By Śrīla Bhaktiprajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī Mahārāja
The foremost establisher of the deepest aspiration of the heart of Śrī Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, His most beloved, Śrī Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhu, has written in Śrī Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu as follows, in order to tell the characteristics of Uttamā Bhakti, —
anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam |
ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā ||
Upon contemplating this verse under the shelter of the followers of Śrī Rūpa, a sādhaka shall undoubtedly attain a clear understanding and realized experience (vijñāna) of the fundamental essence of bhakti. In the context on sambandha-tattva (the principle of divine relationship), the statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam — “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam” (ŚB 1.3.28) — is accepted as a paribhāṣā-vākya, a defining aphorism. Similarly, in the discussion on abhidheya-tattva (the means to attain the ultimate goal), this very verse from Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu must also be accepted as a paribhāṣā-vākya. “sā cāniyame niyama-kāriṇī” — this is ‘paribhāṣā’ i.e. a paribhāṣā is that statement which is the most important amidst various statements by superseding all others. Thus, among various doctrinal statements concerning bhakti, this verse is recognized as the most authoritative, as it subjugates and refutes all other notions of devotion, including those held by karmīs (ritualists), jñānīs (speculative philosophers), yogīs, those who offer their actions in service (karmārpaṇakārīs), materialistic enjoyers (viṣayīs), followers of various sects, and adherents of diverse traditions. This verse establishes the definitive characteristics of pure devotion, negating all misconceptions, distortions, and erroneous interpretations.
The kṛṣṇānuśīlana that is devoid of all material desires (anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ) and is not covered by knowledge (jñāna) or fruitive activities (karma), while being executed with an attitude of favorable service (ānukūlyena), is known as uttamā-bhakti — the highest form of devotion. In the given verse, “ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam” defines the intrinsic characteristics (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) of bhakti, while “anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam” defines the marginal characteristics (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa) of bhakti. Even though there is no explicit verb in this verse, the term “anuśīlana” implies an action (verb function). The word anuśīlana is derived from the root “śīl”, with the prefix ‘anu’ attached to it. The root “śīl” belongs to two different grammatical verb classes (gaṇas): curādi-gaṇa (the tenth conjugation class), where śīl means practice or effort, indicating an active engagement (pravṛtti-ātmaka); and tvādi-gaṇa (the fourth conjugation class), where śīl means contemplation or absorption, indicating a state of withdrawal (nivṛtti-ātmaka). Bhakti manifests in two forms — as active engagement (ceṣṭā-rūpā bhakti) and as mental act (bhāvanā-rūpā bhakti). The use of the root ‘śīl’ in anuśīlana indicates both types of devotion. In the context of serving Kṛṣṇa, bhakti manifests in bodily (kāyika), verbal (vācika), and mental (mānasika) actions. Furthermore, each of these is again classified into pravṛtti-rūpā (active engagement) and nivṛtti-rūpā (detachment-based engagement). The nine principal limbs of devotion are pravṛtti-ātmaka ceṣṭā-rūpā bhakti when practiced through bodily, verbal, and mental acts of engagement. Conversely, avoiding offenses in service and while taking Holy Name (sevā-aparādha and nāma-aparādha) falls under nivṛtti-ātmaka ceṣṭā-rūpā bhakti.
The prefix “anu” conveys meanings such as ‘following’, ‘along with’, ‘repeatedly’, and ‘continuously’. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, in his Śrī Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa, has explained the grammatical significance of the prefix anu in kṛṣṇa-pravacanīya (karma-pravacanīya) function as follows:
lakṣaṇa-vīpset-tham-bhūteṣv-abhir-bhāge parī-prati |
anureṣu sahārthe ca hīne tūpaśca kathyate ||
[The prefix “anu” is employed to indicate association, continuity, repetition, and the act of following a specific purpose or subject.]
The prefix “anu” in the word “anuśīlana” has been used in the sense of continuity (nairantarya). This means that anuśīlana is uninterrupted and without obstruction. This uninterrupted cultivation must be performed exclusively for the sake of Kṛṣṇa. The twofold forms of anuśīlana — active engagement (ceṣṭā-rūpā) and mental act (bhāvanā-rūpā) — both constitute bhakti. Bhakti is defined as that engagement which is pleasing to Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The object for whom this anuśīlana is performed must find it delightful or satisfying. Hence, Kṛṣṇānuśīlana alone is Bhakti — this much establishes the definition of bhakti. However, even within this definition, the defects of under-application (avyāpti) and over-application (ativyāpti) arise. The ultimate definition is one that remains free from the defects of under-application (avyāpti), over-application (ativyāpti) and impossibility (asambhava). If we define bhakti merely as Kṛṣṇānuśīlana or acting in a way that pleases Kṛṣṇa, then even the demonic wrestlers Cāṇūra and Muṣṭika, who opposed Kṛṣṇa, will be considered as devotees. This is because when Kṛṣṇa entered Kaṁsa’s wrestling arena, as Cāṇūra and Muṣṭika were summoned for the wrestling combat, at that time Kṛṣṇa experienced an awakening of heroic sentiment (vīra-rasa). Among warriors, receiving a blow from another warrior is a source of pleasure. When Cāṇūra and Muṣṭika struck Kṛṣṇa with their fists, He experienced the pleasure of heroic combat. Thus, it could be concluded that they pleased Kṛṣṇa, making them His devotees. However, such a conclusion is never accepted. The reason is that their actual intent was to harm Kṛṣṇa, not to give Him pleasure.
Conversely, if we state that only that which brings pleasure to Kṛṣṇa is bhakti, then it would imply that any action that causes distress to Kṛṣṇa is non-devotion (abhakti), and thus, anyone who inflicts suffering upon Kṛṣṇa must be a non-devotee. However, this logic does not hold, as seen in the example of Mother Yaśodā. Once, when Kṛṣṇa was drinking His mother’s milk, she abruptly placed Him down against His will and ran to save the boiling milk on the stove. Kṛṣṇa, feeling frustrated and deprived, became furious and, while trembling with anger, bit His lower lip, broke the yogurt pot, and began to cry out of unfulfilled satisfaction of drinking the breast-milk. Clearly, Mother Yaśodā’s act of stopping Kṛṣṇa’s feeding and running to save the milk was not pleasing to Him. Therefore, in this instance, the under-application (avyāpti) of the characteristic of Bhakti called Kṛṣṇānuśīlana occurs. This is so because Mother Yaśodā is the predominating deity of the pure maternal affection (vatsalya-bhakti), and her every act is entirely for Kṛṣṇa only. Her reasoning was: “Kṛṣṇa won’t be protected from my breast-milk, but the milk on the stove is meant to sustain Kṛṣṇa’s life. Therefore, even if I momentarily cause Him distress, I must save this milk.” (Mother Yaśodā, despite being a queen and surrounded by numerous maidservants, personally milks the most auspicious and well-nourished cows for Kṛṣṇa. She then boils the milk herself and prepares it exclusively for Kṛṣṇa. Furthermore, she personally churns that very milk into butter, ensuring its purity and excellence for her beloved son.) Such thinking which arises out of love for Kṛṣṇa and such an anuśīlana (act) can never be termed as ‘abhakti’ (non-devotion). To resolve these two contradictions, the qualifying term “ānukūlyena” (favorably) is added to the definition of bhakti.
The word “ānukūlyena” (favourability) is used in the instrumental case (tṛtīyā vibhakti). Those who will engage in Kṛṣṇānuśīlana, must do it via being ‘anukūla’ i.e. they will be having the exclusive desire: ‘I will only act in a way that gives pleasure to Kṛṣṇa.’ Their mind must be completely devoid of even the slightest unfavorable inclination. Even if an action appears externally favorable, if it is not actually free from unfavourable inclination and is not devoid of desire for personal pleasure, then it is not bhakti. During the process of anusīlana, if, apart from the sole desire for the happiness of one’s abhīṣṭa-deva (worshipable deity), there remains any trace of self-seeking intent for one’s own happiness, then although such anusīlana may appear momentarily pleasing to the Lord, the ultimate fruit of bhakti, which is prema, will not be attained by the practitioner. Instead, the person will only obtain results in accordance with their own desires and tendencies.
Many individuals assisted Jagadguru Parama-ārādhyatama Śrīla Prabhupāda in fulfilling his heartfelt mission by dedicating themselves to his service through mind, words, and actions, as well as by offering financial and other material resources. Seeing this dedicated engagement in service, Gurudeva Śrīla Prabhupāda was certainly pleased. However, despite many years of such service, it is observed that some now exhibit either a tendency to reject their Guru (guru-tyāga-pravṛtti) or a tendency to exploit their Guru (guru-bhoga-pravṛtti). That is, instead of following the uninterrupted devotional absorption of the Guru-pāda-padma (lotus feet of the Guru), they merely imitate his external activities, thereby engaging in the audacity of posing as Guru themselves. In such persons, not even the first stage of the manifestation of bhakti is observed. Upon analyzing the cause of this, it becomes evident that these individuals did not serve Śrī Guru with the sole aspiration that “My Śrī Gurudeva will accept my service and be pleased, and his happiness alone is my life.” Instead, they engaged in his service while harboring ulterior motives apart from the pure desire for his pleasure. As a result, being deprived of the primary fruit of sādhu-sevā, they have only obtained that which corresponds to their personal aspirations. When the objective is pure, then by the fruit of bhakti’s manifestation, the scriptural symptoms of devotion will undoubtedly become manifest in one’s citta (consciousness), and, in due course, all desires and tendencies opposed to bhakti will gradually diminish and ultimately be eradicated.
The adjective “ānukūlya” (favorability) alone cannot be designated as bhakti, because the specific usage of the term “anusīlanam” is not meaningless — this has already been established earlier. Even an activity that is pleasing to Śrī Kṛṣṇa cannot be called bhakti if it is not devoid of opposition (pratikūlatā). Conversely, even an unpleasing activity, if it is free from opposition to Kṛṣṇa’s will, can be classified as bhakti. Thus, mere pleasing anusīlana is not bhakti, but rather, Kṛṣṇa-anusīlana devoid of pratikūlatā (opposition) is true bhakti. Moreover, merely negating opposition (pratikūlatā) without engaging in the active state of cultivation (anusīlana), whether in the form of external effort (ceṣṭā-rūpa) or internal sentiment (bhāva-rūpa), also does not qualify as bhakti. For instance, insentient objects such as pots or other inanimate things are also devoid of pratikūlatā, yet they cannot be considered bhakti because they lack the intentional and conscious aspect of ceṣṭā-rūpa or bhāva-rūpa anusīlana. Therefore, “ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam” — the continuous favorable cultivation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness — is the ultimate intrinsic characteristic (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) of bhakti. Furthermore, the principle of svarūpa-lakṣaṇa states: “tad-abhinnatve sati tad-bodhakatvaṁ svarūpa-lakṣaṇam“, which means: “That which is inseparable from an entity and simultaneously reveals its essence is known as its intrinsic characteristic (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa).” For example, in the definition “ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam”, the extraordinary attribute of Kṛṣṇa-anusīlana qualified by ānukūlya remains inseparable from Kṛṣṇa-bhakti while simultaneously revealing its essential nature. Hence, this definition is svarūpa-lakṣaṇa.
Now, the analysis of the taṭastha-lakṣaṇa (secondary or marginal characteristic) is being undertaken. The principle states: “tad-bhinnatve sati tad-bodhakatvaṁ taṭastha-lakṣaṇam.” This means: “That which remains distinct from an entity yet indicates its nature is known as its secondary characteristic (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa).” In the definition “anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam”, both anyābhilāṣitā (the presence of extraneous desires) and jñāna-karma-ādi (pursuit of knowledge, ritualistic activities, etc.) are distinct from uttamā-bhakti (pure devotion) yet serve to demarcate it. Therefore, they function as its taṭastha-lakṣaṇa. The term “anyābhilāṣitā-śūnya” refers to the complete absence of any desire other than devotion, such as the pursuit of heavenly pleasures, bodily enjoyments, or any material gain. Instead, one must remain exclusively dedicated to seeking the pleasure of Kṛṣṇa. It is noteworthy that the definition does not merely state “anyābhilāṣa-śūnya” but rather “anyābhilāṣitā-śūnya”. The significance of this distinction lies in the fact that, within the prayers of some devotees, the external appearance of other desires (anyābhilāṣa) may be observed, yet their inner disposition does not nourish or cultivate such desires — hence, there is no anyābhilāṣitā. For instance, Śrī Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja expressed his desire to perform a Rājasūya-yajña before Śrī Kṛṣṇa to engage in Kṛṣṇa’s service while ruling as an emperor. Superficially, his aspiration to become a universal sovereign may appear as an anyābhilāṣa, but in reality, it does not contain anyābhilāṣitā because his intent was solely to serve Kṛṣṇa in a majestic capacity. He did not aspire for rulership for his own aggrandizement but rather as a means to enhance his service to Kṛṣṇa. The suffix “ṇin” in “anyābhilāṣitā” conveys a habitual disposition or inclination toward nurturing extraneous desires. Hence, anyābhilāṣitā refers to the inherent tendency or disposition of cultivating non-devotional aspirations. Furthermore, even a pure devotee (śuddha-bhakta) may, in times of extreme distress, pray to Bhagavān for deliverance from calamity. Although such a prayer may externally appear to contain an element of anyābhilāṣa, it does not constitute an obstruction to their bhakti, as it does not arise from an independent self-seeking motive but rather from their natural dependence on the Lord.
“Jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam” refers to uttamā-bhakti (pure devotion), which constitutes Kṛṣṇa-anusīlana qualified by ānukūlya while remaining uncovered by jñāna and karma. The term “jñāna” refers to the pursuit of impersonal Brahman realization. The term “karma” refers to nitya and naimittika karma i.e. regular and occasional ritualistic duties prescribed in the Smṛti scriptures. The term “ādi” (etc.) refers to phalgū-vairāgya (useless renunciation), aṣṭāṅga-yoga, and the practices of sāṅkhya philosophy, all of which are negated in the definition of uttamā-bhakti. The reason for this negation is that all these practices veil or obstruct bhakti, as they contain no inclination whatsoever toward seeking the pleasure of Bhagavān. Through these practices, the practitioner attains various material opulences and accomplishments, which stand as direct impediments to an exclusive aspiration for Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure. For all these reasons, practices that cover bhakti through the pursuit of jñāna or karma have been explicitly negated in the definition by the phrase “jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam” rather than by using the term “jñāna-karmādi-śūnya”. The reason for this distinction is that within bhakti, investigative knowledge (anusandhānatmaka jñāna) regarding the object of worship (bhajanīya-rūpa-jñāna), as well as transcendental knowledge of Bhagavān’s nature (bhagavat-tattva-jñāna), are intrinsic elements of bhakti itself. Similarly, activities such as cleansing the temple of the Lord (śrī-mandira-mārjana), cooking offerings for Bhagavān (bhoga-randhana), and other forms of direct service to the Supreme Lord (bhagavat-paricaryā) are included within the practices of navadhā-bhakti (ninefold devotion), yet they do not fall under the category of karma. If the term “jñāna-karmādi-śūnya” were used instead, it would inadvertently negate pure transcendental knowledge regarding bhakti (viśuddha-bhakti-tattva-jñāna) as well as devotional service (bhagavat-paricaryā), both of which are essential aspects of bhakti. Thus, such knowledge and service do not cover bhakti; rather, they serve as its indispensable nourisher.
By the term “Kṛṣṇānuśīlana”, one must understand the cultivation of devotion not only to Śrī Kṛṣṇa but also to His avatāras such as Rāma, Nṛsiṁha, and others who are His manifestations. At this point, a question may arise: If the term “Kṛṣṇānuśīlana” encompasses devotion to all avatāras, then in the supreme and most refined definition of uttamā-bhakti, as formulated by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, should it not also indicate the pinnacle of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava worship? Surely, it would be desirable for this definition to imply the highest culmination of Gauḍīya devotion. For this reason, Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī, who is the confidential, intimate associate of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, has explicitly indicated the ultimate state of bhakti in his own translation of the verse, where he states: “anukūlye sarvendriye kṛṣṇānuśīlana”— In this statement, by the use of the term “sarvendriye” (through all the senses), he has pointed toward the supreme and most exalted stage of bhakti. The engagement of all the senses in Kṛṣṇānuśīlana is possible exclusively in the mood of madhura-rasa (conjugal love) as exemplified by the Vraja-gopīs. Even within vātsalya-rasa (parental love), the highest perfection of engaging all the senses in Kṛṣṇa’s service in the fullest manner is not possible.
Śravaṇa (hearing), kīrtana (chanting), smaraṇa (remembrance), and other such practices constitute the form of this uttamā-bhakti only. When this sādhana-bhakti is performed exclusively with the intent of seeking Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure, the practitioner effortlessly and swiftly attains the fruit of sādhana, which is Kṛṣṇa-prema. Moreover, after attaining prema, the devotee progressively experiences the successive higher stages of love for Kṛṣṇa. For this reason, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam states:
bhakti-yogo bhagavati tan-nāma-grahaṇādibhiḥ
Here, it is essential to use the term “bhakti-yogaḥ”. The purpose of the term “bhagavati” is to indicate that all aspects of devotion, such as nāma-grahaṇa (chanting the holy names), smaraṇa (remembrance), and other limbs of bhakti, are considered “bhakti-yoga” only when they are performed exclusively for the pleasure of Bhagavān. Only such bhakti-yoga has the potency to bestow prema. However, if the limbs of bhakti, such as chanting the holy name, are practiced with any objective other than seeking Bhagavān’s pleasure, they cannot be designated as bhakti-yoga, and as a result, they will not yield the fruit of prema.