Madhurya Kadambini

In the Bhagavad Gītā the Lord himself asserts his identity: "brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham" — "I am the basis of Brahman."

Therefore the Absolute Truth, that blissful, transcendental Supreme Person, is none other than Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the son of the King of Vraja, who has an unlimited body featuring all-auspicious, transcendental names, forms, qualities, and pastimes.

This blissful Lord descends to human perception of the ear, eye, mind and intellect, not by any material cause, but simply by his own independent will just as, by his own will, He appeared in the material world as Kṛṣṇa in the Yadu dynasty and Rāma in the Raghu dynasty.

The word ahaitukī (causeless) in this statement indicates that devotional service makes its appearance without material cause (hetu).

Similarly, in such statements as yadṛcchayā mat kathādau, mad bhaktiṁ yadṛcchayā, and yadṛcchayaivopacitā, the word yadṛcchayā must be understood to mean "by his own independent sweet will", because the dictionary meaning of "yadṛcchā" is "complete independence."

Some people take the word to mean "by luck or chance", but that meaning is not suitable here, for then one would be forced to inquire as to the origin of that good luck: is it perhaps caused by material pious activities (śubha-karma), or something else?

If one assumes that this good luck is generated from pious activities, then bhakti is likewise ultimately generated from śubha-karma, i.e. bhakti is dependent upon material good works.

But this is in contradiction with the scripturally-attested independent, self-manifesting nature of bhakti.

If one argues that this luck is not due to any pious activity, being indescribable by words and unknowable to the intellect, then it would be insubstantial and could not be accepted as a cause.

If one proposes that the cause of bhakti is the Lord's mercy, one must then find a reason for the mercy. Thus this statement, giving rise to further need for explanation, is inconclusive in itself.

If one therefore responds that the cause is the Lord's absolute, unqualified or causeless mercy, then the Lord seems to show favoritism in bestowing it, since the unqualified mercy should, but does not, fall upon everyone equally.

The Lord is indeed partial to his devotee, but the partiality that the Lord shows in protecting his devotees from the persecution of evil elements does not bring fault to the Lord's character, but rather becomes an ornament which enhances His character.

This overruling nature of the Lord's affectionate obligation to his devotees, which, like a powerful king, subjugates all contradictory factors, will be discussed in the eighth chapter.

Here we see how the Lord becomes subservient to His devotee, bestowing his mercy in accordance with the devotee's mercy.

But there is no irregularity in this arrangement, because the reason that mercy appeared in the devotee is because bhakti is in his heart.

Without having bhakti there is no possibility of the devotee manifesting mercy to others.

Thus, in this case, the self-manifesting, independent nature of bhakti is again resolved.

But one should not conclude that since the devotee is dependent on the will of Lord, the devotee cannot initiate the bestowal of mercy.

For the Lord willingly becomes subservient to His devotee, and gives preeminence to the devotee's position by granting him the power to bestow the Lord's mercy (svakṛpā-śakti).

Though as Paramātmā He simply oversees the affairs of the jīva's external senses, which are the reward of his past activities, the Lord personally shows special mercy to His devotees by giving them His own independent power to bestow mercy to others.

As Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, only by His bestowal of mercy can one attain His eternal spiritual realm.

This mercy is manifested in the Lord's bestowal of His own kṛpā-śakti to his devotee, who then gives it to the fallen souls, as previously explained.

The first verse says bhakti cannot be obtained by these methods; but then the second says devotion is accomplished by such methods. This apparent contradiction is resolved when we understand that the second verse refers to sāttvikī bhakti (bhakti in the mode of goodness), which acts merely as a limb of jñāna, rather than transcendental nirguṇa prema bhakti.

Others say charity in this context refers to giving to Viṣṇu; thus these are limbs of sādhana bhakti. To say bhakti is attained by these aṅgas simply means perfected bhakti (sādhya) is caused by sādhana bhakti. Thus, the causeless nature of bhakti is concluded.

An example of the importance of following such stipulations found in the story of Vṛtrāsura, wherein Tvaṣṭā Ṛṣi performed sacrifice to vanquish Indra.

While chanting the mantras the ṛṣi mispronounced the word indra-śatruḥ. Pronounced correctly the word means "enemy of Indra (Vṛtrāsura)", instead it came to mean "Indra, enemy of Vṛtrāsura".

This mistake proved fatal for Vṛtrāsura.

The necessity of internal purity for practice of jñāna yoga is well known.

Jñāna yoga is moreover dependent on karma yoga, for one may enter jñāna yoga only with a heart purified of gross desires, and such purity of heart stems from the performance of karma without gross desires.

Because of this dependency, if the practitioner of jñāna yoga commits even a small unworthy act by accident, he is condemned as a vāntāśī, an eater of vomit. (sa vai vāntāśy apatrapaḥ) – SB 7.15.36

Besides, Kaṁsa, Hiraṇyakaśipu and Rāvaṇa were famous practitioners of jñāna, and they are certainly not at all worthy of praise.

The servants of Viṣṇu judged Ajāmila as a devotee. Though the chanting of persons like Ajāmila, who uttered the name of the Lord inadvertently out of affection for his son, must be considered nāma-ābhāsa (not pure), still they are universally praised as devotees.

Internal purity and purity of place, materials, etc. are necessary for the accomplishments of the karmīs, jñānīs and yogīs, and their deficiency obstructs progress on those paths.

Bhakti, however, is the very giver of life to these paths.

Thus it is seen that in all respects, the paths of karma, jñāna and yoga are dependent on bhakti.

Bhakti, however, is independent.

It neither requires any other means for its execution nor is it obstructed by any lack or fault.

If jñāna sometimes appears to take a superior position to bhakti, it is only because bhakti is mercifully playing the role of its assistant.

Upendra, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, became subservient to Indra to give him support.

Exalted, realized souls have confirmed that this revealed not His inferior position but, rather, His unsurpassed mercy.

In this manner, bhakti, though transcendental and supremely independent, being very merciful, accepts the mode of goodness (sāttvikī-bhakti) and becomes a limb of jñāna just to give support to jñāna.

This is the understanding of wise men.