Śrīmad Bhāgavat Canto 1, chapters 2-6

Continuing our review of Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī's commentaries on the first Canto -

1.2.4 After the famous verse nārāyaṇaṁ namaskṛtya naraṁ caiva narottamam, Bhānu Swāmī writes a footnote about Saraswati –

“This is not the material deity. In the spiritual world exist counterparts to the devatās of the material world who assist the Lord in his pastimes there. For instance divyā Sarasvatī gives Kṛṣṇa mantra to Brahmā in Brahma-saṁhitā.”

The words divyā sarasvatī appear in Brahmā Saṁhitā 5.24, and there is a verse in the Purāṇas describing demigods in the spiritual sky. We will have to wait until or whether we find pramāṇa about this particular mentioning of Sarasvatī. The sentence ‘tato jayam udirayet’ is justly translated as ‘and thus one must proclaim Jaya!’

1.2.6 Viśvanātha compares the growth of bhakti from sādhana bhakti to prema bhakti with the growth of a mango – the raw mango is sādhana bhakti, with inferior taste, and the ripe mango is prema bhakti – “The stages of childhood, youth and adulthood in one person are actually not conditions of cause and effect (since the person remains). On the other hand, when pots, cloth and cooked rice arise, the original names and forms of mud, thread and raw rice disappear. One cannot compare these examples to bhakti and prema.”

1.2.18 nityaṁ bhāgavata sevayā - By serving the devotees and the Bhāgavat, the major portion of nāmāparādhas (abhadreṣu) becomes weak.

1.2.20 With the development of āsakti, with worship of Kṛṣṇa at every moment, rati appears (prasanna-manasaḥ). Without rati, there could never be constant detachment from objects of material enjoyment, and without constant detachment, there could never be satisfaction of the mind. Then prema to Bhagavān appears (bhagavad-bhakti-yogataḥ). From that arises realization (vijñānam) of the Lord’s form, qualities, pastimes, majesty and sweetness.

1.2.23 Because one can realize fire through wood but not through smoke, tamas should be considered superior to rajas. In deep sleep (tamas) one has realization of oneness with ātmā. Thus some persons argue that between Brahmā and Śiva, Śiva is better.

1.2.24 jīvātmanas tu cit-karaṇatvād alpa-prakāśakatvād īśitavyatvād asvātantryād alpa-balatvācca guṇa-kartṛka eva tat-sparśe sati sva-jñāna-lopaḥ saṁsāraśca bhavatīti vivecanīyam - However the jīva, because he is only a particle of cit, having very little ability of knowledge and because he is controlled by the Lord and not independent, and has very little power, he is bereft of knowledge of his real nature and resides in this material world by contacting the guṇas.

1.5.9 Vyāsa protested to Nārada that he did actually glorify bhakti as being above mukti, as he had already written the Purāṇas at this point. He had written in the Padma Purāṇa –

anyatra puṇya-tīrtheṣu muktir eva mahā-phalam

muktaiḥ prārthyā harer bhaktir mathurāyāṁ ca labhyata

“Liberation is the highest goal in other holy places, but Hari-bhakti, prayed for by the liberated souls, is attained in Mathurā.”

And of course there is the famous mad bhaktim labhate param-verse in the Gītā (18.54). But Nārada told him he did not write this enough and therefore he needed to write the Bhāgavat.

1.5.10 It may be argued that none of the Purāṇas written by Vyāsa should be considered as a place of crows, since nothing there is completely devoid of the glories of the Lord.  To this however it can be said:

kali-mala-saṁhati-kālano’khileśo

harir itaratra na gīyate hy abhīkṣṇam

iha tu punar bhagavān aśeṣa-mūrtiḥ

paripaṭhito’nu-padaṁ kathā-prasaṅgaiḥ

“Nārāyaṇa, the soul of the universal form, who destroys the accumulated sins of the Kali age, is not glorified all the time elsewhere [in other scriptures]. But Bhagavān, with His unlimited forms, is abundantly and constantly described throughout the narrations of this Śrīmad-Bhāgavat.” (SB 12.12.65)

1.5.25 mahā-mahā prasāda is so powerful, that Nārada got bhakti just by eating some rice which was stuck to the plate of one of the sages his mother was serving!

In his commentary on verses 28-30 Viśvanātha says Nārada developed prema by hearing Kṛṣṇa-kathā from the sages for just two seasons (4 months in Vedic measure).

1.6.16 The Lord first appeared in Nārada’s heart, and then he appeared in the three functions of the mind—nose, ear and eye, so that he could experience the fragrance of His body, the sound of His ankle bells and the beauty of His face.

1.6.17 Prema and its symptoms are clearly mentioned here in the verse.

1.6.22 [23 in other editions] http://madangopal.blogspot.nl/2009/10/premas-growth-from-childhood-to.html

1.6.27-28 [28-29 in other editions] Nārada says: “At the time of dissolving my subtle and gross bodies, the time that I was waiting for for a long time made its appearance.”

Suddenly the two times (disappearance of the material body and attainment of the spiritual body) simultaneously made their appearance, connected closely like subject and predicate. “Just as sometimes lightning appears at the same time as another flash of lightning, similarly at the exact time of giving up my material body, the time of receiving my spiritual body as an associate also occurred.” In the next verse Viśvanātha continues on this, comparing the event as ‘sitting down and eating’, two things that occur simultaneously. Viśvanātha: “What should be amazing?  Even an outcaste who chants the name of the Lord once, now, at the time of uttering the name, gives up his body. Since we do not see anyone giving up their body simultaneously with chanting, “body” here means his prārabdha-karmas which are experienced in the present body. This is the opinion of some. Others say by the association of bhakti, like a touchstone, the body made of the three guṇas becomes free of the guṇas, as seen in the case of Dhruva. Thus, giving up the body means giving up the body made of three guṇas. This will be explained later at the beginning of the rāsa-dance (SB 10.29.11): jahur guṇamayaṁ dehaṁ sadyaḥ prakṣīṇa-bandhanāḥ: “Free of bondage, those gopīs abandoned their gross material bodies made of guṇas.” But others say that sometimes the Lord shows devotees literally giving up their bodies in order that the opinion of others are not contradicted. Thus Nārada, who had developed prema already, gave up his body. However it should be understood that he had already destroyed his prārabdha-karmas during his practice of bhakti. 

Śrīmad Bhāgavata Chapter 1, Canto 1 - the rest

I had a remaining problem with the first verse of the Bhāgavat, so I asked Paṇḍit Satya-nārāyaṇa Dās about it -

Panditji Rādhe Rādhe and a happy Nandotsava to you. I am studying Bhānu Swami's translation of Visvanatha's tika to the first verse of the Bhagavata. In Viśvanātha's third explanation Bhanu Swami says that -

"Let us meditate on Kṛṣṇa from whom appears the highest rasa, śṛṅgāra-rasa (janma ādyasya). Previously this rasa, though existing, had disappeared because of the censure by conservative spiritual aspirants. "

Viśvanātha's Sanskrit reads:

tad yathā—ādyasya śṛṅgāra-rasasya janma yatas taṁ dhīmahi | pūrvaṁ tasya paramārtha-darśibhiḥ saṁyogāt sadbhir vigītatvena svato’pi nāśa evāsīd iti bhāvaḥ

It speaks of paramārtha darśibhih, seers of spirituality. It does not seem that Bhānu's translation is right. What does the ṭīkā actually say?

Paṇḍit Satya-nārāyaṇa Dās replied - “His translation is right, just needs an explanation to make it clear. The paramārtha darśibhiḥ mainly refers to spiritualists who were in the renounced order. Thus they did not appreciate śṛṅgāra rasa, did not study it, and thus it became invisible. Sannyasis were not allowed or expected to indulge in śṛṅgāra kathā. It was forbidden.”

More Sārārtha Darśinī reviews -

Verse 1.1.2 of the Bhāgavat says that sadyo hṛdy avaruddhyate, the Lord is instantly captured in the heart by those who hear the Bhāgavat. Viśvanātha says:

“This indicates that prema arises in the devotees, since the Lord is subdued only by prema.  Praṇaya-raśanayā dhṛtāṅghri-padmaḥ: the Lord’s lotus feet are tied by ropes to the devotee.  (SB 11.2.55)…..Kṛṣṇa enters the hearts of even those who have suddenly developed the desire to hear from the moment they begin listening. Since they develop the desire to hear from that moment, even before having faith, it means that they develop prema simply by hearing the Bhāgavat, what to speak if they heard with faith!” 

Tat-kṣaṇāt can also mean that due to Kṛṣṇa’s (tat) festival, frolicks (kṣaṇāt) he becomes caught in the devotee’s heart. Since Kṛṣṇa becomes supremely blissful by being locked in a heart filled with prema, this also indicates that Kṛṣṇa feels paramānanda and prema when the devotees hear the Bhāgavat. This result is not attained through any other scripture or sādhana (kiṁ vā paraiḥ).… In this scripture and in no other work, the essential object, the religion free from all deceit, is presented.

Verse 1.1.3 -

The Bhāgavata is the ripened fruit that fell off the desire tree of the Vedas, dropped from the mouth of the divine parrot, or Śukadeva. O Rasikas! Drink that luscious bhāgavata until you faint of ecstasy - (śuka mukhād amṛta) galitam means that it falls down of by itself when it is ripe on the tree - not by force. This fulfills its sweetness. Even after falling from a high position in the tree, it does not break, nor does it lose its sweetness. That is because it comes down from the highest position, from Nārāyaṇa, to the branch of Brahmā, and then to the mouth of Śuka. Thus it is endowed with liquid sweetness like honey. The parrot, Śuka, has even made a gate (opening) in the fruit with his beak for taking out the sweetness. Moreover, having been tasted by him, that fruit becomes even sweeter. Moreover, it remains unbroken, coming down step-by-step from the branch of Sūta and others. What is implied here is that without guru-paramparā, one cannot drink the Bhāgavat in its unbroken form, just by trying to taste it through the use of one’s own intelligence…..How should the fruit be relished? One should drink it, for this fruit is the essence of taste (rasam), devoid of skin, seed and other disposable parts.”

“One of the meanings of the word laya may be the eighth sāttvika-bhāva called pralaya, fainting. One should drink until one develops the eight symptoms up to the final one, fainting. Though one will not be able to drink the nectar when one has fainted, when the fainting wears off, one again awakens to consciousness and begins drinking until one faints again. One cannot give up drinking. Hence the use of the word muhuḥ (again and again). Or muhuḥ can mean that though one has drunk it, by again drinking it, the relish increases. Aho means it is astonishing. O knowers of rasa (rasikāḥ)! This refers only to the devotees, for their rati (bhāva) becomes the sthāyi-bhāva which enables them to relish the rasa of the Bhāgavat…..

Surely Kṛṣṇa is rasa, the fruit, but this fruit is not directly situated on the desire-tree of the Vedas. It has fallen down (galitam) nearby. This object, rasa, is not on the tree itself. It is not to be searched out in the Vedas, but rather it is in the mouth of Śukadeva. One can say that Vyāsa, knowing that this fruit was very tasty, got attracted to it, brought it and put it in the mouth of his son out of affection.  śukha-mukhāt can also indicate a cause: the rasa is sweeter because of coming from the mouth of Śukadeva

…….Bhuvi indicates Vraja-bhūmi. Bhāvukāḥ and rasikāḥ indicate the dear gopīs. O dear relishers of Kṛṣṇa’s rasa, drink the sweetness of the rasa arising from his form (bhāgavatam). Or pibata bhāgavatam rasam ālayam can mean “relish rasa up to the point of embracing (ālayam) Kṛṣṇa….. Kṛṣṇa’s rasa is indestructible (amṛta) and flows away quickly from the mind and eye (drava). Therefore drink that indestructible nectar in the form of his lips. In that case, nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam means “rāgānugā-bhakti which is the fully ripened fruit (galitam) on the tree of the Vedas.” This fully ripened fruit is rāgānugā-bhakti following in the footsteps of the gopīs. It is seen in the Bṛhad-vāmana Purāṇa that the Vedas, adopting that type of bhakti, accepted the forms of hundreds of thousands of gopīs in Vraja bhūmi and drank the sweet nectar of his lips.

Verse 1.1.10 is the famous verse about Kali yuga-people –

In Kali-yuga people are generally short-lived, lazy, unintelligent, devoid of the good fortune of devotee association, and afflicted by various problems.

Viśvanātha comments –

“In Kali-yuga people are generally short-lived. If they have long life by chance, then they are too lazy to investigate spiritual topics. Even if someone is not lazy then he is unintelligent. Even if someone is intelligent, he is unfortunate, for he will be bereft of the company of sādhus. Even if someone has that association of devotees, he is afflicted. Under the control of diseases and other problems, he does not get the time to hear from the mouth of the devotee, or even if he does hear, he cannot discern the highest goal for the human being and then carry out actions to attain it.”

Verse 1.1.19 –

“We are never satiated with hearing Kṛṣṇa-kathā, which become more and more relishable at every step for the knowers of rasa.”

Viśvanātha comments - 

Uttama-śloka means “he whose fame or good qualities are the best.” Or it can mean “he who is praised by the best persons.”

In three ways one knows that one has had enough of something and is satisfied: by having a full belly, by lack of knowledge of the taste, and by lack of particular relish of the object. In this verse, there is insufficiency for the hearers (śṛṅvatām) because the exploits are not directly present, being present only as sound in the ether contacting the ear.  Satisfaction is not accomplished by a person who does not know rasa, someone who is just like an animal. Rasikas know [rasajñā, appreciate] rasa, but still they are not satisfied. Unlike chewed sugarcane which loses its taste and becomes detestable, the topics of the Lord are most excellent because of the increase in taste at every moment (pade pade) after tasting. Rasikas do not lose taste, but are still dissatisfied.

The first verse alone....

In the past I have blogged reviews of Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda’s ‘Sārārtha Darśinī’-ṭīkās of Śrīmad Bhāgavata’s Cantos 3-12. Canto 1 and 2 were never done so far. I made a small start with the first Canto here. The ṭīkā on the first verse takes more than half of the text of the ṭīkā on the entire first chapter. Viśvanatha gives 5 different explanations of it, the last one being the longest one. All of it is mighty interesting but it is impossible to put it all in a small media like a blog, so here is an anthology only (it is especially interesting for those who know each word of this śloka well) –

Viśvanāth says: “Just as He appears as Matsya among the fish, as Varāha among the animals, as Haṁsa among the birds, as svayam bhagavān Kṛṣṇa among humans, and as Upendra among the devatās, so the Lord has now appeared as the crown jewel of the scriptures, Śrīmad-bhāgavata, among the Vedas, for restoring dharma and delivering the devotees.”

He quotes SB 1.3.43, the famous verse comparing the Bhāgavat to the sun, and then says: “It (the Bhāgavata) has twelve forms (Cantos), just as the sun has twelve forms for each of the months of the year.”

Later he comes with an important quote to prove that even the devotees in Śvetadvīpa and Vaikuṇṭha have forms – “These forms are not material, since the word atīndriya is used. “

atīndriyā nirāhārā aniṣpannāḥ sugandhinaḥ

ekāntinas te puruṣāḥ śveta-dvīpa-nivāsinaḥ

“The inhabitants living in Śvetadvīpa, devoted completely to the Lord, are all fragrant, beyond the material senses, without any need for material food and without material movement.”  Mahābhārata 12.323.26

In the third explanation he explains the word ādi as follows -

“Let us meditate on Kṛṣṇa from whom appears the highest rasa, śṛṅgāra-rasa (janma ādyasya). ….. By meeting (anvayāt) and separation (itarataḥ) this rasa with the gopīs is accomplished. Just as Bhīmasena is represented by the word Bhīma, so the ādya-rasa is represented by the word ādya.”

“Kṛṣṇa is knowledgeable of, or skilful in (abhijñaḥ), all things suitable for rasa such as the sixty four arts.  But unlike material heroes such as Nala who are affected by time and karma, Kṛṣṇa, the viṣaya of spiritual rasa, is independent and spiritual (svarāṭ).  Rasa should not be accredited to other persons. He alone conveyed the truth about ādi-rasa (brahma) through His mind (hṛdā) unto Bharata Muni (ādi-kavaye), the famous exponent of material rasa. This reveals that rasa originates only from Kṛṣṇa.”

He then hits out at the sahajiyās –

“There is no rasa in material heroes whose temporary bodies end in ashes and worm waste. Rather, on consideration, in this there is a contradiction to rasa — distaste or disgust — because of the perversion of the object of love, vibhāva. The unintelligent describe rasa in such persons.”

That there are three types of meaning in Sanskrit writing does not mean they are ever false in relation to Kṛṣṇa. Viśvanātha writes:

“In the Lord there is the creation of the three meanings; literal, metaphorical and suggested, or creation of allusion (dhvani), skill in composition (guṇa) and literary ornaments (alaṅkāra). These are real (amṛṣā) and become amazing because of their extraordinary nature in Kṛṣṇa.”

From the fourth explanation:

“Without deceit, in correct manner, aspiring for the highest goal, we meditate on Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa from whom arises the height of madhura-rasa.  By giving up the other gopīs and following only Her, as dhīra-lalita He showed his expertise in the chief aspects of rasa and She exhibited herself as an independent lover. Kṛṣṇa imparted through the heart to Śukadeva, knower of this rasa from birth, the Bhāgavatam, by which the devotees faint in ecstasy and undergo transformation, just as fire, water and earth reverse their properties and by whose influence the three śaktis remain eternally….”

…..

“Giving up all other gopī lovers (itarataḥ), He followed Her alone and became obedient to Her (anvayāt).”

………

“Because He gave up other gopīs and followed Her alone (preyasī vaśaḥ), He is known as a dhīra-lalita lover, favorable for cultivating rasa. He is thus called “one who is fully knowledgeable of the chief rasas filled with madhura-rasa (artheṣu abhijñaḥ).” And because He is dhīra-lalita, She alone remains with Her lover (svarāṭ), as a svādhīna-kāntā, a lady who controls Kṛṣṇa.“

………

“From hearing the Bhāgavatam (yad) since it has rasa, the devotees faint in ecstasy from tasting the rasa (yad sūrayaḥ muhyanti). Or because Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are the objects of their hearing and seeing, Their close associates (sūrayaḥ), though most wise, become bewildered. This means that they take on qualities opposite their normal qualities, out of ecstasy. And others are included in this ecstasy also. This is illustrated through an example. Their ecstasy is just like earth, water and fire reversing their attributes (tejo-vārī mṛdam yathā vinimaya). For instance the moon, a form of fire, on seeing the rāsa-līlā of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, gave up its quality of moving and became stunned like earth. Water, on hearing the sound of the flute, became stunned like earth. Stones made of earth became liquid like water.”

The fifth explanation is again more grave and philosophical.

This is just an anthology of the commentary of one of the ācāryas on the first verse of the Bhāgavata – behold the depth and volume of this grantha!

Guru Pūrṇimā 2013

Sītānāth Kula-kaustubha paramārādhyatama Prabhupāda

Nitya-līlā praviṣṭa

Śrī Śrīmad Nikunja Gopāl Goswāmī

Guru Pūrṇimā 2013

On the occasion of Guru Pūrṇimā, I like to quote the following verses and / or comments –

Śrī Nārada told King Yudhiṣṭhira in Śrīmad Bhāgavata (7.15.22-25)  -

asaṅkalpāj jayet kāmaṁ krodhaṁ kāma-vivarjanāt

arthānarthekṣayā lobhaṁ bhayaṁ tattvāvamarśanāt

ānvīkṣikyā śoka-mohau dambhaṁ mahad-upāsayā

yogāntarāyān maunena hiṁsāṁ kāmādy-anīhayā

kṛpayā bhūtajaṁ duḥkhaṁ daivaṁ jahyāt samādhinā

ātmajaṁ yoga-vīryeṇa nidrāṁ sattva-niṣevayā

rajas tamaś ca sattvena sattvaṁ copaśamena ca

etat sarvaṁ gurau bhaktyā puruṣo hy añjasā jayet

            "To give up lust one must give up one's determination to enjoy, to give up anger one must give up lust and to give up greed one must see the evil of money. Fear can be given up by considering the truth, lamentation and illusion can be given up by considering what is material and what is spiritual (rational thinking), pride can be given up by serving a great soul and obstacles in yoga-practise (which serves the purpose of fixing the mind) can be overcome by perfecting a vow of silence. Violence is conquered by giving up endeavours for sense-gratification, suffering caused by other living entities can be mitigated by developing the quality of compassion, suffering caused by the elements can be mitigated by entering into samādhi (psycho-religious trance) and suffering caused by the own body and mind can be mitigated by practising the eight-fold path of mystic yoga (aṣṭāṅga-yoga). When the mode of goodness increases sleep is conquered, along with the modes of passion and indolence, and by controlling the senses the mode of goodness is transcended. But all these vices and obstacles together can be conquered simply by devotion to the guru."

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda comments on this verse -

añjasā śīghram āyāsābhāvena sarvaṁ jayet. sarva-rogopaśamanaṁ mukhyam ekam eva mahauṣadham ivety arthaḥ.

“One overcomes all obstacles quickly and easily by bhakti to the Guru. This is like taking just one principal medicine which cures all other diseases.”

Śrīdhara Swāmī comments on the last verse of Bhagavad Gītā (18.78):

sva-prāgalbhya-balād vilobhya bhagavad-gītāṁ tad-antar-gatam

tattvaṁ prepsur upaiti kiṁ guru-kṛpā-pīyūṣa-dṛṣṭiṁ vinā

ambu svāñjalinā nirasya jaladher āditsur antarmaṇī

nāvarteṣu na kiṁ nimajjati janaḥ sat-karṇa-dhāraṁ vinā

“Does a person who desires to attain the Truths contained within the Bhagavad-Gītā by trying to understand them on the strength of his own proficiency, realize them without the merciful nectar-glance of the Guru? Is a person who desires to get the jewels that lie at the bottom of the ocean by scooping out the water with the hollow of his hands, not doomed to failure unless he is helped by an able captain?”

The texts have been added to page 3 and 9 of my anthology of Guru-glorifications from śāstra on my website. 

Śrīpāda Kānupriya Goswāmī writes in his book ‘Nāma Cintāmaṇi’, vol. 3, p.120 –

“The symptom of a sheltered person or āśrita is that he takes shelter wholeheartedly and exclusively so. If the sheltered does not consider the shelter the greatest of all but thinks others are equally or even more worshipable then this cannot truly be called taking shelter, because the main symptom of a sheltered soul is the exclusive nature of his surrender. No one can be equal or superior to the shelter in excellence – such a mentality is called an ‘exclusive attitude’. If one respects many things equally, the shelter of one of them can never be called true shelter. Experiencing all super-excellence in one shelter and being attracted just to that shelter, such an exclusive shelter is called true śaraṇa or shelter. The characteristic of the sheltered is that he has exclusive one-pointed focus on the shelter. If one does not take exclusive shelter such a shelter is a mere pretense, a theater play.”

Avinoda-vāda

Pandora’s box produces ever-new jīva-tattva speculations – we had fall-vāda, envy-vāda, dream-vāda, fall from taṭastha-vāda (will be discussed later) and first-become-lord-Brahmā-vāda. Now there is a new siddhānta – boredom-vāda.

Dāmodar Das

One devotee writes: By the way, Kṛṣṇa creates and oversees physical worlds as He has nothing to do, so says the famous commentary on verse 2.1.33 of "Srī Vedanta-sutra." This commentary states that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is like bored, very rich Prince, who plays a variety of games simply because of boredom, nothing to do and just to have fun. This commentary was written for the first time by Śrī Śrīmad Rāmānuja ācārya and all the Vaiṣṇava-ācāryas later in their comments just repeated this comment, because it is a genius and explains all two sentences. What do you think?

Advaita Das

I do not know of such comments. I have only an English rendering of Rāmānuja’s commentary here by George Thibaut, whoever that may be. There it says in 2.1.33 –

“We see in ordinary life how some great king, ruling this earth with its seven dvīpas, and possessing perfect strength, valour, and so on, has a game at balls, or the like, from no other motive than to amuse himself; hence there is no objection to the view that sport only is the motive prompting Brahman to the creation, sustentation, and destruction of this world which is easily fashioned by his mere will.”

Even if this translation is correct, it does not mention boredom. Anyway we are not Rāmānujaites. Our Vedānta Bhāṣya is by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.”

Dāmodar Das

“He claims that all ācāryas repeated it.”

Advaita Das

The jivas are anādi, beginningless - there is no reason for their existence or their presence in the material world and Kṛṣṇa is never bored as He is ānanda ghana vigraha, the embodiment of bliss.”

Dāmodar Das

I quote the pūrva-pakṣa- “About a month ago I wrote that the jīva in any case does not fall from the spiritual world or goes out of taṭastha-śakti (allegedly while choosing where to go). A correct theory, which is supported by the Upaniṣads and the majority of the Vaiṣṇava Sampradaya is, that Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself puts the jīva in the material world and decides for himself at what point to release the jīva!

Advaita Das

Majority? No Vedic philosopher says that. No Vedic guru or sampradāya speaks fall vāda, putting in the material world-vāda, envy-vāda, or dream-vāda. Where is the evidence for that? There are so many ślokas in Śrīmad Bhāgavata that say anādy avidyā, the jīvas’ ignorance is beginningless, and the Brahma Sūtra says anādi karma. Did Kṛṣṇa put us here, for what reason then? And when? This morning at 3? 1967? Ask his evidence.

Dāmodar Das

"Because of boredom, nothing to do and just to have fun'

Advaita Das

sṛṣṭy-ādikaṁ harir naiva prayojanam apekṣya tu |

kurute kevalānandād yathā mattasya nartanam ||

pūrṇānandasya tasyeha prayojana-matiḥ kutaḥ |

muktā avyāpta-kāmāḥ syuḥ kim utāsy akhilātmanaḥ

This is what is in Baladeva’s ṭīkā of the sūtra VS 2.1.33. It means –

“Hari has no purpose in his creation. He is doing it for fun only like the dancing of a crazy man. How can there be any purpose in the embodiment of full bliss?”

That is not the same as being bored. If He is full bliss how can He be bored? But remember one thing - this is not an historical fact. Just as the Kaustubha-gem was not really gotten at the samudra manthan - it is eternally Kṛṣṇa's also before churning of the milk ocean. So there is no time frame in the creation. Otherwise Bhagavad Gītā’s verse 2.12 would be false, and all the anādy avdiyā verses in the śāstras and their commentaries too.”

Dāmodar Das

It is also mentioned in Bhagavat Sandarbha - What Jīva Goswāmī says in in the Sandarbhas about this verse?

Advaita Das

It is in Bhagavat Sandarbha paragraph 35 –

Nārāyaṇa-saṁhitā also states:

“Lord Hari performs actions, such as creation, without any specific purpose. He does so purely out of pleasure, just as an intoxicated man dances. Since He is completely blissful, what purpose does He have to achieve from creation? If even liberated souls delight in the Self alone, how much more must this be so for the Lord, the Supreme Soul of all?”

By the example of a dancing madman (implying deficiency or absence of awareness), one should not think that the Lord is something other than omniscient. The example is relevant in this sense alone, that, owing to His excessive internal bliss, He performs pastimes without having any particular purpose to accomplish. If to try and circumvent the problem with this example, we suggest instead the example of (the Lord’s pastimes occurring naturally, like) inhaling and exhaling, the same defect (absence of awareness being attributed to the Lord) still presents itself, in the case of breathing during deep sleep. Therefore, the limitations of these examples aside, the real point to be noted is that the Lord’s pastimes are characterized exclusively as natural and spontaneous manifestations of the bliss inherent in His essential nature. The Śruti also declares, “This (i.e., the act of creation, etc.) is the nature of the Lord. What yearning can there be in one whose desires are naturally and completely fulfilled?” (Māṇḍūkya-kārikā 1.9).

Dāmodar Das

na conmatta-dṛṣṭāntenāsarvajṣatva prasaṣjayitavyam | svarūpānandodrekeṇa sva-prayojanam ananusandhāyaiva līlāyate ity etad aṃśenaiva svīkārāt | ucchvāsa-praśvāsa-dṛṣṭānte'pi suṣupty-ādau tad-doṣāpātāt | tasmāt svarūpānanda-svābhāvikyena tal-līlā 

Advaita Das

The last text is Jīva Goswāmī's.

"If the Lord’s direct engagements, such as the act of glancing at material nature, are accepted as His pastimes, then the deeds He performs in Vaikuṇṭha are surely all the more so. The wives of the Kāliya serpent prayed: “Our obeisances unto You, who always enjoy in Your own nature” (avyākṛta-vihārāya, SB 10.16.47). Therefore, even liberated sages, like Śrī Śuka, hear His pastimes with total absorption and delight (as shown in the above-quoted verse, SB 12.12.69, ajita-rucira-līlākṛṣṭa-sāraḥ). “

I think it is clear Kṛṣṇa is not 'bored'. This devotee sees things that are not there. There is some text before too, before the Nārāyaṇa-Saṁhitā quote, just to get the whole context clear -

“Similarly, what distinguishes the Lord’s actions from ordinary acts is that they are exclusively manifestations of His natural bliss. As the Brahma-sūtra states, “The actions of the Lord, such as creation, are a play, like the pleasurable deeds people enact” (VS 2.1.33). The Tattva-vādī [Madhvācārya] has explained this sūtra, “The Lord creates in the same way that an intoxicated man dances out of bliss, and not to achieve anything.”

By the way you see here that Jīva Goswāmī calls Madhvācārya 'the tattva-vādī' not 'the head of our sampradāya'. Caitanya Caritāmṛta described Mahāprabhu smashing the tattva-vādīs who are not a branch of Madhva sampradāya but Madhva sampradāya proper. Jīva Goswāmī says vyākhyātaṁ ca tattva-vādibhiḥ, yathā, 'the tattva vādi explains” when he quotes Madhva. So how can Madhvācārya create a branch of his OWN sampradāya and be called a member of his own branch?

Dāmodar Das

That it is just fun of lord. But it is quite strange that because of that fun, jīvas suffer so much.”

Advaita Das

That is due to bodily consciousness. The soul does not suffer. But again, this is all anādi - never forget this. There is no beginning and thus also no cause. This is not an historical story. It is timeless - anādi bahirmukha. It is not that we were once in the spiritual sky and Kṛṣṇa just sent us away or so.”

Dāmodar Das

But without Rādhikā, Kṛṣṇa feels bored, or not?

Advaita Das

No, because the separation is a thrill and the tricks He plans to meet her too. This all takes place on the topmost level of transcendental bliss called mahābhāva.

Dāmodar Das

When he is bored from behavior of Rukmiṇī, he teases her meek humble behaviour - tries to make her angry….

Advaita Das

The Bhāgavat (10.60) does not say He is bored - he just enjoys her māna not out of boredom. vibhur api kalayann sadāpi vṛddhi – Kṛṣṇa is always full but his fullness always increases (Dāna Keli Kaumudī 1)

Dāmodar Das

That means "If He is always full, how He can be bored?"

Advaita Das

Yes. If sādhakas feel always thrilled in worshipping Him how can He Himself be bored? Boredom-vāda is like fall-vāda - thinking there is material imperfection in spiritual sky. There is no evidence for this in śāstra, nor does it make any sense (yukti).

Dāmodar Dās

Boredom is not mentioned among the vyabhicārī bhāvas in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu (2.4.4-6) either.

Akrūra yātrā and bhajanānandī vs goṣṭhyānandī

AKRŪRA YĀTRĀ

Bhakta: Some doubt the Bhāgavat because it says, in chapter 38 of the 10^th canto, that Akrūra left Mathurā to pick up Kṛṣṇa from Gokula, uṣitvā (10.38.1), without even having broken Ekādaśī, viz. early in the morning,  and only arrived in Gokula at dusk. Gokula is very close to Mathurā – he should have reached it in half an hour only.”

Advaitadās – “These are persons with narrow, mundane intellect only. The land of Vraja contains all the brahmāṇḍas in a mere corner, the Goswāmīs say. Laws of time and space do not apply there. The opposite scenario is also depicted in Govinda Līlāmṛta (21.105) – 

nidhāya yantrārpita yāna sannibhe mano-jave hṛt kamala nināya 

 “The soil of Vraja held Kṛṣṇa on her lotus-like heart, so He went as swift as the mind.” 

Kṛṣṇa lives in Nandagrām and Rādhikā in Yāvat – 55 km from Vṛndāvana – even by running there it would take them the whole night – how can They reach it in a flash? mano-jave – by the speed of the mind. You are now in Vraja but you were born in, say, America. If you think of America in Vraja you are there instantly. And that is just travelling with the mundane mind, what to speak of with a spiritual body!

BHAJANĀNANDĪ OR GOṢṬHYĀNANDĪ?

Is there really such a duality between bhajanānandī and goṣṭhyānandī? Apart from the fact that such terms do not appear in śāstra, the eternal associates of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and contemporary ācāryas following in their wake, spent their valuable time doing both. Look for instance at Śrī Haridās Ṭhākur. In Śāntipura Śrī Advaita Ācārya gave him a solitary cave for doing bhajan, but he also taught the devotional purports of Śrīmad Bhāgavata and Bhagavad Gītā –

gaṅgā-tīre gophā kori nirjane tare dilā

bhāgavata gītāra bhakti artha śunāilā

(Caitanya Caritāmṛta, Antya 3.216)

There is 24 hours in a day and it is neither necessary to sit down and do bhajan or run around preaching all these 24 hours. They can and should both be done.

Rādhārāni (the word) not in śāstra

Recently I had this discussion on Facebook with Hari Pārṣada Dās:

Hari Pārṣada Dās:  

You wrongly spelled radharani in your last blog.

Advaita Dās:

“ṇ should be like that.”

Hari Pārṣada Dās

“No its not RĀṆĪ it should be RĀNĪ - राधारानी its not राधाराणी. I think the word may not be found in ancient Sanskrit dictionaries. It will be found in the Hindi dictionaries. The Sanskrit word is rājñī. I found it on spokensanskrit.de. It is rānī not rāṇī.”

Advaita Dās:

“It is not in Apte’s Sanskrit dictionary. Yes, I see it in spoken sanskrit.de. Strange. I thought the n was Hindi and the ṇ was Sanskrit.”

Hari Pārṣada Dās

“Well as I said Apte is a Sanskrit dictionary and rānī is a later prākṛta or śūrasenī word. Some Hindi words become mixed in Sanskrit. The Goswāmis never use rānī.”

Advaita Dās:

Very interesting. I never thought of that. It is rājñi in Vilāpa Kusumānjali (14): vṛndāraṇya rājñi

Hari Pārṣada Dās:

"Indeed. There are some words like these which confirm my suspicion that some languages have found some way in Sanskrit."

Advaita Dās:

"Yes I know. Most online Sanskrit dictionaries even include the suffix 'ji', which is Muslim."

Hari Pārṣada Dās:

"Yes. The word jī has come from jī huzoor. jī sāheb."

Advaita Dās:

"It is so deeply engrained in Indian usage that it even crept into the Sanskrit lexicon. How about pātarāni or patta-rāṇī? This is also Muslim?"

Hari Pārṣada Dās:

"Yes. Should we not be surprised if some Muslim styles of playing harmonium have crept in our kīrtanas? Paṭarānī is not in spokensanskrit.de which means it’s not in Amarakosa or the old lexicons. rājñī is the standard word for ‘queen’. The Gosvāmīs’ inspiration for poetry have been Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura and Jayadeva Gosvāmī, so i doubt that they'll use those words. And Rūpa Gosvāmī is thoroughly trained in nāṭya śāstra, so he will stick to pure Sanskrit.

End note:

I went through all my e-files of śāstra with Word Search - the Bhāgavata and all the Gosvāmīs’ books, and the word rāṇī is indeed mentioned nowhere at all. Nice studies are the 108 names of Rādhā or Visākhānandada Stotram by Srīla Raghunātha Dās Goswāmī (Advaitadas.)