[[Mohan K.V 2013-10-24, 00:00:12 Source]]
सदास्वादरोमन्थः
Dear readers,
We received a rich crop of feedback for the last few editions, and we sincerely thank you for your support and encouragement. Let’s begin with a few things we missed saying in the editions themselves.
In edition #47 (Hanumannāṭaka), we had covered a verse where Hanumān felt very shy when Rāma expressed his joyous gratefulness towards him. The verse had Hanumān thinking that he had done nothing great, that he was just a messenger, and that Rāma’s embrace was too great a prize for such a ’trivial’ task.
There is a very subtle aspect that may be at play here. For many of us, giving love is much, much easier than receiving it. We will not think twice about making great sacrifices for our loved ones, but don’t quite know what to do when it comes to receiving love, be it in the form of simple gratefulness or a return favour. The Harvard psychologist George Vaillant illustrates this with an anecdote in his epic longitudinal study of happiness:
To illustrate his point, he told a story about one of his “prize” Grant Study men, a doctor and well-loved husband. “On his 70th birthday,” Vaillant said, “when he retired from the faculty of medicine, his wife got hold of his patient list and secretly wrote to many of his longest-running patients, ‘Would you write a letter of appreciation?’ And back came 100 single-spaced, desperately loving letters—often with pictures attached. And she put them in a lovely presentation box covered with Thai silk, and gave it to him.” Eight years later, Vaillant interviewed the man, who proudly pulled the box down from his shelf. “George, I don’t know what you’re going to make of this,” the man said, as he began to cry, “but I’ve never read it.” “It’s very hard,” Vaillant said, “for most of us to tolerate being loved.”
Next, in edition #48 (Rāmāyaṇa), we had elaborated on one of the simile’s used by Valmīki, “śraddhāmiva vimānitām”. The other three similes used to describeSītā’s sad state are equally profound as well. Consider another one, “sannāmiva mahākīrtiṃ”, “Like once-great fame that has decayed”. As Sītā sat in loneliness in a grove in faraway Lanka, how different her state was from her prime, as the dear daughter of Janaka and the beloved of the great Rāma! Of all her sorrows, the very fact that she was removed from her context probably ranked the highest. This reminds us of a quote from the recent movie Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium:
Mr. Magorium: “When King Lear dies in Act V, do you know what Shakespeare has written? He’s written “He dies.” That’s all, nothing more. No fanfare, no metaphor, no brilliant final words. The culmination of the most influential work of dramatic literature is “He dies.” It takes Shakespeare, a genius, to come up with “He dies.” And yet every time I read those two words, I find myself overwhelmed with dysphoria. And I know it’s only natural to be sad, but not because of the words “He dies.” but because of the life we saw prior to the words.”
Indeed, it is the life we saw prior to the words that adds the real power to Sītā’s lament. This quote from the movie became popular because it was an inspiration to the finale of a TV series we had mentioned sometime ago, Breaking Bad.
Coming now to the feedback, Śatāvadhāni Dr. R. Ganesh commented on edition #45 (Buddha-carita) that the Tibetan translation was translated to English, and in turn used to re-mould portions of the lost original text. However, this work doesn’t quite have the same aura, either stylistically or historically.
Dr. Phani Kumar noticed that the Buddha’s spirit of inquiry and independent thinking is markedly similar to that of Naciketa in the Kaṭhopaniṣad. When Yama offers Naciketa three boons, he chooses peace of mind for his father as his first and the secret of a special fire sacrifice as his second. For his third boon, he asks Yama this:
येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्ये
अस्तीत्येके नायम् अस्तीति चैके ।
एतद् विद्याम् अनुशिष्टस् त्वयाहं
वराणाम् एष वरस् तृतीयः ॥1.20॥
yeyaṃ prete vicikitsā manuṣye
astītyeke nāyam astīti caike |
etad vidyām anuśiṣṭas tvayāhaṃ
varāṇām eṣa varas tṛtīyaḥ ||1|20||
“When a man has passed on, there remains a question:
Some say he still is, some others say he does not exist anymore.
I want to be taught the knowledge of this by you –
this is my third boon.”
Yama tries to dissuade him, saying this is something too subtle for even the gods to understand, and offers many material alternatives - kingdoms, chariots, pleasures. Naciketa is unswayed, and dismisses them as ‘śvobhāva’ – ‘barely lasting till tomorrow’ and insists on his original question. He says the famous line, “na vittena tarpaṇīyo manuṣyo. lapsyāmahe vittam adrākṣma cet tvā ?” “Man cannot be made satisfied with wealth. What wealth do we have really, if we see you coming?” The rest of the Upaniṣad follows.
Coming to edition #47 (Hanumannāṭaka), Dr. Ganesh pointed out a flaw in our translation of the thought for the day: we translated “bhikṣu” as “beggar”, but it is better translated as “holy man” or “monk”, especially Buddhist or Jain. The poem then takes on a tinge of comedic mockery, because a supposed holy man is indulging in forbidden practices.
Also, in the last line, ‘bhraṣṭa’ is better read as ‘fallen’, highlighting one’s fall rather than one’s state.
Prof. Pramod Vishwanath commented that the fact that theSundara-kāṇḍa is a very uplifting portion of the work may be one of the reasons it is read first in anyPārāyaṇa; he noted a parallel with the Virāṭa-parva of the Mahābhārata – Both chapters start with really dismally situated protagonists and entirely transform their fortunes by the end.
We sincerely thank you for keeping the discussion alive!
As always, we welcome any thoughts, feedback and suggestions from you all. Please email us at kvm….@gmail.com and shree…@gmail.com
Thought for today
All this is heavy stuff. Some anonymous poet definitely thought the same when he penned this ditty :
निद्राप्रियो यः खलु कुम्भकर्णो हतः समीके स रघूत्तमेन । वैधव्यम् आपद्यत तस्य भार्या श्रोतुं समायाति कथा-पुराणम् ॥
nidrāpriyo yaḥ khalu kumbhakarṇo hataḥ samīke sa raghūttamena | vaidhavyam āpadyata tasya bhāryā śrotuṃ samāyāti kathā-purāṇam ||
“Kumbhakarṇa loved Sleep [commonly symbolized a goddess]. WhenRāma killed him in battle, poor Sleep was widowed. That’s why she comes so often to Purāṇa-pravacanas! [i.e. people fall asleep at them all the time]” :-)
Please join the Google Group to subscribe to these (~ weekly) postings: https://groups.google.com/group/sadaswada/subscribe?hl=en