कामाद्द्वेषाद्भयात्स्नेहाद्यथा भक्त्येश्वरे मन: ।
आवेश्य तदघं हित्वा बहवस्तद्गतिं गता: ॥
kāmād dveṣād bhayāt snehād yathā bhaktyeśvare manaḥ |
āveśya tad-aghaṁ hitvā bahavas tad-gatiṁ gatāḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.29)
“[Nārada Ṛṣi to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja:] Having absorbed the mind in Īśvara out of amorous desire (kāma), enmity, fear, or affection, and [thereby] given up their sin, many have attained a destination related to him [i.e., Īśvara] as [some do so] by means of bhakti.”
Commentary
tad-aghaṁ kāmādi-nimittaṁ pāpaṁ hitvā |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“‘Having given up their sin’ (tad-aghaṁ hitvā) means the sin the cause of which is amorous desire (kāma) and so forth [i.e., enmity or fear].”
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmīpāda respectfully writes an elaborate refutation of this comment by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda as follows:
na ca śāstra-vihitenaiva bhagavad-dharmeṇa siddhiḥ syāt, na ca tad-avihitena kāmādineti vācyam, yataḥ kāmād dveṣād … | yathā vihitayā bhaktya īśvare mana āveśya tad-gatiṁ gacchanti, tathaiva avihitenāpi kāmādinā bahavo gatā ity arthaḥ | tad-aghaṁ teṣu kāmādiṣu madhye yad-dveṣa-bhayayor aghaṁ bhavati, tad dhitvaiva | bhayasyāpi dveṣa-saṁvalitatvād aghotpādakatvaṁ jñeyam | atra kecit kāmam apy aghaṁ manyante | tatredaṁ vicāryate—bhagavati kāma eva kevalaḥ pāpāvahaḥ | kiṁ vā pati-bhāva-yuktaḥ, athavā upapati-bhāva-yukta iti? sa eva kevala iti cet sa kiṁ dveṣādi-gaṇa-pātitvāt tadvat svarūpeṇaiva vā | parama-śuddhe bhagavati yad adhara-pānādikaṁ yac ca kāmuktvādy-āropaṇaṁ tenātikrameṇa vā pāpa-śravaṇena vā? nādyena—uktaṁ purastād etat te caidyaḥ siddhiṁ yathā gataḥ | dviṣann api hṛṣīkeśaṁ kim utādhokṣaja-priyāḥ || ity atra dveṣāder nyakkṛtatvāt tasya tu stutatvāt | ataś ca priyā iti snehavat kāmasyāpi prīty-ātmakatvena tadvad eva na doṣaḥ | tādṛśīnāṁ kāmo hi premaika-rūpaḥ, ‘yat te sujāta-caraṇāmburuhaṁ staneṣu bhītāḥ śanaiḥ priya dadhīmahi karkaśeṣu’ ity-ādāv atikramyāpi sva-sukhaṁ tad-ānukūlya eva tātparya-darśanāt | sairindhryās tu bhāvo riraṁsā-prāyatvena śrī-gopikānām iva kevala-tat-tātparyābhāvāt tad-apekṣayaiva nindyate, na tu svarūpataḥ | ‘sānaṅga-tapta-kucayoḥ’ ity-ādau, ‘ananta-caraṇena rujo mṛjanti’ iti, ‘parirabhya kāntam ānanda-mūrtim’ iti kārya-dvārā tat-stuteḥ | tatrāpi ‘sahoṣyatām iha preṣṭha’ ity atra prīty-abhivyakteś ca | ata eva—saivaṁ kaivalya-nāthaṁ taṁ prāpya duṣprāpyam īśvaram | aṅga-rāgārpaṇenāho durbhagedam ayācata || iti, durārādhyaṁ samārādhya viṣṇuṁ sarveśvareśvaram | yo vṛṇīte mano-grāhyam asattvāt kumanīṣy asau || iti caivaṁ yojayanti | kaivalyam ekāntitvaṁ tena yo nāthaḥ sevanīyas tam | purā tādṛśa-trivakratvādi-lakṣaṇa-daurbhāgyavaty api | aho āścarye | aṅga-rāgārpaṇa-lakṣaṇena bhagavad-dharmāṁśena kāraṇena sampratīdaṁ ‘sahoṣyatām iha preṣṭha dināni katicin mayā ramasva’ ity-ādi-lakṣaṇaṁ vakṣyamāṇaṁ saubhāgyam ayācata iti | ataḥ—‘kim anena kṛtaṁ puṇyam avadhūtena bhikṣuṇā | śriyā hīnena loke’smin garhitenādhamena ca ||’ iti śrīdāma-vipram uddiśyāntaḥpurajana-vacanavad eva tathoktiḥ | nanu kāmukī sā kim iti ślāghyate? tatrāha—durārādhyam iti | yo mano-grāhyaṁ prākṛtam eva viṣayaṁ vṛṇīte kāmayata asāv eva kumanīṣī | sā tu bhagavantam eva kāmayata iti parama-sumanīṣiṇy eveti bhāvaḥ | tad evaṁ tasya kāmasya dveṣādi-gaṇāntaḥ-pātitvaṁ parihṛtya, tena pāpāvahatvaṁ parihṛtam | atha kāmukatvādy-āropaṇādy-adhara-pānādi-rūpas tatra vyavahāro’pi nātikrama-hetuḥ | yato ‘lokavat tu līlā-kaivalyam’ iti nyāyena līlā tatra svabhāvata eva siddhā | tatra ca śrī-bhūr-līlādībhis tasya tādṛśa-līlāyāḥ śrī-vaikuṇṭhādiṣu nitya-siddhatvena svatantra-līlā-vinodasya tasyābhirucitatvāvagamāt tādṛśa-līlā-rasa-moha-svābhāvikaṁ bhagavattādy-ananusandhānam api kāmukatvādi-mananam api ca tad-abhirucitatvenaivāvagamyate | tathā tat-preyasī-janānām api tat-svarūpa-śakti-vigrahatvena parama-śuddha-rūpatvāt tato nyūnatābhāvāc ca tad-adhara-pānādikam api nānanurūpaṁ, pūrva-yuktyā tad-abhirucitam eva ca | na ca prākṛta-vāmā-janena doṣaḥ prasañjanīyaḥ, tad-yogyaṁ tādṛśaṁ bhāvaṁ svarūpa-śakti-vigrahatvaṁ ca prāpyaiva tad-icchayaiva tat-prāpteḥ | atha pāpa-śravaṇena ca na pāpāvaho’sau kāmaḥ, tad-aśravaṇād eva | ataḥ pati-bhāva-yukte ca tatra sutarāṁ na doṣaḥ, pratyuta stutiḥ śrūyate—‘yāḥ samparyacaran premṇā pāda-saṁvāhanādibhiḥ | jagad-guruṁ bhartṛ-buddhyā tāsāṁ kiṁ varṇyate tapaḥ ||’ iti | mahānubhāva-munīnām api tad-bhāvaḥ śrūyate, yathā śrī-mādhvācārya-dhṛtaṁ kaurma-vacanam—agni-putrā mahātmānas tapasā strītvam āpire | bhartāraṁ ca jagad-yoniṁ vāsudevam ajaṁ vibhum || iti | ata eva vanditaṁ ‘pati-putra-suhṛd-bhrātṛ-’ [nārāyaṇa-vyūha-stave] ity-ādinā | athopapati-bhāvena na ca pāpāvaho’sau ‘yat paty-apatya-suhṛdām anuvṛttir aṅga‘ ity-ādinā tābhir evottaritatvāt, ‘gopīnāṁ tat-patīnāṁ ca’ ity-ādinā śrī-śuka-vacanena ca, ‘na pāraye’haṁ niravadya-saṁyujāṁ sva-sādhu-kṛtyaṁ vibudhāyuṣāpi vaḥ’ ity atra niravadya-saṁyujām ity anena svayaṁ śrī-bhagavatā ca | tādṛśānām anyeṣām api tad-bhāvo dṛśyate | yathā pādmottara-khaṇḍa-vacanam—purā maharṣayaḥ sarve daṇḍakāraṇya-vāsinaḥ | dṛṣṭvā rāmaṁ hariṁ tatra bhoktum aicchat suvigraham || te sarve strītvam āpannāḥ samudbhūtās tu gokule | hariṁ samprāpya kāmena tato muktā bhavārṇavāt || iti | ataḥ puruṣeṣv api strī-bhāvenodbhavād bhagavad-viṣayatvān na prākṛta-kāmadevodbhāvitaḥ prākṛtaḥ kāmo’sau, kintu ‘sākṣān manmatha-manmathaḥ’ iti śravaṇād āgamādau tasya kāmatvenopāsanāc ca bhagavad-ekodbhāvito’prākṛta evāsau kāma iti jñeyam | śrīmad-uddhavādīnāṁ parama-bhaktānām api ca tac-chlāghā śrūyate—‘etāḥ paraṁ tanu-bhṛto bhuvi gopa-vadhvaḥ’ ity-ādau | kiṁ bahunā, śrutīnām api tad-bhāvo bṛhad-vāmane prasiddhaḥ, yatas tatra śrutayo’pi nitya-siddha-gopikā-bhāvābhilāṣiṇyas tad-rūpeṇaiva tad-gaṇāntaḥ-pātinyo babhūvur iti prasiddhiḥ | etat prasiddhi-sūcakam evaitad ukta tābhir eva—‘nibhṛta-marun-mano-’kṣa-dṛḍha-yoga-yujo hṛdi yan munaya upāsate tad arayo’pi yayuḥ smaraṇāt | striya uragendra-bhoga-bhuja-daṇḍa-viṣakta-dhiyo vayam api te samāḥ sama-dṛśo’ṅghri-saroja-sudhāḥ ||’ iti | vispaṣṭaś cāyam arthaḥ—yad brahmākhyaṁ tattvaṁ śāstra-dṛṣṭyā prayāsa-bāhulyena munaya upāsate, tad arayo’pi yasya smaraṇāt tad-upāsanaṁ vinaiva yayuḥ| tathā striyaḥ śrī-gopa-subhruvas te tava śrī-nanda-nandana-rūpasya uragendra-deha-tulyau yau bhuja-daṇḍautava viṣakta-dhiyaḥ satyas tavaiva aṅghri-saroja-sudhās tadīya-sparśa-viśeṣa-jāti-prema-mādhuryāṇi yayuḥ | vayaṁ śrutayo’pi sama-dṛśas tat-tulya-bhāvāḥ satyaḥ samās tādṛśa-gopikātva-prāptyā tat-sāmyam āptās tā evāṅghri-rajo-sudhā yayima yātavatya ity arthaḥ | artha-vaśād vibhakti-vipariṇāmaḥ | aṅghrīti sādaroktiḥ | atra tad arayo’pi yayuḥ smaraṇādity anena bhāva-mārgasya jhaṭity artha-sādhanatvaṁ darśitam | sama-dṛśaity anena rāgānugāyā eva tatra sādhakatamatvaṁ vyañjitam | anyathā sarva-sādhana-sādhya-viduṣyaḥ śrutayo’nyatraiva pravarteran | tathā smaraṇa-para-yugma-dvaye’smin sva-sva-yugme prathamasya mukhyatvaṁ dvitīyasya gauṇatvaṁ darśitam | ubhayatrāpy api-śabda-sāhityenottaratra pāṭhād ekārthatā-prāpteḥ | ataḥ striyaiti nityāḥ śrī-gopikā eva tā jñeyāḥ | tathaiva śrutibhir iti śrī-kṛṣṇa-nitya-dhāmni tā dṛṣṭā iti bṛhad-vāmana eva prasiddham | tathā smaraṇa-para-yugma-dvaye’smin sva-sva-yugme prathamasya mukhyatvaṁ dvitīyasya gauṇatvaṁ darśitam, ubhayatrāpy api-śabda-sāhityenottaratra pāṭhād ekārthatā-prāpteḥ | ataḥ striyaiti nityāḥ śrī-gopikā eva tā jñeyāḥ | tathaiva śrutibhir iti śrī-kṛṣṇa-nitya-dhāmni tā dṛṣṭā iti bṛhad-vāmana eva prasiddham | tad evaṁ sādhu vyākhyātam ‘kāmād dveṣāt’ ity-ādau ‘tad-aghaṁ hitvā’ ity atra teṣu madhye dveṣa-bhayayor yad-agham ity-ādi ||
(Excerpt from the Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā; Bhakti Sandarbha: 320)
“Because of this verse (kāmād dveṣād …) [i.e., SB 7.1.29], it should not be said that perfection (siddhi) can occur only through Bhagavad-dharma enjoined in śāstra and not through amorous desire (kāma) and so forth [i.e., hatred or fear of Bhagavān] which are not enjoined therein. As some attain a destination related to Īśvara by absorbing the mind in him through bhakti that is enjoined [in śāstra], so indeed many have attained [a destination related to him] even through amorous desire (kāma) and so forth, which are not enjoined [in śāstra]. This is the meaning. ‘[After] Having given up their sin’ (tad-aghaṁ hitvā) means after having given up the sin that occurs because of hatred and fear [of Bhagavān], which are [listed in this verse] amidst those [bhāvas] beginning with amorous desire [i.e., the sin that is said to be given up in the verse is the sin produced by the bhāvas of hatred and fear of Bhagavān because these bhāvas are sinful in nature, whereas the sin alluded to in this verse is not sin supposedly produced by the bhāva of amorous desire (kāma) for Bhagavān because amorous desire for Bhagavān is not sinful in nature and thus does not produce sin]. Fear’s also being a producer of sin because of [its] being commingled with hatred is to be understood [i.e., fear of Bhagavān should be understood to be sinful because fear of Bhagavān contains in its nature some degree of hate for Bhagavān].
“In this regard, some consider even amorous desire (kāma) [for Bhagavān] a sin [note: here Śrī Jīva Gosvāmīpāda respectfully begins his refutation of Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda’s interpretation of this verse]. In that regard, this is to be examined: (1) is amorous desire (kāma) for Bhagavān purely sinful [i.e., is every possible form of amorous desire (kāma) for Bhagavān sinful]? Or, (2) is it [sinful] when conjoined with the attitude (bhāva) of [Bhagavān being] a husband (pati)? Or, alternately, (3) is it [sinful] when conjoined with the attitude (bhāva) of [Bhagavān being] a paramour (upapati)?
“If it is completely [sinful, as stated in point 1, then] (1a) is that because it is like that by its very nature on account [its] being cast down into the group beginning with hatred (dveṣa) [i.e., classified along with enmity and fear of Bhagavān as something inherently sinful]? (1b) Or [is it completely sinful] because of the transgression [against Bhagavān] of attribution of amorousness and so forth, and kissing [lit., ‘lip-drinking’] (adhara-pāna) and so forth, in connection with Bhagavān, who is supremely pure? (1c) Or [is it completely sinful] because of hearing [in śāstra] of [it being an outright] sin?
“It is not because of the first [i.e., point 1a is refuted] because of hatred (dveṣa) and so forth’s being condemned, and its [i.e., amorous desire for Bhagavān’s], on the contrary, being praised here [in SB 10.29.13], ‘This [i.e., that the gopīs transcended the guṇas of prakṛti] was stated earlier to you all when [it was stated that] Caidya [i.e., Śiśupāla] attained perfection (siddhi) even by hating Hṛṣīkeśa. So, what then of they who are lovers of Adhokṣaja [i.e., Bhagavān]?’ Thus, furthermore, on account of [the usage of the word] ‘lovers’ (priyāḥ) [to describe the gopīs in SB 10.29.13], because of even [the gopīs’] amorous desire’s being constituted of prīti [for Bhagavān] like ‘affection‘ (sneha) [i.e., like the affection spoken of in SB 7.1.25, 29, and 30], it [i.e., the gopīs’ amorous desire for Bhagavān] is not a fault just like that [i.e., just as the aforementioned affection is not a fault]. The amorous desire (kāma) of they who are such [i.e., of the gopīs] is a form of prema alone because of observation of [their] intention solely of favorability (ānukūlya) towards him [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa], disregarding even their own happiness (sukha) [as described in SB 10.31.19], ‘O Beloved! Fearful, we gently hold your tender lotus feet on our hard breasts. You roam with them throughout the forest. Have they not been cut by pebbles and so forth? Our hearts tremble. You are our very life.’
“The bhāva of Kubjā (Sairindhrī), on the contrary, is condemnable specifically in comparison to that of the beautiful gopīs because of [its] lack of intention solely upon that [i.e., upon favorability (ānukūlya) towards Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] like theirs [i.e., like the gopīs’ bhāva] because of [its] being for the most part desire for amorous pleasure [for herself]; it is rather not [condemnable] by nature because of its praise [being heard in SB 10.48.7] by way of [description of its] effect [i.e., its resulting in Kubjā’s embracing Śrī Kṛṣṇa], ‘With the feet of Ananta [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa], she [i.e., Kubjā] wiped away the afflictions of her eyes, bosom, and Anaṅga-inflamed breasts, and after smelling [his feet], she fully embraced her Lover, the Embodiment of bliss, between her breasts and gave up her very long-standing distress,’ and because of her expression of love (prīti) towards him as well [described] here [in SB 10.48.9], ‘O Beloved, please stay here for some days with me and enjoy. I cannot bear to give up your company, O lotus-eyed one!’ Therefore, he [i.e., Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī] also connects [these statements] as follows [in SB 10.48.8], ‘Aho! Thus attaining him, the difficult to attain Īśvara and Lord of kaivalya, by offering [him] body unguents, she [i.e., Kubjā], who was [previously] unfortunate, requested this [i.e., she requested him to stay with her and enjoy as was described in SB 10.48.9],’ and [in SB 10.48.11] ‘One who, after fully worshiping Viṣṇu, the difficult to worship Īśvara of all īśvaras, requests that which is acceptable to the mind [i.e., pleasures of the senses] is of low intelligence because of pettiness.’
“The ‘Lord of kaivalya’ [as Śrī Kṛṣṇa is described in SB 10.48.8] means he who is the Lord (nātha), that is, he who is to be served, with kaivalya, that is, one-pointedness. [‘She, who was [previously] unfortunate,’ that is, Kubjā, means] She who previously had the misfortune of being thrice bent [i.e., hunchbacked] and so forth. Aho [in SB 10.48.8] is in the sense of astonishment. As a result of a portion of an act of Bhagavad-dharma in the form of offering body unguents [to Śrī Kṛṣṇa], she immediately requests the good fortune stated ahead [in SB 10.48.9], ‘O Beloved, please stay here for some days with me and enjoy.’
“Thus, the statement [of Śrī Śukadeva in SB 10.48.8] is like the words of the people of the palace [in Dvārakā] regarding Śrīdāma Vipra [in SB 10.80.25, wherein there is also praise of a person of low social standing], ‘What meritorious act was performed by this unkempt [alt., disregarded], moneyless, lowly beggar despised in this world [i.e., Śrīdāma, who was honored and embraced like an elder brother by Śrīnivāsa, the Master of the three worlds, leaving aside Śrī [i.e., Lakṣmī] seated on the bed]?’
“[A doubt is raised:] ‘Well, why is she [i.e., Kubjā], a woman possessed of amorous desire, praised?’ To that, he [i.e., Śukadeva] says durārādhyam … [i.e., he speaks SB 10.48.11]. One who requests, that is, desires, that which is acceptable to the mind, that is, mere material objects of the senses, is certainly of low intelligence. She [i.e., Kubjā], however, desired only Bhagavān. Thus, she is certainly of the highest, finest intelligence. This is the purport. Thus, in this way refuting inclusion of amorous desire (kāma) for him [i.e., Bhagavān] in the group of hatred (dveṣa) and so forth [i.e., refuting the idea that amorous desire (kāma) for Bhagavān should be considered a sinful bhāva like hatred and fear of Bhagavān], its being [considered completely] sinful [on such grounds, as referred to in point 1a] is thereby refuted.
“Now [i.e., in regard to point 1b], even activity in relation to him in the form of attribution of amorousness and so forth [to him], and kissing [him] and so forth, is not a cause of a transgression [against him] since, as per the principle [stated in VS 2.1.33], ‘[Bhagavān’s motivation for emanating the universe is] An exclusiveness of līlā, just as in the world [i.e., his motivation is līlā alone],’ līlā is existent in him entirely naturally. Also, by understanding the special likability (abhirucitatva) of that [i.e., of līlā] for he [i.e., Bhagavān] who delights in free līlā on account of such līlās of his [i.e., his līlās involving amorousness, kissing, and so forth] with Śrī, Bhū, Līlā, and others, being eternally existent in Śrī Vaikuṇṭha and elsewhere, even [his own] non-ascertainment of [his] being Bhagavān and so forth [in the midst of these līlās], and even [his own] cogitation of amorousness and so forth [in the midst of these līlās], [which are] natural [for him] as a result of the stupefaction caused by the rasa of such līlā, are understood solely as being specially liked (abhirucita) by him.
“Moreover, because of even his beloveds having completely pure figures on account of being forms of his inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) and the non-existence of [their] inferiority to him, even [their] kissing him and so forth is not inappropriate. Furthermore, according to the preceding reasoning, it is indeed specially liked (abhirucita) by him. And because of worldly womens’ [eventual] attainment of him occurring only by his will and only after [their] attaining such a bhāva [i.e., a bhāva possessed of amorous desire for Bhagavān] suitable for him and [then] the state of having a [pure, spiritual] figure [made] of [his] inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti), it is not that any fault should be attributed to them [for fostering amorous desire for him].
“Now [in regard to point 1c], that amorous desire (kāma) is also not sinful because of hearing [in śāstra] of [it being an outright] sin is because of not hearing of that [i.e., amorous desire (kāma) for Bhagavān is not a sin because śāstra never states that it is]. Therefore, when it is conjoined with the bhāva of [Bhagavān being] a husband (pati) [as referred to in point 2], there is certainly no fault in it, and rather, praise [of it as such] is heard of in [SB 10.90.27], ‘Is the austerity of they [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s wives in Dvārakā] who fully attended to the Master of the universe [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] by massaging his feet and so forth with prema and the mentality of him being their husband describable?’ That bhāva [i.e., amorous desire for Bhagavān conjoined with the attitude (bhāva) of him being one’s husband] is heard of even on the part of sages of profound realization, as in a statement from the Kūrma Purāṇa cited by Śrī Mādhvācārya: ‘Through austerity, the sons of Agni, great souls, attained womanhood and the eminent, unborn Source of the universe, Vāsudeva, as their husband.’ Therefore, it [i.e., that bhāva] is honored in [the aforementioned statement in] the Nārāyaṇa-vyūha-stava [cited in BKS 312], ‘Obeisance and obeisance even unto those in this world who always eagerly meditate on Hari as a husband, son, friend, or brother, or [meditate on him] like a father, or like a mother.’
“Now, that [i.e., amorous desire for Bhagavān, conjoined] with the attitude (bhāva) of [Bhagavān being] a paramour (upapati) is also not sinful (1) on account of [its] being pointed out by them [i.e., by the gopīs themselves in SB 10.29.19], ‘O Beloved, service to the husband, children, and friends, spoken of by you, the knower of dharma, as the svadharma of women—let this be so for you [i.e., let us render that service unto you directly], O Īśa, O Basis of this instruction, since you are the self, dearmost, and friend of embodied beings;’ [it is also not sinful] (2) on account of the statement of Śrī Śuka [in SB 10.33.35], ‘The overseer who dwells within the gopīs, their husbands, and all embodied beings possesses a [human] body here for the sake of play [with the gopīs];’ and [it is also not sinful] (3) on account of [the mention of the gopīs’] ‘irreproachable union’ (niravadya-saṁyujāṁ) by Śrī Bhagavān himself here [in the following statement to the gopīs in SB 10.32.22], ‘I am not able even with the lifespan of a deva to offer my own virtuous act [of compensation] to you all, whose union [with me] is irreproachable, and who have completely severed the unrelenting fetters of family life and served me. May that [virtuous act of yours] by [your own] virtue be your compensation [for your virtuous acts of serving me].’
“That bhāva [i.e., amorous desire for Bhāgavān as one’s paramour] even of others like them [i.e., like the gopīs, meaning, attainment of that bhāva by others like the gopīs] is [also] seen, as in the statement from the Uttara-khaṇḍa of Padma Purāṇa, ‘In the past, all the great sages residing in the Daṇḍaka Forest, after having seen Rāma there, wished to enjoy with Hari of fine figure [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa]. They all [later] attained womanhood and were born in Gokula. Thus attaining Hari through amorous desire (kāma), they then became liberated from the ocean of material existence.’
“Therefore, because of [its] appearance along with the disposition (bhāva) of a woman even in men and [its] having Bhagavān for its object, this amorous desire (kāma) is not material (prākṛta) and produced by the material (prākṛta) Kāmadeva. Rather, this amorous desire (kāma) is verily supramundane (aprākṛta) and produced by Bhagavān alone because of hearing [in SB 10.32.2] of [Bhagavān being] ‘The mind-churner of the mind-churner himself [i.e., the Kāmadeva even of Kāmadeva],’ and because of worship (upāsanā) of him [i.e., Bhagavān] as Kāma [i.e., as Kāmadeva, being mentioned] in the Āgamas and elsewhere. This is to be understood. Also, its praise is heard of even from the greatest bhaktas such as Śrīmad Uddhava [in SB 10.47.58], ‘Only these cowherd women, who are possessed of profound bhāva [i.e., the greatest prema] specifically for Govinda, the Self of all, [profound bhāva] which those who fear material existence [i.e., those who seek mukti], sages [i.e., those who have attained mukti], and we [i.e., bhaktas indifferent to mukti] desire, have born bodies on the earth [i.e., only the gopīs have lived a successful life]. What [is the use] of the [three] births of a brāhmaṇa [or, repeated births as Brahmā] for one who has [experience of] the taste (rasa) of discussion of Ananta?’
“What [is the use] of more [discussion in regard to the exalted position of amorous desire for Bhagavān]? Even the Śrutis having that bhāva is well known in the Bṛhad-vāmana Purāṇa, since therein it is well known that even the Śrutis became desirous of that bhāva of the nitya-siddha gopīs and were [eventually] included in their group with forms of theirs [i.e., they eventually attained that bhāva and the forms of gopīs, whereafter they became included amongst the gopīs]. The statement [in SB 10.87.23] by they [i.e., the Śrutis] themselves is certainly indicative of this well known occurrence, ‘As a result of remembrance [of you, irregardless of their enmity towards you], even [your] enemies attain that [i.e., nirviśeṣa Brahman] which sages engaged in steadfast yoga with steady breath, mind, and senses meditate on within the heart, and we too—who are equal [to] and of vision equal with the women [i.e., the gopīs] whose minds are firmly fixed on the clubs of your arms, which resemble the hood of the king of serpents—attain the nectars of your lotus feet.’
“The meaning [of this statement] is also very clear: ‘The Entity (Tattva), known as Brahman, which sages worship (upāsate) with tremendous effort on the basis of śāstric vision—even enemies [of him] attain him without [performing] any worship (upāsana) [of him] at all as a result of remembrance of him. Furthermore, the women, that is, the beautiful cowherd women of fine brows [i.e., the gopīs of Vraja], whose minds are firmly fixed on the clubs of those arms of yours which resemble the body of the king of serpents, that is, on the form of the beautiful Son of Nanda, attain the nectars of your lotus feet, that is, the sweetnesses of prema manifest from a special type of touch thereof [i.e., of your figure as the Son of Nanda]. [And] We, the Śrutis, too—who are of equal vision, that is, of bhāva like theirs, and equal [to them], that is, we who have acquired equality with them as a result of acquiring the state of being gopīs (gopītva) like them—have attained those nectars of your lotus feet [as they have].’
“The change of inflection (vibhakti) [done in the aforementioned explanation, wherein the third person plural verb form yayuḥ in the verse, which is intended to be applied to all the subjects mentioned later in the verse, is changed to the first person plural form yātavatyaḥ in its last implied application] is by force of the meaning [of the verse, i.e., it is because this is the intended sense of the verse]. [The word] ‘Feet’ is an expression of adoration [i.e., it is used to convey a sense of adoration and is not intended to be taken literally].
“Here [i.e., in this verse, the statement], ‘Even enemies attained him as a result of remembrance’—by this [statement] the quick effectiveness of the path of bhāva is shown. ‘Equal vision’ (sama-dṛśaḥ)—by this [statement] the greatest effectiveness of rāgānugā [-sādhana-bhakti] in particular is suggested in that regard [i.e., in regard to remembrance of Bhagavān, or, in regard to sādhana-bhakti as a whole, or, in regard to attainment of the beautiful Son of Nanda, Śrī Kṛṣṇa]. Otherwise [i.e., were this not the case], the Śrutis, who are knowledgeable about all means (sādhanas) and goals (sādhyas), would have acted otherwise [i.e., they would have taken up a different type of sādhana instead of that of following the bhāva of the gopīs].
“Furthermore, in these two pairs of persons engaged in remembrance (smaraṇa) [that are mentioned sequentially in the verse under discussion, SB 10.87.23, the first pair being the sages and the enemies of Bhagavān, and the second pair being the gopīs and the Śrutis, who are speaking of themselves as ‘we’ in the verse], the primacy of the first and the secondariness of the second in each of these respective pairs [i.e., the primacy of the sages and the gopīs, and the secondariness of the enemies and the Śrutis] is shown because of the occurrence of oneness in meaning on account of the connection with the word api [i.e., ‘even‘] in both [pairs] and reading [of it] in regard to the latter [i.e., in the latter line of each pair; in other words, there are evidently two pairs of primary and secondary elements being discussed in the verse because of the parallel construction and comparisons beings made in the verse]. Thus, the ‘women’ (striyaḥ) [spoken of in the verse] are to be understood to be only the eternal gopīs. That they [i.e., the gopīs] are seen in Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s eternal abode by the Śrutis in exactly this way is well known from the Bṛhad-vāmana Purāṇa. Thus, in this way, ‘having given up their sin’ (tad-aghaṁ hitvā) in kāmād dveṣāt … [i.e., in SB 7.1.29] has been rightly explained to refer to the sin of hatred (dveṣa) and fear (bhaya) amongst them [i.e., amongst the bhāvas listed in the verse, viz., amorous desire (kāma), hatred, fear, affection, and vaidhī-bhakti, and thus the conclusive understanding is that none of the bhāvas mentioned in the verse, including amorous desire (kāma), are sinful except hatred and fear of Bhagavān].”