Priti Sandarbha 5.3 : Brahman not the real puruṣārtha because there is no experience of ānanda

PrītiS text: "yatra vā asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt, tat kena kaṁ paśyet" [bṛ.ā.u. 2.4.14] iti śrutiś ca |

This is confirmed by the Śruti, "Where the Self has become everything, then who would see what, and how?" (BAU 2.4.14).

The full quote from Brihadaranyaka is: yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati, tad itara itaraṁ jighrati, tad itara itaraṁ paśyati, tad itara itaraṁ śṛṇoti, tad itara itaram abhivadati, tad itara itaraṁ manute, tad itara itaraṁ vijānāti |  yatra vā asya sarvam ātmaivābhūt, tat kena kaṁ jighret ? tat kena kaṁ paśyet ? tat kena kaṁ śṛṇuyāt ? tat kena kam abhivadet ? tat kena kaṁ manvīta ? tat kena kaṁ vijānīyāt ? yenedaṁ sarvaṁ vijānāti, taṁ kena vijānīyāt ? vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt ? iti ||14||

Shankara: yatra tu brahma-vidyayāvidyā nāśam upagamitā, tatra ātma-vyatirekeṇānyasyābhāvaḥ | yatra vai asya brahma-vidaḥ sarvaṁ nāma-rūpādy ātmany eva pravilāpitam ātmaiva saṁvṛttaṁ, yatra evam ātmaivābhūt, tatra kena karaṇena kaṁ ghrātavyaṁ ko jighret ? tathā paśyet, vijānīyāt ? sarvatra hi kāraka-sādhyā kriyā, ataḥ kārakābhāve’nupapattiḥ kriyāyāḥ, kriyābhāve ca phalābhāvaḥ | tasmād avidyāyām eva satyāṁ kriyā-kāraka-phala-vyavahāraḥ, na brahma-vidaḥ, ātmatvād eva sarvasya, nātma-vyatirekeṇa kārakaṁ kriyā-phalaṁ vāsti, na cānātmā san sarvam ātmaiva bhavati kasyacit, tasmā avidyayaiva anātmatvaṁ parikalpitaṁ, na tu paramārthata ātma-vyatirekeṇāsti kiñcit |

Translation of Shankara: "When one's ignorance has been destroyed through knowledge of Brahman, then there is nothing else other than the Self. Such a knower of Brahman's perception of the names and forms has all merged into the Self and become the Self. So one for whom the Self has become thus, then who would smell, and with what sense, and what would be the object of his smelling? So it is with seeing and so on, up to realization or knowing.

In all circumstances, a verb is dependent on its relations to nouns in the various cases (kāraka), i.e., a subject, object, instrument and so on. Without substantives in the various case relations, it is meaningless, and without a verb there are no results. An idea cannot be communicated. So therefore the employment of verbs with a subject, object and so on, as well as with its results is possible only in a state of ignorance, but not for one in knowledge of Brahman, since everything is the self. One cannot have case relations or actions leading to results, on the other hand without a self, there is no meaning to the statement "one for whom the Self has become everything," therefore everything that is non-self has been conjured up by avidyā; from the transcendental point of view, there is nothing but the Self alone.

Now read this again replacing God for Self. Then the idea of dependence on God for worldly or spiritual doership, etc.

tat-svarūpa-śaktiṁ vinā tad-darśanāsāmārthyaṁ dyotayati—"yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ" [ka.u. 1.2.23] ity-ādi śruteḥ |

The Śruti, "He is to be attained only by the one whom He chooses" (KU 1.2.23) indicates the incapability of a living being to see Him without His internal potency.

nāyam ātmā pravacanena labhyo
na medhayā na bahunā śrutena |
yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṁ svām ||

This Self cannot be reached through debate
nor through intellect, nor through much study.
He whom this Self itself chooses may reach it.
To him, it reveals its own form. (1.2.23)

ata eva svarūpa-śakti-sambandhān māyāntardhāne teṣāṁ saṁsāra-nāśaḥ |

Therefore, the jīva's material existence comes to an end when māyā retracts as a result of its coming into contact with the internal potency.

yeṣāṁ tu mate muktāv ānandānubhavo nāsti, teṣāṁ pum-arthatā na sampadyate | sato’pi vastunaḥ sphuraṇābhāve nirarthakatvāt |

Those who propound that there is no experience of bliss in liberation cannot attain the goal of human life, because an object is worthless if it cannot be experienced, even if it should exist.

This is related to the above BAU 2.4.14. If there is no experiencer or experienced, then even if Brahman is bliss (ānandaika-rasa, ānanda-mātra) then there is no experience. So see the next sentence.

PGG (Pran Gopal Goswami): It has been established earlier that all living beings seek happiness or bliss. That is the puruṣārtha. Now even if Brahman is ānanda in its essence, how can it be the puruṣārtha if one cannot experience it? A thing only has meaning if it is experienced. If it is not experienced, then its existence or non-existence are equal for all intents and purposes.

If the Advaitavadi should object and say what is the need of experiencing ānanda, just by being it one can call that the puruṣārtha?

na ca "sukham ahaṁ syām" iti kasyacid icchā, kintu "sukham aham anubhavāmi" ity eva |

Nobody desires, "Let me be happiness," but only, "May I experience happiness."

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa famously said, "No one wants to be sugar, but to taste sugar." Obviously the idea did not originate with him.

tataś ca pravṛtty-abhāvāt tādṛśa-puruṣārtha-sādhana-preraṇāpi śāstre vyarthaiva syāt |

Thus since no one acts [except to attain happiness], any instruction in the scripture for a practice leading to such a goal [where there is no experience of happiness] would be futile.

tan-mate kevalānanda-rūpasyājñāna-duḥkha-sambandhāsambhavāt tan-nivṛtti-rūpaś ca puruṣārtho na ghaṭate |

In their {the Advaitins'] philosophy, one whose nature is pure bliss cannot have any contact with ignorance and misery, therefore the question of having the goal of dispelling them [ignorance and misery] does not arise.

vigītaṁ tv īdṛśa-puruṣārthatvaṁ prācīnabarhiṣaṁ prati śrī-nārada-vākye "duḥkha-hāniḥ sukhāvāptiḥ śreyas tan neha ceṣyate" [bhā.pu. 4.25.4] tasmād asty evānubhavaḥ |

Such a goal has been despised in the words of Śrī Nārada spoken to King Pracinabarhi: " Welfare [i.e., puruṣārtha] lies in the cessation of sorrow and the attainment of happiness, but you cannot expect this from works." (4.25.4)

Only the second line was quoted from this verse because he wants to emphasize again the basic principle with which he started, i.e., the puruṣārtha.

śreyas tvaṁ katamad rājan karmaṇātmana īhase |
duḥkha-hāniḥ sukhāvāptiḥ śreyas tan neha ceṣyate ||

Welfare [i.e., the puruṣārtha] lies in the cessation of sorrow and the attainment of happiness, and such welfare cannot be expected from karma done with a material motive. (SB 4.25.4)

tasmād asty evānubhavaḥ | tathā ca śrutiḥ—"rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati" iti | "ātma-ratiḥ ātma-krīḍaḥ" [chā.u. 7.25.2] ity-ādiś ca |

Therefore, there is certainly an experience of bliss in liberation, and there is also Śrutis to this effect: "After attaining Him, one becomes blissful" (rasaṁ hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati, TU 2.7.1), and "He loves the Self, plays with the Self." (ātma-ratiḥ ātma-krīḍaḥ, CU 7.25.2)

TU 2.7 was previously quoted in 1.4 above. The use of the word "Self" (ātmā) in both these quotes are an indication of niraṁśatvam because no distinction is made explicitly of ātmā and paramātmā.