विप्राद्द्विषड्गुणयुतादरविन्दनाभ-
पादारविन्दविमुखात्श्वपचं वरिष्ठम् ।
मन्ये तदर्पितमनोवचनेहितार्थ-
प्राणं पुनाति स कुलं न तु भूरिमानः ॥
viprād dvi-ṣaḍ-guṇa-yutād aravinda-nābha-
pādāravinda-vimukhāt śvapacaṁ variṣṭham |
manye tad-arpita-mano-vacanehitārtha-
prāṇaṁ punāti sa kulaṁ na tu bhūri-mānaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.9.10; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.192; Bhakti Sandarbha: 100; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.20.59)
“[Prahlāda Mahārāja:] I consider a dog-cooker whose mind, words, actions, wealth, and life are dedicated to him [viz., Śrī Bhagavān] superior to a brāhmaṇa possessed of [all] twelve [brahminical] qualities who is averse to the lotus feet of he of lotus navel. He [i.e., a dog-cooker who is a bhakta of Śrī Bhagavān] purifies his family, whereas one of great pride does not.”
Commentary
evaṁ bhaktyaiva kevalayā hares toṣaḥ sambhavatīty uktam | idānīṁ bhaktiṁ vinā nānyat kiñcit tat-toṣa-hetur ity āha—viprād iti | ‘manye dhanābhijana-rūpa-tapaḥ-śrutaujas-tejaḥ-prabhāva-bala-pauruṣa-buddhi-yogāḥ ||’ ity-ādau pūrvoktā ye dhanādayo dviṣaḍ dvādaśa-guṇāḥ, tair yuktād viprād api śvapacaṁ variṣṭhaṁ manye | yad vā sanat-sujātoktā dvādaśa dharmādayo guṇā draṣṭavyāḥ—‘dharmaṁ ca satyaṁ ca damas tapaś ca vimatsaraṁ hrīs titikṣānasūyā | yajñaś ca dānaṁ ca dhṛtiḥ śrutaṁ ca vratāni vai dvādaśa brāhmaṇasya ||’ iti | yad vā ‘śamo damas tapaḥ śaucaṁ kṣānty-ārjava-viraktatāḥ | jñāna-vijñāna-santoṣāḥ satyāstikye dviṣad-guṇāḥ ||’ iti | kathambhūtād viprāt? aravindanābha-pādāravinda-vimukhāt | kathambhūtaṁ śvapacaṁ? tasminn aravinda-nābhe’rpitā mana-ādāyo yena tam | īhitaṁ karma | variṣṭhatve hetuḥ—sa evaṁ-bhūtaḥ śvapacaḥ sarvaṁ kulaṁ punāti | bhūrir māno garvo yasya sa tu vipra ātmānam api na punāti, kutaḥ kulaṁ, yato bhakti-hīnasyaite guṇā garvāyaiva bhavanti, na tu śuddhaye | ato hīna iti bhāvaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā; cited in Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.192; Bhakti Sandarbha: 100)
“Thus [in the previous verse] it was stated that the satisfaction of Hari is possible only by means of pure (kevala) bhakti. Now, Prahlāda Mahārāja states [the corollary conclusion] that without bhakti nothing else is a cause of his satisfaction: viprāt … [i.e., he speaks SB 7.9.10]. I consider a dog-cooker superior even to a brāhmaṇa endowed with the twelve qualities beginning with wealth aforementioned in [SB 7.9.9], ‘Wealth, noble family, beauty, austerity, learning, sensory prowess, luster, influence, strength, diligence, intelligence, and yoga [i.e., eightfold yogic practice].’ Alternately, the twelve qualities beginning with dharma mentioned by Sanat Sujāta [in Mahābhārata 3.43.20] are to be considered [the twelve qualities referred to by Prahlāda Mahārāja in the verse under discussion]: ‘Dharma, truthfulness, control of the senses, austerity, non-enviousness, modesty, tolerance [alt., forbearance, or, forgiveness], non-detraction, sacrifice, charity, resolve, and learning are the twelve vows of a brāhmaṇa.’ Alternately, [the twelve qualities can be considered those listed in the following verse,] ‘Equanimity, control of the senses, austerity, cleanliness, forbearance, straightforwardness, detachment, knowledge, realization, contentment, truthfulness, and faithfulness are the twelve qualities.’ Of what nature is the brāhmaṇa [mentioned in the verse]? ‘Averse to the lotus feet of he of lotus navel.’ Of what nature is the dog-cooker [mentioned in the verse]? He by whom the mind and so forth have been dedicated to him, he of lotus navel [viz., Śrī Bhagavān]. Īhita refers to action. The cause in regard to the superiority [of this dog-cooker in comparison to this brāhmaṇa] is that such a dog-cooker purifies his entire family, whereas the brāhmaṇa, whose pride (māna) is great, does not purify even himself, much less his family, since these qualities [possessed by a brāhmaṇa] only lead to pride, and not rather to purification, for one devoid of bhakti. Therefore, he is inferior. This is the purport.”
yad vā tādṛśād viprāt śvapacam evāhaṁ manye ādriye, bhagavad-vimukhatvena viprasya śvapaco’py adhamatvāt | śvapacasya ca jātyādi-svabhāvena bhagavaj-jñānādy-asambhavāt, kevalaṁ bhagavaty ābhimukhyābhāvaḥ, na tu vaimukhyam | atas tasmāt apy ayam eva sādhuḥ | ata eva taṁ manye iti tad-arpita-mano-vacanehitārtha-prāṇaṁ santaṁ variṣṭhaṁ sarvotkṛṣṭāṁ manye | tatra hetuḥ—punātīti | yad vā, ādito viprasya sandhyopāsanādau svata eva nityaṁ bhagavad-ābhimukhyam asty eva, paścāc cādhyanādinā tāḍrśa-dvādaśa-guṇāḥ sampannāḥ, ato’dhunābhimukhya-viśeṣas tāvad dūre’stu | atha ca ‘aham eva satyaṁ paraṁ brahma nārāyaṇaḥ, matto’nyac ca dṛṣṭa-śrutaṁ sarvaṁ man-māyā-kalpitaṁ mayy adhyastam eva’ ity ādi mithyābhimānena satā bhagavat-pādāravindād vaimukhyaṁ gatād iti | anyat samānam |
(Remainder of the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.192)
“Alternately [i.e., in addition to the interpretation given by Śrī Svāmīpāda, the sense can be construed as follows], I honor (ādriye) only the dog-cooker in lieu of such a brāhmaṇa because of the brāhmaṇa’s being lower than even the dog-cooker on account of [the brāhmaṇa’s] being averse to Bhagavān. Because of the impossibility of a dog-cooker having knowledge and so forth of Bhagavaṇ on account of the disposition of his family and so on [i.e., because someone born into a family of dog-cookers, that is, uncultured persons, has no chance to acquire knowledge of Bhagavān since such a family has no such knowledge], there is only an absence of orientation (ābhimukhya), and not rather aversion (vaimukhya) [on the part of the dog-cooker, i.e., such a person has no aversion towards Śrī Bhagavān and rather only the absence of ever having had their awareness turned towards him by receiving knowledge about him from a bhakta]. Thus, certainly he [i.e., the dog-cooker] is superior even to him [i.e., to the brāhmaṇa who has knowledge of Śrī Bhagavān yet remains averse to Śrī Bhagavān]. Therefore, [Prahlāda Mahārāja says] I honor him [i.e., the dog-cooker], that is, I consider the sādhu [dog-cooker] whose mind, words, actions, wealth, and life are dedicated to him [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān] superior, that is, exalted above all. The cause in this regard is punāti … [i.e., the cause is that the dog-cooker purifies his entire family, whereas the brāhmaṇa does not purify even himself].
“Alternately [i.e., the sense can also be construed to be that brāhmaṇa fosters false pride:], a brāhmaṇa [right] from the beginning [of the day] certainly always has an orientation towards Bhagavān automatically because of [his] daily rites (sandhyā-upāsanā), and thereafter remains endowed with these twelve qualities by virtue of [his] study and so forth. Therefore, let someone [only] now of some particular orientation [towards Bhagavān] remain far afield [i.e., a dog-cooker who has just recently acquired knowledge and inclination towards Bhagavān is not at all fit to be compared to a brāhmaṇa who is daily all throughout his life always oriented towards Bhagavān]. Moreover, ‘Indeed I am the Existent, Parabrahman, Nārāyaṇa. Everything seen and heard apart from me is fashioned by my māyā and only superimposed upon me’—a brāhmaṇa beset with such false pride and [in this way] given to aversion to the lotus of Bhagavān [is the brāhmaṇa in comparison to whom Prahlāda Mahārāja considers a dog-cooker possessed of bhakta to be superior]. The rest is the same [in the case of this third interpretation].”
nanu bhakti-vyatiriktā api kecit te guṇā variṣṭhatayodghuṣyante, tatrāsahamāna āhuḥ—viprād iti |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, although separate from bhakti, some declare these qualities [mentioned in SB 7.9.9] as being superior [to the qualities of a bhakta]. Being intolerant of this [viewpoint], he says viprāt … [i.e., he speaks this verse wherein even a bhakta born in the family of dog-cookers is regarded as superior to a non-bhakta brāhmaṇa with the aforementioned qualities].”
skānde śrī-nārada-vākyam—‘kulācāra-vihīno’pi dṛḍha-bhaktir jitendriyaḥ | praśastaḥ sarva-lokānāṁ na tv aṣṭādaśa-vidyakaḥ | bhakti-hīno dvijaḥ śāntaḥ saj-jātir dharmikas tathā ||’ kāśī-khaṇḍe ca—‘brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyo vaiśyaḥ śūdro vā yadi vetaraḥ | viṣṇu-bhakti-samāyukto jñeyaḥ sarvottamottamaḥ ||’ bṛhan-nāradīye—‘viṣṇu-bhakti-vihīnā ye caṇḍālāḥ parikīrtitāḥ | caṇḍālā api vai śreṣṭhā hari-bhakti-parāyaṇāḥ ||’ nāradīye ca—‘śvapaco’pi mahī-pāla viṣṇor bhakto dvijādhikaḥ | viṣṇu-bhakti-vihīno yo dvijātiḥ śvapacādhikaḥ ||’ iti | atra mūla-padye sa kulaṁ punāti ity ukte svaṁ punātīti sutarām eva siddham | yathoktaṁ—‘kirāta-hūṇāndhra-pulinda-pulkaśā ābhīra-śumbhā yavanāḥ khasādayaḥ | ye’nye ca pāpā yad-apāśrayāśrayāḥ śudhyanti tasmai prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ ||’ iti |
(Remainder of Bhakti Sandarbha: 100)
“In Skanda Purāṇa, there is a statement of Śrī Nārada, ‘Although devoid of [noble] family and conduct, a person possessed of firm bhakta and controlled senses is the best of all people, and not, rather, a twice-born devoid of bhakti, [though] possessed of the eighteen knowledges [i.e., the eighteen branches of Vedic knowledge], peaceful, of high caste, and adherent to dharma [i.e, the duties of his varṇa and āśrama].’ Also, in the Kāśī-khaṇḍa [it is said], ‘If a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, or anyone otherwise is fully endowed with Viṣṇu-bhakti, they are to be known as the best of the best of all.’ In Bṛhan-nāradīya Purāṇa (1.37.12), ‘Those who are devoid of Viṣṇu-bhakti are declared outcastes (caṇḍālas). Even outcastes (caṇḍālas) who are devoted to Hari-bhakti are exalted.’ Also, in Nāradīya Purāṇa (2.10.37), ‘O King, even a dog-cooker who is a Viṣṇu-bhakta is more than [i.e., superior to] a twice-born, whereas a twice-born devoid of Viṣṇu-bhakti is more than [i.e., inferior to] a dog-cooker.’ In this regard, when it is said, ‘He purifies his family’ (sa kulaṁ punāti) in the base verse [i.e., the verse under discussion (SB 7.9.10)], [that] ‘He purifies himself’ is certainly consequently established, as it is said [in SB 2.4.18], ‘Kirātas, Hūṇas, Andhras, Pulindas, Pulkaśas, Ābhīras, Śumbhas, Yavanas, Khasas, and so forth, as well as other sinners, become purified upon taking shelter in those who have taken shelter in whom—obeisance unto him, the Almighty.’”
kim anyad vaktavyaṁ bhakty-abhāva-sadbhāvābhyām evaṁ vivicyata ity āha—bhakti-hīnāt viprād api śvapacaṁ variṣṭhaṁ manye—kim uta kṣatriyādibhyaḥ | tatrāpi dviṣaṭ pūrvoktā dhanādayo dvādaśa-guṇās tair yuktā, kim uta saptāṣṭa-tri-catur-ādi-guṇa-yuktāt, kim utatarāṁ tat-tad-guṇa-hīnāt, tatrāpi variṣṭham atiśayenādhikam eva | sanat-sujātoktā dvādaśa vā guṇā draṣṭavyāḥ | tad uktam—‘jñānaṁ ca satyaṁ ca damaḥ śamaś ca hy amātsaryaṁ hrīs titikṣānasūyā | dānaṁ ca yajñaś ca tapaḥ śrutaṁ ca mahā-vratā dvādaśa brāhmaṇasya ||’ iti | aravindeti tena jñāna-yogādi-sattve vipro bhagavad-vimukho nocyate iti mataṁ parāstam | śvapacaṁ kīdṛśam? tasminn aravinda-nābhe arpitā mana ādayo yena tam | īhitaṁ karma | artho dhanam | viprād variṣṭhatve hetuḥ—sa śvapacaḥ kulaṁ svīyaṁ sarvam eva punāti | bhūri-māno lokeṣv ādaro yasya tathā-bhūto’pi, sa tu vipra ātmānam api na punāti, kutaḥ kulam iti bhāvaḥ | bhakti-hīnasyaite guṇā garvāyaiva bhavanti, na tu śuddhaye iti svāmi-caraṇāḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“What else is to be said? This [matter] is to be discerned with respect to the presence or absence of bhakti. Thus, he says, ‘I consider a dog-cooker [endowed with bhakti] superior even to a brāhmaṇa devoid of bhakti, and all the more [superior] to a kṣatriya and so on [who is devoid of bhakti]. Furthermore in this regard, [I consider a dog-cooker endowed with bhakti] superior, that is, indeed exceedingly greater, even when they [i.e., non-bhaktas] are endowed with the twelve aforementioned qualities of wealth and so on, so all the more when [they are] endowed with [only] seven, or eight, or three, or four such qualities, and so ever further more when [they are] devoid of those qualities. Alternately, the twelve qualities beginning with dharma mentioned by Sanat Sujāta [in Mahābhārata 3.43.20] are to be considered [the twelve qualities referred to by Prahlāda Mahārāja in the verse under discussion]: ‘Dharma, truthfulness, control of the senses, austerity, non-enviousness, modesty, tolerance [alt., forbearance, or, forgiveness], non-detraction, sacrifice, charity, resolve, and learning are the twelve great vows of a brāhmaṇa.’ The view that a brāhmaṇa engaged in jñāna, yoga, or otherwise is not said to be averse to Bhagavān is refuted by [Prahlāda Mahārāja’s phrase] ‘averse to the lotus feet of he of lotus navel’ (Aravinda-nābha-pādāravinda-vimukhāt). Of what nature is the dog-cooker [mentioned in the verse]? He by whom the mind and so forth have been dedicated to him, he of lotus navel [viz., Śrī Bhagavān]. Īhita refers to action, and artha to wealth. The cause in regard to the superiority [of this dog-cooker] in comparison to this brāhmaṇa is that such a dog-cooker purifies his own entire family, whereas the brāhmaṇa, although he has honor (māna) among people [i.e., in society in general], does not purify even himself, much less his family. ‘These qualities [possessed by the brāhmaṇa] only lead to pride, and not rather to purification, for one devoid of bhakti’ is [the explanation given by] Śrī Svāmīpāda.”