Did King Bharata perform yajña with śraddhā?

Reader Vivek requested a translation of SB 5.7.6, which describes Bharata mahārāja’s performance of yajña. The claim was made that he did the yajña with full śraddhā, despite being an uttama bhakta. I examine this verse and translate Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarti’s commentary as it was cited to support the above claim. SB 5.7.6 goes as follows (Babaji’s translation reproduced from Bhakti Sandarbha):

sampracaratsu nānā-yāgeṣu viracitāṅga-kriyeṣv apūrvaṁ yat tat kriyā-phalaṁ dharmākhyaṁ pare brahmaṇi yajña-puruṣe sarva-devatā-liṅgānāṁ mantrāṇām artha-niyāmakatayā sākṣāt-kartari para-devatāyāṁ bhagavati vāsudeva eva bhāvayamāna ātma-naipuṇya-mṛdita-kaṣāyo haviḥṣv adhvaryubhir gṛhyamāṇeṣu sa yajamāno yajña-bhājo devāṁs tān puruṣāvayaveṣv abhyadhyāyat.

After the preparatory rites and component parts of a sacrifice are executed and the actual sacrifice performed, what results (kriyā-phala) is something not immediately tangible, because it is experienced only in the future [such as promotion to heaven]. This intangible fruit (apūrva) is known as dharma, or the merit accruing from religious rites.

While performing sacrifices, the host (yajamāna), King Bharata, considered this intangible fruit to be sheltered exclusively in Bhagavān Vāsudeva, who is the Supreme Transcendence (para) and the Absolute (brahman). He did so because he realized Bhagavān Vāsudeva to be the worshipful deity of the sacrifice (yajña-puruṣa) and the controller (niyāmaka) of all the devas, who are the referents (arthas) of the mantras that signify and reveal them (liṅga). As such, it is Bhagavān Vāsudeva who is the direct agent (sākṣāt-kartari) and the supreme deity (para-devatā) of the sacrifice.

Because of Bharata’s ingenuity (naipuṇya) in discerning this truth, he became cleansed of all impurity (kaṣāya). When the adhvaryu priests used to take the offering in their hands to pour oblations, the host, Bharata, would consider the devas, who are entitled to a share of the sacrifice (yajña-bhāja), as limbs of Bhagavān’s body. (SB 5.7.6)

I will now translate Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarti’s commentary below and provide my comments.

viśvanāthaḥ :
nanu
tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta na nirvidyeta yāvatā |
mat-kathā-śravaṇādau vā śraddhā yāvan na jāyate || [bhā.pu. 11.20.9]

iti bhagavad-ukter bhagavat-kathādiṣu prauḍha-śraddhasya niṣkāmasya śuddha-bhakty-adhikāriṇo bharatasya karma-kartṛtvaṁ karma-phala-bhoktṛtvaṁ ca kathaṁ saṁgacchatām ?

Based on the statement,

As long as detachment has not been aroused, or as long as one has not awakened faith in hearing narrations about Me, a person should continue to engage in his prescribed duties,

how can enjoying the fruit of karma and performance of karma be appropriate for Bharata, who has mature śraddhā in Bhagavat-kathā, who is desireless, and qualified for śuddha-bhakti?

Uttamā bhakti, by its very definition, implies an absence of śraddhā in karma, that is, an absence of śraddhā in the duties of varṇa and āśrama. SB 11.20.9 cited above points out that once śraddhā in uttamā bhakti has arisen, one should no longer engage in the duties of varṇa and āśrama. Therefore, King Bharat’s performance of yajña, which is his dharma according to varṇa and āśrama, needs to be explained, as he had the adhikāra or qualification for uttamā bhakti. Why did he perform yajña at all, instead of purely the sādhana of uttamā bhakti?

Raising this question, Śrī Viśvanātha states that SB 5.7.6 is the reply to this question —

ity ata āha—sampracaratsu pravartamāneṣu viracitā anuṣṭhitā aṅga-kriyā yeṣāṁ teṣu | yad apūrvaṁ tat pare brahmaṇi vāsudeve sveṣṭa-deve eva bhāvayamānaḥ | asya karmaṇo yat phalaṁ bhāvi tatra na me lipsā, kintu tad-vāsudeva-prīty-arthaṁ vāsudevāyaiva samarpitam iti tatra na me svatvam iti cintayann ity arthaḥ|

The reply is as follows. sampracaratsu viracitāṅga-kriyeṣv means [the various sacrifices, nānā-yāgeṣu] being performed which have component parts (aṅga-kriyā) that are executed viracitā. [Bharat] considered (bhāvayamānaḥ) this intangible fruit to be sheltered exclusively in Bhagavān Vāsudeva (pare brahmaṇi), who is his worshipful deity. [He thought as follows:] I have no desire for whatever result will accrue from this (apūrva), but I offer this result exclusively to Vāsudeva alone, for the purpose of His prīti. The meaning is that [he performed the yajna] thinking that “the result does not belong to me.”

Here, we see that he offered the fruit of the karma to Bhagavān for the purpose of attaining Bhagavad-prīti. Thus, this is an example of bhakti-matra-kāmā-āropa-siddhā-bhakti as Śrī Jīva Goswami explains in the Bhakti Sandarbha. In this type of bhakti, one has the faith that performance of karma and offering its results to Bhagavān will lead to bhakti. One does not have any desire for the conventional result of the karma. However, this can be a type of covering on bhakti as explained by Śrī Viśvanātha: tathā bhakty-ādi-rūpeṣṭa-sādhanatvāc chraddhayā kriyamāṇatvaṁ ca: performing karma with faith because [karma is considered to be] the means to attain bhakti. Yet, we will see how it was not a covering in the case of King Bharata below.

Now there is an objection – If King Bharata did not desire the fruit of the karma, it would be sheltered in the devatā of the mantra. If he desired the fruit, it would shelter in him. In either case, it cannot be conceived to be sheltered in Bhagavān Vāsudeva.

nanu karma kartṛ-pradhānaṁ devatā-pradhānaṁ veti mīmāṁsakānāṁ pakṣa-dvayaṁ tatrādye pakṣe kartṛ-niṣṭham apūrvam, dvitīye karmaṇo devatārādhanārthatvād devatā-niṣṭhaṁ, tatra bharatasya niṣkāmatvād apūrvasya devatā-niṣṭhatve eva yukte devatānāṁ candra-sūryādīnāṁ bāhulyāt | katham ekasmin vāsudeva eva karma-phala-bhāvanā ? ity ata āha—sarva-devatā-liṅgānāṁ tat-tad-devatā-prakāśakānāṁ mantrāṇāṁ ye’rthā indrādi-devatās teṣāṁ niyāmakatayā yajña-puruṣe yajña-phala-bhoktarīty arthaḥ |

Objection: The mīmāṁsakas propose two possibilities: Karma is sheltered primarily in the agent [i.e. the performer of the yajña], or primarily in the devatā. In the former case, the apūrva will be sheltered in the agent, while in the latter, it will reside in the devatā because it is meant for worshipping the devatā. Now, Bharat is niṣkāma, desireless. Therefore, the result should be established in the devatā alone. The devatās are many, such as the sun and moon. How then can the result of the karma conceived to be in Vāsudeva alone?

Reply: The yajña-purusa, that is the enjoyer of the fruit of the yajña, is the controller of all the devas like Indra who are the referents of the mantras that signify and reveal them.

Here, the word apūrva refers to the result of karma that will manifest at a later time.

The reply given above is that the enjoyer of the fruit is Bhagavān Vāsudeva, so it is exclusively sheltered in Him. Even if this is to be accepted, the agent of the karma is King Bharata and not anyone else —

nanv evaṁ bharatasya māstu bhoktṛtvaṁ, karma-kartṛtvaṁ tu tasya durvāram ity ata āha

Objection: Let Bharata not be the enjoyer of the result. However, his doership of the karma is undeniable.

Text 5.7.6 contains the answer: Bhagavān Vāsudeva is the agent also —

sākṣātkartari vāsudevasyaivāntaryāmiṇaḥ pravartakatvena svatantra-kartṛtvāt sākṣātkartṛtvaṁ, na tu prayojyasya yajamānasyāsvatantrasya anyathā ṛtvijām api sākṣātkartṛtva-prasaṅgāt | yajña-bhug yajña-kṛd yajñaḥ iti tan-nāma-smṛteś ca tasya svatantra-kartṛtva-mananam eva kartṛtva-gamakaṁ bandha-kāraṇaṁ jñeyam | ātmano naipuṇyam evaṁ bhāvanam eva, tena mṛditāḥ kṣīṇāḥ kaṣāyāḥ karma-karaṇa-vāsanātmakaṁ yena saḥ | adhvaryubhir ity anena tathā-vidhānāṁ bhaktānāṁ kartṛtvādy-abhimāna-śūnyānāṁ karma-phala-tyāgināṁ sva-pratimūrti-dvārā karma-karaṇam api karmaṇi śraddhā-rāhityāt karmākaraṇam eva jñeyam iti dyotitam,

Reply: Because Vāsudeva, the indweller, is the impelling agent (prayojaka) and hence independent agent, direct agency is in Him alone, and not in the dependent doer of the yajña who is impelled to act (prayojya). Otherwise, even the priest will have to be considered the direct agent [since he directly performs the yajña]. His name in the Smrti is yajña-bhuk (enjoyer of yajña), yajña-krt (performer of yajña) and yajña. Therefore, thinking oneself to be an independent agent is indeed to be understood as the cause for bondage because it confers doership. His [Bharata’s] ingenuity was in thinking like this [i.e. that being an independent agent is the cause of bondage]. By it, his impurities consisting of the tendencies to perform karma became cleansed. By the word adhvaryubhir [by the priests], it is also brought to light that for the devotees of this type, who are free from the notion of doership, and who give up the results of karma, even performance of karma through their own representative is to be understood as non-performance of karma because of their being devoid of śraddhā or belief in the karma.

This follows from this statement of the Bhagavad-gītā:
aśraddhayā hutaṁ dattaṁ tapas taptaṁ kṛtaṁ ca yat |
asad ity ucyate pārtha na ca tat pretya no iha || [gītā 17.28] iti bhagavad-gītokteḥ |

O son of Prthā, whatever is offered in the sacrificial fire, whatever is given in charity, whatever austerity is undertaken, and whatever other auspicious actions are performed without faith, are all termed as asat, or worthless, because they bear no fruit, neither here nor after death.

So here we see that King Bharata did not have śraddhā in the yajña. This is seen from the fact that he engaged someone else – the adharyu priests- in offering oblations in the fire. He did not perform the yajña directly. Such a performance of yajña will not bring the result stated in the Vedas, because it is done without śraddhā. This is stated in the verse from the Bhagavad-gītā above. Performance of yajña in this way is equivalent to non-performance of yajña.

Thus, the claim that King Bharata did yajña with śraddhā is refuted. Also, the performance of karma through another person and not directly by uttama bhaktas seems to be a general principle, as Śrī Viśvanātha points out below —

ata evāmbarīṣādīnāṁ śuddhayā bhagavad-bhaktyaiva yāpitāṣṭa-yāmānām api pitṛ-paitāmaha-sadācāra-paramparā-prāpta-yajñādi-karmācaraṇaṁ pratinidhi-dvāraiva śrūyate | arvācīnānām api prācyādi-deśa-vartināṁ supratiṣṭhānāṁ gṛhastha-mahā-bhāgavatānāṁ vivāhopanayanādāv api sarvathaiva varṇa-dharmābhāve laukikād api sāṅkarya-doṣād bibhyatāṁ pratinidhi-dvāraiva karma-karaṇaṁ dṛśyate ca | ata eva tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta [bhā.pu. 11.20.9] ity ātmanepada-prayogād aṇy-anta-nirdeśāc cānātma-gāmika-phalatve sati pratinidhi-dvārā karma-karaṇam api śuddha-sattva-bhaktānāṁ na dūṣaṇam | tathaiva śuddha-bhakti-lakṣaṇe’pi, anyābhilāṣita-śūnyam itivaj jñāna-karmādi-śūnyam ity anuktvā, jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛta-padopanyāsāt pratinidhi-dvārā karma-karaṇe’pi svīyendriyaiḥ pratikṣaṇa-caraṇāravindādi-bhakty-avakāśa-prāptyā bhakteḥ karmānāvṛtatvāt śuddhatvam eveti kecid vyācakṣate |

Therefore, the performance of yajña in deference to the tradition of sadācāra of their grandfathers and ancestors, by Ambarisa and others, who passed the eight yamas [each yama is 3 h] by means of pure bhakti of Bhagavān alone, is seen to be performed only through their representative. Even the highly venerable modern mahā-bhāgavata-gṛhasthas, who live in the eastern lands are seen to perform karma like wedding or upanayana always through their representative alone, and even in the context of laukika karma which is altogether devoid of varṇa and dharma, due to fear of mixing [of bhakti with karma]. Therefore, because in the verse, tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta, the verb kurvīta is in ātmanepada form [i.e. for oneself], and because the verb lacks the ṇi-pratyaya [a causative sense], the fruit of karma [performed through a representative] will not accrue to the self. Therefore, it is not a fault for śuddha bhaktas to perform karma through a representative. Likewise, in the definition of śuddhā bhakti, unlike the term anyābhilāṣita-śūnyam, the word jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam is used and not jñāna-karmādi-śūnyam. Therefore, some say that in the performance of karma by a representative, even though one’s senses are interrupted [for a short time] in the [continuous] devotional mediation on the lotus feet of Bhagavan at every moment, bhakti remains uncovered by that karma, and therefore remains śuddhā.

Here we come to why uttama bhaktas like King Ambarisa perform karma – they do not want to disturb the tradition of sadācāra established by their forefathers. This is not a covering on bhakti, because they lack the śraddhā in the karma anyway. Furthermore, being afraid of even an incidental mixing of their bhakti with karma, they perform even those karmas through a representative alone and not by themselves.

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarti notes astutely that the call to perform karma in the verse cited at the beginning of this section does not allow the performance of karma through a representative. This is because the word kurvīta does not have a causative sense. The verb is in ātmanepada form, implying again that one should do it one’s own benefit. As both these conditions are not met when King Ambarisa performed karma, his performance of karma does not go against the injunction for uttama bhaktas in the tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta verse.

We now come to the final objection —

nanv evam-bhūtatvena bharatasya māstu karma-karaṇa-doṣaḥ, yajñānāṁ nānā-devatārādhanātmakatvāt, katham ananyatā tasyopapādyatām ity ata āha—sa yajamāno bharato yajña-bhājo devān indrādīn puruṣasya bhagavato’vayaveṣu bāhv-ādiṣu abhyadhyāyat, indrāya svāhety ukter mat-prabhor bāhu-pūjeyam, sūryāya svāhety ukter locana-pūjeyam iti bhāvayāmāsa | pṛthak pṛthag devatātvena pūjā hy ananyatā-vighātanī, na tu tad-aṅgatveneti

Granted that being like this [devoid of śraddhā], King Bharata did not have the fault of performing karma [this would be a fault in someone qualified for uttamā bhakti]. But yajña is meant for diverse devas. How can one ascertain that he was ananya – one-pointed [in his resolve].

Reply: Bharata mediated on Indra and others in the limbs of Bhagavān’s body such as His arms and so on. He considered as follows, “I worship the arms of my Lord” when the mantra “indrāya svāhā” was chanted. “I worship the eyes of my Lord” when the mantra “sūryāya svāhā” was chanted. Worship of different devas certainly refutes one-pointedness of resolve, but not when they are conceived as the angas of the one Bhagavān.

Summary

Performing karma with faith because it is considered to be a means to get bhakti is a type of covering on bhakti.

In the case of King Bharata, however,

1. He did not have śraddhā in yajña

2. He performed yajña through a representative.

Owing to points 1 and 2, the performance of yajña was not a covering on His bhakti.