— Translated from Gauḍīya, Vol. 15, Issue 40 (1935), published under the guidance of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda.
The ālekhya-avatāra and the arca-avatāra are essentially one in tattva, though they each exhibit distinct modes of divine manifestation. The consecrated deity-form of Lord is known as arca-avatāra, while the painted representations upon canvas and scroll are designated ālekhya.
What the worldly marketplace of so-called religion refers to as bhakti, is often nothing but a veiled enterprise of ārcā-bhoga—a pursuit of sense gratification under the disguise of diety worship: “I shall adorn Ṭhākur (the Deity), and by doing so, I shall fulfill the longings of my own senses, and provide visual delight for others too. People will exclaim, ‘Ah! How exquisite is the attire and ornamentation of this gentleman’s Ṭhākur!’” — Such a motive, rooted in hidden self-enjoyment, transforms the act of decorating the Lord into a gesture of bhoga (enjoyment) rather than sevā (service).
In such a perverted disposition, the arca becomes merely dṛśya—an object to be seen, to be aesthetically consumed. One becomes the dṛṣṭā (the seer) and bhoktā (the enjoyer), presuming, “By beholding Ṭhākur, I shall gratify my eyes; I can measure and assess Him.”— This type of bhoga-buddhi, like a shadowy asūryasparśā kāminī [1]—a temptress untouched even by sunlight—remains hidden deep within the folds of my heart.
Some people, moved by a subtle and concealed thirst to relish fragrance, lavishly anoint the sacred śrī-vigraha with sandal paste, aromatic oils, ‘itra, essence, incense, and garlands of fragrant flowers.It is not being suggested here that such offerings are unworthy of Bhagavān—in truth, they ought to be offered in abundance unto Him alone.Yet, should even the faintest scent of bhoga-buddhi — the desire to enjoy — remain hidden within the folds of that offering, then what was to be a pure act of sevā transforms silently into a clandestine attempt at arca-bhoga.
Even the divine fragrance of tulasī once captivated the hearts of the great sages—Sanaka, Sanandana, and others—disrupting their impersonal absorption in undifferentiated Brahman, and drawing them into mad ecstasy for nectar of hari-kathā and kīrtana.The very fragrance of tulasī offered at Lotus feet of Bhagavān which shatters the self-contained serenity of ātmārāma munis and evokes para–ramatā, that is, the loving desire to bring pleasure to Kṛṣṇa’s senses—if that same tulasī’s-scent secretly awakens within us our own veiled hunger for sensual enjoyment; if the aroma of bhoga rice offered to Govinda, instead of stirring a thirst to satisfy the senses of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, silently inflames a craving to appease our own senses or the collective appetite of other people—then know that the gravest misfortune has arrived.In such a moment, worship no longer remains arca-sevā — it silently devolves into arca-bhoga-ceṣṭā, a shadow play of devotion wherein the worshiper unknowingly becomes the enjoyer, and the Deity, a decorated object for the pleasure of the senses.
When one installs the arcā before oneself in a fixed and upright stance, and employs Him as a means for acquiring livelihood, for worldly advancement driven by sensual ambition, or for the alleviation of bodily and mental afflictions—by commissioning the temple priest to perform ritual worship on one’s behalf; when one offers tulasī at the feet of the arcā-vigraha in hope of fulfilling some mundane desire (anyābhilāṣa); when one prays before the arcā out of anxious longing for the gratification of material hopes; or theatrically places a person on a scale before the Deity to donate in equal weight clothes, grains, or wealth—all these are but manifestations of bhoga-buddhi—the subtle mentality of exploitation towards arcā.Much of what is now popularly circulated in the marketplace under the revered name of bhakti is, in truth, nothing more than a veiled scheme—an artifice under the guise of devotion, wherein man attempts to offer bhoga to Bhagavān, all the while playing clever games upon Him.
I have witnessed certain members of so-called Vaiṣṇava households—visiting Kālighaṭa, they first inquire about the price of a goat [2], engage in bargaining, and then, instead of purchasing the animal, use the exact amount to buy sandeśa (sweets), which they then offer as naivedya to the Universal Mother, Jagajjananī. Ah, what exquisite cleverness in the name of bhakti! Kālī is pleased, Kṛṣṇa is pleased—how wonderfully convenient!
But in truth, such endeavors are akin to the futile attempt of pouring water into a broken pot—only to lose everything in the end. Viṣṇu is clever than the subtlest of schemers.With Him, no cleverness endures !
Translator’s Note:
- When the author refers to bhoga-buddhi (the consciousness of enjoyment or exploitation) as a asūryasparśā kāminī,” he’s pointing to the deep, unconscious, and subtle unnoticed tendency in the heart of a worshipper to enjoy even the Deity—while outwardly professing devotion. This bhoga-buddhi Dresses itself as tempting sevā (service), but inwardly seeks to gratify its own senses through the form of the Lord , which is so refined, not gross—not openly lustful, but veiled, sophisticated, and thus more dangerous. Such desire as hidden women resides undetected, untouched by the “sunlight” of pure knowledge and self-examination. This metaphor, then, is a warning: even in worship, one must be vigilant—for the most dangerous forms of desire are not the ones that scream loudly, but the ones that sit quietly, never touched by the sun of discernment.
- Buying sweets as same as cost of Goat means : On the surface, it refers to a traditional animal sacrifice offered to Goddess Kālī, especially in certain ritualistic forms of her worship where a goat is sacrificed as part of the naivedya (offering). In this context, the “Vaishnava” individual does not actually offer the goat, but simply inquires about its price, and then instead buys sweets of the same monetary value to offer to Kālī.But The person wants to maintain the appearance of being non-violent, refined, or more”Vaishnava-like” (who traditionally avoid animal sacrifice). But, internally they’re still driven by the same calculative, transactional mentality of sacrifice: “What can I give the deity to get something back?”It mocks the hypocrisy of trying to please both Kālī and Kṛṣṇa—two very different theological realms—with clever substitution, as if Gods could be fooled by a smart trade-off.This becomes a metaphor for trying to manipulate or bargain with the Divine rather than serving with a pure, surrendered heart.These acts represents the hidden motive of gaining favor from the Divine—through external gestures, cunning adjustments, and offerings designed to fulfill one’s own agenda. It exposes the corruption of bhakti into a form of divine diplomacy or appeasement.