Chāndogya Upaniṣad

anena jīvenātmanā’ iti tadīyoktāv idantā-nirdeśena tato

‘anena jīvenātmanā’ iti tadīyoktāv idantā-nirdeśena tato bhinnatve’py ātmatā-nirdeśena tad-ātmāṁśa-viśeṣatvena labdhasya bādarāyaṇa-samādhi-dṛṣṭa-yukter atyabhinnatā-rahitasya jīvātmano yad ekatvaṁ ‘tat tvam asi’ ity ādau jñātā, tad-aṁśa-bhūta-cid-rūpatvena samānākāratā | … yathā janma-prabhṛti kaścid gṛha-guhāvaruddhaḥ sūryaṁ vividiṣuḥ kathañcid gavākṣa-patitaṁ sūryāṁśu-kaṇaṁ darśayitvā kenacid upadiśyate ‘eṣa saḥ’ iti | etat tad-aṁśa-jyotiḥ-samānākāratayā tan-mahā-jyotir-maṇḍalam anusandhīyatām ity arthaḥ, tadvaj jīvasya tathā tad-aṁśatvaṁ ca tac-chakti-viśeṣa-siddhatvenaiva paramātma-sandarbhe sthāpayiṣyāmaḥ |
(Tattva Sandarbha: 52)

“The oneness (ekatva) [with the Para-tattva] which is known [from the statement in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7], ‘You are that’ (tat tvam asi) of the jīvātma, who is not possessed of extreme non-distinctness (atyabhinnatā) [from the Para-tattva] as per the reason seen in the samādhi of Bādarāyaṇa [i.e., Śrī Vyāsadeva in SB 1.7.5] and [who] is apprehended as being a particular part (aṁśa) of his [i.e., the Para-tattva’s] self (ātmā) as per the designation of selfness (ātmatā) [in regard to the jīvātmā on the part of the Para-tattva] even while being distinct from him [i.e., from the Para-tattva] as per the designation of ‘this-ness’ (idantā) [in regard to the jīvātmā] in the statement [in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.3.2] of his [i.e., of the Para-tattva], ‘Entering [the realm of prakṛti] with this jīva-self (ātmā) [i.e., with this distinct entity known as the jīva who is a part of my self], I shall manifest names and forms,’ is being of the same constitution [lit., ‘form’] (samānākāratā) on account of [the jīvātmā’s] being an entity the form of which is consciousness that is an existent part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., of the Para-tattva; meaning, the oneness of the jīva with the Para-tattva is on account of the jīva being a part (aṁśa) of the Para-tattva that is conscious in constitution just as the Para-tattva is]. … As someone confined, beginning from birth, within a cavern in a house who wishes to know the sun, after having been shown a particle-ray of the sun that has somehow fallen through an air hole [into the cavern], is instructed by someone, ‘This is that [i.e., ‘This light you see here is the sun’], meaning, ‘Because of this [i.e., this sun-ray that you have seen] having the same constitution of light [as the sun] on account of [its] being a part (aṁśa) of that [i.e., of the sun], a vast orb of that light is to be conceived [i.e., you can acquire an understanding of what the sun is by imagining a vast orb made up of a huge number of the rays of light you see here], so [i.e., in a manner akin to the aforementioned method of instruction] we shall establish in Paramātma Sandarbha (18–46) the jīva’s similarly being a part (aṁśa) of him [i.e., of the Para-tattva] on account of [the jīva’s] being existent (siddha) as a particular śakti of his.”

Read on →

anena jīvenātmanā’ iti tadīyoktāv idantā-nirdeśena tato Read on →

nṛṣu tava māyayā bhramam amīṣv avagatya bhṛśaṁ

nṛṣu tava māyayā bhramam amīṣv avagatya bhṛśaṁ
tvayi sudhiyo’bhave dadhati bhāvam anuprabhavam |
katham anuvartatāṁ bhava-bhayaṁ tava yad bhrū-kuṭiḥ
sṛjati muhus trinemir abhavac-charaṇeṣu bhayam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.87.32)

[Translated according to Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmīpāda’s commentary:] “Understanding the ignorance as a consequence of your māyā among these human beings wherefrom repeated birth ensues, the wise foster bhāva [i.e., render service] profusely for you, Non-existence [i.e., you who are the cause of liberation from material existence]. How could your followers have any distress on account of [material] existence, since the furrowing of your brows—time (trinemi)—creates distress perpetually for those who are not in your shelter?”

Read on →

nṛṣu tava māyayā bhramam amīṣv avagatya bhṛśaṁ Read on →

mahābhūtāny ahaṅkāro buddhir avyaktam eva ca |

mahābhūtāny ahaṁkāro buddhir avyaktam eva ca |
indriyāṇi daśaikaṁ ca pañca cendriya-gocarāḥ ||
icchā dveṣaḥ sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ saṁghātaś cetanā dhṛtiḥ |
etat kṣetraṁ samāsena sa-vikāram udāhṛtam ||
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: 13.5-6)

“The [five] gross elements (mahābhūtas), the ego (ahaṅkāra), the intellect (buddhi), the unmanifested [i.e., prakṛti], the ten senses and the one [additional one], the five objects of the senses, desire, aversion, happiness, suffering, the aggregate [i.e., the body], consciousness, and resolution—this in sum is said to be the field (kṣetra) along with its transformations.”

Read on →

mahābhūtāny ahaṅkāro buddhir avyaktam eva ca | Read on →

sa ya eṣo’ṇimaitadātmyam idaṁ sarvaṁ tat satyaṁ sa ātmā tat tvam asi śvetaketo

sa ya eṣo’ṇimaitadātmyam idaṁ sarvaṁ tat satyaṁ sa ātmā tat tvam asi śvetaketo … |
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 6.8.7)

“That which is this minuteness (aṇimā) [i.e., that which is the subtle basis of perceptible world]—this whole [perceptible world] is possessed of the nature of this [i.e., of this subtle-most existence]. That [i.e., that subtle-most existence which is the source of everything] is being (satya). That is the Self (Ātmā). You are that, O Śvetaketu.”

Read on →

sa ya eṣo’ṇimaitadātmyam idaṁ sarvaṁ tat satyaṁ sa ātmā tat tvam asi śvetaketo Read on →

tad evaṁ tat-kratu-nyāyena ca śuddha-bhaktānām anyā gatir nāsty eva

tad evaṁ tat-kratu-nyāyena ca śuddha-bhaktānām anyā gatir nāsty eva | śrutiś ca—‘yathā kratur asmin loke puruṣo bhavati, tathetaḥ pretya bhavati’ iti, kratur atra saṅkalpa iti bhāṣyakārāḥ | śruty-antaraṁ ca—‘sa yathā-kāmo bhavati, tat kratur bhavati | yat-kratur bhavati, tat karma kurute | yat karma kurute, tad abhisampadyate’ iti | anyac ca ‘yad yathā yathopāsate tad eva bhavanti’ iti | śrī-bhagavat-pratijñā ca—‘ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham’ iti | tathaiva brahma-vaivarte—‘yadi māṁ prāptum icchanti prāpnuvanty eva nānyathā’ iti | … tāḥ prati svayam abhyupagacchati—‘saṅkalpo viditaḥ sādhvyo …’ |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 51)

“Thus, in this way, by the ‘principle of like intention’ (tat-kratu-nyāya) [i.e., the principle that the result of a sacrifice will manifest in accord with the performer’s intention], pure bhaktas verily have no other attainment (gati) [i.e., they verily attain the prīti for Bhagavān that they aspire for along with a form, paraphernalia, service, and entrance into an abode of Bhagavān that are suited to that particular type of prīti]. The Śruti also [states this in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1], ‘As is a living being’s intention (kratu) in this world, so the living being becomes upon departing from here.’ Here, [the word] ‘intention’ (kratu) means ‘resolve’ (saṅkalpa) according to the commentator [i.e., Śrī Śaṅkarācāryapāda]. Another Śruti [i.e., Bṛhadārayaṇka Upaniṣad 4.4.5] also [states this], ‘As is one’s desire, so is one’s intention. As is one’s intention, so is the action one performs, and as is the action one performs, so is that which one attains [i.e., the result].’ Elsewhere also [in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 10.5.2.20], ‘As one worships [him], so indeed one becomes.’ Śrī Bhagavān’s vow as well [is stated in BG 4.11], ‘‘As they approach me, so exactly I reciprocate with them.’ Similarly in Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa [it is also stated by Śrī Bhagavān], ‘If they desire to attain me, they certain attain [me] and not otherwise.‘ … Śrī Bhagavān himself affirms [this principle] before them [i.e., before the gopīs] in saṅkalpo viditaḥ sādhvyo … [i.e., SB 10.22.25–26].”

Read on →

tad evaṁ tat-kratu-nyāyena ca śuddha-bhaktānām anyā gatir nāsty eva Read on →

yatra nānyat paśyati, nānyac chṛṇoti, nānyad vijānāti, sa bhūmā

yatra nānyat paśyati, nānyac chṛṇoti, nānyad vijānāti, sa bhūmā | atha yatrānyat paśyati, anyac chṛṇoti, anyad vijānāti, tad alpam| yo vai bhūmā tad amṛtam| atha yad alpaṁ tan martyam | sa bhagavaḥ kasmin pratiṣṭhita iti, sve mahimni, yadi vā, na mahimnīti ||
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 7.24.1)

[Sanat Kumāra:] “That wherein one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing else is the infinite, whereas that wherein one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else is the finite. That which is infinite is immortal, whereas that which is finite is mortal.”
[Nārada:] “O venerable one, in what is the infinite situated?”
[Sanat Kumāra:] “In its own greatness, and yet not in [its own] greatness [since it depends on nothing apart from itself].”

Read on →

yatra nānyat paśyati, nānyac chṛṇoti, nānyad vijānāti, sa bhūmā 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 →

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

tatra jīveśvarayor atyantābhede yugapad avidyā-vidyāśrayatvādy-anupapattiś ca Read on →

yo vai bhūmā tat sukhaṁ, nālpe sukham asti

yo vai bhūmā tat sukhaṁ, nālpe sukham asti |
bhūmaiva sukhaṁ, bhūmā tv eva vijijñāsitavya iti bhūmānaṁ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti || 
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 7.23.1)

[Sanat Kumāra]: “That which is infinite is happiness. There is no happiness in the finite [i.e., the minute, alt., the trifling]. Only the infinite is happiness. Indeed the infinite should be desired to be known in detail.” [Nārada:] “O venerable one, I desire to know the infinite in detail.”

Read on →

yo vai bhūmā tat sukhaṁ, nālpe sukham asti Read on →

rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā

rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā—suhṛt preṣṭhatamo nātha ātmā cāyaṁ śarīriṇām | taṁ vikrīyātmanaivāhaṁ rame’nena yathā ramā || atra svābhāvika-sauhṛdyādi-dharmais tasminn eva svābhāvika-patitvaṁ sthāpayitvā, parasyaupādhika-patitvam ity abhipretam | anyatra patyāv ‘ekatvaṁ sā gatā yasmāc caru-mantrāhuti-vrataiḥ’ iti chāndogya-pariśiṣṭānusāreṇa kṛtrimam ekātmatvam | tasmin paramātmani tu svabhāvata evety ātma-śabdasyāpy abhiprāyaḥ | evaṁ yadyapi tasmin patitvam anāhāryam evāsti, tathāpi ātmanaiva mūlya-bhūtenaiva taṁ viśeṣataḥ krītvā yathānyāpi kanyā vivāhātmakena svātma-samarpaṇena kañcit patitvenopādatte, tathā bhāvenāśritya anena parama-manohara-rūpeṇa tena saha rame ramā lakṣmīr yathā | tad evaṁ tasyā rāge piṅgalāyāḥ sva-rucir dyotitā ||
(Excerpted from Bhakti Sandarbha: 310)

“Taste for rāgātmikā [-bhakti] is as follows [as illustrated by a statement of Piṅgalā in SB 11.8.35], ‘He [i.e., Acyuta, Śrī Bhagavān,] is the friend (suhṛt), the most beloved (preṣṭhatama), the Lord (nātha), and the Self (ātmā) of all embodied beings. I shall purchase him by means of my very self and [thereby] enjoy with him like Ramā [i.e., Lakṣmī].’ In this regard, having established inherent (svābhāvika) husbandhood (patitvam) [i.e., capability to act as a husband in relation to a jīva] in him [i.e., Bhagavān] by means of his qualities of inherent friendship [i.e., his capability to act as a friend in relation to a jīva] and so forth, the conditional (aupādhika) husbandhood of others [i.e., of jīvas in saṁsāra who act as the husband of another embodied jīva] is intended [i.e., is meant to be conveyed by Piṅgalā’s statement in SB 11.8.35]. According to the Chāndogya-pariśiṣṭa, ‘She [i.e., a wife] has attained oneness (ekatvam) [with her husband] by virtue of caru [i.e., a type of oblation], mantras, rites, and vows,’ unitedness (ekātmatva) with other husbands is artificial (kṛtrima) [i.e., the unitedness of the jīva in the body of a woman with another jīva in the body of a man is a unitedness non-inherent in either of them that is created by rituals and resolutions], whereas in relation to Paramātmā, it [i.e., a jīva’s unitedness] is existent altogether inherently (svabhāvataḥ). This is the intention of the word ‘Self’ (Ātmā) as well [in SB 11.8.35, i.e., this is the intent of Piṅgalā’s statement that Acyuta is the Self of all embodied beings]. Thus, although husbandhood (patitva) is indeed non-adventitious in him [i.e., although Bhagavān’s capacity to act as a husband in relation to a jīva is not something some created but rather is an inherent capability in him], still [Piṅgalā states that] specially purchasing him by means of my very self, that is, [with myself] as the price, as other unmarried ladies also accept someone as [their] husband by means of the offering of oneself that constitutes [i.e., is known as] marriage, so I, taking shelter [in Bhagavān] by means of bhāva, shall enjoy with him, he of supremely attractive figure, like Ramā, that is, Lakṣmī. In this way, Piṅgalā’s own taste for her [i.e., Lakṣmī’s] rāga is thus illustrated.”

Read on →

rāgātmikāyāṁ rucir yathā Read on →

Type your query and press enter