Prīti Sandarbha – Page 10

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 →

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca pūrvaṁ vivṛtā | ‘tat tvam asi’ ity ādau lakṣaṇā tv atyantābhede tad-aṁśatve ca samānaiva | parama-tattvasya niraṁśatva-śrutis tu dvidhā pravartate | tatra kevala-viśeṣya-lakṣaṇa-nirdeśa-parāyā mukhyaiva pravṛttiḥ, ānanda-mātratvāt tasya | ānandaika-rūpasya tasya svarūpa-śakti-viśiṣṭasya nirdeśa-parāyās tu prākṛtāṁśa-leśa-rāhitya-mātre tātparyād gauṇī pravṛttiḥ | sarva-śakti-viśiṣṭasya tasya tu sarvāṁśitvaṁ gītam eva |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“The inconclusive argumentation (anupapatti) of ignorance (avidyā) and knowledge (vidyā) having shelter simultaneously [in the same existent (vastu)] and so forth [i.e., and other such untenable conclusions] in [the view of] absolute non-distinction between the jīva and Īśvara [which has been promulgated by Kevalādvaitavādīs] has also been explained earlier [in Paramātma Sandarbha]. In regard to [the statement in CHU 6.8.7], ‘You are that’ (tat tvam asi), indication (lakṣaṇā) [i.e., a figurative sense] is equally present in [the view of there being] absolute non-distinction [of the jīva from Īśvara] and in [the view of the jīva’s] being a part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., Īśvara].

“The Śruti [i.e., the declaration in the śāstra] of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) being without parts (niraṁśa) indeed conveys a twofold sense [i.e., a primary and a secondary sense]. Therein, the primary sense (mukhya-pravṛtti) is focused on designation of the nature of the qualificand (viśeṣya) alone on account of its [i.e., the qualificand’s, meaning, the Supreme Entity’s,] being solely [constituted of] bliss, whereas the secondary sense (gauṇī-pravṛtti) is focused on designation of it [i.e., the qualificand, the Supreme Entity] as a form purely of bliss replete with its inherent potency (svarūpa-śakti) on the basis of an intention (tātparya) specifically related to the absence of [even] a trace of a material (prākṛta) part (aṁśa) [in the Supreme Entity]. Replete with all potency (śakti), its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being the bearer of all parts [i.e., being the Supreme Whole of whom all else is part] is certainly proclaimed [in the śāstra].”

Read on →

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ

jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṁśa eko jīvaḥ | sa ca tejo-maṇḍalasya bahiścara-raśmi-paramāṇur iva parama-cid-eka-rasasya tasya bahiścara-cit-paramāṇuḥ | tatra tasya vyāpakatvāt tad-ekadeśatvam eva jīve syāt | nirākāratayā tad-ekadeśatvaṁ na viruddham | tathāpi bahiścaratvaṁ tad-āśrayitvāt | taj-jñānābhāvāt chāyayā raśmivat māyayābhibhāvyatvāc ca bahiścaratvaṁ vyapadiśyate | raśmi-sthānīyatvaṁ ca tad-vyatirekād vyatirekitayā yas tad-āśrayi-bhāvaḥ | yā ca pūrva-yuktyā bahiścaratve’py eka-vastutva-śrutis tad-ādibhir gamyate | raśmi-sthānīyatvaṁ ca tad-vyatirekād vyatirekitayā yas tad-āśrayi-bhāvaḥ | yā ca pūrva-yuktyā bahiścaratve’py eka-vastutva-śrutis tad-ādibhir gamyate | śaktitvaṁ ca tad-rūpatayaiva tadīya-līlopakaraṇatvāt | aṇutvaṁ ca śabdāt hari-candana-binduvat tasya prabhāva-lakṣaṇa-guṇenaiva sarva-deha-vyāpteḥ | sarvaṁ caitat paramasyācintya-śaktimayatvād aviruddham iti pūrvaṁ dṛḍhīkṛtam asti, ‘śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt’ iti nyāyena, ‘eka-deśa-sthitasyāgner’ ity ādinā ca |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 5)

“A single jīva is just a part (aṁśa) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), who is possessed of the collective potency (samaṣṭi-śakti) known as jīva [viz., the jīva-śakti, i.e., each jīva is one of innumerable other jīvas, all of whom are constituted of the Supreme Entity’s potency that collectively constitutes all these jīvas and is known as the ‘jīva-śakti’]. That [i.e., one jīva], furthermore, like an outdwelling, minute particle in a ray of the sun, is an outdwelling minute particle of consciousness (cit) of that [i.e., of the Supreme Entity] who is constituted of one substance, [viz.,] supreme consciousness (cit). In this regard, because of its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being all-pervading, only a localization (ekadeśatva) of it can exist in a jīva [i.e., because the Supreme Entity is all-pervading and an all-pervading entity cannot be contained in full within a minute entity, the Supreme Entity in its entirety cannot exist in a jīva, and thus only a localization of it does]. [Moreover,] Because of [its, i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] being formless, its localization is not contradictory [i.e., a localized manifestation of the Supreme Entity existing within each minute jīva is not contrary to the Supreme Entity’s characteristic of being all-pervasive because the Supreme Entity exists all-pervasively without form, that is, without any gross or otherwise delimited form]. Even so [i.e., even though the Supreme Entity pervades the jīva], the outdwellingness [of the jīva to the Supreme Entity, i.e., the jīva’s existing outside the the Supreme Entity’s own primary existence, that is, the Supreme Entity’s own unique, intrinsic constitution] exists because of [the jīva’s] being dependent on it [i.e., on the Supreme Entity]. The outdwellingness [of the jīva in relation to the Supreme Entity] is also designated because of the [jīva’s] absence of awareness of it [i.e., the Supreme Entity], and because of [the jīva’s] being subject to being overpowered by māyā like a ray [is subject to being overpowered] by shadow [i.e., as a ray of the sun can be overpowered by shadow but the sun itself cannot be, so the jīva can be overpowered by māyā but the Supreme Entity cannot be even though the jīva is a part (aṁśa) of the Supreme Entity just as a minute particle in a ray of the sun is a part of the sun].
“The [jīva’s] comparability to a ray, furthermore, is [the jīva’s] being a dependent on it [i.e., on the Supreme Entity] because of [the jīva’s] being an apparent non-existent (vyatirekī) as a result of it’s [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] apparent non-existence (vyatireka) [i.e., just as rays of the sun disappear when the sun sets but don’t cease to exist, so the jīvas become apparently non-existent when the Supreme Entity becomes apparently non-existent during the cyclic period of universal dissolution; both the jīvas and the Supreme Entity then remain existent until they become apparently existent again during the next cycle of universal emanation]. And although there is outdwellingness [of the jīva] according to the prior [i.e., aforesaid] reasoning, the Śruti [i.e., declaration in the śāstra] of one existentness (eka-vastutva) [i.e., of there being really only one existent, viz., the Supreme Entity, upon whom everything that is manifest is dependent for its existence] is understood through that and others [i.e., through that statement in the Śruti-śāstra and statements in other śāstras, e.g., Śrīmad Bhāgavatam].
“[The jīva’s] Being a potency (śakti) [of the Supreme Entity] is [understood] because of [the jīva’s] being an instrument for its [i.e., the Supreme Entity’s] līlā by virtue of [the jīva’s] being of that nature [i.e., by virtue of the jīva’s being outdwelling to the Supreme Entity while also being ontologically one with it as a dependent part of it]. [The jīva’s] Minuteness [i.e., infinitesimality], further, is [understood] because of śabda [i.e., by means of statements heard in śāstra] on account of its pervasion of the entire body [that it is enveloped in] solely by means of its quality of influence just like a drop of yellow sandal [i.e., just as a drop of yellow sandalwood paste applied to the forehead can create a feeling of coolness throughout the entire body solely by means of its quality of being cooling and without actually being present throughout the entire body, so the jīva, which is infinitesimal in measure and not actually present throughout the entire body, can pervade the entire body by means of its quality of being able to influence the entire body]. All of this, furthermore, is not contradictory because of the Supreme’s being constituted of inconceivable potency (acintya-śakti). Such was affirmed previously [e.g., in KS 106] by the principle [stated in VS 2.1.27], ‘It is because of Śruti [i.e., because of the statements in the śāstra, that Brahman is understood to not be subject to modification or limitation] on account of śabda’s [i.e., śabda-pramāṇa’s] being the source [of valid knowledge of Brahman],’ and by [the statement in VP 1.22.56], ‘As the light of a fire situated in one place is pervasive [of the area around it], so the potency (śakti) of the Supreme Brahman is this entire universe [i.e., so the śakti of Parabrahman is manifest all-pervasively in the form of this material universe].’”

Read on →

puruṣa-prayojanaṁ tāvat sukha-prāptir duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca

puruṣa-prayojanaṁ tāvat sukha-prāptir duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca |
puruṣa-prayojanaṁ tāvat sukha-prāptir duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca | śrī-bhagavat-prītau tu sukhatvaṁ duḥkha-nivartakatvaṁ cātyantikam iti | etad uktaṁ bhavati—yat khalu parama-tattvaṁ śāstra-pratipādyatvena pūrvaṁ nirṇītaṁ, tad eva sad-ananta-paramānandatvena siddham | … nānā-svarūpa-dharmato’pi tasya kevalānanda-svarūpatvam eva ca darśitam | tathā-bhūta-mārtaṇḍādi-maṇḍalasya kevala-jyotiṣṭvavat |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“The aim (prayojana) of an embodied being (puruṣa), fundamentally, is the attainment of happiness and elimination of suffering, and only in prīti for Śrī Bhagavān are happiness and elimination of suffering absolute. Thus, this is said: only that Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), who was ascertained previously [i.e., in the first four sandarbhas] as being the object to be taught by the śāstra, is established [by the śāstra] as being eternal, infinite, paramount bliss. … Although possessed of various inherent characteristics, his [i.e., that Supreme Entity’s] verily being of the nature of bliss alone is also shown [in śāstra, i.e., his fundamental nature, upon which all of his other attributes are based, is bliss (ānanda) alone], just as the sun, which has [within it] the there existent Mārtaṇḍa [i.e., the devatā Sūrya] and so forth [i.e., as well as Sūryadeva’s chariot, horses, etc.], is [fundamentally] of the nature of light alone.”

Read on →

paramātmatvādi-lakṣaṇa-nānāvastha-bhagavat-sākṣātkāra eva tatrāpi paramaḥ

paramātmatvādi-lakṣaṇa-nānāvastha-bhagavat-sākṣātkāra eva tatrāpi paramaḥ | (1) tatra saty api nirupadhi-prīty-āspadatva-svabhāvasya tasya svarūpa-dharmāntara-vṛnda-sākṣātkṛtau paramatve prīti-bhakty-ādi-saṁjñaṁ priyatva-lakṣaṇa-dharma-viśeṣa-sākṣātkāram eva paramatamatvena manyante | (2) tayā prītyaivātyantika-duḥkha-nivṛttiś ca | (3) yāṁ prītiṁ vinā tat-svarūpasya tad-dharmāntara-vṛndasya ca sāksātkāro na sampadyate | (4) yatra sā tatrāvaśyam eva sampadyate | (5) yāvaty eva prīti-sampattiḥ, tāvaty eva tat-sampattiḥ | (6) sampadyamāne sampanne ca tasmin sādhikam āvirbhavati |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“Direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān in various states, such as that the character of which is [his] being Paramātmā and so on, is supreme in this regard as well [i.e., in regard to the aforementioned conclusion that direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) manifest with clear specificity as Bhagavān is superior to direct perception of the Supreme Entity manifest without clear specificity as Brahman]. (1) Although this is so and direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of other inherent qualities of his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] is [accepted to be] supreme [since direct perception of him is in general accepted to be supreme], direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the particular quality of priyatva [i.e., ‘dearness’] of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who by nature is the object of unconditional prīti, is considered the supreme-most [i.e., although direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) with clear specificity as Bhagavān is considered to be supreme, this is a general understanding, and more specifically, direct perception of Bhagavān’s inherent quality of priyatva, that is, the direct perception of him known by terms such as prīti, prema, bhakti, rati, and bhāva, wherein he is directly perceived specifically on the basis of his inherent nature of being the ultimate object of unconditional prīti, is the supreme-most direct perception of him]. (2) By that prīti [i.e., by such direct perception of him] alone the absolute cessation of suffering also occurs [i.e., even direct perception of him does not lead to the absolute cessation of suffering if it is devoid of the nature of prīti]. (3) Without this prītī, direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) [i.e., his nature in general] and his other qualities does not occur [i.e., Bhagavān’s true nature and qualities are not perceived without prīti]. (4) In whomever this [prīti] is present, that [i.e., direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) and other qualities] certainly occurs. (5) As far as there is attainment of prīti [alt., as far as the wealth of prīti is present], so far exactly there is attainment of that [i.e., of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) and other qualities]. (6) In one in whom attainment [of prīti] is [in the process of] occurring, and in one in whom it has been attained, that [i.e., direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of his nature (svarūpa) and other qualities] manifests to a [comparatively] greater extent [respectively, i.e., that direct perception manifests somewhat in one in whom the attainment of prīti is still in the process of occurring, and it manifests more so in one in whom the attainment of prīti has already occurred].”

Read on →

tad etat sarvam api yuktam eva

tad etat sarvam api yuktam eva | parama-sukhaṁ khalu bhagavatas tad-guṇa-vṛndasya ca svarūpam | sukhaṁ ca nirupādhi-prīty-āspadam | tatas tad-anubhave prīter eva mukhyatvam iti | tasmāt puruṣeṇa saiva sarvadānveṣitavyeti puruṣa-prayojanatvaṁ tatraiva paramatamam iti sthitam |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)

“Therefore [i.e., because of the six aforementioned characteristics of prīti], all of this too is certainly appropriate [i.e., it is certainly true that direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) manifest with clear specificity as Bhagavān is the supreme puruṣārtha]. [Moreover,] The nature (svarūpa) of Bhagavān and his qualities is verily supreme happiness, and happiness is the object of unconditional prīti. Therefore, in experience of him [i.e., Bhagavān], prīti alone has primacy [i.e., prīti is the primary cause, means, and feature of experiencing him]. Therefore, it [i.e., prīti] alone is always to be sought out by a living being, and thus it alone is established as being the supreme-most aim of a living being [i.e., although mokṣa is generally accepted as the supreme puruṣārtha and it is mokṣa in the form of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva) manifest with clear specificity as Bhagavān that is the actual supreme puruṣārtha, prīti for Bhagavān is the primary cause, means, and feature of such direct perception of Bhagavān and thus prīti for Bhagavān is the supreme-most puruṣārtha].”

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 →