Vaidhī-bhakti

deśān puṇyān āśrayeta mad-bhaktaiḥ sādhubhiḥ śritān

deśān puṇyān āśrayeta mad-bhaktaiḥ sādhubhiḥ śritān |
devāsura-manuṣyeṣu mad-bhaktācaritāni ca ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.29.10; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.519)

“One should take shelter of sacred places where the sādhus, my bhaktas, reside, and [one should take shelter] of the activities of my bhaktas among the devas, asuras, and human beings.”

Read on →

evaṁ-vrataḥ sva-priya-nāma-kīrtyā

evaṁ-vrataḥ sva-priya-nāma-kīrtyā
jātānurāgo druta-citta uccaiḥ |
hasaty atho roditi rauti gāyaty
unmādavan nṛtyati loka-bāhyaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.2.40; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.641; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.4.6 Bhakti Sandarbha: 188, 263; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.7.94, 2.9.260, 2.23.41, 2.25.141, 3.3.179)

“One whose rite is so, in whom anurāga [i.e., prema] has manifest by chanting the name of one’s Beloved, and who is [thus] of melted heart, loudly laughs, cries, shouts, sings, and dances as though mad, oblivious to society.”

Read on →

tasmād bhārata sarvātmā bhagavān īśvaro hariḥ

tasmād bhārata sarvātmā bhagavān īśvaro hariḥ |
śrotavyaḥ kīrtitavyaś ca smartavyaś cechatābhayam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.1.5; cited in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.7; Bhakti Sandarbha: 25, 125; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.110)

“[Śukadeva Gosvāmī to Mahārāja Parīkṣit:] O descendant of Bharata! The Self of all, Bhagavān, Īśvara, Hari, is to be heard about, to be praised, and to be remembered by one desirous of fearlessness.”

Read on →

eṣā akiñcanātyantikīty-ādi-saṁjñā bhaktir dvividhā—vaidhī rāgānugā ceti

eṣā akiñcanātyantikīty-ādi-saṁjñā bhaktir dvividhā—vaidhī rāgānugā ceti | tatra vaidhī śāstrokta-vidhinā pravartitā | sa ca vidhir dvividhaḥ—tatra prathamaḥ pravṛtti-hetuḥ, tad anukrama-kartavyākartavyānāṁ jñāna-hetuś ca | … atha vaidhī-bhedāḥ śaraṇāpatti-śrī-gurv-ādi-sat-sevā-śravaṇa-kīrtanādayaḥ | ete ca pratyekam api dvi-trādayaḥ samudityāpi kāraṇāni bhavanti, tathā śravaṇāt |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 235–236)

“This bhakti, which is referred to as unconditional (akiñcanā), paramount (ātyantikī), and so forth, is of two types [in terms of sādhana, or, means by which it becomes manifest]: vaidhī and rāgānugā. Therein, vaidhī [i.e., vaidhī-bhakti] is motivated by injunctions stated in śāstra. Those injunctions, furthermore, are of two types: therein the first is those which are a cause of engagement (pravṛtti), and [the second] those which are a cause of knowledge of order [i.e., the order which things are to be done], what is to be done (kartavya), and what is not to be done (akartavya). … Now, the divisions of vaidhī [i.e., the various forms of vaidhī-bhakti] are śaraṇāpatti [i.e., taking shelter in Bhagavān], service to the sat beginning with śrī guru, hearing [about Bhagavān], praising [him], and so on. These [i.e., the various forms of vaidhī-bhakti], furthermore, both individually and in combinations of two, three, or more, become means [by which bhāva manifests] because of hearing so [i.e., because examples of bhāva becoming manifest through engagement in them are heard about in śāstra].”

Read on →

yasmād evaṁ sarvānandātikrama-liṅgena paramānanda-svarūpāsau

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 |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 177)

“Since, in this way, with the characteristic of surpassing all [other types of] bliss, bhakti is by nature the supreme bliss, engagement in it altogether naturally [i.e., solely out of natural disposition] is a virtue (guṇa), whereas even the engagement [in it], although it is such, solely out of consideration of the merits and demerits (guṇas and doṣas) brought about only by injunctions and prohibitions [related to engagement and non-engagement in it] of those who are unable to experience its sweetness because of their own faults [e.g., an absence of awareness of Bhagavān, desires unrelated to Bhagavān, or aparādhā against Bhagavān] is verily a fault (doṣa) in comparison to the former [i.e. in comparison to engagement in bhakti naturally].”

Read on →

gopyaḥ kāmād bhayāt kaṁso dveṣāc caidyādayo nṛpāḥ

gopyaḥ kāmād bhayāt kaṁso dveṣāc caidyādayo nṛpāḥ |
sambandhād vṛṣṇayaḥ snehād yūyaṁ bhaktyā vayaṁ vibho ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.30)

“[Nārada Ṛṣi to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja:] O King, the gopis through amorous desire, Kaṁsa through fear, kings such as Caidya [i.e., Śiśupāla] through hatred, the Vṛṣṇis and Paṇḍavas through affection based on relationship, and we through bhakti [attained a destination related to Īśvara, as described in the previous verse].”

Read on →

yathā vairānubandhena martyas tan-mayatām iyāt

yathā vairānubandhena martyas tan-mayatām iyāt |
na tathā bhakti-yogena iti me niścitā matiḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.26)

“[Nārada Ṛṣi to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja:] As a mortal being can attain absorption in him [i.e., Bhagavān] through constant enmity, not so [can one] through bhakti-yoga. This is my certain opinion.”

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 →

ajāta-tādṛśa-rucinā tu sad-viśeṣādara-mātrādṛtā rāgānugāpi vaidhī-saṁvalitaivānuṣṭheyā

ajāta-tādṛśa-rucinā tu sad-viśeṣādara-mātrādṛtā rāgānugāpi vaidhī-saṁvalitaivānuṣṭheyā, tathā loka-saṁgrahārthaṁ pratiṣṭhitena jāta-tādṛśa-rucinā ca | atra miśratve ca yathā-yogyaṁ rāgānugayaikīkṛtyaiva vaidhī kartavyā | kecid aṣṭādaśākṣara-dhyānaṁ go-dohana-samaya-vaṁśī-vādya-samākṛṣṭa-tat-tat-sarvamayatvena bhāvayanti, yathā caike “tādṛśam upāsanaṁ sākṣād vraja-jana-viśeṣāyaiva mahyaṁ śrī-guru-caraṇair mad-abhīṣṭa-viśeṣa-siddhy-artham upadiṣṭaṁ bhāvayāmi, sākṣāt tu śrī-vrajendra-nandanaṁ sevamāna evāsa” iti bhāvayanti |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)

“Rāgānugā [-bhakti] too, which is honored just by honoring a particular sādhu [i.e., a particular rāgātmikā associate of Bhagavān], is to be practiced in conjunction with vaidhī [-bhakti, i.e., bhakti directed by śāstric injunctions] by those in whom such taste (ruci) has not appeared [i.e., those in whom taste for a specific form of rāgātmikā-bhakti that produces disinterest in everything apart from such bhakti has not appeared], and [is also to be practiced] by those in whom such taste has appeared and who are established [in society, i.e., those whose conduct is followed by others] for the sake of social cohesion. Also, in regard to this mixture [of vaidhī-bhakti with rāgānugā-bhakti], vaidhī [i.e., bhakti directed by śāstric injunctions] is to be performed befittingly making it one with rāgānugā [-bhakti, i.e., in a manner that supports the sādhaka progressing on the path of rāgānugā-bhakti]. [For example,] Some [i.e., some rāgānugā-sādhakas performing rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti in conjunction with vaidhī-bhakti] visualize a meditation on the eighteen-syllable mantra with [Kṛṣṇa] being accompanied by them all [i.e., all the groups of his associates, viz., Śrī Rādhā and other young gopīs; Nanda, Yaśodā, and other elders; Baladeva and other peers; and so forth] drawn together by the song of the flute at the time of milking the cows [i.e., in the late afternoon when Kṛṣṇa plays his flute as he returns from the pastures into the village with the cows so they can be milked before the end of the day], and accordingly in one [i.e., in the midst of this general meditation] visualize this [integrated specific meditation as well], ‘I am performing such worship (upāsana) [i.e., worship in the form of the aforementioned meditation as enjoined in vaidhī-bhakti], taught to me—[I am who am] directly a particular person [i.e., native resident] of Vraja—by [my] revered guru, for the purpose of attaining my particular cherished object (abhiṣṭa) [i.e., the particular rāga and service to Bhagavān therewith that I aspire to attain]; [in this way] I am directly serving the beautiful Prince of Vraja [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa].’”

Read on →

śrī-bhagavan-nāma-guṇādiṣu vastu-śakteḥ siddhatvān na dharmavad

śrī-bhagavan-nāma-guṇādiṣu vastu-śakteḥ siddhatvān na dharmavad bhakteś codanā-sāpekṣatvam | ato jñānādikaṁ vināpi phala-lābho bahutra śruto’sti | codanā tu yasya svataḥ-pravṛttir nāsti, tad-viṣayaiva | tathā krama-vidhiś ca tad-viṣayaḥ | tasminn eva nānā-vikṣepavati rucy-abhāvena rāgātmika-bhakti-śailīm anabhijānati, satyām api ‘dhāvan nimīlya vā netre’ ity-ādi-nyāyena yathā-kathañcid anuṣṭhānataḥ siddhau, suṣṭhu vartma-praveśāya kramaśaś cittābhiniveśāya ca maryādā-rūpaḥ sa nirmīyate | anyathā santata-tad-bhakty-unmukhatā-kara-tādṛśa-rucy-abhāvān maryādānabhipatteś cādhyātmikādibhir utpātair vihanyate ca sa iti, na tu svayaṁ pravṛttimaty api maryādā-nirmāṇam, tasya rucyaiva bhagavan-manorama-rāgātmikā-krama-viśeṣābhiniveśāt | tad uktaṁ svayam eva—‘jñātvājñātvātha ye vai mām’ ity-ādinā |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)

“Because of inherent potency (vastu-śakti) being existent in Śrī Bhagavān’s names, qualities, and so forth, bhakti has no dependence on injunctions like dharma [i.e., unlike dharma, where acts thereof only have potency because of the injunctions in śāstra to perform them, acts of bhakti have inherent potency in and of themselves]. Therefore, attainment of the result [of performing acts of bhakti] even without knowledge and so forth [i.e., even without understanding what bhakti is, without knowing whether one is performing it, without having an intention to perform it, so on] is heard of in many places [throughout the śāstra]. An injunction, rather, has for its object one who has no propensity of one’s own [to engage in a particular action], and a procedure [governing how an injunction is to be executed] also has that [same] object [i.e., is for the same type of person]. Even though attainment (siddhi) [of the result of practicing bhakti] can occur as a result of practicing [bhakti] somehow or other [i.e., by any means of practicing it, be it uninformed, unintentional, or otherwise] as per the principle [stated] in [SB 11.2.35], ‘Even if one runs with one’s eyes closed, one will not trip or fall here [i.e., one will not fail to attain the result of the practice even if one has no knowledge of it],’ the protocol form [of bhakti, i.e., the systematic form of bhakti motivated by injunctions and prohibitions enjoining and governing the practice of bhakti that is given in the śāstra] is created [in the śāstra] specifically for one who is subject to various distractions and does not understand the conduct of rāgātmikā-bhakti because of an absence of taste (ruci) [for it] for the sake of [supporting such a person’s] proper entrance into the path [of bhakti] and gradual absorption of the mind [therein]. Otherwise, on account of both an absence of such taste (ruci) [i.e., taste for rāgātmikā-bhakti] that produces constant intentness (unmukhatā) upon that [rāgātmikā-] bhakti [for which one has taste] and non-adherence to protocol [i.e., non-engagement in bhakti on the basis of śāstric injunctions and prohibitions], one is ruined by the disturbances related to the self [i.e., those of the body and mind] and so forth [i.e., disturbances arising through other living entities and disturbances arising through the devatās, since someone who does not take up the path of bhakti by one means or the other, be it by taste (in the case of rāgānugā-bhakti) or by śāstric injunction (in the case of vaidhī-bhakti), is sure to inevitably endure various karmic reactions, suffer, and stray from engagement in bhakti]. The creation of the protocol [i.e., the path of bhakti based on śāstric junctions, viz., vaidhī-bhakti] is [thus] not, rather, also for one possessed of a propensity [to engage in bhakti] of one’s own accord because of such a person’s absorption in a particular manner of rāgātmikā [-bhakti] pleasing to the mind of Bhagavān just by taste (ruci) [for that variety of rāgātmikā-bhakti, i.e., because someone with taste for a form of rāgātmikā-bhakti has the propensity to engage in bhakti simply because of that taste, there is no need for injunctions to be imposed on such a person to motive them to engage bhakti, and thus it is understood that a protocol enjoining engagement in bhakti is created only for those who lack a propensity to engage in bhakti, that is, for those who lack taste in some form of rāgātmikā-bhakti]. This is stated by he himself [i.e., Bhagavān, in SB 11.11.33], ‘Having understood, or not having understood, me as far as I am, for who I am, and of what nature I am, those who worship me with a one-pointed (ananya) bhāva are considered by me the best of bhaktas.’”

Read on →

Scroll to Top