Ambarīṣa Mahārāja

vaiṣṇava-mātrāṇāṁ ca yathāyogyam ārādhanaṁ

vaiṣṇava-mātrāṇāṁ ca yathāyogyam ārādhanaṁ yathā itihāsa-samuccaye ‘tasmād viṣṇu-prasādāya vaiṣṇavān paritoṣayet | prasāda-sumukho viṣṇus tenaiva syān na saṁśayaḥ ||’ iti | vyatirekeṇāpi pādmottara-khaṇḍe ‘arcayitvā tu govindaṁ tadīyān nārcayet tu yaḥ | na sa bhāgavato jñeyaḥ kevalaṁ dāmbhikaḥ smṛtaḥ ||’ iti | tatra ‘sarvatrāskhalitādeśaḥ sapta-dvīpaika-daṇḍa-dhṛk | anyatra brāhmaṇa-kulād anyatrācyuta-gotrataḥ ||’ iti śrī-pṛthu-caritānusāreṇa yat kiñcij jātāv apy uttamatvam eva mantavyam, ‘yasya yal lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ puṁso varṇābhivyañjakam | yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet ||’ iti nāradokti-dṛṣṭāntena vā | yathoktaṁ pādme ‘kim atra bahunoktena brāhmaṇā ye’py avaiṣṇavāḥ | na draṣṭavyā na spraṣṭavyā na vaktavyāḥ kadācana ||’ tatra māgha-māhātmye ca ‘śvapākam iva nekṣeta loke vipram avaiṣṇavam | vaiṣṇavo varṇa-bāhyo’pi punāti bhuvana-trayam || na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktās te tu bhāgavatā matāḥ | sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā ye na bhaktā janārdane ||’ itihāsa-samuccaye ‘smṛtaḥ sambhāṣito vāpi pūjito vā dvijottama | punāti bhagavad-bhaktaś cāṇḍālo’pi yadṛcchayā ||’ anyathā doṣa-śravaṇaṁ ca tatraiva ‘śūdraṁ vā bhagavad-bhaktaṁ niṣādaṁ śvapacaṁ tathā | vīkṣate jāti-sāmānyāt sa yāti narakaṁ dhruvam ||’ iti | bhakti-vaiśiṣṭyena tu vaiśiṣṭyam api dṛśyate yathā gāruḍe ‘tad-bhakta-jana-vātsalyaṁ pūjāyāṁ cānumodanam | tat-kathā-śravaṇe prītiḥ svara-netrādi-vikriyā || viṣṇoś ca kāraṇaṁ nṛtyaṁ tad-arthe dambha-varjanam | svayam abhyarcanaṁ caiva yo viṣṇuṁ nopajīvati || bhaktir aṣṭa-vidhā hy eṣā yasmin mlecche’pi vartate | sa viprendro muni-śreṣṭhaḥ sa jñānī sa ca paṇḍitaḥ | tasmai deyaṁ tato grāhyaṁ sa ca pūjyo yathā hariḥ ||’ iti | ata evāha bhagavān ‘na me bhaktaś catur-vedī mad-bhaktaḥ śvapacaḥ priyaḥ | tasmai deyaṁ tato grāhyaṁ sa ca pūjyo yathā hy aham ||’ iti | ata eva jñāta-bhakti-mahimnā satā durvāsasāpi śrīmad-ambarīṣasya pāda-grahaṇam apy ācaritam, kintu ambarīṣasyānabhīṣṭam eva tad iti tatraiva vyaktatvāt | śrī-bhagavatā śrīmad-uddhavādibhiś ca brāhmaṇa-mātrasya vandanāc ca | itara-vaiṣṇavais tu tat sarvathā na mantavyaṁ ‘vipraṁ kṛtāgasam api naiva druhyata māmakāḥ | ghnantaṁ bahu śapantaṁ vā namaskuruta nityaśaḥ ||’ iti bhagavad-ādeśa-bhaṅga-prasaṅgāc ca | śvapākam iva nekṣeta ity-ādikaṁ tu tad-darśanāsakti-niṣedha-paratvena samādheyam | dṛśyate ca yudhiṣṭhira-draupady-ādīnām aśvatthāmni tathā vyavahāraḥ | vaiṣṇava-pūjakais tu vaiṣṇavānām ācāro’pi na vicāraṇīyaḥ ‘api cet sudurācāraḥ’ ity-ādeḥ, yathoktaṁ gāruḍe ‘viṣṇu-bhakti-samāyukto mithyācāro’py anāśramī | punāti sakalān lokān sahasrāṁśur ivoditaḥ ||’ iti | tad etad udāhṛtam eva—‘aho bata śvapaco’to garīyān yaj jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam’ ity-ādau | atra śvapaca-śabdo yaugikārtha-puraskāreṇaiva vartate | tato durjātitvena durācāratvenāpi nāvamantavyas tad-bhakta-janaḥ, svāvamantṛtvena tu sutarām | ata evoktaṁ gāruḍe ‘rukṣākṣaraṁ tu śṛṇvan vai tathā bhāgavateritam | praṇāma-pūrvaṁ taṁ kṣāntyā yo vaded vaiṣṇavo hi saḥ ||’ iti |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 247)

“Also, worship as appropriate of Vaiṣṇavas in general is [described] as follows in Itihāsa-samuccaya (25.27), ‘Therefore, one should satisfy the Vaiṣṇavas for the sake of [attaining] Viṣṇu’s favor (prasāda). Certainly by this [i.e., by satisfying the Vaiṣṇavas] Viṣṇu shall become of gladden face. There is no doubt.’ Also by way of negative concomitance (vyatireka) [this same principle is taught] in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of Padma Purāṇa (253.177), ‘One who after having worshiped Govinda shall not worship those who ware his own, however, is not to be consider a bhāgavata [i.e., a genuine bhakta of Govinda]. He is regarded as merely a charlatan.’ In this regard, exaltedness (uttamatva) [on the part of a Vaiṣṇava] is verily to be honored even in any sort of caste [i.e., regardless which caste a Vaiṣṇava is born into], in accord with the conduct of Śrī Pṛthu [described in SB 4.21.12], ‘He [viz., Mahārāja Pṛthu], the sole bearer of the stick [i.e., ruler] over the seven islands, was of unchecked order everywhere apart from the brāhmaṇa community and apart from those of Acyuta’s line (gotra) [i.e., the Vaiṣṇavas, meaning, he did not rule over brāhmaṇas and Vaiṣṇavas but rather honored them and did so in regard to all of the Vaiṣṇavas regardless of where and in which caste they were born],’ or, in accord with the illustration stated by Śrī Nārada [in SB 7.11.35], ‘If a characteristic which is said to be an indicator of a person’s varṇa should be observed even elsewhere [i.e., even in a person born in a different varṇa], one should designate him [i.e., the person in whom the characteristic was observed] specifically with that [i.e., with the varṇa of that characteristic which was observed],’ as is stated [also] in Padma Purāṇa, ‘What [is the use] of numerous statements in this regard? Non-Vaiṣṇavas, although [i.e., even if they are] brāhmaṇas, are never to be looked at, never to be touched, and never to be spoken to.’ Also in this regard, [it is said] in the Māgha-māhātmya [of Padma Purāṇa], ‘Like a dog-cooker [is not to be looked at], one should not look at a non-Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇa in this world. Even a Vaiṣṇava outside the varṇas [i.e., who does not belong to any of the four varṇas] purifies the three worlds. Bhaktas of Bhagavān are not śūdras. Rather, they are accepted as Bhāgavatas [i.e., to belong to Śrī Bhagavān and not to any caste]. Among all the varṇas, they are śūdras who are not bhaktas of Janārdana.’ In Itihāsa-samuccaya (31.55) [it is similarly said], ‘Remembered, conversed with, or worshiped, O best of the twice-born, a bhakta of Bhagavān, although a cāṇḍala, purifies [someone] automatically.’ Furthermore, otherwise [i.e., neglecting to honor all Vaiṣṇavas irrespective of their caste], a fault is heard of there [in the same text] specifically, ‘One who sees a bhakta of Bhagavān to be a śūdra, tribesman (niṣāda), or dog-cooker [i.e., outcaste] because of commonality in caste (jāti) certainly goes to Naraka.’ Pre-eminence [i.e., recognition of certain Vaiṣṇavas as being pre-eminent even among Vaiṣṇavas] too is observed in accord with a pre-eminence in [their] bhakti, as [is described in a statement of Śrī Bhagavān] in Garuḍa Purāṇa, ‘(1) Affection for my bhaktas, (2) approval of [my] worship, (3) fondness for hearing discussion of me, (4) transformations of the voice, eyes, and so forth [i.e., experiencing sāttvika-bhāvas as a result of emotions related to me], (5) dancing for the sake of Viṣṇu, (6) forsaking deceit [alt., arrogance, or, pretension] for his sake, (7) performing ritual worship [of him] oneself, and (8) not subsisting upon Viṣṇu [i.e., using acts of bhakti to Viṣṇu to earn a livelihood]—even a mleccha [i.e., person of the lowest caste] in whom these eight types of bhakti are present is the best of brāhmaṇas and greatest of sages. He is a knower (jñānī), and he is wise (paṇḍita). Give [charity, etc.] to him and accept [prasāda, etc.] from him since he is also worshipable as Hari is.’ Thus, Bhagavān says, ‘A caturvedī [i.e., a brāhmaṇa versed in the four Vedas] who is not my bhakta is not dear to me; [even] a dog-cooker who is my bhakta [however] is [dear to me]. Give [charity, etc.] to him and accept [prasāda, etc.] from him since he is also worshipable as I am.’
“Therefore, even holding [the kṣatriya] Śrīmad Ambarīṣa’s feet was enacted even by [the highly learned and revered ascetic brāhmaṇa sage] Durvāsā upon his becoming aware of the greatness of bhakti [after this was explained to him by Bhagavān Viṣṇu], yet that was certainly not desired by Ambarīṣa because of [Ambarīṣa’s distinterest towards that] being evident there itself [i.e., in the narration of this incident in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam]. Furthermore, because of obeisance [being offered] to brāhmaṇas in general by Śrī Bhagavān [himself personally] and by Śrīmad Uddhava and others [i.e., and other great bhaktas and companions of Śrī Bhagavān], that [i.e., having one’s feet held or in any other manner being bowed to or shown great formal reverence by a brāhmaṇa] is under no circumstance to be desired [alt., expected] by other Vaiṣṇavas. This is also so because of an incidence of breaking Bhagavān’s order [if desiring or expecting honor from brāhmaṇas should occur], as [is stated by Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself in SB 10.64.41], ‘O you all who are my own, never harm even a brāhmaṇa who has committed an offense. Be he beating or cursing [you] profusely, always offer obeisance [to him].’ [The aforecited statement from Padma Purāṇa], ‘Like a dog-cooker [is not to be looked at], one should not look at a non-Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇa in this world,’ is to be reconciled [with the aforecited order of Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa given in SB 10.64.41 to always offer obeisance to brāhmaṇas regardless of their behavior, meaning, regardless of whether they are Vaiṣṇavas or not] as being related to a prohibition on attachment to the sight of them [i.e., the instruction in the aforecited verse from Padma Purāṇa to not look at a non-Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇa should be understood to refer to fostering no attachment to seeing non-Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇas, and thus Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s order in SB 10.64.41 to always offer obeisance to them stands, meaning, in practice one should always show respect to a brāhmaṇa regardless of his behavior or whether he is a Vaiṣṇava or not yet one should not foster attachment to seeing non-Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇas]. Such conduct is also observed on the part of Yudhiṣṭhira, Draupadī, and others in regard to Aśvatthāmā [i.e., the Pāṇḍavas and Draupadī offered respect to Aśvathāmā, who was the son of Droṇa, a brāhmaṇa, despite the fact that Aśvathāmā killed their sons and fired a brahmāstra at Uttarā in an attempt to kill their future grandson Parīkṣit]. Even the conduct of Vaiṣṇavas, however, is not to be judged by worshipers of Vaiṣṇavas, as per [Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s teaching in BG 9.30], ‘Even if possessed of extreme misconduct, he who worships me being devoted to no other [devatā] is to be regarded as verily virtuous (sādhu), since he is rightly resolved,’ and as stated in Garuḍa Purāṇa, ‘One fully endowed with Viṣṇu-bhakti, although [i.e., even if] possessed of deceitful behavior and devoid of any āśrama [i.e., designated role in the social order], purifies all people like the risen sun.’ This, this [verse, viz., SB 3.33.7] was cited specifically [earlier in BSK 128], ‘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.’ Here [in SB 3.33.7], the word ‘dog-cooker’ (śvapaca) is present with emphasis specifically on the etymological meaning [of the word, i.e., the word is used to refer literally to people who cook and eat dog meat]. Consequently, a person who is his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] bhakta is not to be disrespected on account of being of low caste or even on account of being possessed of misconduct, and therefore certainly [is] not [to be disrespected] on account of being disrespectful towards oneself. Therefore, it is said in Garuḍa Purāṇa, ‘One who after hearing harsh words uttered by a Bhāgavata can offer obeisance and speak with forbearance [respectfully to that Bhāgavata] is certainly a Vaiṣṇava.’”

Read on →

atha pādmoktā daśāpy aparādhāḥ parityājyāḥ

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 →

atha ātma-nivedanam

atha ātma-nivedanam | tac ca dehādi-śuddhātma-paryantasya sarvato-bhāvena tasminn evārpaṇam | tat-kāryaṁ cātmārtha-ceṣṭā-śūnyatvaṁ tan-nyastātma-sādhana-sādhyatvaṁ tad-arthaika-ceṣṭāmayatvaṁ ca | idaṁ hy ātmārpaṇaṁ go-vikrayavat, vikrītasya gor vartanārthaṁ vikrītavatā ceṣṭā na kriyate | tasya ca śreyaḥ-sādhakas taṁ krītavān eva syāt | sa ca gaus tasyaiva karma kuryāt, na punar vikrītavato’pīti | atha kecid dehārpaṇam evātmārpaṇam iti manyante | … kecic chuddha-kṣetrajñārpaṇam eva | … kecic ca dakṣiṇa-hastādikam apy arpayantaḥ, tena tat-karma-mātraṁ kurvate, na tu dehādi-karmety adyāpi dṛśyate | tad etat sarvātmakaṁ sakāryam ātma-nivedanaṁ yathā … | … atra sarvathā tatraiva saṅghātātma-nikṣepaḥ kṛta iti vaiśiṣṭyāpattyā smaraṇādi-mayopāsanasyaivātmārpaṇatvam | … yathā smaraṇa-kīrtana-pāda-sevana-mayam upāsanam eva āgamokta-vidhimayatva-vaiśiṣṭyāpattyārcanam ity abhidhīyate, tato nāviviktatvam, snāna-paridhānādi-kriyā cāsya bhagavat-sevā-yogyatvāyaiveti, tatrāpi nātmārpaṇa-bhakti-hānir ity anusandheyam | … tad etad ātma-nivedanaṁ bhāvaṁ vinā bhāva-vaiśiṣṭyena ca dṛśyate |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 309)

“Now, ātma-nivedanam [i.e., submission of the self, will be discussed]. That, furthermore, is offering of the body and so forth, up to the pure self (ātmā), in all respects to him [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān] alone. The result thereof, furthermore, is (1) being free from endeavor for the sake of oneself, (2) being of one’s means (sādhana) and ends (sādhya) consigned to him [i.e., Bhagavān, meaning, relying primarily upon Bhagavān for all of one’s means and ends, both in the spiritual sense of one’s bhakti-sādhana and attainment of the ideal of prema, and in the relative sense of one’s practical objectives related to the upkeep of the body and the means of effecting that], and (3) being possessed of endeavor solely for his sake. This offering of the self is like the selling a cow: [after the sale] endeavor is not performed by the seller for the sake of the maintenance of that which was sold [i.e., the cow], and the buyer alone shall be the agent of its [i.e., the cow’s] well-being. Furthermore, [after the sale] the cow shall work only for him [i.e., the buyer], and not any more for the seller [i.e., when one has offered oneself to Śrī Bhagavān, then, like a sold cow, one acts solely for the sake of one’s proprietor, Śrī Bhagavān, and the responsibility of one’s maintenance is solely that of Śrī Bhagavān]. Now, some consider offering of the self to be only offering of the body. … Some [alternately, consider offering of the self to be] offering of the pure knower of the field (kṣetrajña) [i.e., the ātmā]. … Some also offer the right hand or otherwise [i.e., some particular body part, to Bhagavān] and perform only action for him with that [offered part of the body] and not, rather, action for the body and so forth. Even today this is seen. Now, submission of the self, along with its functions, in totality is as follows [i.e., is demonstrated by Mahārāja Ambarīṣa, as described in SB 9.4.18–20]. … In this case [of Mahārāja Ambarīṣa], casting of the entirety of the self [i.e., the body, mind, and so forth up to the ātmā] solely unto him [i.e., Bhagavān] in all respects was performed. On account of the occurrence of this characteristic [i.e., of his engaging all the faculties of his self in action for the sake of Śrī Bhagavān, as described in SB 9.4.18–20], worship (upāsanā) constituted of remembrance and so forth [i.e., of usage of one’s various faculties, such as the mind] itself is part of [the limb of bhakti known as] offering of the self [i.e., ātma-nivedanam]. … As worship (upāsana) constituted of remembrance, praising, and serving the feet [of Bhagavān] is called arcana on account of the occurrence of the characteristic [in such worship] of being based on the injunctions stated in the Āgamas, and is not distinguished from that [i.e., from arcana, when that characteristic is present in them, since arcana is defined as worship performed according to śāstric injunction], one’s acts of bathing, dressing, and so forth [i.e., a bhakta’s attendance to their own basic bodily functions and needs after they have offered themselves to Bhagavān] too are [performed] only because of [their] being useful for the service of Bhagavān, and therein as well are to be considered non-detrimental to the [limb of] bhakti [known as] offering the self [i.e., one who has taken up the limb of bhakti known as offering one’s entire self to Bhagavān can still engage in actions for the sake of maintaining the body and so forth that one has offered to Bhagavān because such actions are actually actions for the sake of Śrī Bhagavān since they facilitate performance of various services to Śrī Bhagavān with the body and are themselves acts of care for something that belongs to and is dear to Bhagavān]. … Then, this submission of the self is seen to be (1) without a [specific] bhāva [as described in SB 11.29.32] and (2) with a specificity of bhāva [as in the case of Rukmiṇī offering herself to Śrī Kṛṣṇa with madhura-bhāva, as described in SB 10.52.1].”

Read on →

Scroll to Top