INFLUENCE OF OFFENSES (5)

Anuccheda 157

Offenses Make One Materially Oriented

We will now discuss the third effect of aparādha—namely, absorption in other objects that erode one’s faith in Bhagavān (bhagavan-niṣṭhā-cyāvaka-vastv-antarābhiniveśaḥ). This is demonstrated in this statement of Śrī Śuka: 

“In this way, his heart was agitated by impossible fantasies [about the deer]. Because of his prārabdha-karma, which came to him in the form of a deer-cub, this ascetic yogī fell down from his practice of yoga and also from the worship of Bhagavān.” (SB 5.8.26)

In this verse the pronoun saḥ, “he,” refers to King Bharata. A point to consider here is that generally prārabdha-karma cannot be an obstacle to bhakti because it is weaker. Thus the prārabdha-karma spoken of here, should be understood as an outcome of some past offense, as in the case of King Indradyumna and others.

 

Commentary (by Satyanaranaya Dasa)

In this anuccheda, Śrī Jīva illustrates by an example how an offense can make one absorbed in objects other than Bhagavān and make the person give up the practice of bhakti. Bharata, the eldest son of Bhagavān Rṣabhadeva, was a great king and devotee. He renounced his kingdom as a young man and retired to the Himalayas to engage in bhakti. While living on the bank of the river Gaṇḍakī, he was absorbed in the worship of śālagrām and meditation on Bhagavān. One day when he went to the river to take a dip and saw a pregnant doe drinking water. At that very moment a lion came there and roared loudly. The doe became frightened and to save herself jumped over to the other side of the river. The river was not very wide in the mountain range. In the process she had a miscarriage. Her baby fell into the river. When the frustrated lion left, the king saved the baby and brought it to his āśrama. He took care of the baby and as it grew, the king became very much attached to it. The king who had earlier renounced his dear family was now totally absorbed in thoughts of the deer. He forgot his worship and meditation. We have only one mind after all and it cannot be attached to the world and to Bhagavān at the same time. 

Although the text says that this happened because of some strong past karma, Śrī Jīva comments that karma has no power to overshadow bhakti. What happened to the king was the effect of some past offense. The offense overshadowed the bhakti and king became fully absorbed in the deer. An example of such an offense is found in the history of King Indradyumna. King Indradyumna offended sage Agastya and as a result he was born as an elephant. As an elephant he forgot about bhakti and became absorbed in material pleasures.

The implied message is that if one is losing interest in bhakti and becoming attracted to material objects, relations, power or position, then one must know for sure that it is an outcome of some past or present offense, or both.

Here one may raise a doubt. What did Bharata do wrong? Was it not proper of him to show compassion to a drowning baby deer? The act of saving and taking care of the baby deer was not wrong. But to become totally absorbed in it was a mistake. Bharata thought of himself as the savior and unique protector of the deer, forgetting that ultimate savior is Bhagavān and that he was just an instrument. Thus the defect was considering himself as merciful independent of Bhagavān.

 

Anuccheda 158

Bhagavān May Create Obstacles for His Devotee to Increase His Bhakti

Some people are of the opinion that Bhagavān personally intensifies the normal prārabdha-karma of such devotees just to increase their hankering to attain Him. The Bhāgavatam in fact describes the heightening of Bharata’s desire to attain Bhagavān in his next life when he received the body of a deer. Another example of this is seen in the past life of Śrī Nārada Muni when he was the young son of a maidservant. Although he had attained the state of rati, or love for Bhagavān, Bhagavān preserved a trace of material desire in him to magnify his efforts to attain Him. The Bhagavān thus provoked the boy by speaking the following words:

“My dear boy, in this life you are not fit to see Me again, because I cannot be seen by imperfect yogīs whose contamination of the heart is not completely extinguished.” (SB 1.6.22)

The meaning of this statement is clear.

 

Commentary  (by Satyanaranaya Dasa) 

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī is not satisfied with the explanation given in the previous anuccheda. Bharata was situated on a very high platform of bhakti. Text 5.8.12 describes that he was even manifesting symptoms of love while engaged in bhakti. It is hard to believe that some past offense could overpower his bhakti. Moreover it was said earlier that as long as one has offenses one cannot manifest such symptoms. Therefore, Śrī Jīva says that it was Bhagavān’s will that Bharata became attached to deer. In other words, it was Bhagavān who attracted the mind of Bharata in the form of a deer. What else could attract his mind? He did it in order to increase Bharata’s hankering for Himself. 

Bhagavān sometimes covers the knowledge of a devotee for this purpose. This happened to King Parīkṣit who put a dead snake on the shoulder of the meditating sage because the king felt ignored. When the king was then cursed to die in seven days, he gave up his kingdom and heard Śrīmad Bhāgavatam for seven days without eating and drinking anything. The same king who became angry at the meditating sage because he could not get water to drink was then able to go without it for seven days. Therefore, his thirst is described as unprecedented (abhūta-pūrva, 1.18.29) because it was manifested by Bhagavān’s will.

Śrī Jīva gives the example of Nārada in his previous birth. Nārada was a boy when he became a devotee by the blessings of the mahā-bhāgavatas who came to stay at the house of a brāhmaṇa where his mother was a maidservant. After his mother was killed by snakebite, Nārada left home and went to a forest in the north. There he meditated on Bhagavān as he had been taught. After some time he got a vision of Bhagavān, but soon the vision disappeared. Nārada became restless to see Bhagavān again. But he only heard the voice from the sky in the form of the verse cited here. Nārada had already attained rati and there was no impurity in his heart. Yet Bhagavān made him feel as though he was still subject to material desires and thus could not see Him. This made Nārada more intensely absorb himself in meditation. Kṛṣṇa Himself revealed this principle to the gopīs

“O My friends, [sometimes] I do not reciprocate the love of even those devotees who love Me. I behave in this way so that they can fully become absorbed in My thoughts just like a person who loses a treasure after finding it becomes engrossed in the thoughts of the wealth and knows nothing else.” (SB 10.32.20)

Bhagavān applied this principle to King Bharata. This is confirmed by the absorption of King Bharata in his next birth as a deer as well as in his third birth as Jaḍa Bharata.
(to be continued)

Notify me of new articles

Comments ( 8 )
  1. Parikshit Chauhan

    Thanks Babaji! _/\_

  2. Stoka Krsna Das

    Thanks Babaji Maharaj for so nicely and wonderfully explaining the Jada Bharat pastime.

    Bharat Maharaj’s becoming a deer in next life remains intriguing as he was manifesting all symptoms of Bhava Bhakti, but your explanations of the subject have made things crystal clear. Also you have very nicely explained Narada’s pastime.

    Can we say that both Narada and Bharat Maharaj were exhibiting Prema Bhakti symptoms or would we still call that stage as Bhava Bhakti, a small little step short of Prema.

  3. Bhushan

    Thank you Babaji for the clear explanation.
    I have a small question.
    As you mentioned, the effect of aparadha is that one may loose interest in bhakti and become absorbed in other objects. However, I have heard that sadhakas are encouraged to continue with sadhana bhakti (while avoiding additional offenses) as it will slowly reduce the effect of past offenses. How do we reconcile this advice with Shri Jiva Gosvamin’s explanation? In other words, if offenses increase a person’s absorption in other objects, it would be very difficult for that person to take shelter of Shri Krishna and continue with sadhana, yet it is advised to continue sadhana (avoiding additional offenses) and and take complete shelter of Shri Krishna? Or should they be asked to take a “break” from sadhana bhakti (reducing the risk of committing additional offenses and disturbing others around them), eventually the effect of aparadha may reduce allowing them to restart sadhana bhakti?

    • Babaji Post author

      “In other words, if offenses increase a person’s absorption in other objects, it would be very difficult for that person to take shelter of Shri Krishna and continue with sadhana, yet it is advised to continue sadhana (avoiding additional offenses) and and take complete shelter of Shri Krishna?”

      I do not see any contradiction. One who loses interest will either not take the advice and suffer the consequence of the offense and then again resume the sadhana, or will take the advice and follow although not whole-heartedly. It will all depend on how intense or mild the effect of the offense is. Giving advice and losing interest are two independent things. Advice can be given whether one is willing to follow or not.

      “Or should they be asked to take a ‘break’ from sadhana bhakti (reducing the risk of committing additional offenses and disturbing others around them), eventually the effect of aparadha may reduce allowing them to restart sadhana bhakti?”

      Why advise to take a break? Why not advise to follow? If the person does not take the advice, the break in sadhana is natural. No need to advise that.

  4. Bhushan

    Thank you for your reply. Yes, I see that looking at the positive side and encouraging to continue is better than asking to stop. I have a couple of additional doubts, and I would be grateful if you could clear them.

    Will the offense be rectified by Sri Bhagavan in the offender is very close to a pure devotee? Example of Amogha and Shri Devananda Pandit comes to mind. Amogha was son-in-law of Shri Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, and although he offended the Bhattacharya, Shri Chaitanya removed his offense. Devananda Pandit offended Shri Shrivasa Pandit, but was a good friend of Shri Vakreshvar Pandit and others. The general principle then it seems is, that if one is a very close to a pure devotee (dear disciple, parent-son, friend, wife-husband, etc), then even if that person is initially an offender, Shri Bhagavan will purify that person because he/she is dear to His devotee? But then, Shri Krishna did not purify Duryodhana even though he was dear to Lord Balarama? How are we to understand this?

    My other question is, can we extract general principles from lilas (like I tried to do above)? And what if they seem to differ (different Avatars act in different ways in similar situations)? I understand that you are writing a book on understanding shastras, that would be very helpful and I am eagerly waiting for it.

    • Babaji Post author

      “But then, Shri Krishna did not purify Duryodhana even though he was dear to Lord Balarama? How are we to understand this?”

      We have to consider two things here: Firstly, the intensity of the offense and secondly, the closeness of the offender to the pure devotee. In case of Amogha, we know that Bhattacarya’s daughter was married to him, and if he had died, then Bhattacarya’s daughter would have suffered. In case of Devananda Pandit, his offense was not out of inimical nature, whereas Duryodhana’s offenses were very intense and well-planned. He did not take good advice even from Krishna Himself or from Vedavyasa and other sages. Moreover, Duryodhana was not very close to Balaram. He only studied club-fighting from Him. He had disrespected even Balaram. When Balaram went to release Samba, who was captured by Duryodhana, the latter insulted Balarama. So what was his closeness?

      “My other question is, can we extract general principles from lilas (like I tried to do above)? And what if they seem to differ (different Avatars act in different ways in similar situations)?”

      Yes, you can extract principles if you see a pattern and if you understand how devotees behave in relation with other devotees. But to derive a general principle you have to have to very good understanding.

  5. Bhushan

    Thank you for the reply Babaji, that was very helpful for I had not considered the nature of the offense and the closeness of the offender to the devotee. Thanks for your comment on Duryodhana, I had assumed that he was close to Lord Balarama because Lord Balarama wanted Subhadra to marry Duryodhana, but your comment makes sense.

    Thanks you.

Post comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Satyanarayana Dasa

    Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Subscribe

  • Videos with Babaji

  • Payment

  • Article Archive

  • Chronological Archive

  • Translate this Website

    Homepage Übersetzung

© 2017 JIVA.ORG. All rights reserved.