कतमोऽपि न वेन: स्यात्पञ्चानां पुरुषं प्रति ।
तस्मात्केनाप्युपायेन मन: कृष्णे निवेशयेत् ॥
katamo’pi na venaḥ syāt pañcānāṁ puruṣaṁ prati |
tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.1.31)
“[Nārada Ṛṣi to Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja:] Veṇa did not have even one of these five [aforementioned bhāvas] for the Puruṣa. Therefore, one may absorb the mind in Kṛṣṇa by some particular means.”
Commentary
tarhi venaḥ kim iti narake pātitaḥ | tīvra-dhyānābhāvāt pāpam eva tasya phalitam ity āha—katamo’pīti | puruṣaṁ śrī-hariṁ prati | puruṣe puruṣasya kāmāsaṁbhavād bhayādibhiś cintayatāṁ pañcānāṁ madhye veno na katamo’pīty uktam |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“[A question is raised:] ‘Then [i.e., if hatred for Bhagavān is a means by which one becomes absorbed in him, purified even of the sin of hating him, and then blessed with a form of liberation related to him], why was Veṇa [who is well known to have hated Bhagavān] cast into Naraka?’ Because of a lack of intense meditation [upon Bhagavān], only sin resulted for him [since one is not purified of the sin of hating Bhagavān without intense meditation on him]. Thus, Śrī Nārada speaks this verse. For the ‘Puruṣa’ means [for] Śrī Hari. Because of the impossibility of a man’s (puruṣa’s) having amorous desire for a man (puruṣa), Veṇa not having even one among the five mentalities based on fear and so forth is stated [i.e., it is said here that Veṇa did not have any of the five mentalities, that is, bhāvas, mentioned previously in SB 7.1.30 even though six are stated in that verse, because the commentator considers it impossible for him, a male, to have had amorous desire towards Bhagavān, another male, and thus considers that this is why Nārada speaks of Veṇa not having any one amongst five bhāvas, rather than amongst six].”
yadi dveṣeṇāpi siddhis tarhi veṇaḥ kim iti narake pātitaḥ? ity āśaṅkyāha—‘katamo’pi na venaḥ syāt pañcānāṁ puruṣaṁ prati’ | puruṣaṁ bhagavantaṁ prati lakṣyīkṛtya pañcānāṁ vairānubandhādīnāṁ madhye venaḥ katamo’pi na syāt | tasya taṁ prati prāsaṅgika-nindā-mātrātmakaṁ vairaṁ, na tu vairānubandhaḥ | tatas tīvra-dhyānābhāvāt pāpam eva tatra pratiphalitam iti bhāvaḥ | tato’sura-tulya-svabhāvair api tasmin sva-mokṣārthaṁ vaira-bhāvānuṣṭhāna-sāhasaṁ na kartavyam ity abhipretam | ata eva ‘ye vai bhagavatā proktāḥ’ ity-āder apy ativyāptir vyāhanyate, anabhipretatvenāproktatvāt | yasmād evaṁ—tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet || iti | atrāpi pūrvavan niveśayed iti sammati-mātraṁ na vidhiḥ | kenāpi teṣv apy upāyeṣu yuktatamenaikenety arthaḥ | aho yas tādṛśa-bahu-prayatna-sādhya-vaidhī-bhakti-mārgeṇa cirāt sādhyate, sa evācirād bhāva-viśeṣa-mātreṇa, tatra ca dveṣādināpi | tasmād evaṁbhūte parama-sad-guṇa-svabhāve tasmin dūre’stu pāmara-jana-bhāvyasya vairasya vārtā, ko vādhama audāsyam avalambya prītim api na kuryād iti rāgānugāyām eva tac ca yuktatamatvam aṅgīkṛtaṁ bhavati |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā; Bhakti Sandarbha: 322–323)
“If perfection can be attained even by hatred, why was Veṇa cast into Naraka?’ Anticipating this [question], Śrī Nārada speaks the first half of this verse (katamo’pi …): ‘Veṇa did not have even one of the five [aforementioned bhāvas] beginning with constant enmity towards, that is, focused on, the Puruṣa, meaning, Bhagavān. [Rather,] He [i.e., Veṇa] had enmity constituted only of incidental defamation (nindā) towards him, and not, rather, constant enmity. Thus, because of a lack of intense meditation [upon Bhagavān], only sin resulted in his case. This is the purport. Thus, the audacity of fostering the bhāva of enmity towards him [i.e., Bhagavān] for the purpose of one’s own mokṣa even by those whose disposition (svabhāva) is like an asura’s should not be done. This is intended [as the meaning of the statement]. Therefore, excessive pervasion [i.e., over-extension] even of [the definition of bhāgavata-dharma stated in SB 11.2.34], ‘Know those means of easy realization of the Self (Ātmā) [i.e., Bhagavān] stated by Bhagavān for unlearned persons to be bhāgavata [-dharmas, i.e., forms of bhakti to Bhagavān]’ is negated because of [inconstant enmity] not being stated [in SB 7.1.31] on account of [it] not being intended. Therefore, that is, because of this [Śrī Nārada speaks the second half of the verse], ‘one may absorb the mind in Kṛṣṇa by some particular means.’ Here too, as previously [i.e., as in the case of the verb yuñjyāt in SB 7.1.25], ‘one may absorb’ (niveśayat) is only [in the sense of] assent and not an injunction [since absorption of the mind is not something that can be directly enjoined]. The meaning of ‘by some particular’ (kenāpi) [means] is by the one most appropriate among even these [aforementioned] means [i.e., the six bhāvas mentioned in SB 7.1.30]. Aho! [What a wonder is the nature of absorption in Bhagavān!] That which is effected after a long time by means of the path of vaidhī-bhakti, which must be practiced with enormous effort, is [effected] just by means of a specific bhāva [related to Bhagavān] within a short time, and therein is so even by means of [the bhāvas of] hatred and so forth [i.e., and fear, meaning, even by means of bhāvas which are unfavorable to Bhagavān and sinful]. Therefore, let alone mention of enmity—that which is fit for a wicked person to foster—in relation to he [i.e., Bhagavān] who, so existent, has a virtuous nature (svabhāva) of the highest order, what wretched person would take to indifference [towards him] and not foster even fondness (prīti) [for him, i.e., when anyone hears of Bhagavān’s most virtuous and purifying nature, whereby even persons who are filled with constant enmity or fear of him become completely purified and liberated, then how could one not foster even some fondness for Bhagavān, since such qualities naturally evoke fondness in anyone, and instead remain indifferent to him, much less inimical]? Thus, furthermore, that [aforementioned] most appropriateness [of the means of absorbing the mind in Bhagavān] is accepted only in rāgānugā [-bhakti, i.e., thus it is concluded that rāgānugā-bhakti is the most appropriate means to absorb the mind in Bhagavān].”