Sulabha continues: “Although you say you are emancipated, you are still attached
to sleeping, eating, dressing and enjoyment. You are the king and yet you can
live in only one palace, in only one room and in only one bed. Even that bed
you have, you share with the queen. Now you know, how little a king’s share is
of his kingdom. The same is true of food and clothes. You are attached to your
duties of rewarding and punishing. You are always dependent on others. Even in
sleep you cannot have too much freedom since you will have to answer urgent
calls. People come to you to receive gifts. But you cannot give to everyone who
deserves since you have to be responsible with the treasury. If you do not
give, some go away with bad and hostile feelings. Even when there is no cause
for fear, a king is always anxious even of those who wait on him. In fact a
king is no different from ordinary folks who have also spouses and sons, money
and friends and same kind of realities to face.”
A king is also not exempt from fears and grief. Indeed he
has causes for more of them. He suffers from consequences of desire and fear
like everyone. He is also afflicted by aches and diseases. He suffers from
pleasures and pain. Sovereignty does not come with much happiness. How can one
who has acquired sovereignty hope to win peace and tranquility? “You think this
land and the army and the treasury are yours. In reality who owns them? Do we really own
anything in this world?”
“Things exist not solely by themselves. There are usually
several items which make for a functional unit. They depend upon each other,
similar to three sticks standing with each other’s support. How can you choose
the best among them? When some important function is served by one of them at a
particular situation, then that one may be regarded as more distinguished. Superiority
is defined by the purpose and the efficacy.” This seems to be Sulabha’s answer
to the arrogance of Janaka and the reference to Ksahtriya and Brahmana.
She continues: “ I have no real connection with even my own
body. How can I be accused of having contact with the body of someone else? You
cannot say that I have brought about mixture of castes (varnas). If you have no attachments, why are you still using the umbrella and scepter? I
do not think you have learned the scriptures. You are still bound by the bonds
of property and family, like any other person. If you are truly liberated what
harm have I done by entering your mind with my intellect? I have not touched
you physically. Besides, whether what I did was good or bad, I did it
privately. I am staying in you like a
drop of water on a lotus leaf. Are you still attached to physical contact? Just
as Purusha and Prakriti cannot truly intermingle, two emancipated creatures
cannot make contact with each other. Only those who regard the soul to be
identical with the body will erroneously consider intermingling possible. My
body is different from yours. But my soul is not different from yours. I
realize that my intellect is not staying in your soul although I have entered
into it by yogic power.”.
“Think this way. I have a pot in my hand. There is milk in
the pot. And, on the milk is a fly. Although the hand and the pot, pot and the
milk and the milk and the fly exist together, they are different from each
other. The condition of each is
dependent on itself and is not altered by something else with which there is a
temporary association. Same way, varna ( you being a kshatriya) and the
practices (holding a scepter or an ascetic’s stick) do not really attach to an
emancipated person. How can
intermingling be possible.”
“All of this should have been discussed in private between
the two of us. By publicly talking about in this court you made it public. Is
that correct?”
“I am not superior to you in varna, because I am also a
kshtriya by birth (Janaka assumed otherwise, just out of habit and not
thinking). My name is Sulabha. In the
sacrifices performed by my ancestors, no suitable husband could be found for
me. Having been instructed properly I wander over the earth practicing
ascetism. I do not practice hypocrisy. I know the duties of different ashramas and I practice mine faithfully.
I did not come here without thinking through. Having heard that you have great
understanding of the “religion of emancipation” (Samkhya system) I came to
learn more. I did not come to glorify myself or humiliate you. One who is truly
emancipated will not indulge in intellectual disputation for the sake of
victory”.
Now that our discussion is over I will follow the ways of
the mendicant and stay just for this one night in your person, which is like an
empty chamber to me. You have treated me with honor like you should any guest.
I will leave in the morning”.
Now Bhishma ends with the following words: “having heard
these well-chosen words full of meaning and based on reason, King Janaka said
nothing in reply”.
This episode touches on the role of women in society in
ancient days, the varnahsrama dharma,
semantics and logic in reasoning, details of Samkhya philosophy and of moksha
dharma. The only good scholarly discussion of this episode is in the reference*
given below.
* Vanita, Ruth, "The Self Is Not Gendered: Sulabha's
Debate with King Janaka" (2003). Liberal Studies Faculty Publications. Paper
1. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/libstudies_pubs/1
No comments:
Post a Comment