 | The authors next cite a text of the Vedānta-sūtra as evidence for their case:
|
| Vedānta-sūtra (2.1.35) ...states that the karma of the living entity is beginningless, na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt. If someone says that the theory of karma cannot explain the inequality seen in the world, arguing that everyone had the same karma at the beginning of creation, this is not true because karma is beginningless.(8).
|
| The English translation of the sūtra quoted above is much larger than the Sanskrit. This is because the authors include in their translation what they consider to be the purport of the ācāryas. And yet, if we are to proceed along lines consistent with the authors’ own statements, we must examine their interpretative translation in terms of both the literal sense of the sūtra and the commentaries of the ācāryas. Since the Vedānta-sūtras are, by definition, extremely terse expressions of the highest truth, we must also grasp the context of each sūtra. In general, the meaning of sūtras depends greatly on context, as we can see with other sūtras, such as those of Pāņini.
|
| Considering all of the above, we shall first examine the context of Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.35, then give a literal definition of Vs. 2.1.35 and then study the commentaries of two great Vaiṣņava ācāryas.
|
| Sūtra 2.1.35 is the thirty-fifth sūtra in the first pāda, or subdivision, of the second adhyāya, or main division, of Vedānta. This first pāda of the second adhyāya, according to both Rāmānujācārya and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa, refutes various philosophical attempts to deny that Brahman, the Absolute, is the creator of the world. It also refutes suggestions that if He were the creator, the Lord would be responsible for and even subject to the defects of this world, since a cause is somehow present in its effects.
|
| In the course of this debate and just before 2.1.35, the Vedānta argues at 2.1.34:
|
| vaiṣamya-naighṛṇye na sāpekṣatvāt tathā hi darśayati
(In opposition to 2.1.34)(9)
|
| “Not inequality and cruelty, because of having consideration. Thus indeed it demonstrates.”
|
| Both ācāryas (Rāmānuja and Baladeva) state that this sūtra declares that one cannot criticize or argue against God by saying that, as the creator of the world, He is responsible for its suffering and therefore He must be guilty of inequality and cruelty. The Lord is not guilty of such base qualities because, as the Upaniṣads surely demonstrate, the Lord rewards and punishes the living beings with due consideration of their good and evil deeds.
|
| Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa’s Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.34
|
| We will translate here Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa’s commentary on this sūtra (2.1.34). The commentary consists of a typical dialogue between an objector and Baladeva himself(10):
|
| Objector: In Brahman, in the creator there is the fault of unfairness and cruelty.
|
| Baladeva: No.
|
| Objector: How so?
|
| Baladeva: Because He has consideration, because the Creator considers activity. The words tathā hi [in this sūtra] indicate the evidence:
|
| “He alone causes him to perform sādhu-karma, for He desires to lead him up from the worlds of Yama. He alone causes him to perform asādhu-karma, and he is led down to Yama.” (Bŗhad-āraņyaka-śrutiḥ)
|
| “In the midst of showing the Lord to be the instrumental cause* of kṣetra-jñas’ acquiring the state of gods, etc., [this śruti verse] refers to karma, ‘activity.’ That is the meaning.”
|
| As we see in Baladeva’s commentary, and as the sūtra itself makes clear, the main defense against the charge of divine partiality and cruelty is that the Lord considers the activity of the living beings and thus grants them what they deserve. The word karma in Baladeva’s commentary has a material or a spiritual sense, as we shall demonstrate later. The spiritual sense of the word karma can be seen in the Bhagavad-gītā, in which Lord Kŗṣņa calls His own transcendental activity karma:
|
| “One who understands My divine birth and activity...”(12)
(Bg. 4.9)
|
| The next Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.35, the one cited by the authors, uses a form of the word anādi:
|
| na karmāvibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt
(In opposition to 2.1.35)(13)
|
| “Not activity. Because of nondistinction. If thus (one objects, we reply:) ‘No, because of beginninglessness.’”
|
| The authors translate the above sūtra as follows:
|
| If someone says that the theory of karma cannot explain the inequality seen in the world, arguing that everyone had the same karma at the beginning of creation, this is not true because karma is beginningless.(14)
|
| However, as shown in the literal translation, this sūtra does not state, as the authors claim,”because karma is beginningless.” We shall continue to study Baladeva’s commentary on this section, in order to grasp what it is that must be beginningless in order to establish the Lord’s impartiality.
|
| Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa’s Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.35(15)
|
| Objector: But from [a consideration of the jīva’s] action, there would be no refutation of [the Lord’s fault of] inequality, etc.
|
| Baladeva: How so?
|
| Objector: From the nondistinction of action [before this creation]. Because in verses like”sad eva saumya idam...”(16) [it is said that] before the creation there is no perception of an entity distinct from Brahman, who would perform activity (karma).(17)
|
| Baladeva: If this [argument is made, the answer is] no.
|
| Objector: How so?
|
| Baladeva: Because for activity (karma), for living entities (kṣetra-jñas) and for Brahman there is acceptance of beginninglessness. There is no fault because, according to each previous action, there is the occurrence of a subsequent action. And [for this we have the evidence of] smŗti:
|
| “‘Viṣņu causes [the soul] to perform pious and sinful actions according to [the soul’s] previous action. And because of the beginninglessness of action, there is no contradiction at all.’”(18)
|
| However [if someone objects that] by action’s condition of being anādi there will be no stable position(19) [since there will be an infinite regress of statements to explain the jīva’s situation, then we say that] there is no fault because it is based on evidence. Nor is it the case that the Lord lacks independence because He gives consideration to action. From smŗti, by verses such as dravyaṁ karma ca kālaś ca, [it is seen that] the existence of action, etc., is dependent on the Lord.
|
| Nor should the [objection of] ‘morning in the kuṭī by the ghaṭ’ be stated here.(20)
|
| According to the beginningless jīva’s nature, [the Lord] causes him to perform activity. Although able to make [the jīva’s] nature otherwise, the Lord does not make anyone’s [nature different].
|
| [The accusation of] inequality, etc., in Brahman is refuted.
|
| That [inequality] in the form of taking the devotee’s side is now [however] accepted. Fully protecting the devotee and checking his material desires [are a kind of] inequality in the Supreme. Or [it is] not, for [inequality] would not exist from the Lord’s consideration of activity, even from His protecting the devotees from sense gratification, etc. This follows logically from the preceding principle [that the Lord fairly reciprocates with the jīva].
|
| It is significant that Baladeva here gives the Lord’s dealings with His devotees as an example of considering the actions (karma) of the living beings. Thus in Baladeva’s argument, the word karma seems to be used in the literal sense of”action.” One may argue that the Lord’s activities of protecting the devotees apply to devotees in the material world and not in the spiritual world. But the Lord protects His pure devotees when they descend to the material world from the spiritual world. And even in the spiritual world, we cannot deny that the Lord protects His devotees.
|
| In his commentary on the next sūtra, Baladeva continues to claim that the Lord’s consideration of the jīva’s actions includes consideration of devotional service. Indeed, he emphasizes the point. Below we give sūtra 2.1.36, a literal translation, and finally, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa’s commentary.
|
| upapadyate cābhyupalabhyate ca
(In opposition to 2.1.36)(21)
|
| “It is reasonable, and it is observed also.”
|
| Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa’s Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.36(22)
|
| It is simply inequality when this Lord, who is affectionate to His devotees, takes their side. [But] that is reasonable and it is valid. [For example, it holds] from His protecting the devotee, because of the Lord’s consideration of bhakti, which is the function of the energy of the [soul’s] own nature (svarūpa).
|
| This is not a contradiction of the speaker’s claim that the Lord is free of the fault [of partiality], because partiality in that form is being praised as a good quality.
|
| Even thus the śruti has stated, ‘This decoration of good qualities...’ without which [quality of partiality to His loving devotees], all [other] qualities, not appealing to the people, would not be motivators.
|
| This is observed also in the śrutis:
|
| “By he alone whom the Lord chooses, the Lord is to be obtained. To him this Soul reveals His own body.”(23)»
[Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.3]
|
| And in other such śrutis. [And in the Bhagavad-gītā]
|
| “I am exceedingly dear to the jñānī, and he is dear to Me.”
|
| “I am equal to all beings. I have neither hatred nor special favor. But those who worship Me with devotion are in Me and I am also in them.”
|
| “Even if one of very bad behavior worships Me with no other object [of devotion], he is to be considered saintly, for he is rightly situated.”
|
| “Quickly he becomes a righteous soul and attains lasting peace. Kaunteya, declare that My devotee does not perish!”
|
| “And thus in such smŗtis”
|
| In the verses Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa has quoted from śruti and smŗti, and in his own statements, it is eminently clear that he considers bhakti, devotional service to the Lord, to be a prime example of the type of karma, action, with which the Lord reciprocates. Thus the Lord’s so-called partiality toward His devotees is actually His fair reciprocation with their own devotion for Him. The Lord reciprocates with every act of the living entity, material or spiritual, not just materially pious and impious actions. It is this consideration of the jīva’s actions and the consequential reciprocation by the Lord that is anādi, or beginningless (and endless, as well). And it is also clear that Baladeva is not speaking merely of mixed devotional service performed on the conditional or even mundane platform, for he says in his commentary on this verse:
|
| “The Lord considers the devotion, which exists as the function of the energy of the constitutional position (svarūpa) of the soul.”(24)
|
| We should also keep in mind that the topic here is the nature of the Lord and not the origin of the conditioned state of the living entity. Is the Lord fair or unfair in His dealings with the living beings? We learn that He is fair, because of His beginningless consideration of the actions (spiritual or material) of the living entities. This clear focus on the character of the Lord continues in Baladeva’s commentary on the final sūtra of this section (2.1) of the Vedānta-sūtra, as we shall now demonstrate.
|
| sarva-dharmopapatte ca(25)
(In opposition to 2.1.37)(26)
|
| “And because of the occurrence of all characteristics.”
|
| Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa’s Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.37(27)
|
| Because all contradictory and noncontradictory characteristics are valid and established in the Lord of all, whose constitutional form is inconceivable, even His taking His devotee’s side is a good quality and is regarded as good by those with good intelligence.
|
| For example, the Lord possesses mutually contradictory qualities—such as being constituted of knowledge and possessing knowledge, and being a dark blue color [although He has no material form]—and thus being equal, yet taking His devotee as very dear [is also mutually contradictory]. And the Supreme [also] possesses nonconflicting qualities, such as forgiveness, straightforwardness, etc.
|
| And there is evidence of smŗti:
|
| “From the combination of His opulences, the term Bhagavān is said to entail contradictory meanings. Nonetheless, in no way is it to be taken that there are faults in the Supreme, although contradictory good qualities are indeed to be accepted in all respects.”
(Kūrma Purāṇa)
|
| “So even though the Lord is thus equal, He is the well-wisher of His devotees. This is established.”
|
| Thus it is crystal clear that Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaņa seeks to contrast not merely mundane piety and impiety, but rather devotional service and nondevotional activity. This apparent disparity between the Lord’s dealings with His devotees and nondevotees is based on the Lord’s beginningless, fair and reciprocal consideration of the activities of devotees and nondevotees.
|
| There is another relevant sūtra (in opposition to. 4.4.1), in which Rāmānujācārya vigorously argues that the spiritual body of the soul has always existed and that upon liberation, one attains that which has always existed.
|
| sampadyāvir-bhāvaḥ svena śabdāt(28)
|
| “Attaining, the appearance with one’s own, from sound.”
|
| Rāmānuja’s Śrī-bhāṣya Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1(29)
|
| “Now [the text] begins to contemplate the kind of opulence of the liberated persons. This is handed down in the śāstra:”
|
| “Just so this blessed soul, rising up from the [material] body and approaching the supreme light with his own form achieves [the Absolute].”
(Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.2)
|
| “Is it understood by this statement that, having risen up from this [material] body, he who has approached the supreme light has a relationship with a form produced like the forms of demigods, etc.? [In other words, does the liberated soul achieve a body that is different from his self, just as the souls of demigods receive demigod bodies?] Or is there the appearance of a svarūpa, a constitutional form, which is derived from the very nature [of the soul]? Thus, on this doubt [we shall speak].”
|
| Rāmānuja now presents various objections to his view. We shall give a sample of these objections to clarify that the basic issue is whether the soul, at liberation, achieves a thoroughly new spiritual body or simply manifests a spiritual form that the soul possessed all along:
|
| Objection: (30)It is logical that [the soul has a] relationship with a form that is to be produced. For, otherwise, scriptures that teach liberation would not be teaching us about a life-goal (puruṣārtha), since the soul’s own form (svarūpa), [if already existing] by itself, does not show the quality of being a goal for people (puruṣārtha), [i.e. that which one already possesses cannot be one’s goal in life.](31).
|
| Rāmānujācārya now gives the siddhānta, or bona fide conclusion:(32)
|
| “When [the argument] reaches this point, we declare that the [Vedānta text] sampadya āvir-bhāvaḥ means that this individual soul, approaching the supreme light through light, etc., attains to a specific situation in the form of the appearance of the [soul’s] svarūpa, not in the form of [the soul] entering a bodily shape that did not exist before. How so? Because of the word svena, [in the sense of] svena rūpeņa, ‘by one’s own form.’ That is the meaning because of the use of the adjective (sva). Indeed, if we accept that [the spiritual body one acquires at liberation] is āgantuka [extrinsic, added on, adventitious, etc.], then certainly the adjective svena [modifying] rūpeņa would be meaningless, because even without an adjective, it would be logically clear that the form the soul attains has the condition of belonging to that soul.”
|
| Rāmānuja goes on to state in his Śrī-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.2(33)
|
| Being liberated from the connection with karma and from the body, etc., created by it, [the liberated soul] is situated with a form that is of his own nature. Here is stated [from Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.2]:
|
| “With his own form, he attains...”
|
| “Here ‘attainment’ is stated. And so there is cessation of the concealment of the svarūpa, which, even though eternally present, was concealed by ignorance in the form of karma.”
|
| Rāmānujācārya comments further on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.2 in his Vedānta-sāra (“essence of Vedānta”)(34):
|
| “It is said here that although the precise form of the soul’s constitutional form was in fact previously known and existed in perfection, still (at the time of liberation) there is the appearance of that constitutional form, with unlimited knowledge, freed from the bondage of karma.”(35)
|
| Rāmānuja’s Śrī-bhāṣya Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.3
|
| In his Śrī-bhāṣya commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.3, Rāmānujācārya states that the soul’s pure qualities are”shrunk” or”contracted” in material existence, and then”expanded” upon liberation. Thus he emphasizes his central argument that the pure nature of the soul has always existed:
|
| “And so it is logical to say that upon the destruction of bondage in the form of karma, [the soul] having attained to the highest light, there is the appearance in expanded form of the qualities of knowledge, bliss, etc., which due to karma had been shrunk within the soul. Thus it is aptly stated [in opposition to 4.4.1]: ‘Having attained, appearance.”(36)
|
| Rāmānujācārya’s discussion of the soul’s original form is remarkably similar to Lord Caitanya’s statement to Sanātana Gosvāmī:
|
| “Pure love for Kŗṣņa is eternally established in the hearts of living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, the living entity naturally awakens.”
(Cc. Madhya 22.107, translation by Śrīla Prabhupāda)(37)
|
| In this verse from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmŗta, Śrīla Prabhupāda translates the word sādhya as “to be gained from another source.”
|
| Rāmānujācārya has used this same term, sādhya, in his commentary on Vedānta-sūtra 4.4.1, in which he asks the rhetorical question:
|
| “[Is it understood by this statement of the Upaniṣads that (at the time of liberation) the soul comes into touch] with a form that is sādhya [to be gained, produced, etc.], or rather is there the appearance of a form that is of the soul’s own nature? This is the doubt.”(38)
|
| In answer to this question, Rāmānujācārya first presents the viewpoint of the pūrva-pakṣa, the theological opponent who argues against the siddhānta. The pūrva-pakṣa immediately claims that the spiritual form that the soul manifests at the time of liberation is sādhya:
|
| “Logically, the soul comes into touch with a sādhya form.”(39)
|
| Rāmānujācārya then defeats this proposal and proves that the spiritual form of the soul is eternally present, established. Then in his commentary on the next verse of Vedānta, 4.4.2, in which he continues to argue the same point, he again uses a term (siddha) that is repeated in Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s statement to Sanātana Gosvāmī.
|
| “It is said here that although the precise form of the soul’s constitutional form was in fact previously known and existed in perfection, still [at the time of liberation] there is the appearance of that constitutional form, with unlimited knowledge, freed from the bondage of karma.”(40)
|
| In the above statement, the words prāg eva siddhatve ’pi mean”was in fact previously known and existed in perfection.” Here prāg means”previously”; eva makes the word prāg more emphatic, and means “actually, in fact,” etc., and siddhatve means “in the condition of existing fully or perfectly,” or”in the condition of being known or understood,” and refers to the spiritual form of the soul and nothing else, as emphasized by the word mātra above.
|
| Thus Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu echoed the words of His devotee, Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya, when He said to Sanātana Gosvāmī:
|
| nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya
śravaṇadi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya
|
| Both statements argue the same point: although the soul appears to acquire or take on a spiritual form at the time of liberation, this form or constitutional position already existed previously in fullness.
|
| sarva-dharmopapatte ca(25)
(In opposition to 2.1.37)(26)
|
| 8 | | Leaves, pp. 37-38 (authors' translation). |
| 9 | | vaiṣamya—inequality; naighṛnye—and cruelty; na—no; sa-apekṣatvāt—because of being with consideration; tathā—in that way; hi—certainly; darśayati—it shows, reveals. |
| 10 | | O: brahmaṇi kartari vaiṣamyaṁ nairghṛnyaṁ ca doṣo.
B: na.
O: kutaḥ?
B: sāpekṣatvāt sraṣṭuḥ karmāpekṣitvāt. pramāṇam āha tathā hīti. eṣa eva sādhu karma kārayati taṁ yamebhyo lokebhya unniniṣate. eṣa evāsādhu karma kārayati taṁ yamādho ninīyate. iti bṛhad-āraṇyaka-śrutiḥ. kṣetra-jñānāṁ devādi-bhāva-prāptim īśvara-nimittām darśayanti madhye karma parāmṛsatīty arthaḥ. |
| 11 | | As we see in the Gītā (nimitta-mātraṁ bhava savya-sācin), the instrumental cause is not ultimately responsible, just as the instrument in the hands of a worker is not responsible for the worker's actions. |
| 12 | | janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvataḥ... (Bhagavad-gītā 4.9). |
| 13 | | na—no; karma—activity; avibhāgāt—from nondistinction; iti—thus; cet—if; na—no; anāditvāt—because of beginningless. |
| 14 | | Leaves, p. 38. |
| 15 | | O: nanu karmaṇa vaiṣamyādi-parihāro na syāt.
B: kutaḥ?
O: karmāvibhāgāt. sad eva saumyedam ity-ādiṣu prāk sṛṣṭer brama-vibhak tasya karmane ‘pratīter.
B: iti cen na.
O: kutaḥ?
B: karmaṇaḥ kṣetra-jñānāṁ ca brama-vad anāditva-svīkārāt. pūrva-pūrva-karmānusāreṇottarottara-karmaṇi pravartanāt na kiñcid dūṣaṇam. smṛtiś ca: puṇya-pāpādikaṁ viṣṇuḥ kārayet pūrva-karmanā. anāditvāt karmaṇaś ca na virodhaḥ kathaṁcana. iti (Bhaviṣya Purāṇa) karmaṇo ‘nāditvenānavasthā tu na doṣaḥ prāmāṇikatvāt. na ca karma-sāpekṣatveneśvarsyāsvātantryam. dravyaṁ karma ca kālaś cety-ādinā karmādi-sattāyās tad-adhīnatva-smaraṇāt. na ca gaṭṭa-kuḍyāṁ prabhātam iti vācyaṁ, anādi-jīva-sva-bhāvānusāreṇa hi karma kārayati sva-bhāvam anyathā-kartuṁ samartho ‘pi kasyāpi na karoti ity aviṣamo bhaṇyate. vaiṣamyādikaṁ brahmaṇi parihṛtam. bhakta-pakṣa-pāta-rūpaṁ tad idānīṁ tasminn aṅgī-karoti. bhakta-saṁrakṣaṇaṁ tad-vāsanā-nivāraṇaṁ ca parasmin vaiṣamyaṁ na veti viṣaye tad-rakṣaṇāder api karma-sāpekṣatvāt na syād iti prāpte. |
| 16 | | Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1. |
| 17 | | To support the charge of unfairness, the objector calls attention to verses that appear to say that there are no distinct entities existing before the creation. Therefore, the living entities manifested at the time of creation would not have performed any actions before the creation. The Lord would be responsible for their initial actions. Because these actions are of different qualities, the Lord could still be called unfair. Some living entities would be engaged in good acts, others in bad acts. |
| 18 | | Bhaviṣya-Purāṇa |
| 19 | | an-avasthā |
| 20 | | Some men tried to avoid the toll booth (a hut by the river) by slipping around it at night, but in the morning they woke to find themselves in the same tollbooth. Thus Baladeva states that we will not find ourselves in the same difficulty we sought to avoid. |
| 21 | | upapadyate—it is reasonable; ca—and; abhyupalabhyate—it is observed; ca—also. |
| 22 | | bhakta-vatsalasyāsya prabhos tat-pakṣa-pāto vaiṣmyam eva. tad upapadyate sidhyati tad-rakṣaṇādeḥ svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti-bhūta-bhakti-sāpekṣatvāt. na ca nirdoṣatā vādi-vākya-vyākopaḥ. tad-rūpasya vaiṣamyasya guṇatvena stūyamā-natvāt: ‘guṇa-vṛnda-maṇḍanam idam’ ity api śurtir āha. yad vinā sarve guṇāḥ janebhyo ‘rocamānāḥ pravartakā na syuḥ. upalabhyate caitat śrutiṣu ca:
yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām
iti-ādyāḥ śrutayaḥ
priyo hi jñānino ‘tyartham ahaṁ sa ca mama priyaḥ
samo ‘ham sarva-bhūteṣu na me dveṣyo ‘sti na priyaḥ
ye bhajanti tu māṁ bhaktyā mayi te teṣu cāpy aham
api cet-su-durācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk
sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ samyag vyavasito hi saḥ
kṣipraṁ bhavati dharmātmā śaśvac-chāntiṁ nigacchati
kaunteya pratijānīhi na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati.
ity-ādyāḥ smṛtayaś ca |
| 23 | | ...yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṁ svām |
| 24 | | svarūpa-śakti-vṛtti-bhūta-bhakti-sāpekṣatvāt |
| 25 | | sarva—all; dharma—of characteristics; upapatteḥ—from the occurrence; ca—and |
| 26 | | In the Rāmānujācārya edition of Vedānta, this verse is given as 2.1.36 and sūtras 2.1.35 and 2.1.36 of the Baladeva edition are combined and listed as 2.1.35. |
| 27 | | avicintya-svarūpe sarveśvare sarveṣāṁ viruddhānām avirudhānāṁ ca dharmāṇām upapatteḥ siddheś ca. bhakta-pakṣa-pāto ‘pi guṇaḥ sujñair āstheya eva. yathā jñānātmako jñānavān, śyāmaś caivam aviṣamo bhakta-preyān ity-ādayo mitho viruddhāḥ kṣānty-ārjavādayo ‘viruddhāś ca parasminn eva santi
smṛtiś ca
aiśvarya-yogāt bhagavān viruddhārtho ‘bhidhīyate
tathāpi doṣāḥ parame naivāhāryāḥ kathañcana
guṇā viruddhā apy ete smāhāryāḥ samantataḥ
iti tathā cāviṣamo ‘pi harir bhakta-suhṛd iti siddham |
| 28 | | sampadya—attaining, joining, succeeding; āvir-bhāvaḥ—appearance; svena—with or by one's own; śabdāt—from sound |
| 29 | | idānīṁ muktānām aiśvarya-prakāraṁ cintayitum ārabhate. idam āmnāyate
evam evaiṣa samprasādo ‘smāc charīrāt samutthāya
paraṁ jyotir upasampadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate iti
kim asmāc charīrāt samutthāya paraṁ jyotir upasampannasya devādi-rūpavat
sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ anena vākyena pratipādyate? uta svābhāvikasya
svarūpasyāvirbhāvaḥ? iti saṁśaye |
| 30 | | (pūrva-pakṣa) sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandha iti yuktam. anyathā
hi apuruṣārthāvabodhitvaṁ mokṣa-śāstrasya syāt svarūpasya svato
‘puruṣārthatva-darśanāt |
| 31 | | It is held in the Upanishads that in deep, dreamless sleep (suṣupti) only the pure soul is functioning, since the material mind and senses are inactive. |
| 32 | | evam prāpte pracakṣmahe sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ—iti / ayam pratyag-ātmā arcir-ādinā paraṁ jyotir upasampadya, yaṁ daśā-viśeṣam āpadyate saḥ svarū-pāvirbhāva-rūpaḥ, na apūrvākārotpatti-rūpaḥ. kutaḥ? svena śabdāt—svena rūpeṇa iti viśeṣaṇopādānāt ity arthaḥ. āgantuka-viśeṣa-parigrahe hi svena rūpena iti viśeṣaṇam anarthakaṁ syāt. aviśeṣane ‘pi tasya svakīya-rūpatva siddheḥ. kutaḥ? “svena” śabdāt—svena rūpena iti viśeṣaṇopādānāt ity arthaḥ. āgantuka-viśeṣa-parigrahe hi svena rūpeṇa iti viśeṣaṇam anarthakaṁ syāt. aviśeṣaṇe ‘pi tasya svakīya-rūpatva-siddheḥ |
| 33 | | karma-sambandha-tat-kṛta-dehādi-vinirmuktaḥ svābhāvikena rūpeṇāvasthitaḥ atra “svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.2) ity ucyate. atra abhiniṣpattir ucyate. ataḥ nitya-prāptasyāpi svarūpasya karma-rūpāvidyā-tirohitasya, tirodhāna-nivṛttiḥ |
| 34 | | ātma-svarūpa-mātrasya prāg eva siddhatve ‘pi karma-bandha-vinirmuk-tāparicchinna-jñānādi-svarūpasya hy atrāvirbhāva ucyate. |
| 35 | | Siddhatvam means a state of perfection, or the state of being known or understood; the latter sense being characteristic of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Monier-Williams, p. 1215). |
| 36 | | ato jñānānandādi-guṇānāṁ karmaṇātmani saṅkucitānāṁ paraṁ jyotir upasampadya karma-rūpa-bandha-kṣaye vikāsa-rūpāvirbhāvo nānupapanna iti, suṣṭhūktaṁ sampadyāvirbhāvaḥ—iti. |
| 37 | | nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema ‘sādhya’ kabhu naya
śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya |
| 38 | | sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandhaḥ—anena vākyena pratipādyate? uta svābhā-vikasya svarūpasyāvirbhāvaḥ? iti saṁśaye |
| 39 | | sādhyena rūpeṇa sambandaḥ—iti yuktam |
| 40 | | ātma-svarūpa-mātrasya prāg eva siddhatve ‘pi karma-bandha-vinirmuktā-paricchinna-jñānādi-svarūpasya hy atrāvirbhāva ucyate |
English
Español
Pусский
Português