05 Feb 2005
[In the Vedic Mantra "Na Karmana, Na Prajaya Dhanena Tyagenaikenaamritatva Manashuh", the word ‘Na’ (No) can be brought before the word ‘Dhanena’ according to the Sanskrit grammar which says that the word used in one place can be extented to the other words (Ekatra Padam). This means that the Lord cannot be pleased by sacrificing work, issues and wealth. Only sacrifice can please the Lord. Is it not contradicting your theory of Karma Phala Tyaga (Sacrificing the fruit of work)?]
This Mantra is only one sentence because there is only one verb (Anashuh) in the entire Mantra. You cannot divide this Mantra into two sentences. Even if you arrange it in two lines, there can be one sentence even in the four lines of a verse. Sometimes one sentence can continue even for several verses [in Vedic verses]. The principle of grammar, which you have quoted, must be understood in its proper sense. It says that a word used in one place can be extended to other places if necessary. E.g. Na Ramah, Lakshmanah, Bharatah Agatah. This means that Rama, Lakshmana and Bharata did not come. The word ‘Na’ is used at one place (before Rama) and is extended for the other names, Lakshmana and Bharata [the ‘na’ is impled for all three names even though it is mentioned only for the first]. But the word ‘Na’ if used in two places, cannot be extended to the third place. E.g. Na Ramah, Na Lakshmanah, Bharatah Agatah. This means that Rama and Lakshmana did not come but Bharata came. Similarly in this Mantra the word ‘Na’ is used at two places (Karma, Praja). The word ‘Na’ cannot be extended to the third place (Dhanena) and to the fourth place also (Tyagena).
What you said is also against logic and common sense. Suppose you say, “My thirst will not be pacified by drinking milk, juice or buttermilk, but it will be pacified only by drinking”. Only a mad fellow says so and the Lord who is the author of the Veda is not a mad fellow. The important point is that you should specify the item by which your thirst can be pacified. That is the important point. The items, which cannot pacify your thirst, need not be stated at all because they are not important. In your way of explanation the important item is not mentioned. The question remains “By sacrificing which item, can one please the Lord?” This question, which is the important point, is not anserwed by your interpretation.
Therefore, based on grammar and logic, the correct meaning of the mantra is that the sacrifice of money alone can please the Lord. This point is said in the Veda elsewhere too, and you cannot contradict it. The Veda says “Tyaktena Bhunjeethah Ma Gridhah Kasyasvit Dhanam”. This means “One should enjoy the minimum required money and if one stores money he becomes a thief. Whose money is all this? All this money belongs to the Lord”. The Gita also emphasizes Karma Phala Tyaga. The word Karma in the case of a human being is also limited to the effort taken for earning of money for maintenance of oneself and family, as per the Gita (Shareera Yatrapicha). The Dharma Shastras (scriptures) say “Adakshina Hato Yajnah” which means that the sacrifice is a waste without sacrificing money. Scriptures also tell us various ways to remove the effects of committed sins (Prayaschittam), which mainly involve the sacrifice of money to deserving people (Dana). Even Shaktuprastha was tested in the sacrifice of food (a form of money). Sai Baba often asked for Guru Dakshina to preach this important spiritual concept. Vasistha says that the root of all the worldly bonds is only money (Dhana moolamidam Jagat). The most important Yantra or Chakra [mystic symbol] is the Sri Chakra. Sri means money. Sri Chakra represents the most important whirlpool, which obstructs the swimmer in this world-ocean. One’s real color comes out only in the sacrifice of money. The bond with money (Dhaneshana) is responsible for the bonds with wife (Dareshana) and children (Putreshana). Unless this root cause is cut, salvation is impossible and therefore this Mantra emphasizes this point which is the main point for salvation.