Bg 8.5 Vs. Constant Practice Of Bhajan -

anta-kAle ca mAm eva |
smaran muktvA kalevaram ||
yaH prayAti sa mad-bhAvaM |
yAti nAsty atra saMzayaH || - BG 8.5

This verse is sometimes used in justification for the idea that smarana is not to be practised by the conditioned and anartha-encrusted jiva. Simply remembering the Lord at the time of death will immediately lead the fortunate soul to Him. Apart from the dangerous issue of being in the right state of mind to call upon the Lord in such an event, this sloka certainly presents a valid proposition that a final remembrance will do the needful.

However, the Acharyas confirm that to attain the goal of manjari-bhava the sadhaka (at an advanced stage) will need to contemplate on their manjari-identity in relation to Radha-Krsna seva. The longer and deeper one does this, the more fixed and established one will become in said manjari-identity. In fact, Visvanatha Cakravartipada confirmed that unless and until one attains the stage of prema, it is possible that one will have to be reborn to continue their sadhana along the lines described in BG 6.40-45. This is all kindergarten stuff for raganuga-sadhakas.

The example of Ajamila may also be quoted in support of the "anta-kAla" theory; Ajamila chanted the name just once at the time of death and he was not even mindful of Krishna/Narayana but of his youngest son, still he was saved by the intervention of the Visnudutas when the Yamadutas came to collect him. But few people seem to pay attention to what took place after Ajamila's near-death experience. He became repentant about all the sinful activities he had committed and resolved to practice sadhana to redeem himself. He travelled to Haridwar and resided in a Visnu-mandir there and applied his mind in the service of Visnu. When he attained siddhi in this pursuit, the Visnudutas again came to collect him to take him to Vaikuntha. He also found that he had attained a form that was suitable for his future environment, and thus he boarded a gold vimana and sped off to his final destination.

But what of Vraja and manjari-rupas? I notice that Madhava has eloquently explained the story of Gopisvara Mahadeva which again shows the need to be established in an identity suitable for one's destination.


This tallies very well with Narottama das Thakura's teachings:

sAdhane bhAvibe yAhA, siddha dehe pAbe tAhA |
rAga mArge ei sei upAya || (Prema-bhakti-candrika 57)

“Whatever you think of during your sadhana, you will attain in your siddha-body. Such is the means on the path of raga.”

sAdhane ye dhana cAi, siddha dehe tAhA pAi |
pakkApakka mAtra se vicAra || (ibid. 58)

“The treasure I covet during my sadhana, I will attain in my siddha-body. It is merely a matter of its being ripe or raw.”

Much is made of a verse contained in BRS:

yathA
purA maharSayaH sarve daNDakAraNya-vAsinaH |
driSTvA rAmaM hariM tatra bhoktum-aicchan suvigraham || 301 ||
te sarve strItvam ApannAH samadbhUtAsh ca gokule |
hariM samprApya kAmena tato muktA bhavArNavAt || 302 ||

For example, “Previously, when all the great sages residing in the DaNDaka forest saw RAma-Hari they developed a desire to enjoy his fine body. Thereafter, they all attained most wondrous womanhood in the land of Gokula, and fully attained their desired Hari, being liberated from the ocean of temporal existence.” - Vrajakisora's translation, BRS 1.2.301-302

Certain mistranslations of this anecdote lead people to believe that the Maharishis attained this goal by the grace and blessings of Sri Rama. However, I do not think that this is true. Taking the above two verses in the context of Rupa Gosvami's writing, we can see that this anecdote is being told as an example of sadhana, implying that one must engage in the sadhana of meditation of these lilas in order to attain the same.

Actually Krishna explains it in the very next verse of the Gita (8.6) -

yam yam vapi smaran bhavan tyajantyante kalevaram
tam tam evaiti kaunteya sada tad bhava bhavita

"Whatever you think of at the time of leaving the body, that you will attain due to your constant thinking of it."

I was not aware that such an absurd interpretation is going around. Why then bother with any sort of sadhana at all, just do some sadhana in your final moments. Say Haribol or something.

Whoever is presenting such an interpretation, they contradict Bhaktivedanta Swami, if no-one else: "Remembrance of Krishna is not possible for the impure soul who has not practiced Krishna consciousness in devotional service. Therefore one should practice Krishna consciousness from the very beginning of life." And on 8.6: "Of course, one’s thoughts during the course of one’s life accumulate to influence one’s thoughts at the moment of death, so this life creates one’s next life. If in one’s present life one lives in the mode of goodness and always thinks of Krishna, it is possible for one to remember Krishna at the end of one’s life."

One who does not engage in the practice of Krishna consciousness (= awareness of Krishna = having Krishna in one's mind = remembering Krishna) from this very moment risks not remembering Krishna at the end.

To be honest, it is not just in the obvious places that this theory goes around, it is a current concept in many a "spiritual" circle including Advaitins, neo-Advaitins, general wishy-washy types of spiritualists and so on. I would think that this is largely put down to the incomplete telling of the Ajamila story, where the story ends after the Yamadutas lose the argument. The same thing goes on with Krsna-lila too, Krsna's story ends after he kills Kamsa, what next? He went back to Vaikuntha?
In any case I do think that saying even a simple "Haribol" at the time of death certainly counts for something, just like it did for Ajamila. After all, the Visnudutas came to "save" him simply for calling his son! Of course sadhana is essential in the general scheme of things. Personally I think it is wondrous if a person chants Nama even once.


I wonder what is Visvanatha's commentary one that verse; does he agree in substance with Bhaktivedanta Swami?

He doesn't really comment on that point at all. The tika is very short. It's available in the GGM if you want to look it up.

Then perhaps we can take it that while Bhaktivedanta Swami's comments are in line with Gaudiya siddhanta in the context of constant remembrance, it seems out of line with the direct translation of the verse which clearly says 'anta-kAle.' This could perhaps lead to troubling controversies about the Gaudiya interpretation of the Gita. I think Advaitaji's contribution of explaining the next verse is sufficient to refute any objection on this point.

He translates the verse as follows:

anta-kAle ca mAm eva smaran muktvA kalevaram
yaH prayAti sa mad-bhAvaM yAti nAsty atra saMzayaH

"And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt."

What's the issue with anta-kAle?

The problem is that Krishna Himself confirms that chanting or remembering Him at the time of death will attain him. Combine that with the incomplete story of Ajamila and:

2 + 2 = 22.

This is why I think Advaitaji's contribution was sufficient to tackle this argument, as the next verse of Gita explains the idea clearly. Rather than be under the (mis)conception that you can do whatever you like and remember God at your death like a good boy, it should be clear that this is somehow not enough and that further sadhana is required in order to gain perfection. This is clearly shown in the story of Ajamila after the argument of the dutas, he went off to Haridwar and perfected himself by performing sadhana.

The question is "What exactly is thinking?" Is thought simply that little tip of an iceberg that flickers in our head, or is it the sum total of what we are?

Though we may believe in the curative powers of the Holy Name, we cannot depend on being able to take shelter of it at the time of death. It's a bad gamble.

But as to constant bhajan, those who do so do it because they love doing it, not because they are afraid of the moment of death.