paramātma-vaibhava-gaṇane ca taṭastha-śakti-rūpāṇāṁ cid-eka-rasānām
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.”