Chāndogya Upaniṣad – Page 2

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

yadā vai sukhaṁ labhate’tha karoti

yadā vai sukhaṁ labhate’tha karoti, nāsukhaṁ labdhvā karoti, sukham eva labdhvā karoti |
sukhaṁ tv eva vijijñāsitavyam iti sukhaṁ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti ||
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 7.22.1)

[Sanat Kumāra:] “Certainly when one attains happiness, then one acts. Upon attaining unhappiness, one does not act. Only upon attaining happiness does one act. Indeed happiness is to be desired to be known in depth.” [Nārada:] “O venerable one, I desire to know happiness in depth.”

Read on →

āhāra-śuddhau sattva-śuddhau

āhāra-śuddhau sattva-śuddhiḥ, sattva-śuddhau dhruvā smṛtiḥ, smṛti-lambhe sarva-granthīnāṁ vipramokṣaḥ |
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 7.26.2)

“When there is purity of food, there is purity of mind. When there is purity of mind, there is steadfast remembrance. When there is retention of remembrance, there is definitive and complete release from all entanglements.”

Read on →

yaṁ yam antam abhikāmo

yaṁ yam antam abhikāmo bhavati yaṁ kāmaṁ kāmayate so’sya saṅkalpād eva samuttiṣṭhati tena sampanno mahīyate ||
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 8.2.10)

“Whatever final wish one has, and whatever object of desire one engenders desire for, that, just because of one’s resolve, manifests in full, and endowed with that, one becomes gladdened.”

Read on →