Bhāgavata Sandarbha

mṛṣā giras tā hy asatīr asat-kathā 

mṛṣā giras tā hy asatīr asat-kathā
na kathyate yad bhagavān adhokṣajaḥ |
tad eva satyaṁ tad u haiva maṅgalaṁ
tad eva puṇyaṁ bhagavad-guṇodayam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 12.12.49; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha 269)

[Translation based on the Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā:] “False, harsh, and improper is that speech which does not describe Bhagavān Adhokṣaja. Only that [speech] through which Bhagavān’s qualities manifest is truthful, only that is beneficial, and only that is purifying.”
[Translation based on the Bhakti Sandarbha vyākhyā:] “Vain, false, and extraneous is that speech which does not describe Bhagavān Adhokṣaja. Only that [speech] through which Bhagavān’s qualities manifest is truthful, only that is beneficial, and only that is purifying.”

Read on →

śrutam apy aupaniṣadaṁ dūre hari-kathāmṛtāt

śrutam apy aupaniṣadaṁ dūre hari-kathāmṛtāt |
yan na santi dravac-citta-kampāśru-pulakādayaḥ ||
(Unknown source; cited in Padyāvalī: 39; Bhakti Sandarbha: 69)

“Even that which I have heard in the Upaniṣads [about nirviśeṣa Brahman] is also far from the amṛta of Hari-kathā, as by [hearing] it no melting of the heart, trembling, tears, horripilation, and so forth occur.”

Read on →

tatra tasya jaḍa-pratiyogitvena jñānatvaṁ

tatra tasya jaḍa-pratiyogitvena jñānatvaṁ duḥkha-pratiyogitvena tu jñānatvam ānandatvaṁ ca |
(Paramātma Sandarbha: 28)

“In this regard [i.e., in regard to the jīva being described in Padma-purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa, 226.35 (see Paramātma Sandarbha: 19), as cid-ānandātmakaḥ, that is, of the nature of consciousness and bliss], because of the jīva’s being the counterpositive [i.e., negation] of inertness, the jīva is [said to be] of the nature of consciousness, and because of the jīva’s being the counterpositive [i.e., negation] of misery, the jīva is [said to be] of the nature of consciousness and bliss.”

Read on →

atha yad avatārādāv aśuddha-cittānām api tat-sākṣātkāraḥ śrūyate

atha yad avatārādāv aśuddha-cittānām api tat-sākṣātkāraḥ śrūyate, tat khalu tad-ābhāsa eva jñeyaḥ | ‘nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yogamāyā-samāvṛtaḥ’ iti śrī-gītopaniṣadbhyaḥ | … adarśanaṁ cānavatāra-samaye vyāpakasyāpi darśanābhāvaḥ, avatāra-samaye tu paramānande’pi duḥkhadatvaṁ, manorame’pi bhīṣaṇatvam, sarva-suhṛdy api durhṛttvam ity ādi-viparīta-darśanam eva | tad-aprakāśe yogamāyā-prakāśe ca mūlaṁ kāraṇaṁ tad-bhaktāparādhādimaya-puruṣa-cittāsvācchyam | yat khalu tadānīntane tasya sārvatrika-prakāśe’pi vajralepāyate | ata eva ‘muktir hitvā’ ity-ādi-lakṣaṇasyāvyāpter na tasya sākṣātkārābhāsasya mukti-saṁjñatvam api |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 7)

“Then, the direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him [i.e., of Bhagavān] on the part even of those of impure heart that is heard of during [his] descents (avatāras), or in other instances, is to be understood as only a semblance (ābhāsa) of that [i.e., of actual direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him], as per the Gītopaniṣad [7.25], ‘Being concealed by [my] yogamāyā, I am not manifest to all.’ … Also, non-vision [of Bhagavān] at a time other than a descent (avatāra) [of Bhagavān] means the absence of vision even of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who [by nature] is all-pervading, whereas at the time of [his] descent (avatāra) [non-vision of him] is verily reversed vision, such as that of his being [seen to be] a cause of suffering even when he is the supreme bliss, being [seen to be] terrifying even though he is charming, or being [seen to be] an ill-wisher even when he is the well-wisher of all. In the case of non-manifestation of him [i.e., in the case of times when his descent (avatāra) is not taking place] and in the case of manifestation of [his] yogamāyā [i.e., in the case of yogamāyā concealing him even during the time of his descent (avatāra)], the root cause [of these instances of non-vision of him] is the impurity in an embodied being’s (puruṣa’s) citta in the form of offenses (aparādhas) to his bhaktas and so forth, which even at the time of his manifestation everywhere [i.e., even during the time of his descent (avatāra) when he is openly visible] is as if cement [i.e., such impurity in the citta remains hard and fixed in place, blocking reflection of his potency of self-manifestation (sva-prakāśitatva-śakti) off of the citta into the mind whereby direct perception of him would otherwise take place]. Therefore, because of the non-pervasion [i.e., non-existence] of the characteristics [stated] in muktir hitvānyathā … [i.e., in the definition of mukti given in SB 2.10.6], a semblance (ābhāsa) of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him that occurs in such cases] does not have the status of being designated as mukti.”

Read on →

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 →

pūjādimaya-bhakter api tādṛśatvaṁ nānumeyam

pūjādimaya-bhakter api tādṛśatvaṁ nānumeyam | apūrvavad bhakter niṣpādyatvābhāvāt | guṇamayaṁ hi niṣpādyaṁ syāt nāguṇamayam | ‘kaivalyaṁ sāttvikaṁ jñānam’ ity ārabhya ekādaśe śrī-bhagavataivāguṇamayatvam aṅgīkṛtam | ataḥ svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti-viśeṣatvena tasyāḥ bhagavat-prasāde sati svayam āvirbhāva eva na janma | sa cāvirbhāvo’nanta eva tadīya-phalānantya-śravaṇāt | tasmāt parmeśvarānāśrayatvaṁ tatropādhir bhaviṣyati | … atra bhakteḥ sādhana-bhūtatve na tādṛśatvaṁ mantavyam | bhagavat-prema-vilāsa-rūpatayā siddhānām api tad-atyāga-śravaṇāt ||
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“Bhakti constituted of [acts of] worship and so forth also being such [i.e., perishable, non-eternal] is not to be inferred because of the non-existence of bhakti’s niṣpādyatva [i.e., quality of being something that needs to be effected] like apūrva [i.e., bhakti does not have niṣpādyatva like the results of performing sacrifice (yajñā), which are called apūrva]. That which is constituted of the [material] guṇas (guṇamaya) shall be niṣpādya [i.e., something that needs to be effected], and [shall] not [be] that which is not constituted of the [material] guṇas (aguṇamaya). Starting from [the statement] kaivalyaṁ sāttvikaṁ jñānam [i.e., SB 11.25.24], [bhakti’s] being not constituted of the [material] guṇas (aguṇamaya) is accepted by Śrī Bhagavān. Therefore, because of [bhakti’s] being a specific function (vṛtti-viśeṣa) of the intrinsic potency (svarūpa-śakti) [of Bhagavān], when Bhagavān is pleased [alt., when Bhagavān’s grace occurs], its [i.e., bhakti’s] appearance (āvirbhāva), and not [its] production (janma), occurs of its own accord [i.e., bhakti manifests in the heart of a living being not as something that was produced there but rather as something that was pre-existent elsewhere which has now appeared there]. That appearance [of bhakti], furthermore, is verily endless [i.e., once bhakti appears there, it remains existent there without end] because of hearing [in śāstra] of the endlessness of its result [i.e., since bhakti gives rises to results that are known to be endless, bhakti‘s presence after manifesting is also to be understood to be endless].Therefore, not being sheltered in Parameśvara shall be the condition (upādhi) in this regard [i.e., if an act that involves perishable objects, such as a yajña, is performed by one who has taken shelter in Parameśvara, then the result shall be imperishable, but if one has not taken shelter in Parameśvara, then the acts performed shall not produce imperishable results]. … In this regard [i.e., in regard to the principle that something which is perishable and a means to another goal cannot itself be the ultimate goal (paramārtha)], bhakti’s being such [i.e., being not the ultimate goal (paramārtha)] because of [its] being existent as a sādhana (means) is not be considered on account of hearing [in śāstra] of non-abandonment of it even on the part of siddhas [i.e., those in whom bhakti is established and thus is no longer a sādhana] because of [bhakti’s] being a form of the play of prema for Bhagavān [i.e., bhakti is indeed the ultimate goal (paramārtha) because it is not perishable or merely a means to attain another goal; this is proven by the fact that even siddhas never give it up, and rather, eternally foster it, in the form of prema, in the midst of the eternal līlā of Śrī Bhagavān].”

Read on →

yeṣāṁ tu mate muktāv ānandānubhavo nāsti teṣāṁ pum-arthatā na sampadyate

yeṣāṁ tu mate muktāv ānandānubhavo nāsti, teṣāṁ pum-arthatā na sampadyate | sato’pi vastunaḥ sphuraṇābhāve nirarthakatvāt | na ca sukham ahaṁ syām iti kasyacid icchā, kintu sukham ahan anubhavāmi ity eva | tataś ca pravṛtty-abhāvāt tādṛśa-puruṣārtha-sādhana-preraṇāpi śāstre vyarthaiva syāt | tan-mate kevalānanda-rūpasyājñāna-duḥkha-sambandhāsambhavāt tan-nivṛtti-rūpaś ca puruṣārtho na ghaṭate | vigītaṁ tv īdṛśa-puruṣārthatvaṁ prācīnabarhiṣaṁ prati śrī-nārada-vākye ‘duḥkha-hāniḥ sukhāvāptiḥ śreyas tan neha ceṣyate’ iti | tasmād asty evānubhavaḥ | tathā ca śrutiḥ—‘rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati’ iti | ‘ātma-ratiḥ ātma-krīḍaḥ’ ity ādiś ca |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“The quality of being the puruṣārtha cannot be established in the mukti of those [i.e., the proponents of Kevalādvaitavāda] in whose view there is no experience of bliss [in mukti] because of the uselessness even of an existent object in the absence of manifestation [of it, i.e., since something is effectively non-existent when it is existent yet unmanifest and thus unable to be experienced, a form of mukti wherein one is said to have the nature of being happiness yet no have any actual experience of that happiness cannot qualify as the puruṣārtha since the puruṣārtha is not just happiness but rather the experience of happiness]. Furthermore, no one’s desire is, ‘Let me become happiness.’ Rather, it is only, ‘I shall experience happiness.’ Therefore, furthermore, because of the absence of an impetus (pravṛtti) [i.e., because no one would have any motivation to pursue a supposed puruṣārtha wherein there is no experience of bliss since the pursuit of bliss is the fundamental impetus of every living being], even the directives in the śāstra for [taking up] a means (sādhana) to [attaining] such a puruṣārtha [i.e., such a supposed puruṣārtha devoid of the experience of bliss] would just go in vain. Because of the impossibility in their [i.e., the Kevalādvaitavādīs’] view of one whose form is bliss alone having a relation with ignorance and suffering, a puruṣārtha in the form of the cessation of these [i.e., of ignorance and suffering] also does not occur [according to them]. Such being the puruṣārtha [i.e., this idea of the Kevalādvaitavādīs that the puruṣārtha is neither the attainment of bliss nor the cessation of suffering], however, is contradicted in a statement of Śrī Nārada to Prācīnabarhi [in SB 4.25.4], ‘The highest good (śreyas) is the elimination of suffering and attainment of happiness, and that is not attainable here [i.e., by means of karma performed with a mind attached to worldly ends].’ Therefore, there is certainly experience [of bliss in mokṣa, that is, in the puruṣārtha]. Furthermore, there is also the Śruti [i.e., statements in the śāstra such as Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1], ‘Only upon attaining this rasa [i.e., the Supreme Entity] does one become blissful,’ and [Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.25.2], ‘One [then] has delight in the self and play in the self.’”

Read on →

tad evaṁ tasya raśmi-paramāṇu-sthānīyāṁśatve siddhe tadvat sarvasyām api daśāyāṁ kartṛtva-bhoktṛtvādi-svarūpa-dharmā api sidhyanti

tad evaṁ tasya raśmi-paramāṇu-sthānīyāṁśatve siddhe tadvat sarvasyām api daśāyāṁ kartṛtva-bhoktṛtvādi-svarūpa-dharmā api sidhyanti | tadvad eva ca parameśvara-śakty-anugraheṇaiva te kārya-kṣamā bhavanti | tatra teṣāṁ prakṛti-vikāra-maya-kartṛtvādikaṁ tadīya-māyā-śakti-mayānugraheṇa | ata eva tat-sambandhāt teṣāṁ saṁsāraḥ | svānubhava-brahmānubhava-bhagavad-anubhava-kartṛtvādikaṁ tu tadīya-svarūpa-śakty-anugraheṇa | ‘yatra tv asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt tat kena kaṁ paśyet’ iti śrutiś ca tat-svarūpa-śaktiṁ vinā tad-darśanāsāmārthyaṁ dyotayati ‘yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ’ ity ādi śruteḥ | ata eva svarūpa-śakti-sambandhān māyāntardhāne teṣāṁ saṁsāra-nāśaḥ |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“Thus, in this way, with the establishment of [the jīva’s] being a part (aṁśa) of it [i.e., of the Supreme Entity] comparable to a particle in a ray [of the sun], the inherent characteristics (svarūpa-dharmas) of doership (kartṛtva), perceivership (bhokṛtva), and so forth [i.e., and knowership (jñātṛtva)] too are similarly established [to exist in the jīva] even in all states [i.e., even in the states of being conditioned (baddha), being liberated while living (jīvan-mukta), and liberated completely (mukta)]. Similarly also, these are capable of functioning [to the very limited extent that the jīva’s minute nature allows] only by the favor of Parameśvara’s śakti. In that regard, their [i.e., jīvas’] doership (kartṛtva) and so forth [i.e., perceivership (bhoktṛtva), and knowership (jñātṛtva)] based on transformations prakṛti exist by the favor of his [i.e., Parameśvara’s] māyā potency. Thus, their saṁsāra [i.e., condition of transmigrating throughout material existence] occurs because of [their] relation with that [i.e., māyā], whereas [their] doership (kartṛtva) and so forth in the form of experience of self (svānubhava), experience of Brahman (Brahmānubhava), and experience of Bhagavān (Bhagavad-anubhava) exist by the favor of his [i.e., Parameśvara’s] inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti). Also, the Śruti [i.e., the statement in BAU 2.4.14], ‘When everything has become [i.e., is perceived to be] only the Self (Ātmā) for him [i.e., for a realized person], then who shall see what by what means?’ illuminates the inability of seeing him [i.e., Parameśvara] without [the favor of] his inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) because of the Śruti [i.e., the statement in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.23], ‘He is attainable only by one whom he chooses.‘ Therefore, the termination of their [i.e., jīvas’] saṁsāra occurs upon the withdrawal of māyā because of a relation with the inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) [of Parameśvara].”

Read on →

Scroll to Top