मुक्तिर्हित्वान्यथारूपं स्वरूपेण व्यवस्थिति: ॥
muktir hitvānyathā-rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ |
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.10.6)
“Mukti is fixity in natural form (svarūpa) after having given up contrary form.”
Commentary
anyathā-rūpam avidyayādhyastaṁ kartṛtvādi hitvā svarūpeṇa brahmatayā vyavasthitir muktiḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“Mukti is fixity in ‘natural form’ (svarūpa), that is, in the nature of Brahman, after having given up ‘contrary form’ (anyathā-rūpa), that is, the doership and so forth ascribed [to the self (ātmā)] because of ignorance (avidyā).”
anyathā-rūpam avidyādhyastam ajñatvādikaṁ hitvā svarūpeṇa vyavasthitir muktiḥ |
(Excerpt from Tattva Sandarbha: 57)
“Mukti is fixity in ‘natural form’ (svarūpa), after having given up ‘contrary form’ (anyathā-rūpa), that is, the state of unknowing (ajñatva) and so forth imposed [on the self (ātmā)] because of ignorance (avidyā).”
anyathā-rūpaṁ māyikaṁ sthūla-sūkṣma-rūpa-dvayaṁ hitvā svarūpeṇa śuddha-jīva-svarūpeṇa, keṣāñcid bhagavat-pārṣada-rūpeṇa ca, vyavasthitir muktir iti |
(Sārārtha-darśinī)
“Mukti is fixity in ‘natural form’ (svarūpa), that is, in the true form (svarūpa) of a pure jīva, or, for some [i.e., those who have either beginninglessly been siddhas, or, those who have attained siddhi through grace and sādhana, or grace alone], [it is fixity] in the form of an associate of Bhagavān [which is not a form inherent in the jīva’s nature but rather one that is most natural to the jīva’s nature, meaning, most suited to be bestowed upon the jīva because it is most conducive to full realization of the jīva’s potential], after having given up ‘contrary form’ (anyathā-rūpa), that is, the two—the gross and the subtle—māyika forms [i.e., the material body and psyche].”
muktir iti bhagavad-vaimukhyānugatayāvidyayā racitam anyathā-rūpaṁ deva-mānavādi-bhāvaṁ hitvā tat-sāmmukhyānupravṛttayā tad-bhaktyā vināśya, svarūpeṇāpahata-pāpmatvādi-guṇāṣṭaka-viśiṣṭena jīva-svarūpeṇa jīvasya vyavasthitir viśiṣṭā punar āvṛtti-śūnyā bhagavat-sannidhau sthitir muktir ity arthaḥ |
(Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his commentary on Tattva Sandarbha: 57)
“The fixity (vyavasthiti) of the jīva in ‘natural form’ (svarūpa), that is, in the jīva’s natural form (svarūpa) replete with the eight equalities of being free from sin and so forth [as described in Chāndogya Upaniṣad: 8.7.1], that is, the state (sthiti) in proximity to Bhagavān characterized (vi) by the absence of re-birth (ava) after having given up, that is, destroyed by means of bhakti to Bhagavān following from intentness (sāmmukhya) upon him, ‘contrary form’ (anyathā-rūpa), that is, the state of [being] a deva, human, or otherwise, created by ignorance (avidyā) ensuing from obliviousness (vaimukhya) of Bhagavān. This is the meaning.”
All of the aforementioned commentaries on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam’s definition of mukti explain “natural form” (svarūpa) as being referent to the true nature of the jīva. In the following passage from Prīti Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī again reiterates this understanding of the term svarūpa and offers an additional one: he explains that the term svarūpa also refers to Paramātmā, that is, the Para-tattva. In this view, the term mukti more specifically connotes attainment of the Para-tattva, manifest either as Brahman or Bhagavān, and when the term svarūpa is read from this viewpoint, it would call for an alternately translation, such as “Original Form,” or something else akin to this sense, though below it has been left untranslated when this second view is discussed.
atha ‘muktir hitvānyathā-rūpaṁ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitir’ ity etad api tat-tulyārtham eva, yataḥ svarūpeṇa vyavasthitir nāma svarūpa-sākṣātkāra ucyate, tad-avasthāna-mātrasya saṁsāra-daśāyām api sthitatvāt, anyathā-rūpatvasya ca tad-ajñāna-mātrārthatvena tad-dhānau taj-jñāna-paryavasānāt | svarūpaṁ cātra mukhyaṁ paramātma-lakṣaṇam eva | raśmi-paramāṇūnāṁ sūrya iva sa eva hi jīvānāṁ paramo’ṁśi-svarūpaḥ | … atrāṁśenāṁśi-prāptiś ca dvidhā yojanīyā | tatrādyā brahma-prāptir māyā-vṛtty-avidyā-nāśānantaraṁ kevala-tat-svarūpa-śakti-lakṣaṇa-tad-vijñānāvirbhāva-mātram | sā ca sva-sthāna eva vā syāt | krameṇa sarva-loka-sarvāvaraṇātikramānantaraṁ vā syāt, upāsanā-viśeṣānusāreṇa | dvitīyā bhagavat-prāptiś ca, tasya vibhor apy asarva-prakaṭasya tasminn evāvirbhāvena, vibhunāpi vaikuṇṭhe sarva-prakaṭena tenācintya-śaktinā sva-caraṇāravinda-sānnidhya-prāpaṇayā ca | tad evaṁ sthite, sā ca muktir utkrānta-daśāyāṁ jīva-daśāyām api bhavati | utkrāntasyopādhy-abhāve’pi tadīya-sva-prakāśatā-lakṣaṇa-dharmāvyavadhānasyaitat-sākṣātkāra-rūpatvāt, jīvatas tat-sākṣātkāreṇa māyā-kalpitasyānyathā-bhāvasya mithyātvāvabhāsāt, saiṣā muktir evātyantika-puruṣārthatayopadiśyate—‘tatrāpi mokṣa evārtha …’ iti śrī-pṛthuṁ prati śrī-sanat-kumāreṇa | … tad evaṁ parama-tattva-sākṣātkārātmakasya tasya mokṣasya parama-puruṣārthatve sthite punar vivicyate |
(Excerpt from Prīti Sandarbha: 1)
“Then, [the statement in SB 2.10.6], ‘Mukti is fixity in natural form (svarūpa) after having given up contrary form (anyathā-rūpa)’—this too is verily equivalent in meaning to that [i.e., to the statement in SB 12.4.34], since fixity in natural form (svarūpa) itself is [what is] called direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of natural form (svarūpa) because of simply existing in that [i.e., in one’s natural form (svarūpa), on the contrary,] being occurrent even in the state of saṁsāra [i.e., bondage, the opposite of mukti,] and because of acquisition of knowledge of that [i.e., of one’s natural form (svarūpa)] occurring [only] upon the abandonment of contrary form (anyathā-rūpa) as a result of that [i.e., ‘contrary form‘ (anyathā-rūpa)] being in meaning simply ignorance of that [i.e., of one’s natural form (svarūpa)]. Now, furthermore, [the term] Svarūpa primarily is an indicator of Paramātmā [rather than the ātmā, i.e., the svarūpa of the jīva] since he [i.e., Paramātmā] alone is in nature the Ultimate Whole (parama-aṁśi-svarūpa) of the jīvas [i.e., the Whole of whom the jīvas are parts] just as the sun is [the whole and source] of particles within the rays of [its] light.
“Now, the twofold attainment of the Whole (aṁśī) by a part (aṁśa) [i.e., the twofold attainment by the jīva of a special state of fixity in relation to the Whole, that is, the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), who is referred to by the term Svarūpa in the aforementioned definition of mukti] is also to be construed [i.e., understood to be alluded to in the aforementioned definition of mukti]. Therein, the first [type of attainment of the Whole, that is, the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), by a part, that is, a jīva, viz.], attainment of Brahman, is simply the appearance of specific awareness (vijñāna) of that [i.e., of the Whole, the Supreme Entity], which is of the nature solely of the intrinsic potency (svarūpa-śakti) thereof [i.e., which is a manifestation solely of the svarūpa-śakti belonging to the Supreme Entity, and not a manifestation of the Supreme Entity as śaktimān, the person who is the bearer of that intrinsic potency (svarūpa-śakti)], after the destruction of māyā’s functions of ignorance (avidyā) and knowledge (vidyā). In accord with one’s particular upāsanā, that [i.e., such attainment of Brahman] may occur [while one is] in one’s own position [i.e., while one still remains in the condition where one performed one’s upāsanā], or may occur after gradually crossing beyond all planes and all coverings [i.e., after passing beyond all aspects of the realm of saṁsāra]. The second [type of attainment of the Whole, that is, the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), by a part, that is, a jīva, viz.], attainment of Bhagavān, furthermore, occurs either by the appearance only to him [i.e., a bhakta] of he who is not manifest to all even though he is all-pervading [i.e., of Bhagavān], or, [it occurs] by the bestowal by he who is possessed of inconceivably potency and manifest to all [only] in Vaikuṇṭha [i.e., by the bestowal upon a bhakta by Bhagavān, who is manifest only in Vaikuṇṭha] even though he is all-pervading, of nearness to his own lotus feet [in Vaikuṇṭha]. Thus existent in this way, that mukti [i.e., mukti of the two aforementioned types and subtypes] occurs [i.e., can occur] in the departed state [i.e., after death] and in the living state [i.e., or while still embodied]. Because of non-obstruction of his nature, the character of which is self-manifestness, being indicative of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him [i.e., of the aforementioned the Whole, that is, the Supreme Entity, manifest either as Brahman or Bhagavān] even in the absence of the adjuncts (upādhis) of one who has departed [i.e., because it is not just the removal of upādhis from a jīva who has departed from the gross and subtle bodies but rather the aforementioned Supreme Entity’s self-manifestness that is the cause of a jīva who has departed having direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him], and because of the revelation of the unreality (mithyātva) of the contrary (anyathā) state (bhāva) of a living being [i.e., the ‘contrary form’ (anyathā-rūpa) of an embodied jīva] fabricated by māyā [that occurs concomitantly with direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of him], that mukti [i.e., mukti as defined above] is taught as being the ultimate puruṣārtha by Śrī Sanat Kumāra to Śrī Pṛthu: tatrāpi mokṣa evārtha … [in SB 4.22.35]. … Thus, in this way, with that mokṣa [i.e., mokṣa as aforementioned], constituted of direct perception (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), established as the supreme puruṣārtha, further examination [of the nature of mokṣa] is now done.”