फल्गुवैराग्यनिर्दग्धाः शुष्कज्ञानाश्च हैतुकाः ।
मीमांसका विशेषेण भक्त्यास्वादबहिर्मुखाः ॥
इत्येष भक्तिरसिकैश्चौरादिव महानिधिः ।
जरन्मीमांसकाद्रक्ष्यः कृष्णभक्तिरसः सदा ॥
phalgu-vairāgya-nirdagdhāḥ śuṣka-jñānāś ca haitukāḥ |
mīmāṁsakā viśeṣeṇa bhakty-āsvāda-bahirmukhāḥ ||
ity eṣa bhakti-rasikaiś caurād iva mahānidhiḥ |
jaran-mīmāṁsakād rakṣyaḥ kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasaḥ sadā ||
(Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 2.5.129–130)
“Those burnt by useless non-attachment, those of dry knowledge, logicians, and in particular examiners (mīmāṁsakas) are averse to relishing bhakti. Thus, like a great treasure from a thief, this Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa is always to be protected from old mīmāṁsakas [and to be protected as appropriate from the others] by bhakti-rasikas.”
Commentary
atha pūrvoktān ajñādīn rasānadhikāriṇa āha—phalgu-vairāgyeti | phalgu-vairāgyaṁ bhakty-udāsīnādi-vairāgyam | śuṣka-jñānaṁ bhakty-udāsīnādi-jñānaṁ | haitukās tarka-mātra-niṣṭhāḥ | mīmāṁsakāḥ karma-vādinaḥ pūrva-mīmāṁsakās tathā dvaita-mātra-mithyā-vādinaḥ kecid uttara-mīmāṁsakammanyāḥ | eṣām uttarottaraṁ parihāryatvādhikyam | tārkikāṇāṁ ca keṣāñcit kautukenādhītālaṅkārādīnāṁ rasa-sādhāraṇyāt kiñcid atra praveśaḥ syād iti mīmāṁsakāt pūrvatra pāṭhaḥ | atra grāmyāḥ phalgu-vairāgya-nirdagdhāḥ, anye tv ajñā jñeyāḥ |yasmāt sarve’pi mīmāṁsakā viśeṣeṇa bhakty-āsvāda-bahirmukhā iti hetor eṣa kṛṣṇa-bhakti-raso jaran-mīmāṁsakāt tu sadā viśeṣeṇa rakṣyo gopya iti pūrveṇānvayād anyebhyo’pi phalgu-vairāgya-nirdagdhādibhyo yathāyathaṁ rakṣya iti labhyate | tatra caurād iva mahānidhir iti dṛṣṭāntas tu tena tad-riktī-karaṇa-mātrāpekṣayā, na tu tenāpi tasya lobhyatvam ity apekṣayā | vahner iveti tu pāṭhāntaram |
(Durgama-saṅgamanī-ṭīkā)
“Now, the author describes the aforementioned non-bearers of eligibility for rasa, that is, the unknowing and so forth [who were spoken of in BRS 2.5.123]: phalgu-vairāgya … [i.e., he states BRS 2.5.129–130]. ‘Useless non-attachment’ (phalgu-vairāgya) refers to non-attachment that is indifferent and so on [i.e., or averse] to bhakti. ‘Dry knowledge’ (śuṣka-jñāna) refers to knowledge that is indifferent and so on [i.e., or averse] to bhakti. ‘Logicians’ (haitukāḥ) refers to those with fixity only in reasoning (tarka). ‘Examiners’ (mīmāṁsakāḥ) refers to proponents of karma, that is, pūrva-mīmāṁsakas, and proponents of the falsity of all duality, that is, some who consider themselves uttara-mīmāṁsakas. A greater extent in their being to be avoided is successive [i.e., the aforementioned classes are listed in order from lesser to greater in terms of the extent to which they are to be avoided by bhaktas]. Some rationalists (tārkikas) [i.e., ‘logicians’ (haitukāḥ)] who have studied figures of speech and the like [i.e., kāvya] out of curiosity can have some entrance here [i.e., into bhakti] because of the universality of rasa. Thus, the reading [i.e., mention of them] is before the examiner (mīmāṁsaka) [in the verse under discussion, i.e., thus mīmāṁsakas are considered more averse to relishing bhakti than logicians (haitukāḥ)]. In this regard, it is to be understood that ‘those burnt by useless non-attachment’ (phalgu-vairāgya-nirdagdhāḥ) are the worldly [spoken of in BRS 2.5.123], whereas the others are the unknowing [spoken of in BRS 2.5.123, i.e., those who are non-conversant with rasa-śāstra although knowledgable in regard to other śāstras and thus unable to understand the core of the rasa-laden hearts of bhaktas who relish rasa (bhāvaka-bhaktas) and the companions of Śrī Bhagavān in his līlās (bhāvya-bhaktas)]. Because even among all [of the aforementioned classes], examiners (mīmāṁsakas) in particular are averse to relishing bhakti, this Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa is always in particular to be protected, that is, kept away, from old examiners (mīmāṁsakas). As per this syntactic relation with the previous [sentence in the previous verse, the implication], ‘[Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa] Is to be protected from the others as well, that is, those burnt by useless non-attachment and so forth, as appropriate’ is understood [to be intend in the second verse as well]. In this regard, the illustration, ‘Like a great treasure from a thief’ (caurād iva mahānidhiḥ) is [stated] with reference only to the act of [potentially] taking that away by one [i.e., by an old mīmāṁsaka], and not with reference to its [i.e., Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa’s] being an object of intense desire for one as well [i.e., for an old mīmāṁsaka as well, since a great treasure typically is an object of intense desire for a thief]. ‘Like [a great treasure] from a fire’ is another reading [which would similarly convey by means of comparison the necessity of protecting Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa but avoid the potential implication that Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa is something desirable to those from whom it needs to be protected from, which the mention of a thief in the prior reading can create].”
Śrī Cakravartīpāda follows Śrī Jīvapāda’s commentary on the verse but adds one additional point at the end:
ata eva bahirmukhānāṁ rase lobhābhāve’pi na kṣatiḥ |
“Therefore, even in the case of the absence of intense desire for rasa on the part of the averse [i.e., on the part of those who are averse to relishing bhakti], there is no harm [since Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-rasa is meant to be kept away from such persons anyway].”