Shastra Quiz 52

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī begins Bhakti Sandarbha by pinpointing the root cause of the living being’s suffering in this world. He says that although by nature a jīva is conscious and thus superior to matter, yet it is marred by ignorance in regard to the Absolute Reality. This ignorance has no beginning, and thus it is not initiated by any action or intent either of the jīva or Bhagavān.

It is the basis of the turning of regard away from Bhagavān and bhakti, technically known as the state of bhagavad-vaimukhya. This non-recognition of one’s authentic identity leads to misidentification with the body as the self.

Śrī Jīva’s Goswami explains the cause of the jīva’s misidentification with the body by citing the following verse from the Bhāgavata purāṇa:

yad-arthena vināmuṣya puṁsa ātma-viparyayaḥ |

pratīyata upadraṣṭu sva-śiraś-chedanādikaḥ ||

[it is because of this māyā] that the self assumes a position that is contrary to its inherent nature, just as it appears to a witness of the dream state that he has been beheaded and other similar contradictions, even though such dream cognitions are without reality, (SB 3.7.10)*

In the verse, Śrī Jīva explains the word ‘yad’ in ‘yad-arthena’ as yasyāḥ māyayā hetor, that is, “because of māyā”.

Later, he comments:

svapnāvasthāyāṁ jīvena sva-śiraś-chedanādiko’tīvāsambhavo’rthaḥ pratīyate | na hi tasya śiraś chinnaṁ, na tu vā sva-śiraś chedaṁ ko’pi paśyet | kintu bhagavan-māyaivānyatra-siddhaṁ tad-rūpam arthaṁ tasminn āropayatīti, māyā-mātraṁ tu kārtsnyenānabhivyakta-svarūpatvāt [vs 3.2.3] iti nyāyena ||

In the dream state, a completely impossible effect, such as seeing one’s own head being chopped off, appears to be experienced by the jīva. Certainly his head is not being cut off, nor can anyone witness his own beheading. Rather,it is Bhagavān’s māyā,which superimposes such an effect occurring to some other person in some other circumstance on the witness itself of such an event in the dream state. As is said: “Dream objects are, however, products of māyā alone, because they are not perceived by anyone other than the dreamer” (vs 3.2.3).

Śrī Jīva cites more verses which explain the state of the jīva through more analogies,

yathā jale candramasaḥ kampādis tat-kṛto guṇaḥ |

dṛśyate’sann api draṣṭur ātmano’nātmano guṇaḥ ||

Just as the shimmering of the moon observed in water comes about due to the attributes of the water, so the attributes of the non-self [i.e., the body] seem to belong to the self, the witness, although they do not [factually] exist in it. (SB 3.7.11)

and

nṛtyato gāyataḥ paśyan yathaivānukaroti tām |

evaṁ buddhi-guṇān paśyann anīho’py anukāryate ||

Just as a man, who sees others dancing and singing, imitates them, so the self, although actionless, is made to follow the movements of the states of the intellect (buddhi) when it observes them, (SB11.22.52)

Insights to be gleaned from Śrī Jīva’s analysis

The essence of Śrī Jīva’s explanation is that

a) the jīva’s bondage is not real, but only appears to be so, and

b) the bondage occurs by the inconceivable influence of māyā.

Notice here that Śrī Jīva does not attribute the jīva’s condition to any choice that it made to leave the spiritual world and enter the material world. In fact, such an absurd idea is mentioned nowhere in his writings, nor the writings of any of the Goswamis.

The misidentification with the body as the self results in attachment to objects that are pleasing to the mind and senses and aversion to objects that are displeasing. These two — attachment (rāga) and aversion (dveṣa) — are the fundamental effects of the human mind, and they give rise to further emotions, such as anger, fear, greed, grief, and depression.

The end result of all these is suffering and bondage to material life.

Since the root cause of suffering is ignorance of Bhagavān, naturally the solution is awareness of Him. This awareness ensues from bhakti, which begins by turning one’s regard toward Bhagavān (bhagavad-sāmmukhya). In this manner, bhakti eradicates the root cause of all suffering. 

Through his Sandarbas, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī shows that the import of all scriptures is in bhakti. This is certainly true for Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which was composed specifically for this purpose.

A perfect or complete method should be suitable for all and not limited only to a certain class of people. It should not depend on any other process and should bring about immediate experience of the Complete Reality, which is Bhagavān. Paramātmā and Brahman, which are the intended goals of yoga and jñāna, respectively, are but partial manifestations of Bhagavān. For a process to be complete, it must also be perpetual and not come to an end after granting its result. Moreover, it must be within the scope of one’s life experience and not something that one realizes only in the hereafter.

Moreover, bhakti as a method is not a material undertaking that leads to a transphenomenal result. Rather, bhakti is transphenomenal even in its practice stage. It descends or is transmitted to a qualified practitioner by the grace of an already accomplished devotee. Consequently, bhakti is termed as a method (sādhana) specifically in the sense of its own self-manifestation in a practicing devotee.

Bhakti as a method is not sectarian. Since it involves the simple turning of regard toward the Absolute, it is not dependent on birth, gender, or age. In Bhagavat and Paramātma Sandarbhas, it is described that the one Absolute Reality manifests as Brahman to the jñānīs, Paramātmā to the yogīs, and Bhagavān to the bhaktas. Since Bhagavān is the most complete manifestation of Reality and the source of Brahman as well as Paramātmā, the awareness of a bhakta is superior to that of a jñānī or a yogī, meaning that it includes and transcends the latter two.

Above all, bhakti is the intrinsic potency of Bhagavān and thus proceeds directly from Him. Through the medium of a perfected devotee, the same potency is manifested in the heart of a qualified practicing devotee. Thus, bhakti is a direct flow of the intrinsic potency and is also the sole method to realize the highest manifestation of Reality, Bhagavān. For these reasons, it is the most complete abhidheya.

The primary reason why bhakti is rarely attained is that people are not prepared to undergo the requisite process. It is commonly advertised that bhakti is very simple and easy to practice. Although this is true in a general sense, bhakti in its essential nature as the intrinsic potency of Bhagavān can be entered into authentically only by one in whom a taste for hearing (ruci) has been born. This condition, however, is not very common, since humanity’s general regard is diverted elsewhere. People’s prior experiences are related only to activities other than bhakti. To take to a process about which one has no prior experience is not appealing to one’s heart.

Additionally, the situation is further complicated by the fact that qualified teachers are also rare. Even if such a teacher is available, one may not find the time to study and practice under his or her guidance. And even if one is fortunate enough that all these conditions are met, one may still not have acquired sufficient interest or taste to undertake such a genuinely transformative practice. After some time, one may simply lose interest and pursue other things. If, however, a person has developed taste, then he or she becomes firmly rooted in Reality and will be able to surmount all obstacles on the path.

The major obstacle is doubt. In the study of any philosophical system, doubts are bound to arise, because one is without any immediate experience of the subject being described, and because the reality thus signified is inconsonant with the entire range of one’s past experiences.

In the study of any philosophical system, doubts are bound to arise, because one is without any immediate experience of the subject being described, and because the reality thus signified is inconsonant with the entire range of one’s past experiences.

There are three types of doubt in this regard:

1. That of impossibility: What is being taught is thought to be impossible.
2. That of contradiction: The truth is perceived as just the opposite of what is being taught.
3. That of difference: The truth is conjectured as different from what is being taught.

One may also doubt one’s own capacity to progress on the path, either because the path seems unsuited to one’s nature or because the end state appears to be beyond reach.

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī says that śraddhā is not part of bhakti but a qualification of bhakti. Thus, sometimes even ignorant people who are devoid of śraddhā can execute acts of devotion incidentally. Otherwise, people would not be able to execute bhakti prior to the appearance of śraddhā, but such is not the case.

Moreover, if śraddhā were a limb of bhakti, then śraddhā alone would yield perfection, without the necessity to engage in any other act of devotion. However, this is not supported by any scriptural statement or by anyone’s experience.

Therefore, śraddhā is understood to be only an attribute (viśeṣaṇa) of the eligible practitioner, and it is śraddhā that impels one to take to bhakti in an exclusive manner.

In the Bhakti Sandarbha anuchheda 171, Śrī Jīva examines the following verse:

nirviṇṇānāṃ jñāna-yogo nyāsinām iha karmasu |
teṣv anirviṇṇa-cittānāṃ karma-yogas tu kāminām ||
yadṛcchayā mat-kathādau jāta-śraddhas tu yaḥ pumān |
na nirviṇṇo nāti-sakto bhakti-yogo’sya siddhi-daḥ ||

Out of these three methods, jñāna-yoga grants success to those who are disinterested in fruitive actions and who have thus abandoned them, whereas karma-yoga grants success to those who are not disinterested in fruitive actions and who still desire the fruits of such actions. However, for a person who, by great fortune, has acquired śraddhā in hearing My narrations and other similar devotional acts, and who is neither completely indifferent to sense objects nor overly attached to them, bhakti-yoga grants success. (SB 11.20.7-8)

Here, Śrī Jīva Goswami notes that the sole cause for eligibility in bhakti is śraddhā (śraddhā-mātraṃ hetu), and this is indicated in the verse by the word yadṛchhayā (by great fortune). Śrī Jīva glosses yadṛchhayā as

kenāpi parama-svatantra-bhagavad-bhakta-saṅga-tat-kṛpā-jāta-maṅgalodayena – by the auspicious fortune born of the grace issuing from the association of a devotee of Bhagavān, who is supremely independent (parama-svatantra) [in the matter of bestowing such grace]

The main point is that the śraddhā in bhakti does not arise because of one’s past activities, such as karma yoga which increases one’s level of sattva. In fact, people who have spent a long time performing such activities resist the greatness of bhakti which seems very simple to them. Likewise, there are those who have a fixed notion of what bhakti is, and find it difficult to change their ideas about it. In contrast, those who have not taken up another spiritual discipline in the Vedas, or have not been exposed to aśāstric concepts, find it easier to accept bhakti’s greatness and uniqueness. The word yadṛchhayā indicates that the śraddhā in bhakti is not dependent upon any qualification of the recipient, but arises only through the completely independent mercy of Bhagavān, who makes available the association of His devotee to the recipient.

To prove the point that the arising of bhakti does not depend on one’s background, Śrī Jīva reminds the reader of the fact that Vṛtrāsura, who was tamasic, was a great devotee, while bhakti does not manifest in the devas, despite their having a high level of sattva (Anuccheda 134).

Learn more: Varnashrama Dharma in Modern Context