[Advaita-l] A question for the Keralites (Kolamandala)

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Bhaskar YR wrote:

>>  sumedha (here in South India we translate 'dvijavaryasya medhasaH as
>>  sumedha only 😊) is Rishi,

I've heard both being used interchangeably.  Sumedha is probably more 
correct though.


> suratha is king and samAdhi is Vaishya.  I
>>  have heard in some discourse the background of devi mAhAtmya is very
>>  similar to that of geeta.  In geeta it is arjuna's vishAda and in devi
>>  mAhAtmya suratha and samAdhi-s rAga-dvesha.

Yes.  There are some who as a result of their sukarmas in the past have a 
natural affinity to adhyatma but others only come to it as a result of 
personal sorrows in this life.  This is why Shankaracharya observes that 
Arjuna was only a madhyama not uttama adhikari.  This comes as a surprise 
to some people but it shouldn't.  It is a sign of the daya and prasada of 
Bhagavan that he gave His upadesha to all people not just the elite.


>  Yes, there is no details
>>  available about 'kOlAvidhvaMsi-s'.  kOlAvidhvaMsi might be the
>>  visheshaNa of some kings' dynasty.

That's what the tikakara's say but _which_ dynasty is the question.


>  Prabhuji I am just wondering do we
>>  really have to dig deep into it when the essence of this text is
>>  something entirely different and when it is exclusively devi para!!??
>

Yes in the scheme of things it is a trivial issue but I believe that Devi 
Mahatmya is not just an ordinary Puranic katha but has deep mystical 
significance in every word so should be studied as in-depth as possible 
and from every angle possible.

(and btw I was informed that the royal family of this Kolamandal have 
nothing to do with the Kolavidhvamsis.)

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>