॥श्रेयः इति शब्दस्य अर्थविचारः॥

॥श्रेयः इति शब्दस्य अर्थविचारः॥

In Sabha Parva, Duryodhana was seeking permission of his father Dhritarashtra for inviting Pandavas to play Dyuta with Shakuni, so that they could get all the wealth received by Yudhishthira from various Kings. Dhritarashtra said that he had to consult Vidura then only a decision could be taken. At this context Duryodhana says –

दुर्योधन उवाच||

विहनिष्यति ते बुद्धिं विदुरो मुक्तसंशयः |

पाण्डवानां हिते युक्तो न तथा मम कौरव ||६||

नारभेत्परसामर्थ्यात्पुरुषः कार्यमात्मनः |

मतिसाम्यं द्वयोर्नास्ति कार्येषु कुरुनन्दन ||७||

भयं परिहरन्मन्द आत्मानं परिपालयन् |

वर्षासु क्लिन्नकीटवत्तिष्ठन्नेवावसीदति ||८||

न व्याधयो नापि यमः श्रेयःप्राप्तिं प्रतीक्षते |

यावदेव भवेत्कल्पस्तावच्छ्रेयः समाचरेत् ||९||

Duryodhana said “Without doubt Vidura will kill (mislead) your intelligence (thinking). He engaged in favour of Pandavas. O, Kaurava, not favour to me.

One should not begin a task depending on other’s ability. O the son Kuru, there is no equal mind of two persons in actions (there cannot be agreement of minds of two persons).

The fool avoiding fear and protecting himself perishes like a wet insect standing on the rains.

Neither diseases nor Death (Yama) expects (waits till) the accomplishment of good deeds. So long shall there be ability, one should do good deeds.

If we explain the last Shloka as above, then there arises a question why Duryodhana talks about good deeds? In fact, here in this context he is talking about selfish deeds. So it does not fit into this context “talking about good deeds”.

Then, how this Shloka is to be interpreted in this context? There are three possibilities to make sense of this Shloka.

1) This Shloka may be an interpolation

2) This saying (Shloka) may be ascribed to Dhritarashtra in reply to Duryodhana, so that it fits into the context. As Dhritarashtra in response to Duryodhana says -

धृतराष्ट्र उवाच||

[न व्याधयो नापि यमः श्रेयःप्राप्तिं प्रतीक्षते |

यावदेव भवेत्कल्पस्तावच्छ्रेयः समाचरेत् ||९||]

सर्वथा पुत्र बलिभिर्विग्रहं ते न रोचये |

वैरं विकारं सृजति तद्वै शस्त्रमनायसम् ||१०||

अनर्थमर्थं मन्यसे राजपुत्र; सङ्ग्रन्थनं कलहस्यातिघोरम् |

तद्वै प्रवृत्तं तु यथा कथञ्चिद् विमोक्षयेच्चाप्यसिसायकांश्च ॥11॥

If we bring that Shloka here before these two Shlokas as shown in [] brackets, then it makes sense. Then meaning of these three Shlokas will be as under –

Dhritarashtra said,

Neither diseases nor Death (Yama) expects (waits till) the accomplishment of good deeds. So long shall there be ability, one should do good deeds.

O Son, your hostility with strong which I do not like at all. Enmity creates (brings in) perturbation and that is the non-iron weapon (अनायसं शस्त्रम्) (weapon though not made of iron). 

O Prince, You think wrong as right. Beginning a quarrel leads to terrible war. If it happens anyway, it will release swords and arrows. (If it happens, it will lead to terrible war).

Thus, this Shloka fits into this context of Dhritarashtra words.

3) Third possibility is to translate the word श्रेयः=लक्ष्यम् उद्देश्यं वा as “purpose or objective”. This meaning will fit into the context as Duryodhana’s saying. Thus, this Shloka means as under –

Neither diseases nor Death (Yama) expects (waits till) the accomplishment of purpose (objective). So long shall there be ability, one should accomplish his purpose (objective).

However, here translating श्रेयः as “purpose” needs to be authenticated with classical usage (शिष्टप्रयोग). As we could not find any such usage in that sense, either it is to be searched for or this context of Mahabharata shall be treated as authentic usage in that sense, as व्यास is a शिष्टः ।

Here, another issue with this Shloka needs to be resolved. Observe the usage in the first half “न व्याधयो नापि यमः श्रेयःप्राप्तिं प्रतीक्षते”. If we arrange this in word order to make sense, then it would be “श्रेयःप्राप्तिं, न, व्याधयः, न, अपि, यमः, प्रतीक्षते”. This shall be made into two sentences as 1. श्रेयःप्राप्तिं न व्याधयः प्रतीक्षते । 2. श्रेयःप्राप्तिं न अपि यमः प्रतीक्षते । In the second sentence the subject (यमः) agrees with the verb (प्रतीक्षते) as यमः (न अपि) प्रतीक्षते, as both are in singular. However, in the first sentence, it does not. There व्याधयः (न) प्रतीक्षते is the sentence. Here व्याधयः is in plural whereas the verb प्रतीक्षते is in singular.

Then how could this issue be resolved? Bhagavaan Bhashyakara (Patanjali) authenticates such usages in combination of subjects. In such places, the receiver (श्रोता) automatically habituated to convert the predicate according to the subject and comprehends rightly as such usages being the nature of a language.

********