Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 Dear Bhagavatas You will remember my mentioning about the queries posed by Azhagiyasinghar in a sort of Quiz Program and gave a few illustrations in my series on "Prakritam Azhagiyasinghar-My Acharya, Friend, Philosopher and Guide." Hope you would have your answers to these. If so, please send the same to my address. However, the answers for these queries are being published in the Saranagathi Journal. In his Tele- Upanyasam on 7th instant he raised two queries in this mode and called for replies but ultimately he gave the answers himself. For the benefit of Bhagavatas who could not hear the Tele Upanyasam, I am giving the queries here. Query # 1 In one instance, "Sokam" (grief) resulted in the birth of a "Slokam" (Holy verse) In another instance, a "Slokam" got rid of "Sokam." Which are these? Query # 2 King Dushyanta proclaimed that he would stand in the place of any "Bandhus" (Relations) which his subjects did not have (or had lost) and render all comfort that such Bandhus would have provided. But, this statement cannot apply "as it is" in a particular kind of relationship. What is this relationship? And, Azhagiyasinghar himself gave the answers: Answer # 1 Sage Valmiki was a witness to the tragedy of a hunter killing a bird and was so overwhelmed with grief that he spelled out a curse. Later, he regretted his having uttered the curse. At that time, Devas appeared before him and assuaged him saying that his utterance, if pronounced differently, formed into a verse (a Mangala Slokam) which Valmiki could use to start composing his great epic, Srimad Ramayana. This is the case of "Sokam" resulting in "Slokam." When Lord Krishna gave out the "Charama Slokam" to Arjuna, it got rid of the grief of Arjuna. Here is an instance of a "Slokam" erasing "Sokam" Did not Swami Desika describe the Charama Slokam as 'Sokam Thavirkkum Sruthip Porul"? Answer # 2 The relationship that will get vitiated, if Dushyanta's declaration is applied 'as it is'- is that of a husband for the wife. Dushyanta took care to mention that he would stand in the shoes of all relations that were not repugnant to the Sastras (i.e., excluding his being the husband of any woman who had no husband). Dasoham Anbil Ramaswamy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.