Shiva - the lord of lords

om tryambakam yajAmahe, sugandhim puShTi_vardhanam |
urvArukamiva bandhanAt, mRityor_mukShIya mAmRitAt ||
rigveda - 7.59.12

we meditate to the three-eyed, (like) fragrance, the nourisher |
give us liberation from death like a (ripe) cucumber, not from immortality ||


i will keep the post short, since it is very easy to write pages and pages on shiva, and not even make a start!

tryamabakam = tri (three) + ambakam (eye)
it is NOT triambakam, lingustic rules make the i+a = y. that is why the vowels are a, e, i, o, u and sometimes y. because y is made of i + a

the three eyes of shiva are sun, moon and fire (see next shloka). the sun and moon are the day and night, the physical world being watched, caused by shiva, and the third, the fire or knowledge is the inner sight. this fire of knowledge is what burns down desire, kAmadeva. this third eye of fire of knowledge burns all sins, and removes all darkness of inside.

sugandhim = fragrance
shiva is as subtle as fragrance, and without being seen, pervades all that is there.

puShTi-vardhanam = puShTi (nourishing, health) + vardhanam (one who increases)
shiva is the raw nature, all his symbols are about time and growth. shiva is the energy that nourishes all.

urvArukamiva = urvArukam (cucumber) + iva (like)
bandhanAt = from bondage (bandhanam)
mRityoH = of death
mukShIya = liberate me

like a cucumber, here the reference is to a ripe cucumber, which separates from the vine very easily. compared to an unripe one which you can tug and tug and even break the vine but not separate the cucumber.

this is symbolic of our attachment to this world. unless we ripen, mature, grow out of the attachments of this mortal world, the death, separation can't be easy.

some explanations say that urvArukamiva = from great disease.
the break up given is urvaa = huge, arukam = disease
this is completely wrong, and is an axample of how, when we get carried away in 'devotion', we start creating new explanations, which are not even warranted from the words.

for it to be 'big disease' it has to UrvA not urvA (short u at beginning). and then how do you explain the 'iva' (like)?

this is a very ancient mantra of shiva, appearing in rig-veda, the earliest extant large volume works of humanity, and verily prized possession of the aryans. this itself should disprove all the aryan invasion theories, since if the aryans really invaded from outside, why would they hold shiva, the 'pagan', 'local' god, in such high esteem? (couldn't help that side remark : ) aryan invasion or migration into india is purely a colonial distraction.

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.

Avoid harsh words - न दुरुक्ताय स्पृहयेत्

|| na duruktAye spRihayet ||

॥ न दुरुक्ताय स्पृहयेत् ॥
[rig-veda 1-41-9]


What is the crux of humanity as we know? What would be the utmost thing we would need to remain human, to have life as we know it?

Money? Fame? Car? Internet? Two hands? Would any thing make us really happy? (Read on, there is a twist to this cliche).

Let us look at what ultimately makes us happy.

One type of person may be happy, in bliss without anything or anybody. Such people are very few, and most of them, we don't even know. For they don't care much for society. Yes, there are people who are born in society, and have given it up. No, no, not suicide, they have renounced the society, in the real sense. No desire left.

There are gurus and yogis in the active society who crave for fame, name, follower-ship, but there are many who reside in the foothills of Himalaya (himAlaya, हिमालय = the abode of snow), or even higher, don't have anything for possession, live in nature's sweet climate of harsh winter! Even as way back as Kalidasa (kAlidAsa, कालिदास) (around 50BC) mentions of such sadhu-s (sAdhu, साधु , good person) -

The ascetics would come down the slope to enjoy the shade of the cloud in the middle parts of the mountains (with rising sun and heat), but then would go up again worried about possible rain.

[kumArasambhavaM कुमारसंभवम् 1-5]

They could have had a social life, of 'earn and burn', 'shop till you drop', but on their own, they left the life of comparison, competition, joy and sorrow and connected to their inner source of happiness.

But we are not them.

And we are not happy by things, but by people. If we had no people to share with, fight with, compare with, show off to - where would the joy be? A Porsche brings no joy (for long) if you can't show off to the neighbor, or pick hot chicks!

Two years back, we moved back from US after a long stay of 17 years. While my daughter's new school was getting the new building built, their old building was really a makeshift, and for a year she complained. After all, we just moved from US for good for the first time in her life. She was only 9. and the worst part, the school infrastructure, where she would spend the most time, was not as great as any parent would want it - small, small rooms, no playground etc. It was a new school in town to boot!

Then the new campus was built for her second year at the school, huge grounds, big rooms!

So I asked her - "Would you have this new school building and no friends, rude teachers, inattentive staff or would you have the old building, less facilities but great friends and caring teachers"? She immediately said - "The good friends and teachers."

All her cribbing for a year for bad building was forgotten - the friends mattered more!

So, people give us joy or sorrow, or our joy and sorrow is tightly related to people. We feel joy when they agree with us, do amazing things, share their time with us, ...
We feel sad or angry when they disagree with us, do things we don't like, don't eat the dinner that we made while it is still hot, ... and if they great company, give us sorrow when they leave us.

So, people give us joy and happiness (for most of us normal mortals anyways).

And how do people give us joy? Apart from the short material things - by sharing their time with us, thoughts, likes and dislikes, talking about sweet nothings or sweets, sharing ideas and experiences.

And all this is through language, the foremost of human invention - by which we can visit places simply by reading a book; listen to someone across the globe or read this website and understand and enjoy. (I realize there is American sign language too, but you get the point).

Language is sacred.

The word is sacred.

Don't abuse it, don't abuse the power of the word. No, I am not being Bible-ish. I am talking way much higher level than that.

Word carries the thought.
Thought carries the experience.
Experience - the divine (or the evening soap!)

The wounds of arrows from a bow can still heal, but those from harsh words - they never heal, nor are they forgotten!

Harsh words caused Mahabharata (mahAbhArata, महाभारत, the great epic), the greatest civil war ever in history of the world - once by Draupadi to Duryodhana  (when he stepped in water when he thought there was none, and she called him blind son of blind father * Actually it is not Draupadi as per original Mahabharata, this is added somewhere later on. In Vyasa's Mahabharata, she wasn't even there at the time Duryodhana stepped in water by mistake) and once when Duryodhan (duryodhan, दुर्योधन) insulted her (by asking her to sit in his lap in front of a full court).

Why are words harsh?
Who do they hurt?

They hurt the ego in us.
Because we are full of 'mAnya-mAnitA' (मान्य-मानिता) - "I am great, I deserve respect."
They scare us, for harsh words make us realize the other person is not favorable to us.

But for most humans working at below average grade point, life is like that.
We all have a small bird of ego captured in our (rib)cage and any hurt to this enrages the monster in us - and we go berserk with hurt ego, bruised emotions and what not.

When do we use harsh words?
When we are angry or jealous. Anger comes when something comes in the way of us and what we want. Jealousy comes when someone else already has what we want!

At the root of both is 'our want' and mis-projection of it.

We may use harsh words to our children (our anger rather than their discipline!), our spouse (our venting rather than their fault!), subordinates (our hurt ego somewhere rather than their bad performance).

None of these build any positive vibe, does any real good.

And words are like arrows - once shot can't be reversed - they rarely miss their targets either!

That is why we are given two ears and one mouth - talk less, listen more.






॥ न दुरुक्ताय स्पृहयेत् ॥ ॐ शांतिः ॥

|| na duruktAye spRihayet || om shAntiH||
[rig-veda 1-41-9]


This was not intended to be this long or this deep, but with the flow of thought, the typing doesn't stop. Hope you are reading this line. and if yes, please do let me know your reaction.

May you all find this a turning point in your life and practice the restraint of the tongue, never say harsh words. Take that as a challenge in your life, how can you communicate without using harsh words, without getting angry. Not because someone else is watching, but because you are watching!

And tell me after a day or a week, how it went. How long were you able to remain un-harsh in words.

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

---

And now the language aspects of the shloka -

na = (do) not
duruktAya = duH + ukti = difficult/harsh/bad/hurtful word
uktAya = for word
duruktAya = for harsh words
spRihayet = have desire, craving, coveting for.

so do NOT covet (saying) harsh words.




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

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit