krishna and aazhvaar 7

[Guest guest]

Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer,

 

 

 

I continue with the second half of my doubt in this post.

 

 

 

1.

Previously we have seen how sukhar has not spelt the krishNa avathaaram details like how vaalmeeki did in raamaayaNam.

 

 

 

May be somebody will come out with a supportive argument stating kamsan should not come to know of these details, so that he will take action in trying to destroy the 8th child of dhEvaki.

 

 

 

2.

But one thing is to be kept in mind while placing the above supportive point -- for sukhar is saying these to king pareekshith - these details about krishNa's history - and by that time all – including Krishna - have gone back to their respective lOkam.

 

Kunthi, dhrutharaashtra, gaandhaari gone – re canto 1

 

krishna also disappeared – re canto 1.

 

In canto 3 vidhura and udhdhava converse on disappearance of Krishna etc.

 

So that argument of - kamsan coming to know - cannot hold much water.

 

 

 

3.

Now comes my second half of doubt.

 

When such is the case, how come peiyaazhvaar say in verse 1-1-3 -- who has followed sukhar in verse 1 and 2 -- suddenly deviates to say he is 'thiruvONaththaan' – one who is born in 'sravaNa nakshathram'.

 

 

 

pENich cheerudaip piLLai piRandhinil

 

kaaNaththaam puguvaar pukkup pOdhuvaar

 

aaN oppaar ivan nEr illai kaaN – thiru

 

voNaththaanulagu aaLum enbaargaLE

 

 

 

On this thiruvONaththaan – one who is born in thiruvONam nakshathram – PVP says – thiruvONaththaan = sarvEswaranudaiya.

 

-- thiruvOnaththaan aana sarvEswaranudaiya ulagai ellaam aaLum enbaarumaai – in the detailed paragraph of comments.

 

 

 

May be another may put forward an argument – no, no, aazhvaar does not say he is born on thiruvOnam day – this child is like that thiruvONaththaan – sarveswaran - will rule entire world. Then what is his birth nakshathram- as detailed by aazhvaar.

 

 

 

 

Again see in verse 1-2-6

 

 

 

maththak kaLiRRu vasudhEvar thammudai

 

siththam piriyaadha dhEvaki than vayiRRil

 

aththaththin paththaa naaL thOnRiya achchuthan

 

muththam irunthavaa kaaNeerE mugizh nagaiyeer vandhu kaaNeerE.

 

 

 

This 'aththam' – 'hastham' in Sanskrit – adhan paththaam naaL – is 'thiruvONam' – so aththaththin paththaa naaL is thiruvONam – so annaaLil thOnRiya achchuthan.

 

PVP says 'hastha nakshaththiraththirku paththaavadhaana thirunaaLilE' – so it is thiruvOnam. Then where from this rOhiNi came?

 

 

I now welcome bhagavathaas to comment on the above.

 

 

Dhasan

 

Vasudevan m.g.-- Vasudevan MG