The Glory of Exclusive Devotion to Sri KrishnaThe Deeper Meaning of the Verse api cet su-duracarahby Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Trivikrama Gosvami Maharajaapi cet su-duracaroIn his commentary to this verse, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura quotes Sri Krishna as saying: It is My nature to be attached to My devotees, even that devotee who performs duracara, abominable deeds. I nevertheless elevate him. A person engaged in My bhajana is saintly, even if he happens to be attached to committing extremely detestable acts such as violence upon others, theft and illicit connection with another mans wife. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura continues: What kind of bhajana must such a person perform to be regarded as saintly? In answer to this, Sri Krishna says ananya-bhak My exclusive bhajana, in other words, bhajana directed at no demigods or other personalities besides Me. Someone may question how a bhakta can possibly be regarded as a sadhu if some type of wickedness is to be seen in him. Anticipating this doubt, the word mantavyah has been used, meaning that he nonetheless must be considered a sadhu; it is obligatory to accept him as such. The word mantavyah indicates that it is imperative. If one disobeys this instruction, he will be guilty of neglect. Sri Krishna is saying here, In this regard My order is final. A person may have the idea that a bhakta engaged in bhajana of Sri Krishna who has an illicit connection with another mans wife, may be regarded as only partially a sadhu. In answer to this, it is declared in this verse that such a bhakta must be considered a sadhu in every respect. One should be blind to his unsaintly behaviour, because he is samyag-vyavasitah, of resolute intelligence, perfect in resolve. Such a person is endeavouring with the following kind of determination, I will never give up my exclusive bhajana of Sri Krishna, whether I end up in hell or in the species of birds or animals due to the results of my sinful behaviour, which is very difficult for me to give up. The concluding opinion of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura Mahasaya on this matter is indeed extraordinary. Every man attached to having illicit relations with another mans wife will not have such exclusive faith in krishnabhajana. This type of resolve is possible only for those who have already reached an advanced stage of bhajana. For a devotee of such high calibre, having illicit relations with someone elses wife is a very wretched act. Unlike ordinary men, such personalities are generally not attached to others wives. Such an occurrence is certainly extremely rare.
An Apparent ContradictionWhat a terrible, heartless and uncompromising attitude Mahaprabhu took towards Chota Haridasa! He ignored the humble entreaties of all types of devotees committed to helping Chota Haridasa, even the petitions of His superiors and intimate companions. Was this act of Mahaprabhus meant only to make the devotees cautious in their dealings with women? Or does it have some deeper significance concealed within it? Even if we set aside this apparent difference inmattitude between Sri Krishna and Mahaprabhu, we find that Mahaprabhu Himself appears to have reacted inconsistently to a bhaktas misconduct. Why was Mahaprabhu not severe with Kala Krishnadasa in the same way that He was with Chota Haridasa? Kala Krishnadasas error was far graver than Chota Haridasas, who merely made conversation with a woman and was not accused of cohabiting with one. Kala Krishnadasa, by contrast, was found living with a woman of the Bhattathari caste. Moreover, Chota Haridasa wasmananya-bhak, one-pointed in his devotion. He never performed bhajana of any worshipable truth other than Mahaprabhu. Indeed, even after giving up his body, he would serve Mahaprabhu by singing kirtanas for Him while remaining invisible to others. By contrast, Kala Krishnadasa, having been allured by the gypsy women, gave up Mahaprabhus service and joined the Bhattathari group. Although Kala Krishnadasa possessed such an abominable propensity, Mahaprabhu never rejected him, nor did He suggest that he take his own life by way of atonement, by tying a big pitcher around his neck and drowning himself in the river. Rather, to rectify him, Mahaprabhu handed him over to the devotees, thereby freeing Himself from His responsibility towards him. What deeper grounds are there in these two cases for Mahaprabhus seemingly inconsistent behaviour? The answer is certainly inaccessible to ordinary people.
Chota Haridasas Caseprabhu kahe vairagi kare prakriti sambhashanaThe acaryas themselves observe all the regulative principles of their respective social order and never indulge in any inappropriate discussion. Since Chota Haridasa Prabhu was a renunciant in the fourth social order, Mahaprabhus judgment on him was in accordance with sastra and appropriate to his adhikara, level of eligibility. Unless one is not himself in the fourth social order, passing judgment on a renunciant is improper.
Kala Krishnadasas Casestrinam nirikshana-sparsa-samlapa-kshvelanadikamRenounced devotees should give up the association of those who look upon, touch, converse with, sport with or indulge in sex with a woman. By use of the word agrihasthah (those who are unmarried) in this verse, an exemption is implicitly provided for grihasthas. It is forbidden for a brahmacari, vanaprastha and vairagi (i.e. sannyasi) to engage in these acts. In other words, these activities are permissible for grihasthas who are not so advanced. However, if a grihastha is nishkincana, inclined towards bhajana and wants to cross over the ocean of nescience, then these prohibitions apply to him also. This is supported by Mahaprabhus distressful words in Sri Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka: nishkincanasya bhagavad-bhajanonmukhasyaKala Krishnadasa was a householder, and therefore he was not treated severely. Chota Haridasa, however,was a vairagi, who had renounced his household life. Severity was therefore appropriate in relation to him. Two Different ApproachesAlthough the verses previously quoted evince a different approach for householders and renunciant, each is auspicious for those to whom it applies considering a persons individual qualification (adhikara); moreover, both approaches should be understood as having the same end purpose as each other. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Krishnacandra are the same Absolute Reality, but Krishna was a grihastha and Mahaprabhu a sannyasi. This difference of asrama in Their pastimes is reflected in Their instructions, and does not result in any apasiddhanta, incorrect conclusions. Indulgence in sex with a woman is unfavourable for paramartha, the ultimate goal of life for all humans. On account of having a lower qualification, a householder is given the arrangement of marriage. The only purpose of marriage is to curtail his propensity for sense enjoyment this should be understood. This idea has been expressed in Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.3.44) in the statement karma-mokshaya karmani material activities meant for liberation from material pursuits. In the verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.5.11) beginning with the words loke vyavayamishamadya- seva, the same idea is conveyed through the statement asu nivrittir ishta the cessation of these is the desired end. There is no scope for even a scent of lust (kama) on the path of prema propagated by Mahaprabhu. Lust is darkness, while prema is the transcendental sun. The pastimes of ujjvala-rasa, the mellow of amorous love, are not like the meeting of ordinary men and women with a mood to enjoy each other. They cannot be understood by the bound jiva. It is therefore forbidden to discuss such pastimes while in the conditioned state of consciousness.
Persons of Low EligibilityWe see that sudras, women and the uncultured members of brahmana and other high-order families (dvija-bandhus) are not given the right to study the Vedas. Does the statement api cet su-duracarah, then, contradict this injunction of the sastras? There can never by any conflict between the statements of sastra. As such, this verse does not in itself discuss the status of women. Rather, it illuminates the highest glories of exclusive bhajana to Sri Krishna by declaring that by performing such bhajana even persons of the lowest qualification (adhikara) are fit to be counted as highly worshipable and saintly. It should be understood that it is certainly very difficult to perform ananya-bhak, one-pointed bhajana of Sri Krishna. If this were not so, the statement strisangi eka asadhu the person who associates with women for sense gratification is unsaintly in Sri Caitanya-caritamrita (Madhya-lila 22.87) would be deprived of its truth. The Gita (9.33) goes on to describe those who are naturally eligible to perform such one-pointed devotion: kim punar brahmanah punya The Power of Exclusive BhajanaIn order to firmly and indubitably express this, Krishna ordered His intimate devotee and friend Arjuna to take a vow to this effect: kshipram bhavati dharmatmaThis also illustrates Krishnas nature of protecting the vow of His devotee, even at the expense of breaking His own vow. Krishna bestows the supreme destination and eternal peace to anyone who performs one-pointed bhajana of Him, thereby making that worshippers life successful, even if he is extremely unqualified and degraded, a wicked outcaste (mleccha), a woman of bad character, a merchant engaged in farming and trading, a sudra, or a man or woman born into the lower castes. This type of result cannot be attained by performing the bhajana of any worshipable reality other than Sri Krishna. This is indeed expressed here. Therefore every human being is enjoined to engage his body, mind and words in the service of Sri Krishna and thereby become blessed. For such bhajana, however, it is desirable that one possess the quality described in Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.7.42) as yadi nirvyalikam surrender without pretension.
![[Return to BVML Home Page]](../grfx/bml_logo.gif){kind=logo}
 Srila Bhaktivedanta Trikakrama Maharaja Page |
