| YouTube Channel

पतिव्रतोपाख्यान (pativratopAkhyAna)

 
Monier Williams Cologne
English
पति—व्र°तोपाख्यान
n.
N.
 of wk.
Aufrecht Catalogus Catalogorum
English
पतिव्रतामाहात्म्य Oppert 7335. II, 469, and पतिव्रतोपा-
ख्यान Burnell 186^b. This is the Sāvitryupākhyāna
from the Vanaparvan of the Mahābhārata.
Mahabharata
English
[Pativratopākhyāna]
(“the story of the faithful wife”) and [Brāhmaṇavyādhasaṃvāda]
(“a conversation between a brahman and a hunter”) (cf. Pativratāyā ākhyānaṃ). § 479 (Mārkaṇḍ.): Questioned by Yudhishṭhira about the virtue of women, Mārkaṇḍeya, saying that the work of a mother is more difficult than that of a father, and that for women neither sacrifices nor śrāddhas nor fasts are of any efficacy, but that they can win heaven only by serving their husbands (III, 205), related: When the brahman Kauśika, who had studied the Vedas and the Upanishads, was reciting the Vedas under a tree, a female crane befouled his body, and looked upon with anger by Kauśika fell to the ground. Kauśika regretted his angry deed. When he had entered a village in order to procure alms, in a certain house the wife first served her husband, who came home tired and hungry, with food, etc. (description), and then began to conciliate the angry Kauśika, who blamed her for exalting her husband above the brahmans. She said that she was no she-crane, that she knew that the ocean had been made brackish and undrinkable by the wrath of the brahmans, that the fire of their wrath had not to this day been extinguished in the forest of Daṇḍaka, but that she regarded her husband as her supreme god, and deserved forgiveness, that anger is a foe to men within themselves, and that the gods know him to be a brahman who has abandoned anger and passion, etc.
and who, though himself injured, never returns the injury, etc., that virtue (dharma) is difficult to understand, but must be based on truth
the ancients have declared that virtue depends on śruti, but it is variously defined (bahudhā dṛśyate) and subtle to be understood (sūkshma)
“thou art cognisant of virtue and studiest the Vedas
but I think, however, that thou dost not know what virtue really is
a fowler (vyādha) in Mithilā will discourse to thee on virtue.” Kauśika blessed her, and returned to his abode, reproaching himself (III, 206).--§ 480: He set out for Mithilā (description), ruled over by Janaka, and found out the fowler, who was seated in a butcher's yard, selling venison and buffalo meat to a large crowd of buyers
but he at once went to Kauśika, and proving that he knew why he had come, he led him to his abode, where he honoured him duly, and explained to him that, notwithstanding his cruel trade, which he had inherited from his sires and grandsires, and which belonged to his caste by birth, he led a virtuous life, serving his superiors and old people, speaking truth, never envying others, giving to the best of his power, etc. In the kingdom of Janaka there did not exist a single subject that did not follow the duties of his caste. He did not slay the boars and buffaloes himself, nor did he eat meat himself
he fasted during the day and ate in the night
“even though the behaviour of his order be bad, a person may yet be himself of good behaviour
so also a person may become virtuous, although he may by profession be a slayer of animals.” It is the fault of the kings when the subjects decay, and monsters, dwarfs, etc., are produced, but Janaka ruled justly. If one repents a wrong done by him, he is delivered from his sin (v. 13751). If a man seeks redemption (kalyāṇam abhipadyate) after having committed a sin, he becomes purified of all his sins (v. 13756). It is temptation (lobha) that constitutes the basis of sin. Then he gave some advice as to what is virtuous conduct (v. 13794 foll.: “these three are said to constitute the perfect way (padaṃ) of the virtuous: a man must not do wrong to anybody, he must give alms, and must always be truthful”)
(v. 13797 foll.: “freedom from malice, forbearance, peace of mind, contentment, pleasant speech, renunciation of desires and anger, virtuous conduct, and actions regulated according to the ordinances of the sacred texts, constitute the perfect way (mārgaṃ) of the virtuous”) (III, 207). The fowler and the animals slain by him are driven by their karman in a former life. In days of yore 2, 000 animals and 2, 000 cows used to be killed every day in the kitchen of king Rantideva
at the cāturmāsya animals are sacrificed
the śruti says, “The fires are fond of meat” (v. 13812), and at the sacrifices animals are killed by the regenerate, and these animals are purged of sin, and by mantras go to heaven. Regarding animal food this rule has been laid down by munis: Whoever partakes of animal food after having first offered it duly and respectfully (yathāvidhi yathāśrāddhaṃ) to the gods and the Pitṛs, is not polluted by the act. The śruti says, “Such a man is not one who partakes of animal food, ” and a brahman who has intercourse with his wife during her season is a brahmacārin. King Saudāsa, under the influence of a curse, ate human flesh. Agriculture is considered to be praiseworthy, though the plough destroys many creatures. Seeds of rice, etc., are all living creatures. As to hunting and the cutting of trees and herbs, many creatures live in trees and fruits and water. The earth and the air are all swarming with living organisms, which are unconsciously destroyed by men from mere ignorance (III, 208). When life is at stake and in the matter of marriage, it is justified to tell an untruth. Whichever conduces most to the good of all creatures is considered to be truth (satyaṃ) (v. 13845
cf. v. 13990). The fowler diseoursed upon the influence of karman upon metempsychosis and salvation (moksha
Brahmaṇaḥ padaṃ, v. 13895) (III, 209).--§ 481: Questioned by Kauśika about the senses, the fowler discoursed about the sinful (in thought, word, and action (v. 13906)
the evolution of sin is this: First manas is bent on vijñāna
thence successively originate kāma, rosha, karman, rāga, dvesha, lobha, moha, vyāja, adharma, pāpa). The virtuous man discerna these evils by means of his spiritual insight (v. 13908).--§ 482: Then he shortly enumerated the elements of the brāhmī vidyā (the universe, consisting of the five great elements, space, wind, fire, water, and earth, is Bráhman [neuter]
their qualities: sound, touch, form, flavour, and taste
manas, buddhi, ahaṅkāra
the five senses, ātman, rajas, sattva, tamas
the last seventeen are “rāśir avyaktasañjñakaḥ”, in all (with the objects of senses and the manifest and the unmanifest) twenty-four (caturviṃśaka ity esha vyaktāvyaktamayo guṇaḥ) [read gaṇah, cf. Hopkins, Great Epic, p. 34]
(III, 210).-§ 483: A somewhat more detailed explanation of the five elements and their qualities. The terms vyakta and avyakta (v. 13931). Salvation, etc., are dependent on self-discipline (tapas), that is impossible without subduing the senses. The body is like a chariot, the coachman being the soul, and the horses the six senses (III, 211).--§ 484: The three qualities sattva, rajas, and tamas (III, 212).--§ 485: The five vital airs (prāṇa, samāna, apāna, udāna, vyāna), that are all seated (pratishṭhitāḥ, v. 13973) in the navel, and by whose collision the internal fire is generated that digests the food. The arteries (nāḍyaḥ), issuing from the heart in all directions, carry the essence of food (annarasān) acted upon by the ten prāṇas. The perception of the internal spirit, purification of the heart, destroys the good and evil effects of actions and leads to eternal beatitude. That state of peace and purification of heart (prasādasya, v. 13984) is likened to the state of a person who in a cheerful state of mind (tṛptaḥ) sleeps soundly (sukhaṃ), or to a lamp shining on a windless spot, well kindled. Community with Bráhman cannot be taught to us even by the guru (v. 13992) (III, 213). --§ 486: Saying “Thou shalt see by what means I have attained to this blissful state”, the fowler introduced Kauśika to his parents, whom he honoured together with his wife and children like gods (description
v. 14025: “I do what is agreeable to them, even though it be not strictly justifiable”) (III, 214).--The fowler said: “Thou hast wronged thy father and thy mother, for thou hast left home without their permission, for the purpose of learning the Vedas, and they have become blind from grief at thy loss. Thereby thy ascetic merit, etc., have become useless to thee. Do return home this very day.” Kauśika acknowledged that the fowler had rescued him when he was on the point of falling into hell, and that he did not consider him to be a śūdra, as it was very difficult for a śūdra to learn the eternal religion (dharmaḥ)
his being a śūdra must surely be due to any action in a former birth
this Kauśika wished to learn.--§ 487: The fowler told: “I was formerly a brahman, son of an eminent brahman, and versed in the Vedas and the Vedāṅgas, and friend of a king, who was accomplished in the Dhanurveda, and thence skilled in archery myself
one day, when I accompanied the king on a hunting expedition, I killed a ṛshi, whom I took for a deer, and was cursed by him to be born as a fowler in the śūdra caste (III, 215)
but I prevailed upon him to grant me that I should remain a pious man and honour my parents, and thereby attain great perfection (siddhiṃ), remember my past life, and again become a brahman. I took the ṛshi to the hermitage, and he did not die.”--Kauśika saluted him respectfully, and having returned home he honoured his old parents (III, 216).