स वै पुंसां परो धर्मो यतो भक्तिरधोक्षजे ।
अहैतुक्यप्रतिहता ययात्मा सुप्रसीदति ॥
sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje |
ahaituky apratihatā yayātmā suprasīdati ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 1.2.6)
“That [dharma] because of which causeless and unobstructed bhakti to Adhokṣaja [i.e., Bhagavān, lit., ‘he who is transcendent’] can come to be, and by which the self [i.e., the mind] becomes fully satisfied, is alone the highest dharma for humanity.”
Commentary
yat khalu mahāpurāṇārambhe pṛṣṭaṁ sarva-śāstra-sāram aikāntikaṁ śreyo brūhīti tatrottaraṁ—sa vai ity-ādi | … bhaktis tat-kathā-śravaṇādiṣu rucir … | … tat-santoṣaṇārtham eva kṛto dharmaḥ paraḥ sarvataḥ śreṣṭhaḥ, na nivṛtti-mātra-lakṣaṇo’pi, vaimukhyāviśeṣāt | … tasyā bhakteḥ svarūpa-guṇam āha—svata eva sukha-rūpatvād ahaitukī phalāntarānusandhāna-rahitā | apratihatā tad-upari sukhada-padārthāntarābhāvāt kenāpi vyavadhātum aśakyā ca | jātāyāṁ ca tasyāṁ ruci-lakṣaṇāyāṁ bhaktyāṁ tayaiva śravaṇādi-lakṣaṇaḥ sādhana-bhaki-yogaḥ pravartitaḥ syāt |
(Excerpt from the Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā; Bhakti Sandarbha: 3)
“When it was asked at the beginning of the Mahāpurāṇa [i.e., Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (1.1.9), ‘Please tell us, what is the ultimate good [i.e., the supremely beneficial course of action], the essence of the entire śāstra?’ then the answer to that [question] began with this verse (sa vai …). … ‘Bhakti’ [here] means taste for hearing and so forth of narrations about him [i.e., Bhagavān]. … Dharma performed exclusively for the sake of satisfying him [i.e., Bhagavān] is the highest (para), that is, is superior to all [other forms of dharma], and dharma characterized only by renunciation (nivṛtti) [of the fruits of action or actions themselves] is not, since that is non-distinct from obliviousness [of Bhagavān]. … [Then] He [i.e., Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī] states this bhakti’s intrinsic quality: because of [its] being a form of happiness (sukha) purely in and of itself, it is ‘causeless’ (ahaitukī), that is, free from pursuit of [any] other result, and [it is] ‘unobstructed’ (apratihatā), that is, unable to be superseded by anything because of the absence [i.e., non-existence] of [any] other happiness-producing thing beyond it [i.e., anything that produces greater happiness than it does]. Furthermore, when this bhakti characterized by taste (ruci) manifests, sādhana-bhakti-yoga [i.e., the practice of bhakti as a means to realization of the Para-tattva] characterized by [the practice of] hearing and so forth, shall be performed just because of that [i.e., it shall be motivated just by taste for engaging in it and thus one’s engagement in it will take place naturally and joyfully without any sense of force].”
sarva-śāstra-sāram aikāntikaṁ śreyo brūhīti praśna-dvayasyottaram āha | sa vai puṁsāṁ puṁ-mātrāṇām eva dharmaḥ paraḥ paramaḥ śravaṇa-kīrtanādi-lakṣaṇaḥ | yad uktaṁ—etāvān eva loke’smin puṁsāṁ niḥśreyasodayaḥ | tīvreṇa bhakti-yogena mano mayy arpitaṁ sthiram || ity ataḥ para-śabda-viśeṣyo dharmo bhakti-yogaḥ | eva bhaved iti tathātra vatup-pratyayenaiva-kāreṇa caitad anyasya para-dharma-pada-vācyatvaṁ ca niṣiddham | yato bhaktiḥ prema-lakṣaṇā bhavet, ahaitukī hetuṁ vinaivotpadyamānā iti saguṇā vyāvṛttā | nanu mahān ayam apalāpaḥ kriyate | maivam, śravaṇa-kīrtanādi-rūpo yo dharmaḥ sa bhaktir eva sādhana-nāmnī | saiva pāka-daśāyāṁ prema-nāmnī | te dve’pi bhakti-śabdenaivocyate | tad api ‘bhaktyā sañjātayā bhaktyā bibhraty utpulakāṁ tanum’ iti yato bhaktir adhokṣaje ity ādiṣu uttarasyā bhakteḥ pūrvā bhaktiḥ kāraṇaṁ pakvāmrasya kāraṇam āmāmram itivat | svāda-bheda-nibandhanam eva tasya kāraṇatvaṁ bāla-bodhanārthaṁ kālpanikam eva, na tu vāstavam | na hy ekasyaiva puruṣasya bālya-yauvanādy-anekāvasthāvato hetu-hetumad-bhāvas tāttvika iti | ghaṭa-paṭaudanādiṣu mṛt-tantu-taṇḍulādīnāṁ nāma-rūpa-lopa iveti na tatra tādṛśatvaṁ vyākhyātuṁ śakyam ity avaseyam |na ca bhakteḥ prasiddho hetuḥ sādhu-saṅga evāstīti vācyam | tasyāpi ‘ādau śraddhā tataḥ sādhu-saṅgo’tha bhajana-kriyā’ ity ādau bhakter dvitīya-bhūmikātvenoktatvād bhaktitvam eva | ‘syān mahat-sevayā viprāḥ’ ity agre’pi vyākhyāsyamānatvāc ca | kiṁ ca, dāna-vrata-tapo-homādi-niṣkāma-karma-yogaś ca jñānāṅga-bhūtāyāḥ sāttvikyā eva bhakteḥ kathañcid dhetur bhavati, na tu nirguṇāyāḥ ‘yaṁ na yogena sāṅkhyena dāna-vrata-tapo-’dhvaraiḥ | vyākhyā-svādhyāya-sannyāsaiḥ prāpnuyād yatnavān api ||‘ ity ekādaśokteḥ | na ca nirguṇāyā bhakter bhagavat-kṛpaiva hetur ity vācyaṁ tasyāpi hetāv anviṣyamāṇe anavasthānāt | na ca sā nirupādhir eva kevalā hetur ity api vācyaṁ tasyā asārvatrikatvena bhagavati vaiṣamya-prasakteḥ | kiṁ ca bhakta-kṛpaiva hetur ity ukter na kiñcid asāmañjasyam uttama-bhaktānāṁ vaiṣamyābhāve’pi ‘prema-maitrī-kṛpopekṣā yaḥ karoti sa madhyamaḥ’ iti madhyama-bhakta-lakṣaṇe vaiṣamyasya darśanāt | tataś ca bhagavato bhaktādhīnatvāt bhakta-kṛpānugāminī bhagavat-kṛpā-hetur iti siddhāntaḥ | nanu tarhi kathaṁ bhakter ahaitukatvam abhūt? ucyate | bhagavat-kṛpāyā bhakta-kṛpāntarbhūtatvād bhakta-kṛpāyāś ca bhakta-saṅgāntarbhūtatvād bhakta-saṅgasya bhakty-aṅgatvād ahaitukatvam eva siddham | kiṁ ca bhakta-kṛpāyā hetur bhaktasyaiva tasya hṛdaya-vartinī bhaktir eva tāṁ vinā kṛpodaya-sambhavābhāvāt | sarva-prakāreṇāpi bhakter bhaktir eva hetur iti nirhetukatvaṁ siddham | bhakti-mate bhakti-bhakta-bhajanīya-tat-kṛpādīnāṁ na pṛthag-vastutvam iti bhakteḥ svaprakāśakatvena bhakti-prakāśyatve’pi bhagavataḥ svaprakāśakatvaṁ nānupapannam iti | apratihatā kenāpi nivārayitum aśakyā | tathā hi tal-lakṣaṇe | ‘mano-gatir avicchinnā yathā gaṅgāmbhaso’mbudhau’ iti vakṣyate | uktaṁ ca śrī-rūpa-gosvāmi-caraṇaiḥ ‘sarvathā dhvaṁsa-rahitaṁ saty api dhvaṁsa-kāraṇe’ iti | jñāna-karmādibhir anāvṛteti vā | yayā bhaktyā ātmā manaḥ samyag eva prasīdatīti kāmanā-mālinye sati manaḥ prasāda-hetutvāsambhavād asyā bhakter niṣkāmatvaṁ svata evāyātam |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“He [i.e., Sūta Gosvāmī] states [in this verse, i.e., SB 1.2.6] the answer to the two questions [of the sages assembled at Naimiṣāraṇya stated in SB 1.1.9], ‘Please tell us the essence of all the śāstras and the ultimate good.’ ‘For humanity’ (puṁsām), that is, for all human beings, that dharma the form of which is hearing, praising, and so forth [of Bhagavān], is the highest (paraḥ), since it is said [in SB 6.3.22], ‘The mind [in a state of being] offered to me through resolute bhakti-yoga [i.e., through engagement in practices of bhakti, such as hearing] and [thus remaining] steady [i.e., absorbed in me]—this much alone [i.e., just being in this state of mind by means of bhakti] shall [itself] be the manifestation of the highest good [i.e., the attainment of the ultimate puruṣārtha] for human beings in this world.’ Thus, [the word] dharma [in SB 1.2.6], [which is] the qualificand (viśeṣya) of the word ‘highest’ (paraḥ), means bhakti-yoga. Furthermore, in regard to [the statement in SB 6.3.22] ‘[this much] alone (eva) shall be [the manifestation of the highest good],’ because of the [usage of the] vatup suffix [in the word etāvāt, which is an indicator of possession] and the word eva [i.e., ‘alone’], something else being the referent (vācya) of the term para-dharma [i.e., ‘the highest dharma’ in SB 6.3.22] is also precluded. On account of [the statement in SB 1.2.6], ‘Because of which (yataḥ) bhakti—meaning prema—can come to be,’ and [the stated qualifier] ‘causeless’ (ahaitukī), that is, [because of this dharma’s, that is, this bhakti’s] being manifested without a cause, its being possessed of the guṇas [of prakṛti] is negated.
“[Someone may object:] ‘Well, a big deception is being made [here with this explanation]. [To that, it should be said,] Not at all. That dharma the form of which is hearing, praising, and so forth [of Bhagavān] is indeed the [form of] bhakti known as sādhana [i.e., sādhana-bhakti]. That itself in its ripe state is known as prema [i.e., prema-bhakti]. Indeed, both of these are referred to by the word bhakti itself. Still, in accord with [the statement in SB 11.3.31], ‘Because of bhakti produced by bhakti, the body sustains horripilation,’ [the statement in SB 1.2.6] ‘Because of which bhakti to Adhokṣaja can come to be’ (yato bhaktir adhokṣaje), and so forth [and other statements of this sort elsewhere], former bhakti is [understood to be] the cause of latter bhakti just as an unripe mango is the cause of a ripe mango. Its causality [in this respect, however], the basis of which is just a difference in taste, is only imaginative and for the sake of beginner’s understanding; it is not, rather, actual, since one person’s numerous stages of [life, viz.,] childhood, youth, and so forth being possessed of the nature of being a cause [of their successor] and having a cause [in their predecessor] is not real (tāttvika). ‘It is like the loss of name and form on the part of clay, thread, raw rice, and so forth in the [respective] cases of [the creation of] a pot, cloth, cooked rice, and so forth —in this regard [i.e., in regard to bhakti’s prior and latter manifest forms of sādhana-bhakti and prema-bhakti] one is not able to explain it as being such [i.e., sādhana-bhakti is not literally the cause of prema-bhakti in the way that clay is the cause of a pot or an unripe mango is thought to be cause of a ripe mango]. This is to be ascertained.
“Furthermore, ‘Association with sādhus is certainly the well known cause of bhakti’ should not be stated because of even that [i.e., association with sādhus] being [a form of] bhakti itself on account of [its] being stated to be being the second stage of [the self-manifestation of prema-] bhakti in [BRS 1.4.15], ‘First śraddhā, then sādhu-saṅga, then bhajana-kriyā …,’ and because of the still to be explained [statement] ahead as well [in SB 1.2.16], ‘O brāhmaṇas, [taste for discussion of Vāsudeva (Vāsudeva-kathā-ruciḥ)] shall come about as a result of service to the great.’ Moreover, the practice of desireless action (niṣkāma-karma-yoga) in the form of charity, rites, austerity, sacrifices, and so forth is somewhat a cause of sāttvika-bhakti that is part of [the path of] jñāna, but is not [a cause] of nirguṇa [-bhakti], on account of the statement [of Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] in the Eleventh [Canto, i.e., SB 11.12.9], ‘[… I] Whom even a striver cannot attain by yoga, sāṅkhya, charity, rites, austerity, sacrifices, explanation [of śāstra], study [of śāstra], or sannyāsa.’
“Furthermore, ‘The grace of Bhagavān alone is the cause of nirguṇa-bhakti’ should not be stated because of infinite regress (anavasthā) [occurring] when the cause of that [i.e., of Bhagavān’s grace] as well is sought out [thereafter]. Furthermore, ‘that [i.e., Bhagavān’s grace] is purely unconditional (nirupādhi) and the sole cause [of nirguṇa-bhakti]’ should also not be stated because of the inference of partiality (vaiṣamya) in Bhagavān [that occurs] on account of its [i.e., his grace’s] not [actually] being existent everywhere [i.e., because Bhagavān’s grace is not seen to be present in everyone everywhere in equal measure, one can infer that Bhagavān fosters partiality in his bestowing of grace to recipients without any conditions on them given that if he did not foster any partiality, his grace would be present in everyone everywhere in equal measure and this is not observed to be the case]. Moreover, the statement, ‘The grace of a bhakta [of Bhagavān] alone is the cause [of nirguṇa-bhakti]’ has no sort of disharmony on account of the observance of partiality in the character of an intermediate bhakta [as per SB 11.2.46], ‘One who fosters prema [for Īśvara], friendship [with bhaktas], grace [towards the unknowing], and disregard [towards the inimical] is an intermediate [bhakta]’ even though topmost (uttama) bhaktas have no partiality. Therefore, furthermore, ‘Because of Bhagavān’s being dependent on [his] bhakta, Bhagavān’s grace [manifest as a result of] following the grace of [his] bhakta is the cause [of nirguṇa-bhakti]’ is the conclusion (siddhānta).
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, then how has bhakti’s causelessness (ahaitukatva) come to be?’ [To this,] It is said the causelessness [of bhakti] is verily established (1) because of Bhagavān’s grace being contained in a bhakta’s grace, (2) because of a bhakta’s grace being contained in association with a bhakta, and (3) because of association with a bhakta’s being a limb (aṅga) of bhakti [i.e., bhakti’s causelessness is established because of bhakti’s being its own cause]. Moreover, the cause of a bhakta’s grace is the bhakti residing in the heart of that bhakta because of the non-existence of the possibility of grace’s arising [in a bhakta’s heart] without that [i.e., without bhakti present in the heart inspiring the bhakta to bestow grace upon someone]. [Therefore,] Indeed, in all respects, the cause of bhakti is bhakti alone. Thus, [bhakti’s] causelessness (nirhetukatva) is established.
“In the bhakti view [i.e., according to the siddhānta of bhakti-śāstra], bhakti, a bhakta, the object of bhakti (bhajanīya) [i.e., Bhagavān], their grace, and so forth, have no separate existence [i.e., they are all aspects of one ontological existent]. Thus, on account of bhakti’s being self-manifesting, even when Bhagavān has to be manifested by bhakti, his being self-manifesting is not unproven [i.e., there is no contradiction to the concept that Bhagavān is always self-manifesting when it is said that bhakti is its own cause and the cause of manifestation of Bhagavān because bhakti is ontologically non-different from Bhagavān himself].
“[The word] ‘Unobstructed’ (apratihatā) [in SB 1.2.6] means unable to be checked by anything, since such will be said in regard to that characteristic [of bhakti in SB 3.29.12], ‘[Bhakti is] An unobstructed flow of the mind [towards Bhagavān] like [the flow of] the water of the Gaṅgā towards the ocean.’ It has also been said by Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmīpāda [in UN 14.63], ‘[The bond of bhāva between a youthful couple that remains] Undestroyed under all circumstances, even in the presence of a cause for destruction [is proclaimed prema].’ Alternately, [‘unobstructed’ (apratihatā) means] Uncovered by jñāna, karma, and so forth [as described in BRS 1.1.11].
“In regard to [the statement in SB 1.2.6] ‘[That] Bhakti by which the self (ātmā), that is, the mind, verily becomes fully satisfied,’ because of the impossibility of [that bhakti’s] being a cause of satisfaction of the mind in the presence of the contamination of desire (kāmanā) [in the mind], that bhakti’s desirelessness (niṣkāmatva) is attained of its own accord [i.e., that bhakti’s having no desire for anything other than itself as the motivation for its enactment is directly implied].”