Vairāgya

atha śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe ity-ādi-nindita-mātra-svāvaśyaka-kriyā-niṣedhayor ullaṅghanaṁ dvividham | tau hi dharma-śāstroktau bhakti-śāstroktau ceti | bhagavad-bhakti-viśvāsena dauḥśīlyena vā pūrvayor akaraṇa-karaṇa-pratyāsattau na vaiṣṇava-bhāvād bhraṁśaḥ, ‘devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṝṇāṁ’ ity-ādy-ukteḥ, ‘api cet sudurācāraḥ’ ity-ādy-ukteś ca | tādṛśa-rucimati tu tayaiva rucyā dviṣṭatvād apunar-bhavādy-ānandasyāpi vāñchā nāsti, kim uta parama-ghṛṇāspadasya | atas tatra svata eva na pravṛttiḥ | pramādādinā kadācij jātaṁ ced vikarma tat-kṣaṇād eva naśyaty api | uktaṁ ca—‘vikarma yac cotpatitaṁ kathañcid dhunoti sarvaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ’ iti | atha yadi vaiṣṇava-śāstroktau tau, tarhi viṣṇu-santoṣaika-prayojanāv eva bhavataḥ | tayoś ca tādṛśatve śrute sati tadīya-rāga-rucimataḥ svata eva pravṛtty-apravṛttī syātām—tat-santoṣaika-jīvanatvāt prīti-jāteḥ | ata eva na tatra svānugamyamāna-rāgātmaka-siddha-bhakta-viśeṣeṇa kṛtatvākṛtatvayor anusandhānaṁ cāpekṣyaṁ syāt, kintu tat-kṛtatve sati viśeṣeṇāgraho bhavatīty eva viśeṣaḥ | atra kvacic chāstrokta-krama-vidhy-apekṣā ca rāga-rucyaiva pravartiteti rāgānugāntaḥpāta eva | ye ca śrī-gokulādi-virāji-rāgātmikānugās tat-parās te tu śrī-kṛṣṇa-kṣema-tat-saṁsargāntarāyābhāvādi-kāmyātmaka-tad-abhiprāya-rītyaiva vaiṣṇava-laukika-dharmānuṣṭhānaṁ kurvanti | ata eva rāgānugāyāṁ rucer eva sad-dharma-pravartakatvāt śruti-smṛtī mamaivājñe ity etad-vākyasya na tad-vartma-bhakti-viṣayatvam, ‘api cet sudurācāraḥ’ ity ādi-virodhān na ca vidhi-vartma-bhakti-viṣayatvaṁ kintu bāhya-śāstra-nirmita-buddha-rṣabha-dattātreyādi-bhajana-vartma-viṣayatvam eva | tathoktam—veda-dharma-viruddhātmā yadi devaṁ prapūjayet | sa yāti narakaṁ ghoraṁ yāvad āhūta-samplavam || iti | rāgānugāyāṁ vidhy-apravartitāyām api na veda-bāhyatvam, veda-vaidika-prasiddhaiva sā—tatra tatra rucitvāt | vedeṣu buddhādīnāṁ tu varṇanaṁ veda-bāhyaṁ viruddhatvenaiva yathā—tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya sura-dviṣām | buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati || ity-ādi |tasmād bhavaty eva rāgānugā samīcīnā | tathā vaidhīto’py atiśayavatī ca | maryādā-vacanaṁ hy āveśārtham eveti darśitam | sa punar āveśo yathā ruci-viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa-mānasa-bhāvena syāt, na tathā vidhi-preraṇayā, svārasika-mano-dharmatvāt tasya | tatra cāstāṁ tāvad-anukūla-bhāvaḥ, parama-niṣiddhena pratikūla-bhāvenāpy āveśo jhaṭiti syāt | tad-āveśa-sāmarthyena prātikūlya-doṣa-hāniḥ syāt | sarvānartha-nivṛttiś ca syād iti bhāva-mārgasya balavattve dṛṣṭānto’pi dṛśyate | tatra yady anukūla-bhāvaḥ syāt, tadā paramaikānti-sādhya evāsau |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 312)

“Then, transgression of compulsory actions and prohibitions [i.e., those enjoined in śāstra] for oneself, which is criticized outright in [the aforementioned verse of Vādhūla-smṛti wherein Bhagavān states], ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders. One who proceeds transgressing them is a defier of [my] orders and my enemy. Even if he is my bhakta, he is not a Vaiṣṇava,’ is of two types. These [two types of compulsory actions and prohibitions] are (1) those stated in dharma-śāstra, and (2) those stated in bhakti-śāstra. In the case of non-performance and performance of the former [i.e., of non-performance of compulsory actions stated in dharma-śāstra and performance of acts prohibited in dharma-śāstra] because of conviction (viśvāsa) in bhakti to Bhagavān, or because of bad character, falling from the state of being a Vaiṣṇava does not occur, as per the statement [in SB 11.5.41], ‘O King, one who has forsaken one’s duties [i.e., the duties of one’s varṇa and āśrama] and taken shelter completely in the ultimate shelterer, Mukunda, is neither a servant of, nor a debtor to, the devas, the ṛṣis, living beings, relatives, mankind, or ancestors,’ and the statement [in BG 9.30], ‘If even a person of extreme misconduct serves me exclusively, he should be regarded as a sādhu because he is rightly resolved.’ One endowed with such taste (ruci) [i.e., taste for a particular form of rāgātmikā-bhakti that produces disinterest in everything apart from such bhakti], however, has no desire even for the bliss of the non-repetition of birth and so on [i.e., no desire for any of the varieties of mokṣa or any of the pleasures that can be attained through adherence to dharma], much less [desire] for anything that is an object of repugnance [i.e., much less for things that contravene the directives of śāstra, that is, that are adharmic] because of [all such things from the bliss of mokṣa on down] being detested [by that bhakta] just by virtue of that taste [i.e., taste for a particular form of rāgātmikā-bhakti]. Therefore, there is naturally just no propensity [in such a bhakta] for that [i.e., for actions that contravene the directives of śāstra]. If at some time a wrongful action is occasioned [by such a bhakta] as a result of inattention or otherwise, that is also destroyed immediately. This is also stated [in SB 11.5.42], ‘Situated in the heart [of a dear one who has given up regard for others, i.e., all other devatās, and is engaged in service to the soles of his feet, Hari, the Supreme Lord,] washes away in full any wrongful action that has somehow arisen [i.e., that has somehow been committed by that bhakta].’ Now, when those [compulsory actions and prohibitions that may so happen to be contravened by a bhakta] are those stated in Vaiṣṇava-śāstra, then those are existent only for the singular aim of the satisfaction of Viṣṇu. When they are heard of as being such [i.e., when it is known that they exist solely for the purpose of satisfying Bhagavān], then a propensity [to perform the actions enjoined in bhakti-śāstra] and a non-propensity [to perform the actions forbidden in bhakti-śāstra] shall come about entirely naturally for one endowed with [the aforementioned] taste (ruci) for a rāga related to him [i.e., Bhagavān, that is, for the rāga of a particular rāgātmikā-bhakta], because of his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] satisfaction being the very life of the manifestation of prīti [i.e., prema for Bhagavān]. Therefore, there shall also be no examination or necessary observability of performance and non-performance in this regard [i.e., in regard to performance of actions enjoined in bhakti-śāstra and non-performance of actions forbidden in bhakti-śāstra] by the particular rāgātmaka-siddha-bhakta [i.e., the realized bhakta possessed of rāga for Bhagavān] being followed by oneself, but eagerness does occur in particular [on the part of a sādhaka] for those [actions] that are performed [by the rāgātmaka-siddha-bhakta whom a sādhaka follows]. In this regard, in some cases, observance of [injunctive] procedures stated in śāstra also proceeds [i.e., occurs in the sādhana of a rāgānugā-bhakti-sādhaka] just because of [the aforementioned] taste (ruci) for a [particular] rāga and thus [such observance] is indeed included in rāgānugā [-bhakti]. Those who are followers of the rāgātmikās [i.e., rāgātmikā-bhaktas] residing in Śrī Gokula or elsewhere and devoted to them perform Vaiṣṇava [practices] and conventional dharma practices only with their [i.e., those rāgātmikā-bhaktas’] disposition and intention [which is] constituted of an object of desire such as Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s well-being or the negation of obstacles to meeting with him. Therefore, because of taste (ruci) alone being the impetus for [adherence to] proper conduct (sad-dharma) in rāgānugā [i.e., on the path of rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti], this statement, ‘Śruti and Smṛti are verily my orders …,’ has no applicability to the bhakti of that path [i.e., to rāgānugā-bhakti]. It also has no applicability to the bhakti of the path of vidhi [i.e., to vaidhī-bhakti either] because of [its] contrariety to [the aforementioned statement in BG 9.30,] ‘If even a person of extreme misconduct serves me exclusively, he should be regarded as a sādhu because he is rightly resolved.’ It has applicability, rather, only to the paths of worship of [i.e., taught by] Buddha, Ṛṣabha, Dattātreya, and others that are formulated by exterior texts [i.e., by texts that are not part of the Vedic canon]. Thus, it is said, ‘If someone whose disposition is opposed to the dharma of the Vedas intently worships Deva, he goes to a a fearsome naraka until the summoning of the flood [i.e., until the dissolution of the universe].’ Although rāgānugā [-bhakti] is not impelled by injunction [i.e., the injunctions enjoined in the Vedic śāstras], it is not exterior to [the scope of] the Vedas. It is indeed [rather] fully established in [alt., highly renowned throughout] the Vedas and śāstras based on the Vedas on account of taste (ruci) [within it] for these [i.e., for the Vedas and śāstras based on the Vedas, that is, on account of sādhakas following the path of rāgānugā-bhakti invariably having taste (ruci), that is, great regard, for the general authority of the Vedas and texts related to them and in a particular for the specific portions of them that pertain to the path of rāgānugā-bhakti]. The descriptions of Buddha and so forth [i.e., Ṛṣabha, Dattātreya, and others that can be found] in the Vedas [and śāstras based on them], however, are exterior to the Vedas because of [their, i.e., Buddha and so forth’s] being opposed [to the Vedas], as [is indicated] in [the following statement from SB, 1.3.24], ‘Then at the beginning of [the Age of] Kali, Buddha, the son of Añjanā, will appear among the Kīkaṭas [i.e., in the region of Gayā in Bihar] for the purpose of bewildering the suras’ foes’ [i.e., Buddha, Ṛṣabha, Dattātreya, and others are considered to be exterior to the Vedas and Vedic dharma even though they are mentioned within texts of the Vedic canon and recognized as avatāras because they taught people to disregard the Vedas’ authority and follow a path not enjoined by the Vedas]. Therefore, rāgānugā [-bhakti] is certainly proper [i.e., a path supported by Vedic authority, a path worthy of being followed, and a path not to be confused with paths exterior to Vedic dharma] and so also superior even to vaidhī [-bhakti]. That the pronouncement of protocol [i.e., the śāstra’s stating injunctions and prohibitions as an impetus for people to follow the path of bhakti, i.e., the path of vaidhī-bhakti] is only for the purpose of [leading people towards the state of] absorption [in bhakti] has been shown [already]. That absorption, furthermore, shall not come about [as strongly and completely] by means of the impetus of injunctions as it shall by means of the disposition (bhāva) of the mind characterized by a specific taste (ruci) because of its [i.e., that absorption based on taste’s] being the natural characteristic of the mind. And in that regard, let alone a specifically favorable disposition (anukūla-bhāva) [towards the object of bhakti, viz., Bhagavān], absorption [of the mind in Bhagavān] can quickly come about even by means of an unfavorable disposition (pratikūla-bhāva) [towards the object of bhakti, viz., Bhagavān] that is completely forbidden [i.e., since absorption of the mind in Bhagavān can quickly occur even when one fosters a forbidden and offensive unfavorable disposition towards Bhagavān, it can occur all the more by means of a favorable disposition towards Bhagavān]. Removal of the fault of unfavorability [in one’s disposition in the case of those who become absorbed in Bhagavān out of unfavorability] shall occur by the power of that absorption [in Bhagavān, he who is the ultimate cause of all purification]. The cessation of all obstructions (anarthas) shall also occur [by virtue of that absorption in Bhagavān even out of an unfavorable disposition]. Thus, an illustration of the powerfulness of the path of bhāva [i.e., the path of engagement on the basis of the mind’s natural propensity for absorption in objects for which it has taste (ruci)] is also evident [since absorption of the mind even by means of a bhāva (disposition) of unfavorability towards Bhagavān results in full purification of the mind]. In that regard [i.e., in regard to that state of absorption], if one shall have a favorable disposition (anukūla-bhāva) [towards Bhagavān therein], then that [state] is itself the object sought by those who are supremely one-pointed [i.e., by those who practice complete mental one-pointedness upon Bhagavān by various forms of sādhana].”

Read on →