एतत्सर्वं गुरौ भक्त्या पुरुषो ह्यञ्जसा जयेत् ॥
यस्य साक्षाद्भगवति ज्ञानदीपप्रदे गुरौ ।
मर्त्यासद्धी: श्रुतं तस्य सर्वं कुञ्जरशौचवत् ॥
एष वै भगवान्साक्षात्प्रधानपुरुषेश्वरः ।
योगेश्वरैर्विमृग्याङ्घ्रिर्लोको यं मन्यते नरम् ॥
etat sarvaṁ gurau bhaktyā puruṣo hy añjasā jayet ||
yasya sākṣād bhagavati jñāna-dīpa-prade gurau |
martyāsad-dhīḥ śrutaṁ tasya sarvaṁ kuñjara-śaucavat ||
eṣa vai bhagavān sākṣāt pradhāna-puruṣeśvaraḥ |
yogeśvarair vimṛgyāṅghrir loko yaṁ manyate naram ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.15.25–27)
“A person certainly can quickly conquer all of these by means of bhakti to the guru. All the hearing of one who has the misconception of a mortal in relation to the guru, who is the giver of the lamp of knowledge and Bhagavān in person, is like the bathing of an elephant. He whom a [worldly] person considers [to be merely] a [ordinary] human being is verily Bhagavān in person, the Īśvara of pradhāna and the puruṣa [i.e., of māyā and the jīvas], he whose feet are sought by masters of yoga.”
Commentary
nanu kathaṁ gurau bhaktyā sarvasya jayaḥ syāt tasyāpi manuṣyatvena tad-avasthatvāt? tatrāha—yasyeti | martyāsad-dhīr manuṣya iti durbuddhiḥ | tasya śāstra-śravaṇaṁ kuñjara-snānavad vyartham | nanu guror api putrādayas taṁ naram eva manyante | ata āha—eṣa guruḥ sākṣād bhagavān eva bhavet | lokasya naro’sāv iti buddhir bhrāntir ity arthaḥ | yad vā na hi tat-putrāder manuṣya-buddhyā pratīyamāno’pi gurur bhagavān na bhavet | yathā eṣa śrī-kṛṣṇa ity arthaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“Well, how can conquest over everything [i.e., all varieties of anarthas, e.g., lust, anger, greed, etc.] occur by means of bhakti to the guru on account of he too having that condition [i.e., he too being subject to lust, anger, greed, etc.] because of [he too] being human?’ To this, he says yasya … [i.e., he speaks SB 7.15.26]. [The compound] Martyāsad-dhīḥ means the misconception of a human being [i.e., fostering the misconception that the guru is merely a human being and not a form of Śrī Bhagavān in person]. His [i.e., a person who fosters this conceptions’] hearing of the śāstra is like the bathing of an elephant, that is, it is futile.
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, the son and so on [i.e., and various other relatives and acquaintances] even of the guru consider him only a human being.’ Thus, he [i.e., Śrī Nārada] says ‘he’ (eṣa), that is, the guru, shall verily be [regarded as] Bhagavān in person. A [worldly] person’s conception, ‘He is a human being’ is a misunderstanding. This is the meaning. Alternately [the intent of the verse can be interpreted as follows], it is not that the guru shall not be [seen as] Bhagavān [by a disciple] even while appearing [to be an ordinary human being] because of his son’s and others’ conception of [him being] a human being, just as ‘he’ (eṣa), that is, Śrī Kṛṣṇa … [i.e., since it is stated here in SB 7.15.27 that Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, whom worldly persons considered to be merely an ordinary human being during his avatāra, is actually Bhagavān in person].”
etad ity ardhakam | śrutiś ca—‘yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau | tasyaite kathitā hy arthāḥ prakāśante mahātmanaḥ ||’ iti | ato brahma-vaivarte—‘guru-bhaktyā sa milati smaraṇāt sevyate budhaiḥ |milito’pi na labhyeta jīvair ahamikā-paraiḥ ||’ iti | pādme devadyuti-stutau—‘bhaktir yathā harau me’sti tad variṣṭhā gurau yadi | mamāsti tena satyena svaṁ darśayatu me hariḥ ||’ iti | martyāsad-dhīr iti | ata evoktaṁ prācīnaiḥ—‘arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhir viṣṇor vā vaiṣṇavānāṁ kali-mala-mathane pādatīrthe’mbu-buddhiḥ | śuddhe tan-nāmni mantre sakala-kaluṣa-he śabda-sāmānya-buddhir viṣṇau sarveśvareśe tad-itara-sama-dhīr yasya vā nārakī saḥ ||’ iti | na cedaṁ lokeṣv āścaryam—sākṣād bhagavati tathā mananād ity āha—eṣa iti |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“‘This …’ (etat) is a half [verse]. The Śruti also [teaches the same principle stated in this half verse in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.23)], ‘These discussed subjects [i.e., the teachings a guru gives to a disciple regarding Brahma-vidyā, or, all of the puruṣārthas] are certainly revealed to the great soul who has pure bhakti to Deva, and as to Deva, so also to the guru.’ Thus, in Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa [it is said], ‘One meets [i.e., attains] he who is worshiped by the wise [viz., Bhagavān] through remembrance (smaraṇa) as a result of bhakti to the guru [i.e., remembrance of Bhagavān whereby he is served and satisfied develops as a result of bhakti to one’s guru]. Even if he [i.e., Bhagavān] is met, [however,] he cannot be attained [i.e., he is not truly attained] by jīvas who are engrossed in egotism.’ In the praise of Devadyuti in Padma Purāṇa [it is also said], ‘If the bhakti I have for my guru is greater than that [i.e., the bhakti] I have for Hari, then on the strength of that virtue let Hari reveal himself to me.’
“[In SB 7.15.26, it is to be understood that ] ‘Mortal’ (Martya) is the misconception [i.e., it is a misconception to consider the guru to be merely a mortal, that is, an ordinary human being, and not a form of Śrī Bhagavān in person]. Thus, it is said by the ancients, ‘One who in regard to a deity of Viṣṇu has the thought of a stone, in regard to gurus the idea of a man, in regard to a Vaiṣṇava the notion of a caste, in regard to the sacred foot-wash of Viṣṇu or the Vaiṣṇavas, which is are destroyers the contamination of Kali, the thought of water, in regard to the name of Śrī Viṣṇu, which is a vanquisher of all sin, the notion of an ordinary word, or in regard to Viṣṇu, who is the Īśvara of all Īśvaras, the thought of equality with those other than him, is situated in Naraka.’ It is not that [the occurrence of] this [i.e., the misconception of the guru being merely an ordinary human being] among people is surprising on account of [the occurrence] of such thought [on the part of people in general even] in regard to Bhagavān in person [during his avatāras]. Thus, he says eṣa … [i.e., thus he states SB 7.15.27, wherein it is said that even Bhagavān himself is regarded by worldly persons as being merely an ordinary human being, thus implying that it is it is all the more plausible that worldly persons think that way in regard to a guru].”
tataḥ sutarām eva paramārthibhis tādṛśe gurāv [bhagavad-dṛṣṭiḥ kartavyā] ity āha—yasyeti dvābhyām | eṣa śrī-kṛṣṇa-lakṣaṇo’pi | tataḥ prākṛta-dṛṣṭir na bhagavat-tattva-grahaṇe pramāṇam iti bhāvaḥ |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 212)
“In this case, consequently indeed, vision of Bhagavān is to be fostered in regard to a such a guru [i.e., one’s own guru] by seekers of the supreme object [i.e., followers of the path of jñāna and bhakti]. He states this with two [verses]: yasya … [i.e., he speaks SB 7.15.26–27]. ‘He’ (eṣa) refers even to he who is possessed of the characteristic of [being] Śrī Kṛṣṇa [i.e., Bhagavān himself]. Therefore, mundane vision is not means of acquiring valid knowledge (pramāṇa) in regard to perception of the essential nature (tattva) of Bhagavān [since such vision was applied by worldly persons during Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s avatāra and they thus failed to recognize him to be Bhagavān himself present in person before them; moreover, mundane vision ought not be applied to a guru since a disciple will in the same way fail to recognize that the guru too is actually Bhagavān present in person].”
añjasā śīghram āyāsābhāvena sarvaṁ jayet | sarva-rogopaśamanaṁ mukhyam ekam eva mahauṣadham ivety arthaḥ | tatra kāmādi-jayo jñānināṁ guru-bhakter anusaṁhitaṁ phalaṁ śuddha-bhaktānāṁ tv ānuṣaṅgikam iti viśeṣo draṣṭavyaḥ | kiṁ ca satyāṁ bhūyasyām api bhaktau gurau manuṣya-buddhitve sarvam eva vyarthaṁ bhavatīty āha—yasyeti | sākṣād-bhagavatīti bhagavad-aṁśa-buddhir api gurau na kāryeti bhāvaḥ | yad vā, upāsye bhagavaty eva sākṣād vidyamāne martyāsad-dhīḥ martya iti durbuddhis tasya śrutaṁ bhagavan-mantrādikaṁ śravaṇa-mananādikaṁ ca vyartham ity arthaḥ | nanu guroḥ pitṛ-putrādayaḥ prativeśinaḥ ca taṁ naram eva manyante, katham eka evāyaṁ śiṣyas taṁ parameśvaraṁ manyatām? ata āha—eṣa iti | bhagavān yadu-nandano raghu-nandano vā vai niścitam eva pradhāna-puruṣayor īśvaraḥ | yaṁ lokas tad-avatāra-kālotpanno jano naraṁ manyate, tena kiṁ sa naro bhavati? api tu parameśvara evety evaṁ gurur apīti bhāvaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“One can quickly, that is, without difficulty, conquer all [these impediments by means of bhakti to the guru]. This is like one principal medicine which cures all diseases. This is the meaning. In this regard, conquering kāma and so forth is the jñānīs’ sought result of guru-bhakti, whereas for pure bhaktas it is secondary [i.e., a secondary result; their primary attainment being serving and satisfying Śrī Bhagavān]. This distinction is to be observed.
“Furthermore, even if one has profuse bhakti [to the guru, as was indicated to be highly beneficial in the previous verse], it all becomes futile if one has the notion of a human in relation to the guru [i.e., if one considers the guru merely an ordinary human being and not a form of Śrī Bhagavān in person]. Thus, he says yasya … [i.e., he speaks SB 7.15.26]. In regard to [the mention of] ‘Bhagavān in person’ (sākṣād Bhagavati), the purport is that even the notion of a part of Bhagavān is not to be fostered in related to the guru [i.e., one should not regard the guru to be Bhagavān in person just because the guru is a part of Bhagavān]. Alternately, the meaning [of the verse] is that the hearing, that is, the mantra related to Bhagavān, as well as the hearing, contemplation (manana), and so forth [i.e., meditation (nididhyāsana), meaning, upāsanā], of one who has the misconception (asad-dhīḥ) of a human in relation to one’s object of worship, Bhagavān himself, present in person [as the guru, i.e., one who fosters the misconception that the guru is merely a human being and not a form of Śrī Bhagavān in person] is futile.
“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, the father, son, and so on [i.e., and the other relatives], and the neighbors, of the guru consider him only a [ordinary] human being. How shall this one disciple alone consider him to be the Supreme Īśvara?’ Thus, he says eṣa … [i.e., he speaks SB 7.15.27]. Bhagavān, that is, the Son of the Yadus [viz., Śrī Kṛṣṇa], or the Son of the Raghus [viz., Śrī Rāma], indeed (vai) is the Īśvara of pradhāna and the puruṣa [i.e., of māyā and the jīvas]. Does he [viz., Bhagavān], whom a person (lokaḥ), that is, a person born at the time of his avatāra, considers a [ordinary] human being, become a [ordinary] human being thereby? Indeed, rather, he certainly remains the Supreme Īśvara. The guru too is such [i.e., the guru is a form of the Supreme Īśvara for a disciple, and he remains such even though the guru’s relatives and other persons in the world do not regard him to be such]. This is the purport.”