न ह्यङ्गोपक्रमे ध्वंसो मद्धर्मस्योद्धवाण्वपि ।
मया व्यवसितः सम्यङ्निर्गुणत्वादनाशिषः ॥
na hy aṅgopakrame dhvaṁso mad-dharmasyoddhavāṇv api |
mayā vyavasitaḥ samyaṅ nirguṇatvād anāśiṣaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.29.20; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.527; Rāga-vartma-candrikā: 1.12)
“Indeed, O Uddhava, there is certainly no loss even slightly in an undertaking of dharma related to me that is without interest in benedictions since it is determined to be proper by me on account of [its] being beyond the guṇas.”
Alternate translation based on the Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā:
“Indeed, O Uddhava, there is certainly no loss in an undertaking of dharma related to me even slightly by one who is without interest in benedictions because of [its] being beyond the guṇas since it is determined to be complete by me.”
Commentary
bhagavad-dharma-lakṣaṇopāyasya samīcīnatvam evopapādayati dvābhyām—na hīti | aṅga he uddhava ! anāśiṣo niṣkāmasya mad-dharmasyopakrame saty aṇv api īṣad api vaiguṇyādibhir nāśo nāsty eva, yato mayaiva nirguṇatvād ayaṁ dharmaḥ samyag vyavasito niścito, na tu manv-ādi-mukhena kathañcit |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“He [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] teaches the definitive appropriateness of the means in the form of dharma related to Bhagavān (Bhagavad-dharma) with two [verses]: na hi … [i.e., he speaks this and the following verse]. Indeed, O Uddhava, there is certainly no loss as a result of defectiveness or otherwise even slightly when there is an undertaking (upakrame) of dharma related to me that is without interest in benedictions (anāśiṣaḥ), meaning, desireless (niṣkāma), since this dharma is determined to be proper by my very self, and not, rather, perchance by the mouth of Manu or others, on account of [its] being beyond the guṇas.”
aṅga he uddhava! anāśiṣo niṣkāmasya, yad vā, na vidyate āśīr yasmāt satāṁ paramāśīrvāda-rūpasyety arthaḥ, upakrame ārambhe sati aṇv api īṣad api vaiguṇyādibhir nāśo nāsty eva, yato mamaiva nirguṇatvād ayaṁ dharmaḥ samyag vyavasito niścitaḥ, na tu manv-ādi-mukhena kathañcit | yad vā, nirāśiṣo mokṣasya nirguṇatvāt phala-viśeṣābhāvāt samyak tasmād api samīcīnam ity ayaṁ vyavasita iti |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.527)
“Indeed, O Uddhava, there is certainly no loss as a result of defectiveness or otherwise even slightly when there is an undertaking (upakrame) [of dharma related to me that is] without interest in benedictions (anāśiṣaḥ), meaning, desireless (niṣkāma), or, alternately, meaning, [dharma related to me that is] a form of the supreme benediction of the sat in comparison to which there is no [greater, or, true] benediction, since this dharma is determined to be proper by my very self, and not, rather, perchance by the mouth of Manu or others, on account of [its] being beyond the guṇas. Alternately, this [dharma] is determined to be proper, that is, appropriate, more so than that state beyond benedictions, viz., mokṣa, because of that’s [i.e., mokṣa’s] being without qualities (nirguṇa), meaning, [mokṣa’s being] devoid of any special result [i.e., devoid of a result superior to the result of an undertaking of dharma related to me, meaning, bhakti].”
mad-dharmasya tu vighna eva nāsti, kutaḥ sahāya-cintanam ity āśayenāha—na hy aṅgeti |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“‘Dharma related to me, on the contrary, certainly has no obstruction. So, how could there be any worry about [a need for] assistance [in performing it]?’ With this intention, he [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] says na hi aṅga … [i.e., he speaks this verse].
bhakti-sāraṁ tribhiḥ ślokair jñāna-sāram athāṣṭabhiḥ |
procyānte punar apy āha bhakti-sārottamaṁ tribhiḥ ||
dharmāntarasya khalv ārabdhasya parisamāpti-paryantaṁ nairvighnena sāṅgopāṅgatve vṛtte eva phala-janakatā, anyathā tu vaiyarthyam eva yathā, na tathā bhakti-lakṣaṇasya mad-dharmasya niyamaḥ | asya punar ārambha-mātra eva parisamāpty-abhāve’py aṅga-hīnatve’pi na vaiyarthyam ity āha—na hīti | aṅga! he uddhava! mad-dharmasya bhakti-lakṣaṇasya upakrame ārambhe sati, yad vā, aṅgasyāpy upakrame sati, parisamāpty-abhāve’pi aṇv api īsad api dhvaṁso vaiguṇyādibhir nāśo nāsti, yato bhakti-lakṣaṇo’yaṁ mad-dharmo nirguṇaḥ | na hi guṇātītasya vastuno dhvaṁsaḥ sambhavet | yasmād ayam anāśiṣo niṣkāma-bhaktasya dharmo mayā samyag vyavasitaḥ | aṇu-mātro’py ayaṁ dharmaḥ samyak pūrṇa eva niścitaḥ | nātra kāraṇaṁ praṣṭavyam iyaṁ mama parameśvarataiveti bhāvaḥ | atra mad-dharma-padena jñāna-lakṣaṇo dharmo na vyākhyeyaḥ tasya nirguṇatvābhāvāt—‘kaivalyaṁ sāttvikaṁ jñānam’ iti bhagavad-ukteḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Having stated the essence of bhakti with three verses [viz., SB 11.20.9–11], and then the essence of jñāna with eight [verses, viz., 11.20.12–19], he [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] again lastly describes the ultimate essence of bhakti with three [verses, viz., SB 11.20.20–22]. As an undertaking of other dharmas has productiveness of the [intended] result only when performed with [all] parts and sub-parts without obstruction up to its full completion and otherwise has [i.e., results in] only fruitlessness, so dharma related to me in the form of bhakti has no such rule. Furthermore, there is no fruitlessness even in just an undertaking of it without even full completion [of it] and with even an absence of parts [of it]. Thus, he [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] says na hi … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. Indeed, O Uddhava, there is no loss (dhvaṁsa) as a result of defectiveness or otherwise when there is an undertaking (upakrame) of dharma related to me in the form of bhakti, and, alternately, when there is an undertaking even of some parts [of that] even slightly even in the absence of full completion [of that undertaking], since this dharma related to me in the form of bhakti is beyond the guṇas (nirguṇa) and loss of an existent that is beyond the guṇas is certainly impossible. [This dharma is beyond the guṇas] Because this dharma of one who is without interest in benedictions (anāśiṣaḥ), that is, of a desireless (niṣkāma) bhakta, is determined (vyavasitaḥ) complete (samyak) by me, meaning, this dharma even in minute measure is ascertained [by me] to verily be complete (pūrṇa) [i.e., to have no incompleteness or defectiveness and thus to be merit an allocation of the result of fully performing it even though it may have literally be performed only partially or with some defect]. [Furthermore,] The cause in this regard [i.e., of my determining it to verily be complete] is not to be inquired about. This is just my Supreme Īśvaraness. This is the purport. Here, the word ‘dharma related to me’ (mad-dharma) is not be explained as dharma in the form of jñāna because of the non-existence of its [i.e., jñāna‘s] being beyond the guṇas on account of the statement of Bhagavān [in SB 11.25.24], ‘Jñāna related to kaivalya [i.e., to the ātmā being distinct from the body and so on] is sāttvika.‘”