krishnamritamaharnava

kRishhNAmRita-mahArNava

Compiled by Shrisha Rao on Dvait List

|| shrI gurubhyo namaH hariH OM ||

|| atha shrI kR^ishhNAmR^ita-mahArNavam.h ||

architaH saMsmR^ito dhyAtaH kIrtitaH kathitaH shrutaH |

yo dadAtyamR^itatvaM hi sa mAM raxatu keshavaH || 1 ||

By archanA, smaraNa, dhyAna, kIrtana, kathana, and shravaNa, in respect of whom, one gets mukti, may that Keshava protect me.

The first verse sets out the scope of the entire text, and informs one that Krishna is to be worshipped in various means, by doing which one will be freed from death. This however leaves open the question of whether it might not be more feasible to seek out some interim, more easily achieved goal. The next verse answers this by saying:

tApatrayeNa santaptaM yadetadakhilaM jagat.h |

vaxyAmi shAntaye hyasya kR^ishhNAmR^ita mahArNavam.h || 2 ||

The entire world is afflicted by various kinds of sorrow (which cannot be remedied in any other fashion); to quench the same, I now state the kR^ishhNAmR^ita-mahArNava.

It is clarified that there is no comprehensive solution to the suffering that afflicts all embodied beings, and as such, even from a short-term perspective, the worship of Krishna is certainly without an alternative. Even so, one might wonder if such worship is only a sign of weakness and impotence, which a stronger person could do well to avoid; this doubt is answered by saying:

te narAH pashavo loke kiM teshhAM jIvane phalam.h |

yairna labdhA harerdIxA nArchito vA janArdanam.h || 3 ||

They are animals in human form; what is the use of their living?

-- who have not obtained the dIxA of Hari, nor worshipped Janardana.

This tells us that it is inappropriate for one to imagine that lack of worship of Sri Hari could be considered a sign of strength or ability, and states clearly that a life bereft of His worship could not possibly be considered a life well-lived, at all, no matter what other attainments there might be in it.

After reading the previous verse, a doubt may still remain: it is not sufficient to merely brand anyone who does not worship Krishna as a moron, and proceed on that basis. There has to be some cogent reason for arguing that such worship is the only possible reason for life's fulfillment. The next verse answers this by saying:

##

saMsAre.asmin.h mahAghore janmarogabhayAkule |

ayameko mahAbhAgaH pUjyate yadadhoxajaH || 4 ||

##

In this world which is very fearsome, due to birth, disease, fear, etc., only the one who worships Adhokshaja can be considered fortunate.

By this, one is reminded that no matter what attainments one may speak of, one still is subject to the many travails that flesh is heir to, and on the balance, the joy due to any attainments is very small compared to the continuous suffering that embodied existence implies, and any such joy is also bounded in time by death. As such, any worthwhile lifetime must attend to these shortcomings as well, in order to be considered worthwhile.

At this, one may wonder why it should be granted that worship of Krishna is superior; even if other activities do not remove suffering, perhaps even this does not count as an improvement over them? The next verse answers this by saying:

##

sa nAma sukR^itI loke kulaM tenAbhyalaN^kR^itam.h |

AdhAraH sarvabhUtAnAM yena vishhNuH prasAditaH || 5 ||

##

By that kind of deed, the world benefits (in addition to the individual concerned), and even the clan is given a good name; by one who obtains the grace of the Vishnu who is the support of all creatures.

By this, it is stated that the worship of Vishnu is unlike other activities which fail to remove misery; such worship not only helps the individual, but is also of collectivebenefit to the world at large, and even gives the family or community a good name. Thus, it certainly stands out from other kinds of activities that one could engage in. By knowing and worshipping Vishnu as the support of all creatures, one develops genuine compassion towards all creatures, and freedom from fear as well (inasmuch as there is no cause to fear anything that is controlled by one's beloved Deity).

At the conclusion of the previous verse, a doubt is apt to arise: there are other kinds of religious actions which can bring the same results of helping the individual and the world as a whole. So why not carry out any such in preference to worship of Krishna? After all, there are lots of people, even well-minded ones, who think that mere worship is a waste of time, and that one must instead focus on social work, etc. The next verse answers this as follows:

##

yaj~nAnAM tapasAM chaiva shubhAnAM chaiva karmaNAm.h |

tadvishishhTaphalaM nR^INAM sadaivArAdhanaM hareH || 6 ||

##

Sacrifices, austerities, and also virtuous rites or actions, cannot give superior results, and hence such should always be carried out as worship of Hari.

The idea conveyed is that any other kind of virtuous activity cannot, under any circumstances, yield superior results to that obtained by worship of Sri Hari, and that furthermore, such cannot yield *any* of the results they are known for independently , without His will. As such, there need be no doubt about the worship of Krishna on this account. All such actions should only be done as His worship, and for no other reason.

At that, one is apt to have a doubt: times are not suitable for one to speak of performing great acts of virtue or worship; there are many obstacles to such, owing in major part to the effects of Kali-Yuga which imperil all seekers, etc. Worship and the like require circumstances which cannot be had in this day and age, and any attempts one makes at the same will doubtless be faulty in spite of one's best efforts. As such, where is the question of one's worshipping Krishna, much less of performing other (difficult) virtuous actions as His worship? The next two verses answer this as follows:

##

kalau kalimaladhvaMsi sarvapApaharaM harim.h |

ye.archayanti narA nityaM te.api vandyA yathA hariH || 7 ||

nAsti shreyaskaraM nR^INAM vishhNorArAdhanAnmuneH |

yuge.asminstAmase loke satataM pUjyate nR^ibhiH || 8 ||

##

In Kali-Yuga, Hari is the destroyer of the filth of Kali, and the remover of all sins; [therefore] the humans who worship Hari every day also become worshippable,as per theirability.

The saints know that there is nothing superior to Vishnu's worship; as such, in this Yuga, and in the evil world, the best among men worship Him constantly.

It is clarified that the presence of obstacles placed by Kali, etc., should be a motivator for one to worship Sri Hari as the remover of the same, rather than forming a barrier in one's mind. As He is the remover of such filth within and without oneself, knowing Him as such and worshipping Him are appropriate remedies to the problem. By dedicating all actions to Him and knowing Him as the remover of all sin, one does not have to fear the incurring of sin on account of imperfection of action. By gradually getting rid of the obstacles of Kali within and without, a person becomes virtuous by His grace, and even an example to others. For these reasons, notwithstanding the apparent difficulties, those of sound judgement, the creme-de-la-creme of humanity, know that there is nothing superior to Vishnu's worship, which they thus engage in constantly.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, a doubt is apt to arise: it is possible for one to worship many different deities, many of whom may actually grant one cherished desires, and give other benefits similar to those already stated. In that respect, how is the worship of Krishna special in any way? To answer this, the next verse states:

##

archite devadeveshe shaN^khachakragadAdhare |

architAH sarvadevAH syuryataH sarvagato hariH || 9 ||

##

If the Deity of deities, bearing shankha, chakra, and gadA alone

is worshipped, all deities are worshipped thereby, as Hari is

present everywhere.

It is clarified that the worship of Krishna alone is at least as

fruitful as the worship of all deities, since He is present in all,

and by worshipping Him as present in all, one worships all that is to

be worshipped. At this, one is apt to have the doubt that His being

present everywhere is no guarantee of superiority, or fitness for

worship. It in fact could be construed that it is just the opposite;

that anything present everywhere is inert, commonplace and of no

special note. This doubt is dealt with as follows:

##

svarchite sarvalokeshe surAsuranamskR^ite |

keshave kaMsakeshighne na yAti narakaM naraH || 10 ||

##

Upon worshipping the Lord of all worlds, who is worshipped by all

the gods and demons, the Keshava who killed Kamsa and Keshi, a

human does not go to hell.

It is clarified that rather than being commonplace, Krishna is

extremely special; that He is not merely present in all the worlds,

but is their Ruler as well, and is worshipped by all their Denizens

according to their capacities. By knowing Him as being a Sentient and

active entity rather than an inert and attributeless one, a human does

not suffer hell. At this, one is apt to have the doubt that such a

tremendous entity, who pervades the entire universe and is worshipped

by all, is well beyond the pale of one's modest understanding and

competence, and as such, one may not be able to carry out His worship

due to one's incompetence and other limitations. To remove this

doubt, it is said in the next verse:

##

sakR^idabhyarchya govindaM bilvapatreNa mAnavaH |

muktibhAgI nirAtaN^kI vishhNuloke chiraM vaset.h || 11 ||

##

If a human worships Govinda even once with devotion with just

bilva-leaves; then s/he ultimately obtains the fortune of

liberation, and is freed from terror, and resides in Vishnu's

world forever.

By using `manavaH', it is clarified that while the worship of Krishna

is carried out by much greater entities as well, even humans can

worship Him fruitfully, and lack of material resources to apply in His

worship is no barrier as it is devotion, rather than such, which

matters (cf. Bhagavad Gita IX-26). Even such limited worship is

capable of giving one the ultimate benefit, and therefore, there is no

cause to reject worship on account of one's limitation. At this, one

may still have the doubt that profundity of devotion is extremely

difficult to obtain, as such generally goes hand-in-hand with

scholarship and depth of knowledge -- given one's lack of devotion,

what is said here cannot apply to oneself. To answer that, it is

said:

##

sakR^idabhyarchito yena helayA.api namaskR^itaH |

sa yAti paramaM sthAnaM yatsurairapi durlabham.h || 12 ||

##

If He is worshipped by someone even as a matter of jest;

then that person obtains that supreme position, which cannot be

had even by deities.

As such, even if one thinks that one's worship is really a joke given

one's lack of understanding and devotion, one still must apply oneself

just the same, secure in the knowledge that such worship will still

yield such benefit as cannot be had even from rigorous worship of any

other deity, who cannot obtain such a position independently.

Having stated the basics of Vishnu's worship, Srimad Acharya now

proceeds to quote various authorities for the same (many of these have

been traced, but the references as such are not known to me; only the

names of the speakers in the original instance are given).

##

(nAradaH)

samastalokanAthasya devadevasya shArN^gaNaH |

sAxAdbhagavato vishhNoH pUjanaM janmanaH phalam.h || 13 ||

##

He, who is the Lord of the entire universe, is the Deity of all

deities, and is all-knowing; the worship of that Vishnu, who is

verily the Supreme Being, is the consummation of one's life.

How should such worship be conducted, and why is it the consummation

of one's life? The next quote answers:

##

(pulahaH)

bhaktyA durvAN^kuraiH puMbhiH pUjitaH purushhottamaH |

harirdadAti hi phalaM sarvayaj~naishcha durlabham.h || 14 ||

##

If one worships the Purushottama with devotion using even blades of

durva, Hari gives such a result, as cannot be obtained even by all

yaj~na-s.

Such worship should be carried out with devotion rather than for show,

etc., and it gives results exceeding those obtained by yaj~na-s, which

is why it is of such worth. Perhaps such worship is rather difficult,

or the results thereof rarely seen, nonetheless? No, says the next

quote:

##

vidhinA devadeveshaH shaN^khachakradharo hariH |

phalaM dadAti sulabhaM salilenApi pUjitaH || 15 ||

##

Upon worship in the approved fashion even with water, the

Hari who bears shankha and chakra gives results easily.

All good, but what if one is satisfied already, and doesn't wish for

anything more? In that case surely worship may be avoided? The next

quote indicates otherwise:

##

narake pachyamAnastu yamena paribhAshhitaH |

kiM tvayA nArchito devaH keshavaH kleshanAshanaH || 16 ||

##

This was said by Yama in a certain instance, to someone suffering

the ordeal of hell: "Why was Keshava, the remover of all suffering,

not worshipped by you?"

The idea is that even if one is happy in one's present situation, the

karma-burden that one carries will doubtless necessitate one's

suffering in future, in this life or in the afterlife, and at least

for that reason, worship of Krishna is unavoidable.

At the conclusion of the last quote from Yama, one is apt to think

that perhaps the poor sufferer did not worship for not having had the

facilities, and hence a rebuke is not justified. Not so --

##

(yamaH)

nArasiMho hR^ishhIkeshaH puNDarIkanibhexaNaH |

smaraNAnmuktido nR^INAM sa tvayA kiM na pUjitaH || 17 ||

##

That Narasimha, Hrshikesha, Pundarikaksha, who gives mukti merely

for remembering [him] -- why was He not worshipped by you??

As such, it has to be that the lack of worship even in one's own mind

is a matter of choice, rather than a constraint forced on one by lack

of resources or the like. However, should one then merely be content

to occasionally bring Krishna into one's mind, but forget about all

the physical kinds of worship, in order to conserve limited resources

or time? Not at all --

##

dravyANAmapyabhAve tu salilenApi pUjitaH |

yo dadAti svakaM sthAnaM sa tvayA kiM na pUjitaH || 18 ||

##

If there is lack of resources, then He can be worshipped even

using water; to such a one He gives [the joy of] one's own

position -- why was He not worshipped by you?

Therefore, while He may be worshipped in one's own mind, it is

improper to imagine that one may do away with actual physical worship

and service even when one is able to offer some.

Yama summarizes his views, by stating the lot of those who do not heed

his advice:

##

garbhasthitA mR^itA vA.api mushhitAste sudoshhitaH |

na prAptA yairharerdIxA sarvaduHkhavimochinI || 19 ||

##

Verily, worse is the lot of one who has not obtained the dIxA of

Hari which destroys all suffering, than even that of one who suffers

presence in the womb, or even the pangs of death.

This is so because even such suffering may be considered bounded in

time, while there is no end to suffering for one who does not worship

Krishna. In other words, birth and death are self-limiting, in that

the pain of birth does not cause any more pain than due to one birth,

etc.; however, lack of worship of Krishna can give the pain of

countless births and deaths.

Even after all the previous, it is still possible for one to have a

doubt that any results obtained by worshipping Krishna may yet come

very late, even if they be superior ones. What would be the point of

going through a lot of suffering or anticipation first, before coming

to a good end? Inasmuch as celerity may be considered a virtue, it is

uncertain that worshipping Krishna is worthwhile. For that, it is

said:

##

(mArkaNDeyaH)

sakR^idabhyarchito yena devedevo janArdanaH |

yatkR^itaM tatkR^itaM tena saMprAptaM paramaM padam.h || 20 ||

##

The devoted worship of Janardana, the Deity of deities, is done by

whom, he is given by You the supreme position immediately.

That is to say, there need be no doubt that there is anything but

one's own lack of desire to worship Krishna, that stops one from

achieving the result that He gives immediately. Even so, one may

think that working towards otherworldly liberation is rather esoteric

or egg-headed, even if all of the previous be true. It is surely as

well to keep an active interest in the present world and pursue

worthwhile objectives of dharma, etc., in it. For that, it is said:

##

dharmArthakAmamoxANAM nAnyopAyastu vidyate |

satyaM bravImi devesha hR^ishIkeshArchanAdR^ite || 21 ||

##

In respect of dharma, artha, kAma, and moxa, there is no other

solution; this I state truthfully, O king of deities (Indra), other

than the worship of Hrshikesha.

The various objectives that one could aim at would be dharma (virtuous

actions), artha (gain of wealth), kAma (gain of happiness/sensory

satisfaction), and moxa (liberation), and it is stated that there

verily is no way to obtain any of these, unless Krishna wills one to

have it, and hence, too, his worship is not avoided. At this, one may

wonder: surely others besides Krishna may be worshippable or

illustrious as well -- it would surely be folly to imagine that one

can disregard all worthwhile humans and yet worship Krishna only. So

who are the people worthy of one's regard? This query is answered as

follows:

##

tasya yaj~navarAhasya vishhNoramitatejasaH |

praNAmaM ye cha kurvanti teshhAmapi namo namaH || 22 ||

##

Him, the `yaj~na' and the `varAha', the Vishnu of limitless

brilliance; whoever salutes Him and [His devotees], I worship

them too, over and over.

In the IshAvAsya-bhAshhya-TIka, Sri Jayatiirtha states that Lord Vishnu is

known by the epithet `yaj~na' for being the recipient of all sacrifices

and virtuous actions: `sarvayaj~naboktR^itvAt.h yaj~nanAma ityarthaH'.

The `varAha' epithet conveys the idea that one is to know Him as being the

Support of the world as well. Therefore, anyone who correctly understands

the Lord as being of untold brilliance, the Support of the world, and also

the object of all sacrifices, and worships Him as such, such a one is

worthy of one's regard as well.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one could still have a doubt

whether it might be possible for someone other than one worshipping

Krishna in the stated manner, to obtain some position of greatness or

merit, and thus be worthy of one's own regard as well. After all, in the

world, people do idolize persons of significant achievement in a variety

of fields, and there is nothing to suggest that this is itself incorrect.

The next quote shows otherwise:

##

(marIchiH)

anArAdhitagovindairnaraiH sthAnaM nR^ipAtmaja |

na hi samprApyate shreshhThaM tasmAdArAdhayAchyutam.h || 23 ||

(shrI vishhNu-purANa, adhyAya 11)

##

O king: a human, having failed to worship Govinda;

verily fails to obtain the worthy -- hence, worship the One who is

free of all flaws.

The idea conveyed is that without having the Flawless One in one's mind

and worshipping Him, it is not possible for one to lose one's own flaws.

Just as parents point out to their children people they consider role

models for the latter to adopt, the wise sage advises one to accept

Krishna as one's role model, for surely it would be impossible for one to

lose one's flaws by keeping role models who are themselves flawed, or by

not having any role models at all. At this, one may have the doubt that

this advice for character-building, while perhaps well-intentioned, has

nothing to do with the general trend of the present work, and hence is

irrelevant. To answer that, the next quote says:

##

(atriH)

paraH parANAM purushhastushhTo yasya janArdanaH |

sa chApnotyaxayaM sthAnaM etatsatyaM mayoditam.h || 24 ||

(shrI vishhNu-purANa, adhyAya 11)

By whom is satisfied Janardana, who is Superior to the superior;

even he obtains that ceaseless abode, thus the Truth has been

stated by me.

It is stated that even by knowing Krishna as being Superior to Lakshmi,

etc., who is superior to all jIva-s starting from Brahma for not having a

perishable body (cf. Bhagavad Gita XV-16 et. seq.), and satisfying Him by

worshipping Him as a role model, one obtains the Supreme Abode -- thus,

verily, is the Truth.

The teaching of the above two verses is summarized as follows:

##

(aN^girAH)

yasyAntaH sarvamevedamachyutasyAvyayAtmanaH |

tamArAdhaya govindaM sthAnamugraM yadIchchhasi || 25 ||

(shrI vishhNu-purANa, adhyAya 11)

##

By whom is grasped the end of all this, that Flawless One, and

the changeless Atman; that Govinda you should worship, if you

desire the Supreme Abode.

In other words, all that exists other than Krishna is unable to hold its

own against Him, and is seen by Him to be limited in scope, as He can see

its end, after a fashion. As such, only He, who is without flaw and is

Himself changeless, is to be worshipped by those desiring to remove the

flaws which bring them misery, and desiring to obtain the Supreme Abode

where there is no distress (which invariably comes due to change).

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to wonder by what

manner of method one could possibly know Krishna to be, as stated, for one

cannot readily think of any way in which He could exceed everything known

to oneself. To answer this, it is said:

##

(pulastyaH)

paraM brahma paraM dhAma yo.asau brahma sanAtanaH |

tamArAdhya hariM yAti muktimapyatha durlabham.h || 26 ||

(shrI vishhNu-purANa, adhyAya 11)

##

The Supreme, of complete attributes, who is the foremost recourse,

and of eternal nature; having worshipped that Hari, one obtains

the mukti that is most difficult to get.

It is stated that one must always know Krishna to be a `paripUrNa', and as

the Supreme Brahman, not as an attributeless one who appears to have

attributes and is merely a way-station until one develops the competence

to focus on the attributeless ideal. It is further stated that Sri Hari

is not known by anyone as He precedes all of them, so to speak, for being

Eternal (hence He knows a bound for all, just as a parent knows a child to

be bounded, for having witnessed his or her birth). Having known Him in

this fashion and worshipped Him accordingly, one attains mukti which

cannot be had in other ways.

Even so, one may have a doubt on account of the fact that worship of

Krishna is very uncommon in the world -- if people have achieved

liberation in this fashion, that is not known to oneself as one has no

experience of the liberated. As such, there are no examples to show that

such advice as given here has been fruitfully taken by any worthy

individual, which needs must cast a doubt upon its worth. To answer this,

it is said:

##

(pulahaH)

indramindraH paraM sthAnaM yamArAdhya jagatpatim.h |

prApa yaj~napatiM vishhNuM tamArAdhaya suvrata || 27 ||

(shrI vishhNu-purANa, adhyAya 11)

##

By worshipping whom, Indra obtained the coveted position of

Indra, worship that Vishnu, the Lord of yaj~na-s, O one of pious

observance.

It is stated that even the deities including Indra obtain their status

only at His pleasure, and as such, there is no cause for one to hold that

there are no examples that demonstrate the efficacy of Vishnu's worship.

It is also stated that even when Vedic rituals exist which purportedly

give certain benefits, such should only be carried out as actions in His

worship -- for only He can give one the benefits claimed -- and only then

are the rituals meaningful.

That's all well, one may think, but what if one desires worldly objects or

positions of authority? Indra is after all a rather unearthly position

which one has no tangible experience of. To answer this, it is stated:

##

prApnotyArAdhite vishhNau manasA yadyadichchhati |

trailokyAntargataM sthAnaM kimu lokottarottaram.h || 28 ||

##

The worshipper of Vishnu obtains whatever (s)he wishes for;

whether it be within or without the three worlds [for nothing

is too big or small for Him].

As such, there is no reason to say that only unseen or otherworldly

benefits are claimed in respect of Krishna's worship, and that there can

be no tangible benefit. So does this mean that one can or should worship

Him only whenever one needs specific ends? It is indicated otherwise:

##

ye.archayanti sadA vishhNuM shaN^khachakragadAdharam.h |

sarvapApavinirmuktAH paraM brahma vishanti te || 29 ||

##

Those who worship Vishnu, the bearer of the shankha, chakra, and gadA,

constantly, are completely freed from all sins, and enter into the

Supreme Brahman.

As such, it is indicated that even though Vishnu may be worshipped

intemittently, and can also give partial benefits, it is best that He be

worshipped continually, which gives one the supreme benefit of freedom

from suffering, and presence in the Supreme Himself.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may get the doubt that the

description therein is of the individual's merging with the nondual,

attributeless Brahman, and it would be inappropriate to read it as

anything but that. Such merger is derived only by knowledge of identity

with Vishnu and the illusoriness of one's bondage. As such, where is the

question of upholding difference and attributing so many qualities to Him,

which are really illusory and only meant to guide the incompetent towards

the understanding of the formless absolute? To answer that question, the

next verse says:

##

tato.aniruddhaM deveshaM pradyumnaM cha tataH param.h |

tataH saN^karshhaNaM devaM vAsudevaM parAtparam.h || 30 ||

##

Thereupon [the mukta enters] Aniruddha, the Supreme Deity, and

Pradyumna thereafter; thereafter Sankarshana, and finally

Vasudeva, who is Superior to the superior.

It is stated that the entrance of the individual into Brahman is not a

dissolution of his/her identity into the formless absolute, but rather a

stepwise process by which different aspects of the Supreme are gained

successively. As such, there is no cause to hold that the soul's merger

with an attributeless ideal is intended when describing mukti.

At this, one may wonder: what happens to the mukta after "entering"

Vasudeva? Does (s)he enter anothe form, or perhaps an even superior

being? Or does there there occur a chain or loop where these four steps

are executed indefinitely? Does the mukta ever return to ordinary worldly

existence ever after? To answer these, it is stated in the next verse:

##

vAsudevAtparaM nAstIti vedAntanishchayaH |

vAsudevaM pravishhTAnAM punarAvartanaM kutaH || 31 ||

##

That there is nothing superior to Vasudeva, is the decided

purport of all Vedanta; [thus] how can there be a return

for one who has entered Vasudeva?

It is stated that the mukta, having entered Vasudeva, does not enter

another form or being, and that since Vasudeva is the Supreme, there is no

return to the world for him either.

At this, one may wonder if the mukta, having entered Vasudeva, finds mukti

a pleasant experience, or perhaps if (s)he is simply locked up forever in

such a situation of eternal tedium as any thinking person would dearly

wish to avoid. Also, perhaps the mukta can stop being devoted to Krishna,

once mukti is achieved? To answer these, it is stated:

##

(atriH)

yo yAnichchhennaraH kAmAnnArI vA varavarNinI |

tAn.h samApnoti vipulAn.h samArAdhya janArdanam.h || 32 ||

##

Whatever desires may be wished for, either by a man or by

a woman, that is fulfilled by Him, to them, who worship Janardana

excellently.

It is clarified that the mukta enjoys any and all cherished desires in

mukti, and is not forced into an inert or unpleasant state; furthermore,

the mukta also worships Janardana with devotion constantly, and does not

desire His absence at any time.

At this, one may yet wonder why it is that an individual is said to enjoy

so in mukti, and yet is seen to suffer so much in the world. Given the

presence of suffering in the world, might there not be suffering in mukti

as well? Or in other words, if enjoyment is the individual's own nature,

why does such enjoyment not occur in the world as well? To answer these,

it is said:

##

(kaushikaH)

anArAdhitagovindAste narA duHkhabhAginaH |

ArAdhya vAsudevaM syuH sarvAnandaikabhAjinaH || 33 ||

##

These humans suffering sorrow for having failed to worship

Govinda; were they to worship Vasudeva (and obtain mukti),

they would experience all manner of bliss.

It is stated, therefore, that lack of worship of Krishna is the cause for

there being a lot of suffering in the world; were this to be remedied and

were people to worship Him, they would obtain the joys of their own

natures as His servants.

On reading the previous verses which deny the claim that only the

worship of the formless yields mukti, by showing that the the worship

of Krishna gives such a result, one still could carry the doubt that

the `vyUha' descriptions of Vasudeva, etc., are ultimately only of

transitional worth, and cannot be considered the supreme truth. It

still could be possible that one could attain liberation by

worshipping the formless absolute, rather than Vasudeva, and in fact,

the latter is only for those not qualified for the former. To answer

this, it is said:

##

(brahmA)

bAhubhyAM sAgaraM tartuM ka ichchheta pumAn.h bhuvi |

vAsudevamanArAdhya ko moxaM gantumichchhati || 34 ||

##

Just as with one who wishes to cross an ocean by the strength

of his arms; is the lot of the one who wishes to attain moksha

without worshipping Vasudeva.

It is clarified that there indeed is no other possible method to

obtain moksha than the worship of Vasudeva, and thus, such worship is

not merely for those unqualified.

Even so, one may have the doubt that the uniqueness claimed for

Krishna's worship can only apply to those still in the grip of the

delusion about the reality of the world; it cannot apply to one who

has already realized the higher truth, to wit, that the world and all

its fruits of joy and suffering are illusory. Hence, such a one can

avoid worship and yet reach the goal. To remove this doubt, it is

said:

##

(parAsharaH)

kR^ite pApe.anutApo vai yasya pUmsaH prajAyate |

prAyashchittaM tu tasyoktaM harisaMsmaraNaM param.h || 35 ||

##

For one who suffers as a result of sins committed;

the greatest remedy for the same has been stated to be the

constant remembrance of Hari.

The point that is made is that for all embodied creatures, suffering

occurs, and "realizing" that the suffering is illusory does not stop

the same; in fact, only by realizing that it is real and needs to be

stopped, would one make progress. As such, anyone who claims to

realize that suffering is illusory, and yet manifests the effects of

the same in his appearance and conduct, must be disclaimed as a hoax

-- denial of facts cannot be the basis for a sound spiritual quest,

and only a rational acceptance that yes, one has sinned, and that one

needs to do something about it, namely meditate upon Sri Hari, would

do.

At that, one may still say that while the learned who have realized

the illusoriness of the world may yet appear to suffer -- their bodies

may wither and wear, and they may show visible signs of human misery

-- it still is improper to say that they are mistaken, for surely

their steadfastness of belief alone indicates that they are right and

have achieved victory over their senses, and that even their apparent

suffering is a mere illusion. To remove this doubt, it is said:

##

(brahmA)

nahyapuNyavatAM loke mUDhAnAM kuTilAtmanAm.h |

bhaktirbhavati govinde smaraNaM kIrtanaM tathA || 36 ||

##

In the world, in those lacking merit, who are foolish, and have

deceit in their hearts, there does not occur devotion towards

Govinda, or His remembrance, or His worship.

It is clarified that it is not appropriate to assume that a steadfast

belief that one can lift oneself up to mukti by one's own bootstraps,

so to speak, without earning Krishna's grace in the prescribed manner,

is indicative of undesirable qualities in the individual, rather than

correctness of such belief. As such, the thesis that realizing the

illusoriness of suffering is a valid and superior alternative to

Krishna's worship, has no basis.

At that, one may still ask: if those who, in spite of appearing to

suffer in the world, still steadfastly hold on to their belief in the

illusoriness of the same, are to be condemned in this fashion, then

could anyone at all be considered to have risen above usual worldly

squalor, to have achieved victory over their senses, and to be noble

and worthy of praise therefore? To answer this, the next verse says:

##

tadaiva purushho mukto janmaduHkhajarAdibhiH |

jitendriyo vishuddhAtmA yadaiva smarate harim.h || 37 ||

##

Only one who constantly remembers Hari [with the realization

of the truth of His causation of] mukti, birth, suffering,

old age, etc., can be considered to have won over his senses, and

to be of pure nature.

It is clarified that rather than assuming that a certain someone is

pure and thus whatever (s)he says must be correct, one must judge

whether what that someone says is correct, and thus judge whether

(s)he is pure; for while one does not have direct perception of

another's nature, it is possible for one to infer the same based on

the knowledge manifested.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to have the doubt that

it is not possible for one to know when someone is really remembering

Hari; fakery is definitely possible, and it is possible that someone may

make the pretense of remembering Hari although his mind is really on other

things -- as such, the statement that one who remembers Hari is alone to

be considered noble, is of no value. To answer this, it is said:

##

prApte kaliyuge ghore dharmaj~nAnavivarjite |

na kashchitsmarate devaM vishhNuM kalimalApaham.h || 38 ||

##

In this fierce Kali-Yuga, which lacks knowledge and dharma;

hardly anyone remembers Vishnu, the Deity who removes the

filth of Kali.

As such, it is clarified that while on a surface level it is possible for

fakery to give the impression that someone is engrossed in Vishnu, the

scam can be easily noticed when one perceives incorrect understanding,

lack of observance of the rules of conduct, and such. Such a person

cannot under any circumstance be described as one devoted to Hari. By

describing the rarity of the kind of person described, one is cautioned

not to consider all that glitters as gold, and to in fact know that most

of it is anything but.

At this, one may ask why it is that one who does not have knowledge of

Vishnu as is, be considered barred from remembering Him? And in fact,

what is that special knowledge which is to be known, before it may be said

that He is actually remembered by one? To answer these, it is said:

##

na kalau devadevasya sarvaduHkhApahAriNaH |

karoti martyo mUDhAtmA smaraNaM kIrtanaM hareH || 39 ||

##

In the Kali-Yuga, a mortal fool does not carry out the worship

of the Deity of deities, the Hari who removes all manner of sorrow.

By this verse, it is indicated that worship may be faulty on at least two

counts -- one, failure to realize that Vishnu is the Deity of deities,

i.e., that there exists a gradation of worth and there are lesser deities

who in turn worship Vishnu as per their capacities; two, failure to

realize that Vishnu is called `Hari' because of His extraordinary capacity

and potency in removing *all* distress and not just some, and that in

fact, only He can ultimately remove any distress, whatever be the apparent

cause or agent. Thus, by denying the facts of tAratamya, or by ignorance

about the nature of Hari as the remover of all distress, one's worship is

vitiated.

At this, one may wonder what is the big deal with these tenets; what is

the gain if one does know them and remember Vishnu accordingly? To answer

that, it is said:

##

ye smaranti sadA vishhNuM vishuddhenAntarAtmanA |

te prayAnti bhavaM tyaktvA vishhNulokamanAmayam.h || 40 ||

##

They who remember Vishnu constantly with clean minds (i.e., those not

fouled by incorrect knowledge as described above); they obtain upon

leaving the world, the abode of Vishnu which is free of grief.

It is indicated that only by knowing Vishnu in the manner stated, may one

obtain the desired end of a place in His abode, where there is no

distress.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to doubt whether the

result claimed can in fact be obtained: for just as birth itself entails

eventual death, it is the case that death entails future birth, and there

can be no end to this cycle. As such, how can one expect not to acquire a

new body upon the lapse of a certain one? To answer this, it is said:

##

garbhajanmajarAmR^ityuduHkhasaMsArabandhanaiH |

na bAdhyate naro nityaM nArAyaNamanusmaran.h || 41 ||

##

The worldly bondages of presence in the womb, birth, old age, death,

and sorrow, do not afflict forever the human who worships Narayana.

It is clarified that while it is indeed true that birth and death entail

each other in ordinary cases, the sole exception is for the worshipper of

Vishnu -- it is not to be said that such a one will forever remain in

bondage, and this marks a distinction from every other kind of individual

or worshipper.

At this, one may wonder how it can be that even a worshipper of Krishna

fares any better than any other person, while in bondage: for even if it

be granted that (s)he eventually breaks out of the cycle of endless

suffering, surely there is nothing better about being in it for him/her

than for anyone else? And as such, the worship of Krishna would only

count towards a result alleged to occur at some uncertain date in future,

and there is no palpable improvement in one's existing or immediate

circumstances or fate. To answer this, it is said:

##

yamamArgaM mahAghoraM narakANi yamaM tathA |

svapne.api naiva pashyeta yaH smaredgaruDadhvajam.h || 42 ||

##

The extremely gory path of Yama, the various hells, and Yama himself;

are not seen even in dreams by one who remembers the One who has Garuda

for his mount.

As such, it is stated that even while in creation, the worshipper of

Vishnu fares significantly better than another, for not having to suffer

the extremely painful travails that are the lot of the latter.

At this, one may wonder what the qualities or appearance of such a

worshipper are: it has previously been stated that such a one does not

have incorrect understanding and is not lacking in his observances, but a

positive description is required. To provide one, it is said:

##

hR^idi rUpaM mukhe nAma naivedyamudare hareH |

pAdodakaM cha nirmAlyaM mastake yasya so.achyutaH || 43 ||

##

One who bears Hari's form in his heart, His name in his utterances, and

His naivedya in his belly; and also His tIrtha and nirmAlya on his head,

such a one is [a worshipper of] Achyuta.

At this, one may yet ask how it can be that a worshipper of Krishna does

not have to suffer the path of hell, and the like, for even such a one is

sure to have the karma burden that would necessitate such suffering. As

such, the claims that have been made about the superiority of Vishnu's

worship don't make any sense. To answer this, it is said:

##

govindasmaraNaM puMsAM pAparAshiM mahAchalam.h |

asaMshayaM dahatyAshu tUlarAshimivAnalaH || 44 ||

##

The enormous heap of sins, which is indissoluble (in any other

fashion), will by memory of Govinda; surely be destroyed as is

a huge quantity of cotton by fire.

It is stated that while it is generally true that the indissoluble burden

of karma that one has garnered will necessitate suffering, the worship of

Krishna is unique in that it alone can destroy all the mountainous

quantity of it at once, without one having to suffer an intolerable amount

to expend the same, and this is the secret of why such a worshipper does

not have to suffer as ordinary mortals do.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to object that the

benefit claimed is still very intangible and unproven: the claim that one

will not suffer in the afterlife means nothing to one who is concerned

about suffering at present. Also, it is easy to make such unverifiable

claims, and such cannot be the basis of one's actions. To answer this, it

is said:

##

(agastyaH)

smaraNAdeva kR^ishhNasya pApasaN^ghAtapaJNjaram.h |

shatadhA bhedamAyAti girirvajrahato yathA || 45 ||

##

Only by remembrance of Krishna, the cage created by sins;

is shattered a hundredfold, just as the mountains by `vajra'.

It is not just in an imperceptible afterlife, but even in one's present

existence, that one can experience benefits by worship of Krishna. For it

is well-known that in spite of myriad accomplishments and gains,

individuals in the world are forever subjected to crippling limits on

their freedoms, which cannot be got rid of in any manner. And what is

suffering, if not a lack of freedom? The limitations created upon one's

enjoyment even in one's lifetime, by sins, can only be removed by worship

of Krishna, which thus is completely unique even from a purely everyday

perspective. (Note: the reference to mountains and `vajra' is to the

story where mountains are stated to have had their wings clipped -- quite

literally -- by Indra's weapon `vajra'. The idea is that just as the

mountains lost their erstwhile mobility and thus their ability to hurt by

crushing, so also, sins lose their capacity to cause suffering, when one

worships Krishna.)

At this, one may have the doubt: let's grant that all the previous is

correct, and that one does in fact benefit even in one's lifetime, by

worshipping Krishna. However, what's to say that in a subsequent

lifetime, things will not go back to square one? -- as surely as one has

no memory of any previous existences and no skills that may have been

learned then, the worship of Krishna will lapse when the present body

dies, and then one will have to make a fresh start. To answer this, it is

said:

##

kR^ishhNe ratA kR^ishhNamanusmarantaH

tadbhAvitAstadgatamAnasAshcha |

bhinne.api dehe pravishanti vishhNuM

haviryathA mantrahutaM hutAshe || 46 ||

##

One who is engaged in Krishna, who constantly remembers Krishna;

who has absorbed His concepts, and whose mind has gone to Him;

even upon obtaining different bodies, he enters Vishnu;

just as an oblation which is offered with the proper incantation

reaches the Deity.

It is clarified that the passing of one's body should not be considered a

possible barrier to one's spiritual progress. However, might this not

mean that spiritual effort may be safely put off for a future lifetime, or

for a future time when one is old or retired or has nothing else to do?

It is indicated otherwise:

##

sAhAnistanmahachchhidraM sA chAndhajaDamUkatA |

yanmuhUrtaM xaNaM vA.api vAsudevo na chintyate || 47 ||

##

It is a great loss comparable to blindness, paralysis, or dumbness;

for one to spend a muhUrta (~15 minutes), or even a moment, without

thinking of Vasudeva.

It is stated that while it is the case that while even mere thinking of

Krishna is of great benefit in one's lifetime and also thereafter, and

while one's sAdhana can continue even through changes of bodies, it is

folly to think that one may postpone it with no loss to oneself.

At this, one may wonder if one can ever possibly make up for one's past

misconduct -- specifically, in not worshipping Krishna all through one's

lifetime and also in lifetimes past. For even granting that the burden of

ongoing or possible future sin is relieved by such worship, what about the

travails caused by past burden? To answer this, it is said:

##

nArAyaNo nAma naro narANAM

prasiddha choraH kathitaH pR^ithivyAm.h |

anekajanmArjitapApa saJNchayaM

dahatyasheshhaM smR^itimAtrayaiva || 48 ||

##

There is, by name of Narayana, a famous Robber

in the world, who is so called that by men;

because the sin of many lifetimes, He incinerates

without residue, even upon merely remembering Him.

It is stated that even with respect to the karma-burden accrued from

actions past, Krishna is still the best solution, and such does not

present any problem where He is concerned.

Upon reading the previous verse, one is apt to have the doubt: perhaps it

is the case that while the worship of Krishna is very efficacious in

removing the undesirable, it does not actually give any desired ends in

life at all, and what one would end up with would be a sort of stasis with

no enjoyment and no suffering. As it is seen in the world that people are

willing even to tolerate lots of suffering for some enjoyment, it would

have to be that even at the cost of accepting some suffering, one must

worship other deities, or conduct other kinds of activities meant to

produce enjoyment. This objection is refuted as follows in the next two

verses:

##

yasya saMsmaraNAdeva vAsudevasya chakrINaH |

koTijanmArjitaM pApaM tatxaNAdeva nashyati || 49 ||

kiM tasya bahubhistIrthaiH kiM tapobhiH kimadvaraiH |

yo nityaM dhyAyate devaM nArAyaNamananyadhIH || 50 ||

##

By the mere remembrance of Vasudeva, the bearer of the

discus, the sins of a crore lifetimes is destroyed instantly;

so to what purpose would there be (even) many pilgrimages, or

penance, or boons, for one who thinks constantly and with a

single mind, of that Narayana?

In these verses, a nyAya (a logical device or tool) known as `kaimutya' is

employed. What this nyAya states is that any means sufficient to

accomplish the difficult can accomplish the easy, and the standard example

is that anything that can be procured with fifty units of currency can be

procured with a hundred. Using the same standard, the verses say that

since the worship of Vasudeva is so highly effective that it can destroy

the sins of ten million past lifetimes instantly, is it reasonable to

expect that it is any less effective at giving joy or worldly ends, than

are other activities and dispositions which do not have nearly the same

power?

At this, one may object that it is all well and good to say that because

the worship of Sri Hari has benefits not obtainable by other activities,

it must be a superior form of activity. However, in the world, it is not

always seen that worshippers of Narayana fare better in any tangible way,

and they in fact have serious flaws and difficulties, more often than not;

hence one is apt to doubt all that has been said so far. To address this,

the next verse says:

##

ye mAnavA vigatarAgaparAvaraj~nA

nArAyaNaM suraguruM satataM smaranti |

dhyAnena tena hatakilbishhachetanAste

mAtuH payodhararasaM na punaH pibanti || 51 ||

##

Those humans who, having lost all sensory desire and mindful of

the Supreme; remember constantly Narayana, the Guru of the deities;

by thinking of Him, they lose flaws in their natures; and do not

have to drink a mother's milk again.

The verse clarifies that it is necessary for one to be cleansed of all

shortcomings in one's character by His grace, and to constantly think of

Him, being aware of Him as superior to all that is perceived and not

perceived, and also as the Lord of all other deities; then, it can be

expected that one will not have to suffer the pangs of birth, living, and

such, ever again. However, when one still has desire for sensory

enjoyment, or when one's understanding of Krishna is incomplete and

incorrect, one cannot expect the results to be quite the same.

At this, one may wonder if the worship of Krishna is at all possible for

someone like oneself: after all, one is a creature of the world and has to

subsist in an environment not at all conducive to single-minded focus upon

the Supreme; one is also always liable to fall prey to lust and other such

shortcomings, and hence one cannot hope to do what is required. Given

this, might it not be the case that the worship of Krishna is infeasible

where one is concerned, so that one would be better advised to focus on

other activities -- even those of smaller gain -- that one can actually

expect to complete? The next verse answers this as follows:

##

he chitta chintayesveha vAsudevamaharnisham.h |

nUnaM yashchintitaM puMsAM hanti saMsArabandhanam.h || 52 ||

##

Hey Mind, be focused always on the Vasudeva day and night;

[for] even if He be thought of once by a person, his worldly

bonds are [eventually] destroyed.

It is clarified that while it is indeed a matter of concern and regret

that one is unable to rise to the standard where one is required to be, it

still would not do for one to simply give up the attempt, pleading

incompetence. Indeed, it is necessary for one to redouble one's effort

for that very reason, and practice constantly that which one is not

skilled at doing. The verse also addresses the deity of the mind to show

his grace upon one by shifting one's mind away from other attractions and

bringing it upon Krishna constantly.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to object that it is not

proper to ask one to subjugate one's intellectual faculties in this manner.

One is intelligent, creative, the master of many arts, and such, and only a

fool would expect that one would throw it all away just to serve Krishna.

Indeed, if one were to allow one's mind to atrophy, it would be a great

disservice to oneself and to the world at large. To answer this, it is

said:

##

AloDhya sarvashAstrANi vichArya cha punaH punaH |

idamekaM sunishhpannaM dhyeyo nArAyaNaH sadA || 53 ||

(vishhNu-purANa)

##

Having studied all sciences, and having reasoned upon them time and again;

this alone is concluded -- that Narayana is to be thought of always.

As such, it is clarified that it is not necessary or desirable for one to

cease all other kinds of intellectual endeavors in favor of thought of

Krishna -- it indeed is the case that having studied any or all other

subjects to fulfillment, such thought of Krishna is indicated unambiguously,

and such a mature decision in this regard is of greater profit than an

unwise early choice.

It has been stated that by complete study and understanding of all subjects

the dhyAna of Narayana is indicated -- but in what manner exactly? The next

verse answers:

##

smR^ite sakalakalyANabhAjanaM yatra jAyate |

purushhastamajaM nityaM vrajAmi sharaNaM harim.h || 54 ||

##

By memory of Whom, the enjoyment of all that is auspicious occurs;

that Hari, the Purusha, the Eternal, I surrender myself to.

It is indicated that while thought or understanding of other subjects for

their own sakes can bring some satisfaction or enjoyment directly or

otherwise, they cannot be ultimately fulfilling or bring complete unalloyed

enjoyment; therefore, surrender to Hari is clearly decided by one who has

studied the sciences correctly and decides that there is no recourse except

He for one who wishes for total, undiluted satisfaction.

However, perhaps the learned one still decides to stick to another means or

end, rather than worship of Krishna, because (s)he is looking for some

smaller result, and doesn't mind not having undiluted enjoyment? It is

indicated otherwise:

##

vedeshhu yaj~neshhu tapassu chaiva

dAneshhu tIrtheshhu vrateshhu chaiva |

ishhTeshhu pUrteshhu cha yatpradishhTaM

puMsAM smR^ite tat.h khalu vAsudeve || 55 ||

##

By [study of] the Vedas, by yaj~na-s, and by penance;

by acts of charity, by pilgrimages, and by observances;

all the desired ends that are so achievable;

may all be achieved by a person by remembering Vasudeva.

Clearly, the learned one realizes that even for other ends and smaller

benefits, the worship of Krishna is the optimal solution, and is hence to be

preferred over other kinds of actions. This gives a second reason perceived

by the learned: not only is worship of Krishna a source of more

comprehensive and pure enjoyment, it is also an easier source of enjoyment.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is still apt to ask: what

if the learned one, for whatever reason, decides or desires to do

things the hard way, and does not care that worship of Krishna is the

easier solution? Surely, then such worship is not pursued by such a

one? The next verse answers this:

##

ArAdhyaiva naro vishhNuM manasA yadyadichchhati |

phalaM prApnotyavikalaM bhUri svalpamathApi vA || 56 ||

##

Only by having worshipped Vishnu, any desire of the mind;

comes to fruition without fail -- be it very large (difficult), or

very small (easy).

Therefore, the learned one concludes that even though alternative

routes are available, in addition to being incomplete and difficult,

they are also of uncertain success, and may or may not bring the ends

that one wishes to obtain. It is only by worship of Krishna that one

is sure to obtain the ends that one desires.

Hence, the preceding three verses state three kinds of superiority

that worship of Krishna has over other activities that may bring joy

-- comprehensiveness, ease, and certainty -- respectively.

At this, one may have the doubt that a claim that worship of Vishnu does

not fail, is not necessarily credible to a learned one, since all other

kinds of actions are of uncertain success, and there is no experience that

anyone has which indicates that there exists any such recourse. The

quality described is thus most unusual, and one would have to suspect that

it is mere poetic exaggeration. If it does not in fact exist, then the

worship of Krishna would have to be considered akin to all other actions

only. So on what grounds can one expect that it is not? The next verse

answers as follows:

##

yannAmakIrtanaM bhaktyA vilApanamanuttamam.h |

maitreyAsheshhapApAnAM dhAtUnAmiva pAvakaH || 57 ||

##

By worship of whose name with devotion, and by constant

singing of whose praises, the Benevolent, all of one's endless

sins melt away as metal subjected to fire.

It is clarified that worship of Krishna is not incidentally or

accidentally useful: it is useful specifically because He is a

Benevolent entity whose compassion is unmatched by others. Thus it is

that one's suffering is destroyed when one applies for His grace, and

this is a clear statement of difference with respect to all other

actions.

At this, one may have the doubt whether Krishna's compassion is only

available to those of rigorous standards of observance, who are able

to maintain a state of constant devotion in spite of being faced with

great difficulties in the hostile world. If so, someone like oneself

had better start thinking of the next-best option, even if it be a

lesser one. The next verse answers this as follows:

##

kalikalmashhamatyugraM narakArtipradaM nR^iNAm.h |

prayAti nilayaM sadyaH sakR^itsaN^kIrtite.achyute || 58 ||

##

The scum of Kali, and the exceedingly fearsome aspects of hell,

are certainly overcome, and His abode obtained, even by one who

worships Achyuta with devotion once.

While compassion is doubtless a quality of the Lord, it is not the

only quality, nor even the only significant quality. The quality that

He is without any manner of flaw (`chyuti') is something for one to

realize, and by doing so and worshipping Him as `a-chyuta' or the

Flawless One, one is enabled to overcome all of one's myriad flaws

that cause otherwise-ceaseless distress.

At this, one may ask: even if it be granted that Krishna is

compassionate, and also that He is Flawless, it could still be the

case that the road of His service is an arduous one, even if it

eventually brings a good result. What if one does not have the

stomach for the travails that may result from His service? The next

verse answers this:

##

anAyAsena chA.ayanti muktiM keshavasaMshritAH |

tadvighAtAya jAyante shakrAdyAH paripanthinaH || 59 ||

##

Without any stress attain mukti, those who rely on Keshava;

in order to remove such (stress, etc.), are present the

deities headed by Indra, as traveling companions.

It is clarified that not only does one not have to think that one's

road to liberation will be arduous and impossible, it is also the case

that even higher beings such as Indra are also travelers upon the same

path, and one would certainly do better to travel along with them and

enjoy the safety of their powerful company, rather than proceed along

other routes where one will have to rely only on one's own inadequate

skills and abilities for safety.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may yet wonder if there could

still be another solution that has all the qualities claimed for Krishna's

worship, in greater measure than the latter. If so, would that one not be

the right choice? The next verse clarifies this point:

##

chatuHsAgaramAsAdya jaMbudvIpottame kvachit.h |

na pumAn.h keshavAdanyaH sarvapApachikitsakaH || 60 ||

##

In the Jambudvipa surrounded by four oceans (*),

there is none other than Keshava, for a cure to all sins.

As such, there need be no doubt that the worship of Krishna is to be

undertaken, for in addition to all the qualities that it has in comparison

with other kinds of activities, it is also unique in being the only one of

its own kind.

However, one is apt to wonder if one's worship is really worthwhile. One

learns or reads of people having performed great penances and austerities

in times past, and realizes that one is unable to do anything approaching

the same. As such, where is the point in one pressing on with one's puny

efforts that fall so far short of what earlier seekers have done, that

perhaps what is said here doesn't even apply because one is so much

inferior? The next verse answers this:

##

yadabhyarchya hariM bhaktyA kR^ite varshhashatairapi |

phalaM prApnotyavikalaM kalau saN^kIrtya keshavam.h || 61 ||

##

What can be obtained in the Krta [Yuga] by worshipping Hari with

devotion for hundreds of years; such a fruit can be obtained without

difficulty by praising Keshava in the Kali [Yuga].

Therefore, while it is true that one's observances do not match up to

those of seekers of old, at least in terms of gross worth, they are to be

considered as significant and fulfilling as the latter, and one is to have

no doubts upon this account.

However, one may ask on what grounds such an exception, albeit a

convenient one, is justified. The next verse clarifies this point:

##

xIyate tu yadA dharmaH prApte ghore kalau yuge |

tadA na kIrtayetkashchinmuktidaM devamachyutam.h || 62 ||

##

As righteousness ebbs with the onset of the fearsome Kali age;

there is hardly any praise of the Giver of liberation, the

Flawless Deity.

Therefore, it is seen that in the world, there is hardly any worship of

the one who gives liberation, and even supposedly religious people are in

pursuit of other ends, and even worship other deities and non-deities who

do not give mukti, and also impute flaws upon Krishna due to lack of

understanding, even when they do deign to worship Him. As such, worship

of Krishna as the flawless giver of liberation is as unique in the

Kali-Yuga as His worship for hundreds of years in a better age when many

people did worship Him constantly with correct understanding would have

been, and needs must qualify for the same result.

At this, one is liable to wonder if one's worship of Krishna (if any),

being motivated mostly by immediate adversity of circumstance, by the

following of elders whose precepts are not clearly understood by oneself,

etc., is of any use. One certainly cannot claim to have grasped Krishna

as the giver of mukti and made a mature decision to worship Him, based on

such understanding. One may also not realize His lack of flaws, in spite

of one's efforts. The next verse addresses this question:

##

(parAshara)

avashenApi yannAmni kIrtite sarvapAtakaiH |

pumAn.h vimuchyate sadyaH siMhatrastA mR^igA iva || 63 ||

(vishhNu-purANa)

##

Even if His name be uttered due to force, a person is freed of all

difficulties, just as a beast flees when approached by a lion.

Hence, it is the case that even one's inadequate worship, which is not

based on sound understanding, is not to be rejected in favor of anything

else.

At this, one may wonder why it is that so much suffering is seen to occur

in the world: if things were really as easy as is described, would there

not be a lot of efforts at practicing the remedy suggested? The next

verse addresses this doubt:

##

nArAyaNetimantro.asti vAgasti vashavartinI |

tathA.api narake ghore patantItyetadadbhutam.h || 64 ||

##

There is the `nArAyaNa' mantra, and the speech that is at one's

command; even then to fearsome hell fall [a lot of people], this

is truly amazing.

Therefore, it is admitted without prejudice to Krishna's worship, that

widespread failure to practice the same in spite of dire consequences

occurring due to such failure, is a cause for surprise, when one really

considers it.

==

(*) This is a description of something in some manner, although what and

in which manner, remains to be decided. There is also a conflict with the

`bhUgoLa-varNanaM' description of the universe as being made up of *seven*

oceans with an island in each of them -- evaM cha pR^ithivI seyaM

sasaptadvIpasAgarA; laxayojanavistAramadhyastadvIpataH kramAt.h (verse

55). However, it is certain that these descriptions are not of the

physical universe -- by their non-correspondence with the physical

universe as known from other sources, and also because entities which are

not physical or sense-perceivable according to shaastra -- such as

Vishnu-kUrma, Vaikuntha, andhantamas, etc. -- are described.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may wonder if it is indeed

correct to express surprise at the world's not worshipping Krishna in a

big way; for while it may be the case that certain individuals could

profit by such worship, there is no indication that any large-scale

benefit to society or the world as a whole would derive. Surely, it is

not right to say that the worship of Krishna is a one-size-fits-all

prescription. For that, it is said:

##

ArtA vishhaNNAH shithilAshcha bhItAH

ghoreshhu cha vyAdhishhu vartamAnA |

saN^kIrtya nArAyaNashabdamAtraM

vimuktaduHkhAH sukhino bhavanti || 65 ||

##

Those afflicted with pain, the sorrowful, the feeble, and the fearful;

and also those suffering deadly diseases;

by merely reciting the name of Narayana alone;

they become free of suffering, and obtain happiness.

Therefore, it is the case that no matter what the proximate cause of one's

suffering, the worship of Krishna is always indicated as a solution to the

same. It is also the case that the incidence of distress in the world is

very high because there is no widespread worship of Krishna in the world.

At this, one may ask if it is indeed feasible that large number of people

could worship Krishna with steady devotion -- surely they cannot, for

there are bound to be those among them who are of unsteady temperament and

the like. What of them? The next verse answers as follows:

##

sakR^idabhyarchitaM yaistu kR^ishhNeti na vishanti te |

garbhAgAra gR^ihaM mAturyamalokaM cha duHsaham.h || 66 ||

##

By those who have worshipped, taking the name of Krishna, even once;

there is no re-entry into the uterus of a mother, and also to the

abode of Yama which is of great suffering.

Therefore, it is the case that even for those who may appear to be

unqualified for worship of Krishna, such worship is certainly a viable and

desirable action.

However, one may ask whether, as acts of social benefit go, the worship of

Krishna as an action by the individual, rather than by many individuals

forming a society, is any better than the performance of other acts of

religious merit which may bring welfare to society. The next verse takes

up the issue:

##

kva nAkapR^ishhThagamanaM punarAvR^ittilaxaNam.h |

kva japo vAsudeveti muktibIjamanuttamam.h || 67 ||

##

To what purpose the entry into the gates of heaven, which is

characterized by eventual return; when the meditation upon

Him as Vasudeva is the source of mukti, which is the highest end?

Therefore, while other acts of merit can bring welfare to the individual

and even to society, any results obtained by them are necessarily

transitory and reversible, and hence of less worth: what is ultimately

desirable is a solution that is for good, and requires no further effort

thereafter. Such a solution can only be the worship of Krishna as

Vasudeva, the giver of mukti, and no other, for only mukti has the desired

characteristic.

There may arise a doubt at this point: tall claims have been made about

how people can reach mukti and even solve all their worldly problems

simply by worshipping Krishna or even by just uttering His name. This is

clearly unacceptable, for such a solution is not observed to be effective

in practice -- people continue to suffer even after they worship, and even

the saintly continue to be reborn after leading pious lives. What gives?

The next verse answers this question:

##

buddhyA buddhvA vadasvainaM harirityaxaradvyayam.h |

smaraNAtkIrtanAdyasya na punarjAyate kvachit.h || 68 ||

##

By having understood Him with all of one's mind, uttering the

name of `Hari' thereupon, remembering Him, and worshipping Him,

no one is ever reborn.

There is a lot of false practice and pretense seen in the world, and one

should endeavor to see that one does not indulge in such as well. It

cannot be admitted that mere utterance of words without proper knowledge

of their import brings any significant benefit, and indeed, it is not

being suggested that they do. It is only be fully grasping the Lord

exactly as per one's capacity, and then worshipping Him with the complete

understanding so obtained, that the results claimed can be obtained.

Knowing Him other than as He is, or by not knowing Him at all, will not

yield the desired results, and things must be weighed in that light.

Hence the importance of exact, uncompromising, understanding.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to wonder exactly what

it is that one could possibly do to obtain such learning about Krishna as

is expected of one, for one is not competent to develop any such merely by

wishing for it, and it could be doubted whether any such could ever be

hoped for. For that, the next verse says:

##

he jihve mama niHsnehe hariM kiM nAnubhAshhase |

hariM vadasya kalyANI saMsArodadhinaurhariH || 69 ||

##

O `jihvA', why do you so mercilessly not cause me to utter [the names

of] Hari? Tell me about Hari (or: cause me to utter Hari), for Hari

is the remedy for crossing over samsAra.

In this verse, the goddess of learning is addressed as the `abhimAninI' of

one's tongue, and is implored to cause one to utter the names of Hari, and

to cause one to develop an understanding of Hari, which otherwise would

not be possible. Hence, the verse indicates that the proper worshipful

attitude towards inquiry is necessary for one to progress in the same, and

it is also necessary for one to propitiate lesser deities who are greater

than oneself, as servants of the Lord who can enable one to reach Him.

At this, one may wonder why that should be so: surely it may be possible

for one to find some other means not involving the worship of other

deities, to gain knowledge of Krishna in some manner? The next verse

takes up the issue as follows:

##

asAre khalu saMsAre sArAtsArataro hariH |

puNyahInA na vindanti sAraN^gAshcha yathA jalam.h || 70 ||

##

In the entire world which is [otherwise] without basis, Hari is

indeed the most essential basis; this is not perceived by those

without merit, just as a `sAraN^ga' fails to perceive water.

A `sAraN^ga', also known as a `chAtaka', is a mythical bird said to drink

only raindrops, and is hence said to fail to cognize water even when

present all around it. So also, a person who fails to obtain merit, i.e.,

the grace of the goddess of learning, in the prescribed fashion, will

never develop the wisdom to grasp Krishna as being the basis or foundation

of the world, and will ultimately only founder for not seeing the world as

having any basis; the unsteadiness of temperament and the consequent

unhappiness that is sure to result from lack of knowledge of the essence

of life and existence, are obvious. As such is to be avoided, one must act

as instructed.

At this, one may ask why it should be expected that even one who does

obtain merit in the required fashion, necessarily fares any better than

one who does not -- there is no cogent explanation that would enable one

to decide. If there is no advantage even to one who does obtain merit,

why bother? The next verse answers as follows:

##

kuruxetreNa kiM tasya kiM kAshyA pushhkareNa kim.h |

jihvAgre vartate yasya harirityaxaradvayam.h || 71 ||

##

To what purpose [a pilgrimage to] Kurukshetra, to what Kashi, and

to what Pushkara? For one, at the tip of whose tongue reside

the bisyllabic word `Hari'?

Hence, it is the case that one who does serve as advised and does obtain

merit as required, obtains a result which far exceeds that obtained by

ordinary individuals through great effort at pilgrimages, etc.; so much so

that pilgrimages, &c., in the ordinary sense become utterly useless to

such a person.

At this, one may object that such a statement of advantage is utterly

preposterous: pilgrimages, &c., are well established as being sources of

succor and good results, and they must never be played down as has been

attempted. It is also not at all clear why the worship of the goddess of

learning should necessarily confer such an advantage to the seeker -- why

(s)he can achieve such benefit as cannot be had even from pilgrimages,

merely by uttering Hari's name. As such, the claim must be considered

bogus for other reasons as well. The next verse answers this as follows:

##

asAre khalu saMsAre sAramekaM nirUpitam.h |

samastalokanAthasya sAramArAdhanaM hareH || 72 ||

##

In this whole world, which is without a basis, this alone has

been stated to be the basis; the worship of Hari, the Lord of

the entire universe, is the basis (or point or purpose, of one's

existence).

Therefore, one who has obtained merit understands that only the worship of

Krishna makes one's life worth living -- all other ends, being transitory

and of no consequence in the ultimate reckoning, do not matter, and the

pursuit of them, or the attempt to explain life by them, is always

unsatisfactory. The worshipper who worships Krishna as being the Lord of

all, and as being present everywhere, also must surely fare better than

one who only worships Him as being present at a particular place of

pilgrimage; for the former, pilgrimages as such also hold no particular

value, since the Lord is known and worshipped everywhere with constant

focus and wisdom. Hence the claim that one who obtains merit in the

manner advised gains a greater result than is available even from

strenuous pilgrimages and other actions; and hence, in turn, the need for

one to pray in order that one may obtain true understanding.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may think that it is not

clear why the tongue must be employed in uttering the name of Krishna, in

preference over its other uses, as suggested in verse 71 -- it has only

been stated that one having knowledge of Him as the basis of the universe

and worshipping Him as such is considered to have lived well. However,

this does not exclude the possibility of one spending some or most of

one's time in sensual pursuits, and devoting a little of one's time to

worship of Krishna, or else worshipping Him in one's mind only without

involving the organs of action. To answer this, it is said:

##

sA jihvA yA hariM stauti tvachchittaM yattvadarpaNam.h |

tAveva kevalau shlAghyau yau tvatpUjAkarau karau || 73 ||

##

That alone is a tongue, which is employed in praising Hari; that

alone is a mind, which is devoted to Him; those alone are the

praiseworthy, which are hands employed to worship Him.

Therefore, it is not the case that worship done occasionally is adequate

and that the senses may be employed otherwise as well -- the senses reach

their utmost fulfilment and their consummate potentials when employed in

favor of Hari's service, and as such, it is unwise to think that employing

them for sensuous causes is beneficial. No one considers himself or

herself as having benefited from a situation when the benefit received is

far less than was possible; by the same token, one cannot consider oneself

to have achieved any benefit from one's senses through their uses for

sensuous pursuits, when far greater benefit would derive were they to be

applied to serve Hari.

At this, one may object that even so, the claim made here -- seen in

conjunction with verse 71 -- is unacceptable, since pilgrimages and other

activities are well known to be tools for spiritual and material progress.

The bald claim, that only a sense organ which is applied in service of

Krishna is one that has seen worthwhile use, is thus unacceptable. To

answer this, it is said:

##

yastu vishhNuparo nityaM dR^iDhabhaktirjitendriyaH |

svagR^ihe.api vasan.h yAti tadvishhNoH paramaM padam.h || 74 ||

##

One who is of firm devotion, and having subdued the senses [in their

quest for other ends] employs them constantly in favor of Vishnu; even

if (s)he reside at home, attains that Vishnu's supreme abode.

Therefore, it is not only desirable that the senses be restricted from

pursuits other than the worship of Krishna, it is also necessary. While

acts of virtue and wisdom are not ruled out for the worshipper of Krishna,

they must be performed as His service only, and not otherwise; thus it is

also not possible for one to seek license for one's sensuous pursuits

under the plea that meritorious acts other than the worship of Krishna are

necessary, and thus other acts than the worship of Krishna are necessary

in general. Even if one resides merely at home and lives a mundane life,

without pilgrimages &c., as long as one's senses and actions are devoted

to Vishnu and one does not act out of sensory desire, one is sure to

attain His abode.

At that, one may wonder how exactly one is to acquire such complete

control over the senses that they do not seek pleasure, but instead serve

one well in worshipping Krishna. Since such control is essentially a

prerequisite for proper worship, it cannot also be the result of worship

itself, and hence must come from other means, i.e., by pilgrimages, etc.,

which thus must not be disregarded. To answer this, it is said:

##

sAdhu sAdhu mahAbhAga sAdhu dAnavanAshana |

yanmAM pR^ichchhasi dharmaj~na keshavArAdhanaM prati || 75 ||

##

O virtuous-minded and noble one; He is the consummate slayer of

demons; so why do you query me, O knower of righteousness, about

the worship of Keshava?

It is indicated that even for the purpose of achieving self-control and

stability in one's mind and external circumstances, which may be described

as slaying the demons within and without oneself, the worship of Krishna

is the foremost solution; even if such worship be done with partial

devotion and be inadequate in a larger sense, it is definitely indicated

if one wishes to gain control over one's senses and complete devotion.

At this, one may ask why it should not be the case that performance of

pilgrimages, etc., will give one devotion towards Krishna, so that for

those such as oneself who are lacking devotion, such performances are the

better interim solution, after which one may be able to worship well as

required. To answer this, it is said:

##

nimishhaM nimishhArdhaM vA muhUrtamapi bhArgava |

nAdagdhAsheshhapApAnAM bhaktirbhavati keshave || 76 ||

##

Whether it be for a minute, or a half-minute, or even for an

instant, O Bhargava; for one whose ceaseless sins have not been

annihilated, devotion towards Keshava does not happen.

Therefore, since it is the case that only by meditating upon Krishna

(verses 48, 49) that one can make a dent at the huge accumulation of past

karma that would otherwise prevent one from achieving fulfilment, even an

inadequate worship of Krishna is definitely superior to performance of

other actions, and the latter do not under any circumstances lead to

devotion.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask why the worship of

Krishna alone is considered the fulfilment of one's life, which must mean

the fulfilment of one's mind as well: surely, even if one does not develop

devotion as stated, the mind can still find fulfilment in other

intellectual pursuits, and there need be no distress on this account. To

answer this, it is stated:

##

kiM tena manasA kAryaM yanna tishhThati keshave |

mano muktiphalAvAptyai kAraNaM saprayojanam.h || 77 ||

##

What is the use of your mind, if it is not to reside in Keshava?

The use of the mind as a tool for obtaining mukti is its only good

use.

While the mind may be used for any number of purposes, it is most useful

to the individual when applied in the service of Krishna.

One may ask now -- what is to be the basis for judging the external

senses; the above does not clarify -- can they be used in other things?

To answer this comes the next verse:

##

rogo nAma na sA jihvA yayA na stUyate hariH |

gartau nAma na tau karNau yAbhyAM tatkarma na shrutam.h || 78 ||

##

It is a mere infestation, not a tongue, by which Hari is not praised;

they are mere holes, not ears, by which His deeds are not heard.

Therefore, the higher purpose of these senses is in the service of Hari,

and no other use, even if pleasant, can count as meaningful. Since both

pleasure and pain can be obtained on account of sensual pursuits, such

pursuits cannot be considered pleasant alone, in fact. However, when the

senses are employed in the Lord's service, the result is unalloyed.

At this, one may have the doubt that the characterization that a

sense-organ not employed in service of Hari is wasted, is inappropriate in

case of those who may be handicapped in one or more ways; they surely

cannot use their dysfunctional senses at all, hence it is wrong to say

that their senses are wasted. Also, each "sense-organ" is actually a

complex system of many closely associated units, and it is improper to

single out any one of them, even if an obvious one, as *the* sense-organ

which is considered to have failed for not worshipping Hari. To answer

this, it is stated:

##

nUnaM tatkaNThashAlUkaM athavA.apyupajihvikA |

rogo nAma na sA jihvA yA na vakti harerguNAn.h || 79 ||

##

Most certainly, the thorax is like a croaking frog, and such also

is the uvula; that is an infestation, not a tongue, which does not

state the qualities of Hari.

It is clarified that all the parts of the anatomy associated with speech

may be considered to have been wasted, if the speech does not serve Hari.

Also, the characterization applies when all the parts are in working order

and the person makes a conscious choice not to involve the organ in the

worship of Krishna. Hence, there is no conflict or inaccuracy as

suggested.

At this, one may wonder what is to be the criterion of usefulness in

respect of those organs of action which cannot be directly involved in

worship or understanding -- for example, the feet; also with respect to

the eyes, which only perceive but do not act. To address this, the next

verse says:

##

bhArabhUtaiH padaiH kAryaM kimebhirnR^ipashordvija |

charaNau tau tu saphalau keshavAlayagAminau |

te cha netre mahAbhAga yAbhyAM sandR^ishyate hariH || 80 ||

##

What can be the use of the legs, which bear the weight of

the human animal, O twice-born? The feet also are successful

when they [are used to] proceed to Keshava's house; those

eyes, too, O great one, by which is seen Hari.

These organs are thus properly utilized when they are applied in a fashion

that enables one to worship Krishna, even given the constraints of their

natures.

At this, one may ask why such a restriction should apply: let all the

organs that are directly involved in the worship be used for the same, but

those not used for worship should be allowed to do other things. To

counter this, the next verse says:

##

kiM tasya charaNaiH kAryaM vR^ithA saJNcharaNairdvija |

yairhi na vrajate jantuH keshavAlayadarshane || 81 ||

##

What is the use of your feet in useless wandering, O twice-born --

which indeed does not carry the being to view the house of Keshava?

If it be the case that the feet have no role in the worship of Krishna and

hence may be considered usable to do whatever, then it would be proper to

ask if the feet are considered to have any purpose at all in one's life.

It cannot be said that they are themselves the source of pleasure a la the

senses of touch and smell, for they are not; it cannot also be said that

they will aid the other senses in sensual pursuits, for such pursuits have

already been considered unwise -- by the same token the feet could aid

in Krishna's worship as well.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may wonder if the worship of

Krishna is only an interim solution to be practiced until one develops a

certain degree of maturity -- perhaps it is the case that in one's present

condition one must offer such worship, but when one has derived the

benefit of the same, one can go on to better things, or seek sensual

pursuits. The next verse answers this as follows:

##

vedavedAntavidushhAM munInAM bhAvitAtmanAM |

R^ishhitvamapi dharmaj~na vij~neyaM tatprasAdajam.h || 82 ||

##

For those skilled in the Veda-s and their ancillaries, the

saints and those who have realized the nature of the Supreme;

and even for those who have achieved R^ishhi-ness, O

righteous one, all these are to be known as being by His grace.

In other words, even in case of those who have achieved a certain standard

of success or joy, there is no possibility of doing away with having to

worship Krishna, and any joy that is derived only exists by His grace.

At this, one may ask: what joy? What is being talked about here? To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

vichitraratnaparyante mahAbhoge cha bhoginaH |

ramante nAkanArIbhiH keshavasmaraNAtphalam.h || 83 ||

##

Endowed with rare gems, the greatest of joys are enjoyed

by these enjoyers in the company of celestial women, as a

result of remembering Keshava.

Thus, it is promised that any sensory satisfaction that one can wish for

can be fulfilled to the utmost degree by worshipping Krishna.

At this, one may object that saying so does nothing to distinguish

Krishna's worship from the results enjoyed by those who carry out acts of

great merit such as `ashva-medha', etc., and hence there is nothing

special shown at all. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

ashvamedhasahasrANAM yaH sahasraM samAcharet.h |

nAsau tatphalamApnoti tadbhaktyairyadavApyate || 84 ||

##

By one who conducts a thousand ashva-medha-s a thousand times

over; such a result is not obtained, as is obtained by devotion

towards Him.

Therefore, while it may appear that there is a similarity of benefits

obtained from worship of Krishna and from other sources, there really is

no comparison as the latter is so vastly superior. It is folly to think

that another source could be as beneficial.

At this, one may wonder if the performance of yaj~na-s, etc., is an easier

means of obtaining satisfaction, even if it be granted that it brings less

of the same. The next verse answers this as follows:

##

re re manushhyAH purushhottamasya

karau na kasmAnmukulIkurudhve |

kriyAjushhAM ko bhavatAM prayAsaH

phalaM hi yattatpadamachyutasya || 85 ||

##

Hey humans, why do you cause your hands to become

impaired by not using them in favor of Purushottama?

Why are your efforts towards efforts that can win

fruition only at the feet of Achyuta?

Therefore, it is the case that all endeavors meet with fruition only by

His will and desire, and not otherwise, and hence, it is wrong to imagine

that one can obtain better results by not worshipping Him. Actions

performed without obtaining His grace are wasted and may as well be

considered as wearing out one's limbs and body, for the results of those

actions lie with Him and no other.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may yet have the doubt that

while it may be the case that one's physical endeavors do not yield any

benefit except upon Krishna's will, this fact alone is still not enough to

justify Krishna's worship, as there is nothing to say that devoting one's

limbs to such worship is worthwhile. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

vishhNorvimAnaM yaH kuryAtsakR^idbhyaktyA pradaxiNam.h |

ashvamedhasahasrasya phalamApnoti mAnavaH || 86 ||

##

One who performs circumambulation to Vishnu's vehicle with devotion

even once -- such a person obtains the fruit of thousands of

ashva-medha-s.

Therefore, it is not only the case that the use of one's limbs in other

endeavors is essentially fruitless, but it is also the case that to use

them in Vishnu's service in specific modes of service such as pradaxiNA

is far more rewarding. The fact that even a one-time pradaxiNA of even

Vishnu's vehicle, i.e., of His devotee who leads one to Him, is so

rewarding, is not without its significance.

At this, one may ask why the subject should suddenly become Vishnu's

vehicle rather than Vishnu directly; the switch is baffling and not

justified by context. To answer this, it is said:

##

pradaxiNaM tu yaH kuryAddhariM bhaktyA samanvitaH |

haMsayuktavimAnena vishhNulokaM sa gachchhati || 87 ||

##

One who performs pradaxiNA of Hari also with devotion; in a

vehicle that is like a swan, (s)he goes to Vishnu's abode.

Therefore, the connection is that worshipping Sri Hari with devotion, and

of His devotees as conveyances to Him, will see oneself conveyed to a

state of eternal joy.

At this, one may wonder how it can be that such contrary advice can

possibly be digested; in the world, it is far more common to find people

putting their faith in pilgrimages and observances, and not in pradaxiNA

and such of Krishna. The earlier answers that were given to similar

objections rest on the assumption that Krishna's worship is carried out

with exceptional devotion and knowledge, and cannot be applied in a case

such as oneself where such are absent. To answer this, it is said:

##

tIrthakoTisahasrANi vratakoTishatAni cha |

nArAyaNapraNAmasya kalAM nArhanti shhoDashIm.h || 88 ||

##

A thousand crore pilgrimages, and a hundred crore vrata-s;

do not under any circumstances add up to even a sixteenth part

of a salutation to Narayana.

Therefore, even though it is granted that one's knowledge and devotion are

far from adequate, and thus one's service of Krishna is bound to be far

from ideal, it still is the case that one would do far better to devote

one's limbs and such in Krishna's service than in any other kind of

fruitive endeavor.

At this, one may wonder exactly how such `praNAma' of Narayana is to be

carried out; one is never sure. In fact, even though one has heard of

`sAshhTAN^ga'-namaskAra, etc., one is not even sure what that is -- what

the eight limbs/parts involved are! To answer this, the next verse says:

##

urasA shirasA dR^ishhT.hyA manasA vachasA tathA |

padbhyAM karAbhyAM jAnubhyAM praNAmo.ashhTAN^ga IritaH || 89 ||

##

With (i) the chest, (ii) the head, (iii) the eyes/vision, (iv) the

mind, and (v) the speech; and also (vi) the feet, (vii) the hands,

and (viii) the knees -- such a praNAma is known as `sAshhTAN^ga'.

Therefore, a `sAshhTAN^ga-praNAma' is one that utilizes these parts of the

body in favor of Sri Hari, over all other uses and diversions, and such a

salutation is to be favored by one, as indicated earlier.

At this, one may have doubts about the feasibility of the worship

suggested, since it is generally exceptionally difficult for one to rein

in one's mind and speech in His service; even other body parts like the

knees may not be strong or supple enough for one to devote them as

suggested. So what to do? The next verse answers as follows:

##

shATh.hyenApi namaskAraM kurvataH shArN^gapANaye |

shatajanmArjitaM pApaM nashyatyeva na saMshayaH || 90 ||

##

Even if a namaskAra of Sri Hari be carried out for fraud;

it certainly destroys the sins of a hundred lifetimes, in this there

is no doubt.

As such, even given one's uncooperative mind and inept body parts, one is

still well-advised to perform namaskAra of Krishna to the extent possible

rather than pursue any other ends.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may wonder that even

given all the claimed advantages to the worship of Krishna, just the

absence of any motivation on one's part to excel would prevent one

from acting as advised; there is a significant tendency on one's part

to procrastinate and find excuses, and it is unlikely that one can

shed one's lethargy and perform namaskAra regularly. The next verse

takes up the issue as follows:

##

saMsArArNavamagnAnAM narANAM pApakarmaNAm.h |

nAnyoddhartA jagannAthaM muktvA nArAyaNaM param.h || 91 ||

##

For humans who are immersed in the ocean of samsAra and are

suffering the sins of their misdeeds; there is no other

redeemer than Jagannatha, the Supreme Narayana who gives mukti.

As such, it is as well for one to take notice of the fact and worship

Krishna now; if not now, one will have to eventually, but the delay is

insufferable and hence inadvisable.

At this, one may object that performing namaskAra, &c., is dirty work;

one may get one's hands and feet soiled, and one is disinclined to be

anything but spotlessly clean at all times. Therefore, where's the

question? The next verse answers as follows:

##

reNukuNThitagAtrasya kaNA yAvanti bhArata |

tAvadvarshhasahasrANi vishhNuloke mahIyate || 92 ||

##

For one covered in dust, as (innumerable) particles adhere, O Bharata;

in like fashion, for that many thousands of years, [a worshipper of

Vishnu] resides in Vishnu's abode.

It is unlikely that while performing namaskAra one would become bathed

in dirt from head to toe; but even if one were to be, it still would

make perfect sense, because the benefit is immeasurably greater than

the cost. Hence the advice.

At this, one may wonder if the worship of Krishna is admittedly

unclean work; the worship of others perhaps is not. Such worship of

others is perhaps cleaner to perform, and cleansing of oneself, as

well? To answer this, it is said:

##

pAvanaM vishhNunaivedyaM subhojyamR^ishhibhiH smR^itam.h |

anyadevasya naivedyaM bhuktvA chAndrAyaNaM charet.h || 93 ||

##

The `naivedya' of Vishnu is purifying, and has been stated by the

sages to be excellent to eat; if the `naivedya' of other deities

is consumed, then perform the `chAndrAyaNa' (as atonement).

Therefore, it incorrect to hold that the worship of Vishnu is unclean

and non-cleansing; partaking of the offering which has been made to

Vishnu is indeed pious, and should one happen to consume an offering

made to another deity, one must undertake the extremely difficult

`chAndrAyaNa' observance to atone for the wrong. Hence it is that

even in temples of other deities, `naivedya' is primarily offered to

Vishnu only, by those who know, and the deities are regarded as one's

superiors who help one perform Vishnu's worship. Any worship of, and

offering to, other deities in and of themselves is strictly forbidden,

and partaking of such offering would need one to encounter great

difficulties later on in order to expurgate the sin.

At this, one may wonder what is to be the attitude in respect of

naivedya of Vishnu which has been performed by another; even granting

that one's own worship and offering are worthwhile, perhaps it is

ill-advised to partake of the offering made by another? To answer

this, the next verse says:

##

koT.hyaindavasahasraistu mAsoposhhaNakoTibhiH |

tatphalaM prApyate puMbhirvishhNornaivedyabhaxaNAt.h || 94 ||

##

A thousand crore chAndrAyaNa-s, and a crore of observances of

month-long fasts; such a result is obtained by one on account of

consumption of Vishnu's `naivedya'.

(*) `aindava' in the verse is a synonym of `chAndrAyaNa'.

Therefore, the qualities of superiority that have been stated for

Vishnu's `naivedya' apply across the board, and are not due to special

circumstances and such.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to question whether

only the partaking of Vishnu's `naivedya', which itself is not easy to

prepare or come by, can give such benefits as claimed. For those who may

be unable to offer `naivedya' or receive it, what is the use? The next

two verses answer as follows:

##

trirAtraphaladA nadyo yAH kAshchidasamudragAH |

samudragAstu paxasya mAsasya saritAMpatiH || 95 ||

shhaN.hmAsaphaladA godA vatsarasya tu jAhnavI |

vishhNupAdodakasyaite kalAM nArhanti shhoDashIm.h || 96 ||

##

Those rivers which do not enter any sea, give a benefit equal to that

received by a sacrifice lasting three days; those that do enter a

sea give a benefit equalling [that of a sacrifice lasting] a fortnight,

and the sea itself, that equalling a month.

The river Godavari gives a benefit equalling a six-month sacrifice,

while the Ganga gives one equalling that of a year -- all of these

are not even a sixteenth of the water which has been used to wash

Vishnu's feet.

(Note: the references to rivers, etc., are actually references to their

presiding deities, as the insentient water itself cannot bestow any boons

upon anybody.)

The deities of various rivers, etc., give the seeker benefits in

proportion to their own worths; however, the lot of them are unable to

match up to Vishnu, and it is therefore not plausible to expect that they

can match up to the `tIrtha' obtained by Vishnu's worship.

At that, one may ask if Vishnu's `pAdodaka' is of greater efficacy only

with respect to various rivers, etc., but not with respect to other places

of pilgrimage? A related doubt is, of course why it should be that

Vishnu's `pAdodaka' is necessarily superior even to the rivers, which are

renowned for removing seekers' sins, etc. To answer these questions, the

next verse says:

##

gaN^gAprayAgagayapushhkaranaimishAni

saMsevitAni bahushaH kurujAN^galAni |

kAlena tIrthasalilAni punanti pApam.h

pAdodakaM bhagavataH prapunAti sadyaH || 97 ||

##

Upon much serving with devotion of [the deities of] the Ganga,

Prayaga, Gaya, Pushkara, Naimisharanya, and Kurukshetra, after some

time they remove one's sins; however, the `pAdodaka' of the

Lord does this immediately.

Therefore, what these pilgrimages can do after a significant lapse of

time, the tIrtha of Krishna does immediately, which is a concrete reason

for saying that the former are not even a sixteenth of the latter. It is

also seen that even pilgrimages other than rivers are less worthy than the

pAdodaka of Vishnu, which thus is not superior only with respect to

rivers.

At this, one may wonder if there perhaps is some pilgrimage spot or deity

other than those named, which is able to match up to, or exceed, Vishnu's

pAdodaka. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

yAni kAni cha tIrthAni brahmANDAntaH sthitAni vai |

vishhNupAdodakasyaite kalAM nArhanti shhoDashIm.h || 98 ||

##

Wherever pilgrimage spots may be, even if they be located at the

ends of the universe; they are not, under any circumstance, even a

sixteenth of the pAdodaka of Vishnu.

Therefore, the stated restrictions hold in respect of all possible known

and unknown pilgrimages, &c., and one is thus well-advised to regard

Vishnu's pAdodaka as being superior to all of them.

At this, one may wonder exactly what one is supposed to do with Vishnu's

pAdodaka to obtain the benefits said to derive from it. At least in the

case of the rivers, etc., that was clear: one has to take a ritual bath,

etc. -- but here it is not. To answer this, it is said:

##

snAnapAdodakaM vishhNoH piban.h shirasi dhArayan.h |

sarvapApavinirmukto vaishhNavIM siddhimApnuyAt.h || 99 ||

##

That which has been used to wash down Vishnu's icon, or his

feet, is to be drunk, and placed upon one's head (respectively);

one who does this is freed of all sins, and obtains the

Vaishnava-siddhi.

At this, one may ask if only the pAdodaka of Vishnu has such special

properties claimed -- for instance, perhaps the `dhUpa' of another deity

is superior, however? To answer this, the next two verses say:

##

yathA pAdodakaM puNyaM nirmAlyaM chAnulepanam.h |

naivedyaM dhUpasheshhashcha ArArtishcha tathA hareH || 100 ||

tulasyAstu rajojushhTaM naivedyasya cha bhaxaNam.h |

nirmAlyaM shirasA dhAryaM mahApAtakanAshanam.h || 101 ||

##

Just as the pAdodaka is purifying, so also are the `nirmAlya',

the garments/sandalwood-paste which has been offered to the Deity,

the `naivedya', the `dhUpa', the `sheshha' ("remainder" = the

`aN^gAra'), and the `Arati' -- which have been offered to Hari.

The `naivedya' is to be partaken of along with a stalk of `tuLasI';

the `nirmAlya' to be placed upon one's head, to remove even the

gravest of sins.

Therefore, all the products of worship of Sri Krishna are immeasurably

superior, and the pAdodaka is only an example that illustrates the general

rule. The `nirmAlya' is that which is placed upon one's head (as against

the `tIrtha' which is sipped), and removes the effects of even the most

heinous offenses.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may wonder if the properties

of nirmAlya, etc., which have been stated, apply only in case of some

special worship of Krishna that one is incapable of -- if that is so, then

one is better off looking at alternatives. To answer this, the next verse

says:

##

bhaktyA vA yadi vA.abhaktyA chakrAN^kitashilAM prati |

darshanaM sparshanaM vA.api sarvapApapraNAshanam.h || 102 ||

##

Whether it be with devotion, or even without devotion, even the mere

sighting or contact of the `chakrAN^kita' and the (shAlagrAma-)shilA

destroys all sins.

Therefore, since even the shAlagrAma, etc., are of such potency, there

need be no doubt that one's worship cannot be fruitful given one's obvious

lack of qualifications.

At this, one may wonder how it could possibly be that inert stones could

give one such a result as claimed. It is in any event not possible for

one to develop any sensible devotion towards a stone, and even if one did

and benefited as has been suggested, that itself would be a conflict with

whatever has been stated earlier as the greatness of Krishna's worship.

To answer these, the next verse states:

##

shAlagrAmodbhavo devo devo dvArAvatIbhavaH |

ubhayoH saN^gamo yatra tatra muktirnasaMshayaH || 103 ||

##

The Deity is present in the shAlagrAma, and the Deity is also

present in the [chakrAN^kita from] Dvaravati; where both [devotion

and handling/sighting of these] are present, there mukti occurs,

in this there is no doubt.

Therefore, the qualities stated earlier are in respect of Vishnu's icons,

not just any inert stones, and the benefits only occur because of Vishnu,

and not because of any potency of the inert matter itself. The devotion

spoken of is with respect to the Deity, not the icon. Whereas the

previous verse makes clear that even the sighting and handling of the

shAlagrAma/chakrAN^kita without understanding their true significance is

beneficial, doing the same in the proper fashion with the correct

understanding that the Lord is present in them, is a guarantor of mukti.

At this, one may well ask how that is to matter to someone who is located

in a place which is not at all conducive to spiritual progress. To answer

this, the next verse says:

##

mlechchhadeshe.ashuchau vA.api chakrAN^ko yatra tishhThati |

yojanAni tathA trINi mama xetraM vasundhare || 104 ||

(varAha purANa)

##

Even if it be in a mlechchha or a filthy land, where the

`chakrAN^ka' resides; there for a distance of three yojana-s, is

My xetra, O Vasundhara.

In this verse, the Lord Varaha tells Bhudevi that the power of the

`chakrAN^kita' is such that its mere presence renders the area around it

as sanctified as the Lord's own xetra.

At this, it is but natural to ask -- what if there is more than a mere

presence of the `chakrAN^kita' in such conditions? The next verse answers

as follows:

##

shAlagrAmodbhavaM devaM shailaM chakrAN^kamaNDitam.h |

yatrApi nIyate tatra vAraNasyAH shatAdhikam.h || 105 ||

##

The Deity who is present in the shAlagrAma, and also in the

chakrA^ka, wherever He be worshipped, that place is as hundreds

of times greater than Varanasi.

While even the mere presence of a chakrAN^ka can sanctify the area around

it, should the same be worshipped with exact understanding in any location

whatsoever, said location is rendered far more sanctified to the

worshipper than even a `xetra' is to the ignoramus.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is liable to object that it

is not proper to say that wherever Krishna is worshipped with devotion as

residing in the shAlagrAma, the location is sanctified for the worshipper

to a greater extent than even a xetra is to someone else. For then,

people may falsely conclude that there is nothing to any xetra at all,

thus causing a loss of spirituality in society. The xetra-s have a

hallowed history, and have even been described as places for mukti; any

carelessly applied superlatives that denounce them would thus be

inaccurate as well. To answer these, the next verse says:

##

hariNA muktidAnIha muktisthAnAnisarvashaH |

sarvasya sarvabhAveshhu tasya taiH kiM prayojanam.h || 106 ||

##

Hari alone is the giver of mukti, in all these places which are

said to be places for mukti; [He is responsible for] all qualities

of all, so what use is there from them?

As it is the case that even in the xetra-s, etc., which are said to be

givers of mukti, only Hari who is resident there is the actual giver, and

since He in fact is responsible for all potency that exists anywhere, what

is the purpose in accepting the usefulness of the xetra-s independently of

Hari? It must be accepted that even when one is looking for some purpose

to be served by pilgrimage, only Krishna is ultimately the one who gives

fulfillment, and the pilgrimage is of no use unless He does. As such, one

must apply to Him directly, rather than imagine that one is seeking

independent recourse.

At that, one may well wonder how sensible such advice is. It is well

known in the world that people seek pilgrimages and such for limited

purposes such as wealth and advancement, and to remove limited distress

like disease. One really does not have the time or the focus necessary to

carry out spiritual actions that are not inspired by immediate ends.

Therefore, while the worship of Sri Krishna may be suitable for great

persons who do not have such desires in mind, pilgrimages and such are

perhaps better suited to those such as oneself who do have them in mind.

To answer this, the next verse says:

##

hariryAti hariryAti dasyuvyAjena yo vadet.h |

so.api tadgatimApnoti gatiM sukR^itino yathA || 107 ||

##

``Hari is there; Hari is there'' -- one who says this while in pursuit

of a thief, even he obtains the same end, as is obtained by those of

pious deeds.

One's thinking of Krishna may be caused by severe duress, and the need to

keep one's hopes up when faced with uncertainty over limited ends such as

the desire to recover stolen property. However, even in such a case,

although one does not have the maturity of wisdom and the steadiness of

understanding that is desirable, one's deficient worship is still well

advised and is not to be rejected, and thinking that pilgrimages, etc.,

are more suitable under such conditions is incorrect.

At this, one may ask: if one is faced with distress and decides to worship

another deity in preference to Krishna, then what's wrong? Surely it is

possible that other deities will relieve one's distress as well? To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

vAsudevaM parityajya yo.anyaM daivamupAsate |

taktyvA.amR^itaM sa mUDhAtmA bhuN^kte hAlAhalaM vishham.h || 108 ||

##

One who, having given up Vasudeva, worships another deity; [it is as

though] having given up `amR^ita', the stupid one consumes the

`hAlAhala' poison instead.

Therefore, it is incorrect to prefer another deity over Krishna and

neglect to worship the latter, whatever may be the cause of the

preference. Such a choice is fit only for those of unsound judgement, and

one would be as wrong in making it as is someone who prefers to consume

the most dreadful poison known rather than the nectar of immortality.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask how one is expected

to accept the sectarian conclusion that only Vasudeva's worship is

justified and anyone worshipping another is a fool. To answer this, the

next verse says:

##

tyaktvA.amR^itaM yathA kashchidanyapAnaM pibennaraH |

tathA hariM parityajya chAnyaM daivamupAsate || 109 ||

##

As though, having given up `amR^ita', a human drinks something else;

so also is the case with one who gives up Hari and worships another

deity.

The worship of Hari is the only means to liberation, and no worship of any

other deity could possible give that result (verses 26 to 34); as such,

one who worships another in preference to Hari is as one who, having

forfeited his chance at the nectar of immortality, prefers to consume

something else in its stead.

At that, one may say that while it may be true that Krishna is unique in

being the only giver of mukti, it still could be possible to worship

another if one's goal is not mukti, but is heaven, etc. To answer this,

the next verse says:

##

yathA gaN^godakaM tyaktvA pibetkUpodakaM naraH |

tathA hariM parityajya chAnyaM daivamupAsate || 110 ||

##

As though, having given up the water of the Ganga, a human drinks

the water of a well; so also is the case with one who gives up Hari

and worships another deity.

Even if one's objective is merely transient joy in the afterworld, it

still is far better to worship Krishna than any other deity, for it is

only by His worship that one is spared the ordeals that are otherwise not

avoided (verses 41, 42). As such, it is not appropriate even for one

seeking an extra-sensory end other than mukti, to worship anyone but

Krishna, just as one seeking the joys of heaven is better advised to

prefer the water of the Ganga over the water of a common well.

At that, one may wonder if it is proper to use the strong language of

verse 108, even given these explanations; for one's objective may be

neither liberation nor heaven, but merely some immediate gain in one's

life. Surely it is not incorrect to worship another deity then? The next

verse answers as follows:

##

gAM cha tyaktvA vimUDhAtmA gardabhaM vandate yathA |

tathA hariM parityajya chAnyaM daivamupAsate || 111 ||

##

As though, having given up a cow, a fool worships a jackass;

so also is the case with one who gives up Hari and worships

another deity.

Just as there is no comparison between a cow and a jackass in terms of

beauty, sanctity, ability to nourish, etc., so also, there is no

comparison between Krishna and any other deity even in being able to

provide succor in the world (verse 55, 56). Therefore, even from the very

limited perspective of ends desired in one's own lifetime, it only makes

sense for one to worship Krishna and no other.

At that, one may still object that even granting the truth of all that has

been said, one still may worship another deity simply because one has a

fondness for that deity; just as a person is certainly entitled to the

idiosyncratic -- if irrational -- preference for a particular jackass over

a cow, it is perfectly plausible that one would prefer to worship a

certain deity other than Krishna simply because one felt a closeness,

fondness, or kinship towards that deity, even if the deity cannot match up

to Krishna. To answer that argument, it is said:

##

svamAtaraM parityajya shvapAkIM vandate yathA |

tathA hariM parityajya chAnyaM daivamupAsate || 112 ||

##

As though, having given up one's own mother, one praises she who

cooks dog meat; so also is the case with one who gives up Hari and

worships another deity.

For not only is Krishna a better provider of all kinds of ends, He is also

very dear to us by the very nature of things, and is as our close parent,

in fact. One's relationship with Krishna is eternal and is one of

constant attachment and dependence, just as a child is dependent upon a

mother for her care. As such, the worship of Krishna, our eternal

support, is at least as sensible as the honoring of one's parent, and the

worship of another of far lesser qualities is as reprehensible as a false

attachment to a person obviously lacking in virtue.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say: well, that's all

very nice, but you see, I have this really important something to

accomplish, and I'm already five minutes late. Perhaps another time. For

that, it is said:

##

yAvatsvasthamidaM piNDaM nirujaM karaNAnvitam.h |

tAvatkurushhvA.atmahitaM pashchAttApena tapyase || 113 ||

##

As long as the body is healthy, free of aches, and equipped with

functional senses; do what is good for you, else you will suffer and

repent.

It is necessary for one to devote the body and the senses to the service

of Krishna while one still has them in working order; finding excuses and

generally procrastinating or incorrectly prioritizing one's life would not

be a good idea.

At that, one may say: well, look at me now; I'm still only in my fifties

and look and feel years younger, so there's still a lot of time left.

I'll start worshipping Krishna when I retire in ten years or so, but until

I do, I have lots of important things to worry about. To answer this, it

is said:

##

yAvatsvAsthyaM sharIreshhu karaNeshhu cha pATavam.h |

tAvadarchaya govindamAyushhyaM sArthakaM kuru || 114 ||

##

As long as the body is healthy and the senses are keen;

worship for so long Govinda, and make your life worthwhile.

It being the case that only the worship of Krishna makes one's life

fulfilling (verse 13), other endeavors being of no consequence, it is

proper to ask why one should waste a majority of the good years of one's

life doing useless things, in the hope that one will be able to make up

for the time wasted. One would do far better to devote oneself to Krishna

right from the start, for that is surely the superior method even given

worldly experience which shows the ill-effects of procrastination.

At that, one may say: notice however that it has been claimed (verse 12,

etc.) that even worshipping Krishna once is worthwhile; so, it is quite

proper that my once come when I'm toothless and eighty. Until then, I

need to do other things. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

smartavyaM tu hR^ishhIkeshho hR^ishhIkeshhu dR^iDheshhu cha |

adR^iDheshhu hR^ishhIkeshhu hR^ishhIkeshhaM smaranti ke || 115 ||

##

Hrishikesha (the Lord of the senses) is to be remembered when the

senses are yet firm; for when the senses become infirm, who

remembers Hrshikesha?

It is only when the senses are all in good working order, that one can

reasonably plan and carry out one's plans, including for Krishna's

worship. Planning such worship for a future date when one may well not

have one's faculties in proper working order, is not at all sensible.

At that, one may think that asking one to worship Krishna while all the

pleasures of the world await one's attention, is not realistic. For even

given the alleged benefits of His worship, other pursuits are certainly

more pleasing to oneself, and there is no similar benefit that one can

perceive in such worship. As such, there is no motivation for one to give

up worldly pleasures in favor of worship. To answer this, it is said:

##

yAvachchintayate janturvishhayAn.h vishhasannibhAn.h |

tAvachchetsmarate vishhNuM ko na muchyeta bandhanAt.h || 116 ||

##

As long as the creature thinks of sense-objects, which are as poison;

if for like duration Vishnu were to be remembered, then which bondage

could one possibly not be freed from?

It is seen that even though certain pleasures are known to be unhealthy,

the mind still dwells upon them at length, and the individual is even

liable to pursue pleasures which are known to be extremely injurious; many

a man has fallen from positions of success or fame owing to some lapse of

judgement, and the desire for gratification; if a person therefore decides

not for such "poisonous" gratification but for momentary thoughts of

Krishna which are harmless at worst, what is the loss? There is none, and

in fact, there is no difficulty that such a person could possibly fail to

overcome. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that sensory pursuits

are more pleasing than Krishna's worship.

At that, one may object that the pleasure or otherwise of any endeavor is

necessarily a function of one's interest in it. Given that one is very

interested in worldly affairs and situations, and not at all interested in

Krishna, it is but natural that one finds the former pleasing and the

latter tedious, and nothing that has been said so far changes this. To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

yAvatpralapate janturlokavArtAdibhiH sadA |

tAvachchetsmarate vishhNuM ko na muchyeta bandhanAt.h || 117 ||

##

As long as the creature babbles constantly about worldly gossip, etc.;

if for like duration Vishnu were to be remembered, then which bondage

could one possibly not be freed from?

If one is interested in engaging in worldly gossip which brings one no

benefit to speak of, then why would one object to engaging in thinking

about Krishna, when such thinking brings untold benefits? After all,

one's interest in things is predicated upon the use one has for them, and

not the reverse -- as such, there is no sensible consideration which would

allow one to remain interested in worldly gossip while being uninterested

in Krishna.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask exactly what it

is that one is supposed to work at, which is being advised previously

as being necessary of attempt when one is still of sound body. The

next verses answer:

##

j~nAtvA viprAstithiM samyag.h daivaj~naiH samudIritAm.h |

kartavya upavAsastu anyathA narakaM vrajet.h || 118 ||

##

Knowing the [ekAdashI] date correctly, it has been stated by those

of divine knowledge; fasting is to be observed, otherwise naraka

would be obtained.

Therefore, the correct observance of ekAdashI-s is stated to be the

first order of business for anyone wishing to worship Krishna.

At that, one would ask, how is the date to be determined correctly?

The next verse answers:

##

xaye vA.apyathavA vR^iddhau samprApte vA dinaxaye |

uposhhyA dvAdashI puNyA pUrvaviddhAM parityajet.h || 119 ||

##

When there is either gain or loss of time [on ekAdashI itself], or

when multiple dates occur together; or when fasting is undertaken

on the dvAdashI, one's merit is given up as before.

Therefore, fasting is to be avoided on incomplete ekAdashI days, on

dvAdashI, and on days when ekAdashI and other dates occur together.

At that, one may object that fasting has to be the same on any given

day, and hence, there need be no spurious concern about the dates.

What's wrong if one observes a fast on dvAdashI, for instance? The

next verse answers:

##

pUrvaviddhAM prakurvANo naro dharmAnnikR^intati |

santatestu vinAshAya saMpado haraNAya cha || 120 ||

##

The merit of a human who carries out the observance is reduced

(should the rules be flouted); his progeny is destroyed, and his

wealth is looted as well.

Given such a stern stricture, one would do as well to mind what one is

told, and not act by whim.

However, one may ask, what's so wrong if one fasts on a day that has

both dashamI and ekAdashI in it? After all, the ekAdashI is still

good. The next verse answers:

##

kalAvedhe tu viprendra dashamyaikAdashI yadi |

surAyA bindunA spR^ishhTaM gaN^gAMbha iva santyajet.h || 121 ||

##

If there is even the slightest contact of dashamI with ekAdashi;

then as with Ganga-water that has a drop of liquor mixed in it,

such is to be rejected.

Therefore, the "pollution" of contact with another date is so great

that even a small amount of it would render the observance worthless.

At that, one may object that the example above is improper; water and

liquor are miscible so that once a drop of liquor had been added to

water, one would not know where the water stopped and the liquor

began, and would thus have to reject the whole of it. However, dates

are not miscible in like fashion, and one can accurately tell, to the

minute, when dashamI stops and ekAdashI begins; hence one could

conduct a proper observance of ekAdashI even when such a mixture

occurs. For that, it is said:

##

shvadR^itau paJNchagavyaM cha dashamyA dUshhitAM tyajet.h |

ekAdashIM dvijashreshhThAH paxayorubhayorapi || 122 ||

##

Just as paJNcha-gavya which has had contact with a dog is

rejected; so also [such] an ekAdashI is rejected be the best

among the twice-born, in both halves of the month.

Even though one knows where the paJNcha-gavya stops and the dog

begins, one is not inclined to use the paJNcha-gavya which has seen

contact with a dog, and likewise here.

At that, one may ask, what if some sacred observance happens to land

on ekAdashI day, or if one has to observe shrAddha, etc., then? One

may not be able to fast then. For that, the next verse says:

##

tasmAdviprA na viddhA hi kartavyaikAdashI kvachit.h |

viddhA hanti purApuNyaM shrAddhaM cha vR^ishhalIpatiH || 123 ||

##

Therefore, no observances (like sacrifices, etc.) are undertaken

by the sages on ekAdashI under any circumstances; if such are, one's

puNya, and shrAddha are destroyed by Indra.

Therefore, ekAdashI is yet of paramount importance in relation to

other sacred acts and desired observances, so that when the two clash,

the latter are to be rescheduled suitably.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask what could

justify the importance given to the observance of ekAdashI-s over

other rituals that may be performed on that day. To answer this, the

next verse says:

##

japtaM dattaM hutaM snAtaM tathA pUjA kR^itA hareH |

tatsarvaM vilayaM yAti tamaH sUryodaye yathA || 124 ||

##

The performance of japa, dAna, homa, snAna, and the pUjA of Hari;

all dissolve as darkness with sunrise [if the ekAdashI is given up].

Therefore, it is not merely a question of ekAdashI being more

fulfilling than other rituals, but it is also the fact that other

rituals become without value if the ekAdashI is rejected.

At that, one may say: it has been indicated earlier in verses 116, et

seq., that fasting is not to be undertaken under certain conditions;

therefore, under those conditions, perhaps one gets away scot-free

without having to observe the ekAdashI restriction, and may carry out

other rituals in preference? To answer this, the next verse says:

##

ekAdashyA yadA brahman.h dinaxayatithirbhavet.h |

uposhhyA dvAdashI puNyA trayodashyAM tu pAraNam.h || 125 ||

##

If on the day of ekAdashI a dina-xaya-tithi (incomplete date) occurs;

then fasting is to be undertaken on dvAdashI, and pAraNe on the

trayodashI.

Therefore, such a situation merely re-schedules the observance, and

does not excuse it.

At that, one may say: reference has been made here and previously to

incomplete dates -- exactly how are those to be reckoned? To answer

this, the next verse says:

##

pratipratprabhR^itayaH sarvA udayAdudayAdraveH |

saMpUrNA iti vij~neyA harivAsaravarjitAH || 126 ||

##

If from one sunrise to the next, all of it is one date;

such a `hari-vAsara' ("Vishnu's day" -- ekAdashI) is to

be known as complete, and flawless.

At that, one may say: but what if there is some conflict of dates at

the very time of sunrise, but none later? The next verse answers:

##

aruNodayakAle tu dashamI yadi dR^ishyate |

pApamUlaM tadA j~neyamekAdashyupavAsinAm.h || 127 ||

##

If at the time of dawn (before sunrise), dashamI is seen;

the undertaking of fast on such an ekAdashI is to be known as

the cause of sin.

Therefore, even the occurrence of dashamI shortly prior to sunrise

would invalidate the ekAdashI.

At that, one may ask if such a restriction makes any sense, since the

dates are reckoned from sunrise to sunrise; besides, perhaps the merit

gained outweighs the sin? The next verse answers as follows:

##

aruNodayakAle tu dashamI yadi dR^ishyate |

natatraikAdashI kAryA dharmakAmArthanAshinI || 128 ||

##

If at the time of dawn dashamI is seen; then ekAdashI is not to be

undertaken, for such is a destroyer of righteousness, happiness,

and wealth.

Therefore, vide the verses 121, etc., even a slight contact with

dashamI means that the ekAdashI fast is not to be undertaken on such a

day.

At this, one may ask: exactly how is the time of `aruNodaya' or dawn

to be reckoned? The next verse answers:

##

chatusro ghaTikAH prAtararuNodaya uchyate |

yatInAM snAnakAlo.ayaM gaN^gAbhaH sadR^ishaM smR^itaH || 129 ||

##

A period of four ghaTikA-s (`ghaTikA' = 24 minutes) in the morning

(before sunrise) is stated to be the time of aruNodaya; this is

the time for sa.nnyAsI-s to take bath, and is purifying as is the

water of the Ganga -- so has been stated.

Therefore, the dawn is reckoned to be a period in the morning of 96

minutes prior to sunrise, and this is when contact with dashamI, if

found, would invalidate the ekAdashI

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask if there are any

other conditions or limitations that obtain in consideration of the

reckoning of an ekAdashI. To answer this, it is said:

##

udayAtprAg.hyadA viprA muhUrtadvayasaMyutA |

saMpUrNaikAdashI nAma tatraivopavased.hgR^ihI || 130 ||

##

If [an ekAdashI] extends from a duration of two muhUrta-s (twice

48 minutes, or 96 minutes, as before) in the morning (i.e., before

sunrise; then it is called a `saMpUrNa-ekAdashI' ("total" ekAdashI)

and only on such a one must a householder fast.

If an ekAdashI is unobstructed for a period of 96 minutes before

sunrise, then one is able to decide that it is indeed worth observing;

there is no other condition.

At this, one may ask, what is an ekAdashI called if it is not

`saMpUrNa', and what is one to do about it? The next verse answers as

follows:

##

udayAt.hprAk.h trighaTikAvyApinyekAdashI yadi |

saN^kIrNaikAdashI nAma varjyA dharmArthakAN^xibhiH || 131 ||

##

If the ekAdashI extends from a duration of three ghaTikA-s (72 minutes)

in the morning, then it is called a `saN^kIrNa'-ekAdashI ("impure"

ekAdashI), and is to be given up by those desiring righteousness

and wealth.

What is one to do in such an instance? The next verse answers:

##

putrarAjya vivR^id.hdhyarthaM dvAdashyAmupavAsanam.h |

tatra kratushataM puNyaM trayodashyAM tu pAraNam.h || 132 ||

##

In order to attain sons and kingdoms, fasting is to be undertaken

[in such an instance] on dvAdashI; for merit equal to hundreds of

virtuous acts, the pAraNe is to be conducted [in addition to the

fasting] on trayodashI.

As indicated in verse 125 about multiple dates occurring on the same

day, in such an instance, fasting is to be undertaken on dvAdashI

instead of on ekAdashI.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask: what about the case

where an ekAdashI has contact with dashamI to the extent of two ghaTikA-s

before sunrise? The wording of verse 131 didn't make this quite clear.

To answer this, it is said:

##

udayAtprAg.h dvighaTikAvyApi nyekAdashI yadi |

sandigdhaikAdashI nAma na tatropavasedgR^ihI || 133 ||

If for a period of two ghaTikA-s before sunrise there is no ekAdashI;

such is called a `sandigdha' (confused) ekAdasHi, and on such a one,

a fast is not to be undertaken by the householder.

At this, one may say, all these highfalutin rules about when to observe

ekAdashI are over the top of one's head: one proposes instead to keep

things simple and to observe the ekAdashI fast simply on the eleventh day

of each fortnight, without wasting time on whether dashamI was present

within a certain number of minutes of sunrise, etc. To answer this, it is

said:

##

dashamIsheshhasaMyuktA gAndhAryA samuposhhitA |

tasyAH putrashataM nashhTaM tasmAt.h tAM parivarjayet.h || 134 ||

##

[An ekAdashI] with a fragment of dashaMi was fasted upon by Gandhari

(the mother of the Kauravas); her hundred sons were destroyed

thereby -- therefore, give up such a one.

It is cautioned that the ills that can befall one on account of wilful

heedlessness in the matter of ekAdashI observance are not small, and in

order to remove the possibility of great suffering, one must not ignore

the rules which have been explained so far.

At that, one may say: however, it is observed often that different

documents publish different dates for ekAdashI; different scholars also

disagree and give differing opinions on when ekAdashI is to be observed,

etc. Such being the case, how can one be expected to correctly observe

ekAdashI, and how, too is it fair to hold out threats against one, as

above? To answer these, it is said:

##

bahvAgamavirodheshhu brAhmaNeshhu vivAdishhu |

uposhhyA dvAdashI puNyA paxayorubhayorapi || 135 ||

##

When there is a conflict between different almanacs, and when the

brAhmaNa-s disagree [on ekAdashI]; fast then on the pious dvAdashI,

in either fortnight (i.e., in the waxing or the waning of the moon).

Therefore, when there is conflict among various texts and when one is

unable to decide when the correct ekAdashI is, one must fast instead on

the dvAdashI day that follows.

At that, one may ask if such a compromise solution has any value at all.

Surely it is better to fast on someone's ekAdashI, rather than on

dvAdashI? To answer this, it is said:

##

uparAgasahasrANi vyatIpAtAyutAni cha |

amAlaxaM tu dvAdashyAH kalAM nArhanti shhoDashIm.h || 136 ||

##

Thousands of acts of renunciation, observances of the somavatI-

pUrNimA (the full-moon day falling on a Monday) and the amAvasyA,

do not match up, under any circumstance, to a dvAdashI.

Therefore, one is not to suspect that one's observance of the vrata on the

dvAdashI is fruitless or even that it is insufficiently fruitful.

At this, one may ask what restrictions similar to that of an ekAdashI,

apply to the observance of a fast on a dvAdashI. To answer this, it is

said:

##

shuddhA.api dvAdashI grAhyA parato dvAdashI yadi |

vishhaM tu dashamI j~neyA.amR^itaM chaikAdashItithiH |

vishhapradhAnA varjyA sA.amR^itA grAhyA pradhAnataH || 137 ||

##

If there is a mixed-dvAdashI, then the pure one (before or after)

is to be accepted; dashamI is to be known as poison, and the ekAdashI

date as amR^ita; that which is primarily poison is to be given up,,

and that which is primarily amR^ita is to be accepted.

Therefore, it is clarified that in case of a dvAdashI which is mixed with

another date, the shuddha-dvAdashI is the one that is to be used for

fasting. The importance of avoiding the dashamI in fasting is again

emphasized, as it is the motivation for deciding to fast on dvAdashI

instead.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask if the observance of

a fast on an ekAdashI which has been tainted by dashamI could possibly be

worthwhile even if it brings ruin in one's own lifetime as it did

Gandhari -- possibly it brings joy in the afterlife, which may count for

more than the suffering in one's present lifetime? To answer this, it is

said:

##

dvAdashyAM bhojanaM chaiva viddhAyAM haryaposhhaNam.h |

yaH kuryAnmandabuddhitvAnnirayaM so.adhigachchhati || 138 ||

##

Eating on dvAdashI after having fasted on a forbidden day;

whoever does this, on account of stupidity, (s)he goes to hell.

It is stated in no uncertain terms that there can be no benefit in the

afterlife either for one who fails to observe the restriction against

fasting on forbidden days, and further, that it in fact is stupid to even

think that there might be gain in the afterlife due to an observance which

is stated to bring total ruin in one's own lifetime. No intelligent

person could accept that action which is ruinous in one's lifetime will

bring joy in one's afterlife, and one who accepts this can rightly be

described as suffering because of stupidity.

At this, one may point to some statements in the dharma-shAstra-s or the

like where observance of a fast on an ekAdashI tainted with dashamI is

recommended. How is one to reconcile those with what is being said here?

To answer this, the next verse says:

##

yAni kAni cha vAkyAni viddhopAstiparANi tu |

dhanadArchAparANi syurvaishhNavI na dashAyutA || 139 ||

##

Whichever statements may exist in favor of such upavAsa on the

proscribed day; they are in favor of those who worship deities who

give money, for the day with dashamI is not vaishhNavI.

Therefore, as it may be seen that any such statements found are not stated

to be in favor of Sri Hari, and are instead meant for acquiring wealth,

etc., which may be ruled out given the preferability of worshipping

Krishna instead, such an observance is not worthy of consideration.

At this, one may object that such prescriptions for dashamI-tainted

ekAdashI are found not just in some out-of-the-way dharma-shAstra, but

even in purANa-s which are considered canonical literature. What would

one make of those? To answer this, it is said:

##

athavA mohanArthAni mohinyA bhagavAn.h hariH |

arthitaH kArayAmAsa vyAsarUpo janArdanaH || 140 ||

##

Or else, these are meant for delusion, for Hari is the `mohinI';

with such meanings, Janardana created these, in the form of Vyasa.

Even where such statements are found in compositions of Vyasa, they are

meant for delusion only, and not otherwise. The power of the Lord to

delude is well established in His forms such as `mohinI', and as such,

there need be no doubt that He is fully capable of causing delusion and

false understanding.

At that, one may ask, why at all would the Lord wish to cause delusion in

this matter? Why not simply be straightforward? To answer this, the next

verse says:

##

dhanadArchAvivR^iddhyarthaM mahAvittalayasya cha |

asurANAM mohanArthaM pAshhaNDAnAM vivR^iddhaye |

AtmasvarUpAvij~napyai svalokAprAptaye tathA || 141 ||

##

To increase the worship of wealth-bestowing deities, and to cause

destruction of the greater wealth; in order to delude the demons,

and to increase the numbers of the heretical; in order to prevent

the knowledge of the Lord's true nature, and to see they that do

not reach His abode.

In order to see that the undeserving do not attain Vishnu's abode, it is

necessary that they be ignorant of His true nature; this in turn entails

the condition that they be overcome by heretical tendencies that prevent

right knowledge, which in turn requires them to be deluded; this requires

that they lose intelligence and other superior gifts and be given to lust,

etc.; and this, finally, requires that they obtain, and be ensnared by the

lures of, material wealth -- and this, finally, is the reason for the

false instruction.

At that, one may say, even if all that is true, the ekAdashI is said to be

a great purifier, and by giving it up due to the presence of dashamI, one

loses out on the chance to get rid of one's sins that cause suffering. To

answer this, it is said:

##

evaM viddhAM parityajya dvAdashyAmupavAsane |

koTijanmArjitaM pApamekayaiva vinashyati || 142 ||

##

And when the forbidden day is rejected, and fast is observed on

dvAdashI; the collected sins of a crore lifetimes are destroyed

all at once.

As such, the lingering suspicion that by forsaking ekAdashI one loses out

in this matter, has no basis.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say that it is not easy

for one to fast on ekAdashI, since no one in one's surroundings does it

and it is very hard for one to go against the grain and undertake such an

observance. Perhaps if one were more fortunate in circumstance, one could

have done something of the kind, but as things stand, there is just no

way. For that, the next two verses say:

##

(rudraH)

tataH koTiguNaM vA.api nishhiddhasyetarairjanaiH |

yadanAdikR^itaM pApaM tadUrdhvaM saN^karishhyati || 143 ||

tatsarvaM vilayaM yAti pareshhAmupavAsanAt.h |

na cha tasmAtpriyatamaH keshavasya mamApi vA || 144 ||

##

And even a crore times that (stated in the previous verse), when

observance is forbidden by others; all the sins from the beginningless

past, and whatever sins may yet be committed in future, are all

destroyed when one causes others to fast as well; there is verily

none that is dearer to Keshava, or to me (Shiva), than such a person.

Therefore, if perchance one is not in the happy situation of being among a

group of devotees of Krishna who observe ekAdashI regularly, and in fact

is located amongst people who ridicule such an idea, then the correct

observance of the same, and causing another to undertake the correct

observance of the same, destroys all of one's sins from the beginningless

past into the untold future, and Sri Rudra states that there is none

dearer to Krishna or to him, than such a person.

At that one may ask what is to be done if the ekAdashI is not tainted with

dashamI, but the dvAdashI that follows is not a "pure" date. Then one

cannot observe pAraNe as required, which in turn means that one cannot

fast at all on ekAdashI either (there being no means of breaking the fast

later, it would be unwise to fast in the first place). To answer this, it

is said:

##

ekAdashyA hyavedhe tu dvAdashIM na parityajet.h |

pAraNE maraNe chaiva tithistAtkAlikI smR^itA || 145 ||

##

When the ekAdashI is unbarred, do not reject the dvAdashI;

for pAraNe and for maraNa, the date is reckoned momentarily,

thus it is stated.

After the ekAdashI has been observed, the dvAdashI that follows is not to

be rejected even if a mixed date; the pAraNe may be done on a mixed date,

because the date for the same is to be reckoned as obtaining at the

specific time when it is undertaken, and does not have to be the same for

the whole day. Therefore, if it is dvAdashI at the specific time when the

pAraNe is undertaken, it is enough. Else, one would have to say by

similarity that a person who passes on during a "mixed" date cannot have

died because the date of his death cannot be fixed -- thus, the objection

is absurd as it would, if granted, force one to classify certain dead

persons as living.

At that, one may ask why it is that previous verses have spoken of the

observance of ekAdashI by one who is a `vipra', `gR^ihI', et cetera --

does that mean that if one is anything but a brahmin householder, one is

excused from having to undertake the rather difficult fast? To answer

this, it is said:

##

brahmachArI gR^ihastho vA vAnaprastho yatistathA |

brAhmaNaH xatriyo vaishyaH shUdro bhartR^imatI tathA || 146 ||

abhartR^ikA tathA.anye cha sUtavaidehikAdayaH |

ekAdashyAM na bhuJNjIta paxayorubhayorapi || 147 ||

##

Whether a brahmachArI, a gR^ihastha, a vAnaprastha, or a yati;

a brAhmaNa, a xatriya, a vaishya, a shUdra, or a bhartR^imati

(woman whose husband is living); and also an abhartR^ikA (a widow),

and others too such as sUta, vaidehikA, etc. (mixed varNa-s) -- do not

eat on ekAdashI, in both parts of the month.

Therefore, it is clarified that the statements which have been made

about the correct observance of ekAdashI apply across the board

regardless of one's birth or station in life, and are not meant only for

some. The single instances cited constitute the use of `upalaxaNa'-s, or

the manner of denoting a whole class by pointing to the prominent member

of the class.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask what if one is not

noticeably covered under the extensive listing therein; might it then be

that one is excused from having to observe the ekAdashI? The next verse

answers this as follows:

##

ekAdashyAM tu yo bhuN^kte mohenAvR^itachetasaH |

shuklAyAmatha kR^ishhNAyAM nirayaM yAti sa dhruvam.h || 148 ||

##

One who eats on ekAdashI on account of an intellect clouded by

delusion; be it the shukla- or the kR^ishhNa-paxa, (s)he goes

to hell, this is certain.

Therefore, one is not to imagine under any circumstances that there is any

loophole in the listing of verses 146-147 that one can make use of to

consider oneself excused from the requirement, and any such sophistry that

seeks to find a loophole is merely an exercise in delusion.

At that, one may ask what if one however decides that one will observe the

ekAdashI of the waxing phase of the moon, but not the one of the waning

phase (or vice versa); this would be easier since one then has to observe

ekAdashI just once a month instead of once every fortnight. Perhaps those

who are saints or great seekers can observe one every fortnight, but as a

person of the world, one can make do with once a month. To deal with this

thinking, the next verse says:

##

vivechayati yo mohAchchhuklA kR^ishhNeti mohakR^it.h |

ekAdashIM sa vai yAti nirayaM nAtra saMshayaH || 149 ||

##

One who makes a discrimination between the shukla- and kR^ishhNa-paxa

ekAdashI-s, he too goes to hell, in this there is no doubt.

Therefore, there is not the least scope for any such false reasoning in

respect of the ekAdashI observance.

At that, one may ask why it should be that both ekAdashI-s have like value

and are not to be given up by the seeker; what could be so wrong if one

decides that one values the shukla-paxa ekAdashI more than the other? To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

yathA gaurnaiva hantavyA shuklA kR^ishhNeti bhAminI |

ekAdashyAM na bhuJNjIta paxayorubhayorapi || 150 ||

##

Just as a cow is not to be killed, whether it be shukla (white)

or kR^ishhNa (black), O Bhamini; one is not to eat on ekAdashI,

in both paxa-s (shukla and kR^ishhNa). (*)

Therefore, just as a cow has its sanctity irrespective of its features, so

also does the ekAdashI irrespective of which part of the month it occurs

in.

At that, one may object that there are statements in the dharma-shAstra-s,

etc., which ask one to avoid fasting on the ekAdashI of the dark

fortnight, etc.; the present teaching conflicts with them and is hence

unacceptable. To deal with this objection, it is said:

##

yAni kAni cha vAkyAni kR^ishhNaikAdashivarjinI |

bharaNyAdinishhedhe.api tAni kAmyaphalArthinAm.h || 151 ||

##

Whichever statements there may be about rejecting the ekAdashI of

the kR^ishhNa-paxa, or about proscriptions concerning [fasting on

the ekAdashI when the constellation] bharaNI [is on the ascendant],

etc., those are for seekers of pleasure.

Therefore, it is to be understood that any proscriptions there may be

concerning any ekAdashI-s are not for those who are in the service of

Krishna, but are merely for those who only wish to obtain

lust-satisfaction. As such, there need be no doubt in the minds of those

who have understood the uniquely superior nature of Krishna's worship in

comparison with sensual pursuits, about the worth of observing ekAdashI

even against such proscriptions.

At that, one may ask why the previous verse makes the distinction between

those seeking pleasure, and those seeking to worship Krishna. Does this

mean that those who desire pleasure must not fast on the days when such

proscriptions as previously referred to exist, but only those who wish to

serve Krishna may? If so, it may not be necessary for one to fast on

certain ekAdashI-s, since after all is said and done, one is a creature of

the world and is deeply interested in its offerings. To answer this, it

is stated:

##

kAmino.api hi moxArthaM kuryurevopavAsanam.h |

prINanArthaM harernityaM na tu kAmavyapexayA || 152 ||

##

Even those who desire pleasure certainly must fast [on ekAdashI]

for the sake of moxa only; in order to please Hari constantly, and

not for obtaining sensual satisfaction.

It cannot be said that moxa is any less desirable than sensory

satisfaction, because it is eternal while the latter is not; it also

cannot be said that working for moxa is only for those who are devoid of

all base desires, since that would make moxa effectively unattainable.

Therefore, even if one desires the pleasures of the world, it is not

correct for one to reject the ekAdashI; one still must engage in the

service of Hari constantly, and must fast as required of one, without

letting one's desires get in the way.

The next verse presents the conclusion of the previous five as follows:

##

tasmAchchhuklAmatho kR^ishhNAM bharaNyAdiyutAmapi |

pratyavAyanishhedhArthamupavAseti nityashaH |

prINanArthaM hareshchApi vishhNulokasya chA.aptaye || 153 ||

##

Therefore, in the shukla- and the kR^ishhNa-paxa-s, and also in

the presence of bharaNI, etc.; in order to stop one's disappointments

one is to fast always [on ekAdashI]; also in order to please Hari,

and to obtain Vishnu's abode, as well.

As such, the decided conclusion is that there is no exception which could

possibly rule out one's need to observe a fast on any ekAdashI, which one

is to do as a form of service of Krishna, in order to obtain the merits

described. The verse makes a distinction between stopping disappointments

(pratyavAya-nishhedha) and otaining Vishnu's abode, to show that even

those who are deeply interested in everyday life must fast without fail on

ekAdashI, notwithstanding the fact that the otherworldly end of obtaining

Vishnu's abode does not capture their interest to the same extent.

(*) The word `bhAminI' (which can be used as a term of endearment applied

to a woman by her mate) in the verse is an epithet applied to the person

whom this verse was first given as instruction to, possibly Parvati (with

the speaker being Rudra); however, without tracing the source, it is not

possible to say for certain whom it refers to.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one is apt to say that while the

merits of fasting on an unobstructed ekAdashI have been spoken of at

length, the rules for the dvAdashI that follows have not. To address

this, the following verse says:

##

kalA vA ghaTikA vA.api apare dvAdashI yadi |

dvAdasha dvAdashIrhanti pUrvedyuH pAraNe kR^ite || 154 ||

##

If a small part, even a ghaTikA (=24 minutes) [of the following

day] is dvAdashI, then the merit of twelve dvAdashI-s is lost,

if one performs pAraNe outside this time.

Therefore, the meaning of verse 145 is further reinforced by pointing out

that it is important to break the fast at the proper time, and not just at

any other.

At this, one may ask what one is to do if one is not fasting on ekAdashI

subject to the proscriptions concerning fasting on a day when dashamI

occludes. What is the correct procedure for dvAdashI then? The next

verse answer as follows:

##

atiriktA dvAdashI chetsa tAM noposhhayedyadi |

dvAdasha dvAdashIrhanti dvAdashI chAtilaN^ghitA || 155 ||

##

If the dvAdashI is separate (unobstructed), and a fast is not

observed on it; then the merit of twelve dvAdashI-s is lost,

on account of having violated the rules for dvAdashI.

If one does not fast on the proper dvAdashI following an occluded

ekAdashI, then one loses the merit of twelve proper observances, for

having broken the rules.

Still, one could say, that's something one can live with. One after all

does not have twelve proper observances of dvAdashI to speak of, and so,

there isn't that much for one to lose. To answer this, the next verse

says:

##

dvAdashIM shravaNopetAM yo noposhhyAtsumandadhIH |

paJNchasamvatsarakR^itaM puNyaM tasya vinashyati || 156 ||

##

For one of a dull mind, who does not fast on the shravaNa-dvAdashI;

his puNya earned over a period of five years is destroyed.

As such, there is no reason for one to be complacent about the dvAdashI

observance either.

At this, one may say that given the oft-present confusion regarding the

exact dates of ekAdashI and dvAdashI, the above statements are not useful.

For according to the statement of verse 135, one is to fast on dvAdashI

when there is conflict among almanacs or disagreement among scholars as to

the ekAdashI date. However, according to what has been said subsequently

in verse 150, it is not appropriate to eat on ekAdashI, and it further is

not appropriate to have pAraNe on a date other than dvAdashI. As such,

the advice is inconsistent and thus impractical, since one cannot be sure

that one is fasting on the dvAdashI to follow and not on the ekAdashI that

is in doubt; there is always the chance than one will fast on the wrong

day and lose merit. To answer this, it is said:

##

ekAdashImuposhhyAtha dvAdashImapyuposhhayet.h |

na tatra vidhilopaH syudubhayordevatA hariH || 157 ||

##

Whether the fast be on ekAdashI, or whether the fast be on

dvAdashI; there is no lapse of procedure thereby, as the devatA

for both is Hari.

Therefore, if one decides to fast on a day which is considered ekAdashI by

some and dvAdashI by others, there is no lapse on one's part regardless of

who is right, because the Deity of either day is Krishna Himself, and the

validity of the observance holds. Thus, there is nothing incorrect about

the suggestion earlier made for choosing the later date than a disputed

ekAdashI; even if the later date is also in conflict, as long as it is

considered either ekAdashI or dvAdashI, there is no lapse on one's part.

It is desirable to avoid dashamI, but there is no flaw if dvAdashI is not

avoided.

At that, one may object that the statement made in verse 145, and

reinforced in verse 154, that it is necessary to break the fast on the

right date even if it is present for only a fragment of the whole day, is

not plausible -- there is no way one could cook and eat a meal in the

short amount of time that may be available. To answer this, it is stated:

##

pArayitvodakenApi bhuJNjano naiva dushhyati |

ashitAnashitA yasmAdApo vidvadbhirIritAH |

aMbhasA kevalenaiva karishhye vratapAraNam.h || 158 ||

##

[If there is insufficient time] there is no flaw if water is

consumed for pAraNe; for it is stated by the learned that water

has the property that when consumed, it is still as if one has

not consumed; thus, with only water, do I perform the ceremonial

paraNe.

If there is not enough time for a proper pAraNe, then the fast may be

broken merely by sipping water; there is no flaw of multiple pAraNe-s on

this account, as the wise have decreed that such a procedure does not

count as multiple pAraNe-s. Having performed the ceremonial pAraNe in

this manner, one may have a proper meal later, even though the time later

may not be appropriate for pAraNe itself.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may object that the ekAdashI

observance is far too hard in itself, and also complicated according to

the rules stated, for one to undertake it seriously, and as such, one

proposes to stick to some simpler observance like pilgrimages, which one

can at least complete with ease; with time, one may even accumulate enough

merit to make up for the benefit lost due to the non-observances of

ekAdashI-s. To answer that, it is said:

##

na kAshI na gayA gaN^gA na revA na cha gautamI |

na chApi kauravaM xetraM tulyaM bhUpa harerdinAt.h || 159 ||

##

Not Kashi, not Gaya or Ganga, not Narmada, and not also the Godavari;

not even the Kurukshetra, is comparable, O King, to [the observance

of] Hari's day.

Therefore, since pilgrimages, &c., are no match for the potency of the

ekAdashI, where is the question of one making up for the latter with the

former instead?

At that, one may ask what if one were able to step up one's efforts:

instead of a measly dip in the Ganga, what if one were able, say, to

undertake the vAjapeya or the ashvamedha instead? Surely, then the above

argument would not apply? To answer this, it is stated:

##

ashvamedhasanasrANi vAjapeyashatAni cha |

ekAdashyupavAsasya kalAM nArhanti shhoDashIm.h || 160 ||

##

A thousand ashvamedha-s, and a hundred vAjapeya-s as well;

do not, under any circumstance, add up to even a sixteenth of

an ekAdashI.

Therefore, even in case of very difficult observances, the same limitation

holds, and as such, even if one were able to undertake such, there still

would be no cause for one to give up the ekAdashI in their stead.

At that, one may ask what special quality or property obtains in respect

of ekAdashI-s that lacks in other virtuous tasks, and which justifies the

claims made above? To answer that, it is stated:

##

ekAdashIsamutthena vahninA pAtakendhanam.h |

bhasmIbhavati rAjendra api janmashatodbhavam.h || 161 ||

##

With the ekAdashI as fire, and sin as fuel; [the latter] gets

incinerated, O King, even if it be obtained of hundreds of lifetimes.

Therefore, while other actions can bring some benefits, none of them quite

matches up to the power of an ekAdashI in terms of removing the

accumulation of sins which brings one misery.

At that, one may ask if there perchance might be some observance of some

kind, which possibly one is not aware of but is easier to undertake than

the ekAdashI, which has the same qualities claimed in respect of ekAdashI

-- surely, such a one would be the one to choose. To answer this, it is

stated:

##

nedR^ishaM pAvanaM kiJNchinnarANAM bhuvi vidyate |

yAdR^ishaM padmanAbhasya dinaM pAtakanAshanam.h || 162 ||

##

There is nothing whatsoever quite the purifier of humans; as is the

day of Padmanabha, which destroys sin.

It being the case that the ekAdashI is the day of Krishna, the Destroyer

of sin, other observances which do not have a direct link to Him needs

must be inferior to it. For this reason, one is not to agonize thinking

that there might be some simpler solution which one is not aware of, and

knowledge of which might make it unnecessary for one to undertake the

ekAdashI which one is currently obliged to.

Having heard that, one would be likely to ask if the ekAdashI, though

effective, is still only a partial remedy and spares some sins from

annihilation which would then remain to be suffered. The next verse lays

this doubt to rest as follows:

##

tAvatpApAni dehe.asminstishhThanti manujAdhipa |

yAvannoposhhayejjantuH padmanAbhadinaM shubham.h || 163 ||

##

Sins can reside in the body of the human only so long, O King;

as long as the creature does not observe a fast on the day of

Padmanabha.

Therefore, it is not the case that the ekAdashI is, or can be, only

partially effective; one is to understand that sins can abide in one only

as long as one allows them to by defaulting on the ekAdashI observance.

For this reason, there should be no reason for one to question the wisdom

of undertaking ekAdashI in preference to other austerities.

At that, one may ask if the above claims are really sensible, for there

are may different ways in which one can sin, and the range and magnitude

of one's sins is such that it is difficult to accept that just one

observance could possibly cover all of them. To answer this, the next

verse says:

##

ekAdashendriyaiH pApaM yatkR^itaM bhavati prabho |

ekAdashyupavAsena tatsarvaM vilayaM nayet.h || 164 ||

##

The sins which are committed of the eleven indriya-s, O Lord;

by the fasting on ekAdashI, all of them are destroyed.

The eleven indriya-s referred to are (i) the mind; the five organs of

action -- (ii) hands, (iii) feet, (iv) organs of speech, (v) the excretory

organs, and the (vi) procreatory organs; and the five organs of knowledge

-- (vii) vision, (viii) hearing, (ix) smell, (x) taste, and (xi) touch.

All sins of these `ekAdasha-indriya'-s are destroyed by the restraints

placed upon them on ekAdashI when none is to be used for sensory

satisfaction, and as such, there is no reason to doubt that the ekAdashI

is potent in removing all sins, no matter what their source.

At that, one may object that as a flawed and failing individual, one is

liable to slip up and allow one's sense-organs to get at least temporarily

diverted during the ekAdashI observance, so that the stern requirements

assumed above are not met. For such a one as oneself, then, the above

reasoning surely cannot hold? To answer this, the next verse says:

##

ekAdashIsamaM kiJNchitpApatrANaM na vidyate |

vyAjenApi kR^itaM rAjan.h na darshayati bhAskarIm.h || 165 ||

##

There is nothing comparable to ekAdashI in terms of remedy for

sin; even if carried out for fraud/ostentation, O King, one does

not have to face the son of Surya (Yama).

Therefore, if one is worried about sinning on ekAdashI, then the

observance itself is the best remedy, so the very tendency to sin should

spur one on to observe ekAdashI-s, rather than deter one from them. Even

if one thinks that one is not improving fast enough, then even an

incorrect observance is immensely beneficial and ought not to be

neglected.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may object that the advice

given thus far is inappropriate: an abstainer is a "weak person who yields

to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure" (The Devil's Dictionary),

and thus, one who imagines that it is possible to give up sensual actions

on ekAdashI is merely giving in to another sensual action, perhaps one of

the mind, and thus the ekAdashI may as well be given up. To answer this,

the next verse states:

##

shrIvedavyAsa uvAcha

sa brahmahA sa goghnashcha sa steno gurutalpagaH |

ekAdashyAM tu bhuJNjAnaH paxayorubhayorapi || 166 ||

##

He is [as] a killer-of-brAhmaNa; he is [as] a killer-of-cow as well;

he is [as] a thief, and [as] one who cohabits with a Guru's wife

-- one who eats on ekAdashI, in either paxa.

Therefore, it is not only the case that fasting on ekAdashI brings

benefits, but is also the case that not fasting would cause one to be

considered akin to one who has committed a mahA-pAtaka. Therefore, it is

not to be imagined that the ekAdashI observance is merely another form of

sensory attachment that may as well be given up in favor of more

reasonable attachments.

At that, one may say that since it has earlier been stated (verse 33,

etc.) that a sinner may obtain redemption by remembering Krishna, why must

it not be that one skips the ekAdashI, and simply remembers Krishna

instead? Surely, that is a reasonable solution that requires one to incur

no strain. To answer this, the next verse states:

##

varaM svamAtR^igamanaM varaM gomAMsabhaxaNam.h |

varaM hatyA surApAnamekAdashyAM tu bhojanAt.h || 167 ||

##

It is better to have intercourse with one's mother; it is better to

eat beef; it is better to commit murder, or to drink liquor, than it

is to eat on ekAdashI.

While such sins may be forgiven by remembering Krishna, not so if the

ekAdashI is deliberately missed on the pretext that one will remember

Krishna to expiate the sin resulting. As such, the excuse given has no

value.

At that, one may point out that in one's daily life, one sees so many

people, even admittedly religious ones, who do not fast on ekAdashI; it is

hard to believe that all these people are such gross sinners, and given

this, one cannot accept that not observing the vrata is such a gross

excess as has been claimed. To answer this, it is stated:

##

ekAdashIdine puNye buJNjate ye narAdhamAH |

avalokya mukhaM teshhAM Adityamavalokayet.h || 168 ||

##

On the pious day of ekAdashI, those who eat, are the lowest of

humans; having seen their faces, see the sun afterwards.

It is customary to see the sun or other auspicious entity after sighting

an unpleasant sight such as a corpse; the verse says that even the

sighting of the faces those who do not observe ekAdashI qualifies to be

called such an impious sight that one needs to see the sun after such a

one. As such, it is not proper to claim that because good people also

deliberately skip ekAdashI, so may one -- no one who deliberately skips

ekAdashI may hardly be called anything but a member of the scum of

humankind.

At that, one may object that the claims made above in showing why ekAdashI

is not to be avoided, are truly weird and unbelievable, for one just

cannot accept that so many undoubtedly good people are really the scum of

society; one is also aware that the real problems of society lie

elsewhere, and the present emphasis on ekAdashI is completely misplaced

and unfounded. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

pR^ithivyAM yAni pApAni brahmahatyAdikAni cha |

annamAshritya tishhThanti samprApte harivAsare || 169 ||

##

Whatever sins are found in the world, even be they great ones like

brahma-hatyA, etc.; they all derive from the fact that food

is consumed on the day-of-Hari (ekAdashI).

The lack of observance of ekAdashI makes even good people in the world

suffer the results of their sins, and also blights their righteous natures

and props up their negative tendencies. Hence even good people are seen

in the world to commit great offenses, and the widespread lack of morality

in the world, and its disastrous consequences, thus follow from the fact

that there is a widespread disregard for ekAdashI; were this to be

remedied, society's problems as a whole would be as well.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask how it is to be

expected that all are to fast; surely, for example, the very young and the

very old cannot be expected to undertake such a difficult vrata. To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

ashhTavarshhAdhiko yastu ashItirnahi pUryate |

yo bhuN^kte mAnavaH pApo vishhNorahani chAgate || 170 ||

##

One who is greater than eight years of age, but has indeed not

completed eighty; the human who eats when Vishnu's day arrives,

consumes verily sin itself.

Thus, while the very young, old, and infirm may claim legitimate

exceptions to the otherwise-universal rule, it is improper to say that the

rule cannot be universal and thus cannot be applicable at all as claimed.

At that, one may ask what one is to do considering that one's near and

dear ones do not observe ekAdashI -- surely, considering them to be gross

sinners, etc., is inappropriate, and an exception may be made for them?

And likewise for oneself as well? To answer that, it is stated:

##

pitA vA yadi vA putro bhAryA vA.api suhR^ijjanaH |

padmanAbhadine bhuN^kte nigrAhyo dasyuvadbhavet.h || 171 ||

##

Whether it be one's father, or one's son, or one's wife, or even

one's well-wishers; they who eat on Padmanabha's day are to be

known as subject to punishment, just as criminals are.

Therefore, it is not proper for one to think that because one's near and

dear ones -- to whom one is fondly attached to the point where one is

prepared to overlook all their shortcomings -- do not observe the

ekAdashI, one may neglect to observe it as well. The rules apply to

everyone regardless of one's fondness or otherwise for them.

At that, one may ask what if one's near and dear ones have fasted on

dvAdashI instead, under the exception rules stated in earlier verses?

Should one then think that because one fasted on the ekAdashI and they on

dvAdashI, one still must regard them as no better than common thieves? To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

uposhhyA dvAdashI puNyA sarvapApaxayapradA |

na pashyanti yamaM vA.api narakANi na yAtanAm.h || 172 ||

##

Those who fast upon the dvAdashI, as it is the giver of the end to all

one's sins; do not have to see Yama, nor suffer the torture of naraka.

As such, there is no need for one to make such an assumption; even those

who observe the fast on dvAdashI when appropriate are to be considered

good people only, as by verse 157, there is no lapse which would render

them anything but.

At that, one may say, that's all well and good, but isn't this extended

lecture on ekAdashI a tad bit tiresome? Why not just say "observe

ekAdashI," and move on to the next topic? Is it really necessary to waste

our precious times with this lengthy discourse? To answer this, it is

stated:

##

raTantIha purANAni bhUyo bhUyo varAnane |

na bhoktavyaM na bhoktavyaM samprApte harivAsare || 173 ||

##

The Purana-s say this over and over for one to memorize, O one of

sound head; "One is not to eat, one is not to eat" -- when the

day-of-Hari arrives. (*)

The emphasis given is hence quite justified, since it would not do simply

to say it once and risk partial knowledge of lack of understanding of its

importance, on the part of the audience. The texts therefore repeat the

instruction so often that one might think they were asking one to memorize

it -- one must understand the instruction not to eat on ekAdashI as well

as one does something known by heart.

At that, one may say that since an exception has been stated in respect of

those too young or too old to observe ekAdashI, the instruction apparently

would not apply to them, and as such, there is nothing that one needs must

observe throughout one's life. The effect of this is to say that the

statements of the Purana-s needs must be only partially valid (for being

valid only with respect to some people), which would cast a doubt upon

their whole validity, and thus on the whole ekAdashI requirement that

derives from them. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

dvAdashI na pramoktavyA yAvadAyuH pravartate |

archanIyo hR^ishhIkesho vishuddhenAntarAtmanA || 174 ||

##

The dvAdashI is not to be neglected, as long as life goes on;

Hrshikesha is to be worshipped [for so long] with a clean psyche.

Therefore, the statement that the ekAdashI may be avoided by those

absolutely unable to observe it, does not exclude the observance of the

dvAdashI pAraNe for those yet able to; there hence is no basis for saying

that since the statements of the Purana-s cannot apply to all they might

not apply to any, and hence might be wholly invalid.

(*) `varAnane' is probably a reference to Parvati, with the speaker being

Rudra; cf. `sahasranAmatattulyaM rAma-nAma varAnane', etc.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say that all that has

been stated is quite well, but in fact one is too poor to offer meaningful

worship to Krishna; one seems to notice many examples of flashy worship

performed by those having large discretionary incomes, and as one is not

among them, one is not regarded as a true devotee by society, and perhaps

thus not by the Lord either. What use, then, is it for one to undertake

ekAdashI and other things? To answer this, the next verse says:

##

bhaktyA grAhyo hR^ishhIkeshho na dhanairdharaNisurAH |

bhaktyA saMpUjito vishhNoH phalaM datteH samAhitam.h || 175 ||

##

Hrshikesha is graspable only with devotion, and not by wealth,

O sura-s of the world; it is guaranteed that when Vishnu is

worshipped with devotion, results of the same will be given.

It being the case that devotion rather than display of wealth is the

important means of serving the Lord, lack of wealth need not cause one to

think that one is not capable of obtaining His grace. When service with

devotion is performed, the results of the same are bound to occur.

At that, one may yet wonder if Krishna is less pleased with a poor man's

devotion than with that of one of wealth; if so, then perhaps even though

the poor may yet obtain results due to their devotion, they do yet lose

out on some benefits for being unable to serve as do the wealthy. To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

jalenApi jagannAthaH pUjitaH kleshanAshanaH |

paritoshhaM vrajatyAshu tR^ishhArtAstu yathA jalaiH || 176 ||

##

Even if with water, the Master of the Universe, the Remover of flaws,

is worshipped; He is pleased thereby, as is one parched with thirst

when given water.

Although Krishna is verily the Lord and Master of all that exists, and

thus has no use for any other source of satisfaction, and is in fact the

source of satisfaction wherever it may be found, He yet is extremely

pleased merely with an offering of water made with devotion.

At that, one may ask how and when devotion towards Krishna is to be

practiced, even granting that it may be practiced by one of little wealth.

If the devotion is to be practiced only at some special times or in some

difficult way that makes it impossible for some, then this whole

discussion is of no use to one. To answer this, it is said:

##

AsInasya shayAnasya tishhThato vrajato.api vA |

ramasva puNDarIkAxa nR^isiMha hR^idaye mama || 177 ||

##

When seated, or lying down, or sitting, or even while walking;

O Pundarikaksha, the Nrsimha who resides in one's hearts, be

pleased.

While one is performing any kind of activity or even is not performing

any, one is to think of Krishna as being present in oneself, and serve Him

thereby with the objective of pleasing Him.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask: why should Krishna

be worshipped at all times and in all states, and not just in a convenient

few? It surely is not sensible to expect one to keep thinking of Him all

the time, even if it be granted that He is to be thought of. The next

verse deals with this objection as follows:

##

sarvagashcha sa sarvAtman.h sarvAvasthAsu chAchyuta |

ramasva puNDarIkAxa nR^isiMha hR^idaye mama || 178 ||

##

The Omnipresent, and the inner motivator of all, and also

present in all states; O Pundarikaksha, the Nrsimha who resides in

one's heart, be pleased.

In order to completely understand that the Lord is the antaryAmI, it is

essential for one to think of Him even during the course of one's normal

activities, and in various conditions; simply attempting to worship Him at

some times only would lead to the delusion that He is merely important

with respect to a fixed set of circumstances, or that His power is

limited. The firm knowledge that He is the motivator of oneself in all

states and dispositions can only arise if one attempts to think of Him in

all states and dispositions. Hence, to realize that Krishna is present

everywhere, is the motivator of oneself and all others, and is also

present in all states of being, happiness, etc., it is essential that He

be the object of one's thoughts at all times.

At that, the natural question to ask is, exactly how should one think of

Krishna, in all states and times? The next verse says:

##

karAvalaMbanaM dehi shrIkR^ishhNa kamalexaNa |

bhavapaN^kArNave ghore majjato mama shAshvata || 179 ||

##

Give me the support of Your Hand, O Sri Krishna whose eyes are

as a lotus; lift me permanently out of the gory world which is as

a sea of filth.

One is to realize that one needs Krishna's support, that He is of

un-worldly beauty and fine qualities, that the world is always full of

misery and cannot be the final recourse for oneself, and that He is the

only one who can rescue one from the miseries of embodied existence --

when one is able to do this constantly and in all states of being, not

just in circumstances of unpleasant nature and such, it may be said that

one is worshipping Krishna correctly.

At that, one may say that it is not correct to ask that one accept that

the world is as an ocean of misery; it certainly has its unpleasant

aspects and fearsome moments, but one's life is not made up only of

suffering, and given the enjoyment that one is also able to obtain, it is

unrealistic to ask one to realize the unworthiness of worldly existence

and worship Krishna on that basis. To answer this, the next verse states:

##

trAhi trAhi jagannAtha vAsudevAchyutAvyayam.h |

mAM samuddhara govinda mR^ityusaMsArasAgarAt.h || 180 ||

##

Rescue me, rescue me, O Lord of the Universe, Vasudeva who art

flawless and unchanging; uplift me, O Govinda, from the ocean of death

and worldly existence.

The fact is, one is completely unable to stop the inevitable change that

will doubtless rob one of any gains that might be a cause of joy at any

given time; even joys are also not without limitations that circumscribe

them severely. Even if it be that life has its pleasant moments, it is

seen that those are but fleeting, and invariably lead to others less

desirable, and that even while present, the joys themselves do have

deficiencies that cause want and suffering. Now, even in the world, it is

seen that joy that is longer-lasting or unalloyed to a greater degree is

preferable over one that is less so. As such, only Vasudeva, the Lord of

the world, who is flawless and unchanging, can be the source of constant

joy for oneself; as long as one's joy is due to impermanent and imperfect

sources, so will the joy itself be. Therefore, there is no basis for

arguing that even given the fleeting pleasures that may be encountered,

the world is anything but as an ocean of misery.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say that there is no way

on Earth that one could possibly practice the worship of Krishna to the

very high standards expected therein. Rightly or wrongly, one has one's

limitations, and any prescription for one's conduct must therefore keep

these in mind. To deal with this, the next verse therefore says:

##

klinnaM pAdodakenaiva yasya nityaM kalevaram.h |

tIrthakoTisahasraistu snAto bhavati pratyaham.h || 181 ||

##

If the body is wet daily by the pAdodaka [of one such as described

previously], then the results obtained by a thousand crore of

[ceremonial] baths at pilgrimage centers is grossly exceeded.

It has earlier been stated (verse 95) that the pAdodaka of Vishnu is far

greater than any pilgrimage could ever be; here, the dominance of the

pAdodaka of even a true devotee of Vishnu who lives by the precepts

earlier stated, is shown, and a path for lesser talents such as oneself is

also indicated thereby: while it is certainly true that one cannot, in

one's present condition, perform to the standards expected in earlier

verses, what one should try to do is perform the service of great devotees

such as (to take an example entirely at random) Sri Raghavendra, by which

all the benefits that could possibly be expected of any number of

pilgrimages, is exceeded.

At that, one may wonder if one has any direct right of worship of Krishna

at all, or is merely advised to be content to serve His worshippers

instead. To answer this, it is stated:

##

toyaM yadi pibennityaM shAlagrAmashilAchyutam.h |

tIrthakoTisahasraistu snApitaiH kiM prayojanam.h || 182 ||

##

For one who drinks daily the water which has been used on the

shAlagrAma-stone of Achyuta; what use is there for him, in

taking the [ceremonial] baths of a thousand crore tIrtha-s?

It therefore becomes evident that while one certainly is to serve one's

superiors, one is also obliged to offer worship of Krishna to the best of

one's abilities, as well. There is no excuse for one to give up such

worship on the plea of incompetence.

At that, one may express the doubt that one's worship of Krishna's

sAligrAma is likely as not to amount to little more than mere handling of

the stones, as one has not the depth of perception to offer meaningful

worship. If one then proceeds with such inadequate worship, will the Lord

still be pleased thereby? To answer this, the next verse states:

##

sAlagrAmashilAsparshaM ye kurvanti dine dine |

vAJNchanti karasaMsparshaM teshhAM devAH savAsavAH || 183 ||

##

Those who have contact with a sAlagrAma-stone day after day;

[even] the devA-s and the vasu-s desire to shake their hands.

Therefore, there is no need to feel that one's pUjA is essentially

worthless; even with minimally satisfactory pUjA, the nature of the

worshipped is such that there is immense benefit in remedying the terrors

of the hereafter, and making it so that one is warmly received in the

afterlife rather than subjected to ordeals.

At that, one may say that there has been frequent reference to the

difficulties of the afterlife, but as one is not acquainted with any of

these, one is disinclined to accept that they exist, and therefore, any

arguments based upon them needs must be disregarded as well. To answer

this, it is said:

##

duHsaho nArako vahnirduHsahA yamakiN^karAH |

vishhamashchAntakapathaH pretatvaM chAtidAruNam.h || 184 ||

##

Difficult to bear is the fire of hell, difficult to bear are

the servants of Yama; dreadful is the path of the dead, and

being a ghost is extremely terrifying as well.

In successive stages it is indicated that all the possibilities of an

afterlife where one has to suffer for one's sins, are most unpleasant and

worthy of avoidance. Being in hell is the worst of all, of course, but

even if one does not get all the way there, even one's treatment at the

hands of Yama's servants is most painful; before that, even the path to be

taken in passing from this world is not an easy one, and even if one does

not complete the journey but remains attached to the present world as a

disembodied being, even that is a most horrendous fate. As such, there is

no possibility for ignoring the difficulties that await oneself if one

does not worship Krishna.

Having known the following, what is one to do? The next verse says:

##

saJNchintya manasA.apyevaM pAtakAdvinivartayet.h |

smaraNaM kIrtanaM vishhNoH sadaiva na parityajet.h || 185 ||

##

Even thinking in one's mind [of the previous] removes the tendency

to sin; [for] the remembrance and worship of Vishnu are to be never

given up.

The understanding of the difficulties to be faced due to sin is doubtless

a factor is reducing one's propensity to sin, but above and beyond that,

it is an aid to helping one to fix one's mind on Vishnu constantly.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say, that's all well, but

one is not concerned about difficulties in the afterlife as much as one is

about those in the present one. The afterlife and its difficulties are yet

unknown and of uncertain nature, so what's the point of basing one's

decisions in consideration of them? To answer this, the next verse states:

##

shrI vedavyAsa uvAcha

achyutAnantagovindanAmochchAraNabhIshhitAH |

nashyanti sakalA rogAH satyaM satyaM vadAmyaham.h || 186 ||

##

Fearful on account of the utterances of the names of Achyuta, Ananta, and

Govinda;

all illnesses are destroyed -- thus the truth, the truth, do I speak.

As the deities who produce illness are not more powerful than Krishna, it is

emphasized that they are powerless to afflict one who has obtained His grace

by applying himself in the manner previously described. Hence, it cannot be

said that the previous procedure is only of otherworldly use.

In response, one may say that even if that be true, one's success at any

such effort is likely to be patchy and unlikely to produce lasting benefits.

Given one's incompetence, what use, then, is it for one to attempt such a

procedure when one might as well devote oneself to smaller, likelier goals?

To answer, it is said:

##

sakR^iduchchAritaM yena harirityaxaradvayam.h |

baddhaH parikarastena moxAya gamanaM prati || 187 ||

##

Even if the bisyllabic `Hari' be uttered only once;

you have made a beginning towards achieving moksha.

It being the case that even if one were to falter, one's effort will still

have counted for something, and that one will eventually obtain the right

goal, there is no reason to fear that lack of competence means that one

might as well not try to worship at all (cf. Bhagavad Gita VI-40, et seq.).

At that, one may wonder if only persons such as oneself, who are of severely

limited capacities, should engage in Krishna's worship in this manner, while

those who are not so limited may engage in other activities or manners of

worship. If so, then one is belittled, and perhaps the worship itself is

rather unworthy as well? To answer this, the next verse says:

##

evaM brahmAdayo devA R^ishhayashcha tapodhanAH |

kIrtayanti surashreshhThaM devaM nArAyaNaM prabhum.h || 188 ||

##

And then, too, the deities headed by Brahma, and the Rshhi-s of great

penance;

praise the foremost of the sura-s, the Deity Narayana, who is the Lord.

Therefore, it is incorrect to postulate that the worship indicated is only

for the lowly. Even those of great accomplishment and capability do it out

of knowledge of its worth, and thus so must one as well.

At this, one may ask if the standards are not, on that account, a tad bit

too high; there is no way one can achieve the realization of Narayana's

paramountcy and Lordship over all and worship Him on that basis, as the

great ones do. One does not know the sura-s, and hence cannot worship

Krishna as being the best among them -- as such, one's worship will truly be

a pittance as one cannot appreciate Him in the same manner as they of

greater worth. Is one's worship still worthwhile, keeping this in mind? To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

kiM tasya dAnaiH kiM tIrthaiH kiM tapobhiH kimadhvaraiH |

yo nityaM dhyAyate devaM nArAyaNamananyadhIH || 189 ||

##

To what purpose his generosity, to what pilgrimages, to what penance or

sacrifice?

-- for one who performs dhyAna with Narayana as his Deity?

Even in case of one who does not have the fullness of realization found in

great seekers such as Brahma, even one who merely worships Krishna knowing

Him to be one's only Deity certainly does better than the same one

performing any other kind of spiritual activity.

At that, one may ask, exactly how is one to know Narayana, then, as it is

not possible for one to know Him as the highly realized do? Surely it would

not do to ask one to perform dhyAna upon a Deity whose nature is not fixed

in one's mind, and then, too, it would not do to fix it incorrectly

either -- hence, one must have some qualities of His in mind that are both

accurate and yet graspable by oneself. To answer this, it is stated:

##

nityotsavo nityayasho nityashrIrnityasho jayaH |

yeshhAM hR^idistho bhagavAn.h maN^gaLAyatano hariH || 190 ||

##

Every day is a festival, every day brings fame, every day brings riches,

and victory;

in whose heart is situated the Bhagavan, the Hari of auspicious qualities.

Therefore, one is to worship Hari, to the best of one's abilities, as being

the Deity situated within one's own self, and also as being possessed of all

manner of good qualities (and hence removed from all flaws), and as the one

who gives all manner of joy in one's life.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may ask why it is simply not

possible to expend all of one's sins in the usual fashion, and why one

must be bothered about trying to understand Krishna, etc.

In answer are given the following two verses, which have been quoted by

our author himself in his gItA-bhAshhya III-4 (under the verse `na

karmaNAmanArambhAnnaishhkarmyaM purushho.ashnute'), and partly explained

by him and more so by his commentator in the same context. I quote in

part from there:

yadi karmAkaraNena muktiH syAt.h sthAvarANAM cha | na chAkaraNe

karmAbhAvAnmuktirbhavati | pratijanmakR^itAnAmanantAnAM karmaNAM

bhAvAt.h | na cha sarvANi karmANi bhuktAni | ekasmin.h sharIre

bahUni hi karmANi karoti | tAni chaikaikAni bahujanmaphalAni

kAnichit.h | tatra chaikaikAni karmANi bhuJNjanprApnotyeva

sheshheNa mAnushhyam.h | tatasha bahusharIraphalAni karmANi iti

asamAptiH | tachchoktam.h \-\-

If by simply not performing karma mukti were possible, then even

insentients should. Indeed, by not acting, due to lack of karma,

mukti is not obtained. Not all karma-s are expended. In just one

body, lots of karma-s are performed. In each one, fruits for many

[subsequent] lives are obtained. And in order to expend each of

the karma-s, a human body certainly must be obtained again. Thus,

due to the large number of bodies' worth of karma performed in each

one, this process is non-terminating. And it also stated:

##

jIva.nshchaturdashAdUrdhvaM purushho niyamena tu |

strI vA.apyanUnadashakaM dehaM mAnushhamArjate || 191 ||

chaturdashordhvajIvIni saMsArashchAdivarjitaH |

ato.avittvA paraM devaM moxAshA kA mahAmune || 192 ||

##

iti brAhme | yadi sAdiH syAtsaMsAraH pUrvakarmAbhAvAdatatprAptiH |

abandhakaM tvakAmenaiva bhavati | tachcha vaxyate `anishhTamishhTam.h'

iti |

``A man, as a rule, after the age of fourteen, or a woman also;

earns upwards of ten human lifetimes of work. This world is

without beginning; therefore, without having known the

Supreme Deity, how can there be hope for mukti, O great sage?''

-- says the Brahma. If saMsAra (i.e., the chain of karma) were to

have a beginning, then on account of lack of previous karma,

it would not have existed at all (all karma requires previous karma

to justify its existence). Lack of bondage (i.e., mukti) would

indeed happen without even wishing for it. It will also be stated

(in the 'Gita): `anishhTAM ishhTam.h', thus (BG XVIII-12).

The prameya-dIpikA commentary on all of the above is as follows; no

translation is offered, and perhaps someone else may care to work one out.

`yadi' iti | `syAt.h' ityasya pUrvottarAbhyAM sambandhaH |

`sthAvarANAM' ityanadhikR^itopalaxanam.h | tatashchAnAdau

saMsAre.anadhikR^itadehasya sambhavena muktiprasaN^gAdadhunApi

dR^ishyamAnaM purushhatvaM na syAditi bhAvaH | dvitIyanirAse.api

asyaiva ardhasya tAtparyamAha \-\- `na cha' iti | karmAbhAvAt.h

saMsArabIjAbhAvAt.h | atra naishhkarmyamiti muktinAmaiva |

na tu parapramANAnuvAdaH | kuto na bhavatItyato.atrApi

purushhatvAditi hetumabhipretyAha \-\- `pratIti' iti | janmani

janmani kR^itAnAmityarthaH | purushhatvena anAdau samsAre

adhikR^itAnantajanmasambhavAttatra kR^itAnAmanantakarmaNAM

bhAvAt.h kimadyAkaraNamAtreNa bhavatItyarthaH | nanu pUrvapUrva

sharIrakR^itAni karmANyuttarottarasharIre bhuktAni | tatkutaH

anantakarmaNAM bhAva ityata Aha \-\- `na cha' iti | kuto netyata

Aha \-\- `ekasmin.h' iti | hishabdo hetau | bahUnyapi bhujyatAM

ko doshha ityata Aha \-\- `tAni cha' iti | tAni cha kAnichiditi

sambandhaH | `ekaikAni' iti pratyekamityarthaH | tathAvidhAni

apyanadhikR^itajanmabhirbhuktAni ityata Aha \-\- `tatra cha' iti |

teshhu karmasu | bhuJNjan.h bhuJNjAnaH | sheshheNa

karmasheshheNa | mAnushhye chAkaraNamasambhAvitamityAha \-\-

`tatashcha' iti | asamAptirbhogenaiva karmaNAmiti sheshhaH |

sambhAvanAmAtreNedamuditaM na tu pramitamityata Aha \-\- `tat.h cha'

iti | chaturdashAdvarshhAt.h | anUno dashako yasyeti vigrahaH |

hrasvadIrghavyatyayena `chaturdashordhvajIvanI iti striyA

visheshhaNam.h | saMsArashcheti karmaNAmanantatvopapAdanam.h |

ato bhogena xayAsambhavAt.h | avittvA aviditvA | purushhashabdena

anAdidehasambandha uktaH | so.ashiddha ityata Aha \-\- `yadi' iti |

atatprAptirAkasmikasya saMsArasyAprAptiH syAt.h | ataH purushhatvaM

siddhamiti | nanu santu prAgbhavIyAnyanantakarmANi | tathApi

bandhakAni kathaM prexAvatA kriyeran.h ? na hyanantAni pApAni

prAktanAni santItyetAvatA.adya kriyanta ityata Aha \-\- `abandhakaM

tu' iti | karmaNAM bandhAhetutvaM tvakAmAdinaiva bhavati | na

tvakaraNena | pratyavAyasyaiva prApterityarthaH | akAme

abandhakatvaM bhagavatsammataM iti bhAvena Aha \-\- `tachcha' iti |

This verse follows up on the previous two, and its purport is well

explained by the gItA-bhAshhya on III-4, part of which was quoted

previously:

##

AchaturdashamAdvarshhAtkarmANi niyamena tu |

dashAvarANAM dehAnAM kAraNAni karotyayam.h |

ataH karmaxayAnmuktiH kuta eva bhavishhyati || 193 ||

##

After the age of fourteen, as a rule, karma-s of such extent

as would require ten [future] bodies to use, are performed;

thus, how can there be mukti due to exhaustion of karma?

This shows why, as stated in the gItAbhAshhya, it is impossible to exhaust

karma-s by spending them off; more are created during the spending than

are spent, so a Zeno's paradox situation occurs.

It has previously been stated (verse 183, etc.) that one who undertakes

worship of Krishna in the prescribed fashion is considered noble, and

subsequently it was clarified that such action is without an alternative

as one cannot obtain mukti by simply expending one's karma. However, does

this mean that if one performs such worship, there is nothing else for one

to do? The next verse answers as follows:

##

samAnAM vishhamA pUjA vishhamANA samA tathA |

kriyate yena devo.api svapadAdbhrashyate hi saH || 194 ||

##

If equals (or superiors) be treated with venom, and the unworthy

as equals; even by the deities, then they indeed lose their

exalted positions.

While it important to worship in accordance with the rules described, it

is not enough that one merely do so; it is also essential that one

recognize worth -- and lack thereof -- in others, and behave with them

accordingly. Even the high honors earned by one on account of correct

knowledge and worship of Krishna would not avert one's downfall if this

were not done.

At that, one may ask what the criteria are for determining worth in

another. The next verse answers as follows:

##

vittaM bandhurvayaH karma vidyA chaiva tu paJNchamI |

etAni mAnyasthAnAni garIyo yadyaduttaram.h || 195 ||

##

Wealth, kinship, age, [virtuous] actions, and especially learning

as the fifth; these are the metrics of honor, with each being

more important than the previous.

Therefore, if one is inclined to honor a rich stranger more than a poor

kinsman, or even an ignorant kinsman more than a learned stranger, one is

doing wrong. Learning is especially set off from the crowd of virtues,

and is in a class by itself.

At that,, one may object that this pep talk about how to treat people is

really far afield from the subject of the present discussion. To answer

this, the next verse says --

##

guNAnusAriNIM pUjAM samAM dR^ishhTaM cha yo naraH |

sarvabhUteshhu kurute tasya vishhNuH prasIdati || 196 ||

##

In accordance with their qualities, the human who treats all,

as the worship of the Lord who is nondifferent in all beings,

by his worship Vishnu is pleased.

It is essential to understand that Krishna is not different in various

beings because of their various qualities, and by recognizing His

essential identity in all beings and treating them according to their

respective worths, one worships Him as present in all, and earns His

grace. (More about this may be learned from the prameya-dIpikA and

gItA-vivR^itti on Bhagavad Gita V-18.)

At that, one may say that this interpretation of `sama' is incorrect; the

straightforward way of understanding would be to say that all must be

treated identically, with no difference at all, and to instead say that

all must be treated according to their respective worths, knowing the Lord

to be identical in them, is a twisted idea and cannot be accepted. To

answer this, the next verse says:

##

yathA suhR^itsu kartavyaM pitR^ishatrusuteshhU cha |

tathA karoti pUjAdi samabuddhiH sa uchyate || 197 ||

##

Just as should be done with well-wishers, with parents, with

enemies, and also with children; one who does so also as

worship, he is known as one of uniform intellect.

Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that all be treated equally, for

even the proponents of such an idea cannot treat their enemies and their

friends, their children and their parents, etc., identically. Given that

distinctions in responsibilities, etc., make for differences in behavior

in these cases, we must accept that uniformity of behavior is not possible

in general, and that treatment of all according to worth, carried out as

worship of Krishna who is non-different in all, alone is reasonable.

At that, one may say that if one comes under the influence of others, one

may have to worship others beside Krishna as well. For instance, in order

to satisfy the criterion that a learned one is worth more than a kinsman,

one would have to listen to a learned one telling one to worship worship

another deity or worship in another fashion, more than one listens to an

ignorant kinsman asking one to worship Krishna as prescribed. To deal

with this doubt, it is said:

##

tiryakpuNDraM na kurvIta saMprApte maraNe.api vA |

na chAnyanAma vibrUyAdR^ite nArAyaNAtparam.h || 198 ||

##

Do not apply the cross-wise mark on your forehead, even if death

is threatened; do not also take the name of another as being

superior to Narayana.

It is necessary for one to refuse to compromise one's loyalty to Krishna,

while regarding all others. Therefore, regardless of any other

considerations, it is necessary to disregard anyone who attempts to

interfere with one's worship of Krishna in the prescribed manner.

At that, one may say that it is seen in the world that people who are

often strangers to oneself and do not worship Krishna, or do not worship

as required, are often of great virtue, while one's kinsmen lack grace and

worth. As such, it is necessary to consider those strangers of impressive

deeds as being more honorable and illustrious than one's kin who worship

Krishna. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

naivedyasheshhaM devasya yo bhunakti dine dine |

sikthe sikthe bhavetpuNyaM chAndrAyaNashatAdhikam.h || 199 ||

##

One who consumes the residue of the Deity's `naivedya' day after day;

with each morsel, (s)he obtains merit greater than that from hundreds

of chAndrAyaNa-s.

As it has previously been stated that worship of Krishna is far superior

to other kinds of virtuous action, it is incorrect to think that someone

who does not worship Krishna but does something else is superior in action

to a worshipper of Krishna. Similarly, a non-worshipper of Krishna

cannot, by definition, be of greater learning than a worshipper.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say that the answer given

is not sufficient: while it was stated that one must not apply a `tiryak.h

puNDra', it was later stated that even one merely eating the `naivedya' of

Hari would earn immense merits. However, what about someone who is unable

to offer such naivedya day after day, but does not use the cross-wise

mark? To answer this, it is stated:

##

UrdhvapuNDramR^ijaM saumyaM lalATe yasya dR^ishyate |

sa chaNDAlo.api shuddhAtmA pUjya eva na saMshayaH || 200 ||

##

On whose forehead may be sighted the pure and pious `Urdhva-puNDra';

even such a `chaNDAla' is a pure soul and fit for praise, without a

doubt.

Even someone of such extremely distasteful occupation as a cremation

worker, who cannot offer and partake of naivedya on a daily basis -- if at

all -- is a worshipper of Krishna and praiseworthy, if he wears the

Urdhva-puNDra having rejected other marks and having refused to

entertain the notion that any deity is superior to Narayana.

(N.B. It may also be noted that the Urdhva-puNDra is evidently not meant

as a "caste-mark," and treating it as one is incorrect.)

At that, one may say that simply wearing the Urdhva-puNDra cannot be a

catch-all answer; surely it is of no use to someone who is not himself

pure of thought and action? To answer this, the next verse says:

##

ashuchirvA.apyanAchAro manasA pApamAcharet.h |

shuchireva bhaven.h nityamUrdhvapuNDrAN^kito naraH || 201 ||

##

Unclean, or not abiding in rules of conduct, or one who sins in his

mind; even such a man becomes pure by wearing the Urdhva-puNDra

daily.

Whether one be unclean, or be unable to abide in required rules of

observance, or even if one be outwardly clean and pious but still unable

to restrain one's mind from digressing into sinful avenues, one will

eventually become purified by wearing the Urdhva-puNDra constantly.

At that, one may ask: what if someone decides to give up the Urdhva-puNDra

in spite of all the previous arguments, because they yet remain

unconvinced or have yielded to other pressures or tendencies? To answer

this, it is stated:

##

UrdhvapuNDravihInasya shmashAnasadR^ishaM mukham.h |

avalokya mukhaM teshhAM Adityamavalokayet.h || 202 ||

##

The face of one who has given up the Urdhva-puNDra is akin to a

crematorium; having seen the face of such a one, look at the sun.

The face of one who has knowingly and in spite of good advice given up the

Urdhva-puNDra (`vi-'+`hIna', for `vishishhTatayA hIna' = especially, or

comprehensively, lacking in) is a dreadful sight to one who worships

Krishna in the manner required. (Compare with verse 168.)

At that, one may ask, what if one does not give it up in toto, but is

often or sometimes without it? To answer this, the next verse states:

##

yaj~no dAnaM tapo homaH svAdhyAyaH pitR^itarpaNam.h |

vyarthaM bhavati tat.h sarvaM UrdhvapuNDraM vinA kR^itam.h || 203 ||

##

Sacrifices, donations, fire-rituals, self-study, and oblation to

ancestors; they all become useless, if done without [wearing the]

Urdhva-puNDra.

Even if one has casually neglected to worship Krishna in the manner

required, one's otherwise-virtuous actions are useless because one should

worship Him always to obtain their best benefits.

After the discussion on the Urdhva-puNDra, one may ask what the story is

with the other symbols required by the Pancharatra. To answer this, it is

said:

##

gopIchandanaliptAN^go yaM yaM pashyati chaxushhA |

taM taM shuddhaM vijAnIyAnnAtra kAryA vichAraNA || 204 ||

##

Whomever the eyes can see to be wearing the gopI-chandana on their

bodies; know them all to be pure, and that in this there is no doubt.

One who wears the Pancharatra symbols of gopIchandana paste on his body as

service to Krishna, is, by that very fact, to be considered pure, and in

this matter there need be no second thought.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may wonder to what point or

purpose one is to know all this detail about how a devotee is supposed to

conduct his life, when it is all but certain that one could never adhere

to all the rules given. To answer this, it is said:

##

AsphoTayanti pitaraH pranR^ityanti pitAmahAH |

vaishhNavo.asmatkule jAto sa naH santArayishhyati || 205 ||

##

The forefathers exult, and the ancestors dance with joy;

[saying] a Vaishnava has been born into our family, and he will

rescue us from worldly existence!

The common interpretation of this verse is merely that the birth of an

illustrious personage in one's family will bring one freedom from the

unending cycle of births and deaths. However, though correct, it is not

the primary one -- a more meaningful and satisfying interpretation is

suggested by Sri Raghuttama Tiirtha (who refers to this verse in his

commentary on the bR^ihad.hbhAshhya). The kaimutya-nyAya ("what can be

bought with fifty units of currency can be bought with a hundred," etc.)

is being applied here as follows: the Lord Sri Hari causes the birth of a

son who is a joy to his parents (and, if he is a great soul, even to

forefathers far removed from him). When the son is perceived to be such a

source of joy, how much greater joy must be the Lord's forte, who is able

to cause the very son who gives such joy?

Therefore, based on the illustrious commentator's interpretation, we may

take it that the verse shows that one must not underestimate Krishna's

power to give joy; for by His grace if a worthy devotee were to be born

into a lineage, the forefathers &c. would be released just so. Given

this, it is only reasonable to accept that Krishna is a bigger source of

joy than any son could ever be, and that one must be even more attentive

towards His worship than one would be to one's own dearly beloved son.

Therefore, carelessness in the matter of adhering to the rules prescribed

for His worship is not acceptable. One would not condemn actions towards

one's child's needs as silly or archaic, and such feelings are, ipso

facto, not suitable in regard to actions required as Krishna's worship, as

well.

At that, one may say that in spite of all the previous explanations, and

in spite of one's good intentions, one is often unable to perform worship

in the proper manner due to one's limitations, and one is liable to feel

like giving it all up in despair. To answer this, the next verse says:

##

jIvitaM vishhNubhaktasya varaM paJNchadinAnyapi |

na tu kalpasahasraistu bhaktihInasya keshave || 206 ||

##

It is better for a devotee of Vishnu to have lived a mere five

days; than it is for one lacking in devotion towards Keshava to

live even for a thousand Kalpa-s.

Therefore, even considering that one is able to keep up the required

standards only part of the time, it still is better to at least live up to

the required standards whenever one can, than to not try at all.

What if one still refuses to do as advised? The next verse answers:

##

kiM tena jAtamAtreNa bhUbhAreNAnnashatruNA |

yo jAto nArchayedvishhNuM na smaredvA.api kIrtayet.h || 207 ||

##

Right from the moment of birth is a burden upon the world, and

a waste of food -- one who does not worship Vishnu, nor remember

Him, nor praise Him.

If one were to refuse to worship Vishnu in spite of being given ample

opportunity to do so, then one might as well be accused of wasting

resources that some other seeker might well have used to obtain

liberation.

At that, one may say, all right, but what if one does not wholly refuse to

worship Krishna, but does worship in a very puny and insignificant manner?

To answer this, the next verse says:

##

yo dadAti dvijAtibhyashchandanaM gopimarditam.h |

api sarshhapamAtreNa punAtyAsaptakaM kulam.h || 208 ||

##

One who gives to brAhmaNa-s the gift of gopI-chandana;

even in as small an amount as the size of a seed of mustard;

benefits seven generations of his lineage.

Even though one's abilities and aptitudes are decidedly inferior and

insufficient, it would not be proper to reject one's duties on that

account.

One may wonder: knowing this, can one perform small acts of worship only

by choice, since they are nonetheless beneficial -- and avoid the hassle

of constant rigorous worship? To answer this, it is said:

##

j~nAnIha karmANi sado.aditAni |

kuryAdakAmaH satataM bhaveta || 209 ||

##

The one who knows, must perform the ordained duties

without desire for ends, constantly.

True knowledge is that which enables one to rise above the lure of sensory

desires and motivations, and to perform required actions constantly simply

as service to Krishna. Therefore, to think that one can avoid performing

actions because one knows that even a few produce merit, does not count as

knowledge -- it indeed is the pits of ignorance.

At that, one may ask: what if one knew not just the efficacy of even a

limited number of actions, but much more, or were even an enlightened

seeker? Then surely one would not have to worship as required? To answer

this, it is said:

##

atItAnagatAj~nAnI trailokyoddharaNaxamaH |

etAdR^isho.api nA.achAraM shrauta smArtaM parityajet.h || 210 ||

##

Knowing the past and the future, and capable of uplifting the three

worlds; even if such a one, do not give up the rules of Shruti and

Smrti.

As one's abilities, even with very optimistic assessments, do not come

anywhere near such a standard, there is no reason for one to think that

one can avoid worship.

At this, one may get the doubt: would one's worship be ultimately

fruitful, as one may yet slip up somewhere and be incorrect? To answer

this, the next verse says:

##

yadeva vidyayA karoti shraddhayA |

upanishhadA tadeva vIryavattaraM bhavati || 211 ||

##

Whatever is done according to one's best understanding of

the Lord, and with devotion to Him, by the seeker, that

itself becomes the route to one's salvation.

Therefore, while one certainly is unable to worship Krishna as greater

seekers than oneself can, even one's puny efforts when carried out to

one's best ability, are sufficient to free one from the cycle of births

and deaths.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may have the doubt that

actions such as Krishna's worship are enjoined upon one only until one

achieves realization; a realized person has no duties, and thereafter one

may abstain from action. Therefore, all that has been said so far is only

for the unrealized. To answer this, it is stated:

##

kurvanneveha karmANi jijIvishhechchhataM samAH |

evaM tvayi nAnyatheto.asti na karma lipyate nare || 212 ||

(IshAvAsya upanishhat.h)

##

Only by doing his required duties in life, let one desire to

live for a full hundred years; only thus is it right and

not otherwise, for such karma does not bind the human.

The commentary upon this verse is as follows:

akurvataH karma na lipyata iti nAsti |

`aj~nasya karma lipyeta kR^ishhNopAstimakurvataH |

j~nAnino.api yato hrAsa Anandasya bhaved.h dhruvam.h |

ato.alepe.api lepaH syAdataH kAryaiva sA sadA ||'

-- iti nAradIye |

It cannot be said that karma does not bind an inactive person:

"If an ignorant does not worship Krishna, then karma attaches to him;

even a learned man (who obtains joy from Krishna in mukti) would suffer

reduction of joy [in mukti], without a doubt [were he to desist from

worship]; thus, even the one untainted by karma becomes tainted [by his

omission], and therefore [such worship] is to be carried out always,"

says the Naradiya.

Sri Jayatiirtha comments upon the mantra and the bhAshhya as follows:

tR^ishhNAvichchhedavat.h svochitakarmAnushhThAnamapyAvashyakaM

j~nAnArthinAmityetat.h `kurvanneva' iti dvitIyamantreNa vidhatte |

tatra nAnyatheto.asti ityetad.h durgamArthatvAd.h vyAkhyAti

-- `akurvata' iti |

Just as with (actions in aid of) quenching of thirst, the carrying

out of actions is likewise essential for those desirous of knowledge;

to say this, the second mantra (of the Upanishad) says `kurvanneva',

etc. In that, because `nAnyatheto.asti' is of difficult meaning,

it is interpreted (by the bhAshhyakAra), as `akurvata', thus.

tatashchAyaM mantrArthaH -- shataM samAH shataM varshhANi iha

mAnushhAdijanmani yajjijIvishhet.h jIvitumichchhet.h tatkarmANi

svochitAni kurvanneva AmaraNaM bhagavatpUjAtmakAnyasaN^kalpita-

phalAni svochitAni karmANi sarvathA kuryAditi yAvat.h | kutaH ?

evaM karmANi kurvati nare manushhyamAtre.api tvayi karma pApaM na

lipyate | svochitAni asaN^kalpitena phalena karmaNA bhagavatpUjAM

kurvantamalpAdhikAriNamapi na prAguttarANi karmANi pApAni

bAdhante | tatashcha j~nAnAdhikArI sa bhavatIti yAvat.h |

itaH pApAni bAdhanta eva | tatashchAsau j~nAne nAdhikriyate

ashuddhachittatvAt.h | ataH karmANi kAryANi -- iti |

Thus, also, is the meaning of the mantra -- for a hundred years,

this human birth, etc.; for as long as life obtains, for that

long one's proper duties are certainly to be performed; the

actions such as worship of the Lord, etc., are always to be

performed. Why? Because when this is done, even a mere human

such as you would not be tainted by karma, i.e., sin. By

performing suitable actions required of oneself without desire

for results as the worship of the Lord, even those of low

ability are not bound by karma or sin, past or future. Such a one

even becomes qualified to obtain knowledge. On account of the

performance of actions. That karma does not bind otherwise

(i.e., if actions are refrained from), thus is not so. Those who do

not worship the Lord are definitely bound by sin. And then, too,

they do not obtain knowledge on account of having unclean minds.

Therefore, karma-s must be performed -- thus.

However, this very verse has been interpreted otherwise also: Sri

Shankara, for instance, sees in the first verse `IshAvAsyamidaM sarvaM'

the indication that the learned do not perform karma on account of

perceiving the world to be covered by Ishvara; the ignorant, on the other

hand, who wish to live a hundred years and enjoy material life, needs must

act.

Our commentator summarizes the other interpretation as follows:

apare vyAchaxate -- j~nAninaH sarvakarmatyAgaH pUrvamantreNa vihitaH |

yathA IshA IshitrA parameshvareNa yatkiJNcha jagatyAM pR^ithivyAM

jagadidaM tatsarvaM vAsyamAchchhAdyaM tena kAraNena tyaktena

sarvakarmatyAgena bhuJNjIthAH pAlayethA | evaM tyaktaishhaNastvaM

kasyasviddhanaM mA gR^idhaH mA kAN^xIH | athavA mA gR^idhaH kasmAt.h

kasyasviddhanaM na kasyApi | ato mithyAvishhaye buddhiM mA

kArshhIriti | yastu naramAtro.alpaj~nastaM prati karmAnena

matreNochyata -- iti |

Others interpret this as follows -- by the previous mantra, the

renunciation of all actions by the learned is stated. Because by

the Isha, i.e., the Lord, the Supreme Being, all of this world,

is "infested," or covered, for that reason, observe the giving up

of all actions. And then, do not expect any ends. Or otherwise,

what kind of wealth could you expect? None whatsoever. Therefore,

do not invest your intelligence in illusory subjects, thus. Those

who are mere humans, of little learning, for them, the present

mantra teaches karma -- thus.

So how is the present interpretation justified? Our commentator goes on

to say:

tadanupapannam.h | aj~navajj~nAnino.api bhagavatpUjAtmakasvakarma

akaraNe pApalepasadbhAvena dvAbhyAmapi tatkartavyatAyAH smArtatvAditi

bhAvenAha -- `aj~nasya', iti | `kR^ishhNopAstiM svakarmaNA' iti

sheshhaH | niyatamoxatvena karmaNAmakiJNchitkaratvAdalepasya

j~nAninaH kutaH karmalepa ? ityata Aha -- `yata', iti | `hrAso

bhavet.h kR^ishhNopAstyakaraNanimittapApena' iti sheshhaH | yato

hrAso bhavedato moxaprachyutirUpaleparahite.api j~nAninaH karmalepaH

syAdeva | yata evamubhayorlepo.ato dvAbhyAmapi sA kR^ishhNopAstiH

kAryaiva ityarthaH |

That (other interpretation) is unsuitable. For just as with the

ignorant, even the learned could, on account of non-performance

of required duties like the worship of the Lord, incur sin, and

thus both (the learned and the ignorant) are instructed; to show

this, it is said (in the bhAshhya): `aj~nasya', thus. On account

of lack of performance of one's actions as Krishna's worship, thus

is the remainder. "However, since the learned are guaranteed to

obtain mukti, how can they be tainted by non-performance of karma"?

-- to answer this, it is said: `yata', thus. "There is a reduction

on account of the sin of non-performance of Krishna's worship," thus

is the remainder. As there occurs a reduction, therefore, even in the

learned who do not suffer a loss of mukti, there is the taint

of karma. As there is thus the taint in both (the ignorant and the

learned), they both needs must worship Krishna, thus is the meaning.

However, the present interpretation brings in extra material from the

bhAshhya, etc.; how is it known purely on the basis of the Upanishad

itself, that the other interpretation is not acceptable? Our commentator

answers this by going on to say:

asaN^gataM cha tasyeshAchchhAdyatvakathanam.h | na hi

tatkarmAkaraNe hetuH | tathA sati aj~nasyApi tatprasaN^gena

uttaramantravirodhAt.h | IshAvAsyatvaj~nAnopalaxaNapaxe.api

asaN^gatireva | na hi jagadIshAvAsyamiti jAnatA karma na kAryamiti

niyamo.asti | advaitaj~nAnamanenopalaxitamiti chenna |

virodhAt.h | na hi AchchhAdya AchchhAdakayoH abhedo

dR^ishhTapUrvaH | sarvamapi IshAvAsyamaN^gIkurvatA.avashyaM

jagatIpadasya sarvopalaxaNatvamaN^gIkartavyam.h | tato varaM

prakR^itivAchakatvagrahaNameva | sarvArthalAbhAt.h | na cha

tatpaxasyopayogo.asti | bhuJNjIthA ityasya pAlanArthatAyAM

AtmanepadavirodhaH | dhanamithyAtvaM cha pratyaxAdiviruddhamiti |

Your statement of the Lord's covering (the world) is also a non

sequitur. Indeed, it (the world being covered by the Lord) is not a

reason for not performing karma? If it were so, then even for an

ignorant the same would hold, causing a conflict with the subsequent

mantra (which, even according to you, advises him to perform duties).

Even if it be held that *knowledge of* the Lord's covering the world

is intended, there is asangati (`AkAN^xAviraho asaN^gatiH' = lack of

connection is asangati) only. Indeed, there is no rule, "If you know

the world to be obscured by the Lord, then do not perform karma," thus?

But this is only a statement intended to show the realization of

non-duality, thus say you? No, that is incorrect. Because there is

never a case seen where there is non-duality between the covering agent

or cause and that which is obscured thereby. If all is to be accepted

as being covered by the Lord, then certainly the word `jagatI' (in the

first mantra) must be accepted as being an upalaxaNa (example)

that means "all." Better than this, for sure, it is to accept it

as indicating `prakR^iti' (as read by Srimad Acharya). Because all

ends can be obtained thereby. There is also no use for your theory.

By saying `bhuJNjithA' means to provide for or to maintain, the

`Atmanepada' (Atmane AtmArthaphalabodhanAya padaM = a voice for oneself

indicating a means to an end) is also violated. The illusoriness of

wealth is also opposed to experience, thus.

Sri Jayatiirtha therefore points out that (i) there is no previously

proven connection between the world's being obscured by the Lord, and the

non-performance of duties, which would allow for the one to be used as a

reason to urge the latter; (ii) the other meaning given is also

grammatically unsound.

Some additional points are made in the prakAshikA of Sri Vadiraja, which

partly explains the commentary of Sri Jayatiirtha, but goes on to make

several additions points, and finally states a scathing judgement on Sri

Shankara's commentary on the IshAvAsya.

This is what Sri Vadiraja says:

`na prAguttarANi karmANi pApAni bAdhanta' ityasya nirantara

bhagavatpUjAyA.api sakalapApaprAyashchittarUpatvAditi bhAvaH |

`na hi jagadIshAvAsyamiti jAnatA' ityatra rAtrau tamasA.ahni

himAnyA cha jagata AchchhAdyatvaM jAnatA.api sandhyAvandanAdi-

karmakaraNadarshanAditi bhAvaH |

By the statement `na prAguttarANi', only the constant worship of the

Lord is of the form of atonement for all sins, thus is the purport.

By saying `na hi jagadIshAvAsyaM iti jAnatA', the sense is that

by knowing that the world is covered by darkness at night, or else

by snow, etc., performance of such duties as sandhyAvandanaM is

seen (hence there is no rule that knowing the world to be covered

is justification for rejection of karma).

`advaitaj~nAnamanenopalaxyata' ityetadapi na prakR^itopayogi |

advaitaj~nAnavatA mAyAvAdinA AchAryeNaiva japAdikarmaNAM

kriyamANatvAt.h | aN^gIkR^itya dushhaNAntaramAha -- ` na hi',

iti |

By saying `advaitaj~nAnaM anena upalaxyate', even by this, it is

shown that the theory (that karma is to be rejected if the world

is known to be covered by Ishvara) is not useful. For even the

persons alleged to possess advaita-j~nAna, i.e., the mAyAvAdI

AchAryA-s, themselves perform actions like japa, etc. If this

is accepted, then an alternative flaw is shown -- `na hi', thus

(there is never a case seen where there is non-difference between

the covering agent and the thing covered, as there must be

between the world and Ishvara, its alleged material cause).

`na cha tatpaxe.asyopayogo.asti' ityasya IshAchchhAdyasvargAdyarthaM

tairapi yaj~nAdeH kriyamANatvAditi bhAvaH | `bhujo.anavana'

ityavanArthe AtmanepadanishhedhAditi bhAvenAha -- `Atmanepada

virodha', iti |

By saying, `tat.h paxe asya upayogo asti' (there is no use for your

theory), the purport is that even by you, actions such as sacrifices

for obtaining the Lord-covered heaven, etc., are seen. Because of

the statement `bhujo.anavana', the Atmanepada is forbidden, to show

this, it is said -- `Atmanepada virodha', thus.

kiM cha IshA IshitrA AchchhAdyaM jagaditi cha na mAyAvAdinA vaktuM

shakyate | Ishvaro mAyayA avidyamAnameva jagaddarshayati, iti hi

tanmatam.h | kathamanyathA dR^ishyatvena mithyAtvaM vadet.h ?

And then, too, it is not possible for the mAyAvAdins to state

that the world is obscured by the Lord. For it is indeed their

theory that the Ishvara causes the inexistent world *to appear*

through His power of mAya. How else would the claim that the world

is illusory for being seen, be justified?

api cha raxasA rasAtale AchchhAditajagataH varAharUpiNA bhagavatA

AchchhAdakajalAduddhR^itya prakAshitatvAchcha kathaM

IshAchchhAdyatvam.h ? `tameva bhAntamanubhAti sarvam.h' (shve. u.

VI-14; mu. u. II-2-11; ka. u. I-3-22) iti cha tatpaxaH |

And then, too, when the world itself was obscured by the demon,

the Lord in the form of Varaha lifted it out of the water and

brought it to light -- thus, how is the world obscured by Ishvara?

"When He is known, all is known," thus also is your theory.

ato.api neshAchchhAdyatvam.h | kiM cha --

`yadAdityagataM tejo jagadbhAsayate.akhilam.h |

yachchandramasi yachchAgnau tattejo viddhi mAmakam.h ||'

(bha. gI. XV-12) iti gItAyAM jagadIshena kR^ishhNenaivoktatvAt.h

kathamIshAchchhAdyaM jagat.h ?

Thus, too, the world is not obscured by Ishvara. Why, when

"What luminosity there is in the sun, which illuminates the whole

world; what is there in the moon, and also in fire, know that

to be on account of Me,"

thus has been stated in the 'Gita by the Lord of the world, Krishna,

Himself, how is the world obscured by Ishvara?

ato `yatkiJNchid.h' etat.h | pratyuta `tadavyaktamAha hi'

`yattadadreshyamagrAhyam.h' (bR^i. u.) `adR^ishyatvAdiguNako

dharmokteH' (bra. sU.) `mAyAyavanikAchchhannamahimne brahmaNe namaH'

ityAdishrutismR^itibhyaH svamate brahmaiva AchchhAdyam.h |

brahmaNo jagadAropAdishhThAnatvAN^gIkArAchcha svaprakriyayA brahmaiva

AchchhAdyam.h | evaM cha IshAchchhAdyatvena tyAge brahmaNa

eva tyAgaprasaN^gaH ! na tu karmaNaH | ato.api svAj~nAna-

vijR^imbhitamevedaM vyAkhyAnam.h |

Thus, `yatkiJNchid.h' is thus: on the other hand, "He is stated

to be invisible," "He who is unseen, and beyond the grasp of the

senses," "by such qualities as invisibility, His properties are

stated," "I salute Brahman, the great Lord, who is obscured through

mAyA," from such statements of Shruti and Smrti, in our doctrine,

Brahman Himself is obscured. Also, since in your theory Brahman is

also the substratum which is transformed into the world, He alone

is obscured/hidden even by your own line of reasoning. If you would

insist that the world is to be rejected on account of being obscured,

then you would also, in like measure, have to reject Brahman as well

for the same reason! Not karma (as you have claimed). Therefore,

your explanation is made through ignorance, only.

api cha jagadIshAchchhAdyaM chet.h karma kutaH tyAjyam.h ?

karmaNo.api jagadantaHpAtitvAditi chet.h tarhi moxasAdhana

manovR^ittirUpAparoxaj~nAnasyApi tata evopexyatvaM syAt.h ?

kiM cha indravAyvAdirUpatayA mahAj~nAnibhiH pANDavaireva mahatA

prayatnena rAjasUyAshvamedhAdikarmaNAM kR^itatvAt.h kathaM j~nAninA

karma tyAjyam.h ? kiM cha mahAj~nAninaM pArthaM prati

`karmaNyevAdhikAraste mA phaleshhu kadAchana' iti nivR^ittirUpakarmaNi

eva j~nAnina evAdhikArasyoktatvAt.h | anenaiva kvachit.h --

`niyatasya tu sa.nnyAsaH karmaNo nopapadyate |

mohAt.h tasya parityAgaH tAmasaH parikIrtitaH ||'

(bha. gI. XVIII-7)

iti sandhyAvandanAdikarmaNAmatyAjyatvasyaiva bhagavatA kathanAchcha |

Even if you say that the world is obscured by the Lord (in spite of

all the problems with that theory), how is karma to be rejected on

that basis? If you say that is because karma-s are internal to the

world, then one can likewise recommend the rejection of the

aparoxa-j~nAna of the mind which is a means for mukti. Also, when the

Pandava-s, who were incarnations of Indra, Vayu, etc., and were of great

learning, did perform actions of great effort such as the Rajasuya,

Ashvamedha, etc., how can it be held that the learned are to give up

action? Why, too, was the instruction to the very learned Partha:

"karma alone is your right, never the results thereof," stating that

actions as renunciation alone are the right of the learned? To such

end, only,

"The giving up of the enjoined duties is not justified;

their rejection on account of delusion is declared to be demonic,"

-- thus the unfitness for rejection of karma-s such as sandhyAvandana,

etc., has been stated by the Lord.

pAlayethA ityatra pAlanAvishhayatayA karma cha na pareNa vaktuM

shakyam.h | IshAchchhAdyasakalajagatAmupexaNaM sati Atmaiva hi

urvaritaH eva cha svAtmAnameva tvaM pAlayethA ityuktaM syAt.h ?

tachcha kartR^ikarmabhAvavirodhAnnityasyAtmanaH pAlyatvAyogAchcha

ayuktam.h |

By saying `pAlayethA' (which is the other's interpretation for

`bhuJNjIthA), because the subject is the upkeep or maintenance,

such karma cannot be stated to another. If the entire universe

is to be rejected on account of its being obscured by the Ishvara,

then oneself is still to be supported, and one must still be

maintained (in the world that is fit for rejection), is this

fair to state? Then, too, because of its opposition to the sense

of the doer and the deed (the Lord being the doer and the world

the deed), and the eternal self being inappropriate for rearing,

such is incorrect.

ato markaTaH svakaragataratnamAlAyA iva upanishhadAmapakartaiva

paro na vyAkarteti yuktamutpashyAmaH ||

Therefore, just as with a monkey's [rude and unappreciative] play

with a diamond-studded necklace that falls into its hands, so also

is the other's (Shankara's) mis-handling of this Upanishad, and he is

not fit to be regarded as a commentator at all, thus it is to be said.

This judgement doubtless holds for all neo-Vedantic and other such

latter-day expositors of the IshAvAsya as well.

Finally, here is the khaNDArtha of Sri Raghavendra Tiirtha on the verse

(stated again for ease of reference), which summarizes the purport stated

by Sri Jayatiirtha:

kurvanneveha karmANi jijIvishhechchhataM samAH |

evaM tvayi nAnyatheto.asti na karma lipyate nare ||

khaNDArtha --

tR^ishhNAvichchhedavat.h svochitakarmAnushhThAnamapi j~nAnArthinAM

AvashyakamityAha -- `kurvanneva' iti | shataM samAH shataM

varshhANi | `kAlAdhvanoratyantasaMyoge' (ashhTAdhyAyI II-3-5,

si. kau. 559) iti dvitIyA | iha mAnushhAdijanmani yAvajjijIvishhet.h

jIvitumichchhet.h tAvat.h karmANi kurvanneva AmaraNaM bhagavat.h

pUjAtmakAni asaN^kalpitaphalAni svochitAni karmANi sarvathA

kuryAd.h iti yAvat.h | kutaH ? evaM karmANi kurvati nare

manushhyamAtre.api tvayi karma pApaM na lipyate | svochitAni

asaN^kalpitaphalena karmaNA bhagavatpUjAM kurvantaM alpAdhikAriNamapi

na prAguttarANi pApAni bAdhante | tatashcha j~nAnAdhikArI sa

bhavatIti yAvat.h | itaH karmakAraNAt.h anyathA akaraNe karma pApaM

na lipyata iti nAsti | bhagavatpUjAmakurvantaM pApAni bAdhanta

eva | tatashchAsau j~nAne na adhikriyate | atashcha karmANi

kuryAditi | purushhArthanaye `niyamAchcha' (III-4-7) iti

sUtrabhAshhyAdau `nare j~nAninyapi tvayi karma na lipyata iti nAsti'

iti aparoxaj~nAnino api karmAkaraNe muktau AnandahrAsarUpa pApa

karmalepo astyeveti j~nAniparatayA mantro vyAkhyataH ||

Just as with (actions towards) quenching of thirst, the actions

required of oneself are required of one desirous of knowledge; to

state this, it is said -- `kurvanneva', thus. `shataM samAH'

means, [for] a hundred years. By the `kAlAdhvanoratyantasaMyoge',

the dvitIyA is used. This human life, as long as you wish to

live, certainly do perform karma-s, until the time of death --

[these being] actions required of one, as worship of the

Lord, without material ends, are to be always performed. Why?

Because even to a mere human who performs such action, karma,

or sin, does not attach. The karma-s one is supposed to do, by doing

without material desires, even one of low ability is not bound by

sins past or future. Such a one even becomes qualified to obtain

knowledge. It is also not to be said that by non-performance of karma

no sin attaches [to the learned]. By not performing the worship of the

Lord, sins certainly do bind [even such a one]. Because the knowledge

does not increase. Therefore, perform required karma-s, thus.

In the matter of purushhArtha-s, under the sUtra `niyamAchcha',

the bhAshhyakAra has thus stated: "even a learned human cannot claim

that no karma attaches, thus," showing that even in case of those

having aparoxa-j~nAna, by not performing karma, reduction of joy in

mukti, thuslike karma attaches -- therefore, this mantra is intended

for the learned also.

As may be seen, Sri Raghavendra also points out that this mantra is the

vishhaya-vAkhya for the sUtra he quotes in this connection.

At the conclusion of the previous verse, one may say that perhaps what is

taught in the Vedas is ultimately a lesser art that could be achieved by

some other realization, which means that the Vedic enjoinment to action

quoted previously is itself ultimately circumscribed in this manner. To

answer this, it is said:

##

AchArashchaiva sAdhUnAmAtmano ruchireva cha |

vedapraNihito dharmo hyadharmastadviparyayaH || 213 ||

##

The conduct of the sages only, and the satisfaction caused to oneself;

the rules laid out in the Vedas are dharma, and adharma is all

that is opposed to them.

When one lives a life according to the rules for worship of Krishna, the

satisfaction caused to oneself thereby is itself ample proof of its

correctness; because there may be doubt about correctness and someone with

an unclean mind cannot use this method to determine right and wrong, the

conduct of sages is the method that guides. Since they worshipped

Krishna, so must we.

The second hemistich is quoted from the Bhagavata (VI-1-40); it and the

first hemistich (from an unknown source) are also quoted in the same order

in the gItAbhAshhya (II-45), where Sri Jayatiirtha explains them as:

AchAro dharmabuddhyAnushhThAnam.h | Atmano manaso

ruchirvikalpavishhaye | praNihito vihitaH | tadviparyayaH

pratishhiddhaH |

`AchAra' means the observance of the attitude of dharma. `Atmano'

refers to the taste of the mind for the present subject (Krishna).

`praNihito' means that expounded by [the Vedas]. `tadviparyayaH' means

that forbidden [by the Vedas].

It may not be said that the Vedic injunctions are without value or that

they are ultimately limited, because only that which is declared by the

Vedas is dharma, and anything not so declared is adharma. There exists no

other reasonable standard of conduct than the one expounded by the Vedas

since dharma and adharma cannot be determined by authored statements.

At that, one may yet say that since it is so commonly expounded that

giving up of duties alone befits the seeker (perhaps after realization,

but possibly even before), how can it be said that only their performance

is correct? By statements like `sarvadharmAn.h parityajya', should one

not give up all these superfluous actions? To answer this, it is said:

##

nishhkAmaM j~nAnapUrvaM tu nivR^ittimiti chochyate |

nivR^ittaM sevamAnastu brahmAbhyeti sanAtanam.h || 214 ||