Prīti Sandarbha – Page 9

atha muktibhyo bhagavat-prīter ādhikyaṁ vivriyate

atha muktibhyo bhagavat-prīter ādhikyaṁ vivriyate | tatra yadyapi tat-prītiṁ vinā tā api na santy eva tathāpi keṣāñcit teṣāṁ svasya duḥkha-hānau sāmīpyādi-lakṣaṇa-sampattāv api tātparyaṁ, na tu śrī-bhagavaty eveti teṣu nyūnatā |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 16)

“Now, the superiority of Bhagavat-prīti to the muktis [i.e., to the five aforementioned types of mukti] is to be described. Therein, although even these [i.e., these five aforementioned types of mukti] do not at all occur without prīti for him [i.e., Bhagavān], still the intention (tātparya) of some [i.e., of some muktas] is still on the cessation of their own suffering and the attainment characterized by samīpya and so forth, and not, rather, solely on Śrī Bhagavān. Thus, there is an inferiority in them [i.e., in those whose intention in not solely upon Bhagavān because of impurity in their prīti].”

Read on →

ye māṁ bhajanti dāmpatye tapasā vrata-caryayā

ye māṁ bhajanti dāmpatye tapasā vrata-caryayā |
kāmātmāno’pavargeśaṁ mohitā mama māyayā ||
māṁ prāpya māniny apavarga-sampadaṁ
vāñchanti ye sampada eva tat-patim |
te manda-bhāgā niraye’pi ye nṛṇāṁ
mātrātmakatvān nirayaḥ susaṅgamaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatan: 10.60.52–53; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 16)

“[Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Rukmiṇī Devī:] The desirous who by means of austerity and performance of rites worship me, the master of apavarga [i.e., mokṣa, or, the bestower of prema-bhakti, the ultimate puruṣārtha beyond even mokṣa], for the sake of matrimony [i.e., to enjoy the pleasures of being married] are deluded by my māyā. O Mānini! Those who desire [material] wealth [even] after attaining [alt., propitiating] me, who am the master of that [i.e., of wealth] and the wealth of apavarga, are unfortunate, since that [i.e., wealth] is present even in hell [alt., in births in lower, hellish species and conditions], and hell is a good condition for [such] persons on account of [their] being fixated upon the elements [i.e., on enjoying pleasures of sense objects].”

Read on →

munaya ūcuḥ

munaya ūcuḥ—
kathaṁ bhaktir bhavet premnā jīvan-muktasya nārada |
jīvan-mukta-śarīrāṇāṁ cit-sattā-niḥspṛhā yataḥ |
virakteḥ kāraṇaṁ bhaktiḥ sā tu muktes tu sādhanam ||
nārada uvāca—
bhadram uktaṁ bhavadbhiś ca muktis turyā parāparā |
nirahaṁ yatra cit-sattā turyā sā muktir ucyate ||
pūrṇāhantāmayī bhaktis turyātītā nigadyate ||
kṛṣṇa-dhāma-mayaṁ brahma kvacit kutrāpi bhāsate ||
nirbījendriyagaṁ tat tu ātmasthaṁ kevalaṁ sukham |
kṛṣṇas tu paripūrṇātmā sarvatra sukha-rūpakaḥ |
bhakti-vṛtti-kṛtābhyāsāt tat-kṣaṇād gocarīkṛtaḥ ||
(Bṛhad Gautamīya Tantra; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 32)

“The sages said, ‘O Nārada, how can a jīvan-mukta have bhakti [endowed] with prema, since embodied jīvan-muktas have a conscious existence free from desire [i.e., they have no absorption, inclination, or desire related to the body or things of the world even though they are still embodied and situated within the world]. Bhakti is but a means of detachment (virakti), and that [i.e., detachment] is but a means of mukti.’ “Nārada replied: ‘You all have spoken well. Mukti is the fourth (turyā) [state of consciousness] and superior to the others [i.e., to the other three states of consciousness known as wakefulness, dreaming, and deep sleep]. That wherein there is conscious existence (cit-sattā) devoid of ‘I’ is called the fourth, mukti. Bhakti constituted of complete ‘I’-ness [i.e., the ultimate form of self-identification] is said to be beyond the fourth [i.e., greater than even mukti]. Brahman, constituted of Kṛṣṇa’s luster, sometimes manifests somewhere [i.e., Brahman is manifest only beyond the realm of prakṛti and in inside the realm of Vaikuṇṭha]. It [i.e., Brahman] is self-situated bliss alone known [only] with the seedless sense [i.e., with the potential for perception inherent in the jīva, which is not a faculty constituted of the guṇas of prakṛti, be it an bahiḥkaraṇa or antaḥkaraṇa]. Kṛṣṇa, however, is the fully complete Self (Ātmā) and embodiment of bliss [present] everywhere [i.e., pervasively present throughout the realm of prakṛti and the realm of Vaikiṇṭha who is] brought into one’s range [of perception] immediately as a result of executing repeated performance of the practice of bhakti.’”

Read on →

evaṁ dīkṣāṁ cared yas tu puruṣo vīta-kalmaṣaḥ

evaṁ dīkṣāṁ cared yas tu puruṣo vīta-kalmaṣaḥ |
sa loke vartamāno’pi jīvan-mukta pramodate ||
uditākṛtir ānandaḥ sarvatra sama-darśakaḥ |
pūrṇāhantāmayī sākṣād bhaktiḥ syāt prema-lakṣaṇā ||
(Bṛhad Gautamīya Tantra; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 32)

“A person freed from sin who shall abide by [the] dīkṣā [they have received] rejoices as a jīvan-mukta [i.e., as one who is liberated while living] even while present in the world, being endowed with a manifested form [i.e., a siddha-deha] and bliss, and seeing equally in regard to everything. Direct bhakti possessed of prema and constituted of complete ‘I’-ness [i.e., the ultimate form of self-identification] shall come about [in that person].”

Read on →

tad evaṁ śrīmat-prīter evāpavargatvena parama-bhagavad-anugraha-mayatvaṁ

tad evaṁ śrīmat-prīter evāpavargatvena parama-bhagavad-anugraha-mayatvaṁ śrī-bhāgavata-śravaṇa-phalatvaṁ puruṣārtheṣu tasyāḥ paramatva-sādhanāya darśitam |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 18)

“Thus, in this way, blessed prīti’s being the supreme favor of Bhagavān and the [ultimate] result of hearing Śrīmad Bhāgavatam on account of [its] being the final beatitude (apavarga) [i.e., mukti] has been shown for the sake of establishing its supremacy among the puruṣārthas.”

Read on →

sa hi bhakta-sukhārtham eva prayatate

sa hi bhakta-sukhārtham eva prayatate, na tu pṛthak sva-sukhārtham, yathā hi bhaktas tat-sukhārtham eveti |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 16)

“He [i.e., Bhagavān] endeavors only for the sake of the happiness of [his] bhakta, and not, rather, for the sake of his own happiness separately [from that of his bhakta], just as [his] bhakta does solely for the sake of his happiness.”

Read on →

śrī-vajra-praśnaḥ

śrī-vajra-praśnaḥ—
kalpānāṁ jīva-sāmye hi muktir naivopapadyate |
kadācid api dharmajña tatra pṛcchāmi kāraṇam ||
ekaikasmin nare muktiṁ kalpe kalpe gate dvija |
abhaviṣyaj jagac chūnyaṁ kālasyāder abhāvataḥ ||
atha śrī-mārkaṇḍeyasyottaram—
jīvasyānyasya sargeṇa nare muktim upāgate |
acintya-śaktir bhagavān jagat pūrayate sadā ||
brahmaṇā saha mucyante brahma-lokam upāgatāḥ |
sṛjyante ca mahā-kalpe tad-vidhāś cāpare janān ||
atra kvacid api kalpe keṣāṁcid api jīvānām anudbuddha-karmatvena suṣuptavat prakṛtāv api līnānām ananta-brahmāṇḍa-gatānām ivānantānām ekasyopādhi-sṛṣṭyā brahmāṇḍa-praveśanaṁ sarga iti jñeyam | apūrva-sṛṣṭau sāditve kṛta-hāny-akṛtābhyāgamaḥ syāt |
(Viṣṇu-dharmottara Purāṇa: 1.81.11–14; cited in Prīti Sandarbha: 16)

“A question of Śrī Vajra: ‘Because of the kalpas’ even number of jīvas [i.e., because the number of jīvas in the universe remains the same in every kalpa], mukti can never be possible. O knower of dharma, I ask [you] the reason for this. O twice-born, if one human being attained mukti in kalpa after kalpa, the universe would have become empty [by now] because of the non-existence of time’s beginning.’ “Then, the answer of Śrī Mārkaṇḍeya: ‘Whenever a human being attains mukti, Bhagavān, who is possessed of inconceivable potency (śakti), always [re-] fills the universe with an emanation of another jīva. Those who have attain Brahmaloka [i.e., the plane of Brahmā] are liberated along with Brahmā [at the end of the kalpa when the universe is dissolved], and other persons of that type are emanated in the next great kalpa [i.e., at the beginning of the next emanation of the universe].’ “[Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī comments:] In this regard, ‘emanation’ (sarga) [of a jīva] is to be understood as the emanating of [appropriate] adjuncts (upādhis] [i.e., an antaḥkaraṇa, bahiḥkaraṇa, and gross body] and the entering a universe (brahmāṇḍa) of one of the innumerable [jīvas] who are like those situated in the innumerable universes but who are merged in prakṛti as if in deep sleep because of some such jīvas in some kalpa having unaroused karma [i.e., because some jīvas’ beginningless karma does not result in their being emanated into a manifest form of prakṛti, i.e., a universe, during that particular kalpa]. If it [i.e., the emanation of a jīva] had a beginning [i.e., was a creation of a new entity rather than just an emanation of a pre-existent entity] in the unprecedented emanation [i.e., in the beginningless cyclic existence of material universes], loss of what has been made (kṛta-hāni) and attainment of what has not been made would occur [i.e., the results of some actions performed in the past would not bear fruit, since the jīva in such a case would be a created entity who is subject to death, and thus would not have the ability to experience after death the results of the actions that it performed throughout its life; moreover, the jīva would have experiences that are not a result of its past actions since its birth and the circumstances of its life would not be outcomes of actions performed in past lives].”

Read on →

muktiś ca pañcadhā—sālokya-sārṣṭi-sārūpya-sāmīpya-sāyujya-bhedena

muktiś ca pañcadhā—sālokya-sārṣṭi-sārūpya-sāmīpya-sāyujya-bhedena | tatra sālokyaṁ samāna-lokatvaṁ śrī-vaikuṇṭha-vāsaḥ | sārṣṭis tatraiva samānaiśvaryam api bhavatīti | sārūpyaṁ tatraiva samāna-rūpatādi prāpyata iti | sāmīpyaṁ samīpa-gamanādhikāritvam | sāyujyaṁ keṣāṁcit bhagavac-chrī-vigraha eva praveśo bhavatīti | sālokyādi-śabdānāṁ mukty-ādi-śabda-sāmānādikaraṇyaṁ ca sālokyāditva-prādhānyena | tatra sālokya-sārṣṭi-sārūpya-mātre prāyo’ntaḥ-karaṇa-sākṣātkāraḥ | sāmīpye prāyo bahiḥ | sāyujye cāntara eva | tathāpi prakaṭa-sphūrti-lakṣaṇaṁ tat suṣuptivad anati-prakaṭa-sphūrti-lakṣaṇāt brahma-sāyujyād bhidyate | … kvacid āvṛtti-śravaṇaṁ tu prapañcāntargata-tad-dhāmatvāpekṣayā kādācitka-tal-līlā-kautukāpekṣayā ca mantavyam | paścāt tu nitya-sālokyam eva | … sṛṣṭi-sthity-ādi-sāmarthyaṁ tasya na bhavati kuto vaikuṇṭhaiśvaryādikam | … tato bhāktam eva samānaiśvaryam | ata evāṇimādi-prāptir apy aṁśenaiva jñeyā | … sālokyādivat-svābhimatatvābhāvāt spaṣṭodāharaṇaṁ śrīmatā bhāgavatena na kṛtam iti | asya bhagaval-lakṣaṇānanda-nimagnatā-sphūrtir eva pradhānaṁ, kvacid icchayā tad-anugraheṇa tadīya-tac-chakti-leśa-prāptyaiva yathā-yuktaṁ bahis tad-dattāprākṛta-tad-bhogocchiṣṭa-leśam evānubhavatīty eke | tatra ca na tu tam eva sarvam eva cānubhavatīty abhyupagamyam | sarvathā tat-prāpter anabhyupagamatvāt | … kvacid icchayā līlārthaṁ bahir api niṣkāmayati pārṣadatvena ca saṁyojayati | yathā śiśupāla-dantavakrau labdha-sāyujyāv api punaḥ pārṣadatām eva prāptau | … tatraiṣāṁ sālokyādīnām anavacchinna-bhagavat-prāpti-rūpatayā tat-sākṣātkāra-viśeṣatvena brahma-kaivalyād ādhikyaṁ prācīna-vacanaiḥ sutarām eva siddham | … sālokyādiṣu ca sāmīpyasyādhikyam | bahiḥ sākṣātkāramayatvāt tasyaiva hy ādhikyaṁ darśitam |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 10, 13, 15–16)

“Mukti, furthermore, is fivefold in accord with the divisions of sālokya, sārṣṭi, sārūpya, sāmīpya, and sāyujya. Therein, sālokya means being on the same plane [as Bhagavān], that is, residence in Śrī Vaikuṇṭha. Sārṣṭi means specifically there [i.e., in Vaikuṇṭha] equal capability (aiśvarya) [with that of Bhagavān] also comes about. Sārūpya means specifically there [i.e., in Vaikuṇṭha] attaining the same figure and so forth [as Bhagavān]. Sāmīpya means having the privilege of going near [Bhagavān there in Vaikuṇṭha]. Sāyujya means, for some [i.e., those who attain Bhagavat-sāyujya rather than Brahma-sāyujya], entrance into the divine body of Bhagavān itself. The terms words sālokya and so forth [i.e., and the other four aforementioned terms for and types of mukti] also have synonymity with the terms mukti and so forth [i.e., and with other words with the same meaning, such as mokṣa] because of the prominent of states of sālokya and so forth [in the general state that is common called mukti, that is, the state of having attained liberation from the realm of Bhagavān’s māyā-śakti and entrance into the realm of Bhagavān’s svarūpa-śakti]. “Therein [i.e., among these five types of mukti], specifically in sālokya, sārṣṭi, and sārūpya, generally direct perception (sākṣātkāra) [of Bhagavān] through the antaḥkaraṇa [i.e., by internal means of perception excluding the senses] occurs. In sāmīpya, generally it [i.e., direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān] occurs externally [i.e., through the bahiḥkaraṇas, that is, the senses]. Furthermore, in sāyujya, it occurs only internally [i.e., direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān occurs in the self, and not through either an antaḥkaraṇa or bahiḥkaraṇas because jīvas who attain sāyujya-mukti have neither of these]. Still, that [i.e., the direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān that occurs in Bhagavat-sāyjuya-mukti], which is by nature a distinct manifestation (prakaṭa-sphūrti) [i.e., a perception of the Para-tattva’s distinctly manifest aspect known as Bhagavān], is distinguished from Brahma-sāyujya, which is by nature a not very distinct manifestation (anati-prakaṭa-sphūrti) [i.e., it is a perception of the Para-tattva’s indistinctly manifest aspect known as Brahman] and similar to deep sleep. … “Hearing in some cases of return [i.e., of the rebirth within saṁsāra of someone who is said to have gone to Bhagavān’s abode] is to be considered to be in reference to [a bhakta’s] having been in his abode (dhāma) within the phenomenal world (prapañca) or in reference to [a bhakta’s] occasional sport [of temporarily descending when Bhagavān does] for the sake of his līlā. Thereafter, however, eternal sālokya certainly occurs [i.e., those who are said to return certainly thereafter remain in a state of eternal sālokya]. … “[In regard to sārṣṭi-mukti, that is, possessing capability (aiśvarya) equal to that of Bhagavān], one does not [in that case] have the capability of emanation, preservation, and so forth [i.e., the capability to emanate, preserve, and dissolve material worlds], much less the capability of Vaikuṇṭha [i.e., much the capability to manifest and presiding over spiritual worlds] and so forth. … Thus, ‘equal capability’ (samānaiśvaryam) [said to be had by a jīva who attains sārṣṭi-mukti] is only in a secondary sense. Therefore, even the attainment of [the siddhi known as] minuteness (aṇimā) [i.e., the power to become infinitesimal in size] is to be understood to be only in part [i.e., a jīva who attains sārṣṭi-mukti attains siddhis such as aṇimā only partially, that is, not to the extent to which Śrī Bhagavān possesses them]. … “A clear example [of sāyujya] is not given by Śrīmad Bhāgavatam because of the non-existence of [sāyujya’s] being approved by it [i.e., by Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] like sālokya and so forth [i.e., as the other four forms of mukti are, since only in these four other forms of mukti, and not in sāyujya, is serving Bhagavān possible]. Its [i.e., sāyujya’s] principal feature is a manifestation (sphūrti) of a state of absorption in Bhagavān’s characteristic of bliss (ānanda) [i.e., in the bliss that is inherent in Bhagavān’s nature (svarūpa)]. [Although it was said in PRS 10 that in sāyujya, direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān occurs only internally,] Sometimes, only by receiving a trace of that potency (śakti) of his [i.e., of Bhagavān’s potency that enables his experience of supramundane objects of enjoyment] by his favor according to his wish, one [who has attained sāyujya] experiences externally a trace remnant, given by him, of his supramundane enjoyment (bhoga) as befitting [i.e., in proportion to the amount of his potency for enjoyment that he bestowed upon the recipient]. Therein [i.e., in the midst of that experience], however, one does not experience that itself [i.e., the exact experience that Bhagavān does], or all of that. Such is to be admitted because of [a recipient of sāyujya-mukti’s] attainment of him in all respects not being admitted [i.e., since a recipient of sāyujya-mukti has not attained Bhagavān in full, such a mukta’s experience cannot be equated with that of Bhagavān himself]. … Sometimes according to his wish for the sake of līlā, he also extracts [a jīva who has attained Bhagavat-sāyujya-mukti from his body] externally as an associate [i.e., he also makes one take on the status of being one of his associates (pārṣadas)], as in the case of Śiśupāla and Dantavarka, who even after attaining sāyujya again attained the definitive status of associates. … In this regard, because of sālokya and so forth’s [i.e., the other four types of mukti] being [unlike sāyujya] special types of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of Bhagavān on account of [their] being forms of uninterrupted attainment of him, their superiority to Brahma-kaivalya [i.e., Brahma-sāyujya-mukti] is definitively established. … Among sālokya and so forth [i.e., among the four types of mukti which are superior to the two forms of sāyujya-mukti], sāmīpya has superiority. Its superiority is shown because of [its] being constituted of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) [of Bhagavān] externally [i.e., through external senses rather than only through the antaḥkaraṇa].”

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 →