शालग्रामादिकं तत्तद्भगवदाकाराधिष्ठानमिति चिन्त्यम्, आकारवैलक्षण्यात्, शालग्रामशिला यत्र तत्र सन्निहितो हरिः इत्याद्युक्तेः । तत्र च स्वेष्टाकारस्यैव भगवतोऽधिष्ठानं सुष्ठु सिद्धिकरम्, तस्मिन्नेवायत्नतस्तदीयप्राकट्यात्, ‘मूर्त्याभिमतयात्मनः’ इत्युक्तेः । … अथ श्रीमत्प्रतिमायां तु तदाकारकरूपतयैव चिन्तयन्ति, आकारैक्यात्, ‘शिलाबुद्धिः कृता किं वा प्रतिमायां हरेर्मया’ इति भावनान्तरे दोषश्रवणाच्च ।
śālagrāmādikaṁ tat-tad-bhagavad-ākārādhiṣṭhānam iti cintyam, ākāra-vailakṣaṇyāt, śālagrāma-śilā yatra tatra sannihito hariḥ ity-ādy-ukteḥ | tatra ca sveṣṭākārasyaiva bhagavato’dhiṣṭhānaṁ suṣṭhu siddhikaram, tasminn evāyatnatas tadīya-prākaṭyāt, ‘mūrtyābhimatayātmanaḥ’ ity ukteḥ | … atha śrīmat-pratimāyāṁ tu tad-ākāraka-rūpatayaiva cintayanti, ākāraikyāt, ‘śilā-buddhiḥ kṛtā kiṁ vā pratimāyāṁ harer mayā’ iti bhāvanāntare doṣa-śravaṇāc ca |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 286)
“A Śālagrāma and so forth is to be conceived of as an existential seat (adhiṣṭhāna) of a particular figure (ākāra) of Bhagavān [i.e., not as an actual form of Bhagavān himself] because of dissimilarly of figure [i.e., because Śālagrāma stones do not resemble Bhagavān’s personal figure], and because of statements such as, ‘Where there is a Śālagrāma stone, there Hari is present.’ Therein, furthermore, [to meditate on a Śālagrāma and so forth as] an existential seat (adhiṣṭhāna) of one’s own desired figure of Bhagavān [i.e., one Iṣṭa-devatā] is highly efficacious because of his [i.e., one’s Iṣṭa-devatā’s] manifestation without effort [on the part of the sādhaka] there in particular [i.e., in that Śālagrāma or other object of worship], as per the statement [in SB 11.3.48], ‘[Worship the Supreme Puruṣa] In the form wished for by oneself.’ … Now, in the case of the sacred Deity, it [i.e., the deity] is conceived of as a form of his figure itself [i.e., as a form that are non-different from Śrī Bhagavān’s own figure] because of the oneness of figure [i.e., because a deity resembles Śrī Bhagavān’s own figure, unlike Śālagrāma stones and other existential seats of Bhagavān that do not], and because of hearing [in śāstra] of the fault of thinking otherwise [i.e., of not thinking the Deity is non-different from Śrī Bhagavān’s figure], [as evidenced in a statement of Mahārāja Daśaratha in which he wonders why he suffers the fate of being cursed to be deprived of his son], ‘Has the mentality of [considering] the Deity of Hari to be stone been fostered by me?’”