Thursday, March 28, 2013

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 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 मकु ||"
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 मकु = 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.)




Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home