Shloka 95
न लक्ष्म्यास्तत्पुरं देव मया चेदं स्वयं कृतम् । भगवन्नैव दास्यामि त्यजाक्षेपं तु केशव
na lakṣmyāstatpuraṃ deva mayā cedaṃ svayaṃ kṛtam | bhagavannaiva dāsyāmi tyajākṣepaṃ tu keśava
„O Deva, diese Stadt gehört nicht Lakṣmī; ich selbst habe sie geschaffen. O Erhabener, ich werde sie nicht geben — so lass deinen Tadel, o Keśava.“
Unspecified (context-dependent interlocutor addressing Viṣṇu/Keśava)
Concept: The sense of ‘I made this’ (kartṛtva-abhimāna) clashes with the truth that all creative capacity is derivative under the Supreme.
Application: Reduce possessive speech (‘mine, I made it’) and reframe achievements as stewardship; practice offering results to the Divine.
Primary Rasa: raudra
Secondary Rasa: bibhatsa
Type: celestial_realm
Visual Art Cues: {"scene_description":"A stern interlocutor—identified by posture and speech as Bhṛgu or a claimant—stands before Keśava, pointing toward a radiant city he boasts to have fashioned himself. The words ‘not Lakṣmī’s’ hang like a shadow over the luminous hall, as divine attendants recoil at the audacity of denying Śrī’s claim.","primary_figures":["Keśava (Viṣṇu)","Bhṛgu or claimant-sage (interlocutor)","Śrī Lakṣmī (suggested presence as aura or distant figure)"],"setting":"A cosmic workshop-court: floating architectural forms, lotus motifs, and a half-manifest city with gates and towers suspended in ether.","lighting_mood":"divine radiance","color_palette":["electric gold","storm-cloud blue","lotus magenta","ashen white","jade green"],"tanjore_prompt":"Tanjore painting style: Keśava with serene but firm gaze, gold-leaf halo; the claimant-sage gesturing emphatically toward a jewel-like city; subtle depiction of Lakṣmī as a luminous aura behind Viṣṇu; rich reds/greens, embossed gold borders, ornate crowns and armlets, dramatic narrative composition.","pahari_prompt":"Pahari miniature style: refined confrontation with psychological nuance—Keśava calm, the sage tense; the city painted like a delicate miniature fort in the sky; cool gradients and lyrical clouds, fine textile patterns, restrained but sharp hand gestures.","kerala_mural_prompt":"Kerala mural style: bold outlines, Keśava’s iconic eyes and ornaments; the claimant’s pride shown through exaggerated stance; the city rendered as stylized golden architecture; warm pigment blocks, temple-wall framing with lotus and conch motifs.","pichwai_prompt":"Pichwai cloth painting style: central medallion of a lotus-city; side vignette of Keśava and the refusing sage; ornate floral borders, chakra and shankha motifs, deep indigo ground with gold highlights, symmetrical devotional layout."}
Audio Atmosphere: {"recitation_mood":"dramatic","suggested_raga":"Durga","pace":"fast-dramatic","voice_tone":"authoritative","sound_elements":["tight mridangam strokes","metallic bell accents","brief pauses for emphasis","wind-like drone"]}
Sandhi Resolution Notes: लक्ष्म्यास्तत्पुरं = लक्ष्म्याः + तत्-पुरम्; चेदं = च + इदम्; भगवन्नैव = भगवन् + न + एव; त्यजाक्षेपं = त्यज + आक्षेपम्.
FAQs
The speaker asserts personal authorship/creation of the city and denies that it belongs to Lakṣmī, refusing to surrender it even when addressed by Keśava (Viṣṇu).
It directly addresses Viṣṇu with the epithet “Keśava” and uses devotional honorifics like “bhagavan,” placing the exchange within a recognizably Vaiṣṇava idiom even amid disagreement.
The verse highlights attachment and possessiveness—claiming “I made this, so I won’t give it”—which can be read as a caution about ego-based ownership even in the presence of the divine.