"'Yudhishthira said, "Without abandoning the domestic mode of life, O
royal sage of Kuru's race, who ever attained to Emancipation which is the
annihilation of the Understanding (and the other faculties)? Do tell me
this! How may the gross and the subtile form be cast off? Do thou also, O
grandsire, tell me what the supreme excellence of Emancipation is."
"'Bhishma said, "In this connection is cited the old narrative of the
discourse between Janaka and Sulabha, O Bharata! In days of yore there
was a king of Mithila, of the name of Dharmadhyaja, of Janaka's race. He
was devoted to the practices of the religion of Renunciation. He was well
conversant with the Vedas, with the scriptures on Emancipation, and with
the scriptures bearing on his own duty as a king. Subjugating his senses,
he ruled his Earth. Hearing of his good behaviour in the world, many men
of wisdom, well-conversant with wisdom, O foremost of men, desired to
imitate him. In the same Satya Yuga, a woman of the name of Sulabha,
belonging to the mendicant order, practised the duties of Yoga and
wandered over the whole Earth. In course of her wanderings over the
Earth, Sulabha heard from many Dandis of different places that the ruler
of Mithila was devoted to the religion of Emancipation. Hearing this
report about king Janaka and desirous of ascertaining whether it was true
or not, Sulabha became desirous of having a personal interview with
Janaka. Abandoning, by her Yoga powers, her former form and features,
Sulabha assumed the most faultless features and unrivalled beauty. In the
twinkling of an eye and with the speed of the quickest shaft, the
fair-browed lady of eyes like lotus-petals repaired to the capital of the
Videhas. Arrived at the chief city of Mithila teeming with a large
population, she adopted the guise of a mendicant and presented herself
before the king. The monarch, beholding her delicate form, became filled
with wonder and enquired who she was, whose she was, and whence she came.
Welcoming her, he assigned her an excellent seat, honoured her by
offering water to wash her feet, and gratified her with excellent
refreshments. Refreshed duly and gratified with the rites of hospitality
offered unto her, Sulabha, the female mendicant, urged the king, who was
surrounded by his ministers and seated in the midst of learned scholars,
(to declare himself in respect of his adherence to the religion of
Emancipation). Doubting whether Janaka had succeeded in attaining to
Emancipation, by following the religion of Nivritti, Sulabha, endued with
Yoga-power, entered the understanding of the king by her own
understanding. Restraining, by means of the rays of light that emanated
from her own eyes, the rays issuing from the eyes of the king, the lady,
desirous of ascertaining the truth, bound up king Janaka with Yoga
bonds.[1677] That best of monarchs, priding himself upon his own
invincibleness and defeating the intentions of Sulabha seized her
resolution with his own resolution.[1678] The king, in his subtile form,
was without the royal umbrella and sceptre. The lady Sulabha, in hers,
was without the triple stick. Both staying then in the same (gross) form,
thus conversed with each other. Listen to that conversation as it
happened between the monarch and Sulabha.
"'"Janaka said, 'O holy lady, to what course of conduct art thou devoted?
Whose art thou? Whence hast thou come? After finishing thy business here,
whither wilt thou go? No one can, without questioning, ascertain
another's acquaintance with the scriptures, or age, or order of birth.
Thou shouldst, therefore, answer these questions of mine, when thou has
come to me. Know that I am truly freed from all vanity in respect of my
royal umbrella and sceptre. I wish to know thee thoroughly. Thou art
deserving I hold, of my respect.[1679] Do thou listen to me as I speak to
thee on Emancipation for there is none else (in this world) that can
discourse to thee on that topic. Hear me also. I tell thee who that person
is from whom in days of old I acquired this distinguishing
knowledge.[1680] I am the beloved disciple of the high-souled and
venerable Panchasikha, belonging to the mendicant order, of Parasara's
race. My doubts have been dispelled and am fully conversant with the
Sankhya and the Yoga systems, and the ordinances as in respect of
sacrifices and other rites, which constitutes the three well-known paths
of Emancipation.[1681] Wandering over the earth and pursuing the while
the path that is pointed out by the scriptures, the learned Panchasikha
formerly dwelt in happiness in my abode for a period of four months in
the rainy season. That foremost of Sankhyas discoursed to me, agreeably
to the truth, and in an intelligible manner suited to my comprehension,
on the several kinds of means for attaining to Emancipation. He did not,
however, command me to give up my kingdom. Freed from attachments, and
fixing my Soul on supreme Brahma, and unmoved by companionship, I lived,
practising in its entirety that triple conduct which is laid down in
treatises on Emancipation. Renunciation (of all kinds of attachments) is
the highest means prescribed for Emancipation. It is from Knowledge that
Renunciation, by which one becomes freed, is said to flow. From Knowledge
arises the endeavour after Yoga, and through that endeavour one attains
to knowledge of Self or Soul. Through knowledge of Self one transcends
joy and grief. That enables one to transcend death and attain to high
success. That high intelligence (knowledge of Self) has been acquired by
me, and accordingly I have transcended all pairs of opposites. Even in
this life have I been freed from stupefaction and have transcended all
attachments. As a soil, saturated with water and softened thereby, causes
the (sown) seed to sprout forth, after the same manner, the acts of men
cause rebirth. As a seed, fried on a pan or otherwise, becomes unable to
sprout forth although the capacity for sprouting was there, after the
same manner my understanding having been freed from the productive
principle constituted by desire, by the instruction of the holy
Panchasikha of the mendicant order, it no longer produces its fruit in
the form of attachment to the object of the senses. I never experience
love for my spouse or hate for my foes. Indeed, I keep aloof from both,
beholding the fruitlessness of attachment and wrath. I regard both
persons equally, viz., him that smears my right hand with sandal-paste
and him that wounds my left. Having attained my (true) object, I am
happy, and look equally upon a clod of earth, a piece of stone, and a
lump of gold. I am freed from attachments of every kind, though am
engaged in ruling a kingdom. In consequence of all this I am
distinguished over all bearers of triple sticks. Some foremost of men
that are conversant with the topic of Emancipation say that Emancipation
has a triple path, (these are knowledge, Yoga, and sacrifices and rites).
Some regard knowledge having all things of the world for its object as
the means of emancipation. Some hold that the total renunciation of acts
(both external and internal) is the means thereof. Another class of
persons conversant with the scriptures of Emancipation say that Knowledge
is the single means. Other, viz. Yatis, endued with subtile vision, hold
that acts constitute the means. The high-souled Panchasikha, discarding
both the opinion about knowledge and acts, regarded the third as the only
means of Emancipation. If men leading the domestic mode of life be endued
with Yama and Niyama, they become the equals of Sannyasins. If, on the
other hand, Sannyasins be endued with desire and aversion and spouses and
honour and pride and affection, they become the equals of men leading
domestic modes of life.[1682] If one can attain to Emancipation by means
of knowledge, then may Emancipation exist in triple sticks (for there is
nothing to prevent the bearers of such stick from acquiring the needful
knowledge). Why then may Emancipation not exist in the umbrella and the
sceptre as well, especially when there is equal reason in taking up the
triple stick and the sceptre?[1683] One becomes attached to all those
things and acts with which one has need for the sake of one's own self
for particular reasons.[1684] If a person, beholding the faults of the
domestic mode of life, casts it off for adopting another mode (which he
considers to be fraught with great merit), he cannot, for such rejection
and adoption be regarded as one that is once freed from all attachments,
(for all that he has done has been to attach himself to a new mode after
having freed himself from a previous one).[1685] Sovereignty is fraught
with the rewarding and the chastising of others. The life of a mendicant
is equally fraught with the same (for mendicants also reward and chastise
those they can). When, therefore, mendicants are similar to kings in this
respect, why would mendicants only attain to Emancipation, and not kings?
Notwithstanding the possession of sovereignty, therefore, one becomes
cleansed of all sins by means of knowledge alone, living the while in
Supreme Brahma. The wearing of brown cloths, shaving of the head, bearing
of the triple stick, and the Kamandalu,--these are the outward signs of
one's mode of life. These have no value in aiding one to the attainment
of Emancipation. When, notwithstanding the adoption of these emblems of a
particular mode of life, knowledge alone becomes the cause of one's
Emancipation from sorrow, it would appear that the adoption of mere
emblems is perfectly useless. Or, if, beholding the mitigation of sorrow
in it, thou hast betaken thyself to these emblems of Sannyasi, why then
should not the mitigation of sorrow be beheld in the umbrella and the
sceptre to which I have betaken myself? Emancipation does not exist in
poverty; nor is bondage to be found in affluence. One attains to
Emancipation through Knowledge alone, whether one is indigent or
affluent. For these reasons, know that I am living in a condition of
freedom, though ostensibly engaged in the enjoyments of religion, wealth,
and pleasure, in the form of kingdom and spouses, which constitute a
field of bondage (for the generality of men). The bonds constituted by
kingdom and affluence, and the bondage to attachments, I have cut off
with the sword of Renunciation whetted on the stone of the scriptures
bearing upon Emancipation. As regards myself then, I tell thee that I
have become freed in this way. O lady of the mendicant order, I cherish
an affection for thee. But that should not prevent me from telling thee
that thy behaviour does not correspond with the practices of the mode of
life to which thou hast betaken thyself! Thou hast great delicacy of
formation. Thou hast an exceedingly shapely form. Thy age is young. Thou
hast all these, and thou hast Niyama (subjugation of the senses). I doubt
it verily. Thou hast stopped up my body (by entering into me with the aid
of the Yoga power) for ascertaining as to whether I am really emancipated
or not. This act of thine ill corresponds with that mode of life whose
emblems thou bearest. For Yogin that is endued with desire, the triple
stick is unfit. As regards thyself, thou dost not adhere to thy stick. As
regards those that are freed, it behoves even them to protect themselves
from fall.[1686] Listen now to me as to what thy transgression has been
in consequence of thy contact with me and thy having entered into my
gross body with the aid of thy understanding. To what reason is thy
entrance to be ascribed into my kingdom or my palace? At whose sign hast
thou entered into my heart?[1687] Thou belongest to the foremost of all
the orders, being, as thou art, a Brahmana woman. As regards myself,
however, I am a Kshatriya. There is no union for us two. Do not help to
cause an intermixture of colours. Thou livest in the practice of those
duties that lead to Emancipation. I live in the domestic mode of life.
This act of thine, therefore, is another evil thou hast done, for it
produces an unnatural union of two opposite modes of life. I do not know
whether thou belongest to my own gotra or dost not belong to it. As
regards thyself also, thou dost not know who I am (viz., to what gotra I
belong). If thou art of my own gotra, thou hast, by entering into my
person, produced another evil,--the evil, viz., of unnatural union. If,
again, thy husband be alive and dwelling in a distant place, thy union
with me has produced the fourth evil of sinfulness, for thou art not one
with whom I may be lawfully united. Dost thou perpetrate all these sinful
acts, impelled by the motive of accomplishing a particular object? Dost
thou do these from ignorance or from perverted intelligence? If, again,
in consequence of thy evil nature thou hast thus become thoroughly
independent or unrestrained in thy behaviour, I tell thee that if thou
hast any knowledge of the scriptures, thou wilt understand that
everything thou hast done has been productive of evil. A third fault
attaches to thee in consequence of these acts of thine, a fault that is
destructive of peace of mind. By endeavouring to display thy superiority,
the indication of a wicked woman is seen in thee. Desirous of asserting
thy victory as thou art, it is not myself alone whom thou wishest to
defeat, for it is plain that thou wishest to obtain a victory over even
the whole of my court (consisting of these learned and very superior
Brahmanas), by casting thy eyes in this way towards all these meritorious
Brahmanas, it is evident that thou desirest to humiliate them all and
glorify thyself (at their expense). Stupefied by thy pride of
Yoga-puissance that has been born of thy jealousy (at sight of my power,)
thou hast caused a union of thy understanding with mine and thereby hast
really mingled together nectar with poison. That union, again, of man and
woman, when each covets the other, is sweet as nectar. That association,
however, of man and woman when the latter, herself coveting, fails to
obtain an individual of the opposite sex that does not covet her, is,
instead of being a merit, only a fault that is as noxious as poison. Do
not continue to touch me. Know that I am righteous. Do thou act according
to thy own scriptures. The enquiry thou hadst wished to make, viz.,
whether I am or I am not emancipated, has been finished. It behoves thee
not to conceal from me all thy secret motives. It behoves thee not, that
thus disguisest thyself, to conceal from me what thy object is, that is
whether this call of thine has been prompted by the desire of
accomplishing some object of thy own or whether thou hast come for
accomplishing the object of some other king (that is hostile to me). One
should never appear deceitfully before a king; nor before a Brahmana; nor
before one's wife when that wife is possessed of every wifely virtue.
Those who appear in deceitful guise before these three very soon meet
with destruction. The power of kings consists in their sovereignty. The
power of Brahmanas conversant with the Vedas is in the Vedas. Women wield
a high power in consequence of their beauty and youth and blessedness.
These then are powerful in the possession of these powers. He, therefore,
that is desirous of accomplishing his own object should always approach
these three with sincerity and candour, insincerity and deceit fail to
produce success (in these three quarters). It behoveth thee, therefore,
to apprise me of the order to which thou belongest by birth, of thy
learning and conduct and disposition and nature, as also of the object
thou hast in view in coming to this place.'"
"'Bhishma continued, "Though rebuked by the king in these unpleasant,
improper, and ill-applied words, the lady Sulabha was not at all abashed.
After the king had said these words, the beautiful Sulabha then addressed
herself for saying the following words in reply that were more handsome
than her person.
"'"Sulabha said, 'O king, speech ought always to be free from the nine
verbal faults and the nine faults of judgment. It should also, while
setting forth the meaning with perspicuity, be possessed of the eighteen
well-known merits.[1688] Ambiguity, ascertainment of the faults and
merits of premises and conclusions, weighing the relative strength or
weakness of those faults and merits, establishment of the conclusion, and
the element of persuasiveness or otherwise that attaches to the
conclusion thus arrived at,--these five characteristics appertaining to
the sense--constitute the authoritativeness of what is said. Listen now
to the characteristics of these requirements beginning with ambiguity,
one after another, as I expound them according to the combinations. When
knowledge rests on distinction in consequence of the object to be known
being different from one another, and when (as regards the comprehension
of the subject) the understanding rests upon many points one after
another, the combination of words (in whose case this occurs) is said to
be vitiated by ambiguity.[1689] By ascertainment (of faults and merits),
called Sankhya, is meant the establishment, by elimination, of faults or
merits (in premises and conclusions), adopting tentative meanings.[1690]
Krama or weighing the relative strength or weakness of the faults or
merits (ascertained by the above process), consists in settling the
propriety of the priority or subsequence of the words employed in a
sentence. This is the meaning attached to the word Krama by persons
conversant with the interpretation of sentences or texts. By Conclusion
is meant the final determination, after this examination of what has been
said on the subjects of religion, pleasure, wealth, and Emancipation, in
respect of what particularly is what has been said in the text.[1691]
The sorrow born of wish or aversion increases to a great measure. The
conduct, O king, that one pursues in such a matter (for dispelling the
sorrow experienced) is called Prayojanam.[1692] Take it for certain, O
king, at my word, that these characteristics of Ambiguity and the other
(numbering five in all), when occurring together, constitute a complete
and intelligible sentence.[1693] The words I shall utter will be fraught
with sense, free from ambiguity (in consequence of each of them not being
symbols of many things), logical, free from pleonasm or tautology,
smooth, certain, free from bombast, agreeable or sweet, truthful, not
inconsistent with the aggregate of three, (viz., Righteousness, Wealth
and Pleasure), refined (i.e., free from Prakriti), not elliptical or
imperfect, destitute of harshness or difficulty of comprehension,
characterised by due order, not far-fetched in respect of sense,
corrected with one another as cause and effect and each having a specific
object.[1694] I shall not tell thee anything, prompted by desire or wrath
or fear or cupidity or abjectness or deceit or shame or compassion or
pride. (I answer thee because it is proper for me to answer what thou
hast said). When the speaker, the hearer, and the words said, thoroughly
agree with one another in course of a speech, then does the sense or
meaning come out very clearly. When, in the matter of what is to be said,
the speaker shows disregard for the understanding of the hearer by
uttering words whose meaning is understood by himself, then, however good
those words may be, they become incapable of being seized by the
hearer.[1695] That speaker, again, who, abandoning all regard for his own
meaning uses words that are of excellent sound and sense, awakens only
erroneous impressions in the mind of the hearer. Such words in such
connection become certainly faulty. That speaker, however, who employs
words that are, while expressing his own meaning, intelligible to the
hearer, as well, truly deserves to be called a speaker. No other man
deserves the name. It behoveth thee, therefore, O king, to hear with
concentrated attention these words of mine, fraught with meaning and
endued with wealth of vocables. Thou hast asked me who I am, whose I am,
whence I am coming, etc. Listen to me, O king, with undivided mind, as I
answer these questions of thine. As lac and wood, as grains of dust and
drops of water, exist commingled when brought together, even so are the
existences of all creatures.[1696] Sound, touch, taste, form, and scent,
these and the senses, though diverse in respect of their essences, exist
yet in a state of commingling like lac and wood. It is again well known
that nobody asks any of these, saying, who art thou? Each of them also
has no knowledge either of itself or of the others. The eye cannot see
itself. The ear cannot hear itself. The eye, again, cannot discharge the
functions of any of the other senses, nor can any of the senses discharge
the functions of any sense save its own. If all of them even combine
together, even they fail to know their own selves as dust and water
mingled together cannot know each other though existing in a state of
union. In order to discharge their respective functions, they await the
contact of objects that are external to them. The eye, form, and light,
constitute the three requisites of the operation called seeing. The same,
as in this case, happens in respect of the operations of the other senses
and the ideas which is their result. Then, again, between the functions
of the senses (called vision, hearing, etc.,) and the ideas which are
their result (viz., form, sound, etc.), the mind is an entity other than
the senses and is regarded to have an action of its own. With its help
one distinguishes what is existent from what is non-existent for arriving
at certainty (in the matter of all ideas derived from the senses). With
the five senses of knowledge and five senses of action, the mind makes a
total of eleven. The twelfth is the Understanding. When doubt arises in
respect of what is to be known, the Understanding comes forward and
settles all doubts (for aiding correct apprehension). After the twelfth,
Sattwa is another principle numbering the thirteenth. With its help
creatures are distinguished as possessing more of it or less of it in
their constitutions.[1697] After this, Consciousness (of self) is another
principle (numbering the fourteenth). It helps one to an apprehension of
self as distinguished from what is not self. Desire is the fifteenth
principle, O king. Unto it inhere the whole universe.[1698] The sixteenth
principle is Avidya. Unto it inhere the seventeenth and the eighteenth
principles called Prakriti and Vyakti (i.e., Maya and Prakasa). Happiness
and sorrow, decrepitude and death, acquisition and loss, the agreeable
and the disagreeable,--these constitute the nineteenth principle and are
called couples of opposites. Beyond the nineteenth principle is another,
viz., Time called the twentieth. Know that the births and death of all
creatures are due to the action of this twentieth principle. These twenty
exist together. Besides these, the five Great primal elements, and
existence and non-existence, bring up the tale to seven and twenty.
Beyond these, are three others, named Vidhi, Sukra, and Vala, that make
the tale reach thirty.[1699] That in which these ten and twenty
principles occur is said to be body. Some persons regard unmanifest
Prakriti to be the source or cause of these thirty principles. (This is
the view of the atheistic Sankhya school). The Kanadas of gross vision
regard the Manifest (or atoms) to be their cause. Whether the Unmanifest
or the Manifest be their cause, or whether the two (viz., the Supreme or
Purusha and the Manifest or atoms) be regarded as their cause, or
fourthly, whether the four together (viz., the Supreme or Purusha and his
Maya and Jiva and Avidya or Ignorance) be the cause, they that are
conversant with Adhyatma behold Prakriti as the cause of all creatures.
That Prakriti which is Unmanifest, becomes manifest in the form of these
principles. Myself, thyself, O monarch, and all others that are endued
with body are the result of that Prakriti (so far as our bodies are
concerned). Insemination and other (embryonic) conditions are due to the
mixture of the vital seed and blood. In consequence of insemination the
result which first appears is called by the name of "Kalala." From
"Kalala" arises what is called "Vudvuda" (bubble). From the stage called
"Vudvuda" springs what is called "Pesi." From the condition called "Pesi"
that stage arises in which the various limbs become manifested. From this
last condition appear nails and hair. Upon the expiration of the ninth
month, O king of Mithila, the creature takes its birth so that, its sex
being known, it comes to be called a boy or girl. When the creature
issues out of the womb, the form it presents is such that its nails and
fingers seem to be of the hue of burnished copper. The next stage is said
to be infancy, when the form that was seen at the time of birth becomes
changed. From infancy youth is reached, and from youth, old age. As the
creature advances from one stage into another, the form presented in the
previous stage becomes changed. The constituent elements of the body,
which serve diverse functions in the general economy, undergo change
every moment in every creature. Those changes, however, are so minute
that they cannot be noticed.[1700] The birth of particles, and their
death, in each successive condition, can not be marked, O king, even as
one cannot mark the changes in the flame of a burning lamp.[1701] When
such is the state of the bodies of all creatures,--that is when that
which is called the body is changing incessantly even like the rapid
locomotion of a steed of good mettle,--who then has come whence or not
whence, or whose is it or whose is it not, or whence does it not arise?
What connection does there exist between creatures and their own
bodies?[1702] As from the contact of flint with iron, or from two sticks
of wood when rubbed against each other, fire is generated, even so are
creatures generated from the combination of the (thirty) principles
already named. Indeed, as thou thyself seest thy own body in thy body and
as thou thyself seest thy soul in thy own soul, why is it that thou dost
not see thy own body and thy own soul in the bodies and souls of others?
If it is true that thou seest an identity with thyself and others, why
then didst thou ask me who I am and whose? If it is true that thou hast, O
king been freed from the knowledge of duality that (erroneously)
says--this is mine and this other is not mine,--then what use is there
with such questions as Who art thou, whose art thou and whence dost thou
come? What indications of Emancipation can be said to occur in that king
who acts as others act towards enemies and allies and neutrals and in
victory and truce and war? What indications of Emancipation occur in him
who does not know the true nature of the aggregate of three as manifested
in seven ways in all acts and who, on that account, is attached to that
aggregate of three?[1703] What indications of Emancipation exist in him
who fails to cast an equal eye on the agreeable, on the weak, and the
strong? Unworthy as thou art of it, thy pretence of Emancipation should
be put down by thy counsellers! This thy endeavour to attain to
Emancipation (when thou hast so many faults) is like the use of medicine
by a patient who indulges in all kinds of forbidden food and practices. O
chastiser of foes, reflecting upon spouses and other sources of
attachment, one should behold these in one's own soul. What else can be
looked upon as the indication of Emancipation? Listen now to me as I
speak in detail of these and certain other minute sources of attachment
appertaining to the four well known acts (of lying down for slumber,
enjoyment, eating, and dressing) to which thou art still bound though
thou professest thyself to have adopted the religion of Emancipation.
That man who has to rule the whole world must, indeed, be a single king
without a second. He is obliged to live in only a single palace. In that
palace he has again only one sleeping chamber. In that chamber he has,
again, only one bed on which at night he is to lie down. Half that bed
again he is obliged to give to his Queen-consort. This may serve as an
example of how little the king's share is of all he is said to own. This
is the case with his objects of enjoyment, with the food he eats, and
with the robes he wears. He is thus attached to a very limited share of
all things. He is, again, attached to the duties of rewarding and
punishing. The king is always dependent on others. He enjoys a very small
share of all he is supposed to own, and to that small share he is forced
to be attached (as well as others are attached to their respective
possessions). In the matter also of peace and war, the king cannot be
said to be independent. In the matter of women, of sports and other kinds
of enjoyment, the king's inclinations are exceedingly circumscribed. In
the matter of taking counsel and in the assembly of his councillors what
independence can the king be said to have? When, indeed, he sets his
orders on other men, he is said to be thoroughly independent. But then
the moment after, in the several matters of his orders, his independence
is barred by the very men whom he has ordered.[1704] If the king desires
to sleep, he cannot gratify his desire, resisted by those who have
business to transact with him. He must sleep when permitted, and while
sleeping he is obliged to wake up for attending to those that have urgent
business with him--bathe, touch, drink, eat, pour libations on the fire,
perform sacrifices, speak, hear,--these are the words which kings have to
hear from others and hearing them have to slave to those that utter them.
Men come in batches to the king and solicit him for gifts. Being,
however, the protector of the general treasury, he cannot make gifts
unto even the most deserving. If he makes gifts, the treasury becomes
exhausted. If he does not, disappointed solicitors look upon him with
hostile eyes. He becomes vexed and as the result of this, misanthropical
feelings soon invade his mind. If many wise and heroic and wealthy men
reside together, the king's mind begins to be filled with distrust in
consequence. Even when there is no cause of fear, the king entertains
fear of those that always wait upon and worship him. Those I have
mentioned O king, also find fault with him. Behold, in what way the
king's fears may arise from even them! Then again all men are kings in
their own houses. All men, again, in their own houses are house-holders.
Like kings, O Janaka, all men in their own houses chastise and reward.
Like kings others also have sons and spouses and their own selves and
treasuries and friends and stores. In these respects the king is not
different from other men.--The country is ruined,--the city is consumed
by fire,--the foremost of elephants is dead,--at all this the king yields
to grief like others, little regarding that these impressions are all due
to ignorance and error. The king is seldom freed from mental griefs
caused by desire and aversion and fear. He is generally afflicted also by
headaches and diverse diseases of the kind. The king is afflicted (like
others) by all couples of opposites (as pleasure and pain, etc). He is
alarmed at everything. Indeed, full of foes and impediments as kingdom
is, the king, while he enjoys it, passes nights of sleeplessness.
Sovereignty, therefore, is blessed with an exceedingly small share of
happiness. The misery with which it is endued is very great. It is as
unsubstantial as burning flames fed by straw or the bubbles of froth seen
on the surface of water. Who is there that would like to obtain
sovereignty, or having acquired sovereignty can hope to win tranquillity?
Thou regardest this kingdom and this palace to be thine. Thou thinkest
also this army, this treasury, and these counsellers to belong to thee.
Whose, however, in reality are they, and whose are they not? Allies,
ministers, capital, provinces, punishment, treasury, and the king, these
seven which constitute the limbs of a kingdom exist, depending upon one
another, like three sticks standing with one another's support. The
merits of each are set off by the merits of the others. Which of them can
be said to be superior to the rest? At those times those particular ones
are regarded as distinguished above the rest when some important end is
served through their agency. Superiority, for the time being, is said to
attach to that one whose efficacy is thus seen. The seven limbs already
mentioned, O best of kings, and the three others, forming an aggregate of
ten, supporting one another, are said to enjoy the kingdom like the king
himself.[1705] That king who is endued with great energy and who is
firmly attached to Kshatriya practices, should be satisfied with only a
tenth part of the produce of the subject's field. Other kings are seen to
be satisfied with less than a tenth part of such produce. There is no one
who owns the kingly office without some one else owning it in the world,
and there is no kingdom without a king.[1706] If there be no kingdom,
there can be no righteousness, and if there be no righteousness, whence
can Emancipation arise? Whatever merit is most sacred and the highest,
belongs to kings and kingdoms.[1707] By ruling a kingdom well, a king
earns the merit that attaches to a Horse-sacrifice with the whole Earth
given away as Dakshina. But how many kings are there that rule their
kingdoms well? O ruler of Mithila, I can mention hundreds and thousands
of faults like these that attach to kings and kingdoms. Then, again, when
I have no real connection with even my body, how then can I be said to
have any contact with the bodies of others? Thou canst not charge me with
having endeavoured to bring about an intermixture of castes. Hast thou
heard the religion of Emancipation in its entirety from the lips of
Panchasikha together with its means, its methods, its practices, and its
conclusion?[1708] If thou hast prevailed over all thy bonds and freed
thyself from all attachments, may I ask thee, O king, who thou preservest
thy connections still with this umbrella and these other appendages of
royalty? I think that thou hast not listened to the scriptures, or, thou
hast listened to them without any advantage, or, perhaps, thou hast
listened to some other treatises looking like the scriptures. It seems
that thou art possessed only of worldly knowledge, and that like an
ordinary man of the world thou art bound by the bonds of touch and
spouses and mansions and the like. If it be true that thou hast been
emancipated from all bonds, what harm have I done thee by entering thy
person with only my Intellect? With Yatis, among all orders of men, the
custom is to dwell in uninhabited or deserted abodes. What harm then have
I done to whom by entering thy understanding which is truly of real
knowledge? I have not touched thee, O king, with my hands, of arms, or
feet, or thighs, O sinless one, or with any other part of the body. Thou
art born in a high race. Thou hast modesty. Thou hast foresight. Whether
the act has been good or bad, my entrance into thy body has been a
private one, concerning us two only. Was it not improper for thee to
publish that private act before all thy court? These Brahmanas are all
worthy of respect. They are foremost of preceptors. Thou also art
entitled to their respect, being their king. Doing them reverence, thou
art entitled to receive reverence from them. Reflecting on all this, it
was not proper for thee to proclaim before these foremost of men the fact
of this congress between two persons of opposite sexes, if, indeed, thou
art really acquainted with the rules of propriety in respect of speech. O
king of Mithila, I am staying in thee without touching thee at all even
like a drop of water on a lotus leaf that stays on it without drenching
it in the least. If, notwithstanding instructions of Panchasikha of the
mendicant order, thy knowledge has become abstracted from the sensual
objects to which it relates? Thou hast, it is plain, fallen off from the
domestic mode of life but thou hast not yet attained to Emancipation that
is so difficult to arrive at. Thou stayest between the two, pretending
that thou hast reached the goal of Emancipation. The contact of one that
is emancipated with another that has been so, or Purusha with Prakriti,
cannot lead to an intermingling of the kind thou dreadest. Only those
that regard the soul to be identical with the body, and that think the
several orders and modes of life to be really different from one another,
are open to the error of supposing an intermingling to be possible. My
body is different from thine. But my soul is not different from thy soul.
When I am able to realise this, I have not the slightest doubt that my
understanding is really not staying in thine though I have entered into
thee by Yoga.[1709] A pot is borne in the hand. In the pot is milk. On
the milk is a fly. Though the hand and pot, the pot and milk, and the
milk and the fly, exist together, yet are they all distinct from each
other. The pot does not partake the nature of the milk. Nor does the milk
partake the nature of the fly. The condition of each is dependent on
itself, and can never be altered by the condition of that other with
which it may temporarily exist. After this manner, colour and practices,
though they may exist together with and in a person that is emancipate,
do not really attach to him. How then can an intermingling of orders be
possible in consequence of this union of myself with thee? Then, again, I
am not superior to thee in colour. Nor am I a Vaisya, nor a Sudra. I am,
O king, of the same order with thee, born of a pure race. There was a
royal sage of the name of Pradhana. It is evident that thou hast heard of
him. I am born in his race, and my name is Sulabha. In the sacrifices
performed by my ancestors, the foremost of the gods, viz., Indra, used to
come, accompanied by Drona and Satasringa, and Chakradwara (and other
presiding geniuses of the great mountains). Born in such a race, it was
found that no husband could be obtained for me that would be fit for me.
Instructed then in the religion of Emancipation, I wander over the Earth
alone, observant of the practices of asceticism. I practise no hypocrisy
in the matter of the life of Renunciation. I am not a thief that
appropriates what belongs to others. I am not a confuser of the practices
belonging to the different orders. I am firm in the practices that belong
to that mode of life to which I properly belong. I am firm and steady in
my vows. I never utter any word without reflecting on its propriety. I
did not come to thee, without having deliberated properly, O monarch!
Having heard that thy understanding has been purified by the religion of
Emancipation, I came here from desire of some benefit. Indeed, it was for
enquiring of thee about Emancipation that I had come. I do not say it for
glorifying myself and humiliating my opponents. But I say it, impelled by
sincerity only. What I say is, he that is emancipated never indulges in
that intellectual gladiatorship which is implied by a dialectical
disputation for the sake of victory. He, on the other hand, is really
emancipate who devotes himself to Brahma, that sole seat of
tranquillity.[1710] As a person of the mendicant order resides for only
one night in an empty house (and leaves it the next morning), even after
the same manner I shall reside for this one night in thy person (which,
as I have already said, is like an empty chamber, being destitute of
knowledge). Thou hast honoured me with both speech and other offers that
are due from a host to a guest. Having slept this one night in thy
person, O ruler of Mithila, which is as it were my own chamber now,
tomorrow I shall depart.'"
"'Bhishma continued, "Hearing these words fraught with excellent sense and
with reason, king Janaka failed to return any answer thereto."'"[1711]