There are two opposite energies hidden in music. One excites, inflames, and disturbs the mind. The other steadies it and calms it down. One helps in concentrating, the other perplexes the mind. One is for dhyāna, the other is for play.
In our country, it is not difficult to find instances where extreme religiosity makes one forget worldly duties. It is quite common to find educated people who,in the garb of renunciation and devotion, have shut their eyes to filth in society and country. If our śraddhā in dharma had been seen in our contemporary societal and political life, our country would not have to suffer from perpetual famine and fear of enemies[1].
The great Bhartṛhari says thus:
maheśvare vā jagatām adhīśvare janārdane vā jagad-antarātmani ।
ṇa vastubheda-pratipattir-asti me tathā’pi bhaktis-taruṇendu-śekhare ॥-vairāgya-śataka, 84
I do not see any difference between Maheśvara who is the Īśvara of the universe, or Janārdana who is the ātmā of the universe; but still, my devotion is towards Śiva (the form that has the crescent moon as its crest-jewel).
This is also called the bhramara-kīṭa-nyāya. A bee captures a worm with the intention to eat it, and keeps it in front of it, waiting for the vim of the worm to wane. The scared worm stares intently at the bee. Thus, the weak worm gazes at the strong bee continuously meditates upon its form and gestures. Gradually, due to this meditation upon the bee, it is said to become a bee itself.
kīrtau kīrtau nas-tadākāra-vṛtttīḥ ।
vṛttau vṛttau saccidānanda-bhāsaḥ ॥
The result of human love is also the same. When a mother feeds her baby, dresses it up, and cuddles it, what does she expect in return? She only desires for her baby to accept her love, nothing else. The joy of the baby is her reward. This is the bliss of Dvaita. The same idea is expressed by the below bhakti-sūtras by Nārada:
svayaṃ phalarūpata iti brahmakumāraḥ ॥
rājagṛha-bhojanādiṣu tathaiva dṛṣṭatvāt ॥
ṇa tena rāja-paritoṣaḥ kṣucchāntirvā ॥
Let us now examine the difference between the three matas. Each mata has its many subtle processes and detailed specifications. That is out of the scope of this book. I am not competent enough to do that. I do not even feel that it is required here. I have tried to summarise the five aspects that I feel are central and fundamental for philosophical seekers in a table.
The differences between the three matas are due to the various interpretations of the Śruti and not because of their acceptance or otherwise of Vedic testimony. The very aspect of Saṃskṛta language that is the reason for its beauty is also the reason for certain disadvantages. That it provides room for alternate interpretations by creative use of logic and grammar is simultaneously its merit and demerit. Let us look at a simple example. In his commentary on the Bhāgavata, Śrīdharasvāmi has written a śloka, as below :