Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Sri Guna Rathna Kosam : Part 47: slOkam 36

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Dear BhakthAs:

 

In the 36th SlOkam , Swamy Parasara Bhattar wrestles

with the futility of comparing the aprAkrutha ThirumEni

of Sri RanganAyaki with prakruthic material objects of

the world like Moon , Lotus et al. He concludes that

nothing in this world or nobody here could come anywhere

near the matchless beauty of Sri RanganAyaki's ThirumEni.

The 36th slOkam containing these thoughts takes this form :

 

angam tE mrudhu-seetha mugdha madhurOdhArai:guNai: gumbatha:

KshIrAbdhE kimrujIshathAm upagathA: manyE mahArgAstatha:

Indhu: KalpalathA sudhA-madhumukhA ithyAvilAm varNanam

SrirangEswari! saantha kruthrimakaTam dhivyam vapu: nArhathi

 

(Meaning according to Dr.V.N.VedAnthadEsikan):

***********************************************

It is permissible to visualize the birth of Sree RanganAyaki

from the churning of the milky ocean at a particular point of

time in the history of events. Oh Goddess! I recall that along

with You , arose the Moon ,the nectar , the spiritous liquor ,

the Kalpaka creeper, etc.

 

Now it appears that You assimilated the essence of gentle

nature and coolness from the Moon , the sweetness and

immortality-conferment from the nectar , the intoxicatig

trait from the liquor , the liberal bounteousness from

the Kalpaka creeper , etc., --leaving them all behind

with famished husk-like bereftness.

 

What we now portrayed would amount to saying that

the Moon and the like have all lent away their essential

virtue to make You up. Very good imaginative picturization

indeed , but WRONG! Am I to assume , even for a moment ,

that You are artifically built up from material principles

drawn from the Moon and the nectar and the like? No, No!

You are non-material , non-made; non-physical; You are

absolutely Supreme Goddess, NON-PAREIL and SRI GENERIS.

We are not justified in reducing You to a simple material

object made of this and that of this world , even for

purposes of illustration .

 

Additional Comments:

********************

Bhattar points out that the kalpanais of poets

that She is soft and cool like the Moon , Sweet

and life-giving like amrutham , intoxicating like Madhu

(liquor) , geneorous boon giving nature like the KalpakA

creeper are off the mark. If the well-meant intent is

to suggest that Sri RanganAyaki is the essence of all

of the above prAkruthic material ,this uthprEkshai

(similie/comparison) is not correct. Besides, it is

a confused vision . Why? The dhivya MangaLa vigraham of

Sri RanganAyaki(MahA Lakshmi) is not made up of portions

of physical entities at all . Her incomparable beauty of

limbs and samudhAya Soundharyam arises from

Suddha satthva material of AprAkrutha origin. Therefore ,

it is incorrect to compare Her beauty to the objects of this

world .

 

Sri Vatsya VeerarAghavAchAryA's VasurAsi commentary

explains this inaccuracy in comparison beautifully:

" --dhivyam aprAkrutham vapu: vigraha: na arhathi

na uchitham bhavathi. akruthrimasya Lakshmi Vigrahasya

krithrima vasthu saarathva uthprEkshaNam ayuktham

ithi bhAva:".

 

Praakrutham means the original source of the material

world of three essential qualities, sathva, Rajas

and Tamas (the ThriguNAs). AprAkrutham means

outside the three guNAs, Suddha Sathva Svaroopam.

Prakrutham also refers to the five elements ( pancha

bhoothams like pruthvI, Appu, Tejas, Vaayu and AkAsam)

that constitute the entities of the world. AprAkrutham

is outside the reach of the pancha Bhoothams.

 

MahA Lakshmi's dhivya MangaLa Vigraham ( divine auspicious

ThirumEni) is made up of aprAkrutha tatthvam. Therefore,

it is neither appropriate or effective to compare Her

Soundharyam through prAkruthic references (na arhathi

na uchitham bhavathi). MahA Lakshmi's vigraham (divine

body ) is akruthrimam ( not artificial or fictitious ).

By taking artificial or prakruthic entities and squeezing

the essence of them to make the akruthrima dhivya managaLa

Vigraham of MahA Lakshmi is a totally erroneous approach

according to Swamy ParAsara Bhattar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...