yukta vairagya - question

What was the context to which Rupa's yukta vairagya was developed?

does it appear in earlier literature?

yukta vairagya- what real renunciation

The original author of the concept, Rupa Goswami

Does anybody know which book the discusses this in.

Got it

Rupa Goswami

anasaktasya visayan yatharham upayunjatah nirbandhah krsna-sambandhe yuktam vairagyam ucyate:

"When persons accept worldly objects without attachment for them, employing them in the service of Krsna, this is called balanced detachment (yukta vairagya)." (Brs 1.2.255).

Is this a correct translation?

anAsaktasya viSayAn yathArham upayuJjataH |
nirbandhah kRSNa-sambandhe yuktaM vairAgyam ucyate ||

Here is the translation from David L. Haberman:

When a person who is not attached to ordinary worldly objects suitably engages such objects and uses them in a relationship with kRSNa, that is called "proper renunciation."

For " yukta vairAgya" there are some good translations, as the two above balanced detatchment and proper renunciation are good but I find the more possible renderings helps to get a clearer undarstanding of the term. So I've also read balanced abnegation, moderate dispassion, reasonable abnegation, appropriate renunciation etc., with a synthesis of these one gets some implications of the term "yukta vairAgya" and it's opposite "suska vairAgya"

I didn't see it mentioned so I will add that the context of the statement was that renunciates at the time of Rupa Goswami were Sankarites for the most part and the standard of vairagya was total abnegation as opposed to the yukta vairagya that Rupa Goswami is advocating in the verse in question. The statement was made wtih based on the social setting of the times. But the Goswami's renunciation was far beyond what most renunciates would want to endure today. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta took this statement and applied it very liberally to preaching and utilization of everything in seva - but that certainly wasn't the original intent of the verse.

I find the function of the word "nirbandhaH" interesting. After all, it is a certain nirbandhaH that is called "yuktaM vairAgyam." I think both of the above-mentioned translations give the word "nirbandhaH" a too weak, or rather unclear import. At least I cannot perceive exactly where, or how, this word is being accounted for. Here is my attempt to accurately account for all elements in Rupa's stanza:

"The perseverance [nirbandhaH] of an unattached [anAsaktasya], [who is] suitably [yathArham] employing [upayuJjataH] objects [viSayAn] in relationship with kRSNa [kRSNasambandhe], is called [ucyate] proper renunciation [yuktaM vairAgyam]."

I believe that there is a sense of "it is hard to carry on," implied here. There is a parallel construction in the previous stanza, where the practicing person is described as "rucim udvahatas," "keeping up his taste [for worshiping kRSNa]," "viSayeSu gariSTho 'pi rAgaH," "although the passion for objects is excessive." In other words, the anAsaktasya-verse conveys a sense of victory, after a struggle, but also a continued struggle. Or else, the word nirbandhaH is used to bring out the difference: that "previously there was perseverance regarding his own enjoyment," now he shows "perseverance in connection with kRSNa" "nirbandhaH kRSNAsambandhe."

-ek

who is suitably [yathArham]

The word "yathArham" is important here

does it fully mean

"who is suitably" [yathArham]

Sorry I was so unclear. I should have placed the "who is" in square brackets! Here is how it works:

yathArham is an adverb (ind.), meaning "suitably."
upayuJjataH is a present participle m. genitive singular, "of the employing." This genitive agrees with anAsaktasya. He is the person who owns a certain nirbandhaH. The stanza is concerned with the nirbandha of a suitably employing unattached [male person].

-ek