Text 37: The virāṭ-puruṣa’s face is the brāhmaṇas, His arms are the kṣatriyas, His thighs are the vaiśyas, and the śūdras are under the protection of His feet. All the worshipable demigods are also overtaken by Him, and it is the duty of everyone to perform sacrifices with feasible goods to appease the Lord.
Text 38: I have thus explained to you the gross material gigantic conception of the Personality of Godhead. One who seriously desires liberation concentrates his mind on this form of the Lord, because there is nothing more than this in the material world.
Text 39: One should concentrate his mind upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who alone distributes Himself in so many manifestations just as ordinary persons create thousands of manifestations in dreams. One must concentrate the mind on Him, the only all-blissful Absolute Truth. Otherwise one will be misled and will cause his own degradation.
Thus ends the first adhyāya, named "The Narration of the Virāṭ-rūpa," of the Second Skandha, "The Exposition of the Supreme Lord's Universal Form," in the great Purāṇa Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, the Pāramahaṃsī Saṃhitā.
Śrīdhara Svāmī's Bhāvārthadīpikā Commentary:
The brāhmaṇa is His face, the kṣatriya His arms, the vaiśya His thighs, and the śūdra, dark in complexion and following various vocations, is His feet. The gods with their groups like the Vasus, Rudras, etc. are fit to worship Him. The ritual procedure is the means to propitiate Him, the Object of worship, who has a material form. This is the meaning (of verse 37).
This much is the arrangement of the limbs. With their intellects, the mumukṣus (seekers of liberation) should fix their minds on Him because there is nothing separate from Him.
Śrī Vaṁśīdhara's Bhāvārthadīpikā Prakāśa Commentary:
"Antri-śritaḥ" means stationed at the feet. The dark complexion is of the śūdra due to his predominance of tamas. This is the meaning (of verse 37).
Here is the meaning: Wherever the mind wanders due to its restlessness, one should reflect on that particular limb as belonging to the Lord with one's intellect. Thus, all the mind's natural objects would be included within the meditation on the Lord. Then, negative qualities like envy would not arise. One should meditate that even humans, gandharvas, etc., who are objects of envy and so on, have become part of the Lord (in His cosmic form).
But by such constant practice of meditation on the Lord, won't the consequential fruits like enjoyment and sovereignty inevitably arise? Should the yogi accept them when they naturally come, or not? In the first case, there is the fault of negligence. As stated: "When the mind of the accomplished yogi does not become attached to the powers acquired by yoga, then my path becomes absolute, where there is no fear of death." In the second case, rejecting the pleasures that have appeared is truly difficult. However, everything becomes easy through discrimination.
He (the commentary author) illustrates the means of discrimination: That yogi, by whose intellect and senses - which have experienced (objects) over thousands of previous births - everything has been experienced, be it the state of Indra, kings, enjoyments, sovereignty, etc. Then what is to be repeatedly experienced? There is no permanence even in those (enjoyments), as illustrated: Just as in a dream, the same individual soul experiences the projection of enemies, friends, armies and their respective kingdoms etc. which are its own creation. Therefore, one should resort only to That which is the true permanent treasure of all time and space, the supreme abode of bliss - the Lord, and not to anything else in the form of sense objects which are impermanent sources of misery.
However, among the three (Virāṭ, jīvas, Īśvara), by the reference to the upalakṣaṇa (body, etc.) and the statement "and so on the other" referring to Īśvara, it means that there is no bondage for Īśvara, according to Svāmī Caraṇa.
Thus ends the first adhyāya of Śrī Bhāgavata Bhāvārthadīpikā Prakāśa commentary on the Second Skandha.
Śrī Vīra Rāghava's Commentary:
The brāhmaṇa is brahma (the supreme source), whose face is the great soul vairāja. The kṣatriya is kṣatra-bhuja, whose arms are kṣatra. The vaiśya is viṭ, whose thighs are said to be so. The dark-complexioned śūdra is antari-śrita, stationed at the feet. The dark complexion should be understood as signifying his duality. The various groups like the Abhījas, Rudrās, etc. with different names are said to be fit for the performance of sacrificial rites which are substantive offerings in the form of Havis. This is the meaning (of verse 37).
The arrangement of limbs belonging to the universal form of the Lord (Vairāja-vigraha) as described - this much only is that arrangement. On that very steady cosmic form related to Vairāja, the seekers of liberation should fix their minds through their intellect, because nothing exists outside the body of the Lord - everything is included within His body, this is the meaning (of verse 38).
Now he (the author) explains with an example: "He is seen and also heard" - explaining the meaning of this statement from the scripture. By all the functions of the intellect - all kinds of knowledge like perception, inference, etc. - whatever objects are experienced, both within and without, He is the basis of all those, the one referred to as such. And thus, it is established that all those objects have His body as their basis. He gives an example for that: Just as the same individual soul, while experiencing a dream, experiences happiness and suffering like coronation and decapitation by presiding over the objects created by the Supreme Lord in accordance with his own merits and demerits, which objects last only for the duration of that dream - this example is only about the soul presiding over multiple objects.
Even though the soul is essentially conscious and embodied as seen and heard, he (the author) states that it is untouched by the defects associated with the body by saying "It is the truth." He indicates that the Supreme is the object of spiritual pursuit by saying "the abode of bliss." The suggestion of His nature as bliss itself is from the statement "The knower of Brahman attains the highest bliss" heard in both contexts. One should resort to, or meditate upon, that which is the truth, i.e. the non-material reality. "The abode of bliss" indicates the knower of the field (kṣetrajña). One should not imagine any independent object other than Brahman and become attached to it, because from such attachment comes the fall of the self into samsara, which means the self's downfall. Therefore, one should not (imagine anything else), this is the meaning (of verse 39).
Thus ends the first adhyāya named "The Second Skandha" of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata Candrikā commentary written by the erudite Śrī Vaiṣṇavadāsa, son of the all-knowing master Śrī Śailaguru, who has comprehended his teachings with delight by service at his lotus feet, on the heart of the meaning of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, by the learned Śrī Vīra Rāghava who is an ocean of the nectar streams flowing from the Vedic milk ocean.
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tirtha-kṛtā Padaratnāvalī Vyākhyā
He who is the creator of the Brahmin class, he who has two arms which give birth to the Kshatriya class, he who has two thighs which generate the Vaishya class, he who has the dark-complexioned Shudra class dependent on him, he whose virile seed generates the oblations for gods and ancestors, he whose central body is the source of haviṣ [sacrificial offerings], he whose means is the Yoga that produces rituals like Agniṣṭoma – his expansion is this Universe. (37)
This is how I have described to you the particular state of being of the form of the Lord known as Vairāja, the embodiment of Hari [Viṣṇu]. Since there is nothing superior or more exalted than this form of the Lord, it is established in the minds of yogis as the highest and supreme embodiment for the purification of the mind. (38)
Thus ends the First Chapter of the commentary on the Second Skandha of the great Purāṇa Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, composed by Vijayādhvaja. (1)
Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī's Krama-sandarbha commentary
After describing the nature of Virāṭ, he now speaks of bhakti alone, setting that [Virāṭ conception] aside, with the words "saḥ sarva" (he who is everything). The meaning is as follows: The yogī, though realizing the truth of the Virāṭ conception through all the functions of the mind, which are the senses, should worship only that Śrī Nārāyaṇa, the indweller of Virāṭ, who is the reservoir of truth and bliss. He should not resort to anything else, nor to the fruits derived through the gateways of Virāṭ anywhere else, for that would lead to his downfall into saṃsāra. An example of his experiencing everything is the individual soul, the witness of dreams - just as it is the single witness of all persons and objects experienced in the dream state. Here, the natural cognition "He perceived that," well-known from the scriptures as not dependent on anything else, establishes this.
Further, he says that creation in the evening is merely māyā since it has the nature of being indistinctly manifested. This implies that just as a dream has its creator, this world of waking experience and so on also has its creator, indicating its distinctiveness. And with the words "truth and so on" (satyādi-dvayena), one should understand that it points to the Supreme Person's nature as the highest pursuit. (39)
Thus ends the First Chapter of Krama-sandarbha by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī on the Second Skandha of Śrīmad-Bhāgavata. (1)
Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī's Sārārtha-darśinī commentary :
Brahmā is the Brahmin; his face is ānana. The Kshatriya, whose arms are bhujas, is Kshatṛ. The Vaiśya, whose thighs are ūrūs, is Viṭ. The dark-complexioned Śūdra, who is dependent (āśritaḥ) on him, is Andhri. The devas, who have various names (nānābhidhāḥ), are inedible (abhojyāḥ) and generated by their groups like Vasus, Rudras, etc. The sacrifice, whose performance is essential for him and which is ritualistic involving materials, is the Vitāna-yoga. (37)
This much expanse (iyān sanniviśaḥ) is the arrangement of limbs. In this form, it is established by yogis through their own intellect acting as the charioteer. The mind is fixed there by yogis, for there is nothing transcendent beyond that. The meaning is: The mind, being naturally fickle, wanders here and there. Wherever it wanders, one should reflect through one's own intellect, "This is such and such limb of Bhagavān." In this way, all the natural objects of the mind would culminate in the thought of Bhagavān. Then, feelings of rivalry, pride, etc. would not arise, since even men, gandharvas and others who are objects of such feelings would be conceived as limbs of Bhagavān and worthy of contemplation. (38)
Question: If the practice of Bhagavān's conception is followed, would not the associated fruits like enjoyment and sovereignty inevitably arise? Should the yogī accept them when they come of their own accord, or not? If he does, there is the fault of laxity in yoga, as stated: "When the mind of even an accomplished yogī does not get attached to the illusory pleasures attained through yoga, then my unwavering progress towards the ultimate state where there is no fear of death can take place."
Secondly, there is the difficulty of rejecting pleasures that have already come.
Response: True, but everything becomes easy through discrimination. He explains the method of discrimination:
That yogī has directly experienced through all the senses, representing thousands of previous births, everything - sovereignty over gods, sovereignty over humans, enjoyments, opulences, etc. What more can be chewed and re-chewed? The example here is the soul (ātmā), which in a dream is the single witness and experiencer of people, friends, armies, kingdoms, enjoyments - all its own creation. Therefore, he should worship only that eternal, all-pervading Bhagavān who is the reservoir of bliss, not the temporary sense objects which are unreal and joyless. (39)
Thus ends the First Chapter of the Hariṇī commentary Sārārtha-darśinī, pleasing to the minds of devotees, on the Second Skandha of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata. (1)
Śrī Śukadeva's Siddhānta-pradīpa:
Brahma is the Brahmin; his face (ānana) is the mouth. The great soul, the Virāj Purusha, is Kshatrā; the Kshatriya whose arms are bhujas. Viṭ is the Vaiśya whose thighs are ūrūs. And Andhri is the dark-complexioned Śūdra who is dependent on him. The gods who have various names (nānābhidhāḥ) are inedible (abhijyāḥ). Generated from their groups are materials like oblations (havis). That which is to be accomplished through the Vitāna-yoga sacrifice is his (Bhagavān's) worship in the form of action. (37)
The extent of the arrangement of the feet and other limbs of the vigraha of the Lord, in the form of the purusha body, has been described by me to you. Only that much is to be meditated upon with one's own intellect by those desirous of liberation in this vigraha of the Lord, because there is nothing else beyond that. (38)
He: That Bhagavān who has been described as worthy of worship in the gross body has been experienced through all the functions of the senses - the entire moving and non-moving creation. Since He is the self of everything, all of it comes within the scope of His knowledge. As the soul sees in a dream, for the sake of particular enjoyments, people, chariots, elephants, etc. created by the Lord - in the same way, the Vedānta-kaustubha states that the entire dream creation is by the Lord. One should worship that Bhagavān who is the true reservoir of bliss, and not take shelter of any other conception which being limited is not the self. For attachment to it leads to the downfall of the self. (39)
Thus ends the elucidation of the First Chapter of the Second Skandha of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata Siddhānta-pradīpa composed by Śuka, the contemplator of the lotus feet of Bhagavān Nimbārka, the promulgator of the eternal dharma of Sanātana Kumāra's tradition. (1)
Śrī Vallabhācārya's Subodhinī Commentary:
Brāhmaṇya is a certain dharma (quality). When that is present in a person, he is called a Brāhmaṇa. Brāhmaṇya is another name (for that quality). Brāhmaṇya is not a caste, because even when there is individual merit, it can be lost, as the statement "even a Brāhmaṇa degenerates from Brāhmaṇya" implies. There is no authority for imputing any other way of life to it. Nor is there any fixed indicator of it. The fact of being born to a Brāhmaṇa is not universally applicable, as in the case of the four-faced Brahmā and his mind-born sons. The statement "There were eighty-one Brāhmaṇas among the sons of Ṛṣabha" also shows this. Therefore, due to the contradiction of many statements in the scriptures, Brāhmaṇya must be a certain deity. Those in whose bodies that deity is manifested are called Brāhmaṇas. Hence, one can become a Śūdra or even an outcast by a curse, but a Brāhmaṇa by grace. That deity enters the body at the Upanayana (sacred-thread ceremony). Then, many statements become valid. The same applies to Kṣatra. Hence, in the case of Paraśurāma, there was a combination of both (Brāhmaṇya and Kṣatra). "Brahma is his face (ānana)," previously Agni was spoken of as the mouth for the manifestation of speech. Therefore, Agni is the deity of the speech faculty. Indra and others, the enjoyers, were previously called the arms. Here, however, the presiding deity of taste (rasa) is Varuṇa. The enjoyment of taste is Brāhmaṇya, and its protection is Kṣatra. "Viṭ is his thighs (ūrūs)." From "vital" comes the word Ūru, so the Vaiśya status is given to the thighs, as they sustain life like the previous deities. Since activities are fourfold, the plural is used: "Viśas are whose ūrūs." Similarly, "The dark-complexioned (kṛṣṇa-varṇa) who is dependent on them (andhri-śritas)." He who is dark-complexioned and dependent is the Śūdra status, representing those without Vedic knowledge.
Action is twofold: natural and artificial. That which is for one's own sake or for others'. Of these, action for others' sake has already been described as the "flow of qualities (guṇa-pravāha)." Here, however, action for one's own sake is described. Vitāna-yoga is the extensive sacrifice. Vitānas are sacrificial enclosures made of seven strands of string. Their combination is what constitutes the sacrifice of Bhagavān for those inferior beings. Its twofold nature is stated: "The groups of deities who have various names (nānā-abhidhāḥ)" are inedible (abhijyāḥ) - meaning the main presiding deities in those groups. And "material oblations (dravyātmaka)" like cakes of rice and barley grains are to be accomplished. The giving up of materials with invocations to the deities is the sacrifice (yāga), wherein the deities are the immaterial part and the materials the material part. (37)
After describing the inclusion of all categories of beings in the body of Bhagavān for the purpose of revealing His true nature, he summarizes - "iyān sāviti". The arrangement (sanniviśa) of the limbs in the vigraha of the Lord, the Virāṭ body, is only to this extent (iyān etāvān eva). The meaning is that there is no greater arrangement than this. "Asau" - This very arrangement, and no other, is described. Or, "asau" means "in this manifest form the arrangement is to this extent." The arrangement of the unmanifest form consisting of bliss will be described later. Here, only the arrangement of the categories has been indicated since that was the topic, not a detailed explanation, as that will be given in the subsequent examination.
He then states the purpose of describing this arrangement - "sandhāryate iti". In this body (vapus), the mind of all yogis is to be fixed in meditation (sandhāryate). This alone is the object of the practice of yoga discipline. "Sthaviṣṭha" means, as before, "the most substantial". Since vapus means body, it is synonymous with deha. So its meaning has already been stated. "With their own intellect (svabuddhyā)" means with the intellect identifying with the Self. Otherwise, the idea of all-pervasiveness, the desire for intense devotion, the attainment of the supreme goal - the transcendence of enjoyment itself - would not arise. If such meditation takes place, doubts may arise as to where to meditate and where not. The reason is given: "Because there is nothing other than this" - since there is nothing different from this form. (38)
For ordinary people, in the case of the five principal subjects of inquiry, listening, contemplating and repeating the Name should be undertaken along with the principal subject matter itself, since uttering the Name is said to be japa. The other subjects should be pursued in relation to the Supreme Lord who is to be worshipped, as He alone remains. He speaks of Him thus: "He who has directly realized the entire universe."
(sarvadhīvṛtty anubhūta sarva): He by whose all-perceiving intelligence the entire universe, whatever is to be experienced by anyone, is experienced. Here, the word 'sarva' (all) distinguishes Him as the subject of listening, contemplating etc., for whose elucidation this treatise is being composed. He alone should be resorted to through listening etc. By approaching His presence through listening etc., or by attaining union with Him, one should directly worship Him. Elsewhere, if one is attached to the result or to other means for attaining it, one would fall even from one's own position. This precludes the view that one should first pursue the result and then the means for it.
Now, how can He be the result or the object of worship? To this, he says: (ānandanidhi) - "The abode of bliss." He is the object of worship, which is itself the result, since the means (sādhana) is for the sake of the human being. Though the result is also for the sake of the human being, being the object of human experience or of the nature of experience, still, it is to be resorted to primarily for its quality of rasa (relish). And that is the supreme bliss. But that cannot be obtained by enumeration, since it is unlimited in Brahman. Rather, it is an "abode of bliss." The complete bliss, in which bliss inheres to the utmost degree – that is the Lord Himself, who is to be resorted to. Since the nourishing of bliss has been stated, to remove any apprehension of its diminution, he says: (satyam) - "True."
But if the mind is inclined towards another result, what should be done? Reasoning from the maxim "The desire of one who is intent on something cannot be contradicted," he says: (sarva dhīvṛtty anubhūta sarva) - "He by whose all-perceiving intelligence the entire universe is experienced." Whatever result can be enjoyed by anyone through their senses, all that can be experienced through Him alone. Therefore, just as nothing else remains apart from His essential nature, similarly, no result remains to be experienced apart from Him.
Now, how can He be the enjoyer? There are presiding deities over the various senses. To this, he says: (ātmā yathā) - "Just as the self..." Though there are presiding deities over the various senses like sight etc., just as the self experiences everything through all the senses, so also the Lord, without considering that self which has the notion of being a part, experiences everything through those very senses over which He presides.
It may be argued: Since the presiding deities of the self are known, the senses can be considered as belonging to the self, and therefore the self's experience is limited to what is grasped by its own senses. But for the Lord, who has a cosmic form, since there is no such notion in the individual bodies like insects etc., and no sense of ownership over their senses, how can the Lord experience everything through the all-perceiving functions of those senses? To this, he says: (svapnajanaikṣitaiva iti) - "Just as the single witness of dream-born people..."
Just as the single witness of all people born in a dream, though the dream is unreal, the knowledge is not unreal, being of the nature of the self. There is a notion that the people seen in the dream perceive everything. Though the bodies of those people are logically established to be unreal, that notion itself is not unreal. Since there is no other consciousness there, it must be either the consciousness of the self or of the Lord. The self cannot be the witness, since it has no capacity to illumine without the senses, which are like lamps, and since both the dream and the lamps are unreal.
Hence, it is logically established that the Lord alone is the Witness. And in the state of sleep, no division from Him is manifest. Similarly, in other states too, it is logically established from the illustration of the dream that He alone is the Witness. Therefore, whether in the state of an individual self or not, it is ascertained that the Lord alone is the Witness. And He has no need for our set of senses, since the senses of the deities themselves serve as lamps, the objects are the senses, and our senses merge into the objects.
Even on the view of dissolution into the cause, since the impressions exist there, the presence of objects has to be admitted. Though those who have merged into the cause at the time of dissolution can manifest due to their luminosity, accepting dissolution would be problematic. Hence, merger into the objects alone should be accepted. Otherwise, how can there be waking up again from sleep which has no interruption? The ego is merely a superimposition on the self and depends on the senses; it is not the cause of the senses. Otherwise, the senses would not be produced again after creation.
Therefore, the senses that have merged into the objects become merged into the senses of the Lord. Hence, when the witness of the dream is examined, the conclusion is that by pervading all and becoming the self of all, He alone witnesses everything. Similarly, in the waking state too, the senses that have entered into their respective objects become the means of knowledge for the Lord by entering into His senses. Otherwise, in the absence of any object apart from the senses of the Lord, what would He grasp? There, even while grasping the self associated with the senses, since the self is not an object of knowledge, for the senses to be objects of knowledge, it is the senses themselves that become objects of knowledge by the higher senses.
Therefore, there is no need for our set of senses. And He is omnipresent, since there is no means of knowledge to differentiate, as the illustration of the dream invalidates those who would object, being irrefutable. Therefore, since all enjoyments are accomplished by Him alone, no other effort is required for enjoyment. And there is also the possibility of the self falling. However, in the case of beings like insects residing in bodies, their essential nature as the self does not manifest, or due to their being individual selves, this is not contradicted. || 39 ||
Thus ends the first chapter of the second book of the Sribhagavata Subodhini commentary, composed by the illustrious son of Sri Lakshmana Bhatta, Sri Vallabha Dikshita. || 1 ||
Śrīmad-Gosvāmiśrī-Puruṣottama-Caraṇa-Viracitaḥ Śrī-Subodhinī-Prakāśaḥ
On the word "brāhmaṇa" here. It is explained in words like "brāhma-bhāva." But someone may object - the state of being a brāhmaṇa is well-known in the world as a birth status, so why is it accepted as a separate dharma (duty/virtue)? To this, it is said: "Not just birth status." The reason for this is given next - "A distinct individual..." But someone may ask - if the qualification of birth status is abandoned, what is the authority? To this, it is said: "brāhmaṇyād eva" and so on. In the statement "Lying with a śūdrā woman, a brāhmaṇa goes to a lower birth. Having begotten a son from her, he falls from brāhmaṇya itself," the use of the word "eva" (itself) indicates that the falling happens quickly.
However, someone may object that since there are statements like "From that point onwards, they fall away from all dharma," which imply that brāhmaṇas are not entitled to perform brāhmaṇa actions, and in statements like "By whom the brahmā was violently disturbed while being born from himself," the disturbance of brahmā means the loss of entitlement to perform brāhmaṇa actions. Just as this metaphorical understanding of words, the word "brāhmaṇya" in the previous statement also implies entitlement to perform brāhmaṇa actions by itself. Thus, there is a possibility of such a verbal understanding, so there is no scope for the objection raised.
To this, it is said: "vṛtty-antara" and so on. In the instruction "From words denoting qualities like brāhmaṇa, etc., there is an injunction regarding actions," by enjoining the affix ṣyaṃ in the sense of action, even in the case of the quality sense, there is no contradiction in assuming a dharma different from birth status due to the absence of any other means of valid knowledge.
Moreover, in the previously mentioned statement, there is no scope for a secondary sense. Just as in the case of "gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣa" (the sound in the Ganges purifies), some special result is implied without being explicitly stated. And in cases of conventionally established meaning, just as in lexicons like "kṛtī kuśala" (an able and skilled person), the ability itself is understood, whether this ability is affirmed or denied does not make any difference, as there is no other means of valid knowledge.
Now, someone may argue that since there are instances of change of birth status like Viśvāmitra, by the distinction of being co-extensive or not with birth status, the acceptance of the four-fold or three-fold birth status could be valid here too, just like the acceptance of anāpadi-brāhmaṇya (not born from a brāhmaṇa womb) and avāpi-brāhmaṇya (born from a brāhmaṇa womb). And since the sūtra "brāhmo jātāv iti" (a brāhmaṇa by birth) is cited as an example, is there any fault in accepting a birth status that is not co-extensive?
To this, it is said: "niyata" and so on. If a birth status that is not co-extensive is accepted in cases like Viśvāmitra, then the indicator of that status would be fixed. And since there is no such indicator, a birth status that is not co-extensive cannot be accepted. And one should not raise doubts about qualities like anger, brilliance, etc. being indicators, because there are exceptions in cases like Durvāsā and others. However, the citation "The second birth is from the sacred thread ceremony, after being born from the mother" is based on the smṛti texts and is compatible with the derivation of "birth" from the root "jan" (to be born). So there is no fault in this.
Anticipating the objection of it being a limiting condition, the author refutes it with "brāhmaṇādi." In that case, being born from a brāhmaṇa mother would be too broad, including even caṇḍālas (outcastes), and being born from a brāhmaṇa father would be too narrow, not applicable in the cases mentioned. Therefore, a limiting condition cannot be posited.
Now, someone may say that there is no fault in defining a brāhmaṇa as one having pure parents. To this, it is said: "ṛṣabha" and so on. If that were the case, then there would be no gradation like being a bhāgavata among the nava (nine types), a kṣatriya among the daśa (ten types), and a brāhmaṇa among the eighty-one yavīyas (mixed) types.
Similarly, having a pure mother would be too broad, including cases like puṃścalī (a woman who becomes a man), and having a pure father would be too narrow in cases like uhya (a son born from an unmarried woman). Therefore, the conclusion is stated as "tasmāt" and so on. Up to "ucyante."
Hence, since birth status cannot be defined properly due to the impossibility of positing limiting conditions, and accepting it as birth status would contradict many statements in the śāstra in the manner described, brāhmaṇya should be understood as a divinity.
"Ata eva" means "for this very reason." "Iti" means "as is well-known." Now, someone may ask how divinity can remain unmanifested. To this, it is said: "sā ca" and so on. "Upanayana" here indicates the sacred thread ceremony and the favorable will of the Lord, which is the co-operative cause everywhere and should be understood by all.
This explains that the manifestation of divinity takes the form of the sacred thread ceremony. "Bahūni vākyāni" - there are many statements (supporting this view). By birth one is a śūdra; by saṃskāras one is called a dvija (twice-born). By the study of the Vedas, one becomes a vipra, and by the realization of Brahman, one is regarded as a brāhmaṇa. This is the import of statements like 'janmanā jāyate śūdraḥ saṃskārair dvija ucyate | vedābhyāsād bhave- d vipro brahmajño brāhmaṇaḥ smṛta'. This meaning is clearly expressed in the Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, starting from 'brahma vā idamagra āsīd' and ending with 'vaiśyena vaiśyaḥ śūdreṇa śūdra'.
Similarly, the status of being a brāhmaṇa also depends solely on marriage, as stated in the statement 'vivāhastu samantrak'. Earlier, being the daughter of a brāhmaṇa was sufficient. In cases of transgression, the gradation of sin and the gradation of penance are to be understood. For this reason, the gradation of impurity also applies in such cases, as correctly stated "many are included".
In this way, statements like "One should take a brāhmaṇa wife for a brāhmaṇa, a rājanī (kṣatriyā) for a kṣatra, a vaiśyā from the maruts, for 'the maruts are indeed the deities of the people'" are also included. They indicate the same elsewhere too. This should be understood as an indicative statement.
If someone argues that since being a śūdra is not a birth (jāti), the word 'śūdra' would be inappropriate without the addition of 'ṭā' (as in 'ajāti'), [the counter-argument is]: No. This is because even in that case, birth is considered, as implied by statements like "By neglecting the study of the Vedic texts, by not going to a brāhmaṇa, and by drinking milk from a mud vessel, a śūdra attains the state of a caṇḍāla." Thus, wherever there is no contradiction, it should be understood as a birth (jāti), not elsewhere.
Therefore, it is due to the union of the two deities. "Both forms" means the two forms of Brahman and Kṣatra deities. By this statement, in the Vana Parva of the Mahābhārata, in the conversation between Ājagarā and the king, when asked "Who is a brāhmaṇa, O king?", it is defined as "One in whom truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, compassion, austerity, and disgust (with evil) are seen, is regarded as a brāhmaṇa, O serpent."
After showing that this does not apply excessively by statements like "Truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, compassion, austerity, and disgust are the hallmarks of all four varṇas, and truth is found even among śūdras", it is said: "Whatever qualities are found in a śūdra, those are not found in a dvija. A śūdra does not become a śūdra, nor a brāhmaṇa a brāhmaṇa. One in whom these (qualities) are seen is called a brāhmaṇa. One in whom these are not found should be designated a śūdra." Thus, after including and excluding the qualities, it is said: "If, O king, you have examined and found a brāhmaṇa by his conduct, then his birth is in vain, O long-lived one, if he does not possess those qualities."
After accepting the indeterminate nature of birth, it is said: "Birth, O great serpent, in the opinion of the wise, depends on human nature, not on lineage. All men always beget offspring in all classes." Here, after criticizing the mixture of births, by the word 'duṣparīkṣye' it is indicated that birth is not indeterminate, but rather determined.
"This is the authority" and so on, up to "Whom I have previously called a brāhmaṇa, O best of serpents, where charity and conduct are seen to be cultivated" - by these statements, it is said that one becomes a brāhmaṇa by cultivated conduct and charity. And this is not contradictory [to the previous statements].
The meaning of the statements like "With the mouth and so on" up to "action" is: Different statements are made from the point of view of the mouth and other parts, due to the distinction of functions. Just as in the Viśvarūpa chapter it is said "Having numerous arms, mouths, and eyes", here too the statement "thousand-headed" indicates the same, leaving no doubt.
Regarding 'ūruṇa' (thighs): The neuter gender usage should be understood as following common practice, not as a grammatical error. In the dictionary it is said "sakthi kībe pumānūru" (sakthi means thighs, pumān means male), and the form 'sakthi' is given, implying that the word is neuter. From the statement "pumānūruḥ klībe" (ūru means thighs for a male), it is also clear. (37)
Regarding 'iyānasā vita': In the first case, it should be understood that the two topics are 'iyattva' (having gone) and 'adasatva' (not having gone), with reference to the assembly. The result of the second case is stated as "śrānande" and so on. "śrātmarūpatvena" means contemplating the universe as one's own Self and fixing the mind on that.
The question may be raised: What is the purpose of contemplating the universe as the Self? To this, it is answered: "śranyathā" and so on, meaning "Otherwise (if the universe is not contemplated as the Self)". "atikrama" means transcending (overcoming) Caṇḍikā and other (obstacles). Thus, it is said that for the sake of those purposes, contemplation as the Self is prescribed. "Elaborating on that" up to "they would attain" explains the same. (38)
Regarding the statement "sa sarvādhīvṛttyānubhūta sarvāḥ": However, in the Rājā's seven questions in the Saptaka, the answers to the first two questions were given along with rationale, while the remaining ones were criticized. Hence, there is an doubt whether this verse is relevant to prescribing worship. To resolve this, they deliberate on its relevance starting with "sādhāraṇānām".
The meaning is: After praising with one question "varīyān", the parrot spoke four meanings starting from "tasmād bhārate" up to "nāmānukīrtanam". Thus, it is understood that what was common (sādhāraṇya) in the context of listening etc. is avoided, and the singularity in the context of praise is supported as being singular in object. Given this, since the statement "nṛṇāṃ yantriyamāṇānāṃ manuṣyeṣu manīṣiṇā" uses the word "nṛṇām" to indicate commonality, it implies that for those types, the five questions should be answered wholeheartedly. But in the manner stated earlier, since four of them were covered, by the king's question "bhajanīyaṃ vā brūhi", the alternative question of "what is to be worshipped" remains unanswered as a common question. This is what is stated in this verse, indicating its uncommonness. Thus, there is an occasion and context for its relevance here.
Since the words "sa" and "tam" refer back to what was mentioned earlier, and the assembly of the body was already stated, this verse elaborates on one of those two (body or assembly) being the object of worship, from "ya" up to "bhajanīya". And since the word "vapuṣaḥ" is in masculine gender, and is qualified by "sarva" etc., by the principle of "mukhye kārye saṃpratyaya", the word "yaḥ" which was used earlier in "vairājaḥ puruṣo yo 'sau bhagavān dhāraṇāśraya" refers to the same meaning.
"Atra brahmāṇḍe" means in this universe. "Śravaṇādinā" means by listening, chanting, remembering, and the practice of devotion, since these are being discussed. Otherwise, if it were about the object of worship, it would have been stated earlier. "Bhajanīya" means the purport resulting from the verse. Thus, what was asked by "bhajanīyaṃ brūhi" is this.
By this, since the first and second halves state "sarvādhīvṛttyānubhūta sarva", it indicates that the same entity is to be worshipped, establishing the relationship of reason and cause in the form "tam bhajet". The word "eva" aggregates the meaning of the fourth quarter-verse.
"Ata iti" further explains "being of the nature of everything, therefore the result too..." They give an example from "etad" onwards to establish that the experience of everything arises from the activities of consciousness of the all-pervading Lord within the Viraj. Thus, He is the experiencer of everything through the senses presided over by the individual souls like us, since He is the Lord of all the senses controlled by individual souls like us.
That (mentioned principle of the ātman being the witness) is proved by the inference that since the senses are governed by that very deity (ātman), they must be like us in that regard. The meaning is that its (ātman's) nature as the witness is thus established.
"Due to the absence of manifestation" - this refers to the absence of manifestation of our body etc. Thus, the supreme Self is not experienced by the senses governed by us, since our body etc. is devoid of being the witnessing consciousness. Just as insects in the body are devoid of the awareness of our body, we are not that (witnessing consciousness).
Similarly, the supreme Self is not like that, since it is not identified with our body etc. It is not the witnessing consciousness like other bodies, since it does not identify with them. Thus, it is not of that (limited) nature, being the valid counter-example.
"herein" - in this connection, another example is cited, meaning: just as the people seen in a dream are witnessed by oneself in the dream. "The people seen in dreams" - those who are perceived as perceivers in the bodies seen in dreams.
Now, it may be argued that since dreams are illusory, there is a difference between the examples of dreaming and waking, as what is perceived in dreams is also illusory. To refute this, they say: "even though the dream is illusory..."
Even though the dream and creation during sleep are illusory, the knowledge pertaining to it is not illusory. The reason for this is that dream-knowledge has the nature of the self (ātman-rūpatva). In the Jyotir Brahmaṇa, after stating "It is indeed the self that is the light," it teaches that dream-knowledge has the nature of the self by concluding "here this self becomes its own light." By this, even those who hold that dreams have the nature of memory should be understood as refuted.
In this Jyotir Brahmaṇa, since dreams are referred to as a 'place' with the statement "In that intermediate place (dream), standing, it sees both places," the objection that dream-knowledge is not valid since the objects perceived in the illusory dream are themselves illusory, is answered by saying: "In that case..."
In that state of dream-knowledge, there is a perception that 'people are seeing,' just as there is a perception of people etc. An awareness arises with regard to the object of that knowledge residing in those (dream-entities), just as one arrives at a definite understanding. Even though the bodies of the people seen in the dream are established to be illusory by the Nyāya system according to the aphorism "but it is merely illusory, being of an entirely unmanifested nature," still, that perception 'they are seeing' in the Kārikā is not illusory according to the Nyāya as well. For the sūtra states the reason for illusoriness as "being entirely of an unmanifested nature."
And that 'unmanifestedness' applies only to the body etc., while the perception, being of the nature of knowledge, is entirely manifested in that very form, and hence not illusory. And being of the nature of the self, it is also not illusory.
Now, it may be argued that such perception is not cognized as residing in other bodies, and since those (dream bodies) are merely illusory and devoid of consciousness, how can that which has the nature of the self not be illusory? To this, they say: "In that case..."
In the perception 'people are seeing' in the dream, since there is no other consciousness, either the consciousness of the supreme Lord or the consciousness of the individual self must be present, just as there is no other living entity in illusory magical forms; thus, that (perception) has the nature of the self of the Lord or the self of the living entity seen in the dream. Therefore, it is not illusory.
Now, it may be argued that this is possible, but since that (perception) is doubtful and cannot be conclusively stated due to its entirely unmanifested nature, its non-illusoriness cannot be ascertained. To this, they say: Even for the dreamer himself, since there is absence of identification with the dream body, my self (madam ātmā) does not appear as the seer in those dream bodies, because of identification with that [dream] body. For whomever there is non-identification with whatever body, that is not his self - this is the inference, due to the absence of being the seer, like another greatly non-identified self. Nor do the senses themselves perceive, we doubt; because of the senses being devoid of an interior perceiver, they are incapable of manifesting [objects]. From the śruti "The senses have an outward tendency", it follows that when the senses have an inward tendency, due to the absence of various loci, they are incapable of manifesting [objects].
Nor should it be doubted that by the dream, which is hollow, capability is established. Since the dream as well as the hollow [inner perceiver] are false, when they are negated, through reasoning it is concluded that only the Lord sees, but not the individual self and the senses. For that [self] which appears in that way, another individual self does not exist, because of its non-identification with that [body] - this is the inference, like my self. When all individual selves are negated, only the Lord remains, being the self of all, since whatever is not so, is not so - this is ascertained through the reasoning of residual elimination.
indretyādi [Commenting on the statement "indrā hi"]: And when explained in this way, about the seer, there is no disparity in the example, since his entire manifestation is established, because of the absence of his being illusory. But if the Lord were to perceive, then just as in the case of the dream person, how is he not similarly cognized? Therefore, they say "nidrā hi" and so on. Sleep, indeed, is a particular mode of the function of the intellect, arising from the excitation of tamas combined with rajas; due to that, the distinction between him and the Lord does not manifest, just as in a dream, because of the equality of being overpowered by tamas in both cases. And merely due to his non-cognition, his being the seer cannot be stated there; therefore, only the ascertainment of his cognition there is unobstructed - this is the meaning. Here, the being the seer of the individual self is not precluded, by including the previous example as well; rather, it is established that the Lord also is [the seer] - this should be understood.
tatheti [Commenting on the statement "tathā"]: Having thus established the Lord as the seer in one dream, they indicate the same for other [states] as well with the statement "tathā" and so on. The mode of ascertainment has indeed been explained. Summarizing this, they say "tata iti" and so on.
tata iti [Commenting on the statement "tata"]: "Tata" means "from the residue". But it may be asked: granted that he is the seer, still it should be considered whether [he sees] as a witness or through the senses. As for the first, it is not so, because of contradiction with the postulation and lack of relevance to the topic. The second is also not so, because of lack of the means of knowledge; therefore, the topic under consideration is not accomplished by this - with this doubt in mind, they say "tasya cet" and so on.
tasya ceti [Commenting on "tasya cet"]: And so, with statements like "nāsatyad asrau paramasya nāsat prāṇaṁ ca gandham", it is stated that he has no means of knowledge; therefore, there is no contradiction with the postulation, nor lack of relevance to the topic, since he perceives through our senses by virtue of his own means of knowledge, when our senses are conjoined [with him] - this is the meaning.
kāraṇalayeti [Commenting on a hypothetical objection from proponents of dissolution (laya)]: But according to the view of the proponents of dissolution, only dissolution of the senses as causes is accepted, as indicated by the Purāṇic statement "The senses dissolve into their own sources"; and since dissolution is accepted in that way, it would be incongruous to say that he perceives through our senses, because our senses do not dissolve - with this doubt in mind, they say "kāraṇalayeti" and so on.
What is intended here as the cause of the senses - whether it is the elements (bhūtāni), or just the subtle elements (mātrā), or the source of the elements, i.e., the radiant (taijasa)? Regarding this, if one accepts either of the first two alternatives mentioned in accordance with the use of plural form in Puranic statements, there is no doubt about their dissolution (laya). However, rejecting the plural form, in accepting the third alternative, since the subtle elements do not have a subtle form there, it is so (i.e., there is dissolution).
Thereafter, the fourth (taijasa) alone remains. Even in that case, when dissolution is accepted, since in the physical creation which is a modification (vikāra), the mind is the cause of the senses, and as vikṣepa (the distracting element) in taijasa is born of rajas, and since there is an equal possibility of the rise of vāsanās (latencies), it means that their dissolution is in those (mind and senses) themselves due to the existence of objects through vāsanās there.
Now, if the doubt arises, "What is the proof for their dissolution in the cause itself when accepting dissolution in the cause?", they explain with "kāraṇasya ityādi" (the passage beginning with "kāraṇasya"). Since the cause is the source of vikṣepa, when that (cause) dissolves, the senses which have merged in it can manifest the objects through vikṣepa. And if dissolution is accepted there, due to the necessity of accepting dissolution in both (cause and effect), it should be accepted thus. And so, the direct experience of the absence of manifestation, which is facilitated by the principle of simplicity, is itself the proof for the dissolution of the senses in the objects.
If it is said that this weighty consideration (gaurava) is not a fault due to the support of the scriptures, to that they say "anyathā ityādi" (the passage beginning with "anyathā"). If dissolution of taijasa is accepted there, then since there is no obstructing factor for sleep, how can there be waking again? The tamasa (qualityless) and vaikārika (born of passion) cannot cause vikṣepa since they are inert. In that case, since waking cannot be established otherwise, taijasa does not dissolve. And if it does not dissolve, there will be manifestation of objects, which is undesirable. Therefore, by the principle that the contrary is not possible otherwise, dissolution must be accepted in the objects themselves.
If it is said that since there is no experience of 'I' in deep sleep, the dissolution of the ego is directly experienced, and so the weighty consideration arising from its dissolution is not a fault, they say "ahaṃkāra ityādi" (the passage beginning with "ahaṃkāra"). It is true that its dissolution is experienced directly. However, that ego is different, being a superimposition of the Self. It is not the cause of the senses. Therefore, that experience cannot establish the validity of the weighty consideration.
If it is said that since there is no discriminator, everything appears as 'I' in that experience, and so that experience indicates the dissolution of all egos, and therefore there is no invalidity of that weighty consideration, they say "tathā sati ityādi" (the passage beginning with "tathā sati"). If that (dissolution of vikṣepa) were so, then just as in the state of dissolution, in deep sleep also the senses would not arise again, and there would only be the waking state. Or, in the waking state, there would be no sense knowledge at all. Therefore, in accordance with the knowledge in the waking state, discrimination is necessary. Thus, that weighty consideration of dissolution is indeed invalid.
And it cannot be said that since time is the distressing factor, the re-creation is possible when taijasa streams forth, and therefore its dissolution is not invalid. For if that were so, then due to the general nature of time, there would be a contingency of waking for others also. Therefore, in order to regulate that, its existence is necessary. Keeping this in mind, they say "ato viṣaya ityādi" (the passage beginning with "ato viṣaya").
Since the view of the cause has been censured in the aforementioned way, objects alone are proper. And there is no contradiction with the statement of the Lord that the senses are self-born, since it does not refer to the state of dissolution periodically. By this, the Naiyāyikas, who accept the two-fold relation of cause and effect - that in the waking state the senses are the cause by being connected with the mind, and in dream the unobstructed Self is the cause by being connected with the mind - and thus establish dream while not accepting the dissolution of the senses, are also refuted, as it contradicts the meaning of the statement in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad: "dṛptabālāki brāhmaṇe tadeṣāṃ prāṇānāṃ vijñānena vijñānamādāya" etc., which indicates that when it is said that "he takes away the knowledge with the knowledge of those prāṇas (senses)", it means they abandon their respective places, and that they dissolve in the red-colored nāḍīs of that form.
They say: "It is established from the Shruti statements like 'dream is same as waking' and so on. Entered means associated with the sense organs." Thus, for the self, which is the substrate of all organs including the cosmic self, everything happens through all activities of the organs of self and others. This is because the self is the underlying reality behind all dream experiences including the body, just as it is for the waking state - this is the meaning established by inference.
Now, in the dream state, it is reasonable for the dreamer to be the seer, since the dream world is the object. However, in the waking state, if the sense organs have entered into the objects, then just as in the dream state there is no presentation of objects due to the non-application of the sense organs, similarly here the aforementioned statement of being the seer does not fit well. If it is said that there is no application of the sense organs due to their dissolution, then in that case, since the sense organs are connected to the objects alone, what knowledge will the Lord have in relation to our sense organs? It will not be our sense organs' function. Therefore, this reasoning is also difficult. To remove this doubt, they say: "Otherwise..."
It is true that if the sense organs are negated and there is no entry, then nothing can be grasped due to the absence of objects, just like in dream. However, in the waking state, since the grasping of objects by them is experienced, it is ascertained that they have not negated their nature as sense organs. So they exist as sense organs themselves. This much is the difference: in dream they grasp through their own nature as sense organs, while in the waking state they grasp through the nature of another's sense organs. Thus, in dream one sees one's own dream creation and the self through one's own sense organs, while in the waking state one sees one's own sense organs and self. However, through one's own sense organs one grasps only objects in the form of another's sense organs, but not one's own self, because the supreme self is knowable only through another's sense organs. This has been stated by the words "through that sense organ" etc.
"The self" means our own self. "Of the sense organ" means the object in the form of another's sense organ. They explain the compound word further by saying "that" and so on. "Like in dream" means just as in dream there is the absence of identification with one's own body etc., similarly, even when identified with particular bodies etc., since everything is non-dual by nature, it acts as a limiting adjunct. "They say it is established from the shruti" means by the very contemplation of non-difference between the individual self and the cosmic self through one's own nature.
Now, if the limiting adjuncts are also non-limiting, then the knowledge born of the sense organs like worms in the body would also belong to us. To remove this doubt, they say "of the body" etc. Thus, when everything has become one self, or when individual existence ceases like that of Vāmadeva's parrot, there will certainly be no disagreement on non-duality due to the appearance of oneness with Brahman. (39)
Thus ends the exposition of the first chapter of the glorious Second Canto Subodhini Commentary.
Śrī Giridhara's Bāla Prabodhinī Commentary:
The brāhmaṇa is the face of Brahman. The twice-born (brāhmaṇa) and the fire are the two faces of the Lord. Here, the fire has already been referred to earlier as 'the kindled mouth'. Therefore, whatever is to be offered to the Lord is offered in both. The kṣatriya is the one whose arms protect, hence called the protector. The vaiśya is the one whose thighs facilitate trade and business. The śūdra, who is supported (aṅga), dark-colored and whose duty is service, is represented by the sacred feet of the great soul, the cosmic self, Virāj. The determination of being a brāhmaṇa and so on will be clearly explained in the seventh canto under the verse 'whosever marks are described'.
Those who are called by various names like Vasus, Rudras, etc., who are to be invoked and worshipped - with the groups of these deities, the substantial sacrifice, which is to be achieved through oblations of ghee, that ritual of sacrifice etc. is referred to as his karma, the object of propitiation.
Such is the manifestation, which is the arrangement of limbs, of the form of the Lord that I have described to you. In this most expanded form, the yogis focus their mind through their intellect. The reason it is called 'most expanded' is clarified - because there is nothing at all beyond the dual form of the Lord.
Therefore, wherever the mind wanders due to its natural restlessness, one should contemplate at that very place 'this is the particular limb of the Lord'. Thus, all the natural objects of the mind should be considered as parts of the Lord, and all thinking would culminate in thinking of the Lord. As a result, mental defects like envy, ignorance, etc. would not arise, since even the humans etc., who are the objects of those defects like envy, would be perceived as limbs of the Lord worthy of contemplation.
With this understanding of the non-difference between the cosmic form, the individual souls and the Lord, the gross contemplation is described. Since the subtle contemplation is difficult for the impure mind initially, he says that after attaining purity and steadiness of mind through this contemplation, the seekers of liberation should resort to the true form of the Lord, which is the embodiment of existence, consciousness and bliss, as the highest goal. One should not become attached to the gross contemplation itself or to other fruits like the supernatural powers of atomization etc. Anticipating the question 'what is the fault in being attached to them?', he says "because...". Because from such non-attachment alone arises the liberation of the self in this world of transmigratory existence.
And there should be no doubt as to how merely the effort and knowledge of the worship of the Lord could lead to the success of that worship by His grace, since He is the witness of all, as indicated by the words "He...". Whose means 'by whom all this experienced through the functioning of everyone's mind is so'. Anticipating the doubt 'how can one being experience everything through various senses?', he gives an example to establish that - "Just as in the dream...". Just as in a dream, one self, the individual soul, is witnessed by the senses of the created people, so is the Lord, is the meaning.
Thus concludes the commentary called Bāla Prabodhinī on the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, composed by the son of Śrī Vallabhācārya's lineage, Śrī Mukunda, who is authorized to serve at the feet of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, for the attainment of the bliss of devotion. Here, the first chapter describing the gross contemplation is expounded in the context of explaining the contemplation on the truth in the second canto.
Hindi Anuvāda
The brahmin is the mouth, the kṣatriya the arms, the vaiśya the thighs, and the śudra the feet of that Virāj Puruṣa. The great substantial sacrifices performed for various deities are his karmas.
O Parīkṣit! This is indeed the form of the gross body of the all-pervading Lord Viṣṇu that I have described to you. It is in this very form that the seekers of liberation stabilize their mind through the intellect, because there is nothing else beyond this.
Just as the dreamer perceives himself in various forms in the dream state, so too the one inner conscious self, the Supreme Lord, experiences everything through the mental modes of all beings. One should worship that truth, the embodiment of bliss alone, without attachment to anything else, for such attachment is the cause of downfall in life.
Thus ends the first chapter.
