Shloka 21
जनक-राज्ञः मौण्ड्य-परिव्रज्या-विवादः
Janaka’s Renunciation Questioned; Discourse on Dāna and Detachment
धानामुष्टेरिहार्थश्वेत् प्रतिज्ञा ते विनश्यति । का वाहं तव को मे त्वं कश्न ते मय्यनुग्रह:
dhānāmuṣṭer ihārthaś cet pratijñā te vinaśyati | kā vāhaṃ tava ko me tvaṃ kaś ca te mayy anugrahaḥ ||
Арджуна сказал: «Если даже здесь тебе всё ещё нужна всего лишь горсть зерна, значит, обет, который ты дал — отречься от всего, — нарушен. Если ты и вправду тот, кто оставил всё, то кто я для тебя и кто ты для меня, и какой смысл тогда имеет твоя “милость” ко мне?»
अजुन उवाच
Educational Q&A
A vow of total renunciation must be internally consistent: if one still clings to even a trivial need or possession, the ethical force of the renunciant’s promise collapses. Arjuna uses the ‘handful of grain’ as a test of genuine detachment and questions the meaning of social bonds and ‘favor’ when renunciation is claimed but not lived.
Arjuna challenges someone who has professed complete abandonment of worldly ties. Pointing to the continued need for a small amount of grain, he argues that the person’s earlier vow to give up everything has effectively failed, and he therefore questions what relationship or obligation can remain between them, and what value any claimed benevolence toward Arjuna can have.