राजोवाच
महर्ष एतद्वैचित्र्यं लोकस्य कथमिति ।
ऋषिरुवाच
त्रिगुणत्वात्कर्तुः श्रद्धया कर्मगतयः पृथग्विधाः सर्वा एव सर्वस्य तारतम्येन भवन्ति ।
अथेदानीं प्रतिषिद्धलक्षणस्याधर्मस्य तथैव कर्तुः श्रद्धाया वैसादृश्यात्कर्मफलं विसदृशं भवति, या ह्यनाद्यविद्यया कृतकामानां तत्परिणामलक्षणाः सृतयः सहस्रशः प्रवृत्ताः, तासां प्राचुर्येणानुवर्णयिष्यामः ।
rājovāca
maharṣa etad vaicitryaṁ lokasya katham iti |
ṛṣir uvāca
tri-guṇatvāt kartuḥ śraddhayā karma-gatayaḥ pṛthag-vidhāḥ sarvā eva sarvasya tāratamyena bhavanti |
athedānīṁ pratiṣiddha-lakṣaṇasyādharmasya tathaiva kartuḥ śraddhāyā vaisādṛśyāt karma-phalaṁ visadṛśaṁ bhavati, yā hy anādy-avidyayā kṛta-kāmānāṁ tat-pariṇāma-lakṣaṇāḥ sṛtayaḥ sahasraśaḥ pravṛttāḥ, tāsāṁ prācuryeṇānuvarṇayiṣyāmaḥ |
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.26.1–3)
“The king said: ‘O great seer, why does the world have this variegatedness?’
“The seer said, ‘The destinations [reached by way] of actions are of different types in accord with the conviction (śraddhā) of the agent [of the actions] on account of [agents and their conviction’s] being constituted of the three guṇas. Indeed they all [i.e., the various destinations reached by way of actions] occur for all [agents] in a gradation. Thus, in this case in exactly the way [as a dissimilar result occurs for agents of dharma on account of a dissimilarity in their convictions (śraddhās)], a dissimilar result of an action occurs on account of the dissimilarity in the conviction (śraddhā) of an agent of adharma, the nature of which is a prohibition [in the śāstra]. I will describe extensively the thousands of determined destinations, the natures of which are transformations of [worldly] desires, for those who have acted upon those [worldly desires] as a result of beginningless (anādi) ignorance (avidyā).”
Commentary
puṁso gatayaḥ uccāvacā visadṛśā bhoga-vaicitryam uktam | tad etat kutaḥ? iti pṛcchati—maharṣa iti ||1|| karmaṇaḥ samānatve’pi śraddhā-vaicitryāt phala-vaicitryam iti pariharati—tri-guṇatvād iti | sāttvikyā śraddhayā kartuḥ sukhitvaṁ, rājasyā sukhitvaṁ duḥkhitvaṁ ca, tāmasyā duḥkhitvaṁ mūḍhatvaṁ ca, tatrāpi tāsāṁ śraddhānāṁ tāratamyāt sukhādi-tāratamyaṁ sarveṣām ity arthaḥ ||2||
pratiṣiddhaṁ pratiṣedhaḥ, tad eva lakṣaṇaṁ pramāṇaṁ yasyādharmasya kartuḥ śraddhā-vaisādṛśyaṁ tamasas tāratamyāt | tatrāpi kāraṇaṁ darśayann āha—anādy-avidyā-kṛtānāṁ kāmānāṁ yāḥ sṛtayo narakās tāsāṁ tāḥ | athedānīṁ tāḥ prācuryeṇānuvarṇayiṣyāma ity anvayaḥ ||3||
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“He [viz., Mahārāja Parīkṣit] inquires, ‘A variegatedness of experience for a living being in the form of dissimilar, higher and lower destinations was described [earlier]. So, why does this occur?’: maharṣa … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.26.1]. ||1||
“Even in the case of the equivalence of an action, a variegatedness of result occurs on account of a variegatedness in conviction (śraddhā) [on the part of the agents of the action]. Thus, he replies: tri-guṇatvāt … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.26.2]. Satisfaction of an agent occurs by way of sāttvika conviction (śraddhā). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction occur by way of rājasī [conviction (śraddhā)]. Dissatisfaction and foolishness occur by way of tāmasī [conviction (śraddhā)]. Even therein, there is a gradation in satisfaction and so on for everyone as a result of a gradation in their convictions (śraddhās). This is the meaning. ||2||
“[The word] Pratiṣiddham means a prohibition. The dissimilarity in the conviction (śraddhā) of an agent of adharma, the nature, that is, the cause, of which is that [i.e., a prohibition in the śāstra], occurs because of a gradation in tamas [i.e., although tamas in general is the cause of all forms of adharma, because there are different degrees of tamas, there are also different results attained by agents of adharma in accord with the level of tamas that prompted their acts of adharma]. Showing the cause even in this regard [i.e., in regard to the degrees of tamas that prompt acts of adharma], he says, ‘Thus, in this case I will describes extensively those (tāsām) destinations (sṛtayaḥ), meaning, hells (narakas), for [i.e., attained by way of] desires acted upon as a result of beginningless (anādi) ignorance (avidyā). This is the syntactic connection [between the words in the sentence]. ||3||”
asamānatve tāvat phala-vaicitryaṁ bhavaty evaṁ samānatve’pi tad ity āha—tri-guṇatvād iti ||2|| pratiṣiddha-lakṣaṇasyādharmasya yaḥ kartā, tasya tathaiva pūrvokta-prakāreṇaiva śraddhā-vaisādṛśyād adharma-lakṣaṇasya karmaṇaḥ phalaṁ visadṛśaṁ bhavati | tatra niṣedhe pratītāv api satyāṁ pramādena tat-karaṇāt tamaso’lpatvaṁ mohena madhyamatvaṁ nāstikatāyāṁ tu pūrṇatvaṁ jñeyam | athāto hetor yās tat-pariṇāma-lakṣaṇa-sṛtayaḥ sahasraśaḥ pravṛttāḥ santi, tāḥ prācuryeṇa tu varṇayiṣyāmaḥ | keṣām ādi-kāraṇānāṁ sambandhinyas tā ity apekṣāyām āha—anādīti ||3||
(Krama-sandarbha-tīkā)
“In the case of non-equivalence [between actions], a variegatedness of results certainly occurs. Even in the case of equivalence thereof, that [i.e., a variegatedness of results] occurs. Thus, he says tri-guṇatvāt … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.26.2]. ||2||
“Indeed similarly in the same aforementioned manner a dissimilar result of an action the nature of which is adharma occurs on account of dissimilarity in the conviction (śraddhā) of one who is an agent of adharma, the nature of which is a prohibition in the śāstra. In this regard, even when there is clear understanding of a prohibition [on the part of the agent of an act of adharma], [the presence of] a small amount of tamas is to be understood from performance of that [i.e., an act of adharma] out of inattention (pramāda), a moderate amount [of tamas is to be understood from performance of an act of adharma] out of delusion (moha), whereas a full amount [of tamas is to be understood from the performance of an act of adharma] out of disbelief (nāstikatva) [i.e., intentional rejection of the value of the injunctions of śāstra even after coming to know them]. Now, for this reason, I will describe indeed extensively the thousands of determined destinations, the natures of which are transformations thereof [i.e., of acted upon worldly desires]. In expectation [of the question], ‘These [destinations] are bearers of relation to which original causes?’ he says anādi … [i.e., he explains that these destinations are reached by those who have acted upon various worldly desires as a result of beginningless (anādi) ignorance (avidyā)].”
puṁso gatayaḥ uccāvacā visadṛśā bhoga-vaicitryam uktam | tad etat kutaḥ? iti pṛcchati—maharṣa iti ||1||
śraddhā-vaisādṛśyāt phala-vaicitryam āha—tri-guṇatvād iti | sāttvikyā śraddhayā dharma eva bhavet, tasmāc ca kartuḥ sukham eva, rājasyā dharmādharmau tābhyāṁ sukha-duḥkhe, tāmasyā adharma eva tasmāc duḥkha-mohau | tatrāpi tāsāṁ śraddhānāṁ tāratamyāt sukhādi-tāratamyaṁ, sarvasya sarvā iti, na hi kaścit sarvadaiva sāttvika-śraddhāvān eva tiṣṭhati, rājasa-tāmasa-śraddhāvān eva vā, ataḥ kāla-bhedena sarva-vidhasyaiva jīvasya sarva-vidhā gatayaḥ ||2||
tatra śāstra-vihitasya dharmasya phala-bhūtāni bhauma-divya-bila-svarga-sukhāni darśitāny ata evādharmasyāpi phala-bhūtāni naraka-duḥkhāny api vivakṣitavyānīty ata āha—atheti | pratiṣiddhaṁ pratiṣedhas tad eva lakṣaṇaṁ pramāṇaṁ yasya tasya, tathaiveti dharmasya kartur yathā tathaivādharmasyāpi kartur ity arthaḥ | śraddhāyā vaisādṛśyād iti śraddhā-vaisādṛśyasyāpi tamas-tāratamyam eva kāraṇam | tathā hi—pramādenādharma-karaṇāt tasmaso’lpatvaṁ, jñānena madhyamatvaṁ, tatrāpi nāstikatvena pūrṇatvaṁ jñeyam | tamas-traividhyasyāpi kāraṇaṁ darśayann āha—yā iti | anādy-avidyā-sambandho jīvasya kadā kathaṁ veti vaktum aśakteḥ anādir yā tama-ādi-traividhyamayī avidyā tayā kṛtānāṁ jīva-sambandhitvenopapāditānāṁ kāmānāṁ vāsanānāṁ yāḥ sṛtayaḥ, kīdṛśyas teṣāṁ kāmānāṁ pariṇāma-lakṣaṇāḥ, tāsāṁ madhye prācuryeṇa narakān iti śeṣaḥ ||3||
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“He [viz., Mahārāja Parīkṣit] inquires, ‘A variegatedness of experience for a living being in the form of dissimilar, higher and lower destinations was described [earlier]. So, why does this occur?’: maharṣa … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.26.1]. ||1||
“He [viz., Śukadeva Gosvāmī] says that on account of a dissimilarity in conviction (śraddhā), there is a variegatedness of results: tri-guṇatvāt … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.26.2]. Dharma alone shall come about from sāttvika conviction (śraddhā), and therefore satisfaction alone [shall come about] for the agent [thereof]. From rājasī [conviction (śraddhā)], dharma and adharma shall come about, and from them satisfaction and suffering. From tāmasī [conviction (śraddhā)], adharma alone shall come about, and from that suffering and delusion. Even therein, a gradation in satisfaction and so on shall come about as a result of a gradation in those convictions (śraddhās). [Thus, it is said:] ‘Indeed they all [i.e., the various destinations reached by way of actions] occur for all [agents according to a gradation in their convictions]’ since no one remains possessed of sāttvika conviction (śraddhā) alone always, or rājasa or tāmasa śraddhā alone [always]. Thus, all types of destinations for jīvas verily of all types shall come about at different times. ||2||
“In this regard, the existent results of [performing] dharma enjoined by śāstra—the pleasures of the earth, of heaven [i.e., Svarga], and of subterranean Svarga—have been shown. Therefore, the existent result of adharma as well—the sufferings of narakas too—are to be meant to be described [as well]. Thus, he says atha … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.26.3]. Regarding [the mention of] ‘In exactly the way’ (tathaiva), as [a dissimilar result occurs] for an agent of dharma, so exactly too [does it occur] for an agent of adharma, the nature, that is, the cause, of which is a prohibition (pratiṣiddham), is the meaning. Regarding, ‘On account of a dissimilarity in conviction’ (śraddhāyā vaisādṛśyāt), the cause of a dissimilarity in conviction (śraddhā) too is a gradation in tamas specifically. To be specific, [the presence of] a small amount of tamas is to be understood from [performance of] an act of adharma out of inattention (pramāda), a moderate amount [of tamas is to be understood from the performance of an act of adharma] with knowledge [of what one is doing], and further in this regard a full amount [of tamas is to be understood from the performance of an act of adharma] out of disbelief (nāstikatva) [i.e., intentional rejection of the value of the injunctions of śāstra even after coming to know them]. [Then,] To show the cause of this threefoldness of tamas as well, he says yā … [i.e., he speaks the latter statement in SB 5.26.3]. Because of the inability [for anyone] to say when and how a jīva has a relation with beginningless ignorance (anādi-avidyā) [since there is no cause for this], [I will describe] the destinations of [i.e., caused by] desires (kāmānām) acted upon because of beginningless ignorance constituted of the threefoldness of tamas and so on [i.e., along with rajas and sattva], that is, [desires] acted out on account of [their] bearing a relation to a jīva [as a result of beginningless ignorance]. Of what nature [are these destinations]? [They are] Those the nature of which are the transformations of those desires [i.e., the nature of the destinations reached by acting on particular desires correspond to the nature of those desires that are acted upon]. ‘[I will describe] Extensively the hells among them’ is the remainder.”