इच्छेत्पुनस्तादृशमेव भावं
क्लिष्टं कथञ्चित्तदभावतः स्यात् ।
येषां न भातीति मतेऽपि तेषां
गाढोपकारी स्मृतिदः प्रियाणाम् ॥
icchet punas tādṛśam eva bhāvaṁ
kliṣṭaṁ kathañcit tad-abhāvataḥ syāt |
yeṣāṁ na bhātīti mate’pi teṣāṁ
gāḍhopakārī smṛtidaḥ priyāṇām ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 1.7.128)
“[Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Śrī Nārada:]
It shall wish for a bhāva of that very type again,
And because of the absence of that [bhāva] somehow,
It shall become afflicted.
Even in the view of those for whom this [aforesaid explanation] does not shine [i.e., to whom it does not appeal],
A giver of remembrance of dear ones is highly supportive.”
Commentary
nanu sukhānantaraṁ duḥkhaṁ, duḥkhānantaraṁ ca sukham iti nyāyāt sphuratu nāma paścāt pramoda-rāśiḥ, śoka-kāle ca tad-duḥkhaṁ tad-avastham eva, tac cātīvāyuktaṁ brahmānandādhika-bhajanānandād apy adhikasya premānandasya viraha-śokārti-kāle’nyathātvāpatteḥ | na, tad-duḥkhasyāpi vicāreṇa sukha-rūpatvād ity āha—icched iti | virahiṇāṁ cittam eva kartṛ, tādṛśam eva mahāśokārti-rodanādi-rūpaṁ bhāvaṁ sattāṁ sthitim iti yāvat punar api icchet | kathañcid iti priyatama-virahavatāṁ kadācid api tādṛg-bhāvābhāvo na syād eva | kenāpi prakāreṇa yadi bhavet, tadā kliṣṭaṁ parama-duḥkhitaṁ syād ity arthaḥ | duḥkhasya vāñchanīyatvābhāvād abhāve ca kleśāpattyā tad-duḥkhaṁ sukham eva mantavyam iti bhāvaḥ duḥkhavat pratīyamānasyaiva sukhasya carama-kāṣṭhā-viśeṣāpta-parama-mahattāyā abhipretatvāt | yathāgni-pratiyogī-ghana-himādi-sparśena pādādy-aṅgeṣu jāyamāna-parama-mahājāḍyasya jvalad-aṅgāra-sparśavad abhijñā syāt, tatra hi yathāṅgāra-sparśa-pratītir mithyā parama-mahājāḍyam eva satyam, tathātrāpi duḥkhasya pratīter mithyātvam eva sukhasyaiva satyatvaṁ vijñeyam | kintu bhagavato bhagavat-priyatama-janānāṁ ca keṣāñcit viraha-sambandhi-duḥkham evaitādṛśaṁ bhavati, na tu sārvatrikam iti sarvam anavadyam | yadyapy ātmānam adhikṛtyaiva śrī-bhagavataivam uktaṁ, tathāpi tadīya-virahārta-bhakta-jana-viṣayakam eva jñeyam, teṣv eva sarvathā tad-upapatteḥ | tatra ca śrī-gopī-vyatirikta-bhakta-jana-viṣayakam eva mantavyaṁ yatas tāsāṁ kadācid api virahārteḥ śāntir na bhaved eva, saṅgame’pi viraha-śaṅkayā duḥkhasyaivāpatteḥ | etac ca prāg uktam eva | na ca tāsāṁ bhagavad-viraha-tāpe kadāpi icchā syāt, koṭi-dāvānalādhika-dāhakatvena tasyānubhūyamānatvāt | yathoktaṁ śrī-daśama-skandhe tābhir evoddhavaṁ prati—‘saric-chaila-vanoddeśā gāvo veṇu-ravā ime | saṅkarṣaṇa-sahāyena kṛṣṇenācaritā prabho || punaḥ punaḥ smārayanti nanda-gopa-sutaṁ bata | śrī-niketais tat-padakair vismartuṁ naiva śaknumaḥ ||’ iti | anayor arthaḥ—ācaritāḥ sevitāḥ, kṛṣṇa-vismṛtau na tāvad duḥkhaṁ syāt, sāpi nāsmākaṁ bhavatīti bhāva iti | evaṁ kṛṣṇa-smaraṇena virahārti-vivardhanāt tad-vismaraṇam apīcchanti, kutas tu tās tad-virahāgnim icchantu nāma? ata eva tāsāṁ sarvadaiva mahāvegena viraha-duḥkha-viśeṣodayāt sarvādhikatara-sukha-viśeṣānubhavaḥ syād iti sidhyati tādṛśa-sukhasya hi tenaiva prakāreṇa sampadyamānatvāt tādṛśa-rūpatvāc ca | evam evāśeṣebhyo bhakta-vṛndebhyaḥ priyatama-janebhyaś ca tāsāṁ māhātmyaṁ sidhyatīti dik | iti etan mayoktaṁ yeṣāṁ na bhāti na prakāśate teṣāṁ mate’pi priya-janānāṁ smṛter dātā paramopakārī bhavaty eva | evaṁ hi tair avaśyam eva mantavyam ity arthaḥ |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[Another query is raised:] ‘Well, as per the maxim, ‘Suffering occurs after happiness, and happiness occurs after suffering,’ let an abundance of delight manifest after [the suffering of separation], and at the time of grief [i.e., the time of the grief produced by separation] the suffering of that [i.e., of that grief produced by separation] is that state alone [i.e., it is just suffering and a form of any sort of happiness]. That [i.e., that occurrence of suffering], furthermore, is highly unfit, because of the occurrence [in that case] of the contrariety at the time of the distress arising from the grief produced by separation of the bliss of prema, which is greater than even the bliss of worship, which is greater than the bliss of Brahman [i.e., since it was said in regard to the previous verse that the bliss of prema is greater than the bliss of worship and the bliss of Brahman and that the experience of separation arises from prema, then in separation there should be only the highest bliss and not any suffering, yet separation was also acknowledged in the previous verse to produce grief which in turn produces suffering, and thus the idea that prema is the highest bliss is being contradicted because the state which separation produces is giving rise to suffering and not rather to superlative happiness; it would therefore be better to say that an abundance of bliss arises only after the grief produced by separation subsides rather than saying that an abundance of bliss is created by the suffering produced by separation and experience even during the suffering produced by separation].’ [To this, Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa replies:] No [i.e., no contrariety of the bliss of prema occurs as was postulated], because of even the suffering of that [i.e., of separation] being a form of happiness upon deliberation. Thus, he says icchet … [i.e., thus Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa speaks this verse to explain that even the suffering that arises from the grief produced by separation is recognized to actually be a form of happiness when one deliberates on its essential nature]. Specifically the heart of those in separation is the agent [of the sentence in the verse]. It [i.e., the heart of those in separation from one who is dearmost] shall wish for a bhāva—a state of being, a continued existence—of that very type (tādṛśam eva), that is, that the form of which is weeping and so forth in distress out of the grief of separation, even again [i.e., even after having experienced that]. Regarding [the mention of] ‘somehow’ (kathañcit) [in the phrase ‘because of the absence of that [bhāva] somehow’ (kathañcit tad-abhāvataḥ)], the absence of such bhāva shall certainly not occur at any time for those in separation from one who is dearmost. [Yet hypothetically,] If it should occur somehow, then it [i.e., the heart of those in separation] shall become ‘afflicted’ (kliṣṭam), that is, extremely beset with suffering. Because of the non-existence of suffering’s desirability and the occurrence of affliction in the absence [of the aforesaid state of separation], that suffering [i.e., the suffering experienced in separation spoken of earlier] is to be acknowledged to in reality be [a form of] happiness. This is the purport because of the paramount greatness reaching to a special apogee of the happiness that is being perceived to be like suffering [in the state of separation] being intended [i.e., the happiness that is experienced because of separation and that appears to be suffering is actually possessed of paramount greatness because it is a form of happiness that reaches an apogee unattained by any other form of happiness, and it is such paramount happiness that is referred to by the mention of ‘a bhāva of that very type’ (tādṛśam eva bhāvam) in this verse]. As at the touch of ice and the like—opposites of fire—a perception of arising, extremely intense coldness can occur like [i.e., can feel like] the touch of a blazing coal in parts [of the body] beginning with the feet, and as in this case the perception of the touch of a coal is false while the [perception of] extreme coldness is indeed real, so here too [i.e., in the case of the experience of separation] it is to be understood that the experience of suffering is only a falsity [i.e., a false appearance] and the [the experience of] happiness in particular is a reality.
“Specifically the suffering related to separation is of this nature [as was just described above, meaning, is actually a form of profound happiness] for Bhagavān and for some persons who are dearmost to Bhagavān [i.e., some of his bhaktas], and not rather, for all [i.e., some bhaktas of Bhagavān do not experience separation in the aforesaid manner]. Thus, everything is irreproachable [i.e., thus there is no fault in the aforesaid analysis since it has lastly been qualified as not applying to everyone].
“Although such [as has been described thus far in this and the preceding verses] is stated by Śrī Bhagavān referring specifically to himself, still it is to be understood as [also] related to bhaktas distressed by separation from him because of the occurrence of that specifically in them all the time. Furthermore in this regard, it is to be acknowledged as referring specifically to bhaktas other than the blessed gopīs, since cessation of the distress of separation can never occur for them, on account of the occurrence [on their part] specifically of suffering even during union [with Śrī Kṛṣṇa] because of [their] fear of separation [i.e., because they remain apprehensive evening during union with him that separation from him will arise]. This too was certainly said earlier [in BB 1.7.96]. And it not that a desire for the anguish of separation from Bhagavān shall ever occur on their part, because of that’s being experienced [by them] as burning more severely than a crores of forest fires [i.e., the gopīs are also distinct from all other bhaktas because unlike other bhaktas, who desire ‘a bhāva of that very type (tādṛśam eva bhāvam), that is, a state in which they weep and so forth in apparent distress out of the grief of separation, once the initial grief they feel in separation from Bhagavān has subsided, the gopīs never desire the grief of separation because for them it never subsides, and as they feel it continuously it produces such an intense degree of anguish that they never feel the desire attain more of it], as is stated by them specifically to Uddhava in the blessed Tenth Canto [i.e., SB 10.47.49–50], ‘O master [i.e., O Uddhava], these rivers, hills, forest regions, cows, and flute sounds honored by Kṛṣṇa with the assistance of Saṅkarṣaṇa [during his time here in Vraja] again and again cause remembrance of the Son of King Nanda. Bata! Because of those abodes of beauty—his steps [i.e., foot-prints]—we are certainly unable to forget [him].’ The meaning of these two [verses is as follows]: ācaritāḥ means honored. [The gopīs feel as follows:] In forgetfulness of Kṛṣṇa, not so much suffering would occur [in comparison to the profuse suffering we undergo by remembering Kṛṣṇa while in separation from him]. ‘We do not have even that’ is the purport [i.e., the gopīs feel such intense suffering in separation from Kṛṣṇa that that think that they would suffer less if they were able to forget Kṛṣṇa yet they are unable to forget him in the least]. They desire even forgetfulness of him because of the increase of distress in separation [they feel] as a result of remembrance of Kṛṣṇa. How then could they desire the fire of separation from him at all [i.e., since the gopīs desire forgetfulness of Kṛṣṇa because they think that will reduce the suffering they feel in separation from Kṛṣṇa, how could it be that they desire separation from Kṛṣṇa itself, the cause of the suffering they desire forgetfulness of Kṛṣṇa to alleviate]? [They thus do not desire the fire of separation from Kṛṣṇa whatsoever and yet feel it continuously, which demonstrates that their prema is more intense than that of all other bhaktas]. Therefore, it is established that because of the emergence of a special form of suffering in separation on their part as a result of an intense onslaught [of the experience of separation which is created by prema] indeed constantly, they shall have an experience of a special form of happiness that exceeds all [other forms of happiness] because of such happiness being produced by that very means [i.e., by means of the separation they feel from Kṛṣṇa] and because of [its] being a form of that type [i.e., because of that happiness they experience as a result of separation from Kṛṣṇa being a form of that separation itself]. Indeed in this way their greatness in comparison to all other bhaktas and dearmost persons [i.e., in comparison to all who are most dear to Bhagavān] is established. This is the direction [i.e., the gopīs are considered the greatest of all bhaktas and dear companions of Bhagavān because they experience the most intense separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa and the most intense bliss in the midst of and as a result of that separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa such that unlike other bhaktas, who desire to further feel the apparent distress of separation after that feeling subsides in them, the gopīs constantly feel such apparent distress without it ever subsiding and even without their desiring to do so]. Even in the view of those for whom this (iti)—this [explanation] which has been stated by me [just now]—does not shine (bhāti) [i.e., does not appeal], a giver of remembrance of dear persons is certainly [accepted as being] highly supportive. Such [i.e., this latter point] most certainly is able to be acknowledged by them [i.e., by those to whom the earlier point does not appeal]. This is the meaning.”