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)
NOTE: in the following text kalpa does not refer to the day of Brahma but to maha-kalpa, the complete length of Brahma's life, and brahmaloka refers to the the spiritual world, not to the planet of Brahma.
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]
