Śrīmad Bhāgavata, Canto 5

This is a review of the Fifth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavata, with the most interesting commentaries of Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda -

5.1.5 ity-ādy-ukter bhaktānām antarāyo nāsty eva? satyaṁ kāla-karmādi-hetuko’sau nāsty eva.  kintv antarāyo hi bhaktānāṁ dvividhaḥ, mahad-aparādha-hetuko bhagavad-icchā-hetukaś ca

Normally obstacles are time and karma but for devotees the obstacles are offences to the saints and the Lord’s wish.

5.1.35 tanvaṁ tanuṁ tat-kṣaṇa eva tanūtyāgādarśanāt tanvārambhakaṁ karmeti prārabdha-karma-kṣaya uktaḥ | tattvaṁ mahad-ādi-pṛthivy-antaṁ sthūlas-sūkṣma-dehāv ity arthaḥ | tad api tad-deha-sthitir nāmna evācintya-prabhāvatvād iti jñeyaṁ gaty-antarābhāvāt

”One does not immediately see one giving up one’s body on chanting the holy name once. Thus the sentence means that the karmas that are experienced in the body are destroyed. tattvam means that the gross and subtle elements from mahat tattva to earth, the gross and subtle bodies of the jīva are destroyed, but the body remains by the inconceivable influence of the holy name of the Lord, since there is no alternative.”

Viśvanātha also comments on this verse in his ṭīkā of SB 1.6.28:

"What should be amazing? Even an outcaste (vidura-vigataḥ) who chants the name of the Lord once, now, at the time of accepting the name, gives up his body (tanvam). Since we do not see anyone giving up their body simultaneously with chanting, "body" here means his prārabdha-karmas which are being experienced in the present body. This is the opinion of some. Others say by the association of bhakti, like a touchstone, the body made of the three guṇas becomes free of the guṇas, as seen in the case of Dhruva. Thus, giving up the body means giving up the body made of three guṇas. This will be explained later at the beginning of the Rāsa-dance with jahur guṇamayaṁ dehaṁ sadyah prakṣīṇa-bandhanāḥ: "free of bondage, those gopīs abandoned their gross material bodies made of guṇas." (SB 10.29.11) But others say that sometimes the Lord shows devotees, literally, giving up their bodies in order that the opinion of others not be negated. Thus Nārada, who had developed prema already, gave up his body. However it should be understood that he had already destroyed his prārabdha-karmas during his practice of bhakti."

5.5.18 Do not be parent, Guru, relative etc. if you cannot free your subject from death.

Viśvanātha comments: baliḥ śukram iva taṁ guruṁ tyajed eva, tasya praṇaty-anuvṛtty-ādy-abhāve'pi na pratyavāyī syād iti bhāvaḥ. evaṁ vibhīṣaṇo rāvaṇam iva taṁ svajanam, prahlādo hiraṇyakaśipum iva taṁ pitaram, śrī-bharataḥ kaikeyīm iva tāṁ jananīm, khaṭvāṅga indrādim iva tad daivaṁ, yājñika-brāhmaṇī yājñika-vipram iva taṁ patiṁ tyajed evety arthaḥ –

“Bali gave up his Guru Śukrācārya and did not suffer any reaction to not following and worshiping him. Similarly Vibhīṣana gave up his relative Rāvana, Prahlāda gave up his father Hiraṇyakaśipu, Śrī Bharat rejected his mother Kaikeyī, Khaṭvaṅga his devatā Indra and the wives of the offering brāhmaṇas of Vṛndāvana gave up their husbands.”

5.5.33 In the discussion on Vilāpa Kusumānjali’s verse 18, in which Raghunātha dās Goswāmī prays that he/she can clean Rādhārāṇī’s toilet with her hair, it must be remembered that there is no jugupsa rasa or vībhatsa rasa (the mellow of disgust) in relation to Kṛṣṇa. In the story of Ṛṣabha-deva in Śrīmad Bhāgavata (5.5.33) is is said: tasya ha yaḥ purīṣa-surabhi-saugandhya-vāyus taṁ deśaṁ daśa-yojanaṁ samantāt surabhiṁ cakāra: “The wind, fragrant from the smell of his stool, made the place fragrant for ten yojanas around.”

Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comments: tasya cinmaya-śarīrasyaitad-bībhatsitam ity āśaṅkyāha—tasyeti. purīṣasya surabhinā gandhena saugandhyaṁ yasya sa vāyuḥ - “One may think that this condition is disgusting for a spiritual body.  This verse explains. The air became fragrant with the smell of his stool.”

5.6.18 ”Blessed is the dynasty of Priyavrata, where Lord Ṛṣabha descended. Blessed is also the dynasty of Uttānapāda, where Pṛthu appeared. Blessed is also the Raghu-dynasty where Rāma appeared. Of the current Yadu- and Puru-dynasties the Yadu-dynasty is the most fortunate, for Kṛṣṇa appeared there. But our Puru-dynasty is unfortunate in all respects, because the Lord did not appear in it at all." Speaking to himself in this way Parīkṣit became dejected. Understanding his mind because he was omniscient, Śukadeva gave him bliss by showing him the superiority of bhakti over liberation – ”O King! Kṛṣṇa is the protector of the Pāṇḍavas, their Guru (instructor), their worshipable deity, their loving benefactor and the master of their family (controller). Although He appeared in the Yadu-dynasty He acted equally towards the Yadus and you. But sometimes He acted as your messenger or servant. He did not do that for the Yadus. He did more for you than for the Yadus because of His greater love for you. That He gave the highest prema to you, who do not worship Him, is the highest position. He rarely even gives bhāva bhakti (bhakti yoga) to those who worship Him. He gives the inferior liberation but never bhakti. But He does not give liberation to those practising pure bhakti who do not desire liberation. To those pure devotees He gives bhakti."

It is not clear to me why the Purus [Pāṇḍavas] are said to 'not worship Him'. Perhaps Viśvanātha means they did not worship Him in awe as Bhagavān?

5.8.1 - dayām api tyajed bhakti-bādhinīm iti darśayan – it is shown here that even compassion must be given up if it damages bhakti. This is in relationship to Bharat getting attached to the deer. Śrīla Ānanda Gopāl Goswāmī said the same thing in Bengali during his famous Vilāpa Kusumāñjali lectures - bhajaner pratikūl jadi doyā-o hoy, tabe tā'ke-o bāda dite hobe. He might have been inspired by this statement of Viśvanātha. The point is that if one gets materially entangled out of compassion or sentimental attraction. and that entanglement takes away one's money, time and attention from bhajan, then this is not a smart thing to do for a Vaiṣṇava.

5.8.26 mṛga-dārakam ābhāsayati prakāśayati yat tena svārabdha-karmaṇeti | prārabdhaṁ hi dvividhaṁ—śobhanam aśobhanam ca | tatrādyaṁ bhakta-priyeṇāpi nayana-tīvrāñjana-dāna-nyāyena sva-bhakty-utkaṇṭhā-varṇana-vidagdhena bhagavataiva svecchayaiva prārabdha-tulyatvāt prārabdham upapādyate yad udarko viṣayābhiniveśa eva syāt | atra tu śobhanenārabdheneti sākṣāt suśabda evopanyastaḥ | bhakti-yogenaiva hetunā tāpasaḥ sarva-viṣaya-tyāga-rūpaṁ tapaḥ kurvāṇaḥ | apy-arthe ca-kāraḥ | yadyapi bhakti-yogo bahu-vighnākulo na bhavati, tad api bhagavad-icchayā atvd-ārādhanād vibhraṁsita ity arthaḥ

“There are two kinds of prārabdha karma - śobhana and aśobhana (beautiful and not-beautiful). The first one is like a biting eye-ointment administered by the Lord, who is dear to His bhakta (bhakta-priyena), which serves to increase the devotee’s eagerness (to attain Him) and which is freely (independently) bestowed by this vidagdha (clever) Lord. It appears to be just like ordinary prārabdha. This is even possible to happen to those who have attained rati- or bhāva-bhakti level. The second type of prārabdha is made of one’s old karma and is caused by absorption in the sense objects. The former, śobhana, is mentioned in this verse.”

5.10.1 paramahaṁsatvena sarvatra tasya samyasyaucito’pi mahā-bhāgavatatvād eva kṛpā vyākhyeya 'Although as a paramahaṁsa one should be equipoised everywhere, due to being a mahā bhāgavata (great devotee) one should also be compassionate." This confirms the theory that a great devotee comes down from the platform of uttama adhikārī to the stage of madhyama adhikārī [though these three adhikārīs in the 11th canto have not been described in relation to a missionary attitude per se] in order to preach.

5.14.43 — malavad iti yathā malasya tyāga eva nirvṛtiḥ tyāgābhāve kaṣṭaṁ tyaktasya tasya smaraṇe’pi niṣṭhīvanodgamas tathaiveti tyāge’py anyebhyo vailakṣaṇyād utkarṣaḥ | tatra hetuḥ—uttamaḥ sarvotkṛṣṭaḥ rūpa-guṇa-līlā-mādhuryaiśvarya-sambandhī ślokā yaśo yasya tasmin lālasaḥ darśādy-autsukyaṁ yasya saḥ

"Just as it is blissful to pass stool and it is miserable to be unable to do so (due to constipation or so), and one feels disgusted even by remembering the stool, king Bharata considered the things he renounced to be just like stool. This shows that his renunciation of sense objects was distinct from the renunciation of jñānīs and yogis, because he had developed a yearning for Śrī Govinda, who is the abode of sweet names, forms, pastimes and attributes."

5.19.21 etādṛśa-bhāgyasya puṇya-janyatvāsambhavād iti bhāvaḥ | bhāratājire bhāratāṅgane | nanu durātmanām api tatra janma dṛśyate ity ato viśinaṣṭi—mukunda-sevaupāyikaṁ hi yasmān no’smākaṁ kevalaṁ spṛhaiva yatra, na tu prāptiḥ

"The fortune of taking human birth in India is not just a question of good karma, as we see bad people also taking birth there. We devatās can only covet this, but we do not attain it."

5.19.25 If one wastes one's human birth in India one is most lamentable - it is like a farmer who finds a Cintāmaṇi gem and still continues to plough. They are like birds that are released by a hunter but get caught again because they are inattentive and play about in the tree.

5.19.27 What to speak of pure devotees, even sakāma bhaktas are blessed in the way the niṣkāma bhaktas are. Their desires are fulfilled but not in such a way that they will go on asking for the same thing again and again. Like Dhruva he gets the Lord's lotus-feet which includes all desires. He may forcibly give those feet, which destroy all other desires, too. Sometimes the father gives the child candy although he does not want it. In this way he makes the child give up eating dirt. Similarly the Lord may give the nectar of His lotus-feet so the devotee gives up material endeavour. That which is given sponteaneously is greater than that which is given by force. Thus the excellence of Hanumān is greater than that of Dhruva.

5.26.3 Visvanatha's commentary: anādy-avidyā-sambandho jīvasya kadā kathaṁ veti vaktum aśakteḥ 'No one can say when or how the jīva ended up in a beginningless relationship with ignorance.' That is just because it is beginningless and is its very definition.

Śrīmad Bhāgavata, Canto 4, part 2

SB 4.20.22 This verse says that when Pṛthu beheld the Lord, the Lord's feet touched the ground (padā spṛśantaṁ kṣitim) Śrīdhar Swami and Viśvanātha quote a text from śāstra saying that the devatās' feet generally do not touch the earth, but in this case Hari forgets it because He is overwhelmed by compassion. It seems there is a difference here between Nārāyan, who seems to be counted among the Devas whose feet usually do not touch the ground, and Kṛṣṇa. In sweet human pastimes, like Kṛṣṇa's, it is seen that the gopīs worry about His feet being pricked by pebbles and thorns on the paths of Vraja (SB 10.31.19 yat te sujāta) and mother Yaśodā, for the same reason, wants Kṛṣṇa to wear shoes (in Govinda Lilamrita). I remember how I was introduced to the mādhurya concept by the late Hayeśvara Dās in Amsterdam. I joined the Iskcon temple community in Amsterdam on June 4, 1978, and a few weeks later was the annual Snāna Yātrā festival. Suddenly Lord Jagannāth had disappeared from the altar and I asked Hayeśvara, who was like my mentor, where Lord Jagannātha had gone. In his dry, comical way he told me the Lord had caught a cold (!!!) and was being treated in the office (!!!). Obviously it was not good to 'treat' the Lord in the brahmacārī āśram between the boys' dirty socks, so they had taken the typewriters out of the temple office and brought the Lord there to be treated with ginger-tea and tissue papers.

SB 4.20.24 See my blog of March 23, 2007 and comments. The Bhāgavat must be heard from the mahattamas - the greatest possible souls. Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda quotes the 3rd verse of the Bhāgavat in his tika: śuka mukhād amṛta shows that it does matter whom you hear Kṛṣṇa-katha from. It shows also that it matters who translates a text, and that it is best to read the text in the original. relish depends on both vakta and śrota.  madhuram api jalaṁ kṣāra-bhūmi praviṣṭaṁ yathā virasībhavati tathaivāvaiṣṇava mukhaṁ nirgato bhagavat guṇo'pi nātirocaka iti vyatirekaśca gamyaḥ “Just as sweet water becomes salty by being poured over a desert, Kṛṣṇa katha of a non-Vaiṣṇava is not so attractive, although it does contain the Lord’s attributes.”

4.20.31 — yatheti bālasya hitāhitaṁ pitaiva jānāti balas tvadhyayana khelanādikaṁ sva hitāhitaṁ viparyayena jānātītyevaṁ mahyaṁ varasya pradānam apradānaṁ vā hitaṁ vimṛśya sva sammatam eva bhadraṁ kriyatāṁ na punar mama sammatir eva pramāṇī kartavyeti bhagavatyeva pṛthunā viśrambho vyañjitaḥ. “Just as only the father knows what is good and what is not good for the child, sometimes allowing him to play and sometimes forcing him to study, He knows when to give the best thing to me and when not. I shall just do whatever he tells me to do." This was how Pṛthu Maharaja trusted the Lord." Sometimes the Lord punishes the devotee disproportionately, sometimes He forgives the most extreme sins of the devotee, according to the individual or even collective need. Mahāprabhu effectively sentenced Chota Haridās to death, for a slight mistake of begging some rice from an 84-year old widow, and on the other hand other devotees are excused from the most extreme sin, it all depends on the welfare of the devotee[s].

4.21.12 This verse mentions [non-brahmin] Vaiṣṇavas as acyuta gotra, the harijans, the family of God. They see Acyuta as their progenitor.

4.22.47  yair īdṛsi bhagavato gatir ātma-vāda ekāntato nigamibhih pratipādita naḥ tuṣyantv adabhra-karunaḥ sva-kṛtena nityaṁ ko nāma tat pratikaroti vinoda-pātram

Mahārāja Pṛthu told Sanatkumāra: „May you – who are well versed in the Vedas and have in your profuse compassion precisely explained to us, in the course of your dissertation on the Supreme Lord, the true nature of God as depicted above – may you ever be pleased with your own acts (of delivering the afflicted). What else can be a reward for you but handfuls of water?” 

Śrīdhara Svāmī comments: saty api svatve sarvasvenāpi na guroḥ pratyupakartum sakyam ity āha—yair iti – „Even by offering everything you have you cannot repay the Guru.” yad vā vinoda-pātram upahāsāspadam. pratyupakāre pravṛttau janānām upahāsāspadaṁ bhaved ity arthaḥ „Other than the ‘handfuls of water’ interpretation one can read the verse thus: instead of vina uda-pātra (without handfuls of water) one can also read vinoda-pātram, or ‘object of ridicule’. In other words, anyone who says that there is any way to repay the Guru is a ridiculous person.”

SB 4.22.53, tika: na tu putrotpādana-hetukaḥ vegas tasya strī-viṣayakaḥ ko’pi kāma-vikāro’stīty arthaḥ  'Pṛthu had no lusty feelings towards his wife at all as he produced his five sons." Pṛthu was of course a śaktyāveśa avatāra, not an ordinary human being - pṛthu-dehasya bhagavad-vigrahatvāt

SB 4.23.11, Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda's tika – “It is also said of Kṛṣṇa that he was not lusty after his wives in SB 10.61.4 - patnyas tu śoḍaśa-sahasram anaṅga-bāṇair yasyendriyaṁ vimathituṁ kuhakair na śekuḥ.  It is because the Lord is vibhūmna (SB 10.61.3), Self-fulfilled (in His aiśvarya-aspect, of course).”For embodied souls, even the great Vaiṣṇavas, however, some physical transformation is obviously required to create sex drive. There is of course a big difference between drinking a bottle of whisky and making a baby outside wedlock in the back of a car, or chanting 64 rounds with one's wedded wife and doing garbhādhāna saṁskāra before making a baby, but even for the latter scenario, some physical transformations are required to make a sex drive. dharmāviruddha bhūteṣu kāmo'smi (Bhagavad Gītā 7.11) "I am lust that does not conflict with dharma". It does not conflict with dharma, but it is lust nonetheless. Jīva Goswāmī comments on SB 10.61.3: "Kṛṣṇa is self-satisfied, but He becomes under the spell of His pure devotees (ahaṁ bhakta'parādhīno) and thus He gets 'lusty' after them. That is the rasika aspect. The philosophical aspect is shown in the Gopāl Tāpanī Upaniṣad - vidyāmayo hi yaḥ sa kathaṁ viṣayībhavati 'He is full of knowledge - how can He be sensual?" There is also the yogik scenario, like yogi Kardama, who impregnated his wife Devahutī nine times in one session. All this is not on the human level.

4.24.40 puṇyāya lokāya - obeisances to Vaikuṇṭha. puṇya here does not mean 'planet of the pious' like a heavenly planet. Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comments: puṇyāya sarvottamāya puṇyas tu cārv api - puṇya means 'the supreme' or 'beautiful' according to the Amar-Koṣa dicitionary.

4.24.57 Throwing an egg at a devotee during harinām is also half a moment of sat saṅga but Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda says in his ṭīkā - premna saṅga (association with love) is uttama.

4.24.59 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda links nāmāparādha to sleepiness - nāmāparādha leads to a loss of ruci, and then one does not feel inspired or buoyed to get up early. Or, during one's sādhana one falls into the hole of sleep (tamo-guhāyāṁ, or supti-gahvare). The consciousness of the sādhaka falls into the hole of tamo-guṇa very easily.

4.25.21 The woman [conditioned soul] looking for a husband does not mean that the spirit soul has a reason to be here, let alone to fall down from the spiritual world. One cannot always see such statements in a time frame, like she was not here but then she came here for a purpose, like seeking a husband, just like the samudra manthana - the Kaustubha gem and Lakṣmī of course never came to Nārāyan, they are eternally His.

4.25.47, Śrīdhar Swāmī's ṭīkā - tasmād dakṣiṇerdha ātmano vīryāvattaraḥ iti śruteḥ. svānubhavāc ca tatra prakāśādhikyam "The Śrutis declare that the senses on the right side are stronger [in perception]." That may be the reason why initiation is given in the right ear.

4.25.62  viśeṣeṇa prakarṣeṇa evam anena prakāreṇa labdhaḥ prāptaḥ sarvayā prakṛtyā svabhāvena jnānānandādi-rūpayā vancitas tyājitaḥ. Verse: "Petitioned by the queen, cheated of his own nature, the foolish king, though he did not want to, followed her like a pet animal."

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda's ṭīkā- vipralabdha means having specificially attained a condition in this way. Specially conditioned by the intelligence and at all times cheated of his nature of knowledge and bliss" It means the living entity is deprived of its potential knowledge and bliss. The text should not be seen as confirming fall-vāda (that the soul once had bliss and knowledge but now lost it) or dormant-vāda (that prema is dormant in the heart of the conditioned souls). He continues: necchan ekena sva-svabhāvena vastutas tat tad anicchann api klaibyāt pāravaśya-prāpakād aparasmāt svabhāvāt anukaroti tad-dharmam ātmany adhyasyati 'Giving up his nature, not wanting to because of his nature, but coming under the control of another [klaibyāt], assuming a different nature, he follows her. He imposed these qualities on the soul." It seems more as if he attained subjugation due to its impotence [klaibyāt], beginninglessly so of course. It is said twice in Bhagavad Gītā that whoever attains Kṛṣṇa's Supreme abode (tad-dhāma paramaṁ mama) never returns (yad gatvā na nivartante). Yet fall-vādis sometimes casually dismiss śāstra and say, "Yes but still you can fall again due to free will". Such disregard for śāstra could lead to a number of nāmāparādhas, notably śruti śāstra nindā (criticising scriptures) and artha-vāda (creating imaginary meanings). Statements in other Purāṇas, that are in the modes of passion and ignorance, that after performing pious acts one spends a long time in Vaikuṇṭha and then returns to earth again apply to the Vaikuṇṭha in the material world, at the milk ocean, only. The demigods can also reach that place, as we can see in the opening verses of the 10th Canto. However, the abode of Kṛṣṇa, Goloka, is beyond that material world and is called tad dhāma paramam mama - My (Kṛṣṇa's) supreme abode, attainment of which is saṁsiddhiṁ paramaṁ gataḥ, the ultimate perfection. We could even wonder if such promises in rājasik and tāmasik Purāṇas are not just meant to attract fruitive workers to the path of bhakti somehow or other. yam imaṁ puṣpitaṁ vācam. Mahāviṣṇu's size must be unlimited because there is no limit to the number of mundane universes He contains. Asking whether Mahāviṣṇu then collides with the spiritual world is just silly - loka does not mean a limited planet or region, it means world. A world like that, be it Goloka or Mahāviṣṇu,  has no material size. Statements in the Skanda Purāṇa (a Purāṇa in the mode of ignorance) that Mahāviṣṇu has 35,000 pores may be meant just to impress upon simple souls that God is Great, but if śāstra says that the brahmāṇḍas are innumerable, how could they fit through a mere 35,000 gates? This is just like statements in different Purāṇas that it is so-and-so many millions of miles travelling to Goloka, which is of course not true because one can not measure the distance to the spiritual world in mundane terms. It is at once attained by the surrendered souls, or never so by those who are averse to Kṛṣṇa.

4.27.17 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comments - tripancāśad varṣa-paryantaṁ prajāgarasya prāyaḥ parājayo nābhūt “There is no decline until age 53, but then it commences” - and I have to learn this just after turning 54!

4.28.34 — guroḥ sevāyāṁ pravṛttaḥ śiṣyaḥ śravaṇa kīrtanādīnyapi bhogān tad utthāna premānandān api gṛhān tad ucita vivikta sthalam api naivāpekṣate. śrī guru sevayaiva sukhena sarva sādhya siddhyartham ityupadeśa vyañjitaḥ..........guru sevāyā eva vedena sarvādhikasyoktatvāt —A devoted and chaste wife, while absorbed in the service of her husband, does not care even for her son. Similarly, a disciple deeply absorbed in the service of the guru does not even depend on hearing and chanting, knowing that by guru-sevā he can easily attain complete perfection in devotion. Just as a devoted wife does not want any sense enjoyment and home comfort, a disciple completely absorbed in guru-sevā does not seek even premānanda arising out of hearing and chanting nor even seek secluded places suitable to his bhajana. The Vedas say that service to the Guru is the greatest.”

4.28.41  śrī-bhāgavatasya mohinītvād ito’py anyathā kecid vyācakṣate tat tu eva gṛhṇanti na santaḥ "The Bhāgavata is like Mohiṇī, giving nectar to the gods and deluding the demons. The demons interpret it differently, but the devotees do not accept such interpretations."

4.28.43 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comments: śrī-gurudevasya siddhi-daśā-paryantaṁ śiṣyas taṁ paricarann eva varteteti darśayati  'The disciple serves Śrī Gurudeva until the point of siddhi'. This seems to contradict the rule that one serves the Guru in his/her mañjarī svarūpa after liberation too. Perhaps the clue lies in the word paricarann, which means practical service of the Guru's physical body, which is no more after both Guru and śiṣya meet in mañjarī svarūp in the kuñja.

4.28.50 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda’s ṭīkā : śrī-guror deha-saṁskāram kṛtvā srīmad-guru-caraṇa-viyukto’haṁ tadīya-guṇānusmaraṇa-maya-śoka-davāgni-dagdha-deho prāṇam dhartum aśaknuvaṁs tad-upadiṣṭa-śravaṇa-kīrtanādi-bhaktau naiva śaktiṁ dhāsyami. tasmad adyaiva mariṣyāmīti śiṣyo manasi niścinotīti darśayāmāsa " After performing the cremation of Śrī Gurudeva, the disciple thinks « I am burning in the fire of separation from Gurudeva’s lotusfeet. My body scorches in the fire of lamentation as I remember His attributes and I have no power to stay alive, nor am I able to perform bhakti in the type of hearing and chanting which Śrī Gurudeva had adviced. » Thus the disciple decides : «Today I will die. »

4.28.51 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda’s tika: sva-guru-viraha-vyākulībhāva-daśāyām iva śiṣyasya bhagavad-darśanam syād iti dyotayati. „In the condition of separation from his Guru, the disciple is so upset that he gets the darśana of the Lord.”

4.29.4 See my blog of May 21, 2009

4.29.64-65 "What was never seen before in real life and is nonetheless perceived in a dream was surely experienced in a previous life by a jīva who identifies with a subtle body, for an object which has not been experienced before can never touch the mind."

4.30.51 Some say that the fact that Lord Brahmā is called anādi here, which he is not literally, means that our conditioning is also not literally anādi. However, in SB 5.6.11, Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda says that anādi in relation to our conditioning is really anādi, Adi-śūnya [see later onwards]

Quotation 4.29.64-65 added July 31, 2011

Anything wrong with Public Harinām Saṅkīrtan?

This is a recent debate on Facebook with an opponent of public harinama [slightly edited for discretion and diplomatic correctness]

Advaita Das - Met a two-man harinam party in Utrecht so I put a dhoti on and joined them. Broke the place down the three of us.

RPD - Harinam is not ment for the publik

Advaita Das - RPD - Śrīmad Bhāgavat, Śrīman Caitanya Mahāprabhu and all the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas would beg to disagree with that.

RPD - We should follow what the Lord says,and not what he does.If Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his eternal associates dance on the street, this is their lila and should not be imitated. It was all started by the Gaudya Math headed by Bhaktisiddhanta who screwed up the real culture about was Bhakti is all about. Bevor that nobody danced artificially without bhava in front of the publik. Yes dancing is there in front of your personal deity but only if you have love for the Lord. This Harinam in publik which we have seen from Isckon and Gaudya Math is all about to make advertisment to make more followers and to use them for making money. This is there main motive, it has nothing to do with Bhakti.

Advaita Das - RP, Harinām Sankīrtan is prescribed in Sanātan Goswāmī's Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta (2.3.167-8) and in the ṭīkā of verse 168 the assurance is given that public saṅkīrtan will be fully protected). It was done by Narottam Dās Thākur, by Rādhā-raman caran Dās, Vijaya Kṛṣṇa Goswāmī, and the bābājīs too. Any devotional aṅga can be performed for lābh pūjā pratiṣṭhā (profit, adoration and distinction), including solitary bhajan, go seva, printing books etc. I have done harināma saṅkīrtan for 32 years and never got paid for it, nor did any of my friends. You show a very negative attitude towards innocent Vaiṣṇavas, I am sorry for you.

RPD It has nothing to to with a negative attitude, its all about education in scriptures, for the gaudyas the ulimate authority are the scriptures,from the 6 Gosvamis from Vrindavan. There is nothing mentioned in there writings about dancing in front materialistic people.How to you know about Narottama dasa Th. dancing have you seen it? Anybody can say anyhting, the guidance are the scriptures and not some uneducated babajis. And even if sombody dances in front of the publik, than only because out of pure Love (Prema) and he has no control over it, its spontaneous, you are on this level??? If you are on this level you have my blessings, otherwise just be humble and serve your Guru.

Advaita Das -"There is nothing mentioned in there writings about dancing in front materialistic people."

Advaitadas: kṛṣṇotkīrtana gāna nartana parau - the 6 Goswāmīs loudly chanted, sang and danced - in front of their own deities? How will you redeem 'materialistic people' unless you chant to them?

"otherwise just be humble and serve your Guru."

Advaitadas: It is a serious allegation that anyone who does harināma on the street is not humble. I admit that there is a challenge to the ego about posturing on the street with a musical instrument, but what if Guru orders one to do harināma? You said serve your Guru, what should I do then?

RPD - The way how to perform bhakti is mentioned in the bhakti sandharba by jiva gosvami, and other śāstras don't qoute prayers to establish siddhanta. Unless you know sanskritt you have no acsess to gaudia literature. If you want the Truth ...educate yourself.

Advaita Das - Allright then RP, how about this one then? This is from the Bhagavat (10.34.17), topmost śāstra according to Jīva Goswāmī - yan nāma gṛhṇann akhilān śrotṛn ātmānam eva ca sadyaḥ punāti - 'Whose name, when uttered, instantly purifies those who hear it as well as oneself." Those who hear it are only people in your living room perhaps?

"Unless you know sanskritt you have no acsess to gaudia literature"

Advaitadas: Which means that all translations, including that of your Guru, are useless? Why then all the book translations?

"If Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his eternall associates dances on the street,this is there lila and should not be immitated."

Advaitadas: Any evidence for that in śāstra?

RPD I am not quoting the books of my Guru. Unless you have not studied Sanskritt you cant't speak on Siddhanta,you can only qoute from this baba or that baba or this book and that book, but in reality you have no acess to the Gosvami Literature because you are not qualified, be humble and admitt it. Have you studiet Sanskritt , Chandan Vyakaran etc properly, I don't think so otherwise you would not talk like this.

re your qoute from bhagavad sandharba : it doesen't mean you go on the street and dance artifically and make a show and immitate a perfect siddha. Find out from your Guru, if I tell you the evidence you will not accept it anyway.This is the end of the topic.Conclusion: Ask your Guru about this discussion if you have on and accept his advice.

Advaita Das: And more from śāstra - yāre dekhe tāre koho kṛṣṇa upadeśa -  'Whoever you see tell him about Kṛṣṇa'
and : pṛthivīte āche yoto nagarādi grām sarvatra pracāra hobe more nāma - 'IN ALL TOWNS AND VILLAGES OF THE WORLD MY NAME WILL BE PREACHED" ...How's that done ? cupi cupi you think?

RPD Right, but it doesen't mean you go on the road and jump like monkey and artifically chant the holy name without Bhava.you just quote without understanding the inner meaning. You have not even answered my questions??? HAVE YOU ATTAINED PURE LOVE OF THE LORD???ARE YOU KNOW SANSKRITT??

Advaita Das “Unless you have not studied Sanskritt you cant't speak on Siddhanta,you can only qoute from this baba or that baba or this book and that book"

Any śāstra says that enlightenment requires Sanskrit knowledge? Quote it then. It would mean the spiritual world would be a lonely place because only a handful know Sanskrit.

"but in reality you have no acsess to the Gosvami Literature because you are not qualified"

Which means you sit in my heart and gauge my realizations.

"be humble "

Ask any reader of this debate about YOUR attitude here....

"dance artifically and make a show and immitate a perfect siddha.

Why is the dancing artificial and why only siddhas are allowed to dance? Where is this in the Goswāmīs' books?

"If I tell you the evidence you will not accept it anyway"

So far you have been very short of evidence, just very rich in beliefs.

"Ask your Guru about this discussion if you have on and accept his advice."

A bit hard if he entered samādhi 24 years ago. But he told me indeed there is a great risk of ego-tripping while preaching. He never forbade me harinām sankīrtan in public,

"HAVE YOU ATTAINED PURE LOVE OF THE LORD???ARE YOU KNOW SANSKRITT??"

Are the two linked in any way? If I had these accomplishments - prema and sanskrit - would I be modest by saying 'yes'?

RPD I guess not,otherwise your statments are just Parrot talk .You teach a parrot... one.. two.. three.. and only this he will repeat.I have to repeat it again and again study properly. You have to know for yourself.You have to be honest. Well follow your Guru and everything will be allwright, go on with dancing,chanting and be happy

Advaita Das RPD, you come crashing in here with a bold claim that public harināma is wrong, then you claim Kṛṣṇa is only available through Sanskrit but despite all intellectual boasting you provide not even one syllable of evidence, though you had plenty of opportunity to provide it.

RPD: Jiva Goswami has given a definition of sankirtana, bahubhir militva yat kirtanam tad eva sankirtanam: "When pure devotees coming together to chant the holy name. Well if your interpretation of this statement is going on the street, than do it and chant do it if it makes you happy.

Advaitadas: Not only it makes me happy - śrotṛn ātmānam eva ca - the audience as well.

RPD: The reason why pure Bhakti is so rare, not because its not available...because nobody wants it.

Advaitadas - Now here I finally agree with you. manuṣyānām sahasreṣu....

RPD: Why you put a Dhoti on,to chant the Name ??? ,what your Dhoti has to do with the Name ??? you think if you remain in your city cloth and than chant ,the name has no effect??? What kind of understanding you have? Its a Show of Devotion. And then.... Broke the place down the three of us,...what does this means maybe your chanting was so fanatic that bystanders run way ,looks like and than you wonder whats wrong with this guys. Anyway i don't blame you, because if you want to get knowledge get out of your comfort zone and study properly, what Bhakti is all about.

Advaitadas: RP, a dhoti is a sacred garment which incites sacred sentiments. Garments do make a difference. A chastely covered lady incites other feelings than a half naked prostitute, huh? In Caitanya Caritāmṛta it is mentioned that Mahārāja Pratāparudra took a Vaiṣṇava dress to serve Śrīman Mahāprabhu in Aitota Garden. Furthermore, Vaiṣṇavas need to be recognized by appearance too. I know your Guru does not wear pants either. I acknowledge that there is a risk of posturing in a show of devotion in this way but that risk has to be taken. As far as what Bhakti is all about, yuga dharma is Harināma and it is the only way - harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam.

Last exchange added October 5, 2010 at Radhakund Dham. text added to 2nd refutation 30 january 2013

Śrī Rādhāṣṭamī 2010

RĀDHE RĀDHE.....

Rāgiṇī Ṭauḍi - Tāla Eka tāla

E TORA BĀLIKĀ, CĀNDERA KALIKĀ,
DEKHIYĀ JUḌĀYA ĀṄKHI
HENO MONE LORE, SADĀI HṚDAYE,
PASARĀ KORIYĀ RĀKHI

"This your little girl is like a moon-bud that pleases our eyes. Thus we can always keep Her in the heart as our wealth."

ŚUNO VṚṢABHĀNU PRIYE!
KI HENO KORIYĀ, KOLETE REKHECHO,
E HENO SOṆĀRA JHIYE  (Dhru)

(refrain) "Listen, O beloved of King Vṛṣabhānu (Kīrtidā)! What have you done to be able to keep such a golden girl on your lap?"

TAḌITA JINIYĀ, VADANA SUNDARA,
MUKHE HĀSI ĀCHE ĀDHĀ.
GAṆAKE YE NĀMA, SE NĀMA RĀKHUK,
ĀMARĀ RĀKHILĀM RĀDHĀ

"Her face defeats the beauty of the lightning and She smiles slightly. May the astrologers give Her any name they like - we will call Her Rādhā!"

SVARŪPA LAKṢAṆA, ATI VILAKṢAṆA,
TULANĀ DIBO VĀ KIYE.
MAHĀ-PURUṢERA, PREYASĪ HOIBE,
SAṀRIBĀ YADI JĪYE

"Her signs of Her character are most amazing. With what can I compare them? She will become the beloved of a great man. You will remember it if you live to see the day.

DUHITĀ BOLIYĀ, DUKHA NĀ BHĀVIHO,
IHOṄ UDDHĀRIBE VAṀŚA
JNĀNA DĀSA KOHE, ŚUNECHI KAMALĀ,
IHĀRA AṀŚERA AṀŚA

"Don't be unhappy that it is a daughter, for She will redeem your whole dynasty!" Jñāna dāsa says: "I have heard that Kamalā (Lakṣmī) is a particle of Her fragment only!"

Śrīmad Bhāgavat Canto Four, part 1

This the first of two blogs about the fourth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavata, primarily centered around the commentaries by Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda.

SB 4.4.3 tato viniḥsvasya sati vihāya tam sokena rosena ca dūyatā hṛdā pitror agāt straiṇa vimūḍha dhīr gṛhāt..  "Sati sighed deeply out of sorrow and anger and left her husband Śiva's home to join her father's party, her female mind bewildered..."

This verse does not say that women are less intelligent. Śrīdhara Swāmī and Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comment on it- tyāge hetuḥ—straiṇyaṁ strī-svabhāvas tena mūḍhā dhīr yasyāṁ sā - 'Sati left Shiva because her intelligence was deluded by her female nature'. So the intelligence is there, it is just suspended by strong feminine emotions. Wherever śāstra speaks negatively of women it is meant to discourage aspirant spiritualists to regard them as objects of enjoyment. Some, however, even reject śāstra on the women issue as the Bhāgavat says [9.20.21] that women are mere leather bags for carrying the embryo. They claim it may be interpolated or mistranslated - that interpolation must have been done a long time ago then, because Śrīdhara Swāmī commented upon this verse some 1,000 years ago, saying exactly that: bhastrā carma-pātraṁ tadvan mātā ādhāra-mātram 'Bhastra means a leather container, in this way the mother is the mere vessel'. This is not demeaning to women at all, as it is just a simple biological fact. It does not contradict the conclusion of 4.4.3. The fact that King Dusyanta was also called upon to take his responsibility (bharasva, and māvamaṁsthāḥ śakuntalām) proves the Bhāgavat is not misogynyc.

Satī's apparel is said to be 'of royal ladies' and is just like Śrī Rādhikā's (ŚB 4.4.5): "A śārikā (Myna-bird), ball, mirror, ambuja (lotus, perhaps in the hand), a white umbrella, vyajana (fan) and srak (flower-garland)."

Śiva's complexion is said to be white, but in ŚB 4.6.36 it is described as aṅgena sandhyābhra rucā, "Red like an evening cloud".

SB 4.4.12. Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda writes a long ṭīkā here- ye tu phalgūṁs tucchān api guṇān bahulīkariṣṇavo bahulīkaraṇa-śīlāḥ kim uta phalgūn doṣāṁs tu naiva paśyanti yathā śītārtatvād eva madīya-vastram apaharann api śastra-pāṇitve’pi dayālutvād eva na hinasti tad ayaṁ dhanya ity evaṁ te mahattamāḥ - "The greatest saints are those who magnify the smallest virtues in men and do not see even the greatest faults in them. If someone mugs him, he will think: "Oh he is suffering from the cold, that is why he takes away my coat. Though he carries a gun he does not even fire it at me! See how kind he is!"

This reminds me of an anecdote from Sādhu Bābā's life. In December, 1983, someone stole Madangopal's ornaments from the temple in broad daylight, but Sādhu Bābā refused to report to the police, though his followers urged him to do so. Instead he said "His (the thief's) need is greater than mine." He trusted that Madangopāl would provide him with other ornaments for His service and would prevent any future theft too, as He said in Bhagavad Gītā (9.22) yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmyaham 'I provide My devotee what He needs (new ornaments) and protect what He has (prevent further theft)."

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda then describes the most unsaintly person -
tathaiva ye tucchān api doṣān bahulīkariṣṇavo guṇān naiva gṛhṇanti yathā virakto’yaṁ vanam apahāya yad gṛhastha-gṛheṣu vasati tat pracura-dhanaā corayitu-kāma ity evaṁ te asādhutamāḥ - "The most unsaintly person magnifies the faults in anyone he meets and does not see any virtues in others. Just like, "Just see this renunciant! He gives up the forest to live in the house of a householder, just to leach upon his great wealth!" etc. ye tu guṇābhāve’pi pareṣāṁ guṇān eva paśyanti yathā jagaty asmin ke’pi duṣṭā na santi sarva eva sādhava ity evaṁ te mahattamāḥ - "Whoever sees only good things in others, though they are actually bereft of virtues, like: 'In this world there is not a single bad person - everyone is a saint, this person is the mahattama."

This is an ideal but it would not be possible to survive in this savage world if one were really practising such a totally saintly attitude. Great saints like Jesus and Haridās Thākur had themselves executed like lambs, but they also vocally criticised hypocrites, and a great saint like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira had himself deprived of his kingdom a few times over by Duryodhana and was forbearing to the extreme, but finally, when Duryodhana refused to even give him five villages, he declared war on him. If one were really totally without criticism or defensive mechanism one would not survive long in this world. Of course Yudhiṣṭhira's war was one of right against wrong etc., but it does mean that a saint has some defensive instinct too.

4.8.34  mudaṁ labdhum icchet natvasūyām anukrośaṁ kṛpāṁ natvavajñāṁ maitrīṁ na tu sparddhaḥ. One should be glad at someone’s superiority, not envious, one should bestow mercy on the novice and not disregard him/her, and one should be friendly with an equal and not compete with him/her.

4.12.17-18 Dhruva adjusted to the yogi society he lived in but the result of his breathing exercises is described in verse 18:

bhaktiṁ harau bhagavati pravahann ajasram

ānanda-bāṣpa-kalayā muhur ardyamānaḥ

viklidyamāna-hṛdayaḥ pulakācitāngo

nātmānam asmarad asāv iti mukta-lingaḥ

'Endless streams of ecstatic tears poured from his eyes out of devotion for Lord Hari, his body was studded with goosebumps and his heart was molten. He forgot even himself and was thus liberated." The desire to attain prema was clearly in the heart therefore the result was accordingly - as a result of prāṇāyām he got prema. This reminds me that Sādhu Bābā, himself a great yogi, also told me that if prāṇāyām will be used favorably for bhakti, it will yield the proper result. Dhruva followed the yuga-dharma of his Satya-yuga. The Bhāgavat says (12.3.51) kṛte yad dhyāyato viṣṇuṁ - "the yuga-dharma of Satya Yuga is meditation on Viṣṇu." Although prāṇāyām will work in Kali-yuga too and harināma will work in Satya-yuga too, in Kali people are lazy and stupid - manda sumanda-matayo, so harināma is certainly the easiest way of enlightenment. Even so, in Kali-yuga people run around with their bead-bags, shouting their heads off during a practise called japa, which is supposed to mean 'muttering'. That is due to the crazy Kali-yuga mind - cañcalaṁ hi manaḥ kṛṣṇa pramāthi balavad dṛḍham - The mind is impetuous, crazy, powerful and firm. I am not telling anyone to start blocking their nostrils now, but it IS glorified and recommended as a pre-japa practise in Haribhakti Vilāsa, that should be noted. Dhruva's goal was clearly stated here as Bhagavān (bhaktiṁ harau bhagavati), not Param Atma - it was not yoga per se.

4.12.21 Dhruva forgot the sequence of worship, going straight to worshipping the Lord, skipping over the worship of His associates. He did not correct his mistake by worshipping the associates afterwards anyway. Sometimes it is not possible to correct a forgotten item of worship. It reminds me of Sādhu Bābā, who, when he was so merciful to give this wretch dīkṣā, gave me mantra right away and then remembered he had forgotten to give me harināma. In his case he did correct the mistake by giving me harināma afterwards anyway.

SB 4.12.50 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comments: "My salary for lecturing is that devotees hear my lecture on Kṛṣṇa kathā. The pāṭhak should of course not lecture with the deliberate aim to make profit and do it as a business. However, a Paṇḍit also has to pay the rent and fill his belly, so it is befitting that the audience comes forward with dakṣiṇā and gifts, like sweets, fruits etc., as signs of bhakti and appreciation for all the time he spent enlightening them and to provide his yoga-kṣema. Normally this happens after the last path of a series (of a week or a month) is given.- rikta pāṇir na paśyeta rājānāṁ bhiṣajaṁ guruṁ (Hari Bhakti Vilāsa 4/343 from Smṛti Mahārṇava) "One should not see kings, a doctor or a Guru with empty hands."

SB 4.17.20 praharanti na vai strīṣu kṛtāghasvapi - 'Do not beat women, even if they have done wrong'. Even though Bhūmi Devī spoke this in personal self-defence, the ācāryas did not comment on this that one can nevertheless beat women. Śrī Jīva comments: jantavaḥ sādhāraṇa-jantu-tulyā mūḍhā api manuṣyā 'This is an edict for all, also common men and fools." Of course, Pṛthu did chastise Bhūmi devi, but not because she was a woman. He says in verse 26: pumān yoṣid uta klība ātma-sambhāvano’dhamaḥ bhūteṣu niranukrośo nṛpāṇāṁ tad-vadho’vadhaḥ - "To kill the proud and demoniac, whether they be man, woman or eunuch, is not killing at all." The emphasis is here on the vile and cruel, not on singling out a certain gender for systematic abuse, just because of the gender. See my blog of January 14, 2008.

SB 4.18.3-5 To benefit all human society, not only in this life but in the next, the great seers and sages have prescribed various methods conducive to the prosperity of the people in general. One who follows the principles and instructions enjoined by the great sages of the past can utilize these instructions for practical purposes. Such a person can very easily enjoy life and pleasures. A foolish person who manufactures his own ways and means through mental speculation and does not recognize the authority of the sages who lay down unimpeachable directions is simply unsuccessful again and again in his attempts. Śrīdhara Swāmī comments on verse 5: avidvān vidvān apīti vā  'That fool may be uneducated or even educated' since speculation is not the monopoly of the ignorant. intellectuals do it too.

SB 4.19.12 This verse is sometimes quoted by those who oppose Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas wearing saffron cloth, but, though I do agree we should not wear saffron, honestly speaking this verse does not appear in such a context at all. Besides, Indra is described in verse 14 as wearing dreadlocks (jaṭilaṁ) and being covered with ashes (bhasmācchannaṁ). It does say in verses 24-25, though that:

tad-gṛhīta-visṛṣṭeṣu pākhaṇḍeṣu matir nṛṇām dharma ity upadharmeṣu nagna-rakta-paṭādiṣu prāyeṇa sajjate bhrāntyā peśaleṣu ca vāgmiṣu

"(Foolish, unfortunate) people are attracted to heretics due to them being naked (nagnā jaināḥ, Viśvanātha says, the naked saints are Jains) , raktapaṭā, being dressed in red (bauddhāḥ or Buddhists according to Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda)  or being eloquent sweet talkers (peśaleṣu ca vāgmiṣu)."
This confirms how people are fooled by the so-called sadhus' external features rather than what comes out of their mouths or how sincere they are. Especially orange clothes seem to make a person instantly worshipable as a pure devotee, regardless of the person's actual quality.

SB 4.20.14 This is the famous verse which says that the king will get 1/6 of the pious merit of his subjects if he protects them. But otherwise (anyathā) the subjects take away (all) his good karma if he fails to protect them (arakṣitā) but does levy taxes on them (kara-hāro). He must then eat (bhuṅkte) their sins (agham). So it does not say that the king is 100% responsible for the activities of his subjects, rather it is a warning against corruption by politicians, who have the duty to provide services in exchange for the taxes they receive from their subjects. If the politician promises mountains of gold to the voters but ends up stealing mountains of their tax money either by stashing them on his own Swiss bank-accounts or by misappropriating the money by funding immoral activities, he will be liable. No population is entirely controllable so it is unrealistic to expect the rulers of huge nations like China and India with more than a billion citizens each to be liable for each action taken by its billion people - the individual soul is personally responsible but the rulers must surely teach and uphold the morality of the local religion.

Mother Śāradā on faults

This summer I had the following exchange with some friends at Facebook:

Bhakta:
"I tell you one thing my child -- if you want peace, do not find fault with others. Rather, see your own faults. Learn to make the world your own. No one is a stranger, my child; the whole world is your own."
...
(From Śrī Śāradā Devī's last words, spoken before passing away on July 20, 1920)

Advaita Das:
"I like especially the first half of this teaching."

Bhakta:
"I like the first bit the best as well. As for the rest, if all jīvas are nitya kṛṣṇa dās, then all jīvas are "ātmiya-svajan." (Bengali for 'relatives', AD) Isn't it?

Advaita Das
"If you point one finger at another, you point three fingers at yourself. Whenever you criticize someone, if you practice some ruthless introspection, you will be shocked to find you have done the same thing at some time in the past or are even doing it at present as well. At least that is my experience. That brings peace. Just shut up and do bhajan."

Bhakta:
YES! Exactly. I always have a list of grand excuses for why I've done something grandly stupid, while if someone else makes a tiny mistake I am ready to write him or her off as a phony. Gurudev also said, "mānuṣer prati kaṭākṣa na janmāy, nirabe bhajan korā-i niyam!" (Do not cast glances at anyone. Just shut up and do bhajan!)

Advaita Das
"Just see - I unconsciously quoted your Gurudeva. Making grand excuses at least shows some acknowledgement of faults, whereas I am so low I don't even recognize the faults in myself that I see in others."

Bhakta 2:
"I heard that when you criticise, you build a bridge and the faults come trotting over it to you ... me, that is."

Bhakta:
"I came to Vraj with no awareness of any of my faults, but from day 1 Rādhārāṇī started making all the biggest, crunchiest and nastiest things about me public knowledge, until I could no longer convince myself that I am anything but fallen. Good thing Nitai Chāṅd loves fallen people. Still I know there are tons of anarthas left over that I haven't noticed yet. By your kṛpā maybe one day I will."

Advaitadas:

As (Rādhākuṇḍa's late Kṛṣṇa Dās) Madrasi Baba often told me - gaurer āmār sob bhālo , ami eka-mātra mando o choto "Everyone is Gaur's and they are all good, only I am bad and low" āmi śata doṣer doṣī - I have 100 faults, āmi sahasra doṣer doṣī - I have 1000 faults, āmi koṭi doṣer doṣī - I have 10,000.000 faults" eto guṇe guṇī āmi sob somoy sakaler doṣa-ṭā-i dekhi, kintu āmāke sakaler guṇ-ṭā-ke khujte beḍābe, tabe tā'hole se-o ei adhamer madhye ye guṇ dekhite pābe ekatra ubhoy bose ki korile bhālo hoy sob somoy cintā korā jāy. "Because of these shortcomings I always try to find some faults in others, although in reality I do possess them myself in a concentrated way. Rather I should always try to find the good qualities in others. If I adopt such a behaviour they will maybe detect some good qualities in me although I don't have any, and in this way we may then find a place to sit together and converse gently. It should always be done like this."

The Mother said: "-- If you want peace, do not find fault with others."

Kṛṣṇa says ; nirmamo nirahaṅkāra sa śāntim ādhigacchati - "He who is without possessiveness or false ego, attains peace." (Bhagavad Gītā 2.71)

Jhulan Ekādaśī

Giridhārī on the Jhulan, on Jhulan Ekādaśī, Friday 20 august 2010

pāpa puruṣa

An inquiry on the sin in the grains on Ekādaśī to Dr. Satya-nārāyan Dās.

Prabhuji Rādhe Rādhe
I have a question about the pāpa puruṣa: It is said to enter the grains on Ekādaśī-day, yet śāstra also says that children younger than 8 and elders older than 80 are exempt from fasting from grains, what to speak of non-Vaiṣṇavas. Does the pāpa puruṣa not pervade their grains then? How should we picture this pāpa puruṣa?"

Satya-nārāyana Das
"pāpa means improper action, that which will harm oneself and the society i.e. which will create moral imbalance. Actions depend upon the state of mind. Mind is most influenced by food. The moon, besides being the presiding deity of mind, is also the king of vanaspati (foodstuff). It is understood that the quality of food changes with time. Āyurveda is very explicit about it. Time is calculated by the movements of the luminaries. On Ekādaśī grains are not salubrious for the mind so they should be avoided . This fact is told in the story form for a common person. In case of child or old person also the pāpa-puruṣa is there but probably the outcome of not eating would be worse than that of eating, so choose the least of bad effects. "
(August 6, 2010)

Māyā, Rāmānuja, Sītājī, China, Guru-tyāga and Vahan tattva

Bhakta: "Since Durgā-devī is Vaiṣṇavī and she is a servant of Kṛṣṇa, māyā is allright."

Advaitadas: "If serving Māyā is serving Kṛṣṇa then alcohol, meat and prostitution is also devotional service? Mahāprabhu says - kṛṣṇa sūrya sama - māyā hoy andhakāra - Kṛṣṇa is the sun and Māyā is darkness. yāhā kṛṣṇa tāhā nāhi māyār adhikāra - Where there is Kṛṣṇa, māyā has no rights."

* * *

Bhakta: "Some say Rāmānujācārya loudly chanted the secret dīkṣā-mantra and whoever heard it became his disciple. Please comment."

Advaitadas: "It is often used by some institutions to justify their extreme missionary zeal. Whether the story is true or not,

1. We are not Rāmānujaites but Gauḍīyas. We have our own doctrine, leaders and role-models.
2. śāstra is śāstra, and we must follow it. We cannot and should not imitate the great ones, being only small ourselves. naitat samācarej jātu.
3. The confidentiality and personal nature of the dīkṣā-process will be destroyed if we all acted like that."

* * *

Recently a Facebook-friend expressed reservations about the abandonment of Sītā by Rāma, saying that this is not a God she could support. My response was:

"When you begin to criticize Lord Rāma in this way you have clearly not understood Rāma-līlā. Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Madhya 9.188-196) clearly says materialists cannot even see Sītājī, let alone touch Her. Rāvan kidnapped only a māyā- [false] Sītā. The punishment of Sītā by Rāma seems very harsh, but 3 things you must remember -

1. Although this is of course a līlā of the Lord and His eternal energy, in this līlā Sitaji was not totally innocent - She disobeyed Lakṣman by stepping out of the protective circle he had drawn for Her and She made Vaiṣṇava-aparādha to him too by claiming he did not want to leave the circle to answer to the call for help by the bogus-Rām named Marīca, because he was attracted to Her, his own sister in law.
2. Sītā is the Supreme Lord's inseparable śakti, so the abandoned Sītā must also have been a material māyā-Sītā.
3. Mahāprabhu was also very stern by rejecting Choṭa Haridās, driving him to suicide, to make a certain point very clear - vairāgīs do not dally with women. Similarly, Rāma made clear to the women of the world not to disobey their husbands or falsely accuse their brothers in law.
Bhakti means we are judged by God and not that we judge God or pick and choose what decisions of Him we will accept and what we don't. That is not surrender.

* * *

Although Viṣṇudāsa glosses the word cīna in Ujjvala Nīlamaṇi 10.40 as 'very soft', Śrīla Jīva Goswāmī and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda say: cīnasya tan nāma deśodbhavasya. "China is a country of that name". It is interesting that there is some knowledge of foreign countries in the writings of the previous ācāryas. That word cīna is translated as Chinese also by some in Vilāpa Kusumāñjali verse 22 - pānīyaṁ cīna-vastraiḥ etc., though, to preserve the mādhurya I think it better to gloss it as 'very soft'.

* * *

In his ṭīkā of Śrīmad Bhāgavat 10.45.32, Ācārya Vaṁśīdhara quotes the Mahābhārat -

vidyāṁ śrutvā ye guruṁ nādriyante
pratyāsannā manasā karmaṇā ca
teṣāṁ pāpaṁ bhrūṇa-hatyā viśiṣṭaṁ
tebhyo nānyaḥ pāpa-kṛc cāsti loke

'A person who hears knowledge from the Guru and does not respect him or awaits on him with his mind and actions, is as sinful as an abortionist. No one in the world is as sinful as him."

This verse shows that the sin of abortion (bhrūṇa-hatyā) was already committed so many thousands of years ago, and it also shows a clear condemnation of guru-tyāgīs.

* * *

Finally, I had this interesting exchange with Dr. Satya-Nārāyan Dās about vahana tattva (the Lord's vehicles) -

Advaita Das 02 august -
"Prabhuji, Rādhe Rādhe. Every God has a vahana - Viṣṇu has Garuḍa, Brahmā the Marāla swan, Shiva the bull Nandī, Kāmadeva has a parrot, Ganesh a mouse, but Kṛṣṇa, Rām and Mahāprabhu do not have a vehicle. Is there a significance in this? Perhaps this shows their humanity?"

Satyanarayana Dasa 02 august -
"Rāma has Hanumān, and Kṛṣṇa has Garuḍa. But because their līlā is a human līlā they do not use them unless to show their aiśvarya side, like when Kṛṣṇa went to fight with Bhaumāsura and then went to heaven to return the ear-rings. So you are right "this shows their humanity".

bhūṣaṇa āyudha nityatā

Earlier this month I had this conversation with Dr. Satya-nārāyan Dās about the apparel of the Lord:

Rādhe Rādhe Prabhuji
I have a question again on the eternal apparel of the Lord –

1. In the Purāṇas it is said that Lakṣmī did tapasya [penance] to attain Kṛṣṇa in Vraja, but the Lord told her it was not possible, but instead she could get a place on his chest as the Śrīvatsa-mark. But the Śrīvatsa is an eternal ornament of the Lord, so how could there be an historical moment that Śrīvatsa was added to the Lord Kṛṣṇa’s chest? Is this verse an interpolation or just a glorification of the madhurya of Vraja?
2. Speaking of Śrīvatsa, why does Kṛṣṇa have the Śrīvatsa in Vraja at all? It does not seem to match with the madhurya of His Vraja svarupa.

Satyanarayana Dasa replied:
"Are bhai, mādhurya is founded on aiśvarya, it is not devoid of it. otherwise Kṛṣṇa would be like any other guy on the block. Mādhurya subjugates aiśvarya. That is the point. Therefore, sometimes the gopis are described as Lakṣmīs - lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama- to show that aiśvarya of Vraja is much superior even to Vaikuṇṭha. There is also a story of Krsna getting the Cakra [from Paraśūrām, Ad]. This has nothing to do with Historical moment. It is a matter of being vyakta [manifest, Ad] and avyakta [unmanifest, Ad] for the sake of pastime - to make it look more human-like, otherwise He always has everything."

Advaitadas-
"Yes, I agree. But what about the Lord getting the Kaustubha-gem and Lakṣmī during the Samudra Manthan (the churning of the Milk Ocean as described in Śrīmad Bhāgavat 8th canto, Ad.) then? There is no mādhurya in the samudra manthan līlā. Some say the Lord getting all these items during Samudra Manthan has all adhyātmika [symbolic] meanings? Is that so?

Satya-nārāyan Das -
"If there is no mādhurya ,there is aiśvarya. It is His līlā. Otherwise do you think that Kaustabha and Lakṣmī actually came from the ocean? Read Śrīmad Bhāgavat 6.8.32-33. It says that bhūṣaṇa āyudha (ornaments and weapons, Ad.) etc are the Lord's own Potency, sva-māyayā. As He is eternal, so is His potency. Śrīmad Bhāgavat 10.3.9 says that Kṛṣṇa was born with them, and then they became unmanifest. This shows that bhūṣaṇa etc can manifest and unmanifest as per līlā but they are ever with the Lord. How then can His svarūpa-śakti be separated from Him?

(note: Jīva Gosvāmī in his ṭīkā to Śrīmad Bhāgavat 6.8.32-33 refers to Maharāj Ambarīṣa's prayers to the Sudarśan Cakra in Śrīmad Bhāgavat 9.5.3-11, where all the attributes of Bhagavān are ascribed to it. Jīva Gosvāmī also refers to Śrīmad Bhāgavat 3.28.28, where the Lord's gem is compared to the living entities, something that can obviously not be replaced by a leather jacket, Santa Claus outfit or a mobile phone as some deluded persons think nowadays. The Śrīmad Bhagavat [12.11.10] also states that the Lord carries the pure consciousness of the jīva, His own particle, in the form of the Kaustubha gem, and it is the diffusive splendour of the latter which the Lord actually wears on His [right] breast as Śrīvatsa.)

Śārikā - Gracula religiosa, turdus or Mynah bird?

I did a Google-pictures and Sanskrita-Wiki-dictionary search on the Śārikā-bird, which is usually translated as 'female parrot', but I have seen it also translated sometimes as 'Mynah-bird'. This is what came up for Gracula Religiosa, Mynah and Turdus. The first two [top row] are identical, but the turdus [bottom row] is different, it is a type of robin. It seems most likely to be the Gracula Religiosa and the Mynah:

Śrīmad Bhāgavat, Canto 3, part 2

Completing a quotation of my favorite commentaries on the 3rd Canto of the Śrīmad Bhāgavat-

3.16.5 Neither the Gita Press- nor the BBT-translation is complete - Bhānu Swāmi's is the only correct one -

"When the servant commits a sin using the name of his master [yan nāmāni ca gṛhnati] the master gets criticised and his fame destroyed, just as white spot on the skin gets one condemned as a leper."

Viśvanātha Cakravartī has the most interesting ṭīkā, as usual: "But how can the Supreme Lord commit an offence? Even if You do who could punish You? How can You restrict Yourself? There can be no punishment - infamy alone would be the punishment. The fame of a master is destroyed by the activities of a servant who performs sinful activities in the name of the master, just as white leprosy destroys the skin. People who see a white spot on someone's skin say: "This person has leprosy".

SB 3.16.34 The residents of Satyaloka 'cried out of disappointment' when Jaya and Vijaya fell from Vaikuṇṭha. It shows that there is no fall from Vaikuṇṭha, because if that were so, the residents of Satyaloka would be accustomed to it and not even bother about yet another one becoming envious of Kṛṣṇa and coming down, wanting to imitate Him. The Sanskrit text says hāhākāra, which is generally a cry of astonishment, not necessarily disappointment."

SB 3.23.47 Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments - pumān puṁso'dhike śukre strī bhavatyadhike striyāḥ - when the man produces more genital fluid the child will be male, if the woman produces more genital fluid the child will be female. tāṁ striyaṁ bhāvayann iti ādhāna-kāle strī-dhyānena stry-apatyaṁ syād - "Thinking of a woman during impregnation creates a female child." śāstra says women are nine or eight times lustier than men, but adhika kāma probably means 'greater sexual capacities than men'. That is why prostitution is usually done by women - they can do it over and over again, but a man is sexually exhausted after one single time sex, at most two times, a day.

SB 3.25.32-33 - Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda quotes from Viṣṇu Rahasya -

utsargān mala-mūtrādeś citta-svāsthyaṁ yathā bhavet.

ataḥ pāyur upasthaś ca tad-ārādhana-sādhanam

"Just as [because] the consciousness gets healthy by passing stool and urine, the anus and genitals are instruments of worship."

SB 3.25.21 - ajāta śatrava - The saint's enemies are never born. This does not mean a saint has no enemies - look at how many enemies great saints like Haridās Thākur and Mahārāj Yudhiṣṭhira had. Both Śrīdhara Swāmī and Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda say that 'sādhu bhūṣaṇa' means they respect the sādhus. Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda adds to that that they think of the sādhus dearly like ornaments.

SB 3.25.25 - From Sādhu Saṅga comes an attraction to the Lord within the mind, when one associates with the sādhus in an excellent way there will be Hari-kathā, if the companionship is not so excellent there will be only bhajan kriyā, but not kathā. From the excellent association anartha nivṛtti arises and niṣṭhā [fixation] in such kathā. Then comes genuine knowledge (samvido) of My prowess (mama vīrya). When taste (ruci) arises it will be a tonic for the heart and ears (hṛt-karṇa-rasāyanā). Attachment (āsakti) for the Lord then opens the door to liberation (apavarga vartmani), and gradually from śraddhā and āsakti there will be rati (bhāva) and bhakti (prema). In this way Viśvanātha creates a parallel between Rūpa Goswāmī's ādau-śraddhā sequence and the sequence in this famous Bhāgavat-verse.

SB 3.25.38 Is another nail in the coffin of the fall-vādīs: The residents of Vaikuṇṭha do not lose anything enjoyable. Viśvanātha confirms this: tasmin mal-loke mat-parās tad vāsino lokāḥ kadācid api na nankṣyanti bhogya-hīnā na bhavanti. He later quotes the commentary on Viṣṇu Sahasra Nāma: param utkṛṣṭam ayanaṁ sthānaṁ punar āvṛtti-śaṅkā-rahitam 'In that Supreme Abode there is no fear of returning"

SB 3.26.61 Though the head is popularly believed to be the abode of the mind, Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments on this verse - hṛdaya eva mana ādy-antaḥkaraṇa-catuṣṭayasyādhiṣṭhānam - "The heart is surely the abode of the fourfold subtle body [mind, intelligence, ego, citta], including the mind."

SB 3.29.10 - Viśvanātha comments that karma miśra bhaktas who perform horse sacrifices get sālokya mukti, jñāna miśra bhakti, where bhakti predominates results into śānta rasa and jñāna miśra bhakti wherein jñāna dominates results in sāyujya mukti. In India many poor people become sādhus to get a better material life and in the west many people join Hare Kṛṣṇa because they have some sexual hangup or some drugs-hangover. But they cannot approach Kṛṣṇa without having any bhakti at all. Despite their ulterior motives there IS bhakti too. See Bhagavad Gītā 7.16 - four types of PIOUS people come to Me. When the glass is half empty it is half full too, after all. You have all these big singers in India like Anup Jalota and Hari Om Sharan - they became very rich as singers, but they are not only in it for the money still. Without bhakti you cannot do these things. Of the four types of mukti only sāmīpya is somewhat devotional because they want to be near the Lord. See blog of December 3, 2008.

3.29.15 — nātihiṁsreṇa ati hiṁsā rahitenetyati śabdena bhagavan mandira mārjjana lepana tad arthān nādi vividha naivedya sādhanādiṣvati durvāra durlakṣya sūkṣma jīva hiṁsana śāka mūla phalādi troṭanādāvapi na kṣatir iti jñāpitaṁ. ‘Not being too violent` means that there is no harm if some violence is done to small insignificant creatures while picking roots, fruits and vegetables for the food offerings in the temple.

SB 3.31.35 Worse than associating with a woman is associating with a womanizer. When a woman is beautiful but chaste she poses no threat to the sādhaka, but even if there are no attractive women around, if the sādhaka associates with a debauch who constantly speaks about acquiring women, that is a much greater impetus to fall-down than association with a woman herself, especially a chaste and pious lady. Even if the debauch does not speak about women, his mere presence can be contaminating due to his mentality spilling over into your mind. In his ṭīkā Madhvācārya quotes the Varāha Purana:

sat-puṁsu ca tathā strīṣu na saṅgo doṣam āvadet

'There is no fault if saintly men and saintly women [innocently] associate with each other."

SB 3.31.40 — yā ca puruṣaṁ viraktaṁ jñātvā svīya niṣkāmatāṁ vyañjayanyī śuśrūṣādi miṣeṇa upayāti sāpi anartha-kāriṇītyāha yopayātīti. atra tṛṇācchādita kūpasya mayi janaḥ patatviti bhāvanābhāvāt kasyacit pārśve'pyanāgamāt sarvatrodāsīnā vā bhakti jñāna vairāgyādimatī vā unmādād acetanā nidrāṇā vā mṛtāpi vā strī sarvarthaiva dūre parityājyā iti vyañjitam
 "Women are a kind of illusion created by God, and it is very difficult to be released from the grip of this illusion. Hence a person who desires his own welfare should not associate with women. A woman may approach a man only for the sake of rendering service to him, thinking him to be very renounced, and he may consider himself to be very renounced also, but still he should consider her to be his wholesale destruction — he should consider women to be death personified, like a well covered over by grass. Even if a woman is devoted, full of spiritual knowledge, renounced, in a swoon due to hysteria, sleeping, or even dead, still he should not come near her — he should always stay far away from her."

SB 3.33.6 Jīva Goswāmī says in his ṭīkā on the famous verse that says that even a dog-eater can instantly perform fire sacrifices by even casually remembering Bhagavān, that tatra yogyatāyāṁ labdhārambho bhavatīty arthaḥ. tad-anantara-janmany eva dvijatvaṁ prāpya tad-ādy-adhikārī syād -
"This describes the beginning of qualification, but he is eligible to become a brahmin only in the next life"

Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda seems to disagree: soma-yāga-kartā brāhmaṇa iva pūjyo bhavatīti durjāty-ārambhaka-prārabdha-pāpa-nāśo vyañjitaḥ  "He becomes worshipable like a brahmin who performs Soma-sacrifices, it indicates the destruction of his prārabdha karma that caused his bad birth."

He does not literally or practically say that dog-eaters can perform sacrifices but they become worshipable like them (brāhmaṇa iva pūjyo) as Śrīdhara Swāmī says too by the way. In other words, where Jīva Goswāmī is practical Viśvanātha is more emotional and follows the line of glorification in the original verse, stressing the glories of bhakti. There is never any contradiction between the ācāryas, at most a different stressing of viewpoint (dṛṣṭikoṇa).

Destruction of prārabdha karma does not mean you get a new material body. When you enter the initiation-arena with one eye or with one leg, it is not that after dīkṣā suddenly you now have two eyes or two legs. The body remains the same, even though sins have been destroyed through dīkṣā or a sādhana process. Similarly one does not become a brahmin without first taking birth as one. The fact that brahmins are needed in the west to perform weddings and funerals, does not warrant making brahmins artificially out of mlecchas - the scriptural rule cannot be made subservient to practical demands. The same with Guru-successors - many famous Gurus go without a great successor - it simply did not happen for one reason or the other. The time was not ripe for a spiritually mature successor when the Guru's physical body expired. So organisations who need initiators as part of their preaching and on-the-job-training programmes go ahead and appoint unqualified dīkṣā Gurus anyway, for practical purposes, of course with disastrous results. Sometimes one just has to wait for a successor to mature and sometimes also a lineage just stops at a certain ācārya.

In the next verse, 3.33.7, Viśvanātha continues to follow the glorifying hyperboles of the śloka in his ṭīkā, saying: ataeva sa śvapaco garīyān atiśayena gurur bhavatīty anyān api nāmātmaka-mantram upadeṣṭuṁ yogyatāṁ dhatte iti bhāvaḥ - 'What to speak of a full pronunciation, if the dog-eater even hold the holy name on the tip of the tongue he becomes qualified to be a dīkṣā-guru." If this were to be taken literally, then any prostitute or pimp in a brothel called Porno-rama would be qualified to give dīkṣā (the name Rama is there)?