hanti nindati vai dveṣṭi vaiṣṇavān nābhinandati |
krudhyate yāti no harṣaṁ darśane patanāni ṣaṭ ||
(Skanda Purāṇa; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa 10.312, Bhakti Sandarbha: 265)
“Striking, defaming, despising, not respectfully greeting, getting angry with, and not being joyful upon seeing Vaiṣṇavas are six causes of falling [into Naraka].”
yac chraddhayā śrutavatyā ca bhaktyā
sammṛjyamāne hṛdaye’vadhāya |
jñānena vairāgya-balena dhīrā
vrajema tat te’ṅghri-saroja-pīṭham ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.5.42)
“Meditating upon the seat of your lotus feet in our hearts fully purified by bhakti cultivated through hearing with śraddhā, and having become sagacious by virtue of knowledge and the strength of vairāgya, let us approach that [i.e., let us take shelter at that seat of your lotus feet].”
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].”
yathāgninā hema malaṁ jahāti
dhmātaṁ punaḥ svaṁ bhajate ca rūpam |
ātmā ca karmānuśayaṁ vidhūya
mad-bhakti-yogena bhajaty atho mām ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.14.25; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 112)
[Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Uddhava:] “As gold smelted with fire sheds dross and regains its own form [i.e., returns to its pure state], so the ātmā through bhakti-yoga to me casts off [the dross of] the residual effects of karma [i.e., the vāsanās produced by karma] and thereafter [i.e., still, even after becoming completely purified] serves me [i.e., attains through a manifestation of great prema the complete path of service to me; alt., attains a pure form resembling my own and serves me directly in my abode].”
yathā yathātmā parimṛjyate’sau
mat-puṇya-gāthā-śravaṇābhidhānaiḥ |
tathā tathā paśyati vastu sūkṣmaṁ
cakṣur yathaivāñjana-samprayuktam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.14.26; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha 80, 147)
[Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Uddhava:] “To whatever extent the mind is purified by hearing and reciting narrations of my virtuous acts, to that same extent, it, like an eye treated with collyrium, perceives the subtle reality [i.e., my nature, figure, qualities, and līlā in actuality].”
nānubhūtaṁ kva cānena dehenādṛṣṭam aśrutam |
kadācid upalabhyeta yad rūpaṁ yādṛg ātmani ||
tenāsya tādṛśaṁ rājan liṅgino deha-sambhavam |
śraddhatsvānanubhūto’rtho na manaḥ spraṣṭum arhati ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 4.29.64–65)
“Sometimes a form which is of such nature that it has never been perceived with this body [i.e., perceived with the external senses in the physical environment during one’s present lifetime], and is [otherwise] unseen and unheard of, is perceived in the mind [i.e., it is perceived in a dream, in one’s imagination, or elsewhere]. O King! Because of this, be confident that such [i.e., such an object of perception, which is apparently unprecedented,] is a product of a body of this bearer of the liṅga [i.e., that it is a product of an experience in a prior body borne by the jīva, that is, the ātmā enveloped in a subtle body (liṅga) that transmigrates through a series of gross bodies], since an unperceived object is unable to touch the mind [i.e., no object which has not been previously perceived by the mind can manifest within the mind].”
baḍa kīrti haile caitanya nāhi pāi |
‘bhakti-vaśa sabe prabhu’—cāri-vede gāi ||
(Caitanya-bhāgavata: 2.10.279)
“[Even] If one acquires great renown, one does not attain Caitanya. The four Vedas sing, ‘Prabhu is completely captivated [only] by bhakti.’”
sarva-tyāge’py aheyāyāḥ sarvānartha-bhuvaś ca te |
kuryuḥ pratiṣṭhā-viṣṭhāyā yatnam asparśane varam ||
(Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 20.370)
“It is best that they [i.e., one-pointed bhaktas of Śrī Bhagavān] shall try to be untouched by the stool of pratiṣṭhā, which is the cause of all anarthas and difficult to abandon even after the renunciation of all else.”
sā hovāca maitreyī—yan nu ma iyaṁ bhagoḥ sarvā pṛthivī vittena pūrṇā syāt kathaṁ tenāmṛtā syām? iti | neti hovāca yājñavalkyo—yathaivopakaraṇavatāṁ jīvitaṁ, tathaiva te jīvita syāt | amṛtatvasya tu nāśāsti vitteneti | sā hovāca maitreyī—yenāhaṁ nāmṛtā syāṁ, kim ahaṁ tena kuryāṁ ? yad eva bhagavān veda tad eva me brūhīti |
(Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad: 2.4.2–3; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 1)
“Maitreyī said, ‘O fortunate one, if indeed this entire earth, full of wealth, were to belong to me, would I become immortal by that?’
“‘No,’ replied Yājñavalkya, ‘Your life would become just like the life of those who possess [all] means of subsistence. There is no hope, however, of immortality through wealth.‘
“Maitreyī said, ‘What shall I do with that by which I cannot become immortal? O fortunate one, please tell me that alone which you know [to me the means to become immortal].’”
bahu-rūpa ivābhāti māyayā bahu-rūpayā |
ramamāṇo guṇeṣv asyā mamāham iti manyate ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.9.2)
“The ātmā [i.e., “self”] appears as if to be of many [different] forms [i.e., those of a child, an elder, etc., and those of a human, a deva, an animal, etc.] through māyā, which is of many [different] forms, and, enjoying amid its [i.e., māyā’s] guṇas [i.e., within various bodies, etc.], thinks of ‘my’ and ‘I’ [i.e., identifies with these forms fabricated by māyā].”
