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.”