Bhāgavata Sandarbha

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca pūrvaṁ vivṛtā | ‘tat tvam asi’ ity ādau lakṣaṇā tv atyantābhede tad-aṁśatve ca samānaiva | parama-tattvasya niraṁśatva-śrutis tu dvidhā pravartate | tatra kevala-viśeṣya-lakṣaṇa-nirdeśa-parāyā mukhyaiva pravṛttiḥ, ānanda-mātratvāt tasya | ānandaika-rūpasya tasya svarūpa-śakti-viśiṣṭasya nirdeśa-parāyās tu prākṛtāṁśa-leśa-rāhitya-mātre tātparyād gauṇī pravṛttiḥ | sarva-śakti-viśiṣṭasya tasya tu sarvāṁśitvaṁ gītam eva | 
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“The inconclusive argumentation (anupapatti) of ignorance (avidyā) and knowledge (vidyā) having shelter simultaneously [in the same existent (vastu)] and so forth [i.e., and other such untenable conclusions] in [the view of] absolute non-distinction between the jīva and Īśvara [which has been promulgated by Kevalādvaitavādīs] has also been explained earlier [in Paramātma Sandarbha]. In regard to [the statement in CHU 6.8.7], ‘You are that’ (tat tvam asi), indication (lakṣaṇā) [i.e., a figurative sense] is equally present in [the view of there being] absolute non-distinction [of the jīva from Īśvara] and in [the view of the jīva’s] being a part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., Īśvara].

“The Śruti [i.e., the declaration in the śāstra] of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) being without parts (niraṁśa) indeed conveys a twofold sense [i.e., a primary and a secondary sense]. Therein, the primary sense (mukhya-pravṛtti) is focused on designation of the nature of the qualificand (viśeṣya) alone on account of its [i.e., the qualificand’s, meaning, the Supreme Entity’s,] being solely [constituted of] bliss, whereas the secondary sense (gauṇī-pravṛtti) is focused on designation of it [i.e., the qualificand, the Supreme Entity] as a form purely of bliss replete with its inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) on the basis of an intention (tātparya) specifically related to the absence of [even] a trace of a material (prākṛta) part (aṁśa) [in the Supreme Entity]. Replete with all potency (śakti), its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being the bearer of all parts [i.e., being the Supreme Whole of whom all else is part] is certainly proclaimed [in the śāstra].”

Read on →

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ | sa ca tejo-maṇḍalasya bahiścara-raśmi-paramāṇur iva parama-cid-eka-rasasya tasya bahiścara-cit-paramāṇuḥ | tatra tasya vyāpakatvāt tad-ekadeśatvam eva jīve syāt | nirākāratayā tad-ekadeśatvaṁ na viruddham | tathāpi bahiścaratvaṁ tad-āśrayitvāt | taj-jñānābhāvāt chāyayā raśmivat māyayābhibhāvyatvāc ca bahiścaratvaṁ vyapadiśyate | raśmi-sthānīyatvaṁ ca tad-vyatirekād vyatirekitayā yas tad-āśrayi-bhāvaḥ | yā ca pūrva-yuktyā bahiścaratve’py eka-vastutva-śrutis tad-ādibhir gamyate | raśmi-sthānīyatvaṁ ca tad-vyatirekād vyatirekitayā yas tad-āśrayi-bhāvaḥ | yā ca pūrva-yuktyā bahiścaratve’py eka-vastutva-śrutis tad-ādibhir gamyate | śaktitvaṁ ca tad-rūpatayaiva tadīya-līlopakaraṇatvāt | aṇutvaṁ ca śabdāt hari-candana-binduvat tasya prabhāva-lakṣaṇa-guṇenaiva sarva-deha-vyāpteḥ | sarvaṁ caitat paramasyācintya-śaktimayatvād aviruddham iti pūrvaṁ dṛḍhīkṛtam asti, ‘śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt’ iti nyāyena, ‘eka-deśa-sthitasyāgner’ ity ādinā ca |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“A single jīva is just a part (aṁśa) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), who is possessed of the collective potency (samaṣṭi-śakti) known as jīva [viz., the jīva-śakti, i.e., each jīva is one of innumerable other jīvas, all of whom are constituted of the Supreme Entity’s potency that collectively constitutes all these jīvas and is known as the ‘jīva-śakti’]. That [i.e., one jīva], furthermore, like an outdwelling, minute particle in a ray of the sun, is an outdwelling minute particle of consciousness (cit) of that [i.e., of the Supreme Entity] who is constituted of one substance, [viz.,] supreme consciousness (cit). In this regard, because of its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being all-pervading, only a localization (ekadeśatva) of it can exist in a jīva [i.e., because the Supreme Entity is all-pervading and an all-pervading entity cannot be contained in full within a minute entity, the Supreme Entity in its entirety cannot exist in a jīva, and thus only a localization of it does]. [Moreover,] Because of [its, i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being formless, its localization is not contradictory [i.e., a localized manifestation of the Supreme Entity existing within each minute jīva is not contrary to the Supreme Entity’s characteristic of being all-pervasive because the Supreme Entity exists all-pervasively without form, that is, without any gross or otherwise delimited form]. Even so [i.e., even though the Supreme Entity pervades the jīva], the outdwellingness [of the jīva to the Supreme Entity, i.e., the jīva’s existing outside the the Supreme Entity’s own primary existence, that is, the Supreme Entity’s own unique, intrinsic constitution] exists because of [the jīva’s] being dependent on it [i.e., on the Supreme Entity]. The outdwellingness [of the jīva in relation to the Supreme Entity] is also designated because of the [jīva’s] absence of awareness of it [i.e., the Supreme Entity], and because of [the jīva’s] being subject to being overpowered by māyā like a ray [is subject to being overpowered] by shadow [i.e., as a ray of the sun can be overpowered by shadow but the sun itself cannot be, so the jīva can be overpowered by māyā but the Supreme Entity cannot be even though the jīva is a part (aṁśa) of the Supreme Entity just as a minute particle in a ray of the sun is a part of the sun].
“The [jīva’s] comparability to a ray, furthermore, is [the jīva’s] being a dependent on it [i.e., on the Supreme Entity] because of [the jīva’s] being an apparent non-existent (vyatirekī) as a result of it’s [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] apparent non-existence (vyatireka) [i.e., just as rays of the sun disappear when the sun sets but don’t cease to exist, so the jīvas become apparently non-existent when the Supreme Entity becomes apparently non-existent during the cyclic period of universal dissolution; both the jīvas and the Supreme Entity then remain existent until they become apparently existent again during the next cycle of universal emanation]. And although there is outdwellingness [of the jīva] according to the prior [i.e., aforesaid] reasoning, the Śruti [i.e., declaration in the śāstra] of one existentness (eka-vastutva) [i.e., of there being really only one existent, viz., the Supreme Entity, upon whom everything that is manifest is dependent for its existence] is understood through that and others [i.e., through that statement in the Śruti-śāstra and statements in other śāstras, e.g., Śrīmad Bhāgavatam].
“[The jīva’s] Being a potency (śakti) [of the Supreme Entity] is [understood] because of [the jīva’s] being an instrument for its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] līlā by virtue of [the jīva’s] being of that nature [i.e., by virtue of the jīva’s being outdwelling to the Supreme Entity while also being ontologically one with it as a dependent part of it]. [The jīva’s] Minuteness [i.e., infinitesimality], further, is [understood] because of śabda [i.e., by means of statements heard in śāstra] on account of its pervasion of the entire body [that it is enveloped in] solely by means of its quality of influence just like a drop of yellow sandal [i.e., just as a drop of yellow sandalwood paste applied to the forehead can create a feeling of coolness throughout the entire body solely by means of its quality of being cooling and without actually being present throughout the entire body, so the jīva, which is infinitesimal in measure and not actually present throughout the entire body, can pervade the entire body by means of its quality of being able to influence the entire body]. All of this, furthermore, is not contradictory because of the Supreme’s being constituted of inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti). Such was affirmed previously [e.g., in KS 106] by the principle [stated in VS 2.1.27], ‘It is because of Śruti [i.e., because of the statements in the śāstra, that Brahman is understood to not be subject to modification or limitation] on account of śabda’s [i.e., śabda-pramāṇa’s] being the source [of valid knowledge of Brahman],’ and by [the statement in VP 1.22.56], ‘As the light of a fire situated in one place is pervasive [of the area around it], so the potency (śakti) of the Supreme Brahman is this entire universe [i.e., so the śakti of Parabrahman is manifest all-pervasively in the form of this material universe].’”

Read on →

puruṣa-prayojanaṁ tāvat sukha-prāptir duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca

puruṣa-prayojanaṁ tāvat sukha-prāptir duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca |
puruṣa-prayojanaṁ tāvat sukha-prāptir duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca | śrī-bhagavat-prītau tu sukhatvaṁ duḥkha-nivartakatvaṁ cātyantikam iti | etad uktaṁ bhavati—yat khalu parama-tattvaṁ śāstra-pratipādyatvena pūrvaṁ nirṇītaṁ, tad eva sad-ananta-paramānandatvena siddham | … nānā-svarūpa-dharmato’pi tasya kevalānanda-svarūpatvam eva ca darśitam | tathā-bhūta-mārtaṇḍādi-maṇḍalasya kevala-jyotiṣṭvavat |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“The aim (prayojana) of an embodied being (puruṣa), fundamentally, is the attainment of happiness and elimination of suffering, and only in prīti for Śrī Bhagavān are happiness and elimination of suffering absolute. Thus, this is said: only that Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), who was ascertained previously [i.e., in the first four sandarbhas] as being the object to be taught by the śāstra, is established [by the śāstra] as being eternal, infinite, paramount bliss. … Although possessed of various inherent characteristics, his [i.e., that Supreme Entity’s] verily being of the nature of bliss alone is also shown [in śāstra, i.e., his fundamental nature, upon which all of his other attributes are based, is bliss (ānanda) alone], just as the sun, which has [within it] the there existent Mārtaṇḍa [i.e., the devatā Sūrya] and so forth [i.e., as well as Sūryadeva’s chariot, horses, etc.], is [fundamentally] of the nature of light alone.”

Read on →

paramātmatvādi-lakṣaṇa-nānāvastha-bhagavat-sākṣātkāra eva tatrāpi paramaḥ

paramātmatvādi-lakṣaṇa-nānāvastha-bhagavat-sākṣātkāra eva tatrāpi paramaḥ | (1) tatra saty api nirupadhi-prīty-āspadatva-svabhāvasya tasya svarūpa-dharmāntara-vṛnda-sākṣātkṛtau paramatve prīti-bhakty-ādi-saṁjñaṁ priyatva-lakṣaṇa-dharma-viśeṣa-sākṣātkāram eva paramatamatvena manyante | (2) tayā prītyaivātyantika-duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca | (3) yāṁ prītiṁ vinā tat-svarūpasya tad-dharmāntara-vṛndasya ca sāksātkāro na sampadyate | (4) yatra sā tatrāvaśyam eva sampadyate | (5) yāvaty eva prīti-sampattiḥ, tāvaty eva tat-sampattiḥ | (6) sampadyamāne sampanne ca tasmin sādhikam āvirbhavati |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“Direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān in various states, such as that the character of which is [his] being Paramātmā and so on, is supreme in this regard as well [i.e., in regard to the aforementioned conclusion that direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) manifest with clear specificity as Bhagavān is superior to direct perception of the Supreme Entity manifest without clear specificity as Brahman]. (1) Although this is so and direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of other inherent qualities of his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] is [accepted to be] supreme [since direct perception of him is in general accepted to be supreme], direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the particular quality of priyatva [i.e., ‘dearness’] of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who by nature is the object of unconditional prīti, is considered the supreme-most [i.e., although direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) with clear specificity as Bhagavān is considered to be supreme, this is a general understanding, and more specifically, direct perception of Bhagavān’s inherent quality of priyatva, that is, the direct perception of him known by terms such as prīti, prema, bhakti, rati, and bhāva, wherein he is directly perceived specifically on the basis of his inherent nature of being the ultimate object of unconditional prīti, is the supreme-most direct perception of him]. (2) By that prīti [i.e., by such direct perception of him] alone the absolute cessation of suffering also occurs [i.e., even direct perception of him does not lead to the absolute cessation of suffering if it is devoid of the nature of prīti]. (3) Without this prītī, direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) [i.e., his nature in general] and his other qualities does not occur [i.e., Bhagavān’s true nature and qualities are not perceived without prīti]. (4) In whomever this [prīti] is present, that [i.e., direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) and other qualities] certainly occurs. (5) As far as there is attainment of prīti [alt., as far as the wealth of prīti is present], so far exactly there is attainment of that [i.e., of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) and other qualities]. (6) In one in whom attainment [of prīti] is [in the process of] occurring, and in one in whom it has been attained, that [i.e., direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) and other qualities] manifests to a [comparatively] greater extent [respectively, i.e., that direct perception manifests somewhat in one in whom the attainment of prīti is still in the process of occurring, and it manifests more so in one in whom the attainment of prīti has already occurred].”

Read on →

tad etat sarvam api yuktam eva

tad etat sarvam api yuktam eva | parama-sukhaṁ khalu bhagavatas tad-guṇa-vṛndasya ca svarūpam | sukhaṁ ca nirupādhi-prīty-āspadam | tatas tad-anubhave prīter eva mukhyatvam iti | tasmāt puruṣeṇa saiva sarvadānveṣitavyeti puruṣa-prayojanatvaṁ tatraiva paramatamam iti sthitam | 
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“Therefore [i.e., because of the six aforementioned characteristics of prīti], all of this too is certainly appropriate [i.e., it is certainly true that direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) manifest with clear specificity as Bhagavān is the supreme puruṣārtha]. [Moreover,] The nature (svarūpa) of Bhagavān and his qualities is verily supreme happiness, and happiness is the object of unconditional prīti. Therefore, in experience of him [i.e., Bhagavān], prīti alone has primacy [i.e., prīti is the primary cause, means, and feature of experiencing him]. Therefore, it [i.e., prīti] alone is always to be sought out by a living being, and thus it alone is established as being the supreme-most aim of a living being [i.e., although mokṣa is generally accepted as the supreme puruṣārtha and it is mokṣa in the form of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) manifest with clear specificity as Bhagavān that is the actual supreme puruṣārtha, prīti for Bhagavān is the primary cause, means, and feature of such direct perception of Bhagavān and thus prīti for Bhagavān is the supreme-most puruṣārtha].”

Read on →

tac ca paramaṁ tattvaṁ dvidhāvirbhavati

tac ca paramaṁ tattvaṁ dvidhāvirbhavati—aspaṣṭa-viśeṣatvena, spaṣṭa-svarūpa-bhūta-viśeṣatvena ca | tatra brahmākhyāspaṣṭa-viśeṣa-para-tattva-sākṣātkārato’pi bhagavat-paramātmādy-ākhya-spaṣṭa-viśeṣa-tat-sākṣātkārasyotkarṣaṁ bhagavat-sandarbhe—jijñāsitam adhītaṁ ca brahma yat tat sanātanam | tathāpi śocasy ātmānam akṛtārtha iva prabho || ity-ādi-prakaraṇa-praghaṭṭakena darśitavān asmi |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“That Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), furthermore, appears in two ways: (1) without clear specificity and (2) with clear, inherent specificity. In this regard, we saw the superiority of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of [the aspect of] the Supreme Entity with clear specification known as Bhagavān, Paramātmā, and so forth, even in comparison to direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of that [aspect of the Supreme Entity] without clear specification known as Brahman in Bhagavat Sandarbha (87) in the section and discussion related to [SB 1.5.4], ‘O Master, you have also inquired into and realized that Brahman which is eternal. So, why do you still lament as though you yourself are unsuccessful?’”

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 →

katamo’pi na venaḥ syāt pañcānāṁ puruṣaṁ prati

katamo’pi na venaḥ syāt pañcānāṁ puruṣaṁ prati |
tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.31)

“[Nārada Ṛṣi to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja:] Veṇa did not have even one of these five [aforementioned bhāvas] for the Puruṣa. Therefore, one may absorb the mind in Kṛṣṇa by some particular means.”

Read on →

gopyaḥ kāmād bhayāt kaṁso dveṣāc caidyādayo nṛpāḥ

gopyaḥ kāmād bhayāt kaṁso dveṣāc caidyādayo nṛpāḥ |
sambandhād vṛṣṇayaḥ snehād yūyaṁ bhaktyā vayaṁ vibho ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.30)

“[Nārada Ṛṣi to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja:] O King, the gopis through amorous desire, Kaṁsa through fear, kings such as Caidya [i.e., Śiśupāla] through hatred, the Vṛṣṇis and Paṇḍavas through affection based on relationship, and we through bhakti [attained a destination related to Īśvara, as described in the previous verse].”

Read on →

Scroll to Top