FolioCorpusŚrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.20.5

गुणदोषभिदाद‍ृष्टिर्निगमात्ते न हि स्वत: । निगमेनापवादश्च भिदाया इति ह भ्रम: ॥ ५ ॥
guṇa-doṣa-bhidā-dṛṣṭir
[guna-dosha-bhidaa-drishtir]
nigamāt te na hi svataḥ
[nigamaat te na hi svatah]
nigamenāpavādaś ca
[nigamenaapavaadash cha]
bhidāyā iti ha bhramaḥ
[bhidaayaa iti ha bhramah]
guṇa — piety doṣa — sin bhidā — the difference between dṛṣṭiḥ — seeing nigamāt — from Vedic knowledge te — Your na — not hi — indeed svataḥ — automatically nigamena — by the Vedas apavādaḥ — nullification ca — also bhidāyāḥ — of such distinction iti — thus ha — clearly bhramaḥ — confusion.
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
guṇa-doṣa-bhidā-dṛṣṭir
guṇa
piety
doṣa
sin
bhidā
the difference between
dṛṣṭiḥ
seeing
nigamāt te na hi svataḥ
nigamāt
from Vedic knowledge
te
Your
na
not
hi
indeed
svataḥ
automatically
nigamenāpavādaś ca
nigamena
by the Vedas
apavādaḥ
nullification
ca
also
bhidāyā iti ha bhramaḥ
bhidāyāḥ
of such distinction
iti
thus
ha
clearly
bhramaḥ
confusion.
My dear Lord, the distinction observed between piety and sin comes from Your own Vedic knowledge and does not arise by itself. If the same Vedic literature subsequently nullifies such distinction between piety and sin, there will certainly be confusion.

In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15) Lord Kṛṣṇa states, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: “By all the Vedas I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I know the Veda as it is.” Vedic knowledge emanates from the breathing of the Personality of Godhead; therefore, whatever Lord Kṛṣṇa speaks is Veda, or perfect knowledge. The Vedic literatures are full of descriptions of piety and sin, but Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement that one should transcend piety and sin is also to be understood as Vedic knowledge. Śrī Uddhava has understood this point and therefore requests Lord Kṛṣṇa to clear up an apparent contradiction. Ultimately, the material world gives the living entities a chance to satisfy their perverted desires and at the same time gradually achieve the liberation of going back home, back to Godhead. Thus material piety must be considered a means and never an absolute end, since the material world itself is not absolute, being temporary and limited. The Personality of Godhead is Himself the reservoir of all virtue and goodness. Those persons and activities that please the Lord are to be considered virtuous, and those that displease Him are to be considered sinful. There cannot be any other permanent definition of these terms. If one becomes a mundane moralist, forgetting the Supreme Lord, one’s position is certainly imperfect, and one will not achieve the ultimate goal of piety, going back home, back to Godhead. On the other hand, there is great fear among moralists that if the distinction between piety and sin is minimized, people will commit many atrocities in the name of God. In the modern world there is no clear understanding of spiritual authority, and moral men consider any appeal to transcend morality to be an invitation to fanaticism, anarchy, violence and corruption. Thus they regard material moral principles as more important than directly trying to please God. Because this point is controversial, Uddhava is anxiously requesting the Lord to give a clear explanation.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
The distinction observed between piety and sin comes from your own Vedic knowledge and does not arise by itself. By rejecting the Vedas with their injunctions and prohibitions as you seem to be doing now, such distinction between piety and sin will be nullified. I will be bewildered. Either way there are difficulties. From the Vedas which are your order composed of rules and prohibitions, arises observation of good and bad. (But then I disregard your order.) By rejecting your own orders, the Vedas, the vision of good and bad will be impaired. I have become confused, since I have not been able to discern your intentions. Therefore remove this confusion.
If the same Veda first names piety vs sin and then nullifies the distinction, confusion follows. Uddhava is naming a real interpretive tension.
Reflection Questions
  • Where have I been confused by apparently contradictory teachings?
  • Could I bring the contradiction to a teacher rather than resolve it alone?
📝 My note

← Read full Chapter 20