The Latest
- Read on →: īrṣāśā-lobha-kopāś ca garvo mohaḥ tathā madaḥ
īrṣāśā-lobha-kopāś ca garvo mohaḥ tathā madaḥ |
viṣādaś cāṣṭamaḥ prokta ity ete manaso malāḥ ||
(Unknown Source)“Envy, desire, greed, anger, pride, delusion, bewilderment, and dejection—these eight are said to be impurities of the mind.”
- Read on →: yadu-pateḥ kva gatā mathurā-purī
yadu-pateḥ kva gatā mathurā-purī
raghu-pateḥ kva gatottara-kośalā |
iti vicintya kurusva manaḥ sthiraṁ
na sad idaṁ jagad ity avadhāraya ||
(Unknown source; said to be alluded to by Rūpa Gosvāmī)”Where has the Mathurā-purī of Yadupati gone? Where has the Northern Kośalā of Raghupati gone? Reflecting on this, steady the mind. This world is not eternal. Be certain of this.’”
- Read on →: anityatve kṛta-matir mlāna-mālye na śocati
anityatve kṛta-matir mlāna-mālye na śocati |
nityatve kṛta-buddhis tu bhinna-bhāṇḍe’nuśocati ||
(Mahāsubhāṣita-saṅgraha)“When the mind is fixed regarding impermanence, it does not lament over [even] a withered garland. When the mind is fixed on permanence, however, it laments over [even] a broken pot.”
- Read on →: atha yad avatārādāv aśuddha-cittānām api tat-sākṣātkāraḥ śrūyate
atha yad avatārādāv aśuddha-cittānām api tat-sākṣātkāraḥ śrūyate, tat khalu tad-ābhāsa eva jñeyaḥ | ‘nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yogamāyā-samāvṛtaḥ’ iti śrī-gītopaniṣadbhyaḥ | … adarśanaṁ cānavatāra-samaye vyāpakasyāpi darśanābhāvaḥ, avatāra-samaye tu paramānande’pi duḥkhadatvaṁ, manorame’pi bhīṣaṇatvam, sarva-suhṛdy api durhṛttvam ity ādi-viparīta-darśanam eva | tad-aprakāśe yogamāyā-prakāśe ca mūlaṁ kāraṇaṁ tad-bhaktāparādhādimaya-puruṣa-cittāsvācchyam | yat khalu tadānīntane tasya sārvatrika-prakāśe’pi vajralepāyate | ata eva ‘muktir hitvā’ ity-ādi-lakṣaṇasyāvyāpter na tasya sākṣātkārābhāsasya mukti-saṁjñatvam api |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 7)“Then, the direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him [i.e., of Bhagavān] on the part even of those of impure heart that is heard of during [his] descents (avatāras), or in other instances, is to be understood as only a semblance (ābhāsa) of that [i.e., of actual direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him], as per the Gītopaniṣad [7.25], ‘Being concealed by [my] yogamāyā, I am not manifest to all.’ … Also, non-vision [of Bhagavān] at a time other than a descent (avatāra) [of Bhagavān] means the absence of vision even of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who [by nature] is all-pervading, whereas at the time of [his] descent (avatāra) [non-vision of him] is verily reversed vision, such as that of his being [seen to be] a cause of suffering even when he is the supreme bliss, being [seen to be] terrifying even though he is charming, or being [seen to be] an ill-wisher even when he is the well-wisher of all. In the case of non-manifestation of him [i.e., in the case of times when his descent (avatāra) is not taking place] and in the case of manifestation of [his] yogamāyā [i.e., in the case of yogamāyā concealing him even during the time of his descent (avatāra)], the root cause [of these instances of non-vision of him] is the impurity in an embodied being’s (puruṣa’s) citta in the form of offenses (aparādhas) to his bhaktas and so forth, which even at the time of his manifestation everywhere [i.e., even during the time of his descent (avatāra) when he is openly visible] is as if cement [i.e., such impurity in the citta remains hard and fixed in place, blocking reflection of his potency of self-manifestation (sva-prakāśitatva-śakti) off of the citta into the mind whereby direct perception of him would otherwise take place]. Therefore, because of the non-pervasion [i.e., non-existence] of the characteristics [stated] in muktir hitvānyathā … [i.e., in the definition of mukti given in SB 2.10.6], a semblance (ābhāsa) of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him that occurs in such cases] does not have the status of being designated as mukti.”
- Read on →: nanu jīvātma-paramātmanor ekatra-sthiti-bhāvanayātyanta-saṁyoge prādurbhūte sati tasyāpi sarvātmanā syāt
nanu jīvātma-paramātmanor ekatra-sthiti-bhāvanayātyanta-saṁyoge prādurbhūte sati tasyāpi sarvātmanā syāt, tad-abhedāpatteḥ | sa ca yogo na vinaśvaraḥ | jñānānantara-siddhatvāt | tasmāt tayor yoga eva paramārtho bhavatu | tatroktam ekena—paramātmātmanor yogaḥ paramārtha itīṣyate | mithyaitad anyad dravyaṁ hi naiti tad-dravyatāṁ yataḥ || iti | etat paramārthatvaṁ mithyaiveṣyata ity arthaḥ | hi niścitam | yato yasmāt jīva-lakṣaṇam anyad dravyaṁ tad-dravyatāṁ paramātma-lakṣaṇa-dravyatāṁ na yāti | tasmāt mahā-tejaḥ praviṣṭa-svalpa-tejovad atyanta-saṁyogato’py abhedānupapattes tayor yogo’pi na paramārtha iti bhāvaḥ | athavātra yoga-śabdenaikatvam evocyate | tataś caitad ekatvam iti vyākhyeyam | śeṣaṁ pūrvavat |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)“[Another notion is raised in regard to the ultimate goal (paramārtha):] ‘Well, by meditation upon the jīvātmā and Paramātmā dwelling in one locus, once a manifestation of absolute union (atyanta-saṁyoga) occurs [thereby between them], then its [i.e., the jīvātmā’s] also being the Self (Ātmā) of all [i.e., being Paramātmā] shall come about because of [its] entering the state of non-difference from that [i.e., from Paramātmā]. That union, furthermore, will not be perishable because of [its] being established after knowledge [i.e., because it is experienced only after someone has acquired true knowledge of the jīvātmā and Paramātmā]. Therefore, let the union of these two be the ultimate goal (paramārtha).’ In this regard, a statement is made with one [verse, VP 2.14.27], ‘“Union (yoga) of the ātmā with the Paramātmā is considered [by some] the ultimate goal (paramārtha).” [If this is proposed, then to that it should be said,] This is false since a different substance (dravya) certainly does attain the state of being that substance [i.e., since one substance, viz., the Paramātmā, can never become another substance, viz., the ātmā].’
“Considering this [i.e., the supposed occurrence of absolute union of non-difference between the ātmā and Paramātmā] to be the ultimate goal (paramārtha) is certainly false. This is the meaning. [The particle] Hi is in the sense of certainty. ‘Since’ (yataḥ) ‘a different substance’ (anyad dravya), known as the jīva, does not attain ‘the state of being that substance’ (tad-dravyatāṁ), that is, the state of being the substance known as Paramātmā. Thus, because of the non-occurrence (anupapatti) of nondifference (abheda) [between the ātmā and Paramātmā] even in [a state of] absolute union (atyanta-saṁyoga) like a small light that has entered a great light [i.e., just as a small light that enters a great light remains distinct from the great light even when in a state of absolute union with it, so the ātmā remains forever distinct from the Paramātmā even if there is a union of the two], even their [i.e., the ātmā and Paramātmā’s] union is not the ultimate goal (paramārtha). This is the purport. Alternately, [it may be proposed that] specifically oneness is referred to by the word ‘union’ (yoga) [in the aforementioned verse from VP]. Then also, this oneness [i.e., a oneness of the ātmā with Paramātmā] is to be explained. The remainder is as before [i.e., even if the word ‘union’ (yoga) is interpreted to mean oneness, such ‘union’ (yoga) of the ātmā with the Paramātmā is also not the ultimate goal (paramārtha) for the same reason the aforementioned notion of ‘union’ (yoga) is not].” - Read on →: nanu śuddha-jīvātma-dhyānasya paramārthatvaṁ bhavet
nanu śuddha-jīvātma-dhyānasya paramārthatvaṁ bhavet, mukti-daśāyām api sphūrty-aṅgīkāreṇa tad-rūpasya tasyānaśvaratvāt, tad-ācchādanād adhunā saṁsāra iti tasyaiva sādhyatvāc ca | tatroktam ekena—dhyānaṁ ced ātmano bhūpa paramārthārtha-śabditam | bheda-kāri parebhyas tat paramārtho na bhedavān || iti | yad-vijñānena sarva-vijñānaṁ bhavati tad eva brahma śrutau paramārthatvena pratijñātam | sarva-vijñāna-mayatvaṁ ca tasya sarvātmatvāt | agni-vijñānaṁ hi jvālā-visphuliṅgāder api vijñāpakaṁ bhavati | ekasya jīvasya tu tadīya-jīva-śakti-lakṣaṇāṁśa-paramāṇutvam ity atas tasya tat-sphuraṇasya ca bhedavato na paramārthatvam ity arthaḥ |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)“[Another notion is raised in regard to the ultimate goal (paramārtha):] ‘Well, let meditation on the pure jīvātma be the ultimate goal (paramārtha) (1) because of the imperishability of a manifestation (sphūrti) of this [i.e., of the pure jīvātmā] on the basis of acceptance of [the existence of] a form of this [i.e., of a manifestation (sphūrti) of the pure jīvātmā] even in the state of liberation (mukti), and (2) because of that’s [i.e., that manifestation (sphūrti) of the pure jīvātmā’s] verily being an object to be attained (sādhya) [i.e., being a worthy object of attainment] on account of [the jīva’s] saṁsāra at present occurring because of a covering of that [i.e., because a jīva’s saṁsāra will come to an end by experiencing a manifestation (sphūrti) of the pure jīvātmā]. In this regard, a statement is made with one [verse, VP 2.14.26], ‘O Protector of the earth [i.e., O King], if meditation on the self (ātmā) is designated as [i.e., proposed to be] the object [alt., meaning] of the [term] ‘ultimate goal’ (paramārtha), [then in response it should be said that] it [i.e., such meditation] is a maker of division from others, and the ultimate goal (paramārtha) is not possessed of [any] division.’
“The Brahman by specific knowledge (vijñāna) of which specific knowledge (vijñāna) of everything occurs is designated as being the ultimate goal (paramārtha) in the Śruti [ref., Śāṇḍilya Upaniṣad: 2.2]. [Brahman’s] Being constituted of all specific knowledge (vijñāna), furthermore, is because of its being the Self (Ātmā) of everything [i.e., Paramātmā]. [Similarly,] Specific knowledge (vijñāna) of fire is a conveyor of specific knowledge even of [its] flames, sparks, and so forth. One jīva, however, is a minute particle of a part (aṁśa) of the nature of his [i.e.. Paramātmā’s] jīva-śakti, and thus it [i.e., one jīva], and a manifestation (sphuraṇa) of it, thus not being the ultimate goal (paramārtha) because of possessing a division [from Paramātmā] is the meaning [i.e., a state wherein solely an everlasting manifestation of the nature of the pure jīvātmā is experienced cannot be the ultimate goal (paramārtha) because that which is truly the ultimate goal (paramārtha) is not something that is merely a division of the Absolute Reality (Para-tattva), which is the Supreme Whole, or a maker of divided experience thereof, an experience solely of the jīvātmā is an experience of just one minute particle of one’s Paramātmā’s śaktis, and not an experience of Absolute Reality in its wholeness].”