the youthful goddess of renunciation

[Guest guest]

> "Srila Sanatana Gosvami, the elder brother of Srila Rupa Gosvami, was a

> most important minister in the government of Hussain Shah, the ruler of

> Bengal, and he was considered a most brilliant gem in that assembly. He

> possessed all the opulences of a royal position, but he gave up everything

> just to accept the youthful goddess of renunciation. Although he

> externally appeared to be a mendicant who had renounced everything, he was

> filled with the pleasure of devotional service within his heart. Thus he

> can be compared to a deep lake covered with moss. He was the object of

> pleasure for all the devotees who knew the science of devotional service.

> PURPORT

> This and the following two verses are from Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka

> (9.34, 35, 38).

>

> >>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 24.348

>

>

> Why is here renunciation called the youthful goddess?

 

Kavikarnapura is an excellent poet and his verses do not only express things

in clear and vibrant images but are also full of subtle word plays on

various levels. In this case his choice of words brings out the greatness of

Sanatana Gosvami's renunciation.

 

In the first line KK describes that Sanatana Gosvami gave up royal opulence

'tyaktv€ ya ddh€ˆ riyam.' But in the next line he says that Sanatana

Gosvami accepted the fresh opulence of renunciation 'taruŠ…ˆ

vair€gya-lakm…ˆ dadhe.'

 

The words 'lakm…' and 'r…' are synonyms. KK employs a word play by telling

the reader "after having given up Laksmi he accepted a new Laksmi." This is

of course the exact opposite of what one would expect of a renunciant. Such

poetic devices get one to think of what the poet wants to say. In this case

he probably wanted to point out that Sri for a materialist, and Sri for a

renunciant are entirely different things. On top of that he plays with the

implied image of Sri or Laksmi as a woman, and in this way he shows that

this is what counts for the mundaners, in contrast to Sanatana Gosvami who

left behind a world of worrying whether accepting more wealth or accepting a

young woman ('tarunim laksmim dadhe' can also mean 'he married a young girl

named Laksmi') would enhance his life.

 

Consider the context in which this verse appears. Kavikarnapura's

Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka is a theatre play. This verse is spoken by a

messenger (v€rtt€h€raƒ) to King Prataparudra. A poet like KK would of course

pay attention to have his dramatis personae use language and imagery that

fits the occasion. In this case 'royal opulence' and 'accepting a young

girl', are things that belong to the daily life of a king. By this choice of

words the king on the stage (and the audience) are sure to become

thoughtful, amused, and enlightened at the same time.

 

The idea that renunciation IS Laksmi, is directly expressed in the

Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.6 by: nikiñcan€n€ˆ npa yad dhanaˆ viduƒ.

"It (tapas) is what they know to be the opulence of those who have nothing."

 

And finally, by using this particular imagery KK may get the reader or

listener to confront his own emotions. This does of course work better for a

Sanskrit speaking audience, but even in a translation some of the wonder and

astonishment that the poet wanted to create comes through.

 

The proof that Kavikarnapura didn't fail is the fact that this question came

up!

 

It used to be one of my favorite verses by Kavikarnapura in the CC.

 

ys end