भयं द्वितीयाभिनिवेशतः स्या-
दीशादपेतस्य विपर्ययोऽस्मृतिः ।
तन्माययातो बुध आभजेत्तं
भक्त्यैकयेशं गुरुदेवतात्मा ॥
bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād
īśād apetasya viparyayo’smṛtiḥ |
tan-māyayāto budha ābhajet taṁ
bhaktyaikayeśaṁ guru-devatātmā ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.2.37; cited in Tattva Sandarbha: 32; Paramātma Sandarbha: 47; Bhakti Sandarbha: 1, 59, 114; Prīti Sandarbha: 1; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.20.116)
“Non-awareness, misapprehension, and fear because of absorption in a second shall occur by means of Īśa’s māyā for one who is averse to him. Therefore, a wise person, being one for whom the guru is the Devatā and the self (ātmā), should fully worship him [viz., Īśa, Bhagavān] with one-pointed bhakti.”
Commentary
nanu kim evaṁ parameśvara-bhajanena? ajñāna-kalpita-bhayasya jñānaika-nivartakatvād ity āśaṅkyāha—bhayam iti | yato bhayaṁ tan-māyayā bhavet, tato buddhimān tam eva ābhajed upāsīta | nanu bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt, sa ca dehādy-ahaṅkārataḥ, sa ca svarūpāsphuraṇāt, kim atra tasya māyā karoti? ata āha—īśād apetasyeti, īśa-vimukhasya tan-māyayāsmṛtir svarūpāsphūrtis, tato viparyayo deho’smīti, tato dvitīyābhiniveśād bhayaṁ bhavati | evaṁ hi prasiddhaṁ laukikīṣv api māyāsu | uktaṁ ca bhagavatā—‘daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī mama māyā duratyayā | mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṁ taranti te ||’ iti | ekayāvyabhicāriṇyā bhaktyābhajet | kiṁ ca, guru-devatātmā gurur eva devatā īśvara ātmā preṣṭhaś ca yasya tathā-dṛṣṭiḥ sann ity arthaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā as cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, what [is the use] of worship of the Supreme Īśvara in this [aforementioned] manner? [There is no use of it] Because of knowledge (jñāna) alone being a remover of the fear produced by ignorance [i.e., one should just cultivate knowledge (jñāna) and not bother engaging in bhakti because the need for engaging in bhakti is achieved just by cultivating knowledge (jñāna)].’ Expecting this [objection], he [i.e., Śrī Karabhājana Ṛṣi] says bhayaṁ … [i.e., he speaks this verse, viz., SB 11.2.37]. Since fear shall occur [only] because of his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] māyā, a wise person should thus worship (ābhajet) him [viz., Bhagavān] alone [i.e., it is not that knowledge (jñāna) alone can remove ignorance and thus fear; Bhagavān’s māyā is its underlying cause and without compelling Bhagavān to withdraw his māyā by engaging in bhakti to him, ignorance and its effect, fear, will invariably remain]. [Another objection is raised:] ‘Well, fear shall occur because of absorption in ‘a second’ [i.e., something secondary to what is of the essence, meaning, other than, the self], and that [absorption in ‘a second’ shall occur] because of identifying with the body and so forth, and that [identification with the body and so forth shall occur] because of a non-manifestation of [i.e., an absence of awareness of] the true nature (svarūpa) [of the self]. [So,] What does his māyā do in this regard [i.e., why do you say fear is caused by his māyā]?’ Thus, he says, ‘For one who is averse to Īśa’ (Īśād apetasya), meaning, for one who is oblivious of Īśa, non-awareness (asmṛtiḥ), that is, a non-manifestation of the true nature (svarūpa) of Bhagavān, occurs because of his māyā, then misapprehension (viparyayaḥ), that is, [the notion], ‘I am the body’ [occurs], and then fear (bhayaṁ) because of absorption in a second (dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ) [occurs], since such [an occurrence of fear as a result of absorption in something unreal as a result of a misapprehension of an object the true nature of which one is unaware of] is well known even in worldly illusions [i.e., conventional magic]. It has also been said by Bhagavān [in BG 7.14], ‘This divine māyā of mine constituted of the guṇas is certainly difficult to surmount. [Still,] Those who take shelter in me exclusively cross beyond this māyā.’ One should worship (ābhajet) [him, viz., Bhagavān] with one-pointed (ekayā), that is, unwavering, bhakti. Furthermore [one should do so] being guru-devatātmā, that is, [being] one whose vision is such that the guru is [seen to be] the Devatā, that is, Īśvara, and the self (ātmā), that is, [one’s] dearmost. This is the meaning.”
Note: This commentary of Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda is cited in full from the version of the text found in the first anuccheda of Śrī Bhakti Sandarbha by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī. All six of the editions of Śrī Bhakti Sandarbha that were checked in the preparation of this translation have the commentary in the same way. In three editions of Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda’s Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, namely, those of Śrī Purī Dāsa Mahāśaya, Śrī Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī, and Śrī Rādhāvinoda Gosvāmī, the word Bhagavataḥ is found in the fourth sentence of the passage between tan-māyayāsmṛtir and svarūpāsphūrtis, although this word is absent in the version of the text found in all six of the checked editions of Śrī Bhakti Sandarbha. Śrī Purī Dāsa Mahāśaya’s edition lists numerous variants between earlier editions of Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, but in regard to this passage and the presence of the word Bhagavataḥ, no variants are mentioned. It is evident from Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s discussion of bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād [i.e., SB 11.2.37] in Tattva Sandarbha (32) that he reads the text without the word Bhagavataḥ in it. When the text is read with the word Bhagavataḥ, the change in meaning is relatively minor and does not appear to raise any contradiction to theological conclusions given elsewhere by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī.
manye’kutaścit ity eva sthāpayan krameṇa tatraiva niṣṭhāpayati—bhayam iti | yato bhayaṁ tan-māyayā bhaved ato budho buddhimān tam evābhajet | prathamataḥ kāyena ity-ādy-ukta-prakāreṇeṣad api bhajet, tato guru-devatātmā san bhaktyā sākṣād bhāgavata-dharma-rūpayā | tata ekayā [ananyayāvyābhicāriṇyā] nityaṁ pādāmbujopāsana-rūpayeti viśeṣato’rthaḥ |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“After establishing [bhakti to Bhagavān as the highest good] in [SB 11.2.33], ‘I affirm that here [i.e., in saṁsāra], worship of the lotus feet of Acyuta, wherein fear ceases in all respects, is complete fearlessness [i.e., is the ultimate safety and highest good] for those whose minds are perpetually disturbed because of identification with the unreal [i.e., the non-self: the material body and mind],’ he [i.e., Śrī Karabhājana Ṛṣi] affirms that specifically in steps: bhayaṁ … [i.e., he speaks this verse, SB 11.2.37 for that purpose]. [The core statement in the verse is that] Since fear shall occur because of his māyā, a wise person (budhaḥ) should thus fully worship him alone. Firstly, one should worship [him] even slightly as per the [earlier] statement in the section [viz., SB 11.2.36], ‘One should offer all that one does with the body, speech, mind, senses, intellect, and self (ātmā) [i.e., citta, or ahaṅkāra] in accord with one’s nature (svābhāva) to the Supreme [with the intent], ‘[May all of this be] For [the pleasure of] Nārāyaṇa,’ then, being ‘one for whom the guru is the Devatā and the ātmā’ (guru-devatātmā), [one should worship him] with bhakti (bhaktyā), that is, with direct forms of Bhāgavat-dharma [e.g., hearing, praising, remembering, and so forth], and then, [one should worship him] with ‘one-pointed’ (ekayā) [bhakti, i.e., unalloyed and unwavering bhakti] in the form of constant worship (upāsanā) of [his] lotus feet. This is the meaning specifically.”
‘vilajjamānayā yasya sthātum īkṣā-pathe’muyā | vimohitā vikatthante mamāham iti durdhiyaḥ ||’ iti | atra vilajjamānayā ity anenedam āyāti tasyā jīva-sammhohanaṁ karma śrī-bhagavate na rocata iti yadyapi sā svayaṁ jānāti, tathāpi ‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād īśād apetasya’ iti diśā jīvānām anādi-bhagavad-ajñāna-maya-vaimukhyam asahamānā svarūpāvaraṇam asvarūpāveśaṁ ca karoti |
(Excerpt from Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 1.7.5; Excerpt from Tattva Sandarbha: 32)
“[It is stated in SB 2.5.13,] ‘The ignorant, deluded by māyā, who is ashamed to stand in Vāsudeva’s purview, boast of “I” and “mine.”’ By this [mention of māyā] ‘being ashamed’ (vilajjamānayā) here [in this verse, viz., SB 2.5.13], this comes [i.e., is understood]: although she herself knows that her act of bewildering the jīvas does not please Śrī Bhagavān, still, being unable to tolerate the jīvas’ obliviousness constituted of beginningless ignorance of Bhagavān as per the direction [indicated in SB 11.2.37], ‘Fear because of absorption in a second shall occur for one who is averse to Īśa,’ she covers the [jīvas’] true nature (svarūpa) and brings about [the jīvas’] absorption in that which is not the [jīvas’] true nature (asvarūpa).”
tad evam anantā eva jīvākhyās taṭasthāḥ śaktayaḥ | tatra tāsāṁ varga-dvayam | eko vargo’nādita eva bhagavad-unmukhaḥ, anyas tv anādita eva bhagavat-parāṅmukhaḥ, svabhāvatas tadīya-jñāna-bhāvāt tadīya-jñānābhāvāc ca | tatra prathamo’ntaraṅgā-śakti-vilāsānugṛhīto nitya-bhagavat-parikara-rūpo garuḍādikaḥ, yathoktaṁ pādmottara-khaṇḍe ‘tripād-vibhūter lokās tu’ ity-ādau bhagavat-sandarbhodāhṛte | asya ca taṭasthatvaṁ jīvatva-prasiddher īśvaratva-koṭāv apraveśāt | aparas tu tat-parāṅmukhatva-doṣeṇa labdha-cchidrayā māyayā paribhūtaḥ saṁsārī | yathoktaṁ haṁsa-guhya-stave—‘sarvaṁ pumān veda guṇāṁś ca taj-jño na veda sarvajñam anantam īḍe’ iti | ekādaśe ca—‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt’ iti | yathoktaṁ ca vaiṣṇave—‘tayā tirohitatvāc ca śaktiḥ kṣetra-jña-saṁjñitā | sarva-bhūteṣu bhūpāla tāratamyena vartate ||’ iti |
(Paramātma Sandarbha: 47)
“Thus, in this way, there are indeed innumerable intermediary potencies (taṭastha-śaktis) known as jīvas. In that regard, there are two class of them. One class is intent upon Bhagavān (Bhagavad-unmukhaḥ) verily beginninglessly, whereas the other is oblivious of Bhagavān (Bhagavat-parāṅmukhaḥ) verily beginninglessly because of the presence of awareness of him and the absence of awareness of him in their [respective] dispositions (svabhāvas). In that regard, the first [class] is favored by an expression (vilāsa) of the internal potency (antaraṅgā-śakti) [of Śrī Bhagavān] and has the forms of eternal associates of Bhagavan, such as Garuḍa, as stated in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of Padma Purāṇa (6.228.1–4), which was cited [earlier] in Bhagavat Sandarbha (78), ‘The beings of the magnificence of three dimensions (tripād-vibhūti) [i.e., the beings of Vaikuṇṭha, the realm beyond the phenomenal, material realm] are declared to be verily innumerable. They all are constituted of śuddha-sattva and known as the bliss and joy of Brahman. They all are eternal, without transformation, and completely free from [the type of] attachment (rāga) that is to be abandoned. They all are golden, pure, and possessed of luster like a crore of suns. They all are full of [i.e., fully conversant in] the Vedas, divine, and free from lust, anger, and so on. They all are one-pointed relishers of bhakti to the lotus feet of Nārāyaṇa, and they all are always situated in the complete joy of singing the Sāma [Veda]. They all are embodiments of the five Upaniṣads and endowed with the splendor of the Vedas.’ Its [i.e., this first of the two classes of jīvas] intermediacy (taṭasthatva) is because of the non-entrance into [i.e., non-inclusion in] the category of being Īśvara of they who are well known as being jīvas.
“The other [class of jīvas], on the contrary, is the saṁsārī [i.e., the jīvas bound in saṁsāra] overpowered by māyā on account of the acquired fault of the defect of obliviousness of him [i.e., Bhagavān], as stated in the Haṁsa-guhya-stava [in SB 6.4.25], ‘The body, prāṇas, senses, psyche, gross elements (bhūtas), and subtle elements (mātrās) do not know themselves, others [like themselves], or superiors, whereas the person [i.e., the jīva] knows them all, as well as the guṇas. Although a knower of them [however], he [i.e., the jīva] does not know the all-knowing Infinite (Ananta) whom I praise.’ And in the Eleventh [Canto, i.e., SB 11.2.37], ‘Non-awareness, misapprehension, and fear because of absorption in a second shall occur by means of Īśa’s māyā for one who is averse to him. Therefore, a wise person, being one for whom the guru is the Devatā and the self (ātmā), should fully worship him [viz., Īśa, Bhagavān] with one-pointed bhakti.’ And as stated in Viṣṇu Purāṇa [6.7.63], ‘Because of being covered by that [i.e., by the third śakti called avidyā-karma], O king, the śakti known as the kṣetrajña is seen in all beings in a gradation [i.e., its influence is perceived to a greater or lesser extent in various living beings even though it is equally present in them all].’”
tad etad ubhayaṁ yadyapi pūrvatra siddhopadeśa evābhipretam asti, yathā “tava gṛhe nidhir asti” iti śrutvā kaścid daridras tad-arthaṁ prayatate labhate ca tam iti, tadvat, tathāpi tac-chaithilya-nirāsāya punas tad-upadeśaḥ | tad evaṁ tān praty anādi-siddha-taj-jñāna-saṁsargābhāvamaya-tad-vaimukhyādikaṁ duḥkha-hetuṁ vadan vyādhi-nidāna-vaiparītyamaya-cikitsā-nibhaṁ tat-sāmmukhyādikam upadiśati—bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād … |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)
“Therefore, although these two [i.e., the abhidheya and prayojana] are intended in the siddhopadeśa [i.e., implied instruction] in the former [i.e., in the earlier discussion in these sandarbhas of the nature of the Para-tattva], just as after hearing, ‘There is a treasure in your home,’ a poor person seeks that object and attains it [without having to be instructed to do so], still again teaching regarding them [i.e., the abhidheya and prayojana] is [given here in Bhakti Sandarbha] to dispel laxity regarding [one’s endeavor to attain] them. Thus, in this way, śāstra tells them [i.e., the jīvas] about the cause of [their] suffering, that is, obliviousness and so forth of that [i.e., the Para-tattva] based on a beginninglessly existent absence of the existence of awareness of that [i.e., the Para-tattva], and teaches [them] intentness (sāmmukhya) upon that [i.e., the Para-tattva], which resembles a treatment consisting of negation of the cause of a disease: bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād … [i.e., SB 11.2.37 is a primary evidence for the śāstra’s conclusion regarding the cause of the jīvas’ suffering in saṁsāra and the adhidheya, that is, the action the śāstra directs the jīvas to engage in].”
‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt’ ity-ādi-padye budha ābhajet tam bhaktyaikayeśam ity atra bhaktyā ity anena tasyā jñānādy-amiśra-śravaṇa-kīrtanādi-lakṣaṇatvam, ekayā ity anena nairantarya-lakṣaṇam avyabhicāritvaṁ copadiṣṭam |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 59)
“By this [word] ‘with bhakti’ (bhaktyā) here in [the statement], ‘A wise person should fully worship him with one-pointed bhakti’ (budha ābhajet tam bhaktyaikayeśam) in the verse bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt …, its [i.e., bhakti’s] being [possessed] of the characteristic of hearing, praising, and so forth unmixed with jñāna and so on is taught, and by this [word] ‘one-pointed’ (ekayā) [its] being [possessed] of the characteristic of constancy and being unwavering [is taught].”
tad evam avāntara-tātparyeṇa bhakter evābhidheyatvaṁ ṣaḍ-vidhair api liṅgair avagamyate | … upapattyā ca—‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt’ ity-ādy anekam iti |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 114)
“Thus, in this way, by means of secondary import (avāntara-tātparya), bhakti alone’s being the abhidheya is understood by means of the six types of [hermeneutical] indicators (liṅgas) as well. … [Bhakti’s being the abhidheya is understood] Also by means of reasoning (upapatti) [i.e., the sixth of these six hermeneutical indicators] in many [verses], such as bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt … [wherein a logical conclusion is shown by the word ‘therefore’ (ataḥ) that enjoins engaging in bhakti to Bhagavān].”
doṣa-mūlaṁ hi jīvasya parama-tattva-jñānābhāva evety uktam—‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt’ ity ādau, ‘īśād apetasya’ ity-ādibhiḥ | atas taj-jñānam eva śuddhatvam … |
(Excerpted from Prīti Sandarbha: 1)
“The root of the jīva’s deficiency (doṣa) [alt., impurity] is only the absence of awareness of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), as stated by [the phrase], ‘For one who is averse to the Lord’ (Īśād apetasya) in [the verse] bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād … [i.e., SB 11.2.37]. Therefore, only awareness of him [i.e., the Supreme Entity] is purity.”
‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt’ iti nyāyena yasya yāvan mad-vaimukhyaṁ, tasya tāvad avidyāṁ prasārya svarūpāvaraṇa-pūrvakaṁ guṇāveśaṁ kurvatī bandhaṁ karoti | mat-sāmmukhye tu guṇāveśa-tyājana-pūrvakaṁ svarūpa-sphuraṇaṁ kurvatī mokṣaṁ karotīti jñeyam |
(Excerpt from the Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.11.3)
“According to the principle [stated in] bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt [i.e., SB 11.2.37], as long as one has obliviousness of me, she [i.e., māyā] spreads ignorance (avidyā) [over the jīva], produces absorption in the guṇas preceded by a covering of the true self (svarūpa), and [thus] binds [the jīva]. In the case of intentness (sāmmukhya) upon me, on the contrary, she manifests the true self (svarūpa) preceded by a removal of absorption in the guṇas, and liberates [the jīva]. This is to be understood.”
kiṁ cātra bhaktaiḥ saṁsāra-bandhāya bhetavyaṁ? sa hi bhaktau pravartamānasya svata evāpayātīty āha—bhayam iti | dvitīye dehendriyādāv upādhi-bhūte’bhiniveśato’bhimānāt, īśād apetasya īśa-vimukhasya jīvasya bhayaṁ saṁsāraḥ syāt | na tv īśonmukhasya—‘tāvad rāgādayaḥ stenāḥ tāvat kārā-gṛhaṁ gṛham | tāvan moho’ṅghri-nigaḍo yāvat kṛṣṇa na te janāḥ ||’ iti brahmokteḥ | tac ca bhayaṁ dvividhaṁ—viparyayo’smṛtiś ca, viparyaya-rūpam asmṛti-rūpaṁ cety arthaḥ | tatra viparyayaḥ ātma-bhinne dehādau ātma-buddhiḥ | asmṛtir ātmani smṛti-bhraṁśaḥ, ko’haṁ? kiṁ karomi? pūrvaṁ kīdṛśa āsaṁ? agre vā kīdṛśo bhaviṣyāmi? iti pūrvāparānusandhāna-rāhityam | etad eva tasya bhagavato māyayā bhayam | yad uktam ‘smṛti-bhraṁśād buddhi-nāśo buddhi-nāśāt praṇaśyati’ iti | ata eva hetor budhaḥ śrī-guru-caraṇa-prasādāl labdha-vivekaḥ, tam eva ā samyak kāmanāntara-rāhityena ekayā kevalayaiva, na tu jñāna-karmādi-miśrayā, bhaktyā bhajet | gurur eva devatā īśvara, ātmā preṣṭhaś ca yasya, tathā-dṛṣṭiḥ sann ity arthaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Furthermore in this regard, the bondage of saṁsāra is not to be feared by bhaktas, since that falls away entirely of its own accord for one who is engaged in bhakti. Thus, he [i.e., Śrī Karabhājana Ṛṣi] says bhayaṁ … [i.e., he speaks this verse, viz., SB 11.2.37]. Fear, meaning, saṁsāra, shall occur as a result of absorption (abhiniveśataḥ) in a second, meaning, as a result of identification with existent adjuncts, such as the body and senses, for one who is averse to Īśa, that is, oblivious of Īśa, but not for one who is intent upon Īśa, as per the statement of Brahmā [in SB 10.14.36], ‘For that long attachment (rāga) and so forth are thieves, for that long one’s house is a prison, and for that long affection is a foot-shackle—so long as people do not become your own, O Kṛṣṇa!’ That [aforementioned] fear, furthermore, is of two types: misapprehension (viparyayaḥ), and non-awareness (asmṛtiḥ), meaning, that which is a form of misapprehension and that which is a form of non-awareness. Therein, misapprehension refers to [fostering] a sense of self in regard to that which is distinct from the self, meaning, the body and so on. Non-awareness refers to a loss of awareness in regard to the self, meaning, being devoid of consideration in regard to the past and future, [such as,] ‘Who am I? What am I doing? Of what disposition was I before? And of what disposition will I become?’ This itself [i.e., such misapprehension and non-awareness] is the fear occurrent by means of his, meaning, Bhagavān’s, māyā, since it is said [by Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa in BG 2.61], ‘As a result of a loss of awareness, the desertion of one’s intention occurs, and as a result of desertion of one’s intention, one is ruined.’ Therefore (ataḥ), meaning, for that reason, a wise person, that is, one who has acquired [the capacity for] discernment (viveka) by the grace of the guru’s feet, should fully (ā), that is, without any other desire, worship (bhajet) him (tam) [i.e., Bhagavān] alone with bhakti that is one-pointed (ekayā), meaning, pure (kevala) and not, rather, mixed with jñāna, karma, or anything else, being guru-devatātmā, that is, one whose vision is such that the guru is [seen to be] the Devatā, that is, Īśvara, and the self (ātmā), that is, [one’s] dearmost. This is the meaning.”