Ācārya kesarī Śrīla Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī refuted the doctrines of the smārtas, who are bereft of devotion, while he was preaching śuddha-bhakti in vast religious assemblies in West Bengal’s Medinīpura, Caubīsa Paraganā, Barddhamān, Kūcabihāra, Māthābhāṅgā and also in Assam. I [the author] am presenting herein whatever ideas I recorded from those speeches in my notebook.
Smārtas are those who know and follow the smṛti-śāstras, or scriptures of prescribed regulations manifested by four-headed Brahmā, Nārada, Vyāsa, Manu, Yājñavalkya and others, for executing the practical duties of life. There are two kinds of smṛti-śāstra : laukika, worldly, and pāramārthika, transcendental. Pāramārthika-smṛtis are those smṛti-śāstras which support the regulations of the principal subject, namely, bhagavad-bhakti, which is established in the Vedas, Upaniṣads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. Laukika smṛti-śāstras neglect the confidential purport of the scriptures and only prescribe regulations for protecting the gross social shackles.
Fundamentally, Smṛti is one. In course of time, it was divided because of the distinction between ṛṣis and munis who were inclined towards the service of Bhagavān (bhagavat-unmukha) and those who were averse to Bhagavān (bhagavat-vimukha). Those very rare people who have regard for the statements of pāramārthika-smṛti are called śuddha-smārtas, or Vaiṣṇavas. The majority of people in this world are averse to Hari and maintain the conception that the gross body is the self. Those who honour the statements of laukika-smṛti, which are geared to benefitting the body and mind, are known as smārtas. They forget Bhagavān and perform various types of activities only for their own enjoyment, with the understanding, ‘I (the ātmā) am the gross and subtle body ’. Various kinds of laws have been given in the Smṛti in order to instruct those jīvas who are not surrendered to Bhagavān or under the guidance of His devotees, and who are dedicated to their bodies. Such people are always absorbed in mundane activities, and in order to fulfil their selfish interests, they are perpetually engaged in inappropriate behaviour such as telling lies, cheating others, stealing and perpetrating violence. To curb their base pursuits, smṛti-śāstras has given many strict injunctions, which do not pertain to the jīva’s eternal nature (nitya-dharma). These regulations have been presented in relation to some particular circumstance (naimittika-dharma).
In contrast, all activities in relation to Bhagavān are eternal, because Bhagavān is the enjoyer of the fruit of all activities. All such activities are performed with the aim and object of pleasing Bhagavān, and will continue to be performed in the future and for time eternal. The worldly smṛti-śāstra mentions duties such as dāya-bhāga (sharing inheritance), saṁskāras (rites for purification), śuddhi-nirṇaya (arbitrations and judgements), prāyaścitta (purificatory activities for penance and atonement) and śrāddha (making offerings to the ancestors). These are only relevant for the duration of one’s human life; and it is the worshipper, not Bhagavān, who is the enjoyer of these activities. These laukika smṛti-śāstras do not mention any regulations for the spiritual welfare of the jīvas. Their vratas, such as the Durgā festival and Ekādaśī, and their śrāddha, saṁskāras, etc., are all for material enjoyment and liberation, and are therefore circumstantial.
Unlike the smārtas, Vaiṣṇavas are surrendered to Bhagavān. The purpose of all their activities is bhagavat-sevā, and therefore they are non-envious and unwavering. They give respect to all jīvas, because they understand that the living entity is the servant of Bhagavān. There is not the slightest desire in their hearts to become great personalities in this world, to make others insignificant, or to acquire prestige in this life and the heavenly planets in the next, by performing sacrifice, meditation, austerity, japa, śrāddha and tarpaṇa (offerings of foodstuffs and water to forefathers and demigods), pilgrimages to holy places and giving offerings for the worship of the demigods. They do not even have the expectation of attaining deliverance from the cycle of birth and death and becoming liberated. If the service of their worshipful Lord may be attained by taking millions of births, and even by taking up residence in hell, then that is the object of their prayers. Their pleasure lies only in the pleasure of Bhagavān. Even great ṛṣis and munis do not know the glories of pure devotees and pure bhakti.
In the Sixth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, we hear of a debate that took place in ancient times between Vaiṣṇavas (the associates of Viṣṇu) and smārtas (the Yamadūtas) concerning Ajāmila. Yamarāja told the Yamadūtas, “What to speak of others, even Jaiminī, Manu and other prominent karma-kāṇḍa ṛṣis and munis do not realize the glories of the devotees of the Supreme Lord within their hearts, because their intelligence is enchanted by the sweet, flowery statements of the three Vedas. Their power of discrimination is bewildered by daivī-māyā, the illusory potency of the Lord. Therefore, they praise the ostentatious and costly activities mentioned in Smṛti.”
“Kāmukāḥ paśyanti kāminī-mayaṁ jagat – sensual persons see the world as being full of amorous women.” In accordance with this logic, and coupled with their conception of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ in relation to the material body, smārtas even attribute various types of defects to the devotional endeavours of pure devotees. They consider the foot-bathing water of Viṣṇu and Vaiṣṇavas to be ordinary water. They think that Śrī Nārāyaṇa (Śrī Śālagrāma) can be contaminated by the touch of a śūdra and can then be purified and again made suitable for worship by performing rituals with pañca-gavya, five pure products from a cow. In other words, they have the base conception that even in the direct form of Bhagavān, a defect can arise as a result of being touched, and that Bhagavān can be made pure by cow dung and so on.
In addition to this, smārtas consider Vaiṣṇavas to belong to a mundane caste or creed. They consider bhagavat-prasāda to be ordinary lentils and rice that can become contaminated. They think that even the caste of guru and Bhagavān is destroyed by accepting or offering to Bhagavān grains that have been cooked by a non-brāhmaṇa disciple. They consider bhagavad-bhakti to consist of activities such as accepting only rice from uncooked paddy, taking bath three times a day and wearing a silk dhoti. Furthermore, they understand Vaiṣṇavas to be ordinary living entities bound by their karma. They worship various demigods and their consorts; they think that dharma is subservient to society; and they have great respect for a society that is opposed to Bhagavān. This is their misfortune.
In the Garuḍa Purāṇa, the glories of the devotees of Viṣṇu have been described:
brāhmaṇānāṁ sahasrebhyaḥ
satrayājī viśiṣyate
satrayāji-sahasrebhyaḥ
sarva-vedānta pāragaḥ
sarva-vedānta-vit-koṭyā
viṣṇu-bhakto viśiṣyate
vaiṣṇavānāṁ sahasrebhyaḥ
ekāntyeko viśiṣyateOne sacrificial priest is superior to one thousand brāhmaṇas, one scholar of all Vedānta is better than one thousand sacrificial priests, one devotee of Viṣṇu is superior to millions of Vedāntic scholars, and one unalloyed devotee is superior to thousands of Vaiṣṇavas.
aho bata śva-paco ’to garīyān
yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam
tepus tapas te juhuvuḥ sasnur āryā
brahmānūcur nāma gṛṇanti ye te
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.33.7)Oh, what more can I say about the superiority of those persons who chant the holy name? Those on whose tongues Your name is manifest are the best of all, even though they may have appeared in a family of outcastes. Their brahminical qualifications have already been perfected in many past births, because those topmost persons who utter Your name have already observed all brahminical activities, such as austerity, ceremonial sacrifices, bathing in the holy places, perfecting virtuous conduct and studying the Vedas.
na me priyaś caturvedī
mad-bhaktaḥ śvapacaḥ priyaḥ
tasmai deyaṁ tato grāhyaṁ
sa ca pūjyo yathā hyaham
Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (10.91)The catur-vedī brāhmaṇa who is learned in all four Vedas but bereft of bhakti is not dear
to Me, but My devotee is extremely dear to Me, even though he may have taken birth in a
family of outcastes. He is a worthy recipient of charity, and his mercy should be accepted. He is certainly as worshipful as I am.
bhagavad-bhakti-hīnasya jātiḥ
śāstraṁ japas-tapaḥ
aprāṇasyeva dehasya
maṇḍanaṁ loka-rañjanaṁ
suciḥ sad-bhakti-dīptāgni-
dagdha-durjāti-kalmaṣaḥ
śvapāko ’pi budhaiḥ ślāghyo
na vedāḍhyo ’pi nāstikaḥ
Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya (3.11–12)Those who are of good character and whose sins have already been destroyed by the blazing fire of genuine bhakti are to be honoured by highly learned scholars, though they may be outcastes by birth. On the other hand, one may be a scholar of the Vedas, but if he is an atheist, he is not worthy of respect. The high birth, scriptural learning, utterance of mantras and austerities of a person who is devoid of bhakti are like the decorations on a dead body ; they are of no use. Such external practices are only for the sake of charming common people.
viṣṇu-bhakti-vihīnā yecaṇḍālāḥ parikīrtitāḥ
caṇḍālā api te śreṣṭhā
hari-bhakti-parāyaṇāḥ
Bṛhan-nāradīya Purāṇa, quoted in Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 100)Persons devoid of viṣṇu-bhakti are outcastes. In contrast, those who are dedicated to bhagavad-bhakti are the greatest personalities, even though they may have appeared in outcaste families.
śvapaco ’pi mahīpāla
viṣṇorbhakto dvijādhikaḥ
viṣṇu-bhakti vihīno yo
dvijatiḥ ca śvapacādhikaḥ
Nāradīya Purāṇa, quoted in Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 100)O King, even an outcaste who is a devotee of Viṣṇu is superior to a brāhmaṇa devoid of bhakti. Moreover, a sannyāsī who is devoid of viṣṇu-bhakti is even more wretched than an outcaste.
The authentic scriptures have established daiva-varnāśrama, the theistic social order, not adaiva-varnāśrama, the secular social order. In the modernistic adaiva-varnāśrama system, only the son of a brāhmaṇa is a brāhmaṇa, whether he has the proper brahminical qualities or not. However in daiva-varnāśrama, one’s brahminical status is determined by one’s qualities and activities. Brāhmaṇas are considered to have appeared from the mouth of Lord Brahmā, the first preacher of Vedic knowledge. One who does not study the Vedas can never be a brāhmaṇa, although he may have taken birth in a dynasty of brāhmaṇas. The only genuine brāhmaṇa is a person who follows the righteous conduct of Brahmā, that is, a person who is completely dedicated to brahma in thoughts and in all ways, and who knows or is searching for brahma-tattva. In Bhagavad-gītā (4.13), the social orders have been accepted according to the qualities and behaviour of the individual: cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ / tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhy akartāram avyayam.
It has also been stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.11.35):
yasya yal lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ
puṁso varṇābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta
tat tenaiva vinirdiśetIn other words, if a person has all the qualities characterizing a particular caste in human society, it should be understood he is of the caste for which he is qualified, even if he took birth in another. (Varṇa must not be determined by birth alone.)
sthito brāhmaṇa-dharmeṇa
brāhmaṇyam upajīvati
kṣatriyo vātha vaiśyo vā
brahma-bhūyaṁ sa gacchati
Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana-parva 143.8)Nīlakaṇṭha (Śiva) speaks thus: Kṣatriyas or vaiśyas who observe brahminical behaviour and spend their days living in accordance with brahminical conduct (brahma-vṛtti ) can achieve the position of brāhmaṇas.
Śruti establishes this same point in the discussion between Satyakāma Jābāla and Gautama, as described in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (4.4.4–5):
taṁ hovāca kiṁ gotro nu saumayasīti, sa hovāca, nāham etad veda bho yad gotro ’hamsmi, apṛcchaṁ mātaraṁ, sā mā pratyabravīt—vahvahaṁ carantī paricāriṇī yauvane tvāmalabhe, sā 'hametanna veda yad gotros tvam asi, jabālā tu nāmā aham asmi, satyakāmo nāma tvam asīti, so ’haṁ satyakāmo jābālo ’smi bho iti. taṁ hovāca, naitad brāhmaṇo vivaktumarhati, samidhaṁ
saumyāhara, upa tvā neṣye na satyādgā iti.
Gautama said to Satyakāma, “O saumya (brāhmaṇa), from which gotra (genealogical caste) are you?”
He replied, “I do not know what my gotra is. When I asked my mother, she told me, ‘I do not know to which dynasty (gotra) you belong. In my youth, I was a maidservant for many men when I begot you as my son. My name is Jabālā and your name is Satyakāma.’ Thus I am Satyakāma Jābāla.”
Gautama exclaimed, “Dear child, one who is not a brāhmaṇa cannot speak the truth as you have; thus you are a brāhmaṇa. O saumya (dvija – twice-born), bring wood for the sacrifice and I will perform your sacred thread ceremony (upanāyana saṁskāra). Never deviate from the truth.”
Śrī Ṛṣabhadeva, who was an incarnation of Bhagavān, had one hundred sons of whom eighty-one were brāhmaṇas accomplished in knowledge of Veda, nine (the Nava-yogendras) were mahā-bhāgavatas, and the remainder were kṣatriyas. Among the sons who were kṣatriyas, Bhārata, who was decorated with all desirable qualities, was the emperor. India was named Bhārata-varṣa after him. Here also we see that the divisions of varṇa are determined according to the qualities and activities found in the many sons of one father.
[CC-by-ND GVP]