Śrīmad Bhāgavata 1.13.43

Synonyms

yat — whether [yadi¹³⁹]; manyase — you consider; lokam — human beings [janam]; dhruvam — as eternal [as jīvātmās (jīva-rūpeṇa)]; vā — or; adhruvam — non-eternal [as impermanent bodies (deha-rūpeṇa)]; ubhayam [vā] — or both [as integrated portions of consciousness and inert matter (cij-jaḍāṁśataḥ)]; na ca — or neither [as pure Brahman (śuddha-brahma-rūpeṇa), which, being ineffable (anirvacanīyatvena), defies both categorizations (na dhruvaṁ nāpy adhruvam)]; sarvathā — in all [four] cases [caturṣv api pantheṣu¹⁴⁰]; te — they [your aunt and uncles (pitrādayoḥ)]; na hi śocyāḥ — are certainly not worthy of the grief; anyatra — that has no other cause [ṛte śoka-kāraṇaṁ nāsti¹⁴¹]; snehāt — than affection; moha-jāt — born of delusion [rooted in ignorance (ajñāna-mūlaḥ)].

Whether you consider human beings as eternal, or non-eternal, or both, or neither, in all cases, your aunt and uncles are certainly not worthy of the grief that has no other cause than affection born of delusion.

Notes

139Unless otherwise indicated, this and the following bracketed inserts in verse 43 are Śrīdhara Svāmī’s comments.↩

140Śrīdhara Svāmī. Giridhara, however, takes the words dhruvam adhruvaṁ vā na cobhayam as indicating three views—namely, “permanence” (dhruvatva) [“being”], entailing the mere appearance and disappearance of that which eternally exists (āvirbhāva-tirobhāva nityam); “impermanence” (adhruvatva) [“nonbeing”], the atheistic view that all ends with the termination of life’s events (nāstikās tu adhruvaṁ kṛtakatvād anityam); and “neither absolute existence” (na dhruvam) “nor absolute non-existence” (nāpy adhruvam), which is the nontheistic view (nāstika) of the Mādhyamika Buddhists that phenomena are indefinable (anirvacanīyam) either in terms of “being” or “nonbeing,” and as such, they are “without substantial reality” (mithyā-bhūtam). In this regard, Giridhara adds that in the first case, it is pointless (nirarthaka) to lament for that which is eternal. In the second case, lamentation serves no purpose since it cannot render the impermanent into something permanent. And in the third case also, lamentation is futile because of the insubstantiality (mithyātvāt) of those for whom it is intended.↩

141Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha.↩

SB 1.13.43

Synonyms

Translation

Raise a Query

No questions yet