[[Mohan K.V 2013-04-13, 01:27:37 Source]]
सदास्वाद
गेहे किं बहुनाऽधुना गृहपतेः चौराः चरन्त्याखवः
(gehe kiṃ bahunā’dhunā gṛhapateḥ caurāḥ caranty॰ākhavaḥ)
Meaning
“What more is there to say? Thieving rats now rove around the master’s house.” ‘kiṃ bahunā’ is an expression of resignation, and is frequently used to shift the focus from causes to effects. The phrase automatically brings a wistful sigh with it, and is used to great effect. So what are these rats doing, and why is the poet so dejected?Read on!
Context
Today’s phrase is taken from the Bhallaṭa-śataka.Bhallaṭawas a highly refined Kashmiri poet who lived about 1200 years ago. He was a much-decorated poet in the court of King Avantivarman, but lost his patronage when the successor King Shankaravarman took over. This fall from grace very deeply influencedBhallaṭa, and many of his best poems are about it.
The Bhallaṭa-śataka is one of the finest works of allegorical poetry (i.e, consistently employing the anyokti alankara) in Sanskrit. On the surface, each verse is addressed to subjects like animals, plants and emotions; however, there are echoes of deeper meanings throughout. The work is made beautiful by a twofold complexity: Firstly,Bhallaṭa was a highly accomplished court poet and was well versed in the techniques of ornate writing; he uses his considerable mastery ofśabdālaṅkāra with ease. The form is beautiful in itself. Secondly, the content consists of the intricate machinations of a highly advanced social life. While most poets choose simple topics and try to say something creative about them (for example, about good men, bad men, wealth, poverty, etc.),Bhallaṭa chooses complex topics like society’s ungratefulness, the ploys of ambitious men and the perils of over-constrained power. As always, the best way to enjoy this double-scoop of poetic genius is to delve right in.
ननु॰आश्रय-स्थितिः इयं तव कालकूट!
केन॰उत्तरोत्तर-विशिष्ट-पदोपदिष्टा ।
प्राग् अर्णवस्य हृदये वृषलक्ष्मणोऽथ
कण्ठेऽधुना वससि वाचि पुनः खलानाम् ।5।
nanu āśraya-sthitiḥ iyaṃ tava kālakūṭa!
kena uttarottara-viśiṣṭa-padopadiṣṭā |
prāg arṇavasya hṛdaye vṛṣalakṣmaṇo’tha
kaṇṭhe’dhunā vasasi vāci punaḥ khalānām |5|
“Tell me, O Kālakūṭa poison, who taught you to rise to newer and newer heights? First you were buried deep in the ocean; then you rose to occupy Shiva’s throat, and now you’re in the words of villains everywhere!” The Kālakūṭa poison was the first product of the churning of the ocean, and Shiva saved the world by consuming it and held it in his throat. The poet is impressed by this rise, and now, it’s risen even higher, to pervade the tongues of evil men!
दन्तान्त-कुन्त-मुख-सन्तत-पात-घात-
सन्ताडित॰उन्नत-गिरिः गज एव वेत्ति ।
पञ्चास्य-पाणि-पवि-पञ्जर-पात-पीडां
न क्रोष्टुकः श्व-शिशु-हुङ्कृति-नष्ट-चेष्टः ।17।
dantānta-kunta-mukha-santata-pāta-ghāta-
santāḍita unnata-giriḥ gaja eva vetti |
pañcāsya-pāṇi-pavi-pañjara-pāta-pīḍāṃ
na kroṣṭukaḥ śva-śiśu-huṅkṛti-naṣṭa-ceṣṭaḥ |17|
“Only an elephant knows the pain of being struck by a lion, not a jackal”. What kind of elephant?dantānta-kunta-mukha-santata-pāta-ghāta-santāḍita॰unnata-giriḥ – “He who strikes at the very hills with his lancet-like tusks”. What kind of pain?pañcāsya-pāṇi-pavi-pañjara-pāta-pīḍāṃ – “The pain of being struck by a net of captured thunderbolts of the lion’s paws”. And what kind of jackal? “śva-śiśu-huṅkṛti-naṣṭa-ceṣṭaḥ” – “He who loses his will by the mere yelp of a puppy!”. The allegory here is about an inferior man criticizing the loser in a fight between two vastly superior men. Yes, indeed he lost, but the inferior man has no idea what it means to even try. This is Sanskrit’s millennium-old answer to Theodore Roosevelt’s famous speech:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the > strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done > better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, > whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives > valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because > there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the > great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a > worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of > high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he > fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with > those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.” >
किं जातोऽसि चतुष्पथे घनतरच्छायोऽसि किं छायया
सन्नद्धः फलितोऽसि किं फलभरैः पूर्णोऽसि किं सन्नतः ।
हे सद्वृक्ष सहस्व सम्प्रति सखे शाखा-शिखाऽकर्षण-
क्षोभा-मोटन-भञ्जनानि जनतः स्वैः एव दुश्चेष्टितैः ।३७।
kiṃ jāto’si catuṣpathe ghanataracchāyo’si kiṃ chāyayā
sannaddhaḥ phalito’si kiṃ phalabharaiḥ pūrṇo’si kiṃ sannataḥ |
he sadvṛkṣa sahasva samprati sakhe śākhā-śikhā’karṣaṇa-
kṣobhā-moṭana-bhañjanāni janataḥ svaiḥ eva duśceṣṭitaiḥ |37|
“First, why were born on this busy intersection? [Fine, even then] Why did you have to provide such cool shade? [Even more] Why did you have to be full of fruit? [On top of that] Why did bend down with your laden fruit? Good tree, now suffer as vile people pull, twist, break and crush your branches.”
The feeling on the receiving end of ungratefulness can be one of the most disturbing of human experiences. Every step one has laid appears to be a compounding of error. The lesson of not expecting anything of anyone, especially not from an abstract, nebulous entity like ‘society’ or the ‘public’, is almost always learnt too late. And as the old adage goes, “No good turn ever goes unpunished!” :-)
दूरे कस्यचिद् एष कोऽपि॰अकृतधीः नैवास्य वेत्ति॰अन्तरं
मानी कोऽपि न याचते मृगयते कोऽपि॰अल्पम् अल्पाशयः ।
इत्थं प्रार्थित-दान-दुर्व्यसनिनो नौदार्य-रेखोज्ज्वला
जातानैपुण-दुस्तरेषु निकष-स्थानेषु चिन्तामणेः ।52।
dūre kasyacid eṣa ko’pi akṛtadhīḥ naivāsya vetti antaraṃ
mānī ko’pi na yācate mṛgayate ko’pi alpam alpāśayaḥ |
itthaṃ prārthita-dāna-durvyasanino naudārya-rekhojjvalā
jātānaipuṇa-dustareṣu nikaṣa-sthāneṣu cintāmaṇeḥ |52|
“One man doesn’t even know of it. Another doesn’t know its true essence.
Yet another man, out of arrogance, doesn’t use it. Another fool asks silly things of it.
Thus, the glint of grace of the Cintāmaṇi, whose habit it is to give whatever it is asked,
Has never appeared in a place of true use, which requires skill”
The idea is that we possess very valuable things that we don’t know to use well. For the poet, it may have been his own skills, which the King didn’t want. In today’s world, it can be any of several.
Freedom?Dostoevsky commented, “Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born”. People do it all the time when they line up behind tyrants, self-serving frauds and smooth-tongued serpents, “to cheer to the echo an announcement that the government has decided to have them killed”.
Why, there are stages in our life (most frequently, love) when we’re desperately looking to give ourselves up to the first offer! Quentin Crisp commented, “The consuming desire of most human beings is deliberately to place their entire life in the hands of some other person. For this purpose they frequently choose someone who doesn’t even want the beastly thing.” :-)
निस्साराः सुतरां लघु-प्रकृतयो योग्या न कार्ये क्वचिय्
शुष्यन्तोऽद्य जरत्-तृणादि॰अवयवाः प्राप्ताः स्वतन्त्रेण ये ।
अन्तःसार-पराङ्मुखेन धिग् अहो ते मारुतेनामुना
पश्य! अत्यन्तचलेन सद्म महताम् आकाशम् आरोपिता ।५६।
nissārāḥ sutarāṃ laghu-prakṛtayo yogyā na kārye kvaciy
śuṣyanto’dya jarat-tṛṇādi avayavāḥ prāptāḥ svatantreṇa ye |
antaḥsāra-parāṅmukhena dhig aho te mārutenāmunā
paśya! ātyantacalena sadma mahatām ākāśam āropitā |56|
“Devoid of any essence, superficial, incapable of any work whatsoever,
mere bits of dry straw – alas, look! Look how the volatile, fickle-minded wind, uncaring of true qualities, has raised them to the sky, the station of the great!”
Anyone who has ever worked in an organization knows of these bits of straw, who are lifted by the passing currents utterly disproportionately to their abilities. As the subhashita goes, “अमन्त्रम् अक्षरम् नास्ति, नास्ति मूलम् अनौषधम् । आयोग्यः पुरुषो नास्ति योजकाः तत्र दुर्लभाः” (amantram akṣaram nāsti, nāsti mūlam anauṣadham | āyogyaḥ puruṣo nāsti yojakāḥ tatra durlabhāḥ) – Nothing is useless, but people capable of harnessing others’ abilities are always scarce. How true it is of our world today, where literally billions of people are desperately trying to escape idleness and underutilization, and a random lucky few get caught in an updraft and lord over domains far too large for their capabilities!
आहूतेषु विहङ्गमेषु मशको नायान् पुरो वार्यते
मध्येवारिधि वा वसंस्तृणमणिः धत्ते मणीनां रुचम् ।
खद्योतोऽपि न कम्पते प्रचलितुं मध्येऽपि तेजस्विनां
धिक् सामान्यम् अचेतनं प्रभुम् इव॰अनामृष्ट-तत्त्वान्तरम् ।६६।
āhūteṣu vihaṅgameṣu maśako nāyān puro vāryate
madhyevāridhi vā vasaṃstṛṇamaṇiḥ dhatte maṇīnāṃ rucam |
khadyoto’pi na kampate pracalituṃ madhye’pi tejasvināṃ
dhik sāmānyam acetanaṃ prabhum iva anāmṛṣṭa-tattvāntaram |66|
“When birds are called, and a mosquito sneaks in, it is not driven away.
A worthless piece of glass, in the right conditions, starts taking on the lustre of gems.
A mere glow-worm boldly goes about admist luminaries.
To hell with this superficial similarity, which doesn’t care for real discernment!”
If there’s one thing worse than not being recognized, it’s been classed with others not worthy of the same kind of recognition. This ‘uncanny valley’ can be surprisingly deep, and discernment is of the highest essence. What might this discernment look like? George Bernard Shaw has his Don Juan tell the Devil in the playMan and Superman:
… [The Devil’s friends] are not beautiful: they are only > decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. > They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are > not educated: they are only college passmen. They are not religious: > they are only pew-renters. They are not moral: they are only > conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly. They > are not even vicious: they are only “frail.” They are not artistic: > they are only lascivious. They are not prosperous: they are only > rich. They are not loyal, they are only servile; not dutiful, only > sheepish; not public spirited, only patriotic; not courageous, only > quarrelsome; not determined, only obstinate; not masterful, only > domineering; not self-controlled, only obtuse; not self-respecting, > only vain; not kind, only sentimental; not social, only gregarious; > not considerate, only polite; not intelligent, only opinionated; not > progressive, only factious; not imaginative, only superstitious; not > just, only vindictive; not generous, only propitiatory; not > disciplined, only cowed; … >
EvenBhallaṭa would approve!
Today’s phrase appears in a brilliant analogy about overly restrained power:
तत् प्रत्यर्थितया वृतो न तु कृतः सम्यक् स्वतन्त्रो भयात्
स्वस्थः तान् न निपातयेद् इति यथा-कामं न सम्पोषितः ।
संशुष्यन् पृषद् अंश एष कुरुतां मूकः स्थितोऽप्यत्र किं
गेहे किं बहुनाऽधुना गृहपतेः चौराः चरन्त्याखवः ।७८।
tat pratyarthitayā vṛto na tu kṛtaḥ samyak svatantro bhayāt
svasthaḥ tān na nipātayed iti yathā-kāmaṃ na sampoṣitaḥ |
saṃśuṣyan pṛṣad aṃśa eṣa kurutāṃ mūkaḥ sthito’pyatra kiṃ
gehe kiṃ bahunā’dhunā gṛhapateḥ caurāḥ carantyākhavaḥ |78|
“It was the natural choice, so they brought it in. But out of fear, they didn’t give it free scope.
They didn’t feed it well either, thinking “If it is contented, it won’t hunt them down”.
What can that poor, weak, mute, scrawny cat do now?
Sigh, what more is there to say? Thieving rats now rove around the master’s house.”
This is the story of every institution that has become ineffective because of overconstraint. How many can you list which fit this description perfectly? The police? Check. Anti-corruption agencies? Check. Regulators? Check.
वाताहारतया जगद् विषधरैः आश्वास्य निःशेषितं
ते ग्रस्ताः पुनः अभ्र-तोय-कणिका-तीव्र-व्रतैः बर्हिभिः ।
तेऽपि क्रूर-चमूरु-चर्म-वसनैः नीताः क्षयं लुब्धकैः
दम्भस्य स्फुरितं विदन् अपि जनो जाल्मो गुणनीहते ।८४।
vātāhāratayā jagad viṣadharaiḥ āśvāsya niḥśeṣitaṃ
te grastāḥ punaḥ abhra-toya-kaṇikā-tīvra-vrataiḥ barhibhiḥ |
te’pi krūra-camūru-carma-vasanaiḥ nītāḥ kṣayaṃ lubdhakaiḥ
dambhasya sphuritaṃ vidan api jano jālmo guṇanīhate |84|
“By gaining a reputation as surviving on just air, snakes consumed this world whole;
In turn, they were devoured by peacocks, famous for their vow of feeding only on drops of rainwater;
In turn, they were killed by hunters, renowned for their discipline in wearing only coarse garments.
Even though vile men know this hypocrisy, they still consider it virtuous”
Can we even begin to ponder how apt this is for today? From folks on whom much was spent to keep them poor to those for whom the buck stops when the bucks do, hypocrisy is a national pastime. An Irish proverb goes, “He who gets a name for early rising can stay in bed until midday.” :-)
(In the Sanskrit aesthetic code (kavi-samaya), snakes are famous for surviving on air and peacocks on just rainwater drops. This is not biologically true, and even the poets knew that. But like Shakespeare’s “crocodile tears”, they became popularly accepted. Crocodiles do not cry, and certainly don’t shed tears to generate sympathy!)
ऊढा येन महा-धुरः सुविषमे मार्गे सदैकाकिना
सोढो येन कदाचिद् एव न निजे गोष्ठेऽन्य-शौण्ड-ध्वनिः ।
आसीद् यः तु गवां गणस्य तिलकः तस्यैव सम्प्रत्य् अहो
धिक् कष्टं धवलस्य जातजरसो गोः पण्यम् उद्घोष्यते ।८५।
ūḍhā yena mahā-dhuraḥ suviṣame mārge sadaikākinā
soḍho yena kadācid eva na nije goṣṭhe’nya-śauṇḍa-dhvaniḥ |
āsīd yaḥ tu gavāṃ gaṇasya tilakaḥ tasyaiva sampraty aho
dhik kaṣṭaṃ dhavalasya jātajaraso goḥ paṇyam udghoṣyate |85|
“He, who bore the great burden all by himself on the difficult twisting road,
He, who never allowed an improper voice in his pen,
He, who was indeed the proudest ornament of his kind,
Now, alas, now, white with old age, his sale is announced aloud.”
To match the allegorical darkness and impact of this verse, we have Boxer the horse from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and his tragic demise. All his life, Boxer believed that any problem could be solved if only he worked harder; such ideological purity coupled with naivety is only begging to be exploited.
This isBhallaṭa’s “society version” of a similarly themed gem of Bhartṛhari, “rātrir gamiṣyati bhaviṣyati suprabhātaṃ…”. The latter is about Fate and is equally tragic, but the former is much moreinsidiousbecause it is not some impersonal concept, but living people who are inflicting the cruelty.
भेकेन क्वणता सरोष-परुषं यत् कृष्ण-सर्पानने
दातुं गण्ड-चपेतम् उज्झित-भिया हस्तः समुल्लासितः ।
यत् चाधोमुखम् अक्षिणी पिदधता नागेन तत्र स्थितं
तत् सर्वं विषमन्त्रिणो भगवतः कस्यापि लीलायितम् ।९३।
bhekena kvaṇatā saroṣa-paruṣaṃ yat kṛṣṇa-sarpānane
dātuṃ gaṇḍa-capetam ujjhita-bhiyā hastaḥ samullāsitaḥ |
yat cādhomukham akṣiṇī pidadhatā nāgena tatra sthitaṃ
tat sarvaṃ viṣamantriṇo bhagavataḥ kasyāpi līlāyitam |93|
“A frog croaksangrily, and fearlessly raises its hand to slap a black cobra its face. The cobra sits still, lowers its face, and closes its eyes – Surely, all this is some great sorcerers game!”
Some would say thatBhallaṭa was looking into the future of 1200 years, and describing the life of a certain class of officers serving under certain hinterland politicians! :-)
Thought for today
Today’s edition talked much about deception, hypocrisy and other advanced forms of social villainy; but a simple observation by Vyāsa, who makes Vidura say this to Dhṛtarāṣṭra, perhaps contains the seed of most problems:
सुलभाः पुरुषाः राजन् सततं प्रियवादिनः । >
अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्त वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः ॥ >
sulabhāḥ puruṣāḥ rājan satataṃ priyavādinaḥ | >
apriyasya ca pathyasta vaktā śrotā ca durlabhaḥ || >
“People who always speak sweetly, O King, are easy to come by. What’s difficult is to find the one who speaks what is good but unpleasant, and the one who’s willing to listen to it.” >
Please join the Google Group to subscribe to these (~ weekly) postings:https://groups.google.com/group/sadaswada/subscribe?hl=en