Paramātmā

nanu jīvātma-paramātmanor ekatra-sthiti-bhāvanayātyanta-saṁyoge prādurbhūte sati tasyāpi sarvātmanā syāt

nanu jīvātma-paramātmanor ekatra-sthiti-bhāvanayātyanta-saṁyoge prādurbhūte sati tasyāpi sarvātmanā syāt, tad-abhedāpatteḥ | sa ca yogo na vinaśvaraḥ | jñānānantara-siddhatvāt | tasmāt tayor yoga eva paramārtho bhavatu | tatroktam ekena—paramātmātmanor yogaḥ paramārtha itīṣyate | mithyaitad anyad dravyaṁ hi naiti tad-dravyatāṁ yataḥ || iti | etat paramārthatvaṁ mithyaiveṣyata ity arthaḥ | hi niścitam | yato yasmāt jīva-lakṣaṇam anyad dravyaṁ tad-dravyatāṁ paramātma-lakṣaṇa-dravyatāṁ na yāti | tasmāt mahā-tejaḥ praviṣṭa-svalpa-tejovad atyanta-saṁyogato’py abhedānupapattes tayor yogo’pi na paramārtha iti bhāvaḥ | athavātra yoga-śabdenaikatvam evocyate | tataś caitad ekatvam iti vyākhyeyam | śeṣaṁ pūrvavat |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“[Another notion is raised in regard to the ultimate goal (paramārtha):] ‘Well, by meditation upon the jīvātmā and Paramātmā dwelling in one locus, once a manifestation of absolute union (atyanta-saṁyoga) occurs [thereby between them], then its [i.e., the jīvātmā’s] also being the Self (Ātmā) of all [i.e., being Paramātmā] shall come about because of [its] entering the state of non-difference from that [i.e., from Paramātmā]. That union, furthermore, will not be perishable because of [its] being established after knowledge [i.e., because it is experienced only after someone has acquired true knowledge of the jīvātmā and Paramātmā]. Therefore, let the union of these two be the ultimate goal (paramārtha).’ In this regard, a statement is made with one [verse, VP 2.14.27], ‘“Union (yoga) of the ātmā with the Paramātmā is considered [by some] the ultimate goal (paramārtha).” [If this is proposed, then to that it should be said,] This is false since a different substance (dravya) certainly does attain the state of being that substance [i.e., since one substance, viz., the Paramātmā, can never become another substance, viz., the ātmā].’
“Considering this [i.e., the supposed occurrence of absolute union of non-difference between the ātmā and Paramātmā] to be the ultimate goal (paramārtha) is certainly false. This is the meaning. [The particle] Hi is in the sense of certainty. ‘Since’ (yataḥ) ‘a different substance’ (anyad dravya), known as the jīva, does not attain ‘the state of being that substance’ (tad-dravyatāṁ), that is, the state of being the substance known as Paramātmā. Thus, because of the non-occurrence (anupapatti) of nondifference (abheda) [between the ātmā and Paramātmā] even in [a state of] absolute union (atyanta-saṁyoga) like a small light that has entered a great light [i.e., just as a small light that enters a great light remains distinct from the great light even when in a state of absolute union with it, so the ātmā remains forever distinct from the Paramātmā even if there is a union of the two], even their [i.e., the ātmā and Paramātmā’s] union is not the ultimate goal (paramārtha). This is the purport. Alternately, [it may be proposed that] specifically oneness is referred to by the word ‘union’ (yoga) [in the aforementioned verse from VP]. Then also, this oneness [i.e., a oneness of the ātmā with Paramātmā] is to be explained. The remainder is as before [i.e., even if the word ‘union’ (yoga) is interpreted to mean oneness, such ‘union’ (yoga) of the ātmā with the Paramātmā is also not the ultimate goal (paramārtha) for the same reason the aforementioned notion of ‘union’ (yoga) is not].”

Read on →

nanu śuddha-jīvātma-dhyānasya paramārthatvaṁ bhavet

nanu śuddha-jīvātma-dhyānasya paramārthatvaṁ bhavet, mukti-daśāyām api sphūrty-aṅgīkāreṇa tad-rūpasya tasyānaśvaratvāt, tad-ācchādanād adhunā saṁsāra iti tasyaiva sādhyatvāc ca | tatroktam ekena—dhyānaṁ ced ātmano bhūpa paramārthārtha-śabditam | bheda-kāri parebhyas tat paramārtho na bhedavān || iti | yad-vijñānena sarva-vijñānaṁ bhavati tad eva brahma śrutau paramārthatvena pratijñātam | sarva-vijñāna-mayatvaṁ ca tasya sarvātmatvāt | agni-vijñānaṁ hi jvālā-visphuliṅgāder api vijñāpakaṁ bhavati | ekasya jīvasya tu tadīya-jīva-śakti-lakṣaṇāṁśa-paramāṇutvam ity atas tasya tat-sphuraṇasya ca bhedavato na paramārthatvam ity arthaḥ |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“[Another notion is raised in regard to the ultimate goal (paramārtha):] ‘Well, let meditation on the pure jīvātma be the ultimate goal (paramārtha) (1) because of the imperishability of a manifestation (sphūrti) of this [i.e., of the pure jīvātmā] on the basis of acceptance of [the existence of] a form of this [i.e., of a manifestation (sphūrti) of the pure jīvātmā] even in the state of liberation (mukti), and (2) because of that’s [i.e., that manifestation (sphūrti) of the pure jīvātmā’s] verily being an object to be attained (sādhya) [i.e., being a worthy object of attainment] on account of [the jīva’s] saṁsāra at present occurring because of a covering of that [i.e., because a jīva’s saṁsāra will come to an end by experiencing a manifestation (sphūrti) of the pure jīvātmā]. In this regard, a statement is made with one [verse, VP 2.14.26], ‘O Protector of the earth [i.e., O King], if meditation on the self (ātmā) is designated as [i.e., proposed to be] the object [alt., meaning] of the [term] ‘ultimate goal’ (paramārtha), [then in response it should be said that] it [i.e., such meditation] is a maker of division from others, and the ultimate goal (paramārtha) is not possessed of [any] division.’
“The Brahman by specific knowledge (vijñāna) of which specific knowledge (vijñāna) of everything occurs is designated as being the ultimate goal (paramārtha) in the Śruti [ref., Śāṇḍilya Upaniṣad: 2.2]. [Brahman’s] Being constituted of all specific knowledge (vijñāna), furthermore, is because of its being the Self (Ātmā) of everything [i.e., Paramātmā]. [Similarly,] Specific knowledge (vijñāna) of fire is a conveyor of specific knowledge even of [its] flames, sparks, and so forth. One jīva, however, is a minute particle of a part (aṁśa) of the nature of his [i.e.. Paramātmā’s] jīva-śakti, and thus it [i.e., one jīva], and a manifestation (sphuraṇa) of it, thus not being the ultimate goal (paramārtha) because of possessing a division [from Paramātmā] is the meaning [i.e., a state wherein solely an everlasting manifestation of the nature of the pure jīvātmā is experienced cannot be the ultimate goal (paramārtha) because that which is truly the ultimate goal (paramārtha) is not something that is merely a division of the Absolute Reality (Para-tattva), which is the Supreme Whole, or a maker of divided experience thereof, an experience solely of the jīvātmā is an experience of just one minute particle of one’s Paramātmā’s śaktis, and not an experience of Absolute Reality in its wholeness].”

Read on →

tac ca paramaṁ tattvaṁ dvidhāvirbhavati

tac ca paramaṁ tattvaṁ dvidhāvirbhavati—aspaṣṭa-viśeṣatvena, spaṣṭa-svarūpa-bhūta-viśeṣatvena ca | tatra brahmākhyāspaṣṭa-viśeṣa-para-tattva-sākṣātkārato’pi bhagavat-paramātmādy-ākhya-spaṣṭa-viśeṣa-tat-sākṣātkārasyotkarṣaṁ bhagavat-sandarbhe—jijñāsitam adhītaṁ ca brahma yat tat sanātanam | tathāpi śocasy ātmānam akṛtārtha iva prabho || ity-ādi-prakaraṇa-praghaṭṭakena darśitavān asmi |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“That Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), furthermore, appears in two ways: (1) without clear specificity and (2) with clear, inherent specificity. In this regard, we saw the superiority of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of [the aspect of] the Supreme Entity with clear specification known as Bhagavān, Paramātmā, and so forth, even in comparison to direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of that [aspect of the Supreme Entity] without clear specification known as Brahman in Bhagavat Sandarbha (87) in the section and discussion related to [SB 1.5.4], ‘O Master, you have also inquired into and realized that Brahman which is eternal. So, why do you still lament as though you yourself are unsuccessful?’”

Read on →

śrī-kṛṣṇa-bhajanasyāntaryāmi-bhajanād apy ādhikyaṁ

śrī-kṛṣṇa-bhajanasyāntaryāmi-bhajanād apy ādhikyaṁ śrī-gītopasaṁhārānusāreṇa evoktam—īśvaraḥ … mā śucaḥ | atra ca guhyaṁ pūrvādhyāyoktaṁ jñānam | guhyataram antaryāmi-jñānam | sarva-guhyatamaṁ tan-manastvādi-lakṣaṇaṁ tad-eka-śaraṇatva-lakṣaṇaṁ ca tad-upāsanam … | tasmāt sarvāntaryāmi-bhajanād apy uttamatvena tad-anantaraṁ ca sarva-guhyatamam ity atra sarva-grahaṇāt sarvata uttamatvena śrī-kṛṣṇa-bhajane siddhe tad-avatāra-bhajanāt sutarām evottamatā sidhyati |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 332)

“The superiority of worship (bhajana) of Śrī Kṛṣṇa even to worship of the Inner Regulator (Antaryāmī) [i.e., Paramātmā] is stated [here in Bhakti Sandarbha] specifically in accord with the conclusion of Śrī Gītā, that is, BG 18.61–66. … Here [i.e., in these concluding verses], furthermore, the knowledge [of Brahman] stated in the earlier chapters [of Śrī Gītā] is confidential (guhya) [i.e., is the confidential knowledge spoken of in BG 18.63]. Knowledge of the Inner Regulator is more confidential (guhyatara) [i.e., is the more confidential knowledge spoken of in BG 18.63]. Worship of him [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] in the form of having one’s mind [fixed] upon him and so forth, and in the form of having him alone as one’s shelter, is the most confidential of all (sarva-guhyatama) [i.e., is the ‘most confidential of all’ knowledge spoken of in BG 18.64–66]. … Therefore, since worship (bhajana) of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is established [in Śrīmad Bhagavat-gītā] as being superior even to worship of the Inner Regulator of all and thereafter as being superior to everything by use of [the word] ‘all’ (sarva) here in [the compound] ‘the most confidential of all’ (sarva-guhyatamam), [its] superiority to worship of his avatāras is established verily all the more.”

Read on →

rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā

rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā—suhṛt preṣṭhatamo nātha ātmā cāyaṁ śarīriṇām | taṁ vikrīyātmanaivāhaṁ rame’nena yathā ramā || atra svābhāvika-sauhṛdyādi-dharmais tasminn eva svābhāvika-patitvaṁ sthāpayitvā, parasyaupādhika-patitvam ity abhipretam | anyatra patyāv ‘ekatvaṁ sā gatā yasmāc caru-mantrāhuti-vrataiḥ’ iti chāndogya-pariśiṣṭānusāreṇa kṛtrimam ekātmatvam | tasmin paramātmani tu svabhāvata evety ātma-śabdasyāpy abhiprāyaḥ | evaṁ yadyapi tasmin patitvam anāhāryam evāsti, tathāpi ātmanaiva mūlya-bhūtenaiva taṁ viśeṣataḥ krītvā yathānyāpi kanyā vivāhātmakena svātma-samarpaṇena kañcit patitvenopādatte, tathā bhāvenāśritya anena parama-manohara-rūpeṇa tena saha rame ramā lakṣmīr yathā | tad evaṁ tasyā rāge piṅgalāyāḥ sva-rucir dyotitā ||
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 310)

“Taste for rāgātmikā [-bhakti] is as follows [as illustrated by a statement of Piṅgalā in SB 11.8.35], ‘He [i.e., Acyuta, Śrī Bhagavān,] is the friend (suhṛt), the most beloved (preṣṭhatama), the Lord (nātha), and the Self (ātmā) of all embodied beings. I shall purchase him by means of my very self and [thereby] enjoy with him like Ramā [i.e., Lakṣmī].’ In this regard, having established inherent (svābhāvika) husbandhood (patitvam) [i.e., capability to act as a husband in relation to a jīva] in him [i.e., Bhagavān] by means of his qualities of inherent friendship [i.e., his capability to act as a friend in relation to a jīva] and so forth, the conditional (aupādhika) husbandhood of others [i.e., of jīvas in saṁsāra who act as the husband of another embodied jīva] is intended [i.e., is meant to be conveyed by Piṅgalā’s statement in SB 11.8.35]. According to the Chāndogya-pariśiṣṭa, ‘She [i.e., a wife] has attained oneness (ekatvam) [with her husband] by virtue of caru [i.e., a type of oblation], mantras, rites, and vows,’ unitedness (ekātmatva) with other husbands is artificial (kṛtrima) [i.e., the unitedness of the jīva in the body of a woman with another jīva in the body of a man is a unitedness non-inherent in either of them that is created by rituals and resolutions], whereas in relation to Paramātmā, it [i.e., a jīva’s unitedness] is existent altogether inherently (svabhāvataḥ). This is the intention of the word ‘Self’ (Ātmā) as well [in SB 11.8.35, i.e., this is the intent of Piṅgalā’s statement that Acyuta is the Self of all embodied beings]. Thus, although husbandhood (patitva) is indeed non-adventitious in him [i.e., although Bhagavān’s capacity to act as a husband in relation to a jīva is not something some created but rather is an inherent capability in him], still [Piṅgalā states that] specially purchasing him by means of my very self, that is, [with myself] as the price, as other unmarried ladies also accept someone as [their] husband by means of the offering of oneself that constitutes [i.e., is known as] marriage, so I, taking shelter [in Bhagavān] by means of bhāva, shall enjoy with him, he of supremely attractive figure, like Ramā, that is, Lakṣmī. In this way, Piṅgalā’s own taste for her [i.e., Lakṣmī’s] rāga is thus illustrated.”

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 →

naivopayanty apacitiṁ kavayas taveśa

naivopayanty apacitiṁ kavayas taveśa
brahmāyuṣāpi kṛtam ṛddha-mudaḥ smarantaḥ |
yo’ntar bahis tanu-bhṛtām aśubhaṁ vidhunvann
ācārya-caittya-vapuṣā sva-gatiṁ vyanakti ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.29.6)

“[Uddhava to Kṛṣṇa:] O Lord, abounding with joy in remembering the feats [i.e., the unconditional favor] of you who with your external form as the ācārya and internal [form] situated in the citta dispel inauspiciousness and manifest your own shelter for embodied beings, the wise cannot proffer remuneration [i.e., clear their debt to you] even within the life-span of Brahmā [i.e., they can never sufficiently reciprocate with you even by serving you til the end of time].”

Read on →

ko’ti-prayāso’sura-bālakā harer

ko’ti-prayāso’sura-bālakā harer
upāsane sve hṛdi chidravat sataḥ |
svasyātmanaḥ sakhyur aśeṣa-dehināṁ
sāmānyataḥ kiṁ viṣayopapādanaiḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.7.38)

[Translated according to Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary:] “O boys of the asuras, what great exertion [i.e., difficulty] is there in worship of Hari, he who is present like space in one’s heart and is the inherent self and common friend of all embodied beings? [Therefore,] What [is the use] of accumulating objects of the senses?”

Read on →

yasyāṁśāṁśāṁśaḥ parātmākhilānāṁ

yasyāṁśāṁśāṁśaḥ parātmākhilānāṁ
poṣṭā viṣṇur bhāti dugdhābdhiśāyī |
kṣauṇī-bhartā yat-kalā so ’py anantas
taṁ śrī-nityānanda-rāmaṁ prapadye ||
(Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī; cited in Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.1.11)

“I take shelter in him, Śrī Nityānanda Rāma, the part of the part of whose part is Kṣīrodaśāyī Viṣṇu, the Paramātma and maintainer of all, and whose sub-part is Ananta, the carrier of the Earth.”

Read on →

saṅkarṣaṇaḥ kāraṇa-toyaśāyī

saṅkarṣaṇaḥ kāraṇa-toyaśāyī
garbhodaśāyī ca payobdhiśāyī |
śeṣaś cha yasyāṁśa-kalāḥ sa nityā-
nandākhya-rāmaḥ śaraṇaṁ mamāstu ||
(Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī; cited in Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 1.1.7)

“May Rāma [i.e., Balarāma], who is known as Nityānanda, and whose parts (aṁśas) and sub-part (kalā) are Saṅkarṣaṇa, Kāraṇatoyaśāyī, Garbhodaśāyī, Payobdhiśāyī, and [Ananta] Śeṣa, be my shelter.”

Read on →

Scroll to Top