Human or animal, what is the difference? आहार-निद्रा-भय-मैथुनं

Food, sleep, fear and mating, these acts of humans are similar to animals.  Of them (humans), dharma is the only special thing, without dharma humans are also animals ||

AhAra-nidrA-bhaya-maithunam cha
samAnam_etat_pashubhir_narANAm |
dharmo hi teShAm adhiko visheSho
dharmeNa hInAH pashubhiH samAnAH || [ITRANS]
āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithunaṃ cha
samānam_etat_pashubhir_narāṇām |
dharmo hi teṣhāmadhiko visheṣho
dharmeṇa hīnāḥ pashubhiḥ samānāḥ || [IAST]

आहार-निद्रा-भय-मैथुनं च समानमेतत्पशुभिर्नराणाम् ।
धर्मो हि तेषामधिको विशेषो धर्मेण हीनाः पशुभिः समानाः ॥

The king Sudarshana, in the preface of Hitopadesha, out on a stroll had heard two shlokas that set him thinking about the foolish, young, wealthy and powerful sons. After all he had to leave the kingdom to them one day! (see previous posts.)

Then he thinks about this shloka, also attributed to Chanakya where he uses 'vidyA' (knowledge) instead of dharma (right conduct). Both are appropriate, since without being aware of right conduct, proper way to use the knowledge, it is mere collection of facts.

Biology teaches us, Darwin postulated, and the wisdom of Indian land always held that all living beings are of common stock, made from similar life units - cells, evolved, changed, mutated through time. Put in other words, at a gross material level, we are all similar. Basic functions of all life forms is breathing and digestion. Lord Krishna says in Gita - 'aham vaishvAnaro bhUtvA, prANinAm dehamAshritam| prANApAnasamAyuktaH pachAmyannam chaturvidham' i.e. armed with breath and digestion, residing in the life forms, I digest four types of foods.' All life forms are upheld by the divine force of Life.

Incarnation theory says that since life principle is same in all living forms, a soul can travel in various physical forms. Human body is the epitome of life perfection. Why? How? We see that we can not run faster, smell better, bite harder, swim deeper, hear better than animals. Nothing! Left alone in the forest, we won't survive for long.

Or would we?

Give dutifully when, where, to whom the need is

it is that time of the year,
the season of giving,
the season of charity, caring, love and kindness!

merry christmas!

those in the snow belt, enjoy the snow.
others, enjoy the sun! but enjoy.

recently, on a reputed online discussion forum, i read a comment in context of why indians (read - hindus) don't do much charity, that other religions stress on charity, even as much as 15% of your income! that is a hefty chunk of charity! surely the trait is giving is shrinking everywhere - with our increased wants and needs, increased population, and increased selfishness, corruption and reducing trust.

it is true that many hindus are wary of charity as a routine, mainly because they are not sure of what happens of the donation. many non-profit organizations exist for the mere task of funneling money in form of expenses. but otherwise, hindus do actually do charity, in many small to large organizations around the world.

but this set me thinking, what does the ancient philosophy say on this? does the 'religion' talk about it? i am including just a few thoughts on the topic of giving, and since the sanskrit is not necessarily simple, i have skipped the language part for them.

the concept of giving was at many levels. the householder sustained a large part of the society via charity. the students begged their food in the village/town as brahmachAri. this ensured they didn't develop egos larger than their hearts! the sannyAsii, poor, wandering monks all depended on the gRihastha (householder) for sustenance. this is still seen among buddhist societies, where monks still take alms.

Renounce smaller selfish interests for the bigger good - त्यजेत् कुलार्थे पुरुषं

renounce one person for the sake of the family,
a family for the sake of village;
village for the sake of country and
even the [kingdom of] earth for one's own sake.

tyajet kulArthe puruSham grAmasyArthe kulam tyajet |
grAmam janapadasyArthe AtmArthe pRithivIm tyajet ||

त्यजेत् कुलार्थे पुरुषं ग्रामस्यार्थे कुलं त्यजेत् |
ग्रामं जनपदस्यार्थे आत्मार्थे पृथिवीं त्यजेत् ||

this is a very much misunderstood shloka, and the misunderstanding comes from not taking in account the context, the speaker and the essence of the statement. this shloka appears in many shloka collections, including panchatantra and hitopadesha. the earliest reference seems to be in vidura neeti 5-17, which is part of the larger mega-epic mahAbhArata.

the wise minister vidura, of the kuru super-empire, is advising the emperor dhRitarAShTra to follow the path of dharma, right conduct, and not to let unfair things happen due to power intoxication or familial attachment. the emperor was literally blind, but metaphorically blind in parental attachment to his son duryodhana, and lets him get away with some of the most blatant and unfair thing he does out of jealousy and ego. duryodhana, the son was not ignorant of the right conduct, but he accepted he had a natural liking for a-dharma, even though knowing well he was doing wrong.

there are three common misunderstanding regarding this shloka -
#1. that the sacrifice of the [good of] smaller unit SHOULD be done to be able to get the good of the larger unit. this makes it a prerequisite to the greater good, which is not so.

#2. that this justifies mass killing like that done by Mao, Stalin, Naxal insurgents of india in the name of greater good. even eminent thinker like Gurcharan Das got this one wrong.

#3. giving it a spiritual spin, the last part is translated as 'abandon the [attachment to this material] world for your own moksha, nirvana.' i.e. leave worldly attachment, only then you will be able to liberate yourself.

The four friends - knowledge, wife, medicine, dharma

knowledge is a friend in foreign lands, wife a friend at home |
medicine is a friend to the ill, and dharma is a friend to the dead ||

विद्या मित्रं प्रवासेषु, भार्या मित्रं गृहेषु च ।
व्याधितस्यौषधं मित्रं, धर्मो मित्रं मृत्तस्य च ॥

vidyA mitraM pravAseShu, bhAryA mitraM gRiheShu cha |
vyAdhitasyauShadhaM mitraM, dharmo mitraM mRittasya cha ||

for the one who is living away from home, knowledge is the best friend. one can read up on the place even before going, know the language, customs, do's and don'ts, customs, quirks, everything, and not be so left out like a stranger. (sure money is also a good friend, but you might get cheated out of it all, if you are aware of the new place. e.g. now in the city of bangalore in india, cops can't stop you just to check the paperwork, after a recent news. if one is from outside and doesn't know this, one may end up paying fine for not carrying insurance paper but driving perfectly fine.

(there is another shloka that goes "kaH videshaH savidyAnAM" - i.e. what is foreign to the knowledgeable)


at home, wife is the best friend. among her many roles, the wife plays the role of mother, friend, confidant, adviser, lover (just like a husband to the wife).

to the ill, medicines are the best friend!

but all these friends are only of this mortal world. one comes alone, goes alone. then who is the friend after life? in afterlife?

dharma. what we did here in this world. i.e. people will remember us by what we did herein this world, even after we are gone. our fame or ill-fame depends on what we do in this world. the merits earned here will also give us the various travel classes in the other world - platinum/gold/silver member (hopefully not the frequent flyer miles!) business, economy, coach.

so do good here, while you can, to the best of your ability. the only way you can be immortal for the short span of civilization's memory is with the impact of your deeds.


simple sanskrit. great ideas.

---

now the shloka at hand

vidyA = knowledge
mitraM = friend; indra, the king of the divine gods, is also called mitraM, and so is the sun, both being friends of humans and life in general.

pravAseShu = in living away
vAsa = act of residing, AvAsa = residence, home, coming and/to reside
pra-vAsa = going out and residing, away from home, in foreign lands

bhAryA = wife
vyAdhi = illness
vyAdhitasya = of the one who is ill (-sya suffix for "of" in masc. gender)
auShadha = medicine

dharmaH = right deeds, actions; policy, duty, innate nature, defining characteristic
mRittasya = of the dead
mRittikA = soil. mRita = dead, that which has become soil again (back in the elements)





Like it? Then become a fan of the blog
How can this site be made more interesting, useful? Share your comments, use the comment link or the comment box below


(c) Shashikant Joshi । शशिकांत जोशी । ॐ सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः ।

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit  

Follow knowledge and wealth like immortal youths

Like ever-young immortal, the wise should think about knowledge and wealth; as if 'grabbed-by-the-hair-by-Death' one should follow the path of dharma.

अजरामरवत्प्राज्ञो विद्यामर्थं च चिन्तयेत् ।
गृहीत इव केशेषु मृत्युना धर्ममाचरेत् ॥ ०-१

ajarāmaravat-prājño vidyāmarthaṃ cha chintayet |
gṛihīta iva keśheṣhu mṛityunā dharmamācharet ||


Like (-vat) the ever-young (ajara) immortal (amara), the wise (prājñaḥ) should think (chintayet) about knowledge (vidyāṃ) and (cha) wealth (arthaṃ); as if grabbed (gṛihīta) by the hair (keṣheśhu) by Death (mṛityunā) one should follow the path (ācharet) of dharma (dharmam).

jara = decayed, one that decays, get old;
a-jara = one that doesn't get old
amara = a-mara = that which doesn't die, immortal
-vat as in amaravat = suffix denoting 'like' (an immortal)
prājñaḥ = wise, from pra + jña = complete, full knowledge; one who has full, complete knowledge
kesha = hair; kesheṣhu - (in)/by the hair; hand in the hair grabbing the locks
mṛityu = death; mṛityuna= by death
ācharet = from char - wander, walk; ācharaṇa = behaviour, āchārya = a teacher who can teach just by example of his behaviour.

So the question obviously is why follow knowledge and wealth like a greedy immortal youth? But dharma only as if an old man on death bed?

Not so.

To gain full knowledge it takes time. There is no short cut to knowing and learning something properly. As another shloka says that one learns a quarter from the teacher, quarter from self-study, quarter from colleagues and the last quarter only with the passage of time. Just like slow cooked food is yummy, slow cooked knowledge, deliberated upon, reflected upon, which seeps in slowly deep in the brain, where it can create new knowledge - that takes time.

Acquiring of wealth is also a time consuming process, if done legally. Nowadays, people want to be rich, quick.
That is not possible if you are planning to earn the wealth yourselves, legitimately. Shortcuts in getting rich always involves some wrongdoing. Maybe in the digital age when you can reach almost the whole world, one may become rich quickly even by collecting a dime per person, but we are talking the traditional works.

So give time, don't rush in acquiring knowledge and wealth. Do them right.

In doing good deeds, there is no need to wait, on the other hand, one should go as muchgood as possible, as soon as possible. For who knows when one may have to go. This sense of doing good can also be for executing one's duty, job, work. Very good work ethics, finish off whatever you have to do. Why wait?

Do good, as if today is your last day to make the deposits of good karma, do good hastily!


Simple Sanskrit. great ideas!

[Modified on 2015-07-30]




Like it? Then become a fan of the blog
How can this site be made more interesting, useful? Share your comments, use the comment link or the comment box below


(c) Shashikant Joshi । शशिकांत जोशी । ॐ सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः ।

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit