`

éçäväsya upaniñad

bySwami Tyagishanandaji Maharaj

SWAMI TYAGISHANANDA:- Born in 1881 at Trichhur in the royal family of Cochin as V.K. Krishna Menon had his primary education in Trichhur, did I.A at Maharaja College,Ernakulam getting First in Sanskrit and the Gold Medal, under the Madras University and later did B.A and Law at the Presidency College at Madras During these days he came into contact with Swami Ramakrishnananda at the Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore which gave a definite form to his spirit of Tyaga and Service. He got spiritual initiation from Swami Brahmananda and secured tremendous patience and life long self-effort. After graduation in Law he practiced for some time and later gave up it all together because of an incident of telling lies in a case. He became the Headmaster at the Middle School of ‘Vivekodayam Sangha’ (Sri Ramakrishna Gurukula) at Trichur in 1924 and got his L.T Degree. Teaching was his life-long habit. He undertook the Kerala Flood Relief of 1924. During this time he started living at the School premises in a small hut. Along with the influence of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda ideas he was a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and used Khadi throughout. The teachers and the students of the school spun Khadi and wore it and it became famous for its nationalistic principles and teachings. Mahatma Gandhi visited the school and blessed. He started a Hostel seperatly for Boys and Girls for Harijan children education in 1927 at South Puranattukara village, inspite of the social opposition. He begged from door to door to maintain it and few young men influenced by him joined as his companaions and many even joined the Order. He was a strict disciplinarian observing Ekadashi Vrata. Once he wanted to test whether he was truly practicing Swami Vivekanada’s ‘Daridra Devo Bhava’ and feeling the presence of Shiva in every Jiva. He took a vow to worship the first beggar he saw and worship him as Narayana and complete the Dwadashi Parayana. Next day what he encountered - meeting a Lepor begger made him disturb for a moment but regaining he brought him inside and worshipped him formally and served him to his heart’s content. He continued to observe this vow on all Ekadashis life-long. He lived at Tiruvannamalai with Ramana Maharshi for some time.

He joined the Order in 1922 at Madras and got his Sannyasa Deeksha from Swami Shivananda in 1932. He was the first President of the Vilangana Ramakrishna Ashrama. Years of hard struggle amidst adversity broke his health and was transferred for rest to Bangalore and was appointed as its President in 1938 where he stayed till his last. He attained Mahasamadhi away on August 6,1951. He was known for his erudite scholarship and sterling spiritual qualities in the Sangha. His discourses and talks on the Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra and Bhagavata, without any reference to notes and commentaries are a legend. His work on ‘Narada Bhaktisutras’ which is a master piece and the article for the Cultural Heritage of India ‘Message of Bhagavata’ are witness to his deep scholarship. Besides these two works, Svetasvatra Upanishad and Mandukya Karika are available to us. Efforts are being made to make available his talks on Isavasyopanishad, Bhagavad Gita, Avatara and varied allied spiritual topics. The Shlokas very dear to him were the following ones:-zÉÉliÉÉ qÉWûÉliÉÉå ÌlÉuÉxÉÎliÉ xÉliÉÉå uÉxÉliÉuÉssÉÉåMüÌWûiÉÇ cÉUliÉÈ|iÉÏhÉÉïÈ xuÉrÉÇ pÉÏqÉpÉuÉÉhÉïuÉÇ eÉlÉÉlÉWåûiÉÑlÉÉÅlrÉÉlÉÌmÉ iÉÉUrÉliÉÈ|| 1 ||AÉlÉÑprÉ¶É zÉÉx§ÉåprÉ¶É MÑüzÉsÉÉå lÉUÈ | xÉuÉïiÉÈ xÉÉUqÉÉS±ÉiÉç mÉÑwmÉåprÉ CuÉ wÉOèûmÉSÈ || 2 ||

1

REV. SWAMI TYAGISHANANDAJI MAHARAJCLASS TALKS/NOTE S

ISAVASYOPANISHAD

All spiritual knowledge is revealed by the ancient Rishis on the basis of their own spiritual experiences. They believe that they have come into direct, actual contact with the underlying reality of themselves and the world in the depths of their Samadhi through spiritual practice. The truths they reveal are felt by them as having been revealed to themselves by this underlying reality or Atman or Brahman. Hence it is said in the Purusha Sukta that the real author of these Vedas is God himself. Hence they may be called the word of God or Gospel. So these ancient revelations may, therefore, be considered the Gospel of the rishis as they are the teachings of God himself given to the world by the rishis to whom they were first revealed vide. Purushasukta: iÉxqÉÉiÉç rÉ¥ÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïWÒûiÉÈ etc., where yajna means both God, the personification of self-sacrifice as well as the sacrifice itself. The rishis themselves were embodiments of this sacrifice viz. the distinction of egoism and all its products. The essence of such a Gospel must necessarily be expected to be, the experience of God through the destruction of AWûƒ¡ûÉU and qÉqÉMüÉU and realization of the identity with God himself.

Veda is one of names of God, according to vishnusahasranama uÉåSÉå uÉåSÌuÉSlrÉ…¡ûÈ. The Gita also says uÉåSæ¶É xÉuÉæïUWûqÉåuÉ uÉå±Éå uÉåSÉliÉM×ü²åSÌuÉSåuÉ cÉÉWûqÉç |. This Veda deals with God and is means for god-realization. God is the goal and Dharma is the means. The latter consist of all those activities which lead to the destruction of egoism, which is the only obstacle to God realization. The topic of Brahman or God is the main subject matter of the Upanishads, which give the essence of the Vedas as Brahman or Atman. Though the Upanishads deal also with the spiritual practices which are helpful to the realization of God, they give mainly only the essentials of spiritual practice. The main details of this practice have to be gathered from the ritualistic portion of the Srutis (the mantras and brahmanas). Of these mantras and brahmanas, Yajurveda is the most important. It deals with, as its very name indicates, yajna or Worship of God through self-sacrifice. It has come down to us in books or shakas, Krishna-yajurveda and Shukla-yajurveda. In the former the mantras and their meanings and applications are all jumbled up together and hence the characterization of it as Krishna or black. Perhaps because the rituals prescribed by it and the ideal placed by it before its votaries is of the attainment of worldly and sensual satisfaction. Such karma is called ‘Krishna-karma’ or black karma as it leads only to further ignorance or darkness and continued entanglement in samsara as distinguished from Shukla-karma which leads to purity of mind and realization of God. Both these karmas are distinguished from one another by Patanjali as MüqÉÉïzÉÑYsÉÉMÚüwhÉÇ rÉÉåÌaÉlÉÎx§ÉÌuÉSÍqÉiÉUåwÉÉqÉç where, Patanjali also notes that, the activity of a realized man is above both Shukla & Krishna IV.7. In the Shuklayajurvedathe whole thing is more neatly arranged, the mantras being separated from the other passages. This was done by the great sage Yajnavalkya. So we may consider Yajnavalkya as the rishi of Shuklayajurveda and the Veda itself as the Gospel of Yajnavalkya. (It deals with nishkama karma which leads to purity of mind and realization of God. This gospel is called Shukla for these two reasons).

2

The Isavasyopanishad belongs to this Veda and therefore we may consider Yajnavalkya as the rishi of this Upanishad to whom it was first revealed by God himself. But as the Upanishads consists of the last chapter of the Veda and the revealer of this last chapter according to the Vedic text is Dadhyangatharvana, Yajnavalkya may be considered only as one of the rishis who compiled the Shuklayajurveda and incorporated the teachings of Dadhyangatharvana. According to Madhva, this Upanishad came from Svayambhuva Manu who praised the Lord Vishnu with these verses, when the latter appeared in his avatara as Yajna the son of Akuti. The rishi is thus svayambhuva Manu and the subject matter is the praise of God as Yajna.

The lives of these rishis viz. Yajnavalkya and Dadhyangatharvana as depicted in the Vedic tradition as well as the puranas give us some idea of what their teachings could be. Thus the Bhagavata records that Yajnavalkya was a student of Vaisampayana from whom he learnt the Yajurveda in its original form. There was some misunderstanding between the Guru and Shishya and the disciple had to vomit all that he had learnt as per the guru’s demand and that subsequently as Shuklayajurveda was revealed to him by his tapas. The Bhagavata records in XII-6.63 that the misunderstanding was based upon the sishya’s disregard of his co-disciples and his arrogance in considering himself superior to them ÌuÉmÉëÉuÉÅuÉqÉl§ÉÉ ÍzÉwrÉåhÉ rÉSÍbÉiÉÇ irÉeÉ AɵÉÏÌiÉ ||. This shows how egoism was at the root of trouble which made him lose his hard earned knowledge and that he got it back only as a result of tapas in the form of repentance and tyaga of ahamakara-mamakara and by worship of God. The word vipravamantra shows that Yajnavalkya was a man who did not care much for the traditional special dignities and privileges claimed by the Brahmin and his main fault in the eyes of his co-disciples might have been his wider sympathies for the rights of one and all for Brahma-vidya which was denied by custom and the disregard of traditions. This (wider sympathies) liberalism in matters of caste and his universal sympathy for all is borne out by his words in shanti parva (318:88-89) – mÉëÉmrÉ ¥ÉÉlÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉiÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉ²É uÉæzrÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìÉSÌmÉ lÉÏcÉÉSÍpɤhÉqÉç | ´ÉkSÉiÉurÉÇ ´ÉkSkÉÉlÉålÉ ÌlÉirÉqÉç | lÉ ´ÉÎkSlÉÇ eÉlqÉqÉ×irÉÔ ÌuÉzÉåiÉÉqÉç || xÉuÉåï uÉhÉÉïÈ oÉë¼hÉÉÈ oÉë¼eÉÉ¶É | xÉuÉåï ÌlÉirÉÇ urÉÉWûUliÉå cÉ oÉë¼ | iÉiuÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÇ oÉë¼oÉÑkrÉÉ oÉëuÉÏÍqÉ xÉuÉïÇ ÌuɵÉÇ oÉë¼ cÉæiÉiÉç xÉqÉxiÉqÉç || These passages show that Yajnavalkya had no objection to receive or impart brahma-vidya or the Vedas to one and all without distinction of creed, caste, sex or color. This liberalism is attested by his giving brahmavidya even to his wife Maitreyi as mentioned in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad although the rights of women to study used to be denied to them by the orthodox. This liberalism and wide sympathy are rooted in his realization of the divinity of the whole world in a spirit of worship of God. Most probably this was what, put out his orthodox guru. The story of the return of the Vedas might be based upon his disgust for the orthodox custom and of his promulgation of the new enlightened doctrine of equality of all. The very name Yajnavalkya means the teacher of Yajna or the worship of the whole world as God. SkrÉ…¡ûÉjÉuÉåïhÉ (cf.Madhu-vidya of Br. Up.) taught brahma-vidya to Aswinis, who were sudras by birth and were refused atma-vidya by devas. They had controlled their senses – aswas. They are healer of disease, the disease of samsara.

Both the rishis Yajnavalkaya and Dadhyanga taught jivanmukti as the goal of life and illustrated their teachings by their own example. Naturally we must therefore expect the Isopanishad which claims these two as its rishis to contain the same teachings in its twin

3

aspects or realization of the divinity of the whole world and of one’s own self and expressing such realization in actual life in the form of service of the world as worship of God without distinction of caste, creed or color and without being affected by fear or favor. (For a detailed account of the essential teachings of these two ref. Br. Up II.5 & Chap III & IV- which deals with his answers, to the various enlightened vedantins of his time in the assembly of the King Janaka and his teachings to Janaka himself). Brihadaranyaka is also, one of the Upanishads belonging to the same Veda and it may be considered only as the elaboration of the teachings of Isopanishad, many of whose mantras are actually quoted in Brihadaranyaka.

The very setting of the Isopanishad gives us a further clue in understanding jivanmukti as the essence of its teachings. In the first place, it comes at the end of the Shuklayajurveda which deals with Yajna. It represents the culmination of the life of worship and service. Beginning with the darsha-sacrifice, it takes the aspirant from the stage of groping in darkness, symbolized by the new moon ritual (darsha – new moon) to the highest level of spiritual life based on the realization of the identity of one’s own self with God and the universes as symbolized by the final verse of the text which identifies the essence of man with the essence of the sun. The intervening chapters prescribe various Sadhanas to suit the adhikara of the spiritual aspirant in various stages of his spiritual ascent, such as Aswamedha which symbolically represents the control of the senses. Purusha-medha symbolizes the conquest of egoism Sarva-Medha (total renunciation.) The positive and negative aspects of spiritual practice are dealt with, in various chapters and mantras by Shuklayajurveda. Thus there is Shiva samkalpasukta in the first 6 mantras of 34th chapter. There is Purusha-sukta in Chap.31. It is here for the first time we find the constant assertion of the rishis that he has gone beyond darkness and realized God. uÉåSÉWûqÉåiÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉÇ qÉWûÉliÉÇ, and that, there is no other method, of attaining immortality. It is also asserted in the same sukta that yajna is the law of life of all wise men from time immemorial see rÉ¥ÉålÉ rÉ¥ÉqÉrÉeÉliÉSåuÉÉÈ | , in the 32nd chap. We get a grand description of God realization. In the 16th verse of this chapter, we find a prayer for the welfare of all those who are engaged in spiritual Sadhana and social service. ‘CSÇ qÉå oÉë¼ cÉ ¤É§ÉÇ cÉ EpÉå Í´ÉrÉqÉzlÉÑiÉÉqÉç qÉÌrÉ SåuÉÉ SkÉÉiÉÑ Í´ÉrÉqÉѨÉqÉÉqÉç iÉxrÉæ iÉå xuÉÉWûÉ ||. In this mantra, when spiritually understood as different from the ritualistic interpretation, oÉë¼, means the spiritual aspirant and ¤É§É means he who saves from injury or harm. (¤É§ÉÉiÉç ÌMüsÉ §ÉÉrÉiÉå CirÉÑSaÉëÈ ¤É§ÉxrÉ zÉoSÉå pÉÑuÉlÉåwÉÑ ÂSÈ) (Raghuvamsha). Sri means spiritual prosperity. This anxiety for the welfare of all is also mentioned in mantras of Chap.22. AÉoÉë¼lÉç oÉë¼hÉÉå oÉë¼uÉcÉïxÉÏ eÉÉrÉiÉÉqÉç AÉUÉ·íå UÉeÉlrÉÈ zÉÔUÉ CwÉurÉÉåÅÌiÉurÉÉkÉÏ qÉWûÉUjÉÉå eÉÉrÉiÉÉÇ SÉåakÉëÏ kÉålÉÑuÉÉåïRûÉlÉQèuÉÉlÉÉzÉÑÈ xÉÎmiÉÈ mÉÑUÎlkÉrÉÉåïwÉÉ ÎeÉwhÉÔ UjÉå¸ÉÈ xÉpÉårÉÉå rÉÑuÉÉxrÉ rÉeÉqÉÉlÉxrÉ uÉÏUÉå eÉÉrÉiÉÉÇ ÌlÉMüÉqÉå ÌlÉMüÉqÉå lÉÈ mÉeÉïlrÉÉå uÉwÉïiÉÑ TüsÉuÉirÉÉå lÉ AÉåwÉkÉrÉÈ mÉcrÉliÉÉqÉç ||. The mantra of Yajna as consisting in co-operation with God in redeeming man is mentioned in the 21st mantra of the same chapter ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑÈ qÉiÉÉåï uÉÑUÏiÉ xÉZrÉqÉç | ÌuɵÉÉå UÉrÉ CwÉÑkrÉÌiÉ ±ÑqlÉÇ uÉ×hÉÏiÉ mÉÑwrÉxÉå xuÉÉWûÉ | Its liberalism in extending the benefits of spiritual education to one and all without distinction of caste, creed, color or sex is shown by the mantra XXVI. rÉjÉåqÉÉÇ uÉÉcÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉÏqÉÉuÉSÉÌlÉ eÉlÉåprÉÈ oÉë¼UÉeÉlrÉÉprÉÉÇ zÉÔSìÉrÉ cÉÉrÉÉïrÉ cÉ xuÉÉrÉ cÉÉUhÉÉrÉ cÉ || (quoted by Sw V.) In the XX: 25 the benefits of cooperation between spirituality and social service is mentioned – rÉ§É oÉë¼ cÉ ¤É§ÉÇ cÉ xÉqrÉgcÉÉæ cÉUiÉÈ xÉWû | iÉÇ sÉÉåMÇü mÉÑhrÉÇ mÉë¥ÉåwÉÇ rɧÉ

4

SåuÉÉÈ xÉWû AÎalÉlÉÉ || That the zÉÔSì is treated on terms of equality is seen from various other mantras also (xviii: 18). The divinity of the whole world is mentioned in xiv; 20 – AÎalÉSåïuÉiÉÉ uÉÉiÉÉå SåuÉiÉÉ xÉÔrÉÉåï SåuÉiÉÉ and xvii; 19 - - ÌuɵÉiɶɤÉÑÂiÉ ÌuɵÉiÉÉåqÉÑZÉÈ ÌuɵÉiÉÉåoÉÉWÒûÂiÉ ÌuɵÉiÉxmÉÉiÉç xÉÇ oÉÉWÒûprÉÉÇ kÉqÉÌiÉ xÉÇ mÉiɧÉæ±ÉïuÉÉpÉÔqÉÏ eÉlÉrÉlÉç SåuÉ LMüÈ || The whole Rudradhyaya is a description of the divinity of everything in the same way as the purushsukta. Even the lowest of animals and vegetables and criminals and sinners among men as also those who are in the lower ranks of social order are also described as only manifestations of Rudra vide Chap.xvi. From the beginning of the text, in various contexts the idea of the identity of man and the universe is repeated over and over again in ritualistic symbolic language as in III;9. AÎalÉerÉÉåïÌiÉÈ erÉÉåÌiÉUÎalÉÈ xuÉÉWûÉ xÉÔrÉÉåï erÉÉåÌiÉÈ erÉÉåÌiÉÈ xÉÔrÉïÈ xuÉÉWûÉ etc. Similarly in xii; 14 we find the famous mantra WÇûxÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉwÉiÉç uÉxÉÑUliÉËU¤ÉxÉiÉç etc. So also, in vii; 42: xiii; 46 we find the sun identified with the atman, i.e. identification of the essence of nature with the essence of man. xÉÔrÉï AÉiqÉÉ eÉaÉiÉxiÉxjÉÑwɶÉ. It is this idea that culminates in the famous expression – rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ in Isa xvi. In fact, the whole ritual of the Shuklayajurveda is so planned that these ideas of the divinity of the man and the universe is dinned into the ear and mind of the ritualistic in various forms in symbolic language till he is able to receive the highest teaching towards the end of the whole Veda. That the aim of the whole text is the realization of this highest truth is clear from the upakrama and upasamhara. Thus in the very first chapter we find in the first mantra the ritualistic is reminded that all the rituals contained in the book are meant only to take him to perfect divine activity. SåuÉÉå uÉÈ xÉÌuÉiÉÉ mÉëÉmÉïrÉiÉÑ ´Éå¸iÉqÉÉrÉ MüqÉïhÉå | A prayer is addressed in the same chapter to Agni or divine light to lead the performer to the highest truth through the ritual, AalÉå uÉëiÉmÉiÉå uÉëiÉÇ cÉÉËUwrÉÉÍqÉ iÉcNûMåürÉÇ iÉlqÉå UÉkrÉiÉÉqÉç | CSqÉWûqÉlÉ×iÉÉixÉirÉqÉÑmÉæÍqÉ | Again in the same chapter we find another famous mantra that all ritual is only worship of God, SåuÉxrÉ iuÉÉ xÉÌuÉiÉÑÈ mÉëxÉuÉåÅ͵ÉlÉÉåÈ oÉÉWÒûprÉÉÇ mÉÔwhÉÉå WûxiÉÉprÉÉqÉç || (I.10). It is interesting to note in this connection how the Veda takes ashwins and pushan among the deities as more helpful than the others in bringing about the birth of God (sav-prasav) in our hearts. We have already seen how the aswins were sudras by birth, who attained divinity through spiritual practice. Pushan is also considered as a Sudra among the gods vide Brihaddevata (Brhd). I; 4:13, which says that the other gods who belonged to the other 3 castes found themselves unsuccessful without the help of pushan iÉiÉç lÉæuÉ urÉpÉuÉiÉç xÉÈ zÉÉæSìÇ uÉhÉïqÉxÉ×eÉiÉ mÉÔwÉhÉqÉç | CrÉÇ uÉæ mÉÔwÉÉ CrÉÇ ÌWû CSÇ xÉuÉïqÉÑwrÉÌiÉ rÉÌSSÇ ÌMügcÉ || This surely reflects the same idea put forth by Swamiji ‘that unless one is prepared to see God even in those who are in the lower ranks of society or of creation, society is bound to suffer and the spiritual aspirant will not be successful in his spiritual practices'. This mantra wants all orthodox ultra- ritualists to (take advantage of) worship even the sudras if they want to be successful in their ritual, as sudras are also as much part of God as anybody else. If one does not see divinity in any part or aspect of creation one has not attained the highest. In rounding up the whole, Yajnavalkya praised to the God Pushan to reveal his divinity for it is only with the help of Pushan that the divinity of his own self is capable of being realized. ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ mÉɧÉåhÉ etc. and mÉÔwɳÉåMüwÉåï (Isa. 15 &16), the reference to xÉirÉkÉqÉÉïrÉ kÉ×¹rÉå is reminiscent of Vedic prayer CSqÉWûqÉlÉ×iÉÉiÉç xÉirÉqÉÑmÉæÍqÉ | Thus it will be seen that the ritual is in terms of various powers of nature. It is a Sadhana in recognizing and worshiping the one God or atman which is the

5

essence of everything.

Other mantras like XI.1-5 also show how ritual is intended to include control and concentration of mind and other aspect as spiritual practice. Yet other mantras like XI.7 show how the rishi was conscious of the necessity for Chittashuddhi as the result of the ritual. Yet others like III.60 show the place of bhakti in ritual. §ÉrÉqoÉMÇü rÉeÉÉqÉWåû, SåuÉÈ xÉÌuÉiÉÈ mÉëxÉÑuÉ xÉÌuÉiÉÈ mÉëxÉÑuÉ rÉ¥ÉÇ mÉëxÉÑuÉ rÉ¥ÉmÉÌiÉÇ pÉaÉÉrÉ | ÌSurÉÉå aÉlkÉuÉÉïÈ MåüiÉmÉÔÈ MåüiÉÇ lÉÈ mÉÑlÉÉiÉÑ uÉÉcÉxmÉÌiÉÈ uÉÉcÉÇ lÉÈ xuÉSiÉÑ, §rÉqoÉMÇü rÉeÉÉqÉWåû xÉÑaÉÎlkÉÇ mÉÑ̹uÉkÉïlÉÇ EuÉÉïÂMüÍqÉuÉ oÉlkÉlÉÉiÉç qÉ×irÉÉåÈ qÉѤÉÏrÉ qÉÉÅqÉ×iÉÉiÉç | §rÉqoÉMÇü rÉeÉÉqÉWåû xÉÑaÉÎlkÉÇ mÉëÌiÉuÉåSlÉÇ EuÉÉïÂMüÍqÉuÉ oÉlkÉlÉÉiÉç CiÉÉå qÉѤÉÏrÉ qÉÉÅqÉ×iÉÈ || Yet others pray for spiritual values iÉåeÉÉåÍxÉ iÉåeÉÉå qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû uÉÏrÉïqÉÍxÉ uÉÏrÉïÇ qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû oÉsÉqÉÍxÉ oÉsÉÇ qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû AÉåeÉÉåÍxÉ AÉåeÉÉå qÉÌrÉ qÉlrÉÑUÍxÉ qÉlrÉÑÇ qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû xÉWûÉåÍxÉ xÉWûÉå qÉÌrÉ kÉåÌWû || Others like XIX.30 explain how the ritual is expected to take to the highest realization through various stages – uÉëiÉålÉ SϤÉÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ SϤÉrÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ SͤÉhÉÉqÉç | SͤÉhÉrÉÉ ´É®ÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ´É®rÉÉ xÉirÉqÉÉmrÉiÉå | vide also XX.24. AprÉÉSkÉÉÍqÉ xÉÍqÉkÉqÉalÉå uÉëiÉmÉiÉå iuÉÌrÉ | uÉëiÉÇ cÉ ´É®ÉÇ cÉ EmÉæÍqÉ ClkÉåiuÉÉ SÏͤÉiÉÉåÅWûqÉç || All these show that the Vedic ritual is a synthesis of all yogas employing all methods of spiritual practices. This spirit of synthesis also finds its culmination in Isopanishad which describes Jivanmukti.

All the above facts about the spirit of the teachings of Shuklayajurveda as well as of its teaching should be kept in mind in understanding the essential teachings of the Isavasyopanishad, which forms the quintessence of the whole Veda. This Upanishad is of prime importance to the members of the Ramakrishna Order, since they are supposed to belong to Shuklayajurveda. It is the spirit of this Upanishad that pervades the principles of practice of spiritual life as explained by Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. It is in this Upanishad we find the spirit of synthesis and harmony of all spiritual practices and religions mentioned and it is the liberal views of Yajnavalkya in matters of rights of women and of lower castes for Brahmavidya and realization of God which is one of the special features of the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swamiji. Here again we find in Shuklayajurveda the characteristic teaching of Sri Ramakrishna that the gods of all religions represent the same entity viz. Atman, vide XVII.27 – ‘rÉÉå lÉÈ ÌmÉiÉÉ eÉÌlÉiÉÉ rÉÉå ÌuÉkÉÉiÉÉ kÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ uÉåS pÉÑuÉlÉÉÌlÉ ÌuɵÉÉ | rÉÉå SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ lÉÉqÉkÉÉ LMü LuÉ iÉÇ xÉqmÉëzlÉÇ pÉÑuÉlÉ rÉlirÉlrÉÉ || and XXXII.1 – iÉSåuÉÉÎalÉxiÉÉÌSirÉxiɲÉrÉÑxiÉSÒ cÉlSìqÉÉÈ | iÉSåuÉ zÉÑ¢Çü iÉSèoÉë¼ iÉÉ AÉmÉÈ xÉ mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉÈ || The spirit of service which characterizes our order along with it spiritual culture without any contradiction between the two is capable of being traced to the teaching of Yajnavalkya and the Isopanishad which form one of the basic sources of the teaching of the Gita also.

SHANTI PATHA

The study of every Upanishad is usually preceded by the shanti patha or Peace Chant. This is meant to make the mind peaceful and unperturbed and free from distractions so that the mind may be concentrated on the understanding of the text whose study follows, so that the study may be spiritually fruitful. The Shuklayajurveda itself contains a chapter which deals with

6

Shanti (xxxvi). Many of the famous verses which are usually repeated in shanti pathas are found in this chapter. Thus we have the famous Gayatri (xxxvi.3) included in this chapter although it finds a place in many other chapters also in different contexts. So also we find zÉÇ lÉÉå ÍqɧÉÈ (xxxvi.9), Similarly AÉmÉÉå ÌWû ¸É qÉrÉÉå pÉÑuÉÈ (14-16) and (24- iÉŠ¤ÉÑSåïuÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉÑUxiÉÉiÉç zÉÑ¢üqÉÑŠUiÉç | mÉzrÉåqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ eÉÏuÉåqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ ´ÉÑhÉÑrÉÉqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ mÉëoÉëuÉÉqÉç zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ ASÏlÉÉÈ xrÉÉqÉ zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÇ pÉÔrÉ¶É zÉUSÈ zÉiÉÉiÉç || There is also the famous mantra (xxxvi.17) ±ÉæÈ zÉÉÎliÉÈ ... etc. Another mantra which speaks of the part of love in bringing about the peace of mind is (xxxvi.18)- kÉ×iÉå kÉ×ÇWû qÉÉ ÍqɧÉxrÉ qÉÉ cɤÉÑwÉÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ xÉqÉϤÉliÉÉqÉç | ÍqɧÉxrÉÉWÇû cɤÉÑwÉÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ xÉqÉϤrÉå | ÍqɧÉxrÉ cɤÉÑwÉÉ xÉqÉϤÉÉqÉWåû ||, where the word ÍqÉ§É means “universal friend or benefactor’ as well as God in that aspect. But tradition has fixed certain mantras for santipathas in connection with Upanishads. As the Upanishads belong to the five Vedas including Shuklayajurveda there are different set of mantras for the Upanishads belonging to each Veda. As Muktikopanishad points out, the shantipatha for all Upanishads belonging to Rigveda is uÉÉXèû qÉå qÉlÉÍxÉ mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉ etc. GauÉåSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ SzÉxÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉç EmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ ‘uÉÉXèûqÉå qÉlÉÍxÉ’ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ || For the Upanishads belonging to Shuklayajurveda (19) the shanti is mÉÔhÉïqÉSÈ etc. zÉÑYqÉrÉeÉÑuÉåïSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ LMüÉålÉÌuÉÇzÉÌiÉxÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ mÉÔhÉïqÉSÈ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ || M×üwhÉrÉeÉÑuÉåïSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ ²Ȩ́ÉÇzÉiÉç xÉÇZÉrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ xÉWûlÉÉuÉuÉiÉÑ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ || xÉÉqÉuÉåSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ wÉÉåQûzÉxÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ AÉmrÉÉrÉliÉÑ CÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ || AjÉuÉïuÉåSaÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ LMü̧ÉÇzÉiÉç xÉÇZrÉÉMüÉlÉÉÇ EmÉÌlÉwÉSÉÇ pÉSìÇ MühÉåïÍpÉËUÌiÉ zÉÉÎliÉÈ || Mahavakyaratnavali says thus uÉÉMçü mÉÔhÉï xÉWûlÉÉmrÉÉrÉÇ pÉSìÇ MühÉåïÍpÉUåuÉ cÉ mÉgcÉ zÉÉÎliÉ mÉÍjÉiuÉÉ AÉSÉæ mÉjÉåiÉç uÉÉYrÉÉÌlÉ AlÉliÉUqÉç || Of the ten main Upanishads as mentioned in the sloka DzÉMåülÉMüPûmÉëzlÉqÉÑhQûqÉÉhQÕYrÉÌiÉÌiÉÌiÉÈ LåiÉUårÉÇ cÉ NûÉlSÉåarÉÇ oÉ×WûÉSÉUhrÉMÇü iÉjÉÉ etc.’, have got the shanti according to the veda they belong. zÉÉliÉrÉÈ mÉgcÉkÉÉ mÉëÉå£üÉ uÉåSÉlÉÑ¢üqÉhÉålÉ uÉæ uÉÉXèûqÉ qÉlÉÍxÉ zÉÉlirÉæuÉ CiÉUårÉÇ mÉëmÉirÉiÉå DzÉÇ mÉÔhÉïqÉSålÉæuÉ oÉ×WûSÉUhrÉMÇü iÉjÉÉ xÉWûlÉÉÌuÉÌiÉ zÉÉlirÉÉ cÉ iÉæ̨ÉUårÉÇ MüPÇû cÉ uÉæ AÉmrÉÉrÉÎliÉ CÌiÉ zÉÉlirÉæuÉ MåülÉ NûÉlSÉåarÉ xÉÇ¥ÉMåü pÉSìÇ MühÉåïÍpÉ qÉl§ÉåhÉ mÉëzlÉ qÉÉhQÕûYrÉ qÉÑhQûMüqÉç ||

The mantra mÉÔhÉïqÉSÈ etc. is found in its present from in Brihad. V.I, but an earlier and slightly different form of the same is found in the Atharva Veda X: 8.29. This mantra has erÉå¹oÉë¼ or AÉiqÉÉ as its deity or subject-matter as it appears in the Atharvaveda and its rishi is MÑüixÉ || The Brihadaranyaka (Brihad) version of it appears to be a later addition as it is a part of ÎZÉsÉÉ MüÉhQû of Brihad. It gives us a very grand conception of the absolute which forms the subject-matter of all Vedanta. The mantra is variously interpreted by different schools, each according to his own conception of the highest reality. The literal meaning of the verse is not difficult to understand: - mÉÔhÉï means that which is full in itself or that which fills everything. Literally, the mantra, therefore, means that is fullness itself and this is also fullness. Taking (bringing) out the fullness out of fullness, only fullness still remains. Fullness here of course, means infinity of the Absolute. To Sankara

7

‘That’ means the Nirguna Brahman which is beyond name and form and ‘This’ refers to Saguna Brahman or Iswara as grasped by mind and words and which manifests as the universe. So he explains the mantra as meaning that the Nirguna Brahman and the Saguna Brahman are in reality One, and the former is untouched by any world process or by being conceived of or described by the mind or words. The Saguna Brahma is only an appearance to him, the highest reading of the Absolute by the human mind which works only within the framework of time, space and causation. No idea of the Absolute necessitated by the weakness or limitations of the human mind can make any real change in the Absolute itself. The Absolute as it is realized after transcending the limitation of the mind is what is referred to as 'That' and the Absolute as it is grasped by the mind is what is referred to by ‘This’ in the mantra. Since the latter also is in reality only the former, if all misconception about it caused by the incapacity of the mind to grasp it were removed, the Saguna Brahman which is one with Nirguna Brahman will be realized in its real nature as the same as the Absolute. So the second line would mean, according to him, if the real absolute is realized it will be also realized that the Saguna Brahman and the universe are nothing but the Absolute and that only the Absolute exists, everything else having name and form including the creator and the created universe being ephemeral and false. This mantra therefore according to his is a fit subject for meditation at the beginning of the study of the Upanishad which presumes to teach the Absolute which is really beyond all thought so that in spite of all attempts at description by the Srutis this absolute is only to be experienced and not known by the spiritual aspirant, the scriptures being capable of helping the aspirant through his own Sadhana to have the first hand direct experience.

If the expression ‘This’ is taken as referring to Jiva instead of Saguna Brahman, the mantra can also be taken to mean Jivanmukti, where the individual soul or Jiva realizes itself as nothing else than Brahman itself and so identical with God and the universe as well. God also is infinite and Jiva also is infinite really, although it is only a manifestation of God. When the real nature of the Jiva and world is realized as Brahman the individual also becomes Brahman itself and remains as such till the death of his body without being affected by any of sense objects or bound by desires or his activities. This is jivanmukti. This Jivanmukti is the essential meaning of all Shanti mantras.

To the other schools of Vedanta, this personal God or Iswara is always only Saguna having innumerable auspicious attributes. Even when the Vedas describe Iswara as Nirguna, nirguna only means, according to them, that the Iswara is beyond satwa, rajas and tamas. Nirgunatvam is only another attribute of Iswara which is negative in contrast with positive attributes. He is the cause of the universe which is an effect.

To the Visishtadvaitin, the world is as real as Iswara Himself. For he believes in Satkaryavada, the doctrine of causation according to which the effect is not a new product but is only a manifestation of what already and always existed in the cause. The effect is nothing but the cause in its state of manifestation and the cause is nothing but the effect in a subtle form. The visishtadvaitin therefore, understands this mantra in terms of his idea of causation. God as well as the universe is both real and identical. Both of them are absolute. Even after the cause manifests itself as the Absolute effect, since both cause and effect are the same, only God remains as the universe. According to Gopalananda who leans towards Visishtadvaita, the first line refers to creation and the second line absorption and when ‘this’ infinite world which is the effect comes out of or manifests itself out of ‘that’ viz. Iswara, Iswara does not lose the infinitude. Similarly when this world is absorbed into Iswara at the

8

time of pralay, only Iswara remains. So this infinite world is, before creation and after dissolution, only the Infinite Iswara and therefore in the state of manifestation also it is nothing but Iswara. Sankara also has no objection to this interpretation, only he would add this manifest world as well as the creator is only the appearances and not real in the sense in which the absolute is real.

To Madhwa, Iswara is only the efficient cause and not the material cause at all and ‘This’ infinite manifest world can never be Iswara before srushti or after pralaya nor in the state of manifestation. Therefore, he finds it difficult to interpret ‘This’ as meaning the universe, for if he takes it as meaning the universe, he would be admitting that God and the Universe are the same and identical. So he takes ‘this’ to mean only the ‘avatara’. So the mantra would mean only that God is infinite and that his avatara also is infinite and that God does not lose his infinitude even when he takes birth as an avatara. The avatara also does not lose his infinitude when he withdraws his name and form and goes back to his original state of Iswara.

There are also some modern interpretations given to this mantra from the mathematical standpoint. The modern mathematician thinks that his conception of infinity is what is actually given in this mantra. To him his infinity cannot in anyway be affected by any addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. If an infinite number is taken away from the infinity or added to it, infinity remains unaffected. But the conception of the mathematician is not what vedantins speak of as the Absolute Brahman. The Vedantin’s Brahman is beyond all conception itself. Even when he uses expressions like infinite or absolute he is fully conscious that these words denote only an idea, not the Absolute itself. But the infinity of mathematicians denotes a number and quantity although it may be infinitely large. It is something which could be manipulated within mathematical equations as it is designated by (as) ‘n’. It means only any number or quantity however big but still having characteristics of other number or quantities. Therefore it is only a relative conception which holds well only when the mind works in the waking state. It has no reference to the Reality as it exists in itself beyond the three states of consciousness. Moreover the mathematicians deal with abstractions based on observations of sense data. Their conceptions of infinity is always colored or limited by the sense data on which it is based and their equations can be tested by further observation of sense object. The vedantic Absolute is of an entirely different order altogether. It is the reality and not an abstraction and it is realized only when one goes beyond the mind and the senses. Nor can it be tested or verified by anything other than itself. Observations of sense data can never prove or disprove this Absolute which is a matter of direct experience called AmÉËU¤ÉÉlÉÑpÉuÉ as distinct from mÉëirÉ¤É or AlÉÑqÉÉlÉ based upon it. Moreover there are different degrees of infinity capable of being conceived of from the standpoint of mathematics. Thus a straight line, according to Euclid, can be infinitely extended and therefore be conceived of as infinite in it-self. But a plane surface consisting of length and breadth can be infinitely extended likewise and may therefore be conceived of as infinite. But it will be readily admitted that the infinity of a line cannot be exactly the same as the infinity of the plane surface of 2 dimensions. Similarly there can be infinity of 3 dimensions also in terms of space and time together. We shall not be surprised if further infinities are added in course of time each more comprehensive than the preceding. The very fact that one could conceive of lower infinities and higher infinities or smaller infinities or bigger infinities and more comprehensive or less comprehensive infinity’s shows that the mathematicians are not dealing with the real infinity or the Absolute which is beyond all relative conceptions. The infinity of the mathematician is the sum total of

9

numbers or quantities which are parts each of which in finite. The total sum of any number of finite parts can itself be only big, but not infinite and still definite however vague it may be. Again the infinite or absolute of Vedanta is more of the nature of consciousness and life than the infinity of mathematics which deals only with physical or material entities. The Vedantins Absolute is all-pervasive and the very stuff of the universe including life and mind themselves. It is beyond subject and object. The whole physical universe, according to modern scientists has become finite, its infinitude being only of the nature of a sphere. This conception of the infinity of the universe may be acceptable to Madhwa who finds a difference between God and the universe and to whom therefore the two cannot be the same. If at all the mantra has any relation to mathematical infinity it can refer only to the second infinity and not the first. This may be taken as meaning mathematician’s infinity and this infinity and not the first this may be taken as meaning mathematician’s infinity and this infinity may be considered as an abstraction from the Absolute Brahman which remains unaffected by any abstractions made by the mathematicians.

It is usual to repeat the word zÉÉÎliÉ thrice after reciting this mantra before beginning the study of the text itself. This repetition three times is with reference to the three fold nature of all obstructions to study and spiritual life. This three fold nature may be understood as referring to adhyatmic, adidaivic and adibhautic obstacles. The orthodox people understand by adhyatmic those which pertain to the body, by adidaivic as those caused by devas, navagrahas, stars etc. and by adibhautic as those caused by ghosts, demons etc. But a better interpretation of these expressions would most probably be the adhyatmic as relating to the Atman or spiritual. Adidaivic as that which is caused by external agencies and adibhautic as caused by body which is made up of pancha bhutas. The triple nature of obstructions to spiritual life may have reference to the three fold covering of the spirit viz. the xjÉÔsÉ, xÉÔ¤ÉqÉ, and MüÉUhÉ or the obstacles caused by the ̧ÉÌuÉkÉMüUhÉ or the 3 functions of the mind-intellect, emotion and will which are the sources of error, suffering and sin. Whatever interpretation is accepted it would suit the context because what is wanted by the student is complete freedom from all kinds of distractions which might possibly occur.

UPANISHAD

The Upanishad, according to all school, deal with Brahmavidya or Atmavidya. The Brahmavidya has got two aspects - the theoretical as well as practical. The theoretical aspect consists of a knowledge or understanding of the nature of God, man and the universe. There are 2 varieties of this knowledge, one of which is purely intellectual and the other based upon actual experience. Both these are generally included under the name Jnanam (sometimes distinguished as Jnana & Vijnana). The practical aspect consists of life in the light of such knowledge. This life also has 2 aspects - The life of the merely intellectual knower and that which is based on actual experience, the former being only a means to the latter which is the end or goal of life. There are many interpretations of the Upanishads due to the differences in understanding the nature of these 2 aspects of theory and of practice. These interpretations are based on the particular experiences and opinions of the interpreters themselves or of the acharyas of a particular school of thought to which they belong. Very often the text is interpreted in terms of the teaching of some other text such as the agamas, puranas etc. This attempt is like putting the cart before the horse, for the srutis are authorities in themselves. It is the puranas or agamas which are the later texts that have to be understood in terms of the srutis and not vice versa. The srutis themselves according to all orthodox schools are self-revealing and must be understood in their own light. If at all any help is to be derived from

10

other texts, it must be from other sruti texts, preferably those belonging to the same sakha of the Vedas and which purport to be the teachings of the same rishi. If a particular text is a part of a bigger whole the assistance of the teachings of the bigger whole may be taken to understand the teachings of the part. Further than that it is unsafe to rely upon later texts like the puranas or agamas to understand any sruti text or to import into the text one’s own opinions or the opinions of the school to which one belongs. But these restrictions do not apply to men of realizations who have actual experience of the Absolute Reality. They have the right to interpret the scriptures in the light of their own spiritual experiences to suit the needs of succeeding generations. Cf. Narada Bhakti Sutra 12 and notes there on. Also Sri Ramakrishna’s words, that when there is a contradiction between his own experience and the words of the sruti he would invariably accept the former. The various commentaries that are available may all be helpful to spiritual life to particular sets of aspirants. But we may not agree with them when they criticize the interpretation given by commentators belonging to other school (most of whom are not realized persons at all but who rely upon grammar & nirukta for their interpretations). Most of these interpretations are partial and do not cover all the four aspects of spiritual life or knowledge as mentioned above. The teaching of the text of the Isopanishad is comprehensive and all inclusive and covers the whole field of spiritual knowledge and life in both stages of mere aspiration as well as realization. There is really no opposition or contradictions between these various aspects of brahmavidya life which covers all departments of known activity and knowledge covers all aspects of knowledge of truth and life must always be based upon such knowledge and knowledge must express itself in life. Therefore there is no opposition between knowledge and life in either stage whether that of the aspirant or the adept. Similarly there is no opposition or contradiction between the knowledge and life of the aspirant and those of the realized man. The former is not only a means to the latter but is actually based upon the model of the latter. It is the knowledge and life which have become natural to man of realization that is understood by the aspirant intellectually with the help of scriptures and gurus and practiced with effort by the aspirant to attain realization. This is admitted by all Acharyas. Thus Sankara says xÉuÉï§ÉæuÉ ÌWû AkrÉÉiqÉzÉÉx§Éå M×üiÉÉjÉïsɤÉhÉÉÌlÉ rÉÉÌlÉ iÉÉlrÉåuÉ xÉÉkÉlÉÉÌlÉ EmÉÌSzrÉliÉå rɦÉxÉÉkrÉiuÉÉiÉç || (Gita Bhashya ii, 55). Madhwa says iɲæ ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑÍpÉÈ xÉÉkrÉÇ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉ rɨÉÑ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ iɲæ ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑÍpÉÈ xÉÉkrÉÇ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ rɨÉÑ ¥ÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ rɨÉÑ sɤÉhÉqÉç || (ii, 56 Gita). Similarly Nilakantha says on Gita xvii, 25 rÉSåuÉ ÌWû qÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ xuÉÉpÉÉÌuÉMÇü zÉÏsÉÇ iÉSåuÉ qÉÑqÉѤÉÔhÉÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉåhÉ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå CÌiÉ mÉëÍxÉ®åÈ || As the Jivanmukti viveka notes at the stage prior to the realization of the goal the seeker of God is free from cravings as a result of vigilant practice and they are held in control only with great effort whereas after the realization these desires cease altogether and freedom from cravings becomes natural. The Naishkarmyasiddhi of Suresvaracharya says EimɳÉÉÅÅiqÉmÉëoÉÉåkÉxrÉ iuɲå¹OûiuÉÉSrÉÉå aÉÑhÉÉÈ | ArÉliÉiÉÉå pÉuÉlirÉxrÉ lÉiÉÑ xÉÉkÉlÉÃÌmÉhÉÈ || ÌuɱÎxjÉiÉrÉå mÉëÉMçü rÉå xÉÉkÉlÉpÉÔiÉÉÈ mÉërɦÉÌlÉwmɱÉÈ sɤÉhÉpÉÔiÉxiÉÑ mÉÑlÉÈ xuÉpÉÉuÉiÉxiÉå ÎxjÉiÉÉÈ ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥Éå | eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£üËUÌiÉ CqÉÉÇ uÉSÎliÉ AuÉxjÉÉÇ ÎxjÉiÉÉiqÉxÉqoÉÉåkÉÉÇ oÉÉÍkÉiÉ pÉåkÉmÉëÌiÉpÉÉÇ AoÉÉÍkÉiÉ AÉiqÉmÉëoÉÉåkÉÇ xÉÉqÉjrÉÉïiÉç || From the above passages it is clear that spiritual life in both stages is the same, only in the stage of the aspirant effort is necessary while in the stage of the adept it has become natural. Effort is necessary suitable to he stage of the aspirant in his gradual development to the highest state.

11

Many of the orthodox commentators treat the text as an independent one as it does not form part of the whole Suklayajurveda. Some like Sankara definitely go to the extent of saying that the last chapter consisting of the Upanishad has no connection with karma at all and not used in ritual as laid down by the previous portions of the Veda. Their interpretations also of the mantras of the Upanishad do not explain how the fortieth chapter is a logical development of what precedes and how it represents the culmination of spiritual life which is depicted in the earlier portions of the Veda. The mantras of the Upanishad are divided also, according to Sankara into groups some dealing with the realized man and some with the aspirant. There is no such necessity for bifurcation in the light of what Sankara himself has said as noted above xÉuÉï̧ÉuÉ ÌWû AkrÉÉiqÉzÉÉx§Éå etc. He also contradicts his own admissions in his commentaries on the Gita and the Brahmasutras when he says in the Isa Bhashya that the realized man does not do any karma. In his Brahmasutra Bhashya, on IV.1; 15 AlÉÉUokÉMüÉrÉåï LuÉ iÉÑ mÉÔuÉåï iÉSuÉkÉåÈ He definitely says that even a man of realization has to live till his prarabda karma wears out. This is an admission based on Ch. Up. Statement iÉxrÉ iÉÉuÉSåuÉ ÍcÉUÇ rÉÉuÉiÉç lÉç ÌuÉqÉÉå¤rÉåÅjÉ xÉqmÉixrÉå || (VI: 14, 2). Similarly in his Brahmasutra Bhashya on IV: 1, 19 pÉÉåaÉålÉ iÉÑ CiÉUå ¤ÉmÉÌrÉiuÉÉ xÉqmɱiÉå || He admits again that prarabda cannot be got over by a man of realization. From these two statements of Sankara in his Brahma sutra Bhashya supported by him with copious arguments and authority of the suits and actual experience of the realized man themselves it is clear that Sankara has no real objection to a realized man living an active life for the service of the world, if it is consistent with his prarabda. In his Bhashya on Br. Su. III:4,14, he admits against his own commentary on Isopanishad that the man of realization can, if he likes of his own free will, live an active life of service and that the second mantra of the Upanishad is meant to eulogize such divine activity – ‘xiÉÑiÉrÉå AlÉÑqÉÌiÉuÉÉï|’ and his Bhashya says, rÉÉuÉ‹ÏuÉÇ MüqÉï MÑüuÉïirÉÌmÉ ÌuÉSÒÌwÉ mÉÑÂwÉå lÉ MüqÉï sÉåmÉÉrÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ ÌuɱÉxÉÉqÉjrÉÉïiÉç || Again in his Gita Bhashya on II,11, he admits that a man of realization like Bhagavan Sri Krishna, live an active life of service or lokasangraha. Only, he would not call such activity of a realized man by the name of karma, which according to him, exclusively be limited to mean selfish activities based upon egoism and desire for the enjoyment of worldly fruits. rÉxrÉ iÉÑ A¥ÉÉlÉÉiÉç UÉaÉÉÌS SÉåwÉiÉÉå uÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ mÉëuÉרÉxrÉ rÉ¥ÉålÉ SÉlÉålÉ iÉmÉxÉÉ uÉÉ ÌuÉzÉÑ®xÉiuÉxrÉ ¥ÉÉlÉqÉÑimɳÉÇ mÉUqÉÉjÉïiÉiuÉÌuÉwÉrÉÇ LMüqÉåuÉåSÇ xÉuÉï oÉë¼ AMüiÉ×ï cÉ CÌiÉ | iÉxrÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ MüqÉïmÉërÉÉåeÉlÉå cÉ ÌlÉuÉרÉåÅÌmÉ ÍsÉMüxÉXèûaÉëWûÉjÉïÇ rɦÉmÉÔuÉïÇ rÉjÉÉ mÉëuÉ×̨ÉÈ iÉjÉæuÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ mÉëuÉרÉxrÉ rÉimÉëuÉ×̨ÉÃmÉÇ SØzrÉiÉå lÉ iÉiÉç MüqÉï rÉålÉ oÉÑ®åÈ xÉqÉÑŠrÉ xrÉÉiÉç, rÉjÉÉ pÉaÉuÉiÉÉå uÉÉxÉÑSåuÉxrÉ ¤ÉɧÉMüqÉï cÉå̹iÉÇ lÉ ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ xÉqÉÑŠÏrÉiÉå mÉÑÂwÉÉiÉïÍxÉ®rÉå iɲiÉç iÉiTüsÉÉÍpÉxÉlkrÉÉWûƒ¡ûÉUÉpÉÉuÉxrÉ iÉÑsrÉiuÉÉ̲SÒwÉÈ | iÉiuÉÌuɨÉÑ lÉÉWÇû MüËUqÉÏÌiÉ qÉlrÉiÉå lÉ cÉ iÉiTüsÉÇ AÍpÉxÉlkɨÉå, ... rÉÌS mÉÔuÉïÇ eÉlÉMüÉSrÉÈ iÉiuÉÌuÉSÉåÅÌmÉ mÉëuÉרÉMüqÉÉïhÉÈ xrÉÑÈ iÉå sÉÉåMüxÉXèûaÉWûÉjÉïÇ aÉÑhÉÉ aÉÑhÉåwÉÑ uÉiÉïlÉiÉç CÌiÉ ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ LuÉ xÉÇÍxÉήqÉÉÎxjÉiÉÉÈ MüqÉïxÉlrÉÉxÉå mÉëÉmiÉåÅÌmÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ xÉWû LuÉ xÉÉÇÍxÉήqÉÉÎxjÉiÉÉÈ lÉ MüqÉïxÉlrÉÉxÉÇ M×üiÉuÉliÉÈ CirÉjÉï etc. and vide also his Bhashya on MÑürÉÉï̲²ÉÇxiÉjÉÉxÉ£üÉÈ ÍcÉMüÐwÉÑïsÉÉåïMüxÉXèûaÉëWûqÉç and the various verses beginning with MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåiÉç etc. The orthodox commentators again do not consider the sruti as applicable to all varnas and ashramas alike as well as to all sexes and age groups. There is no evidence in the text itself to make its application thus partial to a few only. Thus

12

the Upanishad mentions only Nara or man in general terms as being influenced by the teachings of the Upanishads ‘lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå’. Similarly the use of ‘rÉÈ’ in general terms in rÉå Måü cÉÉÅiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ, rÉxiÉÑ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ, rÉÎxqÉlÉç xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ, rÉåÅÌuɱÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå, rÉ E ÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ, rÉå xÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå, rÉ E xÉqpÉÔirÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ etc. in the sense of ‘whoever’ shows that the Upanishad itself speaks of any man in general. To confine it to any particular varna or ashrama goes not only against the facts mentioned in the Upanishads themselves but also of the teaching of the Suklayajurveda itself as we have already noted before rÉjÉåqÉÉÇ uÉÉcÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉÏ etc., also against all beings born of the same purusha vide Purush sukta. The rishis Kavasha, Aitareya, Kakshivat were all born of Sudra mothers although they were the seers of Vedic mantras. (Vide Aith. Brah.II;8;1 and Kausitaki Brah. XII,3 where Kavasha is said to be SÉxrÉÉÈ mÉѧÉÈ who was acknowledged as a rishi by such known sages as Viswamitra, Vamadeva, Vasishta etc. who admitted his superiority in knowledge and culture lÉqÉxiÉåxiÉÑ iuÉÇ uÉæ lÉÈ ´Éå¸ÉåÅÍxÉ | Aitareya, see Sankara Bhashya on LåiÉUårÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉSè | qÉWûÏSÉxÉÉå lÉÉqÉiÉÈ CiÉUÉrÉÉÈ AmÉirÉÇ LåiÉUårÉÈ ||, corroborated by Vidyaranya’s story of his life in his commentary on Aitareyaranyaka. Kakshivan was the son of a sudra woman as narrated in Mahabharata AÉÌSmÉuÉï 104 iÉxrÉÉÇ Mü¤ÉÏuÉSÉSÏlÉç zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ GÌwÉÈ iÉS eÉlÉrÉÉqÉÉxÉ || Similarly Janasruti and Satyakama Jabali of Ch. Up. The Sudra Paijavan otherwise known as sudra is said to have performed yajna with Viswamitra as his purohit (vide Nirukta II; 24-6 and Shantiparva 60:39 – ÌuɵÉÉÍqÉ§É GÌwÉÈ xÉÑSÉxÉxrÉ mÉæeÉuÉlÉxrÉ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÉå oÉpÉÔuÉ || and zÉÔSìÈ mÉæeÉuÉlÉÉå lÉÉqÉ xÉWûxÉëÉhÉÉÇ zÉiÉÇ SSÉæ LålSìÉalÉålÉ ÌuÉkÉÉlÉålÉ SͤÉhÉÉÇ CÌiÉ lÉÈ ´ÉÑiÉÇ || In the Chandogya we read of Janasruti and Satyakama Jabala as having got Brahmavidya though the former is expressly called Sudra and the latter the son of a servant woman. The Upanishads again contain the name of many Brahmavits belonging to Kshatriya class and who were ruling emperors like Janaka, Aswapati, Kaikeya, Ajatasatru, Pravahana Jabali etc. from whom Brahmin students received Brahmavidya. Yajnavalkya, Uddalaka Aruni, Janasruti and others were all Grihastha-brahmavits and many of the rishis of Vedic mantras were Grihasthas and women. Brihadaranyaka speaks of Maitreyi and Gargi among brahmavits. (Sudra Kamalakar says zÉÔSìÉ uÉÉeÉxÉlÉåÌrÉlÉÈ CÌiÉ aÉÉæQûÌlÉoÉlkÉå S¤ÉÉå£åüÈ | The Varna Kriyagomati also quotes the passage from the Kurma Purana ‘sudra vajasaneyina.’ The Harivamsha says xÉuÉåï oÉë¼ uÉÌSwrÉÎliÉ xÉuÉåï uÉÉeÉxÉlÉåÌrÉlÉÈ |One peculiar feature of this Upanishad is the serious attempt it makes to reconcile, harmonize, synthesize and integrate the various differing religious and philosophical ideas and views about spiritual life that was current in the Vedic days. This reminds us of a similar attempt made by Bhagavan Sri Krishna in the Gita and of Sri Ramakrishna and Sw. Vivekananda in our own days. Thus God and the world, philosophy and religion, theory and practice, saguna and nirguna Brahman, jnana-karma-bhakti yogas, activity and inactivity, renunciation and service, God with form and without form, enjoyment without bondage, life and freedom, the conflict between ritualists and spiritualists in vedic days, are all found happily synthesized in this Upanishad.

Thus far is Anubandhacatushtaya viz. adhikari, vishaya (abhidheya), sambandha and prayojana. Thus everybody is an adhikari who has got arthitva and samarthya i.e. the desire to study and know and by samarthya we mean the capacity to understand and benefit by the teachings of the book. These are the 2 characteristics of an adhikari mentioned by Sankara himself in his Brahamasutra Bhashya. Each one of these by itself is not sufficient. Both must

13

be present to make one an adhikari. The subject matter (vishaya) is Brahmavidya in all its aspects. The sambandha or relation of these texts to the other parts of Suklayajurveda is as already pointed out that of a fitting conclusion to the whole teaching of the veda which helps the student of the Veda to remind himself of the fundamental teachings of the whole Veda before he finishes his study of it and enables him to put the teachings into practice in the proper spirit. The prayojana or purpose is the achievement of the goal of life known as Jivanmukti which means freedom from bondages of karma and its fruits in the form of miseries of samsara even while alive, based upon the realization of the highest Truth.The understanding of the text is helped by consideration of the various points mentioned in upakrama, upasamhara etc. and ‘arthat, prakaranat, lingat etc.’ as per the verses noted under Gita.

In the Upanishads we find the upakrama and upasamhara etc. all deal with Jivanmukti of the type exemplified and illustrated by the lives of the great avataras like Rama, Krishna and Ramakrishna, as we shall find in the detailed study of the text. Among modern interpretation of the text the interpretations of Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo may be read with profit although the two do not agree about the detailed interpretations of the mantras. Swami Vivekananda’s interpretations as given in his lecture “God in Everything” (Vol.II:p-146 onwards), is more or less a running commentary based upon Sankara with this difference that Swamiji takes the text as (applying to a Jivanmukta) dealing with Jivanmukti and as equally helpful to all people. In this connection we may note the opinion of Mahatma Gandhi also about this Upanishad. According to him the first verse of this Upanishad is the quintessence of the whole of Hinduism and if only this verse is left and all other scriptures are lost, Hinduism and Hindu spirit will still remain eternally alive.

Some say that the previous 39 chapters are meant to give Chittashuddhi by the performance of the rituals to enable the aspirants to become Adhikaris for the Brahmavidya of the 40 th

chapter – AÍkÉMüÉUÈ ÍcɨÉzÉÑήqÉç ÌuÉlÉÉ lÉ EimɱiÉå | ÍcɨÉzÉÑή¶É xuÉuÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÉåÍcÉiÉMüqÉÉïcÉUhÉålÉ CÌiÉ mÉëjÉqÉÇ MüqÉïMüÉhQÇû mÉëÌiÉmÉÉÌSiÉqÉç | AjÉ CSÉlÉÏÇ ÍcɨÉzÉÑ®rÉÉÌSrÉjÉÉå£Çü aÉÑhÉuÉliÉqÉç AÍkÉMüÉËUhÉÇ EmÉSå¹ÒÇ ¥ÉÉlÉMüÉhQÇû LiÉålÉ cÉUhÉålÉ AkrÉÉrÉålÉ mÉëÉUprÉiÉå || If this view is correct then nobody who has not performed all the srauta ritual would attain chittashuddhi necessary to begin the study of Isopanishad and would never understand the necessity of practicing the real essential spiritual practice of Tyaga and Yoga.

SLOKA – 1:- The translation and the notes given in the Madras edition is based upon Sanakara Bhashya. The translation given in the appendix is based upon the original interpretation more or less colored by modern views about the practical application of Vedanta to life. The following is another attempt at the detailed interpretation of the mantras in the light of the life and teachings of Sw. Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna.

The first mantra may be split up into various topics. The first topic is dealt with in the first pada DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç The very first word (shows) suggests the main topic of all vedantas viz. the nature of God. The word ‘Isa Vasyam’ may be split up differently as done by various commentators. It may be taken as a compound word (samasa) Isa + vasyam or Isa + avasyam or the expression may be taken as 2 different words Isha Avasyam or Isha vasyam (also Isha + avasayam). The word Ish or Isha means the Lord or Master, the one Independent Being on whom everything else depends. The word Ish can also mean one who has conquered his own mind and senses and who is master of himself, one who has realized

14

God as his own self and has become thereby God himself and can thus be called Ish or Isha. Thus the very first word gives a clue to the essence of the teachings of the whole Upanishad viz. realization of God through self-control and other spiritual practices thereby establishing his mastery of the forces of maya.

The Ish or Isha that is referred to is to be understood in terms of what is given in the previous portions of Suklayajurveda. Various powers of nature are deified and worshipped as symbols or representatives of God in the various rituals prescribed in these earlier portions of the Vedas. Thus Surya, Vayu, Agni to whom payers are addressed and offerings are made in these rituals are not really the physical things – the solar orb or the blowing wind or the burning fire. They are only pratikas of the one and the only God who is the master of all nature and without whom all nature is powerless. That it is this God that is worshipped in various rituals is abundantly made clear by the descriptions of the objects of worship scattered about in the previous portions of the Veda, especially the Purusha sukta, Siva samkalpa sukta, Rudradhyaya etc. in the light of the forgoing passages the word Isha or Ish refers to the personal God of Theism, the God of Love who responds to the loving prayers and worship of devotees and is always ready to help them. But the Upanishad has also a higher and more philosophical conception of God as Pure Consciousness or Atman of the devotee himself and of the whole universe. This higher aspect is also foreshadowed in the previous portions of the Veda in such expressions as xÉÔrÉï AÉiqÉÉ eÉaÉiÉÈ iÉxrÉÑwÉwcÉ iÉlqÉå qÉlÉÈ ÍzÉuÉxɃ¡ûsmÉqÉç etc. This aspect of God is referred to subsequently in the Upanishad in such expressions as zÉÑ¢üqÉMüÉrÉqÉuÉëhÉqÉç etc., xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉÉÅÅiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉÅÅiqÉÌlÉ, rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ etc. Thus God as conceived by this Upanishad is both the Atman of philosophy, Brahman of Religion, Personal God being nothing else than the higher self of the devotee himself conceived in the initial stages of spiritual life as a person. He is only the highest reading of the Absolute by the human mind before the Absolute is actually realized and of whom all the deities of karma kanda are only names and forms or aspects or limbs as pointed by the expression qÉ ‘rÉÉå SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ lÉÉqÉkÉÉ LMü LuÉ’ etc. iÉSåuÉÉÎalÉÈ This ideal of personal God of the theists is conceived of only on the pattern of the man of realization or Jivanmukta or Avatara, and is only a magnified edition of the perfect human being. The expression Ish or Isha carried with it this suggestion also in as much as it is applicable to both. A life of unselfish service is a characteristic of an Avatara or jivanmukta. Isvara also is conceived of in the Purusha sukta etc. as an embodiment of self-sacrifice and service. His activities consisting of creation, protection and dissolution are undertaken only in the interests of and for the benefit of struggling souls. He himself is not in the least affected by these activities or by their fruits. If, therefore, the theistic God as well as the Jivanmukta are proto-types of each other, the human being also who follows in their footsteps must be as unaffected by the karma and the fruits thereof as per ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑÈ qÉirÉÉåï uÉÑUÏiÉ xÉZrÉqÉç of S.Y veda.

Isha again is described as having become the world. This idea of God being the material and efficient cause of this world is suggested in various mantras of the previous portions of the Suklayajurveda, vide ‘mÉÑÂwÉ LuÉåSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç’. It is these two ideas about the nature of God that is expressly described in the next few words in the first two padas. The root uÉxÉ has got various meanings such as to dress, to cover, to dwell or inhabit, to scent or smell, to love, to kill etc. uÉÉxrÉqÉç or AÉuÉÉxrÉqÉç can be derived from the root uÉxÉ in all these senses. Sankara takes uÉÉxrÉqÉç to mean ‘to be covered’ – AÉcNûÉSlÉÏrÉqÉç As an Advaitin, to him the whole world of senses and thought prevent

15

us from knowing this actual reality. To a knowing man only God exists and the world disappears. This is considered by him poetically or metaphorically to be covering the natural, sensual and conceptual aspects of the world by its real divine aspect as God. Therefore the expression DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉqÉç means to him seeing only God, which is meant by the expression ‘covering the world’ with God or dressing up the world with God to the theist belonging to the other schools of vedanta uÉÉxrÉ means ‘fit for dwelling’. The expression DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç therefore, would mean that (everything) the whole world is the abode of God and everything belongs to God, that is to say God is the AliÉrÉÉïÍqÉlÉç || He, who resides in everything as its inner essence, and controls everything, while the former interpretation lays the emphasis on the transcendence of God as God must be bigger than the world to envelop it, the latter interpretation emphasizes the immanent aspect of God. Whereas in the first interpretation the world is left unnoticed as it is covered by God, the latter interpretation the world is also cognized along with God – its inner witness and controller, where as the former is suggests the unreality of the world in itself, the latter takes the world also to be real. Except for these differences all the schools of Vedanta agree in considering God both as transcendent as well as immanent. Therefore we may take both interpretations as justifiable though each school tries to find fault with the other. Since Sankara’s interpretations implies, according to the other schools, as the world is only covered and not destroyed. It is in a way, tacit admission even by Sankara that the world really exists but it is only covered. To justify Sankara’s main thesis that the world is in reality only God and its sensual and conceptual appearances is unreal, it must be this appearance that forms a cover which hides the reality as suggested in the latter mantra ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ mÉɧÉåhÉ. To understand this mantra in terms of, or constant with the idea of the 15 th

mantra, CzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç is to be split up into ‘ish’ or DzÉÉ + AuÉÉxrÉqÉç (and not ‘AÉuÉÉxrÉqÉç’ or mere uÉÉxrÉqÉç) AuÉÉxrÉqÉç meaning (not to be covered or uncovered – ‘lÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç’). Then the expression would mean the whole world must be uncovered i.e. Maya which forms a cover must be removed and the truth made to shine. This will fit in more with Sankara’s ideas than his actual interpretation of the words which one subjected to criticism by other schools. The root uÉxÉ is to be taken to mean to kill or destroy. In this sense Maya or the cover is not only to be removed but actually to be destroyed. Anything that could be so destroyed could be so destroyed, must by nature be impermanent and so unreal. For, if it is really ‘real’ it can never be destroyed since the sensual and conceptual aspects of the universe are to be destroyed all of them are unreal and God is the only reality. This destruction of Maya is to be achieved by realization of God with the help of God Himself. The word uÉÉxrÉqÉç can also be taken as meaning ‘to be dressed in’ as pointed out by Aurobindo. In this sense also DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉqÉç would mean that the whole universe is to be dressed in or clothed in God. Even Sankara’s commentary would not be inconsistent with this interpretation. In the sense of covering or dressing as Sankara takes, we have to understand the expression as suggesting that even to Sankara the highest realization is not inconsistent with perception of the world. He only insists that in seeing the world the Jivanmukta is only seeing God. His idea of Jivanmukti itself would be meaningless and inconsistent with his own life as well as that of those Jivanmuktas like Janaka, Ramakrishna etc. if Sankara thought of Jivanmukti as complete destruction of the world. In Jivanmukti or realization it is not the world that is destroyed but our ignorance about its real nature egoism and its appearances based upon it. This realization must be differentiated from mere intellectual knowledge or understanding. It is an experience or Anubhava of a higher sort than the ordinary knowledge. So by the expression ‘isha vasyam’ we must understand this higher and more direct experience. From the devotional standpoint this higher experience includes not only the experience of God as the reality but also as the highest Bliss. God is the

16

highest Bliss than man hankers after (c.f Bri. I:4;8 iÉSåiÉiÉç mÉëårÉÈ mÉѧÉÉiÉç mÉëårÉÉå ÌuɨÉÉiÉç mÉëårÉÉå AlrÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïxqÉÉiÉç AliÉUiÉUÇ rÉSrÉqÉÉÅÅiqÉÉ AÉiqÉlÉxiÉÑ MüÉqÉÉrÉ xÉuÉïÇ ÌmÉërÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ || and II:4;5 – LwÉÉÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉ xÉqmÉiÉç LwÉÉåÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉlÉlSÈ LiÉxrÉæuÉÉlÉlSxrÉ AlrÉÉÌlÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ qÉɧÉÉqÉÑmÉeÉÏuÉÎliÉ || and IV:3;32-33 UxÉÉå uÉæ xÉÈ LwÉ LuÉ AÉlÉlS rÉÉÌiÉ|| Tai.II:61 – end of Bhruguvalli and Anandavalli and Suklayajurveda XXIII;19 aÉhÉÉlÉÉÇ iuÉÉÇ aÉhÉmÉÌiÉÇ WûuÉÉqÉWåû ÌmÉërÉÉhÉÉÇ uÉÉÇ ÌmÉërÉmÉÌiÉÇ WûuÉÉqÉWåû ÌlÉkÉÏlÉÉÇ iuÉÉÇ ÌlÉkÉÏmÉÌiÉÇ WûuÉÉqÉWåû also Madhu-vidhya of Brihadaranyaka – qÉkÉÑuÉÉiÉÉ GiÉÉrÉiÉå) Sh.Yaj.Veda XIII:27-29. In terms of this aspect of God uÉÉxrÉqÉç may be interpreted in the sense of ‘to be loved’. God is the fittest object to be loved and the source of all beauty and happiness. Even the pleasure of the senses which man loves so much are only partial manifestations or reflections or misreading of this one divine Bliss. The world of senses and ideas is a source of joy only because it is a form of God seen through ignorance. The highest happiness or bliss can be derived from the world only if its real nature as God is realized. Therefore God is the fittest object to be loved and the world is to be loved as God. Ishavasyam therefore, would mean that it behoves one to get maximum happiness from the world by loving it as God and experiencing it as God and serving it as God (cf. Swamiji’s words to Ingersoll vide Life p.127… every one is God to me). All the rituals that are mentioned in the previous portion of the Suklayajurveda are only way of worshipping and serving God and expressing ones’ love to Him.

CSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç means ‘all this’. It may be taken as referring to all the rituals prescribed in the previous portions of the text or all activities in general or all aspects of the universe in general or ‘idam’ may refer to microcosm and its activities of the body and mind of the individual as well as those of the cosmic forces and activities or energy. All this that could be sensed or thought of are all only forms of God who is the source and agent of all activities, movements, forces etc. in the world. That is why in the ritual previously prescribed not only the objects of nature but all the activities of nature are worshipped as God. DzÉÉ uÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç | therefore, draws attention to the necessity of seeing God in all activities as well as object of the world and converting all activities into acts of loving worship in the form of service of the world. Thus Isa vasyamidam sarvam is an injunction which lays on all the duty of knowing, loving and serving the whole world as God. It thus advocates a synthesis of Jnana, Bhakti, and Karma by the direction of intellect, emotion and will and body, mind and senses to God who is identified with the Paramatman.

yiTk jgTya< jgt!

eÉaÉÌiÉ stands for the whole universe and eÉaÉiÉç stands for all the individuals in it. The whole universe is always changing in space and time. Worlds come into existence and go out of existence every moment. Suns, stars, planets are always actively moving from place to place and undergoing change in their very substance. The earth itself is never stationery on account of its yearly and motions and has gradually evolved out of incandescent gas. All organic and inorganic beings which inhabit this earth have been evolving from the dawn of time. The body and mind of every individual are in a constant state of flux like the particles of a stream or a flame. All the living beings are born and die. Similarly every cell in the body and every thought or feeling in the mind change every moment. The whole world, therefore along with all the individuals in it down to the minutest atom or electron or the living cell are ephemeral and impermanent. Every change can be thought of or understood and every

17

moment cognized only in relation to or on the background of something more permanent. Every movement or change of the movement can be understood only as caused by some force. This unchanging permanent background as well as the prime force or energy is what is known as DzÉÉ or God. In the cognition of every object or action, He is inevitably involved as its material and efficient cause. Every act of cognition must also have naturally the unchanging pure consciousness which is aware of the cognition itself. It is this pure consciousness or Atman who is God and who is the master of all creation and of all activity that has to be realized as per the injunction ‘Isa vasyam’. He is in everything and everything is in Him. Everything lives and moves and has its being only in and through Him and His activities. He is the controller and master of all and everyone is only His servant. Without Him not even a blade of grass can move. He is the only free agent and independent being on whom everything else depends. The very changefulness or ephemeral nature of the universe and the individual is an, is an invitation to see this un-changeful permanent essence and background of it. The whole universe as well as the human body, mind and senses are only instruments which drive man to seek God. ‘Jagat’ comes from the root aÉÉ meaning ‘to go’. It means that which is always going i.e. not stationery or permanent. Every word in Sanskrit meaning ‘to go’ also means ‘to know’. Therefore the word ‘jagat’ also suggests the world which by its very ephemeral nature leads man to realization of God. The whole sentence, therefore, of the first 2 padas suggests the only prime duty of all intelligent beings to be only the realization of God as the permanent essence of the changing ephemeral world of man and nature. In relation to the ritual prescribed in the previous portion of the Veda ‘jagat’ refers to the fruit of action and ritual such as the mÉÑ§É and xuÉaÉï all of which are not worthy of being aspired after being only ephemeral. All ÌuÉwÉrÉÍxÉZÉÉs can lead only to sorrow and misery, as they can never be permanently enjoyed. Similarly all the objects worshipped in the ritual whose protection is sought in various ways are only frail and leaky rafts that can never be relaied upon to take one across the perils and miseries of life. So both the objects of worship as well as the fruits of the ritual aspired after, must be understood as only consisting in God Himself appearing in various names and forms (vide oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ oÉë¼WûÌuÉÈ ...). Similarly all ritualistic acts, the mantras used in the rituals, the utensils and instruments used and the materials of offering and everything also connected with the ritual must be understood by the wise man as only forms of God including the offer-er himself (cf. oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ | AWÇû ¢üiÉÑUÈA rÉ¥ÉÈ || of Gita) and also Bhagavat X:23;47 SåzÉÈ MüÉsÉÈ mÉ×jÉMçü SìurÉÇ qÉl§ÉÈ iÉl§ÉÈ GÎiuÉeÉÉå AalÉrÉÈ SåuÉiÉÉ rÉeÉqÉÉlÉ¶É ¢üiÉÑkÉqÉï¶É rÉlqÉrÉÈ || SØzrÉiÉå oÉë¼uÉiÉç xÉuÉïqÉç (Vol. Ramayana, Balakhanda XIV.10 and also vide Bhagavata IV.21

AxÉÉÌuÉuÉ AlÉåMüaÉÑhÉÉåÅaÉÑhÉÉå AkuÉUÈ mÉ×iÉÎauÉkÉSìurÉaÉÑhÉÌ¢ürÉÉåÌ£üÍpÉÈ xÉqmɱiÉå AjÉï AÉzÉÉrÉ ÍsÉ…¡ûlÉÉqÉÍpÉÈ ÌuÉzÉÑ®ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉkÉlÉÈ xuÉÃmÉiÉÈ mÉëkÉÉlÉMüÉsÉ AÉzÉÉrÉ kÉqÉï xÉXçaÉëWåû zÉUÏU LwÉ mÉëÌiÉmɱiÉå cÉåiÉlÉÉ Ì¢ürÉÉTüsÉiuÉålÉ ÌuÉpÉÑÈ ÌuÉqÉÉurÉiÉå rÉjÉÉlÉsÉÉå SÉÂwÉÑ iɪÒhÉÉiqÉMüÈ || and also xÉWûxÉëlÉÉqÉç where sÉÉåMü is one of the names of God,

also Bhag.IV:24;40 lÉqÉÈ mÉÑhrÉÉrÉ sÉÉåMüÉrÉ AqÉÑwqÉæ pÉÔËUuÉcÉïxÉå ||, which shows that svarga is only God. Also Bri. IV; 4; 13: xÉ E sÉÉåMü LuÉ || AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉåuÉ sÉÉåMüqÉÑmÉÉxÉÏiÉ & I; 4; 15-16: ArÉÇ uÉÉ AÉiqÉÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ sÉÉåMüÈ |, IV; 3; 20 – 32: xÉÉåÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉå sÉÉåMüÈ etc. Also xÉuÉïÇ ZÉÎsuÉSÇ oÉë¼ | and xÉuÉïÇ ÌWû LiÉiÉ oÉë¼ |

18

AÉiqÉÉ LuÉ CSÇ xÉuÉïÇ | of Ch. VII; 25; 1-2, LwÉ E ÌWû LuÉ xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉ | A§ÉÌWû LiÉå xÉuÉåï LMÇü pÉuÉÎliÉ | Bri. I:4;6 &7 and xÉÈ CSÇ xÉuÉïÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | I;4; 9 -10 and CSÇ xÉuÉïÇ rÉSrÉqÉÉiqÉÉ | II;4;6 and II;5;7.

The whole of the first two lines speaks of the necessity for ÌuÉuÉåMü and meditation viz. finding out the Atman in the changing phenomena as well as the fact that all phenomena exists only in the Atman and that all phenomena are really only Atman himself and keeping this always in mind without forgetting it – ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉxÉlÉ. This is the positive aspect of realization which is further explained in detail in mantras 4 – 8. It is equally applicable to the realized man as well as the aspirant, the Grihastha and the Sannyasin, the Dvijas as well as the non-dvijas, male as well as the females, boys as well as the elders, ritualist as well as philosophers and devotees and public workers. The necessary consequence, of this realization of God in everything and its effect on life is pointed out in the next two lines iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ and qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç || The first speaks about enjoyment through renunciation and service and the second of self-control. The central point of both these is irÉÉaÉ which is dealt in all its various aspect in the Gita. In fact we may take the Gita to be a commentary on this one aspect of spiritual life. When the whole world is in a process of change itself, is meant to help the realization of the unchanging background or essence viz. God or Atman, it behoves us to make the best use of this inevitable change to further our progress towards the goal, viz. realization of God, instead of allowing this change to take us away from it by negligence or carelessness. When the scheme of the world-process is to enable us to evolve into God, it is wisdom to co-operate with God and to take a hand in our own redemption with the grace of God (ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑÈ qÉirÉÉåï uÉÑUÏiÉ xÉZrÉqÉç). All progress or growth naturally involves a readiness to give up the present lower stage to future higher stage. This giving up is called ‘renunciation’ or irÉÉaÉ and the taking up of the higher stage is ‘service’ or ‘yoga’. All spiritual life involves both tyaga as well as yoga which form the obverse and reverse of the same coin of spiritual progress. The one cannot be had without the other. Yoga must be always accompanied by tyaga. If only one is possible ‘tyaga’ is to be preferred to ‘yoga’, because even if it does not enable one to rise higher it prevents one from falling lower. So yoga is all important from this standpoint. But such a thing as ‘tyaga’ by itself is not possible without yoga. If yoga also is not attempted with tyaga, the chances are that one would not be successful even in tyaga. This aspect is further elaborated in the Upanishad in the mantra 9 – 14. iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ suggests both these aspects as a necessary element of all spiritual practice. The principle enunciated in these lines is equally applicable to all, though Sankara apparently wants to confine it to Brahmin Sannyasins. Tyaga is the law of life which is only a struggle for securing maximum enjoyment or bliss. Every aspect of life is covered by this spirit of ‘tyaga’ whether this tyaga is voluntary or involuntary. This is what the Gita means when it says xÉWûrÉ¥ÉÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÈ xÉ×¹uÉÉ etc. Even the ordinary enjoyment of sensual and worldly pleasures is not possible without giving up some comfort or convenience or wealth or independence or honor or morality. The (small self or the ego) sacrifice of the little self is inevitable in every act of life. Such being the case, it is wisdom to give up, for a noble and a higher cause, voluntarily and joyfully xÉͳÉÍqɨÉå uÉUÇ irÉÉaÉÉå ÌuÉlÉÉzÉå ÌlÉrÉiÉå xÉÌiÉ (Hitopedesha), as Swamiji very often quotes in his lectures. This tyaga has got various aspects as applicable to various stages of spiritual ascent and to different adhikaris in different circumstances and conditions. Thus beginning from giving up of mere ease and comfort there are higher and higher aspects of Rajasic and Satvic tyaga which finally culminates in the Nirguna Tyaga of the man of realization. The various aspects such as ÌuÉwÉrÉ irÉÉaÉ and xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉ or external and internal renunciation,

19

MüqÉï irÉÉaÉ | TüsÉ irÉÉaÉ | mÉÉmÉmÉÑhrÉ irÉÉaÉ | AÍpÉqÉÉlÉ irÉÉaÉ | AWûƒ¡ûÉU irÉÉaÉ | qÉqÉMüÉU irÉÉaÉ | AÌuÉkÉÉ irÉÉaÉ | MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉ irÉÉaÉ | MüqÉMüÉgcÉlÉ irÉÉaÉ | aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ irÉÉaÉ | self-surrender or mÉëmÉÌ¨É and dedication or AmÉïhÉÇ of one’s own whole life, body and mind to God along with the tyaga of all prescribed scriptural Dharmas – all these and various other shades of tyaga have been explained by Bhagavan in the Gita (Chapter XVIII). All there are suggested by the expression irÉ£åülÉ. The word irÉ£ü is taken by Sankara as meaning irÉÉaÉ | iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ, would therefore, mean literally ‘therefore enjoy through renunciation’. Although the root pÉÑeÉç literally means, only to eat food or enjoy pleasure and happiness, Sankara explains it in the sense of protect or nourish mÉÉsÉrÉåjÉÉÈ. This mÉÉsÉlÉqÉç or protection is only protection of one’s own Atman according to him. Even if we take it in the sense of mÉÉsÉlÉqÉç, it is better to understand the word not only as referring to one’s own self but to those of others also. One can save one’s soul only by finding one’s soul in others also and helping others to realize their own soul. There is really no contradiction between saving oneself and saving others. One’s own self interest is safeguarded only by the safety of others. Human welfare whether worldly or spiritual or moral, is indivisible (cf. xuÉÉjÉÉåï rÉxrÉ mÉëÉjÉï LuÉ ÌWû mÉÑqÉÉlÉç LMüÈ xÉiÉÉÇ AaÉëhÉÏ – Bhartrihari). Therefore pÉÑÎgeÉjÉÉÈ may be taken as an injunction to service on the basis of the realization of the divinity of the whole universe and identity of one’s own self with the universe. Even according to Sankara all ashramas are only training grounds in Tyaga. None of the ashramas deserves the name of Ashrama if those who are in that ashrama do not carry out their duties in a spirit of tyaga. Thus the Brahmachari is trained in tyaga in discharge of his various duties such as study of scriptures, service to the Guru, ÍpɤÉɳÉç, giving up the luxuries, observance of Brahmacharya vrata etc. The Grihastha also gets further training in tyaga, in the form of yajna, dana, tapas, dana taking the form of annadana, vidyadana, jivitadana, dharmadana and in his duty to do every action in the spirit of DµÉUÉmÉïhÉ. He is required, according to the sastras to observe Brahmacharya even in his married life as laid down in the vedic injunction rÉ¥ÉålÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ oÉë¼cÉrÉåïhÉ GwÉÑprÉÈ | The various ways in which he is to observe Brahmacharya is laid down by Bodhayana in the aÉ×½xÉÔ§ÉmÉËUpÉÉwÉÉ thus on the basis of the injunctions of the srutis AjÉ uÉæ pÉuÉÌiÉ eÉÉrÉqÉÉlÉÉå uÉæ oÉë¼hÉÈ Ì§ÉÍpÉÈ GhÉuÉÉlÉç eÉÉrÉiÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉåïhÉ GÌwÉprÉÈ rÉ¥ÉålÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ CÌiÉ || (Tait. Samhita VI: 3; 10-5) and AjÉ uÉæ pÉuÉÌiÉ – ‘eÉÉrÉqÉÉlÉÉå uÉæ oÉëɼhÉÉÎx§ÉÍpÉUç GhÉuÉÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉåïhÉ GÌwÉprÉÉå rÉ¥ÉålÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ’ CÌiÉ || 1|| oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ urÉÉZrÉÉxrÉÉqÉÈ || 2 || AÉ xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉÉSåuÉæiÉ°uÉÌiÉ ‘lÉÉcÉÏhÉïuÉëiÉÉå oÉë¼cÉÉUÏ pÉuÉÌiÉ’ CÌiÉ iÉSÉ´ÉqÉÉå urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÈ || 3 || AiÉ FkuÉïÇ oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ rÉålÉÉlÉ×hÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ || 4 || xuÉSÉU CirÉåMüqÉç || 5 ||qÉl§ÉuÉimÉërÉÉåaÉ CirÉåMüqÉç || 6 || GiÉÉÌuÉirÉmÉUqÉç || 7|| AjÉÉÍkÉoÉë¼cÉrÉïqÉç ÌuÉuÉÉWåû ̧ÉUɧÉqÉç || 8 ||GiÉÉæ ̧ÉUɧÉqÉç || 9 || AqÉÉuÉÉxrÉÉrÉÉÇ mÉÉæhÉïqÉÉxrÉÉÇ ´ÉÉ®Ç SiuÉÉ pÉÑYiuÉÉ cÉæMüUɧÉqÉç || 10 || mÉUx§ÉÏwÉÑ ÌSuÉÉ cÉ rÉÉuÉ‹ÏuÉqÉç || 11 ||

20

AalrÉÉkÉårÉå ²ÉSzÉUɧÉqÉç || 12 || AÉaÉërÉhÉå̹mÉzÉÑoÉlkÉÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉuÉxÉjÉåwuÉåMüUɧÉqÉç || 13 || LuÉqÉåuÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ uÉåSMüqÉïxÉÑ || 14 || cÉÉiÉÑqÉÉïxrÉåwÉÑ xÉÇuÉixÉUqÉç || 15 || rÉjÉÉmÉërÉÉåaÉqÉlrÉåwÉÑ rɥɢüiÉÑwÉlrɧÉiÉÉæï SÏbÉïxɧÉåwÉÑ kÉqÉïuÉëiÉåwÉÑ cÉ || 16 || iÉSåiÉ®qrÉåï mÉÑhrÉÇ mÉѧrÉqÉÉrÉÑwrÉÇ xuÉarÉïÇ rÉzÉxrÉqÉÉlÉ×hrÉÍqÉÌiÉ urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÇ oÉë¼cÉrÉïqÉç || 17 ||

cf. Grihyasutra 1-17 and also Satapata I.72 – GhÉÇ uÉæ eÉÉrÉiÉå rÉÉåÅÎxiÉ eÉÉrÉqÉÉlÉ LuÉ SåuÉåprÉÈ GÌwÉprÉÈ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉÈ qÉlÉÑwrÉåprÉÈ |

Similarly in Bodhayana grihya sutra I;7;1-21 it is laid down that the Grihastha who wants to have good and spiritual sons should observe a period of Brahmacharya after marriage extending from 3 days to one year. The Grihastha has to avoid a lustful woman in marriage and has to yield to sexual embrace only in the interests of Dharma if and when the wife has a craving for a son. The demands of Dharma are satisfied when one child is born and the wife becomes the mother of the husband after he takes birth as the child. Sexual connection with the wife after the birth of a child is as sinful as incest. Even a householder is not compelled by the sastras to have a child. The Sastras are only permissive in this respect. mÉëeÉÉ in the language of the sastras does not mean merely one’s own son, as Bodhayana points out that praja means also one whom the householder teaches or to whom the householder officiates as a priest in a sacrifice and one whom he initiates into oÉë¼cÉrÉï. The word mÉëeÉÉ itself comes from the preposition mÉë + root eÉlÉç meaning mÉëMüwÉåïhÉ eÉlÉlÉqÉç || One who is spiritually regenerated is mÉëeÉÉ.The aÉ×WûxjÉ is the supporter and servant of the whole society. All the other ashramas depend upon aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ. He is the only earning member and all others live upon his earnings. It is the duty of the aÉ×WûxjÉ to observe also the various ritualistic Dharmas of the sastras. He has to earn wealth by righteous means and distribute it to others including the devas and pitris, men and animals in the mÉgcÉrÉ¥ÉÉ and in the form of SͤÉhÉÉ, SÉlÉ, ÍpɤÉÉ, WûÉåqÉ, ´ÉÉ®É, etc. All rituals involve the SͤÉhÉÉ or sacrificial fee to the officiating priest. SͤÉhÉÉ has to be in return for any work. kÉlÉÇ is a special gift for lÉ× rÉ¥É (AÍjÉÍjÉ mÉÔeÉ), pÉÔiÉrÉ¥É, AÍjÉÍjÉ SåuÉÉå pÉuÉ. Gita III; 13 rÉ¥ÉÍzɹÉÍzÉlÉ ... , IV.21 ûrÉ¥ÉÉÍzɹÉqÉ×iÉpÉÑeÉÈ ... .

The smritis and srutis make it a duty on the part of all Grihasthas to practice tyaga formally every day of his wealth and resources before he can enjoy them himself. Another duty that is laid upon his is to give ÍpɤÉÉ to Brahmacharins and Sannyasins. He who refuses to offer ÍpɤÉÉ when these come on their daily rounds commits sin. The texts go to the extent of saying that the Brahmacharin and ascetic are masters of food. If one eats without giving to these he should perform penance of cÉÉlSìÉrÉhÉqÉç, vide Parasara I: 46 & 47. Bhagavata IV: 22; 44-45 says that the whole wealth in this world really belongs only to the spiritual man and it is only by his kindness that everybody else is entitled to enjoy this world. (also Manu I; 100-1)

In giving to the Brahmachari and Sannyasin, the householder does nothing but giving his property to the rightful owner. He, who does not give ÍpɤÉÉ, therefore is as guilty as a thief or a robber. The aÉ×WûxjÉ however, should not give ÍpɤÉÉ to Brahmanas who do not practise the duties enjoined upon them and observe spiritual discipline. If any such

21

Brahmin is supported by offer of ÍpɤÉÉ in any village the state should punish the whole village as a supporter of thieves. Even the Brahmacharin or Sannyasin who is entitled and whose duty is to beg should not beg for anything which is meant only for the satisfaction of the senses.

Thus plenty of opportunities are provided to and duties lay upon the householder to distribute his wealth and properties among the deserving as an act of worship of god. Similarly restrictions are laid upon him even in earning his livelihood or wealth. The rules of Varnadharma in their economic aspect apply only to people in the aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ and are meant to provide particular professions and avocation to each member of the society to earn his living by legitimate means without trespassing upon the similar right of others. One who oversteps the bound rules of dharma by adopting the profession of another Varna is considered guilty of sin. The caste system was based upon the principle of division of labour and co-operative service. Each Varna has to serve the whole society through that kind of service to which he is predominantly fit by his nature and capacities and he is entitled to his livelihood and the satisfaction of his needs by the service and contribution of others. Each labourer was worthy of hire but each had to earn his livelihood by the discharge of his duties to others. kÉlÉÇ cÉ kÉqÉæïMüTüsÉqÉç (Bhag.XI; 5:12) || c.f also rÉssÉpÉxÉå ÌlÉeÉMüqÉÉåïmÉɨÉÇ ÌuɨÉÇ iÉålÉ ÌuÉlÉÉåSrÉ ÍcɨÉqÉç (Sankara). The Brahmana caste was not expected to earn anything at all if he is to lead an ideal life and he had to give him service free without any expectation of remuneration. He was to live on the grains which had fallen on the field after the harvest. This kind of livelihood was called EgcÉÍzÉsÉ. Manu and Bhagavatam also call this by the name of ‘Ritam’. A lower means of livelihood is by the acceptance of voluntary donations made by other individual or state from their wealth earned by righteous means and which comes of its own accord without request or begging. This is called AqÉ×iÉqÉç in Bhagavatam and Manu. A still lower means is what is got by begging for what is absolutely necessary. If all these means are not available he can earn his livelihood by agriculture, cattle breeding and by trade. He is never allowed to earn his livelihood by selling his services to another or begging dependent upon another like a dog. Agriculture as a means of livelihood is names as mÉëqÉ×iÉqÉç and that by trade xÉirÉÉlÉ×iÉqÉç and living by dependence on another is called µÉuÉ×̨É. Even one who takes to agriculture as a profession, should not store more than what will suffice for one day. He who has no accumulation of goods for more than one day, and who does not care for the morrow is the best among the Brahmin earners. But if he is not strong enough to live that kind of life, he is allowed to store what he needs for 3 days or if even that is not possible he can have grains as much as can be stored in a MÑüqpÉÏ or a MÑüxÉÔsÉ or granary but not more. But the ideal Brahmin should not even when in distress hanker for the acquisition of wealth by excessive attachment or by doing what is forbidden. He who sits about the accumulation of wealth loses his status of oÉëɼhrÉqÉç and the accumulation of vast wealth is a calamity for Brahmana. vide Manu Chap. IV.

The 3 means of livelihood mÉëÌiÉaÉëWûqÉç, AkrÉÉmÉlÉ and rÉÉeÉlÉ among the 6 duties prescribed for a Brahmana are not meant primarily as a means of livelihood. The Brahmana is expected to discharge his duties even though he gets no remuneration in return. No doubt it is laid down as a duty of those who are benefited by his services as a teacher or a priest and who make donations they should pay Dakshinas or fees but the Brahmana has no right to expect them although he gets them as a result of the discharge by others of their own duties. Even the Dakshina that he gets is meant only to help him to discharges his own duties although in extreme case of personal need he is permitted to use a portion of it for satisfying

22

such needs. Thus in ancient days it was the duty of the Brahmana to educate everyone (that came to him) who resorted to him and to maintain all his students without expectation of remuneration and as all people were expected to study and the qualified teachers only used to support many disciples along with their own family. For this purpose all those who were rich as well as the state had to make donations to the Brahmana. The SÉlÉÇ that are given on specific religious occasions are mainly meant only to allow him to discharge this duty. The Brahmana has, therefore, to receive mÉëÌiÉaÉëWûqÉç when it is voluntarily offered by others in a religious spirit of service. Being a duty he would be guilty of sin if he refused to accept mÉëÌiÉaÉëWûqÉç although he has no right to expect it. He can make use of such mÉëÌiÉaÉëW only in public service and he has a right to enjoy only a portion of it in maintaining himself and his family along with the maintenance of others. Society will suffer if the teacher does not discharge his duties to the disciples and dependents, on account of his poverty or physical weakness or bad health and consequent engagement in other professions, to earn his livelihood. That is why mÉëÌiÉaÉëW is made a duty instead of a right. Whenever it is possible one should refuse to maintain himself out of such funds donated only for public service. If possible he should confine himself for his maintenance to SͤÉhÉs received in return for expert advise or service as he is also a labourer worthy of his hire. Even in officiating as a priest (i.e. helping others to worship God properly in the right spirit) he is expected to give his service free and not to make it a profession. He who takes fee for helping another to realize God is a despicable Brahmana. Therefore it is said in the Bhagavatm that Vishwaraupa refused to do such a contemptible thing as to act as a priest when Indra approached him for help in the performance of a sacrifice although he agree to help him without any remuneration as a public service

It is clear that even a Grihastha had to practice irÉÉaÉ in the discharge of all his duties to Gods, Pitris and men and animals and he has to give up all his ambitions to earn wealth and enjoy luxuries and confine his satisfaction of even personal needs to what is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of the body which is the necessary instrument for kÉqÉï. Although he is capable to earn his livelihood by other means which are open to ordinary people he is expected to give up all such opportunities. It is only when he is unable to discharge his duties to others for want of proper means such as wealth and health that he is allowed to resort to lower means to earn the wherewithal to discharge his duties (eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ qÉUhÉÉiÉç ´ÉårÉÈ eÉÏuÉlÉç kÉqÉïqÉç AuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç). When anybody is forced by extra-ordinary and abnormal circumstances to do certain acts which are not ordinarily sanctioned by the social rules and regulations in the interests of kÉqÉï and public service, when otherwise the spiritual interests of others as well as himself are likely to suffer, such deviations from social kÉqÉï in the interests of spiritual kÉqÉï are called AmÉ®qÉÉïÈ. They are called kÉqÉï although they are deviations from social xuÉkÉqÉï only because spiritual kÉqÉï is superior to social rules and regulations and because such deviations are accepted only in the interests of higher kÉqÉï and because they are capable of wiping out the sin resulting from the transgression of the lower kÉqÉïs. AÉmÉ®qÉï are therefore, duties undertaken only under special circumstances where true kÉqÉï is itself at stake. Again such deviations are allowed even from the social standpoint when society itself is threatened by danger to its very existence such as war, pestilence, riots, foreign invasions etc. Even in such cases it is ordained that the person who has taken AÉmÉ®qÉï by following the vocations of another caste should resume his proper Svadharma and abandon the wealth thus acquired by him and perform a mÉëÉrÉÍ¶É¨É when the calamity or distress ceases. The distress or AÉmÉiÉç that is kept in view in permitting the AÉmÉ®qÉï is not the personal distress of the performer in the course of the pursuit of his own worldly

23

prosperity or sensual pleasures. If AÉmÉ®qÉï is allowed under such circumstances it will ring the death-knell of all xuÉkÉqÉï altogether... So AÉmÉ®qÉï should not be invoked or accepted unless in very extreme cases of danger to Dharma itself. This is made clear when Bodhayana Dharma Sutra says in II; 2-80 that for saving cows and Brahmins or preventing uÉhÉïxɃ¡ûU the Brahmana and Vaisya may take to arms from their concern for kÉqÉï.

Thus even when a man is forced to adopt AÉmÉ®qÉï he does it only in a spirit of Tyaga. Even an ordinary householder is expected to be a irÉÉaÉÏ even though he may be staying in his home with his wife and children. Thus the Bhagavata says that he should live unattached in his own home as if he were only a guest with no sense of ownership or rights over anything or anybody at home including even his wife and children oÉëɼhÉxrÉ ÌWû SåWûÉåÅrÉÇ ¤ÉÑSìMüÉqÉÉrÉ lÉåwrÉiÉå (Bhag. XI: 17.42 & 51 – 59).

If a Grihastha lives according to the prescription of the scriptures he is as good a Tyagi as a Sannyasi who has taken orders. Such a Grihastha is called a qÉÉæͤÉMü, one who given higher value to Moksha than to ordinary social duties and is characterized as ESÉxÉÏlÉ in Garuda Purana when he continues to be a Grihastha without becoming a formal sannyasi while he who observes all the social duties prescribed by the Sastras and who is engaged in maintaining a family is called a xÉÉkÉMü. CSÉxÉÏlÉ xÉÉkÉY¶É aÉ×WûxjÉÉå ̲ÌuÉkÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç | MÑüOÒûqÉoÉpÉUhÉå rÉÑ£üÈ xÉÉkÉMüÉåÅxÉÉæ aÉ×WûÏ pÉuÉåiÉç || GhÉÉÌlÉ §ÉÏhrÉÑmÉM×üirÉ irÉYiuÉÉ pÉÉrÉÉï kÉlÉÉÌSMüqÉç | LMüÉMüÐ ÌuÉcÉUåiÉç rÉxiÉÑ ESÉxÉÏlÉÈ xÉ qÉÉæͤÉMüÈ || Jivankmukti is possible even from one who has not taken formal Sannyasa (Rama, Kirshna, Janaka, Ajatasatru). Therefore the expression iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ need not be interpreted as referring only to Sannyasins but to all of whom are expected by the Sastras to live a life of Tyaga in whichever Ashrama they may be. The Sastras do not force every ‘Tyagi’ to become a formal Sannyasi.

From the above we can see that the expression iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ can be understood in different ways according as we understand the meaning of the three words iÉålÉ, irÉ£åülÉ, pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ. iÉålÉ may be understood as meaning ‘by that’ i.e. by seeing god in everything as a result of such realization as mentioned in the first half. irÉ£åülÉ in the sense of ‘tyagena’ or by renunciation i.e. by giving up attachment to all ephemeral aspects of the world which naturally accompanies or follows or precedes such realization, pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ as meaning mÉÉsÉrÉåjÉÉÈ in both the senses of protecting one’s own self as well as helping others to protect their own self by such realization. When the words are taken in these senses, the meaning of the ‘pada’ as a whole will be understood as applying to both, - the Sadhaka as well as the Siddha, the Grihastha as well as the Sannyasin. So far as the Siddha or the realized man is concerned it cannot be taken as an injunction as he is beyond all Vedic injunctions and prohibitions and free to live his life in any way he thinks fit, whether in a state of absolute mediation or in the service of the world as occasions and situations prompt him to do. Whether apparently he is inactive or patently engaged in service, his whole life after such renunciation will be of great service to others through precepts as well as example. Even his activity is as good as inactivity and his inactivity as good as activity (cf. MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåiÉç of the Gita). The passage, therefore, can only mean the description of his nature after realization. It only means that inevitably he cannot help being of service to the world whether he is patently active or inactive. ‘mÉÉsÉrÉåjÉÉÈ’ may mean not only protecting other men i.e. helping them to realize God but protecting or giving strength and life to the scriptures themselves as

24

mentioned in Narada Bhakti Su. pÉuÉiÉÑ ÌlɶÉrÉSÉRûrÉÉïiÉç F²ïÇ zÉÉx§ÉU¤ÉhÉqÉç |

As applied to the aspirant it is certainly an injunction or a direction to practice irÉÉaÉ in every act of life and be helpful to all through the proper discharge of his duties to them including his own dependents as in the case of the Grihastha as well as the whole society and the world even in the case of Sannyasins, Brahmacharins etc.

The root pÉÑeÉç also means to enjoy or to suffer. Therefore the passage may be taken to mean a direction to sacrifice oneself for the good of the world and to enjoy the bliss of such sacrifice. When such sacrifice is done in a spirit of loving service the very pain and strain and suffering involved in the (sacrifice) act is automatically transmuted into joy. A spiritual aspirant deserves to have only this kind of joy of life and must give up all other worldly enjoyments. The enjoyment of a man who sees God in everything as per the first 2 padas is really the enjoyment of God himself. Even when he is in contact with objects of the senses, his renunciation of the ephemeral aspect of the world results only in the enjoyment of the Bliss of God. Even the sense pleasures which naturally may result from such sense contact as well as the sufferings which may, like-wise result will all be enjoyable to him as aspects of Divine Bliss. The irÉÉaÉ of sense pleasures only takes the shape of merging them in the bliss of God realization and in such enjoyments sense pleasure ceases to be a cause of bondage as it looses its sting on account of its identification with the superior bliss of such God-realization (c.f UxÉÉåÅmrÉxrÉ mÉUÇ SØwOèuÉÉ ÌlÉuÉiÉïiÉå). The root pÉÑeÉç may be understood in its literal sense of taking food. We have already seen how the Grihasthas have the right to take food only after feeding others and to enjoy only such food which is left after serving others. We have also seen how he has to practice severe Tyaga even in earning his livelihood. So far as the Sannyasin also is concerned he is entitled to have his food at the expense of the Grihastha only in return for the life of renunciation and service which he has taken up. The Sannyasin has already given up all his properties and the comforts of a home in his attempt at realisation of God. He has, therefore, no home or wealth or wife or children to give up after his sanyasa. He has left to himself as his own duty his body and mind and he has to make use of both these in the service of the world as worship of God before he is entitled to receive his food from Grihasthas. He therefore, is also a labourer worthy of his hire for the service he does to society through his examples and precept. He is the spiritual guru par excellence and only if he discharges his duty by way of spiritual ministration to others is he entitled to his food. In order to be of service to the public spiritually he has to acquire that spirituality himself by spiritual practice such as self-control, renunciation of ego, attachment, desire for sense pleasures, etc. He has also to study the scriptures before he can become a teacher. Therefore, in spending his time in study and spiritual practice he is not only serving himself for the service of others, over and above this he is expected to actively engage himself in serving others even socially by starting and maintaining institutions like schools, hospitals etc. with the help of public contributions. He has to efface himself in such services as relief work etc. As he has no money of his own it is part of his duty to make the public interested in such service and make them contribute their share for such public service. The Grihastha who is the real earner cannot be a whole time worker and therefore the Sannyasin has to step in and dedicate his body and mind through such service. His activity is, therefore, more productive in a truer sense than that of a householder, a capitalist or an industrialist. His work is man-making and never affects anybody detrimentally. All the parties concerned including the beneficiaries as well as the contributors get the full benefit out of his activity at the least cost. His activity is therefore as

25

much even economically productive. It is only in return for such selfless service that society has to feed him. He is, therefore not a parasite who lives upon others earnings. If government servants as well as school teachers or merchants are entitled to get paid for mere clerical work or for tyrannizing over others in their own self-interest surely the Sannyasin who works selflessly for the good of the public is entitled at least to his bare physical needs so that he may only be of service to others. It is only when the Sannyasin does not do his duty to the public that he becomes a parasite. Thus even the Sannyasin deserves the food that he eats by his selfless service to the public. Therefore the injunction iÉålÉç irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ is as much applicable to the Sannyasin as to the Grihastha even if we understand the word pÉÑeÉç in the sense of taking food.

It will thus be seen that the program of social service taken by the Sannyasins of our order as per the instructions of Sw. Vivekananda is quite consistent with the teachings of ancient teachers. Only we must not forget the spirit in which such service is undertaken, is quite different from the ordinary kind of social work. To us social service is also worship of God in the spirit of this Upanishad and the aim of it is the acquisition of the purity of mind which leads to the realization of God and to help others to attain this realization by the removal of obstacles in the way such as ignorance, ill-health, selfishness etc. This kind of service blesses him that gives and his that receives and nobody lose anything.

The word pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ may also be understood as meaning ‘surrender’. In Karma Yoga it is a surrender of the desire for fruits. The Vedic rituals as laid down in the previous portions of the S.Y.V have to be performed in the spirit of MüqÉïhrÉåuÉÉÍkÉMüÉUxiÉå qÉÉ TüsÉåwÉÑ MüSÉcÉlÉ qÉÉ MüqÉï TüsÉWåûiÉÑpÉÔïÈ etc. and also see ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ xÉ…¡ûUÌWûiÉÇ AUÉaɲåwÉiÉÈ M×üiÉqÉç etc., also qÉÑ£üxÉ…¡ûÉåÅlÉWÇûuÉÉSÏ etc. In Bhakti yoga, Tyaga takes the form of mÉëmÉÌ¨É as advocated by Ramanuja. Prapatti is defined as taking complete refuge in the Lord or zÉUhÉÉaÉÌiÉ. All activity is to be done only as worship of the Lord (iÉ¨É MüqÉï mÉËUiÉÉåwÉÇ rÉiÉç). All agency of the action is surrendered to the Lord and the devotee feels himself only as an instrument in His hands to be made use of in any way he likes. The fruits of action also belong only to the Lord and in making any offerings to the Lord he is only surrendering to the rightful owner what legitimately belongs to him like the earnings of a slave or servant. This is the meaning of the direction that every act is to be done as AmÉïhÉqÉç of God (xÉuÉïMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï, oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ etc. and rÉiMüUÉåÌwÉ rÉSzlÉÉÍzÉ etc.) of Gita and AmÉïhÉqÉç is defined in the Kurma Purana thus: oÉë¼hÉÉ SÏrÉiÉå SårÉÇ oÉë¼hÉå xÉÇmÉSÏrÉiÉå | oÉë¼æuÉ SÏrÉiÉå cÉåÌiÉ oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÍqÉSÇ mÉUqÉç || lÉÉWÇû MüiÉÉï xÉuÉïqÉåiÉiÉç oÉë¼æuÉ MÑüÂiÉå xÉSÉ | LiÉiÉç oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ mÉëÉå£Çü GÌwÉÍpÉûÈ iÉiuÉSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ || mÉëÏhÉÉiÉÑ pÉaÉuÉÉlÉÏzÉÈ MüqÉïhÉÉÅlÉålÉ zÉɵÉiÉÈ | MüUÉåÌiÉ xÉiÉiÉÇ oÉÑ®rÉÉ oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÍqÉSÇ mÉUqÉç rÉ²É TüsÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉlrÉÉxÉÇ mÉëMÑüuÉïlÉç mÉUqÉåµÉUå | MüqÉïhÉÉqÉåiÉSè CirÉÉWÒûÈ oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉqÉlÉѨÉqÉqÉç || iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉåuÉåiÉ xÉiÉiÉÇ MüqÉï rÉÉåaÉ mÉëxɳÉkÉÏÈ iÉ×miÉrÉå mÉUqÉåzÉxrÉ iÉimÉSÇ rÉÉÌiÉ zÉɵÉiÉqÉç || AmÉïhÉqÉç – MÔüqÉïmÉÑUÉhÉ || mÉëmÉÌ¨É – AÉlÉÑMÔüsrÉxrÉ xɃ¡ûsmÉÈ mÉëÉÌiÉMÔüsrÉxrÉ uÉeÉïlÉqÉç | UͤÉwrÉiÉÏÌiÉ ÌuɵÉÉxÉÈ aÉÉåimÉ×iuÉuÉUhÉÇ iÉjÉÉ || AÉiqÉÌlɤÉåmÉMüÉmÉïhrÉå wÉÎQèuÉkÉÉ zÉUhÉÉaÉÌiÉÈ | According to this definition, it consists of absolute self-surrender and signifies a resolve to follow the will of God, not to cross His purposes, to believe that he will save, to seek help from Him and Him alone and to yield up one’s spirit to Him in all

26

meekness. The followers of Ramanuja think that there are 3 main elements in mÉëmĘ́É. The devotee realizes that he exists only for the highest Atma and to please Him by his service and for this he surrenders himself. Another element is the surrender of the burden of meditation. One who practices mÉëmÉÌ¨É says to the Lord as it were, that he is unable even to meditate and prays to Him to give him the fruits of it. The third element in mÉëmÉÌ¨É is the surrender of the fruit (ref. Elements of Vedic religion by V.K. Ramanujachari).

According to Rajayoga it consists in ÍcɨÉuÉ×̨ÉÌlÉUÉåkÉ through 8 yogic practices such as – Yama, Niyama etc. DµÉUmÉëÍhÉkÉÉlÉ is one of the practices advocated by Patanjali and means complete surrender and dedications of all actions to God. In Jnana Yoga it is done by a clear understanding that all activities belong only to prakriti c.f. aÉÑhÉÉ aÉÑhÉåwÉÑ uÉiÉïliÉå CÌiÉ qÉiuÉÉ lÉÉlÉÑwÉ‹iÉå || mÉëM×üirÉæuÉ cÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ Ì¢ürÉqÉÉhÉÉÌlÉ xÉuÉïzÉÈ etc., (CÎlSìrÉÉhÉÏÎlSìrÉÉjÉåïwÉÑ uÉiÉïliÉ CÌiÉ kÉÉUrÉlÉç zÉÉUÏUÇ MåüuÉsÉÇ MüqÉï MÑüuÉïlÉç) etc. of the Gita. According to the Bhagavatam, Karma is laid down by the scriptures only to help the achievement of freedom from Karma (MüqÉïqÉÉå¤ÉÉrÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÌuÉkɨÉå ½aÉSÇ rÉjÉÉ || XI:3-44 vide also X: 84: 35-38.

The line is interpreted taking iÉålÉ as referring to DzÉÉ in the previous line and irÉ£åülÉ as meaning S¨ÉålÉ. The meaning of the injunction according to this would be that one should be satisfied with what is given by God in His infinite wisdom and grace as fit for the devotee under the special circumstances and conditions. God knows best what is good for us for our spiritual progress. Sometimes He may give pain and suffering if that is more helpful to us for realization of God. Even pain and suffering are, therefore, to be taken by the devotee as only a blessing from God meant for our own redemption. These are only like bitter pills given by the doctor to the patient or a painful operation done by a surgeon to cure the patient from a sore or the punishment given by a parent or a teacher to the son or a disciple for the latter’s own good. Thus we find in the Bhagavatam, how the devotees accept their miseries as blessings from God. Very often disappointments and failures are one’s best friends in spiritual life as Sw. Vivekananda has pointed out. If one is a true devotee, again, he will never be lacking in whatever is necessary for his bare ordinary physical needs. God will see to it that such harmless needs are satisfied so that the devotee’s mind may not be distracted by such obstacles (cf. AlÉlrÉÉͶÉliÉrÉliÉÉå qÉÉqÉç etc.). rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ in this verse must be understood as meaning rÉÉåaÉ and ¤ÉåqÉ also some commentators like Ramanuja take it as rÉÉåaÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉÈ. In either case the sloka asserts that Bhagavan is anxious to make the devotees spiritual progress easy for him. Thus Ramanuja says qÉiÉç mÉëÉÎmiÉsɤhÉÇ rÉÉåaÉ AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉÂmÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉÇ cÉ uÉWûÉÍqÉ. Venkatanatha qÉimÉëÉÎmiÉ AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉÃmÉÇ AÉqÉÑÎwqÉMÇü rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ zÉUÏUrÉɧÉɱjÉïkÉlÉÉÌSsÉÉpÉiÉimÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉÃmÉqÉæÌWûMÇü rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ cÉ iÉæÈ AmÉëÉÍjÉïiÉqÉÌmÉ AWûqÉåuÉ uÉWûÉÍqÉ mÉëÉmÉrÉÉÍqÉ || GhÉÍqÉuÉ iÉSÏrÉ rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ pÉÉuÉÇ AWÇû ÌoÉpÉÍqÉï CÌiÉ uÉÉ GhÉÇ mÉëuÉ×®Ç CuÉ qÉå WØûSrÉÉiÉç lÉÉmÉxÉmÉïiÉÏÌiÉ A£æüÈ | rÉjÉÉ ÌWû qÉ°£üÉÈ qÉÉÇ ÌuÉlÉÉ ¤ÉhÉqÉmrÉÉÅÅiqÉkÉUhÉÇ lÉ sÉpÉliÉå iÉjÉÉ AWûqÉÌmÉ iÉÉlÉç ÌuÉlÉÉ ¤ÉhÉqÉmrÉÉÅÅiqÉkÉUhÉÇ AsÉpÉqÉÉlÉÈ iÉSÏrÉ xÉMüsÉ rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉ ÌlÉuÉÉïWûMüÉå pÉuÉÉÍqÉ rÉå rÉjÉÉ qÉÉÇ mÉëmɱliÉå iÉÉÇxiÉjÉæuÉ pÉeÉÉqrÉWûÍqÉÌiÉ qÉqÉ xuÉÉpÉÉurÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ pÉÉuÉÈ || Vallabhacharya rÉÉåaÉÇ CWû sÉÉåMåü xÉåuÉÉåmÉrÉÉåaÉjÉïÇ

27

kÉlÉkÉÉlrÉuÉx§ÉÉÌS sÉÉpÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉÇ cÉ AqÉÑ§É AÉirÉÎliÉMÇü ´ÉårÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉsɤÉhÉÇ uÉWûÉÍqÉ | rÉÉåaÉÇ xÉåuÉÉjÉïÇ kÉlÉÉÌS xÉqmÉÌ¨É sÉÉpÉÇ xÉåuÉlÉå qɱÉåaÉÇ uÉÉ ¤ÉåqÉÇ iÉimÉÉsÉlÉÇ pÉÌ£ü ElqÉÑZÉÏMüUhÉÉiqÉMÇü qÉ°ÉuÉÃmÉÇ uÉÉ AWÇû mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ uÉWûÉÍqÉ mÉÉsÉrÉÉÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ | Nilakanta – rÉÉåaÉÇ xÉåuÉÉjÉï kÉlÉÉÌS xÉqmÉÌ¨É sÉÉpÉÇ xÉåuÉlÉå qɱÉåaÉÇ uÉÉ ¤ÉåqÉÇ iÉimÉÉsÉlÉÇ pÉÌ£ü ElqÉÑZÉÏMüUhÉÉiqÉMÇü qÉ°ÉuÉÃmÉÇ uÉÉ AWÇû mÉÑÂwÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ uÉWûÉÍqÉ mÉÉsÉrÉÉÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ | Sankarananda : rÉ²É iÉåwÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÉÍpÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ rÉÉåaÉÉå ÌlÉUliÉU oÉë¼ÌlÉ¸É iÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉÇ AÉkrÉÉÎiqÉMüɱÑmÉSìuÉæÈ ÌuÉcNåûSUÉÌWûirÉÇ iÉSWÇû xÉuÉïSÉ MüUÉåÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ || Sridhara: rÉÉåaÉÇ kÉlÉÉÌS sÉÉpÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉÇ cÉ iÉimÉÉsÉlÉÇ qÉÉå¤ÉÉZrÉÇ cÉ || Raghavendra: rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉÇ ²l²æMüpÉÉuÉÈ rÉÉåaÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉ AmÉëÉmiÉmÉëÉÎmiÉÈ rÉÉåaÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÃmÉÈ iÉxrÉ ¤ÉåqÉÈ AlÉliÉiuÉÇ uÉWûÉÍqÉ AWÇû AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉsɤÉhÉÇ uÉWûÉÍqÉ AWÇû AmÉÑlÉUÉuÉ×̨ÉsɤÉhÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉÉjÉïÇ SSÉÍqÉ CirÉjÉïÈ |

All these commentaries show that the ordinary interpretation of the word ‘yogakshema’ is not what is intended here. So Sankara’s interpretation of the word must be understood only in the light of these later commentaries. God is more anxious about the spiritual welfare of his devotees than for their worldly prosperity which after all is of no value in the eyes of either God or the devotees themselves but which is dangerous and risky in as much as it may only (separate) raise a barrier between them. The sentence also suggests that, whatever happens, he gets in life by chance or as a result of his self effort are all attributed, by the devotee, to God’s Grace only. Even if some favors are shown by other men he takes it only as coming from God. As a result of this attitude he gets rid of all Ahamkara and Abhimana and pride of self achievement. At the same time he gets rid of all feeling of dependence on others or on his own self-efforts. It is thus a great help in spiritual life. In fact also God is the giver of all fruits of Karma. Therefore, the Br.Su. III:2; 38-39 TüsÉqÉiÉç EmÉmɨÉåÈ | ´ÉÑiuÉÉŠ. The Sruti that is referred to in the latter sutra is Brihad. IV: 4; 24 xÉ LwÉ qÉWûÉlÉeÉ AÉiqÉÉ A³ÉÉSÉå uÉxÉÑSÉlÉÈ kÉlÉSÉiÉÉ | A³ÉS – A§ÉÇ mÉëÉÍhÉprÉÉå SSÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ || The Chand. also says that the God is the giver of all blessings. (LiÉÇ xÉ rɲÉqÉÈ CirÉÉcɤÉiÉå LiÉÇ ÌWû xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ AÍpÉxÉÇrÉÉÎliÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ LlÉÇ uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ AÍpÉxÉÇrÉÎliÉ rÉ LuÉÇ uÉåS |). God is the repository of all the auspicious things which man hankers after and therefore, he who worships Him is also endowed with all the virtuous qualities – LwÉ E LuÉ uÉÉqÉlÉÏÈ LwÉ ÌWû xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ lÉrÉÌiÉ. God is called uÉÉqÉÉÌlÉ as he is the giver of all blessings. In Chandogya III: 15; 1 also He is called uÉxÉÑSÉlÉ and as MüÉåwÉ. He is the repository of all uÉxÉÑu or wealth as well as the real treasure.

qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ means ‘don’t be hankering after the satisfaction of worldly desires or worldly prosperity’. Desires for sense pleasure or worldly prosperity are due to ignorance of the divinity of the universe. He who knows that everything is God can have all his desires directed only to God–realization. When the desires are thus properly directed towards God, such desires do not create any bondage and therefore are not known as MüÉqÉ but only as mÉëåqÉ or pÉÌ£ü or qÉÑqÉѤÉiuÉ. Such desires are not to be avoided but cultivated with effort. They are like thorns which are made use of to take out another thorn which has entered the soul as in the case of xÉixÉ…¡û which removes all SÒxÉçxÉ…¡û. So Sandilya says in the pÉÌ£üqÉÏqÉÉÇxÉÉ Sutra 21 WåûrÉÉ UÉaÉiuÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ cÉå³É

28

E¨ÉqÉÉxmÉSiuÉÉiÉç xÉ…¡ûuÉiÉç. It is only the former, namely, the desire for worldly pleasures that is dangerous and the injunction is only to avoid such danger. The danger is pointed out in the Gita III: 37-41 MüÉqÉ LwÉ ¢üÉåkÉ LwÉ etc. vide also XVI: 21-23 ̧ÉÌuÉkÉÇ lÉUMüxrÉåSqÉç etc. Desire is common to all living beings and every instinct craves for satisfaction of the desire. It is not ordinarily possible to suppress or repress these desires and if they are repressed may give rise to all kinds of physical and mental disturbances which are very injurious to moral and spiritual life. The injunction ‘qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ’ does not refer to such repression. These instincts have only to be sublimated. The best way of conquering desires and passions, therefore, as Sri Ramakrishna has pointed out is to redirect them towards God. Vide also Narada Bhakti Sutra iÉSÌmÉïiÉÉÎZÉsÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉlÉç MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÉÌS AÍpÉqÉÉlÉÉÌSMÇü iÉÎxqɳÉåuÉ MüUhÉÏrÉqÉç || 65 || All these instincts are only different manifestations or aspects of the one urge for perfection which is possible only in God realization. All the energies released by these instincts are given their natural outlet in such redirections towards God and they all find satisfaction in the attainment of their real goal, viz. realization of God and they do not produce any untoward effects on the body and mind, as they are allowed full scope for proper legitimate self expression. Forcible repression is neither advocated nor advisable as pointed out in the Gita ÌlÉaÉëWÇû ÌMÇü MüËUwrÉÌiÉ. Narada also says in Sutras 7 – 11 that ‘ÌlÉUÉåkÉ’ takes the form of dedication of the whole of one’s activity to God (vide notes thereon). Conquest of desires is a very difficult process and can be achieved only by graduated exercise. As far as possible one should try to keep oneself aloof from objects which are likely to stimulate the senses. As the M. Bh. Points out the senses become powerful only when they come in contact with their natural sense objects. For a novice, therefore, it is safer to keep out of contact with such tempting objects. But this practice is not always successful and sometimes if by any accident such practitioner comes into contact with such sense object he is liable to be tempted again as exemplified in the stories of Rishyasringa in the Ramayana and Saubhari in the Bhagavata and Vishwamitra and Menaka. Some, therefore, advocate the natural enjoyments of the desires till one is surfeited (feed to excess) as the best means of conquering desires. For when one is surfeited one is likely to develop distaste for such enjoyment. But this view also is not correct. No man has ever developed desire less-ness or dispassion through such practices. If this argument is true or correct every rake, every black-marketer, every glutton should have developed into sages (lÉ eÉÉiÉÑ MüÉqÉÈ MüÉqÉÉlÉÉqÉÑmÉpÉÉåaÉålÉ zÉÉqrÉÌiÉ WûÌuÉwÉÉ M×üwhÉuÉiqÉåïuÉ pÉÔrÉ LuÉÉÅÍpÉuÉkÉïiÉå || Manu XI; 94 (cf. Shantiparva 180-26 n iÉ×ÎmiÉÈ ÌmÉërÉsÉÉpÉå AÎxiÉ iÉ×whÉÉ lÉ AÎ°È mÉëzÉÉqrÉÌiÉ | xÉÇmÉëeuÉsÉÌiÉ xÉÉ pÉÔrÉÈ xÉÍqÉÎkpÉËUuÉ mÉÉuÉMüÈ)The experiment was tried by Yayati and he found that even after ten thousand years of enjoyment, the desires only grew more and more powerful with every enjoyment. It is after such personal experience of the futility of such enjoyment for the conquest of such desires that he has given the advice to his successors and future generations lÉ eÉÉiÉÑ MüÉqÉÈ etc.

Both the above views, when taken together only show that extreme enjoyment of the senses may be equally dangerous if their limitations are not properly understood. Unintelligent asceticism is condemned in the Gita (XVIII- AzÉÉx§ÉÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ bÉÉåUÇ etc. … iÉÉlÉç ÌuÉή AÉxÉÑU ÌlɶÉrÉÉlÉç. Moderate and controlled enjoyment is what is spiritually beneficial in the case of persons whose desires and passions are violent and strong. That is why our scriptures advocate aÉÉWïûxjrÉÉ´ÉqÉ for such people. It is only when one gets strong in his will power by constant exercise of wholesome restrictions by the

29

discharge of his duties in the Grihasthashrama that he is considered fit to take up the rigors of Sannyasin’s life. The various vratas, fast and vigils, self-control and continence (oÉë¼cÉrÉï), self-less public service as we noted above makes Sannyasa life easy for him in later life. (cf. Manu’s advice – GhÉÉÌlÉ §ÉÏhrÉmÉÉM×üirÉ qÉlÉÉå qÉÉå¤Éå ÌlÉuÉåzÉrÉåiÉç. This does not apply to persons ‘who by their previous Samskaras are ready to take up the higher spiritual life with all its rigors in right earnest in quest of God. In the case of such a man it is highly inadvisable to take up worldly enjoyments as a Grihastha as an exercise for developing Vairagyam (cf. St. Paul’s words –“it is better to marry than to burn” which shows that the aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉ is prescribed only for those who have not yet become Adhikaris for the higher Sadhanas in the Sannyasasrama. It would seem from same saying of Sri Ramakrishna that he also advocates the enjoyment of sense pleasures as a preliminary step to renunciation as when he says “The soul becomes restless for God when one is through with the enjoyment of worldly things” – P.196 Gospel).

Gospel P.461 records how Sri Ramakrishna himself voluntarily resorted to the enjoyment of sense-pleasures for getting rid of his desires for their satisfaction. The saying on p.196 is not an advice to all irrespective of their AÍkÉMüÉU. All his sayings were directed only to particular individuals. Many of them like the present one are directed only to persons whose passions are strong and who would be injuring themselves if they take to repressions of those passions by force or violence. Moreover it is seen that it is only a statement of fact that Vairagyam is not possible to a man when he has not already acquired it by the necessary preliminary practices whether in this life or previous one. When one’s mind is, predisposed towards spiritual life, as a result of previous spiritual practices, and their resulting Samskaras as per mÉÔuÉÉïprÉÉxÉålÉ iÉålÉæuÉ (Gita). He is an AÍkÉMüÉUÏ not for the controlled enjoyment of a Grishasta’s life but for the higher spiritual enjoyment of a Sannyasin’s life. That is why we find the great Acharya’s life like Sanakara, Madhva take up Sannyasa even in their childhood without entering Grihasthasrama. This is the line followed by Suka and Nachiketas, Narada, Markendeya and other great sages. That is why we find Smritikaras like Apasthambha and Upanishads like Jabolopanishad and Brihadaranyaka permitting aspirants aspiring after higher spiritual life to enter the xÉlrÉÉxÉÉ´ÉqÉ direct from the oÉë¼cÉrÉÉïzÉqÉ. Thus Apasthambha says AiÉ LuÉ oÉë¼cÉrÉïuÉÉlÉç mÉËUuÉëeÉÌiÉ AiÉ LuÉ oÉë¼cÉrÉÉï´ÉqÉÉiÉç oÉë¼cÉrÉïuÉÉlÉç AÌuÉmÉÑsiÉoÉë¼cÉrÉïÈ mÉëuÉëeÉÌiÉ mÉëuÉëerÉÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç rÉÌS iÉSæuÉ mÉYuÉMüÉwÉÉrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ) c.f Shankara Bhashya on Br.Su.III:4; 17, 19, 20 regarding authority for Sannyasashrama).

Sri Ramakrishna could not have advised everybody to adopt this practice is clear from all his sayings (teachings) to all his Sannyasin disciples (otherwise Swamiji and other disciples would have been advised by him to enter Grihasthashrama before taking Sannyasashrama). He says “the fact is that one does not feel the longing to see or know God as long as one wants to enjoy worldly objects”, clearly here the reference is to one who is desirous of such enjoyment. It refers only to such people who are not able to profit by the experience of others as recorded in the scriptures as in the stories of Yayati, Pururavas, Saubhari etc. given in the Puranas and not to those who are wise enough to profit by such experience. The saying on P.461 (Gospel) is not meant to be followed in all cases indiscriminately whenever the desire arises in the mind. Such a course of action as part of Sadhana relates only to innocent desires which arise in the mind of a man who has already succeeded in conquering all the dangerous ones, beforehand such as giving up Kamini-Kanchana which is most harmful for spiritual life. It relates only to a Sannyasin who has already given up the pleasures of the sex and the

30

pleasures that can be bought with money. It is quite natural even for a Sannyasin to have such cravings as hunger and thirst or for study of books or to go on pilgrimage etc. These desires are not in themselves dangerous and may be conquered by enjoyment of the various desires that assail the spiritual man there are 2 main types. There are certain objects which are capable of creating attachment and bondage according to the universal experience of all spiritual men. It would be safe to avoid them altogether as per the rule mÉë¤ÉÉsÉlÉÉiÉç ÌWû mɃ¡ûxrÉ SÕUÉiÉç AxmÉzÉïlÉÇ uÉUqÉç not to enter into the mire of Samsara is preferable to wash the dirt of it after entering it. Prevention is better than cure. The xÉlrÉÉxÉÉ´ÉqÉ direct from oÉë¼cÉrÉÉï´ÉqÉ in the case of deserving aspirants is meant to save them from getting dirty whereas the Sannyasa taken by Grishasthas is meant for cleansing them of the impurities acquired during the Grihasthashrama. The most serious and dangerous obstacles are described as Kamini-kanchana by Sri Ramakrishna. Those who can afford and who are strong enough will be wise if they avoid them altogether. There may be other objects which may be capable of tempting only particular individuals. What such objects are, are to be determined by each aspirant by his own experience. Such objects also, it is better to avoid altogether if one is strong enough. That is why Sankaracharya insists on it in Sannyasashrama as a necessity, as it avoids the contact with sense objects which are likely to tempt. Moreover, the example of Sri Ramakrishna and other Jivanmukta Purushas or Avataras is not always fit to be initiated by the aspirants who would do well to put into practice the instructions given by them as Sri Ramakrishna himself said many times. What may not injure them may really injure us who are not fit Adhikaris. (cf. Suka’s words to Parikshit about Krishna’s relations with Gopis kÉqÉï urÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÉå Sع DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ iÉÑ xÉÉWûxÉqÉç | iÉåeÉÏrÉxÉÉqÉç lÉ SÉåwÉÉrÉ uÉ»åûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÑeÉÉå rÉjÉÉ || lÉæiÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç eÉÉiÉÑ qÉlÉxÉÉÌmÉ ½lÉϵÉUÈ | ÌuÉlÉzrÉirÉÉcÉUlÉç qÉÉæžÉiÉç rÉjÉÉÅÂSìÉåÅÎokÉeÉÇ ÌuÉwÉqÉç || DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ uÉcÉÈ xÉirÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉcÉËUiÉÇ YuÉÍcÉiÉç || iÉåwÉÉÇ rÉiÉç xuÉuÉcÉÉårÉÑ£Çü oÉÑήqÉÉlÉç iÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || MÑüzÉsÉÉcÉËUiÉålÉæwÉÉÍqÉWû xuÉÉjÉÉåï lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | ÌuÉmÉrÉïrÉåhÉ uÉÉÅlÉjÉÉåï ÌlÉUWûƒ¡ûÉËUhÉÉÇ mÉëpÉÉå (Bhag. X:33;30-33) (cf. "while the great beast is shaking the earth, grazing on lotus stalks, keeping alert among the waters – copying me the wretched creature will die, like a calf having eaten mine”- Buddha in connection with Devadatta imitating him.)

That is why Sri Krishna says in the Gita rɱiÉç AÉcÉUÌiÉ ´Éå¸È iɨÉSåuÉåiÉUÉå eÉlÉÈ | xÉ rÉimÉëqÉÉhÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå sÉÉåMüxiÉSlÉÑuÉiÉïiÉå || which is a direction to wise men or leaders of society to be careful not to set a bad example to others. The important words in that sloka are ‘rÉimÉëqÉÉhÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå’ which mean ‘the principle on which he acts’. Wise men’s actions must be understood in terms of their principles as explained by themselves and it is these principles that have to be adopted and not the individual actions themselves. The principle of their actions is freedom from attachment and Ahamkara and if this inner freedom has been acquired by the aspirant he also will not be affected by any action done by his although his reaction to the same situation may or may not and need not be the same as that of the Guru. Sri Ramakrishna was one of those who had this inner freedom from attachment and Ahamkara and unless we also have this inner freedom it would be very foolish to follow his example in the matter of all the practices he has undertaken. He himself has warned us about this. Thus we see there are 2 aspects of this irÉÉaÉ, the ÌuÉwÉrÉirÉÉaÉ and xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉ or oÉÌWûÈirÉÉaÉ and AliÉxirÉÉaÉ vide N.B. Su. iɨÉÑ ÌuÉwÉrÉirÉÉaÉÉiÉç xÉ…¡ûirÉÉaÉÉŠ. Also ÌuÉuÉåMücÉÔQûÉqÉÍhÉ -372-373. AliÉxirÉÉaÉÉå oÉÌWûÈ irÉÉaÉÉå

31

ÌuÉU£üxrÉæuÉ rÉÑerÉiÉå | irÉeÉirÉliÉoÉïÌWûxxÉ…¡û ÌuÉU£üxiÉÑ qÉÑqÉѤÉrÉÉ || oÉÌWûxiÉÑ ÌuÉwÉrÉæxxÉ…¡Çû iÉjÉÉ AliÉUWûqÉÉÌSÍpÉÈ ÌuÉU£ü LuÉÇ zÉYlÉÉåÌiÉ irÉ£ÑÇü oÉë¼ÍhÉ ÌlÉ̸iÉÈ || See also Shanti 162.17- irÉÉaÉÈ xlÉåWûxrÉ rÉxirÉÉaÉÉå ÌuÉwÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ cÉ | UÉaÉSåwÉmÉëWûÏhÉxrÉ irÉÉaÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉÉÅlrÉjÉÉ || Also Shanti 12.35- AliÉoÉïÌWû¶É rÉiÉç ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç qÉlÉÉå urÉÉxÉgaÉMüÉUMüqÉç | mÉËUirÉerÉ pÉuÉåiÉç irÉÉaÉÏ ÌWûiuÉÉ mÉëÌiÉÌiɸÌiÉ ||. cf. also rÉÉåaÉcÉÉÍxɸ VI. 11.5-134 also refers to this inner 'Tyaga'. xÉuÉåïcNûÉÈ xÉMüsÉÉÈ zɃ¡ûÉÈ xÉuÉåïWûÉÈ xÉuÉïÌlɶÉrÉÉÈ ÍkÉrÉÉ rÉålÉ mÉËUirÉ£üÉÈ qÉWûÉirÉÉaÉÏ xÉ EcrÉiÉå || (Yogavasishtha VI.6.115.134) of these two aspects the inner tyaga is more important than the outer tyaga. It is because Rishyasringa and others had no inner tyaga but only the outer one that, they fall a prey, afterwards. One who has this inner tyaga can never be tempted even if he is in contact with all the tempting objects in the world. The external tyaga is of great help in the beginning but it must always be supported by internal tyaga before he can perfectly be safe from all temptations. The Grihasthas who cannot practice the external renunciation of Kamini- kanchana can and must practice this internal renunciation and must be followed up with external renunciation when the time is ripe. That is why Sannyasa is prescribed for them at the fag end of their life. Those who take to Sannyasa from the very beginning and who have thus the benefit of oÉÌWûÈirÉÉaÉ at first should not rest satisfied with this mere external renunciation and must assiduously cultivate AliÉxirÉÉaÉ. Thus both the varieties of renunciation are mutually helpful and should be practiced by all with varying emphasis on the one or the other according to one’s AÍkÉMüÉU. The word irÉÉaÉ is more applicable to oÉÌWûÈirÉÉaÉ and uÉæUÉarÉqÉç or ÌlÉxxÉ…¡ûiuÉ to AliÉirÉÉaÉ. In the Gita, we find external renunciation of action is called xÉlrÉÉxÉ and the internal renunciation by the name of irÉÉaÉ (18 chap.) MüÉqrÉÉlÉÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÉÇ lrÉÉxÉÇ. In the third ch. Bhagavan says that he who gives up externally without giving up internally also is ÍqÉirÉÉcÉÉU | MüqÉåïÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ xÉÇrÉqrÉ Superior to such one is another who has internal renunciation rÉxiÉÑ CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ etc. There is another important difference to be noted between irÉÉaÉ and uÉæUÉarÉ. irÉÉaÉ suggests more the effort of the will in conquering the passions and other obstacles to spiritual life. This practice is mainly meant for persons who are actually confronted with such obstacles. irÉÉaÉ is thus an active employment of will-power in spiritual practice. uÉæUÉarÉqÉç on the other hand is more passive. It relates to the state of the emotions. It is freedom from the impurities attached to emotions such as UÉaÉ, ²åwÉ etc. it is more mental than physical. It is therefore, an aspect of AliÉxirÉÉaÉ. It can also be a state of the mind before any passions arise which may necessitate the effort of the will to conquer it as in irÉÉaÉ. Thus irÉÉaÉ in its broadest sense may include all the negative practices relating to all the functions of the mind, intellect, emotion and will. As applied to the intellect it is freedom from ignorance, delusion etc. As applied to emotion it is freedom from passions such as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ etc. As applied to will it take the form of self control including such practices as one mentioned in wÉOèMüxÉqÉmĘ́É. zÉqÉ, SqÉ, EmÉUÌiÉ, ÌiÉÌiɤÉÉ, ´É®É, xÉqÉÉkÉÉlÉ |

iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ may be taken as referring to the volitional aspect, qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ to the emotional aspect and DzÉÉuÉxrÉÇ etc. to the intellectual aspect. There are various methods of Sadhana prescribed by the scriptures for cultivating Vairagyam. The Vairagyam is often classified as real and pseudo. The former is again subdivided into Para and Apara. SعÉÅÅlÉÑ´ÉÌuÉMüÌuÉwÉrÉÌuÉiÉ×whÉxrÉ uÉzÉÏMüÉUxÉg¥ÉÉ uÉæUÉarÉqÉç iÉimÉUÇ mÉÑÂwÉZrÉÉiÉåÈ aÉÑhÉuÉæiÉ×whrÉqÉç || The

32

latter is of many varieties such as qÉMïüOû, zqÉzÉÉlÉ, mÉëxÉuÉ, AÉiÉÑU etc. The only sure way is the realization of God. Nobody who has not realized God can consider oneself safe. In the case of the aspirants the following are some of the practices advocated – (1) Intellectual conviction through study of scriptures and reasoning about the existence of God and of the possibility of realizing such God only through such Vairagyam and Tyaga. Such conviction must form a background to all spiritual practices, positive as well as negative. Such intellectual jnanam is considered as one of the best purifying agents as the Gita says AÌmÉ cÉåSÍxÉ mÉÉmÉåprÉ xÉuÉåïprÉÈ mÉÉmÉM×ü¨ÉqÉÈ | xÉuÉïÇ ¥ÉÉlÉmsÉuÉålÉæuÉ uÉ×ÎeÉlÉÇ xÉliÉËUwrÉÌiÉ || rÉjÉækÉÉÇÍxÉ xÉÍqÉ®ÉåÎalÉpÉïxqÉxÉÉiÉç MÑüÂiÉå iÉjÉÉ ¥ÉÉlÉÉÎalÉÈ xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïÍhÉ pÉxqÉxÉÉiÉç MÑüÂiÉå iÉjÉÉ || lÉ ÌWû ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ xÉSØzÉÇ mÉÌuɧÉÍqÉWû ÌuɱiÉå etc. This represents the positive intellectual practice including ´ÉuÉhÉ, qÉlÉlÉ, ÌuÉcÉÉU according to Jnana Yoga as well as the knowledge of the ephemeral nature of worldly pleasures and of its harmful after-effects of their enjoyment as well as of the superiority of the bliss of God-realization (vide Gita XVIII – mÉËUhÉÉqÉå ÌuÉwÉÍqÉuÉ etc. and also Patanjali mÉËUhÉÉqÉiÉÉmÉxÉÇxMüÉUSÒÈZÉæÈ aÉÑhÉuÉ×̨ÉÌuÉUÉåkÉÉŠ xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ SÒÈZÉÇ ÌuÉuÉåÌMülÉÈ (II:15) 2. The cultivation of love and devotion towards God. The purifying influence of Bhakti is referred to by Bhagavan in Gita IX,30-34. AÌmÉ cÉåiÉç xÉÑSÒUÉcÉÉUÉå pÉeÉiÉå qÉÉqÉlÉlrÉpÉÉMçü xÉÉkÉÑUåuÉ xÉ qÉliÉurÉÈ xÉqrÉMçü urÉuÉÍxÉiÉÉå ÌWû xÉÈ || and oÉÉkrÉqÉÉlÉÉåÅÌmÉ xÉ qÉ°£üÈ ÌuÉwÉrÉæUÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ || mÉëÉrÉÈ mÉëaÉqpÉrÉÉ pÉ£ürÉÉ ÌuÉwÉrÉælÉÉïÍpÉpÉÔrÉiÉå || rÉjÉÉÎalÉÈ xÉÑxÉÍqÉ®ÉÍcÉïÈ MüUÉåÌiÉ LkÉÉÇÍxÉ pÉxqÉxÉÉiÉç | iÉjÉÉ qÉ̲wÉrÉÉ pÉÌ£üÈ E®uÉ LlÉÉÇÍxÉ M×üixlÉzÉÈ || Also Bhag I.6.23. qÉiMüÉqÉÈ zÉlÉMæüÈ xÉÉkÉÑÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç qÉÑgcÉÌiÉ WØûcNûrÉÉlÉç ||Where devotion to God has not yet arisen, such love and devotion towards saints may be cultivated as their elevating company may help in creating the necessary Vairagyam or Tyaga. So the Bhagavatam says in III.23.55 xÉ…¡ûÉåÅrÉÇ xÉÇxÉ×iÉåWåïûiÉÑÈ AxÉixÉÑ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉå ÍkÉrÉÉ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå ÌlÉxxÉ…¡ûiuÉÉrÉ MüsmÉiÉå || also III.25.20 and 24 mÉëxÉ…¡ûqÉeÉUÇ mÉÉzÉÇ AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüuÉrÉÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå qÉÉå¤É²ÉUqÉmÉÉuÉ×iÉqÉç ||xÉ…¡ûxiÉåwuÉjÉ iÉå MüÉrÉïÈ xÉ…¡ûSÉåwÉWûUÉ ÌWû iÉå || Also XI. xÉixÉ…¡ûÉiÉç zÉlÉMæüÈ xÉ…¡Çû AÉiqÉeÉÉrÉÉÌSwÉÑ ÌuÉqÉÑcrÉiÉå || vide also Narada qÉÑZrÉiÉxiÉÑ qÉWûiÉç M×ümÉrÉæuÉ pÉaÉuÉiM×ümÉÉsÉåzÉÉ²É | qÉWûixÉ…¡ûxiÉÑ SÒsÉïpÉÉåÅaÉqrÉÉåÅqÉÉåkÉ¶É || 38&39. Also Bhag I.6.23. qÉiMüÉqÉÈ zÉlÉMæüÈ xÉÉkÉÑ xÉuÉÉïlÉç qÉÑgcÉÌiÉ WØûcdrÉÉlÉç || Constant meditation on God, on the holy attributes of God and the saintliness of saints keeps the mind saturated with holy and pure thoughts and prevents evil desires arising in the mind. The mind also should be constantly engaged in good works such as worship, selfless service etc. (vide Nar. Bha. Sut.76 -77) pÉÌ£üzÉÉx§ÉÉÍhÉ qÉlÉlÉÏrÉÉÌlÉ iÉSÒ¯ÉåkÉMüMüqÉÉïÍhÉ MüUhÉÏrÉÉÌlÉ | xÉÑZÉSÒÈZÉåcNûÉsÉÉpÉÉÌSirÉMåü MüÉsÉå mÉëiÉϤrÉqÉÉhÉå ¤ÉhÉÉkÉïqÉÌmÉ urÉjÉïÇ lÉ lÉårÉqÉç | Also Pancadashi iÉΊliÉlÉÇ iÉiMüjÉlÉÇ AlrÉÉålrÉÇ iÉimÉëoÉÉåkÉlÉÇ LiÉSåMümÉUiuÉÇ cÉ oÉë¼ÉprÉÉxÉÇ ÌuÉSÒoÉÑïkÉÉÈ || cf also pÉÌ£üUxÉÉqÉ×iÉÍxÉlkÉÑ When he speaks of pÉÌ£üUxÉÉqÉ×iÉÍxÉlkÉÑ on the authority of the verse uÉÉÎapÉÈ xiÉÑuÉliÉÉå qÉlÉxÉÉ xqÉUliÉÈ iÉluÉÉ lÉqÉliÉÉåÅmrÉÌlÉzÉÇ lÉ iÉ×miÉÉÈ | pÉ£üÉÈ xÉëuɳÉå§ÉeÉsÉÉÈ xÉqÉaÉëÇ AÉrÉÑÈ WûUåUåuÉ xÉqÉmÉïrÉÎliÉ || Also AkrÉÉiqÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉiÉç ÌlÉSìÉrÉÉÈ sÉÉåMüuÉÉiÉÉïrÉÉÈ

33

zÉoSÉSåUjÉïÌuÉxqÉ×iÉåÈ YuÉÍcÉiÉç lÉÉÅuÉxÉUÇ SiuÉÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ || Vide note under AurÉÉuÉרÉpÉeÉlÉÉiÉç in Narada Bakthi Sutra 36 and Puja. Unless the mind is thus kept engaged Satan will find enough opportunities to tempt. Complete self-surrender to God and taking refuge in His Grace and prayer for freedom from passions and complete dedication of all actions and their fruits to Him are all helpful to free the mind from desires and passions (cf. prayers in Bhagavata by Prahlada, Rantideva, Kuntidevi etc. (III) The Raja Yoga also prescribes various methods to acquire freedom from obstacles to spiritual life which are called ‘ÌuÉiÉMïü’ and ‘AliÉUÉrÉ’. One of the methods advocated in Patanjali III; 33 ÌuÉiÉMïüoÉÉkÉlÉå mÉëÌiÉmɤÉpÉÉuÉlÉqÉç || Also I.29&30 iÉiÉÈ mÉëirÉMçü cÉåiÉlÉÉÍkÉaÉqÉÉåÅliÉUÉrÉÉÅpÉÉuÉ¶É | urÉÉÍkÉxirÉÉlÉxÉÇzÉrÉmÉëqÉÉSÉsÉxrÉÉÌuÉUÌiÉpÉëÉÎliÉSzÉïlÉÉÅsÉokÉ pÉÔÍqÉMüiuÉÉlÉuÉÎxjÉiÉiuÉ. Thoughts inimical to Yoga should be counteracted by contrary thoughts. Another method is the practice of rÉqÉ, ÌlÉrÉqÉ, and the other 8 angas of Yoga. He again advocates the conquering of the YsÉåzÉÉs such as AÌuɱÉ, AÎxqÉiÉÉ, UÉaÉ, ²åwÉ, etc. through iÉmÉxÉç, xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉ, DµÉUmÉëÍhÉkÉÉlÉ vide Patanjali II: 1 & 2 iÉmÉxxuÉÉkrÉÉrÉåµÉUmÉëÍhÉkÉÉlÉÉÌlÉ Ì¢ürÉÉrÉÉåaÉÈ xÉqÉÉÍkÉ pÉÉuÉlÉÉjÉïÈ YsÉåzÉiÉlÉÔMüUhÉÉjÉï¶É || By Tapas, here is meant the attempt to reduce all physical needs as far as possible and to avoid all luxuries. It also includes the graduated system of exercises physical as well as mental which are specially meant for the conquest of passions, self-control and strengthening of the will-power. It involves repeated attempts at conquering these passions and strengthening the will whenever the opportunity presents itself for self conquest even in everyday life. The very sincere attempts, to put forth the whole of our will-power whenever an opportunity arises, gradually strengths the will. Even though our first few attempts may or may not produce visible results at the time. Every failure in spite of an honest and sincere attempt is a stepping stone to success as in the case of physical exercise.

The ‘antarayas’ which are obstacles to Yoga are described as those that disturb the mind – ÍcɨÉÌuɤÉåmÉ in Su. I,30. The remedy for these antarayas is also mentioned in Sutra I -28 iÉ‹mÉxiÉSjÉïpÉÉuÉlÉqÉç and in Sutra I -32 iÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉÉjÉïÇ LMüiuÉÉprÉÉxÉÈ that is, intense application to one thing so that the mind may not have any opportunity to attend to temptations. Sutra I – 33 also prescribes some other methods for pacifying the mind such as practice of sympathy, compassion etc. qÉæ§ÉÏMüÂhÉÉqÉÑÌSiÉÉåmÉå¤ÉÉhÉÉÇ xÉÑxÉÑZÉSÒÈZÉmÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ pÉÉuÉlÉÉiÉÈ ÍcɨÉmÉëxÉÉSlÉqÉç || (IV) The Karma Yoga also has its own prescriptions for cultivation of Vairagyam. Every ritual prescribed involves both Tyaga and Yoga. The ‘Homa’ is symbolic of SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SìurÉirÉÉaÉ or renouncing all ephemeral pleasures. So also every offering made in Puja (rɱÌS¹iÉqÉÇ sÉÉåMåü of Bhagavatam) Yajna, Dana, Tapas which are elements of Karma Yoga are all exercises in renunciation. uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï also is rooted in actual self-sacrifice and self-less service. Every ‘vrata’ is also an exercise in renunciation as it involves fasts and vigils, practice of Brahmacharya, avoidance of luxuries, giving up of meat and fish etc. Thus all religious practices prescribed by the scriptures have as one of their aims the cultivation of the spirit of renunciation. (All the practices prescribed in the previous 39 chapters of Suklayajurveda involve such exercises in Tyaga and Yoga and the fruits promised for the performance of these rituals must be understood only in terms of the spiritual enjoyment that comes through Tyaga and Yoga as per the 1st Mantra of Isa iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ. Very often it is the positive practice of Yoga that forms

34

the best remedy for selfishness and passions and desires. A frontal attack on such passions and desires often results in too much attention being directed towards sense - pleasures and the objects of the senses so much so it acts as a kind of silent meditation on such pleasures and objects of sense though unintentionally and consequently the desires and passions get more and more strengthened. That is why Sri Ramakrishna warns us about the danger of such practices and advises up to keep out mind positively engaged in good thoughts and activities such as Japa, meditation, worship, selfless service etc. and to practice every one of our duties as a act of worship of God by seeing God in everything and associating his name and idea with everyone of our natural activities with the help of mantras (cf. xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï) etc.

MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç - This means ‘to whom does kÉlÉqÉç belongs and who is the rightful master and enjoyer of it? The question is meant to show that nobody in entitled to consider that he is the proprietor of any property or wealth he may find himself in possession of and over which he ignorantly thinks he has the right of enjoyment or disposal. The whole world only really belongs to God and only He can claim to be the real owner or master of it. All wealth belong only to Him and He disposes it off as He deems fit. This is made clear by the fact of the experience of many people who are not allowed to make use of what they have earned either through disease or death or through robbery or by deception by others. Very often even wives, children and other relatives help in the loss of such property. Moreover, even before the wealth is lost or spend man loses all peace of mind on account of fear of such loss. Even whenever he has got an opportunity to spend, the expected enjoyments do not but results only in further misery (AjÉïxrÉ xÉÉkÉlÉå ÍxÉ®Éæ EiMüwÉåï U¤ÉhÉå urÉjÉå | lÉÉzÉÉåmÉpÉÉåaÉ AÉrÉÉxɧÉÉxÉͶÉliÉÉpÉëqÉÉå lÉ×hÉÉqÉç || iÉxqÉÉSlÉjÉïÇ AjÉÉïZrÉÇ zÉårÉÉåjÉÏï SÕUiÉÈ irÉeÉåiÉç || – Bhagavatam XI: 18;17-21) (The whole chapter may be read in this connection) cf. also Pancadasi – iÉ×ÎmiÉSÏmÉqÉç – AjÉÉïlÉÉqÉÉeÉïlÉå YsÉåzÉÈ iÉjÉæuÉ mÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉå lÉÉzÉå SÒZÉÇ ÍkÉaÉjÉÉïlÉç YsÉåzÉMüÉËUhÉÈ | Narada also says in VII.13,31 etc. mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ kÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ YsÉåzÉÇ sÉÑokÉÉlÉÉqÉç AÎeÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÉqÉç pÉrÉÉSsÉokÉÌlÉSìÉhÉÉÇ xÉuÉïiÉÉåÍpÉÌuÉzÉ̃¡ûhÉÉqÉç || UÉeÉiÉÈ cÉÉåUiÉÈ zɧÉÉåÈ xuÉeÉlÉÉiÉç mÉzÉÑmÉͤÉiÉÈ | AÍjÉïprÉÈ MüÉsÉiÉÈ xuÉxqÉÉiÉç ÌlÉirÉ mÉëÉhÉÉjÉïuÉ°rÉqÉç || zÉÉåMüqÉÉåWûpÉrÉ¢üÉåkÉUÉaÉYqÉæorÉ´ÉqÉÉSrÉÈ | rÉlqÉÔsÉÉÈ xrÉÑÈ lÉ×hÉÉÇ eÉarÉÉiÉç xmÉ×WûÉÇ mÉëÉhÉÉjÉïrÉÉå oÉÑkÉÉÈ || cf. also Sankara AjÉïqÉlÉjÉïÇ pÉÉuÉrÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉÉÎxiÉ iÉiÉÈ xÉÑZÉsÉåzÉÈ xÉirÉqÉç | mÉѧÉÉSÌmÉ kÉlÉpÉÉeÉÉÇ oÉÏÌiÉÈ xÉuÉï§ÉæwÉÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉ UÏÌiÉÈ || Thus worldly wealth and prosperity is not worth earning by effort as it only involves the possessor of it more and more in xÉÇxÉÉUSÒÈZÉ. It is only the fool that will make effort in earning it and enjoy the thought of becoming the owner of it. By its very nature worldly prosperity or wealth is transitory and ephemeral. That is away it is called SìurÉ, that which runs away or melt away, that is why the Skanda purana describes as kÉlÉqÉç everything other than Krishna or God M×üwhÉurÉÌiÉËU£Çü rÉiÉç kÉlÉxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉqÉç || The goal of life is only realization of God and one should strive after only such realization of God. All activities should be directed towards the achievement of that goal. Therefore, Narada says that poverty is much better than worldly prosperity as a means of achieving the goal. AxÉiÉÈ ´ÉÏqÉSÉlkÉxrÉ SÉËUŸÇ mÉUqÉgeÉlÉqÉç | AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ SËUSìÈ mÉUqÉϤÉiÉå || SËUSìÉå ÌlÉUWÇû xiÉqpÉÉå qÉÑ£üxxÉuÉïqÉSæËUWû | M×ücNíéûÇ rÉSØcNûrÉÉ AÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ iÉή iÉxrÉ mÉUÇ iÉmÉÈ || ÌlÉirÉÇ ¤ÉÑi¤ÉÉqÉSåWûxrÉ SËUSìxrÉ A³ÉMüÉÌXû¤ÉhÉÈ | CÎlSìrÉÉhrÉlÉÑzÉÑwrÉÎliÉ

35

ÌWÇûxÉÉ AÌmÉ ÌuÉÌlÉuÉiÉïiÉå || SËUSìxrÉæuÉ rÉerÉliÉå xÉÉkÉuÉÈ xÉqÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ | xÉÎ°È Í¤ÉÎliÉ iÉÇ iÉwÉï iÉiÉÈ AÉUÉiÉç ÌuÉwÉÑkrÉÌiÉ || xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ xÉqÉÍcɨÉlÉÉÇ qÉÑMÑüScÉUhÉæÌwÉhÉÉqÉç | EmÉå¤rÉæÈ ÌMÇü kÉlÉxiÉqpÉæUxÉSÉ´ÉrÉæÈ | It seems this praise of poverty is a little exaggerated, for enforced poverty does not bring about spiritual results but only make up the sufferer hanker after worldly prosperity more and more. The starving man will be more eager for food than God. If poverty were so helpful for spiritual practices, majority of people would have attained God long ago. Such poverty is spiritually helpful only if it is voluntarily undertaken, when one renounces wealth which one possesses finding it dangerous for spiritual progress. That is why MüÉgcÉlÉirÉÉaÉ is considered so important in spiritual life. That is why Bhagavan is described as ÌlÉÎwMügcÉlÉeÉlÉÌmÉërÉ, the friend of the poor and lowly. No doubt when a man is already a devotee and he is obstructed in spiritual progress by material prosperity which clouds his vision and makes him arrogant and proud. Bhagavan who is the friend of the devotee shows his grace to the devotee by removing the obstacles, this giving his devotion full freedom to manifest it. That is what really happened in the case of Mahabali, Indra the kings imprisoned by Jarasandha as described in the Bhagavatam: VIII.22. oÉë¼lÉç rÉqÉlÉÑaÉ׺ûÉÍqÉ iÉ̲zÉÉå ÌuÉkÉÑlÉÉåqrÉWûqÉç | rÉlqÉSÈ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xiÉokÉÉå sÉÉåMÇü qÉÉÇ cÉ AuÉqÉlrÉiÉå || Also X.88.8. rÉxrÉÉÅWÇû AlÉÑaÉ׺ûÉÍqÉ WûËUwrÉå iÉiÉç kÉlÉÇ zÉlÉæÈ | iÉiÉÉåÅkÉlÉÇ irÉeÉlirÉxrÉ xuÉeÉlÉÉÈ SÒÈZÉSÒÈÎZÉiÉqÉç || xÉ rÉSÉ ÌuÉiÉjÉÉå±ÉåaÉÉå ÌlÉÌuÉïhhÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç kÉlÉåWûrÉÉ | qÉiÉç mÉUæÈ M×üiÉqÉæ§ÉxrÉ MüËUwrÉå qÉSlÉÑaÉëWûqÉç || vide also X.25.16&17 sÉÉåMåüzÉqÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ MüÉæžÉiÉç WûËUwrÉå ´ÉÏqÉSÇ iÉqÉÈ | qɨÉÉåÅxÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉlÉpÉ…¡ûÈ mÉëzqÉÉrÉÉåmÉMüsmÉiÉå || Also X.27.16. qÉÉqÉæµÉrÉïqÉSÉlkÉÉå ÌWû ShQûmÉÉÍhÉÇ lÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ | iÉÇ pÉëÇzÉrÉÉÍqÉ xÉqn°rÉÉå rÉxrÉ cÉ CcNûÉÍqÉ AlÉÑaÉëWqÉç ||The real devotee does not care for wealth even when it comes to him as a result of his past karma like Ambarisa. Even those devotees whose minds have been temporarily clouded by such worldly prosperity only thank God when their wealth is taken away from them and even pray to Him in their lucid intervals to free them from this obstruction (Bhagavata X:73;9-13) lÉÉjÉ AluÉxÉÔrÉÉqÉÉå qÉÉaÉkÉÇ qÉkÉÑxÉÔSlÉ | AlÉÑaÉëWûÉå rÉ°uÉiÉÈ UÉ¥ÉÉÇ UÉerÉcrÉÑÌiÉÌuÉpÉÉå || UÉerÉæµÉrÉïqÉSÉå³É®Éå lÉ zÉårÉÉå ÌuÉlSiÉå lÉ×mÉÈ | iuÉlqÉÉrÉÉqÉÉåÌWûiÉÈ ÌlÉirÉÉ qÉlrÉliÉå xÉqmÉSÉåÅcÉsÉÉÈ || uÉrÉÇ mÉÑUÉ ´ÉÏqÉSlɹSعrÉÉå ÎeÉaÉÏwÉrÉÉÅxrÉÉ CiÉUåiÉUxmÉ×kÉÈ | blÉliÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÈ xuÉÉÈ AÌiÉÌlÉbÉ×ïhÉÉÈ mÉëpÉÉå qÉ×irÉÑÇ mÉÑUÈ iuÉÉ ÌuÉaÉhÉrrÉ SÒqÉïSÉÈ || iÉ LuÉ M×üwhÉ A± aÉpÉÏUUqWûxÉÉ SÒUliÉuÉÏrÉåïhÉ ÌuÉcÉÉÍsÉiÉÉÈ Í´ÉrÉÈ | MüÉsÉålÉ iÉluÉÏpÉuÉiÉÉåÅlÉÑMüqmÉrÉÉ ÌuÉlɹSmÉÉïÈ cÉUhÉÉæ xqÉUÉqÉç iÉå || cf. also Mahabali's words VIII.22.4. mÉÑÇxÉÉÇ zsÉÉbrÉiÉqÉÇ qÉlrÉå ShQÇû AWïû¨ÉqÉÉÅÌmÉïiÉqÉç || Also VIII.23.2 cf. also Prahlada's words iurÉæuÉ S¨ÉÇ mÉSqÉælSèiÉqÉÔÎeÉïiÉÇ WØûiÉÇ iuÉuÉæuÉɱ iÉSåuÉ zÉÉåpÉlÉqÉç | qÉlrÉå qÉWûÉlÉç AxrÉ M×üiÉÉå WûÉå AlÉaÉëWûÉå ÌoÉpÉëÇÍzÉiÉÉå rÉiÉç Í´ÉrÉÈ AÉiqÉqÉÉåWûlÉÉ || (cf. lÉÔlÉÇ qÉå pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç iÉÑ¹È xÉuÉïSåuÉqÉrÉÉå WûËUÈ | rÉålÉ lÉÏiÉÉå SzÉÉqÉåiÉÉÇ ÌlÉuÉåïS¶ÉÉÅÅiqÉlÉÈ msÉuÉÈ || Bhikshugita Ch.XVII) Vasudeva’s words X: 84-64 qÉÉ UÉerÉ´ÉÏUpÉÔiÉç mÉÑÇxÉÈ ´ÉårÉxMüÉqÉxrÉ qÉÉlÉS | xuÉeÉlÉÉlÉç EiÉ oÉlkÉÔlÉç uÉÉ lÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ rÉjÉÉ AlkÉSØMçü || When the devotees themselves are likely thus to be tempted by wealth, such wealth is doubly dangerous to one who has no love for God or spiritual life. It will be a means for committing spiritual suicide, like a rope to hang him. If at

36

all anybody can be safe in the possession of wealth it is only he who is master of his own self and who is free from all desires for worldly enjoyments cf. Janaka’s AlÉliÉÇ oÉsÉ qÉå ÌuÉ¨É rÉxrÉ qÉå lÉÉÅÎxiÉ ÌMügcÉlÉ | ÍqÉÍjÉsÉÉrÉÉÇ mÉëSÏmiÉÉrÉÉÇ lÉ qÉå ÌMügcÉlÉ S½iÉå || One who has realized God, like Janaka has become God himself and as such Sri or Lakshmi is always ready to serve him as her own Lord. With regard to everybody else she is cÉmÉsÉÉ or cÉgcÉsÉÉ which are other names for Lakshmi. She also likes to be with those in whom God always dwells. Therefore, it is only one who keeps God always in his heart that can have the real favors of Lakshmi and not even one who is her own devotee (cf. Bhagavatam I:18-20 LiÉÉuÉiÉÉÅsÉÇ lÉlÉÑ xÉÔÍcÉiÉålÉ aÉÑhÉæÈ AÌiÉxÉÉqrÉÉlÉÌiÉzÉÉrÉlÉxrÉ | ÌWûiuÉæiÉUÉlÉç mÉëÉjÉïrÉiÉÉå ÌuÉpÉÔÌiÉ rÉxrÉÉÌXûbÉëUhÉÑÇ eÉÑwÉiÉå AlÉÍpÉmxÉÉåÈ || and VIII:8;23 LuÉÇ ÌuÉqÉ×zrÉ AurÉÍpÉcÉÉËU xɪÒhÉæuÉïUÇ ÌlÉeÉæMüÉ´ÉrÉiÉÉ aÉÑhÉÉ´ÉrÉqÉç | uÉuÉëå mÉUÇ xÉuÉïaÉÑhÉæUmÉåͤÉiÉÇ UqÉÉ qÉÑMÑülSÇ ÌlÉUmÉå¤ÉÇ DÎmxÉiÉqÉç ||). When a devotee gets her real favor she does not appear as mere worldly prosperity but as such spiritual attributes as complete freedom from desires, AWûƒ¡ûÉU etc. ´ÉÏaÉÑïhÉÉ lÉæUmÉå¤ÉÉÅűÉÈ || This is the real wealth and such people who have got it are called iÉmÉÉåkÉlÉÉÈ | ÌuɱÉkÉlÉÉÈ | AÉiqÉkÉlÉÉÈ etc.This is quite consistent with the vedic root meaning of the kÉlÉç to bear fruit. It is this fruit that one should aspire to earn through one’s self-effort. It is only one who has earned his spiritual kÉlÉqÉç that can be considered as master of kÉlÉqÉç. It is only one who is not a devotee of God or who has no control over his self that need be afraid of wealth. Wealth cannot injure a man who is a devotee of God. So, Brahma says in the Bhagavatam III.9.6 iÉÉuÉ°rÉÇ SìÌuÉhÉaÉåWûxÉÑWØûͳÉÍqɨÉÇ zÉÉåMüÈ xmÉ×WûÉ mÉËUpÉuÉÉå ÌuÉmÉÑsÉ¶É sÉÉåpÉÈ | iÉÉuÉiÉç qÉqÉåÌiÉ AxÉSuÉaÉëWû AÉÌiÉïqÉÔsÉqÉç || rÉÉuÉ³É iÉå AÌXûbÉëÇ ApÉrÉÇ mÉëuÉ×hÉÏiÉ sÉÉåMüÈ | That is why Jadabharata also says in V.14.2 that kÉlÉqÉç is only a means of righteousness of the nature of worship of God and that only the foolish man who puts into any other use comes to grief. iÉiÉç rÉjÉÉ mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ kÉlÉÇ rÉiÉç ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç kÉqÉÉæïmÉÌrÉMÇü oÉWÒû M×üxNíûÉÌSaÉiÉÇ xÉɤÉÉiÉç mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉUÉkÉlÉsɤÉhÉÉårÉÉåÅxÉÉæ kÉqÉïÈ iÉÇ iÉÑ xÉÉqmÉUÉrÉ ESÉWûUÎliÉ | iÉ®qrÉïÇ kÉlÉÇ SzÉïlÉ´ÉuÉhÉÉÅÅxuÉÉSlÉÉÅÅxuÉÉSlÉÉÅuÉbÉëÉhÉxɃ¡ûsmÉurÉuÉxÉÉrÉ aÉ×WûaÉëÉqrÉÉæmÉpÉÉåaÉålÉ MÑülÉÉjÉxrÉÉÅÎeÉiÉÉÅÅiqÉlÉÉå iÉjÉÉ xÉÉjÉïxrÉ iÉjÉÉÅÎeÉiÉÉÅÅiqÉlÉÉå ÌuÉsÉÑqmÉÎliÉ || That is why Prithu also says in IV.22.45.6 xÉålÉÉmÉirÉ cÉ UÉerÉÇ cÉ etc. That is why Prabuddha condemns those who run after wealth which is so transitory in IX.3.19. ÌlÉirÉÉÎeÉïiÉålÉ ÌuɨÉålÉ SÒsÉïpÉålÉ AÉiqÉuÉ×̨ÉlÉÉ aÉ×WûÉÅmÉirÉÉÅÅmiÉmÉzÉÑÍpÉÈ MüÉ mÉëÏÌiÉÈ xÉÉÍkÉiÉæÈ cÉsÉæÈ || kÉlÉqÉç can be said to belong really to one who is not a slave to it. One who earns only for the sake of sense enjoyment cannot be the master of it, but only a slave of his desires. Even when he has earned wealth, it is the wealth that really owns him and makes him dance to its tune. One can be said to be the master of it only when he can make use of wealth in the proper direction at his own will without being driven by it to do things which are against Dharma. Therefore, Indra says in VI.7.11 and 12 AWûÉå oÉiÉ qÉrÉÉÅxÉÉkÉÑM×üiÉÇ uÉæ SpÉëoÉÑSèkrÉÉ | rÉlqÉrÉÉ LãµÉrÉïqɨÉålÉ aÉÑÂÈ xÉSÍxÉ MüÉiM×üiÉÈ || MüÉå aÉ×brÉåiÉç mÉÎhQûiÉÉå sɤqÉÏÇ Ì§ÉÌuɹmÉmÉiÉåUÌmÉ | rÉrÉÉ AWûqÉÉÅÅxÉÑUÇ pÉÉuÉÇ lÉÏiÉÈ A± ÌuÉoÉÑkÉåµÉUÈ || Real wealth to a spiritual man is only God himself. What is not attained when God is attained? To him to whom God himself is a slave and for whom God is

37

eager to give all that he desires but who nevertheless does not need anything else than Go and who is always contented only with God, there is nothing more to be earned. That is why God is named as the greatest wealth (LwÉÉåÅxrÉ mÉUqÉÉ xÉqmÉiÉç -vide Brhad.). This is also one of the reasons why uÉxÉÑ which means wealth is one of the names of God (uÉxÉÑuÉïxÉÑqÉlÉÉ xÉirÉÈ - Sahasranama Sl.25) - cf. Also WÇûxÉzzÉÑÍcÉwÉiÉç uÉxÉÑUliÉËU¤ÉxÉiÉç -Chandogya) He who enjoys God and sings His glories is really a wealthy person – kÉlÉxÉlÉrÉÈ. In fact even the worldly prosperity that comes to a man as a result of his past karma is really given to him only by God (TüsÉqÉiÉ EmÉmɨÉåÈ - Br.U. III: 2-38). That is why the only duty of man with regard to wealth is to give it up in the service of God and His devotees who are the real owners just as the gardener’s duty is to deliver the produce of the garden to the master of the garden. Whatever wealth a man is able to earn could not have been earned without the grace of God and Dharma prevailing in society on account of Dharma that enables him to enjoy the fruit of his own labor. So even from the ordinary social standpoint wealth belongs to society or community as a whole. The possessor of wealth is in the economic sense, only a trustee for society which is the beneficiary. If the possessor of wealth, therefore, utilizes his earnings only for himself and not in the service of God and society, he is a cheat and a thief (Gita C¹ÉlpÉÉåaÉÉÎlWû uÉÉå SåuÉÉ SÉxrÉliÉå rÉ¥ÉpÉÉÌuÉiÉÉÈ | iÉæSï¨ÉÉlÉmÉëSÉrÉæprÉÉå rÉÉå pÉчåû xiÉålÉ LuÉ xÉÈ ||) vide Narada’s words rÉÉuÉΰrÉåiÉ eÉPûUÇ ... xÉ xiÉålÉÉå ShQûqÉWïûÌiÉ |) Thus primarily God is the only real wealth as it is understood economically in the ordinary sense, is something which hides or covers this real wealth. That is why the Upanishad says the first two lines that one should remove this covering which is so ephemeral (eÉaÉiÉç) in order to enjoy the real wealth which everybody possesses at all times as his birthright. It is this wealth that has to be enjoyed through renunciation as per the 3rd line – iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ and it is for the sake of this enjoyment which is always present in one’s own heart that one has to give up all sense pleasures as per qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ | This wealth is unique in its nature. To earn this wealth one need not exploit others as in the attempts of economic wealth. One cannot be wealthy economically without deriving somebody else of his share. But in earning this real wealth one, not only does not injure another but one is positively helpful to another. An earner of this wealth, therefore, has no necessity to be jealous of another nor desire another’s wealth nor be afraid of others – MüxrÉ mÉÑlÉÈ LiÉ®lÉÇ lÉ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç AÌmÉ CÌiÉ AÍpÉmÉëÉrÉÈ | xÉuÉÉïhrÉÌmÉ ArÉjÉÉjÉÉïÌlÉ SìurÉÉÌlÉ EimɱliÉå iÉSè rÉjÉÉ Îx§ÉrÉqÉç CÌiÉ AlrÉjÉÉ pÉÑÇ£åü AlrÉjÉÉ mÉѧÉÈ AlrÉjÉÉ mÉëÉbÉÔhÉïMüÈ iÉjÉÉ cÉ MüOûMüMåürÉÔUÉSÏlrÉsɃ¡ûUhÉÉÌlÉ AlrÉgcÉ mÉÑÂwÉqÉç EmÉÌiɹqÉÉlÉÉÌlÉ SØzrÉliÉå | AjÉÈ xÉuÉÉïjÉïxrÉ rÉxrÉ xuÉxuÉÉÍqÉxÉqoÉlkÉÈ xÉÉ iuÉÌuÉ±É | ÌlÉxmÉ×WûxrÉ rÉÉåaÉÉåÅÍkÉMüÉUÈ CÌiÉ uÉÉYrÉÉjÉïÈ || Sankarananda also says that the second line gives the means for the realization prescribed in the previous line – iÉiÉç oÉÑSèkrÉÑimÉÉSå xÉÉkÉlÉqÉÉWû iÉålÉåÌiÉ | eÉaÉSè oÉÑ®åUlÉÑimÉÉSå xÉuÉïxÉ…¡ûmÉËUirÉÉaÉsɤÉhÉÇ EmÉÉrÉqÉÉWû || Some commentators like Madhva take the whole qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç together and interpret it as meaning ‘one should not beg of another’ for the sake of any worldly wealth or prosperity but should be satisfied with what the Lord gives – MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉÇ qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ|, consistent with this they interpret the previous line in the sense “one should enjoy only what God has given” Sankara also gives an alternate interpretation taking the whole line qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ ... uÉiÉç ; as only one injunction and says that MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç suggests not only “of another” but also “of oneself”. According to

38

this one should not have any desire to enjoy the sense pleasures which may be bought with wealth which he finds himself in possession of . Madhva’s interpretation of the whole verse is based upon oÉë¼ÉhQûmÉÑUÉhÉ (the passage means –‘because Prakriti is incapable of motion of herself, therefore, the Sruti says that the world is indwelt by the Lord. Since Vishnu has entered into Prakriti in order to cause her evolution therefore, he is called the Lord of Prakriti. Since evolution is under His control everything is said to belong to Him. Enjoy then that only which He has given and not beg from others” (xuÉiÉÈ mÉëuÉ×irÉzÉ£üiuÉÉiÉç DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ eÉaÉiÉç | mÉëuÉרÉrÉå mÉëM×üÌiÉaÉÇ rÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉ mÉëM×üiÉϵÉUÈ | iÉSkÉÏlÉ mÉëuÉ×̨ÉiuÉÉiÉç iÉSÏrÉÇ xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ rÉiÉç | iɬ¨ÉålÉæuÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ AiÉÉå lÉÉÅlrÉÇ mÉërÉÉcÉrÉåiÉç CÌiÉ oÉë¼ÉhQåû ||

Thus we see how this first mantra of Isopanishad epitomizes all elements of spiritual life as it is applicable to all Varnas, all Ashramas and both sexes. The essence of spiritual life is fully manifested only in the realized man who sets the standard for all aspirants each of whom tries to approximate as far as possible to the perfect standard set by him. This essence consists in the realization of God in everything and loving and serving Him through the loving service of the world. Both the positive and negative aspects of renunciation and service which form the national ideals of India according to Sw. Vivekananda, are laid down in this mantra as the main spiritual duty of man to which all other duties must be subordinated. The whole teaching of the Karma kanda is thus condensed in this one mantra coming as it does at the end of the mantras used for ritual and standing as it does at the beginning of the teaching of Jnana, it synthesizes and harmonizes all aspects of spiritual practice – Bhakti, Jnana and Karma. The whole of the subsequent portions of the Suklayajurveda as well as the Upanishad is only an expansion of the ideas contained in this first mantra as we shall see in the next Sloka. The first line DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ may also be taken as explaining the philosophical significance of the name Vasudeva given to God which means ‘He who dwells in everything and in whom everything dwells’.

MÑüuÉï³ÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåcNûiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ |LuÉÇ iuÉÌrÉ lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå || 2 ||

This Sloka is taken by orthodox commentators to refer to only the aspirants. But this Sloka applies to all aspirants as well as adepts and to all Ashramas and Varnas and to both sexes. The word lÉUå in general applied to all human beings. zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ cÉ eÉÉrÉliÉå qÉÑlÉrÉÉå uÉåSmÉÉUaÉÉÈ Mbh. Adi.53, 136. According to Vyasa in Br. Su. I: 3-25, all men have got the right to aspire for perfection although very few actually do it WØû±mÉå¤ÉrÉÉ iÉÑ qÉlÉÑwrÉÉÍkÉMüËUiuÉÉiÉç || Sankara says on this Sutra zÉÉx§ÉÇ ÌWû AÌuÉzÉåwÉmÉëuÉרÉqÉÌmÉ qÉlÉÑwrÉÉlÉåuÉ AÍkÉMüUÉåÌiÉ and quotes Jaimini VI:1-4 TüsÉÉjÉïiuÉÉiÉç MüqÉïhÉÈ zÉÉx§ÉÇ xÉuÉÉïÍkÉMüÉUÇ xrÉÉiÉç and in Sutra 8 of the same Chapter and Pada, Badarayana himself is said to be opposed to the restriction of the meaning of the word qÉlÉÑwrÉ to only males. eÉÉÌiÉÇ iÉÑ oÉÉSUÉrÉhÉÈ AÌuÉzÉåwÉÉiÉç iÉxqÉÉiÉç Îx§ÉrÉÌmÉ mÉëiÉÏrÉiÉå eÉÉirÉjÉïxrÉ AÌuÉÍzɹiuÉÉiÉç || According to this reasoning Sastram is applicable to the whole species. Jaimni also mentions that it is applicable to all the four Varnas in Sutra 25 of the same Pada cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉïqÉç ÌuÉzÉåwÉÉiÉç although the orthodox people think otherwise. Though Atreya, an orthodox pundit is said to be opposed to this liberal view, Badari a great vedic scholar pulverizes all the arguments brought forward by Atreya to restrict the scope of the Sastra to the ‘Traivarnikas’ (vide Sutra 27 ÌlÉÍqɨÉjÉåïlÉ

39

oÉÉkÉËUÈ iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉïÍkÉMüÉUÇ xrÉÉiÉç || At the close of the discussion in the following Sutras Badari confronts his opponents with the vedic injunction which makes a UjÉMüÉU carpenter as well as a ÌlÉwÉÉSxjÉmÉÌiÉ a chief of the aboriginal tribes living in the forest eligible to perform Vedic Yajnas. Thus in Sutra 44, uÉcÉlÉÉiÉç UjÉMüÉxrÉï AÉkÉÉlÉå AxrÉ xÉuÉïzÉåwÉiuÉÉiÉç and in Sutra 51 xjÉmÉÌiÉÈ ÌlÉwÉÉSÈ xrÉÉiÉç zÉoSxÉÉqÉjrÉÉïiÉç, Jaimini approves Badari’s viewpoint. As a Nishada belongs to an uncultured wild tribe we must take it that this injunction extends to all human beings. The Rg.VIII:63;7 rÉiÉç mÉÉgcÉeÉlrÉrÉÉ ÌuÉwÉÉ ClSìå bÉÉåwÉÉ AxÉפÉiÉ quoted in the Nirukta. Durgacharya, the commentator explains thus ÌlÉwÉÉS mÉgcÉqÉÉÇ AÉiÉÉïÈ xÉliÉÈ uÉwÉÉïpÉÉuÉå AxiÉÑ uÉëiÉ LuÉ ClSìqÉç || This shows that the non-varna also had the right to pray to God with vedic verses. Panchajana is explained in the Nirukta in connection with Rg.X; 53.4 where occurs the expression mÉgcÉeÉlÉÉÈ qÉqÉ WûÉå§ÉÇ eÉÑwÉkuÉqÉç | This is a prayer uttered by the Hotru priest so that his priestly sevices may be accepted by all men. Yaska explains mÉgcÉeÉlÉÉÈ as cÉiuÉÉUÉå uÉhÉÉåïÈ ÌlÉwÉÉSÈ mÉgcÉqÉ CÌiÉ AÉæmÉqÉlrÉuÉÈ and he says in explanation of the name Nishadaha – ÌlÉwÉÉSÈ MüxqÉÉiÉç ÌlÉwÉÉxÉSlÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ ÌlÉwÉhhÉÇ AÎxqÉlÉç mÉÉmÉMüÍqÉÌiÉ lÉæ£üÉÈ | Nishada is thus so called because he is repository of all sins. Therefore this Vedic Mantra shows that the Rishi expected even the ‘Nishadas’ to perform Yajna even though they were lower in caste to the Sudras. This Nirukta passage is also quoted by Sankara in Bhashya on Br. Su. I:4;12 – mÉëhÉÉSrÉÉå uÉÉYrÉzÉåwÉÉiÉç | In this Bhashya Sankara says MæüͶÉiÉç iÉÑ SåuÉÉÈ ÌmÉiÉUÉå aÉlkÉuÉÉï AxÉÑUÉÈ U¤ÉÉÇÍxÉ cÉ mÉgcÉ mÉgcÉeÉlÉÉÈ urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÉÈ | AlrÉæ¶É cÉiuÉÉUÉå uÉhÉÉïÈ ÌlÉwÉÉSmÉgcÉqÉÉÈ mÉËUaÉ×WûÏiÉÉÈ YuÉÍcÉŠ rÉiÉç mÉÉgcÉeÉlrÉrÉÉ ÌuÉwÉÉ CÌiÉ mÉëeÉÉmÉU mÉërÉÉåaÉÈ mÉgcÉeÉlÉzÉoSxrÉ SØzrÉiÉå || In commenting on this Anandagiri says A§É mÉgcÉxÉÇZrÉÉrÉÉÈ EmÉsɤÉhÉiuÉÉiÉç mÉgcÉeÉlÉzÉoSålÉ xÉuÉïmÉëeÉÉaÉëWûhÉÍqÉirÉjÉïÈ | In later times the orthodox Smritikaras defined ÌlÉwÉÉkÉ and xjÉMüÉU as a xɃ¡ûUeÉÉÌiÉ or half-breed to get over the difficulty created by the vedic passage. But even the Smritikaras had to admit that all Anuloma sons follow only the caste of their mother. vides Vishnupurana XVI – 2, AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉÈ iÉÑ qÉÉiÉ×xÉuÉhÉïÈ || Also Sankha- uÉæzrÉålÉ zÉÔSìÉrÉÉqÉÑimÉÉÌSiÉÈ zÉÔSìæuÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ | Medhatiti on Manu X – 6 says that it is only because of this principle that Pandu and Dhritarashtra were considered as Kshatriyas, while Vidura was considered as a Sudra. zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ cÉ eÉÉrÉliÉå qÉÑlÉrÉÉå uÉåSmÉÉUaÉÉÈ || GwrÉzÉ×…¡ûÉå qÉ×aÉÏmÉѧÉÈ MühÉuÉÉå oÉÌWïûxÉÑiÉxiÉjÉÉ | AaÉxiÉxrÉ uÉÉÍxɸ¶É EuÉïzrÉÉÇ eÉÌlÉiÉÉuÉÑpÉÉæ || xÉÉåqÉ´ÉuÉÉxiÉÑ xÉmrÉÉïÇ iÉÑ A͵ÉlÉÉuɵÉxÉqpÉuÉÉæ || xMülSxxMü³ÉålÉ zÉÑYsÉålÉ eÉÉiÉzzÉUuÉhÉå mÉÑUÉ || LuÉqÉåuÉ cÉ SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉç GwÉÏhÉÉÇ cÉæuÉ xÉqpÉuÉÈ | sÉÉåMüuÉÉSmÉëuÉ×̨ÉÌWïû lÉ qÉÏqÉÉÇxrÉÉ oÉÑkÉæxxÉSÉ || So even if Rathakara and Nishada were to be considered as Anuloma sons, they can have only the rights and privileges of the Sudras and when they are entitled to perform Yajnas it is a general sanction for all Sudras. Many of the Sutrakaras like Apastamba, Bodhayana, Satyaashadha, Bharadvaja etc., admit in their Srauta and Grihyasutras the right of Rathakara and Nishada for Vedic study and Yajna. Vide Bodhayana Gr. Sut. II -56 II.5.6 uÉxÉliÉå oÉëɼhÉqÉÑmÉlÉrÉÏiÉ aÉëÏwqÉå UÉeÉlrÉÇ zÉUSÏ uÉæzrÉÇ uÉwÉÉïxÉÑ UjÉMüÉUqÉç | The same rule is given in

40

Bharadvaja Gr. Su.I -1. See also in Apasthamba Sutra V: 3 -18 uÉxÉliÉÉå oÉëɼhÉxrÉ aÉëÏwqÉÉå UÉeÉlrÉxrÉ WåûqÉliÉÉå uÉÉ zÉUiÉç uÉæzrÉxrÉ uÉwÉÉïUjÉMüÉUxrÉ | Satyashada Kalpa Sutra. III.1 ÌlÉwÉÉSUjÉMüÉUrÉÉåÈ AÉkÉÉlÉÉSÎalÉWûÉå§ÉSzÉïmÉÔhÉïqÉÉxÉÉæ cÉ ÌlÉrÉqrÉrÉiÉå | (Bharadvaja

Srauta Sutra V: 2.8 says expressly that there was another school of vedic teachers who held

that the Sudras also had rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU | ÌuɱiÉå cÉiÉÑjÉïxrÉ uÉhÉïxrÉ AalrÉÉkÉårÉÍqÉirÉåMåü lÉ ÌuɱiÉå CÌiÉ AmÉUqÉç || Perhaps this school is

represented by Badari as mentioned by Jaimini. Perhaps this may be a reference also to the

opinion of Bhrigu who expressed to Bharadvaja as described in Shanti Parva 188:14 -15

where the former says to the latter uÉhÉÉï¶ÉiuÉÉU LiÉå ÌWû | LwÉÉÇ oÉëÉ¼Ï xÉUxoÉiÉÏ || kÉqÉÉåï rÉ¥ÉÌ¢ürÉÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉiÉå || Perhaps it is this opinion that is recorded by Manu when he says in X.126. lÉ zÉÔSìå mÉÉiÉMÇü ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç lÉ cÉ xÉÇxMüÉUqÉWïûÌiÉ | lÉÉÅxrÉÉÍkÉMüÉUÉå kÉqÉåïÅÎxiÉ lÉ kÉqÉÉïiÉç mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉlÉqÉç || and Manu - 127

kÉqÉåïmxÉÉåxiÉÑ kÉqÉï¥ÉÉÈ xÉiÉÉÇ uÉ×̨ÉqÉlÉÑ̸iÉÉÈ | qÉl§ÉuÉeÉïÇ lÉ SÒwrÉÎliÉ mÉëzÉÇxÉÉÇ mÉëÉmlÉÑuÉÎliÉ cÉ ||) Even this is tried to be denied by

some later commentators. There are also other Vedic passages like R.V IX: 66-20 & V: 32;

11 & VIII: 46; 32 which admit the right of the Sudras to the worship of the Vedic gods. Thus

in the first passage Agni is called the teacher or inspirer of all people mÉÉgcÉeÉlrÉÈ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ in the second, similarly Indra is described as mÉÉgeÉlrÉ. In the third a

priest is described as having taken hundred cows from a Dasa as Dakshina for officiating as a

priest at his sacrifice. We have already seen how Visvamitra officiated at the sacrifice of

Sudra Paijavana. Manu X.41 admits the right of all the six AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes for

Upanayana and Mitakshara on Yajnavalkya I.92 & 95 says that the AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ - castes

have their Upanayana performed according to the rules of the caste of the mother. This is a

tacit unconscious admission of the rights of the Sudras to Upanayana and Yajna. The

AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ sons are products of regular marriages and no marriage could be performed

without the Vedic rites. The six AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes mentioned by Manu must include the

sons of Traivarnika fathers and Sudras mothers. Otherwise there cannot be six AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes but only three. So the marriage of the three higher castes with the Sudra woman must

have been performed with Vedic rites which ensure the rights of the Sudra woman as in the

case of the higher caste-woman who takes part in the vedic ritual. The rule that the

AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ castes including the sons of Kshatriya and Vaisya-woman are to be treated

only as Sudras shows that if these have the right for %pnynm! which is meant for vedic

41

study the three other AlÉÑsÉÉåqÉ sons of the Sudra mother cannot be denied the same

right. In fact, it is this right that is conceded by Manu. To say that the Upanayanam is to be

performed according to the caste of the mother is also an admission that three Anulaem sons of Sudra mother have to perform their Upanayana according to the rules for Upanayana

of the Sudras. Bodhayana Dharma Sutra I.8.13 & 14 show that Nishada is a Sudra and the

sons of a Nishada with a Nishadi for five generation becomes entitled to Upanyana after the

fifth generation. ÌlÉwÉÉSålÉ ÌlÉwÉɱÉqÉç AÉmÉgcÉqÉÉ‹ÉiÉÉå AqÉWûÎliÉ zÉÔSìiÉÉqÉç iÉqÉÑmÉlÉrÉåiÉç wÉ¹Ç rÉÉerÉåiÉç | If the sixth generation of a

Nishada can become entitled to EmÉlÉrÉlÉ & rÉ¥É it is idle to refuse their right to their

fathers, grandfathers etc. There are also other unconscious admissions in the Sutras. Thus the

Apasthamba Srauta Sutra I.19.8 refers specially to a special rite to be performed by a Sudra

Yajamana in a soma Yaga in connection with WûÌuÉwM×üiÉç. WûÌuÉwM×üiÉç LÌWû CÌiÉ oÉëɼhÉxrÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉ AÉaÉÌWû CÌiÉ UÉeÉlrÉxrÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉ AÉSìuÉ CÌiÉ uÉæzrÉxrÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉç AÉkÉÉuÉ CÌiÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ || This special

reference to Sudra as a Yajamana along with the other castes would be meaningless unless

Sudra also had rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU in ancient days. Satapatha I: 1. 4.13 says that in ancient

days it is the sacrificer’s wife that had to respond to this call in SzÉïmÉÔhÉïqÉÉxÉ. This

shows that clearly that sacrificer could have been only of the Sudra caste as otherwise there

would be no meaning for the call AÉkÉÉuÉ in the case of the Sudra. Again there is a

prescription as a substitute for mÉrÉÉåuÉëiÉ in the case of Sudra in Soma Yaga qÉxiÉÑ (whey) zÉÔSìxrÉ. If the Sudra had no right to perform Soma Yaga there could not have

been any mÉrÉÉåuÉëiÉ or any necessity for a substitute being prescribed. This

prescription, therefore, is another unconscious admission that the Sudra is entitled to Soma

Yaga. Again in connection with the Pitri Medha the Sudra is also included along with other

castes when the Satapatha prescribed various kinds of sepulchral mound for the various

castes. If the Sudra had no right for the Pitri Medha sacrifice in ancient days there would have

been no necessity to include his name in this list and then to prescribe a special kind of

mound for him. (vide XIII.8.3.11 A¸ÏuÉSblÉÇ zÉÔSìxrÉ CÌiÉ ÌmÉiÉ×qÉåkÉå | Again

in Asvalayana Grihyasutra, in prescribing certain rites at the time of xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉqÉç a

special prescription for Sudra is also included Vide III.8 FÂ xÉUhÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÈ | This

shows that he also must have had the right for EmÉlÉrÉlÉ and right for vedic study in

ancient times as otherwise no xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉqÉç could have been thought of in his case.

Ashvalayana Srauta Sutra II.1 mentions a caste called EmÉ¢Ñü¹ which is not one of the

Dvijatis but which is till authorized to perform vedic AalrÉÉkÉårÉ and is permitted to

42

consecrate the vedic fires in autumn. The Katyayana Srauta Sutra I.4.5 gives the right to all

except Sudras who were deficient in limb and who were not learned in the Vedas or who

were impotent A…¡ûWûÏlÉ A´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉ wÉhQû zÉÔSìuÉeÉïqÉç | Of course the

orthodox commentator takes Sudra as separate from the others although A…¡ûWûÏlÉ etc

appears only as a qualification of the Sudra. If these are not taken as qualification of the

Sudra even Brahmins who are deficient in limb or who are not leaned in the Vedas of who are

impotent will have no AÍkÉMüÉU. If the commentators’ interpretation is taken, therefore,

99.9 percent of the Brahmanas by birth will have no right to perform the Vedic ritual. If the

Sutra is understood as prohibiting only a Sudra who is deficient in limbs etc. all other Sudras

will have to be taken as entitled for the Vedic ritual. Moreover, the prohibition of an A´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉ Sudras shows the possibility of a ´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉ Sudra which suggest that Sudras

also had the right to become a ´ÉÉå̧ÉrÉÉs but who out of Tamas, negligence, idleness,

indifference etc. neglect the opportunities to qualify as a Srotiryas. The orthodox

commentator’s interpretation the Sutra also goes against the right and practice of all Dvija’s

for xÉÇxMüÉU of EmÉlÉrÉlÉ even though they are deaf or dumb or idiots or defectives.

This right is conceded by all writers. In Bodhayana Grihya Sesah Sutra even describes the

procedure for the Upanayanam of such people vide 2.9.14 which includes all such defectives

wÉhQû eÉQû YsÉÏoÉ AlkÉ urÉxÉÌlÉ orÉÉÍkÉiÉ ElqÉ¨É WûÏlÉÉ…¡û oÉÍkÉU AÍkÉMüÉ…¡û qÉÉrÉÉuÉÏ AmÉxqÉÉUÏ ÍµÉÌ§É MÑü̹ SÏbÉïUÉåÌaÉhÉ¶É LiÉålÉ urÉÉZrÉÉiÉÉ CirÉåMåü | (cf. Pandu, Dhritarashtra, Vyasa). A Brahmapurana passage is

also quoted to this effect. Therefore, the Katyayana Sutra may not be taken as meant for

excluding the defectives belonging to the higher castes and must be taken only as referring to

defective Sudra. Apastamba Dharma Sutra I.2.5.16 mentions, in the context of the duties of

Brahmacharins, Sudras also in relation to AÍpÉuÉÉSlÉqÉç lÉÏcÉæÈ zÉÔSìÈ mÉëÉgeÉÍsÉÈ | in commenting upon Tait. Aranyaka VI.10.24, Bhattabhaskara includes all

castes and Ashramas. xÉuÉåïÅmrÉÉ´ÉÍqÉhÉÈ xÉuÉåïÅÌmÉuÉÍhÉïqÉÈ | In

Tantravartika of Kumarila Bhatta on Jaimini I.2.2, in trying to establish what constitutes

Brahminhood, he says that AkrÉÉmÉlÉ cannot be considered as a special characteristic

which distinguishes the Brahmanas. In this connection he admits the possiblility of even

Sudras being AkrÉÉmÉMüs. AkrÉÉmÉlÉÉÌS AÌmÉ ÍpɳÉcÉÉU ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉ uÉÉæzrÉ mÉëÌiÉrÉÉåÌaÉiuÉÉiÉç xÉÎlSakÉqÉç | xÉuÉïÇ cÉ SÒ¹zÉÔSìåwÉÑ xÉqpÉÉurÉqÉÉhÉiuÉÉiÉç AÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç | This envisages the possibility of Sudras

teaching the Veda. But how could Sudra teach the Veda if he has not studied them himself?

This, therefore, must have referred to the prevalence of such teachers in those days and of the

43

practice of Sudras studying the Vedas. Gautama prescribes a penalty for Sudras reciting the

Vedas. Such a prescription could have been necessitated only if there were Sudras in his days

who studied the Vedas. Similarly Vishnu Sutra V.115 and Yajnavalkya II.241 penalize

feeding of Sudra Sannyasins. Formal Sannyasa is not possible for anybody who has not

studied the Vedas and who has not performed Virajahoma. The penalising of feeding of

Sudra Sannyasins should have been necessitated by the practice current in those days of

Sudras also becoming Sannyasins which involves the knowledge and use of the vedic

mantras. That such a practice has the sanction of hoary antiquity in Mahabharata, AÉ´ÉqÉuÉÉÍxÉMümÉuÉï 26:Sl.32 – 33 which describe how Vidura was a Sannyasi and his

body had, therefore, to be buried and not cremated. rÉÌiÉkÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmiÉÉåÅxÉÉæ On

this Nilakanta says “zÉÑSìrÉÉålÉÉæ eÉÉiÉÉlÉÉqÉç AÌmÉ rÉÌiÉkÉqÉÉåïÅxiÉÏÌiÉ SÍzÉïiÉqÉç. This is also supported by Santi Parva 63.12. zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉåÈ ¢ÑüiÉMüÉrÉïxrÉ M×üiÉxÉliÉÉlÉMüqÉïhÉÈ | AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉUÉeÉxrÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ eÉaÉiÉÏmÉiÉå || AsmÉÉliÉUaÉiÉxrÉÉÅÌmÉ SzÉkÉqÉïaÉiÉxrÉ uÉÉ | AÉ´ÉqÉÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉÈ xÉuÉåï AuÉeÉïÌrÉiuÉÉ ÌlÉUÉÍzÉwÉqÉç || Commenting on this

Nilakanta says ‘zÉÔSìÉåÌmÉ lÉæ̸MÇü oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ uÉlÉmÉëxjÉÇ uÉÉ xÉMüsÉÌuɤÉåmÉMüMüqÉïirÉÉaÉÃmÉÇ xÉlrÉÉxÉÇ uÉÉ AlÉÑÌiɸåSåuÉ’ || This clearly gives the Sudra the right to lÉÉæ̸Mü oÉë¼cÉrÉï also along with the other

Ashramas including Sannyasa. lÉÉæ̸Mü oÉë¼cÉrÉï is possible only to one who has

finished the ‘EmÉMÑüuÉÉïhÉ oÉë¼cÉrÉï’ and is taken up only by a man who is

anxious to devote his whole life to vedic study. If vedic study had been interdicted by the

Sastras a Sudra could never have been considered by Mhb. As entitled to lÉÉæ̸Mü oÉë¼cÉrÉï or Sannyasa. At least it must be admitted that Nilakantha, an orthodox

commentator could not have approved of it, if it were against the Sastras and if it were

against the social custom prevailing in his days. There is another story in Mhb, Anusasana X

which described how a Sudra performed ‘Tapas’ under the instruction of a Brahmana and as

a result of the mÉÑhrÉ thus earned by him he was born a prince in his next life while the

teacher himself was born as a priest as a punishment. If iÉmÉxÉç means

‘xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉmÉëuÉcÉlÉ’ as per the opinion of lÉÉMüÉå qÉÉæªsrÉ recorded by Tait.

Up. then surely the instruction given by Brahmana to the Sudra must have been in the Vedas.

xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉmÉëuÉcÉlÉåuÉåÌiÉ lÉÉMüÉå qÉÉæªsrÉÈ iÉή iÉmÉÈ iÉή iÉmÉÈ | This story although probably intended to dissuade Brahamanas from teaching the Veda to

one and all indiscriminately, clearly shows the possibility of some Brahmanas teaching the

Sudras also. The story only says that the Sudra benefitted by the study which shows that he

44

has not committed any sin by studying the Vedas or doing Sadhana according to the

teachings of the Vedas. It is by prohibition by attaching a sin or penalty that the Brahmanas

gave up the practice of teaching the Sudras. Even as the story stands, Mbh only wants to

emphasize the inadvisability of teaching the Vedas to one and all without first making sure

whether the disciple is properly initiated to receive the Vedas – through SϤÉÉ vide sloka 69

which says that the ascetics go through the ÌS¤ÉÉ in silence before instructing – iÉxqÉÉiÉç qÉÉælÉålÉ qÉÑlÉrÉÈ SϤÉÉÇ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ cÉ AÉSØiÉÉÈ | SÒ£üxrÉ pÉrÉÉiÉç UÉeÉlÉç lÉÉpÉÉwÉliÉå cÉ ÌMügcÉlÉ || Here Mauna means silence not in the ordinary

sense but in the sense of imparting the proper discipline of mind through proper exercise of

qÉlÉlÉqÉç – qÉælÉÇ qÉÑlÉÉåpÉÉïuÉqÉç. Therefore Maunam only means proper

training of the mind as well as development of character through ÌuÉuÉåMü, uÉæUÉarÉ, zÉqÉ, SqÉ, etc in the same way as the sage Pippalada required of his disciple before he

gave them Brahmavidya as is recorded in the beginning of the Prasna Up. He wanted them to

undergo such disciplines in his presence for one full year before he imparted Brahmavidya to

them. Similarly the Ch. Up also records how Satyakama Jabala who was born only of a Sudra

maid-servant was taught Brahmavidya by the sage Haridrumata Gautama only after he

became convinced of his fitness first by his uprightness, frankness, truthfulness and then by

his readiness to serve the Guru by looking after cows. He gave him formal instruction only

when he found that the boy was capable of thinking and doing ‘ÌuÉcÉÉU’ by himself

without the help of anybody else. It is described how by his self-discipline his face beamed

with the light of spiritual intelligence ‘oÉë¼uÉcÉïxÉç’. The same Up. also records how

Satyakama Jabala himself dealt with his disciple Upakosala Kamalayana by making him

undergo the necessary discipline. These stories show that even if the word ‘Tapas’ in the

M.bh. story means only meditation on Brahman or on Vedantic truths based upon the

Mahavakyas, the teachers have to ascertain whether the disciples have the necessary

qualification in the interest of the disciples themselves as otherwise they are likely to

misunderstand the teachings and make use of it in such a way as to injure themselves as well

as the public. That is why the M.bh. says that the sages took care to make them undergo the

preliminary discipline to give them the qualification to receive Brahmavidya through Diksha.

If Brahmavidya is imparted to one who has no such qualification the sins committed by the

disciple by the improper application of the teachings are due to the teacher’s neglect of his

duty and therefore, the teacher has to suffer for it as in the case of the teacher in the M.bh.

story who seems to have imparted instructions only for the sake of remuneration or Dakshina

that he got. The teacher was a trader in religion and that is why he had to be reborn as a priest

45

but fortunately for the disciple although the teacher was negligent in his duty and was

prompted by improper motives and had, therefore, to suffer. The disciple himself happened to

be actually deserving though by birth he happened to be a Sudra as in the case of

Satyakamajabala and therefore, he benefitted by the teaching as a result of which he was born

a prince in his next life. The teacher suffered in this case not for the evil deeds of the disciple

but for his own failure in discharging his duties properly. Therefore the M.bh says ‘sages first

perform Diksha to all who go to them for instruction before they actually instruct for fear that

they may be doing wrong if they instruct beforehand. First they make the student fit in

character and conduct and make him a real ‘̲eÉ’ through ‘uÉëiÉ’ and then instruct. That is

the law. The Sl.71 make this point clear ‘EmÉSåzÉÉå lÉ MüiÉïurÉÈ MüSÉÍcÉSÌmÉ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç | EmÉSåzÉÉή iÉiÉç mÉÉmÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÈ xÉqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç || Sl. 68 says ‘iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉÎ°È lÉ uÉ£üurÉÇ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç AaÉëiÉÈ xÉÔ¤qÉÉaÉÌiÉÌWïû kÉqÉïxrÉ SÒ¥ÉåïrÉÉ ÌWû AM×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ || This shows

that an ‘AM×üiÉÉiqÉÉ,’ one who is not properly trained and cultured cannot understand

the subtleties of Dharma and so there is a likelihood of his committing sin. Hence the first

business of the Guru is to make his Sishya a M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ through proper xÉÇxMüÉU and SϤÉÉ as mentioned in Sl.69 already noted above. Sl. 72 makes it clear that it is the

teacher who instructs for mere money without caring to look into the qualification of the

disciple who is condemned and not one who does it out of love and in a spirit of service.

ÌuÉqÉ×zrÉ iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉëÉ¥ÉålÉ uÉ£üurÉÇ kÉqÉïÍqÉcNûiÉÉ | xÉirÉÉlÉ×iÉålÉ ÌWû M×üiÉÈ EmÉSåzÉÈ ÌWûlÉÎxiÉ ÌWû || The very question of

Yudhishtara in answer to which Bhisma gives this story shows which way the wind blows

ÍqɧÉxÉÉæWûÉSïrÉÉåaÉålÉ EmÉSåzÉÇ MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉÈ | eÉÉirÉÉkÉÉUxrÉ UÉeÉwÉåï SÉåwÉxiÉxrÉ pÉuÉåiÉç lÉ uÉÉ || This shows that the doubt is with

reference to whether it is wrong on the part of the teacher to teach a low-born disciple for

personal considerations and whether it is not right if in a spirit of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû the

teacher take up the responsibility of educating all. The answer intended by the story is that is

the education is imparted in the proper spirit with no selfish motives and for no personal

consideration but only for the discharge of the Brahmana’s duty to educate all out of pure

love and a spirit of service after taking proper precautions to make him fit to receive the

teaching the teacher is not guilty of any Adharma but he would be guilty if he does otherwise.

This is quite consistent with the teaching of the Mahopanishad which says AÉSÉæ zÉqÉSqÉmÉëÉrÉæÈ aÉÑhÉæÈ ÍzÉwrÉÇ ÌuÉzÉÉåkÉrÉåiÉç | mɶÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïÍqÉSÇ oÉë¼ zÉÑ®È iuÉÍqÉÌiÉ oÉÉåkÉrÉåiÉç || A¥ÉxrÉ

46

AkÉïmÉëoÉÑ®xrÉ xÉuÉïÇ oÉë¼åÌiÉ rÉÉå uÉSåiÉç | qÉWûÉlÉUMüeÉÉsÉåwÉÑ xÉÈ iÉålÉ ÌuÉÌlÉrÉÉåÎeÉiÉÈ || mÉëoÉÑ®oÉÑ®åÈ mÉë¤ÉÏhÉpÉÉåaÉåcNûxrÉ ÌlÉUÉÍzÉwÉÈ lÉÉÎxiÉ AÌuɱÉqÉsÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëÉ¥ÉxiÉÑ EmÉÌSzÉåªÒÂÈ || First the teacher has thus to test the disciple and see

whether he has the requisite moral purity and if he finds the disciple has not the necessary

purity he should give the necessary training for the development of such purity. Only then the

instruction that everything is God including the guru and disciple is to be given. If the highest

truth is imparted to an ignorant or half-awakened disciple the teacher will be only sending the

disciple to hell along with himself. One whose intellectual power is sufficiently awakened

and whose mind is completely freed from the cravings for worldly pleasures and who does

not hanker for worldly betterment in the future is alone fit to be instructed in this highest truth

that there is in reality no duality and that there is not even evil or Maya different from the

Atman. It would seem, however, that the Uttara Ramayana story of Rama punishing the

Sudra-Sannyasin goes against the spirit of this story in the M.bh. where the Sudra is only

benefited by his Tapas. This only makes clear that there was something wrong in the Tapas of

the Sudra-Sannyasin who was punished by Rama. It was an instance of one who undertook

Tapas for a wrong purpose because of his misunderstanding the spirit of the scriptures. His

Tapas were only like that of Ravana, Vrikasura or Hiranyakasipu. It was meant only for self-

aggrandizement and enslavement and exploitation of the world. It is the result of imparting

instruction to one who is not yet fit for it. Vide notes on Ramayana for details. It is made

abundantly clear in various scriptures such as the Mbh. That it is character and conduct that

form the first qualification for higher vedic instruction. In fact it is this qualification that is

meant when it is laid down that it is only a Dvija who is entitled for vedic study. That such a

requirement is not meant to exclude the sons of Sudra parent is clear from such passages as

Vana Parva 211-12 where DharmaVyadha says zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ ÌWû eÉÉiÉxrÉ xɪÒhÉÉlÉç EmÉÌiɸiÉÈ | uÉæzrÉiuÉÇ sÉpÉiÉå oÉë¼lÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉiuÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ cÉ || AeÉïuÉå uÉiÉïqÉÉlÉxrÉ oÉëɼhrÉqÉÍpÉeÉÉrÉiÉå || This

substantiates and justifies Satyakama being considered a fit for ‘Upadesham’ by his Guru

because of his guilelessness and straightforwardness. In V.P 2125;13-12 Dharmavyadha

again emphasizes that it is character and conduct that constitute ̲eÉiuÉqÉç and a Sudra

who acquires it automatically becomes a Dvija and a Brahmin by birth becomes a Sudra if his

conduct and charcter is bad oÉëɼhÉÈ mÉiÉlÉÏrÉåwÉÑ uÉiÉïqÉÉlÉÉå ÌuÉMüqÉïxÉÑ | SÉÎqpÉMüÉå SÒwM×üiÉÈ mÉëÉrÉÈ zÉÔSìåhÉ xÉSØzÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç || rÉxiÉÑ zÉÔSìÉå SqÉå xÉirÉå kÉqÉåï cÉ xÉiÉiÉÉåÎijÉiÉÈ iÉÇ

47

oÉëɼhÉqÉWÇû qÉlrÉå uÉרÉålÉ ÌWû pÉuÉå̲eÉ || In the AÉeÉaÉUmÉuÉï of

uÉlÉmÉuÉï Yudhishtira says to Nahusha xÉirÉÇ SÉlÉÇ ¤ÉqÉÉ zÉÏsÉÇ AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ iÉmÉÉå bÉ×hÉÉ | SØzrÉliÉå rÉ§É UÉeÉålSì xÉ oÉëɼhÉ CÌiÉ xqÉ×iÉÈ || When Nahusha replies that these are seen in all people including Sudra,

Yudhishtira, says zÉÔSìå iÉÑ rÉ°uÉåiÉç sɤqÉ Ì²eÉå iÉiÉç cÉ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | lÉ zÉÔSìÉå pÉuÉåiÉç zÉÔSìÈ oÉëɼhÉÉå oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉ cÉ | rɧÉæiÉiÉç sɤrÉiÉå xÉmÉï uÉרÉÇ xÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | rɧÉæiÉiÉç lÉ pÉuÉåiÉç xÉmÉï iÉÇ zÉÔSì CÌiÉ ÌlÉÌSïzÉåiÉç || Nahusha then replies that if conduct and

character were the only test these questions birth, etc becomes useless for determining Varna.

rÉÌS iÉå uÉרÉiÉÉå UÉeÉlÉç oÉëɼhÉÈ mÉëxÉqÉÏͤÉiÉÈ | uÉ×jÉÉ eÉÉÌiÉÈ iÉSÉ AÉrÉÑwqÉlÉç M×üÌiÉrÉÉïuÉ³É ÌuɱiÉå || M×üÌiÉ means will power & effort.

Yudhistira replies eÉÉÌiÉU§É qÉWûÉxÉmÉï qÉlÉÑwrÉiuÉå qÉWûÉqÉiÉå | xɃ¡ûUÉiÉç xÉuÉïuÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ SÒwmÉUϤrÉÉ CÌiÉ qÉå qÉÌiÉÈ || xÉuÉåï xÉuÉÉïxÉÑ AmÉirÉÉÌlÉ eÉlÉrÉÎliÉ xÉSÉ lÉUÉÈ | uÉÉXèûqÉæjÉÑlÉqÉjÉÉå eÉlqÉ qÉUhÉÇ cÉ xÉqÉÇ lÉ×hÉÉqÉç || CSqÉÉwÉïÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ cÉ rÉå rÉeÉÉqÉWåû CirÉÌmÉ | iÉxqÉÉiÉç zÉÏsÉÇ mÉëkÉÉlÉå¸Ç ÌuÉSÒÈ rÉå iɨuÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ || mÉëÉXèû lÉÉÍpÉuÉkÉïlÉÉiÉç mÉÑÇxÉÉå eÉÉiÉMüqÉï ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | iÉSÉÅxrÉ qÉÉiÉÉ xÉÉÌuɧÉÏ ÌmÉiÉÉ iuÉÉcÉÉrÉï EcrÉiÉå || iÉÉuÉiÉç zÉÔSìxÉxÉÉå ½åwÉ rÉÉuÉiÉç uÉåSå lÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå | iÉÎxqɳÉåuÉ qÉÌiÉ ²ækÉå qÉlÉÑÈ xuÉÉrÉÇpÉÑuÉÉåÅoÉëuÉÏiÉç || M×üiÉM×üirÉÉÈ mÉÑlÉuÉïhÉÉïÈ rÉÌS uÉרÉÇ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | xɃ¡ûUxiÉ§É lÉÉaÉålSì oÉsÉuÉÉlÉç mÉëxÉqÉÏͤÉiÉÈ || rÉ§É CSÉlÉÏÇ qÉWûÉxÉmÉï xÉÇxM×üiÉÇ uÉרÉÍqÉwrÉiÉå iÉÇ oÉëɼhÉqÉWÇû mÉÔuÉïqÉÑ£üuÉÉlÉç pÉÑeÉaÉÉå¨ÉqÉç || The authority of the Rishis quoted by Yudhishtira in this connection

occurs in connection with the mÉërÉÉeÉ – offerings which are introductory offerings to the

principal offerings in the SzÉïmÉÔhÉïqÉÉxÉ. It means ‘of whatsoever caste we may be

we celebrate the sacrifice’. Again in rɤÉmÉëzlÉ, uÉlÉmÉuÉï 313 Yudhishthira says in

answer toYaksha's Question (UÉeÉlÉç MÑüsÉålÉ uÉרÉålÉ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉålÉ ´ÉÑiÉålÉ uÉÉ | oÉëɼhrÉÇ MåülÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ mÉëoÉëÔÌWû LiÉiÉç xÉÑÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç ||) ´ÉÑhÉÑ rÉ¤É MÑüsÉÇ iÉÉiÉ lÉ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉå lÉ cÉ ´ÉÑiÉqÉç | MüÉUhÉÇ ÌWû ̲eÉiuÉå cÉ uÉרÉqÉåuÉ lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || uÉרÉÇ rɦÉålÉ xÉÇU¤rÉÇ oÉëɼhÉålÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | cÉiÉÑuÉåïSÉåÅÌmÉ SÒuÉ×ï¨ÉÈ lÉ zÉÔSìÉSÌiÉËUcrÉiÉå || cf. in Anusasana I.43 see what Maheshvara

himself says to Uma LÍpÉxiÉÑ MüqÉïÍpÉSåïuÉÏ zÉÑoÉæUÉcÉËUiÉæÈ CWû |

48

zÉÔSìÉå oÉëɼhÉiÉÉÇ rÉÉÌiÉ uÉæzrÉÈ ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉiÉÉÇ uÉëeÉåiÉç || LiÉæÈ MüqÉïTüsÉæSåïuÉÏ lrÉÔlÉeÉÉÌiÉMÑüsÉÉå°uÉÈ | zÉÔSìÉåmrÉÉaÉqÉxÉqmɳÉÉå ̲eÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉÇx¢ÑüiÉÈ || oÉëɼhÉÉå uÉÉÅmrÉxɲبÉÈ xÉuÉïxɃ¡ûUpÉÉåeÉlÉÈ || oÉëɼhÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïxɃ¡ûUpÉÉåeÉlÉÈ | oÉëɼhrÉÇ xÉqÉlÉÑixÉ×erÉ zÉÑSìÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉÉSØzÉÈ || MüqÉïÍpÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉÍpÉSåïuÉÏ zÉÑ®ÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ xÉåurÉÈ CÌiÉ oÉë¼ÉlÉÑzÉÉxÉlÉqÉç || xuÉpÉÉuÉÇ MüqÉï cÉ zÉÑpÉÇ rÉ§É zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ ÌiɸÌiÉ | ÌuÉÍzÉ¸È xÉ Ì²eÉÉiÉåuÉæï ÌuÉ¥ÉårÉÈ CÌiÉ rÉå qÉÌiÉÈ || lÉ rÉÉåÌlÉÈ lÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇxMüÉUÈ lÉ ´ÉÑiÉÇ lÉ cÉ xÉliÉÌiÉÈ | MüÉUhÉÉÌlÉ Ì²eÉiuÉxrÉÇ uÉרÉÇ LuÉ iÉÑ MüÉUhÉqÉç || xÉuÉÉåïÅrÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉå sÉÉåMåü uÉרÉålÉ iÉÑ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | uÉëѨÉå ÎxjÉiÉxiÉÑ zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ oÉëɼhÉiuÉÇ ÌlÉrÉcNûÌiÉ || There is a similar conversation between

Bhrigu and Bharadvaja in Santi Parva Chap. 188 & 189 where in, to questions raised by

Bharadvaja, Bhrigu explains what constitutes ‘Varna’. Here also it is explained that it is

character and conduct that makes one a Brahmana and that it is only a falling away from the

ideal that necessititated the formation of castes other than the Brahmana. Each caste,

therefore, says Bhrigu, should be recognized by their ‘Guna’ and ‘Karma’. Since all Varnas

were originally only Brahmanas all are entitled to the study of the Vedas and for the

performance of Yajnas which alone can enable them to rise to their former status of

Brahminhood. Brahma was a Brahmana and the first progenitors Marichi etc. were also

Brahmanas and if birth were the only criterion for determining uÉhÉï then the progeny of

his Brahmin ancestors must all be Brahmanas by birth and they would be entitled

automatically to all the rights and privileges of the Brahmanas. If on the other hand it has to

be admitted that the other castes came into existence only because of the change in aÉÑhÉ & MüqÉï, then it is an admission that uÉhÉï depends only on aÉÑhÉ and MüqÉï. Therefore, whoever is a Brahmana by character and conduct must automatically be entitled to

the privileges of that uÉhÉï. So in either case Vedic study and Yajna cannot be desired to

anybody on account of mere birth. (The whole of these two chapters may be read with

advantage) lÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉÉåÅÎxiÉ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ xÉuÉïÇ oÉëɼÍqÉSÇ eÉaÉiÉç | oÉë¼hÉÉ mÉÔuÉïxÉ×¹Ç ÌWû MüqÉïÍpÉuÉïhÉïiÉÉÇ aÉiÉqÉç || ... ÌWÇûxÉÉÅlÉ×iÉÌmÉërÉÉfÉç sÉÑokÉÉÈ xÉuÉïMüqÉÉåïmÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÈ | M×üwhÉÈ zÉÉæcÉmÉËUpÉë¹ÉÈ iÉå ̲eÉÉÈ zÉÔSìiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || ... CirÉåiÉæÈ MüqÉïÍpÉÈ urÉxiÉÉÈ Ì²eÉÉÈ uÉhÉÉïliÉUÇ aÉiÉÉÈ | kÉqÉÉåï rÉ¥ÉÌ¢ürÉÉ uÉÉ LwÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉiÉå | uÉhÉÉï¶ÉiuÉÉUÈ LiÉå ÌWû

49

LwÉÉÇ oÉëÉ¼Ï xÉUxuÉiÉÏ | ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉ oÉë¼hÉÉ mÉÔuÉïÇ sÉÉåpÉÉiÉÑ A¥ÉÉlÉiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ | vide Chap.188. In explaining these Nilakantha says in 188.4

uÉhÉÉïÈ xÉÉÎiuÉMÇü UÉeÉxÉÇ iÉÉqÉxÉÇ ÍqÉ´ÉÇ cÉåÌiÉ xuÉcNûiuÉÉÌS xÉÉqÉrÉÉiÉç aÉÑhÉuÉרÉÇ uÉhÉïzÉoSålÉ EcrÉiÉå | On Sl.5 he says ÍxÉiÉÈ xuÉcNûÈ xɨuÉaÉÑhÉÈ mÉëMüÉzÉÉiqÉÉ zÉÉqÉSqÉÉÌSxuÉpÉÉuÉÈ sÉÉåÌWûiÉÉå UeÉÉåaÉÑhÉÈ mÉëuÉ×irÉÉiqÉÉ zÉÉærÉïiÉåeÉÉÌS xuÉpÉÉuÉÈ mÉÏiÉMüÈ UeÉxiÉqÉÉå urÉÉÍqÉ´É M×üwrÉÉÌS ÌlÉWûÏlÉMüqÉïmÉëuÉiÉïMüÈ AÍxÉiÉÈ M×üwhÉÈ AÉuÉUhÉÉiqÉÉ iÉqÉÉåaÉÑhÉÈ xuÉiÉÈ mÉëMüÉzÉmÉëuÉ×̨ÉWûÏlÉÈ zÉMüOûuÉiÉç mÉUmÉëårÉïÈ || On Sl.14 he says

oÉëÉ¼Ï uÉåSqÉrÉÏ cÉiÉÑhÉÉïqÉÌmÉ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ oÉë¼hÉÉ mÉÔuÉïÌuÉÌWûiÉÉ | sÉÉåpÉSÉåwÉåhÉ iÉÑ A¥ÉÉlÉiÉÉÇ iÉqÉÉåpÉÉuÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ zÉÔSìÉÈ AlÉÍkÉMüÉËUhÉÉå uÉåSå eÉÉiÉÉÈ CirÉjÉïÈ || This shows that

there is nothing to prevent a Sudra by birth from studying the Vedas or performing Yajnas

provided he gives up his Tamas and elevates himself in character and conduct and becomes

more qualified by the development of Sattva and Rajas through self-effort under the guidance

of the higher Varnas. It is to help the Sudra thus to qualify himself that he is placed under the

kind care of the Brahmanas whose duty it is to improve his character and conduct and then

instruct him in the Vedas and make him do the Sadhanas prescribed by the Vedas. If the

Brahmana fails in his duty thus to make him qualified he is guilty of sin. This is also the

meaning of the story already mentioned before and which appears in Anusasana X. Santi 189

says after enumerating the characteristics which constitute the four varnas. irÉ£üuÉåSxiÉÑ AlÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉ uÉæ zÉÔSì CÌiÉ xqÉ×iÉÈ | zÉÔSìå cÉæiÉiÉç pÉuÉåiÉç sɤqÉÇ Ì²eÉå iÉŠ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå || lÉ uÉæ zÉÔSìÉå pÉuÉåiÉç zÉÔSìÈ oÉëɼhÉÉå oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉ cÉ | This shows that the Sudra is one who has given up his

study of the Veda through his Tamas and fallen into evil ways. If a man born of Sudras

parents develops the proper character and conduct he is also to be considered as a ̲eÉ and is

entitled to all the rights and privileges of the ̲eÉÉs such as vedic study and performance of

Yajnas. Santi – 60 is another chapter which gives the Sudra their right to perform the Vedic

Yajnas, without uttering the Mantras aloud. (According to the orthodox commentators this

right is limited only to the performance of Yajnas … aloud but this limitation is not

authorized or necessitated by the words of the text itself. It is a gratuitous addition to what the

text actually says to bring into accord with the views of certain Puranas of a later age. But

even accepting this interpretation leads to exactly opposite conclusions.) The highest among

the Yajnas is the qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥ÉÉ and that which is done externally and physically is the

50

lower. The permission this given to ‘Manasapuja’ is, therefore, clearly an admission that

lower forms of Yajna are also not impossible for him. The prohibition of loud utterance of

Vedic Mantras only, if any will therefore, has to be explained as being based upon selfish

economic considerations. Such an explanation will be unwarranted as the Brahmana is, by his

character and conduct above such things. Bhishma, therefore, in this chapter only tries to give

the Sudras the substance of Dharma and Vyasa in recording it is only giving the Sudra the

right to save himself even if the higher castes refuse to teach him and officiate for him in the

ritualistic vedic sacrifice aimed at satisfying only demi-gods such as Indra, Varuna etc. It is

specially said in this chapter that the Sudra is ‘Prajapatya’, the special favorite of Prajapati or

God himself who is more anxious to save his ignorant and disabled children in exactly the

same spirit as Jesus Christ in his parable of the lost sheep. The word ‘Prajapatya’ is used by

Bhishma and Vyasa in exactly the same sense and in the same spirit of love and sympathy, as

the word ‘Harijan’ given by Mahatmaji to these socially down-trodden people. To Prajapati

all his children are ‘Praja’ are equally dear and as Swami Vivekananda points out if any

special consideration is to be paid, it is to the least qualified and the weakest and therefore,

education is more needed in their case than in the case of the highly qualified Brahmanas who

are better able to look after themselves. An independent study of the chapter without

importing any ideas from outside makes it clear to anyone who is unprejudiced by the

traditional social custom and usage that the right given to Sudra in this chapter extends to all

Yajnas as are performed by the other three castes and if at all any distinction is made in the

case of the Sudra it is only to emphasize that the Sudra has no duty to perform such Yajna as

in the case of the other castes. The earlier portions of the chapter deal only with the minimum

duty expected of the four castes and are not intended to give any right and privileges. Thus

the minimum duty of the Brahmana is said to be xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉ and that of a Kshatriya the

protection of the people and the destruction of their enemies, that of the Vaisya is the rearing

and protection of animals like cows and that of Sudra the service of the other castes. These

are the only essential duties of the four castes and if they omit these they will be falling away

from their caste-status. The other duties are optional and if they omit these they do not fall

away from their Varna. mÉUÌlÉ̸iÉMüÉrÉïxiÉÑ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉålÉæuÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ | MÑürÉÉïSlrÉiÉç lÉ uÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç qÉæ§ÉÉå oÉëɼhÉ EcrÉiÉå || (This

reminds us of the words of Manu eÉmrÉålÉæuÉ iÉÑ xÉÇÍxÉkrÉåiÉç oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉÉÅ§É xÉÇzÉrÉÈ MÑürÉÉïSlrÉiÉç lÉ uÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç qÉæ§ÉÉå oÉëɼhÉ EcrÉiÉå ||) mÉËUÌlɸiÉMüÉrÉïxiÉÑ lÉ×mÉÌiÉÈ mÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉÉiÉç | MÑürÉÉïiÉç AlrÉiÉç lÉ uÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç LålSìÉå UÉeÉlrÉ EcrÉiÉå ||

51

ÌmÉiÉ×uÉiÉç mÉÉsÉrÉåiÉç uÉæzrÉÉå rÉÑ£üÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç mÉzÉÔÌlÉWû | ÌuÉMüqÉïÈ iÉkpÉuÉåSlrÉiÉç MüqÉï rÉiÉç xÉ xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || U¤ÉrÉÉ xÉ ÌWû iÉåwÉÉÇ uÉæ qÉWûiÉç xÉÑZÉÇ AuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉÌWïû uÉæzrÉÉrÉ xÉ×wOèuÉÉ mÉËUSSÉæ mÉzÉÔlÉç || mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉÌWïû uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ SÉxÉÇ zÉÔSìÇ AMüsmÉrÉiÉç | iÉxqÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìxrÉ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ mÉËUcÉrÉÉï ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || iÉåwÉÉÇ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉhÉÉŠæuÉ qÉWûixÉÑZÉÇ AuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç || Here in the word zÉÑ´ÉÔhÉÉ is given as different from

mÉËUcÉrÉÉï as in Anusasana 143. zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ means only the desire for study or

´ÉuÉhÉ. mÉËUcÉrÉÉï of the Brahmana is conducive to zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ. After

enumerating some of the optional duties, Bhishma goes on to say that Yajna which has been

prescribed for the other three Varnas is to be done by the Sudra also and quotes the authority

of the ancient practice in the matter E£Çü §ÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ rÉ¥ÉÈ iÉxrÉ (zÉÔSìxrÉ) cÉ pÉÉUiÉ | xuÉÉWûÉMüÉUuÉwÉOèMüÉUÉæ qÉl§ÉÉæ zÉÔSìå ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || iÉxqÉÉlÉç zÉÔSìÈ mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉærÉïeÉåiÉ oÉëyquÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç | zÉÔSìÈ mÉæeÉuÉlÉÉå lÉÉqÉç xÉWûxÉëÉhÉÉÇ zÉiÉÇ SSÉæ LålSìÉalÉålÉ ÌuÉkÉÉlÉålÉ SͤÉhÉÉÇ CÌiÉ lÉÈ ´ÉÑiÉqÉç | rÉiÉÉå ÌWû xÉuÉïuÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ rÉ¥ÉÈ iÉxrÉæuÉ pÉÉUiÉ | AaÉëå xÉuÉåïwÉÑ rÉ¥ÉåwÉÑ ´É®ÉrÉ¥ÉÉå ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || All though this is the reading in certain editions, according

to certain other version the second line is read as xuÉÉWûÉMüÉUç uÉwÉOèMüÉUÉå qÉl§ÉÈ zÉÔSìå lÉ ÌuɱiÉå, and instead of oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç others read

AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç. The liberal minded accept the previous version as it is more

consistent with the views of the M.bh. expressed elsewhere and referred to by us previously,

as well as the subsequent portions of this chapter itself. Even according to the orthodox

version it is clear that the right to Yajna itself is not denied nor the use of the vedic mantras

but only the use of the particular mantras, vis. xuÉÉWûÉ & uÉwÉOèû. On the other hand

the right to Yajna is expressly admitted by even their own version of the text. The

´É®ÉrÉ¥É is said to be the highest for all the Varnas although the orthodox try to interpret

this ´É®ÉrÉ¥É as referring only to qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥É. The word only means Yajna done with

proper faith ´É®É. It is only a praise of all rÉ¥É if it is done with ´É®É for the purpose of

realizing God and not for selfish purposes. cf ‘rÉÉå rÉÉå rÉÉÇ rÉÉÇ iÉlÉÑÇ pÉ£üÈ ´É¬rÉÉÍcÉïiÉÑÍqÉcNûÌiÉ’ etc. of Gita, and also ‘A´É®rÉÉ WÒûiÉÇ S¨ÉÇ’ etc. This

is common to all the Varnas even according to the orthodox reading the right to

‘mÉÉMürɥɒ is not denied. These ‘mÉÉMürÉ¥És’ are rituals to be performed at home

by every Grihastha which involves the offering of cooked food. It includes all the

52

Mahayajnas which are unavoidable other than Brahmayajna. All these Pakayajnas involve the

chanting of Mantras by the perfomer himself. No priests are required. It is only the big public

sacrifices that require the help of priests for their performance. That is the force of the word

xuÉrÉqÉç. Just like the other three castes Sudra also has the right to perform these

mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉÉs individually by himself. This right is conceded by various other texts also.

(Vide Gautama X. 66 & 67: AlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÉå AxrÉ lÉqÉxMüÉUÉå qÉl§ÉÈ mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉæÈ xuÉrÉÇ rÉeÉåiÉ CirÉåMåü || LaghuVishnu V.9 also says:

mÉgcÉrÉ¥ÉÌuÉkÉÉlÉÇ iÉÑ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÅÌmÉ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | iÉxrÉ mÉëÉå£üÉå lÉqÉxMüÉUÈ MÑüuÉïlÉç ÌlÉirÉÇ lÉ WûÏrÉiÉå || Vishnu Purana III. 8.33 says: SÉlÉÇ cÉ S±ÉiÉç zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ mÉÉMürÉ¥ÉærÉïeÉåiÉç cÉ | ÌmɧrÉÉÌSMÇü cÉ uÉæ xÉuÉïÇ zÉÔSìÈ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ iÉålÉ uÉæ || Yajnavalkya I.121. pÉÉrÉÉïUÌiÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉÈ oÉ×irÉpÉiÉÉï ´Éɮ̢ürÉÉUiÉÈ | lÉqÉxMüÉUåhÉ qÉl§ÉåhÉ mÉgcÉrÉ¥ÉÉlÉç lÉ WûÉmÉrÉåiÉç || On this Mitakshara gives the view of same that

lÉqÉxMüÉU qÉl§É is SåuÉiÉÉprÉÈ ÌmÉiÉ×prÉ¶É qÉWûÉrÉÉåÌaÉprÉ LuÉ cÉ | lÉqÉÈ xuÉkÉÉrÉæ xuÉÉWûÉrÉæ ÌlÉirÉqÉåuÉ lÉqÉÉå lÉqÉÈ || This is interesting

as showing that the Sudra can utter even xuÉÉWûÉ & xuÉkÉÉ which are supposed to be

prohibited by some of the orthodox schools and as per the orthodox reading of the M.bh.

Santi Parva text. This shows also that the other reading is more consistent and acceptable.

Medhatiti on Manu III.121 says lÉqÉxMüÉUÉå AlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÈ lÉ SåuÉiÉÉmÉÉSqÉç. But this also is not acceptable to the Sruti text which declares Prajapati as the God of the

Sudras in the later position of the chapter. It is also interesting to note that Laghu Vishnu

quoted above agree that the Sudras have got the right for all the mÉgcÉqÉWûÉrÉ¥ÉÉs

which includes oÉë¼rÉ¥É. It is, therefore, an admission that the Sudra has the right for the

study of the Vedas also. This is quite consistent with the other reading of the sloka

oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç xuÉrÉqÉç where oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç refers to oÉë¼rÉ¥É. It would thus

seem that the orthodox version is meant only to emphasize that priesthood and teaching of the

Vedas should be considered the exclusive right of only Brahmins. Even in the case of public

yajnas such AµÉqÉåkÉ etc. where the services of priests are required and where Dakshinas

are offered the Shanti passage seems to be more liberal than the orthodox people want. The

reference to Paijavana as Sudra who offered di][a to his priests when he performed the rÉ¥É according to the LålSìÉalÉ - mode, shows that even public yajnas were performed in ancient

times by Sudras as the LålSìÉalÉ - rite is only a subsidiary rite in a Soma Yaga which is a

public yajna. Therefore these passages show that all the Yajnas are allowed to Sudras also

and the prohibition seems to have come in during the later ages only when people who were

53

not sufficiently cultured and who were avaricious began to encroach upon the special

privileges of the Brahmanas for the exclusive acceptance of Dakshinas for officiating as

priests and for teaching the Vedas. Such an encroachment naturally occurred when powerful

foreign tribes invaded and settled down in India and claimed all the privileges to themselves

and began to question the exclusive rights of the Brahmanas. It may not be merely the

mercenary motive that leads to this prohibition. These wild tribes who declared themselves as

Hindus and wanted all the privileges of the higher Hindus and wanted to follow their customs

and practices were found too uncultured to be taken into the Hindu-fold at once in the

interests of Hindu religion and society. Just as once before it happened at the time of the

writing of the Brahmana-texts the pure religion of the Vedas became contaminated when it

spread among the masses and had to be brought back to its pristine purity by writing special

commentaries known Brahmanas and first as it happened subsequently when Buddhism

spread among uncultured tribes and became contaminated as a result of its very liberalism,

Hinduism was threatened with the same fate as that of Buddhism as a result of its adoption by

wild foreign tribes and had to save itself by preventing these new converts from poisoning the

Hindu culture by their own interpretations. This could have been possibly done by totally

prohibiting such uncultured converts from taking up the role of teachers and priests in their

new found enthusiasm to help others. This could have been the only reason for saying that

Sudras were devoid of any uÉëiÉ. It is only wrongly understood in a later age as meaning

that the Sudra should not be allowed to perform the Vratas as in Manu IV.80 lÉ zÉÔSìÉrÉ qÉÌiÉÇ S±ÉiÉç lÉ EÎcNû¹Ç lÉ WûÌuÉwM×üiÉqÉç | lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ EmÉÌSzÉåiÉç kÉqÉïÇ lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ uÉëiÉqÉÉÌSzÉåiÉç which is the same as Vasistha 18.14 and

Vishnu 71:48-52. This only means that if the Sudra is one without uÉëiÉ and the necessary

Samskara, he should not be taught without previous training in conduct and character through

Vratas undertaken at the guidance of proper qualified teacher. So it was not meant to prevent

him from acquiring the necessary Samskara or culture in contact with cultures people on the

principle of xÉixÉ…¡û and xÉÉkÉÑxÉåuÉÉ. The prohibition must, therefore, be

understood only as referring to Sudras who have not the benefit of having such xÉixÉ…¡û. That is why it was made the preliminary condition that they should develop the necessary

culture and Adhikara through the service of spiritual people, the Brahmana. Therefore

Mitakshara on Yajnavalkya III.62 explains the words of Manu about Vratas in the case of

Sudras as only applicable to those Sudras who are not in attendance upon the culture classed

and establishes that such Sudras can perform the Vratas. Aparanka on the same verse Manu

IV.80 explains that the Sudra cannot perform Vratas in person but only through the medium

54

of a Brahmana. This only means that an uncultured man cannot become cultured or improve

in his character and conduct except through the help of a cultured spiritual man. When Manu

II.32 prescribes that the Sudra should be given a name connected with service he indicates

that the Sudra could perform the ceremony of lÉÉqÉMüUhÉ. Medhatithi on Manu IV.80

says that the prohibition to give advice and impart instruction in Dharma applies only when

these are done only for making one’s livelihood. But if the Sudra is a friend of the Brahmana,

friendly advice and instruction can be given. The Brahmana is not allowed to offer religious

instruction gratis indiscriminately to one and all but only to those who have a desire and

capacity and the Sudra is expected to demonstrate his Adhikara by his willingness to place

himself under the care and guidance of cultured people and by a formal request for spiritual

and moral help. This is all what our Santi passage could have meant even if we accept the

orthodox reading AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç instead of oÉë¼uÉÉlÉç. AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç must be

taken as an adjective qualifying ‘Sudra’, the two together meaning that Sudra who is

Avratavaan. Thus even according to the orthodox reading it is only these special clans of

Sudras who are prevented from the ritualistic external Yajna with the use of xuÉÉWûÉ &

uÉwÉOèû since they are AuÉëiÉuÉÉlÉç. This is also made clear expressly by the same

chap. 34-35 ‘rÉŠ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç ̲eÉÉiÉÏlÉÉÇ zÉÔSìÈ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÈ AÉuÉëeÉåiÉç | MüsrÉÉÇ iÉålÉ iÉÑ iÉå mÉëÉWÒûÈ uÉ×̨ÉÇ kÉqÉïÌuÉSÉå eÉlÉÉÈ || Here

uÉ×Ì¨É means the proper training in conduct and character and respectful treatment, vide

Apte’s Dictionary. It need not be understood as orthodox people take to mean ‘means of

livelihood’ or mere profession or work. The Sloka means ‘if the Sudra is anxious and eager to

have Sravanam (zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÑ) or vedic study he must approach the teacher of the cultured

caste (̲eÉÉÌiÉ). Whoever is thus approached by the Sudra should treat him respectfully and

not contemptuously as the teacher would treat a member of any other caste who approaches

him for the same purpose. He should not be rejected off-hand but as required even in the case

of other caste before they are initiated to the study of Vedas etc. through EmÉlÉrÉlÉ. That

this could be the only meaning is clear from the fact that Shanti 64 & 65 describe how

Bhagavan Narayana Himself exhorted the king Mandhata to impart culture and to civilize and

to bring into the Hindu fold all the wild and foreign tribes such as Yavana, China, Kirata,

Gandhara, Sabara, Saka, Pallava, Andhra, Paundra, Pulinda etc and in this list Sudras are also

included

qÉÉiÉÉÌmɧÉÉåÌWïû zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ MüiÉïurÉ xÉuÉïSxrÉÑÍpÉÈ |AÉcÉÉrÉïaÉÑÂzÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉ´ÉqÉuÉÉÍxÉlÉÉqÉç || pÉÔÍqÉmÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ MüiÉïurÉÉ xÉuÉïSxrÉÑÍpÉÈ | uÉåSkÉqÉïÌ¢ürÉɶÉæuÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ kÉqÉÉåï uÉÏkÉÏrÉiÉå ||

55

One should be given proper training in moral character and conduct through proper discipline. That is what is laid down by the knowers of Dharma as the duty of the Dvija’s in such cases. That in ancient times many such people were thus helped to become civilized and cultured is borne out by the historical fact of many such tribes being absorbed into the Hindu fold and their becoming good orthodox Hindus with all Vedic study and privileges as in the case of Rajputs, Pallavas and Andhras etc. There is also provision in the Vedic literature for a ceremony to take such people into the Hindu fold. Thus the Tandya Brahmana prescribes Vratyastoma for bringing such people to the orthodox Vedic culture in chap XVII.1-4. Katyayana Srouta Sutras XXII.4.1-28 say that by performing these Vratyastomas they become eligible for social intercourse with the orthodox Aryas. The Paraskara Grihya II.5 even allows Upanayana and Vedic study after Vraatyastoma.

iÉåwÉÉÇ xÉÇxMüÉUåmxÉÑÈ uÉëÉirÉxiÉÉåqÉålÉ CwOèuÉÉ MüÉqÉÇ AkÉÏrÉÏUlÉç urÉuÉWûÉrÉÉïÈ pÉuÉliÉÏÌiÉ uÉcÉlÉÉiÉç ||

Historically the Basenagar inscription shows that the Yavana Heliodorus became a Bhagavata. Many of the inscriptions in the caves of Nasik etc show that many of the donors are said to be Yavanas. Indian princes married Huna princesses for example Allata of Guhila dynasty married a Huna princess Hariyadevi, King Yashashkarmadeva of Kalachuri dynasty was the son of Karnadeva and Aapalladevi, a Huna princess. These are attested to by inscriptions. Mahabhharata Santi Parva XXII.11 speaks of Jayadrata having Yavan women in his harem. All such marriages must have been legitimate marriages as the children by such marriages became the ruling princes after the death of their fathers. All legitimate marriages could not have been performed without Vedic rituals nor could the coronation of the issue of such marriages taken place without vedit rituals and utterance of mantras. Even recent historic times Shivaji who was not a Ksatriya by birth was crowned according to vedic rites by the most orthodox vedic scholarof the time Gaga Bhatta of Benaras because was found fit to be so crowned as a Ksatriya king by virtue of his Guna and Karma. The word Svayam in the Sloka may be taken as meaning that there is no restriction to Yajna being performed by the Sudra for his own regeneration and the prohibition is limited only to his officiating as a priest to others. So even the orthodox version of the Santi passage is to be understood as meaning that the Sudra who is willing to undergo the necessary discipline under a qualified Guru should resort to such a Guru and request him for help. That in such a case if the Guru finds him not fit by conduct and character to receive vedic instruction or to perform vedic Yajnas he should treat him as he would treat any boy of the higher caste who goes to him for such instruction and make him fit by the necessary training and discipline and when he becomes fit by such training he should be given instruction in the Vedas and helped to perform the Yajnas and that he should not be rejected off hand and that during the period of training no vedic mantras like Svaha and Vashat need be used by the Sudra personally but only by the Guru himself on behalf of the disciple even as in the case of Samskaras of children of higher castes before their Upanayana. That such a thing is allowed is seen from the Varaha Purana which says AqÉl§ÉxrÉ iÉÑ zÉÔSìxrÉ ÌuÉmÉëÉå qÉl§ÉåhÉ aÉ×½iÉå – where the Sudra is not able to utter the Mantras, Mantras may be recited by the Guru or the priest! There can be no objection to this even from the orthodox people as even the Brahmasutra admits that even the meditations connected with the ritual should be done by the priest as he has been paid for it AÉÎiuÉïerÉqÉç CÌiÉ AÉæQÒûsÉÉåÍqÉÈ iÉxqÉæ ÌWû mÉËUÌ¢ürÉiÉå. When meditation itself can be done by the priest there is nothing to prevent the utterance of the Mantras being done by the priests themselves as is usually done

56

today even in the case of the higer castes who have not studied the Vedas. The only qualification which this Shanti text insists upon for the performance of the Yajna is ´É®É and this ´É®É should be, according to the text respected as the highest form of God Himself in whomsoever it may appear. Therefore the text continues to say SæuÉiÉÇ ÌWû qÉWûiÉç ´É®É mÉÌuɧÉÇ rÉeÉiÉÉÇ cÉ rÉiÉç || This shows that ´É®É is the greatest purifying agency which makes a man fit for performing Yajnas. This reminds us of the greatness of ´É®É insisted upon by all orthodox writers and in the Srutis and the condemnation of A´É®É vide Gita ch.XVII. Also Chandogya rÉSåuÉ ÌuɱrÉÉ etc. Bhagavata XI.27 ´É®rÉÉåmÉWØûiÉÇ mÉëå¸qÉç etc, Manu IV 225.226 says ´É®ÉmÉÔiÉÇ uÉSÉlrÉxrÉ WûiÉqÉ´É®rÉåiÉUiÉç | ´É®rÉå¹Ç cÉ mÉÔiÉïÇ cÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ MÑürÉÉïSiÉÎlSìiÉÈ | ´É®ÉM×üiÉå ½¤ÉrÉå iÉå pÉuÉiÉÈ xuÉÉaÉiÉækÉïlÉæÈ || M. bh. A´É®É mÉUqÉÇ mÉÉmÉÇ ´É®É mÉÉmÉmÉëqÉÉåÍcÉlÉÏ || c.f also Brihad III.6.21 MüÎxqÉlÉç lÉÑ rÉ¥ÉÈ mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ CÌiÉ | SͤÉhÉÉrÉÉÍqÉÌiÉ | MüÎxqÉlÉç lÉÑ SͤÉhÉÉ mÉëÌiÉ̹iÉÉ CÌiÉ | ´É®rÉÉÍqÉÌiÉ Tait. Up. ´É®rÉÉ SårÉqÉç A´É®ÉÅSårÉqÉç || Suta Samhita IV.2.1 ´É®rÉÉ UÌWûiÉÇ xÉuÉïÇ TüsÉÉrÉ lÉ MüSÉcÉlÉ || It is this ´É®É that makes a Brahmana what he is. It is naturally present in him. It is this which makes him fit to be the teacher and priest of the other three Varnas who are all prompterd in their actions by worldly desires. They make the Brahmana perform the Yajnas for them so that these Yajnas may be done with proper Sraddha. It is he who can guide them to know their higher interests and lead them to the highest goal. Therefore he deserves the highest worship by all those who are naturally guided by their natural desires. Similarly the Sudra also like others should take refuge in him and worship him. In this respect the Sudra is like any other caste who are governed by desires as he is also born of the same God who is the protector of all. In fact he is more loved by God than the other castes who have studied the Vedas and therefore the Brahmanas should be eager to help him more than the others who have neglected their opportunities. A Sudra with Sraddha but with no knowledge of the scriptures is more deserving of spiritual help from the Brahamanas as Sraddha, their God is present in such Sudra. SæuÉiÉÇ ÌWû mÉUÇ ÌuÉmÉëÉÈ xuÉålÉ xuÉålÉ mÉUxmÉUqÉç | ArÉeÉlÉç CWû xɧÉæÈ iÉå iÉæxiÉæÈ MüÉqÉæÈ xÉqÉÉÌWûiÉÉÈ || xÉÇxÉ×¹ÉÈ oÉëɼhÉæÈ LuÉ Ì§ÉwÉÑ uÉhÉåïwÉÑ xÉ×¹rÉÈ | SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉÌuÉ rÉå SåuÉÉÈ rÉiÉç oÉëÑrÉÈ iÉå mÉUÇ ÌWûiÉqÉç || iÉxqÉÉiÉç uÉhÉæïÈ xÉuÉïrÉ¥ÉÉÈ xÉÇxÉ×erÉiÉå lÉ MüÉqrÉrÉÉ | GarÉeÉÑxxÉÉqÉÌuÉiÉç mÉÔerÉÉå ÌlÉirÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç SåuÉÌuÉiÉç ̲eÉÈ AlÉ×arÉeÉÑUxÉÉqÉÉ cÉ mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ EmÉSìuÉÈ || Santi 41-44. On Sl. 42 Nilakantha says xÉ×¹rÉÈ xÉliÉÉlÉÉÌlÉ iÉålÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ uÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ oÉëɼhÉeÉiuÉÉiÉç AxirÉåuÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ rÉ¥Éå AÍkÉMüÉUÈ || In saying this he shows himself in his usual manner as a champion of Sudra’s rights. We differ from him only when he says that the Yajna referred to in this chap is qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥É which is unwarranted and unnecessary and which goes against his own Catholicism and liberalism which he has fearlessly expressed in his commentary on other parts of the M. bharata where the Sudra’s right is conceded by the text itself. The text continues in this chapter also to express only the same idea when it says in continuation rÉ¥ÉÉå qÉlÉÏwÉrÉÉ iÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïuÉhÉåïwÉÑ pÉÉUiÉ | Here there is no necessity to interpret qÉlÉÏwÉrÉÉ as referring to qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥ÉÉ as Neelakantha says when he comments on it thus iÉjÉÉ cÉ qÉÉlÉxÉå SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SìurÉirÉÉaÉÉiqÉMåü rÉ¥Éå xÉuÉåï uÉhÉÉï AÍkÉÌ¢ürÉliÉå CirÉjÉïÈ | qÉlÉÏwÉÉ never means qÉlÉxÉç but only wish and intelligence. qÉlÉÏwÉrÉÉ, therefore, may be taken as meaning according to AÍkÉMüÉU which involves only AÍjÉïiuÉ & xÉÉqÉirÉï. In the sense of wish it shows AÍjÉïiuÉ and in the sense of intelligence it means ‘xÉÉqÉjrÉï’.

57

The word also means (according to Sayana on Rg V.V.83.10) a Vedic hymn. He interprets qÉlÉÏwÉÉ there as xiÉÑÌiÉ. xiÉÑÌiÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉuÉÉlÉÍxÉ. Taking the word in this sense the sentence would mean that all the Varnas can perform Yajnas with Vedic hymns. Anticipating some objection that both society as well as the gods will non-cooperate with such a Yajna performed by a Sudra with Vedic hymns the text continues to say that where there is Sraddha all people will and must cooperate. lÉ AxrÉ rÉ¥ÉM×üiÉÉå SåuÉÉÈ DWûliÉå lÉ CiÉUå eÉlÉÉÈ | iÉiÉÈ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ uÉhÉåïwÉÑ ´É®ÉrÉ¥ÉÉå ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || On this Nilakantha says (of course as referring to only qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥É) AxrÉ qÉÉlÉxÉrÉ¥ÉMüiÉÑïÈ SåuÉÉÈ CiÉUå eÉlÉÉ¶É lÉ DWûliÉå CÌiÉ lÉ | AÌmÉ iÉÑ ´É®ÉmÉÔiÉiuÉÉiÉç xÉuÉåïÅÌmÉ AxrÉ rÉ¥Éå pÉÉaÉÇ MüÉqÉrÉliÉå CirÉjÉïÈ || The Brahmana has got this Sraddha by his very nature. If he hasn’t he is no Brahmana. Therefore with that Sraddha which is natural to him he always serves the other Varnas in performing Yajnas with the proper Sraddha. His Sraddha influences others also and gives them also the necessary Sraddha when he cooperates with their Yajna and instructs them as to how to do the Yajna properly. It is because of this natural Sraddha that the Brahmana is entrusted with the duty of rÉÉeÉlÉqÉç or helping others to perform the Yajnas properly. So the text continues to say xuÉÇ SæuÉiÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÈ xuÉålÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ mÉUÉlÉç uÉhÉÉïlÉç ArÉeɳÉåuÉÇ AÉxÉÏiÉç | AkÉUÉå ÌuÉiÉÉlÉÈ xÉÇxÉ×¹Éå uÉæzrÉÉå oÉëɼhÉÈ Ì§ÉwÉÑ uÉhÉïuÉÑ rÉ¥ÉxÉ×¹È || The latter half of this Sloka refers expressly to the ritualistic Yajna as is clear from the use of the expression ÌuÉiÉÉlÉ – means sacrificial hearth or altar. The sentence refers to how members of the other three Varnas become Brahmanas through performance of such a ritualistic Yajna with proper Sraddha. The Diksha undergone at the beginning of such a ritualistic Yajna is meant expressly to create the proper Sraddha and therefore it is said that rÉ¥ÉSϤÉÉ confers the status of a Brahmana. So the Satapata Brahmana says AjÉÉÅ§É A®É eÉÉrÉiÉå rÉÉå oÉë¼hÉÉå rÉÉå rÉ¥ÉÉ‹ÉrÉiÉå | iÉxqÉÉSÌmÉ UÉeÉlrÉÇ uÉÉ uÉæzrÉÇ uÉÉ oÉëɼhÉæirÉåuÉ oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç | oÉëɼhÉÉå ÌWû eÉÉrÉiÉå rÉÉå rÉ¥ÉÉ‹ÉrÉiÉå | So also III.2. So also Aitareya Brahmana VII.2.3 xÉ ÌWû SϤÉqÉÉhÉ LuÉ oÉëɼhÉiÉÉqÉprÉÑmÉæÌiÉ | All Varnas are relatives of each other and are alike entitled to Vedic culture and Samskaara. They are only varieties of Brahmana really. The Vedas are common to all of them. They are made Brahmanas if they resolutely take to Vedic study and culture and to Vedic practices. So the text says iÉxqÉÉiÉç uÉhÉÉïÈ GeÉuÉÉå ¥ÉÉÌiÉuÉhÉÉïÈ xÉÇxÉ×erÉiÉå iÉxrÉ ÌuÉMüÉUç LuÉ | LMÇü xÉÉqÉç rÉeÉÑUåMÇü GaÉåMüÉ ÌuÉmÉë¶ÉæMüÉå ÌlɶÉrÉå iÉåwÉÑ xÉ×¹È || This is quite consistent with the views of Yajnavalkya and Bhrigu which we have already noted before from Santi 318.89 and Santi 188.1-16. Vide also Vanaparva chap 148-9. 18-23 where Hanuman says to Bhima that all Varnas are alike in their rites, observances and their devotion to one deity and to one set of Mantras and Veda. This chapter quotes the further authority of the Rishis for the proposition that every man has got the right to perform the Yajna if there is Sraddha even if he is a thief or a sinner. All such people deserve praise and not condemnation and all such people should be encouraged to perform such Yajnas according to their capacity and intelligence and desire (i.e if there is AÍkÉMüÉU) and helped to perform them by all persons who are free from envy and jealousy. A§É aÉÉjÉÉÈ rÉ¥ÉaÉÏiÉÉÈ MüÐiÉïrÉÎliÉ mÉÑUÉÌuÉSÈ | uÉæZÉÉlÉxÉÉlÉÉÇ UÉeÉålSì qÉÑlÉÏlÉÉÇ rɹÒÍqÉcNûiÉÉqÉç || EÌSiÉåÅlÉÑÌSiÉå uÉÉÅÌmÉ ´É®ÉkÉÉlÉÉå ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | uÉÌ»Çû eÉÑWûÉåÌiÉ kÉqÉåïhÉ ´É®É uÉæ MüÉUhÉÇ qÉWûiÉç || rÉiÉç xMü³ÉÇ AxrÉ iÉimÉÔuÉïÇ rÉSxMü³ÉÇ iÉSÒ¨ÉUqÉç | oÉWÕûÌlÉ rÉ¥ÉÃmÉÉÍhÉ lÉÉlÉÉMüqÉïTüsÉÉÌlÉ cÉ || iÉÉÌlÉ rÉÈ xÉqmÉëeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ ¥ÉÉlÉÌlɶÉrÉÌlÉͶÉiÉÈ | ̲eÉÉÌiÉÈ ´É®rÉÉåmÉåiÉÈ (one who has become a

58

̲eÉÉÌiÉ because of his ´É®É) xÉ rɹÒÇ mÉÑÂwÉÉåÅWïûÌiÉ || xiÉålÉÉå uÉÉ GwÉrÉÈ iÉÇ mÉëzÉÇ xÉÎliÉ xÉÉkÉÑ cÉæiÉSxÉÇzÉrÉqÉç | xÉuÉïjÉÉ xÉuÉïSÉ uÉhÉæïÈ rɹurÉÍqÉÌiÉ ÌlÉhÉïrÉÈ || lÉ ÌWû rÉ¥ÉxÉqÉÇ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç ̧ÉwÉÑ sÉÉåMåüwÉÑ ÌuɱiÉå | iÉxqÉÉiÉç rɹurÉÍqÉirÉÉWÒûÈ mÉÑÂwÉåhÉ (cf Gita rÉå qÉå qÉiÉÍqÉSÇ ´É®ÉuÉliÉÉåÅlÉxÉÔrÉliÉÉå etc.) ´É®ÉmÉÌuɧÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ rÉjÉÉzÉÌ£ü rÉjÉåcNûrÉÉ || EÌSiÉåÅlÉÑÌSiÉå means that which is prescribed by the Vedas and that which is not. ̲eÉÉÌiÉÈ ´É®rÉÉåmÉåiÉÈ – One who has become a Dvijaati because of his Sraddha.

There are, of course, also a few other chapters in the M. bharata which appear to say that Brahmin is only born and that one cannot attain the status of a Brahmana in this life itself but only in another birth, however perfect he might become in conduct and character with the help of self effort. But if these chapters are read carefully and understood in the proper light consistent with the other liberal teachings of Bharata, they will be found as noted above to substantiate the contention that all are entitled to vedic culture and civilization. For example chap 27 to 29 of Anusasana deals with the story of Matanga who was asked by his father to help him in performing a Yajna. In going to the forest to collect the necessary material he cruelly beat the young asses that were yoked to the cart. Seeing the fate of these asses the mother ass consoles them by saying that though Matanga was born and bread up as a Brahmana he was really a Chandala and nothing better could be expected of him. If he were a real Brahmin he would have been a friend of all living beings. Hearing the words of the she-ass Matanga becomes discomfited and performs Tapas to attain real Brahminhood. Indra appears before him and is prepared to give any boon his devotee wants but when he comes to know that what Matanga wanted was to attain real Brahmanahood Indra dissuade him from his rash attempt to attain Brahminhood in this life itself through such ascetic practices. In that connection Indra seems to say as understood by the orthodox commentators that one who is not a Brahmana by birth and parentage cannot attain Brahmanahood except a future birth. This story is on of those taken advantage of by orthodox people to show that no other caste can become a Brahmana in this life itself and that Brahminhood is conferred by birth alone. But the words used in the text as well as the very setting of the story shows that the real emphasis is not upon birth but on character and conduct. It is because of his bad conduct that Matanga was adjudged to be not the son of his Brahmana father but as the product of an illicit connection of his mother with a barber. Nilakantha expressly says in his commentary: AlÉzÉiÉç ¢ÔüUiuÉÍsÉ…¡åûlÉ | Mere birth and ritualistic Samskaras such as aÉpÉÉïkÉÉlÉ, xÉÏqÉliÉÉå³ÉrÉlÉ etc. were not effective in changing his inborn character where such character is not formed through personal effort, Sraddha, Satsanga and moral and spiritual Sadhana these ritualistic Samskaras are thus shown to be really of no practical value. This is admitted by the Gautama Dharma Sutra VIII.22-25, AjÉÉŹÉæ AÉiqÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ SrÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ ¤ÉÉÎliÉUlÉxÉÔrÉÉ zÉÉæcÉqÉlÉÉrÉÉxÉÈ qÉ…¡ûsÉMüÉmÉïhrÉqÉxmÉ×WûÉ || rÉxrÉæiÉå cÉiuÉÉËUÇzÉiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÉÈ lÉ cÉ A¹Éæ AÉiqÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ lÉ xÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ xÉÉrÉÑerÉÇ xÉÉsÉÉåirÉÇ cÉ aÉcNûÌiÉ || rÉxrÉ iÉÑ ZÉsÉÑ cÉiuÉÉËUÇzÉiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÉhÉÉÇ LMüSåzÉÉåÅÌmÉ | A¹ÉuÉÉiqÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ xÉ oÉëɼhÉÈ xÉÉrÉÑerÉÇ xÉÉsÉÉåYrÉÇ cÉ aÉcNûÌiÉ || This shows that more importance is to be paid to actual transformation of character than to ritualistic Samskaras. The author of the Mahabharata could not possibly say knowing well his own birth as well as the birth of his own father and sages like Vasistha, Kavasha, Aitareya etc. that one who is born of low parentage cannot become a Brahmana by transformation of character through self effort. It is seen in the Bharata itself that the author is fully aware of this possibility when he says: eÉÉiÉÉå

59

urÉÉxÉÎxiÉ MæüuÉirÉÉïÈ µÉÉmÉÉYrÉÉxiÉÑ mÉUÉzÉUÈ | aÉÍhÉiÉÉaÉpÉïxÉqpÉÔiÉÉå uÉÍxɹ¶É qÉWûÉqÉÑÌlÉÈ || oÉWûuÉÉåÅlrÉåÅÌmÉ ÌuÉmÉëiÉiuÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉÉÈ rÉå mÉÔuÉïqÉ̲eÉÉÈ || iÉmÉxÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÉ eÉÉiÉÉÈ xÉÇxMüÉUxiÉ§É MüÉUhÉqÉç | iÉ§É AËU¸zÉålÉÈ MüÉæUurÉÈoÉëɼhrÉÇ xÉÇÍzÉiÉuÉëiÉÈ || iÉmÉxÉÉ qÉWûiÉÉ UÉeÉlÉç mÉëÉmiÉuÉÉlÉç GÌwÉxÉiÉqÉ | ÍxÉlkÉѲÏmÉ¶É UÉeÉÌwÉïÈ SåuÉÉÌmÉ¶É qÉWûÉiÉmÉÈ || oÉëɼhrÉÇ sÉokÉuÉÉlÉç rÉ§É ÌuɵÉÉÍqɧÉxiÉjÉÉ qÉÑÌlÉÈ || etc. In fact in the very next chapter it is recorded how Vitahavya who was a king became a Brahmana in that very birth through the grace of his Guru. So this chapter we are considering now could not have been meant by the author to discredit himself and his statements elsewhere. The emphasis, therefore, should be on the expression AmÉëÉmiÉM×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ in Sl.28 of chap.27 and SÒwmÉëÉmÉqÉÉM×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ in Sl.12 of chap.29. Even in chap.28, Sls. 14&15 it is expressly stated that one could attain a higher status only if he conquers his real enemies- Kama, Krodha etc. even if he is born of superior parentage. iÉSåuÉÇ zÉÉåMüWûwÉæï iÉÑ MüÉqɲåwÉÉæ cÉ mÉѧÉMü | AÌiÉqÉÉlÉ AÌiÉuÉÉSÉæ cÉ mÉëÌuÉzÉåiÉå ̲eÉÉkÉqÉqÉç || iÉÉǵÉåiÉç zɧÉÔ eÉrÉÌiÉ zɧÉÔlÉç xÉ iÉSÉ AÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ xɪÌiÉqÉç || If proper emphasis is put on these words of Indra it is clear that what Indra means is that it is M×üiÉÉiqÉiuÉqÉç or the culture of mind and character and not birth nor ascetic practices nor ritualistic Samskaras that makes one a real Brahmin. Nowhere in the story is it said that Matanga became a M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ but only that he performed ascetic practices without any effect on his conduct and character. On the other hand it is specially said that the boon he begged of Indra was for Siddhis and name and fame which shows how his character was untouched by his Tapas. Vide XXIX.22-23 rÉjÉÉMüÉqÉuÉÏWûÉUÏ xrÉÉÇ MüÉqÉÃÌmÉ ÌuÉWû…¡ûqÉÈ | oÉ뼤ɧÉÉÌuÉUÉåkÉålÉ mÉÔeÉÉÇ cÉ mÉëÉmlÉÑrÉÉqÉWûqÉç || rÉjÉÉ qÉqÉ A¤ÉrÉÉ MüÐÌiÉïÈ pÉuÉåiÉç | Indra was, therefore, right in telling Matanga that he need not expect to become a Brahmin without any improvement in his character and conduct which was the source of his being considered as a non-brahmana. Vide also Indra’s words iÉrÉÉåÅjÉïÇ lÉÉÅÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå iÉmÉxÉÉ xÉuÉïjÉÉ lÉ pÉÌuÉwrÉÌiÉ || in XXVIII.5, XXVII.29. This story, therefore, must be taken only as illustrating that it is only character and conduct that counts just as in the Satyakama story whereas Satyakama was considered a Brahmana because of his frankness, guilelessness, straight forwardness and eagerness for oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É although he was born of a maid servant. Matanga who was born of a Brahmana woman is shown to be really a Chandala because of his cruelty to animal and want of universal love which is characteristic of a Brahmana. This is quite consistent with the views of all sane Acaryas like Apastamba and other Smritikaras. Vide Apastamba Sutra AkÉqÉïcÉrÉïrÉÉ mÉÔuÉÉåï uÉhÉïÈ eÉbÉlrÉÇ eÉbÉlrÉÇ uÉhÉïqÉÉmɱiÉå eÉÉÌiÉmÉËUuÉ×iÉÉæ || (Yajnavalkya I.96 Bodhayana I.8.13&14 which we have already noted before). Manu says rÉÉå AlÉkÉÏirÉ Ì²eÉÉå uÉåSÇ AlrÉ§É MÑüÂiÉå ´ÉqÉqÉç | xÉ eÉÏuɳÉåuÉ zÉÔSìiuÉÇ AÉzÉÑ aÉcNûÌiÉ xÉÉluÉrÉÈ || This shows that change of Varna can take place in this life itself. Cf also the statements of the Smritikaras that he who does not perform xÉlkrÉuÉlSlÉ regularly becomes a Sudra in this life itself. xÉlkrÉÉWûÏlÉÈ AzÉÑÍcÉÌlÉïirÉqÉlÉWïûxxÉuÉïMüqÉïxÉÑ xÉ zÉÔSìuÉiÉç oÉÌWûwMüÉrÉïÈ xÉuÉïxqÉÉiÉç ̲eÉMüqÉïhÉÈ || Manu and Daksha eÉÏuÉqÉÉlÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç zÉÔSìÈ qÉ×iÉÈ µÉÉ cÉ AÍpÉeÉÉrÉiÉå || If change of caste in this life itself is admitted there is nothing imposible or wrong if we understand this story only as emphasizing change of Varna in this life itself. In chap. 49 of the Anusasanaparva itself Bhisma himself admits that a foundling belongs to the caste of the foster parents. It is only in consonance with

60

this that Karna was considered a Sudra although by parentage he was the son of Kunti, a Kshatriya woman. qÉÉiÉÉÌmÉiÉ×pÉrÉÉÇ rÉÈ irÉ£üÈ mÉÍjÉ rÉÈ iÉÇ mÉëMüsmÉrÉåiÉç | lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ qÉÉiÉÉÌmÉiÉUÉæ ¥ÉÉrÉåiÉÉÇ xÉ ÌWû M×ü̧ÉqÉÈ || AxuÉÉÍqÉMüxrÉ xuÉÉÍqÉiuÉÇ rÉÎxqÉlÉç xÉqmÉëÌiÉ sɤrÉiÉå | rÉÉå uÉhÉïÈ mÉÉåwÉrÉåiÉç iÉÇ cÉ iɲhÉïxiÉxrÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå || AÉiqÉuÉiÉç iÉxrÉ MÑüuÉÏïiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÇ xuÉÉÍqÉuÉiÉç iÉjÉÉ | irÉ£üÉå qÉÉiÉÉÌmÉiÉ×prÉÉÇ rÉÈ xÉ uÉhÉïÇ mÉëÌiÉmÉxrÉiÉå || iɪÉå§ÉoÉlkÉÑeÉÇ iÉxrÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç xÉÇxMüÉUÇ AcrÉÑiÉ || This shows Bhisma, the narrator of the story was aware of the possibility of the son of Sudra parents becoming Brahmanas if only the parents had discarded the child and if he was brought up by Brahmin parents. It will be an irony to contend that a child of Sudra parent if properly brought up by Brahmins cannot become a Brahmin if his parentage is known though both the children have the benefit of the same training and breeding in the same Brahmin family the only difference being the parents of the one have been a little more merciful than the other. C.f Vanaparva 200 where Markandeya condemns and proclaims the futility of mere ascetic practices without purity of heart and holiness by which only high status can be attained and where the Rishi says that he who has no feeling of kindness cannot be freed from sin, that real asceticism is always accompanied by kindness and that hard-heartedness is the enemy of asceticism. AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÇ uÉlÉå uÉÉxÉÇ zÉUÏUmÉËUzÉÉåwÉhÉÇ | xÉuÉÉïhrÉåiÉÉÌlÉ ÍqÉjrÉÉ xrÉÑÈ rÉÌS pÉÉuÉÉå lÉ ÌlÉqÉïsÉÈ || rÉå mÉÉmÉÉÌlÉ lÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ qÉlÉÉåuÉÉ‚rÉMüqÉïoÉÑήÍpÉÈ | iÉå iÉmÉÎliÉ qÉWûÉiqÉÉlÉÈ lÉ zÉUÏUxrÉ zÉÉåwÉhÉqÉç || lÉ ¥ÉÉÌiÉprÉÉå SrÉÉ rÉxrÉ zÉÑYsÉSåWûÉå ÌuÉMüsqÉwÉÈ ÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉÉ iÉmÉxÉxiÉxrÉ lÉ AlÉÉÍzÉiuÉÇ iÉmÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÇ || ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ uÉÉÅÌmÉ eÉUÉqÉUhÉqÉåuÉ cÉ urÉÉkÉrÉ¶É mÉëWûÏrÉliÉå mÉëÉmrÉiÉå cÉ E¨ÉqÉÇ mÉSqÉç || 97 – 107. If Matanga’s Tapas is judged in the light of Markandeya’s this view of Tapas we can easily understand how his ascetic practices was not real ‘Tapas’ at all but was the Tamasic and Rakshasa variety of it as mentioned in Gita XVII.4-6. It is only just that Indra told Matanga that that kind of Tapas which did not result in purification of character cannot give him Brahminhood in that life itself. For Brahminhood always involves benevolence towards all creatures, self-control, self-sacrifice, freedom from desires etc as explained by Bhisma himself in Moksha Dharma of Santi Parva. lÉ ¢ÑükrÉåiÉç lÉ mÉëWØûwrÉåiÉç cÉ qÉÉÌlÉiÉÉåÅqÉÉÌlÉiÉ¶É rÉÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwuÉpÉrÉSÈ iÉÇ SåuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÇ ÌuÉSÒÈ || eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ rÉxrÉ kÉqÉÉïjÉïÇ mÉUÉjÉïÇ rÉxrÉ eÉÏÌuÉiÉqÉç | AÌWûUɧÉÇ cÉUåiÉç MüÉÎliÉÇ iÉÇ ... ÌuÉSÒÈ || etc. wherever, therefore, we see in the Mahabharata a statement that a Sudra is not entitled to Yajna or the study of the Vedas it must be understood only in this broad and liberal sense that uncultured and brutal men should first be cultured and tamed and made human before they can be safely entrusted with the powers which they might otherwise misuse. The word xÉÇxMüÉU should be understood as meaning only conduct and character and eÉÉÌiÉ must be understood as this second birth in conduct and character which only can be considered as giving him a human birth as no individual can be called a man unless he has humanity. rÉÉåÌlÉ also should be taken only as meaning the source of Varna, viz. uÉרÉqÉç etc. or the particular attributes which are said to go to make up that particular Varna such as ‘Sama, Dama’ etc. for Brahmanas as these are the real causes or basis of Brahminhood etc. It is only when he has cultured a particularly human character or interest in Dharma that he can legitimately claim that he belongs to human species or eÉÉÌiÉ. C.f the words of Mahabharata AÉWûUÌlÉSìÉ pÉrÉqÉæjÉÑlÉÇ cÉ xÉÉqÉÉlrÉqÉç LiÉiÉç mÉzÉÑÍpÉlÉïUÉhÉÉqÉç | kÉqÉÉå ÌWû iÉåwÉÉqÉÍkÉMüÉå ÌuÉzÉåwÉÈ kÉqÉåïhÉ WûÏlÉÉÈ mÉzÉÑÍpÉxxÉqÉÉlÉÉÈ || (‘Dharma’ – the special character and

61

attributes of man). From the physical stand point he may inherit from his parents only the physical and biological characteristics. The Jiva that inhabits that body brings along with its Sukshma Sarira which consists mÉëÉhÉqÉrÉ, qÉlÉÉåqÉrÉ and ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉrÉ Koshas all the previous Samskaras which it has earned in its previous births. These Samskaras must be given opportunity to manifest themselves through training and education (That is social heredity). This social heredity which individual imbibes from society has got the capacity to put him in his proper place in the society. If he cooperates with society and takes advantage of the opportunities given by his environment he can improve upon his previous Samskaras. For this, self effort and AÍjÉïiuÉ & xÉÉqÉjrÉï are necessary. This xÉÉqÉjrÉï means the co-operation of his Prarabdhakarma. One can improve only within the limits set by his Prarabdhakarma that manifests itself in the form of the desire to learn and worship and the readiness to place oneself under the direction and guidance of a Guru. This is the sign of Sraddha and it is this Sraddha that entitles a man to education and enables him to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by society. All our Sastras admit this capacity of man to improve himself through self effort and when the Sastras and the Vedas prescribe various rules and regulations they take for granted this freedom and capacity of man to adopt their teachings. When Dharmas are prescribed even for the Sudra they tacitly admit that Sudra also has got the freedom and capacity to improve himself. The relation between mÉÑÂwÉMüÉU or self effort and SæuÉ or fate is clearly brought about by Bhishma himself in Anushasana VI.7-22 rÉrÉÉ oÉÏeÉÇ ÌuÉlÉÉ ¤Éå§É EmiÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ ÌlÉwTüsÉqÉç | iÉjÉÉ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUåhÉ ÌuÉlÉÉ SæuÉÇ lÉ ÍxÉkrÉÌiÉ || ¤Éå§ÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUxiÉÑ SæuÉÇ oÉÏeÉqÉÑSìÉWØûiÉqÉç | ¤Éå§ÉoÉÏeÉxÉqÉÉrÉÉåaÉÉiÉç iÉiÉÈ xÉxrÉÇ xÉqÉ×krÉiÉå || MüqÉïhÉÈ TüsÉÌlÉuÉ×į̈ÉÇ xuÉrÉqÉzlÉÉÌiÉ MüÉUMüÈ mÉëirɤÉÇ SØzrÉiÉå sÉÉåMåü M×üiÉxrÉÉÅmÉM×üiÉxrÉ cÉ || zÉÑpÉålÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ xÉÉæZrÉÇ SÒÈZÉÇ mÉÉmÉålÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ | M×üiÉÇ TüsÉÌiÉ xÉuÉï§É lÉÉÅM×üiÉÇ pÉÑerÉiÉå YuÉÍcÉiÉç || M×üiÉÏ xÉuÉï§É sÉpÉiÉå mÉëÌiɸÉÇ pÉÉarÉxÉÇrÉÑiÉÉqÉç | AM×üiÉÏ sÉpÉiÉå pÉë¹È ¤ÉiÉå ¤ÉÉUÉuÉxÉåcÉlÉqÉç || iÉmÉxÉÉ ÃmÉxÉÉæpÉÉarÉÇ U¦ÉÉÌlÉ ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉÌlÉ cÉ | mÉëÉmrÉiÉå MüqÉïhÉÉ xÉuÉïÇ lÉ SæuÉÉiÉç AM×üiÉÉiqÉlÉÉ || (This is the AM×üiÉÉiqÉiuÉqÉç referred to by Indra in the story) iÉjÉÉ xuÉaÉï¶É pÉÉåaÉzÉcÉ ÌlÉ¸É rÉÉcÉ qÉlÉÏÌwÉiÉÉ | xÉuÉïÇ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUåhÉ M×üiÉålÉåWû EmÉsÉprÉiÉå || erÉÉåiÉÏÇÌwÉ Ì§ÉSzÉÉ lÉÉaÉÉÈ rɤÉɶÉlSìÉÅMïüqÉÉÂiÉÉÈ xÉuÉåï mÉÑÂwMüÉUåhÉ qÉÉlÉÑwrÉÉiÉç SåuÉiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || AjÉÉåï uÉÉ ÍqɧÉuÉaÉÉåï uÉÉ LåµÉrÉïÇ uÉÉ MÑüsÉÉÎluÉiÉqÉç | ´É϶ÉÉÅÌmÉ SÒsÉïpÉÉ pÉÉå£Çü iÉjÉæuÉ AM×üiÉMüqÉïÍpÉÈ || zÉÉæcÉålÉç sÉpÉiÉå ÌuÉmÉëÈ ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉå ÌuÉ¢üqÉåhÉ iÉÑ | uÉæzrÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUåhÉ zÉÔSìÈ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ Í´ÉrÉqÉç || ´ÉÏ – worldly prosperity as well as spiritual virtues. (C.f Bhagavatam ´ÉÏaÉïhÉÉ lÉæUmÉå¤ÉɱÉ) lÉ ASÉiÉÉUÇ pÉeÉlirÉjÉÉïÈ lÉ YsÉÏoÉÇ lÉÉÅÌmÉ ÌlÉÎw¢ürÉqÉç | lÉ AMüqÉïzÉÏsÉÇ lÉ AzÉÔUÇ iÉjÉÉ lÉæuÉ AiÉmÉÎxuÉlÉqÉç || rÉålÉ cÉåiÉç MüqÉïTüsÉÇ lÉ xrÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ ATüsÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç | sÉÉåMüÉå SæuÉÇ xÉqÉÉsɤrÉ ESÉxÉÏlÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç lÉlÉÑ ||) (c.f Gita III. EixÉÏSårÉÑËUqÉå sÉÉåMüÉÈ etc.) AM×üiuÉÉ qÉÉlÉÑwÉÇ MüqÉï (that self effort for improvement for which only man is capable of) rÉÉå SæuÉqÉlÉÑuÉiÉïiÉå | uÉ×jÉÉ ´ÉÉqrÉÌiÉ xÉÇmÉëÉmrÉ mÉÌiÉÇ YsÉÏoÉÍqÉuÉ A…¡ûlÉÉ || M×üiÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉMüÉUxiÉÑ SæuÉqÉåuÉÉÅlÉÑuÉiÉïiÉå | lÉ SæuÉqÉM×üiÉå ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç SÉiÉÑqÉWïûÌiÉ || See also sl 43 rÉjÉÉÅÎalÉÈ mÉuÉlÉÉå®iÉÈ xÉÑxÉÔ¤qÉÉåÅÌmÉ qÉWûÉlÉç pÉuÉåiÉç | iÉjÉÉ MüqÉïxÉqÉÉrÉÑ£Çü SæuÉÇ xÉÉkÉÑ ÌuÉuÉkÉïiÉå || rÉjÉÉ iÉæsɤÉrÉÉiÉç SÏmÉÈ mɾûÉxÉqÉÑmÉaÉcNûÌiÉ | iÉjÉÉ MüqÉï¤ÉrÉÉiÉç SæuÉÇ

62

mÉë¾ûÉxÉqÉÑmÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || (The whole chapter may be read). Even in Santi 296 Bhisma records the conversation between Janaka and Parasara where in reply to Janaka’s question as to how difference in caste could have taken place when all people are really born of Brahmana Parashara says that the offspring procreated is none else than the procreator himself and that it is only in consequence of a falling away from Tapas that this distribution into four orders took place. eÉlÉMü EuÉÉcÉ – uÉhÉÉåï ÌuÉzÉåwÉuÉhÉÉïlÉÉÇ qÉWûwÉåï MåülÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå | LiÉÌScNûÉqrÉWÇû ¥ÉÉiÉÑÇ iÉiÉç oÉëÔÌWû uÉSiÉÉÇ uÉU || rÉSåiÉiÉç eÉÉrÉiÉåÅmÉirÉÇ xÉ LuÉÉÅrÉÍqÉÌiÉ ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ | MüjÉÇ oÉëɼhÉiÉÉå eÉÉiÉÉå ÌuÉzÉåwÉaÉëWûhÉÇ aÉiÉÈ || mÉUÉzÉU EuÉÉcÉ | LuÉqÉåiÉiÉç qÉWûÉUÉeÉç rÉålÉ eÉÉiÉÈ xÉ LuÉ xÉÈ | iÉmÉxÉxiÉÑ AmÉMüwÉåïhÉ eÉÉÌiÉaÉëWûhÉiÉÉÇ aÉiÉÈ || xÉѤÉå§ÉÉŠ xÉÑoÉÏeÉÉŠ mÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉqpÉuÉÈ | AiÉÉåÅlrÉiÉUiÉÉå WûÏlÉÉiÉç AuÉUÉå lÉÉqÉç eÉÉrÉiÉå || Here ¤Éå§É and oÉÏeÉ must be understood in the sense of mÉÉæÂwÉ and SæuÉ as explained in the previous passage in Anusasana VI. It is an admission of the important place of self effort and the influence of environment and social heridity in the present make up of a man along with his previous Samskara. Both the Samkaras earned in the previous birth and brought with him by the Jiva when he enters a new body that is given by the parents and the Samskaras that he earns by self effort and the influence of environment can help the Jiva to make or mar its future. A good Samskara brought from the previous life may be spoilt by present effort in a wrong direction and it is only because of this that higher castes can fall into lower castes or become mÉÌiÉiÉÉ. Similarly the bad Samskaras brought from a previous birth may be improved upon by self effort in the proper direction this birth. A son who is born of a Brahmana can, therefore, says Parasara, becomes a Kshatriya or Vaisya etc. by difficiency in Tapas. This view agrees exactly with the views of Bhrigu expressed to Bharadvaja already noted above. To Janaka’s further question as to how could man devoted to Tapas attain to the status of Brahmanas, Parasara replies that the status of highsouled persons that succeed in the cleansing their souls by Tapas are not affected by their low births and he quotes the names of innumerable Rishis who have become Brahmanas though born of low birth through their Papas, eÉlÉMü EuÉÉcÉ _ oÉë¼hÉæMåülÉ eÉÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ lÉÉlÉÉiuÉÇ aÉÉå§ÉUÈ MüjÉqÉç | oÉëWÕûÌlÉ CWû sÉÉåMåü uÉæ aÉÉå§ÉÉÍhÉ qÉÑÌlÉxɨÉqÉç || rÉ§É iÉ§É MüjÉÇ eÉÉiÉÉÈ zÉÔSìrÉÉålÉÉæ xÉqÉÑimɳÉÉÈ ÌuÉrÉÉålÉÉæ cÉ iÉjÉÉÅmÉUå || mÉUÉzÉU EuÉÉcÉ - UÉeÉlÉç LiÉ°uÉåiÉç aÉëÉ½Ç AmÉM×ü¹ålÉ eÉlqÉlÉÉ | qÉWûÉiqÉlÉÉÇ xÉqÉÑimĘ́ÉÈ iÉmÉxÉÉ pÉÉÌuÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÉqÉç || EimÉɱ mÉѧÉÉlÉç qÉÑlÉrÉÉå lÉ×mÉiÉå rÉ§É iÉ§É Wû | xuÉælÉæuÉ iÉmÉxÉÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ GÌwÉiuÉÇ ÌuÉSkÉÑÈ mÉÑlÉÈ || ... LiÉå xuÉÉÇ mÉëM×üÌiÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉÉÈ | uÉæSåWû iÉmÉxÉ AÉ´ÉrÉÉiÉç | mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉ uÉåSÌuÉSÉå SqÉålÉ iÉmÉxÉæuÉ ÌWû || (In this list Matanga is one) Among the common duties of all castes mentioned by Parasara is included Atmajnanam also which shows that the Sudra is entitled to Atmajnanam. AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ ÌiÉÌiɤÉÉ cÉ kÉqÉÉï xÉÉkÉÉUhÉÉ lÉ×mÉ || He then proceeds to point out how one can raise himself up in the scale of Varna as well as fall down from it by his own effort asnd with the help of Satsanga and through SÒxxÉ…¡û in this life itself. ÌuÉMüqÉÉïuÉÎxjÉiÉÉÈ uÉhÉÉïÈ mÉiÉliÉå lÉ×mÉiÉå §ÉrÉÈ | E³ÉqÉÎliÉ rÉjÉÉ xÉliÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ CWû xuÉMüqÉïxÉÑ || lÉ cÉÉÅÌmÉ zÉÔSìÈ mÉiÉiÉÏÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ lÉ cÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇxMüÉUÍqÉWûÉÅWïûiÉÏÌiÉ uÉÉ | ´ÉÑÌiÉmÉëuÉרÉÇ lÉ cÉÉxrÉ kÉqÉïÇ AÉmlÉÑiÉå lÉ cÉÉÅxrÉ kÉqÉåï mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉlÉÇ M×üiÉqÉç || This Sloka reminds us of Manu X.126 already noted above and must be understood in exactly the same sense. Parasara then says how good Brahmanas well versed in the teachings of the Srutis honour a Sudra who has thus raised himself with the help of Satsanga or Sadhuseva as

63

Brahma himself and how he (Parasara) himself honours such a man as Vishnu, uÉæSåWû MÇü (oÉë¼) zÉÔSìqÉÑSÉWûUÎliÉ Ì²eÉÉÈ qÉWûÉUÉeÉ ´ÉÑiÉÉåmÉmɳÉÉÈ | AWÇû ÌWû mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ lÉUålSìÈ SåuÉÇ ÌuɵÉxrÉ ÌuÉwhÉÑÇ eÉaÉiÉÈ mÉëkÉÉlÉqÉç || xÉiÉÉÇ uÉרÉqÉÍkɹÉrÉÌlÉ WûÏlÉÉÈ EήkÉÏwÉïuÉÈ | qÉl§ÉuÉeÉïÇ lÉ SÒzÉçÈrÉÎliÉ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉÈ mÉÉæ̹MüÐÈ Ì¢ürÉÉÈ || This Sloka again reminds us of Manu X.127 (vide notes under that Sloka) qÉl§ÉuÉeÉïqÉç here also means only that he need not utter the Mantras as in the case of children belonging to higher castes when their pre-upanayana Samskaras are done and the same may be done as in the case of such children by the Brahmanas whom these Sudras serve.

rÉjÉÉ rÉjÉÉ ÌWû xɲبÉqÉÉsÉqoÉÌiÉ CiÉUå eÉlÉÉÈ |iÉjÉÉ iÉjÉÉ xÉÑZÉÇ mÉëÉmrÉcÉ CWû cÉ qÉÉåSiÉå ||

These Slokas clearly show that even persons in the lowest order may practise the observances of the higher castes like Yajna and study and get all the benefits from such performance. This is quite consistent with what Parasara has already said in 295.14 iÉmÉÈ xÉuÉïaÉiÉÇ iÉÉiÉ WûÏlÉxrÉÉÅÌmÉ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉxrÉ SÉliÉxrÉ xuÉaÉïqÉÉaÉïmÉëuÉiÉïMüqÉç || It is also consistent with what he has said in 293.3-5 where he says that the purpose of Sudras associating with the higher castes as his Dharma is only to imbibe from their masters all those higher qualities which made them what they are, just as a piece of white cloth assumes the colour with which it is dyed. xÉΰxiÉÑ xÉ xÉÇxÉaÉïÈ zÉÉåoÉiÉå kÉqÉïSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ | ÌlÉirÉÇ xÉuÉÉïxiuÉuÉxjÉÉxÉÑ lÉ AÍxÉÎ°È CÌiÉ qÉå qÉÌiÉÈ || rÉjÉÉ ESrÉÌaÉUÉæ SìurÉÇ xÉͳÉMüwÉåïhÉ SÏmrÉiÉå | iÉjÉÉ xÉiÉç xÉͳÉMüwÉåïhÉ WûÏlÉuÉhÉÉåïÅÌmÉ SÏmrÉiÉå || rÉÉSØzÉålÉ ÌWû uÉhÉåïlÉ pÉÉurÉiÉå zÉÑYsÉqoÉUqÉç | iÉÉSØzÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå ÃmÉqÉåiÉSåuÉqÉuÉåÌWû qÉå ||

We thus see how in various parts of the Mahabharata some of the great sages who had raised themselves up from the lower rungs of the social order through their own self effort and Satsanga and Sadhuseva and Sraddha have declared in unequivocal terms the possibility of others also acquiring the same high Brahmana status in this very life itself and thus qualify themselves for vedic study and Yajna by their conduct and character. This idea is clearly stated by Vyasa himself when he exports his first disciples to propagate the Veda and its teachings among all the people without distinction of caste, creed, colour or sex. The only condition for imparting the Veda that Vyasa insists upon is that they should ascertain whether the aspirant for Vedic study has the necessary qualification in respect of conduct and character and capacity for understanding. The story is mentioned in Santi 327. After learning the Vedas from Vyasa his immediate disciples pray to the Guru for a boon that nobody else should be taught the Vedas as they have been done as they desired to be superior toeverybody else in this respect. Sensing the selfishness behind their request the generous Vyasa tells them that he had taught the Vedas to them with the only intention that they may propagate it among all people for the welfare of the whole world and exorts them to teach the Vedas to one and all. EcÉÑÈ iÉå xÉÌWûiÉÉ UÉeÉlÉç CSÇ uÉcÉlÉqÉѨÉqÉqÉç | rÉÌS mÉëÏiÉÈ EmÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉå kÉlrÉÉÈ xqÉÈ qÉÑÌlÉxɨÉqÉç || MüÉǤÉÉqÉÈ uÉrÉÇ xÉuÉåï uÉUÇ SÉiÉÑÇ qÉWûÌwÉïhÉÉ | wÉ¸È ÍzÉwrÉÉå lÉ iÉå ZrÉÉÌiÉÇ aÉcNåûS§É mÉëxÉÏS lÉÈ || cÉiuÉÉUxiÉå uÉrÉÇ ÍzÉwrÉÉÈ aÉÑÂmÉÑ§É¶É mÉgcÉqÉÈ | CWû uÉåSÉÈ mÉëÌiɸåUlÉç LwÉ lÉÈ MüÉÎXç¤ÉiÉÉå uÉUÈ || ÍzÉwrÉÉhÉÉÇ uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉÑiuÉÉ urÉÉxÉÉå uÉåSÉjÉïiÉiuÉÌuÉiÉç |

64

mÉUÉzÉUÉÅÅiqÉeÉÉå kÉÏqÉÉlÉç mÉUsÉÉåMüÉjÉïÍcÉliÉMüÈ || uÉåSÉjÉïiÉiuÉÌuÉiÉç suggests that he is the most qualified to expand the view of the Vedas in this respect. If Vyasa does not know the spirit of the Vedas who can expound it better. mÉUÉzÉUÉiqÉeÉ suggests how could it be otherwise when he himself was only the son of a fisher woman who has risen up to his present position of Vedic Rishi in this birth itself in spite of his low birth. Even his father Parasara being only the son of a Chandali woman. Vide eÉÉiÉÉå urÉÉxÉxiÉÑ MæüuÉirÉÉïÈ µÉmÉÉYrÉÉ iÉÑ mÉUÉzÉUÈ | kÉÏqÉÉlÉç shows that there is nothing to prohibit anybody from studying the Vedas provided he has the intellectual capacity for the same. Vyasa could learn the Vedas because he was qualified and his birth had nothing to do with his Buddhi. mÉUsÉÉåMüÉjÉïÍcÉliÉMüÈ means sÉÉåMüxrÉ mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉïÍcÉliÉMüÈ – one who always thought about the spiritual welfare of the whole world – not merely from the social stand point of mere tradition and custom but from that of the mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï or Moksha. His one purpose was to help everybody to attain Moksha. How could such a man grant the selfish prayer of the Sishyas who showed themselves by their request to have not in the least understood the spirit of the Vedas by heart. It was the duty of the Guru to correct the Sishyas and to explain to them what the true spirit of Vedas is. Therefore Vyasa tells them: EuÉÉcÉ ÍzÉwrÉÉlÉ zÉqÉÉïiqÉÉ kÉqrÉïÇ lÉæ´ÉårÉxÉÇ uÉcÉÈ | oÉëɼhÉÉrÉ xÉSÉ SårÉÇ oÉë¼zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉuÉå iÉjÉÉ | oÉë¼sÉÉåMåü ÌlÉuÉÉxÉÇ rÉÉå ´ÉÑuÉÇ xÉqÉÍpÉMüÉXç¤ÉiÉå || Three classes of people are shown in this Sloka as entitled to the benefit of the study of the Vedas – (1) a Brahmin by birth, (2) he who is anxious to study the Vedas (3) he who is anxious to realize God and attain Brahmaloka. pÉaÉuÉliÉÉå oÉWÒûsÉÉÈ xÉliÉÑ uÉåSÉå ÌuÉxiÉÉrÉïiÉÉqÉrÉqÉç | lÉ AÍzÉwrÉå xÉqmÉëSÉiÉurÉÉå lÉ AuÉëiÉå lÉ AM×üiÉÉiqÉÌlÉ || LAiÉå ÍzÉwrÉaÉÑhÉÉÈ xÉuÉåï ÌuÉ¥ÉiÉurÉÉ rÉjÉÉjÉïiÉÈ | lÉ AmÉUÏͤÉiÉcÉÉËU§Éå ÌuÉ±É SårÉÉ MüjÉÉgcÉlÉ || rÉjÉÉ ÌWû MülÉMÇü zÉÑ®Ç iÉÉmÉcNåûSÌlÉMüwÉåïhÉæÈ | mÉUϤÉåiÉ iÉjÉÉ ÍzÉwrÉÉlÉç D¤ÉåiÉç MÑüsÉaÉÑhÉÉÌSÍpÉÈ || These verses show what qualifications Vyasa expects of an aspirant of the study of the Vedas. These qualifications are expected of all aspirants to whatever caste they may belong by birth. The first qualification is that he should be ready to place himself unreservedly under the Guru and be prepared to obey all his orders. The word ÍzÉwrÉ comes from the root zÉÉxÉç. The Sishya must be interested in the Sastra scriptures, Sasta (zÉÉxiÉÉ) (the real teacher or master inside himself i.e God, the Antaryamin.) c.f AliÉzzÉUÏUå zÉÉxiÉÉ eÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ - Yajurveda and the human guru as ther personification and representative of both the above i.e the Sishya must be ready to obey and act up to injunctions of his Guru as if the Guru is God Himself, provided the words of the Guru do not go against the Sastras but are consistent with them. Vide Apastamba AÉcÉÉrÉÉïkÉÏlÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç AlrÉ§É mÉiÉlÉÏrÉåprÉÈ lÉ xÉqÉÉSåzÉÉå ÌuɱiÉå || Bodhayana xÉuÉï§É AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉaÉÑÂuÉÉYrÉÉåÅlrÉ§É mÉÉiÉMüÉiÉç ||

Also Prahalad’s words in Bhag. VII.6 aÉÑ E£üqÉÌmÉ lÉ aÉëÉ½Ç rÉSlÉjÉåïÅjÉïMüsmÉlÉqÉç | rÉSÒYirÉÉ lÉ mÉëoÉÑkrÉåiÉ xÉÑmiÉxiuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÌlÉSìrÉÉ || lÉ ´É®krÉÉiÉç qÉiÉÇ iÉxrÉ rÉjÉÉÅkÉÉåÅlkÉlÉÉrÉMüÈ ||

M.bh.Vana Parva 52-53 Udyoga 179.24, Santi 57.7 &40.48. RamayanaII.21.13 aÉÑUÉåUmrÉuÉÍsÉmiÉxrÉ MüÉrÉÉïMüÉrÉïqÉeÉÉlÉiÉÈ | EimÉjÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉxrÉ lrÉÉrrÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ zÉÉxÉlÉqÉç ||

65

See also Shanti 55.16 xÉqÉrÉirÉÉÌaÉlÉÉå sÉÑokÉÉlÉç aÉÑÃlÉÉÌmÉ cÉ MåüzÉuÉ | ÌlÉWûÎliÉ xÉqÉUå mÉÉmÉÉlÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÈ xÉ ÌWû kÉqÉïÌuÉiÉç || c.f also Manu VIII.335 Shanti 121.60 ÌmÉiÉÉcÉÉrÉïÈ xÉÑWØûlqÉÉiÉÉ pÉÉrÉÉï mÉѧÉÈ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ | lÉ AShQûrÉÉå lÉÉqÉ UÉ¥ÉÈ AÎxiÉ rÉÈ xuÉkÉqÉåï lÉ ÌiɹÌiÉ ||

The ‘Gunas’ of the Sishya are thus enumerated in various texts. AÉÎxiÉMüÉå kÉqÉïzÉÏsÉÉ¶É uÉæwhÉuÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉÈ | aÉqpÉÏU¶ÉiÉÑUÉå zÉÏUÈ ÍzÉwrÉ CirÉÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || mÉgcÉUÉ§É || The Satvata Samhita says zÉUÏUÇ uÉxÉÑÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ uÉÉxÉÈ MüqÉïaÉÑhÉÉlÉxÉÔlÉç | aÉÑuÉïjÉïÇ kÉÉUrÉåiÉç rÉxiÉÑ xÉ ÍzÉwrÉÉå lÉ CiÉUÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || Padmapurana, Uttarakanda ch XXV.

rÉxiuÉÉcÉÉrÉïmÉUÉkÉÏlÉÈ iɲÉYrÉÇ zÉÉxrÉiÉå WØûÌS | zÉÉxÉlÉå ÎxjÉUuÉ×ÌiÉ¶É ÍzÉwrÉÈ xÉΰÂSÉWØûiÉÈ || The Diksha Tattva says uÉÉXèûqÉlÉÈ MüÉrÉuÉxÉÑÍpÉÈ aÉÑÂzÉÑ´ÉÔwÉhÉå UiÉÈ | LiÉÉSØzÉaÉÑhÉÉåmÉåiÉÈ ÍzÉwrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉÉUS || SåuÉiÉÉcÉÉrÉï zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉÇ qÉlÉÉåuÉÉMçüMüÉrÉMüqÉïÍpÉÈ | zÉÑ®pÉÉuÉÉå qÉWûÉåixÉÉWûÉå oÉÉå®É ÍzÉwrÉ ESÉWØûiÉÈ || zÉÉliÉÉå ÌuÉlÉÏiÉÈ zÉÑ®ÉiqÉÉ ´É®ÉuÉÉlÉç kÉÉUhɤÉqÉÈ | xÉqÉjÉï¶É MÑüsÉÏlÉ¶É mÉëÉ¥ÉÈ xÉŠËUiÉÉå uÉëiÉÏ || LuÉqÉÉÌSaÉÑhÉærÉÑï£üÈ ÍzÉwrÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉÉÅlrÉjÉÉ || Vedantadeshika

defines Sishya in its Nyasavimshati thus: xɯÒÎ®È xÉÉkÉÑxÉåuÉÏ xÉqÉÑÍcÉiÉcÉËUiÉÈ iÉiuÉoÉÉåkÉÉÍpÉsÉÉwÉÏ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÑÈ irÉ£üqÉÉlÉÈ mÉëÍhÉmÉiÉlÉmÉUÈ mÉëzlÉMüÉsÉmÉëiÉϤÉÈ zÉÉliÉÉå SÉliÉÈ AlÉxÉÔrÉÈ zÉUhÉÇ EmÉaÉiÉÈ zÉÉx§ÉÌuɵÉÉxÉzÉÉqÉÏ ÍzÉwrÉÈ mÉëÉmiÉÈ mÉUϤÉÉÇ M×üiÉÌuÉSÍpÉqÉiÉÇ iɨuÉiÉÈ ÍzɤÉhÉÏrÉÈ || c.f also the qualifications of Sishya

given in the Gita, Bhagavatam etc. Sankara gives the qualifications of an Adhikari thus:

qÉåkÉÉuÉÏ mÉÑÂwÉÉå ÌuɲÉlÉç EWûÉmÉÉåWûÌuÉcɤÉhÉÈ | AÍkÉMüÉUÏ AÉiqÉÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ E£üsɤÉhÉsÉͤÉiÉÈ || ÌuÉuÉåÌMülÉÉå ÌuÉU£üxrÉ zÉqÉÉÌSaÉÑhÉzÉÉÍsÉlÉÈ | qÉÑqÉѤÉÉåUåuÉ oÉë¼ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÉ rÉÉåarÉiÉÉ qÉiÉÉ || - Vivekachudamani. Nirukta II.4 says AxÉÔrÉMüÉrÉ AlÉ×eÉuÉåÅrÉiÉÉrÉ lÉ qÉÉ oÉëÔrÉÉÈ | uÉÏrÉïuÉiÉÏ iÉjÉÉ xrÉÉÇ rÉqÉåuÉ ÌuɱÉÈ zÉÑÍcÉqÉmÉëqɨÉÇ qÉåkÉÉÌuÉlÉÇ oÉë¼cÉrÉÉåïmÉmɳÉÇ rÉxiÉålÉ uÉÉ SìÓ½åiÉç MüiÉqɶÉlÉÉÅÅWû iÉxqÉæ qÉÉ oÉëÔrÉÉÈ ÌlÉÍkÉmÉÉrÉ oÉë¼lÉç ||

Manu VIII.350 aÉÑÂÇ uÉÉ oÉÉsÉuÉ×®Éæ uÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÉå uÉÉ oÉWÒû´ÉÑiÉqÉç | AÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉlÉqÉÉrÉÉliÉÇ WûlrÉÉSåuÉÉÅÌuÉcÉÉUrÉlÉç || See also

66

Udyoga 33.79 wÉÌQûqÉÉlÉç mÉÑÂwÉÉå eɽÉiÉç ÍpɳÉÉÇ lÉÉuÉÍqÉuÉÉqpÉÍxÉ | AmÉëuÉ£üÉUqÉÉcÉÉrÉïÇ AlÉkÉÏrÉÉlÉÇ GÎiuÉeÉqÉç ||

These words are given as the words of ‘Ìuɱɒ personified to Brahman as the Guru. In these words she request God the Guru not to make a gift of her to persons who are full of enemity, who are not free from guile and whose minds are not controlled but to give her only to one who is known to be pure in mind, whose mind is not intoxicated with sensual pleasure and desire for them who has sufficient intelligence to understand them and who is practising Brahmacharya and Ahimsa and who is capable of protecting her as a treasure. Manu says : AÉcÉÉrÉïmÉÑiÉÈ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÑÈ ¥ÉÉlÉSÉå kÉÉÍqÉïMüxzÉÑÍcÉÈ AÉmiÉÈ zÉ£üÉå AjÉïSÈ xÉÉkÉÑÈ xuÉÈ AkrÉÉmrÉÉÈ SzÉkÉqÉïiÉÈ || kÉqÉÉïjÉÉæï rÉ§É lÉ xrÉÉiÉÉÇ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ uÉÉÅÌmÉ iÉ̲kÉÉ iÉ§É ÌuÉ±É lÉ uÉ£üurÉÉ zÉÑpÉÇ oÉÏeÉÍqÉuÉ EwÉUå || ÌuɱrÉæuÉ xÉqÉÇ MüÉqÉÇ qÉiÉïurÉÇ oÉë¼uÉÉÌSlÉÉ | AÉmɱÌmÉ ÌWû bÉÉåUÉrÉÉÇ lÉ iÉÑ LlÉÉÇ DËUhÉå uÉmÉåiÉç || ÌuÉ±É oÉëɼhÉqÉåirÉ AÉWû zÉåuÉÍkÉÈ iÉå AÎxqÉ U¤É qÉÉqÉç | AxÉÔrÉMüÉrÉ qÉÉÇ qÉÉ SÉÈ iÉjÉÉ xrÉÉÇ uÉÏrÉïuɨÉqÉÉ || rÉqÉåuÉ iÉÑ zÉÑÍcÉÇ ÌuɱÉÇ ÌlÉrÉiÉoÉë¼cÉÉËUhÉqÉç | iÉxqÉæ qÉÉÇ oÉëÔÌWû ÌuÉmÉëÉrÉ ÌlÉÍkÉmÉÉrÉ AmÉëqÉÉÌSlÉå || The last two Slokas are an explanation of the Nirukta passage quoted above. ÌuÉmÉë here does not mean Brahmana because in that case even the other Traivarnikas will not have any right for vedic study which is against all Smritis and Srutis. The word must be understood only as meaning what is understood by the word qÉåkÉÉuÉÏ as is explained by Sayana in his commentary on Rg V.X.112.9 & X.40.14.

The next qualification is that he should not be an AuÉëiÉ | uÉëiÉ comes from the root uÉ×, to choose, from which the word Varnas also is derived. uÉëiÉ means all those exercises which train and strengthen the will power such helps him to carry through to its legitimate end any work or action which he has chosen or undertaken for oneself. uÉëiÉ may be positive or negative, mÉëuÉ×ÌiÉÃmÉ AÉåUç ÌlÉuÉ×ÌiÉÃmÉ || The Nirukta explains the word thus. uÉëiÉÍqÉÌiÉ MüqÉïlÉÉqÉç uÉ×hÉÉåÌiÉ + CÌiÉ xÉiÉÈ | CSqÉÌmÉ CiÉUiÉç uÉëiÉÇ LiÉxqÉÉSåuÉ ÌlÉuÉ×ÌiÉMüqÉï uÉÉUrÉiÉÏÌiÉ xÉiÉÈ || According to the first meaning Vrata means a rite or Karma, according to the second it is of the nature of ÌlÉuÉ×ÌiÉ or renunciation. Putting the two meanings together we may consider that exercise as ‘Vrata’ which includes the positive as well as the negative aspect, i.e that activity which has its aim in the renunciation of Kama, Krodha etc. ‘Avrat’, therefore, means one who has no ‘Vrat’ in this sense i.e one who has not got the will power or trained his will power through exercise which would enable him to complete without a break down in the middle all spiritual exercises undertaken voluntarily on the basis of the teachings of the Rishis. This qualification emphasizes that vedic study is not for the mere pleasure of studying and purposeless. As a result of the study he should understand what Sadhanas he has to do for self realistion and choose for himself those Sadhanas for which he is fit by his Adhikara and then practice it with determination and will power fully to the very end as directed by the scriptures. To get this capacity he must exercise himself under the guidance of his Guru and in obedience to his orders as a preliminary step to the study of the Vedas. It is only one who has undergone such preliminary discipline that can benefit by vedic study. So Vyasa insists that Veda should not be taught to one who is an AuÉëiÉ. It is interesting to note in this connection how the same word AuÉëiÉ is used in the Vedas themselves in relation to SxrÉÑ or SÉxÉ who are supposed to be identical with Sudras Vide Rg V I.51.8 where the SxrÉÑ is described as AuÉëiÉ as distinct from Barhishaman. Also Rg. V VII.6.3 where the

67

Dasyus are called A¢üiÉÑ, aÉëÍjÉlÉÈ, qÉ×kÉëuÉÉcÉÈ, mÉÍhÉ, ArÉ¥É, etc. Vide also Tai. Brahmana I.2.6 where the Sudra is described as AxÉÑU and Tai. Samhita IV.3.11.1 where Dasyus are called AxÉÑU. The word SxrÉÑ itself means one who is an enemy of society and morality. It was such a man who was kept at arms length lest he should vitiate Aryan culture and society and had to be fought and conquered just as a policeman has to bring round a recalcitrant member of the society even by so force if necessary. The opposition of Aryans to Dasyus must be understood only in this sense and not in the sense of conquest and exploitation vide also Rg V I.7.5.3, VI.14.3 where also Dasyus are called AuÉëiÉ. It would thus be seen that only those who are AuÉëiÉÉs and who are Dasyus that should not be taught and this only in their own interests as well as in the interests of society. It is only because, if power is placed in the hands of people who do not know how to use it, it may injure them as well as others, as when a child is taught how to use a knife or a gun. The various stories of Suras doing Tapas and of vicious kings performing Yajnas for self aggrandizement and exploitation of others are illustrations in point. When these Dasyus surrender themselves to the cultured to be properly disciplined they are to be given exercises in selfless public service. Those who thus choose to train themselves by genuine selfless public service under the guidance of qualified Gurus are called Dasas. Thus aspirants for higher culture must first become Dasas. Where these Dasas develop sufficient culture and become very anxious for spiritual regeneration of themselves through higher Vedic Sadhanas and become sincerely sorry if they are refused such highs Vedic study, that is to say, when they have developed sufficient capacity and desire for higher vedic culture they are fit to be called Sudras. Such Sudras are fit to be instructed and taught the Vedas as they have properly qualified themselves. Such choice of higher spiritual culture in preference to the life of Tamas and Rajas makes them one of the uÉhÉïs as uÉhÉï is defined by Nirukta. According to Nirukta the word Varna is derived from the same root uÉ× from which the word ‘Vrata’ comes. uÉhÉÉïÈ uÉËUiÉÑÇ AWûÉïÈ aÉÑhÉMüqÉÉïÍhÉ cÉ SØ¹É rÉjÉÉ rÉÉåarÉÇ ÌuÉërÉliÉå rÉå iÉå uÉhÉÉïÈ || Varnas are those who are capable of choosing for themselves naturally or by training a life of spiritual culture and who are accepted by qualified teachers as fit for vedic study and culture on the basis of conduct and character. Thus all those who are Avratas are outside the pale of uÉhÉï, whatever their parentage may be according to this definition of uÉhÉï. Vyasa thus in his exhortation to his disciples only insists upon this qualification that they should be Savratas and not Avratas and does not prohibit them from teaching Vedas to all Savratas and who come within the pale of uÉhÉï thereby. That is why we find he specifically mentions later on that all the four Varnas may be instructed in the Vedas. When, therefore, we find in some of the Brahmana texts some interdict on the Vedas being taught to Sudras it is those who are Avratas that are to be understood as referred to in such passages in the light of Brahmana texts themselves which characterize the Sudras as AxÉÑrÉï, SxrÉÑ, AuÉëiÉ, etc. Vide also Tai. Brahmana III.2.3.9 which speaks of Sudra as having been born of AxÉiÉç | AxÉiÉÉå uÉ LwÉ xÉqpÉÔiÉÈ rÉiÉç zÉÔSìÈ | A Sudra is one who is born of AxÉiÉç. Here AxÉiÉç is to be understood in the sense of definition of AxÉiÉç in Gita XVII AxÉÌSirÉÑcrÉiÉå mÉÉjÉï lÉ cÉ iÉiÉç mÉëåirÉ lÉÉå CWû |

The next qualification is that he should be a M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ as Vyasa says that Veda should not be given to one who is an AM×üiÉÉiqÉÉ. The word M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ means one whose mind has been properly cultured. Whereas ‘Avrata’ suggests the necessity of previous training and disciplinary exercises. M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ refers to the result of such training. Mere external exercises without internal transformation of character will not be sufficient to qualify one for Vedic study. That is why M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ is mentioned as a separate qualification. It is

68

this M×üiÉÉiqÉÉ that is referred to as a necessary qualification in all the previous stories we have referred to already. It is because of the lack of this qualification that Matanga was not considered a Brahmana by Indra inspite of the fact that he did Tapas for so many years. Therefore, Vyasa lays it down as the foremost preliminary duty of a teacher to test the qualifications of the aspirant before teaching him the Vedas and to make him properly qualified before he is actually taught through proper disciplinary exercises. ‘lÉ AmÉUÏͤÉiÉ cÉÉËU§ÉÇ’ etc. The reference to MÑüsÉ must be properly understood. MÑüsÉ comes from the root MÑüsÉç, to gather together or bind together. MÑüsÉ, therefore, means a group of people who are bound together by a common ideal and a spirit of mutual love and service. The family is such a natural unit and is a training tround for the cultivation of all social virutes as love and service. One who is brought up in a good family will have these special virtues as signs of good breeding. If a student has already been trained thus properly through good breeding at home, there may not be any further necessity for special training for the development of these virtues. Therefore, the Guru is asked to test the disciple with reference to MÑüsÉ also when Vyasa says: D¤ÉåiÉç MÑüsÉaÉÑhÉÉÌSÍpÉÈ || This applies equally to all applicants whatever their parentage may be. The word MÑüsÉ has no reference to birth at all. It refers only to the previous history of the disciple and his breeding. Vyasa specially says that study becomes effective only in proportion to his capacity for understanding and diligence in study. To ensure this the clear direction is given by Vyasa that teachers should not put their Sishyas to all kinds of work in their own selfish interest, as the Sishya may not get sufficient time for study in that case. Whatever work is given to the Sishya must be only in Sishya’s own interest to discipline him properly and make him look upon all work as a Sadhana in the form of selfless service of God. The Sishya also should not be put to such work as involve risk or danger to his spiritual life or physical life or to his studies. lÉ ÌlÉrÉÉåerÉÉ¶É uÉÈ ÍzÉwrÉÉÈ AÌlÉrÉÉåaÉå qÉWûÉpÉrÉå | rÉjÉÉqÉÌiÉ rÉjÉÉmÉÉPÇû iÉjÉÉ ÌuÉ±É TüÍsÉwrÉÌiÉ || By this injunction Vyasa means to remove all temptations from the mind of the teacher to exploit the Sishya for selfish purposes and to ensure especially to the Sudra sufficient time and opportunity to study without leaving burdened with other duties. For, Vyasa thought, like Swami Vivekananda, that if the Sudra is less intelligent and more tamasic by nature it is all the more reason that he should be provided with greater and better opportunities than others who are more intelligent and more diligent. He next says xÉuÉïxiÉUiÉÑ SÒaÉÉïÍhÉ xÉuÉÉåï pÉSìÉÍhÉ mÉzrÉiÉÑ || This shows how Vyasa wanted that vedic education should be given to one and all without distinction of caste or sex. For Vyasa says there is no man who is not entitled to education and spiritual life however low he may be by birth or in the social scale or by economic conditions. In these words Vyasa teaches the ideal of Universal education which even modern politicians may try to follow and emulate. To say that everybody is entitled to education, however, is not to club them all together in one class and prescribe the same course of study indiscriminately to one and all. All students have to be classified into different groups with special reference to their AÍkÉMüÉU so that each may get what he is capable and desirous of. It is on this basis of AÍkÉMüÉU that the applicants have been divided into four classes in their own interests. But no one is to be denied that education for which he is fit – secular as well as religious. Everybody is equal with regard to this right for study and self improvement. Therefore Vyasa says ´ÉÉuÉrÉåiÉç cÉiÉÑUÉå uÉhÉÉïlÉç M×üiuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉqÉaÉëiÉÈ uÉåSxrÉ AkrÉrÉlÉÇ ÌWû CSÇ oÉë¼MüÉrÉïÇ qÉWûiÉç xqÉ×iÉqÉç || xiÉÑirÉjÉïÍqÉWû SåuÉÉlÉÉÇ uÉåSÉÈ xÉ×¹ÉÈ xuÉrÉqpÉÑuÉÉ || rÉÉå ÌlÉuÉïSåiÉç xÉqqÉÉåWûÉiÉç oÉëɼhÉÇ uÉåSmÉÉUaÉqÉç || xÉÈ AÍpÉkrÉÉlÉÉiÉç oÉëɼhÉxrÉ mÉUÉ pÉÔrÉÉSxÉÇzrÉqÉç | rÉ¶É AkÉqÉåïhÉ ÌuÉoÉëÔrÉÉiÉç rɶÉÉÅzÉqÉåïhÉ

69

mÉ×dNûÌiÉ | iÉrÉÉåÈ AlrɧÉÈ mÉëæÌiÉ ÌuɲåwÉÇ cÉÉÅÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ | LiÉiÉ uÉÈ xÉuÉïqÉÉZrÉÉiÉÇ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉxrÉ ÌuÉÍkÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ | EmÉMÑürÉÉïŠ ÍzÉwrÉÉhÉÉÇ LiÉŠ WØûÌS uÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç || In this passage all the four Varnas are specifically mentioned and Vyasa enjoins all his Sishyas to teach the Vedas to all the four Varnas according to their ‘Adhikara’ and not to reject anyone on the ground of mere birth. All applicants are to be admitted to the particular class to which they are found fit on the basis of their breeding and qualifications and character. Where such qualifications are lacking to admit them to the preparatory class and make them fit to receive the Vedas. In making this classification one who is born and brought up in a spiritual and educated family and who, therefore, has the advantage of good breeding at home or one who is naturally qualified by his Purva Samskaras, will naturally be placed in a higher class. That is the meaning of the expression M×üiuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉqÉaÉëiÉÈ | Even among those who have had no such previous training and breeding at home and who have to be trained afresh those who have the capacity to come up to the mark with lesser training in a shorter time should be given preference to those that require more training before they become fit. Those that become fit earlier should not be made to wait till every applicant comes to the same level and he should be given the opportunities to study the Vedas earlier than the others just as it is advocated in modern times by Dalton plan of education. The word Brahmana in this passage means one who is fit to study the Brahma or Vedas. Agrat means earlier. The passage does not mean that the teacher should place a Brahmana by birth in front of him when he teaches the other classes as the passage is sought to be interpretted by the orthodox commentators. It is only a question of precedence on the ground of fitness. Orthodox commentators, again, try to understand this passage as applicable only to Mahabharata and that only to hearing and not to reading or studying. If ´ÉÉuÉrÉåiÉç is taken only in that restricted sense of hearing it would equally apply to the other Varnas and they also would not have any right to read or study the Vedas or even M. bh. This surely cannot be the view of Vyasa. It goes against the orthodox view itself that all the Traivarnikas have Veda Adhikar. So it is inadvisable to restrict the meaning of the word ´ÉÉuÉrÉåiÉç to mere hearing as such an interpretation would record upon themselves like a bomarang. Nor is it advisable to restrict the application of this injunction to M. bh. when it goes clearly against the whole text which would never refer even once to the M. bh. in this context, but only to Vedas and their propagation. The Sudra himself who recites the M.bh. is not one among the Traivarnikas and therefore, this interpretation that it applies only to M. bh. would go against the receiver himself and against Vyasa himself who taught him. Therefore, this passage is a clear enunciation of Vyasa’s view that everybody is entitled to vedic study. There are some people who are anxious not only to prevent the Sudra from studying the Vedas but deny him the right even to oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. But surely this is going too far in the face of Vyasa’s own statement in the M. bh. about Vidura, Dharma Vyadha etc. being oÉë¼ÌuÉiÉç although they did not belong to Traivarnika class by birth. It also goes against Sri Krishna’s words in the Gita that all are entitled to oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. Îx§ÉrÉÉå uÉæzrÉÉÈ iÉjÉÉ zÉÔSìÉxiÉåÅÌmÉ rÉÉÎliÉ mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç | It would also go against the words of Vyasa himself in the Bhagavata where M.bh. is said to have been composed to give the benefit of oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É even to those who had no opportunity to study the Vedas. x§ÉÏ zÉÔSìÉ̲eÉoÉlkÉÔlÉÉÇ §ÉrÉÏ lÉ ´ÉÑiÉÉåaÉÉåcÉUÉ | CÌiÉ pÉÉUiÉqÉÉZrÉÉlÉÇ M×ümÉrÉÉ qÉÑÌlÉlÉÉ M×üiÉqÉç || Bhagavatam also says pÉÉUiÉurÉmÉSåzÉålÉ uÉåSÉjÉï¶É ÌlÉÃÌmÉiÉÈ which clearly shows that the Bharata is only an exposition of the teachings of the Vedas for those who cannot understand the meaning of Vedic texts and for those who had no opportunities for the study of them. It also goes against the various Phalasrutis given in the Bharata itself where Sudra is also included as attaining the highest through the study of the

70

Gita and other texts in the M.bh. xÉÑaÉÌiÉÇ rÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìrÉÉåÌlÉÈ mÉPÇû¶É zÉÔSìÉåÅÌmÉ qÉWûiuÉqÉÏrÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìxxÉÑZÉqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | etc. Thus ´ÉÉuÉrÉåŠiÉÑUÉå uÉhÉÉïlÉç should not be taken as meaning that the Sudras can be allowed only to hear the words of the text and not to understand the meaning and benefit by it as some orthodox people would like. There are some Smritikaras who go to the extent of denying the Sudras the right of even hearing the Vedas casually or accidentally and prescribe penalties if any Sudra happens to hear the Veda and higher penalties if he understands the Vedas. But all this goes against the liberal spirit of Vyasa as evidenced by this passage and against some of his Sutras in Brahma Sutras where he clearly says that everybody can have oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É even without studying the Vedas and practising Yajnas prescribed by them. c.f AÌmÉ cÉ xÉqÉëÉkÉlÉå mÉëirɤÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉprÉÉqÉç | ÌuÉzÉåwÉÉlÉÑaÉëWû¶É | AiÉ LuÉ cÉ AalÉÏlkÉlÉɱlÉmÉå¤É etc. III.2.24, III.4.38, III.4.25. It is clearly laid down that these rules apply to the teaching and study of the Vedas and that this study and propagation of the Vedas among one and all is the greatest of all duties to society and the best way of worshipping God and Vyasa says uÉåSxrÉÉkrÉrÉlÉÇ ÌWû CSÇ etc. This line mentions only Veda and not M. bh. Vyasa then proceeds to tell us that the Vedas are meant only to glorify God and therefore, a teacher who rejects an applicant who is qualified to learn the Vedas as per the conditions mentioned above on any other ground will be failing in his duty both to God and man and therefore, he is sure to be defeated in his purpose of retaining his superior status, because of the capacity of such a qualified aspirant to realise God even without the help of such a teacher by his own meditations, helped by the grace of God and thus he would be able to attain the real essence of the Vedas. This is what is mentioned in the next three lines. xiÉÑirÉjÉïÍqÉWû SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉç etc. The word Brahmana in the second line is used in the same sense as in M×üiuÉÉ oÉëɼhÉqÉaÉëiÉÈ, viz., one who is qualified to realise God and to study the Vedas. uÉåSmÉÉUaÉ in that line means one who has alreay attained this qualification. The expression means one who has obtained that which takes him across the ocean of the Vedas. AÍpÉkrÉÉlÉ in the third line means one’s own direct meditation without learning the Vedas. xÉqqÉÉåWûÉiÉç shows that he who rejects such a disciple is doing so only out of his delusion and foolishness in thinking that he can prevent anybody from the benefit of Vedic study and God realisation. That such a qualified man can get the essence of the Vedas and even become a Vedic Rishi without the help of such a teacher is amply borne out by the lives of Kavasha, Aitareya etc. who became Vedic Rishis although the orthodox teacher refused to teach them or allow them to take part in Vedic sacrifices. That such teachers will fall into disgrace by such foolishness is also demonstrated in the same stories where the proud and arrogant Brahmana teachers had to seek the aid of such rejected students as when they sought the help of Kavaha whom they had once rejected. Vyasa, therefore, says in the next few lines that by such rejection of qualified pupils for study of the Vedas will only end in creating ill feeling between them which is not good for either party. Just as the teacher is enjoined not to reject a qualified pupil the aspirant is also enjoined not to demand when he is not properly qualified. As we have already noted if the teacher is forced to teach one who is not morally and spiritually fit to receive the knowledge and make use of it properly such teaching is injurious to the pupil, teacher and the society. Vyasa then concludes his exhortation by saying that his disciples should keep all these rules in mind with regard to vedic teaching and study and should always take the opportunity of serving the whole world by teaching Vedas to all qualified aspirants when he says LiÉiÉç uÉÈ xÉuÉï qÉÉZrÉÉiÉÇ etc. That the Sishyas also understood that Vyasa also meant all these exhortations only with reference to the teachings of the Vedas is also clear from their reply uÉåSÉlÉç AlÉåMükÉÉ MüiÉÑï rÉÌS iÉå ÌuÉÌSiÉÇ mÉëpÉÉå and in Vyasa’s further words to them AmÉëqÉÉSxiÉuÉ

71

MüÉrÉÉåï oÉë¼ ÌWû mÉëcÉÑUcNûsÉqÉç || (Sl.s 4&6 of the next chapter) Here oÉë¼ means uÉåS.

We thus see how even in the days of Vyasa there were a few orthodox people who were learned in the Vedas and who wanted to keep the benefit of the Vedas to themselves without propagating the vedic teachings to the masses and how Vyasa took care to liberalise their views by exhorting them to teach the Vedas to all. In this liberalism he has the authority of the Veda itself where he says rÉjÉåqÉÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉÏÇ uÉÉcÉÇ etc. He has also the support of great Rishis like Brigu, Markandeya, Yajnialkya and great spiritual personalities like Dharmavyadha, Yudhistira and Vidura. He has also the support of the Upanishads. The Chandogya Upanishad says with regard to the Pranavidya that even dry trees would be regenerated, if that Vidya is given to it rɱmrÉålÉiÉç zÉÑwMüÉrÉ xjÉÉhÉuÉå oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç erÉÉrÉåU³ÉåuÉ AÎxqÉlÉç zÉÉZÉÉÈ mÉëUÉåWåûrÉÑÈ TüsÉÉzÉÉÌlÉ. Vide V.2.3 with regard to the Vaishvanaravidya, Asvapah Kaikeya, that total teacher tells his disciples when they approach him for instruction that there was no man in his kingdom who was not learned in the Vedas nor anybody who was not a performer of Vedic Yajnas. c.f V.11.5 lÉ qÉå xiÉålÉÉå eÉlÉmÉSå lÉ MüSrÉÉåï lÉ qɱmÉÉå lÉ AlÉÉÌWûiÉÉÎalÉÈ lÉ AÌuɲÉlÉç lÉ xuÉæUÏ xuÉæËUhÉÏ etc. Vaisvanara Vidya also says in V.23.24 that there is no harm even if Veda is given to a Chandala since that will be only a worship of Vaishvanara or the Omnipresent God. iÉxqÉÉiÉç E Wû LuÉÇ ÌuÉiÉç rɱÌmÉ cÉhQûÉsÉÉrÉ EÎcNû¹Ç mÉërÉcNåûiÉç AÉiqÉÌlÉ Wû LuÉ AxrÉ iÉiÉç uÉæµÉÉlÉUå WÒûiÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ iÉSåwÉ zsÉÉåMüÈ rÉjÉåWû ¤ÉÑÍkÉiÉÉ oÉÉsÉÉ qÉÉiÉUÇ mÉrÉÑïmÉÉxÉiÉå LuÉÇ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå || Although this passage is taken by orthodox commentators to refer to the actual EÎcNû¹Ç or the leavings of food the context does not warrant such interpretation.The word really means the Saguna Brahman called Vaishvanara who is dealt with in this context. The word is actually used in the Vedas in the EcNûÏ¹Ç xÉÔ£üÉ of the Ayarvavada in the sense of God. God is called EÎcNû¹Ç in two senses – 1. that it is polluted by being uttered by the mouth. In teaching another about God one has to utter it with the mouth and in thus doing the Absolute becomes circumscribed and limited and thus in a sense becomes polluted by the mouth. It is only the Saguna Brahman that can be taught thus for the Absolute is only to be experienced and not talked about. c.f. Sri Ramakrishna’s parable that real Brahman can never become EÎcNû¹Ç. Also aÉÑUÉåxiÉÑ qÉÉælÉÇ urÉÉZrÉÉlÉÇ ÍzÉwrÉÉxiÉÑ ÍNû³ÉxÉÇzÉrÉÉÈ | 1) Bahva’s teaching to Basakali quoted by Sankara in his Sutrabhasyam. The context agrees with this interpretation as the Vidya deals with God in everything. 2) It may also mean EiÉç + z¹. Ut is the name of God in Chandogya as shown in the first two chapters. It means that which is absolutely pure and above Samsara. Ízɹ means that which is left after all Samsara vanishes. It also means that which is taught like Shisya. Therfore EÎcNû¹Ç means that which exists in the beginning, middle and end without being affected by Maya or Samsara and which could be taught to the disciple by word of mouth. This meaning also fits in with the context. Therefore, the passage which is given as the TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ of uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉ±É must be understood as referring to the teacher of uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉ±É even to a Chandala. One who is an adept in uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉ±É sees only God in every being and in teaching another as an act of worship of God in everybody without distinction of caste or colour in the spirit of DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïqÉç. Therefore, the TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ is correct in saying that no sin attaches to one who gives the Vidya even to a Chandala. The Sloka quoted as authority shows how the whole world is eagerly expecting such a oÉë¼ÌuÉSè or uÉæµÉÉlÉUÌuÉiÉç to teach them about God as hungry children resort to their mother for

72

food. The simile is particularly happy in suggesting how a Guru is prompted to teach others by a love which can be compared only to that of a mother towards her children. It does not make a distinction between any of the children but equally protects all accoding to their desets of AÍkÉMüÉU. c.f. Sri Ramakrishna’s parable about the mother cooking food for all children. The Ch.Up. also points out in the tory of Ushashi Chakrayana in the first chapter how a oÉë¼ÌuÉiÉç does not care for caste by birth and how Ushashi takes EÎcNû¹Ç, the forbidden food even from a Sudra. I.10. Agnihotra in this section of Vaishvanara has no ref. to the ritualistic to eating (food) as some commentators make it. Agni here is Vaishvanara both words meaning the same thing and Hotram means worship. So Agnihotram means worship of God in the form of worship of the whole universe. I.12 shows how even dogs were singing xÉÉqÉuÉåS and taught a Brahmana. iÉxrÉæ µÉÉ µÉåiÉÈ mÉëSoÉïpÉÔuÉ etc. It is called zÉÉæuÉ EªÏiÉ or canine chart. In the mÉgcÉÉÎalÉÌuɱÉ, the TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ says that even ‘Mahapatakis’ such as thieves, adulterers, etc who were worse qualified morally and spiritually than a decent Sudra can be benefited by that Vidya and the man who gives that Vidya to such people and who associates with them for that purpose will not be affected by any sin. In the BhumaVidya we find Narada approaching Sanat Kumara declaring that he had not benefited by the study of all the Sastras as such study had not enabled him to attain Brahman. This shows that the study of the scriptures and the ritualistic observances prescribed therein are not absolutely necessary for qualifying one for oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. But TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉ says that it is purity of heart that qualifies one for oÉë¼ÌuɱÉ. The Sishya Narada himself who was instructed in pÉÔqÉÉÌuÉ±É was himself only a Sudra by birth and the teacher Sanatkumara who came to be known as Skanda according to this Upanishad was himself one who had not undergone all the Vedic Samskaras from his childhood as pointed out by the Puranas. He deserved the title xMülS which means one who has left over only because he left over the whole of Vedic Karmaskanda at one jump and became a Jnani without the help of any ritual. So both Guru and Sishya do not seem to have paid any special value to the rituals prescribed by the Karmakanda. The SWûUÌuÉ±É in the 8th chapter describes how Prajapati gave the ÌuÉ±É even to the Sura Virochana. Asuras are people who are interested in selfish wordly pleasures. AxÉÑwÉÑ UqÉiÉå Sankara explains AxÉÑU in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya as meaning only such men. When even such men are entitled to oÉë¼ÌuÉ±É Upanishads could not have thought of denying the right to pure minded Sudras. It is, therefore, quite understandable that the liberalism of this Upanishad could not have found anything objectionable in giving the xÉÇuÉaÉïÌuÉ±É to Janasruti who is expressly stated to be Sudra in the text or the wÉÉåQûzÉMüsÉÉÌuÉ±É to Satyakama Jabala who is described as the son of a maid servant. There is no necessity to twist the meanings of the word zÉÔSì for satisfying the sriuples of orthodox conservatives or to make Satyakama Jabala the son of a Brahmin woman, imagining all kinds of stories for which there is no warrant or authority in any of the Srutis.

It would seem, however, from a study of the so called Apasudradhikarana of the Brahmasutras I.3.34-38 which are in explanation of the Chandoya passages dealing with xÉÇuÉaÉïÌuÉ±É and wÉÉåQûzÉMüsÉÉoÉë¼ÌuÉ±É which are referred to above and the orthodox commentaries on these that the Sudras have no right to Brahmavidya . But if we take the Brahmasutras to be the same teaching of the same Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata and whom even orthodox commentators consider only as a son of a fisherwoman, the orthodox interpretation would go against the life and teachings of the author of the Sudras himself as recorded in his own works the Mahabharata and the other texts as we have noted above. It will be also against the teachings of the Vedas themselves and of the Upanishads

73

and other texts of Prasthanatraya – the Gita and the Brahmasutras. Therefore, these interpretaions have to be rejected in the light of all the authorities quoted above. These interpretations, moreover, are also vitiated for the following reasons:

1) They are based upon not on the texts themselves but on extraneous considerations based upon the social conditions prevailing at a very much later period in India’s history when the commentators lived.

2) They are not supported by any authoritative passage from the Mantra portion of the Vedas and deliberately omit all scriptural passages which expressly admit the equality of Sudras with other castes such as are referred to in the notes above.

3) Sankara, the earliest commentator as well as others introduce all kinds of cock and bull stories to explain away the express references given to Sudras in these two Vidyas stories which have no place in any of the vedic literature and which are inconsistant with the teachings of same Upanishad.

4) It involves text torturing, not only the texts of the Upanishads but also of Brahma Sutras.

5) The only authority which Sankara could find to support his interpretation is a passage

from Brahmanas and not from the Upanishads themselves. iÉxqÉÉiÉç zÉÔSìÉå rÉ¥Éå AlÉuÉMçüJmiÉÈ which refers only to Yajna and not Brahmavidya which is

the subject matter of the Brahma Sutras based upon the Upanishads. This passage

could not have been understood in the same sense by Jaimini and Sabara, his

commentator because they do not refer to it even once as an authority for the

proposition that Sudra had no right to Yajna as though it is they who are more

concerned with rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU than Brahmasutra and its commentators. If such a

clear passage had been available to them they would have made full use of it in their

writings. Evidently therefore, this passage has only dubious authority for in relation to

rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU. The passage itself in its context can be seen to be meant entirely

for a different purpose and to be capable of an interpretation which is more consistant

with the context.6) Historically, the Brahmanas were written long before the Upanishads came into

existence and could have had no reference to Brahmavidya taught by the Upanishads as the former do not envisage Brahmajnana at all according to the orthodox commentators themselves.

7) The Upanishads are considered by all orthodox vedantist as self revealing and their teachings as self evident being the essential portions of the Srutis which form the highest Pramana. It would be inconsistent with this thesis to invoke the aid of other texts than the Upanishads themselves in understanding their teachings. Therefore, they cannot derive any support from other texts as they do.

8) According to all these orthodox commentators where there is a conflict between a Sruti and a Smriti, the Sruti has to be understood in terms of the teaching of the Sruti and not vice versa and if any Smriti is in conflict with any Sruti text the Smriti is to be rejected or to be interpreted in terms of the Sruti. It is therefore, ideal for them to

74

interpret the Upanishads in terms of some stray passages from the Smritis which are opposed to Srutis as these commentators have done omitting all references to other Smriti texts, which give the right to Sudras also.

9) Passages such as ´ÉÉuÉrÉåŠiÉÑUÉå uÉhÉÉïlÉç etc in the M.bh. are misquoted and misinterpreted to support their pet doctrines.

10) Their interpretations are inconsistent with their other writings and their own lives. Thus Sankara’s interpretations are inconsistent with their other writings and their own lives. Thus Sankara’s interpretations is inconsistent with his writings on the Adhikara for Brahmavidya in the Vivekachudamani and the Brahmasutra Bhasya itself where he never refers to any caste disability at all but on the other hand throws open the portals of Brahmavidya to one and all without any reference to caste, creed or colour and without any reference to rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU. He expressly says in his Sutra Bhasya that the Karmakanda has nothing to do with Brahmavidya which can be had without any practice of Vedic Karma. It is also against his Manisha panchaka where he recognizes even a Chandala as his Guru. cÉhQûÉsÉÉåÅxiÉÑ xÉ iÉÑ Ì²MüÉåÅxiÉÑ aÉÑÂËUirÉåwÉÉ qÉlÉÏzÉçÈAÉ qÉqÉ || It also goes against the spirit of his Advaita doctrine as very ably pointed out by Ramanuja in his commentary on the Brahmasutra.

11) Ramanuja thus says: If knowledge were the only means to Brahmavidya as the Advaitin’s contend, such knowledge can come to Sudra also through observation and reasoning independent of Srutis. If meditation on such knowledge is required in addition, such meditation can be made on the truth arrived at without any help from the Upanishads. Only if we hold that it depends on Gods’s pleasure and grace and such grace is dependent upon meditation based upon knowledge acquired by the study of Veda after the Upanayana ceremony that we can validly hold that Sudra has no Adhikara, as he cannot study Veda after Upanayana and cannot, therefore, please God even if he meditates on Truth independently arrived at. Ramanuja further argues against Sankara thus: As, according to Sankara, Jnanis are above vedic injunctions and prohibitions, they can give Brahmavidya to the Sudras even on the basis of the Upanishads without caring for any prohibition. So meditations based upon the Upanishads also are possible for Sudras. As knowledge is dependent only on the means for knowledge without any reference to caste any such teaching given by a Brahmavit on Upanishadic Vidyas must produce its natural result. Thus all Upanishadic meditations will be available to a Sudra also if only he can get a Brahmavit as his Guru. Removal of ignorance does not depend upon caste by birth or social restrictions or ritualistic prohibitions. No Upanayanam, no vedic study, no Upanishadic Mahavakyas are necessary for the knowledge of Brahman as knowledge does not depend upon any likes and dislikes or choice but only on proper favourable conditions. Moreover, to Sankara, recitation of the Vedas and performance of yajna is not a preliminary qualifications as he points out in his discussion on Adhikara. So, Ramanuja makes both these qualifications necessary for Brahmavidya. He who does not perform Svadhyaya and Yajna daily does not get the capacity for Brahmavidya. As the Sudra does not possess these qualification he is not entitled to Brahmavidya. The incapacity comes from his not having read the Vedas. But all his arguments against Sankara cannot save him from admitting the right of xjÉMüÉU and ÌlÉwÉÉS to yajna. Ramanuja also argues that as the Itihasas and the Puranas are only commentaries on the Vedas those who have not read the texts cannot benefit by the commentaries and hence no knowledge is obtained from M.bh. etc will serve his purpose. Thus in his anxiety to prove that Advaita is wrong he goes to absurd lengths

75

to prevent the Sudras from benefiting even by the Itihasas and Puranas, whereas in his saner moments he has been so gracious and kind to Sudras and even untouchables many of whom he raised to the status of Brahmanas. It is well known now in his actual life he went against the orthodox social prejudices of the age and gave the Mantras to one and all and broadcast the Mantra received from his Guru amongst the masses even against the Gurus injunction on the ground that the Mantra is capable of saving from sin it must be able to save the worst sinner also and if the Mantra is pure in itself it cannot be polluted by being recited even by the greatest sinners. It is also well known how he was anxious to take initiation from a non-dvija devote named Tirukachinambi whom he worshiped as Guru and how he gave up even his wife because she insulted his Guru who was a man of low caste. It is also said how he set an example to the orthodox people by getting into the hut of his untouchable disciples and instructed them and gave the benefit of his company on his way back to the temple from bath as the disciple was prevented by tradition and custom from entering the temple. It is also on record how he allowed several families of untouchables called Tirukulattars to enter the temple. All these incidents in his life show how much interested he was in the spiritual welfare of one and all without distinction of caste and in this he only showed himself a true follower of the Alwars the most important of whom Nammalvar was only a Sudra and Tiruppanalwar who was an untouchable and Tirumangaialwar was only a low caste robber chieftain. We can therefore understand that Ramanuja’s anxiety in his Sri Bhashya which was meant only for the orthodox Brahmins was only to placate the orthodox Pandits and make use of any stick available to thrash his advaitic opponent. His commentary on AmÉzÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüUhÉ, therefore, cannot be considered to reflect his real opinion nor is it consistence with the liberal teachings of these Alwars as well as the Agamas and the Bhakti Sastras which are held as authoritative by him and his followers. Ramanuja is an advocate and upholder of Bhakti as the highest and best means of Mukti. According to him this Bhakti is the essential teaching of the Srutis and according to all Bhakti Sastras, according to the orthodox commentators themselves everybody is an Adhikari for Bhakti. Therefore, consistent with his own teachings about the essence of Srutis he cannot seriouly contend that the Sudras have no Vedadhikara.

12) Similarly Madvacharya also cannot seriously mean that the Sudras have no Vedadhikara. For, he would be contradicting himself his own teachings in his other works. In his Chandogya Bhasya he expressly says: xÉuÉïuÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÉhÉÉÇ cÉ ¥ÉÉlÉÉlqÉÉå¤ÉÉå ÌuÉÌlÉͶÉiÉÈ AlirÉÉlÉÉÇ xjÉÉuÉUÉhÉÉÇ cÉ iÉjÉÉÌmÉ rÉÌiɨÉqÉÈ Similarly in his Gita Tatparya Nirnaya he quotes with approval so many passages to show that a devotee of God is above all caste rules and restrictions and that he must be taken to be a Brahmana on account of his sattvika nature. xÉiuÉ xÉiuÉÉÍkÉMüUeÉÉå UeÉÉåÍpÉÈ iÉÉqÉxÉÉÈ iÉjÉÉ uÉhÉÉï ÌuÉpÉ£üɶÉiuÉÉUÈ xÉÉÎiuÉMüÉ LuÉ uÉæwhÉuÉÉÈ || Ch. IV. Further on he says again uÉæwhÉuÉÉ xÉÉÎiuÉMüÉ LuÉ iÉÉqÉxÉÉ LuÉ cÉÉmÉUå SÉæsÉïprÉ xÉÑsÉpÉiuÉålÉ iÉåwÉÉÇ uÉhÉÉïÌS ÍpɳÉiÉÉ xuÉÉpÉÉÌuÉMüÉå oÉëɼhÉÉÌS zÉqÉÉSæUåuÉ ÍpɱiÉå | rÉÉålÉÉåpÉåSM×üiÉÉå pÉåSÈ ¥ÉårÉÈ AÉæmÉÉÌSMüxiuÉrÉqÉç | Again in Ch. XVIII he says that all these castes are only varieties of Bhagavatas and that even an untouchable who is a devotee and who is, therefore, predominantly Sattvika in nature is far superior to all so called socially higher castes by birth if they are devoid of Bhakti. rÉå iÉÑ pÉÉaÉuÉiÉÉuÉhÉÉïÈ iÉåwÉÉÇ pÉåSÉåÅrÉÇ

76

DËUiÉÈ xÉiuÉÉÍkÉMüÈ mÉÑsMüxÉÉåÅÌmÉ rÉxiÉÑ pÉÉaÉuÉiÉxxÉSÉ §ÉæÌuɱqÉɧÉÉÅÌuÉwhÉÉåÈ rÉå xÉuÉÉïÍkÉYrÉå lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ ... AÍkÉMüÉÈ cÉåiÉç aÉÑhÉÉÈ zÉÔSìå oÉëɼhÉÉÌSÈ xÉ EcrÉiÉå | oÉëɼhÉÉåÅÌmÉ AsmÉaÉÑhÉMüÈ zÉÔSì LuÉåÌiÉ eÉÏÌiÉïiÉÈ ‘xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï’ CÌiÉ uÉcÉlÉÉiÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉÌSwuÉÌmÉ zÉqÉÉÌS AlÉÑuÉ×̨ÉÈ ¥ÉÉrÉiÉå | lÉ ÌWû zÉqÉÉÌSMÇü ÌuÉlÉÉ iÉxrÉ AÍpÉiÉÉå AcÉïlÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | xÉqrÉMçü zÉqÉÉÌSÍpÉUcÉïlÉÇ AprÉcÉïlÉqÉç | lÉ cÉ zÉqÉÉSÏlÉç ÌuÉlÉÉ ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ etc. Dvaita commentators like Vyasaraya Swami and Raghavendra Swami criticize the orthodox Mimamsaka view on Sudra’s Yajnadhikara and controvert their argument thus in their commentary on Madhva Bhashya: lÉ iÉÑ erÉÉåÌiɹÉåqÉÉÌS MüqÉïhÉÉqÉç AÉWûuÉlÉÏrÉÉÌS AÎalÉÌuÉ±É xÉÉkrÉiuÉÉiÉç iÉrÉÉå¶É AÉkÉÉlÉ EmÉlÉrÉlÉÉkÉÏlÉiuÉÉiÉç iÉrÉÉå¶É uÉxÉliÉÉÌSuÉÉYrÉÉprÉÉÇ §ÉæuÉÍhÉïMüÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ ÌuÉkÉÉlÉÉiÉç iÉåwÉÉqÉåuÉ AÍkÉMüÉUÉÌSÌiÉ qÉÏqÉÉÇxÉMüÉå£üUÏirÉÉ AlÉÍkÉMüÉUÈ | AlÉÎalÉiuÉålÉ AlÉÍkÉMüÉUå xjÉMüÉUÉZrÉ xɃ¡ûUeÉÉiÉåUÌmÉ AlÉÍkÉMüÉU AÉmÉÉiÉÉiÉç uÉwÉÉïxÉÑ UrÉMüÉU AÉSkÉÏiÉ CÌiÉ ´ÉÑirÉÉ iÉxrÉÉÌmÉ AÉkÉÉlÉÉåmÉaÉqÉÉiÉç “M×üÌiÉMüÉxÉÑ AÎalÉqÉÉSkÉÏiÉ” “lÉ£Çü aÉÉWïûmÉirÉqÉÉSkÉÏiÉ” CirÉÉÌSlÉÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ AÉkÉÉlÉÌuÉÍkÉÈ | uÉxÉliÉÉÌS uÉÉYrÉÉÌlÉ iÉÑ aÉÑhɲrÉrÉÑ£üiuÉåÅÌmÉ ÌuÉÍkÉsÉÉbÉuÉÉrÉ M×ų̈ÉMüÉÌSuÉÉYrÉålÉ mÉëÉimÉoÉë¼hÉÉSÏlÉÉÇ uÉxÉliÉÉÌSÌlÉrÉqÉmÉUÉÍhÉ | zÉÔSìxrÉ iÉÑ GiuÉliÉUå AÉkÉÉlÉÈ CirÉÌmÉ xÉÑuÉcÉiuÉÉŠ EmÉlÉrÉlÉWûÉåqÉxjÉmÉiÉÏ̹ AuÉMüÐÍhÉï oÉë¼cÉÉËU AÍkÉMüÉËUMü rÉÉaÉÉÌSuÉiÉç sÉÉæÌMüMüÉalÉÉæ CÌiÉ | AÎalÉ AxÉÉkrÉ xÉlkrÉÉåmÉÉxÉlÉÉSÉæ EmÉlÉÏiÉqÉɧÉxrÉ oÉëɼhÉÉSåÈ AkrÉrÉlÉÉiÉç mÉëÌaÉuÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ AÍkÉMüÉU AmÉËUWûÉUÉŠ| ... lÉÉÅÌmÉ AÌuÉkÉiuÉÉiÉç AlÉÍkÉMüÉUÈ | AkrÉrÉlÉ ApÉÉuÉåÅÌmÉ UjÉMüÉUÉSåÈ AÉkÉÉlÉ¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ CuÉ | oÉëɼhÉÉSåUÌmÉ xuÉzÉÉZÉåiÉUzÉÉZÉÉÌuÉÌWûiÉ A…¡û¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ CuÉ zÉÔSìÉSåUÌmÉ “oÉëɼhÉÉå lÉ WûliÉurÉÈ” CÌiÉ ÌlÉwÉåkÉuÉÉYrÉÉjÉï¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ CuÉ EmÉSåzÉÉÌSlÉÉ zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ erÉÉåÌiɹÉåqÉxrÉÉÌmÉ xÉqpÉuÉÉiÉç | iÉlqÉiÉå lÉ Ì§ÉÍpÉuÉåïSæÌuÉïkÉÏrÉiÉå CÌiÉ uÉåSÉliÉU AkrÉrÉlÉxrÉ AÌuÉÌWûiÉiuÉåÅÌmÉ “xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉåÅkrÉåiÉurÉÈ” CirÉ§É xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉzÉoSxrÉ xuÉzÉÉZÉÉmÉUiuÉålÉ LMüuÉåSaÉiÉzÉÉZÉÉliÉU AkrÉrÉlÉxrÉ AÌuÉÌWûiÉiuÉÉiÉç | ÌMÇü cÉ iuÉrÉÉ xÉuÉïzÉÌ£ülÉrÉå AlkÉÉSåÈ AÉerÉÉuÉå¤ÉhÉÉÌS A…¡ûWûÉlÉålÉ zÉYrÉÉ…¡û EmÉxÉÇWûÉUåhÉ ÌlÉirÉMüqÉÉïÍkÉMüÉUÈ A…¡ûÏM×üiÉÈ | LuÉÇ cÉ iɲSåuÉ zÉÔSìÉSåUÌmÉ AÎalÉÌuɱÉWûÉlÉålÉ A…¡ûÉliÉUÉåmÉxÉÇWûÉUåhÉ ÌlÉirÉåwÉÑ AÍkÉMüÉUÈ ÌMÇü lÉ xÉrÉÉiÉç | Vide also the explanation of these words of Vyasaraya Swami which makes the ideas clearer. These commentators, however, in criticising the views of the other schools are interested only in upholding Madhva’s view given in his Bhasya about the relevent text applicable to deny the Sudra the right of Yagnadhikara. They are as orthodox as any other commentators in denying the Sudra’s right to Vidya & Yajna. The passage quoted by Madhva in support of this is lÉ AÎalÉlÉï rÉ¥ÉÉå lÉ Ì¢ürÉÉ lÉ xÉÇxMüÉUÉå lÉ uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ | This passage is said to be from Painga Sruti. This Sruti text is not available anywhere and does not come under any of the lists of Vedic books recognized or accepted by any other schools. The Madhva

77

commentaries, therefore, can be accepted by us only as showing that no extant text (Sruti) can be adduced as authority to deny the Sudra’s right. We thus see how the orthodox commentators are at their wits end in finding out even a single relevant indisputable authority to support their orthodoxy and have to resort to all kinds of tricks to extort some meaning which they want out of the vedic texts. They thereby not only proclaim the Sudra’s right by their mutual contradictions of their own views given in other texts and they go against all accepted canons of interpretation.

13) One of the accepted rules of interpretations is that wherever there is a condemnation in a Sruti passage, that condemnation is to be understood as means only to eulogise or praise the opposite. Vide Jaimini II.4.21 lÉ AÎalÉlÉï rÉ¥ÉÉå lÉ Ì¢ürÉÉ lÉ xÉÇxMüÉUÉå lÉ uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ zÉÔSìxrÉ | and Sabara’s commentary thereon. Sabara says lÉ ÌWû ÌlÉlSÉ ÌlÉl±Ç ÌlÉÎlSiÉÑÇ mÉërÉÑerÉiÉå | ÌMÇü iÉÌWïû? ÌlÉÎlSiÉÉiÉç CiÉUiÉç mÉëzÉÇÍxÉiÉÑqÉç | iÉ§É lÉ ÌlÉÎlSiÉxrÉ mÉëÌiÉwÉåkÉÉå aÉqrÉiÉå | ÌMüliÉÑ CiÉUxrÉ ÌuÉÍkÉÈ | The Tantravartika of Kumarila Bhatta on Jaimini I.2.7 also approves this principle of Sabara when he says rÉjÉÉ uɤrÉÌiÉ lÉ ÌWû ÌlÉlSÉ ÌlÉl±Ç ÌlÉÎlSiÉÑÇ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉå AÌmÉ iÉÑ ÌuÉkÉårÉÇ xiÉÉåiÉÑqÉç | Vide Anandagiri also on Brihadaranyaka Bhasya Vartika for the same principle. This principle is fit to be applied also in support of the Sudra, wherever any Sruti passage condemns the Sudra. The orthodox people are guilty of not applying this rule of interpretation when it comes to a question of Sudra.

Another rule of interpretation accepted by all orthodox schools is that Sruti is authoritative (Pramana) only in matters relating to the other world (alaukika) which cannot be verified by Pratyaksha and Anumana. In matters which are Pratyaksha or observable, the Pratyaksha Pramana is superior to other Pramanas. Thus Sabara says in his commentary on Jaimini I.3.2 iÉjÉÉ mÉëirÉÑmÉxjÉÉÌmÉiÉÇ ÌlÉrÉqÉÉlÉÉÇ AÉcÉÉUÉhÉÉÇ (rules laid down in the Smritis about everyday social life) SعÉjÉïiuÉÉSåuÉ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç ... iÉålÉ rÉå SعÉjÉÉïÈ iÉå iÉiÉ LuÉ mÉëÉqÉÉhÉqÉç rÉå iÉÑ ASعÉjÉÉïÈ iÉåwÉÑ uÉæÌSMüzÉoSÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉç | Vide also Jaimini I.1.5 AjÉåï AlÉÑmÉsÉokÉå etc. that is, in respect of an object otherwise unknown, according to which the authority of the (Vedas) Sruti should not be invoked to show that heat destroys cold which is a matter of common experience. So Sankara says that even Sruti cannot superside the authority of science based upon the observation on questions of matter and its property etc. mÉëirɤÉÉÌS AlÉÑmÉsÉokÉå LuÉ ÌWû ÌuÉwÉrÉå ´ÉÑiÉåÈ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç lÉ iÉÑ mÉëirɤÉÉÌS ÌuÉwÉrÉå || Vide Gita Bhashya on XVIII. 66 lÉ cÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉU ÌuÉ®ÉjÉïÌuÉwÉrÉå ´ÉÑiÉåÈ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉÇ MüsmrÉiÉå | Brihadaranyaka Bhashya on III.3.1 mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉU AÌuÉwÉrÉqÉåuÉ ÌWû mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉUÇ ¥ÉÉmÉrÉÌiÉ | Bri. II.1 lÉ cÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉUåhÉ ÌuÉÂkrÉiÉå | lÉ cÉ AÎalÉÈ zÉÏiÉÈ AÉÌSirÉÉå lÉ iÉmÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉ SعÉliÉzÉiÉålÉ AÌmÉ mÉëÌiÉmÉÉSÌrÉiÉÑÇ zÉYrÉqÉç | mÉëqÉÉhÉÉliÉUåhÉ AlrÉjÉÉ AuÉaÉiÉiuÉÉiÉç Bri. II.1.20 cf. also Gita Bhasya lÉ ÌWû ´ÉÑÌiÉzÉiÉqÉÌmÉ zÉÏiÉÉåÅÎalÉÈ AmÉëMüÉzÉÉå uÉÉ CÌiÉ uÉSlÉç mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉÑmÉæÌiÉ | rÉÌS oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç zÉÏiÉÉåÅÎalÉÈ AmÉëMüÉzÉÉå uÉ CÌiÉ iÉjÉÉÌmÉ AjÉÉïliÉUÇ ´ÉÑiÉåÌuÉïuÉͤÉiÉÇ MüsmrÉqÉç | Similarly Madhvacharya also says in his Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya 3-4. lÉ cÉ AlÉÑpÉuÉÌuÉUÉåkÉå AÉaÉqÉxrÉ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç | Similarly he says in his Gita Bhasya on IX.12. ArÉÑÌ£üqÉSèprÉÈ rÉÑÌ£üqÉÎliÉ LuÉ

78

oÉsÉuÉÎliÉ uÉÉYrÉÉÌlÉ | xÉÉqrÉåÅÌmÉ uÉÉYrÉrÉÉåÈ sÉÉåMüÉlÉÑMÔüsÉ AlÉlÉÑMÔüsÉrÉÉåÈ AlÉlÉÑMÔüsÉrÉÉåÈ sÉÉåMüÉlÉÑMÔüsÉqÉåuÉ oÉsÉuÉiÉç | So, Tikacharya says in his Nyaya Sudha I.4 EmÉmÉÌ¨É AÌuÉ®Éå ÌWû uÉåSÉjÉÉåï aÉëÉ½È AlrÉjÉÉ ÌuÉcÉÉUzÉÉx§É AlÉÉUqpÉmÉëxÉ…¡ûÉiÉç | On II.2.7 he says mÉëqÉÉhÉÉÌuÉÂ®È mÉëqÉÉhÉÉlÉÑxÉÉUÏ cÉ xÉÔ§ÉMüÉUxrÉ AÍpÉmÉëÉrÉÈ MüsmÉlÉÏrÉÈ | Vide also II.2.8 mÉëirɤÉqÉåuÉ AÎZÉsÉÉiÉç AlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉiÉç AÉaÉqÉÉŠ uÉUÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | AlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉaÉqÉrÉÉåÈ mÉëirɤÉqÉÔsÉiuÉålÉ iÉiÉÈ mÉëirɤÉqÉåuÉ iÉiÉÈ mÉëirɤÉqÉåuÉ uÉUÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | sÉÉåMüÉlÉÑxÉÉUåhÉæuÉ mÉUqÉÉjÉÉåï oÉÉå®urÉÈ lÉ AurÉjÉÉ | sÉÉåMülrÉÉrÉxrÉæuÉ iɯÉåkÉ EmÉÉrÉiuÉÉiÉç | According to these principles of the relative superiority of the Pramanas the commentaries on the AmÉzÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüÉUhÉ will be found to be defective as they go against observed facts as well as reason and hence their interpretation of the Srutis and Sutras based upon them are unacceptable because it goes against the facts of Karasha, Aitareya, Narada, Valmiki etc. and of Vidura, Dharmavyadha, Suka etc., of Swami Vivekananda, Keshab Sen, Ramalingaswami, of Maitreyi, Gargi, Raikwa etc. being all Brahmavits as accepted by all orthodox people. Moreover in the matter of their inconsitence on Upanayanam for ÌuɱÉÍkÉMüÉU & rÉ¥ÉÉÍkÉMüÉU they go against the principle accepted by Mimamsakas that the Upanayana has only a seen result (SعÉjÉï) and no AsÉÉæÌMüMüÉjÉï or ASعÉjÉï. Vide Jaimini VI.1.35. xÉÇxMüÉUxrÉ iÉSjÉïiuÉÉiÉç ÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ | On this Sutra, Sabara explains ÌuɱÉjÉïÇ EmÉÉkrÉÉrÉxrÉ xÉqÉÏmÉqÉÉlÉÏrÉiÉå lÉ ASعÉjÉïqÉç SعÉjÉïqÉåuÉ LwÉÉ ÌuɱÉrÉÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ| The Upanayana thus being only SعÉjÉï cannot be denied to anybody on the basis of mere ´ÉÑÌiÉuÉÉYrÉ, on the authority of any ´ÉÑÌiÉuÉÉYrÉ as the result is something which could be seen.

14) The commentators have overlooked the essential difference between a) eÉÉÌiÉ & uÉhÉï b) Ritualistic Samskara on the one hand and mental, moral and spiritual Samskara on the other. c) Upanayana for vedic study and that for Brahmavidya as pointed out by Ratnaprabha (commentary on Sankara Bhashya) d) Parental biological heredity and individual heredity based on the past Karma of the individual himself. e) Social restrictions & spiritual qualifications. They have also overlooked the supreme importance of self effort and the influence of the environment on heredity.

For all these reasons mentioned above and others too numerous to mention the orthodox commentary on the AmÉzÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüUhÉ is unacceptable. If we want to understand the Sutras in their proper sense we have to understand them consistently with all the authorities that we have quoted above – Vedic as well as post -Vedic – which do not deny the Sudras the right but concede it explicitly and implicitly. In that case we shall see that the Sutras are not meant for denying such right but to establish and proclaim such right. How to interpret it thus we shall see later on.

We thus see how we are compelled to differ from our venerable Acharyas in the matter of the scope of the teaching of the first Sloka as well as of the whole Upanishad.

The essence of spiritual life is the same for one and all without the distinction of caste, colour, sex or age. It consists of only Tyaga as well as Yoga in their various aspects

79

according to each one’s Adhikara. The whole of the rest of the Upanishad is only an expansion of the idea contained in the first Mantra.

MÑüuÉï³ÉåuÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåcNûiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ | LuÉÇ iuÉÌrÉ lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå || 2 ||

Mantras 2 &3 are complimentary to each other and form a distinct separate group dealing with the place of Karma in spiritual life. Consistent with the understanding of the first Mantra we have to differ from orthodox commentators with reference to the scope of the teachings of these Mantras. To us this Mantra is also applicable to everyone without distinction, aspirant as well as adept, man and women, Divas and non divas. The Mantras insist that spiritual life in any of its stages from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest is essentially opposed to inactivity due to ignorance, idleness, negligence etc., which are qualities of Tamas. It is also opposed to all selfish desires for the satisfaction of the worldly pleasures in this world or next which are the qualities of Rajas. Desires in itself is not however essentially unspiritual. In fact one who has no desire at all cannot be called a living being. The Tyaga mentioned in the first Sloka should not be understood as meaning, giving up all desires as well as actions so long as one is alive, one cannot necessarily get rid of desires or activities. One can only make them pure and Satvik and direct them towards proper goals. If they are thus trained these desires and activities will themselves be the spiritual aspirant’s best friends. Therefore Sankara includes qÉÑqÉѤÉiuÉqÉç or yearning for spiritual realization as one of the most important qualifications. Similarly Bhakti is accepted by all Acharyas as a great help to realization. So, the Vivekacudamani, says qÉÉå¤ÉMüÉUhÉxÉÉqÉaêrÉÉÇ pÉÌ£üUåuÉ aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ. It is universally admitted that Bhakti involves an intense yearning for God. Even Sankara says in his Su.Bh. on IV – 1- 1 that all Upasana involves that restlessness and yearning which characterizes a loving wife and when her husband is away krÉÉrÉÌiÉ mÉëÉåÌwÉiÉlÉÉjÉÉ mÉëÌiÉÍqÉÌiÉ rÉ ÌlÉUliÉUxqÉUhÉ mÉÌiÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ xÉÉåiMühPûÉ xÉÉ LuÉqÉç AÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå. Similarly Sraddha which is considered an important element in all spiritual life involves an element of active desire for realization of Truth. So also a desire for xÉixÉ…¡û is helpful according to all Acharyas. c.f Sandilya Sutra 21 – WåûrÉÉ UÉaÉiuÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ cÉåiÉç lÉ E¨ÉqÉÉxmÉSiuÉÉiÉç xÉ…¡ûuÉiÉç, according to which Bhakti is not to be condemned because it is by the nature of Raga or desire, because it is directed to a worthy object as in the case of Satsanga, vide also Kapila’s words in the Bhag. III: 25. 20 – 24. mÉëxÉ…¡ûqÉeÉUÇ mÉÉzÉÇ AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüuÉrÉÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå qÉÉå¤É²ÉUqÉmÉÉuÉ×iÉqÉç || iÉ LiÉå xÉÉkÉuÉÈ xÉÉkuÉÏ xÉuÉïxÉ…¡ûÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉÉÈ | xÉ…¡ûxiÉåwÉÑ AjÉ iÉå mÉëÉjrÉïÈ xÉ…¡ûSÉåwÉWûUÉ ÌWû iÉå || So also Bhagavan says in Ch XI: 12; 1. lÉ UÉåkÉrÉÌiÉ qÉÉÇ rÉÉåaÉÉå lÉ xÉÉÇZrÉÇ kÉqÉï LuÉ cÉ | lÉ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉxiÉmÉxirÉÉaÉÉå lÉ C¹ÉmÉÔiÉïÇ lÉ SͤÉhÉÉ | uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ rÉ¥ÉÈ NûlSÉÇÍxÉ iÉÏjÉÉïÌlÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉÉÈ rÉqÉÉÈ | rÉjÉÉ AuÉÂlkÉå xÉixÉ…¡ûÈ xÉuÉïxÉ…¡ûÉmÉWûÉå ÌWû qÉÉqÉç || Cf. also III.23.55 xÉ…¡ûÉåÅrÉÇ xÉÇxÉ×iÉåWåïûiÉÑÈ AxÉixÉÑ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÉå ÍkÉrÉ | xÉ LuÉ xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ M×üiÉÉå ÌlÉxxÉ…¡ûiuÉÉrÉ MüsmÉiÉå || Similarly the divine discontent which refuses to be satisfied with what one has already achieved and refuses to sit quiet unless and until the highest perfection is reached, is part of all spiritual life. Without such discontent and aspiration for the highest, spiritual life is likely to become stagnant. A desire for Sadhana and Dharma is likewise not opposed to spiritual life. Even for the realized man a desire to serve and worship the whole world as a manifestation of God is quite consistent with his realization. It may even be that in the interest of such service and worship,

80

he may keep up by force, if necessary, some insignificant harmless desires so that he may continue to live and be useful to others. Such desires are not inconsistent with spiritual life or harmful to it is shown in life and teachings of all Acharya purushas and Avataras who are reported to be very much anxious to establish Dharma, to teach others, to save the good from the wicked etc., (i.e. mÉËU§ÉÉhÉÉrÉ xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ, ÍcÉMüÐwÉÑïÈ sÉÉåMüxÉÇaÉëWûqÉç) c.f also teachings of SRK and SV (Gospel 322-323) at request of Hriday SRK asking Mother to cure him of some illness and Lakshmana’s question “Why this desire to live” and Nikasha’s reply as to why she was running away seeing Rama entering Lanka after Ravana’s death.

Manu is therefore right when he says at the beginning of the second chapter, as a preface to the exposition of principles of Dharma ÌuÉ²Î°È xÉåÌuÉiÉÈ xÉÎ°È ÌlÉirÉÇ A²åwÉUÉÌaÉÍpÉÈ | WØûSrÉålÉ AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÉå rÉÉå kÉqÉÉåï iÉiÉç ÌlÉoÉÉåkÉjÉ || MüÉqÉÉiqÉiÉÉ lÉ mÉëzÉxiÉÉ lÉ cÉæuÉåWû AÎxiÉ AMüÉqÉiÉÉ MüÉqrÉÉå ÌWû uÉåSÉÍkÉaÉqÉÈ MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉ¶É uÉæÌSMüÈ || xɃ¡ûsmÉqÉÔsÉÈ MüÉqÉÉå uÉæ rÉ¥ÉÉÈ xɃ¡ûsmÉxÉqpÉuÉÉÈ | uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ rÉqÉ kÉqÉÉï¶É xÉuÉåï xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÉ xqÉ×iÉÉÈ || AMüÉqÉxrÉ Ì¢ürÉÉ MüÉÍcÉiÉç SØzrÉiÉå lÉåWû MüÌWïûÍcÉiÉç | rÉiÉç rÉiÉç ÌWû MÑüÂiÉå MüqÉï iɨÉiÉç MüÉqÉxrÉ cÉå̹iÉqÉç || iÉåwÉÑ xÉqrÉMçü uÉiÉïqÉÉlÉÉå aÉcNûirÉqÉUsÉÉåMüiÉÉqÉç | rÉjÉÉ xɃ¡ûsmÉiÉÉǶÉåWû xÉuÉÉïlÉç MüÉqÉÉlÉç xÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå, that he is proposing to expound Dharma as understood by the realized persons of old who are free from greed and hatred and which is sanctioned and approved by the human conscience at all times. It is the experience of all Dharmistas that ordinary selfish desire is ignoble and worthy of being shunned by all people who are interested in higher spiritual life. But unfortunately there is nobody alive who can be free from all desires altogether. So one can at best purify these desires and sublimate them by redirecting them to the highest spiritual goal. Thus the desire for the study of records of the spiritual life and struggles of the ancient realized persons is not bad in itself worthy of being only spurned on the ground that it is a desire. On the other hand it is something which is worthy of being desired. Similarly a desire for transmuting all activities into spiritual practice through the process of Karmayoga as advocated by the scriptures is not bad in itself, but is even laudable. All desire is based on the idea of the goodness of the goal being good. No doubt our ideas of the goodness of the goal may sometimes be only imaginary and hence wrong. But that only shows how we should have correct ideas either on the basis of our own experiences and realizations or those of the realized men of the old who have handeddown their experience and ideas of the ultimate goal of human life and of the proper means of attaining that goal in the form of the scriptures. For the mere reason that some desires are bad and hence not condusive to the attainment of this goal which is foolish to consider all desires as condemnable in themselves. All those Sadhanas which are helpful for attaining the highest realization are worthy of being adapted by us in our life, provided we have got correct ideas about such means. We should not therefore, fight shy of all desires altogether, because otherwise we will be missing the goal itself. Sadhana is a form of activity which requires self effort and the use of the will and such self effort and use of the will is initiated only by desire to attain a goal which we have found to be worthy and acceptable. Without such a desire, therefore, no voluntary activity is possible in pursuit of the highest goal of life. Whatever acts we do including all Sadhanas are in a way a play or sport of desire. If, therefore, one desires to attain immortality or Moksha one has to lean upon the help and support of pure and worthy desires. Everybody attains a wish-for goal of human life only in terms of his proper understanding of the goal initiating a pure and noble desire. Note here how Manu makes a

81

distinction between good desires and bad desires in terms of the goodness or the badness of the goal aspired for. When he says MüÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ lÉ mÉëzÉxiÉÉ - he refers to selfish desires or sense pleasures. But when he says MüÉqrÉÉå ÌWû uÉåSÉÍkÉaÉqÉÈ he refers to selfless desires for spiritual bliss and the means of its attainments. Note also how he distinguishes between good and bad Sankalpas upon which these desires are based. Sankalpa means xÉqrÉMçü MüsmÉlÉÉ – i.e to find out what is really good. For directing one’s activities one must have a clear conception of the rightness of the purpose or goal of action through the use of xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή and then strongly desire or yearn to achieve it. This is part of all Dharma. That is why in the first Sloka he has used the word xÉqrÉMçü as an element in xɃ¡ûsmÉ, as he knows fully well that all attainment depends upon the strong desire based upon the connection of the goodness of the goal. That is the reason why Yajnavalkya also speaks of xÉqrÉMçü xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÈ MüÉqÉÈ as one of the elements and the basis of Dharma when he says ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ xqÉ×ÌiÉxxÉSÉcÉÉUÈ xuÉxrÉ cÉ ÌmÉërÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | xÉqrÉMçü xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÈ MüÉqÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiÉç kÉqÉïxrÉ sɤÉhÉqÉç xÉqrÉMçü MüÉqÉÈ CÌiÉ | This expression is usually misunderstood by commentators (orthodox) vide Yajnavalkya Smriti I – 7 and Mitakshara on the same. Mitakshara explains xɃ¡ûsmÉeÉÈ MüÉqÉÈ as the desire born out of a good resolve and which is not opposed to the scriptures such as “I shall not drink water except at meals”. The example given shows how he has mistaken the full import of the expression xÉqrÉMçü MüÉqÉÈ as one of the roots of Dharma. Yajnavalkya however makes his idea of the highest Dharma clear in the next verse when he says that, that alone is the highest Dharma by which one realizes the Atman by Yoga (So the quotation rÉ¥ÉÉcÉÉUSqÉÉÌWÇûxÉÉ SÉlÉÈ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉMüqÉïhÉÉÇ | ArÉÇ iÉÑ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉiÉç rÉÉåaÉålÉÉiqÉSzÉïlÉqÉç |). This shows that Sankalpa and Kama must refer not to puerile and childish desires as given by Mitakshara but by the desire based on the resolve to achieve the best in the highest goal of life that is meant by it. Not to drink water except at meals has nothing to do with Dharma as it is not a means for achieving Atmadarshanam. That is why Bhagavan also gives a place to pure desire consistent with Dharma in spiritual life (cf Gita quotation kÉqÉÉïÌuÉ®Éå pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüÉqÉÉåÅÎxqÉ pÉUiÉwÉïpÉ VII - 6). Note how he distinguishes this kind of Kama while prohibiting ignoble Kama in this very Sloka itself, where he speaks of oÉsÉqÉç - as MüÉqÉUÉaÉÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉqÉç. This Sloka clearly points out in the second line that how Kama can be consistent with Dharma. Here also it cannot be taken merely as referring to desires such as not inconsistent with the words of the scriptures as Sankara explains when he says kÉqÉÉïÌuÉ®Éå kÉqÉåïhÉ zÉÉx§ÉÉjÉåïlÉÉÌuÉÂ®È rÉÈ mÉëÉÍhÉwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüÉqÉÈ rÉjÉÉ SåWûkÉÉUhÉqÉɧÉɱjÉÉåïÅzÉlÉmÉÉlÉÉÌSÌuÉwÉrÉÈ xÉ MüÉqÉÉåÅÎxqÉ. Unless Sankara is understood to mean by what he himself means by the word zÉÉx§ÉÉjÉï as he himself explains it in his introduction to Gita Bhasya where he says iÉxrÉÉxrÉ aÉÏiÉzÉÉx§ÉxrÉ xÉǤÉåmÉiÉÈ mÉëÌrÉeÉlÉÇ mÉUÇ ÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉÉUÇ xÉWåûiÉÑMüxrÉ xÉÇxÉÉUxrÉ AirÉliÉÉåmÉUqÉsɤÉhÉqÉç | Further on he says that Dharma is AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉ ÌlɸÃmÉ ÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉmÉërÉÉåeÉlÉ. If kÉqÉï AÌuÉ®MüÉqÉÈ is taken as desire consistent with this Dharma and Sastra we have no objection to accept this interpretation. For this would then mean only all desires which are the means of realization and which are not opposed to such realization. Sastra in Sastrarta may also be understood as referring to what Bhagavan himself refers to Sastram in the Gita XV Ch. CÌiÉ aÉë½iÉqÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÍqÉSqÉÑ£Çü qÉrÉÉlÉbÉ etc., which also leads only to realization of God or Atman. Sastra may also be understood in its etymological sense as zÉÉxÉlÉÉiÉç §ÉÉrÉiÉå CÌiÉ – that, which saves through the categorical or moral imperative which is the same thing as the dictates of conscience or the inner voice of God

82

who is called Sasta in the Vedas. AliÉmÉëÌuÉ¹È zÉÉxiÉÉ eÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ. (Suklayajurveda) The Antaryamin who guides all from inside, in this sense zÉÉxiÉÉ, can lead only with Dharma for guiding the soul to attain the highest goal of realization. If by zÉÉxiÉÉ is meant nearly the scriptural text, these texts will be an unsafe guide in the matter of Dharma as there are so many injunctions in the texts which contradict one another and which may be injurious spiritually. Therefore kÉqÉïÌuÉ®Éå MüÉqÉ should be taken only as meaning those pure desires which are prompted by God Himself from inside or by xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή or moral sense and which has got as its only goal freedom from bondage and realization of perfection. Incidentally we may also mention that Sankalpa or Sankalpaja Kama or Dharma Virudha Kama emphasizes the subjective element in all Dharma viz. the purity of the motive as distinct from the rightness or goodness of the goal. That pure desires for achieving self realization or for effective means thereof are not condemnable is clear from many Upanishadic texts also (Bri. Up. IV-4.22 – iÉqÉåiÉÇ uÉåSÉlÉÑuÉcÉlÉålÉ oÉëɼhÉÉ ÌuÉÌuÉÌSzÉÎliÉ rÉ¥ÉålÉ SÉlÉålÉ iÉmÉxÉÉ AlÉÉzÉMåülÉ | LiÉqÉåuÉ mÉëuÉÉÎeÉlÉÉå sÉÉåMüÍqÉcNûliÉÈ mÉëuÉëeÉÎliÉ | LiÉiÉç Wû xqÉ uÉæ mÉÔuÉåï ÌuɲÉÇxÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÇ lÉ MüÉqÉrÉliÉå | ÌMÇü mÉëeÉrÉÉ mÉËUwÉrÉÉqÉÈ rÉåwÉÉÇ lÉÈ ArÉqÉÉiqÉÉ ArÉÇ sÉÉåMüÈ CÌiÉ iÉå Wû xqÉ mÉѧÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É ÌuɨÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É sÉÉåMæüwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É urÉÑijÉÉrÉ ÍpɤÉÉcÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ and also Gita IV – qÉÉÍqÉcNûÉmiÉÑÇ kÉlÉgeÉrÉ. Note this passage refers to two different kinds of desires which are opposed to each other. One kind of desire is directed towards the realization of the Atman through Yajna, Dana, Tapas, etc, study of the Veda all of which are means for such realization. That is the course of the world ÌuÉÌuÉÌSkÉÎliÉ which means uÉå¨ÉÑÍqÉcNûÎliÉ – i.e desires to realize. Such a desire is held laudable. It is in pursuit of this desire and to satisfy it the people become Sannyasins, fully convinced of the futility of a Grihastha’s life in quest of children, wealth, and celestial sense enjoyment in another world. Desires for these things form the other variety of desires which are dangerous to spiritual life and therefore only fit to be given up as practiced and prescribed by the wise men of the world. It is, therefore, clear from this passage that the desire for realization and for the practice of Sadhanas for the same is to be distinguished from the desire for selfish sense pleasure and worldly properity. Note the word CcNûliÉÈ also, which shows all desires to give up for worldly prosperity etc. need not be given up on the ground that it is also a desire (c.f Katha IV: 1; 1, Sloka 15 – 16. mÉUÉÎgcÉ ZÉÉÌlÉ urÉiÉ×hÉiÉç xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉUÉXèû mÉzrÉÌiÉ lÉÉliÉUÉiqÉlÉç | MüͶɮÏUÈ mÉëirÉaÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉç L¤ÉiÉç AÉuÉרÉcɤÉÑÈ AqÉ×iÉiuÉÍqÉcNûlÉç. Here desire for Mukti is said to be the means for practicing spiritual discipline such as sense control, mind control, renunciation, meditation on the Atman etc., vide also Katha II: Sloka 15 – 16 rÉÌScNûliÉÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ rÉÉå rÉÌScNûÌiÉ iÉxrÉ iÉiÉç. III: Sloka 2 ApÉrÉÇ ÌiÉiÉÏwÉïiÉÉÇ mÉÉUqÉç, where ÌiÉiÉÏwÉïiÉÉÇ means iÉiÉÑïÍqÉcNûÉ meaning the desire to cross. Note also that it is this desire for the highest realization and for the means of such realization that is mentioned in all the Upanishads as the most important qualification which makes a Sishya an Adhikari for Vidya. Thus in Katha we find Nachiketa being described as withdrawing all temptations offered by Mrityu as a test of his Adhikara and at the same time choosing Brahma Vidya as his boon inspite of the Guru’s attempt to dissuade him from praying for such a boon. It is this which pleases the Guru and makes him congratulate the Sishya as a xÉirÉkÉ×ÌiÉ one who is determined to realize the highest truth or God and nothing else. We find Yama here classifying all desires into two groups ´ÉårÉqÉç as well as mÉëårÉxÉç, the former being consent with the realization of God and the later with the selfish enjoyment of the worldly or sensual pleasures. He says that

83

he only is a true hero who can distinguish between these two and stick to the former only rejecting the later. (cf: Ch. I &II). Similarly we find in Tait.Up. Bhriguvalli, Bhrigu going to Varuna and expressing to him his desire for Brahma vidya. AkÉÏÌWû pÉaÉuÉÉå oÉë¼åÌiÉ. In Prasna. Up. we find six vedic scholars going to Pippalada and expressing to him their desire for Brahma vidya. When the sage wants them that they should undergo further discipline of Brahmacharya for another year, they come again after undergoing such discipline and put various questions to him desiring to get their doubts cleared. Similarly in the Ch. Up., we find the students (going to the Gurus) like Narada, Svetaketu and other Vedic scholars approaching their teachers and expressing to them their desire to learn. Even Indra and Virochana are described as having approached Prajapati himself with the desire for Brahma vidya. In fact, in all the Vidyas of Ch. Up., there is the same procedure of the Sishyas going to the Guru and expressing to him their desire to learn. It is only this expression of desire which the Gurus accept as the prime qualification for instruction. Though the word Upanayana used, it is used only in its pure etymological sense of going to the teacher with the desire to be instructed. That, no ritualistic Upanayana is required for Brahma vidya is clear from the statement iÉÉlÉç Wû AlÉÑmÉlÉÏrÉæuÉ LiÉSÒuÉÉcÉ. Ch. Up. V: 11, 7 Also (EmÉÉrÉlÉMüÐirÉÉï EuÉÉxÉ) & Bri. Up. VI: 2.7. xÉ uÉæ aÉÉæiÉqÉç iÉÏjÉåïlÉ CcNûÉxÉÉ CÌiÉ EmÉæqrÉWÇû pÉuÉliÉÍqÉÌiÉ uÉÉcÉÉ Wû xqÉæuÉ mÉÔuÉï EmÉrÉÎliÉ xÉ Wû EmÉÉrÉlÉMüÐirÉÉï EuÉÉxÉ | Here the Guru requires the Sishya Gauthama to formally express to him his desire for inspection as per the ancient practice and Gauthama simply says “I approach you with the desire to learn”. The Sruti then goes on to point out the aspirant for Brahma vidya who are formally admitted as students or disciples by mere expression of such desires in ancient times. The words of these two Sruti passages are quite clear on this point although the orthodox commentators express that this holds good only when the Sishya belongs to the higher class and Guru to a lower caste, which explanation is absolutely unwarranted by the words of the text itself. Many of the Sishyas in quest of Brahmavidya are already vedic scholars and have already finished their ritualistic Upanayana long before they approached their Guru for Brahmavidya. So there could not have been any necessity for fresh ritualistic Upanayanam. In the Gita also we find Arjuna approaching Bhagavan for instruction only with the desire to be enlightened on what is ´ÉårÉxÉç, (MüÉmÉïhrÉ SÉåwÉ). Even in the XI Ch. we find him expressing to Bhagavan his desire to see His Universal form Virat Svarupa Sì¹ÒÍqÉcNûÉÍqÉ iÉå ÃmÉqÉç Sl.3, ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÑÍqÉcNûÉÍqÉ pÉuÉliÉqÉç.13. CcNûÉÍqÉ iuÉÉÇ Sì¹ÒÇ iÉjÉæuÉ.46 and it is in pursuance of such desire and request that Bhagavan shows him His different forms. Even in the beginning of the XVIII Ch. it is only in response to Arjuna’s desire to know the difference between Sanyasa and Tyaga that Bhagavan gives His instructions. The various other parts of the text Arjuna is seen repeatedly questioning Bhagavan to clear his doubts on various points and we may say that the whole of the Gita teaching is given only in reply to such questions. This shows how the Sishya should be always ready to put the questions to the Guru to clear the doubts and for elucidation of intricate points in the teachings. All these questions are only expression of the desire to know more and more. In fact Bhagavan expressly says in Ch. IV that this Pariprasna i.e always questioning and enquiring is one of the qualifications which make a good Sishya. It is only when the Sishya is too idle and lazy to think about the problems himself and to have doubts that the Guru makes him think and create doubts in him so as to create the desire in him to know more about the topic and more clearly induce him to put questions to the Guru to get such doubts cleared. In fact it is for this express purpose that the Acharyas raise ‘Purvapaksha’ in their commentary before they give the Siddhanta or settle correct

84

conclusions. All these show what a high place the pure desire occupies in spiritual life and practice.

In fact, desire is the very root of creation as mentioned in Nasadiya Sukta (R.V: X: 129, 4) MüÉqÉxiÉSaÉëå xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉÌS qÉlÉxÉÉå UåiÉÈ mÉëjÉqÉÇ rÉSÉxÉÏiÉç | It is this prime orginal desire and volition of God to sacrifice himself that is referred to in the Purushasukta. So also we find in the Upanishads the same desire and volition referred to as the first step in all account of creation in such terms as Kama, Likshana, etc MüÉqÉxiÉSaÉëå xÉqÉuÉiÉïiÉÉÌS qÉlÉxÉÉå UåiÉÈ mÉëjÉqÉÇ rÉSÉxÉÏiÉç (Tait.) iÉSæ¤ÉiÉ oÉWÒûxrÉÉÇ mÉëeÉÉrÉårÉåÌiÉ (Ch. Up. VI: 23) Prasna VI:3 xÉ D¤ÉÉÇcÉ¢åü MüÎxqɳÉWûqÉÑi¢üÉliÉ Ei¢üÉliÉÉå pÉÌuÉwrÉÉÍqÉ MüÎxqÉluÉÉ mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉå mÉëÌiɸÉxrÉÉÍqÉÌiÉ |). Also Aitereya I.I.1 AÉiqÉÉ uÉÉ CSqÉåMü LuÉÉaÉë AÉxÉϳÉÉlrÉiÉç ÌMügcÉlÉÍqÉwÉiÉç | xÉ C¤ÉiÉ sÉÉåMüɳÉÑ xÉÑeÉÉ CÌiÉ. The whole of creation bears the impression of this initial movement of the creator’s will and desire. That is why the whole of creation is in a state of motion and flux along with each individual element in it, which led to is being named ‘Jagat’ as in the I Verse of Isa. Up. Activity is thus the natural characteristic of every thing in this creation. It is only when the whole world is dissolved at the time of ‘Pralaya’ that one can expect the cessation of this activity. Even in the state of ‘Pralaya’ the potentiality of this activity still remains. As per the Nasadiya Sukta which speaks of ‘AÉhÉÏSuÉÉiÉÇ,’ it breathed breathlessly. Every fresh manifestation of the Universe and its evolution is the result of the reaction against the action of ‘Prakriti’ or Maya in making the infinite finite. Every activity is therefore, in the form of a going back of the finite to the infinite and of an expansion due to this previous contraction. Every activity, therefore, has its prime object – the restoration of the finite to its natural infinity or to put it in other words, every activcity is a divine activity originating in the Divine Will with the realization of the absolute as its purpose. That is why in the Gita, Bhagavan says that ‘Yajna’ or Divine activity is coeval with creation itself xÉWûrÉ¥ÉÉÈ mÉëeÉÉ xÉ×wOèuÉÉ etc. Thus the whole of biological evolution is only a cosmic manifestation of spiritual practice though in its earlier stages it may be apparently unconscious, unintelligent and involuntary. Even the physical laws of attraction or chemical affinity are only nascent stages of desire and love which manifest themselves in their fuller glory in the later stages of creation, love and sacrifice, co-operation and service are thus at the very root of the world process. Even modern scientist have begun to take this view of things vide Patrick etc. It is said in the Mhb. that human beings have come into possession of body and Indriyas and mind as a result of this primary desire to attain perfection in realization of its true nature as the absolute vide Santi Parva 213. 16 zÉoSUÉaÉÉiÉç ´ÉÉå§ÉqÉxrÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå pÉÉÌuÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | ÃmÉUÉaÉÉiÉç iÉjÉÉ cɤÉÑÈ bÉëÉhÉÇ aÉlkÉÎeÉbÉפÉrÉÉ Vide also Bhag.XI xÉ×¹É mÉÑUÉÍhÉ ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉÌlÉ etc and Aita. Ar. II Ch.3 rÉ AÉåwÉÍkÉuÉlÉxmÉiÉrÉÉå rÉŠ ÌMügcÉ mÉëÉhÉpÉÔiÉç xÉ AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉÌuÉxiÉÉUÉÇ uÉåS AÉåwÉÍkÉuÉlÉxmÉÌiÉwÉÑ ÌWû UxÉÉå SØzrÉiÉå ÍcɨÉÇ mÉëÉhÉpÉ×ixuÉåuÉ AÉÌuÉxiÉUÉqÉÉiqÉÉ iÉåwÉÑ ÌWû UxÉÉåÅÌmÉ SØzrÉiÉå lÉ ÍcɨÉÍqÉiÉUåwÉÑ mÉÑÂwÉåwuÉåuÉ AÉÌuÉxiÉUÉqÉÉiqÉÉ xÉ ÌWû mÉë¥ÉÉlÉålÉ xÉqmɳÉÇ AiÉÉå ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ uÉSÌiÉ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ mÉzrÉÌiÉ uÉåS µÉxiÉlÉÇ uÉåS sÉÉåMüÉsÉÉåMüÉæ qÉirÉåïlÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉÏmxÉÌiÉ LuÉÇ xÉqmɳÉÈ etc, also Bhag. XI. Raga or desire for something better and Dvesha or discontent with the existing state of affairs which is responsible for evolving life out of matter and mind out of life is also primarily responsible for the final manifestation of the Atman and its true nature. All huan equipment is meant by nature of God only to enable man to realize his own nature as the Brahman Absolute. That is

85

why Bhagavan in Bhagavata calls man as oÉë¼ÉuÉsÉÉåMüÉÍkÉwÉhÉÈ. That is why Dharma is considered as the distinguishing charactersitc faculty of man (cf. Mbh. AÉWûUÌlÉSìÉpÉrÉqÉæjÉÑlÉÇ cÉ ) etc.

It is as a result of self-effort and God’s Grace that the finite has been evolving higher and higher though unconsciously there is an inner urge in the whole of nature as well as in each individual which raises them and makes them evolve into higher beings without any conscious volition until the individual reaches the stage of man, when he becomes conscious of his individuality and becomes self-centered in the consciousness of himself as a separate being from others. He becomes eager to satify this inner urge with the help of all the instruments such as the senses, Manas, Buddhi etc. for himself without caring for others. That is to say, the ego manifests itself in man with higher powers to satify its original craving. Henceforth man becomes the master of his own destiny consciously and self-effort becomes volitional but still it is the same prime inner urge which manifested itself at the beginning of creation and took various higher and higher forms in the course of evolution of physical, chemical, biological (biotic) and psychic urges that now manifests in a higher form as the moral urge and the spiritual urge. This is possible only after the consciousness of the individuality or ego as developed in the stage of man and hence Dharma and Moksha as Purusharthas appeal only in the human stage of evolution. Here there is not only a consciousness the goal of life and evolution but also of the means of attaining it, together with the consciousness of his own higher powers and capacity to achieve the goal. He also becomes capable of knowing what is good and what is bad, of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, of beauty and ugliness etc. In other words, he gets the power of discrimination. With this power comes effort (self-effort) to achieve the real goal and escape from all the obstacles that stand in his way. In short, he becomes capable of not only ‘Pravritti’ but also ‘Nirvritti’, the latter taking the form of irÉÉaÉ, uÉæUÉarÉ, wÉQèûaÉÑhÉxÉqmĘ́É, qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉ etc., the former unfortunately by the time his egoism and capacities develop, man is still in the grip of some of the limitations put on its new-found freedom by the vestiges of the earlier stages of his evolution which prevent him from achieving his goal in one life. Traces of these earlier stages are found in the form of Tamas & Rajas although he has developed the capacity for Sattva. Unless he gets free from these shackles, human nature which is freely Satvic cannot have free play and take him to final goal. His Satvic nature, however, has got the capacity to assert itself against the previous Samskaras of Rajas & Tamas being really more powerful than the latter and having been developed only for this purpose.

According to principles of biological evolution in its relation to the development of each individual of the species, the growth of man from the stage of egg and Zygote to the foetus and to that of full-grown child ready for exit from the mother’s womb at the time of birth follows exactly on the pattern of evolution of life and of the race. This is called the principle of Recaptulation (cf. C.W. - II. 18). The whole process of evolution is condensed into a shorter period of about 10 months. Just as at the beginning of evolution the main characteristics of the evolving being was its inertia, absence of consciousness etc. which are characteristic of Tamas and this was followed by the capacity to move and live of its own accord even at the expense of others which are the characteristics of Rajas. We find in the course of the development also Tamas gradually giving place to Rajas. When the child is born it is only a young animal but capable of living its own life independently with its own capacities to take food and digest, to breathe, to have its own blood circulation etc. without being slavishly depending on the mother’s blood circulation etc. for keeping its continuity of

86

life. But still in the early stages of its babyhood it is more Tamasik than Rajasik. But gradually instead of its helplessly lying on its back and merely crying for the satisfaction of its vital needs it takes a hand in its own further development by gradually crawling on its own chest and walking on all fours, trying to stand erect and walk without any external help or prompting. Later on it learns to use its own hand and go about here and there without any conscious purpose or aim or being aware of its own interests. He thus becomes more and more Rajasic. His mental powers gradually manifest themselves and in the earlier stages there powers are used indiscriminately in the interest (selfish) of himself. He becomes always interested in play, in the use of his senses and limbs which give him pleasure without any thought of right or wrong. The Satvic nature, at this time, is under the control of vital cravings such as that for food and drink or in other words, the demands of the body and life representing Tamas-Rajas exploits the mental powers for its own use. It is through education that these mental powers or the Satvic aspect of its being is gradually strengthened and disciplined and enabled to control both the physical and vital activities and utilize them for its own purposes without being exploited by them. It is only when the Satvic powers become stronger and more powerful that the individual can really claim to have attained the stage of manhood. Before that stage he is still only a vegetable or animal according as Tamas or Rajas predominate. To live like a man is to lead a disciplined life free from the control of Rajas and Tamas and in the full use of all the powers acquired in the course of evolution consciously or purposively for the attainment of the highest goal with the help of Sattva. One who thus does not have knowledge of the real goal of life and the means of its attainment which is the characteristic of Sattva and does not sub-ordinate the demands of body and life to such attainment that is to say, control Rajas and Tamas through Sattva and make full use of them Satvic powers to attain the highest perfection that he is capable of, his life is not really a human life. He cannot therefore, be said to be alive on the human plane. He is more dead than alive. To have attained the human body with all its powers, capacities and opportunities, not to have made use of them is really to fall away from man-hood into the previous stage of evolution. He is said to be only breathing like a pair of bellows and not like a living human being. Realization of God through spiritual practice is the sign of real life. It is only in ‘Jivanmukti’ perfection and fullness and maturity of human life is achieved. Only a Jivanmukta is entitled to be called a ‘man’. All others who are struggling to attain it voluntarily and consciously are only in the stage of spiritual childhood. Therefore, Sw. V. says that education must be man-making and it is the manifestation of perfection already in man and religion is the manifestation of the divinity already in man Real human activity is, therefore, always educative and religious and religion & education become synonymous with one another. That is why the Katha Up. Says AÉiqÉlÉÇ UÍjÉlÉÇ ÌuÉή zÉUÏUÇ UjÉqÉåuÉ iÉÑ | oÉÑ먂 iÉÑ xÉÉUÍjÉÇ ÌuÉή qÉlÉÈ mÉëaÉëWûqÉåuÉ cÉ || CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ WûrÉÉlÉç AÉWÒûÈ ÌuÉwÉrÉÉÇxiÉåwÉÑ aÉÉåcÉUlÉç | AÉiqÉåÎlSìrÉqÉlÉÉårÉÑ£Çü pÉÉå£åüirÉÉWÒûqÉïlÉÏÌwÉhÉÈ || rÉxiuÉÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉuÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ ArÉÑ£åülÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ xÉSÉ | iÉxrÉåÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ uÉzrÉÉÌlÉ xÉSµÉÉ CuÉ xÉÉUjÉåÈ || rÉxiuÉÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉuÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ AqÉlÉxMüÈ xÉSÉÅzÉÑÍcÉÈ | lÉ xÉ iÉimÉSqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ xÉÇxÉÉUÇ cÉÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || rÉxiÉÑ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉuÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉqÉlÉxMüÈ xÉSÉ zÉÑÍcÉÈ | xÉ iÉÑ iÉimÉSqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ iÉimÉSqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ rÉxqÉÉSè pÉÔrÉÉå lÉ eÉÉrÉiÉå || ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉxÉÉUÍjÉrÉïxiÉÑ qÉlÉÈ mÉëaÉëWûuÉÉlÉç lÉUÈ | xÉÉåÅkuÉlÉÈ mÉÉUqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ iÉ̲whÉÉåÈ mÉUqÉÇ mÉSqÉç || CÎlSìrÉåpÉrÉÈ mÉUÉ ½jÉÉïÈ AjÉåïprÉ¶É mÉUÇ qÉlÉÈ | qÉlÉxÉxiÉÑ mÉUÉ oÉÑÎ®È oÉÑ®åUÉiqÉÉ qÉWûÉlmÉUÈ || qÉWûiÉÈ mÉUqÉurÉ£Çü AurÉ£üÉiÉç mÉÑÂwÉÈ mÉUÈ | mÉÑÂwÉÉ³É mÉUÇ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç xÉÉ MüɸÉ

87

xÉÉ mÉUÉaÉÌiÉÈ || LwÉÈ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ aÉÔRûÉiqÉÉ lÉ mÉëMüÉzÉiÉå | SØzrÉiÉå iÉÑ AaÉëçrrÉÉ oÉÑSèkrÉÉ xÉÔ¤qÉrÉÉ xÉÔ¤ÉqÉSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ | The same allegory is repeated in all the scriptures. In this beautiful and suggestive allegory every object in the world is said to have its own individual self-manifest or un-manifest. Each of these individual selves or Jivatma is described to have got himself into the body as a chariot and evolution and development are said to be only directed towards the attainment of highest perfection or divinity in self-realization. The Jivatman is said to be on a pilgrimage to perfection described here as the highest status of God-hood. He is travelling in the chariot constituted by the body, by the road constituted by the world of sense-objects. Life is thus only a process of self-realization with the help of the body. The Indriyas are compared to the horses, the Manas to the reins and Buddhi to the charioteer. If any of these is not in proper health and in good working order, the chariot will not move and the goal will not be reached. So proper living should be based upon a training of these instruments and not in disabling or destroying them and in making the proper use of them. The horses should be under the control of the charioteer through the reins and they must be properly yoked to the chariot and the charioteer must not only be trained in the art of driving but also must be strong enough to hold the reins firmly in hand and to control the restive horses. But even these are not sufficient. The charioteer must also know where to go and what is the destination is and must be under the orders and control of the pilgrim who has got into the chariot. Thus the Buddhi must be under the control of Jivatman and must know the goal of lie as self-realization and the means of attaining it and must be an expert in controlling the senses through the Manas. All of which must be well-trained and kept healthy through proper exercise, food etc. The whole fate of the pilgrim is in the hands of the charioteer and the Jivatman cannot expect to realize God except through the help and co-operation and willing obedience of the Buddhi. It is only in human life that the Jivatman gets the help of this Buddhi and therefore, only in human life he can attain his goal. It is only one who is capable of controlling the senses through the Manas and Buddhi and making use of them properly that can be said to be alive as a man and manliness should be shown by such control and proper use. If the Buddhi is not under control, the powerful restive senses will bring the Jivatman to the ruins and therefore, he who does not exert this control and use these instruments properly when he has the capacity and opportunity to do it he is as good as committing suicide, either voluntarily or in-voluntarily through ignorance or negligence or other pre-occupations. This allegory is adopted in the Bhagavata also in VII: 15; 41-46 with more and fuller details by Narada AÉWÒûzzÉUÏUÇ UjÉÇ CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ WûrÉÉlÉç ApÉÏwÉÔlÉç qÉlÉÈ CÎlSìrÉåzÉqÉç | uÉiqÉÉïÌlÉ qÉɧÉÉÈ ÍkÉwÉhÉÉÇ cÉ xÉÔiÉÇ xÉiuÉÇ oÉ×WûioÉlkÉÑUqÉÏzÉxÉ×¹qÉç || A¤ÉÇ SzÉmÉëÉhÉÇ kÉqÉÉïkÉqÉÉæï cÉ¢åü AÍpÉqÉÉlÉÇ UÍjÉlÉÇ cÉ eÉÏuÉÇ | kÉlÉÑÌWïû iÉxrÉ mÉëhÉuÉÇ mÉPûÎliÉ zÉUÇ iÉÑ eÉÏuÉÇ mÉUqÉåuÉ sɤrÉqÉç || UÉaÉÉå ²åwÉ¶É sÉÉåpÉ¶É zÉÉåMüqÉÉåWûÉæ pÉrÉÇ qÉSÈ | qÉÉlÉÉåÅuÉqÉÉlÉÉåÅxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ qÉÉrÉÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉ qÉixÉUÈ || UeÉÈ mÉëqÉÉSÈ ¤ÉÑiÉç ÌlÉSìÉ zɧÉuÉxiÉÑ LuÉqÉÉSrÉÈ | UeÉxiÉqÉÈ mÉëM×üiÉrÉÈ xÉiuÉÈ mÉëM×üiÉrÉÈ YuÉÍcÉiÉç || rÉÉuÉiÉç lÉ×MüÉrÉUjÉÇ AÉiqÉuÉzÉÉåmÉMüsmÉÇ kɨÉå aÉËU¸cÉUhÉÉcÉïlÉrÉÉ ÌlÉzÉÉiÉÇ | ¥ÉÉlÉÉÍxÉÇ AcrÉÑiÉoÉsÉÉå SkÉiÉç AxiÉzɧÉÑÈ xuÉÉUÉerÉiÉÑ¹È EmÉzÉÉliÉ CSÇ ÌuÉeɽÉiÉç || lÉÉå cÉåiÉç mÉëqɨÉqÉç AxÉÌSÎlSìrÉuÉÉÎeÉxÉÔiÉÉ lÉÏiuÉÉ EimÉjÉÇ ÌuÉwÉrÉSxrÉÑwÉÑ ÌlÉͤÉmÉÎliÉ | iÉå SxrÉuÉÈ xÉWûrÉxÉÔiÉqÉç AqÉÑÇ iÉqÉÉåokÉå xÉÇxÉÉUMÔümÉå EÂqÉ×irÉÑpÉrÉå ͤÉmÉÎliÉ | In this description of spiritual life Narada adds some other details such as kÉqÉÉïkÉqÉï as the wheels of the chariot and the Pranas as the spoke of the wheels. He

88

also introduces into the allegory the picture in Mundaka Upanishad of the Jivatman making use of the Pranava or Omkara as a Dhanu or bow and his own individuality or ego as the arrow to be shot at Brahman as the aim. Jivatma here is not a mere pilgrim as in the Katha Up. but a warrior who has gone out in his chariot to fight his enemies which are here described as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. According to Narada, if the Buddhi is not properly used the restive horses or the Indriyas are not properly controlled through the Manas, the horses are said to take the warrior away and leave him stranded in the midst of robbers, via, the 3 gunas, who may despoil him and even murder him. He may not only be unable to win the fight over his enemies but may get into greater danger and risk to life. It is interesting to note the comparison of Gunas to robbers which reminds us of S.R.K’s teachings, it is said, and these robbers may throw him into the dark well of Samsara. One is, therefore, warned not to be negligent or careless in making proper use of the opportunities of all that is afforded by a birth in a human body. We find the same allegory mentioned in the Maitreyi Up. and Ch. Up. with slight variations such as making the Jivatman himself the charioteer. In the light of this conception of human life and its goal, there are various descriptions in other texts such as the Bhagavatam of man committing suicide or cheating himself if he does not struggle for self realization by Tyaga and Yoga in their various forms. cf. Bhagavatam XI: 23, 22 & 23 sÉokuÉÉ eÉlqÉ AqÉUmÉëÉjrÉïÇ qÉÉlÉÑwrÉÇ iÉiÉç ̲eÉÉaÉëçrÉiÉÉÇ iÉSlÉÉSØirÉ rÉå xuÉÉjÉïÇ blÉÎliÉ rÉÉÎliÉ AzÉÑpÉÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç || xuÉaÉÉïmÉuÉaÉïrÉÉå²ÉïUÇ mÉëÉmrÉ sÉÉåMüÍqÉqÉÇ mÉÑqÉÉlÉç SìÌuÉhÉå MüÉå AlÉÑwÉ‹iÉå qÉirÉÉåïÅlÉjÉïxrÉ kÉÉqÉÌlÉ || Here wealth or worldly prosperity or struggle for the same is said to be the cause of self destruction. Note Dvijagryata here means not birth in a Brahmin family but the spiritual second birth which makes a man a Dvija or twice-born (cf. also Ch. 19:17 -18 lÉ×SåWûqÉÉ±Ç xÉÑsÉpÉÇ xÉÑSÒsÉïpÉÇ msÉuÉÇ xÉÑMüsmÉÇ aÉÑÂMühÉïkÉÉUqÉç | qÉrÉÉ AlÉÑMÔüsÉålÉ lÉpÉxuÉiÉåËUiÉÇ mÉÑqÉÉlÉç pÉuÉÉÎokÉÇ lÉ iÉUåiÉç xÉ AÉiqÉWûÉ || Where instead of human life being considered as a journey in a chariot, it is described as a journey across the ocean of Samsara in a boat. The human body is compared to the boat and the Guna to helmsman, divine grace as a favorable wind. If one neglects all these opportunities to cross over the ocean of Samsara he is said to be as good as committing suicide. Notice in this allegory the place given to the favorable wind which is the driving force, viz, the grace of God. The Guru’s word is said to be only to steer the boat. The human birth is thus intended by God’s grace only for the crossing of the ocean of Samsara and the forces of evolution working from inside as the inner urge for perfection is the real force behind all human activity. This inner urge is always in our favor. Man has only to take full advantage of it through spiritual practice with the help of the Guru. This spiritual practice is only an exercise of his own free will and self-effort (Paurusha) and he has only himself to thank if he ruins himself by not taking advantage of the opportunities thus afforded for self-realization. Self-effort should be in the direction of self- control, self-surrender etc. as well as meditation etc. This is mentioned in the next Sloka rÉSÉÅUqpÉåwÉÑ ÌlÉÌuÉïhhÉÉå ÌuÉU£üÈ xÉÇrÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ AprÉÉxÉålÉÉiqÉlÉÉå rÉÉåaÉÏ kÉÉUrÉåScÉsÉÇ qÉlÉÈ (11:20; 18) etc. Thus self-effort is only to give full play to the God’s grace and to the removal of obstacles to its working in the form of AWÇûMüÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. The legitimate use of our free will, therefore, is to surrender ourselves to the divine influence or grace. Ahankara itself is to be made use for destroying itself. In the 7 Chap of same skanda 11, he refers to sex desires or sex enjoyment as leading to man’s fall after climbing up the ladder of evolution and attaining manhood rÉÈ mÉëÉmrÉ qÉÉlÉÑwÉÇ sÉÉåMÇü qÉÑÌ£ü²ÉUqÉmÉÉuÉ×iÉqÉç aÉ×WåûwÉÑ ZÉaÉuÉiÉç xÉ£üxiÉqÉÉÃRûcrÉÑiÉÇ ÌuÉSÒÈ || Note the expression AÉÃRûcrÉÑiÉqÉç which

89

suggest the heights to which the Jiva has climbed up in the course of evolution when he attains the human birth. To throw away such a high status like a bird voluntarily in involuntarily is as dangerous as a fall after climbing up a tree. Among the animals the bird is specially mentioned as the one which can climb very high. If having soared very high in the heavens the bird were to close its wings, naturally it will fall down and die. The foolish man who does not use his powers is said to share the same fate as the bird. Note also in this Sloka it is Garhastya-life that is described as the cause of the fall and consequent ruin. Putting these slokas together we get Kama – kanchana as the cause of one’s spiritual ruin. And human dignity and status can be sustained only by the renunciation of these two as Sri Ramakrishna says. See also XI: 7; 19 -23 where Bhagavan emphasizes the part of self-effort in man’s spiritual uplift – mÉëÉrÉåhÉ qÉlÉÑeÉÉÈ sÉÉåMåü sÉÉåMüiÉiuÉÌuÉcɤÉhÉÉÈ | xÉqÉÑ®UÎliÉ ÌWû AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ AÉiqÉlÉæuÉ AzÉÑpÉÉzÉrÉÉiÉç || AÉiqÉlÉÈ aÉÑÂUÉiqÉæuÉ mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | rÉiÉç mÉëirɤÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉprÉÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ AxÉÉæ AlÉÑÌuÉlSiÉå || mÉÑÂwÉiuÉå cÉ qÉÉ kÉÏUÉÈ xÉÉÇZrÉrÉÉåaÉÌuÉzÉÉUSÉÈ | AÉÌuÉxiÉUÉÇ mÉëmÉzrÉÎliÉ xÉuÉïzÉÌ£ü EmÉoÉ×ÇÌWûiÉqÉç || LMü̧̲ÉcÉiÉÑwmÉÉSÉå oÉWÒûmÉÉSÈ iÉjÉÉÅmÉSÈ | oÉyurÉÈ xÉÎliÉ mÉÑUÈ xÉ×¹ÉÈ iÉÉxÉÉÇ qÉå mÉÉæÂwÉÏ ÌmÉërÉÉ || A§É qÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïrÉÎliÉ A®É rÉÑ£üÉÈ WåûiÉÑÍpÉUϵÉUÇ | aÉ×½qÉÉhÉæÈ aÉÑhÉæÈ ÍsÉ…¡æûÈ AaÉëɽqÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉiÉÈ || In these slokas Bhagavan described the glory of the human birth in as much as it is only in human birth that the Jiva gets the free will and capacity for self-effort for realizing divinity as its true nature, thus making use of what is known to understand the un-known and the un-knowable. Man is his own Guru and even if he is left to himself without any guide he can raise himself up to divinity through his own self-effort. In XI:5;14 -16 it is said in the words of Rishi Chamasa that he who does not realize God in everything and who kills animals in the sacrificial ritual in expectation of heaven and who misses thereby mukti which is his birthright is thereby committing spiritual suicide. rÉå iÉÑ AlÉåuÉÇÌuÉSÉå AxÉliÉÈ xiÉokÉÉÈ xÉSÍpÉqÉÉÌlÉlÉÈ mÉzÉÔlÉç Sì½ÎliÉ ÌuÉ´É®ÉÈ mÉëåirÉ ZÉÉSÎliÉ iÉå cÉ iÉÉlÉç || ̲wÉliÉÈ mÉUMüÉrÉåwÉÑ xuÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ WûËUqÉϵÉUÇ qÉ×iÉMåü xÉÉlÉÑoÉlkÉåÅÎxqÉlÉç oÉ®xlÉåWûÉÈ mÉiÉlirÉkÉÈ rÉå MæüuÉsrÉÇ AxÉÇmÉëÉmiÉÉÈ rÉå cÉ AiÉÏiÉÉ¶É qÉÔRûiÉÉ §ÉåuÉÌaÉïMüÉ ÌWû A¤ÉÍhÉMüÉÈ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ bÉÉiÉrÉÎliÉ iÉå || Here also the Grihastha’s attachment to excessive ritualism as a means of intensive sense-enjoyment is said to be the cause of his down-fall and he is therefore, considered to be committing suicide. Vide also X: 87-88 for the same idea of spiritual suicide. X: 63; 40-41 says that a man who does not take refuge at the feet of God being deluded by his attachment to wife, children, family etc. is thereby cheating himself. rÉlqÉÉrÉÉqÉÉåÌWûiÉÍkÉrÉÈ mÉѧÉSÉUaÉ×WûÉÌSwÉÑ | ElqÉ‹ÎliÉ ÌlÉqÉ‹ÎliÉ mÉëxÉ£üÉÈ uÉ×ÎeÉlÉÉhÉïuÉå || SåuÉS¨ÉÍqÉqÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ lÉ×sÉÉåMÇü AÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | rÉÉå lÉ AÉÌSìrÉåiÉ iuÉimÉÉSÉæ xÉ zÉÉåcrÉÉå AÉiqÉuÉgcÉMüÈ | X.51.47 speaks of a home as a dark well into which a man falls like a beast, if after obtaining the human birth he does not utilize these opportunities to realize God. in the words of Mucukunda) sÉokuÉÉ eÉlÉÉå SÒsÉïpÉqÉç A§É qÉÉlÉÑwÉÇ MüjÉÉÎgcÉiÉç AurÉ…¡Çû ArɦÉiÉÉå AlÉkÉ | mÉÉSÉUÌuÉlSÇ lÉ pÉeÉÌiÉ AxÉqqÉÌiÉÈ aÉ×WûÉlkÉMÔümÉå mÉÌiÉiÉÉå rÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÑÈ || Here such a man is compared to a beast or an animal instead of a bird as was done by Bhagavan. The illustrations of the Pasu & Khaga only emphasize the fact that he falls to a lower states from which it was only with great difficulty that he had climbed up to the status of man. It means more or less the same thing which Jesus meant when he speaks of man giving up his birth right for a mess of pottage. Here the emphasis is on the positive aspect of spiritual practice.

90

The same glory of human birth is mentioned also by Bhagavan Ananta in VI.16.58 sÉqkuÉåWû qÉÉlÉÑwÉÏÇ rÉÉåÌlÉÇ ¥ÉÉlÉÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉxÉqpÉuÉÉÇ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ rÉÉå lÉ oÉÑkrÉåiÉ lÉ YuÉÍcÉiÉç zÉqÉqÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | Later on he follows up this statement that the highest self interest & duty of man is realization of God. LiÉÉuÉÉlÉåuÉ qÉlÉÑeÉæÈ rÉÉåaÉlÉæmÉÑhÉoÉÑήÍpÉÈ xuÉÉjÉïÈ xÉuÉÉïiqÉlÉÉ ¥ÉårÉÈ rÉimÉUÉiqÉæMüxÉzÉïlÉqÉç | In V.1.16 it is said that even a Mukta purusha must continue to live until he works out his Prarabdha and his actions in this stage of Jivanmukti do not entail any bondage which will lead to another birth. qÉÑ£üÉåÅÌmÉ iÉÉuÉiÉç ÌoÉpÉ×rÉÉiÉç xuÉSåWÇû AÉokÉïqÉzlÉlÉç AÍpÉqÉÉlÉzÉÔlrÉÈ | rÉjÉÉlÉÑpÉÔiÉÇ mÉëÌiÉrÉÉiÉÌlÉSìÈ ÌMÇü iÉÑ AlrÉSåWûÉrÉ aÉÑhÉÉlÉç lÉ uÉׇåû || For such a man even if he has to remain as a Grihastha on account of his Prarabdha the discharge of the duties of that Ashrama even after attaining Mukti does not lead to untoward consequences. pÉrÉå mÉëqɨÉxrÉ uÉlÉåwuÉÌmÉ xrÉÉiÉç (rÉiÉÉå uÉxÉliÉå xÉWû wÉOèxÉmɳÉÉÈ) ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉxrÉÉiqÉUiÉåÈ oÉÑkÉxrÉ aÉ×WûxjÉÉ´ÉqÉÈ ÌMÇü lÉÑ MüUÉåÌiÉ AuɱqÉç (sin or impurity). In these words Bhagavan Himself advises Priyavrata to continue to live as a Grihastha just as Sri Ramakrishna advised Nag Mahashaya to set an example to Grihasthas and for lokasangraha. In IV.23.28 again we find the statement that he who does not make use of his human birth for its legitimate purpose, viz. to attaining Mukti is thereby cheating himself and injuring himself. xÉ uÉÎgcÉiÉÉå oÉiÉ AÉiqÉkÉ×Mçü M×ücNíåûhÉ qÉWûiÉÉ pÉÑÌuÉ sÉokuÉÉ AÉmÉuÉarÉïÇ qÉÉlÉÑwrÉÇ ÌuÉwÉrÉåwÉÑ ÌuÉwÉ‹iÉå || c.f. also Sankara’s statement in the Vivekachudamani sÉokuÉÉ MüjÉÉÎgcÉiÉç lÉUeÉlqÉ SÒsÉïpÉÇ iɧÉÉÌmÉ mÉÑÇxiuÉÇ ´ÉÑÌiÉmÉÉUSzÉïlÉqÉç | rÉxiÉÑ AÉiqÉqÉÑ£üÉæ lÉ rÉiÉåiÉ qÉÔRûkÉÏÈ xÉ ÌWû AÉiqÉWûÉ xuÉÇ ÌuÉÌlÉWûÎliÉ AxÉSèaÉëWûÉiÉç || where he says that a man who is foolish enough not to exert for self liberation verily commits suicide by attachment to things which are unreal. All these passages make it clear that the one and only duty and privilege of the human being is to struggle and asset himself against the slavery and limitations put upon his glory or perfection by his lower nature which he has in common with animals and vegetables and from which he could free himself with the help of all the forces which God has placed at his disposal. To neglect it is to be something less than a man and is a fall from manliness and humanity. This is Manava Dharma and it is this which the Mahabharata refers to when it says kÉqÉÉåï ÌWû iÉåwÉÉqÉÍkÉMüÉå ÌuÉzÉåwÉÈ kÉqÉåïhÉ WûÏlÉÉÈ mÉzÉÑÍpÉÈ xÉqÉÉlÉÉÈ | All these prescriptions of the Vedas which go against this prime dharma are only false dharmas. That is why the Bhagavata says that the real dharma consisting of Tyaga & Yoga is Dharma free from all falsity and it is this highest Dharma that it advocates kÉqÉïÈ mÉëÉåÎefÉiÉMæüiÉuÉÉåÅ§É mÉUqÉÉå etc. This Dharma is also called sometimes by the name of Bhagavata Dharma as distinct from the mere prescriptions of the Srutis & Smritis which are called Shrouta & Smarta Dharmas in as much as it is nothing but the means for the realization of Bhagavan or God. The real Manava Dharma is the same thing as the Bhagavata Dharma and it is this that Bhagavan refers to in the Gita.

Its root as well as print is Bhagavan. Man in his real nature is God Himself. It is God as Antaryamin from inside or the inner Sasti that constantly guides him or goads him and urges him not to remain contended until his real nature is realized. All the expressions of real Dharma in their multifarious forms and aspects are the result of this inner urge for this expression of divinity. The word Dharma is itself very suggestive of its real nature. It means the finite individual soul as in the expression AhÉÑUåwÉ kÉqÉï in Katha Up. I.21. Vide also its use in Gudapada III.1.4,6 etc where Sankara interprets the word as meaning “Atman”.

91

The nature of the individual soul is as we have seen in the struggle to regain its natural divinity or perfection as in the form of an expansion as a reaction to the contraction due to the limitations placed upon it by Maya. This natural struggle as it manifest itself in man through the inner urge for perfection is the very essence of the human soul and therefore it is right to characterize the human soul as Dharma itself personified. It ceases to be itself if it loses this essential character characteristic. Dharma also means God as in the xÉWûxÉëlÉÉqÉ kÉqÉÉåï kÉqÉïÌuÉSÒ¨ÉqÉÈ | This suggests that God is the real personification which is the individual aspires to attain through his struggle. Thus the essential characteristic of pure Dharma in itself is suggested by the word Dharma itself. The word Dharma is derived from the root kÉ× meaning to sustain or preserve or hold together as well as to preserve with determination and resolution. It is from this root that the word Dharma as well as Dharana are derived. The word Dharma is therefore cognate with these words. Dhruti is that aspect of the Buddhi which refuses to succeumb to obstacles and persists not only in maintaining the postion already gained but in pushing forward in the face of these obstacles with untiring zeal and enthusiasm until the highest is attained. Its characteristics are described in the Gita XVIII Sl. 33-35. kÉ×irÉÉ rÉrÉÉ kÉÉUrÉiÉå qÉlÉÈ mÉëÉhÉåÎlSìrÉÌ¢ürÉÉÈ | rÉÉåaÉålÉÉurÉÍpÉcÉÉËUhrÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï xÉÉΨuÉMüÐ || rÉrÉÉ iÉÑ kÉqÉïMüÉqÉÉjÉÉïlkÉ×irÉÉ kÉÉUrÉiÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ | mÉëxÉ…¡åûlÉ TüsÉÉMüÉǤÉÏ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï UÉeÉxÉÏ || rÉrÉÉ xuÉmlÉÇ pÉrÉÇ zÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉwÉÉSÇ qÉSqÉç LuÉ cÉ | lÉ ÌuÉqÉÑgcÉÌiÉ SÒqÉåïkÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï iÉÉqÉxÉÏ || Although there are thus these three aspects of Dhruti it is only the first variety that is really human consistent with the really Sattvic nature of the human status. It will be noted that this is described in the Sloka as one of the elements of Yoga and that it is that Vritti of the mind which hold up and supports the right activities of Manas, Prana & Indriyas in Yoga or spiritual practices. The word Dharana as used in the Yogasastra of Patanjali as the sixth among the eight elements of Yoga is that mental effort based upon this Dhruti in its progress toward Samadhi. It is defined by him SåzÉoÉlkÉÍ¶É¨É¶É kÉÉUhÉÉ | This definition is explained as meaning the reapeated attempts at fixing the mind on Atman as seated in various Cakras of the body. But the Gita does not accept this purely technical definition of Dharana when in the VI chapter Bhagavan describes the process in Slokas VI.24, 25 & 26. xÉÇMüsmÉmÉëpÉuÉÉlMüÉqÉÇxirÉYiuÉÉ xÉuÉÉïlÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | qÉlÉxÉæuÉåÎlSìrÉaÉëÉqÉÇ ÌuÉÌlÉrÉqrÉ xÉqÉliÉiÉÈ || zÉlÉæÈ zÉlÉæÂmÉUqÉåSè oÉÑ®èrÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉrÉÉ | AÉiqÉxÉÇxjÉÇ qÉlÉÈ M×üiuÉÉ lÉ ÌMüÎgcÉSÌmÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉåiÉç || rÉiÉÉå rÉiÉÉå ÌlɶÉUÌiÉ qÉlɶÉgcÉsÉqÉÎxjÉUqÉç | iÉiÉxiÉiÉÉå ÌlÉrÉqrÉæiÉSÉiqÉlrÉåuÉ uÉzÉÇ lÉrÉåiÉç || The place of Dhruti in this process is clearly brought out by the words oÉÑ®èrÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉrÉÉ. This Dhruti is exerted in withdrawing the mind from tempting sensual pleasurable objects and directing the mind toward the Atman. It is a repeated exercise in self-restraint and concentration on the Atman. These are the two aspects, positive & negative, in which the Dhruti functions. It may be noted that in this description Bhagavan does not allude to the various Cakras in the body at all. This place of Dhruti in Dharana is again referred to in Gita XVIII 29 – 35. XVIII 29 oÉÑ®èrÉÉ ÌuÉzÉÑ®rÉÉ rÉÑ£üÉå kÉ×irÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ ÌlÉrÉqrÉ cÉ etc. This Dhruti is also said to be the characteristic of Sattvik karta (actor) in XVIII.26: kÉ×irÉÑixÉÉWûxÉqÉÎluÉiÉÈ | It is also said to be one of the elements in ‘SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç’. In XVI-3: iÉåeÉÈ ¤ÉqÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ zÉÉæcÉqÉSìÉåWûÉå lÉÉÌiÉqÉÉÌlÉiÉÉ | etc. That is why Nachiketas is called xÉirÉkÉ×ÌiÉ in Katha Up II.9. It will be thus seen that Dharana is a mental activity of the Sattvik man of a Daivisampat to concentrate the mind in the higher self after withdrawing it from lower self. Dharma mainly concerns itself with conduct and behaviour

92

externally. It is that kind of external activity which is designed to strengthen Dhruti & help Dharana. It is based upon a consciousness of the goal of human life and activity as the realization of the unity or perfection or realization of God in other words. Its root is the inner urge; its fruit is realization of God. Its nature is regulation of conduct and behaviour to help this realization by strengthening Dhruti and facilitating Dharana. That is why Mahabharata defines Dharma as kÉÉUhÉÉiÉç kÉqÉï CirÉÉWÒûÈ kÉqÉÉåï kÉÉUrÉiÉå mÉëeÉÉÈ | rÉixrÉÉ®ÉUhÉxÉÇrÉÑ£üÈ xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ || Santi 109. Bhagavan also defines it in almost the same terms in Karna Parva 65.59. The derivation of the word from the root Dhru in its relation to Dharana is clearly referred here. But conduct & behaviour may be concerned not only with the individuals effort at self realization unconcerned with & independent of his place in society. Man is a social animal & he lives always in the company of others. His conduct and behaviour, therefore, whether physical or spiritual must always have some relation to the conduct and behaviour of the other members of society, in a family or in a village, tirbe or nation or the entire humanity. Its activities covering the entire field of human life will have their percussions and effects on the others members of the society. Even in following his own individual Dharma he has to adjust himself to the similar individual Dharmas of others and to the good and welfare of the society and humanity as a whole. This good and welfare of humanity and society or Lokasangraha is not conceived in terms of material properity for satisfaction of mere sensual pleasures but in terms of spiritual realization. The real society is concerned only in the association of various individual aiming and struggling to attain the same peculiarly human goal of realization of spiritual perfection, each according to his special tastes, capacities and aptitudes, making full use of the inner divine urge and the facilities and powers afforded by human birth. Lokasangraha is only in terms of Lokasreyas and not of Preyas. The purpose of the association of individuals in a society is only cooperation and mutal help in the attainment of this Sreyas by all the individuals free from obstructive interference from other individuals arising and struggling to attain the same goal. Not only there is this freedom from interference from others but positive help from others. The defects and weakness of the various individuals will be removed by the speial capcities and powers of other members. Each member has to adjust his conduct to the head of the others and the whole society should be organized in such a way as to give the maximum freedom and advantage to each individual to reach the goal without interference from others and without being limited by his own shortcomings. ‘Each for all and all for each’ is the principle to be adopted in a good organization of the society for the spiritual welfare of all. This is the spirit behind the Hindu conception of the social order known as Varnashrama which is said to be initiated first by Bhagavan Himself in the Gita IV.13 c.f also Purushasukta where the whole society is compared to an organism where each organ has to cooperate for the good of the whole organism. The word Dharana used in the definition of Dharma in the M.bh. is to be understood not only in terms of the individual but also in his relations to society and other individuals. That is why it is said kÉqÉÉåï kÉÉUrÉiÉå mÉëeÉÉÈ. Thus in this definition both the personal and social aspect of Dharma as the means for spiritual realization through the Dharana & Dhruti of each individual and the identity of the spiritual nature of the goal of both the individual as well as society is beautifully brought out. If Dharma is understood in this sense there can never be a conflict between the interests of the society and that of the individual. What is good for the one must be good for the other.

It naturally ensures the preservation of humanity through preservation of man’s predominantly Sattvic nature. That is why Manu says that Sattva is the sɤÉhÉ of kÉqÉï - iÉqÉxÉÉå sɤÉhÉÇ MüÉqÉÈ UeÉxÉxiuÉjÉï EcrÉiÉå xÉiuÉxrÉ sɤÉhÉÇ

93

kÉqÉïÈ ´ÉrÉæ¸qÉåwÉÉÇ rÉjÉÉå¨ÉUqÉç || In deciding in what human activity constitutes Dharma one has, therefore, always to keep in mind the special characteristic and Sattva guna as described in the scriptures vide Gita XIV.6: iÉ§É xɨuÉÇ ÌlÉqÉïsÉiuÉÉimÉëMüÉzÉMüqÉlÉÉqÉrÉqÉç | xÉÑZÉxÉ…¡åûlÉ oÉklÉÉÌiÉ ¥ÉÉlÉxÉ…¡åûlÉ cÉÉlÉbÉ || XIV.11: xÉuÉï²ÉUåwÉÑ SåWåûÅÎxqÉlmÉëMüÉzÉ EmÉeÉÉrÉiÉå | ¥ÉÉlÉÇ rÉSÉ iÉSÉ ÌuɱÉSè ÌuÉuÉ×®Ç xɨuÉÍqÉirÉÑiÉ || XIV.14: rÉSÉ xɨuÉå mÉëuÉ×®å iÉÑ mÉësÉrÉÇ rÉÉÎliÉ SåWûpÉ×iÉç | iÉSÉå¨ÉqÉÌuÉSÉÇ sÉÉåMüÉlÉqÉsÉÉlmÉëÌiÉmɱiÉå || XIV.16: MüqÉïhÉÈ xÉÑM×üiÉxrÉÉWÒûÈ xÉÉΨuÉMÇü ÌlÉqÉïsÉÇ TüsÉqÉç | XIV.17: xɨuÉÉixÉgeÉÉrÉiÉå ¥ÉÉlÉÇ UeÉxÉÉå sÉÉåpÉ LuÉ cÉ | XIV.18: FkuÉïÇ aÉcNûÎliÉ xɨuÉxjÉÉ qÉkrÉå ÌiɸÎliÉ UÉeÉxÉÉÈ | etc. the nature of the Sattvic. The group of Sattvic qualities described as SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç in the beginning of the Ch. XVI. The nature of Sattvika Shraddha, Yajna, Dana, Tapas and of food is described in Ch. XVII. The nature of Sattvika Karma and Sattvica Karta, Sattvika Jnanam Sattvika Buddhi, Sattvika Dhruti and Sattvika Tyaga are all mentioned in Ch. XVIII. Vide also Bhagavatam XII. Dharma should be characterized by the various elements of the Sattva Guna mentioned in these texts both in its individual and social aspects. mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÉÇ cÉ xÉÑZÉmÉëÉmiÉrÉå kÉqÉÉåïÅÍpÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | SÒÈZÉmÉËUWûÉUÉrÉ cÉÉkÉqÉïÈ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉiÉå || We are now in a postion to understand the comprehensive nature of Dharma and its relation to the various partial definitions given in the scriptures in various places to emphasis particular aspects. Thus the M.bh. says in Santi 109.10 just before giving the definition of kÉqÉï (kÉÉUhÉÇ kÉqÉï CirÉÉWÒûÈ) mÉëpÉuÉÉjÉÉïrÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ kÉqÉïmÉëuÉcÉlÉÇM×üiÉqÉç | rÉiÉç xrÉÉiÉç mÉëpÉuÉxÉÇrÉÑ£Çü xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ || The use of the word mÉëpÉuÉ here is misunderstood. It does not mean worldly properties or success as many translators understand. In fact the word has no such meaning at all. It is derived from the root mÉëpÉÔ. The word mÉëpÉuÉ means only ‘source’ or ‘origin’ or ‘control’ or ‘mastery’ or ‘expansion beyond’. mÉëpÉuÉÉjÉï MüqÉï only means that which helps man to advance step by step higher and higher in the course of his pilgrimage of life and enables him to expand from his finitutde to infinity and transcend Rajas & Tamas or his lower nature through control and mastery of instincts and passions and inertia which belong to this lower nature and thus enable him to go back to his original source and attain his pristine purity and realization of God. mÉëpÉuÉ is one of the natures of Vishnu or God. Vide Gita IX mÉëpÉuÉÈ mÉësÉrÉÈ xjÉÉlÉÇ ÌlÉkÉÉlÉÇ oÉÏeÉqÉurÉrÉqÉç | Sl.12 of the same Ch. is another definition of Dharma AÌWÇûxÉÉjÉÉïrÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ kÉqÉïmÉëuÉcÉlÉÇ M×üiÉqÉç | rÉixrÉÉSÌWÇûxÉÉxÉÇrÉÑ£üÈ xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌlɶÉrÉÈ || This definition emphasizes the negative and social aspect of Dharma whereas Sl.10 emphasises its individual aspect and positive aspect. Every act of Dharma must be characterized by Ahimsa. That is to say it shold not be injurious or harmful to anybody else although it may be helpful to himself. Thus the fanatic Muslim who thinks of killing a man of another religion thinking that it is his duty cannot be considered as having discharged his Dharma even though it may be an act of selfless sacrifice of his own life in the name of God as in the case of the murderer of Shraddhananda. Himsa must also be understood not only in terms of injury to life nd property etc. but injury to spiritual life and progress. It may take the form of consciously or unconsciously restricting the freedom of others in discharge of their Dharma. This is a more serious injury than mere injury to life & property etc. In fact sometimes depriving another of his life or property or of his freedom to ruin himself spiritually by force, if necessary, may be prompted by the spirit of Dharma in the higher interests of the other man, and may, therefore, be Dharma under the peculiar conditions and circumstances in which the act is done. Thus Rama’s action in killing Ravana or Krishna’s in

94

killing Kamsa is not only not against Dharma but is the highest Dharma in as much as it was in the interest of the whole society as well as of the individual and Dharma itself that this force had to be applied to bring round the recalcitrants to the path of Dharma and save others from the injury done to their Dharma by the Adharma. Thus such injury or taking of the life of an individual or restraining his freedom to ruin himself cannot be considered as Himsa or violence or injury. Mere pain or suffering as a result of one’s act does not constitue Himsa. In many cases such infliction of pain or suffering on others is undertaken only in the interest of the person who is made to suffer. It is this suffering that is caused as punishment for wrong doing that dedeems him from his evil ways and therefore may be an act of mercy and love, as when a father or teacher punishes the son or the student or a king or a judge punishes a criminal. Such punishment becomes the duty or Dharma and failure to make out punishment necessary to redeem the offender may be Adharma. That is why we find the power to punish or Danda is given to Kshatriyas in Dharmasastras. Therefore, it said by Manu UÉeÉÍpÉÈ kÉ×iÉShQûÉÅxiÉÑ M×üiuÉÉ mÉÉmÉÉÌlÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÉÈ | ÌlÉqÉïsÉÉÈ xuÉaÉïqÉÉrÉÉÎliÉ xÉliÉxxÉÑM×üÌiÉlÉÉå rÉjÉÉ || VIII.318. This is quoted with approval and has justification in the Ramayana by Rama himself in Vali Vadha where it is further explained thus: zÉÉxÉlÉÉ²É ÌuÉqÉÉå¤ÉÉ²É xiÉålÉ xiÉårÉÉ̲qÉÑcrÉiÉå | UÉeÉÉ iÉÑ AzÉÉxÉlÉç mÉÉmÉxrÉ iÉSuÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ÌMüÎsoÉwÉqÉç || ShŽå rÉÈ mÉÉiÉrÉåiÉç ShQÇû ShŽÉå rɶÉÉÌmÉ ShŽiÉå | MüÉrÉïMüÉUhÉÍxÉ®ÉjÉÉæï EpÉÉæ iÉÉæ lÉ AuÉxÉÏSiÉÈ | iÉ°uÉÉlÉç ShQûxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÉiÉç AxqÉÉiÉç ÌuÉaÉiÉÌMüsÉçÌoÉwÉÈ | aÉiÉÈ xuÉÉÇ mÉëM×üÌiÉÇ kÉqrÉÉïÇ kÉqÉïSعålÉ uÉiqÉïlÉÉqÉç || Similarly Gautama says in his Dharma Sutra AzÉ£üÉå U‹ÑuÉåhÉÑÌuÉSsÉÉprÉÉÇ iÉlÉÑprÉÉÇ | AlrÉjÉÉ blÉlÉç UÉ¥ÉÉ zÉÉxrÉÈ | This refers to the right of the teacher or father to punish a child when it is wrong. In such cases the pain or suffering or even death that results from such punishment is considered as resulting only from his own wrong doing and as inflicted by Dharma itself. cf. "Though as result of action, ill be done by me, yet do I plan no ill to anyone"- Anguttaranikaya I.191.65. So also Manu says kÉqÉï LuÉ WûiÉÉå WûÎliÉ kÉqÉÉåï U¤ÉÌiÉ UͤÉiÉÈ | iÉxqÉÉ®qÉÉåï lÉ WûliÉurÉÈ rÉÉ lÉÉå kÉqÉÉåï WûiÉÉå AuÉkÉÏiÉç || VIII.15. Vide also VIII.351 aÉÑÂÇ uÉÉ oÉÉsÉuÉ×®Éæ uÉÉ oÉëɼhÉÇ uÉÉ oÉWÒû´ÉÑiÉqÉç | AÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉlÉqÉÉrÉÉliÉqÉlrÉÉSåuÉ AÌuÉcÉÉUrÉlÉç || lÉ AÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉuÉkÉå SÉåwÉÈ WûliÉÑpÉïuÉÌiÉ Mü¶ÉlÉ | mÉëMüÉzÉÇ uÉÉÅmÉëMüÉzÉÇ uÉÉ qÉlrÉÑxiÉÇ qÉlrÉÑqÉç GcNûÌiÉ || The same is echoed by Bhishma in Santi XXXIV.15-19 mÉëaÉ×½ zÉx§ÉqÉÉrÉÉliÉÇ AÌmÉ uÉåSÉliÉaÉÇ UhÉå | ÎeÉbÉÉÇxÉliÉÇ ÎeÉbÉÉÇxÉÏrÉÉiÉç lÉ iÉålÉ oÉë¼WûÉ pÉuÉåiÉç || AmÉåiÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÇ uÉרÉÉiÉç rÉÉå WûlrÉÉSÉiÉiÉÉÌrÉlÉqÉç | lÉ iÉålÉ oÉë¼WûÉ xÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç qÉlrÉÑxiÉÇ qÉlrÉÑqÉç GcNûÌiÉ || c.f. also Bhagavata X.7.31 ÌWÇxÉëÈ xuÉmÉÉmÉålÉ ÌuÉÌWÇûÍxÉëiÉÈ ZÉsÉÈ || See Brahmavaivarta, Sri Krishna Janma Khanda, Adhyaya 85 Sl 20(?) M×ümÉÉ MüÉrÉÉï xÉiÉÉÇ zɵÉiÉç AÌWÇûxÉåwÉÑ cÉ eÉliÉÑwÉÑ | ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ lÉ cÉ SÉåwÉ xrÉÉiÉç ÌWÇûxÉëÉhÉÉÇ cÉ mÉëeÉåµÉU || Vide also Garuda Purana 115.47 M×üiÉå mÉëÌiÉM×üiÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç ÌWÇûÍxÉiÉå mÉëÌiÉÌWÇûÍxÉiÉqÉç | lÉ iÉ§É SÉåwÉÇ mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ SÒ¹å SÉåwÉÇ xÉÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || Vide also Santi 109.27-28 iÉjÉÉaÉiÉÇ cÉ rÉÉå WûlrÉÉiÉç lÉ AxÉÉæ mÉÉmÉålÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå | xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ WûiÉÇ WûÎliÉ WûiÉ LuÉ xÉ WûlrÉiÉå || AÉiqÉlÉæuÉ WûiÉÈ mÉÉmÉÉå rÉÈ mÉÉmÉÇ MüiÉÑïÍqÉcNûÌiÉ || c.f. Gautama Dharmasutra X.16 lÉ SÉåwÉÉå ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉ AÉWûuÉå || Also Sl. 30 rÉÎxqÉlÉç rÉjÉÉ uÉiÉïiÉå rÉÉå qÉlÉÑwrÉÈ iÉÎxqÉlÉç iÉjÉÉ uÉÌiÉïiÉurÉÇ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ | qÉÉrÉÉcÉÉUÉå qÉÉrÉrÉÉ oÉÉÍkÉiÉurÉÈ xÉÉkuÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉÉkÉÑlÉÉ mÉëirÉÑmÉårÉÈ || Here reference is to Dharmayuddha i.e Yuddha intended to protect Dharma and not a war of

95

exploitation or enslavement of innocence. The word Aahava literally and derivatively suggests the call of Dharma and self sacrifice for the protection of Dharma from Adhrama meaning to call or to sacrifice. C.f also Bhagavata, VII.9.14 where Prahlada says, qÉÉåSåiÉ xÉÉkÉÑUÌmÉ uÉ×ͶÉMüxÉmÉïWûliÉ | Vide also Bhagavatam X.46.17 ÌSwšÉ MÇüxÉÉå WûiÉÈ mÉÉmÉÈ xÉÉlÉÑaÉÈ xuÉålÉ mÉÉmqÉlÉÉ | xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ kÉqÉïzÉÏsÉÉlÉÉÇ rÉSÕlÉÉÇ ²å̹ rÉxxÉSÉ || Also X.88.(22) &38 AWûÉå SåuÉ qÉWûÉSåuÉ mÉÉmÉÉåÅrÉÇ xuÉålÉ mÉÉmqÉlÉÉ WûiÉÈ || Also VII.7.3. mÉÉmÉålÉ mÉÉmÉÉÅpÉÍ¤É CÌiÉ uÉÉÌSlÉÉå uÉÉxÉuÉÉSrÉÈ || Also IX.4.69-70 (Ambarisa & Durvasa) xÉÉkÉÑwÉÑ mÉëÌWûiÉÇ iÉåeÉÈ mÉëWûiÉÑïÈ MÑüÂiÉå AzÉÑpÉqÉç || X.25.16-17 sÉÉåMåüzÉ qÉÉÌlÉlÉÉÇ qÉÉæžÉiÉç WûËUwrÉå ´ÉÏqÉSÇ iÉqÉÈ | lÉ ÌWû xÉ°ÉuÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ ... qɨÉÉåÅxÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉlÉpÉ…¡ûÈ mÉëzÉqÉÉrÉÉåmÉMüsmÉiÉå || Also I.15.34 rÉrÉÉ AWûUiÉç pÉÑuÉÉå pÉÉUÇ iÉÉÇ iÉlÉÑÇ ÌuÉeÉWûÉuÉeÉÈ | MühOûMÇü MühOûMåülÉæuÉ ²rÉÇ cÉÉÌmÉ DÌwÉiÉÑÈ xÉqÉqÉç || Also I.17.14-16 xÉÉkÉÔlÉÉÇ pÉSìqÉåuÉ xrÉÉiÉç AxÉÉkÉÑSqÉlÉå M×üiÉå | AlÉÉaÉxÉÑ CWû pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ rÉÈ AÉaÉxM×üiÉç ÌlÉUƒ¡ÓûzÉÈ || etc. I.7.37 xuÉmÉëÉhÉÇ rÉÈ mÉUmÉëÉhÉæÈ mÉëmÉÑwhÉÉÌiÉ AbÉ×hÉÈ ZÉsÉÈ | iɲkÉÈ iÉxrÉ ÌWû ´ÉårÉÈ rÉiSÉåwÉÉiÉç rÉÉÌiÉ AkÉÈ mÉÑqÉÉlÉç || Also VII.8.56 xÉÉåÅrÉÇ iÉå ÌuÉÍkÉMüU DzÉ ÌuÉmÉëzÉxiÉxrÉ CSÇ ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ AlÉÑaÉëWûÉrÉ ÌuÉ©È || V.5.19 LuÉqÉåuÉ ZÉsÉÑ qÉWûxÉÍpÉcÉÉU AÌiÉ¢üqÉÈ MüÉixlrÉåïlÉ AÉiqÉlÉå TüsÉÌiÉ || Also X.66.40 M×üirÉÉlÉsÉÈ mÉëÌiÉWûiÉÈ xÉÈ UjÉÉ…¡ûmÉÉhÉåÈ Ax§ÉÉæeÉxÉÉ | xÉ lÉ×mÉ qÉalÉqÉÑZÉÉå ÌlÉuÉ×iÉÈ uÉÉUÉhÉÍxÉÇ mÉËUxÉqÉåirÉ xÉÑSͤÉhÉÇ iÉÇ xÉ GÎiuÉaÉç eÉlÉÇ xÉqÉSWûiÉç xuÉM×üiÉÉåÅÍpÉcÉÉUÈ || It is thus seen that it is uniformly held by the Puranas and the Smritis that when an offender against Dharma is made to suffer punishment by society or the custodians of Dharma in the course of the execution of their own duty or Svadharma the man only suffers for his sins and one who mates out the punishment only saves him both from his past as well as future sins and is therefore absolved of all sins as a consequence of this act. That in the discharge of one’s own Dharma in the protection of Dharma itself an apparent act of Adharma ceases to be Adharma and becomes Dharma for the simple reason that it is in protection of Dharma itself. Thus Kshatriya who is the custodian of Dharma would be considered as failing in his duty if he does not discharge his duty of protecting Dharma on the plea that it offends against some rule of Dharma. This is brought out clearly by various statements in our scriptures, Vide AUhrÉmÉuÉï 142.52&53 E±ÉåaÉmÉuÉï 179.24 zÉÉÎliÉmÉuÉï 67.7,140.48; Valmiki Ramayana II.21.31 all of which say that it is the duty of a Kshatriya to punish an offender against Dharma even if the latter were his own Guru. aÉÑUÉåUmrÉuÉÍsÉmiÉxrÉ MüÉrÉÉïMüÉrÉïqÉeÉÉlÉiÉÈ EimÉjÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉxrÉ lrÉÉrrÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ zÉÉxÉlÉqÉç || Again in Santi 55.16 xÉqÉrÉirÉÉÌaÉlÉÉå sÉÑokÉÉlÉç aÉÑÃlÉÌmÉ cÉ MåüzÉuÉ | ÌlÉWûÎliÉ xÉqÉUå mÉÉmÉÉlÉç ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÈ xÉ ÌWû kÉqÉïÌuÉiÉç || Vide also Santi 121.60 which is the same thing Manu VIII.335 ÌmÉiÉÉ AÉcÉÉrÉï xÉ×WØûlqÉÉiÉÉ pÉÉrÉÉï mÉѧÉÈ mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ | lÉ AShQûrÉÉå lÉÉqÉ UÉ¥ÉÉåÅÎxiÉ rÉÈ xuÉkÉqÉåï lÉ ÌiɸÌiÉ || Vide also Manu VIII.350-1 aÉÑÂÇ uÉÉ oÉÉsÉuÉ×®Éæ uÉÉ etc. This is illustrated by Bhishma’s fight against Parasurama, his own Guru and Arjuna’s with Drona, Krishna’s with Kamsa, Sisupala who are all his relatives, Rama’s with Ravana who was a Brahmana etc. Vyasa tries to console Yuddhistira who was grieving for the death of his relatives by using almost the same argument. Santi 33.14 qÉÉ ÌuÉwÉÉSÇ M×üjÉÉ UÉeÉlÉç ¤É§ÉkÉqÉïqÉlÉÑxqÉUlÉç | xuÉkÉqÉåïhÉ WûiÉÉ ½åiÉå ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉÉÈ ¤Ȩ́ÉrÉwÉïpÉ || Here xuÉkÉqÉåïhÉ WûiÉÉÈ means ‘because they fought against their

96

Svadharma’. It also means that it is the Svadharma itself that retaliated and killed them. Vyasa also means that the Pandavas who killed the Kauravas did it only in the discharge of their own Svadharma, viz the protection of Dharma and that if anybody feels himself hurt or injured or aggrieved by any such discharge of Svadharma has only himself to thank for the ruin that he has brought on himself. Any accidental pain or suffering that is caused to somebody in the course of discharge of one’s own Svadharma cannot be considered as Adharma. In all such cases, says Vyasa, one who suffers pain or death must be taken to have that his own fate as a result of his own past karma. Everyone has to suffer for his past sins at the proper time and one who is apparently the cause of such pain is only an instrument in the hands of time. This echos Sri Krishma’s words to Arjuna in Ch. XII of the Gita: MüÉsÉålÉæuÉ ÌlÉWûiÉÉÈ ÌlÉÍqɨÉqÉɧÉÇ pÉuÉ xÉurÉxÉÉÍcÉlÉç | So Vyasa continues to say MüÉXç¤ÉqÉÉhÉÉÈ Í´ÉrÉÇ M×üixlÉÉÇ mÉ×ÍjÉurÉÉÇ cÉ qÉWûiÉç rÉzÉÈ | M×üiÉÉliÉÌuÉÍkÉ xÉÇrÉÑ£üÉÈ MüÉsÉålÉ ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || ... WåûiÉÑqÉɧÉÍqÉSÇ iÉxrÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ pÉUiÉwÉïpÉ ... iÉåwÉÉqÉç AÌmÉ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå MüqÉïÍhÉ mÉËUÍcÉliÉrÉ | ÌuÉlÉÉzÉWåûiÉÑMüÉÌlÉ iuÉÇ rÉæÈ iÉå MüÉsÉuÉzÉÇ aÉiÉÉÈ || ... kÉqÉïurÉÑÎcNų̂ÉÍqÉcNûliÉÈ rÉåÅkÉqÉïxrÉ mÉëuÉiÉïMüÉÈ | WûliÉurÉÉÈ iÉå SÒUÉiqÉÉlÉÈ SåuÉæÈ SæirÉÉ CuÉ EsoÉhÉÉÈ || LMÇü WûiuÉÉ rÉÌS MÑüsÉå ÍzɹÉlÉÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç MÑüsÉÇ WûiuÉÉ cÉ UÉ·íå cÉ lÉ iÉiÉç uÉרÉÉåmÉbÉÉiÉMüqÉç || The last Sloka reminds us of the maxim enunciated by Sri Krishna and Vidura in the Udyoga Parva when they advised Dhritarashtra to drive awy Duryodhana in the interest of Dharma. irÉeÉåSåMÇü MÑüsÉxrÉÉjÉåï aÉëÉqÉxrÉÉjÉåï MÑüsÉÇ irÉeÉåiÉç aÉëÉqÉÇ eÉlÉmÉSxrÉÉjÉåï AÉiqÉÉjÉåï mÉ×ÍjÉuÉÏÇ irÉeÉåiÉç 127.49 of Udyoga. This principle is accepted by all writers on Dharma. This principle justifies the infliction of Suffering on a few who offend against Dharma for the purpose of protecting the moral and spiritual interests of the larger number, although this may appear as the same as the utilitarian principle of the greatest good of the greatest number enunciated by the Western writers on ethics the Hindu conception differs from the utilitarian docrine in as much as the Western doctrine does not accept the realization of the Atman as the highest good but limits its conception of the higher good to worldly properity and also because the Western utilitarian doctrine does not take into consideration subjective attitude of the mind, viz purity of the motive, as the deciding factor in hudging whether an act is Dharma or not as the Hindu writers do. Moreover, the Hindu writers do not also admit that an act becomes Dharma even in regard to material prosperity merely because a great number is benefited. This principle is often enunciated by our Hindu writers as iÉxqÉÉiÉç rÉ¥Éå uÉkÉÉåÅuÉkÉÈ || Manu cf. also AÌWÇûxÉlÉç xÉuÉÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ AlrÉ§É iÉÏjÉåïprÉÈ || Chandogya VIII.14. These maxims are often misunderstood by the orthodox people and quoted by them to justify the killing of animals in ritualistic sacrifice. Yajna really means ‘woship of God’ involving sacrifice of one’s own Ahamkara, Kama, and Krodha etc. to please God and realize Him with the help of His Grace. Eg. Sandilya 66 iÉiÉç rÉÉÎeÉÌWû mÉÔeÉÉrÉÉÇ | If any animal is to be sacrificed in the course of Yajna, it is the animal in oneself. Thus the Asvamedha as it is originally conceived spiritually means only the control of the senses in spiritual practice. Asva representing only the sense and Purushamedha meant originally only the sacrife of the individual ego or egoism. No ritualistic killing is sanctioned by the scriptures as is clear from the word Advara which explained by Sayana as meaning that in which there is no Himsa. Sabara also in his Bhasya on the Mimamsasutra or the Jaimini Dharma Sutra 2.1.2 says ÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉ mÉëÌiÉÌwÉ®É | Commenting on the Samkhya Sutra I.6 Vijnana Bhikshu says rɨÉÑ uÉækÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉÌiÉËU£ü ÌWÇûxÉÉ rÉÉ LuÉ mÉÉmÉeÉlÉMüiuÉÍqÉÌiÉ iÉSxÉiÉç xɃ¡ûÉåcÉå mÉëqÉÉhÉÉpÉÉuÉÉiÉç || See

97

also Vachaspati Misra’s commentary on Sankhya Bhasya lÉ cÉ ÌWÇûxrÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉï pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ CÌiÉ xÉÉqÉÉlrÉzÉÉx§ÉÇ ÌuÉzÉåwÉzÉÉx§ÉåhÉ AÎalÉwÉÉåqÉÏrÉÇ mÉzÉÑÇ AÉsÉpÉiÉ CÌiÉ AlÉålÉ oÉÉkrÉåiÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉcrÉÇ ÌuÉUÉåkÉÉpÉÉuÉÉiÉç | ÌuÉUÉåkÉå ÌWû oÉsÉÏrÉxÉÉ SÒoÉïsÉÇ oÉÉkrÉiÉå lÉ cÉÉÎxiÉ ÌuÉUÉåkÉÈ ÍpɳÉÌuÉwÉrÉiuÉÉiÉç | iÉjÉÉ ÌWû qÉÉ ÌWÇûxrÉÉÌSÌiÉ ÌlÉwÉåkÉåhÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÈ AlÉjÉïWåûiÉÑpÉÉuÉÉå ¥ÉÉmrÉiÉå lÉ mÉÑlÉÈ A¢üiuÉjÉïiuÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ cÉ AlÉjÉïWåûiÉÑiuÉ¢üiÉÔmÉMüÉUiuÉrÉÉåÈ MüͶÉSÎxiÉ ÌuÉUÉåkÉÈ | ÌWÇûxÉÉ ÌWû mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ SÉåwÉqÉÉuɤrÉÌiÉ ¢üiÉÉå¶É EmÉMüËUwrÉÌiÉ | In these words and for the reasons given therein the prescription for killing an animal in sacrifice is not an exception to the general rule laid down by the Sruti itself that all Himsa is sinful. Therefore Manu says as quoted in Santi 265 xÉuÉïMüqÉïxÉÑ AÌWÇûxÉÉ ÌWû kÉqÉÉïiqÉÉ qÉlÉÑUoÉëuÉÏiÉç | kÉÔiÉæïÈ mÉëMüsmiÉÇ ÌWû LiÉiÉç lÉ iɲåSåwÉÑ MüÎsmÉiÉqÉç || Vide also ÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉæuÉ lÉ MüiÉïurÉÉ uÉækÉÌWÇûxÉÉ iÉÑ UÉeÉxÉÏ | oÉëɼhÉÉæÈ xÉÉ lÉ MüiÉïurÉÉ rÉiÉxiÉå xÉÉÎiuÉMüÉ qÉiÉÉÈ || Brihanmanu quoted by Govindananda. Bhagavan makes this clear in XI;21.23 of Bhag. where he says that the Vedas do not compel anybody to kill animals in sacrifice. It only says that if one has got the desire to eat meat one can do it only in Yajnas. ÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ rÉÌS UÉaÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç rÉ¥Éå LuÉ lÉ iÉÑ cÉÉåSlÉÉ | The Bhagavata says in XI.6.11 that this sanction to kill animals in Yajna is meant only to regulate and restrict killing and it is meant to prevent it as far as possible. sÉÉåMåü urÉuÉÉrÉ AÉÍqÉwÉqɱxÉåuÉÉ ÌlÉirÉÉÎxiÉ eÉliÉÉåÈ lÉ ÌWû iÉ§É cÉÉåSlÉÉ | urÉuÉÎxjÉÌiÉxiÉÉxÉÑ ÌuÉuÉÉWû rÉ¥É xÉÑUÉaÉëWæûÈ AÉxÉÑ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉËU¹É || Cf. also rÉiÉç bÉëÉhÉpɤÉÉå ÌuÉÌWûiÉÈ xÉÑUÉrÉÉÈ iÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÉåUÉsÉpÉlÉÇ lÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ | LuÉÇ urÉuÉÉrÉÈ mÉëeÉrÉÉ lÉ UirÉæ CqÉÇ ÌuÉzÉÑ®Ç lÉ ÌuÉSÒÈ xuÉkÉqÉïqÉç || On this Sridhara comments rÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉÑUÉrÉÉÈ bÉëÉhÉpɤÉÈ AuÉkÉëÉhÉqÉç | xÉ LuÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÈ lÉ mÉÉlÉÇ iÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÉåUÉqÉpÉlÉqÉåuÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ lÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ | AiÉÉå lÉ rÉjÉå¹pɤÉhÉ AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉ CirÉjÉïÈ | iÉjÉÉ urÉuÉÉrÉÉåÅÌmÉ mÉëeÉrÉÉ ÌlÉÍqɨÉpÉÔiÉrÉÉ lÉ UirÉæ AiÉÉå qÉlÉÉåUpÉuÉÉÌSlÉÈ CqÉÇ ÌuÉzÉÑ®Ç xuÉkÉqÉïÇ lÉ ÌuÉSÒËUÌiÉ | AÉsÉqpÉlÉqÉç in such Vedic prescriptions as AalÉÏwÉÉåqÉÏrÉÇ mÉzÉÑqÉÉsÉpÉåiÉ etc. As interpreted by Sabara is C¹ÍxÉήxÉÉkÉlÉÇ urÉÉmÉÉUÇ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ | It only means a gift or Tyaga. So the vedic prescription means only to dedicate the animal to the Gods as a symbol of irÉÉaÉ as in uÉ×wÉÉåixÉaÉï just as in dedicating a bull to Siva. Such dedication results only in giving more freedom to the animal and its being better looked after. It also enables the sacrificer to feel the presence of God as the real owner and master of everything in this world including the animals and himself. C.f Pashupati. This act involves the two elements of all worship, viz Tyaga & Yoga, as per the definition SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SìurÉirÉÉaÉ. AÉsÉqpÉlÉ came to mean ‘killing’ only in later days as understood by ignorant and selfish priests. That Alambhana did not mean killing is clear from such vedic prescriptions as rÉeÉqÉÉlÉqÉÉsÉpÉåiÉ where Mahidhara interprets it as meaning only touching in the act of dedication. That the killing of Pasu in Yajna is not sanctioned by the Rishis is seen in the story given in Santi 337 which describes the conversation between the Devas and Rishis on this topic. The gods said that the word Aja in vedic prescription means ‘goats’ while the Rishis insisted that it only meant ‘seeds’ as Aja means unsprouted seed where life has not become manifest. Therefore in offering these no life is destroyed. The story says that the dispute was referred for arbitration to king Upanicharavasu who decided in favour of the gods because he was prompted by the selfish desire to enjoy the favour of the gods. For this selfishness he was cursed by the Rishis and he had to fall from the high status he had

98

achieved. In the form of this story the conflict between selfish opinion and enlightened view of spiritual men is clearly brought out to show that only worldy men understood the vedic prescription as incolving the killing of animals and the spiritual men understood the vedic prescription as involving the killing of animals and spiritual man understood the vedic prescription in different light. AeÉålÉ rɹûurÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëÉWÒûÈ SåuÉÉÈ Ì²eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÉlÉç | xÉ cÉ NûÉaÉÉåÅÌmÉ AeÉÈ ¥ÉårÉÈ lÉÉlrÉÈ mÉzÉÑÈ CÌiÉ ÎxjÉÌiÉÈ | oÉÏeÉårÉï¥ÉåwÉÑ rɹurÉqÉç CÌiÉ uÉæ uÉæÌSMüÐ ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ AeÉxÉÇ¥ÉÉÌlÉ oÉÏeÉÉÌlÉ NûÉaÉÇ lÉÉå WûliÉÑqÉWïûjÉ | In the Jaiminiya Brahmana of the Samaveda is given a story of how Udvanta, an Acharvan comes down from heaven to instruct some Brahmins who were conducting a sacrifice. In the course of the instruction Udvanta asked them whether they propsed to kill the animals and eat their flesh. When they replied that they did he asks them to desist so that might not lead them to heaven. Satapata Brahmana II.1.4.3 clearly says that an animal need not be sacrificed and that it is enough if it is given to the priests and that the usual practice should not be adopted. RgVeda VIII.19.5 & VII.24.20 contain clear traces of the conception that a devout offering of praise or of a stick or cooked food is sufficient in a sacrificial rite. RgVeda VI.16.47 says that oblations of food made to the accompaniment of heartfelt hymns are offered by the Rishis in the place of bulls, oxen and cows offered by the common masses. AÉ iÉå AalÉå GcÉ WûÌuÉÈ WØûSÉ iÉ¹Ç pÉUÉqÉÍxÉ etc. Samaveda I.2.9.2 shows opposition to ritualistic sacrifice involving killing of animals where the Rishis say ‘O ye gods, we use no sacrificial stake, we slay no victim. We worship entirely by the repetition of the sacred mantras’ lÉ ÌMü SåuÉÉ ClÉÏqÉÍxÉ lÉ YrÉÉ rÉÉåmÉrÉÉqÉÍxÉ qÉl§É´ÉÑirÉÇ cÉUÉqÉÍxÉ || Sathapata XI.6.1.3 states that the eater of meat is eaten by the animal killed in the next birth. iÉå Wû FcÉÑÈ CijÉÇ uÉÉ CqÉå AxqÉÉ iÉå AqÉÑÎwqÉlÉç sÉÉåMåü AxÉcÉliÉ | iÉÉlÉç uÉrÉqÉç CSqÉç CWû mÉëÌiÉxÉcÉÉqÉWåû | This idea is taken up in the later Puranic literature also as in Anusasana 116 which says rÉÉå pɤÉrÉÎliÉ qÉÉÇxÉÉÌlÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ eÉÏÌuÉiÉæÌwÉhÉÉqÉç | pɤrÉiÉå iÉåÅÌmÉ pÉÔiÉæxiÉæÈ CÌiÉ qÉå lÉÉÎxiÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || qÉÉÇ xÉ pɤÉrÉiÉå rÉxqÉÉiÉç pɤÉÌrÉwrÉå iÉqÉmrÉWûqÉç | LiÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉxrÉ qÉÉÇxÉiuÉqÉlÉÑoÉÑkrÉxuÉ pÉÉUiÉ || Cf. also Brahmavaivarta, Prakriti khanda, Adhyayas 61&62, where it is said rÉÉåÅrÉÇ WûÎliÉ xÉ iÉÇ WûÎliÉ CÌiÉ uÉåSÉå£üqÉåuÉ cÉ | Satapata I.2.3.5 says that when a cake is offered in sacrifice it is as good as an animal sacrifice. In Sathapata XI.7.13, Aitareya Brahmana II.3.9&11, Tait. Br. II.8.8.2, Tait. Samhita VI.1.11.6&VII.2.10.4, Kausitaki Br. X.3 & XI.8 and Katha. Br XXXIV.11 it is said that to eat a sacrificed animal is to eat the sacrificer’s own flesh. Satapata I.2.3.6 says that at first the gods offered up a man as sacrifice, that when he was offered the sacrificial essence entered into a horse, ox, sheep and goat in turn and finally in rice and barley. And so the efficacy of sacrificing all victims will be obtained by the offering of rice and barley. These quotations from the Satapata show that there might have been some people in ancient times who used to offer animals in sacrifice but the enlightened Rishis of the Vedas reformed the vedic ritual by prescribing complete prohibition of sacrifice of animals by substituting the offering of sacrificial cakes made of corn and grains. In later days also Acharyas like Madhwa reformed the ritualistic practices of the orthodox Mimamsakas by prescribing ÌmɹmÉzÉÑlrÉÉrÉ. Thereby only an animal made of dough must be offered in sacrifice instead of living animals. Vide ManuV.39 MÑürÉÉïiÉç bÉÑiÉmÉzÉÑÇ xÉ…¡åû MÑürÉÉïiÉç ÌmɹmÉzÉÑÇ iÉjÉÉ | lÉ iuÉåuÉ iÉÑ uÉ×jÉÉ WûliÉÑÇ mÉzÉÑÍqÉcNåûiÉç MüSÉcÉlÉ || This practice is also approved in rituals conducted in all Ramakrishna Ashramas where as per the advice of the Holy Mother, all animal sacrifices have been abolished and only some vegetable is offered in place of the sacrificial animal. This is sanctioned by the Anusasanika

99

Parva of M.bh. 115.56-8 ´ÉÔrÉiÉå ÌWû mÉÑUÉMüsmÉå lÉ×hÉÉÇ uÉëÏÌWûqÉrÉÈ mÉzÉÑÈ | rÉålÉ ArÉeÉliÉ rÉeuÉÉlÉÈ mÉÑhrÉsÉÉåMümÉUÉrÉhÉÉÈ GÌwÉÍpÉÈ xÉÇzÉrÉÇ mÉ×¹Éå uÉxÉÑÈ cÉåÌSmÉÌiÉÈ mÉÑUÉ | ApɤrÉqÉÌmÉ rÉÉå qÉÉÇxÉÇ rÉÈ mÉëÉWû pɤrÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëpÉÉå || AÉMüÉzÉÉSuÉÌlÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉÈ etc. There is a misunderstanding that the worship of Devi is incomplete without animal sacrifice. No doubt there are some texts which prescribe such animal sacrifice which is called the Pancha Makara – qÉÉÇxÉ, qɱ, qÉixrÉ, qÉæjÉÑlÉ, qÉÑSìÉ. This is taken in its literal sence among the lowest classes of society. The enlightened devotees of Devi rejected this literal interpretation and understood it only in its spiritual and symbolic sense. They are called Dakshina Margis. According to them the gracious Devi cannot be very much leased with the taking of life or injuring any living being. This is practically demonstrated in the story (Bhagavata) of Jadabharata. It is also said that even if these fools think that the Devi is pleased by these acts of cruelty they cannot escape the sin of such actions. oÉÍsÉSÉlÉålÉ ÌuÉmÉëålSì SÒaÉÉïmÉëÏÌiÉpÉïuÉåiÉç lÉ×hÉÉqÉç | ÌWÇûxÉÉeÉlrÉÇ cÉ mÉÉmÉÇ cÉ sÉpÉiÉå lÉÉ§É xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || It is said that Siva referred the matter to Devi Herself in Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Ch 104-5 eÉÏuÉÉlÉÑMüqmÉÉÇ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÑÇ iÉiÉÉå SÒaÉÉïÇ xÉSÉÍzÉuÉÈ | mÉmÉëcNû mÉUqÉmÉëÏirÉÉ aÉÔRûqÉåiÉiÉç uÉcÉÉå qÉÑSÉ || xÉuÉåï ÌuÉwhÉÑqÉrÉÉ eÉÏuÉÉÈ iuÉ°£üÉ¶É MüjÉÇ ÍzÉuÉå | ´ÉÑiÉÇ qÉrÉÉ iÉuÉÉåmÉSåzÉå MÑürÉÑïÈ MüÉqÉlÉrÉÉ uÉkÉqÉç || qÉWûÉlÉç xÉlSåWû CÌiÉ qÉå oÉëÔÌWû pÉSìå xÉÑÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç || To this Parvati replies thus: rÉå qÉqÉ AcÉïlÉ CirÉÑYiuÉÉ mÉëÉhÉÌWÇûxÉlÉiÉimÉUÉÈ iÉimÉÔeÉlÉÇ qÉqÉÉÅqÉåkrÉÇ rɬÉåwÉÉiÉç iÉSkÉÉåaÉÌiÉÈ | qÉSjÉåï ÍzÉuÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ iÉqÉxÉÉ eÉÏuÉbÉÉiÉlÉqÉç | AÉMüsmÉMüÉåÌOûÌlÉUrÉå iÉåwÉÉÇ uÉÉxÉÉå lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ etc. where she condemns outright this also abominable practice of using Her name in killing animals as such practices are based upon only selfishness and ignorance. The word oÉÍsÉ comes from the root oÉsÉç which means dana or gift or xÉÇuÉUhÉ or covering. In the first sense oÉÍsÉ only means ‘an offering’ and not necessarly animal sacrifice. The Balidanam if any, to be done in worship must mean only an offering of woship to Devi who has manifested Herself in the whole world as in Bhutabali. The offering itself consists of oÉÍsÉ in the second sense viz. AÌuÉ±É MüÉqÉ ¢üÉåkÉ etc. which form a covering hiding the true divinity of the universe. It is only when such a oÉÍsÉSÉlÉ is given that the Divine Mother would be pleased. oÉsÉÌiÉ xÉÇuÉ×hÉÉåÌiÉ CÌiÉ oÉÍsÉÈ oÉsÉåÈ mÉÔeÉÉåmÉMüUhÉxrÉ SåuÉåiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SÉlÉqÉç Kama & Krodha are considered as oÉÍsÉ or ‘powerful’ as per Gita III.37: MüÉqÉ LwÉ ¢üÉåkÉ LwÉ UeÉÉåaÉÑhÉxÉqÉÑ°uÉÈ | qÉWûÉzÉlÉÉå qÉWûÉmÉÉmqÉÉ ÌuÉ®èrÉålÉÍqÉWû uÉæËUhÉqÉç || upto eÉÌWû zɧÉÑÇ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå MüÉqÉÃmÉÇ xÉÑUÉxÉSqÉç | Some of the Vedic sacrifices are specially prescribed only for the Kshatriyas who are permitted to take meat under certain conditions and restrictions to make them fit for the protection of Dharma and society from enemies where such protection necessitates extraordinary heroism, physical strength, an element of cruelty also and where softness of heart and kindness may not prevail against callous attackers from selfish and wicked foes. This concession is a concession given only in the interest of Dharma itself and is not meant to be taken advantage of for selfish purposes or for the satisfaction of sensal pleasures. Even though such concession is allowed our texts consider it only as Apaddharma. Wherever it is possible to avoid taking of life they have repeatedly empasised that one should desist from Himsa. In this connection vide M.bh. Anusasana Parva, Chs, 113 – 116 which deal exhaustively with this aspect of the subject. It is also not true that one can win a fight against a powerful enemy only through physical strength and readiness to use violence. Even Arjuna himself, the greatest warrior of his age, tells

100

Yudhistira lÉ iÉjÉÉ oÉsÉuÉÏrÉÉïprÉÉÇ eÉrÉÎliÉ ÌuÉÎeÉaÉÏwÉuÉ rÉjÉÉ xÉirÉÉlÉ×zÉÇxÉÉprÉÉqÉç | rÉjÉÉ kÉqÉïÈ iÉiÉÉå eÉrÉÈ etc. Vide Gita notes. Sri Ramakrishna also has alluded to this in his story of the wrestler Hanuman Singh. So spiritually minded people even amongst the Kshatriyas are averse to Himsa in any form unless they are compelledto take up arms in the interst of Dharma itself.

It is perhaps to toughen the Kshatriyas and keep them always ready for defence of freedom and Dharma that they allowed to have exercise in fighting with the wild animals in the forest in the form of hunting. As Bhagavata however permits out in IV.26.6-8, hunting is not prescribed as a necessary duty of the Kshatriyas nor is to be undertaken for the mere pleasure of it. iÉÏjÉåïwÉÑ mÉëÌiÉSعåwÉÑ UÉeÉÉ qÉåkrÉÉlÉ mÉzÉÔlÉç uÉlÉå | rÉÉuÉSjÉïqÉsÉÇ sÉÑokÉÉå WûlrÉÉÌSÌiÉ ÌlÉrÉqrÉiÉå || rÉ LuÉÇ MüqÉïÌlÉrÉiÉÇ ÌuɲÉlÉç MÑüuÉÏïiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ | MüqÉïhÉÉ iÉålÉ UÉeÉålSì ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ lÉ xÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå || AlrÉjÉÉ MüqÉï MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉå qÉÉlÉÉÃRûÉå ÌlÉoÉkrÉiÉå | aÉÑhÉmÉëuÉÉWûÌiÉiÉÉå lɹmÉë¥ÉÉåå uÉëeÉirÉkÉÈ || In this commentary Sridhara makes it clear that the special sanction to Kshatriyas to kill animals in hunting is not an injunction but meant to keep hunting within proper limits and he who transgresses the limitations and takes to hunting only as a pastime or only for mere pleasure has fallen from the status of man to chop off a best. They are allowed only as a special case to give exercise to heroism and other war like qualities and fearlessness of death in the actual fight with ferocious wild animals and there only to protect the Rishis doing Tapas in the forest from their depredations so that these Rishis may be free to perform their Tapas without fear and to eat the meat to keep up their own strength and frocity. Thus this hunting under prescribed restrictions is beneficial to society at large, to the Rishis doing Tapas in the forest and the individual himself and it is done only in discharge of the Kshatriayas Svadharma. Even then they have first to offer it to the Devas and Pitrus and thus consecrate the meat before eating. It is said to be the regulation introduced by the sage Agasthya in Anusasana 116 ‘YzeȨ́ÉrÉÉhÉÉÇ iÉÑ rÉÉå SØ¹È ÌuÉÍkÉÈ iÉqÉÌmÉ qÉå ´ÉÑhÉÑ | uÉÏrÉåïhÉÉåmÉÉÎeÉïiÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉÇ rÉjÉÉ pÉÑgeÉlÉç lÉ SÒwrÉÌiÉ || AÉUhrÉÉÈ xÉuÉïSæuÉirÉÉÈ xÉuÉïzÉÈ mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉ qÉ×aÉÉÈ | AaÉxirÉålÉ mÉÑUÉ UÉeÉlÉç qÉ×aÉrÉÉ rÉålÉ mÉÔerÉiÉå || lÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉmÉËUirÉerÉ qÉ×aÉrÉÉ lÉÉqÉ ÌuɱiÉå | xÉqÉiÉÉqÉÑmÉxÉ…¡ûqrÉ pÉÔiÉÇ WûlrÉÎliÉ WûÎliÉ uÉÉ || AiÉÉå UÉeÉwÉïxxÉuÉåï qÉ×aÉrÉÉÇ rÉÉÎliÉ pÉÉUiÉ | lÉ ÌWû ÍsÉmrÉÎliÉ mÉÉmÉålÉ lÉ cÉæiÉiÉç mÉÉiÉMÇü ÌuÉSÒÈ || mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉ means purified when they are killed in an act of self-sacrifice. lÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉmÉÌiÉirÉerÉ means unless it be in selfless protection of spirituality; xÉqÉiÉÉqÉÑmÉxÉ…¡ûqrÉ means in such killing there is no distinction between man and animal. Anusasana 115.59 makes it clear that Agastya prescribed this rule or regulation in the interest of society. mÉëeÉÉlÉÉÇ iÉÑ ÌWûiÉMüÉqrÉålÉ AaÉxirÉålÉ qÉWûÉiqÉlÉÉ | AÉUhrÉÉÈ xÉuÉïSæuÉirÉÉÈ mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉÈ iÉmÉxÉÉ qÉ×aÉÉÈ || The word iÉmÉxÉÉ shows that it was also meant for the protection of Tapas. Manu V.26-55 also deals with this question of meat eating after offering the animals in sacrifice where he says mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÇ pɤÉrÉlÉç qÉÉÇxÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ MüÉqrÉrÉÉ | rÉjÉÉÌuÉÍkÉ ÌlÉrÉÑ£üxiÉÑ mÉëÉhÉÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ cÉ AirÉrÉå || Sloka 35&36 says that he who foolishly refuses to take meat from health point of view will be as foolish as a beast. Here the exception is made in favour of the protection of health when it is prescribed as a medicine by qualified doctor and the protection of such health is for the purpose of allowing the patient further opportunity to save his soul by further spiritual practice by the service of God in man. Even in such cases meat is to be taken only as Prasadam after offering it to god. mÉëÉåͤÉiÉqÉç means purified by consecration to God. oÉëɼhÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ MüÉqrÉrÉÉ means ‘with the desire

101

to benefit spiritually minded persons; rÉjÉÉÌuÉÍkÉ ÌlÉrÉÑ£üxiÉÑ means that it should be properly prescribed by a qualified physician on the basis of Ayurveda; mÉëÉhÉÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ cÉÉirÉrÉå means when there is danger to life, i.e in the interest of health. In such cases it is justified on the principle that as per the creator’s wish life can sustain itself only by life. i.e it is the law of the nature. All food is organic in nature and no one can take food without injuring another living being. Such being the case, nobody can live without in someway injuring another. Since human birth is only for the purpose of the realization of God through spiritual Sadhana and since no spiritual practice is possible without health and vitality one who takes meat in pursuit of higher goal of life and not for the satisfaction of the palate cannot be guilty of the sin even if the law of nature compels him much against his wish to injure or cause suffering to others. This natural law is put in terms of mÉëÉhÉxrÉ A³ÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïÇ mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉUMüsmÉrÉiÉç | xjÉÉuÉUÇ eÉ…¡ûqÉÇ cÉæuÉ xÉuÉïÇ mÉëÉhÉxrÉ pÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç || This principle is refered to in Bhagavatam by Narada as ÎeÉuÉÉå eÉÏuÉxrÉ eÉÏuÉlÉqÉç | It is also referred to in Santi Parva where Viswamitra says in justification of his taking meat eÉÏuÉlÉç kÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | It is also mentioned by Dharmavyadha in Vana P.208 where he says that according to the Scheme of creation nobody can escape harming another if one wants to live and that even such innocent occupation as agriculture and gardening involving harvest of crops entail injury to life. He says that not only in taking food but also even in drinking and breathing and in walking etc. so many lives are destroyed. Such being the case, says Dharmavyadha, one should not think of Himsa in terms of mere injury to life and that when a virtuous man or even a Sannyasi can hope to do is to reduce such harm as far as possible and confine it within the limits of his Svadharma which saves him from all sin. In xÉiuÉæÈ xÉiuÉÉlÉÑeÉÏuÉÎliÉ oÉWÒûkÉÉ Ì²eÉxɨÉqÉ | mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÉå AlrÉÉålrÉ pɤÉÉ¶É iÉ§É ÌMÇü mÉëÌiÉpÉÉÌiÉ iÉå || It concludes by saying MåülÉ ÌWÇûxÉÎliÉ eÉÏuÉÉlÉç uÉæ sÉÉåMåüÎxqÉlÉç ̲eÉxɨÉqÉ | oÉWÒûxÉÇÍcÉirÉ CÌiÉ uÉæ lÉÉÎxiÉ MüͶÉSÌWÇûxÉMüÈ || AÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ iÉÑ ÌlÉUiÉÉÈ rÉiÉrÉÉå ̲eÉxɨÉqÉÉ MÑüuÉïlirÉåuÉ ÌWû ÌWÇûxÉÉÇ iÉå rɦÉÉSsmÉiÉUÉ pÉuÉåiÉç || This argument shows that life is not possible without injuring another living being is not to be taken to justify indiscrimate killing of animals for meat eating. Our writers on ethics make use of this only in showing the proper limits of the doctrine of Ahimsa which must be based upon the laws of nature and physical possibilities. We should remember this fact when we are sometimes inclined to find fault with all meat eaters indiscriminately and feel disposed to consider ourselves as superior to them merely because we are vegetarians. Vegitarianism by itself does not make a man ethically or spiritually superior to a meat eater. Morality and spirituality are matters relating to purity of heart and the cultivation of Sattvaguna and devotion to gods. Mere orthodox vegetarians cannot be considered superior to a meat eater like Christ. This natural fact enunciated by our law givers should serve as a corrective when we are tempted to criticize the followers of other religions or those who are traditionally or habitually in the practice of taking meat. This tolerance should not, however, be so accommodating as to induce vegetarians to take to meat eating. In fact, every religious man admits meat eating is not as conducive to spiritual life as vegetarianism. Even Christians and Muslims refrain from taking meat on their special days of religious observance and even meat eaters amongst Hindus give up meat and fish on Vrata days. The religious man or Sannyasin is not liked even by meat eaters if they do not give up meat and fish. That this argument from natural law is used by a law give not to encourage meat eating but to reduce it as far as possible is seen from the last words of Dharma vyadha. rɦÉÉSsmÉiÉUÉ pÉuÉåiÉç cf also Anusasana 115.45. mÉëÉåͤÉiÉÉÅmrÉÑͤÉiÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉÇ iÉjÉÉ oÉëɼhÉaÉÉqrÉrÉÉ AsmÉSÉåwÉÍqÉWû ¥ÉårÉÇ ÌuÉmÉUÏiÉåwÉÑ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå

102

|| Cf. also Manu 56.556 mÉëuÉ×̨ÉUåwÉÑ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉxiÉÑ qÉWûÉTüsÉÉ || Cf. also Bhagavatam AÉxÉÑ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉËU¹É || Although it is true that according to both science and Vedanta even vegetables have got life, the seeds of the vegetable have got only potentiality of life and not actuality of life whereas meat eating is impossible without taking life which has already become manifest. In taking grain, corn and seeds no actual life is taken. The same is the case even if one takes eggs, especially the unfertilized eggs. It is perhaps not realize although it is scientifically true that the hen produces eggs even without any connection with the cock and that such unfertilized eggs have not even the potentiality of life in them as they are unfertilized and that they cannot develop into chicken. If , therefore, considerations of heatlh requires as per the prescription of a competent physician the taking of eggs as food, there is less of Himsa in taking an unfertilized egg than in taking seeds, corn etc. But the case of fruits is different. The flesh or pulp of fruits which have fallen from the trees automatically is of no practical use to the seeds and therefore, in taking them even the life in the seeds is never affected. Fruits like plantains have not got even potentiality of life in them for they cannot sprout. In fact scientist tell us that dispensal of seeds is helpful in the furtherance of life and eating the pulp by birds and animals including man is only a device of nature to help this dispersal of seeds and thus helpful to life. That is why even amongst vegetarians TüsÉÉWûÉUÇ is considered as superior to even rice, barley etc especially on religious days. Another scientific fact must be borne in mind that the evil effect of meat eating manifest itself in the reaction it produces on the mind of the killer as well as the eater. Killing of an animal whose pain and suffering can be actually witnessed destroys all tender feeling in the minds of a habitual butcher and makes him more and more cruel and thus destroys all kinds of human feelings in his heart. Many meat eaters who are kind & benevolent would rather give up meat eating if they have to kill these animals themselves. This reaction of mind of killer is detrimental to spiritual life and is based upon the actual witnessing of the pain and sufferings of the slaughtered animal. It is a scientific fact that it is only the nervous system and the brain are evolved that this pain and suffering is actually felt by the individual as is made clear by the surgical operation under anaesthesia which prevents the nerves and brain from taking cognizance of any pain. Biologically therefore, it is the higher evolved form of life such as the vertebrates that are capable of actual suffering. The lower order of animals as well as vegetable having no brains and nervous system cannot suffer as much arm and suffering when they are killed. Therefore, there will not be so much external sighs of suffering when they are killed for the sake of food. Therefore the vegetarian does not actually feel that any injury is caused or life is taken when he takes food unlike the meat eater who actually witnesses the pain and suffering of the animal killed. There is therefore, no reaction on the mind of the vegetarian as in the case of the meat eater and his benevolent feelings and humanity are not affected. This is one of the reasons why vegetarianism is preferred from the spiritual and moral stand point though for arguments sake it has to be admitted that technically taking of life is involved in taking any kind of food. Moreover in these days of scientific advancement synthetic chemical food having come within the limits of possibility many articles of food can now be taken without injuring life in anyway. Similarly the reaction on the mind of the eater also is seen in the restlessness caused by taking meat as evidenced by the behaviour of carnivorous animals in contrast with the placid and passive behaviour of the vegetarian animals. This restlessness of mind and the inordinate activity which it leads to is not conducive and congenial to such spiritual practices as meditation etc. Therefore, a spiritual man should take only such food as would help him in concentration etc. Vegetarian food is more helpful, therefore, to spiritual life than meat eating.

103

Biologically, food is a necessity for life and for the supply of the energy necessary for any kind of activity. Spiritual activity also, therefore, depends upon the proper quality and quantity of food taken. The human body is only an instrument for such spiritual practice and a healthy mind can work only in a healthy body. Cf. zÉUÏUqÉÉ±Ç ZÉsÉÑ kÉqÉïxÉÉkÉlÉqÉç | A spiritual man should, therefore, not neglect his health except at the risk of his own spiritual progress. As Bhagavan says in the Gita he must be a Yuktahari which means proper quality and quantity of food which is fit for sustaining the health of the body and mind which are the means of success in spiritual practice. In Ch. XVII Bhagavan mentions the kind of food helpful to spiritual life when he defines Sattvika Ahara. AÉrÉÑxxÉiuÉoÉsÉÉÅÅUÉåarÉxÉÑZÉmÉëÏÌiÉÌuÉuÉkÉïlÉÉÈ | UxrÉÉÈ ÎxlÉakÉÉ ÎxjÉUÉ WØû±É AÉWûÉUÉ xÉÉÎiuÉMüÌmÉërÉÉÈ || Note Bhagavan does not refer to any particular kind of material for food. It must naturally change with different times, places, condition and circumstances. It must be subject also to the availability of the material and the individual, personal reactions on the physiological systems of each individual. Thus to an Eskimo for eg, rice and barley and vegetables may not be available as food at all, whereas it may be abundantly available to people living in warmer climates. Similarly even in the warmer climates abnormal circumstances like draught may arise and vegetables may become scarce. Similarly in particular disease a vegetable food may not be congenial to health. Moreover, meat and fish in hot climates are likely to spoil and hence more difficult to store than in colder climate. Thus we see the wisdom of Bhagavan in not mentioning particular article as Sattvic food helpful to spirituality. ‘Ayus’ refers to the capacity to sustain and prolong life. ‘Sattva’ refers to its capacity to help, produce and sustain Sattvaguna. ‘Bala’ means physical strength and the stamina for continued sustained activity. ‘Arogya’ refers to its medical property which helps prevention of ill-health as well as cure of disease. ‘Sukha’ refers to Sattvika Sukha referred to in Gita XVIII AprÉÉxÉÉSìqÉiÉå etc. ‘Priti’ refers to the satisfaction of hunger. Food that is taken must have all these properties. Other properties are also enumerated in the second line. It must be UxrÉ i.e must be capable of producing the necessary chemicals when it gets into the stomach to provide all the elements of a balanced food such as vitamins, carbohydrates, proteins etc. It must beÎxlÉakÉ, that is to say, it must be prepared with love and should not be procured against the spiritual law of love of others. It must be ÎxjÉU. This refers to digestibility and absorbability i.e the food must not be sent out but must be absorbed in the blood stream and remain there for use. WØû±, i.e it must be pleasing to the mind or the word may also mean it must be capable of sustaining the blood circulation. It is only the food which has all these characteristics that can be considered as Sattvic food. Note that Bhagavan does not refer here at all to the pleasures of the palate based upon mere table. The latter characteristic of food makes the food only Rajasic as per the next Sloka. MüOèuÉqsÉsÉuÉhÉÉirÉÑwhÉ If we apply these test to find out whether meat eating or vegetarianism is better from the spiritual stand point we shall find that no safe decision can be taken without reference to time, place, circumstances and needs of particular individuals. Each one has to use his Buddhi to find out what is best for him from the stand point of his spiritual Sadhana. That is why M.bh. gives the instances of the Rishis Saraswata and Viswamitra when there was a drought all Rishis except Saraswata left the banks of Saraswati and went far and wide in search of food. When after years of such wandering they came back to the banks of the Saraswti again they found they had lost all their spiritual power and their Vedic learning in the course of their prolonged vain searh for food. The Rishi Sarawata who continued to live on the banks of the river and sustained his life by eating fish in the river could continue his spiritual practice and had to teach the others. Salya IX.51. Similarly in Santi Parva XII.141 the story is told of Viswamitra who was forced to take meat in the form of carrion of a dog by stealing it from a Chandala under similar circumstances where he says eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ qÉUhÉÉiÉç ´ÉårÉÈ (in the course of a prolonged argument

104

with the Chandala on Dharma) eÉÏuÉlÉç kÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmlÉÑrÉÉiÉç | Spiritual realization, the goal of life is not possible without practice of Dharma and Dharma is not possible without strength and vitality of the body and therefore, one who sustains life in the interest of Dharma & realization of God cannot be said to be going against Dharma even if he is compelled by external circumstances and conditions to take food which is ordinarily prohibited by the Sastras. That is the force of Viswamitra’s argument. A similar story occurs in Ch. Up. I.10 where another Rishi called Ushasta Cakrayana is described that he has taken some prohibited food to sustain his life for spiritual Sadhana and as service. AiɶÉæiÉÉqÉxjÉÉÇ mÉëÉmiÉxrÉ ÌuɱÉkÉqÉïrÉzÉÉåuÉiÉÈ xuÉÉiqÉmÉUÉåmÉMüÉUxÉqÉjÉïxrÉæiÉSÌmÉ MüqÉï MÑüuÉïiÉÉå lÉÉkÉxmÉzÉïÇ CirÉÍpÉmÉëÉrÉÈ iÉxrÉÉÌmÉ eÉÏÌuÉiÉÇ mÉëirÉÑmÉÉrÉÉliÉUå AeÉÑaÉÑÎmxÉiÉå xÉÌiÉ eÉÑaÉÑÎmxÉiÉqÉåiÉiÉç MüqÉï SÉåwÉÉrÉ - Sankara's commentary there on. It is justified on the principle enunciated in the Prana Vidya of Ch. Up. that everything is fit to be taken as food to sustain life. Vide Ch. V.2.1 lÉ Wû uÉÉ LuÉÇ ÌuÉÍkÉ ÌMügcÉlÉ AlɳÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | Also Brihad. VI.1.24 lÉ Wû uÉÉ AxrÉ AlɳÉÇ eÉakÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ lÉ AlɳÉÇ mÉëÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉqÉç | Cf. Br. Sutra III.4.28. xÉuÉÉï³É AlÉÑqÉÌiÉ¶É mÉëÉhÉÉirÉrÉå iɬzÉïlÉÉqÉç | In explaining this Sutra Sankara quotes all these passages and justifies the taking of even forbidden food where there is a danger to life as AÉmÉ®qÉï. Under Br. Sutra III.4.30 he also quotes the passage eÉÏÌuÉiÉÉirÉrÉÇ AÉmɳÉÉå rÉÈ A³ÉqÉÌ¨É rÉiÉxiÉiÉÈ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉ xÉ mÉÉmÉålÉ mÉ©mɧÉÍqÉuÉÉqpÉxÉÉ | This concession is available only when to a man who is interested in spiritual Sadhana and who uses his subsequent life for realizing God and it is allowed only in cases where other means of sustaining life are not available. Even when such concession is granted our texts make it clear that only as much of the prohibited food is to be taken as it absolutely necessary to sustain life. He who takes more than what is absolutely necessary will be guilty of sin. This is also clear from the story of Ushasta Chakrayana who refused to take more than what was absolutely necessary even though more was offered. This rule applies not only to Apaddharma but even to normal food. Therefore, Narada says in his Bhakti Sutra pÉÉåeÉlÉÉÌSurÉÉmÉÉUxiÉÑ AÉzÉUÏUkÉÉUhÉÉuÉÍkÉ | In Bhagavatam also Narada says rÉÉuÉÎSèpÉërÉåiÉeÉPûUÇ iÉÉuÉiÉç xuÉiuÉÇ ÌWû SåÌWûlÉÉqÉç | AÍkÉMÇü rÉÉåÅÍpÉqÉlrÉåiÉ xÉ xiÉålÉÉå ShQûqÉWïûÌiÉ || If more than what is necessary for health is taken it is called AÌiÉpÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç and such AÌiÉpÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç is condemned by all scriptures. Every extra morsel of food taken after satisfaction of the bodily needs is to take away as much from the mouth of another and is as good as theft or even as murder or Himsa, since some poor man or other who will be in need of it to sustain his life is deprived of his share and may in consequence die of starvation. So the American philosopher Thoreau calls it as theft and the Russian philosopher Tolstoy calls it murder. Nature produces sufficient food to enable all living beings to sustain their life and if anyone takes more than his legitimate share of food he cannot do so without depriving another of his sustenance. So everyone who takes more food merely to satisfy the palate is guilty of sin resulting from Himsa. This rule applies equally to all kinds of food – vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian. But our writers still consider that non-vegetarian food is more attractive to the palate than the vegetarian and there is more likelihood of Atibhojanam in the case of meat eaters. Meat being more easily assimilible there will be a false hunger which demands more quantity more frequently. Moreover, since meat cannot be preserved hygienically more number of days without putrefaction, health consideration require that there should be slaughter everyday for supply of fresh meat – especially in hotter climate like ours and this leads to continuous practice of taking life without mercy and is, therefore, more likely to harden one’s heart and deprive one and all humane feelings. So from the spiritual stand point vegetarianism is preferable

105

especially in places where vegetables are available although meat eating may be condomed and justified in the case of people where living in places sufficient vegetable food is not available. Moreover, in the history of human civilization vegetarianism is a later growth and it was made possible only when man became civilized enough to procure sufficient vegetables through agriculture and gardening. Before that man used to live only on meat and in those ancient days it was justifiable to sustain life through meat. But it is not so justifiable today in the case of those who have the capacity for agriculture and gardening and through these who have sufficient vegetarian food to sustain life. Those nations who, through their scientific progress produce more than what is necessary for them, have absolutely no justification to prefer meat to vegetables and they will be guilty of Himsa in killing animals for meat. Those who destroy all the vegetarian food without giving the excess to the needy nations to keep up the prices, there by deprive other nations of the opportunity of being contended and satisfied with vegetarian food and compel them to take meat and fish as substitutes. They are therefore, guilty of not only taking meat themselves when it could be avoided but of depriving others of their legitimate food in the interest of their own selfish pruposes and they will be guilty of Himsa for all the life that has been taken by other nations. The sin of taking meat as a substitute food does not attach itself to poor nations but to those who compel them to live on meat. It is also a fact that vegetarian food has more capacity to give sustaining power. This fact was demonstrated in the Russia Japanese war where the Japanese could go on with less food for a larger number of days with only rice and sugar and do heavier work whereas the Russians who were pure meat eaters were daily in need of large quantities of food to keep themselves up. (c.f balam). It is also claimed by some biologists and diaticians that the human being is biologically provided with an alimentary system which is more consistent and conducive to vegetarian food than to meat and fish and it will be more human therefore and conducive to health (moral and spiritual and physical) if man prefers vegetarian food. From the standpoint of evolution man is more allied to the simians than the carnivorous animals. It is also a fact that the trees produce fruits year by year unlike many of the higher evolved animals which have no such fecundity. Therefore, there will be more necessity to take greater number of lives if one adopts non vegetarian food and the traces themselves need not be killed or destroyed for the sake of the food that they supply. Thus vegetables can provide food without being killed but meat cannot be produced without taking life. Manu points this out when he says lÉ AM×üiuÉÉ mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÉÇ ÌWÇûxÉÉÇ qÉÉÇxÉmÉÑimɱiÉå YuÉÍcÉiÉç | lÉ cÉ mÉëÉÍhÉuÉkÉÈ xuÉarÉïÈ iÉxqÉÉiÉç qÉÉÇxÉÇ ÌuÉuÉeÉïrÉåiÉç || V.48. xÉqÉÑimĘ́ÉÇ cÉ qÉÉÇxÉxrÉ uÉkÉoÉlkÉÉæ cÉ SåÌWûlÉÉÇ mÉëxÉuÉϤrÉ ÌlÉuÉiÉåïiÉ xÉuÉïqÉÉÇxÉxrÉ pɤÉhÉÉiÉç || Thus all our Sastras condemn meat eating and eulogise giving up of meat as food. They say that giving up of meat under all circumstances, if possible, is more efficacious in spiritual life than all important ritualistic sacrifices like Asvamedha etc. Vide the same chapters in Anusasana & Manu. They allow meat eating only in extra ordinarily special cases under special sanction from medical man and only as Apaddharma i.e when Dharma itself is likely to suffer otherwise. The whole section of Manu dealing with meat eating begins with the statement that the discussion is about giving up of meat eating. qÉÉÇxÉxrÉÉiÉÈ mÉëuɤrÉÉÍqÉ ÌuÉÍkÉÇ pɤÉhÉuÉeÉïlÉå (i.e pɤÉhÉxrÉ uÉeÉïlÉå) It begins with V.26 and ends with V.56. mÉëuÉ×̨ÉxÉiÉÑ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉxiÉÑ qÉWûÉTüsÉÉ | Our Sastras condemn not only the killer and the eater but all those who have anything to do with the act, even those who silently approve of it without protest and say that all of them are equally guilty of the sin. So Manu says in V.51 AlÉÑqÉliÉÉ ÌuÉzÉÍxÉiÉ ÌlÉWûliÉÉ ¢ürÉÌuÉ¢ürÉÏ | xÉÇxMüiÉÉï cÉÉåmÉWûiÉÉï cÉ

106

ZÉÉSMü¶ÉåÌiÉ bÉÉiÉMüÉÈ || Vide also BrahmaVaivarta, Prakriti Khanda, Ch. 61,62 EixÉaÉï MüiÉÉï SÉiÉÉ cÉ Nåû¨ÉÉ ÌmÉ¹É cÉ U¤ÉMüÈ | AaÉëmɶÉÉͳÉUÉå®É cÉ xÉmiÉæiÉå uÉkÉpÉÉÌaÉlÉÈ || Cf. also Kashikhanda & Skanda Purana. pÉÉå£üÉ AlÉÑqÉliÉÉ xÉÇxMüiÉÉï ¢ürÉÌuÉ¢ürÉÌWÇûxÉMüÉÈ | EmÉWûiÉÉï kÉÉiÉÌrÉiÉÉ ÌWÇûxÉMüÉ¶É A¹kÉÉÅkÉqÉÉÈ || The same idea is repeated by Patanjali also when he says in II.34. ÌuÉiÉMüÉï ÌWÇûxÉÉSrÉÈ M×üiÉMüÉËUiÉÉlÉÑqÉÉåÌSiÉÉ sÉÉåpÉ¢üÉåkÉqÉÉåWûmÉÔuÉïMüqÉ×SÒqÉkrÉÉÍkÉqÉɧÉÉ SÒÈZÉÉÅ¥ÉÉlÉliÉTüsÉÉ CÌiÉ mÉëÌiÉmɤÉpÉÉuÉlÉqÉç |

Vide also Anusasana 113-116. There is no exception to the law of AÉÌWÇûxÉÉ, all apparent exceptions being only in the interest of real AÌWÇûxÉÉ. Therefore Patanjali II.31 says LiÉå eÉÉÌiÉ SåzÉMüÉsÉxÉqÉrÉÉlÉuÉÍNû³ÉÉÈ xÉÉuÉïpÉÉæqÉÉÈ qÉWûÉuÉëiÉqÉç | Here xÉqÉrÉ means not time as MüÉsÉ is separately mentioned but conventional rules of Smriti based upon custom and tradition and social image as in the expression kÉqÉï¥É xÉqÉrÉÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç - Apastambha. It is only when protection of Dharma itself requires meat eating that the scriptures insist upon that it should be converted into Prasaaam by offering it to God. It is only in such cases that kÉqÉï¥É’s allowed meat to be offered to God & Pitris only on the principle rÉS³ÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉS³É iÉxrÉ SåuÉiÉÉÈ | Ramayana. The prescription of scripture regarding offering of meat to the body should not be taken as a general sanction to kill animals in the sacrifice. No doubt in some passages it is said – rÉ¥ÉÉjÉÉïÈ mÉzÉuÉÈ xÉ×¹ÉÈ | But these words should be taken not in a diabolical sense of all animal beings created only to be offered in sacrifices as some orthodox people take it. It only means that all Pasu are Jiva, are created only to realize God through the self sacrifice in the same sense of xÉWûrÉ¥ÉÈ mÉëeÉÉÈ xÉ×¹É etc. in the Gita and therefore any act done in the interest of Yajna or self sacrifice does not cater to Dharma nor does it entail sin, even though such act of self sacrifice for the sake of realizing God may, by chance, cause some heart burning or pain to others as when an aspirant for Mukti renounces hearth and home when he becomes a Sannyasin. In such cases the promise of Bhagavan in the Gita lÉÌWû MüsrÉÉhÉM×üOèû MüͶÉiÉç SÒaÉïÌiÉÇ iÉÉiÉ aÉcNûÌiÉ, lÉ qÉå pÉ£üÈ mÉëhÉzrÉÌiÉ, xuÉsmÉqÉmrÉxrÉ kÉqÉïxrÉ §ÉÉrÉiÉå qÉWûiÉÉå pÉrÉÉiÉç, xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlÉç mÉËUirÉerÉ ... AWÇû iuÉÉÇ xÉuÉïmÉÉmÉåprÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÌrÉwrÉÉÍqÉ etc. holds good and saves him from the consequences of his act. Moreover, these vedic prescriptions are meant only for people who are anxious to live only for the sake of Dharma and it is this Dharma that saves them. Ahimsa is thus the corner stone of Dharma and no act can be Dharma unless it is characterized by Ahimsa. So commenting on Patanjali II.30 Vyasa says in his Bhasya that all Yamas and Niyamas are based upon the practice of Ahimsa. iÉ§É AÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉuÉïjÉÉ xÉuÉïSÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ AlÉÍpÉSìÉåWûÈ | E¨ÉUå cÉ rÉlÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉÉÈ iÉlqÉÔsÉÉÈ iÉÎixÉήmÉUiÉrÉÉ iÉimÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉÉrÉ mÉëÌiÉmÉɱliÉå iÉiÉç AuÉSÉiÉÃmÉsÉÉUhÉÉrÉæuÉ EmÉÉSÏrÉliÉå | iÉjÉÉ cÉÉå£üqÉç | xÉ ZÉsuÉrÉÇ oÉëɼhÉÉå rÉjÉÉ uÉëiÉÉÌlÉ oÉWÕûÌlÉ xÉqÉÉÌSixÉliÉå iÉjÉÉ mÉëqÉÉSM×üiÉåprÉÉå ÌWÇûxÉÉÌlÉ SÉlÉåprÉÉåÅÌiÉuÉiÉïqÉÉlÉÈ iÉÉqÉåuÉÉuÉSÉiÉÃmÉÉÇ AÌWÇûxÉÉÇ MüUÉåÌiÉ | So also Anusasana 114.6.7 rÉjÉÉ lÉÉaÉmÉSå AlrÉÉÌlÉ mÉSÉÌlÉ mÉSaÉÉÍqÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïlrÉåuÉÉÌmÉ kÉÏrÉliÉå mÉSeÉÉiÉÉÌlÉ MüÉægeÉUå LuÉÇ xÉuÉïÇ AÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÇ kÉqÉÉïjÉïqÉÌmÉ kÉÏrÉiÉå LuÉÇ sÉÉåMåüwÉÑ AÌWÇûxÉÉ iÉÑ ÌlÉÌSï¹ÉÈ kÉqÉïiÉÈ mÉÑUÉ AÌWÇûxÉÉ ÌWû iÉuÉ ÌlÉÌSï¹É xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlÉÑxÉÇÌWûiÉÉ | Now we can understand the important place of Ahimsa in the conception of Dharma.

107

So our writers say AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉuÉïmÉëÉhÉpÉ×iÉÉÇuÉU Adi, Pauloma Parva 8.43 AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÇ iÉmÉÈ AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÇ xÉirÉqÉç rÉiÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉå | Anusasana 115.25. AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉuÉïmÉëÉhÉpÉ×iÉÉÇuÉU | - Adi, Pauloma P. 8.43.Vide also Aswamedha XI.13 AÌWÇûxÉÉ sɤÉhÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ. Anusasana 116.26. It is one thing to recogise the importance of Ahimsa in deciding whether an act is Dharma or not but is rather difficult to find out in practice how our acts insure another. Even though nobody in his immediate surrounding may be discovered to be actually injured it is quite likely and possible that in this wide world someone in distant places or sense on in the future might be possibly injured by our act. Therefore, it is very difficult to apply this in everyday actual life as the repurcussion of an act cannot be forseen by the most intelligent of men. For all practical purposes for everyday use a simpler rule is laid down by our Sastras to ensure proper application of this AÌWÇûxÉÉ. This rule is thus laid down by Vyasa ´ÉÔrÉiÉÉÇ kÉqÉïxÉuÉïxuÉÇ ´ÉÑiuÉÉ cÉæuÉ AuÉkÉÉrÉïiÉÉqÉç | AÉiqÉlÉÈ mÉëÌiÉMÔüsÉÉÌlÉ mÉUåwÉÉÇ lÉ xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || Again lÉ iÉiÉç mÉUxrÉ xÉlSkrÉÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉMÔüsÉÇ rÉSÉiqÉlÉÈ | LwÉ xÉÉqÉÉÍxÉMüÉå kÉqÉïÈ MüÉqÉÉSlrÉÈ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉå || Anusasanika 113.8. Again, Santi 86 rÉSlrÉæÈ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ lÉ CcNåûiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ (AÉiqÉÉ here may be understood not only as ones' lower self but also the higher self. Hence the principle can be applied by everyone in terms of his own conception of his own self and it may cover all aspects of injuring - physical, mental and spiritual) MüqÉïmÉÉæÂwÉÈ | lÉ iÉiÉç mÉUåwÉÑ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ eÉÉlÉlÉç AÌmÉërÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ || eÉÏÌuÉiÉÑÇ rÉÈ xuÉrÉÇ cÉ CcNåûiÉç MüjÉÇ xÉÉå AlrÉÇ mÉëbÉÉiÉrÉåiÉç | rɱSÉiqÉÌlÉ cÉ CcNåûiÉ iɨÉiÉç mÉUxrÉÉÌmÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉåiÉç || Again Santi 124.56 rÉSlrÉåwÉÉÇ ÌWûiÉÇ lÉ xrÉÉiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüqÉïmÉÉæÂwÉqÉç | AmɧÉmÉåiÉ uÉÉ rÉålÉ lÉ iÉiÉç MÑürÉÉïiÉç MüjÉgcÉlÉ || ASìÉåWûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüqÉïhÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌaÉUÉ | AlÉÑaÉëWû¶É SÉlÉÇ cÉ xÉiÉÉÇ kÉqÉïxxÉlÉÉiÉlÉÈ || Santi 162.21. This Sloka takes us to two others aspects of Ahimsa.

It emphasizes that injury may be caused not only by a physical act but a verbal or mental act also. One can wound another through harsh words, insults, abuses etc. some times even more than a mere physical act. So Udyoga’s XXXIV.78 says UÉåWûiÉå xÉÉrÉMæüÌuÉïSÇ uÉlÉÇ mÉUzÉÑlÉÉ WûiÉÇ uÉÉcÉÉ aÉÑ£ürÉÉ ÌuÉ®Ç lÉ xÉÇUÉåWûÌiÉ uÉÉMçü zÉiÉqÉç || So one must be very careful in not only not to injure physically but also not to injure another through unkind words. Similarly even unkind thoughts can wound another. So even in our mind we should not entertain thoughts of injuring another. The highest practice of Ahimsa requires freedom from anger, hatred, jealousy, envy etc. In fact a physical injury done to another may not be ÌWÇûxÉÉ if it is done with love under the purest of motives. But even a physical good may not be AÌWÇûxÉÉ if it is done with an improper and impure motive such as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, qÉS, qÉÉåWû, qÉÉixÉrÉïï, etc. Thus for example, a donation given to start a girls' institution with a sexual motive behind or a donation given to a man so that he may get into trouble with the police cannot be called Ahimsa because the intention is to do harm for selfish purpose. Similarly also, offering of bribes for securing licenses from the government for public utilities cannot be considered as Dharma because the act is vitiated by bad motive. Thus the purity of mind is very important in all considerations of Dharma. We may even go to the extent of saying that Himsa consists in act, word or thought which injures the actor, the speaker or the thinker himself spiritually and morally more than injuring others. The subjective motive or the subjective reaction on his own mind is more important than the objective effect. Therefore, our Sastras are right in insisting upon this subjective aspect of the Ahimsa doctrine. Therefore, Vana Parva 29.16&17 says iÉåeÉxuÉÏÌiÉ rÉqÉÉWÒûuÉåï mÉÎhQûiÉÉÈ SÏbÉïSÍzÉïlÉÈ | lÉ

108

¢üÉåkÉÉåÅprÉliÉUxiÉxrÉ pÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ ÌuÉÌlÉͶÉiÉqÉç || So Yogi Yajnavalkya says in I.52 MüÉrÉålÉ uÉÉcÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ xÉuÉïSÉ | AYsÉåzÉeÉlÉlÉÇ mÉëÉå£Çü AÌWÇûxÉÉiuÉålÉ rÉÉåÌaÉÍpÉÈ || Note the expression AYsÉåzÉeÉlÉlÉ. The word YsÉåzÉ comes from the root ÎYsÉzÉç - to impede or hinder and means all actions which are likely to or meant to put obstacles in the way of spiritual progress. The word YsÉåzÉ is to be understood in the sense in which Patanjali uses it AÌuÉ±É AÎxqÉiÉÉUÉaɲåwÉÉÍpÉÌlÉuÉåzÉÉÈ mÉgcÉ YsÉåzÉÉÈ | He makes it clear that spiritually Himsa means only injury to the spiritual life and progress though socially it may be a physical injury or economic injury. Vide also Suta Samhita, Jnanayoga Khanda XIII.4&5 and Jabaladarshanopanishad VIII. uÉåSÉå£ümÉëMüÉUåhÉ ÌuÉlÉÉ xÉirÉÇ iÉmÉÉåkÉlÉ | MüÉrÉålÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ uÉÉcÉÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉ lÉ cÉÉÅlrÉpÉjÉÉ || AÉiqÉÉ xÉuÉïaÉiÉÉåÅcNåû±È AaÉëÉ½È CÌiÉ rÉÉ qÉÌiÉÈ xÉÉÅÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUÉ mÉëÉå£üÉ qÉÑlÉå uÉåSÉliÉuÉåÌSÍpÉÈ || Here uÉåSÉå£ümÉëMüÉUåhÉ refers to the apparent exception to AÌWÇûxÉÉ discussed above such as meat eating as medicine, hunting for Kshatriyas etc. which are all justified as Apat Dharma in the interest of Dharma itself.

Thus though it is very difficult to find out the objective facts of one’s acts and to decide whether an act is ÌWÇûxÉÉ or AÌWÇûxÉÉ from the standpoint of mere objective effects, we can more easily find out by self-examination what our own motive is and what is the subjective reaction on us is. We can avoid ÌWÇûxÉÉ, therefore, better through the purity of our own motives and freedom from Kama, Krodha etc. in our dealings with others in every one of our actions. Perfect purity can be finally attained only by self realization and therefore only the Jivanmukta can be a perfect AÌWÇûxÉMü. No action done by him can ever be spiritually injurious to another although some pain may possibly be caused to others. It is this highest conception of AÌWÇûxÉÉ that is refered to in the second Sloka above AÉiqÉÉ xÉuÉïaÉiÉÉåÅcNåû±È etc. This is what is refered to in the Gita also XIII.27-28: xÉqÉÇ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ ÌiɹliÉÇ mÉUqÉåµÉUqÉç | ÌuÉlÉzrÉixuÉÌuÉlÉzrÉliÉÇ rÉÈ mÉzrÉÌiÉ xÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ || xÉqÉÇ mÉzrÉÎlWû xÉuÉï§É xÉqÉuÉÎxjÉiÉqÉϵÉUqÉç | lÉ ÌWûlÉxirÉÉiqÉlÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ iÉiÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç || Cf. also VI.29-32: xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉxjqÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉiqÉÌlÉ |, rÉÉå qÉÉÇ mÉzrÉÌiÉ xÉuÉï§É xÉuÉïÇ cÉ qÉÌrÉ mÉzrÉÌiÉ |, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÎxjÉiÉÇ rÉÉå qÉÉÇ pÉeÉirÉåMüiuÉqÉÉÎxjÉiÉÈ |, AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ xÉuÉï§É xÉqÉÇ mÉzrÉÌiÉ rÉÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ | Also Gita XVIII.17: rÉxrÉ lÉÉWÇûM×üiÉÉå pÉÉuÉÉå oÉÑÎkSrÉïxrÉ lÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå | Cf. also Manu XII.91&118: xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉqÉÇ mÉzrÉlÉç AÉiqÉrÉÉeÉÏ xuÉÉUÉerÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉqmÉzrÉåiÉç xÉŠÉÅxÉŠ xÉqÉÉÌWûiÉÈ | xÉuÉïÇ ÌWû AÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉÇmÉzrÉlÉç lÉ AkÉqÉåï MÑüÂiÉå qÉlÉÈ || AÉiqÉæuÉ SåuÉiÉÉÈ xÉuÉÉïÈ xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉlrÉuÉÎxjÉiÉqÉç | AÉiqÉÉ ÌWû eÉlÉrÉirÉåwÉÉÇ MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉÇ zÉUÏËUhÉÉqÉç || LuÉÇ rÉÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ mÉzrÉirÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ xÉ xÉuÉïxÉqÉiÉÉqÉåirÉ oÉë¼ÉÅprÉåÌiÉ mÉUÇ mÉSqÉç || These are the last words of Manu on the highest Dharma and it is the same idea that is echoed throughout our scriptures as the quintessence of all morality and spirituality. This is what Manu meant when in his very first chapter he said that a Dwija should be AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç ÌlÉirÉÇ xrÉÉSÉÅÅiqÉuÉÉlÉç ̲eÉÈ || I.108. Vide also Gita II.45 §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ uÉåSÉÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÉeÉÑïlÉ | Ìlɲïl²ÉåÌlÉirÉxɨuÉxjÉÉå ÌlÉrÉÉåïaɤÉåqÉ AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç || Anusasana 115.21-22 AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ qÉliÉurÉÇ oÉÑÎkSqÉÎ°È M×üiÉÉiqÉÍpÉÈ || Also 113.9 mÉëirÉÉZrÉÉlÉå cÉ

109

SÉlÉå cÉ xÉÉæZÉSÒÈZÉå ÌmÉërÉÉÌmÉërÉå | AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ mÉÑÂwÉÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || rÉSÌWÇûxÉÉiqÉMÇü MüqÉï iÉiÉç MÑürÉÉïSÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç lÉUÈ | Anusasana parva 116.21. cf. ApÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÉå etc. We have so far been discussing only the negative aspect of the doctrine of Ahimsa, viz. the avoidance of causing injury. But it has got a positive aspect as well. It is not sufficient for a practitioner of AÌWÇûxÉÉ to merely avoid causing injury to others but necessary to positively do good to others. This positive aspect is discussed b our writers in terms of SrÉÉ, mÉUÉåmÉMüÉU, AlÉÑaÉëWû, pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, etc. So our writers say applying the same doctrine of AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉ. iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉëÉÍhÉwÉÑ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ SrÉÉuÉÉlÉç AÉiquÉÉlÉç pÉuÉåiÉç | Anusasana 116.32. ApÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÉå rÉÉå SSÉÌiÉ SrÉÉmÉUÈ | ApÉrÉÇ iÉxrÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ SSÌiÉÌiÉ AlÉÑzÉÑ´ÉÑqÉ || 116.22. Also 116.12 iÉxqÉÉrÉç SrÉÉÇ lÉUÈ MÑürÉÉïiÉç rÉjÉÉiqÉÌlÉ iÉjÉÉmÉUå | Also AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉålÉ xÉuÉï§É SrÉÉÇ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || Cf. also Gita SaraxÉuÉïkÉqÉïqÉrÉÏ SrÉÉ || Vyasa says in M.bh. A¹ÉSzÉmÉÑUÉhÉåwÉÑ xÉÉUÇ xÉÉUÇ xÉqÉÑ®iÉqÉç | mÉUÉåmÉMüÉUÈ mÉÑhrÉÉrÉ mÉÉmÉÉrÉ mÉUmÉÏQûlÉqÉç || "Daya" is thus defined in various texts both in terms of the act as well as the mental attitude. rɦÉÉSÌmÉ mÉUYsÉåzÉÇ WûiÉÑïÇ rÉÉ WØûÌS eÉÉrÉiÉå | CcNûÉ pÉÔÍqÉxÉÑU´Éå¸ xÉÉ SrÉÉ mÉËUMüÐÌiÉïiÉÉ || Padma Purana. AÉiqÉuÉixÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ rÉÉå ÌWûiÉÉrÉ cÉ ÍzÉpÉÉrÉ cÉ | uÉiÉïiÉå xÉiÉiÉÇ WØû¹È Ì¢ürÉÉ ½åwÉÉ SrÉÉ xqÉ×iÉÉ | Matsya Purana SrÉÉ lÉÉqÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ xÉuÉï§É AlÉÑaÉëWûÈ || Sandilyopanishad xuÉÉiqÉuÉiÉç xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüÉrÉålÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌaÉUÉ | AlÉÑ¥ÉÉ rÉÉ SrÉÉ xÉæuÉ mÉëÉå£üÉ uÉåSÉliÉuÉåÌSÍpÉÈ || Jabaladarshana Up. & Suta Samhita. LiÉSåuÉ ÌWû SrÉÉsÉÑsɤÉhÉÇ rÉiÉç ÌuÉlÉårÉeÉlÉoÉÑήuÉkÉïlÉqÉç || Sankshepa Sariraka mÉUå uÉÉ oÉlkÉÑuÉaÉåï uÉÉ ÍqɧÉå ²å¹ËU uÉÉ xÉSÉ | AÉiqÉuÉiÉç uÉÌiÉïiÉurÉÇ ÌWû SrÉæwÉÉ mÉËUMüÐÌiÉïiÉÉ || Ekadashi Tattvam. Bhagavata VIII.38-40 say AÉxÉÉÇ mÉëÉhÉmÉUÏmxÉÔlÉÉÇ ÌuÉkÉårÉÇ ApÉrÉÇ ÌWû qÉå | LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç ÌWû mÉëpÉÉåUjÉïÈ rÉiÉç rÉålÉ SÏlÉmÉËUmÉÉsÉlÉqÉç || mÉëÉhÉæÈ xuÉæÈ mÉëÉÍhÉlÉÈ mÉÉÎliÉ xÉÉkÉuÉÈ ¤ÉhÉpÉ…¡ÓûUæÈ | oÉ®uÉæUåwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ qÉÉåÌWûiÉåwuÉÉiqÉqÉÉrÉrÉÉ || mÉÑÇxÉÈ M×ümÉrÉiÉÉå pÉSìå xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ mÉëÏrÉiÉå WûËUÈ || Cf. also Tuladhara's words to Jajali in Santi 262-263 uÉåSÉÅWÇû eÉÉeÉsÉå kÉqÉïÇ xÉUWûxrÉÇ xÉlÉÉiÉlÉqÉç | xÉuÉïpÉÔUÌWûiÉÇ qÉæ§ÉÇ mÉÑUÉhÉÇ rÉÇ eÉlÉÉ ÌuÉSÒÈ || ASìÉåWåûhÉæuÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ AsmÉSìÉåWåûhÉ uÉÉ mÉÑlÉÈ rÉÉ uÉ×̨ÉÈ xÉ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ iÉålÉ eÉÏuÉÉÍqÉ eÉÉeÉsÉå || xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ rÉÈ xÉÑWØûiÉç ÌlÉirÉÇ xÉuÉåïwÉÉÇ cÉ ÌWûiÉå UiÉÈ | MüqÉïhÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ uÉÉcÉÉ xÉ kÉqÉïÇ uÉåS eÉÉeÉsÉå || rÉSÉ cÉÉÅrÉÇ lÉ ÌoÉpÉåÌiÉ rÉSÉ cÉÉÅxqÉÉiÉç lÉ ÌoÉprÉÌiÉ | rÉSÉ lÉ CcNûÌiÉ lÉ ²å̹ oÉë¼ xÉqmɱiÉå xÉSÉ || rÉSÉ lÉ MÑüÂiÉå pÉÉuÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ mÉÉmÉMüqÉç | MüqÉïhÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ uÉÉcÉÉ oÉë¼ xÉqmɱiÉå iÉSÉ || sÉÉåMåü rÉÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÉå SSÉÌiÉ ApÉrÉSͤÉhÉÉqÉç | xÉ xÉuÉï rÉ¥ÉæÈ rÉ DeÉÉlÉÈ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ApÉrÉSͤÉhÉÉqÉç || lÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉqÉÌWÇûxÉÉrÉÉÈ eÉÉrÉÉlkÉqÉïÈ AÎxiÉ Mü¶ÉlÉ | rÉxqÉɳÉÉå̲eÉiÉå pÉÔiÉÇ eÉÉiÉÑ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç MüjÉgcÉlÉ | xÉÉåÅpÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÈ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ qÉWûÉqÉÑlÉå || xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉiqÉpÉÔiÉxrÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ mÉzrÉiÉÈ | SåuÉÉÅÌmÉ qÉÉaÉåï qÉѽÎliÉ AmÉSxrÉ mÉSæÌwÉhÉÈ || AMüÉUhÉÉå ÌWû lÉæuÉÉÅÎxiÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉÔ¤qÉÉå ÌWû eÉÉeÉsÉå | pÉÔUpÉurÉÉjÉïqÉåuÉåWû kÉqÉïmÉëuÉcÉlÉÇ M×üiÉqÉç || (pÉÔiÉpÉurÉ the highest good of all creatures) Jajali, therefore, concludes

110

in Sl. 53 MüÉUhÉÉiÉç kÉqÉïqÉÎluÉcNåûiÉç lÉ sÉÉåMücÉËUiÉÇ cÉUåiÉç || On this last Sloka Nilakantha says rÉålÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉqÉpÉrÉÇ xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ eÉÉlÉÏrÉÉiÉç CirÉjÉïÈ | (ApÉrÉÇ - both positive as well as negative, Ahimsa as well as protection) Ch. 263. xuÉqÉåuÉ cÉÉjÉïÇ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉÈ rÉ¥ÉÇ cÉ¢ÑüÈ mÉÑlÉÉ̲ïeÉÉÈ | mÉËUÌlÉ̸iÉMüqÉÉïhÉÈ mÉëeÉÉlÉÑaÉëWûMüÉqrÉrÉÉ || Cf. also Gita sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûqÉåuÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇmÉzrÉlÉç MüiÉÑïqÉWïûÍxÉ, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUiÉÉÈ, A²å¹É xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ qÉæ§ÉÈ MüÂhÉ LuÉ cÉ etc.

It will be seen from a perusal of all these passages as well as the various stories (illustrative) given in the M.bh. such as Dadhichi’s self sacrifice, Sibi’s sacrifice, the story of the pigeons, (referred to by Swamiji ih his Karma Yoga lecture), the story of the mangoose, the various stories referred to in Bhagavata such as Rantideva and the lives of the various saints mentioned there in (vide article on Bhagavata), it will be seen how selfless service of others is as important an element in Dharmic life as Ahimsa or avoidance of injury. In fact the latter is not complete without the former. It will be also seen how both of them are the obverse and the reverse of the same coin being based upon the same principle of AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉ or xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉiqÉpÉÉuÉ, recognizing one’s own Atman in all beings. It will also be noted how this active service also has MüÉÌrÉMü, uÉÉÍcÉMü, & qÉÉlÉÍxÉMü aspects. As it is not possible to find out all the possible effects of one’s own actions on others one can only honestly and sincerely intend to bring about the highest good of all and be guided by his pure Buddhi sweetened by his love in all his actions. The objective effect of all his actions on another, however well meant it may depends not merely upon our intention or purity of motive but also on the others past karma. Cf. Gita SæuÉÇ cÉæuÉÉÅ§É mÉgcÉqÉqÉç || One can, therefore, rely upon one’s own purity of mind in judging whether one’s action will be of positive benefit to others. This positive benefit or welfare of the world must alwys be considered in terms of Sreyas and not Preyas, the highest good being only Mukti through the realization of God through ÍcɨÉzÉÑή, through the development of Sattvaguna and conquest of Ahamkara, Mamakara, Kama, Krodha etc. One should therefore, always think of the possible positive effects of one’s acions in terms of moral and spiritual welfare of the world. That is the force of the word zÉÑpÉÉrÉ cÉ ÌWûiÉÉrÉ cÉ in the Matsya Purana quotation given above as well as ÌuÉlÉårÉeÉlÉoÉÉåήuÉkÉïlÉqÉç in the quotation from Samkshepa Sariraka, also the emphasising on the desire to relieve others of their YsÉåzÉ in the Padma Purana quotation, YsÉåzÉ being understood in sense as used by Patanjali. The question from Ekadasi Tattvam shows that this Daya or feeling of compassion impartial and must be felt towards friend or foe and that it is not a mere temporary feeling but a permanent attitude of the mind. That is the force of the word xÉiÉiÉqÉç in the Matsya Purana quotation, xÉSÉ in the Ekadasi Tattvam quotation and xÉuÉï pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ xÉuÉï§É in the Sandilya Up. quotation. Various aspects of this service are emphasized in various prescriptions of Sastras in relation to particular Adhikaris and in relation to time, place, conditions and circumstances. One may even say that all the important rules of uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï are based upon these thin principles of Ahimsa and service. The rules, thus, regarding SÉlÉqÉç, mÉÔiÉï, lÉ×rÉ¥É, pÉÔiÉrÉ¥É, etc. are founded upon these principles. Where the prescriptions of the Smritis are based merely on tradition and custom or mere Achara (sÉÉåMüÉcÉÉU, SåzÉÉcÉÉU) they have to be tested in the light of these principles of Ahimsa, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ, etc. they have to be totally rejected and cannot be treated as prescription of Dharma. That is the force of the words of Tuladhara to Jajali.

111

Lokasangraha is sometimes misunderstood as meaning keeping up the bonds of society. But Dharma is not merely meant to keep the members united together somehow or other. The Thugs or the Pindaris may have their own rules to preserve their society. Similarly, a foolish, unthinking and immoral society may hold itself together by mere rules in their own self interest as against interest of others. A set of black marketers may have similar rules. When Bhagavan speaks of Lokasangraha in Gita, He does not mean such rules and regulations of particular groups of people in their own interest as against others. All rules and bye laws of trade unions and labour unions or guilds or castes or chambers of commerce come under this head. Even some of the political constitutions of states come only under this head ‘Loka’ in the expression ‘sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû’ means the whole world as against mere particular association for mere common purpose. The rules must be conducive to universal welfare as judged by the AÉiqÉÉæmÉqrÉ principle without any restriction. xÉXçaÉëWû does not mean mere union for a common purpose but xÉqrÉMçü aÉëWûhÉqÉç in the sense of xÉqrÉMçü SzÉïlÉqÉç or realization. When therefore, Bhagavan says sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûqÉåuÉÉÅÌmÉ xÉÇmÉzrÉlÉç MüiÉÑïqÉWïûÍxÉ what he means is that one should act in such a way that it conserves the spiritual and moral welfare of all members of society. In sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, therefore, this spiritual and moral goal of all humanity is always kept in mind. When He says rÉÌS ½WÇû lÉ uÉiÉåïrÉÇ eÉÉiÉÑ MüqÉïhrÉiÉÎlSìrÉÈ etc that if He does not adjust His conduct and behaviour properly to the needs of society the whole world world go to wreck and ruin, He means this type of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. Many of the rules of the AjÉïzÉÉx§É or MüÉqÉzÉÉx§É do not, therefore, deserve the name of Dharma unless they ensure sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû in this sense. Although sometimes all these are loosely called Dharma in some of the texts, people very often misunderstand that all rules of scriptures are equally valid and authoritative as Dharma. This is because of the confusion of Dharmasastra with Arthasastra etc. The former always is universal and impartial and aimed at the highest spiritual and moral welfare of the whole world. When we say MÑüsÉkÉqÉï we mean only the law of love and brotherhood and of mutual sympathy and good will and cooperation and service for the spiritual and moral welfare of all members of the simplest and most natural unit of society without prejudice to the similar interest of other similar families. It is the same principle of unity and harmony that should hold good between the members of any other higher, the larger artificial and organized groups so that the highest ideal of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû is described sometimes as eÉaÉSåMüMÑüOÒûqoÉMüqÉç. Service should always be based upon these universal principles of love, sympathy, co-operation brotherhood etc. which are the basis of social organization. It is often true that these principles may be the best basis for as organization of society even from the standpoint of the worldly benefit accruing to its members as a result of such organization. But if this worldly benefit alone is made the aim the rules framed for the conservation of such a kind of society can be called only as AjÉïzÉÉx§É or lÉÏÌiÉzÉÉx§É and not kÉqÉïzÉÉx§É as Dharma always conceives of only as a means for the attainment of Mukti through self realization. AmÉUÉå kÉqÉï xÉÇ¥ÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç (CirÉÉWÒûÈ) iÉimÉUmÉëÉÎmiÉxÉÉkÉlÉqÉç | Suta Samhita IV. 2.3 xÉ uÉæ mÉÑÇxÉÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉiÉÉå pÉÌ£üUkÉÉå¤ÉeÉå | AWæûiÉÑMüÐ AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉÉ rÉrÉÉ AÉiqÉÉ xÉÑmÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || Cf. also rÉiÉÈ AprÉÑSrÉÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉÍxÉÎ®È xÉ kÉqÉïÈ of Vaiseshika Sutra. This definition is often misunderstood because it couples AprÉÑSrÉ and ÌlÉ´ÉårÉxÉ as the goal of Dharma. Many modern writers are anxious to interpret the word Abhyudaya as wordly properity to satisfy their own pet ideas on morality or Dharma being concerned to wordly properity. But Abhyudaya in this definition does not mean worldly properity at all but only progress towards the highest goal of Nisreyasa. Nisreyasa is the final goal and any step which takes one near the goal is itself a

112

minor intermediate goal. If the word Abhyudaya has anything to do with wordly property it can refer to only such wordly prosperity as is helpful to the final attainment of the God of Nisreyasa and not such as stand in the way of this final attainment. The definition only emphasizes that the universal rules of Dharma meant for the achievement of this final realization do not and need not as a fact go against wordly properity also. If all members of society and Dharmisthas and mutually helpful and cooperative and free from the selfish spirit of the self aggrandizement, exploitation etc that the society and all its members are ensured of a happy life in this world also politically, economically, physically etc. Thus the definition conceives of Dharma resulting not merely in ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉç but a happy and contended life here also. It should not be taken as meaning ‘a means for worldly prosperity considered as the goal. Such a worldly prosperity is only a result and not a purpose. That is the force of the words rÉiÉÈ ÍxÉήÈ, that which results in etymologically also AprÉÑSrÉ means AÍpÉ + EiÉç + ArÉ. AÍpÉ means all round or in all ways, EiÉç means that which is transcendent and pure (Vide Ch Up.), ArÉ means progress. Therefore, AprÉÑSrÉ means that which helps the all round progress towards the pure Atman. Therefore, AprÉÑSrÉÍxÉή technically means only such progress in worldy life as is consistent with the goal of life. Similarly mÉUÉåmÉMüÉU or mÉUÉjÉï which is considered as a test of Dharma should not be understood as merely the satisfaction of the needs and requirement of others. Para in these and similar expression does not mean merely another, Para means the highest, transcendent Atman. Pararta would then mean the highest goal of life Paramapurusharta viz. Mukti or the satisfaction & the pleasing to the Lord. mÉUÉåmÉMüÉUÉjÉïÍqÉSÇ zÉUÏUqÉç xuÉÉjÉÉåï rÉxrÉ mÉUÉjÉï LuÉ ÌWû mÉÑqÉÉlÉç LMüÈxÉiÉÉqÉaÉëhÉÏÈ etc. Such expressions should be understood as the highest mÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï not only of oneself but of others also. That is why oÉë¼SÉlÉqÉç or ÌuɱÉSlÉqÉç is considered as the highest kind of SÉlÉqÉç superior even to giving of life. The distinction may be noted between the two expressions pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ & sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. The word UÌiÉ emphasizes the interest and pleasure derived from service where as sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû emphasizes the objective aspect of it on the world. But as understood by Bhagavan or the Gita both the objective effect and the subjective effect must go together. Therefore both these must be service and duty. Real service is very pleasant to one who does the service because service is always sweetened by love. No feeling of responsibility is felt as urging or prompting one to do such service. Such feeling of responsibility is based upon the ignorant feeling that one is free actor and it is pen based upon a sense of egoism and a sense of physical or social relationship as when one speaks about his responsibility to maintain his wife and children or of his parent or of responsibility to discharge the work allocated to him by his superior officer or even when on speaks of his responsibility to one’s particular organization or to one’s country. When such feeling of responsibility is felt by one towards another such sense of egoism or relationship it is not pure service that he does, he has this feeling of responsibiulity either in expectation of the benefit to be derived from the other party, society or country or becase of gratitude for the benefits already derived or because of the year of consequences if he does not discharge that responsibility. In all these cases, therefore, there is no free giving out of the fullness of love. Such discharge of responsibility is also dependent upon the ignorance that it is after all God that is responsible for the welfare of all his children and that it is not in the power of man to help another if God decides otherwise. It is this sense of responsibility thus based upon ignorance and egoism and ordinarily confined only to worldy welfare that is generally glorified by the expression of duty, sense of duty and so on. No doubt discharge of such kind of duty is not bad and is far better than complete absence of any such duty even. To be without it is to be something less than and brute. But it should not be confused with the spirit

113

of service which is always selfless and is based upon love of the whole of creation as distinct from some particular limited portion of it related to oneself through any physical or social relationship. Dharma should not be confused with mere duty in this sense but must be always understood in terms of service as explained above. Duty is bondage as is well brought out by the expression ‘bounden duty’. One feels that he is bound by the bonds of the duty and feels that he is forced by this feeling to discharge his duty. When one performs one’s duty one feels in his heart of hearts that he would be happier if there is no such bondage. There is a feeling that one has to give up or sacrifice some of his own happiness or interests against his own will. He would have very gladly avoided such sacrifice if he had not the inner feeling of duty. There is no such feeling accompanying the spirit of service. There is no such sense of force or bondage when one performs service in the true spirit. There is a sense of freedom and a sense of happiness in service. It is voluntary. Ther is no feeling of giving up or sacrificing something which he holds dear. Service is prompted by the feeling of oneness and identity of interests on AÉiqÉæmÉqrÉ principle. The distinction between self sacrifice and service should thus be kept in mind. The former is always associated with the loss of some comfort or convenience, property or pleasure against one’s wish. While the later is associated with the feeling of gain of some happiness which was not available before. The difference between these various feelings and the actions prompted by them is brought out most poetically by Bhagavan in this words to the Gopis in Ch. X.32.17-21 of Bhagavatam in reply to the complaint of the signs in His not reciprocating their love as they wished. Bhagavan says that there are several types of pÉeÉlÉqÉç or service ÍqÉjÉÉå pÉeÉÎliÉ rÉå xÉZrÉÈ xuÉÉjÉæïMüÉliÉÉå±qÉÉ ÌWû iÉå | lÉ iÉ§É xÉÉæWØûSÇ kÉqÉïÈ xuÉÉjÉÉïjÉïÇ iÉή lÉÉÅlrÉjÉÉ || pÉeÉlirÉpÉeÉiÉÉå rÉå uÉæ MüÂhÉÉÈ ÌmÉiÉUÉå rÉjÉÉ | kÉqÉÉåï ÌlÉUmÉuÉÉSÉåÅ§É xÉÉæÈÂSÇ cÉ xÉÑqÉkrÉqÉÉÈ || pÉeÉiÉÉåÅÌmÉ lÉ uÉæ MåüÍcÉ°eÉÎliÉ ApÉeÉiÉÈ M×üiÉÈ | AÉiqÉÉUÉqÉÉ ½ÉmiÉMüÉqÉÉ AM×üiÉ¥ÉÉÈ aÉÑÂSìWûÈ || lÉÉÅWÇû iÉÑ xÉZrÉÉå pÉeÉiÉÉåÅÌmÉ eÉliÉÔlÉç pÉeÉÉÍqÉ AqÉÏwÉÉÇ AlÉÑuÉ×̨ÉuÉרÉrÉå | rÉjÉÉÅkÉlÉÉå sÉokÉkÉlÉå ÌuÉlɹå iÉΊliÉrÉÉ AlrȨ́ÉpÉ×iÉÉå lÉ uÉåS || LuÉÇ qÉSjÉÉåïÎefÉiÉsÉÉåMüuÉåSxuÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌWû uÉÉå qÉÌrÉ AlÉÑuÉרÉrÉåÅoÉsÉÉÈ | qÉrÉÉ mÉUÉå¤ÉÇ pÉeÉiÉÉ ÌlÉUÉåÌWûiÉÇ qÉÉÅxÉÔÌrÉiÉÇ qÉÉÅWïûiÉ iÉÎimÉërÉÇ ÌmÉërÉÉÈ || Bhagavan has classified people into five classes. The first kind of people are those who do some good to others in return for services already rendered by them or in expectation of such service in return in the future. These people are prompted not by disinterested love but only by their own selfishness. Such service of others is is of the lowest sort and does not observe the name of service. Services rendered by the husband towards wife and children or a Government servent for the sake of his pay or of a labourer for the sake of his wages or a land owner leasing his land to another man in need or one who does charity for the sake of name and fame or a Guru who teaches the Sishya in return for fees or the merchant necessities to the needy etc. may all be incorrectly and false considered as being public service. But they are serving rather their own selves and not the public or anybody else. They do it only for the return that they themselves get for their work. They come under this lowest class. Those who do this kind of work honestly and sincerely without taking undue advantage of another’s necessity or without exploting others may in a way be considered to do some service but it is of the lowest sort. Such people may, however, be considered to be doing their duty rather than any service. The economic aspect of Varnasramadharma is based only on this aspect of duty based on the principle of co-operation. If one does his part of the work only in expecting the benefits to be derived from all the other members of society also doing their allotted work he is discharging his duty only in self interest. But if on the other hand he does his allotted work without caring

114

whether the others do their allotted work or not he will be considered to be doing his duty for duty’s sake in a Nishkama spirit. Such kind of work does not belong to this lowest class. It comes under the next higher class. This higher class of workers is mentioned in the second Sloka pÉeÉlirÉpÉeÉiÉÉå etc. It is only this kind of work which can be considered as Dharma. Bhagavatam gives here the example of the service done by parents to children. But when he speaks of parents he must have had in mind the ideal disinterested parents he himself had who served him with disinterested love with no expectation of any return only for the mere enjoyment of such loving service. But all parents are not of this sort and many are helping their children not out of pure love but out of expectation that the children will be helpful to them at their old age. When their service is thus prompted by self interest they fall only under the lowest class mentioned in the previous Sloka. But all parents may not be so calculating and if at all there are any calculations they may laternt in their minds. More often they are laves of their own attachment to their children just as in the case of even animals and birds. This is more physical and biological in the interest of the preservation of the race. No special merit attaches itself to such kind of service done. They do it simply because they cannot but help doing it and they have no freedom to avoid it as they are compelled by mere biological forces beyond their control. In many cases they are unconsciously slaves of these biological forces. But it may also be that they are not only slaves of these biological forces but of social forces as well. They are afraid of social opproinum or of law which ensures protection of children in the interests of society itself. In such cases also it cannot be considered as Dharma just as a man who does not steal merely because of the fear of law or the police cannot be considered to be a Dharmistha. On all these cases they discharge their duty to children out of selfishness and such work cannot be called service. According to some western writers like Hobbes and Helweius there is no such thing as pure selfless work. They look into their own hearts and find when they do some apparently selfless work they are doing it only out of enlightened self interest. Even if one is seen to do some philanthropic work out of Daya this Daya is prompted by the feeling of what they would expect others should do to them if they are placed in the same circumstances. Even those who are prompted to do good to others as per the golden rule may be considered only as acting only in self interest. All pity and compassion is due to the feeling of fear and possible need of future help for themselves and is, therefore, at the bottom rooted in selfishness. Some even go to the extent of explaining that this feeling of pity etc is really a kind of discomfort of suffering caused by the sight of suffering in others and any philanthropic act done in pursuance of such pity is meant only to get rid of this discomfort or pain suffered by themselves and therefore such an act must be considered in the last analaysis to be only selfish in nature. Although we may not agree entirely with such a view of all philanthropist we cannot but admit that in many cases of so called charity this analysis holds good. It is a fact that in many case, when a begger approaches a rich man for some help the latter is disposed to give some alms only to get rid of the bother. In special cases such as that of a leper beggar charity is often prompted by the desire to send him away the sooner so as to escape the contagion and infection and to avoid the unpleasant feeling caused by the sight of the leper. In many cases we also find charity is given only after one is pestered and bothered with the importunities of the beggars just to save oneself from the worry and discomfort caused by them. In some cases people do charity only their relatives so that they may not be troubled by them. In all such cases we must agree that the motive of charity is to get rid of the suffering and trouble caused to themselves. Since cases cannot be considered to come in under Bhagavan’s second class. Even some parents may be prompted to satisfy their children merely to avoid the suffering caused to themselves when they see their children cry and it is very often it is this kind of unintelligent service of their children that spoils the child. This is also due only to attachment

115

and not love and the fond mothers or parents are doing only disservice to the child unintentionally if they cater to the child’s foolish demands because they cannot bear to see him crying. They are helplessly bound and not masters of themselves being only slaves to their own selfish attachments. Such parents are not includend in this second class mentioned by Bhagavan.

Many of the rules prescribed by the Smritis regarding Danam are meant to ensure that charity is done in the proper spirit so that there may not be the least trace of selfishness or attachment in such giving. Thus Bhagavan’s classification of Danam in Ch. XVII as Sattvic, Rajasic & Tamasic is meant to guide donors to do their charity in Sattvic spirit. SÉiurÉÍqÉÌiÉ rɬÉlÉÇ SÏrÉiÉåÅlÉÑmÉMüÉËUhÉå | SåzÉå MüÉsÉå mÉɧÉå cÉ iɬÉlÉÇ xÉÉÎiuÉMÇü xqÉ×iÉqÉç || rɨÉÑ mÉëirÉÑmÉMüÉUÉjÉÉïrÉ TüsÉqÉÑ̬zrÉ uÉÉ mÉÑlÉÈ | SÏrÉiÉå cÉ mÉËUÎYsÉ¹Ç iɬÉlÉÇ UÉeÉxÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç || ASåzÉMüÉsÉå rɬÉlÉÇ AmÉɧÉåprÉ¶É SÏrÉiÉå | AxÉM×ïüiÉqÉuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÇ iɬÉlÉÇ iÉÉqÉxÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç || The lowest kind of SÉlÉ according to this is the charity given without making use of the Buddhi to ascertain whether the donar is deserving of such charity and without making sure whether it is the proper kind of gift to be made at the particular time, place and under particular circumstances and conditions. Such gifts are called Tamasa as being based upon ignorance, carelessness, negligent or sluggishness of the intellect or moral sense. mÉÉ§É means ‘that which saves one from mÉiÉlÉ’. “mÉiÉlÉÉiÉç §ÉÉrÉiÉå CÌiÉ mÉɧÉqÉç”. mÉiÉliÉÇ §ÉÉrÉiÉå rÉxqÉÉiÉç AiÉÏuÉ lÉUMüÉhÉïuÉÉiÉç – Siva Dharma. Apatra, therefore, means one who does not deserve any charity on account of his sinful character and conduct. The unintelligent donations or gifts generally given in ritualistic ceremonies to a man merely because he is born in the so called Brahmana caste without caring for his character and conduct or learning or his poverty etc. does not save the donor spiritually as such donation does not lead to the purity of mind which alone can save. Some give with inconsistent ways of conduct; first smiling, murmuring, then comfort giving. Those offerings (besmirched by) tears and have not the value of righteous gift. Sam. Ni. I.4.2. Similarly if provision is made for a hospital in a city which already abounds in hospitals or providing schools where there are already a large number of schools existing or to make provision for students homes meant only for rich man’s children or for providing comforts for the members of one’s own community without any reference to their financial or intellectual qualifications or to dig wells and tanks in areas where there are public protected water supply already or in the vicinity of rivers and tanks or to build temples where there are any number of ancient temples which are left uncared for by the public or making provisions for free dinners to particular castes without any reference to the needs or poverty of the pople to be fed, these are so called charity comes only under this thrir and lowest class. Simialry all charity given to the needy without the proper feeling accompanying it such as where the donor treats the recipient with some courtesy or even treats him with contempt an disrespect come only under this class. Such kind of charity is contemptible in itself except in so far it serves as a way of re-distribution of ill begotten wealth among the more deserving and needy at whose expense and exploitation such wealth is amassed. It does not deserve the name of charity either in spiritual or social sense. Indiscriminative or unintelligent philanthrophy is not only not beneficial but may be positively harmful to the donor, recepient as well as the whole of society. It may end in Himsa and not in sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûqÉç and therefore cannot be considered as Dharma.

The Rajasic type of charity is mentioned in the second Sloka. This also is not prompted by the real spirit of service but it is based upon self interest in the form of desire for

116

receiprocation (mÉëirÉÑmÉMüÉUjÉïqÉç) or for other benefits such as name and fame or enjoyment of pleasures in heaven. This is not charity but trade in spirit. It is not meant for any spiritual benefit at all either for oneself or for others. It is not even meant for the benefit of the recipient but only for the material benefit of oneself. The donation is made very often not voluntarily but reluctantly and by force of circumstances or fear of public opinion or of hell or of law. Thus the donation made by many capitalists and black marketers to congress funds and to so many of All India funds started by the congress or the government such as earthquake relief fund, Kasturba fund etc are not prompted by the spirit of charity but by self interest. The donors are compelled to give either by fear or for getting the favour of men in power. Similarly donations made for getting titles also fall under this class. Many such donations are made for the benefit of people who are unknown and who are far away and is done by people who would not care to lift their finger to a help to save poor dying at his door step. Such charity is condemned by our Sastras as when Manu says in XI.9 zÉ£üÈ mÉUeÉlÉå SÉiÉÉ xuÉeÉlÉå SÒÈZÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÏ | qÉkuÉÉmÉÉiÉÉå ÌuÉwÉÉxuÉÉSÉå xuÉkÉqÉïmÉëÌiÉÃmÉMüÈ || This shows that it is not proper charity but it is prompted by other motives. Vide also Brihaspati MÑüOÒûqoÉ pÉ£üuÉxÉlÉÉiÉç SårÉÇ rÉSÌiÉËUcrÉiÉå | qÉkuÉÉxuÉÉSÉå ÌuÉwÉÇ mɶÉÉiÉç SÉiÉÑ kÉqÉÉåïÅlrÉjÉÉ pÉuÉåiÉç || Also (Siva Dharma quoted by Hemadri) Anusasana 37.2&3, Yajnavalkya II.175, Apastamba II.4.9,10&12, Bodhayana II.3.19 etc. Some take these passages as meaning that one should care for one’s own family members and satisfy their demands before making charity to others as charity begins at home. No doubt, it is true that one who has not the heart to serve even wife and children, brothers, parent etc. could not possibly have the spirit of charity to serve somebody else and if he pretends to make any such charity to others he must certainly be prompted by some ulterior motive other than compassion or Daya. The saying ‘the charity begins at home’ only means that family life is the first breeding ground for the exercise of the spirit of love and brotherhood where that spirit of love and brotherhood has already manifested as a result of previous Samskaras there is no further necessity to make a fresh beginning in a fresh family life. To such persons, therefore, family life is not a necessity for spiritual progress. Nor do these passages mean that one should always be only marking time by continuing in family and remaining in the first stage itself until his death without making any progress towards higher stages. It will be as absurd as compelling a student to remain in the same class when he is fit for promotion to higher class. One who had the opportunity through family life for manifestation of love and brotherhood should not therefore remain satisfied with confining this love and brotherhood to his own family members and relatives but allow the same to expand beyond the limits of this inner circle to ever widening fields until his love embraces within its fold not only the whole of humanity but the whole of the world itself as a manifestation of God through intermediate steps such as caste, tribe, village, nation etc. One who dares to step beyond the limits of the smaller circles such as the family in the expansion of his love and spirit of brotherhood cannot be considered as having gone against Dharma but only as having fulfilled the laws of higher Dharma. One who leaves his hearth and home and becomes a Sannyasin oÉWÒûeÉlÉÌWûiÉÉrÉ cÉ oÉWÒûeÉlÉxÉÑZÉÉrÉ cÉ and practices ApÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÈ has only his love universalized and therefore, is not guilty of any Adharma. It is not because he does not love his family that he gets out of it but because he loves the whole world as his family or as Buddha said ‘not that I love my family less but I love the world more’. Love becomes only the power by such an act as renouncing hearth and home and such cases are not included in the prescription given by Smritikaras. Even those who take these passages in the narrower sense admit that it is applicable only to Grihasthas who have undertaken the special duties of the Grihasthasrama as the debts to be discharged

117

by them and even the Smiritkaras themselves could not have understood it as applying to those who are in the other Ashramas as they have allowed all to become Sannyasins at the fag end of their lives including even householders. Some of them have conceded the right of the Brahmacharins to become Sannyasins without understanding the responsibilities of the Grihasthasrama thereby admitting that there is nothing wrong if Brahmacharis give up their responsibilities to support their parents and relatives for the sake of higher goal and in expansion of their spirit of love and sympathy. If one does it only for the sake of shirking his responsibilities and to have more freedom to enjoy worldy life at the expense of the relatives and dependents his renunciation is certainly questionable and he is worse than even a brute.

Even the donations or acts of charity done in pursuance of the prescription of the Smritis such as ÍpɤÉÉ pÉÔiÉrÉ¥É etc will fall only under this class if they are done as Nityakarma for fear of sin accruing from such neglect of Dharma as the Mimamsakas understand by the word Nityakarma. Such apparent acts of charity being prompted by fear of hell are not done voluntarily as an expression of expansion of heart in love, sympathy, compassion etc. and are at bottom only selfish. So the parents discharging their duties to children only because of prescription of Sastras and for fear of hell if they disobey Sastras such act does not come under the second class mentioned by Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam. The best variety of Danam as per the Gita is the Sattvika Dana which involves the use of intelligence, discrimination and moral sense. In such Sattvika Dana one give because one’s Buddhi says that all money is only held in trust by the so called owner for the benefit of the public and that God is the real owner of it under whom he is working as a trustee. He discharges only his duty only as the servant of God when he gives it to deserving persons in the spiritual, moral interest of the whole society. No sort of egoism or selfishness is present in the donor in such a gift. He never expects any worldy benefit for himself in the future in return for such gift nor does he do it in return for the past benefit received. In fact he never thinks about himself at all when he makes such a give unlike the other two varieties of the donors. Even in thinking of the good of the recipient he conceive of good only in terms of the spiritual and moral welfare and if at all material benefits are conferred on the recipient by such a gift it is only for removal of physical, material or financial or intellectual obstacles in his moral and spiritual development. In fact he thinks that he has to be grateful to the recipient for the opportunity given by the latter to spiritually exercise himself by killing his own AWûƒ¡ûÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. He uses his discrimination to find out whether the recipient is worthy of the gift and whether he is likely to benefit spiritually and morally by the gift. He does not think only of the effect of the gift on the recipient but also its repercussions on the whole of society, that is to say, he is not interested merely in recipient but in good of the whole world. xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUiÉ. He is not compelled by any external agency or fear but only by his own inner moral sense if at all there is any compulsion. The compulsion of one’s own moral sense is not inconsistent with freedom and his gift is absolutely voluntary. He also discriminates about the propriety or otherwise of the nature of the gift itself in relation to time, space and circumstances just as a doctor chooses particular methods of treatment to suit particular individual patient. Such donor feels as if he is relieved of a burden when he parts with his money or property in favour of another who is in need of it and feels happy when he could find out a fit recipient for whose benefit he has been holding his wealth in trust. Instead of waiting for such fit persons to turn up of their own accord and make a request to him for a donation he takes great pleasure in going about in search of such fit recipient. Therefore it is said in the M.bh. Anusasana P. that a gift made to such deserving recipient without forcing him to beg is a superior kind of gift. A real saint may not care to beg of man for the satisfaction of his needs but may be prepared to wait till God may in His infinite grace do

118

what He thinks fit to relieve him of his distress. This is the basis of the famous AeÉaÉUuÉ×̨É. Therefore Bhisma tells Yudhisthira that he should make an effort to find out such recipients. Vide Anusasana 59.12 ArÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉÉlÉç MüÉæliÉårÉ xÉuÉÉåïmÉÉrÉæÈ ÌlÉqÉl§ÉrÉiÉç || Also 60.2 xÉëårÉÉå uÉæ rÉÉcÉiÉÈ mÉÉjÉï SÉlÉqÉÉWÒûÈ AqÉÉcÉiÉå | AWïû¨ÉqÉÉå uÉæ kÉ×ÌiÉqÉÉlÉç M×ümÉhÉÉiÉç AkÉ×iÉÉiqÉlÉÈ || rÉÉcrÉqÉÉWÒûUlÉÏzÉxrÉ AÍpÉWûÉUÇ cÉ pÉÉUiÉ | E²åeÉrÉÎliÉ rÉÉcÉÎliÉ xÉSÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ SxÉçrÉÑuÉiÉç || ÍqÉërÉiÉå rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉÉå uÉæ lÉ eÉÉiÉÑ ÍqÉërÉiÉå SSiÉç | SSiÉç xÉgeÉÏuÉÌiÉ rÉålÉ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ cÉ rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉÉcÉiÉå rÉimÉëSÏrÉiÉå | ArÉÉcÉiÉÈ xÉÏSqÉÉlÉÉlÉç xÉuÉÉåïmÉÉrÉæÈ ÌlÉqÉl§ÉrÉåiÉç || ÌlÉqÉl§ÉrÉåjÉÉÈ MüÉæUurÉ MüÉqÉæ¶É AlrÉæ¶É ̲eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÉlÉç | AÌmÉ iÉå mÉëÌiÉaÉ׺ûÏrÉÑÈ ´É®ÉåmÉåiÉÇ rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || MüÉrÉïÍqÉirÉåuÉ qÉluÉÉlÉÉÈ kÉqÉï¥ÉÉÈ xÉÔ¤qÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ || SqÉxirÉÉaÉÉå kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉirÉÇ pÉuÉirÉuÉpÉ×jÉÉrÉiÉå | LwÉ iÉå ÌuÉiÉiÉÉå rÉ¥ÉÈ ´É®ÉmÉÔiÉÈ xÉ SͤÉhÉÈ | ÌuÉÍzÉ¹È xÉuÉïrÉ¥ÉÉlÉÉÇ ÌlÉirÉÇ iÉÉiÉ mÉëuÉiÉïiÉÉqÉç || This shows that if at all a good man accepts a gift it is only in pursuance of Dharma and only with the idea that he should not disappoint the giver and deny him the opportunity & privilege of doing spiritual service and save himself by such service. The acceptance is more to benefit the donor but they accept the gift only if it is offered with devotion in the proper spirit. Cf. Parasara I.29 AÍpÉaÉqrÉ E¨ÉqÉÇ SÉlÉÇ AÉWÕûrÉæuÉ iÉÑ qÉkrÉqÉÇ AkÉqÉÇ rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉÉrÉ xÉåuÉÉSÉlÉÇ iÉÑ ÌlÉwTüsÉqÉç || According to this there are four kinds of SÉlÉqÉç the highest being the donor going to the place of recipient and offering his gift there itself without inviting him to come to his place to take the gift. This is considered as the best because there is the least trace of egoism in it. If a donor invites the deserving donee and makes the gift in his own home instead of taking the gift to the donee’s home he is more concerned about his own home than of the needs of the donee. Had it not been for this, he could have taken the offering to the donee’s home when he went there to invite him. All invitations for feasts (technically called ÍpɤÉÉ or mÉÉS mÉÔeÉÉ in the case of Sannyasins) fall only in this lower second class with whatever Sraddha the offering may be made. The offering made to a man who comes of his own accord and request for help comes only in the next lower class. The lowest of all is an offering made to one for service already rendered or expected in future. Cf. also aÉiuÉÉ rɬÏrÉiÉå SÉlÉÇ iÉSlÉliÉTüsÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç | xÉWûxÉëaÉÑhÉqÉç AÉWÕûiÉå rÉÉÍcÉiÉå iÉÑ iÉSkÉïMüqÉç || Quoted by Mitakshara & Apararka on Yajnavalkya I.203. This shows that even in this Sattvika Dana there are gradations, the highest being the donation made with Sraddha to a deserving donee without his being put to the necessity of begging for it and without making feel small through such begging. It is such Danam that is refered to by Devala when he says ‘AjÉÉïlÉÉqÉÑÌSiÉå mÉɧÉå rÉjÉÉuÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉqÉç | SÉlÉÇ CirÉÍpÉÌlÉÌSï¹Ç urÉÉZrÉÉlÉÇ iÉxrÉ uɤrÉiÉå || mÉɧÉåprÉÉå SÏrÉiÉå ÌlÉirÉÇ AlÉuÉå¤rÉ mÉërÉÉåeÉlÉqÉç | MåüuÉsÉÇ kÉqÉïoÉÑ®èrÉÉ rÉiÉç kÉqÉïSÉlÉÇ iÉSÒcrÉiÉå || SÉiÉÉ mÉëÌiÉaÉ×WûÏiÉÉ cÉ ´É®É SårÉÇ cÉ kÉqÉïrÉÑMçü | SåzÉMüÉsÉÉæ iÉÑ SÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ A…¡ûÉÌlÉ LiÉÉÌlÉ iÉ̲SÒÈ ||’ Such a Danam is called kÉqÉïSÉlÉqÉç because all the parties concerned are only interested in Dharma and not in anything else and all parties are benefited spiritually. ‘Patras’ are of many kinds 1) those who go to the householders as part of their Dharma. These are called ‘Bhikshus’. The Brahmachari and the Sannyasin are ‘Bhikshus’ of this type as they take to begging as a Sadhana for the killing of their own AWûƒ¡ûÉU and for spiritual training in reliance upon God alone for their needs and necessities. The educated man who has not entered into the Grihastha’s life technically known as the Snataka also has the duty of begging for public

119

welfare. The householder is required by Sastras as part of his daily spiritual exercise to offer something to these Bhikshus in the interest of Dharma for Lokasamgraham. The donation made to a Brahmachari helps him to complete his education without depending upon his parents for the same. This kind of ÍpɤÉSÉlÉqÉç to a Brahmachari is what may be called in the modern language an educational cess the only difference being that the gift is made voluntarily and not by compulsion of the govt. Being educated by such public funds the students are more likely to feel their gratitude and duty to the public and society as a whole than to their parents and may therefore feel themselves more free to take to public service even at the expense of their duty to their family. The provision for such ÍpɤÉSÉlÉqÉç to students also enables all poor boys to continue their education without being hampered by their poverty and therefore it serves as afreeship and scholarships. Every student being put to the necessity of going for Bhiksha and thus educate himself with the help of such Bhiksha the distinction between the rich & poor and the consequent superiority & inferiority complexes are eliminated as far as possible. Cf. the stories of the discipleship of Kuchela & Sri Krishna, or Drona & Drupada, the Kauravas & Aswatthama etc. So we see a healthy feeling of friendship and equality established among all educated classes. When they finish their education many of them take to selfless public service in the true spiritual sense as naturally as the duckling takes to wter without entangling themselves in marriage and the responsibilities and obligations arising from it. It is such Snatakas that are classified along with Bhikshus who were entitled to beg for the benefit of the public. Manu classifies them in XI.1-3 xÉÉliÉÉÌlÉMÇü rɤrÉqÉÉhÉÇ AkuÉaÉÇ xÉuÉïuÉåSxÉqÉç | aÉÑuÉïjÉïÇ ÌmÉiÉ×qÉɧÉjÉïÇ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉÍjÉï EmÉiÉÉÌmÉlÉÈ || lÉuÉæiÉÉlÉç xlÉÉlÉMüÉlÉç ÌuɱÉiÉç oÉëɼhÉÉlÉç kÉqÉïÍpɤÉÑMüÉlÉç | ÌlÉÈxuÉåprÉÉå SårÉÇ LiÉåprÉÈ SÉlÉÇ ÌuɱÉÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ || Here xÉÉliÉÉÌlÉMü refers to those who were interested in handing down for the benefit of the future generation the culture and education as freely as they temselves have received in the spirit of mÉëeÉÉiÉliÉÑ qÉÉ urÉuÉcNåûixÉÏÈ | The word should not be understood as meaning one who is interested in producing children as orthodox commentators understand. Their interest is not in themselves or their own welfare as clearly suggested by the word ÌlÉxuÉåprÉÈ which means free from all self interest and who have no axe of their own to grind their only interest being in public welfare and they dedicate their whole life as an offering to the public. The modern idea that all graduates should be compulsorily recruited and forced to do public work before they are given their diploma is a faint echo of this ancient practice voluntarily adopted by Snatakas of old. rɤrÉqÉÉhÉ refers to those Snatakas who were engaged in social service as worship of God in the spirit of Karma Yoga. AkuÉaÉ refers to those who have no home of their own and who are always traveling without any opportunity to return to their own homes for the satisfaction of their own personal needs. They are always out on public service. Sarvavedasam refers to one who has given up all his wealth and belongings for public service. xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉjÉÏï is one who is engaged in helping students to study by procuring for them all their educational necessities corresponding to starting of student’s home & hospitals in modern times. EmÉiÉÉmÉÏ means one who sympathises with the poor and the sick and is engaged in relieving the distress by starting institutions like free hospitals, sevasrams etc. and personally serving through nursing etc. aÉÑuÉïjÉïqÉç refers to those who support teachers & institutions which give free education. qÉɧÉjÉïqÉç refers to national workers who work for their mother country through politics, political institutions, etc. ÌmɧÉjÉïqÉç refers to those who are interested in looking after the welfare of orphans and such others who have nobody else to protect them. All these Snatakas who do selfless public service withot caring to earn anything for themselves are entitled to public support for their own maintenance as well as for the carrying on of their public work. All those who can

120

afford must necessarily give their public work and in thus contributing their share to the maintenance of these people and to the success of their public work they are in fact only helping themselves morally and spiritually. That is why Manu says that every householder should make donations to such workers for the support of such good causes. When these Snatakas go to the Grihasthas begging for support they should not be refused except at the risk of their own moral and spiritual welfare. By their begging they really beg the Grihastha only to do his Dharma and cultivate the spirit of brotherhood and love and to express their oneness with the poor and the needy so that they are called Dharma Bhikshukas. To those householders who have amassed money perhaps by the unconscious & unintentional exploitation of others, those Dharma Bhikshukas afford an opportunity of rendering themselves by re-distributing their wealth among the deserving, poor and the needy. This is suggested by Manu’s words in XI.19-20 rÉÉåÅxÉÉkÉÑprÉÉåÅjÉïqÉÉSÉrÉ xÉÉkÉÑprÉÈ xÉqmÉërÉcNûÌiÉ | xÉ M×üiuÉÉ msÉuÉqÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉliÉÉUrÉÌiÉ iÉÉuÉÑpÉÉæ || This shows that such a refined or an enlightened begger makes himself an instrument for saving both the donor as well as the beneficiary. The money that is used for such public service in the spirit of worship of God is SåuÉxuÉÇ i.e property of God whereas money used in any other way is called AÉxÉÑUxuÉqÉç | rÉ®lÉÇ rÉ¥ÉzÉÏsÉÉlÉÉÇ SåuÉxuÉÇ iÉÇ ÌuÉSÒÈ oÉÑkÉÉÈ | ArÉeuÉlÉÉÇ iÉÑ rÉiÉç ÌuɨÉÇ AÉxÉÑUxuÉÇ iÉSÒcrÉiÉå || The prescriptions in the Sruti’s about the Rajasuya and Aswamedha sacrifices for the Kshatriyas which involves the conquest of wicked kings is meant for such re-distribution of the ill begotten wealth of those wicked kings. It enables powerful and just kings to use the necessary force to compel the petty tyrants and exploiters of the poor to disgorge all their ill begooten wealth and that is why ‘Danam’ is made one of the foremost items in the performance of such ritualistic sacrifices. Incidentally it is meant also to give freedom to individuals to seek their own salvation through their own Svadharma according to their Adhikara without being hampered by the tyranny of autocrats and tyrants. Apart from these types of authorized beggars who are all beggers in the cause of Dharma there is another type of beggar who is forced to beg for the sake of himself and his dependents on account of poverty or famine conditions etc. Such begging comes under Apaddharma where the interest of the beggar is maintaining himself and his dependents only for the purpose of enabling them perform their Dharma which they are prevented from doing on account of their poverty, disease, etc. In such cases also we may consider these beggars as Dharma Bhikshukas of a lower type as they are more interested in themselves and their dependants than in the general public as in the other types mentioned above.

The next types of persons who deserve service from the rich people are the so called AÌiÉÍjÉ. AÌiÉÍjÉ are of various sorts. The word AÌiÉÍjÉ is derived by Yaska in the Nirukta from the root AiÉç, to go and ÌiÉÍjÉ with ‘A’ meaning to come. AÌiÉÍjÉÈ AprÉÌiÉÍjÉÈ AprÉÌiÉiÉÉå aÉ×WûÉlÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ AprÉåÌiÉ ÌiÉÍjÉwÉÑ mÉUMÑüsÉÉlÉÏÌiÉ uÉÉ | This means a stray guest who comes to the house without being invited because he is a traveller away from his home. Manu defines an AÌiÉÍjÉ as LMüÉUɧÉÇ iÉÑ ÌlÉuÉxÉlÉç AÌiÉÍjÉÈ oÉëɼhÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | AÌlÉirÉÇ ÌWû ÎxjÉiÉÉå rÉxqÉÉiÉç iÉxqÉÉiÉç AÌiÉÍjÉ EcrÉiÉå || According to this definition of AÌiÉÍjÉ must be a casual visitor who seeks protection for one night only and does not stay longer. Vide also Parasara I.42 and Markandeya XXIX.2-9. According to Gautama V.26, Manu III.103, Yajnavalkya I.107&111, an Atithi is one who belonging to a different village and intending to stay for one night only arrives in the evening and not one who has already been invited for dinner. This shows that the Atithi must be an absolute stranger who finds himself stranded in a strange place and who seeks shelter for the night without any pre-appointment. Aitareya Aranyaka I.1.1 says

121

whoever is good and has attained eminence will be a welcome guest everywhere. rÉÈ ´Éå¹iÉÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå xÉ uÉÉ AÌiÉÍjÉpÉïuÉÌiÉ | But our Sastras make it clear that any stranger must be welcomed and treated as Atithi without refernce to his character or without any enquiries about his caste, family, qualification etc. The Aitareya Brahmana XXV.5 says that a guest should never be refused shelter in the evening. iÉxqÉÉSÉWÒûÈ lÉ EmÉÃkrÉÈ CÌiÉ | Cf. also Manu 305 AmÉëhÉÉåkÉÉåÅÌiÉÍjÉÈ xÉÉrÉÇ xÉÔrÉÉåïRûÉå aÉ×WûqÉåÍkÉlÉÉ | cf. also Tait. Up III.10.1 lÉ MügcÉlÉ uÉxÉiÉÉæ mÉëirÉÉcɤÉÏiÉ | iÉSèuÉëiÉqÉç etc. Even Sudras are considered as Atithis worthy of hospitality along with one's pÉ×irÉuÉaÉï and mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï | AlrÉÉlÉç pÉ×irÉæÈ xÉWû AlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÉjÉïqÉ | Gautama V.42. Apastamba requires that food should be given to all who come at the end of the Vaishvadeva even including Chandala although he mentions the opinion of some persons that unworthy persons could not be fed he himself does not subscribe to this view Vide II.4.9.6. xÉuÉÉïlÉç uÉæµÉSåuÉpÉÉÌaÉlÉÈ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ lÉ AlÉWïûpSrÉÈ SkÉÉiÉç CirÉåMåü || Vide also Bodhayana Girhya Paribhasha II.5.14 oÉÉsÉÉlÉÉÇ uÉ×®ÉlÉÉÇ iÉÑ ÌuÉpÉë¹ÉlÉÉÇ aÉÔRûcÉËUiÉ ÌuÉM×üiÉuÉåwÉÉhÉÉÇ AÌmÉ uÉÉ µÉcÉhQûÉsÉÉSÏlÉÉÇ AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉuÉiÉç xÉÇÌuÉpÉÉaÉÉå ÌuÉÌWûiÉÈ || Cf. also Suta Samhita SÒuÉ×ï¨ÉqÉÌmÉ qÉÔZÉïÇ cÉ mÉÔeÉrÉåiÉç SåuÉiÉÉiqÉlÉÉ | SåuÉiÉÉÃmÉiÉÈ mÉzrÉlÉç qÉÑcrÉåiÉç pÉuÉoÉlkÉlÉÉiÉç || Sridhara Swami defines AÌiÉÍjÉ as A¥ÉÉiÉmÉÔuÉï aÉ×WûaÉiÉurÉÌ£üÈ Satatapata says ÌmÉërÉÉå uÉ qÉÌS uÉÉ ²åwrÉÈ qÉÔZÉïÈ mÉÌiÉiÉ LuÉ uÉÉ | xÉqmÉëÉmiÉÉå uÉæµÉSåuÉÉliÉå xÉÉå AÌiÉÍjÉÈ xuÉaÉïxÉXç¢üqÉÈ | Bhagavata says iÉåwÉÑ AÉiqÉSåuÉiÉÉoÉÑÎ®È xÉÑiÉUÉÇ lÉ×wÉÑ mÉÉhQûuÉ || Vishnu Purana says xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉaÉÉå§ÉcÉUhÉÇ AmÉ×¹ÉÅÌmÉ iÉjÉÉ MÑüsÉÇ ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉïoÉÑkrÉÉ iÉÇ qÉlrÉåiÉ AprÉÉaÉiÉÇ aÉ×WûÏ || The Kurma Purana says S±ÉiÉç AÌiÉjÉrÉå ÌlÉirÉÇ oÉÑkrÉiÉå mÉUqÉåµÉUqÉç || Markandeya Purana says lÉ ÍqɧÉÇ AÌiÉÍjÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç lÉæMüaÉëÉqÉuÉÉÍxÉlÉqÉç | A¥ÉÉiÉMÑüsÉlÉÉqÉÉlÉÇ A³ÉMüÉsÉå EmÉÎxjÉiÉqÉç || oÉÑpÉѤÉÑqÉÉaÉÉiÉÇ ´ÉÉliÉÇ rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉqÉÌMügcÉlÉqÉç | oÉëɼhÉÇ mÉëÉWÒûUÌiÉÍjÉÇ xÉ mÉÔerÉÈ zÉÌ£üiÉÉå oÉÑkÉæÈ || The same Purana says lÉ mÉ×cNåûiÉç aÉÉå§ÉcÉUhÉÇ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÇ uÉÉÅÌmÉ mÉÎhQûiÉÈ | zÉÉåpÉlÉÉÅzÉÉåpÉlÉÉMüÉUÇ iÉÇ qÉlrÉåiÉ mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉqÉç || Prachetas says rÉÈ xuÉrÉÇ uÉæµÉSåuÉÉliÉå xÉÉrÉÇ uÉÉ aÉ×WûqÉÉaÉiÉÈ | SåuÉuÉiÉç mÉÔeÉlÉÏrÉÉåÅxÉÉæ xÉÔrÉÉåïRûÈ xÉ AÌiÉÍjÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || Mahabharata in Kapothopakhyana says xÉÑSÕUÉiÉç AÉ´ÉqÉÉiÉç mÉëÉmiÉÈ ¤ÉѨÉ×whÉÉ´ÉqÉMüÌwÉïiÉÈ | rÉÈ mÉÔerÉiÉå AÌiÉÍjÉÈ xÉqrÉMçü ArÉÔmÉÈ ¢üiÉÑUåuÉ xÉÈ || It will be seen that the principle of feeding and affording hospitality to such persons in need is on a different principle than the feeding of invited guests on Sraddha and other occasions. In the latter case only spiritually and morally qualified persons have to be invited. This is to ensure a purely spiritual atmosphere for Satsanga but in the former case as mentioned above when the man comes uninvited and even unexpected no qualifications are to be looked into but has to be still worshipped as God. In all these cases where persons are invited one has the opportunity and the duty to invite only spiritual men but in the case of uninvited guest there is no such possibility or opportunity of selecting such persons. On the other hand there is every danger of such persons being turned away. It is the feeling of sympathy that is sought to be evoked or made a stimulus. Indiscriminate interdining with strangers, however, has its own dangers. People dining together have a tendency to develop social relations and become friends. Therefore if one dines with evil people one is likely in the long run, to appreciate their company and to condone their evil tendencies as they are

122

friends. There is also the further chance of ones taking to the evil ways in their company as often happen in so called clubs. Cf. Guru Maharaj’s story of the butcher partaking in a Sraddha feast but this applies only to cases where there is opportunity to discriminate as in Sraddhas and not in the case of strangers or casual visitors whom one is not likely to meet again.

The injunction that these uninvited guests should be treated as God himself without consideration of castes, family and other qualifications shows that the purpose here is to enable the donor to see God in mere man as man and not merely in Guru or learned Brahmanas, parents etc. as laid down in ‘AÉcÉÉrÉïSåuÉÉå pÉuÉ | qÉÉiÉ×SåuÉÉå pÉuÉ | ÌmÉiÉ×SåuÉÉå pÉuÉ |’ That is why Tait. Up. follows up this statement with ‘AÍjÉÍjÉSåuÉÉå pÉuÉ’ also. Our scriptures go still further and enjoin the Grihasthas not only to serve God in man but in the whole world including animals and trees. Thus it is laid down by Manu µÉcÉhQûÉsÉÌuÉWû…¡ûÉlÉÉÇ pÉÑÌuÉ S±ÉiÉç iÉiÉÉå lÉUÈ | rÉå cÉ AlrÉå mÉÌiÉiÉÉÈ MåüÍcÉiÉç AÉqÉmÉɧÉÉÈ xÉÉqÉÉaÉiÉÉÈ || zÉÑlÉÉÇ cÉ mÉÌiÉiÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ µÉmÉcÉÉÇ mÉÉmÉUÉåÌaÉhÉÉqÉç | uÉÉrÉxÉÉlÉÉÇ M×üqÉÏhÉÉÇ cÉ zÉlÉMæüÈ ÌlÉͤÉmÉåiÉç pÉÑÌuÉÈ || It will thus be seen how all these duties enjoined on Grihasthas are meant to be exercise in Tyaga as well as Yoga. In making these gifts the Grihastha should not do it at the expense of others who it is his duty to support. For that portion of his incom does not belong to him but to his pÉ×irÉuÉaÉï and mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï as they are called. If he makes any gift out of the funds necessary to support his pÉ×irÉuÉaÉï it is as good as making a gift of another’s property. There is no spirit of Tyaga involved in it. One can make a gift only out of his own share of property without affecting others right. These mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï’s are thus enumerated qÉÉiÉÉ ÌmÉiÉÉ aÉÑÂpÉÉïrÉÉï mÉëeÉÉ SÏlÉÉÈ xÉqÉÍ´ÉiÉÉÈ | AprÉÉaÉiÉÉå AÌiÉÍjɶÉÉÅÎalÉÈ mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï ESÉWØûiÉÈ || Daksha. ¥ÉÉÌiÉÈ oÉlkÉÑeÉlÉÈ ¤ÉÏhÉÈ iÉjÉÉ AlÉÉjÉÈ xÉqÉÉÍ´ÉiÉÈ | AlrÉÉåÅÌmÉ kÉlÉrÉÑ£üxrÉ mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï ESÉWØûiÉÈ || AdiPurana. There is no special virtue in serving these people as it is his bounden duty to do. It is only when protection is extended to these who do not belong to this group that it deserves to be treated as service. It is only in such cases that the real spirit of charity or service is involved and it is only in such help that the real spirit of compassion is exercised. cf. "From avarice and from frivolity no charitable gifts of alms doth come, By him who would have merits sure reward, By him who can discern, gifts should be given"- Samyutta Nikaya I.4.3. That is why Sri Ramakrishna says in the Gospel that the former kind of help to the mÉÉåwrÉuÉaÉï is only Maya and only the latter is Daya. Even in making these donations, the donor must have a proper mental background, first and foremost he must have Sraddha. That is why Taittiriya Upanishad says ´É®rÉÉ SårÉqÉç | A´É®rÉÉ ASårÉqÉç | Í´ÉrÉÉ SårÉqÉç | ̾ûrÉÉ SårÉqÉç | ÍpÉrÉÉ SårÉqÉç | xÉÇÌuÉSÉ SårÉqÉç | Sraddha is thus defined in this connection by Devala. xÉÉæqÉÑZrÉÉή AÌuÉxÉqmÉëÏÌiÉ AjÉÉïlÉÉÇ SzÉïlÉå xÉSÉ | xÉiM×üÌiÉ¶É AlÉxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ xÉSÉ ´É®åÌiÉ MüÐirÉïiÉå || So Sureshwara says in his Vartika ´É®rÉæuÉ cÉ SÉiÉurÉÇ A´É®É pÉÉeÉlÉåwuÉÌmÉ | So Valmiki says in Ramayana AuÉ¥ÉÉrÉ lÉ SÉiÉurÉÇ MüxrÉÍcÉiÉç sÉÏsÉrÉÉÅÌmÉ uÉÉ | AuÉ¥ÉÉrÉ M×üiÉÇ WûlrÉÉiÉç SÉiÉÉUÇ lÉÉÅ§É xÉÇzÉrÉÈ || cf. also Gita A´É®rÉÉ WÒûiÉÇ S¨ÉÇ iÉmÉxiÉmiÉÇ M×üiÉÇ cÉ rÉiÉç | AxÉÌSirÉÑcrÉiÉå mÉÉjÉï. The expression in Tait. Up . Sriyadeyam, Hriyadeyam, Bhiyadeyam, etc must be properly understood. Sri should be here properly understood as explained by Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam ´ÉÏaÉÑïhÉÉ lÉæUmÉå¤ÉÉ±É i.e the spirit of non-dependence on one’s own self interest. Í´ÉrÉÉ SårÉqÉç, therefore, means that a gift must be absolutely selfless, ̾ûrÉÉ SårÉqÉç shows that the donor should have a sense of modesty, humility and shyness in making

123

offering help to another instead of assuming an arrogant or superior attitude, ÍpÉrÉÉ SårÉqÉç shows that he must approach the donee in reverence & respect and in fear that his offering may be rejected if it is not done with the proper spirit. As it is pointed out in the M.Bh. & many of the Smritis real qualified donees will refuse to accept any offering made by even kings if it is not done in the proper spirit, vide Anusasana 61.5 lÉiÉÑ mÉÉmÉM×üiÉÉlÉç UÉ¥ÉÉÇ mÉëÌiÉaÉ׺ûÎliÉ xÉÉkÉuÉÈ | See also Anusasana 93 how great Rishis like Atri, Vasishtha, Gautama, Bharadvaja, etc refused gifts from king Shaibya, see also 64.65 even though they were starving. xÉÇÌuÉSÉ SårÉqÉç shows that the donation has to be made with the feeling that the gift is made to God Himself. That is why Ushanas says SÉlÉÉiÉç zÉiÉaÉÑhÉÉå rÉÉaÉÈ rÉÉaÉÉiÉç zÉiÉaÉÑhÉÉå eÉmÉÈ | That ordinary Dana is not as efficacious as Danam which is made to God or seeing God in man, that is to say, it should be made as an act of worship of God instead of merely to relieve the distress of man. Japa is considered still superior because in this process one offers not merely objects but his whole mind itself to God through repetition of His names which must always be accompanied by meditation. Nothing is dearer to a man than his own self and it is this dearest self that is surrendered to God in all humility and self effacement when one repeats mantras like lÉqÉÎzzÉuÉÉrÉç, lÉqÉÉå lÉÉUÉrÉhÉÉrÉç, etc. where lÉqÉÈ is considered as good as an offering in Yajna by Aswatayana. Cf. also Bhagavatam VII.14.34-35 where Bhagavan is considered as the best of all ‘Patras’. mÉɧÉqÉ§É ÌlÉ£Çü uÉæ MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ mÉɧÉÌuɨÉqÉæÈ | WûËUUåuÉæMü EuÉÏïzÉ rÉlqÉrÉÇ uÉæ cÉUÉcÉUqÉç | SåuÉÌwÉï AWïûixÉÑ uÉæ xÉixÉÑ etc. Vide notes on Puja. Cf. also xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÌmÉ mÉɧÉÉhÉÉÇ mÉUÇ mÉɧÉÇ qÉWåûµÉUÈ | Siva Dharma already quoted above. Again all services must be done as secretely as possible without self advertisement. So Yogi Yajnavalkya says mÉëcNû³ÉÉÌlÉ cÉ SÉlÉÉÌlÉ | cf. also Devata quoted by Apararka C¹Ç S¨ÉÇ AÍkÉiÉÇ uÉÉ ÌuÉlÉzrÉÌiÉ AlÉÑMüÐiÉïlÉÉiÉç | zsÉÉbÉÉlÉÑzÉÉåcÉlÉÉprÉÉÇ cÉ pÉalÉiÉÉåeÉÉå ÌuÉmɱiÉå || iÉxqÉÉSÉÅÅiqÉM×üiÉÇ mÉÑhrÉÇ lÉ uÉ×jÉÉ mÉËUMüÐiÉïrÉåiÉç || Again the donor should not take any more interest in the thing offered and should not feel anything if the donee himself personally uses it or misuses it. A ‘Danam’ means complete transference of ownership to the donee without any reservations in spirit with the transfer of right to use it in any way the donee likes. If such transference is not intended there is no proper gift. The gift must also be not motivated by desire for name & fame nor by fear of the consequences of non payment. Vide Sana XXXVI.36 lÉ S±ÉiÉç rÉzÉxÉå SÉlÉÇ lÉ pÉrÉÉiÉç lÉ EmÉMüÉËUhÉå | There are some other kinds of public service which come under the head of Purta which means creation of public utilities such as gardens, tanks, avenue trees etc which are all meant for the use of public in general and not made as a gift to any particular individual. All these kinds of donations mentioned above come under the class of Sattvic Danam. Vide Anusasana 58 for Purti. Various varities of Dana mentioned in Anusasana 138.5-10 cannot be taken as Sattvic Danas they are motivated otherwise. kÉqÉÉïiÉç AjÉÉïiÉç pÉrÉÉiÉç MüÉqÉÉiÉç MüÉÂhrÉÉÌSÌiÉ pÉÉUiÉ | SÉlÉÇ mÉgcÉÌuÉkÉÇ ¥ÉårÉÇ MüÉUhÉærÉæïÈ lÉÉåoÉÉåkÉ iÉiÉç || CWû MüÐÌiÉïqÉuÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ mÉëåirÉ cÉ AlÉѨÉqÉÇ xÉÑZÉÇ | CÌiÉ SÉlÉÇ mÉëSÉiurÉÇ oÉë¼hÉåprÉÉåÅlÉxÉÔrÉiÉÉ || SSÉÌiÉ uÉÉ SÉxrÉÌiÉ uÉÉ qÉ½Ç S¨ÉqÉlÉålÉ uÉÉ | CirÉÍjÉïprÉÉå ÌlÉzÉprÉæuÉ xÉuÉïÇ SÉiÉurÉqÉÍjÉïlÉå || lÉ AxrÉÉÅWÇû lÉ qÉSÏrÉÉåÅrÉÇ mÉÉmÉÇ MÑürÉÉïiÉç ÌuÉqÉÉÌlÉiÉÈ | CÌiÉ S±ÉiÉç pÉrÉÉSåuÉ kÉ×RÇû qÉÔRûÉrÉ MüÎsmÉiÉÈ || ÌmÉërÉÉå qÉå ArÉÇ ÌmÉërÉÉåÅxrÉÉWÇû CÌiÉ xÉqÉÉåUå¤rÉ oÉÑήqÉÉlÉç | uÉrÉxrÉÉrÉæuÉ AÎYsÉ¹Ç SÉlÉÇ S±ÉiÉç AiÉÎlSìiÉÈ || SÏlÉ¶É rÉÉcÉiÉå cÉÉÅrÉÇ AsmÉålÉÉÌmÉ ÌWû iÉÑwrÉÌiÉ | CÌiÉ S±ÉiÉç SËUSìÉrÉ MüÉÂhrÉÉÌSÌiÉ xÉuÉïjÉÉ || In all these kinds of gift the proper spirit of selfless Tyaga is absent and hence they cannot be Satvic.

124

Even the first of these varieties being prompted only by the desire for worldy benefits here and hereafter. At best they can come only under the Rajasic or Tamasic variety of Danam. But these gifts mentioned in Anusasanika 59.3-10 may be considered as proper gifts. ApÉrÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåprÉÈ urÉxÉlÉåŠÉmrÉlÉÑaÉëWûÈ | rÉŠ AÍpÉsÉÌwÉiÉÇ S±ÉiÉç iÉ×ÌwÉiÉÉrÉ AÍpÉrÉÉcÉiÉå || S¨ÉÇ qÉlrÉålÉ rÉiÉç S¨uÉÉ iɬÉlÉÇ ´Éå¸qÉÑcrÉiÉå || ... LiÉÉÌlÉ mÉÑÂwÉurÉÉbÉë xÉÉkÉÑprÉÉå SåÌWû ÌlÉirÉSÉ ... rɱSè C¹iÉqÉÇ sÉÉåMåü rÉŠÉÅxrÉ SÌrÉiÉÇ aÉ×Wåû | iɨÉiÉç aÉÑhÉuÉiÉå SårÉÇ iÉSåuÉ A¤ÉrÉqÉÑcrÉiÉÉ || ... rÉÉcÉqÉÉlÉqÉpÉÏqÉÉlÉÉiÉç AlÉÉxÉ£üqÉÌMügcÉlÉqÉç | rÉÉå lÉ AcÉïrÉÌiÉ rÉjÉÉzÉÌ£ü xÉ lÉ×zÉÇxÉÉå rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || AÍqɧÉqÉÌmÉ cÉåiÉç SÏlÉÇ zÉUhÉæÌwÉhÉqÉç AÉaÉiÉqÉç | urÉxÉlÉå rÉÉåÅlÉÑaÉ׺ûÉÌiÉ xÉ uÉæ mÉÑÂwÉxɨÉqÉÈ ||

There is a still higher kind of Danam which is above even Sattvica Dana. Such Danam may be considered as Nirguna. In such Dana there is no desire even for Dharma or even Moksha. It is a giving from the fullness of the heart indiscriminately to one and all seeing God in everybody. Here pure love is the only basis and egoism even of the higher sort is absolutely absent where the lower gives himself wholly to his beloved without any thought or consideration even though his love may be unreciprocated and even though he may get only kicks in return. The best examples of such service we find only in men of realization or in the highest devotees like the Gopis of Bhagavatam. Among mundane examples which come nearest this ideal we may mention the service rendered by the mother to a son or by the son to the mother even though later has gone mad. This is the ideal held out by Swamiji to public workers of the Ramakrishna order where they have to carry on their work of service even though they may get in return nothing but contempt and ridicule and bad name or scandal. It is this kind of service that a mother can give to her son that is refered to by Sri Krishna as a second variety in his instruction to Gopis. (D339). The next variety of service, according to Sri Krishna, comprises service to two kinds of people both of whom do not reciprocate or even recognize the service done to them. They represent the highest as well as the lowest type of recipients. The lowest are the heartless, ungrateful, ultra selfish wretches and the highest those who are never in need and always immersed in the enjoyment of the bliss of the Atman. These are the people who are always in Samadhi as it were and do not recognize any other than their own self or God and therefore they have no thought of anything as due from them to another. They are not aware of any service done to them as they are immersed in the bliss of God. They themselves do not stand in need of any service though others may derive spiritual benefit by their service. They have no sense of responsibility or duty to anybody. Therefore they do not consciously do anything in return for the service renderd to them. Without any conscious effort, however, on their past or without any recognition of the service done those who serve them do benefit by such service. Sri Krishna goes a step further and says that he does not fall even under this highest class. He is not immersed in Samadhi always in the sense that he does not recognize any other different from himself. He is fully conscious of the outer world and wants to do good to one and all but not as others expect him to do but as he deems fit. cf. Abhijnanasakuntalam V.33 mÉÑUÉåÌWûiÉÈ – UéeÉÉlÉÇ ÌlÉÌSïzrÉ pÉÉåÈ iÉmÉÎxuÉlÉÈ AxÉÉuÉ§É pÉuÉÉlÉç uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÉhÉÉÇ UͤÉiÉÉ mÉëÉaÉåuÉ qÉÑ£üÉxÉlÉÉå uÉÈ mÉëÌiÉmÉÉsÉrÉÌiÉ | mÉzrÉiÉ LlÉqÉç zÉÉXïûuÉÈ - pÉÉå qÉWûÉoÉë¼hÉ MüÉqÉqÉåiÉqÉÍpÉlÉlSlÉÏrÉÇ iÉjÉÉÌmÉ uÉrÉqÉ§É qÉkrÉxjÉÉÈ M×üiÉÈ –pÉuÉÎliÉ lÉqÉëÉÈ iÉUuÉÈ TüsÉÉaÉqÉæÈ lÉuÉÉqoÉÑÍpÉSÕïUÌuÉsÉÎqoÉlÉÉ bÉlÉÉÈ |

125

AlÉÑ®iÉÉÈ xÉimÉÑÂwÉÉÈ xÉqÉ×ήÍpÉÈ xuÉpÉÉuÉ LuÉæwÉ mÉUÉåmÉMüÉËUhÉÉqÉç || That is the service done by a proper Guru or a Jnani who is never to be moved by the demands made on him nor by consideration of gratitude for the benefits or service received from others. He does not keep quiet as the man of previous class but is actively interested in Lokasamgraha and is prepared to undergo any trouble for bringing about the welfare of the world. He is prepared to go to the extent of inflicting pain and suffering on those who serve him and even deprive them of their worldly prosperity if necessary; in case such drastic treatment is necessary to cure the servant of his disease. Here he does service consciously but not in return for what he has received. He would have been glad to do the same if he had not received any service at all. He would have done the same kind of service even to an enemy to a friend. In this he does not make a distinction between the Gopis or Sisupala or Duryodhana or Arjuna. He is impartial to all. This is the best and highest kind of service that should be kept before our eyes as the ideal. Whatever he does has no relation upon himself but always helps the world to realize its highest destiny accordint to the Adhikara of each individual. That he is not in the least affected by such Karma because he is absolutely free from egoism is clearly stated by him in the Gita itself. rÉxrÉ lÉÉWÇûM×üiÉÉå pÉÉuÉÉå etc. xÉqÉÉåÅWÇû xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ etc. Also xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉxjÉqÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ qÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉ×cNûÌiÉ | Such a man is the ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, pÉ£ü, ¥ÉÉlÉÏ of the second, twelth and thirteenth chapters. This is the ideal placed before Swamiji by Sri Ramakrishna when he said that he expected something better of Swamiji than being immersed in Samadhi and this is what Sri Krishna wanted Yudhishthira to do when he asked him to speak an untruth to save Dharma. This takes us to the next characteristic of Dharma, viz Truth.

Mahabharatha says (xÉirÉɳÉÉÅÎxiÉ) lÉÉÎxiÉ xÉirÉÉiÉç mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ Santi 162.24. Aswamedha P. 74.102 (Anusasanika), Santi 162.26 says that Satya is superior 1000 Aswamedhas. This Satya is identified with Dharma itself and Dharma with Satya itself in Brihad. Ar. Up. I.4.14. rÉÉå uÉæ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉirÉÇ uÉæ iÉiÉç, iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ uÉSliÉqÉÉWÒûÈ kÉqÉïÇ uÉSiÉÏÌiÉ | kÉqÉïÇ uÉÉ uÉSliÉÇ xÉirÉÇ uÉSiÉÏÌiÉ | LiÉiÉç ÌWû LuÉ LiÉSÒpÉrÉÇ pÉuÉÌiÉ | Satya like Dharma is in fact one of the names of God Himself. Just as all actions will be entitled to be called Dharma only if they are aimed at God and leads to God, similarly Satyam also is described as realization of God and use of speech which helps realization of God. Satyam is defined in the Bhagavatam by Sri Krishna himself as xÉirÉÇ cÉ xÉqÉSzÉïlÉqÉç i.e realization of God equally in everything. That this is the highest meaning of Satya as understood by Vedantins is clear from Jabaladarsanopanishad I.10 xÉuÉïÇ xÉirÉÇ mÉUÇ oÉë¼ lÉÉlrÉSxiÉÏÌiÉ rÉÉ qÉÌiÉÈ iÉŠ xÉirÉÇ mÉUÇ mÉëÉå£Çü uÉåSÉliÉ¥ÉÉlÉmÉÉUaÉæÈ || That is why in the Ch. Up. VI we read iÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ xÉ AÉiqÉÉ iɨuÉqÉÍxÉ µÉåiÉMåüiÉÉå and in Brihad V.4 xÉirÉqÉåuÉ oÉë¼. This makes it clear why Satyam is considered as one of the important elements of Dharma along with Ahimsa. In fact the two cannot be separated from each other. If at all any distinction it is to be made Satyam is to be considered as the verbal aspect of Ahimsa. In this sense to talk about God, to expand and teach the philosophy of the Atman or God, to expand and teach the philosophy of the Atman or God, to expound scriptures which deal with such philosophy which helps one to realize the highest truth, viz the Atman or God, to expound the principles of Dharma to help others to adopt the proper means to realize the Atman or God – these various varieties of using words and language so that they may lead the devotee to the highest Truth viz Brahman or Atman will be characteristic of Satya. It can well be seen how Satya can never go against Ahimsa,

126

Bhutahitam, Paropakara, Lokasangraha, etc all of which we have discussed above. Even teaching of science in all its branches, in all its stages as well as history, etc. may be considered as Satya if it is aimed at cultivating the spirit of enquiry into truth which is behind the phenomenal universe of time, space and causation. But, only in so far as it is a help to achieve this purpose. If such teaching is meant only to further self aggrandizement and exploitation of others such teaching cannot be considered as Satya but only as Mithya or AlÉ×iÉqÉç. That is why Mahabharata specially emphasizes that veracity in itself does not constitute a moral attribute unless it does not come into conflict with the principle of Ahimsa or xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ. So we see Narada saying to Suka quoting Santkumara’s words in Santi 329.13 & 287.19 xÉirÉxrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ xÉirÉxrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ xÉirÉÉSÌmÉ ÌWûiÉÇ uÉSåiÉç | rÉ°ÕiÉÌWûiÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåiÉixÉirÉÇ qÉiÉÇ qÉqÉ || Vide also Vanaparva 208.4 rÉ°ÕiÉÌWûiÉqÉirÉliÉÇ iÉixÉirÉÍqÉÌiÉ kÉÉUhÉÉ also Vana 207.73 AÌWÇûxÉÉxÉirÉuÉcÉlÉÇ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉUqÉç | AÌWÇûxÉÉ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉ cÉ xÉirÉå mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ || Cf. also the words of Vyasa elsewhere xÉirÉÇ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉëÉå£üqÉç | Also Garuda Purana xÉirÉÇ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ uÉÉYrÉÇ also xÉirÉÇ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉëÉå£Çü lÉ rÉjÉÉjÉÉïÍpÉpÉÉwÉhÉqÉç | Also Narada to Galava in Santi 287.19-20 xÉirÉxrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ xÉirÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ iÉÑ SÒwMüUÇ rÉ°ÕiÉÌWûiÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåiÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ oÉëuÉÏqrÉWûqÉç | Cf. also Ramanuja's words in explanation of the word xÉirÉÇ as an element of SåuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç rÉjÉÉ SعÉjÉïaÉÉåcÉU pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉuÉÉYrÉqÉç | Also his words in explanation of lÉ xÉirÉÇ iÉåwÉÑ ÌuɱiÉå Ch.XVI xÉirÉÇ rÉjÉÉjÉï¥ÉÉlÉ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÃmÉpÉÉwhÉqÉç || Also Sankara's interpretation of xÉirÉÇ uÉS in Tait. Up. rÉjÉÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÉuÉaÉiÉÇ uÉ£üurÉÇ iɲS | Cf. also the words of Vyasa in his Bhashya on Yoga Sutra II.30 xÉirÉÇ rÉjÉÉjÉåï uÉɉlÉxÉå rÉjÉÉ SØ¹Ç rÉjÉÉ ´ÉÑiÉÇ rÉjÉÉÅlÉÑqÉiÉÇ iÉjÉÉ uÉɉlɶÉåÌiÉ | mÉUxrÉ xuÉoÉÉåkÉxÉXç¢üÉliÉrÉå uÉÉaÉÑ£üÉ, xÉÉ rÉÌS lÉ uÉÎgcÉiÉÉ pÉëÉliÉÉ uÉÉ mÉëÌiÉmĘ́ÉuÉlkrÉÉ uÉÉ pÉuÉåÌSÌiÉ | LwÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉåmÉMüÉUÉjÉïÇ mÉëuÉרÉÉ lÉ pÉÔiÉÉåmÉbÉÉiÉÉrÉ | rÉÌS cÉ LuÉqÉÌmÉ AÍpÉkÉÏrÉqÉÉlÉÉ pÉÔiÉÉåmÉkÉÉiÉmÉUæuÉ xrÉÉiÉç lÉ xÉirÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç mÉÉmÉqÉåuÉ pÉuÉåiÉç | iÉxqÉÉiÉç mÉUϤrÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ xÉirÉÇ oÉëÔrÉÉiÉç | Vide also Sandilyopanishad xÉirÉÇ lÉÉqÉ qÉlÉÉåuÉÉMçüMüÉrÉMüqÉïÍpÉÈ pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉrÉjÉÉjÉÉïÍpÉpÉÉwÉhÉqÉç | From all these passages it is clear in what sense xÉirÉÇ is understood by our ancient writers on kÉqÉï. This explains Yudhistira’s question in Santi 109.4 as to when it is right and proper to speak an untruth. MüÎxqÉlÉç MüÉsÉå xÉirÉÇ uÉSåiÉç MüÎxqÉlÉç MüÉsÉå AlÉ×iÉÇ uÉSåiÉç where Yudhistira uses the words xÉirÉÇ and AlÉ×iÉÇ in their ordinarily understood sense. Bhisma answers how such mere veracity ceases to be Satya and a falsehood or lie becomes Satya according as the words are aimed at against pÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ or for it and he quotes instances where even a lie may be xÉirÉÇ from the moral and spiritual standpoint and concludes by saying ´ÉårÉxiɧÉÉÅlÉ×iÉÇ uÉ£ÑÇü xÉirÉÉÌSÌiÉ ÌuÉcÉÉËUiÉqÉç | (Read the whole of the chap.) Read also Karna Parva .69 where Krishna also uses almost the same words. pÉuÉåiÉç xÉirÉqÉuÉ£üurÉÇ uÉ£üurÉqÉlÉ×iÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç | rɧÉÉlÉ×iÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç xÉirÉÇ xÉirÉÇ cÉæuÉ AlÉ×iÉÇ pÉuÉåiÉç || iÉxqÉÉiÉç kÉqÉÉïjÉïqÉlÉ×iÉqÉÑYiuÉÉ lÉ AlÉ×iÉpÉÉMçü pÉuÉå iÉç || This explains how Krishna is right in asking Yudhishtira to tell a lie in the interests of Dharma and Lokasangraha and in asking Arjuna to break his vow when he was about to kill Yudhishthira. If we understand this moral and spiritual view of Satya we can justify the various cases of aberration from veracity which Krishna & Rama are guilty of according to some modern critics of Mahbharatha and Ramayana. When we see that all their

127

actions are meant for Bhutahita or Lokasangraha and in support of Dharma and not based upon Ahamkara and self interest we cannot accuse them of moral and spiritual lapses but would rather admire them for their readiness and courage to face all the so called consequences in the interest of Lokasangraha as when we admire Swami Vivekananda when he says that he is prepared to go to the gates of hell a thousand times if he can thereby save one soul. This is also the justification of Buddha’s statement that he is prepared to undergo any number of births and the miseries of Samsara to save the soul from Samsara. It explains Sankara’s utterance of an apparent falsehood when he was caught by a crocodile or Sri Ramakrihsna’s concealing of the fact of his Sannyas from his mother. So also Sitas words to Rakshasis that she did not know anything about the monkeys. Cf. also Sri Ramakrishna’s words in the Gospel that he does not mind the lies of those youngsters who come to him for spiritual instruction when they have to utter a lie to their parents for the purpose. That is why Sri Krishna is so self confident about his practice of truth in Ashwamedha 69.19-23 lÉ E£ümÉÔuÉïÇ qÉrÉÉ ÍqÉjrÉÉ xuÉæUåwuÉÌmÉ MüSÉcÉlÉ | rÉjÉÉ xÉirÉÇ cÉ kÉqÉïÇ cÉ qÉÌrÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉæ || iÉålÉ xÉirÉålÉ oÉÉsÉÉåÅrÉÇ mÉÑlÉÈ xÉgcÉÏuÉiÉÉqÉrÉqÉç || And it actually takes place that Praikshit is brought back to life because of the words of Krishna who was devoted to Satya as per Patanjali’s words xÉirÉmÉëÌiɸÉrÉÉÇ Ì¢ürÉÉTüsÉÉ´ÉrÉiuÉqÉç | Vide also Krishna’s words in Gopala Uttara Tapini Upanishad. When the Gopies asked for Krishna’s help for crossing the river to carry some offerings to Durvasas. oÉë¼cÉÉUÏirÉÑYiuÉÉ qÉÉaÉïÇ uÉÉå SÉxrÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ | Rama and Krishna were Avatars or Jivanmuktas and therefore they cannot be affected by any sin. MÑüzÉsÉålÉÉcÉËUiÉålÉ LwÉÉqÉç CWû xuÉÉjÉÉåï lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | ÌuÉmÉrÉåïhÉ uÉÉÅlÉjÉïÈ ÌlÉUWûƒ¡ûÉËUhÉÉÇ ÌuÉpÉÉå || Cf. also Br. Sutra IV.1.13, Ch. IV.14.3, Chandogya V.24.3, Brihad.V.4.23, iÉÇ ÌuÉÌSiuÉÉ lÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ ÍsÉmrÉiÉå mÉÉmÉMåülÉ ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉå mÉÍjÉ ÌuÉcÉUiÉÉÇ MüÉå ÌuÉÍkÉÈ MüÉå ÌlÉwÉåkÉÈ |

From our discussion about the concept of Dharma so far on the basis of various definitions given in the text we find Dharma constitutes the various aspects of purity of mind due to the cultivation and development of Sattva Guna. The external activities considered as Dharmas deserve that name only in so far as they are prompted by such pure mind or which by their subjective reaction help the development of this purity of mind and Sattvaguna and thus help the final realization of the goal of life. Such qualities of the mind are many in number and the more important of them are classified and enumerated by Hindu writers under the name of Samanyadharma or Sadharanadharma or Sasvatadharma or Sanatanadharma. The applications of these external principles of Dharma to various conditions and circumstances of life and to different Adhikaris from the social, economic, political and other standpoints gives rise to what are called Visheshadharma. The so called Varnashramadharma belongs to the latter class and is the result of a deliberate attempt by sociologists to provide various standards and ideals of conduct to members of society or groups of them who differ from each other in their capacities, temperaments, tastes and needs in such a way that these activities while helpful for everyday social, economic and political life also help the attainment of the ultimate spiritual and ethical goal of life according to the law of least resistance and according to the principle of social law of division of labour. If any of the rules of Varnashrama code goes against the Samanyadharmas enumerated such rules cannot be considered as Dharma in the real sense. The Samanyadharma are enumerated by Manu as common to all Varnas and thus: AÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉirÉqÉxiÉårÉÇ zÉÉæcÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉÌlÉaÉëWûÈ | LiÉiÉç xÉÉqÉÉÍxÉMÇü kÉqÉïÇ cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉåïÅoÉëuÉÏiqÉlÉÑÈ || X.63. cf. also Manu VI.92 cÉiÉÑÍpÉïUÌmÉ

128

cÉæuÉåiÉæÈ ÌlÉirÉqÉÉ´ÉÍqÉÍpÉÈ Ì²eÉæÈ | SzÉsɤÉhÉMüÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉåÌuÉiÉurÉÈ mÉër¦ÉiÉÈ || kÉ×ÌiÉ ¤ÉqÉÉ SqÉÉåÅxiÉårÉÇ zÉÉæcÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉÌlÉaÉëWûÈ | kÉÏÌuÉï±É xÉirÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÈ SzÉMÇü kÉqÉïsɤÉhÉqÉç || Cf. also Vishnu II.16&17 ¤ÉqÉÉ xÉirÉÇ SqÉÈ zÉÉæcÉÇ SÉlÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉxÉÇrÉqÉÈ | AÌWÇûxÉÉ aÉÑÂzÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ iÉÏjÉÉïlÉÑxÉUhÉÇ SrÉÉ || AÉeÉïuÉÇ sÉÉåpÉzÉÔlrÉiuÉÇ SåuÉoÉëɼhÉmÉÔeÉlÉqÉç | AlÉprÉxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ iÉjÉÉ kÉqÉïxÉÉqÉÉlrÉ EcrÉiÉå || Various Smritikaras thus give varying smaller and longer lists all of which are aspects of the Sattvaguna which will be found enumerated in Bhagavatam XI.13 & XI.25 cf. also XI.17.21 of Bhagavatam. AÌWÇûxÉÉ xÉirÉqÉxiÉårÉÈ AMüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉsÉÉåpÉiÉÉ | pÉÔiÉÌmÉërÉÌWûiÉåWûÉ cÉ kÉqÉÉåïÅrÉÇ xÉÉuÉïuÉÍhÉïMüÈ || Cf. also 34 & 35 of the same chapter zÉÉæcÉqÉÉcÉqÉlÉÇ xlÉÉlÉÇ xÉlkrÉÉåmÉÉxÉlÉqÉÉeÉïuÉqÉç | iÉÏjÉïxÉåuÉÉ eÉmÉÉå AxmÉ×zrÉ ApɤrÉ AxÉqpÉÉurÉuÉeÉïlÉqÉç || xÉuÉÉï´ÉqÉmÉërÉÑ£üÉåÅrÉÇ (rÉqÉ) ÌlÉrÉqÉÈ mÉÑÂlÉlSlÉ | qÉ°ÉuÉxxÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ qÉlÉÉå uÉÉMçüMüÉrÉxÉÇrÉqÉÈ || ‘AxmÉ×zrÉ’ here means that with which one should not come into sense contact as when such sense contact is likely to inflame passions and lead a man astray. Cf. the use of the word xmÉzÉï in Gita as in qÉɧÉÉxmÉzÉÉïxiÉÑ, rÉåÌWû xÉÇxmÉzÉïeÉÉ pÉÉåaÉÉÈ etc. It has nothing to do with untouchability as understood in modern days on the basis of birth etc. Similarly AxÉqpÉÉurÉ, ApɤrÉ. All these aspects of purity of mind as well as those mentioned in Santi 296.239-24 also by Gautama in VIII 22-25 which we have already noted above may on further analysis be found to be based upon and form expression for the two fundamental principles of kÉqÉï viz, AÌWÇûxÉÉ or xÉirÉ. If there is any conflict between AÌWÇûxÉÉ & xÉirÉ on the one hand and any of the other xÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï’s enumerated one has to give greater importance to these former two and reject the latter in favour of the former. If there is any conflict of Dharmas one has to use one’s Buddhi and weigh the comparative importance of the two Dharmas which are apparently in conflict and must adopt in practice the superior ones in preference to the inferior ones. This is what Manu means when he says in IX.299 AÉUpÉåiÉ iÉiÉÈ MüÉrÉïÇ xÉÎgcÉlirÉ aÉÑÂsÉÉbÉuÉqÉç || Also the words of M.bh. kÉqÉïÇ rÉÉå oÉÉkÉiÉå kÉqÉïÈ lÉ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ MÑükÉqÉï iÉiÉç | AÌuÉUÉåkÉÏ iÉÑ rÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ qÉÑÌlÉmÉÑ…¡ûuÉ || cf. also Vana Parva 131.11&12 AÌuÉUÉåkÉɨÉÑ rÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉirÉÌuÉ¢üqÉ | ÌuÉUÉåÍkÉwÉÑ qÉWûÏmÉÉsÉ ÌlÉͶÉirÉ aÉÑÂsÉÉbÉuÉqÉç || lÉ oÉÉkÉÉ ÌuɱiÉå rÉ§É iÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ xÉqÉÑmÉÉcÉUåiÉç || The whole of Mahabharata is a mine of stories dealing with such conflicts of Dharma meant to illustrate how under different conditions and different situations the Rishis and Dharmishthas were confronted with conflicts of such Dharmas and how they resolved these conflicts differently according to their different xuÉkÉqÉï, AÍkÉMüÉU through the use of their own Buddhi. The Gita situation is one such and Sri Krishna’s advice to Arjuna ws meant to guide Arjuna to resolve the conflict in his mind by the use of his own Buddhi in terms of the fundamental principles of kÉqÉï and the relative importance of the prescription of the Sastras.

When Manu and other Dharmasastrakaras say that Dharma is rooted in ´ÉÑÌiÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉ xÉSÉcÉÉU and AÉiqÉÌmÉërÉ (Vide Manu II 6-12) we have to understand these expressions not in the traditional sense (orthodox) but in its wider spiritual significance. Sruti represents not the mere external texts which are traditionally known as Rik, Yajus etc. but the small inner voice of God known as conscience heard by realized men and asked upon by them in the conduct of life in various situations and circumstances. It is this ‘Sruti’ that is referred to by Sri Ramakrishna when he speaks of his preference to his mother’s words to the

129

teachings of the so called scriptures when Swamiji points out to him the contradictions in the scriptures. The teachings of the scriptures are only verbal expressions given by later teachers as they understood the teachings of these realized men. The inner guidance given by the voice of God or conscience is eternal and is available to any pure heart at all times, even today. uÉåSxrÉ iÉÑ ÌlÉirÉiuÉå ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÉåimĘ́ÉWåûiÉÑiuÉå cÉ xÉÌiÉ urÉÎxjÉiÉÉjÉïÌuÉwÉrÉiuÉÉåmÉmɨÉåÈ | iÉ‹ÌlÉiÉxrÉ ¥ÉÉlÉxrÉ xÉqrÉYiuÉÇ AiÉÏiÉÉlÉÉaÉiÉuÉiÉïqÉÉlÉæÈ xÉuÉæïUÌmÉ iÉÉÌMïüMæüUmÉyaÉÉåiÉÑqÉzÉYrÉqÉç | Br. Su. Sa. Bh. II.3.11. This Sruti does not depend for its authority on its hoary antiquity as in the case of the literature known technically as the Srutis and when the voice of God guiding a pure mind today seems to conflict with the teachings of these ancient literary documents, greater head is to be given to the former than the latter which have to be rejected altogether or interpreted in the light of the fresh instruction or revelations, as when oral orders are issued by a superior personally in supression of the previous written orders. Vide Sri Ramakrishna’s words in the Gospel. This when Narada means when he says pÉuÉiÉÑ ÌlɶÉrÉSÉžÉïSÕkuÉïÇ zÉÉx§ÉU¤ÉhÉqÉç | That is why Mahabharata says that Dharmas change with times AlrÉå M×üiÉrÉÑaÉå kÉqÉÉïÈ §ÉåiÉÉrÉÉÇ ²ÉmÉUåÅmÉUå | AlrÉå MüÍsÉrÉÑaÉå kÉqÉÉïÈ rÉÑaɾûÉxÉÉlÉÑÃmÉiÉÈ || Mhb. S.P.259.8 and Manu I.85&86. This explains how different codes of conduct and morality have come into existence in different ages and in different localities based upon the fresh revelations given to sages in different times & places and under different conditions and circumstances. Although these records and their teachings differ from one another, they cannot go against the fundamental principles of conduct or Dharma which are eternal and which are known as xÉlÉÉiÉlÉkÉqÉï, zÉɵÉiÉkÉqÉï, etc. If these later codes go against these fundamental principles enunciated above Ahimsa, Satya, Lokasangraha etc. they have to be rejected as not being based upon the guidance of the inner voice within. This is the basis of the great importance given to the Sruti in matters of Dharma, when Manu says uÉåSÉåÅÎZÉsÉÉå kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉqÉç In Sl.II.6 & kÉqÉïÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉqÉÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ mÉUqÉ ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ in II.13 etc.

The limitation of the word Sruti to current texts is made by later commentators such as Brugu who is the editor of the ancient Manusmruti. Even according to the orthodox people these literatry expressions known as Srutis are not eternal in themselves. Vide Patanjali’s words in Mahabhashya on Panini IV.3.101 lÉlÉÑ cÉÉå£Çü lÉÌWû NûlSÉÇÍxÉ Ì¢ürÉliÉå ÌlÉirÉÉÌlÉ NûlSÉÍxÉ CÌiÉ | rÉkÉmrÉjÉÉåï ÌlÉirÉÈ rÉÉiÉÑ AxÉÉæ uÉhÉÉïlÉÑmÉÔuÉÏï xÉÉ AÌlÉirÉÉ | iÉ°åSÉŠ LuiÉ°uÉÌiÉ MüÉPûMÇü MüÉsÉÉmÉMÇü qÉÉæSMÇü mÉæmmÉsÉÉSMüÍqÉÌiÉ | cf. also Br. Su. Sh. Bh.II. 1.27 lÉ cÉårÉÇ mÉËUhÉÉqÉ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ mÉËUhÉÉqÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉÉjÉÉï iÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉmɨÉÉæ TüsÉÉlÉuÉaÉqÉiÉç xÉuÉïurÉuÉWûÉUWûÏlÉoÉë¼ÉiqÉpÉÉuÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉÉjÉÉï iuÉåwÉÉ iÉiÉç mÉëÌiÉmɨÉÉæ TüsÉÉuÉaÉqÉÉiÉç also Br.Su.Sha.Bh. II.1.31 ´ÉÑirÉuÉaÉɽqÉåuÉåSÇ AÌiÉaÉÇpÉÏUÇ oÉë¼ lÉ iÉMüÉïuÉaÉÉ½Ç also Br. Su. Sha.Bh. I.1.33 lÉ cÉårÉÇ mÉUqÉÉjÉïÌuÉwÉrÉÉ xÉ×̹´ÉÑÌiÉÈ AÌuɱÉMüÎsmiÉiÉlÉÉqÉÃmÉurÉuÉWûÉUaÉÉåcÉUiuÉÉiÉç oÉë¼ÉiqÉpÉÉuÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉmÉUiuÉÉŠ CÌiÉ LiÉSÌmÉ lÉ ÌuÉxqÉiÉïurÉÇ. It is also accepted by even orthodox people that all the Sruti texts are not available now having been lost in course of time. This could not have happened if the words themselves were eternal. To rely on only a portion of the Vedas without knowing what the rest of the text says is likely only to give us a partial view of the Truth and is therefore, not a safe guide in matters

130

of Dharma. It is also well known and accepted that different texts of the extant Srutis contradict one another. It is because of this that it was found necessary to enquire into the essence of the teachings of these Srutis in the Mimamsasastra by Jaimini as well as Badarayana & other writers. The very fact that great Rishis and thinkers differ from one another as to the exact purport of the teachings of the extant Srutis as referred to in the Vedanta Sutras and Dharmasutras and the fact that so many schools of Purvamimamsakas & Vedantins have risen in later times claiming their own understanding of the scriptures represents the true teaching of the texts shows how unsafe and unrealiable the texts are in themselves as a guide in determining what is Dharma. To add to the confusion created by this difference of opinion among the Indian authors with regard to the true import of the Srutis we have to take into account the views of other religions such as the Jains, the Buddhists, the Parsis, the Christians, and the Musalmans etc. who uphold their own texts as the only true word of God. Therefore, there must be some other means to find out what constitutes real Dharma. This is refered to by Jaimini himself when he says ÌuÉUÉåkÉå iÉÑ AlÉmÉå¤rÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç AxÉÌiÉÈ AlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉç | Br. Su. II.1.1 Su. Bh. So also Manu XII.106,105 mÉëirɤÉÇ cÉÅlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉç cÉ zÉÉx§ÉÇ cÉ ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉaÉqÉÇ §ÉrÉÇ xÉÑÌuÉÌSiÉÇ MüÉrÉïÇ kÉqÉïzÉÑήqÉpÉÏmxÉiÉÉ || AÉwÉïÇ kÉqÉÉåïmÉSåzÉÇ iÉÑÇ SåuÉzÉÉx§ÉÉÅÌuÉUÉåÍkÉlÉÉ | rÉxiÉMåïühÉÉlÉÑxÉlkɨÉå xÉ kÉqÉïÇ uÉåS lÉåiÉUÈ || According to these verses one has to study all the scriptures which have come from different sources (ÌuÉÌuÉkÉÉaÉqÉqÉç) and find out what the common essence of all the scriptures is, which only can be considered as the word of God, if at all. So today we have to take advantage of all the scriptures including those of other religions and find out by comparitive study what represents the eternal Dharma leaving out all the unnecessary details in which they differ from each other. This is what Sri Ramakrishna means when in his own way he exhorts all the religious people to practice the essence leaving out the head and tail. In finding out this common essence we have to make use of the other Pramanas also viz. mÉëirÉ¤É & AlÉÑqÉÉlÉ i.e our own first hand experience as far as it goes and reason. But mere worldly experience and mere inference based upon such observation of the facts of the sensual world cannot take us to an understanding of the supra-sensual & supra-mental truths which form the real essence of the teachings of the Vedas, which can be known only through one’s own super-conscious experience and reasoning is helpful only to intellectually understand the possibility & plausibility of this higher experience. cf. lÉ cÉ AlÉÑqÉÉlÉaÉqrÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉmÉëÉqÉÉhrÉÇ Br. Su. Sankara Bhashya I.1.4.4 and also xÉixÉÑ iÉÑ uÉåSÉliÉuÉÉYrÉåwÉÑ eÉaÉiÉÉå eÉlqÉÉÌSMüÉUhÉuÉÉÌSwÉÑ iÉSjÉïaÉëWûhÉSÉžÉïrÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉqÉÌmÉ uÉåSÉliÉuÉÉYrÉÉÌuÉUÉåÍkÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ pÉuÉiÉç lÉ Br. Su. Shankara Bhashya I.1.2.2. That is why all great teachers, while admitting the necessity for the use of reason in spiritual life, condemn mere logical reason in itself based upon ordinary experience. Vide Brahamasutra, Tarka Apratishtanam. Also Narada uÉÉSÉå lÉÉÅuÉsÉqorÉÈ oÉÉWÒûsrÉÉuÉMüÉzÉiuÉÉiÉç AÌlÉrÉiÉiuÉÉŠ | Also Katha lÉæwÉÉ iÉMåïühÉ qÉÌiÉUÉmÉlÉårÉÉ | cf. zÉoSqÉÔsÉÇ cÉ oÉë¼ zÉoSmÉëqÉÉhÉMÇü lÉåÎlSìrÉÉÌSmÉëqÉÉhÉMÇü iÉSè rÉjÉÉ zÉoSqÉprÉÑmÉaÉliÉurÉÇ || Br. Su. Sankara Bhashya II.1.9.27... ibid. sÉÉæÌMüMüÉlÉÉqÉÌmÉ qÉÍhÉqÉl§ÉÉæwÉkÉÏmÉëpÉ×iÉÏlÉÉÇ SåzÉMüÉsÉÌlÉÍqɨÉuÉåïÍcɧrÉuÉzÉÉiÉç zÉ£ürÉÉå ÌuÉ®ÉlÉåMüMüÉrÉïÌuÉwrÉÉ SØzrÉliÉå | iÉÉ AÌmÉ iÉÉuÉiÉç lÉÉåmÉSåzÉqÉliÉUåhÉ MåüuÉsÉålÉ iÉMåïühÉ AuÉaÉliÉÑÇ zÉYrÉliÉåÅxrÉ uÉxiÉÑlÉÈ LiÉÉuÉirÉ LiÉiÉç xÉWûÉrÉÉ LiÉSè ÌuÉwÉrÉÉ LiÉiÉç mÉërÉÉåeÉlÉÉ¶É zÉ£ürÉ CÌiÉ ÌMüqÉÑiÉ AÍcÉlirÉxuÉpÉÉuÉxrÉ oÉë¼hÉÉå ÃmÉÇ ÌuÉlÉÉ zÉoSålÉ lÉ ÌlÉÃmrÉåiÉç | This is what Mahabharata refers to when it

131

says iÉMüÉåïÅmÉëÌiÉ¸È and what Manu means when he says that iÉMïü should be uÉåSzÉÉx§ÉÉÅÌuÉUÉåkÉÏ. This is what Swamiji also means when he asks ‘where scriptures differ who is to decide!’ Vide. also Brihaspati MåüuÉsÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ lÉ MüiÉïurÉÉå ÌuÉÍkÉÌlÉhÉïrÉÈ | rÉÑÌ£üWûÏlÉå ÌuÉcÉÉUå iÉÑ kÉqÉïsÉÉåmÉÈ mÉëeÉÉrÉiÉå || Vide. also Yogavasishta rÉÑÌ£ürÉÑ£üqÉÑmÉÉSårÉÇ uÉcÉlÉÇ oÉÉsÉMüÉSÌmÉ | AlrɨÉÑ iÉ×hÉuÉiÉç irÉÉerÉÇ AmrÉÑ£Çü mÉ©eÉlqÉlÉÉ || cf. also rÉÑÌ£ürÉÑ£Çü uÉcÉÉå aÉëÉ½Ç oÉÉsÉÉSÌmÉ zÉÑMüÉSÌmÉ | rÉÑÌ£üWûÏlÉÇ uÉcÉxirÉÉerÉÇ uÉ×®ÉSÌmÉ zÉÑMüÉSÌmÉ || Also AÌmÉ mÉÉæÂwÉÉSårÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÇ cÉåiÉç rÉÑÌ£üoÉÉåkÉMüqÉç | AlrɨÉÑ AÉwÉïqÉÌmÉ irÉÉerÉÇ ´ÉÉæiÉÇ lrÉrrÉæMüxÉåÌuÉlÉÉ || Cf. also words of Mahabharata rÉÈ MüͶɳrÉÉrrÉ AÉcÉÉUÈ xÉuÉïÇ zÉÉx§ÉÍqÉÌiÉ ´ÉÑÌiÉ | rÉSlrÉÉrrÉqÉzÉÉx§ÉÇ iÉiÉç CirÉåwÉÉ ´ÉÔrÉiÉå ´ÉÑÌiÉ || Cf. also Vanaparva 207.77 AÉUqpÉÉå lrÉÉrÉrÉÑ£üÉå rÉÈ xÉ ÌWû kÉqÉï CÌiÉ xqÉ×iÉÈ || (words of Dharma Vydha). Sayana also points out in his Bhashya on Yajurveda the necessity for reason in understanding the scriptures. On Tai. Samhita sÉÉåMåü iÉÉuÉiÉç ÌuÉcÉÉUåhÉ xÉlSåWûÌlÉuÉ×̨ÉÈ mÉëÍxÉ®É | uÉåSåÅÌmÉ iÉ§É iɨuÉÌuÉcÉÉUmÉÔuÉïMÇü xÉlSåWû AmÉlÉrÉlÉqÉÑmÉsÉpÉÉqÉWåû | After quoting some authority from the Veda itself for such use of ÌuÉcÉÉUç in determining the meaning of the Vedas he continues iÉSåuÉÇ uÉåSuÉÉÌSlÉÉÇ ÌuÉcÉÉUmÉÔuÉïMåü AjÉïÌlÉhÉïrÉå iÉÉimÉrÉÉïÌiÉzÉrÉSzÉïlÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉåïÅÌmÉ uÉåSÉjÉÉåï ÌlÉhÉåïiÉurÉÈ CirÉuÉaÉqrÉiÉå | iÉjÉÉ xÉÌiÉ mÉÑlÉÈ xÉÇzÉrÉÉå lÉ ESåzrÉÌiÉ | AiÉ LuÉ E£Çü kÉqÉåï mÉëqÉÏrÉqÉÉhÉå ÌWû uÉåSålÉ MüUhÉÉiqÉlÉÉ CÌiÉMüiÉïurÉiÉÉpÉÉaÉÇ qÉÏqÉÉÇxÉÉ mÉÔUÌrÉwrÉÌiÉ CÌiÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉUÌmÉ AÉwÉïÇ kÉqÉÉåïmÉSåzÉÇ CirÉÉSÉå rÉåwÉÑ uÉÉYrÉåwÉÑ xÉÇkÉrÉÉå lÉÉÅÎxiÉ iÉåwuÉÌmÉ qÉÏqÉÉÇxÉrÉÉ ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç AmÉÔuÉïÇ urÉerÉiÉå | AiÉ LuÉ xqÉrÉïiÉå rÉ¶É urÉÉMÑüÂiÉå uÉÉcÉÇ rÉ¶É qÉÏqÉÉxÉiÉå AkuÉUÇ lÉÉuÉÑpÉÉæ mÉÑhrÉMüqÉÉïhÉÉæ mÉ̇ûmÉÉuÉlÉmÉÉuÉlÉÉæ || Cf. also Santi 141.102 iÉxqÉÉiÉç MüÉæliÉårÉ ÌuÉxÉÑwÉÉ kÉqÉÉïkÉqÉïÌuÉÌlɶÉrÉå | oÉÑ먂 AÉxjÉÉrÉ sÉÉåMåüÅÎxqÉlÉç uÉÌiÉïiÉurÉÇ M×üiÉÉiqÉlÉÉ || Although Sayana says that the letter of Sastra requires only the study of the Sakha of the Veda to which one belongs by tradition, (xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉÉå AkrÉåiÉurÉÈ) it has been accepted as only the minimum requirement. After finishing the study of his own Sakha he has to study the other Sakhas belonging to the same Veda as Vasishtha points out AkÉÏirÉ zÉÉZÉÉqÉÉÅÅiqÉÏrÉÉÇ mÉUzÉÉZÉÉÇ iÉiÉÈ mÉPåûiÉç || When that is over one should study all the Vedas. Cf. Manu uÉåSÈ M×üixlÉÉåÅÍkÉaÉliÉurÉÈ xÉUWûxrÉÉå ̲eÉlqÉlÉÉ | He also says that one should study other scriptures also as such study is helpful to stenghthen the power of the Buddhi to understand the Truth. oÉÑή uÉ×ήMüUÉhrÉÉÅÅzÉÑ kÉqÉÉïÍhÉ cÉ ÌWûiÉÉÌlÉ cÉ ÌlÉirÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉÉÍhÉ AuÉå¤ÉåiÉ ÌlÉaÉqÉÉǶÉæuÉ uÉæÌSMüÉlÉç || Cf. also Katyayana rÉ§É AqlÉÉiÉÇ xuÉzÉÉZÉÉrÉÉÇ mÉUÉå£Çü AÌuÉUÉåÍkÉ cÉ | ÌuɲΰxiÉSlÉѸårÉÇ AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÉÌSMüqÉïuÉiÉç | All these passages show the necessity for widening our knowledge of the scriptures step by step so as to include even the scriptures of other sects and religious and thus liberalise our religious outlook instead of confining ourselves to merely our own texts. The essence of the Gospel (i.e the word of God) can be found out only after such study and it is this essence that forms the real ‘Sruti’. ESSENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES – the Real Sruti. This essence is pointed out by Gita to be the realization of God through Tyaga and Yoga. uÉåSæ¶É xÉuÉæïÈ AWûqÉåuÉ uÉå±È || Cf. also Bhagavan's words in the Bhagavatam uÉåSÉ oÉë¼ÉiqÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ Ì§ÉMüÉhQûÌuÉwÉrÉÉ CqÉå | mÉUÉå¤ÉuÉÉSÉ GwÉrÉÈ mÉUÉå¤ÉÇ cÉ qÉqÉ ÌmÉërÉqÉç || LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç

132

xÉuÉïuÉåSÉjÉïÈ zÉoS AÉxjÉÉrÉ qÉÉÇ ÍpÉSÉqÉç | qÉÉrÉÉqÉɧÉqÉlÉѱ AliÉå mÉëÌiÉÌwÉkrÉ mÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || Vide also other texts of the Bhagavata such as WÇûxÉÉ rÉ LMÇü oÉWÒûÃmÉÍqÉerÉæÈ qÉÉrÉÉqÉrÉÇ uÉåS uÉåSqÉç || Also uÉÉxÉÑSåuÉmÉUÉÈ uÉåSÉÈ lÉÉUÉrÉhÉmÉUÉ uÉåSÉÈ etc. cf.also Suta Samhita IV.2.2 mÉUÉmÉU ÌuÉpÉÉaÉålÉ uÉåSÉjÉÉåï ̲ÌuÉkÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | uÉåSÉjÉïÈ mÉUqÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiÉç mÉUÉiÉç mÉUiÉUÇ mÉUqÉç || AmÉUÉå kÉqÉïxÉÇ¥É xrÉÉiÉç iÉiÉç mÉUmÉëÉÎmiÉxÉÉkÉlÉqÉç | AkÉqÉïÈ mÉËUWûÉUÉrÉ uÉåSÉjÉïiuÉålÉ pÉÌ£üiÉÈ || aÉÏrÉiÉå qÉÑÌlÉzÉÉSÕïsÉæÈ MüSÉÍcÉiÉç lÉ iÉÑ qÉÑZrÉiÉÈ | AkÉqÉïmÉËUWûÉUåhÉ kÉqÉïxiÉÑ AurÉÉMÑüsÉÉå pÉuÉåiÉç || AurÉÉMÑüsÉålÉ kÉqÉåïhÉ ´ÉkSrÉÉ AlÉÑ̸iÉålÉ iÉÑ | uÉåSÉjÉïÈ mÉUqÉÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiÉç ÍxÉkrÉirÉåuÉ lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ | With regard to the various Kamyakarmas prescribed in Vedas, their place is pointed out by Suta Samhita as meant for qÉlkÉÉÍkÉMüÉËU’s to create interest in them to take to spiritual Sadhana. qÉÉaÉÉïhÉÉÇ rÉå ÌuÉ®ÉÇzÉÉÈ uÉåSÉliÉålÉ ÌuÉcɤÉhÉÉÈ | iÉåÅÌmÉ qÉlSqÉiÉÏlÉÉÇ qÉWûÉqÉÉåWûÉÅÅuÉ×iÉÉiqÉlÉÉÇ uÉÉgNûÉqÉɧÉÉlÉÑmÉÑhrÉålÉ mÉëuÉרÉÉ lÉ rÉjÉÉjÉïiÉÈ || SzÉïrÉÑiuÉÉ iÉ×hÉÇ qÉirÉÉåï kÉÉuÉliÉÏÇ aÉÉuÉÇ rÉjÉÉ AaÉëWûÏiÉç | SzÉïÌrÉiuÉÉ iÉjÉÉ ¤ÉÑSìqÉç C¹Ç mÉÔuÉïÇ qÉWåûµÉUÈ mɶÉÉiÉç mÉÉMüÉlÉÑmÉÑhrÉålÉ SSÉÌiÉ ¥ÉÉlÉqÉѨÉqÉqÉç || This is the place of Kamyakarma as shown by Bhagavan in Bhagavatam. TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉËUrÉÇ lÉ×hÉÉqÉç etc. So also Sayana points out the place of the various Karmas or rituals prescribed by the Vedas in his introduction to Suklayajurveda. Vide notes on Puja. All Acharyas agreed that God and his realization is the final teaching of the Vedas. Thus Ramanuja says in his uÉåSÉjÉïxÉXçaÉëWû – oÉë¼ÉlÉÑpÉuÉ¥ÉÉmÉlÉå mÉëuÉרÉÈ uÉåSÉliÉuÉÉYrÉeÉÉiÉÇ | mÉUqÉÉiqÉxÉSÉÌSzÉoSpÉåSæÈ ÌlÉÎZÉsÉuÉåSÉliÉpÉåSæÈ ÌlÉÎZÉsÉuÉåSÉliÉuÉå±Éå lÉÉUÉrÉhÉÈ | AxrÉæuÉ uÉæpÉuÉmÉëÌiÉmÉÉSlÉmÉUÉÈ ´ÉÑiÉrÉÈ || According to Madhwa's teaching also Hari is the only Truth to be learnt from the Srutis. AÎZÉsÉÉlqÉÉrÉæMüuÉå±Éå WûËUÈ | He also says rÉ¥ÉÉlÉÉÇ iÉmÉxÉÉÇ cÉæuÉ zÉÑpÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉæuÉ MüqÉïhÉÉÇ iÉ̲ÍzɹTüsÉÇ lÉ×hÉÉÇ xÉSæuÉ AÉUÉkÉlÉÇ WûUåÈ || He also quotes with approval the Purna passage uÉåSå UÉqÉÉrÉhÉå cÉæuÉ mÉÑUÉhÉå kÉqÉïzÉÉx§ÉMåü AÉSÉæ AliÉå cÉ qÉkrÉå cÉ WûËUÈ xÉuÉï§É aÉÏrÉiÉå || Sankara also says AÉiqÉæMüiuÉÌuɱÉmÉëÌiÉmɨÉrÉå xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉliÉÉÈ AÉUprÉliÉå || Cf. also Sankara's Bhashya on Br. Su II.1.6 cÉåiÉlÉÇ oÉë¼ eÉaÉiÉÈ MüÉUhÉÇ mÉëM×üÌiɶÉåÌiÉ AÉaÉqÉiÉÉimÉrÉïxrÉ mÉëxÉÉÍkÉiÉiuÉÉiÉç | ibid. T.4.4.14 lÉ ½rÉÇ xÉ×wšÉÌSmÉëmÉÇcÉÈ mÉëÌiÉÌmÉmÉÉxÉÌrÉÌwÉiÉÈ | lÉÌWû iÉimÉëÌiÉoÉ®È MüͶÉiÉç mÉÑÂwÉÉjÉÉåï SØzrÉiÉå ´ÉÔrÉiÉå uÉÉ | lÉ cÉ MüsmÉÌrÉiÉÑÇ zÉYrÉiÉå EmÉ¢üqÉÉåmÉxÉÇWûÉUÉprÉÉÇ iÉ§É iÉ§É oÉë¼ÌuÉwÉrÉæuÉÉïYrÉæÈ xÉÉMüqÉåMüuÉÉYrÉiÉÉrÉÉ aÉqrÉqÉÉlÉiuÉÉiÉç | SzÉïrÉlÉç cÉ xÉ×wšÉÌSmÉëmÉÇcÉxrÉ oÉë¼mÉëÌiÉmɨrÉjÉïiuÉÉiÉç | Cf. 6.8.4, Mand.ka 3.15, Tai 2.1, 7.1.3 of Chand, Sv 3.8.cf. Vedanta Desika xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ ÌWû zÉÉx§ÉÉhÉÑ xÉɤÉÉ²É mÉUqmÉUrÉÉ uÉÉ mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉxÉqÉÉUÉkÉlÉiÉrÉÉ LuÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ ÌuÉSkÉÉÌiÉ || According to Muktikopanishad, Vedanta contains the essence of the Upanishad. ÌiÉsÉåwÉÑ iÉæsÉuÉiÉç uÉåSå uÉåSÉliÉÈ xÉÑmÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ || And the Kathopanishad says xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉ rÉimÉSqÉÉqÉlÉÎliÉ iÉmÉÉÇÍxÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ cÉ rɲSÎliÉ | rÉÌScNûliÉÉå oÉë¼cÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ iɨÉå mÉSÇ xÉXçaÉëWåûhÉ oÉëuÉÏqrÉÉåÍqÉirÉåiÉiÉç | The Taittiriya Aranyaka itself says xÉuÉåï uÉåSÉ rÉ§É LMÇü pÉuÉÎliÉ || Thus the Acharyas opinion is supported by the Sruti texts themselves. If we study the other religions also we find that the essence of their scriptures also is the same,

133

although the Buddhists and Jains are sometimes misunderstood as being atheists who do not believe in a God. The essence of Christianity is said to be love & self sacrifice and it is this that is represented by the Christian Symbol of the cross which represents the cutting off of the ‘I’. The very word Islam showing the essence of the teaching of Mohammed means complete dedication of life to God through self surrender. We thus see how when we study all the scriptures, our own as well as those of others, we come to understand that the essence of all scriptures as Sri Ramakrishna has found by the actual practice of their teachings to be nothing else than God realization through Tyaga & Yoga. This is what the Bhagavata says in the words of Sanatkumara zÉÉx§ÉåwÉÑ CrÉÉlÉåuÉ xÉÑÌlÉͶÉiÉÉå lÉ×hÉÉÇ ¤ÉåqÉxrÉ xÉkêrÉXèû ÌuÉqÉ×zÉåwÉÑ WåûiÉÑÈ | AxÉ…¡ûÈ AÉiqÉlrÉÌiÉËU£üuÉxiÉÑÌlÉ SØRûÉ UÌiÉoÉëï¼ÍhÉ ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉå cÉ rÉÉ || IV.22.21. Vide also Bhagavan's words to Uddhava in XI.13.14 LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç rÉÉåaÉ AÉÌS¹Éå qÉÎcNûwrÉæÈ xÉlÉMüÉÌSÍpÉÈ | xÉuÉïiÉÉå qÉlÉ AÉM×üwrÉ qÉÌrÉ A®É AÉuÉåzrÉiÉå rÉjÉÉ || Also XI.20.21 LwÉ uÉæ mÉUqÉÉå rÉÉåaÉÉå qÉlÉxÉÈ xÉXçaÉëWûÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ | WØûSrÉ¥ÉiuÉqÉÎluÉcNûlÉç SqrÉxrÉåuÉÉuÉïiÉÉå qÉÑWÒûÈ || Cf. also XI.23.46. SÉlÉÇ xuÉkÉqÉÉåï ÌlÉrÉqÉÉå rÉqÉ¶É ´ÉÑiÉÇ cÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ cÉ xÉ°iÉÉÌlÉ | xÉuÉåï qÉlÉÉåÌlÉaÉëWûsɤÉhÉÉliÉÉÈ mÉUÉå ÌWû rÉÉåaÉÉå qÉlÉxÉÈ xÉqÉÉÍkÉÈ || Also XI.23.61 iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉÉïiqÉlÉÉ iÉÉiÉ ÌlÉaÉ×WûÉhÉ qÉlÉÉå ÍkÉrÉÉ | qÉrrÉÉÌuÉÍzÉiÉrÉÉ rÉÑ£üqÉç LiÉÉuÉÉlÉç rÉÉåaÉxÉÇaÉëWûÈ || That is why Gita which is considered the essence of the Srutis is called a Yoga sastra whose essence is described by Sri Ramakrishna as Tyaga. When therefore, Manu says that Sruti is kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉ he refers to this essence of the Srutis, viz. realization of God through Tyaga & Yoga. No rule of conduct which goes against this essence of the scriptures can be considered as Dharma, even if it finds a place in any Sruti. The inner voice of God is a guide always directing man to achieve this goal and nothing else can be taken as the direction of God if it goes against this fundamental principle. To one who has no direct access to this inner guidance from God the records of the experience of the Rishis who had such guidance will be the only safe guide, if this essence of the Srutis is not forgotten if one does not get confused and lost in the midst of the details of these prescriptions given by the text. One who does not base his conduct on this superconscious experience of the Rishis but chooses to guide himself on the basis of his own sensual and worldly experiences and inferences based upon such experiences is considered therefore, by Manu as an atheist. rÉÉåÅuÉqÉlrÉåiÉ iÉå qÉÔsÉå WåûiÉÑzÉx§ÉÉ´ÉrÉÉiÉç ̲eÉÈ | xÉ xÉÉkÉÑÍpÉÈ oÉÌWûwMüÉrÉïÈ lÉÉÎxiÉMüÉå uÉåSÌlÉlSMüÈ || II.11

We, therefore, see that we cannot expect to find in the Vedas prescriptions to guide us on every possible occasion of doubt as to whether a proposed action is Dharma or Adharma. The Sruti texts do not provide for all eventualities but provide only general guidance for a virtuous conduct in general though the practice of Tyaga & Yoga. Each action will have to be judged by oneself in the light of the principle of Tyaga & Yoga in relation to the particular situation, conditions, circumstances etc. That is why Santi Parva 109 says in continuation of the definition of Dharma as mÉëpÉuÉÉjÉï, AÌWÇûxÉÉjÉï and bÉÉUhÉÉjÉï Vide ´ÉÑÌiÉÈ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌWû LMåü lÉåirÉÉWÒûUmÉUå eÉlÉÉÈ | lÉ iÉiÉç mÉëirÉxÉÔrÉÉqÉÈ lÉ ÌWû xÉuÉïÇ ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå || That is why again Yudhishthira finds fault with the doctrine that the Scriptures form the authority for Dharma. Vide Santi 260 declares in Sl.1 that it is safer to rely upon the guidance of inner light of Brahman or God through reason. xÉÔ¤ÉqÉÇ xÉÉkÉÑ xÉqÉÑ̬¹Ç ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ oÉë¼sɤÉhÉqÉç | mÉëÌiÉpÉÉ iÉÑ AÎxiÉ qÉå MüÉÍcÉiÉç iÉÉlÉç oÉëÔrÉÉqÉç AlÉÑqÉÉlÉiÉÈ || and declares in Sloka 3 lÉ kÉqÉïÈ mÉËUmÉÉPåûlÉ zÉYrÉÇ uÉåÌSiÉÑqÉç and points out

134

as his authority the fact of even persons well versed in the scriptures behaving differently on different occasions such conduct living often opposed to each other, as is admitted by the declaration that the Dharmas are different at different ages. AlrÉå M×üiÉrÉÑaÉå kÉqÉÉïÈ etc. He finds the essence of Dharma as practiced by all vedic scholars of old to consise in sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. AÉqlÉÉrÉuÉcÉlÉÇ xÉirÉqÉç CirÉrÉÇ sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûÈ | AÉqlÉÉrÉåprÉÈ mÉÑlÉuÉåïSÉÈ mÉëxÉ×iÉÉÈ xÉuÉïiÉÉåqÉÑZÉÉ || The prescriptions themselves based on differences in conduct suited to particular occasions cannot be considered because of the opposition between them. iÉå cÉåiÉç xÉuÉïmÉëqÉÉhÉÇ uÉæ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ ÌWû A§É ÌuɱiÉå | mÉëqÉÉhÉåÅÌmÉ AmÉëqÉÉhÉålÉ ÌuÉ®å zÉÉx§ÉiÉÉ M×üiÉÈ || Sometimes we do understand Dharma from the scriptures but at other times we do not. Not all people can be Vedic scholars who can get guidance from the texts. Sometimes it is not possible even for Vedic scholars to get the guidance from the texts itself even if they search for such guidance as the texts are so confusing. Though the directions given in the texts appear at first sight so very clear and to the point, on closer scrutiny we find them to be too subtle and elusive to be effective as a safe guide. ÌuÉ© cÉæuÉ lÉ uÉÉ ÌuÉ©È zÉYrÉÇ uÉÉ uÉåÌSiÉÑÇ lÉ uÉÉ | AhÉÏrÉÉlÉç ¤ÉÑUkÉÉUÉrÉÉÈ aÉUÏrÉÉlÉÌmÉ mÉuÉïiÉÉiÉç | aÉlkÉuÉïlÉaÉUÉMüÉUÉÈ mÉëjÉqÉÇ xÉqmÉëSØzrÉiÉå | AluÉϤrÉqÉÉhÉÈ MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ mÉÑlÉaÉïcNûÌiÉ ASzÉïlÉqÉç ||

We thus see that even the ancients who wanted to emphaise the supreme authority of the scriptures could not find direct solutions of all problems of kÉqÉï in the prescription of the Vedas themselves and had to resort to their own inner light of Brahman in cases of kÉqÉïxɃ¡ûOèû, the conflicts of kÉqÉï. The texts could give them some general principles such as Tyaga & Yoga, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, xÉuÉïpÉÔUÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ, AÌWÇûxÉÉ, kÉÉUhÉÉ, mÉëpÉuÉ, xÉirÉ, etc. When therefore, Jaimini defines kÉqÉï as ÍcÉSlÉÉsɤÉhÉÉåÅjÉÉåï kÉqÉïÈ we would not understand the word cÉÉåSlÉÉ as meaning the mere prescription of scriptures as orthodox commentators understand. The word cÉÉåSlÉÉ means the urge or the moral compulsion from inside given by the Atman or God as we have explained before. This is the sense in which it is used in the famous Gayatri Prayer. ÍkÉrÉÉå rÉÉå lÉÈ mÉëcÉÉåSrÉÉiÉç | That is why the Maitrayini Upanishad calls the Atman mÉëcÉÉåSÌrÉiÉÉ in II.3 mÉëcÉÉåSÌrÉiÉÉ cÉ LwÉÈ AxrÉ | refers to the body as chariot. That is why the Svetasvatara I.6&12 calls the Atman or God mÉëåËUiÉÉ. mÉ×jÉaÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ mÉëåËUiÉÉUÇ cÉ qÉiuÉÉ, pÉÉå£üÉ pÉÉåarÉÇ mÉëåËUiÉÉUÇ cÉ qÉiuÉÉ || etc. for the word mÉëåËUiÉ means the same thing as mÉëÉærÉÉåÌSiÉ×. It is this directing or command from God in our own hearts in difficult situations and cases of Charmasankada that forms a safe guide. One has to appeal to the guidance of God from inside for guidance in matters of Dharma in a prayerful mood as Arjuna approaches Sri Krishna for such guidance Vide MüÉmÉïhrÉSÉåwÉÉåmÉWûiÉÈ xuÉpÉÉuÉÈ etc. Also DµÉUxxÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. as opposed to rÉSWÇûƒ¡ûÉUqÉÉÍxÉëirÉ ... mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ. Even in most difficult situations such as inner guidance is always available to all devotees who are sincerely interested in Dharma and in Sreyas & not in Preyas. That is why Kalidasa has said though in a different context xÉiÉÉÇ ÌWû xÉlSåWûmÉSåwÉÑ uÉxiÉÑwÉÑ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉliÉÈMüUhÉmÉëuÉרÉrÉÈ || This rule helped only people who are sincerely interested in Dharma and whose minds are pure and free from passion and who can have sufficient tranquility and concentration of mind and freedom from external distractions to dive deep into their own minds and to hear the voice of God. But this does not mean that this inner guidance is not available to everybody. Only they must be able to hear the voice

135

which they will not be able to do if they are distracted by the external world, desires and attachments etc. In the case of ordinary persons the voice from inside will not be the pure voice of God but coloured by the impurity of their own mind. Such people will, therefore, be benefited if they hear the voice of God not through their own impure minds but through the pure minds of living, available realized man whom they accept as Guru. It is the commands and directions in matters of Dharma that are recorded in various scriptures as they were given to different disciples on different occasions to suit their different Adhikaras in particular situations in which these disciples sought their help. If the situations are similar the prescriptions given by the Srutis will also be helpful. It is only in this sense that the orthodox people are justified in understanding the word cÉÉåSlÉÉ as referring to the prescriptions of the texts.

No doubt Jaimini who defined Dharma thus might have been interested only in finding out the true import of the Vedic prescriptions. But if his definition is properly understood is more liberal and covers wider ground than perhaps actually intended by him in the context. Even later Mimamsa writers such as Prabhakara think that the Vedic prescriptions only reveal universal moral law. According to them the authority of Vedic prescriptions to urge us depends upon the response & approval given by one’s own moral sense. The definition represents Dharma as that goal of life or Artha which is laid down and characterized by this Chodana or moral urge supported by the evidence of the Srutis which are records of such actions inspired by the Sama inner urge in ancient times. If we understand the definition in this sense it will serve us as some guide even to people to today. Otherwise to us who never study the Srutis and to others to whom such study is prohibited it will never serve as guidance. It is a fact also that all Sruti prescriptions as such in their ritualistic form have practically gone out of use in course of time and it is only the essencial and universal aspect of their teachings that survives to this day in different forms of the rituals as prescribed by other texts. It is therefore that Manu has found it necessary to include the later texts on Dharma such as the Smritis as a supplementary source of Dharma even says that one cannot reap the fruit of studying the Veda if one is pulled away from xÉSÉcÉÉUç. Vide Manu I.109 AcÉÉUÉiÉç ÌuÉcrÉÑiÉå ÌuÉmÉëÈ lÉ uÉåSTüsÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå | cf. also Vasishtha AÉcÉÉUWûÏlÉÇ lÉ mÉÑlÉÎliÉ uÉåSÉÈ | rɱmrÉkÉÏiÉÉÈ xÉWû wÉÎQèpÉU…¡æûÈ || These texts have come into existence at a time when the old vedic texts had become practically defunct among the masses and the study was confined to a small select number of people who were interested in such study. The few people who studied these ancient Srutis were the only guides to the ordinary man in matters of life and conduct and they wanted to organize social & individual life and conduct in terms of what they remembered about the ancient teachings. One of the reasons for calling these texts ‘Smritis’ is that they are based upon such memory which still survived in the minds of the few who were still trying to live in the light of the ancient teachings. The purpose of these texts also is to provide in the languagae of the day some means by which the common man can still remember what the ancient Rishis taught and guide himself in the light of such teachings. But naturally in the course of transmission of these teachings by word of mouth from generation to generation these ancient teachings got mixed up with so many alien ideas. They became also coloured by the defects of memory and the limitations of those later writers' intellectual and moral capacities. They also wanted to frame rules consistent with the teaching of the ancient Rishis to meet the needs of later generations and to provide for fresh situations which arose in later times and which were not forseen or provided for in the ancient Sruti texts. But in doing this they always took care to see that the fresh rules were only practical application and corollaries of the teachings of the Srutis. They had therefore to remember at every time the

136

ancient teachings as they understood when they framed fresh rules. Many texts were already gone out of existence by the time the Smirits were written and when they had to provide for these situations not provided for by the current texts they had to resort to a legal question that this fresh legislation was based upon the teachings of one or the other of these forgotten branches of Srutis whose teaching only they remembered. Cf. Apastamba iÉåwÉÉqÉÑixɳÉÉÈ mÉÉPûÉÈ mÉërÉÉåaÉÉSlÉÑqÉÏrÉliÉå | They also took care to ensure that the careless generation of their days should remember at least a small portion of the Vedic Mantras by associating with the chanting of the special Mantras with all their daily acts such as bathing eating etc. In providing for the repetition for these Mantras they not only provided for the rememberance of these Mantras but the rememberance of God at every stage of life as well as of the final goal of life. Thus these works came to be called Smritis as their prescription were based upon ´ÉÑÌiÉ as well as meant for xqÉ×ÌiÉ (xqÉUhÉqÉç). This is what is suggested by the words of Marici SÒuÉÉïkÉÉÈ uÉæÌSMüÉzzÉoSÉÈ mÉëMüÐhÉïiuÉÉŠ rÉå ÎZÉsÉÉÈ | iÉ§É LiÉå LuÉ SعÉjÉÉïÈ xqÉ×ÌiÉiÉl§Éå mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉÈ || where mÉëMüÐhÉïiuÉÉiÉç means being mixed up or jumbled up with alien and fresh matter. ÎZÉsÉÉÈ refers to gaps in ancient teachings. The word SعÉjÉÉïÈ may be noted – it means those rules whose effectiveness was actually seen in practice through experience. It also means that these rules are meant not for obtaining something in another word but for life here and now, unlike the Vedic prescriptions which aimed at celestial falicity. It is meant to emphasis that the writer of these Smritis wanted the masses to understand that these rules are helpful even if in this life even though they did not believe in or care not for future life. This is what Manu says ´ÉÑÌiÉÇ mÉzrÉÎliÉ qÉÑlÉrÉÈ xqÉUÎliÉ cÉ iÉjÉÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉqÉç the Srutis are actual records of actrual realizations whereas Smritis are based upon the rememberance of these truths. These Smriti texts include all the later religious literature written in popular language professedly in interpretation of the teachings of the Srutis. That is why in the Brahmasutra the author referes even to the M.bh. and Gita and the Puranas only as Smritis. The texts as they are available now are later editions by lesser people as the present text of the Manusmriti itself declares as the record of Bhjrigu as he understood the ancient teachings of the original Manu.

The later compilers of the Smriti Mukhaphala, Smritichandrika, etc are drawn upon not merely on the so called Smriti but also upon M.bh, various Puranas, Tantras etc.thereby admitiing that they have taken all those texts as Smritis. These smritis are sometime classified as Sattvica, Rajasa and Tamasa as in the Padma Purana according to the prejudice of the particular writer. This show that even in the eyes of orthodox writers all Smriti texts are not of equal authority. What one considers as authoritative another condemns as unauthoritative. The one original smriti to which all pay reverence and respect in the law as laid down by the ancient Svyambhuva Manu. Tait. Sam. 2.2.10.2 (vide Su Br 2.1.1) Vide rɲæ ÌMügcÉ qÉlÉÑUuÉSiÉç iÉ°åwÉeÉqÉç. Also Angirasa's words rÉimÉÔuÉïÇ qÉlÉÑlÉÉ mÉëÉå£Çü kÉqÉïzÉÉx§ÉqÉlÉѨÉqÉqÉç | lÉ ÌWû iÉiÉç xÉqÉÌiÉ¢üqrÉ uÉcÉlÉÇ ÌWûiÉqÉÉiqÉMüqÉç || uÉåSÉSÒmÉÌlÉoÉ®iuÉÉiÉç mÉëÉkÉÉlrÉÇ iÉÑ qÉlÉÉåÈ xqÉ×iÉqÉç | qÉluÉjÉïÌuÉmÉUÏiÉÉ iÉÑ rÉÉ xqÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ lÉ zÉxrÉiÉå || & which is not available now. But even in the case of the old code of Manu, Parasara says that it is suted only to Krita Yuga & he also adds that it is Gautama who is authoritative for Tretayuga, Shankhalikhita for Dwapara and his own text for Kaliyuga. But this claim is not accepted by other writers. Brihaspati says that a Smriti opposed to Manu has to be discarded. But as a matter of fact we find that many of the rules laid down by the present Manusmriti have been declared as unacceptable by later writers and actually given up in later orthodox practice. Eg. his provision about offering of meat and fish in Sraddhas, etc. Again the very fact that provision is made in the Smriti themselves for Dharma to decide on doubtful

137

questions of law and morality shows that these writers themselves were conscious of the possibility of differences of opinion about the supreme authority of their own codes. The writers who profess to summarise and harmonise the different rules laid down by various texts differ amongst themselves about the rules of conduct to be followed in particular situation. Even legal experts in codes of law in modern times have differed among themselves as to what constitutes Hindu law according to Smriti. Different commentators on the same texts differ from one another on their interpretation of the Sama text. If thus orthodox legal and moral experts well versed in the interpretation of the texts cannot come to a decision as to what constitutes Dharma on the basis of mere interpretation of these texts how much more difficult it must be for an ordinary man to guide himself in his everyday life by mere resort to these texts. So from practical stand point these texts fail as safe guide in matters of Dharma. But if you look at the principles adopted by these writers on Dharma when they prepared new codes at different times we can adopt these priciples even in our daily life today when there is doubt abou the morality of a particular action. There is a concensus of opinion among the Smriti writers about some of these fundamental principles. Thus, for eg. we see Manu declaring AaiqÉiɨuÉÇ as one of the safest principles of Dharma Vide the EmÉ¢üqÉ & EmÉxÉÇWûÉU of the present text Sl.I.108 says ÌlÉirÉÇ xrÉÉiÉç AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç ̲eÉÈ | So also in the end in XII.118 xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉqmÉzrÉåiÉç xÉŠ AxÉŠ xÉqÉÌWûiÉÈ | xÉuÉï ÌWû AÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉqmÉzrÉlÉç lÉ AkÉqÉåï MÑüÂiÉå qÉlÉÈ || The very last Sloka of Manu Smriti (Sl.125) says LuÉÇ rÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ mÉzrÉirÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ | xÉ xÉuÉïxÉqÉiÉÉqÉåirÉ oÉë¼ÉprÉåÌiÉ iÉiÉç mÉUqÉç || So also in Sl.91 of the same chapter xÉuÉpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ xÉUuÉopÔiÉÉÌlÉ cÉÉÅiqÉÌlÉ | xÉqÉÇ mÉzrÉlÉç AÉiqÉrÉÉeÉÏ xuÉÉUÉerÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || The Svarajyam here includes the right and the capacity to decide Dharma for oneself by oneself without being bound by particular texts or prescription of Srutis or Smritis. This is what is laid down in the Gita when Ch. II Bhagavan says §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ uÉåSÉ ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÉeÉÑïlÉ | Ìlɲïl²Éå ÌlÉirÉxɨuÉxjÉÉå ÌlÉrÉÉåïaɤÉåqÉ AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç || It is the same principle that is laid down in terms of Atmaupamya & Samtva in the sixth chapter as also repeatedly in various other chapters and this is what is refered to to in the final conclusion of the Gita xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlÉç mÉËUirÉerÉ qÉÉqÉåMÇü zÉUhÉÇ uÉëeÉ | AWÇû iuÉÉÇ xÉuÉïmÉÉmÉåprÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÌrÉwrÉÉÍqÉ qÉÉ zÉÑcÉÈ || surrender to the Atman or God inside and living in the light of the direction given by him sacrificing all selfishness and self interest – AWûƒ¡éÉU, qÉqÉMüÉUç, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. is the one principle which one can safely rely upon as the essence of the teaching of all Smirits, however divergent their actual prescription may appear to be. It is this constant xqÉUhÉqÉç of God as the root as well as the fruit of Dharma & recognizing Him & one’s own Atman in the whole universe and loving whole universe as one’s own self or God and sacrificing everything for the good and welfare of the world is the essence of Smarta Dharma as declared repeatedly by all Smritis, Puranas and Tantras as the highest Dharma. It is this that entitles these texts to be known as Smritis. We thus see how the Smritis & Srutis are one in their essence and that is why both of them are included as sources of Dharma by all Smriti writers. When therefore, Manu says that a Smriti which goes agains Sruti it should be given as unauthorized – he only means that all Smriti texts which go against this fundamental principle and which are based only on purely worldly considerations do not deserve to be followed. It is a recognized principle as Langakshi puts it ´ÉÑÌiÉxqÉ×ÌiÉÌuÉUÉåkÉå iÉÑ ´ÉÑÌiÉUåuÉ aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ | Manu himself as we have already noted before explains in his concluding chapter how all the Karmas prescribed by him are authoritative only beause of their being based on this teachings of the Srutis and that all prescriptions that go against this essence of the Vedas deserve to be discarded. rÉÉ uÉåSoÉɽÉÈ xqÉ×iÉrÉÈ rÉɶÉ

138

MüÉ¶É MÑüSعrÉÈ | (MÑüSعrÉÈ means that they are based on worldly considerations) xÉuÉÉxiÉÉ ÌlÉwTüsÉÉÈ mÉëåirÉ iÉqÉÉåÌlɸÉÈ ÌWû iÉÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÉÈ || EimɱliÉå crÉuÉliÉå cÉ rÉÉÌlÉ AiÉÉå AlrÉÉÌlÉ MüÉÌlÉÍcÉiÉç | iÉÉÌlÉ AuÉÉïMçüMüÉÍsÉMüiÉrÉÉ ÌlÉwTüsÉÉÌlÉ AlÉ×iÉÉÌlÉ cÉ || This he says immediately after his description of xuÉÉUÉerÉ as already noted above in XII.91 and his declaration in Sl. 92&93 rÉjÉÉå£üÉlrÉÌmÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ mÉËUWûÉrÉ Ì²eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ | AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉå zÉqÉå cÉæuÉ uÉåSÉprÉÉxÉå cÉ rɦÉuÉÉlÉç || LiÉή eÉlqÉxÉÉTüsrÉÇ oÉëɼhÉxrÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | mÉëÉmrÉ LiÉiÉç M×üiÉM×üirÉÉå ÌWû ̲eÉÉå pÉÎuiÉ lÉÉlrÉjÉÉ || All prescriptions given by him in the body of the text are meant only to achieve this and by providing opportunities for spiritual and moral Sadhana based upon the fundamental teachings of the ancient Rishis. uÉåSÉprÉÉxÉÈ iÉmÉÉå ¥ÉÉlÉÍqÉÎlSìrÉÉhÉÉÇ cÉ xÉÇrÉqÉÈ | AÌWÇûxÉÉ aÉÑÂxÉåuÉÉ cÉ ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉMüUÇ mÉUqÉç || xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÌmÉ cÉæiÉåwÉÉÇ zÉÑpÉÉlÉÉÍqÉWû MüqÉïhÉÉqÉç | ÌMüÎgcÉiÉç ´ÉårÉxMüUiÉUÇ MüqÉï E£Çü mÉÑÂwÉÇ mÉëÌiÉ || xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÌmÉ cÉæiÉåwÉÉqÉÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ mÉUÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç | iÉή AaÉëçrÉÇ xÉuÉïÌuɱÉlÉÉÇ mÉëÉmrÉiÉå ÌWû AqÉ×iÉÇ rÉiÉÈ || uÉæÌSMåü MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉå iÉÑ xÉuÉÉïhrÉåiÉÉÌlÉ AzÉåwÉiÉÈ | AliÉpÉïuÉÎliÉ ¢üqÉzÉÈ iÉÎxqÉlÉç iÉÎxqÉlÉç Ì¢ürÉÉÌuÉkÉÉæ || That is what Yajnavalkya also means when he says that the highest Dharma is AÉiqÉSzÉïlÉÇ through rÉÉåaÉ. Cf. of I.8. CerÉÉ AÉcÉÉU SqÉÉ AÌWÇûxÉÉ SÉlÉÈ xuÉÉkrÉÉrÉMüqÉïhÉÉqÉç | ArÉÇ iÉÑ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ rɱÉåaÉålÉÉÅÅiqÉSzÉïlÉqÉç || cf. also Brihaspati pÉÉåaÉåwuÉxÉÌ£üÈ xÉiÉiÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉiqÉÉuÉsÉÉåMülÉqÉç | ´ÉårÉÈ mÉUÇ qÉlÉÑwrÉÉhÉÉÇ mÉëÉWû mÉgcÉÍzÉZÉÉå qÉÑÌlÉÈ || All rules of conduct, therefore, which are prescriptions go against this principle it does not deserve the name Smriti. These Smriti texts are man made and are affected by human considerations and they are not therefore above human criticism. cf. Apastamba's words xÉqÉÉrÉÉcÉÉËUMüÉlÉç kÉqÉÉïlÉç urÉZrÉÉxrÉÉqÉÈ | kÉqÉï¥ÉxÉqÉrÉÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç || xÉqÉrÉ is explained by the commentator Haradatta as mÉÉæÂwÉårÉÏ urÉuÉxjÉÉ. One has the right to accept or reject them if one finds them to be against the very priciples admitted by Smritikaras themselves. Many of the rules incorporated in the Smritis as we find them today might have been only based upon the judicial decision of the Dharma Parishads or courts of law in relation to particular case refered to them for decision and suit the particular situation and may not have universal value as in the case of the case law of modern days. What is decided by one court as just and fair under particular circumstances may not be accepteable to the other. Vide Manu XII.110-13 SzÉÉuÉUÉ uÉÉ mÉËUwÉSè rÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ mÉËUMüsrÉrÉåiÉç | §rÉuÉUÉ uÉÉÅÌmÉ uÉרÉxjÉÉÈ iÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ lÉ ÌuÉcÉÉsÉrÉåiÉç || §ÉæÌuɱÉå WæûiÉÑMüÈ iÉMüÏï lÉæ£üÉå kÉqÉïmÉÉjÉMüÈ | §ÉrÉ¶É AÉ´ÉÍqÉhÉÈ mÉÔuÉåï mÉËUwÉSè xrÉÉiÉç SzÉÉuÉUÉ || GauÉåSÌuÉiÉç rÉeÉÑÌuÉïiÉç cÉ xÉÉqÉuÉåSÌuÉSåuÉ cÉ | §rÉuÉUÉ mÉËUwÉSè ¥ÉårÉÉ kÉqÉïxÉÇzÉrÉÌlÉhÉïrÉå || LMüÉåÅÌmÉ uÉåSÌuÉSè kÉqÉïÇ rÉÇ urÉuÉxrÉåiÉç ̲eÉÉå¨ÉqÉÈ xÉ ÌuÉ¥ÉårÉÈ mÉUÉå kÉqÉÉåï lÉ A¥ÉÉlÉÉqÉÑÌSiÉÉå ArÉÑiÉæÈ || AuÉëiÉÉlÉÉqÉqÉl§ÉÉhÉÉÇ eÉÉÌiÉqÉɧÉÉåmÉeÉÏÌuÉlÉÉÇ | xÉWûxÉëzÉÈ xÉqÉåiÉÉlÉÉÇ mÉËUwiuÉÇ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå || rÉÇ uÉSÎliÉ iÉqÉÉåpÉÔiÉÉÈ qÉÔZÉÉïÈ kÉqÉïÈ AiÉ̲SÈ | iÉiÉç mÉÉmÉÇ zÉiÉkÉÉ pÉÔiuÉÉ iɲ£ÚülÉlÉÑaÉcNûÌiÉ || According to this a judicial committee should consist of ten experts wherever possible or at least three even if that is not possible the court may be constituted of only one expert. If the court is constituted of only one judge he must be well versed in Vedas, if three are available each of them must be a specialist in one of the three

139

Vedas, where circumstances are favourable the court should consist of three people each of whom is an expert at least in one of the three Vedas, one of who is clever in weighing the pros and cons, another who is an expert in logic, another an expert in Dharmasastra and one each to represent the first three Ashramas and one who is clever in interpretation of texts. This Parishad is refered in other Smiritis also as in Yagjnavalkya in I.9 cÉiuÉÉUÉå uÉåSkÉqÉï¥ÉÉ mÉËUwÉiÉç §ÉæÌuɱqÉåuÉ uÉÉ | xÉÉ oÉëÔiÉå rÉÇ xÉ kÉqÉï xrÉÉiÉç LMüÉå uÉÉ AbrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉÈ || According to Yajnavalkya, one AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉÈ can constitute a court for decision on Dharma. It is a distinct advance on what Manu said unless uÉåSÌuÉiÉç in Manu’s passage means the same as AkrÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉ in Yajnavalkya. Perhaps what the two mean may be only that a spiritual expert is more capable of deciding what true Dharma is than more students of the Vedas or lawyers or pandits. When we come to Parasara, one of the largest Smritikaras, we find a Parishat to be legally constituted if it consists merely of three or four vedic scholars cÉiuÉÉUÉå uÉÉ §ÉrÉÉå uÉÉÅÌmÉ rÉÇ oÉëÔrÉÑÈ uÉåSmÉÉUaÉÉÈ | xÉ kÉqÉï CÌiÉ ÌuÉ¥ÉårÉÉå lÉ CiÉUæxiÉÑ xÉWûxÉëzÉÈ || Perhaps by the time of Parasara Adhyatmavit might have become very rare and he had to be contended by the kings of the day who were always depotic and autocratic in their powers; the decisions of many of these courts which must have been serving to the kings naturally must have been influenced by the ideas and prejudices of the king himself and could not have been the real considered opinion of this court on Dharma in its moral and spiritual sense. Cf. the stories in the Puranas about the behaviour of the Brahmanas in the courts of Hiranyakashipu, Vena, Kamsa, Jarasandha, Ravana, Sishupala etc. the members of the courts themselves were not above cupidity, selfishness and prejudices of their own and may therefore have been carried away more by consideration of thei own self-interest than by pure abstract principles of Dharma and therefore many of the teachings of the Smritis glorifying Brahmana caste at the expense of othes and decrying the Sudras may not have been based upon pure considerations of Dharma. As a matter of fact as we have already noted, many of the ancient rights and privileges of women and Sudras have been curtailed in later times and Garhasthya is glorified as superior to the other Ashramas for these reasons. Vide notes on status of women in ancient India and zÉÔSìÉÍkÉMüÉU. It is this that Yudhishthira refers to when he says in Santi 260 that powerful persons have all often suppressed the ancient rules of conduct and introduced new rules & their own and therefore all the rules of the Smriti cannot be considered as authoritative. kÉqÉïxrÉ Ì¢ürÉqÉÉhÉxrÉ oÉsÉuÉÎ°È SÒUÉiqÉÍpÉÈ | rÉÉ rÉÉ ÌuÉÌ¢ürÉiÉå xÉÇxjÉÉ iÉiÉÈ xÉÉÅÌmÉ mÉëhÉzrÉÌiÉ || xqÉ×ÌiÉÌWïû zÉɵÉiÉÉå kÉqÉÉåï ÌuÉmÉëWûÏlÉÉå lÉ SØzrÉiÉå | MüÉqÉÉiÉç AlrÉåcNûrÉÉ cÉÉlrÉå MüÉUhÉæUmÉUæxiÉjÉÉ || AxÉliÉÉåÅÌmÉ uÉ×jÉÉÅÅcÉÉUÇ pÉeÉliÉå oÉWûuÉÉåÅmÉUå || Therefore it is unsafe to rely entirely upon all the prescriptions of the Smirits as authoritative in matters of Dharma. There must be some other principle by which we have to judge whether a prescription of the Smriti itself is Dharma or not. Such a principle is admitted by the Smritis themselves to be the docrine of AÉiqÉiɨuÉ, mentioned above. It will be seen on reading the Smritis that they temsleves take it for granted as one of their central doctrines the fact of difference in AÍkÉMüÉU of different persons and it is to point out the differences in Dharma due to such differences in Adhikara that they spend most of their energies. It is admitted by all that the Dharmas of different Ashramas as well as of Varnas are different and therefore they declare their main intention to be to expound Nainashramadharma. As we have already noted above Varnasramadharma is only the practical application of the fundamental principles of xÉÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï to the needs of the society as well as the individual in varying situations, conditions & circumstances of actual life. It is not, therefore, surprising that the original rules of uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï were based on aÉÑhÉMüqÉï as Bhagavan points out in the Gita IV-13: cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉïÇ qÉrÉÉ

140

xÉ×¹Ç aÉÑhÉMüqÉïÌuÉpÉÉaÉzÉÈ | See also the fundamental principles of Dharma of each of the four groups given in the XVIII chapter all of which are based upon the Samanyadharma as adapted to the needs of society. Mutual co-operation and help and service for rising up gradually to the highest height of perfection which everyone is capable of according to his inherent tendencies and character (xuÉpÉÉuÉ) without any abstruction from others and according to the law of least resistence is the only principle involved in the organization of the society known as cÉÉiÉÑuÉïhrÉï or uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉ. Any of the rules of Smriti, therefore, which goes against this fundamental principle cannot be considered as part of the original teachings of the Rishis of vedic days. Freedom is the very essence of their teaching and they could not have given any teaching which restricts this freedom of the individual to grow to his full heights morally and spiritually and socially, according to each individual’s Adhikara. It is because of this confusion in the teachings of the Smriti texts written at various times that it is found necessary to prescribe a third test of Dharma to supplement the textual prescriptions of Smriti and Sruti. This is what is refered to in the M.bh. when it says iÉMüÉåïÅmÉëÌiÉ¸È ´ÉÑiÉrÉÉå ÌuÉÍpɳÉÉ lÉæMüÉå GÌwÉ rÉxrÉ uÉcÉÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | kÉqÉïxrÉ iɨuÉÇ ÌlÉÌWûiÉÇ aÉÑWûÉrÉÉÇ qÉWûÉeÉlÉÉå rÉålÉ aÉiÉÈ xÉ mÉljÉÉÈ || The first two lines point out the necessity for an independent principle as a test of Dharma other than Sruti & Smriti texts. The third line says that principle is hidden in the cave of one’s own heart. This is surely a reference to the Atman and AÉiqÉuÉiuÉÇ as the fundamental independent principle of Dharma. The fourth line shows that all great men in ancient times were guided by this principle in matters of Dharma and that it behaves us also to follow this principle following in the footsteps of the great Rishis of ole. The last two lines are often misunderstood by the orthodox commentators as well as modern interpreters who follow them. They take it as meaning that Dharma is inscrutable and mysterious and that one’s safety lies only in following the practices of conduct of great people. If we understand in this sense we cannot get out of the difficulty presented by the first two line, we have still to decide who is the Mahajana and which among the Mahajanas who differ from eath other is to be followed in a particular situation, because we find as a matter of fact from the various stories placed before us as illustrations of the conduct and behaviour of great personality in the past that they differ from each other materially. It is not unoften that we find some of them behaving against all common rules of morality and justice as usually understood by us on the basis of the teachings of the text as well as our own reason and natural moral sense. These are called kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉ’s. This is refered to by the Smritikaras themselves. Vide Manu II. kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÉå SØ¹È ´Éå¸ÉlÉÉÇ xÉÉWûxÉÇ iÉjÉÉ | iÉSluÉϤrÉ mÉërÉÑgcÉÉlÉÉÈ xÉÏSÌiÉ AuÉUeÉÉåÅmÉUÈ || Vide also Apastamba II.13.7-9 SعÉå kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÈ xÉÉWûxÉÇ cÉ mÉÔuÉåïwÉÉqÉç || Also Gautama I.3-4 SعÉå kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÈ xÉÉWûxÉÇ cÉ qÉWûiÉÉqÉç || etc. This is what is referred to by Shuka in the Bhagavatam with regards to Krishna’s relations with Gopis.

To the question of Parikshit about the apparent immorality of Krishna’s relations with the Gopis, Shuka answers that these apparent kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉs & xÉÉWûxÉÉs may not affect realized persons detrimentally like fire which is not made impure by any dirt thrown into it. kÉqÉïurÉÌiÉ¢üqÉÉå SØ¹È DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ cÉ xÉÉWûxÉqÉç | iÉåeÉÏrÉxÉÉÇ lÉ SÉåwÉÉrÉ uÉ»åûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÑeÉÉå rÉjÉÉ || But he warns that if ordinary persons tried to imitate such conduct they would do so at their own risk. It would be foolish to try to imitate them in these matters as to try to swallow poison merely because Siva has done it. lÉæiÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç eÉÉiÉÑ qÉlÉxÉÉÅmrÉlÉϵÉUÈ | ÌuÉlÉzrÉirÉÉcÉUlÉç qÉÉæžÉiÉç rÉjÉÉÅÂSìÉå AÎokÉeÉÇ ÌuÉwÉqÉç || He therefore, says one would do well not to imitate their actions but act according to the instructions given by them for the

141

guidance of conduct although there may not be any harm in following in their footsteps in such of their actions as are consistent with their teachings. DµÉUÉhÉÉÇ uÉcÉÈ xÉirÉÇ iÉjÉæuÉ AÉcÉËUiÉÇ YuÉÍcÉiÉç | iÉåwÉÉÇ rÉiÉç xuÉuÉcÉÉå rÉÑ£Çü oÉÑήqÉÉlÉç iÉiÉç xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç | He then explains what the principle adopted by these realized men in their life and conduct which saves them from the detrimental consequences of their actions and which therefore may be adopted by us also as the guiding principle from egoism, Kama, Krodha etc. MÑüzÉsÉålÉÉcÉËUiÉålÉæwÉÉÇ CWû xuÉÉjÉÉåï lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | ÌuÉmÉrÉïrÉåhÉ uÉÉÅlÉjÉïWèû ÌlÉiÉWûƒ¡ûÉËUhÉÉÇ mÉëpÉÉå || This principle is quite in keeping with Krishna’s own teaching in the Gita and so can safely be adopted by us also as a guide to our conduct. This is what he says in the XVIII chapter rÉxrÉ lÉÉWûƒ¡ÙûiÉÉå pÉÉuÉÈ etc. This explanation given by Suka is consistent with which Krishna himself has said in the 3rd chapter rÉxrÉSÉcÉUÌiÉ ´Éå¸È etc. and quotes his own life as an example of his own teaching lÉ qÉå mÉÉjÉÉïÎxiÉ MüiÉïurÉÇ etc. and concludes with xÉ£üÉÈ MüqÉïhÉrÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå rÉjÉÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ pÉÉUiÉ | MÑürÉÉï̲²ÉÇxiÉjÉÉxÉ£üͶÉMüÐwÉÑïsÉÉåïMüxÉÇaÉëWûqÉç || Here we have a clear enunciation of the positive and negative principles of conduct or Dharma viz. Tyaga and Yoga. Purification of the mind or that of the ego and all its appurtenances such as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, sÉÉåpÉ, etc and service of others so as to help them to attain spiritual enlightenment. This is the principle approved by Manu also when he says at the beginning of the 2nd chapter 1st Sloka about the character of Dharma laid down by him. ÌuÉ²Î°È xÉåÌuÉiÉÈ xÉΰÌlÉïirÉqɲåwÉUÉÌaÉÍpÉÈ | ™SrÉålÉÉprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÉå rÉÉå kÉqÉïxiÉÇ ÌlÉoÉÉåkÉiÉ || ÌuÉ²Î°È here means not mere pundits but what Bhagavan refers to in the Sloka quoted above. It refers to realized persons or Jivanmuktas. They are characterized also asA²åwÉUÉÌaÉÍpÉÈ who are free from UÉaÉ, ²åwÉ, etc xÉåÌuÉiÉÈ refers to that it is not merely an abstract principle which is not tried out in practice. These principles have been actually put into practice by all Vidwans. The plural shows that it is not practiced by only one man but by generations of realized persons time and again. ÌlÉirÉÇ means that this is an eternal & universal rule of conduct. xÉÎ°È refers to the fact of their having realized the highest Truth or xÉiÉç and whose conduct is based upon such realization. Cf. Gita XVII-26: xÉ°ÉuÉå xÉÉkÉÑpÉÉuÉå cÉ xÉÌSirÉåiÉimÉërÉÑerÉiÉå | mÉëzÉxiÉå MüqÉïÍhÉ iÉjÉÉ xÉcNûoSÈ mÉÉjÉï rÉÑerÉiÉå || They were not people who have one law for others and another for themselves. What they preached they lived. ™SrÉålÉ AprÉlÉÑ¥ÉÉiÉÈ is the same as the approval of their own pure heart or the Atman or God in the heart refered to in the M.bh. Sloka kÉqÉïxrÉ iɨuÉÇ ÌlÉÌWûiÉÇ aÉÑWûÉrÉÉqÉç etc. It is that kind of ÌuɲÉlÉç or xÉimÉÑÂwÉ refered to by Manu that is refered to as qÉWûÉeÉlÉ in the M.bh. Sloka. The word qÉWûÉeÉlÉ means one who has realized qÉWûiÉç or infinite and whose heart therefore, expanded so as to embrace the whole universe as identical with his own self & who has sacrificed his finite individuality or egoism in loving worship of the whole world as God. It is only such a man who can be taken as an ideal or model to be followed and even him, not in regard to his actual action but in the principle adopted by him. This is the force of the word rÉimÉëqÉÉhÉÇ MÑüÂiÉå of Gita. This Sloka iÉMåïüÅmÉëÌiÉ¸È etc. occurs as the words of Yudhishtira in Vanaparva, Yakshaprasna, 313.115. This Sloka is to be read in relation to explanations given by Yudhishtira in the same context. Vide Sl. 48 where he says iÉmÉxÉÉ ÌuÉlSiÉå qÉWûiÉç and Nilakantha explains qÉWûiÉç as Brahman. This shows who is the qÉWûÉeÉlÉç refered to in the Sloka above. He is the Jivanmukta who has realized Mahat or Brahman. Vide also 318.76, 129 where he explains the highest Dharma to be AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ or benevolence. AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ In Sl. 92, a

142

Sadhu is defined as xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÈ xÉÉkÉÑÈ AxÉÉkÉÑÌlÉSïrÉÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || If Sl. 115 is read in the light of these explanations there would be no difficulty in understanding who is the Mahajana that is refered to in Sl.115. Mahajana is the same as Sadhu characterized by AÉlÉ×zÉÇxrÉÇ and xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ. The explanation by the commentator that Mahajana here means ‘a large number of people’ cannot, therefore, be accepted as a thousand fools cannot make an action kÉqÉï by their approval as Manu and other writers have pointed out over and over again. Vide Manu’s passage quoted above. Also Yajnavalkya LMüÉå uÉÉ AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉÈ | The word qÉWûÉeÉlÉç in this Sloka means thus the same as the AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉ or eÉÏuÉlqÉÑ£ü or ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É or ¥ÉÉlÉÏ or pÉ£ü or AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç or pÉÉaÉuÉiÉÉå¨ÉqÉ or xÉimÉÑÂwÉ or AÉrÉï or AÉmiÉ or Ízɹ or man of SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç or xÉÉÎiuÉMümÉÑÂwÉ of other writers. It is thus only another statement in different words of the same principle enunciated by the Acharyas Sankara, Madhwa, Nilakantha, Sureswaracharya, etc. that it is the realized man that sets the standard or ideal of conduct to the ordinary man. A Sadhu is thus defined in Vishnu Purana III.11.3 xÉÉkÉuÉÈ ¤ÉÏhÉSÉåwÉxiÉÑ xÉcNûoSÈ xÉÉkÉÑuÉÉcÉMüÈ iÉåwÉÉqÉÉcÉUhÉÇ rɨÉÑ xÉSÉcÉÉUÈ xÉ EcrÉiÉå || Cf. also that the description of the Sadhu given by Bhagavan to Uddhava in XI.11.29-33 M×ümÉÉsÉÑUM×üiÉSìÉåWûÈ ÌiÉÌiɤÉÑÈ xÉuÉïSåÌWûlÉÉqÉç | xÉirÉxÉÉUÉåÅlÉuɱÉiqÉ xÉqÉÈ xÉuÉÉåïÅmÉMüÉUMüÈ || MüÉqÉæUWûiÉkÉÏÈ SÉliÉÈ qÉ×SÒ zÉÑÍcÉÈ AÌMügcÉlÉÈ | AlÉÏWûÈ ÍqÉiÉpÉÑMçü zÉÉliÉÈ ÎxjÉUÈ qÉcNûUhÉÉå qÉÑÌlÉÈ || AmÉëqɨÉÉå aÉpÉÏUÉiqÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉqÉÉlÉç ÎeÉiÉwÉzaÉÑhÉÈ | AqÉÉlÉÏ qÉÉlÉSÈ MüsmÉÈ qÉæ§ÉÈ MüÉÂÍhÉMüÈ MüÌuÉÈ || AÉ¥ÉÉrÉæuÉÇ aÉÑhÉÉlÉç SÉåwÉÉlÉç qÉrÉÉÌS¹ÉlÉÌmÉ xuÉMüÉlÉç | kÉqÉÉïlÉç xÉÇirÉerÉ rÉÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç qÉÉÇ pÉeÉåiÉ xÉ xɨÉqÉÈ || A Ízɹ is thus defined by Bodhayana I.1.5 ÍzɹÉbÉç ZÉsÉÑ ÌuÉaÉiÉqÉixÉUÉÈ ÌlÉUWûƒ¡ûÉUÉÈ AsÉÉåsÉÑmÉÉÈ SqpÉSmÉïsÉÉåpÉqÉÉåWû¢üÉåkÉÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉÉÈ || Manu defines Ízɹ in XII.109 & Vasishtha in VI.43 in almost the same words thus kÉqÉåïhÉÉÍkÉaÉiÉÉå rÉålÉ uÉåSÈ xÉmÉËUoÉ×ÇWûhÉÈ | ÍzɹÉÈ iÉSlÉÑqÉÉlÉ¥ÉÉÈ ´ÉÑÌiÉmÉëirɤÉWåûiÉuÉÈ || Vasistha in I.6 defines Ízɹ as ÍzÉ¹È mÉÑlÉUMüÉqÉÉiqÉÉ | Dharma Vyadha defines it thus in Vanaparva 207.63 MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÉæ uÉzÉå M×üiuÉÉ SqpÉÇ qÉÉåpÉqÉlÉÉeÉïuÉqÉç | kÉqÉïÍqÉirÉåuÉ xÉliÉѹÉÈ iÉå ÍzɹÉÈ ÍzɹxÉqqÉiÉÉÈ || He gives various elements of ÍzɹÉcÉÉUç in Sls. 62-99 all of which may be read in this connection. They almost tally with the description of a ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, pÉ£ü, etc. in the Gita. He refers to irÉÉaÉ as the essence as well as oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉ, xÉirÉ, AÌWÇûxÉÉ, A¢üÉåkÉ, SrÉÉ, zÉqÉ, ¤ÉqÉÉ, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉSrÉÉ, etc. & other elements of the character of a Ízɹ are described in the Slokas. Apastamba describes xÉSÉcÉÉUç as the conduct of an Arya in I.7.20.7 rÉÌ¨É AÉrÉÉïÈ Ì¢ürÉqÉÉhÉÇ mÉëzÉÇxÉÎliÉ xÉ kÉqÉïÈ | rɪWïûliÉå xÉ AkÉqÉïÈ || In the next Sutra he explains further. xÉuÉïeÉlÉmÉSåwuÉåMüÉliÉxÉqÉÉÌWûiÉqÉç AÉrÉÉïhÉÇ uÉרÉÇ xÉqrÉMçü ÌuÉlÉÏiÉÉlÉÉÇ uÉ×®ÉlÉÉÇ AÉiqÉuÉiÉÉÇ AsÉÉåÍsÉmÉÉlÉÉÇ ASÉÎqpÉMüÉlÉÉÇ uÉרÉxÉÉSØzrÉÇ pÉeÉåiÉ || Haradatta in his commentary identifies this AÉrÉï with the AkrÉÉiqÉÌuɨÉqÉ of Yajnavalkya. Gautama IX.62 thus refers to xÉSÉcÉÉU. rÉ¶É AÉiqÉuÉliÉÈ uÉ×®ÉÈ xÉqrÉÎauÉlÉÏiÉÉÈ SqpÉsÉÉåpÉqÉÉåWûÌuÉrÉÑ£üÉÈ uÉåSÌuÉSÈ AÉcɤÉiÉå iÉixÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || It is those people that are refered to as Brahmanas in the Tait. Up. To whom one has to look up for guidance when there is doubt in matters of conduct and character. AjÉ rÉÌS iÉå MüqÉïÌuÉÍcÉÌMüixÉÉ uÉרÉÌuÉÍcÉÌMüixÉÉ uÉÉ xrÉÉiÉç | rÉå iÉ§É oÉëɼhÉÉxxÉqqÉÍzÉïlÉÈ | rÉÑ£üÉÅrÉÑ£üÉÈ | AsÉÔ¤ÉÉ

143

kÉqÉïMüÉqÉÉxrÉÑÈ | rÉjÉÉ iÉå iÉ§É uÉiÉåïUlÉç iÉjÉÉ iÉ§É uÉiÉåïjÉÉÈ || This passage should be read in the light of the essence of the Vedas refered to in the next previous section as ̧ÉzɃ¡ûÉåuÉåïSÉlÉÑuÉcÉlÉqÉç AWÇû uÉפÉxrÉUåËUuÉÉ. The same convocation address makes clear to the disciple that the Sishya should not follow any and every action of his former Guru, that only those which are pure and free from fault rÉÉlrÉlÉuɱÉÌlÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ iÉÉÌlÉ xÉåÌuÉiÉurÉÉÌlÉ | lÉÉå CiÉUÉÍhÉ | rÉÉlrÉxqÉÉMÇü xÉÑcÉËUiÉÉÌlÉ | iÉÉÌlÉ iuÉrÉÉ EmÉÉxrÉÉÌlÉ | ÌlÉ CiÉUÉÍhÉ | This advise is quite in line with Suka's warning referred to above as well as Sastamba's words in II.13.7-9. iÉåwÉÉÇ iÉåeÉÉåÌuÉzÉåwÉåhÉ mÉëirÉuÉÉrÉÉå lÉ ÌuɱiÉå | iÉSluÉϤrÉ mÉërÉÑgeÉÉlÉÈ xÉÏSÌiÉ AuÉUÈ || Cf. also Gautama I.3.4 lÉ iÉÑ SعÉjÉåïÅSÉæoÉïsrÉÉiÉç | Also Bodhayana AlÉÑÌwÉiÉÇ iÉÑ rÉiÉç SåuÉæÈ qÉÑÌlÉÍpÉrÉïSlÉÑ̹iÉqÉç | lÉÉÅlÉѹårÉÇ qÉlÉÑwrÉæÈ iÉSÒ£Çü MüqÉï xÉqÉÉcÉUåiÉç || Even if the Guru asks the Sishya to do something which the latter considers wrong the Sishya has the right to disobey for the Acharya has no right to expect absolute obedience from a Sishya after the latter's xÉqÉÉuÉiÉïlÉ | cf. Apastamba lÉ xÉ,AÉuÉרÉå xÉqÉÉSåzÉÉå ÌuɱiÉå || So also AÉcÉrÉÉïkÉÏlÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç AlrÉ§É mÉiÉlÉÏrÉåprÉÈ || Vide also Bodhayana. xÉuÉï§É AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉaÉÑÂuÉÉYrÉÉåÅlrÉ§É mÉÉiÉMüÉiÉç || An Apta (AÉmiÉ) is thus defined by Vatsyayana as a xÉɤÉÉiÉM×üiÉkÉqÉï. ÌMÇü mÉÑlÉÈ AÉmiÉÉlÉÉÇ mÉëÉqÉÉhrÉqÉç? xÉɤÉÉiM×üiÉkÉqÉïiÉÉ pÉÔiÉSrÉÉ rÉjÉÉ pÉÔiÉÉjÉï ÍcÉZrÉÉmÉÌrÉwÉÉ CÌiÉ | AÉmiÉÉÈ ZÉsÉÑ xÉɤÉÉiÉM×üiÉkÉqÉïhÉÈ, CSÇ WûÉiÉurÉÇ, ArÉqÉxrÉ WûÉÌlÉWåûiÉÑÈ, CSqÉxrÉ AÍpÉaÉliÉurÉÇ, ArÉqÉxrÉ AÍpÉaÉqÉlÉWåûiÉÑÈ CÌiÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ AlÉÑMüqmÉiÉå | iÉåwÉÉÇ ZÉsÉÑ uÉæ mÉëÉhÉpÉ×iÉÉÇ, xuÉrÉqÉlÉuÉoÉbrÉqÉÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ, lÉ AlrÉSÒmÉSåzÉÉiÉç AuÉoÉÉåkÉMüÉUhÉqÉÎxiÉ | lÉ cÉ AlÉuÉoÉÉåkÉå xÉqÉÏWûuÉeÉïlÉÇ uÉÉ lÉ uÉÉ AM×üiuÉÉ xuÉÎxiÉpÉÉuÉÈ | lÉÉÅÌmÉ AxrÉ AlrÉÈ EmÉMüÉUÈ AÌmÉ AÎxiÉ | WûliÉ uÉrÉÇ LprÉÉå rÉjÉÉ SzÉïlÉÇ rÉjÉÉ pÉÔiÉqÉç EmÉÌSzÉÉqÉÈ CÌiÉ || This definition is refered to with approval by Swamiji.

We thus see what Manu means when he says xÉSÉcÉÉU is the third source of Dharma. It is nothing else than spiritual Sadhana which takes one to ‘Sat’ or the highest reality viz. God or Atman. The root AÉcÉU means in vedic language to ‘bring near.’ It means also ‘to practice.’ According to Katyayana as when he says WûxiÉålÉ AÉcÉUÌiÉ where Acarati is explained as meaning mÉëåUrÉÌiÉ. Cf. its use in Rg V VIII.25.6 AÉ uÉÉÇ cÉUliÉÑ uÉ×¹rÉÈ || xÉSÉcÉÉU means in this sense bringing man nearer to God or God nearer to man and these Sadhanas for realization are those prescribed by realized men or ‘Sats’ through their example as well as precepts. Naturally they represent the principles of action with whose help they temselves realized and which manifest themselves in their conduct and character even after their realization as they have become second nature to them. These aspects of their conduct and character also expressions or outward manifestations of (the Sat or the Rality which they have realized) the inner experience of the Sat or reality. So in this sense also it is the AÉkÉÉU or external expression in life and conduct of the Sat. This is exactly the same as what Guru Maharaj means when he says that an expert dancer cannot make a false step or an expert musician ring a false tune. Such conduct must necessarily be Dharma although it may become Adharma to those who blindly try to imitate them as pointed out before. To say that xÉSÉcÉÉU is the source of Dharma refers only to the principles of their conduct and not to the actual action itself. But in another sense xÉSÉcÉÉU may be a real source of Dharma without any risk or danger involved with it as when we take the word to mean the conduct of realized persons. In this sense xÉSÉcÉÉU means practice of what one sincerely considers as

144

Dharma, Sat or truth, i.e. the expression in one’s own life at every opportunity of the Truth as he sees it. This constant practice is an exercise in morality and every such exercise strengthen the moral sense and purifies the Buddhi to that extent till at last one’s mind naturally reaches without any necessity for deliberation only in the Dharmic way in any situation it finds itself as in the case of Mahatma Gandhi. Thus we can understand how xÉSÉcÉÉU in the sense of this constant exercise of this moral sense in the direction of realization can be a source of Dharma in itself. Again if is used Sat in sense of God, then xÉSÉcÉÉU (would mean the practice of the presence of God in everything and worship of God in everthing through love and service. In this sense also xÉSÉcÉÉU is an independent source of Dharma without any reference to the conduct of others. Broadly speaking, this means AÌWÇûxÉÉ, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ and sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû on the principle of the golden rule which we have referd to before and we see that it is mainly these things that are refered to as the principle of conduct of realized persons. If we take xÉSÉcÉÉU only in the first sense it would be very difficult what Sadacara is without setting who is xÉimÉÑÂwÉ and we cannot find out a xÉimÉÑÂwÉ without referring to Sadacara. Therefore, this rule is vitiated by AlrÉÉålrÉÉ´ÉrÉSÉåwÉ. This difficulty is pointed out by Yudhishtira in Santi 260.5 xÉSÉcÉÉUÉå qÉiÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉliÉxiÉÑ AÉcÉÉUsɤÉhÉÉÈ | xÉÉkrÉÉÅxÉÉkrÉÇ MüjÉÇ zÉYrÉÇ xÉSÉcÉÉUÉå ½sɤÉhÉÈ || He also points out another difficulty in Sl. 4 viz. that the conduct of a man in ordinary circumstances differs from that of a man in abnormal circumstances as in the case of AÉmÉ®qÉï | AlrÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉqÉxjÉxrÉ ÌuÉwÉqÉxjÉxrÉ cÉÉÅmÉUÈ || SØzrÉiÉå ÌWû kÉqÉïÃmÉåhÉÉÅkÉqÉïçÇ cÉ mÉëÉM×üiÉÈ cÉUlÉç | kÉqÉïÇ cÉ AkÉqÉïÃmÉåhÉ MüͶÉSmÉëÉM×üiÉÈ cÉUlÉç || lÉ ÌWû xÉuÉïÌWûiÉÈ MüͶÉSÉcÉÉUÈ xÉqmÉëuÉiÉïiÉå | iÉålÉæuÉ AlrÉÈ mÉëpÉuÉÌiÉ xÉÉåÅmÉUÇ oÉÉkÉiÉå mÉÑlÉÈ || SØzrÉiÉå cÉæuÉ xÉ mÉÑlÉÈ iÉÑsrÉÃmÉÉå rÉSØxdrÉÉ | rÉålÉæuÉÉÅlrÉÈ xÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ xÉÈ AmÉUÉlÉÌmÉ oÉÉkÉiÉå || AÉcÉÉUÉhÉÉqÉlÉæMüÉaÉëçrÉÇ xÉuÉåïwÉÉqÉÑmÉsɤrÉåiÉç || The commentator quotes the example of Viswamitra, Parasurama (Jamadagni), Vasishtha, etc as having acted apparently against Dharma and whose conduct cannot be taken as fit to be followed by ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. The reference here is to Vishwamitra’s eating dog’s flesh stolen from a Chandala and of Parasurama cutting off the head of his mother and of Vasishta marrying a Chandala woman named Akshamali. We may also add as pointed out in the xqÉ×ÌiÉqÉÑ£üÉTüsÉ, the story of two Rishis Kataka & Bharadwaja exchanging their wives. Prajapati running after his own daughter etc. Also Sri Rama giving up his wife, of Draupati having five husbands etc. as pointed out by Tilak. Vide also ÍcÉUMüÉËUMüÉåmÉÉZrÉÉlÉ in Santi P. where ÍcÉUMüÉËUMü, the son disobeys his father when the later asks him to dispose of his mother Ahalya which is just the opposite of where Parasurama did under similar circumstances. So if we take xÉSÉcÉÉU in the first sense we cannot get clear guidance even from the conduct of realized men who behave differently at different times and under different circumstances and sometimes under the same circumstances. Therefore, Yudhishtira suggests that we should try to follow xÉSÉcÉÉU in the latter sense as the ancient Rishis themselves have done. This is what he means when he says ÍcÉUÉÍpÉmɳÉÈ MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ mÉÔuÉïÇ kÉqÉï ESÉ™iÉÈ | iÉålÉÉÅÅcÉÉUåhÉ mÉÔuÉåïhÉ xÉÇxjÉÉ pÉuÉÌiÉ zÉɵÉiÉÏ || The word ÍcÉUÉÍpÉmɳÉÈ means that which is accepted as the guide by all wise men from time immemorial and ESÉWûiÉÈ means what they themselves taught by their example and precepts. MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ refers to the wise men of old. iÉålÉÉÅÅcÉÉUåhÉ means the AÉcÉÉU based upon this fundamental principle viz. practice of truth and love and worship of God in everything as guided by the inner light and the golden rule. It is this inner light that

145

is refered to as mÉëÌiÉpÉÉ in the first Sloka of the chapter already refered to (in connection with ´ÉÑÌiÉ, xqÉ×ÌiÉ).

Thus xÉSÉcÉÉU involves a sincere desire and attempt1. to do nothing but what is helpful in the realization of the highest Reality or the

Atman, 2. to accept the guidance of one’s own inner light or moral sense as to what constitutes

the best way of realizing this goal.3. to benefit by the rules laid down by the realized men of old for achieving this goal

through their examples and precepts .4. to accept guidance only of such conduct of these people as agree with the principles

taught by them and not to accept anyone of their acts which appear to be inconsistent with morality and spiritual life as they themselves taught

5. to accept as the fundamental principle of life or practice the conquest of egoism as well as MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc which stand in the way of realization of the spiritual goal, after examining the motive as well as the subjective result of every action (to purify ones own mind) in the direction of ÍcɨÉzÉÑή or purification of one’s own mind.

6. to take advantage of every occasion to exercise the moral sense in this way in the face of all temptations from inside and obstacles from outside.

7. to be actively interested not only to have such exercise oneself but also to give similar opportunities to others also and to refrain from pushing obstacles in their way by one’s own negligence or conduct.

8. to see one’s own self in the whole world and to love in and serve it in a spirit of worship.

9. to behave or live in such a way that his conduct will have the approval of all those who are considered by society as good men (xÉimÉÑÂwÉ) as far as possible.

It is these things which Bhisma had in mind when he declares the priciples of conduct in Santi 259 sÉÉåsÉrÉɧÉÉjÉïqÉåuÉåWû kÉqÉïxrÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉÈ M×üiÉÈ | EpÉrÉ§É xÉÑZÉÉåSMïüÈ CWû cÉæuÉ mÉU§É cÉ || sÉÉåMürÉɧÉÉ here means the pilgrimage to perfection, EpÉrÉ§É xÉÑZÉÉåSMïüÈ means that which is conducive to the spiritual welfare of both the doer as well as society. CWû cÉæuÉ mÉU§É cÉ means in worldly as well as spiritual matters. kÉqÉïxrÉ ÌlÉ¸É iÉÑ AÉcÉÉUÈ iÉqÉåuÉ AÉÍ´ÉirÉ oÉÉåixrÉxÉå | Here ÌlÉ¸É means practice based on firm foundations, AÉcÉÉU means that which leads to God or brings God to us. oÉÉåixrÉxÉå means you will realize. Therefore the sentence means that Dharma consists of such practice as would lead to realization. He then points out practice as would lead to realization. He then points out various examples where in the case of xÉirÉ, SÉlÉ, SqÉ, etc they are considered good and worthy conduct when they are to be beneficial to oneself but as not worthy or good when they affect others. That is, people generally expect others to practice those virtues but are not willing to practice them themselves. Then he lays the golden rule as the first principle of conduct. rÉSlrÉåÌuÉïÌWûiÉÇ lÉ CcNåûiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ MüqÉïmÉÑÂwÉÈ | lÉ iÉiÉç mÉUåwÉÑ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ eÉÉlÉlÉç AÌmÉërÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | eÉÏÌuÉiÉÑÇ rÉÈ xuÉrÉÇ cÉ CcNåûiÉç MüjÉÇ xÉÈ AlrÉÇ mÉëbÉÉiÉrÉåiÉç | rɱSiqÉÌlÉ cÉ CcNåûiÉ iÉiÉç mÉUxrÉÉÅÌmÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉåiÉç || In Sl. 24 he lays down how every action should be done in such a way as to lead to realization of God. rÉÎxqÉlxiÉÑ SåuÉÉÈ xÉqÉrÉå xÉÎliɸåiÉlÉç iÉjÉÉ pÉuÉåiÉç | AjÉuÉÉ sÉÉpÉxÉqÉrÉå ÎxjÉÌiÉÈ kÉqÉåïÅÌmÉ zÉÉåpÉlÉÉ || In the next two Slokas he refers to sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû and the necessity

146

of conducting oneself in such a way as to please all as far as possible consitent with their own spiritual welfare. xÉuÉïÇ ÌmÉërÉÉprÉÑmÉaÉiÉÇ kÉqÉïqÉÉWÒûqÉïlÉÏÌwÉhÉÈ | mÉzrÉ LiÉÇ sɤÉhÉÉå¬åzÉÇ kÉqÉÉïÅkÉqÉåï rÉÑÍkÉ̸U || sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûxÉÇrÉÑ£Çü ÌuÉkÉɧÉÉ ÌuÉÌWûiÉÇ mÉÑUÉ | xÉÔ¤qÉkÉqÉÉïjÉïÌlÉrÉiÉÇ xÉiÉÉÇ cÉËUiÉqÉѨÉqÉqÉç || Here ÌmÉërÉ should be understood in the sense of ÌWûiÉ. It is this principle of conduct which Yudhishtira refers to in the next Ch. Sl. 9. AÉqlÉÉrÉuÉcÉlÉÇ xÉirÉqÉç CirÉrÉÇ sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWûÈ where Agraya means accepted principle of practice of a long line of realized men and in Sl. 20 ÍcÉUÉÍpÉmɳÉÈ MüÌuÉÍpÉÈ etc. It is the same that is refered to by Tuladhara to Jajali in the next four chapters which Bhisma sites as example in support of his statement. Vide Sl. 5,6,9 of 262. uÉåSÉÅWÇû eÉÉeÉsÉå kÉqÉïÇ xÉUWûxrÉÇ xÉlÉÉiÉlÉqÉç | xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉÇ qÉæ§ÉÇ mÉÑUÉhÉÇ rÉÇ eÉlÉÉ ÌuÉSÒÈ || ASìÉåWåûhÉæuÉ pÉÔiÉÉiÉÉqÉsmÉSìÉåWåûhÉ uÉÉ mÉÑlÉÈ | rÉÉ uÉ×̨ÉÈ xÉ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ iÉålÉ eÉÏuÉÉÍqÉ eÉÉeÉsÉå || Vide also sl. 29&30. Read the whole instruction of Tuladhara to Jajali which Bhisma considers as giving the essence of the principles of Sadacara. It is the same thing that is refered to in Ch. 124 of Santi as the essence of character and conduct. ASìÉåWûÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ MüqÉïhÉÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌaÉUÉ | AlÉÑaÉëWû¶É SÉlÉÇ cÉ zÉÏsÉqÉåiÉiÉç mÉëzÉxrÉiÉå || rÉSlrÉåwÉÉÇ ÌWûiÉÇ lÉ xrÉÉiÉç AÉiqÉlÉÈ sÉqÉïmÉÉæÂwÉqÉç | AmɧÉmÉåiÉ uÉÉ rÉålÉ lÉ iÉiÉç MÑürÉÉïiÉç MüjÉgcÉlÉ || iɨÉÑ MüqÉï iÉjÉÉ MÑürÉÉïiÉç rÉålÉ zsÉÉbrÉåiÉ xÉÇxÉÌS | zÉÏsÉÇ xÉqÉÉxÉålÉ LiÉiÉç MüÍjÉiÉÇ MÑüÂxɨÉqÉ || This again is reiterated in Santi 162.21.

We thus see how mistaken many orthodox people are when they take Achara as meaning only mere custom, usage or tradition. No doubt that sometimes some texts use the mere word Achara without its being qualified by the word xÉiÉç, Ízɹ, etc. as when Anusasana Parva 104.159 says AÉcÉÉUmÉëpÉÉå kÉqÉï or when Manu says in I.108 to 110 AÉcÉÉUÈ mÉUqÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ (108) AÉcÉÉUÉiÉç ÌuÉcrÉÑiÉÉå ÌuÉmÉëÈ etc. (109) LuÉqÉÉcÉÉUiÉÉå SØ¹É etc. What Manu means by AÉcÉÉU he makes clear in IV.155 kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉÇ ÌlÉwÉåuÉåiÉ xÉSÉcÉÉUqÉiÉÎlSìiÉÈ | and 145 qÉ…¡ûsÉÉcÉÉUrÉÑ£üÈ xrÉÉiÉç mÉërÉiÉÉiqÉÉ ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ eÉmÉåŠ eÉÑWÒûrÉÉŠæuÉ ÌlÉirÉqÉç AÎalÉqÉiÉÎlSìiÉÈ || etc. that the AÉcÉÉU that he declares as kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉ is not each and every custom, usage or tradition but that which is helpful for the control of mind and senses and the realization of God through Japa and self sacrifice. The Anusasana and other texts also must be taken to use the word AÉcÉÉU only in this limited sense as we have explained above. Much mischief has been done by not understanding AÉcÉÉU in this technical sense and many civil practices current among the corrupt society have come to be looked upon as Dharma and therefore inviolable even though they came to be recognized as injurious morally and spiritually to the individuals as well as society. Deshacharas and Lokacharas and Kulacharas (SåzÉÉcÉÉUÉ and sÉÉåMüÉcÉÉU and MÑüsÉÉcÉÉU) have crippled the growth of society and have stood in the way of reform in modern days. In spite of the dawn of a conviction that they are against the best interest of society, the British courts have upheld many of these customs on the pretext of freedom of religion and belief and have thus effectively prevented Hindu society from getting rid of all such evils. Examples of such customs are untouchability, Devadasi system associated with temples, child marriage, the evils of drinking, etc. sacrifice of goats in temple, Sati, denial of study of Vedas for Sudras and women, denial of the right of women for ancestral property etc. some writers like Brihaspati go to the extent of saying that all customs should be updated by the king as otherwise the subjects become discontended. In

147

making such a statement he is freeing only to the principles of administration in the interests of Law and Order. Where Dharma is taken as consisting only of such rules as to help to maintain the stability of the society without any reference to it spiritual and moral well-being or to its progress towards its high destiny vide SåzÉeÉÉÌiÉMÑüsÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉ rÉå kÉqÉÉïÈ mÉëÉMçü mÉëuÉÌiÉïiÉÉÈ | iÉjÉæuÉ LiÉå mÉë¤ÉÑprÉiÉåÅlrÉjÉÉ || This is wholly against the spirit of Hindu Dharma in the history of Hindu society from time immemorial. The study of history of such customs revealed low reformers arose time and again to set matters right and make society conform to the pristine principles of the organizations as laid down by the Rishis and realized persons of the past. The advent of all the Avataras is thus said to have been for kÉqÉïxÉÇxjÉÉmÉlÉ and removal of all obstacles to progress of the individual and society. We also read in the M.bh. how Svethakethu reformed rules of marriage and Sukracharya prohibited the use of liquor, how Vaishnavaihe reformers from Sri Krishna downwards have reformed ancient sacrificial ritual by preventing the killing of animals, how the temple rituals have taken the play of the ancient five ritual etc. It is the right of the society to take advantage of the advent of the great Acharya Purushas and Avataras and to set itself right on the advice of such leaders. Any Achara that stands in the way of moral and spiritual growth should not therefore be allowed to stand in the way of reforms. The principle is endorced by Manu when he says IV.176 mÉËUirÉeÉåiÉç AjÉïMüÉqÉÉæ rÉÉæ xrÉÉiÉÉÇ kÉqÉïuÉÎeÉïiÉÉæ | kÉqÉïÇ cÉÉÅÌmÉ AxÉÑMüÉåSMüMïü sÉÉåMüÌuÉM×ü¹qÉåuÉ cÉ || where xÉÑZÉ refers to the mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï or the bliss of realisation. When, therefore, Manu says in Sl.178 rÉålÉÉÅxrÉ ÌmÉiÉUÉå rÉÉiÉÉ rÉålÉ rÉÉiÉÉ ÌmÉiÉÉqÉWûÉ: | iÉålÉ rÉÉrÉÉiÉç xÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïÇ iÉålÉ cÉcNûlÉç lÉ ËUwrÉÌiÉ || He does not refer to the evil customs and practices followed by the ancestors. It is good to remind ourselves of Sankara’s statement in Sutra Bhashya that it is not necessary for one to continue to remain a fool merely on the ground that our ancestors were fools. lÉ ÌWû mÉÔuÉïeÉÉå AÉxÉÏÌSÌiÉ AÉiqÉlÉÉÅÌmÉ qÉÔRåûlÉ pÉÌuÉiÉurÉÍqÉÌiÉ ÌMüÎgcÉSÎxiÉ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | This Sloka should be understood with proper emphasis on the words xÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïÇ which means ‘ÍzɹÉcÉÉU’ refered to above. Our ancestors, according to Manu, were always only interested in following ‘ÍzɹÉcÉÉU’ and as loyal descendants we should also follow in their footsteps in following this ÍzɹÉcÉÉU or xÉiÉÉÇ qÉÉaÉïÇ which is the same thing as xÉSÉcÉÉU. More over he may be referring in this Sloka to the necessity of xÉSÉcÉÉU sticking to the Sadachara prevailing in one’s own family when there are more than one Sadachara applicable to a particular situation. As both the Sadacharas it is advisable, according to Manu, not to give up the Sadachara of one’s own family in favour of something else. Or, AxrÉ ÌmÉiÉUÈ must be taken to refer not to his ancestors but to the protectors of Dharma ÌmÉiÉ× being taken in its derivative sense and Asya being taken to refer to Dharma. In this sense AxrÉ ÌmÉiÉUÈ would mean only ÍzɹÉs or xÉimÉÑÂwÉÉs or man of realization as it is their duty to protect Dharma. Or ÌmÉiÉÉ may be taken as the Guru or Acharya who has given him second birth as Manu himself refers to Acharyas as ÌmÉiÉÉ. ÌmÉiÉÉ iÉÑ AÉcÉÉrÉï EcrÉiÉå | Vide also Manu II.144 to 150.

We now pass on to the next source of Dharma mentioned by Manu viz. Atma tushti or Atma santosa or Atma priya or Atma hita or Atma prasada. Atma, here means, the higher self or God or the Absolute and not the finite bound soul. The satisfaction that is refered to does not mean the sensual or worldy pleasures that arise from the satisfaction of the cravings and desires of the mind and the senses. It refers to the spiritual bliss that comes from the realization of God or Atman. It also refers to the Sattvica Sukha which Gita refers to in the 18th Ch. when it says XVIII-36-37: AprÉÉxÉÉSìqÉiÉå rÉ§É SÒÈZÉÉliÉÇ cÉ

148

ÌlÉaÉcNûÌiÉ, rɨÉSaÉëå ÌuÉwÉÍqÉuÉ mÉËUhÉÉqÉåÅqÉ×iÉÉåmÉqÉqÉç | iÉixÉÑZÉÇ xÉÉÎiuÉMÇü mÉëÉå£üqÉÉiqÉoÉÑήmÉëxÉÉSeÉqÉç || According to this the Sattvica sukha means the happiness that comes when the Buddhi is established in the Atman and thus becomes tranquil and free from all impurities, constituted by Rajas and Tamas. It is this Sattvica sukha that is refered in the VI-21-23: xÉÑZÉqÉÉirÉÎliÉMÇü rɨÉSè oÉÑήaÉëɽqÉiÉÏÎlSìrÉqÉç | uÉåÌ¨É rÉ§É lÉ cÉæuÉÉrÉÇ ÎxjÉiɶÉsÉÌiÉ iɨuÉiÉÈ || rÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ cÉÉmÉUÇ sÉÉpÉÇ qÉlrÉiÉå lÉÉÍkÉMÇü iÉiÉÈ | rÉÎxqÉÎlxjÉiÉÉå lÉ SÒÈZÉålÉ aÉÑÂhÉÉÌmÉ ÌuÉcÉÉsrÉiÉå || iÉÇ ÌuɱÉSè SÒÈZÉxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÌuÉrÉÉåaÉÇ rÉÉåaÉxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉqÉç | According to this the cause of this xÉÑZÉ is spiritual practice or Yoga which consists of the control of the mind and the senses and concentration of it on the Atman as explained in the 6 th chapter. It is this that is refered to as Santi in the II-65-66: mÉëxÉÉSå xÉuÉïSÒÈZÉÉlÉÉÇ WûÉÌlÉUxrÉÉåmÉeÉÉrÉiÉå | mÉëxɳÉcÉåiÉxÉÉå ½ÉzÉÑ oÉÑÎ®È mÉrÉïuÉÌiɸiÉå ||, lÉÉÎxiÉ oÉÑήUrÉÑ£üxrÉ lÉ cÉÉrÉÑ£üxrÉ pÉÉuÉlÉÉ | lÉ cÉÉpÉÉuÉrÉiÉfÉç zÉÎliÉUzÉÉliÉxrÉ MÑüiÉÈ xÉÑZÉqÉç || Also II-70: xÉ zÉÉÎliÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ lÉ MüÉqÉMüÉÍqÉ II-71: ÌuÉWûÉrÉ MüÉqÉÉlrÉÈ xÉuÉÉïlmÉÑqÉÉǶÉUÌiÉ ÌlÉÈxmÉ×WûÈ | ÌlÉqÉïqÉÉå ÌlÉUWÇûƒ¡ûÉUÈ xÉ zÉÉÎliÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || Vide IV-39: ¥ÉÉlÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ mÉUÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉÍcÉUåhÉÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ V-12: zÉÉÎliÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ lÉæ̸MüÐqÉç V-29: ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ qÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉ×cNûÌiÉ || XII-12 ch. irÉÉaÉÉcNûÎliÉUlÉliÉUqÉç XVIII-62: iÉimÉëxÉÉSÉimÉUÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉÇ tTàsadaTpra< zaiNt< | These passages make clear that it consists of the peace and tranquility of the mind that comes through Tyaga & Yoga. This Santi or Sattvica sukha which comes with the Prasada or the tranquility of the mind is that which comes as a result of Tyaga & Yoga and the cultivation of Sattva guna and is therefore, a product of Sadhana or effort and exercise. It should not be confused with the natural bliss of the Atman itself which is not a product and is only to be realized. In the former the Buddhi is still functioning within the frame work of ̧ÉmÉÑÌOû, subject – object relation where dualities still exists and is not transcended, whereas in the latter this duality Triputi is transcended and the Atman enjoys its own prestine glory and bliss. The former is therefore, only the penultimate stage in spiritual progress and the latter the culmination of it. The Bhaktas and the Yogis and the other schools of philosophy Sankya, Nyaya, Vaiseshika do not go beyond duality and to them this Santi is the highest goal. Only to the Advaitin the highest goal consists of the realization of the non- dual Atman or Brahman. The highest goal is spoken of as ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉç | The highest Sreyas, is distinguished in the Kathopanishad from the still lower goals of life when it says ´ÉårÉ¶É mÉëårÉ¶É qÉlÉÑwrÉqÉåiÉÈ iÉÉæ xÉqmÉUÏirÉ ÌuÉÌuÉlÉÌ£ü kÉÏUÈ | ´ÉårÉÉå WûÉå kÉÏUÉåÅÍpÉmÉëårÉxÉÉå uÉ×ÍhÉiÉå mÉëårÉÉå qÉlSÉå rÉÉåaɤÉåqÉɲØlÉÏiÉå || This shows that the pleasures of the senses constitute only mÉëårÉxÉç and ´ÉårÉxÉç consists of the Sattvika sukha which comes through Tyaga and Yoga. It is this ´ÉårÉxÉç that is refered into in the Bhagavatam VII .11.7 kÉqÉïqÉÔsÉÇ ÌWû pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç xÉuÉïuÉåSqÉrÉÉå WûËUÈ | xqÉ×iÉÇ cÉ iÉ̲SÉÇ iÉÉeÉlÉç rÉålÉ cÉÉÅÅiqÉÉ mÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || where iÉ̲SÉqÉç means those who have realized Bhagavan. Cf. also Bhagavatam I .26. xÉ uÉæ mÉÑÇxÉÉÇ mÉUÉå kÉqÉïÈ rÉiÉÉå pÉÌ£üUkÉÉå¤ÉeÉå | AWæûiÉÑMüÐ AmÉëÌiÉWûiÉÉ rÉrÉÉ AÉiqÉÉ xÉÑmÉëxÉÏSÌiÉ || AiÉÈ mÉÑÇÍpÉÈ Ì²eÉ´Éå¸ÉÈ uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉÌuÉpÉÉaÉzÉÈ | xÉÑ AlÉÑ̸iÉxrÉ kÉqÉïxrÉ xÉÇÍxÉήWïûËUiÉÉåwÉhqÉç || In these passages, of course, we have the description of Dharma in terms of Bhakti. Patanjali also refers to this when he says Samadhi is kÉqÉïqÉåbÉ. kÉqÉïqÉåbÉ Samadhi that is to say Samadhi is the source of Dharma just as Megha is the source of rain. The word Prasada is used in two

149

senses, in one sense it relates to the purification and tranquility of the mind through spiritual practice. In the other sense in which it is generally used by the Bhaktas, it means the grace of God. There is no inherent contradiction between these two senses as, according to the Bhaktas, all spiritual practice and the peace and tranquility resulting from it is due to the grace of God. That this Santi comes only through realization of God is refered to in Katha.Up I.17 oÉë¼eÉ¥ÉÇ SåuÉqÉÏžÇ ÌuÉÌSiuÉÉ ÌlÉcÉÉrrÉåqÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉirÉliÉqÉç LÌiÉ || Vide also V.13 ÌlÉirÉÉåÅÌlÉirÉÉlÉÉÇ cÉåiÉlɶÉåiÉlÉÉlÉÉqÉç LMüÉå oÉWÕûlÉÉÇ rÉÉå ÌuÉSkÉÉÌiÉ MüÉqÉÉlÉç | iÉqÉÉiqÉxjÉÇ rÉåÅlÉÑmÉzrÉÎliÉ kÉÏUÉÈ iÉåwÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉÈ zÉɵÉiÉÏ lÉåiÉUåwÉÉqÉç || vide also Svet. Up IV.11 rÉÉå rÉÉåÌlÉÇ rÉÉåÌlÉqÉÍkÉÌiɸirÉåMüÈ rÉÎxqÉͳÉSÇ xÉgcÉ ÌuÉcÉæÌiÉ xÉuÉïqÉç | iÉqÉÏzÉÉlÉÇ uÉUSÇ SåuÉqÉÏŽÇ ÌlÉcÉÉrrÉåqÉÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåÌiÉ || Also in IV.14 xÉÔ¤qÉÉÌiÉxÉÔ¤qÉÇ MüÍsÉsÉxrÉ qÉkrÉå ÌuɵÉxrÉ xÉë¹ÉUqÉlÉåMüÃmÉqÉç | ÌuɵÉxrÉ LMÇü mÉËUuÉå̹iÉÉUÇ ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ ÍzÉuÉÇ zÉÉÎliÉqÉirÉliÉqÉåÌiÉ || cf. also Tait. I.6.2 where Brahman is referred to as qÉlÉ AÉlÉlSÇ zÉÉÎliÉ xÉqÉ×®qÉqÉ×iÉqÉç ||

The word Prasada is used in the sense of Chittasuddhi and the resulting tranquility of mind through freedom from disturbing passions and temptations is alluded to in Gita II-64: UÉaɲèwÉ ÌuÉrÉÑ£æüUxiÉÑ ÌuÉwÉrÉÌlÉÎlSìrÉæ¶ÉUlÉç | AÉiqÉuÉzrÉæÌuÉkÉåïrÉÉiqÉÉ mÉëxÉÉSqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || cf. also ‘qÉlÉÈmÉëxÉÉS’ as one of the elements of ¥ÉÉlÉ in the 13th chapter. mÉëxÉÉS is used in the sense of grace in such expressions as XI-45: mÉëxÉÏS SåuÉåkÉ eÉaÉͳÉuÉÉxÉ, qÉimÉëxÉÉSÉiÉç, iÉimÉëxÉÉSÉiÉç of ch. XVIII, where it can be taken as meaning only grace as it refers to a person. Just as Manaha prasada is considered by Bhaktas as due to Bhagavan’s grace. Bhagavan’s grace also is described as being available to man only when his mind becomes prasanna or tranquill through self effort and Sadhana. The pleasure that is enjoyed even when sense desires are satisfied is only because of the reflection of the bliss of the Atman in the Sattva element of the mind. When it becomes temporarily slightly predominant over the Rajas and Tamo Gunas through the temporary removal of the disturbing element of sense desires. Therefore, Preyas also depends on the Sattva Guna. Only the Sattva Guna here is noted out of the control of and undiluted by the other three Gunas. That is why Brihad. Up. says in the words of Yajnyavalkya and Maitreyi lÉ uÉÉ AUå mÉirÉÑÈ MüÉqÉÉrÉ mÉÌiÉÈ ÌmÉërÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ AÉiqÉlÉxiÉÑ MüÉqÉÉrÉ mÉÌiÉÈ ÌmÉërÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ ... LiÉxrÉæuÉÉÅlÉlSxrÉ AlrÉÉÌlÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ qÉɧÉÉqÉÑmÉeÉÏuÉÎliÉ | Yajnyavalkya, therefore, concludes with the exhortation AÉiqÉÉ uÉÉ AUå SìwOèurÉÈ ´ÉÉå§ÉurÉÉå qÉliÉurÉÉå ÌlÉÌSkrÉÉÍxÉiÉurÉÈ | In all pleasures of life, even the most sensual simple ones are only partial and blured reflections of the Atamanandam in Sattva Guna. It beholds all who are anxious to have only happiness as their goal to conduct themselves and to live in such a way as to free the Sattva guna from all contacts with Rajas and Tamas as far as possible by enabling it to gradually predominate over the latter step by step by every action done by him till at last it is able to wipe out all Rajas and Tamas and thus be free and pure to reflect fully the bliss of the Atman. This is the Sattvica sukha refered to in the Gita and every act should be done in such a way as to bring about this result if it is to deserve the name of Dharma. This is the first principle of Karma Yoga as advocated in the Gita as is made clear by the definition of rÉÉåaÉ itself in the II ch. II-50: … rÉÉåaÉëÈ MüqÉïxÉÑ MüÉæzÉsÉqÉç ||, II-48: … xÉqÉiuÉÇ rÉÉåaÉ EcrÉiÉå ||, II-53: ´ÉÑÌiÉÌuÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉÉ iÉå rÉSÉ xjÉÉxrÉÌiÉ ÌlɶÉsÉÉ | xÉqÉÉkÉÉuÉcÉsÉÉ oÉÑήxiÉSÉ rÉÉåaÉqÉuÉÉmxrÉÍxÉ ||, and in the 6th chapter VI-23: iÉÇ ÌuɱÉSè SÒÈZÉxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÌuÉrÉÉåaÉÇ rÉÉåaÉxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉqÉç |, VI-

150

33: rÉÉåÅrÉÇ rÉÉåaÉxiuÉrÉÉ mÉëÉå£üÈ xÉÉqrÉålÉ qÉkÉÑxÉÔSlÉ | That is why in the XVIII ch. Bhagavan exorts Arjuna to convert all work into worship XVIII-45: xuÉå xuÉå MüqÉïhrÉÍpÉUiÉÈ xÉÇÍxÉ먂 sÉpÉiÉå lÉUÈ | etc. XVIII-46: rÉiÉÈ mÉëuÉ×̨ÉpÉÔïiÉÉlÉÉÇ rÉålÉ xÉuÉïÍqÉSÇ iÉiÉqÉç | xuÉYëqÉhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || Every act done by anybody can thus become Dharma if he does it with a proper motive and in the proper spirit to attain this goal through ÍcɨÉzÉÑή consistent with the needs of particular time, place, conditions and circumstances under which the act is done and if it is in terms of his own AÍkÉMüÉU. One should be always alert and awake and should not be negligent and careless in testing every one of his actions as to whether it is fit and capable of leading to this development of xɨuÉaÉÑhÉ and ÍcɨÉzÉÑή through the conquest of UeÉxÉç and iÉqÉxÉç. One should always take care not to be moved to any particular action by MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, sÉÉåpÉ, etc. the characteristic of a Satvika action and a Sattvika kartha as distinct from Rajasika and Tamasika ones as well as the characteristic of a Sattvika oÉÑή, kÉëÑÌiÉ, xÉÑZÉÇ are all described in the 18th chap., only to enable one to judge oneself and one’s own actions and the state of ones own mind at the time of the action to judge whether one is prompted to Sattvika guna or not. Manu also gives us some guidance in ascertaining whether an action is Sattvika or not as when he says rÉiÉç xÉuÉåïhÉ CcNûÌiÉ ¥ÉÉiÉÑÇ rÉ³É sÉ‹ÌiÉ cÉ AÉcÉUlÉç | rÉålÉ iÉÑwrÉÌiÉ cÉ AÉiqÉÉ AxrÉ iÉiÉç xÉiuÉaÉÑhÉsɤÉhÉqÉç || The characteristics of Rajas and Tamas he describes thus rÉiÉç MüqÉï M×üiuÉÉ MÑüuÉï¶Éç MüËUwrÉǶÉæuÉ sÉ‹ÌiÉ | iÉe¥ÉårÉÇ ÌuÉSÒwÉÉ SuÉïÇ iÉÉqÉxÉÇ aÉÑhÉsɤÉhÉqÉç || rÉålÉÉÅÎxqÉlÉç MüqÉïhÉÉ sÉÉåMåü s½ÉÌiÉÍqÉcNûÌiÉ mÉÑwMüsÉÉqÉç | lÉ cÉ zÉÉåcÉÌiÉ AxÉqmɨÉÉæ UÉeÉxÉÇ aÉÑhÉsɤÉhÉqÉç || XII-35-37. We thus see how AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ is thus made a test of Sattva guna or the Sattvic nature of an action. He refers to the same thing in XII-38 iÉqÉxÉÉå sɤÉhÉÇ MüÉqÉ UeÉxÉxiÉÑ AjÉï EcrÉiÉå xÉiuÉxrÉ sɤÉhÉÇ kÉqÉïÈ ´ÉåwœqÉç | In the 4th chap. 159 -161 sloka in otherwords rɱiÉç mÉUuÉzÉÇ MüqÉï iɨÉiÉç rɦÉålÉ uÉeÉïrÉåiÉç | rɱSÉiqÉuÉzÉÇ iÉÑ xrÉÉiÉç lÉ iÉiÉç xÉåuÉåiÉ rɦÉiÉÈ || xÉuÉïÇ mÉUuÉzÉÇ SÒÈZÉÇ xÉuÉïqÉÉiqÉuÉzÉÇ xÉÑZÉqÉç | LiÉ̲±ÉiÉç xÉqÉÉxÉålÉ sɤÉhÉÇ xÉÑZÉSÒÈZÉrÉÉåÈ || rÉiÉç MüqÉï MÑüuÉïiÉÉåÅxrÉ xrÉÉiÉç mÉUÉåÌiÉwÉÈ AliÉUÉiqÉlÉÈ iÉiÉç mÉërɦÉålÉ MÑüuÉÏïiÉ ÌuÉmÉUÏiÉÇ iÉÑ uÉeÉïrÉåiÉç || Here it is the Sattvika sukha that is refered to as mÉËUiÉÉåwÉ: AliÉUÉiqÉlÉÈ as it is the bliss of the Atman as reflected in the pure mind that leads to this supreme moral satisfaction. AÉiqÉuÉzÉqÉç refers to the fact that this moral satisfaction is dependent upon the Atman which means here the Paramatman or God who is present in the pure heart and mÉUuÉzÉ refers to AÌuɱÉ, AWûƒ¡ûÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, sÉÉåpÉ, etc which are all intruders and foreign elements in the ordinary mind which is Sattvic by its very nature. It is these foreign elements that prevent the full reflection of Atmanandam in the mind and thus cause SÒÈZÉ. If these are removed one enjoys the full bliss of the Atman as reflected in the naturally Sattvic mind. It is in this sense that Manu says that all xÉÑZÉ is AÉiqÉuÉzÉ and SÒÈZÉ is Paravasa and exorts all to do only such karma through self effort which brings about this xÉÑZÉ. The test of this AÉiqÉuÉzÉMüqÉï is thus the supreme moral satisfaction that comes from work well done. That is why Manu includes AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ as one of the tests of Dharma. This Atman on whom such xÉliÉÉåwÉ depends is present equally in the hearts of all men and is always inspiring everybody to live in such a way as to realize Him through ÍcɨÉzÉÑή. This inspiration is obstructed by AWûƒ¡ûÉU, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, iÉqÉxÉç, UeÉxÉç, etc. and becomes available when the latter are removed. When a man acts according to this inspiration from the inner Atman he attains Citta suddhi and Sattvic sukham. It is called

151

Atmasukha because it is inspired by the Atman and because it is the reflection of the Atman in the mind. Therefore, this Sattvica sukha becomes the test of Dharma and is also based upon when the inspiration given by the Atman as distinct from prakriti or the ego, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. The discipline and Sadhana that are undertaken at the inspiration of the Atman is the real self discipline or Svadharma as distinct from the external discipline enforced by mere worldy considerations and social and legal regulations or forced by the slavery to passions etc. It is these latter that are called mÉUkÉqÉï in the Gita. xuÉkÉqÉï in this sense is preferable to mÉUkÉqÉï which is said to be pÉrÉÉuÉWû. In this sense all acts done out of fear of consequences such as those actions prescribed by the Srutis, Smritis, etc or for fear of social approbium if Acharas are not practiced or fear of punishment by the state etc. cannot be considered as AÉiqÉuÉzÉMüqÉï just as those prompted by desires for sense pleasures. Even the so called uÉhÉÉï´ÉqÉkÉqÉï which the orthodox people consider as Svadharma for each Varna and Ashrama cannot be considered as Dharma if it is undertaken only for fear of hell or punishment by the state or social osterism and therefore they seize to be Dharma proper only if it is one’s own choice as guided by one’s own moral sense without any extra pressure from outside, legal, social or religious that it can be called Dharma. The text, customs and traditions and legal statutes of the state provide only a wild field of choice from which each individual is free to choose what he considers best for himself under particular cirucumstances, time, place, AÍkÉMüÉU, etc. and in this choice he is guided only by the light within if his acts is to the xuÉkÉqÉï and in this choice one of the tests is the resulting AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ resulting from his own Cittasuddhi. Again, since this Atman is not the individual Atman but the Paramatman present everywhere whose manifestation the whole world is, AÉiqÉxÉliÉÉåwÉ involves not merely the pleasure of the actor himself but also the moral satisfaction of the whole society and the spiritual happiness and welfare of the whole world. Therefore, in deciding whether an action is Sattvic or not, the Sattvica jnana must be made use of, and this in turn involves sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ, etc. And this xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ should be one of the motives of every act of Dharma. It is such Karma as is intended for spiritual welfare of the whole world, including oneself that constitutes real worship of God and it is such worship that is pleasing to the God and it is this pleasure of the God through such worship that makes His mÉëxÉÉSqÉç (grace) available to the actor, which leads to ÍcɨÉmÉëxÉÉSqÉç or qÉlÉÈmÉëxÉÉSqÉç, which makes the bliss of the Atman available to the actor and progress in the form of AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹. If every member of a society thinks of a spiritual welfare of every other member and tries to bring it about, through love and service and co-operation, that is the best way of ensuring the stability of the society. Thus, the test of AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ is not merely individualistic but social also in this application. As it is not ususlly possible for everyone to find out what is spiritually good for another man as each individual is in a different range of the ladder of spiritual progress, the golden rule has to be resorted to find out what may be good for others also, and thus the test of AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ involves the golden rule also. It, thus, involves also AÌWÇûxÉÉ in its positive and negative aspects, and Dharana in its individual and social aspects and Prabhava in its various aspects, as we explained these terms when we discussed AÌWÇûxÉÉ, kÉÉUhÉÉ, and mÉëpÉuÉ, as tests of Dharma. Even the adoption of this principle is based upon the example and precepts of realized men and therefore spiritual Sadhana and moral virtue or Dharma become more or less synonymous as both of them or based upon the same principle of Tyaga and Yoga. It is this kind of action that Manu advocates when he says in VI.46 qÉlÉÈmÉÔiÉÇ xqÉÉcÉUåiÉç. It is in this sense that the morality of even Satya is declared to be based upon xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ by all writers. It is on this again all the Samanya Dharmas are based as all of them are only forms of same Tyaga and Yoga. Vide M.bh. Shanti P.

152

description of various forms Satya, Dharma, etc. in chs. 162, 163, etc. xÉirÉÇ cÉ xÉqÉiÉÉ cÉæuÉ SqɶÉæuÉ lÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ | AqÉÉixÉrÉïÇ ¤ÉqÉÉ cÉæuÉ »ûÏÎxiÉÌiɤÉÉÅlÉxÉÔrÉiÉÉ cÉ || irÉÉaÉÉå krÉÉlÉqÉç AjÉ AÉrÉïiuÉÇ kÉ×ÌiÉ¶É xÉiÉiÉÇ SrÉÉ | AÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉæuÉ UÉeÉålSì xÉirÉÉMüÉUÉÈ §ÉrÉÉåSzÉÈ || Vide also 160 kÉqÉïxrÉ ÌuÉkÉrÉÉå lÉæMåü rÉå uÉæ mÉëÉå£üÉ qÉWûÌwÉïÍpÉÈ | xuÉÇ xuÉÇ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ SqÉxiÉåwÉÉÇ mÉUÉrÉhÉqÉç || SqÉÇ ÌlÉÈ´ÉårÉxÉÇ mÉëÉWÒûÈ uÉ×®ÉÈ ÌlÉͶÉiÉSÍzÉïlÉÈ rÉjÉÉuÉSÒmÉsÉprÉiÉå | SqÉÉå SÉlÉÇ iÉjÉÉ rÉ¥ÉÉlÉç AkÉÏiÉÇ cÉ AÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå | SqÉålÉ xÉSØzÉÇ kÉqÉïÇ lÉ AlrÉÇ sÉÉåMåüwÉÑ zÉÑ´ÉÑqÉ | AÉ´ÉqÉåwÉÑ cÉiÉÑwÉÑï AÉWÒûÈ SqÉqÉåuÉ E¨ÉqÉÈ uÉëiÉqÉç || iÉxrÉ ÍsÉ…¡ûÉÌlÉ uɤrÉÉÍqÉ rÉåwÉÉÇ xÉqÉÑSrÉÈ SqÉÈ | ¤qÉÉ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ AÌWÇûxÉÉ cÉ xÉqÉiÉÉ xÉirÉqÉÉeÉïuÉqÉç | CÎlSìrÉÉÍpÉeÉrÉ SɤrÉÇ qÉÉSïuÉÇ Ì¾ûÈ AcÉÉmÉsÉqÉç || AMüÉmÉïhÉÑAÇ AxÉÇUprÉÈ xÉliÉÉåwÉÈ ÌmÉërÉuÉÉÌSiÉÉ | AÌuÉÌWÇûxÉÉ AlÉxÉÔrÉÉ cÉ AmrÉåwÉÉÇ xÉqÉÑSrÉÉå SqÉÈ || (aÉÑÂmÉÔeÉÉ cÉ MüÉæUurÉ SrÉÉ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ AmÉÉæzÉÑlÉqÉç |) Vide 161 also.

The relation of all these things to Tyaga is brought about by the statement of Dharma-vyadha uÉåSxrÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉiÉç xÉirÉÇ xÉirÉxrÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉiÉç SqÉÈ | SqÉxrÉÉåmÉÌlÉwÉSè irÉÉaÉÈ ÍzɹÉcÉÉUåwÉÑ ÌlÉirÉSÉ || 207.67. This makes clear also how it is Tyaga which is the quintessence of Veda as well as Sishtacara.

We thus see the intimate interrelations between the various sources of virtue mentioned by Manu. It is common for orthodox people to give prime importance among these to Sruti and then to Smriti, then to ÍzɹÉcÉÉU, and AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ comes only where none of these three sources give any guidance. According to them, where there is a conflict between Sruti and Smriti, the prescription of the Sruti should be preferred to that of Smriti. Smriti is authoritative only in such cases where no such Vedic prescriptions are available. Similarly, no ÍzɹÉcÉÉU can prevail against any prescriptions give by Smriti. AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ is helpful only when no clear guidance is given even by ÍzɹÉcÉÉU. Vide ´ÉÑÌiÉxqÉ×ÌiÉÌuÉUÉåkÉå iÉÑ ´ÉÑÌiÉUåuÉ aÉUÏrÉxÉÏ | AÌuÉUÉåkÉå xÉSÉ MüÉrÉïÇ xqÉÉiÉïÇ uÉæÌSMüuÉiÉç iÉSÉ || Laughakshi. Also the words of xÉXçaÉëWû. ´ÉÑÌiÉxqÉ×ÌiÉmÉÑUÉhÉåwÉÑ ÌuÉ®åwÉÑ mÉUxmÉUqÉç | mÉÔuÉïÇ mÉÔuÉïÇ oÉsÉÏrÉÈ xrÉÉiÉç CÌiÉ lrÉÉrÉÌuÉSÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ || Also cÉiÉÑÌuÉïÇzÉÌiÉqÉiÉ. xqÉ×iÉåuÉåïSÌuÉUÉåkÉålÉ mÉËUirÉÉaÉÉå rÉjÉÉ pÉuÉåiÉç | iÉjÉæuÉ sÉÉæÌMüMÇü uÉÉYrÉÇ ´ÉÑÌiÉoÉÉkÉÉiÉç mÉËUirÉeÉåiÉç || Also Vasishtha I.4and 5. ´ÉÑÌiÉxlÉ×ÌiÉÌuÉÌWûiÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ iÉSsÉÉåpÉå ÍzɹÉcÉÉUÈ mÉëqÉÉhÉqÉç | cf. also the words of xqÉ×ÌiÉqÉÑ£üÉTüsÉ. xÉSÉcÉÉU²æÌuÉkrÉå iÉÑ rÉÎxqÉlÉç SåzÉå rÉÎxqÉlÉç MüÉsÉå rÉÎxqÉlÉç mÉÑÂwÉå UÉaɲåwÉUÌWûiÉxrÉ ÍzɸiuÉÉÌiÉzÉrÉoÉÑÎ®È iÉÉSØzÉxrÉ AÉcÉÉUÉå qÉÑZrÉiuÉålÉ aÉëÉ½È || According to Sumantu that AÉcÉÉU which has been current in one family is to be accepted in such cases in preference to the traditional Acharas of the other families. iÉÎxqÉlÉç MÑüsÉ¢üqÉÉrÉÉiÉÇ AÉcÉÉUliÉÑ AÉcÉUåiÉç oÉÑkÉÈ xÉ aÉUÏrÉÉlÉç qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå xÉuÉïzÉÉxiÉÉåÌSiÉÉSÌmÉ || It will be seen that these orthodox conservative people prefer to be guided by external authority where such is available rather than take the trouble of using their own moral sense and freedom of choice. To merely follow another’s lead and to rely entirely upon another’s judgement in matters of Dharma would only result in making one morally weak as no exercise is given to the moral sense, just as the various limbs of the body, and its muscles, nerves etc get weaker if they are not regularly and properly exercised

153

and leads to what is called atrophy, or when a man always takes the help of another or even a vehicle to go from place to place. That is why Hindu orthodox society has deteriorated in its morality and Dharma till at last it has become almost absolutely imbecile morally and spiritually. If they had taken a proper view of one comparative importance of all thse sources of Dharma and exercised their sense of freedom of choice on the basis of Atmatushti, their moral sense would have been gradually strengthened more and more through constant regular use & exercise & they would have been able to stand upon their own legs instead of always seeking to rely upon frail cruches provided by the opinion of every conqueror that has enslaved India. The sorry spectacle of Hindus shamelessly aping and imitating the west in their customs and manners and in their ideas about justice and virtue can be traced to this weakening of the moral back bone through lack of exercise of their own independent moral sense. We can from practical experience understand how this happens in the case of spoon feedingof boys and in cases of too much of mothering and guidance given by parents at home. It is far better in the interests of moral advancement to provide freedom of action to growing youngsters and to allow them freedom of thought and judgement with as little interference from elders as possible except where it is absolutely found necessary as advocated by modern educational experiments such as the Montessori method. We can thus well understand the force of Bhagavan’s statement in the Gita that Svadharma is Sreyas and Paradharma is Bhayavaha and his advocacy of Svadharma even at the risk of a little danger now & then. It is better to have the liberty to learn through error and mistake and by ones own expense. That is what Bhagavan means when he says xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï MüÉæliÉårÉ xÉSÉåwÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ irÉeÉåiÉç | xÉuÉÉïUqpÉÉ WûÉå SÉåwÉåhÉ kÉÔqÉålÉÉÎalÉËUuÉÉuÉ×iÉÉÈ || No man can learn to swim without entering into water and no child can learn to walk without being given the opportunity to fall. Cf. Swamiji’s statement that he has learnt more through failures and errors than through successes. Every sincere attempt to use ones own moral sense in the light of the principles of Dharma as we have explained before must make us morally and spiritually stronger step by step and there is no such thing as failure or error in such case as every step takes one nearer the goal. As Swamiji says we are not progressing from error to truth but from lower truth to higher truth, from good to better, to bad and good until we reach the highest Truth. Cf. Mundaka Up. xÉirÉqÉåuÉ eÉrÉiÉå lÉÉlÉ×iÉqÉç | xÉirÉålÉ eÉrÉiÉå lÉÉlÉ×iÉqÉç | xÉirÉålÉ mÉljÉÉ ÌuÉiÉiÉÉå SåuÉrÉÉlÉÈ | rÉålÉ AÉ¢üqÉÎliÉ GwÉrÉÈ ÌWû AÉmiÉ¢üÉqÉÉÈ | rÉ§É iÉiÉç xÉirÉxrÉ mÉUqÉÇ ÌlÉkÉÉlÉqÉç || It is accepted by all Vedantins that Dharma is different for different people and for the same men in different circumstances, time, place etc. cf. Sankara on Br. Su III.1.25 rÉÎxqÉlÉç SåzÉå MüÉsÉå ÌlÉÍqɨÉå cÉ rÉÉå kÉqÉÉåïÅlÉѸÏrÉiÉå iÉSåuÉ SåzÉMüÉsÉÌlÉÍqɨÉÉliÉUåwÉÑ AkÉqÉÉåï pÉuÉÌiÉ | Cf. also Krishna's words in Bhagavatam YuÉÍcÉiÉç aÉÑhÉÉåÅÌmÉ SÉåwÉ xrÉÉiÉç SÉåwÉÉåÅÌmÉ ÌuÉÍkÉlÉÉ aÉÑhÉÈ where ÌuÉÍkÉ refers to Svadharma as decided by oneself on the basis of all the principles of Dharma given above. Cf. also Santi P. xÉ LuÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉÉåÅkÉqÉïÈ iÉÇ iÉÇ mÉëÌiÉlÉUÇ pÉuÉåiÉç mÉɧÉMüqÉïÌuÉzÉåwÉåhÉ SåzÉMüÉsÉÉuÉmÉå¤rÉ cÉ || AlrÉÉå kÉqÉïÈ xÉqÉxjÉxrÉ ÌuÉwÉqÉxjÉxrÉ cÉÉÅmÉUÈ | mÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÉå SåzÉMüÉsÉå kÉqÉÉåï ÌWû AÉuÉÎxjÉMüÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || cf. also Santi 36.11 xÉ LuÉ kÉqÉïÈ xÉÉåÅkÉqÉïÈ SåzÉMüÉsÉmÉëÌiÉ̸iÉÈ | AÉSÉlÉÇ ÌWÇûxÉÉ kÉqÉÉåï ÌWû uÉ AÉuÉÎxjÉMüÈ xqÉ×iÉÈ || cf. Krishna’s words in M.bh., Udyoga Parva where he specially mentions that even if one fails to attain his goal the very sincere attempt at kÉqÉï necessarily leads to mÉÑhrÉqÉç (ÍcɨÉzÉÑή). kÉqÉïMüÉrÉåï rÉiÉlÉç zÉYirÉÉ lÉÉå cÉåiÉç mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ | mÉëÉmiÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉiÉç mÉÑhrÉqÉç A§É qÉå lÉÉÅÎxiÉ xÉÇzÉrÉÈ ||

154

Similarly in the case of AkÉqÉï even if one fails inspite of sincere attempt to do something wrong, such failure is better from the standpoint of morality. qÉlÉxÉÉ ÍcÉliÉrÉlÉç mÉÉmÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÉ lÉ AÌiÉUÉåcÉrÉlÉç | lÉ mÉëÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ TüsÉÇ iÉxrÉ CirÉåuÉÇ kÉqÉïÌuÉSÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ || According to us, therefore, AÉiqÉiÉÑ̹ or qÉlÉÈ mÉÔiÉiÉÉ is the prime source of Dharma and not texts or usages and customs and tradition. To submit to these unthinkingly and unintelligently can never be Sattvic and cannot therefore, be kÉqÉïs as kÉqÉï is the sɤÉhÉ and xÉiuÉaÉÑhÉ according to Manu, however hoary the antiquity of the text or the tradition may be. It is the use of xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή, the discriminating intelligence that makes a Karma Dharma and it is the independent and free use of that oÉÑή by oneself that makes the act of xuÉkÉqÉï. Thus the whole concept of xuÉkÉqÉ is founded on freedom and self determination by use of ones own Buddhi. That is why the Gita says in the 2nd chap. At the very beginning of the discussionof Karma Yoga II-41: urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑήUåMåüWû MÑüÂlÉlSlÉ | oÉWÒûzÉÉZÉÉ ½lÉliÉÉ¶É oÉÑ®rÉÉåÅurÉuÉxÉÉÌrÉlÉÉqÉç || urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉ here means the use of the Buddhi to determine what is the proper goal of life as well as the proper means of achieving it as per the principles of Dharma discussed above and to rigourously and resolutely put into practice what one has settled to be ones Dharma even in the face of all obstacles. This is the one and only instrument which is of any value in spiritual life as conceived by Sri Krishna. That is the force of the words LMåü & CWû in the Sloka. He points this out as the point of difference between his idea of spiritual life and that of the orthodox ritualistic text bound Mimamsakas who rely upon different Karmas prescribed by the texts to bring about the satisfaction of different desires. People who are thus guided have neither a common end nor a common means, according to differences in texts and differences in desires. That is the force of the second line oÉWÒûzÉÉZÉÉ ÌWû etc. where AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉÏ means those who do not rely upon the judgement of their own xÉSxÉ̲uÉåMüoÉÑή and who are therefore slaves of others and their own passions and desires. He therefore condemns such orthodox conservatives in the next two or three verses rÉÉÍqÉqÉÉÇ mÉÑÎwmÉiÉÉÇ uÉÉcÉÇ< etc. Accroding to him, their Buddhi can never become steady or concentrated and they can never attain realization through Samadhi. And he therefore advises in the next Sloka to give up all ideas of attaining success in moral and spiritual life through reliance upon mere prescriptions of the scriptures, none of which can help anybody to attain (realize) the goal of life viz. realization of Atman or God which is the one worthy goal of all human endeavour. This is what is meant by §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ uÉåSÉ etc. The goal of life and the method of realizing it are dependent upon one’s own Atman. That is the force of the word AÉiqÉuÉÉlÉç in the Sloka. For this one must pass beyond the three Gunas and give up all worldly desires and must practise constant meditation and self control and renunciation. ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉ means beyond the Gunas or ̧ÉaÉÑhÉÉiÉÏiÉ whose characteristic are described at the end of the 14th chap. Ìlɲïl² refers to equanimity of mind and freedom from the effects of the contacts with sense objects such as xÉÑZÉ, SÒÈZÉ, UÉaɲåwÉ, zÉÏiÉÉåwhÉ, ÍqɧÉ, SìÉåWû, etc. i.e. xÉqÉiuÉ ÌlÉirÉxÉiuÉxjÉ refers to the constant interest only in permanent Truth viz. qÉÉå¤É or realistion and the consequent permanent ÍcɨÉzÉÑή that comes from such realization. ÌlÉrÉÉåïaɤÉåqÉ refers to renunciation. Krishna exorts Arjuna to accept these as the criteria of righ activity or Dharma in preference to the prescription of the Vedas. The whole of the subsequent discourse in the 2nd chap. is in explanation and substantiation of this fundamental principle of right action or Dharma. In the next Sloka he points out that one who relies upon the guidance one’s own Atman does not really lose anything as in such realization is included an attainment of all other goals of life, just as during a flood all small reservoirs of water merge into one vast sheet of flood water. This is an echo of Tait. Up. xÉÉåÅzlÉÑiÉå

155

xÉuÉÉïlÉç MüÉqÉÉlÉç xÉWû | This is literally and factually true as all worldly pleasure and satisfactions are only pale, blurred and partial reflections of the AÉiqÉÉlÉlS in the Sattvic element of the mind as is explained before. Such a man of realization does not stand in need of nor is he tempted by even the highest worldly pleasures such as those aimed at by the AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉÏs. They have no use for such tinsel as a man has no use for small pools of wter when there is big flood. This is the force or rÉÉuÉÉlÉjÉï ESmÉÉlÉå etc.

In attaining this state one has to progress step by step by converting every one of his actions with Dharma through the use of Buddhi. In this use of the Buddhi that converts mere Karma into Karma Yoga as is explained in the next few verses. It is to emphasise this use of the Buddhi in spiritual life that Bhagavan calls Yoga by the name of Buddhi Yoga. II-49: SÕUåhÉ ½uÉUÇ MüqÉï oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉÉ®lÉÇeÉrÉ | oÉÑ®Éæ zÉUhÉqÉÎluÉcNû M×ümÉhÉÉÈ TüsÉWåûiÉuÉÈ || etc. Even in III-26 n oÉÑήpÉåSÇ eÉlÉrÉåS¥ÉÉlÉÉÇ MüqÉïxÉÌ…¡ûlÉÉqÉç | oÉÑήpÉåSÇ includes the breaking up of the one pointed reliance on Buddhi by the extraneous influences and advice offered by others. Bhagavan condemns in that Sloka the attempt of people to force their views on others at the point of the sword as it were or through subtle persuation, bribery, offer of temptations etc as the Christians and Musalmans do to effect conversions. By the constant use of one’s own Buddhi it at last gets the power to reach only virtuously and this is what is referred to in II-53: ´ÉÑÌiÉÌuÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉÉ iÉå rÉSÉ xjÉÉxrÉÌiÉ ÌlɶÉsÉÉ | xÉqÉÉkÉÉuÉcÉsÉÉ oÉÑήxiÉSÉ rÉÉåaÉqÉuÉÉmxrÉÍxÉ || The word ´ÉÑÌiÉÌuÉmÉëÌiÉmɳÉÉ shows how Bhagavan does not pay much attention to the beneficient words of the Sruti. Sruti according to Him, only makes the Buddhi confused & distracted and creates doubts through conflict between its prescriptions and one’s own free convictions. A few Slokas further on in the course of the descriptions of the behaviour of the Sthitapravta, he points out how a man comes to grief if his Buddhi has not become (properly trained through constant exercise) stong through proper training. Cf. oÉÑήlÉÉzÉÉiÉç mÉëhÉzrÉÌiÉ. Although thus exercise of the Buddhi through self-discipline is a very important element in Svadharma, it does not preclude the help received from Atman or God or even from realized men as Gurus who have become actually one with the Atman or God. Therefore we find Bhagavan saying at the end of the 3 rd chap. III-42: CÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ mÉUÉhrÉÉÌWûËUÎlSìrÉåprÉÈ mÉUÇ qÉlÉÈ | etc. also III-43: LuÉÇ oÉÑ®åÈ mÉUÇ oÉÑ®uÉÉ xÉÇxiÉprÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ | etc. where AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÉ refers to giving full play to the inspiration from the Atman within and to conquer the lower self with the help of such inspiration from the higher self. Simialarly in the 6 th chap. he exhorts Arjuna to extricate himself from slavery with the help of his own higher Atman – E®UåSÉiqÉlÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ lÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉuÉxÉÉSrÉåiÉç | AÉiqÉæuÉ ½ÉiqÉlÉÉå oÉlkÉÑUÉiqÉæuÉ ËUmÉÑUÉiqÉlÉÈ || etc. The same idea occurs in his instruction to Uddhava also in XI.7.19&20 & ch.2 of Sri Krishna & Uddhava mÉëÉrÉåhÉ qÉlÉÑeÉÉ sÉÉåMåü sÉÉåMüiÉiuÉÌuÉcɤÉhÉÉÈ | xÉqÉÑ®UÎliÉ ÌWû AÉiqÉÉlÉqÉç AÉiqÉlÉæuÉ AzÉÑpÉÉÅÅzÉrÉÉiÉç || AÉiqÉlÉÉå aÉÑÂUÉÅÅiqÉæuÉ mÉÑÂwÉxrÉ ÌuÉzÉåwÉiÉÈ | rÉiÉç mÉëirɤÉÉlÉÑqÉÉlÉÉprÉÉÇ ´ÉårÉÉåÅxÉÉæ AlÉÑÌuÉlSiÉå || Here Pratyaksha refers to direct inspiration from within and Anumana to inference based upon such inner inspiration, Sreyas refers to Dharma as thus directly perceived as conducive to Nisreyasa or Moksha. vide also XI.22.58 & ch 17 of Sri Krishna & Uddhava. ´ÉåWûxMüÉqÉÈ M×ücNíûaÉiÉÈ AÉiqÉlÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉqÉÑ®UåiÉç. M×ücNíûaÉiÉÈ means ‘who is in difficulty as to what is right or wrong’. The help from a real external Guru should also be availed of wherever it is possible and that is why Arjuna could save himself by surrendering himself to

156

the guidance of Sri Krishna. This is also what is refered to at the end of the Gita in the cÉUqÉzsÉÉåMü, xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlmÉËUirÉerÉ etc. To this surrender oneself to the benign influence of Atman or God inside or of the Guru outside does not imply any real loss of freedom or independence of judgement. On the other hand, it is a regaining of his real independence and freedom which he had lost through his slavery to his own passions and egoism. Real freedom consists in liberty to act as one thinks proper from moral stand point and this liberty is assured in accepting the inner inspiration from the Atman in preference to the guidance given by the desire for sense pleasures, fear etc. Even in the case of the advise given by a Guru there is no loss of one’s own freedom or individuality as all real Gurus who are interested in the welfare of the Sishyas give ample freedom to the latter and the liberty of choice and the freedom to accept or reject their advice. This is what Sri Krishna does when after all advice to Arjuna he says ÌuÉqÉ×wrÉæiÉSzÉåwÉåhÉ etc and when Arjuna acts he acts on his own responsibility according to his natural moral sense, which had previously failed to act in guiding him properly as his Buddhi was clouded through his own egoism and attachment to his kith and kin and extraneous influence began to play upon him and over power his own judgement. That is what Arjuna means when he says lɹÉå qÉÉåWûÈ xqÉ×ÌiÉsÉïokÉÉ etc. Every real Guru works only through the process of making the Sishya use his own Buddhi and convince himself about the rightness or propriety of an action by such independent use of his own Buddhi. What the Guru attempts to do is to help the Sishya to use his Buddhi and think for himself and decide for himself. That is why Bhagavan says in 10th chap. 10th and 11th Sloka. iÉåwÉÉÇ xÉiÉiÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ pÉeÉiÉÉÇ mÉëÏÌiÉmÉÔuÉïMüqÉç | SSÉÍqÉ oÉÑήrÉÉåaÉÇ iÉÇ rÉålÉ qÉÉqÉÑmÉrÉÉÎliÉ iÉå || iÉåwÉÉqÉåuÉÉlÉÑMüqmÉÉjÉïqÉWûqÉ¥ÉÉlÉeÉÇ iÉqÉÈ | lÉÉzÉrÉÉqrÉÉiqÉpÉÉuÉxjÉÉå ¥ÉÉlÉSÏmÉålÉ pÉÉxuÉiÉÉ || There is no loss of freedom of thought and judgement and freedom of action in accepting the help and advice of a real Guru. Even Bhagavan says in BG iÉxqÉÉcNûÉx§ÉÇ mÉëqÉÉhÉÇ iÉå MüÉrÉÉïMüÉrÉïurÉuÉÎxjÉiÉÉæ | ¥ÉÉiuÉÉ zÉÉx§ÉÌuÉkÉÉlÉÉå£Çü MüqÉï MüiÉÑïÍqÉWûÉWïûÍxÉ || He does not mean to take away Arjuna’s right of independence of judgement for immediately at the beginning of the 17th chap. Arjuna poses the problem as to what happens to the man who does not guide himself by the Sastras but who sincerely practices self sacrifice and service (Yajna) with Sraddha for the purpose of realization of God as his inner light guides him, Bhagavan readily concedes that if such action is based upon Sattvika buddhi and Sattvika shraddha his action will also be Sattvika and therefore, Dharma. Whether he is guided by the Sastra or not or Sastra in this Sloka must be understood not in the sense as the orthodox people understand it. But as per the instruction and advice given by the inner zÉÉxiÉÉ as per AliÉÈ mÉëÌuÉ¹È zÉÉxiÉÉ eÉlÉÉlÉÉÇ xÉuÉÉïiqÉÉ Sarvatma or Sastra may mean here only the aÉѽiÉqÉÇ zÉÉx§ÉqÉç etc. in the last Sloka of 15th chap. 20th Sloka. We thus see that Svadharma involves many elements. First of all it is Dharma according to fundamental principles and it must be xuÉ - one's own, as judged and decided by oneself or one's own Buddhi free from all external influences and entanglements.

There are various words used in the Gita which more or less mean Svadharma but each of these words emphasizes a particular element in the concept of Svadharma. First of all we have the word xÉWûeÉMüqÉï as in xÉWûxÉÇ MüqÉï MüÉæliÉårÉ xÉSÉåzeÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ irÉeÉåiÉç | The word xÉWûeÉ is understood as only meaning ‘natural’ in the ordinary sense. Every natural, however, is not Sahajakarma, for, in that case, even the physical, chemical and vital activities will be entitled to be called Svadharma. Bhagavan notes the expression in the technical sense alluded to in the 3 rd chap. when he speaks of Prajapati creating man along with Yajna. So this Yajnakarma as described in the 3rd

157

chap. that is born along with the Jiva at the beginning of creation itself refers to the natural reaction resulting fom the action of Prakriti in finitising the Infinite and which (acts) expresses itself in every finite being in the form an inner natural urges to attain this original perfection through expansion and transcendence and which involves the desire for giving up the lower in favour of a higher status. That is why Yajna is defined as SåuÉiÉÉå¬åzÉålÉ SìurÉirÉaÉÉiqÉMü | To say that Yajna is born with the Jiva is to emphasise this Yajna based upon the inner urge natural to all finite beings. xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï, means any Karma that involves the spirit of Tyaga and Yoga in the form of this Yajna based upon this natural inner urge of perfection. It is this inner urge that is the cause of all evolution ending in Jivan Mukti. It is this Karma that is refered to in the 8 th chap. when Bhagavan defines karma as pÉÔiÉpÉÉuÉÉå°uÉMüUÉå ÌuÉxÉaÉïÈ MüqÉïxÉÇÍ¥ÉiÉÈ | Bhuta here refers to the finite being or creature, Bhava refers to its continued birth and Udbhava means progressing higher and higher as mentioned in the 6 th chap. VI-45: mÉërɦÉɱiÉqÉÉlÉxiÉÑ rÉÉåaÉÏ xÉÇzÉÑήÌMüÎsoÉwÉÈ | AlÉåMüeÉlqÉxÉÇÍxÉήxiÉiÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç || Visarga recreating oneself also means Tyaga. Even this progress through repeated birth is with proper guidance of the Buddhi which gets finer and purer with every sincere exercise in the previous life and which is readily available in the next life with all the purity acquired in the previoue life through Sadhana. VI-43: iÉ§É iÉÇ oÉÑήxÉÇrÉÉåaÉÇ sÉpÉiÉå mÉÉæuÉïSåÌWûMüqÉç | rÉiÉiÉå cÉ iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉÈ xÉÎqxÉ®Éæ MÑüÂlÉlSlÉ || VI-44: mÉÔuÉÉïprÉÉxÉåoÉ iÉålÉæuÉ Ì¾ûrÉiÉå ½uÉzÉÉåÅÌmÉ xÉÈ | ÎeÉ¥ÉÉxÉÑUÌmÉ rÉÉåaÉxrÉ zÉoSoÉë¼ÉÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå || where zÉoSoÉë¼ÉÌiÉuÉiÉïiÉå refers to its freedom from all dependence on or slavery to scriptures. This is what Swamiji refered to when he said ‘Expansion is life and contraction is death’. Sahajam karma is the Karma based upon this natural inner urge which is co-equal with creation itself which helps such expansion to the infinite step by step. It is this that Swamiji refers to again when he speaks of renunciation and service as the ideal of India. Internsify her in those channels through constant exercises and redeem yourself from all slavery. This is the message of the doctrine of xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï. XVIII-48: xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï MüÉæliÉårÉ xÉSÉåwÉqÉÌmÉ lÉ irÉeÉåiÉç | where Sadosham refers to the possibility of some risk as is explained above. Doshas refer to failures which are in the long run stepping stones to success. It is such failures that are refered to and Arjuna asked the question VI-37: ArÉÌiÉÈ ´É®rÉÉåmÉåiÉÉå rÉÉåaÉÉcÉÉÍsÉiÉqÉÉlÉxÉÈ | rÉÉåaÉÉŠÍsÉiÉqÉÉlÉxÉÈ, means one who has not been completely successful in one life but who has had a set back in his spiritual life due to causes beyond his control. xÉSÉåwÉqÉÌmÉ suggests even such apparent set backs will not injure him if he has been sincerely trying his utmost in the line of this xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï as the cumulative effect of his previous Sadhana will be available to him when he gets better opportunities in the next birth. Every step gained in spiritual growth through practice of xÉWûeÉÇ MüqÉï consciously and intelligently through the use of his own Buddhi is never lost. That is the force of Bhagavan’s words xuÉsmÉqÉmrÉxrÉ kÉqÉïxrÉ §ÉÉrÉiÉå qÉWûiÉÉå pÉrÉÉiÉç etc., lÉ ÌWû MüsrÉÉhÉM×üiMüͶÉiÉç SÒaÉïÌiÉÇ iÉÉiÉ aÉcNûÌiÉ also iÉxrÉ iÉxrÉ AcÉsÉqÉç ´É®ÉÇ iÉÉqÉåuÉ ÌuÉSkÉÉqrÉWûqÉç where Bhagavan says that it is He who gives Sraddha and better opportunities for spiritual progress.

It is this nature of the world process of involution of Brahman and its consequent evolution again into Brahmanhood that is described as Brahmachakra in the 3rd chap. III-16: LuÉÇ mÉëuÉÌiÉïiÉÇ cÉ¢Çü lÉÉlÉÑuÉiÉïrÉiÉÏWû rÉÈ | This cyclic process of Brahman going back to Brahman through Yajna as the axile of the wheel is described in A³ÉÉ°ÎliÉ

158

pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ in special relation to man. A³ÉÉ°ÎliÉ pÉÔiÉÉÌlÉ means the birth of all living beings is the result of assumption of a body constituted of matter. The transmigarating (i.e reincarnating) soul takes up materials from the external world which includes his would be parent also. The soul chooses its own parents and its environment and builds up its own body suitable for working out of the Karma of the previous birth which cling to him as Samskara or Apurva. Thus birth is due to the Samskara or Apurva inducing the soul to find a newer and fitter environment of opportunity to work out its own salvation. This is mentioned in the words mÉeÉïlrÉÉiÉç A³ÉxÉqpÉuÉÈ where ‘Anna’ means new Annamaya kosha (physical sheeth consisting of the material body) which the reincarnating soul assumes after discarding the worn out body of the previous birth at the time of its previous death. ‘Anna’ here has nothing to do with food as the orthodox people take it ‘Parjanya’ has nothing to do with the clouds or the rain to produce food. ‘Parjanya’ here refers to the ‘Apurva’ or the cumulative effect of the past karmas which gives rise to this assumption of the new body and the resulting new birth. As this new birth gives him fresher opportunities for successful spiritual practice which ends in Samadhi and realization, the goal of all life and evolution, this ‘Apurva’ is called ‘Parjanya’. This ‘Apurva’ itself is the result of the spiritual efforts or Sadhana in the previous birth in the form of Yajna, i.e acts of renunciation and service. This Yajna is not the ritualistic Yajna as understood by the orthodox commentators. It is said to be Karmasamudbhavah, i.e based upon the initial forces of evolution originating at the time of creation itself. It is of the form of a willing cooperation of the Jiva with the natural forces at work to elevate him as mentioned in the vedic mantra of the Suklayajurveda ÌuɵÉÉå SåuÉxrÉ lÉåiÉÑuÉÑïUÏiÉ xÉZrÉÇ So Yajna has two elements in it, the universal urge to perfection which causes evolution upto the stage of man and the new power of freedom of will, thought and action which the human birth endorse him with and which enables him to take a hand in his further evolution by his co-operating with the evolutionary urge common to all creations. God or nature itself was solely responsible for his growth up to this stage. She has been like a Mother Nature holding the child by its hand and drawing him to the school as it were even against its own wish. But like the child which becomes averse to go home even after the classes are over when he becomes accustomed to the freedom and pleasures of the school life in the company of the other boys or like the child who is forcibly put into the water to learn swimming getting himself involved in the pleasure of swimming when he becomes an expert swimmer and refusing to get back home or to worship in the temple, man in his new found freedom and conscious enjoyment of the pleasures of the world which is like a school or a tank refuses to obey the call of the Mother to come back home or obey her behest although these are meant for his own good. It is this self effort in the wrong direction due to this freedom of will and action that leads to his set back in further spiritual growth. That is why such Karma is said to be the cause of Samsara. All the sufferings, troubles and tribulations of life are not inherent evils of life itself but are all due to one’s own Karmas. If he uses his freedom of will and action to cooperate with the divine beneficient forces he will realize the goal of his pilgrimage to perfection (zÉUÏUrÉɧÉÉ of 3rd chap.) in this very life itself and the dreaded Samsara will become a field of infinite spiritual bliss. This is Jivanmukti, where there is complete freedom of thought, emotions, will, etc. and life becomes a Leela as enjoyable as play. The wrong direction given to the free will in human birth is due to the vestegious of Rajas and Tamas, i.e cravings and demands of life and the material world, that cling to the soul even after the development of Buddhi which is essentially Sattvic. It is these vestegious of the previous stage of evolution in the form of Tamas and Rajas that vitiate the naturally Sattvic buddhi and prevent it from exercising his pure Sattvic nature when the freedom is used to purify this Buddhi and free it from baneful effects of its associations with Rajas and Tamas, so that the Buddhi sees clearly the goal as well as the

159

means of achieving it and begins to co-operate with the benign divine forces urging him to perfection and takes to Yajna through such co-operation. It is this self effort (free and voluntary) in co-operating with this inner urge that is refered to as Yajna being dependent upon Karma. rÉ¥ÉÈ MüqÉïxÉqÉÑ°uÉ - this Karma is based upon the free and voluntary co-operation with the natural forces of good instead of the forces of evil. Being developed only out of the inner push of Brahman Himself to extricate himself out of Maya this Karma is called oÉë¼Éå°uÉ | MüqÉïoÉë¼Éå°uÉqÉç ÌuÉή – there is no necessity to understand Brahma except in the sense of God or Atman or the Antaryamin inside. The orthodox commentators explain it as meaning body, Prakriti etc. to get out of the difficulties of their own creation. This Brahman itself which initiates the primordial activity or Karma is not only present in our own hearts but has its transcendent nature along with its immanance. In its real nature it is untouched and unaffected by Prakriti or Maya or Samsara and all changes which pertain to themselves as well as their products and there can be no immanance or transcendence which always pre-supposes something else other than the absolute. It is this absolute that appears as the immanant and transcendent God in relation to the world or to the body in the relative states of consciousness. Therefore, this immanant God is said to be a product of the absolute or Akshara. (oÉë¼É¤ÉU xÉqÉÑ°uÉqÉç. It does not refer to merely) It is not only present in the heart of individual, but is present everywhere equally and that is refered to in the epithet as ‘xÉuÉïaÉiÉ’ in the next Sloka. iÉxqÉÉiÉç xÉuÉïaÉiÉqÉç oÉë¼. The attainment of this Sarvagata Brahma or realizing the presence of God everywhere is based upon this initial primevial urge proceeding from the absolute itself. In its effort to regain the original nature as the Absolute with the help of the co-operation of the individual as described above. Human Sadhana or Yajna thus is a combination of the effort of God as well as the effort of man. Philosophically it is this effort by God that is always beneficial that constitutes His grace which is only a devotional expression and it is this human effort that is called Sadhana. It will be seen, therefore, there can be no opposition between these two forces but only co-operation.

It is only when this freedom is made use of to turn towards God or the Antaryamin and to guide oneself in the light of His inspiration that we would get the full advantage of the freedom derived in the course of evolution. We are really free to do this. There is no power on earth including the power of Maya herself to prevent us from surrendering ourselves to the power of God who is master of even Maya. In fact this freedom is one of the aspects of Maya herself manifested in the course of evolution. One of the functions of Maya is to negate itself through the exercise of this freedom and this freedom is evolved only for this purpose. It is this aspect of Maya which helped one to transcend oneself which is called ÌuɱÉqÉÉrÉÉ as opposed to the AÌuɱÉqÉÉrÉÉ which binds. It is this complete self-surrender that is the goal of self-effort and that is why Bhagavan refers to it at the end of his discourse as aÉѽɪ½iÉUÇ, xÉuÉïaÉѽiÉqÉÇ, etc. cf. verses beginning with XVIII-56: xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïhrÉÌmÉ xÉSÉ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉå qÉSèurÉmÉÉ´ÉrÉÈ | XVIII-66: xÉuÉïkÉqÉÉïlmÉËUirÉerÉ qÉÉqÉåMÇü zÉUhÉÇ uÉëeÉ | But what usually happens is that we are not guided by this beneficient power of God or Atman working from within because in our freedom we turn our face away from the light and do all our actions guided by our own ego and its desires to enjoy the pleasures of the senses. The ego and these desires are really only forms of Prakriti or Maya. That is why Bhagavan refers to it in XVIII-59: rÉSWÇûMüÉUqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ lÉ rÉÉåixrÉ CÌiÉ qÉlrÉxÉå | ÍqÉjrÉæwÉ urÉuÉxÉÉrÉxiÉå mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ || ÍqÉjrÉÉ, urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ, mÉëM×üÌiÉ and ÌuÉqÉÉå¤rÉxÉå are all important. AWûƒ¡ûÉUqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ is in contrast to qÉSèurÉmÉÉ´ÉrÉÈ or qÉÉqÉåMÇü zÉUhÉÇ uÉëeÉ or iÉqÉåuÉ

160

zÉUhÉÇ aÉcNû. Mithya shows that we are running after at the will-o- the wisp for support or a leaky boat to carry us across the Samsara neglecting the only safe and real support viz. the Atman within. The use of the word Mithya here is to remind us of the description in the III chapter where Bhagavan characterizes activities based upon the desire for sense objects and egoism as Mithyachara. urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ reminds us of urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑή in the II chapter. The function of the Buddhi is characterized as Vyavasaya which means the determination of what is right and true and voluntarily and energetically using the will to attain this highest good and Truth as so determined. When the Buddhi does not exercise its legitimate function being under the control of the Manas and senses, the activities initiated by it cannot be considered a right or true activities. ÍqÉjrÉÉ urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ is, therefore, really a contradiction in terms. It only means “lack of Vyavasaya” or “AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉ”. That is why such people who will not use their Buddhi properly are called Avyavasayis in the II chapter. oÉÑ®rÉÉåÅurÉuÉxÉÉÌrÉlÉÉqÉç who are condemned there. This failure of the Buddhi to do its duty properly is because it does not exercise its freedom and becomes a slave of the Manas which in its turn becomes engrossed in desires for sense pleasures because of its slavery to sense pleasures. This bondage of the Buddhi to Manas is what is generally described as Sangam or attachment. The desire of the Manas for enjoyment of sense pleasures where such pleasurable sense objects are not available to it at the time is called Kama and the natural pleasure which the sense get when they come into contact with certain objects is called UÉaÉ. III-34: CÎlSìrÉxrÉåÎlSìrÉxrÉÉjÉåï UÉaɲåwÉÉæ urÉuÉÎxjÉiÉÉæ | That Bhagavan uses the words UÉaÉ and MüÉqÉ in two senses slightly different from each other is clear form his coupling the two words in such expressions as MüÉqÉUÉaÉÌuÉuÉÎeÉïiÉqÉç. Thus in the final analysis the pleasures derived by the senses from sense objects and the desire of the Manas to enjoy them is responsible for the slavery of the Buddhi and its in capacity to perform its normal function. So Mithyavyavasaya is traceable to the Manas thirsting for sense enjoyment that is refered to in rÉ AÉxiÉå qÉlÉxÉÉxqÉUlÉç ... ÍqÉjrÉÉcÉÉUÈ xÉ EcrÉiÉå | This activity of the Buddhi of merely controlling the Karmendriyas without controlling the relish of the senses in the enjoyment of sense objects and the consequent slavery of the mind to sense enjoyments is what is refereed to as Mithyachar here. Such spiritual practices where only the sense of action are only controlled and thereby only the external activity is controlled without controlling Raga and Kama do not release the Buddhi from Sangam and hence realiance upon such Buddhi for proper guidance in matters of Dharma will not save man from the clutches of Maya or Prakriti. It still remains powerful and tempts man or forces him to undertake wrong activities or Adharma. That is why Bhagavan says XVIII-59: mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ || nature will force you to act if you make AWûƒ¡ûÉU your guide. If on the other hand you use your freedom to exert yourself against baneful influences of Ahamkar and surrender yourself to the inspiration and guidance of the Atman or God within, you will attain the goal of life easily. As it often happens in the case of persons who have not yet realized God there will be a conflict between temptations of the senses and mind and the inspiration or guidance given by God. This is what generally known as the conflict between SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç and AÉxÉÑUÏxÉqmÉiÉç which is graphically and dramatically described in the Puranas as the eternal warfare between the Devas and Asuras where the Devas are described as successfully releasing themselves from the slavery of the Asuras with the help of God although in the initial stages they had to submit to the forces of evil represented as Asuras. Vide Sankara Bhashya on Chan. Up. I.2.1 where he explains Devasurayuddha as symbolic of this conflict.

161

Arujuna’s conduct in refusing to fight for the sake of Dharma is not based on a proper free and independent use of the Buddhi but upon his attachment to his kith and kin. In his calm moments his unclouded Buddhi had already freely decided that Buddhi was consistent with the demansds of Dharma and therefore to refuse to fight thinking that it is Adharma is the decision of the Tamasic Buddhi as described in the 18 th chapter XVIII -32: AkÉqÉïÇ kÉqÉïÍqÉÌiÉ rÉÉ qÉlrÉiÉå iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉ | or at best of Rajasic XVIII- 31: ArÉjÉÉuÉimÉëeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ oÉÑÎ®È xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï UÉeÉxÉÏ || and refusing to fight is not based upon Sattvic or pure Buddhi and hence it is ÍqÉjrÉÉcÉÉU. His persistence in refusing to accept Bhagavan’s advice at first and his insistence in pursuing Dharma as he saw it at that moment is an instance of Tamasic and Rajasic Dhruti as described in the 18 th chap. XVIII 34-35: mÉëxÉ…¡åûlÉ TüsÉÉMüÉǤÉÏ kÉ×ÌiÉÈ xÉÉ mÉÉjÉï UÉeÉxÉÏ, rÉrÉÉ xuÉmlÉÇ pÉrÉÇ zÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉwÉÉSÇ qÉSqÉåuÉ cÉ etc. His argument that he would go to Naraka because of his having to cause pain or death to his relatives is due to a false reliance on the scriptures instead of his own Sattvica Buddhi and his attempt to conceive of Dharma from a predominarily hedonistic standpoint is based upon a wrong understanding of the real goal of Dharma. xuÉeÉlÉÇ ÌWû MüjÉÇ WûiuÉÉ xÉÑÎZÉlÉÈ xrÉÉqÉ qÉÉkÉuÉ? He does not think of Dharma as a means to Moksha or even Sattvika Sukha but only as a means to Rajasic or Tamasic sukha as defined in the 18 th chap. His conception of Kuladharma is also a strange one not based upon his own Sattvika buddhi but on worldly considerations and unintelligent social traditions. Kuladharma really means only love, brotherliness and mutual cooperation that naturally manifest itself in the Kula or primary unit of society, which enables each member of the family to work out his own salvation through his own self effort not only unimpeded by the actions of the other members of the family but with positive help and cooperation of the other members of the family. His reference to Sraddha also in this connection is based upon a wrong conception of Sraddha based upon mere popular tradition. Dharma is not to be determined in terms of such customs and tradition Sraddha is spiritually only a symbolic ritual for cultivation of Sraddha or faith in God & Atman faith in the capacity of oneself to achieve his salvation through his own self effort and to control his future by proper activity in the present. The offering of Pinda and Udaka is only symbolic of the dedication of one’s own / oneself as it is called to the Lord of the universe called Brahmanda as represented by Gaya Gadadhara as referred to in the Charamasloka with faith. It is this Sraddha that is represented by the offering of water ´É®É uÉæ AÉmÉÈ| Thus we find how all Arjuna’s arguments in favour of desisting from the fight is not based upon the free and independent use of his Sattvika buddhi but only on a wrong use of the Buddhi bound by Rajas and Tamas and Sangam. This is what Arjuna refers to when he speaks of himself as kÉqÉïxÉqÉÔRûcÉåiÉÈ in the beginning and lɹÉå qÉÉåWûÈ etc in the end MüͶÉS¥ÉÉlÉxÉqqÉÉåWûÈ mÉëlɹxiÉå kÉlÉgeÉrÉ | That is why Bhagavan refers to Achara or conduct of people, like Arjuna’s refusal to fight as ÍqÉjrÉÉcÉÉU. mÉëM×üÌiÉxiuÉÉÇ ÌlÉrÉÉå¤rÉÌiÉ refers to the power of Prakriti to force one to go away from the goal through delusion and consequent Ahamkar, Kama, Krodha, Sangam etc. The ‘Prakriti’ of any man at a particular moment is represented by the state of the Buddhi at that particular moment and its capacity and freedom to free itself from this Avidhya aspect of Maya and to take advantage of the Vidhya aspect of Maya. This freedom and capacity is circumscribed or limited by the cumulative effect of all his past exercises of the Buddhi which remain as habit restricting its freedom at present. The slavery of the Buddhi at present, therefore, is due to the wrong exercise of the Buddhi in the past. At every re-birth the Soul brings with it these special tendencies, tastes, capacities, inclinations, habits, etc. which are the cumulative effects of the result of past actions. These are called Vasanas, Samskaras, etc of the exercises freely undertaken in a previous birth are consistent

162

with the divine inspiration and the natural urge for perfection, these previous Samskaras will help the Soul to reach its destination step by step, the Sattvaguna will get more and more strengthened, the Buddhi becomes more and more strong to resist temptations and there by graduated series of exercises in self control etc one will easily reach the goal. If one has not gone through these exercises in the previous birth but allowed himself to drift through slavery to passions, desire for sense objects etc. or through negligence, carelessness, laziness, lethargy etc (i.e through Rajas & Tamas), it is the cumulative effect of all these that will bind the Buddhi in the next birth. But at no time is the freedom of the individual destroyed once for all preventing him to struggle against the restriction and extricate himself from their bondage and to work out his own salvation with the help of the inspiration from within and the spiritual exercises as prescribed by this inner guide. That is why Bhagavan exhorts Arjuna when he feels his helplessness to conquer the mind etc. to conquer the mind through his own self effort and fresh attempt at Abhyasa and Vairagya. AxÉÇzrÉÇ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå ... zÉYrÉÉåÅuÉÉmiÉÑqÉÑmÉÉrÉiÉÈ || SÒÈZÉålÉ ÌlÉaÉ×WûÏiÉÇ zÉYrÉÈ that is to say it is possible to control it with some difficulty. EmÉÉrÉiÉÈ if proper methods are adopted, it is the same as rÉÉåaÉÈ MüqÉïxÉÑ MüÉæzÉsÉqÉç of ch.II & xuÉYëqÉhÉÉ iÉqÉpÉÑcÉrÉï etc. iÉqÉåuÉ zÉUhÉÇ aÉcNû of 18th chapter. rÉÑ£ü AÉxÉÏiÉ qÉimÉUÈ | rÉiÉiÉÉ in uÉzrÉÉiqÉlÉÉ iÉÑ rÉiÉiÉÉ refers to the necessity for repeated effort, positive as well as negative. This cumulative effect of mÉÔuÉïprÉÉxÉ which the soul carries with it from one birth to another is what is known as xuÉpÉÉuÉ as the commentators themselves explain. This xuÉpÉÉuÉ is dependent upon the use of our free will in the past and cannot stand against the use of the same free will in the present. As the Yoga Vasishtha points out the SÒ¹ÉcÉÉU of the previous birth can be counteracted by the xÉSÉcÉÉU of the subsequent birth, just as the result of bad action of yesterday can be wiped out by a proper antidote today. ½xiÉlÉÉå xSÒ¹ÉcÉÉUÈ AÉcÉÉUåhÉ A± cÉÉÂhÉÉ | rÉjÉÉ AÉzÉÑ zÉÑpÉiÉÉÇ rÉÉÌiÉ mÉëÉå£ülÉÇ MüqÉï iɨÉjÉÉ || It is the action based upon the past Samskar that is refered to as Svabhavajakarma in the 18th chap. This Svabhavajakarma is said to be based upon xuÉpÉÉuÉmÉëpÉuÉaÉÑhÉ xuÉpÉÉuÉmÉëpÉuÉåïaÉÑhÉæÈ || of XVIII-41 … This Svabhavajakarma necessarily varies with the different individuals. They are also called Svakarma. This Svakarma whether good or bad is itself a bondage. That is why it is said XVIII-60: xuÉpÉÉuÉeÉålÉ MüÉæliÉårÉ ÌlÉoÉ®È xuÉålÉ MüqÉïhÉÉ | The inherent freedom of the Buddhi can still be made use of to get out of this bondage, when it exerts itself to regulate its actions within the limits of its own Svabhava. Cf. Sri Ramakrishna’s illustration of the freedom of the calf weed to the post. When one’s actions are thus regulated by both the cumulative effect of Svabhava as well as the freedom of the Buddhi we have xuÉpÉÉuÉÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MüqÉï.

Thus in Svabhavaniyata Karma there are three main elements. 1. the Sahajam karma represented by the inner urge, the rare voice of conscience etc. 2. the Svabhavaja karma the limitations based upon it by the Svabhavaprabhavaguna 3. the regulation or Niyamana of one’s own activity by one’s own Buddhi so as to enable oneself to get out of these limitations to the natural working of the inner urge to perfection created by oneself through one’s own past actions. It is this regulation of one’s own actions by oneself by the use of one’s own freedom that is refered to as one of the characteristics of Sattvica karma and Tyaga in the 18 th

chap. Cf. XVIII-23: ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ xÉ…¡ûUÌWûiÉqÉUÉaɲåwÉiÉÈ M×üiÉqÉç, etc. It is this Niyama what is refered to in the 3rd chap. also when Bhagavan says III-8: ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MÑü MüqÉï iuÉÇ MüqÉï erÉÉrÉÉå ½MüqÉïhÉÈ | etc. The Svabhavajakarma which prescribes the limits within which one has freedom to put forth the necessary effort are given in the 18th chap. in the description of the Svabhavajakarma of the four Varnas, where it is

163

specially mentioned as Bahyakarma Svabhavajam etc. These represent the predominant characteristic of various groups and not their Svabhavaniyatakarma or Svadhyarma. The Svadhyarma of each of these Varnas consists in their free use of their Buddhi to regulate their life consistent with the demands of Dharma which consists only of those exercises which enable one to go a step further getting out of the slavery of the Svabhavajakarma and then enable them to progress step by step towards the highest goal of life viz. Moksha or realization of God. It is only the practice of such moral and spiritual exercise throught the free use of one’s own Buddhi that raises one’s activity to the level of Svadharma. The Arthasastra or the science of worldy prosperity takes advantage of this natural inherent taste, capacities and attitudes as they are and makes use of them to ensure the worldly prosperity and the preservation of the society and never aims at enabling the individual to grow beyond the limitations placed by their own Svabhavajakarma. The Dharmasastra on the other hand makes use of these present opportunities to grow beyond the limits set by the Svabhavajakarma withoug prejudice to preservation of society. We thus see that we have to make a distinction between the demands of Arthasastra and Dharmasastra. As it very often happens the demands of Dharma are not inconsistant with the welfare of individuals or society and the demands of Artha need not always be inconsistent with the demands of Dharma. A well organized society based upon dimension of labour according to each individual’s Svabhavaguna karma and which ensures the individuals freedom at the same time to work out his own spiritual salvation within the limits of Svabhavaguna & Svabhavajakarma is what the Dharmasastra aims at. That is why such an organization of society is said to be regulated by or based upon Varnashramadharma. According to this Varnashramadharma, the Svabhavajakarma provides only a foundation as it were, for further progress, with the help of the free use of their own Buddhi. We thus find in the stories of Dharmavyadha and Tuladhara how they use their own freedom to get out of their Svabhavajakarma which regulated their social life. They never allowed themselves to be enslaved by their social conditions or status but took to real spiritual and moral practice within the limits set by the demands of society and their own Svabhavajakarma and grew beyond these limits morally and spiritually until at last they realized the goal of life, viz. Jivanmukti, in the same term of life. It is the Samanya or Sadharna dharmas such as Ahimsa, Satya, Sama, Dama, Japa, Dhyana, Tyaga, Viveka, love and service etc. that they practiced to get out their slavery to Svabhavajakarma and realize the highest Truth or God. These Samanya or Sadharanadharmas are available to all without any reference to caste, creed, colour or sex and no rule of Dharmasastra places any restriction on the freedom of any individual to practise these Dharmas. In fact any act which enables one to grow above these limitations according to his own Adhikara is what constitutes his special Dharma or Svadharma. Some individuals or groups, however, are more favourably placed to undertake this Sadhana for further moral and spiritual growth as a result of their exercises in their previous birth. The relative inferiority or superiority of individuals or groups from the spiritual and moral stand points depends upon 1. the more or less favourable circumstances in which they find themselves in this life as result of their actions and Sadhanas in their previous life, 2. the glory of an individual or group consists in its voluntarily undertaking further struggle to get beyond the limitations placed by birth, heredity or previous karma and one who neglects the better opportunities that he has got is certainly more comprehensible and despicable than one who struggles agains the unfavourable consitions and environments and limitations in which he finds himself as a result of his previous actions. Thus we find a Brahmana is one, according to Dharma sastra who has got a good fund of previous Samskaras (good) as a result of his past karma which are more favourable for spiritual and moral growth than in the other Varnas. The description of Svabhavajaguna of Brahmanas makes this point

164

clear Sama, Dama etc. he already possesses as a result of his past Sadhana which makes him take his present birth in a more spiritual and moral family which provides better conditions, opportunities and environments for further spiritual Sadhana. Cf. Bhagavan’s words in ch VI-42: AjÉuÉÉ rÉÉåÌaÉlÉÉqÉåuÉ MÑüsÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ kÉÏqÉiÉÉqÉç | etc. But if, out of his Tamas & Rajas, he uses his Buddhi to neglect this initial fund of good Samskaras and favourable opportunities and ruin himself morally and spiritually by running after sense pleasure and worldy prosperity he is the most despicable and contemptible creature who commits spiritual suicide as refered to in the 3rd Sloka of Isa. A real Sudra like Dharmavyad or a real Vaishya like Tuladyar who refuse to be bound by their past Samskaras which place them in more unfavourable conditions, circumstances and environments and who use their freedom to struggle against these limitations and achieve in this life itself through self effort deserve more honour and worship than even a Brahmin who achieves Jivankukti in this life, much more so when a Brahmin that neglects his opportunites of wastes the initial fund of past good karma. This is the moral of the story of Dharmavyadha and Tuladhara where Brahmins had to take refuge at the feet of these so called low castes according to social conventions.

The word mÉËUcÉrÉÉïiqÉMÇü MüqÉï is also misunderstood as merely meaning service of the higher castes. There is, however, no word in the Gita to justify this interpretation. mÉËUcÉrÉÉï only means mÉËU + cÉrÉÉï which signify all round service to the whole society or humanity without any specification of the nature of service. In the case of the higher castes, however, they are characterised by special capacities, tastes etc. and society will have the benefit of such capacities if they take to any work as they like. They are therefore bound to serve the society according to their special Adhikara. The Sudra is not thus bound to confine himself to any particular kind of service but is free to undertake any kind of service which society stands in need of and which is other than the duties expected to be discharged by the other Varnas do not discharge their duties to society properly. The society will suffer because of the neglect ot these experts and the Sudra has the right to step in and fill up the gap and thus save society from the dangerous consequences of the neglect of their duties by the higher classes and when Dharma and welfare of society itself is in danger the Sudras have the right even to teach spirituality and morality to the whole society including even Brahmanas by birth as Dharmavyadha has done or Swami Vivekananda etc. and other great saints of modern days, like Thukaram and other Maharastra saints of medieval days, Tiruppanalvar and other Vaishnava saints, Valmiki and Vyasa etc. of ancient days have done (vide notes on Sudradhikara). mÉËUcÉrÉÉï or service of society or of God in man is the Svadharma of all the castes. It is to indicate this that the word AÌmÉ is used in zÉÔSìxrÉÉÌmÉ etc. Vaishyas like Tuladhara, Kshatriyas like Rama, Krishna, Janaka, Buddha, Mahavira etc. have exercised their right to teach even the Brahmins. And the Brahmins by birth never thought beneath their dignity to sit at their feet and learn. In fact the Smritis do not put an interdict on castes higher in the social scale benefiting by the teachings of teachers who are born in a lower castes. Manu makes provision for such contingency when he says AÉoÉëɼhÉÉSkrÉrÉlÉMüÉsÉå ÌuÉkÉÏrÉiÉå | mÉËUcÉrÉÉï cÉ zÉÑ´ÉÔwÉÉ rÉÉuÉSkrÉrÉlÉÇ aÉÑUÉåÈ | ´É®kÉÉlÉÈ mÉUÉÇ ÌuɱÉÇ AÉSSÏiÉ AuÉUÉSÌmÉ | AlirÉÉSÌmÉ mÉUÇ kÉqÉï x§ÉÏU¦ÉÇ SÒwMÑüsÉÉSÌmÉ || ÌuÉmÉÉSmrÉqÉ×iÉÇ aÉëÉ½Ç oÉÉsÉÉSÌmÉ xÉÑpÉÉÌwÉiÉqÉç| AÍqɧÉÉSÌmÉ xɲبÉqÉç AqÉåkrÉÉSÌmÉ MüÉgcÉlÉqÉç || Chap II.38 etc. In fact to make use of their special capacities for the benefit of the whole world as a worship of God is one of the methods by which one can transcend the limitations of xuÉMüqÉï and convert it into xuÉkÉqÉï by the use of one's own Buddhi. This is what Bhagavan means when he says in the 18th chapter immediately after describing the xuÉpÉÉuÉeÉMüqÉï, xuÉå xuÉå

165

MüqÉïhrÉÍpÉUiÉÈ xÉÇÍxÉ먂 sÉpÉiÉå lÉUÈ| xuÉMüqÉïÌlÉUiÉÈ ÍxÉ먂 rÉjÉÉ ÌuÉlSÌiÉ iÉcNØûhÉÑ || ... xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlÉkÉÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || The use of the word lÉU & qÉÉlÉuÉ without any reference to special caste by birth is deliberately meant to suggest that this priviledge is applicable to all men as men without any distinction of caste, colour, creed or sex. That there is no distinction in sex also is shown by the example of the woman who gives instructions to the Brahmana in the Dharmavyadha story. This freedom of self effort to raise oneself from the position in which one finds himself by birth by the exercise of one's own Buddhi is what Bhagavan refers to in the 6th chapter. When He says mÉërɦÉɱiÉqÉÉlÉxiÉÑ rÉÉåaÉÏ xÉÇzÉÑήÌMüÎsoÉwÉÈ | … etc., rÉiÉiÉå cÉ iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉÈ ... etc., uÉzrÉÉiqÉlÉÉ iÉÑ rÉiÉiÉÉ etc. Refer also to rÉiÉiÉå ½ÌmÉ MüÉæliÉårÉ etc. iÉÉÌlÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ xÉÇrÉqrÉ rÉÑ£ü AÉxÉÏiÉ qÉimÉUÈ | II-61. Also qÉlÉÑwrÉÉhÉÉÇ xÉWûxÉëåwÉÑ MüͶɱiÉÌiÉ ÍxÉ®rÉå | rÉiÉiÉÉqÉÌmÉ ÍxÉ®ÉlÉÉÇ MüͶÉlqÉÉÇ uÉåÌ¨É iɨuÉiÉÈ ||, eÉUÉqÉUhÉqÉÉå¤ÉÉrÉ qÉÉqÉÉÍ´ÉirÉ rÉiÉÎliÉ rÉå | iÉå oÉë¼ iÉ̲SÒÈ M×üixlÉqÉkrÉÉiqÉÇ MüqÉï cÉÉÎZÉsÉqÉç || of chapter VII. xÉiÉiÉÇ MüÐirÉïliÉÉå qÉÉÇ rÉiÉliÉ¶É qÉÉÇ rÉiÉliÉ¶É SØRûuÉëiÉÉÈ | lÉqÉxrÉliÉ¶É qÉÉÇ pÉYirÉÉ ÌlÉirÉrÉÑ£üÉ EmÉÉxÉiÉå || of 9th

chapter., rÉiÉliÉÉå rÉÉåÌaÉlɶÉælÉÇ mÉzrÉlirÉÉiqÉlrÉuÉÎxjÉiÉqÉç | rÉiÉliÉÉåÅmrÉM×üiÉÉiqÉÉlÉÉå lÉælÉÇ mÉzrÉlirÉcÉåiÉxÉÈ || of the 15th chap. etc. It is this self effort or rÉ¦É in uplifting oneself through irÉÉaÉ & rÉÉåaÉ that makes one a (real) rÉÌiÉ. The word rÉÌiÉ is derived from the root rÉiÉç which means to struggle or put forth self effort. Sankara explains it as rɦÉzÉÏsÉÉÈ, those who put forth self effort. It is these Yatis that are referred in the 5th chapter MüÉqÉ¢üÉåkÉÌuÉrÉÑ£üÉlÉÉÇ rÉiÉÏlÉÉÇ rÉiÉcÉåiÉxÉÉqÉç | Wherever Bhagavan refers to Yati in Gita, He does not mean really one who has ritualistically taken Sannyasa; but not make use of the opportunities afforded by that Ashrama, to raise himself spiritually and morally by self effort. The Yatis have no caste. Everyone is of equal status because their one qualification or characteristic is the struggle to realise God whatever their xuÉMüqÉï may be. All the practices of the other Ashramas are meant only to give man this freedom of self effort. So the whole concession of xuÉkÉqÉï on the basis of uÉhÉï and AÉ´ÉqÉ is based upon the freedom of self effort. The word xuÉkÉqÉï occurs only in very few places in the Gita, as per eg. xuÉkÉqÉïqÉÌmÉ uÉÉuÉå¤rÉ lÉ ÌuÉMüÎqmÉiÉÑqÉWïûÍxÉ | ... iÉiÉÈ xuÉkÉqÉï MüÐÌiÉïÇ cÉ ÌWûiuÉÉ mÉÉmÉqÉuÉÉmxrÉÍxÉ | in chapter II. ´ÉårÉÉlÉç xuÉkÉqÉÉåï ÌuÉaÉÑhÉÈ mÉUkÉqÉÉïixuÉlÉÑ̸iÉÉiÉç | xuÉkÉqÉåï ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ mÉUkÉqÉÉåï pÉrÉÉuÉWûÈ || etc. in chapter III, in chap. XVIII.

As long as man is alive he profits by his previous experiences in this life also. He has also got the special capacity of profiting by another's experience by the use of his own powers of observation, reason and judgement. He is thus constantly remaking himself at every moment of his life and so we may even say that he is a different individual at every moment of his life. He is thus having a fresh Svabhava as a result of the constant re-birth in the course of his growth from birth to death through constant acting and reacting with the environment. The Svabhava of the man at any moment, therefore, does not merely consist in the fund of Samskaras that he has brought with him from his previous birth but also the Samskaras that he has earned in this life itself through self-experience and education and adjustment to the environment which consists of the race, the nation, family, Varna etc. His Svadharma at any particular moment will naturally be affected not only by this previous Karma but by other extraneous influences also in this life. But in all these cases these influences work only through his Buddhi and therefore any decsion taken by the Buddhi as to what constitutes his

166

Svadharma at a particular moment does not cease to be the result of a free judgement of his own Buddhi and so still remains Svadharma for him. It is only when his Buddhi does not consciously and voluntarily accept as right and moral, accept what is forced upon him by the external authority of scriptures, parents, Gurus, government, social tradations and conventions, his own passions etc. or by lethargy or weakness or inertia, that his action becomes Paradharma. It is this Paradharma that Arjuna was guilty of in neglecting his Svadharma by refusing to fight. It is this Paradharma that is declared by Bhagavan as pÉrÉÉuÉWû. The word pÉrÉÉuÉWûÈ may be understood in two ways. It may mean that which is brought about (AÉuÉWû) through fear of consequences of lÉUMü etc. or by the force of attachment to kith and kin etc. It may also mean that it is capable of bringing dreadful and fearful spiritual and moral consequences in its wake as a result. Thus it is rooted in fear and leads to further fear. So Bhagavan says xuÉkÉqÉåï ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ this also may be understood in two ways. In the first sense ÌlÉkÉlÉqÉç refers to one's own readiness to die or to sacrifice himself for the sake of Dharma and the good of society, rather than yield slavishly to the dictates of another for fear or favour, when one knows that it is morally and spiritually wrong to do anything propsed or commanded by another. This is what is illustrated by Prahlada's refusal to obey his father or Sita's refusal to yield to Ravana's overtures or Rama's refusal to obey his father and mother when they pressed him to desist from going to the forest. It is on the same principle that Mahatmaji refused to yield to the British Government and adopted xÉirÉÉaÉëWû and civil disobedience whereas civil disobedience consists only in refusal to act at the dictates of another when one's own Buddhi says that he will not be discharging xuÉkÉqÉï just by yielding to the external pleasure, xÉirÉÉaÉëWû is positive and voluntarily undertaking work against the wishes and orders of another for the sake of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû as we have explained it above based upon xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUÌiÉ and in this one is prompted only by the free judgement of one's own Buddhi as to what constitutes Dharma under that particular set of circumstances and conditions and at that particular time and place. The so called xÉirÉÉaÉëWû of many of the so called followers of Mahatmaji not being based upon the free, unfettered moral judgement of their own kÉqÉïoÉÑή or on considerations of xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉåUiÉ or sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû as it is not xuÉkÉqÉï but mÉUkÉqÉï and therefore, according to Bhagavan it is pÉrÉÉuÉWûÈ. Similarly, one who forsakes his father and mother and takes to Sannyas to avoid the responsibilities and difficulties attendent upon service of others and prompted by the desire for more freedom for the play of his own selfish instincts or in expectations of better worldly propspects or as a result of a quarrel with people at home or infidelity of wife and children or through inducements or through laziness or inertia etc.

Bhagavan's conception of Sannyasa is very different from that of Arjuna which was based upon current traditional notions, according to which giving up Karma was the essence of Sannyasa. But, according to Bhagavan, Sannyasa consists only in giving up Kamyakarmas i.e activities based upon selfish desires for sense pleasures. Cf. MüÉqrÉÉlÉÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÉÇ lrÉÉxÉÇ xÉlrÉÉxÉÇ MüuÉrÉÉå ÌuÉSÒÈ | Even those Karmas prescribed as ÌlÉirÉMüqÉï's are really based upon the desire to avoid the dangerous but the desire or fear which prompts the actions. Even in these self-same actions cease to be dangerous and become even worthy of being done if they are done only as worship of God through dedication and consecration. lrÉÉxÉ in that verse means both bodily giving up as well as dedication to God. That is what is referred to when He says in the 3 rd chapter qÉÌrÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ xÉÇlrÉxrÉÉkrÉÉiqÉcÉåiÉxÉÉ | etc. vide also rÉå iÉÑ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ qÉÌrÉ xɳrÉxrÉ qÉimÉUÉÈ | of chapter XII. Vide also chap. VI rÉÇ xɳrÉÉxÉÍqÉÌiÉ mÉëÉWÒûrÉÉåïaÉÇ iÉqÉç ÌuÉή mÉÉhQûuÉ |. AlÉÉÍ

167

´ÉiÉÈ MüqÉïTüsÉÇ MüÉrÉïÇ MüqÉï MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉÈ | xÉ xɳrÉÉxÉÏ cÉ rÉÉåaÉÏ cÉ lÉ ÌlÉUÎalÉlÉï cÉÉÌ¢ürÉÈ || (VI-2&1). Refer also to his answer to Arjuna's question about Sannyasa at the beginning of the V chap. ¥ÉårÉÈ xÉ ÌlÉirÉxɳrÉÉxÉÏ rÉÉå lÉ ²å̹ lÉ MüÉǤÉÌiÉ | etc. cf. also lÉ cÉ xɳrÉÉxÉlÉÉSåuÉ ÍxÉ먂 xÉqÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || ch. III-4. Arjuna's Sannyasa was not based upon real Vairagya but upon selfish attachment to his kith and kin. So his refusal to do his duty can at best be considered only as Rajasic or Tamasic in character. That is why Bhagavan tried to prevent him. If Arjuna's refusal to work based on real Vairagyam and qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉqÉç or the desire to have freedom from obstacles placed by family, society, etc. to work out his own spiritual salvation, Bhagavan could not have had any objection to his becoming a (real) Sannyasi. Only Arjuna would not have had in that case any opportunity to give up his Svadharma. Real Sannyasa and Svadharma are not, therefore, opposed to each other and no real Sannyasi is free to give up his Svadharma as it is properly understood. Such Sannyasis are distinguished from the ordinary Sannyasis of the Smartha type who are Sannyasis only in name and form by virtue of the rituals performed by them such as ÌuÉUÉeÉWûÉåqÉ etc. Even many of our so called Mathadhipatis of the orthodox types are thus only Sannyasis in name, as their Sannyasa is not based upon real Vairagyam and qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉ but on the choice made by somebody else or society and as they are not free to do what their own kÉqÉïoÉÑή tells them to be their xuÉkÉqÉï. It is to distinguish this kind of Sannyasa from real Sannyasa that Bhagavan prefered to call it by another name altogether viz. Tyaga. This 'Tyaga' is defined in the 18th chapter thus MüÉrÉïÍqÉirÉåuÉ rÉiMüqÉï ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ Ì¢ürÉiÉåÅeÉÑïlÉ | etc. In the second sense ÌlÉkÉlÉqÉç means the death of oneself but somebody else as an accidental result of performance of one's own Dharma. As Dharmavyadha points out there is no act which does not involve in some kind of injury or other to another. No man can live without destroying life unconsciously. To leave involves the breaking of the cells of the body. To take food one has to destroy life. Even such apparent innocent actions as agriculture and industry (involves) cannot be carried on without injuring life. When such is the case it is impossible to perform one's xuÉkÉqÉï without injuring somebody or other. But there is this difference when one is performing Svadharma he is prompted by the spirit of AÌWÇûxÉÉ, sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû, and xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ and therefore, he would naturally try to reduce this evil as much as possible. This actions are prompted by love in a spirit of selfless service and the desire to realise God and as he uses this Buddhi to find out what action brings about the greatest good of the greatest number (good in terms of spiritual and moral welfare), his xuÉkÉqÉï involves less injury than it would be if prompted otherwise. Therefore, his action is more pure and brings more ÍcɨÉzÉÑή not only to himself but also to great number of other people also, even though a few may accidentally be hurt according to their own false conception of welfare. Therefore, this little accidental bad result (mÉÉmÉ) is merged as it were in the xÉÑM×üiÉ or mÉÑhrÉ that results from the Svadharma. Cf. LMüÉå ÌWû SÉåwÉÉå aÉÑhÉxÉͳÉmÉÉiÉå ÌlÉqÉ‹ÌiÉ ClSÉåÈ ÌMüUhÉÉåÎwuÉuÉɃ¡ûÈ | or we may even say the readiness to perform xuÉkÉqÉï even at the risk of a little mÉÉmÉ for the spiritual welfare of a greater number is an act of greater self sacrifice and therefore, adds more lusture of purity of mind than if the action were not his Svadharma. Cf. Kalidasa's words in Sakuntala xÉUÍxÉeÉqÉlÉÑÌuÉ®qÉç zÉæuÉsÉålÉÉÅÌmÉ UqrÉÇ qÉÍsÉlÉqÉÌmÉ ÌWûqÉÉÇzÉÉåsÉï¤qÉ sɤqÉÏÇ iÉlÉÉåÌiÉ || Therefore, Bhagavan says in this second sense xuÉkÉqÉåï ÌlÉkÉlÉÇ ´ÉårÉÈ, i.e. xuÉkÉqÉï is ´ÉårÉxÉç even though it may involve some injury or death to another. It is on this ground that Arjuna's fight would have been justifiable. This principal is of universal application. It is on this principal that a Sannyasin is justified in giving up his hearth and home even though his action may involve

168

the withdrawal of his support from his dependents and even though it may hurt the feelings of his parents. It is only if the Sannyasin extends his love and service to all, that his withdrawal of his injury or support to a smaller number would be justified. "Not that I love you the less but I love God more" is the ideal of Sannyasin. Cf. oÉWÒûeÉlÉxÉÑZÉÉrÉ oÉWÒûeÉlÉÌWûiÉÉrÉ, ApÉrÉqÉç xÉuÉï pÉÔiÉåprÉÈ, AÉiqÉlÉÉå qÉÉå¤ÉÉjÉïÇ eÉaÉήiÉÉrÉ cÉ etc. Note also the difference between SrÉÉ & qÉÉrÉÉ as pointed out by Sri Ramakrishna. The so called love & service of the parents is based upon attachment and is therefore qÉÉrÉÉ where as the love and service of humanity is SrÉÉ. It is this SrÉÉ that should characterise a real Sannyasin and this involves not merely the feeling of kindness or compassion but an expression of this SrÉÉ in the form of actual service of the world as worship of God.

Real Sannyasa thus does not involve any abandonment or giving up of action as such. On the other hand it involves more intense activity and a wider field of opportunity. What is given up is only selfishness or egoism and MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. as the basis of one's actions. The renunciation is based upon love and it is to signify this that this special colour of Gerua is adopted by the Sannyasin. This colour represents self sacrifice and love. UÉaÉ in its higher sense of love and the colour of the blood symbolising the preparedness to sacrifice oneself for the welfare of others. The colour also represents the inner fire of renunciation, wisdom and spirituality. ¥ÉÉlÉÉÎalÉ thus it symbolises a synthesis of ¥ÉÉlÉ, pÉÌ£ü, & MüqÉï. The colour is also the colour of the earth to which everybody must reduce himself in the end and this helps to humble his pride to the dust as it were and thus symbolises humility also. It is a constant reminder of death as the end of all bodies and thus of the vanity of all human relationship based upon the body and also of the ephemerality of the whole world of matter and sense pleasure. The abandonment of the external insignia of the householder's life based upon attachment to the kith and kin is what is symbolised by the ÌuÉUeÉÉWûÉåqÉ. This kind of Sannyasa is more of mental than physical and even a man like Sri Krishna or Sri Rama can be a Sannyasin even though externally and socially they may appear to be worldly aÉ×WûxjÉÈ. Even Sri Ramakrishna was not the less a Sannyasin because his wife was serving him throughout life. Cf. also the life of Nagamahashaya who did not even undergo the formal ceremony of Sannyasa. Although there is no compulsion to take up orders formally and ritualistically in the case of highly evolved spiritual personalities, it is considered necessary and helpful to become a formal Sannyasi when the mind is sufficiently ripe. A formal Sannyasin is less exposed to danger and to temptations and attachments and more free to discharge his duties to a wider humanity. There is less chance of society expecting him to confine himself to the discharge of his so called duties to a narrower circle of relatives, friends etc. It is in a way a public proclamation that such narrowness need not be expected of him. To one who has not entangled himself in marriage and family life, this is a sure protection against the attempts of interested parties to get him entangled. This is also a safeguard against his slipping back into the worldly life as freely and conveniently as he could otherwise have done. Society itself will consider him a fallen man and treat him with execration and contempt and refuse to have any social intercourse with him. The very fear of such treatment from society would be a barrier to prevent him from sliding back in unguarded moments of weakness of heart. The very colour of his garment is a constant reminder to himself of the purpose for which he took up Sannyasa and the goal of life which he aspired for at every moment when weakness assails him. The social customs formulated under the Varanashrama system forbidding to openly and publicly mix with the other sex and prevent the house holder mixing with him intimately in social functions. The very presence of the Sannyasi is expected to be a constant reminder to the masses of renunciation and love being

169

the goal of all human life and this in turn results in the householder treating him with respect and honour. This very honour from the public prevents him from becoming small in their eyes by becoming a renegade. The pride of caste which ordinarily forms an obstacle in the path of spiritual progress is wiped out or burnt away when he takes formal Sannyas which elevates everybody to the same level. This kind of formal Sannyas has, therefore, its own advantages to the man who is interested in spiritual life and realisation, renuciation and it is therefore, generally advocated by Sankara and other Acharyas as one of the stages of life or Ashramas which everybody should embrace atleast towards the fag end of life. Sankara even goes to the extent of saying that the higher Jnana or realisation is not possible without such Sannyasa and quotes the Mundaka lÉÉrÉqÉÉiqÉÉ oÉsÉWûÏlÉålÉ sÉprÉÈ lÉ cÉ mÉëqÉÉSÉiÉç iÉmÉxÉÉå uÉÉÅmÉÑAÍsÉ…¡ûÉiÉç where the word AÍsÉ…¡û is explained by him as without the insignia of renunciation through formal Sannyasa. He also quotes as authority example of Yajnavalkya who forsook his family and all the duties of householder's life even though he was a Jnani. But he forgets in this enthusiastic advocacy for the necessity of formal Sannyasa that there have been people like Janaka or Sri Krishna, or Thuladara or Dharmavyadha who continued as householders till the end although they were Jnanis. He himself is an advocate of the Jnani's freedom from all external restrictions and his liberty of choice without being bound by scriptural injunctions or social conventions. The Jnani is above all this and nobody can dictate to him as to what he should do or not. He may take Sannyasa if he thinks it is advisable to set an example to others as an act of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû according to the needs of his generation or he may choose to remain a householder if he thinks that he should set an example that way. So his views about the absolute necessity of formal Sannyas is only to be taken as an eulogy of Sannyas and not meant very seriously. Sannyasa as that of Yajnavalkya after attaining Jnanam is, therefore, optional. Such Sannyasa is called ÌuɲixɳrÉÉxÉ, Sannyasa taken by a man who has not yet become a Jnani but for only getting better facilities for attaining the Jnanam is called ÌuÉÌuÉÌSwÉÉxɳrÉÉxÉ. Sankara's emphasis on the absolute necessity for Sannyas can be confined to this type of Sannyasa and to this type of people. It is only to set an example to others that all the Acharyas have become Sannyasins. There was a school of ritualists like Jaimini who contented that Sannyasa is not prescribed by the Vedas at all and during the Hindu revival after Buddhism which went to extremes in the practice of formal Sannyas, the reaction against such Sannyas was represented by Mimamsakas like Kumarilabhatta, Parasara in his Smriti. It is to counteract the condemnation of all Sannyasa altogether by these ritualists that Sankara had to go to the other extreme and advocate with all the emphasis at his command that Sannyasa was an absolute necessity for spiritual life and realisation. This conflict of view between the ritualist and Vedantins is discussed by Badarayana in the Vedanta sutras III.4 where he lays down that there is an injuction let down by the Srutis themselves. Vide Sutras III.4.17: FkuÉïUåiÉxxÉÑ cÉ zÉoSå ÌWû | III.4. 20: ÌuÉÍkÉuÉÉï kÉÉUhÉuÉiÉç etc AlÉѸårÉÇ oÉÉkÉUÉrÉhÉÈ xÉÉqrÉzlÉÑiÉåÈ III.4.17-20 and Sankara's Bhashya thereon.

That Sannyasa institution is as old as the Vedas is clear from the references to Yatis and Munis in the Vedic and Brahmanic literature and the opposition of the ritualist to them as apostates. Sankara also finds Sannyasa referred to in the Cha. & Br. Ar. Ups. in such statements as oÉë¼xÉÇxjÉÉåÅqÉ×iÉiuÉqÉåÌiÉ (cha II.23.1) & rÉå cÉåqÉåÅUhrÉå ´É®É iÉmÉ CirÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå (Cha.V.10.1 Panchagnividya) oÉë¼xÉÇxjÉ in the former passage is explained by him as iÉÉmÉxÉÈ mÉËUuÉëÉQèuÉÉ and in the latter as AUhrÉ EmÉsÉͤÉiÉÉ uÉæZÉÉlÉxÉÉÈ mÉËUuÉëÉeÉMüÉ¶É | Similarly the Bri. Ar. Passage mÉѧÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É ÌuɨÉæwÉhÉÉrÉÉ¶É sÉÉåMæüwÉhÉÉrÉɶÉ

170

urÉÑijÉÉrÉ ÍpɤÉÉcÉrÉïÇ cÉUÎliÉ is taken by him as referring to giving up all worldly desires and getting out of the house and family entanglements and becoming a Sannyasi. He quotes also with approval the Jabalopanishad passage rÉSWûUåuÉ ÌuÉUeÉåiÉç iÉSWûUåuÉ mÉëuÉëeÉåiÉç oÉë¼ÉcÉrÉÉï²É aÉ×WûÉ²É uÉlÉÉ²É | In the Br. Sutras also there are some Sutras which say that to come back from Sannyasa to ordinary worldly life is a sin. iÉ°ÕiÉxrÉ lÉ AiÉ°ÉuÉÈ eÉæÍqÉlÉåUÌmÉ ÌlÉrÉqÉ AiÉSìÖmÉ ApÉÉuÉåprÉÈ || III.4.40 (and Sankara quotes in his Bhashya on this Sutra). Also Sutra III.4.43 oÉÌWûxiÉÑ EpÉrÉjÉÉÅÌmÉ xqÉ×iÉåUÉcÉÉU¶É according to which one who has fallen from his Sannyasasrama is not fit to be associated with good people and he should be outcasted. Sankara quotes with approval the following Smriti passages in his Bhashya on this Sutra AÉÃRûÉå lÉæ̸MÇü kÉqÉïÇ rÉxiÉÑ mÉëcrÉuÉiÉå mÉÑlÉÈ | mÉëÉrÉͶɨÉÇ lÉ mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ rÉålÉ zÉѬrÉåiÉç xÉ AÉiqÉWûÉ ||, AÉÃRûmÉÌiÉiÉÇ ÌuÉmÉëÇ qÉhQûsÉÉŠ ÌuÉÌlÉÈxÉ×iÉqÉç | E¯®Ç M×üÍqÉS¹Ç cÉ xmÉ×wOèuÉÉ cÉÉlSìÉrÉhÉÇ cÉUåiÉç || We thus see that Sannyasasrama is authorised by Srutis & Smritis and the practice of the great Acharyas. "Sannyasa & Karma" whenever any text says that he is not bound to perform the rituals prescribed for the Grihastahas. It should not be mistaken as an injuction prevailing Sannyasins from discharging their own Svadharma. These passages are also meant to show that the Sannyasin is not affected by the mÉÑhrÉ or mÉÉmÉ that results from his actions, since he does his Svadharma without any expectation of worldly results and only as worship of God. The rituals which are prescribed for the Grihasthas are all only symbolic of Tyaga & Yoga and when a man becomes a Sannyasin he gives up all these symbolic practice only and takes to actual Tyaga & Yoga represented by the symbols. His formal giving up of rituals, therefore, does not involve the abandonment of real Tyaga as well as real Yoga but only the giving up of these kindergarten exercises when he is sufficiently ripe to perform his Sadhanas without the help of any concrete symbols. That is why it is said that he deposits the Agni in which the Homa is made in his own heart when he formally embraces Sannyasa. AÉiqÉÌlÉ AÎalÉÇ xÉqÉÉUÉåmÉÑA oÉëɼhÉÈ mÉëuÉëeÉåiÉç aÉ×WûÉiÉç | Manu VI.38. cf. also the final passage in Cha. Up. which refers to depositing all Indriyas in the Atman. AÉiqÉÌlÉ xÉuÉåïÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ xÉÇmÉëÌiɸÉmrÉ ... VIII.16.1. There is no more necessity for him to play with symbols as he has outgrown them. But he has not undergrown the necessity for performing his own Svadharma. In the actual Sannyasa ritual even AÉiqÉ´ÉÉ® has to be performed and mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉå̹ & ÌuÉUeÉÉWûÉåqÉ as the last acts of his symbolic religious life. The first is to remind him that he has now become dead to the world and to his immediate society in which he was a member and that he has given up his Ahankara and attachment to kith & kin. The mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉå̹ is to remind him that he is no more to confine himself to the protection of the interests of his immediate relatives but to widen his sphere of (action) Svadharma to embrace the whole world as a manifestation of God. He is to be the protector of the spiritual and moral interests of the whole world by converting all his actions into sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû as worship of God which is the suggestionof thw word mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉå̹. mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ means related to mÉëeÉmÉÌiÉ which means protector of mÉëeÉÉ. The word Praja means mÉëMüwÉåïhÉ eÉlÉlÉÇ or mÉëzÉxiÉeÉlÉlÉÇ, i.e spiritual and moral regeneration. All his activities should henceforth be for the spiritual regeneration of the world. That is the force of the word mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉ. As mÉëeÉÉmÉÌiÉ means also God. mÉëeÉÉmÉirÉ also suggests that all activities even by way of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû should be undertaken only as selfless worship of God. The word Praja is explained by Bodhayana in his Grihasparibhasha Sutra I.23 as meaning not one's own children, grand children etc. but as meaning those whom he regenerates spiritually through EmÉlÉrÉlÉ, spiritual instruction and through the self given

171

to practise self sacrifice. (Vide notes on Woman's status). This makes the real meaning of Prajapati clearer as one who helps another in spiritual regeneration. It is to be noted how Bodhayana extends the meaning of Praja to include all.

The "Viraja Homa", as its very name suggests, is a bruning away of all Rajas or imputities in the fire of Jnanam or Bhakti of God. That is why the Mantras uttered in connection with this Homa mean a prayer for purity of mind and freedom from bondage to Manas (mind), senses and body. It is the mÉëæwÉ - Mantra the utterance of which makes the man a Sannyasin. It only means the dedication of all one's further activities to God and His realisation. Thus the two put together only signifies Tyaga as well as Yoga. These two parts of the final ritual, therefore, form symbolic reminders of the life he is expected to live as a Sannyasin. The tonsure which forms one of the external signs of a Sannyasin signifies the use of the razor. The razor is symbolic of the xÉÔ¤qÉoÉÑή as per Kathopanishad ĘɸiÉ eÉÉaÉëiÉ mÉëÉmrÉuÉUÉͳÉoÉÉåkÉiÉ | ¤ÉÑUxrÉ kÉÉUÉ ÌlÉÍzÉiÉÉ SÒUirÉrÉÉ SÒaÉïÇ mÉjÉxiÉiMüuÉrÉÉå uÉSÎliÉ || Here ¤ÉÑU refers to the AaÉëçrÉoÉÑή or one-pointed Buddhi capable of understanding and knowing Abstract, subtle truths of the Atman refered to in the previous Sloka. LwÉ xÉuÉåïwÉÑ pÉÔiÉåwÉÑ aÉÔRûÉåÅÅiqÉÉ mÉëMüÉzÉiÉå | SØzrÉiÉå iuÉaÉëçrÉrÉÉ oÉÑSèkrÉÉ xÉÔ¤qÉrÉÉ xÉÔ¤qÉSÍzÉïÍpÉÈ || One of the Upanishads speaking about Yoga or spiritual practice is actually named ¤ÉÑËUMüÉåmÉÌlÉwÉSè. It is this same Tyaga & Yoga that is referred to as the cutting off of the xÉÇxÉÉUuÉ×¤É given in Gita XV. AxÉ…¡ûzÉx§ÉåhÉ SØRåûlÉ ÍNûiuÉÉ etc. Only here instead of the instrument being called a razor is described as a sword in the form of AxÉ…¡û or non-attachment which is one of the cardinal teachings of the Gita. Cf. AxÉ£üoÉÑÎ®È xÉuÉï§É ÎeÉiÉÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉaÉiÉxmÉ×WûÈ | lÉæwMüqrÉïÍxÉ먂 mÉUqÉÉÇ xɳrÉÉxÉålÉÉÍkÉaÉcNûÌiÉ || which comes immediately after ´ÉårÉÉlxuÉkÉqÉÉåï ÌuÉaÉÑhÉÈ mÉUkÉqÉÉïixuÉlÉÑ̸iÉÉiÉç | xuÉpÉÉuÉÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MüqÉï MÑüuÉï³ÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ ÌMüÎsoÉwÉqÉç || in chapter XVIII. This shows the connection of Sannyasa to Svadharma through AxÉ…¡û and freedom from selfish desires. Cf. also iÉxqÉÉSxÉ£üÈ xÉiÉiÉÇ MüÉrÉïÇ MüqÉï xÉqÉÉcÉU | AxÉ£üÉå ½ÉcÉUlMüqÉï mÉUqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ mÉÔÂwÉÈ || rÉÎxiuÉÎlSìrÉÉÍhÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ ÌlÉrÉqrÉÉUpÉUåÅeÉÑïlÉ | MüqÉåïÎlSìrÉæÈ MüqÉïrÉÉåaÉqÉxÉ£üÈ xÉ ÌuÉÍzÉwrÉiÉå || This sword which cuts off Samsara is declared to be ¥ÉÉlÉÉÍxÉ, the sword of knowledge in the Bhagavata ¥ÉÉlÉÉÍxÉlÉÉ EmÉÉxÉlÉrÉÉ ÍzÉiÉålÉ || vide also M.Bh. ¥ÉÉlÉålÉ mÉUqÉÉÍxÉlÉÉ || The hairs on the head is thought of as representing a forest of trees and the razor as destroying this forest of Samsara. Thus tonsure is a constant reminder of non-attachment and freedom from worldly desires. Similarly, the ShQû which an orthodox Sannyasin carries with him always, is a symbol of self-control or SqÉ. Manu XII. 10 and Daksha VII. 30 uÉÉYShQûÉåÅjÉ qÉlÉÉåShQûÈ MüÉrÉShQûxiÉjÉæuÉ cÉ | rÉxrÉ LiÉå ÌlÉrÉiÉÉÈ oÉÑ®Éæ ̧ÉShQûÏ CÌiÉ xÉ EcrÉiÉå || Another verse says mere carrying of ShQûÉs or sticks without practice of self-control does not make one a rÉÌiÉ. uÉåhÉÑlÉÉ lÉ pÉuÉåiÉç rÉÌiÉÈ | cf. also Daksha VII.27-31 which also says that an ascetic is not called a ̧ÉShQûÏ by merely carrying bamboo sticks. He is a ̧ÉShQûÏ who has spiritual ShQû with him. The orthodox Brahmin Sannyasins who take to formal Sannyas at the fag end of their lives simply to satisfy the requirements of the Sastras and not because of any spirit of renunciation and self-control are expected to carry with them this ShQû always. But a man of renunciation and self control need not carry any symbol with him. Therefore the mÉUqÉWÇûxÉ Sannyasins do not carry the ShQû with them, although as part of the ritual the shaft is also given to the noritiate, the shaft is immediately thrown into the Ganges which represents symbolically in

172

the inner purity of Jnanam. The people who are (higher evolved than these ritualistic Sannyasins but) still lower than the mÉUqÉWÇûxÉ Sannyasins carry only one ShQû instead of three representing qÉlÉÉåShQû. The Tridandis & Ekadandis are generally members of the Brahmin caste and they take pride in calling themselves Dandi-Sannyasins to show off their superior caste by birth. They forget, however, the carrying of the ShQû is a sign of inferiority and spiritual immaturity and is not to be considered as a matter for pride, since they always want a constant reminder to practise self-control. Thus we see the ritual & all the symbolisms connected with formal Sannyasa are only symbolic of the essence of Svadharma, viz. Tyaga & Yoga. A Sannyasin, therefore, would be committing a sin if he does not perform his Svadharma even after taking formal Sannyas which is not a licence for authorised idleness and slavish dependence upon others for his maintenance. That is why Bhagavan says in the Gita ÌlÉrÉiÉxrÉ iÉÑ xɳrÉÉxÉÈ MüqÉïhÉÉå lÉÉåmÉmɱiÉå | qÉÉåWûɨÉxrÉ mÉËUirÉÉaÉÉxiÉÉqÉxÉÈ mÉËUMüÐÌiÉïiÉÈ || rÉ¥ÉSÉlÉiÉmÉÈ MüqÉï lÉ irÉÉerÉÇ MüÉrÉïqÉåuÉ iÉiÉç | etc. at the beginning of the 18th chapter. Hence Arjuna's attempt to merely give up Svadharma and take to a life of ÍpÉ¤É as mentioned in the beginning of the 2nd chap. could not be approved by a spiritual teacher like Sri Krishna. It is not merely because Arjuna was a Kshatriya by caste that Krishna wanted him to fight, as orthodox commentators explain, and thereby save themselves as Brahmanas and their pet idea of Svadharma being confined only to Grihasthas. No doubt, the Svadharma of Grihasthas and Sannyasins may be different outworldy, but as the very conception of Svadharma suggests even Sannyasins have got their own Svadharma to discharge. Arjuna was induced by Sri Krishna not to fight but to do this Svadharma. It is only because he was a fighter by nature, the character and inherent attributes that his Svadharma happened to be fighting agains Adharma and establish Dharma through fight with enemies of Dharma in society. The spirit of fight against Adharma is common to all men. Only the form of the fight is more mental than social and external. So even the Brahmanas have to fight a moral fight with their own internal enemies such as Kama, Krodha as mentioned in ch. III and follow Bhagavan's direction to fight may be taken as applicable even to Brahmanas as well as to the Sannyasins. That is why Bhagavan uses the words Svadharma and Dharma when he goads Arjuna to fight. xuÉkÉqÉïqÉÌmÉ cÉÉuÉå¤rÉ lÉ ÌuÉMüÎqmÉiÉÑqÉWïûÍxÉ | kÉqrÉÉïή rÉÑ®ÉcNíåûrÉÉåÅlrÉi¤Ȩ́ÉrÉxrÉ lÉ ÌuɱiÉå || II-31. Whereever we find the injunction to fight we may, therefore, understand the word rÉÑkrÉxuÉ not merely in the sense of actual battle with external enemies but also as referring to the necessity for a moral fight which is common to all, even to the Brahmana and the Sannyasin. It is to emphasize this moral nature of the fight that he uses the word xɳÉÉxÉrÉÉåaÉ in many places. If it were only an actual physical fight it cannot be associated with Sannyasa at all as the orthodox people understand. xÉlrÉÉxÉrÉÉåaÉÉiÉç rÉiÉrÉÈ zÉÑ®xÉiuÉÉÈ of Mundaka up. & xɳrÉÉxÉrÉÉåaÉrÉÑ£üÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉqÉÑ£üÉå qÉÉqÉÑmÉæwrÉÍxÉ || IX-28 of Gita.

We have already seen in our discussion of xuÉkÉqÉï that the xÉÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï in ones own way within the limits of his xuÉpÉÉuÉ. These xÉÉqÉÉlrÉ Dharmas are really what constitutes humanity or manliness, and as a Sannyasin also is a man he cannot afford to give up his humanity by giving up his xÉÉqÉÉlrÉ Dharmas. He has, therefore, to practise these Dharmas within the limits of his xuÉpÉÉuÉ. It is thus clear that even the Sannyasin cannot afford to give up his xuÉkÉqÉï. That is why we find in the Srutis & Smritis all these Dharmas prescribed even for the Sannyasins. To this kind of Sannyasa no Varna or Ashrama or sex is a bar and that is why we find in the M.bh. Vidura as having practised Sannyasa & died as a Sannyasin. Vide also Nilakantha's remarks on expression

173

rÉÌiÉkÉqÉïqÉuÉÉmiÉÉåÅxÉÉæ. Also refer to notes on women's status for women's right to Sannyas. The Jivanmuktiviveka specially mentions AÎxqÉÇ¶É irÉÉaÉÉå Îx§ÉrÉÉåÅmrÉÍkÉÌ¢ürÉliÉå ‘ÍpɤÉÑMüÐ’ CirÉlÉålÉ ´ÉÏhÉÉqÉÌmÉ mÉëÉÎauÉuÉÉWûÉ²É uÉækÉurÉÉSÕkuÉïÇ uÉÉ xÉlrÉÉxÉåÅÍkÉMüÉUÉåÅxiÉÏÌiÉ SÍzÉïiÉqÉç | iÉålÉ ÍpɤÉÉcÉrÉïÇ qÉÉå¤ÉzÉÉx§É´ÉuÉhÉqÉç LMüÉliÉå AÉiqÉkrÉÉlÉÇ cÉ iÉÉÍpÉÈ MüiÉïurÉçÇ Ì§ÉShQûÉÌSMÇü cÉ kÉÉrÉïÇ CÌiÉ qÉÉå¤ÉkÉqÉåï cÉiÉÑkÉïUÏOûÏMüÉrÉÉÇ xÉÑsÉpÉÉeÉlÉMüxÉÇuÉÉSå | zÉUÏUMüpÉÉwrÉå ‘uÉÉcÉ¢üuÉÏ’ CirÉÉÌS ´ÉÔrÉiÉå | SåuÉiÉÉÍkÉMüUhÉlrÉÉrÉålÉ ÌuÉkÉÑUxrÉ AÍkÉMüÉUmÉëxÉ…¡åûlÉ iÉ×iÉÏrÉÉkrÉÉrÉå cÉiÉÑjÉïmÉÉSå | AiÉ LuÉ qÉæ§ÉårÉÏuÉÉYrÉqÉç AÉqlÉÉrÉiÉå - ‘rÉålÉÉÅWÇû lÉ AqÉ×iÉÉ xrÉÉÇ ÌMüqÉWÇû iÉålÉ MÑürÉÉïÇ rÉSåuÉ pÉaÉuÉÉlÉç uÉåijÉ iÉSåuÉ qÉå oÉëÔÌWû’ CÌiÉ | Similarly vide Suka's & Narada's renunciation as also Nachiketa's while they were yet boys. The Jivanmukta also cannot give up Svadharma even though he is not bound to do anything for his salvation, as exemplified in the lives of the Avataraspurushas & the establishment of Dharma and sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû based upon the standard of conduct for others. That is why we find in the Gita description of the xuÉkÉqÉï of ÎxjÉiÉmÉë¥É, ¥ÉÉlÉÏ, pÉ£ü, & ̧ÉaÉÑhÉÉiÉÏiÉ. Even man of realisation do not throw away their bodies immediately after their realisation. They have to live the full span of life alloted to them by their mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï vide Ch.VI.14.2 iÉxrÉ iÉÉuÉSåuÉ ÍcÉUÇ rÉÉuÉ³É ÌuÉqÉÉå¤rÉå AjÉ xÉqmÉixrÉå || and so long as they are alive they have to live like a perfect man and thereby set an example to others. They have already been practising xuÉkÉqÉï till the time of realisation and they have no special reason to give it up afterwords. Their previous habit sticks to them unless it is counteracted by fresh effort in the contrary direction. As they have no special incentive for such effort as they have already reached the goal and have thus grown beyond even the desire for Mukti there is nothing which prevents the previous habit of Svadharma being continued. Cf. Gurumaharaj's illustration of the clerk out of prison taking up a job again after release. Cf. also his words about the saint continuing his Puja even after he became a Jnani with the remark that he sees no reasons to give up his Puja when he is not giving up other activities. Sometime, however, it may happen he may adjust his mode of conduct to suit the needs of particular generations and the welfare of his immediate disciples. In such cases his motive may be sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû & xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÌWûiÉ. So, that action also must be an act of Svadharma. This is what Bhagavan refers to in the Gita III-25: xÉ£üÉÈ MüqÉïhrÉÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå rÉjÉÉ MÑüuÉïÎliÉ pÉÉUiÉ | etc. III-33: xÉSØzÉÇ cÉå¹iÉå xuÉxrÉÉÈ mÉëM×üiÉå¥ÉÉïlÉuÉÉlÉÌmÉ | etc. III-28: iɨuÉÌuɨiÉÑ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå aÉÑhÉMüqÉïÌuÉpÉÉaÉrÉÉåÈ | etc., also chapter V-7 rÉÉåaÉrÉÑ£üÉå ÌuÉzÉÑ®ÉiqÉÉ ÌuÉÎeÉiÉÉiqÉÉ ÎeÉiÉåÎlSìrÉÈ | V-8 lÉæuÉ ÌMüÎgcÉiMüUÉåqÉÏÌiÉ rÉÑ£üÉå qÉlrÉåiÉ iɨuÉÌuÉiÉç | IV-18: MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåSMüqÉïÍhÉ cÉ MüqÉï rÉÈ | IV-19: ¥ÉÉlÉÉÎalÉSakÉMüqÉÉïhÉÇ iÉqÉÉWÒûÈ mÉÎhQûiÉÇ oÉÑkÉÉÈ || IV-23: rÉ¥ÉÉrÉÉcÉUiÉÈ MüqÉï xÉqÉaÉëÇ mÉëÌuÉsÉÏrÉiÉå || IV-24: oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ oÉë¼WûÌuÉoÉëï¼ÉalÉÉæ oÉë¼hÉÉWÒûiÉqÉç | oÉë¼æuÉ iÉålÉ aÉliÉurÉÇ oÉë¼MüqÉïxÉqÉÉÍkÉlÉÉ || If such a realised man happens to be a Bhakta, he becomes a mere instrument in the hands of God who uses him as an instrument for the establishment of Dharma as He thinks fit. Thus whether he is a Jnani or Bhakta or Sthitapragna, the man of realisation also practices xuÉkÉqÉï.

Now we are in a position to understand the full force of the word lÉU used in the 2nd sloka. It refers to the special privilege of a man to make use of all his faculties, the most important of

174

which is oÉÑή, to actively resist the evil forces pressing in upon him from all sides and to exercise his freedom of free will & effort to get out of this slavery to real nature, internal & external. As Swami Vivekananda says, man is born to conquer nature and not to yield to it and be a slave of it. Only in so far as he struggles against this slavery he is entitled to be called a man; only in so far as he acquires and manifests through his self effort the human qualities known as SæuÉÏxÉqmÉiÉç, xÉÉqÉÉlrÉkÉqÉï, etc through the development of Sattva guna, he is entitled to be called a human being who does his xuÉkÉqÉï as we have understood in the previous discussion. The word lÉU is derived from the root ÌlÉ, lÉrÉç, to lead. Therefore the word suggests leadership and mastery and not slavish submission to the demands of the body, senses and the external world. He is the driver of the chariot which is under his control through the use of the oÉÑή and if only he exerts himself, he can reach the goal of Vishnu's mÉUqÉmÉS as the Kathopanishad asserts. To be a lÉU, therefore, is to take the reins in his own hands and to control the horses and drive straight to the goal. Ranga Ramanuja explains the word lÉU as meaning lÉ UqÉiÉå which according to him means he who does not delight in the pleasures of the senses and who, therefore, fights or struggles against all temptations. This interpretation emphasises the negative aspect of spiritual practice. As we have already seen, the word qÉÉlÉuÉ is used in Gita in the sense in which lÉU is used here. Vide XVIII-45: xuÉå xuÉå MüqÉïhrÉÍpÉUiÉÈ xÉÇÍxÉ먂 sÉpÉiÉå lÉUÈ | XVIII-46: xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || qÉÉlÉuÉ comes from the root qÉlÉç - to think, i.e to use Buddhi in qÉlÉlÉqÉç to discriminate between truth and falsehood, right and wrong etc. Similarly the word mÉÑÂwÉ is used in the Gita to suggest this manliness and the special properties of man. It is mÉÑÂwÉÇ or self effort that is suggested even by this word. mÉÑÂwÉ means the owner of this body who has the right and capcity and freedom to make use of this property to his best advantage. Thus iuÉÌrÉ lÉUå means being a man, that is to say, when you have in the course of evolution reached the states of man with all its powers and responsibilites, capacities and functions it behoves you to live like a man and not allow yourself to fall to a lower status by neglecting your xuÉkÉqÉï and allowing yourself to be enslaved by the Rajas and Tamas and by the temptations of the senses. The ruinous consequences of this neglect to keep up this manliness is referred to in the next Sloka in the expression AÉiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ, those who commit spiritual suicide. Life means activity of some sort or other and man has no (control) power to give up all activity so long as he is alive. The duration of this life is fixed for him by his mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï and he has to live the full span of life thus alloted to him by his mÉëÉUokÉ unless he commits suicide. But even in the latter case, if he foolishly takes away his own life, it only means that his mÉëÉUokÉ has decreed that his life should come to an end through suicide. So he has to live the full span of life under any circumstances. It is foolish and useless, therefore, to work against one's mÉëÉUokÉ and it is wisdom to use the opportunities given to him to make his life as successful as possible. There is nothing wrong, therefore, to desire to live an active life of xuÉkÉqÉï so long as he is alive. This is what is suggested by ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåiÉç zÉiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ | ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉiÉç means "Do desire to live a successful life worthy of a man and desire to attain Jivanmukti in this life itself". The most successful life is that of the Jivanmukta. It is he who is the master of his life and enjoys it best and not he who is the slave of the senses and the cravings of the flesh. This reminds us of Swamiji's words to Ingersoll that he also wants to drink life to the full and to squeeze the orange dry as the worldly man also wants to put with this difference that the worldly man is not successful as he is running after shadows and as all worldly pleasures are mixed with pain and suffering. It is only one who has realised the bliss of God that can have full enjoyment and happiness in life. Therefore, Jivanmukta's life is the most successful, even from the hedonistic standpoint regarding the goal of life. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in desiring to achieve this

175

success in life through one's own Svadharma and to continue to live the full span of life in spiritual Sadhana. It is never too late to attempt or achieve this so long as life is still available to him. Cf. ÎxjÉiuÉÉÅxrÉÉqÉç AliÉMüÉsÉåÅÌmÉ oÉë¼ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉqÉ×cNûÌiÉ | That is why Br. Sutra IV.1.12 says that one should continue to do Sadhana till his death. Cf. also Satapatha XII.4.1.1 aÉiÉuSæ eÉUÉqÉrÉïÇ xɧÉÇ rÉSÎalÉWûÉå§ÉqÉç (eÉUÉqÉrÉïÇ - a life long sacrifice) Cf. also mÉërÉÉhÉÉliÉqÉÉ僡ûÉUqÉkÉÏkrÉÉrÉÏiÉ of Prasna V.1. Also Ch. xÉÉåÅliÉuÉåsÉÉrÉÉqÉç LiÉiÉç ̧ÉiÉrÉÇ mÉëÌiÉmɱåiÉ || Also Gita VIII-10: mÉërÉÉhÉMüÉsÉå qÉlÉxÉÉcÉsÉålÉ pÉYirÉÉ rÉÑ£üÉå rÉÉåaÉoÉsÉålÉ cÉæuÉ | VIII-5: AliÉMüÉsÉå cÉ qÉÉqÉåuÉ xqÉUlqÉÑYiuÉÉ MüsÉåuÉUqÉç | ÎxjÉiuÉÉÅxrÉÉqÉliÉMüÉsÉå etc. It is this necessity to continue Svadharma till the time of death that is referred to in the words ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåiÉç zÉiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ | zÉiÉÇ xÉqÉÉÈ is not used in its literal sense of one hundred years. Hundred years means the full span of life which was considered to extend upto hundred years cf. zÉiÉÉrÉÑuÉæï mÉÑÂwÉÈ | The life time referred to may be that of its individual or Brahma himself. On the latter case it refers to the possibility and necessity of being reborn again and again till oÉë¼mÉësÉrÉ as per AlÉåMüeÉlqÉxÉçÇÍxÉ®È in the case of an aspirant or as an AÉÍkÉMüÉUMü mÉÑÂwÉ like Narada who is prepared to take birth any number of times to serve others. Cf. Swamiji's and Buddha's prayers that they may be born again and again if they can serve thereby one soul. Even rebirth need not have any terrors for them. It only means that one need not feel shy of living as long as possible. Cf. the Sukla Yajurveda Mantra which speaks of the desire of the Rishi to live a hundred autumns. mÉzrÉåqÉ zÉUSzzÉiÉÇ, eÉÏuÉåqÉ zÉUSzzÉiÉÇ etc. the Upanishad only emphasises that this life should be worthy of the dignity and glory of man. As life is impossible without activity of some sort, one should try to get rid of the bad effects of these activities by doing only Svadharma without desiring for any worldly fruits and converting it into a worship of God, surrendering all agency as well as the fruits to Him as declared in the Gita IX-27: rÉiMüUÉåÌwÉ rÉSzlÉÉÍxÉ rÉ‹ÑWûÉåÌwÉ SSÉÍxÉ rÉiÉç | and Bhagavata 11.2.36: MüÉrÉålÉ uÉÉcÉÉ qÉlÉxÉåÎlSìrÉæuÉÉï oÉÑSèkrÉÉ ÅÅiqÉlÉÉ uÉÉlÉÑxÉ×iÉxuÉqÉÉuÉÉiÉç | MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉSè rÉiÉç xÉMüsÉÇ mÉUxqÉæ lÉÉUÉrÉhÉÉrÉåÌiÉ xÉqÉmÉïrÉå¨ÉiÉç || That is what is suggested by MÑüuÉï³ÉåuÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ. LuÉ is to be taken both along with MÑüuÉïlÉç as well as MüqÉÉïÍhÉ. MÑüuÉï³ÉçuÉ means "only living an active life of Svadharma as worship of God and not in expectation of fruits" as per Gita II-47: MüqÉïhrÉåuÉÉÍkÉMüÉUxiÉå qÉÉ TüsÉåwÉÑ MüSÉcÉlÉ | III- 8: ÌlÉrÉiÉÇ MÑü MüqÉï iuÉ MüqÉï erÉÉrÉÉå ½MüqÉïhÉÈ | III-19: AxÉ£üÉå ½ÉcÉUlMüqÉï mÉUqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ mÉÔÂwÉÈ || etc. MüqÉÉïhrÉåuÉ means "only karma & not AMüqÉï," "only activity and not the sense of agency", "only work and not attachment". So MüqÉïhrÉåuÉ MÑüuÉïlÉç means both together "doing work in a spirit of Karma Yoga" as described in the Gita. Thus the first line shows that Svadharma performed in a spirit of Karma Yoga throughout life is not inconsistent with the Tyaga mentioned in the first Sloka, and that it is only the positive aspect of the Sattvica Tyaga. It also points out that the freedom from desire enjoined in the words qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ in the previous Sloka, is not meant to prevent a man from having the desire for Mukti or for Dharma. It is thus in expansion of the idea contained in the first Sloka and in explanation of it to show the limits of the injunctions contained in the previous Sloka.

The plural MüqÉïÍhÉ refers to the possibility of different persons having different Svadharma and the same person having different Svadharmas at different times and under different circumstances. It is in this sense that the words xuÉMüqÉï, M×üixlÉMüqÉï etc.

176

are used in the Gita as in III-30: qÉÌrÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ xɳrÉxrÉÉkrÉÉiqÉcÉåiÉxÉÉ |, XVIII-57: cÉåiÉxÉÉ xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïÍhÉ qÉÌrÉ xɳrÉxrÉ qÉimÉUÈ |, XVIII-56: xÉuÉïMüqÉÉïhrÉÌmÉ xÉSÉ MÑüuÉÉïhÉÉå qÉSèurÉmÉÉ´ÉrÉÈ |, IV-18: MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï rÉÈ mÉzrÉåSMüqÉïÍhÉ cÉ MüqÉï rÉÈ | xÉ oÉÑήqÉÉlqÉlÉÑwrÉåwÉÑ xÉ rÉÑ£üÈ M×üixlÉMüqÉïM×üiÉç || etc. It does not mean that everybody can do all the Karmas without reference to his own Adhikara or Svadharma, as made clear by the condemnation of mÉUkÉqÉï. Here MüqÉÉïÍhÉ also means not merely activity but even sometimes passivity when the latter is actively and voluntarily undertaken to set an example to others in a spirit of sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû.

CWû means "in this life" or "in this system of spiritual culture" as advocated by Yajnavalkya in Sukla Yajurveda or as laid down in the first Sloka.

LuÉÇ iuÉÌrÉ may mean "so long as you live like this", ie doing your Svadharma in a spirit of Karma Yoga or in a spirit of Tyaga & Yoga as mentioned in the first Sloka.

lÉ AlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ may mean "nothing untoward happens from living such a life". It may also mean that there is no other better way of living by which one can escape Samsara as means in lÉÉlrÉÈ mÉljÉÉ ÌuɱiÉåÅrÉlÉÉrÉ | The two together may be construed as meaning, "If you life like this (living) a life of Tyaga & Yoga, you will not come to grief; if you do not live like this there is no escape from the miseries of Samsara". lÉ AÎxiÉ is in contrast with what is mentioned in Sloka 3 which says about what happens to people who do not adopt this right way of living.

lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå (lÉUå) means "Karmas so done as a master and not a slave in the spirit of Karma Yoga does not entail any bondage in the form of mÉÑhrÉ or mÉÉmÉ. Cf. Gita XVIII-12: AÌlɹÍqÉ¹Ç ÍqÉ´ÉÇ cÉ Ì§ÉÌuÉkÉÇ MüqÉïhÉÈ TüsÉqÉç | pÉuÉirÉirÉÉÌaÉlÉÉÇ mÉëåirÉ lÉ iÉÑ xɳrÉÉÍxÉlÉÉÇ YuÉÍcÉiÉç || cf. Patanjali MüqÉÉïzÉÑYsÉM×üwhÉÇ rÉÉåÌaÉlÉÈ Ì§ÉÌuÉkÉÍqÉiÉUåwÉÉqÉç | Also Br. Su. IV.1.13: iÉSÍkÉaÉqÉ E¨ÉUmÉÔuÉÉïkÉrÉÉåÈ AzsÉåwÉÌuÉlÉÉzÉÉæ iÉSèurÉmÉSåzÉÉiÉç || Also Ch. iɱjÉÉ mÉÑwMüU mÉsÉÉzÉå AÉmÉÉå lÉ ÎzsÉwrÉliÉå LuÉqÉç LlÉqÉç CÌiÉ mÉÉmÉÇ MüqÉï ÌlÉ ÎzsÉwrÉiÉå | & iɱjÉåwÉÏMüÉiÉÔsÉqÉalÉÉæ mÉëÉåiÉÇ mÉëSÕrÉåiÉæuÉÇ WûÉxrÉ xÉuÉåï mÉÉmqÉÉlÉÈ mÉëSÕrÉliÉå rÉ LiÉSåuÉÇ ÌuɲÉlÉÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÇ eÉÑWûÉåÌiÉ || cf. also ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉ xÉ mÉÉmÉålÉ mÉ©mɧÉÍqÉuÉÉqpÉxÉÉ || MüqÉïhrÉMüqÉï ... oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ ... ||

The third Sloka shows how people who do not follow the principles of Tyaga & Yoga in their actions and who are carried away by desires for worldly prosperity, here or hereafter, are really committing only spiritual suicide thereby. They are more dead than alive. As they fall below the level of manliness and humanity being slaves of Rajas and Tamas, they are not fit to be called men in spite of their having human bodies and deserve to be considered as vegtables or beasts. This is what is meant by their being referred to as AÉiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ | eÉlÉÉÈ means one who is born with a human body and who still remains a mere eÉliÉÑ. Cf. xÉɤÉÉiÉç mÉzÉÑÈ mÉÑcNûÌuÉwÉÉhÉWûÏlÉÈ || Also Bharata AÉWûÉU ÌlÉSìÉpÉrÉqÉæjÉÑlÉÇ cÉ ... kÉqÉåïhÉWûÏlÉÉÈ mÉzÉÑÍpÉxxÉqÉÉlÉÉÈ || cf. also Bhagavata sÉÉåMåü urÉuÉÉrÉÉÍqÉwÉqɱxÉåuÉÉ Also Br. Ar. Up rÉjÉÉ mÉzÉÑÈ LuÉÇ xÉ SåuÉÉlÉÉqÉç | Also Manu mÉëuÉ×̨ÉÈ LwÉÉ pÉÔiÉÉlÉÉqÉç etc.

177

uÉפÉeÉÏÌuÉMürÉÉ eÉÏuÉlÉç urÉjÉïÇ pÉxlÉåuÉ µÉxÉlÉç of Bhagavatam. These people aspire to go to heaven and enjoy the pleasures of the senses but in the end they find themselves cheated of their prayers. In their ignorance they think happiness to be the goal of life and think of this happiness in terms of sense life. But all sensual and worldly pleasures are all mixed with pain and can never give unalloyed happiness. They are like the camel, as Sri Ramakrishna says, eating thorny shrub with its mouth always bleeding. It involves so much of pain for its acquisition during the enjoyment as well as the result of it. Cf. Patanjali mÉËUhÉÉqÉiÉÉmÉxÉÇxMüÉUSÒÈZÉæ aÉÑhÉuÉ×̨ÉÌuÉUÉåkÉÉŠ xÉuÉïqÉåuÉ SÒÈZÉÇ ÌuÉuÉåÌMülÉÈ || also Gita XVIII - 38-39: ÌuÉwÉrÉåÎlSìrÉxÉÇrÉÉåaÉɱ¨ÉSaÉëåÅqÉ×iÉÉåmÉqÉqÉç | mÉËUhÉÉqÉå ÌuÉwÉÍqÉuÉ iÉixÉÑZÉÇ UÉeÉxÉÇ xqÉ×iÉqÉç || rÉSaÉëå cÉÉlÉÑoÉlkÉå cÉ xÉÑZÉÇ qÉÉåWûlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | ÌlÉSìÉsÉxrÉmÉëqÉÉÌSijÉÇ iɨÉÉqÉxÉqÉÑSÉWØûiÉqÉç || They thus live in a world of ignorance. Even the heaven of their conception is based upon ignorance and mere imagination and does not really exist. Cf. Bhagavata xuÉmlÉÉåmÉqÉqÉqÉÑÇ sÉÉåMüqÉxÉliÉÇ ´ÉuÉhÉÌmÉërÉqÉç | AÉÍzɹÉå WØûÌS xɃ¡ûsmrÉ irÉeÉirÉjÉÉïlÉç rÉjÉÉ uÉÍhÉMçü || As a result of their actions, therefore, loaded upon Rajas and Tamas, they are re-born only with more developed Rajas and Tamas, as a result of such continued activity, they dive deeper and deeper into ignorance and misery. Cf. Gita XVI - 20-21: AÉxÉÑUÏÇ rÉÉåÌlÉqÉÉmɳÉÉ qÉÔRûÉ eÉlqÉÌlÉ eÉlqÉÌlÉ | qÉÉqÉmÉëÉmrÉæuÉ MüÉæliÉårÉ iÉiÉÉ rÉÉlirÉkÉqÉÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç | ̧ÉÌuÉkÉÇ lÉUMüxrÉåSÇ ²ÉUÇ lÉÉzÉlÉqÉÉiqÉlÉÈ | MüÉqÉÈ ¢üÉåkÉxiÉjÉÉ sÉÉåpÉxiÉxqÉÉSåiÉiɧÉrÉÇ irÉeÉåiÉç || Contrast this with mÉërɦÉÉSrÉiÉqÉÉlÉxiÉÑ ... AlÉåMüeÉlqÉxÉÇÍxÉÎ®È iÉiÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ mÉUÉÇ aÉÌiÉqÉç | This refers only to such people who do not exert their freedom to perform Svadharma and to realise God through His grace and self surrender to Him and through dediation of all acts to Him as His worship. That is the force of the word qÉÉqÉmÉëÉmrÉæuÉ. Thus only those who do not perform their Svadharma in the right spirit through Tamas or Rajas suffer (for the consequences of their acts). This is Bhagavan's answer to Arjuna's false conception of lÉUMü is only a further development of ignorance and Tamas. So Bhagavan defines real lÉUMü as lÉUMüxiÉqÉÉå³ÉÉWûÈ and Svarga as a xuÉaÉïxxÉiuÉaÉÑhÉÉåSrÉÈ. It is this real lÉUMü that Arjuna will have to suffer if he neglects his xuÉkÉqÉï because of his attachment and it is this real xuÉaÉï which he would gain if he performed his xuÉkÉqÉï. This xuÉaÉï & lÉUMü are, as Kapila points out in the Bhagavatam, are only here. CWæûuÉ lÉUMüÈ xuÉaÉïÈ. The imaginary xuÉaÉï as well as lÉUMü as above the world & below it are all loaded upon ignorance and are not really divine but only Asuric. Therefore this Mantra says AxÉÑrÉÉï lÉÉqÉ iÉå sÉÉåMüÉÈ AlkÉålÉ iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉÈ| These "Lokas" are Asuric (demonic) where the 'Asurisampath' predominates and which are all the result of blinding darkness or ignorance.

Even in SåuÉsÉÉåMü which is obtained as a fruit of MüÉqrÉMüqÉï there is no opportunity for spiritual exercise. There is no freedom of will for performance of Svadharma through the use of Buddhi. They are considered only as Bhogabhumis, where they can only enjoy the fruits of Karma done in human life. After that enjoyment of the fruits they have inevitably to come back again to human birth. Cf. Gita IX-21: iÉå iÉÇ pÉÑYiuÉÉ xuÉaÉïsÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉzÉÉsÉÇ ¤ÉÏhÉå mÉÑhrÉå qÉirÉïsÉÉåMÇü ÌuÉzÉÎliÉ | II-45: §ÉæaÉÑhrÉÌuÉwÉrÉÉ uÉåSÉ ÌlÉx§ÉæaÉÑhrÉÉå pÉuÉÉeÉÑïlÉ | Also the mÉgcÉÉÎalÉÌuÉ±É of Chan. & Bri. Ar. That is why read in the Puranas of even Devas being anxious to come down to the earth which is called MüqÉïpÉÔÍqÉ, the place where one can successfully practise spiritual Sadhanas. So long as they do not get out of Samsara

178

they are still in AÌuÉ±É or qÉÉrÉÉ and therefore, whatever Loka a man may go to and whatever bodies he may take up as a result of his Karma he is still in ignorance and therefore, he and his Loka are described as AlkÉålÉ iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉ. Later on Isopanishad itself refers to this blinding darkness of ignorance. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ mÉëÌuÉzÉÎliÉ rÉåÅÌuɱÉqÉç EmÉÉxÉiÉå, AlkÉÇ ... rÉåÅxÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå AlkÉålÉ iÉqÉxÉÉuÉ×iÉÉ ... may be taken as qualifying both Loka in the 1st line and tai in the 3rd

line. According to Br. Ar. which may be considered as a further elaboration of the Isopanishad, this same Sloka has got another reading or mÉÉPû - AlÉlSÉ lÉÉqÉ iÉå sÉÉåMüÉÈ ... instead of AxÉÑrÉÉïlÉÉqÉç ... AÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå AoÉѱÉå eÉlÉÉÈ || ... If the two versions are taken to mean the same thing, the blinding darkness of these Lokas means only the darkness of misery and ignorance of people who have not taken advantage of their freedom of Buddhi to save themselves. Loka, according to some commentators like Sankarananda, here refers only to various bodies which the reincarnating soul is forced to take up as a result of its Karma. According to popular belief which finds expression in the mÉgcÉÎalÉÌuÉ±É of Ch. & Br. Ar. The reincarnating soul actually takes up the bodies of animals and plants or Asuras and Devas to work out the fruits of their own Karma. But there are others who think that a soul which has once attained to the status of man in the course of evolution can work out the fruits of its Karma not necessarily in an animal or plant body etc. but in the human body itself. Therefore AxÉÑUiuÉÇ or SåuÉiuÉÇ of lower forms of life attained during re-incarnation may be only in human birth itself. It is the predominance of one or the other of the three Gunas that makes the soul reincarnating in a human body a plant, an animal, a man or Deva or Asura, and not necessarily the form of the body. AxÉÔrÉïsÉÉåMü, therefore may mean only the human birth in which Asurisampath predominates. The word AxÉÑU itself means enymologically AxÉÑwÉÑ UqÉliÉå, he who takes delight in the pleasures of life and in satisfying the demands of the flesh even at the expense of others, i.e. AxÉÑU means one who considers himself only as a body and not a soul and who is selfish and who is not interested in spiritual realisation. Cf. the description of Asura given in Ch.VIII in relation to Virochana. This world itself seen through the mist of ignorance in human birth itself is therefore the AxÉÔrÉïsÉÉåMü referred to in this Mantra. Cf. the Rigvedic description AxÉÑiÉ×mÉÉå rÉjÉÉ lÉÏWûÉUcɤÉÑwÉÈ | There is another reading adopted by some texts which reads AxÉÑrÉï instead of AxÉÑrÉï. Then the meaning would be "Sunless worlds" instead of "demoniac worlds". The worlds the ignorant ritualists aspire for, are said to be without the Sun. In the Vedic pictorial representation of the spiritual progress of the soul to the final realisation of identity with God, the soul has to pass through the penultimate stage of love and devotion and service of, and meditation on the Personal God which is the highest reading of the Absolute by the pure human mind. It is this Personal God that is referred to as xÉÔrÉï. Cf. the xÉÌuÉiÉ× of Gayatri. This progress of the soul to spiritual perfection is what is pictured symbolically as the SåuÉrÉÉlÉ path. That is, the path of realisation through the personal God. This xÉÔrÉï is, therefore, considered, again symbolically, as the doorway to oÉë¼sÉÉåMçü, cf. qÉÑhQûMü | iÉmÉÈ´É®å rÉå ÌWû EmÉxÉlirÉUhrÉå zÉÉliÉÉ ÌuɲÉÇxÉÉå pÉæ¤ÉcÉrÉÉïÇ cÉUliÉÈ xÉÔrÉï²ÉUåhÉ iÉå ÌuÉUeÉÉÈ mÉërÉÉÎliÉ rÉ§É AqÉ×iÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÉå ÌWû AurÉrÉÉiqÉÉ || ... 468 cf. also the mÉgcÉÉÎalÉÌuÉ±É V.10.2of Ch. & Br. Ar. also the end of the 4th ch. Of Ch. VIII.6.5 xÉ rÉÉuÉiÉç ͤÉmrÉålqÉlÉÈ iÉÉuÉSÉÌSirÉÇ aÉcNûÌiÉ Liɲæ ZÉsÉÑ sÉÉåMü²ÉUÇ ÌuÉSÒwÉÉÇ || It is this SåuÉrÉÉlÉmÉljÉÉ that is referred to as erÉÉåÌiÉqÉÉïaÉï or AÍcÉïqÉÉaÉï or E¨ÉUqÉÉaÉï. Cf. also Gita VIII-24: AÎalÉerÉÉåïÌiÉUWûÈ zÉÑYsÉÈ wÉhqÉÉxÉÉ E¨ÉUÉrÉhÉÇ | etc. The souls that go by this path never return to Samsara again but they go only further and further up until they reach oÉë¼sÉÉåMü, which is

179

nothing but Brahman seen objectively as a Loka or fruit of Sadhana. They attain identity with Brahman and to final dissolution or AÉirÉÎliÉMümÉësÉrÉ. Those who do not take this path of Tyaga and Yoga but who resort to Vedic rituals for the satisfaction of selfish sense pleasures are represented pictorially and symbolically as progressing through the ÌmÉiÉ×rÉÉlÉ path. They do not reach the Surya and do not, therefore, pass through the gate of xÉÔrÉï to Brahmaloka and therefore they have to come back again and re-incarnate until they take to spiritual practice and are able to reach the Sun, xÉÔrÉï or the Personal God. They are described as only reaching the Moon through their rituals instead of the Sun. the Moon here symbolically represents only the mind and not the Atman or God. That is to say, they enjoy only the ephemeral pleasures of the senses which are only reflections of the real Bliss of the Atman in the mind. Since they are still only in the mental plane they have to suffer for the consequences of not having transcended that plane being engrossed still only in selfish sensual pleasures. That they aspire only for this as the goal of life after having obtained a human birth is pure lunacy, as they aim at only what is pure moon shine. We thus understand why this path is called the Lunar Path or the Path of the Moon. It is through this path that Svarga is reached which itself is described as xuÉqÉÉåmÉqÉ & AxÉiÉç by Bhagavan. The Loka that is reached through this path with the aid of Vedic ritual is thus only the result of ignorance and thereforeit is still the Loka where the light of the Atman or God is absent. Therefore it is called AxÉÔrÉïsÉÉåMü, the Loka in which xÉÔrÉï or God has no place. Therefore, this ÌmÉiÉ×rÉÉlÉ path which is also called SͤÉhÉqÉÉaÉï or kÉÔqÉqÉÉaÉï takes one only to death over and over again and therefore they are described as AÉiqÉWûlÉÉå eÉlÉÉÈ.

4. AlÉåeÉSåMÇü qÉlÉxÉÉå eÉuÉÏrÉÉå lÉælɬåuÉÉ AÉmlÉÑuÉlmÉÔuÉïqÉwÉïiÉç | iÉ®ÉuÉiÉÉåÅlrÉÉlÉirÉåÌiÉ Ìiɸ¨ÉÎxqɳÉmÉÉå qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ SkÉÉÌiÉ ||

a) iÉ®ÉuÉiÉÉåÅlrÉÉlÉç etc - cf. AirÉÌiɸ¬zÉÉ…¡ÓûsÉqÉç

b) AlÉåeÉiÉç is taken by Madhwa as meaning that God has no fear from anything; but all the others are afraid of Him. Cf. qÉWû°rÉÇ uÉeÉëqÉѱiÉÇ of Katha. In terms of this interpretation lÉ ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå of Sloka 6 may be understood as He has no desire to protect himself against any rival or from any danger as He is fearless.

c) If qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ means uÉÉrÉÑ as taken by some commentators then this uÉÉrÉÑ cannot be the same as referred to as uÉÉrÉÑ in Sl 17. Then it would mean the ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU as the uÉÉrÉÑ in Sl 17 by some other commentators. Then the meaning of the sentence would be "The karma as mentioned in Sl. 2 would first affect the ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU merges in the Atman all the MüqÉïTüsÉ also will merge in the Atman and so there will be no more TüsÉ in the form of Samsara. The ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU or eÉÏuÉ dedicates all the MüqÉï as well as TüsÉ to the Atman and so becomes free from their effects". iÉÎxqÉlÉç SkÉÉÌiÉ means "dedicates to Him. AmÉÈ = MüqÉï and TüsÉ. So both eÉÏuÉlqÉÑ£ü of the aspirant are not affected by their activities. In this sense it would be in contamination of Sl. 2 lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå | It will also be in explanation of MüqÉïhÉæuÉ as dedication of all agency and fruits of action to God.

d) Sankarananda takes the word qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ as meaning the xÉÔ§ÉÉiqÉÉ or ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉï or Cosmic Jiva. qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ SkÉÉÌiÉ = is born of great Mother or AurÉ£ümÉëM×üÌiÉ | Ramachandra Pandit takes qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ = life force in the body

180

AmÉÈ = organs of the body since through it uÉÉrÉÑ gets its various names as mÉëÉhÉ etc. AÉmrÉliÉå mÉëÉhÉÉÌSxÉg¥ÉÉrÉÉÍpÉxiÉÉ AÉmÉÈ. SkÉÉÌiÉ is taken by him as = kÉÉUrÉÌiÉ performs their respective works such as respiration etc. They do it only because of the presence of the Atman. It is only because of and when there is the presence of Atman that Prana or life force is able to perform the vital functions into the organs such as respiration, digestion etc. When the Atman retires there is no vital activity. iÉÎxqÉlÉç xÉÌiÉ AmÉÈ SkÉÉÌiÉ. The Prana is powerless to perform its function without the presence of the Atman. So all the activity might finally be traced to its source, the Atman, although it is in itself inactive. It is like the magnet attracting flings. All activity of the Prana is meant only to realise God and is induced by God, and the agency of all action and their fruits should be dedicated to God. All activity is the result of a preliminary past given by God and a final pull by Him.

Madhwa takes qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ to mean qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ, the meditator between God and man. If man dedicates all his actions, their agency as well as their fruits to God, if he believes that the true agent is Hari and not himself, then all acts are sacred and if they are performed (as they should be) as worship of God with love and devotion to Him, such acts are carried to God by qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ or uÉÉrÉÑSåuÉ. These actions and fruits only remain in Him and therefore do not affect man.

e) This verse and the next attempt to describe the indescribable by viz. the Highest Principle or Truth called DzÉ in Sl.1 and AÉiqÉlÉç in Sl. 3. It is the real Atman in the individual that is the DzÉ of the whole world. That is why even in 6&7 the DzÉ of Sl.1 is referred to as Atman and both are identified in Sl. 16. rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ || To show that both of them are only Brahman, the neuter gender is used in this Mantra, which also shows that the highest Truth is beyond personality and sex. It is also beyond space and time. mÉÔuÉï means that which is beyond time itself (before time itself cam into existence). When It is beyond time, space and causation which exist only when the mind works and since it is beyond mind qÉlÉxÉÉå eÉuÉÏrÉÉå, it must be beyond all change and motion. ÌiɸiÉç AlÉåeÉiÉç. All changes of movements and vibrations take place in or on the background of an unchanging motionless entity. The finite can be seen only on the background of Infinite, Motion is relative to motionless, change to changeless, multiplicity to oneness. But all realtivity vanishes in ¥ÉÉlÉÇ & xÉqÉÉÍkÉ which is beyond mind, space, time and relativity. The truth as experienced in ¥ÉÉlÉÇ can be expressed only in negative terms and as beyond all relativity.

f) AmÉÈ in plural means "water" and in singular MüqÉï derived from the root AmÉç, to go. Taking the two senses together we may understand it in the sense of MüqÉïmÉëuÉÉWû.

g) The first mÉÉS deals with the relation of qÉlÉxÉç, second of ¥ÉÉlÉåÎlSìrÉ, third of MüqÉåïÎlSìrÉ and the fourth of mÉëÉhÉ to Atman. All these together constitute xÉÔ¤qÉzÉUÏU or ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU which gets itself involved in xÉÇxÉÉU through egoistic activity. If one knows that all these are dependent upon Atman or God and therefore surrenders everything - ego, karma, its fruits, agency etc. to God, he is not affected by the activities of any of these. In this sense it is an explanatory supplement to Sl. 2 lÉÉlrÉjÉåiÉÉåÅÎxiÉ lÉ MüqÉï ÍsÉmrÉiÉå lÉUå |

181

h) qÉÉiÉËUµÉ may refer to the Yogi who has first been protected in the womb of the Mother i.e. Prakriti and MüqÉï, and who afterwards became ready to escape from the womb of MüqÉï when he is sufficiently ripe as in the case of the human foetus. Such a Yogi surrenders everything including his activities, Ahankara- mamakara, fruits of action such as xÉÇxÉÉU, his body, mind and soul to God. Therefore he is not affected whether he is only a xÉÉkÉMü or a ÍxÉ®. qÉÉiÉËU µÉrÉiÉå uÉkÉïiÉå CÌiÉ qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ from the root 굃 - to grow or increase or swell, to approach or to prosper. The Yogi first prospers through MüqÉï and approaches his goal through Sadhana and thus grows beyond and becomes too big for mÉëM×üÌiÉ or MüqÉï to keep him in the womb of Samsara and so he escapes from MüqÉï & xÉÇxÉÉU through MüqÉï itself. MüqÉïqÉÉå¤ÉÉrÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÌuÉkɨÉå of Bhag. Through MüqÉï to escape MüqÉï. He who knows the trick or MüqÉïxÉÑ MüÉæzÉsÉÇ is the real Yogi. So qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ may be taken to mean a Karma Yogi. Cf. Gita V-10: oÉë¼hrÉÉkÉÉrÉ MüqÉïÍhÉ xÉ…¡Çû irÉYiuÉÉ MüUÉåÌiÉ rÉÈ | III-30: qÉÌrÉ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ xɳrÉxrÉÉkrÉÉiqÉcÉåiÉxÉÉ | V-11: MüÉrÉålÉ qÉlÉxÉÉ oÉÑ®èrÉÉ MåüuÉsÉæËUÎlSìrÉæUÌmÉ | V-12: rÉÑ£üÈ MüqÉïTüsÉÇ irÉYiuÉÉ zÉÉÎliÉqÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ lÉæ̸MüÐqÉç| III-28: iɨuÉÌuɨÉÑ qÉWûÉoÉÉWûÉå aÉÑhÉMüqÉïÌuÉpÉÉaÉrÉÉåÈ | XVIII-46: xuÉMüqÉïhÉÉ iÉqÉprÉcrÉï ÍxÉ먂 ÌuÉlSÌiÉ qÉÉlÉuÉÈ || etc.

h) AmÉÈ may mean the same as highest gain or sÉÉpÉ from root AÉmÉ, to obtain. In this case it means MüqÉïTüsÉ or kÉlÉÇ referred to in Sl. 1. cf. Gita VI-22: rÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ cÉÉmÉUÇ sÉÉpÉÇ qÉlrÉiÉå lÉÉÍkÉMÇü iÉiÉÈ | LwÉÉ ÌWû mÉUqÉÉ xÉiÉç, AÉiqÉsÉÉpÉÉiÉç mÉUÉå lÉÉÎxiÉ etc.

i) Or the sentence may mean qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ or God induces all Yogis or Bhakta's or Jnani's activities. In this sense iÉÎxqÉlÉç would refer to rÉÉåaÉÏ and qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ to God; in the former sense iÉÎxqÉlÉç means God and qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ the Yogi. In one case the activity of the Yogin is really the activity of God and so he is not affected as he is only an instrument in the hands of God. The Yogi does not himself act but God acts through him for the welfare of the world by making him do sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. In the other, it is the Yogi who dedicates all actions and fruits to God. So this applies equally to the xÉÉkÉMü & ÍxÉ®.

Thus qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ may mean mere life force of the individual or Cosmic energy, or the individual ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU or Cosmic ÌWûUhrÉaÉpÉï or the Yogi (xÉÉkÉMü as well as ÍxÉ®), qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ or God Himself. In the later case, it is God Himself who does everything in himself as there is no other than Him i.e He is the cause as well as the effect, the agent as well as the material cause, premium mobili as well as the goal, everything is God. Cf. pÉÏwÉÉxqÉɲÉiÉÈ mÉuÉiÉå.

qÉÉiÉËUµÉÉ as qÉÑZrÉmÉëÉhÉ holds all MüqÉïTüsÉ in suspension in the state of sleep or xÉqÉÉÍkÉ or mÉësÉrÉ. When fresh creation begins or when one comes back to eÉÉaÉëiÉç state all the MüqÉï is again manifested only in Him.

j) SåuÉÉ may refer to the demi gods, or the ritualistics of old or the senses. None of them ever realised Him or could comprehend Him. It is only the Yogi who knows the secret of work that could realise Him by conquest of desires and selfishness. The man of desire eager to satisfy his desires misses Him who is the real object of desire as He always runs faster than his desires. Everything other than Himself AlrÉÉlÉç he outstrips AirÉåÌiÉ. That unless one

182

goes beyond qÉlÉxÉç, the seat of xɃ¡ûsmÉ & MüÉqÉ one does not grasp Him. Cf. MüÉå A®É uÉåS etc. who are Devas.

k) This Mantra may also be taken as showing the difference of Atman or DzÉ from the universe which it pervades as per Sl. 1. In this view AlÉåeÉiÉç lÉ crÉuÉÌiÉ xuÉÃmÉiÉÉå xuÉpÉuÉiÉÉå uÉÉ lÉ MüqmÉiÉå. l) Along with rÉjÉÉ iÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉiÉç this lÉælɬåuÉÉ ... qÉwÉïiÉç & iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ etc; ÌuɱÉÇ cÉÉÌuɱÉÇ cÉ, xÉqpÉÔÌiÉÇ cÉ ÌuÉlÉÉzÉÇ cÉ etc. shows the general features of Yajnavalkya's teaching in the Sukla Yajurveda as distinct from Krishna Yajurveda.

m) Sls 4&5 explain the nature of Truth to be realised or Atman. Sls 6 to 8 describe the nature of one who has realised the Atman. Sls 9 to 14 the nature of realisation or ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç. Sls 15-18 the nature of Moksha or freedom of the Jivanmukta type.

n) Uvvata has AzÉïiÉç instead of AwÉïiÉç. The former is explained by his as derived from the root ËUzÉÉÌiÉ ÌWÇûxÉÉMüqÉï meaning AÌuÉlÉzrÉiÉç mÉÔuÉïÇ ÌuɱqÉÉlÉÇ AÌuÉlÉzrÉiÉç = AlÉÉÌSÌlÉkÉlÉÍqÉirÉjÉïÈ. He also takes AmÉÈ as referring to rÉ¥ÉSÉlÉWûÉåqÉSÏÌlÉ || All rituals are based on the activity of uÉÉrÉÑ as per xuÉÉWûÉ uÉÉiÉåkÉÉ CÌiÉ uÉÉrÉÑmÉëÌiÉ̸iuÉÉ ÌSkÉÉlÉiÉç | Even this ayu is made to do his work by God. This shows that all activity is finally only to God.

Sl. 5 As the Absolute the Atman is motionless but as the Saguna Brahman He is the creator of the universe, without Himself being in any way affected by this activity. It is this idea that seems to be emphasised in the Vivartaveda which says He only appears to be creator. But in His aspect as cause and effect He is active apparently. In another sense also He is both active as well as inactive. Thus as organic beings who are no other than himself, He is active and as inorganic beings He is inactive. Or as mobile objects He is active and as stationary objects He is inactive. Or as matter He is inactive but as force He is active. The expression only means, "all activity as well as inactivity are only His forms." Or it may mean that though He is active He is not bound by the consequences of His acts. So if one realises his identity with Atman, such a man of realisation can also be active and inactive at the same time just like God without being entangled in MüqÉï and its effects viz. xÉÇxÉÉU.

Sl.6 EAxiÉÑ xÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉlrÉÉiqÉlrÉåuÉÉlÉÑmÉzrÉÌiÉ | xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ cÉÉiqÉÉlÉÇ iÉiÉÉå lÉ ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå ||

1. ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå - has no interest in protecting or safeguarding his own interest as distinct from others. All his xuÉÉjÉï has become mÉUÉjÉ. Cf. xuÉUçjÉÉåï rÉxrÉ mÉUÉjÉï LuÉ ÌWû mÉÑqÉÉlÉç LMüÈ xÉiÉÉqÉaÉëhÉÏÈ ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå means ÌuÉzÉåwÉåhÉ eÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå - he does not find any distinction between his own interest and anothers and as he protects his own interest, he protects others interests also. Though he may neglect his own interest, however, he will not neglect another's interest on this ground. It represents absolute freedom from selfishness and love and sympathy for all as one's own expanded self. The wise man loves and sympathises, loves and serves everybody as he would love and serve himself. He sees them only the Paramatman as he sees in himself and loves and woships Him in every being. This realisation substitutes co-operation for competition, the law of humanity for the law of the jungle. The idea of self preservation and struggle for existence vanishes from his mind. This is the stage of intellectual understanding.

183

The next stage speaks of the stage of experience. ÌuÉÎeÉaÉÑmxÉiÉå may also be understood in terms of Madhwa's interpretation of AlÉåeÉiÉç in Sl. 4 according to which God is said to be fearless. If God is fearless and if one sees God only in everything and in himself and thus identifies himself with God, he becomes fearless like God Himself and there is no need for him to protect himself from any danger.

2. The last Mantra showed that the Lord is in everybody and outside as a support and inner controller and thus pervades all. The result of the realisation of the Lord as such is mentioned in this verse. Such a man of realisation does not wish to guard or save himself. Even the desire for salvation is destroyed, for by such realisation he has already saved himself and feels himself always in the protection of God. He is only an instrument in His hands and has no fear of being entangled in Samsara anymore. He never more becomes AÉiqÉWûÉ but becomes eternally alive in the Atman. All his AWûƒ¡ûÉU is destroyed and so pÉrÉ, MüÉqÉ, ¢üÉåkÉ, etc. based on AWûƒ¡ûÉU & AÌuÉ±É cannot affect him anymore. So death or danger is not for him. He has become a qÉÑ£ü and has therefore, no more fall from that status. lÉ mÉÑlÉUÉuÉiÉïiÉå ... etc. AmÉÑlÉUÉ qÉÑÌ£üÈ of Brahmasutras. So no further Sadhana also is needed. AlÉÑmÉzrÉÌiÉ of this Mantra and ÌuÉeÉÉlÉjÉÈ of the next mean the same thing. Or if we take this Mantra as representing a lower stage of Sadhana and the next as the higher stage of ÍxÉή, the former suggests effort for the latter which represents experience. The former may only constantly and continuously be struggling to keep the idea in mind without forgetting for a moment, but the latter when such knowledge has become natural and no more effort is necessary. But since AlÉÑmÉzrÉiÉÈ of Sl.7 reminds us of AlÉÑmÉzrÉÌiÉ we may take the AlÉÑSzÉïlÉÇ as leading to ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ. For one, who by constant AlÉÑSzÉïlÉ has become a Vijnani there is no more zÉÉåMü & qÉÉåWû.

3. While Sl.6 gives freedom from fear as the result of realisation, Sl.7 adds freedom from delusion and sorrow also. Therefore, though the two verses may be taken as representing the ÍxÉή, there is no repetition. Whereas the last verse spoke of seeing God as the AliÉrÉÉïÍqÉ and support of all, this verse adds that the Siddha sees the unity of the Lord in the diversity of the universe.

4. The three Mantras 6 - 8 describe the characteristic of one who has fully adopted the injunction of the first Mantra DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïÇ. He who has done this behaves as mentioned in 6 - 8 i.e he is still active in Self-expression and in the service of others. This shows that seeing God in everything does not make one lazy or Tamasic or inactive. Therefore, MÑüuÉï³ÉåuÉåWû MüqÉÉïÍhÉ ÎeÉeÉÏÌuÉwÉåiÉç ... is explained as the characteristic of a man of realisation along with irÉÉaÉ & uÉæUÉarÉ. Selfless service and renunciation can go along with realisation.

5. Sl. 6 may refer to xÉiMüÉrÉïuÉÉS where all effects exist in a potential state in the cause and the effect being only a manifestation of the cause consists in the cause itself. The man of realisation sees the effect in the cause viz. world in Atma and the cause in the effect viz. Atman in the world. This may be an actual transformation as the Visishtadvatins contend, or only an appearance (ÌuÉuÉiÉï) as the Advaitins contend. But in either case it is a recognition of the identity of cause and effect or God and the universe which facilitates the worship of God in the form of the service of the world. Such a man cannot treat the world with contempt or insult or injure anybody or hate anybody or be afraid of the world. Gita XII: rÉxqÉɳÉÉå̲eÉiÉå sÉÉåMåü sÉÉåMüÉ̲eÉiÉå cÉ rÉÈ |, A²å¹É

184

xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. cf. xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉxjÉqÉÉiqÉÉlÉqÉç etc. Manusmriti XII.91. Bhag XI.2.45 xÉuÉëpÉÔiÉåwÉÑ rÉÈ mÉzrÉåiÉç etc. This shows how Gita, Manusmriti and Bhagavata have derived the inspiration from Isavasyopanishad (Why?).

6. AÉiqÉlÉç definitions: rÉŠÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ rÉSÉS¨Éå rÉŠÉÌ¨É ÌuÉwrÉÌlÉWû | rÉŠxrÉ xÉliÉiÉÉå pÉÉuÉxiÉxqÉÉSÉiqÉåÌiÉ MüÐirÉïiÉå || (Lingapurana 70.96) i.e it is derived variously from the root AÉmsÉ× urÉÉmiÉÉæ, root AÉ + SÉ AÉSÉlÉå, AS pɤÉhÉå, AiÉ xÉÉiÉirÉaÉqÉlÉå, or in Vedic root AiÉç means also to obtain. AiÉç to go may also mean to know. Therefore it may refer to the Atman as pure knowledge or consciousness as its permenant nature. Sometimes it is derived from AiÉç to breathe (vide Böhling and Roth). Vide note BK. IV. P Professor Deussen derives from AiÉç the reflective pronoun meaning Self.

7. ÌuÉeÉÑaÉÑmxÉiÉå may mean he does not cover himself with Maya again. So as to hide the face of Truth as mentioned in Sl. 15. xÉirÉxrÉÉÌmÉÌWûiÉÇ qÉÑZÉqÉç. The removal of the covering which hides the Truth is by recognising the whole universe as nothing but the Atman as mentioned in this sloka as well as rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ.

8. Another reading is lÉ ÌuÉÍcÉÌMüixÉUå. He is beyond all doubt. Cf. ÍNû±liÉå xÉuÉïxÉÇzÉrÉÉÈ, rÉÎxqÉlÉç ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉå xÉuÉïÍqÉSÇ ÌuÉ¥ÉÉiÉÇ pÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ etc., ÌMüqÉWÇû xÉÉkÉÑ lÉÉMüUuÉÇ ÌMüqÉWÇû mÉÉmÉqÉMüUuÉÍqÉÌiÉ.

Sl. 7 rÉÎxqÉlxÉuÉÉïÍhÉ pÉÔiÉÉlrÉÉiqÉæuÉÉpÉÔ̲eÉÉlÉiÉÈ | iÉ§É MüÉå qÉÉåWûÈ MüÈ zÉÉåMüÈ LMüiuÉqÉlÉÑmÉzrÉiÉÈ || 1. AÉiqÉæuÉÉpÉÔiÉç - wherever the thin transparent wall of partition constituted by the AÉlÉlSqÉrÉ MüÉåzÉ is transcended through realisation ÌuÉeÉÉlÉiÉÈ. 2. MüÈ zÉÉåMüÈ - nature of Sukha and Dukha as depending only on ÌuÉwÉrÉ and sense objects and desires for their pleasures. This comes only from another cf. ̲iÉÏrÉɲæ pÉrÉqÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ etc. Atma is nothing but AÉlÉlSbÉlÉ. Even before this oneness is realised the AÉlÉlSqÉrÉ MüÉåzÉ itself is free from zÉÉåMü, what to say about after realisation.

Sl. 8 xÉ mÉrÉïaÉÉcNÒû¢üqÉMüÉrÉqÉuÉëhÉqÉxlÉÉÌuÉUÇ zÉÑ®qÉmÉÉmÉÌuÉ®qÉç | MüÌuÉqÉïlÉÏwÉÏ mÉËUpÉÔÈ xuÉrÉqpÉÔrÉÉïjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉSkÉÉcNûɵÉiÉÏprÉÈ xÉqÉÉprÉÈ || 1. mÉrÉïaÉÉiÉç zÉÑ¢Çü –- cf. mÉrÉåïÌiÉ in Ch. Up. VIII.12.3Although the highest Truth is Absolute and is incapable of being cognised by the relative intellect in the waking consciousness, still the same is realised as pervading the three states of relative consciousness and even in absence of it. In fact all subjects and objects are nothing but names and forms of this Absolute. Therefore in cognizing the objects including the ego as well as body and sense objects he congnizes the Absolute also. That is the force of the word mÉËU all round, AaÉÉiÉç - realized and not merely intellectually understood.

zÉÑ¢Çü etc. shows that it cannot be grasped by the ordinary intellect. It is a case of the whole subject-object universe becoming one with the Atman of the saint as mentioned in the previous sl. Such a man knows super sensuous truths along with the sensual truths – MüÌuÉÈ and is master of his own mind and not slave of it and has full self control or uÉæUÉarÉqÉç

185

- qÉlÉÏwÉÏ. He sees only himself in others also and serves others in such a way as to elevate them to his own state of realisation and freedom from zÉÉåMü & qÉÉåWû. xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ - xuÉrÉqÉç pÉuÉÌiÉ pÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ cÉ. And this he does without any distinction of caste, creed, sex, colour or age. mÉËU - all round pÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ. So he brings about the real welfare or mÉUqÉmÉÑÂwÉÉjÉï or qÉÉå¤É of all. rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉcNûɵÉiÉÏprÉÈ xÉqÉÉprÉÈ || - the later portions shows the eternal nature of qÉÑÌ£ü brought about by him. The whole Upanishads are the result of the actitivity of such Rishis to save mankind by eluciliating the real essence of the Vedas. AjÉÉïlÉç - meaning of the Vedas as well as of life, real wealth which is never lost, the real goal of life viz. qÉÉå¤É, the real object of all human desire and endevours. He not only has achieved the goal of life himself (rÉÇ sÉokuÉÉ cÉÉmÉUÇ sÉÉpÉqÉç etc.) but helps others to achieve the same. Since he himself has achieved the highest goal, there is no more desire for worldly prosperity qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ MüxrÉÎxuÉiÉç kÉlÉqÉç and he also sees to it to save others also from such desires. mÉrÉïaÉÉiÉç may be taken along with AjÉÉïlÉç as its object. In that case the sense would be that he has gained the supreme and eternal wealth viz. God Himself. It is not a gain like other gains but becoming God Himself, who is superior to all mÉËUpÉÔÈ.

2. rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉSkÉÉiÉç etc. Though he himself understands the true meaning and essential teaching of the Vedas only to be the realisation of the identity with the Atman, in his teachings to others he adjusts his teachings to the needs and capacities of the new generations and to his individual pupils who are not yet ready for the highest. Even the highest Truth has to be presented to each generation afresh in a new garb as Vedanta has to be presented to the present generation in terms of service. Though there may be differences in the interpretations given by the great Acharyas who are men of realisations, they all convey the essential teachings of the Vedas in various terms to suit their disciples, time, locality etc. All the teachings are therefore, correct and true from that particular angle of vision and the Adhikar of the pupil. The differences are only apparent. Their teachings hold good eternally for those who are in the level of the development of the pupils who are addressed by the Acharyas. Such differences in Adhikara are always present eternally and so they are eternally useful to particular Adhikaris inspite of apparent differences. Cf. xÉirÉålÉ mÉljÉÉ ÌuÉiÉiÉÉå SåuÉrÉÉlÉÈ and Swamiji's word that we proceed from Truth to Truth. These teachers keep different Adhikaris in view and cater to the needs of all aspirants and explain the meaning of the Vedas in terms of MüÉqÉ, AjÉï, kÉqÉï, & qÉÉå¤É according to their needs. That is why we find the ritualist explaining everything as meant for worldly prosperity in this world or the next. But what they really mean is something different cf. Bhagavata TüsÉ´ÉÑÌiÉËUrÉqÉç etc. For those who are of the same or similar Adhikara who may be born till the end of time cf. EimÉixrÉiÉå qÉqÉ cÉ MüÉåÅÌmÉ xÉqÉÉlÉkÉqÉÉï etc.

3. He who is described in 6 & 7 is a MüÌuÉ or ¢üÉliÉSzÉÏï, seer of the transcendental reality of the Atman described in the first part of the Sloka even while he is seeing sense objects. Therefore, he is a master and not a slave of his own mind and senses qÉlÉÏwÉÏ as well as a controller of sense objects i.e. he does not allow sense objects to enslave him, but uses them as a master as whether he likes xuÉrÉqpÉÔ in the act of saving others by way of self expression. All this he is able to do because he realises his identity with the absolute which is zÉÑ¢üqÉç the primal seed of the universe who is without a body which can be the cause of action or its fruits AMüÉrÉqÉç = lÉ cÉÏrÉiÉå MüqÉïTüsÉÈ AÎxqÉlÉç CÌiÉ AMüÉrÉqÉç, and without the ordinary instruments of action such as muscles, nerves etc. "AxlÉÉÌuÉUqÉç" and which is pure and free from egoism, MüÉqÉ etc which generally

186

prompt the activity causing xÉÇxÉÉU and which is unaffected by the previous fruits of MüqÉï which generally make an ordinary man work in this life. mÉÉmÉ includes both mÉÑhrÉ & mÉÉmÉ both of which bind. Having realised himself as the absolute he is not affected by the activities of his own mind and senses or by the attraction of the sense objects. qÉlÉÏwÉÏ may refer to science and philosophy i.e he becomes a teacher, preacher, evangelist. mÉËUpÉÔ becomes a reformer - social, political, moral and religious overcoming all evils. xuÉrÉqpÉÔ - raises everybody to his own status by making all saints realise himself in others.

4. Escape from samsara through realisation of God and resulting life of selfless service of the whole universe as worship of God is the eternal teaching of the eternal Vedas, which the Rishis again and again proclaim in different forms, in different times and localities in different languages. If any words of the Rishis go against the essence of the Vedas, they are to be rejected as unvedic. Yajnavalkya thus gives out the essence of the Srutis to those whose minds are clouded by the teachings of the Krishna Yajurveda and who immerse themselves in the rituals to obtain worldly prosperity.

5. MüÌuÉ, qÉlÉÏzÉÏ, mÉËUpÉÔ, xuÉrÉqpÉÔ, suggest the various aspects of the productivity and recreative activity of the man of realisation. MüÌuÉ suggests the aesthetic aspect. The man of realisation becomes a creative artist as in the case of many Rishis and Acharyas producing things of beauty and joy, thereby expressing externally the divine bliss and beauty which is in the world. He enjoys this divine beauty in all natural objects and makes it available to others spiritually and becomes producer of real men. He is also qÉlÉÏwÉÏ master of mind and intellect and thus becomes producer of not only fine art but useful art. Thus he may be a statesman or king like Krishna, Rama or Janaka. He can be even a business magnet serving the motherland economically. He recreates himself in others mÉËUpÉÔ and xuÉrÉqpÉÔ by extending his personality not only to the existing generation but succeeding generations also. mÉËUpÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ brings about a renaissance, xuÉrÉqpÉÉuÉrÉÌiÉ helps others to find out their own natural genious and express it in their life. So he becomes a propagator of the xÉiÉç, ÍcÉiÉç, & AÉlÉlS aspects of God. He reveals these aspects to others and then overflows himself into others through their intellect, emotion and will and thus makes the supreme values of life available to one and all. rÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉiÉç.

6. AjÉï may mean also "means" or "cause". In this sense AjÉÉïlÉç may be understood as meaning Sadhanas for realising Atman. The man of realisation prescribes various methods of Sadhanas. AjÉï may mean any object of sense. In this sense the man of realisation understands all objects of sense as really only Atman or a perfection of himself and therefore he does not have any disuse with them. He sees through these objects of senses into their essence viz. Atman. Cf. CÎlSìrÉåprÉÈ mÉUÉ ½jÉÉï etc. Artha also means good or welfare. He works for the welfare of others. AjÉïqÉç = TüsÉqÉç, MüqÉïTüsÉ in this context. He alone can bring about the real fruit of MüqÉï viz. ÍcɨÉzÉÑή. All these apply equally to God and the man of realisation as both are identified. AjÉï may also be derived from the root G to dedicate or sacrifice. With the addition of TüsÉ according to EhÉÉÌS – ArÉïiÉ CÌiÉ AjÉï. In this sense the man of realisation makes everybody practice renunciation and dedication of fruits to God and thus saves them from Samsara.

7. Some commentators take this verse as referring to the Atman or God (vide Sankara), others to the realised man (Ramanuja) and some split up the verse into two, the first part referring

187

the man of realisation and the second to God. AjÉÉïlÉ urÉSkÉÉiÉç is taken by Gopalananda as meaning EmÉÌlÉwÉSjÉÉïlÉç ÍcÉliÉMüÈ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉliÉUÉiqÉoÉë¼ÉåmÉÉxÉMüÈ EmÉÉxÉlÉuÉåsÉÉrÉÉÇ oÉë¼ xÉuÉïiÉÈ xÉɤÉÉiM×üirÉ AlÉÑpÉuÉiÉÏÌiÉ pÉÉuÉÈ | 8. xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ emphasises that no real transformation is affected by realisation, but only removal of ignorance that clouded the vision and the seer who was really only the Atman from eternity remained free from his delusion which made him think of himself as otherwise. This recognition of his real nature has to be done by each one by himself and nobody else can do it for him. So he is xuÉrÉqpÉÔÈ. But this he does along with victory over qÉÉrÉ. mÉËUpÉÔÈ.rÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉå means that he saw the whole world in its true light as Atman.

9. mÉraÉÉïiÉç cf. the expression mÉËUuÉëÉeÉMü which also means one who mÉrÉïaÉÉiÉç. A mÉËUuÉëÉeÉMü is one who has gone out of his little self, as it were, and found the same self everywhere he went and in everything he saw. Cf. rÉ§É rÉ§É qÉlÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ iÉ§É iÉ§É xÉqÉÉkÉrÉÈ | The two roots mean the same thing viz. to go. His interest expanded into the whole world.

10. AjÉÉïlÉ urÉSkÉÉiÉç = rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÈ xÉuÉÉïlÉç mÉSÉjÉÉïlÉç qÉlÉÍxÉ urÉSkÉÉiÉç = understood everything in this world in its real nature as only Atman. rÉÉjÉÉiÉjrÉiÉÉåÅjÉÉïlÉç urÉ®ÉiÉç. cf. Gospel 393 "Dive deep into the ocean of Satchitananda. There you will get commission to teach people. No lasting benefit can be given without such commission."

9. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ mÉëÌuÉzÉÎliÉ rÉåÅxqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå | iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉ CuÉ iÉå iÉqÉÉå rÉ E xÉqpÉÔirÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ ||

1. AÌuÉ±É means according to Uvvata, "xuÉaÉÉïjÉÉïÌlÉ MüqÉÉïÍhÉ" and ÌuÉ±É means AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç. The latter give up all Karmas. Their combination means "knowing the former is necessary for the latter as a means. These cross over death and enjoy Brahman through realisation.

2. ÌuÉ±É means "devotion and meditation of Bhakti yoga" AÌuÉ±É means "doing the will of the Father in Heaven", "not He who sayeth 'Lord, Lord' but he that doeth the will of the Father in Heaven", as Christ says. One is more mental and emotional, the other more volitional. This refers to the apprant conflict between pure Karmayogis and pure devotees. The Upanishad advocates a synthesis of heart and hand. Or AÌuÉ±É means practice and ÌuÉ±É means theory or religion and philosophy, both of which should be synthesised. In this case it is the synthesis of head and hand. These two senses together advocate the synthesis of ¥ÉÉlÉ, pÉÌ£ü, & MüqÉï Yogas as practised for the realisation of the Atman and Jivanmukti as mentioned in the previous Mantras. Or they may refer to religion and morality. Religion, philosophy and ethics must go hand in hand together. Or it may refer to science and philosophy - the AmÉUÉ & mÉUÉÌuÉ±É which are called here AÌuÉ±É & ÌuɱÉ. Or it may refer to xÉaÉÑhÉÌuÉ±É ÌlÉaÉÑïhÉÌuɱÉ. xÉWû in Slokas 11 & 14 is to emphasise the spirit of synthesis. This harmony and synthesis is the very soul of Hindu and Vedic culture.

188

3. Just as the apparently opposite characteristic is found reconciled in the Atman or God, so the apparantly opposite practices and ways of life are reconciled in Jivanmukti where the man has become God himself.

4. ÌuÉ±É & AÌuÉ±É are only aspects of Maya. The Atman is beyond Maya and therefore both Vidya and Avidya. ÌuɱÉÅÌuɱå DzÉiÉå rÉxiÉÑ xÉÉåÅlrÉÈ, ¤ÉUliÉÑ AÌuÉ±É ½qÉ×iÉqÉç iÉÑ ÌuÉ±É of Sve. Up. He who realises the absolute which is beyond both Vidya and Avidya has conquoured death and become immortal. AÌuɱrÉÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï means "by means of other Sadhanas like pÉÌ£ü & ÌlÉwMüÉqÉMüqÉï he is not entangled in Samsara and by ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç he realises this immortal". Or ÌuÉ±É means "spiritual realisation" and AÌuÉ±É means "normal human life in the relative world". This normal life is not and need not be affected by the spiritual realisation as in the case of Dharmavyadha or Bhishma or Tuladhara or Janaka. Both can go together in the case of a Jivanmukta. Avidya then does not become a clog on the permanent vision of God and so qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï means "as long as his body is alive on account of mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï, he works out his mÉëÉUokÉ through AÌuÉ±É and enjoys God through ÌuɱÉ. iÉålÉ irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ. ÌuÉ±É cf. iÉqÉç AÉxÉÏiÉç iÉqÉxÉÉ aÉÔRûqÉaÉëå blinding light. Also Svetasvatara ASÉ iÉqÉÈ iÉ³É ÌSuÉÉ lÉ UȨ́ÉÈ.

5. Avidya, no doubt, is a cloud and prevents the vision of God. But Vidya is capable of eclipsing the Avidya as the latter is less powerful. Vidya leads to a greater darkness, means only that darkness of Avidya is swallowed by darkness of Vidya i.e Avidya is not seen when Vidya swallows it up as it were. iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉ CuÉ iÉå iÉqÉÉå Vidya swallows the swallower of Atman. So which is more powerful - Vidya or Avidya? But realisation of the Atman is still higher because in it both Vidya and Avidya can co-exist, mutually helping and co-operating with each other. EpÉrÉÇ xÉWû. He who has attained this Atman by experience feels both Vidya and Avidya as only forms of Atman and as the latter cannot be destroyed altogether, they may remain. Because of Avidya, he could see others struggling in Maya and ignorance and because of Vidya he can liberate them. The Avidya of the world is conqured by the Avidya of the man of realisation. The Avidya (i.e cognizing the world) of the man of realisation is the means for the world to cross over Samsara and enjoy bliss.

6. ÌuÉ±É means knowledge and realisation and AÌuÉ±É means everything else such as pÉÌ£ü, MüqÉï, etc. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ = xÉqÉÉÍkÉ and renunciation of sense objects. Both Vidya and Avidya lead to renunciation of sense pleasure and Samadhi but these are of a higher variety or mÉUÉ in ÌuÉ±É and lower in AÌuɱÉ. The former results in mÉUuÉæUÉarÉÇ and ÌlÉÌuÉïMüsmÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉ while the latter only to AmÉUuÉæUÉarÉ & xÉÌuÉMüsmÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉ. But if both these are practised together one reaches freedom from bondage or Samsara and attains immortal bliss at the same time is equal to Jivanmukti.

7. qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï crosses beyond the danger of attachment to body and other mortal things by means of these spiritual practices, which remain even after Vidya or realisation is attained and he attains immortality even while in the body subject to death. So the combination may be only of realisation of Atman and active life of service and love. qÉ×irÉÑÇ may be only AWûƒ¡ûÉU or MüÉqÉ, the mortal enemy of man as per Gita. No egoism or selfish desire bind him when he is doing sÉÉåMüxÉXçaÉëWû. He is all the while in the full consciousness of every object including his own body as only Atman and is enjoying only Atman. irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ.

189

8. cf. AzÉlÉÉrÉ ÌWû qÉ×irÉÑÇ of Br. Up. VII.2.1. mÉÉmqÉÉlÉÇ qÉ×irÉÑqÉmÉWûirÉ VII.3.10 qÉ×irÉÑuÉÉïÅxÉiÉç qÉ×irÉÑuÉæï iÉqÉÈ VII.3.28, AÎalÉuÉæï qÉ×irÉÑÈ III.2.10.

9. The two triads may be taken only as eulogizing AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ. One who has attained the latter is not affected by Maya which has ÌuÉ±É & AÌuÉ±É as her two aspects. Though above Maya, it is not opposed to Maya, which is only a power of God or is one with God. Since Maya is also realised as the highest Truth, an AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÏ may be always active in the loving service of the whole world as a manifestation of God. Only in the stage before attainment of AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ there is difference and opposition between Vidya and Avidya. But as agents of Maya they are equally defective in that stage though Avidya can be swallowed through Vidya. The ordinary Vidya as opposed to Avidya is only an act of the mind as much as any other physical or vital act. But Atmavidya which cognizes both Vidya and Avidya is not an act but an experience. It is this that is denoted by Veda with both Vidya and Avidya as the object as it were. Both Vidya and Avidya require mental effort or physical exersion. But Atmavidya is present always as a fact cognizing itself as a shining of the Sun is a fact and not an act for attaining anything else. That knowledge by means of which both Vidya and Avidya, both of which involve subject and object are transcended, is itself beyond both subject and object relation and is only a permanent experience of both subject and object as the Atman itself. Both subject and object may remain as form of Atman itself and recognised as only Atman. Hence AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ can exist along with Vidya and Avidya which involve subject and object. The man of realisation, may, therefore, see the world and do the loving service of the world, but he sees only Atman in the world, himself as well as the service itself and therefore, serves without being affected and entangled by Maya. Unlike ordinary men, who are affected by the ignorance of either the world or the Atman. It is on this possibility of the Vidwan being able to cognize the world as Atman that the whole conception of Jivanmukti becomes possible. It is only on this basis that we can understand how the Rishis have taught others of their realisation of the fundamental identity of eÉÏuÉ, eÉaÉiÉç, and God. Advaita becomes impossible of being taught if the character of highest realisation is not accepted as possible. There can be no teaching of Advaita if the man of realisation cannot be cognizant of the Shisya and if he has not realised Advaita he cannot be a teacher of it. If one may attain Samadhi and does not see the world, he is not yet an Atmajnani but only a Yogi. He has to come back to Vyavahara which is only a lower stage. But to the Atmajnani, there is no coming back or coming down. It is an eternal cognizant which does not change. If we don’t accept this as the highest stage, Sankara himself will not be an Atmajnani. If one has come down to the lower stage of knowledge he cannot have experience of Advaita which is possible only in Samadhi, which is a higher stage, where there is no mind to record the experience and consequenctly there is no Sankara, who may make meaning of it possible in the Vyavaharika stage. So Jivanmukti is possible only if Advaitajnanam is possible along with knowledge of the world in the Vyavaharika stage; only urÉuÉWûÉU is not capable of entangling the knower in further Samsara. That is all the difference. The second triad will be only an explanation of the different aspects of Vidya mentioned in the first triad, viz. the negative and positive aspect. Both these aspects of Vidya can co-exist with Jnanam. Therefore, uÉæUÉarÉÇ and pÉÌ£ü are possible for a real Jnani even after identity of subject and object is realised. Thus a real synthesis of MüqÉï, ¥ÉÉlÉ, pÉÌ£ü & uÉæUÉarÉÇ is possible in the higher stage as in the lower stage.

190

10. AÌuÉ±É - State when there is no knowledge of the objects of the senses. ÌuÉ±É - when there is such knowledge. The former means xÉÌuÉMüsmÉxÉqÉÉÍkÉ, the latter intellectual understanding of Truth. The former is affected by ignorance, the latter by greater ignorance, for, in the former only external world is not known but in the latter the Atman or Truth itself is not known. Therefore, the latter is affected by greater ignorance. But Vijnanam is different from both as explained by these who have experienced it. In it xÉqÉÉÍkÉ & cognition of external objects through the senses can coexist. Cf. rÉ§É rÉ§É qÉlÉÉå rÉÉÌiÉ iÉ§É iÉ§É xÉqÉÉkÉrÉÈ. This is the state of Atmajnanam reached by the ÍkÉU by the realisation of the spirit who can beard the lion in its own den. They can be in the world but not of it. Though they are in contact with sense objects they know them only as Atman. Because they are aware of the external objects they can explain things to Sishyas and thus serve them. ÌuÉcÉcɤÉUå. They are able to explain to us the Truth of Jivanmukti only because they have reached a state where they can cognize Vidya & Avidya at the same time EpÉrÉÇ xÉWû. By the continuance of xÉqÉÉÍkÉ in the waking state they are not only not affected by ego and attachment to sense objects or desire for them but they help others also to escape from Samsara. AÌuɱrÉÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï (cf. AWæûiÉÑlÉÉlrÉÉlÉÌmÉ iÉÉUrÉÎliÉÈ) Even when they are in contact with sense objects they enjoy only the Bliss of Immortal Brahman.

11. Or AÌuÉ±É may refer to xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ when nothing is known or cognized and ÌuÉ±É to eÉÉaÉëiÉç & xuÉmlÉ where objects are cognized. iÉÑUÏrÉ is above all these – xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ as well as eÉÉaÉëiÉç & xuÉmlÉ. One who has realised the iÉÑUÏrÉ which never loses its conscious time, is one with iÉÑUÏrÉ & his knowledge coexists in all the three states. This knowledge covers both ignorance as well as knowledge of the world. This experience is different from that of xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ or eÉÉaÉëiÉç & xuÉmlÉ, AÌuɱrÉÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï - from a consideration of the xÉÑwÉÑÎmiÉ state a man may have glimpse of a blissful state which is beyond death and misery and suffering but that state can be attained by putting forth the necessary effort in the and only in the Jagrit state (ÌuɱrÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå)

12. AÌuÉ±É = worldly knowledge. ÌuÉ±É - knowledge of God or Atman and means of realisation. The first clouds the Atman if not supported by the latter and the latter clouds the world if not supported by the former. The former will enable the man of realisation to live and enjoy life even when he enjoys God because the world and God are not different and worldly enjoyments are seen by him only as enjoyment of God. He can therefore, enjoy God through senses and mind as well. The combination of both is higher than both. Unless a man is able to enjoy God in the presence of sense objects i.e unless he is always in the presence of God either in the presence or absence of sense objects he has not achieved the highest state. There is still likelihood of fall.

13. One who knows only a little and is devoted only to what little he knows is AÌuɱÉåmÉÉxÉMü but who knows the nature of the world as a scientist knows it is devoted to the world as he knows it. The knowledge of the former is limited, therefore, his ignorance also is limited. But when the extent of worldly knowledge is increased as he finds his ignorance extending beyond the extended knowledge. Therefore the ignorance of a scientist is greater than that of the ordinary man.

14. It is because knowledge of God is like darkness that God is Kali & Kala. That is why Vishnu, Krishna and Avatars are described as of black complexion. But it is a darkness which

191

lights the lotus of the heart. Cf. also rÉÉ ÌlÉzÉÉ xÉuÉïpÉÔiÉÉlÉÉÇ etc. Reference is to Sushupti. Turiya is beyond this which enables the man of realisation to know both Vidya & Avidya at the same time.

Ramanuja in Sri Bhasya - T.1.1 – AÌuÉ±É - works enjoined or different. Castes and Ashramas. Having discarded by such works death, i.e the previous works antagonistic to the origination of knowledge, a man reaches the Immortal Bliss through knowledge.

12,13,14. AlkÉÇ iÉqÉÈ mÉëÌuÉzÉÎliÉ rÉåÅxÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå | iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉ CuÉ iÉå iÉqÉÉå rÉ E xÉqpÉÔirÉÉÇ UiÉÉÈ ||

AlrÉSåuÉÉWÒûÈ xÉqpÉuÉÉSlrÉSÉWÒûUxÉqpÉuÉÉiÉç | CÌiÉ zÉÑ´ÉÑqÉ kÉÏUÉhÉÉÇ rÉå lÉxiÉ̲cÉcÉͤÉUå || xÉqpÉÔÌiÉÇ cÉ ÌuÉlÉÉzÉÇ cÉ rÉxiÉå²åSÉåpÉrÉÇ xÉWû | ÌuÉlÉÉzÉålÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï xÉqpÉÔirÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå ||

1. AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ according to Uvvata refers to the Lokayatikas who say that there is no birth after death. xqpÉÔÌiÉ refers to those who hold that MüqÉï is of no use as only Atman is real. AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉqÉɧÉUiÉÉÈ. A combination of the two refers to those who believe in Para Brahman who is the creator of the universe and who knows that the body is impermanent. Such persons do Sadhana and by means of the body cross over death and obtain immortality through ¥ÉÉlÉqÉç because their Sadhana consists of activity for the purpose of achieving Jnanam. Karma results in Jnanam which leads to immortatily.

2. AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ and xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ may be taken as meaning Being and Becoming. Being is always present in becoming and the latter is present in the being in its potential state. He who knows this Truth will always be conscious of all beings as really one with Being and therefore escapes from the effects of Becoming and enjoys the whole universe as nothing but Brahman Bliss. xÉiMüÉrÉïuÉÉS.

3. xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ and AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ may be taken as meaning AzsÉåwÉ and ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ of Brahma Sutra IV.1.13. E¨ÉUmÉÔuÉÉïkÉrÉÉåUzsÉåwÉÌuÉlÉÉzÉÉæ. This is suggested by the use of the word ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ as a synonym of AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ. Both must go together and this happens only if the Atman which is above all activity is realized. The Atmajnani is not affected by his subsequent activity. The MüqÉïTüsÉ that is already earned will lead to Samsara involving death a number of times over and again. Therefore, it is said by ÌuÉlÉÉzÉqÉ×irÉÔ is transcended. Similarly, by xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ i.e., great production of MüqÉïTüsÉ would lead to the same Samsara. But the act of the Atmajnani leads only to AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉ and freedom from birth and nothing else. So xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ helps only enjoyment of bliss of the Atman. If each is not accomplished by the other xÉÇxÉÉU is inevitable. pÉÔrÉ in 12 need not be understood as "greater" but only as "again". Again he will enter Samsara even if all the results of previous actions are wiped out once for all, for every moment past Karma is being done which lead to bondage. This meaning of pÉÔrÉÈ is intended in pÉÔrÉ LuÉ qÉWûÉoÉÉWÒû, mÉUÇpÉÔrÉÈ mÉëuɤrÉÉÍqÉ etc. of Gita. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ may be common for both mÉÉmÉ & mÉÑhrÉMüqÉï. Vide Br.Su IV.1.14. CiÉUxrÉÉmrÉåuÉqÉxÉÇzsÉåwÉÈ mÉÉiÉå iÉÑ AÎalÉWûÉå§ÉÉÌS iÉÑ iÉiMüÉrÉÉïrÉæuÉ, iɬzÉïlÉÉiÉç IV.1.16 etc. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉålÉ qÉ×irÉÑÇ iÉÏiuÉÉï may mean by mÉëÉUokÉMüqÉï living the allotted period of life. cf. pÉÉåaÉålÉ ÎiuÉiÉUå ¤ÉmÉÌrÉiuÉÉ xÉqmɱiÉå | AlÉÉUokÉMüÉrÉåï LuÉ iÉÑ mÉÔuÉåï etc. xÉqpÉÔirÉÉqÉ×iÉqÉzlÉÑiÉå all fresh Karma done in a ÌlÉwMüÉqÉ spirit one attains

192

bliss xÉqmɱiÉå | iÉiÉÉå pÉÔrÉÈ in Sl.12 means that even after wiping out previous MüqÉïTüsÉ fresh MüqÉïTüsÉ will assail him.

4. Atmajnanam which is the same as the highest goal of life is not merely negative in the sense of destroying xÉÇxÉÉU as the Buddhists conceive of their final goal ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉ or extinction of egoism, selfish desires, etc. But it is also the attainment of Divine Bliss which is beyond death. Extinction of life as it is viz. Samsara and life as it should be. It is not only qÉÑÌ£ü but oÉë¼ÉlÉlSqÉç. So, it is called oÉë¼ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉqÉç in the Gita. There is a positive entity realized without which such negative is impossible. So AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ or ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ alone is sought as goal only by those who are possessed of the idea of the whole life being ghost like appearance. Those on the other hand, who think that by rituals and Sadhana one can go to Vaikuntha or Svarga and have all the joys of life there and who therefore, run after these things in a future life here or hereafter are in still greater ignorance. There is infinte joy possible only in a state beyond relativity and so that bliss is entirely free from the pleasures of life and senses as ordinarily understood. Therefore, one should only aim at AÉiqÉ¥ÉÉlÉÇ & oÉë¼ÌlÉuÉÉïhÉqÉç. When both ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ & xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ occur simultaneously 'Vinasa' takes the form of mÉUuÉæUÉarÉÇ & xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ takes the form of mÉë½pÉÉuÉ which is beyond all Vimrityu or ephemerality and attachment to sense pleasures. Such being the aim, the Sadhaka also must practise both positive and negative practices together. Both necessary for Atmajnanam. In fact either one is not possible without the other. One is helpful in removing the imputirities of the mind - the so called sins and the other in enjoyment of oÉë¼ÉlÉlSqÉç. This is possible only by DzÉÉuÉÉxrÉÍqÉSÇ xÉuÉïÇ etc. The ÌuÉ±É - AÌuÉ±É triad spoken of the theoritical cognitive aspect or xÉÉÇZrÉ of Gita and this new triad speaks of Yoga of Gita or practice or life. The 'Sambhuti' or better life aimed at by a worldly man is still within Samsara and it is a fond hope that one can be free from trouble so long as one is in Samsara. The xuÉaÉï or uÉæMÑühPû is as much imagination because of ignorance and desires as the next life here itself. Cf. AxɨÉÇ ´ÉuÉhÉÌmÉërÉÇ etc. of Bhag. AÎalÉqÉÑakÉÉ zÉÔqÉiÉÉliÉÉÈ. Also Rv. X.82.7, S.Y. 17.31 lÉ iÉÇ ÌuÉSÉjÉ rÉ CqÉÉ eÉeÉÉlÉÉlrɱÑwqÉÉMüqÉliÉUÇ oÉpÉÔuÉ | lÉÏWûÉUåhÉ mÉëÉuÉ×iÉÉ eÉsmrÉÉ cÉÉxÉÑiÉ×mÉ EYjÉzÉÉxɶÉUÎliÉ | Cf. also lÉÉMüÉqÉlrÉÌ¢ürÉÉÈ MüÉÍcÉiÉç SØzrÉiÉå qÉå lÉ MüÌWïûÍcÉiÉç rɱή MÑüÂiÉå eÉliÉÑ iɨÉiÉç MüÉqÉxrÉ cÉå̹iÉqÉç || Also Mundaka, Katha, Gita verses condemning ritualism. Also Sruti passage quoted by Sridhara under Bhag. XI.21.27. MüͶɮmÉÉ AxqÉÉssÉÉåMüÉiÉç mÉëåirÉ AÉiqÉÉlÉÇ uÉåS ArÉqÉWûqÉxqÉÏÌiÉ MüͶÉiÉç xuÉÇ sÉÉåMÇü lÉ mÉëÌiÉeÉÉlÉÉÌiÉ AÎalÉqÉÑakÉÉ WæûuÉ kÉÔqÉiÉÉliÉÈ CÌiÉ |

5. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ leading to qÉ×irÉÑiÉUhÉ shows that ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ & qÉ×irÉÑ are two different things. ÌuÉlÉÉzÉ may mean elimination or destruction of the lower ego and individuality based upon it and xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ meaning expansion of the individuality into Atman so as to cover the whole universe. It is only the ego that is subject to death and not Atman. Therefore, by eliminating the ego and identifying with the Atman one frees oneself from death and attains Immortal Bliss.

6. Both the Buddhistic Nihilists and the worshippers of Saguna Brahman like the Saivas and Vaishnavas who aspire to retain their individuality even in qÉÉå¤É are condemned as ignorant. The highest state conceived by the Upanishad is beyond both. It is a positive state of blissful consciousness of the identity of the whole world as only names and forms of Atman,

193

in which the defects of both the schools are absent and the virtues of both are present. The ritualistic idea of eternal enjoyment in heaven is also condemned as well as the views of sÉÉåMüÉrÉÌiÉMü that death is the end of all. So also the views of reincarnationists like Dayananda Sarasvati who hold that even Moksha is not eternal and that all souls will have to be born again at the end of MüsmÉ |AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå may mean the ritualists as well as sÉÉåMüÉrÉÌiÉMü & xÉqpÉÔÌiÉqÉÑmÉÉxÉiÉå may refer to Sagunopasakas as well as reincarnationists and ritualists. Or the two may mean only negative Sadhana of renunciation and positive Sadhana of devotion and service.

xÉqpÉÔÌiÉ –- AaÉÉqÉÏ MüqÉï AxÉqpÉÔÌiÉ - mÉÔuÉïMüqÉï that which is to be destroyed to which one should be unattached. If this is not done, by the effort of the mÉÔuÉïMüqÉï one enters the darkness of Samsara, enjoying the miseries and sufferings inevitable in it. By being non attached to future MüqÉï some more links of bondage are added to the already existing chain of Samsara and this leads to more and more darkness.

Sl. 15 ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ mÉɧÉåhÉ xÉirÉxrÉÉÌmÉÌWûiÉÇ qÉÑZÉqÉç | iɨuÉÇ mÉÔwɳÉmÉÉuÉ×hÉÑ xÉirÉkÉqÉÉïrÉ SعrÉå || 1. ÌWûUhqÉrÉålÉ mÉÉ§É refers to krÉÉlÉ of Sl. 1. It is the love of worldly wealth represented by gold that hides the Atman. Therefore it is that the 1st verse says that nobody should covet wealth. It is those who covet this wordly wealth and prosperity that go to the Asuric Lokas of binding darkness according to Sl. 3. But even to get rid of it, it is necessary that we should get the Grace of God. Hence the prayer for redemption from this desire so that the devotee who desires only Truth or Atman may have his desire fulfilled. One who is practicing spiritual Sadhanas for realising Truth is xÉirÉkÉqÉï and it is such a man who is referred to in Sl.2. Such a desire as for qÉÑqÉѤÉÑiuÉÇ or pÉÌ£ü is not inconsistent with ÌlÉwMüÉqÉMüqÉï and Sadhana meant for controlling desires. Such desire is a thorn to remove the other thorn of selfish desire and the Up. here exorts everybody not to give up such MüqÉï till death in Sl. 2. AÉiqÉWûlÉÈ & ÌWûUhqÉrÉmÉÉ§É suggest the same thing. While the first suggest killing the Atman, the latter says that the killing is only hiding the Atman and not actual destruction as Atman cannot be killed but is immortal as mentioned in other verses like 11, 14, 17.

2. Vide Gospel Pg.98. The police sergant goes with a lantern in hand. No one sees his face but the sergeant sees everybody's face and others can see each other. If you want to see the sergeant, you must pray to him, "Sir, please turn the light on your own face. Let me see you". In the same way one must pray to God, "Oh Lord, be gracious and turn the light of knowledge on Thyself so that I might see Thy face."

3. mÉÔwÉlÉç may be only an address to one's own self or the Rishis address to man who is none other than his own protector, except Pushan there is no external protector. The Atman is the only refuge. "O Immortal Self, you are hidden behind your own Avidya or Maya. Shake yourself free from it. You are the xÉirÉ and none else. Protect yourself by removing the mask put on by yourself. xÉirÉxrÉ iÉå qÉÑZÉÇ AÌmÉÌWûiÉqÉç | This can be removed only by your own self effort. Not even God can help you for God is no other than your own real higher self. It is an injunction to Sadhana for realisation in terms of the 1 st mantra. The Tyaga of the 1st mantra is here referred to as removing the covering. iuÉÇ here refers to the iuÉÌrÉ & lÉUå of sl. 2.

194

4. Or the prayer may be made by the Rishi on behalf of those who are still in ingnorance. "O God, deign to remove the ignorance of others as you have removed mine, and enable them to identify their own self with the self of the universe as you have enabled me to do."

5. This covering of God with Maya is the state of the ordinary man this must be reversed as per sl. 1 which wants the Maya and its creation to be covered by God so that man does not see anything else but God when Maya vanishes and everything has become God.

6. mÉÉ§É or AÉuÉUhÉ may here refer to the 3 Sariras or mÉgcÉMüÉåzÉs'. But the primary MüÉåzÉ or AÉlÉlSqÉrÉMüÉåzÉ or MüÉUhÉzÉUÏU is to be removed before the identity mentioned in the next mantra is realised i.e xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ.

Sl.16 mÉÔwɳÉåMüwÉåï rÉqÉ xÉÔrÉï mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ urÉÔWû UzqÉÏlxÉqÉÔWû iÉåeÉÉå rɨÉå ÃmÉÇ MüsrÉÉhÉiÉqÉÇ iɨÉå mÉzrÉÉÍqÉ rÉÉåÅxÉÉuÉxÉÉæ mÉÑÂwÉÈ xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ || 1. urÉÔWû UzqÉÏlÉç xÉqÉÔWû iÉåeÉÉå - "Withdraw Thy Light which by Its glare prevents me from seeing Thy face & concentrate all your light on your own face so that I may see Thee and not the world of senses. i.e By Thy Grace enable me to withdraw my eyes from the attractions of the world of senses and enable me to direct my mind to the Atman". Thus these words describe the negative and positive aspects of Sadhana with the help of God's Grace.

2. UzÍqÉ may also mean individual souls which are said to be like the rays of the Sun or it may mean all sense objects. It is through the iÉåeÉxÉç of the Lord that the senses and mind are working. That iÉåeÉxÉç is scattered because of these. So they are to be concentrated. Cf. Gospel. Sun's rays and lens. "Withdraw all of them" means "Let me not know any of them as they appear distinct from each other to the senses. Or it may mean the thoughts or vritis of mind which have to be withdrawn so that the concentrated mind can be directed towards the Atman. Vide on UzqÉÏlÉç iuÉÇ mÉrÉÉïuÉiÉïrÉÉiÉç of Ch. 7.5.2 & AÉÌSirÉxrÉ UzqÉrÉÈ ApÉÉæ sÉÉåMüÉæ aÉcNûliÉÏqÉÇ cÉ AqÉÑÇ cÉ of VIII.6.2. There may be a subtle reference to the rays of the Sun by which the Yogi goes to the Brahmaloka. In this sense UzqÉÏlÉç urÉÔWû would mean "Withdraw your Rashmis so that I may not be put to the necessity of travelling of ¢üqÉqÉÑÌ£ü i.e may I have eÉÏuÉlqÉÑÌ£ü here and now alone as mentioned in xÉÉåÅWûqÉÎxqÉ of the same passage cf. UÎzqÉÍpÉÃkuÉïqÉ AÉ¢üqÉiÉå of VIII.6.5.6. iɳÉrÉlirÉåiÉÉÈ xÉÔrÉïxrÉ UzqÉrÉÈ xÉÔrÉïxrÉ UÎzqÉÍpÉrÉïeÉqÉÉlÉÇ uÉWûÎliÉ UÎzqÉwÉÑ xÉͳÉkɨÉå of Prasna 7.6 cf. also the other Ei¢üÉÎliÉ ´ÉÑiÉrÉÈ such as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.4.2 and Brahmasutra IV.2.18,19 cf. commentaries there on. Also that on Brahmasutra IV.3.1 which deals with AÍcÉïqÉÉaÉï.

3. UÎzqÉ may mean only the beacons of light or consciousness that are strewn out throught the Vritis or the senses the grasp the objects of senses or ideas from the Sun or Atman in the heart - the sum of all consciousness cf. mÉUÉÎgcÉ ZÉÉÌlÉ urÉiÉ×hÉiÉç etc. urÉÔWû UzqÉÏlÉç may mean only AÉuÉרÉcɤÉÑUqÉ×iÉiuÉÍqÉcNûlÉç of Katha mantra which refers to the kÉÏU, which is meant for realising mÉëirÉaÉÉiqÉlÉç. The word UzqÉÏlÉç is explained by Nirukta II.15.2 UÎzqÉÈ rÉqÉlÉÉiÉç ESMüzrÉ AµÉxrÉ cÉ explains SÒaÉÉïcÉÉrÉï. Therefore the prayer is consistent with Atman addressed here as rÉqÉ as symbolised by the Sun in the external Astronomical world and by Á in the Vedas and refer to in the next verse. The prayer may thus be only for self control and

195

mÉëirÉÉWûÉU in terms of Katha as qÉlÉÈ mÉëaÉëWûqÉåuÉ cÉ | The various methods of self control may be what is designated by the plural UzqÉÏlÉç or the various rituals in the previous chapter which are all meant for self-control. Hence the prayer would come to this in essence, "Oh Inner controller, please control my outgoing tendencies of the senses through the mind and redirect all mental energies to the concentration and meditation on the Atman so that I may always see your beautiful form of Light iÉåeÉxÉç which is one with my Atman". From the stand point of Á also, the UÎzqÉ may mean the three states of consciousness represented by the three letters A U M all of which are forms of the iÉÑUÏrÉ ||

4. UÎzqÉ is also derived as AzlÉÑiÉå urÉÉmlÉÉåÌiÉ CÌiÉ according to EhÉÉÌSxÉ賈 AzlÉÉåiÉå UzÉqÉ. In this sense UÎzqÉ may only mean desires of the heart which are directed to enjoyment of worldly pleasures and sense objects. UzqÉÏlÉç urÉÔWû would then mean, "May you be pleased to enable me to control my desires so that I may enjoy you alone according to irÉ£åülÉ pÉÑgeÉÏjÉÉÈ qÉÉ aÉ×kÉÈ of sl. 1

5. The UÎzqÉ of the Sun is described as His horses in the Vedas. Therefore from the poetical standpoint also withdrawal of UÎzqÉ means the withdrawal of the senses from the sense objects.

6. UzqÉÏlÉç urÉÔWû iÉåeÉÈ xÉqÉÔWû may only refer to urÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑÎ®È and AurÉuÉxÉÉrÉÉÎiqÉMüÉ oÉÑÎ®È of Gita.

7. UÎzqÉ and iÉåeÉÈ may refer to heat rays and light rays. Heat represents life and therefore, UzqÉÏlÉç may refer to all vital activities i.e activities which are part of life such as eating etc. Let all these be controverted or attenuated. Light represents oÉÑή "let all activities of the Buddhi be controlled and concentrated and turned on the Atman itself. i.e enable me to practise irÉÉaÉ and rÉÉåaÉ by your grace. The former is to be done as rÉqÉ or AliÉrÉÉïÍqÉlÉç and the latter as xÉÔrÉï or xÉÌuÉiÉ× or xÉÑmÉëåUMü in persuance of your character.mÉÔwÉlÉç & mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ - nourisher and protector of all.

8. The whole Mantra may be taken as one word. Then it would mean concentration of mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ or qualities of protector or protectorship crystalised or personified. In this case iÉåeÉÈ & ÃmÉqÉç must be taken together to mean your form which is of the nature of intelligence - pure and simple meaning mass of sentiency ÌuÉ¥ÉÉlÉbÉlÉ.

9. The whole mantra may be addressed to oneself who is addressed as mÉÔwÉlÉç etc. One who is interested in self protection etc. and engaged in Sadhana, concentrate your energies on irÉÉaÉ & rÉÉåaÉ.

10. UÎzqÉ & iÉåeÉxÉç may be taken to represent qÉlÉxÉç & oÉÑή or cognitive and conative faculties of intellect and will. Both these should be controlled and redirected to realise the auspicious form of God or Atman. This has to be done with the help of God himself who is the inner witness, controller as suggested by mÉÔzÉlÉç, rÉqÉ, xÉÔrÉï, LMüÌwÉï, etc. Such help is always forthcoming; this is suggested by mÉëÉeÉÉmÉirÉ for he is the gracious Father of all creation. So the prayer to Him to help the devotee to do Sadhana for realising his true nature. This involves and suggests that giving the power of attorney to God by self surrender as per cÉUqÉzsÉÉåMü of Gita.

196

Sl. 17. uÉÉrÉÑUÌlÉsÉqÉqÉ×iÉqÉjÉåSÇ pÉxqÉÉliÉÇ zÉUÏUqÉç | Á ¢üiÉÉå xqÉU M×üiÉÇ xqÉU ¢üiÉÉå xqÉU M×üiÉÇ xqÉU ||

1. It treats according to Uvatta, of what happens after death to one who has done EmÉÉxÉlÉÉ on Brahman. uÉÉrÉÑ means the ÍsÉ…¡ûzÉUÏU consisting of 11 senses, 5 Bhutas and eÉÏuÉÉiqÉ. This transmigrating eÉÏuÉ realises the AqÉ×iÉ AÌlÉsÉ i.e pure Brahman and the body becomes ashes. The second line refers to the AliÉMüÉsÉxqÉUhÉ of the Sadhaka with the help of Á and is addressed to the AÎalÉ which has been worshipped from the time of EmÉlÉrÉlÉqÉç and which exists as mind and breath. It means "O Kratu, time has come now for you to show your face in return of all the service done to you. Remember how I have served you all these years". Or ¢üiÉÑ may mean rÉ¥É itself. ¢üiÉÉå xqÉU M×üiÉÇ xqÉU = MÝümiÉÉrÉ sÉÉåMüxrÉ xqÉU qÉrÉÉ rÉiÉç M×üiÉÇ iÉiÉç xqÉU

2. ¢üiÉÑ may here mean one who does EmÉÉxÉlÉÉ on God through the rituals prescribed by the previous MüqÉïMüÉhQû of the Sukla Yajurveda. The Rishi may be exhorting a ritualist to remember that the rituals are laid down only to facilitate worship of God and meditate on God and to perform these rituals only for that purpose and not for attaining heaven or worldly prosperity or satisfaction of worldly desires as both life and body of ephemeral by nature and that once they are done, they vanish and only purity of heart and love of God and realisation remain permanantly. Therefore, only remember Á as explained in EªÏjÉÌuÉ±É of Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka. This will be quite consistent with previous Mantras if they also are taken as similar exhortation.

iuÉÇ in 15&17 meaning the ordinary man or ritualist who performs the rituals of the previous MüqÉïMüÉhQû. The Á in 17 represents the soul in the Sun as well as the soul in the worshiper are the same as the soul or mÉÑÂwÉ realised by the Rishi. The Rishi explains that the same Paramatman appears as the worshipper, the worshipped gods as well as the worship and the fruit of worship in terms of oÉë¼ÉmÉïhÉÇ oÉë¼WûÌuÉoÉëï¼ÉalÉÉæ oÉë¼hÉÉWÒûiÉqÉç | etc. Therefore he exhaults the ritualist to realise the Real Purusha as he himself has realised as identical with the Purusha in the Sun. The object of worship in the rituals is none other than the Paramatman in one's own self and is meant to realise Him. Let the ritualist, therefore, remember the true nature of all ritual as well as their purpose. uÉÉrÉÑUÌlÉsÉÇ = after all what we call breath is only mere air and has no spiritual value nor the body which we prize so much which is only dead matter. At the time of death the former merges in the universal air, and the latter in universal matter. If rituals are meant only to produce effects in these, these effects will end with death. AqÉ×iÉ in this sense means only that which exist even after the death of a man i.e the external air is not affected by the life or death of a man but continues eternally as it were, comparatively speaking. Even if uÉÉrÉÑ is taken in the sense of the reincarnating soul this also is ephemeral. M×üiÉ may also mean artificial or created by one's own ignorance and liable to come to an end and kept up only by one 's own acts and fruits of actions. Cf. the creamation hymn Rv X.16.3 which speaks of the breath or mÉëÉhÉ going to the wind or uÉÉrÉÑ & Sat. Br. mÉëÉhÉ to mÉÉlÉ. Br. Ar. III.2.13. Ait.Br. II.6 which speaks of the sacrificial animals breath or mÉëÉhÉ going to mÉÉlÉ.

3. M×üiÉÇ = service, aim, prize or body gained in battle. M×üiÉÇ xqÉU therefore, may mean remember that the ritual that you are doing is a service or worship of God. Or

197

remember that the real prize for all your struggles of life is God himself. Or remember the goal of life. cf. ¢üiÉÑqÉrÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÈ || Therefore you will be what you intend to be, and the results of your rituals will depend upon your proper mentality and aim.

4. ¢üiÉÉå cf. ArÉÇ ZÉsÉÑ ¢üiÉÑqÉrÉÈ mÉÑÂwÉÈ of Ch. & xÉ rÉjÉÉMüÉqÉÉå pÉuÉÌiÉ iÉiÉç ¢üiÉÑpÉïuÉÌiÉ etc. of Br. Ar. ¢üiÉÑ according to Sankara on these passages means urÉuÉxÉÉrÉ or determination or resolution. Man is what he desires and resolves himself to be. This is the force of aÉÏiÉÉ ´É®ÉqÉrÉÉåÅrÉÇ mÉÑÂwÉÈ rÉÉå rÉcNíû®È xÉÈ | Á ¢üiÉÉå therefore would mean, "O man who has once for all resolved to attain Brahman only as symbolised by Á (cf. LiÉSèkrÉåuÉɤÉUÇ oÉë¼ etc.). xqÉU means meditate on the Brahman as symbolised by Á. M×üiÉÇ xqÉU means meditate not only on Brahman which is beyond time and eternal but let this positive practice be accompanied by the thought of the futility and ephemerolity of all that is the effect or product of MüqÉï or ritual including Heaven as suggested by pÉxqÉÉliÉÇ zÉUÏUÇ as opposed to uÉÉrÉÑUÌlÉsÉqÉqÉ×iÉÇ which speaks of the positive aspect of Brahman which is not M×üiÉMÇü and therefore AqÉ×iÉÇ. Pitch your waggon to the stars says the Sruti and be not satisfied with anything less.

5. ¢üiÉÑ also means "intelligence". In this sense it is ÍcÉSÉiqÉMü ¥ÉÉlÉxuÉÃmÉ. ¢üiÉÑ means also "sacrifice". Then the address would mean "O you, the personification of sacrifice". Remember how you have escaped from the temptations of desire so that you may never fall into temptation again. It is a warning against desire which you have conquered through practice of self sacrifice for a long time or by your ¢üiÉÑ which means also resolution and determination, by an effort of the will.

18. AalÉå lÉrÉ xÉÑmÉjÉÉ UÉrÉå AxqÉÉÎluɵÉÉÌlÉ SåuÉ uÉrÉÑlÉÉÌlÉ ÌuɲÉlÉç | rÉÑrÉÉåkrÉxqÉ‹ÑeÉÑUÉhÉqÉålÉÉå pÉÔÌrɸÉÇ iÉå lÉqÉÈ EÌ£Çü ÌuÉkÉåqÉ || 1. This may be a prayer made by the Rishi on behalf of all his followers of Shukla Yajurveda. The prayer is for the guidance of all his followers rightly so that they may perform Sadhana in the proper spirit. This is the force of the plural which includes himself as well as his disciples as distinct from the followers of Krishna Yajurveda. After exhorting his disciples to remember the true spirit of his teachings, he prays for their success.

198