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.”
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].”
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].”
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.’”
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].”
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].”
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.”
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.”
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān |
taṁ pīṭhagaṁ ye’nubhajanti dhīrās
teṣāṁ sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ netareṣām ||
(Gopāla Tāpanī Upaniṣad: 1.20; cited in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha 106)
“The Eternal among eternals, the Conscious Being among conscious beings, although one, fulfills the desires of the multitudes. The joy [i.e., siddhi, attainment] of the resolute who worship him situated at the [yoga-] pītha is ever-lasting; that of others is not.”
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.”
