kṛṣṇaiśvaryādy-avijñānaṁ kṛtaṁ naiṣām avidyayā |
kintu premottara-rasa-viśeṣeṇaiva tat kṛtam ||
(Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 4.4.15)
“Their [i.e., bhaktas’] absence of awareness of Kṛṣṇa’s aiśvarya and so forth is not caused by ignorance (avidyā). Rather, it is caused solely by a particular rasa overlaid with prema.”
aiśvaryaṁ tu nara-līlātvasyānapekṣitatve sati īśvaratvāviṣkāraḥ | yathā mātā-pitarau prati aiśvaryaṁ darśayitvā—‘etad vāṁ darśitaṁ rūpaṁ prāg-janma-smaraṇāya me | nānyathā mad-bhavaṁ jñānaṁ martya-liṅgena jāyate’ ity uktam | yathārjunaṁ prati—‘paśya me yogam aiśvaram’ ity uktvā aiśvaryaṁ darśitam | vraje’pi brahmāṇaṁ prati mañju-mahimā-darśane paraḥ-sahasra-caturbhujatvādikam apīti ||
(Rāga-vartma-candrikā: 2.4)
“Manifestation [lit., ‘the uncovering’] of Īśvara-ness [i.e., the powerfulness inherent in Īśvara] while the nature of human līlā is being disregarded is [called] aiśvarya, as in the case when aiśvarya was shown to [Kṛṣṇa’s] mother and father [by him] and then it was stated [by him in SB 10.3.44], ‘This form [of mine] has been shown to you two for the sake of [your] remembrance of [my] previous births; otherwise, because of the mortal [i.e., human] figure [of this form in which I have now appeared], [your] awareness of my being [i.e., my identity] would not arise,’ as in the case when aiśvarya was shown [by Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna] after [his] saying to Arjuna, ‘See my Īśvaric yoga [i.e., see my extraordinary power to accomplish the impossible],’ and also even in Vraja [his showing] thousands of four-armed forms and so forth to Brahmā in the midst of the sight of his charming greatness [i.e., his mādhurya].”
atra sārvajñatvaṁ mahaiśvaryam eva na tu mādhuryam | mādhuryaṁ khalu tad eva yad aiśvarya-vinābhūta-kevala-nara-līlātvena maugdhyam iti sthūla-dhiyo bruvate ||2||
mādhuryādikaṁ nirūpyate | mahaiśvaryasya dyotane vādyotane ca nara-līlātvānatikramo mādhuryam | yathā pūtanā-prāṇa-hāritve’pi stana-cūṣaṇa-lakṣaṇa-nara-bala-līlātvam eva | mahākaṭhora-śakaṭa-sphoṭane’py ati-sukumāra-caraṇa-traimāsikyottāna-śāyi-bāla-līlātvam | mahādīrgha-dāmāśakya-bandhatve’pi mātṛ-bhīti-vaiklavyam | brahma-baladevādi-mohane’pi sārvajñatve’pi vatsa-cāraṇa-līlātvam | tathā aiśvarya-sattva eva tasyādyotane dadhi-payaś-cauryaṁ gopa-strī-lāmpaṭyādikam | aiśvarya-rahita-kevala-nara-līlātvena maugdhyam eva mādhuryam ity ukteḥ krīḍā-capala-prākṛta-nara-bālakeṣv api maugdhyaṁ mādhuryam iti tathā na nirvācyam ||3||
(Rāga-vartma-candrikā: 2.2–3)
“‘In this regard, omniscience (sārvajñatva) is only [an instance of] great aiśvarya and not, rather, mādhurya; mādhurya verily is simplicity [i.e., charming unknowing] (maugdhya) on account of the nature of pure human līlā isolated from aiśvarya.’ This the dull-witted say [i.e., the idea that omniscience (sārvajñatva) is invariably an aspect of aiśvarya and is non-existent within mādhurya is erroneous, and the reason for that will now be explained]. Mādhurya and so forth [i.e., aiśvarya] are now to be described [to provide an apt understanding of the nature of both]. Non-contravention of the nature of human līlā in the midst of manifestation or non-manifestation of great aiśvarya is [called] mādhurya, as in (1) the nature of the līlā of a human baby in the form of suckling Pūtanā’s breast even while being the remover of her prāṇas [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa retaining the appearance of a normal human child while sucking the breast of Pūtanā yet also liberating her by drawing the prāṇas out of her body], (2) the nature of the līlā of a three-month old baby with exceedingly tender feet lying on a bed even while breaking apart a very hard cart [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa breaking the cart under which he was placed with his tender baby foot], (3) the bewilderment [he felt and exhibited] in fear of [his] mother even while being unable to be bound by very long ropes [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa crying in fear of punishment from his mother even while defying her attempts to bind him with rope], (4) the nature of the līlā of herding calves even in the midst of [his] omniscience even amid of the perplexity of Brahmā, Baladeva, and others [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa acting like a playful and confused cowherd boy even while self-manifesting himself in the forms of the calves and friends he appeared to be searching for after they were abducted by Brahmā and thus bewildering Brahmā, Baladeva, and all other living beings], (5) and [his] theft of milk and yoghurt, lustfulness for cowherd women, and so on during non-manifestation of [his] aiśvarya indeed amid its presence [in him, i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa stealing milk and yoghurt, pursuing gopīs amorously, and other such acts during which there was no overt manifestation of the aiśvarya inherently and invariably present in him]. On account of the [errant] statement [posited above] that mādhurya is specifically simplicity [i.e., charming unknowing] (maugdhya) on account of [only that being of] the nature of pure human līlā free from aiśvarya, the simplicity existent even among mundane human children thoughtlessly at play is [also to be regarded as] mādhurya [as a result of such an erroneous definition]. Thus, such is unfit to be said [i.e., mādhurya is not an utter absence of any manifestation of aiśvarya but rather non-contravention of the general nature of human līlā irrespective of whether any manifestation of great aiśvarya is co-occurent with it or not because if mādhurya were not defined this in this way and rather as only a state of being limited in awareness like a human being then excessive pervasion [i.e., breadth] of the definition would occur since it would include even common human children engaged in care-free play].”
vyādhasyācaraṇaṁ dhruvasya ca vayo vidyā gajendrasya kā
kubjāyāḥ kim u nāma rūpam adhikaṁ kiṁ tat sudāmno dhanam |
vaṁśaḥ ko vidurasya yādava-pater ugrasya kiṁ pauruṣaṁ
bhaktyā tuṣyati kevalaṁ na ca guṇair bhakti-priyo mādhavaḥ ||
(An unidentified south kavi; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.593; Padyāvalī: 8)
“Did the hunter have good conduct?
Did Dhruva have age?
Did Gajendra have knowledge?
Did Kubjā have special beauty?
Did Sudāmā have wealth?
Did Vidura have a noble lineage?
Did the King of the Yadus, Ugrasena, have valor?
He whose pleasure is bhakti,
Mādhava,
Is satisfied only by bhakti,
And not by qualities [such as those aforementioned].”
yasmāt pramathase tattvaṁ jātosmākaṁ yathā vidheḥ |
tasmān manmatha-nāmā tvaṁ loke khyāto bhaviṣyasi ||
jagatsu kāma-rūpas tvaṁ tvat-samo na hi vidyate |
atas tvaṁ kāma-nāmāpi khyāto bhava manobhava ||
madanān madanākhyas tvaṁ jāto darpāt sadarpakaḥ |
tasmāt kandarpa-nāmāpi loke khyāto bhaviṣyasi ||
(Śiva Purāṇa: 2.2.3.4–6)
“Since you ever intensely churn [alt., agitate, or, harass] the psyche of ourselves as [you do so] of Brahmā [too], you will be known in the world by the name Manmatha [lit., ‘Mind-churner’]. There is no one in the universe equal to you, you who have a form of desire (kāma) [i.e., you who can assume any form you so desire]. Thus, you shall be known by the name Kāma [i.e., ‘Desire’] too, O you whose birth occurs in the mind. You are known as Madana [i.e., ‘Impassioning’] because of [your being] impassioning [of others], and, born of pride, you are possessed of pride. Thus, you will be known by the name Kandarpa too.”
preyāṁs te’haṁ tvam api ca mama preyasīti pravādas
tvaṁ me prāṇā aham api tavāsmīti hanta pralāpaḥ |
tvaṁ me te syām aham iti yat tac ca no sādhu rādhe
vyāhāre nau na hi samucito yuṣmad-asmat-prayogaḥ ||
(Alaṅkāra-kaustubha: 5.27)
“‘[Śrī Kṛṣṇa:] [Our saying,] “I am your lover and you are my beloved” is [just] prattle. Oh! “You are my prāṇas and I am yours” is [just] chatter. O Rādhe! [Even] “You are mine and I am yours” is not correct, since usage [even] of [the words] “you” and “I” in our speech is not befitting.’
yathā sakāma-bhaktā hi bhuktvā tat-kāmitaṁ phalam |
kāle bhakti-prabhāvena yogyaṁ vindanti tat-phalam ||
yathā ca tatra tat-kālaṁ bhakter yogyaṁ na sat-phalam |
sañjātam iti tac chuddha-bhaktimadbhir vinindyate ||
te hi bhakteḥ phalaṁ mūlaṁ bhagavac-caraṇābjayoḥ |
sadā sandarśana-krīḍānanda-lābhādi manvate ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.4.221–223)
“As desirous (sakāma) bhaktas, indeed after partaking of their desired result, in time by the influence of bhakti attain the befitting result thereof [i.e., of their practice of bhakti], and as the befitting, true result of bhakti is not manifested to them [i.e., to those desirous (sakāma) bhaktas] at that time [i.e., so long as they still remain desirous of an object other than bhakti]—so that [i.e., any object that is attained by means of sakāma-bhakti] is condemned by those possessed of pure bhakti since they consider the primary result of bhakti to be the attainment of the bliss of constant direct sight of Bhagavān’s lotus feet, sporting [in their midst], and so forth [i.e., as well as the favor of attaining the bliss of direct service to those lotus feet and the like, on account of those attainments alone being dear to bhaktas by virtue of their prema-bhakti for Śrī Bhagavān].”
dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ
vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam |
śrīmad-bhāgavate mahāmuni-kṛte kiṁ vāparair īśvaraḥ
sadyo hṛdy avarudhyate’tra kṛtibhiḥ śuśrūṣubhis tat-kṣaṇāt ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 1.1.2; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.396; Tattva Sandarbha: 19, 26, 50; Bhagavat Sandarbha: 84; Paramātma Sandarbha: 106, Bhakti Sandarbha: 106, 115, 217; Prīti Sandarbha: 16, 18, 73; Durgama-saṅgamanī-ṭīkā and Bhakti-sāra-pradarśinī-ṭīkā on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.244)
“Here [i.e., in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam], for the sādhus who are free from envy, is the highest dharma wherein deceit is utterly rejected. Here is the Reality, the real object to be be known, which bestows the highest good and uproots the three miseries. What need is there of any other [śāstra] than this Śrīmad Bhāgavatam compiled by the best of the sages [i.e., Vedavyāsa]? [There is no such need because] Here Īśvara is bound within the heart by the fortunate who desire to serve immediately, from that [very] moment [they begin to listen].”
karmaṇaḥ sākṣāt-sāmmukhya-rūpa-jñāna-bhakty-udaya-paryantatvāt svayam eva tābhyāṁ nyakkāraḥ | tatra sākṣāt-sāmmukhye ca nirviśeṣa-sāmmukhyaṁ jñānam | saviśeṣasyāpi tattvasya bhagavattvaṁ paramātmatvaṁ ceti mukhyam āvirbhāva-dvayam iti saviśeṣa-sāmmukhya-rūpāyā bhaktes tu mukhyaṁ bheda-dvayaṁ bhagavan-niṣṭhatvaṁ paramātma-niṣṭhatvaṁ ceti |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 176)
“Because of karma’s extending [only] up to the appearance of jñāna or bhakti, that is, the [two] forms of direct intentness (sākṣāt-sāmmukhya) [upon the Para-tattva], discarding [of karma] by them [i.e., by jñāna and bhakti] occurs of its own accord [i.e., automatically once jñāna or bhakti come about]. Therein, furthermore, among the two [forms of] direct intentness [upon the Para-tattva] (sākṣāt-sāmmukhya), intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the unqualified (nirviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva] is [called] jñāna. The Qualified (saviśeṣa) Tattva also has two primary manifestations, Bhagavān-ness (Bhagavattva) and Paramātmā-ness (Paramātmatva), and thus bhakti, the nature of which is intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the qualified (saviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva], has two primary divisions: fixity upon Bhagavān and fixity upon Paramātmā.”
tasmād avaidikānāṁ ca devānām arcanaṁ tyajet |
svatantra-pūjanaṁ yatra vaidikānām api tyajet ||
arcayitvā jagad-vandyaṁ devaṁ nārāyaṇaṁ harim |
tad-āvaraṇa-saṁsthānaṁ devasya parito’rcayet ||
harer bhuktāvaśeṣeṇa baliṁ tebhyo viniḥkṣipet |
homaṁ caiva prakurvīta tac-cheṣeṇaiva vaiṣṇavaḥ ||
(Padma Purāṇa: 6.253.104-7; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 285)
“Therefore, furthermore, one should reject worship of non-Vedic devas, and one should reject independent worship even of the Vedic [devas]. After worshiping the Deva honorable to the [entire] world [i.e., the Deva worthy of the worship even of all the other devas], that is, Nārāyaṇa, Hari, one should worship the multitude of entourages around the Deva. A Vaiṣṇava should present them [i.e., these aprākṛta devatās of Vaikuṇṭha present at the yogapīṭha] an offering with Hari’s food remnants and make an oblation [for them] only with his remnants.”
