nanu śraiṣṭhyaṁ mukundasya brahmato yujyate katham
nanu śraiṣṭhyaṁ mukundasya brahmato yujyate katham |
yad brahma śrī-bhagavator aikyam eva prasidhyate ||
puruṣaṁ paramātmā ca brahma ca jñānam ity api |
sa eko bhagavān eva śāstreṣu bahudhocyate ||
tathā ca skānde—
bhagavān paramātmeti procyate’ṣṭāṅga-yogibhiḥ |
brahmety upaniṣan-niṣṭhair jñānaṁ ca jñāna-yogibhiḥ ||
śrī-prathame ca—
vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam |
brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate || iti |
satyam uktaṁ śṛṇu tatas tṛtīye kāpilaṁ vacaḥ ||
yathā—
yathendriyaiḥ pṛthag-dvārair artho bahu-guṇāśrayaḥ |
eko nāneyate tadvad bhagavān śāstra-vartmabhiḥ || iti |
atra kārikāḥ—
tat tat śrī-bhagavaty eva svarūpaṁ bhuvi vidyate |
upāsanānusāreṇa bhāti tat-tad-upāsake ||
yathā rūpa-rasādīnāṁ guṇānām āśrayaḥ sadā |
kṣīrādir eka evārtho jñāyate bahudhendriyaiḥ ||
dṛśā śuklo rasanayā madhuro bhagavāṁs tathā |
upāsanābhir bahudhā sa eko’pi pratīyate ||
jihvayaiva yathā grāhyaṁ mādhuryaṁ tasya nāparaiḥ |
yathā cakṣur-ādīni gṛhṇanty arthaṁ nijaṁ nijam ||
tathānyā bāhya-karaṇa-sthānīyopāsanākhilā |
bhaktis tu cetaḥ-sthānīyā tat-tat-sarvārtha-lābhataḥ ||
iti pravara-śāstreṣu tasya brahma-svarūpataḥ |
mādhuryādi-guṇādhikyāt kṛṣṇasya śreṣṭhatocyate ||
(Laghu Bhāgavatāmṛta: 1.5.194–205)
“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, how is Mukunda’s superiority to Brahman established, since the oneness of Brahman and Śrī Bhagavān is certainly well known? In many places in the śāstras, he, the one Bhagavān, is certainly called the Puruṣa [“the (Supreme) Person”], Paramātmā [“the Supreme Self”], Brahman [“the Absolute”], and jñāna [“consciousness”]. Furthermore, in Skanda Purāṇa [it is said], “Bhagavān is called Paramātmā by aṣṭāṅga-yogīs, Brahman by followers of the Upaniṣads, and jñāna by jñāna-yogīs.” In the First Canto (SB 1.2.11) also [it is said:] “Knowers of tattva (reality) state that tattva is non-dual consciousness (advaya-jñāna), and is known as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān.”’ [In reply to this question, it is said:] Rightly stated. Therefore, listen as follows to a statement of Kapila in the Third Canto (SB 3.32.33): ‘As a singular object which is a substratum of numerous qualities is perceived differently by [each of] the senses by distinct means, so Bhagavān is [one yet perceived differently] by [various] paths [enjoined] in the śāstra.’ An aphorism (kārikā) in this regard: As a singular object, such as milk, which is always a substratum of qualities such as form and taste, is perceived by the senses in many [different] ways—to the eye it is white, to the tongue it is sweet—so Bhagavān, although he is one, is perceived in many [different] ways by [different kinds of] upāsanas. As its [i.e., milk’s] sweetness is perceptible only by the tongue and not by others [i.e., by other senses], and as the eyes and so forth perceive [only] their own respective object [and not the aspect of the object they perceive which the other senses perceive], so all the other [kinds of] upāsanas are comparable to external senses, while bhakti is comparable to the mind because of [its leading to the] perceiving all of these various objects [i.e., as the mind perceives all the various objects related to it by all of the external senses, but the external senses perceive only the one type of object they are able to, so bhakti leads to perception of all aspects of the Para-tattva, including the personal aspect, Bhagavān, where all the qualities of the Para-tattva are manifest in full, while all other forms of upāsana lead only to perception of one particular aspect of the Para-tattva]. Thus, in the best of śāstras, Kṛṣṇa’s [i.e., Bhagavān’s personal aspect’s] superiority to his Brahman aspect is stated because of [Kṛṣṇa’s possessing and manifesting] an abundance of qualities, beginning with sweetness.”