परमात्मा परब्रह्म स एव परमेश्वरः ।
इत्येवमेषामैक्येन सजातीयभिदा हता ॥
paramātmā parabrahma sa eva parameśvaraḥ |
ity evam eṣām aikyena sajātīya-bhidā hatā ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.2.194)
“He specifically, Paramātmā, is Parabrahman and is the Supreme Īśvara. Thus, in this way, because of their oneness, an intraclass distinction (sajātīya-bhidā) is negated.”
Commentary
nanv evaṁ jīva-tattvānāṁ sadā pṛthak-sattoktyā para-brahmaṇi sajātīya-bhedaḥ prasajyeta | sa ca ‘ekam advayam’ ity-ādi tat-svarūpa-nirūpaṇena nirasyamānatvān nopapadyate; satyaṁ, tat tu sajātīya-vijātīya-bheda-rāhityam anyathā sidhyatīty āhuḥ—paramātmeti dvayena | ya eva paramātmā sarva-jīvāntaryāmī, sa eva parabrahma, sa eva parameśvaraś ca | evaṁ parameśvarasyāpi guṇa-līlāvatāra-bhedena ye viśeṣās te’pi sa evety ūhyam | ity evam anena prakāreṇa | eṣāṁ paramātma-parabrahma-parameśvarāṇāṁ tad-avatārāṇāṁ ca bhinnatvena pratīyamānānām api aikyena bhedābhāvena katham api kutracit svabhāva-rāhityābhāvāt sajātīya-bhidā, sarveṣāṁ sac-cid-ānanda-ghanatvena nānātvena ca pratīyamānā yā samāna-jātīyā bhidā bhedo hatā naṣṭā ity evam ekam iti siddham |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, because of the statement of eternal separate existence of jīva-entities [from Parabrahman] in such manner, an intraclass distinction (sajātīya-bheda) shall arise in Parabrahman, and that, furthermore, is not suitable because of [its] being refuted by the delineation of the essential nature (svarūpa) of that [i.e., of Parabrahman] as per [the statement regarding Parabrahman’s essential nature], ‘One and non-dual.’ [To that, it is replied,] True. Thus, they [i.e., the personified bhakti-śāstras who are speaking] say with two [verses, beginning] Paramātmā … [i.e., BB 2.2.194–195] that the absence of intraclass and interclass distinction (sajātīya- and vijātīya-bheda) [in Parabrahman] is indeed established elsewhere. He specifically who is Paramātmā, that is, the Inner Regulator (Antaryāmī) of all jīvas, is indeed Parabrahman, and he specifically is the Supreme Īśvara. Thus, even those who are particular manifestations (viśeṣas) of even the Supreme Īśvara as per the divisions [of his manifestations] known as guṇa- and līlā-avatāras are to be inferred to be him specifically. ‘Thus’ (iti) ‘in this way’ (evam), ‘because of their oneness’ (eṣām aikyena), that is, because of the non-existence of distinction between Paramātmā, Parabrahman, Parameśvara and his avatāras even while they are regarded as being distinct [from one another], an ‘intraclass distinction’ (sajātīya-bhidā), that is, a distinction between all of they who are regarded as being constituted of condensed eternal being, consciousness, and bliss and [regarded] as being different [from one another] on account of the non-occurrence of [their] non-possession of [respectively unique] personal natures (svabhāvas) anywhere at any time [i.e., on account of their always and everywhere remaining possessed of their own respective unique personal natures], is ‘negated’ (hatā). Thus, in this way, it is established that they are one [i.e. there is no intraclass distinction (sajātīya-bhidā) between them].”