atha pādmoktā daśāpy aparādhāḥ parityājyāḥ | yathā sanat-kumāra-vākyam—sarvāparādha-kṛd api … | aparādhāś caite— satāṁ nindā nāmnaḥ … | ity anena hiṁsādīnāṁ vacanāgocaratvaṁ darśitam | nindādayas tu yathā skānde śrī-mārkaṇḍeya-bhagīratha-saṁvāde—nindāṁ kurvanti ye mūḍhā vaiṣṇavānāṁ mahātmanām | patanti pitṛbhiḥ sārdhaṁ mahāraurava-saṁjñite || hanti nindanti vai dveṣṭi vaiṣṇavān nābhinandati | krudhyate yāti no harṣaṁ darśane patanāni ṣaṭ || iti | tan-nindā-śravaṇe’pi doṣa uktaḥ ‘nindāṁ bhagavataḥ śṛṇvan …’ iti | … tad evaṁ śrī-viṣṇoḥ sarvātmakatvena prasiddhatvāt tasmāt sakāśāt śivasya guṇa-nāmādikaṁ bhinnaṁ śakty-antara-siddham iti yo dhiyāpi paśyed ity arthaḥ | dvayor abheda-tātparyeṇa ṣaṣṭhy-antatve sati śrī-viṣṇoś cety apekṣya ca-śabdaḥ kriyeta | tat-prādhānya-vivakṣayaiva śrī-śabdaś ca tatraiva dattaḥ | ata eva ‘śiva-nāmāparādhaḥ’ iti śiva-śabdena mukhyatayā śrī-viṣṇur eva pratipādita ity abhipretam | sahasra-nāmādau ca sthāṇu-śivādi-śabdās tathaiva | atha śruti-śāstra-nindanam—yathā pāṣaṇḍa-mārgeṇa dattātreya-rṣabhadevopāsakānāṁ pāṣaṇḍinām | tathā arthavādaḥ stuti-mātram idam iti mananam | kalpanaṁ tan-māhātmya-gauṇatā-karaṇāya gaty-antara-cintanam | yathoktaṁ kaurme vyāsa-gītāyāṁ—deva-drohād guru-drohaḥ koṭi-koṭi-guṇādhikaḥ | jñānāpavādo nāstikyaṁ tasmāt koṭi-guṇādhikam || iti | … nāmno balād iti | yadyapi bhaven nāmno balenāpi kṛtasya pāpasya tena nāmnā kṣayaḥ, tathāpi yena nāmno balena parama-puruṣārtha-svarūpaṁ sac-cid-ānanda-sāndraṁ sākṣāc-chrī-bhagavac-caraṇāravindaṁ sādhayituṁ pravṛttaḥ, tenaiva parama-ghṛṇāspadaṁ pāpa-viṣayaṁ sādhayatīti parama-daurātmyam | tataḥ kadarthayaty eva tan-nāma ceti tat-pāpa-koṭi-mahattamasyāparādhasyāpāto bāḍham eva | tato yamair bahubhir yama-niyamādibhiḥ kṛta-prāyaścittasya krameṇa prāptādhikārair anekair api daṇḍa-dharair vā kṛta-daṇḍasya tasya śuddhy-abhāvo yukta eva nāmāparādha-yuktānām ity-ādi vakṣyamāṇānusāreṇa punar api satata-nāma-kīrtana-mātrasya tatra prāyaścittatvāt, sarvāparādha-kṛd api ity-ādy-ukty-anusāreṇa nāmāparādha-yuktasya bhagavad-bhaktimato’py adhaḥpāta-lakṣaṇa-bhoga-niyamāc ca | … atha ‘dharma-vrata-tyāgaḥ’ iti dharmādibhiḥ sāmya-mananam api pramādaḥ, aparādho bhavatīty arthaḥ | … atha aśraddadhāne ity-ādinopadeṣṭur aparādhaṁ darśayitvopadeśyasyāha—śrutveti | yataḥ ahaṁ-mamādi-paramaḥ ahantā-mamatādy-eka-tātparyeṇa tasminn anādaravān ity arthaḥ | ‘nāmaikaṁ yasya vāci smaraṇa-patha-gatam’ ity-ādau deha-draviṇādi-nimittaka-pāṣaṇḍa-śabdena ca daśāparādhā lakṣyante pāṣaṇḍamayatvāt teṣām | tathā tad-vidhānām evāparādhāntaram uktaṁ pādma-vaiśākha-māhātmye—avamanya prayānti ye bhagavat-kīrtanaṁ narāḥ | te yānti narakaṁ ghoraṁ tena pāpena karmaṇā || iti | eṣāṁ cāparādhānām ananya-prāyaścittatvam evoktaṁ tatraiva—nāmāparādha-yuktānāṁ nāmāny eva haranty agham | aviśrānti-prayuktāni tāny evārthakarāṇi ca || iti | atra sat-prabhṛtiṣv aparādhe tu tat-santoṣārtham eva santata-nāma-kīrtanādikaṁ samucitam | ambarīṣa-caritādau tad-eka-kṣamyatvenāparādhānāṁ darśanāt | uktaṁ ca nāma-kaumudyām—‘mahad-aparādhasya bhoga eva nivartakaḥ tad-anugraho vā’ iti | tasmād gaty-antarābhāvāt sādhūktam ‘etan nirvidyamānānām’ iti | evaṁ śrī-nāradenoktaṁ bṛhan-nāradīye—mahimnām api yan nāmnaḥ pāraṁ gantum anīśvarāḥ | manavo’pi munīndrāś ca kathaṁ taṁ kṣuṇṇa-dhīr bhaje || iti ||
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 265)
“Then, the ten offenses stated in Padma Purāṇa are to be avoided in full as per the statement of Sanat-kumara [in PP 4.25.12-13]: sarvāparādha-kṛd api … . And these are the offenses: satāṁ nindā nāmnaḥ … [as stated in PP 4.25.15–18]. …
“[The following explanation of the offenses is then offered:] (1) ‘Defamation of the sat’ (satāṁ nindā)—by this [statement] violence and so forth [i.e., and other forms of offense more grievous than defamation] are shown to be outside the scope of speech [i.e., so greatly offensive that there is no need to even mention them]. Defamation and so forth are indeed [described] in the conversation of Śrī Mārkaṇḍeya and Bhagīratha in Skanda Purāṇa: ‘Fools who engage in defamation of great Vaiṣṇavas fall into that which is known as Mahāraurava along with their forefathers. Striking, defaming, despising, not respectfully greeting, getting angry with, and not being joyful upon seeing Vaiṣṇavas are six causes of falling [into naraka].’ A fault is [also] stated [to exist] even in the case of [only] hearing defamation of them [i.e., bhaktas of Bhagavān; meaning, it is not only an offense to speak defamation of Vaiṣṇavas but also to listen to it] as per [the statement] nindāṁ Bhagavataḥ śṛṇvan [in SB 10.74.40]. …
“(2) Thus, in this way [i.e., as per the numerous statements from śāstra cited in this section to show that all the names of the various devas are actually names of Bhagavān Viṣṇu which he has allotted to those devas], because of Śrī Viṣṇu’s being well known to be all-containing [i.e., the ultimate being who contains even all the other devas], one who shall see even with the intellect the qualities, names, and so forth of Śiva to be distinct from him [i.e., from Śrī Viṣṇu], that is, [to be] existent by means of another potency (śakti) [i.e., a potency thought to belong to another devatā rather than to belong ultimately to Śrī Viṣṇu himself and be invested into such a devatā by Śrī Viṣṇu, is an offender of the name] is the meaning. If there was a sixth case ending [intended to be read in the word Viṣṇoḥ in the verse, which as per the rules of grammar can be interpreted to be in either the fifth or the sixth case] with the intent of [conveying the] nondistinction between the two [i.e., between Śiva and Viṣṇu], then [the phrase] ‘and of Śrī Viṣṇu’ (Śrī-Viṣṇoś ca) would have been expected [to have been found in the text] and the word ‘and’ (ca) would have been used [to fulfill this expectation; this is to say, since the word ‘and’ (ca) was not used in the text following the compound Śrī-Viṣṇoś, this compound should be interpreted to be in the fifth grammatical case rather than the sixth]. With the intention specifically of his [i.e., Viṣṇu’s] preeminence [in comparison to Śiva], the word śrī was also used only there [i.e., only in compound with the word Viṣṇu, and not with the word Śiva]. Therefore, in regard to the compound ‘an offense to the name of Śiva’ (Śiva-nāmāparādhaḥ) [stated in the later verse regarding the ninth offense], that Śrī Viṣṇu in particular is primarily referred to by the word Śiva is intended. In the Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma and elsewhere as well, the names Sthāṇu, Śiva, and so forth are just the same [i.e., they refer primarily to Śrī Viṣṇu rather than to Śiva even though they are commonly understood to refer primarily to Śiva].
“Then [i.e., the third offense is not elaborated on in the text, likely because the explanation of the first offense applies to offense related to the guru as well], (4) defamation of the Śrutis and śāstras is as in the case of heretics (pāṣaṇḍis), that is, worshipers of Dattātreya and Ṛṣabhadeva, in accord with the path of a heresy [i.e., it refers to the fundamental heresy of rejection of the authority of the Śrutis and other śāstras].
“(5) Also, ‘praise’ (arthavādaḥ) refers to considering, ‘This is mere praise’ [i.e., opining that the śāstra’s descriptions of the greatness of the name are mere hyperbole]. (6) Fabricating (kalpanam) refers to thinking in another manner [about the meaning of Hari’s name] for the purpose of making its greatness secondary [i.e., construing the names of Hari to be merely figurative and opining that they are not actually inherently possessed of the meaning, greatness, and potency that the great ones (mahātmās) have experienced the names to manifest], as stated in the Vyāsa-gītā in Kūrma Purāṇa: ‘Offense to guru is tens of millions of times worse than offense to the Deity. But denial of knowledge [i.e., intentionally reinterpreting śāstra so as to construe it to be merely metaphorical, mythological, and the like] and disbelief [in the śāstra] are ten millions times worse than that [i.e., than offense to guru].’
“(7) In regard to nāmno balāt … [i.e., the seventh offense], although the destruction even of sin performed based on the strength of the name shall occur by means of that [very same] name, still if one performs a sinful act, which is an object of extreme repugnance, on the basis of that very same strength of the name by which one has endeavored to attain the lotus feet of Śrī Bhagavān himself, which are constituted of eternal being, consciousness, and intense bliss and by nature the supreme puruṣārtha, then that is extreme ill-naturedness. In this case, one veritably misuses the name, and thus the occurrence of an offense a crore times far greater than that sin [which one intended to use the name to absolve oneself of] most certainly ensues. In this case, the non-occurrence of purification of him [i.e., of such an offender of the name] by means of regulations, that is, [the non-occurrence of purification] of one [such offender] who has performed atonement by means of numerous restraints (yamas), regulations (niyamas), and so forth, or, of one [such offender] upon whom punishment has been inflicted even by numerous bearers of the staff [i.e., Yamarājas] who have sequentially received the authority [to punish offenders over the course of numerous cyclic manifestations of the material world], is certainly appropriate on account of only again constantly chanting the name [of Hari] being the atonement in this case as per the forthcoming statement [in Padma Purāṇa], ‘The names [of Hari] certainly destroy the sins of those who have committed offense to the name; uttered incessantly, they are certainly effective,’ and on account of the law (niyama) of suffering in the form of falling down [being compulsorily applicable] for one who has committed offense to the name even though [one may otherwise be] possessed of bhakti to Bhagavān as per [the statement in PP 4.25.12-13] sarvāparādha-kṛd api …. …
“(8) Then, in regard to [the statement] dharma-vrata-tyāgaḥ …, equating [the name] with dharma and so forth is also negligence, meaning, an offense occurs [because of it]. …
“(9) Then, after showing the offense of [i.e., that can be committed by] a teacher [of the name] in [the statement] aśraddadhāne …, he [i.e., Sanat-kumāra] states (10) [the offense which can occur on the part] of the recipient of instruction [regarding the name]: śrutvāpi … Because of being one for whom ‘I’, ‘mine’, and so forth are primary, that is, [being one who is] possessed of disregard for it [i.e., the name of Hari] on account of being fixated principally upon egotism (ahantā), possessiveness (mamatā), and so forth, is the meaning [of the tenth offense].
“The ten offenses are also indicated by the word ‘the heretical’ (pāṣaṇḍa), who are motivated by the body, wealth, and so forth, in [the statement in PP 4.25.24] nāmaikaṁ yasya vāci smaraṇa-patha-gatam … because of their being heretical (pāṣaṇḍamaya) [i.e., because of the offenses’ being acts contrary to the teaching of the śāstra]. Also, another offense of those of that type [i.e., of the heretical (pāṣaṇḍis)] is stated in the Vaiśākha-māhātmya in Padma Purāṇa (5.96.63): ‘Those people who disrespect kīrtana of Bhagavān and leave [places where it is being performed] go to a fearsome naraka because of this sinful act.’
“There verily being no other atonement for all these offenses [apart from further chanting of the name] is stated in that very place [in Padma Purāṇa just after the aforementioned ten offenses were listed]: ‘The names [of Hari] certainly destroy the sins of those who have committed offense to the name; uttered incessantly, they are certainly effective.’ Here, in the case of an offense to a sādhu and so forth [i.e., and to Bhagavān, his name, the guru, and so forth as aforementioned in the list of the ten offenses], constant kīrtana and so forth of the name specifically for the sake of satisfying them [i.e., whomever has been offended] is appropriate [i.e., enjoined as the appropriate means of rectification] because of observance in the narrations of Ambarīṣa and so forth of offenses being forgivable only by them [i.e., by the person in particular who was offended, as in the case of Durvāsā Muni’s offense to Ambarīṣa Mahārāja, not even Bhagavān himself could forgive Durvāsā Muni’s offense; it was only forgiven when Durvāsā Muni appealed directly to Ambarīṣa Mahārāja for forgiveness]. It is also stated in the Nāma-kaumudī: ‘The only mitigation of an offense to a great one (mahat) is suffering [the reactions of the offense] or his favor [i.e., receiving the forgiveness of the person who was offended].’ Therefore, because of the absence of any other means, it was rightly stated [in SB 2.1.11, as cited at the beginning of this anuccheda] etan nirvidyamānānām … [‘This anukīrtana of Hari’s name, wherein there is no fear from anywhere, is enjoined for the indifferent, the desirous, and the yogīs’]. It was similarly stated by Śrī Nārada in Bṛhan-nāradīya Purāṇa: ‘How can I of defeated intellect worship he even the greatness of whose name human beings and even the foremost of the sages are unable to reach the limit of?’”
Read on →
