á¹£Äá¹­hÄ«re kaha — tÄre chÄá¸uka, se ha-ila 'patita'
'patita' ha-ile bhartÄ tyajite ucita

 á¹£Äá¹­hÄ«re kaha - inform á¹¢Äá¹­hÄ«; tÄre chÄá¸uka - let her give him up; se ha-ila - he has become; patita - fallen; patita ha-ile - when one has fallen; bhartÄ - such a husband; tyajite - to give up; ucita - is the duty.


Text

“Inform my daughter á¹¢Äá¹­hÄ« 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

ÅšrÄ«la SÄrvabhauma Bhaá¹­á¹­ÄcÄrya considered that if Amogha were killed, the killer would suffer sinful reactions for killing the body of a brÄhmaṇa. For the same reason, it would have been undesirable for the Bhaá¹­á¹­ÄcÄrya to commit suicide because he also was a brÄhmaṇa. Since neither course could be accepted, the Bhaá¹­á¹­ÄcÄrya decided to give up his relationship with Amogha and never see his face.

As far as killing the body of a brÄhmaṇa is concerned, ÅšrÄ«mad-BhÄgavatam (1.7.53) gives the following injunction concerning a brahma-bandhu, a person born of a brÄhmaṇa father but devoid of brahminical qualities:

Å›rÄ«-bhagavÄn uvÄca
brahma-bandhur na hantavya ÄtatÄyÄ« vadhÄr-haṇaḥ

“The Personality of Godhead ÅšrÄ« Kṛṣṇa said, ‘A brahma-bandhu is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor, he must be killed.’ â€

Quoting from the smá¹›ti, ÅšrÄ«la ÅšrÄ«dhara SvÄmÄ« comments on this quotation from ÅšrÄ«mad-BhÄgavatam:

ÄtatÄyinam ÄyÄntam api vedÄnta-pÄragam
jighÄá¹ santaá¹ jighÄá¹sÄ«yÄn na tena brahma-hÄ bhavet

“ ‘An aggressor intent on killing may be a very learned scholar of VedÄnta, yet he should be killed because of his envy in killing others. In such a case, it is not sinful to kill a brÄhmaṇa.’ â€

It is also stated in ÅšrÄ«mad-BhÄgavatam (1.7.57):

vapanaá¹ draviṇÄdÄnaá¹ sthÄnÄn niryÄpaṇaá¹ tathÄ
eá¹£a hi brahma-bandhÅ«nÄá¹ vadho nÄnyo ’sti daihikaḥ

“Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for a brahma-bandhu. There is no injunction for killing the body.â€

As far as á¹¢Äá¹­hÄ«, the daughter of SÄrvabhauma Bhaá¹­á¹­ÄcÄrya, was concerned, she was advised to give up her relationship with her husband. Concerning this, ÅšrÄ«mad-BhÄgavatam (5.5.18) states, na patiÅ› ca sa syÄn na mocayed yaḥ samupeta-má¹›tyum: “One cannot be a husband if he cannot liberate his dependents from inevitable death.†If a person is not in Kṛṣṇa 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 Kṛṣṇa for further advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If her husband abandons Kṛṣṇa consciousness and she gives up her connection with him, she follows in the footsteps of the dvija-patnÄ«s, the wives of the brÄhmaṇas who were engaged in performing sacrifices. The wife is not to be condemned for cutting off such a relationship. In this regard, ÅšrÄ« Kṛṣṇa assures the dvija-patnÄ«s in ÅšrÄ«mad-BhÄgavatam (10.23.31-32):

patayo nÄbhyasÅ«yeran pitá¹›-bhrÄtá¹›-sutÄdayaḥ
lokÄÅ› ca vo mayopetÄ devÄ apy anumanvate
na prÄ«taye ’nurÄgÄya hy aá¹…ga-saá¹…go nṛṇÄm iha
tan mano mayi yuñjÄnÄ acirÄn mÄm avÄpsyatha

“My dear dvija-patnÄ«s, rest assured that your husbands will not neglect you on your return, nor will your brothers, sons or fathers refuse to accept you. Because you are My pure devotees, not only your relatives but also people in general, as well as the demigods, will be satisfied with you. Transcendental love for Me does not depend upon bodily connection, but anyone whose mind is always absorbed in Me will surely, very soon, come to Me for My eternal association.â€