Dandavats Vaisnavas,
I am studying Srila Jiva Goswami's Sandarbhas as part of an academic paper I am writing and getting a lot of inspiration. The edition I am reading is the one by Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji (SDB), detailed here: http://sandarbhas.jiva.org/
I wanted to share the following because I have seen a similar concept come up in discussions about Jaiva Dharma and SBVT's comments on anadi-karma:
In SDB's commentary on Anuccheds 32, he mentions that In Baladeva Vidyabusana's (BV) commentary on Gita 13.20, BV states that the covering of the jiva by maya, both of whom are anadi, relates to a "period of time without beginning" (anādi-kālikatva).
Which Sandharbha Gauravani?
Tattva-Sandarbha?
Text 32.1
atha prāk pratipāditasyaivābhidheyasya prayojanasya ca sthāpakaṁ jīvasya svarūpata eva parameśvarād vailakṣaṇyam apaśyad ity āha yayeti. yayā māyayā sammohito jīvaḥ svayaṁ cid-rūpatvena tri-guṇātmakāj jaḍāt paro ’py ātmānaṁ tri-guṇātmakaṁ jaḍaṁ dehādi-saṅghātaṁ manute tan-manana-kṛtam anarthaṁ saṁsāra-vyasanaṁ cābhipadyate.
The process (abhidheya) and the goal (prayojana), as we have defined them, are based on the essential difference between the Lord and the living entity. That Śrī Vyāsa saw this distinction is shown by the verse beginning yayā [Bhāg. 1.7.5]. Although the living entity is by nature pure spirit, transcendental to the three inert material modes, when deluded by Māyā he considers himself a product of those modes, the inert material body. This delusion causes the living entity to suffer unwanted consequences, namely the miseries of repeated birth and death.
Text 32.2
tad evaṁ jīvasya cid-rūpatve ’pi yayā sammohitaḥ iti manute iti ca svarūpa-bhūta-jñāna-śālitvaṁ vyanakti prakāśaika-rūpasya tejasaḥ sva-para-prakāśana-śakti-vat.
ajñānenāvṛtaṁ jñānaṁ tena muhyanti jantavaḥ
iti śrī-gītābhyaḥ. tad evam upādher eva jīvatvaṁ tan-nāśasyaiva mokṣatvam iti matāntaraṁ parihṛtavān. atra yayā sammohita ity anena tasyā eva tatra kartṛtvaṁ bhagavatas tatrodāsīnatvam (matam).
Furthermore, not only does the living being consist of pure spiritual consciousness, but he also possesses consciousness as a component of his essential nature, just as light, which consists of nothing but illumination, also possesses the capacity to illumine itself and other things. That the living entity possesses consciousness is implied [in Bhāgavatam 1.7.5] by the words yayā sammohitaḥ (“deluded by that [Māyā]”) and manute (“he considers”) and confirmed by the following words [in Bhagavad-gītā 5.15]:
“Living beings are bewildered because their consciousness is covered by ignorance.”
Thus is refuted the contrary opinion that the jīva exists only as an upādhi of Brahman and that liberation is simply the elimination of this upādhi.
Here [in Bhāg. 1.7.5] the phrase yayā sammohito shows that Māyā alone is responsible for deluding the living being; the Lord remains uninvolved.
Text 32.3
vakṣyate ca:
vilajjamānayā yasya sthātum īkṣā-pathe ’muyā
vimohitā vikatthante mamāham iti durdhiyaḥ
iti. atra vilajjamānayā ity anenedam āyāti, tasyā jīva-sammohanaṁ karma śrī-bhagavate na rocata iti yady api sā svayaṁ jānāti tathāpi bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād īśād apetasya iti diśā jīvānām anādi-bhagavad-ajñāna-maya-vaimukhyam asahamānā svarūpāvaraṇam asvarūpāveśaṁ ca karoti.
Later Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [2.5.13] states:
“The illusory energy of the Lord cannot stand in front of Him, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of I’ and mine.’”
Here we can infer from the phrase “being ashamed” (vilajjamānayā) that although Māyā knows her work of bewildering the living beings does not please the Supreme Lord, still she cannot tolerate that they have turned their backs on Him because of their ignorance of Him, which is beginningless. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [11.2.37] describes the result of the jīvas’ turning from the Lord: “When the living beings are attracted to something other than the Lord, they become fearful.” Therefore Māyā covers their real nature and entices them to identify with matter.
-- I have a commentary here too, but I do not know who authored it.
Rama Kesava has it: Tattva Sandarbha, Anuccheda 32.
Brihad Bhagavatamrita 2.2.187
sac-cid-ananda-rupanam
jivanam Krsna-mayaya
anady-avidyaya Tattva-
vismrtya samsrtir bhramah
The original forms of the jivas are made of eternity, knowledge, and bliss, but by the beginningless illusion of Krishna’s Maya the jivas forget their true identities and wander deluded in the cycle of birth and death.
Translation by Gopiparanadhana
Could “original forms” be derived from rupanam?
It appears from the way the translation is rendered and the purport the author may have tried to keep the door cracked open enough to accommodate the fall of the jiva idea. But I don’t know Sanskrit. Can anyone who knows Sanskrit comment here and make an assessment of this translation?
Rupanam simply means 'of the forms' (plural).
I have found a differing translation; the nuance is subtle:
sac-cid-ananda-rupanam-forms that are eternal and full of knowledge and bliss;
jivanam-of the individual spirit souls;
krsna-mayaya-by Lord Krsna's potency;
anadi-without beginning;
avidyaya-by ignorance;
tattva-the truth;
vismrtya-by forgetting;
samsrtih-the material world;
bhramah-illusion.
"Although the individual spirit souls have forms that are eternal and full of knowledge and bliss, by the influence of Lord Krsna's maya, which places them in ignorance without beginning and makes them forget the truth, they become bewildered and wander in the world of birth and death."
Note: Gopiparanadhana says "original forms made of eternity" etc., but this one says "forms that are eternal" and "full of knowledge" etc. I might be splitting hairs here but the first to my mind is saying the forms are made of something, and the second that the forms have qualities.
Not sure how helpful this is.