I continue translating Śrī Viśvanātha’s fascinating commentary on the Bhāgavata verses 6.2.9 and 6.2.10 which teaches fundamental principles of nāma-aparādha, or offense to Bhagavān’s name. I pick up the thread at the following paragraph which I had translated in the section prior to this:
api ca, yathā nāmabhāsa-balenājāmilo durācāro’pi vaikuṇṭhaṁ prāpitas tathaiva smārtādayaḥ sadācārāḥ śāstrajñā api bahuśo nāma-grāhiṇo’py artha-vāda-kalpanādi-nāmāparādha-balena ghora-saṁsāram eva prāpyanta ity ato nāma-māhātmya-dṛṣṭyā sarva-mukti-prasaṅgo’pi nāśaṅkyaḥ |
Furthermore, just as Ajāmila, despite being ill-behaved, attained Vaikuṇṭha on the strength of nāmābhāsa, the smārtas and others, who are well-behaved, and knowers of śāstra, only attain the fearful saṁsāra despite uttering the names many times, owing to the strength of committing offenses to the name of artha-vāda-kalpanam. As such, by ascertaining the glory of the name, one should never doubt that it can award liberation to all.
The point was made that if one chants Bhagavān’s name with the offense of artha-vāda-kalpanam or imagining the glories of the name to be mere commendations, then one will not attain the result of uttering Bhagavān’s name, which is a) destruction of all sin, and b) bhakti for Bhagavān. To this, there is an objection raised, which I translate below.
nanv artha-vādādi-nāmāparādhavatāṁ nāmāparādha-hetuko’dhaḥ-pāto bhavatu nāma, tatra na vivadāmahe | nāma-grahaṇa-hetukaḥ sarva-pāpa-kṣayo bhavati na vā ? ādye karmi-jñāni-yogi-bhaktānāṁ tad-bhinnānām api nṛṇāṁ madhye pāradārika-para-hiṁsādi-gamyeṣu narakeṣu kenāpi na gantavyam | dvitīye karmi-prabhṛtibhir iva bhaktair api pāpa-bhogārthaṁ narakeṣu gantavyam eva |
Objection: Let a fall-down caused by nāmāparādha occur for those who commit offenses of artha-vāda and other types to the name. We do not contest that. [But here is a question–] Does all sin get destroyed due to having uttered the name? Or does it not? In the former case [i.e. it is all destroyed], no one among the karmis, jñānis, the yogis, the bhaktas, or even among those human beings different from these, are worthy of going to the hells meant for those who desire other people’s wives, or violently harm others. In the latter case, the bhaktas also, just like the karmis and others, must go to hells for partaking of their sins.
The objection anticipates the discussion below. Śrī Viśvanātha is going to make the case that those who practice karma or jñāna with bhakti as a minor component in their practice are implicated in the eighth offense (discussed below). Yet, that bhakti empowers their practice of karma or jñāna to bear their respective results. This seems to invalidate Śrī Viśvanātha’s thesis that bhakti does not manifest her power to one who has offenses like artha-vāda-kalpanam and others.
The objection also sets up Śrī Viśvanātha’s examination of the fate of bhaktas who are implicated in offense.
The objection states that if we presume sin is completely destroyed by uttering Bhagavān’s name, even in those who are offensive to the name, then anyone and everyone who utters the name only once will be saved from hell despite their past sinful acts. And if offense prevents bhakti from manifesting its effect, then even bhaktas who are implicated in offense will have to go to hell, which makes a mockery of the power of bhakti.
To this, he responds —
tatrocyate—yathā mahājanaḥ svāśritānām āśrayaṇa-tāratamyeṇa pālana-tāratamyaṁ kurvann api tān eva pālayati, yadi te tad-aparādhinaḥ syur iti tasyāprasāda eva svāśritā-pālane kāraṇaṁ, na tu pālanāsāmarthyaṁ kalpanīyam | teṣām evāparādha-kṣaya-tāratamyeṇa teṣu tasya prasāda-tāratamyaṁ ca | sarvāparādha-kṣaye prasāda eva | evam eva nāmopalakṣitāṁ bhakti-devīṁ ye guṇī-bhāvenāśrayante karmādi-phala-siddhy-atrthaṁ, teṣu guṇībhūtāyā bhakter vartamānatve’pi « prādhānyena vyapadeśā bhavanti » iti nyāyena te karmi-jñāny-ādi-śabdenābhidhīyante |
The reply is as follows. The mahājanas protect those who take their shelter, even while protecting them in accordance with the degree of their taking shelter. But their displeasure alone is to be considered the cause of not protecting those who take shelter in case they are offenders to them, and not the cause is their inability to protect. And the degree of their grace toward them is in accord with the degree of removal of the offenses. If all offenses are removed, then there is only grace [i.e. complete grace]. In the same manner, those who take shelter of Bhakti-devī characterized by the utterance of the name with the concept that she is minor [component], but rather for the purpose of achieving the fruit of karma or other processes, are called by the words karmi, jñāni and others. This is despite the fact that bhakti is present in them secondarily, by the logic of prādhānyena vyapadeśā bhavanti — an object is indicated according to that which is primary [in it].
The reply above starts with an example of mahājanas, and then explains the behavior of Bhagavān’s name to be similar. First, Śrī Viśvanātha establishes some terminology. In this terminology, the word karmi refers to a karma-yogi, who practices bhakti as a minor component of his or her karma yoga. Likewise, a jñāni refers to a jñāna-yogi who practices bhakti as a minor component. They practice bhakti because they want their practices to bear fruit. The important point is that they take shelter of bhakti to some small extent. Like the mahājanas who provide protection to all who take shelter according to the degree of taking shelter (āśrayaṇa-tāratamya), bhakti also provides protection to all in accordance with the degree of their taking shelter. However, the mahājanas will not protect those who are offensive to them. Likewise, bhakti will not protect if there are offenses present.
Now, the karmi or jñāni takes shelter of bhakti as a minor component in their practice. Interestingly, this act in itself is intrinsically an offense to bhakti. Śrī Viśvanātha explains —
na tu vaiṣṇava-śabdena te ca svarūpata evaika-nāmāparādhavantaḥ | yad uktaṁ—
dharma-vrata-tyāga-hutādi-sarva-śubha-kriyā-sāmyam api pramādaḥ
iti nāmno dharmādibhiḥ sāmyam apy aparādhaḥ, kim uta dharmādy-aṅgatvena guṇībhūtatvam ity arthaḥ | tad api tādṛśa-svāśrayaṇa-guṇa-leśa-grahaṇenaivaiṣāṁ karma-yogādayo mā viphalā bhavantv iti svīya-dākṣiṇyena svāpakarṣaṁ svīkṛtyāpi bhakti-devī teṣāṁ karmādy-aṅga-bhūtaiva karmādi-phalaṁ niṣpratyūham utpādayati yathā tathaiva teṣāṁ pāpam api prāyaścittāṅga-bhūtaiva nāśayati |
And they are not indicated by the word Vaiṣṇava, being offenders to the name intrinsically, as stated —
It is an offense to equate the name with all the other pious works (śubha-kriyā) recommended in scripture, such as prescribed duties, vows, renunciation, and sacrifices (dharmavrata-tyāgaḥ …)
Thus, even equating the name to dharma and other items is an offense, what to speak of considering it as a minor component of dharma etc. Bhakti-devī, becoming a limb of their karma etc., generates the unimpeded fruit of karma etc., thinking “may their karma, yoga etc not be fruitless”, after even accepting her own diminution, out of her kindness, accepting the slight positive quality of their having taken that kind of shelter. In exactly the same way, she destroys their sin also, becoming a limb of atonement (prāyaścitta).
He starts by citing the eight offense which involves equating the name to dharma or other pious acts. If one exalts dharma above bhakti or jñāna above bhakti, that would most certainly be an offense. However, as in the example of the mahajanas above who provide protection in accord with the degree of taking shelter, bhakti also, being compassionate, offers protection in accord with the degree of taking shelter. As such, she disregards the eighth offense. Importantly, she destroys sins in like manner, by becoming a minor component of the acts of prāyaścitta.
Obviously, if bhakti is not part of one’s practice at all, even as a minor component, then she will not offer protection. As such, those who are not karmis and jnanis even, will not receive protection from bhakti and must endure the sufferings of hell for their past misdeeds —
nānyathety atas tair evākṛta-prāyaścittais tat-tat-pāpa-phala-bhogārthaṁ teṣu teṣu narakeṣu gantavyam eva na tu vaiṣṇavaiḥ |
[But she does not do so] under any other circumstances. Therefore, those who have not performed atonement [which includes bhakti as a minor component], must certainly go the respective hells for experiencing the fruits of their sins. Vaiṣṇavas do not go there.
But will bhakti protect regardless of the type of offense? No, as she does not disregard the other nine offenses to the name which I have listed here. Śrī Viśvanātha writes —
yadi ca te punar anyān artha-vāda-sādhu-nindādīn nāmāparādhān kurvāṇā eva dharmādikam anutiṣṭhanti, tadā dharmādy-aṅga-bhūtāpi na tat-tat-phalam utpādayati |ke te’parādhā viprendra nāmno bhagavataḥ kṛtāḥ |vinighnanti nṛṇāṁ kṛtyaṁ prākṛtaṁ hy ānayanti ca || ity ādi-vacanebhyaḥ |
She, however, does not produce the fruits of karma, jñāna etc., despite being [performed as a] limb of dharma etc., by those who, while performing their dharmas, additionally commit other offenses including the offense of artha-vāda, criticism of devotees, etc. This is seen from statements such as ,”Which are those offenses, O best of the vipras, committed toward the name of Bhagavān, which destroy the [spiritual] merits of human beings, and bring material results instead?
Since offenses are the major block in acquiring the results of karma and jñāna, the extent of freedom from those offenses determines the extent to which those practices will bear fruit —
kiṁ ca, teṣām api tat-tad-aparādhebhyo nivṛttya tad-upaśamaka-nāma-kīrtanādi-parāṇāṁ nāmāparādha-kṣaya-tāratamyena karma-phala-prāpti-tāratamyam | sādhu-saṅga-vaśāt sarva-nāmāparādha-kṣaye tu bhakti-devī-samyak-prasādena nāma-phala-prāptir eva nirvivādā |
Furthermore, on becoming free from those specific offenses, the extent to which those, who are dedicated to singing the names as a means to remove offenses, acquire the results of their karma, accords with the extent to which their offenses to the name have been destroyed. However, impelled by the association of sadhus, if all offenses to the name are destroyed, then the result of the name becomes attained owing to the complete grace of Bhakti-devī. This is incontestable.
The method to remove the offenses is the chanting of the names of Bhagavān. If even the eight offense of considering bhakti as less than dharma or other practices is removed owing to the good fortune of the association of a devotee, then the name will manifest the result of bhakti itself, which is bhakti for Bhagavān. This happened in the case of Ajāmila who was free of offenses when he uttered the name of Bhagavān.
Now, Śrī Viśvanātha raises another objection. Ajāmila himself could be considered a karma-yogi prior to his fall-down. As such, he would be implicated in the eight offense. Why did Bhakti-devī award him the result of the name then, instead of simply awarding him the results of his prior dharmic practice?
nanv ajāmilasyāpi—ayaṁ hi śruta-sampanna [bhā.pu. 6.1.56] ity ādi yamadūta-vākyaiḥ prāktanaṁ karmitvam avagamyate |
Objection: Even Ajāmila can be understood to have been a prior karmi as stated by the Yama-dūtas, “he was well-versed in the śruti”.
He replies to the objection —
satyaṁ, madirā-pānād brāhmaṇyam apy asya naṣṭam eva | kim uta karmitvam | yad ucyate—
evaṁ sa viplāvita-sarva-dharmā dāsyāḥ patiḥ patito garhya-karmaṇā | [bhā.pu. 6.2.45] iti |
karmāpagama-kṣaṇe eva bhakter guṇī-bhāvo’py apagataḥ | punaś ca sva-putrāhvānādau nārāyaṇa-nāmoccāraṇa-nibandhanā kevalānanyaiva bhaktir asyābhūd iti |
True. Even his brāhmaṇa-ness had been destroyed on account of drinking alcohol etc. What then can be said about his being a karmi? This is stated in bhā.pu. 6.2.45 —
“In this way, he, the husband of the dāsi, becoming bereft of all dharmas, became fallen due to contemptible actions.”
When he ceased to be a karmi, his bhakti which was a minor component in the karma, was also lost. And thereafter, he attained pure bhakti alone, bound by the utterance of the name, “Nārāyaṇa”, at the time of calling his son.
As seen in Śrī Viśvanātha’s reply, Ajāmila had lost his varṇa. As such, he was no longer on the path of karma-yoga, and therefore was bereft of the offense of considering bhakti as a minor component. In other words, he was completely offenseless.
Now Śrī Viśvanātha raises one final objection to his thesis. It seems a stretch to call karma-yoga as being intrinsically offensive, given that the practice of karma-yoga is enjoined in the scriptures —
nanu karma-jñānādy-aṅgatve bhaktiṁ kurvīteti yadi vidhi-vākyam evāsti tarhi kutas teṣāṁ nāmāparādhaḥ ? ucyate—bhaktyaiva sarve’pi dharmāḥ samyag eva siddhyanti, bhakti-leśenāpi mahā-pātakāny api naśyantīty ādi paraḥ-śata-śāstra-vākyeṣv apy aviśvasatāṁ karma-jñānayor eva śraddhālūnāṁ bhakti-bahirmukhānām aśuddha-kuṭila-cittānām apy anenaiva prakāreṇa bhaktir bhavatv iti dayāmayam eva veda-śāstraṁ dharma-jñānādy-aṅgatvena bhaktiṁ vidhatta ity ato na śāstra-vākyam upālambhanīyam iti | tataś ca vaidha-paśu-hiṁsā-kṛto vidhi-balāt svarga-prāptāv api yathā tad-dhiṁsā-doṣānapagamas tathaiva bhakti-guṇī-bhāva-karaṇa-rūpāparādhavato vidhi-balāt karma-phala-prāptāv api tad-aparādhān apagama eva jñeya iti |
Objection — why would there be an offense to the name on the part of those who perform bhakti as a limb of karma or jñāna, if there are statements that enjoin such performance? We reply, there are hundreds of scriptural statements of the type —
“by bhakti alone are all the dharmas properly successful.”
“Even the the great sins are destroyed by the slightest bhakti. “
For those who disbelieve these statements, and have belief only in karma and jñāna, who face away from bhakti, and who have unclean and crooked hearts even, the compassionate veda-śāstras instruct bhakti as a limb of dharma and jñāna, thinking, “may they get bhakti in this manner even”. Therefore scriptural statements should not be criticized. As such, even though a person who kills an animal according to injunction, attains heaven on the strength of following the injunction, does not become free from the fault of that violence. In like manner, one who commits the offense of treating bhakti as a minor method, attains the result of the karma owing to following the injunction, yet, does not become free from those offenses. This needs to be understood.
Śrī Viśvanātha takes up the question of offenses in devotees next. I will translate that in the next article.
Summary
- The eighth offense to the name is as follows —
- “It is an offense to equate the name with all the other pious works (śubha-kriyā) recommended in scripture, such as prescribed duties, vows, renunciation, and sacrifices (dharmavrata-tyāgaḥ …)”
- This offense is implicit in karma yoga and jñāna yoga because bhakti is practiced as a minor component of those processes.
- Bhakti-devī disregards this offense, and awards the results of karma yoga and jñāna yoga to their practitioners out of compassion. This includes the destruction of sins. But she does not award bhakti to such practitioners because they are not free of the eighth offense.
- She does not award any result if practitioners commit offenses other than the eighth offense.
- She awards bhakti only to those who are free from all offenses.
Leave a Reply