Effects of aparādha: aśraddhā or absence of faith

In a previous article, I listed the five effects of aparādha. Here I examine the second in the list: aśraddhā (absence of faith). Śrī Jīva Goswami discusses aśraddhā in Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda 154. He begins by defining it:

dṛṣṭe śrute’pi tan-mahimādau viparīta-bhāvanādinā viśvāsābhāvaḥ |

Even after witnessing and hearing about the glories of bhakti, an absence of conviction (viśvāsa-abhāva) about those glories, due to harboring contrary opinions and so on (viparīta-bhāvanādi), is known as aśraddhā.

He offers an example:

yathā  duryodhanasyaiva viśvarūpa-darśanādāv api |

An example of this is seen in the case of Duryodhana, who did not accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s Godhood [Parameśvaratā] even after seeing Him manifest His universal form.

Generally, the absence of faith in ordinary people is with regard to the hearing of śāstra. Śrī Jīva’s example is striking because Duryodhana did not merely hear about Bhagavān’s greatness. He directly witnessed it. Yet he remained devoid of belief that Kṛṣṇa was Bhagavān Himself, concluding instead that He was simply a magician. This is how aparādha functions: it prevents a person from accepting the truth of what he has seen. Duryodhana did not lack evidence. He lacked belief.

Śrī Jīva then contrasts this with those who directly experienced Bhagavān, and in whom that experience induced conviction. He cites two examples:

ata eva yathā—āpannaḥ saṁsṛtiṁ ghorāṁ yan nāma vivaśo gṛṇan [bhā.pu. 1.1.14] ity-ādi-śaunakasya, dantā gajānāṁ kuliśāgra-niṣṭhurāḥ [vi.pu. 1.17.44] iti śrī-prahlādasyānubhava-siddhaṁ, na tathā sarveṣām |

Therefore, the realized experience of Śrī Śaunaka and that of Śrī Prahlāda are not the experience of everyone.

Śaunaka’s conviction is expressed in these words:
A person entangled in the terrifying state of temporal existence, who, even out of a sense of sheer helplessness, utters the name of He whom Fear itself fears, is immediately delivered from that temporal state. (sb 1.1.14)

Śrī Prahlāda’s faith in regard to his own experience is expressed in the following words:
It is not by my own power that the tusks of these elephants, which were as hard as the tip of a thunderbolt, got smashed. It is only the effect of continuous remembrance of Bhagavān Janārdana, which destroys all great calamities. (vp 1.17.44)

In all three cases, Bhagavān’s greatness was directly evident. Yet the outcome differed. Duryodhana remained without conviction, whereas Śaunaka and Prahlāda became established in it. The difference is not the presence or absence of experience. The difference is the presence or absence of obstruction within the heart.

This also clarifies a common misunderstanding. Some people think, “If Bhagavān reveals Himself to me, then I will believe.” Śrī Jīva’s example shows that this demand is mistaken. Even direct revelation does not guarantee faith, because offenses can block the ability to trust even what is directly perceived.

Moreover, Śrī Jīva indicates that extraordinary manifestations of Bhagavān’s power do not occur on demand. Such displays generally occur when devotees wish Bhagavān’s greatness to become evident for the sake of others, as in Prahlāda’s case, where his aim was that his father recognize Bhagavān. In ordinary life, devotees do not seek demonstrations for their own protection, nor do they seek to impress others. Therefore Bhagavān remains hidden from view.

Not understanding this, people may draw false conclusions when they see devotees undergo difficulties. They may doubt the power of bhakti. Śrī Jīva Goswami warns against such reasoning.