भक्तियोगो बहुविधो मार्गैर्भाविनि भाव्यते ।
स्वभावगुणमार्गेण पुंसां भावो विभिद्यते ॥
bhakti-yogo bahu-vidho mārgair bhāvini bhāvyate |
svabhāva-guṇa-mārgeṇa puṁsāṁ bhāvo vibhidyate ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.29.7; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 234)
“Bhakti-yoga is perceived to be of many types in one possessed of bhāva [i.e., in a human being] because of [different] modes [i.e., manners of functioning]. The bhāva [i.e., intent] of human beings is divided [i.e., categorized in various divisions] because of the modes [i.e., manners of functioning] of the guṇas of nature [alt., as well as because of the natures and bhāvas manifest by bhakti-yoga].”
Commentary
ananya-nimittā nirguṇā bhaktir api vṛtti-bhedena bahu-vidhety āha—mārgaiḥ prakāra-viśeṣaiḥ yataḥ svasya bhakti-yogasyaiva mārgeṇa vṛtti-bhedena śravaṇādinā bhāvasyābhimānasya tad-bhedena dāsyādinā guṇānāṁ tama-ādīnāṁ ca tad-bhedena hiṁsādinā puṁsāṁ bhāvo’bhiprāyo bhidyate | … atra sva-mārgeṇa bhāva-mārgeṇa ca bhedaḥ satāṁ prasaṅgād ity ādinā, yeṣām ahaṁ priya ātmety-ādy-antena darśitaḥ | atra bhāvinīti bhāva-yukte puruṣa ity arthaḥ |
(Excerpt from the Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā; see also Bhakti Sandarbha 234)
“Although nirguṇa and possessed of no other cause [than itself], bhakti is of many types because of different vṛttis [i.e., modes of functioning in the citta of a particular person]. Therefore, he [i.e., Kapiladeva] says ‘because of modes’ (mārgaiḥ), that is, because of particular manners [of functioning], since the bhāva, that is, intent (abhiprāya) of human beings is divided [into various categories] (1) because of modes, that is, different vṛttis of bhakti-yoga itself, such as hearing [about Bhagavān, praising Bhagavān, etc.], (2) because of different bhāvas, that is, identities, such as servanthood (dāsya) [friendship (sakhya), etc., manifest by bhakti in the minds of bhaktas], and (3) because of differences on account of the guṇas beginning with tamas, such as violence and so forth [i.e. and other such behaviors and aims]. … In this regard, the differences because of its [i.e., bhakti-yoga’s] own modes are shown in satāṁ prasaṅgād … [i.e., in SB 3.25.25] and elsewhere, and [the differences] because of bhāva [i.e., the identifies fostered by bhaktas, are shown] in yeṣām Ahaṁ priya ātmā [i.e., in SB 3.25.38] and elsewhere. In regard to [the word] bhāvini, the meaning is a person possessed of bhāva.”
devānāṁ guṇa-liṅgānām ity anena nirguṇāyā bhakter uktatvād iha prathamaṁ saguṇāṁ bhaktiṁ lakṣayitum āha—bhakti-yoga eka eva bhāvini bhāvo’bhiprāyas tadvati puruṣe mārgaiḥ prakāra-viśeṣair bahu-vidho bhāvyate cintyate jñāyate ity arthaḥ | sa ca bhāvaḥ svabhāva-bhūtā ye guṇās tama-ādayas teṣāṁ mārgeṇa vṛtti-bhedena vibhidyate nānā vibhedavān bhavati | bhaktiḥ svarūpato nirguṇo’pi puṁsāṁ svābhāvika-tama-ādi-guṇoparaktā satī tāmasy-ādi-nāmabhiḥ saguṇā bhavatīti bhāvaḥ |
(Sārātha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Because of nirguṇa-bhakti having been described [earlier] by [the verse] devānāṁ guṇa-liṅgānām … [in SB 3.25.32], here he [i.e., Kapiladeva] first speaks to define saguṇa-bhakti. Singular bhakti-yoga [i.e., bhakti-yoga, which is actually only of one singular nature] is perceived (bhāvyate), that is, thought of, or known, to be of many types (bahu-vidha) in one possessed of bhāva (bhāvini), that is, a person possessed of bhāva, that is, intent (abhiprāya), because of modes (mārgaiḥ), that is, particular manners [of functioning]. This is the meaning. That bhāva, furthermore, is divided (vibhidyate), that is, becomes possessed of various divisions, because of the modes, that is, the different functions (vṛttis) of the guṇas beginning with tamas, existing in one’s nature (svabhāva). [Thus,] Although bhakti is by nature nirguṇa, upon becoming colored by the guṇas of tamas and so on in the natures of human beings, it becomes saguṇa [in effect] with according names beginning with tāmasī [i.e., bhakti upon becoming so colored in its expression becomes known as tāmasika bhakti, rājasika bhakti, and sāttvika bhakti even though it is itself nirguṇa and the guṇas are present only in the minds of the persons performing acts of bhakti].”
In the aforementioned commentaries, it is noteworthy that Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī and Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī differ in their interpretations of the word svabhāva. Śrī Cakravartīpāda takes the word in the conventional sense of the disposition of a human being (svabhāva) influenced by the material guṇas of sattva, rajas, and tamas, whereas Śrī Gosvāmīpāda interprets it as a compound of sva and bhāva and takes both sva and bhāva to refer not to a human being but to bhakti-yoga itself, that is, to the bhakti-yoga’s “own” (sva) manner of becoming expressed, such as hearing and praising, and to the identities (bhāvas) of being Bhagavān’s servant, friend, and so forth which bhakti gives rise to in bhaktas.