Yogaḥ in the Purānas
Yogaḥ of Liberation from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa
Article No. 3
This Article covers Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/44] to Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/50] & Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/1] to Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/11]
- Ramesh Shama Alvar
- August 18th, 2021
Viṣṇu Purāṇa Amśa (Book) 6/Adhyāya (Chapter) 6
The second occasion was when Keśidhvajaḥ had come all alone to give Gurudakshina to Khāṇḍikyaḥ That had been another great moment of truth for Khāṇḍikyaḥ. On that occasion too, his Ministers, had, without exception, advised him to demand his whole Kingdom as the Gurudakshina [ Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6/6/43-44] relying, quite rightly too, on the well-established norm that for a Kśatriya King regaining a Kingdom easily without risking his armies was his Dharma. He had rejected that well intentioned advice on the grounds that material gains of any sort would be intrinsically minimal and transitory compared to spiritual gains that would vast and permanent. In this instance too, under normal circumstances, he would have followed the advice of his counsellors. But his growing enlightenment had once again saved him from succumbing to material temptations. He had told his advisors with a laugh that there was no valid reason that he should seek the Kingdom of the Earth, which was but temporary and minimal, adding that though they were competent counsellors in worldly affairs, they were ignorant of the higher concerns related to the spiritual after-life. [ Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6/6/45].
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/44]
श्रीपराशर उवाच
भूयस्स मंत्रिभिस्सार्द्धं मंत्रयामास पार्थिवः ।
गुरुनिष्क्रयकामोऽयं किं मया प्रार्थ्यतामिति ॥ ६/६/४४ ॥
śrīparāśara uvāca
bhūyasya mantribhiḥ sārdhaṃ mantrayāmāsa pārthivaḥ
guruniṣkrayakāmo ‘yaṃ kiṃ mayā prārthyatāmiti
“Sri Parāśara said:
Then the King once again conferred with his group of Ministers saying that Keśidhvajaḥ had come to give him the gift due to a Guru at the end of the teaching. He wanted to know what he should ask for?” ॥ 6/6/44 ॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/45 ]
तमूचुर्मंत्रिणो राज्यमशेषं प्रार्थ्यतामयम् ।
शत्रुभिः प्रार्थ्यते राज्यमनायासितसैनिकैः ॥ ६/६/४५॥
tamūcurmatriṇo rājyamaśaṃṣaṃ prārthyatāmayam ।
śatribhiḥ prārthyate rājyamanā yāsitasainikaiḥ ॥6/6/45॥
तम tam-to him उचु ūcur-spoke ; मन्त्रिणो mantriṇo-the Ministers; राज्यम rājyam-the Kingdom ; अशेषं aśeṣaṃ-entire/whole of; प्रार्थ्यताम prārthyatām-do ask for; अयम् ayam-this; शत्रुभिः shatṛbhiḥ-of the enemies; प्रार्थ्यते prārthyate- do seek to get; राज्यम rājyam-Kingdom; अनायासित anāyāsita-easily/without troubling; सैनिकैः sainikaiḥ-your army.
Sanskrit Words:
- अशेषं aśeṣaṃ [AK 1, 290/1] 1. Without remainder, whole, all, entire, complete, perfect. 2.wholly, entirely, completely.
- अनायासित anāyāsita/अनायास anaayaasa [AK 1, 98/2] 1.Not troublesome or difficulty, easy. 2. ease, absence of difficulty or exertion. 3.easily 4. Idleness, neglect.
“The Ministers told him that he should ask for the entire Kingdom. (As a King, you should) seek to acquire Kingdoms of your enemies without troubling your own army.” ॥ 6/6/45॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/46]
प्रहस्य तानाह नृपस्स खांडिक्यो महामतिः
स्वल्पकालं महीपाल्यं मादृशैः प्रार्थ्यते कथम् ॥ ६/६/४६॥
prahasya tān āha nṛpaḥ sa khāṇḍikyo mahāmatiḥ
svalpakālaṃ mahīpālyaṃ mādṛśaiḥ prārthyate katham ? ॥ 6/6/46॥
प्रहस्य prahasya-with a smile; तान tān-to them (to his own Ministers);आह āha-said; नृपः nṛpaḥ-the King; स sa-he; खांडिक्यो Khāṇḍikyaḥ; महामतिः mahāmatiḥ-high or noble minded; स्वल्पकालं svalpakālaṃ-of limited duration; महीपाल्यं mahīpālyaṃ-Rule over a Kingdom; मादृशैः mādṛśaiḥ-one like myself; प्रार्थ्यते prārthyate- ask/seek; कथम् katha-why/for what reason?
Sanskrit Words:
- प्रहस्य prahasya/प्रहस् [AGK 2, 494/2] 1. 1 To laugh, smile. 2. To deride, ridicule, mock. 3. To brighten up, look splendid, cheer up.
- आह [AKG 1, 390/1] 1.An interjection showing (a) reproof; (h) severity; (c) command; (d) casting, sending. 2. An irregular verbal form meaning ‘to say’ or ‘to speak’.
“With a smile, the high/noble minded King Khāṇḍikyaḥ asked his Ministers as to why someone like him should ask for or desire the sovereignty of a Kingdom which was of a limited duration?” ॥ 6/6/46॥
This is the second moment of truth for Khāṇḍikyaḥ. It is the second high-point of this narrative too. He was, by unexpected great fortune, presented with another golden opportunity to regain his lost Kingdom easily and without troubling his army or putting them in any danger. Additionally, he had the chance of a lifetime to get back not only his own lost Kingdom but that of his opponent. No Kśatriya would have been able to resist such an opportunity. Had Khāṇḍikyaḥ seized the opportunity and asked for both Kingdoms as ‘guru-dakshina’, Keśidhvajaḥ, bound by his words, would have readily complied without any hesitation or reservations.. Khāṇḍikyaḥ knew all about the Dharma of Kśatriyas to conquer new Kingdoms or regain lost ones. He was sure that by abiding by his Dharma, he would commit no sin. Khāṇḍikyaḥ would not have violated his own Dharma had he asked for both his own Kingdom to be restored and additionally that of Keśidhvajaḥ. But the former man of action, now turned into a man of knowledge, had a different perception in the matter.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/47]
एवमेतद्भवंतोऽत्र ह्यर्थसाधनमंत्रिणः ।
परमार्थः कथं कोऽत्र यूयं नात्र विचक्षणाः ॥६/६/४७॥
evametadbhavanto ‘tra hyarthasādhanamantriṇaḥ ।
paramārthaḥ kathaṃ ko ‘tra yūyaṃ nātra vicakṣaṇāḥ ॥6/6/47॥
एवम् evam-thus; एतद् etad-these (advisors); भवन्तो bhavanto-at the present moment; अत्र atra-here; अर्थसाधनमंत्रिणः arthasādhana mantriṇaḥ-are the kind of Ministers who know all about the acquisition of wealth/material things; paramārthaḥ-the highest good; kathaṃ-how; कोऽत्र ko atra-alas here; yūyaṃ-this group/flock; nātra are not; vicakṣaṇāḥ-clearsighted/learned.
Sanskrit Words:
- विचक्षणाः vicakṣaṇāḥ: [AK 3, 131/1] 1. Clear-sighted, far seeing, circumspect. 2. wise, clever, learned. 3. expert, skillful, able.
- भवन्त्/bhavant: [AK2, 560/2] 1. the time being, present.
- परमार्थः paramārthaḥ: the highest good.
- यूयं yūyaṃ: [AK3, 28/1]: 1. herd, flock, multitude. 2. group
“Thus, at the present moment, these are my Ministers who well know all about the acquisition of wealth/material things. How would this flock know about the highest good? In this matter, alas those here are not clear-sighted or learned.” ॥ 6/6/47॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/48]
श्रीपराशर उवाच
इत्युक्त्वा समुपेत्यैनं स तु केशिध्वजं नृपः
उवाच किमवश्यं त्वं ददासि गुरुदक्षिणाम् ॥६/६/४८॥
śrīparāśara uvāca
ityuktvā samupetyainaṃ sa tu keśidhvajaṃ nṛpaḥ ।
uvāca kimavaśyaṃ tvaṃ dadāsi gurudakṣiṇām ॥ 6/6/48॥
Sanskrit Words:
- अवश्यं [AKG 1, 270/2] 1. necessarily, inevitably. 2. certainly, surely
“Having spoken thus, he approached King Keśidhvajaḥ and said to him, “What! Will you surely give me the gurudakshinam ?” ॥ 6/6/48॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/49]
बाढमित्येव तेनोक्तः खांडिक्यस्तमथाब्रवीत् ।
भवानद्यात्मविज्ञानपरमार्थविचक्षणः ॥६/६/४९॥
bāḍhamityeva tenoktaḥ khāṇḍikyastamathābravīt ।
bhavānadyātma vijñānaparamārthavicakṣaṇaḥ ॥6/6/49॥
बाढं bāḍham-assuredly, certainly; इति ity-; एव eva- verily; तेनोक्तः tenoktaḥ-spoken by him; खांडिक्य khāṇḍikya-Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥ; तं tam-to him; अथ atha-now; अब्रवीत् abravīt-said; भवान bhavān-venerable person; (in matters concerning) अद्यात्म adhyātma-the Ātman; विज्ञान vijñāna-knowledge; परमार्थ paramārtha-highest good; (you are) विचक्षणः vicakṣaṇaḥ-wise, learned, and clear sighted. ॥६/६/४९॥
Sanskrit Words:
- बाढं bāḍ : [AKG 2, 533/2] 1. firm, strong. 2. much, excessive. 3. loud.
- बाढं bāḍham : [ibid.]- 1.assuredly, certainly, surely. 2. Very well, be it so, good. 3. exceedingly, very much.
- विचक्षणः vicakṣaṇaḥ- [AKG 3, 141/1] 1. Clear-sighted,
far seeing, circumspect. 2. wise, clever, learned. 4. expert, skilful, able.
“When Keśidhvajaḥ replied “assuredly, certainly”, then Khāṇḍikyaḥ spoke to him as follows, “Venerable Sir, in the Knowledge of the Ātman and the Highest Good, you are learned, wise and clear-sighted.” ॥ 6/6/49॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/50]
यदि चेद्दीयते मह्यं भवता गुरुनिष्क्रयः
तत्क्लेशप्रशमायालं यत्कर्म तदुदीरय ५०
yadi ced dīyate mahyaṃ bhavatā guruniṣkrayaḥ
tat kleśapraśamāyālaṃ yat Karman tad udīraya
यदि yadi-if it should be; ced-provided that ; dīyate-give; mahyaṃ-me; bhavatā-by your Self; गुरुनिष्क्रयः guruniṣkrayaḥ-the gift to be given traditionally to the Guru; तत् tat-that; क्लेशप्रशमायालं kleśapraśamāyālaṃ-pacifying/curing and removing all the pain/anguish/sorrows; यत् yat-which; Karman-actions; तद् tad-those; उदीरय udīraya-do elaborate.
Sanskrit Words:
- चेद ced-provided that.
- निष्क्रयः niṣkrayaḥ-the gift to be given traditionally to the Guru
- उदीरय [Monier 228/2] to be raised, uttered, elaborated.
- क्लेश्ः kleshah [AKG 1,631/2] 1. 1 Pain, anguish, suffering, distress, trouble. 2.wrath, anger. 3. cares, troubles
- प्रशमन् praśaman [AKG 2,486/1] 1.Calming, tranquillizing, pacifying, removing. 2. curing healing. 3. allaying, assuaging. 4. cessation, abatement.
“If it should be that your Self wishes to give me Gurudakshina, (I ask that) you elaborate to me about that Karman which will pacify and eradicate all the pain, anguish, sorrows, and other troubles (of life).” ॥ 6/6/50॥
One may conjecture that because he had been deprived of his Kingdom and consequently freed from the normal responsibilities and cares of a King, his Mind must have become free to contemplate on spiritual matters. One may also feel that the calm and silent ambience of the forest must have helped Khāṇḍikyaḥ to slowly change from a man of action long given to self-serving Karman into a man of spiritual thoughts and ideals. True no doubt. But it was equally possible that Khāṇḍikyaḥ could have spent his days in exile in the forest, constantly regretting the loss of his Kingdom, periodically venting feelings of rage and revenge, and generally in plotting how to recover his Kingdom. Many Kings in History have been known to have done just that over the ages. If one were to abandon one’s house; discard all responsibilities of the material world such as that of a householder; other business and profession and retire to the tranquillity of a forest for meditation and self-contemplation, the circumstances and the ambience by themselves cannot guarantee the rise of spiritual knowledge.
Recall that, Khāṇḍikyaḥ had been presented with two golden opportunities to get back his lost Kingdom. On the first occasion Keśidhvajaḥ had come all alone to consult Khāṇḍikyaḥ on the procedure for the expiation of the sin of the Vedic-cow being killed within his domains. On that occasion, Khāṇḍikyaḥ had first consulted his advisors before deciding anything. They had unanimously advised Khāṇḍikyaḥ to kill Keśidhvajaḥ as he was all alone and this was the best chance to thereby get his lost kingdom back. They had observed that it was the sanctioned duty of a Kśatriya to regain a lost Kingdom. That had been the first moment of truth. Khāṇḍikyaḥ had rejected their advice which would have got him sovereignty of the Material World while bestowing Lordship of the Spiritual World upon his adversary. He had opted for the spiritual reward that would accrue if he were to spare Keśidhvajaḥ’s life.
The second occasion was when Keśidhvajaḥ had come all alone to give Gurudakshina to Khāṇḍikyaḥ That had been another great moment of truth for Khāṇḍikyaḥ. On that occasion too, his Ministers, had, without exception, advised him to demand his whole Kingdom as the Gurudakshina [ Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6/6/43-44] relying, quite rightly too, on the well-established norm that for a Kśatriya King regaining a Kingdom easily without risking his armies was his Dharma. He had rejected that well intentioned advice on the grounds that material gains of any sort would be intrinsically minimal and transitory compared to spiritual gains that would vast and permanent. In this instance too, under normal circumstances, he would have followed the advice of his counsellors. But his growing enlightenment had once again saved him from succumbing to material temptations. He had told his advisors with a laugh that there was no valid reason that he should seek the Kingdom of the Earth, which was but temporary and minimal, adding that though they were competent counsellors in worldly affairs, they were ignorant of the higher concerns related to the spiritual after-life. [ Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6/6/45].
On the other hand, if a man were to fail or render imperfect results in the performance of his own duty, the adverse consequences would not involve shame in the moral and ethical sense provided there was no wilful negligence or other malafide intentions in performance. For failure in one’s own Dharma, one could be heavily criticised for shoddy work but there would be no sense of shame of the kind that would arise when one undertook the duty of another and failed in the process. No blame would be laid for undertaking one’s own duty in the first place. But the impropriety involved in the adoption of the duty of another would be censurable and considered dishonourable.. Failure in one’s own duty may invite criticism and punishment but there would be no shame and censure as would be the case of failure while performing some other person’s duty.
What Gurudakshina had Khāṇḍikyaḥ actually asked for? When Khāṇḍikyaḥ had approached Keśidhvajaḥ and asked him whether he had really intended to give whatever guru-dakshina would be asked for, Keśidhvajaḥ had affirmed that he would assuredly do so. Thereupon, Khāṇḍikyaḥ had observed that he Keśidhvajaḥ was extremely well-versed in the highest knowledge pertaining to spiritual matters. If he, Keśidhvajaḥ, really intended to give him a Gurudakśina, he should explain to him what Karman ought to be performed that would have the capacity to remove all afflictions and make placid all their effects [ Viṣṇu Purāṇa 46-49].
How come Khāṇḍikyaḥ developed spiritual wisdom during his stay in the Forest ? As I have mentioned earlier, I feel that mere forest ambience and a mind free of cares could not have been the chief causes. It is on record in history that many Kings and Emperors or Dictators deprived of their Kingdoms and exiled have spent years in remote and lonely places without any spiritual transformation. What could have been the real cause in the case of King Khāṇḍikyaḥ? We will take up the question in due course.
VIŚNU PURĀṆA AMŚHA (BOOK) 6/ ADHYAĀYA (CHAPTER) 7
Viśnu Purāṇa Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/1] to Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/11]
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/1]
केशिध्वज उवाच:
न प्रार्थितं त्वया कस्मान्मम राज्यमकण्टकम् ।
राज्यलाभाद् विना नान्यत् क्षत्रियाणामतिप्रियम् ।। ६-७-१ ।।
na prārthitaṃ tvayā kasmāt mama rājyam akaṇṭakam ।
rājyalābhād vinā nānyat kṣatriyāṇām atipriyam ।। 6/7/1।।
केशिध्वज Keśidhvajaḥ; उवाच: uvaaca-spoke:
न na-not; प्रार्थितं prārthitaṃ-asked for/sought; त्वया tvayā-by yourself; कस्मात् kasmāt-for what reason; मम mama-my; राज्यम rājyam-kingdom; अकण्टकम् akaṇṭakam-with no source of annoyance or vexation; राज्यलाभाद् rājyalābhād-the gain of a Kingdom; विना vinaa-other than; नान्यत् nānyat-there is none; क्षत्रियाणाम kṣatriyāṇām-for the Kśatriya Race; अतिप्रियम् atipriyam-more desirable.
Sanskrit Words:
- अकण्टकम् akaṇṭakam/कण्टकः kaṇṭakah [AKG 1, 535/1] 1. a thorn; 2. a prickle, sting. 3. source of vexation or annoyance, nuisance.
Keśidhvajaḥ said (addressing Khāṇḍikyaḥ), “For what reason did you not ask for my Kingdom, which was free of any annoyance or vexation? For the Kshatrya race, there is nothing so highly desirable as the gain of a Kingdom.” ।। 6/7/1।।
One would have thought that learned in the knowledge of spiritual matters, Keśidhvajaḥ would have instinctively guessed why Khāṇḍikyaḥ had not asked for the return of his own Kingdom snatched from him earlier or for both the Kingdoms then under Keśidhvajaḥ’s rule when he had had the opportunity to do so. But he could not readily guess, because he had shifted from the Path of Knowledge to the Path of Karman and had been vigorously pursuing the latter path for sometime now. Perhaps, because of that, it may have appeared inexplicable to Keśidhvajaḥ that any person, especially a Kśatriya King, should refuse to ask for any Kingdom at all when he could have easily got not one but two of them. He must have realised that there had to be profound reasons behind Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s refusal to seek a Kingdom as Gurudakshina. He could not figure it out himself at that moment. He was burning with great curiosity. So this was the first question he asked Khāṇḍikyaḥ after Khāṇḍikyaḥ had sought knowledge as the Gurudakshina instead of a Kingdom or two. Our spiritual instincts get dulled as we pursue the Path of Karman with fruits in mind.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/2]
खांडिक्य उवाच:
केशिध्वज! निबोध त्वं मया न प्रार्थितं यतः ।
राज्यमेतदशेषं ते यत्र गृध्यन्त्यपण्डिताः ॥ ६-७-२ ॥
khāṇḍikya uvāca:
keśidhvaja nibodha tvaṃ mayā na prārthitaṃ yataḥ ।
rājyam etad aśeṣaṃ te yatra gṛdhnanty apaṇḍitāḥ ॥ 6/7/2॥
खांडिक्य उवाच khāṇḍikya uvāca-Khāṇḍikyaḥ said:
केशिध्वज! keśidhvaja-O King Keśidhvajaḥ!; निबोध nibodha-explain clearly; त्वं tvaṃ-to you; मया mayā-by me; न na-did not; प्रार्थितं prārthitaṃ-ask for; यतः yataḥ-which; राज्यम् rājyam-the Kingdom; एतद् – this particular (Kingdom of yours);अशेषं aśeṣaṃ-in its entirety; ते te-of you; यत्र yatra-where; गृध्यन्ति gṛdhnanty-coveted; अपण्डिताः apaṇḍitāḥ-by those who are not learned.
“Khāṇḍikyaḥ said:
O Keśidhvajaḥ! I will explain to you clearly why this Kingdom of yours in its entirety was not asked for by me which is something which is coveted only by those who are not learned.” ॥ 6/7/2॥
Khāṇḍikyaḥ had learnt the great spiritual lesson that material wealth was transitory whereas spiritual wealth was permanent. In saying that kingdoms are coveted by those not learned, Khāṇḍikyaḥ does not imply that wealth, prosperity, and power as symbolised by the term Kingdom are to be shunned as unworthy goals of life. It is true no doubt that wealth and property come and go even as Kingdoms rise and fall. But material wealth cannot be deemed as unimportant for life or unworthy of acquisition by a human being. Material wealth and prosperity sustains the daily lives of the citizens, provides them with occupations and means of earning a livelihood. The State Exchequer needs money to finance administration, promote development, infrastructure, maintenance of law and order and the defence of the Land. Without material wealth and prosperity, the future security and well-being of every community would be uncertain. Artha or the acquisition of wealth through legitimate means is one of the four ends of human existence. What Khāṇḍikyaḥ implies is that those learned strive to acquire Artha such as Kingdoms and all its wealth, only if it is part of their Dharma. If not, they shun it.
Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥ was long given to performing Karman in conformity with with his Dharma as a Kśatriya. That included actions necessary for the acquisition and enjoyment of material possessions, wealth, exercising sovereign power, and bringing other Kingdoms under his own sway. His forced stay in the quiet of the Forest with plenty of time to meditate upon spiritual matters had transformed him into a man of Knowledge. His declaration that he did not ask Keśidhvajaḥ for the return of his lost Kingdom because only those who are not learned covet Kingdoms.
ca. 1820, Edward Binney 3rd Collection, The San Diego Museum of Art
The statement is true because Kingdoms come and go and nothing in the Material World is permanent. The doubt that may arise here is whether Raja Dharma as a Kśatriya and perhaps perhaps adopting the Dharma of a Learned Man such as a Scholar or a Sanyāsi? Was Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥ heedless of Sri Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna in the Gita [3/35] that it is far, far better to perform one’s sva-dharma than that of another? Even the likelihood of death during the performance of sva-dharma would be acceptable than the adoption of the Dharma of another which is fraught with dangers. We have discussed this Gita Ṣlokaḥ in our comments on the Viṣṇu Puraana Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/5] further down.
We would be doing injustice to Khāṇḍikyaḥ if we were to suspect him of entertaining any intentions of discarding his own Dharma and taking recourse to one that was not his, in principle. On the contrary, in four Ṣlokaḥ, of the Viṣṇu Puraana [6/7/3-6] which is full of deep insights, Khāṇḍikyaḥa demonstrates certain aspects of his enlightenment and thinking. The esteemed Reader, after reading these four Ṣlokaḥ containing Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s response to Keśidhvajaḥ query as to why he (Khāṇḍikyaḥ) did not ask for the return of his Kingdom, would be convinced of the following:-
- The rise of spiritual knowledge could occur in any person following any Sva-Dharma given conducive ambience and other circumstances. Spiritual awakening is not confined to any specific person or Dharma followed such as those following the Path of Knowledge, or an Ascetic, or a Sanyāsi or a Vaidik. Spiritual awakening can, however, be prevented or attenuated by adverse Vāsanā.
- Spiritual enlightenment enables a person to understand the intricacies of his own Dharma better. It helps a person avoid pitfalls hitherto hidden from the Mind but now revealed by the newly acquired spiritual insights. With the advent of spiritual knowledge, a person is far better placed to discharge his or her sva-dharma more efficiently and satisfactorily while avoiding the many possible drawbacks.
- Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥa had no intention of adopting the Dharma of another. He was merely revealing to Keśidhvajaḥ some profound aspects of the Dharma of a Kśatriya. Keśidhvajaḥ acknowledges the wisdom acquired by Khāṇḍikyaḥ. The Lesson here is that as an enlightened Kśatriya, Khāṇḍikyaḥ was ready to let go of many material things he had been attached to in the past. He was prepared to develop more detachment towards such material objects of life. Henceforth, he would strive as a Kśatriya to acquire wealth and kingdoms that were not transitory or impermanent. That was the key to Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s transformation as a Kśatriya. It is not a pointer to a possible change of sva-dharma.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/3]
क्षत्रियाणामयं धर्म्मो यत् प्रजापरिपालनम् ।
वधश्व धर्म्मयुद्धेन स्वराज्यपरिपन्थिनाम् ॥ ६-७-३॥
kṣatriyāṇām ayaṃ dharmo yat prajāparipālanam ।
vadhaś ca dharmayuddhena svarājyaparipanthinām ॥ 6/7/3॥
क्षत्रियाणा kṣatriyāṇām- ; अयं ayaṃ-this ; धर्म्मो dharmo-Dharma ; यत् yat-in which; प्रजापरिपालनम् prajāparipālanam-the protection of the subjects; वधश्व vadhaś ca-and the slaying; धर्म्मयुद्धेन dharmayuddhena-in a righteous war; स्वराज्यपरिपन्थिनाम् svarājyaparipanthinām-the enemies of the State.
“Of the Kśatriyaas, there is this Dharma to protect the subjects and to kill the enemies of the State.” ॥ 6/7/3॥
In this Ṣlokaḥ, Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥa reiterates the basic Dharma of a Kśatriya. Then, in the next Ṣlokaḥ, he makes a very subtle but profound point about his own Dharma as a Kśatriya. It involves integrity and a sense of honour in discharging one’s own Dharma. It is an object lesson to all regardless of their nation, and occupation.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/4]
यत्राशक्तस्य मे दोषो नैवास्त्यपह्टते त्वया ।
बन्धायैव भवत्येषा अविद्याप्यक्रमोज्झिता ॥ ६-७-४ ॥
yatrāśaktasya me doṣo naivāsty apahṛte tvayā ।
bandhāyaiva bhavaty eṣā avidyāpy akramojjhitā ॥ 6/7/4 ॥
यत्र yatr-where; अशक्तस्य aśaktasya-because of my weakness; मे to me; दोषो doṣo-sin; नैव naiva-verily does not; अस्ति asti-there subsists; अपह्रुते apahṛte-(when my Kingdom is)snatched away;त्वया tvayaa-by you; बन्धायै bandhāyai-bondage; इव iva-verily; भवति bhavati-arises; एषा eshaa-this; अविद्यापि avidyāpy-avidya alone अक्रमोज्झिता akramojjhitā-obtained a Kingdom without effort.
Sanskrit Words:
- दोषो /दुष [AKG 2, 324/2] 1. To be bad or corrupted or spoiled; 2. be stained, become impure. 3. To sin, commit a mistake, be wrong.
- अपह्रुते /अपहृ apahṛu [AKG 1, 166/1] 1 (a) To take off, bear or snatch away, carry off. 2. relieved of the burden. 1(b) To avert, turn away. 1(c) To rob, plunder, steal. 2. To sever, separate, cut off. 3. To overpower, overcome, subdue; attract, ravish, captivate; affect, influence.
“Whereas, because of my weakness, if my Kingdom were to be snatched away from me by you, I would incur no sin or taint (for losing it or failing to retain it) but if I were to acquire, out of ignorance, a Kingdom without working for it (such as by way of a gift), that would be a source of bondage for me.” ॥ 6/7/4 ॥
In this Ṣlokaḥ, Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥa reiterates the basic Dharma of a Kśatriya. Then, in the next Ṣlokaḥ, he makes a very subtle but profound point about his own Dharma as a Kśatriya. It involves integrity and a sense of honour in discharging one’s own Dharma. It is an object lesson to all regardless of their nation, and occupation.
The subtle point is that no sva-dharma or enjoined duties of any person individually can be performed outside the ambit or umbrella of the Universal Dharma of Right Conduct that constitutes one of the four major Goals of Human existence, the other three being Artha, Kāma and Mokśa. If one follows the rule faithfully that one should perform one’s own Dharma and not resort to that of another, it does not give one the license practise one’s Dharma violating any of the canons of the Universal Dharma.
Thus Khāṇḍikyaḥ had acquired the wisdom that as a Kśatriya, he could not acquire anything for free, even as a gift given out of empathy and kindness. He was therefore constrained by his own Dharma to reject the idea of asking Keśidhvajaḥ to return his Kingdom on any grounds that did not involve taking back his Kingdom after victory in a just war. If he were to acquire a Kingdom for free, as a Kśatriya, he would be incurring a sin leading to further bondage in worldly existence.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/5]
जन्मोपभोगलिप्सार्थमियं राज्यस्पृहा मम ।
अन्येषां दोषजा नैषा धर्म्ममेवानुरुध्यते ॥ ६-७-५ ॥
जन्म janmo-by birth; उपभोग upabhoga-the enjoyment of; लिप्सु-the urge/drive to acquire; अर्थम atham-wealth, riches, property; इयम् iyaṃ-this; राज्यस्पृहा rājyaspṛhā-yearning for dominions; मम mama-mine; अन्येषां anyeṣāṃ-others; दोषजा doshja-the people who are corrupted/sin; न एशाम् not of those; धर्म्मम dharmam-; एव eva-verily; अनुरुध्यते – for gratification of desires
Sanskrit Words:
1.अनुरुधः [AK 1, 119/2] 1. Compliance, gratification 2. Conformity, accordance, obedience. 3. out of regard for.
- उपभोगः [ AK 1, 465/2] 1.(a) Enjoyment, eating, tasting. 2. Use, application. 3. cohabitation. 4. pleasure, satisfaction.
- लिप्सु [AK 3, 79/2] 1. desirous of getting, hankering for. 2. the urge to obtain
- अर्थम artham-wealth, riches, property
- स्प्रुह् [AK 3, 436/2] to wish, long for, desire for, yearn, envy.
“The desire to acquire and enjoy riches, wealth, property and this hankering of mine for dominions have existed in me (having arisen in me) from my very birth. In the case of others (like the Ministers, the Priest and others in my employment) who are tainted, it arises not from their Dharma (their sanctioned codes of conduct/together with duties enjoined therein) but from their own defects (such as passion and greed).” ॥ 6/7/5 ॥
Khāṇḍikyaḥ says that the general desire to acquire and enjoy material objects of life like wealth, property, and other riches as well as the hankering to rule over dominions exist in him from birth. These are therefore, natural and time honoured in his case. The implication is that these specific attitudes and matching desires are genetic. They constitute the Dharma of the Kśatriya Rulers. But the origin of the same desires arising in others whose Dharmas are different from his, are not genetic or natural to them. They cannot be traced to the Time-Honoured Codes of Right Conduct & Duties enjoined for their Dharmas. The origin of desires natural to Kśatriyas in other Dharmas are due in the faults in their psyche created by the adverse effects of the Gunaas such as lust, passion, greed, and wrath. Thus, for instance, if a Priest or a Minister or a Scholar in his Kingdom were to exhibit the same desires natural to Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥa, it would be unnatural to them. In their case, the origin of the same desires could be attributable to the rise of adverse character qualities in them due passion or greed or covetousness’ born out of the Rajas Gunaa.
What Khāṇḍikyaḥ is trying to point out is that one’s desires, if in consonance with one’s Dharma, may be regarded as having a defect- free origin, namely in the age-old vāsanās. For instance, consider an imaginary Scholar in Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s Kingdom. Assume, that three divergent desires were to arise in him at the same time, namely (1) to enjoy greater wealth and riches (2) to become a Sovereign and (c) to study some esoteric and intractable texts to extract their true import and to prove/disprove certain tenets as warranted for the benefit of man’s understanding. As far as this Scholar is concerned, the first two desires would have their origin in the defects of character in him due to the Gunaas such as Passion, and Greed. The third desire would be the one anchored in his Dharma.
What would happen if one were to discard the desires natural/intrinsic to one’s own Dharma and, instead harbour/foster the desires unnatural to one’s own Dharma but natural to that of another? It would amount to the suppression of the natural inclinations/desires or propensities. Such propensities should be understood as predictable actions/reactions to given events or situations instinctively. Modern psychology explains the term ‘psyche’ as being the “sum-total of the mind, or the deepest thoughts, feelings, or beliefs of a person or group”. The characteristics of the psyche of any single individual would differ from all other individuals on the Earth in some detail or the other. It is said that no two leaves of a tree are exactly alike compared to all other leaves of the same tree. Further, any single leaf of a given single tree would differ from all the leaves of all trees. The psyche of given person is like the leaf of a tree.
Individual psyches within a given group or community combine to form a group-psyche unique to that group. A given group-psyche is the resultant of the individual psyche of the members of that group/community. The resultant group-psyche also reflects the individual psyches to some extent. Every group-psyche would also differ from one another.
How is a psyche formed in the individual? As far as Hindu Philosophy is concerned, the psyche of any individual is formed by accumulated Vāsanā which are determined by the proportion of the Guṇā in the individual over a long period of time. Individual psyches go to form discernible patterns in groups. Thus, if we consider some communities at random such as that of traders, soldiers, scholars, priests, and artisans to name some, a given individual would have a psyche different from all other individual members of the same group and from all other individuals of all other groups. Thus an individual psyche is unique in one sense but would have certain basic or fundamental characteristics common with other individuals in the same group. If we were to know the family background of an individual in terms of attainments, attitudes, views, likes and dislikes, actions/reactions, and so on, we would be able to draw up a picture of the possible psyche of any member of the individual’s family or community at large. No doubt education, association with other people, experiences in life, and other external factors can and do alter one’s psyche over the years but the fundamental base remains largely intact from day one to end of one’s life. The group psyche would also differ from group to group. For instance, the group psyche of a given community such as Traders or Artisans would differ from that of Priests, Scholars, and Military Clans.
Collectively, each community would tend to display separate identifiable group psyches distinct from one group to the other. This helps to predict the reaction of a group as a whole reasonably accurately. Hindu Philosophy holds that inherited Vāsanā influence many aspects of human character such as individual attitudes, likes & dislikes, inherent and acquired mental and physical skills, propensities for certain predictable reactions, beliefs held and the likely future course the individual might take, and so on. It is a viable Theory of Philosophy that fits observed data nicely. It is supported by observations in real life. It would very difficult to control one’s natural psyche even if a person were to possess knowledge of how the Theory of Vāsanā works. Such a person might be able to temper/modify his behaviour but he or she would not be able to altogether act according to the nature of another. We must turn to the Srimad Bhagavad Gita for more light in the matter.
Sri Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita [3/33]:
सदृशं चेष्टते स्वस्याः प्रकृतेर्ज्ञानवानपि ।
प्रकृतिं यान्ति भूतानि निग्रहः किं करिष्यति ॥ ३-३३॥
sadṛśaṃ ceṣṭate svasyāḥ prakṛter jñānavān api ।
prakṛtiṃ yānti bhūtāni nigrahaḥ kiṃ kariṣyati ॥ 3/33॥
सदृशं sadṛśaṃ-one’s vision/perception; चेष्टते ceṣṭate-one behaves/exerts oneself ; स्वस्याः svasyāḥ-according one’s own; प्रकृतेर् prakṛter-material propensities; र्ज्ञानवानपि jñānavān api-even the man of knowledge; प्रकृतिं prakṛtiṃ-own nature; यान्ति yānti-follow ; भूतानि bhūtāni-all beings; निग्रहः nigrahaḥ-suppresion/subjugation; किं kiṃ-what; करिष्यति kariṣyati-of avail.
sadṛśaṃ ceṣṭate svasyāḥ prakṛter
jñānavān api ।
prakṛtiṃ yānti bhūtāni
nigrahaḥ kiṃ kariṣyati ॥ 3/33॥
Sanskrit Words:
- द्रुश् dṛśa [AGK 2,204/2] 1. Seeing, surveying, viewing. 2. Discerning, knowing. 3. perceiving, the eye, sight
- चेष्टा ceṣṭā [AGK2,88/1] 1 Motion, movement. 2.gesture, action. 3. effort, exertion. 4. Behaviour 5. Action, deed, performing.
- निग्रहः nigrahaḥ [AGK 2, 269/1] 1. 1 Keeping in check, restraint, curbing, subjugation. 2. suppression, obstruction, putting down. 3. overtaking, capturing, arresting. 4. Confinement, imprisonment.
“Even a Man of Knowledge behaves/exerts himself according to his own perceptions/discrimination based on his own natural/material propensities. All beings follow their nature. What can suppresion or subjugation do?” ॥ 3/33॥
For instance, consider a learned person who knows all about the Vāsanā (Past Subtle Impressions) and the Guṇā and how they operate. He also knows that the Self is different from Prakṛti or material nature. He has often ruminated upon this fact. Despite all that , even such a learned/informed person, when confronted by material objects and forced to take decisions thereon, would invariably act according to his own nature, i.e., guided by his or her old subtle impressions. All beings follow their nature. Every being in conjunction with non-conscient matter, would invariably act according to the subtle impressions that have piled up in them in birth after birth from the time without beginning. These vāsanās slowly shape the psyche. If the vaasanaa were to change for the good over a period of time, the psyche would also become be more positive and more conducive to the good over generations. A piece of profound wisdom in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/5] is that we must stick to Karman that are natural to us and that arise from our age old Vāsanā. In other words, we must follow our own Dharma or Enjoined Duty. Why so?
Sri Krishna tells Arjuna as follows:
Gita Ṣlokaḥ [3/35]
श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् ।
स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः परधर्मो भयावहः ॥ ३-३५॥
śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt svanuṣṭhitāt ।
sva-dharme nidhanaṃ śreyaḥ para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ ॥ 3/35॥
श्रेयान् śreyān-superior/best/blessed; स्वधर्मे sva dharmo-one’s own Dharma ; विगुणः viguṇaḥ-lacking merit; परधर्मात् para dharmāt-than the Dharma of another; स्वनुष्ठितात svanuṣṭhitāt-well performed ; स्वधर्मे sva dharme-during the course of one’s own Dharma; निधनं nidhanaṃ-death; श्रेयः śreyaḥ-better; परधर्मो para dharmo-the Dharma of another; भयावहः bhayāvahaḥ-fraught with fear.
Sanskrit Words:
- श्रेयस् [AGK 3, 288/1] 1. better, preferable, superior. 2. best, most excellent, quite desirable. 3. more happy or fortunate. 4. more blessed, dearer. 5. virtuous or righteous, with moral or religious merit.
“It is far more preferable and conducive to the good to perform one’s own Dharma even though lacking in merit than (to undertake) the Dharma of another. Death (if it were to occur while doing one’s own duty) would be fortunate or blessed or meritorious, for the duty of another is fraught with fear.” [3/35].
The Lord has said that Death would be better, even if it were to occur during the course of doing one’s own duty than the adoption of the duty of another. What is so fearful about performing the Dharma of another that it should make it worse than death? In other words, it means that there is one possible consequence of doing another person’s duty that would be worse than the extreme penalty of death. What could that be? It is the increased risk of dereliction of duty occurring if one were to perform a duty unnatural to one. Dereliction of duty is defined as the shameful failure to fulfil one’s obligations. It is not necessary that one will fail in the performance of another’s duty. But the risks are high. As the level and complexity of the knowledge and skills needed in a particular duty rises, so will the possibility of failure or imperfections occurring in the end. Thus, if an electrician or mason doing some infrastructural repairs in some Operation Theatre, were to volunteer in some dire emergency, to perform surgery in the absence of the specialist, the risk of failure would be so high and the consequences so untenable that the electrician’s or mason’s offer would have to be politely declined. The shame arising out of dereliction of duty and its adverse consequences on those depending upon the proper discharge of that duty, would be worse than death for a man of integrity and honour. That is why the Lord has said that one should do one’s duty even if there were to be the risk of possible death. But if were to adopt the duties of another, we would risk facing the shame of possible dereliction of duty.
On the other hand, if a man were to fail or render imperfect results in the performance of his own duty, the adverse consequences would not involve shame in the moral and ethical sense provided there was no wilful negligence or other malafide intentions in performance. For failure in one’s own Dharma, one could be heavily criticised for shoddy work but there would be no sense of shame of the kind that would arise when one undertook the duty of another and failed in the process. No blame would be laid for undertaking one’s own duty in the first place. But the impropriety involved in the adoption of the duty of another would be censurable and considered dishonourable. Failure in one’s own duty may invite criticism and punishment but there would be no shame and censure as would be the case of failure while performing some other person’s duty.
What are the other risks involved in the performance of another’s duty apart from the shame of dereliction of duty as we just discussed? ? There is the risk that the results delivered may be partial or defective or too late to be of use. There is the risk of the loss of one’s existing reputation for reliability. In doing one’s own duty, one is also not immune from these risks but the chances are relatively less. For instance, the chances of wrong wiring and electrical short-circuiting would be much more if a surgeon tried to fix some electrical fault in the Operation Theatre without calling for the electrician. To end our discussions on the Vishṇu Purāna Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/5], let me quote a Ṣlokaḥ from the Gita which has a bearing on what Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥ said about desires and their related emotions.
Gita Ṣlokaḥ [3/37]
श्रीभगवानुवाच ।
काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भवः ।
महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् ॥ 3/37॥
śrī-bhagavān uvāca
kāma eṣa krodha eṣa rajo-guṇa-samudbhavaḥ ।
mahāśano mahā-pāpmā viddhy enam iha vairiṇam ॥ 3/37॥
श्रीभगवानुवाच śrī-bhagavān uvāca:
काम kāma-lust; एष eṣa-this; krodha क्रोध-wrath;एष eṣa-this; रजोगुण rajo guṇa-the Rajas Guna; समुद्भवः samudbhavaḥ-arising out of; महाशनो mahāśano-all devouring;महापाप्मा mahā pāpmā-source of great sins ; विद्ध्येन viddhy enam-know them; इह iha-here; वैरिणम् vairiṇam-enemies
Sanskrit Words:
- कामः kāmah [AGK 1, 569/2] 1. Wish, desire. 2. desirous
to go. 3. Object of desire. 3. affection, love. 4. love or desire of sensual enjoyments. 5. considered as one of the ends of life. 6. desire of carnal gratification, lust.
- क्रोधः krodhH [AGK 1, 629/2] 1. Anger, wrath. 2. Anger considered as the feeling which gives rise to the raudra sentiment. 3.
“The Lord said:
It is Lust as well as this wrath, which are born out of this Rajas Guṇā. It is all devouring, and a great source of sin. Know them to be the mortal enemy in this material world” ॥ 3/37॥
What is the modern definition of lust and wrath? Lust is an intense desire for something or person. An example of lust is the feeling a man may develop when he looks at a very beautiful woman in his own estimation. Lust can be directed towards an object like a luxury car or a palace. Lust is to involve intense and uncontrollable desire, especially one that is sexual. Uncontrolled desire can compel a person to acquire the object of lust at any cost. Under the force of lust, as if helpless, a person could become a mindless and cruel beast ready to inflict any pain or indignity on anyone to satisfy the lust, including upon the very object of lust.
Wrath is defined as strong vengeful anger or indignation. Wrath goes hand in hand with retributory punishment for an offense or a crime. Vengeful anger often triggers a chain reaction of revenge and counter-revenge until both sides perish. Wrath is therefore deemed as the other powerful negative force that can ruin a person’s life and happiness. Lust and wrath can lead a person into a living hell. Thousands of years ago, Sri Krishna identified these two dangerous emotions in human beings as mortal enemies of mankind. They remain man’s worst enemies even today. The Yogi must recognise their presence should they show signs of taking root in the Mind. The Yogi must take firm steps to eradicate them as soon as possible.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/6]
न याञ्चा क्षत्रबन्धूनां धर्म्मो ह्येतत् सतां मतम् ।
अतो न याचितं राज्यमविद्यान्तर्गतं तव ॥ ६-७-६ ॥
na yācñā kṣatrabandhūnāṃ dharmayaitatsatāṃ matam ।
ato na yācitaṃ rājyamavidyāntargataṃ tava ॥ 6/7/6 ॥
न na-not; याञ्चा yācñā-requesting/soliciting; क्षत्रबन्धूनां kṣatrabandhūnāṃ- of the brotherhood of Kśatriyas; धर्म्मो dharma-right conduct; ह्येतत्-that is verily;सतां मतम् satāṃ matam-the thinking of the wise and the learned; अतो ato- ; न na-did not; याचितं yācitaṃ-ask for; राज्यमविद्यान्तर्गतं rājyamavidyāntargataṃ-the Kingdom during the course of avidya; तव tava-your.
Sanskrit Words:
- याञ्चा yācñā [AK 3, 21/1] 1. begging, asking. 2. request, solicitation, entreaty. 3. marriage offer.
- सतां sataam: [AK 3, 321/2] 1. being, existing, existent. 2. real, essential, true. 3.noble. 4.best, excellent. 5. the wise and the learned. 6. firm, steady.
“Asking or soliciting anything from anyone is not the Dharma of the Brotherhood of Kśatriyas. This is the view of the wise and the learned. Therefore, I did not ask for your Kingdom during the course of avidya or ignorance.” ॥ 6/7/6 ॥
One of the English connotations of the term याञ्चा yācñā is begging. Begging can be a sporadic need-based entreaty such as child asking for another piece of the cake, or a man begging his boss not to fire him from the job or someone begging passers-by for help in an emergency. When we need something badly and we feel that a person who has the power to oblige us is not likely to do so for some reason or the other, we put ourselves in the position of a suppliant seeking. In incidental begging, the idea is to plead helplessness and evoke sympathy. When people take to begging on a daily basis, it is a serious social issue. Many people migrate from their home places and take up begging due to poverty, health problems, family conflicts, unemployment, death of parents, landlessness/shortage of land or snatching of land and assets and lack of good governance. These are the possible factors that may pull or attract many people to migrate from home regions. But many normal, healthy and able body individuals also engage in begging for sake of getting easy money without any kind effort and as they have a bad attitude towards work. It would appear that as human beings, we are generally averse to begging as a profession or to be done as deliberate device to earn anything. We have self-esteem and we have been taught that begging is against it. Most people do not resort to begging but many do because their level of self-esteem may not be sufficiently high or strong. Where do laudable human values come from such as self-esteem, Maryāda or self-imposed norms of acceptable conduct; the idea of upholding the concepts of human dignity, of good conduct, of compassion, of readiness to help, of showing charity etc come from? Modern Psychology has a Theory of Self-Awareness which may give us an insight into the thinking of Man in our times.
We quote an extract from an Article entitled “A Beggar, Self-Awareness And Willingness To Help”, Open Edition Journal Vol 24, Issue 2, 2008, in which Costanza Scaffidi Abbate and Stefano Ruggieri have written as follows:
“People carry with them numerous, culturally‑derived standards or values, many of which are relatively universal, such as honesty or taking care of others in need. Others are more personal, such as possessing conservative, capitalistic values versus socialistic values. The theory indicates that these standards remain latent until the individual becomes self‑aware, and that in the self‑reflective state, individuals become attentive to possible discrepancies between their standards and behaviours. With respect to past or present behaviours, this implies that self awareness brings the person into a self‑evaluative mode (see Ickes, Wicklund, & Ferris, 1973), and regarding future behaviour, implies that the person will increase his/her efforts to bring behaviour into line with the salient standard (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Duval, Silvia & Lalwani, 2001; Gibbons, 1990; Wicklund, 1975; Wicklund & Eckert, 1992). In the arena of pro‑social action, this means that self-awareness should move a person to help more – to manifest altruism – a thesis that has seen some empirical support (Duval, Duval & Neely, 1979; Gibbons & Wicklund, 1982).”
In the extract cited above, the observation by the Researchers that, “The theory indicates that these standards remain latent until the individual becomes self‑aware” is similar to Hindu Philosophy’s Theory of Vāsanā and Samskārās. The Theory of Vāsanā offers a viable explanation as why people hold certain values while others do not; as to why some happen to hold good and some bad in the general sense, why a person reacts the way he or she does in a stressful situation. When a man understands the true nature of the Self, there is a reordering of the values in his psyche. In that reordering, certain latent values come to the fore. If such values were to be time-honoured, such a person would have changed for the better. It is likely that the rest his or her life would be lead in the state of self-actualisation and attainment of true potential.
We may observe that in Khāṇḍikyaḥa the rise of spiritual knowledge brought up many noble qualities to the fore. He could not therefore ask for his Kingdom even though it had been voluntarily offered without preconditions. He felt that asking for his Kingdom to be restored to him would be as bad as begging for something.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/7]
राज्ये गृध्यन्त्यविद्धांसो ममत्वाहतचेतसः ।
अहम्मानमहापान-मदमत्ता न मादृशः ॥ ६-७-७ ॥
rājye gṛdhnamty avidvāṃso mamatvā hṛtacetasaḥ ।
ahaṃmāna mahāpāna madamattā na mādṛśāḥ ॥ ६-७-७ ॥
राज्ये rājye-kingdoms; गृध्यन्त्यविद्धांसो gṛdhyanty avidvāṃso-are coveted by those who are not learned; ममत्वा mamatvā-those who have the sense of ownership/personal belonging; ह्रुत hṛta-in the heart or mind; चेतसः cetasaḥ- in their thinking/mental attitude; अहम्मान ahaṃmāna-the sense of the ego; महापान mahāpāna-great devourer; मदमत्ता madamattā-drunk/intoxicated; न na-not ; मादृशः mādṛśāḥ- myself. ।। ६-७-७ ।।
“Kingdoms are coveted by the unwise/those who are not learned; by those who have the sense of ownership/personal belonging (possessive feelings of mine and ours towards tangible and intangible objects) in their hearts/minds and mental thinking; who are totally intoxicated by the great liqour that the sense of the ego happens to be; not by one such as myself.” ॥ 6/7/7 ॥
Possessive feelings of ‘mine’ and ‘ours’ towards tangible and intangible objects have existed in Mankind from the dawn of time. Scarcity of resources aggravated by greed/covetuousness have often combined to generate conflicts over possession and entitlement in all species of living beings. Nations and Kingdoms have fought wars to settle disputes over possession. Indivduals too have fought bitterly over ownership rights. Various Laws have been enacted in most countries to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak and to ensure orderly transfer of property. In the final analysis, the sense of ownership or possession leads to increased attachment. Increased attachment, in turn, enhances feelings of ownership which, in turn, boosts more attachment in a synergistic upward spiral. Such people become less and less willing to accept parting from any possession. In general, when one is not ready to let go anything, parting leads to far greater sorrow than in the case of those who have developed some detachment and are ready to part with something at some stage.
The term ग्रुध् used in this Ṣlokaḥ is very apt. It has some wonderful connotations, two of which are ‘covetuousnes’ and ‘greed’. They represent dangerous and highly undesirable aspects of a man’s character. Greed drives people to accumulate more things even when they already have enough for their needs. When there is a desire to possess something that belongs to another, such a desire is known as covetuousness. Khāṇḍikyaḥ is right when he says that these two faults in a man’s ego can cause great intoxication like some strong liqour. He is also right that only the ignorant and the unwise allow greed and covetuousness to dominate their personalities.
People with greed become obssesed with the objects they want to possess. Duryodhana became obsessed with the wealth and glory of the Pandavas. He wanted to have everything all round and in every way, which would be far better than what the Pandavas had. He failed to reorient his energies to more productive channels. When he saw the wonderful and magical palace of the Pandavas, he began to covet it. After the Pandavas had been cheated and exiled, they returned seeking their legitimate share of the Kingdom of the Kurus. He refused to give the Pandavas their lawful inheritance. He was so greedy that he declined to part with even five villages that the Pandavas sought to enable them to lead their lives in peace. Greed and covetuousness often lead to deception, envy and spite. Duryodhana developed all these adverse qualities. People who cannot control these qualities, are doomed to self-destruction. That is what happened to Duryodhana and his hundred brothers in the end.
The modern theory of the hierachy of needs was propounded by Maslov (1908-1970), an American Psychologist of repute. He arranged all human needs in a structure shaped like a pyramid. He placed the basic bodily and material needs at the base of the pyramid at the lowest level. He placed self-actualisation, which means growing and developing as a person capable of realising one’s individual potential, at the top of the pyramid at the highest level. Amazingly, it is quite similar to ancient Indian Yogaḥ Philosophy, which urges the Yogi to rise above material needs at the lowest level and strive to reach the goal of Self Realisation at the highest level. The only difference is that in Maslow’s Theory, the highest goal of human beings is termed ‘Self-Actualisation’ in which one attains one’s full potential in the material world. The highest goal of human beings according to Yogaḥ is ‘Self-Realisation’ in which one attains Mokśa from the material world followed by the realisation of the Brahman in the spiritual world.
The Yamāḥ & Niyamāḥ of the Aṣṭāṅga Yogaḥ are designed to purify the body and mind steadily. Purification of the Mind involves elimination of negative psychological traits such as greed, covetousness’, lust, avarice, deception, envy, spite and so on in order to conserve one’s energies and direct them for the attainment of the highest goal of human existence. The teachings of the ancient Seers of India remain valid even today.
Sanskrit Words:
- gṛdhnam ग्रुध् [AK 2, 41/1] 1.To covet; desire, strive after greedily. 2. To long for, be desirous of. 3. To deceive cheat.
- hṛta ह्रुद [AK 3, 470/2] 1. The mind, heart 2. The chest, bosom, breast. 3. The soul. 4. The interior or essence of anything.
- pāna/पानं paanam [AK 2, 381/2] 1. drinking, kissing. 2. drinking liquors. 3. a drink, beverage in general.
- मदः madah [AK 2, 599/2] 1. to be drunk, intoxicated. 2. to be mad. 3. to revel or delight in. 4. to satisfy, gladden. 5. madness, insanity, ardent passion, lust.
- मत्ता mattā AK 2, 598/1] 1. intoxicated, drunk.
“Thereupon, with delight Keśidhvajaḥ, exclaimed ‘perfectly spoken’. Addressing Khāṇḍikyaḥ Janaka, Keśidhvajaḥ Raja said to him with affection, “Do listen to my words.” ॥ 6/7/8 ॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/8]
ततः प्रहृष्टः साध्विति प्राह ततः केशिध्वजो नृपः ।
खाणिड्क्यजनकं प्रीत्या श्रूयतां वचनं मम ॥ ६-७-८ ॥
tataḥ prahṛṣṭaḥ sādhv iti prāha keśidhvajo nṛpaḥ ।
khāṇḍikyajanakaṃ prītyā śrūyatāṃ vacanaṃ mama ॥ ६-७-८ ॥
ततः tataḥ-thereupon; प्रहृष्टः prahṛṣṭaḥ-delighted; साध्वि sādhvi-perfectly; इति iti-as such; प्राह prāha-spoken; ; केशिध्वजो नृपः keśidhvajo nṛpaḥ-Keśidhvajaḥ Raja खाणिड्क्यजनकं khāṇḍikyajanakaṃ-Khāṇḍikyaḥ Janaak; प्रीत्या prītyā-affectionately; श्रूयतां śrūyatāṃ-do listen; वचनं vacanaṃ-my words; मम mama-mine.
Sanskrit Words:
- प्रहृष्टः prahṛṣṭaḥ [AK 2, 496/1] 1. Delighted; pleased,
glad, overjoyed. 2. thrilling, hair bristling.
- साध्वि sādhvi/साधु saadhu [AK 3, 376/2] 1. Good, excellent, perfect. 2. Fit, proper, right. 3. Pleasing, agreeable, pleasant. 4. noble, well-born, of noble descent. 5. A good or virtuous man.
It was not surprising that the spiritually inclined Keśidhvajaḥ should have quickly realised the great philosophical import of the reasons given by Khāṇḍikyaḥ as to why he had spurned the golden opportunity to get back his lost Kingdom and possibly acquire another one too. That is why he spontaneously exclaimed “साध्विति sādhviiti-perfectly spoken”. Keśidhvajaḥ was learned in atman-vidya or knowledge of the Self. He had been following the Path of Spiritual Knowledge for long. Let us go back for a moment to Chapter 6 as follows:-
In Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/7], Parāśara Muni says “धर्मध्वजो वै जनकस्तस्य पुत्रोऽमितध्वजः कृतध्वजश्च – dharmadhvajo vai janakas tasya putro ‘mitadhvajaḥ” meaning “Dharmadhvaja verily had two sons namely Amitdhvaja and Krutadhvaja.” Further, in the same Ṣlokaḥ, the Maharishi gives us a clue to Keśidhvajaḥ’s lineage and the nature of possible Vāsanā/ Samskārās that might have shaped his psyche. The Maharishi says, “नाम्नासीत्सदाध्यात्मरतिर्नृपः-nāmnāsīt sadādhyātmaratir nṛpaḥ” meaning, “Of the two so named, the latter (Krutadhvaja) was a King who always took delight in spiritual matters.”
In the next Ṣlokaḥ[6/6/8]. Parāśara Muni says that, “कृतध्वजस्य पुत्रोऽभूत्ख्यातः केशिध्वजो नृपः kṛtadhvajasya putro abhūt khyātaḥ keśidhvajo nṛpaḥ” meaning “Krutadhvaja’s son was the celebrated King Keshidhwaja O King !” If Raja Keśidhvajaḥ’s father was known to have taken delight in spiritual matters, he must have inherited good Vāsanā and Samskārās from his own ancestors These must have been conducive to spiritual pursuits. That genetic inheritance would have been passed onto Keśidhvajaḥ for Paraashar Muni says in Ṣlokaḥ [6/6/9], “कर्ममार्गेण खांडिक्यः पृतिव्यामभवत्पतिः Karmanmārgeṇ khāṇḍikyaḥ pṛthivyām abhavat patiḥ” and “केशिध्वजोऽप्यतीवासीदात्मविद्याविशारदः keśidhvajo api atīvāsīt ātmavidyāviśāradaḥ” meaning “On the Earth, Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥ was the Master of the Path of Karman (Rites/Rituals) on the one hand, and on the other, Raja Keśidhvajaḥ happened to be famous for his learning in the Science or Knowledge of the Ātman.” In contrast, Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s inheritance must have been conducive to the Path of Action for he had taken to the Path of Karman thoroughly and had become a Master of this Path on the Earth as this Ṣlokaḥ tells us.
Though inherently learned in spiritual matters and basically inclined by nature to traversing the Path of Knowledge, Keśidhvajaḥ had recently taken to the Path of Karman after the acquisition of Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s Kingdom. He had to manage two kingdoms instead of one as it was earlier. Despite all that, he still had sufficient reserves of spiritual acumen in him. These reserves came to the fore in helping him appreciate Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s wisdom and to feel that Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s words were excellent, perfect and well put. Spiritually conducive vāsanās were also the reason why Keśidhvajaḥ developed both admiration for Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s spiritually exalted state and also affection for such a noble person, all said and done.
Keśidhvajaḥ continues his narrative to Khāṇḍikyaḥ:
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/9]
अहन्त्वविद्यामृत्युञ्च तर्त्तुकामः करोमि वै ।
राज्ये यागांश्व विविधान् भोगैः पुण्यक्षयं तथा ॥ ६-७-९ ॥
aham avidyayā mṛtyuṃ tartukāmaḥ karomi vai
rājyaṃ yāgāṃś ca vividhān bhogaiḥ puṇyakṣayaṃ tathā ॥ 6/7/9 ॥
अह्ं aham-I; अविद्यया avidyayā-through avidya or ignorance; म्रुत्युञच mṛtyuṃnca-death also; तर्त्तुकामः tartukāmaḥ-desirous of getting across or avoiding (overcoming/escaping); करोमि वै karomi vai-veriy performed various Karman; राज्ये raajye-pertaining to the exercise of the power to Rule; यागांश्व yāgāṃś ca-as well as those pertaining to sacrificial rites/rituals; विविधान् vividhān-varieties of; भोगैः bhogaiḥ-possessing or consuming or enjoying; पुण्यक्षयं puṇyakṣayaṃ-causing depletion of spiritual merits; तथा tathā-as well.
“Through ‘avidya’ or ignorance, with the object of getting across or avoiding death, I performed many actions (Karman) pertaining to the exercise of my powers to Rule; those pertaining to sacrificial rites/rituals; and those pertaining to the possession, consumption and enjoyment of various objects; all causing depletion/dimunition of spiritual merits.” ॥ 6/7/9 ॥
Karman have to be performed to Rule/Administer a Kingdom or Nation. Sacrificial rites/rituals are enjoined in the Vedas. Possession of objects and their consumption are indispensable for life and for the activities of life to go on. If there were to be no consumption of goods and services whatsoever hoping to thereby prevent depletion of spiritual merits, all economic activities would come to a halt. Poverty, economic distress, and insecurity of the land and the people would increase. There would be no taxes paid or inflow of funds into the Exchequer to finance civil administration, maintenance of law and order, to build up/repairs of infrastructure, take steps to ensure defence of the Land and so on.
Recall that Sri Krishna has said in the Gita that Karman Yogaḥ is better than Jñāna Yogaḥ for various reasons such as the fact that the former Yogaḥ is more natural and suitable for a large portion of humanity whereas the latter Yogaḥ is unnatural and difficult for most human beings striving for Mokśa; that it carries far less risk of failure for the same reason; that one can resume at the point of failure without losing all the progress made earlier up to the moment of a fall or failure in the Yogaḥ; that without performing Karman, even the bare maintenance of the body would be impossible; that the latter Yogaḥ is inbuilt into the former; that many Men of Knowledge like King Janaka and others resorted to Karman Yogaḥ and successfully secured final liberation. Keeping all these considerations in mind, one may want to know whether Keśidhvajaḥ indirectly implies that we should stop all such activities or Karman for spiritual gain?
The answer is that Keśidhvajaḥ does not indirectly imply that we should all become actionless and bring the Universe to a stop. What he implies indirectly is that actions should not be performed in a way that one’s spiritual merit is not diminished. How is that possible?
Firstly, there is the problem of motivation. If Karman are done with the motivation for fruits, they lead to bondage. Those done without any desire for the fruits are a form of worship of the Supreme Being and a means of liberation. So perform every Karman without any desire for the fruits thereof. Should the thought of fruits arise in the Mind, the best way to clear the defect is to assign it to Sri Krishna as the Brahman and request Him to take care of its consequences. Secondly, there is the problem of the sense of agency. When performing any Karman, one should not look upon oneself as the agent or the doer. The concept of not being the agent must be applied to all Karman, even to mundane activities like the satisfaction of hunger or thirst and such other physical imperatives. When we plan to perform any Karman or are in the process of doing so, we must develop the conviction that the Karman are being impelled by the Gunaas or even by the Brahman through them. As regards those who wish to refrain from any action, Sri Krishna advises Arjuna Gita[2/47] that one should not be attached to inaction which is the reluctance to perform one’s obligatory duties.
Keśidhvajaḥ has come the conclusion that Khāṇḍikyaḥ is now fit for receiving instruction into the nature of avidya. In the next Ṣlokaḥ, he makes this clear.
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/10]
तदिदं ते मनो दिष्ट्या विवेकैश्वर्य्यतां गतम् ।
श्रूयतां चाप्यविद्यायाः स्वरूपं कुलनन्दन ॥ ६-७-१० ॥
tad idaṃ te mano diṣṭyā vivekaiśvaryatāṃ gatam ।
śrūyatāṃ cāpy avidyāyāḥ svarūpaṃ kulanandana ॥ 6/7/10 ॥
तद tad-the very same; इदं idaṃ-this; ते te-of your ; मनो mano-Mind; दिष्ट्या diṣṭyā-indiates/points out; विवेकैश्वर्य्यतां vivekaiśvaryatāṃ-the wealth of enlightenment; गतम् gatam-gravitated towards; श्रूयतां śrūyatāṃ-do listen; च ca-and ; अपि api-as well; अविद्यायाः avidyāyāḥ-of avidya or ignorance; स्वरूपं svarūpaṃ-form/nature of; कुलनन्दन kulanandana-O Delight of our Clan.
Sanskrit Words:
- दिष्ट्या diṣṭyā/दिष्ट dishta [AK 2, 188/2 ] 1.Shown, indicated, assigned, pointed out. 2. Described, referred to. 3. Destined
- नन्दन nandana [AK 2, 249/2] 1. Delighting, pleasing, gladdening. नन्दनः 1. a son. 2. an epithet of Sri Viṣṇu.
“This very same Mind of yours now indicates that you have gravitated towards the wealth of enlightenment or awakening. Now do listen to the nature and form of avidya or ignorance, O Delight of our Clan.” ॥ 6/7/10 ॥
Ṣlokaḥ [6/7/11]
अनात्मन्यात्मबुद्धिर्या अस्वे स्वमिति या मतिः ।
अविद्यातरुसम्भूतेर्बीजमेतद् द्विधा स्थितम् ।। ६-७-११ ।।
anātmany ātmabuddhir yā asve svam iti yā matiḥ ।
avidyātarusaṃbhūtibījam etad dvidhā sthitam ।। 6/7/11 ।।
अनात्मनि anātmany-that which is not the Ātman; आत्मबुद्धिर् ātmabuddhir-thinking of it as the ātman; या yā-to nourish, act, support (the idea); अस्वे asve-not one’s own; स्वमिति svam iti-is mine as such; या yā-to act as if; मतिः matiḥ-(such) thinking; अविद्यातरुसम्भूतेर्बीजम avidyātaru-saṃbhūti bījam-the seeds sprouting into the tree of avidya or ignorance; एतद् etad-these; द्विधा dvidhā-two fold; स्थितम् sthitam-basis of
Sanskrit Words:
या [AK 3, 20/2] 1.to support, nourish [M 849/1] 1.to proceed, behave, act. 2. support, maintain
“To think of that which is not the ātman as being the ātman; to act as if, what is not ours, belongs to us; such a mind-set constitutes the two-fold basis or the twin seeds that can sprout into the Tree of Ignorance or False Knowledge.” ॥ 6/7/11 ॥
This is a wonderful Ṣlokaḥ that encapsulates Vedānta in simple and precise terms for the benefit of all. The analogy of the Tree of Avidya is so apt. If we do not sow the seed in the first place, the tree will never come into being. That is the best precaution to take early in life or early in embodiment, if you like. But if the seed were to be sown by some mistake or gross negligence, the next best thing to do would be to dig out the sapling the moment it breaks out of the surface of the soil. If we fail to do that even, the next thing to do save ourselves is to axe the tree when it is juvenile, and it is still feasible to do so. After that, it will be impossible for even the best of men to uproot the full grown, strong, and immovable tree of Avidya without God’s grace and without taking recourse to rigorous Yogaḥ.
Prakṛti is in truth entirely different from the Sentient Entity called the Ātman or the Self or the Soul. The former is insentient, without consciousness and the latter is sentient, conscious and the knower in the inert body. Prakṛti exists for the purposes of the Ātman which is the controller of the body and not the other way around. It is obvious that if we were to consider what is not the Ātman such as Prakṛti as the Ātman itself, we would be unable to take even the first step towards final liberation from Prakṛti. We would become more deeply enmeshed in material existence. The possibility of considering the idea of working for separation from Prakṛti might never occur to such a deeply bound Ātman. This is Keśidhvajaḥ’s first point. The second is that nothing in the world is really ours because the Ātman comes without any baggage or properties and goes completely empty handed, even as it arrived when it materialised in a body. So what Keśidhvajaḥ is trying to say is that by regarding whatever that does not belong to us in principle as belonging to us we would be planting the seed of the future Tree of Avidya. By not regarding anything in this Universe as belonging to us, we would develop the kind of detachment needed for embarking upon the path that would eventually lead to complete and final parting from Matter namely Mokśa. These are the very profound philosophical implications of Khāṇḍikyaḥ’s apparently simple statement.
The tragedy is that many people make the basic mistakes that foster the growth of Avidya as Raja Keśidhvajaḥ explains to Raja Khāṇḍikyaḥ.
Made with 
Designed by Munnitin-FB and Tata Hugger Productions
for happiness, zest, efficiency and good cheer in good heart
Copyright 2021 – Sūtrajālam.com, All rights reserved.