1 minute read
Some Lacking of Intimacy
bhakti, not pure bhakti. When your object will be to attain rati, or bhäva-bhakti, then your sädhana will be true sädhana-bhakti.
Some Lacking of Intimacy
Advertisement
The sädhana of Dhruva is not pure bhakti. Understand? It is sakäma-bhakti, because he had worldly desires. Prahläda Mahäräja’s bhakti was not so pure [in the sense that he is not a Vraja-bhakta. In this context, ‘pure’ refers to ‘being devoid of the understanding of God’s godhood’. In this connection, ‘not so pure’ does not mean that he had material desires.] There was a sense of opulence there – thinking that the Supreme Lord has all opulence. Prahläda’s bhakti is called jïäna-bhakti, meaning bhakti mixed with the awareness (jïäna) of the Lord’s majesty. Hanumän’s bhakti was very good – He was always serving Räma – but he cannot embrace Räma or give his food remnants to Räma. He cannot defeat Räma in mock fighting. So, there was some lacking of intimacy [Hanumän has less sense of the Lord’s godhood than Prahläda; but he always worships Räma in awe and reverence].
The Päëòavas have more bhakti than Hanumän. Arjuna could sleep with Kåñëa, play with Kåñëa, and Kåñëa could give His sister in marriage to him. Still, some sense of Kåñëa’s opulence came to Arjuna [when Kåñëa revealed to him His Universal Form] and disturbed his bhakti; that time he trembled with fear. So, there is still some lacking in intimacy. Arjuna could give his remnants to Kåñëa, and he and Kåñëa can eat from the same plate; but his bhakti was not like that of Uddhava. Uddhava was with Kåñëa, as His friend, prime minister, guru, servant, and so on.