Priti Sandarbha 5 5 : One must become Brahman to enter Brahman



क्वचिदेकत्वशब्देनापि तथैवोच्यते। अत्र तत्साम्यं यथोक्तम् (मु.उ. ३.१.३) —"निरञ्जनं परमसाम्यमुपैति" इत्यादि श्रुतौ। (गीता १४.२) "इदं ज्ञानमुपाश्रित्य मम साधर्म्यमागताः" इति गीतोपनिषत्सु च।

Sometimes the word "oneness" (ekatva) also means similarity achieved through acquiring similar properties. The equality with Brahman is also spoken of in the Śruti such as "Becoming free of all attachments one attains equality to the Supreme (parama-sāmyam)" (MU 3.1.3)

The full verse:

yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukma-varṇaṁ
kartāram īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim |
tadā vidvān puṇya-pāpe vidhūya
nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyam upaiti ||3||

When the seer sees the God, the golden colored (svayaṁ-jyotiḥ-svabhāvaḥ) Puruṣa, the ultimate agent or creator of the universe, the one who is the source of Brahmā (or the Veda), then that knower washes away both the bondage of both sin and virtue, and without any attachments (nirlepaḥ vigata-kleśah) attains the supreme sameness (advaya-lakṣaṇam). (3.1.3)

This verse immediately follows (Shankara says it has the same meaning, imam evārthaṁ)

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā
samānaṁ vṛkṣaṁ pariṣasvajāte
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ svādv atty
anaśnann anyo 'bhicākaśīti

samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno
'nīśayā śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyaty anyam īśam
asya mahimānam eti vīta śokaḥ

Two fair-plumed creatures, friends, are sitting in the same tree. Of them, one is eating its sweet berries, the other observes without eating. In the same tree of the body, the individual soul is helplessly bewildered and constantly grieving. When he wisely turns to the other, who is always served by His devotees, and looks upon Him as his lord, he gives up his suffering and realizes his glorious birthright. (MU 3.1.1-2; ŚU, 4.6-7. This verse is an adaptation of the R̥g-veda, 1.164.20. See Deussen 256-261.)

And also in the Bhagavad-gītā "Having taken shelter of this knowledge they have attained the same characteristics as Me (sādharmyam)." (Gītā 14.2)

idaṁ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ |
sarge’pi nopajāyante pralaye na vyathanti ca ||

viśvanāthaḥ : sādharmyaṁ sārūpya-lakṣaṇāṁ muktiṁ |

baladeva: mama nityāvirbhūta-guṇāṣṭakasya sādharmyaṁ sādhanāvirbhāvitena tad-aṣṭakena sāmyam āgatāḥ. [eṣa ātmāpahata-pāpma vijaro vimr̥tyur viśoko vijighatso’pipasaḥ satya-kāmaḥ satya-saṅkalpaḥ (chā.u. 8.1.5)]… mokṣe jīva-bahutvam uktam | tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ ity-ādi

उभयं चोक्तं स्पष्टमेव (क.उ. २.१.१५) —

And both ["being similar to" and "attainment of" Brahman] are clearly said in the Śruti:

यथोदकं शुद्धे शुद्धमासिक्तं तादृग् एव भवति।
एवं मुनेर्विजानत आत्मा भवति गौतम ॥

O Gautama, just as pure water poured into pure water verily becomes like that [the pure water into which it has been poured]; in the same way the self of an enlightened sage becomes [like the Absolute]. (KU 2.1.15)

तत्रैवकारेण न तु तदेव भवति, न तु वा तदसाधर्म्येण पृथग् उपलभ्यत इति द्योत्यते। स्कान्दे च—

The significance of the word eva "only" is that it does not become exactly that, but only like it (tādr̥k), nor that it is available separately as something with an entirely different nature. In the Skanda Purāṇa also it is said:

उदके तूदकं सिक्तं मिश्रमेव यथा भवेत्।
तद् वै तदेव भवति यतो बुद्धिः प्रवर्तते ॥
एवमेवं हि जीवोऽपि तादात्म्यं परमात्मना।
प्राप्तोऽपि नासौ भवति स्वातन्त्र्यादिविशेषणात् ॥ इति।

Just as when water is poured into water and becomes mixed with it, we take it that the one has become the other [but it is not so]. In the very same way, a living being also, even when attaining similarity with the Paramātmā, does not become the Paramātmā because He has attributes such as independence.


बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बनिर्देशश्च (वे.सू. ३.२.१९-२०) "अम्बुदग्रहणात्" इत्यादिसूत्रद्वये गौण एव योजितः।

The description of the object and its reflection in the two sūtras (VS 3.2.19-20) is also taken in the secondary sense.

This has been discussed at length in TattvaS 52 and somewhat in ParamatmaS 37.

The water in a pond covers the land underneath and thus delimits it from the rest of the earth, but Brahman cannot be delimited in this way to become a jéva, because it is unlike the earth in this respect [i.e., it is without definable limits]. So, the comparison of Brahman to the earth is appropriate not in its primary sense [of something capable of demarcation or division] but in its secondary sense, that of Brahman apparently participating in increase or decrease [depending on the greatness or smallness of the particular adjuncts that it enters into and pervades], just as the land delimited by water may be of larger or smaller dimensions. This interpretation fulfills the purpose of the scriptural passages, and thus there is appropriateness of the thing illustrated [i.e., Brahman] and the illustration [the increase or decrease of delimited land]. (VS 3.2.19-20)

Such statements are also spoken only to nourish the view of non-difference in those who desire jïäna, [and do not mean] that the jīva is factually a reflection. This is because accepting the jéva as a reflection [of Brahman] is contrary even to the opinion of the Preceptor of the Monists [Çaìkara], on the basis of the sūtra, “It is not like a reflection in water” (VS 3.2.19). Only the tiniest similarity to a reflection is accepted [in the subsequent sūtra], “The example of increase and decrease in a reflection by the increase or decrease in water is secondary; Brahman appears to undergo these changes only because of adjuncts. Thus because there is similarity between the example and the exemplified; there is no contradiction” (VS 3.2.20).

Advaita-vadis may object that there are sometimes statements in the śāstras that describe the jéva as a mere reflection of the Supreme. This would mean that the jīva has no independent existence in the ultimate sense. But that is also not true, for it has already been stated that the jéva is an eternal part of the Supreme Soul. Such statements that speak of the jīva as mere reflection or one with Brahman are there only to nourish the sentiments of the followers of the jñāna-mārga. They cannot mean that the jéva is really a reflection of the Paramätmä, for Vedänta-sütra 3.2.20 denies this, and even Śrī Śaṅkarācārya while commenting on it does not accept the jīva as such in the real sense. The example of reflection is given to show that the ätmä is dependent on the Paramātmā, and is not influenced by the modifications in the body. The conclusion is that the jīva is an eternal part of the Paramātmā.

"एवमेवैष संप्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात् समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते" इत्यत्रापि तथैव भेदः प्रतिपादितः।

Similarly in the following Śruti statement, the difference has been established: "In this way, this blessed one, upon rising up out of this body, attains a supreme effulgent body and becomes situated in his own form." (CU 8.12.3)

TattvaS 53 (Baladeva on VS 1.3.20 "anyārthaś ca parāmarśaḥ." Deliberation on the jiva is in order to know the other (Paramātmā). The man in the cave learns about the sun from understanding the sun's ray.

श्रीविष्णुपुराणेऽपि (वि.पु. ६.७.८४) "विभेदजनकेऽज्ञाने नाशम्" इत्यादौ देवादिभेदनाशानन्तरं ब्रह्मात्मनोर्भेदं न कोऽप्यसन्तं करिष्यति अपि तु सन्तमेव करिष्यतीति व्याख्यातमेव।

In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa also in the verse, "Even when the ignorance that produces the perception of difference is fully destroyed, who will render non-existent the difference between the [individual] self and Brahman ?" (VP 6.7.96), it is said that after differences [in different names and forms taken by the jīva] such as gods and humans have been eliminated deny the existence of a difference between Brahman and the ātmā ? Rather they will surely affirm it.

See Paramātma Sandarbha 37 for an exhaustive explanation of this verse.

एवमेव टीकाकृद्भिः सम्मतं श्रीगोपानां ब्रह्मसम्पत्त्यनन्तरमपि वैकुण्ठदर्शनम्।

Similarly, the commentator [Śrīdhara Svāmī] also accepts that Nanda and the cowherds saw Vaikuṇṭha even after realizing Brahman.

[10.28.15] dehādi-pihitānāṁ darśanam aśakyam iti prathamaṁ dehādi-vyatiriktaṁ brahma-svarūpaṁ darśayām āsa |

तस्मात् साधु व्याख्यातं (भा. १.३.३४) "यद्येषोपरता" इत्यादि। तदेवं ब्रह्मसम्पत्तिर्व्याख्याता।

Therefore, the verse Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.34 was properly explained [in Anuccheda 4.2]. In this way Brahman realization has been explained.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"RadhaKrishn" TV serial under fire

Getting to asana siddhi

What is sthayi-bhava?