“They,
O Devala,
« who behave uniformly towards those
that praise them and those that blame them,
« they who conceal their own vows
& good acts,
« they who never indulge in
recriminations,
« they who never say even what is
good when it is calculated to injure (instead of producing any benefit),
« they who do not desire to return injury for
injury received,
are said
to be men possessed of wisdom.
« They never grieve for what is yet
to come.
« They are concerned with only what
is before them & acts as they should.
« They never indulge in sorrow for
what is past or even call it to their minds.
{ 8 nindatsu
ca samā
nityaṃ praśaṃsatsu
ca devala
nihnuvanti ca ye teṣāṃ samayaṃ sukṛtaṃ
ca yat
9 uktāś ca na vidiṣyanti vaktāram ahite hitam
pratihantuṃ na cecchanti hantāraṃ
vai manīṣiṇaḥ
10 nāprāptam
anuśocanti prāptakālāni
kurvate
na cātītāni
śocanti na caiva pratijānata}
...
Possessed
of power and regulated minds, they do at their pleasure, according to the way
in which it should be done, what waits for them to do in respect of all
objects, O Devala, if solicited regardfully thereto.
{11 saṃprāptānāṃ
ca pūjyānāṃ kāmād artheṣu devala
yathopapattiṃ kurvanti śaktimantaḥ kṛtavratāḥ
}
...
« Of mature knowledge (“pakva-vidyā”),
« of great wisdom (“mahā-prājñā”),
« with wrath under complete control (“jitakrodhā” – having vanquished
anger),
and
« with their passions kept under sway (“jitendriyāḥ” – having mastered all
their senses),
they
never do an injury to any one in thought, word, or deed.”
These passages are
from the Chapter 229 of the Shānti Parva of the Mahābhārata.
This is the
12th Parva of the epic, which is purely philosophical, with more than
300 chapters dealing with ethics, politics, spirituality, metaphysics,
philosophy, and also illustrating its ideas with parables.
A few comments on the statements as translated by Ganguli above, before I move on to my own
thoughts:
“...who
behave uniformly towards those that praise them and those that blame
them, they who conceal their own vows & good acts...”
The Hindi translator, Pandit Ramanarayanadatta Shastri Pandey “Rama” understands the verses slightly differently.
Essentially,
he says:
“whether
someone continually praises them, or censures them, or hides their {i.e.
the mahāpuruṣas’ – great
men’} good actions & acts of virtue, they are
equable towards everybody, i.e. keep the same mind towards everybody”.
They are impartial,
unbiased, unprejudiced, endowed with perfect equanimity.
To put it more
shrewdly: they cannot be manipulated.
They cannot be
fooled, or swayed into partisanship or bias.
They are not with
politicians or parties, with sects or cults – they are with the Truth.
According to Ganguli, it seems, concealment
of their own vows & good acts would mean that they do not boast or
puff themselves up before others, do not make an exhibition of their virtue, or
advertise good actions for publicity.
In other words, they
do not seek recognition, or prestige, or power, in doing good.
They do the right
thing without seeking to impress, or to dominate, or to be praised, or to get
any worldly benefit.
“...they
who never indulge in recriminations...”
The Hindi translator articulates more or less the same idea, but worded differently:
“if anyone
addresses those men of intelligence with harsh words, they never say anything
to such a harshly-speaking person”.
That is, they do not
retaliate.
They never speak callously,
using cruel speech.
They do not add fuel to fire.
They do not add insult to injury, and make things worse by retaliating.
Retaliation almost always backfires, in some form or the other, some time or the other.
“...they
who never say even what is good when it is calculated to injure (instead of
producing any benefit)...”
The Hindi translator differs considerably:
They seek the good {or welfare}, of even those who wish them ill.
They do not wish to injure {lit. kill or hurt} those who injure them.
The second statement
definitely coheres with Ganguli’s: “they who do not desire to
return injury for injury received”.
The
translation “Possessed of power & regulated
minds, they do at their pleasure, according to the way in which it should be
done, what waits for them to do in respect of all objects, O Devala, if solicited regardfully
thereto” is also slightly problematic.
I don’t think there’s
any reference to “they do at their pleasure”, which
clashes oddly with the spirit of the whole.
The word in question,
I think, is “kāmādartheṣu”, which
has probably been inaccurately understood by Ganguli.
The Hindi translator
is right in saying that “if someone, who has some
desire in mind {i.e. has formed some purpose in mind}, approaches them...”
I also don’t
understand how has kṛtavrata been translated
as “Possessed
of ... regulated minds”.
The Hindi translator
understands it as “those who
undertake excellent vows”.
Now can anybody please tell me where can one find a better ideal of
moral values, in any system?
The list is not
complete, btw.
It is considerably
longer: I have chosen less than half of the whole.
Hinduism is not all about yoga {as in, the yoga practised today
for a good figure & flexibility}, “mysticism”, “magic”, occult
secrets, initiatic mysteries, hidden history, tantric sex, and supernatural
powers acquired by sorcerers.
It is every bit
as much about good living, everyday living, and being good.
This idea: “never do an injury to any one in thought, word, or deed” is repeated again & again, in the Mahābhārata.
People today don’t take it seriously
enough, but this idea seems to be the
inner crux of Hindu ethics.
It may be said that
this is the ideal, the highest possible to man,
the highest state to be achieved
– & that everyday life, everyday law & order makes such a code of
conduct impossible – which the Indians of old wouldn’t deny.
There is no hypocrisy
in Hinduism: it does what it says, and says what it does.
It openly says that
the King {and to an extent, the Kṣatriya} has a different
moral code {rāja-nīti; daṇḍa-nīti}, because he cannot apply universal forgiveness & perfect openness
& candor in dealing with the most heinous criminal gangs, and spies who
poison wells & ponds to kill off people.
But there are fundamental
principles & values which all must keep in mind, which all must revere,
which all must hold as the ideal & optimum.
{And, I
must add, if one studies our cardinal texts more carefully, one can find that
even the Kṣatriya, even the King, is enjoined to follow a very high ethical
code.
Thus, we are told, in extolling the virtues of Yudhiṣṭhira in his rule of Indraprastha {2.13.7-8}:
“...Yudhiṣṭhira,
that foremost of all virtuous men (“sarva-dharma-bhṛtāṃ varaḥ” – the supreme amongst those who bear/support dharma),
always
kind unto his subjects (“anugṛhṇan prajāḥ sarvāḥ”),
worked for the good (hita)
of all without making any distinctions (aviśeṣeṇa).
Indeed,
shaking off both anger (kopa) and arrogance (mada),
Yudhiṣṭhira
always said,--Give unto each what is due to
each,--and the only sounds that he
could hear were,--Blessed be Dharma!
Blessed be Dharma!”
...
Chāṇakya himself says, in the Arthaśāstra:
“The king
shall always protect the afflicted among his people as a father his sons”
{“sarvatra
ca upahatān pitā iva anugṛhṇīyāt” – 4.3.43}.}
...
However,
a better example would be from the
Strī Parva of the epic, in
which Veda Vyāsa himself tells an afflicted Dhṛtarāṣṭra, agonized after the death of
all his sons (11.8.45-46):
tvāṃ
tu śokena
saṃtaptaṃ
muhyamānaṃ
muhur muhuḥ
jñātvā
yudhiṣṭhiro
rājā
prāṇān
api parityajet
kṛpālur
nityaśo
vīras
tiryagyonigateṣv api
sa katha tvayi rājendra
kṛpāṃ
vai na kariṣyati
That
is,
“If king Yudhiṣṭhira learns that thou art
burning with grief & losing thy senses frequently, he will cast off his
very life-breath.
He is always compassionate {nitya kṛpālu} and possessed of wisdom.
His kindness extends even to all the
inferior creatures {tiryagyoni}.
How is it possible, O king, that he will not show
compassion to thee, O monarch?”
tiryagyoni – i.e., all animals; the Sanskrit text followed by the
Hindi translator says vīra – i.e. Yudhiṣṭhira is a vīra – is a hero, is heroic; probably Ganguli is following
another text when he says “possessed of wisdom”?
But
it’s interesting that a hero – generally understood to be a warrior associated
with acts of violence & cruelty – shows compassion even to paśu-pakṣī,
i.e. birds & animals, as Pandit Shastri understands tiryagyoni.
Yudhiṣṭhira is a warrior, a Kṣatriya, after all.
That he is endowed with compassion for animals & birds is thus, very revealing.}
To continue, the
meditative-contemplative man, the man of transcendence & renunciation, the tapasvī & the yogī, the Ṛṣi-Muni, is held to be the greatest, and the King bows down before him,
because he represents the higher life –
the highest life.
The Kṣatriya, despite
his pre-eminence, bows down to the Brāhmaṇa {at least he was supposed to, not that he always did},
who represents intelligence, knowledge, contemplation, & the higher world –
who is meant
to
represent the Sattva-guṇa, the sāttvika qualities
of tranquility, equanimity, inner cheerfulness, self-control, & dispassion –
the inherent attributes of the Buddhi-tattva.
So great was the reverence for the contemplative, meditative & transcendental life, that Kings themselves famously abandoned all their wealth & dominion, and went away to the
forests to lead the life of renunciation.
It was not possible
to be consistently sāttvika, let alone surpass the sāttvika
guṇa, while being
a King.
I wonder if there has ever been such a philosophy of
life anywhere else in the world.
Please never lose sight of the fact that there is a high moral code
applicable to all the four orders, which our most important texts emphasize,
and which undoubtedly were meant for everyday living.
Compassion to one
& all – compassion for all creatures – is repeatedly emphasized for all four
orders of society – and especially for Brāhmaṇas.
It’s not as if only Ṛṣi-Munis are to practise it.
These are 2 distinct
points, and should be understood & appreciated properly.
Compassion
& Forgiveness, Non-retaliation & Non-violence, is enjoined
for all, but it is well-understood & well-recognized, that it
is not always possible, or even always good – in many
instances, it will positively backfire, and wreck a person, or a family, or a
community’s existence.
Nobody anywhere in the world
has ever found it rational, or even sensible, let alone helpful & fruitful,
to practise compassion & mercy blindly – promiscuously – unthinkingly – mindlessly – without paying heed to
consequences, long-term or short-term.
We are all
nevertheless enjoined – by all religions – all the time – to be kind, helpful,
& merciful.
Different men & women, engaged in myriad pursuits & activities, in every sphere of life, cannot possibly behave like monks or saints, or live their lives, or do exactly as ascetics are supposed to do.
Hinduism recognizes this fundamental truth, and codifies it accordingly.
Ahiṃsā doesn’t mean that adultery is not to be punished, or a soldier should refuse to kill in a battle, or that nobody is allowed to touch meat.
But all are nevertheless emphatically enjoined to be truthful, honest, forgiving, kind, and sweet-speeched,
This has practical as
well as spiritual value.
“For
if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you.
But if
you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses”.
So says Jesus in Matthew
6.14-15.
This is practical.
This is a trade
–
a fair deal – it’s common sense.
It is very solid, good advice.
If you don’t help
anybody in the time of their need, nobody is going to help you in yours.
If you don’t forgive
people some of their small faults & errors – then why should anybody, or
God, forgive you yours?
This is the practical
value.
If people help each
other, it makes for strength & unity amongst them.
If people in your environment are friendly & helpful, it encourages you, & makes you more friendly & helpful too.
The spiritual value
is that of inner purification & enlightenment, in which a person
consciously cleanses his own soul of greed, clinginess {to
objects of the senses}, resentment, and vindictiveness – and cultivates
compassion
& forgiveness.
This is a gradual
process, and cannot be done, or become successful, overnight.
Such conduct is
expected to
lead to
a
better life on the whole – from the practical as well as psychological point of
view.
You expect to see
less harassment, and more tranquility within your own soul.
{A
quarrelsome person, for instance, not only keeps getting into unnecessary
fights which perennially create problems for him, but is always agitated &
restless, always discontented & harsh – & will invariably be uncouth
& cruel.}
And this needs you to
re-orient & re-organize your thinking & your life on very different
lines than the usual one taken by the world.
The 2nd
point is that of the highest ideals – from the viewpoint of Mokṣa or Nirvāṇa – of
“God-realization” – of what you consider to be the Supreme Goal of your
existence, the Supreme Life, the Supreme state of being – but which is
nevertheless upheld for society as a whole.
Nothing is without
its “practical” value, its conscious & subconscious influence on the consciousness of people, and implications for society & the individuals that
constitute it.
The higher you rise in the scale of inner psychological & spiritual
purification & development, the more these values become indispensable.
You can never attain Mokṣa without being merciful & kind.
Point is: is Mokṣa even important, or relevant, to your thinking?
Do people care about
it?
Does your society bow
down to Mata Hari, or to Mother Teresa?
Whom do you obey?
Whom do you follow?
Who commands your attention, your interest, & your respect?
Why?
Whose opinion, whose lifestyle, whose choices, matter/s
to you?
That makes ALL the
difference to the kind of society you live in.
Just before the above passage, the character enumerating these virtues
says {italics mine} {12.229.7}:
“O
foremost of Ṛṣis,
I shall tell thee of
« that
which is the highest end {para
gati},
« that
which is the supreme goal {kāṣṭhā},
« that
which is tranquillity {śānti},
in the
estimation of all persons of righteous acts {puṇya
karman}.”
This is the ideal – the highest end – the supreme goal – that which the whole community looks up to,
reveres, & bows down to with love – that which everything ought to tend to, to
move towards, to aim for – the highest purpose of life – the value & vision
which must be held sacrosanct in front of the mind & heart at all times,
throughout one’s life – and that is the only relevant point.
This ethic is
logically derived from the fundamental metaphysical premises of Hinduism, and
in no way to be explained away as an “influence” from outside.
Who is a Jesus, and who can call himself Gautama Buddha?
Who is as pure & lofty as a Mahāvīra, or for that matter a Confucius?
And yet, they are our
supreme objects of our reverence, our emulation & our striving, the crest of our
ideals, and the epitome of our values.
We respect them, revere them, worship them, and attempt to emulate them as well as we can.
And yet, it should be
noted that Jaigīṣavya speaks as if these
are realizable, and definitely realized, virtues.
These are the
characteristics – read “achievable characteristics” – of the men of wisdom.
In Pandit Shastri Pandey’s translation, these are mahātma-puruṣas {great-souled men}, these are manīṣins {men of intelligence}, and mahā-jñānīs {men endowed with immense knowledge}.
He’s not exactly talking about
sanyāsīs or yogīs.
This is not some distant wistful dream, full of wishful thinking.
Hence, these virtues are seen as those which are cultivable, implementable, achievable – but as a result of intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, and thoughtfulness.
As of now, instead of
focusing on the mystical, magical & occult aspects of Hinduism, people must
concentrate on the moral, ethical, intellectual {includes
the historical & comparative studies}, and {such
is my opinion} the aesthetic aspects.
These pertain to
everyday life, to the common man.
Though Christians,
for instance, do talk about miracles
& visions & their own brand of magic & mysticism, per se, the focus of
Christian thinking is morality.
Whether we agree or
not with those moral values – they can be debated incessantly – Christian
thinking focuses primarily on ethics.
All the excitement
over yoga & magic &
astrology & numerology – which dominates Hindu thinking – doesn’t make people better – doesn’t make them more
compunctious, scrupulous, helpful, or kind – doesn’t really solve the actual
problems of life {disease, development, hunger, hygiene,
crime, etc.} – doesn’t improve their standard of living – doesn’t even
establish more harmony, unity & sense of community, amongst them.
The moral-ethical
thinking is of utmost importance, because it brings a community together, turns an
aggregate of individuals compelled to live together, into a harmonious, integrated
community that seeks to live as a united society, & makes them tight-knit.
This moral-ethical
thinking has to drawn from our own heritage, rather than being imitative of
other creeds.
