अहो बत श्वपचोऽतो गरीयान्
यज्जिह्वाग्रे वर्तते नाम तुभ्यम् ।
तेपुस्तपस्ते जुहुवुः सस्नुरार्या
ब्रह्मानूचूर्नाम गृणन्ति ये ते ॥
aho bata śvapaco’to garīyān
yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam |
tepus tapas te juhuvuḥ sasnur āryā
brahmānūcūr nāma gṛṇanti ye te ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.33.7)
“Aho bata [i.e., how astonishing]! A dog-cooker on the tip of whose tongue your name is present is thus highly honorable. Those who take your name have undergone austerity, conducted sacrifices, bathed [in all tīrthas], become noble, and studied the Veda.”
Commentary
tad upapādayati—aho bata āścarye | yasya jihvāgre tava nāma vartate sa śvapaco’py ato’smād eva hetor garīyān | yad yasmād vartate ata iti vā | kutaḥ? ity ata āha—ta eva tapas tepuḥ kṛtavantaḥ | juhuvur homaṁ kṛtavantaḥ | sasnuḥ tīrtheṣu snātāḥ | āryās ta eva sadācārāḥ | brahma vedam anūcur adhītavantaḥ | tvan-nāma-kīrtane tapa-ādy-antarbhūtaṁ, tatas te puṇyatamā ity arthaḥ | yad vā janmāntare tais tapo-homādi sarvaṁ kṛtam iti tvan-nāma-kīrtana-mahābhāgyodayād avagamyata ity arthaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“She explains this [i.e., the point made in the previous verse]. Aho bata is in the sense of astonishment. He, even dog-cooker, on the tip of whose tongue your name is present is thus (ataḥ), for that reason, highly honorable. Or, ‘since [the name] is present [on the tip of the tongue], thus [he is honorable] …’ [is the sense].
“[The question is raised:] ‘Why [is that]?’ Thus, she says verily they [who take your name] have undergone (tepuḥ), that is, performed, austerity. Verily they have conducted sacrifices (juhuvuḥ), bathed (sasnuḥ) in the tīrthas, become noble (āryāḥ), that is, possessed of righteous conduct (sadācāra), and studied (anūcūḥ) the Veda (Brahma). Austerity and so forth are included in repetition (kīrtana) of your name [i.e., by repeating your name one acquires all the merit that one can acquire by means of austerity and so forth], and thus, they [i.e., those who take your name] are most meritorious (puṇyatamāḥ) is the meaning. Alternately, that in another birth austerity, sacrifice, and so on were all performed by them is intelligible by the emergence of the great fortune [they now have] of repeating your name.”
aho batety āścarye | yasya jihvāgre tubhyaṁ tava tvad-artham api vā nāma vartate, śraddhādi-rāhityenāpi yathā-kathañcid api asamyaktayāpi nāmābhāsam api ya uccārayatīty arthaḥ, sa śvapaco’pi jātyā karmaṇā ca śva-māṁsa-bhakṣaṇād anivṛtter ubhayathā pāpo’pi, ato’smād eva hetor garīyān | yad yasmād vartata ata iti vā | kutaḥ? ity ata āha—ta eva tapas tepuḥ samyak kṛtavantaḥ | juhuvur homaṁ kṛtavantaḥ | sasnuḥ tīrtheṣu snātāḥ | āryās ta eva sadācārāḥ | brahma vedam anūcur adhītavantaḥ | tvan-nāma-kīrtane tapa-ādikaṁ sarvaṁ sat-karmāntarbhūtaṁ, atas te puṇyatamā ity arthaḥ | yad vā janmāntareṣu tais tapo-homādi sarvaṁ kṛtam astīti tvan-nāma-kīrtana-mahābhāgyodayād avagamyata ity arthaḥ | tapa-ādīnāṁ sarveṣāṁ nāma-kīrtana-phalatoktyā sarva-sat-karmādhikatvaṁ vyaktam eva |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.389)
“Aho bata is in the sense of astonishment. He, even dog-cooker, that is, even one who is sinful in two ways because of non-discontinuance from [being liable for] the consumption of dog-meat on account of caste [i.e., still being part of caste which consumes dog meat] and action [i.e., still personally eating dog meat], on the tip of whose tongue your (tubhyam) name is present, or, [on the tip of whose tongue is present] a name even the meaning of which is you, that is, who utters even a semblance (ābhāsa) of [your] name even inaccurately, even in whatever manner, and even without śraddhā and so forth, is thus (ataḥ), for that very reason [i.e., specifically by virtue of uttering your name], highly honorable. Or, ‘since [the name] is present [on the tip of the tongue], thus [he is honorable] …’ [is the sense].
“[A question is raised:] ‘Why [is that]?’ Thus, she says verily they [who take your name] have undergone (tepuḥ), that is, fully performed, austerity. Verily they have conducted sacrifices (juhuvuḥ), bathed (sasnuḥ) in the tīrthas, become noble (āryāḥ) that is, possessed of righteous conduct (sadācāra), and studied (anūcūḥ) the Veda (Brahma). Austerity and so forth—all righteous action (sat-karma) is included in repetition (kīrtana) of your name [i.e., by repeating your name one acquires all the merit that one can acquire by means of austerity and so forth]. Thus, they [i.e., those who take your name] are most meritorious (puṇyatamāḥ) is the meaning. Alternately, that in other births austerity, sacrifice, and so on were all performed by them is intelligible by the emergence of the great fortune [they now have] of repeating your name. By this statement [drawn from Śrī Svāmīpāda’s commentary] of repetition of the name being the fruit of all of these [activities], [viz.,] austerity and so on, only [repetition of the name’s] being superior to all righteous action (sat-karma) is specified [i.e., the statement should not be construed to imply that austerity and the like can cause one to attain the fortune of taking Śrī Bhagavān’s name; rather, it should be construed to imply simply that taking Śrī Bhagavān’s name is superior to performing all such righteous actions (sat-karmas)].”
tasmāt ‘sadyaḥ savanāya kalpate’ iti yad uktaṁ, tad api na kiñcid, yatas tapa-ādikaṁ sarvaṁ tan-nāma-grahaṇa-mātrāntarbhūtam eva syāt, yata eva tasya tan-nāma-grahītus tapa-ādi-kartṛkebhyo garīyastvam api syād ity abhipretyāha—aho bateti | vyākhyā tu ṭīkāyāḥ prathama-pakṣa-gataiva grāhyā |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“Therefore, even that which was stated [in the previous verse,] ‘[Even a dog-eater] Immediately becomes eligible for savana,’ is nothing [i.e., is not great praise], since austerity and so on—everything [that is mentioned in this verse]—shall verily be included just in taking his name [i.e., by repeating your name one acquires all the merit that one can acquire by means of austerity and so forth], since indeed one who takes his name shall also possess superiority to performers of austerity and so forth [i.e., one will acquire even greater merit]. Intending this, she says aho bata … [i.e., she speaks this verse]. Only the explanation present in the first case [i.e., interpretation] in the commentary, however, is acceptable [i.e., the second, alternate interpretation offered by Śrī Svāmīpāda that performance of austerity, sacrifice, and so on can cause one to attain the fortune of taking Śrī Bhagavān’s name is not acceptable].”
śvādatvam atra śva-bhakṣaka-jāti-viśeṣatvam eva, śvānam attīti niruktau vartamāna-prayogāt kravyādavat tac-chīlatva-prāpteḥ | kādācitka-bhakṣaṇe prāyaścitta-vivakṣāyāṁ tv atīta-prayogaḥ kriyeta, ‘rūḍhir yogam apaharati’ iti nyāyena ca tad virudhyate | ata eva ‘śvapacaḥ’ iti tair vyākhyātam | savanaṁ cātra soma-yāga ucyate | tataś cāsya bhagavan-nāma-śravaṇādy-ekatarāt sadya eva savana-yogyatā-pratikūla-durjātitva-prārambhaka-prārabdha-pāpa-nāśaḥ pratipadyate | tasmāt—‘bhaktiḥ punāti man-niṣṭhā śvapākān api sambhavāt’ iti kaimutyārtham eva proktam ity āyāti | kintu yogyatvam atra śvapacatva-prāpaka-prārabdha-pāpa-vicchinnatva-mātram ucyate | savanārthaṁ tu guṇāntarādhānam apekṣata eva, brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ śaukre janmani yogyatve saty api sāvitra-daikṣa-janmāpekṣāvat | sāvitrādi-janma-nimitta-savana-sadācāra-prāpter iti savane pravṛttir nāsya yujyate | tasmāt pūjyatva-mātre tātparyam ity abhipretya ṭīkā-kṛdbhir apy uktam—‘anena pūjyatvaṁ labhyate’ iti | tathāpi [jāti-doṣa-haratvena] prārabdha-hāritvaṁ tu vyaktam evāyātam |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 128)
“Being a dog-eater (śvādatva) here refers specifically to belonging to a particular caste of dog-eaters because of indication [by the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda)] of that custom [of habitually eating dog meat] on account of the usage of the present tense in the etymology [of the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda)], ‘One who eats dog,’ as [also is understood] in [the case of] the word kravyāda [i.e., ‘carnivore,’ lit., ‘flesh-’ (kravya-) ‘eater’ (āda)]. In the [hypothetical] case of an intention of [referring to] atonement [by means of hearing and repeating Śrī Bhagavān’s name, bowing down to him, or remembering him] in regard to occasional consumption [of dog meat], however, the past tense would be used [in the etymology of the word chosen to refer to an occasional consumer of dog meat, rather than the present tense, which the standard, well-established tense used in the etymology of the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda)], and that [supposedly intended meaning of one who has only on some occasion eaten dog meat rather than one who habitually eats dog meat as a member of a caste of persons who regularly do so] is contradicted by the principle, “Conventional meaning (rūḍhi) supersedes etymological meaning (yoga)” [i.e., the well-known conventional meaning of the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda) is a person who belongs to a caste of people who habitually eat dog meat and not a person who has only on occasion eaten dog meat; thus there is no intention in the verse under discussion to refer only to someone who has only on occasion eaten dog meat and rather only an intention to refer to a member of a low caste who habitually does so since both the etymological and conventional meanings of the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda) convey this meaning specifically]. Therefore, ‘dog-cooker’ (śvapaca) [was stated to be the meaning of the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda)] by the commentator [viz., Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda, i.e., therefore Śrī Svāmīpāda interpreted the word ‘dog-eater’ (śvāda) to refer a ‘dog-cooker’ (śvapaca), which is a term that is also well-known to refer by convention primarily to a low caste of persons who are so named because of their habit of cooking and eating dog meat]. [The term] Savana, furthermore, here, refers to the soma-yāga. Consequently, furthermore, the destruction of his commenced (prārabdha) sin causative of the commencement of [his] low caste status (durjātitva) that is [regarded as] unfavorable in regard to eligibility for savana indeed immediately as a result of one [act of bhakti] among [those mentioned in the verse of] hearing Bhagavān’s name and so on is taught [in the verse under discussion]. Thus, it follows that an a fortiori import specifically is stated in [Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s statement in SB 11.14.21], ‘Bhakti fixed upon me purifies even dog-cookers of their birth’ [i.e., so how much more certain is it that bhakti fixed upon me can purify persons of noble birth who are implicated in far lesser sin?]. Consequently, furthermore, his [i.e., such a dog-eater’s] attainment of the destruction of the commenced (prārabdha) sin causative of the commencement of [his] low caste status (durjātitva) [i.e., his having been born in a low caste of dog-eaters] that is unfavorable in regard to eligibility for savana [i.e., that is a cause of non-eligibility for savana] indeed immediately as a result of one [act of bhakti] among [those mentioned in the verse of] hearing Bhagavān’s name and so on is taught [in the verse under discussion]. Thus, it follows that an a fortiori import specifically is stated in [Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s statement in SB 11.14.21], ‘Bhakti fixed upon me purifies even dog-cookers of their birth’ [i.e., so how much more certain is it that bhakti fixed upon me can purify persons of noble birth who are implicated in far lesser sin than those born in to the dog-cooker caste?]. Eligibility in this regard [i.e., the verse under discussion’s statements that even a dog-eater becomes eligibly to perform savana], however, refers only to the termination of the commenced (prārabdha) sin the causative of attaining the state of a dog-cooker [i.e., causative of being born in the dog-cooker caste]. For the sake of [performing] savana, however, possessing other qualities is [also] certainly required, just as there is a requirement of a birth based on sāvitra-dīkṣā [i.e., the birth accomplished by means of the rite of initiation into the sāvitra-mantra, that is, the gāyatrī-mantra, and investiture with a sacred thread] even for brāhmaṇa boys who have the eligibility [for performance of savana] of a seminal birth [in a family of brāhmaṇas] for the sake of attaining the right conduct (sadācāra) [required] for [performance of] savana the cause of which is the sāvitra birth and so forth. Thus, for him [i.e., for a dog-cooker who has not been born in a brāhmaṇa family and not become twice born by means of the sāvitra-birth] engagement in savana is not befitting. Therefore, the intention is only respectability [and not literally possessed of fully eligibility for performance of savana]. Intending this, it was also said by the commentator [viz., Śrī Svāmīpāda], ‘By this [statement that a dog-cooker becomes eligible to perform the soma-yāga], respectability is indicated [i.e., the statement is not meant to be taken literally and imply that a dog-cooker can or should actually attempt to learn and conduct a soma-yāga].’ Still, it follows that [bhakti’s] being a remover of commenced (prārabdha) sin is clearly indicated.”
‘sadyaḥ savanāya kalpate’ iti yad uktaṁ, tad api na kiñcid, yataḥ soma-yāga-kartṛbhyo’py ādhikyam evāsya phalato bhaved ity āha—aho batety āścaryāt, apy etad āścaryam ity arthaḥ | yasya śvapacasya jihvāgre jihvāyā agre eva na tu sampūrṇāyāṁ tasyām ity asamyaktayoccāritam ity arthaḥ | vartate eva na tu vṛttam ity asampūrṇam uccāritam ity arthaḥ | nāma ekam eva, na tu nāmānīty arthaḥ | sampūrṇa-jihvāyāṁ sampūrṇoccāritāni bahūni nāmāni tu kim uteti bhāvaḥ | tubhyaṁ tava tvāṁ prīṇayituṁ ceti vā | ata eva sa śvapaco garīyān atiśayena gurur bhavatīty anyān api nāmātmaka-mantram upadeṣṭuṁ yogyatāṁ dhatte iti bhāvaḥ | nanu tarhi sa śvapaco yajñādhyayana-tapa-ādikaṁ karotv iti, tatrāha—tepur iti | tasyaikasya kā vārtā, anye’pi ye tava nāma gṛṇanti te eva tepur ity avadhāraṇaṁ labhyate, anyeṣāṁ tapaḥ-sāmastya-sāṅgatvādy-adarśanāt | evaṁ viśeṣānukteḥ sarvam eva tapaḥ | juhuvuḥ | sarveṣv eva tīrtheṣu | āryā api ta eva nānye | brahma vedaṁ ta eva anūcur adhītavantaḥ | ‘anūcānaḥ pravacane sāṅge’dhītī guros tu yaḥ’ ity amaraḥ | atra tepur ity-ādiṣu bhūta-nirdeśāt gṛṇantīti vartamāna-nirdeśāt tvan-nāmāni gṛhyamāṇa eva tapo-yajñādayaḥ sarve kṛtā eva bhavanti, na tu kriyamāṇāḥ, nāpi kariṣyamāṇā ity atas tāṁs tu kathaṁ punaḥ kuryuḥ? ity ata eva bhaktānāṁ karmasv anadhikāro’pi jñeyaḥ | parokṣa-vāci-liḍ-anta-pada-prayogeṇa siddhāny eva tāni tapa-ādināpi te na jānanti, kiṁ punas tat-sādhana-śramam iti bhāvaḥ | atra gṛṇantīti vartamāna-prayogeṇa nāma-grahaṇāviccheda eva yadi syāt tadaivaivaṁ syād iti tu na vyākhyeyaṁ ‘citraṁ vidūra-vigataḥ sakṛd ādadīta yan-nāma-dheyam adhunā sa jahāti baddham’ iti | ‘yan-nāma sakṛt śravaṇāt pukkaśo’pi vimucyate saṁsārāt’ ity-ādi vākyeṣu sakṛt-pada-prayoga-vyākopāt |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Even that which was stated [in the previous verse,] ‘[Even a dog-eater who somehow engages in bhakti] Immediately becomes eligible for savana,’ is nothing [i.e., is no great praise], since his [i.e., the aforementioned dog-eater’s] veritable superiority even to performers of the soma-yāga shall come about consequently. Thus, she [viz., Devahūti] says aho bata [i.e., she speaks SB 3.33.7], meaning this [which is now stated in SB 3.33.7] is an astonishment even in comparison to the astonishment [described previously in SB 3.33.6 that even a dog-eater immediately becomes eligible for savana]. ‘On the tip of whose tongue’ (yaj-jihvāgre) means only on the tip of a dog-cooker’s tongue, and not rather on the entirety of it, the sense being that [the name is] uttered inaccurately. [Furthermore, the name is said to be] Only ‘present’ (vartate), and not rather finished [i.e., fully articulated], the sense being that it is uttered incompletely. [The mention of] ‘Name’ [in the singular] indicates only one [name], and not rather names [i.e., it refers to a dog-cooker who has only once inaccurately and incompletely uttered only one name of Śrī Bhagavān not many names of Bhagavān or even one name of Bhagavān many times]. ‘What more then of many names uttered completely on the entirety of the tongue?’ is the purport [i.e., there is an a fortiori implication of the great benefit of repeatedly fully articulating Śrī Bhagavān’s names]. [The word] Tubhyam means your or to please you. Therefore, he, a dog-cooker, is highly honorable (garīyān), that is, he becomes exceedingly great (guru). The purport is that he acquires the eligibility to teach the mantra constituted of the name even to others.
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, then let he, this dog-cooker, engage in yajña, study [of the Veda], austerity, and so on.’ To this, she says tepuḥ … [i.e., she speaks the second half of the verse]. What to speak of him alone? Even others who take your name—they alone have undergone [austerity]. This ascertainment [of the meaning of the statement] is gathered from non-observation of others’ austerity being complete in entirety. In this way, because of the non-mention of any particular [qualifier of the austerity said to have been accomplished by those who take Śrī Bhagavān’s name] indeed all austerity [is the intended sense, meaning, anyone who has taken Śrī Bhagavān’s name has acquired the benefit of performing full austerity completely, and it is only those who take Śrī Bhagavān’s name that ever acquire such benefit since it is not observed that those who actually physically engage in austerity ever perform it with absolute completion]. They [alone, i.e., those who have taken Śrī Bhagavān’s name] have conducted sacrifices. [They alone have bathed] Verily in all tīrthas. They alone are also ‘noble’ (āryā), and not others. They alone have studied (anūcuḥ) the Veda (Brahma). ‘Anūcānaḥ means one who has studied sacred literature along with its supplements from a guru’ according to Amara [i.e., the Amara-kośa].
“Because of the specification of past tense here [in this verse] in ‘they have undergone’ (tepuḥ) and so on [i.e., and in the words juhuvuḥ, sasnuḥ, and anūcuḥ] and the specification of the present tense in ‘take’ (gṛṇanti), only your names are being taken [by them in the present]; all austerity, sacrifice, and so on has verily been performed [in the past], and is not, rather, being performed [by them in the present] or going to be performed [by them in the future]. Therefore, why would they perform them again? [They would not]. Thus, the non-eligibility of bhaktas for [all such] karmas is to be understood. On account of the usage of words ending in [the affix] liṭ indicative of an unperceived past time (parokṣa) [i.e., on account of the usage of verbs which are conjugated in the perfect past tense, viz., tepuḥ, juhuvuḥ, sasnuḥ, and anūcuḥ], they [i.e., those who take Śrī Bhagavān’s name] do not know that that [aforementioned] austerity and so forth [i.e., the austerity sacrifice, bathing, study, and so on described in the verse] has verily been accomplished [by them by means of taking Śrī Bhagavān’s name], much less [do they know, that is, have any experience of] the exertion of those practices. This is the purport [i.e., those who take Śrī Bhagavān’s name acquire the benefit of having performed numerous practices found on the path of karma which require great exertion to accomplish, and they do so without having to undergo any such exertion themselves]. It should not be explained, however, by reference to the usage of the present tense in [the verb] ‘take’ (gṛṇanti) that such [benefit] shall come about only if there shall be a continuity of taking the name [on their part, i.e., only if they engage in taking the name constantly without any interruption] because of the contradiction [that would arise in the case of such an interpretation] to the usage of the word ‘once’ (sakṛt) in statements such as [SB 5.1.34], ‘After having pronounced whose [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s] name [just] once, [even] someone of the lowest caste immediately gives up bondage [i.e., saṁsāra],’ and [SB 6.16.44], ‘Even an outcaste (pukkaśa) is fully liberated from saṁsāra as a result of hearing whose [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s] name [even] once.‘”