The words of today’s quote are are spoken by the character Vidura, who is one of the most wise & knowledgeable characters in the Mahābhārata {the son of Veda Vyāsa & a Shūdra servant-woman of Ambikā} – Vidura, the “akilbiṣi” – the “perfectly stainless” or “sinless” (1.63.97).
We are told, at the very beginning of
the epic (1.1.99), that, in it:
“Vyāsa hath fully represented
- the
greatness of the house of Kuru,
- the
virtuous principles {dharma-śīlatā – the virtuous
conduct, or simply virtuousness} of Gāndhārī,
- the wisdom {prajñā} of Vidura, and
- the
constancy {dhṛti} of Kuntī.”
Vidura – who is infact an incarnation
of Dharma {the father
of Yudhiṣṭhira} – is one of the most sagacious & noble characters,
not only of the Mahābhārata, but of
the whole of world literature.
The quote proper is from the Udyoga Parva, 5.33.47-52 and, I repeat, the words are
spoken by Vidura himself, whom Dhṛtarāṣṭra, in the same chapter, calls a man “of great wisdom {mahāprājña} and foresight {“dīrghadarśin}” {5.33.5}:
“There is one only defect in forgiving persons, and not another;
that defect is that people take a forgiving person to be weak {aśakta}.
That defect, however, should not be taken
into consideration, for forgiveness is a great power {paraṁ balam – supreme strength}.
{The Hindi translation words it
differently; it says: “But one shouldn’t consider it (i.e.
forgiveness) to be a fault in a merciful person”.
Also, the first sentence is understood a little differently in the Hindi rendition: it’s not as if there is a defect in the merciful, but there is only one defect attributed to the merciful (i.e. lack of strength/power) – i.e. the world considers them to be ineffectual or weak (asamartha).}
Forgiveness is a virtue (guṇa) of the weak, and an ornament (bhūṣaṇa) of
the strong.
Forgiveness subdueth
(all) in this world;
what is there that
forgiveness cannot achieve?
What can a wicked person
do unto him who carrieth the sabre of forgiveness in his hand?
{Not accurate: the original says “the
sabre {khaḍga} of śānti” – i.e. peace, i.e. peacefulness,
or serenity.
Though the concept of peacefulness or serenity
has an innate, intricate connection with the concept of forgiveness, I doubt if
śānti should be translated as
forgiveness.
The idea is that a man endued with forgiveness
always wields the sword of peace. His commitment to peacefulness (& his inner
serenity, incapable of being ruffled) is his weapon & his strength, & the
wicked cannot harm him.}
Fire falling on
a grassless ground is extinguished of itself.
An
unforgiving individual defileth himself with many enormities.
{Again, the Hindi translation
differs: “The unforgiving man makes himself as
well as others partake of sin/error” – not sure what
does it mean; the context of fire extinguishing itself on grassless ground
isn’t very clear in either translation.
The basic idea seems to mean that the forgiving
man is like grassless ground – the wrath or hatred or disquiet of a wicked man falls
on it & gets extinguished.
The man who forgives gives no cause, no further motivation, no further scope or opportunity. to anyone who is angry or hateful, to continue being angry & hateful.
Being unforgiving, retaliatory or vindictive means that the fire of the wicked man’s wrath finds fuel to increase even more.
By not being forgiving, you simply fan the flames of irritation, hatred, or rage to grow more & more.}
...
Further:
eko
dharmaḥ paraṃ śreyaḥ kṣamaikā śāntir uttamā
vidyaikā paramā tṛptir
ahiṃsaikā sukhāvahā
“
Righteousness (dharma) is the one highest good (śreyas); &
Forgiveness (kṣama) is the one supreme (uttama) peace (śānti);
Knowledge (vidya) is one supreme (param) contentment (tṛpti); and
Benevolence (ahiṃsa), one sole happiness (sukha).”
As you will see in the future, a considerable part of
my efforts will be directed at pointing out the inaccuracy of the translations,
in this case, the one made by Kisari Mohan
Ganguli.
Not that I have anything specifically against him.
He has performed a truly stupendous & impressive task in translating this immense, complex,
magisterial text – which necessitates an extensive knowledge of the whole gamut
of Indian literature & philosophy.
Ganguli is superbly erudite.
But I do have issues with several translated passages,
comments, & interpretations of his.
I have as many – or more – issues with translations,
comments & interpretations by other authors, such as H.H. Wilson, Max
Muller, Ralph T.H. Griffith, S. Radhakrishnan, & even the Hindi translators.
I’m not particularly targeting Ganguli.
That said, I’m not sure why he translates “dharma” as Righteousness in some places, as Truth, in others, and Religion, in yet others.
Is he basing his translation on the opinions of some
Commentators?
In the Pre-20th century India, and
Pre-19th century knowable universe, there was nothing called
“Religion” apart from “human existence” – everything was “Religion” {at least in theory}, i.e. determined &
defined by the fundamental tenets of a society’s idea of, faith in, &
relationship with, a Supreme Being.
“Dharma” can never be translated “religion”, without becoming half-baked, limited,
unconvincing – it seems to convey only the ideas of a bunch of rituals, rites & ceremonies,
functions & festivals, fasting (upavāsa) & worship (pūja) – but this is far from the meaning of dharma, even when taken as one of the 4 principal aims
of life {the puruṣārthas}.
In other words, in a modern English translation,
translating the word “dharma” as “religion” conveys the wrong meaning.
Or an extremely vague, imprecise & confusing one.
“Righteousness” is a typical Biblical word, & concept, and Ganguli seems eager to impress (or at any
rate, reach out to) his European audience – for which the translation seems to
have been made.
Though “Righteousness (dharma) is the one
highest good (śreyas)” may sound very good, it is doubtful if the quintessentially-Biblical-concept,
Righteousness, is meant here.
Dharma has very little to do with the Biblical Righteousness {does anybody know how to define “Righteousness”? }, though it may convey the same emotional overtones.
I will write about the meaning of dharma sometime else – as of now, I think it’s better
if we leave the translation at dharma itself,
i.e. simply say that dharma is the one highest good.
śreyas is that which is excellent – or the best – or simply that
which is good – for man, but specially
for his spiritual development.
It has been distinguished from preyas – that which is pleasurable – in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad {1.2.1-2}.
The Hindi translation, renders the last passage as follows, giving its sense rather than a literal transcription:
“... only dharma is the supreme cause of the
good/welfare
(Hindi: “param kalyāṇa-kāraka”)
only kṣama (mercy, forgiveness) is
the foremost means to
peace/serenity (śānti)
only vidya is the supreme giver of
contentment (tṛpti)
only ahiṃsa is
the cause of happiness (sukha) ...”
This is important: do note that the word ahiṃsa, literally “non-violence”, is translated by Ganguli as “benevolence”.
He is correct, here: the word has more than one
meaning – as does every word, in Sanskrit – and except the traditional,
indigenous authors, nobody has any legitimate authority to question,
reinterpret, or limit, the meaning of any term or concept.
I can only wonder which Commentator he has followed
(probably Nīlakaṇṭha), and what was the original
Sanskrit (explanatory) term for “benevolence”.
We are being told {either} that Benevolence {ahiṃsa} is the
one sole bliss – {or that} ahiṃsa is the
one cause of joy.
The statements are not identical, and have different connotations
entirely, but they can be seen as integrated too.
Hinduism has been accused of NOT giving sufficient emphasis
on Compassion, Forgiveness, and Charity.
That it is all about renunciation, dispassion, “disinterestedness”, and rejection of the world & society.
Hence, rejection of doing good to others.
I shall take up these points in good time.
This quote is simply
one out of hundreds of examples {I’ve already quoted
some on this blog} to show that all these values are very important in Hinduism.
They are emphasized over & over & over again, if
one actually takes out the time to read our texts, and read them carefully.
Yes, from the viewpoint of the actual attainment of Mokṣa, we do hear that even Compassion {dayā, anukampa, karuṇā, etc.} has to be abandoned.
But not ahimsā, i.e. absolute & total non-violence & non-injury towards all living beings – in word, thought, & deed.
This may also be called adroha.
These are two facets of the same process, and I shall come to these finer points later.