The Theft Committed by AmbA - 1 of 2

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

 

Wishing you and your loved ones a very Happy and Holy

Vijayadashami!

 

On this auspicious occasion, I am happy to post extracts

from revered Kanchi Paramacharya's illuminating exposition

of select verses in Saundarya Lahari.

 

The extract that follows in in 2-parts. We all yearn for

Her beatific darshan, and the Acharya too seeks to feast

His eyes on Her Motherly form. And yet when he does see

Her, he strangely charges her with being a thief. Read

on to enjoy Kanchi Paramacharya's profound and moving

interpretation of this Divine "crime"...

 

At Her Feet,

Ramesh

 

----------------

 

 

The Theft Committed by AmbA

 

 

The Vedas proclaim that of the two bodies of Siva, one

is entirely Ambika's. In the Ardhanarisvara

form Amba and Siva are half and half in one body. The

Acarya integrates the two views in a stanza and

charges Amba with having committed theft (Stanza 23).

 

Siva and Sakti seem to be separate as well as united

together, they seen to be two separate entities bodily

as well as one entity bodily. Despite

these images of the two, the supreme truth is that

they are always one inseparable Reality, one Caitanya

(life force). The two being separate individually; the

two being half and half of one body; Siva being a

linga and Amba entwining round him in the form of a

serpent; he as Daksinamurti, retaining her within

himself without revealing her outwardly, and he

remaining all by himself - and against all these is

Durga. Each form represents a concept, a truth. The

concepts or truths are told as stories. Poets play

with such concepts or even apparently

ridicule them. It is in this manner that the Acarya

has spoken of Amba as a "thief". It is a big theft she

has committed. "She has stolen her husband's entire

body. Is not stolen property kept hidden? Thus Amba

has concealed her husband's body in her. Not only is

she guilty of stealing it, she has swallowed the

property stolen!"

 

It is well known that Amba is only the left side of

Siva's body. Tha is how the Acarya was expecting to

see Siva, as Ardhanarisvara. But what did he actually

see? "I am going to see Mother and Father together,

half and half (half of Mother and half of Father)."

But what he saw was entirely the Mother, that is

including the right side. Father is all white, bright

like pure crystal. Mother is red, so he had heard. So

together they must be half white and half red. If she

were Ardhangani it must be like that. But the form the

Acarya saw was different. This is how he describes it:

"sakalam aruNAbham" = "all red in radiance." Mother

alone is seen, not Father [The Mahaguru makes a

gesture similar to that a child makes when it says,

"Father.....not seen."] The Father's side of the

body is also Mother.

 

Ardhanarisvara is one of the many divine

manifestations, is it not? Siva and Amba have many

other manifestations, aspects, in which each

is independent of the other as in these pairs:

Paramasiva-Parvati, Nataraja-Sivakamasundari and

Kamesvara-Kamesvari. However, the Acarya pretends

ignorance about such matters: he pretends to know only

one manifestation in which Father and Mother are the

two halves of one body. It is all for the purpose of

the ninda-stuti of Amba and of charging her with

theft.

 

The Acarya saw that the right side also belonged to

Mother. If a man got half a kingdom he would not be

satisfied with it and would try to seize the other

half also. If one has nothing one will have no such

urge. The Lord is so noble that in an act of

generosity for which there is no parallel he gave half

his body to his spouse Amba. And the consequence of it

was that she seized the other half of his

body also, so it must have occurred to the Acarya.

 

But did the idea in fact occur to him? It was for his

amusement, to make fun of Amba, and it was all

pretence. The half thief (female) here became full

thief. And not an ordinary thief. She stole the body

of one who was no other than her husband, Paramesvara,

so thinks the Acarya.

 

"Taskaranam pati" (chief of thieves): this is what the

Vedas themselves call Paramesvara. What taskaram, what

theft, did he commit? The child Sambandham answers the

question in his very first song: one who steals the

heart). Amba is the thief who stole the body of this

other thief who steals our hearts, so states the

Acarya.

 

But we must not make a statement in the form of

a judgement that she committed theft. "The matter

relates to a very, very high quarter. So we must not

get into trouble by making a pronouncement in the form

of a verdict." How do political leaders, even though

free to say anything, respond to questions put to them

by newspapermen? They take a non-committal attitude to

issues on which they are questioned. "Why should we

say anything that is likely to get us

into trouble?" such is their approach. We often read

in the papers of a politician "parrying a question".

An accused who is known to be guilty is referred to as

an alleged offender until the court decides that he is

really a culprit. The Acarya also thinks that he

should be guarded in making a statement.

 

"Sarirardham Sambhoraparamapi hrtamabhut." The Acarya

does not say definitely that "the other half of

Paramesvara's body was also stolen by you". Instead he

says: "Sarirardham Sambhoraparamapi

sanke hrtamabhut." He has added the word "sanke" in

between. It means "I suspect", "I have a doubt", "I

wonder whether...."

 

"I wonder whether the other half also has been stolen

by you." The Acarya has made a tactful statement.

Without giving his verdict that Amba has

committed a theft and making himself liable to the

charge of his having committed a sacrilege, the Acarya

has cleverly provoked people into believing that Amba

has in fact committed a theft.

 

In poetry a fact should not be bluntly stated and

there must be a mere hint of what the poet wants to

convey. That is why the Acarya uses the

word "sanke" in the stanza. "Sanke", "I suspect": if

you say so you must have your reasons, is it not so?

Without any prima facie evidence can you suspect

anyone of having committed an offence, that too one

like Parasakti herself, and call her a thief?

 

The Acarya mentions a number of reasons. The divine

form he saw was entirely red in colour. We noted one

of the reasons already mentioned: both sides of the

chest of the form he saw had the characteristic of a

woman. But how can that be enough? Amba can be

suspected to have committed a theft only if she had

something that belonged to Siva. A man accused of

theft can be charge-sheeted only if he has in

possession part of the stolen property. If the form

seen by the Acarya was entirely that of Amba, it is

likely that the left side of the form that is her own

could have grown to cover the right side also to

become a full female figure. Similarly, Siva's right

side could have grown to extend to the left

for the whole body to become a male figure. When the

Acarya had darshan, the Lord might have gone out

somewhere. Altogether unless Amba had in her

possession something specifically belonging to Siva

she could not be accused of theft.

 

The Acarya was not unaware of such reasoning. It was

after seeing Amba with two parts associated with Siva

that he became suspicious of her. What were the two

parts? One was "trinayanam" and the second

"kutila-sasicudalamakutam". "The trinayanam" (three

eyes) must be known to all. "Kutilasasicudalamakutam"

means the crown with the crescent moon. The one with

the three eyes is Candramaulisvara, is he not? Are not

the three eyes and the crescent-moon adornment

distinctive characteristics of Siva? The Vedas refer

to him as "Tryambaka" and it means one with three

eyes. The dhyana-sloka recited during Rudrabhiseka has

this; "Jyoti-sphatika-linga-mauli-vilasat-purnendu."

Here the moon adorning Siva's head is mentioned. The

form referred to is the crystal linga. In this form

the head is adorned by the full moon. When the same

deity has a face, eyes, ears and so on

the moon adorning the head or crown is the cresent

moon, not the full moon.

 

The three eyes and the crescent moon belong to

Paramasiva. But during his darshan the Acarya saw

these with Amba. This surely meant that she had stolen

Siva. She could be charge-sheeted on the basis of

this. And though the Acarya uses the word "sanka"

(that he suspects Amba of having stolen Siva) the

reasons he gives for his suspicion are so strong as to

make us pronounce the verdict that she is indeed a

thief. In this way he does her nindastuti (ironic

praise).

 

 

(... to be continued)