न ह्येकस्माद्गुरोर्ज्ञानं सुस्थिरं स्यात्सुपुष्कलम् ।
ब्रह्मैतदद्वितीयं वै गीयते बहुध र्षिभिः ॥
na hy ekasmād guror jñānaṁ susthiraṁ syāt supuṣkalam |
brahmaitad advitīyaṁ vai gīyate bahudha rṣibhiḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.9.31)
“Indeed knowledge [received] from one guru shall not become sufficiently steady and sufficiently extensive. This nondual Brahman is sung of by seers in numerous ways.”
Commentary
nanu kiṁ bahubhir gurubhiḥ? na hi śvetaketu-bhṛgu-pramukhair bahavo gurava āśritāḥ | tatrāha—na hy ekasmād iti | bahudhā saprapañca-niṣprapañca-bhedādibhiḥ | ayaṁ bhāvaḥ—naite paramārthopadeśa-guravaḥ kintv anvaya-vyatirekābhyām ātmany asambhāvanādi-mātra-nivartakāḥ, teṣāṁ bahutvaṁ yuktam eveti | jñāna-pradaṁ gurum ekam eva vakṣyati ‘mad-abhijñaṁ guruṁ śāntam upāsīta’ iti | uktaṁ ca ‘tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam’ iti |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, what [is the use] of many gurus? It is not that many gurus were taken shelter in by Śvetaketu, Bhṛgu, and others [i.e., other sages mentioned in the Upaniṣads whose conduct is considered authoritative].’ To this, he says na hy ekasmāt … [i.e., the avadhūta speaks this verse]. ‘In numerous ways’ (bahudhā) means with elaborated and non-elaborated divisions and so forth. The purport is this: these are not gurus of [i.e., who give] instructions related to the Supreme Object (Paramārtha) [i.e., the Self] but rather are negators just of [the notions of] impossibility and so on in regard to the Self by way of positive concomitance and negative concomitance (anvaya and vyatireka). [Thus,] Their plurality is certainly befitting. Accordingly, it will be said [in SB 11.10.5] that the bestower of knowledge, the guru, is indeed one, ‘One should approach a guru who is cognizant of me and peaceful.’ It has also been stated [in SB 11.3.21], ‘Therefore, one who wishes to know the highest means of benefit (śreyas) should take shelter in a guru.’”
nanv eka eva yogyo guruḥ kartavyaḥ | tasmād eva saparikaraṁ jñānaṁ setsyati | kiṁ vā matāntara-vijñā evānye praṣṭavyāḥ? kiṁ gurv-ābhāsair vyāvahārika-padārthaiḥ? ity āśaṅkyāha—na hīti | ekasmān mukhyād guror labdhaṁ supuṣkalaṁ susthiraṁ yaj jñānaṁ, tad api na syāt na sampadyate | kutaḥ? tatrāha—brahmeti | tat-tan-matena mati-bhaṅgād ity arthaḥ | tasmān mahāgurūpadiṣṭa-mata-poṣāya tad-viruddha-mata-nirasanāya ca sva-buddhyā mananārthaṁ vyāvahārika-padārthā eva gurutvena sambhāvitāḥ, na tu kāpilādi-matāntara-sthāpakā iti bhāvaḥ |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, just one qualified guru is to be accepted. Knowledge along with its retinue [i.e., all that needs to be learned primarily and secondarily] shall be attained from him alone. Why are others adept in other views to be questioned? [And] What [is the use] of worldly objects which are [merely] semblances of a guru?’ Expecting this [objection] he says na hi … [i.e.. the avadhūta speaks this verse]. Knowledge attained from one, that is, a primary, guru which is sufficiently extensive and sufficiently steady—even that shall not come about (syāt), that is, is not attained [i.e., one cannot attain sufficiently extensive and sufficiently steady knowledge from just one guru, that is, the person whom one accepts as one’s primary guru]. Why? in that regard he says Brahma … [i.e., he speaks the second half of the verse, that is, he says that Brahman has been taught in numerous different ways by various seers]. ‘Because of contradiction to [one’s] understanding by those various views’ is the meaning [i.e., one cannot attain sufficiently extensive and sufficiently steady knowledge from only one’s primary guru because seers have taught Brahman from different viewpoints in which they make numerous divisions, that is, different sets of classifications with different degrees of elaboration, regarding Brahman, and the understanding one acquires from just one guru will inevitably be contradicted or differed with when one hears those views of other seers]. Therefore, worldly objects specifically, and not rather the proponents of other views like that taught by [the non-theistic] Kapila, are regarded as gurus [by me] for the purpose of contemplation (mananam) with my own intellect for the sake of nourishing the view taught by the great guru [i.e., my primary guru] and for the sake of refuting contrary views. This is the purport [i.e., the avadhūta seeks to explain that the plurality of gurus he has accepted are not those who propound differing views but rather are objects in his environment that he has accepted as objects of contemplation to acquire full realization of the knowledge he has received from his primary guru, that is, the realized sādhu who taught him about Brahman].”
nanu ‘mad-abhijñaṁ guruṁ śāntam upāsīta’ iti, ‘tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam’ ity-ādy-uktibhya eka eva gurur āśrayaṇīyo’vagamyate | nāpi śvetaketu-bhṛgu-pramukhair bahavo gurava āśritāḥ | satyaṁ, mamāpi mantropadeṣṭā gurur eka eva upāsyo vartate | kintūpāsanāyām ānukūlya-prātikūlya-dṛṣṭāntī-bhūtā ete padārthāḥ parāmṛśya guru-kṛtā ity anvaya-vyatirekābhyāṁ me śikṣā-gurava evaite jñeyāḥ | tathāpi svāmi-caraṇair upanibaddhau ślokau—‘kapota-mīna-hariṇā kumārī-gaja-pannagāḥ | pataṅgaḥ kuraraś cāṣṭau heyārthe guruvo matāḥ || madhukṛn madhuhartā ca piṅgalā ca dvayos trayaḥ | upādeyārtha-vijñāne śeṣāḥ pṛthvy-ādayo matāḥ ||’ iti | śikṣā-gurūṇāṁ tu bāhulyam eva prāyo jñāna-dārḍhya-prayojakam ity āha—na hīti | nanu śikṣā-guravo’py abhijña-janā eva bhavyair āśriyante | satyam, abhijña-janānāṁ hi gautamādi-nānā-matānusāritvān mayā svajātīyās te kutra kutra katy anveṣṭavyā? ity āha—brahmeti | advitīyaṁ yad brahma, etat khalu sa-viśeṣa-nirviśeṣa-bheda-vibhedair bahudhaiva ṛṣibhir gīyate iti | ‘nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam’ ity abhiyukta-vākyāc ca | mayā vyavahārikā eva padārthāḥ śikṣā-guravaḥ kṛtā iti bhāvaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, as per statements such as these [i.e., SB 11.10.5], “One should approach a guru who is cognizant of me and peaceful,” and [SB 11.3.21], “Therefore, one who wishes to know the highest means of benefit (śreyas) should take shelter in a guru,” only one guru being fit to be taken shelter in is understood. Also, it is not that many gurus were taken shelter in by Śvetaketu, Bhṛgu, and others [i.e., other sages mentioned in the Upaniṣads whose conduct is considered authoritative].’ [In response to this objection, it can be said,] True. For me too, the mantra-instructor guru remains as the one and only object of adoration [i.e., source from whom I receive instruction about Brahman], but in regard to these objects that exist as illustrations of favorability and unfavorability in regard to the process of adoration (upāsanā) have been contemplated and made gurus [by me]. Thus, they are to be known only as instructing (śikṣā) gurus for me by way of positive concomitance and negative concomitance (anvaya and vyatireka). Still, there are the two verses composed by Svāmīcaraṇa [viz., Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda], ‘The pigeon, fish, deer, young girl, elephant, snake, moth, and osprey—these eight are regarded as gurus [by me] in regard to that which is to be abandoned. The bee, honey collector, and Piṅgalā—these three are [regarded as gurus by me] in regard to both [i.e., both what is to be abandoned and what is to be accepted]. The remaining [gurus spoken of earlier in the chapter], the earth and so forth, are considered [as gurus by me] in regard to understanding objects that are to be accepted.’ Thus, specifically the plurality of instructing gurus is rather for the most part causative of firmness in knowledge [i.e., these instructing gurus are not for acquiring new knowledge but for grasping more deeply the knowledge one has received from one’s mantra-guru]. Thus, he says na hi … [i.e., he speaks the second half of the verse, that is, he explains that seers speak about Brahman in numerous ways with the implication that it is not useful to go and hear all of their different viewpoints].