Śrī Jīva Goswami has established the philosophy of acintya-bheda-abheda in the Sandarbhas, which I have discussed here, here, here and here. Śrī Viśvanātha’s treatment of the subject is here. In this article, I examine Anuccheda 5.4 of the Prīti Sandarbha, where he interprets statements from the scriptures that seem to equate the ātmā and Brahman, as indicative of bheda and abheda. Śrī Jīva Goswami lays out a general principle that is valuable in interpreting such statements, which I present below.

tat-sāmya (bheda) and tādātmya (abheda)

Consider the following statement from the Bṛhad-āranyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6

na tasmāt prāṇā utkrāmanti atraiva samavalīyante brahmaiva san brahmāpyeti [bṛ.ā.u. 4.4.6]

[For the Brahman-realized adept who is liberated from all desire], his vital life airs (the five prāṇas) do not depart along with him but merge here in the body; being Brahman alone, he attains Brahman

At issue is the statement:

brahmaiva san = being Brahman alone

brahmāpy eti = he attains Brahman

These two are separate events. The logic is as follows:

anyo brahma-bhāvas tathānyo brahmaṇy apyaya iti spaṣṭam, brahma-bhāvānantaraṁ tad-apyayasya punar abhidhānāt, apyeteḥ karmatayā brahma-nirdeśāc ca

In this verse, “being Brahman” (brahma-bhāva), is spoken of as one thing, and the attainment of Brahman (brahmaṇy apyaya, i.e., prāpti) as another. This is evident because the attainment of Brahman (brahmāpyeti) is mentioned as occurring after one has become Brahman (brahmaiva san), and because Brahman is the direct object (karma) of the verb “he attains” (apyeti).

That the statements indicate separate events is evident from the fact that one of them (attainment of Brahman) is mentioned separately, and mentioned as following the other (being Brahman). If one is already Brahman, it is meaningless to state next that the person attains Brahman. Furthermore, that they are separate events is evident from the fact that in the second statement, the subject and object are different, because apyeti is a sa-karmaka (transitive) verb. The object of this verb is Brahman.

Given all this, then, it would be a mistake to interpret the statement ‘brahmaiva san’ as indicative of abheda, as the Advaitins do. If there were abheda, the next statement (brahma apyeti) would not only be superfluous but also meaningless.

As such, the statement brahmaiva san must be interpreted, as indicating sāmya or ‘similarity’ between two objects that are actually different. As an example, consider the sentence, “he is a lion”. This statement does not mean that the person is literally a lion, but is like a lion.

With the meaning of similarity, then, the next statement can be properly justified – the first indicates the ontological reality of being similar, and the second indicates an attainment. Śrī Jīva writes —

tataś ca brahmaiva sann iti tat-sāmya-tat-tādātmyāpattyaiva abheda-nirdeśaḥ |

Thus [because of the distinction between brahma-bhāva and brahma-prāpti], in the words “having become Brahman” (brahmaiva san), the qualitative equivalence (tat-sāmya) referred to [between the liberated jīva and Brahman] is taken as an instruction regarding their nondistinction (abheda-nirdeśa) dependent solely on the jīva’s thereafter attaining the state of identity of essential nature with Brahman (tādātmya).

The apparent abheda in the words brahmaiva san or being Brahman indicates a similarity or tat-sāmya between the ātmā and Brahman. Similarity inherently implies bheda, because an object cannot have similarity with itself. Similarity can only exist between two distinct objects. Thus, tat-sāmya actually implies bheda, which in turn allows the possibility of attaining Brahman in the next statement. The attainment is by tādātmya between the ātmā and Brahman. As discussed here, tādātmya is defined as follows

भेदसहिष्णुरभेदस्तादात्म्यमिति केचिद्वेदान्तिन आहुः।

Some Vedāntins state that tādātmya means the abheda which accomodates bheda.

The ātmā and Brahman share the similarity of being non-inert or conscious. As such, the ātmā can attain Brahman and identify with it. This is why tat-sāmya (brahmaiva san) precedes tādātmya (brahma apyeti). tādātmya involves forgetfulness of the bheda between the ātmā and Brahman, just as currently there is forgetfulness of bheda between us and our bodies.

A similar approach must be followed for the following statement from the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.9 —

evaṁ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati [mu.u. 3.2.8] ity atrāpi vyākhyeyam | kvacid ekatva-śabdenāpi tathaivocyate |

The same explanation should be given to the statement: “One who has realized Brahman becomes Brahman” (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.2.9). Sometimes this very state of tādātmya with Brahman is also referred to by the word ekatva, or “oneness.”

Scriptural statements that teach tat-sāmya (bheda) and tādātmya (abheda)

Śrī Jīva Goswami follows up the above passages with a quick succession of citations to support his fundamental thesis of bheda or tat-sāmya and abheda or tādātmya between the ātmā and Brahman.

atra tat-sāmyaṁ yathoktam—nirañjanaṁ parama-sāmyam upaiti [mu.u. 3.2.3] ity ādi śrutau | idaṁ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatā [gītā 14.2] iti gītopaniṣatsu ca |

[Apart from instructions regarding the nondistinction (abhedanirdeśa) between the jīva and Brahman in the liberated state, as just discussed], elsewhere mukti is also characterized as the attainment of qualitative equivalence with Brahman (tatsāmya) [i.e., bheda-nirdeśa], as in the following Śruti: “Being freed of all taints, the illuminated seer attains supreme equality (paramaṁ sāmyam) [with Brahman]” (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3), and also in this statement of Bhagavad Gītā: “Having taken refuge of this wisdom, they have attained qualitative sameness with Me (mama sādharmyam)” (gītā 14.2).

Elsewhere, both tat-sāmya and tādātmya can be seen in the same statement —

ubhayaṁ coktaṁ spaṣṭam eva—

yathodakaṁ śuddhe śuddham āsiktaṁ tādṛg eva bhavati |evaṁ muner vijānata ātmā bhavati gautama || [ka.u. 2.1.15]

And both [i.e., abheda-nirdeśa — involving identity of essential nature (tādātmya) — and sāmya-nirdeśa — implying a difference (bheda)] are clearly mentioned in the following Śruti:

O Gautama, just as pure water poured into pure water becomes exactly like the water with which it is mixed, so too the ātmā of a Brahman-realized sage becomes [exactly like Brahman]. (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.1.15)

How bheda and abheda are both present in the above verse may not be obvious, so he explains —

tatraiva-kāreṇa na tu tad eva bhavati na tu vā tad-asādharmyeṇa pṛthag upalabhyata iti dyotyate | skānde ca—

[The words tādṛg eva, “exactly like that,” are to be applied both to the water and to Brahman]. In this regard, the word eva, “exactly [like that (tādṛk)],” indicates that the sage neither becomes Brahman [denying radical nondistinction (atyanta-abheda)] nor that he is to be perceived as separate (pṛthak) from Brahman owing to a difference in essential nature (asādharmyam) [denying radical distinction (atyanta-bheda)].

In case this seems like an over-interpretation, Śrī Jīva Goswami supports it with an explicit statement to this effect —

udake tūdakaṁ siktaṁ miśram eva yathā bhavet |tad vai tad eva bhavati yato buddhiḥ pravartate ||

evam evaṁ hi jīvo’pi tādātmyaṁ paramātmanā |prāpto’pi nāsau bhavati svātantryādi-viśeṣaṇāt || iti |

Just as when water is poured into water and is mixed together, it occurs to ordinary perception as having become just that [when in fact an atomic and quantitative distinction then pertains], so too in the exact same manner, when a living being attains identity of essential nature (tādātmya) with Paramātmā, even then he does not become Paramātmā because the latter has intrinsic distinguishing attributes such as independent existence (svātantrya) [whereas the jīva’s existence remains dependent even in that state]. (Skanda Purāṇa)

He gives another citation to support tat-sāmya or bheda in the state of mukti–

evam evaiṣa saṁprasādo’smāc charīrāt samutthāya paraṁ jyotir upasaṁpadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate [chā.u. 8.12.3] ity atrāpi tathaiva bhedaḥ pratipāditaḥ |

Accordingly, in the following Śruti statement, the distinction (bheda) [between the jīva and Brahman] has been established:

In this manner, this blessed one [the liberated jīva], upon ascending up out of this body, attains to the supreme light of transcendence and becomes established in his own true form. (chu 8.12.3)

The similarity here is between some of the qualities of the jīva and Brahman, and not that there is complete identity. He concludes with a verse from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa which teaches bheda —

śrī-viṣṇu-purāṇe’pi vibheda-janake’jñāne nāśam [vi.pu. 6.7.84] ity ādau devādi-bheda-nāśānantaraṁ brahmātmanor bhedaṁ na ko’py asantaṁ kariṣyati api tu santam eva kariṣyatīti vyākhyātam eva |

In Viṣṇu Purāṇa as well [the distinction between the jīva and Brahman in the state of final mukti is asserted]: “Even when the ignorance that gives rise to the perception of difference is completely destroyed, who would consider as untrue the distinction between the ātmā and Brahman?” (vp 6.7.96). Here it is said that even after the destruction of the differences [in names and forms acquired by the jīva], such as those of the devas and humans beings, no one would deny the distinction that exists between Brahman and the ātmā. Rather, they would surely affirm it. This is how this verse has been explained [in Paramātma Sandarbha].

Summary

1. The Śruti statements that teach ekatva or oneness between the ātmā and Brahman indicate tat-sāmya or similarity, which in turn implies bheda or difference, since an object cannot be similar to itself
2. Śruti statements that teach attainment of Brahman teach tādātmya, or abheda, that tolerates bheda or distinction.
3. tat-sāmya or bheda allows tādātmya or abheda
4. There are Śruti statements which teach both tat-sāmya and tādātmya, i.e. bheda and abheda between the ātmā and Brahman
5. actinya-bheda-abheda is the proper ontological perspective – the ātmā is neither the same as Brahman nor different from Brahman