Odious Comparison

[Guest guest]

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

 

 

 

Odious Comparison

 

 

What do we do, when we want to describe to our child something, which

he has not come across so far?

 

Let's say he has not seen elephants and we want to provide him a verbal picture

of the pachyderm. We give him a vivid description of how the elephant looks like

a moving hillock, how its four legs resemble solid pillars, how bead-like its

eyes are, how soft and rubber-like its long trunk is and so on. This gives the

child a fairly good idea of what an elephant looks like.

 

 

 

In other words, we employ a simile or a series of similes to describe what we

know to a person who doesn't know. Thus similes or " upamA " serve to picturise

the unknown, with reference to the known.

 

 

 

Apart from the prosaic purpose of enabling comprehension of a concept, similes

also serve as adornments or embellishments in poetry. Poets make liberal use of

similes to enhance the impressiveness of the subject. Mahakavi KAlidAsA was a

facile handler of similes, so much so that the very term simile brings him to

our mind ( " UpamA KAlidAsasya " ). However, whoever coined this tribute might not

have been a student of Srimad Ramayana or Swami Desikan's works, as both these

great poets were adept at employing upamAs. We come across hundreds of similes

employed by Sri Valmiki to telling effect throughout the epic. Here is a

beautiful specimen:

 

 

 

Sri Hanuman stands on the Mahendra parvatam, bracing his huge feet against the

hill and pushing down to give him the requisite momentum for the spring into the

air, for crossing the ocean to Lanka. And when he does launch into his long

flight, the pressure/vacuum created in his wake is so intense that several trees

are uprooted from the hillside and, propelled by the momentum, follow the VAnara

veera for some distance, before falling into the ocean. This, Sri Valmiki says,

was like hosts accompanying visiting relatives for some distance, while seeing

them off.

 

 

 

Similes may be employed for describing worldly things, but what upamAnam could

possibly be used for describing the Paramapurusha? It is indeed paradoxical that

similes are available for enabling comprehension of easily understandable

earthly things, but not for telling us how the Divine Being looks, who is beyond

the grasp of human faculties. Thus where we need them the most, similes fail us.

According to the " alankAra shAstra " , the entity cited as an example (upamAnam)

should be superior to that which is being compared (upamEyam). Thus, when we say

that an elephant resembles a hillock, the hillock is definitely superior in size

to the elephant. Applying this standard, we find absolutely nothing that can be

cited as a simile, as far as the Lord is concerned.

 

 

 

Notwithstanding this difficulty, Azhwars, Acharyas and the VEda Purusha use

upamAnams freely to describe the Lord. We find them addressing Emperuman as

" Kadal VaNnan " (one whose colour is that of the sea), " kovvai chevvAi " (one

whose lips are red as the kOvai fruit), " KAyA malar vaNNan " (one whose colour

resembles that of the kAyAm poo), " MEghashyAmam " (one whose complexion is that of

the rain-bearing cloud), " ThingaLum Adityanum ezhundArpOl amkaN irandum " (one

whose eyes resemble the Sun and the Moon), " Pacchai mA malai pOl mEni " ( a huge

torso resembling a green hill) " PavaLa vAi " ( lips red as the coral), " Kamala

chengaN " (lotus-like eyes)< " tasya yatA kapyAsam pundarIkamEva akshiNI " (His eyes

resemble a lotus in full bloom), " nayanAbdi sEthu: " (the nose resembles a

check-dam for the eyes overflowing with mercy), " Kamala padam " (feet resembling

the lotus), etc.

 

 

 

Azhwars are fully aware that there is nothing in this world that can be held out

as an adequate simile, while describing the Lord. He is the matchless

Paramapurusha, the likes of whom the world has never seen or is likely to see

too. While everything in this world is made of mundane matter, characterized by

a mixture of Sattva, Rajas and Thamas, the Lord is the personification of Suddha

Satthva, the embodiment of Divine Purity, beauty, delicacy, virility and

countless other auspicious attributes. There is thus absolutely nothing we can

compare Him with. There is nothing in this world, by understanding which we can

comprehend Him.

 

 

 

If this were so, we might ask, " Why then go to the trouble of offering a simile

at all, if nothing could be found which reflects His stature adequately? "

 

 

 

Azhwars, blessed with wonderful wisdom ( " mayarvara madi nalam " ) to comprehend

and fully appreciate the Divine nature and attributes, are in the position of a

mature adult, who is conceptually clear about a particular thing, with the

compulsion of clarifying the same to the ignorant infant. They are hard-put to

describe the Paramapurusha and His magnificence, finding words terribly

inadequate to convey what they see and feel. The sublimity of spiritual

experience has to be felt and no amount of description can give the listener a

true view of what is involved. Sugar has to be tasted for finding out what

sweetness is, and no verbal or written account can reflect the particular taste,

to a person who is unaware of it.

 

 

 

However, Azhwars' experience is so enthralling that they cannot remain without

sharing it with their blighted brethren. Their bliss is so uncontainable that

they have to tell somebody. And their mercy for those caught in the vicious

cycle of samsara is so overwhelming that they cannot remain without attempting

to redeem errant humanity with an account of what they are missing. Having

experienced both ephemeral delights and eternal bliss, Azhwars are keen that the

blundering human beings renounce the former in favour of the latter type of

Anandam.

 

 

 

It is this fervent wish to share their bliss with us that makes Azhwars resort

to similes, however inadequate, to describe to us the tirumEni and Atma guNAs of

the Lord. However, once they employ these upamAnams, the realisation strikes

them that comparison with such mundane things does gross injustice to the Lord,

and they are struck by remorse at this perceived apachAram.

 

 

 

For instance, Sri Nammazhwar likens the Lord's feet to a lotus at innumerable

places in Tiruvaimozhi. Further, the brilliance of the Lord's tirumEni is also

compared to the luminescence of pure gold by not only Sri Nammazhwar, but by

others too-( " ANi sempon mEni endAi " , " Pon mEni kaNdEn " ,

" HiraNmaya:Purusha: " , " RukmAbham svapna dhee gamyam " etc.).

 

 

 

However, having made the comparison, Sri Nammazhwar realises that a mere mundane

bloom can never equal the beauty, softness, delicacy, reddishness and

exquisiteness of the Lord's tiruvadi. The flower can never presume to serve as

an example of even one single aspect of the tiruvadi, and such a comparison can

only serve to undermine its glory. Nor can the yellow metal ever equal the

splendour and radiance of the Lord's tirumEni, which exceeds by far the combined

brilliance of a thousand Suns shining simultaneously. The shine of gold would

pale into insignificance before the Lord's incandescence, as a mere oil lamp

before sunlight. The ineffectual nature of such comparisons is brought out by

the following Tiruvaimozhi pasuram-

 

 

 

" Katturaikkil TAmarai nin kaN pAdam kai ovvA

 

Sutturaittha nan pon un tirumEni oLi ovvAdu

 

Otturaitthu ivvulagu unnai pugazhvellAm perumpAlum

 

PatturaiyAi purkkendrE kAttumAl ParanjOtI! " .

 

 

 

The limited beauty and brilliance of lotus and gold respectively are no match

for the limitless natural splendour and magnificence of the Lord, and any resort

to such similes would only end up showing the Lord in poor light, says Sri

Nammazhwar.

 

 

 

There is another aspect to the usage of similes by Azhwars. Whenever they find

some exquisite aspect of Creation, like a lotus in full bloom, the Sun blazing

in all his splendour, the green meadow with early-morning dew topping the blades

of grass, reefs of coral under the sea blazing red, beautiful ornaments of gold

and silver blinding the eye with their brilliance, etc., Azhwars are reminded

immediately of some aspect of the Lord's divya mangaLa vigraham or divine

attribute. These may not reflect the Lord's glory in its entirety, but serve as

reminders, however insignificant, of His matchless magnificence. When a child

asks us, " How big are the Himalayas? " , we are indeed at a loss for something

with which the loftiness, length and breadth of the magnificent peaks can be

compared, and end up telling the child lamely, " Look at the four -storeyed house

opposite. The Himalayas are a thousand times as tall. " .

 

Though this description may not do justice to the Himalayas, it would serve to

give the child some impression of the real thing. Most of the similes used for

describing the Lord are similar, and serve to give us only an inkling of His

real nature and stature.

 

 

 

When the versatile VEda Purusha himself is reported to be at a loss for words to

describe even a single glorious attribute of Emperuman and returns vanquished in

his endeavour ( " YatO vAchO nivartantE, aprApya manasA saha " ), what can such poor

similes do to project any aspect of the Lord's perfect physique or magnificent

nature?

 

 

 

It is perhaps with this in view that the adage " Comparison is odious " was

coined.

 

 

 

Srimate Sri LakshmINrsimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana

Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

Dasan, sadagopan