We may try to illustrate by examples, although it is a rather" dangerous game and may tend to put into a too rigid and' mathematical formula something that is living and variable." Still it will serve to give a clearer picture of the matter.
- Napoleon evidently was a child of Mahakali; and
- Caesar seems to have been fashioned largely by the principle of Maheshwari; while
- Christ or Chaitanya are clearly emanations in the line of Mahalakshmi.
- Constructive geniuses, on the other hand, like the great statesman Colbert, for example, or Louis XIV,' Ie grand monarque, himself belong to a family (or gotra, as we say in India) that originated from Mahasaraswati.
Poets and. artists again, although generally they belong to the clan of Mahalakshmi, can be regrouped according to the principle that predominates in each, the godhead that presides over the inspiration in each.
- The large breath in Homer and Valmiki, the high and noble style of their movement, the dignity and vastness that compose their consciousness affiliate them naturally to the Maheshwari line.
- A Dante, on the other hand, or a Byron has something in his matter and manner that make us think of the stamp of Mahakali.
- Virgil or Petrarch, Shelley or our Tagore seem to be emanations of Beauty, Harmony, Love-Mahalakshmi.
- And the perfect artisanship of Mahasaraswati has found its especial embodiment in Horace and Racine and our Kalidasa.
- Michael Angelo in his fury of inspirations seems to have been impelled by Mahakali,
- while Mahalakshmi sheds her genial favour upon Raphael and Titian;
- and the meticulous care and the detailed surety in a Tintoretto makes us think of Mahasaraswati's grace.
- Mahasaraswati too seems to have especially favoured Leonardo da Vinci, although a brooding presence of Maheshwari also seems to be intermixed there.