SB 2.2.5-8

 Text 5: Are there no torn clothes lying on the common road? Do the trees, which exist for maintaining others, no longer give alms in charity? Do the rivers, being dried up, no longer supply water to the thirsty? Are the caves of the mountains now closed? Or above all, does the Almighty Lord not protect the fully surrendered souls? Why then do the learned sages go to flatter those who are intoxicated by hard-earned wealth?

Text 6: Thus being fixed, one must render service unto the Supersoul situated in one’s own heart by His omnipotency. Because He is the Almighty Personality of Godhead, eternal and unlimited, He is the ultimate goal of life, and by worshiping Him one can end the cause of the conditioned state of existence.

Text 7: Who else but the gross materialists will neglect such transcendental thought and take to the nonpermanent names only, seeing the mass of people fallen in the river of suffering as the consequence of accruing the result of their own work?

Text 8: Others conceive of the Personality of Godhead residing within the body in the region of the heart and measuring only eight inches, with four hands carrying a lotus, a wheel of a chariot, a conchshell and a club respectively.

Śrī Dharasvāmi's Bhāvārtha Dīpikā Commentary:

A Question may arise - How can one attain the state of renunciation (dīkṣādbhāva), where one has no permanent dwelling (nityam valkalam), no cooked food (annam), no water (toyam), no clothes (vāsah), and no fixed residence (sthānam), without any effort? To this, the text replies:

Those who do not beg for fruits etc. as alms, what do they sustain themselves with? The flowing rivers that do not dry up, the mountain caves - if these are sometimes unavailable, will not the unconquered Lord Hari protect those who have resorted to His shelter? The word 'kim' (what) relates to the previous line as well. As for those blinded by the intoxication of wealth, who have lost their discrimination...

Then what should one do? The Lord should be served. The reasons for serving Him are given: He is self-established (siddha) in one's own heart; since the Self is naturally dear, serving the beloved is itself blissful. Moreover, He is the true reality, not illusory like the non-Self. The Lord possesses infinite auspicious qualities and is eternal. One who is thus constituted should be served. He is "niyatārtha" - His true nature is determined. Being satisfied by the bliss of His experience, His nature is intrinsically blissful. Furthermore, by serving Him, the cause of transmigratory existence, namely ignorance, is destroyed.

This is further reinforced by condemning other thoughts. "Who" - neglecting such a fitting contemplation of the Supreme Lord, "would indeed contemplate" - who would engage in the improper thought of sense objects? By such contemplation "one has fallen into the Vaitaraṇi." And seeing people suffering the miseries caused by their own actions - physical, mental etc. - in that "Vaitaraṇi," which is like the river at the door of Yama (the Lord of Death), representing transmigratory existence.

Some describe that improper contemplation with six characteristics: Contemplating the limited space within one's heart, measuring the extent of an aṅguṣṭha (finger's breadth), worshipping a lotus, a chariot wheel etc. within that space.

Vam̐śīdhara-kr̥tā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa-vyākhyā

He raises an objection here: "But..." He raises another objection: "But..." However, Viśvanātha says - "Surely, what is the means of protection from cold (śītatrāṇopāyaḥ)?" In response to that doubt, he says - "cīrāṇi" (clothes). But even then, the fire of hunger is difficult to overcome (durvāraḥ). Regarding that, he says - "andhripā api" - even if people do not give alms, let them not give, that is the idea. If it is said that water at least should be sought for drinking, he says - "sarito'pi" - one should seek intelligence.

But if it is asked what protection is needed from a shower of stones, he says - "rudrā" - even a grass hut is not required. If it is asked what if one is devoured by a tiger after entering a cave, he says - "kim ajita" - he who is the indweller of all beings, who is devoted to his devotees, how will he impel tigers etc. there? The meaning is that none can overpower one who is devoted to the unconquerable Lord. (5)

Then, when reaching a solitary place like a forest, he says that for one who is dispassionate, there is not only the bliss of the Self, but also another excellence. "Kiñca" - Viśvanātha says - If it is asked whether seekers should indeed seek the means of worship of the Lord, he says - "svacitte svata eva siddho yat ātmā cittādhiṣṭhātā vāsudeva" - the Self, the indweller of the mind, is Vāsudeva himself by nature. There is no need for invocation etc. Moreover, his worship is naturally appropriate, as indicated by the four adjectives - "priya" etc. He is "priya" (dear) by nature, being the object of love, and being the object of love does not imply any undesirable form like that of a husband or son, since he is the highest reality. Even in the form of reality, he is not merely the inner Self, as he is visible with qualities like beauty. There is no restriction of place, as he says "anantaḥ" - being all-pervading, he is present everywhere. And there is no effort involved in his worship, as he says "nivṛttaḥ" - being full of the bliss of devotion, he is naturally accompanied by love for the devotee. Or, the meaning is that there are so many names to be recited, so many stories to be heard, so many prostrations to be performed, so much time for meditation - thus there are rules regarding singing, hearing, etc. for one of that nature. Where in that worship, there is cessation of ignorance, which is the cause of transmigration - that is the implied result according to the devotees. But according to the enlightened yogis, the cessation of the cause of transmigration itself is the implied result. (6)

This very worship of Hari is being referred to. Just as an animal is always engrossed in its own actions, similarly the bound soul is like an animal among the gods, according to the meaning of the Śruti text. The idea is that just as a river is crossed with difficulty by swimming or by giving charity, similarly is the world. (7)

Thus, having shown dispassion and the concomitance and non-concomitance for a devotee, he again speaks of the meditation on the indwelling conscious being, which is superior even to the aforementioned meditation. "Kecit" - superior even to those established in the aforementioned meditation on dispassion. Or, in accordance with the statement to be made, those whose minds have become pure by the practice of meditation on dispassion, meditate on that indwelling conscious being - with this idea, he says "kecit."

Here, there are four types of yogis in this meditation. The first are those who, not resorting to the form of the Lord, meditate on the vital force and the mind - they are condemned in the Śrī Bhāgavata itself. The second are those whose minds have become pure by the previously mentioned meditation on dispassion, who meditate on the indweller as described in the third canto as "mṛṇālagaurāyataśeṣabhoga" etc. The third are those who meditate on the immense cosmic form of the four-armed indweller after the meditation on dispassion. The fourth are those who are pure-minded by nature and meditate on the four-armed form of the indwelling Lord right from the start - it is they who are referred to here by the word "kecit." "Prādeśamātram" - of the measure of a region, to be meditated upon in the heart of a region of that much extent only, of the size of a youth of about fifteen years of age, as per the statement "santam vayasi kaiśore." Therefore, the Lord is worshipped in the heart of that measure, as said by the Lord himself: "There, in the heart of that measure, the indwelling Lord has made his residence." (8)

Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Dāsa Gosvāmi's Dīpanī Commentary:

The fixed nature (niścitaṃ svarūpam) is that by which one's true nature (svarūpa) is ascertained or known (yena). He who knows this fixed nature is said to be of fixed or determined nature (niścitasvarūpaḥ). || 6-9||

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava's Commentary:

Someone may ask: How can one obtain cloth, food, water, shelter, and such things without effort? To this, he says: "Are there no worn-out rags on the path? Do those who maintain others not give alms? Do the rivers not flow? Are the mountain caves obstructed? If there is ever a lack of these, would the unconquered Lord not protect those who have taken refuge in Him? Why do the poets court the blind and ignorant who are intoxicated by wealth?" [Verse 5]

The other option is difficult to follow, but Hari is easy to follow, as stated earlier, due to the absence of any other object of desire in the mind, as Bhagavān alone is the object of love. Thus, he says, "evam" ("thus"): When it is established in one's heart, and the mind is absorbed in contemplating it, devoid of any other object, then one should worship That which possesses the qualities of being the self (ātmatva-ādi-guṇaka) and in whose service the causes of saṃsāra are eliminated, and the ignorance that is the cause of bondage is dispelled. [Verse 6]

He describes the qualities that make Him worthy of worship, starting with "ātmā": He is the bearer (dhāraka) of the body, having entered within as the soul (ātmā-aṇḍataḥ pravishya). It is appropriate for the Paramātmā to support the individual soul, as even in relation to the body, offspring, wife, etc., everything appears dear because of the connection to the self (ātma-sambhandhād eva). The Supreme Lord Hari is also dear to the self, indicating His nature as the highest bliss. Therefore, He is the ultimate goal (nirati-śaya-puruṣhārtha svarūpaḥ) since the highest bliss alone is the supreme human goal; if the very nature were miserable, it would not be worthy of worship. He describes further qualities: "The Lord is endowed with knowledge, power, strength, sovereignty, valor, and splendor, dispelling any doubt about the Self being limited." [Verse 6]

"anantaḥ": Worship that Paramātmā, who eliminates the ignorance opposing the attainment of one's own nature, with a mind free from any other desire due to the supreme bliss that is the form of the Paramātmā. One becomes truly happy (sukhitaḥ), with a specific goal (niyatārthaḥ), freed from any other purpose. [Verse 6]

He reinforces this idea of abandoning the thought of any other goal through criticism: "ka iti": Disregarding that Lord, what person would engage in the unbecoming thought of anything else, except an animal? Indulging in such thought, one falls into the ocean-like cycle of existence, experiencing miseries caused by one's own actions—who would do that? [Verse 7]

He then describes the method of meditation on Bhagavān, which frees one from other goals and means, starting with "kecid iti": Due to the prevalence of devotees, he says "some" (kecid). Indeed, residing within the heart,which is the small space within one's own body, He whose divine form is limited only to that location—some yogis meditate on that very same divine person, holding in His left and right hands the conch, disc, club, and lotus. [Verse 8]

Śrīmadvijayādhvajatīrthakṛtā padaratnāvalīvyākhyā

Now, for those like you who are yogis, even though there is accomplishment of the body through the practice of yoga, how can indulgence be possible for immature yogis? To this, he says: "Cīrāṇi" - "Worn-out clothes abandoned by householders on the road or at gateways, meant for covering the poor and mendicants" - according to the scripture. On the road or at gateways, worn-out clothes, torn by mice, etc., abandoned by householders. If it is asked, "Are these not for eating?", he says: "Parān" - Trees provide us with fruits, etc. or indicate (diśanti) to us through their fruits, etc. If it is asked, "What about for sleeping?", he says: "Guhā ruddhāḥ" - The caves are closed, obstructed by what? It is to be continued. If it is asked, "How can one reside in caves due to the fear of lions, etc.?", to this he says: "Kim" - How can the friend (Kṛṣṇa) of the avadhutas, whose bodies are smeared with dust, not (be a friend)? Indeed, he is a friend. Therefore, poets who lack the eye of discrimination due to the intoxication of wealth, etc., do not resort to (bhajanti) kings, etc. Hence, a seeker of liberation should sustain himself with whatever food, etc. is obtained by chance. This is the idea. || 5 ||

Now, he describes the manner of ripening of the aforementioned practice: "Evam" - Thus, seeing the means of sustenance obtained by chance in the described manner, when one becomes content, by the grace of the independent Lord, whose will prevails in one's mind, considering the Lord, who is an ocean of qualities like sovereignty, etc., the infinite, unlimited Supreme Self, as extremely dear more than body, son, etc., and becoming free from desires, with hairs standing on end, with a fixed purpose, "After this, I will attain him," such a person should worship that Lord. He should never give up the worship of that Lord. Then, what is the result? He says: "Saṃsāreti" - Where, by worshipping whom, there is the cessation of the causes of saṃsāra, such as ignorance, etc., for the worshipper. If it is doubted that if ignorance, etc., exist, then saṃsāra also exists, (the answer is) no, they do not exist, meaning they are of demonic nature. This is established by the scriptures such as "That is the superior" and the Lord's being the beloved object (of attainment) is also (established). Not only the cessation of the causes of saṃsāra is the result, but also the attainment of liberation, which is the state of being free from sorrow and full of bliss. The word "ca" (and) is used. || 6 ||

Oṃ. Worship or upāsanā should be done by collecting the qualities, and for that, he clarifies the upāsanā by first describing those qualities, while refuting the opposite view: "Sa sarvavit" - "In this city (body), it is the breath alone that remains awake" according to the scripture. Of the five life-breaths, the chief breath alone is the seer, just as it perceives in the state of sleep. Similarly, that Lord knows everything, hence he is the omniscient (sarvavit). Being situated in the heart, he experiences the desired bliss. Collecting all the qualities in this way - "He is the complete Self, the Master, the embodiment of Truth, the quintessence of everything, the abode of bliss" - one should worship, meditate on that Viṣṇu. Even if miseries like afflictions arise, one should not abandon the upāsanā. With this intention, it is said: "Sarvātmanā" - For, in the upāsanā of the Supreme Self by other means, there would be self-destruction, leading to constant misery, due to the fault of self-injury through improper actions, etc. And the connection is: In accordance with the respective propriety. The meaning has already been stated in the passages like "Just as the lord, though one, perceives many sleeping (persons) while being awake, so does Viṣṇu, the experiencer, is celebrated." Here, "Anubhūḥ" means assuming forms according to his will or because the actions characterized by efforts are given by that breath. The word "ānandanidhiḥ" denotes either that the fruits up to the ultimate result are deposited in him, being the protector of the treasure (of results), or that he is the master. Thus, Hari is the ānandanidhiḥ (the abode of bliss). || 7 ||

For one who does not perform worship of the Lord, there is no distinction from an animal. He says this in "Kas tam" - The river named Vaitaraṇī, which is difficult to cross due to leading to hell; the person who has fallen into that (river) due to the fault of not worshipping Hari, experiencing the intense sufferings arising from his own actions, coming from all directions - seeing such a person undergoing those sufferings, and also seeing Hari, who can provide the means to overcome such miseries and is within the purview of the intellect, what discriminating person would resort to that inauspicious memory, which is focused on other objects and defined as upāsti (constant remembrance) of an improper nature, disregarding that Lord? One would become an animal, devoid of the intellect of discrimination, upon death. If one resorts to it, then he is indeed an animal, not a discriminating person. This is the connection. "Even a Brahmin versed in the four Vedas, who does not attain Vāsudeva, is burdened by the weight of the Vedas and is indeed a Brahmin donkey" - since there are many qualified persons of varying degrees, after mentioning the worship in a gross form suitable for those fit for it, now he prescribes the worship suitable for those qualified for the worship of the Lord residing in the lotus of one's own heart within the body.

"Kecid" - Some, who are qualified for the worship of the Self, meditate on him who resides within the body, having a limited form (prādeśamātram). (He is) the one who holds the lotus, the discus, the conch, the mace, and the Kaumudikī (club), with an unbroken stream of mental modes, just like the flow of oil. This is the connection. || 8 ||

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī's Krama Sandarbha Commentary

Since the Supreme Lord Himself is the ultimate goal to be served by one's own mind, focused solely on Him, the Lord Himself, self-accomplished in one's own mind, is to be served as the highest puruṣārtha (goal of life). Regarding this conviction, he says, "Evam svacitte" - Therefore, O Descendant of Bharata, what has been said before, "He is the Supreme Self," is being reaffirmed here. The intention is to emphasize the same point again. The word "ca" indicates that the cessation of ignorance is also implied as the associated result.

He further reinforces the same point by presenting a contrary idea in "Kas tām" (verse 7).

Then, he mentions the view of the followers of partial realization in "Kecid ity-ādi" (verse 8) - The indwelling Lord who is to be meditated upon with the eight verses (starting from verse 8). However, the meditation on the indwelling Lord in the form of the cosmic golden egg, etc., should be understood in accordance with the descriptions given in the Third Canto, based on their respective characteristics. The same has been indicated by the statement, "One should worship that true reservoir of bliss" (3.28.38).

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartin's Sārārthadarśinī Commentary

Then, what is the means to overcome the cold? Regarding this, he briefly replies: "Cīrāṇi" - tattered clothes or rags. But even then, the fire of hunger is difficult to extinguish. So, he says in the same vein: "Aṅghripā" - Even if people do not give alms, what can be done? The idea is, "Let them not give." Because they nourish others with fruits and so on. If you say, "Then one should search for water to drink," he retorts, "Fie on your intellect! Sarito'pi (Even the rivers)." If you suggest building a hut of leaves to protect against hailstorms, he responds, "Ruddhā (Blocked)." If you say, "One could take shelter in a cave, but tigers might attack," he says, "Kim ajita (What is unconquered?)." The idea is that the same indwelling Lord, who is affectionate towards His devotees, would not prompt the tigers to act against them. (6)

Now, if you argue that the devotees should indeed seek the means for worshiping the Lord, he says: The Lord is "svacitte svata eva siddhāḥ" - self-accomplished in one's own mind, since the verse states, "The self, the controller of the mind, is Vāsudeva." Thus, there is no need for invocation or other efforts. Moreover, his worship is naturally befitting, as described by the four adjectives "priyaḥ" (dear), "arthaḥ" (the supreme object), "anantaḥ" (unlimited), and "nirvṛtaḥ niyataḥ" (fully satisfied and resolved). He is "priyaḥ" - naturally the abode of love, without any undesirable aspect like a husband or son. He is "arthaḥ" - the supreme object itself. Although he is the supreme object, he is not merely the inner self, for as "anantaḥ" (unlimited), he is visible everywhere with his beauty and other qualities. He is "nirvṛtaḥ" - immersed in the bliss of his own worship, and "niyataḥ" - whose sole purpose is to bestow love upon his devotees. Alternatively, "niyataḥ" means one whose singing, hearing, and other devotional activities are regulated, such as the specific names to be chanted, narratives to be heard, obeisances to be offered, and the duration of meditation. Where such worship leads to the cessation of ignorance, the cause of worldly existence, that is considered the associated result according to the devotees. However, according to the wise and the yogis, the cessation of the cause of worldly existence alone is considered the associated result. The word "ca" is used to complete the verse, and "niścalasvarūpaḥ" means "of unchanging form." (6)

He then presents the contrary view in "Kas tām (Who would neglect?)": Who, other than an animal devoid of intelligence, would neglect that well-known devotion to the Supreme Lord Hari and instead indulge in contemplating sense objects, as stated in the Vedic verse, "Without the animals (those devoid of intelligence)"? (7)

After explaining the principle of acceptance and rejection for the devotee through dispassion, he now describes the meditation on the indwelling Lord, whose form is conscious and resplendent, which is superior even to the previously mentioned meditation on Brahman. "Kecid (Some)" - This refers to those who are superior even to the practitioners of meditation on Brahman mentioned earlier. Or, with the intention of saying that those whose minds have been purified through the practice of meditation on Brahman should meditate on the indwelling Lord whose form is conscious and resplendent, in accordance with the descriptions to be given, he says, "Kecid (Some)."

In this meditation, there are four types of yogis:
1) Those who directly meditate on the form of the Lord, engaging their life-airs and mind, are considered the best by the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata.
2) Those whose minds have been purified by the previously mentioned meditation on Brahman, and who meditate on the indwelling Lord as described in the Third Canto, such as the form of a small brahmin boy, a cowherd, and so on.
3) Those who, after meditation on Brahman, meditate on the indwelling Lord in the universal form with four arms.
4) Those whose minds are pure from the very beginning and directly meditate on the indwelling Lord in the universal form with four arms. These are referred to here by the word "kecid."

"Prādeśamātram" - They meditate on the Lord within their heart, which is only a small region, since the Lord, by His inconceivable power, can assume the form of a fifteen-year-old youth even in a small region, as stated in the Vedic verse, "Of that age, in the prime of youth."
"Vasantam" - Residing there as the indwelling Lord. (8)

Śrīmacchuka deva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ

Why do poets pursue those who are blind with the arrogance of wealth? The meaning is that poets should not pursue them. But then, how would they obtain fragments of cloth, etc.? He says, "Do not rags exist on the path that nourish those blind ones, the trees which are the shelters of virtues like compassion? Or do not the rivers like Gaṅgā and Yamunā, whose waters are auspicious, ever give alms? Have the caves in the mountain Govardhana, etc., become waterless? And does the unconquered Śrī Kṛṣṇa not protect his devotees? Indeed, he does protect them." || 5 ||

Thus, one who is content, whose purpose is easily achieved in the form of sustaining the body, being endowed with the happiness of dispassion, should worship Him. In that worship, the cause of saṃsāra, which is in the form of the effect and the cause, namely, prakṛti and its association, comes to an end. The Bhagavān, the author of the sūtras, indicates its attainment by saying, "My devotees attain Me alone." When knowledge and ignorance have ceased, the worshipper, realizing his true Self through the practice of listening, contemplating, and meditating, becomes liberated from the cause of saṃsāra, the bondage to prakṛti known as birth and death. The Bhagavān says, "Āvṛttir asakṛd upadeśāt" (Brahma Sūtra 1.1.4), indicating that He is to be worshipped, being endowed with natural six-fold opulences. By this, it is stated that those endowed with the opulences given by Him have turned away, and that the beloved object is none other than the Self, as will be said, "Know that Kṛṣṇa alone to be the Self of all selves." Thus, the object denoted by the word "Ātman" called Kṛṣṇa is to be worshipped, not the individual self. He is self-established in one's own consciousness. By this, it is shown that He is self-established everywhere. By the word "ananta" (endless), His unlimitedness is stated. Thus should be the connection with "tam" (Him). || 6 ||

Censuring those engaged in action without devotion to the Lord, he strengthens the path of devotion by saying, "To which deluded person engaged in performing actions leading to misery in this world, which is like a dreadful stream of suffering, and who disregards this devotion, the means to end the cause of saṃsāra, would the despicable, unworthy state of being like an animal, as declared in the Śruti 'he is verily like an animal to the gods,' be unacceptable?" By this, the eternally bound soul is indicated. || 7 ||

He describes that very devotion in six ways, of which five are meditation and one is contemplation. Some devotees meditate on the four-armed form of the Lord holding a conch, disc, mace, and lotus, situated in the region of the heart, whose extent is only the size of a thumb, as stated in the Śruti: "Know the puruṣa, the size of a thumb, situated in the middle of one's own self; by knowing Him, one goes beyond death, there is no other path to liberation." In both cases, the all-pervasive nature of the Lord is intended to be extremely subtle, with respect to the lotus of the heart. || 8 ||

Śrīmad-Vallabhācārya-Kṛtā Subodhinī-Vyākhyā

Objection: Everywhere, all objects belong to others and are accomplished only through means. Even the earth belongs to someone. Therefore, one should abide by their command and act in accordance with their wishes. The body too is dependent on others. Even a piece of cloth is accomplished through means. Hence, since complete independence from everything is impossible, some dependence must be accepted, following the principle "If immersed, one must enter the nether world." Regarding this, he says:

"Are there no rags on the path?" Here, "rags" means pieces of cloth. This suggests that one need not go elsewhere for the sake of acquiring them. "Aṅghripā" means trees. "Parabhṛtaḥ" means they support others but do not benefit from their fruits themselves. For they naturally shed ripe fruits, and the slightly ripe ones by shaking. These are deities in the form of Vaiṣṇavas. Since the world is created for the sake of the Lord's souls, what belongs to others becomes His after renunciation. Therefore, even the rags belong to the Lord. And the paths too belong to the Lord, being means of movement. So it should be understood: "Do they not give clothes?" This is indicated by the connection with the feet. And merely by the delay of a moment or by giving fruit, they become givers of alms. Their hands are considered unclean—this is stated by "aṅghripāḥ." They do not eat anything other than water, and they drink water only through their beaks. Their branches remain pure due to the sun, etc. They live in the forest, are forbearing, and live solely for the sake of others. Therefore, the bee's activity should be performed only among them. Regarding water, he says: "Even the rivers do not dry up." For then one would depend on wells, etc. The abundance and greatness of rivers is well-known. Regarding protection from cold wind, heat, and rain, he says: "Are the caves not closed?" This is because their closure is not heard of. If everything is sometimes unavailable and there is danger from tigers, etc. in the caves, then what should be done? Regarding this, he says: "What unsubdued one does He not protect?" He is never overcome by anyone; He is supremely powerful. "Upapatān" means those who have resorted to Him for refuge. "Does He not protect them?" This is emphatically stated everywhere, meaning that even qualified persons do not act that way. "Thus, even when all tasks are accomplished, why do those who have become qualified but are blinded by the intoxication of wealth resort to those who are blinded by that wicked intoxication of wealth? We do not know the reason for this." (5)

Thus, by way of introduction, having instructed about other matters, he states what is to be done by one who is completely detached in that manner: "evam svachittam" (Thus, one's own mind). He says "bhajaniyo" (is to be resorted to) to indicate the absence of labor and suffering involved. One who acts with complete detachment in all ways, prompted solely by the impulses of the mind, undoubtedly abides in the mind itself. Therefore, due to this very reason, or in this very manner, one should resort to one's own mind, which is self-controlled, self-accomplished, without extra effort - this is the connection.

To describe the form of such a Lord that is to be resorted to, he mentions the five attributes that are the cause of all human goals, with the words "ātmeti" and so on. From being the ātmā (self) comes priyatva (belovedness), from priyatva comes arthatva (utility), from arthatva comes bhagavattva (divinity), and from bhagavattva comes anantātva (infiniteness) - this is the sequence of cause and effect among the qualifiers. For beings, there are five forms that are fit to be served or utilized: one's own self (the body), wealth, the Lord, and eternal duty. Among these, the Lord has all five forms, he says.

Firstly, he is the ātmā of them all. Though in truth he manifests himself to the qualified person, he must still be served. Service through propriety is stated. Service through affection is stated by "priya" (beloved). Just as the life-force, or the body, is the object of affection for beings. Even after attaining the state of being the object of affection as the ātmā, the repetition of "object of affection" is to indicate the limitedness of that affection. Hence, that affection is dedicated only to the one, not grasping anything else in that manner. Therefore, affection should be directed toward the one who has all forms. Otherwise, if divided or directed toward one particular form, it would not accomplish all human goals. However, affection is an attribute of the Lord. The Lord has bestowed it divided among all beings for the sake of happiness. Therefore, wherever one feels affection, that itself becomes happiness. Hence it is said that one's own happiness itself becomes one's own. But where the object is also of the form of happiness, there would be great happiness. Hence, the idea is to withdraw affection from the body etc. and establish it in the Lord.

Artha (utility) is of the form of wealth. Whatever is to be accomplished by that, all of it will be done by the Lord. Since the word "artha" denotes five meanings, the Lord also has five forms: as the meaning of all Vedas, as all wealth, as all objects, and as the cessation of all, causing cessation. In resorting to him, these attributes must be accepted as limiting the object of resort, by the principle of collating the qualities. In that case, the resort becomes all-embracing. Moreover, the Lord is endowed with the six wonderful qualities, beginning with sovereignty. Due to his sovereignty etc., he also becomes fit to be served for the sake of those goals. The word "śrī" here conveys beauty. Further, he is endless, unlimited by space and time, eternal. With this, the twenty-five principles and the twenty-sixth, the great Vishnu, are covered. He is to be served in twenty-six ways.

Of those, the ātmā is twofold, divided into the individual self and Brahman. Priya is eleven-fold, being the object of experience for the eleven senses. Artha is said to be five-fold. The Lord is six-fold. The endless is two-fold. Thus, he is to be served in all ways - this is the meaning. He states the two attributes that qualify the servant: "tam nirvṛito niyatārtham" - one who is completely detached for the sake of that one goal, and one whose only goal is the Lord. These two attributes are indispensable. Otherwise, even if served in all ways, the human goal would not be attained. Detached from everything else; otherwise, it would be like the saying "a weapon against Brahman". Niyata means one whose only goal is the Lord. Or, the Lord himself is the goal. Otherwise, the mind gets ruined by doubt. Though the Lord alone is the goal and nothing else is sought, there are still ancillary results - the cessation of ignorance born of the cycle of rebirth, or aversion toward the Lord. And from the word "cha", the result of divine union and so on is also indicated. (6)

Having thus established the unsurpassed nature of devotion (bhajana), the Lord says "kasṭām" (who would follow that?) regarding such devotion, expressing that one should not grieve for it. "Tām" refers to the contemplation on the supreme Lord's form through meditation. "Ṛte paśūn" means "without animals." "Anādṛtya" means "not following." "Asato chintāṁ nāśikām" refers to the thought of the perishable body, etc. "Nāma iti prasiddhe" means "for the well-known wife." "Yuñjyāt" means "one should engage." "Ajñānād bhavatu nāma yojanam" means "let there be an engagement due to ignorance." Knowing the harm caused by that, who would engage with her (the wife)?

The harm is enumerated as "paśyan janam" (seeing people). Just as in devotion to the Lord, His six virtues are transmitted to oneself, similarly in attachment to the body, etc., its six faults are transmitted. These are: birth, misery, actions, torment, degradation, and so on. This is explained with "janam utpadyamānam" (people being born), "patitam" (fallen from their position), "mṛtam" (dead), and "vaitariṇyām" (in the river Vaitaraṇī at the door of Death). This suggests that one who is attached to the impermanent dies and falls into the Vaitaraṇī river. Also, one experiences the results of various actions ("svakvtavividha-karma-phalam cha sevamānam"), and torments ("paritāpāḥ") such as sorrow. Therefore, the idea is that there is no need to say much to persuade one not to consume poison, having abandoned nectar. (7)

Thus, it is established that the means of hearing, etc., relating to the Lord should be undertaken in accordance with the path of devotion, preceded by a determination of all goals. Here, according to some, all determinations are unnecessary. The principal form of the Lord, with four arms, etc., is the blissful form with a head, arms, belly, etc., and devotion should be performed after knowing this form. By saying "kechid iti vachanān" (some say thus), it is indicated that there is no consensus on this matter. For this merely brings about the appearance of bliss, but not the cessation of faults. Although inner sins, etc., may be removed, since it does not accomplish the attainment of all states, the cessation of attachment, etc., does not occur.

There are four forms of the Lord to be meditated upon: the smallest (aṇghuṣṭha-mātra), the localized (prādeśa-mātra), the cosmic form (puruṣa-mātra), and the aforementioned one. Of these, the localized form is considered nearest. In the Vaiśvānara-vidyā (meditation on the cosmic form), it is established, and in the pure heart, it can be perceived. Alternatively, "pratyatiṣṭhad daśāṅgulam" (the ten-inch form) is worshipped as a form distinct from the cosmic form, for the sake of distinction. Even this distinct form is in the shape of a Puruṣa (cosmic being). The third is Vāsudeva (the Lord in His primary form). His gross form is described as "chaturbjujam" (four-armed), with a lotus, discus, club, and conch in His four hands, indicating protection on all sides. During entry (into the heart), having established the principles therein, one should enter himself. Through the aforementioned meditation, "smarantīti" (since it is present), there is no need for mental construction. (8)

Śrīmad-Gosvāmi-Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa-Viracitaḥ Subodhinī-prakāśaḥ

Regarding the statement "chīrāṇi" (rags), it is said that the body is also dependent, based on the maxim "What can a body offer if it is not fed?" By saying "śrutaḥ" (from the Scripture), it is revealed that everything requires means. However, even if rags are available on the road, there could still be an obstacle to taking them directly. To address this, it is said "śrutastepi" (those too are offered by the Scripture). Being related to the Lord, they also belong to the Lord. Thus, in accordance with the statement "They indicate the way for us," here too it means that the Scripture saves us from the faults by permitting the taking of those rags.

Now, since giving is a quality of conscious beings, how can it be possible on the inanimate road? To this, it is said "pāda ityādi" (with the foot, etc.). As the Scripture states, "For all paths, the foot is the way," even though the road is inanimate, due to its association with the foot, giving (of rags) is perceived. The giving of rags is perceived as an instrument. Just as an oblation is given by conscious association in a sequence, similarly, according to scriptural knowledge, the giving of clothes by travelers is also appropriate. The meaning of the statement "Why then do they not give clothes?" is that the act of giving is considered secondary.

One should not say that this violates the promise "I shall not speak of implied meanings" because that statement refers to a different subject matter, while here an implied meaning is intended. If it is asked how an implied meaning is recognized here, we say "from the fourth foot" (i.e., from the concluding portion). The direct meaning would be "one should follow the path of devotion to the Lord, ignoring wealth and ignorance." But since they do not understand this, it is ascertained as an implied meaning. For this very reason, even a contradictory implication is suitable in obstructed contexts, flowing like a river.

Someone may argue that here, no implied meaning is intended, as kakka (the word for crow) provides the derivation. But this is improper, as it would lead to the futility of the word. Nor can it be said that kakka does not convey the meaning, as there is no conclusive derivation, and even a contradictory meaning can be well-expressed. The word śabdavivāra (utterance of a word) itself does not fall into another category, being kakka (crow-like). Nor can it be said that it is not a particular gesture, for the dictionary defines kakka as "the sound made by a woman due to sorrow, fear, etc.," indicating that it is a quality of sound. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider it a quality of a word rather than a particular gesture.

Nor can it be said that even if it is not a quality of sound, being a quality of a word prevents it from being another category. For even as a quality of sound, being a quality of sound residing in a word, it does not lose its status as a quality of a word. Otherwise, even in the case of the ringing of a bell, there would be the undesirable result of kakka (crow-like sound). Therefore, let kakka cooperate with words like kim (what) in conveying the intended meaning, like gestures, but not in expressing a contradictory meaning, as here an implied meaning is necessary. In this very context, even in the previous verse, an implied meaning is not a fault.

Now, one may ask how the ability to give alms can be attributed to trees. To this, it is said "gata ityādi" (having gone, etc.). Thus, it is understandable due to similarity. (5)

Thus, it is said. "From this cause" means due to the absence of the affliction of acquisition, etc. "From this" implies delimitation. "From this" implies singularity of comprehension. However, some say it is not the current view, and argue as follows: "Because the sight of many women being together with a man in the south has been observed, it is explained differently..." and so on. If the instance seen in the south is accepted as the object of love, then it would mean accepting everything as the object of love. The meaning of "being carried out partially" and so on is clear.

However, some raise the objection, "If that itself is sweet to him," according to the maxim, then what is the fault in acting that way? To this, it is said, "But love..." and so on. "That" and so on is an explanation of the previous "that" and so on. This is because the Lord is naturally dear (sahaja-priya). And the word "ca" means "for the purpose, which is the state of being a repository of bliss (ānanda-nidhitva-lakṣaṇa-prayojana-rūpa)." Here, "in this" means "in regard to self-rule (sva-aiśvarya) and so on," indicating the fivefold nature (pañcātmakatvena). (6)

Regarding the phrase "Who are they?", "thus" means "in the manner stated in the seven verses." (7)

Regarding the phrase "some", "here" means "in the means of attainment (sādhana-nirddvāra)." In the elaboration, "there" refers to the weapons (āyudheṣu). "One's own" means the individual self (jīva). "The sun, the moon, the wind, the fire, the ether" - this is established in the mantra "The moon is situated in the midst of the sun (ravi-madhye sthitaḥ soma)." (8)

Śrī Giridhara's Bāla-prabodhini Commentary:

Now, one may ask, how can clothing, food, water, and shelter be obtained without the effort of begging, etc., for the purpose of warding off cold? To this, he says, "Cīrāṇi" (1). Worn-out rags lying on the path, are they not there? Those very rags should be taken, and with them, protection from cold, etc., should be done - this is the meaning. Trees that nourish others with fruits, etc., are they not giving alms (parabhṛto'ṅkṣipāḥ)? Their fruits should be taken, and sustenance should be derived from them - this is the meaning. Do the rivers not flow? Having gone to the river bank, drinking water should be done - this is the meaning. The mountain caves, are they closed? Having resided there, protection from cold, heat, wind, and rain should be done - this is the meaning.

Now, if everything is not available everywhere, and if there is a lack of something for someone somewhere at some time, then how can that task be accomplished? Apprehending this doubt, he says, "Ajita". The all-powerful, independent Lord, by whom no one is conquered, does He not protect those who have taken refuge? Since the Lord, being all-powerful and affectionate towards His devotees, always and everywhere protects those who have taken refuge in Him, there should be no doubt about it. Why do the wise ones, the discriminating ones, serve those who are blinded by the madness of wealth and are ignorant of what should be done? It should be understood that only the undiscriminating ones engage in serving them. (5)

Then, what should this individual self do to attain the supreme human goal? Anticipating this inquiry, he says, "Evam" (1). Thus, since sustaining the body, etc., is not possible otherwise, one should worship that Lord who is naturally present within one's own mind (svacitte), the inner instrument, without any effort of invocation, etc., on one's part - this is the sequence. Anticipating the question, "What would happen by worshiping Him?", he says, "Saṃsāra". Where (yatra), by such worship, there is the cessation of ignorance, which is the cause of transmigration (saṃsāra-hetor avidyāyā uparamo nivṛttir bhavati). And (ca), due to the conjunction (cakārāt), the attainment of the Lord, whose very form is supreme bliss, also happens.

Anticipating the question, "How does such a result occur merely from worshiping Him?", he states the reason, "Bhagavān" (3) - meaning, "He is full of six attributes like sovereignty, etc." And to convey that there is not even a slight trouble in worshiping Him, he says, "Nivṛta" (4), meaning, "One should worship Him, being immersed in supreme bliss." He gives the reason for this, "Priya" (5) - for in this world, it is well-known that there is no trouble in serving a beloved one; instead, there is only happiness. He gives another reason, "Artha" (6) - meaning, "He is the supreme human goal." He gives yet another reason, "Ātma" (7) - since wealth, wives, sons, etc., are essentially meant for one's own self, He alone is the object of unconditional love. This is indeed established by the Vedic statement, "Everything becomes dear for the sake of the self." Therefore, since He is the self of all, there is no doubt about His being dear like one's own self. (6)

And to convey the idea that, unlike other deities, He is not subject to destruction due to being unlimited by space, time, etc., he says, "Ananta" (8). Anticipating the question, "How should one worship Him?", he says, "Niyatārtha" (9). The one whose objects (padārthāḥ) like listening, contemplating, etc., have attained fixity (niyatāḥ) - that is, whose objects like names to be uttered, stories to be heard, practices to be performed, and duration for meditation, etc., have been determined - such a person is "of determined objects" (niyatārthāḥ). Or, the one for whom the Lord alone is the determined, ascertained supreme human goal (niyato ... artha) is "of determined objects" (niyatārthāḥ).

Having thus established that the worship of the Lord is the means to liberation, and stating that attachment to sense objects is the cause of falling into hell, he reinforces the previously mentioned contemplation, saying, "Ka". Disregarding the previously mentioned contemplation on the Lord, who would engage in the evil contemplation on sense objects other than Him, like wealth, wives, sons, etc., which leads to hell? Engaging in such contemplation, one falls into the river of tortures called Vaitaraṇī at the gate of Yama, the lord of death, or into the similar transmigration, and even while witnessing people suffering the torments born of their own actions - physical, divine, and material - one would become equal to an animal. (7)

Having thus stated that sense objects are the cause of falling into hell, and therefore the contemplation on the Lord should be practiced instead, he says that for those of gross intellect, the gross form should be contemplated upon first, while for those of subtle intellect, the discriminating ones, they contemplate on the Lord whose form is of pure bliss, with no specific parts like head, belly, etc. He says this in "Kecit". Some people, being discriminating due to their purified minds resulting from practices like listening and contemplating performed over many births, contemplate, through contemplation, on the Lord in the form of a puruṣa (person) of the same size as the space within the heart, residing within the inner space of their own body. He distinguishes that form, "Whose four arms bestow the four human goals like dharma, etc. He bears a lotus, a wheel as the chariot's component." (8)

Hindi Anuvāda

Do not the wayfarers have rags to cover themselves? When hungry, do not the trees offer alms of fruits and flowers for others' sake? For those desirous of water, have the rivers completely dried up? Have the mountain caves been closed for shelter? O brother! If not all, does not the Lord at least protect those who have surrendered to Him? In such a situation, why do even the wise people flatter the arrogant rich, intoxicated by wealth? (5)

Thus, becoming dispassionate, one should worship with great love and bliss, having firm conviction in that ever-present, self-accomplished, self-formed, supremely beloved, supreme truth - the infinite Lord residing eternally in one's own heart; because by His worship, the ignorance that casts one into the cycle of birth and death gets destroyed. (6)

Leaving animals aside, among humans, who would not contemplate on the Lord, the bestower of auspiciousness, after witnessing people fallen into the river of transmigration (Vaitaraṇī) suffering the miseries born of their own actions, and instead let their mind wander in these unreal sense enjoyments? (7)

Some practitioners contemplate on the Lord's form of the same size as the space within the heart, residing in the inner space of their own body. They meditate that the Lord has four arms bearing a conch, a discus, a mace, and a lotus. (8)

SB 2.2.1-4

 Text 1: Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: Formerly, prior to the manifestation of the cosmos, Lord Brahmā, by meditating on the virāṭ-rūpa, regained his lost consciousness by appeasing the Lord. Thus he was able to rebuild the creation as it was before.

Text 2: The way of presentation of the Vedic sounds is so bewildering that it directs the intelligence of the people to meaningless things like the heavenly kingdoms. The conditioned souls hover in dreams of such heavenly illusory pleasures, but actually they do not relish any tangible happiness in such places.

Text 3: For this reason the enlightened person should endeavor only for the minimum necessities of life while in the world of names. He should be intelligently fixed and never endeavor for unwanted things, being competent to perceive practically that all such endeavors are merely hard labor for nothing.

Text 4: When there are ample earthly flats to lie on, what is the necessity of cots and beds? When one can use his own arms, what is the necessity of a pillow? When one can use the palms of his hands, what is the necessity of varieties of utensils? When there is ample covering, or the skins of trees, what is the necessity of clothing?

Śrīdharasvāmikṛtā Bhāvārthadīpikāvyākhyā

In the second stage, however, the mind, having been restrained from gross objects, is to be fixed on Viṣṇu, the witnessing inner controller of all. This is declared. (1)

Freedom from attachment to visible objects has been described. However, the restraint of the mind from all internal objects is to be accomplished. (2)

Regarding this (1), he first states the indirect result of the aforementioned restraint (dhāraṇā). By this dhāraṇā, having pleased Hari and regained the memory of creation lost during the previous dissolution, Brahmā was able to re-create this universe exactly as it was before. He whose intellect is characterized by firm resolution has an infallible vision. Therefore, by this dhāraṇā, the power to create the universe is attained. (2)

Being indifferent even to the fruit of upāsanā (meditation), he censures all karmic fruits for the sake of renunciation. The path consisting of words, i.e., the Veda, is the means to know the karmic fruits. What is that? The names denoting objects devoid of reality, such as heaven, cause the seeker to meditate and develop desires for them. He states their lack of reality: On that path of māyā, lying with the impression of pleasure, one wanders like seeing dreams, not attaining the objects, and even after attaining those worlds, does not obtain flawless happiness. (3)

Then, apprehending that engagement in karmic rituals for fruits would certainly lead to rebirth, he says: Therefore, the wise one, regarding the mere names denoting enjoyable objects as having just that much value for sustaining the body, being ever undistracted even by that much, and determined about the conviction "This is happiness," if those objects are accomplished differently, seeing the effort there as troublesome, would not strive for them. (4)

Śrīvaṃśīdhara's Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśavyākhyā

Then, regarding the previously mentioned (restraint). (1)
To be accomplished by that freedom from attachment to visible objects. (2)

Here, between the two types of restraint, he states an indirect corollary. He whose intellect is characterized by the firm resolve, "I shall certainly create," impelled by the Lord's inspiration. Or, he whose intellect is firmly determined with the thought, "This is to be created in this way" - he is like that. Therefore, due to his intellect being one of firm resolution, his vision is infallible, and hence, successful. (1)

The meaning is that, as the Śruti declares, "The meritorious world thus perishes," it is perishable. Here, Viśvanātha introduces (another view): If the question arises, "What should one striving (for liberation) do here?", (the answer is) "He should perform sacrifices, etc., which are the means to attain heaven, as the entire Veda is the authority here." To this, he objects regarding certain points: The vedic words... (2)

Here, he raises an objection: With regard to the sustenance of the body... Here, Viśvanātha (says) - Having clearly censured the view of the ritualists as being altogether external to the topic of yoga, (he states that) dispassion towards the fruits of action is common even to the devotee and the enlightened one. For those established in yoga, he declares it as mandatory, "Therefore, the wise one should not meditate for the sake of enjoyment, nor should he strive." Rather, in accordance with the maxim "Not the satisfaction of desires is the attainment, but to live by as much as is indispensable," among the names denoting enjoyable objects, he should accept that much as the purpose, which sustains the body for the performance of one's duties. He should be like that. Because he is ever vigilant in the accomplishment of his means. Moreover, he says that even if he sees an abundance of obstacles, he should not turn back from his yoga. The intellect of firm resolution means the strong consideration, "Whatever happens, let it happen, but what I have determined must certainly happen." Furthermore, regarding mere sustenance, he states that it has been prescribed only for the delicate, not for the self-reliant. If one's sustenance is accomplished in another way, then by the logic of "the remnants of the flour," he should not strive, for in that case, the effort would be troublesome, like service to the wealthy, etc. (3)

He explains the "accomplishment in another way" for the self-reliant - "satyām": On the divinely created earth, with arms, with headrests. (4)

Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa Dāsa Gosvāmi's Dīpanī commentary:

Niravadyam (2) means free from defects. Kānti means the highest limit, and kā means up to. Therefore, ekāntika means the cessation of sorrow is certainly necessary, and ātyantika means the cessation of the arisen sorrow does not happen again. (2) Kavir means the wise one. (3-5)

Śrīmad-Vīrarāghava's commentary:

Having described the state of vairāja, the sage now speaks of the glories of that very vairāja state, which is to be meditated upon in the heart of the seeker of liberation who is established in that meditation. Thus (evam), having obstructed and obtained the knowledge concerning creation which was lost along with the four-faced Brahmā during the previous dissolution at the end of the kalpa, he who has resoluteness of intellect (vyavasāya-buddhi), i.e., knowledge in the form of ascertainment regarding the object of memory, whose vision is infallible (amogha-dṛṣṭi), i.e., whose knowledge regarding each object is unerring—that four-faced, self-born Brahmā created, in the same way as before, the same categories of objects as in the previous kalpa. (1)

Although it is indicated here that the same Brahmā who existed in the previous kalpa reappears in this kalpa after regaining the lost memory, it is more reasonable that there are different four-faced Brahmās in each kalpa. When all of them attain Brahmaloka at the end of their respective kalpas, they are not liberated even then, as it will be stated: "Time does not bind the foremost sages, and the mode of passion does not afflict you; this is by My grace upon you." Therefore, there are indeed different four-faced Brahmās in each kalpa. Although the word "memory" generally refers to the knowledge of objects experienced before, here it is used to mean only the knowledge regarding creation, with the intention of indicating an extreme similarity between the creation in the present kalpa and the previous one, just as one recognizes a cow in a different herd as the same one seen before. (1)

Now, if the power to create the universe is derived from the state of vairāja, and if the creation actually takes place with the different regions like the subterranean worlds being sustained by the soles of the feet in the vairāja state, then it does not seem proper to consider those regions as parts of the body, since their existence as perceived objects is established even before the arising of knowledge through recollection. The statement "having obstructed and obtained that memory" indicates that knowledge also is obtained through the state of vairāja. It is true that the four-faced Brahmā arose from the navel-lotus of the Lord, and as it will be stated: "O Brahmā, by pleasing Me through arduous spiritual practice, you will again practice austerities and also the knowledge residing in My heart. Then you will see the uncovered worlds, and being devoted and absorbed in Me, you will directly see Me, the basis of all worlds, within yourself." From this, it is understood that after directly perceiving all objects and sustaining them through the state of vairāja, Brahmā obtains the knowledge and capability for creation. Or, it may be stated that Brahmā becomes capable of creation by meditation on the Lord, who is the basis of the manifested world and the individual souls. (1)

Now, to describe the object of meditation for the seeker of liberation, applying the principle that just as a well is covered all around by water when it overflows, similarly, the meaning of the entire Veda is to be comprehended by the seeker of liberation, the sage speaks about the path of the Veda in the form of words: (2)

"For the wise one (dhīr) whose intellect (dhī) is inclined (pravāṇā syāt) towards the fruitless names, i.e., words denoting objects like heaven which are devoid of the supreme human goal, this is the path (panthā eṣā dik) of the Veda in the form of words (śābdasya); wandering (paribhraman) in the māyā-formed world, being absorbed (śayāna) in the propensities (vāsanayā) of actions like sacrifice etc., he does not obtain (na vindate) the real objects like liberation and its means." (2)

Though the Veda is more compassionate than thousands of parents and prompts one towards self-preservation, how can it delude by teaching only the fruitless objects like heaven? To remove this doubt, the sage speaks of the acceptable portion for the seeker of liberation: (3)

"Therefore (ataḥ), since the entire Veda is not to be accepted, the wise poet (discriminating between the acceptable and rejectable) speaks of the division (bhedo hi): Out of compassion, the Veda teaches heaven etc., which are the appropriate goals for those predominated by the modes of ignorance, passion, and goodness respectively, in accordance with their nature; otherwise, being deluded about the means due to their passions and ignorance, they would be ruined, being averse to the goal of liberation which is in the mode of goodness. However, for the seeker of liberation who is exclusively in the mode of goodness, those goals are to be rejected, and all actions are to be performed solely for the purpose of liberation. Being discriminating and undeluded, he is not attached even to the indispensable objects like food and clothing. With the firm knowledge that heaven etc. are perishable and unsurpassed, he has as much involvement (yāvad-arthaḥ) with the names, i.e., objects like pleasures which are mere names, as is necessary for sustaining the body and continuing spiritual practice. Otherwise, being engaged in insignificant goals arising from previous karmas, why should he make efforts, considering the troubles involved? Truly, troubles arise only in pursuit of results." (3)

It explains the attainment of success otherwise, by the two verses beginning with "satyam" etc. When the ground (1) is present, what efforts need be made for obtaining a mattress of kusa grass or the like for lying on? But the meaning is simply "exertion". When the arms are naturally available, what need is there for wooden handrails? When a plate for various kinds of food is present, what need is there for leaf-plates? If the outer garment and the undergarment are present, then it means that the intermediate garments, the garments in between, are also present, not that the outer garments are absent when the undergarments are present. The mere symbolizes impurity; hence, remembering that a naked person is ineligible to perform actions, even a seeker of liberation must perform the indispensable rites wearing garments made of linen or silk. (4)

The illustrious Vijaydhvaja Tīrtha's commentary on Padaratnāvalī:

Having described in this chapter that the gross form called Virāj is the support for its meditation, he now instructs on the reality that the form of Hari called the Self is the object of meditation, and the fruit for those who meditate on it. There, first, in order to quickly engage in meditation, removing the doubt "For whom is this meditation fruitful?", he addresses the question with the words "evam" etc.: That Self, the Supreme Self, the source, the cause of which is such. (1) That Brahmā, in the beginning creation, having lost the memory of the subject of the previous cycle with the passage of time, regaining it through released meditation, having made it twice possessed, becoming satisfied, arriving at resolute intellect whose object was the effort of creating the world, for whom such was the intellect - for that very meditation alone the unfailing fruit was present, so that, as was the state before dissolution, so may he create this world likewise - in this way it is understood that this (meditation) is reliable because of Brahma's realization of its fruit. (1)

Explaining how meditation can be based on what is beyond speech and mind, he says "śābdasya": In the stated manner, because it is to be heard, because it is accepted by the wise as independent, as the creator of Brahmā and the entire world, as indwelling everywhere, as everything being dependent on it, as possessing all auspicious qualities - of that word, of Brahmā, of the entire collection of words including the Vedas, this Hari is the path, the subject, the principal meaning - this is the connection. (2) Since names like Indra are well-established only in relation to beings like Indra, he says "yan-nāmabhir" to explain some irrelevance of those well-established names in denoting Hari. That very being, constituted of māyā, created by the Lord's will, lying in the transmigratory world dependent on Him, wandering, ignorant, being impelled by various karmic propensities, wandering through various wombs - that soul imagines Indra and others by names like Indra etc. There, in regard to Indra and others, because the unsurpassed lordship etc. are not obtained, he does not gain true knowledge, rather he meditates on them and does not obtain the human goals from them. The reason for this is stated as "apārthair" - because the objects like lordship etc. are unattainable there. Therefore, Hari the Lord alone should be denoted as the embodiment of supreme lordship and other such qualities; He alone should be remembered, all else should not be given primacy - this is the idea. Even with the anu prefix, due to the injunction of the affix, "dhacchāyatīnidhīr" means the person who is the object of meditation, or else by construing "apārthair" as an indeclinable, it means: Wherever there are worthless objects like Indra etc., he imagines Indra and others by those names like Indra; or it may mean all names there, because the memory declared by the scriptures is that one should not remember any object other than Vishnu. (2)

If all words pertain to Viṣṇu alone, there would arise a cessation of all transactions such as salutations, etc., among the wise. Therefore, the Lord himself says that all words denote Him, but are also to be used conventionally. For He is omniscient, ever vigilant, and does not forget that all words refer to Hari. Therefore, one’s intellect, determination, and conviction should be that words denoting other objects like pots, etc., are valid only to the extent that they serve one’s purpose through salutations, etc., and not beyond. Otherwise, without these conventional transactions pertaining to worldly objects like pots, the desired purpose being already accomplished, what further effort is required? (3) The Lord now illustrates the way of self-accomplishment: On the earth made by the Divine Architect, what purpose is served by laborious efforts to prepare Śiva’s bed? Since the sustenance of the body is accomplished without any other means, what need is there for cushions or pillows when one’s own arms suffice? What need is there for broad leaf-plates when one has the cupped palms? What use are garments, even the finest silks, when one is naturally clothed by the quarters themselves? (4)

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī's commentary called Kramasandarbha-vyākhyā:

(1) Regarding "śābdasya" - "yat" means "that which", "yasmāt" means "from which", "yam śrutvā" means "having heard which". (25)

Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarti's commentary called Sārārthadarśinī Vyākhyā:

In the second verse, regarding the attainment of the divine form by the yogins whose bodies are of pure consciousness, two Śruti statements are mentioned about desiring to attain complete union through the body. (The verse says:) Attributing divinity to the visible material objects, the attainment of that (divine form) which is stated, is called the attainment of divinity.

He states the indirect result of the attainment described with those characteristics: "Having obstructed (the cycle of births and deaths), having obtained from the satisfied Supreme Lord, he created this universe as it was before, prior to dissolution." He whose intellect is firmly resolved, "I will certainly do this," due to the prompting of the Lord, is called "vyavasāyabuddhih." (1)

Now, regarding the question "What should one who is going to die do?", the answer given by some is that he should perform sacrificial rituals etc., as prescribed in the Vedas, which are the sole authority here. But to this, an objection is raised: The path shown by the words (śābdam), i.e. the Vedas which are composed of words, where the seeker's mind contemplates only on gaining heaven and such through mere names, is futile. Because in that illusory heaven and such, lying asleep with the notion of happiness, one wanders seeing dreams, i.e. does not attain that world; and even if attained, being perishable, faultless happiness is not obtained. (2)

Thus, clearly denouncing the view of the ritualists as extremely external in the context of yoga, he states that renunciation of the fruits of action is common even to the devotees and the wise, and that those established in yoga must necessarily act (to some extent). Therefore, the wise one should not contemplate nor strive for enjoyment. But as per the maxim "One should desire only that much which suffices for the gratification of desire and sustenance of the body," one should accept only that much of objects of enjoyment as suffices for one's prescribed duty of sustaining the body. For he is apramatta (ever vigilant), accomplished in his means. And what to speak of others, even when seeing obstacles, he does not turn back from his yoga, saying "I will do it." His vyavasāyabuddhih (firm resolve) is - "Let whatever happen, but what I have resolved, I have resolved firmly." Moreover, the extent of accepting objects is stated for some extremely delicate person, not for a self-accomplished one. Otherwise, when the purpose of sustaining one's body is accomplished, one need not make efforts, just as there is no need to pound the already pounded rice. (3)

He describes the way of self-accomplishment for the capable one: On the bed (śayyā) of Kaśipa (the cosmic serpent), i.e. on the earth made by the Divine Architect, what need is there for any effort? Since the sustenance of the body is self-accomplished without any other means, what need is there for cushions or pillows when one's own arms suffice? What need is there for broad (puruhā) leaf-plates (dala, patra) when one has the cupped palms? (4)

Śrīmac Chukadev's Siddhānta Pradīpa:

In the previous chapter, the meditation (dhāraṇā) on the gross form of the divine Lord Vairāja, which is a means of spiritual practice, was described. Now, he will explain the meditation on the all-pervading Lord, who assumes a body out of His devotee's desire, which is the goal to be attained by that practice. First, he states the ultimate result of the previously described meditation by saying "evam" (thus).

By the meditation described in that manner, Brahmā, the self-born son of the Lord, who is endowed with infallible vision and firm resolve, after pleasing Vairāja at the time of dissolution and obstructing the previous creation that had been destroyed, again attained the ability to create the next generation of beings similar to the previous ones. Thus, just as it existed before, he recreated this universe, as the Śruti declares: "The creator fashioned the sun, the moon, and the other deities as before."

Now, someone may object that this is not proper since Brahmā, the creator of the previous creation, is stated to be liberated in the statement: "All those beings, together with Brahmā, attain supreme liberation at the end of the cycle." This objection is not valid because it is not stated that each of the four-faced Brahmās attains final liberation after a single birth. And it cannot be said that at each new cycle, he regains the memory of the previous creation, for it is not possible for memory to be lost. [1]

Now, someone may ask: Even though people exert great effort in various endeavors, they do not attain the desired happiness. So why does the Lord, who has the power to create the universe through meditation, not pursue that supreme goal of happiness through the easy path? To this, he says: "śābdasya" (of the Vedas).

The path does not exist for one whose intellect is devoid of the highest goal, who is bereft of the human goals, and who is engrossed in mere names and forms, which are indicative of the unreal form. Such a person remains situated in the illusory material world due to attachment, wanders about in that illusion, and experiences the corresponding results of his actions like wife, children, etc., but not the perfection of yoga. [2]

After describing the nature of the bound soul in this way, the Lord Śuka imparts the secret to the aspiring soul desirous of liberation, using the word "ata" (therefore). For a discriminating person who is bound, there is no eligibility for yoga due to attachment to names and forms. Such a person should be a wise seer, one who discerns what is to be accepted and rejected, resolute in the pursuit of devotion to Hari with complete renunciation.

In regard to names and forms, which are ineligible for the meditation on the Lord, what purpose would they serve? As for eating, covering the body, etc., what purpose would they serve other than to sustain the body for the service of Hari? One who is unattached even to these bare necessities for living should not endeavor further, having seen the futility of such effort. [3]

He expands on "for other than the established purpose" with the words "satyam" (true). On the earth, on the bed of Kaśyapa, what is the use of exertion? None whatsoever. When the arms themselves are available, what is the use of pillows? When the palms are joined, what is the use of various vessels for eating? When the outer garment (valkala) is absent, what is the use of the directions? This is completely applicable to the aspiring soul, which is why Śuka is described as "digambara" (sky-clad). The statement "One who is naked causes impurity," etc., pertains only to ritualistic actions. What is the use of manifold exertions for trifling objects like a piece of cloth? [4]

Śrīmad Vallabhāchārya's Subodhinī Vyākhyā

(1) The determination of truth and the meaning of reality is described first. The determination of the means to achieve the goal is explained in the second [chapter].

(2) The exposition of truth is twofold, external and internal. The external is described there, with the means of knowledge preceding the object of knowledge.

(3) The internal [truth] is distinct in terms of understanding the means and the goal. Hence, the determination of the means is first clearly made. Thereafter, the determination of the goal; then the truth will be fruitful.

Thus, in the previous chapter, the truth of all objects was determined from the standpoint of the means of knowledge and the object of knowledge. Even though they appear different, since they enter into the Lord and the Lord is the seer, it was stated that the Lord is the means as well as the goal. Nevertheless, since they are external, their truth was not determined. Now, it is being considered in what form everything is the means and in what form the goal. In that regard, by the renunciation of everything except the essential nature of the self, it will be determined that the essential nature of the self is the means, and the essential nature of brahman is the goal. To explain the present relevance of the aforementioned goal and means, [the text] states "purā raviṃ" ["In the past..."] while mentioning the use of [vairāgya] dispassion. Similarly, some consider capability to be the goal. That has to be examined since brahman is self-accomplished, and because of the statement negating loss of memory. The word "lost" would only imply destruction if it meant that the Lord would have to produce it again after being pleased, not that capability is the cause, for [brahman] is already accomplished. Here, in the sense of being the cause of reviving the previously forgotten [knowledge], firm dispassion is certainly the cause, or it may be the cause of all [knowledge] when the Lord is pleased. First, that very [cause] is stated: "In the past, after the daily dissolution...". Thus, by retention, the knowledge of creating objects that was the memory from the previous cycle, for obstructing that again, [the Lord] created. The word "tuṣṭāt" (from being pleased) is in the ablative case. [It could mean] from the proximity of the pleased Lord, or from the state of being the cause of the Lord. Just as before, so [the Lord] created from being pleased - the previous knowledge itself was the cause. Just as someone conceals some object from a child and if the child then comes to know it by some means, [the parent] would be pleased due to being a parent. Similarly, since [the soul] had stayed near the Lord before creation for the purpose of experiencing the results [of past actions], and due to forgetting that, when remembering it by some means, [the Lord,] being a friend, would be pleased and grant self-realization - this retention mentioned before is the principal means. Even from the perspective of [retention] being the means to please [the Lord], by the maxim "Once pleased, what cannot be attained there?", everything else will become easy. Hence, that [retention] must certainly be practiced as the means. The power of creation is not useful [as the goal]. It is an obstruction because of being the supreme authority. The self-born brahma emerged from the Self. "Lost" [means] forgotten. Memory [means] knowledge of objects. Since creation is beginningless, it was done by remembering even before. Hence, the destruction of impressions is not stated. "From the proximity of the pleased Lord" - all this remained merged in the Lord. Again, in the same way as before the dissolution. The meaning is: Having become the same as before this creation or the resolute intellect, [the Lord] created in that manner. (1)

Now here, for the sake of detachment from enjoyment of objects and results, and for the abandonment of all objects, another means is stated - "śābdasya hī"ti (from the word itself). All objects are to be renounced. However, even though there may not be any worldly obstacle for the great ones in renouncing, there could be a Vedic injunction obstructing it, like "One desirous of heaven, progeny or cattle should perform agnihotra sacrifice as long as he lives." If the injunction "as long as one lives" is considered a nitya (perpetual) obligatory act, or if desiring progeny etc. is considered perpetual, then detachment would not be possible. If it is to be done, then it has to be done in some other way - either by symbolically establishing the fire sacrifice within oneself and performing it, or by performing the fire sacrifice and then departing, or by performing agnihotra sacrifice until old age, since all objects have their source in the Vedas and it is impossible to conceive of any object that contradicts them. Therefore, these very objects have to be understood in terms of the results and means. Thus, the ascertainment of the meaning of scriptures, or detachment in the aforementioned way, does not seem possible. Therefore, the meaning of the entire Veda is stated: Just as the Supreme Brahman, the Lord, is of the nature of meaning, similarly the Veda too is Brahman in the form of a collection of words, like a mass of water. Just as in Brahman there is bliss everywhere, in the word-Brahman (Veda) also, results are spoken of everywhere, in order to reveal its nature as Brahman. And since the Veda is based on words, it is merely words. However, the meaning is of the form of the Supreme Brahman - that is where the result lies.

Otherwise, for a single action, the results spoken of in terms of dharma-adharma and different actions would either make them unauthentic or meaningless. For instance, starting with "svarggāya vā etāni lokāya hayan"ta (they lead either to heaven or to this world), in the dakshinahoma where four ahutis are performed as part of the naimittika acts of sanctifying the dakshina, two ahutis are offered in the gārhapatya fire, and one each in the āgnīdhra and uttaravedī fires. Here, for each action, the Veda also explains the significance of things like the number etc. "With the two ahutis in the gārhapatya, the two-footed (human) sacrificer attains establishment." If this means that the sacrificer attains establishment merely through those two ahutis, then it would be meaningless. Or there would be a contradiction of the scripture, which is unacceptable. There is no option, since it is a single action. Moreover, "He offers in the āgnīdhra – he thereby ascends to the atmospheric region," – if the mere āgnīdhra homa gave the ability to ascend to the atmospheric region, the statement would be valid, which is impossible as it contradicts perception. "He offers in the āhavanīya – it makes him go to the world of heaven," – then the sacrificer attaining heaven would be undesirable and an obstacle to the performance of the rite. Furthermore, instead of stating that the two ahutis establish the sacrificer, it is said "With the two saurī cows meant for the gārhapatya, he makes him ascend to that very world" – here, the quality of illuminating like the sun is stated as the means, and ascent to heaven as the result, which contradicts the previous result linked to the number two. Thus, in every case, multiple results, mutually contradictory results, or obstructed results for actions would simply render the Vedic statements unauthentic. Therefore, an explanation has to be given that preserves their authority and ensures the stated meaning is not contradicted.

In that regard, in the case of the sixteen-fold sacrificial spiritualweapon that is the form of the sacrificer, the play of the Lord who is the ruler of all worlds is described everywhere. For that Lord, being the sole abode of all rasas (essence), is all-pervading and complete, though he has revealed his play through different means of enjoyment at different places – this is what the Veda conveys. Therefore, it is concluded that in both sections (karma and upasana kandas), this very Lord under the name of Yajna, having the form of Virāt, is expounded. What we have stated as the gross view is indeed stated by the Veda itself – this is the path shown for the word-Brahman according to us. However, people get deluded due to lack of comprehension of sentence meanings. By ascertaining objects merely through words without understanding their connection to sentence meanings, and knowing their use as means in fragments, they develop respective desires. Thus, they meditate on those very objects. For words have no capacity to reveal the objects, due to the contradiction of having two functions simultaneously. Hence, people get deluded by words in regard to their own objects. Then, thinking that to be the meaning of the Veda through their intellect, they wander here and there with that intellect, and while performing actions with that view, they do not obtain the results stated as fruits. But impelled by their deep-rooted longings and desires, pondering over the same objects, they lie deluded, immersed in great delusion. Therefore, there should be no doubt about the authority of the scriptures since there is no difference between what we have stated and what is stated by the Veda.

If the Veda were to expound some meaning in a different way, then no human goal would be accomplished, since it has the capability to accomplish everything. Therefore, such a conclusion is not proper. Where the Veda mentions secondary results as explanatory statements while the principal statements are meant for realizing the established truth, those [secondary results] being well-known in the world, are to be understood as means suitable for those results. For instance, "You are flowing like a stream" is a well-known praise of fire taking the form of a simile. Similarly, "One desirous of rain should sacrifice," "Performing a rite in the manner of a hawk" – these results are expounded as subsidiary to the principal statements revealing the play of the Lord based on perception. One who has become skilled in understanding the purport of the scripture to be in the form of worldly examples, if they pursue the results along with their means that are explanatory, would be focused only on that much. "Having become peaceful, self-controlled, desistant, patient..." is started, then it is said "One should see the self alone in the self," "All this world is indeed that," "That thou art" and the conclusion "The wise one, realizing this through mind and heart, does not go to death again." Similarly, starting with "You are the indestructible bank of the unborn," it concludes "Those who know this become immortal." One's eligibility is limited to that extent, but one should be vigilant there too. For the goal is not accomplished merely through knowledge, without preceding spiritual practice.

If it is thought that retrieval from the condition of being fallen in the heap of grain or mud would be impossible due to lack of vision etc. like that of worms, it is said: "dhyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ" – One whose intellect is characterized by firm resolution, having carefully pondered over everything and ascertained one's goal, should become firmly devoted to the means for accomplishing it. What then is to be done? First, it is stated that one need not make effort for sustaining the body etc. obtained in the world: "siddhe 'nyathā''rthe" – When the body is sustained by other means, through time or by the Lord's grace or by one's own nature or by actions or by people, one should not make effort there. For one's own effort is limited and it is to be utilized only for the service of the Lord, not diverted elsewhere. Moreover, "tattatpariśramaṃ tatra samīkṣamāṇaḥ" – Considering the respective efforts required for each thing like bed etc. in sustaining the body, mind, senses etc., one should not strive for those. (3-4)

Otherwise, it teaches perfection and affliction - in the true earth (kṣiti). In the extended form of a spread-out bed, softened by sand etc., what is the purpose of the effort of stitching, cleaning and spreading a woolen blanket, when perfection is truly attained without the affliction of acquisition? Despite the equality of the means of pleasure, here there is an abundance of misery. Moreover, the arms are perfected by themselves. This is said because there is no apprehension of bodily defect for a great person. What is the purpose of turban-like headgears that are means to increase height, or woolen footwear for the throat and feet? A different statement. Therefore, it amounts to a single statement in that sense. What is the purpose of various food vessels made of copper etc., when alms can be handled with a hand-bowl? Everywhere, effort must be investigated. In the hot season, the directions (serve as shelter). In the cold season, tree bark etc. The word 'ādi' includes garments of rags etc. What is the purpose of woven garments? Moreover, what is the purpose of people for one who is greatly detached? The meaning is that all worlds (lokas) must also be abandoned. || 4 ||

Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇaviracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ

While intending to explain the second chapter, they reiterate its purpose by 'māneti' and so on, since the meaning of the term 'bīja' (seed) was not stated regarding the sequence of the two [means and end]. 'Tattvārtha' means 'for the determination of the real nature of the object devoid of any superimposition'; this also applies to the latter part. Thus, the harmony in the form of having a single purpose is also remembered. They say, "The seed is said to be twofold," and so on. This is the indication of the object to be heard, contemplated upon, being fit for apprehension by ordinary understanding. It is twofold, having two types - external and internal. Of these two types, pramāṇa (means of knowledge) consisting of śruti (scripture) and valid reasoning established by yoga, is primary; and prameya (the object of knowledge) is the arrangement of the perishable parts. The external indication has been explained in the previous chapter based on the statement of both. The internal knowledge being dependent on external knowledge was stated. Thus, the meaning is that it is called 'bīja' (seed) due to its being the cause in the prior and posterior states.

But in the previous chapter, yoga was taught as the means for all attainments, and the object was described as all-pervading. If so, what remains unknown? What is internal? To this doubt, they say, "āntaram" and so on. Although everything is known through the path of yoga, yet, as per the statement "yan na yogena" and so on, what is within its scope and what is unattainable by it, becomes known and to be taught through the distinct path of devotion, for the means and the end. Therefore, first, the determination of the means and then the end is made. Then, by resorting to them, the real nature of the previously stated means and end, consisting of the means and end to be described later, will be revealed and will become an object of ordinary understanding. And since there is a mutual requirement for the knowledge of that [real nature], the sequence of chapters is appropriate.

Clarifying this further, they say, "evam" and so on. "Tayoḥ" means of the means and the end. "Tatra" means in that inquiry. After clarifying the purpose of the chapter thus, they begin the explanation with "tatra" and so on. "Tatra" means when the purpose of the chapter is determined. "Evam pure" here - some commentators, obstructing the lost memory by retention and connecting it with "sasṛje" (created), interpret it thus. They state its purport as "tathā" and so on - the power of creation is the result of retention, obstructing the lost memory is the activity - this is their intention.

Censuring that, they say, "tad" and so on - since the power of creation of Brahman is well-established by virtue of being Brahman itself, and since the obstruction of lost memory is stated here as the result, their view should be considered.

But if the power exists, what is the need for retention? And if the obstruction of lost memory is accepted as an activity and hence as a result, is there any inconsistency with the principal [statement]? To this, they say, "naṣṭe" and so on - "in case of total destruction," i.e., even the destruction of impressions (saṃskāra). "Toṣahetutvam" means "being the cause of satisfaction" for retention. And since satisfaction extends [to everything] and the obstruction of lost memory is considered a result, due to this inconsistency, there arises the need for consideration, as retention is incapable of continuing up to the power [of creation].

Then what is intended here? To this doubt, they say, "atra tv" and so on. "Tad" means the obstruction of lost memory. And thus, it is determined as intended due to agreement with common usage.

But since it is possible to state the incompetence of power like the destruction of memory, what is the defect in accepting retention as the cause of satisfaction? To this doubt, they say, "toṣa" and so on. They substantiate it by "yathā" and so on. Here, being in the proximity of the Lord during deep sleep should be understood through the experience of being with the Supreme Being. "Tadvismāraṇād" means forgetting the objects of the previous cycle. "Sakhā" means having the same nature, as will be stated later: "as if a friend of a friend." "Mukhyaṃ sādhanam" means the primary means for the obstruction of lost memory.

But if the satisfaction is accepted as the cause of creation due to insistence on agreement with common usage and acceptance of the sequence as in Praṇava, then the power will become redundant since it is already established. Therefore, the effort to state the power as the result is futile. To this, they say, "toṣa" and so on. Even in the case of accepting satisfaction as the means for retention, as per the reasoning stated earlier, everything arises from satisfaction itself; therefore, let the obstruction of lost memory alone be the result, not the power of creation. However, that [power of creation] is relevant because its negation would be contradictory to Brahman's nature, or due to the intervening statement "tathā" indicating a pause in the act of creation, which obstructs the result. For here, Śukaḥ does not teach retention as a means for the purpose of that power; rather, he praises it for the sake of dispassion, as stated earlier in 2.1139: "nānyatra sajjed" (let him not be attached to anything else), and as stated in 2.2.23: "a poet should be vigilant only to the extent the meaning (of the Vedas) requires, not more than that."

Thus, just as the primordial creation by Brahman endowed with the power of creation occurs through retention and the obstruction of lost memory due to the satisfaction of the Lord, similarly here [the meaning is that] through retention and the obstruction of lost memory due to the satisfaction of the Lord, the ascetic engaged in meditation on the gross Self or the yogī attains the state of having an infallible vision in all enjoyments due to dispassion, in accordance with the maxim "tuṣṭe tvi" (when satisfied). Therefore, the statement of the power [of creation] as the result should be considered.

And there should be no doubt that the obstruction of lost memory is inconsistent here as all experiences have already occurred previously. Even now, daily in the wise, and previously in the womb of the Lord through the subtle experience, various types of gross experiences have occurred in different births, from the beginning of the division [of experience] up to its end.

Therefore, this indeed is the determination. But since there is a constant relationship between them [means and end], even though one [means] is attained, they state the purpose of stating both words (means and end) again in "yathā va" and so on. Thus, the use of two words is for conveying the similarity with the previous cycle in both creation and understanding.

Thus, with this, the nature of retention as the means, being related to dispassion, has been established for the present context. Therefore, to show that the end stated in the previous chapter is also related to dispassion for the present context, they substantiate it through both [means and end] in "idānīm" and so on. "Sādhanāntaram" means the means in the form of inquiry into the true purport of the Vedas. (1)

The text begins by raising an objection: "But how can one comprehend that the Veda instructs only the gross holding (sthūladharaṇā) by abandoning all subjects for liberation (sarvaviṣayatyāga)?" In response, it cites the statement "sarva ityādi" to support this.

It further states, "Or the perpetual nature (nityatva) of desires like progeny (prajākāmanā) etc." Although the injunction for perpetual rites (nityavidhi) is different, and the statement "for the sake of desire (kāmānārtham)" is also different, still - just as the statement "one divides the purodāśa into four parts" is summarized by saying "one performs the four-fold division for Agni," - similarly, it is possible to state the injunction for desires under perpetual rites. Hence, the meaning is that obligatoriness (kartavyatva) is itself without an ulterior motive (avāntaram eva).

The text then cites the Jābāla Śruti: "One should take to the wandering life of renunciation (pravrajya) on the very day of dispassion (vairāgya)," indicating that vairāgya is a specific qualification for pravrajya. So the obligatoriness (kartavyatva) of vairāgya would either have an ulterior motive or be independent of the abandonment of desires (kāmanātyāga), being obligatory only at a time other than the Agnihotra sacrifice.

Then it mentions other views beginning with "śrautmana ityādina." The first view is the Agnihotra mentioned in the Upaniṣads with the words "agnihaotra ityādi." The second is the view of "being detached, one should establish oneself in renunciation (nyāsa), and along with the fires, one should unite the self with the Supreme Self," as stated in the story of Saubhari in the ninth section. The third is the view stated in the Taittrīya Brāhmaṇa Upaniṣad: "On the other side of the waters (ambhasyapāre)," and the anuvāka "for one who knows thus (tasyaivaṃ viduṣaḥ)."

Even though all these views are supported by scripture, the text rejects those who accept that the unqualified like the blind and crippled have eligibility for pravrajya, stating "sarveṣām ityādi." If that were the case, the Śruti would have to approve the Prājāpatya and Āgneya rituals as preliminary to pravrajya in the Jābāla Śruti. Then even the Dharma incarnate Yudhiṣṭhira would not take pravrajya without performing the Prājāpatya ritual, and Saubhari would not instruct Yājñavalkya on pravrajya in the Vājiśākhāya of Maitreyī Brāhmaṇa. Vyāsa's feet would also not determine the rules of pravrajya in the fourth pāda of the Sādhanādhyāya. Therefore, the supposition of the Mīmāṃsakas is untenable. Rejecting it, the text states that the means described in the scriptures are indeed in the form of means, and the ends are in the form of ends. These injunctions should be understood in accordance with the eligibility for the means. Otherwise, there would be an irreconcilable contradiction between the Śruti injunctions for the perpetual Agnihotra and pravrajya.

If there is a doubt about how it (the Brahman) should be described, they explain that manner by referring to the established meaning of the Vedas and by consistently following the idea that the fruit (result) is Brahman itself. Here they say "tatra (there)" and so on. By the Śruti text "The sacrifice is verily Viṣhṇu," entering into the action as the agent (ṛtvij), the deity (yajamāna), etc., He (the Supreme Lord) Himself abides there, and since the subsidiary members of the sacrifice have entered into Him as His limbs, only His sport is described in the preceding portion. There (in the Brahma-sūtra 1.1.24), the reading is "yathā". This is evident from the use of the word "tad" (that) later on. If this very reading is accepted, then the meaning "as illustrated" is to be understood from the word "yathā". "Yatra yena bhogena" means "through which mouth in the form of Gārhapatya fire, etc., with what feeding (of offering)". "Niśhchīyate" means: "By all the Vedas, the Word, which is sought", and "I alone am to be known by all the Vedas" (Bhagavad-gītā 15.15). Since sentences like "māṃ vidhatte 'bhidhatte māṃ" (Taittirīya Upaniṣhad 2.5) establish that the purport of the entire Veda is the Supreme Lord, that it is meant for the knowledge of Him, that it prescribes (vidhāyaka) what is related to Him, and that it expresses Him, it is concluded that the established meaning (siddhārtha) and purport of the entire Veda is verily Him alone. This interpretation is given to avoid contradiction by injunctive and other statements affirming this. Therefore, since the two sections (of the Veda) mention different names and procedures, the meaning is that this very path declared by us is that of the entire Word-Brahman, the Veda.

Kintu: But if it were asked: Why is this meaning not accepted by others? They say: "With mere names, which have no connection with the meaning of sentences." "Khaṇḍaśhaḥ" means "merely by a remote connection of words in a sentence." "Dhyāyati" means: through the mutual contradiction of the two systems and the negation of the literal meaning. And so, if the purport of the Veda were to be its ritual and its tangible result as well as the individual soul, then the direct statements about the result and the means would have to be accepted as they are heard. But this is not the case. Rather, as explained in the discussion of the great sentences (mahāvākyas), it is established that they refer to the Supreme Lord alone. Therefore, it is not proper to accept the direct statements as they are heard.

Phalatvena uktāni: Described as the fruit (result) in the subsidiary statements of the Vedas. Siddham āhuḥ tasmāt: Therefore, they conclude: Since even common sages have determined this meaning of the Vedas that they consist of the nature of the Lord, one should not abandon faith in each respective portion. (2)

The meaning of 'śruti' is stated here: "Different" means due to the entreaties of people, out of compassion. "Capable of all actions" means being capable of all actions like the Lord, due to the absence of the capability to perform all actions. Therefore, since everyone desires results, and since words like "kāma" (desire) are heard in statements like "agnihotra," etc., which are different from the principal sentences about the Lord, it is not proper to determine that those subordinate sentences are about the Lord. Thus apprehending this, the poet says:

They explain the meaning of the verse beginning with "yatra" (where) thus: In those statements which recount the fruits like rain, heaven, etc., other than final liberation, which is the purport of the principal sentences describing the Lord's sport, in the form of expressing the purport of the principal sentences for the sake of attaining final liberation by crossing over death - those actions which are well-established in the world, being accepted without any contradiction due to their invariable results, are the means to attain those respective fruits. They are not deceptive and are to be performed directly or indirectly for the purpose of crossing over death. How are they proper means? How are they useful? In anticipation of this, just as in the statement "dhānvannaḥ" (praise of Fire), worldly examples are cited to indicate that Fire is dear, etc., the purport of that statement is only to that extent, not for its injunction; similarly, the purport of statements like "kārīrya" is only to make the utterly misguided inclined towards the right path. Likewise, for one who is already inclined but attached to saṃsāra, the purport of statements like "citrodbhidā" is only to generate the feeling of misery due to the apprehension of loss of faith. Similarly, for one who has the thirst to see the unseen, being attached to what has been seen, the purport of statements like "jyotiṣṭoma" is only to generate the longing for not having that thirst, not for actually performing those actions for those purposes. There should be no apprehension of not attaining the fruits, for otherwise, there would be the fault of loss of faith, etc. However, even if one performs those actions with a mistaken notion of their purport, the Lord will bestow the fruits for sustaining the worldly life, based on the principle that even an unintended act bears fruit if it is a means for something.

Thus, those fruits like rain, etc., are stated only for the sake of the Lord's sport. In the same way, all others are also useful in the principal purport of liberation, either directly or through a series of closer or remote means. With this treatise, the literal meaning of the original text has been explained.

Therefore, since the earlier and latter portions of the text dealing with meditation and rituals are useful for the principal purport, the poet, being skilled in discerning the purport of the śruti through worldly examples, should understand the meaning of the terms to the extent stated in the verses beginning with "yeṣviti."

And thus, just as in the Jaimini school, statements like "vāyurvai kṣepiṣṭhe" etc. are considered explanatory, in the established view, the poet should understand that the statements in the former portion like "kārīrya," "jyotiṣṭoma," etc., which are obstructive to the seen and unseen results other than liberation, and those in the latter portion, are explanatory according to the eligibility of the aspirant.

In anticipation of the question "What are those means?", they say: "śānta" etc. Thus, the aspirant whose vision is limited to the finite self should aim for calmness, etc. The one eligible for the vision of the Immutable should aim for the knowledge of "All this is Brahman." The one eligible for the vision of the Supreme Person should aim for the knowledge stated in the Bṛhannārāyaṇopaniṣad. Thus, understanding should be achieved in all the principal branches of knowledge according to one's eligibility. Since the division of knowledge into principal and subordinate, higher and lower, exoteric and esoteric is established by the śruti, there is no scope for any objection.

They explain the meaning of the term "apramatta" (vigilant) with "na hi" etc. "Vratina" means one established in the vow of constant deliberation. "Tatra" means in the matter of accomplishing strength like the power of sight, etc. "Na kuryāt" - and one should not proceed in any other way, which means that the accomplishment of that strength should be achieved only in the prescribed manner. (3)

Now, with regard to "satyām" - it may be objected: Since it is common for people to lack complete organs, and the self-accomplishment of the arms is something usual, how can the uselessness of auxiliary means be stated? To this, they say: "mahāpuruṣa" etc. For one who, like a king blessed with prosperity and resources, renounces home life after proper deliberation, it is certainly by the grace of the Lord. The meaning is that such a statement is made because of his being so.

They explain the purport of the term "upabarhana" (auxiliary means) qualified by the plural number: "The two hollow shafts below the knees." Here, by stating the uselessness of the auxiliary means, their futile effort for that purpose is indicated through suggestion, for a great purpose. And since the arms have no use for the legs, the term "upabarhana" is also connected with the statement "satyāṃ kṣitā" (lodged in truth) – what is the use of those (auxiliary means) for that (truth)? In this way, it follows that even a person lacking some limbs can achieve that (truth). However, the instruction is that for such persons, no effort should be made at all.

If it is objected that since the statements are different, how can there be a unified instruction, they say "śruti" – because of the unity of the result. This should also be understood in other cases. They explain the meaning indicated in the fourth quarter: "kiñca" etc. (4)

Śrī Giridhara's Bālaprabodinī

In this second chapter, the fruit of gross meditation acceptable to the seekers of liberation is explained, and subtle meditation is also discussed. (1)

First, he states the incidental result of the aforementioned concentration: "evam." Thus, by that concentration described earlier, being pleased by the Lord, having regained the memory of creation lost during the previous dissolution - (satī) existing as one whose understanding was of the form of certainty: "This alone should be created in this way" - the self-born Brahmā proceeded to create this universe just as it existed before. The reason for (satī) being one whose understanding was certainty is given: "amoghadṛṣṭir" - one whose knowledge is unerring. (1)

Even for one disinterested in the fruits of worship and of purified mind, there is eligibility for the contemplation of the Lord's true nature. Therefore, he says: "śābdasya" - one should not have desire for the various fruits revealed in the Vedas. "Śābdam" means originating from words, i.e., the Vedas. What is this way (of the Vedas)? With words indicating inexhaustibility like "indeed, the good deed of the sacrificer of the Cāturmāsya sacrifice becomes inexhaustible," the intellect (of the practitioner) contemplates the desire for those respective results. But even while wandering in those places like heaven, etc., one does not attain objects capable of producing unsurpassed happiness. Having performed actions desiring inexhaustible enjoyments and gone to heaven, etc., seeing the destruction of even those things, fear arises that there will be no end (to this cycle). Then how does one wander like this? Lying with the desire for happiness, deluded into a sense of belonging in this body, senses, mind, children, wife, etc., which are manifested by the will of the Lord. (2)

Then, if enjoyments are renounced in every way, how will the body be sustained? Apprehending this, he says: "ata" - since the happiness expected in heaven, etc., as revealed in the Vedas, does not exist at all, therefore one who is a viveki (discriminating person) knowing what should be accepted or rejected should sustain himself only to the extent needed for the maintenance of the body, with objects that are extremely insignificant sources of enjoyment. And he should also be diligent in the worship of the Lord. Otherwise, when the means for bodily sustenance suitable to one's past actions are available by the Lord's will, one should not strive further for greater gain in that matter, for that would only lead to toil. As he reflects thus, the meaning is that no other result accrues.

Then how can the worship of the Lord be accomplished by complete renunciation? To this, he says: "vyavasāyabuddhir" - one should be of the understanding that there is no happiness in the enjoyment of objects; rather, the cessation of sorrow and the attainment of supreme bliss are solely through the worship of the Lord. (3)

Alternatively, to show the direct perception of accomplishment, he gives two examples with "satyām." What is the use of exertions like a bed, couch, etc., when truth (the self) is lodged (in itself)? For the sustenance of the body is possible by lying on the ground itself. In the effort to acquire a bed, etc., for bodily sustenance, there only remains toil, and the lifespan capable of accomplishing human pursuits is spent in vain. However, if circumstances are favorable according to past actions, that attainment is possible without effort since it cannot be difficult to obtain without it.

This should be understood likewise in what follows. When the arms are self-accomplished, what is the use of auxiliary means like bundles of coarse cloth for elevating the head? There is none, since elevation can be accomplished by placing the arms underneath. When one has hollow palms, what is the use of various vessels for eating food? There is none, since eating food can be accomplished with the hollowed palms themselves. When one has outer garments, what is the use of fine, delicate pieces of cloth? In hot weather, there is no need even for garments, as the directions (of space) suffice; in cold weather, the need can be met with the bark and leaves of trees, by the word "ādi" (and so on) implying also rags, etc. (4)

Hindi Anuvāda

Bhagavān's Gross and Subtle Forms; Gradual Liberation and Instant Liberation Described

Śrī Śukadeva says: In the beginning of creation, through this very conception, Brahmā regained the memory of creation which had been lost during the previous dissolution, from the pleased Bhagavān. His vision thus became infallible, and his intellect determined. He then created this universe exactly as it had been before the dissolution. [1]

The way the Vedas describe is such that people's intellects get entangled in the vicious cycle of meaningless names like svarga, and the jīva, with the desire for happiness, wanders like a dream; but nowhere in those mayic realms does it attain true happiness. [2]

Therefore, the wise person should only engage with the various named objects to the extent necessary. He should keep his intellect firmly convinced of their essencelessness and never be inattentive, even for a moment. If the objects of the world come to him without effort due to past destiny, he should not make any effort to acquire them, considering the effort unnecessary. [3]

When the ground can serve the purpose of a bed, what is the need for a cot? When the arms themselves are a gift from the grace of Bhagavān, what is the need for pillows? When the cupped palms can serve the purpose, why accumulate many utensils? If life can be sustained by wearing tree bark or remaining unclothed, what is the need for clothes? [4]