अणुभाष्य (महाप्रभु वल्लभाचार्य - शुद्धाद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र महाभाष्य प्रकाश टीका सहित)

therefore, according to the theory of reflection, the existence
of jīva is to be accepted.
The premise that Jīva is the reflection of Brahman is not at all
rational. If this pratibimbavāda is accepted, Brahman becomes
possessor of perceivable nature; and if jīva is the reflection,
bimba and prati-bimba do not appear at the same place; in that
case, the theory goes against the śruti “samānaṃ vṛkṣam
pariṣasvajāte”- here the existence of jīva and Brahman at one
place is stated. Therefore, jīva is to be accepted as an aṃśa –
part – of Brahman. For this, the validity is śruti itself and not
any other means of knowledge as in the world. Hence, it is said
by Āchārya –
“alaukiko hi vedārtho na yuktyā pratipadyate ।
Tapasā Veda-yuktyā tu prasādāt paramātmanaḥ ॥
(Aṇu.Bha.Ka.1/1)
Knowledge derived from the Vedas is not through sense-
perception; therefore it cannot be grasped by reasonings. Then,
how are we to grasp it? By the reasonings shown in the Veda
itself, as in Ch.Upa. “nyagrodha-phalamāhara” etc. Here the
Āchārya says – “by imagining the meanings of Veda by one's
own intelligence, one cannot discuss or analyse them; in what
manner Brahman has been explained in the Vedānta, has to
be accepted as it is. Changing even an iota of its purport will
incur fallibility.” Therefore, as per the logic of viṣphulinga, the
insentient and the souls come out of Brahman – just like the
sparks from the fire. When the insentient forms emanate, the
knowledge and blissful aspects of Brahman remain covered;
when the souls come out, the blissful nature of Brahman remains
covered.. In this manner, sat – reality; and cit – knowledge
aspects – both are non-different from Brahman and they are
the forms of Brahman. Because of this, the śruti states that by
the knowledge of one, the knowledge of all is derived.
If this explanation is accepted, then the sufferings being
experienced by the individual souls will be of Brahman also.
xii

No; the śruti says – "the other shines forth without enjoying";
"one who is the indweller of all living beings, does not get
affected by the external worldly sufferings"; "not also gets
attached to the results as in the case of water on the lotus leaf."
These śruti and smṛti sentences declare in clear notes that
Brahman is un-affected; as in the case of sun-light, which does
not get affected by the defects in objects like the pot and the
cloth. The defects in the individual souls do not affect the
Brahman. Thus, while discussing the relation between the jīva
and Brahman, it is conclusively proved that the jīva is merely
an aṁśa – part – of Brahman and not different from it. "aṁśo
nānā-vyapadeśāt- " This sūtra also confirms this.
In this matter, in his work Vidvan-maṇḍana, Prabhucaraṇa
commands – "nānā-vyapadeśāt – nānāvidho yo vyapadeśaḥ – as
Brahman at places; as born at other places; as of the nature of
knowledge; as of the form of cid at places; somewhere, as under
the control of Īśwara; as atomic and also as all-pervading;
having been explained in this manner, the one and the same
entity having opposing qualities in itself, can be possible only
in Brahman and nowhere else; hence, the jīva is none other
than a part of the Brahman. Alternatively, "nānā-vyapadeśāt –
having been explained as quite distinct from each other" –
here, the purport is – jīva is the inter-mingled form of Brahman,
and its nature of being part of Brahman is merely an eulogy;
and it is only a reflection and of false nature; so this is not to be
construed, as they are beyond the ken of sense-perception.
Brahman is to be known only through the means of Vedas';
therefore, it is to be accepted as explained therein; śruti says –
"naiṣā tarkeṇa matirāpaneyā" – this knowledge is not to be
obtained through reasonings. Likewise, the smṛti says –
"alaukikāstu ye bhāvāḥ na tāṁsa tarkeṇa yojayet" – what realities
are there, they are not to be subjected to arguments."
Brahman's blissful nature shines in full; whereas it is hidden
in the case of jīva. When the God, by His sympathy and desire,
xiii

uncovers the blissful nature in jīva, then they both become
one; there is no need to apply here the implied meaning called
“jahadajahallakṣaṇā” because, śruti says – “sarve vedā yat padam-
āmananti”; all the Vedas have one purpose i.e. to teach the
unfathomable nature of Brahman. When the jīva’s blissful
nature is covered, then he is devoid of the nature of Brahman;
“adhikaṁ tu bheda nirdeśāt” – it is so said in this sūtra. Here the
Bhāṣya is – “by the word ‘tu’ the position is reverted; if Brahman
is only of that much nature, then this defect arises; but, then,
that is more than jīva and jagat; why? Bheda-nirdeśāt – because
it is explained as distinct from that.” From this it becomes clear
that there is no equal or superior to that. “na tat samaśca
abhyadhikaśca dṛśyate” is the śruti. Thus, the non-differentiation
between Brahman and jīva described in the śrutis is on the basis
of aṁśa-aṁśī status. Whereas the Māyāvādins, depending solely
on the sentence “tat-tvam-asi” assert that jīva himself is Brahman.
In this context, we may quote the verse describing the
different systems of philosophy –
“kecit-tatvamasīti vākya-viṣaye tat-tvam pade lakṣaṇām;
kecid tatra ṅaso lukam vidadhate Bhāṣyam tu kecid jaguḥ ।
kecid cid-viṣayāt-abhedam-apare cchindantyatatvaṁ padam;
siddhānte tu suvarṇavaj-jagadidam brahmaiva jīvastathā ॥”
Meaning of this śloka is: Kecid – Śaṅkarācāryaḥ; the word
‘tat’ denotes sarvajñam Brahma; “tvam” denotes jīva with limited
knowledge; these two cannot be one and the same; therefore,
as in the statement ‘this Devadatta is that same person’ – jahad-
ajahad-lakṣaṇa is accepted.
Kecid – Rāmānuja-Mādhva-Śaivāḥ – ‘tat-sambandhitvamiti
manyamānāḥ – they accept the disappearance of the suffix ‘ṅg’
meaning ‘tasya tvam’ – you are of him – related with it.
Kecid–Nimbārkāḥ accept identity because of the similarity of
jñāna. Apare – Mādhvaikadeśinaḥ – one sect of the Mādhvas –
break the word as ‘atat-tvamasi” meaning ‘you are jīva’ – not
that.
xiv

In siddhānta, as in the case of gold particles being gold itself,
parts of Brahman also are Brahman itself; the sat part of Brahman
is the world; the cit part of Brahman is jīva. In fact, as in the
other sect, 'tat-tvam-asi' is not the only mahā-vākya; the whole
context is to be taken as conveying one meaning. The
interpretation of Vedas is to be done, taking into consideration
the whole context as told in the sūtra "prakaraṇācca"; the
meaning is to be construed as per the purport of the context,
and not by skipping the context, giving the interpretation as
one would like.
This jīva has three stages of being – the pure, the liberated
and the bound. After the jīvas get separated from the Brahman
as sparks from fire, their blissful nature gets obliterated, and
before they get covered by the avidyā, in that state, they are
called the pure jīvas; i.e. the purity here is the absence of
connection with Māyā. The sūtra "Parā-abhidhyānāt-tu-
tirohitam; tato hi asya bandha-viparyayau" (3-2-5) is supporting
this view. Parasya - Of Bhagavān; abhito dhyānam means desire
to enjoy in all manners; thus, the part of ānanda is obliterated;
thus the state of being jīva. Thus, the four qualities – aiśwarya,
vīrya, yaśas, and śrī – having been covered, the binding takes
place; jñāna and vairāgya - knowledge and detachment –
having been obliterated, the opposite nature. In this state, in
the case of some individuals, Bhagavān makes available
divinity, which makes them eligible for mukti; only at this state
they become qualified for mukti. Whereas, the jīva bound by
the five-stage avidyā, attains samsāra. Then he undergoes
experiences of the samsāra; by the grace of Bhagavān and by
the association with pure souls, they get the five-stage vidyā
and attain mukti, of the nature of highest bliss.
"Vairāgyam sānkhya-yogau ca tapo bhaktiśca keśave;
Pañca-parveti vidyeyam yayā vidvān harim viśet ||"
(Sā. Pra.Kā. 48)
By this śloka, it is said that till one does not get vidyā, until
then he is called samsārī. Thereafter he is called mukta. These
xv

muktas also are of two kinds – Jīvanmuktas and Muktas.
Jīvanmuktas – Sanaka and others; muktas – those who have
reached the Akṣara-Brahman. Here also, the jīvas originally are
of two kinds - of godly nature and of un-godly nature. The
godly natured are of two kinds – those who follow the path of
Maryādā, and those who follow the Puṣṭi-mārga. There is
difference in the mukti of these two categories; that will be shown
later.
The system of change without undergoing
transformation:
Śrīmad Āchārya has established mainly the system of
Brahman with name and form as his philosophy. Because, there
is no second entity other than Brahman according to the
prasthāna i.e. the Brahma-sūtra, the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavad-
gītā. The prameya – objects of knowledge; sādhana – means;
phala – the end result; and, according to all śāstras - all go to
prove the Brahman only; this is the siddhānta. This Brahman,
without undergoing changes, like the gold, the clay, the
Kāmadhenu, the Cintāmaṇi, the Kalpa-vṛkṣa – transforms itself
in the form of the world; this is the siddhānta. The gold, even in
its transformations like the bracelet and ear-rings, does not
change but remains as gold; likewise the Brahman also, while
changing into the world, does not undergo any material
change. This is what is called the Avikṛta-pariṇāma-vāda in the
śrutis, smṛtis, sūtras, Śrī Bhāgavata etc. The one cause which
does not undergo transformation becomes the effect in various
forms. Because of this only, it becomes possible to get the
knowledge of everything by the knowledge of one thing. The
statement of Vedānta that the knowledge of one produces the
knowledge of everything, becomes intelligible only then, when
we accept that the pure Brahman alone is the cause of this
world i.e. material and efficient cause. This argument is of the
Vaidika system. Now, we shall show some sentences elucidating
the system of thought of un-changing transformation.
xvi

In the śrutis – “Ekam sat viprā bahudā vadanti;” “Asad vā idam-
agra-āsīt; tato vai sad-ajāyata;”
These two satements speak that the invisible jagat became
visible. “Brahma viśvamidam jagat;” “tameva bhāntamanubhāti
sarvam; tasya bhāsā sarvamidam vibhāti;” “sarvakāmaḥ, sarva-
gandhaḥ, sarva-rasaḥ, sarva-kartā, sarva-bhoktā yaḥ sa sarva-vit;”
“parā-asya śaktir-vividheva śrūyate; svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā
ca;” – by these śrutis the doership of everything is stated as in-
born nature. “aṇoraṇīyān mahato mahīyān” – by this śruti it is
stated that opposing qualities inhere in Brahman.
“ekamevādvitīyaṁ Brahma; eko'ham bahu-syām; prajāyeya; sa
ekākī na ramate; sa dvitīyam aicchat”; “sa haitāvānāsa” – by these
śrutis, the un-changing transformation system of thought is
told.
“Aitadātmyam idam sarvam; tat satyam; sa ātma; tat-tvam-asi”;
“eṣa hyevānandayāti”; “eko devo sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ” – by these
śrutis the in-dwelling aspect of Brahman in all things is
described. Likewise, these sentences also – “sarvam khalu idam
Brahma;” “katham asataḥ sat jāyeta;” “tat satyam ityācakṣate”.
In the Smṛtis – “aham sarvasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ
pralayastathā;” “mama yonir-mahad-Brahma; tasmin garbhaṁ
dadhāmyaham;” “ahaṁ bījapradaḥ-pitā;” “vāsudevaḥ sarvamiti”
these sentences;
And in the sūtras – “Janmādyasya yataḥ; śāstra-yonitvāt; tat-
tu-samanvayāt; ātma-kṛteḥ; pariṇāmāt; yoniśca hi gīyate; tad-
ananyatvam-ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ; sarva-dharma-
upapatteśca; prakṛtaitāvatvam hi pratiṣedhati; tato bravīti ca
bhūyaḥ; Prakāśa-āśrayavad-vā tejastvāt” these sūtras;
In Śrī Bhāgavata – “Janmadyasya yato'nvayad itarataḥ;”
“tvayyagra āsīt;” “Krīḍārthamātmanaḥ idam trijagat kṛtam te;”
“viśvasya kartā; bhuvanasya goptā” sentences like these and
others.
This has to be understood here:
xvii

Others - like Āchārya Śaṅkara and others, to establish their
systems of philosophy, took recourse to Prasthānatrayī as the
source of knowledge viz. Upaniṣad, Bhagavad-gītā and the Vyāsa
Sūtras. Whereas, our Āchārya took recourse to four Prasthānas.
They are –
“Vedas; Śrī Krishna's spoken words; and Vyāsa's Sūtras |“
Samādhibhāṣā Vyāsasya pramāṇaṃ tac-catuṣṭayam ||
Uttaraṃ pūrva-sandeha-vārakaṃ parikīrtitam.”
(Sā.Pra.Kā.7/8)
Here, the Prakāsa – “Vedaḥ – all that is contained in the two
Kāṇḍas, including the Arthavāda; the words of Kṛṣṇa are spoken
of separately, though Vedic in nature, because it is classified as
Smṛti; Vyāsa sūtras include the Jaimini sūtras also. All these have
to be taken only in consonance with Vyāsa sūtras;
Vyāsasya Samādhi-bhāṣā – Bhāgavatam. .......experiencing
himself in Samādhi, and explained later. These four sources,
reconciled to prove one school of thought, are the generators
of knowledge.
Śrī Bhāgavata has been taken as one of the Prasthānas by
the Āchārya. Here, the posterior statements are to be taken as
clarificatory statements of the anterior ones. This results in
saying that Śrīmad Bhāgavata is the remover of all doubts.
“Nigama-kalpataroḥ galitaṃ phalam” – Śrī Bhāgavata is the fruit
from the tree that is the Nigama-kalpataruḥ.
Evolution and Involution (Āvirbhāva-Tirobhāva)
Tadetad akṣayam nityam jagan-munivarā-akhilam |
Āvirbhāva-tirobhāva-janma-nāśa-vikalpavat ||
(Vi.Pu.Am.Pra.)
Āvirbhāva and Tirobhāva (Evolution and Involution) are in
fact the two powers (śaktis) of the Brahman – “āvirbhāva-
tirobhāvau śaktirvai muravairiṇaḥ”. These two śaktis are non-
different from Brahman and sub-servient to Brahman. “sarvam
xviii

khalu idam Brahma" is the śruti which says that everything is
the form of Brahman; by its own desire, Brahman attains the
form of the world without undergoing any material change;
and, again, by its own desire, takes all within itself. This
Evolution and Involution only are called the utpatti and vināśa
by the world. In reality – "na-asato vidyate bhāvo; na-abhāvo
vidyate sataḥ" (Gītā); by this sentence it is said – asataḥ bhāvaḥ
nāsti – there is no existence for that which does not exist; that
which exists does not cease to exist. In the school of thought
which accepts Brahman, it is experienced in everything and
hence, there is no question of its absence anywhere. Well, in
that case, there should be no experience as a thing of the past
and of the future; in that case, all the worldly dealings such as
anterior non-existence, posterior non-existence, the absence
of one object in the other, and the complete absence of a non-
existing thing etc., are being negated; no; in all these cases, the
desire of Bhagavān is the ultimate controller.
In that case, the statement "at that point of time when it is
called dissolution, it is the intention of Bhagavān that there
should be no experience of any object" – i.e. under which
point of time all objects are experienced, that is called the time
of created world; i.e. everywhere, the inimitable desire of
Bhagavān is the controller and thus, there is no occasion for
any defect in the system. (Vidvan-maṇḍana).
Thus it is that the Unqualified, un-changing, eternally
powerful Brahman, by its desire, sports in the form of Akṣara,
jīva and jagat by this evolution and involution. Therefore, the
absenses as anterior etc., are all involuted in this. Everything
being of the form of Brahman, there is no absolute absence of
anything in siddhānta. "Being so, at this point of time, and at
this place, this creation be so" – in this manner the desire takes
the form of evolution; likewise, "there be no such thing – desire
of this nature is involution." (Vidvan-maṇḍana). That is why it
is said – being eligible to be experienced is called evolution; the
absence of that is called involution. These two states are defined
xix

by the existence of objects; and it is not possible for false
appearances to be such limiting factors; because, they are
abstract concepts and need a substratum to appear upon
(Vidvan-maṇḍana). Therefore, the creation and dissolution of
the world are due to this evolution and involution; the word
creation means evolution; the word dissolution means
involution. “Ātmataḥ āvirbhāva-tirobhāvau” is the Chāndogya
śruti; these evolutions and involutions are not to be construed
as ephemeral.
Brahman the substratum of contradicting features:
If it is accepted that Brahman is the substratum of all the
attributes, thus acceding that contradictory attributes also do
inhere there, one and the same object, at a particular point of
time and at a particular point of space, cannot appear as two
different objects; therefore, the Brahman has to be accepted as
devoid of attributes, names and forms. That it is appearing as
possessing qualities and with forms due to the effect of māyā;
this is not so. Brahman is known only through the śruti; mere
reasoning is not useful in this; and the śruti states – “yato vāco
nivartante aprāpya manasā saha” – that Brahman does not possess
qualities; again, in that very context, it states – “‘ānandam
brahmaṇo vidvān; na bibheti kutahcana” the existence of bliss in
Brahman. That is why, in the Vyāsa sūtra – “darśanācca” – it is
stated that all the opposite qualities are seen in Brahman;
therefore, Brahman is the substratum of all dissimilar qualities
is stated in śruti, smṛti and pratyakṣa..
“Prakṛtaitāvatvam hi pratiṣedhati; bravīti ca tato bhūyaḥ” (3/
2/22) – by this sūtra, in reality and also as per śāstras, the
contradiction is removed; and by reasoning also, the
contradiction is removed. What is called “that much” in
Brahman? It means the qualities born of prakṛti that are denied;
thereafter, it talks of the existence of aprākṛta qualities. Thus,
contradictory qualities also inhere in Brahman, but they are
not of the prakṛti and not of this world. These qualities are of its
xx

very nature, and not due to māyā; “ubhaya vyapadeśāt; ahi-
kuṇḍalavat” (3/2/27); “prakāśa-āśrayavad vā; tejastvāt” (3/2/
28) – by these sūtras, it is to be accepted that Brahman is the
substratum of opposing qualities. Opposing qualities inhere in
Brahman is declared in śruti – “aṇoraṇīyān mahato mahīyān;”
“samo nāgena; samo maśakena;” “na tat samaśca; abhyadhikam
tu dṛśyate;” by many such śāstra sentences, in Brahman whose
nature is inexplicable, all opposing qualities do appear by its
very nature. At one and the same time, Brahman can be seen
in two different forms. Likewise, Brahman can appear at several
places simultaneously; as was seen by Nārada - the sixteen
thousand mahiṣīs in the antaḥpura. Therefore, by the validity
as experienced by Nārada, Brahman is the substratum of all
opposing qualities; it is capable of doing, un-doing and doing
variously. Even in this world, we see in one person, the opposing
qualities like sympathy in the case of one and the killing instinct
in the case of another; this we see at one and the same time in
one and the same person; this being so, what to talk of the
other-worldly things and happenings. Here Śrī
Purusottamacaraṇa:
“Therefore, if we analyse on the strength of verbal testimony,
then we come to the conclusion that Brahman is the sub-
stratum of all the opposing qualities and features. If analysed
according to the reasonings shown in the śrutis, then it is
devoid of all worldly qualities and is full with all un-worldly
qualities etc. If analysed on the strength of the meanings, it is
the conglomerate of all opposing qualities. To teach this, it
was analysed in these three methods.” Therefore, if Brahman is
the abode of opposing qualities, it is not a blemish but adds to
its merit. In this same manner, the qualities of being partial
between individuals and not showing pity in the case of
suffering people etc., are not to be construed as defects in
Brahman because they are created by Brahman itself. Hence,
says the Āchārya – “ātma-sṛṣṭeḥ na vaiṣamyam nairghṛṇyam
cāpi vidyate.”
xxi

Bhagaval-līlā:
In the discussion, “Is the Bhagaval-līlā the product of māyā
or not”, this being only in Bhagavān, being based in Brahman
which is of the nature of Sat-cit-ānanda, and being not different
from its nature, it is not the effect of māyā. This Bhagaval-līlā
does not proceed with a view to achieving any specific purpose;
“na prayojanavatvāt” – this sūtra illustrates this. But, it is like the
sporting activities of the world; see sūtra “lokavat-tu-līlā
kaivalyam”; it is merely a sport; self-experience is mokṣa. It is
told in the Bhāṣya that its (līlā’s) mere mention will give mokṣa.
Līlā is in the nature of Brahman itself, has been produced by
Bhagavān and it is un-worldly; therefore, it cannot be
contended, that it is not the product of māyā. The answer to
this objection is: “The definition of this sport in Subodhinī –
“instigated by happiness, being performed without tiring
efforts, the act is called sport”; alternatively, without
tiresomeness, and with pleasure, the act performed is līlā.”
Now, another objection: This līlā is seen here in this world’s
mountains and forests, and being in the midst of prapañca, it is
fleeting or ephemeral; no; prapañca itself is the creation of
Bhagavān as told by Āchārya; līlā being part of this prapañca
which is the creation of Bhagavān –
“jayati jananivāso devakī janmavādo
yaduvarapariṣat-svair-dorbhirasyan-adharmam |
sthira-cara-vṛjinaghnaḥ susmita-śrīmukhena
vrajapura-vanitānām vardhayan kāmadevam ||”
(Bhāgavata 10/10/48)
As per this statement of Śrī Bhāgavata the fourth prasthāna;
In this śloka, the present tense used in the word “jayati” denotes
the līlās performed in Vraja in the past, and the ‘śatṛ’ suffix in
the word “vardhayan” denotes that at that time of the story
and at that instant, there existed all the unseen sports.
Therefore, as can be seen in the context of naming the child,
Garga’s statement in the Bhāgavata – “bhagaval-līlānām
xxii

trikālātītatvam, nitya-vartamānatvam-pravartamānatvañca
jñāpyate” i.e. the sports of Bhagavān are beyond the three tenses,
past, present and future – it is ever in the present – and will also
be in future – is denoted.
“bahūni santi nāmāni rūpāṇi ca sutasya te |
guṇa-karmānurūpāṇi tānyaham Veda no janāḥ ||”
(Bhāga. 10/8/15)
Here, the word “santi” is used; it is evident from this that the
līlā is eternally present.
No; we see in the world that a cook or a teacher is so called
even when he is not engaged in that specific act; here too, it is
to be so interpreted and not otherwise. The answer is – “not
so”. The un-worldly sport is beyond this world’s ken of
knowledge, and even though the līlā spoken of here is connected
with this world, it should not be established by the example of
this world. In this world, even a timid person is praised as a
lion among men; whereas the above statement is not so. Here,
according to the statement of Garga, as the name denotes, the
qualities are to be construed; as per the acts, the form is to be
seen; i.e. one who rears the cows is cow-herd; one who gives
mukti is Mukunda; etc.
No; at the time of naming the child, the sports were yet to
take place; then, how was it possible to name the child
according to the non-existing sports? This doubt does not arise;
because the sports of Bhagavān are eternal and they are going
on eternally. In this manner, sports like Pūtanā-śakaṭa-
bhañjana-Kāliya-damana etc. were already known, but were
not performed at that instant by the desire of Bhagavān.
Therefore, the sports of Bhagavān are eternal and are not limited
by time and space; they are there at all places, at one place, in
all forms and in various forms by the mere desire of Bhagavān
and therefore, they are not the product of māyā at any time.
Let the un-worldly sports of Bhagavān be not the product of
māyā; but, as in the world, on the question “are the sports the
products of māyā or not”, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’. As
xxiii

shown in the sūtra “Tat-tvabhāve sandhyavad-upapatteḥ”
(Br.Su.4/4/13), to delude the non-divine people, Bhagavān
shows Himself as ordinary human beings, but in truth, He is
not so. For those whose thoughts are clouded and are non-
divine, as described in the Bhagavadgītā (16/18-20) – “mama-
ātma-para-deheṣu pradviṣanto-abhyasūyakāḥ”... “tato yānti-
adhamāṁ gatim” – these people are of non-divine nature and
are not fit for emancipation.
In this manner, showing the reasons for finding fault in the
sports of Bhagavān, in the following sūtra the reasons are shown
for seeing the praise-worthiness of the sports of Bhagavān –
“bhāve jāgradvat” (Br.Su.4/4/14). As per this sūtra, the meaning
of the word “līlā” and in the act of līlā itself, which appear as of
this world, what the devotees see is non-worldly; as in the case
of a person who gets rid of his clouded vision, and gets the
correct vision. In this manner, Bhagavān, by his own desire,
removes the effect of māyā from the minds of his devotees, and
to make them enjoy the different experiences of his different
sports, enacts them as such.
In certain cases, He performs false sports also as in the battle
of Saubha. Therefore, to delude the un-godly people, He
performs sports as in the world. Here the Bhāṣya – “ata eva
līlāyaḥ anekarūpatvāt, brahmaṇaśca śrutau Saindhava dṛṣṭānte,
naikarasatva-nirūpaṇāt, suddha-brahma-dharmatvaṁ na
sambhavatīti śaṅkā-nirāsāya kaivalyam ityuktam” (“lokavat-tu-
līlā-kaivalyam”).
“sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaśca” in these śrutis, the pure state,
devoid of any other attribute, that is stated is also of the nature
of sports. The pure param-brahman is of sportive nature only,
and not, at any time, devoid of it is intended here. From this it
can be concluded that the sports are in the nature of Brahman,
and thus, they are eternal. (Br.Su.4/4/14 Bhāṣya).
The attribute of smell occurs in earth only and not in water
i.e. its appearance at one place and non-appearance at another
xxiv

place. Likewise, the experience of Bhagaval-līlā is seen in the
devotees and not in the haters of God. Even now, similar
experience of Bhagaval-līlā of those times by the devotees are
being heard, by the desire and condescendence of God. Thus,
Bhagavān is always combined with his sports at all times and
all places. The Lord Govardhanadhara for protecting his
devotees, just to fulfil the desires of His devotees, by this desire
and sympathy, appears and disappears.
Therefore, this is the conclusion in the system that Bhagavān's
sports are not product of māyā at any time.
“prabhoreva phalatvaṁ nirdoṣatvañ-ca varṇyate ।
līlā-nityavataḥ pūrṇa-guṇatvam ca tato-akhilam ॥”
(Āchārya kārikā)
Bhakti Nirūpaṇam
Definition of Bhakti has been given by Āchāryacaraṇa in
his Nibandha as –
“Māhātmya-jñānapūrvastu sudṛḍhaḥ sarvato-adhikaḥ ।
Sneho bhaktiriti proktaḥ tayā muktir nacānyathā ॥”
(Śā.pra.kā.45)
Bhakti-svarūpa has been explained by Āchārya by this kārikā.
Sneho bhaktiḥ. When one understands that Bhagavān is the
soul, sneha – affection – takes place. “Gauṇascenna ātmaśabdāt
(Br.Su.1/1/5) – as per this sūtra the word ‘gauṇa’ should not
be interpreted as attached with guṇa, ātma-śabdāt – Here the
Bhāṣya says – ātma śabdaḥ punaḥ sarveṣu vedānteṣu nirguṇa-
parabrahma-vācakatvenaiva siddhaḥ. Tasyaiva Jagat-kartṛtvam
śrutirāha.” This sentence means, nirguṇa-sākāra-parabrahman
only is the Creator of this world; He only is the indwelling soul;
He only is Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa. “Kṛṣiḥ means ‘Bhū’; ‘ṇaḥ’ means
riddance. The identity of these two denotes param-Brahma
Kṛṣṇaḥ”; this is how the Gopālatāpaniyopaniṣad describes. Śrī
Kṛṣṇa, the one brought up in the laps of Yaśodā, is Param-
Brahma – this is made clear in all the śruti, smṛti śāstras; therefore,
xxv

the word 'bhakti' means sneha in Śrī Kṛṣṇa; this is the primary
meaning; its use in other places is redundant.
Sat-cit-ānandam Brahma sports in the world in three ways;
here, the jagat is 'ādhibhautikam'; Akṣara-Brahman is
ādhyātmikam; Ādhi-daivikam param Brahma, "puruṣaśca-adhi-
daivatam" smṛti says. Likewise, there are three ways for the
sports of Bhagavān – ādhi-bhautika mārga, i.e. karma; ādhyātmika
mārga, i.e. jñānam; ādhi-daiviko mārgaḥ, i.e. bhaktiḥ. Here, the
first one, ādhi-bhautikaḥ – the karma mārga is restricted to world;
the second, jñāna mārga ends in Akṣara; third, the bhakti mārga
ends in Puruṣottama para-Brahman. The jñānis think that the
ultimate end is Akṣara Brahman; but, bhaktas consider this
Akṣara Brahman as the dhāma – residence – of Para-Brahma,
Pūrṇa Puruṣottama. The evidence for this is –
“avyakto'Akṣara ityuktaḥ tamāhuḥ paramāṁ gatim |
yaṁ prāpya na nivartante tad-dhāma paramam mama ||
(Gītā 8/21)
Likewise –
“yasmāt kṣaram-atīto'ham akṣarādapi cottamaḥ |
ato'smi loke vede ca prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ ||”
(Gītā 15/18)
by these testimonies, the meaning of the Vedas and the śāstras
is known as bhakti. Well, how do you come to the conclusion
that the meaning of the Vedas and other śāstras is bhakti? The
answer is - “yatra nānyat paśyati; nānyat śruṇoti; nānyat vijānāti;
sa bhūmā; sa vā eṣa evam paśyan evam manvānaḥ evam vijānan,
ātma-ratiḥ; ātma-krīḍaḥ; ātma-mithunaḥ; ātmānandaḥ; sa svarāḍ
bhavati;” “parambrahmaitad yo dhyāyati, rasati, bhajati, so amṛto
bhavati;” “nāham vedair, na tapasā, na dānena, na cejyayā śakya
evam vidho draṣṭum dṛṣṭavānasi māṁ yathā;” “bhaktyā tvananyayā
śakyaḥ;” “aham bhakta-parādhīnaḥ;” “bhaktyā tutoṣa Bhagavān
gajayūthapāya” – by these śruti, smṛti testimonials, only bhakti
has been elucidated. By these the sarvātma-bhāva nature of
bhakti only is conveyed.
xxvi

In Chāndogya, the Sanatkumāra-Nārada dialogue of
Bhūmavidyā, by the words "yatra nānyat paśyati" etc. talks of
the absence of any other element; this very vidyā again talks of
that state of separation from Bhagavān wherein, by the ultimate
longing, forgetting the prapañca, at all places, only the Bhagavat
svarūpa is experienced, by these words – "sa eva adhastāt, sa eva
upariṣṭād, sa paścāt" etc. 'Thereafter, the experiences in the state
of separation from Bhagavān are described as not the necessary
concomitants, and to remind this, the "ahaṅkāra ādeśa" –
"ahameva adhastāt, ahameva upariṣṭād" etc. are given; then comes
the ātmādeśa – "ātmaiva adhastāt, ātmopariṣṭād" etc. Likewise,
still further, by the words "ātma-ratiḥ; ātma-krīḍaḥ; ātma-
mithunaḥ" etc. it extols the Bhagavān as of the nature of "rasa".
Here, the word "ātma" is taken to mean "pūrṇa puruṣottama"
in the siddhānta and not the Akṣara or jīva. This is evident from
the sūtra "gauṇaścen-na-ātmaśabdāt"; by this sūtra, that thing
which is the ultimate existence, is what is told mainly in all the
Vedānta. By this, the sarvātma-bhāva nature of bhakti only is
conveyed and this is the main purport.
This bhakti is achieved only through the grace of God; it is so
told in the śruti – "na-ayam ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ; na
medhayā; na bahunā śrutena; yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ;
tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūm svām" (Kaṭho. 1/2/23). Here, the
word ātma means Puruṣottama; "pravacanena means 'sasvara
vedādhyayanena'. By this it is clear that the 'puṣṭi-bhakti' can be
attained only by the desire of Bhagavān. The word "sva" means
self, and when desired as one's own self, He gives the 'puṣṭi-
bhakti' of the nature of 'sarvātma-bhāva'. Here the Bhāṣya – "for
all individual souls, Bhagavān, naturally is the master; but,
then, whom He desires as His own, him He protects even as a
husband would his wife; bhakta also protects Him due to the
affection generated by the varaṇa; He, like the Bhakta, protects
him in Himself. (Aṇu Bhāṣya 4/4/15).
This statement of the Bhāṣya indicates that 'sneha' affection
xxvii

is the important and chief element of bhakti; that is why Vyāsa
has shown the example of 'pradīpa' – lamp (Dīpaka) – instead of
'ayo-golaka' – heated iron ball – in his sūtra “pradīpavad-āveśaḥ;
tathā hi darśayati”. This 'sneha' has 'śṛṅgāra' as its chief element
as shown by the damsels of Vraja whose 'sthāyi-bhāva' was
nothing but 'rati' and hence, bhakti-rasa also means the same
'śṛṅgāra'. This experience is non-worldly and is of the nature
of 'saṁyoga' – togetherness – and 'viprayoga' – separation. This
alaukika śṛṅgāra – non-worldly love, though similar to the
worldly love, is not the same; because, it is known through the
non-worldly means of knowledge, and not known through
the worldly means of knowledge.
In fact, in this bhakti, the mere doubt of its being this worldly
is meaningless. Ṛṣis like Vātsyāyana and others wrote their
treatises just to elucidate this bhagavat-bhāva experience. Ṛṣis
intentions are not to convey the worldly experiences at any
time. That is why, it is said – “tadetat brahmacaryeṇa parameṇa
samādhinā vihito lokayātrārthaṁ na rāgārtho'asya samvidhiḥ;
rakṣan dharmārthakāmānstrīn sampaśyam-lokavartinām; asya
śāstrasya tatvajño bhavatyeva jitendriyaḥ”. If the intention of
those writers were to be of this world, then they would not
have said the end-result as ' jitendriya-bhavana' – becoming
one who has won over his senses. This meaning has been
elaborately shown by the Āchārya in his Bhāṣya on
“liṅgabhūyastvādhikaraṇa” and in “kratuvaj-
jyāyastvādhikaraṇa”. Likewise by Śrī Puruṣottamacaraṇa in
his Prakāśa and by Śrī Gopeśacaraṇa in his Raśmi.
The nature of this bhakti is 'śṛṅgāra' and it is of the nature of
togetherness and separation; separation generates a suffering
of longing; how then can it be of the nature of pleasure and
that too, immeasurably? The answer is the śruti “yo vai bhūma
tat sukham”; therefore, it is of the nature of only pleasure. In
Vedānta, at all places, mukti has been described as of the nature
of enjoyment of pleasure. In the Puṣṭi mārga also, the nature of
Bhagavān being of ānanda, His prāpti – attainment – is the
xxviii

attainment of paramānanda – inestimable pleasure and not the
attainment of suffering. On this point, the author of Raśmi,
Yogi Gopeśwara enjoins – “asyaiva ca-upapatteḥ ūṣmā” – in the
Bhāṣya of this sūtra, ‘tathā hi; asya ānandātmaka-rasa-rūpasya
bhagavataḥ eva ayam dharmaḥ; ūṣmā – viraha-tāpaḥ; though
the all-pervading Bhagavān is present at all places, because he
disappears by His māyā, separation and longing of His company
is common for all; but, then, it is not felt by all, but only by
those in whose hearts the experience of blissful nature of
Bhagavān takes place, and only in his heart the suffering, born
out of non-attainment of Him is experienced; this is in tune
with the syllogism – “other things being there, it will be there;
they being not there, it will not be there.” Therefore, only that
object which is of the nature of pleasure can be such; the
suffering also here will be of the nature of pleasure.”
From the above it is clear that the suffering described here is
not born out of karma; if it were to be born out of karma, then its
riddance called mokṣa, of the nature of pleasure, will also be
shattered. That is why it is said in the śruti – “na paśyo mṛtyum
paśyati na rogam no’ta duḥkhatām” – here the nature of this
bhakti is described as not of the nature of suffering; but is the
cause of suffering though; But, being the means to attain the
real Puruṣottama – ānanda-prāpti, it is of the nature of pleasure.
If not so, in the state of separation, the śruti would not have
said as – ‘citte sphurāyamāṇam ānandatvam’; “ko hi-evānyāt kaḥ
prāṇyāt” – this śruti means – “in the state of separation, the
Bhagavad-rūpa shining in the heart is the cause for the
continuity of life”. Likewise, in the Bhāgavata also –
“tāḥ manmanaskā mat-prāṇā madarthe tyakta-daihikāḥ
māmeva dayitam preṣṭhamātmānam manasā gatāḥ |
ye tyakta-loka-dharmāśca madarthe tān bibharmyaham |
(Bhāga. 10/46/4)
“Thus, that which is given by Bhagavān, who is one’s most-
dear, that which has some connection with Bhagavān and
xxix

which is attained by the devotees, all that will be of the nature
of pleasure; therefore, for the naive that you are, the un-earthly
nature of pleasure of Bhagavān will be the cause of suffering
even as the nail-marks of the lover on the bulging breasts of
his love, comparable to the pricking of thorns! Let us suffice it
at this.”
Thus, by the śruti “yo vai bhūma tat sukham; na-alpe
sukhamasti” the pleasure that is described is of Brahman only
since that is of that nature, and all that is of the nature of
pleasure, end by connoting Brahman. In fact, Brahman only is
the desired object of jīva. This is what is told in Śrī Bhāgavta:
“ahamātmā ātmanāṃ dhātaḥ preṣṭhaḥ san preyasāmapi ।
ato mayi ratiṃ kuryād dehādir yat-kṛte priya ॥”
Here, this should be understood: In Siddhānta, Para-Brahman
is of the nature of pleasure ‘rasa’; is the substratum of all
opposing qualities; and with form; thus the śruti “ātmaiva
pūrvamāsīt puruṣa-vidhaḥ”. The end-result to be attained is
Brahmānanda. In the śruti “param-brahmaitad yo dhyāyati rasati
bhajati so'amṛto bhavati” the connection of each word with
Brahman is to be understood.
This bhakti is of the nature of end-result; its definition is – “para-
Brahma śrī kṛṣṇa-snehatvam”. Here, by the varaṇa śruti “yameva
eṣa vṛṇute tena labhyaḥ” the varaṇa is of two varieties viz. maryādā
and Puṣṭi. In the case of maryādā bhakti, the means prescribed
in the śāstras are many and that also, is of bodily, mental and
verbal nature. Whereas, in the Puṣṭi mārga, varaṇam is the
only means. In this mārga, only by the grace of God is the
destruction of all the sins. This is so said –
“svapāda-mūlaṃ bhajataḥ priyasya
tyaktānya-bhāvasya hariḥ pareśaḥ
vikarma yaccotpatitaṃ kathañcit
dhunoti sarvaṃ hṛdi sanniviṣṭaḥ” ॥
(Bhāga. 11/5/42)
xxx

“praviṣṭaḥ karṇa-randhreṇa svānāṁ bhāva-saroruham
dhunoti samalam kṛṣṇaḥ padmapatramivāñjasā”॥
In this manner, only by varaṇa (paramātma's desire) – puṣṭi-
bhakti is attained by the puṣṭi-bhakta; whereas bhaktas attain
through bhakti-mārga – go near to Bhagavān; there, if Bhagavān
appears, gets rasānanda; i.e. through all the senses, relation is
established with bhagavat-svarūpa. This is told in Bhāgavata –
“akṣanvatāṁ phalamidam na param vidāmaḥ”; all kinds of such
mental longings are fulfilled by the grace of Bhagavān;
“brahmaiva san Brahma apyeti”; “so'śnute sarvān Kāmān saha
brahmaṇā” these śrutis are the evidence. This experience of
rasa is the highest. By the statement of the Āchārya
“brahmānandāt samuddhṛtya bhajanānandayojane,” the akṣara-
brahma-ānanda is counted-pleasure and the bhajanananda is
uncounted pleasure. Evaluating between these two, jñāna and
bhakti, Bhakti is superior.

1. In Bhakti, drinking of the rasa of kṛpānanda is the result;
   in jñāna, it is merely the absence of suffering.
2. In Bhakti, experience of pleasure in full is the result; in
   jñāna, dissolving one's self and that too completely,
   without differentiation – is the result.
3. In Bhakti, the existence of duality made so by Bhagavān
   and experience of its pleasure is the result; in jñāna, since
   there is no differentiation, experience of pleasure does
   not arise.
4. In Bhakti, from the very beginning, there is limitless
   pleasure; in Jñāna, there is suffering in the beginning,
   and at the end, attainment of limited ānanda.
5. In Bhakti, it is the attainment of Pūrṇa Puruṣottama; in
   jñāna, it is the attainment of Akṣara.
   In this manner, while comparing jñāna and bhakti, bhakti
   excels.
   xxxi