नासां द्विजातिसंस्कारो न निवासो गुरावपि ।
न तपो नात्ममीमांसा न शौचं न क्रियाः शुभाः ॥
तथापि ह्युत्तमःश्लोके कृष्णे योगेश्वरेश्वरे ।
भक्तिर्दृढा न चास्माकं संस्कारादिमतामपि ॥
nāsāṁ dvijāti-saṁskāro na nivāso gurāv api |
na tapo nātma-mīmāṁsā na śaucaṁ na kriyāḥ śubhāḥ ||
tathāpi hy uttamaḥ-śloke kṛṣṇe yogeśvareśvare |
bhaktir dṛḍhā na cāsmākaṁ saṁskārādimatām api ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.23.42–43)
“Although they have neither the saṁskāra of a twice-born, nor residence with the guru, nor austerity, nor self-inquiry, nor cleanliness, nor meritorious rites, still certainly [they have] firm bhakti to he of highest praise, Kṛṣṇa, the Īśvara of all masters of yogas, whereas even we who are endowed with the saṁskāra [of a twice-born] and so forth do not [have bhakti to Kṛṣṇa].”
Commentary
dvijāti-saṁskāra upanayanam | kriyāḥ sandhyopāsanādayaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“‘The saṁskāra of a twice-born’ (dvijāti-saṁskāraḥ) refers to the upanayana [-saṁskāra]. ‘Rites’ (kriyāḥ) refers to worship at the sandhyās (sandhyopāsanā) and so forth.”
nārīṇām apīty api śabdena sūcitaṁ puruṣebhyo nyūnatvam abhivyañjayanti—nāsām iti | dvijāti-saṁskāraḥ sāmānyato dvijatva-mātra-viṣayako dharmaḥ, tathā śaucaṁ sāmānya-dharmaḥ, guru-nivāsādayaś ca krameṇa brahmacāri-vānaprastha-yati-gṛhi-dharmāḥ | tatra ca śokāveśena kramātikramaḥ, kiṁ vā, gārhasthya-dharmasya bahumānena paścān nirdeśaḥ, ata eva śubhā ity uktiḥ | yad vā dvijāteḥ saṁskāra-viśeṣo viṣṇu-dīkṣādiḥ tapaḥ śrī-viṣṇu-smṛtiḥ ‘tat tapo yad dhari-smṛtiḥ’ iti vacanāt, śaucaṁ viśuddha-cittatā, kriyāḥ śubhā yajñeśvara-pūjādyāḥ sthaṇḍilādau vā hari-pūjādayaḥ ātma-mīmāṁsā ātmano harer vicāraḥ | tathāpi tat-tad-rahitānām api kṛṣṇe dṛḍhā bhaktir jātā āsāṁ tasya māhātmyena tad-bhakter api māhātmyaṁ bodhayituṁ taṁ viśiṁṣanti—uttamaḥ sarvataḥ śreṣṭhaḥ ślokaḥ kīrtir yasya, avatāritvān nijāśeṣa-bhagavattā-prakaṭanāc ca | yad vā, udgataṁ tamo’jñānaṁ saṁsāra-lakṣaṇaṁ vā yasmāt sa śloko yasya tasmin, yataḥ kṛṣṇe kiṁ vā tatrāpi kṛṣṇe uktārtham evedam | ata eva yogeśvarāṇāṁ sanakādīnām api kim utāsmākaṁ īśvare sevye | niścayārthena hi-śabdena tatra śāstra-prāmāṇyādikaṁ bodhayati—dṛḍheti | asmākaṁ capalāpi bhaktir nāstīti sūcayati |
(Bṛhad Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī-ṭīkā)
“They [viz., the brāhmaṇas] disclose the [nature of the supposed] inferiority [of women] to men [they] indicated [to exist] with the word ’even’ (api) in [their statement in the previous verse], ‘of even these women’ (nārīṇām api): nāsām … [i.e., they speak this SB 10.23.42]. ‘The saṁskāra of a twice-born’ (dvijāti-saṁskāraḥ) refers in general to the dharma related to twice-bornness specifically. ‘Cleanliness’ (śaucam) refers to a common dharma [of the members of all the āśramas]. Residence with the guru and so forth, furthermore, refers in sequence to the dharmas of a brahmacārī, vānaprastha, sannyāsī, and householder [i.e., ‘residence with the guru’ (nivāso gurau) refers to the dharma of a brahmacārī, ‘austerity’ (tapas) refers to the dharma of a vānaprastha, ‘self-inquiry’ (ātma-mīmāṁsā) refers to the dharma of a sannyāsī, and ‘meritorious rites’ (kriyāḥ śubhāḥ) refers to the dharma of householder]. In this regard, furthermore, the transgression of the order [i.e., the mention of the dharma of householder last rather than after the dharma of a brahmacārī] is because of immersion in lamentation [i.e., it is mentioned last by the brāhmaṇas because they were in the process of lamenting for their past actions as householders], or, the mention later of the dharma of a householder is out of great respect [for that dharma in particular], and therefore the word ‘meritorious’ (śubhā) [is used to described the rites performed by householders]. Alternately, [‘the saṁskāra of a twice-born’ (dvijāti-saṁskāraḥ) refers to] a particular saṁskāra of the twice-born, such as Viṣṇu-dīkṣā, ‘austerity’ (tapas) refers to remembrance of Śrī Viṣṇu as per the statement, ‘Remembrance of Hari is austerity (tapas),’ cleanliness refers to complete pure-heartedness, ‘meritorious rites’ (kriyāḥ śubhāḥ) refers to the worship of the Īśvara of yajña on a ground altar, or to ritual worship of Hari and the like, and ‘self-inquiry’ (ātma-mīmāṁsā) refers to deliberation upon the Self (Ātmā), that is, Hari.
“Still, even they who are devoid of all these [aforementioned dharmas, viz., our wives] have evident firm bhakti to Kṛṣṇa. To make known the greatness also of bhakti to him on account of his greatness, they [viz., the brāhmaṇas] characterize him: [they describe him as ‘he of highest glory’ (Uttama-ślokaḥ), which means] he whose glory (śloka), that is, renown, is highest (uttamaḥ), that is, superior to all, by virtue of [his] being the source of avatāras (Avatārī) and by virtue of [his] manifestation of his own unlimited ‘Bhagavat-hood’ (Bhagavattā). Alternately, [‘he of highest glory’ (Uttama-ślokaḥ) means] he because of whose glory (śloka) darkness (tama), that is, ignorance, or, saṁsāra, becomes absent [i.e., cast away] (ut). [This is so] Since he is Kṛṣṇa. Alternately, also in this regard this meaning specifically is stated in regard to Kṛṣṇa. Thus, [he is] the Īśvara, that, the object of worship, of all masters of yogas, that is, of even Sanaka and so forth, what more of us [i.e., common brāhmaṇas like us]. He [i.e., the brāhmaṇa speaking] makes known the śāstric authoritativeness and so forth in this regard [i.e., the veracity of this statement based on the authoritative evidence of śāstra] with the word hi in the sense of certainty: dṛḍha … [i.e., the brāhmaṇa speaking states that their wives certainly have firm bhakti to Kṛṣṇa]. He [i.e., the brāhmaṇa speaking, also] indicates, ‘We all [however] do not have even unsteady bhakti [to Kṛṣṇa].’”
āścaryatvam eva vyanakti—nāsām iti yugmakena | dvijāti-saṁskāra upanayanādis tad-dharma-dvāraṁ tathā śaucaṁ sāmānya-dharmaḥ, guru-nivāsādayaś ca krameṇa brahmacāri-vānaprastha-yati-gṛhi-dharmāḥ | tatra ca śokāveśena kramātikramaḥ, kiṁ vā gārhasthya-dharmasya bahumānena paścāt nirdeśaḥ, ata eva śubhā ity uktiḥ | athāpi tat-tad-rahitatve’pi kṛṣṇe dṛḍhā bhaktir āsāṁ jātā, tasya māhātmyena tad-bhakter api māhātmyaṁ bodhayituṁ taṁ viśiṁṣanti—uttama-śloke vairiṇām api mokṣādi-dānāt parama-sat-khyātim iti yogānām | īśvarāḥ bhakti-yogavantas teṣām īśvare sevyatvena labhye | bhaktir dṛḍhā kṛta-virodhair asmābhir api paricchettum aśaktyā | punar āścaryam eva vyatirekeṇa dṛḍhayanti—na ceti | atra dvijāti-saṁskārādayaḥ svayaṁ bhakteḥ kāraṇāni ma bhavanty eva | tad-guṇaka-sat-saṅgas tv āsāṁ tat-kāraṇatayā nāmībhir anumātuṁ śakta iti śrī-śukadevābhiprāyaḥ |
(Laghu Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī-ṭīkā)
“He [viz., the brāhmaṇa speaking] shows the wondrousness specifically [that was initially expressed in the previous verse] with a pair [of verses]: nāsām … [i.e., he speaks SB 10.23.42–43]. ‘The saṁskāra of a twice-born’ (dvijāti-saṁskāraḥ) refers to the upayanana [-saṁskāra] and so forth, which is the means to the dharma thereof [i.e., to the dharma of a twice-born]. Then, ‘cleanliness’ (śaucam) refers to a common dharma [of the members of all the āśramas]. Residence with the guru and so forth, furthermore, refers in sequence to the dharmas of a brahmacārī, vānaprastha, sannyāsī, and householder [i.e., ‘residence with the guru’ (nivāso gurau) refers to the dharma of a brahmacārī, ‘austerity’ (tapas) refers to the dharma of a vānaprastha, ‘self-inquiry’ (ātma-mīmāṁsā) refers to the dharma of a sannyāsī, and ‘meritorious rites’ (kriyāḥ śubhāḥ) refers to the dharma of householder]. In this regard, furthermore, the transgression of the order [i.e., the mention of the dharma of householder last rather than after the dharma of a brahmacārī] is because of immersion in lamentation [i.e., it it mentioned last by the brāhmaṇas because they were in the process of lamenting for their past actions], or, the mention later of the dharma of a householder is out of great respect [for that dharma in particular], and therefore the word ‘meritorious’ (śubhā) [is used to described the rites performed by householders]. [‘The Īśvara of all masters of yogas’ (Yogeśvareśvare) refers to] He who is the Īśvara, that is, the object to be attained on account of being the object of worship, of the masters of yogas, that is, those replete with bhakti-yoga. The bhakti [said to be had by the brāhmaṇas’ wives] is [said to be] firm (dṛḍhā), meaning, unable to be broken even by we who created obstructions to it. Then, they affirm the wonder [of their wives’ bhakti to Śrī Kṛṣṇa] specifically by means of a negative assertion: na ca … [i.e., they state in the last one and a half feet of the verse that they themselves don’t have the bhakti to Kṛṣṇa that their wives have]. In this regard, the saṁskāra of a twice-born and so forth [i.e., along with residence with the guru, austerity, self-inquiry, and meritorious rites] are verily not on their own causes of bhakti. Good association (sat-saṅga) causative of that quality [i.e., of bhakti] was not able to be inferred by them [i.e., the brāhmaṇas] as being the cause of that [i.e., of bhakti] for them [i.e., for their wives, i.e., the brāhmaṇas were not able to understand that their wives acquired bhakti to Kṛṣṇa by means of sat-saṅga]. This is the intent of Śrī Śukadeva.”
na tv āsāṁ kṛṣṇānurāge hetur asmad gamya ity āhuḥ—nāsām iti | yogeśvareśvara iti sa eva sva-bhakter hetuṁ jānāty upapādayatīti ca nānya iti bhāvaḥ | tena kṛṣṇa-rūpa-guṇa-prakhyāpi vrajastha-mālikādi-vanitā-jana-sat-saṅga-rūpo mūla-hetus tair ajñātatvān nokta iti śukadevābhiprāyaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“It is not, rather, that the cause of their [i.e., our wives’] love for Kṛṣṇa is understandable to us. Thus, they say nāsām … [i.e., they speak SB 10.23.42–43]. In regard to [the mention of] ‘the Īśvara of all masters of yogas’ (Yogeśvareśvare), he alone and no one else knows and establishes the cause of bhakti to himself. This is the purport. Thus, even the disclosure about Kṛṣṇa’s figure and qualities in the form of good association (sat-saṅga) with the womenfolk dwelling Vraja such as the garland makers [whom the brāhmaṇīs would meet from time to time] was not stated by them [i.e., by the brāhmaṇas] to be the root cause [of their wives’ bhakti to Kṛṣṇa] because of [the brāhmaṇas’] being unaware [of this]. This is the intent of Śukadeva.”
na tv āsāṁ kṛṣṇānurāge hetur jñātuṁ śakyate ity āha—nāsām iti | dvijāti-saṁskāra upanayanaṁ, gurau nivāsas tat-sevā, tapaḥ śāstrālocanam, ātma-mīmāṁsā tv ātma-yāthātmya-vicāraḥ, śaucaṁ triṣavaṇa-snānādi, kriyāḥ sandhyopāsanādayaḥ | saṁsākādimatām upanayanādi-viśiṣṭānām apīti saṁskārādīnāṁ tad-ukti-hetutvam anvaya-vyatirekābhyāṁ nirākṛtaṁ tāsāṁ tad-dhetuś ca nandīśvarān mathurāṁ prayāntīnāṁ mālikādi-yoṣitāṁ tad-gṛha-bahiḥ-prakoṣṭheṣu viśrāmyantīnāṁ kṛṣṇa-guṇān kīrtayantīnāṁ prasaṅga eva dīrgha-śrutetyādy ukteḥ sa ca tair ajñātatvān nokta iti bodhyam |
(Vaiṣṇavānandinī-ṭīkā)
“It is not, rather, that he [i.e., the brāhmaṇa speaking] could understand the cause of their [i.e., brāhmaṇīs’] love for Kṛṣṇa. Thus, he says nāsām … [i.e., he speaks SB 10.23.42–43]. ‘The saṁskāra of a twice-born’ (dvijāti-saṁskāraḥ) refers to the upanayana [-saṁskāra]. ‘Residence with the guru’ (nivāso gurau) refers to service to him. ‘Austerity’ (tapas) refers to discussion of śāstra. ‘Self-inquiry’ (ātma-mīmāṁsā) refers to deliberation the essential nature of the self. ‘Cleanliness’ (śaucam) refers to bathing three times a day and so on. ‘Rites’ (kriyāḥ) refers to worship at the sandhyās and so forth. ‘Those who are endowed with the saṁskāra and so forth’ (saṁsākādimatām) means even we who are possessed of the upanayana [-saṁskāra] and so forth. Thus, the [upanayana-] saṁskāra and so forth’s being a cause of bhakti to him [viz., Kṛṣṇa] is refuted by positive and negative assertion, and the cause of that [i.e., of bhakti to him] for them [i.e., for the brāhmaṇīs] was specifically the prolonged association of the garland makers and other women traveling to Mathurā from Nandīśvara who would describe qualities of Kṛṣṇa while resting in the outer courtyards of their [i.e., the brāhmaṇīs’] homes [which were situated on the way to Mathurā from Nandīśvara] on account of the mention of [the brāhmaṇīs’] ‘prolonged hearing about Bhagavān’ (dīrgha-śruta) [in SB 10.23.20]. That, furthermore, was not stated by them [i.e., by the brāhmaṇas] because [the brāhmaṇas’] being unaware [of that]. This is to be understood.”