ato niṣevyamāṇāṁ ca sarvathā bhagavat-kathām |
muhus tad-rasikān pṛcchen mitho moda-vivṛddhaye ||
tathā vaiṣṇava-dharmāṁś ca kriyamānām api svayam |
sampṛcchet tad-vidaḥ sādhūn anyonya-prīti-vṛddhaye ||
nanu bhagavad-dharmāḥ parama-gopyāḥ praśna-mātreṇa kathaṁ kathyāḥ tatra likhati—śraddhayeti |
śraddhayā bhagavad-dharmān vaiṣṇavāyānupṛcchate |
avaśyaṁ kathayed vidvān anyathā doṣa-bhāg bhavet ||
(Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.472, 475–476, with an excerpt from the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Therefore [i.e., because listening to other topics, as well as non-listening, aversion, and even satiation with Bhagavat-kathā, are to be given up], even though one is continuously engaged in honoring Bhagavat-kathā in all respects [by means of hearing it, praising it, remembering it, and so on] one should repeatedly inquire from rasikas thereof [about Bhagavān and topics related to him] for the sake of enhancing mutual delight [i.e., the delight of both the speaker and fellow listeners]. … Similarly, even though one is practicing the dharmas of a Vaiṣṇava oneself, one should inquire from sādhus knowledgeable about them for the sake of mutual delight. [A doubt is raised:] Bhagavat-dharmas [however] are highly confidential. How do they become fit to be explained just because of a question [about them being raised]? In regard to this [doubt], the author writes: When one repeatedly inquires from a Vaiṣṇava about Bhagavat-dharmas with śraddhā, then a knowledgeable person [i.e., a person conversant in the dharmas of a Vaiṣṇava] shall certainly speak [i.e., answer one’s questions], and otherwise shall be at fault [i.e., one who has true knowledge of Bhagavat-dharma based on śāstra yet withholds it from an inquirer possessed of the requisites to learn such knowledge, the foremost of which is śraddhā in bhakti-śāstra, commits a transgression against Bhagavat-dharma, as does someone who gives knowledge of Bhagavat-dharma to an unfit recipient and someone who gives answers about Bhagavad-dharma that contravene the śāstra’s siddhānta].”
Read on →
