Of what use is science to the unintelligent?

How can shāstra help a person without self-intelligence?

What will a mirror do, for the one devoid of sight?

shAstra is that which is an authority. A field or a work in that field that is authoritative work, could be any of the –logies that we know, or seminal works in these fields. It is what you fall back on when you have doubt. It could be the dharma-shAstra, artha-shAstra, or any such works that people referred to when in doubt. It can even be the Veda, Upanishad, Gita etc.

But such a shAstra can only help those who have some intelligence of their own. Why? When you don’t apply your own intelligence to the matter at hand, you will never make the truth your own; it will never be part of you. You may babble it out, but you have not understood it. If the situation changes a little bit, the solution won’t fit and you won’t know how to modify the solution to fit the changed situation. That is when, you would say “I don’t know or care, this is how it has been done always, and this is how I will do.” And therein begins the fall of humanity’s progress in whichever field it is. Chandogya Upanishad explains this very clearly in 7:17:1 and 7:18:1 about the who can understand the truth? One who meditates, contemplates, mulls over it, only then the truth becomes yours.

This happens a lot in spiritual and religious fields as well. While in Sanatana dharma aka Hinduism, there are still many previous works to refer to when in doubt, other religions don’t have that luxury or provision. And it is but natural that the conditions in the society are not same as they were 1500 or 3000 years back. Are the shAstra-s themselves flexible enough to allow reinterpretation for changed times? Are they algebra with formulas where in you can feed new values to get results for changed times? Or are they arithmetic so that we don’t know the basic principles which we can apply to changed situations.

A mirror will help you make up only if you have your own eyes. If you are borrowing someone else’s eyes, you don’t need the mirror, that other person will correct your makeup. In which case you are forever dependent on that person - be it a guru or a swami or a priest or a padre.

If you don’t open your eyes, use your intelligence and get up with some initial help from others, you will always be crawling, crying, scared, dependent, helpless like a baby, yet adamant and ever-ready to charge others, like a bull.

Become a fan of the blog. Join us on Facebook.
Attitude Shift - Sanskrit maxims for life and leadership or Kindle e-book

And now the language aspects -

यस्य नास्ति स्वयं प्रज्ञा शास्त्रं तस्य करोति किम् ।

लोचनाभ्यां विहीनस्य दर्पणः किं करिष्यति ॥ (Devanagri)
Hitopadesh 3:119

yasya nāsti svayaṃ prajñā shāstraṃ tasya karoti kim |

lochanābhyāṃ vihīnasya darpaṇaḥ kiṃ kariṣhyati || (IAST)

yasya nAsti svayaM praj~nA shAstraM tasya karoti kim |

lochanAbhyAM vihInasya darpaNaH kiM kariShyati || (ITRANS)

yasya = whose

nAsti = na asti = not is

svayaM = self, of one’s own

praj~nA = intelligence (also spelt as praGYA, or pragya)

shAstraM = sciences, shAstra

tasya = that person’s

karoti = does

kim = what?

lochanAbhyAM = from the two eyes (it is a usage thing, goes with vihIna, devoid of the eyes)

vihInasya = of the one who is devoid (that is of the one who is devoid of the two eyes)

darpaNaH = mirror

kiM = what

kariShyati = will do?

Apte's dictionary defines shAstra as:

शास्त्रम् [शिष्यते$नेन शास्-ष्ट्रन्] 1 An order, a command, rule, precept; अतिक्रामति यः शास्त्रं पितुर्धर्मार्थदर्शिनः Mb.5.148. 21. -2 A sacred precept or rule, scriptural injunction; तस्माच्छास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते कार्याकार्यव्यवस्थितौ Bg.16.24. -3 A religious or sacred treatise, sacred book, scripture; see comps. below. -4 Any department of knowledge, science; इति गुह्यतमं शास्त्रम् Bg.15.2; शास्त्रेष्वकुण्ठिता बुद्धिः R.1.19; often at the end of comp. after the word denoting the subject, or applied collectively to the whole body of teaching on that subject; वेदान्तशास्त्र, न्यायशास्त्र, तर्कशास्त्र, अलंकार- शास्त्र &c. -5 What is learnt, knowledge; Śi.5.47. -6 A work, treatise;  

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

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit  

Word of an honest person is like an oath, even when said in jest

The word ‘sat’ is the root word for truth, good, etc. and when used for people, it would be like saying ‘gentlemen, good people, honest people, people of good character’. ‘satsang’ means the company of ‘sat’ or good people. ‘sadguru’ means a true guru, ‘sajjana’ means good people.

The people of good character, even if they say something jokingly, they abide by it if need be. You can be sure that they will be true to their words, even if they were ‘kidding’. If they promise something, you can count on them -as if they had written on a stone edict announcing to the whole world.

The people of bad character or dishonest people, even when they promise under oath, it is like writing on water (beach writing anyone!?) and you can’t count on that either. They will make some excuse and wriggle out of it.



And now the language aspects - 
sadbhiH = by the honest people of good character; sat = good; sadbhiH = by the good people (plural. -bhiH suffix)

tu = certainly

leelayA = jokingly, by way of leelA (fun, game, playing, kidding)

proktaM = speech, words, that which has been said. pra + uktam;

shilA-likhitam = that which is written [likhitam] on stone [shilA]

akSharam = letter; a-kSharam = that which does not disintegrate any further -- letter, which is the smallest unit of language; Supreme Divine, which doesn’t disintegrate; kShAra = alkali;

asadbhiH = by the dishonest people

shapathena = by oath

api = also

jale = in water

likhitam = written

akSharam = letter
 





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

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit  

Learning Sanskrit: The Easy and Practical Way - Workbook 2 - Ligatures

Learning Sanskrit: The Easy and Practical Way -
Workbook 2 - Ligatures (Conjugate and complex letters)

Various variants of ha-conjugates.

Following the Workbook 1 which covered single letters, Workbook 2 is out and covers conjugate letters. Conjugate letters (Ligatures) are integral to Sanskrit script for a very scientific reason (explained in the Workbook).

This Workbook 2 covers all combinations of consonants + vowels and gives writing practice. It also lists out almost 100 ligatures, where consonants meet consonants and a new letter is formed. This is a comprehensive list, and most computer fonts don't have all of the ligatures. This 80 pages, 8.5x11 size workbook covers everything there is to be able to read classical Sanskrit. This of course doesn't mean you can understand the original texts, but being able to read the original script open doors for much more material to read, learn and enjoy. And, trust me, Sanskrit looks so much more beautiful in its own script.

TO WATCH IT FULL SCREEN, click on the "Watch it on Youtube' icon (or here)on bottom right of the video frame, then on Youtube click on the 'Full Screen' icon on bottom right of the the video frame.

 Features: 

• All consonant+vowel combinations writing practice;  
• Coffee/tea Break Time practices, 
• Original Sanskrit texts from famous works for exercise, 
• Calligraphy artwork, 
• Comprehensive list of 100 ligatures
• Special signs and marks
• Most suitable for those who have not had exposure to Indian scripts or Sanskrit.

Things covered in Workbook 1 are not covered again, so keep your Workbook 1 handy. If you have not ordered that yet you can do so now. Order your copy now.

There is also a focused study group for those who are following the workbook and need help or motivation. Join it once you have started studying the workbook.





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

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit  

Great vow of friendship - प्राणैरपि हिता

The great vow of friendship - always help (even at cost of life), never swindle, avoid excuses, treat like self.

प्राणैरपि हिता वृत्तिरद्रोहो व्याजवर्जनम् |

आत्मनीव प्रियाधानमेतन्मैत्रीमहाव्रतम् ||

prāṇair_api hitā vṛittir_adroho vyāja-varjanam |

ātamanīva priyādhānam_étan_maitrī-mahā-vratam || (IAST)

prANair_api hitA vRittir_adroho vyAja-varjanam |

AtamanIva priyAdhAnam_etan_maitrI-mahA-vratam || (ITRANS)

And now the language aspects -

prANaiH = by prANa, life

api = also

hitA = hitAH = beneficial, doing good

vRittir_adroho = non-betrayal in money matters
vRittiH = money, wealth
adroho = adrohaH = not (a-) betraying

vyAja-varjanam = excuses-avoidance, avoids excuses

AtamanIva = Atmani + iva = like (iva) in oneself

priyAdhAnam = holds, considers the dear/friend

etan = etat = this [is]

maitrI = [of] friendship

mahA-vratam = great vow

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

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit  

Give your best, be of some worth - अलसस्य कुतो विद्या

No effort

then,  No knowledge

then,  No money

then,  No friend

then,  No joy :(

अलसस्य कुतो विद्या अविद्यस्य कुतो धनम् ।

अधनस्य कुतो मित्रं अमित्रस्य कुतः सुखम् ॥

alasasya kuto vidyā, avidyasya kuto dhanam |

adhanasya kuto mitram, amitrasya kutaḥ sukham || (IAST)

alasasya kuto vidyA, avidyasya kuto dhanam |

adhanasya kuto mitram, amitrasya kutaH sukham || (ITRANS)

This is a very popular shloka, subhāṣhita (सुभाषित, subhAShita, well saying), which is misunderstood often. And the main objection seems to be coming from the rather crass assumption that 'no money, then no friends.' Is friendship supposed to be so shallow? This is not ancient Indian outlook; it is supposed to be all spiritual, goody-goody, well wishing for the world kind of 'mush'.

But, one forgets two things here. One, India has been the richest civilization in the world for the longest time. And you can't build civilizations, or corporations only on spirituality. Just like you cannot have a body without proper material care of it like food, medicine, exercise etc. Empires are not built on abstract spirituality. They can be guided by it, but not only by it.

Second, Sanskrit literature is not only about spirituality. Agreed, it is the most stressed topic, and most different from other civilizations, so the 'special' factor is there, which gets more media coverage, so to speak.

When confronted with sayings like this, how should we interpret it? Or should we just trash it?

Let us ponder upon a few aspects of interpretation like context (who said to whom under what conditions) and main point of the saying, the cause and effect chain and the differentiation between theory and reality.

Effort.
If you do not put effort, you cannot learn anything. And we are not talking about just bookish knowledge in a classroom with uniform and laboratories. Even to be a great painter, machinist, miner, athlete, dancer, car mechanic or what have you, you need to put effort in learning the 'trade'.

Look at a baby. It knows nothing at birth, except wailing. In two years, it has learned more than it will ever learn in a lifetime (proportionately). By age 2, it can stand, run, climb, eat, grasp, talk, make 10 different faces, focus eyes to see, figure out where a sound comes from, and some can even operate an iPad. If a baby were not to put effort, mommy will have to carry him/her around forever!

So, you must put enough effort. What area? What job you will get? That is all secondary. But whatever you choose, put in all you can.

Knowledge.
If you go for a job, any kind, permanent or temporary, Fortune 500 or mom-and-pop shop, housekeeping at a motel or a school teacher, the first question that is on the employer's mind is - 'What do you know? What can you do?'

Some are programmers, some technicians, some policy makers, some negotiators, some campaign managers, some maids, some plumbers, some doctors, some drivers - list is endless. But they all are supposed to know their job.

'Knowledge is power' is not over-stated. It indeed is.

Money.
Many good-hearted people get an uneasy feeling upon hearing the word money. Money is not important mostly to those who have already acquired enough, at least to cover the basic needs and wants of life. After eating, most people do not feel hungry. But that does not make food unimportant!

Other times, it has got an ill-repute. We think of scandals and corruptions, Occupy Wall Street and $1.6 trillion annually spent on military expenses by the world. Yes, that is $1.6 trillion. Imagine if it was used for development, all economic problems of the world can be solved!

Now, the last thought is the crux. Money is not good, bad or ugly. What you do with it, is. Money is a social contract, promise to pay the bearer in kind. You take money and can buy bread, milk or a gun. The barter system was not scalable for growing economies even as back as 5000 years back!

The highly revered Vishnu and Lakshmi both are divinity of preservation, sustenance and wealth and prosperity. How could resources, things, be bad? But the use can be. As a race, we now produce enough food to feed the whole earth, but still so many go hungry and die.

Friends.
Now comes the sticky part. How can we say that "No money? No friends!"

When do you make friends? In childhood, when you did not earn or have money; mind was less complicated without far reaching evil plans. You enjoyed someone's company and you were friends. The second time you made friends was as grown-ups when you had something in common - job, hobby, apartment complex, gym, yoga studio, friends etc.

But we make friends among equals. A very rich person (compared to us) did not make us their friend. Nor did we stoop down four economic levels below to make a friend.

But if you look at it, it says 'the poor does not make friends.' Poor is relative. Sure, poor people have friends. But they too are poor, so relatively they are peers, not poors. You may have made a friend in good times, and now you are having a bad time, friends will help. If you slip too much down, and if it is because you are lazy and unqualified, chances are even friends will start leaving you, or replace friendship with charity.

Friends may be with you in your poor times, but you will not make new, richer friends.

Happiness.
This should not need any explanation at all. We all want friends. To talk and share life experiences. That is why we date, marry, join clubs and societies, throw parties etc. That is the real reason for success of Facebook as well.


So, what is the context and who said it?
This is from Chāṇakya Nīti, and Chāṇakya was not interested in mushy spirituality. He was a statesman, economist, administrator first; and had real job to do, real problems to face - of human incompetency, jealousy, animosity, laziness etc. as part of his job.

What is the main point?
Put effort; be of some worth to the society. Only then will society want to give you a share of the pie.
Without pie, no party; without party, no friends.



And now the language aspects -

alasasya = of the lazy;
kuto = kutaḥ = where?
vidyā = knowledge (of anything);

avidyasya = of the un-knowledgeable;
kuto = kutaḥ = where?
dhanam = money, wealth;

adhanasya = of the poor;
kuto = kutaḥ = where?
mitram = friend;

amitrasya = of the without-friend;
kutaḥ = where;
sukham = happiness?


-sya suffix in the words indicates (of)




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

https://PracticalSanskrit.com/

https://facebook.com/PracticalSanskrit