Bahirmukhatā

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo
hy astīti nāstīti bhidārtha-niṣṭhaḥ |
vyartho’pi naivoparameta puṁsāṁ
mattaḥ parāvṛtta-dhiyāṁ sva-lokāt ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.22.34; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)

“[Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Śrī Uddhava:] The disputation on the part of people of mind turned away from me, [their] own domain [i.e., their own shelter], which is fixed [only] on the object of a difference [between their own view and another’s], ‘It is [so]; [no,] it is not,’ and based on incomplete knowledge of the self (ātmā), shall never cease even though it is useless.”

Read on →

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo Read on →

naiṣkarmyam apy acyuta-bhāva-varjitaṁ

naiṣkarmyam apy acyuta-bhāva-varjitaṁ
na śobhate jñānam alaṁ nirañjanam |
kutaḥ punaḥ śaśvad abhadram īśvare
na cārpitaṁ karma yad apy akāraṇam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 1.5.12; cited in Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.554; Bhagavat Sandarbha: 70, Bhakti Sandarbha: 3, 5, 23, 115, 116, 217; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.19)

“[Śrī Nārada to Śrī Vyāsa:] Even untainting jñāna illuminative of Brahman (naiṣkarmya) [if it is] devoid of bhāva for Acyuta does not shine greatly [i.e., does not lead to direct experience of Brahman], so how much less so does ever-inauspicious karma not offered to Īśvara, even which [i.e., when it] is causeless?’”

Read on →

naiṣkarmyam apy acyuta-bhāva-varjitaṁ Read on →

ūtiḥ syād vāsanā sātra saptame kathyate dvidhā

ūtiḥ syād vāsanā sātra saptame kathyate dvidhā |
aśubhā ca śubhā cāpi kopato’nugrahāt satām ||
santaś ca trividhāḥ śuddha-bhaktā jñānādi-miśritām |
bhaktiṁ dadhānās tan-miśra-jñānavantaś ca kīrtitāḥ ||
hiraṇyakaśipoḥ svābhāvikī yā vāsanāśubhā |
tatra hetuḥ sanandādi-kopaḥ prācīna eva saḥ ||
tasyāpi putro yas tasya prahlādasya śobhottamā |
śuddha-bhaktau vāsanā śrī-nāradāṅghri-kṛpā-bharāt ||
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.1)

“Ūti (wish) shall mean [in this case] vāsanā (inclination). This is discussed here in the Seventh Canto and is of two types, inauspicious (aśubha) and auspicious (śubha), as a result of the anger and favor of the sat [i.e., inauspicious ūtis or vāsanās arise as a result of a sādhu’s anger and auspicious vāsanās arise as a result of a sādhu’s favor]. The sat, furthermore, are said to be of three types: (1) pure bhaktas, (2) those who foster bhakti mixed with jñāna and so forth, and (3) those possessed of jñāna mixed with that [i.e., with bhakti]. The cause in regard to the natural, inauspicious vāsanā which Hiraṇyakaśipu had was verily the prior anger of Sananda and so forth [i.e., the four kumāras]. The auspicious vāsanā for pure bhakti of Prahlāda, he who was his [i.e., Hiraṇyakaśipu’s] own son, was because of the abundance of grace [Prahāda received] from the blessed feet of Nārada.”

Read on →

ūtiḥ syād vāsanā sātra saptame kathyate dvidhā Read on →

tad evaṁ kalau nāma-kīrtana-pracāra-prabhāveṇaiva

tad evaṁ kalau nāma-kīrtana-pracāra-prabhāveṇaiva parama-bhagavat-parāyaṇatva-siddhir darśitā | tatra pāṣaṇḍa-praveśena nāmāparādhino ye, teṣāṁ tu tad-bahirmukhatvam eva syād … |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 274)

“Thus, in this way, attainment of superlative shelteredness in Bhagavān [i.e., attainment of the state of being endowed with prema of the highest order for Bhagavān] solely by the influence of engagement in nāma-kīrtana has been shown. Only obliviousness of him [however] shall ensue for those who are offenders of the name because of an ingress of heresy therein [i.e., those who commit offense to the name because of fostering a heretical mentality contrary to Bhagavad-bhakti will only remain oblivious of Bhagavān even if they engage in nāma-kīrtana, or other practices of bhakti, as a result of their offenses].”

Read on →

tad evaṁ kalau nāma-kīrtana-pracāra-prabhāveṇaiva Read on →

tataḥ sat-saṅgasyaiva tatra nidānatvaṁ siddham

tataḥ sat-saṅgasyaiva tatra nidānatvaṁ siddham | tac ca yuktam, anādi-siddha-tad-ajñānamaya-tad-vaimukhyavatām anyathā hi tad-asambhavaḥ |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 180)

“Thus, sat-saṅga’s alone being the fundamental cause in this regard [i.e., of intentness (sāmmukhyatā) upon Bhagavān in the form of bhakti coming into being] is established. That, furthermore, is befitting because of the impossibility of that otherwise [coming about] for those possessed of obliviousness (vaimukhyatā) of him based on beginninglessly existent non-awareness of him [i.e., of Bhagavān].”

Read on →

tataḥ sat-saṅgasyaiva tatra nidānatvaṁ siddham Read on →

aneka-janma-saṁsāra-racite pāpa-samuccaye

aneka-janma-saṁsāra-racite pāpa-samuccaye |
nākṣīṇe jāyate puṁsāṁ govindābhimukhī matiḥ ||
(Viṣṇu-dharma Purāṇa; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 180)

“When the multitude of offenses [i.e., aparādhās, livings being have] committed over the course of many births has not dissipated [i.e., borne its results and passed away, or been nullified], admiration directed towards Govinda does not come about in living beings.”

Read on →

aneka-janma-saṁsāra-racite pāpa-samuccaye Read on →

tad evam anantā eva jīvākhyās taṭasthāḥ śaktayaḥ

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 |
(Paramātma Sandarbha: 47)

“Thus, in this way, the taṭastha-śaktis [i.e., the entities constituted of the taṭastha-śakti] known as jīvas, are limitless [i.e., innumerable]. Therein, there are two classes of them. Naturally, one class is intent upon Bhagavān (Bhagavad-unmukha) beginninglessly, whereas the other is averse to Bhagavān (Bhagavat-parāṅmukha) beginninglessly, because of the presence of awareness of him and the absence of awareness of him [in these two classes respectively].”

Read on →

tad evam anantā eva jīvākhyās taṭasthāḥ śaktayaḥ Read on →

atha jīvaś ca tadīyo’pi taj-jñāna-saṁsargābhāva-yuktatvena

atha jīvaś ca tadīyo’pi taj-jñāna-saṁsargābhāva-yuktatvena tan-māyā-parābhūtaḥ sann ātma-svarūpa-jñāna-lopān māyā-kalpitopādhy-āveśāc cānādi-saṁsāra-duḥkhena sambadhyata iti paramātma-sandarbhādāv eva nirūpitam asti |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“Now, although the jīva is also his own (tadīya) [i.e., although the jīva belongs to Bhagavān], the jīva becomes overcome by his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] māyā because of being [beginninglessly] possessed of an absence of the existence of awareness of him and [thus is] bound within the beginningless suffering of saṁsāra because of a lack of awareness of the nature of its own self [i.e., because of being subjected by māyā to suppression of awareness of its own nature as an ātmā] and absorption in the adjuncts (upādhis) fabricated by māyā [i.e., because the jīva becomes consequently absorbed in identification with the material psyche, body, and so forth, as well as the subsequent attractions, aversions, desires, pursuits, deprivations, and so forth concomitant therewith]. This [i.e., the point made in the previous sentence] is ascertained in Paramātma Sandarbha and elsewhere.”

Read on →

atha jīvaś ca tadīyo’pi taj-jñāna-saṁsargābhāva-yuktatvena Read on →

Type your query and press enter

Scroll to Top