अन्याभिलाषिताशून्यं ज्ञानकर्माद्यनावृतम् ।
आनुकूल्येन कृष्णानुशीलनं भक्तिरुत्तमा ॥
anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam |
ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā ||
(Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.1.11)
“Continuous action for [alt., related to] Kṛṣṇa possessed of favorability that is free from desirousness of anything else and unobstructed by jñāna, karma, and so forth, is uttamā (exalted) bhakti.”
Commentary
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī comments:
atha tasyā lakṣaṇaṁ vadann eva grantham ārabhate anyeti | anuśīlanam atra kriyā-śabdavad-dhātvartha-mātram ucyate | dhātvarthaś ca dvividhaḥ, pravṛtti-nivṛtty-ātmakaḥ kāya-vāṅ-mānasīyas tat-tat-ceṣṭā-rūpaḥ, prīti-viṣādātmako mānasas tat-tad-bhāva-rūpaś ca | sattvāsattve tu parasparopamarditatvāc ceṣṭāntargata eva |
“Now, the author begins the text [i.e., Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu] with this verse (anyābhilāṣītā … ) stating specifically its [i.e., uttama-bhakti’s] characteristics. [The word] Anuśīlanam here refers only to action (dhātvartha) [lit., ‘the (signified) object (artha) of a (verbal) root (dhātu)’], like the word kriyā. An action (dhātvartha) is of two types: one [type is] of the nature of various activities (ceṣṭās) of the body, speech, and mind constituted [either] of a positive engagement (pravṛtti) or a disengagement (nivṛtti), and one [type is] of the nature of various states (bhāvas) of mind constituted [most fundamentally] of [either] pleasure or dejection. An action (dhātvartha) in the sense of existing or non-existing is included only among the activities (ceṣṭās) [i.e., not among the states of mind] because of [their] being mutually annulling [i.e., because existing is an act of annulling non-existing, and non-existing is an act of annulling existing].
tad evaṁ sati kṛṣṇa-sambandhi kṛṣṇārthaṁ vānuśīlanaṁ kṛṣṇānuśīlanam iti | tat-sambandha-mātrasya tādarthyasya vā vivakṣitatvād guru-pādāśrayādau bhāva-rūpasyāpi kroḍīkṛtatvāt tat-sthāyini vyabhicāriṣu ca bhāveṣu nāvyāptiḥ |
“Since this is such, anuśīlanam [i.e., action] related to Kṛṣṇa, or, for Kṛṣṇa’s sake, is [called] Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam. Because of the bhāva form [of anuśīlana] also being embraced [i.e., included] in taking shelter at the feet of guru and so forth [i.e., in all the various forms of sādhana-bhakti, which begin with taking shelter at the feet of guru] on account of a relation specifically with him [i.e., Kṛṣṇa] or dedication to him being intended [i.e., being the intention for the enactment of those actions], there is no lack of pervasion (avyāpti) in regard to the sthāyi- and vyabhicāri-bhāvas [i.e., there is no excessive narrowness in the aforementioned definition of anuśīlana because it does include sthāyi- and vyabhicāri-bhāvas within its scope].
etac ca kṛṣṇa-tad-bhakta-kṛpayaika-labhyaṁ, śrī-bhagavataḥ svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti-rūpam, ato’prākṛtam api kāyādi-vṛtti-tādātmyenaiva tatra tatrāvirbhūtam iti jñeyam | agre tu spaṣṭīkariṣyate |
“This [i.e., Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam], furthermore, is attainable only by the grace of Kṛṣṇa and his bhakta, and is of the nature of a vṛtti (function) of Śrī Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti. Therefore, although it is supramundane (aprākṛta), solely by tādātmya [i.e., an acquired, partial state of oneness wherein underlying ontological difference remains] with the vṛttis of the body and forth [i.e., and those of speech and the mind] it becomes manifest there throughout [i.e., in the actions of the body, speech, and mind]. Ahead this will certainly be clarified [principally in BRS 1.3.1].
kṛṣṇa-śabdaś cātra svayaṁ bhagavataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇasya tad-rūpāṇāṁ cānyeṣām api grāhakaḥ | tāratamyaṁ cāgre vivecanīyam |
“The word Kṛṣṇa here, furthermore, is an indicator of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa and of other forms of his as well. The gradation [between them] is also to be discussed ahead [in BRS 2.1.220–224].
tatra bhakti-mātratva-siddhy-arthaṁ viśeṣaṇam ānukūlyeneti prātikūlye bhaktitvāprasiddheḥ | ānukūlyaṁ cāsminn uddeśyāya śrī-kṛṣṇāya rocamānā pravṛttiḥ | prātikūlyaṁ tu tad-viparītaṁ jñeyam | tṛtīyā ceyaṁ viśeṣaṇa eva, na tūpalakṣaṇe |
“Therewith [i.e., in connection with Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam], the modifier ’possessed of favorability’ [lit., ‘with favorability’] (ānukūlyena) is for the purpose of establishing the distinctiveness (mātratva) of bhakti [i.e., for the purpose of delimiting the meaning of the word bhakti by clarifying the exact constitution of bhakti’s distinct, specific nature] because of the non-existence of bhaktitva [lit., ‘bhakti-ness,’ i.e., the distinct, specific nature of bhakti] in unfavorability (prātikūlya). “Favorability” (ānukūlya), furthermore, in this [i.e., in regard to bhaktitva, the distinct, specific nature of bhakti] means action (pravṛtti) pleasing to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the beneficiary [i.e., the object for whom the action is performed, meaning, the person it is meant to please]. “Unfavorability” (prātikūlya), on the contrary, is to be understood as the opposite of this [i.e., of favorability, and thus is excluded from the distinct, specific nature of bhakti]. The [usage of the] third case [in the word ānukūlyena] is only as a modifier (viśeṣaṇa), and not, rather, as a indicator (upalakṣaṇa) [i.e., ‘with favorability’ (ānukūlyena) is stated with the intention of conveying that favorability is an inherent characteristic of bhakti and not merely an extrinsic incidental characteristic thereof].
tataś ca yathā śastriṇaḥ samānayety ukte śastrāṇām api samānayanaṁ prasajyate, tathānukūlyasyāpi bhaktitva-vidhānam | na tu śastriṇo bhojayety atra śastrāṇām abhojanavat tad-avidhānam |
“Therefore, furthermore, as when it is said, ‘Bring the weapon-bearers,’ bringing the weapons as well follows [i.e., bringing both the bearers and the weapons they are bearing is implied and understood to be part of the command], so too does favorability’s also being performed in bhaktitva [i.e., action possessed of favorability (ānukūlya) is understood to be an inherent aspect of bhakti’s distinct specific nature], and not, rather, non-performance thereof, like the non-eating of weapons, in the case of [the statement],‘Feed the weapon-bearers’ [i.e., when it is said, ‘Feed the weapon-bearers,’ it is implied and understood that one is not being commanded to feed the weapons as well, but in the case of speaking of bhakti with favorablity (ānukūlya), such an implied and understood exclusion of a concomitant manner of acting, viz., acting with favorability, is not implied].
nanv ānukūlyaṁ bhaktir ity evāstām | tataś ca rājāyaṁ gacchatīty atra rāja-padena tat-parikarāṇāṁ grahaṇaṁ syāt |
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, let favorability (ānukūlya) be bhakti itself, and thus [you have a case just] as in [the statement], “The king goes,” [where] by the word ‘king,’ understanding of his attendents [also going along with him] shall [also] occur [i.e., if action possessed of favorability (ānukūlya) is be understood to be the inherently present and implied defining aspect of bhakti’s nature (bhaktitva), then there is no need to use the word anuśīlana in this definition of bhakti because activity is automatically implied by usage of the word ‘with favorability’ (ānukūlyena) just as it is implied that attendants accompany a king when it is said that a king travels].’
satyaṁ, tathāpi dhātvartha-bhedānāṁ spaṣṭā pratipattir na syād iti dhātvartha-mātra-grahaṇāyānuśīlana-padam upādīyate | anv iti padaṁ cānukūlye jāte muhur eva śīlanaṁ syād ity abhiprāyeṇa kṛtam | tad etat svarūpa-lakṣaṇam |
“[In response to this objection, it should be said:] True. Still, clear understanding of a variety of actions (dhātvarthas) would not occur [if the word anuśīlana were not included in the definition]. Thus, for the sake of indicating only action (dhātvartha) [in general, which may be of any particular form and broadly classed as an activity (ceṣṭā) or state of mind (bhāva)] the word anuśilana is used. Also, the word [i.e., prefix] anu [in the word anuśīlana] is included with the intention that when favorability (ānukūlya) is present, śīlana [i.e., action related to, or, for the sake of, Kṛṣṇa] shall always be continuous [i.e., bhakti’s nature is such that it is action which is continuously, that is, always without exception, constituted of favorability to Kṛṣṇa, that is, whatever form it may take, it always retains this characteristic of favorability]. Therefore, this [i.e., ānukūlyena Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam, meaning, continuous action, with favorability, related to, or, for the sake of, Kṛṣṇa] is the intrinsic characteristic (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) [of bhakti].
uttamātva-siddhy-arthaṁ tu taṭastha-lakṣaṇena viśeṣaṇa-dvayam anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam iti | atrānyeti bhakty-ekābhilāṣeṇa yuktam ity arthaḥ |
“To establish the exaltedness (uttamātva) [of bhakti], however, there are two modifiers with extrinsic characteristics (taṭastha-lakṣaṇas) [i.e., the two extrinsic characteristics of bhakti are also stated in the definition]: anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ … [i.e., and jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam]. Here, anya … [i.e., the modifier anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ] means possessed of desire only for bhakti [i.e., the bhakti being defined in this verse, and one who performs it, is free from desire for anything other than bhakti].
jñānam atra nirbheda-brahmānusandhānaṁ, na tu bhajanīya-tattvānusandhānam api, tasyāvaśyāpekṣaṇīyatvāt | karma cātra smṛtyādy-uktaṁ nitya-naimittikādi, na tu bhajanīya-paricaryādi, tasya tad-anuśīlana-rūpatvāt | ādi-śabdena vairāgya-yoga-sāṅkhyābhyāsādayaḥ |
“[The word] Jñāna here means inquiry into undifferentiated Brahman, and not, rather, inquiry into the nature (tattva) of the object of devotion (bhajanīya) [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] as well, because of its [i.e., such inquiry into the object of devotion] being absolutely necessary. [The word] Karma here means the regular duties, incidental duties, and so forth stated in the Smṛtis and other texts, and not, rather, attendance and so forth to the object of devotion (bhajanīya) [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] because of its [i.e., such attendance and so forth’s] being a form of anuśīlana [i.e., continuous favorable action] to him [i.e., to the object of devotion, Śrī Kṛṣṇa]. By the word ādi [in the modifier jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam], renunciation (vairāgya), yoga [i.e., aṣṭāṅga-yoga], sāṅkhya [i.e., discernment of the self and non-self], abhyāsa [i.e., repeated practice of steadying the mind], and so forth [are indicated].
atra śrī-kṛṣṇānuśīlanaṁ kṛṣṇa-bhaktir iti vaktavye bhagavac-chāstreṣu kevalasya ca bhakti-śabdasya tatraiva viśrāntir ity abhiprāyāt tathoktaṁ, tathaiva hy agrima-vākyam iti |
“Here [i.e., lastly in regard to this verse], when it is to be said that Śrī Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam is Kṛṣṇa-bhakti [i.e., Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam as described thus far should be said to define not broadly bhakti but more specifically Kṛṣṇa-bhakti because specifically bhakti to Kṛṣṇa has been described], [then in that regard it should be understood that] it is so stated [i.e., Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam is said to define bhakti itself broadly, and not only specifically bhakti to Kṛṣṇa] on account of the import that in the śāstras related to Bhagavān, repose [i.e., conclusive determinaton of the meaning] of the word bhakti itself is [found] there specifically [i.e., in Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam; in sum, the word bhakti itself, and thus the concept of bhakti in general, and not just Kṛṣṇa-bhakti, is found to be defined as Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam in the śāstra], and indeed the following statement [i.e., the next verse cited in the text of BRS] is exactly so [i.e., is an example of this].”
Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī re-iterates and elaborates on Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary as follows:
atha tasyā lakṣaṇaṁ vadann eva grantham ārabhate anyeti | yathā kriyā-śabdena dhātvartha-mātram ucyate, tathātrānuśīlana-śabdenāpi dhātvartha-mātram ucyate | dhātvarthaś ca dvividhaḥ, pravṛtti-nivṛtty-ātmakaḥ tatra pravṛtty-ātmaka-dhātvarthas tu kāya-vāṅ-mānasīya-tat-tac-ceṣṭā-rūpaḥ,nivṛtty-ātmaka-dhātvarthaś ca pravṛtti-bhinnaḥ,prīti-viṣādātmako mānasas tat-tad-bhāva-rūpaś ca |sa ca vakṣyamāṇa-rati-premādi-sthāyi-bhāva-rūpaś ca, sevā-nāmāparādhānām udbhavābhāva-kāritety ādi-vacana-vyañjita-sevā-nāmāparādhādy-abhāva-rūpaś ca |
“Now, the author begins the text [i.e., Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu] with this verse (anyābhilāṣītā … ) stating specifically its [i.e., uttama-bhakti’s] characteristics. As only action (dhātvartha) [lit., “the (signified) object (artha) of a (verbal) root (dhātu)] is referred to by the word kriyā, so only action (dhātvartha) is referred to by the word anuśīlana as well. An action (dhātvartha) is of two types: one [type is] of the nature of various activities (ceṣṭās) of the body, speech, and the mind constituted [either] of a positive engagement (pravṛtti) or a disengagement (nivṛtti), that is, an action (dhātvartha) constituted of positive engagement (pravṛtti) or an action (dhātvartha) constituted of disengagement (nivṛtti), which is different from positive engagement (pravṛtti); and one [type, that is, the other type, is] of the nature of various states (bhāvas) of mind constituted [most fundamentally] of [either] pleasure or dejection. That [i.e., this second type] too is also of the nature of the forthcoming sthāyi-bhāvas of rati, prema, and so forth [i.e., the bhāvas known as rati, prema, and so forth which will be discussed beginning in BRS 1.3.1 are also part of this second category of actions (dhātvarthas)], and [also] of the nature of negation of sevā- and nāmāparādha [i.e., offences in service or to the name] indicated by statements such as sevā-nāmāparādhānām udbhavābhāva-kāritā [“Negating the occurrence of sevā- and nāmāparādha” in BRS 1.2.81].
tad evaṁ sati kṛṣṇa-sambandhi kṛṣṇārthaṁ vānuśīlanam iti | tat-sambandha-mātrasya tadarthasya vā vivakṣitatvād guru-pādāśrayādau bhāva-rūpasyāpi kroḍīkṛtatvāt raty-ādi-sthāyini vyabhicāri-bhāveṣu ca nāvyāptiḥ |
“Since this is such, anuśīlanam [i.e., action] is [defined here as that which is] related to Kṛṣṇa, or, for Kṛṣṇa’s sake. Because of the bhāva form [of anuśīlana] also being embraced [i.e., included] in taking shelter at the feet of guru and so forth [i.e., in all the various forms of sādhana-bhakti, which begin with taking shelter at the feet of guru] on account of a relation specifically with him [i.e., Kṛṣṇa] or dedication to him being intended [i.e., being the intention for the enactment of those actions], there is no lack of pervasion (avyāpti) in regard to the sthāyi-bhāvas of rati and so forth and vyabhicāri-bhāvas [i.e., there is no excessive narrowness in the aforementioned definition of anuśīlana because it does include sthāyi- and vyabhicāri-bhāvas within its scope].
etac ca kṛṣṇa-tad-bhakta-kṛpayaiva labhyaṁ, śrī-bhagavataḥ svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti-rūpaṁ kāyādi-vṛtti-rūpeṇāvirbhūtam eva jñeyam | agre spaṣṭīkariṣyate |
“This [i.e., Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam], furthermore, is attainable only by the grace of Kṛṣṇa and his bhakta, is of the nature of a vṛtti (function) of Śrī Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti, and is to be known to become manifest within the forms of the vṛttis (functions) of the body and so forth [upon having entered into a state of tādātmya with them, that is, having an acquired, partial sameness in nature with the vṛttis of the body, speech, and mind]. Ahead this will be clarified [principally in BRS 1.3.1].
kṛṣṇa-śabdaś cātra svayaṁ bhagavataḥ kṛṣṇasya tad-rūpāṇāṁ cānyeṣām avatārāṇāṁ grāhakaḥ | tāratamyam agre vivecanīyam |
“The word Kṛṣṇa here, furthermore, is an indicator of Svayaṁ Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa and of other avatāras of forms of his as well. The gradation [between them] is to be discussed ahead [in BRS 2.1.220–224].
tatra bhakti-svarūpatā-siddhy-arthaṁ viśeṣaṇam āha— ānukūlyeneti prātikūlye bhaktitvāprasiddheḥ | ānukūlyaṁ coddeśyāya śrī-kṛṣṇāya rocamānā pravṛttir ity ukte lakṣaṇe’tivyāptir avyāptiś ca |
“Therewith [i.e., in connection with Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam], the author states the modifier ‘possessed of favorability’ (ānukūlyena) is for the purpose of establishing the character of the nature of bhakti (bhakti-svarūpatā) because of the non-existence of bhaktitva [lit., ‘bhakti-ness,’ i.e., the distinct, specific nature of bhakti] in unfavorability (prātikūlya). “‘Favorability’ (ānukūlya), furthermore, means engagement (pravṛtti) pleasing to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the beneficiary [i.e., the object for whom the engagement is performed, meaning, the person it is meant to please]. When this characteristic is so stated [i.e., defined in this way], there is excessive pervasion (ativyāpti) and a lack of pervasion (avyāpti) [i.e., there is both excessive breadth and excessive narrowness in the aforementioned definition of anuśīlana].
tad yathā—asura-kartṛka-prahāra-rūpānuśīlanaṁ vīra-rasa utsāhavate śrī-kṛṣṇāya rocate, yathoktaṁ prathama-skandhe manasvinām iva san saṁprahāra iti |
“That [excess] is as follows: action (anuśīlana) in the form of attacking performed by asuras pleases Śrī Kṛṣṇa [when he is] possessed of utsāha [i.e., utsāha-rati, the bhāva of fortitude] in [the course of relishing] vīra-rasa [i.e., the rasa of chivalry], as it is stated in the First Canto [SB 1.13.30], ‘Like a good battle for warriors’ [i.e., since it is known that warriors take pleasure in an intense battle, and Kṛṣṇa is known to take pleasure in battling with asuras, the definition of anuśīlana is excessively broad (i.e., it has the fault of ativyāpti) because it qualifies the actions of asuras as acts of bhakti, which they are not].
tathā śrī-kṛṣṇaṁ vihāya dugdha-rakṣārthaṁ gatāyā yaśodāyās tādṛśānuśīlanaṁ kṛṣṇāya na rocate, yathoktaṁ śrī-daśame—sañjāta-kopaḥ sphuritāruṇādhara iti |
“Further, such an action (anuśīlana) of Yaśodā’s in leaving Śrī Kṛṣṇa [while he was in the middle of drinking from her breast] and going to save the milk [being boiled on the stove for Kṛṣṇa’s breakfast that had begun to boil over] did not please Kṛṣṇa, as stated in the Tenth Canto [SB 10.9.6], ‘Filled with anger, and [bitting] his swollen red lips [with his teeth, Kṛṣṇa broke the pot for churning yoghurt …,’ and thus the definition of anuśīlana is excessively narrow (i.e., it has the fault of avyāpti) because it disqualifies Yaśodā’s action from being accepted as an act of bhakti when it actually is an act of bhakti].
tathā ca tatra tatrātivyāpta-vyāpti-vāraṇāyānukūlyaṁ nāma prātikūlya-śūnyatvam eva vivakṣaṇīyam |
“Thus, furthermore, for the sake of precluding excessive pervasion (ativyāpti) and a lack of pervasion (avyāpti) [i.e., excessive breadth and excessiveness narrowness in regard the definition of anuśīlana, which would otherwise occur] in regard to these cases [of asuras’ fighting with Kṛṣṇa, and Yaśodā’s putting Kṛṣṇa down when he did not want to be], favorability (ānukūlya) is to be interpreted as meaning only the non-existence of unfavorability (prātikūlya).
evaṁ saty asureṣu dveṣa-rūpa-prātikūlya-sattvān nātivyāptiḥ | evaṁ yaśodāyāḥ prātikūlyābhāvān nāvyāptir iti bodhyam |
“As such, there is no excessive pervasion (ativyāpti) [i.e., excessive breadth in the definition] because of the presence of unfavorability (prātikūlya) in the form of the enmity in asuras [towards Kṛṣṇa, which would otherwise remain within the scope of the definition]. Similarly, there is no lack of pervasion (avyāpti) [i.e., excessiveness narrowness of the definition] because of the absence of unfavorability in Yaśodā [which would otherwise be excluded from the scope of the definition]. This is to be understood.
etena viśeṣaṇasyānukūlyasyaiva bhaktitvam astu, bhakti-sāmānyasyaiva kṛṣṇāya rocamānatvād viśeṣyasyānuśīlana-padasya vaiyarthyam ity api śaṅkā nirastā tādṛśa-prātikūlyasyābhāva-mātrasya ghaṭe’pi sattvāt |
“Refuted as well by this [understanding that the word anuśīlana is intended to mean action possessed of favorability (ānukūlya) in the sense of being free from unfavorability (prātikūlya)] is the [otherwise possible] objection, ‘Let the modifier “favorability” (ānukūlya) be bhaktitva [lit., ‘bhakti-ness,’ i.e., the distinct, specific nature of bhakti, that is, let favorability (ānukūlya) being considered the defining characteristic of bhakti]; because of bhakti in general’s being pleasing to Kṛṣṇa, the qualificand (viśeṣya), that is, the word anuśīlana, is useless [i.e., when bhakti is to said to mean simply favorability (ānukūlya), that is, an absence of unfavorability, then there is no need to include the word anuśīlana, that is, to make any reference to action]’ because of the existence of merely such an absence of unfavorability (prātikūlya) even in a pot [i.e., bhakti has to be defined specifically as action (anuśīlana) possessed of favorability (ānukūlya), that is, an absence of unfavorability (prātikūlya), because otherwise even inanimate objects like pots would have to be considered to contain bhakti].
uttamātva-siddhy-arthaṁ viśeṣaṇa-dvayam āha—anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam ity ādi | kathambhūtam anuśīlanam? anyasmin bhakty-atiriktatve phalatvenābhilāṣa-śūnyam—bhaktyā sañjātayā bhaktyety ekādaśokter bhakty-uddeśaka-bhakti-karaṇam ucitam evety ato’nyasmin khalu bhakty-atirikta iti |
“To establish the exaltedness (uttamātva) [of bhakti], the author states two modifiers [of the word anuśīlana]: anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ … [i.e., and jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam]. Action (anuśīlana) of what nature? Free from desire (abhilāṣa-śūnyam) for any result otherwise (anyasmin), that is, apart from bhakti. Performance of bhakti for the sake of bhakti is alone understood from the statement in the Eleventh Canto [SB 11.3.31], ‘With bhakti manifest by bhakti (bhaktyā sañjātayā bhaktyā).’ Therefore, ‘for anything otherwise’ (anya) certainly means for anything apart from bhakti.
tathātrānyābhilāṣa-śūnyatvaṁ vihāyānyābhilāṣa-svabhāvārthaka-tācchīlya-pratyayena kasyacid bhaktasya kadācid akasmāt maraṇa-saṅkaṭe prāpte he bhagavan bhaktaṁ mām etad vipatteḥ sakāśād rakṣeti kadācitkābhilāṣa-sattve’pi na kṣatiḥ, yatas tasya vaivaśya-hetuka-svabhāva-viparyayeṇaiva tādṛg-abhilāṣo, na tu svābhāvika iti bodhyam |
Furthermore, in this regard, [now] setting aside the state of freedom from desire for anything otherwise (anyābhilāṣa-śūnyatvaṁ) [i.e., the idea of being free from such desire invariably under all circumstances], by the suffix (pratyaya) of habituation (tācchīlya), signifying disposition (svabhāva), on [the end of the word] ‘desire for anything otherwise’ (anyābhilāṣa) [i.e., because the word used in the verse is not anyābhilāṣa but rather anyābhilāṣitā, and the sense is thus not the state of being free from desire for anything other than bhakti but rather being free from desireousness for anything other than bhakti, that is, from having the disposition to desire anything other bhakti], even in the instance of some bhakta’s temporary desire at some time upon suddenly having encountered a risk of death [whereupon the bhakta prays], ‘O Bhagavān, please protect me, a bhakta, from this danger,’ there is no harm, since such a desire is only because of a contrariety in disposition caused by a lack of self-control [under such duress], and is not, rather natural [i.e., such a incidental, temporary desire is not a product of the bhakta’s general disposition, which is established by the tādātmya of bhakti with the vṛttis in the bhakta’s citta, and thus that a bhakta may have such a incidental temporary desire is not contrary to the nature of bhakti, the extrinsic characteristic of which is that someone under its influence is free from desireousness for anything other than bhakti]. This is to be understood.
punaḥ kīdṛśam? jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam | jñānam atra nirbheda-brahmānusandhānam, na tu bhajanīya-tattvānusandhānam api, tasyāvaśyāpekṣaṇīyatvāt | karma smārta-nitya-naimittikādi, na tu bhajanīya-paricaryādi, tasya tad-anuśīlana-rūpatvāt |
“Further of what nature [is this action (anuśīlana)]? “Unobstructed by jñāna, karma, and so forth” (jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam). [The word] Jñāna here means inquiry into undifferentiated Brahman, and not, rather, inquiry into the nature (tattva) of the object of devotion (bhajanīya) [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] as well, because of its [i.e., such inquiry into the object of devotion] being absolutely necessary. [The word] Karma here means regular duties, incidental duties, and so forth based on the Smṛtis, and not, rather, attendance and so forth to the object of devotion (bhajanīya) [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] because of its [i.e., such attendance and so forth] being a form of anuśīlana [i.e., continuous favorable action] to him [i.e., to the object of devotion, Śrī Kṛṣṇa].
ādi-śabdena yajña-vairāgya-yoga-sāṅkhyābhyāsādayas tair anāvṛtam, na tu pūrvavat tac-chūnyam ity arthaḥ |
“By the word ādi (“and so forth”) [in the modifier jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam], sacrifice (yajña), renunciation (vairāgya), yoga [i.e., aṣṭāṅga-yoga], sāṅkhya [i.e., discernment of the self and non-self], abhyāsa [i.e., repeated practice of steadying the mind], and so forth [are indicated]; [such anuśīlana is] unobstructed by these, and not, rather, free from them as with the previous [i.e., anuśīlana is said here to be unobstructed by jñāna, karma, and so forth, but not said to be completely dissociated from them, as it is said to be from desireousness for anything other than bhakti].
tena ca bhakty-āvarakāṇām eva jñāna-karmādīnāṁ niṣedho’bhipretaḥ |
“Also by this [stated characteristic of anuśīlana being unobstructed by jñāna, karma, and so forth], prohibition is intended of jñāna, karma, and so forth that are specifically obstructions (āvarakas) to bhakti [i.e., not all forms of jñāna, karma, and so forth are obstructions to bhakti, and thus not all forms of jñāna, karma, and so forth are being prohibited here].
bhakty-āvarakatvaṁ nāma vidhi-śāsanān nitya-karmākaraṇe pratyavāyādi-bhayāc chraddhayā kriyamāṇatvam |
“[Jñāna, karma, and so forth] Being obstructions to bhakti means (1) [these] being peformed with śraddhā out of fear of sin and so forth when regular duties (nitya-karma) are not performed according to the ruling of injunctions [in the śāstra, i.e., jñāna, karma, and so forth are obstructions to bhakti when they are performed with śraddhā in them, which precludes one from performing bhakti with śraddhā specifically in bhakti, which is the fundamental criterion of eligibility (adhikāra) to engage in bhakti-sādhana], and (2) [these] being performed with śraddhā because of [their being considered as] being means of attaining one’s desired object (iṣṭa) in the form of bhakti and so forth [i.e., jñāna, karma, and so forth are obstructions to bhakti when they are performed as an attempt to attain an object other than bhakti or when they are performed in lieu of practicing bhakti itself wth the idea that jñāna, karma, or otherwise can themselves produce bhakti, since bhakti can be attained only from one who has it and only by engaging in it itself; when jñāna, karma, and so forth are performed in a manner that is conducive to bhakti, then they are not obstructions to bhakti].
tathā bhakty-ādi-rūpeṣṭa-sādhanatvāc chraddhayā kriyamāṇatvaṁ ca | tena loka-saṁgrahārtham aśraddhayāpi pitrādi-śrāddhaṁ kurvatāṁ mahānubhāvānāṁ śuddha-bhaktau nāvyāptiḥ |
“By this [i.e., by this understanding of the referrent of the modifier jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam as only jñāna, karma, and so forth performed in manner that is obstructing to bhakti], there is no lack of pervasion (avyāpti) [i.e., excessiveness narrowness in the definition anuśīlana] in regard to the pure bhakti of those of high stature who also without śraddhā perform śrāddha for forefathers and so forth for the sake of social cohesion [i.e., anuśīlana is here said to be unobstructed by jñāna, karma, and so forth, rather than said to be is completely dissociated from them, for the purpose of including in the definition of anuśīlana performance of jñāna, karma, and so forth in a manner that are not obstructing to bhakti].
atra śrī-kṛṣṇānuśīlanaṁ kṛṣṇa-bhaktir iti vaktavye bhagavac-chāstreṣu kevalasya ca bhakti-śabdasya tatraiva viśrāntir ity abhiprāyāt tathoktam |
“Here [i.e., lastly in regard to this verse], when it is to be said that Śrī Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam is Kṛṣṇa-bhakti [i.e., Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam as described thus far should be said to define not broadly bhakti but more specifically Kṛṣṇa-bhakti because specifically bhakti to Kṛṣṇa has been described], [then in that regard it should be understood that] it is so stated [i.e., Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam is said to define bhakti itself broadly, and not only specifically bhakti to Kṛṣṇa] on account of the import that in the śāstras related to Bhagavān, repose [i.e., conclusive determinaton of the meaning] of the word bhakti itself is [found] there specifically [i.e., in Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam; in sum, the word bhakti itself, and thus the concept of bhakti in general, and not just Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is found to be defined as Kṛṣṇānuśīlanam in the śāstra].”