S¶tŒ’s beauty defies all description, Mother of the universe that She is and an embodiment of charm and excellence. All comparisons seem to me too poor; for they have affinity with the limbs of mortal women. Proceeding to depict S¶tŒ with the help of those very similes why should one earn the title of an unworthy poet and court ill-repute? Should S¶tŒ be likened to any woman of this material creation, where in this world shall one come across such a lovely damsel? The goddess of speech (Sarasvat¶), for instance, is a chatterer; while BhavŒn¶ possesses only half a body (the other half being represented by her lord, Ýiva). And Rati (Love’s consort) is extremely distressed by the thought of her husband being without a form. And it is quite out of the question to compare Videha’s Daughter with RamŒ, who has poison and spirituous liquor for her dear brothers. Supposing there was an ocean of nectar in the form of loveliness and the tortoise serving as a base for churning it was an embodiment of consummate beauty, and if splendour itself were to take the form of a cord, the erotic sentiment should crystallize and assume the shape of Mount Mandara and the god of love himself were to churn this ocean with his own hands— (1—4)