by Surendranath Dasgupta | 1949 | 186,278 words | ISBN-13: 9788120804081
This page describes the philosophy of concept of bhakti: a concept having historical value dating from ancient India. This is the fifth part in the series called the “the philosophy of vallabha”, originally composed by Surendranath Dasgupta in the early 20th century.
Madhva wrote Bhāgavata-tātparya, Jīva Gosvāmī Sat-sandarbha, and Vallabha wrote not only a commentary on the Bhāgavata (the Subodhinī) but also a commentary (Prakāśa) on his own kārikās, the Tattvadīpa, based on the teachings of the Bhāgavata.
The Tattvadīpa consists of four books:
- the Śāstrārthanirūpaṇa,
- the Sarvanirṇaya of four chapters, Pramāṇa, Prameya-phala, and the Sādhanā, of which the first contains 83 verses, the second 100 verses, the third 110 and the fourth 35.
- The third book, of 1837 verses, contains observations on the twelve skandhas of the Bhāgavata-puraṇa.
- The fourth book, which dealt with bhakti, is found only in a fragmentary condition.
This last has two commentaries on it, the Nibandha-ṭippaṇa, by Kalyāṇarāja, and one by Gotthulal (otherwise called Bālakṛṣṇa).
According to the Tattvadīpa the only śāstra is the Gītā, which is sung by the Lord Himself, the only God is Kṛṣṇa the son of Devakī, the mantras are only His name and the only work is the service of God, the Vedas, the words of Kṛṣṇa (forming the smṛtis), the sūtras of Vyāsa and their explanations by Vyāsa (forming the Bhāgavata) are their four pramāṇas. If there are any doubts regarding the Vedas, they are solved by the words of Kṛṣṇa; any doubts regarding the latter are explained by reference to the sūtras, and difficulties about the Vyāsa-sūtras are to be explained by the Bhāgavata. So far as the other smṛtis are concerned, such as that of Manu and others, only so much of them is valid as is in consonance with these; but, if they are found contradictory in any part, they are to be treated as invalid. The true object of the śāstras is devotion to Hari, and the wise man who takes to devotion is best of all; yet there have been many systems of thought which produce delusion by preaching creeds other than that of bhakti. There is no greater delusion than devoting oneself to śāstras and not to God; such devotees are always under bondage and suffer birth and rebirth. The culmination of one’s knowledge is omniscience, the culmination of dharma is the contentment of one’s mind, the culmination of bhakti is when God is pleased. With mukti there is destruction of birth and rebirth; but the world, being a manifestation of Brahman, is never destroyed except when Kṛṣṇa wishes to take it back within Himself. Wisdom and ignorance are both constituents of māyā.
Bhakti consists in firm and overwhelming affection for God with a full sense of His greatness; through this alone can there be emancipation. Though bhakti is the sādhanā and mokṣa is the goal, yet it is the sādhanā stage that is the best. Those who enter into the bliss of Brahman have the experience of that bliss in their selves; but those devotees who do not enter into this state nor into the state of jīvan-mukti, but enjoy God with all their senses and the antaḥkaraṇa, are better than the jīvan-muktas, though they may be ordinary householders.
The jīva is atomic in nature, but yet, since the bliss of God is manifested in it, it may be regarded as all-pervasive. Its nature as pure intelligence cannot be perceived by the ordinary senses, but only by yoga, or knowledge through that special vision by which one sees God. The views of the monistic Vedānta that the jīvas are due to avidyā is repudiated on the ground that, if avidyā was destroyed by right knowledge, the bodily structure of the individual formed through the illusion of avidyā would immediately be destroyed and as jīvan-mukti would be possible.
Brahman is described here as saccidānanda —all-pervasive, independent, omniscient. He is devoid of any reduplication, either of this class or of a different class or as existing in Him—i .e., jīvas, the material world and the antaryāmi: these are the three forms of God, they are not different from Him. He is also associated with a thousand other noble qualities, purity, nobility, kindness, etc.; He is the upholder of the universe, controller of māyā. God is on the one hand the samavāya and the nimittakāraṇa of the world, delights in His creation, and sometimes takes delight in withdrawing it within Himself; He is the repository of all contradictory qualities and causes delusion in various forms and appearances and disappearances of worldly manifestation. He is the changeable as well as the unchangeable. Since the creation is a manifestation of Himself, the diversity of existence and the diversity in the distribution of pleasure and pain cannot make Him liable to the charge of cruelty or partiality. The attempt to explain diversity as due to karma leads to the further difficulty that God is dependent on karma and is not independent; it also leaves unexplained why different persons should perform different karmas. If God as antaryāmin Himself makes us perform good or bad actions, He cannot also make us responsible for the same and distribute happiness to some and displeasure to others: but on the view that the whole creation is self-creative and that self-manifestation and the jīvas are nothing but God all these difficulties are removed. God is the creator of the world, yet He is not saguṇa, possessed of qualities; for the simple reason that the elements that constitute His qualities cannot stand against Him and deprive Him of His independence. Since He is the controller of the qualities, their existence and non-existence depend on Him. The conception of the freedom of God thus necessarily leads to the concept of His being both saguṇa and nirguṇa. The view of Śaṅkara that Brahman appears as the world through the bondage of avidyā is a delusive teaching (pratāraṇā-śāstra), because it lowers the dignity of God, and it should be rejected by all devotees.
He who thinks of God as all and of himself as emanating from Him, and who serves Him with love, is a devotee. In the absence of either knowledge or love we have only a lower kind of devotee; but in the absence of both one cannot be a devotee, though by listening to the scriptures one may remove one’s sins. The highest devotee leaves everything; his mind is filled with Kṛṣṇa alone; for him there is no wife, no home, no sons, no friends, no riches, but he is wholly absorbed in the love of God. No one, however, can take the path of bhakti except through the grace of God. Karma itself, being of the nature of God’s will, manifests itself as His mercy or anger to the devotee; He approaches with His mercy and relieves him even if he be in a low state, and those who do not obey His commands or proceed in the wrong path He approaches with anger and causes to suffer. It is said that the law of karma is mysterious; the reason is that we do not know the manner in which God’s will manifests itself; sometimes by His grace He may even save a sinner, who may not have to take the punishment due to him.
In the Śāṇḍilya-sūtra bhakti is defined as the highest attachment (parānurakti) to God. Anurakti is the same as rāga; so the sūtra “parānuraktir īśvare” means highest attachment to the object of worship (ārādhya-viṣayaka-rāgatvam). This attachment is associated with pleasure (sukha-niyato rāga). We remember that in the Viṣṇu-purāṇa Prahlāda expresses the wish that he may have that attachment to God that is experienced with regard to sense-objects. One must find supreme pleasure in God; it is this natural and spontaneous attachment to God that is called bhakti. Even if there is no notion of worship, but merely love, there also we can apply the term bhakti, as in the case of gopīs towards Kṛṣṇa. But ordinarily it arises from the notion of the greatness of God. This devotion, being of the nature of attachment, is associated with will and not with action; just as in the case of knowledge no action is necessary, but the only result is enlightenment, so the will that tends to God is satisfied with devotion or attachment. Bhakti cannot also be regarded as knowledge: jñāna and bhajana are two different concepts. Knowledge may be only indirectly necessary for attachment, but attachment does not lead to knowledge. A young woman may love a young man; this love does not lead to any new knowledge, but finds its fulfilment in the love itself. In the Viṣṇu-purāṇa we hear of the gopīs’ attachment of emancipation through excess of love; so attachment may lead to emancipation without any knowledge. Yoga, however, is accessory both to knowledge and to bhakti. Bhakti is different also from śraddhā (or faith), which may be an accessory even to karma. According to Kasya bhakti with the notion of the majesty of God leads to emancipation. According to Bādarāyaṇa this emancipation consists in the nature of self as pure intelligence. According to Śāṇḍilya emancipation is associated with the notion of transcendence, immanence in the self. Through an excess of devotion understanding of the buddhi is dissolved in the bliss of God; it is this buddhi which is the upādhi or condition through which God manifests Himself as the jīva.
Gopeśvarajī Mahārāja, in his Bhakti-mārtaṇḍa, follows the interpretation of bhakti in the Śāṇḍilya-sūtra and enters into a long discussion regarding its exact connotation. He denies that bhakti is a kind of knowledge or a kind of śraddhā (or faith); nor is bhakti a kind of action or worship. Rāmānuja defines bhakti as dhruvām smṛti, and regards it as only a kind of knowledge. Various forms of worship or prescribed ritual connected therewith lead to bhakti, but they cannot themselves be regarded as bhakti. In the Bhakti-cintāmaṇi, bhakti has been defined as yoge viyogavṛttiprema, i.e., it is that form of love in which even when the two are together they are afraid of being dissociated and when they are not together they have a painful desire for union. Śāṇḍilya, Haridāsa and Guptācārya also follow the same view. Govinda Chakravarti, however, defines this love as the yearning which never ceases even in spite of many difficulties and dangers, and Paramārtha Thakkuna, in his Premalakṣaṇa-candrikā, as an unspeakable yearning referring to an object. Viśvanātha, in his Premarasāyina, defines it as a loving yearning or desire. Guṇakara supplements the view of the Bhakti-cintāmaṇi and defines it as that which culminates in intense enjoyment.
GopeśvarajI Mahārāja differs from all these definitions of bhakti that regard yearning and desire as its principal element. No desire can be an object of desire (puruṣārtha); in the love of a son or any other dear relation we do not find any kind of desire playing a part; moreover desire refers to an unattained object, while bhakti, attachment, is not so.
Some say that bhakti is the cause of the melting of the mind; that is not acceptable either, for it has no reference to the object. There are others who define it as the object or condition with reference to which the amorous sentiment called love flows. This definition is too wide, because all bhakti must have a reference to God, and according to it bhakti becomes a part of sex-sentiment. GopeśvarajI, however, refers to the Tattvadīpa-prakāśa of Vallabha and accepts the view there adopted, according to which bhakti is composed of the root bhaj and suffix kti\ the suffix means “love” and the root “service.” It is the general rule that root and suffix together form a complete meaning in which the meaning of the suffix is dominant; bhakti thus means the action of bhaj, i.e., service (sevā). Sevā (service) is a bodily affair (e.g., strīsevā, auṣadhasevā). Service, in order that it may be complete, implies love, and without love the service would be troublesome, but not desirable; love also for its completion requires service. This view has been objected to by Puruṣottama in his Bhakti-haṃsa-vivṛti.
Referring to the Tattva-dīpa-prakāśa GopeśvarajI Mahārāja thinks that according to Vallabha bhakti means sneha or affection, but, if we take the word analytically, it means sevā or service; he thinks that both prema and sevā form the connotative meaning of bhakti. He, however, develops further the concept of bhakti, and says that the idea of sevā forming the connotation of bhakti means the state of mind which slowly lowers down and merges itself into God.
One of the results of bhakti or rather one of its characteristics has been described as the oneness of all with the self (sarvātma-bhāva). Through the deep notion of love one sees everywhere one’s beloved, and even in separation one always perceives one’s beloved round one; but, God being all, it is natural that through intense attachment to Him one should perceive Him in all things; for these are all manifestations of God. This identity of the self with all cannot be regarded as an illustration of Vedāntic monism, as is explained by the followers of maryādā-marga; it is associated with intense love. This view of the puṣṭi-mārga (Vallabha school) is also shared by Haricaraṇa, who is quoted by Gopeśvara in support of his own view.
Bhakti is regarded as parallel to the other rasas described in the alaṃkāra-śāstra ; as such, it affects the manas and the body with intense delight, coalescing with God, as it were; affection is thus the dominant phase (sthāyī-bhāva) of the bhakti-rasa. Some have defined it as a reflection of God in the melted heart; this has been objected to both by Puruṣottama in his Pratibimba-vāda and by Gopeśvara on the ground that formless God cannot have His reflection, and also on the ground that this would make bhakti identical with God, and it is difficult to identify affection with the melting of the heart. If ātmānubhava be understood merely as the comprehension of identity with the self, in the fashion of Śaṅkara monism, then there would be no pleasure in the attachment of God.
The assertion of the philosophic identity of the self and the Brahman is only for the purpose of strengthening the nature of bhakti ; it merely shows that the oneness that is felt through attachment can also be philosophically supported. In the intensity of love there is revealed a feeling of oneness with Kṛṣṇa which is to be regarded as one of the transitory phases (vyābhicāri bhāva) of the emotion of bhakti, of which affection is the dominant phase (sthāyi bhāva) ; the feeling of oneness is thus not the culminating result, but only a transitory phase. Thus bhakti does not resuit finally in knowledge; knowledge is an aṅga of bhakti. As God is spiritual, so also is bhakti spiritual; as by the measures of fire objects become more or less heated, so relative proximity to God gives an experience of greater or less intensity of bhakti.
Bhakti may be classified as phala-rūpa (“fruit”), as sādhana-rūpa (“means”), and as saguṇa. The saguṇa-bhakti is of three kinds, as forming part of different kinds of meditation, as part of knowledge, and as part of karma. These again may be of eighty-one kinds, as associated with different kinds of quality. Bhakti as a phala is of one kind, and as sādhanā (“means”) is of two kinds, viz., as part of knowledge (jñānāṅgabhūta), and as directly leading to emancipation (bhaktiḥ svātantryena muktidātrī). The jñānāṅgabhūta-bhakti is itself of two kinds, as saguṇa and nirguṇa, of which the former is of three kinds, jñāna-miśra, vairāgya-miśra and karma-miśra. The jñāna-miśra (“mixed with knowledge”) may be of three kinds, high, middling and lower. The vairāgya-miśra (“mixed with detachment”) is only of one kind. The karma-miśra (“mixed with action”) is of three kinds.
The principal means by which bhakti is attained through the grace of God is purity of heart. There are sixteen means prescribed for attaining purity of heart, of which some are external and some internal. The three externals are ablutions, sacrifices and image-worship. The practice of meditation of God in all things is the fourth. The development of the sattva character of the mind is the fifth. Abnegation of all karmas and cessation of attachment is the sixth; showing reverence to the revered is the seventh. Kindness to the poor is the eighth. To regard all beings as one’s equals and friends is the ninth. Yamas and niyamas are the tenth and eleventh respectively. Listening to the scriptures from teachers is the twelfth, and listening to and chanting of God’s name is the thirteenth. Universal sincerity is the fourteenth. Good association is the fifteenth. Absence of egoism is the sixteenth.
There is however a difference of view between two important schools of the bhakti- path. Those who follow the maryādā-bhakti think that bhakti is attainable by one’s own efforts in following specific courses of duties and practices; the followers of the puṣṭi-bhakti think that even without any effort bhakti can be attained by the grace of God alone.
The Vallabhas belong to the puṣṭi-bhakti school and therefore do not admit the absolute necessity of personal effort. The followers of the marvādā school also agree that the sādhanas are to be followed only so long as affection does not show itself; when once that has manifested itself, the sādhanas can no longer be regarded as determining it, for it manifests itself spontaneously. For the followers of the puṣṭi school the sādhanas can at no stage determine the bhakti ; for it is generated through the grace of God (puṣṭimārge varaṇam eva sādhanam). According to the maryādā school sins are destroyed by the practice of the sādhanas and emancipation attained through the rise of affection. To the followers of the puṣṭi school the grace of God is sufficient to destroy obstructions of sins, and there is no definite order about the practices following affection or affection following the practices. In the Pañcarātra bhakti is defined as affection associated with the majesty of God; but the association of the majesty of God is not a necessary part of bhakti. Puruṣottama defines bhakti as attachment to God with detachment from all fruits. Purity of mind can be attained both by knowledge and bhakti as produced by puṣṭi or the grace of God; so the only condition that can be attached to the rise of affection is the grace of God.
It is impossible to say for what reason God is pleased to extend His grace; it cannot be for the relief of suffering, since there are many sufferers to whom God does not do so. It is a special character of God, by which He adapts certain people for manifesting His grace through them.
As regards the fruit of bhakti, there are diverse opinions. Vallabha has said in his Sevāphala-vivṛti that as a result of it one may attain a great power of experiencing the nature of God (a-laukika-sāmarthya), or may also have the experience of continual contact with God (sājujya), and also may have a body befitting the service of God (sevopayogi deha). This is his description of the puṣṭi-mārga. He has also described two other mārgas, the pravāha and the maryādā, in his Puṣṭi-pravāha-maryādā. The pravāha-mārga consists of the Vedic duties which carry on the processes of birth and rebirth. Those however who do not transgress the Vedic laws are said to belong to the maryādā-mārga. The puṣṭi-ynārga differs from the other two mārgas in this, that it depends upon the grace of God and not on Vedic deeds; its fruits are therefore superior to those of other mārgas.
Vallabha, in his Bhakti-vardhinī, says that the seed of bhakti exists as prema or affection due to the grace of God, and, when it is firm, it increases by renunciation, by listening to the hhakti-śāstra, and by chanting God’s name. The seed becomes strong when in the householder’s state one worships Kṛṣṇa, following one’s caste-duties with a complete absorption of mind. Even when engaged in duties one should always fix one’s mind on God; in this way there grows the love which develops into attachment or passion. The firm seed of bhakti can never be destroyed; it is through affection for God that other attachments are destroyed, and by the development of this affection that one renounces the home. It is only when this affection for God grows into a passion (vyasana) that one attains one’s end easily. The bhakti rises sometimes spontaneously, sometimes in association with other devotees, and sometimes through following favourable practices.
Gradual development of bhakti is described through seven stages in an ascending order; these are bhāva, prema, praṇaya, sneha, rāga, anurāga, and vyasana. The passion or vyasana for God, which is the deepest manifestation of affection, is the inability to remain without God (tadvināṇa sthātum aśaktiḥ); it is not possible for a man with such an attachment to stay at home and to carry on his ordinary duties. In the previous stages, though one may try to remain at home like a guest in the house, yet he always feels various obstructions in the proper manifestation of his emotion; worldly attachments are always obstacles to the divine attachment of worldly ties which helps the development of bhakti.
Vallabha, however, is opposed to renunciation after the manner of monistic sannyāsa, for this can only bring repentance, as being inefficacious. The path of knowledge can bring its fruit in hundreds of births and it depends upon various other practices; the path of bhakti therefore should be taken up instead of the path of knowledge. Renunciation in the bhakti-mārga proceeds only out of the necessity of the bhakti and for its proper maintenance, and not as a matter of duty.
The fruits of bhakti have already been described as a-laukika-sāmarthya, sāyujya and sevopayogī-deha, and are further discussed in Vallabha’s Sevāphala, upon which various commentators have written with their several differences. Thus Devakīnandana and Puruṣottama think that a-laukika-sāmarthya means that God has a special āveśa or that He favours the devotee with a special inspiration, enabling him to experience the nature of the full bliss of God. Harirāja, however, thinks that it means the capacity for experiencing the separation of God; Kalyāṇarāja thinks that it means participation in divine music in heaven with God. Goplśa thinks that it means special fitness (svarūpa-yogyatā) for experiencing the supernatural joy of worshipping God. The second fruit of bhakti (sāyujya) is considered by Puruṣottama, Baca Gopīśa, and Devakīnandana to be the merging of the devotee in the nature of God; Harirāja, however, regards it as a capacity for continual association with God.
The obstacles to bhakti are regarded as udvega, pratibandha, and bhoga. Udvega means fear caused by evil persons or unsteadiness of mind through sins; pratibandha means obstacles of a general nature, and bhoga means ordinary experiences of pleasures and pains of body and mind. These obstacles can be removed by comprehending the false nature of causes that give rise to them; but if on account of the transgressions of the devotee God is angry and does not extend His mercy, then the obstacles cannot be removed. The true knowledge, by which the false comprehension giving rise to the obstacles can be removed, consists in the conviction that everything is given by God, everything is Brahman, that there is no sādhanā, no phala and no enjoyer. He who tries to enjoy the blessed nature of God easily removes the obstacles. The experiencing of God’s nature as a devotee is better than the bliss of Brahman itself and the pleasure of sense-objects (viṣayānandabrahmānandāpekṣayā bhajanānandasya māhāttvāt). Mental unsteadiness as a result of attachment to worldly things stands in the way of extension of God’s grace; it can be removed by abnegating the fruits of karma.
The emancipation that has been spoken of before as a result of bhakti is to be interpreted as the three-fold Sevāphala, superior, middling and inferior, viz.,
- a-laukika-sāmarthya (uttama-sevā-phala),
- sāyujya (madhyama-sevāphala)
- and bhajanopayogi deha (adhama-sevā-phala).
Footnotes and references:
māhātmya-jñāna-pūrvas tu sudṛḍhaḥ sarvato’dhikaḥ,
sneho bhaktir iti proktas tayā muktir na cānyathā.
Tattvārthadīpa, p. 65.
sva-tantra-bhaktānāṃ tu gopikādi-tulyānāṃ sarvendriyais tathā’ntaḥ-karaṇaiḥ sva-rūpeṇa cā’nandānubhavaḥ. ato bhaktānāṃ jīvan-muktyapekṣayā bhagavat-kṛpā-sahita-gṛhāśrama eva viśiṣyate.
Vallabha’s commentary on Tattvadīpana, p. 77.
sa-jātīya-vijātīya-sva-gata-dvaita-varjitam.... sa-jātīyā jīvā, vijātīyā jaḍāḥ, sva-gatā antar-yāmiṇaḥ. triṣv api bhagavān anusyūtas trirūpaś ca bhavatīti tair nirūpitaṃ dvaitaṃ bhedas tad varjitam.
Tattvārthadīpa and the commentary on it, p. 106.
sarva-vādānavasaraṃ nānā-vādānurodhi tat.
ananta-mūrti tad brahma kūṭasthaṃ calam eva ca.
āvirbhāva-tirobhāvair mohanaṃ bahu-rūpataḥ.
Ibid. p. 115.
ātma-sṛṣṭer na vaiṣamyaṃ nairghṛṇyaṃ cāpi vidyate.
pakṣāntare’pi karma syān niyataṃ tat punar bṛhat.
Ibid. pp. 129-30.
Śāṇḍilya-sūtra, I. 2. (commentary by Svapneśvara).
yā prītir a-vivekānāṃ viṣayeṣv anapāyinī,
tām anusmarataḥ sā me hṛdayān māpasarpatu.
Viṣṇu-purāṇa, I. 20. 19.
Compare Gītā, X. 9:
mac-cittā mad-gata-prāṇā bodhayantaḥ paras-param
kathayantaś ca māṃ nityam tuṣyantica ramanti ca....
na kriyākṛty-apekṣaṇā jñānavat.
Śāṇḍilya-sūtra, I. 1. 7.
sā bhaktir na kriyātmikā bhavitum arhati prayatnānuvedhābhāvāt.
Commentary on Svapneśvara.
tathāpi brahma-viṣayiṇyāh rater brahma-viṣaya-jñānopakārakatvaṃ na pratyakṣa-gamyam. kintu taruṇyādeḥ ratau tathādarśanena brahmagocarāyām apy anumātavyam.
Svapneśvara’s commentary on—I. 2. 15, ibid.
A-dṛṣṭe darśanotkaṇṭhā dṛṣṭe viśleṣa-bhīrutā
nādṛṣṭena na dṛṣṭena bhavatā labhyate sukhaṃ.
Bhakti-mārtaṇḍa, p. 75.
gāḍha-vyasatia-sāhasra-sampāte’pi nir-antaraṃ na hiyate yadīheti svādu tat prema-lakṣaṇam. Ibid.
vastu-mātra-viṣayiṇī vacanānarhā samīhā prema. Ibid.
yathā yoge viyoga-vṛttiḥ prema tathā viyoge yoga-vṛttir api prema. Ibid.
yam upādhiṃ samāśritya rasa ādyo nigadyate tam
upādhiṃ budhottaṃsāḥ premeti paricakṣata.
Ibid. p. 76.
prema-pūrvakaṃ kāyika-vyāpāratvaṃ bhaktitvam...athavā śrī-kṛṣṇa-viṣayaka-prema-pūrvaka-kāyika-vyāpāratvam.
Bhakti-mārtaṇḍa, p. 79.
tasmin kṛṣṇe pūrvaṃ āvarjitaṃ tata āyattaṃ tadadhīnaṃ tataḥ krameṇa bhagavad-ekatānam....gambhīratāṃ prāptaṃ yac cetas tad eva sevārūpam. samādhāv iva bhagavati layaṃ prāptam iti yāvat.
Ibid. p. 82.
He further quotes a passage from Vallabha’s Bhakti-vardhinī in support of his statement:
tataḥ prema tathā śaktir vyasanañca yadā bhaved iti,
yadā syād vyasanaṃ kṛṣṇe kṛtārthaḥ syāt tadaivahi.
Ibid. p. 82.
vigāḍha-bḥāvena sarvatra tathānubhava-rūpaṃ yat kāryaṃ tādṛśapriya-tvānubhavaḥ, iti sarvātma-bhāvo lakṣitaḥ.
Bhāsya-prakāśa on Brahma-sūtra, quoted in Bhakti-mārtaṇḍa, p. 85.
ataḥ sarvātma-bhāvo hi tyāgātmāpekṣayā yutaḥ bhāva-
sva-tantra-bhakti-śabdākhyaḥ phalātmā jñāyatāṃ janaiḥ.
Ibid. p. 86.
yatra manaḥsarvendriyāṇām ānanda-mātra-kara-pāda-mukhodarādi-bhagavad-rūpatā tatra bhakti-rasa eva.
Ibid. p. 102.
It is interesting to refer here to the definition of bhakti as given by jīva in the Ṣaṭ-sandarbha (p. 274), where bhakti is described as a dual existence in God, and, the bhakta being itself of the nature of blissful experience,
sva-rūpaśakteḥ sārabhūtā hlādinī nāma yā vṛttis tasyā eva sārabhūta-vṛttiviśeṣo bhaktiḥ sā ca ratyaparaparyāyā. bhaktir bhavati bhakteṣu ca nikṣipta-nijābhayakoṭiḥ sarvadā tiṣṭhati. ata evoktaṃ bhagavān bhakto bhaktimān.
kena katti paśyet iti śruteḥ bheda-vilopakatvena bhajanānandāntarāya-bhūtaṃ yadi svātmatvena jñānaṃ sampādayed bhajanāṇḍaṃ nādadyāt.
Bhakti-mārtaṇḍa, p. 136.
ati-gāḍha-bhāvo’ bhedasphūrtir api ek ovyābhicāribhāvaḥ. na tu sārvadika-stadā svātmānaṃ tattvena viśiṃṣanti.
Ibid. p. 139.
yathā bhagavān mānasīyas tadvad bhagavatsambandha-naikaṭyāt mana-syāvirbhavantī bhaktir api mano-dharmatvena vyavahriyate. yathā vahni-naikaṭya-tāratamyena bhaktyanubhava-tāratamyam.
Ibid. p. 142.
kṛti-sādhya-sādhana-sādhya-bhaktir maryādā-bhaktiḥ tadrahitānāṃ bhaga-vad-anugrahaika-prāpya-puṣṭi-bhaktiḥ.
Bhakti-mārtaṇḍa, p. 151.
maryādāyāṃ hi śravaṇādibhiḥ pāpakṣaye premotpattis tato muktiḥ. puṣṭi-mārgāṅgīkṛtes tu atyanugraha-sādhyatvena tatra pāpāder aprati-bandhakatvāc chravaṇādirūpā premarūpā ca yugapat pimrvāparyeṇa vā vaiparītyena vā bhavati.
Ibid. p. 152.
ato vedoktatve’pi veda-tātparya-gocaratve’pi jīva-kṛtavaidha-sādhaneṣva-praveśāt tad-asādhya-sādhanāt phala-railakṣanyāc ca sva-rūpataḥ kāryataḥ phalataś cotkarṣāc ca vedokta-sādhanebhyo’pi bhinnaiva tat tadākārikā puṣṭir-astītyato hetoḥ siddhaṃ iti mārga-trayo’tra na sandeha ityartḥaḥ.
Commentary on Puṣṭi-pravāha-maryādā-bhedaḥ, p. 8.
yeṣu sādhana-dvārā bhaktyabhivyaktiḥ teṣu sā anudbhūtā bhāva-rūpeṇa manasi tiṣṭhati, tataḥ pūjādiṣu sādhaneṣ vanuṣṭhīyamāneṣu premādi-rūpeṇa kramād udbhūtā bhavati.
Bhakti-vardhinī-vivṛti (by Puruṣottama), śloka 5.
See note 3, p. 355.
snehāśakti-vyasanānāṃ vināśanaṃ. tathā sati kṛtam-api sarvaṃ vyarthaṃ syāt. tena tat-tyāgaṃ kṛtvā yateta.
Bālakṛṣṇa’s commentary on Bhakti-vardhinī, śloka 6 .
ataḥ kalau sa san-nyāsaḥ pascāt tāpāya nānyathā. pāṣaṇḍitvaṃ bhavet
cāpi tasrnāt jñāne na saṃ-nyaset.
Vallabha’s San-nyāsa-nirṇaya, śloka 16.
jñānārtham uttaraṅgani ca siddhir janmaśataiḥ, jñānaṃ ca sādhanāpekṣaṃ yajñādi-śravaṇān matam param.
San-nyāsa-nirṇaya of Vallabha, with Gokulanātha’s Vivaraṇa, śloka 15.
tatra alaukika-sāmarthyaṃ nāma para-prāpti-vivaraṇa-śrutyukta-bhagavat-sva-rūpānubhave pradīpavadāveśa iti sūtrokta-rītika-bhagavadāveśajā yogyatā yayā rasātmakasya bhagavataḥ pūrṇa-sva-rūpānandānubhavaḥ. śrī-devakī-nandanādāvapyevam āhuḥ. śrī-hari-rāyās tu bhagavad-virahānubhava-sāmarthyam ity āhuḥ. śrī-kalyāṇa-rāyās tu bhagavatā saha gānādi-sāmarthyaṃ mukhyānām evetyāhuḥ. tathā gopīnāntvalaukika-bhajanānandānubhave sva-rupa-yogyatā ityāhuḥ.
Puruṣottama’s commentary on Sevāphala, śloka 1.
kadācit duḥsaṅgādinā ati-pakṣapāti-prabhu-priya-pradveṣeṇa taddrohe prabhor atikrodhena prārthanayāpi kṣamā-saṃ-bhāvanā-rahitena tasmin prabhuḥ phala-pratibandhaṃ karotīti sa bhagatat-kṛta-pratibandhaḥ.
Harirāja’s commentary on Sevāphala, śloka 3.
vivekas tu mamaitad eva prabhunā kṛtaṃ sarvaṃ brahmātmakaṃ ko’haṃ kiñca sādhanaṃ kiṃ phalaṃ ko dātā ko bhoktā ityādi-rūpaḥ.
bhakti-mārge sevāyā uttama-madhyama-sādhāraṇādhikārakrameṇa etat phala-trayam eva, no mokṣādiḥ.
Hariraja’s commentary on Sevāphala, śloka 6.