Prema-vaśyatā

rāma—priye, kim etat

rāma—priye, kim etat |
viniścetuṁ śakyo na sukham iti vā duḥkham iti vā
pramoho nidrā vā kim u viṣa-visarpaḥ kim u madaḥ |
tava sparśe sparśe mama hi parimūḍhendriya-gaṇo
vikāraś caitanyaṁ bhramayati ca saṁmīlayati ca ||
sītā—sthira-prasādā yūyam ita idānīṁ kim aparam |
(Uttara-rāma-carita: 1.36)

[As Rāma takes Sītā into his arms to rest for some time:] “Rāma: ’My dear, what is this? I am not able to ascertain whether this is joy or sorrow. Is it stupor or sleep? Is it a diffusion of poison or inebriety? At your every touch, some feeling which bewilders my senses causes my consciousness to reel and fall faint.’ Sītā [replies]: ‘This is your everlasting graciousness [upon me]. What else could it be?’”

Read on →

atha kānto’yam iti prītiḥ kānta-bhāvaḥ

atha kānto’yam iti prītiḥ kānta-bhāvaḥ | eṣa eva priyatā-śabdena śrī-rasāmṛta-sindhau paribhāṣitā | priyāyā bhāvaḥ priyateti | laukika-rasikair atraiva rati-saṁjñā svīkriyate | eṣa eva kāma-tulyatvāt śrī-gopikāsu kāmādi-śabdenāpy abhihitaḥ | smarākhya-kāma-viśeṣas tv anyaḥ, vailakṣaṇyāt | kāma-sāmānyaṁ khalu spṛhā-sāmānyātmakam, prīti-sāmānyaṁ tu viṣayānukūlyātmakas tad-anugata-viṣaya-spṛhādi-mayo jñāna-viśeṣa iti lakṣitam | tato dvayoḥ sāmānya-prāya-ceṣṭatve’pi kāma-sāmānyasya ceṣṭā svīyānukūlya-tātparyā | tatra kutracid viṣayānukūlyaṁ ca sva-sukha-kārya-bhūtam eveti tatra gauṇa-vṛttir eva prīti-śabdaḥ | śuddha-prīti-mātrasya ceṣṭā tu priyānukūlya-tātparyaiva | tatra tad-anugatam eva cātma-sukham iti mukhya-vṛttir eva prīti-śabdaḥ | ata eva yathā-pūrvaṁ sukha-prīti-sāmānyayor ullāsātmakatayā sāmye’py ānukūlyāṁśena prīti-sāmānyasya vaiśiṣṭyaṁ darśitam | tathā kāma-prīti-sāmānyayor api spṛhā-viśeṣātmakatayā sāmye’pi tenaiva vaiśiṣṭyaṁ siddham | atra tu—‘yat te sujāta-caraṇāmburuhaṁ staneṣu bhītāḥ śanaiḥ priya dadhīmahi karkaśeṣu’ ity ādibhir atikramyāpi svānukūlyaṁ priyānukūlya-tātparyasyaiva darśitatvāt śuddha-prīti-viśeṣa-rūpatvam eva labhyate | atas tad-viśeṣatvaṁ ca spṛhā-viśeṣātmakatvāt siddham | tato’tra śrī-kṛṣṇa-viṣayatvena kubjādi-sambandhi-kāmavad aprākṛta-kāmatvasyāpy anabhyupagame sati prākṛta-kāmatvaṁ tu sutarām asiddham | tathā darśitaṁ ca— ‘vikrīḍitaṁ vraja-vadhūbhir idaṁ ca viṣṇoḥ, śraddhānvito yaḥ śṛṇuyād atha varṇayed vā | bhaktiṁ parāṁ bhagavati parilabhya kāmaṁ, hṛd-rogam āśv apahinoty acireṇa dhīraḥ’ || ity anena | yad vikrīḍitaṁ khalu nija-śravaṇa-dvārāpy anyeṣāṁ dūra-deśa-kāla-sthitānām api śīghram eva yaṁ kāmam apanayat paramaṁ premāṇaṁ vitanoti tat punas tat-kāmamayaṁ na syāt | api tu parama-prema-viśeṣamayam eva | na hi paṅkena paṅkaṁ kṣālyate | na tu svayam asnehaḥ snehayati | ata eva tasya bhāvasya śuddha-prema-mayatvaṁ nigadenaivoktvā śuddhatve hetutayā punas tena bhagavat-prasādaś ca darśitaḥ—‘bhagavān āhatā vīkṣya śuddha-bhāva-prasāditaḥ’ iti | tasyātmarāma-śiromaṇes tena ramaṇaṁ ca darśitam—‘kṛtvā tāvantam ātmānam’ ity-ādibhiḥ | vaśīkṛtatvaṁ ca svayaṁ darśitaṁ—‘na pāraye’haṁ niravadya-saṁyujām’ ity ādinā | tatra niravadyeti prīteḥ śuddhatvam | sva-sādhukṛtyam iti paramottamotkṛṣṭatvam | na pāraya iti svavaśīkāratvam | ataḥ śuddha-prema-jātiṣu tasya paramatvād eva śrīmad-uddhavenāpy evam uktam—‘vāñchanti yad bhava-bhiyo munayo vayaṁ ca’ iti | tasmāt sarvataḥ paramaiva kānta-bhāva-rūpā prītir iti sthitam |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 84)

“Then, the prīti [based on the attitude in relation to Śrī Bhagavān], ‘He is [my] beloved’ is [called] kānta-bhāva. This is technically defined with the word priyatā in Śrī Rasāmṛta-sindhu. The bhāva of a priyā [i.e., ladylove] is called priyatā [i.e., ‘fondness,’ lit., ‘ladylove-ness’]. The term rati is accepted [i.e., used] by secular rasikas in this regard [i.e., to define this bhāva]. Because of [its] resemblance to kāma [i.e., “love”], it is also referred to by words such as kāma in the case of the gopīs. It is different from the particular type of kāma known as smara [i.e., eros] because of dissimilarity [in nature between the two]. Kāma in general is defined as that constituted of desire (spṛhā) in general [i.e., general desire for an object of love], whereas prīti in general is a particular form of awareness constituted of favorability (ānukūlya) towards its object and full of desire (spṛhā) and so forth for its object following that [i.e., following in the wake of favorability towards its object (see PRS 61 and 78 for further discussion of the definition of prīti in general)]. Thus, although the two [i.e., kāma and prīti] are almost the same in terms of activity, the activities of kāma in general have the aim of favorability (ānukūlya) to oneself [i.e., the activities of kāma are focused on pleasing oneself]. Therein, sometimes there is also favorability (ānukūlya) to the object [of kāma], but that is only existent for the purpose of one’s own happiness [i.e., favorability to the object of kāma is proffered only as a means of attaining happiness for oneself]. Thus, in this regard [i.e., in reference to kāma in general], the word prīti is only in its secondary function [i.e., the word prīti describes kāma in general only in a secondary sense of its meaning, that is, kāma in general is not its primary sense]. The activities of pure prīti itself, however, have the aim only of favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved (priya). Therein, one’s own happiness is only following that [i.e., it occurs only in the wake of that favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved as a secondary, concomitant effect]. In this regard, the word prīti is in its primary function [i.e., the primary meaning of the word prīti is love the aim (tātparya) of which is solely favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved]. Therefore, as previously [was explained in PRS 61], although happiness (sukha) and prīti in general are equivalent in [their both] being constituted of elation (ullāsa), the speciality of prīti in general was shown by the aspect of favorability (ānukūlya) [i.e., prīti in general is constituted of favorability (ānukūlya) towards its object, whereas happiness (sukha) is not], so although kāma and prīti in general are equivalent because of [their both] being constituted of a particular form of desire (spṛhā), the speciality [of prīti in general] was established by that itself [i.e., by only prīti’s, and not kāma’s, being constituted principally and secondarily of favorability (ānukūlya) to its object].
“Verily in this regard, because of the aim of favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved definitively eclipsing even favorability to oneself being shown by [the statement of the gopīs in SB 10.31.19], ‘O Beloved! Fearful, we gently hold your tender lotus feet on our hard breasts … [You roam with them throughout the forest. Have they not been cut by pebbles and so forth? Our hearts tremble. You are our very life],’ a special form of pure prīti is definitively understood [to exist in the gopīs]. Thus, the speciality of that [i.e., of pure prīti in general, and of the special form of pure prīti found in the gopīs in particular] because of [its] being constituted of a special form of desire [i.e., a desire for favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved that is not motivated by a desire for favorability (ānukūlya) to oneself, that is, the pursuit of experiencing personal happiness (sukha) for oneself, and rather is motivated solely by a desire for favorability (ānukūlya) to the beloved whereby one even neglects favorability (ānukūlya) to oneself] is also established. Then, in this regard, because of non-recognition of [the pure prīti existent in the gopīs] being supramundane (aprākṛta) kāma like the kāma belonging to Kubjā and others [which is such] on account of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s being the object [of the kāma], [its, i.e., the gopīs’ prīti] being mundane (prākṛta) kāma is completely unfounded [i.e., kāma means the desire to please one’s own senses (see CC 1.4.165) and can be classified as mundane (prākṛta) or supramundane (aprākṛta) depending on the nature of its object, that is, whether its object is mundane (prākṛta) or supramundane (aprākṛta) in nature; since the gopīs’ prīti is not constituted of the desire to please one’s own senses or activity aimed at this effect (viz., svīya-ānukūlya), and rather is constituted of the desire to please the senses of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, its object, and activity to that effect (viz., priya-ānukūlya), it should not be considered even supramundane (aprākṛta) kāma, as is found in Kubjā and others, much less mundane (prākṛta) kāma, as is found people in saṁsāra].
“Thus, this is also shown [in SB 10.33.40]: ‘One endowed with śraddhā who shall hear about and then describe Viṣṇu’s extraordinary play with the ladies of Vraja attains pure bhakti to Bhagavān, quickly casts off the heart disease of kāma, and without delay becomes steadfast.’ That extraordinary play which, even by means of hearing about it, quickly removes the kāma even of others who are situated in distant places and times [from where and when it took place] and bestows [upon them] the highest prema cannot on the contrary be constituted of that [sort of] kāma [i.e., the sort of kāma which it removes], and rather, must be constituted of a particular form of the highest prema [since only such prema could have the power to dispel kāma]. Mud is certainly not washed off with mud, and that which is itself devoid of oil does not anoint [i.e., the play between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs described in the Rāsa-pañcādhyāyī cannot be constituted of mundane (prākṛta) kāma because if it were, it would not purify those who hear of it of mundane (prākṛta) kāma, and it cannot be devoid of pure prīti because if it were, it would not be able to impart pure prīti to those who hear of it].
“Therefore, having now described this bhāva’s being constituted of pure prema with a definitive pronouncement, furthermore Bhagavān’s satisfaction because of it by virtue of the cause of [its] purity is also shown [in SB 10.22.18], ‘Bhagavān, seeing them [i.e., the gopīs in the Yamunā] struck [with embarrassment], and satisfied by their pure bhāva ….’ The amorous sporting of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who is the crest-jewel of ātmarāmas because of that [i.e., because of his satisfaction with the gopīs’ pure prīti] is also shown [in SB 10.33.20], ‘Expanding himself into as many gopa girls as there were, he, Bhagavān, although an ātmarāma, playfully [i.e., amorously] enjoyed with them.’
“Himself also being captivated [by the gopīs’ pure prīti] is also shown by [his statement to the gopīs in SB 10.32.22], ‘I am not capable even with the lifespan of a deva of the extraordinary act of virtue of you all, whose union [with me] is irreproachable, and who have completely severed the unrelenting fetters of family life and served me. May that [act of virtue of yours] by [your own] virtue be your compensation [for your virtuous service to me].’ Therein, ‘irreproachable’ (niravadya) indicates the purity of [the gopīs’] prīti. [The gopīs’] ‘Extraordinary act of virtue’ (sva-sādhukṛtyam) indicates the highest, topmost excellence [of their prīti], and ‘I am not capable’ (na pāraye) indicates his [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s] own captivation [because of their prīti]. Thus, because of its [i.e., the gopīs’ prīti] definitive supremacy among [all] types of pure prema, even the following is stated by Śrīmad Uddhava [in SB 10.47.58], ‘[The bhāva of the gopīs] Which those afraid of material existence, sages, and we too desire.’ Therefore, it is determined that prīti in the form of kānta-bhāva is supreme in all respects.”

Read on →

tad evaṁ rāgānugā sādhitā

tad evaṁ rāgānugā sādhitā | sā ca śrī-kṛṣṇa eva mukhyā ‘gopyaḥ kāmāt’ ity-ādinā tasminn eva darśitatvāt, daityānām api dveṣeṇāpi tasminn evāveśa-lābha-darśanāt, siddhi-prāpteś ca | nānyatra tu kutrāpy aṁśiny aṁśe vā | ata evoktam, ‘tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet’ ity-ādi | atas tādṛśa-jhaṭity-āveśa-hetūpāsanā-lābhād eva svayam ekādaśe vaidhopāsanā svasmin noktā, kintv anyatra caturbhujākāra eva | tatra ca śuddhasya rāgasya śrī-gokula eva darśanāt, tatra tu rāgānugā mukhyatamā, yatra khalu svayaṁ bhagavān api teṣāṁ putrādi-bhāvenaiva vilasati … | tataś ca bhakta-kartṛka-bhojana-pāyana-snapana-vījanādi-lakṣaṇa-lālanecchāpi tasyākṛtrimaiva jāyate | … nānena caiśvaryasya hāniḥ tadānīm api tasyaiśvaryasyānyatra sphurad-rūpatvāt, bhaktecchā-mayatvasya ceśitari praśaṁsanīya-svabhāvatvād eva | yathā śrī-vrajeśvarī-baddha eva yamalārjuna-mokṣaṁ kṛtavān | tādṛśaiśvarye’pi tasmin śrī-vrajeśvarī-vaśyataiva śrī-śukadevena vanditā … | tasmād ye cādyāpi tadīya-rāgānugā-parās teṣām api śrī-vrajendra-nandanatvādi-mātra-dharmair upāsanā yuktā | yathā śrī-govardhanoddharaṇa-labdha-vismayān śrī-gopān praty uktaṁ svayaṁ bhagavataiva viṣṇu-purāṇe—yadi vo’sti mayi prītiḥ ślāghyo’haṁ bhavatāṁ yadi | tadātma-bandhu-sadṛśī buddhir vaḥ kriyatāṁ mayi || iti | … tathā—nāhaṁ devo na gandharvo na yakṣo na ca dānavaḥ | ahaṁ vo bāndhavo jāto nātaś cintyam ato’nyathā || iti | … ata eva jñānājñānayor anādareṇa kevala-rāgānugāyā evānuṣṭhitiḥ praśastā, ‘jñātvājñātvātha ye vai mām’ ity-ādinā | tasmāt śrī-gokula eva rāgātmikāyāḥ śuddhatvāt tad-anugā bhaktir eva mukhyatamā iti sādhv evoktam | tad evam anyatrāsambhavatayā rāgānugā-māhātmya-dṛṣṭyā pūrṇa-bhagavattā-dṛṣṭyā ca śrī-kṛṣṇa-bhajanasya māhātmyaṁ mahad eva siddham | tatrāpi śrī-gokula-līlātmakasya |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 325)

“Thus, in this way, rāgānugā [-bhakti] has been established [as the abhidheya]. This [i.e., rāgānugā-bhakti], furthermore, is primarily towards Śrī Kṛṣṇa in particular [i.e., as opposed to other forms of Bhagavān] because of [its] being shown specifically in relation to him by gopyaḥ kāmāt … [i.e., by SB 7.1.30, as discussed in BKS 321], and because of observation of even the daityas’ [i.e., asuras’] attainment of absorption in him in particular and achievement of perfection (siddhi) even through hatred [towards him in particular]. This does not occur in relation to any other whole (aṁśī) [i.e., any other complete manifestation of Bhagavān] or part (aṁśa) [i.e., partial manifestation of Bhagavān] anywhere. Therefore, it was said [in SB 7.1.31], ’One may absorb the mind in Kṛṣṇa by some particular means [i.e., SB 7.1.31 speaks of Kṛṣṇa specifically, and not of Bhagavān in general or of another of his forms].’
“Thus, because of the benefit of such worship (upāsanā) that is a cause of quick absorption [in Kṛṣṇa, as described in SB 7.1.25–31, i.e., because the process of rāgānugā-bhakti in relation to Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, based on Śrī Nārada’s teachings in SB 7.1.25–31, is a cause of quick absorption in him], worship (upāsanā) enjoined by rule [i.e., vaidhī-bhakti, which is not a cause of quick absorption in Kṛṣṇa as rāgānugā-bhakti is] was not spoken of by he himself [i.e., by Śrī Kṛṣṇa] in the Eleventh Canto [of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] in relation to himself [i.e., in relation to his human-like two-armed form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa], but only in relation to his distinct, four-armed figure. Furthermore, because of observation of pure rāga in relation to him [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa, to be existent] only in Śrī Gokula, rāgānugā [-bhakti] there [i.e., in Śrī Gokula] where even Svayaṁ Bhagavān [himself] sports with the bhāva of [being] their [i.e., the residents of Gokula’s] son and so forth, is certainly the foremost of all [i.e., of all types of sādhana]. … Thus also, he even has entirely genuine [i.e., non-artificial] desire for the caring offered [to him] by bhaktas in the form of feeding, presenting drinks, bathing, fanning, and so forth. … Also, by this [i.e., by his adopting the bhāva of being the son and so forth of residents of Gokula], it is not that a loss of [his] aiśvarya [i.e., supreme capability] occurs because of his aiśvarya having a manifest form elsewhere [i.e., because his aiśvarya remains manifest in his other forms, activities, and abodes] even then [i.e., at the same time], and because of [his] being pursuant of the will of bhaktas being a praiseworthy disposition in a master (īśitṛ) [alt., in he who is the Supreme Master]. For example, even while bound by Śrī Vrajeśvarī [i.e., Mother Yaśodā], he liberated the Yamalārjunas [i.e., Maṇigrīva and Nalakūvera]. Even when he had [and showed] such capability [to liberate them], [however,] only his captivation by Śrī Vrajeśvarī was praised by Śrī Śukadeva [because this is even more praiseworthy than his liberating the Yamalārjunas]. … Therefore, even for those who even today are devoted to following a rāga related to him [i.e., to following the path of rāgānugā-bhakti], worship (upāsanā) in accord with his characteristics specifically of being the son of the king of Vraja [i.e., the characteristics he manifests in Śrī Gokula] is apt. For example, there is a statement in Viṣṇu Purāṇa by Svayaṁ Bhagavān himself to the beautiful gopas who had become amazed by his lifting of Śrī Govardhana: ‘If you all have love (prīti) for me, and if you all [also] consider I am praiseworthy [i.e., a worthy object of reverence], then you all should [give up your awe and reverence of me and] foster the attitude in regard me that I am like the kinsmen (bandhu) of your very self (ātmā) [i.e., that I am one of your fellow cowherds, alt., that I am like the dear friend (bandhu) of your heart (ātmā)]. I am neither a deva, nor a gandharva, nor a yakṣa, nor a dānava. I have been born as your kinsmen (bāndhava—bandhu), and thus from now on I am not to be thought of otherwise [i.e., as anyone other than one of your fellow cowherds and kinsmen; I should not be thought of as any sort of devatā].’ … Therefore, performance solely pure rāgānugā [-bhakti] without regard for understanding (jñāna) or non-understanding (ajñāna) [of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s aiśvarya] is best, as per [SB 11.11.33, wherein Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself instructs], ‘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.’
“Therefore, because of the purity of rāgātmikā [-bhakti] only in Śrī Gokula [i.e., because rāgātmikā-bhakti is most pure, that is, free from awareness of Kṛṣṇa’s aiśvarya, only in Śrī Gokula, that is, Vraja, in contrast to Mathurā, Dvārakā, Vaikuṇṭha, and elsewhere, on account of the bhāvas of rāgātmikā-bhaktas in Gokula, and not elsewhere, having no taint of the predominance of awareness of Kṛṣṇa’s aiśvarya], it was indeed rightly said that bhakti that follows that [i.e., the bhakti that follows the rāgātmikā-bhakti existent specifically in Śrī Gokula] is preeminent [i.e., is the foremost of all forms of sādhana-bhakti]. Thus, in this way, on account of impossibility elsewhere [i.e., the impossibility of pure rāgānugā-bhakti in relation to forms of Bhagavān other than Śrī Kṛṣṇa], and by means of recognition of the greatness of rāgānugā [-bhakti in comparison to vaidhī-bhakti and all other forms of sādhana] and recognition of complete Bhagavattā [i.e., the full nature of being Bhagavān, which is existent specifically in Śrī Kṛṣṇa, he who is Svayaṁ Bhagavān, and not in any other form of Bhagavān], it is established that the greatness of the worship (bhajana) of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and therein especially, [the worship] of he possessed of līlā in Śrī Gokula [i.e., the worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa manifest in Śrī Gokula specifically and not elsewhere] is the greatest [i.e., worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is greater than worship of any other form of Bhagavān, rāgānugā-bhakti worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is greater than any other form of worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, rāgānugā-bhakti worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Śrī Gokula in greater than any other form of rāgānugā-bhakti worship of Śrī Kṛṣṇa elsewhere].”

Read on →

visṛjati hṛdayaṁ na yasya sākṣād

visṛjati hṛdayaṁ na yasya sākṣād
dharir avaśābhihito’py aghaugha-nāśaḥ |
praṇaya-raśanayā dhṛtāṅghri-padmaḥ
sa bhavati bhāgavata-pradhāna uktaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.2.55; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.74, Bhakti Sandarbha: 198)

“One whose heart Hari himself, he who destroys multitudes of sins even when called unintentionally, does not leave because his lotus feet are bound [there] by a rope of love is said to be the foremost of Bhāgavatas.”

Read on →

jñāna-karma-yoga-dharme nahe kṛṣṇa vaśa

jñāna-karma-yoga-dharme nahe kṛṣṇa vaśa |
kṛṣṇa-vaśa-hetu eka—prema-bhakti-rasa ||
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.17.75)

“Captivation of Kṛṣṇa does not occur through the dharmas of jñāna, karma, or yoga. The cause of captivation of Kṛṣṇa is one: the rasa of prema-bhakti.”

Read on →

tvaṁ māyayaiva jīvānāṁ

baḍa kīrti haile caitanya nāhi pāi |
‘bhakti-vaśa sabe prabhu’—cāri-vede gāi ||
(Caitanya-bhāgavata: 2.10.279)

“[Even] If one acquires great renown, one does not attain Caitanya. The four Vedas sing, ‘Prabhu is completely captivated [only] by bhakti.’”

Read on →

atra pariśramam iti kṛpayety ābhyāṁ dvy-aṅgula-nyūnatā-samāhitā

atra pariśramam iti kṛpayety ābhyāṁ dvy-aṅgula-nyūnatā-samāhitā bhakta-niṣṭhā bhajanotthā śrāntis tad-darśanotthā sva-niṣṭhā kṛpā ceti dvābhyām eva bhagavān baddho bhavet | te dve yāvan nābhūtāṁ tāvad dvy-aṅgula-nyūnatā āsīt | tayor udbhūtayos tu baddho’bhūd iti premnā sva-baddhena prakāra sva-mātari svayam udāhṛto bhagavateti jñeyam ||
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.9.18)

“Here exertion (pariśrama) and grace (kṛpā)—by these the [cause of the] shortness of two fingers is inferred; the fatigue arising from bhajana present in the bhakta and the grace arising from seeing this present in him—specifically by these two Bhagavān became bound. As long as these two did not manifest, the shortness of two fingers was present. When these two manifested, however, he became bound. Thus, it is to be understood that the way to bind him with prema has been demonstrated by Bhagavān Himself through his own mother.”

Read on →

cic-chakti-sāra-bhūtena

cic-chakti-sāra-bhūtena premṇaiva tasyānandātiśayārtham eva bhakta-vaśyatvaṁ niṣpadyata … |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.9.19)

“[Bhagavān’s] Being captivated by bhaktas is effected only by prema, the essence of the cit-śakti, for the purpose of [producing] profuse bliss for him.”

Read on →

Scroll to Top