Digest of Paramacharya's Discourses on Soundaryalahari (DPDS-19)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

FOR NEW READERS of this series, it may be worthwhile to go back

to the Introduction about the objective of this Digest and the

Note on the Organization (both at advaitin Message No.18425;

message no.5273; advaita-L message No.14046;

Sadhana_shakti message no.334).

Let us recall that the entire contents of the Digest are from

the Paramacharya’s ideas and words, including the first person

reference to himself, except for my English rendering. Wherever

he uses specific English words himself, I have drawn the

attention of the reader to that fact. Recall particularly that

‘our Acharya’ or ‘The Acharya’ in the discourses, means ‘Adi

Sankaracharya’.

V. Krishnamurthy

 

A Digest of Paramacharya’s Discourses on Soundaryalahari - 19

(Digest of pp.824-831 of Deivathin Kural Vol.6, 4th imprn)

 

The Goddess LalitA-Tripurasundari, as affirmed in this sloka.

does not have the ‘vara-abhaya’ hands, (vara = boon; abhaya =

fearlessness). She has the sugarcane-bow and the arrow of

flowers in those two hands. Note however, the Acharya himself

says in Sloka 70 that She has all Her four hands indicative of

abhaya and vara.

 

Let us not make the mistake of thinking that this sloka means

that all other deity-forms have the ‘vara-abhaya’ hands. There

are several without these hands. Think of Vighneshvara (Lord

Ganesha, the elephant-headed deity) whom we see at every nook

and corner (in India). What about the figure of the dancing

Nataraja? He has only the ‘abhaya’ hand but no boon-giving hand.

Minakshi of Madurai does not have these two hands.

 

The Vishnu deity (of almost all temples) Himself, though He has

four hands – with conch, disc, mace and lotus --, has no

‘vara-abhaya’ hands. Varada-rAja – the name meaning ‘the king of

boon-giving deities’ -- in Kanchipuram, inspite of His name,

does not have the ‘vara’ hand; He has the mace in that hand !

Maha-lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth, almost invariably, has the

vara-abhaya hands. But the Goddess of Learning, Sarasvati, does

not have either.

 

Durga, most of the times, has an ‘abhaya’ by the right hand,

while the corresponding left hand is on the thigh – this

situation being called ‘Uru-hastam’ . Some of the Subrahmanya

deity-forms have the same configuration. Balaji of Tirupati has

the vara-mudrA in the right hand, while His left hand is an

‘Uru-hastam’. Thus the statement of this sloka “Other than You,

all other deities show the ‘vara-abhaya’ mudrA by their hands”

is to be considered a poetic exaggeration only.

 

(At this point the Paramacharya begins

an elaborate introduction to slokas 5 and 6,

thereby dwelling on the topic:

“Is it legitimate for God to bless one ‘to desire’ ?´ -VK)

 

So far in the first three slokas the stotra does not say

specifically which deity is being praised. Even in the fourth

sloka there is just a clue that the deity is without the

‘vara-abhaya’ hands. How many hands there are, or what are in

those hands? – these questions are left open. In the next two

slokas, the clue is given (sloka 5) that it is that deity that

prodded a desire in mahA-vishNu to take the form of ‘mohini’ and

create sensual impulses even in Lord Shiva and it is also the

same deity (sloka 6) which gave even to the God of Love

(manmatha) the power to disturb even the minds of great sages

and saints. And thus we get the idea that the deity of this

stotra could be the Kameshvari that we spoke of, in the

beginning when we discussed the original ‘Desire’ that sprouted

out in brahman itself ‘to express Itself’.

(See DPDS -9 and 10. VK)

 

The major purpose of bhakti is to quell all desires and get

attracted to that Infinite source of Bliss. While that is so,

how is it legitimate for a bhakti-stotra to praise that very

deity as One who encouraged and manouvred the powers that be, to

fall in Love? In spite of our reverence to the Acharya, we have

to raise this question sometimes. The world-view has to

disappear in order for Divine Enlightenment to appear; but here

the deity is praised for having engineered the creation of that

world ! Knowledge arises only after all ‘kAma’ (Desire) has been

eradicated; but here She is glorified as having been that very

Power who gave the power to the God of ‘Desire’ for generating

Desire. Does it mean, then, that ‘Desire’ itself is Divine

Grace?

 

It all means that opposite forces have to exist. We have to

contend with both. If there were no enemy, internally, to

struggle against, life could be totally without any challenges

and therefore uninteresting. If everything was going smoothly,

then we would not even recognize ‘good’ as ‘good’. The

cross-currents of conflicting powers exist for the purpose of

proving to us that ‘good’ will survive and surface at the end.

The ‘desire’ in brahman resulted in the creation of the

universe. The ‘desire’ in the living results in the world of the

living growing up.

 

Note another interesting marvel. What we consider as ‘good’ has

something ‘bad’ in it and vice versa. To understand this

subtlety of Creation and carry on our struggle in this drama of

the world is the art of living in fullness. Desire (kAma) and

Anger (krodha) are wrong; but this is only a generalised

statement. Looked into deeply, even they have ‘good’ in them.

There should be a ‘desire’ for ‘good’ and ‘anger’ against

‘bad’. In fact it is not only not wrong, but essential. In the

same way, what appears to be ‘good’ will have ‘bad’ hidden in

it.

 

On top of this all there are two important things to note. One

is the Lord’s shower of Grace; and the other is our surrender to

Him. Both are products of Creation; without the existence of

evil and the necessity to fight it, Grace and Surrender have no

meaning. On His side, the highest He does is ‘Grace’ or

Anugraha. On our side, the highest we can do is ‘Surrender’. TO

ACCEPT THAT WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT TO SURRENDER TO HIM IS

THE APEX OF ALL THAT WE CAN DO ! You will know it when you do

it !

(Note: Emphasis mine – VK)

 

(To be continued)

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Is there any mention in our scriptures (Hindu, Jain, or Buddhist) of a

description of the Goddess appearing fully naked before a devotee with

nothing in her hands and wearing no ornaments either.

 

Will appreciate any sources that the learned members are aware of.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

V. Krishnamurthy wrote:

>Namaste.

>FOR NEW READERS of this series, it may be worthwhile to go back

>to the Introduction about the objective of this Digest and the

>Note on the Organization (both at advaitin Message No.18425;

> message no.5273; advaita-L message No.14046;

>Sadhana_shakti message no.334).

>Let us recall that the entire contents of the Digest are from

>the Paramacharya's ideas and words, including the first person

>reference to himself, except for my English rendering. Wherever

>he uses specific English words himself, I have drawn the

>attention of the reader to that fact. Recall particularly that

>'our Acharya' or 'The Acharya' in the discourses, means 'Adi

>Sankaracharya'.

>V. Krishnamurthy

>

>A Digest of Paramacharya's Discourses on Soundaryalahari - 19

>(Digest of pp.824-831 of Deivathin Kural Vol.6, 4th imprn)

>

>The Goddess LalitA-Tripurasundari, as affirmed in this sloka.

>does not have the 'vara-abhaya' hands, (vara = boon; abhaya =

>fearlessness). She has the sugarcane-bow and the arrow of

>flowers in those two hands. Note however, the Acharya himself

>says in Sloka 70 that She has all Her four hands indicative of

>abhaya and vara.

>

>Let us not make the mistake of thinking that this sloka means

>that all other deity-forms have the 'vara-abhaya' hands. There

>are several without these hands. Think of Vighneshvara (Lord

>Ganesha, the elephant-headed deity) whom we see at every nook

>and corner (in India). What about the figure of the dancing

>Nataraja? He has only the 'abhaya' hand but no boon-giving hand.

>Minakshi of Madurai does not have these two hands.

>

>The Vishnu deity (of almost all temples) Himself, though He has

>four hands - with conch, disc, mace and lotus --, has no

>'vara-abhaya' hands. Varada-rAja - the name meaning 'the king of

>boon-giving deities' -- in Kanchipuram, inspite of His name,

>does not have the 'vara' hand; He has the mace in that hand !

>Maha-lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth, almost invariably, has the

>vara-abhaya hands. But the Goddess of Learning, Sarasvati, does

>not have either.

>

>Durga, most of the times, has an 'abhaya' by the right hand,

>while the corresponding left hand is on the thigh - this

>situation being called 'Uru-hastam' . Some of the Subrahmanya

>deity-forms have the same configuration. Balaji of Tirupati has

>the vara-mudrA in the right hand, while His left hand is an

>'Uru-hastam'. Thus the statement of this sloka "Other than You,

>all other deities show the 'vara-abhaya' mudrA by their hands"

>is to be considered a poetic exaggeration only.

>

>(At this point the Paramacharya begins

> an elaborate introduction to slokas 5 and 6,

>thereby dwelling on the topic:

>"Is it legitimate for God to bless one 'to desire' ?´ -VK)

>

>So far in the first three slokas the stotra does not say

>specifically which deity is being praised. Even in the fourth

>sloka there is just a clue that the deity is without the

>'vara-abhaya' hands. How many hands there are, or what are in

>those hands? - these questions are left open. In the next two

>slokas, the clue is given (sloka 5) that it is that deity that

>prodded a desire in mahA-vishNu to take the form of 'mohini' and

>create sensual impulses even in Lord Shiva and it is also the

>same deity (sloka 6) which gave even to the God of Love

>(manmatha) the power to disturb even the minds of great sages

>and saints. And thus we get the idea that the deity of this

>stotra could be the Kameshvari that we spoke of, in the

>beginning when we discussed the original 'Desire' that sprouted

>out in brahman itself 'to express Itself'.

>(See DPDS -9 and 10. VK)

>

>The major purpose of bhakti is to quell all desires and get

>attracted to that Infinite source of Bliss. While that is so,

>how is it legitimate for a bhakti-stotra to praise that very

>deity as One who encouraged and manouvred the powers that be, to

>fall in Love? In spite of our reverence to the Acharya, we have

>to raise this question sometimes. The world-view has to

>disappear in order for Divine Enlightenment to appear; but here

>the deity is praised for having engineered the creation of that

>world ! Knowledge arises only after all 'kAma' (Desire) has been

>eradicated; but here She is glorified as having been that very

>Power who gave the power to the God of 'Desire' for generating

>Desire. Does it mean, then, that 'Desire' itself is Divine

>Grace?

>

>It all means that opposite forces have to exist. We have to

>contend with both. If there were no enemy, internally, to

>struggle against, life could be totally without any challenges

>and therefore uninteresting. If everything was going smoothly,

>then we would not even recognize 'good' as 'good'. The

>cross-currents of conflicting powers exist for the purpose of

>proving to us that 'good' will survive and surface at the end.

>The 'desire' in brahman resulted in the creation of the

>universe. The 'desire' in the living results in the world of the

>living growing up.

>

>Note another interesting marvel. What we consider as 'good' has

>something 'bad' in it and vice versa. To understand this

>subtlety of Creation and carry on our struggle in this drama of

>the world is the art of living in fullness. Desire (kAma) and

>Anger (krodha) are wrong; but this is only a generalised

>statement. Looked into deeply, even they have 'good' in them.

>There should be a 'desire' for 'good' and 'anger' against

>'bad'. In fact it is not only not wrong, but essential. In the

>same way, what appears to be 'good' will have 'bad' hidden in

>it.

>

> On top of this all there are two important things to note. One

>is the Lord's shower of Grace; and the other is our surrender to

>Him. Both are products of Creation; without the existence of

>evil and the necessity to fight it, Grace and Surrender have no

>meaning. On His side, the highest He does is 'Grace' or

>Anugraha. On our side, the highest we can do is 'Surrender'. TO

>ACCEPT THAT WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT TO SURRENDER TO HIM IS

>THE APEX OF ALL THAT WE CAN DO ! You will know it when you do

>it !

>(Note: Emphasis mine - VK)

>

>(To be continued)

>

>

>

>

>