Acintya-bhedābheda

anena jīvenātmanā’ iti tadīyoktāv idantā-nirdeśena tato

‘anena jīvenātmanā’ iti tadīyoktāv idantā-nirdeśena tato bhinnatve’py ātmatā-nirdeśena tad-ātmāṁśa-viśeṣatvena labdhasya bādarāyaṇa-samādhi-dṛṣṭa-yukter atyabhinnatā-rahitasya jīvātmano yad ekatvaṁ ‘tat tvam asi’ ity ādau jñātā, tad-aṁśa-bhūta-cid-rūpatvena samānākāratā | … yathā janma-prabhṛti kaścid gṛha-guhāvaruddhaḥ sūryaṁ vividiṣuḥ kathañcid gavākṣa-patitaṁ sūryāṁśu-kaṇaṁ darśayitvā kenacid upadiśyate ‘eṣa saḥ’ iti | etat tad-aṁśa-jyotiḥ-samānākāratayā tan-mahā-jyotir-maṇḍalam anusandhīyatām ity arthaḥ, tadvaj jīvasya tathā tad-aṁśatvaṁ ca tac-chakti-viśeṣa-siddhatvenaiva paramātma-sandarbhe sthāpayiṣyāmaḥ |
(Tattva Sandarbha: 52)

“The oneness (ekatva) [with the Para-tattva] which is known [from the statement in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7], ‘You are that’ (tat tvam asi) of the jīvātma, who is not possessed of extreme non-distinctness (atyabhinnatā) [from the Para-tattva] as per the reason seen in the samādhi of Bādarāyaṇa [i.e., Śrī Vyāsadeva in SB 1.7.5] and [who] is apprehended as being a particular part (aṁśa) of his [i.e., the Para-tattva’s] self (ātmā) as per the designation of selfness (ātmatā) [in regard to the jīvātmā on the part of the Para-tattva] even while being distinct from him [i.e., from the Para-tattva] as per the designation of ‘this-ness’ (idantā) [in regard to the jīvātmā] in the statement [in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.3.2] of his [i.e., of the Para-tattva], ‘Entering [the realm of prakṛti] with this jīva-self (ātmā) [i.e., with this distinct entity known as the jīva who is a part of my self], I shall manifest names and forms,’ is being of the same constitution [lit., ‘form’] (samānākāratā) on account of [the jīvātmā’s] being an entity the form of which is consciousness that is an existent part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., of the Para-tattva; meaning, the oneness of the jīva with the Para-tattva is on account of the jīva being a part (aṁśa) of the Para-tattva that is conscious in constitution just as the Para-tattva is]. … As someone confined, beginning from birth, within a cavern in a house who wishes to know the sun, after having been shown a particle-ray of the sun that has somehow fallen through an air hole [into the cavern], is instructed by someone, ‘This is that [i.e., ‘This light you see here is the sun’], meaning, ‘Because of this [i.e., this sun-ray that you have seen] having the same constitution of light [as the sun] on account of [its] being a part (aṁśa) of that [i.e., of the sun], a vast orb of that light is to be conceived [i.e., you can acquire an understanding of what the sun is by imagining a vast orb made up of a huge number of the rays of light you see here], so [i.e., in a manner akin to the aforementioned method of instruction] we shall establish in Paramātma Sandarbha (18–46) the jīva’s similarly being a part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., of the Para-tattva] on account of [the jīva’s] being existent (siddha) as a particular śakti of his.”

Read on →

anena jīvenātmanā’ iti tadīyoktāv idantā-nirdeśena tato Read on →

saty api bhedāpagame nātha tavāhaṁ na māmakīnas tvam

saty api bhedāpagame nātha tavāhaṁ na māmakīnas tvam |
sāmudro hi taraṅgaḥ kvacana samudro na tāraṅgaḥ ||
(Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s Viṣṇu-ṣaṭpadī-stotram: 3; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 8.419; Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmārta: 2.2.196)

“Even once the cessation of distinction (bheda) [between you and I] occurs, O Nātha, I am yours, [but] you are not mine. A wave certainly belongs to the ocean, [but] nowhere does the ocean belong to a wave.”

Read on →

saty api bhedāpagame nātha tavāhaṁ na māmakīnas tvam Read on →

parama-sāra-bhūtāyā api svarūpa-śakteḥ sāra-bhūtā hlādinī

parama-sāra-bhūtāyā api svarūpa-śakteḥ sāra-bhūtā hlādinī nāma yā vṛttiḥ, tasyā eva sāra-bhūto vṛtti-viśeṣo bhaktiḥ, sā ca raty-apara-paryāyā bhaktir bhagavati bhakte ca nikṣipta-nijobhaya-koṭiḥ sarvadā tiṣṭhati | ata evoktaṁ bhagavān bhakta-bhaktimān iti | tasmād bhaktasthayā tayā bhagavatas tṛptau, na svatas tṛptitā-hāniḥ | pratyuta śaktitvena svarūpato bhinnābhinnāyā api tasyāḥ, ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham iti nyāyena bhakta-citta-sphuritāyā bheda-vṛtter iva sphuraṇāt, bhagavato māṁ hlādayaty asya bhaktir iti, ānanda-camatkārātiśayaś ca bhavati |
(Excerpt from Paramātma Sandarbha: 93)

“The particular vṛtti existent as the essence of the vṛtti which is named hlādinī and existent as the essence of [Bhagavān’s] svarūpa-śakti, which itself is existent as the supreme essence [of all of existence] is [called] bhakti [i.e., the most essential vṛtti of the hlādinī-vṛtti of the svarūpa-śakti is called bhakti], and that bhakti, a synonym of which is rati, dwells forever in Bhagavān and the bhakta, itself cast into both domains [i.e., into these two entities of distinct nature, namely, Bhagavān and his bhakta]. Therefore, it is said [in SB 10.86.59], ‘Bhagavān is he who possesses bhakti for his bhaktas.’ Thus, when Bhagavān’s satisfaction occurs because of that [i.e., bhakti] situated in his bhakta [i.e., because of something located outside of himself], there is no loss of his being self-satisfied. On the contrary, because of its [i.e., bhakti’s] manifesting [only] like a distinct vṛtti as a result of its manifesting in the heart of bhakta as per the reasoning [based on Śrī Bhagavān’s statement in BG 4.11], ‘As they approach me, so exactly I reciprocate with them,’ on account of its being both different and non-different from his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] svarūpa (nature) by virtue of [its] being his śakti, it also becomes a tremendous bliss and wonder for Bhagavān, such that [he feels], ‘His [i.e., my bhakta’s] bhakti delights me.’”

Read on →

parama-sāra-bhūtāyā api svarūpa-śakteḥ sāra-bhūtā hlādinī 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 jīvātma-paramātmanor ekatra-sthiti-bhāvanayātyanta-saṁyoge prādurbhūte sati tasyāpi sarvātmanā syāt 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].”

Read on →

nanu śuddha-jīvātma-dhyānasya paramārthatvaṁ bhavet Read on →

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca pūrvaṁ vivṛtā | ‘tat tvam asi’ ity ādau lakṣaṇā tv atyantābhede tad-aṁśatve ca samānaiva | parama-tattvasya niraṁśatva-śrutis tu dvidhā pravartate | tatra kevala-viśeṣya-lakṣaṇa-nirdeśa-parāyā mukhyaiva pravṛttiḥ, ānanda-mātratvāt tasya | ānandaika-rūpasya tasya svarūpa-śakti-viśiṣṭasya nirdeśa-parāyās tu prākṛtāṁśa-leśa-rāhitya-mātre tātparyād gauṇī pravṛttiḥ | sarva-śakti-viśiṣṭasya tasya tu sarvāṁśitvaṁ gītam eva | 
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“The inconclusive argumentation (anupapatti) of ignorance (avidyā) and knowledge (vidyā) having shelter simultaneously [in the same existent (vastu)] and so forth [i.e., and other such untenable conclusions] in [the view of] absolute non-distinction between the jīva and Īśvara [which has been promulgated by Kevalādvaitavādīs] has also been explained earlier [in Paramātma Sandarbha]. In regard to [the statement in CHU 6.8.7], ‘You are that’ (tat tvam asi), indication (lakṣaṇā) [i.e., a figurative sense] is equally present in [the view of there being] absolute non-distinction [of the jīva from Īśvara] and in [the view of the jīva’s] being a part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., Īśvara].

“The Śruti [i.e., the declaration in the śāstra] of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) being without parts (niraṁśa) indeed conveys a twofold sense [i.e., a primary and a secondary sense]. Therein, the primary sense (mukhya-pravṛtti) is focused on designation of the nature of the qualificand (viśeṣya) alone on account of its [i.e., the qualificand’s, meaning, the Supreme Entity’s,] being solely [constituted of] bliss, whereas the secondary sense (gauṇī-pravṛtti) is focused on designation of it [i.e., the qualificand, the Supreme Entity] as a form purely of bliss replete with its inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) on the basis of an intention (tātparya) specifically related to the absence of [even] a trace of a material (prākṛta) part (aṁśa) [in the Supreme Entity]. Replete with all potency (śakti), its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being the bearer of all parts [i.e., being the Supreme Whole of whom all else is part] is certainly proclaimed [in the śāstra].”

Read on →

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca Read on →

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ | sa ca tejo-maṇḍalasya bahiścara-raśmi-paramāṇur iva parama-cid-eka-rasasya tasya bahiścara-cit-paramāṇuḥ | tatra tasya vyāpakatvāt tad-ekadeśatvam eva jīve syāt | nirākāratayā tad-ekadeśatvaṁ na viruddham | tathāpi bahiścaratvaṁ tad-āśrayitvāt | taj-jñānābhāvāt chāyayā raśmivat māyayābhibhāvyatvāc ca bahiścaratvaṁ vyapadiśyate | raśmi-sthānīyatvaṁ ca tad-vyatirekād vyatirekitayā yas tad-āśrayi-bhāvaḥ | yā ca pūrva-yuktyā bahiścaratve’py eka-vastutva-śrutis tad-ādibhir gamyate | raśmi-sthānīyatvaṁ ca tad-vyatirekād vyatirekitayā yas tad-āśrayi-bhāvaḥ | yā ca pūrva-yuktyā bahiścaratve’py eka-vastutva-śrutis tad-ādibhir gamyate | śaktitvaṁ ca tad-rūpatayaiva tadīya-līlopakaraṇatvāt | aṇutvaṁ ca śabdāt hari-candana-binduvat tasya prabhāva-lakṣaṇa-guṇenaiva sarva-deha-vyāpteḥ | sarvaṁ caitat paramasyācintya-śaktimayatvād aviruddham iti pūrvaṁ dṛḍhīkṛtam asti, ‘śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt’ iti nyāyena, ‘eka-deśa-sthitasyāgner’ ity ādinā ca |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“A single jīva is just a part (aṁśa) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), who is possessed of the collective potency (samaṣṭi-śakti) known as jīva [viz., the jīva-śakti, i.e., each jīva is one of innumerable other jīvas, all of whom are constituted of the Supreme Entity’s potency that collectively constitutes all these jīvas and is known as the ‘jīva-śakti’]. That [i.e., one jīva], furthermore, like an outdwelling, minute particle in a ray of the sun, is an outdwelling minute particle of consciousness (cit) of that [i.e., of the Supreme Entity] who is constituted of one substance, [viz.,] supreme consciousness (cit). In this regard, because of its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being all-pervading, only a localization (ekadeśatva) of it can exist in a jīva [i.e., because the Supreme Entity is all-pervading and an all-pervading entity cannot be contained in full within a minute entity, the Supreme Entity in its entirety cannot exist in a jīva, and thus only a localization of it does]. [Moreover,] Because of [its, i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being formless, its localization is not contradictory [i.e., a localized manifestation of the Supreme Entity existing within each minute jīva is not contrary to the Supreme Entity’s characteristic of being all-pervasive because the Supreme Entity exists all-pervasively without form, that is, without any gross or otherwise delimited form]. Even so [i.e., even though the Supreme Entity pervades the jīva], the outdwellingness [of the jīva to the Supreme Entity, i.e., the jīva’s existing outside the the Supreme Entity’s own primary existence, that is, the Supreme Entity’s own unique, intrinsic constitution] exists because of [the jīva’s] being dependent on it [i.e., on the Supreme Entity]. The outdwellingness [of the jīva in relation to the Supreme Entity] is also designated because of the [jīva’s] absence of awareness of it [i.e., the Supreme Entity], and because of [the jīva’s] being subject to being overpowered by māyā like a ray [is subject to being overpowered] by shadow [i.e., as a ray of the sun can be overpowered by shadow but the sun itself cannot be, so the jīva can be overpowered by māyā but the Supreme Entity cannot be even though the jīva is a part (aṁśa) of the Supreme Entity just as a minute particle in a ray of the sun is a part of the sun].
“The [jīva’s] comparability to a ray, furthermore, is [the jīva’s] being a dependent on it [i.e., on the Supreme Entity] because of [the jīva’s] being an apparent non-existent (vyatirekī) as a result of it’s [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] apparent non-existence (vyatireka) [i.e., just as rays of the sun disappear when the sun sets but don’t cease to exist, so the jīvas become apparently non-existent when the Supreme Entity becomes apparently non-existent during the cyclic period of universal dissolution; both the jīvas and the Supreme Entity then remain existent until they become apparently existent again during the next cycle of universal emanation]. And although there is outdwellingness [of the jīva] according to the prior [i.e., aforesaid] reasoning, the Śruti [i.e., declaration in the śāstra] of one existentness (eka-vastutva) [i.e., of there being really only one existent, viz., the Supreme Entity, upon whom everything that is manifest is dependent for its existence] is understood through that and others [i.e., through that statement in the Śruti-śāstra and statements in other śāstras, e.g., Śrīmad Bhāgavatam].
“[The jīva’s] Being a potency (śakti) [of the Supreme Entity] is [understood] because of [the jīva’s] being an instrument for its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] līlā by virtue of [the jīva’s] being of that nature [i.e., by virtue of the jīva’s being outdwelling to the Supreme Entity while also being ontologically one with it as a dependent part of it]. [The jīva’s] Minuteness [i.e., infinitesimality], further, is [understood] because of śabda [i.e., by means of statements heard in śāstra] on account of its pervasion of the entire body [that it is enveloped in] solely by means of its quality of influence just like a drop of yellow sandal [i.e., just as a drop of yellow sandalwood paste applied to the forehead can create a feeling of coolness throughout the entire body solely by means of its quality of being cooling and without actually being present throughout the entire body, so the jīva, which is infinitesimal in measure and not actually present throughout the entire body, can pervade the entire body by means of its quality of being able to influence the entire body]. All of this, furthermore, is not contradictory because of the Supreme’s being constituted of inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti). Such was affirmed previously [e.g., in KS 106] by the principle [stated in VS 2.1.27], ‘It is because of Śruti [i.e., because of the statements in the śāstra, that Brahman is understood to not be subject to modification or limitation] on account of śabda’s [i.e., śabda-pramāṇa’s] being the source [of valid knowledge of Brahman],’ and by [the statement in VP 1.22.56], ‘As the light of a fire situated in one place is pervasive [of the area around it], so the potency (śakti) of the Supreme Brahman is this entire universe [i.e., so the śakti of Parabrahman is manifest all-pervasively in the form of this material universe].’”

Read on →

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ Read on →

Scroll to Top