ahaṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu bhūtātmāvasthitaḥ sadā |
tam avajñāya māṁ martyaḥ kurute’rcā-viḍambanam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.29.21; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 106)
[Kapiladeva:] “I am ever present in all beings as the Self [i.e., the Inner Regulator (Antaryāmī)] of all beings. By disrespecting him, that is, me, a mortal makes a mockery of ritual worship [alt., a mockery of my deity].”
akiñcanasya dāntasya śāntasya sama-cetasaḥ |
mayā santuṣṭa-manasaḥ sarvāḥ sukha-mayā diśaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.14.13)
[Kṛṣṇa:] “All directions are filled with happiness for one who is disinterested, controlled, peaceful, equanimous, and of mind fully satisfied by me.”
ṣaḍ-vargādy-ari-kṛta-saṁsāra-bhaya-bādhyamāna eva hi śaraṇaṁ praviśaty ananya-gatiḥ | bhakti-mātra-kāmo’pi tat-kṛta-bhagavad-vaimukhya-bādhyamānaḥ | ananya-gatitvaṁ ca dvidhā darśyate—āśrayāntarasyābhāva-kathanena, nātiprajñayā kathañcid āśritasyānyasya tyājanena ca | pūrveṇa yathā—‘martyo mṛtyu-vyāla-bhītaḥ palāyan lokān sarvān nirbhayaṁ nādhyagacchat | tvat-pādābjaṁ prāpya yadṛcchayādya susthaḥ śete mṛtyur asmād apaiti ||’ iti | uttareṇa yathā—‘tasmāt tvam uddhavotsṛjya codanāṁ praticodanām | pravṛttiṁ ca nivṛttiṁ ca śrotavyaṁ śrutam eva ca || mām ekam eva śaraṇam ātmānaṁ sarva-dehinām | yāhi sarvātma-bhāvena mayā syā hy akuto-bhayaḥ ||’ iti |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 236)
“Being troubled by the fear [i.e., suffering] of saṁsāra caused by the enemies beginning with the ṣaḍ-varga [i.e., ‘the group of six,’ viz., desire (kāma), anger, greed, delusion, conceit, and envy], one who is devoid of any other recourse (ananya-gatiḥ) [i.e., one who feels oneself to have no shelter from such trouble] enters shelter [i.e., takes shelter in Bhagavān], as also does one whose sole desire is bhakti, being troubled by the obliviousness (vaimukhya) [i.e., forgetfulness] of Bhagavān caused by them [i.e., by the aforementioned enemies, meaning, one whose sole desire is bhakti takes shelter in Bhagavān for the sake of becoming free from the impediments to apt enactment of bhakti created by the ṣaḍ-varga so that one can aptly engage in bhakti to Bhagavān]. [The stage of] Being devoid of any other recourse (ananya-gatitva) is seen, furthermore, to be of two types: [it comes about] (1) by [hearing and understanding] explanation of the absence of any other shelter [from the troubles one undergoes in saṁsāra apart from Bhagavān], and (2) by abandoning another in which one has somehow taken shelter [for the sake of attaining relief from the trouble one is undergoing in saṁsāra] out of a lack of great discrimination [as to who is truly a capable shelter in this regard, i.e., as a result of not having earlier understood that Bhagavān alone, and nothing and no one else, is truly capable of providing shelter to jīvas in saṁsāra]. [Being devoid of any other recourse (ananya-gatitva) coming about] By the former [i.e., by the first aforementioned means, that is, by explanation of the absence of any real shelter other than Bhagavān] is [described in SB 10.3.27] as follows, ‘Scared of the serpent of death and fleeing throughout all the planes [that constitute this universe], a mortal cannot attain fearlessness [anywhere]. [But] Upon reaching your lotus feet fortuitously [i.e., by means bhakti somehow attained by the grace of a mahat], O Foremost Being [i.e., O Bhagavān], one rests peacefully, and death withdraws from one.’ [The state of being devoid of any other recourse (ananya-gatitva) coming about] By the latter [i.e., by the second aforementioned means, that is, by abandoning another in which one has unwisely taken shelter] is [described by Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself in SB 11.12.14–15] as follows: ‘Therefore, O Uddhava, abandoning injunctions and prohibitions [i.e., the injunctions and prohibitions given in the Śruti and the Smṛti], engagement and resignation [i.e., the dharmas of a gṛhastha and of a sannyāsī], and that which can be heard and that which has been heard [i.e., all that pertains to such dharmas and the injunctions and prohibitions related to them in śāstra; alt., all else that can be heard from śāstra, that is, all that is said in śāstra related to the jñāna-mārga], you should take shelter exclusively in me alone, the Self of all embodied beings, with the full existence of your self. With me [i.e., by thus becoming situated in my shelter], be completely fearless.’”
yuvatīnāṁ yathā yūni yūnāṁ ca yuvatau yathā |
mano’bhiramate tadvan mano’bhiramatāṁ tvayi ||
(Padma Purāṇa: 6.128.258; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 8.437; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.153; Bhakti Sandarbha: 217)
“As the minds of young ladies delight in a young man, and the minds of young men delight in a young lady, so may my mind delight in you.”
mat-sevayā pratītaṁ te sālokyādi-catuṣṭayam |
necchanti sevayā pūrṇāḥ kuto’nyat kāla-viplutam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 9.4.67)
“Being fulfilled by service [to me], they do not desire the four [types of mukti] beginning with sālokya [that can be] attained by service to me, much less anything else that is dissipated in time.”
na vayaṁ sādhvi sāmrājyaṁ svārājyaṁ bhaujyam apy uta |
vairājyaṁ pārameṣṭhyaṁ vā ānantyaṁ vā hareḥ padam ||
kāmayāmaha etasya śrīmat-pāda-rajaḥ śriyaḥ |
kuca-kuṅkuma-gandhāḍhyaṁ mūrdhnā voḍhuṁ gadābhṛtaḥ ||
vraja-striyo yad vāñchanti pulindyas tṛṇa-vīrudhaḥ |
gāvaś cārayato gopāḥ pāda-sparśaṁ mahātmanaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.83.41–43; cited in Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.7.43; Prīti Sandarbha: 108; Durgama-saṅgamanī-ṭīkā on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.59)
“[Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s sixteen thousand queens say:] O Sādhvi, [i.e., O Draupadī], neither universal sovereignty [over the earth], nor sovereignty over Svarga, nor the enjoyment [of these forms of sovereignty], nor extensive sovereignty [i.e., attainment of the siddhis of minuteness (aṇimā) and so on], nor the dominion of Brahmā, nor the unlimited [i.e., the unlimited bliss experienced in realization of Brahman], nor even the abode of Hari [i.e., sālokya-, sāmīpya, sārṣṭi, or sārūpya-mukti]—we desire [none of these and instead desire] to bear atop our heads his—the Club-bearer’s [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s]—blessed foot-dust enriched with the fragrance of kuṅkuma from the bosom of Śrī [i.e., Śrī Rādhā], since the ladies of Vraja, the Pulindī women, the grass and creepers [of Vraja], and the cowherds [there] tending the cows [all] long for the touch of the feet of he of most exalted disposition [i.e., they too all long for the touch of Kṛṣṇa’s feet].”
tāvad rāgādayaḥ stenāḥ tāvat kārāgṛhaṁ gṛham |
tāvan moho’ṅghri-nigaḍo yāvat kṛṣṇa na te janāḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.14.36)
“For that long attachment (rāga) and so forth are thieves, for that long one’s house is a prison, and for that long affection is a foot-shackle—so long as people do not become yours, O Kṛṣṇa!”
sākṣād-upāsanā-lakṣaṇas tad-bhedo’pi bahu-vidho darśyate | atra sāmmukhyaṁ dvividhaṁ—nirviśeṣamayaṁ saviśeṣamayaṁ ca | atra pūrvaṁ jñānam | uttaraṁ tu dvividham—ahaṅgrahopāsanā-rūpaṁ, bhakti-rūpaṁ ca | asya jñānasya lakṣaṇaṁ—‘jñānaṁ caikātmya-darśanam’ iti | abhedopāsanaṁ jñānam ity arthaḥ | tat-sādhana-prakāraś caivaṁ bahu-vidhas tatra tatroktaḥ | sa ca jñānam evocyate | tatra śravaṇaṁ śrī-pṛthu-sanat-kumāra-saṁvādādau draṣṭavyam | tad-anusāreṇa mananaṁ ca jñeyam | prathamataḥ śrotṝṇāṁ hi vivekas tāvān eva yāvatā jaḍātirikta-cin-mātraṁ vastūpasthitaṁ bhavati | tasmiṁś cin-mātre’pi vastuni ye viśeṣāḥ svarūpa-bhūta-śakti-siddhā bhagavattādi-rūpā vartante, tāṁs tu te vivektuṁ na kṣamante, yathā rajanī-khaṇḍini jyotiṣi jyotir-mātratve’pi ye maṇḍalāntar bahiś ca divya-vimānādi-paraspara-pṛthag-bhūta-raśmi-paramāṇu-rūpā viśeṣās tāṁś carma-cakṣuṣo na kṣamanta ity anvayaḥ, tadvat | pūrvavac ca yadi mahat-kṛpā-viśeṣeṇa divya-dṛṣṭitā bhavati, tadā viśeṣopalabdhiś ca bhavet | na cen, nirviśeṣa-cin-mātra-brahmānubhavena tal-līna eva bhavati | tathaiva nididhyāsanam api teṣām | tad yathā—‘sthiraṁ sukhaṁ cāsanam āsthito yatir yadā jihāsur imam aṅga lokam | kāle ca deśe ca mano na sajjayet prāṇān niyacchen manasā jitāsuḥ || manaḥ sva-buddhyāmalayā niyamya kṣetra-jña etāṁ nilayet tam ātmani | ātmānam ātmany avarudhya dhīro labdhopaśāntir virameta kṛtyāt ||’
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 214–215)
“The division of that [i.e., of intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the Para-tattva] in the form of direct approach (upāsanā) [thereof] is shown [throughout the śāstras] to be of numerous types. In this regard, intentness (sāmmukhya) is [in general] of two types: [one] related to the unqualified [alt., non-differentiated] (nirviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva], and [the other] related to the qualified [alt., differentiated] (saviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva]. Herein, the former is [referred to] as jñāna. The latter, on the contrary, is of two types: ahaṅgrahopāsanā [i.e., taking oneself as the object worship in the approach], and that the form of which is [referred to as] bhakti. The characteristic of this [aforementioned type known as] jñāna is [described as follows by Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa in SB 11.19.21], ‘And vision of oneness [of the self with the Supreme Self] is [known as] jñāna,’ the meaning being that an approach (upāsanā) of non-distinction [between the self and Supreme Self, i.e., a form of upāsanā focused realization of this non-distinction] is [known as] jñāna.
“The manner of practice (sādhana) thereof, furthermore, is similarly said to be of many types in various places [throughout the śāstras]. That [i.e., jñāna-sādhana in various forms] also is called jñāna itself. Therein, hearing (śravaṇam) [i.e., the first part of the sādhana] is to be observed in the conversation of Śrī Pṛthu and Sanat-kumāra [described in the Fourth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] and elsewhere. Contemplation (manana) in accord with that [i.e., with the hearing done in the first step] is also to be understood [i.e., should be understood as the second step in the process]. Firstly, listeners’ discernment reaches to the extent whereby the Existent constituted solely of consciousness distinct from matter [i.e., unqualified Brahman] is regarded [to exist]. [In this state] They are not able to discern in that Existent constituted solely of consciousness the qualities (viśeṣāḥ) existing [in that Existent] by virtue of [its] inherent potency (śakti) the forms of which are Bhagavattā [lit., ‘Bhagavān-ness,’ i.e., the quality of existing as Bhagavān] and so forth, just as those possessed [only] of eyes of flesh are not able to [discern] in the luminary constituted [solely] of light that is [known as] the sun [lit., ‘the dispeller of night,’ i.e., darkness] the qualities inside and outside the orb [thereof] in the form of divine airplanes and the like, and the mutually distinctly existent particles in the light-rays [thereof]. This is the purport [i.e., those who take up the path of jñāna and hear and contemplate the teachings related to it acquire an understanding of the existence of the Para-tattva such that they consider the Para-tattva to exist only without qualities (viśeṣa) and thus seek to realize the aspect of the Para-tattva known as unqualified (nirviśeṣa) Brahman rather than the qualified (saviśeṣa) aspect known as Bhagavān].
“Furthermore, as [was discussed] previously, if one [i.e., someone engaged in jñāna-sādhana] becomes endowed with divine vision by the special grace of a mahat [i.e., a bhakta-mahānta], then realization of the qualities (viśeṣāḥ) [of the Para-tattva, viz., Bhagavattā and so forth] shall also occur. If not, then by means of experience of Brahman as unqualified (nirviśeṣa) and constituted solely of consciousness one merely becomes absorbed in that [aspect of the Para-tattva without manifest qualities, viz., nirviśeṣa Brahman]. Their [i.e., jñāna-sādhakas’] meditation (nididhyāsanam) is also in the very same manner. That is [described in SB 2.2.15–16] as follows: ‘O dear one, when an ascetic, having become situated in a stable, comfortable posture, intends to leave this plane [i.e., body], he should not fix the mind on the time or the place. Having mastered the vital air, he should regulate the senses with the mind, regulate the mind with his own taintless intellect, merge this [i.e., the intellect] into the perceiver of the field (kṣetrajña), [merge] this [i.e., the perceiver of the field (kṣetrajña), meaning, the observer of the intellect] into the self (ātmā) [i.e., the pure jīva], merge the self (ātmā) [i.e., the pure jīva] into the Self (Ātmā) [i.e., Brahman], and, becoming steadfast and possessed of tranquility, [finally] withdraw from action [entirely, since there is nothing more for him to attain].’”
sattvodrekād akhaṇḍa-sva-prakāśānanda-cinmayaḥ |
vedyāntara-sparśa-śūnyo brahmāsvāda-sahodaraḥ ||
lokottara-camatkāra-prāṇaḥ kaiścit pramātṛbhiḥ |
svākāravad abhinnatvenāyam āsvādyate rasaḥ ||
(Sāhitya-darpaṇa: 3.2–3; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 110)
“Undivided, self-manifest, constituted of experience of bliss, free from the touch of any other object to be cognized, the brother of which is relish of Brahman, and the life (prāṇa) of which is extraordinary wonder—this, rasa, is relished by virtue of a predominance of sattva [within the mind] by some qualified perceivers as being non-different [from the self] like one’s body.”
atha paramātmaika-śeṣatveti vyākhyeyam | ekaḥ paramātmano’nyaḥ śeṣo’ṁśaḥ | sa cāsau sa ca eka-śeṣaḥ | paramātmana eka-śeṣaḥ paramātmaika-śeṣaḥ | tasya bhāvas tattvam | tad eva svabhāvaḥ prakṛtir yasya, sa paramātmaika-śeṣatva-svabhāvaḥ | tathā-bhūtaś cāyaṁ sarvadā mokṣa-daśāyām apīty arthaḥ | etādṛśatvaṁ cāsya svataḥ svarūpata eva, na tu paricchedādinā | tadīya-svābhāvikācintya-śaktyā svābhāvika-tadīya-raśmi-paramāṇu-sthānīyatvāt aupādhikāvathāyās tv aṁśena prakṛti-śeṣatvam api bhavati iti ca svata ity asya bhāvaḥ | śakti-rūpatvaṁ cāsya taṭastha-śakty-ātmakatvāt, tathā tadīya-raśmi-sthānīyatve’pi nitya-tad-āśrayitvāt, tad-vyatirekeṇa vyatirekāt, ‘hetur jīvo’sya sargādeḥ’ ity anusāreṇa jagat-sṛṣṭau tat-sādhanatvāt, dravya-svarūpatve’pi pradhāna-sāmyāc cāvagamyate | uktaṁ ca prakṛti-viśeṣatvena tasya śaktitvam—‘viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathā parā | avidyā karma-saṁjñākhyā tṛtīyā śaktir ucyate ||’ iti, ‘tayā tirohitatvāc ca śaktiḥ kṣetra-jña-saṁjñitā | sarva-bhūteṣu bhūpāla tāratamyena vartate ||’ iti ca viṣṇu-purāṇe | ‘bhūmir āpo’nalo vāyur’ ity-ādau bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhety anantaram ‘apareyam itas tv anyāṁ prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām | jīva-bhūtāṁ mahābāho yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat ||’ iti śrī-gītopaniṣatsu ca | ‘viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā’ ity-ādi viṣṇu-purāṇa-vacane tu tisṝṇām eva pṛthak-śaktitva-nirdeśāt kṣetrajñasyāvidyā-karma-sambandhena śaktitvam iti parāstam, kintu svarūpenaivety āyātam | tathā ca śrī-bhagavad-gītāyām, ‘mamaivāṁśa’ iti | ata eva ‘apareyam itas tv anyām’ ity uktam | ‘kṣetrajña etā manaso vibhūtīḥ’ ity-ādau kṣetrajña-śabdaś ca śuddhe’pi pravartate, kṣetra-śabdasyopalakṣaṇa-mātratvāt | tad evaṁ śaktitve’py anyatvam asya taṭasthatvāt | taṭasthatvaṁ ca māyā-śakty-atītatvāt, asyāvidyā-parābhavādi-rūpeṇa doṣeṇa paramātmano lepābhāvāc cobhaya-koṭāv apraveśāt | tasya tac-chaktitve saty api paramātmanas tal-lepābhāvaś ca yathā kvacid eka-deśa-sthe raśmau chāyayā tiraskṛte’pi sūryasyātiraskāraḥ, tadvat | uktaṁ ca taṭasthatvaṁ śrī-nārada-pañcarātre—‘yat taṭasthaṁ tu cid-rūpaṁ sva-saṁvedyād vinirgatam | rañjitaṁ guṇa-rāgeṇa sa jīva iti kathyate ||’ ity-ādau | ato viṣṇu-purāṇe’py antarāla eva paṭhito’sau | anyatvaṁ ca śrutau, ‘asmān māyī sṛjate viśvam etat tasmiṁś cānyo māyayā sanniruddhaḥ,’ ‘tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ svādv atti’ ity-ādau | ata evoktaṁ vaiṣṇave—‘vibheda-janake’jñāne nāśam ātyantikaṁ gate | ātmano brahmaṇo bhedam asantaṁ kaḥ kariṣyati ||’ iti | devatva-manuṣyatvādi-lakṣaṇo viśeṣato yo bhedas tasya janake’py ajñāne nāśaṁ gate brahmaṇaḥ paramātmanaḥ sakāśād ātmano jīvasya yo bhedaḥ svābhāvikas taṁ bhedam asantaṁ kaḥ kariṣyati? api tu santaṁ vidyamānam eva sarva eva kariṣyatīty arthaḥ | uttaratra pāṭhe nāsantam ity etasya vidheyatvād anyārthaḥ kaṣṭa-sṛṣṭa eveti mokṣa-daśāyām api tad-aṁśatvāvyabhicāraḥ svābhāvika-śaktitvād eva | ata evāvidyā-vimokṣa-pūrvaka-svarūpāvasthiti-lakṣaṇāyāṁ muktau tal-līnasya tat-sādharmyāpattir bhavati, ‘nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti’ ity-ādi-śrutibhyaḥ,‘idaṁ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ | sarge’pi nopajāyate pralaye na vyathanti ca ||’ iti śrī-gītopaniṣadbhyaś ca | ata eva ‘brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati’ ity-ādiṣu ca brahma-tādātmyam eva bodhayati | svenācintanīya-jñānaṁ bhavati | ‘tat-svābhāvyāpattir upapatteḥ’ itivat | tad evaṁ śaktitve siddhe, śakti-śaktimatoḥ parasparānupraveśāt śaktimad-vyatireke śakti-vyatirekāt cittvāviśeṣāc ca kvacid abheda-nirdeśa ekasminn api vastuni śakti-vaividhya-darśanād bheda-nirdeśaś ca nāsamañjasaḥ |
(Paramātma Sandarbha: 37)
“Now, [the jīva’s] being a singular subsidiary of Paramātmā (Paramātmaika-śeṣatva) [as stated in the verse of Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni under discussion] is to be explained. ‘Singular’ (eka) means distinct from Paramātmā, and ‘subsidiary’ (śeṣa) means a part. ‘Singular subsidiary’ (eka-śeṣa) [thus] means it [i.e., the jīva] is that [i.e., distinct from Paramātmā] and also that [i.e., a subsidiary of Paramātmā]. [Thus] Paramātmaika-śeṣa means a singular subsidiary (eka-śeṣa) [i.e., a distinct part] of Paramātmā. Being that (tat-tva) refers to its [i.e., the jīva’s] existential state (bhāva) [i.e., Paramātmaika-śeṣatva refers to the jīva’s existential state of being a singular subsidiary, that is, a distinct part, of Paramātmā]. [The jīva,] That which has the nature (svabhāva), meaning, constitution (prakṛti), of that specifically, is called a Paramātmaika-śeṣatva-svabhāva. It [i.e., the jīva] being such, furthermore, is ‘forever’ (sarvadā) [as stated in the verse of Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni under discussion], [such that the jīva remains an entity the nature of which is that of a singular subsidiary of Paramātmā (Paramātmaika-śeṣatva)] even in the state of mokṣa. This is the meaning. It’s [i.e., the jīva’s] being such, furthermore, is definitively ‘by its own nature’ (svataḥ) [as stated in the verse of Śrī Jāmātṛ Muni under discussion], that is, because of its own constitution (svarūpa), and not, rather, because of a [supposed] limitation (pariccheda) [thought be imposed on Brahman] or otherwise. On account of [the jīva always in every possible condition] being comparable to an inherent (svābhāvika) light-ray particle belonging to him [i.e., to Paramātmā] by means of his [i.e., Paramātmā’s] inherent (svābhāvika) inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti), [when the jīva is] in an adjunctive [i.e., conditioned] state, on the contrary, [the jīva’s] being a subsidiary (śeṣatva) [i.e., part] of prakṛti [i.e., the material energy, Bhagavān’s māyā-śakti] also occurs partially. Thus, furthermore, ‘by its own nature’ (svataḥ) refers to its [i.e., the jīva’s] existential state (bhāva) [i.e., the existential state (bhāva) of the jīva as a singular subsidiary of Paramātmā is the jīva’s invariable and eternal state of being by virtue of its own nature and this is never controverted by bondage in māyā or liberation from māyā].
“Its [i.e., the jīva’s] being a form [alt., of the nature] of śakti, furthermore, is understood (1) because of [its] being constituted of the taṭastha (intermediary) śakti [of Paramātmā], (2) because of [its] being eternally a dweller (āśrayin) in him [i.e., Paramātmā] even while being comparable to a light-ray of his [i.e., even while being comparable to something that exists outside of him], (3) because of [its] apparent non-existence (vyatireka) as a result of the apparent non-existence of him [i.e., because the jīva ceases to appear to exist when Paramātmā ceases to appear to exist at the time of universal dissolution; or, alternately, (3) because of [the jīva’s] negation (vyatireka) by negation of him [i.e., because the jīva would cease to exist if Paramātmā did not exist since the jīva is an inherent, dependent part of Paramātmā], (4) because of [its] being his [i.e., Paramātmā’s] means (sādhana) in regard to emanation of the universe in accord with [the statement in SB 12.7.18], ‘The cause of the emanation and so forth of this [i.e., of the universe] is the jīva,’ and (5) because of [its] likeness to pradhāna [i.e., prakṛti, the undifferentiated, subtle material energy] even while it has the essential nature (svarūpa) of a substance (dravya) [i.e., of a substratum of qualities, meaning, although the jīva is a specific substance (dravya) possessed of inherent qualities, it bears resemblance to pradhāna in that its inherent qualities are most subtle].
“Its being a śakti because of [its] being a particular fundamental energy (prakṛti) [of Paramātmā] is also stated in Viṣṇu Purāṇa [6.7.61], ‘Viṣṇu’s śakti is called parā (superior), and that [śakti] which is named the kṣetrajña is called aparā (inferior). The other, third śakti is called avidyā and karma,’ [and in VP 6.7.63], ‘Because of being covered by that [i.e., by the third śakti called avidyā and karma], O king, the śakti known as the kṣetrajña is seen in all beings in a gradation [i.e., its influence is perceived to a greater or lesser extent in various living beings even though it is equally present in them all].’ Similarly, after [the statement in BG 7.4] ‘This energy (prakṛti) of mine is divided eightfold as earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intellect, and ego,’ in Śrī Gītopaniṣad (7.5) [it is said], ‘This [energy of mine, viz., the māyā-śakti,] is inferior [because it is constituted of inert matter]. O you of mighty arms, other than this, know my energy (prakṛtim) constituted of the jīva [viz., the jīva-śakti], by which this universe is grasped, to be superior [because it is constituted of consciousness].’ Because of the designation of all three [śaktis] as being separate śaktis in the [aforecited] statement of Viṣṇu Purāṇa [in 6.7.61], ‘Viṣṇu’s śakti is called parā (superior) … ’ (Viṣṇu-śaktiḥ parā proktā … ), the knower of the field’s (kṣetrajña’s) being a śakti because of a relation with the [third] śakti known as avidyā karma is refuted. Rather, it [i.e., this conclusion that the jīva, the kṣetrajña, is a śakti of Viṣṇu separate from his parā-śakti and his śakti known as avidyā and karma, i.e., the māyā-śakti] comes about definitively because of its [i.e., the jīva’s] essential nature (svarūpa). Similarly, furthermore, in Śrī Bhagavad-gītā [15.7, it is said], ‘The living being [i.e., the jīva] here is an eternal part of me alone.’ Therefore, it was said [in BG 7.5]. ‘This [energy of mine, viz., the māyā-śakti,] is inferior. Other than this, know my energy (prakṛtim) constituted of the jīva [viz., the jīva-śakti] to be superior.’ The word ‘knower of the field’ (kṣetrajña), furthermore, as [in the case of the usage] in [SB 5.11.12], ‘The kṣetrajña [sees] these splendors of the mind …,’ is also employed for the pure entity (śuddha) [i.e., for the jīva itself in its essential nature irrespective of whether it is in a state of being conditioned by māyā or not] because of the word ‘field’ (kṣetra) being only an indicator (upalakṣaṇa) [i.e., because the word ‘field’ (kṣetra) is used in the case of the word kṣetrajña only for the purpose of indicating who is being referred to, viz., the jīva, and not for the purpose of defining or specifying the essential nature of its referent, viz., the jīva].
“Thus, in this way, its [i.e., the jīva’s] distinctness [from Paramātmā’s other śaktis] even while [also] being a śakti [of Paramātmā] is because of its intermediacy (taṭasthatva). [This] Intermediacy (taṭasthatva), furthermore, is because of [the jīva’s] non-entrance into [i.e., non-inclusion in] either category [i.e., because of the jīva’s being included neither in the category of the parā-śakti nor in the category of the māyā-śakti] (1) because of [the jīva’s] being beyond [i.e., superior to] the māyā-śakti [by virtue of the jīva’s being constituted of consciousness and the māyā-śakti’s being constituted of matter], and (2) because of Paramātmā’s having no taint as a result of the fault in the form of its [i.e., the jīva’s] degradation and so forth by ignorance (avidyā) [i.e., the jīva is understood to be a third śakti of Paramātmā distinct from both the parā-śakti and māyā-śakti because the jīva is superior in constitution to the māyā-śakti by virtue of being a conscious entity yet also dissimilar from the parā-śakti because the jīva is subject to the influence of avidyā, viz., the māyā-śakti, whereas the parā-śakti is not subject to the influence of avidyā and furthermore is the means by which Paramātmā himself remains forever uninfluenced by avidyā]. [Also,] Even while being possessed of that śakti [i.e., the jīva-śakti], Paramātmā has no taint because of that just as there is no concealment of the sun [as a whole] even when a ray [of the sun] situated in one place somewhere is concealed by shade [i.e., is obscured by an object such that the area where it would have appeared instead appears dark].
“The intermediacy (taṭasthatva) [of the jīva] is also stated in Śrī Nārada Pañcarātra, ‘That which is intermediary (taṭastham), conscious in nature (cid-rūpam), issued forth from that which can be known by [only] itself [i.e., issued forth from its basis, viz., Śrī Bhagavān, who can be known only when he makes himself known], and colored by attachment to qualities (guṇas) is called the jīva.’ Thus, in Viṣṇu Purāṇa as well, it [i.e., the jīva] is said to be definitively in a [qualitatively] intermediate space [i.e., to be a distinct, intermediate type of śakti]. [The Jīva’s] Distinctness, furthermore is [stated] in the Śruti [i.e., Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad: 4.9], ‘This deluding world is emanated from that [i.e., Brahman], and in it [i.e., the world] the other [viz., the jīva] is bound in full by māyā,’ and [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad: 3.1.1], ‘Among them [i.e., among the two birds of beautiful plumage, ever-united in friendship, viz., the jīva and Paramātmā, perched on the same tree, i.e., situated within material existence], one [i.e., the jīva] eats the tasty berry [of the tree, and the other, Paramātmā, not eating, watches over the first].’ Therefore, it is said in Viṣṇu Purāṇa (6.7.94), ‘[Even] If the ignorance (ajñāna) that is a cause of specific differences [between living beings in the world] were completely destroyed, who could render non-existent the difference of the self (ātmā) from Brahman?’ [The meaning of the verse is restated:] [Even] If the ignorance (ajñāna) that is even a cause of specific differences in the form of the state of being a deva (devatva), the state of being a human being (manuṣyatva), and so forth, were destroyed, who could render non-existent the inherent difference of the self (ātmā), meaning, the jīva, from Brahman, meaning, Paramātmā?’ Nonetheless [i.e., even if the ignorance that is the cause of perception of the differences between devas, humans, and so on were removed], absolutely everyone would [still] affirm the existence (santam) [of the difference between the jīva and Paramātmā]. In regard to the [mention of] ‘negation of non-existence’ (nāsantam) in the second half of the text, because of its being a predicate (vidheya) [in the sentence], [construing] another meaning [of the text, as has been done in the Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha] is just troublesome fabrication [i.e., far-fetched and untenable]. Thus, the non-deviation from [the jīva’s] being a part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., Paramātmā] even in the state of mokṣa is specifically because of [the jīva’s] being an inherent śakti [of his]. Therefore, in mukti, the characteristic of which is fixity in essential form (svarūpa) preceded by liberation from ignorance (avidyā) [as per SB 2.10.6], he who becomes merged in him [i.e., the jīva who is said to become merged in Paramātmā] enters a state of likeness in nature (sādharmya) with him [i.e., in mukti the jīva does not merge into Paramātmā in such a manner that the jīva ceases to exist as a distinct existent; rather, the jīva ‘merges’ into Paramātmā in the sense that it acquires a likeness in nature (sādharmya) to Paramātmā in certain respects] as per the Śruti [i.e., Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3], ‘[When a seer sees the golden-complexioned Maker, Īśa, the Puruṣa, the Source of Brahman, then that wise one casts away virtue and sin, and] Attains taintless, supreme likeness (sāmya) [to the Puruṣa],’ and Śrī Gītopaniṣad (14.2), ‘Those have taken shelter in this knowledge and attained a likeness in nature (sādharmya) to me are not re-born even during the [time of] emanation [of the universe] and are not troubled during the [time of] dissolution [of the universe].’ Therefore, in [statements such as Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad: 3.2.9], ‘One who knows Brahman verily becomes Brahman,’ and so forth, only a sameness in nature (tādātmya) with Brahman is conveyed, and awareness (jñāna) of that which is unable to be conceived of manifests of its own accord as per [the sūtra stated in VS 3.1.23], ‘There is an occurrence of likeness with that because of reasoning’ (tat-svābhāvyāpattir upapatteḥ).
“Thus, in this way, with [the jīva’s] being a śakti [of Paramātmā] having been established, there is no disharmony (asamañjasa) when sometimes there is a designation [of the jīva] as non-distinct (abhinna) [from Paramātmā] (1) because of the mutual interpervasion of a śakti and the possessor of the śakti (śaktimat), (2) because of the apparent non-existence (vyatireka) of a śakti as a result of the apparent non-existence of the possessor of the śakti (śaktimat), and (3) because of the non-difference [between the jīva and Paramātmā] of being [constituted of] consciousness (cit), and [sometimes there is] a designation [of the jīva] as distinct (bhinna) [from Paramātmā] because of observation of the variegation of śakti [i.e., of there being a multitude of śaktis possessed of distinct characteristics being present] even within one existent [viz., Paramātmā].”
