Arcana

atha ātma-nivedanam

atha ātma-nivedanam | tac ca dehādi-śuddhātma-paryantasya sarvato-bhāvena tasminn evārpaṇam | tat-kāryaṁ cātmārtha-ceṣṭā-śūnyatvaṁ tan-nyastātma-sādhana-sādhyatvaṁ tad-arthaika-ceṣṭāmayatvaṁ ca | idaṁ hy ātmārpaṇaṁ go-vikrayavat, vikrītasya gor vartanārthaṁ vikrītavatā ceṣṭā na kriyate | tasya ca śreyaḥ-sādhakas taṁ krītavān eva syāt | sa ca gaus tasyaiva karma kuryāt, na punar vikrītavato’pīti | atha kecid dehārpaṇam evātmārpaṇam iti manyante | … kecic chuddha-kṣetrajñārpaṇam eva | … kecic ca dakṣiṇa-hastādikam apy arpayantaḥ, tena tat-karma-mātraṁ kurvate, na tu dehādi-karmety adyāpi dṛśyate | tad etat sarvātmakaṁ sakāryam ātma-nivedanaṁ yathā … | … atra sarvathā tatraiva saṅghātātma-nikṣepaḥ kṛta iti vaiśiṣṭyāpattyā smaraṇādi-mayopāsanasyaivātmārpaṇatvam | … yathā smaraṇa-kīrtana-pāda-sevana-mayam upāsanam eva āgamokta-vidhimayatva-vaiśiṣṭyāpattyārcanam ity abhidhīyate, tato nāviviktatvam, snāna-paridhānādi-kriyā cāsya bhagavat-sevā-yogyatvāyaiveti, tatrāpi nātmārpaṇa-bhakti-hānir ity anusandheyam | … tad etad ātma-nivedanaṁ bhāvaṁ vinā bhāva-vaiśiṣṭyena ca dṛśyate |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 309)

“Now, ātma-nivedanam [i.e., submission of the self, will be discussed]. That, furthermore, is offering of the body and so forth, up to the pure self (ātmā), in all respects to him [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān] alone. The result thereof, furthermore, is (1) being free from endeavor for the sake of oneself, (2) being of one’s means (sādhana) and ends (sādhya) consigned to him [i.e., Bhagavān, meaning, relying primarily upon Bhagavān for all of one’s means and ends, both in the spiritual sense of one’s bhakti-sādhana and attainment of the ideal of prema, and in the relative sense of one’s practical objectives related to the upkeep of the body and the means of effecting that], and (3) being possessed of endeavor solely for his sake. This offering of the self is like the selling a cow: [after the sale] endeavor is not performed by the seller for the sake of the maintenance of that which was sold [i.e., the cow], and the buyer alone shall be the agent of its [i.e., the cow’s] well-being. Furthermore, [after the sale] the cow shall work only for him [i.e., the buyer], and not any more for the seller [i.e., when one has offered oneself to Śrī Bhagavān, then, like a sold cow, one acts solely for the sake of one’s proprietor, Śrī Bhagavān, and the responsibility of one’s maintenance is solely that of Śrī Bhagavān]. Now, some consider offering of the self to be only offering of the body. … Some [alternately, consider offering of the self to be] offering of the pure knower of the field (kṣetrajña) [i.e., the ātmā]. … Some also offer the right hand or otherwise [i.e., some particular body part, to Bhagavān] and perform only action for him with that [offered part of the body] and not, rather, action for the body and so forth. Even today this is seen. Now, submission of the self, along with its functions, in totality is as follows [i.e., is demonstrated by Mahārāja Ambarīṣa, as described in SB 9.4.18–20]. … In this case [of Mahārāja Ambarīṣa], casting of the entirety of the self [i.e., the body, mind, and so forth up to the ātmā] solely unto him [i.e., Bhagavān] in all respects was performed. On account of the occurrence of this characteristic [i.e., of his engaging all the faculties of his self in action for the sake of Śrī Bhagavān, as described in SB 9.4.18–20], worship (upāsanā) constituted of remembrance and so forth [i.e., of usage of one’s various faculties, such as the mind] itself is part of [the limb of bhakti known as] offering of the self [i.e., ātma-nivedanam]. … As worship (upāsana) constituted of remembrance, praising, and serving the feet [of Bhagavān] is called arcana on account of the occurrence of the characteristic [in such worship] of being based on the injunctions stated in the Āgamas, and is not distinguished from that [i.e., from arcana, when that characteristic is present in them, since arcana is defined as worship performed according to śāstric injunction], one’s acts of bathing, dressing, and so forth [i.e., a bhakta’s attendance to their own basic bodily functions and needs after they have offered themselves to Bhagavān] too are [performed] only because of [their] being useful for the service of Bhagavān, and therein as well are to be considered non-detrimental to the [limb of] bhakti [known as] offering the self [i.e., one who has taken up the limb of bhakti known as offering one’s entire self to Bhagavān can still engage in actions for the sake of maintaining the body and so forth that one has offered to Bhagavān because such actions are actually actions for the sake of Śrī Bhagavān since they facilitate performance of various services to Śrī Bhagavān with the body and are themselves acts of care for something that belongs to and is dear to Bhagavān]. … Then, this submission of the self is seen to be (1) without a [specific] bhāva [as described in SB 11.29.32] and (2) with a specificity of bhāva [as in the case of Rukmiṇī offering herself to Śrī Kṛṣṇa with madhura-bhāva, as described in SB 10.52.1].”

Read on →

labdhvā mantraṁ tu yo nityaṁ

atha dīkṣitasya pūjāyā nityatā |
labdhvā mantraṁ tu yo nityaṁ nārcayen mantra-devatām |
sarva-karmāphalaṁ tasyāniṣṭaṁ yacchati devatā ||
(Āgama-śāstra; cited Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 3.3)

“Now, the necessity of pūjā for one who has [received] dīkṣā [is described]: All the activities of one who receives a mantra but does not daily worship the devatā of the mantra are fruitless, and the devatā imposes disadvantage upon him.”

Read on →

śrutaḥ saṅkīrtito dhyātaḥ

śrutaḥ saṅkīrtito dhyātaḥ pūjitaś cādṛto’pi vā |
nṛṇāṁ dhunoti bhagavān hṛt-stho janmāyatāśubham ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 12.3.46)

“When heard about, highly praised, meditated upon, worshipped, or even honored, Bhagavān, situated in the heart, removes ten-thousand births of human beings’ inauspiciousness.”

Read on →

na hi śabda-jñānino brahma-vittvaṁ

na hi śabda-jñānino brahma-vittvaṁ, kintu tad-anubhāvina eva | na ca madhu madhuram iti śābdī-pratītim upetas tan-mādhurya-vid bhavati | … tathā ca śābda-jñānād anyaivopāsanā | bhakty-anubhava-pada-vācyā vidyā puruṣārtha-hetuḥ | … śābda-jñānaṁ tu vairāgyam iva tat-parikara-bhūtam | … nanu kāya-vāṅ-mano-vyāpāra-rūpā bhaktiḥ | tatra mānasasya dhyānasyānubhavatvaṁ bhavet | kāya-vāg-vyāpāra-rūpasyārcana-japādes tattvaṁ katham iti ced, ucyate–hlādinī-sāra-samaveta-saṁvid-rūpā bhaktiḥ ‘sac-cid-ānandaika-rase bhakti-yoge tiṣṭhati’ iti śruteḥ | itarathā bhagavad-vaśīkāra-hetur asau na syāt | tathābhūtāyās tasyā bhakta-kāyādi-vṛtti-tādātmyenāvirbhūtāyā kriyākāratvaṁ cit-sukha-mūrteḥ kuntalādi-pratīkatvavad avaseyam | ‘śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt’ iti nyāyenālaukike’cintye’rthe tarkas tu nirākṛtaḥ |
(Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra 3.4.12)

“It is not that knowers of the words [i.e., the words of śāstra] are [actual] knowers of Brahman, but rather that only those who have experience of it [i.e., of Brahman] are. It is not that one who possess semantic knowledge based on the statement, ‘Honey is sweet’ becomes a knower of its sweetness [i.e., as only coming to know through language that a substance known as honey is sweet is different from actually experiencing its sweetness, so mere theoretical knowledge of Brahman is distinct from actual experience of Brahman]. … Furthermore, upāsanā [i.e., the process to realize Brahman] is certainly distinct from [mere] knowledge derived from words. Knowledge (vidyā) the referent of which is experience (anubhava) [of Brahman] brought about by bhakti, is the cause of [attaining] the goal of human life (puruṣātha). … Knowledge derived from words, like vairāgya, is an assisting element [of Brahma-vidyā, i.e., it is not Brahma-vidyā itself].” … [An objection is raised:] ‘Well, bhakti is of the nature of operation of the body, speech, and mind. Therein, meditation in the mind could be [considered to be] of the nature of awareness (anubhava), but how could arcana, japa, and so forth, which are of the nature of operation of the body and speech, be of that nature [i.e., be of the nature of awareness (anubhava)]? If [this question is raised, then to that], it is to be said that bhakti is of the nature of awareness (saṁvit) combined with the essence of bliss (hlādinī), as per the Śruti [i.e., GTU 2.78], ‘[He who is of the nature of condensed awareness and condensed bliss, i.e., Śrī Bhagavān] Dwells in bhakti-yoga, which is of the nature of eternal being, consciousness, and bliss.’ Otherwise [i.e., were this not the case], it [i.e., bhakti], would not be a cause of captivation of Bhagavān. Existent as such and manifested with a sameness in nature (tādātmya) [i.e., an acquired, non-ontological, functional oneness] with the functions of a bhakta’s body and so forth [i.e., speech], its [i.e., bhakti’s] being possessed of a form as action [i.e., its being so also manifested as the acts of japa, arcana, and so forth] is to be understood, like hair and so forth’s being a part of the embodiment of consciousness and bliss [i.e., just as the hair and nails of Śrī Bhagavān are understood to be part of his body even though they are perceived to change more so that other parts of his body, to lack the sensitivity found in other parts of his body, to be able to be removed from his body without him loosing his essence, and so on, so bhakti which is essentially of the nature of awareness is to be understood to also manifest in the form of actions performed by the body and speech]. In accord with the principle [stated in VS 2.1.27], ‘It is because of Śruti [i.e., because of the statements in the śāstra] on account of śabda’s [i.e., śabda-pramāṇa’s] being the source [of valid knowledge of Brahman]’ (śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt), argument (tarka) is verily annulled in regard to an otherworldly and inconceivable object [e.g., bhakti].”

Read on →

Scroll to Top