The Latest

  • tad evaṁ trividhāpi sā punar akaitavā sakaitavā ceti dvividhā jñeyā | tatrāropa-saṅga-siddhayor yasyā bhakteḥ sambandhena bhakti-pada-prāptyāṁ sāmarthyaṁ tan-mātrāpekṣatvaṁ ced akaitavatvaṁ, svīyānyadīya-phalāpekṣatvaṁ cet sakaitavatvam | svarūpa-siddhāyāś ca yasya bhagavataḥ sambandhena tādṛśaṁ māhātmyaṁ tan-mātrāpekṣa-parikaratvaṁ ced akaitavatvaṁ, prayojanāntarāpekṣayā karma-jñāna-parikaratvaṁ cet sakaitavatvam | iyam evākaitavā akiñcanākhyatvena pūrvam uktā | ‘dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo’tra paramaḥ’ ity atra cāsya tad-ubhaya-vidhatve pramāṇaṁ jñeyam | tathoktaṁ—‘prīyate’malayā bhaktyā harir anyad viḍambanam’ iti |
    (Bhakti Sandarbha: 217)

    “Thus, in this way, although of three types [i.e., (1) āropa-siddhā, accomplished (siddhā) by means of attribution (āropa); (2) saṅga-siddhā, accomplished (siddhā) by means of association (saṅga); and (3) svarūpa-siddhā, accomplished (siddhā) by means of its own nature (svarūpa)], that [i.e., bhakti] further is to be known to be of two types: akaitavā (non-deceitful) and sakaitavā (deceitful) [i.e., each of the three aforementioned types of bhakti can be of two types, that is, either akaitavā (non-deceitful) or sakaitavā (deceitful)]. Therein, if āropa- and saṅga-siddhā [-bhakti] are possessed of intent only upon that bhakti by connection with which they have the ability to attain the status of [being] bhakti [i.e., if they are possessed of intent only upon bhakti wherein there is desire for bhakti alone, then] they are possessed of akaitavatva (non-deceitfulness), but if they are possessed of intent upon a result relating to one’s self or relating to another [i.e., relating to anyone other than Bhagavān, then] they are possessed of sakaitavatva (deceitfulness). If svarūpa-siddhā [-bhakti] is possessed of being an assistant to intent only upon that bhakti [wherein there is desire for bhakti alone by connection with which it [i.e., that svarūpa-siddhā-bhakti] has such greatness [i.e., has the quality of being the very essence of all the śāstras as discussed in BKS 169, has the quality of being the highest bliss (paramānanda) as discussed in BKS 3, and so on, then] it is possessed of akaitavatva (non-deceitfulness), but if it is possessed of being an assistant to karma or jñāna on account of intent upon another aim (prayojana) [i.e., an aim other than bhakti wherein there is desire for bhakti alone, then] it is possessed of sakaitavatva (deceitfulness). This exact non-deceitful (akaitavā) [bhakti] was described earlier [in BKS 165, 170, 178 179, and 202 with reference to SB 5.18.12] as being called ‘unconditional’ (akiñcanā). Also, evidence in regard to its [i.e., bhakti’s] being of both types [i.e., potentially being either non-deceitful or deceitful] is to be understood here in [SB 1.1.2], ‘Here [i.e., in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] is the highest dharma completely free from deceit (kaitava)’ (dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo’tra paramaḥ). Similarly, it is stated [in SB 7.7.52], ‘Hari is pleased [only] by taintless bhakti. All else is a sham [i.e., deceitful].’”

    Read on →: tad evaṁ trividhāpi sā punar akaitavā sakaitavā ceti dvividhā jñeyā

  • bhaktis trividhā—āropa-siddhā, saṅga-siddhā, svarūpa-siddhā ca | tatrāropa-siddhā svato bhaktitvābhāve’pi bhagavad-arpaṇādinā bhaktitvaṁ prāptā karmādi-rūpā | saṅga-siddhā svato bhaktitvābhāve’pi tat-parikaratayā saṁsthāpanena … labdha-tad-antaḥpātā jñāna-karma-tad-aṅga-rūpā | svarūpa-siddhā cājñānādināpi tat-prādurbhāve bhaktitvāvyabhicāriṇī sākṣāt-tad-anugaty-ātmā tadīya-śravaṇa-kīrtanādi-rūpā | ‘śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ’ ity-ādau viṣṇoḥ śravaṇaṁ viṣṇoḥ kīrtanam iti viśiṣṭasyaiva vivakṣitatvāt teṣām api nāropa-siddhatvaṁ, pratyuta mūḍha-pronmattādiṣu tad-anukartṛṣv api kathañcit sambandhena phala-prāpakatvāt svarūpa-siddhatvaṁ |
    (Bhakti Sandarbha: 217)

    “Bhakti is of three types: (1) āropa-siddhā [i.e., that accomplished (siddhā) by means of attribution (āropa)], (2) saṅga-siddhā [i.e., that accomplished (siddhā) by means of association (saṅga)], and (3) svarūpa-siddhā [i.e., that accomplished (siddhā) by means of its own essential nature (svarūpa)]. Therein, āropa-siddhā [-bhakti] is that the form of which is karma or otherwise [e.g., jñāna] which, even in the absence of the quality of being bhakti (bhaktitva) within itself, has attained the quality of being bhakti (bhaktitva) by means of an offering [of itself] to Bhagavān and so on [i.e., or an offering of its result to Bhagavān]. Saṅga-siddhā [-bhakti] is that the form of which is jñāna, karma, or a limb thereof which, even in the absence of the quality of being bhakti (bhaktitva) within itself, has attained inclusion in [being] that [i.e., bhakti] by means of establishment [of it] as being an assistant to that [i.e., bhakti, e.g., as the non-attachment of the mind to worldly objects described in SB 11.3.23 is not bhakti in and of itself but becomes a form of bhakti, i.e., saṅga-siddhā-bhakti, because of its functioning as an assistant to forms of svarūpa-siddhā-bhakti]. Svarūpa-siddhā [-bhakti] is that the form of which is hearing, praising, and so forth of him [i.e., Bhagavān] the nature of which is direct attendant service (anugati) to him [i.e., Bhagavān] and which is unwavering in the quality of being bhakti when its manifestation occurs even unknowingly or otherwise [i.e., even without one intentionally performing the action as an act of bhakti to Bhagavān]. On account of specified hearing of Viṣṇu, [specified] praising of Viṣṇu, and so on being intended in [the statement of Prahlāda Mahārāja in SB 7.5.23 listing the nine principal forms of bhakti], ‘Hearing of Viṣṇu, praising [of him] …’ (śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ Viṣṇoḥ …), their also not being āropa-siddha, and rather, [their being] svarūpa-siddha on account of being causes of attainment of the result [i.e., causes of the result of performing an act of bhakti to Bhagavān] by contact of any sort [i.e., their being performed in any manner at all] even in the case of the ignorant, the completely intoxicated, and so on [who happen to engage in such acts for any reason whatsoever], and [even] in the case of imitators of them [i.e., those who engage in these acts only with the aim of imitating others they have seen performing them], as in the case of Śrī Prahlāda’s fasting on Śrī Nṛsiṁha Caturdaśī in his previous birth, and as in the case of the circumambulation of a temple of Bhagavān by a raptor caught in the mouth of a dog, is to be understood, as also similarly is an obeisance performed by an ignorant person on account of a different vision or otherwise [e.g., as is a person’s lying down in a temple in front of Bhagavān for the purpose of taking rest or cooling off in the shade rather than for the purpose of bowing down before Bhagavān as an offering of honor to him].”

    Read on →: bhaktis trividhā—āropa-siddhā saṅga-siddhā svarūpa-siddhā ca

  • kṛṣṇaiśvaryādy-avijñānaṁ kṛtaṁ naiṣām avidyayā |
    kintu premottara-rasa-viśeṣeṇaiva tat kṛtam ||
    (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 4.4.15)

    “Their [i.e., bhaktas’] absence of awareness of Kṛṣṇa’s aiśvarya and so forth is not caused by ignorance (avidyā). Rather, it is caused solely by a particular rasa overlaid with prema.”

    Read on →: kṛṣṇaiśvaryādy-avijñānaṁ kṛtaṁ naiṣām avidyayā

  • aiśvaryaṁ tu nara-līlātvasyānapekṣitatve sati īśvaratvāviṣkāraḥ | yathā mātā-pitarau prati aiśvaryaṁ darśayitvā—‘etad vāṁ darśitaṁ rūpaṁ prāg-janma-smaraṇāya me | nānyathā mad-bhavaṁ jñānaṁ martya-liṅgena jāyate’ ity uktam | yathārjunaṁ prati—‘paśya me yogam aiśvaram’ ity uktvā aiśvaryaṁ darśitam | vraje’pi brahmāṇaṁ prati mañju-mahimā-darśane paraḥ-sahasra-caturbhujatvādikam apīti ||
    (Rāga-vartma-candrikā: 2.4)

    “Manifestation [lit., ‘the uncovering’] of Īśvara-ness [i.e., the powerfulness inherent in Īśvara] while the nature of human līlā is being disregarded is [called] aiśvarya, as in the case when aiśvarya was shown to [Kṛṣṇa’s] mother and father [by him] and then it was stated [by him in SB 10.3.44], ‘This form [of mine] has been shown to you two for the sake of [your] remembrance of [my] previous births; otherwise, because of the mortal [i.e., human] figure [of this form in which I have now appeared], [your] awareness of my being [i.e., my identity] would not arise,’ as in the case when aiśvarya was shown [by Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna] after [his] saying to Arjuna, ‘See my Īśvaric yoga [i.e., see my extraordinary power to accomplish the impossible],’ and also even in Vraja [his showing] thousands of four-armed forms and so forth to Brahmā in the midst of the sight of his charming greatness [i.e., his mādhurya].”

    Read on →: aiśvaryaṁ tu nara-līlātvasyānapekṣitatve sati īśvaratvāviṣkāraḥ

  • atra sārvajñatvaṁ mahaiśvaryam eva na tu mādhuryam | mādhuryaṁ khalu tad eva yad aiśvarya-vinābhūta-kevala-nara-līlātvena maugdhyam iti sthūla-dhiyo bruvate ||2||
    mādhuryādikaṁ nirūpyate | mahaiśvaryasya dyotane vādyotane ca nara-līlātvānatikramo mādhuryam | yathā pūtanā-prāṇa-hāritve’pi stana-cūṣaṇa-lakṣaṇa-nara-bala-līlātvam eva | mahākaṭhora-śakaṭa-sphoṭane’py ati-sukumāra-caraṇa-traimāsikyottāna-śāyi-bāla-līlātvam | mahādīrgha-dāmāśakya-bandhatve’pi mātṛ-bhīti-vaiklavyam | brahma-baladevādi-mohane’pi sārvajñatve’pi vatsa-cāraṇa-līlātvam | tathā aiśvarya-sattva eva tasyādyotane dadhi-payaś-cauryaṁ gopa-strī-lāmpaṭyādikam | aiśvarya-rahita-kevala-nara-līlātvena maugdhyam eva mādhuryam ity ukteḥ krīḍā-capala-prākṛta-nara-bālakeṣv api maugdhyaṁ mādhuryam iti tathā na nirvācyam ||3||
    (Rāga-vartma-candrikā: 2.2–3)

    “‘In this regard, omniscience (sārvajñatva) is only [an instance of] great aiśvarya and not, rather, mādhurya; mādhurya verily is simplicity [i.e., charming unknowing] (maugdhya) on account of the nature of pure human līlā isolated from aiśvarya.’ This the dull-witted say [i.e., the idea that omniscience (sārvajñatva) is invariably an aspect of aiśvarya and is non-existent within mādhurya is erroneous, and the reason for that will now be explained]. Mādhurya and so forth [i.e., aiśvarya] are now to be described [to provide an apt understanding of the nature of both]. Non-contravention of the nature of human līlā in the midst of manifestation or non-manifestation of great aiśvarya is [called] mādhurya, as in (1) the nature of the līlā of a human baby in the form of suckling Pūtanā’s breast even while being the remover of her prāṇas [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa retaining the appearance of a normal human child while sucking the breast of Pūtanā yet also liberating her by drawing the prāṇas out of her body], (2) the nature of the līlā of a three-month old baby with exceedingly tender feet lying on a bed even while breaking apart a very hard cart [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa breaking the cart under which he was placed with his tender baby foot], (3) the bewilderment [he felt and exhibited] in fear of [his] mother even while being unable to be bound by very long ropes [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa crying in fear of punishment from his mother even while defying her attempts to bind him with rope], (4) the nature of the līlā of herding calves even in the midst of [his] omniscience even amid of the perplexity of Brahmā, Baladeva, and others [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa acting like a playful and confused cowherd boy even while self-manifesting himself in the forms of the calves and friends he appeared to be searching for after they were abducted by Brahmā and thus bewildering Brahmā, Baladeva, and all other living beings], (5) and [his] theft of milk and yoghurt, lustfulness for cowherd women, and so on during non-manifestation of [his] aiśvarya indeed amid its presence [in him, i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa stealing milk and yoghurt, pursuing gopīs amorously, and other such acts during which there was no overt manifestation of the aiśvarya inherently and invariably present in him]. On account of the [errant] statement [posited above] that mādhurya is specifically simplicity [i.e., charming unknowing] (maugdhya) on account of [only that being of] the nature of pure human līlā free from aiśvarya, the simplicity existent even among mundane human children thoughtlessly at play is [also to be regarded as] mādhurya [as a result of such an erroneous definition]. Thus, such is unfit to be said [i.e., mādhurya is not an utter absence of any manifestation of aiśvarya but rather non-contravention of the general nature of human līlā irrespective of whether any manifestation of great aiśvarya is co-occurent with it or not because if mādhurya were not defined this in this way and rather as only a state of being limited in awareness like a human being then excessive pervasion [i.e., breadth] of the definition would occur since it would include even common human children engaged in care-free play].”

    Read on →: atra sārvajñatvaṁ mahaiśvaryam eva na tu mādhuryam

  • vyādhasyācaraṇaṁ dhruvasya ca vayo vidyā gajendrasya kā
    kubjāyāḥ kim u nāma rūpam adhikaṁ kiṁ tat sudāmno dhanam |
    vaṁśaḥ ko vidurasya yādava-pater ugrasya kiṁ pauruṣaṁ
    bhaktyā tuṣyati kevalaṁ na ca guṇair bhakti-priyo mādhavaḥ ||
    (An unidentified south kavi; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.593; Padyāvalī: 8)

    “Did the hunter have good conduct?
    Did Dhruva have age?
    Did Gajendra have knowledge?
    Did Kubjā have special beauty?
    Did Sudāmā have wealth?
    Did Vidura have a noble lineage?
    Did the King of the Yadus, Ugrasena, have valor?
    He whose pleasure is bhakti,
    Mādhava,
    Is satisfied only by bhakti,
    And not by qualities [such as those aforementioned].”

    Read on →: vyādhasyācaraṇaṁ dhruvasya ca vayo vidyā gajendrasya kā

Scroll to Top