A reader of The Mother recently phrased his
query in the following words:
“I have been conducting
Bhagavata Katha at our residence since
many years, it has been an extremely exciting
and satisfying experience, but this year I have
misgivings. I am not so excited. For one, I’ve
begun to feel the Bhagavata narrator explains
the scripture citing his or her own examples and
gives a meaning to the scriptural verses. But
does it really carry the sense of the original?
Is there not a distortion of the original
message, albeit unintentional? Are not different
narrators really just several corruptions of the
original message? Is it really necessary for me
to go through with this? Will it not be good if
I spent the same time in simply chanting
naam?”
In answer to this, I related the following.
We were reading Maharasayana (The Great
Elixir) at the Rishikesh ashram recently, one
devotee chose spandan (chapter) 10,
another chose spandan 3 and I read out,
aloud, both the chapters. In chapter 3, a
question is raised.
You keep saying chant the name, chant the name,
is there no other way? Thakur says there are
other ways indeed:
-
First, the path of
First, the path of karmakanda/ puja (yajna
karma) First, the path of
is an option but it cannot yield in Kaliyuga
because there is no pure material
(vishuddha dravya) for puja, mantra
is not pure (shuddha mantra) (perhaps
the pronunciation is not pure/ right, so also
the choice of mantras), and finally there is
no shuddha kartaa (the performer of
the yajna) (perhaps because his/her
body is not pure, food intake being impure,
conduct being inappropriate etc)
-
Path of yoga cannot yield because the
prerequisite for path of yoga is
tyaag or renunciation and that is
absent in Kaliyuga (I did not know this
precondition)
-
Path of jnana (Vedanta) cannot yield
because its prerequisite is being a
yati (one who is not a yati is not
entitled to study Vedanta!)
Basically, for a person who lives in Kaliyuga,
and as a general rule is steeped in sense
gratification, these options don’t exist, only
option is naam.
We discussed this point about naam being the
exclusive and only way in this yuga.
To this request, Jada Bharat said:
kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir
anyathā
In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy, the only
means of deliverance is the chanting of the holy
names of the Lord. There is no other way. There
is no other way. There is no other way.
The message is repeated thrice.
Given this, one must simply close this curiosity
of other options, total full stop, only
naam.
The thing is, even after taking to
naam we are continuing to think of the
other options – Thakur is telling us to be
focussed. What’s the point in pursuing something
that simply doesn’t work in Kaliyuga?
So, we must take on board that naam is
the ONLY way.
Coming back to the reader who raised the
question about Bhagavata, he may very well
continue with naam for
naam alone is the way.
Another reader recently asked:
“Is it correct that Thakur told someone that
they would be loving Thakur to that much extent
that they do Naam? Is loving one’s Master
Kainkarya? If yes, then is it the best form of
Kainkarya for me to try and do as much Naam as
possible? Is it enough?”
Here’s a story for this person.
A pundit had come to Kashi to win over all the
pundits in town and establish his superiority in
Vedas and Puranas using the method of
shastra-artha, scriptural debating.
When he commenced his debating people told him
that there is no point in arguing with every
pundit one after the other, that way you would
be wasting a lot of time to establish your
supremacy. All you got to do is to defeat the
greatest pundit in Kashi. If you win over him,
you will automatically be decorated as the
greatest. The pundit who is this greatest pundit
I must defeat. The answer was Kabir.
The pundit agreed, he went to Kabir and declared
his intent. “I want to do
shastra-artha with you; let’s debate on
matters of subtlety in scriptures.”
Kabir said, “Oh no! I am an ignoramus, I don't
know anything, there’s no need to debate, you
have won and I have lost.”
So the gentleman said, “This is fine, but please
give it to me in writing, just sign that you
have lost because people outside will not
believe my words.”
Kabir took his pen, wrote that he had lost and
he was about to sign the paper when the pundit
muttered, ‘people were saying if you can defeat
Kabir, you’d have in fact defeated Benaras!’
At this point, Kabir said, “Hold on, hold on,
I'm not signing this. It was all fine as long as
the matter was about me, Kabir can lose a
million times, but Benares? Oh no! I can’t let
that happen. There will be
shastra-artha. Let’s debate, who goes
first?”
The confident pundit said you go first. Kabir
said, “I have only one question to ask you. If
you can answer that question, you have won and
then I will sign.”
So the pundit said, ‘What is the question?’
He said:
Kabir posed his question. “Whatever you have
learned from the scriptures: समझ के पढ़ा है या
पढ़ के समझा है? -
पढ़ के समझा है? - samajh ke padhaa hai yaa
padh ke samjhaa hai? पढ़ के समझा है? - ” ("Have you learned by understanding, or have
you understood by learning?")
The pundit heard the question but couldn’t wrap
his head around it. He just muttered, “
his head around it. He just muttered, “ samajh
ke padhaa hai yaa padh ke samjhaa hai… samajh
ke padhaa hai yaa padh ke samjhaa hai! his
head around it. He just muttered, “” He began to rack his brain. No answer seemed
to come. It was like his head had gone into a
whirl.
“Could you please repeat your question once
again?” the pundit beseeched.
Kabir laughed and obliged, “samajh ke padhaa hai yaa padh ke samjhaa
hai?”
Pundit began to fidget; he had no answer.
Kabir was direct. He said, “Don’t try to rack
your brains, I’ll answer that question for you.
आपने ना समझ के पढ़ा है, ना पढ़के समझा है -
आपने ना समझ के पढ़ा है, ना पढ़के समझा है -
Aapne na samajh ke padhaa hai, aur naa padh ke
samajhaa hai आपने ना समझ के पढ़ा है, ना पढ़के
समझा है - . (You’ve neither learned by understanding, not
understood by learning.) If you had understood,
you would have chanted naam in order to
understand and then learnt from the scriptures
that naam is everything; if you had first learnt
from the scriptures, you would have read that
naam is everything and gone about chanting naam
to understand if that is correct. In either case
you would not be wasting time in
shastra-artha and debating, you’d
simply be chanting naam! But I don’t see you
doing that, you’ve indeed lost, Benares has won.
Pundit, though proud, knew where to bend his
head. He accepted Kabir as his Guru and went on
to become a great votary of naam.
Let us devote ourselves to naam exclusively,
solely and single-mindedly. Let us not be
distracted from the path of naam. Let us not
delude ourselves into thinking there’s another
gati or way for us!
Jai Guru! Jai Naam! Jai Bhagwan!
~ Raj Supe (Kinkar Vishwashreyananda)
Editor, The Mother
|