Dharma

ato niṣevyamāṇāṁ ca sarvathā bhagavat-kathām

ato niṣevyamāṇāṁ ca sarvathā bhagavat-kathām |
muhus tad-rasikān pṛcchen mitho moda-vivṛddhaye ||
tathā vaiṣṇava-dharmāṁś ca kriyamānām api svayam |
sampṛcchet tad-vidaḥ sādhūn anyonya-prīti-vṛddhaye ||
nanu bhagavad-dharmāḥ parama-gopyāḥ praśna-mātreṇa kathaṁ kathyāḥ tatra likhati—śraddhayeti |
śraddhayā bhagavad-dharmān vaiṣṇavāyānupṛcchate |
avaśyaṁ kathayed vidvān anyathā doṣa-bhāg bhavet ||
(Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.472, 475–476, with an excerpt from the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)

“Therefore [i.e., because listening to other topics, as well as non-listening, aversion, and even satiation with Bhagavat-kathā, are to be given up], even though one is continuously engaged in honoring Bhagavat-kathā in all respects [by means of hearing it, praising it, remembering it, and so on] one should repeatedly inquire from rasikas thereof [about Bhagavān and topics related to him] for the sake of enhancing mutual delight [i.e., the delight of both the speaker and fellow listeners]. … Similarly, even though one is practicing the dharmas of a Vaiṣṇava oneself, one should inquire from sādhus knowledgeable about them for the sake of mutual delight. [A doubt is raised:] Bhagavat-dharmas [however] are highly confidential. How do they become fit to be explained just because of a question [about them being raised]? In regard to this [doubt], the author writes: When one repeatedly inquires from a Vaiṣṇava about Bhagavat-dharmas with śraddhā, then a knowledgeable person [i.e., a person conversant in the dharmas of a Vaiṣṇava] shall certainly speak [i.e., answer one’s questions], and otherwise shall be at fault [i.e., one who has true knowledge of Bhagavat-dharma based on śāstra yet withholds it from an inquirer possessed of the requisites to learn such knowledge, the foremost of which is śraddhā in bhakti-śāstra, commits a transgression against Bhagavat-dharma, as does someone who gives knowledge of Bhagavat-dharma to an unfit recipient and someone who gives answers about Bhagavad-dharma that contravene the śāstra’s siddhānta].”

Read on →

karma-miśrā trividhā sambhavati—sakāmā, kaivalya-kāmā, bhakti-mātra-kāmā ca

karma-miśrā trividhā sambhavati—sakāmā, kaivalya-kāmā, bhakti-mātra-kāmā ca | yadyapi kāma-kaivalye api … ity ukteḥ kevalayaiva bhaktyā sambhavataḥ, tathāpi tat-tad-vāsanānusāreṇa tatra tatra rucir jāyate | ity evaṁ tat-tad-arthaṁ tan-miśratā tu jāyata ity avagantavyam | tataḥ sakāmā prāyaḥ karma-miśraiva | tatra karma-śabdena dharma eva gṛhyate | tal-lakṣaṇaṁ ca yama-dūtaiḥ sāmānyata uktaṁ, veda-praṇihito dharma iti | vedo’tra traiguṇya-viṣayaḥ, traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā iti śrī-gītokteḥ | … śrī-gītāsv evānyatra tasya karma-saṁjñitatvaṁ coktaṁ—bhūta-bhāvodbhava-karo visargaḥ karma-saṁjñita iti | … bhagavad-arpaṇena bhakti-parikarīkṛtatvena ca bhakti-kṛttvam ucyate | tad evam īdṛśena karmaṇā miśrā sakāmā bhaktir … |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 225)

“Karma-miśrā bhakti can be of three types: (1) sakāmā [i.e., with desire for worldly ends], (2) kaivalya-kāmā [i.e., with desire for kaivalya (mokṣa)], and (3) bhakti-mātra-kāmā [i.e., with desire solely for bhakti]. … Although both kāma [i.e., desired worldly ends] and kaivalya are possible only by exclusive (kevala) bhakti, … still taste arises for that and that [i.e., for kāma, meaning, worldly objects of desire, and kaivalya] in accord with vāsanās for those two [things, viz., worldly objects and kaivalya]. Thus, in this way, its [i.e., bhakti’s] being mixed [with karma] comes about for the sake of those objects [i.e., because of one’s making use of bhakti to obtain those objects, viz., various desired worldly objects and kaivalya]. This is to be understood. Thus, sakāmā [bhakti] is usually mixed only with karma. Therein, by the word karma, dharma is specifically understood [i.e., in the term ‘karma-miśra-bhakti,’ the word karma means dharma], and its definition in general is stated by the messengers of Yama [in SB 6.1.40]: ‘That which is prescribed in the Veda is [called] dharma.’ Here, Veda is that the subject of which is related to the three guṇas as per the statement of Śrī Gītā [in 2.45], ‘The Vedas are that the subject of which is related to the three guṇas’ (traiguṇya-viṣayā vedāḥ). … Elsewhere in Śrī Gītā itself [in 8.3], its [i.e., dharma’s] being defined as karma is also stated: ‘Offering [articles to the devatās] that gives rises to living beings’ desires is defined as karma.’ … Dharma is said to be a cause of bhakti [to Bhagavān in SB 11.19.25 (dharmo mad-bhakti-kṛt proktaḥ)] by its being made an assistant of bhakti and offering it to Bhagavān. Thus, in this way, sakāmā bhakti is that mixed with such [i.e., the aforementioned type of] karma [i.e., that which is synonymous with dharma and constituted of performing that which is prescribed in the Veda in regard to affairs related to the three guṇas].”

Read on →

tad evaṁ bhagavad-arpita-dharmādi-sādhyatvāt tāṁ

tad evaṁ bhagavad-arpita-dharmādi-sādhyatvāt tāṁ vinānyeṣām akiñcitkaratvāt, tasyāḥ svata eva samarthatvāt, sva-leśena svābhāsādināpi paramārtha-paryanta-prāpakatvāt, sarveṣāṁ varṇānāṁ nityatvāc ca, sākṣād bhakti-rūpaṁ tat-sāmmukhyam evātrābhidheyaṁ vastv iti sthitam | iyam eva kevalatvād ananyatākhyā | … tasyāś ca mahādurbodhatvaṁ mahādurlabhatvaṁ coktam … | … tad evaṁ tasyāḥ śravaṇādi-rūpāyāḥ sākṣād-bhakteḥ sarva-vighna-nivāraṇa-pūrvaka-sākṣād-bhagavat-prema-phaladatve sthite parama-durlabhatve ca saty anya-kāmanayā ca nābhidheyatvam | … tan-mātra-kāmanāyāṁ ca bhakter evākiñcanatvam akāmatvaṁ ca saṁjñāpitam | … tatheyam evaikāntitety ucyate |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 165)

“Thus, in this way, here [i.e., in this book], intentness (sāmmukhya) upon him [i.e., Bhagavān] in the form of direct bhakti [to him] has been established as the subject, the abhidheya [i.e., the principal directive of the śāstra, the means to the highest attainment], because of (1) [its] being the goal of [performing] dharma and so forth offered to Bhagavān, (2) all else [i.e., all other processes] being useless [i.e., ineffective] without it, (3) [its] being capable [i.e., effective] of its own accord [i.e., independently of all other processes], (4) [its] being with just a trace of itself, a semblance of itself, and so forth a cause of attaining even the supreme object, and (5) [its] being compulsory for all varṇas. Because of [its] being exclusive [i.e., not involving worship of any other devatās], it is called ananyatā [i.e., unalloyedness, lit., ‘having no other’]. … Its being most difficult to understand and most difficult to attain are also stated [in SB 6.3.19, SB 3.15.24, and elsewhere]. … Thus, in this way, with this direct bhakti in the form of hearing and so forth being established as first the remover of all obstacles and [then] the bestower of the goal of prema for Bhagavān himself, and [its also being established as] extremely difficult to attain, [its] not being the abhidheya when [performed] with another desire [i.e., any desire other than desire for itself] is [established] as well. … When one has desire only for that [i.e., for bhakti itself], bhakti’s akiñcanatva [i.e., unconditionality, lit. ‘being without anything’] and akāmatva [i.e., being without desire for anything else, lit., ‘desirelessness’] is made known. … It is thus [also] called ekāntitā [lit., ‘one-pointedness’].”

Read on →

iyam akiñcanākhyā bhaktir eva jīvānāṁ svabhāvata ucitā

iyam akiñcanākhyā bhaktir eva jīvānāṁ svabhāvata ucitā | svābhāvika-tad-āśrayā hi jīvāḥ |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 178)

“Only this bhakti, known as akiñcanā [lit., ‘without anything,’ i.e., unconditional, pure], is appropriate naturally for the jīvas [i.e., appropriate to the jīvas’ nature; alt., appropriate by its own nature for the jīvas], since jīvas are they whose shelter in him [i.e., Bhagavān, the object of akiñcanā-bhakti] is natural.”

Read on →

maryādāṁ ca kṛtāṁ tena yo bhinatti sa mānavaḥ

maryādāṁ ca kṛtāṁ tena yo bhinatti sa mānavaḥ |
na viṣṇu-bhakto vijñeyaḥ sādhu-dharmārcito hariḥ ||
(Viṣṇu-dharma Purāṇa; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 172, 173)

“A human being who transgresses the code of conduct established by him [i.e., by Bhagavān Viṣṇu] should not be recognized as a bhakta of Viṣṇu; Hari is worshipped by virtuous conduct [i.e., the dharma of the sādhus, and not by transgressions thereof].”

Read on →

yathā hi puruṣasyeha viṣṇoḥ pādopasarpaṇam

yathā hi puruṣasyeha viṣṇoḥ pādopasarpaṇam |
yad eṣa sarva-bhūtānāṁ priya ātmeśvaraḥ suhṛt ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.6.2)

“[Prahlāda Mahārāja:] Here [i.e., in human life], a person’s approaching the feet of Viṣṇu is certainly appropriate, since he is the beloved, the Self, the Lord, and the well-wisher of all beings.”

Read on →

pradīpaḥ sarva-vidyānām upāyaḥ sarva-karmaṇām

pradīpaḥ sarva-vidyānām upāyaḥ sarva-karmaṇām |
āśrayaḥ sarva-dharmānāṁ vidyoddeśe prakīrtitā ||
(Vātsyāyana’s Nyāya-bhāṣya on Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra: 1.1.1)

“Ānvīkṣikī [i.e., logic (nyāya)] is stated in the enumeration of sciences [i.e., fields of knowledge] to be the lamp of all sciences (vidyās), the means for [accomplishing] all karmas, and the basis of all dharmas.”

Read on →

ye’bhyarthitām api ca no nṛ-gatiṁ prapannā

ye’bhyarthitām api ca no nṛ-gatiṁ prapannā
jñānaṁ ca tattva-viṣayaṁ saha-dharma yatra |
nārādhanaṁ bhagavato vitaranty amuṣya
sammohitā vitatayā bata māyayā te ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.15.24; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 108)

[Brahmā to Maitreya:] “Bata! (Alas!) Even those who have attained a human state [i.e., life] wherein jñāna (awareness) relating to Tattva along with dharma are present, which is sought by us [i.e., by Brahmā and the other devas], but do not offer worship to Bhagavān [i.e., he who is source of all dharma and all jñāna] are thoroughly bewildered by his all-pervading māyā.”

Read on →

Scroll to Top