Śālagrāma

evaṁ tad-āśraya-rūpasya vilakṣaṇa-prakāśa-sthānatvād

evaṁ tad-āśraya-rūpasya vilakṣaṇa-prakāśa-sthānatvād eva śrī-viṣṇor vyāpakatve’pi śālagrāmādiṣu nirdhāraṇam | tac ca puruṣavan nāntaryāmi-dṛṣṭy-apekṣam, kintu svabhāva-nirdeśa-param eva, tan-nivāsa-kṣetrādīnāṁ mahātīrthatvāpādanādinā kīkaṭādīnām api kṛtārthatva-kathanāt |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 294)

“Although Śrī Viṣṇu is all-pervading, there is determination [of his presence in particular] in Śālagrāmas and elsewhere because of [Śālagrāmas and so forth] being places of the special manifestation of his form as their [i.e., prema-bhaktas’] shelter. This [conclusion], furthermore, is not based on vision of the Inner Regulator (Antaryāmī) as in a human being [i.e., Śrī Viṣṇu’s presence in Śālagrāmas and so on is not understood to be because of Śrī Viṣṇu’s being the omnipresent Inner Regulator of every living being], but rather is based solely on ascertainment of his nature [i.e., Śrī Viṣṇu is understood to be naturally manifest in objects of worship such as Śālagrāmas in a special way, that is, under the pull of his bhaktas’ bhakti], as per the narrations of the successfulness even of the Kīkaṭas and others [i.e., other non-Aryans] as a result of the transformation into grand tīrthas of regions and other places of their [i.e., a Śālagrāma and so forth’s] residence.”

Read on →

śālagrāmādikaṁ tat-tad-bhagavad-ākārādhiṣṭhānam iti cintyam

śālagrāmādikaṁ tat-tad-bhagavad-ākārādhiṣṭhānam iti cintyam, ākāra-vailakṣaṇyāt, śālagrāma-śilā yatra tatra sannihito hariḥ ity-ādy-ukteḥ | tatra ca sveṣṭākārasyaiva bhagavato’dhiṣṭhānaṁ suṣṭhu siddhikaram, tasminn evāyatnatas tadīya-prākaṭyāt, ‘mūrtyābhimatayātmanaḥ’ ity ukteḥ | … atha śrīmat-pratimāyāṁ tu tad-ākāraka-rūpatayaiva cintayanti, ākāraikyāt, ‘śilā-buddhiḥ kṛtā kiṁ vā pratimāyāṁ harer mayā’ iti bhāvanāntare doṣa-śravaṇāc ca |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 286)

“A Śālagrāma and so forth is to be conceived of as an existential seat (adhiṣṭhāna) of a particular figure (ākāra) of Bhagavān [i.e., not as an actual form of Bhagavān himself] because of dissimilarly of figure [i.e., because Śālagrāma stones do not resemble Bhagavān’s personal figure], and because of statements such as, ‘Where there is a Śālagrāma stone, there Hari is present.’ Therein, furthermore, [to meditate on a Śālagrāma and so forth as] an existential seat (adhiṣṭhāna) of one’s own desired figure of Bhagavān [i.e., one Iṣṭa-devatā] is highly efficacious because of his [i.e., one’s Iṣṭa-devatā’s] manifestation without effort [on the part of the sādhaka] there in particular [i.e., in that Śālagrāma or other object of worship], as per the statement [in SB 11.3.48], ‘[Worship the Supreme Puruṣa] In the form wished for by oneself.’ … Now, in the case of the sacred Deity, it [i.e., the deity] is conceived of as a form of his figure itself [i.e., as a form that are non-different from Śrī Bhagavān’s own figure] because of the oneness of figure [i.e., because a deity resembles Śrī Bhagavān’s own figure, unlike Śālagrāma stones and other existential seats of Bhagavān that do not], and because of hearing [in śāstra] of the fault of thinking otherwise [i.e., of not thinking the Deity is non-different from Śrī Bhagavān’s figure], [as evidenced in a statement of Mahārāja Daśaratha in which he wonders why he suffers the fate of being cursed to be deprived of his son], ‘Has the mentality of [considering] the Deity of Hari to be stone been fostered by me?’”

Read on →

Type your query and press enter

Scroll to Top