Ānukūlya

nātha yoni-sahasreṣu yeṣu yeṣu vrajāmy aham

nātha yoni-sahasreṣu yeṣu yeṣu vrajāmy aham |
teṣu teṣv acyutā bhaktir acyute’stu sadā tvayi ||
yā prītir avivekānāṁ viṣayeṣv anapāyinī |
tvām anusmarataḥ sā me hṛdayān nāpasarpatu ||

(Viṣṇu Purāṇa: 1.20.18–19; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 8.434–435; Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha: 142; Bhakti Sandarbha: 217; Prīti Sandarbha: 50, 61)

“O Nātha, wherever I go in the course of thousands of births, may I always have unwavering (acyutā) bhakti to you, the unwavering Lord (Acyuta)! As I continuously remember you, may that everlasting prīti which [is possessed of a characteristic like the prīti which] the undiscerning have for objects of the senses, never slip away from my heart.”

Read on →

atha kānto’yam iti prītiḥ kānta-bhāvaḥ

atha kānto’yam iti prītiḥ kānta-bhāvaḥ | eṣa eva priyatā-śabdena śrī-rasāmṛta-sindhau paribhāṣitā | priyāyā bhāvaḥ priyateti | laukika-rasikair atraiva rati-saṁjñā svīkriyate | eṣa eva kāma-tulyatvāt śrī-gopikāsu kāmādi-śabdenāpy abhihitaḥ | smarākhya-kāma-viśeṣas tv anyaḥ, vailakṣaṇyāt | kāma-sāmānyaṁ khalu spṛhā-sāmānyātmakam, prīti-sāmānyaṁ tu viṣayānukūlyātmakas tad-anugata-viṣaya-spṛhādi-mayo jñāna-viśeṣa iti lakṣitam | tato dvayoḥ sāmānya-prāya-ceṣṭatve’pi kāma-sāmānyasya ceṣṭā svīyānukūlya-tātparyā | tatra kutracid viṣayānukūlyaṁ ca sva-sukha-kārya-bhūtam eveti tatra gauṇa-vṛttir eva prīti-śabdaḥ | śuddha-prīti-mātrasya ceṣṭā tu priyānukūlya-tātparyaiva | tatra tad-anugatam eva cātma-sukham iti mukhya-vṛttir eva prīti-śabdaḥ | ata eva yathā-pūrvaṁ sukha-prīti-sāmānyayor ullāsātmakatayā sāmye’py ānukūlyāṁśena prīti-sāmānyasya vaiśiṣṭyaṁ darśitam | tathā kāma-prīti-sāmānyayor api spṛhā-viśeṣātmakatayā sāmye’pi tenaiva vaiśiṣṭyaṁ siddham | atra tu—‘yat te sujāta-caraṇāmburuhaṁ staneṣu bhītāḥ śanaiḥ priya dadhīmahi karkaśeṣu’ ity ādibhir atikramyāpi svānukūlyaṁ priyānukūlya-tātparyasyaiva darśitatvāt śuddha-prīti-viśeṣa-rūpatvam eva labhyate | atas tad-viśeṣatvaṁ ca spṛhā-viśeṣātmakatvāt siddham | tato’tra śrī-kṛṣṇa-viṣayatvena kubjādi-sambandhi-kāmavad aprākṛta-kāmatvasyāpy anabhyupagame sati prākṛta-kāmatvaṁ tu sutarām asiddham | tathā darśitaṁ ca— ‘vikrīḍitaṁ vraja-vadhūbhir idaṁ ca viṣṇoḥ, śraddhānvito yaḥ śṛṇuyād atha varṇayed vā | bhaktiṁ parāṁ bhagavati parilabhya kāmaṁ, hṛd-rogam āśv apahinoty acireṇa dhīraḥ’ || ity anena | yad vikrīḍitaṁ khalu nija-śravaṇa-dvārāpy anyeṣāṁ dūra-deśa-kāla-sthitānām api śīghram eva yaṁ kāmam apanayat paramaṁ premāṇaṁ vitanoti tat punas tat-kāmamayaṁ na syāt | api tu parama-prema-viśeṣamayam eva | na hi paṅkena paṅkaṁ kṣālyate | na tu svayam asnehaḥ snehayati | ata eva tasya bhāvasya śuddha-prema-mayatvaṁ nigadenaivoktvā śuddhatve hetutayā punas tena bhagavat-prasādaś ca darśitaḥ—‘bhagavān āhatā vīkṣya śuddha-bhāva-prasāditaḥ’ iti | tasyātmarāma-śiromaṇes tena ramaṇaṁ ca darśitam—‘kṛtvā tāvantam ātmānam’ ity-ādibhiḥ | vaśīkṛtatvaṁ ca svayaṁ darśitaṁ—‘na pāraye’haṁ niravadya-saṁyujām’ ity ādinā | tatra niravadyeti prīteḥ śuddhatvam | sva-sādhukṛtyam iti paramottamotkṛṣṭatvam | na pāraya iti svavaśīkāratvam | ataḥ śuddha-prema-jātiṣu tasya paramatvād eva śrīmad-uddhavenāpy evam uktam—‘vāñchanti yad bhava-bhiyo munayo vayaṁ ca’ iti | tasmāt sarvataḥ paramaiva kānta-bhāva-rūpā prītir iti sthitam |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 84)

“Then, the prīti [based on the attitude in relation to Śrī Bhagavān], ‘He is [my] beloved’ is [called] kānta-bhāva. This is technically defined with the word priyatā in Śrī Rasāmṛta-sindhu. The bhāva of a priyā [i.e., ladylove] is called priyatā [i.e., ‘fondness,’ lit., ‘ladylove-ness’]. The term rati is accepted [i.e., used] by secular rasikas in this regard [i.e., to define this bhāva]. Because of [its] resemblance to kāma [i.e., “love”], it is also referred to by words such as kāma in the case of the gopīs. It is different from the particular type of kāma known as smara [i.e., eros] because of dissimilarity [in nature between the two]. Kāma in general is defined as that constituted of desire (spṛhā) in general [i.e., general desire for an object of love], whereas prīti in general is a particular form of awareness constituted of favorability (ānukūlya) towards its object and full of desire (spṛhā) and so forth for its object following that [i.e., following in the wake of favorability towards its object (see PRS 61 and 78 for further discussion of the definition of prīti in general)]. Thus, although the two [i.e., kāma and prīti] are almost the same in terms of activity, the activities of kāma in general have the aim of favorability (ānukūlya) to oneself [i.e., the activities of kāma are focused on pleasing oneself]. Therein, sometimes there is also favorability (ānukūlya) to the object [of kāma], but that is only existent for the purpose of one’s own happiness [i.e., favorability to the object of kāma is proffered only as a means of attaining happiness for oneself]. Thus, in this regard [i.e., in reference to kāma in general], the word prīti is only in its secondary function [i.e., the word prīti describes kāma in general only in a secondary sense of its meaning, that is, kāma in general is not its primary sense]. The activities of pure prīti itself, however, have the aim only of favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved (priya). Therein, one’s own happiness is only following that [i.e., it occurs only in the wake of that favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved as a secondary, concomitant effect]. In this regard, the word prīti is in its primary function [i.e., the primary meaning of the word prīti is love the aim (tātparya) of which is solely favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved]. Therefore, as previously [was explained in PRS 61], although happiness (sukha) and prīti in general are equivalent in [their both] being constituted of elation (ullāsa), the speciality of prīti in general was shown by the aspect of favorability (ānukūlya) [i.e., prīti in general is constituted of favorability (ānukūlya) towards its object, whereas happiness (sukha) is not], so although kāma and prīti in general are equivalent because of [their both] being constituted of a particular form of desire (spṛhā), the speciality [of prīti in general] was established by that itself [i.e., by only prīti’s, and not kāma’s, being constituted principally and secondarily of favorability (ānukūlya) to its object]. “Verily in this regard, because of the aim of favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved definitively eclipsing even favorability to oneself being shown by [the statement of the gopīs in SB 10.31.19], ‘O Beloved! Fearful, we gently hold your tender lotus feet on our hard breasts … [You roam with them throughout the forest. Have they not been cut by pebbles and so forth? Our hearts tremble. You are our very life],’ a special form of pure prīti is definitively understood [to exist in the gopīs]. Thus, the speciality of that [i.e., of pure prīti in general, and of the special form of pure prīti found in the gopīs in particular] because of [its] being constituted of a special form of desire [i.e., a desire for favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved that is not motivated by a desire for favorability (ānukūlya) to oneself, that is, the pursuit of experiencing personal happiness (sukha) for oneself, and rather is motivated solely by a desire for favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved whereby one even neglects favorability (ānukūlya) to oneself] is also established. Then, in this regard, because of non-recognition of [the pure prīti existent in the gopīs] being supramundane (aprākṛta) kāma like the kāma belonging to Kubjā and others [which is such] on account of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s being the object [of the kāma], [its, i.e., the gopīs’ prīti] being mundane (prākṛta) kāma is completely unfounded [i.e., kāma means the desire to please one’s own senses (see CC 1.4.165) and can be classified as mundane (prākṛta) or supramundane (aprākṛta) depending on the nature of its object, that is, whether its object is mundane (prākṛta) or supramundane (aprākṛta) in nature; since the gopīs’ prīti is not constituted of the desire to please one’s own senses or activity aimed at this effect (viz., svīya-ānukūlya), and rather is constituted of the desire to please the senses of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, its object, and activity to that effect (viz., priya-ānukūlya), it should not be considered even supramundane (aprākṛta) kāma, as is found in Kubjā and others, much less mundane (prākṛta) kāma, as is found people in saṁsāra]. “Thus, this is also shown [in SB 10.33.40]: ‘One endowed with śraddhā who shall hear about and then describe Viṣṇu’s extraordinary play with the ladies of Vraja attains pure bhakti to Bhagavān, quickly casts off the heart disease of kāma, and without delay becomes steadfast.’ That extraordinary play which, even by means of hearing about it, quickly removes the kāma even of others who are situated in distant places and times [from where and when it took place] and bestows [upon them] the highest prema cannot on the contrary be constituted of that [sort of] kāma [i.e., the sort of kāma which it removes], and rather, must be constituted of a particular form of the highest prema [since only such prema could have the power to dispel kāma]. Mud is certainly not washed off with mud, and that which is itself devoid of oil does not anoint [i.e., the play between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs described in the Rāsa-pañcādhyāyī cannot be constituted of mundane (prākṛta) kāma because if it were, it would not purify those who hear of it of mundane (prākṛta) kāma, and it cannot be devoid of pure prīti because if it were, it would not be able to impart pure prīti to those who hear of it]. “Therefore, having now described this bhāva’s being constituted of pure prema with a definitive pronouncement, furthermore Bhagavān’s satisfaction because of it by virtue of the cause of [its] purity is also shown [in SB 10.22.18], ‘Bhagavān, seeing them [i.e., the gopīs in the Yamunā] struck [with embarrassment], and satisfied by their pure bhāva ….’ The amorous sporting of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who is the crest-jewel of ātmarāmas because of that [i.e., because of his satisfaction with the gopīs’ pure prīti] is also shown [in SB 10.33.20], ‘Expanding himself into as many gopa girls as there were, he, Bhagavān, although an ātmarāma, playfully [i.e., amorously] enjoyed with them.’ “Himself also being captivated [by the gopīs’ pure prīti] is also shown by [his statement to the gopīs in SB 10.32.22], ‘I am not capable even with the lifespan of a deva of the extraordinary act of virtue of you all, whose union [with me] is irreproachable, and who have completely severed the unrelenting fetters of family life and served me. May that [act of virtue of yours] by [your own] virtue be your compensation [for your virtuous service to me].’ Therein, ‘irreproachable’ (niravadya) indicates the purity of [the gopīs’] prīti. [The gopīs’] ‘Extraordinary act of virtue’ (sva-sādhukṛtyam) indicates the highest, topmost excellence [of their prīti], and ‘I am not capable’ (na pāraye) indicates his [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s] own captivation [because of their prīti]. Thus, because of its [i.e., the gopīs’ prīti] definitive supremacy among [all] types of pure prema, even the following is stated by Śrīmad Uddhava [in SB 10.47.58], ‘[The bhāva of the gopīs] Which those afraid of material existence, sages, and we too desire.’ Therefore, it is determined that prīti in the form of kānta-bhāva is supreme in all respects.”

Read on →

atha śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe ity-ādi-nindita-mātra-svāvaśyaka-kriyā-niṣedhayor ullaṅghanaṁ dvividham

atha śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe ity-ādi-nindita-mātra-svāvaśyaka-kriyā-niṣedhayor ullaṅghanaṁ dvividham | tau hi dharma-śāstroktau bhakti-śāstroktau ceti | bhagavad-bhakti-viśvāsena dauḥśīlyena vā pūrvayor akaraṇa-karaṇa-pratyāsattau na vaiṣṇava-bhāvād bhraṁśaḥ, ‘devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṝṇāṁ’ ity-ādy-ukteḥ, ‘api cet sudurācāraḥ’ ity-ādy-ukteś ca | tādṛśa-rucimati tu tayaiva rucyā dviṣṭatvād apunar-bhavādy-ānandasyāpi vāñchā nāsti, kim uta parama-ghṛṇāspadasya | atas tatra svata eva na pravṛttiḥ | pramādādinā kadācij jātaṁ ced vikarma tat-kṣaṇād eva naśyaty api | uktaṁ ca—‘vikarma yac cotpatitaṁ kathañcid dhunoti sarvaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ’ iti | atha yadi vaiṣṇava-śāstroktau tau, tarhi viṣṇu-santoṣaika-prayojanāv eva bhavataḥ | tayoś ca tādṛśatve śrute sati tadīya-rāga-rucimataḥ svata eva pravṛtty-apravṛttī syātām—tat-santoṣaika-jīvanatvāt prīti-jāteḥ | ata eva na tatra svānugamyamāna-rāgātmaka-siddha-bhakta-viśeṣeṇa kṛtatvākṛtatvayor anusandhānaṁ cāpekṣyaṁ syāt, kintu tat-kṛtatve sati viśeṣeṇāgraho bhavatīty eva viśeṣaḥ | atra kvacic chāstrokta-krama-vidhy-apekṣā ca rāga-rucyaiva pravartiteti rāgānugāntaḥpāta eva | ye ca śrī-gokulādi-virāji-rāgātmikānugās tat-parās te tu śrī-kṛṣṇa-kṣema-tat-saṁsargāntarāyābhāvādi-kāmyātmaka-tad-abhiprāya-rītyaiva vaiṣṇava-laukika-dharmānuṣṭhānaṁ kurvanti | ata eva rāgānugāyāṁ rucer eva sad-dharma-pravartakatvāt śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe ity etad-vākyasya na tad-vartma-bhakti-viṣayatvam, ‘api cet sudurācāraḥ’ ity ādi-virodhān na ca vidhi-vartma-bhakti-viṣayatvaṁ kintu bāhya-śāstra-nirmita-buddha-rṣabha-dattātreyādi-bhajana-vartma-viṣayatvam eva | tathoktam—veda-dharma-viruddhātmā yadi devaṁ prapūjayet | sa yāti narakaṁ ghoraṁ yāvad āhūta-samplavam || iti | rāgānugāyāṁ vidhy-apravartitāyām api na veda-bāhyatvam, veda-vaidika-prasiddhaiva sā—tatra tatra rucitvāt | vedeṣu buddhādīnāṁ tu varṇanaṁ veda-bāhyaṁ viruddhatvenaiva yathā—tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya sura-dviṣām | buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati || ity-ādi |tasmād bhavaty eva rāgānugā samīcīnā | tathā vaidhīto’py atiśayavatī ca | maryādā-vacanaṁ hy āveśārtham eveti darśitam | sa punar āveśo yathā ruci-viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa-mānasa-bhāvena syāt, na tathā vidhi-preraṇayā, svārasika-mano-dharmatvāt tasya | tatra cāstāṁ tāvad-anukūla-bhāvaḥ, parama-niṣiddhena pratikūla-bhāvenāpy āveśo jhaṭiti syāt | tad-āveśa-sāmarthyena prātikūlya-doṣa-hāniḥ syāt | sarvānartha-nivṛttiś ca syād iti bhāva-mārgasya balavattve dṛṣṭānto’pi dṛśyate | tatra yady anukūla-bhāvaḥ syāt, tadā paramaikānti-sādhya evāsau |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)

“Then, transgression of compulsory actions and prohibitions [i.e., those enjoined in śāstra] for oneself, which is criticized outright in [the aforementioned verse of Vādhūla-smṛti wherein Bhagavān states], ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders. One who proceeds transgressing them is a defier of [my] orders and my enemy. Even if he is my bhakta, he is not a Vaiṣṇava,’ is of two types. These [two types of compulsory actions and prohibitions] are (1) those stated in dharma-śāstra, and (2) those stated in bhakti-śāstra. In the case of non-performance and performance of the former [i.e., of non-performance of compulsory actions stated in dharma-śāstra and performance of acts prohibited in dharma-śāstra] because of conviction (viśvāsa) in bhakti to Bhagavān, or because of bad character, falling from the state of being a Vaiṣṇava does not occur, as per the statement [in SB 11.5.41], ‘O King, one who has forsaken one’s duties [i.e., the duties of one’s varṇa and āśrama] and taken shelter completely in the ultimate shelterer, Mukunda, is neither a servant of, nor a debtor to, the devas, the ṛṣis, living beings, relatives, mankind, or ancestors,’ and the statement [in BG 9.30], ‘If even a person of extreme misconduct serves me exclusively, he should be regarded as a sādhu because he is rightly resolved.’ One endowed with such taste (ruci) [i.e., taste for a particular form of rāgātmikā-bhakti that produces disinterest in everything apart from such bhakti], however, has no desire even for the bliss of the non-repetition of birth and so on [i.e., no desire for any of the varieties of mokṣa or any of the pleasures that can be attained through adherence to dharma], much less [desire] for anything that is an object of repugnance [i.e., much less for things that contravene the directives of śāstra, that is, that are adharmic] because of [all such things from the bliss of mokṣa on down] being detested [by that bhakta] just by virtue of that taste [i.e., taste for a particular form of rāgātmikā-bhakti]. Therefore, there is naturally just no propensity [in such a bhakta] for that [i.e., for actions that contravene the directives of śāstra]. If at some time a wrongful action is occasioned [by such a bhakta] as a result of inattention or otherwise, that is also destroyed immediately. This is also stated [in SB 11.5.42], ‘Situated in the heart [of a dear one who has given up regard for others, i.e., all other devatās, and is engaged in service to the soles of his feet, Hari, the Supreme Lord,] washes away in full any wrongful action that has somehow arisen [i.e., that has somehow been committed by that bhakta].’ Now, when those [compulsory actions and prohibitions that may so happen to be contravened by a bhakta] are those stated in Vaiṣṇava-śāstra, then those are existent only for the singular aim of the satisfaction of Viṣṇu. When they are heard of as being such [i.e., when it is known that they exist solely for the purpose of satisfying Bhagavān], then a propensity [to perform the actions enjoined in bhakti-śāstra] and a non-propensity [to perform the actions forbidden in bhakti-śāstra] shall come about entirely naturally for one endowed with [the aforementioned] taste (ruci) for a rāga related to him [i.e., Bhagavān, that is, for the rāga of a particular rāgātmikā-bhakta], because of his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] satisfaction being the very life of the manifestation of prīti [i.e., prema for Bhagavān]. Therefore, there shall also be no examination or necessary observability of performance and non-performance in this regard [i.e., in regard to performance of actions enjoined in bhakti-śāstra and non-performance of actions forbidden in bhakti-śāstra] by the particular rāgātmaka-siddha-bhakta [i.e., the realized bhakta possessed of rāga for Bhagavān] being followed by oneself, but eagerness does occur in particular [on the part of a sādhaka] for those [actions] that are performed [by the rāgātmaka-siddha-bhakta whom a sādhaka follows]. In this regard, in some cases, observance of [injunctive] procedures stated in śāstra also proceeds [i.e., occurs in the sādhana of a rāgānugā-bhakti-sādhaka] just because of [the aforementioned] taste (ruci) for a [particular] rāga and thus [such observance] is indeed included in rāgānugā [-bhakti]. Those who are followers of the rāgātmikās [i.e., rāgātmikā-bhaktas] residing in Śrī Gokula or elsewhere and devoted to them perform Vaiṣṇava [practices] and conventional dharma practices only with their [i.e., those rāgātmikā-bhaktas’] disposition and intention [which is] constituted of an object of desire such as Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s well-being or the negation of obstacles to meeting with him. Therefore, because of taste (ruci) alone being the impetus for [adherence to] proper conduct (sad-dharma) in rāgānugā [i.e., on the path of rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti], this statement, ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders …,’ has no applicability to the bhakti of that path [i.e., to rāgānugā-bhakti]. It also has no applicability to the bhakti of the path of vidhi [i.e., to vaidhī-bhakti either] because of [its] contrariety to [the aforementioned statement in BG 9.30,] ‘If even a person of extreme misconduct serves me exclusively, he should be regarded as a sādhu because he is rightly resolved.’ It has applicability, rather, only to the paths of worship of [i.e., taught by] Buddha, Ṛṣabha, Dattātreya, and others that are formulated by exterior texts [i.e., by texts that are not part of the Vedic canon]. Thus, it is said, ‘If someone whose disposition is opposed to the dharma of the Vedas intently worships Deva, he goes to a a fearsome naraka until the summoning of the flood [i.e., until the dissolution of the universe].’ Although rāgānugā [-bhakti] is not impelled by injunction [i.e., the injunctions enjoined in the Vedic śāstras], it is not exterior to [the scope of] the Vedas. It is indeed [rather] fully established in [alt., highly renowned throughout] the Vedas and śāstras based on the Vedas on account of taste (ruci) [within it] for these [i.e., for the Vedas and śāstras based on the Vedas, that is, on account of sādhakas following the path of rāgānugā-bhakti invariably having taste (ruci), that is, great regard, for the general authority of the Vedas and texts related to them and in a particular for the specific portions of them that pertain to the path of rāgānugā-bhakti]. The descriptions of Buddha and so forth [i.e., Ṛṣabha, Dattātreya, and others that can be found] in the Vedas [and śāstras based on them], however, are exterior to the Vedas because of [their, i.e., Buddha and so forth’s] being opposed [to the Vedas], as [is indicated] in [the following statement from SB, 1.3.24], ‘Then at the beginning of [the Age of] Kali, Buddha, the son of Añjanā, will appear among the Kīkaṭas [i.e., in the region of Gayā in Bihar] for the purpose of bewildering the suras’ foes’ [i.e., Buddha, Ṛṣabha, Dattātreya, and others are considered to be exterior to the Vedas and Vedic dharma even though they are mentioned within texts of the Vedic canon and recognized as avatāras because they taught people to disregard the Vedas’ authority and follow a path not enjoined by the Vedas]. Therefore, rāgānugā [-bhakti] is certainly proper [i.e., a path supported by Vedic authority, a path worthy of being followed, and a path not to be confused with paths exterior to Vedic dharma] and so also superior even to vaidhī [-bhakti]. That the pronouncement of protocol [i.e., the śāstra’s stating injunctions and prohibitions as an impetus for people to follow the path of bhakti, i.e., the path of vaidhī-bhakti] is only for the purpose of [leading people towards the state of] absorption [in bhakti] has been shown [already]. That absorption, furthermore, shall not come about [as strongly and completely] by means of the impetus of injunctions as it shall by means of the disposition (bhāva) of the mind characterized by a specific taste (ruci) because of its [i.e., that absorption based on taste’s] being the natural characteristic of the mind. And in that regard, let alone a specifically favorable disposition (anukūla-bhāva) [towards the object of bhakti, viz., Bhagavān], absorption [of the mind in Bhagavān] can quickly come about even by means of an unfavorable disposition (pratikūla-bhāva) [towards the object of bhakti, viz., Bhagavān] that is completely forbidden [i.e., since absorption of the mind in Bhagavān can quickly occur even when one fosters a forbidden and offensive unfavorable disposition towards Bhagavān, it can occur all the more by means of a favorable disposition towards Bhagavān]. Removal of the fault of unfavorability [in one’s disposition in the case of those who become absorbed in Bhagavān out of unfavorability] shall occur by the power of that absorption [in Bhagavān, he who is the ultimate cause of all purification]. The cessation of all obstructions (anarthas) shall also occur [by virtue of that absorption in Bhagavān even out of an unfavorable disposition]. Thus, an illustration of the powerfulness of the path of bhāva [i.e., the path of engagement on the basis of the mind’s natural propensity for absorption in objects for which it has taste (ruci)] is also evident [since absorption of the mind even by means of a bhāva (disposition) of unfavorability towards Bhagavān results in full purification of the mind]. In that regard [i.e., in regard to that state of absorption], if one shall have a favorable disposition (anukūla-bhāva) [towards Bhagavān therein], then that [state] is itself the object sought by those who are supremely one-pointed [i.e., by those who practice complete mental one-pointedness upon Bhagavān by various forms of sādhana].”

Read on →

anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ

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.”

Read on →