नाम चिन्तामणिः कृष्णश्चैतन्यरसविग्रहः ।
पूर्णः शुद्धो नित्यमुक्तोऽभिन्नत्वान्नामनामिनोः ॥
nāma cintāmaṇiḥ kṛṣṇaś caitanya-rasa-vigrahaḥ |
pūrṇaḥ śuddho nitya-mukto’bhinnatvān nāma-nāminoḥ ||
(Padma Purāṇa; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 11.503; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.233; Bhagavat Sandarbha: 47; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.17.133)
“[Translated according to the interpretation of Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmīpāda:] The name is a thought-jewel, Kṛṣṇa [himself], an embodiment of consciousness and rasa, complete, pure, and eternally liberated, because of the name and the bearer of the name being non-different.”
“[Translated according to the interpretation of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmīpāda:] The name is a thought-jewel and Kṛṣṇa [himself], who is an embodiment of consciousness and rasa, complete, pure, and eternally liberated, because of the name and the bearer of the name being non-different.”
Commentary
kṛṣṇeti nāma cintāmaṇir iva cintāmaṇiḥ | sevakasya cintitārtha-pradatvāt | kṛṣṇa-nāmnaḥ svarūpam āha—caitanyety-ādi-viśeṣaṇa-catuṣkeṇa | yadyapi nāma-viśeṣaṇatvena caitanya-rasa-vigrahādi-padānāṁ napuṁsakatvam upayujyate, tathāpi nāma-nāminor abheda-vivakṣayā kṛṣṇa ity asya viśeṣaṇatvena puṁstvaṁ, yathā ‘nārāyaṇo nāma naro narāṇāṁ prasiddha-cauraḥ kathitaḥ pṛthivyām’ ity ādi |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa)
“The name Kṛṣṇa is a thought-jewel, that is, like a thought-jewel, because of [its] being a bestower of the objects thought of by a worshiper. The speaker describes the nature (svarūpa) of Kṛṣṇa’s name with the four qualifiers: caitanya … and so forth. Although neutrality (napuṁsakatva) [i.e., the neuter grammatical gender) is used in the words caitanya-rasa-vigrahaḥ and so forth [i.e., pūrṇaḥ, śuddhaḥ, and nitya-muktaḥ] on account of [their] being qualifiers of the name, still [the word] Kṛṣṇa has masculinity [i.e., is in the masculine grammatical gender] because of [its] being [also] a qualifier [of the name even though it has a different grammatical gender] based on the intention [of the speaker] to convey the non-difference between the name and the bearer of the name (nāmin) [which is shown in the final foot of the verse, and], as [is seen] in [this verse from Vāmana Purāṇa, cited in HBV 11.321, wherein the masculine gendered name Nārāyaṇa is in apposition with the neuter gendered word nāma], ‘O human beings! The name Nārāyaṇa is said to be the most renowned thief among human beings on the earth [as he carries away completely the heaps of sin accumulated over the course of many births even when he is just heard of].’”
nāmaiva cintāmaṇiḥ sarvābhīṣṭa-dāyakaṁ, yatas tad eva kṛṣṇaḥ kṛṣṇasya svarūpam ity arthaḥ | kṛṣṇasya viśeṣaṇāni caitanyety ādīni | tasya kṛṣṇatve hetuḥ abhinnatvād iti | ekam eva sac-cid-ānanda-rasādi-rūpaṁ tattvaṁ dvidhāvirbhūtam ity arthaḥ | viśeṣa-jijñāsā cet śrī-bhāgavata-sandarbhasya śrī-bhagavat-sandarbho dṛśyaḥ |
(Durgama-saṅgamanī-ṭīkā)
“The name itself is a thought-jewel, that is, a bestower of all desired objects, since it is verily Kṛṣṇa, that is, a form of Kṛṣṇa. This is the meaning. ‘Consciousness’ (caitanya) and so forth [i.e., the words rasa, ‘complete’ (pūrṇa), ‘pure’ (śuddha), and ‘eternally liberated’ (nitya-mukta)] are qualifiers of ‘Kṛṣṇa.’ The cause of its [i.e., the name’s] being Kṛṣṇa is ‘because of [the name and Kṛṣṇa] being non-different’ (abhinnatvāt). One entity (tattva), alone, the nature of which is eternal being, consciousness, bliss, rasa, and so forth, is manifest in two forms [i.e., as Kṛṣṇa himself and as his name]. This is the meaning. If one has further inquisitiveness, Śrī Bhagavat Sandarbha of Śrī Bhāgavata Sandarbha is to be seen.”
na tu parameśvarasyaiva tat-tad-yogyatā-sambhavād varṇa-mātrasya tathoktiḥ stuti-rūpaiveti mantavyam avatārāntaravat parameśvarasyaiva varṇa-rūpeṇāvatāro’yam iti asminn arthe tenaiva śruti-balenāṅgīkṛte tad-abhedena tat-sambhavāt | tasmān nāma-nāminor abheda eva | nāma cintāmaṇiḥ kṛṣṇaś caitanya-rasa-vigrahaḥ | pūrṇaḥ śuddho nitya-mukto’bhinnatvān nāma-nāminoḥ || iti || asyārthaḥ—nāmaiva cintāmaṇiḥ, sarvārtha-dātṛtvāt | na kevalaṁ tādṛśam eva, api tu caitanyety-ādi-lakṣaṇo yaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, sa eva sākṣāt | tatra hetuḥ—abhinnatvād iti |
(Excerpt from Bhagavat Sandarbha: 47)
“It is not, rather, that such a statement [i.e., the statement in the aforementioned verse in Padma Purāṇa] about only a syllable [viz., Om, a name of Parameśvara, Bhagavān] should be considered only a form of praise [i.e., to not refer to practically existent characteristics of that syllable, viz., Om], because of the [supposed] possibility of only Parameśvara having such capability [i.e., the capabilities of being transcendental, imperishable, and so on, as described in the aforementioned verse], on account of the [real] possibility of that [capability existing in Om itself] by virtue of its [i.e., Om’s] non-difference [from Parameśvara] when solely on the strength of the Śruti [i.e., the authority of the śāstra] this meaning is accepted, ‘This avatāra of Parameśvara himself in the form of a letter [i.e., Om] is like [his] other avatāras [i.e., is possessed of the same capabilities that they are].’ Therefore, non-difference between the name and the bearer of the name verily exists. This is stated in Padma Purāṇa: ‘The name is a thought-jewel and Kṛṣṇa [himself], who is an embodiment of consciousness and rasa, complete, pure, and eternally liberated, because of the name and the bearer of the name being non-different.’ The meaning of this [verse] is that the name itself is a thought-jewel because of [its] being a giver of all objects. And it is not only such. Rather, it is also directly Kṛṣṇa, who is possessed of the characteristics of consciousness (caitanya) and so forth. The cause of this is ‘because of [the name and the bearer of the name] being non-different (abhinnatvāt).’”