Understanding Uttama Bhakti - 2

In our previous exploration of Uttama Bhakti, we examined the fundamental definition provided by Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī. Now we delve deeper into the nuanced aspects of this definition, addressing important questions that arise from careful study.

Does Tātaṣṭha-lakṣaṇa Always Need to Be Present?

Tatastha lakshana here is talking about visesana and not upalakshana.

Read about it here: Svarupa-lakṣaṇa and Tāṭastha-lakṣaṇa of Uttama Bhakti

Ānukūlya and Prātikūlya: The Yaśodā Example

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura raises an important point through the well-known example of Mother Yaśodā.

She was once churning yogurt when Kṛṣṇa, having just woken up, came to her. Holding onto the end of her sari, He jumped into her lap, wanting to drink milk. Delighted, Yaśodā began breastfeeding Him, and both mother and child were happy. Meanwhile, the pot of milk on the stove began to overflow. To save it, Yaśodā quickly put Kṛṣṇa down and ran to the kitchen.

Now the question arises: was her action favorable (anukūla) or unfavorable (prātikūla)? It was certainly in relation to Kṛṣṇa, but He was displeased. Can we then say it was anukūla?

Understanding Ānukūlya as Absence of Prātikūlya

VCT explains that ānukūlya in this context cannot simply mean "that which pleases Kṛṣṇa." Instead, it must be understood as the absence of prātikūlya. Anukūla is the positive, prātikūla is the negative, and then there are acts which fall in-between — neither actively pleasing nor actively opposing. Yaśodā's act falls into this middle category. She did not intend to harm or upset Kṛṣṇa; He became upset, but that was not her purpose. Thus, ānukūlya in the definition of bhakti is best understood as "free from prātikūlya."

Addressing Potential Objections

A possible pūrva-pakṣa (objection) could be raised here. Suppose you visit someone's house, and although your stomach is full, they still insist you eat more. Their intention is not prātikūla — they are not trying to harm you. But can this be considered anukūla? The answer is no, because the result is harmful. Their affection may be genuine, but the effect is not beneficial.

The difference lies in this: acts of bhakti must be free from prātikūlya and they must genuinely nurture one's relationship with Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, Yaśodā's act, though it caused Kṛṣṇa displeasure, was not prātikūla because it arose from her motherly affection and not from hostility.

The Necessity of Anuśīlana: Why Ānukūlya Alone Is Insufficient

If ānukūlya is present, why is anuśīlana also required? What faults (doṣas) arise if anuśīlana is absent?

The Problem of Ativyāpti-doṣa

Ānukūlya is understood as prātikūlya-śūnyatva (absence of hostility toward Kṛṣṇa) and if this alone were considered sufficient, it would lead to ativyāpti-doṣa (over-extension of the definition). Why? Because this absence of prātikūla-bhāva can also be found in something like a pot. A pot does not possess any prātikūla-bhāva toward Kṛṣṇa, but that does not mean that Bhakti-devī resides in a pot. Hence, anuśīlana is essential.

Clarifying the Scope of Activities

Furthermore, without anuśīlana, it becomes unclear what activities are actually included within bhakti. Should all activities be considered bhakti? Or only those specifically described, such as śravaṇaṁ, kīrtanaṁ, viṣṇoḥ smaraṇam, etc.? Without anuśīlana, the definition leaves too much to the imagination of the reader, making it inefficient in properly establishing the svarūpa-lakṣaṇa of bhakti.

Bhakti-uttamā vs. Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-uttamā: A Question of Terminology

Why does SRG use the term bhakti-uttamā rather than kṛṣṇa-bhakti-uttamā?

The Primary Meaning of Bhakti

The ācāryas explain that the word bhakti itself, in its primary meaning (mukhya-vṛtti), refers only to devotion toward Kṛṣṇa (or Viṣṇu-tattva). Strictly speaking, there is no other bhakti.

Of course, people commonly use the word bhakti in other contexts — Śiva-bhakti, Durgā-bhakti, or even mātṛ-bhakti (devotion to mother), pitṛ-bhakti (devotion to father), bhāryā-bhakti (devotion to one's wife), deśa-bhakti (patriotism), etc. These are accepted in a secondary sense (gauṇa-vṛtti), but they are not the primary meaning of the word.

Therefore, when śāstra speaks of bhakti in its highest and ultimate sense, it always refers to Kṛṣṇa-bhakti. Since the primary meaning of bhakti already implies devotion to Kṛṣṇa, there is no need to explicitly add "Kṛṣṇa" in the compound. Thus, instead of saying kṛṣṇa-bhakti-uttamā, the śāstra simply says bhakti-uttamā.

Śūnyam vs. Anāvṛtam: Understanding the Distinction

Why is "śūnyam" (empty) used for anya-abhilāṣa but "anāvṛtam" (not covered) is used for jñāna-karma?

The Wisdom of Precise Terminology

The śāstra is not saying that one should avoid yoga, sankhya, or karma altogether. The point is that these activities should not cover or overshadow bhakti. They should not be the primary pursuit.

This distinction is very important. Many people mistakenly say that practicing yoga or engaging in certain activities is inherently a form of maya or distraction. But that is not what the śāstra teaches.

If the intention were to avoid them entirely, the word śūnyam ("empty" or "avoid") would have been used.

Instead, the śāstra uses anāvṛtam ("not covered"), meaning you may perform such actions, but they should not be motivated by any independent result or desire apart from bhakti.

In other words, it is perfectly fine to engage in knowledge, rituals, or yoga if they enhance bhakti, but they must remain subordinate to devotion. That is why anāvṛtam is chosen over śūnyam.

Deeper Insights into Anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyam

There is an important point regarding the word anyābhilāṣitā. The suffix "-ta" here indicates a characteristic or essence, similar to the way -tva is used in Nyāya philosophy, as in ghatatva or patatva.

The suffix -ta functions in the same sense but renders the word feminine, whereas -tva is neutral.

The Essence vs. Temporary States

Hence, instead of simply saying anyābhilāṣa (devoid of other desires), the śāstra uses anyābhilāṣitā, emphasizing that the devotee is truly devoid of other desires in essence.

Sometimes, a person may temporarily appear devoid of desires. For instance:

Someone deeply depressed may have no desire for anything.
One might resolve, "I want bhakti and no other desire," temporarily.

The Example of Arjuna

A classical example is Arjuna. When he says, "Govinda, I will not fight," Krishna points out that this resolution is not genuine, because Arjuna's natural disposition will eventually compel him to act. Our dominant nature (sthāyi-bhāva) governs us, and temporary suppression does not change that.

Certain moods or circumstances may subdue our dominant tendencies temporarily.
For example, intense anger is usually short-lived; mild anger can last longer, but true fury is difficult to sustain.
Similarly, a temporary lack of desire is not permanent; the heart's underlying disposition will eventually reassert itself.

The Pressure Cooker Analogy

Think of it like a pressure cooker on fire: the whistle blows under pressure, but once the fire is reduced, the whistling stops. It cannot continue indefinitely without adding more fuel. Likewise, a temporary absence of desire does not indicate true anyābhilāṣitā.

In devotees, special circumstances might evoke other desires, such as crying out, "Oh God, protect me" during a crisis.

These are situational and do not reflect the heart's dominant mood.

Thus, the suffix -ta is used to indicate the true, essential disposition of the heart, rather than a temporary or circumstantial state.

Application to All Stages of Bhakti: Sādhana, Bhāva, and Prema

Does this definition apply to all three levels (sādhana, bhāva, and prema) or only to sādhya-bhakti?

The Comprehensive Nature of Uttama-bhakti

Śrīla Rūpa Goswāmī, in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (BRS), first defines what bhakti is and then explains its types. Even with a little reflection, it becomes clear that the discussion of the types of bhakti is part of uttama-bhakti. Otherwise, several questions would arise:

If these types are not part of uttama-bhakti, then what are they?
And if they are not uttama-bhakti, how can they lead to uttama-bhakti?

After all: bhaktyā sañjāyate bhaktyā — devotion comes from devotion itself.

The Three Types of Bhakti

The verse:

sā bhaktiḥ sādhanaṃ bhāvaḥ premā ceti tridhoditā ||1.2.1||

states that there are three types of bhakti: sādhana (practical devotion), bhāva (mood or sentiment), and prema (pure love). Here, the word sā refers to the bhakti we discussed earlier — uttama-bhakti (in the first chapter 1.1.11)

Contextual Understanding

The word bhakti can indicate different things depending on context.
The term uttama is used to specify a particular type of bhakti.
Within uttama-bhakti, there are three distinct sub-types (sādhana, bhāva, and prema). Confusion arises when the author refers to one sub-type, but the reader mistakenly interprets it as another.

Thus, the definition of bhakti under discussion applies broadly to uttama-bhakti, encompassing all three sub-levels, not just the perfected (sādhya) stage.

Conclusion

These deeper explorations reveal the precision and wisdom embedded in the traditional definition of uttama-bhakti. Each term is carefully chosen to avoid all three types of defects and to capture the essential nature of pure devotion across all its stages of development.

The understanding that emerges is not merely academic but practical — it guides the sincere practitioner in recognizing authentic bhakti and distinguishing it from similar but fundamentally different spiritual pursuits.

📖 Continue Reading

This exploration of uttama-bhakti continues to unfold layers of meaning that have been carefully preserved in the tradition. Each aspect we've examined contributes to a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes the highest form of devotion.

👉 Back to: Understanding Uttama Bhakti - 1

By A.K.D