Source: T. Krsna dasa on May 12, 2024
How does bhakti destroy prārabdha karma?
In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.21 and 1.1.22, Śrī Rūpa Goswami teaches systematically, how bhakti destroys prārabdha karma. Śrī Ananta Kṛṣṇa dāsa ji, Babaji’s disciple, requested a translation of the commentaries on 1.1.21 and 1.1.22, which I provide below. I examine Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary on the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.21 and 1.1.22 below. The verse in question is SB 3.33.6. Śrī Jīva comments on it also in the Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda 128, and his commentary there is quite similar as I will show here. I will also touch upon Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary on this topic.
A definition of prārabdha karma
To understand this discussion, a clear understanding of the term ‘prārabdha’ is essential. I therefore first provide Śrī Rūpa’s definition which he provides in kārikā 1.1.22 —
durjātir eva savanāyogyatve kāraṇam matam |
durjāty-ārambhakaṁ pāpaṁ yat syāt prārabdham eva tat ||An ignoble birth (durjāti) is understood to be the cause of the ineligibility to perform the soma-yajña. And the sins that lead to such an ignoble birth are those indeed that have already fructified (prārabdha). (BRS 1.1.2)
Here, Śrī Rūpa Goswami has defined prārabdha – it is the sin that leads to ignoble birth. It is already fructified (pra+ārabdha) as one’s birth has already happened.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
The above is a mistranslation. The gosvAmI is saying that durjAti is indeed a prArabdha. It is well known that there other types of prArabdha, eg. the time and place you’re born in, your circumstances etc..
What does durjāti or ignoble birth mean here? 1.1.22 is defined in the context of the preceding 1.1.21, which is the verse SB 3.33.6. I reproduce that verse below.
yan-nāma-dheya-śravaṇānukīrtanād yat-prahvaṇad yat-smaraṇād api kvacit |
śvādo’pi sadyaḥ savanāya kalpate kutaḥ punas te bhagavan nu darśanāt ||
O Bhagavān, even a dog-eater becomes immediately eligible for the performance of the soma sacrifice, if at any time he hears or glorifies Your name, offers obeisance to You, or even just remembers You. So what can be said of those who see You directly?
Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary shows that durjāti here refers to birth in a class of dog-eaters, which makes one ineligible to perform soma-yāga. He writes —
śvādatvam atra śva-bhakṣaka-jāti-viśeṣatvam eva — In this verse, the word śvāda, “a dog-eater,” refers to a particular jāti of people who eat dogs.
Śrī Jīva takes pains to point out that śvāda does not mean someone who incidentally or accidentally ate dog meat, but someone who is habituated to do so. This habituation is indicative of a birth in a family in which such eating is the norm.
Bhakti destroys prārabdha karma
According to Śrī Jīva, verse 3.33.6 states that bhakti destroys prārabdha karma, or in other words, karma whose reactions have already become manifest. This is evident from the statement, “even a dog-eater becomes immediately eligible for the performance of the soma sacrifice, if at any time he hears or glorifies Your name”. Śrī Jīva explains precisely how bhakti destroys prārabdha karma —
tataś cāsya bhagavan-nāma-śravaṇādy-ekatarāt sadya eva savana-yogyatāyāḥ pratikūla-durjātitva-prārambhaka-prārabdha-pāpa-nāśa-pūrvaka-savana-yogya-jātitva-janaka-puṇya-lābhaḥ pratipadyate |
This sentence is long, so I broke it up and provide the translations below
tataś cāsya bhagavan-nāma-śravaṇādy-ekatarāt = Thus, by any one of the practices of devotion, such as hearing the name of Bhagavān,
sadya eva = immediately
savana-yogyatāyāḥ = of eligibility for soma-yāga
pratikūla-durjātitva-prārambhaka-prārabdha-pāpa-nāśa-pūrvaka-savana-yogya-jātitva-janaka-puṇya-lābhaḥ = gain of piety, that gives rise to the jāti eligible for soma-yāga [i.e. brahminical birth] [which is itself] preceded by destruction of [the dog-eater’s] prārabdha sin, which is already fructified in the form of the present disqualifying durjāti (ignoble birth).
So putting this together, the sentence is as follows —
tataś cāsya bhagavan-nāma-śravaṇādy-ekatarāt sadya eva savana-yogyatāyāḥ pratikūla-durjātitva-prārambhaka-prārabdha-pāpa-nāśa-pūrvaka-savana-yogya-jātitva-janaka-puṇya-lābhaḥ pratipadyate —
Thus, by any one of the practices of devotion, such as hearing the name of Bhagavān, there [arises] immediately the eligibility for soma-yāga [which is to say] gain of piety, that gives rise to the jāti eligible for soma-yāga [i.e. brahminical birth] involving destruction of [the dog-eater’s] prārabdha sin, which is already fructified in the form of the present disqualifying durjāti (ignoble birth).
If this looks complicated, that is because it is! But things should become clear as we go along. Śrī Jīva gives an example to aid understanding —
brāhmaṇānāṁ śaukre janmani durjātitvābhāve’pi savanāya sujātitva-janaka-sāvitrya-janmāpekṣāvat |
This is similar to how brāhmaṇas, even though lacking the ineligibility of durjāti (ignoble birth) given their seminal birth (śaukra-janma), still require another birth involving sāvitra (investiture with the sacred thread), which gives rise to a sujāti (noble birth).
The principle he is teaching is that
acts of devotion create a lack of ineligiblity for soma-yāga, but not the presence of an eligibility for it+++(5)+++
This becomes amply clear from his commentary on the next kārikā, and also what he writes in the Bhakti Sandarbha Anuccheda 128, which I will examine below. But I will first finish the commentary above. He concludes with a citation to support his point —
tasmād bhaktiḥ punāti man-niṣṭhā śvapākān api sambhavāt [bhā.pu. 11.14.21] iti tu kaimutyārtham eva proktam ity āyāti ||21||
Thus, Kṛṣṇa’s analogous statement to Uddhava, cited below, was spoken only for in the sense of kaimutya —
bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ
śraddhayātmā priyaḥ satām
bhaktiḥ punāti man-niṣṭhā
śva-pākān api sambhavātBhakti resolutely fixed on Me purifies even dog-eaters from the defect of their birth. [Then how much more must this be true for those of noble birth?] I, the Supreme Self and the most beloved object, am directly obtainable by the virtuous through exclusive bhakti endowed with faith. (SB 11.14.21)
kaimutya comes from kim uta, which corresponds to the a fortiori argument. Here is an example from wikipedia —
If a teacher refuses to add 5 points to a student’s grade because the student does not deserve an additional 5 points, it can be inferred_a fortiori_that the teacher will also refuse to raise the student’s grade by 10 points.
Śrī Jīva Goswami’s point is that verse 3.33.6 is not to be taken as an injunction to perform soma-yāga, but as a glorification of the power of bhakti. These days, taking everything literally is common, and so it is that the corruption of ‘brāhmaṇa dīkṣā’ has crept into the Caitanya tradition.
Bhakti destroys prārabdha karma by creating a lack of ineligibility for soma yāga
I now turn to Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary on kārikā 1.1.22, which reinforces these points. As a reminder, the kārikā goes like this —
durjātir eva savanāyogyatve kāraṇam matam | durjāty-ārambhakaṁ pāpaṁ yat syāt prārabdham eva tat ||
An ignoble birth (durjāti) is understood to be the cause of the ineligibility to perform the soma-yajña. And the sins that lead to such an ignoble birth are those indeed that have already fructified (prārabdha). (BRS 1.1.2
Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary is very revealing, which I translate line-by-line.
tasmād durjātir evety atra savanāyogyatve kāraṇam iti tad-yogyatā pratikūla-pāpamayīty arthaḥ na tu tad-yogyatvābhāva-mātra-mayīti brāhmaṇa kumarāṇāṁ śaukre janmani durjātitvābhāve’pi savana-yogyatvāya puṇya-viśeṣa-maya-sāvitra-janmāpekṣatvāt |
Therefore, in stating “durjātir eva”, “ignoble birth alone”, as the cause of the ineligibility for soma-yajña, the intended meaning is that the ignoble birth is composed of sin that is opposed to that eligibility, and not that the ignoble birth involves only an absence of eligibility. This is because the sons of brāhmaṇas, even though lacking the ineligibility of durjāti (ignoble birth) given their seminal birth (śaukra-janma), still require another birth involving a specific type of piety ensuing from a sāvitra birth (investiture with the sacred thread), for becoming eligible for soma-yāga.
Thus, we see that acts of bhakti destroy the opposition to the eligibility for soma-yāga in those who are durjātis, but they do not create an eligibility. This is inferred from the fact that even among those who are not born as durjātis, there is still no eligibility for soma-yāga, but only an absence of ineligibility.
Now he makes an important observation —
tataś ca savana-yogyatva-pratikūla-durjāty-ārambhakaṁ prārabdham api gatam eva, kintu śiṣṭācārābhāvāt sāvitraṁ janma nāstīti brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ savana-yogyatvābhāvāvacchedaka-puṇya-viśeṣa-maya-sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā vartata iti bhāvaḥ |
Therefore, the prārabdha or fructified sin which is the cause of an ignoble birth, and which is opposed to the eligibility for soma-yāga, is removed [by the acts of bhakti] but because of a lack of cultured behavior (śiṣṭācārābhāva), there is no sāvitra-birth [possible]. As such, just as the sons of brāhmaṇas require the special piety of sāvitra-birth which will destroy their lack of eligibility for soma-yāga, there is a need for another birth for him [of ignoble birth but a bhakta].
Here, soma-yāga is a general indicator of activities of varṇāśrama karma as will become clear from Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary below. Śrī Jīva Goswami asserts that there is no sāvitra-birth even after bhakti has destroyed prārabdha karma. Why? śiṣṭācārābhāvāt- because of a lack of cultured behavior. He does not make it clear what is meant here and my translation is unfortunately ambiguous. I also cite Bhakti Sandarbha below where this point is discussed in a different way.
Is eligibility for varṇāśrama duties the purpose of bhakti? Most definitely not. Then what is the purpose of the foregoing discussion? He explains —
ataḥ pramāṇa-vākye’pi savanāya kalpate sambhāvito bhavati,
na tu tadaivādhikārī syādi ty abhipretam |
vyākhyātaṁ ca taiḥ sadyaḥ savanāya soma-yāgāya kalpate|
anena pūjyatvaṁ lakṣyata iti |Therefore, in the pramāṇa-vākya (verse 3.33.6), the word ‘kalpate’ [is used] meaning ‘sambhāvito bhavati’ ‘is estimable’ for soma-yāga, and not that he becomes qualified for it at that time itself. Consequently, Śrīdhara Svāmī, states that sadyaḥ savanāya soma-yāgāya kalpate indicates that “he becomes worthy of honor” (anena pūjyatvaṁ lakṣyate).
This shows that the purpose of the verse is not to recommend sāvitra-janma to a bhakta. The purpose is to say that anyone who performs acts of bhakti, becomes honorable like a brāhmaṇa.
Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary on this topic in the Bhakti Sandarbha
Above, Śrī Jīva Goswami hints at the reason for why bhakti does not qualify one for sāvitra-janma – getting a sacred thread – in the words śiṣṭācārābhāvāt which I translated ambiguously as “lack of cultured behavior”.
His commentary in Anuccheda 128 of the Bhakti Sandarbha takes a different approach. I reproduce Babaji’s translations below.
kintu yogyatvam atra śvapacatva-prāpaka-prārabdha-pāpa-vicchinnatva-mātram ucyate | savanārthaṁ tu guṇāntarādhānam apekṣata eva, brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ śaukre janmani yogyatve saty api sāvitra-daikṣa-janmāpekṣāvat | sāvitrādi-janma-nimitta-savana-sad-ācāra-prāpter iti savane pravṛttir nāsya yujyate |
It should be pointed out, however, that the eligibility (yogyatva) to perform the savana ritual spoken of in this verse refers only to the destruction of the prārabdha sins that led to birth in a dog-eater family. Yet, to perform the savana ritual, other qualifications are certainly required. The sons of brāhmaṇas, for example, even though eligible for the savana ritual in terms of seminal birth (śaukra-janma), still have to undergo two other types of birth, namely, sāvitra (investiture with the sacred thread) and daikṣa (initiation into the performance of Vedic sacrifice). In the same manner, the dog-eater whose prārabdha sins are destroyed by chanting Bhagavān’s name would also have to undergo these two births by virtue of which he could acquire the ennoblement of conduct necessary to perform the savana ritual. [Since, however, outcastes are barred from these initiatory rites and accompanying education], factual engagement in the savana ritual is non-applicable in their case.
The below statement overturns the logic from above —
sāvitrādi-janma-nimitta-savana-sad-ācāra-prāpter iti savane pravṛttir nāsya yujyate –
In the same manner, the dog-eater whose prārabdha sins are destroyed by chanting Bhagavān’s name would also have to undergo these two births by virtue of which he could acquire the ennoblement of conduct necessary to perform the savana ritual. [Since, however, outcastes are barred from these initiatory rites and accompanying education], factual engagement in the savana ritual is non-applicable in their case.
Above, śiṣṭācārābhāva was considered the hetu or cause of not getting a sāvitra janma even after prārabdha karma was destroyed. In the above statement, the sāvitra janma is stated to be the hetu or cause for sad-ācāra. I am not sure this makes sense. I think the situation can be resolved by perhaps correcting the Sanskrit, introducing an ‘a’ in front of the word prāpter, as follows —
sāvitrādi-janma-nimitta-savana-sad-ācāra-aprāpter iti savane pravṛttir nāsya yujyate —
because of a lack of cultured behavior, which is required for sāvitra janma, factual engagement in the savana ritual is non-applicable in their case.
This reading is more coherent in my view and aligned with what Śrī Jīva Goswami writes in his commentary on the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu above.
I now turn to Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary on this topic.
Śrī Viśvanātha explains that a bhakta does not have śraddhā in varnasrama duties
Śrī Viśvanātha has a different take on this section altogether, even as he agrees with the spirit of Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary, that a devotee should not attempt to take a sāvitra-janma for performing varṇāśrama karmas. He writes —
yogyatvam atra yāgādhikāritva-svarūpam eva |
na ca tādṛśa-śvapacasya yāgādhikāritve
sa kathaṁ yāgaṁ na karotīti vācyam |
tasya śuddha-bhaktatvena karmaṇi śraddhā-rāhityāt |Here, eligibility [for soma-yāga] is [possessing] qualification for yāga. One should not question why that dog-eater who now has the qualification for yāga, does not perform the yāga. Because he is a pure devotee, he is altogether devoid of faith in Vedic karma.
We see here that Śrī Viśvanātha disagrees with the notion that the yogyatā or eligibility generated by bhakti is an absence of ineligibility. He also disagrees with Śrīdhara Svāmī that savanāya kalpate means that the person becomes worthy of honor. This is because the destruction of prārabdha karma is inferred from the fact that one who is not eligible for soma-yāga to begin with, becomes eligible for it by bhakti. If he merely becomes honorable, that would mean his prārabdha karma has not been destroyed (yataḥ savanāyogyasyaiva prārabdha-nāśakatvaṁ, na tu pūjyatvasya ). This makes the whole point of the verse and Śrī Rūpa Goswami’s intended meaning incoherent (atra savanāya kalpate ity atra soma-yāga-kartṛvat pūjyo bhavatīti vyākhyāne granthasya kaṣṭa-kalpanāpatteḥ, prakṛta-granthasyāsaṅgateś ca).
This can then raise the question of why the bhakta (of ignoble birth) does not perform soma-yāga, to which he has responded that the bhakta has no faith in such a yāga. He strengthens this conclusion further by pointing out that —
sat-kulotpanna-gṛhasthās tu śraddhā-rahitā api loka-saṅgrahārthaṁ karma kurvanti | tathā ca gītāyām—loka-saṅgraham evāpi sampaśyan kartum arhasi iti
Those [devotee] householders who are devoid of faith may still perform karma just to set an example for others. This is stated in the Gītā — Considering the right ideal to be set for the instruction of people, you should certainly perform your duty.
Why then should the bhakta in question (of ignoble birth) not perform soma-yāga? Śrī Viśvanātha replies —
asya tu karma-karaṇe praty uta bhakti-śāstrānabhijña-jana-pravāda-bhayam api pratibaddhakam astīti jñeyam |
For him [bhakta of ignoble birth], the fear of slander from those who are ignorant of bhakti scriptures stops him from engaging in karma.
Śrī Viśvanātha, however, does not address the practical questions that Śrī Jīva Goswami raised above of qualification. For example, if one does not know the rituals of soma-yāga, there is no way to do soma-yāga even if one wanted to!
Summary
- Bhakti destroys prārabdha karma in those born outside varṇāśrama by creating an absence of ineligibility for varṇāśrama duties.
- The purpose of bhakti is not to create an eligibility for varṇāśrama
- The purpose of SB 3.33.6 is to teach that the devotee is as honorable as a brāhmaṇa, irrespective of the type of birth of the devotee.
- A bhakta has no faith in varṇāśrama duties.
विश्वास-टिप्पनी
It seems that the post author has gone well beyond what rUpa and jIva say.
Also vishvanAtha seems deviant - is he considered authoritative by all?