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:

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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