Smaraṇa

pati-putra-suhṛd-bhrātṛ-pitṛvan mātṛvad dharim | ye dhyāyanti sadodyuktās tebhyo’pīha namo namaḥ || iti | atra paty-ādivad iti dhyeyasya pitṛvad iti dhyātur viśeṣaṇaṁ jñeyam | tathā mātṛvad iti vati-pratyayena prasiddha-tan-mātṛ-janābheda-bhāvanā naivāṅgīkriyate, kintu tad-anugata-bhāvanaiva | evaṁ pitṛ-bhāvādāv api jñeyam | anyathā bhagavaty ahaṅgrahopāsanāvat teṣv api doṣaḥ syāt | tathā dhyāyanti iti pūrvoktaṁ manaḥ-pradhānatvam evorīkṛtam | api-śabdena tat-tad-rāga-siddhānāṁ kaimutyam ākṣipyate |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)

“‘Obeisance and obeisance even unto those in this world who always eagerly meditate on Hari as a husband, son, friend, or brother, or [meditate on him] like a father, or like a mother.’ Here [in this verse from Nārāyaṇa-vyūha-stava], [the word] ‘husband’ and so forth [i.e., as well as the words ‘son,’ ‘friend,’ and ‘brother’] is to be understood as an adjective of the object to be meditated on [i.e., Bhagavān], and ‘like a father’ (pitṛvat) [is to be understood as an adjective] of the meditator. Furthermore, in regard to ‘like a mother’ (mātṛvat) [which is also to be understood as an adjective of the meditator], a meditation of non-difference from a person well known to be his mother [i.e., meditating on oneself as being non-different from a mother of Bhagavān, such as Yaśodā or Devakī] is not accepted by means of the vati suffix [which can in some cases convey a sense of equivalence but in this case should be understood in the sense of similarity and not in the sense of equivalence], and rather, only a meditation of following her is [accepted, i.e., the intended meaning of one meditating ‘like a mother’ on Bhagavān is that one meditates on oneself as a follower of his mother and not that one meditates that one is oneself one of his mothers, such as Yaśodā]. Such is to be understood in regard to the bhāva of a father and so forth [i.e., the same principle applies to those who meditate on Bhagavān on the basis of ruci for the bhāva of a father of Bhagavān or any other type of bhāva in relation to Bhagavānl, and thus in practice one should not meditate that ‘I am Nanda Mahārāja, or, ‘I am Yaśodā,’ but rather that ‘I am a follower of Nanda Mahārāja,’ or, ‘I am a follower of Yaśodā’]. Otherwise [i.e., if those alluded to in the verse under discussion who meditate on Bhagavān ‘like a father,’ ‘like a mother,’ or like another rāgātmikā associate of Bhagavān, neglect to meditate on themselves as followers of they who are well known to be parents of Bhagavān or primary, leading associates of Bhagavān with other relationships with him], [then,] similar to [the fault of] ahaṅgrahopāsanā in relation to Bhagavān, a fault shall occur in them as well [i.e., such meditators will commit a fault similar to the fault of ahaṅgrahopāsanā, that is, taking oneself to be the object of worship, since they in that case would be taking themselves to be bhaktas who are direct eternal manifestations of Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti, that is, those who, in terms specifically of their constitution as svarūpa-śakti, are non-different from Bhagavān]. Furthermore, by ‘mediate’ (dhyāyanti), the aforementioned predominance of the mind [in rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti] is alluded to [as was discussed in BKS 311]. By the word ‘even’ (api) is implied ‘how much more (kaimutya) [shall obeisance be offered]?’ to those in whom those particular rāgas are established (siddha) [i.e., if even sādhakas who meditate on themselves as being followers of those who have rāga for Bhagavān are worthy of honor by means of repeated obeisance, then how much more are siddha-bhaktas possessed of rāga for Bhagavān itself worthy of honor?].”

Read on →