na tvahaṃ kāmaye rājyam na ca mokṣaṃ na punyataḥ . kintu dārāṇi caiva me naṣṭāni yāni cājahāt ॥
“I do not desire kingdom, nor liberation, nor heaven; but only my wife and children, whom I have lost.”
Structure
na - tvahaṃ - kāmaye - rājyam - na - ca - mokṣaṃ - na - punyataḥ - kintu - dārāṇi - ca - eva - me - naṣṭāni - yāni - ca - ajahāt
na (not) tvahaṃ (I) kāmaye (desire) rājyam (kingdom)na (not) ca (and) mokṣaṃ (liberation)na (not) punyataḥ (from doing good deeds)kintu (but) me (my) dārāṇi (wives) ca (and) eva (indeed)naṣṭāni (lost) yāni (which) ca (and) ajahāt (abandoned)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| tvahaṃ | tva-haṃ | pronoun | nominative · singular | you-I ( tvam + aham ) |
| kāmaye | kāmaye | verb | √kām · laṭ-present · first | |
| rājyam | rājyam | noun | accusative · singular · neuter | kingdom |
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| ca | ca | indeclinable | — | and |
| mokṣaṃ | mokṣaṃ | noun | accusative · singular · masculine | liberation |
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| punyataḥ | punyataḥ | indeclinable | — | from merit |
| kintu | kintu | indeclinable | — | but |
| dārāṇi | dārāṇi | noun | accusative · plural · feminine | wives |
| ca | ca | indeclinable | — | and |
| eva | eva | indeclinable | — | indeed |
| me | me | pronoun | dative · singular | to me |
| naṣṭāni | naṣṭāni | noun | accusative · plural · neuter | destroyed |
| yāni | yāni | pronoun | accusative · plural · neuter | which |
| ca | ca | indeclinable | — | and |
| ajahāt | ajahāt | verb | √ah · liṅ-past · third |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): This verse from the Pañcatantra offers a profound insight into the non-dual nature of reality when considered through the lens of Advaita Vedānta. Śaṅkarācārya, in his commentary on the Brahmasūtras, underscores the importance of recognizing the ultimate reality, Brahman, as the sole existent. In the context of this verse, the speaker's rejection of kingdom, liberation, and heaven in favor of personal relationships can be seen as a manifestation of the veil of ignorance (avidyā) that obscures the true nature of the self (ātman). The longing for lost loved ones is a poignant illustration of the ego's attachment to the ephemeral, distracting from the quest for the eternal and unchanging Brahman. Śaṅkarācārya would likely interpret this verse as emphasizing the importance of transcendence over worldly desires, guiding the seeker towards the realization of the identity of Brahman and ātman, where all attachments and aversions are transcended.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): The Vaiṣṇava perspective on this verse highlights the devotional aspect, where the love for personal relationships mirrors the devotee's longing for union with the divine. Rāmānujācārya, in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā, emphasizes the path of devotion (bhakti) as the means to realize the loving relationship between the individual self (jīva) and the supreme Lord (Īśvara). This verse can be seen as illustrating the natural human inclination towards love and connection, which, when directed towards the divine, fosters a deep sense of devotion. Madhvācārya, with his emphasis on the difference (bheda) between the individual self and God, might view the speaker's desire as an example of the innate longing of the jīva for Īśvara, albeit misguided in its object. Thus, the verse encourages a redirecting of one's desires towards a devotional relationship with the divine, recognizing the Lord as the ultimate object of love and the source of all bliss.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekānanda and Sarvepalli Rādhākrishnan, key figures of Neo-Vedānta, would interpret this verse in the light of its universal and practical applicability to contemporary human experience. Vivekānanda, known for his emphasis on service to humanity as a means to realize the divine, might view the speaker's longing for loved ones as a reflection of the inherent human desire for connection and community. Rādhākrishnan, with his philosophical inclination towards emphasizing the harmony between the individual and the universal, could see this verse as underscoring the importance of relationships in human life, while also pointing towards a higher, spiritual longing that transcends mundane attachments. Both thinkers would likely encourage a balanced approach, recognizing the value of personal relationships while striving for a deeper, spiritual fulfillment. This interpretation aligns with their broader message of integrating spiritual ideals with practical, everyday life, aiming for a holistic development of the human being.