An uttama bhakta loses the adhikāra for nitya and naimittika karma

In a previous article, I examined the adhikāra for bhakti, and contrasted it with the adhikāra for karma and jñāna. Here, I examine the remaining portion of writings in the Bhakti rasāmṛta sindhu on this topic, along with the commentaries of Śrī Jīva Goswami and Śrī Viśvanātha. As I wrote there:

“The idea that one’s dharma need not be performed seems outrageous. Perhaps this is why Śrī Rūpa Goswami hastens to clarify the topic by citing verses from the Bhāgavata. Indeed, Śrī Mukunda Goswami comments that the next five statements starting with this one (1.2.65) are provided as pramāṇa for the assertion that bhakti-adhikaris must only perform bhakti-angas, and not their varṇāśrama dharmas (tatra bhakty-adhikāriṇāṁ bhakty-aṅgānuṣṭhāna-karmākaraṇaṁ cāha sve sva ity ādi pañcabhiḥ).”

I had previously translated 1.2.65 and the corresponding commentaries. Here, I present the translations of the rest of the four verses with their commentaries, but where available, I produce Babaji’s translations from the Bhakti Sandarbha instead of mine.

|| 1.2.66 ||
prathame (1.5.17)—
tyaktvā svadharmaṁ caraṇāmbujam harer bhajann apakvo’tha patet tato yadi |
yatra kva vābhadram abhūd amuṣya kiṁ ko vārtha āpto’bhajatāṁ sva-dharmataḥ ||

In the first canto of the Bhagavata (1.5.17) —
Has inauspiciousness (abhadram) ever befallen a person, whatever his circumstances might be (yatra kva vā), who, having abandoned his prescribed duty (sva-dharma), takes to the sacred service (bhajana) of the lotus feet of Bhagavān Hari, even if he falls away from such bhajana while still in an immature condition? On the other hand, what value (artha) is gained through adherence to prescribed duty by those who fail to worship Bhagavān?

[This is Babaji’s translation].

Here, I provide Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary which basically reproduces Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary. Again, I reproduce Babaji’s translation for most of it (slightly modified for the context) —

viśvanāthaḥ : tyaktvā svadharmam ity atra śrī-svāmi-caraṇānāṁ vyākhyā yathā—evaṁ tāvat kāmya-dharmāder anartha-hetutvāt taṁ vihāya harer līlaiva varṇanīyety uktam | idānīṁ tu nitya-naimittika-svadharma-niṣṭhām apy anādṛtya kevalaṁ hari-bhakter evopadeṣṭavyety āśayenāha—tyaktveti |

Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary on this verse is as follows – In this manner, the following has been stated, “because kamya-dharma is a cause of anarthas, it should be given up and only Hari’s lila should be described”. Now with the intention of pointing out to Vyāsa that he should instruct only devotion to Bhagavān Hari, disregarding even the commitment to nitya and naimittika prescribed duties (sva-dharma), Nārada speaks this verse.

There was a question on my last article about nitya-naimittika karmas. Are these to be given up? Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary replies in the affirmative above. But if one gives up one’s dharma like this, wouldn’t there be adverse consequences or ‘anarthas’? Śrīdhara Svāmī explains that the cited verse contains the answer:

nanu svadharma-tyāgena bhajan bhakti-paripākena yadi kṛtārtho bhavet tadā na kācic cintā, yadi punar apakva eva mriyeta tato bhraśyed vā tadā svadharma-tyāga-nimitto’narthaḥ syād ity āśaṅkyāha | tato bhajanāt kathaṁcit pated bhraśyen mriyeta vā yadi tad api bhakti-rasikasya karmānadhikārān nānartha-śaṅkā |

The following doubt may be raised in this regard. If one gives up his sva-dharma to adopt the path of bhakti and attains perfection through maturity in bhakti, there is no cause for concern. But if one dies in an immature condition or falls away from the path, will he not be subjected to adverse consequences (anartha) for having abandoned his prescribed duty? To counter such an argument, Śrī Nārada asserts that if one falls from the path of bhajana, either through some form of deviation or through death, even then there is no possibility of adversity (anartha), because one in whom the taste for bhakti has been born (bhakti-rasikasya) is no longer subject to, or eligible for, the duties that pertain to karma.

A bhakta does not have the adhikāra for karma. Therefore, non-performance of karma does not bring any adverse consequences. Now, the fruitlessness of following one’s sva-dharma without bhakti is highlighted —

ṅgīkṛtyāpy āha—vā-śabdaḥ kaṭākṣe | yatra kva vā nīca-yonāv apy amuṣya bhakti-rasikasyābhadram abhūt kim | nābhūd evety arthaḥ | bhakti-vāsanā-sad-bhāvād iti bhāvaḥ | abhajadbhis tu kevalaṁ sva-dharmataḥ ko vārthaḥ āptaḥ prāptaḥ | na ko’pīty arthaḥ ||17||

In spite of accepting the possibility of a fall from bhajana, Śrī Nārada uses the word vā [conveying feeling-tone rather than meaning] in the sense of kaṭākṣa, or an exclamation that lends a hint of irony to the question. In this spirit, Nārada asks, ‘Whatever his circumstances might be (yatra kva vā), meaning, even if he is impelled to take birth in a lower species, has any inauspiciousness (abhadram) ever befallen one in whom the taste for bhakti has been born (bhakti-rasikasya)?’ The intent of the question is that such a thing has never occurred, because the residual predispositions (vāsanās) for bhakti are permanently existent (sad-bhāva) [and hence can never be lost]. On the other hand [once again using vā with ironic overtone], has any value whatsoever (ko vā artha) been gained merely through adherence to sva-dharma by those who fail to worship Bhagavān? The sense is that nothing has been gained.

The key take-home message here is that bhakti-vāsanās, or a disposition for bhakti, once gained, can never be lost. As such, one’s eligibility for bhakti continues life after life till one achieves success. The important thing in all this, of course, is that one take shelter of a genuine guru. Only then can one be considered to be on the bhakti path.

|| 1.2.67 ||
ekādaśe (11.11.37)—
ājñāyaiva guṇān doṣān mayādiṣṭān api svakān |
dharmān santyajya yaḥ sarvān māṁ bhajet sa ca sattamaḥ ||

He also is the best of the saintly who worships Me, having abandoned all of his dharmas, even though they have been ordained by Me, and in spite of knowing the virtues [of performing them] and the defects [of neglecting them]. (SB 11.11.32)

Each of these verses can be considered to encapsulate the uniqueness of the Caitanya sampradāya. Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary is instructive as always [my translation]:

śrī-jīvaḥ : kṛpālur akṛta-drohaḥ [bhā.pu. 11.11.29] ity ādau sthiraḥ sva-dharme, kaviḥ samyak jñānīti ṭīkānusāreṇa karma-jñāna-miśrā bhagavac-chravaṇa-lakṣaṇā bhaktir darśitā | tad-anantaraṁ cāha—ājñāyaivam iti | yadi ca svātmani tat-tad-guṇa-yogābhāvaḥ, tathāpy evaṁ pūrvokta-prakāreṇa guṇān kṛpālutvādīn, doṣān tad-viparītāṁś ca ājñāya heyopādeyatvena niścityāpi yo mayā teṣu guṇeṣu madhye tatrādiṣṭān api svakān nitya-nimittika-lakṣaṇān sarvān eva varṇāśrama-vihitān dharmān tad-upalakṣakaṁ jñānam api mad-ananya-bhakti-vighātakatayā santyajya māṁ bhajet, sa ca sattamaḥ | ca-kārāt pūrvokto’pi sattama ity uttarasya tat-tad-guṇābhāve’pi pūrva-sāmyam iti bodhayati ||67||

In the verses starting with kṛpālur akṛta-drohaḥ [bhā.pu. 11.11.29] (compassion, non-violence etc), the word ‘sthira’ implies fixity in one’s dharma. The word kavi means a complete jñāni. In this manner, bhakti characterized by taking shelter of Bhagavan, which involves a mixture of karma and jñāna has been demonstrated in accordance with the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Now this verse is spoken. And if these different qualities (such as compassion, non-violence, etc.) are not present in oneself, even so, determining that the qualities like compassion and so on are desirable and contrary qualities are undesirable, as described previously, and [still] completely abandoning whatever varṇāśrama dharmas, like nitya and naimittika duties I have instructed among these qualities, along with jñāna which is implied by them, as destructive to My undeviating bhakti, he who worships Me is a sat-tama or best among the sat. The word ‘ca’ implies that the person [with the afore-mentioned good qualities] is also a sat-tama, but the person spoken of this verse is comparable despite lacking those good qualities.

The verses beginning with 11.11.29 instruct bhakti mixed with karma and jñāna. This verse 11.11.37, however, speaks about uttamā bhakti, unmixed with faith in karma or jñāna. Here, we see that the verse suggests the abandonment of nitya and naimittika karma. The same thing is seen in Śrīdhara Svāmī’s comment cited in the Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda 200, which I reproduce below for completeness (Babaji’s translation),

ṭīkā ca—mayā veda-rūpeṇa ādiṣṭānapi sva-dharmān santyajya yo māṁ bhajeta, so’py evaṁ pūrvoktavat sattamaḥ | kim ajñānād nāstikyād vā ? na | dharmācaraṇe sattva-śuddhy-ādīn guṇān, vipakṣe naraka-pātādīn doṣāṁś cājñāya jñātvāpi mad-dhyāna-vikṣepakatayā mad-bhaktyaiva sarvaṁ bhaviṣyatīti dṛḍha-niścayenaiva dharmān santyajya | yad vā, bhakti-dārḍhyena nivṛttādhikāratayā santyajya ||ity eṣā |

Śrīdhara Svāmī comments: “One who relinquishes his prescribed duties, even though ordained by Me in the form of the injunctions of the Vedas, and worships Me, is also the best of the saintly (sattama), just as is the individual described in the preceding group of verses. Does the person referred to here abandon his prescribed duties out of ignorance or due to atheism? No. He gives them up in spite of knowing their virtues, such as the purification of heart that ensues from upholding one’s religious duties (dharma), as well as the defects of neglecting them. He gives up all such prescribed duties with the firm conviction that all perfection will come about simply by devotion to Bhagavān, considering all other dharma as a distraction from his meditation on Bhagavān. Alternatively, he may give up routine dharma because his eligibility for the path of karma has reached its end, due to the appearance of firm faith in bhakti.”

Again, we see in the commentary above that with the appearance of firm faith in bhakti, one’s eligibility for the path of karma comes to an end.

Śrī Rūpa Goswami cites the next verse:

|| 1.2.68 ||
tatraiva (11.5.41)—
devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṝṇāṁ pitṝṇāṁ na kiṅkaro nāyam ṛṇī ca rājan |
sarvātmanā yaḥ śaraṇaṁ śaraṇyaṁ gato mukundaṁ parihṛtya kartam ||

O King, one who abandons all obligations and wholeheartedly resorts to the refuge of Bhagavān Mukunda, who alone is worthy of shelter, is no longer a servant of or a debtor to the devas, the sages, the living beings in general, family members, humankind, or the forefathers. (SB 11.5.41)

Śrī Jīva Goswami’s writes:

śrī-jīvaḥ : ayam indraḥ sevyaḥ, ayaṁ candraḥ sevya ity ādi-lakṣaṇaṁ bhedaṁ, śaraṇam anena prārabdha-nāśāt varṇāśramitva-nāśena na nitya-karmādhikāraḥ | kṛtyam iti pāṭhe’pi sa evārthaḥ ||68||

Abandoning differential vision, such as “This Indra should be served”, “This Candra should be served”, [one who exclusively] takes shelter [of Bhagavān Mukunda] does not have the adhikāra for nitya karma owing to destruction of his varṇāśramitva, or quality of being in varṇāśrama. The same meaning applies in the alternative reading of kartam as kṛtyam.

We see the same theme repeating again and again in these verses. An uttama bhakta loses the adhikāra for nitya and naimittika karmas, or in other words, for varṇāśrama dharma. Now he cites a verse from the Bhagavad-gītā which teaches the same principle:

|| 1.2.69 ||
śrī-bhagavad-gītāsu (18.66)—
sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja |
ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā sucaḥ ||

Abandoning completely all [attachment to] conventional duties, seek refuge in Me alone. I will free you from all sins; do not grieve. (GĪTĀ 18.66)9

Śrī Jīva Goswami’s in his commentary explains how there is no sin in giving up nitya and naimittika karmas:

śrī-jīvaḥ : pari-śabdaḥ svarūpato’pi tyāgaṁ bodhayati | sarva-pāpebhyaḥ sarvāntarāyebhyaḥ ity evārthaḥ | śrī-bhagavad-ājñayā bhaktau śraddhāvatāṁ karma-tyāge pāpānutpatteḥ ||69||

The word ‘pari’ [in parityajya] means giving up [varṇāśrama dharma] in their very essence [i.e. not performing them at all as opposed to merely giving up the results of the karmas]. The word sarva-pāpebhya means all obstacles. [The word pāpa does not mean ‘sin’ here] because the giving up of karma by those who have faith in bhakti is done to follow Śrī Bhagavān’s command, sin cannot be produced.

Summary

An uttama bhakta does not have adhikāra for nitya and naimittika karma

Giving up nitya and naimittika karma does not produce sin because it is done to follow the order of Bhagavān