यस्मादेवं सर्वानन्दातिक्रमलिङ्गेन परमानन्दस्वरूपासौ भक्तिस्तस्मात्तत्र स्वभावत एव प्रवृत्तिर्गुणः, तथाभूतामपि तन्माधुरीं स्वदोषेणानुभवितुमसमर्थानां तु केवलविधिनिषेधसम्भवगुणदोषदृष्ट्यैव प्रवृत्तिरपि पूर्वापेक्षया दोष एव ।
yasmād evaṁ sarvānandātikrama-liṅgena paramānanda-svarūpāsau bhaktis tasmāt tatra svabhāvata eva pravṛttir guṇaḥ, tathābhūtām api tan-mādhurīṁ svadoṣeṇānubhavitum asamarthānāṁ tu kevala-vidhi-niṣedha-sambhava-guṇa-doṣa-dṛṣṭyaiva pravṛttir api pūrvāpekṣayā doṣa eva |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 177)
“Since, in this way, with the characteristic of surpassing all [other types of] bliss, bhakti is by nature the supreme bliss, engagement in it altogether naturally [i.e., solely out of natural disposition] is a virtue (guṇa), whereas even the engagement [in it], although it is such, solely out of consideration of the merits and demerits (guṇas and doṣas) brought about only by injunctions and prohibitions [related to engagement and non-engagement in it] of those who are unable to experience its sweetness because of their own faults [e.g., an absence of awareness of Bhagavān, desires unrelated to Bhagavān, or aparādhā against Bhagavān] is verily a fault (doṣa) in comparison to the former [i.e. in comparison to natural engagement in bhakti].”
Commentary
This statement implies that rāgānugā-bhakti, that is, bhakti performed out of natural attraction, is categorically superior to vaidhī-bhakti, bhakti performed in obediance to injunction. It does not imply, however, that performing vaidhī-bhakti is a fault in and of itself, that is, that performing vaidhī-bhakti has no value or benefit. The point being emphasized rather is that injunctions to perform bhakti are like rehabilitation regimes prescribed for sick persons: once a person becomes healthy, they are superfluous. Similarly, once one actually feels the bliss inherent in bhakti, one will no longer require any injunction to perform it as one will naturally and automatically feel drawn to engage in it.