अतस्तस्मादभिन्नास्ते भिन्ना अपि सतां मताः ।
मुक्तौ सत्यमपि प्रायो भेदस्तिष्ठेदतो हि सः ॥
atas tasmād abhinnās te bhinnā api satāṁ matāḥ |
muktau satyam api prāyo bhedas tiṣṭhed ato hi saḥ ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.2.186)
“Therefore, they [i.e., the jīvas] are considered by the sat non-distinct from him and also distinct [from him], and therefore even when mukti occurs, that distinction shall certainly remain in most cases.”
Commentary
ato’smāt tac-chakti-viśeṣa-kṛta-bhedāt, tasmāt para-brahmaṇo’bhinnāḥ sac-cid-ānandatvādi-brahma-sādharmyavattvāt, aṁśatvādinā bhinnā api | atrāpi pūrvoktaṁ raver aṁśava ity-ādi dṛṣṭānta-trayaṁ draṣṭavyam | yathā ravy-ādeḥ sakāśād aṁśādayaḥ prakāśakatvādi-tat-tad-guṇa-yogād abhinnāḥ, aṁśatvena nānātvādy-avyāpyā bhinnāś ca tatheti | ataḥ sa nitya-siddho bhedas tiṣṭhed eva | evaṁ saty eva ‘muktā api līlayā vigrahaṁ kṛtvā bhagavantaṁ bhajanti’ iti śrī-śaṅkarācārya-bhagavat-pādānām vacanam | tathā—‘muktānām api siddhānāṁ nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇaḥ | sudurlabhaḥ praśāntātmā koṭiṣv api mahāmune ||’ ity-ādīni mahāpurāṇādi-vacanāni ca saṅgacchante | anyathā muktyā brahmaṇi layenaikye sati ko nāma līlayā vigrahaṁ karotu? ko vā bhaktyā nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇo bhavatu? katham api pṛthak-sattāvaśeṣābhāvāt | na ca vaktavyaṁ—tad-vacanāni jīvan-mukta-viṣayānīti yato jīvan-muktānāṁ svata eva dehasya vidyamānatvāt vigrahaṁ kṛtvety uktir na saṅgacchate | tathā ‘muktānām api siddhānām’ iti pada-dvaya-nirdeśo’pi | atra ca pādma-kārtika-māhātmyoktau bhagavati layaṁ prāptasyāpi nṛ-dehasya mahāmuneḥ punar nārāyaṇa-rūpeṇa prādurbhāvaḥ | tathā bṛhan-nārasiṁha-purāṇe narasiṁha-caturdaśī-vrata-prasaṅge kathitaḥ | bhagavati līnasyāpi veśyā-sahitasya viprasya punaḥ sa-bhārya-prahlāda-rūpeṇāvirbhāva ity-ādy-anekopākhyānam anyac ca paraṁ pramāṇam anusandheyam ity eṣā dik | prāya iti kadācit kasyāpi bhagavad-icchayā sāyujyākhya-nirvāṇābhiprāyeṇa |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Therefore, meaning, because of the distinction [between the jīvas and Parabrahman] established by a particular śakti of his [i.e., the mahāyoga-śakti described in the previous verse], they [i.e., the jīvas] are non-distinct (abhinna) from him, Parambrahman, because of being possessed of a likeness in nature (sādharmya) to Brahman on account of [their] being constituted of eternal being, consciousness, and bliss, and so forth [as he is], and [the jīvas are] also distinct (bhinna) [from Parabrahman] on account of [their] being parts (aṁśas) [of his] and so forth. In this regard too, the three aforementioned illustrations of the [light] particles of the sun and so on are to be considered. As [light] particles and so forth are non-distinct (abhinna) from the sun and so forth on account of possessing the respective qualities of being illuminating and so on, and also distinct (bhinna) [from the sun and so forth] because of the non-pervading [characteristic they possess] of differentness [from one another] on account of [their] being parts (aṁśas) [of the sun and so on, which their sources and wholes, viz., the sun and so on, do not possess], so … [i.e., so the jīvas are non-distinct (abhinna) from Parabrahman on account of certain possessing characteristics in common with Parabrahman such as being constituted of consciousness, and are also distinct (bhinna) from Parabrahman on account of possessing certain characteristics that Parabrahman does not, such as being a multiplicity of units different from one another and being parts of a whole (just as rays of the sun are a multiplicity of units different from one another that are considered parts of the sun itself), since Parabrahman is a singular, non-dual whole]. Therefore, that eternally existent distinction [between the jīvas and Parabrahman] shall certainly remain [even after jīvas attain liberation from māyā], and since this is definitively so, there is a statement [in the commentary on the Nṛsiṁha Tāpanī Upaniṣad (2.5.16)] of the honorable Śrī Śaṅkarācārya Bhagavat-pāda, ‘Even the liberated (muktāḥ) for the sake of līlā don a form and worship Bhagavān.’ Similarly, statements of the supreme Purāṇa [i.e., Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] and other texts such as [SB 6.14.5], ‘O great sage, even among crores of even muktas and siddhas, someone of completely peaceful mind whose complete shelter is Nārāyaṇa is extremely rare to find,’ also concur [with this view]. Otherwise, if oneness on account of dissolution into Brahman occurred as a result of mukti, who specifically would don a form for the sake of līlā? Who would become one whose complete shelter is Nārāyāna as a result of bhakti? [No one would] Whatsoever as a result of the absence of the remainder of [any] separate existence [of the jīva from Parabrahman in such a hypothetical case]. And it should not be said that those [aforementioned] statements have the object of a jīvan-mukta [i.e., those statements apply only to a jīva in the state of jīvan-mukti wherein the jīva is still embodied in saṁsāra] since the statement ‘donning a form’ (vigrahaṁ kṛtvā) does not correspond [with such a view] because of jīvan-muktas [i.e., jīvas who have attained jīvan-mukti] having a body entirely of their own accord [i.e., since jīvan-muktas already have a body, it would make no sense to say that they don a body; only a jīva in a state of not having a body or not having a body of suitable nature would be said to don a new body]. The mention of the two words [in the phrase] muktānām api siddhānām [in SB 6.14.5, i.e., the mention of both muktas and siddhas] also is such [i.e., it also indicates that jīvan-muktas are not who are being referred to in the aforementioned statements]. The numerous accounts [in the śāstra], such as [that of] the reappearance with a Nārāyaṇa-form of a great sage who [previously] had a human body and attained dissolution into Bhagavān [mentioned] in a statement in the Kārtika-māhātmya in Padma Purāṇa, and [the account of] the appearance with the form of Prahlāda along with his wife of a brāhmaṇa accompanied by a prostitute who had dissolved into Bhagavān mentioned in regard to the vrata for Narasiṁha Caturdaśī in Bṛhan Narasiṁha Purāṇa, as well as other excellent evidences (pramāṇas) [in the śāstra], are furthermore to be sought out in this regard. This is the direction. ‘In most cases’ (prāyaḥ) [is stated in the verse under discussion] with the intention of the nirvāṇa [lit., ‘extinguishment’] known as sāyujya [-mukti] that occurs by the will of Bhagavān sometimes for someone [i.e., in most cases of a jīva attaining mukti, the jīva will attain a form separate from Śrī Bhagavān and engage in service to him eternally with that form, but in less common cases by the will of Bhagavān some jīva may attain sāyujya-mukti alone, meaning the jīva will not in that case attain sārūpya, sāmīpya, or other forms of mukti, or pass through a period of sāyujya-mukti before attaining these other forms of mukti, as aforementioned in the examples cited earlier from the Purāṇas, and rather attain sāyujya-mukti alone, wherein the jīva has no form that tangibly distinguishes it from the Brahman aspect of Bhagavān, though be that as it may, the jīva even in this state retains the distinction of being a part of the whole that is Śrī Bhagavān].”