Sloka 6

Text 6

Verš

Text

tasmai saṁvyabhajat so ’nnam
ādṛtya śraddhayānvitaḥ
hariṁ sarvatra saṁpaśyan
sa bhuktvā prayayau dvijaḥ

Synonyma

Synonyms

tasmai — jemu (brāhmaṇovi); saṁvyabhajat — poté, co oddělil a dal jeho podíl; saḥ — on (Rantideva); annam — jídlo; ādṛtya — s hlubokou úctou; śraddhayā anvitaḥ — a s vírou; harim — Nejvyššího Pána; sarvatra — všude, v srdci každé živé bytosti; sampaśyan — vnímající; saḥ — on; bhuktvā — poté, co snědl jídlo; prayayau — opustil ono místo; dvijaḥ — brāhmaṇa.

tasmai — unto him (the brāhmaṇa); saṁvyabhajat — after dividing, gave his share; saḥ — he (Rantideva); annam — the food; ādṛtya — with great respect; śraddhayā anvitaḥ — and with faith; harim — the Supreme Lord; sarvatra — everywhere, or in the heart of every living being; saṁpaśyan — conceiving; saḥ — he; bhuktvā — after eating the food; prayayau — left that place; dvijaḥ — the brāhmaṇa.

Překlad

Translation

Rantideva vnímal přítomnost Nejvyššího Boha všude, v těle každé živé bytosti, a proto hosta přijal s vírou a úctou a část jídla mu dal. Brāhmaṇa snědl svůj podíl a pak odešel.

Because Rantideva perceived the presence of the Supreme Godhead everywhere, and in every living entity, he received the guest with faith and respect and gave him a share of the food. The brāhmaṇa guest ate his share and then went away.

Význam

Purport

Rantideva vnímal přítomnost Nejvyššího Pána v srdci každé živé bytosti, ale nikdy si nemyslel, že proto musí být každý Bohem. Zároveň nerozlišoval mezi jednou a druhou živou bytostí. Vnímal Pánovu přítomnost jak v brāhmaṇovi, tak i v caṇḍālovi. To je pravá vize rovnosti, což Pán sám potvrzuje v Bhagavad-gītě (5.18):

Rantideva perceived the presence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in every living being, but he never thought that because the Supreme Lord is present in every living being, every living being must be God. Nor did he distinguish between one living being and another. He perceived the presence of the Lord both in the brāhmaṇa and in the caṇḍāla. This is the true vision of equality, as confirmed by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad-gītā (5.18):

vidyā-vinaya-sampanne
brāhmaṇe gavi hastini
śuni caiva śva-pāke ca
paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ

“Díky správnému poznání vidí pokorní mudrci stejným pohledem vzdělaného a ušlechtilého brāhmaṇu, krávu, slona, psa i pojídače psů (vyvrhele společnosti).” Paṇḍita neboli učenec vnímá přítomnost Nejvyššího Pána, Osobnosti Božství v každé živé bytosti. Rantideva tedy neměl důvod kohokoliv upřednostňovat, i když dnes je módou stavět do popředí takzvaného daridra-nārāyaṇa neboli “chudého Nārāyaṇa”. Myšlenka, že člověku, který je chudý (daridra), by se mělo říkat daridra-nārāyaṇa, jelikož Nārāyaṇa dlí v jeho srdci, je chybná. Podle této logiky by psi a prasata byli také Nārāyaṇem, jelikož Pán je přítomen i v jejich srdcích. Nikdo by se neměl mylně domnívat, že Rantideva s tímto názorem souhlasil. Naopak viděl každého jako část Nejvyšší Osobnosti Božství (hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ). Není pravda, že každý je Nejvyšší Bůh. Tato teorie, kterou zastává māyāvādská filozofie, je scestná a Rantideva by ji nikdy nepřijal.

“The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].” A paṇḍita, or learned person, perceives the presence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in every living being. Therefore, although it has now become fashionable to give preference to the so-called daridra-nārāyaṇa, or “poor Nārāyaṇa,” Rantideva had no reason to give preference to any one person. The idea that because Nārāyaṇa is present in the heart of one who is daridra, or poor, the poor man should be called daridra-nārāyaṇa is a wrong conception. By such logic, because the Lord is present within the hearts of the dogs and hogs, the dogs and hogs would also be Nārāyaṇa. One should not mistakenly think that Rantideva subscribed to this view. Rather, he saw everyone as part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ). It is not that everyone is the Supreme Godhead. Such a theory, which is propounded by the Māyāvāda philosophy, is always misleading, and Rantideva would never have accepted it.