15.264
sathire kaha--tare chaduka, se ha-ila ’patita’
’patita’ ha-ile bharta tyajite ucita
SYNONYMS
sathire kaha—inform Sathi; tare chaduka—let her give him up; se ha-ila—he has become; patita—fallen; patita ha-ile—when one has fallen; bharta—such a husband; tyajite—to give up; ucita—is the duty "Inform my daughter Sathi to abandon her relationship with her husband because he has fallen down.
When the husband falls down, it is the wife’s duty to relinquish the relationship.
PURPORT
Srila Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya considered that if Amogha were killed, one would suffer sinful reactions for killing the body of a brahmana.
For the same reason, it would have been undesirable for Bhattacarya to commit suicide because he also was a brahmana.
Since neither course could be accepted, Bhattacarya decided to give up his relationship with Amogha and never see his face.
As far as killing the body of a brahmana is concerned, Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.7.53) gives the following injunction:
sri-bhagavan uvaca
brahma-bandhur na hantavya
atatayi vadhar-hanah
mayaivobhayam amnatam
paripahy anusasanam “The Personality of Godhead Sri Krsna said: A friend of a brahmana is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor, he must be killed.
All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly.” Quoting from the smrti, Srila Sridhara Svami comments on this quotation from Srimad-Bhagavatam:
atatayinam ayantam
api vedanta-paragam
jigham-santam jighamsiyan
na tena brahmaha bhavet “Even though an aggressor may be a very learned scholar of Vedanta, he should be killed because of his envy in killing others.
In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brahmana.” It is also stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.7.57):
vapanam dravinadanam
sthanan niryapanam tatha
esa hi brahma-bandhunam
vadho nanyo ’sti daihikah “Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for the relative of a brahmana.
There is no injunction for killing the body.” Such punishment is sufficient for a brahma-bandhu.
There is no need to personally kill his body.
As far as Sathi, the daughter of Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, was concerned, she was advised to give up her relationship with her husband.
Concerning this, Srimad-Bhagavatam (5.5.18) states, na patis ca sa syan na mocayed yah samupeta-mrtyum: “One cannot be a husband if he cannot liberate his dependents from inevitable death.” If a person is not in Krsna consciousness and is bereft of spiritual power, he cannot protect his wife from the path of repeated birth and death.
Consequently such a person cannot be accepted as a husband.
A wife should dedicate her life and everything to Krsna for further advancement in Krsna consciousness.
If she gives up her connection with her husband, who abandons Krsna consciousness, she follows in the footsteps of the dvija-patni, the wives of the brahmanas who were engaged in performing sacrifices.
The wife is not to be condemned for cutting off such a relationship.
In this regard, Sri Krsna states in Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.23.31-32):
patayo nabhyasuyeran
pitr-bhratr-sutadayah
lokas ca vo mayopeta
deva apy anumanvate
na pritaye ’nuragaya
hy anga-sango nrnam iha
tan mano mayi yunjana
aciran mam avapsyatha Such a separation is never condemned by the supreme will.
No one should be envious of the order of Krsna.
Even demigods support such action.
In this material world, one does not become beloved simply by maintaining a bodily relationship.
However, one can attain complete perfection by associating in Krsna consciousness.