In the context of devotional renunciation, all material attachments must be thoughtfully considered and abandoned. If renunciation is done hastily, without such contemplation, the regret that follows prompts a reevaluation of the concept of renunciation within the path of devotion. Some opine this way.

Others believe that, even in old age, practitioners of the path of action (karma-mārga) do not develop detachment from worldly life. Therefore, associating with karma-mārga practitioners may hinder the divine bliss experienced through devotion. To address this, a resolve is made to delineate sannyāsa in light of devotion. When the body becomes weakened, one recalls their past state and regrets, “Why did I not devote my efforts to Bhagavān earlier?” This divine regret itself is referred to as paścāttāpa (repentance).

Some explain that renunciation is prescribed in both the preparatory and perfected stages of devotion and knowledge. In the preparatory stage, renunciation is not feasible without complete detachment (vairāgya). As such, renunciation may result in hypocrisy or regret when undertaken prematurely. Those unaware of this distinction between renunciation in devotion and hypocrisy in renunciation may feel this regret, which arises after initial renunciation tied to divine aspirations. Observing such aspirants, Śrī Ācāryacaraṇa (the teacher) anticipated potential regrets of two kinds and established this resolve to prevent them.

There are claims that in certain texts, the Ācārya advised disciples to undertake tri-daṇḍa sannyāsa. However, reading this, some Puṣṭimārga practitioners misunderstood and adopted tri-daṇḍa sannyāsa based on sannyāśrama traditions, leading to regret. To address this regret, the concept of Puṣṭimārga renunciation was initiated.

Some posit that Bhagavān, as established through Śruti and other pramāṇas, is rasātmaka (embodied in divine essence). The experience of feelings such as separation (viraha) arises only through sarvātma-bhāva (total surrender). Without complete renunciation, such surrender cannot be achieved. Those uninformed about the nature of such renunciation in Puṣṭimārga may misapply ideas of renunciation from paths like jñāna-mārga (knowledge) and mistake renunciation for a source of regret. Thus, the contemplation of renunciation within devotion begins to mitigate regret.

Śrī Puruṣottamajī Mahārāja opined that the mention of “repentance” and “renunciation” in texts related to introspection must be interpreted in this way.

Verse 1.1

paścāttāpa nivṛtti-arthaṁ parityāgaḥ vicāryate ।
पश्चात्ताप निवृत्ति-अर्थं परित्यागः विचार्यते ।
paścāttāpanivṛttyarthaṁ parityāgovicāryate ।
पश्चात्तापनिवृत्त्यर्थं परित्यागोविचार्यते ।

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

The renunciation undertaken to relieve regret is being considered here.

Commentary (Tīkā)

Now, Śrī Ācāryacaraṇa begins the treatise on Sannyāsa Niryaya (Resolution on Renunciation). What has been written here pertains to contemplation and not injunctions or prohibitions. If a mandate were issued, it would result in prescriptive duties stemming from injunctions and prohibitions. However, instead of prescribing, permission has been given for contemplation.

Verse 1.2

By understanding the nature, methods, and outcomes of devotional renunciation (bhaktimārgīya sannyāsa) separately from renunciation in other paths (anyamārgīya sannyāsa), the true difference can be discerned. To arrive at this understanding, the nature of renunciation in other paths is first explained to provide context and contrast for the contemplation at hand.

sa mārga-dvitaye proktaḥ bhaktau jñāne viśeṣataḥ ॥ 1 ॥
स मार्ग-द्वितये प्रोक्तः भक्तौ ज्ञानॆ विशेषतः ॥ १ ॥
samārgādvitayeprokto bhaktaujñāne viśeṣataḥ ॥ 1 ॥
समार्गद्वितयेप्रोक्तो भक्तौज्ञाने विशेषतः ।।१।।

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

The act of renunciation has been specifically emphasized in both the path of devotion (bhakti-mārga) and the path of knowledge (jñāna-mārga).

Commentary (Tīkā)

Renunciation holds a distinctive role in Puṣṭimārga, particularly as embodied by the Vrajabhakta (devotees of Vraja), whose essence adorns the Rāsa-maṇḍala. As expressed in the first chapter of the Phala-prakaraṇa, the Vrajabhaktas proclaim, “We have abandoned all material objects and reached the root of Your lotus feet.” Similarly, in the fourth chapter, Bhagavān tells the Vrajabhaktas, “For My sake alone, you have renounced worldly and scriptural ties along with relationships.” This emphasizes the unique renunciation practiced by the Vrajabhaktas.

In the path of knowledge too, renunciation holds a special place. In the scriptures of the jñāna-mārga, a distinction is made between vividiṣā-sannyāsa (renunciation born of a desire for knowledge) and vidvat-sannyāsa (renunciation after attaining knowledge). Hence, the use of the term viśeṣataḥ (specifically).

Verse 2

The Bhāgavata’s eleventh canto outlines three paths—jñāna (knowledge), karma (action), and bhakti (devotion)—as means to spiritual welfare. While karma-mārga is also included, any suggestion of renunciation as achievable in the path of action is explicitly rejected to clarify misunderstandings.

karma-mārge na kartavyaḥ sutarāṁ kali-kālataḥ ।
ata ādau bhakti-mārge kartavya-tvāt-vicāraṇā ॥ 2 ॥
कर्म-मार्गे न कर्तव्यः सुतरां कलि-कालतः ।
अत आदौ भक्ति-मार्गे कर्तव्य-त्वात्-विचारणा ॥ २ ॥
karmamārge na kartavyaḥ sutarāṁ kalikālataḥ ।
ata ādau bhaktimārge kartavyatvādvicāraṇā ॥ 2 ॥
कर्ममार्गे न कर्तव्यः सुतरां कलिकालतः ।
अत आदौ भक्तिमार्गे कर्तव्यत्वाद्विचारणा ॥ २ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

In the Kali Yuga, renunciation (parityāga) is not considered obligatory within the karma-mārga (path of action). This leaves two paths—bhakti-mārga (path of devotion) and jñāna-mārga (path of knowledge)—where the responsibilities (kartavyatā) are examined, focusing first on the path of devotion.

Commentary (Tīkā)

Within the karma-mārga, lifelong performance of agnihotra (sacrificial offerings) is prescribed, leaving no opportunity for sannyāsa (renunciation). Although some scriptures state, “One should devote the fourth quarter of their life to the sannyāsa āśrama,” in the Kali Yuga, due to human limitations and shorter lifespans (the latter part of life being dominated by old age and frailty), adherence to the āśrama-dharma becomes exceedingly difficult. This leads to counterproductive results.

Recognizing the kartavyatā (duties) within the jñāna-mārga and the non-obligation of renunciation in the karma-mārga, the focus shifts toward the considerations of responsibilities within the bhakti-mārga. Duties and renunciation in the paths of devotion and knowledge are both emphasized, with the first verse discussing the responsibilities within the path of devotion. The inquiry, therefore, addresses three essential questions: When to renounce? How to renounce? And why to renounce?

Verse 3 - 5

In the context of the bhakti-mārga, the duties related to achieving perfection in practices like śravaṇa (hearing) and others are clarified and resolved.

śravaṇa-ādi-prasiddhi-arthaṁ kartavyaḥ cet sa neṣyate ।
sahāya-saṅga-sādhya-tvāt sādhanānāṁ ca rakṣaṇāt ॥ 3 ॥
abhimāna-āt niyogāt ca tad-dharmaiḥ ca virodhataḥ ।
gṛhādeḥ bādhakatvena sādhana-artham tathā yadi ॥ 4 ॥
agre api tādṛśaiḥ eva saṅgaḥ bhavati na anyathā ।
svayaṁ ca viṣaya-ākrāntaḥ pāṣaṇḍī syāt tu kālataḥ ॥ 5 ॥
श्रवण-आदि-प्रसिद्धि-अर्थं कर्तव्यः चेत् स नेष्यते ।
सहाय-संग-साध्य-त्वात् साधनानां च रक्षणात् ॥ ३ ॥
अभिमान-आत् नियोगात् च तद्-धर्मैः च विरोधतः ।
गृहादेः बाधकत्वेन साधन-अर्थम् तथा यदि ॥ ४ ॥
अग्रे अपि तादृशैः एव संगः भवति न अन्यथा ।
स्वयं च विषय-आक्रान्तः पाषण्डी स्यात् तु कालतः ॥ ५ ॥
śravaṇādiprasiddhyarthaṁ kartavyaścet sa neṣyate ।
sahāyasaṅgasādhyatvāt sādhanānāṁ ca rakṣaṇāt ॥ 3 ॥
abhimānānniyogācca taddharmaiśca virodhataḥ ।
gṛhāderbādhakatvena sādhanaarthaṁ tathā yadi ॥ 4 ॥
agre'pi tādṛśaireva saṅgo bhavati nānyathā ।
svayaṁ ca viṣayākrāntaḥ pāṣaṇḍī syāttu kālataḥ ॥ 5 ॥
श्रवणादिप्रसिद्ध्यर्थं कर्तव्यश्चेत् स नेष्यते ।
सहायसंगसाध्यत्वात् साधनानां च रक्षणात् ॥ ३ ॥
अभिमानान्नियोगाच्च तद्धर्मैश्च विरोधतः ।
गृहादेर्बाधकत्वेन साधनार्थं तथा यदि ॥ ४ ॥
अग्रेऽपि तादृशैरेव संगो भवति नान्यथा ।
स्वयं च विषयाक्रान्तः पाषण्डी स्यात्तु कालतः ॥ ५ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

If renunciation is intended for engaging in practices such as śravaṇa (hearing), this stance is inappropriate. This is because the accomplishment of śravaṇa and related practices requires aid and association, which cannot be sustained through renunciation (sannyāsa). The pride of adhering to the superiority of the āśrama-dharma (renunciate’s duties) conflicts with the devotional practices of śravaṇa, making it incompatible. Renunciation aimed at removing household obstacles may ultimately lead one into association with incompatible individuals, and over time, may lead to hypocrisy.

Commentary (Tīkā)

The scriptures state, A renunciate should wander alone, detached and serene. However, for performing śravaṇa and related practices, assistance and companionship are necessary for their accomplishment. If one accepts renunciation and associates with someone to practice śravaṇa, that individual’s interpretation may reflect their own path, which is often unsuitable for Puṣṭimārga devotional śravaṇa. For example:

  • Māyāvādīs consider the world and its experiences as mere illusions (kalpita). They view even the Vedic teachings as illusory and regard the qualities of Brahman described therein as utilitarian for worldly purposes but not ultimate in reality. Such views conflict with the path of devotion (bhakti-mārga).
  • Nyāya philosophers deduce the existence of Īśvara from His role as the creator of the universe. However, they do not attribute qualities beyond knowledge (jñāna), will (icchā), and effort (prayatna) to Īśvara. Such a perspective opposes bhakti-mārga, which celebrates the loving qualities of Bhagavān.
  • Mīmāṁsakas regard deities as mere embodiments of mantras and deny Īśvara’s role as the giver of results. Consequently, they do not recognize śravaṇa and related practices.

Thus, association with adherents of such differing philosophies is incompatible with bhakti-mārga devotional śravaṇa.

If renunciation is undertaken within the prescribed framework of sannyāśrama, the rules of that state must then be observed. This consumes the devotee’s time entirely, leaving no opportunity for śravaṇa and related practices. Moreover, sannyāśrama is widely revered, fostering a sense of superiority, which is contrary to the humility needed in bhakti-mārga. Furthermore, the principles of sannyāsa and the devotional practices of śravaṇa inherently conflict. Thus, renunciation for the sake of achieving śravaṇa and related practices is unsuitable.

If someone recognizes the nature of bhakti-mārga’s śravaṇa and believes that household distractions prevent its success and thus opts for renunciation, even then, in the preparatory stage (sādhana-daśā), the full maturity needed in bhakti-mārga will not be attained, nor will continuous śravaṇa be possible. The mind’s restlessness and the influence of incompatible associations (vijātīya-saṅga) may lead to distractions. If these associations are with those devoid of devotion (bhagavad-bhāva), their minds, dominated by material desires (viṣayākraṇta), could corrupt even a devotee’s initial sentiments (bhāva). Even brief exposure to such company may replace a devotee’s devotional sentiments with material attachments.

Thus, renunciation undertaken without maintaining the integrity of initial sentiments fails to achieve its primary objective and instead leads to hypocrisy (pāṣaṇḍa). Within the contemplation of bhakti-mārga, such renunciation gradually deviates towards hypocrisy.

Verse 6

Even though harmful associations (duḥsaṅga) hinder one’s spiritual sentiments, if renunciation is initiated precisely to protect these sentiments, then arguments claiming that duḥsaṅga will still occur, yet sentiments will survive, are addressed as follows:

viṣaya-ākrānta-dehānāṁ na āveśaḥ sarvadā hareḥ ।
ataḥ atra sādhane bhaktau na eva tyāgaḥ sukhāvahaḥ ॥ 6 ॥
विषय-आक्रान्त-देहानां न आवेशः सर्वदा हरेः ।
अतः अत्र साधने भक्तौ न एव त्यागः सुखावहः ॥ ६ ॥
viṣayākrāntadehānāṁ nāveśaḥ sarvadā hareḥ ।
ato'tra sādhane bhaktau naiva tyāgaḥ sukhāvahaḥ ॥ 6 ॥
विषयाक्रान्तदेहानां नावेशः सर्वदा हरेः ।
अतोऽत्र साधने भक्तौ नैव त्यागः सुखावहः ॥ ६ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

For those whose body is overwhelmed by material attachments (viṣaya), the presence of Bhagavān (Hari) cannot always be felt. (If interpreted as sarvathā—absolutely—then it would imply that Bhagavān’s presence is certainly absent). Thus, in the preparatory or practice-oriented stage of devotion (bhakti-mārga), renunciation (tyāga) cannot lead to true bliss (sukha).

Commentary (Tīkā)

Here, the senses such as the eyes and others, along with their corresponding objects, are considered viṣaya (sensory objects). Those whose bodies are consumed by these objects (when the influence of material attachments occupies their hearts) cannot always experience the presence of Bhagavān. This is because attachment to sensory objects creates an obstruction to Bhagavān’s presence. Therefore, in the practice-oriented stage of devotion, śravaṇa (hearing about Bhagavān) and other devotional practices serve as the means (sādhana-rūpa bhakti), and renunciation at this stage cannot lead to the fulfillment of life’s ultimate purpose (puruṣārtha). The use of eka (in the text) emphasizes that in such a condition, renunciation is entirely unfruitful.

Verse 7

Thus, if it seems that renunciation has no significant purpose in the path of devotion, and doubts arise regarding its futility, the text further addresses those concerns.

viraha-anubhava-arthaṁ tu parityāgaḥ praśasyate ।
svīya-bandha-nivṛtti-arthaṁ veśaḥ saḥ atra na ca anyathā ॥ 7 ॥
विरह-अनुभव-अर्थं तु परित्यागः प्रशस्यते ।
स्वीय-बन्ध-निवृत्ति-अर्थं वेशः सः अत्र न च अन्यथा ॥ ७ ॥
virahānubhavārthaṁ tu parityāgaḥ praśasyate ।
svīyabandhanivṛttyarthaṁ veśaḥ so'tra na cānyathā ॥ 7 ॥
विरहानुभवार्थं तु परित्यागः प्रशस्यते ।
स्वीयबन्धनिवृत्त्यर्थं वेशः सोऽत्र न चान्यथा ॥ ७ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

Renunciation is considered supreme for experiencing the separation (viraha) from Bhagavān. The saffron attire and other aspects of renunciates’ attire serve to free one from familial bonds; otherwise, they hold no intrinsic purpose.

Commentary (Tīkā)

In Puṣṭimārga, renunciation should follow the complete development of bhagavad-bhāva (devotional sentiment towards Bhagavān). The experience of separation (viraha) arises only after one has experienced the bliss of union (samyoga-sukha). Thus, the devotee, having first had the divine vision of Bhagavān’s face (śrī-mukha) and served His sacred limbs (śrī-aṅga), experiences immense joy in union. The lack of such vision and service during separation gives rise to the experience of viraha. For such experiences, abandoning one’s household (gṛha-tyāga) is considered ideal.

Renunciation for this purpose must be carried out by those filled with pure, Puṣṭimārga sentiments. Only those with full devotion (pūrṇa-bhāva) qualify, especially those in a state of sarvātma-bhāva (complete self-surrender). Such devotees must contemplate the divine pastimes of Bhagavān, like the rasa-līlā, which serve as the ultimate goal. These devotees, already aspiring for the supreme fruit of devotion, are bound to feel separation during moments when their aspirations remain unfulfilled, or they are unable to attain Bhagavān’s direct vision. Remaining in a household with individuals who hold contrary feelings (vijātīya-bhāva) can destroy the devotee’s sentiments, obstructing their experience of separation. Hence, renunciation of the household becomes essential.

The adoption of the saffron attire or other visual markers of renunciation is intended to signify this detachment. Without such an attire, family members, like one’s spouse or children, may object or restrain the renunciant. However, seeing the devotee adorned in the garb of a renunciate, they recognize the renunciation and step back, allowing the renunciant their freedom. Therefore, the saffron attire has practical relevance but holds no deeper purpose.

Verse 8

While renunciation of the household is similar in both the disciplined path (maryādā-mārga) and Puṣṭimārga, the purpose of renunciation differs in these paths. To elucidate the distinction between these paths, the roles of the guru and the means (sādhana) are further explained.

kauṇḍinyaḥ gopikāḥ proktāḥ guravaḥ sādhanaṁ ca tat ।
bhāvaḥ bhāvanayā siddhaḥ sādhanaṁ na anyat iṣyate ॥ 8 ॥
कौण्डिन्यः गोपिकाः प्रोक्ताः गुरवः साधनं च तत् ।
भावः भावना या सिद्धः साधनं न अन्यत् इष्यते ॥ ८ ॥
kauṇḍinyo gopikāḥ proktāḥ guravaḥ sādhanam ca tat ।
bhāvo bhāvanayā siddhaḥ sādhanam nānyadiṣyate ॥ 8 ॥
कौण्डिन्यो गोपिकाः प्रोक्ताः गुरवः साधनं च तत् ।
भावो भावना या सिद्धः साधनं न अन्यदिष्यते ॥ ८ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

Renunciation is considered supreme for experiencing the separation (viraha) from Bhagavān. The saffron attire and other aspects of renunciates’ attire serve to free one from familial bonds; otherwise, they hold no intrinsic purpose.

Commentary (Tīkā)

In Puṣṭimārga, renunciation should follow the complete development of bhagavad-bhāva (devotional sentiment towards Bhagavān). The experience of separation (viraha) arises only after one has experienced the bliss of union (samyoga-sukha). Thus, the devotee, having first had the divine vision of Bhagavān’s face (śrī-mukha) and served His sacred limbs (śrī-aṅga), experiences immense joy in union. The lack of such vision and service during separation gives rise to the experience of viraha. For such experiences, abandoning one’s household (gṛha-tyāga) is considered ideal.

Renunciation for this purpose must be carried out by those filled with pure, Puṣṭimārga sentiments. Only those with full devotion (pūrṇa-bhāva) qualify, especially those in a state of sarvātma-bhāva (complete self-surrender). Such devotees must contemplate the divine pastimes of Bhagavān, like the rasa-līlā, which serve as the ultimate goal. These devotees, already aspiring for the supreme fruit of devotion, are bound to feel separation during moments when their aspirations remain unfulfilled, or they are unable to attain Bhagavān’s direct vision. Remaining in a household with individuals who hold contrary feelings (vijātīya-bhāva) can destroy the devotee’s sentiments, obstructing their experience of separation. Hence, renunciation of the household becomes essential.

The adoption of the saffron attire or other visual markers of renunciation is intended to signify this detachment. Without such an attire, family members, like one’s spouse or children, may object or restrain the renunciant. However, seeing the devotee adorned in the garb of a renunciate, they recognize the renunciation and step back, allowing the renunciant their freedom. Therefore, the saffron attire has practical relevance but holds no deeper purpose.

Verse 9

While renunciation of the household is similar in both the disciplined path (maryādā-mārga) and Puṣṭimārga, the purpose of renunciation differs in these paths. To elucidate the distinction between these paths, the roles of the guru and the means (sādhana) are further explained.

vikalatvaṁ tathā asvāsyaṁ prakṛtiḥ prākṛtaṁ na hi ।
jñānaṁ guṇāḥ ca tasya evaṁ vartamānasya bādhakāḥ ॥ 9 ॥
विकलत्वं तथा अस्वास्थ्यं प्रकृतिः प्राकृतं न हि ।
ज्ञानं गुणाः च तस्य एवं वर्तमानस्य बाधकाः ॥ ९ ॥
vikalatvaṁ tathāsvāsthyaṁ prakṛtiḥ prākṛtaṁ na hi ।
jñānaṁ guṇāśca tasyaivaṁ vartamānasya bādhakāḥ ॥ 9 ॥
विकलत्वं तथास्वास्थ्यं प्रकृतिः प्राकृतं न हि ।
ज्ञानं गुणाश्च तस्यैवं वर्तमानस्य बाधकाः ॥ ९ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

Restlessness and discomfort are inherent characteristics of the state of separation (vikalabhāva); they are not worldly qualities. In this emotional state, knowledge (jñāna) and Bhagavān’s attributes (guṇa) become obstructive.

Commentary (Tīkā)

For one experiencing separation (viprayoga-bhāva), restlessness is natural and health, in any other sense, is absent. This is their inherent, divine nature and not a worldly condition. To emphasize this, the particle “hi” is used.

In the eleventh skandha (canto), during the discourse on knowledge, it is clarified that even transcendental knowledge such as kaivalya-jñāna is seen as saguṇa (associated with qualities). Bhagavān states, “The knowledge inherent in Me is nirguṇa (beyond qualities).” While in the disciplined path (maryādā-mārga), the transcendence of qualities pertains to Bhagavān’s related objectivity; in devotion, the qualities of bhagavad-bhāva (devotional sentiment toward Bhagavān) surpass all, resulting in an even deeper state of transcendence. This intent is conveyed through the particle “hi.”

An objection might arise—how could the experience of separation (viprayoga-bhāva) be supreme even when connected to Bhagavān’s transcendence? The resolution is that Bhagavān’s very essence is rasātmaka (embodiment of divine nectar). Rasa is expressed in two forms: union (saṅyoga) and separation (viprayoga). While tears of sorrow indicate suffering, and tears of joy indicate happiness, the nature of tears remains the same, though their outcomes differ. Hence, viprayoga cannot be characterized as sorrowful in essence.

In such a state of restlessness resulting from the sentiments of separation, knowledge (jñāna) such as “the entire cosmos is Bhagavān’s body” and practices like śravaṇa-kīrtana (hearing and chanting) relating to Bhagavān’s qualities (guṇa) become obstructive. The sentiment of viprayoga existing in the heart dissolves with the knowledge that the entire world is Bhagavān’s form and that He resides everywhere. Consequently, the emotional turmoil arising from Bhagavān’s separation dissipates. Therefore, knowledge and attributes become obstacles in this divine state. Worldly knowledge and qualities that ensure mental peace also act as impediments to experiencing the essence of viprayoga-rasa and its fruits.

Verse 10

While renunciation of the household appears similar in both the paths of knowledge (jñāna-mārga) and devotion (bhakti-mārga), why is mental peace and knowledge considered favorable in the path of knowledge but obstructive in devotion? To resolve this question, distinctions based on outcomes (phalabheda) are explained further.

satya-loke sthitiḥ jñānāt saṁnyāsena viśeṣitāt ।
bhāvanā sādhanaṁ yatra phalaṁ ca api tathā bhavet ॥ 10 ॥
सत्य-लोके स्थिति: ज्ञानात् संन्यासेन विशेषितात् ।
भावना साधनं यत्र फलं च अपि तथा भवेत् ॥ १० ॥
satyaloke sthitirjñānāt saṁnyāsena viśeṣitāt ।
bhāvanā sādhanam yatra phalaṁ cāpi tathā bhavet ॥ 10 ॥
सत्यलोके स्थितिर्ज्ञानात् संन्यासेन विशेषितात् ।
भावना साधनं यत्र फलं चापि तथा भवेत् ॥ १० ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

Through sannyāsa (renunciation), accompanied by knowledge (jñāna), one attains the path to Satyaloka. This is because the outcome corresponds directly to the nature of the means adopted in the spiritual path.

Commentary (Tīkā)

When renunciation is pursued along with jñāna, it leads to existence in Satyaloka. For instance, the knowledge that Brahman is all-pervasive, when combined with sannyāsa, culminates in residing in Brahmaloka. The Taittirīya Śruti states: “Those who, with certainty of understanding derived from Vedānta knowledge and purified hearts through yogic renunciation, ascend to Brahmaloka are liberated along with Brahmā.” Similarly, the Chāndogya Śruti mentions: “One attains the same state after death as a sacrificial man does while alive.”

The Taittirīya Śruti asserts liberation upon Brahmā’s emancipation, while the Chāndogya Śruti indicates results in accordance with one’s devotional sentiments after death. Thus, the result mirrors the sentiment cultivated in the individual. Accordingly, a renunciate imbued with jñāna resides in Brahmaloka and attains liberation alongside Brahmā. Hence, entry into Brahmaloka hinges on jñāna. Moreover, mental peace is crucial for the stability of knowledge, emphasizing the necessity of mental health in this pursuit.

In contrast, the path of devotion (bhakti-mārga) is rooted in the direct relationship with Bhagavān. The Śruti proclaims that Bhagavān is rasātmaka (embodiment of divine bliss). Consequently, in this context, sentiments such as separation (viprayoga-rasa) act as the means (sādhana). Knowledge and mental peace obstruct such sentiments, diminishing their intensity. Where emotional sentiment is the means, the outcome naturally reflects that sentiment. This is the intent highlighted in the Chāndogya Śruti.

Verse 11 - 12.1

By outlining the distinctions in methods and results between the two paths, the delay in achieving fruits in jñāna-mārga is clarified, as opposed to the immediate outcomes in bhakti-mārga. The reason for this disparity is explained further.

tādṛśāḥ satya-loka-ādau tiṣṭhanti eva na sanśayaḥ ।
bahiḥ cet prakaṭaḥ svātmā vahnivat praviśet yadi ॥ 11 ॥
tadaiva sakala-bandho nāśam eti na ca anyathā ।
तादृशाः सत्य-लोक-आदौ तिष्ठन्ति एव न संशयः ।
बहि: चेत् प्रकटः स्वात्मा वह्निवत् प्रविशेत् यदि ॥ ११ ॥
तदैव सकल-बन्धो नाशम् एति न च अन्यथा ।
tādṛśāḥ satyalokādau tiṣṭhantyeva na sanśayaḥ ।
bahiścet prakaṭaḥ svātmā vahnivat praviśedyadi ॥ 11 ॥
tadaiva sakalo bandho nāśameti na cānyathā ।
तादृशाः सत्यलोकादौ तिष्ठन्त्येव न संशयः ।
बहिश्चेत् प्रकटः स्वात्मा वह्निवत् प्रविशेद्यदि ॥ ११ ॥
तदैव सकलो बन्धो नाशमेति न चान्यथा ।

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

A renunciate endowed with knowledge resides in Brahmaloka and other realms. In contrast, in the path of devotion (bhakti-mārga), Bhagavān, manifest externally as the self, re-enters the devotee’s heart, like fire re-entering wood. Only when Bhagavān enters the devotee’s heart and unites with the internal essence are all bondages destroyed. No other method can achieve such liberation.

Commentary (Tīkā)

A renunciate with knowledge (jñāna) undoubtedly resides in realms such as Satyaloka. There is no doubt about this. Therefore, in the jñāna-mārga, liberation (mokṣa) is subject to delay. In bhakti-mārga, the analogy of fire in wood is applied. Just as fire exists hidden within wood yet cannot independently burn it, external fire must ignite and merge with the internal fire within the wood for the wood to burn completely and transform into fire itself. Likewise, while Brahman pervades everywhere, it cannot grant liberation on its own. Instead, when Bhagavān, manifest externally as the devotee’s inner self, re-enters and unites with the internal divine essence, all attachments are destroyed, and liberation is attained. Without this union, liberation is impossible.

Thus, renunciates with knowledge remain in Satyaloka. Among them, those free of desires (niṣkāma) reside there, while those with desires (sakāma) may proceed to other realms. The use of the term ādi (and others) in the original text emphasizes this distinction. Furthermore, all who dwell in Satyaloka attain liberation alongside Brahmā. However, as Brahmā’s lifespan extends to two parārdhas, liberation for those in Satyaloka is delayed.

In bhakti-mārga, the analogy of fire illustrates the principle. Just as the latent fire in wood is incapable of burning it, only when churned externally, the external fire ignites and merges with the internal flame, does the wood transform completely into fire. Similarly, even though Bhagavān resides in the hearts of devotees, that internal presence is insufficient to grant liberation. Only through deep attachment (vigāḍha-bhāva), Bhagavān manifests externally and re-enters to meet the internal essence, dispelling all obstacles and completing liberation. No other method achieves this ultimate result.

Verse 12.2

If doubt arises about the necessity of manifest attachment (vigāḍha-bhāva) due to the lack of direct association (sākṣāt-saṅga), the text argues whether mental well-being and praises of Bhagavān’s attributes (guṇa-kīrtana) could suffice instead. The subsequent clarification resolves this doubt.

guṇāḥ tu saṅga-rāhityāt jīvana-artham bhavanti hi ॥ 12 ॥
गुणाः तु संग-राहित्यात् जीवन-अर्थं भवन्ति हि ॥ १२ ॥
guṇāstu saṅgarāhityājjīvanārthaṁ bhavanti hi ॥ 12 ॥
गुणास्तु संगराहित्याज्जीवनार्थं भवन्ति हि ॥ १२ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

The attributes (guṇa) of Bhagavān that emerge through śravaṇa (hearing), kīrtana (chanting), and other practices are essential for sustaining the lives of devotees. Even when separated from Bhagavān’s presence, devotees sustain themselves by meditating on and praising His qualities.

Commentary (Tīkā)

When direct association (saṅga) with Bhagavān is absent, His attributes serve as a lifeline for the devotee. From the moment the soul (jīva) became separated from Bhagavān, direct association ceased. However, until the devotee becomes aware of this separation, they do not experience the pain of separation (viprayoga-duḥkha). It is only when the awareness of separation awakens that the pain arises. At such times, apart from recalling Bhagavān’s qualities, no other means can provide solace. This is because Bhagavān is the epitome of supreme bliss (paramānanda). In His absence, life cannot sustain itself; only the remembrance of His blissful attributes sustains life during such separation.

This sentiment is reflected in the Gopikā-gīta, where the gopīs proclaim: “Your nectar-like stories are life itself for the afflicted.” Similarly, when Bhagavān traveled to Mathurā with Akrūra and the gopīs observed His chariot’s flag and the dust it raised, they stood motionless like paintings. Once they realized that Bhagavān would not return, they spent their days singing His praises and became free from sorrow. This highlights that meditating on Bhagavān’s qualities becomes a vital sustenance for life during His absence.

However, despite offering sustenance, such recollection does not lead to mental peace. This distinction is critical in understanding the role of Bhagavān’s qualities during separation.

Verse 13

Resolution to Doubt: If one argues that Bhagavān’s qualities obstruct the experience of viprayoga-bhāva (emotions of separation) and delay His return, further clarification is provided regarding their significance. This ensures there is no misunderstanding about their role in a devotee’s life.

bhagavān phala-rūpatvāt na atra bādhaka iṣyate ।
svāsthya-vākyaṁ na kartavyaṁ dayāluḥ na virudhyate ॥ 13 ॥
भगवान् फल-रूपत्वात् न अत्र बाधक इष्यते ।
स्वास्थ्य-वाक्यं न कर्तव्यं दयालुः न विरुध्यते ॥ १३ ॥
bhagavān phalarūpatvān nātra bādhaka iṣyate ।
svāsthyavākyaṁ na kartavyaṁ dayālur na virudhyate ॥ 13 ॥
भगवान् फलरूपत्वान्नात्र बाधक इष्यते ।
स्वास्थ्यवाक्यं न कर्तव्यं दयालुर्न विरुध्यते ॥ १३ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

Bhagavān is the ultimate goal (phalarūpa), and thus, He is not an obstacle. Furthermore, offering comforting words to alleviate sorrow (swāsthya-vākya) is not Bhagavān’s duty, as His compassionate nature does not conflict with His actions.

Commentary (Tīkā)

In this path, Bhagavān Himself is the ultimate fruit of devotion, and the experience of separation (viprayoga-bhāva) becomes the means to attain Him. If this separation does not occur, the fruit cannot be attained. Therefore, if Bhagavān were an obstacle, the ultimate result would remain unfulfilled. Consequently, Bhagavān cannot be an obstruction.

A doubt may arise: Since Bhagavān is the embodiment of the fruit and desires to bestow it, why does He not offer comforting words to ease the sorrow of separation? For example, when Nārada was striving for a second vision of Bhagavān after His disappearance, an akashavāṇī (celestial voice) told him, “Renounce this degraded world, and you will attain My devotees.” Such words provided solace. Why then, does Bhagavān not provide similar comfort to devotees experiencing the anguish of separation? To resolve this doubt, it is explained that offering comforting words is not Bhagavān’s duty, as His compassionate nature remains intact without it.

In the case of Nārada, his attachments (kaṣāya) were not fully ripened, though he was imbued with pure emotions. Hence, Bhagavān disappeared to provide a guiding message, ensuring Nārada’s inner purification. In contrast, the devotees experiencing separation have intense and unyielding emotions. Thus, Bhagavān’s primary task here is to immediately eliminate their inner obstacles. These barriers are resolved only through the burning sorrow of separation (viraha-tāpa-duḥkha) and the joy of His reappearance with divine embrace (āliṅgana-sukha).

Should Bhagavān attempt to provide solace through words, it may delay the instant result desired by such devotees, contradicting His compassionate nature. Thus, offering comforting words is not Bhagavān’s duty in such situations.

Verse 14.1

In this manner, through a thoughtful examination of the nature, means, and outcomes of renunciation within the path of devotion, the conclusion of bhaktimārgīya sannyāsa is articulated.

durlabhaḥ ayaṁ parityāgaḥ premṇā sidhyati na anyathā ।
दुर्लभः अयं परित्यागः प्रेम्णा सिध्यति न अन्यथा ।
durlabho'yaṁ parityāgaḥ premṇā sidhyati nānyathā ।
दुर्लभोऽयं परित्यागः प्रेम्णा सिध्यति नान्यथा ।

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

This kind of renunciation within the devotional path (bhaktimārga sannyāsa) is rare and difficult to achieve. It is attainable only through love (prema). It cannot be acquired through austerity (tapas), charity (dāna), or other practices.

Commentary (Tīkā)

Such renunciation in the devotional path is indeed rare. It can only be perfected through pure and profound love for Bhagavān (prema). Practices such as vows (vrata), charity, and austerity, while effective in other contexts, cannot lead to this specific state of renunciation. No scripture describes any alternative method to attain such renunciation. Only love for Bhagavān serves as the true and exclusive means to achieve it. Without love for Bhagavān, attaining this form of renunciation in the devotional path is impossible.

Verse 14.2 - 15

jñāna-mārge tu saṁnyāsaḥ dvividhaḥ api vicāritaḥ ॥ 14 ॥
jñāna-artham uttarāṅgaṁ ca siddhiḥ janma-śataiḥ param ।
jñānaṁ ca sādhana-apekṣaṁ yajñādi-śravaṇāt matam ॥ 15 ॥
ज्ञान-मार्गे तु संन्यासः द्विविधः अपि विचारितः ॥ १४ ॥
ज्ञान-अर्थम् उत्तरांगं च सिद्धिः जन्म-शतैः परम् ।
ज्ञानं च साधन-अपेक्षं यज्ञादि-श्रवणात् मतम् ॥ १५ ॥
jñānamārge tu saṁnyāso dvividhopi vicāritaḥ ॥ 14 ॥
jñānārthamuttarāṅgaṁ ca siddhirjanmaśataiḥ param ।
jñānaṁ ca sādhanāpekṣaṁ yajñādiśravaṇānmatam ॥ 15 ॥
ज्ञानमार्गे तु संन्यासो द्विविधोपि विचारितः ॥ १४ ॥
ज्ञानार्थमुत्तरांगं च सिद्धिर्जन्मशतैः परम् ।
ज्ञानं च साधनापेक्षं यज्ञादिश्रवणान्मतम् ॥ १५ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

In the jñāna-mārga (path of knowledge), renunciation is prescribed in two forms: as a prerequisite (pūrvāṅga) for gaining knowledge and as a consequence (uttarāṅga) of attaining it. However, both forms of renunciation, along with knowledge, lead to liberation only after many lifetimes. Practices like hearing (śravaṇa) sacrifices and rituals (yajñādik) still necessitate preparatory efforts for the fruition of knowledge.

Commentary (Tīkā)

In the path of knowledge, two types of renunciation are outlined—vividiṣā-sannyāsa (renunciation in pursuit of knowledge) and vidvat-sannyāsa (renunciation following the attainment of knowledge). Sacrificial acts (yajñādik) and their study (śravaṇa) are considered essential means for knowledge. Hence, the realization of the ultimate fruit (jñāna-phala) through this path requires hundreds of lifetimes. This is supported in the Bhagavad Gītā, which states: “The wise, after many births, realize that everything is Vasudeva and seek My refuge. Such a great soul is exceedingly rare.” This demonstrates that the surrender to Vasudeva as the all-encompassing Divine occurs only after innumerable births.

Verse 16 - 17.1

In the Kali Yuga, renunciation (sannyāsa) is no longer as effective in producing tangible results due to various limitations, which is now elaborated upon further.

ataḥ kalau sa saṁnyāsaḥ paścāttāpa-āya na anyathā ।
pāṣaṇḍitvaṁ bhavet ca api tasmāt jñāne na saṁnyaset ॥ 16 ॥
sutarāṁ kali-doṣāṇāṁ prabala-tvāt iti sthitiḥ ।
अतः कलौ स संन्यासः पश्चात्ताप-आय न अन्यथा ।
पाषण्डित्वं भवेत् च अपि तस्मात् ज्ञाने न संन्यसेत् ॥ १६ ॥
सुतरां कलि-दोषाणां प्रबल-त्वात् इति स्थितिः ।
ataḥ kalau sa saṁnyāsaḥ paścāttāpāya nānyathā ।
pāṣaṇḍitvaṁ bhaveccāpi tasmājjñāne na saṁnyaset ॥ 16 ॥
sutarāṁ kalidoṣāṇāṁ prabalatvād iti sthitiḥ ।
अतः कलौ स संन्यासः पश्चात्तापाय नान्यथा ।
पाषण्डित्वं भवेच्चापि तस्माज्ज्ञाने न संन्यसेत् ॥ १६ ॥
सुतरां कलिदोषाणां प्रबलत्वादिति स्थितिः ।

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

In the Kali Yuga, renunciation in the path of knowledge (jñāna-mārga) leads only to regret or hypocrisy, and hence is not advisable. Due to the overwhelming influence of Kali, renunciation in the path of knowledge is neither appropriate nor effective.

Commentary (Tīkā)

Knowledge (jñāna) inherently depends on various means, such as action (karma), meditation (dhyāna), and devotion (bhakti). The scriptures highlight that knowledge requires multiple preparatory practices. For example, just as reaching a distant land necessitates horses or similar aids, the attainment of knowledge also requires multiple supporting means. The Vedas prescribe sacrificial rituals (yajñādi) for the purification of the mind (citta-śuddhi), stating that only when performed selflessly (niṣkāma), such actions purify the heart and make it receptive to knowledge.

In the jñāna-mārga, renunciation is categorized into vividiṣā-sannyāsa (taken to pursue knowledge) and vidvat-sannyāsa (taken after attaining knowledge). While the statement “Liberation is attained through knowledge” establishes the fruit of knowledge, it also implies that liberation follows the attainment of knowledge. Hence, vidvat-sannyāsa is a part of liberation. Despite this, the Gītā asserts that even wise individuals (jñānins) surrender to Bhagavān only after many lifetimes, emphasizing that surrender (śaraṇāgati) is an integral aspect of devotion (bhakti). Without devotion, knowledge alone cannot lead to liberation.

Sacrificial acts performed selflessly contribute to mental purification, and it is only after such purification that knowledge can arise. Consequently, in the jñāna-mārga, renunciation (vividiṣā-sannyāsa) heavily depends on supporting means for the emergence of knowledge. Without such means, knowledge cannot manifest. If one adopts renunciation stubbornly without necessary preparation, it leads only to regret. Furthermore, it often culminates in hypocrisy (pāṣaṇḍa), as those who have not perfected inner disciplines like śama (control of the mind) or dama (control of the senses) end up failing in the renunciant duties like accepting pure alms. This results in inner defilement (antahkaraṇa-mala), intensifying desires like lust (kāma) and anger (krodha), leading to a moral downfall.

Moreover, vidvat-sannyāsa is almost impossible in the Kali Yuga due to its rigorous demands. Recognizing these challenges, scriptural authorities have prohibited renunciation in the Kali Yuga. Bhagavān Himself states in the Gītā and the Bhāgavata’s eleventh canto that renunciation is not suitable for this age. Renunciation undertaken without proper preparation becomes a source of pride, reducing it to mere appearances and fostering hypocrisy.

Hence, in the jñāna-mārga, renunciation is deemed unfit in Kali Yuga. Even if one persists in renunciation due to ignorance or stubbornness, the overpowering influence of Kali inevitably leads to spiritual downfall. Scriptural texts arrive at this conclusion after extensive deliberation.

In summary:

  • In the path of action (karma-mārga), renunciation is deemed inappropriate as per the view of Jaimini.
  • In the path of knowledge (jñāna-mārga), renunciation as part of the fourth āśrama (stage of life) is rendered unsuitable due to the challenges of observing āśrama-dharma in the Kali Yuga.
  • In the path of devotion (bhakti-mārga), while renunciation has a role, its nature and duties conflict with the practices required for perfecting devotion, such as śravaṇa (hearing). Therefore, renunciation is unnecessary for achieving bhakti.
  • Renunciation intended to nurture love for Bhagavān (sneha) often conflicts with the core practices of devotion.
  • When love for Bhagavān (prema) fully matures, renunciation occurs naturally without external prompting, making formal renunciation irrelevant.

Verse 17.2 - 18

The question remains whether renunciation should be undertaken in the initial stages of love’s development. This query is explored further to clarify its appropriateness.

bhakti-mārge api cet doṣaḥ tadā kiṁ kāryam ucyate ॥ 17 ॥ atra ārambhe na nāśaḥ syāt dṛṣṭānta-asya api abhāvataḥ ।
svāsthya-hetoḥ parityāgāt bādhaḥ kena asya sambhavet ॥ 18 ॥
भक्ति-मार्गे अपि चेत् दोषः तदा किं कार्यम् उच्यते ॥ १७ ॥ अत्र आरम्भे न नाशः स्याद् दृष्टान्त-अस्य अपि अभावतः ।
स्वास्थ्य-हेतोः परित्यागात् बाधः केन अस्य सम्भवेत् ॥ १८ ॥
bhaktimārge'pi ced doṣas tadā kiṁ kāryam ucyate ॥ 17 ॥ atrārambhe na nāśaḥ syād dṛṣṭāntasyāpyabhāvataḥ ।
svāsthyahetoḥ parityāgādbādhaḥ kenāsya sambhavet ॥ 18 ॥
भक्तिमार्गेपि चेद्दोषस्तदा किं कार्यमुच्यते ॥ १७ ॥ अत्रारम्भे न नाशः स्याद् दृष्टान्तस्याप्यभावतः ।
स्वास्थ्यहेतोः परित्यागाद्बाधः केनास्य सम्भवेत् ॥ १८ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

If faults associated with Kali Yuga (kalidoṣa) arise even in the path of devotion (bhakti-mārga), then what should be done? The reply clarifies that renunciation (sannyāsa) in the path of devotion does not lead to destruction. Instances of individuals faltering after adopting devotion are unheard of. Moreover, obstacles to the well-being of renunciates (swāsthya-hetuka-parityāga) are unlikely to arise.

Commentary (Tīkā)

The question arises: If the same faults described in the jñāna-mārga manifest in the bhakti-mārga, what should be done? The answer lies in the assurance that the commencement of renunciation in devotion does not lead to ruin. While in jñāna-mārga, renunciates are susceptible to harmful associations (duḥsaṅga) and improper guidance, these risks are absent in bhakti-mārga. Here, renunciation begins with a transcendent devotion (alaukika bhagavad-bhāva), precluding the possibility of negative influences. Therefore, the destruction seen in jñāna-mārga is not applicable to bhakti-mārga.

If one argues that although harmful associations are absent, obstacles like time (kāla), karma, or innate tendencies (svabhāva) could still cause destruction, the response dismisses this concern. Historical examples from the maryādā-mārga—such as the fates of Agnīdhra or Bharata—may illustrate the effects of time, karma, or tendencies. However, no precedent exists of śuddha-puṣṭimārga practitioners facing similar ruin. No devotee in this path has ever faltered or been destroyed.

Renunciation in the devotional path is a form of bhagavad-dharma (spiritual duty). This is evident in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata’s eleventh canto, second chapter, where Nimi Rāja asks about bhagavad-dharma. In response, the sage Kavi states: “Bhagavān has designed means that allow those unaware of the path to attain Him effortlessly. These are known as bhagavad-dharma.” He further explains: “The duties prescribed in this path ensure that no being errs. Even while running with eyes closed, one does not stumble or fall.” From these words, it becomes clear that renunciation in the devotional path is integrated with bhagavad-dharma and does not result in destruction.

Another concern arises: While destruction may not occur, would the need for alms (bhikṣā) and sustenance cause delays in attaining the fruit (phala) of devotion? The response to this doubt is that the act of renunciation involves the rejection of all worldly supports, including alms and even ornaments like garlands or sandalwood paste. No obstacle arises because the renunciation in the devotional path is prompted by the intense anguish of separation from Bhagavān (viprayoga-tāpa). This anguish cannot be resolved through external means. Therefore, no external or internal factor can obstruct the fruit of renunciation.

Verse 19

Obstacles—seen or unseen—cannot harm renunciates in the devotional path. Neither Bhagavān nor His divine energy (māyā) acts as an impediment to their spiritual progress. Thus, the devotee continues undeterred in their journey towards liberation and union with Bhagavān.

hariḥ atra na śaknoti kartuṁ bādhāṁ kuto apare ।
anyathā mātaraḥ bālān na stanyaiḥ pupuṣuḥ kvacit ॥ 19 ॥
हरिः अत्र न शक्नोति कर्तुं बाधां कुतः अपरे ।
अन्यथा मातरः बालान् न स्तन्यैः पुपुषुः क्वचित् ॥ १९ ॥
hariratra na śaknoti kartuṁ bādhāṁ kuto'pare ।
anyathā mātiro bālānna stanyaiḥ pupuṣuḥ kvacit ॥ 19 ॥
हरिरत्र न शक्नोति कर्तुं बाधां कुतोऽपरे ।
अन्यथा मातरो बालान्न स्तन्यैः पुपुषुः क्वचित् ॥ १९ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

In this path, Bhagavān Hari Himself cannot act as an obstacle, so how can anyone else cause hindrance? If Bhagavān were to become an obstacle, it would be akin to a mother refusing to nourish her child with milk.

Commentary (Tīkā)

Since Bhagavān Hari is the remover of all sufferings, He cannot become an obstacle in this path, even as the Supreme Divine Being. Bhagavān understands that His own knowledge aligns with His essence, and there is no cause for Him to destroy this devotional sentiment. Additionally, Bhagavān is subordinate to the sentiments of His devotees, making it inconceivable for Him to obstruct their progress. Where no hindrance arises from Bhagavān, how could it arise from anyone else?

A powerful analogy is given here: if Bhagavān were to act as an obstacle, it would be like a mother refusing to nourish her child with her milk. Just as a mother’s inherent role is to nurture and protect her child, Bhagavān’s role is to foster and safeguard His devotees’ devotion. Thus, it is established that no entity—divine or otherwise—can destroy such unwavering devotion.

Verse 20

jñāninām api vākyena na bhaktaṁ mohayiṣyati ।
ātma-pradaḥ priyaḥ ca api kim-arthaṁ mohayiṣyati ॥ 20 ॥
ज्ञानिनाम् अपि वाक्येन न भक्तं मोहयिष्यति ।
आत्म-प्रदः प्रियः च अपि किम्-अर्थं मोहयिष्यति ॥ २० ॥
jñānināmapi vākyena na bhaktaṁ mohayiṣyati ।
ātmapradaḥ priyaścāpi kimarthaṁ mohayiṣyati ॥ 20 ॥
ज्ञानिनामपि वाक्येन न भक्तं मोहयिष्यति ।
आत्मप्रदः प्रियश्चापि किमर्थं मोहयिष्यति ॥ २० ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

The Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa states that a powerful divine energy (devī) can draw even the minds of the wise into delusion (moh). However, such delusion does not apply to devotees (bhaktas). The statement specifically refers to leading the minds of the wise (jñānins) astray and does not mention devotees. Moreover, Bhagavān, who grants bliss and is dear to His devotees, would never lead them to delusion.

Commentary (Tīkā)

Bhagavān is the remover of all obstacles, and His essential nature as a well-wisher ensures He cannot become a source of delusion for devotees. To emphasize this, the example of a loving relationship is provided—someone dear would never deliberately delay or obstruct the well-being of the one they love. Bhagavān’s desire is to grant bliss (svarūpānanda), and His protection is assured where this intention exists.

For instance, when the wives of the brāhmaṇas (dvija-patnīs) prepared to serve Bhagavān with unwavering resolve, forsaking familial bonds and obligations, Bhagavān initially did not grant them direct bliss (svarūpānanda). Instead, He stated, “This human realm is not meant for attachment or intimacy; focus your minds on Me, and you will attain Me in due course.” This was in the context of guiding them in the jñāna-mārga, where such teachings align. However, with the Vrajabhaktas, Bhagavān’s intent to grant direct bliss was evident. Even when advising them to return home, He awakened their devotional sentiments by describing the moonlit forest, adding depth to their yearning. By differentiating between worldly duties and spiritual surrender, Bhagavān ensured the dvija-patnīs could evolve towards liberation while safeguarding the unique devotional states of the Vrajabhaktas.

Similarly, when Bhagavān sent Uddhava to Vraja with messages rooted in jñāna-mārga, the Vrajabhaktas remained unwavering in their devotion, unaffected by delusion. Witnessing their unparalleled and indescribable exaltation—reflected in the restless, divine state of their souls—Uddhava felt humbled. Acknowledging his unworthiness to fully comprehend their devotion, Uddhava offered reverence not directly to their feet but to a single dust particle from their feet, understanding his limitations.

Verse 21 - 22

Thus, Bhagavān’s will to grant bliss shields His devotees from delusion. Even teachings originating from the jñāna-mārga fail to disrupt the devotional sentiments of those marked by His intention to bestow bliss. By reflecting on this, the Sannyāsa Niryaya resolves its purpose and concludes.

tasmāt ukta-prakāreṇa parityāgaḥ vidhīyatām ।
anyathā bhraśyate sva-arthāt iti me niścitā matiḥ ॥ 21 ॥
iti kṛṣṇa-prasādena vallabhena viniścitam ।
saṁnyāsa-varaṇaṁ bhaktau anyathā patito bhavet ॥ 22 ॥
तस्मात् उक्त-प्रकारेण परित्यागः विधीयताम् ।
अन्यथा भ्रश्यते स्व-अर्थात् इति मे निश्चिता मतिः ॥ २१ ॥
इति कृष्ण-प्रसादेन वल्लभेन विनिश्चितम् ।
संन्यास-वरणं भक्तौ अन्यथा पतितो भवेत् ॥ २२ ॥
tasmād uktaprakāreṇa parityāgo vidhīyatām ।
anyathā bhraśyate svārthād iti me niścitā matiḥ ॥ 21 ॥
iti kṛṣṇaprasādena vallabhena viniścitam ।
saṁnyāsavaraṇaṁ bhaktau anyathā patito bhavet ॥ 22 ॥
तस्मादुक्तप्रकारेण परित्यागो विधीयताम् ।
अन्यथा भ्रश्यते स्वार्थादिति मे निश्चिता मतिः ॥ २१ ॥
इति कृष्णप्रसादेन वल्लभेन विनिश्चितम् ।
संन्यासवरणं भक्तौ अन्यथा पतितो भवेत् ॥ २२ ॥

Meaning (Bhāvārtha)

The type of renunciation in the path of devotion (bhaktimārga sannyāsa) is as described above. It involves relinquishing everything to experience separation from Bhagavān (viraha-bhāva). Failure to do so leads to deviation from selfless devotion, which is my definitive belief. Based on Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s grace, Śrī Vallabhācārya firmly established this form of renunciation in the path of devotion. Renunciation performed in any other manner leads to spiritual downfall.

Commentary (Tīkā)

All other types of renunciation are flawed and unsuitable. The only appropriate renunciation aligns with what Bhagavān prescribed for Uddhava. If one lacks such eligibility yet adopts renunciation, they deviate from their spiritual purpose, as I firmly believe. The renunciation exemplified by Uddhava is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, third canto, fourth chapter, where he states to Vidura, “My soul, distressed by separation from Bhagavān, has brought me here. I am immersed in the delight of His vision and the anguish of separation.” This encapsulates the essence of renunciation, which, as indicated, is understood solely through Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s grace, as commanded by Śrī Mahāprabhu.

In the text’s introduction, renunciation was presented for deliberation, and it concludes with a clear resolution on the proper form of renunciation. Śrī Vallabhācārya reflects on the two prior commands of Bhagavān concerning renouncing the body and homeland, which he regretfully could not fulfill. When the third command regarding worldly renunciation came, Śrī Vallabhācārya adhered to it precisely, as the command and context were now explicit. This adherence pleased Bhagavān, illuminating the essence of renunciation in Śrī Vallabhācārya’s heart, which is the realization conveyed in the concluding verses.

The key takeaway is that the deliberated renunciation, pleasing to Bhagavān, has been adopted by Śrī Vallabhācārya in the manner of Uddhava’s renunciation. Uddhava received Bhagavān’s direct instruction: “Abandon everything and immerse your mind in Me as you traverse the earth.” If renunciation is performed without Bhagavān’s command or without the sentiment of separation from Him in the heart, it diverges from the path of devotion. This incompatibility between the duties of renunciation and devotion results in falling away from the path of devotion.

This concise commentary on the Sannyāsa-nirṇāya by Goswami Śrī Nṛsiṃhalālajī Mahārāja has been completed.