Na tvahaṃ kāmaye rājyaṃ na ca rājyasya kāmanā | Avyavahāryame rājyasya yathā rogasya auṣadham
“I do not desire a kingdom, nor does a kingdom have a desire; a kingdom is required like a medicine for a disease.”
Structure
Na - tvahaṃ - kāmaye - rājyaṃ - na - ca - rājyasya - kāmanā - Avyavahāryame - rājyasya - yathā - rogasya - auṣadham
Na (not) tvahaṃ (I) kāmaye (desire) rājyaṃ (kingdom)na (not) ca (and) kāmanā (for desire) rājyasya (of kingdom)Avyavahāryame (I do not need) rājyasya (kingdom) yathā (like) rogasya (for a disease) auṣadham (medicine)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na | Na | indeclinable | — | not |
| tvahaṃ | Tvaṃ | pronoun | nominative · singular | I |
| kāmaye | Kāmaye | verb | √kām · laṭ-present · first | I desire |
| rājyaṃ | Rājyaṃ | noun | accusative · singular · neuter | kingdom |
| na | Na | indeclinable | — | not |
| ca | Ca | indeclinable | — | and |
| rājyasya | Rājyasya | noun | genitive · singular · neuter | of the kingdom |
| kāmanā | Kāmanā | verb | √kām · liṅ-optative | for the desire of |
| Avyavahāryame | Avyavahāryame | indeclinable | — | is not to be used |
| rājyasya | Rājyasya | noun | genitive · singular · neuter | of the kingdom |
| yathā | Yathā | indeclinable | — | like |
| rogasya | Rogasya | noun | genitive · singular · masculine | of the disease |
| auṣadham | Auṣadham | noun | nominative · singular · neuter | medicine |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): This verse from the Pañcatantra offers profound insights into the nature of reality and the self. According to Śaṅkarācārya, the statement 'I do not desire a kingdom, nor does a kingdom have a desire' points to the ultimate reality beyond human desires and the fleeting nature of worldly possessions. The comparison of a kingdom to a medicine for a disease underscores the temporary and utilitarian value of worldly power, akin to how a medicine is used to cure an illness but is discarded once health is restored. This resonates with Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, where he argues for the ultimate reality of Brahman and the illusory nature of the world. The verse suggests that true fulfillment and understanding come from realizing the brahman-ātman identity, transcending the ephemeral desires and attachments of the worldly realm.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): In the Vaiṣṇava tradition, this verse can be understood through the lens of the relationship between the jīva (individual self) and Īśvara (the Lord). Rāmānujācārya might interpret the rejection of kingdom and its desires as a reflection of the jīva's innate desire for liberation from the cycle of birth and death, and the realization that true bliss and fulfillment come from devotion to and union with Īśvara. The necessity of a kingdom like a medicine for a disease could symbolize the role of dharma (righteous living) and bhakti (devotion) as remedies for the disease of ignorance and separation from the divine. Madhvācārya, with his emphasis on the difference between the individual self and the Lord, might see this verse as highlighting the dependence of the jīva on Īśvara's grace for liberation, using the kingdom as a metaphor for the temporary and dependent nature of human achievements without divine favor.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekānanda and S. Radhakrishnan, key figures in Neo-Vedānta, would likely approach this verse with an emphasis on its universal and practical application. Vivekānanda, known for his lectures on the practical applications of Vedānta, might see this verse as a call to reevaluate one's priorities in life, focusing on the pursuit of spiritual growth and self-realization rather than worldly power or material wealth. He might argue, as in his lectures on 'Karma Yoga,' that work and action are necessary but should be performed without attachment to their fruits, similar to how a medicine is taken for its healing properties without any emotional attachment. Radhakrishnan, with his philosophical bent, could interpret the verse as underscoring the distinction between the essential and the contingent, where the desire for kingdom and power represents the contingent, ephemeral aspects of human existence, while the pursuit of wisdom and self-knowledge represents the essential, eternal quest of humanity.