तावत्कर्माणि कुर्वीत न निर्विद्येत यावता ।
मत्कथाश्रवणादौ वा श्रद्धा यावन्न जायते ॥
tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta na nirvidyeta yāvatā |
mat-kathā-śravaṇādau vā śraddhā yāvan na jāyate ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.20.9; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.553; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.247; Bhakti Sandarbha: 62, 106, 173; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.9.264, 2.22.61)
“[Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Uddhava:] One should perform karmas so long as one shall not become disinterested or so long as śraddhā in hearing and so forth of discussion about me does not manifest.”
Commentary
sāvadhiṁ karma-yogam āha—tāvad iti navabhiḥ | karmāṇi nitya-naimittikāni | yāvatā yāvat |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“He [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] describes the practice (yoga) of karma along with its limit with nine [verses]: tāvat … [i.e., he speaks SB 11.20.9]. ‘Karmas’ (karmāṇi) refers to compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya) [karmas] and incidental (naimittika) [karmas]. Yāvatā means yāvat [i.e., ‘so long as’].”
bhaktimataḥ karmānadhikārāt karma-tyāge’pi na doṣaḥ syād iti bhakter māhātmyaṁ likhati—tāvad iti | karmāṇi nitya-naimittikādīni | yāvatā yāvat na nirvidyeta, karma-phaleṣu aihikāmuṣmika-viṣaya-bhogeṣu vā virakto na syāt | śraddhā viśvāsaḥ prītir vā, ādi-śabdena kīrtanādi-bhakti-prakārāḥ, nirvede jāte mat-kathā-śravaṇādi-śraddhāyāṁ vā jātāyāṁ na kuryād ity arthaḥ | karmaṇāṁ sāvadhitvena sādhye siddhe sādhana-parityāgopapatteḥ | vā-śabdena pūrvato’sya pakṣasyādhikyaṁ sūcitaṁ ‘ye vā mayīśe’ itivat | vairāgye jāte’pi karma-tyāgo yuktaḥ, kiṁ punar vairāgyasya phale śravaṇādau jāte satīti bhāvaḥ |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.553)
“On account of the ineligibility for karma of one possessed of bhakti, no fault shall occur even by relinquishing karma. In this way, he describes the greatness of bhakti: tāvat … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. ‘Karmas’ (karmāṇi) refers to compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya) [karmas] and incidental (naimittika) [karmas]. Yāvatā means yāvat [i.e., ‘so long as’]. ‘One shall not become disinterested’ (na nirvidyeta) means one shall not become disinterested (virakta) in the results of karma or in enjoyment of objects of the senses in this world and the next. Śraddhā means conviction (viśvāsa) or love (prīti). By the word ādi [i.e., ‘and so forth’], [various] types of bhakti such as kīrtana are indicated. When disinterest has not manifested or śraddhā in hearing and so forth of discussion of me has not manifested, one should act [i.e., perform karma, that is, follow the path of karma-yoga]. This is the meaning because of karma’s being possessed of a limit on account of the occurrence of abandonment of a means of accomplishment (sādhana) [viz., karma in this case] when the object to be accomplished (sādhya) [by it, viz., purification of the mind] has been accomplished (siddha). By the word ‘or’ (vā), the superiority of this position [i.e., of the latter, viz., śraddhā in discussion of Bhagavān] in comparison to the former [viz., disinterest in karma] is indicated, as in ye vā mayīśe [i.e., as in SB 5.5.3, meaning, just as the word vā indicates that the second category of mahānta, viz., the bhakta, mentioned in SB 5.5.2–3 is superior to the first category of mahānta mentioned, viz., the jñānī]. Relinquishing karma even when [only] non-attachment (vairāgya) has manifested is appropriate, and is all the more so [appropriate] when hearing and so forth [about Bhagavān] are manifested as a result of [that] non-attachment. This is the purport.”
Note: Śrī Gosvāmīpāda cites tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta … [i.e., SB 11.20.9] in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa as one of a number of evidences from the śāstra to illustrate the removal of eligibility for karma (karmādhikāra-nirasanatvam) from those who have acquired eligibility for bhakti.
tāvad iti taiḥ | tatra svalpaḥ yadṛcchayā jñāna-bhakty-anukūla-mātraḥ | na kiñcid iti anupayogāntarāya-rūpatvāc ceti bhāvaḥ | vākyārthe tu tasmād anayoḥ karmaja-guṇa-doṣābhyāṁ na guṇa-doṣatvam iti bhāvaḥ | yad vā nanv evaṁ kevalānāṁ karma-jñāna-bhaktīnāṁ vyavasthoktā | nitya-naimittikaṁ karma tu sarveṣv āvaśyakaṁ, tarhi sāṅkarye kathaṁ śuddhe jñāna-bhaktī pravarteyātāṁ—tad etad āśaṅkya tayoḥ karmādhikāritāṁ vārayati—tāvad iti | karmāṇi nitya-naimittikādīni iti ṭīkā ca | ata eva—‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe yas te ullaṅghya vartate | ājñā-cchedī mama dveṣī mad-bhakto’pi na vaiṣṇavaḥ ||’ity ukta-doṣo’py atra nāsti, ājñā-karaṇāt | pratyuta jātayor api nirveda-śraddhayos tat-karaṇa evājñā-bhaṅgaḥ syāt | yathā ca vyākhyātam ‘ājñāyaivaṁ guṇān doṣān’ ity asya ṭīkāyāṁ— bhakti-dārḍhyena nivṛtty-adhikāratayā santyajya iti |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā; excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 173)
“Tāvat … [i.e., SB 11.20.9] has been explained by him [i.e., by the commentator Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda]. Therein, [his mention of] ‘slight’ [in his commentary on SB 11.20.8] means only that [eligibility for injunctions and prohibitions] which is favorable for jñāna or bhakti independently. ‘None at all’ (na kiñcit) [is stated] because of [eligibility for injunctions and prohibitions] being by nature a useless obstacle. This is the purport. As per the meaning of the sentence, however, there is no qualification or faultiness in regard to either of them [i.e., jñāna-yoga or bhakti-yoga] as a result of the qualities and faults produced by karma. This is the purport.
“Alternately, [a question is raised:] ‘Well, in this way [i.e., over the course of the preceding verses, viz., SB 11.20.6–8] a prescription of isolated karma, jñāna, and bhakti [i.e., a set of instructions wherein karma, jñāna, and bhakti are described and practiced as independent paths] has been stated. Compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya) and incidental (naimittika) karma, however, is necessary for everyone. Then [i.e., if both karma and jñāna or bhakti are practiced together given that karma is necessary for everyone], in the instance of a mixture [between karma and jñāna or bhakti], how can pure jñāna or bhakti be performed?’ Thus expecting this [question], he [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] negates eligibility for karma in the case of the two [i.e., he negates that eligibility for karma remains once someone has acquired eligibility for jñāna or bhakti]: tāvat … [i..e, he speaks SB 11.20.9]. According to the commentary [of Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda] as well, ‘karmas’ (karmāṇi) refers to compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya) [karmas] and incidental (naimittika) [karmas]. Therefore, even the fault spoken of in [this statement of mine 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,’ is not present [i.e., applicable] in this case because of execution of [my] order [i.e., in the case of one who disregards my orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras meant for karma-yogīs because one instead follows my order meant specially for those who have śraddhā in bhakti], and rather when disinterest or śraddhā have manifested, transgression of my order shall ensue because of execution of that [i.e., if one follows my orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras meant for karma-yogīs even after one acquires śraddhā in bhakti, then one actually transgresses my order that is specifically applicable to one’s personal eligibility (adhikāra), and that is a fault, whereas non-observance of my orders for those with eligibility (adhikāra) for karma when one has eligibility (adhikāra) for bhakti is not a fault], as is also explained in the commentary [by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda] on ājñāyaiva guṇān doṣān … [i.e., SB 11.11.32], ‘[One completely relinquishes all one’s own dharmas] By virtue of having eligibility (adhikāra) for resignation [from such dharmas] by virtue of one’s firmness in bhakti’ (bhakti-dārḍhyena nivṛtty-adhikāratayā santyajya).”
tad evopapādayati—yatheti | tasmād varṇāśramety asya cāyam evārthaḥ | varṇāśramācāravatāpi yad viṣṇur ārādhyate, so’yaṁ panthās tat-toṣa-kāraṇaṁ, nānyat kim api | ataevoktaṁ tenaiva ‘sā hānis tan mahac chidraṁ sa mohaḥ sa ca vibhramaḥ | yan muhūrtaṁ kṣaṇaṁ vāpi vāsudevaṁ na kīrtayet |’ ity ādi |
(Durgama-saṅgamanī-ṭīkā on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.247)
“He establishes that [i.e., the conclusion that karma is not a limb of bhakti] specifically: yathā … [i.e., he cites SB 11.20.9]. Therefore, the meaning of [the aforecited verse] varṇāśramācaravatā … [i.e., VP 3.8.9] is this alone: ‘That by which Viṣṇu is worshiped even by a person observant of his varṇa and āśrama is this path that is a cause of his satisfaction, and not any other.’ Thus, it has been stated specifically by him [i.e., Śrī Parāśara, the speaker of the aforecited verse], ‘That moment or even instant in which Vāsudeva is not praised is a loss, a great fault, a delusion, and a fiasco’ [i.e., it is only acts of bhakti, such as praising Bhagavān, and not the execution of the duties of one’s varṇa and āśrama, that please Bhagavān and are a successful use of time].”
karmāṇi nitya-naimittikādīni iti ṭīkā ca | atra ‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe yas te ullaṅghya vartate | ājñā-cchedī mama dveṣī mad-bhakto’pi na vaiṣṇavaḥ ||’ ity ukta-doṣo’py atra nāsti, ājñā-karaṇāt, pratyuta jātayor api nirveda-śraddhayos tat-karaṇa evājñā-bhaṅgaḥ syāt |
(Bhakti-sāra-pradarśinī-ṭīkā on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.247)
“Also, according to the commentary [of Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda], ‘karmas’ (karmāṇi) refers to compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya) [karmas] and incidental (naimittika) [karmas]. In this regard, even the fault spoke of in [this statement of mine 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,’ is not present [i.e., applicable] in this case because of execution of [my] order [i.e., in the case of one who disregards my orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras meant for karma-yogīs because one instead follows my order meant specially for those who have śraddhā in bhakti], and rather when disinterest or śraddhā have manifested, transgression of my order shall ensue because of execution of that [i.e., if one follows my orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras meant for karma-yogīs even after one acquires śraddhā in bhakti, then one actually transgresses my order that is specifically applicable to one’s personal eligibility (adhikāra), and that is a fault, whereas non-observance of my orders for those with eligibility (adhikāra) for karma when one has eligibility (adhikāra) for bhakti is not a fault].”
tad evaṁ jātyaivātyāsaktasya jīvasya karmādhikāraḥ svābhāvika eva | sa ca kiṁ paryantas tathā jñānādhikāro bhakty-adhikāraś ca kadā syād ity apekṣāyām āha—tāvad iti | karmāṇi nitya-naimittikāni | yāvatā yāvat na nirvidyeta karmaṇaivāntaḥkaraṇa-śuddhau satyāṁ yāvan nirvedo na jāyata ity arthaḥ | nirvede jāte ‘nirviṇṇānāṁ jñāna-yogaḥ’ iti mad-ukter jñāna evādhikāro na karmaṇīti bhāvaḥ | tathā ākasmika-mahat-kṛpā-janitā śraddhā vā yāvad iti śraddhātaḥ pūrvam eva karmādhikāraḥ, śraddhāyāṁ jātāyāṁ tu ‘jāta-śraddhas tu yaḥ pumān’ iti mad-ukter bhaktāv eva kevalāyām adhikāro na karmaṇīti bhāvaḥ | śraddhā ceyam ātyantiky eva jñeyā | sā ca bhagavat-kathā-śravaṇādibhir eva kṛtārthībhaviṣyatīti na tu karma-jñānādibhir iti dṛḍhaivāstikya-lakṣaṇaiva tādṛśa-śuddha-bhakta-saṅgodbhūtaiva jñeyā | ata eva—‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe yas te ullaṅghya vartate | ājñā-cchedī mama dveṣī mad-bhakto’pi na vaiṣṇavaḥ ||’ ity ukta-doṣo’py atra nāsti ājñā-karaṇāt | pratyuta jātāyāṁ śraddhāyāṁ tat-karaṇa ājñā-bhaṅgaḥ prasajjed iti | kintv aprāpta-mahat-kṛpatvād ajāta-tādṛśa-śraddhām api vaiṣṇavāntarotkarṣaṁ dṛṣṭvaiva tadvad eva karma tyaktvā bhagavad-bhajanam eva tad-vacana-viṣayīkarotīti kecid āhuḥ | anye tu śruti-smṛtī bhakti-pratipādike eva na tu varṇāśrama-dharma-pratipādike ‘mayādiṣṭān api svakān dharmān santyajya yaḥ sarvān māṁ bhajet sa tu sattamaḥ’ iti bhagavad-ukti-virodhāt | ananya-bhaktānām asmākaṁ śruti-smṛty-ukta-vidhi-niṣedhābhyāṁ na kim api prayojanam iti matvā yad ekādaśy-ādi-vratānām ācaraṇaṁ tāmra-pātrastha-dadhi-dugdhādeḥ kāṁsasya-pātrastha-nārikelodakasya ca bhagavate’rpaṇaṁ tasya ca bhagavad-arpitasya yad bhakṣaṇam iti niṣiddhācaraṇaṁ ca tad eva ca ‘śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe’ iti bhagavad-uktir viṣayīkarotīty ācakṣate | ‘na calati nija-varṇa-dharmataḥ’ iti na calati na kampate iti tatrārthaḥ | atra prācyādi-bhaktānām ananyām api karmi-kula-saṁghaṭṭa-gatatvenaiva tad-anurodha-vaśāt yadīṣat karma-karaṇaṁ tat-karmākaraṇam eva, tatra śraddhā-rāhityāt—‘aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat |asad ity ucyate pārtha na ca tat pretya neha ca ||’ iti bhagavad-ukteḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Thus, in this way, the eligibility (adhikāra) for karma of a jīva greatly attached to [one’s own] caste specifically is entirely natural. That, furthermore, lasts up to what? And when will eligibility (adhikāra) for jñāna and eligibility (adhikāra) for bhakti come about?’ In expectation [of these questions], he [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] says: tāvat … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. ‘Karmas’ (karmāṇi) refers to compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya) [karmas] and incidental (naimittika) [karmas]. Yāvatā means yāvat [i.e., ‘so long as’]. ‘One shall not become disinterested’ (na nirvidyeta) means as long as disinterest does not manifest once purification of the psyche (antaḥkaraṇa) has occurred just by means of karma. This is the meaning. When disinterest has manifested then as per my statement [in SB 11.20.7], ‘The practice of jñāna is for the disinterested,’ [one’s] eligibility (adhikāra) is only for jñāna, and not for karma. This is the purport. Similarly, so long as śraddhā produced by the causeless grace of a mahat [has not manifested, one should perform karma]. Thus, specifically prior to [one acquiring] śraddhā, there is eligibility (adhikāra) for karma, but when śraddhā has manifested, then as per my statement [in SB 11.20.8], ‘The practice of bhakti of a person who independently becomes possessed of śraddhā in discussion and so forth of me yet is neither disinterested nor excessively attached is a granter of success,’ [one’s] eligibility (adhikāra) is only for bhakti alone, and not for karma. This is the purport. This śraddhā, furthermore, is to be known as definitively superlative (ātyantikī). Furthermore, this [śraddhā] is to be known only by means of the characteristic of this firm faith, ‘I shall become successful only by means of hearing and so forth of discussion of Bhagavān and not by means of karma, jñāna, or anything else,’ and [to be known] as produced only by association of such pure bhaktas [i.e., bhaktas possessed of such śraddhā]. Therefore, even the fault spoke of in [this statement of mine 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,’ is not present [i.e., applicable] in this case because of execution of [my] order [i.e., in the case of one who disregards my orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras meant for karma-yogīs because one instead follows my order meant specially for those who have śraddhā in bhakti], and rather when disinterest or śraddhā have manifested, transgression of my order shall ensue because of execution of that [i.e., if one follows my orders in the Śruti- and Smṛti-śāstras meant for karma-yogīs even after one acquires śraddhā in bhakti, then one actually transgresses my order that is specifically applicable to one’s personal eligibility (adhikāra), and that is a fault, whereas non-observance of my orders for those with eligibility (adhikāra) for karma when one has eligibility (adhikāra) for bhakti is not a fault].’
“Some say, however, that that statement [of Bhagavān, meaning, the statement from Vādhūla-smṛti], ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders …’] refers only to worship of Bhagavān by one who, although devoid of such [aforementioned superlative] śraddhā because of not having attained the grace of a mahat, has seen another Vaiṣṇava’s excellence and like them given up karma. To others, however, the Śruti and Smṛti are establishers of bhakti alone, and not, rather, establishers of varṇāśrama-dharma, on account of the contradiction to the statement of Bhagavān [in SB 11.11.32 that would ensue if the Śruti and Smṛti were principally establishers of varṇāśrama-dharma rather than bhakti], ‘Fully understanding qualities and faults in this manner, one who shall completely relinquish all one’s own dharmas even though [they are] instituted by me and worship me is also the best of the sat.’ [Thus,] ‘What is the use of the injunctions and prohibitions stated in the Śruti and Smṛti for we who are one-pointed bhaktas?’—thinking this, they declare that Bhagavān’s [aforementioned] statement, ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders …’ refers to performance of rites (vrata) such as [that of] Ekādaśī and performance of that which is forbidden, such as [making] an offering to Bhagavān of milk, yoghurt, or the like situated in a copper vessel or coconut water situated in a brass vessel and eating that offering [which was made] to Bhagavān [i.e., they consider that the aforementioned citation refers to orders given by Bhagavān related specifically to following the path of bhakti]. In [the statement,] ‘One does not move from the dharma of one’s varṇa,’ ‘does not move‘ means does not waver [from]. In this regard, if slight performance of karma on the part of bhaktas in the East or elsewhere occurs even though they are one-pointed [bhaktas] because of force of the appeal of the karmī communities [made to those bhaktas to not relinquish their observance of karma] solely as a result of [those bhaktas’] being situated amid a family of karmīs, [then] that is actually non-performance of karma because of [those bhaktas who perform karma in that case] being without śraddhā in that [i.e., in any such acts of karma that they may perform under such circumstances], as per the statement of Bhagavān [in BG 17.28], ‘An oblation offered, an austerity practiced, and whatever else is done without śraddhā is said to be asat, O Arjuna, and that is neither [fruitful] in the next world nor in this [world].’”