CC Madhya 15.264 (1975): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:14, 27 January 2020

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975) - Madhya-līlā - Chapter 15: The Lord Accepts Prasādam at the House of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya

Madhya-līlā 15.263 - Madhya-līlā 15.265

Compare Versions: CC 1975 with CC 1996

His Divine Grace
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

TEXT 264

ṣāṭhīre kaha--tāre chāḍuka, se ha-ila 'patita'

'patita' ha-ile bhartā tyajite ucita

SYNONYMS

ṣāṭhīre kaha--tāre chāḍuka, se ha-ila 'patita' 'patita' ha-ile bhartā tyajite ucita

TRANSLATION

"Inform my daughter Ṣāṭhī to abandon her relationship with her husband because he has fallen down. When the husband falls down, it is the wife's duty to relinquish the relationship.

PURPORT

Śrīla Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya considered that if Amogha were killed, one would suffer sinful reactions for killing the body of a brāhmaṇa. For the same reason, it would have been undesirable for Bhaṭṭācārya to commit suicide because he also was a brāhmaṇa. Since neither course could be accepted, Bhaṭṭācārya decided to give up his relationship with Amogha and never see his face.

As far as killing the body of a brāhmaṇa is concerned, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (SB 1.7.53) gives the following injunction:

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

brahma-bandhur na hantavya

ātatāyī vadhār-haṇaḥ

mayaivobhayam āmnātaṁ

paripāhy anuśāsanam

"The Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor, he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly."

Quoting from the smṛti, Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī comments on this quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:

ātatāyinam āyāntam

api vedānta-pāragam

jighāṁ-santaṁ jighāṁsīyān

na tena brahmahā bhavet

"Even though an aggressor may be a very learned scholar of Vedānta, he should be killed because of his envy in killing others. In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brāhmaṇa."

It is also stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (SB 1.7.57):

vapanaṁ draviṇādānaṁ

sthānān niryāpaṇaṁ tathā

eṣa hi brahma-bandhūnāṁ

vadho nānyo 'sti daihikaḥ

"Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for the relative of a brāhmaṇa. There is no injunction for killing the body."

Such punishment is sufficient for a brahma-bandhu. There is no need to personally kill his body. As far as Ṣāṭhī, the daughter of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, was concerned, she was advised to give up her relationship with her husband. Concerning this, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (SB 5.5.18) states, na patiś ca sa syān na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum: "One cannot be a husband if he cannot liberate his dependents from inevitable death." If a person is not in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and is bereft of spiritual power, he cannot protect his wife from the path of repeated birth and death. Consequently such a person cannot be accepted as a husband. A wife should dedicate her life and everything to Kṛṣṇa for further advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If she gives up her connection with her husband, who abandons Kṛṣṇa consciousness, she follows in the footsteps of the dvija-patnī, the wives of the brāhmaṇas who were engaged in performing sacrifices. The wife is not to be condemned for cutting off such a relationship. In this regard, Śrī Kṛṣṇa states in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.23.31-32):

patayo nābhyasūyeran

pitṛ-bhrātṛ-sutādayaḥ

lokāś ca vo mayopetā

devā apy anumanvate

na prītaye 'nurāgāya

hy aṅga-saṅgo nṛṇām iha

tan mano mayi yuñjānā

acirān mām avāpsyatha

Such a separation is never condemned by the supreme will. No one should be envious of the order of Kṛṣṇa. Even demigods support such action. In this material world, one does not become beloved simply by maintaining a bodily relationship. However, one can attain complete perfection by associating in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Madhya-līlā 15.263 - Madhya-līlā 15.265

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <div style="float:left">'''[[Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (1975)|Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975)]] - [[CC Madhya (1975)|Madhya-līlā]] - [[CC Madhya 15 (1975)|Chapter 15: The Lord Accepts Prasādam at the House of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya]]'''</div>
 <div style="float:right">[[File:Go-previous.png|link=CC Madhya 15.263 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 15.263]] '''[[CC Madhya 15.263 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 15.263]] - [[CC Madhya 15.265 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 15.265]]''' [[File:Go-next.png|link=CC Madhya 15.265 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 15.265]]</div>
+{{CompareVersions|CC|Madhya 15.264|CC 1975|CC 1996}}
 {{RandomImage}}
-''Below is the 1996 edition text, ready to be substituted with the 1975 one using the compile form.''
 ==== TEXT 264 ====
 <div class="verse">
-:ṣāṭhīre kaha—tāre chāḍuka, se ha-ila ‘patita’
+:ṣāṭhīre kaha--tāre chāḍuka, se ha-ila 'patita'
-:‘patita’ ha-ile bhartā tyajite ucita
+:'patita' ha-ile bhartā tyajite ucita
 </div>
@@ Line 18: / Line 17: @@
 <div class="synonyms">
-ṣāṭhīre kaha—inform Ṣāṭhī; tāre chāḍuka—let her give him up; se ha-ila—he has become; patita—fallen; patita ha-ile—when one has fallen; bhartā—such a husband; tyajite—to give up; ucita—is the duty.
+ṣāṭhīre kaha--tāre chāḍuka, se ha-ila 'patita'
+'patita' ha-ile bhartā tyajite ucita
 </div>
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 <div class="translation">
-“Inform my daughter Ṣāṭhī to abandon her relationship with her husband because he has fallen down. When the husband falls down, it is the wife’s duty to relinquish the relationship.
+"Inform my daughter Ṣāṭhī to abandon her relationship with her husband because he has fallen down. When the husband falls down, it is the wife's duty to relinquish the relationship.
 </div>
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 <div class="purport">
-Śrīla Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya considered that if Amogha were killed, the killer would suffer sinful reactions for killing the body of a brāhmaṇa. For the same reason, it would have been undesirable for the Bhaṭṭācārya to commit suicide because he also was a brāhmaṇa. Since neither course could be accepted, the Bhaṭṭācārya decided to give up his relationship with Amogha and never see his face.
+Śrīla Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya considered that if Amogha were killed, one would suffer sinful reactions for killing the body of a brāhmaṇa. For the same reason, it would have been undesirable for Bhaṭṭācārya to commit suicide because he also was a brāhmaṇa. Since neither course could be accepted, Bhaṭṭācārya decided to give up his relationship with Amogha and never see his face.
-As far as killing the body of a brāhmaṇa is concerned, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 1.7.53-54|SB 1.7.53]]) gives the following injunction concerning a brahma-bandhu, a person born of a brāhmaṇa father but devoid of brahminical qualities:
+As far as killing the body of a brāhmaṇa is concerned, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 1.7.53-54|SB 1.7.53]]) gives the following injunction:
 :śrī-bhagavān uvāca
 :brahma-bandhur na hantavya
 :ātatāyī vadhār-haṇaḥ
+:mayaivobhayam āmnātaṁ
+:paripāhy anuśāsanam
+"The Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor, he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly."
-“The Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa said, ‘A brahma-bandhu is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor, he must be killed.’”
 Quoting from the smṛti, Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī comments on this quotation from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam:
-:ātatāyinam āyāntam api vedānta-pāragam
+:ātatāyinam āyāntam
-:jighāṁ santaṁ jighāṁsīyān na tena brahma-hā bhavet
+:api vedānta-pāragam
+:jighāṁ-santaṁ jighāṁsīyān
+:na tena brahmahā bhavet
-“‘An aggressor intent on killing may be a very learned scholar of Vedānta, yet he should be killed because of his envy in killing others. In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brāhmaṇa.’”
+"Even though an aggressor may be a very learned scholar of Vedānta, he should be killed because of his envy in killing others. In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brāhmaṇa."
 It is also stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 1.7.57]]):
+:vapanaṁ draviṇādānaṁ
+:sthānān niryāpaṇaṁ tathā
+:eṣa hi brahma-bandhūnāṁ
+:vadho nānyo 'sti daihikaḥ
-:vapanaṁ draviṇādānaṁ sthānān niryāpaṇaṁ tathā
+"Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for the relative of a brāhmaṇa. There is no injunction for killing the body."
-:eṣa hi brahma-bandhūnāṁ vadho nānyo ’sti daihikaḥ
-“Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for a brahma-bandhu. There is no injunction for killing the body.”
-As far as Ṣāṭhī, the daughter of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, was concerned, she was advised to give up her relationship with her husband. Concerning this, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 5.5.18]]) states, na patiś ca sa syān na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum: “One cannot be a husband if he cannot liberate his dependents from inevitable death.” If a person is not in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and is bereft of spiritual power, he cannot protect his wife from the path of repeated birth and death. Consequently such a person cannot be accepted as a husband. A wife should dedicate her life and everything to Kṛṣṇa for further advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If her husband abandons Kṛṣṇa consciousness and she gives up her connection with him, she follows in the footsteps of the dvija-patnīs, the wives of the brāhmaṇas who were engaged in performing sacrifices. The wife is not to be condemned for cutting off such a relationship. In this regard, Śrī Kṛṣṇa assures the dvija-patnīs in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 10.23.31|10.23.31-32]]):
-:patayo nābhyasūyeran pitṛ-bhrātṛ-sutādayaḥ
-:lokāś ca vo mayopetā devā apy anumanvate
-:na prītaye ’nurāgāya hy aṅga-saṅgo nṛṇām iha
+Such punishment is sufficient for a brahma-bandhu. There is no need to personally kill his body. As far as Ṣāṭhī, the daughter of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, was concerned, she was advised to give up her relationship with her husband. Concerning this, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 5.5.18]]) states, na patiś ca sa syān na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum: "One cannot be a husband if he cannot liberate his dependents from inevitable death." If a person is not in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and is bereft of spiritual power, he cannot protect his wife from the path of repeated birth and death. Consequently such a person cannot be accepted as a husband. A wife should dedicate her life and everything to Kṛṣṇa for further advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If she gives up her connection with her husband, who abandons Kṛṣṇa consciousness, she follows in the footsteps of the dvija-patnī, the wives of the brāhmaṇas who were engaged in performing sacrifices. The wife is not to be condemned for cutting off such a relationship. In this regard, Śrī Kṛṣṇa states in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ([[SB 10.23.31|10.23.31-32]]):
-:tan mano mayi yuñjānā acirān mām avāpsyatha
-“My dear dvija-patnīs, rest assured that your husbands will not neglect you on your return, nor will your brothers, sons or fathers refuse to accept you. Because you are My pure devotees, not only your relatives but also people in general, as well as the demigods, will be satisfied with you. Transcendental love for Me does not depend upon bodily connection, but anyone whose mind is always absorbed in Me will surely, very soon, come to Me for My eternal association.”
+:patayo nābhyasūyeran
+pitṛ-bhrātṛ-sutādayaḥ
+:lokāś ca vo mayopetā
+:devā apy anumanvate
+:na prītaye 'nurāgāya
+:hy aṅga-saṅgo nṛṇām iha
+:tan mano mayi yuñjānā
+:acirān mām avāpsyatha
+Such a separation is never condemned by the supreme will. No one should be envious of the order of Kṛṣṇa. Even demigods support such action. In this material world, one does not become beloved simply by maintaining a bodily relationship. However, one can attain complete perfection by associating in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
 </div>