A reader recently argued that if one works to earn a livelihood, then their bhakti is a type of mixed bhakti which cannot be classified as uttamā bhakti. The argument is two fold: 1) harboring ‘faith’ independently in one’s livelihood means bhakti becomes covered, 2) one is not […]
In a previous article, I examined Śrī Jīva Goswami’s definition of bhakti. Here I will present Śrī Jīva Goswami’s classification scheme in Anuccheda 217 of the Bhakti Sandarbha, in which he details the different sub-types of bhakti. Āropa-siddhā, Saṅga-siddhā, and Svarūpa-siddhā-bhakti Śrī Jīva Goswami divides bhakti into three […]
In the Bhakti Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Goswami describes a large number of different types of bhakti. He begins by first defining bhakti. Definitions are all-important, as stated in the principle: lakṣaṇa-pramāṇābhyāṁ vastu-siddhiḥ , na tu kevala-pratijñā-mātreṇa – An object is determined by its defining characteristics ( lakṣaṇa ) […]
From Babaji’s commentary on Anuccheda 202.4 from the Bhakti Sandarbha: The śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru are one and the same person Śrī Jīva makes a distinction between the śravaṇa-guru (the inceptive instructor) and the śikṣā-guru (the formal preceptor). Usually they are the same person. First, an aspirant begins to […]
A reader recently suggested that the definition of uttamā bhakti I have written about is incorrect, and that Śrī Jīva is actually teaching something different. I will examine the argument below. Claim: The svarūpa-lakṣaṇa and taṭastha-lakṣaṇa (that I discussed here as the lakṣaṇas of uttamā bhakti) are actually […]