सदा वैजात्यमाप्तानां जीवानामपि तत्त्वतः ।
अंशत्वेनाप्यभिन्नत्वाद्विजातीयभिदा मृता ॥
sadā vaijātyam āptānāṁ jīvānām api tattvataḥ |
aṁśatvenāpy abhinnatvād vijātīya-bhidā mṛtā ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.2.195)
“Because of even the jīvas who are eternally possessed of categorical distinctiveness (vaijātya) [in relation to Parabrahman] being [nevertheless] non-distinct [from Parabrahman] by virtue of [their] also being a part (aṁśa) [of Parabrahman] in essential nature (tattvataḥ), an interclass distinction (vijātīya-bhidā) [in regard to Parabrahman] is quashed.”
Commentary
advayam ity api sādhayanti—sadeti | vaijātyaṁ paricchinnatvādi-bhedena vijātīyatvaṁ visadṛśatām āptānāṁ jīvānāṁ jīva-tattvānāṁ tattvataḥ paramārthataḥ abhinnatvād bhedābhāvāt, cid-vilāsa-śakti-kṛtatvena teṣām api tādṛktvāt, tathā aṁśi-dharmāṇām aṁśeṣu saṅgatatvād aṁśatvenāpy abhinnatvād vijātīya-rūpā bhidā naṣṭā |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“They [i.e., the personified bhakti-śāstras] establish non-duality as well: sadā … [i.e., they speak this verse]. Because of the jīvas, that is, the essential nature (tattva) of the jīvas—who are possessed of ‘categorical distinctiveness’ (vaijātyam), that is, possessed of being different in class, meaning, possessed of dissimilarity [from Parabrahman], because of [their] distinction [from Parabrahman] of being limited and so forth—[the jīvas’] being [nevertheless] non-distinct, that is, not having a distinction [from Parabrahman] ‘in essential nature’ (tattvataḥ), that is, in the ultimate sense, because of their also being like him by virtue of [their] being [beginninglessly] established [in their existence] by means of the śakti which is a manifestation of consciousness [i.e., by means of the mahāyoga-śakti, viz., the cit-śakti known as yogamāyā, aforementioned in BB 2.2.185], and so also [because of their] being non-different [from Parabrahman] by virtue of [their] also being a part (aṁśa) [of Parabrahman] on account of the qualities (dharmas) of the Whole (Aṁśī) [viz., Parabrahman] being included in parts (aṁśas) [of the whole], an interclass (vijātīya) form of distinction [in regard to Parabrahman] is quashed.”