The Latest
- Read on →: ajāta-tādṛśa-rucinā tu sad-viśeṣādara-mātrādṛtā rāgānugāpi vaidhī-saṁvalitaivānuṣṭheyā
ajāta-tādṛśa-rucinā tu sad-viśeṣādara-mātrādṛtā rāgānugāpi vaidhī-saṁvalitaivānuṣṭheyā, tathā loka-saṁgrahārthaṁ pratiṣṭhitena jāta-tādṛśa-rucinā ca | atra miśratve ca yathā-yogyaṁ rāgānugayaikīkṛtyaiva vaidhī kartavyā | kecid aṣṭādaśākṣara-dhyānaṁ go-dohana-samaya-vaṁśī-vādya-samākṛṣṭa-tat-tat-sarvamayatvena bhāvayanti, yathā caike “tādṛśam upāsanaṁ sākṣād vraja-jana-viśeṣāyaiva mahyaṁ śrī-guru-caraṇair mad-abhīṣṭa-viśeṣa-siddhy-artham upadiṣṭaṁ bhāvayāmi, sākṣāt tu śrī-vrajendra-nandanaṁ sevamāna evāsa” iti bhāvayanti |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)“Rāgānugā [-bhakti] too, which is honored just by honoring a particular sādhu [i.e., a particular rāgātmikā associate of Bhagavān], is to be practiced in conjunction with vaidhī [-bhakti, i.e., bhakti directed by śāstric injunctions] by those in whom such taste (ruci) has not appeared [i.e., those in whom taste for a specific form of rāgātmikā-bhakti that produces disinterest in everything apart from such bhakti has not appeared], and [is also to be practiced] by those in whom such taste has appeared and who are established [in society, i.e., those whose conduct is followed by others] for the sake of social cohesion. Also, in regard to this mixture [of vaidhī-bhakti with rāgānugā-bhakti], vaidhī [i.e., bhakti directed by śāstric injunctions] is to be performed befittingly making it one with rāgānugā [-bhakti, i.e., in a manner that supports the sādhaka progressing on the path of rāgānugā-bhakti]. [For example,] Some [i.e., some rāgānugā-sādhakas performing rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti in conjunction with vaidhī-bhakti] visualize a meditation on the eighteen-syllable mantra with [Kṛṣṇa] being accompanied by them all [i.e., all the groups of his associates, viz., Śrī Rādhā and other young gopīs; Nanda, Yaśodā, and other elders; Baladeva and other peers; and so forth] drawn together by the song of the flute at the time of milking the cows [i.e., in the late afternoon when Kṛṣṇa plays his flute as he returns from the pastures into the village with the cows so they can be milked before the end of the day], and accordingly in one [i.e., in the midst of this general meditation] visualize this [integrated specific meditation as well], ‘I am performing such worship (upāsana) [i.e., worship in the form of the aforementioned meditation as enjoined in vaidhī-bhakti], taught to me—[I am who am] directly a particular person [i.e., native resident] of Vraja—by [my] revered guru, for the purpose of attaining my particular cherished object (abhiṣṭa) [i.e., the particular rāga and service to Bhagavān therewith that I aspire to attain]; [in this way] I am directly serving the beautiful Prince of Vraja [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa].’”
- Read on →: śrī-bhagavan-nāma-guṇādiṣu vastu-śakteḥ siddhatvān na dharmavad
śrī-bhagavan-nāma-guṇādiṣu vastu-śakteḥ siddhatvān na dharmavad bhakteś codanā-sāpekṣatvam | ato jñānādikaṁ vināpi phala-lābho bahutra śruto’sti | codanā tu yasya svataḥ-pravṛttir nāsti, tad-viṣayaiva | tathā krama-vidhiś ca tad-viṣayaḥ | tasminn eva nānā-vikṣepavati rucy-abhāvena rāgātmika-bhakti-śailīm anabhijānati, satyām api ‘dhāvan nimīlya vā netre’ ity-ādi-nyāyena yathā-kathañcid anuṣṭhānataḥ siddhau, suṣṭhu vartma-praveśāya kramaśaś cittābhiniveśāya ca maryādā-rūpaḥ sa nirmīyate | anyathā santata-tad-bhakty-unmukhatā-kara-tādṛśa-rucy-abhāvān maryādānabhipatteś cādhyātmikādibhir utpātair vihanyate ca sa iti, na tu svayaṁ pravṛttimaty api maryādā-nirmāṇam, tasya rucyaiva bhagavan-manorama-rāgātmikā-krama-viśeṣābhiniveśāt | tad uktaṁ svayam eva—‘jñātvājñātvātha ye vai mām’ ity-ādinā |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)“Because of inherent potency (vastu-śakti) being existent in Śrī Bhagavān’s names, qualities, and so forth, bhakti has no dependence on injunctions like dharma [i.e., unlike dharma, where acts thereof only have potency because of the injunctions in śāstra to perform them, acts of bhakti have inherent potency in and of themselves]. Therefore, attainment of the result [of performing acts of bhakti] even without knowledge and so forth [i.e., even without understanding what bhakti is, without knowing whether one is performing it, without having an intention to perform it, so on] is heard of in many places [throughout the śāstra]. An injunction, rather, has for its object one who has no propensity of one’s own [to engage in a particular action], and a procedure [governing how an injunction is to be executed] also has that [same] object [i.e., is for the same type of person]. Even though attainment (siddhi) [of the result of practicing bhakti] can occur as a result of practicing [bhakti] somehow or other [i.e., by any means of practicing it, be it uninformed, unintentional, or otherwise] as per the principle [stated] in [SB 11.2.35], ‘Even if one runs with one’s eyes closed, one will not trip or fall here [i.e., one will not fail to attain the result of the practice even if one has no knowledge of it],’ the protocol form [of bhakti, i.e., the systematic form of bhakti motivated by injunctions and prohibitions enjoining and governing the practice of bhakti that is given in the śāstra] is created [in the śāstra] specifically for one who is subject to various distractions and does not understand the conduct of rāgātmikā-bhakti because of an absence of taste (ruci) [for it] for the sake of [supporting such a person’s] proper entrance into the path [of bhakti] and gradual absorption of the mind [therein]. Otherwise, on account of both an absence of such taste (ruci) [i.e., taste for rāgātmikā-bhakti] that produces constant intentness (unmukhatā) upon that [rāgātmikā-] bhakti [for which one has taste] and non-adherence to protocol [i.e., non-engagement in bhakti on the basis of śāstric injunctions and prohibitions], one is ruined by the disturbances related to the self [i.e., those of the body and mind] and so forth [i.e., disturbances arising through other living entities and disturbances arising through the devatās, since someone who does not take up the path of bhakti by one means or the other, be it by taste (in the case of rāgānugā-bhakti) or by śāstric injunction (in the case of vaidhī-bhakti), is sure to inevitably endure various karmic reactions, suffer, and stray from engagement in bhakti]. The creation of the protocol [i.e., the path of bhakti based on śāstric junctions, viz., vaidhī-bhakti] is [thus] not, rather, also for one possessed of a propensity [to engage in bhakti] of one’s own accord because of such a person’s absorption in a particular manner of rāgātmikā [-bhakti] pleasing to the mind of Bhagavān just by taste (ruci) [for that variety of rāgātmikā-bhakti, i.e., because someone with taste for a form of rāgātmikā-bhakti has the propensity to engage in bhakti simply because of that taste, there is no need for injunctions to be imposed on such a person to motive them to engage bhakti, and thus it is understood that a protocol enjoining engagement in bhakti is created only for those who lack a propensity to engage in bhakti, that is, for those who lack taste in some form of rāgātmikā-bhakti]. This is stated by he himself [i.e., Bhagavān, in SB 11.11.33], ‘Having understood, or not having understood, me as far as I am, for who I am, and of what nature I am, those who worship me with a one-pointed (ananya) bhāva are considered by me the best of bhaktas.’”
- Read on →: pati-putra-suhṛd-bhrātṛ-pitṛvan mātṛvad dharim
pati-putra-suhṛd-bhrātṛ-pitṛvan mātṛvad dharim | ye dhyāyanti sadodyuktās tebhyo’pīha namo namaḥ || iti | atra paty-ādivad iti dhyeyasya pitṛvad iti dhyātur viśeṣaṇaṁ jñeyam | tathā mātṛvad iti vati-pratyayena prasiddha-tan-mātṛ-janābheda-bhāvanā naivāṅgīkriyate, kintu tad-anugata-bhāvanaiva | evaṁ pitṛ-bhāvādāv api jñeyam | anyathā bhagavaty ahaṅgrahopāsanāvat teṣv api doṣaḥ syāt | tathā dhyāyanti iti pūrvoktaṁ manaḥ-pradhānatvam evorīkṛtam | api-śabdena tat-tad-rāga-siddhānāṁ kaimutyam ākṣipyate |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)“‘Obeisance and obeisance even unto those in this world who always eagerly meditate on Hari as a husband, son, friend, or brother, or [meditate on him] like a father, or like a mother.’ Here [in this verse from Nārāyaṇa-vyūha-stava], [the word] ‘husband’ and so forth [i.e., as well as the words ‘son,’ ‘friend,’ and ‘brother’] is to be understood as an adjective of the object to be meditated on [i.e., Bhagavān], and ‘like a father’ (pitṛvat) [is to be understood as an adjective] of the meditator. Furthermore, in regard to ‘like a mother’ (mātṛvat) [which is also to be understood as an adjective of the meditator], a meditation of non-difference from a person well known to be his mother [i.e., meditating on oneself as being non-different from a mother of Bhagavān, such as Yaśodā or Devakī] is not accepted by means of the vati suffix [which can in some cases convey a sense of equivalence but in this case should be understood in the sense of similarity and not in the sense of equivalence], and rather, only a meditation of following her is [accepted, i.e., the intended meaning of one meditating ‘like a mother’ on Bhagavān is that one meditates on oneself as a follower of his mother and not that one meditates that one is oneself one of his mothers, such as Yaśodā]. Such is to be understood in regard to the bhāva of a father and so forth [i.e., the same principle applies to those who meditate on Bhagavān on the basis of ruci for the bhāva of a father of Bhagavān or any other type of bhāva in relation to Bhagavānl, and thus in practice one should not meditate that ‘I am Nanda Mahārāja, or, ‘I am Yaśodā,’ but rather that ‘I am a follower of Nanda Mahārāja,’ or, ‘I am a follower of Yaśodā’]. Otherwise [i.e., if those alluded to in the verse under discussion who meditate on Bhagavān ‘like a father,’ ‘like a mother,’ or like another rāgātmikā associate of Bhagavān, neglect to meditate on themselves as followers of they who are well known to be parents of Bhagavān or primary, leading associates of Bhagavān with other relationships with him], [then,] similar to [the fault of] ahaṅgrahopāsanā in relation to Bhagavān, a fault shall occur in them as well [i.e., such meditators will commit a fault similar to the fault of ahaṅgrahopāsanā, that is, taking oneself to be the object of worship, since they in that case would be taking themselves to be bhaktas who are direct eternal manifestations of Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti, that is, those who, in terms specifically of their constitution as svarūpa-śakti, are non-different from Bhagavān]. Furthermore, by ‘mediate’ (dhyāyanti), the aforementioned predominance of the mind [in rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti] is alluded to [as was discussed in BKS 311]. By the word ‘even’ (api) is implied ‘how much more (kaimutya) [shall obeisance be offered]?’ to those in whom those particular rāgas are established (siddha) [i.e., if even sādhakas who meditate on themselves as being followers of those who have rāga for Bhagavān are worthy of honor by means of repeated obeisance, then how much more are siddha-bhaktas possessed of rāga for Bhagavān itself worthy of honor?].”
- Read on →: rāgānugāyāṁ pravṛttir apīdṛśī
rāgānugāyāṁ pravṛttir apīdṛśī—santuṣṭā śraddadhaty etad yathā-lābhena jīvatī | viharāmy amunaivāham ātmanā ramaṇena vai || amunā iti bhāva-garbha-ramaṇena saha | ātmanā manasaiva tāvad viharāmi | ruci-pradhānasya mārgasyāsya manaḥ-pradhānatvāt tat-preyasī-rūpeṇāsiddhāyās tādṛśa-bhajane prāyo manasaiva yuktatvāt | anena śrīmat-pratimādau tādṛśīnām apy auddhatyaṁ parihṛtam | evaṁ pitṛtvādi-bhāveṣv apy anusandheyam ||
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 311)“Engagement in rāgānugā [-bhakti, i.e., the mental, verbal, and bodily performance of rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti] too is such [i.e., is described in another statement of Piṅgalā in SB 11.8.40], ‘Satisfied living in accord with attainment [i.e., remaining satisfied regardless of whatever is encountered] and possessed of śraddhā in this [i.e., in the resolve that I shall attain Bhagavān as my husband], I shall enjoy solely with him [i.e.. Bhagavān], my beloved, by means of the self.’ ‘With him’ (amunā) means with [my] beloved, present in the interiority of [my] bhāva. ’I shall enjoy [with him] “by means of the self”’ (ātmanā) signifies, to be specific, by means solely of the mind because of this path in which taste (ruci) is predominant [i.e., because of the path of rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti] having a predominance of the mind because of generally only the mind being fit for such worship (bhajana) in the case of one who has not become established in the form of [one of] his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] beloveds [i.e., since it is not possible for a jīva to directly serve Bhagavān as one of his beloveds when one has not attained the spiritual form of one of Bhagavān’s beloveds in his eternal abode and one thus remains embodied in a material body bound by time and karma within saṁsāra, it is only possible for a jīva to offer such worship (bhajana) conducive to the attainment of the rāga of a rāgātmikā beloved of Bhagavān for which one has ruci by mentally taking shelter in Bhagavān with the bhāva of being his beloved and offering worship to him in the mind with a mentally conceived form of one of his beloved of Bhagavān in his eternal abode, and thus on the path of rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti, which is based on a sādhaka having ruci for the rāga of one of Bhagavān’s rāgātmikā associates, one’s worship (bhajana), that is, practice of sādhana, is primarily performed in the mind, where one can don a mentally conceived form suited to serving Bhagavān with the rāga for which one has ruci and in that mentally conceived form engage in offering various forms of worship to him in accord with the specific nature of that rāga]. Hereby, the audaciousness of even such in relation to the sacred Deity or elsewhere is repudiated [i.e., the audaciousness of offering to an existential seat (adhiṣṭhāna) of Śrī Bhagavān outside the mind, such as a Deity, the worship a beloved offers Bhagavān, viz., engaging in acts such as dressing one’s gross body as one of Bhagavān beloveds, offering Bhagavān embraces and kisses, etc., is repudiated by Piṅgalā’s statement in SB 11.8.40 that she will enjoy with Bhagavān ‘by means of the self’ (ātmanā), that is, only by means of the mind, and not by means of the body]. Such is [also] to be determined in regard to the bhāvas of paternity and so forth [i.e., no sādhaka with ruci for any form of rāgātmikā-bhakti should engage outside the mind in dressing one’s body as rāgātmikā-bhaktas dress themselves in Bhagavān’s abode or in performing any of the activities that are specific to how such rāgātmikā-bhaktas personally relate to Bhagavān in his eternal abode unless they so happen to match the conventional manner in which one dresses one’s sādhaka-deha, that is, physical body].”
- Read on →: asyā janma-lakṣaṇaṁ bhakti-vyatirekeṇānyatrānabhirucim upalakṣya
asyā janma-lakṣaṇaṁ bhakti-vyatirekeṇānyatrānabhirucim upalakṣya—sā śraddadhānasya vivardhamānā viraktim anyatra karoti puṁsaḥ | hareḥ padānusmṛti-nirvṛtasya samasta-duḥkhāpyayam āśu dhatte ||
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 310)“Indicating the absence of relish [alt., pleasure, inclination, interest, desire] for anything apart from bhakti to be the characteristic of its [i.e., rāgānugā-bhakti’s] appearance [i.e., to be the characteristic of taste (ruci) for a specific rāga and its manners of expression (paripāṭis)], [it is stated in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.5.13]: ‘That [i.e., inclination, meaning, taste, for discussion of Hari], upon flourishing, produces disinterest in all else in a person endowed with śraddhā. The dissolution of all suffering of one who is delighted by continuous remembrance of Hari’s feet is quickly effected.’”
- Read on →: rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā
rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā—suhṛt preṣṭhatamo nātha ātmā cāyaṁ śarīriṇām | taṁ vikrīyātmanaivāhaṁ rame’nena yathā ramā || atra svābhāvika-sauhṛdyādi-dharmais tasminn eva svābhāvika-patitvaṁ sthāpayitvā, parasyaupādhika-patitvam ity abhipretam | anyatra patyāv ‘ekatvaṁ sā gatā yasmāc caru-mantrāhuti-vrataiḥ’ iti chāndogya-pariśiṣṭānusāreṇa kṛtrimam ekātmatvam | tasmin paramātmani tu svabhāvata evety ātma-śabdasyāpy abhiprāyaḥ | evaṁ yadyapi tasmin patitvam anāhāryam evāsti, tathāpi ātmanaiva mūlya-bhūtenaiva taṁ viśeṣataḥ krītvā yathānyāpi kanyā vivāhātmakena svātma-samarpaṇena kañcit patitvenopādatte, tathā bhāvenāśritya anena parama-manohara-rūpeṇa tena saha rame ramā lakṣmīr yathā | tad evaṁ tasyā rāge piṅgalāyāḥ sva-rucir dyotitā ||
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 310)“Taste for rāgātmikā [-bhakti] is as follows [as illustrated by a statement of Piṅgalā in SB 11.8.35], ‘He [i.e., Acyuta, Śrī Bhagavān,] is the friend (suhṛt), the most beloved (preṣṭhatama), the Lord (nātha), and the Self (ātmā) of all embodied beings. I shall purchase him by means of my very self and [thereby] enjoy with him like Ramā [i.e., Lakṣmī].’ In this regard, having established inherent (svābhāvika) husbandhood (patitvam) [i.e., capability to act as a husband in relation to a jīva] in him [i.e., Bhagavān] by means of his qualities of inherent friendship [i.e., his capability to act as a friend in relation to a jīva] and so forth, the conditional (aupādhika) husbandhood of others [i.e., of jīvas in saṁsāra who act as the husband of another embodied jīva] is intended [i.e., is meant to be conveyed by Piṅgalā’s statement in SB 11.8.35]. According to the Chāndogya-pariśiṣṭa, ‘She [i.e., a wife] has attained oneness (ekatvam) [with her husband] by virtue of caru [i.e., a type of oblation], mantras, rites, and vows,’ unitedness (ekātmatva) with other husbands is artificial (kṛtrima) [i.e., the unitedness of the jīva in the body of a woman with another jīva in the body of a man is a unitedness non-inherent in either of them that is created by rituals and resolutions], whereas in relation to Paramātmā, it [i.e., a jīva’s unitedness] is existent altogether inherently (svabhāvataḥ). This is the intention of the word ‘Self’ (Ātmā) as well [in SB 11.8.35, i.e., this is the intent of Piṅgalā’s statement that Acyuta is the Self of all embodied beings]. Thus, although husbandhood (patitva) is indeed non-adventitious in him [i.e., although Bhagavān’s capacity to act as a husband in relation to a jīva is not something some created but rather is an inherent capability in him], still [Piṅgalā states that] specially purchasing him by means of my very self, that is, [with myself] as the price, as other unmarried ladies also accept someone as [their] husband by means of the offering of oneself that constitutes [i.e., is known as] marriage, so I, taking shelter [in Bhagavān] by means of bhāva, shall enjoy with him, he of supremely attractive figure, like Ramā, that is, Lakṣmī. In this way, Piṅgalā’s own taste for her [i.e., Lakṣmī’s] rāga is thus illustrated.”