Form of Visnu as guru

[Jenni Cover]

Dear Ashok,

Thankyou for your profound insights. It sounds like you know this text. Do you know it well? Do you know anything about its sampradAya, or the author, or where it was written? You are the second person I've found who has even heard of it.

The whole work is full of puns, metaphors etc. Can anyone suggest any background reading on "religio-philosophical poetry", or punning? What other works are written in the same style?

Thankyou,
Jenni

-----Original Message-----
From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Ashok Aklujkar
Sent: Friday, 26 May 2006 5:02 AM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Form of Visnu as guru

First a minor point/quibble: It would be more accurate to describe the verse as fifth in the first or Guru-stava chapter of Bodha-saara. The heading atha guru-stava.h preceding the commentator's introduction to the verse is obviously added by the editor (in conformity with the colophon of the first chapter).

Many of the verses in this section state, through punning, metaphors etc.
(good religio-philosophical poetry), that a spiritual teacher or the author's teacher is superior to the customary great gods. The cited verse is written in similar vein. One should not, therefore, try to look for a particular incarnation or (teaching) form of Vi.s.nu in it. It personifies mada and moha as Madhu and Kai†abha. A similar ruupaka exists in the expression mok.sa-lak.smii. The intention behind using this expression is to suggest that the spiritual guru-vi.s.nu excels the deity Vi.s.nu who bestows only a lak.smii that binds one to the world. One should not understand the expression as suggesting that there is some actual mythic tradition of mok.sa-lak.smii.

ashok aklujkar


On 25-05-2006 00:41, "Jenni Cover" <jenni.cover at URNET.COM.AU> wrote:
> ...  BodhasAra, ...  first
> verse in the first section: gurustavaH (Praise of Guru).
> 
> madamohAbhidhakrUramadhukaiTabhajiSNave
> mokSalakSmInivAsAya namaH zrIguruviSNave ...
> From Martin Gansten: >I have never seen the connection with 
> Mokshalakshmi before; Vidyalakshmi is more typical.<