Brahmānanda

tad ekaṁ tattvaṁ svarūpa-bhūtayaiva śaktyā kam api viśeṣaṁ dhartuṁ parāsām api śaktīnāṁ mūlāśraya-rūpaṁ, tad-anubhāvānanda-sandohāntarbhāvita-tādṛśa-brahmānandānāṁ bhāgavata-paramahaṁsānāṁ tathānubhavaika-sādhakatama-tadīya-svarūpānanda-śakti-viśeṣātmaka-bhakti-bhāviteṣv antar-bahir apīndriyeṣu parisphurad vā, tadvad vivikta-tādṛśa-śakti-śaktimattā-bhedena pratipādyamānaṁ vā bhagavān iti śabdyate | … evaṁ cānanda-mātraṁ viśeṣyaṁ, samastāḥ śaktayo viśeṣaṇāni, viśiṣṭo bhagavān ity āyātam | tathā caivaṁ vaiśiṣṭye prāpte pūrṇāvirbhāvatvenākhaṇḍa-tattva-rūpo’sau bhagavān | brahma tu sphuṭam aprakaṭita-vaiśiṣṭyākāratvena tasyaivāsamyag āvirbhāva ity āyātam |
(Bhagavat Sandarbha: 2–3)

“When the one [Absolute] Reality, which is by nature the fundamental shelter of [all] other śaktis, to manifest some type of [wonderful] specificity solely by means of its own inherent śakti, fully manifests to the internal and external senses of devoted transcendentalists (bhāgavata-paramahaṁsas), subsumed in whose [experience of an] abundance of bliss from experience thereof [i.e., of the Absolute Reality so manifest with specificity] is such [experience of the] bliss of Brahman, [and whose internal and external senses are] imbued with bhakti [which is] constituted of a specific inherent śakti of bliss thereof [i.e., of that Absolute Reality] that is singularly most effectual of such experience [of that Absolute Reality’s manifest specificity], or, when it as such is to be defined with discrimination between the distinction of [its] being [both] śakti and the possessor of śakti (śaktimat), it is known as Bhagavān. … In this way, furthermore, it is understood that bliss alone is the qualificand (viśeṣya), all śaktis are [its] qualifiers (viśeṣaṇas), and Bhagavān is the qualified entity (viśiṣṭa). Furthermore, when possessed of such specificity (vaiśiṣṭya), that undivided [Absolute] Reality is Bhagavān on account of being the complete manifestation [thereof], whereas Brahman, evidently, is an incomplete manifestation thereof on account of [its] being an appearance devoid of manifest specificity. This is understood.”

Read on →