• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Paramacharya bhAShyAmRutam

Not open for further replies.


Active member
from the madhurASTakam
composer:... Vallabhacharya
book:..... Sollin Selvar Sri Kanchi Munivar (Tamil) (pages 1-20)
author:..... Raa. Ganapathi
publisher:.. Divya Vidhya Trust

Everything about Him is only madhuraM!

The place where he was born is Mathura. Not the Madura(i) of our Pandya Desam. Here (in Madurai) also is AmbaL in madhura mayam. sangItam was born only from her... Yes. She is the devata known as Matangi and Shyamala. Meenakshi's sangItam itself would be madhuraM (right)? This is south Madura(i).

What I referred to was what we call Vada Madurai. In the Yamuna tIram of U.P. For whatever reason, they call it Mathura instead of Madhura. If Telegu people make 'tha' into 'dha', here the North Indian people have made 'dha' into 'tha'. The White-men have made it Muttara. Bhagavan took avatar only there. Avatara in jail! He who has the great honour as parama padanathan taking birth in a jail is because of his madhuraM; the guna mAdhuryam of doing uttAraNaM to the people by taking avatar and living amongst them. That madhura gunam has the name parama kRupA; referred to as parangkaruNai (in Tamil). Since he was born in Mathura, AndaL has sung 'vada madurai maindhane' (you the son of north Mathura).

Immediately after he was born there, appAkkArar (his father) Vasudeva(r), took the child away from there and left it in Gokulam. Mathura is on the western bank of Yamuna. Gokulam, Brindavan(am) are all on the eastern bank. Wading in the waters, Vasudeva crossed the river, left the child near Yasoda, took the female child that had just born to her and went back to the jail.

Everything here is full of thievery! (Paramacharya laughed loudly).

There he came out of the jail stealthily without the guards knowing it. Not only that. Here in Gokulam too, the one who gave birth and all the other people around never knew that the one that was born was a female child and that Vasudeva had left a male child in its place. Here too he came stealthily, finished his work and went back in stealth.

kRSNa means all theft; he stole the butter, he also stole the mind --navanIta chora, citta chora -- we say. If you ask how did he get the buddhi to steal, it seems that it came to him as piturArjitam from the theft that his father committed immediately after he was born.

But then it is not proper to think that way. I just made fun. Vasudeva, poor man, was sAdhu. He never knew even a little of thievery or disloyalty. Only the child made him commit the theft! When it was born the guards passed out, which was how he escaped from the jail. The jail locks also opened of their own accord! In the same way, since everyone was asleep in Gokulam also, he was able to complete his work with ease and comfort. Did that appAvi manushya do all these things? He who came as his son, that appan, only he did all these things out of the power of his maya! It is this that AndaL has referred to with veiled beauty, in a way that tells more than it (actually) says, beginning with the term 'mAyanai' and continuing with 'vada Madurai maindhanai'; as mAyanai mannu vada Madurai maindhanai. If you ask what is that 'mannu', it means 'established and renowned for a very long time'. There is also a pAsuram 'mannu pugazh kosalaitan manivayiru vAitthavane!' (he who was born of the jewel of a womb of the renowned Kausalya). That was sung by Kulasekhara Perumal on Sri Ramachandra Murthy.

In this song of AndaL too there is a mention about kRSNa Paramatma's mother, as 'thAyaik kudal viLakkam seitha dAmodara'. It means that by residing in his mother's womb, he gave it all purity and brightness; the words have fallen in very beautifully. Before that she says 'Ayar kulatthinil thondrum aNiviLakke'. yatukula dIpam, it is said. Not just ordinary dIpam, but alaMkAra dIpam, 'aNiviLakku'. In that way, himself remaining as a light, he purified his mother's womb.

kacmalam, that is dirt, filth--the illiterates also use the word kasumAlam; we call the oil that cleans up all the filth in the stomach, viLakkeNNai. Not the oil applied to the lamp, but the oil that cleans up and purifies the stomach. This is external filth. The reference 'thAyaik kudal viLakkam' is to her inner filth that the Swami removed by residing in her womb and giving the light of jnana. Devaki by her very nature is pure. Which is why Swami resided in her jaTaram. By that act he made her purer than she already was.

Without referring to him as her son, the janma kSetra has been glorified in the beginning of the song as vada Madurai maindhan. It is customary to say that the mother who gave the janma and the janmabhUmi are greater than even the heavens. janani janma bhUmiccha svargAdapi garIyasi. Here, the reference is first to the mother and then the motherland, which could also be the place of birth. But AndaL first refers to the place and then only the mother! This is because that Mathura has such greatness! The greatness is that, it is that kSetra where the birthless Swami took birth, which serves as the mokSapuri that grants janma vimocanam to us who are repeatedly born in a mother's womb as the saying punarabi janani jatare sayanam goes. Of the seven sapta mokSapuris, the first is the Rama-born Ayodhya. The second is this kRSNa-born Vada Mathura.

In addition, what seems to me as the principal reason is that the very name of the place was the svabhAva of Swami! What is 'kRSNa'? Nothing but madhuraM! The sweetness of sweetnesses, he is such sweetness!

One thing special about that mAdhuryam is that even though he did several things that were to the external sight not sweet, they too are pickled sweetly in the hearts of his devotees! Not great devotees like AndaL, Suka, Lila Suka, Meera! Even for those like us who have somewhat a little bhakti, whatever that kRSNa does is only madhura! 'I have that mAdhuryam; therefore I will do whatever that is improper, deceitful, thievery or disloyal'--as if saying this, he had been doing all such things all through his life.

If you ask how can it be that with him even amadhuraM becomes madhuraM: suppose there are many dolls made of sugar; and suppose that some of these dolls are in such froms as a chilli, bitter gourd, and a lump of salt, appearing natural with suitable colours given. In that case, even the chilli, bitter gourd and salt lump would be sweet because the appearances are only external (right)? Everything inside is nothing but that suger which is sweet. It is the same with kRSNa.

There are books in Tamil, among the nIthi nUlkaL (books of moral instructions), with forty verses each, bearing the names iniyavai nArpadu, innA nArpadu. innA is that which gives harm. iniyavai are those that are good. These two books are there to teach the good and bad. With kRSNa paramatma, however, all that is connected with him are only iniyavai (sweet and good). It can be sung on him as 'iniyavai anantam'! Only with that conviction he did several things in that avatar that can be termed innathavai (not good and sweet)! All that innA is only for the external appearance; inside (him) even all those are sweetness!

inimai is the equivalent Tamil for madhuraM. Colloquially, we use the term thitthippu; the literary word is inimai. Some words are distinctively beautiful in Tamil. In those words, the sound is set to match the meaning. inimai is one such word. Of the three letters that occur in the word, every letter is soft, none being harsh.

They term madhuraM is 'sweet' in English. Although the beginning with 'swee' is soft, the 't' sits at the end in the form of a 'takara' as a harsh sound. As somebody said jocularly, when the line 'kuzhalinithu, yazhinithu', which sounds sweet and soft in speech, is translated as 'flute sweet, lute sweet' with the lottu, lottu sound... (without finishing the sentence, Paramacharya gracefully gestures and closes his ears with his palms!)

Even in Sanskrit, when we say madhuraM that 'dhu' sounds a bit harsh. There is another, softer word svAdu. The 'du' here is not the hard 'dhu' that occurs in madhuraM, but a softer 'du'.

The English (term) 'sweet' came only from svAdu, changing the lighter 'du' into a harder 't'.

There are many words in English that are beautiful. With distinctions of sound and meaning, and with different words to indictate subtle variations of a common thing or object, that language also has a lot to talk about. As dRSTAnta, to take the word pani (ice): if the wet leakage of 'moisure' becomes a chill drop of water, it becomes 'dew'; if it is misty, it is 'fog'; and then the 'smog' that is the mixture of 'smoke' and 'fog'! If the dew drop solidifies it is 'frost'; if it freezes from previously being water, it is 'ice'; if the steam becomes ice straight from the atmosphere, it is 'snow'. If that steam condenses and while falling as rain hardens, (we call it Alangatti) it is 'hail'. Like these, there are many words that indicate the many shades of the same thing. What we say with a single word uNarcchi, they classify into two as 'felling' and 'emotion'.

Except that in the discussion of madhuraM as sweetness, the speech digressed a little and I said something amadhuraM, I did not proceed to make comparisons of the greatness or smallness of any language.

(After smiling to himself thinking of something, Paramacharya continues.) Now I tried to pacify something, feeling a bit apologetic, is it not? kRSNa would have done no such thing. There are no two classifications of right and not right in his deeds. Those words would never reach his dictionary! All that he does is madhuraM, and only madhuraM! Even those things that would not be right when others do, would be madhuraM if he does them.

********** to continue...
Last edited:
It is only with these thoughts in mind, a parama bhakta (of kRSNa) has given us the song madhurAdhipaterakhilaM madhuraM--madhurAdhipateH akhilaM madhuraM (everything about the Mathura king kRSNa is sweet).

It is a stotra called madhurASTakam with eight shlokas. The concluding foot (line) of each shloka in that composition is madhurAdhipaterakhilaM madhuraM. In the three remaining feet (lines) of each shloka, two things such as Swami's guna, rupa, kArya would have been told.

For example, I shall recite the first shloka. In that, the first line is adharaM madhuraM vadanaM madhuraM; Swami's lip is madhuraM, face is madhuraM--two things, two madhuraMs are said.

The reason why he spoke about the lip to start with is that, it is the sangItam that is mainly referred to as madhuraM (right)? madhura gAnam, madhura kaNTam, iniya kural, 'sweet voice'--in this way it is referred to, whatever the language used. I said earlier that Meenakshi of the south Madurai is the atidevata of sangItam! Her co-born in Vada Mathura is also the gAnalola. If she is vINA gAna priya, he is veNu gAna lola! Like (the words) kuyazh, yAzh, the words vINA, veNu themselves sound sweet. In the hands of other Swamis, there would be weapons. Even in the hand of the Ramachandra Murti who is a karuNAmUrti, (there is) a dhanus. Only kRSNa has a flute. Venugopalan, Muralidharan are his very names. He blows on that veNu by pressing it to his lip (right)? Because he filters through that flute the pavitra wind that issues through his divya sharIraM, that veNu gAnam casts a spell of such sweetness on the listeners and makes them go mad (isn't it)?

To show parama priyam, a kiss is given. The gopikA strIs are said to be envious of the flute, seeing it always pressed to his lips and thinking that he actually kisses it!

Will it be sweet only if he plays the flute? Even if he talks, it would be music and feel very sweet. And this is referred to as vacanaM madhuraM in another shloka (the beginning of the second verse).

Ordinarily, if it is a jnanopadesham, it would be boring! But when kRSNa does it, it would also be madhura gItam! Yes, we ascribe the name Gita to it! He who did gAnam as a child playing his flute, when he uttered jnana, after attaining sufficient age, even that sounded sweet as Gita!

All these have come from their connection to the lip (right)? That is why he said adharaM madhuraM, giving the first place to the lip.


In this way, with a count of six madhuraMs at two each in each of the three lines except the last of a shloka, he has sung of a total of six-eights or forty-eight madhuraMs and has composed a wonderful aSTakam.

He who did this (composition) is Vallabhacharya. One who developed a philosophy named shuddhAdvaita having BalakRSNa as the first and only God. It is a siddhAnta like the vishiSTAdvaita. In the North, specially in the Gujarat region, there are people who follow it. If it is a philosophy, there would be fisticuffs with arguments and counterarguments. Let it go anyway. Unlike it, whoever it is, if it is a bhakti stotra, it would touch the heart. In that way, to make everyone happy, he has sung the madhurASTakam. Even though madhuraM anantam can be sung, the way he has chosen forty-eight madhuraMs and sung on them, is very blissful (Periyavaa said 'Ananda...mAyirukku') to listen to.

(Running his eyes over the madhurASTakam pamphlet in his holy hands, Paramacharya continues). Bhagavan's adharaM, vadanaM, nayanaM, hasitaM--that is laughter; his hRudayaM, gamanaM--that is walk; his vacanaM, caritaM, vasanaM--that is the pItAmbara he is wearing; or vasanaM can also be associated with the Gokulam where he did vAsam; piling up like this, he says that each one of them is madhuraM.

These things being sweet is not a speciality. The speciality is that he also talks about things that ordinarily cannot occur in the madhura list, but have become madhuraM because of their kRSNa sambandham. He speaks of certain things that are like this, such as valitaM, haraNaM, vamitaM. valitaM is to stand bent and askew. Normally it won't look sweet. But Bhagavan in his pose of playing the flute, leans his face to the left, bends that portion of his body from the neck to the waist to the right side, and again bends the rest of his body to the left and stands, keeping left right foot across the left. And the entire world celebrates this pose of standing bent in three different angles, revering it as the beautiful tribhanga!

koNal pervazhi! (a crooked man!) (Paramacharya laughs.) Alwar has also sung koNai peridhudaitthe. Even that is a beauty with him. That is, only a madhuraM.

What is madhuraM after all? It means only beauty, goodness. Goodness is madhuraM.

It's funny. There are many people who do not like sweets. Only in the North, all are fond of sweets. Whereas in the South, most people would like it only kAra sAram (with hotness as the essence). Some people would never touch sweet dishes. And there are people who like it a little more astringent (thuvarupu), a little more bitter or a little more sour. But all of them, when talking about good people, don't say that these good people are bitter or sour or salty! And to say that they are people of 'madhura guna', 'sweet nature', 'iniya iyalbu' (Tamil) is not just the custom here, but the world over! When someone says something in anger and impatience, we say 'he spoke hotly'. If someone said something with disappointment, we say he said it with a bitter heart. If somebody bores us we say that we are sour with his repetitions. If something is said in dishonour, we ask him not to pour out his words with so much saltiness in them--(karicchu kottathe). Being saline is the nature of the salt. In this way, when the six kinds of tastes are attributed to human characteristics, people, including those who do not like sweet dishes, attribute only madhuraM or sweetness to the good and kind nature in man!

With Bhagavan, all things are good; (it is) spoken as ananta kalyAna gunam. So all things (with him) are madhuraM.

Is that not his mellow state? (Paramachaya says pazhut...tha nilaiyonno?, admires it within himself and then continues happily:) He is the seed and root and everything. He is also the resultant fruit. When it becomes a fruit it automatically gets a sweetness. Even with the neem fruit, it is sweeter than the unripe, raw neem fruit (veppangai) (right)?


He says, haraNaM madhuraM. haraNaM means only apaharaNaM!; to say plainly, thiruttu (theft). kRSNa's theft--the theft of butter and the theft he does as uLLam kavar kaLvan (the thief who steals the heart)--both, how sweet are they! Rather than eating the butter, losing it to him is what is sweet! Eating it is sweet only to the tongue; whereas giving it in theft to him--not to any other--is sweet to the heart!


And he (the poet) says, vamitaM madhuraM, what is that? It was vamitaM that became (the English) 'vomit'. Just as doing samanam is known as shAnti (in Tamil), doing vamanam is (the Tamil) vAndhi. Ordinarily, even looking at someone vomitting would stir the feeling of spewing up within us. But then when kRSNa does it? Even that would be sweet. Seems he would do it just to prove that it is sweet! Or you may take vamitaM to mean 'gargle'. Suppose he stealthily fills a mouthful of the Yamuna water and sprays it on the face of a Gopika, how sweet would it be for her! To read about or listen to all such naughty things that he did tastes sweet like honey, even today!


The phrase bhuk^taM madhuraM occurs in two places. Its meaning should be decided on the context. In the first place, it occurs as pItaM madhuraM, bhuk^taM madhuraM. pItaM is to do pAna or drink. BalakRSNa tasting and sipping milk (Paramacharya says in Tamil 'rucchi...chu, seep...pik kudikkarathu') would be a sweet sight. Since bhuk^taM is added to that, as with anna-pAnam, here it would refer to eating. The Great Giver who feeds all the living beings, himself dining would be very sweet! Secondly, it occurs in the phrase yuk^taM madhuraM, bhuK^taM madhuraM. There are two things called bhoga and yoga; ihaloka inbum (enjoyment in this world) and atmaloka inbam (enjoyment in the world of the soul). bhuk^taM is to do bhoga and yuk^taM is to do yoga. This is how it should be understood here. Remaining as the Maha Mayavi and Parama Jnani in his kRSNAvatara life, he had been doing both (bhoga and yoga)! Yes, he did only that way! (Paramacharya, who would have known the avatara rahasya says this with a bright face).


Narrating many other madhuraMs, he has concluded the aSTakam with the phrase dalitaM madhuraM, phalitaM madhuraM. dalitaM means bursting. We say, poLandhu thaLLittan! (Tamil for 'he did it with expertise!') True to that saying, everything that he did, he did with an expertise. Actually in his childhood he ruptured the asuras! Later, remaining only as an instrument to his sankalpa shakti, he made Arjuna and his brothers rupture the armies of their enemy. Is he not the one who made Arjuna tremble with his declaration in Gita that he is kAlosmi (the very Kaalan or Yama)? Even in that shiver, he would have given Arjuna some hidden sweetness! His dealing death as Kaalan is also sweet! It is sweet also for the one who gets killed! Because dying in his hands ensures liberation! The feminine gender for Kaala is Kaali, pronounced as KaaLi; which is why she is there in Tiruvachur as Madhura Kaali!

It can also be taken to mean, 'rupturing the mind, instead of the body'. In that way, he ruptured the minds of the Gopis in their viraha tApam (agony of separation). Who are these Gopika women? They include all the devotees who are filled to the brim with love in mind! They would feel a sweetness when their minds are getting ruptured! Because, the memory of the beloved will be deeper in parting than in being together. Is not the memory about kRSNa a sweetness?

After dalitaM, as its the direct opposit, phalitaM! To attain the desired fruit is phalitaM. In other words, fulfilment of a mental desire. The Swami who is himself a ripe fruit is the phaladada of all living beings (right)?

Specifically here, the way it occurs as dalitaM-phalitaM should be treated respectively as the rupture of separation and the fulfilment of the devotees' wish to get united with him.

It is the pUrti sthAnam (state of fulfilment) of the ripened fruit of the principle that to unite with him is the sweetness!

Just like giving a fruit at the end of a feast, he has concluded the feast of the aSTaka giving this fruit of fulfilment and ended his composition in a most prosperous manner.


(Paramacharya remained absorbed in silence for sometime. Then with sudden enthusiasm that he recollected something, continues:) Before the last (verse), he has said, yaS^Tir madhurA sR^iS^Tir madhurA. A yashti is a stick or rod. Like all other cowherd boys, Swami would also be having a stick in his hand to drive the cows and calfs calling 'hey, hey!' sAkSAt vaikuNTAdhipati to come like this, what simplicity! And with what saulabhyam (ease) has he done it! He who holds the sceptre to rule the three worlds, now holding the stick to regulate the cows and calfs--how sweet is that simplicity! Even that slender and short cane stick would seem sweet. Not only the stick, being poked by it too would be sweet!

In the same breadth that he mentioned yaSTi, he also mentions sRuSti. It is mentioned in Bhagavatam that the same BalakRSNa who took the appearance of a cowherd boy also did the creation on one occasion. Without understanding his avatara rahasya, Brahma once took away all the cows and calfs and the young boys who tended them. Swami challenged Brahma with what he did thereafter. Had he wanted, he would have brought all the cows and boys taken away by Brahma to the earth in a second. Is he not the origin of maya? AndaL has also started (a song) with 'mAyanai' (right)? But then thinking that his prestige would not admit imitating the very little maya that his own son learned from him, Swami did a completely different thing. He created a duplicate of all that Brahma took! This is where the avatara kRSNa also did creation!

Though the Root of this avatar kept administration as his direct portfolio and handed over creation to his son, he is capable of creation himself. He could also do saMharam. In his kRSNAvatara, he showed his power of creation here. What we know from the kAlosmi I spoke about earlier is that he could also do saMharam. Shiva is also like that. But then Brahma is not capable of doing the kRutyas other than creation. Therefore Brahma was a fix as to the maintenance of all that he took away! Understanding that it was a punishment for having tested his father, he came running back to the earth with all that he took and sought the pardon (kSamApaNa) of the child who was his father. The karunAmUrti that he is, Swami also pardoned him and took back his duplicate creations within him, allowing the originals to remain on earth.

Within the short time that Brahma was in a fix and came running to kRSNa, one year had elapsed on the earth. During that one year's time, the pasangaL and pasukkaL (boys and cows) that were kRSNa sRuSti, were living the normal life in the houses of their parents, no one having known any difference.

But then the absence of any difference was only external. Inside them, the parents of the newly created children felt a surge of special affinity for their children, which was not there earlier! The cows also had the special affinity swelling up towards their calfs. It is said that only the young Yadavas who came of age tended the cows; small boys like kRSNa tended only the calfs. I did not mention this properly earlier; let me have the corrigendum here!

You know the reason for the atIta vAtsalya that swelled in the hearts of the parents? This creation was not done by Brahma! It was done by the Bhagavan whose svarUpam is madhuram! It was only that madhuram that made this vAtsalya swell. This is the sRiSTir madhurA he has spoken of.

It seems to me that in the yaSTi also which was mentioned earlier, there is an inner meaning. Magicians hold a stick in their hands and do the magic by swirling it and saying 'soo mantra kaaLi!' The White-men also call it a magic wand. The word (yaSTi) has settled here as if to show that kRSNa swirled his stick and created his duplicates! His mere sankalpa is enough for Swami. But to show some instrument for his lIla is Bhagavan's custom. It is one of his lila vinodas to show his lila as if it happened by the instrument he employed for it! He might have done the same thing here also.


All in all, as that Periyavar said it is only madhurAdhipaterakhilaM madhuraM! AndaL called him the son of Mathura. This man says he is the ruler of Mathura. This title came to Bhagavan after he killed Kamsa. In reality, kRSNa gave the right to rule to Kamsa's father Ugrasena, instead of himself ruling Mathura. At a later time, when he established the city of Dvaraka, he did the rAjya bharam (the burden of ruling) along with his elder brother Balarama and that in his brother's name. For the Swami who revelled in all sorts of lila vinoda which included his shRingAra ceSTtita, he had such an intense sannyAsa manas! vairAgya madhuram! The madhuram of a yogi that was described as yuktaM madhuraM!

The term madhurAdhipati is very apt in another respect too! Is he not the adhipati of the very tatvam of madhuram? Therefore madhurAdhipati.

That madhuram of his should spread throughout the world and also dribble within us.

(Paramacharya's palms close; his eyes too. A divine scene of a flower that is full of nectar closing itself!)

apaharaNa - taking away, robbing, stealing
atIta - going beyond, surpassing, transcending, past, dead, gone away
bhaN^gaH - broken, shortened, lessened, demolished, destroyed, defeated
ceSTa - moving of limbs, gesture, behaviour, prank
corayati - to steal, rob
dhanus - bow or bow's length, a fiddlestick
divya - divine, heavenly, celestial
dRSTAnta - "the end or aim of what is seen", example, paragon, standard, allegory, type,
gAna - singing, song
jaTaram - belly
kaNTam - throat, neck, tone, voice, sound
kRtya - act, deed, action, performance
kSamApaNa - the act of begging pardon
lIla - sport or play, mere appearance
lola - moving hither and thither, shaking, rolling, tossing, dangling, swinging, agitated,
unsteady, restless
madhura - sweet, pleasant, charming, delightful
navanIta - fresh butter
pAsuram - sacred hymn
pavitra - a means of purification, filter, strainer
pItAmbara - yellow clothes, yellow garments
piturArjitam - that which was acquired from the father
sAdhu - good, virtuous, righteous, noble, a holyman, saint, sage
samana - meeting, assembly, concourse, intercourse, amorous union
saMhara - destrucion, bringing together
sayana - binding
sharIraM - body
shud^dha - pure, clear, faultless, sacred, holy, stainless, white, bright, shining, upright,
siddhAnta - doctrine, dogma, axiom, final end or aim or purpose
svAdu - sweet, tasty, relishing
saulabh^yaM - easiness of acquisition, feasibility, facility, ease
shR^iN^gAraH - love, passion, garb, appare;
tIra - a shore, bank
uttAraNaM - the act of landing, delivering or rescuing
vinoda - entertainment, diversion, amusement
vishiS^Ta - extraordinary, special, excellent, superior
I was also thinking about all possible meanings of the phrase 'thaayai kudal vilakkam seidha dhamodaranai' in Andal Thiruppavai, whenever I heard the pasuram under reference.

Then, finally this struck me.

After having got the foetus of Lord Krishna himself in her womb, Devaki did not have any rebirth. That way, she did not have the responsibility of bearing another child in her womb. So, it is not just purifiying the womb, Saideo.

Devaki attains emancipation and is cleansed of all past and present karmas.

Do you agree?
Last edited:
namaste pannvalan.

There is no question of my agreeing with you or not, because I have only faithfully translated Raa.GaNapati's narration of KAnchi ParamAchArya's explanation of certain verses from the madhurASTakam. I do my best to create the atmosphere of the original which is why I use Samskrta and Tamil words and phrases liberally besides giving their translations where necessary.

However, I think you are right in saying what you say: BhagavAn RamaNa MaharShi's mother was an ordinary woman until see reached RamaNAshram to reside with her son; thereafter, she was given mokSha upon her bodily demise by the MaharShi who also got a temple erected over her samAdhi and her form worshipped as MAtRubhUteshvara. If RamaNa can do it why not KRShNa ParamAtma?
from the Ramayana (pages 028-186)
book:..... Sollin Selvar Sri Kanchi Munivar (Tamil)(pages 028-034)
author:..... Raa. Ganapathi
publisher:.. Divya Vidhya Trust, 1998 edition

Sri Raa. Ganapathi in his book Sollin Selvar Sri Kanchi Munivar (Tamil), has recorded a beautiful, elaborate and long discourse by Paramacharya from the Ramayana. In this discourse, Paramacharya applies the famous Tamil proverb 'aDi udhavara mAdiri aNNan-thambi udhava mATTAr' ('Brothers won't serve like the Foot does') to the principal characters and incidents of Ramayana and explains the contexts that highlight the real and inner meaning of the proverb.

Since this is a very long discourse, I shall post them in handy instalments, at frequent intervals of time, as and when a session of translation is completed. I pray to Sri Rama and the Kanchi Gurus for successful completion of the task I have taken up.

The author of the book gives the discourse entirely in Paramacharya's words 'as milk freshly drawn from a cow' for the readers to drink. While this milk flows in the main text here, the author's interludes flow inside parentheses.

-- saidevo

*** *** ***

Isn't there a proverb that says 'aDi udhavara mAdiri aNNan-thambi udhava mATTAr'? ('Brothers won't serve like the Foot does')? The meaning everyone makes out of it (laughs as he says it) is known to everyone! But those are not words meant to rouse the people to come to blows and kicks! Not words to motivate people with hiMsA and create a bloody scene! Such a sentence, a proverb, has come to be known, with reference to not all people, but solely children.

Proverbs are meaningful and moral statements that originated in the ancient times and are tradtionally used in speech and writing. Such a statement would either portray the human nature, or give a firm precept like a driven nail. Whatever the message, it will not be prosaic because it relates to morality, but will be juicy and fascinating. Therefore, to the term pazhamozhi (in Tamil) another meaning can be attributed: that it is a fruitlike saying that has the juice of meaning and the fascination for the mind.

The proverb 'aDi udhavara mAdiri' was indeed formed for the sake of children. Does it mean then to torment the children with blows? How can a moral teaching be like this? This is not nIti, but only asura nIti or anIti (right)?

(Paramacharya's voice that mellowed with the word children raises as he refers to the apparent torment to them, showing the affection, emotion and the body language of a mother, which in itself is mAdhuryam.

His tone cooling down like sandal paste the next moment, Paramacharya continues.)

"That is not the meaning. The general principle is to raise the children with utter love, affection and the coos and cuddles that go with them. We call children 'makkat selvam' (riches that are children). ThiruvaLLuvar has done ten verses about the subject of raising children and named the chapter 'makkat peRu' (fortunes that are children). peRu or fortune is the highest form of wealth that comes as a divine gift. It is referred to as bhAgyam in Sanskrit. 'He got the bhAgya' means 'he got the peRu'. So the general principle is to treat the children as such a bhAgyam, the putra bhAgyam.

However, suppose we go on to raise the children giving them only chellam (the coos and cuddles), what will happen? We often hear the words, 'giving only favours you have made the child a ruined wall (kutticchuvar)'--only that will happen! Which is why, when a child is adament, won't listen, won't be attentive in studies, is always playful neglecting other duties, argues and shouts and does other such things, in order to regulate the child for its own benefit, and when the necessity arises--this is important, not always but only when it is needed--it is proper to give the child two strikes with the stick, and it is with this teaching that the proverb has come up. The same opinion is expressed also in English in their proverb, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child.' If there would be no prasAdam of the cane (laughs) or no daNDa prayoga at all, (laughs even more) the child would also become a daNDam (dunce) and this is the meaning! What we refer to as a ruined wall, they call it 'spoil the child' in English.

Even this meaning that we make of the proverb aDi udhavara mAdiri aNNan-thambi udhava mATTAr('Brothers won't serve like the Foot does') is only superficial. To say that this proverb applies to all the people is the most superficial meaning. To say that it applies only to children is subtler, but is not the meaning that lies in the depths of the proverb!

The deeper meaning... If you would go deep and see, that proverb would have a totally different meaning! It would be one that intimates a very lofty principle. Like the inner meanings of Siddha's Songs that have no apparent connection to their outer meanings.

"What is that (meaning)?"

(Paramacharya is silent for sometime. A skilled playwright, he would hang us in suspense in a crucial time! Should he not urge the keenness of the listeners? The food tastes and sticks better only when fed to the hungry.

After sometime he continues, but keeps the proverb in suspense, and takes up Siddha's Songs instead! Let us, however, catch him at his eventual explanation of the proverb.)

The 'aDi' in the proverb refers to tiruvaDi, tiru + aDi, that is, the lotus feet of Ishwara. It is not the aDi given resoundingly by waving the hand! Not the 'puja' that the teacher gives with the foot-rule!

There is some fun in what I said now, actually a pun (zleSha). It came to my mind only after I mentioned the foot-rule. The 'foot' in the foot-rule refers to the lateral measurement of twelve inches. These days everything has become decimal: meter, centimeter, etc. If the teacher strikes with the foot-ruler it means he strikes with the 'foot'! The pAdam is also foot! The Sanskrit pAdam became the Greek padas, underwent corruptions all the way (laughs) from India to England and became the English 'foot'!

It is said that the measurement of twelve inches as one foot was based on the human foot. But then who will have such a long foot? However tall a person is, like PerumaL, his foot is not likely to measure more than ten inches.

(Sri CharaNar's divya charaNAravindam are small like a woman's, like AmbaL's. Anjaneya is referred to as 'chiRiya tiruvaDi' (the Smaller Foot). Our Anjaneyar is also a small footer.)

Perhaps, as we read in Puranas, people were as tall as a palm tree in the earlier Yugas, and the word 'foot' might have originated then. But the White-men would not agree with this reference. Even according to their research, people had taller frames in the stone age than we have now, but there was no language then, so the word foot could not have originated from that time. I don't understand why the word foot that refers to a part of the human body is also used for a measurement. Those who are knowledgeable may research and find out...

We call an inch, an angulam. The correct definition of an angulam is that it is a twelfth part of a vitasti. In other words, twelve such angulas make one vitasti. Even that vitasti has a length. It is the length of one chAN (in Tamil), called a span in English. That span is only nine inches long. It seems that the White-men have messed up, confusing our 12 angulas with the 9 inches length of a span, and applying it to the size of a human foot.

In the human body, since this organ is at the bottommost, it is known as aDi (in Tamil). mudi (in Tamil) is the organ at where the body ends, which is the topmost. The waist, which is at the exact middle point is called arai (in Tamil). The term araNaakkayiRu is nothing but the arai gnAN kayiRu (the silky thread worn at the waist). gnAN and nAN are one and the same thing. The part of the body below the arai or waist has two legs, or two kAl (in Tamil) (right)? A half divided by two is a quarter, so they have named the leg as kAl (in Tamil).

a~Ngulam - an inch, a finger's breadth
vitasti - a particular measure of length (defined either as a long span between the extended thumb and little finger, or as the distance between the wrist and the tip of the fingers, and said to = 12 Angulas or about 9 inches)
zleSa - connection, junction, pun, hidden meaning
Dear all

Thayai kudal vilakkam - he has made the devaki's uterus well-known to everyone by his avatara. Andal in this pasuram, called vishnu as "Dhamodharan" (Dhamam- Rope; Udhara- stomach). In later days, when yasodha tied little krishna with rope, he made marks on his stomach to create fear to yasodha. It also indirectly meant in this pasuram, that krishna has already highlighted the significance of the uterus of devaki. Hence to mark that only, he himself had a mark on his stomach.

We can also take direct meaning of kudal (intestine) itself here. Since the foetus is lord vishnu, the gestation period was totally harmless for devaki. During normal gestation times, the intestine wont accept all kinds of foods and vomitting sensation prevails often. But devaki was swift and comfortable during her whole gestation period (Bhagavatha). So, the child has purified the intestine of his own mother in the way to protect her from all sorta harm even regular gestational inconveniences.

Vilakkam means "elaborating" also. In this sense, the child has elaborated the uterus in such a way that it placed the supreme god itself. Is it possible to capture the god who covered the universe itself with his one leg to a small uterus??? So, the child has enlarged (elaborated) the uterus of devaki in such a way that it can accomodate inside.

The aDi the proverb refers to as being higher than elder-younger brothers--that aDi is the foot. Not our foot. sAkSAt Swami's Foot. tiruvaDi. The aDi to which tiru is added and referred to as the Foot that is shrIkaram (grants wealth). To catch Him is to first catch It. Strongly, without giving up. That is how, the mahA bhaktas by catching the aDi caught the ultimate that is mokSha. Appar SwamigaL has done a full TirutthANdakam* singing Its glory, melting and pouring it out in his songs.

Whatever the Swami, the glory of its Foot is unique. AcharyaaL has poured over a hundred shlokas on AmbaL, Kamakshi--on the glory of Her Foot, under the name 'Padaravinda-satakam', as a pinnacle of the mUka kavitvam.

Even though the Foot is a speciality with any Swami, the height of such speciality is attributed only to Sri Ramachandra Murthy's Foot. Because, what do we say about His uniqueness? Is it not that He is a patita pAvana? Don't we do the bhajan as patita pAvana Sita Ram, patita pAvana Sita Ram? What is it in Him that does this pAvana of the patita? Which angam in his sarvAnga sundara sharIraM (the body that is beautiful in all its parts), his sarvAnga kAruNya sharIraM (the body that is compassionate in all its parts)? If the beauty and compassion of every part of His body right from the head is collected and grouped, is it not the Foot, which looks like the sum total of all this beauty and compassion? Is it not the srI rAma pAdam?

(In a manner that is unusual of him, talks with some vehemence.) What is the kArya, lIlA, anugrahA that He did as his first act, shining his divya shakti in his avatAra sharIra? It is Ahalyaa shApa vimochanam (right)? The part of His body that did it? Was it not His Foot? She was a mahA uttami (a great woman). But then she lost her balance for a kijncita kAlam (a few moments of time). What if it is kinchida kAlam? Even if electrocuted for a half second, would it not result in loss of life? In that way her pAtivratya was broken.

At this point, Kambar has done it differently than Valmikam. He has written softly that her mind was not tempted and that she thought that Indra who came in the form of her husband Gautama was her husband himself. This is because of his gaurava buddhi that an uttami and a riShi patni should not be described as having incurred a chitta doSham.

Even though there is this speciality in the changed version of Kambar, when it comes to changing what Valmiki has written as happened, receiving a boon that there will occur nothing except satya vAk (true words) in his history? Of course, we should attribute nothing to Kambar who wrote with a parama bhakti hRudayam. But if we don't point this out, something does erode inside (the mind).

What happens with his change is that, though Ahalyaa's bad reputation is gone and she gets a good name, it lessens the glory of Ramachandra Murthy! The glory shines burning tenderly, only when it is proved that He who is known as patita pAvanan, would even restore the name and honour of soul that went wayward because of the temptation of the mind (right)? It is not such a speciality to restore a person who inadvertently went wrong (is it)?

What is it that did that kind of patita pAvanam? Only His Foot! Only at the touch of that Foot, Ahalyaa got the curse on her relieved.

You might have known about Rama's abhaya pratiGYA (vow of protection). The pratiGYA he did with a vehemence in saraNagata rakShaNam (protection on surrender)! "Whoever it is, once, just once, declares 'I am yours, one who belongs to you' and surrenders to me, I shall protect him and ensure that he gets no fear or harm from whoever or whatever."--He is such saraNagata vatsalan (man capable of great love on surrender) who declared his vow in these words! When a person surrenders this way, he falls at the feet! The great service that the Foot does, what elder brother or younger brother can do?

Note:* TiruvaDi TirutthANdakam

aN^gam - limb, part of the body, body, lagna, the base of word
bhAvana - promoting or effecting one's welfare
buddhi - insight, intellect, reason, judgment, perception, knowledge
gaurava - importance, high value or estimation, relating to a Guru
hRdaya - heart, the seat of feelings, the essence of anything
kijncitam - a small quantity, a little
pAdaH - foot, leg, beam of light, part of a mountain, a quarter, part of a line of poetry
patita - fallen, depressed, outcast, wicked
patni, patnI - a female possessor, mistress, wife
pAtivratya - devotedness to husband, conjugal fidelity
pAvana - purifying, purificatory
pratiGYA - taking an oath, vow, giving word, declaration
shApaH - curse, cursing, oath, abusing, censure
pages 038-046

Ordinarily, if any help is required, it is usually the sahodara (co-uterine) who come running and do it wholeheartedly. Isn't it the same blood? That would draw them and make them do the help. So it is known to us in this worldly life that among those who help, the co-uterine are in the top position. That is why the proverb came up, 'aDi udhavara mAdiri aNNan-thambi udhava mATTAr (Brothers won't serve like the Foot does)'. But when it comes to divine help, all other help in front of it is like a mosquito! The (divine) help that destroys fate, that gives mokSha padam (the bliss of liberation) as nityAnandam (a perpetual bliss)--what other help can match it even to a thousandth part? This (divine) help is obtained only by holding onto the Foot. It is only the Foot that provides the help, it has such a power!

If we take Rama, in his story the elder-younger brother reference shines with a special meaning. It is an itihAsa (history) created out of brotherly characters who were either full of bhrAtRu vAtsalyam (brotherly love), or parama vaira (completely hostile) to each other.

Sri Ramachandra Murthy is always Lakshmana sahita (with Lakshmana) (right)?

Whoever the Swami, we worship and meditate on Him as surrounded by his sati (consort) who is his shakti, and his pratama kiMkara who is his chief attendant. The images in the temples are also in this manner. It it is Parameshwara, AmbaL and Nandi with him; if Maha Vishnu, Mahalakshmi and Garuda with him, in this manner. There are some who do not have kiMkara. For a God who is a sanyAsin (ascetic) or a brahmacary (bachelor) there will be no sati. The general rule (for a God) is to have the consort and the chief assistant with him. Mostly the kiMkara would himself serve as a vAhana (vehicle that carries). The vehicle is (for the Lord) to rush on the call of the devotee!

It is only Rama who has his consort Sita, chief attendant Hanuman and his younger brother (Lakshmana) with him. AcharyaaL has specifically referred to this as 'sadA jAnakI lakSmaNo bhedam (always dividing Himself between Janaki and Lakshmana)' in his rAma bhujangam.

Valmiki Maharshi has given a vicitra upamAna (strange comparison) at the beginning of the Rama-Ravana war.

Sri Rama is Maha Vishnu; only he is Maha Vishnu; the other three brothers are Vishnu-related avatars; Lakshmana is Adi Sesha (Vishnu's serpent bed); Bharata-Shatrughna are shankhu-cakra (Vishnu's conch-shell and wheel). Changing the order, we are saying that Bharata is cakra and Shatrugna is shankhu. But it is not so with ValmIkam. Aren't these four people born out of the divya pAyasa taken by their own mothers? Therefore, Valmiki Maharshi has said that in the same ratio that Dasharatha divided the divya pAyasa among those mothers, the four people existed as individual shares in Maha Vishnu's pUrNa shakti. Dasharata gave Kausalya an exact half share of the pAyasa. Correspondly, in the part where Sri Rama's birth is described, it is mentioned as 'viSNoH ardham' (one who has half the power of Vishnu). Dasharata gave Sumitra half of the remaining half, that is, a quarter share of the pAyasa. Lakshmana who was born out of it (AcharyaaL laughs) is a 'quarter Vishnu'! Another quarter share of the pAyasa is remaining (right)? Dasharata divided that into two one-eighth parts and gave one share to Kaikeyi and the other again to Sumitra. Therefore, those two people (remaining, that is Bharata and Shatrughna) are 'one-eighth Vishnu'!

My comparison of the brothers with Maha Vishnu is on the basis of what Valmiki has mentioned in the part where he talks about Dasharata dividing the pAyasa among his wives (Baala Kaanda, Chapter 16). However, where he describes Sri Ramaavatara and the avatars of the other three brothers (Baala Kaanda, Chapter 18), he says that it was Bharata's birth that followed Sri Rama's under the very next nakSatra (star). Rama (under) Punarvasu and Bharata (under) Pushya. We call (the stars) PunarpUsam-PUsam (in Tamil). Not only that, he also says that Bharata is Vishnu's quarter share (not one-eighth)--'saakSaat viSNoH caturtha bhaagaH'; and that in the following star Ayilyam (aaSreSa), Lakshmana and Shatrughna were both born, together mesuring up to a half share of Vishnu, in other words, each a quarter share.

Valmiki does not remain here without hinting at the Adi Seshatvam for Lakshmana! Lakshmana was born under the Ayilyam star. It is aaSreSa that got corrupted to Ayilyam. Maharshi when referring to that avatar, he has not mentioned (the name of the star) as aaSreSa, but has mentioned it by its another name, which is saarpe (serpent). The term saarpe means 'related to a serpent'. This is indicating the Adi Sesha relation (right)?

The same Maharshi who shows Lakshmana as a quarter-Vishnu at the time of pAyasa distribution, has done something strange in Yuddha Kanda (Book of War): (there) he says that Rama coming with Lakshmana to fight the war with Ravana is like Indra coming with Vishnu--'vishNunA vAsavam yatA'. Know who is Vishnu here? It is not Rama. Only Lakshmana is Vishnu! And Rama is compared to Indra! (Because) Only Indra has the name Vaasava.

sAkSAt Maha Vishnu took avatar as the son Vaamana of Kashyapa-Aditi, Indira's father-mother. That avatar was taken to restore Devaloka to Indra from Mahabali. At that time, Maha Vishnu came as a little brother of Indra, much younger in age. It seems the bachelor Vamana was then much attached to his elder brother Indra. Because of that, the name Upendra, meaning 'one who is always with Indra' came to be attributed to him.

'Upa' means 'sub'! The second place next to something important. (AchaaryaL continues with a beautiful smile.) My mouth cannot get around to say 'the lower place'! (What vinaya bhakti SriCharaNar had towards the bhagavat avatAra!) Like collector-sub collector, editor-sub editor, Indra-Upendra. In that same avatar in which Bhagavan as Trivikrama spread to all the three worlds and showed his brahmANDa sharIraM (the body that was the universe), until that moment, he was of a small form, short and dwarfish; not only that, in character also he was so modest that he remained as a 'sub' for Indra, who he made the Devaraja, by restoring him his kingdom! An avatar that showed that only he who could become so large, could also become so small!

(He who narrated this was also the mega who remained a micro.)

Just like people have the name 'Annaswamy', there is also the name 'Tambi swamy'. It is also referred to as 'Tambuswamy'. Since the Telegu rule and their connection in other department had been here for a long time, several Telegu words got mixed up in Tamil, many with rUpa beda (change in form)! 'Tammudu' is younger brother in Telegu. We call it 'Tambudu'. Don't we say 'Nambi' for their 'Nammi'? May be in that way, that 'Tambudu' shortened to 'Tambu' and (got attached in) 'Tambuswamy'. It seems that this reference (of 'Tambuswamy') is for Vamana Murthy who became the Greatest, and measured the worlds with his feet and also stood tall as a rakSaka (protector), and restored one of those worlds that he measured to his elder brother, and still remained short in form, simple in character, and a 'sub' for his elder brother.

Alternatively, it could also be Lakshmana. Rama is Annaswamy. Lakshmana, who is always with him, is Tambiswamy. Like the name Ramaswamy, people also have Lakshmanaswamy for a name! Aren't the Arcot Mudaliar elder-younger brothers (A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar - A. Lakshmanaswamy Mudaliar) famous?

Let us get back to the original avatar.

What help did that Vamana Tambi (younger brother) did for his elder brother to restore his Devarajyam? It was his Foot, tiruvaDi, that measured three steps and accomplished the restoration! The Tambi's help was obtained by his Foot, by the action done by that Foot!

In order to show Lakshmana in a higher stature in the Ramayana, Valmiki prompts it here by his comparison of Lakshmana to Vishnu and Rama to Indra. This is because...

Lakshmana had conquered Indrajit just before the Rama-Ravana encounter. The Ravana Kumara (son), who had Meghanatha as his own name, got the name Indrajit only by defeating Indra himself. In the past, Mahabali defeated Indra. Vamana conquered that Mahabali. But then it was done by tact and not by war. It was only Lakshmana who had a peronal encounter with the great warrior who defeated Indra and conquered him more valiantly. And that with utter modesty, reciting the words, "Hey bANa (dart)! If you find my elder brother Rama as a dharmAtma (righteous soul), a satyasantan (truthful man), and matchless in valor, you kill the Ravana Kumara,"--it is recited as a popular shloka*--that he won. It was for those two qualities, maha vIrya, maha vinaya (great courage and humility) that Valmiki has raised him here to the status of Vishnu and made Rama himself Indra, and this with the intention that such comparison would be pleasing to Rama himself.

Of the three people who are with Rama in shilpa citram (sculptures and portraits), Rama married Sita and became sIta sameta (joined with Sita) only when he was sixteen years old. His becoming hanumat sameta was much later to his marriage. It was only Lakshmana, born on the third day after Sri Rama took avatar, that is, two days after Sri Ramanavami--that would have been an EkAdasi--who from his birth, Ayus pariyantam (for the entire duration of his life), was literally always with Rama, remaining by his side. There is no scale that can measure the extent of paraspara bhrAtRu vAtsalyam (mutual brotherly love) that existed between them! It was as they say 'viNdaa(l) viLLa maatta' (try dividing, they won't). In the same way Bharata-Shatrughna (were attached to each other)! It was Lakshmana-Shatrughna who were born as twins from the same mother's womb. But then Lakshmana had parishuddha prema (unblemished love), without any difference of opinion, towards Rama, who was in fact a stepmother's son, (AcharyaaL laughs) 'mAtRariyAtha sezhum pasum pon' (like the finest, well-formed, fresh gold) as said (in Kamba Ramayana). Rama was also equally affectionate to him! In the same way the stepmother's sons Bharata-Shatrughna! Though they were divided thus in two pairs, among the four of them they had mutual, unblemished love for each other! The Rama-Bharata bhrAtRu vAtsalyam was in no way less than the Rama-Lakshmana bhrAtRu vAtsalyam. In Uttara Kanda, Rama sends Shatrugna to kill LavaNasura. The mutual brotherly love that shows up there is also not less (than the other types).

Therefore, for the mutual brotherly help, we cannot show another example that matches the Ramayana.

Directly opposite (to this) are (the brothers) Vali-Sugreeva and Ravana-Vibhishana! Even from them, Rama adopted the two younger brothers as his own brothers! Guhan became another Tambi (younger brother)! That aNNAkkArar (elder brother) went on adding tambis (younger brothers) to him!

I had the impression that the names we have as 'Annaswamy', 'Annadurai' referred to Pillaiyar: Paravati-Parameshwara's jyeSTa putra (eldest son); it was only after him that they gave birth to all other varieties of life; so he was the 'Annaswami' to everyone (I reasoned). Only later, when I noticed that even Ayyengars (Vaishnavas) had that name, I understood that it was not Pillaiyar, but only Rama--who went from place to place and made as his younger brothers a hunter from a hIna jAti (inferior caste), a monkey from a mRuga jAti (the animal class) and a rAkSasa (demon)--who was Annaswamy, Annadurai. Such a noble kind of helping nature among the seven of them; one would even give his life for the other!

Even in the Ramayana, in which the elder-younger brothers helped each other in boundless abundance, there is one thing that helped more and got a better status than them!

If you ask (what it was), it was the Foot!

I seem like weaving a riddle! But the story is known to you all. You would understand if you ponder it over a little.

(Though PeriyavaaL asked his audience to ponder it, so far as the reader is concerned, there is nothing to ponder, because he/she already knows that it relates to Hanuman and this has been hinted at from the beginning of this discourse. What the reader has to think about now is only the connection between Hanuman and the Foot!

But then PeriyavaaL, though he remained clear and bright, was also unpredictable! So let us see what that old man says about the readers' prediction!)

*'Dharmatma satya sandascha raamo daasarathiryadi
Pourushe chaaprathidwandwa sharainam jahi raavanim.

Ayus - life, vital power, vigour, health, duration of life, long life
bhrAtRu - brother
bheda - distinction, break, split, division
cakra - wheel, discus
hIna - inferior, left behind, forsaken, lower or weaker than
itihAsa - story, legend, history, tradition
jAti - birth, production, origin, position, rank, caste, family, race, kind, sort, genus
jyeSTaH - eldest brother; jyeSTA - eldest sister
kiMkara - servant, attendant, slave
mRga - wild animal, beast of the forest
nakSatra - star, an asterism or constellation through which the moon passes
paraspara - each other, one another, mutual(ly)
pariyantam - limit of time or space
pAyasa - prepared with or made of milk; rice boiled in milk.
pratama - chief
rakSaka - guardian, protector, amulet, charm, preservative
rAkSasa - belonging to or like a Rakshas, demoniacal
sadA - always, ever, everytime, continually, perpetually
sahodara - co-uterine, born of the same womb, a brother or sister of whole blood
sahita - conjoined, accompanied or attended by, associated or connected with
sameta - met, assembled; joined or connected with, possessed of
sati - a good and virtuous or faithful wife
shaN^khuH - conch, shell, that part between eyes and ears
shuddha - pure, clear, faultless, sacred, holy, stainless, white, bright, shining, upright, honest
upamAna - comparison, resemblance, analogy, simile
vaira - hostile, revengeful
vicitra - strange, wonderful, many-coloured, brilliant, extraordinary
pages 046-050

(Fortunately, he did not make the people who were with him on that day as his shrotRus (listeners) to contemplate much, and continued with compassion.)

It was an occasion when both Rama and Bharata were helpless in a real dharma saN^katam (embarrassment to do what is right).

Bharata has already come to Chitrakootam with the firm decision that he would take his elder brother from the precincts of the forest back to Ayodhya and make him rule the country.

(You saw that? The old man has entered Ayodhya Kanda, where there could be no Hanumat connection!)

It was not just the reason of his parama priyam towards his elder brother. 'When an elder brother, father's jjeSTa putra (eldest son) is there, an younger son to get the rAjyAdhikAram (authority to rule)? It is not at all dharma?'--Bharata did not accept the right to rule also because of the dharma shAstra rIti (the method of the dharmic scriptures)! He enumerates his varied points and exhorts Rama.

If he is so adamant that his elder brother should return to the city and rule the country, his elder brother remains even more adamant in his own firm decision and enumerates his points forcefully: their father had given the orders; according to which Rama should have vana vAsam (domicile in the forest) for fourteen years; should return only on completion of it; until then in accordance with their father's orders only Bharata should rule the country. Here too, not only because of his affection for his younger brother, but also to adhere to the duty ordained in the dharma shAstra--if it is an order from a father, the son should carry it out, whatever be its nature--that the elder brother was so firm in his stand. pitru vAkya paripAlanam (protecting the words of father) is such a great dharma! It is the dharma that guards their father--who even gave his life to maintain the vAk satyam (word of promise) that he gave Kaikeyi in a much earlier time--from becoming a asatyaka (one who did not keep his words), an act that would push him to naraka (hell) from the present deva loka (heaven) that he has obtained, and also make the brothers themselves great sinners!

Bharata was holding on to primogeniture (Paramacharya actually used this word) as the general rule of sovereignty that only the eldest son had the right to rule. He was of the opinion that their father was caught in unusual circumstances and gave some sort of a boon (to his second wife) and he had to keep it because there was no other option, and left the world in keeping it; (so) it has no value. He also had the firm opinion that it was actually an akAryam (mindless act) done by his ammAkkAri (the woman who was his mother) and that his father had to nod his head in favour only in a helpless situation and later keep his words of boon to her only in a dilemma. Rama for his part was of the opinion that even if it was as opined by Bharata, had their father not nodded his head in favour that would have resulted in his incurring the sin of having broken the word of promise that he gave to Kaikeyi long back? And if they change their stance now, that would amount to harming their father's satyavAk paripAlanam and result in him and Bharata both incurring the sin of pushing their father into sin! If Bharata was adhering to the general dharma, Rama stood firm in the dharma for cases of emergency that is different from the general dharama: that the decision took by their father in a given emabarrasing situation was the dharma for their father, to follow it is the dharma for both him and Bharata. Rama stood firm like a rock that if their father decided that Bharata had to rule the country, or rather if it transpired that he had to make such a decision, the putra dharma ordained for him is to adhere to that decision; that it was only just to let him keep his dharma by doing the vana vAsam as ordered by their father.

Thus, for the sake of such lofty principles as dharma, tyAga (sacrifice), pitru vAtsalyam (love for father), bhrAtRu vAtsalyam (love for brother), when both the brothers took firm and diametrically opposite stands, the rishi gaNa (classes of sages) who were witnessing all this, considered the matter. The rishis who were in the manuSya loka (world of man) in ancient times and became rishis, remaining siranjivi (deathless) now; the rishis born in the deva jAti (deva class) as deva rishis, such as Narada; and other siddha puruSas (sages of the siddha class)--all of them witnessed the discussion (between the two brothers), remaining invisible. They wondered that a father who had give birth to sons who were such dharmiSTha (perfectly virtuous and lawful) was indeed the father. It was their opinion that the dharma that has become compulsory in this specific circumstance to adopt, as Rama thought about--and not the general dharma that Bharata thought about--was in fact the right dharma to keep. If it is the opinion of the mahA rishis who have reduced their ego to ashes in tapogni (the fire of penance), then it is the dharma; it is the satya (truth) to follow.

That consideration apart, they also had knowledge that the avatara kAryam (avatar's task) should take place in accordance with Bhagavan's plan, and therefore they thought that it should turn out as Rama said. Only Ravana vatam (murder of Ravana) was that task. They realized that for that to happen, it was Bhagavan's saMkalpa (will) that the vana vAsam, Sita apaharaNam (abduction) and such other things should take place, so Rama should only reside in the forest and not return to Ayodhya. So they decided that they should advise Bharata to obey Rama's words instead of both of them having a tug-of-war with two opposing views. But then it was anucita (improper) to bring out the avatAra rahasya even to the avatar, unless it was absolutely inevitable. It is not proper to interfere with something that Bhagavan has kept as a secret? Therefore, with the decision not to reveal the secret of the avatar but to advise Bharata and change his mind only on the basis of dharma, they came out of their hidden state and became visible. They told Bharata, "Appa, my child! We are very happy that you as a kulakkozhundu (a little sprout) of your lofty Ishvaku dynasty should do tiraskAra (disdain) to rule the rAjyam (sovereignty) that came to you. But then you should also look at your father's welfare. Because he repaid his debt of words that he held with your mother and stood as a dharmiSTha, he has arrived at the heavens now. Considering that, you should accept and do what your elder brother says." With those words, they left for their heavenly abode since their task was done.

adhikAraH - power, superintendence, authority, sovereignty, effort, chapter in a book, right, privilege
dharmiSTha - perfectly virtuous, just, or lawful
gaNa - a flock, troop, multitude, number, tribe, series, class
manuSya - human, manly, useful or, friendly to man
paripAlanam - protection, maintenance, fostering, nourishing
priya - dear, liked, Dear
rahasya - secret, private, clandestine, concealed, mysterious
rIti - method, manner, motion, river, flow, boundary, custom
saN^katam - narrow way, passage, lane, distress, difficulty
shrotR^i - listener, pupil, student
tiraskAra - placing aside, abuse, censure, disdain
tyAga - leaving, abandoning, rejecting, avoiding, giving up; donation, sacrifice
ucita - delightful, pleasurable, agreeable; customary, usual; proper, suitable, convenient; acceptable, fit or right to be taken
Thereafter, Bharata couldn't do anything. Since the vyavahAra (way of acting) could no longer be decided with a mutal discussion between him and his elder brother, and had gone to a very high level, and the judgment had also come, it became obligatory for him to act accordingly, which was also the opinion of his elder brother.

Even though in their origin Rama-Bharata were sAkSAt Bhagavan and His aMsa bhAga (a share of His part), and by this reason it cannot be said that the rishi gaNa were on a higher level to them, in practice, since there were enacting a drama as human beings with a father, his boon, and his rAjya paripAlanam (administration of kingdom), it became obligatory for Bharata to obey without any objection, the words of Rishis who were mahA periyavaaL (great people) and dharma mUrtis (icons of dharma).

Nevertheless, when his elder brother who was dearer to him than his own life was alive, was well versed in rAja dharma and had the shakti-sAmarthyam (power and ability) to display it in the administration, and at the same time a parama priya (beloved) to the entire populace,--even today we say lokAbhirAmaM shrIrAmaM! (Sree Rama who pleases all)(1)--and also stands tall with the vira pauruSa (bravery and manliness) required of a king, and thus when his brother remained a siMha (lion) per se, his own mind did not at all agree to his sitting like a mouse on the siMhAsana (throne) as the sAmrAjyAdhipati (emperor) of Ayodhya.

Even though his own mind did not agree, since his elder brother has said it and the Rishis have approved it, he compelled his mind to agree (to the situation) and told his elder brother weeping: "In order to preserve the vAksatya dharma (the dharma of promise) of the IkShvAku dynasty, you act as my mother had asked for (and got as a boon)!" Valmiki has written that though he controlled his mind to accept the order of the Rishis, even then being unable to utter the words 'you proceed with the vana vAsam (domicile in the forest)' with his own mouth, since that vana vAsam was not a heartfelt order from his father, in the midst of all that confusion and grief, he made a distinction (in words) without his buddhi (discerning intellect) getting muddled, and said 'as asked for by my mother'!

(In this instance as well as at many other places, if we compare his discussion with the original Valmiki Ramayana, we will be amazed (vismaya) to notice how deeply and minutely has SriCharaNAL known the original and has kept it recorded in his memory. Most people know him to have an apAra jnAna (boundless knowledge) in Vedas, Dharma Shastras, tatva siddhAntas (philosophical doctrines) such as Advaita, Mantra Shastra, the Agamas of Saiva, Vaishnava and Sakta that speak about temple worship and rituals, and books of stotras (hymns), but they have no idea about his equal pAndityam (expertise) in Itihaasas and Puranas and Kavyas (epics) and Naatakaas (plays). This is because he has for some reason kept this aspect very tight within himself. On rare occasions, he would elaborate on some parts of Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavata and other Puranas, without leaving a tidbit or nuance found in them; or he would elaborately discuss on some statistics found in them. For example, once his is supposed to have enumerated the number and names of all the children of the Pancha Pandavas. This author (Sri Raa. Ganapathi) has heard of many such incidents and have yearned for a bhAgya (fortune) for him to dine at such a feast. Finally he got that fortune for a whole night and until late in the next night. It was then that this Hanumat prabhAvam (brilliance of exposition on Hanuman) gushed from him!)

(1) Shloka for saluation to Sri Rama:

aapadaam apahartaaram daataaram sarvasaMpadaam.h .
lokaabhiraamam shriiraamam bhuuyo bhuuyo namaamyaham.h ..

"I bow again and again to Sree Rama who removes (all) obstacles and grants all wealth and pleases all."

This is a salutation offered at the start of reading any scripture as per tradition. This prayer is for removing all obstacles encountered. The prefix Sri to Rama indicates that Rama is always accompanied by Sri, His consort Seetha in the form of goddess Sri Maha Lakshmi.

(Valmiki Ramayana)

pauruSa - manly, human, belonging or sacred to Purusha
prabhAva - might, majesty, superhuman strength, power over; splendour, brilliancy
sAmarthyam - strength, skill, ability, adequacy, aptness, fitness
sAmrAjya - complete or universal sovereignty , empire , dominion over
vismaya - wonder, surprise, amazement, bewilderment, perplexity
vyavahAra - procedure, conduct, way of acting; intercourse with ({saha}); usage, custom, activity, occupation, dealing with or in (loc. or ---); business, commerce, trade; legal dispute, lawsuit, litigation, contract, stipulation, administration of justice.
pages 53-55

It is because of such sUkSmas (subtleties) that the beauty of Ramayana remains as a pArAyaNar-hamAna bhakti grantha (text of devotion worth stuyding), and in addition, as an uttamotta kAvyam (an excellent epic), a literary classic, thus having its beauty and greatness in double for the rasikAs (people having taste for) to enjoy, admire and experience it!

Not only Valmiki; even the Ramayanas that many people have authored in regional languages--Kambar, Tulasidas, Ezhutthacchan (who wrote the Malayaala Ramayana), Kruttivaas (who wrote the Bengali Ramayana)--all remain as bhakti for bhakti and literature for literature. Even for that feature, the reason is the mahimA (greatness) of that Ramachandra Murthy.

I have digressed leaving Bharata! Finally he says, "You do as my mother has sought (the boon) for. But don't make me do the darbar (i.e., hold the royal assembly) sitting in the siMhAsana (throne)!" His prayer was that in accordance with their father's orders, let Rama realize his part completely, but he should not make Bharata realize the part that his father had given him. Because, though their father gave those two parts without his mind agreeing to them--vana vAsam (domicile in the forest) for the eldest and becoming Rajah for the younger one--to the extent that the vana vAsam was agreeable to mind for the elder, the rAjyAdhikAra (authority to be king) was not likable for the younger!

Therefore, after those words, Bharata prayed with tearful eyes (to Rama), "I don't have even the slightest itch to be the King. I also don't have the shakti-sAmarthyam (power and ability) for that. Just as farmers remain keenly looking forward to the rain, the people are in persistent anticipation of your becoming their King. Therefore you appoint a pratinidhi for you in the rAjA sthAnam (king's place) and entrust him with the responsibility. Since he would be a pratinidhi appointed by you, your shakti will enter into him, give him the (necessary) shakti-sAmarthyam and make him rule well."

It was in that stage that it became a dharma saN^katam (embarrassment to do what is right) for the elder-younger brothers.

(What SriCharaNar follows this with, does not seem to be in any version of the Ramayana. It was a kAvya kolam (epic design) drawn by him as the deiva purusha (divine personality) and expert thinker, who was soaked in the very uyir mUlam (root of existence) of the root characters and thereby could see things as they were.)

"The child is asking thus, convulsing in agony! When a man is supplicating with such parama priyam, parama tyAgam (complete love and sacrifice), if he repudiates it, will it be dharma? It seems likely that he would give up his prANan (the breath of life) if he repudiates? Will not the jIva hatyA pApam (the sin of killing) come to him then? But then if he accedes to appointing a pratinidhi, it would mean that I have the authority as the Raja and hence I could delegate it another man? And that would be wrong to the 'foot'! I am not the Raja, only a vana vAsi! Where is the authority to appoint a rAja pratinidhi for one who is driven to the forest as a rAjya bhraSTa (fallen from the empire)? Whether it was liked by his father or not, that was what he gave as orders?

"He (Bharata) says 'appoint someone as a pratinidhi? Who is a better pratinidhi than he to me? Not a pratinidhi but he is my very prati (copy)! It is not that he would be such only by my appointing (him). Father's very orders have only appointed him (to rule)? But then it would not be fit to tell that to a man who is anxious never to ascend the throne, it would be sin (for him). He should be satisfied for the sake of the dharma of humaneness, but for that the dharma of pitru vAkya paripAlanam (protecting the words of father) should not be given up. What should I do?" Rama stood helpless, thinking intensively. Thus it was a real dharma saN^katam for him!

grantha - verse, composition, treatise, literary production, book in prose or verse, text, an artificial arrangement of words (esp. of 32 syllables)
mahimA - greatness
pratinidhi - substitute, representative, proxy, image, likeness, statue, picture
sUkSma - subtle, minute, little, sharp, nice
pages 55-58

It was not that Bharata did not know about that maha-dharma. It became certain to him that his Anna (elder brother) would never give up that (dharma of pitru vAkya paripAlanam). Bharata also understood that with the decision that his brother cannot rule, if he also refuses to take up the sovereignty, the country without a king would get into chaos, and the sin of squandering the great wealth of royalty that accrues to their dynasty (kuladanam) would fall on him, so his Anna insisted on his ruling the country, with this added worry in mind, and hence he had this dharma to maintain--to carry out his brother's words as the orders from a jyeSTa bhrAta (elder brother). All these considerations coming together, his Anna's firm stand and the words of the rishi gaNa gradually congealed in his mind. Even then he could not accept that his Anna had totally no sambandha (connection) with the rAjyAdhikAram and that he would be the absolute Raja. This was why he asked his brother to appoint a pratinidhi (substitute) to safeguard the nation.

'I am a mahA pApi (great sinner); because is it not only on account of me that the one who is to get pattabhiSekam (coronation) as Raja has been kept away from it and driven to the forests with jaTA mudi (matted hair) and maravuri (clothes from tree barks)? Within this pApi that pavitra purusha's (holy man's) shakti will not descend and make me his pratinidhi; I am not fit for that much bhAgya. Moreover, if his brother is to name a pratinidhi, that adhikAra (authority) according to the Dharma Shastra will devolve on him only if he had officially obtained the sthAnam (standing) of a Raja from someone else?'...It was not that this point also did not occur to Bharata.

Since Rama emphasized only on dharma, making his points as if tousing cotton (panni panni), Bharata also had got an awakening towards it. Therefore, Bharata understood that the one who got the name in a later stage from the mouth of the rAkSasa (demon) Maareecha as 'rAmo vigrahavAn dharmaH' (Rama is an embodyment of dharma)--yes, the 'rAmo vigrahavAn dharmaH' which is loka prasiddhi (universally known) today is only Maareecha vacanam (Maareecha's speaking). It comes in the place where Ravana asks Maareecha to assume the shape of a golden-deer (and lure Seetha), and Maareecha gives hitopadesham (good advice) to him.--the dharma vigraham who is his eider brother would never make him the pratinidhi, saying it with his own mouth, for his own kAryam (affair). Nevertheless, he was firm that he could never get himself coronated and sit on the siMhAsana (throne), celebrating its mahimA (greatness). 'How can it be not a sin, when according to the Shastras, the uttama shIlan (great character) who has the full right and is completely sinless, is wandering with jaTA mudi in the forests, and the one who does not have the right or capability to rule becomes the cause for it? How can it be not adharma?'--This was Bharata's decided opinion. Thus Bharata was also in dharma saN^katam, stuck between the two kinds of dharma.

The thoughts of both of them were utkRSTa (eminent). But then, let the thoughts be eminent. 'Now the kAryam of not keeping the Ayodhya throne empty with no time delay should take place? What can be done?' Bharata understood that his Anna was in serious and worried thinking, not knowing what to do. He thought, 'If I also stand confused? Some conclusion needs to come, must come.'

As a result of the shakti of the tApam (heat) of his persistently knocking himself about within his innards to reach a solution--to say it precisely, Ishvara Himself kindling his buddhi (wisdom) to make samanam of (lessen) the justified tApam--he got hold of the solution in a flash..."

(Oh, the emphasis with which SriCharaNar uttered that 'in a flash'! He said it with the same enthusiasm that Bharata would have got when he got a 'solution'! And would continue with that same feeling.)

Flash after flash, one abhiprAya after another, started occuring to him. While coming from Ayodhya, expecting that his Anna would accede to his prayers and accompany him back, and so might wear on his journey back, Bharata had brought with him a pair of pAdukA (sandals) fitted with svarna alaN^kAra (gold decoration). -- pAduke hemabhUSite, it is there in the Ramayana. Now, what occurred to him was that, --they call it a stroke of genius, a thought that came as such a strike, prompted by Ishvara-- 'Let me ask Anna to stand on those pAdukAs for a minute. Now that his mind is very pliant towards me, he won't certainly refuse it. He won't of course agree to wear them for the entire time of the vana vAsam, considering it as against vana vAsa dharma. He would only do saMcAram (roam) (of the forest) barefooted, letting the thorns and coarse rock pieces get stiched to his feet.'

In Bhagavatam, Sri Rama Caritram is mentioned in a very saMkShipta (brief) manner. Even in that summary, in the part that completes it, when his returning to paramapadam (highest position) is mentioned, it has been ended beautifully as, 'he left his pAdam (foot) in the hRudaya (heart) of those who would always keep reminiscing on him.' The tAtparyam (purpose) of that passage is that, that pAdam (foot) itself is the padam (position) he goes to, the paramapadam; he created its nitya sAnnidhyam (perpetual presence) in the hRudaya of the bhaktAs. As an epithet to that pAdam, it is mentioned there, 'the pAdam which is like a sprout, cracked deeply by the thorns of Dandaka AraNya (forests of Dandaka). As 'dandaka kaNTakam', with an assonance. kaNTakam means thorn.

Anna - pronounced aNNA - elder brother
abhiprAyaH - opinion, aim, purpose, intention, wish, belief
kaNTaka - thorn, point of a pin or needle, prickle, sting
pada - step, pace, stride; footstep, vestige, mark; footing, stand-point, place. spot, position, station; office, (high) rank
saMcAra - walking about, wandering, roaming, driving or riding
saMkSipta - brief, abbreviated, contracted, condensed, concise, thrown together
saMkSeptaH - briefly
utkRSTa - drawn up or out, attracted, extracted, taking a high position, excellent, eminent, superior, best
pages 59-61

(Continuing, Maha PeriyavaaL revealed a Maha Satyam.) For God and the Mahaans the foot is their pratinidhi; a pratinidhi that is pUrNam (complete in itself). The pAdukA worn on those feet are the pUrNa pratinidhi for the feet, to the full extent that they are their equal. Therefore, they (those pAdukA) are that God or Mahaan. This is the reason pAdukA pratiSTA are being held continuously wherever one looks.

(The very SriCharaNar himself--'SriCharaNar' also means 'SriPada(r)'!--has always been adoring and preaching that Adi Sankara, who is called BhavatpAda, restored this country from the invasion of other religions and re-established Veda Dharma from the Himalayas to the Kumari by registering his feet throughout; SriCharaNar has also done the pAdukA pratiSTA of Adi Sankara in many kShetrAs.)

Bharata suddenly remembered about that pAdukA mahatvam (greatness of the feet) and its pratinidhitvam (substitution). 'Enough if ANNA climbs over and stands on these pAdukA for a kSaNa (moment), his shakti vilAsam (manifestation of power) would automatically descend on them and get established. Was it not only in this way, by a momentary touch (of his feet) on Ahalyaa who was lying as a stone, that the stone got the jIva caitanya (touch of life restoring consciousness) and became Ahalyaa again? Since there was already a jIvAtmA in the form of Ahalyaa, when it was in the dashA (condition) of a stone, by virtue of his pAda sparshanam (touch of feet), his own caitanyam (consciousness) became that very jIvan Ahalyaa there. What is his own caitanyam? It is the eka caitanyam (singular consciousness) of ParaBrahmam that becomes the very ParaBrahmam! If his pada sparshanam happens on his pAdukA which are always acetana, unlike a cetana jIvan, within them will be established his own caitanya shakti as him.

'There is another saukaryam (convenience) in this: he won't appoint any human being as his pratinidhi saying it with his own mouth; because he does not have that adhikAra (authority)! With these pAdukA however, it is not necessary that he should say it in words; automatically his shakti vilAsam would spread within them and make them his pratinidhi. Still I cannot expect it to rule by verbal commands, dispense justice to people, or go and fight if any battle-rattle (yuddham-kittham) comes up! ANNA won't allow it to do the ruling in that vyakta (manifest) way, explicit to the world. Because, if all that happens, it would appear that only he appointed them in that way? In vAstavam there is no appointment here, only a case of their becoming automatically his pratinidhi. No one need to know about it, because even if it is known, most people would not understand it...'

(SriCharaNar who usually describes himself as a person who only knows to talk volubly and not with the brevity of a ratnam (precious stone), here has uttered a fact in the very brevity of a ratnam, as a master of words. "they would know it but not understand it." We look at an unusual machine. We know about its external look and the fact that it is a machine. But then do we understand how the machine works?)

'...(instead) they would misunderstand it, as if ANNA himself has appointed them as his pratinidhi! So no one need to know anything. Let me do the ArohaNa (ascension) of those pAdukA on the siMhAsana; also keep it provided with the honours of chatra-chamara (umbrella and the plumed fan). They will remain spreading ANNA's shakti.'

These days they talk about a thing called vibration, in that way they would remain vibrating his power. 'Though they would carry out rAjya bhAram (the burden of sovereignty) in sUkSma (intangibly), since it would not do any kAryam (act) in the sthUla (materially), only a person should show to the world as doing the paripAlanam (administration) in kArya rIti (practical terms)? As to who, to appoint for that job, here I should also somewhat change my mind and have a give and take. As desired by me, because of my prArthanA (prayer), if ANNA does ArohaNam on the pAdukA and give them to me as his pratinidhi--he would certainly do it; his compassionate mind cannot refuse it--if he gives them to me in that way, then I should also, as desired and ordered by him, at least for the name sake, (says it with a laugh) at least as the uLa-uLA-kaTTai*, should sit near the siMhAsana as that sthUla AsAmi (gross person). Sitting down, I should remain holding the umbrella and waving the chAmaram (fan) to the pAdukA which are the real king, with some satisfaction. May it happen that the outside world thinks as if this manda buddhi (dull headed) (laughs) manti buddhi (monkey minded) man rules. Through me, in some way that pAdukA shakti itself would do the proper administration of the country,' Bharata decided.

uLa-uLA-kaTTai - what does this Tamil term of slang mean?

ArohaNa - ascending, rising, rising up
bhAra - a burden, load, weight
cetana - visible, conspicuous, distinguished, excellent, percipient, conscious, sentient, intelligent
dashA - timing or condition of life; periods of planets; edge or border of a garment; wick of a lamp
saukarya - easiness of performance, practicability, facility
sthUla - coarse, gross, materia
sUkSma - fine, small, minute, subtile, intangible, inconceivable, atomic
vAhin - eading or carrying out, discharging
vAstavam - reality, truth
vilAsa - manifestation, appearence, shining forth, sport, play, pastime, pleasure
vyakta - manifest, apparent, cause to appear; adorned, embellished,

Not open for further replies.

Latest ads