गोविन्द भाष्य (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण - अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

form chosen by the devotee. In this way it is shown that these two features of the Lord (sweetness and opulence) are not incompatible with each other. Saṁśaya (doubt): When the devotee worships the Lord as having certain qualities, does the devotee attain a form of the Lord having those qualities alone or does he attain a form of the Lord having other qualities also. Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): Whether the devotee meditates on the Lord in sweetness or opulence, the devotee will meet a form of the Lord who has all the qualities of both sweetness and opulence. This is so because whether meditated on in sweetness or opulence, the Lord remains one person. Siddhānta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sūtras gives His conclusion. Sūtra 56 vyatirekas tad-bhāva-bhāvitvān na tūpalabdhi-vat vyatirekaḥ—difference; tat—of that; bhāva—of the nature; bhāvitvāt—because of the being; na—not; tu—indeed; upalabdhi—of the understanding; vat—like. Not different, because of the nature of the meditation. Indeed, it is like knowledge. Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa The word "tu" (indeed) is used here to dispel doubt. The sūtra declares that other qualities are not manifested. Why is that? The sūtra explains: "tad-bhāva- bhāvitvāt", which means, "because of the nature of the qualities that were the object of meditation". This means that when one attains the Lord, the Lord appears in the same form as was the object of the devotee's meditation. The word "upalabdhi-vat" means "like knowledge". This means, "One meets a form of the Lord like the form one knew in his meditation on the Lord." Even though the meditator is aware that the Lord has many other qualities, still when the devotee meets the Lord the Lord will manifest only the qualities that were included in the devotee's meditation and not the Lord's other qualities. In this way the description in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1 is not contradicted. In the following sūtra the author gives an example to show that the devotee meets a form of the Lord corresponding to what had been the object of the devotee's meditation.