अहं वेत्ति शुको वेत्ति व्यासो वेत्ति न वेत्ति वा ।
भक्त्या भागवतं ग्राह्यं न बुद्ध्या न च टीकया ॥
ahaṁ vetti śuko vetti vyāso vetti na vetti vā |
bhaktyā bhāgavataṁ grāhyaṁ na buddhyā na ca ṭīkayā ||
(Unknown source; cited in Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.24.322)
“I know. Śuka knows. Vyāsa may know or may not know. The Bhāgavatam is understandable by means of bhakti, and not by means of intellect or by means of commentary.”
Commentary
Numerous editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta contain only the second line of this verse (six out of thirteen checked), and in no edition is any specific source mentioned for this verse, either the first or the second line. One edition (that of Kṛṣṇapada Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja) even includes both lines as separate statements separated by a number of payāras. Thus, without access to the verse’s original context, attempting to ascertain the exact intent (tātparya) of the statement has limited scope. Be that as it may, various commentators have made attempts to do so.
In the editions of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta that do contain the first line, all interpret the statement as being spoken by Śrī Nārāyaṇa, and some say it is an address to Śrī Nārada. The only exception to this is the edition of Śrī Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and those based on it. There the statement is interpreted to be spoken by Śrī Śiva, though no reasoning for this interpretation is offered.
A number of the Sanskrit commentaries on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta explain that the verb vetti following aham means vedmi and is sage’s usage (ārṣa), meaning, it is technically inaccurate to use a third person conjugation for someone speaking in first person, and the first person conjugation vedmi would be considered more appropriate and easily understandable, yet because the statement is considered to originate in a śāstra, it is not said to be faulty but rather presumed to be an instance of archaic usage which is no longer considered grammatically accurate but may have been acceptable within the grammatical social norms in which the statement was originally written. The edition of Śrī Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and those based on it have simply vedmi rather than vetti.
The commentary on this verse in the Sanskrit Ānanda-candrikā-tīkā on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (as presented in the edition published in 1858 by Veṇī Mādhava Deva Vidyāranta) is as follows:
aham iti | he nārada bhāgavatam artha-samūham ahaṁ vetti, ahaṁ jānāmi | śuko vetti śukadevaḥ jānāti | vyāso vetti na vetti vā vedavyāso jānāti na jānātīti vā vismaye | bhaktyā karaṇayā bhāgavatam artha-samūhaṁ grāhyaṁ grahaṇīyaṁ bhavet | na buddhyā, dhyānena na bhavati | ca punaḥ ṭīkayā paṇḍitena grāhyaṁ bhavet |
“[Regarding the verse] aham … [the meaning is explained as follows], O Nārada, I know (ahaṁ vetti) the Bhāgavatam, that is, the multitude of meanings [thereof]. Śuka knows (Śuko vetti). Vyāsa may or may not know (Vyāso vetti na vetti vā). [The particle] Vā is in the sense of uncertainty. The Bhāgavatam, that is, the multitude of meanings [thereof], shall become understandable (grāhyaṁ) by means of bhakti (bhaktyā). It does not become [understandable] by means of intellect (na buddhyā), that is, by means of meditation. Furthermore, it shall not become understandable by means of commentary (na ṭīkayā), that is, by means of scholarship.”
In the Sanskrit Vaiṣṇava-priyā-ṭīkā on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta by Śrī Jagan-mohan Dāsa published in the edition of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta by Śrī Rāma Nārāyaṇa Vidyāratna, it is commented in regard to this verse that Nārāyaṇa makes this statement because of the first manifestation of the Bhāgavatam occurring by means of specifically his [i.e., Bhagavān Nārāyaṇa’s] instruction [to Śrī Brahmā], and it is also said that Nārāyaṇa makes this statement while looking at Śrī Śiva (Śivam ācakṣāṇaḥ iti aham … arthāt Nārāyaṇaḥ vetti jānāti tasyaivopadeśena Bhāgavatasya prathama-sphuraṇāt).
The Sanskrit Anubhāṣya commentary on Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta by Śrī Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī attributes the statement to Śrī Śiva and cites the verses yasya Deve parā bhaktiḥ …, nāyam Ātmā pravacanena …, and tad viddhi praṇipātena … as evidences from the Śruti and Smṛti for the teaching given in the verse. It also interprets the mention of commentary (ṭīkā) in the verse to be a reference to argumentation (tarka; ṭīkayā na ca, na tu tarkeṇety arthaḥ).
The Sanskrit commentary of Śrī Hari Dāsa Śāstrī interprets “not by means of intellect” (na buddhyā) to mean “not by means of deliberation” (na ca buddhyā vicāreṇa), and in the Hindi translation accompanying this commentary it is explained that the essential meaning (marmārtha) of the Bhāgavatam is revealed in the heart by means of bhakti and cannot be understood just by means of intellect and commentary.
As per the context in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Śrīman Mahāprabhu cites this statement to substantiate his praise of Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmīpāda’s bhakti as the cause of sixty-one different meanings of the ātmarāma verse (SB 1.7.10) appearing in his heart:
‘eka-ṣaṣṭi’ artha ebe sphurila tomāra saṅge |
tomāra bhakti-bale uṭhe arthera taraṅge ||
(Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.24.2.321)
“Sixty-one meanings have now manifested because of your association. By the strength of your bhakti, these waves of meaning arise.”
It is thus the second half of the verse under discussion, wherein the essential importance of bhakti is emphasized, that specifically illustrates the point Śrīman Mahāprabhu is making in his conversation with Śrī Sanātanapāda. Regardless of whether the first half of the verse was present in Śrī Kavirāja Gosvāmī’s original writing or Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s conversation with Śrī Sanātanapāda or not, the main point to be understood from the citation of the verse is that in addition to intelligence (buddhi) and study of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam along with its commentaries, bhakti and the grace of Śrī Bhagavān that bhakti alone evokes are essential for anyone to realize the meaning and import of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam as a whole or any of the statements therein. Furthermore, the conclusion should not be drawn from this verse that neither intelligence nor study of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and its commentaries are essential to revelation of its meaning and import. Rather, the point being stressed in the verse is that although intellect and study of the texts and its commentaries are indispensable and conventionally considered most important for understanding Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, they alone are not sufficient, and it is bhakti that is most essential and fundamentally causative of revelation of the text’s meaning and import.
See the Govinda-bhāṣya on VS 3.3.44 and 3.3.45 for further discussion of the interdependence between the grace evoked by bhakti and a sādhaka’s efforts to understand the śāstra.