tatastu dṛṣṭvā mṛgaṃ cāriṇaṃ vāyavyam | mithyāpravṛttimatha rājaputrau |
“Then, seeing the deer running swiftly, the two princes assumed it was heading in a false direction.”
Structure
tatastu dṛṣṭvā mṛgaṃ cāriṇaṃ vāyavyam mithyāpravṛttim atha rājaputrau
tatastu (then) dṛṣṭvā (having seen) mṛgaṃ (the deer) cāriṇaṃ (roaming) vāyavyam (in the air/the sky) atha (then) rājaputrau (the princes) mithyāpravṛttim (the false path/ misleading path)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tatastu | tatastu | indeclinable | — | then, there, from that place |
| dṛṣṭvā | dṛṣṭvā | indeclinable | — | having seen |
| mṛgaṃ | mṛgaṃ | noun | accusative · singular · masculine | deer |
| cāriṇaṃ | cāriṇaṃ | noun | accusative · singular · masculine | roaming, moving |
| vāyavyam | vāyavyam | adjective | — | produced by or relating to the wind |
| mithyāpravṛttim | mithyāpravṛttim | noun | accusative · singular · feminine | false pursuit |
| atha | atha | indeclinable | — | then, next |
| rājaputrau | rājaputrau | noun | nominative · dual · masculine | the king's sons |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): This verse from the Rāmāyaṇa, where the two princes mistakenly assume the direction of the deer, can be seen through the lens of Advaita Vedānta as an allegory for the misconception of the ultimate reality. According to Shankara, our perceptions and assumptions about the world are often misguided, much like the princes' misjudgment of the deer's direction. This misconception is rooted in our ignorance (avidyā) of the true nature of reality, which is brahman. The verse illustrates how our limited understanding and dualistic thinking lead us to misconstrue the nature of things, just as the princes misinterpret the deer's movement. Shankara's commentary on the Brahmasūtra (particularly in the context of adhyāsa or superimposition) can be applied here, where he explains how our misapprehensions about the world are a result of our failure to recognize the non-dual nature of brahman. Thus, this verse points to the importance of realizing the brahman-ātman identity, beyond the confines of our limited perceptions and misunderstandings.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): The Vaiṣṇava tradition interprets this verse with a focus on the relationship between the jīva (the individual soul) and Īśvara (the Supreme Lord). Rāmānujācārya might view the princes' misconception of the deer's direction as emblematic of the jīva's propensity to stray from the path of righteousness due to its inherent limitations and ignorance. This straying is a result of the jīva's inability to fully comprehend the will of Īśvara, leading to a false understanding of its own nature and purpose. Madhvācārya, on the other hand, might emphasize the element of divine play (līlā) in this scenario, where the deer, as a creature of Īśvara, moves in ways that are beyond human comprehension, illustrating the inscrutable nature of the divine will. Both perspectives highlight the dependence of the jīva on Īśvara for true understanding and guidance. This verse, therefore, underscores the importance of devotion and surrender to the divine will, allowing the jīva to align its path with that ordained by Īśvara.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): From a modern perspective, influenced by Neo-Vedānta, this verse can be seen as a metaphor for the human condition, where our perceptions and actions are often misguided due to limited understanding and preconceptions. Swami Vivekānanda, in his lectures on the practical applications of Vedānta, might interpret this verse as a call to introspection and self-awareness. The mistaken assumptions of the princes about the deer's direction can be likened to our own mistaken assumptions about life, happiness, and fulfillment. Vivekānanda would likely emphasize the need to look beyond superficial appearances and to seek a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Similarly, S. Rādhākrishnan, known for his synthesis of traditional Vedānta with modern thought, might view this verse as an illustration of the universal human tendency to impose our own interpretations on reality, often leading to confusion and suffering. He would advocate for a contemplative approach, encouraging individuals to reflect on their own misconceptions and to strive for a more profound and inclusive understanding of existence.