Objection –


The disciple says in Adhyātmopaniṣad :


“asaṅgo ‘hamanaṅgo ’hamaliṅgo ’hamahaṁ hariḥ | praśānto ’hamananto ’haṁ paripūṛnaścirantanaḥ ||69|| …..kevalo ‘haṁ sadāśivaḥ ||”


“I am devoid of association, I am devoid of marking and I am Hari myself. I am peaceful, endless, complete and the most ancient, primeval….. I am the only one and Sadāśiva.”


Thus, here the non-difference between the jīvātmā and paramātmā is established.







1) The verse in the Adhyātmopaniṣad that describes the ātmā/soul to be devoid of association indicates the condition of a liberated soul, for only in jīvana-muktāvasthā/brahma-bhūtāvasthā does the soul get liberated from attachment, not in the state wherein he (the soul) is shackled by māyā (deluding potency). Elsewhere, in the Śrīmad-bhāgavad-gītā 4.20 and 15.3, “tyaktvā karma-phalāsagam” and “asaga-śastrea ddhena chittvā”—by this evidence it is clear that in the bonded state, the jīva  is covered by the three modes of material nature or ‘saga’.


2) The soul has been called ‘anaga’ (sans a body/form) because the jīva is, by form, devoid of material/natural/worldly/insentient body in his pure situation in the taasthāvasthā or marginal position. Otherwise, when he is situated in māyā, he is covered with the gross and subtle bodies manifested by the three modes of material nature.


3) The ātmā is called ‘aliga’ – because of being an embodiment of cidānanda or eternal bliss, he cannot become an object of material qualities.


4) The jīvātmā is called ‘Hari’ only because the jīvātmā is an abode of the paramātmā (the indwelling monitor or super-soul) — paramātmā resides in the heart of the jīva. Despite the existence of difference between the presidency (adhiṣṭhāna or predominated) and the president (adhiṣṭhātā or the predominating), oneness between the two is acceptable in one sense and it is, in the same perspective, that the jīva has been called Hari. For instance, the Himavān mountain is the abode of the resident Himadeva. But, if the resident and the residence are the same due to complete oneness, the statement of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad will prove false, wherein, the jīvātmā is said to be the body of the paramātmā/parabrahma –  and it is said that despite the presence of the paramātmā within the ātmā (jīva), jīvātmā cannot know the paramātmā – “ya ātmani tiṣṭhan ātmāna antaro ya ātmā na veda”.


5) The jīvātmā has been called ‘praśānta’ (‘calm’) — this tranquility can only be perfected when the jīvātmā bathes in the nectar of devotion originating in the service of the Lous Feet of Śrī Hari. Evidence — Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 6.14.5—“sudurlabha praśāntātmā kotiśvapi mahāmune”.


6) The jīvātmā has been called ‘ananta’ (“eternal”) only because, the jīvātmā is indestructible. Ultimately, the jīva is indestructible like the parabrahma/Absolute (eternal) — this is proclaimed in the 2nd chapter of the Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā.


7) The jīva can be perfect when he performs devotional service to the Lotus feet of Śrī Hari, else, he remains imperfect, and this is illuminated in the verse 2.3.20 of the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam, “bile batorukramavikramāna ye..”.


8) The word ‘cirantana’ (“most ancient”) is used for the jīva only to declare it ancient. Because, like the paramātmā, the jīva is, too, eternal and ancient — as per the scriptures; the jīvātmā is eternal, like the paramātmā on account of his being an eternally separate expansion (vibhinna-aṁśa) of the paramātmā, but the existence of the jīva is dependent on the existence of the paramātmā — Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 7.7 — “matta paratara nānyat….sūtre manigaṇā iva” and Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 15.7 — “mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūta sanātana”.


9) The liberated (mukta) jīva is ‘kevala’ because, in his liberated state, he is completely free from the three modes of material nature. The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Ācāryas, have, in their classical Sanskrit commentaries on Śrīmad-bhāgavatam verse 12.13.12, after many philosophical deliberations, accepted “..kevalyaika-prayojanam...” to mean “prema, the ātyantika pañcama puruṣārtha or the ultimate fifth objective”.


10) The devotee jīva is ‘sadāśiva’ because the meaning of all auspicious Śambhu/Mahādeva/Śaṅkara/Śiva is itself “auspicious” and “harbinger of auspiciousness” (“Śiva” and “Śaṅkara”—both words mean “auspicious” or “one who brings auspiciousness”—“śa karoti iti śakara”). If Śiva became more auspicious than before by receiving on His head the Goddess Gaṅgā, who originates from the Lotus-like Feet of Śrī Viṣṇu (evidence — Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 3.28.22 — “…tīrthena mūrdhnyadhiktena śiva śivo ‘bhūt…” ), why can’t the jīvātmā, too, by his virtue of worshipping the Lotus-like Feet of Śrī Hari, become an embodiment of auspiciousness (“magala-svarūpa”) or Śiva (“śiva” here – in the context of an ordinary jīva –  means all auspicious and not the Lord of Goddess Pārvatī or Pārvatī-pati — meaning, we have to accept the yaugika or derivative meaning and not the rūḍhi or conventional meaning). Additional evidences are – Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.13.10 “..tīrtha-bhūtāḥ svaya vibho..tīrthī-kurvanti tīrthāni svānta-sthena gadābhtā…” and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.18.21 “.seśa punāty anyatamo mukundāt..”.


Question –


If all the adjectives mentioned above have been used in the Adhyātmopaniṣad for a ‘jīvanamukta’ or a ‘bhagavad-bhaktajīva, how then, can the disciple, in his conversation with his guru, use them for his own soul, as he is probably in the initial stages of sādhanā and hasn’t reached the stage of liberation or jīvana-mukti? How can he use those adjectives for himself? Answer — Even if that practitioner (sādhaka) disciple hasn’t made it to the perfected stage (siddhāvasthā), he speaks while aiming at the perfected stage that he is going to attain in the future.


Conclusion –


As per the analyses presented above, the Adhyātmopaniṣad accepts only the bhedābheda concept of the relationship between the jīva and brahma – and not the Kevala-advaita-vāda (the Absolute Monism of Ācārya Śaṅkara).





– Originally and innovatively (not copycat scholarship, but with unprecedented innovative notions indicatively based on the overall Gauḍīya theology) composed in Hindi and later edited in English by Bhaktirasavedāntapīṭhādhīśvara Ācārya Śrī RKDS ‘ĀV’ Gurupāda (BRVF – Anand, Gujarat, Bhārata/India)


– Translated in English from Hindi by (upon the orders of Ācārya Śrī Gurupāda) Mr. Samarth Singh Kang / Śrīyuta Sundarānandadāsa Adhikārī Jī (Late HH BVNM – IGVS) of Jaipur, Rajputana, RJ, IN.



Link to the English version of the essay – https://goo.gl/kiAgXY

Link to the Hindi version of the essay — https://goo.gl/pxrSsS

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s