hitvātma-māyā-racitā gṛhāpatya-suhṛt-striyaḥ |
tamo viśanty anicchanto vāsudeva-parāṅmukhāḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.5.18)
“Giving up their homes, children, friends, and wife, created by the Ātmā’s māyā [i.e., Bhagavān’s māyā, or, their own māyā], those averse to Vāsudeva [at death] enter darkness against their will.”
atha jīvaś ca tadīyo’pi taj-jñāna-saṁsargābhāva-yuktatvena tan-māyā-parābhūtaḥ sann ātma-svarūpa-jñāna-lopān māyā-kalpitopādhy-āveśāc cānādi-saṁsāra-duḥkhena sambadhyata iti paramātma-sandarbhādāv eva nirūpitam asti |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)
“Now, although the jīva is also his own (tadīya) [i.e., although the jīva belongs to Bhagavān], the jīva becomes overcome by his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] māyā because of being [beginninglessly] possessed of an absence of the existence of awareness of him and [thus is] bound within the beginningless suffering of saṁsāra because of a lack of awareness of the nature of its own self [i.e., because of being subjected by māyā to suppression of awareness of its own nature as an ātmā] and absorption in the adjuncts (upādhis) fabricated by māyā [i.e., because the jīva becomes consequently absorbed in identification with the material psyche, body, and so forth, as well as the subsequent attractions, aversions, desires, pursuits, deprivations, and so forth concomitant therewith]. This [i.e., the point made in the previous sentence] is ascertained in Paramātma Sandarbha and elsewhere.”
paramātma-vaibhava-gaṇane ca taṭastha-śakti-rūpāṇāṁ cid-eka-rasānām api anādi-para-tattva-jñāna-saṁsargābhāvamaya-tad-vaimukhya-labdha-cchidrayā tan-māyayāvṛta-svarūpa-jñānānāṁ tayaiva sattva-rajas-tamo-maye jaḍe pradhāne racitātma-bhāvānāṁ jīvānāṁ saṁsāra-duḥkhaṁ ca jñāpitam | … tatas tad-arthaṁ parama-kāruṇikaṁ śāstram upadiśati | tatra ca ye kecit jīvā janmāntarāvṛtta-tad-arthānubhava-saṁskāravanto, ye ca tadaiva vā labdha-mahat-kṛpātiśaya-dṛṣṭi-prabhṛtayas, teṣāṁ tādṛśa-para-tattva-lakṣaṇa-vastūpadeśa-śravaṇārambha-mātreṇaiva tat-kālam eva yugapad eva tat-sāmmukhyaṁ tad-anubhavo’pi jāyate | … athānyeṣāṁ tac-chravaṇa-mātreṇa tādṛśatvaṁ bījāyamānam api kāmādi-vaiguṇyena bījam api doṣeṇa pratihataṁ tiṣṭhati | … tato mukhyena tātparyeṇa para-tattve paryavasite’pi teṣāṁ para-tattvādy-upadeśasya kim abhidheyaṁ prayojanaṁ cety apekṣāyāṁ tad-avāntara-tātparyeṇa tad-dvayam upadeṣṭavyam | tatrābhidheyaṁ tad-vaimukhya-virodhitvāt tat-sāmmukhyam eva | tac ca tad-upāsanā-lakṣaṇaṁ, yata eva taj-jñānam āvirbhavati | prayojanaṁ ca tad-anubhavaḥ | sa cāntar-bahiḥ-sākṣātkāra-lakṣaṇaḥ, yata eva svayaṁ kṛtsna-duḥkha-nivṛttir bhavati | … tad etad ubhayaṁ yadyapi pūrvatra siddhopadeśa evābhipretam asti, yathā “tava gṛhe nidhir asti” iti śrutvā kaścid daridras tad-arthaṁ prayatate labhate ca tam iti, tadvat, tathāpi tac-chaithilya-nirāsāya punas tad-upadeśaḥ | tad evaṁ tān praty anādi-siddha-taj-jñāna-saṁsargābhāvamaya-tad-vaimukhyādikaṁ duḥkha-hetuṁ vadan vyādhi-nidāna-vaiparītyamaya-cikitsā-nibhaṁ tat-sāmmukhyādikam upadiśati |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)
“Also further made known during the consideration of the potencies [i.e., the three śaktis] of Paramātmā [in the discussion thereof in Paramātma Sandarbha] was the suffering in saṁsāra of the jīvas, forms of [his] taṭastha-śakti, who, although solely consciousness (cit) in constitution, have their awareness of their true nature (svarūpa-jñāna) covered by the Para-tattva’s [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] māyā on account of the acquired fault of obliviousness (vaimukhya) of that [Para-tattva] based on a beginningless absence of the existence of awareness of that [Para-tattva, i.e., a beginningless prior absence (prāg-abhāva) of awareness of the Para-tattva, which can be removed, that is, dispelled by becoming aware of the Para-tattva], and thereby are possessed of a fabricated sense of self (ātma-bhāva) within inert primordial matter (pradhāna) constituted of [the guṇas of] sattva, rajas, and tamas. … Therefore, the supremely compassionate śāstra teaches that object [i.e., the Para-tattva]. Furthermore in that regard, for some of those jīvas, that is, those possessed of a latent saṁskāra of experience of that object [i.e., the Para-tattva] from another birth, and those who alternately then [i.e., in that birth, alt., in this present birth] have received a glance and so forth of profuse grace from a great soul, just by their beginning to hear such teachings about the entity designated as the Para-tattva, intentness (sāmmukhyaṁ) upon that [i.e., the Para-tattva], and experience (anubhava) of that [i.e., the Para-tattva] as well, simultaneously arise at that very time [of hearing about the Para-tattva]. … Now, for others [i.e., those who have no saṁskāra of experience of the Para-tattva from a prior birth, and those who have not received the grace of a great soul capable of leading one to such experience], such [intentness upon and experience of the Para-tattva], even though capable of germinating like a seed [i.e., coming into being] just by hearing of that [i.e., by hearing the teaching of the śāstra about the Para-tattva], remains obstructed [from sprouting, i.e., manifesting] by the faults [in the minds of embodied jīvas] of the defects beginning with kāma. … Therefore, although by the primary intention (tātparya) [of śāstra] the Para-tattva is determined [i.e., although in the course of the first four sandarbhas the nature of the Para-tattva has been determined in this way], in expectation of [the questions], ‘What is the abhidheya [i.e., the principal directive, the means to attainment] and the prayojana [i.e., the objective, the goal to be attained] of that teaching [of the śāstra] about the Para-tattva and so forth for them [i.e., for the jīvas]?’ these two [i.e., the abhidheya and the prayojana] are necessary to be taught [also] by the secondary intention (tātparya) thereof [i.e., of the śāstra]. In that regard, the abhidheya is intentness (sāmmukhyam) upon that [i.e., the Para-tattva], because of [its] being negating of obliviousness (vaimukhya) of that [i.e., of the Para-tattva]. That [i.e., the abhidheya], further, is indicative of upāsanā [lit., ‘sitting near,’ i.e., engaging oneself in] that [i.e., the Para-tattva], on account of which awareness of that [i.e., the Para-tattva] appears. The prayojana is experience of that [i.e., the Para-tattva], and that [i.e., the prayojana], further is indicative of internal and external direct perception (sākṣātkāra) [of the Para-tattva], on account of which alone the complete cessation of suffering occurs of its own accord. … Therefore, although these two [i.e., the abhidheya and prayojana] are implied in the siddhopadeśa [i.e., implied instruction] in the former [i.e., in the earlier discussion in these sandarbhas of the nature of the Para-tattva], just as after hearing, ‘There is a treasure in your home,’ a poor person seeks that object and attains it [without having to be instructed to do so], still again teaching regarding them [i.e., the abhidheya and prayojana] is [given] to dispel laxity regarding [one’s endeavor to attain] them. Thus in this way śāstra tells them [i.e., the jīvas] about the cause of [their] suffering, that is, obliviousness and so forth of that [i.e., the Para-tattva] based on a beginninglessly existent absence of the existence of awareness of that [i.e., the Para-tattva], and teaches [them] intentness (sāmmukhya) upon that [i.e., the Para-tattva], which resembles a treatment consisting of negation of the cause of a disease.”
ajānan dāhārtiṁ viśati śalabho dīpa-dahanaṁ
na mīno’pi jñātvā vṛta-baḍiśam aśnāti piśitam |
vijānanto’py etān vayam iha vipaj-jāla-jaṭilān
na muñcāmaḥ kāmān ahaha gahano moha-mahimā ||
(Attributed to a Śānti-śataka of Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura)
“Not knowing the pain of being burnt, a moth enters the flame of a lamp. A fish too eats a piece of meat not knowing it is a covered hook. Although we [however] know objects of enjoyment here [i.e., in saṁsāra] are embedded in a net of afflictions, we do not give them up. Ahaha! How impenetrable is the power of delusion!”
jīva-māyā guṇa-māyeti dvy-ātmikāṁ māyākhya-śaktiṁ vidyāt | … nimittāṁśo jīva-māyā | upādānāṁśo guṇa-māyeti … | avidyā-vidyākhya-nimitta-śakti-vṛttikatvāj jīva-viṣayakatvena jīva-māyātvam | … svīya-tat-tad-guṇa-maya-mahad-ādy-upādāna-śakti-vṛttikatvād guṇa-māyātvam |
(Bhagavat Sandarbha: 18)
“Know the śakti [of Bhagavān] known as māyā to be of two aspects, viz., jīva-māyā and guṇa-māyā. … The instrumental aspect is [called] jīva-māyā, and the constituent aspect is [called] guṇa-māyā. … Jīva-māyā is such because it relates to the jīva on account of being a function of the potency of [māyā’s] instrumentality known as avidyā and vidyā; guṇa-māyā is such because of its being a function of the potency of [māyā‘s] constitution in the form of the mahat and so forth [i.e., in the form of all the subtle and gross aspects of the material universe’s constitution], which are constituted of its own respective guṇas [i.e., the three guṇas of sattva, rajas, and tamas].”
athāvidyākhyasya bhāgasya dve vṛttī—āvaraṇātmikā vikṣepātmikā ca | tatra pūrvā jīva eva tiṣṭhantī tadīyaṁ svābhāvikaṁ jñānam āvṛṇvānā, uttarā ca taṁ tad-anyathā-jñānena sañjayantī vartata iti |
(Paramātma Sandarbha: 54)
“Now, the aspect [of māyā] known as avidyā (ignorance) has two functions: that constituted of covering (āvaraṇātmikā) and that constituted of projecting (vikṣepātmikā). Therein, the former exists in [i.e., casts its influence over] only the jīva and covers [i.e., suppresses] its [i.e., the jīva’s] inherent awareness, and the latter produces attachment in the jīva [i.e., binds the jīva] with awareness of that which is other than itself [i.e., it captivates the jīva by causing it, in the absence of any perception of its own nature as induced by the covering (āvaraṇātmikā) function, to cast its awareness outwards towards the constituents of māyā].”
sasarja cchāyayāvidyāṁ pañca-parvāṇam agrataḥ |
tāmisram andha-tāmisraṁ tamo moho mahā-tamaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.20.18; cited in Bhagavat Sandarbha: 18)
“First, he [i.e., Brahmā] emanated with his shadow fivefold avidyā (ignorance): tāmisra, andha-tāmisra, tamas, moha, and mahāmoha.”
sasarjāgre’ndha-tāmisram atha tāmisram ādi-kṛt |
mahāmohaṁ ca mohaṁ ca tamaś cājñāna-vṛttayaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.12.2)
“At the beginning [of the emanation of the universe], the original creator [i.e., Lord Brahmā] emanated the functions of ajñāna (ignorance): andha-tāmisra (blinding darkness), tāmisra (darkness), mahāmoha (severe delusion), moha (delusion), and tamas (dimness).”
kṛṣṇa-bahirmukha-doṣe māyā haite bhaya |
kṛṣṇonmukha bhakti haite māyā-mukta haya ||
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.24.136)
”As a result of the fault of obliviousness of Kṛṣṇa, fear arises because of māyā. A jīva who is intent upon Kṛṣṇa becomes liberated from māyā because of bhakti.”
yathā nabhasi meghaugho reṇur vā pārthivo’nile |
evaṁ draṣṭari dṛśyatvam āropitam abuddhibhiḥ ||
ataḥ paraṁ yad avyaktam avyūḍha-guṇa-vyūhitam |
adṛṣṭāśruta-vastutvāt sa jīvo yat punar-bhavaḥ ||
yatreme sad-asad-rūpe pratiṣiddhe sva-saṁvidā |
avidyayātmani kṛte iti tad brahma-darśanam ||
yady eṣoparatā devī māyā vaiśāradī matiḥ |
sampanna eveti vidur mahimni sve mahīyate ||
evaṁ janmāni karmāṇi hy akartur ajanasya ca |
varṇayanti sma kavayo veda-guhyāni hṛt-pateḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 1.3.31–35)
“As a mass of clouds is attributed [i.e., taken to be] to the sky or a particle of earth [is taken to be] to the air, so the visible [i.e., the body] is [taken to be] to the seer [i.e., the ātmā] by the unintelligent. Beyond this [i.e., the gross body] is the jīva [i.e., the subtle body], which is unmanifest [i.e., externally imperceptible] because of its being an unseen and unheard of entity not arranged by the guṇas to be developed [i.e., to have physical, visible limbs] and [because of its] undergoing rebirth. When these gross and subtle forms are negated [i.e., understood to not be the self] through full knowledge of the self, whereby they are recognized as being imposed upon the ātmā by ignorance (avidyā), then darśana [i.e., sākṣātkāra, direct experience] of Brahman occurs. When this supernatural māyā belonging to the Expert [i.e., Īśvara] in the form of thought [i.e., misunderstanding] becomes withdrawn, then one certainly becomes fortunate [i.e., endowed with experience of the bliss of Brahman] and exalted in one’s own greatness—this is known [to the wise]. In this [same] way, the wise describe the births and activities, hidden to the Vedas, of he who is a non-actor and unborn [i.e., Bhagavān, who is transcendental to saṁsāra], the Lord [situated] in the heart.”
