mana eva manuṣyāṇaṁ kāraṇaṁ bandha-mokṣayoḥ |
bandhāya viṣayāsaktaṁ muktyai nirviṣayaṁ smṛtam ||
(Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad: 6.34.11)
“For human beings, the mind alone is the cause of bondage and mokṣa. A mind that is attached to sense objects is regarded as the cause of bondage, and a mind uninvolved with the sense objects is [regarded as] the cause of liberation.”
yadākṣaiś caritān dhyāyan karmāṇy ācinute’sakṛt |
sati karmaṇy avidyāyāṁ bandhaḥ karmaṇy anātmanaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 4.29.78)
“[How is the mind the cause of saṁsāra?] When one repeatedly performs karmas thinking of objects attained [previously] by the senses, then, since karma [i.e., a karmic reaction] is present and thus [also] avidyā [i.e., the underlying basis of karma is also present], bondage to the karma of the non-ātmā occurs.”
tad evaṁ tasya raśmi-paramāṇu-sthānīyāṁśatve siddhe tadvat sarvasyām api daśāyāṁ kartṛtva-bhoktṛtvādi-svarūpa-dharmā api sidhyanti | tadvad eva ca parameśvara-śakty-anugraheṇaiva te kārya-kṣamā bhavanti | tatra teṣāṁ prakṛti-vikāra-maya-kartṛtvādikaṁ tadīya-māyā-śakti-mayānugraheṇa | ata eva tat-sambandhāt teṣāṁ saṁsāraḥ | svānubhava-brahmānubhava-bhagavad-anubhava-kartṛtvādikaṁ tu tadīya-svarūpa-śakty-anugraheṇa | ‘yatra tv asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt tat kena kaṁ paśyet’ iti śrutiś ca tat-svarūpa-śaktiṁ vinā tad-darśanāsāmārthyaṁ dyotayati ‘yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ’ ity ādi śruteḥ | ata eva svarūpa-śakti-sambandhān māyāntardhāne teṣāṁ saṁsāra-nāśaḥ |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)
“Thus, in this way, with the establishment of [the jīva’s] being a part (aṁśa) of it [i.e., of the Supreme Entity] comparable to a particle in a ray [of the sun], the inherent characteristics (svarūpa-dharmas) of doership (kartṛtva), perceivership (bhokṛtva), and so forth [i.e., and knowership (jñātṛtva)] too are similarly established [to exist in the jīva] even in all states [i.e., even in the states of being conditioned (baddha), being liberated while living (jīvan-mukta), and liberated completely (mukta)]. Similarly also, these are capable of functioning [to the very limited extent that the jīva’s minute nature allows] only by the favor of Parameśvara’s śakti. In that regard, their [i.e., jīvas’] doership (kartṛtva) and so forth [i.e., perceivership (bhoktṛtva), and knowership (jñātṛtva)] based on transformations prakṛti exist by the favor of his [i.e., Parameśvara’s] māyā potency. Thus, their saṁsāra [i.e., condition of transmigrating throughout material existence] occurs because of [their] relation with that [i.e., māyā], whereas [their] doership (kartṛtva) and so forth in the form of experience of self (svānubhava), experience of Brahman (Brahmānubhava), and experience of Bhagavān (Bhagavad-anubhava) exist by the favor of his [i.e., Parameśvara’s] inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti). Also, the Śruti [i.e., the statement in BAU 2.4.14], ‘When everything has become [i.e., is perceived to be] only the Self (Ātmā) for him [i.e., for a realized person], then who shall see what by what means?’ illuminates the inability of seeing him [i.e., Parameśvara] without [the favor of] his inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) because of the Śruti [i.e., the statement in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23], ‘He is attainable only by one whom he chooses.‘ Therefore, the termination of their [i.e., jīvas’] saṁsāra occurs upon the withdrawal of māyā because of a relation with the inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) [of Parameśvara].”
acakṣur andhasya yathāgraṇīḥ kṛtas
tathā janasyāviduṣo’budho guruḥ |
tvam arka-dṛk sarva-dṛśāṁ samīkṣaṇo
vṛto gurur naḥ sva-gatiṁ bubhutsatām ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 8.24.50)
[Satyavrata Rāja to Matsya Avatāra:] “As an eyeless person [i.e., a blind person] is made a leader of a blind person [by a blind person who doesn’t realize that they are accepting another blind person as a leader], so an ignorant person is [made a leader] of an unknowing person [by the unknowing person who fails to recognize that the person whom they have accepted as a guru is actually ignorant]. [Thus,] You, whose knowledge is [illuminating] like the sun and who are the illuminator of all knowledges, are accepted [by us] as the guru of we who are desirous of understanding our own path [i.e., the best path for our true selves, viz., bhakti].”
śrīr guṇā nairapekṣyādyāḥ sukhaṁ duḥkha-sukhātyayaḥ |
duḥkhaṁ kāma-sukhāpekṣā paṇḍito bandha-mokṣa-vit ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.19.41)
“[Kṛṣṇa to Uddhava:] Embellishment is qualities beginning with indifference [i.e., and not crowns and so forth]. Happiness is overcoming [worldly] suffering and happiness [i.e., and not mere worldly enjoyment]. Suffering is regard for the pleasure of sense objects [i.e., and not being burned in a fire, etc.]. A paṇḍita is one knows bondage and liberation [i.e., and not simply one who is knowledgeable or explains śāstra].”
cittam eva hi saṁsāras tat prayatnena śodhayet |
yac cittas tanmayo bhāti guhyam etat sanātanam ||
(Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad: 6.34.3; Śāṭyāyanīya Upaniṣad: 3)
“The citta (mind) itself is saṁsāra [i.e., the condition of one’s citta is the cause of the perpetuation of one’s bondage in saṁsāra]. Purify it with exertion. As is the citta, so one becomes [i.e., one becomes absorbed in, constituted of, and/or identical to the content in one’s citta]. This is the eternal secret.”
samāsaktaṁ yadā cittaṁ jantor viṣaya-gocare |
yady evaṁ brahmaṇi syāt tat ko na mucyeta bandhanāt ||
(Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad: 6.34.5)
“When a living being’s citta is fully attached to the sphere of the sense objects, if it were to become such [i.e., if it were to become instead fully attached] to Brahman, then who would not become liberated from bondage?”
saṅgo yaḥ saṁsṛter hetur asatsu vihito’dhiyā |
sa eva sādhuṣu kṛto niḥsaṅgatvāya kalpate ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.23.55)
“Association done out of ignorance with non-sādhus is the cause of transmigration [i.e., bondage in saṁsāra], yet with sādhus, it leads to detachment [i.e., liberation from saṁsāra].”
na tathāsya bhaven moho bandhaś cānya-prasaṅgataḥ |
yoṣit-saṅgād yathā puṁso yathā tat-saṅgi-saṅgataḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.31.35; cited in Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.90)
“A man’s infatuation and bondage do not occur as a result of any other association the way they do as a result of association with women and association with those who associate with them.”
ātmāparādha-vṛkṣāṇāṁ phalāny etāni dehinām |
roga-śoka-parītāpa-bandhana-vyasanāni ca ||
(Hitopadeśa: Mitra-lābha, 41)
“These are the fruits of the trees of an embodied being’s own offenses: disease, grief, suffering, bondage, and vices [alt., adversities].”
