DEIVATHIN KURAL # 148 (Vol # 6) Dated 28 Mar 2013
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)
Out of the two bodies of Swami one is completely AmbãL's as 'Sivã Tanoo' – 'शिवा
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
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:-
हृत्वा वामं वपुरपरित्रुप्तेन मनसा
संभोरपरमपि शङ्के हृतमभूत |
sambhoraparamapi shanke hrutamabhooth |
एतत् त्वद्रूपं सकलम अरुणाभं त्रिनयनं
tvadroopam sakalam aruNãbham
आनम्रं कुटिल शशिचूडाल मकुटम्
ãnamram kutila shashichoodaala makutam ||
us look at the meaning of the words of the poem after it is re-phrased. यत्
whatever reason; एतत्
this your figure or form; सकलम
= with complete reddish brilliance; त्रिनयनं
= three eyes; कुचाभ्यां
= slightly bent by the weight of the breasts; कुटिल शशिचूडाल मकुटम्
= with the crescent moon adorning the hair piled upon the head; संभो:
= Siva's left half of the body;
= having already been stolen by You;
= (still) having an unsatisfied mind; अपरम
= the other half of the body too;
= 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
which means 'having been stolen by you'!
By you, त्वया;
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
you misappropriated the other half also – 'संभो:
– 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:
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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!
Labels: posted by Lt Col KTSV Sarma