________________
xxiv] Brahman, Paramātman, Bhagavat, Parameśvara 15 of pure bliss, is experienced by sages as being identical with their own selves, and when their minds are unable to grasp its nature as possessing diverse powers, and when no distinction between itself and its powers is realized, it is called Brahman. In such experiences this reality is only grasped in a general featureless way in its abstractness. But when this reality is realized by the devotees in its true nature as being possessed of diverse powers in their distinction from the former, He is called by the name Bhagavat. In this it is the pure bliss which is the substance or the possessor, and all the other powers are but its qualities. So, when the reality is conceived in its fulness in all its proper relations, it is called Bhagavat: whereas, when it is conceived without its specific relations and in its abstract character, it is called Brahman? So far as this distinction between the concepts of Brahman and Bhagavat is concerned it is all right. But in this system philosophy is superseded at this point by mythology. Mythologically Krşņa or the lord Bhagavān is described in the Purānas as occupying His throne in the transcendent Heaven (Vaikuntha) in His resplendent robes, surrounded by His associates. This transcendent Heaven (Vaikuntha) is non-spatial and non-temporal; it is the manifestation of the essential powers (svarūpa-Śakti) of God, and as such it is not constituted of the gunas which form the substance of our spatiotemporal world. Since it is non-spatial and non-temporal, it is just as true to say that God exists in Vaikuntha as to say that He Himself is Vaikuntha. Those who believed in this school of religion were so much obsessed with the importance of mythological stories and representations that they regarded God Himself as having particular forms, dress, ornaments, associates etc. They failed to think that these representations could be interpreted mythically, allegorically or otherwise. They regarded all these intensely anthropomorphic descriptions as being literally true. But such admissions would involve the irrefutable criticism that a God with hands, feet,
1 tad ekam eva akhandānanda-rūpam tattvam... parama-hamsānām sādhanavaśāt tādātmyam anupapamyam satyām api tadīya-svarūpa-sakti-vaicitryām tadgrahana-sāmarthye cetasi yathā sāmānyato lakṣitam tathaiva sphurad vā tad-vad eva avivikta-sakti-saktimattābhedatayā pratipădyamānam vā brahmeti śabdyate.
Şat-sandarbha, pp. 49-50. 2 evam ca ānanda-mātram višeşyam samastāḥ saktayah višeşanāni visisto bhagavān ityāyātam. tathā caivam vaisistye prāpte pūrnāvirbhāvatuena akhandatattva-rūpo'sau bhagavān brahma tu sphutam aprakațita-vaisistyäkāratvena tasyaiva asamyag-āvirbhāvaḥ. Ibid. p. 50.
