स्वपादमूलं भजतः प्रियस्य
त्यक्तान्यभावस्य हरिः परेशः ।
विकर्म यच्चोत्पतितं कथञ्चि-
द्धुनोति सर्वं हृदि सन्निविष्टः ॥
sva-pāda-mūlaṁ bhajataḥ priyasya
tyaktānya-bhāvasya hariḥ pareśaḥ |
vikarma yac cotpatitaṁ kathañcid
dhunoti sarvaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.5.42; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.550; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.71; Bhakti Sandarbha: 173; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.144)
“Situated in the heart of a dear worshiper of the soles of his own feet by whom regard for any other has been relinquished, Hari, the Supreme Lord, washes away all wrongful action [on the part of his worshiper] which may somehow come about.”
Commentary
vihita-karma-nivṛttim uktvā niṣedha-nimitta-prāyaścitta-nivṛttim āha—sva-pāda-mūlam iti | tyakto’nyasmin dehādau devatāntare vā bhāvo yena, ata eva tasya vikarmaṇi pravṛttir na sambhavati | yac ca kathañcit pramādādinā utpatitaṁ bhavet, tad api harir dhunoti | nanu, yamas tan na manyeta? tatrāha—pareśaḥ | nanu, ‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe’ iti bhagavad-vacanāt svājñā-bhaṅgaṁ kathaṁ saheta? tatrāha—priyasya | nanu, nāyaṁ pāpa-kṣayārthaṁ bhajate? tatrāha—hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ | na hi vastu-śaktir arthitām apekṣata ity arthaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“Having spoken [in the previous verse] of resignation from enjoined karma, he speaks of resignation from atonement (prāyaścitta) the cause of which is a prohibition [i.e., resignation from performing atonement to compensate for having neglected to adhere to a prohibition]: sva-pāda-mūlam … [i.e., he speaks SB 11.5.42]. [‘One by whom regard for any other has been relinquished’ (tyaktānya-bhāvasya) means] One by whom regard (bhāva) for ‘any other,’ that is, for the body and so on, or, for other devatās, has been relinquished. Thus, for him [i.e., for such a person] a proclivity for wrongful action is not possible, and even that [i.e., any wrongful action] which may [nevertheless still] come about somehow, that is, because of inattention or otherwise, Hari [himself] washes away.
“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, will Yama [i.e., Yamarāja] accept that? [i.e., will one really become exempted from the consequences of those wrongful actions that Yamarāja is duty bound to punish one for comitting?]’ To that, he says, ‘The Supreme Lord’ (Pareśaḥ) [i.e., he speaks of Hari as the Supreme Lord to imply that this act of purification effected by Hari will override all the conventional laws that Yamarāja enforces by virtue of Hari’s paramount capability].
“[Another question is raised:] ‘Well, as per the statement of Bhagavān [in Vādhūla-smṛti], ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders. One who proceeds transgressing them is a defier of [my] orders and my enemy. Even if he is my bhakta, he is not a Vaiṣṇava,’ how can transgression of his own order be tolerated [by Bhagavān]?’ To that, he says, ‘Dear’ (priyasya) [i.e., Bhagavān does indeed tolerate transgressions of his orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras when such transgressions are performed for the sake of his own worship by his own bhaktas, whom he holds most dear].
“[Another question is raised:] ‘Well, is he [i.e., such a bhakta of Bhagavān] not [just] worshiping [Bhagavān] for the sake of the diminution of his sins?’ To that he says, [Bhagavān is] ‘Situated in the heart’ (hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ), meaning, it is not that the [inherent] energy in an object (vastu-śakti) is dependent on being requested [to act, i.e., it is not that Bhagavān dwelling in the hearts of his bhaktas is purifying those hearts of sins because of his being requested to do so by his bhaktas; rather, he automatically purifies those hearts just by his presence there by virtue of the inherent, all-purifying energy of his essential being, and thus, his bhaktas are not worshiping him just for the sake of becoming freed from their sins].”
‘devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṛṇāṁ’ iti nirantara-pūrva-ślokena vihita-karma-nivṛttim uktvā niṣedha-nimitta-prāyaścitta-nivṛttim āha—sva-pādeti | tyakto’nyasmin dehādau devatāntare vā bhāvo yena | ata eva tasya vikarmaṇi pravṛttir na sambhavati | yac ca kathañcit pramādādinā utpatitam akasmāt prāptaṁ bhavet, tad api harir dhunoti | nanu, yamas tan na manyeta? tatrāha—pareśaḥ parameśvaraḥ | nanu, ‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe’ iti bhagavad-vacanāt svājñā-bhaṅgaṁ kathaṁ saheta? tatrāha—priyasya | nanu, nāyaṁ pāpa-kṣayārthaṁ bhajate? tatrāha—hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ | na hi vastu-śaktir arthitām apekṣata ity arthaḥ |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.550)
“Having spoken of resignation from enjoined karma in the immediately preceding verse devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṛṇām …, he speaks of resignation from atonement (prāyaścitta) the cause of which is a prohibition [i.e., resignation from performing atonement to compensate for having neglected to adhere to a prohibition]: sva-pāda … [i.e., he speaks SB 11.5.42]. [‘One by whom regard for any other has been relinquished’ (tyaktānya-bhāvasya) means] One by whom regard (bhāva) for ‘any other,’ that is, for the body and so on, or, for other devatās, has been relinquished. Thus, for him [i.e., for such a person] a proclivity for wrongful action is not possible, and even that [i.e., any wrongful action] which may [nevertheless still] come about, that is, unintentionally be met with, somehow, that is, because of inattention or otherwise, Hari [himself] washes away.
“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, will Yama [i.e., Yamarāja] accept that? [i.e., will one really become exempted from the consequences of those wrongful actions that Yamarāja is duty bound to punish one for comitting?]’ To that, he says, ‘The Supreme Lord’ (Pareśaḥ), meaning, the Supreme Īśvara [i.e., he speaks of Hari as the Supreme Īśvara to imply that this act of purification effected by Hari will override all the conventional laws that Yamarāja enforces by virtue of Hari’s paramount capability].
“[Another question is raised:] ‘Well, as per the statement of Bhagavān [in Vādhūla-smṛti], ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders. One who proceeds transgressing them is a defier of [my] orders and my enemy. Even if he is my bhakta, he is not a Vaiṣṇava,’ how can transgression of his own order be tolerated [by Bhagavān]?’ To that, he says, ‘Dear’ (priyasya) [i.e., Bhagavān does indeed tolerate transgressions of his orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras when such transgressions are performed for the sake of his own worship by his own bhaktas, whom he holds most dear].
“[Another question is raised:] ‘Well, is he [i.e., such a bhakta of Bhagavān] not [just] worshiping [Bhagavān] for the sake of the diminution of his sins?’ To that he says, [Bhagavān is] ‘Situated in the heart’ (hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ), meaning, it is not that the [inherent] energy in an object (vastu-śakti) is dependent on being requested [to act, i.e., it is not that Bhagavān dwelling in the hearts of his bhaktas is purifying those hearts of sins because of his being requested to do so by his bhaktas; rather, he automatically purifies those hearts just by his presence there by virtue of the inherent, all-purifying energy of his essential being, and thus, his bhaktas are not worshiping him just for the sake of becoming freed from their sins].”
Note: Śrī Gosvāmīpāda cites sva-pāda-mūlaṁ bhajataḥ priyasya … [i.e., SB 11.5.42] in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa as one of a number of evidences from the śāstra to negate the necessity for those possessed of bhakti to perform distinct atonement (prāyaścitta) for sin, even sin which somehow comes about unintentionally (bhaktimataḥ kathañcid āpatite’pi pāpe prāyaścittāntara-nirasanatvam).
na ca vikarma-prāyaścitta-rūpaṁ karmāntaraṁ kartavyaṁ, tasya tac-charaṇasya vikarma-pravṛtty-abhāvāt | kathañcid āpatite’pi vikarmaṇi tad-anusmaraṇenaiva prāyaścittasyāpy ānuṣaṅgika-siddhir ity āha—sva-pāda-mūlam iti | hṛdi sanniviṣṭatve hetuḥ—tyaktānya-bhāvasyeti, tyakto’nyatra devatāntare bhāvo bhagavatīva bhaktir yena ca vyākhyeyam | vikarma-dhūnane hetuḥ—hariḥ svabhāvata eva sarva-doṣa-haraḥ pareśaḥ śaktitaś cety arthaḥ | tatrāpi priyasyety āgrahataś cety arthaḥ |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā; excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 173)
“And it is not that other karma in the form of atonement (prāyaścitta) for wrongful action is to be performed [by a śaraṇāgata of Bhagavān] on account of the non-existence of one in his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] shelter’s [i.e., a śaraṇāgata bhakta’s] proclivity for wrongful action. Even if a wrongful action does comes about somehow, concomitant accomplishment even of atonement [for it] occurs just by continuous remembrance of him [i.e., of Bhagavān]. Thus, he says: sva-pāda-mūlam … [i.e., he speaks SB 11.5.42]. The cause in regard to [Bhagavān’s] being situated in the heart [of his bhakta] is to be explained as [his bhakta’s being] ‘one by whom regard for any other has been relinquished’ (tyaktānya-bhāvasya), that is, [one] by whom bhāva, that is, bhakti like that for Bhagavān, in regard to others, that is, other devatās, has been relinquished. The cause in regard to the washing away of wrongful action [by Hari] is that Hari is by his very nature the remover of all faults and the Supreme Lord (Pareśaḥ), that is, possessed of potency (śakti) [to do so]. This is the meaning. Therein, furthermore, [i.e., also present among the causes of Hari’s removal of the sins from a bhakta’s heart] is [Hari’s] intentness as per [his bhakta being described as] ‘dear’ (priyasya) [i.e., that Hari holds his bhakta dear is also a cause of his purifying his bhaktas of the consequences of unintentional wrongful actions]. This is the meaning.”
vihita-karma-nivṛttim uktvā, niṣedha-nimitta-prāyaścitta-nivṛttim āha—sva-pāda-mūlam iti | tyakto’nyasmin devatāntare vā bhāvaḥ sevya-buddhir yena, tasya vikarmaṇi pravṛttir eva na bhavet | kathañcit pramādādinā utpatitaṁ cet, tad api harir dhunoti | nanu, vikarmavati bhṛtye daṇḍayanta eva prabhavo dṛśyanta iti harir eva taṁ daṇḍayatu, na priyasya bhaktasya priyatvād evādaṇḍyatvam | pareśa iti etad eva tasya pāramaiśvaryam iti bhāvaḥ | nanu, nāyaṁ pāpa-kṣayārthaṁ bhajate? tatrāha—hṛdi sanniviṣṭa iti | na hi vastu-śaktir arthitām apekṣata ity arthaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Having spoken [in the previous verse] of resignation from enjoined karma, he speaks of resignation from atonement (prāyaścitta) the cause of which is a prohibition [i.e., resignation from performing atonement to compensate for having neglected to adhere to a prohibition]: sva-pāda-mūlam … [i.e., he speaks SB 11.5.42]. [‘One by whom regard for any other has been relinquished’ (tyaktānya-bhāvasya) means] One by whom regard (bhāva) for, that is, a sense of being necessary to worship (sevya-buddhi) in regard to, ‘any other,’ that is, the body and so on, or, other devatās, has been relinquished. Thus, for him [i.e., for such a person] any proclivity for wrongful action shall not come about, and even that [i.e., any wrongful action] which may [nevertheless still] come about somehow, that is, because of inattention or otherwise, Hari [himself] washes away.
“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, certainly masters punishing a servant of [i.e., who has committed] wrongful action are observable. Therefore, let Hari punish him [i.e., why should the bhakta who has committed a wrong not be punished by Hari?]. [To that, it is said:] No, a dear bhakta [of Hari] has no punishability specifically because of his dearness [to Hari]. ‘The Supreme Lord’ (Pareśaḥ)—[this name of Hari is mentioned to indicate that] this itself [i.e., this quality of Hari that those who are dear to him are unfit to be punished] is his paramount capability (aiśvarya) [i.e., that those whom Hari holds dear become purified simply by receiving his presence in their hearts as an expression of his holding them dear shows the supreme capability (aiśvarya) of Hari, since no other devatā has such ability to purify the hearts of bhaktas in this manner].
“[Another question is raised:] ‘Well, is he [i.e., such a bhakta of Bhagavān] not [just] worshiping [Bhagavān] for the sake of the diminution of his sins?’ To that he says, [Bhagavān is] ‘Situated in the heart’ (hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ), meaning, it is not that the [inherent] energy in an object (vastu-śakti) is dependent on being requested [to act, i.e., it is not that Bhagavān dwelling in the hearts of his bhaktas is purifying those hearts of sins because of his being requested to do so by his bhaktas; rather, he automatically purifies those hearts just by his presence there by virtue of the inherent, all-purifying energy of his essential being, and thus, his bhaktas are not worshiping him just for the sake of becoming freed from their sins].”