एषैवाविहितेति केषाञ्चित्संज्ञा, रुचिमात्रप्रवृत्त्या विधिप्रयुक्तत्वेनाप्रवृत्तत्वात् । न च वक्तव्यं विध्यनधीनस्य न सम्भवति भक्तिरिति—प्रायेण मुनयो राजन्निवृत्ता विधिषेधतः । नैर्गुण्यस्था रमन्ते स्म गुणानुकथने हरेः ॥ इत्यत्र श्रूयते । ततो विधिमार्गभक्तिर्विधिसापेक्षेति सा दुर्बला, इयं तु स्वतन्त्रैव प्रवर्तते इति प्रबला च ज्ञेया । … विधिनिरपेक्षत्वादेव पूर्वाभ्यां दास्यसख्याभ्यामेतदीययोस्तयोर्भेदश्च ज्ञेयः । … अत एव विध्युक्तक्रमो’पि नास्यामत्यादृतः । किन्तु रागात्मिकाश्रुतक्रम एव ।
eṣaivāvihiteti keṣāñcit saṁjñā, ruci-mātra-pravṛttyā vidhi-prayuktatvenāpravṛttatvāt | na ca vaktavyaṁ vidhy-anadhīnasya na sambhavati bhaktir iti—prāyeṇa munayo rājan nivṛttā vidhi-ṣedhataḥ | nairguṇya-sthā ramante sma guṇānukathane hareḥ || ity atra śrūyate | tato vidhi-mārga-bhaktir vidhi-sāpekṣeti sā durbalā, iyaṁ tu svatantraiva pravartate iti prabalā ca jñeyā | … vidhi-nirapekṣatvād eva pūrvābhyāṁ dāsya-sakhyābhyām etadīyayos tayor bhedaś ca jñeyaḥ | … ata eva vidhy-ukta-kramo’pi nāsyām atyādṛtaḥ | kintu rāgātmikā-śruta-krama eva |
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 310)
“This itself [i.e., rāgānugā-bhakti as thus defined] is known by some as ‘non-enjoined [bhakti]’ because of [its] not being engaged in because of being motivated by injunction since it is engaged in only because of taste. It is also not to be said that bhakti is not possible for someone who is not subservient to injunctions [i.e., the injunctions of śāstra], since in this regard it is heard [in SB 2.1.7], ‘O King, for the most part, sages withdrawn from injunctions and prohibitions and situated in transcendence of the guṇas delight in recounting the qualities of Hari.’ Thus, it is to be understood that bhakti following the path of injunction [i.e., vaidhī-bhakti] is weak because it is dependent on injunctions, whereas this [i.e., rāgānugā-bhakti] proceeds entirely independently [of injunctions, that is, not requiring them] and thus is strong. … A distinction between the aforementioned servitude (dāsya) and friendship (sakhya) [i.e., the forms of sādhana-bhakti known as servitude (dāsya) and friendship (sakhya) of vaidhī-bhakti] and these [i.e., the servitude (dāsya) and friendship (sakhya) of rāgānugā-bhakti] is to be understood because of their [i.e., that latter’s] being independent of injunctions. … Thus, here [i.e., in rāgānugā-bhakti], the approach stated by injunctions [i.e., vaidhī-bhakti] too is not highly regarded, and rather, only the approach heard of in rāgātmikā [bhakti] is [i.e., a rāgānugā-sādhaka engages in sādhana in accord with the manners of expression (paripāṭis) of those rāgātmikā-bhaktas who foster the particular rāga one has taste for, and doesn’t engage in sādhana motivated by the injunctions of śāstra].”