Mamatā (Mamatva)

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 →

matto’py anantāt parataḥ parasmāt

matto’py anantāt parataḥ parasmāt
svargāpavargādhipater na kiñcit |
yeṣāṁ kim u syād itareṇa teṣām
akiñcanānāṁ mayi bhakti-bhājām ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.5.25)

“For those possessionless (akiñcana) bearers of bhakti to me who have no desire for anything even from me, whom am Infinite, higher than the highest [i.e., superior even to Brahmā and so forth], and the Supreme Master of Svarga and apavarga [i.e., mokṣa], what shall be the need of anything else [alt., of anyone else]?”

Read on →

satāṁ nindā nāmnaḥ paramam aparādhaṁ vitanute

satāṁ nindā nāmnaḥ paramam aparādhaṁ vitanute |
yataḥ khyātiṁ yātaṁ katham u sahate tad‑vigarhām ||
śivasya śrī‑viṣṇor ya iha guṇa‑nāmādi‑sakalaṁ |
dhiyā bhinnaṁ paśyet sa khalu hari‑nāmāhitakaraḥ ||
guror avajñā śruti‑śāstra‑nindanaṁ
tathārthavādo hari‑nāmni kalpanam |
nāmno balād yasya hi pāpa‑buddhir
na vidyate tasya yamair hi śuddhiḥ ||
dharma‑vrata‑tyāga‑hutādi‑sarva‑
śubha‑kriyā‑sāmyam api pramādaḥ |
aśraddadhāne vimukhe’py aśṛṇvati
yaś copadeśaḥ śiva‑nāmāparādhaḥ ||
śrutvāpi nāma‑māhātmyaṁ yaḥ prīti‑rahito’dhamaḥ |
ahaṁ‑mamādi‑paramo nāmni so’py aparādha‑kṛt ||
(Padma Purāṇa: 4.25.15–18; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.521–524; Bhakti Sandarbha: 265)

[Śrī Sanat-kumāra to Śrī Nārada:] (1) Defamation of the sat causes the greatest offense to the name. Oh! How can the name tolerate condemnation of those on whose account it has attained renown? (2) One here who shall see with the intellect all of Śiva’s qualities, names, and so forth to be distinct from Śrī Viṣṇu is certainly a committer of enmity towards Hari’s name. (3) Disrespect for the guru, and (4) defamation of the Śrutis and śāstras [are offenses to the name]. Also, (5) [assumption of mere] praise (arthavāda) and (6) fabrication in regard to Hari’s name [are offenses to the name]. (7) The purification of one who has the intention of sinning on the basis of the name’s power [to dispel sin, which is an offense to the name] certainly does not occur by means of regulations. (8) [Considering there to be] Equality [of the name] with all [types of] auspicious acts, such as dharma, rites, renunciation, and sacrifice, is also negligence [in regard to the name, i.e., an offense]. (9) Instructing one who is faithless, averse, or undesirous of hearing [about the name] is an offense to Śiva’s name [alt., to the auspicious name of Śrī Viṣṇu]. (10) Even after having heard about the greatness of the name, one who remains devoid love [for the name], vile, and [someone] for whom ‘I’, ‘mine’, and so forth are primary, is also an offender [of the name].”

Read on →

kuṭumbeṣu na sajjeta na pramādyet kuṭumby api

kuṭumbeṣu na sajjeta na pramādyet kuṭumby api |
vipaścin naśvaraṁ paśyed adṛṣṭam api dṛṣṭa-vat ||
putra-dārāpta-bandhūnāṁ saṅgamaḥ pāntha-saṅgamaḥ |
anu-dehaṁ viyanty ete svapno nidrānugo yathā ||
itthaṁ parimṛśan mukto gṛheṣv atithivad vasan |
na gṛhair anubadhyeta nirmamo nirahaṅkṛtaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.17.52–54)

“Even a householder should not be attached to the household and should not be negligent. A wise person should see even the unseen, like the seen, to be transitory. The meeting of sons, wife, relatives, and friends is [just like] a meeting of wayfarers. They [i.e., sons and so forth] vanish after the body [dies] just as a dream does following sleep. Deliberating in this way and dwelling in houses like a guest, a detached person free from possessiveness and egotism will not become bound by houses.”

Read on →

na yāvad etāṁ tanu-bhṛn narendra

na yāvad etāṁ tanu-bhṛn narendra
vidhūya māyāṁ vayunodayena |
vimukta-saṅgo jita-ṣaṭ-sapatno
vedātma-tattvaṁ bhramatīha tāvat ||
na yāvad etan mana ātma-liṅgaṁ
saṁsāra-tāpāvapanaṁ janasya |
yac choka-mohāmaya-rāga-lobha-
vairānubandhaṁ mamatāṁ vidhatte ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.11.15–16)

“[Rendered according to the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā:] O King, as long as the bearer of a body does not cast away this māyā, and, having become completely freed from attachment and victorious over the six co-wives [i.e., the six senses], understand the nature of the self (ātma-tattva) by means of the appearance of wisdom, so long he wanders here [i.e., in saṁsāra], and as long as one does not understand the mind, a guise of the self, to be the field of a person’s suffering in saṁsāra which bears a continuance of lamentation, delusion, disease, attraction, greed, and enmity, and produces my-ness [so long one wanders in saṁsāra].”

Read on →

yathā vastūni paṇyāni hemādīni tatas tataḥ

yathā vastūni paṇyāni hemādīni tatas tataḥ |
paryaṭanti nareṣv evaṁ jīvo yoniṣu kartṛṣu ||
nityasyārthasya sambandho hy anityo dṛśyate nṛṣu |
yāvad yasya hi sambandho mamatvaṁ tāvad eva hi ||
evaṁ yoni-gato jīvaḥ sa nityo nirahaṅkṛtaḥ |
yāvad yatropalabhyeta tāvat svatvaṁ hi tasya tat ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 6.16.6–8)

“As commodities such as gold pass on and on among people, so does a jīva among families and progenitors. Among people, [even] a relationship with a permanent entity [i.e., with another jīva] is seen to be impermanent, and only as long as one has the relationship is there possessiveness (mamatva) [lit., ‘my-ness,’ for that entity]. The jīva situated in a [particular] family similarly is eternal and without ego [i.e., the jīva does not inherently possessed of any sense of identity or belonging related the body, the family, or the other particulars into which it is born in a given lifetime]. Its [i.e., a jīva’s] identification with that [i.e., the family, body, and so forth into which it is born] remains only as long as it may be found there [i.e., only as long as that lifespan lasts].”

Read on →

tam aṅkam ārūḍham apāyayat stanaṁ

tam aṅkam ārūḍham apāyayat stanaṁ
sneha-snutaṁ sa-smitam īkṣatī mukham |
atṛptam utsṛjya javena sā yayāv
utsicyamāne payasi tv adhiśrite ||
sa jāta-kopaḥ sphuritāruṇādharaṁ
sandaśya dadbhir dadhi-mantha-bhājanam |
bhittvā mṛṣāśrur dṛṣad-aśmanā raho
jaghāsa haiyaṅgavam antaraṁ gataḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.9.5–6)

“Raised in her lap, she [i.e., Yaśodā] had him [i.e., Kṛṣṇa] drink from her breast, flowing [with milk] out of affection, as she beheld his smiling face, but when the milk on the fireplace was beginning to boil over, she put him down [although he was] unsatiated, and quickly went over [to attend to the milk on the fireplace]. Angered [by this] and biting his quivering reddish lips with his teeth, he [then] broke with a grindstone the pot [that Yaśodā had been using] for churning yoghurt, went inside [the house] with false tears [alt., non-false tears, in his eyes], and in a concealed place devoured the fresh butter [that Yaśodā had just churned].”

Read on →

jñātvājñātvātha ye vai māṁ yāvān yaś cāsmi yādṛśaḥ

jñātvājñātvātha ye vai māṁ yāvān yaś cāsmi yādṛśaḥ |
bhajanty ananya-bhāvena te me bhakta-tamā matāḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.11.33; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.24; Bhakti Sandarbha: 201, 312)

“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 →

na bhajati kumanīṣiṇāṁ sa ijyāṁ

na bhajati kumanīṣiṇāṁ sa ijyāṁ
harir adhanātma-dhana-priyo rasa-jñaḥ |
śruta-dhana-kula-karmaṇāṁ madair ye
vidadhati pāpam akiñcaneṣu satsu ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 4.31.21; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 301)

“The connoisseur of rasa, Hari, he to whom those who have no [worldly] wealth and whose wealth is the Self [i.e., the Ātmā, meaning, Hari himself] are dear, does not accept the worship of those of polluted intellect, who because of the intoxications of learning, wealth, family, and deeds, engage in wrong-doing in relation to sādhus who are without anything [i.e., free from any such intoxications and the pride and possessiveness that underlie them].”

Read on →

Scroll to Top