Srimad-bhagavatam 1.1.5 with Many Commentaries

(1.1.5)

ta ekadā tu munayaḥ
prātar huta-hutāgnayaḥ

sat-kṛtaṁ sūtam āsīnaṁ

papracchur idam ādarāt

[About the verse: It has been described in the previous verse that the sages headed by Śaunaka were seated for a sacrifice. This was not an ordinary sacrifice but a brahma-satra — a sacrifice in which discussions about the absolute truth were to take place. How did these discussions begin? This verse answers the question.]

One possible Translation:

(te): Those;

(munayaḥ): sages

(prātar huta-hutāgnayaḥ): who had sufficiently offered oblations to various sacrificial fires at day-break;

(tu): (used here as an emphatic particle. More explanation below.)

(ekadā): on a particular day;

(papracchuḥ): asked;

(ādarāt): respectfully;

(idam): the following questions;

(sūtam): to Sūta Goswami;

(āsīnam): who was well seated;

(sat-kṛtaṁ): [and] had been given his due respects;

(Q.1) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘te’?

Ans) This term ‘te’ becomes ‘ta’ when conjoined with the next term ‘ekadā’. Individually, it appears as ‘te’. When it is in combination with the next term ‘ekadā’, then ‘te’ transforms into ‘ta’ according to the Grammar rule — ‘lopaḥ śākalyasya’ (Pāṇini 8.3.19) This is a pronoun and refers to the sages (munayaḥ). No other comments by any ācāryas.

(Q.2) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘munayaḥ’?

Ans) This term means ‘sages’. It is the plural of the term ‘muniḥ’ (sage). This term is defined in the Bhagavad-gītā (2.56) as follows:

duḥkheṣv anudvigna-manāḥ

sukheṣu vigata-spṛhaḥ

vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhaḥ

sthita-dhīr munir ucyate

“One who is not disturbed in mind even amidst the threefold miseries or elated when there is happiness, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage (muni) of steady mind.”

Besides this, Śrī Vijaya-dhvaja-tīrtha says that the term ‘munayaḥ’ means ‘omniscient’. He says that even though they were omniscient, they asked Sūta Gosvāmī many questions to hear from him. Śrī Vallabhācārya and Śrī Giridhar-lāla also say that this term indicates their omniscience regarding Sūta Gosvāmī. The sages knew that ‘This is Sūta named Ugraśravā who knows what we desire to hear.’

(Q.3) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘prātar huta-hutāgnayaḥ’?

Ans) The term ‘prātar’ generally means ‘at morning’. It should be noted that the term ‘huta-hutāgnayaḥ’ is an adjective of munayaḥ (sages). Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda describes ‘huta-hutāgnayaḥ’ as follows — ‘hutā eva hutā agnayo yais te’ — ‘[The sages] by whom the sacred-fires were again and again offered oblations into’. So, ‘prātar huta-hutāgnayaḥ’ means ‘by whom the sacrificial fires were again and again offered oblations at morning’. This phrase ‘prātar huta-hutāgnayaḥ’ thus becomes an adjective of the term ‘munayaḥ’. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura and Śrī Śukadeva repeat Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda.

[Grammatical Technicalities: To grammatically derive huta-hutāgnayaḥ, we first need to derive huta-hutāḥ by using the rule ‘saha supā’ (Pāṇini 2.1.4). Thereafter, a bahu-vrīhi-samāsa can be formed by saying ‘huta-hutāḥ agnayaḥ yais te’ to give huta-hutāgnayaḥ.]

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda goes ahead to say that by repeating the term huta in this phrase, it is indicated that the nitya (sacrifices which need to be performed daily) and naimittika (sacrifices which need to be performed occasionally) sacrifices had been thoroughly performed by these sages on that day. Śrī Vallabhācārya interprets ‘huta-hutāgnayaḥ’ in a slightly different way. He interprets it as, ‘prātar eva hutā eva agnayaḥ punar hutā yeṣāṁ te’, or ‘those [sages] who again offered oblations in the fires which had already been offered oblations once in the morning’.

Śrī Vallabhācārya says that one should not think that offering oblations again in the same fire is against the Vedas. They were vaiṣṇavas and were more interested in hearing the Bhāgavatam and for that reason when they saw that the time is auspicious for such listening, they quickly completed their fire-sacrifice related duties. Later, the same sages will say — ‘karmaṇy asminn anāśvāse’ — ‘We don’t have much faith in the certainty of the success of these fire-sacrifices.’ (Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.18.12)

Another meaning of ‘huta-hutāgnayaḥ’ given by Śrī Vīrarāghavācārya and Śrī Giridhar-lāla is as follows — ‘prātaḥ kāle hutena homārheṇa payoghṛtādi-dravyeṇa hutā agnaya āhavanīyādayo yais te’ — ‘those [sages] who offered oblations (huta) using substances fit for offering (huta) viz. milk, ghee etc. in the sacrificial fires (agnayaḥ) named āhavanīya etc.

[Translator’s Note: One can learn more about the sacrificial fires named āhavanīya, gārhapatya and anvahārya in the Chāndogya Upaniṣat]

Śrī Vijaya-dhvaja-tīrtha however disproves this definition by saying that the term huta has never been used in the standard lexicons for denoting milk, ghee etc.

(Q.3) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘tu’?

Ans) This term is used to add emphasis. The closest that I can think of is the English term ‘however’. So the translation is, “The sages however on a particular day….”

Śrī Vijaya-dhvaja-tīrtha says that this term denotes ‘lokānukampā’, or the compassion of the sages on the people in general. In other words, they were sages but for the benefit of the common people they asked Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī to speak.

According to Śrī Vallabhācārya, this term means ‘pakṣāntara-svīkāra’ or the acceptance of a different opinion. In other words, although the sages were dedicated to the sacrifice, they accepted a vaiṣṇava method of attaining success by engaging in hearing the Bhāgavatam.

(Q.4) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘ekadā’?

Ans) The term literally means ‘once’. Śrī Vallabhācārya says it means ‘once, when the time was suitable for singing the glories of Hari’. Śrī Giridhar-lāla also says the same.

(Q.5) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘papracchuḥ’?

Ans) This is a verbal form derived using the verbal root √pracch. The exact tense used here is ‘liṭ’. Pāṇini says ‘parokṣe liṭ’ (Pāṇini 3.2.115). The meaning of ‘papracchuḥ’ is — “they asked”. Śrī Vijaya-dhvaja-tīrtha says that √pracch is a dvi-karmaka-dhātuḥ (a verbal root which can take two objects) and this justifies why there are two objects — ‘sūtam’ and ‘idam’ in the verse of the verbal form ‘papracchuḥ’.

(Q.6) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘ādarāt’?

Ans) Śrī Vīrarāghavācārya says ‘ādarāt’ means ‘ādara-pūrvakam’ or ‘with due respect’. Śrī Vallabhācārya says that this respect signifies that during any kathā related to the Lord, showing respect is very important. He says that simply speaking high words is not enough. One must also have a proper internal mood.

(Q.7) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘idam’?

Ans) Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda says that ‘idam’ means ‘vakṣyamāṇam’, or ‘the following questions’. These questions will be spoken in the verses which appear after this verse. Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Dāsa Gosvāmī says that the questions were prepared intelligently by the sages, and this is the way in which ācāryas ask questions. In other words, the questions are not asked whimsically but are well thought of.

(Q.8) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘sūtam’?

Ans) Sūtam is an object of the verb ‘papracchuḥ’. It means that they asked the questions “to Sūta Gosvāmī”. At this point, it is important to mention here that Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā goes on a lengthy note about Sūta Gosvāmī’s birth. Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā is a commentator who conforms to the smārta-brāhmaṇa point of view, and hence he feels that it is necessary to clarify some things about Sūta Gosvāmī and his qualification to sit in front of an audience of brāhmaṇas like Śaunaka etc.

Sūta is not only a name but also an indicator of his birth. According to dharma-śāstras, a son born from a brāhmaṇa mother and kṣatriya father is known as a Sūta. Such a marriage is a pratiloma (opposite) marriage and is not recommended in śāstra. Thus, being a Sūta is not an elevated birth. A Sūta is considered the same as a śūdra or sometimes even below that. People with a liberal point of view say that Sūta Gosvāmī being given a higher seat in front of Vedic brāhmaṇas like Śaunaka is an indication that a qualified person, even though born in a lower caste can attain a position higher than the brāhmaṇas.

Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā does not like this and says that quotes a (controversial sounding) smṛti as follows:

śva-carmaṇi yathā kṣīram
apeyaṁ syād dvijātibhiḥ
tathā śūdra-mukhāc chāstraṁ
na śrotavyaṁ kadācana

“Just like pristine milk if presented in a vessel made of dog-skin is undrinkable for the twice-born, similarly elevated knowledge coming from the mouth of a śūdra should never be listened to.”

So Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā raises a doubt, “How is it possible that such intelligent people like Śaunaka etc. listened to the Bhāgavatam from the mouth of Sūta Gosvāmī?”

He replies to the doubt by saying that although Sūta is the name of a śūdra-like caste, this was not the case with Sūta Gosvāmī. He was an exception and not a Sūta by birth. He then quotes a history attributed to the Vāyu-purāṇa (Chapter 62) as follows:

vainyasya tu pṛthor yajñe
vartamāne mahātmanaḥ
sūtyāyām abhavat sūtaḥ
prathamaṁ varṇa-vaikṛtam
aindreṇa haviṣā tatra
haviḥ pṛktaṁ bṛhaspateḥ
juhāvendrāya daivena
tataḥ sūto vyajāyata
śiṣya-havyena saṁpṛktam
abhi-bhūtaṁ guror haviḥ
adharottara-cāreṇa
jajñe tad-varṇa-vaikṛtam
“In the yajña of the great soul Pṛthu Mahārāja, Sūta appeared in his mother Sūtī’s womb as the first pratiloma child. This is because the offerings for Bṛhaspati got accidentally mixed with the offerings for Indra, and these offerings got oblated in the name of Indra by the will of providence. From that sacrifice, a child named Sūta appeared (in Sūtī’s womb). Since the disciple’s (Pṛthu’s) offerings got mixed with the Guru’s (the brāhmaṇas who were guiding Pṛthu) offerings, due to this opposite mixture the first pratiloma child named Sūta was born.”

Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā uses this incident to say that the first Sūta was not born from impure semen but was born from a fire-sacrifice, so he is an exception. He also tries to reinforce his point by saying that in some other purāṇas, the following statement is found:

agni-kuṇḍa-samudbhūta
sūta nirmala-mānasa

“O Sūta! Born from the fire! You are perfectly composed at mind.”

Now, all the while Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā knows that his position can be challenged because Romaharṣaṇa, the father of Sūta Gosvāmī was also known as a Sūta. Romaharṣaṇa was also speaking in front of the brāhmaṇas. How to explain Romaharṣaṇa’s case?

Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that Romaharṣaṇa was also born from the fire. Both Sūta Gosvāmī and Romaharṣaṇa got their qualifications to sit on the vyāsāsana simply by the will of the brāhmaṇas, just like the fire-born Dhṛṣṭadyumna (son of Drupada) got his kṣatriya nature by the will of the brāhmaṇas. Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that another reason for giving the vyāsāsana, which is reserved only for brāhmaṇas to Romaharṣaṇa and Sūta Gosvāmī is that in the Vedas, it is said ‘agnir vai brāhmaṇaḥ’ — ‘the fire-god is a brāhmaṇa’, and hence people born from the fire should be considered as good as brāhmaṇas.

By saying all this, Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā wants to imply that only caste-brāhmaṇas or people born from the fire can occupy the vyāsāsana. If a question is asked as to what will happen if a śūdra-born person occupies this post, Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā warns them by quoting an unknown Vedic text:

vyāsāsanopaveśāc ca
śūdraś cāṇḍālatāṁ vrajet
viprasyaivādhikāro ‘sti
vyāsāsana-samākrame
dharmāṇāṁ śruti-gītānām
upadeśe tathā dvija

“By occupying the vyāsāsana, a śūdra degrades himself to the status of a cāṇḍāla in his next life. Only brāhmaṇas have the right to sit on the vyāsāsana, and to give lectures on dharma, Vedas etc.”

Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that Śaunaka etc. are intelligent brāhmaṇas and they will not give the vyāsāsana to any low-born, otherwise it will go against the Vedic text which was just quoted. The vyāsāsana is reserved for pure brāhmaṇa born souls viz. Vaiśampāyana, Hārīta, Śāntavrata, Mārkaṇḍeya etc. and not for a low-born. Moreover, Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that it does not sound good to hear that great souls such as Śaunaka heard the topmost instructions regarding spiritual life from a low-born. So, Sūta Gosvāmī was not any low-born ordinary Sūta.

If someone objects by quoting the maxim which says that “Knowledge should be taken from any source, just as a jewel can be picked up even from garbage”, then Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā replies to this by saying that this quote is valid only for worldly knowledge.

Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā goes ahead to reinforce his point that Sūta Gosvāmī and Romaharṣaṇa were not low-born by quoting the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (10.78.32) — ‘yady etad-brahma-hatyāyāḥ’ — ‘The killing of Romaharṣaṇa is brahma-hatyā (killing of a brāhmaṇa)’. Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that this verse proves that Romaharṣaṇa was considered as a brāhmaṇa by the sages and this is the reason why they gave him the vyāsāsana. He goes ahead to say that in some other Purāṇas, it is said ‘varayed brāhmaṇaṁ gurum’ — ‘One should select a brāhmaṇa guru for hearing the Purāṇas’.

If a doubt is raised that in India, there are also caste-based Sūtas who recite the Purāṇas, and for this reason they are also known as Paurāṇikas, then Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that they are called Paurāṇikas not because they have the qualification to recite a Purāṇa. They are called Paurāṇikas because they are able to memorize and recite the history of the lineage of the king who is ruling them.

Finally, if someone quotes the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (1.4.13) — manye tvāṁ viṣaye vācāṁ snātam anyatra chandasāt — ‘O Sūta! We consider you expert in all subjects except the Vedas’, to say that Sūta Gosvāmī was not a brāhmaṇa because he did not know the Vedas, then Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that the term ‘Sūta’ used for Sūta Gosvāmī is not an indication of his caste. This verse from the Bhāgavatam only means that he did not know “certain” portions. Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā quotes Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (1.3.40) — purāṇaṁ brahma-sammitam — ‘The Bhāgavatam is Vedic-knowledge that leads to the absolute truth.’ Using this, Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says that Sūta Gosvāmī was actually a brāhmaṇa who had Vedic knowledge, and had the qualification to sit on the vyāsāsana and deliver lectures to other brāhmaṇas.

Śrī Vallabhācārya however agrees that Sūta Gosvāmī was born a low-caste. He says that since it would be uncomfortable for Sūta Gosvāmī to stand and deliver a lecture, therefore he was given a seat as an exception.

(Q.9) Is the conclusion given by Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā acceptable to all?

Ans) Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā’s commentary is named ‘bhāvārtha-dīpikā-prakāśa’ (the light illuminating the ‘bhāvārtha-dīpikā’ commentary of Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda). It is supposed to illuminate the commentary of Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda. I personally consider these sections in Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā’s commentary to be his own digressions. Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda was not speaking at all about Sūta Gosvāmī’s caste in this verse but Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā introduces it in order to make the point that only brāhmaṇas can speak from the vyāsāsana.

In actuality, Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā is contradicting Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda because later in the commentary to Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (1.3.40), Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda will say — ‘atrāvarṇikatvāt’ — ‘Sūta Gosvāmī is an avarṇika (outcaste).’ There itself Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā’s position gets disproved.

Moreover the history which Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā quoted from the Vāyu-purāṇa about Sūta Gosvāmī’s birth is not about Sūta Gosvāmī’s birth at all. It is about the birth of the Sūta caste. Sūta Gosvāmī is a  specific person born from Romaharṣaṇa Sūta. In the same section of the Vāyu-purāṇa (Chapter 62), it is given that,

tasmin eva mahā-yajñe
jajñe prājño ‘tha māgadhaḥ

“In that very yajña the Māgadha class of singers were also born.”

So, Sūta and Māgadha here are names of castes, not of individuals. The name ‘Sūta’ in Vāyu-purāṇa does not refer to the son of Romaharṣaṇa.

Vaiṣṇava-ācāryas like Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī have said that each and every one of us have the right to chant the names of the Lord and study the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says in his Tattva-sandarbha (Anuccheda 15) that — ‘tathāpi sūtādīnām adhikāraḥ. sakala-nigama-vallī-sat-phala-śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmavat’ — ‘In the Purāṇas, lower castes like Sūta etc. also have all rights, just like they have all rights in chanting the names of Lord Krishna, which is the true fruit of all Vedic branches of knowledge.’

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says in the commentary to Tattva-sandarbha (Anuccheda 15) that — ‘itihāsāder vedatve’pi tatra śūdrādhikāraḥ strī-śūdra-dvija-bandhūnām ity-ādi-vākya-balād’ — ‘Śūdras have rights on the Purāṇas and Itihāsas, although these literatures are considered Vedic. This is because in the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam (1.4.25) itself it has been given that this literature has been composed for them.’

Śrīla Gopāla-bhaṭṭa-gosvāmī gives an extremely mature and balanced viewpoint in his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (5.453) as follows:

ato niṣedhakaṁ yad yad

vacanaṁ śrūyate sphuṭam

avaiṣṇava-paraṁ tat tad

vijñeyaṁ tattva-darśibhiḥ

 

“Therefore, wherever restrictive statements are to be found in scriptures [regarding śūdras or women], those statements are understood by the learned souls as applicable to non-vaiṣṇavas only.”

Sāragrāhī vaiṣṇavas consider this verse to be the yardstick for determining what is allowed for a śūdra and what is not. Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī in his commentary on this verse of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa goes in great detail to explain the rights of śūdras and ladies who are now initiated as vaiṣṇavas. Since it is too exhaustive, I will not get into it right here, but it is sufficient to say here that the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava ācāryas do not agree to the conclusions given by Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā.

(Q.10) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘āsīnam’?

Ans) This term is an adjective of the term ‘sūtam’. Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says it means ‘sukhopaviṣṭam’ ([Sūta] who was seated happily). Śrī Vijaya-dhvaja-tīrtha says ‘sukhaṁ pīṭhe upaviṣṭam’ ([Sūta] who was happily seated on the seat). Śrī Śukadeva says it means ‘svastham’ ([Sūta] who was comfortably seated).

(Q.11) What is the meaning and significance of the term ‘sat-kṛtam’?

Ans) This term too is an adjective of the term ‘sūtam’. Śrī Vaṁśīdhara Śarmā says ‘tad-yogya-satkāraiḥ pūjitam’ — ‘[Sūta] who was worshipped according to his position.’

Śrī Vīrarāghavācārya and Śrī Vijaya-dhvaja-tīrtha also says the same. Śrī Vallabhācārya says that they offered him respects despite being a low-born because he had immense respect for the Supreme Lord. Śrī Giridhar-lāla says that giving him the vyāsāsana in itself was the expression of offering respect.