yasmād evaṁ sarvānandātikrama-liṅgena paramānanda-svarūpāsau bhaktis tasmāt tatra svabhāvata eva pravṛttir guṇaḥ, tathābhūtām api tan-mādhurīṁ svadoṣeṇānubhavitum asamarthānāṁ tu kevala-vidhi-niṣedha-sambhava-guṇa-doṣa-dṛṣṭyaiva pravṛttir api pūrvāpekṣayā doṣa eva | … ||177|| iyam akiñcanākhyā bhaktir eva jīvānāṁ svabhāvata ucitā | svābhāvika-tad-āśrayā hi jīvāḥ ‘sa kāraṇaṁ karaṇādhipādhipaḥ’ iti śruteḥ | aṁśatve’pi bahiraṅgatva-svīkārāt tad-āśrayatvaṁ sūrya-maṇḍala-bahir-ātapa-paramāṇūnām iva | ata eva pādmottara-khaṇḍe praṇava-vyākhyāne—‘a-kāraś cāpy u-kāraś ca ma-kāraś ca tataḥ param | veda-trayātmakaṁ proktaṁ praṇavaṁ brahmaṇaḥ padam || a-kāreṇocyate viṣṇuḥ śrīr u-kāreṇa cocyate | ma-kāras tu tayor dāsaḥ pañcaviṁśaḥ prakīrtitaḥ ||’ … ||178||
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 177–178)
“Since, in this way, this bhakti is of the essential nature of the highest bliss by virtue of [its possessing] the characteristic of surpassing all [other forms of] bliss, inclination (pravṛtti) towards it just naturally is a quality, whereas even inclination [towards it] solely because of consideration only of the merits and demerits [i.e., consequences for oneself] produced by [observation and transgression of] injunctions and prohibitions [related to it] on the part of those who are unable to experience its sweetness even as such [i.e., even though it is a cause of experience of superlative bliss] because of their own faults [e.g., their absence of intentness upon Bhagavān, their inclinations, desires, and attachments related to objects other than Bhagavān, their offenses (aparādhās) against Bhagavān, and so on] is verily a fault (doṣa) in comparison to the former [i.e., in comparison to an inclination towards bhakti that is impelled naturally]. … ||177||
“This bhakti known an ‘unconditional’ [alt., ‘pure,’ lit., ‘without anything’] (akiñcanā) [i.e., unconditional bhakti] alone is befitting naturally for jīvas, since jīvas are they whose dependence upon him [viz., Bhagavān, the object of unconditional bhakti] is natural, as per the Śruti [i.e., Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.9], ‘He is the Cause [of everything (sarvasya), as per Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary] and the Ruler of the ruler of the means of action [i.e., the Ruler of the jīva, who is the ruler of the senses in their bodies, as per Śrī Raṅga Rāmānuja’s commentary].’ Even with [the existence of their] part-hood (aṁśatva) [i.e., even though the jīvas are parts (aṁśas) of Bhagavān’s Paramātmā aspect], [their] being of dependence (āśrayatva) upon him is because of acceptance of their externality (bahiraṅgatva) [lit., their being regarded as an outer part of Bhagavān] as is so of the particles of light outside the orb of the sun [i.e., as light particles that have been emitted by the sun are understood to be situated outside the orb of the sun yet also dependent upon the sun for their existence, the jīvas are understood to be distinct parts (vibhinnāṁśas) of Śrī Bhagavān uet also dependent upon Śrī Bhagavān for their existence; as only something that is considered distinct from something else can be considered to be dependent upon it (since otherwise it would simply be the thing it is being said to be sheltered within), so the jīvas are considered to be dependent upon Bhagavān because it is understood that they exist ‘outside’ him in the sense that they are considered dependent external parts (aṁśas) of him]. Therefore [i.e., because the jīva is a dependent, external part of Śrī Bhagavān], in the explanation of praṇava in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of Padma Purāṇa (PP 6.227.22-23) [it is said that the jīva is a servant of Śrī Bhagavān], ‘The letter a along with the letter u and the letter m after that—praṇava [i.e., the word Aum]—is declared to be the basis of the three Vedas and the word for [alt., dwelling place] of Brahman. Viṣṇu is referred to by the letter a, and Śrī is referred to by the letter u. The servant of the two [i.e., of Viṣṇu and Śrī], the twenty-fifth [element in the universe, viz., the jīva], is declared to indeed be the letter m.” ||178||
Read on →
