Reader Sandeep ji requested help in resolving discrepancies in translations of Anu 153 of the Bhakti Sandarbha between Babaji and Maharajji. While this post addresses his question, I will also take this opportunity to explain the main precept in the section.

In a previous series of articles, I had translated and discussed Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary on the Bhāgavata verses 6.2.9 and 6.2.10. The articles in that series are here, here, and here. There, we saw how three offenses can completely destroy one’s very Vaiṣṇava-ness. I reproduce Śrī Viśvanātha’s statement below:

kāni tu prabala-nāmāparādha-phalāni yato daśasu nāmāparādheṣu madhye arthavādārthāntara-kalpana-śubha-karma-sāmyam iti trayaṁ sākṣād vaiṣṇavatāyā eva vyāghātakāḥ |

On the other hand, some are results of powerful nāma-aparādhas [which are so-called] because out of the ten nāma-aparādhas, they are the destroyers of Vaiṣṇava-ness itself. These are the three aparādhas of i) considering the glories of the name as mere commendations, ii) ascribing one’s own imaginary meaning to the name, and iii) equating the name with all the other pious works recommended in scripture, such as prescribed duties (karma), vows, renunciation, and sacrifices.

The eighth offense – equating the name with all the other pious works recommended in scripture – is particularly troublesome and I have seen it afflict many Gauḍiyas. Here are some examples that I have seen:

1. Chanting Bhagavān’s names in place of mantras for Vaiṣṇava weddings.

2. Invoking auspiciousness at rituals by chanting Bhagavān’s names. As an example, chanting the names to create an auspicious atmosphere during gṛha-praveśa or upanayana

The most misuse I have seen of Bhagavān’s names these days is of the following types —

3. Singing the name to entertain the audience at fund-raisers, charity concerts, etc.

4. Singing “Hare Kṛṣṇa to you” to young children on their birthday.

As an aside, while bhakti can disregard the eight offense of equating the name other pious works in karma-yogīs or jñāna-yogīs, it does not forgive the other nine offenses in any one. Further, it does not forgive even the eighth offense in Vaiṣṇavas, given that the eighth offense destroys Vaiṣṇava-ness itself.

Returning to the topic of Babaji’s translation of Anu 153, I pick up the thread somewhere in the middle, where Śrī Jīva writes (I am citing Babaji’s translations throughout) —

tathaiva nāmny arthavāda-kalpanāyāṁ doṣo’pi śrūyate, tathārtha-vādo hari-nāmni [pa.pu. 3.25.16] iti hi pādme nāmāparādha-gaṇane |

Furthermore, it is stated in many places in scripture that it is a defect to consider the glories of the holy name as mere commendations (artha-vāda). To do so has been specifically mentioned in the Padma Purāṇa [Brahma-khaṇḍa 25.16] as one of the offenses against the holy name.

He cites evidence —

artha-vādaṁ harer nāmni sambhāvayati yo naraḥ | sa pāpiṣṭho manuṣyāṇāṁ niraye patati sphuṭam || iti kātyāyana-saṁhitāyām |
In this regard, the following statement is made in the Kātyāyana-saṁhitā:

A person who considers the glories of the holy name to be mere commendatory proclamations (artha-vāda) is the most sinful among human beings, and he certainly falls into hell. (Kātyāyana-saṁhitā

and more evidence:

man-nāma-kīrtana-phalaṁ vividhaṁ niśamya na śraddadhāti manute yad utārtha-vādam | yo mānuṣas tam iha duḥkha-caye kṣipāmi saṁsāra-ghora-vividhārti-nipīḍitāṅgam ||

iti brahma-saṁhitāyāṁ bodhāyanaṁ prati śrī-parameśvaroktau |

In the Brahma-saṁhitā,⁶ Śrī Parameśvara informs Bodhāyana: A person who, on hearing of the various results of singing or uttering My names, not only disbelieves them but considers them to be mere commendations, is cast by Me into the ocean of misery, his limbs tormented by a multitude of severe worldly afflictions. (Brahma-saṁhitā)

He now explains that arthavāda is one of the offenses that prevents bhakti’s fruit from manifesting–

tato’ntarbhūta-nāmānusandhāneṣv anyeṣu tad-bhajaneṣu ca sutarām evārtha-vāde doṣo’vagamyate | tad evaṁ yathārtha eva tan-māhātmye saty api yatra samprati tad-bhajane phalodayo na dṛśyate,  kutracic chāstre ca purātanānām apy anyathā śrūyate tatra nāmārtha-vāda-kalpanā-vaiṣṇavānādarādayo durantā aparādhā eva pratibandha-kāraṇaṁ vaktavyam |

From this, it is certainly evident that it is an offense to consider as mere commendations (artha-vāda) the glories of other devotional acts in which the pursuit of Bhagavān’s names are included. Thus, in spite of the glories of the name being real (yathārtha eva), if the fruit of various devotional acts is not seen to arise at present in a given individual, or if the nonattainment of the fruit by certain people in the past is heard of somewhere in scripture, it should be understood in all such cases that the power of the name has been obstructed from manifesting its result by grave offenses, such as considering the glories of the name as mere commendations (artha-vāda) or disrespecting the Vaiṣṇavas.

As an example, Śrī Jīva cites a statement from the Bhāgavatam —

ata evoktaṁ śrī-śaunakena—

Therefore, Śrī Śaunaka said:

tad aśma-sāraṁ hṛdayaṁ batedaṁ yad gṛhyamāṇair hari-nāma-dheyaiḥ | na vikriyetātha yadā vikāro netre jalaṁ gātra-ruheṣu harṣaḥ || [bhā.pu. 2.3.24] iti |

Alas, the heart that does not melt while uttering the names of Bhagavān Hari is of the essence of stone. Otherwise, when the heart does melt, tears flow from the eyes and the hairs of the body stand on end in ecstasy. (sb 2.3.24)

So as we can see, the entire section is on the grave consequences of considering the glories of the name as mere commendations (artha-vāda). Below (this section is the subject of Sandeep ji’s question) Śrī Jīva now explains that people do not experience the effects of uttering the name because of offenses. He writes —

yathā prāyeṇādhunikānām | yathā vā,

brahmaṇyasya vadānyasya tava dāsasya keśava | smṛtir nādyāpi vidhvastā bhavat-sandarśanārthinaḥ || [bhā.pu. 10.64.25] iti |

By way of example, it is generally observed that due to offenses, present-day people do not experience the effects of uttering the name. An example from scripture of someone in the past in whom the results of devotional acts remained obstructed by an offense, is heard of in the case of King Nṛga, who spoke as follows:

O Keśava, the past life remembrance of this servant of Yours, who was devoted to the brāhmaṇas, munificent in offering charity, and anxious to obtain a direct vision of You, has not been lost, right up to the present. (sb 10.64.25)

The idea here is to show that offenses block the result of bhakti. The words yathā prāyeṇādhunikānām intend to explain this in the context of present-day people (i.e. at the time of Śrī Jīva). In them, the results of uttering the name are seen not to manifest. Next, the words yathā vā, seek to show the same principle in past people (vā indicates contrast). I now present Babaji’s translation of the last part of the section under consideration —

tad-ukta-rītyādhyavasita-bhakter api nṛgasya, jihvā na vakti [bhā.pu. 6.3.29] ity-ādi-yama-vākya-viruddhaṁ yama-loka-gamanaṁ prāptavato vinā cārthavāda-kalpanāmayaṁ bhāvaṁ śruta-śāstrasyāpi tasya satyāṁ tādṛśa-māhātmyāyāṁ bhaktau śrīmad-ambarīṣādivat sevāgrahaṁ parityajya dāna-karmāgraho na syāt |

From the above statement, it is apparent that King Nṛga was guilty of considering the glories of bhakti as artha-vāda, otherwise he would not have been transferred to the abode of Yama in spite of having performed acts of devotion. In fact, his being sent to the abode of Yama contradicted the order of Yama himself:

Bring me only the unrighteous who perform no acts of service to Bhagavān Viṣṇu, whose tongues do not utter His name or qualities, whose minds do not reflect on His lotus feet, and whose heads never bow down even once before Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa. (sb 6.3.29)

The sense is that in spite of having heard the conclusions of scripture, had King Nṛga not considered the glories of bhakti to be artha-vāda, he would not have set aside his enthusiasm for the service of Bhagavān and attached so much importance to the mere act of giving charity. Rather, like Śrī Ambarīṣa Mahārāja, he would have been absorbed in the execution of bhakti, which truly possesses the greatness spoken of in scripture.

I will now deconstruct the sentence myself. To understand the long sentence, we can go backward. The visible verb in the sentence is syāt. The subject is dāna-karmāgrahah. So, one sentence is:

satyāṁ tādṛśa-māhātmyāyāṁ bhaktau sevāgrahaṁ parityajya dāna-karmāgraho na syāt:

(if) bhakti of that type of greatness had been present (in him), the attaching of importance to charity while giving up the performance of bhakti would not have occurred (nṛgasya=in Nṛga).

In Sanskrit sentences, words are related to the verb. For the first part of sentence, one can supply the verb na syāt in that part again (as no other visible verb is present). So we get:

tad-ukta-rītyādhyavasita-bhakter api nṛgasya, jihvā na vakti [bhā.pu. 6.3.29] ity-ādi-yama-vākya-viruddhaṁ yama-loka-gamanaṁ prāptavato vinā cārthavāda-kalpanāmayaṁ bhāvaṁ śruta-śāstrasyāpi tasya (na syāt).

The words tasya śruta-śāstrasya’ are in the same case (and so refer to the same person) as (ity-ādi-yama-vākya-viruddhaṁ yama-loka-gamanaṁ) prāptavato nṛgasya. The words vinā cārthavāda-kalpanāmayaṁ bhāvaṁ (without having the concept that the glories of bhakti are to considered as artha-vāda) are related to na syāt. The translation would be

The attainment of the abode of Yama (yama-loka-gamanaṁ) by Nṛga(nṛgasya), which is opposed to Yama’s own statement (yama-vākya-viruddhaṁ ) in jihvā na vakti [bhā. pu. 6.3.29], (would not have occurred, na syāt) without harboring the concept that the glories of bhakti are to be considered as artha-vāda (vinā cārthavāda-kalpanāmayaṁ bhāvaṁ) in him who had heard scripture even (śruta-śāstrasyāpi tasya).

This translation is rather clunky and obtuse, and really highlights how Babaji’s translation explains the concepts seamlessly without confusing the reader.

As to Maharajji’s translation, that is also another possible way of translating it. This is not uncommon for Sanskrit passages. Maharajji takes the entire section as not about Nṛga, but about the greatness of bhakti. I include his translation below.