आत्मा परिज्ञानमयो विवादो
ह्यस्तीति नास्तीति भिदार्थनिष्ठः ।
व्यर्थोऽपि नैवोपरमेत पुंसां
मत्तः परावृत्तधियां स्वलोकात् ॥
ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo
hy astīti nāstīti bhidārtha-niṣṭhaḥ |
vyartho’pi naivoparameta puṁsāṁ
mattaḥ parāvṛtta-dhiyāṁ sva-lokāt ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.22.34; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)
“[Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Śrī Uddhava:] The disputation on the part of people of mind turned away from me, [their] own domain [i.e., their own shelter], which is fixed [only] on the object of a difference [between their own view and another’s], ‘It is [so]; [no,] it is not,’ and based on incomplete knowledge of the self (ātmā), shall never cease even though it is useless.”
Commentary
so’haṅkāraḥ kena nivartate? ucyate, ‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād’ ity-ādy-anusārato mad-bahirmukhatā-nidānatvena mad-antarmukhatayaivety āha—ātmāparijñāna-maya iti | sva-lokāt svāśrayād api mattaḥ parāvṛtta-dhiyāṁ puṁsāṁ yad ātmāparijñānaṁ sva-svarūpāsphūrtis tan-mayo yo nija-para-matayor astīti nāstīti bhidārtha-niṣṭho vivādaḥ, so’rtha-śūnyo’pi naivoparameteti mad-bahirmukhatāyāṁ satyāṁ vivāda-mātraṁ prasavet, na tu jñānam udayati | mad-antarmukhatāyāṁ jñānam apy ānuṣaṅgikatayodayet parama-puruṣārtha-lakṣaṇa-mat-prāptis tu mukhyatayety arthaḥ |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“How does that ahaṅkāra withdraw? [In response to this question,] It is to be said that in accord with [the earlier statement] bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād … [i.e., SB 11.2.37], [it withdraws] only by means of being intent upon me (mad-antarmukhatā) because of obliviousness of me (mad-bahirmukhatā) being [its] cause. Thus, he [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa] says ātmāparijñāna-mayaḥ … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. The disputation on the part of people of mind turned away from me, [their] own domain, that is, their own shelter, which is fixed [only] on the object of a difference between the views of themselves and others, ‘It is [so]; [no,] it is not,’ and based on incomplete knowledge of the self (ātmā), that is, non-manifestation of one’s own nature (svarūpa), shall never cease even though it is devoid of meaning. Thus, when obliviousness (bahirmukhatā) of me is present, only disputation shall be engendered, and knowledge (jñāna), on the contrary, does not arise. In the presence of intentness (antarmukhatā) upon me, [however,] even knowledge (jñāna) shall arise secondarily, whereas primarily [there shall arise] attainment of me, which is an indication of the supreme puruṣārtha. This is the meaning.”