I would like some clarification on the categories of bhakti as delineated in Bhakti-sandarbha.
It seems like bhakti whether aropa-siddha or sanga-siddha can be akaitava or sakaitava depending on the purity of motive. Even svarupa-siddha-bhakti can
be unmotivated or motivated. If one performs any of these activities in a pure way it would be considered akaitava, wouldn't it? The difference with
svarupa-siddha-bhakti is that the act itself will have a devotional effect over time regardless of one's motive. Not true for the other two. Is this a correct understanding?
In the context of guru-seva it seems that these categories don't hold up in if one asserts that any activity sanctioned by guru would be considered svarupa-siddha-bhakti. A component of pada-sevanam.
Prema, I'd never heard of aropa-siddha before, but it sounds similar to niskama-karma-yoga. Is that an accurate comparison?
Prema, I'd never heard of aropa-siddha before, but it sounds similar to niskama-karma-yoga. Is that an accurate comparison?
These terms are from Jiva Goswami's Bhakti-sandharbha. Aropa-siddha-bhakti is defined as activities which are not intrinsically bhakti but which are extended to bhakti as well as its results. There is a mixture of karma involved in the motivation but because the activity is assigned to bhakti, it is considered aropa-siddha. Niskama-karma yoga seems similar yet at least from what I understand the focus in niskama karma yoga is the detachment from the activity and its results and not necessarily it's assignment. In other words, the focus is on detachment in a sattvic mode.
In the section on Aropa-siddha-bhakti Jiva Goswami after stating that even though a person may be fraught with material desires regardless one should offer all their unwholesome deeds, he then quotes a Srimad-bhagavatam verse 11.3.46 to support the idea that some say that only Vedic activities may be offered to the Lord.
How do we reconcile these two ideas? Sastra seems to overwhelmingly support the former statement yet JG is giving some merit to the latter idea.
In the section on Aropa-siddha-bhakti Jiva Goswami after stating that even though a person may be fraught with material desires regardless one should offer all their unwholesome deeds, he then quotes a Srimad-bhagavatam verse 11.3.46 to support the idea that some say that only Vedic activities may be offered to the Lord.
How do we reconcile these two ideas? Sastra seems to overwhelmingly support the former statement yet JG is giving some merit to the latter idea.
That might be 11.3.47 in some manuscripts. But the verse is really saying that bhakti should be performed as prescribed in the tantras (tantroktena) and (ca) the Vedas. That is best, but something is better than nothing.
That might be 11.3.47 in some manuscripts. But the verse is really saying that bhakti should be performed as prescribed in the tantras (tantroktena) and (ca) the Vedas. That is best, but something is better than nothing.
GM it seems to be 11.3.46. It is cited as such, "vedoktam eva kurvano..." It is translated as, "One who executes only those actions prescribed by the Vedas without attachemnt to the fruit, and who offers the results to the Supreme Lord attains the perfection of being freed from bondage to karma."
GM it seems to be 11.3.46. It is cited as such, "vedoktam eva kurvano..." It is translated as, "One who executes only those actions prescribed by the Vedas without attachemnt to the fruit, and who offers the results to the Supreme Lord attains the perfection of being freed from bondage to karma."
This is what the verse says.
"A person who performs the karmas mentioned in the Vedas becomes detached from the results, offers the results to the Lord and attains destruction of all
karmas. Only for attracting the people are material results mentioned in the Vedas."
I'm still trying to understand guru seva in the context of these categories of bhakti.
I'm still trying to understand guru seva in the context of these categories of bhakti.
I think you got it right.
I think you got it right.
Really. Thank you for the confirmation.
Really. Thank you for the confirmation.
Yes, that is if the guru gives us a service to render, whatever service it is, it is directly bhakti. Visrambhena guru-seva is krsnanusilanam. Note that in this regard I found a mistake in Bhanu Maharaja translation of JG's tika on krsnanusilanam. He mistranslates when he says that one can attain a stayi-bhava for the guru:
"With this consideration (of cesta-rupa and bhava-rupa-bhakti),
anusilanam means service for persons related to Krsna or service
for Krsna directly. That is the meaning of krsnanusilanm. Because
this definition also includes persons related to Krsna as
well as Krsna Himself, it avoids the fault of being too narrow.
Thus, aìgas of bhakti such as taking shelter of guru’s lotus feet23
may be included in bhakti, even in bhava-rupa-anusilanam.24 At
the stage of bhäva, sthayi-bhavas and vyabhicari-bhavas may be
expressed in relation to guru within this definition of bhakti. "
The last sentence is wrong. JG seems is saying that as this principle applies to sadhana bhakti, so too does it apply to bhava bhakti. What principle? Krsna as well as that which is related to Krsna is included in krsnanusilanam. So in bhava bhakti, where one has a sthayi-bhava for Krsna, one may also be engaged in krsnanusilanam when serving things related to Krsna.
I understand what you are saying about sthayi-bhavas in relation to the guru. I don't understand the point about vyabhicari-bhavas in relation to the guru.
I understand what you are saying about sthayi-bhavas in relation to the guru. I don't understand the point about vyabhicari-bhavas in relation to the guru.
I am not sure you do understand. There is no sthayi-bhava for the guru or vyabhicari-bhava. JG is simply saying that krsnanusilanam is the culture of favorable service to Krsna and things related to Krsna, such as avataras of Krsna, etc. Thus guru seva is also krsnanusilanam. And this guru seva is a limb of sadhana bhakti for Krsna. Furthermore this principle of the extended sense of krsnanusilanam applies not only in sadhana bhakti, from where the example of guru seva has been drawn, it also applies in bhava bhakti where there are sthayi-bhavas, etc. He is just saying that what is true of sadhana bhakti in this connection is also obviously true in bhava bhakti as well.
I am not sure you do understand. There is no sthayi-bhava for the guru or vyabhicari-bhava. JG is simply saying that krsnanusilanam is the culture of favorable service to Krsna and things related to Krsna, such as avataras of Krsna, etc. Thus guru seva is also krsnanusilanam. And this guru seva is a limb of sadhana bhakti for Krsna. Furthermore this principle of the extended sense of krsnanusilanam applies not only in sadhana bhakti, from where the example of guru seva has been drawn, it also applies in bhava bhakti where there are sthayi-bhavas, etc. He is just saying that what is true of sadhana bhakti in this connection is also obviously true in bhava bhakti as well.
Okay. Thank you.
I'll probably post a few more questions on this topic.
How far can we extend this concept of krsnanusilanam? To everything and anything sanctioned by guru at any time and circumstance.
How far can we extend this concept of krsnanusilanam? To everything and anything sanctioned by guru at any time and circumstance.
Visrambhena guru seva is an anga of Krsna-bhakti. But Krsna-bhakti can also be seen in reverse as an anga of guru-bhakti.
Visrambhena guru seva is an anga of Krsna-bhakti. But Krsna-bhakti can also be seen in reverse as an anga of guru-bhakti.
Yes, I am aware of that principle. It's a charming one. I guess what I meant by my question is that if for example the guru tells you to marry and you raise a family, does that constitute krsnanusilam? Sometimes it is extended to circumstances where I wonder if it is valid. Hope this makes sense.
Yes, I am aware of that principle. It's a charming one. I guess what I meant by my question is that if for example the guru tells you to marry and you raise a family, does that constitute krsnanusilam? Sometimes it is extended to circumstances where I wonder if it is valid. Hope this makes sense.
I would not tell anyone to marry. I might, however, tell them I thought that being married would be more in line with their psychology than monastic life, leaving the decision up to them. But serving the guru affectionately in terms of what he or she wants of us is visrambhena guru seva, an anga of uttama bhakti. Leave it at that.
I would not tell anyone to marry. I might, however, tell them I thought that being married would be more in line with their psychology than monastic life, leaving the decision up to them. But serving the guru affectionately in terms of what he or she wants of us is visrambhena guru seva, an anga of uttama bhakti. Leave it at that.
Guru Maharaja, I was just speaking to the principle as to what constitutes guru-bhakti. Maybe that wasn't the best example. Many guru's do tell their students to marry ( or instruct on many details of a student's life) and thus they may consequently assert that raising children and all that it may entail among other things is bhakti. BVT is the commonly cited example of someone who 'lived in the world' and thus every thing he did including having a family was uttama-bhakti. But he is in another category of superlative vaisnava. I was addressing your average sadhaka. What differentiates svarupa-siddha bhakti and say sanga-siddha bhakti which I would say executing householder duties would be considered?
I apologize if it seems I am trying to complicate the issue just trying to understand bhakti and these associated terms.
What if a guru suggested one become a monastic, would everything they do be constituted of svarupa-siddha bhakti? I would say, not necessarily.
I would like some clarification on the categories of bhakti as delineated in Bhakti-sandarbha.
It seems like bhakti whether aropa-siddha or sanga-siddha can be akaitava or sakaitava depending on the purity of motive. Even svarupa-siddha-bhakti can
be unmotivated or motivated. If one performs any of these activities in a pure way it would be considered akaitava, wouldn't it? The difference with
svarupa-siddha-bhakti is that the act itself will have a devotional effect over time regardless of one's motive. Not true for the other two. Is this a correct understanding?
I've been reading Bhativinoda Thakura's Bhakti-tattva-viveka. The following quote comes from the very end of the first chapter:
Bhakti is the only means by which the jiva can obtain transcendental bliss. Besides bhakti, all other methods are external. With the assistance of bhakti, sometimes karma is identified as aropa-siddha-bhakti, or endeavors which are indirectly attributed with the quality of devotion, and sometimes jnana is identified as sanga-siddha-bhakti, or endeavors associated with or favorable to the cultivation of devotion. But they can never be accepted as svarupa-siddha-bhakti, or bhakti in its constitutionally perfected stage. Svarupa-siddha-bhakti is kaitava-sunya, or free from any deceit and full of unalloyed bliss by nature, meaning that it is devoid of any desires for heavenly enjoyment and the attainment of liberation. But in aropa-siddha-bhakti the desires for bhukti and mukti remain in a hidden position. Therefore it is also called sakaitava-bhakti, or deceitful bhakti. Oh my dear intimate Vaisnavas! By your constitutional nature you are attracted to svarupa-siddha-bhakti and have no taste for aropa-siddha-bhakti or sanga-siddha-bhakti. Although these two types of devotion are not actually bhakti by their constitution, some people refer to these two types of activities as bhakti. In fact, they are not bhakti but bhakti-abhasa, or the semblance of real bhakti. If by some good fortune through the practice of bhakti-abhasa one develops sraddha for the true nature of bhakti, then only can such practice transform into suddha-bhakti. But this doesn't happen easily, because by the practice of bhakti-abhasa there exists every possibility of remaining bereft of suddha-bhakti. Therefore, in all the scriptures the instruction is to follow svarupa-siddha-bhakti.
I'm not fully confident with the fidelity of the translation here (especially the definition of sanga-siddha-bhakti as "endeavors associated with or favorable to the cultivation of devotion"). Given the tenor of the rest of this excerpt (and this section of Bhakti-tattva-viveka), I think it's safe to say that aropa-siddha-bhakti is karma-yoga performed with a desire to obtain some sort of material benefit, but tinged with bhakti, not out of devotion for the Lord but because some bhakti is necessary for the endeavor to bear the desired fruit. In a similar sense, sanga-siddha-bhakti is jnana-yoga performed with a desire to obtain liberation, again tinged with bhakti, not out of devotion to the Lord but rather to attain success. In these two cases, bhakti is treated as no more than a necessary ingredient – it is a means to an end, not the end itself (as it is in svarupa-siddha-bhakti).
Another parallel can be seen in those impersonalists who worship the Lord, in some cases even availing themselves of the nine processes of devotional service, but who do so because they desire to merge in Brahman. Their conception is that they will do away with (or perhaps, more politely, put aside) the Lord after they have attained so-called perfection.
Please, someone correct me if this understanding of aropa-siddha- and sanga-siddha-bhakti is not true.
As for the rest of your question, this passage suggests that aropa-siddha- and sanga-siddha-bhakti are always kaitava – that only svarupa-siddha-bhakti is kaitava-sunya, "free from any deceit and full of unalloyed bliss by nature, meaning that it is devoid of any desires for heavenly enjoyment and the attainment of liberation."
You say, "If one performs any of these activities in a pure way it would be considered akaitava, wouldn't it?" But what determines the purity of an activity is the purity of intent. And, in bhakti, purity of intent is determined by the absence of desire for bhukti and mukti (the absence of karma and yoga) and the presence (prevalence) of the pure unmixed desire to please Krishna.