पृष्टं मयेदं भगवन्धरातले
तिष्ठन्ति याः श्रीप्रतिमा महाप्रभोः ।
ताः सच्चिदानन्दघनास्त्वया मता
नीलाद्रिनाथः पुरुषोत्तमो यथा ॥
एकोऽपि भगवान्सान्द्रसच्चिदानन्दविग्रहः ।
कृपया तत्र तत्रास्ते तत्तद्रूपेण लीलया ॥
तत्सर्वनैरपेक्ष्येन को दोषः स्यात्तदर्चने ।
कथञ्चित्क्रियमाणेऽपि महालाभोऽपि बुध्यते ॥
ततः कथं पुराणेभ्यः श्रूयन्ते तत्तदुक्तयः ।
अप्रमाणं च ता न स्युर्महन्मुखविनिःसृताः ॥
pṛṣṭaṁ mayedaṁ bhagavan dharā-tale
tiṣṭhanti yāḥ śrī-pratimā mahāprabhoḥ |
tāḥ sac-cid-ānanda-ghanās tvayā matā
nīlādri-nāthaḥ puruṣottamo yathā ||
eko’pi bhagavān sāndra-sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ |
kṛpayā tatra tatrāste tat-tad-rūpeṇa līlayā ||
tat sarva-nairapekṣyena ko doṣaḥ syāt tad-arcane |
kathañcit kriyamāṇe’pi mahālābho’pi budhyate ||
tataḥ kathaṁ purāṇebhyaḥ śrūyante tat-tad-uktayaḥ |
apramāṇaṁ ca tā na syur mahan-mukha-viniḥsṛtāḥ ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.4.202–205)
“This was asked by me, ‘O illustrious one [i.e., O Śrī Nārada], these beautiful images of the Supreme Lord which dwell on the surface of the earth, such as the Lord of Nīlādri, Puruṣottama [viz., Śrī Jagannāthadeva], are considered by you to be [constituted of] condensed eternal being, consciousness, and bliss. Although one, Bhagavān, he who is condensed eternal being, consciousness, and bliss in form, is present for the sake of līlā in various places in various figures [i.e., images] graciously [i.e., to favor his bhaktas and to benefit the whole world]. Therefore, what fault could there be in worship of them [i.e., in worship of those images of Śrī Bhagavān] with indifference towards all else [i.e., with one-pointed bhakti whereby one remains indifferent towards all modalities other than bhakti, such as dharma, karma, and yoga]? [Rather,] Even when being performed somehow or other [i.e., rightly or wrongly], even great benefit is understood [to occur as a result of worship of these images of Śrī Bhagavān]. So, why are those statements heard from the Purāṇas [i.e., why are there statements which indicate that a fault can occur as a result of performing worship of an image of Śrī Bhagavān]? They cannot also be devoid of authority. They have emanated from the mouths of mahats.”
Commentary
yadyapi tat-tad-varṣādau sthitāḥ śrī-saṅkarṣaṇādayo bhāratavarṣe’pi tat-tat-kṣetra-puryādau vartamānāḥ śrī-raṅganāthādayaḥ sākṣād-bhagavān iva te sarve’pi śraddhayā pūjyā eva, tatra na kasyāpi vaimatyaṁ sambhavati, tathāpi tat-tad-vacaneṣu pratimā-śabda-śravaṇāt teṣām api līlayā pratimā-sādṛśyāt pratimā-vargāntarbhāvānumānena tad-arcane’pi saṁśayena sāmānyataḥ praśna … |
(Excerpt from the Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Although Śrī Saṅkarṣaṇa and others situated in their respective regions and also all those [deities] such as Śrī Raṅganātha present in their respective abodes, cities, and so on also in the region of Bhārata are certainly worshipable with śraddhā as though they are Bhagavān [present] in person [i.e., as Bhagavān himself], and [although] no difference of opinion is possible on anyone’s part in that regard, still [just] because of hearing the word ‘image’ (pratimā) in those various statements [in the Purāṇas that speak of there being some impropriety in image worship], there is a question in general [that can arise] because of doubt even in regard to [the propriety of] worship (arcana) of them by way of an inference [potentially being made by some] of [those images of Śrī Bhagavān’s] inclusion among images [i.e., of their being regarded as merely images—statutes—and not as manifest forms of Śrī Bhagavān himself] on account just of their similarity to an image because of [their] līlā [i.e., because of their acting like a ‘mere’ image in so far as they generally are not perceived to move, speak, and so on, which is unlike Śrī Bhagavān himself in that he is known to always be freely engaged in movement, speech, and so on].”