Page 27 - Bhakthinivedana-Telugu-September-2021-Magazine.pmd

in Chicago University (1999) in his 12e X¯‘êã›|ü⁄ XÊ+&ç\´ uÛÑøÏÔ wüDà‘·eTT\T n+fÒ Äs¡T` n$
book The Embodiment of Bhakti says dü÷Á‘ê\T ìs¡TZD uÛÑøÏÔì, n+‘·≈£î
yÓ’wüíe, XË’e, XÊπøÔj·T, >±D≤|ü‘·´, ø±]Ôπøj·T,
:All devotional poetry plays on the |üPs¡«yÓTÆq Hês¡<ä uÛÑøÏÔdü÷Á‘ê\T dü>∑TD
kÂs¡.
tension between saguna and nirguna, uÛÑøÏÔì $e]kÕÔsTT .
the lord as person and the lord as prin- á eT‘ê˝À¢ ≈£î\+ Ä<Ûës¡+>±
‘·$Tfi¯ kÕVæ≤‘·´+ :`
ciple. If he were entirely a person, he uÛÒ<ë\T, Ä#êsê\ ù|s¡ <äTsê#êsê\T
would not be divine, and if he were ô|]–b˛e&É+ e\¢ Äj·÷ eT‘ê\qT
eT<Ûä´j·TT>±\ Hê{Ï uÛ≤s¡‘· <˚X¯
entirely a principle, a godhead, one #·]Á‘·˝À uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´eT+ ø°\ø£yÓTÆq dü+düÿ]+∫, ≈£î\eT‘êr‘·+>± uÛÑøÏÔ,
could not make poems about him. kÕ+düÿ‹ ø√<ä´eT+. ÄHê{Ï uÛÑøÏÔ uÛ≤e+ n+<ä]ø° kÕe÷q´y˚T nì #Óù|Œ
The Vaishnavas, too, say that
ñ<ä´eT+ Á|üuÛ≤e+ kÕVæ≤‘·´ s¡+>∑+ ô|’q uÛÑøÏÔ kÕVæ≤‘·´+ dü+düÿs¡D ø√dü+
the lord is characterized by both
$kÕÔs¡+>± |ü&ç+~. dü+düÿs¡D\ s¡÷|ü+˝À düe÷»+˝À m~–
paratva, otherness and soulabhya, ease

of access, he is both here and beyond, uÛÑ>∑e+‘·T&ç‘√ e´øÏÔ>∑‘· e∫Ã+~.
kÕìïVæ≤‘·´+ nH˚ ø=‘·Ô uÛÑøÏÔì á
both tangible as a person and intan- dü÷ú\+>± Ä˝À∫ùdÔ uÛÑ>∑eBZ‘·,
ñ<ä´eT+ ø£*Œ+∫+~. uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´e÷ìøÏ
gible as a principle-such is the nature uÛ≤>∑e‘·+ e+{Ï Á>∑+<∏ë\T uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´
Ä<äT´\T Á<ä$&ÉT\T n+fÒ <äøÏåD≤q
of the ground of all being. e÷ìøÏ Ä<Ûësê\T nì ns¡úeTe⁄ ‘·T+~.
‘·$Tfi¯s¡#·sTT‘·\ì #Ó|üŒe#·TÃ. Ç|ü⁄Œ&ÉT
It is not either or, but both ≈£î\$uÛÒ<ë\qT ≈£L\ <√j·T&É+ nedüs¡
‘·$Tfi¯Hê&ÉT πøs¡fi¯ ÁbÕ+‘ê\qT Á<ä$&É+
and; myth, bhakti and poetry would yÓTÆ+~.
n+≥THêïs¡T. ø±ì Äs¡´ dü+düÿ‹øÏ
be impossible without the presence of
_ÛqïyÓTÆq dü+düÿ‹>± Á<ä$&É uÛ≤cÕ
both attitudes Karen Pechilis Prentiss uÛÑ>∑e+‘·T&ç >∑T]+∫ #·<äTe⁄ø√e
Ò
the Embodiment of Bhakti. yêvàj·T kÕVæ≤‘ê´\qT eØZø£]dü÷Ô ‘·$Tfi¯, &ÜìøÏ n+<äs¡÷ ns¡TΩ˝ nì ìs¡›«+<ä«+>±
‘Ó\T>∑T, ø£qï&É, eT\j·÷fi¯ uÛ≤wü\
Oxford University Press, #Ó|æŒq ñ<ä´eT+ ` uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´eT+.
1999. Short introduction: Reframed düeTT<ëj·÷ìï Á<ä$&É uÛ≤wü\Hêïs¡T.

the much-discussed religious path of <äøÏåD≤q (mì$T<√ X¯‘êã›+ n+<ä]ø° düT\uÛÑ+>± n+<ä&Éy˚T
bhakti in scholarship from its static ˝Ò<ë n+‘·≈£îeTT+<äT n+fÒ Áø°düTÔ X¯ø£eTT uÛÑ>∑e+‘·T&ç kÕs¡«»˙q \ø£åDeT˙
definition of ``devotion to a multidi- Äs√ X¯‘êã›+ n+≥÷ ø=+<äs¡Hêï) Äfi≤«s¡T¢, >√<ë<˚$, sêe÷qTE\T #ê{Ï
mensional characterization of it as ø£*j·TT>±s¡+uÛÑ+ qT+∫ Äfi≤«s¡T\T uÛÑøÏÔ #ÓbÕŒs¡T. J$‘·eT+‘ê Ä dü÷Á‘ê\qT
``devotional participation Pechilis`` ñ<ä´eT Hêj·T≈£î\T>± ñHêïs¡T. XË’e yÓ’wüíe nqTdü]+∫ #·÷bÕs¡T.
humanistic emphasis unlocked bhakti dü+Á|ü<ëj·÷\˝À y˚<ë\≈£î Á|ü‘ê´e÷ïj·T
as a history of doing -- interpretive ‘·$Tfi¯ Á>∑+<∏ë\T yÓ*XÊsTT. uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´eT+ Á|ü»\˝À Hê≥T≈£î
b˛e&ÜìøÏ, y˚\ dü+e‘·‡sê\ qT+∫
thought, literary and musical compo- XÊπøÔj·T, kÕàs¡Ô uÛÑøÏÔ kÕVæ≤‘ê´\T
sition, performance, community -- and ≈£L&Ü ˇø=ø£ÿ <Ûës¡>± Äj·÷ uÛ≤wü˝À¢ ñ+&çb˛e&ÜìøÏ ø±s¡D+ Ä kÕs¡«
as an active locus of distinctive con- »˙q‘ê eT]j·TT kÕs¡«ø±*ø£‘˚.
Á|üeVæ≤düTÔHêïsTT. yÓ’wüíe+, XË’e+,
structions of identity. n+<ä]ø° düe÷q+>± n+<äø£b˛‘˚ n~
XÊπøÔj·T+, kÕàs¡Ô+ nì ø=ìï. ‘·s¡Tyê‘· Á|üø£‹ $s¡T<ä∆+ nH˚ kÕe÷q´ dü÷Á‘·y˚T
Ä~X¯+ø£s¡Tì n<Ó’«‘· y˚<ë+ dæKTÿ uÛÑøÏÔ kÕVæ≤‘·´+ ≈£L&Ü e∫Ã+~.
‘·eTT, sêe÷qTEì $•cÕº<Ó’«‘· <Ó’«‘·, n<Ó’«‘,· $•cÕº<Ó’«‘· dæ<ë∆+‘ê\ uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´eT+˝À eT÷\ dü÷Á‘·+.

y˚<ë+‘·eTT, eT<Ûë«#ês¡´ <Ó’«‘· nsTT‘˚ ø=+<äs¡T |ü]XÀ <Ûä≈£î\T
y˚<ë+‘·eTT uÛÑøÏÔ ñ<ä´eT dæ<ë∆+‘ê\qT #·T≥÷º á uÛÑøÏÔ kÕVæ≤‘·´+ n_Ûe~∆ á $X‚¢wüDqT n+^ø£]+#·&É+ ˝Ò<äT.
Á|ü|ü+#· yê´|üÔ+ #˚XÊsTT. #Ó+~+~.
sss
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddôdô|º+ãs¡T 2021 i uÛÑøÏÔìy˚<äq 27