साङ्केत्यं पारिहास्यं वा स्तोभं हेलनमेव वा ।
वैकुण्ठनामग्रहणमशेषाघहरं विदुः ॥
पतितः स्खलितो भग्नः सन्दष्टस्तप्त आहतः ।
हरिरित्यवशेनाह पुमान्नार्हति यातनाः ॥
sāṅketyaṁ pārihāsyaṁ vā stobhaṁ helanam eva vā |
vaikuṇṭha-nāma-grahaṇam aśeṣāgha-haraṁ viduḥ ||
patitaḥ skhalito bhagnaḥ sandaṣṭas tapta āhataḥ |
harir ity avaśenāha pumān nārhati yātanāḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 6.2.14–15)
“[The emissaries of Viṣnu to the emissaries of Yama:] Whether as a designation, a joke, an interposition, or indeed a disrespect [alt., or just an act of ease], know an utterance of the name of Vaikuṇṭha [i.e., of Śrī Bhagavān] to be a remover of all sins. Having fallen, slipped, been injured, been bitten, been burnt, or been beaten, a person who helplessly says ‘Hari’ does not deserve tribulations.”
Commentary
nanv ayaṁ putra-nāmāgrahīn na tu bhagavan-nāma tatrāhuḥ, sāṅketyaṁ putrādau saṅketitam | pārihāsyaṁ parihāsena kṛtam | stobhaṁ gītālāpa-pūraṇārthaṁ kṛtam | helanaṁ kiṁ viṣṇuneti sāvajñam api ca vaikuṇṭha-nāmoccāraṇam || nanu nāyaṁ saṅkalpa-pūrvakaṁ vaikuṇṭha-nāmāgrahīt, kintu putra-sneha-paravaśaḥ san, tatrāhuḥ—patita iti | avaśenāpi yo harir ity āha sa yātanāṁ nārhati | pumān ity anena nātra varṇāśramādi-niyama ity uktam | avaśatvam evāhuḥ—patitaḥ prāsādādibhyaḥ | skhalito mārge | bhagno bhagna-gātraḥ | sandaṣṭaḥ sarpādibhiḥ | tapto jvarādinā | āhato daṇḍādinā |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā; Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.335–336)
“[An objection is raised by the emissaries of Yama:] ‘Well, he [i.e., Ajāmila] is a speaker of the name of his son, and not, rather, the name of Bhagavān. [So why should he be purified of his sins by his calling out the name of his son ‘Nārāyaṇa’?]’ To this, they speak [i.e., the emissaries of Viṣṇu reply to this objection in this verse]. An utterance of the name of Vaikuṇṭha [i.e., of Śrī Bhagavān] as a ‘designation’ (sāṅketyaṁ), that is, designating a son or someone else, as a ‘joke’ (pārihāsyaṁ), that is, jokingly, as an ‘interposition’ (stobhaṁ), that is, for the purpose of completing a song or statement, and even as an ‘disrespect’ (helanaṁ), that is, even with disregard, [as in the case of someone saying,] ‘What of Viṣṇu?’ [—in all of this cases an utterance of the name is remover of all sins].
“[Another objection is raised by the emissaries of Yama:] ‘Well, he is not a speaker of a name of Vaikuṇṭha preceded by a specific intention (saṅkalpa) [i.e., Ajāmila did not specifically even intend to speak a name of Śrī Bhagavān when he called out to his son Nārāyaṇa]. Rather, being overwhelmed by affection for his son [he helplessly spoke his son’s name, which just so happened to be ‘Nārāyaṇa’].’ To this, they say patitaḥ … [i.e., the emissaries of Viṣṇu speak SB 6.2.15]. One who even helplessly says ‘Hari’ does not deserve tribulations. By [the usage of the word] ‘person’ (pumān), that there is no restriction in regard to varṇa, āśrama, and so forth is stated. They [i.e., the emissaries of Viṣṇu] describe helplessness (avaśatvam) specifically [by saying]: having fallen from a lofty mansion, slipped on the road, been injured, that is, having a broken body, been bitten by a snake or another animal, been burnt by fire and the like, or been beaten with a stick or otherwise.”
pārihāsyam iti | parihāso’tra prīti-garbham anya-paribhava-vacanaṁ na tu nindā-garbhaṁ, tat tūpahāsa evocyate, tasmān narmopodbalakaṁ yat kiñcid bhagavan-nāmoktam ity arthaḥ | helanam atra ‘helayā girir uddhṛtaḥ’ itivad yatna-rāhityam ayam evocyate, na tv avamānātmakam iti jñeyam | tathā sati veṇe doṣāvahatvam evāsīt | nāmno daśāparādheṣv aśraddadhānādau pratyupadeśe’pi doṣaḥ śrūyate, aparādha-janane’pi prācīna-pāpa-kṣayaḥ syād eveti tu kecit || na kevalaṁ sāṅketyādi, tu prastuta-duḥkha-hānīcchayāpi tādṛśatvam ity āhuḥ | avaśenāpīti pūrvavat | yātanā iti bahu-vacanaṁ kvacit |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“As a ‘joke’ (pārihāsyaṁ)—a joke, here, refers to a remark belittling of another [i.e., someone other than Bhagavān] that is filled with affinity [for Bhagavān], and not, rather, [a joke] filled with defamation [of Bhagavān]. That [i.e., a joking remark filled with defamation of Bhagavān], rather, is called derision [of Bhagavān, and is not what is referred to here in this verse]. Thus, any pronunciation of the name of Bhagavān confirming a joke is the meaning [i.e., the word pārihāsyaṁ here refers instances of speaking Bhagavān’s name in the course of affirming a joke that he is not the butt of it]. Here, ‘ease’ (helanaṁ), as in [the expression], ‘The hill [i.e., Govardhana Hill] was lifted [by Śrī Kṛṣṇa] with ease (helayā),’ refers specifically to an absence of exertion, and not, rather, to disrespectfulness. This is to be understood. When this is so [i.e., when helanam is construed to mean ease rather than disrespect, as it was construed by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda], then faultiness certainly existed in Veṇa [i.e., if helanam is not construed to mean ease rather than disrespect, then the verse under discussion would convey the idea that persons who disrespect Bhagavān have all their sins purified as a result of their doing so, and since it is well known that this is not the case as is shown in the account of King Veṇa in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the word helanam should be construed to mean ease rather than disrespect]. A fault is heard of also in the counter instruction in regard to the faithless and so forth among the ten offenses to the name [mentioned in Padma Purāṇa, i.e., it is said to be a fault even to instruct those who are faithless, averse, or undesirous of hearing about the name to sing or exalt the name of Śrī Bhagavān, so it goes without saying that it is an offense for someone to show disrespect directly to the name], while according to some the dissolution of past sin shall certainly occur even in the case of causing offense (aparādha).
“Such [i.e., the removal of all sins as a result of uttering the name] occurs not only by means of [speaking the name as] a designation and so on [i.e., in the four manners mentioned earlier], but also by means of [uttering the name with] the desire to remove present sufferings. Thus, they [i.e., the emissaries of Viṣṇu] say as before [i.e., the aforementioned result also] occurs even [by] helplessly [uttering a name of Śrī Bhagavān]. [The word] ‘Tribulations’ (yātanāḥ) is sometimes stated in plural form.”
kīdṛśaṁ nāma sarva-pāpa-haraṁ syād ity apekṣāyāṁ kaimutyenāhuḥ—sāṅketyaṁ putrādau saṅketaṁ, svārthe ṣyañ, sarvatra tṛtīyārthe prathamā, saṅketādibhir apīty arthaḥ | parihāsyam iti prīti-garbham eva, na tu nindā-garbham | yathā ‘bho vikhyāta-kīrte! kṛṣṇa-nāma! dṛṣṭvā tava kīrtir yato māṁ noddhartum aśakyas tvam’ iti | stobhaṁ kathā-gītālāpādi-pūraṇārthaṁ kṛtam | helanam atra ‘helayā girir uddhṛtaḥ’ itivad yatna-rāhityam evocyate, yathā āhāra-vihāra-nidrādāv apy avahelayā eva yāvanti kṛṣṇa-nāmāny ayaṁ gṛhṇāti, na tāvanty anyaḥ prayatnenāpi gṛhītaṁ śaknuvantīti, na tu nindāvajñādikam, tathā sati ‘nindāṁ bhagavataḥ śṛṇvan’ ity āder bhagavato nindake kiṁ vā viṣṇuneti tad-avamantari veṇādāv api doṣāvahatvaṁ, tasmād aśeṣāgha-haraṁ vāsanā-paryanta-sarva-pāpa-nāśakam || sāṅketyādibhyo’nyasya pañcamasya vaivaśya-prabhedān āha—patitaṁ prāsādādibhyaḥ, skhalito mārgeṇa, bhagno bhagna-pātraḥ, sandaṣṭaḥ sarpādibhiḥ, tapto jvarādinā, āhato daṇḍādinā | pumān karmi-prabhṛtibhyo’nya iti vyākhyāta-yuktyā jñeyam |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“In expectation of [the question], ‘What sort of name can be a remover of all sins?’ They [i.e., the emissaries of Viṣṇu] speak [this verse] with a fortiori reasoning (kaimutya). As a ‘designation’ (sāṅketyaṁ) means designating a son or someone else. [The affix] Ṣyañ is in reference to self, and [thus] the first case is in the sense of the third all throughout [i.e., the words sāṅketyaṁ, pārihāsyaṁ, stobhaṁ, and helanam, which are all declined in the first case, convey a sense typically expressed by the third case]. ‘Even as a designation and so on’ is [thus] the meaning. As a ‘joke’ (pārihāsyaṁ) refers only to one filled with affinity [in regard to Śrī Bhagavān], and not rather, filled with defamation [in regard to Śrī Bhagavān], as in [the case of the remark], ‘O you who of widely known greatness! O name of Kṛṣṇa! I have seen your [supposed] greatness since you are unable to deliver me’ [i.e., although such a remark contains a name of Śrī Bhagavān, such utterance of Śrī Bhagavān’s name does not purify one of sin because the name is uttered for the sake of defamation of Śrī Bhagavān]. As an ‘interposition’ (stobhaṁ) means done for the purpose of completing a narration, song, or statement. Here, ‘ease’ (helanaṁ), as in [the expression], ‘The hill [i.e., Govardhana Hill] was lifted [by Śrī Kṛṣṇa] with ease (helayā),’ refers specifically to an absence of exertion, as in the case [of a remark such as the following], ‘Even with concerted effort others cannot utter as many names of Kṛṣṇa as he utters indeed effortlessly even while eating, sporting, sleeping, and so on,’ and [‘ease’ (helanaṁ)] does not, rather, refer to defamation (nindā), disrespect (avajñā), and so on [of Śrī Bhagavān]. When this is so [i.e., when helanam is construed to mean ease rather than disrespect as it was construed by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda], there is faultiness in defamers of Bhagavān in accord with [the statement in SB 10.74.40], ‘Upon hearing defamation of Bhagavān or persons devoted to him, even one who does not move away from there looses one’s good merits (sukṛti) and falls down,’ and [faultiness] in Veṇa and others who are disrespectful towards him [on account of their marking remarks such as], ‘What of Viṣṇu?’ [i.e., if helanam is not construed to mean ease rather than disrespect, then the verse under discussion would convey the idea that persons who disrespect Bhagavān have all their sins purified as a result of their doing so, and since it is well known that this is not the case as is shown in the account of King Veṇa and as implied in the aforecited statement that not only speakers of defamation of Śrī Bhagavān but even listeners of such defamation commit offense, the word helanam should be construed to mean ease rather than disresprect]. Thus, ‘a remover of all sins’ (aśeṣāgha-haraṁ) means a destroyer of all sins including inclinations (vāsanās) [i.e., including even the underlying psychological predispositions towards sins in addition to sins themselves].
“[Next, in SB 6.2.15,] They [i.e., the emissaries of Viṣṇu] describe subdivisions of helplessness, a fifth [form of nāmābhāsa] different from a designation and so forth [i.e., from the four types of nāmābhāsa mentioned in the previous verse]: having fallen from a lofty mansion, slipped on the road, been injured, that is, having a broken body, been bitten by a snake or other animal, been burnt by fire and the like, or been beaten with a stick or otherwise [a person who helplessly says ‘Hari’ does not deserve tribulations]. The ‘person’ (pumān) [here] is different from a karmī and so on [i.e., from someone specifically following a life path enjoined in the śāstra]. This is understood from the reasoning of the explanation [i.e., the five aforementioned types of nāmābhāsa will purify any human being of all sins, and not only human beings who adhere to a life path enjoined in the śāstra].”