“Some praise Peacefulness {śama}, some praise Exertion {vyāyām};
some there are that praise Contemplation;
& some praise both Peacefulness & Exertion.
Some praise Sacrifice {yajña}; others, Renunciation {saṃnyāsa}.
Some praise Charity {dāna}; others, acceptance {pratigraha}.
Some, abandoning everything, live in
silent meditation.
Some praise Sovereignty {rājya} and the cherishing {paripālana}, of subjects, after slaving, cutting
and piercing {“hatvā bhittvā ca chittvā”} (foes).
Some are for passing their days in
retirement {ekāntaśīla}.
Observing
all this, the conclusion {niścaya} of the learned {budha} is that that
religion {dharma}
which consists in not injuring any creature {adroha – “adroheṇaiva bhūtānāṃ”} is worthy of the approbation of
the righteous.”
I have substituted “Charity” for “Gifts”.
I’m not sure why Kisari Mohan Ganguli,
keeps using the word “gifts” for dāna.
Giving a gift to someone is not a donation, or an act of charity.
dāna clearly means Charity.
It may also be translated Liberality.
I must also add the normal meaning of ekāntaśīla is not “passing their days in retirement” – that is
unconvincing.
Anyone may “retire” anywhere, at any time, at any stage of life {take Buddha for instance} – & retirement doesn’t imply
seclusion or abstention, or contemplation.
The dictionary meaning of ekāntaśīla is “fond of loneliness”.
Monier-Williams’s dictionary,
however, doesn’t cover half the complexities of Indian thought.
Thinking back from Hindi – since all these words have come down into
modern Indian languages – the basic meaning seems to be – living in
solitude.
It is possible that Ganguli incorporated
views of some Scholiasts, but there’s no telling when & where he tweaks the
words & sentences.
“passing their days in retirement” makes you think of retirement plans, pension, & all.
The Hindi translator interprets the passage as: “Other
people stay alone, and consider ātma-cintana – contemplation about the Self – to be good”.
That is more convincing.
In the Hindi translation, there is a difference in the original Sanskrit
text.
The Sanskrit verse has sāma {understood as loving behavior} instead of śama {translated “Peacefulness”}.
The second line is given thus: “Out of these
two, some do not praise one {sāma}, some do not praise the other {vyāyāma}, and then there are those who praise both”.
Ganguli seems to understand śama both as Peacefulness, and Contemplation.
I’m not so sure what is pratigraha.
It is supposed to refer to the acceptance of charity, by Brāhmaṇas, which is considered to be one of their duties (I wonder why it has to be cajoled as a duty?).
Since the speaker – the ascetic Devasthāna – is addressing a King – i.e. Yudhiṣṭhira – and speaking in general terms, I’m not sure
if he’s using the word specifically in reference to priests.
Kings, for instance, are strictly prohibited, to accept anything from anyone as a donation
or gift or charity.
So why refer to it?
Probably Ganguli is correct, & it means Acceptance, i.e.
a gracious acceptance of whatever comes your way.
paripālana: “the
act of guarding, nourishing, fostering”.
Devasthāna means that
protecting & nourishing one’s subjects always involves violence &
cruelty {against enemies, criminals, miscreants, law-breakers etc.} – hence, it cannot be the supreme dharma (here, I reckon, means: course of action, or possibly, way of life).
adroha essentially
means Non-Hatred.
droha means “injury, mischief, harm, perfidy, treachery, wrong, offence”.
One of the related root-words is druh, to hurt, to seek to harm, to be hostile
to, to bear malice & hatred, to be a foe or rival.
Essentially, adroha may well be interpreted as “not injuring” – but it carries a broader,
deeper, more significant meaning, i.e. bearing no malice, no ill-will, no
enmity, no hostility, no hatred towards – & no desire to hurt – {here} “any living-being”.
As I intend to show later, all such terms are
always understood in the three-fold context of actions, words, and thoughts.
In other words, “not harming
any living being” – in actions, words,
and thoughts – is intended.
This specific word crops up more than once, in
the Mahābhārata, and is one of the keys to the deepest, most
crucial values of Hinduism.
This is very important.
We are being
told that the most important ethic – or value – of life, is NOT Tranquility {śama} – NOT sacrificial
rites {yajña} – NOT Charity {dāna} – not even contemplation
about the Spirit in ascetic seclusion – and NOT even renunciation {sannyāsa} – but bearing no ill-will or hatred or malice
towards any living being.
What could be more spiritual, and
more psychological?
This demands a complete re-orientation of our thought-process, our behavior, and our choices, towards a very specific ethical-psychological goal.
This injunction changes one’s perspective towards the essential evaluation of any & every value-system, every system of ethics, every code of conduct, completely, from its very roots.
What is the final aim that we are to move towards?
What is that one idea which we hold constantly within our minds?
How do we state it? How do we understand it?
Undoubtedly, this is a very difficult ethic, and not possible for everyone: but then, when has the loftiest, most exalted, been possible to the Many?
It is meant for the Fewest.
Though one can find all sorts of eulogistic statements – often using hyperbole as literary license – I can assure you that THIS is the fundamental sentiment of Indian ethics as defined in the Mahābhārata.
{And all the statements, though they may, at first glance, seem somewhat inconsistent, are all related, all integrated, all coalesce into a seamless unity, and are perfectly harmonious.}
In the Bühler translation of the Manusmṛti we read {2.87}:
“(whether) he perform other (rites) or neglect them, he
who befriends (all creatures) is declared (to be) a (true) Brāhmaṇa”.
Here too, the word used – maitra – is understood as “friend
of all creatures”, and this injunction also, quite fascinatingly, holds the
ideal of benevolence towards all living beings above sacrificial rites &
ceremonies – though it should be understood that sacrificial ceremonies, and the
Vedic yajña, are neither denounced nor rescinded
by such statements – they have their own place & position, their own role
& importance, in the overall scheme of things.
And yet, there is no contradiction.
What I meant to point out is that such statements as the one in Manu 2.87, are merely a re-affirmation, a restatement, & a repetition {in a slightly different language}, of the precept of Devasthāna.
We have come across the statement that a householder {one in the Gṛhasta mode of life}, “should speak with all living beings words with the tenderness or love one feels for one’s own offspring {vātsalyātsarvabhūtebhyo vācyāḥ} – and words which delight the ears {śrotrasukhā giraḥ}” {Verse 14, Chapter 191, Shānti Parva} – this is in perfect consonance with the dharma truly admired by the righteous {sat} – “adroheṇaiva bhūtānāṃ”, as enunciated by Devasthāna.
