Ātmā

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 →

tatra bhāgavatān dharmān śikṣed gurv-ātma-daivataḥ

tatra bhāgavatān dharmān śikṣed gurv-ātma-daivataḥ |
amāyayānuvṛttyā yais tuṣyed ātmātmado hariḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.3.22; cited in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.98; Bhakti Sandarbha: 206)

“One for whom the guru is the Self (ātmā) and the Devatā should, through unaffected adherence, learn from him [viz., the guru] Bhāgavata-dharmas by which Hari, he who is the Self and the Bestower of himself, can be pleased.”

Read on →

santuṣṭasya nirīhasya

santuṣṭasya nirīhasya svātmārāmasya yat sukham |
kutas tat kāma-lobhena dhāvato’rthehayā diśaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.15.16)

“Where is the happiness of one who is satisfied, desireless, and fulfilled within the ātmā for one who runs in all directions out of desire for wealth on account of lust and greed?”

Read on →

ātmānaṁ ced vijānīyāt

ātmānaṁ ced vijānīyāt paraṁ jñāna-dhutāśayaḥ |
kim icchan kasya vā hetor dehaṁ puṣṇāti lampaṭaḥ |
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.15.40; cited in Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 3.6.314)

“If one whose inclinations [i.e., vāsanās] have been cast away by knowledge can understand the ātmā [i.e., self] to be distinct [from the body], then desiring what, or, for what reason, does one [then] covetously nourish the body? [i.e., the only reason could be that a person’s vāsanās have not actually be cast away, and under their influence the person hankers to satisfy the tongue, genitals, and so on.]”

Read on →

kāmān yaḥ kāmayate manyamānaḥ

kāmān yaḥ kāmayate manyamānaḥ
sa kāmabhir jāyate tatra tatra |
paryāpta-kāmasya kṛtātmanas tu
ihaiva sarve pravilīyanti kāmāḥ ||
(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad: 3.2.2)

“One who engenders desire for and dwells upon objects of desire is born there among them with [those] desires, but all the desires of one who is of satisfied desire and has realized the ātmā vanish even here [i.e., even while still in a material body within saṁsāra].”

Read on →

tad viddhi praṇipātena

tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā |
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: 4.34)

“Learn that [knowledge] through obeisance, inquiry, and service. Knowers and seers of the reality will teach [that] knowledge to you.”

Read on →

sauvīra-patir api

sauvīra-patir api sujana-samavagata-paramātma-satattva ātmany avidyādhyāropitāṁ ca dehātma-matiṁ visasarja | evaṁ hi nṛpa bhagavad-āśritāśritānubhāvaḥ |
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.13.25)

“The ruler of Suvīra [i.e., King Rahūgana], having fully understood from Sujana [i.e., Jaḍa Bharata] the Paramātmā in truth, forsook the notion superimposed by ignorance (avidyā) upon the ātmā [i.e., self] that the body is the self. Such, O King, is the result of taking shelter of one who has taken shelter of Bhagavān.”

Read on →

bhāro’vivekinaḥ śāstraṁ

bhāro’vivekinaḥ śāstraṁ bhāro jñānaṁ ca rāgiṇaḥ |
aśāntasya mano bhāraḥ bhāro’nātmavido vapuḥ ||
(Yoga Vāsiṣṭa: 1.14.13; Mahopaniṣad: 2.16)

“The śāstra is a burden for the indiscriminate. Knowledge is a burden for the passionate. The mind is a burden for the disquieted, and the body is a burden for one devoid of knowledge of the self.”

Read on →

yac-chaktayo vadatāṁ vādināṁ vai

yac-chaktayo vadatāṁ vādināṁ vai
vivāda-saṁvāda-bhuvo bhavanti |
kurvanti caiṣāṁ muhur ātma-mohaṁ
tasmai namo‘nanta-guṇāya bhūmne ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 6.4.31; cited in Bhagavat Sandarbha: 12)

“Obeisance unto him, the Supreme Being of unlimited qualities, whose energies are the cause of agreement and disagreement among the proponents of [various] philosophies and continuously bewilder them about [the nature of] the ātma.”

Read on →

Scroll to Top