By a secular study of the śāstras unmotivated by preconceived notions of reality as per one’s taste, it comes into clear light that śāstras have both bhedavākyas and abhedavākyasThis doctrine is the natural doctrine of all the vaidikavāṅmaya thus is capable of accepting every statement there in through mukhyavṛtti unless directed by the śāstras themselve to take otherwise.
Bhagavān himself is the propagator of this doctrine hence this is also called the Bhāgavata doctrine; the heart of Vedas. Bhagavān transpired this knowledge to Brahmā and so on, Śrīla Vyāsadeva further expanded this via Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and the vedānta sūtras, Quotations supporting this view is found in abundance in the Sri Madhva’s Sarvamūla Granthas and works of later ācāryas of the same school. Later this was revived by Śrīman Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the supreme personality of godhead in his teachings, the first mention of this theory of peculiar bhedābheda and advyatva of tattva is found in Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta of Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmi and Laghubhāgavatāmṛta of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmi, later it was expounded in the saḍ-sandarbhas and their commentary sarva-samvādini by Śrīla Jīva gosvāmi taking inspiration from the Hand written notes of Śrī Gopāla bhaṭṭa Gosvāmi, thereafter came many champions of the system like Śrīla Śrīnivāsācārya, Śrīla Rādhādāmodara Gosvāmi, Śrīla Viśvanātha cakravarti ṭhākura, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhuṣaṇa, Śrī Vedāntavāgīśa, Śrī Kṛṣṇadeva sārvabhauma and many others others till date including Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda and scholarly disciples along with others. Ideas of Svābhāviki śakti yukta Brahman is found in the vākyapadīya [Ānandagiri identifies Bhartṛhari with the tārkikas śaṅkara confronts in Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣya 2.1.20] as well ‘ekam eva yad āmnātaṃ bhinnaśaktivyapāśrayāt apṛthaktve 'pi śaktibhyaḥ, pṛthaktveneva vartate, adhyāhitakalāṃ yasya kālaśaktim upāśritāḥ janmādayo vikārāḥ ṣaḍ, bhāvabhedasya yonayaḥ, ekasya sarvabījasya yasya ceyam anekadhā bhoktṛbhoktavyarūpeṇa bhogarūpeṇa ca sthitiḥ ’, Rāmānujācārya also mentions that vedas describe the individual soul as the Lord’s śakti and so forth ‘tacchakti-tadaṁśa-tadvibhūti-tadrūpa-taccharīra-tattanu prabhṛtibhiś śabdaiḥ’. Our Acceptance of Śrīdhara svāmi only ranges as much as he follows Vaiṣṇava siddhānta anything against that is not accepted by us ‘bhāṣya-rūpā tad-vyākhyā tu samprati madhya-deśādau vyāptān advaita- vādino nūnaṃ bhagavan-mahimānam avagāhayituṃ tad-vādena karburita- lipīnāṃ parama-vaiṣṇavānāṃ śrīdhara-svāmi-caraṇānāṃ śuddha-vaiṣṇava- siddhāntānugatā cet tarhi yathāvad eva vilikhyate’ [tattva sandarbha] and Śrīdhara svāmi himself says at the beginning of Śruti gītā chapter ‘sampradāyaviśudhyarthaṁ svīyanirbandhayantritaḥ…’.
The theme is that ‘Brahman possess natural real śaktis’ ‘parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca [this ‘ca’ includes all other]’ ‘naivāsatyaṁ kvacid asmin pareśe sarvaṁ yuktaṁ pūrṇa-śakteḥ sadaiva itica viśvambhara-śrutiḥ’ which are completely dependent on him and his retinue and his residence along with the entire creation are the eternal effects of such śaktis which naturally inhere in him ‘sa yathorṇavābhis tantunoccared yathā agneḥ kṣudrā viṣphuliṅgā vyuccaranty evam evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti’, this doesn’t talk about their creation ex novo but their actualisation from their śukṣmāvasthā, ‘tataḥ kāraṇatva-siddhaye kārya-śaktis tatrāvaśyam abhupagantavyā । sā ca kārya-sūkṣmāvasthaiveti kāryāstitvaṃ sidhyati’ as in the Śānti parva ‘jīvitaṃ maraṇaṃ caiva brahma saṃpadyate tadā prasāryeha yathāṅgāni kūrmaḥ saṃharate punaḥ’. This activation of dormant śakti is by the will of Bhagavān that is a part of his divine sport not motivated by any desire [devasyaiva svabhāvo’yam ātma-kāmasya kā spṛhā] it is described as ‘sṛṣṭy-ādikaṁ harir naiva prayojanam apekṣya tu । kurute kevalānandād yathā mattasya nartanam ॥ pūrṇānandasya tasyeha prayojana-matiḥ kutaḥ । muktā avyāpta-kāmāḥ syuḥ kim utāsy akhilātmanaḥ ॥’, ‘vyaktaṃ viṣṇus tathāvyaktaṃ puruṣaḥ kāla eva ca krīḍato bālakasyeva ceṣṭāṃ tasya niśāmaya’, ‘yāṃ yāṃ śaktim upāśritya puruśaktiḥ paraḥ pumān, ātmānaṃ krīḍayan krīḍan karoti vikaroti ca’. The difference and non difference between śakti and it’s possessor; Bhagavān is as follows Both Bheda and Abheda are qualified by acintya śakti of Bhagavān, that is the import of Acintyabhedābheda.
That is the genius of Śrī Jīva, He based the entire system on Bhāgavata literature and not on whims. The much anticipated contradiction in the term bhedābheda would only occur if brahman would be śakti and śakti would be brahman, but acintya-bhedābheda is not tainted with such wranglings here śakti is śakti and Brahman is Brahman. In Acintyabhedābheda, ‘bheda’ is negation of ‘abheda’ between śakti and dravya and ‘abheda’ is the negation of ‘bheda’ between śakti and dravya, both are not logically tenable thus Acintya , ‘tasmāt svarūpād [natural being, not Bhagavān’s svarūpa which only has citśakti] abhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedaḥ । bhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaś ca pratīyate [sūkṣmāvasthā hi sā teṣāṁ sarvabhāvānugāminī idaṁtayā vidhātuṁ sā na niśeddhuṁ ca śakyate [ahirbudnya] ] iti śakti-śaktimator bhedābhedāv evāṅgīkṛtau । tau cācintyau iti ॥’, This is the definition of Acintya Bhedābheda, these energies can’t be defined as being distinct from the svarūpa [due it’s complete dependent existence] or completely indistinct from the svarūpa [due to being different in effect], thus even as per the mīmāṁsakas śakti and the dravya they inhere in are not One because of ‘na dravyaṁ guṇa vṛttitvād guṇakarmabahiḥkṛtā’, naiyāyīkas also corraborate this part of their and disproves śakti being a independent padārtha, keeping both views in mind we must accept that śakti is different yet non different from the dravya it inheres in, thus said in the ahirbudnya saṁhitā ‘śaktyaḥ sarvabhāvānāmacintyā apṛthak-sthitāḥ, svarūpe naiva dṛśyante dṛśyante kāryatastu tāḥ. sūkṣmāvasthā hi sā teṣāṁ sarvabhāvānugāminī idaṁtayā vidhātuṁ sā na niśeddhuṁ ca śakyate. sarvairnanuyojyā hi śaktayo bhāvagocarāḥ, evaṁ bhagavatstasya parasya brahmaṇo mune sarvabhāvānugā śaktir-jyotsneva himadīdhiteḥ, bhāvābhāvānugā tasya sarvakāryakarī vibhoḥ.’ The inconceivability pertaining to this is not similar to the mind-body problem but absolute. Cognitive closure must be absolute, or there will be an infinite regress of such closures, what we define by Acintya is absolutely acintya not relative to a certain species. The speaker of ‘aktyaḥ sarvabhāvānāmacintyā apṛthak-sthitāḥ, svarūpe naiva dṛśyante dṛśyante kāryatastu tāḥ. sūkṣmāvasthā hi sā teṣāṁ sarvabhāvānugāminī idaṁtayā vidhātuṁ sā na niśeddhuṁ ca śakyate.’ is Lord Śiva who is not speaking this from himself rather it’s Bhagavān who taught the same to him, ‘pañcarātrasya kṛtsnasya vettā tu bhagavān svayam’ and by the mantra ‘yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman so aṅga veda yadi vā naveda’, this Acintyatva thus is absolute, also infered from ‘‘sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimni iti’’.
The difference between Acintyatva and Anirvacaniyatva is vast. Acintyatva is defined as ‘tarkālabhyaṁ śāstraika-gamyam acintya-śaktitvam’ while Acintyatva is a continuation of ‘śāstrayonitvāt’, ‘tarkāpratiṣṭhānād’, Anivacaniyatva is kind of a backdoor escape, anirvacanīya is that which is neither sat nor asat, such a entity is nowhere mentioned in śāstra. The denial of natural śaktis in brahman in absolute sense is contested within their system itself however śaṅkarācārya in śariraka bhāṣya 2.1.13 ‘tadevamavidyātmakopādhipariccheda- apekṣameveśvarasyeśvaratvaṃ sarvajñatvaṃ sarvaśaktitvaṃ ca na paramārthato vidyāyāpāstasarvopādhisvarūpa ātmanīśitrīśitavyasarvajñatvādivyavahāra upapadyate’, Not much is needed to be described here the flaws pertaining to this system are well known in learned circles.
Back to the discussion, The Trance of Śrīla Vyāsadeva in the beginning of Bhāgavatam ‘bhaktiyogena manasi samyak praṇihite 'male apaśyat puruṣaṃ pūrṇaṃ māyāṃ ca tadapāśrayam yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṃ triguṇātmakam paro 'pi manute 'narthaṃ tatkṛtaṃ’, Here in Bhagavān is being propounded with his three fundamental śaktis. From the Bhāllaveya śruti ‘atha ha vāva nityāni puruṣaḥ prakṛtir ātmā kālaḥ’, Here Puruṣa is the Lord one with his Svarūpa śakti as seen here ‘puruṣaṃ pūrṇaṃ māyāṃ ca tadapāśrayam’, by the etymological construct ‘puri śete’, Puruṣa would mean one who is situated in Vaikuṇṭha [puri], ‘sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimni iti’ [vaikuṇṭha and the whole retinue their except the sādhanāsiddha and nityasiddha jīvas are a manifestation of the svarūpa śakti only], this ‘puri’; city viz vaikuṇṭha includes sādhanasiddha jīva, nityasiddha jīvas, spiritual time factor and all the other paraphernelias of the Lord, ‘māyāṃ ca tadapāśrayam’ is an effect of the citśakti ‘māyāṃ vyudasya cicchaktyā’ establishing it’s existence here, Baddha Jīva has been mentioned directly ‘sammohito jīva’, Māyā in three forms ‘Kāla’ ‘apaśyat puruṣaṃ’ [past tense is a vṛtti of jaḍātmaka kāla śakti] ‘nimittāṁśa of pariṇāma śakti’, ‘Triguṇātmikā prakṛti’ ‘triguṇā’ ‘upādānāṁśa of pariṇāma śakti’ and Jīva Māyā ‘yayā sammohito jīva’. Kāla tattva upon being associated with prakṛti get’s divided in past present and future, however fundamentally Kāla tattva remains transcendent to these divisions, an aspect of kāla tattva being associated with Jīva-māyā is regarded as the nimittāṁśa of Pariṇāma śakti also known as Māyā. These śaktis are different to each other thus there are a variety of tattvas scheduled under śakti tattvas which inturn are inconceivably different and yet non different from the Non dual Tattva thus when we say Advaya Tattva there is no negation of variety in śaktis tattvas inherent in it. Tattva when used for Advaya tattva Śrī Kṛṣṇa means fundamental independent being which possess real [tattva] śaktis which are utterly dependent realities. Thus there are multiple dependent tattvas yet all are included in one Independent tattva, thus are inconceivably different yet non different from it due to negation of both. Such configuration is not due to upādhi, this is evident from analysing ‘bhaktiyogena manasi samyak praṇihite 'male’, Vyāsadeva being Bhagavān has spiritual senses his mind is not a product of material nature rather He himself ‘aṅgāni yasya sakalendriya-vṛtti-manti paśyanti pānti kalayanti ciraṃ jaganti’ thus his samādhi is beyond any upādhi thus ‘samyak praṇihite 'male ’.
This existence is compared to that of the Sun ‘ekam eva tat parama-tattvaṃ svābhāvikācintya-śaktyā sarvadaiva svarūpa-tad-rūpa-vaibhava-jīva-pradhāna-rūpeṇa caturdhāvatiṣṭhate । sūryāntar-maṇḍalastha-teja iva maṇḍala-tad-bahirgata- raśmi-tat-praticchavi-rūpeṇa ।’ Here Vaibhava, Jīva and Pradhāna are manifesations of his śakti not He himself together the śaktis which naturally inhere in him make up the Advaya tattva which is He possesing natural multifarous energies ‘bhavadbhāvasvarūpeṇa tattvam-eka-iva-uditau’, te ca - sadaiva saumyedam agra āsīd ity ādyāḥ [ChāU 6.2.1] । ādāv ekaṃ tatas tat tad-rūpam iti śakteḥ svābhāvikatvam āyātam anyasyāsadbhāvenaupādhikatvāyogāt । svarūpa-vaibhavasyāṅga-pratyaṅgavan nitya-siddhatve'pi, sūrya-sattayā tad-raśmi-paramāṇu-vṛndasyeva, tat-sattayā labdha-sattākatvāt tad-upādānatvaṃ tadādikatvaṃ ca syāt । tasya bhāsā sarvam idaṃ vibhātīti [Kaṭha 2.2.15] śruteḥ ।, ‘kāla āsīt puruṣa āsit parama āsīt tadyadāsīt tadāvṛtamāsīt tatadhīnamāsīdatha hyeka eva parama āsidyasyaitadāsīnna hyetadāsit’ [kauśāyaṇa śruti]. ‘tad evaṃ saccidānandaika-rūpaḥ svarūpa-bhūtācintya-vicitrānanta-śakti-yukto dharmatva eva dharmitvaṃ nirbhedatva eva nānā bhedavattvam aparupitva eva rūpitvaṃ, vyāpakatva eva madhyamatvaṃ, satyam evety ādi-paraspara- viruddhānanta-guṇa-nidhiḥ । sthūla-sūkṣma-vilakṣaṇa-sva-prakāśākhaṇḍa- sva-svarūpa-bhūta-śrī-vigrahas tathābhūta-bhagavad-ākhyā-mukhyaika- vigraha-vyañjita-tādṛśānanta-vigrahas tādṛśa-svānurūpa-svarūpa- śaktyāvirbhāva-lakṣaṇa-lakṣmī-rañjita-vāmāvaśaḥ sva-prabhā-viśeṣākāra- pariccheda-parikara-nija-dhāmasu virājamānākāraḥ svarūpa-śakti-vilāsa- lakṣaṇādbhuta-guṇa-līlādi-camatkāritātmārāmādi-guṇo jija-sāmānya- prakāśākāra-brahma-tattvo nijāśrayaika-jīvana-jīvākhya-taṭastha-śaktir ananta-prapañca-vyañjita-svābhāsa-śakti-guṇo bhagavān iti vidvad- upalabdhārtha-śabdair vyañjitam’.
Catuḥ-śloki ‘aham evāsam evāgre nānyadyat sadasat param, paścādahaṃ yadetac ca yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smyaham ṛte 'rthaṃ yat pratīyeta na pratīyeta cātmani, tadvidyādātmano māyāṃ yathābhāso yathā tamaḥ, yathā mahānti bhūtāni bhūteṣūccāvaceṣvanu, praviṣṭānyapraviṣṭāni tathā teṣu na teṣvaham, etāvadeva jijñāsyaṃ tattvajijñāsunātmanaḥ, anvayavyatirekābhyāṃ yat syāt sarvatra sarvadā’. [Drawing from Vyāsa’s samādhi and the Catuḥ-śloki] Bhagavān naturally posesses three śaktis ‘viṣṇuśaktiḥ parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathāparā, avidyākarmasaṃjñānyā tṛtīyā śaktiriṣyate’, parā śakti Lakṣmī is one with the svarūpa, while other two namely Jīva [kṣetrajña] and māyā śakti though not constituting the svarūpa yet are not divorced from it being of no independent existence, Jīva is taṭastha śakti [yat taṭasthaṁ tu cidrūpaṁ [Jayākhya saṁhitā] ] being transcendent to māyā and inferior to svarūpa śakti ‘puruṣaṃ pūrṇaṃ māyāṃ ca tadapāśrayam yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṃ triguṇātmakam paro 'pi’, Here ‘puruṣam purṇam’ refers to Bhagavān endowed with svarūpa śakti, if the reading which goes ‘puruṣaṁ pūrvam’ is accepted then as well by the etymological construct ‘puri śete’, Puruṣa would mean one who is situated in Vaikuṇṭha [puri], ‘sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimni iti’ [vaikuṇṭha and the whole retinue their except the sādhanāsiddha and nityasiddha jīvas are a manifestation of the svarūpa śakti only], This verse [bhaktiyogena manasi] is also found in a more vivid form in ‘te dhyānayogānugatā apaśyan devātmaśaktiṃ svaguṇair nigūḍhām, yaḥ kāraṇāni nikhilāni tāni kālātmayuktāny adhitiṣṭhaty ekaḥ’ [śve1.3], because all this śaktis are by nature non different from Bhagavān thus said ‘aham evāsam evāgre nānyadyat sadasat param, paścādahaṃ yadetac ca yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smyaham’, still Bhagavān is transcendent to both of them viz māyā and jīva ‘yathā mahānti bhūtāni bhūteṣūccāvaceṣvanu, praviṣṭānyapraviṣṭāni tathā teṣu na teṣvaham’, ‘yasya pṛthivī śarīraṃ yasya ātmā śarīraṃ’. Māyā being different from direct svarūpa is found in the 1st canto ‘tvam ādyaḥ puruṣaḥ sākṣādīśvaraḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ māyāṃ vyudasya cicchaktyā kaivalye sthita ātmani’ also ‘nirastasāmyātiśayena rādhasā svadhāmani brahmaṇi raṃsyate namaḥ’, ‘dhāmnā svena sadā nirastakuhakaṃ satyaṃ paraṃ dhīmahi [dhāma dehe gṛhe raśmau]’. All that has been said so forth in this section is encapsulated in ‘eko nārāyaṇo devaḥ pūrva-sṛṣṭaṃ sva-māyayā, saṃhṛtya kāla-kalayā kalpānta idam īśvaraḥ. eka evādvitīyo 'bhūd ātmādhāro 'khilāśrayaḥ. kālenātmānubhāvena sāmyaṃ nītāsu śaktiṣu, sattvādiṣv ādi-puruṣaḥ pradhāna-puruṣeśvaraḥ. parāvarāṇāṃ parama āste kaivalya-saṃjñitaḥ, kevalānubhavānanda- sandoho nirupādhikaḥ. kevalātmānubhāvena sva-māyāṃ tri-guṇātmikām, saṅkṣobhayan sṛjaty ādau tayā sūtram arindama, tām āhus tri-guṇa-vyaktiṃ sṛjantīṃ viśvato-mukham. yasmin protam idaṃ viśvaṃ yena saṃsarate pumān, yathorṇanābhir hṛdayād ūrṇāṃ santatya vaktrataḥ’
This is the real conditioning of this bhedābheda, just as fire and its natural innate capacity of heating is entirely non separable [This is inherent and not due to samavāya which results in infinite regression of samavāyas] similarly Bhagavān is Naturally possessing various energies which are non different in independent existence from himself. This energy or śakti is defined as follows in ahirbudhnya samhita ‘śūkṣmāvasthā hi sā teṣāṁ sarvabhāvānugāminī’ the definition from jīva gosvāmin from sarva samvādini is as follows ‘ataḥ svarūpasya kāryonmukhatvenaiva śaktitvaṁ, na svata ity āyātam । tataś ca viśeṣya-rūpaṁ tad eva svayaṁ śaktimad-viśeṣaṇa-rūpaṁ, kāryonmukhatvaṁ tu śaktiḥ, jagac ca kārya-kṣamatva-mūlam iti । tat-kṣamatvādi-rūpā nityaiva sā śaktir ity avagamyate ।’, Śakti is that which can only be observed in the kāryonmukha avasthā of the dravya, it is not one with the dravya but their existence is only inferred in their gross actualisation during kārya sampādana by the dravya, The universe is a display of the Lord’s material energy, the Jīvas and the spiritual world are respectively the display of taṭastha and svarūpaśakti / citśakti . In modern physics as well energy can only be deduced via observation, potential energy is deduced by its actualisation into work ‘kārya’ it is not svataḥ jñeya.
One may say what is the need of accepting śakti if the term vastu includes both śakti and vastu ‘vastv evāstu kā tatra śaktir nāma’, to that Śrīla Jīva gosvāmi says ‘iti mataṁ tu na, vedāntināṁ matam [ātmani caivaṁ vicitrāś ca hi । sarvopetā ca tad-darśanāt । sarva-dharmopapatteś ca ।, ‘vicitraśaktiḥ puruṣaḥ’] । saty api vastuni mantrādinā śakti-stambhādi-darśanāt yukti-viruddhaṁ caitat’. One may say ‘but these are material examples, no dormancy of energy can be done by external agents like ‘stambhaka mantra’ in Brahman’, we reply ‘That is true but Brahman being the substratum of various śaktis is accepted in śrutis as well as smṛtis if absolute oneness was accepted there could have been no variety as found in ‘nityo nityānāṁ [jīva, māyā, kāla] cetanaś cetanānām [infinite jīvas] eko bahūnāṁ [One interprenatrating all]’, śakti is śakti śaktimat is śaktimat there is no fundamental alteration of their svarūpas thus bheda can be and should be accepted’ ‘ekasminn api vastuni śakti-vaividhya [ātmani caivaṃ vicitrāś ca hi, sarvopetā ca taddarśanāt]-darśanāt bheda- nirdeśaś ca nāsamañjasa’ also the periodic creation and destruction validate the same ‘aham evāsam evāgre nānyadyat sadasat param, paścādahaṃ yadetac ca yo 'vaśiṣyeta so 'smyaham’, ‘sṛjasy adaḥ pāsi punar grasiṣyase yathorṇa-nābhir bhagavan sva-śaktibhiḥ’. This is explained in the kāṇva śruti ‘sa yathorṇavābhis tantunoccared yathā agneḥ kṣudrā viṣphuliṅgā vyuccaranty evam evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti’ the cobweb and fire sparks exist in their respective causes in a dormant state without losing their nature, Just like that śaktis posessed by Brahman do not change their nature in dormancy or activity, ‘evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti’ in this way the dormant taṭastha and māyā śaktis actualise into their active form. This is explained in Govinda bhāṣya ‘itthaṁ jīvasyāpi kāryatvāt tad-utpattir iti । sūkṣmobhaya-śaktikaṁ brahmaivāvasthāntarāpannaṁ kāryaṁ nāma [śakti-vācakāḥ śabdāḥ śaktimati paryavasyanti śaktīnāṁ tad-ātmakatvād it, thus kārya is the avasthāntara of the śakti viz māyā and jīva who were earlier sūkṣma] । iyāṁs tu viśeṣaḥ । pradhānāder acetanasya bhogya-jātasya svarūpeṇānyathābhāvo jīvasya tu bhoktur jñāna-saṅkoca-vikāśātmaneti । ubhayatrāpi kārya-hetvor aikyāt sā noparudhyae । śrutayaś cāñjasya bhujīran tasmāj jīvasyotpattir neti ॥’ . Thus kāraṇa and kārya, Bhagavān and the world along with the jīvas are non different different from each other (as the potencies viz jīva and māyā whose active state is the kārya,( viz jagat and active jīvas in tāratamya per their karma) are not different from Bhagavān due to being naturally inherent to Him).
Advocates of Viśeṣa, may suggest their supposed ground breaking discovery ‘viśeṣa’ to be applied here and sort the issue, but that is futile. From the smṛti texts like ‘viṣṇuśaktiḥ parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathāparā’ [Viṣṇupurāṇa], ‘itas tv anyāṁ prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parāṁ jīva-bhūtam’ [Bhagavadgitā], ‘śakyatvācchaktayo viṣṇormahadādyā ramā tathā, svarūpaśaktiḥ śaktitvānmukhyaśaktirhi sā yataḥ.’ [Brahma-tarka], ‘eṣa parasya śaktiḥ’, ‘eṣo aṇurātma’ [śruti] and other describing Jīva as a śakti of Bhagavān would go against them if the concept of viśeṣa is applied here. As Śakti can’t be considered different or non-different from dravya it doesn’t pose in ambiguously in form of Jīva Brahma aikya and so forth as śakti is śakti and dravya is dravya, the analogy given by Śrīla Baladeva Prabhu is ‘loke yathā daṇḍinaḥ puruṣābhede’py asti daṇḍa-puruṣayoḥ svarūpato bhedas tathā śaktimato brahmaṇaḥ śakty-abhede’pi śakti-brahmaṇoḥ so’stīti na kṣatiḥ ॥’’ this analogy only stresses on the point that śakti is śakti and Brahman is Brahman it need not be streched out, just like a person with a daṇḍa is called daṇḍin similarly possessing śakti is natural for Brahman yet the śakti is dependent on him though they constitute a unit there is simultaneous difference and non difference.
Without the acceptance of this relation, prakṛti and jīvas can’t be shown to be eternal as well as dependent on the Lord. If the ‘logic of a principle determining the non-eternity of a pot’ is given, that too is futile. Because that accepts its own premises undefined by the apauruṣeya śāstras. The logic goes ‘yathānityaṃ ghaṭādikamanityatayā niyamyate…tadidamuktam- nityaṃ ceti’ ‘There is no need to suppose that what is eternal cannot possibly be 'dependent' on another. Let us take a non-eternal object like a pot. It is not a matter of 'accident' that such objects are non-eternal. Their non-eternity is 'determined' for some reason. Otherwise, they might as well be destroyed the very next moment after coming into being. Similarly, what is wrong if one should suppose that the eternity of the eternal objects is also determined by a governing principle ? Surely, we do not find the non-eternal objects like pots foregoing their non-eternity and becoming eternal just because their non-eternity is determined by another principle. It is the nature of the non-eternal to become destroyed sooner or later. In the same way, even where an eternal entity is " determined " by another, there is no fear of its losing its eternity and becoming non-eternal by the caprice of the determining principle. For the governing principle will maintain and guarantee the status quo of the other as an eternal entity, for all time. There is, therefore, nothing illogical or inconceivable in holding the view that ' eternal' padarthas also are 'dependent' upon God. ’ However this is flawed as per sat-kāryavāda the pot already exists in the earthen mould, when we say it’s destroyed what is actually destroyed ? if we refer to a certain arrangement of clay atoms in the name of pot, then their anityatva is determined by viśeṣa because we know that earth element etc are eternal as in the īśopaniṣad ‘arthānvyadadhācchāśvatībhyaḥ samābhyaḥ’. So their non-eternity is defined by viśeṣa [naiyāyīka] but Jīvas are not composite. Also its destruction is perceived after it’s destruction but the jīvas or prakṛti due to being nitya don’t have that stop limit after which such a conclusion can be drawn. Non-eternity is caused by some principle and non-eternity as well is caused by some other principle. Why can’t these be taken as their innate svabhāva ? rather than a divine principle, ‘na jāyate vā mṛyate vā kadācit’, that is the definition of soul, examining local phenomena like a pot and projecting that on eternal elements seems to be a great work of guess thus bringing in category error. Thus one must accept the śakti-śaktimān relationship between these padārthas and the Lord so that dependency and eternity can be explained without any guess or contradiction. Bimba-pratibimba can’t explain the relation between Bhagavān and Jīva in toto, it can only explain the sādṛśatva aspect, The need of a upādhi can’t be denied for a reflection thus the propagators themselves has accepted ‘nahyupādhibimbasannidhyanāśe pratibimbanāśaḥ, sati ca pradarśake, svayamevātra pradarśakaḥ, cittvāt, nityaścopādhiḥ kaścidasti,’ but then we find from paiṅgi śruti ‘sopādhir anupādhiś ca pratibimbo dvidheṣyate | jīva īśasyānupādhir indracāpo yathā raveḥ ||’, it is never seen that a mirror and the image formed are one thus this view that the upādhi and the jīva are one by svarūpa viśeṣa, cit aspect of jīva acts like upādhi but that too is not correct because viśeṣa can’t produce actual difference in a partless being like the Jīva. Verses like ‘pratipattau vimokṣasya nityopādhyā svarūpayā,cidrūpayā yuto jīvaḥ keśavapratibimbakaḥ’ is to be taken in the sense that in mukti Jīva’s attain their natural similarity with Brahman ‘param sāmyam upaity’, as in the parama saṁhitā ‘brahmovāca, kena dharmeṇa bhidyante muktāstava śarīriṇaḥ, etadācakṣva me deva guhyādguhyamidaṁ param. paramovāca, ahameva bhavantyete na bhedastatra kaścana, yathā'haṁ viharāmyeva tahā muktāśca dehinaḥ.’ The famously quoted sruti 'agniryathaiko bhuvanaṃ praviṣṭo rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo babhūva . ekastathā sarvabhūtāntarātmā rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo bahiśca'does not serve their purpose, 'agniryathaiko bhuvanaṃ praviṣṭo rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo babhūva' agni having entered assumes form with respect to the form of the Jiva [rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo babhūva] and still remain outside him 'ekastathā sarvabhūtāntarātmā rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo bahiśca'. Thus if they accept this sruti they must accept Paramatma being the pratibimba of the Jiva which is not at all possible nor do we see that the object become one with respect with the previously present reflection. If the object is not present there can be no reflection with respect to it.
This [śakti being śakti, Bhagavān being Bhagavān] has been taken into account while defining Bhagavān as Advaya Tattva in Tattva Sandarbha— ‘[drawing from ‘vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ…’] advayatvaṃ [bhavadbhāvasvarūpeṇa tattvam-eka-iva-uditau [ahirbudhnya], as if one tattva ’eka-iva’, ‘sa puruṣaḥ so’dvayaḥ’ [Bhāllaveya śruti]’] cāsya svayaṃ-siddhatādṛśātādṛśatattvāntarābhāvaāt svaśaktyeka-sahāyatvāt । paramāśrayaṃ taṃ vinā tāsām asiddhatvāc ca ।’, Śrutis validating this ‘vicitraśaktiḥ puruṣaḥ purāṇo na ca anyeṣāṁ śaktyastādṛśāḥ syuḥ’, ‘‘viṣṇor nu kaṁ vīryāṇi pra vocaṁ yaḥ pārthivāni vimame rajāṁsi’, ‘na te viṣṇo jāyamāno na jāto deva mahimnaḥ param antam āpa’, ‘pra viṣṇur astu tavasas tavīyān tveṣaṃ hy asya sthavirasya nāma [īśvaraḥ stomānām, aryas tvam asi iti vā, tam tvā staumi tavasam atavyāṃs, tavasa iti mahato nāmadheyam, Yāska]’, ‘na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca’, ‘sa vā ayam ātmā sarveṣāṃ adhipatiḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ rājā । tad yathā rathanābhau ca rathanemau cārāḥ sarve samarpitāḥ । evam evāsminn ātmani sarvāṇi bhūtāni sarve devāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarva eta ātmānaḥ samarpitāḥ ॥’. These verses from the Bhāgavata further brings out this concept ‘dravyaṃ karma ca kālaśca svabhāvo jīva eva ca, vāsudevāt paro brahman na cānyo 'rtho 'sti tattvataḥ’, ‘dravyaṃ karma ca kālaśca svabhāvo jīva eva ca, yadanugrahataḥ santi na santi yadupekṣayā’, from the Gītā ‘mattaḥ parataraṃ nānyat kiṃcid asti dhanaṃjaya mayi sarvam idaṃ protaṃ sūtre maṇigaṇā iva, mayā tatam idaṃ sarvaṃ jagad avyaktamūrtinā matsthāni sarvabhūtāni na cāhaṃ teṣv avasthitaḥ na ca matsthāni bhūtāni paśya me yogam aiśvaram’.
keeping that aside, non difference of śakti and śaktimat is due to three primary reasons, ‘(1) śakti-śaktimatoḥ parasparānupraveśāt (2) śaktimad-vyatireke śakti-vyatirekāt (3) cittvāviśeṣāc [For other śaktis eternity or pristine nature] ca kvacid abheda-nirdeśa ekasminn api vastuni śakti-vaividhya-darśanāt bheda- nirdeśaś ca nāsamañjasaḥ ।’. This interpenetration of śakti and śaktimān is acintya, as Brahman is all pervasive, real existence of śakti in brahman seems to be logically incoherent and can only be known via śāstras like the statements ‘kasmin nu khalu brahmalokā otāś ca protāś ceti [interpenetrates svarūpa śakti]’, ‘mayi sarvam idaṃ protaṃ sūtre maṇigaṇā iva’, ‘mat-sthāni sarva-bhutāni na cāham teṣv avasthitaḥ, na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni paśya me yogam aiśvaram.’, [interpenetrates Jīvas]’, ‘paro madanyo jagatastasthuṣaśca otaṃ protaṃ paṭavadyatra viśvam’, ‘yatra sarvam idaṃ protaṃ yat kiṃ cij jaṃgamaṃ jagat’ , ‘tad anupraviśya sac ca tyac cābhavat’[Interpenetrates the material energy], ‘yat kiṁcaña jagat sarvam dṛśyate śruyate’pi vā antar bahiś ca tat sarvaṁ vyāpya nārāyaṇa stitaḥ’, ‘yathā rathanābhau ca rathanemau cārāḥ sarve samarpitāḥ । evam evāsminn ātmani sarvāṇi bhūtāni sarve devāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarva eta ātmānaḥ samarpitāḥ ॥’. Those who want to apply viśeṣa here, must accept lakṣmī, mahadādi pradhāna and Jīva being different from Brahman only as a matter of formality, there exists no actual distinction if it is accepted which is not acceptable in their school.
Statements like ‘neha nānāsti kiñcana’, ‘ekameva advitiyaṁ’, ‘evaṁ dharmān pṛthakpaśyān’ corraborate our theory of Brahman being bhedatraya vivarjita,
Svagatabheda is negated, As in Brahman there is no variation ‘neha nānāsti kiñcana’, ‘na cāntar na bahir yasya na pūrvaṃ nāpi cāparam’ what ‘constitutes’ Brahman is Brahman. Brahman being Brahman possesses śaktis [Thus the śaṅkarite argument ‘ata ekadeśo vikāraḥ śaktirvā vijñānātmā anyo veti vikalpayituṃ niravayavatvābhyupagame viśeṣato na śakyate’] hence there is no trace of Svagata-bheda, Thus he is ‘ekameva advitiyam’ there is no other being similar or disimilar to him for there exists nothing independent of his existence that such comparison can be drawn, there exists no svagatabheda for it’s nature is to be endowed with śaktis ‘parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate svābhāvikī jñānabalakriyā ca’, The dharma of śaktimatatva will be divorced from Brahman if any alteration happens thus said ‘evaṁ dharmān pṛthakpaśyān’. ‘nāntaḥprajñaṃ na bahiḥprajñaṃ nobhayataḥprajñaṃ na prajñānaghanaṃ na prajñaṃ nāprajñam । adṛṣṭam avyavahāryam agrāhyam alakṣaṇam acintyam avyapadeśyam ekātmapratyayasāraṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śāntaṃ śivam advaitaṃ caturthaṃ manyante । sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ ॥’
Sajātīyabheda, because of various forms is denied, As various forms of Brahman like Śrī Rāma, Nṛsiṁha etc are not different from him for it’s found in the pañcarātra ‘maṇiryathā vibhāgena nīlapītādibhiyutaḥ, rūpabhedamavāpnoti dhyānbhedāttathā vibhuḥ.’, ‘yathāmbarasthaḥ savitā tveka eva mahāmate, jalāśrayāṇi cāśritya bahutvaṁ sampradarśayet, evameko'pi bhagavān nānāmantrāśrayeṣu ca, turyādipadasaṁstheṣu bahutvamupayāti ca.’ [these mantras as well are non different from him in reality as they are from the vedas which are nothing but his breath ‘asya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam etad yad ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo 'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṃ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇy anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānani’,]. In the Sarva saṁvādini ‘sarve vedā yat-padam āmananti [ka.u. 1.2.15] iti śruteḥ । tad etad apy āha—na bhedād iti cen, na, pratyekam atad-vacanāt46 [ve.sū. 3.2.12] । ata eva, ekam evādvitīyaṁ brahma ity eke paṭhanti । tad etad apy āha—api caivam eke [ve.sū. 3.2.13] iti ।’ The Govinda bhāṣya expands ‘na bhedād iti cen na pratyekam atad-vacanāt ॥ bahudhāvabhātasyāpi tāttvikatvena bhedābheda-prāpteḥ pūrvoktaṁ na yuktam iti cen, na । kutaḥ ? pratīty-ādeḥ indro māyābhiḥ puru-rūpaḥ īyate yuktā hy asya harayaḥ śatādaśety ayaṁ vai harayo’yaṁ vai daśa ca sahasrāṇi ca bahūni cānantāni ca tad etad brahmāpūrvam anaparam anataram abāhyam ayam ātmā brahma sarvānubhūtir ity anuśāsanam [bṛ.ā.u. 2.5.19] iti bṛhad-āraṇyake sarveṣāṁ rūpāṇām aikyokter ity arthaḥ ॥’, ‘api ceti kiṁ cety arthaḥ । amātro’nanta-mātraś ca [māṇḍūkya-kārikā 29] ity eke śākhina evam abhedenānanta-rūpatvena cainaṁ paṭhanti । amātraḥ svāṁśa-bheda-śūnyaḥ । ananta-mātro’saṅkhyeya-svāṁśaḥ । eka eva paro viṣṇuḥ sarvatrāpi na saṁśayaḥ । aiśvaryād rūpam ekaṁ ca sūryavad bahudheyate ॥ iti smṛteś38 ca । ayaṁ bhāvaḥ—yathaika eva vaidūrya-maṇir draṣṭṛ-bhedād rūpa-bhedān dadhāno’pi, yathā vābhinetā naṭaḥ sva-sthitān bhāvān prakaṭayan bahudhāvabhāto’py aikyaṁ svasmin na vimuñcati, evaṁ dhyātṛ-bhāva-bhedāt kārya-bhedāc cānekatayā pratīto’pi hariḥ svarūpaikyaṁ svasmin na muñcati । maṇir yathā vibhāgena nīla-pītādibhir yutaḥ । rūpa-bhedam avāpnoti dhyāna-bhedāt tathācyutaḥ ॥ [viṣṇu-tantra] yat tad vapur bhāti vibhūṣaṇāyudhair avyakta-cid-vyaktam adhārayad dhariḥ । babhūva tenaiva sa vāmano vaṭuḥ sampaśyator divya-gatir yathā naṭaḥ ॥ [bhā.pu. 8.18.12] ity ādi smṛtibhyaḥ । maṇir atra vaidūryaḥ । naṭo’bhinetā । tathā caikasyaiva sato’vicintya-śakter viruddha-guṇāśrayasya yugapad bahudhāvabhāso’pi tasmin viruddha-dhī-viṣayo guṇa eveti । tasminn ekasminn evāvicintya-śaktike sarveśvare bhaktir upapanneti ॥’. Sajātiya bheda because of similarity with Jīvas due to certain qualities is denied as they lack differentiated independent existence. Same for Vijātiyabheda, as there ‘exists’ nothing without being inherent in the Lord, there is no vijātiyabheda for in respect of a cow and a horse having real vijātiyabheda nothing happens to the other if one dies but such is not the case here, śakti is utterly dependent on Bhagavān. ‘nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ’ This śruti is to be interpreted in the same light, ‘nityo nityānām’, He is the cause of eternity of several eternals, thus their eternality is contained in his eternity, ‘cetanaś cetanānām’ consciousness of the Jīvas is dependent on him thus non different from his consciousness, ‘eko bahūnāṁ’ now this part explains the advaya tattva, though as a tattva He is the Only one still variegated existence is inherent in him in the form of his śaktis which are different yet non different from him due to negation of both.
śakti-śaktimatayor na vibheda kathañcana etc statements which propound absolute non distinction between them must be taken in the sense of svarūpa śakti ‘śakyatvācchaktayo viṣṇormahadādyā ramā tathā, svarūpaśaktiḥ śaktitvānmukhyaśaktirhi sā yataḥ.’ Because svarūpaśakti is the main referent of the word śakti if nothing more is specified like Bhagavān / puruṣa is for our Beloved Lord, ‘athaikam eva svarūpaṃ śaktitvena śaktimattvena ca virājatīti । yasya śakteḥ svarūpa-bhūtatvaṃ nirūpitaṃ tac-chakti-mattā-prādhānyena virājamānaṃ bhagavat-saṃjñām āpnoti tac ca vyākhyātam । tad eva ca śaktitva- prādhānyena virājamānaṃ lakṣmī-saṃjñām āpnotīti’, Śrī Mahālakṣmī, such bheda doesn’t exist because of complete unity, here the concept of viśeṣa is used to call the Lord, ‘Husband of Śrī’ also ‘eka eva paro viṣṇur bhuṣā-heti-dhvajeṣv ajaḥ tat-tac-chakti-svarūpeṇa svayam eva vyavasthitaḥ’. This [Mahālakṣmi being non different from Bhagavān] is substantiated in the Rāmāyaṇa as being validated by the mutual declaration of Śrī Sitārāma, ‘ananyā rāghaveṇāhaṃ bhāskareṇa prabhā yathā’ [Sundarakāṇḍa, Mother Sītā], ‘ananyā hi mayā sītāṃ bhāskareṇa prabhā yathā’ [Yuddhakāṇḍa, Śrī Rāma], here ‘ananyā’ means non different just as sun is naturally possesing it’s shine there is no difference between the shine and the sun any difference is apparent by viśeṣa alone, Thus Bhagavān is called ātmakāma‘, ‘ātmaratiḥ’ in the Bhāgavata ‘yan no vihāya govindaḥ prīto yām anayad rahaḥ’, ‘tābhir vidhūtaśokābhir bhagavān acyuto vṛtaḥ vyarocatādhikaṁ tāta puruṣaḥ śaktibhir yathā’, ‘gopyo labdhvācyutaṃ kāntaṃ śriya ekānta-vallabham’, ‘saṃnatir hrīs tathā śrīś ca nityaṃ kṛṣṇe mahātmani’ [This text Harivaṁśa proves parāśakti in her three forms as hlādini [śrī], saṁdhini [hrī], saṁvit [saṃnatir] exists in kṛṣṇa eternally as are non different from him]. Sometimes the word Māyā as well is used for Citśakti as in the caturveda śikhā ‘svarūpa-bhūtāya nitya-śaktyā māyākhyayā yutaḥ, ato māyāmayaṁ viṣṇnuṁ pravadanti sanātanam’, ‘nāma-svarūpayor nirūpaṇena mahā-saṃhitāyām api viviktaṃ tat tri-śakti - śrīr bhūr durgeti yā bhinnā jīva-māyā mahātmanaḥ । ātma-māyā tad-icchā syāt guṇa-māyā jaḍātmikā ॥ iti [?] asyārthaḥ । śrīr atra jagat-pālana-śaktiḥ, bhūs tat-sṛṣṭi-śaktiḥ, durgā tat- pralaya-śaktiḥ । tat-tad-rūpena yā bhedaṃ prāptā, sā jīva-viṣayā tac-chaktir jīva-māyety ucyate । pādme śrī-kṛṣṇa-satyabhāmā-saṃvāde - aham eva tridhā bhinnā tiṣṭhāmi trividhair guṇair ity etad-vākyānantaraṃ tataḥ sarve'pi te devāḥ śrutvā tad-vākya-coditāḥ । gaurīṃ lakṣmīṃ dharāṃ caiva praṇemur bhakti-tat-parāḥ ॥ iti ॥ ekādaśe ca - eṣā māyā bhagavataḥ sṛṣṭi-sthity-antakāriṇī । trivarṇā varṇitāsmābhiḥ kiṃ bhūyaḥ śrotum icchasi ॥ iti ॥ [BhP 11.3.16] ātma-māyā svarūpa-śaktiḥ । mīyate'nayeti māyā-śabdena śakti-mātram api bhaṇyate - tasyāṃ tamovan naihāraṃ khadyotārcir ivāhani । mahatītaramāyaiśyaṃ nihanty ātmani yuñjata ॥ iti [BhP 10.13.45] brahma-vākyaṃ tathaiva saṅgacchate । śakti-mātrasya tāratamyaṃ hi tatra vivakṣitam । svalpā śaktiḥ khalv anṛtasya satyasya vā vyañjikā bhavatu nāma । parābhavāya kalpata eveti hi tatra gamyate । dṛṣṭāntābhyāṃ ca tathaiva prakaṭitaṃ tasyāṃ tamovad ityādibhyām । tathā yuddheṣa māyāmaya- śastrādinā bahavaś chinna-bhinnā jātā iti purāṇādiṣu śrūyate । tataḥ sā ca māyā mithyākalpikā ca bhavatīti gamyate । na hi maru-marīcikā- jalena kecid ārdrā bhavantīti । svarūpa-bhūtayā nitya-śaktyā māyākhyayā yutaḥ । ato māyāmayaṃ viṣṇuṃ pravadanti sanātanam ॥ iti caturveda-śikhādyā śrutiś ca । tataś ca - ātma-māyā tad-icchā syāt ity atra jñāna-kriye api lakṣyete । māyā vayunaṃ jñanam iti nighaṇṭau ca paryāya-śabdāḥ । triguṇātmikātha jñānaṃ ca viṣṇu-śaktis tathaiva ca । māyā-śabdena bhaṇyate śabda-tattvārtha-vedibhiḥ ॥ iti trikāṇḍa-śeṣe । māyā dambhe kṛpāyāṃ ceti viśva-prakāśe । vyākhyātaṃ ca ṭīkā-kṛdbhir ekādaśe kālo māyā-maye jīve ity atra [BhP 11.24.27] māyā-pravartake jñāna- maye vā iti । tṛtīye'pi āpuḥ parāṃ mudam ity ādau [BhP 3.15.26] yoga-māya- śabdena sanakādāv aṣṭāṅga-yoga-prabhāvaṃ vyākhyāya parameśvare tu cic- chakti-vilāso vyākhyātaḥ ।’.
The concept of Viśeṣa and it’s scope will be discussed now, As per madhvācārya it is a capability of the dravya to create apparent distinctions within themselves for the sake of referring to them. Madhvācārya accepts viśeṣa being identical with the dravya. Jayatīrtha further explains the same, He says an object being identical with viśeṣa can be the possessor of viśeṣa by the strength of the particular viśeṣa itself. There exists innumerable viśeṣa in a particular dravya, these innumerable viśeṣa inside the dravya are non different to each other but for different dravya they are different. This concept has many scopes of application viz. Bhagavān and his body or his svarūpa śakti etc. Viśeṣa as a category exists among naiyāyīkas as well the difference in these is as follows—’Both concepts are used for causing difference in partless entities, for naiyāyīkas it is viśeṣa that differentiates atoms in a thread from atoms in a fruit though atoms belong to the same genus yet differentiation is necessary from each other to maintain diversity, while in the dvaita system viśeṣa introduces apparent difference within a homogenous object for practical purpose of reference. Though both of these seem different they have similar root, both atom in nyāya and brahman in vedānta are partless thus general differentiation by normal comparison is not possible, In nyāya atoms form a class but each atom in that class is distinct this distinction is caused by viśeṣa. In vedānta brahman has infinite qualities and forms which are non different from itself, this is the premise ‘eko’pi san bahudhā yo vibhāti’ thus one must accept viśeṣa here not producing actual difference between brahman and it’s qualities rather just for praxis. Thus in vedānta viśeṣa is used to uphold apparent diversity in brahman to reconcile phrases like ‘Brahman’s bliss’ with ‘Bliss is Brahman’ etc. while in nyāya viśeṣa upholds real distinction among eternal partless entities. Both consider viśeṣa in a dravya to be innumerable and svanirvāhaka it simultaneously differentiates the dravya from everything else and itself from other viśeṣas and everything else.’ because the premises and objectives are different the same concept is used with the same name in different ways. When Madhvācārya says viśeṣa and it’s possessor are one, Jayatīrtha says 'substance, though identical with viśeṣa can still be the possessor of viśeṣa by the operation of that particular viśeṣa itself'. One may say then what is the need of accepting something called viśeṣa at the first place, all that capacity belong to Brahman by nature there is no need to accept viśeṣa, to that we say viśeṣa can be taken as a vṛtti of svarūpa śakti to avoid such redundancy as acintyatva is inherent in every śakti ‘durghaṭaghaṭakatvaṁ hyacintyatvaṁ’. Dravya must inherently be capable of manifesting conventional apparent distinction among itself for human comprehension, if that capability has to be called by the name viśeṣa such terminology is accepted by Śrīla Baladeva ‘viśesas-tv-avaśyaṁ svīkāryaḥ...svabhāvastu viśeṣātmā’ , Śrīla Vedānta-vāgīśa comments ‘nanu sattādīnāṃ sattādyantarābhāveʼpi vastusvabhāvādeva satītyādivyavahāraḥ syāditi cettatrāha svabhāvastviti, sa svabhāva evāsmābhirviśeṣaśabdenocyata ityarthaḥ, tasmādalaṃ nāmamātravirodheneti.’, ‘Someone may object, “Although there is nothing different than existence within existence and so on, it is by the very inherent nature of the subject that the usage of sentences like ‘there is existence,’ and the like, is possible.” In response, the author says that this very inherent nature is what we refer to by the word ‘viśeṣa.’ Therefore, enough disagreement on mere names!’ svīkāryaḥ’ like for a snake and it’s coil, though the coil is the snake itself still it’s referred as though different from it, no one says ‘snake of a coil’ yet both are non different in absolute sense
However this can’t be applied for Taṭastha śakti [Jīvas] and Māyā śakti [Jaḍa prakṛti] from this smṛti text ‘viṣṇuśaktiḥ parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathāparā, avidyākarmasaṃjñānyā tṛtīyā śaktiriṣyate. yayā kṣetrajñaśaktiḥsā veṣṭitā nṛpasarvagā, saṃsāratāpānakhilānavāprotyatisaṃtatān. tayā tirohitatvācca śaktiḥ kṣetrajñasaṃjñitā, sarvabhūteṣu bhūpāla tāratamyenalakṣyate.’ If it’s said that this difference is due to viśeṣa then in reality it must be accepted that Viṣṇu is himself bound by māyā, thus the concept of viśeṣa is untenable for these two śaktis, this however doesn’t result in svagata bheda as śaktis are not a different independent being but by nature associated with Brahman. Places where accepting viśeṣa is futile—
Jīva by viśeṣa is divorced from it’s svarūpānanda etc attributes which eternally inhere in him and are non different from him, if viśeṣa is accepted only to cause a apparent difference then how can this concept be used to define the boundedness of jīvas which is cent percent real ?, By Viśeṣa Brahman has ānanda and he is himself ānanda but that doesn’t mean that when we say Brahman is Ānanda other attributes of Brahman become dormant similarly Jīva can’t be divorced from it svarūpaguṇas by viśeṣa. Thus the cause of Bondage is Māyā śakti not Viśeṣa ‘yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṃ triguṇātmakam, paro 'pi manute 'narthaṃ tatkṛtaṃ cābhipadyate’, ‘tasmiṃś cānyo māyayā sanniruddhaḥ’
Similarly if such concept is accepted in Jīva that an apparent ‘part’ in Jīva svarūpa defined by viśeṣa acts like a ‘reflecting medium’ of its own reflection which is itself, then why can’t a similar part be accepted in brahman which doesn’t exist as different to it but in functionality undergoes transformation in form of the World ?, thus this concept if accepted in one way must be accepted in all other ways as well.
Our take is viśeṣa is only applicable while defining Brahman’s svarūpa śaktis as here ‘sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti ॥’ Here svarūpa śakti and Brahman have been considered one thus saying Brahman is established on his śakti or himself is non different, here the concept of viśeṣa can be used. No such reference in śruti is available which says that ‘every’ śakti is non different to Brahman. Let’s understand this by the statement ‘sad eva somyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam’, this ‘sad’ is Brahman endowed with all śaktis situated in svarūpa śakti which is non different from him ‘yuje vāṁ brahma pūrvyaṁ namobhirviśloka etu pathyeva sūreḥ’, ‘idam’ is the effect of other dormant śaktis like jīvas and māyā, thus by arthāpatti jīvaśakti and māyāśakti are different from the svarūpa of Bhagavān yet are not completely divorced from him due to parasparānupraveśa as Bhagavān is ‘ekam evādvitīyam’ this is further substantiated in svetāśvataropaniṣad ‘māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyān māyinaṃ ca maheśvaram, tasyāvayava-bhūtais tu vyāptaṃ sarvam idaṃ jagat’, ‘ya eko 'varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād varaṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti vi caiti cānte viśvam ādau sa devaḥ sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṃyunaktu’. Those who accept complete non difference in śakti and śaktimān must also accept Brahman’s transformation into the world and all as in ‘ya eko 'varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogād varaṇān anekān nihitārtho dadhāti, vi caiti cānte viśvam ādau sa devaḥ sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṃyunaktu. tvaṃ strī pumān asi tvaṃ kumāra uta vā kumārī, tvaṃ jīrṇo daṇḍena vañcasi tvaṃ jāto bhavasi viśvato-mukhaḥ. nīlaḥ pataṅgo harito lohitākṣas taḍid-garbha ṛtavaḥ samudrāḥ, anādimat tvaṃ vibhutvena vartase yato jātāni bhuvanāni viśvā’. In our school this phrase ‘anādimat tvaṃ vibhutvena vartase yato jātāni bhuvanāni viśvā’ makes the śruti clear, here his transcendence is being emphasized it means because his śaktis like māyā and jīva are non different from him as in the parama saṁhitā ‘parasya puruṣasyaiva śaktyaḥ kośaśo'parāḥ, jātināmasvarūpāṇāṁ bhedādbhinnā iva sthitaḥ.’ thus their various manifestations are also non different from him, yet he in his svarūpa is beyond all this and the basis of all this ‘mat-sthāni sarva-bhutāni na cāham teṣv avasthitaḥ, na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni paśya me yogam aiśvaram.’ ‘sarvaṁ samāpnoṣi tato’si sarva’ all this is accomplised by him using his acintyaśakti which is he himself by viśeṣa. This configuration has been explained in the Bhāgavatam ‘tvam ādyaḥ puruṣaḥ sākṣādīśvaraḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ, māyāṃ vyudasya cicchaktyā kaivalye sthita ātman.’, ‘cidacid śakti yuktāya’.
The analogy given is that of a spider, cobweb is the actualisation of the saliva that exists in the spider, similarly world etc are the actualisation of jaḍa-māyā śakti that inheres in Brahman. As the saliva is a inherent potency of the spider it differentiates spider from other insects and that saliva can’t exist in nature by itself, thus the saliva and the spider can’t be said to be completely different as by nature the spider possesses the saliva and saliva can’t exist in nature without inhering in the spider, then as well the saliva is saliva and the spider is spider, the saliva turning into cobweb doesn’t turn the spider into a cobweb. Similarly when the acualisation of Brahman’s māyāśakti results in the world, it is the transformation of māyā that inheres naturally in Brahman thus non different from Brahman, thus it’s not Brahman who transforms into the world just as Cintāmaṇi doesn’t transforms into gold yet produces gold this is explained in the viṣṇu purāṇa as well ‘sannidhānādyathākāśakālādyāḥ kāraṇaṃ taroḥ, tathaiva pariṇāmeva viśvasya bhagavānhariḥ’, This is the import of passages like ‘kiṁ svid vanaṁ ka u sa vṛkṣa āsīt yato dyāvāpṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ, manīṣiṇo manasā pṛcchataitat yad adhyatiṣṭhad bhuvanāni dhārayan । brahma vanaṁ brahma sa vṛkṣa āsīt yato dyāvāpṛthivī niṣṭatakṣuḥ manīṣiṇo manasā prabravīmi vo brahmādyatiṣṭhat bhuvanāni dhārayan’. Thus in the system Bhagavān is Abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇa as in the Bhāgavata ‘prakṛtir yasyopādānam ādhāraḥ puruṣaḥ paraḥ, sato’bhivyañjakaḥ kālo brahma tat-tritayas tv aham’, in the śrutis ‘sa kāraṇaṁ karaṇādhipādhipo’, ‘kartāram īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yoniṁ’ but through his śakti thus the term used in śakti-pariṇāmavāda. In the Govinda bhāṣya ‘tasya nimittatvam upādānatvaṁ cābhidhīyate । tatrādyaṁ parākhya-śaktimad-rūpeṇa, dvitīyaṁ tu tad-anya-śakti-dvaya-dvāraiva । sa-viśeṣaṇe vidhi-niṣedhau viśeṣaṇam upasaṅkrāmata iti nyāyāt । ya eko’varṇo bahudhā śakti-yogāt [śve.u. 4.1] ity ādi śravaṇāc ca ।’, In the Paramātmā sandarbha ‘prakṛtir yasyopādānam ādhāraḥ puruṣaḥ paraḥ । sato'bhivyañjakaḥ kālo brahma tat-tritayas tv aham ॥ [BhP 11.24.19] iti । ataeva kvacid asya brahmopādānatvaṃ kvacit pradhānopādānatvaṃ śrūyate । tatra sā māyākhyā pariṇāma-śaktiś ca dvividhā varṇyate । nimittāṃśo māyā upādānāṃśaḥ pradhānam iti । tatra kevalā śaktir nimittaṃ tad vyūha-mayī tūpādānam iti vivekaḥ । ataeva śrutāv api vijñānaṃ cāvijñānaṃ ceti [TaittU 2.6.1] kascyacid bhāgasyācetanatā śrūyate ।’. Govinda Bhāṣya of another sūtra is quoted with the avataranika—
Pūrvapakṣa—jagad brahmopādānakaṁ syān na veti । kiṁ prāptaṁ brahmopādānakaṁ neti vairūpyāt । sarvajña-sarveśvara-viśuddha-sukha-rūpatayā brahmābhimatām । …śāstrasyāvasthāpekṣyaḥ tad-anugṛhītasyaiva kvacid viśaye’rtha-niścaya-hetutvād iti pūrva-pakṣaḥ ।
Siddhānta— tad imaṁ nirasyati— dṛśyate tu ॥ tu-śabdena śaṅkā nirasyate । pūrvato nety anuvartate । yad uktaṁ brahma-vairūpyāt tad-upādānakāṁ jagan neti tan na virūpāṇām apy upādānopādeya-bhāvasya dṛṣṭatvāt । yathā guṇānām utpattir vijātīyād dravyāt, yathā kṛmīṇāṁ mākṣikāt, yathā kari-turagādīnāṁ kalpa-drumāt । yathā ca suvarṇādīnāṁ cintāmaṇer iti । ittham abhipretyaiva dṛṣṭāntitam ātharvaṇikaiḥ— yathorṇa-nābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ sambhavanti । yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśa-lobhāni tathākṣarāt sambhavatīha viśvam ॥ [mu.u. 1.1.7] iti ।.
Similarly in the Śrutigītā ‘sata idaṃ utthitaṃ sad iti cen nanu tarka-hataṃ, vyabhicarati kva ca kva ca mṛṣā na tathobhaya-yuk. vyavahṛtaye vikalpa iṣito 'ndha-paramparayā, bhramayati bhāratī ta uru-vṛttibhir uktha-jaḍān. na yad idam agra āsa na bhaviṣyad ato nidhanād anu mitam antarā tvayi vibhāti mṛṣaika-rase, ata upamīyate draviṇa-jāti-vikalpa-pathair, vitatha-mano-vilāsam ṛtam ity avayanty abudhāḥ.’
The relation between Brahman and the universe is explained in the Bhāgavatam ‘etat padaṃ taj jagad-ātmanaḥ paraṃ sakṛd vibhātaṃ savitur yathā prabhā, yathāsavo jāgrati supta-śaktayo dravya-kriyā-jñāna-bhidā-bhramātyayaḥ’, ‘tasmāt priyatamaḥ svātmā sarveṣām api dehinām tad-artham eva sakalaṃ jagad etac carācaram kṛṣṇam enam avehi tvam ātmānam akhilātmanām jagad-dhitāya so 'py atra dehīvābhāti māyayā vastuto jānatām atra kṛṣṇaṃ sthāsnu cariṣṇu ca bhagavad-rūpam akhilaṃ nānyad vastv iha kiñcana sarveṣām api vastūnāṃ bhāvārtho bhavati sthitaḥ tasyāpi bhagavān kṛṣṇaḥ kim atad vastu rūpyatām’, ‘sattvaṃ rajas tama iti tri-vṛd ekam ādau sūtraṃ mahān aham iti pravadanti jīvam jñāna-kriyārtha-phala-rūpatayoru-śakti brahmaiva bhāti sad asac ca tayoḥ paraṃ yat’, For details refer to Paramātma sandarbha anucchedas ‘56-79’, ‘atha māyā-kāryaṃ jagal lakṣyate...yadi ca taṃ vināpi syāt tadā cit-samaḥ syāc cid-rūpeṇa samaḥ sva-prakāśa evābhaviṣyat । ātmavat paramātmavan nityaikāvasthaś cābhaviṣyat’
Our system is different from that of Bhāskara and others including nimbārkācārya, In the system of Bhāskara and Yādava prakāśa both anticipate that Brahman itself is the Jīva and the Jagat, only difference is Bhāskara says it is due to a real upādhi that Brahman appears to be different from Jīva while in svarūpa both are one and Yādava prakāśa says it’s naturally such. ‘sa cābhinnābhinnasvarūpa abhinnarūpa svābhāvikam aupādhikaṁ tu bhinnarūpaṁ’ [Bhāskara bhāṣya 2.3.43], Svapaneśvara also had similar views ‘tasyaikatvameva svabhāvaḥ.. jīvopādhibuddherātmani kṛtaḥ.. jīvopādhibuddhihāne sati punarekatvam-apy-aviruddham.’ [śāṇḍilya bhakti sūtra bhāṣya, 93], ‘ayaṁ yādavaprakāśapakṣosmin sūtra upanyasataḥ, tatra hi kāryātmanā kāraṇātmanā ca jīvabrahmanobhedābhedau svābhāvikau matau.’ [Śruta prakāśikā, defining Yādava prakāśa’s view], These views are completely untenable and must be given up.
By examination of Bhārtṛprapañca’s views [taken from bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣya of śaṅkarācārya along with subsequent sub commentaries of sureśvarācārya and ānandagiri], it is evident that He as well erred a lot, His view contains 8 states of agitation in brahman. The analogy which he gives to support his view is that of a ocean and it’s waves, which is successfully countered by Śaṅkarācārya in Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣya ‘yathā kila samudro jalataraṅgaphenabudbudādyātmaka…samudraikodaka-ātmatvavad-eka-vijñānavatvād-devadattasya tasmācchratinyāyavirodhaścābhipretārthāsiddhiścaivaṅkalpanāyāṃ syāt’
The examination of Nimbārka view [with respect to commentaries on 3.2.27-28 and 2.3.42] begins henceforth— ‘The Theory propounded by Śrīmad Nimbārkācārya is also called ‘svābhāvika bhedābheda’ but is not to be confused with that of Yādavaprakāśa’s. This has been defined by Śrīnivāsācārya ‘nāyaṁ jīvaḥ śripuruṣottamādatyantabhinnaḥ...ubhayavidhvākyānāṁ tulyabalatvāt jīvaparamātmanoḥ svābhāvikau bhedābhedau bhavat-ityarthaḥ’. Also they consider Jīva being a śakti of the Lord ‘aṁśohi śaktirūpogrāhyaḥ 'eṣa parasya śaktiḥ jīvo'lpaśaktir-asvatantra'..’ all this is accepted and correct. But the dynamics of śakti and its segregation are not much clear here. If they had further thought about the concept of śakti, it’s acintyatva must have entered into their system. Such would also happen if they had emphasized on the advayatva of Brahman to avoid discrepancies, the relation of Brahman with śaktis is not much explained. ’
In our siddhānta, Śrīla Jīva gosvāmi said— In the śāstras statements of Jīveśvarāikya and Jīveśvarabheda are both found, what is the reconciliation of this? tata evābheda-śāstrāṇy ubhayoś cid-rūpatve jīva-samūhasya durghaṭa- ghaṭanā-paṭīyasyā svābhāvika-tad-acintya-śaktyā svabhāvata eva tad-raśmi- paramāṇu-guṇa-sthānīyatvāt tad-vyatirekeṇāvyatirekeṇa ca virodhaṃ parihṛtyāgre muhur api tad etad-vyāsa-samādhi-labdha-siddhānta-yojanāya yojanīyāni ॥. These apparent contradiction in bheda and abheda must be reconciled with Vyāsa’s aparokṣa samādhi ‘bhaktiyogena manasi samyak praṇihite 'male apaśyat…’ refer to the previous section concerning the same. Thus we see that Śrī Vyāsadeva is the solemn authority of our sampradāya that is why Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhuṣaṇa has said ‘vyāsānuyāyino hi vayaṁ tanmatamevānusarāmaḥ, na tu tadviruddhāvahelanādibhīma’. Our solemn authority lies with Śrī Vedavyāsa, Śukadeva, Suta gosvāmis and personalities including Śrī Brahmā, Śrī Nārada, Parāśara, Kaśyapa, Śāṇḍilya. Bhāgavatam is the culmination of the entire vedānta for us thus whatever is the mata of Vedavyāsa is ours.
Jīva being a śakti of the Lord is proven by the texts’eṣa parasya śakti’, ‘sarvabhūteṣu sarvātmanyā śaktiraparā tava’, ‘viṣṇuśakti parā proktā kṣetrajñākhyā tathāparā’, ‘apareyam itas tvanyāṃ prakṛtiṃ viddhi me parām jīvabhūtāṃ mahābāho yayedaṃ dhāryate jagat’. This Śaktitva of Jīva is due to four more reasons ‘śakti-rūpatvaṃ cāsya (1) taṭastha-śakty- ātmakatvāt,(2) tathā tadīya-raśmi-sthānīyatve'pi nitya-tad-āśrayitvāt (3) tad- vyatirekeṇa vyatirekāt । (4) hetur bhāvo'sya sargāder ity anusāreṇa jagat-sṛṣṭau tat-sādhanatvāt ।' all that is encapsulated from this quotation of Śrī Madhva ‘jīvasattāpradatvācca sadṛśatvācca keśavaḥ, kathyate tad-abhedena natu jīvasvarūpataḥ.’ due to these reasons [taṭastha-śakty…hetur bhāvo'sya] ‘dravya-svarūpatve'pi pradhāna-sāmyāc cāvagamyate’ Jīva’s dual nature of śakti and dravya is reconciled by the analogy of a ray of the sun. The ray comprises of both natures that of a atom [paramāṇu] and a wave [raśmi], in relation to the sun it is a ray [śakti] but in itself it’s a particle whose existence is null without the sun [utter dependence], it is the cause of lightening something else [indirect efficient cause of the universe], it interpenetrates the sun and vice a versa, due to this dual nature he is aṁśa [particle] due to him being a śakti [ray] his sole existence along with the personal identity of a particle is entirely dependent on his identity as the ray the śakti of the sun which can’t be described as different or non different from the sun due to number of reason as mentioned earlier ‘utter dependence, interpenetration and similar nature’. Thus though Jīva is a dravya in itself it is also the śakti of Bhagavān which is it’s fundamental identity, that is why it is even heard to have limited śakti [also given by Bhagavān as from the mantra ‘viṣṇoreṣasya prabhṛthe havirbhiḥ vide hi rudro rudriyaṃ mahitvaṃ yāsiṣṭaṃ vartiraśvināvirāvat’ ] ‘vibhinnāṃśo'lpa-śaktiḥ syāt kiñcit sāmarthya-mātra-yuk’ ‘eṣa parasya śaktiḥ jīvo’lpaśaktir-asvatantraḥ’ as the limited heat that a ray possess is also conferred by the real energetic source; The Sun.
In svarūpa there is bheda between Jīva and Bhagavān ‘tasmāt sarvathā bheda eva jīva-parayoḥ । tathā ca śrutiḥ—asmān māyī sṛjate viśvame etat tasmiṁś cānyo māyayā sanniruddhaḥ [śve.u. 4.9] iti । jñājñau dvāv ajāv īśānīśau [śve.u. 1.9] iti, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān [śve.u. 6.13] iti, tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ svādv atti [mu.u. 3.1.1] iti, ajo hy eko juṣamāṇo’nuśete jahāty enāṁ bhuktabhogām ajo’nyaḥ [śve.u. 4.5] ity-ādyā । gītopaniṣac ca—ahaṁkāra itīyaṁ me bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā । apareyam itas tv anyāṁ prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām । jīva-bhūtāṁ [gītā 7.4-5] iti, mama yonir mahad brahma tasmin garbhaṁ dadhāmy ahaṁ [gītā 14.3] iti, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛddeśe’rjuna tiṣṭhati [gītā 18.61] iti ca । viśeṣaṇāc ca [ve.sū. 1.2.12] ity atra mādhva-bhāṣye śruti-smṛtī, yathā—satya ātmā satyo jīvaḥ satyaṁ bhidā satyaṁ bhidā satyaṁ bhidā maivāruṇyo maivāruṇyaḥ [paiṅgī-śrutiḥ] iti, ātmā hi parama-svatantro’dhika-guṇo jīvo’lpa-śaktir asvatantro’varaḥ [bhāllaveya-śrutiḥ] iti । yatheśvarasya jīvasya bhedo satyo viniścayāt । evam eva hi me vācaṁ kartum ihārhasi ॥ iti ca । tad evam abheda-vākyaṁ dvayoś cid-rūpatvādinaivaikākāratvaṁ bodhayaty upāsanāviśeṣārthaṁ, na tu vastv aikyam ।’
The famous phrase ‘Tattvam asi’ is explained in multiple ways within the sampradāya one of those is ‘yathā yamunā-nirjharam uddiśya, tvaṁ kṛṣṇa-patny asi, tat-patnī saiṣā, sūrya-maṇḍalam uddiśya ca saṁjñā-patir asi, tat-patir ayam ity adhiṣṭhātr-adhiṣṭheyayor abhinnābhimāninor loka-vedeṣv eka-śabda-pratyayanābhyāṁ prayogasahasrāṇi dṛśyante, tad-adhiṣṭhātāram uddeṣṭum, tathā—tat tvam asi [chā.u. 6.8.7] ity-ādy api pṛthivī-jīva-prabhṛtīnāṁ tad-adhiṣṭhānatayā prasiddhis tu bṛhatī । yaḥ pṛthivyāṁ tiṣṭhan [bṛ.ā.u. 3.7.3], ya ātmani tiṣṭhan [śa.brā. 14.6.7.30] ity ādidiṣu । tato’pi na vastv-aikyam iti sthitam ।’, paraphrased ‘ ’That art Thou’ is similar to the incident of While pointing towards Yamunā one says ‘You are Kṛṣṇa’s wife’ or while pointing towards the Sun he says ‘You are the husband of saṁjñā’. One must understand it is not the water or the sunglobe which have such epithets rather the abhimāni deity of those elements is the refferent as said ‘abhimānivyapadeśas tu viśeṣānugatibhyām’ thus ‘That art Thou’ refers to the antaryāmin of the Jīva, Śrī Bhagavān ‘ya ātmani tiṣṭhan ātmano'ntaro’, here ‘tat’ pada refers to Brahman and ‘tvam’ pada refers to jīvāntargata brahman, both are one’
Sum total of the entire Jīva tattva has been given as follows in the Priti sandarbha— ‘jīvākhya-samaṣṭi-śakti-viśiṣṭasya parama-tattvasya khalv aṃśa eko jīvaḥ… tādṛśatvābhāvāc ca’
All that what was written is summarised as follows—
nanu nīla-pītādy-ākāraṁ kṣaṇikam eva jñānaṁ dṛṣṭam, tat punar advayaṁ nityaṁ jñānaṁ kathaṁ lakṣyate, yan-niṣṭham idaṁ śāstram ?—sarveti । brahmātmano yad ekatvam, tad eva lakṣaṇaṁ yasya, tad advitīyaṁ sarva-vedānta-sāraṁ vastu tan-niṣṭham ity anvayaḥ ।
ayam arthaḥ—satyaṁ jñānam anantaṁ brahma [tai.u. 2.1.2] iti yasya svarūpam uktam, yenāśrutaṁ śrutaṁ bhavati [chā.u. 6.1.3] ity anayā, yad vijñānena [chā.u. 6.2.1] ity anayā sarva-vijñānaṁ pratijñātam, yasminn anantā nitya-siddhā eva nānā-dharmā abhyupagatāḥ, sad eva saumyedam agra āsīt [chā.u. 6.2.1] ity-ādinā nikhila-jagad-eka-kāraṇatā, sa aikṣata bahu syāṁ [chā.u. 6.2.3] ity anena satya-saṅkalpatā ca pratipāditā, tena brahmaṇā svarūpa-śaktibhyāṁ sarva-bṛhattamena, atha kasmād ucyate brahma bṛṁhati bṛṁhayati ca [atharva-śirā 3.5] iti śrutibhiḥ । bṛhattvāt bṛṁhaṇatvāc ca yad brahma paramaṁ viduḥ [vi.pu. 3.3.21] iti śrī-viṣṇu-purāṇādibhiś ca pratipāditena sārdham, anena jīvenātmanā [chā.u. 6.3.2] ity-ādi tadīya-vacana-rūpāyāṁ śrutāv idaṁtā-nirdeśena tato’bhinnatve’py ātmatā-nirdeśeṇa tad-ātmāṁśa-viśeṣatvena labdhasya—mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ [gītā 15.7] ity-ādi-pratipāditasya—aṁśo nānā-vyapadeśāt [ve.sū. 2.3.41] ity-ādi-nyāya-siddhasya, bādarāyaṇa-samādhi-dṛṣṭa-yukter atyabhinnatā-rahitasya jīvātmano yad ekatvam, tat tvam asi [chā.u. 6.8.7] ity ādau jñātṛtayā tad-aṁśa-bhūta-cid-rūpatvena samānākāratā, tad eva lakṣaṇaṁ prathamato jñāne sādhakatamaṁ yasya, tathābhūtaṁ—
vadanti tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam ।
brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate ॥ [bhā.pu. 1.2.11]
iti tridhāvirbhūtaṁ yat sarve-vedānta-sāram advitīyaṁ vastu, tan-niṣṭhaṁ tad-eka-viṣayam idaṁ śrīmad-bhāgavataṁ mahā-purāṇam iti prāktana-padyasthenānuṣāṅgaḥ । [tattva-sandarbha 52]
tathā kaivalyaika-prayojanam । kevalaḥ śuddhaḥ । sa ca projjhita-kaitavo yo bhaktaḥ, sa eva dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo’tra paramaḥ [bhā.pu. 1.1.2] ity uktatvāt । tasya bhāvaḥ kaivalyam, mokṣādi-kāma-rahitā bhaktiḥ । kaivalya-sammata-panthas tv atha bhakti-yogaḥ [bhā.pu. 2.3.12] ity atra kaivalyam ity eva sammataḥ panthā yo bhakti-yogaḥ iti ṭīkā-kṛdbhir vyākhyātatvāt । tatra panthā iti bhagavat-prāpty-upāya ity arthaḥ । sā bhaktiḥ prema-lakṣaṇaiva, tasyaiva tatra mukhyatvāt । tasmāt kaivalyaṁ bhagavat-premaiva puruṣārthatvena pratipādyaṁ yasya tat । sālokya-ṣarṣṭi-sāmīpyam ity-ādi-vacana-vṛndebhya iti ॥
yac-chaktayo vadatāṁ vādināṁ vai
vivāda-saṁvāda-bhuvo bhavanti
kurvanti caiṣāṁ muhur ātma-mohaṁ
tasmai namo ’nanta-guṇāya bhūmne
Comments
Post a Comment