mahat-sevāṁ dvāram āhur vimuktes

महत्सेवां द्वारमाहुर्विमुक्ते-
स्तमोद्वारं योषितां सङ्गिसङ्गम् ।
महान्तस्ते समचित्ताः प्रशान्ता
विमन्यवः सुहृदः साधवो ये ॥
ये वा मयीशे कृतसौहृदार्था
जनेषु देहम्भरवार्तिकेषु ।
गृहेषु जायात्मजरातिमत्सु
न प्रीतियुक्ता यावदर्थाश्च लोके ॥

mahat-sevāṁ dvāram āhur vimuktes
tamo-dvāraṁ yoṣitāṁ saṅgi-saṅgam |
mahāntas te sama-cittāḥ praśāntā
vimanyavaḥ suhṛdaḥ sādhavo ye ||
ye vā mayīśe kṛta-sauhṛdārthā
janeṣu dehambhara-vārtikeṣu |
gṛheṣu jāyātmaja-rātimatsu
na prīti-yuktā yāvad-arthāś ca loke ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.5.2–3; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.17, 69; Bhakti Sandarbha: 186; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.82)

“Service to the mahats is said to be the door to ultimate mukti, and attachment to those who are attached to women [is said to be] the door to darkness. The mahāntas are they who are of equal mind, tranquil, free from anger, friendly, and virtuous, or, they who (1) have made affection [i.e., prema] for me, Īśa, their aim, (2) are unpossessed of affinity for persons fixated upon affairs related to bodily maintenance and houses accompanied by wives, children, and friends, and (3) are possessed of only so much wealth [as is necessary] in this world.”

Commentary

mokṣa-bandhayor nidānam āha—mahat-sevām iti | tamasaḥ saṁsārasya dvāraṁ yoṣitāṁ ye saṅginaḥ, teṣāṁ saṅgam | mahatāṁ lakṣaṇam āha sārdhena—mahānta iti | sādhavaḥ sadācārāḥ | mayi īśe kṛtaṁ sauhṛdam evārthaḥ puruṣārtho yeṣām | vā-śabdenānya-nirapekṣasyaivāsya lakṣaṇatvaṁ darśayati | dehaṁ bibhartīti dehambharā viṣaya-vārttaiva na dharma-viṣayā yeṣu teṣu janeṣu jāyādi-yukteṣu gṛheṣu ca | rātir mitraṁ dhanaṁ vā | pāṭhāntare jāyādi-pradeṣu | yāvad-arthāś ca yāvad-artham evārtho yeṣām iti madhyama-pada-lopī samāsaḥ | deha-nirvāhādhika-spṛhā-śūnyā ity arthaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)

“He [i.e., Ṛṣabhadeva] describes the cause of liberation (mokṣa) and bondage: mahat-sevām … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.5.2]. Attachment to those who are attached to women is the door to darkness, that is, saṁsāra. He describes the characteristics of the mahats with one and a half [verses]: mahānta …. ‘Virtuous’ (sādhavaḥ) means possessed of right conduct (sadācāra). [Mayi Īśe kṛta-sauhṛdārthāḥ means] They whose aim, that is, puruṣārtha, has been made affection (sauhṛdam) for me, Īśa. With the word ‘or’ (vā), he shows indifference to all else’s being a characteristic only of his [i.e., the characteristic of being indifferent to everything except one’s puruṣārtha is mentioned only in regard to the latter of the two types of mahāntas mentioned in the verse, that is, the type of mahānta whose puruṣārtha is prema for Īśa, because the word ‘or’ (vā) establishes a division in the qualificands of the qualifiers stated in the verses and thus indicates that there are two different types of mahāntas being defined]. [The mahāntas of this latter type, furthermore, are unpossessed of affinity] For persons fixated upon affairs related to bodily maintenance, that is, matters specifically of the mundane (viṣaya) and not matters of dharma, and [unpossessed of affinity] for homes accompanied by a wife and so on. Rātiḥ means friends or wealth. There is jāyādi-pradeṣu in a variant reading [in which case the meaning is that these mahāntas are unpossessed of affinity for houses that beget a wife, children, and so on]. Also, [these mahāntas are] ‘possessed of only so much wealth’ (yāvad-arthāḥ), meaning, their wealth (arthaḥ) is only to the extent required. This [i.e., yāvad-arthāḥ] is a compound wherein the middle word is dropped. The meaning is that they are free from desire for anything beyond the maintenance of the body.”

vimukteḥ viśiṣṭāyā mukteḥ śrī-vaikuṇṭha-loka-prāpti-lakṣaṇāyāḥ, tamasaḥ saṁsārasya narakasya vā dvāram, sādhavaḥ śāstrānuvartinaḥ || … pūrvaṁ ‘mahāntas te sama-cittāḥ praśāntāḥ’ ity ardha-ślokena mahatāṁ sāmānya-lakṣaṇam uktvā idānīṁ mukhya-lakṣaṇam āha—mayi īśe bhagavati kṛtaṁ sauhṛdaṁ premaiva arthaḥ puruṣārthaṁ yeṣāṁ te | vā-śabdenānya-nirapekṣasyaivāsya lakṣaṇatvaṁ darśitam | tad-bāhya-liṅgam āha—dehaṁ bibhartīti dehambharā viṣaya-vārttā eva na dharmādi-viṣaya-vārtāpi yeṣu | yad vā dehambhareva vārttā jīvanopāya-dhanādir na tu bhagavat-pūjādy-arthā yeṣāṁ teṣu janeṣu gṛheṣu ca jāyādi-yukteṣu na prīti-yuktāḥ | rātir mitraṁ dhanaṁ vā | loke yāvad-arthāś ca yāvad-artham evārtho yeṣāṁ madhya-pada-lopī samāsaḥ | deha-nirvāhādhika-spṛhā-śūnyā ity arthaḥ | yad vā nanu prīty-abhāvād dehādīnām upekṣāpattyā deha-nirvāhaḥ katham astu? tatrāha—loke yāvān artho’sti sa evārtho yeṣāṁ, lokāḥ prārabdha-vaśena svayam eva svadhanādinā tad-deha-poṣaṇādikaṁ kuryur iti bhāvaḥ | pūrvam āsakti-rahitatoktā | anāsaktau ca kathañcit kadācit kutrāpi prītir api ghaṭeta | kintu āsakty-abhāvān nirmūlā vinaśvarā ca | tatra ca sarvathā sarvadā sarvatra prīti-rāhityam evoktam | ato’sya lakṣaṇasya pūrvato’pi śraiṣṭhyaṁ draṣṭavyam |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.17, 69)

“[Service to the mahats is said to be] The door to ‘ultimate mukti’ (vimukteḥ), the characteristic of which is attainment of blessed Vaikuṇṭhaloka, and [attachment to those who are attached to women is said to be the door] to ‘darkness’(tamasaḥ), that is, saṁsāra, or, naraka. ‘Virtuous’ (sādhavaḥ) means adherent to śāstra.

“After having previously describes the common characteristics of mahats with the half verse, ‘Mahāntas are they who are of equal mind …,’ he now describes the primary characteristics [of mahāntas]: they whose aim, that is, puruṣārtha, has been made affection (sauhṛdam), that is, prema, for me, Īśa, Bhagavān. With the word ‘or’ (vā), he shows indifference to all else’s being a characteristic only of his [i.e., the characteristic of being indifferent to everything except one’s puruṣārtha is mentioned only in regard to the latter of the two types of mahāntas mentioned in the verse, that is, the type of mahānta whose puruṣārtha is prema for Īśa, because the word ‘or’ (vā) establishes a division in the qualificands of the qualifiers stated in the verses and thus indicates that there are two different types of mahāntas being defined]. He [then] describes the external signs of this: they are unpossessed of affinity for persons fixated upon affairs related to bodily maintenance, that is, matters specifically of the mundane (viṣaya) and not matters pertaining to dharma and so forth, or alternately, [they are unpossessed of affinity for persons] whose livelihood (vārttā), that is, means of living, wealth, and so on, are [used for] mere bodily maintenance and not rather for the sake of worship and so forth of Bhagavān, and [these mahāntas are unpossessed of affinity for] houses accompanied by a wife and so on. Rātiḥ means friends or wealth. Also, [these mahāntas are] ‘possessed of only so much wealth’ (yāvad-arthāḥ), meaning, their wealth (arthaḥ) is only to the extent required. This [i.e., yāvad-arthāḥ] is a compound wherein the middle word is dropped. The meaning is that they are free from desire for anything beyond the maintenance of the body. Alternately, [prior to the mention of yāvad-arthāḥ, a question is raised,] ‘Well, how shall the maintenance of the body occur [for these mahāntas] in this state of disregard for the body and so forth as a result of an absence of affinity [for the body and so forth as has just been described]?” To this, he says, [the mahāntas are] they whose wealth is verily as great as [all] wealth that exists in the world (yāvad-arthāḥ) [i.e., the mahāntas are they whose wealth is all the wealth that exists in the world], the purport being that the people [of the world], under influence of prārabdha [i.e., their commenced karma], shall with their own wealth and so on verily of their own accord bring about the nourishment and so forth of their [i.e., these mahāntas’] bodies [and thus all the wealth in the world is there for the sustenance of these mahāntas]. [Still, one may wonder how it is that these mahāntas can live in this world and not at least feel some degree of affinity for someone at least sometimes, and if they feel at least a little affinity at least in some cases, how is it that they do not become bound by that? In this regard, he explains:] Previously the mahāntas were said to be free from attachment. In the midst of [their] non-attachment, furthermore, affinity shall [indeed] also come about somehow somewhere sometimes, but that will be rootless and very transitory because of an absence of attachment [within it to any such object of nominal affinity]. [Thus,] In this regard, furthermore, the veritable absence of affinity [on their part] always everywhere in all cases is stated.”

mahad iti yugmakam | tatra mahānta iti sārdhakam | tad evaṁ brahma-saukhyasya nirviśeṣa-saviśeṣatā-bhedena teṣu satsu ye mahāntas teṣāṁ dvaividhya-pratipādakaṁ mahatāṁ dvaividhyam āha—mahānta iti | ye sama-cittā nirviśeṣa-brahma-niṣṭhā abheda-darśinaḥ, te mahāntaḥ | teṣāṁ śīlaṁ ca sādhanāny āha—praśāntā ity ādinā | punar uttarān mahad-viśeṣān āha—ye veti | vā-śabdaḥ pakṣāntare | uttara-pakṣatvād asyaiva śraiṣṭhyam | mayi kṛtaṁ siddhaṁ yat sauhṛdaṁ prema, tad evārthaḥ parama-puruṣārtho yeṣāṁ tathābhūtā ye te mahānta iti pūrveṇānvayaḥ | teṣām śīlaṁ ca sādhanāny āha—janeṣv ity-ādinā | yato mayi sauhṛdārthās tata eva dehambhara-vārttikeṣu viṣaya-vārttā-niṣṭheṣu janeṣu tathā geheṣu jāyātmaja-bandhu-varga-yukteṣu na prīti-yuktāḥ, kintu yāvad-arthā yāvān arthaḥ śrī-bhagavad-bhajanānurūpaṁ prayojanam, tāvān evārtho dhanaṁ yeṣāṁ tathābhūtā ity arthaḥ | yad vā, yāvān artho mat-sauhṛdamaya-bhaktiḥ, tāvān tad-anurūpa eva, na tv adhika-nyūno’rtho dhanaṁ yeṣāṁ te | ubhayor mahattvaṁ ca mahājñānitvān mahābhāgavatatvāc ca, na tu dvayoḥ sāmyābhiprāyeṇa ‘muktānām api’ ity-ādy-ukteḥ | atra jñāna-mārge brahmānubhavino mahānto bhakti-mārge labdha-bhagavat-premāṇo mahānta iti lakṣaṇa-sāmānyam iti jñeyam |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)

“Mahat … [i.e., SB 5.5.2–3] is a pair [i.e., it is a statement that spans two verses]. Therein, mahāntaḥ … is one and a half [i.e., the statement that begins with the word mahānta spans one and a half of these two verses]. Thus, in this way, he describes a twofold nature of mahats that is indicative of a twofold nature of the mahāntas among the sat on the basis of a distinction between non-differentiatedness (nirviśeṣatā) and differentiatedness (saviśeṣatā) in the bliss of Brhaman [i.e., mahāntas are regarded as being of two different types because they have two different types of experience of Brahman; one type experiences non-differentiated Brahman and the other type experiences differentiated Brahman, that is, Bhagavān]: mahāntaḥ … [i.e., he speaks the latter one and half lines of the two verses]. Those who are ‘of equal mind’ (sama-cittāḥ), that is, seers of non-distinction and fixed in [experience of] non-differentiated Brahman, are mahāntas. He describes their character and means [of practice]: praśāntāḥ … [i.e., he describes them as tranquil, free from anger, friendly, and virtuous (praśāntā vimanyavaḥ suhṛdaḥ sādhavo ye)]. Then, he describes a superior, special category of mahat: ye vā … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.5.3]. The word ‘or’ (vā) is [stated] in regard to an alternative [i.e., a different category of mahānta]. He [i.e., this second type of mahānta] specifically has superiority [to the first type of mahānta] because of being the latter alternative [i.e., this second type of mahānta’s being mentioned second implies that this second type of mahānta is superior to the first type]. They whose sole aim, that is, ultimate puruṣārtha, has been made, that is, established, to be affection (sauhṛdam), that is, prema, for me are mahāntas. This is the syntactical order with the previous [verse]. He [then] describes their character and means [of practice]: janeṣu … [i.e., he speaks the final half of the second verse]. Specifically because their aim is affection [i.e., prema] for me, they are unpossessed of affinity for persons fixated upon affairs related to bodily maintenance, that is, matters of the mundane (viṣaya), and [unpossessed of affection for] homes accompanied by a wife, children, and friends. Rather, they are ‘possessed of only so much wealth’ (yāvad-arthaḥ), that is, they have wealth (arthaḥ) only to an extent that is conducive to worship of Śrī Bhagavān. This is the meaning. Alternately, [‘possessed of only so much wealth’ (yāvad-arthaḥ) means] they who have wealth (arthaḥ) only to an extent that is conducive to their aim, that is, affectionate bhakti to me, and not, rather, more or less [than that].

“The greatness of them both [i.e., of the two aforementioned types of mahāntas] is because of [their respectively] being a great jñānī and a great bhāgavata, and rather [is] not [stated] with the the intent of [conveying that there is] equality [in greatness] between the two, as per the statement [in SB 6.14.5, which shows the superiority of a bhāgavata to a jñānī], ‘Even among crores of even muktas and siddhas [i.e., even among crores of the greatest among the jñānīs], someone of completely peaceful mind whose complete shelter is Nārāyaṇa [i.e., a great bhāgavata] is extremely rare to find.’ In this regard, on the path of jñāna, one who has experience [i.e., realization] of Brahman is a mahānta, and on the path of bhakti, one who has attained prema for Bhagavān is a mahānta. This is the common characteristic to be understood [i.e., because both great jñānīs and great bhāgavatas have personal spiritual experience of Tat—the Supreme Entity (Para-tattva)—be it the Brahman or Bhagavān aspect thereof, they are both called mahāntas even though they are not actually of equal greatness (mahattva) since a great bhāgavatas is implied to be categorically superior to a great jñānī in the verse under discussion and elsewhere in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam].”

sat-saṅga eva tat-sāmmukhye dvāram ity uktam | te ca santas tat-sammukhā evātra gṛhyante, na tu vaidikācāra-mātra-parā anupayogitvāt | tatra yādṛśaḥ sat-saṅgas tādṛśam eva sāmmukhyaṁ bhavatīti vaktuṁ teṣu satsu ye mahāntas teṣāṁ dvaividhyam āha sārdhena—mahānta iti | ye sama-cittā nirviśeṣa-brahma-niṣṭhāḥ, te mahāntaḥ | teṣāṁ śīlam āha—praśāntā ity-ādi | mahad-viśeṣam āha—ye vā iti | vā-śabdaḥ pakṣāntare | uttara-pakṣatvād asyaiva śraiṣṭhyam | mayi kṛtaṁ siddhaṁ yat sauhṛdaṁ prema, tad eva arthaḥ parama-puruṣārtho yeṣāṁ tathā-bhūtā ye te mahānta iti pūrveṇānvayaḥ | yato mayi sauhṛdārthās tata eva dehambhara-vārttikeṣu viṣaya-vārtā-niṣṭheṣu janeṣu tathā geheṣu jāyātmaja-bandhu-varga-yukteṣu na prīti-yuktāḥ, kintu yāvad-arthā yāvān arthaḥ śrī-bhagavad-bhajanānurūpaṁ prayojanaṁ tāvān evārtho dhanaṁ yeṣāṁ tathābhūtā ity arthaḥ | ubhayor mahattvaṁ ca mahājñānitvān mahābhāgavatatvāc ca, na tu dvayoḥ sāmyābhiprāyeṇa ‘muktānām api siddhānāṁ nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇaḥ’ ity-ādy-ukteḥ | atra jñāna-mārge brahmānubhavino mahānto bhakti-mārge labdha-bhagavat-premāṇo mahānta iti lakṣaṇa-sāmānyam iti jñeyam |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 186)

“It has been said that sat-saṅga is the only gateway to intentness upon Tat [i.e., the Supreme Entity (Para-tattva), be it intentness upon the Brahman or Bhagavān aspect thereof]. And in this regard only those who are intent upon Tat are accepted as the sat, and not, rather, those who are merely adherent to Vedic conduct because of [those merely adherent to conduct’s] being unsuitable [i.e., intentness upon Tat is the primary characteristic of sādhutva (being a sādhu), and because those who lack this characteristic, regardless of whether they are formally adherent to Vedic conduct or not, are not sādhus in the true sense, their association is unsuitable for those seeking intentness upon Tat, that is, sādhutva, because it will not give rise to such intentness]. To explain [the principle] in this regard, ‘As is the sat-saṅga [one receives], so exactly is the intentness [upon Tat that one acquires, be it focused on the Brahman or Bhagavān aspect thereof],’ Śrī Rṣabhadeva describes the twofold nature of the mahāntas among the sat [i.e., the two natures found within the greatest among the sat] with one and a half [verses]: mahāntaḥ … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.5.2–3]. Those who are ‘of equal mind’ (sama-cittāḥ), that is, fixed in [experience of] non-differentiated Brahman, are mahāntas. He describes their character: praśāntāḥ … [i.e., he describes them as tranquil, free from anger, friendly, and virtuous (praśāntā vimanyavaḥ suhṛdaḥ sādhavo ye)]. [Then,] He describes a special category of mahat: ye vā … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.5.3]. The word ‘or’ (vā) is [stated] in regard to an alternative [i.e., a different category of mahānta]. He [i.e., this second type of mahānta] specifically has superiority [to the first type of mahānta] because of being the latter alternative [i.e., this second type of mahānta’s being mentioned second implies that this second type of mahānta is superior to the first type]. They whose sole aim, that is, ultimate puruṣārtha, has been made, that is, established, to be affection (sauhṛdam), that is, prema, for me are mahāntas. This is the syntactical order with the previous [verse]. Specifically because their aim is affection [i.e., prema] for me, they are unpossessed of affinity for persons fixated upon affairs related to bodily maintenance, that is, matters of the mundane (viṣaya), and [unpossessed of affection for] homes accompanied by a wife, children, and friends. Rather, they are ‘possessed of only so much wealth’ (yāvad-arthaḥ), that is, they have wealth (arthaḥ) only to an extent that is conducive to worship of Śrī Bhagavān. This is the meaning.

manuṣya-dehād evoddhāro’dhaḥpātaś ca bhavatīti | tayoḥ kāraṇam api manuṣya-dehe’stīty āha—mahad iti | vimukter vividha-mukteḥ | brahma-saukhyaṁ hy anantam iti pūrvokter brahma-saukhyasya ca nirviśeṣa-saviśeṣa-brahma-sambandhitvena dvaividhyān muktir api sāyujyaṁ bhaktimat-pārṣadatvaṁ ceti dvividhā vi-śabdād vyākhyeyā | mahadbhyo’pi dvividhā brahmopāsakā bhagavad-upāsakāś ca | teṣāṁ lakṣaṇaṁ tantreṇaivāha—sama-cittā abheda-darśinaḥ, akuṭila-cittāś ca | praśāntāḥ praśamādi-yuktāḥ, bhagavan-niṣṭhā-buddhayaś ca ‘śamo man-niṣṭhatā buddheḥ’ iti bhagavad-ukteḥ | vimanyava ity ādi viśeṣaṇa-trayam ubhayatra tulyārtham | sādhavaḥ para-doṣāgrāhiṇaḥ | uttareṣām asādhāraṇaṁ lakṣaṇaṁ punar āha—mayi īśe kṛtaṁ sauhṛdaṁ prītir eva arthaḥ puruṣārtho yeṣāṁ, mat-prīter anyad vastu ye puruṣārthaṁ na manyanta ity arthaḥ | vā-śabdenānya-nirapekṣasyāsyaiva lakṣaṇatvaṁ darśayati iti śrī-svāmi-caraṇāḥ | dehambharāṇāṁ bhojana-pānādy-āsaktānāṁ yā vārtā jīvikāḥ kathā vā tābhir eva ye dīvyanti teṣu janeṣu jāyādi-yukteṣu gṛheṣu ca vidyamāneṣv api na prīti-yuktāḥ | rātir dhanam | nanu tarhi kim arthaṁ teṣu gṛheṣu tiṣṭhantīti? tatrāha yāvadbhir eva dhanādibhir artho mat-pāda-sevanādy-ātmikā bhaktir bhavet tāvanta evopādeyā yeṣāṁ te, tāvad ādi-padānāṁ vṛttāv antarbhāvaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)

“Deliverance and downfall both occur by means of the human body. The cause of them both is also present in the human body [i.e., in human life]. Thus, he says mahad … [i.e., he speaks SB 5.5.2]. [The word] Vimukteḥ refers to mukti of various types. On account of the twofold nature of [experience of] the bliss of Brahman based on [its] being related to non-differentiated (nirviśeṣa) [Brahman] or differentiated (saviśeṣa) Brahman as per the previous statement [in SB 5.5.1], ‘The infinite bliss of Brahman,’ mukti too being twofold, that is, [its being either] sāyujya or [that of] being an associate (pārṣada) [of Bhagavān] possessed of bhakti, is to be explained [in this case] on the basis of the prefix vi [in the word vimukteḥ i.e., in this verse the word vimukti should be understood to refer to multiple types of mukti because the ‘bliss of Brahman’ spoken of in the previous verse refers to both the sāyujya-mukti attained by jñānī-mahāntas and the other types of mukti attained by bhakta-mahāntas]. There is a twofold nature of the mahats as well: [they are either] upāsakas (seekers) of Brahman or upāsakās of Bhagavān. He describes their characteristics specifically with a tantra [i.e., with an intended double meaning of words, that is, by means of using the words in the verse to describe the characteristics of two different types of mahāntas by way of their being employed to convey two different intended senses, one for the mahāntas who are upāsakas of Brahman, and the other for the mahāntas who are upāsakas of Bhagavān]. ‘Of equal mind’ (sama-cittāḥ) refers to seers of non-distinction [in reference to upāsakas of Brahman] and to those of non-crooked heart [in reference to upāsakas of Bhagavān]. ‘Tranquil’ (praśāntāḥ) refers to those possessed of stillness [of mind] and so forth [in reference to upāsakas of Brahman] and those whose intellect has fixity upon Bhagavān [in reference to upāsakas of Bhagavān] as per the statement of Bhagavān [in SB 11.19.36], ‘“Equanimity is fixity upon me of the intellect.’ The three qualifiers [then stated in the verse] beginning with ‘free from anger’ (vimanyavaḥ) [i.e., followed by ‘friendly’ (suhṛdaḥ) and ‘virtuous’ (sādhavaḥ)] have the same meaning [in reference to both types of mahāntas]. ‘Virtuous’ (sādhavaḥ) refers to those who do not take on the faults of others.

“He further describes the exceptional characteristics of the latter [type of mahāntas, that is, those who are upāsakas of Bhagavān]: [Mayi Īśe kṛta-sauhṛdārthāḥ means] They whose aim, that is, puruṣārtha, has been made to be affection (sauhṛdam), that is, prīti, for me, Īśa, meaning, they who do not accept any object other than prīti for me to be a puruṣārtha. According to Śrī Svāmīpāda, with the word ‘or’ (vā), he shows indifference to all else’s being a characteristic only of his [i.e., the characteristic of being indifferent to everything except one’s puruṣārtha is mentioned only in regard to the latter of the two types of mahāntas mentioned in the verse, that is, the type of mahānta who is an upāsaka of Bhagavān whose puruṣārtha is prema for Īśa, because the word ‘or’ (vā) establishes a division in the qualificands of the qualifiers stated in the verses and thus indicates that there are two different types of mahāntas being defined]. [The mahāntas of this latter type, furthermore, are] Unpossessed of affinity for persons who enjoy specifically by means of the livelihood or talks of those fixated upon affairs related to bodily maintenance, that is, those who are attached to eating, drinking, and so on, and [unpossessed of affinity for] even presently existent houses accompanied by a wife and so. Rātiḥ means wealth.

“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, then for what purpose do they remain in those houses?’ In that regard, he says [yāvad-arthāḥ, meaning, he further describes this latter type of mahāntas as] they for whom wealth and so forth are acceptable only to the extent that their aim—bhakti constituted of attendant service to my feet and so forth—shall be [accomplished]. There is [thus implied] inclusion of the words ‘to that extent’ (tāvat) and so on in the usage [of the word yāvat].”

Commentary

Categories