The Prīti Sandarbha describes prīti as the prayojana or purpose of sādhana-bhakti. Here I examine the definition of prīti presented by Śrī Jīva Goswami in Anuccheda 61 as translated by Babaji.

Worldly prīti and Bhagavad-prīti have the same definition but they are different substances

Śrī Jīva Goswami begins Anuccheda 61.2 by stating that he will provide the svarūpa-lakṣaṇa or intrinsic characteristics of prīti —

atha tasyāḥ svarūpa-lakṣaṇaṁ śrī-viṣṇu-purāṇe prahlādenātideśa-dvārā darśitam—

Next, the intrinsic defining characteristic (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa) of prīti is demonstrated by Prahlāda in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa by way of extended application (atideśa):

The word atideśa here is a way to define something through an analogy. Babaji gives the example in his commentary on this Anuccheda of explaining the meaning of the word “lime” by comparing it with a lemon. The comparison is presented by Śrī Prahlāda as follows —

yā prītir avivekānāṁ viṣayeṣv anapāyinī | tvām anusmarataḥ sā me hṛdayān nāpasarpatu || [vi.pu. 1.20.19] iti |

Now, the straight-forward, but incorrect (according to Śrī Jīva Goswami) translation of this verse would be as follows —

While constantly engaged in the remembrance of You, may that love (sā prītiḥ) which (yā prītiḥ) those bereft of discernment incessantly feel for the objects of worldly experience never slip from my heart.

In this translation, the pronouns yā (“which”) and sā (“that”) appear to refer to the same object, prīti. Thus, the straight-forward meaning suggests that

prīti or love for Bhagavan is the same as prīti or love for worldly objects, except the two prītis have different objects of love.

To those who have spent some time in Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism, this concept is likely familiar. Many claim that material love is just a perversion of spiritual love. The underlying substance, love, is claimed to be the same. Worldly love is simply love of Bhagavān misdirected to worldly objects. All we have to do is turn that love toward Bhagavān.

However, the above translation and underlying concept is unacceptable to Śrī Jīva Goswami. He writes —

yā yal-lakṣaṇā sā tal-lakṣaṇā ity arthaḥ | na tu yā saiveti vakṣyamāṇa-lakṣaṇaikyāt |

The correlative pronouns yā (“which”) and sā (“that”) are used here in the sense of “which defining characteristics [of love]” (yal-lakṣaṇā) and “that defining characteristics [of love]” (tal-lakṣaṇā), and not as “which [love]” (yā) and “that very same [love]” (saiva). This is due to the fact that the two types of prīti share a oneness in terms of their defining characteristics (lakṣaṇaikyāt), as will be demonstrated further ahead [in subsection 61.3 of this anuccheda].

In the above statement, Śrī Jīva rejects equating worldly love with prīti. I have previously refuted this notion in this article. The reason worldly love is mentioned while presenting the intrinsic characteristics of prīti is that worldly love has the same definition as love for Bhagavān and we have experience of worldly love. So it is possible to understand something about it. Yet, Śrī Jīva explains they are totally different substances —

tathāpi pūrvasyā māyā-śakti-vṛttimayatvena, uttarasyāḥ svarūpa-śakti-mayatvena bhedāt |

In spite of this, however, the two types of prīti are categorically distinct, the former being a functional capacity of the extrinsic potency (māyāśakti-vṛtti) and the latter that of Bhagavān’s intrinsic potency (svarūpa-śakti-vrtti)

This is a crucially important distinction on which rests the Gauḍiya understanding of prīti. Worldly love is a function of māyā, while prīti is a function of Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti. This refutes, also, the notion that bhagavad-prīti is intrinsic, dormant or inherent in the ātmā, as it is Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti, not the ātmā’s svarūpa-śakti. That the word ‘svarūpa-śakti’ above refers to Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti is not stated explicitly here but is made crystal clear in Anuccheda 65 which I will take up in another article.

Thus, the appropriate translation for the verse is as follows —

While constantly engaged in the remembrance of You, may that love (prītiḥ) which has the same characteristics (sā = tal-lakṣaṇā) as the love (prītiḥ yal-lakṣaṇā) those bereft of discernment incessantly feel for the objects of worldly experience never slip from my heart.

The definition of prīti

What then are the characteristics which the two share? To answer this, Śrī Jīva considers two types of meaning for the word prīti. Of these, he rejects one and accepts the other. The two types are:

etad uktaṁ bhavati—prīti-śabdena khalu mut-pramoda-harsānandādi-paryāyaṁ sukham ucyate | bhāva-hārda-sauhṛdādi-paryāyā priyatā cocyate |

In this regard, the following is to be said: The word prīti signifies “happiness” (sukham), the synonyms of which include “joy” (mut), “delight” (pramoda), “exuberance” (harṣa), and “bliss” (ānanda). Additionally, prīti also signifies “fondness” (priyatā), the synonyms of which include “affection” (bhāva), “tenderness” (hārda), and “friendliness” (sauhṛda).

So sukha and priyatā are two possible meanings that one could give to the word prīti. Which of these two meanings should we take here? He will settle this question by defining sukha and priyatā both.

tatra ullāsātmako jñāna-viśeṣaḥ sukham

“happiness” (sukham) refers to a particular state of consciousness ( jñāna-viśeṣa) that is rooted in the feeling of elation (ullāsa).

A few things to note here:

1. sukha, happiness, is jñāna-viśeṣa – a type of feeling or awareness.
2. The essence of this awareness is a feeling of elation.
3. Synonyms of sukha are joy, delight, exuberance and bliss.

His definition of priyatā is much more complicated —

athā viṣayānukūlyātmakas tad-ānukūlyānugata-tat-spṛhā-tad-anubhava-hetukollāsa-maya-jñāna-viśeṣaḥ priyatā

First, notice that, similar to sukha, priyatā is also a jñāna-viśeṣa, a type of awareness. But while sukha was qualified as awareness whose essence is a feeling of elation, priyatā is:

viṣayānukūlyātmaka = its essence is a favorable disposition toward its intended object

However, this is not a complete definition of priyatā in this context, because it mentions nothing about the object of priyatā. He rounds the definition off by adding further qualifiers —

tat-spṛhā-tad-anubhava-hetukollāsa-maya-jñāna-viśeṣaḥ = this priyatā is filled with elation (ullāsa) caused by the direct experience of the object (tad-anubhava) resulting from the yearning to attain it (tatspṛhā),

The priyatā is filled with the feeling of elation also, just like sukha. This elation is specifically caused by an experience of the object. The experience of the object results from a yearning to attain the object. The yearning for the object, however, is a result of one’s favorable attitude toward the object —

tad-ānukūlyānugata = [the yearning to attain the object] proceeds from the core attitude of agreeableness toward its object

Śrī Jīva reasons that priyatā is the correct meaning of prīti in this context and not sukha. I do not go into his arguments here for brevity. Putting everything together, we get the following definition of prīti:

prīti = priyatā = viṣayānukūlyātmakas tad-ānukūlyānugata-tat-spṛhā-tad-anubhava-hetukollāsa-maya-jñāna-viśeṣaḥ

“fondness” (priyatā) is a particular state of consciousness ( jñāna-viśeṣa) the very essence of which is a favorable disposition toward its intended object (viṣaya-ānukūlya-ātmaka), and which is also filled with elation (ullāsa) caused by the direct experience of the object (tad-anubhava) resulting from the yearning to attain it (tatspṛhā), which itself proceeds from the core attitude of agreeableness toward its object (tad-ānukūlyānugata).

A few things to note here —

1. prīti has a subject and an object, unlike sukha which only has a subject.
2. prīti is also jñāna-viśeṣa – a type of feeling or awareness.
3. The essence of this awareness is a favorable disposition or attitude toward the object of prīti
4. There is also a feeling of elation upon experience of the object of prīti
5. The experience of the object is a result of a desire to attain the object.
6. The desire to attain the object follows the favorable disposition toward the object.

prīti is thus a favorable attitude toward the object. That attitude drives desire to be with the object of prīti, in order to serve the object of prīti.

Now, as mentioned before, this definition of prīti applies to both bhagavad-prīti and to worldly prīti. He makes this point explicit in Anuccheda 61.3.

tad evaṁ putrādi-viṣayaka-prītes tad-ānukūlyādy-ātmakatvena bhagavat-prīter api tathābhūtatvena samāna-lakṣaṇatvam eva |

In this manner, since conventional love (prīti) directed toward children or other worldly objects (viṣaya) is rooted in a pleasing disposition toward such objects [together with the other characteristics of priyatā specified in its earlier mentioned definition], and since prīti for Bhagavān is also rooted in the same core disposition of favorability toward Him, the two types of prīti share an equality specifically in terms of their defining characteristic (samāna-lakṣaṇatvam eva).

But he emphasizes again the big difference – the two prītis are, in fact, two totally different substances. Worldly prīti is described in the Bhagavad-gītā verse 13.6

tatra pūrvasyā māyā-śakti-vṛttimayatvam icchā dveṣaḥ sukhaṁ duḥkham [gītā 13.6] ity-ādinā śrī-gītopaniṣad-ādau vyaktam asti |

Of these two, the former is a functional capacity of Bhagavān’s extrinsic potency (māyāśakti- vṛtti), as explicitly declared by Him in Śrī Gītopaniṣad:

icchā dveṣaḥ sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ saṅghātaś cetanā dhṛtiḥ etat kṣetraṁ samāsena savikāram udāhṛtam

Desire [i.e., object-directed love (viṣaya-prīti)] and aversion, happiness and misery, the aggregate of the elements [i.e., the physical body], awareness, and fortitude — all this is described in brief as the field of worldly experience (kṣetra) along with its modifications.

prīti for Bhagavān, on the other hand, is a function of His svarūpa-śakti —

uttarasyās tu svarūpa-śakti-vṛttimayatvam antike darśayiṣyāmaḥ |

In contrast, the latter type of prīti is a functional capacity of Bhagavān’s intrinsic potency (svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti), as will be demonstrated in the adjoining discussion [further ahead in Anuccheda 65]. T

He concludes —

tasmāt sādhu vyākhyātaṁ yā yal-lakṣaṇā sā tal-lakṣaṇā iti |

Therefore, it was rightly said [at the beginning of this anuccheda in reference to Prahlāda’s prayer in Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.20.19)] that the correspondence signified by the correlative pronouns yā and sā is in terms of the defining characteristics shared by the two types of prīti (yal-lakṣaṇā tal-lakṣaṇā) [and not that they are being equated as one and the same thing].

Definition of prīti for Bhagavān

What remains now is to recast the definition of prīti specifically in terms of prīti for Bhagavān. Śrī Jīva does so in Anuccheda 61.4 —

In this manner, by way of reference to the example of prīti for worldly objects, prīti for Bhagavān has been defined as “a particular state of consciousness ( jñāna-viśeṣaḥ) the very essence of which is a favorable disposition toward its intended object, Śrī Bhagavān (śrī-bhagavad-viṣayānukūlyātmakaḥ), and which is also filled with elation (ullāsa) caused by the immediate experience of Him (tad-anubhava) resulting from the yearning to attain Him (tat-spṛhā), which itself proceeds from the core attitude of agreeableness toward Him (tad-ānukūlyānugata).

Summary

1. prīti in relation to Bhagavān and worldly prīti (such as for children etc) have the same definition.
2. But these two prītis are totally different substances. The former is a function of Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti, while the latter is a function of Bhagavān’s māyā-śakti.
3. prīti is a type of feeling or awareness whose essence is a favorable attitude toward Bhagavān.
4. prīti is different from sukha.
5. prīti has a subject and an object, unlike sukha which only has a subject.