ज्ञात्वाज्ञात्वाथ ये वै मां यावान् यश्चास्मि यादृश: ।
भजन्त्यनन्यभावेन ते मे भक्ततमा मता: ॥
jñātvājñātvātha ye vai māṁ yāvān yaś cāsmi yādṛśaḥ |
bhajanty ananya-bhāvena te me bhakta-tamā matāḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.11.33; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.24; Bhakti Sandarbha: 201, 312)
“Having understood, or not having understood, me as far as I am, for who I am, and of what nature I am, those who worship me with a one-pointed (ananya) bhāva are considered by me the best of bhaktas.”
Commentary
kiṁ ca yāvān deśa-kālāparicchinnaḥ | yaś ca sarvātmā | yādṛśaḥ sac-cid-ānandādi-rūpaḥ | taṁ māṁ jñātvā ajñātvāpi | yad vā, viśeṣataḥ punaḥ punar jñātvā ekānta-bhāvena ye bhajantīti |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“Furthermore, ‘as far as [I am]’ (yāvān) means unlimited in space, time, and so forth [i.e., ‘that I am omnipresent, eternal, and so forth’]. ‘And [for] who [I am]’ (yaś ca) means the Self of all [i.e., ‘that I am the Paramātmā’]. ‘Of what nature [I am]’ (yādṛśaḥ) means existence, consciousness, and bliss in form [i.e., ‘that I am in nature constituted of eternal existence, consciousness, and bliss’]. Having understood (jñātvā), or even not having understood (ajñātvā), me (māṁ) to be that [i.e., to be as aforementioned], or, alternately, having understood [me (māṁ)] again and again in particular [i.e., alternately reading the verse to be spelled jñātvā jñātvā rather than jñātvājñātvā and to refer to understanding repeatedly rather than understing or not understanding], those who worship [me] with one-pointed (ekānta) bhāva [are considered by me the best of bhaktas].”
yāvān deśa-kālāparicchinnaḥ | yaś ca sarvātmā | yādṛśaḥ sac-cid-ānandādi-rūpaḥ | taṁ māṁ jñātvā ajñātvāpi | yad vā, viśeṣataḥ punaḥ punar jñātvā ekānta-bhāvena ye bhajantīti | yadi caivaṁ vyākhyeyam, yāvān nitya-kaiśorādi-rūpaḥ, yaś ca śrī-devakī-nandana-yaśodā-vatsalety ādi-rūpo yādṛśaḥ sahaja-parama-saundārya-guṇa-līlā-rasa-viśeṣāśrayaḥ | anyat samānam | bhāvaḥ premṇa eva pūrvāvasthā … | yad vā, prathamaṁ jñātvā athānantaram ajñātvā bhakti-paripākena … |
(Excerpt from the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa)
“‘As far as [I am]’ (yāvān) means unlimited in space, time, and so forth [i.e., ‘that I am omnipresent, eternal, and so forth’]. ‘And [for] who [I am]’ (yaś ca) means the Self of all [i.e., ‘that I am the Paramātmā’]. ‘Of what nature [I am]’ (yādṛśaḥ) means existence, consciousness, and bliss in form [i.e., ‘that I am in nature constituted of eternal existence, consciousness, and bliss’]. Having understood (jñātvā), or even not having understood (ajñātvā), me (māṁ) to be that [i.e., to be as aforementioned], or, alternately, having understood [me (māṁ)] again and again in particular [alternately reading the verse to be spelled jñātvā jñātvā rather than jñātvājñātvā and to refer to understanding repeatedly rather than understing or not understanding], those who worship [me] with one-pointed (ekānta) bhāva [are considered by me the best of bhaktas]. And if it is to be explained in this way [i.e., in the case of the aforementioned alternative meaning], then ‘as far as [I am]’ (yāvān) refers to the form of eternal adolescence or otherwise [i.e., to Bhagavān bearing a form of a particular nature], ‘and [for] who [I am]’ (yaś ca) refers to the form of the beautiful Son of Devakī, the Darling of Yaśoda, or otherwise [i.e., to Bhagavān bearing certain primary relationships], and ‘of what nature [I am]’ (yādṛśaḥ) refers to he who is the vessel of the special rasa of naturally superlative beauty, qualities, and līlā. The rest is the same [i.e., the rest of the verse is to be understood in the same way when the aforementioned alternative reading of jñātvājñātvā as jñātvā jñātvā is applied]. ‘Bhāva’ refers only to the state prior to prema. … Alternately, [the phrase jñātvājñātvā can be interpreted to mean] ‘having first understood and then, thereafter, not understood’ on account of the complete maturation of bhakti [i.e., in the initial stage of bhakti-sādhana, one has knowledge of Bhagavān’s omnipresence, eternality, and so forth, but when one becomes completely steeped in the prema of a particular bhāva for him, then one looses awareness of all aspects of Bhagavān that are not manifest in response to that particular bhāva].”
atha śuddha-dāsya-sakhyādi-bhāva-mātreṇa yo’nanyaḥ, sa tu sarvottama ity āha—[jñātveti] | yāvān deśa-kālādy-aparicchinaḥ | yaś ca sarvātmā | yādṛśaḥ sac-cid-ānanda-rūpaḥ | taṁ māṁ jñātvājñātvā vā ye kevalam ananya-bhāvena śrī-vrajeśvara-nandanatvādy-ālambano yaḥ svabhīpsito dāsyādīnām ekataro bhāvaḥ, tenaiva bhajanti, na kadācid anyenety arthaḥ, te tu mayā bhaktatamā matāḥ | … atha mūla-padye jñātvājñātvā ity atra jñānājñānayor heyopādeyatvaṁ niṣiddham | bhaktatamā ity atra pūrva-vākya-stha-sat-pada-nirdeśam atikramya viśeṣato bhakta-pada-nirdeśād bhakteḥ svarūpādhikyam atraiva vivakṣitam | te me matā ity atra mama tu viśiṣṭā sammatir atraiveti sūcitam, īdṛśānukta-caratvāt | ata eva prakaraṇa-prāptim eka-vacana-nirdeśam apy atikramya gauraveṇaiva ye te iti bahu-vacanaṁ nirdiṣṭam | tataḥ kim uta tad-bhāva-siddha-premāṇa iti bhāvaḥ | eṣāṁ bhāva-bhajana-vivṛtir agre rāgānugā-kathane jñeyā ||
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 201)
“Now, one who is one-pointed (ananya) by means solely of a bhāva, such as śuddha, dāsya, or sakhyā, is, rather, the best of all [bhaktas, that is, sādhus]. Thus, he speaks this verse (jñātvā …). … ‘As far as [I am]’ (yāvān) means unlimited in space, time, and so forth [i.e., ‘that I am omnipresent, eternal, and so forth’]. ‘And [for] who [I am]’ (yaś ca) means the Self of all [i.e., ‘that I am the Paramātmā’]. ‘Of what nature [I am]’ (yādṛśaḥ) means existence, consciousness, and bliss in form [i.e., ‘that I am in nature constituted of eternal existence, consciousness, and bliss’]. Having understood (jñātvā), or not having understood (ajñātvā), me (māṁ) to be that [i.e., to be as aforementioned], those who worship (bhajanti) [me] with only a one-pointed bhāva (ananya-bhāvena), that is, with one bhāva among those of dāsya and so forth, which is longed for [by them] and which has for its basis (ālambana) the beautiful Son of the king of Vraja or otherwise [i.e., or another form of Bhagavān], and never [worship me] with another [bhāva], are considered by me to be the best of bhaktas. This is the meaning. … Now, in regard to [the statement] ‘having understood or not having understood’ (jñātvājñātvā) in the original verse, it should be understood that [both] knowing (jñāna) and not knowing (ajñāna) have been prohibited from being [both] to be rejected and to be adopted [i.e., neither having rejected knowledge of Bhagavān nor having cultivated knowledge of Bhagavān are characteristics of the foremost of bhaktas nor means of becoming such a bhakta]. In regard to [the word] ‘the best of bhaktas’ (bhakta-tamā), the superiority in nature of bhakti [to jñāna and bhakti mixed with jñāna] is specifically intended here because of the usage of the word bhakta in preference to the usage of the word sat present in the previous statement [i.e., in SB 11.11.32]. By ‘they are considered by me’ (te me matā) here, my [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s] definitive opinion is indicated here alone, because of such not being stated previously [i.e., in SB 11.11.32, that is, in the previous verse Śrī Kṛṣṇa says the sādhus described there are considered the best of the sat, but in SB 11.11.33 he says the bhaktas described in this verse are considered by he himself to be the best of bhaktas]. Therefore, the plural ‘they who’ (ye te) is used here out of specific respect in preference specifically to the singular found [all throughout] the section [prior to this, i.e., the usage of the plural, which is sign of respect, is used to refer to the type of sādhu, that is, bhakta, being described in this verse, but was not used in the prior verses]. Thus, what’s more of those with prema, in whom a bhāva for him is [fully] established? [If bhaktas performing sādhana with one-pointedness upon a particular bhāva are said to be the best, then those who have realized that bhāva, that is, attained siddhi, are undoubtedly the very best of all bhaktas]. This is the purport. Description of their [i.e., the bhaktas mentioned in this verse] bhāva-bhajana [i.e., bhajana based on exclusive fixity in a particular bhāva] is to be understood in [i.e. learned from] the discussion of rāgānugā [-bhakti] ahead [starting in Anuccheda 310].”
bhaktyāham ekayā grāhya iti mad-ukter bhakti-tāratamyena man-mādhuryam adhikaṁ pratikṣaṇam anubhava-gocarīkṛtyety arthaḥ | yāvān kāla-deśābhyām aparicchinno’py ahaṁ bhaktecchā-vaśāt paricchinnaś ca | yaś ca sākṣāt parabrahmāpy ahaṁ śyāmasundarākāro vasudeva-putraś ca, yādṛśa ātmārāma āpta-kāmo’py ahaṁ bhakta-prema-vaivaśyād anātmārāmo’nāpta-kāmaś ca | ananya-bhāvenaikāntikatvena ananya-mamatākatveneti vā te iti gauraveṇa bahutvam |
(Excerpt from the Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“On account of my statement [in SB 11.14.21], ‘I can be known by one-pointed bhakti’ (bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ), my sweetness (mādhurya) can be brought within the range of experience more so at every moment in accord with a gradation in bhakti [i.e., the more bhakti one has, the more one experiences my sweetness at every moment]. This is the meaning. ‘As far as’ (yāvān) I am unlimited in space and time, I am still also limited under the control of my bhakta’s will. Although I am I ‘who also’ (yaś ca) is Parabrahman, I am also the Son of Vasudeva with a beautiful dark figure. Although I am ‘of the nature’ (yādṛśaḥ) of one who is self-satisfied (ātmārāma) and of fulfilled desired (āpta-kāma), I am also not self-satisfied and of unfulfilled desired because of a lack of self-control [on my part] under [the influence of my] bhakta’s prema. The plural ‘they’ (te) is [used] out of respect [for such bhaktas who worship me] with one-pointed bhāva, that is, on account of their being one-pointed (aikāntika) [upon me], or, [on account of] their having mamatā for no one else [except me].”