Bṛhan Nāradīya Purāṇa

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 pādmoktā daśāpy aparādhāḥ parityājyāḥ Read on →

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam |
kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā ||
(Bṛhan-Nāradīya-purāṇa; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 273; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.7.76, 1.17.21, 2.6.242)

“The name of Hari, the name of Hari—certainly the name of Hari alone—in the Age of Kali, there is certainly no, there is certainly no, there is certainly no way otherwise.”

Read on →

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam Read on →

abhisandhāya yo hiṁsāṁ dambhaṁ mātsaryam eva vā

abhisandhāya yo hiṁsāṁ dambhaṁ mātsaryam eva vā |
saṁrambhī bhinna-dṛg bhāvaṁ mayi kuryāt sa tāmasaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.29.8; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 234)

“One possessed of anger and separated vision who shall express bhāva [i.e., bhakti] for me with the aim of violence, deceit, or spite is tāmasa [i.e., of the nature of tamo-guṇa].”

Read on →

abhisandhāya yo hiṁsāṁ dambhaṁ mātsaryam eva vā Read on →

śraddhā-sadbhāva eva kathaṁ jñāyate

śraddhā-sadbhāva eva kathaṁ jñāyate? iti vicāryam | tatra ca liṅgatvena pūrva-pūrvaṁ śaraṇāpattir upadiṣṭaiva | yasyāṁ ca śaraṇāpattau vakṣyamāṇāni ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ ity-ādīni liṅgāni | tathā vyavahāra-kārpaṇyādy-abhāvo’pi śraddhā-liṅgaṁ jñeyam | śāstraṁ hi tathaiva śraddhām utpādayati—ananyāś cintayanto māṁ ye janāḥ paryupāsate | teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktānāṁ yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmyaham || ity ādi | kiṁ ca, śraddhāvataḥ puruṣasya bhagavat-sambandhi-dravya-jāti-guṇa-kriyāṇāṁ śāstre śrūyamāṇeṣv aihika-vyāvahārika-prabhāveṣv api na kathañcid anāśvāso bhavati | tatas tāsu prākṛta-dravyādi-sādhāraṇa-dṛṣṭyā doṣa-viśeṣānusandhānato na kadācid apravṛttiḥ syāt | te ca tādṛśa-prabhāvāḥ—akāla-mṛtyu-śamanaṁ sarva-vyādhi-vināśanam | sarva-duḥkhopaśamanaṁ hari-pādodakaṁ smṛtam || ity-ādayaḥ | kecit tu tatra tatra śraddhāvanto’pi svāparādha-doṣeṇa samprati tat phalaṁ nodetīti sthagitāyante | yat tu yaḥ smaret puṇḍarīkākṣaṁ sa bāhyābhyantara-śucir ity-ādau śraddadhānā api snānādikam ācaranti, tat khalu śrīman-nārada-vyāsādi-sat-paramparācāra-gauravād eva | anyathā tad-atikrame’py aparādhaḥ syāt | te ca tathā maryādāṁ lokasya kadarya-vṛtty-ādi-nirodhāyaiva sthāpitavanta iti jñeyam | kiṁ ca, jātāyāṁ śraddhāyāṁ siddhāv asiddhau ca svarṇa-siddhi-lipsor iva sadā tad-anuvṛtti-ceṣṭaiva syāt | … tasyāṁ svārtha-sādhanānupravṛttau ca dambha-pratiṣṭhādi-lipsādi-maya-ceṣṭā-leśo’pi na bhavati | na sutarāṁ jñāna-pūrvakaṁ mahad-avajñādayo’parādhāś cāpatanti, virodhād eva | … yadi vā śraddhāvato’pi prārabdhādi-vaśena viṣaya-sambandhābhyāso bhavati, tathāpi tad-bādhayā viṣaya-sambandha-samaye’pi dainyātmikā bhaktir evocchalitā syāt | yathoktaṁ—juṣamāṇaś ca tān kāmān duḥkhodarkāṁś ca garhayan ity atra bādhyamāno’pi mad-bhakta ity-ādau ca | … śāstrīya-śraddhāyāṁ tu jātāyāṁ sudurācāratvāyogaḥ syāt | para-patnī-para-dravyety-ādi-viṣṇu-toṣaṇa-śāstra-virodhāt, maryādāṁ kṛtāṁ tena ity-ādinā tad-bhaktatva-virodhāc ca | … asyāḥ śraddhāyāḥ pūrṇatāvasthā tu brahma-vaivarte—kiṁ satyam anṛtaṁ ceha vicāraḥ sampravartate |vicāre’pi kṛte rājann asatya-parivarjanam | siddhaṁ bhavati pūrṇā syāt tadā śraddhā mahāphalā || iti | … adhikāritāyāṁ śraddhaiva hetuḥ, sā cājñasya na sambhavatīti … |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 173)

“How is the presence of śraddhā itself known? This is to be considered. (1) Previously, śaraṇāpatti (śaraṇāgati) was specified as an indicator (liṅga) thereof, and the indicators of śaraṇāpatti (śaraṇāgati) are resolve for the favorable (ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ) and so forth, which will be described ahead [in anuccheda 236]. (2) So also, the absence of poor-spiritedness and so forth [i.e., parsimony, feeling destitute, fear, anxiety, stress, dejection, depression, etc.] in the midst of world affairs is also to be known as an indicator of śraddhā. The śāstra verily produces such śraddhā [e.g., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa says in BG 9.22]: ‘I [personally] provide for the acquisition and protection [of the necessities] of those one-pointed, meditative, and ever-absorbed persons who worship me in full.’ (3) A person endowed with śraddhā never has a lack of confidence even in the powers heard about in śāstra of objects, classes, qualities, and actions related to Bhagavān in connection with present worldly affairs. Therefore, [such a person’s] non-engagement with them [i.e., with objects and so forth related to Bhagavān] as a result of sussing out particular defects [in them] by means of vision of [them being] ordinary material objects and so forth shall never come about. They [i.e., objects and so forth related to Bhagavān] are indeed of such power [as is stated in Bṛhan-nāradīya Purāṇa (1.37.16) and elsewhere]: ‘The water from Hari’s feet is known to prevent untimely death, destroy all diseases, and cease all suffering.’ Some, however, even though they have śraddhā in these [objects and so forth related to Bhagavān] are closed off [from the effects of these objects and so forth] in that those effects do not manifest at present as a result of the fault of their own aparādhas [i.e., by understanding the reason why the powers of the objects and so forth related to Bhagavān that the śāstra says they possess are not seen to manifest, a person with śraddhā has no lack of conviction in the statements of the śāstra or in the existence of such powers in those objects and so forth themselves]. Since, however, even those who have śraddhā in [the statement], ‘One who shall remember he of lotus eyes [i.e., Bhagavān] is externally and internally pure’ and so forth [i.e., other such statements in śāstra still] engage in bathing and so forth, that is [to be understood as being done] only out of reverence for the conduct established by the paramparā (tradition) of the sādhus led by Śrīman Nārada and Vyāsa. Otherwise [i.e., if those with śraddhā were to do otherwise], even by transgression of that [i.e., the conduct established by Nārada, Vyāsa, et. al.] aparādha would occur. It is to be understood that they [i.e., those sādhus] have established such etiquette specifically to prevent troublesome behavior and so forth [i.e., unsociable habits, etc.] in a person [and thus bathing even after remembering Bhagavān should not be considered a symptom of lacking śraddhā in the purifying power of remembering Bhagavān]. (4) Furthermore, when śraddhā is present, then in [the stages of] both siddhi [i.e., attainment of bhāva] and asiddhi [i.e., the stage of sādhana], only continuous endeavor adherent to that [i.e., the etiquette established by the sādhus] shall occur just like that of one desirous of attaining gold [i.e., just as someone seeking to attain gold in its pure state engages in smelting it repeatedly according to a specific process, so a person with śraddhā will carefully adhere to the code of conduct established by the mahājanas]. … (5) During that constant engagement in the means (sādhana) to [attain] one’s object, even a trace of any endeavor possessed of deceit, desire for prestige, and so forth does not occur. (6) Therefore, intentional aparādhas as well, such as disrespect of the great, do not occur, because of evident contrariety [i.e., because an intentional aparādha is directly opposed to someone with śraddhā’s habitual activity, mentality, and objective, and thus has no scope to arise]. … (7) Alternately, even if someone with śraddhā, under the sway of commenced (prārabdha) karma [i.e., karmic reactions] and so on, has a habit of relation with sense objects (viṣaya), still, even at the time of relation with sense objects, because of that disturbance [to one’s sādhana], bhakti constituted of humility (dainya) will certainly become enkindled [in that person with śraddhā], as it is stated in this regard [in SB 11.20.28 and SB 11.14.18)], ‘Both partaking of and condemning those objects of desire, the consequences of which are [ultimately only] suffering,’ ‘Although obstructed by objects of the senses (viṣayas), a bhakta of mine who has not [yet] conquered the senses is generally not overwhelmed by objects of the senses (viṣayas) by virtue of vigorous bhakti,’ and so forth. … (8) When, however, śāstrīya-śraddhā [i.e., śraddhā based on śāstra] has developed [in someone], then the impossibility of being of [i.e., engaging in] extreme misconduct shall come to be, because of contrariety [in such misconduct] to injunctions that are pleasing to Viṣṇu, such as [in VP 3.8.14], ‘O King, Keśava is pleased by a person who does not think of others’ wives, others’ wealth, or others’ harm,’ and because of contrariety [in such misconduct] to one’s being a bhakta as per [statements such as this in Viṣṇu-dharma Purāṇa], ‘A human being who transgresses the code of conduct established by him [i.e., by Bhagavān Viṣṇu] should not be recognized as a bhakta of Viṣṇu, [because] Hari is worshipped by virtuous conduct [i.e., the dharma of the sādhus].’ … (9) The state of completeness of that śraddhā [i.e., of śāstrīya-śraddhā], however, is [described] in Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, ‘[First] Deliberation proceeds, ‘What is real and [what is] unreal here?’ Once [such] deliberation has also been performed, O King, full rejection of the unreal is accomplished, and then śraddhā, bearing the greatest fruit, shall become complete.’ … Śraddhā alone is the cause of being a bearer of eligibility [for ananya-bhakti], and that [i.e., śāstrīya-śraddhā] too is not possible for one who is ignorant [i.e., one who has not studied and learned śāstra].”

Read on →

śraddhā-sadbhāva eva kathaṁ jñāyate Read on →

hari-bhakti-parāṇāṁ tu saṅgināṁ saṅga-mātrataḥ

hari-bhakti-parāṇāṁ tu saṅgināṁ saṅga-mātrataḥ |
mucyate sarva-pāpebhyo mahā-pātakavān api ||
(Bṛhan Nāradīya Purāṇa: 1.36.61; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.252 Bhakti Sandarbha: 148)

“Even a great sinner is liberated from all sins just by the association of those who associate with those who are engaged in Hari-bhakti.”

Read on →

hari-bhakti-parāṇāṁ tu saṅgināṁ saṅga-mātrataḥ Read on →

Scroll to Top