the body is also that of the Mother.  Once if a person is lucky enough to win half of the kingdom, he will be keen to get the second half also.  One having nothing may remain happily a pauper.  But if by chance someone gets half the kingdom, he will be keen on getting the other half also by hook or crook, isn't it?  With great open heartedness when Swami was liberal enough to bestow half the body to her, she has caught hold of their other half also!  We do not know if ÃchãryãL really thought so or acting as if he thought so!

681.  Like classification of thieves as half-thief, three-quarter-thief and complete-thief, this half-thief has become full-thief and that too she has managed to filch nothing less than the body of Parameswara himself!  In fact the Vedas have given the name to Swami as the Head of all thieves as – 'taskarãNãm pati' –'तस्कराणां पति'.  What he steals, Thiru Gnãna Sambanda even as a baby said in his very first song 'en uLLam kavar kaLvan' – 'என் உள்ளம் கவர் கள்வன்' –  meaning, 'the thieve who wins my hearts!'  ÃchãryãL has sung that AmbãL is the thief, who has robbed the body of the thief who steals people's hearts! But evidently he did not wish to give the judgement unilaterally!  This is a matter of very high place!  Even the political leaders who do not believe in exercising any control over their tongue, and often do place their foot in their own mouth, do become somewhat hesitant when questioned by the press at times, isn't it? And media report on such incidents, saying that the politician just parried the question.  Even in cases where everyone concerned knows that the individual is the criminal, till the accused is declared as the offender, they would only use the word 'alleged'!  Similarly ÃchãryãL has been careful.

682.  Instead of clearly stating that, 'sareerãrdham sambho: aparamapi hrutam abhooth' he has inserted a 'sankhe' in between to mean, 'I wonder'!  'Is it that the other half has also been stolen by you, may be?'  Such creation of a doubt is more powerful than any judgement.  Even if you confirm somebody to be the thief, that may be forgotten.  But if say that so and so is a doubtful character and stop at that, people will add their own logic and confirm his guilt repeatedly!  Instead of declaring AmbãL as the thief and getting some stigma attached to him that he has been impious, ÃchãryãL has been clever enough!  So by putting the word 'sankhe' he has added poetical allegory to innuendo. 

683.  But when you doubt you have to have some sufficient evidence of proof too.  He has given many convincing arguments!  The whole body becoming red; both the breasts being full more like a woman's; are two things which we have seen already.  But those two things are not enough logic by themselves.  There could have been the temporary absence of Swami when ÃchãryãL was visiting!

There has to be some other clinching proof such as some property of Swami found in her possession!  ÃchãryãL was not unaware of this.  So he had already pointed out 'tri nayanam' and the second 'kutila shashichoodaala makutam' the crown with the crescent moon!  The three eyed is none else but of the 'triambakam yajamahe' vintage mentioned in Mrutyunjaya Mantram referring to the Swami. The Dhyãna sloka in Rudra Abhishekam tells us of the 'jyoti sphatika linga mouLi vilasat poorNendu' – 'ज्योतिस् स्फटिक लिङ्ग मळिविलसत पूर्णेन्दु' about the form of Siva in crystal Linga Sareera.  There the Moon is full – 'poorNa Indu'.  Thus the crescent moon and the third eye are belonging to Swami.  Both have now been seen with AmbãL.  Evidently they have been whacked from Swami isn't it?  With this itself though the 'charge sheet' could have been issued, by saying that he has a suspicion ÃchãryãL has ensured our judgement of declaring her as the criminal!

(To be continued.)

Sambhomahadeva