“vātsalyātsarvabhūtebhyo vācyāḥ śrotrasukhā giraḥ
paritāpopaghātaśca pāruṣyaṃ cātra garhitam”
“One in the observance of this mode of life should speak upon all
creatures words breathing affection & agreeable to the ears.
·
To give pain {paritāpa},
·
to inflict mortifications
{upaghāta},
and
·
harsh words {pāruṣya},
are all censurable.”
This
is said specifically in reference to the second mode of life – that of a Householder
{Gṛhastha}.
This
is how a Householder should behave.
I
wonder if Kisari Mohan Ganguli has
added a few frills to the original sentences.
The
word “breathing” doesn’t
occur at all, and though “affection” is a correct translation for vatsala, I don’t think it conveys the deeper sentiment of the
original term.
vatsala should be better translated as tenderness, the unique connotation being that of the fond love which a parent or elder feels for a child (vatsa), or for one’s son.
vatsa generally means a calf, the young of any animal, as also one’s
child.
Thus,
if one has to grasp what the author is trying to say in full measure, the
meaning is: one’s words or speech – towards all beings (“sarvabhūtebhyo”) –
should be infused with the love or tenderness which one feels for one’s child.
I
would also prefer “delightful” or “delighting” i.e. giving or causing delight (to
the ears), to a rather prosaic, formal word
as “agreeable”,
since the original is specifically the term sukha, happiness, joy.
Two
distinct words are used to denote speech/words: vāc & gira.
vatsala is used with respect to vāc, and sukha,
with respect to gira.
The reference to “sarva-bhūta” – i.e. all praṇīs
– i.e. all living beings –
is very important, because it is the one all-pervading theme within the Mahābhārata, and I shall be returning
to this repeatedly.
What
exactly is wrong, with this injunction?
I do
not see how can anyone anywhere in the world find a problem with such
injunctions, with such sound moral values.
I can say though, that Indians have summarily forgotten these lofty ideals pervading their own literature, and have got stuck only to the fanaticism of ritual & ceremonial {indeed, in recent years, even the diligence & sense of duty with which those used to be performed, and had some inner value, are quickly disappearing}.
The ritual &
ceremonial is not independent of
these.
In the
minds of the ancients, these were one indivisible whole.
You
can find many Indians who are very fanatical about not eating meat, or not
eating garlic on some auspicious day – but they don’t remember they have also
been told, simultaneously, that their speech should be suffused with vatsala, and their words should cause sukha – delight – to the ears.
That has
become irrelevant.
And, O
the vehemence & the condemnation, if you have garlic or onion on a holy
day!
All
hell breaks loose!
This is
where the problem lies, in contemporary India.
Merely
worshipping the cow, or the Tulasī, doesn’t make you a Sanātana Dharmī – you need to follow the moral code of the Ancient Indians too,
to be a complete & proper Hindu or Sanātanī.
And that includes the idea that inflicting pain upon others {“paritāpa”} or doing any injury or wrong or offence to others {“upaghāta”} – is condemned {“garhita”} – and that, as Ganguli says, one should “breathe affection” upon all the living beings.
