Untitled

12 LITERATÛRZINÂTNE, FOLKLORISTIKA, MÂKSLA
blood. And perhaps not always they were so much god – fearing as it may seem to us
today.
In this author’s view, it is most interesting to look into the many “commandments”
of human behaviour offered by different Sanscrit texts. On the whole they by
far do not always particularly conform to what one understands by dharma, karma or
moksha notions. It is obvious what was intended by the dying Bhîshma’s lecturing to
Judhisthira: “They who fear no obligation of returning to this world (after death), they
who have no fear of the next world, they who do not take animal food and who have
no liking for what is agreeable and no dislike for what is otherwise, they to whom
good conduct is always dear, they who practise self– restraint, they who consider pleasure
and pain as same, they who have truth for their refuge, they who give but not
take, they who have mercy, they who adore, Pitris, gods, and guests, they who are
always ready to work (for the behoof of others), they who are universal benefectors,
they who are endued with great courage (of mind), they who follow all the duties
sanctioned by scriptures, they who are devoted to well– being of all, they who can
give their all and sacrifice their very lives for others, are considered as good and virtuous,
o Bharata.” 9 . Even stronger the supremacy of the spiritual over the mundane is
stressed in some places of “Manu Laws”: “Refraining from oppressing any living
being, so that they might become his companions in the other world, he should
gradualy pile up his religeous merit just as ants pile up an ant hill. For there (in that
world) father, mother, wife, son and relative do not endure as his companion; religion
alone endures. A living creature is borne alone and alone he dies; he alone reaps the
benefits of good deeds and the consequences of bad deeds.” 10 .
In the teachings of the very influential Upanishads we find a well expressed negligence
of a person’s body and worldly life. But in practical precepts to a student,
who has finished his Veda learning, in the same Upanishads a teacher includes also
fully worldly instructions, such as: “One should not be negligent of virtue. One should
not be negligent of welfare. One should not be negligent of prosperity…Be one to
whom a mother is a god. Be one to whom a father is a god. Be one to whom a teacher
is a god. Be one to whom a guest is a god.” 11 . Who among the Non–hindus can object
to such a set of advices? The authors of “Mahâbhârata”, omitting guest, about
the adoration of mother, father, and preceptor say: “They are the three worlds. They
are the three modes of life. They are the three Vedas. They are the sacred fires.” 12 .
Râma proves in practise what the parents’ decision concerning their child means, by
leaving the castle and without slightest objections facing the enormous difficulties of
life in the forest. He tells Sîtâ: “But it is righteousness, my smooth– limbed wife, the
righteousness good men in the past have practised, that I am set on following today,
as its radiance follows the sun. And righteousness is this, my fair – hipped wife: submission
to one’s mother and ones father. I could not bear to live were I to disobey
their command.” 13 . Manu raises this adoration to the highest possible level: “The
teacher is the physical form of the ultimate reality, the father the physical form of the
Lord of Creatures, the mother the physical form of the earth, and one’s own brother
the physical form of ones’s own self.” 14 . Whatever differences between those assertions,
mother, father, teacher and brother are purely earthly notions for each person.
The authors of the Upanishads state: “Now the man who does not desire– he who
is without desire, who is freed from desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose desire is