[Advaita-l] Path of devotion of Shri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swami

[Kaushik Chevendra]

In order to tread the path of devotion, is any special qualification a
sine- qua-non? This is an oft-raised query. A popular verse supplies the
reply in the form of rhetorical questions.

The verse commences with the rhetorical query, “What was Dharmavyādha’s
profession?” Dharmavyādha was a butcher. He carried on his duties without
any attachment and dutifully served his parents. As a result of this, he
was recognized as a great follower of dharma. The Mahābhārata contains a
story about him.

A certain brahmacārin, by virtue of his penance, acquired some powers. A
bird innocently put its droppings on his head. The celibate looked up
enraged and the bird was reduced to ashes. Puffed with conceit at the
spontaneous manifestation of his supernatural ability, he proceeded for bhik
ṣā. He went to a house and begged for food. The lady of the house asked him
to tarry a while as she was serving her husband. This infuriated the
brahmacārin. However, the lady calmly replied, “I am no bird to be burnt up
by you.”

The continent one was amazed that the lady knew about the incident. Humbled,
he sought her guidance. She directed him to Dharmavyādha who gave him
detailed instructions. The teaching was particularly pertinent to the
brahmacārin, who had ignored his obligation to his father and mother.
Dharmavyādha was greatly blessed by the Lord, though his profession was
deprecated by many. Thus, one’s profession poses no restriction for
treading the path of devotion.

The next consideration is age. Should one be of a prescribed age to be a
devotee? The verse under consideration asks, “What was Dhruva’s age?”
Dhruva’s father Uttānapāda had two wives. Dhruva’s stepmother Suruci did
not like him. Once, when he wished to sit on his father’s lap, his desire
was frustrated because Suruci wanted Uttānapāda to fondle her child.
Weeping, he went to his mother Sunīti. Unfortunately, Sunīti was not in a
position to help him. She asked him to pray to the Lord.

With determination in his heart, Dhruva retired to a forest. Sage Nārada saw
the boy and, being immensely pleased with him, initiated him into the
worship of Lord Nārāyaṇa. Dhruva sat absorbed in meditation. So pleased was
the Lord with his love that He manifested before him and declared that he
would earn the love of his father, and later become a great king. The Lord
continued that after his death, he would constantly abide in the firmament
as the pole star. Since Dhruva was a young boy when he obtained a vision of
the Lord, it is clear that there are no age restrictions for treading the
path of devotion.

Is great scholarliness needed? The verse asks, “What was the learning of
Gajendra?” Gajendra was an elephant who lived with his wives. He was a
great devotee of the Lord. One day, a crocodile grasped his foot with its
jaws. A great struggle ensued between the two. The crocodile gradually
gained the upper hand. Despairing for life, Gajendra called out to the Lord
to save him. Lord Viṣṇu rushed to the spot, slayed the crocodile and
liberated Gajendra. Gajendra, an uneducated elephant, was thus able to
acquire the grace of the Lord. Hence, absence of learning is no bar for
devotion.

Should one be high-born? Is it necessary that one should only be a Brahmin
in order to gain the grace of the Lord? The verse asks, “What was Vidura’s
caste?” Vidura was born to a servant-maid. As such, he was not a high-caste
individual. When Lord Kṛṣṇa came to Hastināpura as an envoy of the Pāṇḍavas,
He chose to stay, not in the royal palaces offered to him by the Kaurava
princes, but in Vidura’s house. This shows that the Lord does not regard
low caste as any bar for resorting to and succeeding in the path of
devotion.

Maybe factors such as profession, age, learning and caste do not matter.
But could it be that great grit and manliness are essential? The verse asks,
 “What was Ugrasena’s manliness?” Ugrasena was Kamsa’s father. The demon
Kamsa had imprisoned his father and usurped power. Kamsa’s nephew was none
other than Lord Kṛṣṇa. When He was brought to Mathura, He killed Kamsa in a
duel and restored Ugrasena to the throne. Thus, even one who was lacking in
prowess was graced by the Lord.

Is physical charm something that captivates the Lord’s attention? “Was
Kubjā a bewitching damsel?” is the counter-query contained in the verse.
When Lord Kṛṣṇa arrived at Mathurā, a hunchbacked woman, who was certainly
no belle, offered scents to Him. The Lord was satisfied and blessed her.
Her deformity gave way to beauty. Thus, absence of a delightful appearance
does not preclude the reception of Īśvara’s grace.

People are often pleased by affluence. Is the Lord too like that? The
counter-question in the verse is, “Did Sudāma have great wealth?” Sudāma
was a boyhood friend of Lord Kṛṣṇa. They studied together and later parted,
Kṛṣṇa becoming a royal prince and Sudāma a devoted Brahmin householder.
Sudāma suffered intensely on account of his poverty. However, he bore it
with great fortitude. Unable to withstand the problems of penury, his wife
requested him to go and see his friend, Lord Kṛṣṇa. Overjoyed at the
thought of meeting his beloved friend, he consented.

His wife gave him some puffed rice. Sudāma went and met Lord Kṛṣṇa. The
Lord received him with due honour. Sudāma felt ashamed to offer the puffed
rice he had brought. But Lord Kṛṣṇa was quick to notice it and asked for
it. The Lord began eating it. After some time, His consort Rukmiṇī stopped
him. When Sudāma returned, he found a palatial mansion at the location of
his old, dilapidated house. He saw that his wife and children were
expensively clad. He realized that it was the Lord who had made him
affluent. It is clear that the Lord ignores factors such as richness.

What is God concerned with? He considers only devotion. Where there is
devotion, He is satisfied. It follows that there are no specific
qualifications needed for treading the path of devotion.

Namo Narayana