dṛṣṭaṁ śrutam asad buddhvā nānudhyāyen na saṁviśet |
saṁsṛtiṁ cātma-nāśaṁ ca tatra vidvān sa ātma-dṛk ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 9.19.20)
“Having understood the seen and the heard to be asat, one who shall not meditate repeatedly [on] and shall not enjoy [them], knowing that saṁsāra and loss of the self ensue from them, is a seer of the Ātmā.”
mātrā svasrā duhitrā vā nāviviktāsano bhavet |
balavān indriya-grāmo vidvāṁsam api karṣati ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 9.19.17)
“One should not have a seat that is unseparated from [even] one’s mother, sister, or daughter. The powerful multitude of senses pulls upon even a knowledgable person.”
indriyasyendriyasyārthe rāga-dveṣau vyavasthitau |
tayor na vaśam āgacchet tau hy asya paripanthinau ||
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: 3.34)
“Attraction (rāga) and aversion (dveṣa) to an object of each sense is firmly established [i.e., bound to occur]. One should not come under the control of these since they are one’s obstructions.”
athāpi nopasajjeta strīṣu straiṇeṣu cārtha-vit |
viṣayendriya-saṁyogān manaḥ kṣubhyati nānyathā ||
adṛṣṭād aśrutād bhāvān na bhāva upajāyate |
asamprayuñjataḥ prāṇān śāmyati stimitaṁ manaḥ ||
tasmāt saṅgo na kartavyaḥ strīṣu straiṇeṣu cendriyaiḥ |
viduṣāṁ cāpy avisrabdhaḥ ṣaḍ-vargaḥ kim u mādṛśām ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.26.22–24)
“Even then [i.e., even though women are disgusting in so far as their bodies are made of flesh, blood, stool, urine, pus, and so forth], a sagacious person should not associate with women or those subjugated by women. The mind is disturbed by contact of the senses with [their] objects and not otherwise [i.e., the mind is not disturbed if such contact does not occur]. Feeling does not arise from unseen or unheard of objects. [Thus,] The mind of one who is non-engaged with the prāṇas [i.e., senses] is still and peaceful. Therefore, association is not to be done by means of the senses with women or those subjugated by women, since the ṣaḍ-varga [i.e., the six senses] even of the wise, much less of myself [i.e., of I who am undiscerning], are untrustworthy.”
teṣu nityaṁ mahābhāga mahābhāgeṣu mat-kathāḥ |
sambhavanti hi tā nṝṇāṁ juṣatāṁ prapunanty agham ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.26.27; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.277)
“O you of great fortune [i.e., O Uddhava], discussions of me continuously take place among they who are most fortunate [i.e., among the sat as described in the prior verses], and they [i.e., those discussions] completely wash away the sin of human beings who honor [alt., delight in, them].”
tato duḥsaṅgam utsṛjya satsu sajjeta buddhimān |
santa evāsya chhindanti mano-vyāsaṅgam uktibhiḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.26.26; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.318; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.1.59)
“[Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Uddhava:] Thus, an intelligent person should leave bad association and associate with the sat. Only the sat cut away the undue attachment of one’s mind with their words.”
yato na kaścit kva ca kutracid vā
dīnaḥ svam ātmānam alaṁ samarthaḥ |
vimocituṁ kāma-dṛśāṁ vihāra-
krīḍā-mṛgo yan-nigaḍo visargaḥ ||
tato vidūrāt parihṛtya daityā
daityeṣu saṅgaṁ viṣayātmakeṣu |
upeta nārāyaṇam ādi-devaṁ
sa mukta-saṅgair iṣito’pavargaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.6.17–18; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 5)
[Translated according to the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā:] “Exceedingly lowly and a toy-animal for the play of women (kāmadṛśāṁ), because of whom the fetter of progeny comes about, no one anywhere at any time is able to fully liberate one’s own self [from family life]. Therefore, O Daityas, from afar completely forsake association (saṅga) with [alt., attachment to] the Daityas, whose minds are [fixed] on objects of the senses, and approach Nārāyaṇa, the Original Deva. He is the final beatitude (apavarga) [alt., liberation] desired by those who are freed from attachment.”
bhagavat-kṛpā-parimala-pātra-bhūtasya śrīmato mahataḥ saṅga eva kāraṇam | … nirguṇāvasthāto’py adhikatvāt parama-nirguṇa eva | … saguṇe devādau tasya kṛpā vāstavī na bhavati, kintu śrīmat-prahlādādiṣv eveti pratipādanān mahatāṁ nirguṇatvābhivyaktyā tat-saṅgasyāpi nirguṇatvaṁ vyaktam |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 6.14.1; 11.25.24; Bhakti Sandarbha: 134)
“The association of a beautiful great personage (mahat) who is a vessel of the fragrance of Bhagavān’s grace is the only cause [of realization of Bhagavān]. … Because of it being superior even to the nirguṇa state [i.e., the state of being free from the material guṇas], it [i.e., such association] is parama-nirguṇa [i.e., the supreme state beyond the material guṇas]. … His [i.e., Bhagavān’s] true grace does not exist in the devas and so forth, who are saguṇa, but the nirguṇatva [i.e., state of being nirguṇa] of even the association of great personages is manifested by the manifestation of their [own] nirguṇatva as a result of bestowal [of Bhagavān’s true grace] upon [such great personages as] Śrīmat Prahlāda and others.”
yadyapy akiñcanā bhaktir evābhidheyeti tat-kāraṇatvena tad-bhakta-saṅga evābhidheye sati … |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 202)
“Although unconditional (akiñcanā) bhakti is certainly the abhidheya [i.e., the principal direction of the śāstra, the means to attain the highest end], association with his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] bhaktas is certainly [also] the abhidheya because of its being the cause thereof [i.e., of unconditional (akiñcanā) bhakti].”
tad evaṁ teṣāṁ bahu-bhedeṣu satsu teṣām eva prabhāva-tāratamyena kṛpā-tāratamyena bhakti-vāsanā-bheda-tāratamyena sat-saṅgāt kāla-śaighrya-svarūpa-vaiśiṣṭyābhyāṁ bhaktir udayate | … tatra prathamaṁ tāvat tat-tat-saṅgāj jātena tat-tac-chraddhā-tat-tat-paramparā-kathā-rucy-ādinā jāta-bhagavat-sāmmukhyasya tat-tad-anuṣaṅgenaiva tat-tad-bhajanīye bhagavad-āvirbhāva-viśeṣe tat-bhajana-mārga-viśeṣe ca rucir jāyate |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 202)
“Thus, in this way, bhakti manifests with speciality in nature (svarūpa) and with swiftness or time [i.e., relative slowness] as a result of sat-saṅga in accord with a gradation in types of bhakti-vāsanās [i.e., the predilections for particular forms of bhakti fostered by the sādhus with whom one associates], [as well as] in accord with a gradation in [the degree of] grace [received by an individual from the sādhus with whom one associates], and in accord with a gradation in the potency [i.e., spiritual prowess] of those [sādhus] among the numerous types of sādhus there among [i.e., among all the sādhus who are Vaiṣṇavas]. … In this regard, taste [alt., liking] (ruci) for a specific appearance [i.e., form] of Bhagavān as one’s specific object of worship (bhajanīya), as well as for a specific path of worship (bhajana) of him, manifest in the course of ongoing specific association [i.e., association with a specific type of Vaiṣṇava sādhu] for someone in whom intentness (sāmmukhya) upon Bhagavān has manifested by means first of all of a specific form of śraddhā, a specific form of taste (ruci) for the kathā [i.e., discussion of Bhagavān] of a [specific] paramparā [i.e., lineage of Vaiṣṇava sādhus], and so forth, [which become] manifest as a result of a specific form of association [i.e., the association of a particular Vaiṣṇava sādhu].”
