tapasvino dāna-parā yaśasvino
manasvino mantra-vidaḥ sumaṅgalāḥ |
kṣemaṁ na vindanti vinā yad-arpaṇaṁ
tasmai subhadra-śravase namo namaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.4.17; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 115; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.20)
“‘Obeisance and obeisance unto he of most auspicious glory without offering to whom the ascetics, the charitable, the renowned, the meditators, the knowers of mantras, and the well-conducted attain no weal.’
atra pūrvaṁ sandarbha-catuṣṭayena sambandho vyākhyātaḥ | tatra pūrṇa-sanātana-paramānanda-lakṣaṇa-para-tattva-rūpaṁ sambandhi ca brahma paramātmā bhagavān iti tridhāvirbhāvatayā śabditam iti nirūpitam | tatra ca bhagavattvenaivāvirbhāvasya paramotkarṣaḥ pratipāditaḥ | prasaṅgena viṣṇv-ādyāś catuḥ-sanādyāś ca tad-avatārā darśitāḥ | sa ca bhagavān svayaṁ śrī-kṛṣṇa eveti nirdhāritam |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)
“Here [i.e., in this Bhāgavata Sandarbha], previously, the sambandha [i.e., the relation of the referrer, viz., the text, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, with its referent, the subject of the text] has been explained in [the first] four sandarbhas. Therein, the sambandhin [i.e., the sambandhi-tattva, the bearer of a relation with the text] in form the Para-tattva, who is classified as complete, eternal, paramount bliss, was referred to as per his threefold manifestations of Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān, and thus ascertained. Further therein, the supreme excellence of his manifestation as Bhagavān was established and concomitantly his avatāras beginning with Viṣṇu and the four Kumāras were shown. Also, that he, Bhagavān himself (svayam), is Śrī Kṛṣṇa was determined.”
tad evaṁ sandarbha-catuṣṭayena sambandho vyākhyātaḥ | tasminn api sambandhe śrī-rādhā-mādhava-rūpeṇaiva prādurbhāvas tasya sambandhinaḥ paramaḥ prakarṣaḥ | etad-artham eva vyatāniṣamimāḥ sarvā api paripāṭīr iti pūrṇaḥ sambandhaḥ |
(Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha: 189)
“Thus, in this way, the sambandha [i.e., the relation of the referrer, viz., the text, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, with its referent, the subject of the text] has been explained in [the first] four sandarbhas. Furthermore, in this sambandha, the supreme excellence of its sambandhi [i.e., its referent, lit., the bearer of a relation with the text, viz., the sambandhi-tattva] is specifically the manifestation with the form of Śrī Rādhā-Mādhava [i.e., among all the manifestations of the Para-tattva, which is the subject (viṣaya) taught in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the manifestation of Śrī Rādhā-Mādhava is supreme]. Only for this purpose [i.e., to establish this conclusion] all these methods [i.e., all the various means employed to establish this conclusion] were presented. Thus, [the discussion of] the sambandha is complete.”
atha krameṇa vistaratas tathaiva tātparyaṁ nirṇetuṁ sambandhābhidheya-prayojaneṣu ṣaḍbhiḥ sandarbhair nirṇeṣyamāṇeṣu prathamaṁ yasya vācya-vācakatā-sambandhīdaṁ śāstraṁ, tad eva dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavaḥ ity-ādi-padye sāmānyākāratas tāvad āha—vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastv iti |
(Tattva Sandarbha: 50)
“Now, in regard to the subjects to be ascertained by the six sandarbhas, [namely,] the sambandha [i.e., the relation], abhidheya [i.e., the directive], and prayojana [i.e., the aim], to ascertain elaborately in sequence the intention (tātparya) [of the author] therein [i.e., in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam], he [i.e., Vedavyāsa] describes in general in the verse dharmaḥ projhhita-kaitavaḥ [i.e., SB 1.1.2] the first [i.e., the sambandhi-tattva], that the bearer of a referrer-referent relation (vācya-vācakatā-sambandhin) with which is this śāstra [i.e., he speaks of the principal subject of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the referent with whom Śrīmad Bhāgavatam bears the relationship of referrer (vācakatā)]: ‘Here [i.e., in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] is the Reality (Vastu), the real object to be known.’”
iha sambandhi-tattvaṁ brahmānandād api prakṛṣṭo rucira-līlā-vaśiṣṭaḥ śrīmān ajita eva | sa ca pūrṇatvena mukhyatayā śrī-kṛṣṇa-saṁjña eveti śrī-bādarāyaṇa-samādhau vyaktībhaviṣyati | tathā prayojanākhyaḥ puruṣārthaś ca tādṛśa-tad-āsakti-janakaṁ tal-līlā-śravaṇādi-lakṣaṇaṁ tad-bhajanam evety āyātam |
(Tattva Sandarbha: 29)
“Here [i.e., in this text], the sambandhi-tattva [i.e., the subject, lit., ‘the entity bearing a relation (sambandha) [with the text],’ meaning, the entity related to through the text] is Śrīman Ajita [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān], who is possessed of relishable līlā and superior even to the bliss of Brahman. That he, furthermore, is known primarily as Śrī Kṛṣṇa by virtue of completeness [i.e., by virtue of the completeness he manifests only in his aspect known as Śrī Kṛṣṇa] will be clarified in [the forthcoming discussion of] Śrī Bādarāyaṇa’s samādhi. So also, the puruṣārtha [i.e., ‘object of a human being’], known as the prayojana [i.e., aim], and worship of him [i.e., the abhidheya], the characteristic of which is hearing and so forth of his līlā that produces such attachment (āsakti) to him [i.e., that leads to attainment of the prayojana, namely, prema for him] are understood.”
athaivaṁ sūcitānāṁ śrī-kṛṣṇa-tad-vācya-vācakatā-lakṣaṇa-sambandha-tad-bhajana-lakṣaṇa-vidheya-saparyāyābhidheya-tat-prema-lakṣaṇa-prayojanākhyānām arthānāṁ nirṇayāya tāvat pramāṇaṁ nirṇīyate |
(Tattva Sandarbha: 9)
“Now, to ascertain the [four] topics thus indicated [in the preceding verse, i.e., yasya Brahmeti …], namely, (1) Śrī Kṛṣṇa [i.e., the subject], (2) the sambandha [i.e., the ‘relation’ of the text] with him the characteristic of which is [that of] referrer (vācakatā) and referent (vācya), (3) the abhidheya [i.e., ‘directive,’ lit., ‘that which is to be stated’], synonymous the with vidheya [i.e., ‘practice,’ lit., ‘that which is to be done’], the characteristic of which is worship (bhajana) of him [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa], and (4) the prayojana [i.e., aim, lit., ‘that motivated by which one acts’] the characteristic of which is prema for him, first pramāṇa [i.e., the means of knowing] is ascertained.”
tvaṁ bhakti-yoga-paribhāvita-hṛt-saroja
āsse śrutekṣita-patho nanu nātha puṁsām |
yad yad dhiyā ta urugāya vibhāvayanti
tat tad vapuḥ praṇayase sad-anugrahāya ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.9.11; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 7.383; Bhagavat Sandarbha: 6, 40; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.3.111)
“[Brahmā to Śrī Bhagavān:] O Nātha! You, he the path to whom is seen by hearing, dwell in the lotus-hearts of living beings that have been purified by bhakti-yoga [alt., that have been made fit (for you) by virtue of prema]. O you of highest praise! [Alt., O you who are sung of in many ways!] Out of favor upon the sat, you bring forth that very form of yours which they distinctively meditate on [alt., visualize] with the mind.”
cic-chakti-prādhānyena kṛṣṇa-rāmādy-avatāra-līlā iva māyā-śakti-prādhānyena puruṣāvatāra-līlā brahmāṇḍa-nirmāṇādyā vaiṣṇavaiḥ śravyā eva, nātra kaṭākṣaḥ kārya iti śrotṛ-vaktroḥ parīkṣit-śukayor abhiprāyo veditavyaḥ |
(Excerpt from the Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.4.10)
“Like the līlās of avatāras with primacy of the cit-śakti, such as Kṛṣṇa and Rāma, the līlās of the Puruṣāvatāras with primacy of the māyā-śakti, such as the creation of the universe, are certainly fit to be heard by Vaiṣṇavas. A side-long glance is not to be cast towards them [i.e., one should not be disapproving of Vaiṣṇavas listening to the līlās of the Puruṣāvatāras and assert that only the līlās of Kṛṣna, Rāma, and other avatāras wherein there is primacy of the cit-śakti should be heard]. In this way the intention of the listener and speaker, viz., Parīkṣit and Śuka, is to be understood.”
atha sva-prayatno balavān śrī-guru-prasādo veti sandehe’kṛte prayatne tat-prasādasyākiñcitkaratvāt sva-prayatno balavān iti prāpte—
liṅga-bhūyastvāt tad dhi balīyas tad api |
ṛṣabhādibhyo brahma-śrutavatā satya-kāmena ‘bhagavāṁs tv eva me kāmaṁ brūyāt’ iti śrī-guruḥ prārthyate | tathāgnibhyaḥ śruta-vidyenopakośalena cety ādi-chāndogyādi-dṛṣṭa-guru-prasādana-liṅga-bāhulyāt tat-prasādanam eva baliṣṭham | tarhi tāvatālam ity api na mantavyam | kiṁ tarhi tad api śravaṇādi ca kartavyam ‘yasya deve parā bhaktiḥ,’ ‘śrotavyo mantavyaḥ’ ity ādi śruteḥ, ‘guru-prasādo balavān na tasmād balavattaram, tathāpi śravaṇādiś ca kartavyo mokṣa-siddhaye ||’ iti smṛteś ca |
(Vedānta-sūtra: 3.3.45)
“Now, in the case of the doubt, ‘Is one’s own effort more powerful, or [is] the grace of the guru [more powerful]?’ [A prima facie view is posited] ‘Because of his [i.e., the guru’s] grace’s being ineffective when [one’s own] effort is not made, one’s own effort is more powerful’ When this [prima facie view] is encountered, [then the following sūtra is stated], ‘Because of a profusion of indications [throughout the śāstra], that [i.e., the grace of the guru] is certainly more powerful [than one’s own effort], [though] that [i.e., one’s own effort] too [is necessary]’ (liṅga-bhūyastvāt tad dhi balīyas tad api). [In Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.9.2 it is described that] A blessed guru was prayed to by Satyakāma, who had [already] heard about Brahman from the bull and so forth [i.e., from devas who had assumed the forms of a bull and so forth], ‘O venerable one, still certainly please speak of my desired object [i.e., Brahman].’ [Although Satyakāma has already been blessed with knowledge of Brahman directly by the devatās, he still inquired from his guru about Brahman, and this shows that realization of Brahman always requires the grace of the guru]. It was similar with Upakośala, who heard knowledge [of Brahman] from the fires [he tended in accord with the direction of his guru, Satyakāma, but later still inquired from Satyakāma about Brahman]. Thus, because of the profusion of indications of the guru of the guru [being necessary to realize Brahman] seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad and elsewhere [i.e., and in other śāstras], his [i.e., the guru’s] grace is certainly more powerful [than one’s own effort].
“[A further question is raised:] ‘Then just that is sufficient? [i.e., then one need not make the effort of engaging in the practices of sādhana taught by the guru, such as hearing, contemplating, and meditating, if somehow or other one can simply get his grace?]’ This [notion] too is not to be thought. [A follow-up question is raised:] ‘Then what [should be thought and done]?’ That too, meaning, hearing and so forth, is also to be done, in accord with the [statements in the] Śruti [that describe this], [e.g., Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.23,] ‘These discussed subjects are certainly revealed to the great soul who has pure bhakti to Deva, and as to Deva, so also to the guru,’ [Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5,] ‘The Ātmā is to be heard about, to be contemplated, and to be deeply meditated upon,’ and so on, and in accord with the [statements in the] Smṛti [that describe this], [e.g., Varāha Purāṇa], ‘The grace of the guru is powerful. There is nothing more powerful than it. Still, to attain liberation, hearing and so forth [i.e., contemplation and meditation] are to be done.’”
atha guru-gamyatvaṁ guṇam upasaṁhartum ārabhyate | vidyā-pradeśeṣu śrūyate ‘yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve yathā gurau | tasyaite kathitā hy arthāh prakāśante mahātmanaḥ ||’ iti śvetāśvataropaniṣadi | ‘ācāryavān puruṣo veda’ iti ‘tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacched’ iti cānyatra | iha saṁśayaḥ | guru-labdhāc chravaṇāditaḥ phalaṁ guru-prasāda-sahitāt tasmād veti | tatra śravaṇāditaḥ phalābhidhānāt kiṁ tat-prasādeneti prāpte—
pradānavad eva tad uktam |
yathā prasannena guruṇā brahmāpti-hetuḥ śravaṇādi-sādhanaṁ dattaṁ tathaiva tat-prāpti-rūpaṁ phalaṁ bhavati | na tu śravaṇādi-mātreṇety āvaśyakam | tat-gurv-anugrahāvekṣaṇam uktam | pra-śabdaḥ prasādaṁ vyañjayati | āha caivaṁ śrī-bhagavān aravindākṣaḥ ‘ācāryopāsanaṁ śaucam’ iti | tathā ca tad-anugraha-sahitāc chravaṇāditas tat-prāptir iti |
(Vedānta-sūtra: 3.3.44)
“Now we begin to summarize the quality [of Brahman] of being attainable through the guru. In the sections [of the śāstra] regarding knowledge (vidyā) [of Brahman], it is heard in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.23), ‘These discussed subjects are certainly revealed to the great soul who has pure bhakti to Deva, and as to Deva, so also to the guru,’ and elsewhere [in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.14.2], ‘A person who has an ācārya knows [Brahman],’ and [in Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.12]. ‘To know in depth that [i.e., Brahman], one should only approach a guru.’ In this regard there is a doubt: does the result [i.e., realization of Brahman] come just from hearing and so forth [i.e., along with contemplation and meditation upon Brahman, as described in BAU 2.4.5] received from the guru, or from that [i.e., from hearing from the guru, contemplating, and meditating] along with the grace of the guru?
“[A prima facie view is presented:] ‘In that regard, because of mention of the result [occurring just] by hearing and so forth [i.e., by contemplation and meditation], what [is the need] of his grace?’ When this [view] is encountered [i.e., in response to the aforementioned viewpoint, the author states the following sūtra]: ‘That [i.e., realization of Brahman] is stated to be exactly like a gracious gift’ (pradānavad eva tad uktam). As the cause of attainment of Brahman, that is, the sādhana of hearing [śāstra] and so forth, is given by the guru by grace, so exactly is the result in the form of attainment thereof [i.e., of Brahman, meaning, as the process is given by the guru, so the result is ultimately given by the guru as well], and it does not occur, rather, just by hearing and so forth [i.e., just by hearing, contemplating, and meditating upon Brahman by one’s own efforts]. Thus, there is necessity [of the guru’s grace in addition to performing the practices of hearing and so forth given by the guru]. Attention towards [receiving] the favor of the guru is described (uktam) [in the śāstra]. The prefix pra [in the word pradāna in the sūtra under discussion] alludes to grace [i.e., the goal, realization of Brahman, is not just a ‘gift’ (dāna) but a ‘gracious gift’ (pradāna), meaning, it is a gift given by the guru’s grace]. Lotus-eyed Śrī Bhagavān also says such [in BG 13.8], ‘Worship of the ācārya and purity [are fundamental elements of knowledge]’ (ācāryopasānaṁ śaucam). Thus, furthermore, attainment of that [i.e., Brahman] occurs as a result of hearing and so forth [i.e., contemplation and meditation] along with his [i.e., the guru’s] favor.”
