Bhakti Sandarbha 173 in-depth

Recently one devotee probed me on the Bhakti Sandarbha text 173. I passed his inquiry on to Dr. Satya Nārāyan Dās of the Jiva Institute:

Revered Prabhuji,
Please accept my Rādhe Rādhe.
In Bhakti Sandarbha (173) it is said:

api cet sudurācāraḥ [gītā 9.30] ity-ādy-uktasyānanya-bhāktvena lakṣitā tu yā śraddhā sā khalu ye śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ [gītā 17.1] itival loka-paramparā-prāptā, na tu śāstrāvadhāraṇa-jātā | śāstrīya-śraddhāyāṁ tu jātāyāṁ sudurācāratvāyogaḥ syāt | para-patnī-para-dravya- [vi.pu. 3.8.14] ity-ādi-viṣṇu-toṣaṇa-śāstra-virodhāt | maryādāṁ kṛtāṁ tena ity ādinā tad-bhaktatva-virodhāc ca | na tu sā durācāratā tad-bhakti-mahima-śraddhākṛtaiva | api-śabdena durācāratvasya heyatva-vyañjanāt | tathā kṣipraṁ bhavati dharmātmā ity-uttarāpratipatteḥ | nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa-buddhiḥ ity ādināparādhāpātāc ca |  tataḥ sā śraddhā na śāstrīya-bhakty-adhikāriṇāṁ viśeṣaṇatve praveśanīyā, kintu bhakti-praśaṁsāyām eva 

“The ananya bhak-ness (exclusive devotion) which is mentioned in the Gītā (9.30) verse: “Even if one commits very bad acts but is exclusively devoted to Me he is considered a saint” refers to popular faith which is attained through hearsay, as is referred to in the Gītā (17.1) verse: “Whoever gives up the rules of scripture and worships according to faith…” This, however, is not faith imbibed through the scriptures, because very bad behavior is impossible with such faith, and would contradict statements from Viṣṇu Toṣaṇa like "Lord Kṛṣṇa is never pleased by thieves or adulterers, or those who harm others." or Viṣṇu Dharmottara "One who does not follow the etiquette or protocol (maryādā) cannot be considered a devotee of Lord Viṣṇu. The Lord is worshiped only by they who act in a saintly way." Very bad conduct cannot be the result of faith in the glories of devotion to Kṛṣṇa. The word api in the text (even if he commits very bad things..) also indicates how contemptible it is to behave very badly. If it weren’t, then the following verse (Gītā 9.31), ‘He will soon become righteous and attain lasting peace’, would make no sense and the offense of commiting sinful activities on strength of chanting the holy name would be committed. So this adjective (api cet sudurācāra) should not be accepted as referring to a devotee who has scriptural devotion, rather this statement is a glorification (of the process of devotion).

One devotee, however, asked me: “What about the urges? Are they not exempt from śāstrīya śraddhā? Don't you think a very very bad conduct can be forced by an urge?” He then quoted Śrīmad Bhāgavata 11.14.18:

bādhyamāno’pi mad bhakto viṣayair ajitendriyaḥ
prāyah pragalbhayā bhaktyā viṣayair nābhibhūyate

spoken by Śrī Kṛṣṇa, about devotees who feel bad for their behavior but cannot avoid it. So we don’t understand what Śrī Jīva means with that no person with śāstrīya śraddhā would commit very sinful activities, which are glossed by the ācāryas as theft and adultery. These things seem not to depend on having either śāstrīya- or laukik śraddhā."

(SND) "Dear Advaita prabhuji
Dandavat. Jai Śrī Radha Madanagopal!
In this verse of Śrīmad Bhagavata, Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa clearly says that such a person is not overpowered (na abhibhuyate) by the sense objects. He is bādhyamana, i.e. troubled. The urges, because of prārabdha, appear in the mind but he is not subjugated by them because of the power of bhakti, which is more powerful than the urges (pragalbhayā bhaktyā). This is how I see the verse.
But if it is accepted that the verse means that such a devotee actually engages in sense pleasures then it is to be understood that these pleasures are not the sinful types, forbidden in the scripture i.e. himsa etc.
A devotee having śāstrīya śraddhā will not engage in such acts because it goes against his/her very śraddhā.
Satyanarayana Dasa

(AD) Revered Prabhuji,
Radhe Radhe
Thank you for your reply. I also thought that the SB 11.14.18 verse had that meaning. I tried to understand Viśvanāth Cakravartī's ṭīkā to it, but my Sanskrit is not good enough. I am quizzed a bit because he does mention the api cet sudurācāro verse in this ṭīkā. Could you explain the purport of Viśvanāth please? Thank you.

visvanathah : api ca, āstāṁ tāvad utpanna-bhāva-bhakta-kathā, yato bhaktau prathama-vartamāno’pi bhaktaḥ kṛtārtha evety āha—vādhyamāna iti prāyaḥ-pragalbhayā prāyeṇaiva prabalī-bhavantyā kim punaḥ pragalbhayā | yad vā, jñāni-prakaraṇe yathā durācāro jñānī nindiṣyate, jñānitvaṁ ca tasya niṣidhyate, yas tv asaṁyata-ṣaḍ-vargaḥ [bhā.pu. 11.18.40] ity ādinā tathātra bhakta-prakaraṇe durācāro bhakto na nindyo bhaktatvaṁ ca tasya na niṣiddham ity āha—bādhyamāna iti | yad uktam—api cet sudurācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk |
sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ samyag-vyavasito hi saḥ || [gītā 9.30] iti |
kiṁ cātra viṣayair bādhyamāno’pi viṣayair nābhibhūyata ity ubhayatrāpi vartamāna-nirdeśāt viṣaya-bādhyatva-daśāyām api viṣayābādhyatvaṁ bhakti-ṣaḍ-bhāvāt, yathā vairi-kṛta-kiñcicchastrāghātam prāptasyāpi na parābhaviṣṇutā śaurya-ṣaḍ-bhāvād iti | yathā vā, pīta-jvaraghna-mahauṣadhasya tad-divase āyāto’pi jvaro bādhako’py abādhaka eva tasya vinaśyad-avasthatvāt dināntare ca samyaṅ nāṣṭībhāvitvācca ||18||

(SND) Dear Advaita Prabhuji,
Jai Sri Radhe Shyama
I am giving the meaning below:
Let alone a devotee who has attained bhāva bhakti, even a bhakta who has just begin on the path is surely an accomplished person (kṛtārtha) - to say this Lord Kṛṣṇa speaks the present verse. prāyaḥ pragalbhayā means which is certainly becoming stronger (even such bhakti helps a neophyte bhakta in not getting overpowered by the viṣaya) then what to speak of the advanced state of bhakti. In the section describing a jnani a durācārī jñānī will be criticised and will be not be accepted as a jñānī, as in the verse beginning with yas tvasamyata ṣaḍ-varga. But in the section describing a devotee, a durācārī bhakta is not criticised nor is it said that such a person is not a devotee. This is said in this verse. This is also said in the verse of the Gita, api cet.
Furthermore, even while being troubled by the viṣaya he/she is not overpowered by the viṣaya -the present tense in both parts means that by the presence of bhakti the devotee is not troubled or remains above the trouble even when facing the trouble (i.e. is not being absorbed in the situation, and is aware that it is wrong to enjoy viṣaya). (SVCT gives an example) Just as when a warrior is attacked by an enemy and gets hurt by a weapon does not feel defeated or subdued because of his chivalry. (another example) As a sick man suffering from fever after taking a powerful medicine to dispel fever may still have fever on the day of taking the medicine yet he does not become cowed down by it because he feels the recovery from fever and because he knows that the fever will be gone completely the following day .
SND

(AD) Revered Prabhuji,
Thank you very much for the translation. My final question to get me convinced is this: Is the wound of the warrior and the fever of the sick man to be compared with the sensual desire or with the indulging in it? Thank you very much!!

(SND) This was already answered. Either it is to be taken as only in the mind and not actually indulging in it; or if it is to be taken as indulging then it is not the forbidden type such as eating meat, having illegal sexual relation etc.

Tilaka, Svakīya bhāva and the good Yamadūtas

Bhakta: "Kṛṣṇa is described as wearing sandalwood tilak. I thought tilak was made of clay."

Advaitadas: "tilak for sadhakas is different from tilak of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, according to the rules. Rādhārāṇī's tilak is made of vermilion according to Govinda Līlāmṛta (2.77) and musk according to Vilāpkusumāñjali (24). Kṛṣṇa's tilak is made either of Gorocana (a bright yellow pigment secreted from a cow's kidney), or kunkum. Other sources say: kastūrī tilakaṁ lalāṭa paṭale "Kṛṣṇa has musk tilak on the forehead." As for the Vaiṣṇavas, Mahāprabhu put on Rādhākuṇḍa tilak after He discovered Rādhākuṇḍa, and since then Vaiṣṇavas who are dedicated to Rādhārāṇī do the same. Actually, throughout Haribhakti Vilāsa gopī candana tilaka is prescribed. "

Bhakta: "Why not Rādhākuṇḍa tilak then?"

Advaitadas: "Haribhakti Vilāsa was written purely on the basis of the ancient Purāṇas and śāstras, in order to give it, and thus our sampradāya, maximum credibility. That is also why festivals like Rādhāṣṭamī and Gaura Pūrṇimā are not included in it - these are not mentioned in any ancient Vedic śāstra. In this way other sampradāyas could not point their fingers at us and say: "You see, they are making all kinds of things up for their own group." That is why, despite the fact that they are not mentioned in Haribhakti Vilāsa, we do observe Gaur Pūrṇimā and Rādhāṣṭamī and we do wear Rādhākuṇḍa tilak. Of course Rādhākuṇḍa is but a small pond and there are millions of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas in north eastern India, so it is understandable that most Vaiṣṇavas cannot get their hands on it, so they may either use gopi candan or not wear tilak at all."

Bhakta: "A marriage of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa would spoil the parakīya rasa, but it is described in Padma Purāṇa and Garga Saṁhitā."

Advaitadas: "It does not spoil the parakīya rasa -  it simply isn't parakīya rasa.  Kṛṣṇa is complete and there is no feature missing in Kṛṣṇa, barring rasābhāsa and viruddha siddhānta of course, so Kṛṣṇa also has a married feature in Vraja. There is also bālya līlā, kumāra, paugaṇḍa, kiśora, Brahman, Paramātmā, Rāma, Narasiṁha, Nārāyaṇa...."

Bhakta: "All at the same time?"

Advaitadas: "Yes, as I just quoted from Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta in my last blog, verse 2.5.52:
"Just as God is one, but Śrī Kṛṣṇa still stays in many places in many forms, so it is with us, His servants."
We don't focus on Kṛṣṇa's childhood pastimes, but that doesn't mean they don’t exist. Similarly with the married Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa. Gopāl-Campū describes how Mother Yaśodā and Rādhārāṇī wait for Kṛṣṇa when He returns from the pastures, just like any wife and mother await a man when he returns from His job. That is there, but it does not provide the excitement of an extramarital affair as in parakīya bhāva."

Bhakta: "I thought that this marriage was just a play. Otherwise how can Rādhārāṇī be married to both Kṛṣṇa and Abhimanyu?"

Advaitadas: "In the svakīya rasa Rādhārāṇī is not married to Abhimanyu, only to Kṛṣṇa.  Their marriage can also be a play, performed as a joke. Parallel worlds."

Advaitadas: "Can you give more details about the process of death?"

Bhakta: "There are two types of Yamadūtas - the nice and the horrid looking. The nice ones take the pious souls on the dharma mārga to Yamarāj and the horrible looking Yamadūtas take the soul to Yamarāj on the path where there is a lot of suffering. Citragupta reads the pious activities, and Vicitragupta notes down all the impious activities. All are taken to Yamarāj. Devotees who did not attain perfection too; even Janaka Maharāj went there."

Advaitadas: "Can you quote some śāstra on this?"

Bhakta: "Sri Bhīṣma said to Yudhiṣṭhira (Skanda Purāṇa 6.226.19-28):
19. The hells in the abode of Yama are twenty-one in number. Creatures go there in accordance with their Karma.
20. Two Kāyasthas (scribes) in the abode of Yama are well known as Citra and Vicitra.
21. Citra records in writing the entire virtuous acts of a living being. Vicitra exerts himself and writes in full all the sins with great care.
22. The messengers of Yama born of Dharmarāja, are eight in number. They all take men under their control (to Yama's place) from the mortal world.
23. They are Karṇa, Vikarṇa, Vakranāsa, Mahodara, Saumya, Śānta, Nanda and the eighth one Suvākya.
24. Among these the first four are terrible in form. All of them take sinning people to the abode of Yama.
25. The latter four are gentle in form and features. All of them take virtuous people to the abode of Yama.
26. Those virtuous people ride in aerial chariots. They are attended upon by groups of Apsarās (celestial damsels).
27. The people are taken in accordance with the written report about their sinful and virtuous acts. There is no limit to the servants of these people."

Guru Pūrṇimā

mama śrī gurūpadiṣṭaṁ bhagavat kīrtana smaraṇa caraṇa paricaraṇādikam etad eva mama sādhanam etad eva mama sādhyam etad eva mama jīvātuḥ sādhana sādhya daśayoś tyaktum aśakyam etad eva me kāmyam etad eva me kāryam etad anyam na me kāryam nāpyābhilaśanīyaṁ svapne'pityatra sukham astu duḥkam vāstu saṁsāro naśyatu vā nā naśyatu tatra mama kāpi na kṣatiḥ

"The devotional practise of glorifying the Lord, remembering Him and serving His lotus-feet, as it has been instructed to me by my Guru is my goal and my life. It is impossible for me to give this up under any circumstance. This is what I desire and this is my duty. I have no other duty than this and I don't desire anything else, even in dreams! It may make me happy, it may make me unhappy, it may liberate me from material existence or it may not - that makes no difference to me at all"

(Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s comment on Bhagavad Gītā 2.41)

śarīraṁ surūpaṁ sadā roga-muktam 

yaśaścāru citraṁ dhanaṁ meru tulyam 

guror aṅghri-padme manaścen na lagnam

tataḥ kiṁ tataḥ kiṁ tataḥ kiṁ tataḥ kiṁ

"One's body may be beautiful and always healthy, one's fame may be wonderful and bright, and one's wealth may be like a mount of gold. But if the mind is not fixed on the lotus-feet of the Guru, then what of it, what of it, what of it, what of it?"

ṣaḍ aṅgādi vedo mukhe śāstra-vidyā

kavitvañca gadyaṁ supadyaṁ karoti 

guror aṅghri-padme manaścen na lagnam 

tataḥ kiṁ tataḥ kiṁ tataḥ kiṁ tataḥ kiṁ

"One may master the Vedas with its six philosophical theses, one may have memorised all the sacred scriptures and one may be able to compose the most exquisite poetic or prose verses. But if the mind is not fixed on the lotus-feet of the Guru, then what of it, what of it, what of it, what of it?" 

(Śaṅkarācārya’s Gurvaṣṭakam)

parānanda guro bhavat pade

padaṁ mano me bhagaval labheta

tadā nirastākhila sādhana śramaḥ

śrayeya saukhyaṁ bhavataḥ kṛpātaḥ

“O most blissful Guru! When my mind attains a place at your lotus-feet, all the tiresome labor of my spiritual practises (sādhana) will be finished, and by your Grace I will experience supreme happiness!”
(Śrīdhara Swāmī)

vijita hṛśīka vāyubhir adānta manas turagam 

ya iha yatanti yantum ati lolam upāya khidaḥ 

vyasana śatānvitāḥ samavahāya guroścaraṇam 

vanija ivāja santyakṛta karṇadharā jaladau

“The mind is like an reckless horse that even persons who have conquered their senses and breath cannot control. Those in this world who try to subdue the uncontrolled mind, but who abandon the feet of the Guru, encounter hundreds of obstacles in their cultivation of various adverse practices. O birthless Lord! They are like merchants on a boat in the ocean who have failed to appoint a captain.”
(Śrīmad Bhāgavata 10.87.33)

Aniṣṭakārī jīva

Bhakta: "How you deal with rats, mice, cockroach? You kill them?"

Advaitadas: "Cockroaches and mosquitos; snakes and scorpions too - modeta sādhur api vṛścika sarpa hatyā - this is a verse from the 7th Canto by Prahlāda Mahāśaya; it means that even the sādhus rejoice at the killing of a snake or a scorpion. I had cockroaches in my flat 10 years ago, they took over the whole deity kitchen - what else could I do, to preserve the arcana? There were hundreds of them and counting.”

Bhakta: “You never had rats or mice?”

Advaitadas: “I had rats in Sudevī's house in Rādhākund. I just locked them out with iron plates boarded on the door. You don’t kill rats because they die in a lonely place and stink terribly; sometimes you can't find the corpses….”

Bhakta: “Yes, but there's too in Bhāgavatam a verse that says one shouldn`t kill them....”

Advaitadas: “Rats? I don’t remember that.”

Bhakta: “I don`t remember rats but mosquitoes and others..”

Advaitadas: “No no, such a verse is not there - Sādhu Bābā specifically allowed us to kill aniṣṭakārī jīva, and I already quoted the confirmation from the 7th canto, modeta sādhur api…” (SB 7.9.14)

Bhakta: “aniṣṭakārī jīva?”

Advaitadas: "That means ‘harmful creatures’. Rather, the śāstra says that the snake is so envious that feeding it milk will only increase its poison. Anyway, let me explain the logic of killing mosquitos: they are killers because they carry killer diseases, malaria and dengue fever. If someone assaults you with a syringe with AIDS will you knock him down or allow him to poison you with the injection? Surely you will strike him down - it is the same thing. This is not compassion - it is foolishness. That's why Sādhu Bābā spoke of aniṣṭakārī jīva. Not that you go out and kill millions of sweet cows and so.”

Chat June 9, 2008