atha sakhyam tac ca hitāśaṁsana-mayaṁ bandhu-bhāva-lakṣaṇam
atha sakhyam | tac ca hitāśaṁsana-mayaṁ bandhu-bhāva-lakṣaṇam | … asya cottaratra pāṭhaḥ prema-viśrambhavad-bhāvanā-mayatvena dāsyād apy uttamatvāpekṣayā | kiṁ ca, parameśvare’pi yat sakhyaṁ śāstre vidhīyate, tan nāścaryam, nādevo devam arcayet iti tad-bhāvasyāpi vidhāna-śravaṇāt | kintu tad-bhāvas tat-sevā-viruddha iti śuddha-bhaktair upekṣyate | sakhyaṁ tu parama-sevānukūlam ity upādīyata iti | tad etat sākṣād-bhajanātmakaṁ dāsyaṁ sakhyaṁ ca … | atra ca tābhyāṁ karmārpaṇa-viśvāsau na vyākhyātau, sāksād-bhaktitvābhāvāt | karmārpaṇasya phalaṁ bhaktir viśvāsaś ca bhakty-abhiniveśa-hetur itīha pūrvam uktam | tac ca bhagavad-viṣaya-hitāśaṁsana-mayaṁ sakhyam, bhagavat-kṛta-hitāśaṁsanasya nityatvāt, tena saha tasya nitya-sahavāsāc ca | bhajana-viśeṣeṇāpi viśiṣṭaṁ sampādayituṁ nātiduṣkaraṁ syād ity āha—ko’ti-prayāso’sura-bālakā harer upāsane sve hṛdi chidravat sataḥ, svasyātmanaḥ sakhyur aśeṣa-dehināṁ sāmānyataḥ kiṁ viṣayopapādanaiḥ |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 306)
“Now, friendship (sakhyam) [will be discussed]. That, furthermore, is made up of well-wishing [for the object of friendship, Śrī Bhagavān,] and possessed of the characteristic of amity [i.e., the bhāva of being friends with Bhagavān]. … Its [i.e., sakhyam’s] reading [i.e., placement] later on [in the list of the nine primary limbs of bhakti in SB 7.5.23–24] is out of regard for its superiority even to servitude (dāsya) by virtue of [its] being filled with a spirit (bhāvanā) possessed of love (prema) and intimacy (viśrambha). Moreover, that [such] friendship (sakhyam) is enjoined in śāstra even by the Supreme Lord (Parameśvara) is not surprising on account of hearing [in certain places in śāstra] of the practice even of the bhāva [alluded to in the statement], ‘A non-deva should not worship Deva’ [i.e., the bhāva of considering oneself to be Deva, that is, Śrī Bhagavān himself, meaning, if Bhagavān himself has even enjoined the practice of considering oneself to be himself, then it is not surprising that he would enjoin the practice of considering oneself to be his friend]. That bhāva [i.e., the practice of ahaṁgrahopāsanā wherein one meditates one oneself as being Bhagavān himself], however, is disregarded by pure bhaktas because it is contrary to service to him [i.e., when one considers oneself to be Śrī Bhagavān, then one does not foster the attitude of service to Śrī Bhagavān himself and thus pure bhaktas disregard such a practice]. Friendship (sakhyam) [i.e., the bhāva of considering oneself a close companion of Śrī Bhagavān], however, is highly favorable for service [to Śrī Bhagavān], and thus is adopted [by pure bhaktas]. So, this servitude (dāsyam) and friendship (sākhyam) [mentioned in SB 7.5.23–24] are of the nature of direct service (bhajana) [to Śrī Bhagavān]. … Here [i.e., in the context of discussion of forms of direct bhakti to Śrī Bhagavān], furthermore, offering karma and faith (viśvāsa) are not alluded to by these two [i.e., by the forms of direct bhakti known as dāsyam and sakhya, and thus dāsyam here does not refer to offering karma to Bhagavān and sakhyam here does not refer to faith (viśvāsa) alone], because of the non-existence of [their, i.e., offering karma and faith (viśvāsa)] being direct [forms of] bhakti. In this regard, it was previously stated that [direct] bhakti is an outcome of offering karma and faith (viśvāsa) is a cause of absorption in [direct] bhakti. Because of the constancy [alt., eternality] of the well-wishing performed by Bhagavān [for his bhaktas], and because of one’s [i.e., a jīva’s] constant [alt., eternal] co-abidance with him [i.e., Bhagavān], sakhyam, constituted of well-wishing the object of which is Bhagavān, qualified even by a distinct [act of] bhajana [i.e., sakhyam in the form of an act performed for the pleasure of Bhagavān in the manner that a friend acts for the pleasure of another friend] shall not be very difficult to perform. Thus, he [i.e., Prahlāda Mahārāja] says [in SB 7.7.38], ‘O boys of the asuras, what great exertion [i.e., difficulty] is there in worship of Hari, he who is [ever] present like space in one’s heart and is the inherent Self and common Friend of all embodied beings [who fulfills all their desires, be they material or spiritual, when worshiped as a friend]? [Therefore,] What [is the use] of accumulating objects of the senses [instead of engaging in the worship of Hari]?’”