सतां निन्दा नाम्नः परममपराधं वितनुते ।
यतः ख्यातिं यातं कथमु सहते तद्विगर्हाम् ॥
शिवस्य श्रीविष्णोर्य इह गुणनामादिसकलं ।
धिया भिन्नं पश्येत्स खलु हरिनामाहितकरः ॥
गुरोरवज्ञा श्रुतिशास्त्रनिन्दनं
तथार्थवादो हरिनाम्नि कल्पनम् ।
नाम्नो बलाद्यस्य हि पापबुद्धि-
र्न विद्यते तस्य यमैर्हि शुद्धिः ॥
धर्मव्रतत्यागहुतादिसर्व‑
शुभक्रियासाम्यमपि प्रमादः ।
अश्रद्दधाने विमुखेऽप्यशृण्वति
यश्चोपदेशः शिवनामापराधः ॥
श्रुत्वेापि नाममाहात्म्ये यः प्रीतिरहितोऽधमः ।
अहंममादिपरमो नाम्नि सोऽप्यपराधकृत् ॥
satāṁ nindā nāmnaḥ paramam aparādhaṁ vitanute |
yataḥ khyātiṁ yātaṁ katham u sahate tad‑vigarhām ||
śivasya śrī‑viṣṇor ya iha guṇa‑nāmādi‑sakalaṁ |
dhiyā bhinnaṁ paśyet sa khalu hari‑nāmāhitakaraḥ ||
guror avajñā śruti‑śāstra‑nindanaṁ
tathārthavādo hari‑nāmni kalpanam |
nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa‑buddhir
na vidyate tasya yamair hi śuddhiḥ ||
dharma‑vrata‑tyāga‑hutādi‑sarva‑
śubha‑kriyā‑sāmyam api pramādaḥ |
aśraddadhāne vimukhe’py aśṛṇvati
yaś copadeśaḥ śiva‑nāmāparādhaḥ ||
śrutvāpi nāma‑māhātmyaṁ yaḥ prīti‑rahito’dhamaḥ |
ahaṁ‑mamādi‑paramo nāmni so’py aparādha‑kṛt ||
(Padma Purāṇa: 4.25.15–18; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.521–524; Bhakti Sandarbha: 265)
[Śrī Sanat-kumāra to Śrī Nārada:] (1) Defamation of the sat causes the greatest offense to the name. Oh! How can the name tolerate condemnation of those on whose account it has attained renown? (2) One here who shall see with the intellect all of Śiva’s qualities, names, and so forth to be distinct from Śrī Viṣṇu is certainly a committer of enmity towards Hari’s name. (3) Disrespect for the guru, and (4) defamation of the Śrutis and śāstras [are offenses to the name]. Also, (5) [assumption of mere] praise (arthavāda) and (6) fabrication in regard to Hari’s name [are offenses to the name]. (7) The purification of one who has the intention of sinning on the basis of the name’s power [to dispel sin, which is an offense to the name] certainly does not occur by means of regulations. (8) [Considering there to be] Equality [of the name] with all [types of] auspicious acts, such as dharma, rites, renunciation, and sacrifice, is also negligence [in regard to the name, i.e., an offense]. (9) Instructing one who is faithless, averse, or undesirous of hearing [about the name] is an offense to Śiva’s name [alt., to the auspicious name of Śrī Viṣṇu]. (10) Even after having heard about the greatness of the name, one who remains devoid love [for the name], vile, and [someone] for whom ‘I’, ‘mine’, and so forth are primary, is also an offender [of the name].”
Commentary
yataḥ sadbhyaḥ khyātiṁ prasiddhiṁ prākaṭyaṁ vā prāptaṁ nāma u khede teṣāṁ vigarhāṁ kathaṁ sahate? api tu soḍhuḥ na śaknuyād eva; ato’yam eko’parādhaḥ | asya ca mukhyatvād ādau nirdeśaḥ | ādi-śabdena rūpa-līlādi, dhiyāpi hari-nāmni ahitam aparādhaṁ karotīti tathā saḥ | śrutīnāṁ dharma-śāstrāṇāṁ ca nidandam | tathety ukta-samucaye | arthavādo yas tasya kalpanaṁ, yad vā, hari-nāmny arthavādaḥ kalpanam eva, na tu tattvato ghaṭata ity arthaḥ | kalpyata iti vā pāṭhaḥ, yad vā, hari-nāmni kalpanaṁ ca, tan-māhātmyārtha-parityāgena durbuddhyā vṛthārthāntara-kalpanā caiko’parādha ity arthaḥ | nāmno balāt nāma-grahaṇena pāpa-kṣayo bhaved iti nāmnāṁ prabhāva-jñānena pāpe buddhir api, kiṁ punaḥ pravṛttiḥ | yad vā, a-kāra-praśleṣeṇa nāmno balam ajñātvā yasya pāpe buddhir ity arthaḥ | tasya yamaiḥ bahula-vratādibhir ahiṁsādbhir dvādaśābhir vā; yad vā bahubhiḥ dharmarājaiḥ cira-kālaṁ tat-kṛta yātanā-bhogenāpīty arthaḥ | dharmādīnāṁ sarvāsāṁ śubha-kriyāṇāṁ sāmyaṁ nāmnā tulyatvam api pramādaḥ aparādha ity arthaḥ | yad vā, dharmādi-śubha-kriyā-sāmyam eko’parādhaḥ | pramādaḥ—nāmny anavadhānatopy ekaḥ, evam atrāparādha-dvayam | tataś ca tathārthavādo hari-nāmni kalpanam ity atraikāparādho jñeyaḥ | kiṁ ca, aśraddadhānādau jane ya upadeśaḥ, sa śiva-nāmni aparādhaḥ, śrī-bhagavatā saha śrī-śivasyābhedena śivety uktiḥ | nāmni prītiḥ śraddhā bhaktir vā, tayā rahitaḥ san, yaḥ ahaṁ-mamādi-paramaḥ, ahantā mamatā ca ādi-śabdena viṣaya-bhogādhikaṁ caiva, paramaṁ pradhānaṁ, na tu nāma-grahaṇaṁ yasya tathābhūtaḥ syāt, so’py aparādha-kṛt | yad vā, dharma-vratety ādy-arddha-ślokenaika evāparādhaḥ, ahaṁ-mamādīty arddha-śloke cāsmin ekaḥ, evam aparādhā daśa ‘ye jñātvāpi na varjayanti sahasā nāmno’parādhān daśa’ iti tatraivokteḥ | tataś cāyam arthaḥ—yaḥ prīti-rahito nāmny eva so’dhamaḥ nāmāparādhīty arthaḥ | yad vā, yo’dhamaḥ prīti-rahitaḥ, so’parādha-kṛd ity uttareṇānvayaḥ. kiṁ ca, nāmny eva viṣaye yo’haṁ-mamatādi-paramaḥ—ahaṁ bahutara-nāma-kīrtakaḥ itas tato nāma-kīrtanaṁ ca mat-pravartitam eva, mayā samo nāma-kīrtana-paro’nyaḥ kaḥ? madīya-jihvādhīnam eva nāmety ādikam eva paramaṁ pradhānaṁ, nāma-kīrtanaṁ ca kadācit sidhyati na vā yasya tathābhūto yaḥ so’pīti | ata evādiṣṭaṁ bhagavatā—‘tṛṇād api sunīcena taror api sahiṣnunā, amāninā mānadena kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ’ iti |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“(1) ‘On account of whom’ (yataḥ) means on account of the sat. ‘Renown’ (khyātim) means notoriety, publicity, or, attainment [by others]. ‘Oh’ (u) is in the sense of lamentation: ‘How can the name tolerate condemnation of them [i.e., the sat]?’ Indeed, rather, it certainly cannot bear it. Thus, this is an offense, and because of [its] prominence, mention of it is first.
“(2) By the word ‘and so forth’ (ādi) is meant the forms (rūpa), play (līlā), and so forth [of Śiva]. One [here who shall see] even with the intellect [Śiva’s qualities, names, forms, and play to be distinct from Śrī Viṣṇu certainly] thus commits enmity, that is, offense, to Hari’s name. [The third offense is not discussed in this commentary, perhaps because the explanation of the first offense also applies to it.]
“(4) Defamation of the Śrutis and dharma-śāstras [is an offense to the name].
“(5–6) ‘Also’ (tathā) is stated in the sense of conjunction. Fabrication of praise (arthavāda) [i.e., considering the praise (arthavāda) of Hari’s name in the śāstra mere hyperbole], or, [in other words, considering that] praise (arthavāda) in regard Hari’s name is just fabrication, and not, rather, truly existent [is an offense to the name]. This is the meaning. ‘Is fabricated’ (kalpyate) is an alternate reading [i.e., it is an offense to opine, ‘The praise (arthavāda) of Hari’s name in the śāstra is [just] fabricated’]. Alternately, [there are two offenses mentioned here, the first being considering the praise (arthavāda) in regard to Hari’s name to be mere hyperbole, and the second being] fabrication in regard to Hari’s name as well, meaning, uselessly fabricating another meaning [of Hari’s name] based on misunderstanding and rejection of its [i.e., the name’s actual] meaning and greatness.
“(7) ‘Destruction of sin shall occur by taking the name because of the name’s strength’—even the intent (buddhi) to sin, much less an act [of sin], based on [such] knowledge of the name’s power [is an offense to the name]. Alternately, by means of the elision the letter a [between nāmnaḥ and balāt, i.e., in the case of interpreting the text to read nāmnaḥ and abalāt, that is, nāmno’balād, rather than, nāmno balāt,] the meaning is one who has the intention of sinning not having understood the strength of the name [i.e., thinking the name to be devoid of strength, commits an offense to the name]. [Purification] Of him [i.e., one who commits the aforementioned offense, certainly does not occur] ‘by means of regulations’ (yamaiḥ), that is, by [observing] numerous rites (vratas), and so forth, or, by means of the twelve [niyamas] beginning with non-violence, or, alternately, by means of numerous Dharmarājas [i.e., Yamarājas], meaning, even by undergoing the punishments inflicted by them for a long time.
“(8) [Opining] Equality (sāmyam), that is, equivalence, of the name, with all [sorts of] auspicious acts beginning with dharma is also negligence (pramāda), meaning, an offense [to the name]. Alternately, [opining the] equality of auspicious acts beginning with dharma is one offense, and negligence (pramāda), that is, inattentiveness, to the name is also one, and thus here there are two offenses [mentioned in this half of the verse]. Furthermore, in that case [of there being two offenses stated in the aforecited passage], [the earlier passage] arthavādo Hari-nāmni kalpanam should be considered [to speak of only] one offense.
“(9) Additionally, instructing a person who is faithless and so forth is an offense to Śiva’s name. Mention of Śiva [here] is based on Śrī Śiva’s non-difference from Śrī Bhagavān [and thus the implication is that instructing the faithless about the names of Śiva or of Viṣṇu is an offense to Śrī Viṣṇu’s name].
“(10) Being devoid of love (prīti), that is, śraddhā or bhakti, for the name, one for whom ‘I’, ‘mine’, and so forth are primary, that is, [for whom] egotism (ahantā), possessiveness (mamatā), and, by the word ‘and so forth’ (ādi), enjoyment of objects of the senses (viṣaya) and so on, are primary, meaning, predominant, and for whom taking the name, rather, shall not be such [i.e., shall not be one’s primary focus and engagement], is also an offender (aparādha-kṛt) [of the name].
“Alternately, there is only one offense [stated] in the half verse beginning dharma-vrata …, and one [stated] in this [later] half of the [present] verse [under discussion, i.e., ahaṁ‑mamādi‑paramo …]; in this way [by means of various possible interpretations], there are ten offenses [stated in the chapter under discussion in Padma Purāṇa] as per the statement there, ‘Even after understanding [them], those who do not immediately avoid these ten offenses to the name … [are like children who become angry even with their mother, refuse to eat, and suffer [as a result] (kruddhā mātaram apy abhojana-parāḥ khidyanti te bālavat)].’ In that case [i.e., when the verse śrutvāpi nāma‑māhātmyam … is interpreted to describe two different offenses], the meaning is this: one who is devoid of love (prīti) for the name is vile, meaning, an offender of the name. Alternately, ‘one who is vile and devoid of love [for the name] is an offender [of the name]’ is the syntactic construction with the latter [half of the verse]. Further, [the meaning of the second half of the verse, which is being interpreted here to describe a second offense is as follows] one for whom ‘I,’ ‘mine,’ and so forth are primary [even] in relation to the name itself, that is, one in whom primary, meaning, predominant, is [the attitude], ‘I am a very great chanter of the name; kīrtana of the name has been propagated especially by me far and wide; who else devoted to kīrtana of the name is there equal to me? The name is verily under the control of my tongue,’ or, [one for whom ‘I,’ ‘mine,’ and so forth are primary [even] in relation to the name itself means] one who never performs kīrtana of the name [i.e., one who is so preoccupied with one’s own egotism, possessiveness, enjoyment of the objects of the senses, and so on that one never even engages in chanting the name]—one who is of such nature is also [an offender of the name]. “Therefore, it has been enjoined by Bhagavān [i.e., Śrīman Mahāprabhu], ‘Hari is to be praised always by one who is far lower than even grass, tolerant more so than even a tree, undesirous of respect, and respectful [to all as appropriate]’ (tṛṇād api sunīcena …).’”
‘śivasya śrī-viṣṇor ya iha guṇa-nāmādi-sakalaṁ dhiyā bhinnaṁ paśyet’ ity ādikaṁ ca śrīman nāmāparādha-stotre pūrvaṁ likhitam eva | ato’trāyaṁ siddhāntaḥ—śrī-viṣṇur eko devaḥ śivaś cānyā deva ity evam anyatve bhāsamāne tan-namaskārādikaṁ vaiṣṇavānām ayuktam eva kintu yathā matsyādayo līlāvatārās tathā śrī-śivaś ca guṇāvatāro’yam ity abhedena na doṣāvaham api tu guṇa eva bhagavad-bhakti-viśeṣa eva paryavasānād iti |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 14.195)
“‘One here who shall see with the intellect all of Śiva’s qualities, names, and so forth as distinct from Śrī Viṣṇu [is certainly an offender of Hari’s name]’ and so forth was written previously in the stotra about the offenses to the blessed name. Thus, in this regard, the siddhānta is this: ‘Śrī Viṣṇu is one deva, and Śiva is another deva’—when [in this way Śiva is] conceived as being distinct [from Śrī Viṣṇu], offering obeisances and so forth to him [i.e., Śiva] is verily inappropriate for Vaiṣṇavas, but with this [sense of] non-distinction, ‘Śrī Śiva is also a guṇāvatāra [of Śrī Viṣṇu] just as Matsya and others are līlāvatāras [of Śrī Viṣṇu],’ that [i.e., offering obeisances and so forth to Śiva] is not faulty, and, rather, [is] verily a quality because of [its] culminating specifically in a particular form of bhakti to Bhagavān.”