An explanation on "Prahlada StOtram"

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas:

 

With reference to the series on "PrahlAda StOtram" recently featured on the

net,

a fellow Bhagavata has raised a very important point saying -

 

"The Devas requested Shree Maha Lakshmi to go near him and make him calm. She

made Bhagavat Prahlada to do this. This is not in the meaning that Shree Maha

Lakshmi was also having fear to approach the Lord. She is eternally present

with the Lord in all his aspects inseparably. She made Bhagavat Prahlada to

go near the lord and make him calm only to show the greatness of Bhagavat

Prahlada Alwar."

 

The Bhagavata is correct. There is no denying the fact that ThAyAr is

eternally present with the Lord in all his aspects inseparably.

 

In the Introduction to the series, I have only quoted from Sri Uttamur

Swami's foreword to the work, which runs as follows:

 

Inter alia, Uttamur Swami observes -

" In all other Avatars, the PurushAkaram of PirATTi was manifest; In this

AvatAram, He showed that even without this, a true devotee could approach

Him. That is why Periya PirATTi permitted PrahlAda to approach the Lord.

Following him, the other celestials approached Nrisimha"

 

She bade PrahlAda to approach. In a way, this itself can be construed as

PurushAkAram!

 

As Swami Desikan points out in the very first stanza of his "DasAvatAra

StOtram"

all these AvatAras constitute His leelas. "dasadhA nirvarthayan bhoomikAm"

which means the Lord "enacts a drama" taking different roles (vEshams) in the

leela vibhuthi and as for ThAyAr, she "dons suitable roles to enact".

'nAyikA prithakvidhEshu bhAvEshu anuguNAm bhAvAn svayam bibhrathi" and

She is also said to "playviharathE".

 

It is the great author of Srimad BhAgavatam (in which blossomed this

"PrahlAda StOtram" ) who says in so many words that "Sri MahAlakshmi also did

not approach Him because His appearance was neither seen nor heard of ever

before".

sAkshAth Sree prEshithA dEvai: drishtvA thun mahat adbutham/

adrishTa- asrutha poorvathvAth sA na upEyAya sankhithA// (SlOka 2)

Meaning

"Seeing the anger of the Lord not quenched, His consort, Sri MahAlakshmi was

sent by the dEvas. She too, did not approach Him because His appearance was

neither seen nor heard of ever before". 'She sent PrahlAda "because His

appearance was neither seen nor heard of ever before" (adrishTa- asrutha

poorvathvAth sA na upEyAya sankhithA).

 

The word 'sankhithA' is very significant. It means she was indeed afraid and

was doubtful whether to approach the Lord.

 

While vEdanta avers that they are inseparable in terms of "AgalakillEn

enru.." etc.

and "thinaithaLavum viDA Aravinda lOchananai" etc., in the drama they enact

they have to portray sentiments (bhAvas) appropriate to their dramatis

personae.

 

Incidentally, the word "Personality" is derived from "per sona" -- per (like)

and sona (sound)" which means "sound like the one whom one portrays".

 

This does not detract from their inseparability.

 

If it were not a drama, why should Sri Sita be abducted and why should Rama

bewail to every tree, river , etc., asking whether they had seen Sita. If it

were not a drama with a purpose to show us how human beings would and how

they should react under similar circumstances -- the very purpose and meaning

of the "SitAyA's Charitham mahath" would be lost!

 

Similarly, even if ThayAr had "acted" as if she was also afraid to approach

Lord Nrisimha, it only fits very well in "her role in the drama" of this

AvatAra and is proof of Her extraordinary talents even in "acting"!

 

Hope this clarifies.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy