Text 5: O descendant of King Bharata, one who desires to be free from all miseries must hear about, glorify and also remember the Personality of Godhead, who is the Supersoul, the controller and the savior from all miseries.
Text 6: The highest perfection of human life, achieved either by complete knowledge of matter and spirit, by practice of mystic powers, or by perfect discharge of occupational duty, is to remember the Personality of Godhead at the end of life.
Text 7: O King Parīkṣit, mainly the topmost transcendentalists, who are above the regulative principles and restrictions, take pleasure in describing the glories of the Lord.
Text 8: At the end of the Dvāpara-yuga, I studied this great supplement of Vedic literature named Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is equal to all the Vedas, from my father, Śrīla Dvaipāyana Vyāsadeva.
Shri Dharasvami's Bhavarthadipika commentary:
Having stated the question and answer about the contrary, he now gives the answer to the question about what is to be listened to etc. By saying "tasmāt" (therefore). Oh Bharata, descendant of Bharata. He speaks of the supreme by saying "sarvātmā" (the Self of all). "Bhagavān" implies beauty. "Īśvara" implies being absolutely necessary. "Hari" implies removing bondage. For one desiring liberation, "abhayam" means freedom from fear. (5)
He says there is no greater good than this by stating "etāvāneva janmano lābhaḥ" (this alone is the gain of birth). He explains it as "Nārāyaṇassmṛtiḥ" - the remembrance of Narayana, which is to be attained by Sankhya and other (paths). He prevents (the notion) that it can be attained independently of those (paths) by saying so. Sankhya is the discrimination between Self and non-Self, Yoga is the eight-fold (path), but in the end, remembrance is the supreme gain - its glory cannot be described. (6)
There he validates virtuous conduct by saying "prāyeṇa" (generally). Being restrained by injunctions and prohibitions, though established in the quality-less Brahman. The word "sma" indicates well-known (fact). (7)
Lest it be asked "What unprecedented thing are you saying?", he says "Yes, it is truly unprecedented" by stating "idam bhagavatproktam" (this was spoken by the Lord). This Purana, which has the Lord's name as its principal subject, is equal to all the Vedas. Or, that by which Brahman is properly measured. He explains how he acquired it by saying "adhītavān" (I studied it). From Dvaipayana, the father, when? During the Dvapara age - the beginning of that era, since Vyasa's incarnation is well-known during the transition from Dvapara to Kali age. (8)
Shri Vamsidhar's Bhavarthadipika Prakash commentary:
Therefore, in order to become fulfilled, not performing karma etc., he says one should only perform devotion by saying "tasmāt" (therefore). By addressing as "Bhārata" (O descendant of Bharata), the idea is that since you belong to the lineage devoted to Hari, I must certainly speak to you about the truth of the Lord. "Abhayam" means the absence of one's own downfall or that of others. Or, "abhayam" is the goal of all bliss that removes all fears, as will be stated later "gata vānabhayam harim" (he attained the fearless Lord Hari) and as mentioned in statements like "martyo mṛtyu-vyāla-bhītaḥ palāyan" (the mortal, frightened by the serpent of death, flees). Thus, "abhayam" means Shri Krishna. Here, the word "Hari" as the qualified term, together with the three qualifiers "sarvātmā" etc., indicates the devotion that is desirous of liberation, tinged with attachment, and following scriptural injunctions. Among these, in the first (type of devotion), for one desiring liberation, the Supreme Self who is the Self of all, Hari, is to be listened to. In the second, for one desiring fearlessness as it truly is, with greed, the exceedingly beautiful son of Nanda, Bhagavan, is to be listened to, as per the statement "bhagam śrī-kāma-māhātmya-vīrya-yatnārka-kīrtiṣu" in Amarakosha. In the third, as will be stated in the upcoming verse "muhūrtāt sarvam utsṛjya gata vānabhayam harim" (abandoning everything in a moment, he attained the fearless Lord Hari), for those desiring fearlessness or for those desiring the protection of the Self, the Lord, the remover of bondage Hari, is to be listened to, glorified and remembered, as indicated by the word "ca" implying that glorification and listening should follow mere listening. Thus, the answer to the question about what is to be listened to etc. has been given. (5)
The meaning of "ataḥ" (hence) is from listening to the Lord etc. The idea is that since the mind's state at the end is the attainment, it directly leads to attaining Shri Hari etc. Vishvanath explains: Even knowers of scripture, ritualists etc., if they become devotees due to association with saints and do not perform karma etc., then they too become fulfilled. He says this by stating "etāvān" (this much alone). This much alone - the supreme gain of birth - is attained by steadfastness in one's own dharma of Sankhya and Yoga. What is that? Following the principle of "what one resorts to in the end", if at the culmination of knowledge and ritual there is pure devotion, like the nine Yogeshvaras beginning with Sanaka and the ancient sages like Varhis, then it is the remembrance of Narayana. The word "ante" (in the end) implies that if one does not remain steadfast in devotion, abandoning knowledge etc., then (the gain is not attained). Therefore, it will be stated: "This much alone is the highest good to be attained here by the sacrificers - unwavering devotion to the Lord arises from association with His devotee." (6)
However, the complete achievement is indeed the experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form and qualities, which is even superior to merging with Brahman, as stated by the authority of great realized souls. He states this with "prāyeṇa" (generally). "Established in the quality-less" means even the liberated souls. The idea is that they delight only in narratives about the Lord's qualities, not in the non-dual Brahman devoid of attributes. "Generally" implies that other jivanmuktas, being inferior, may engage in narratives about qualities for the sake of merging, but they do not delight in that state. (7)
Lest it be asked "What unprecedented thing are you stating?", he says it is truly unprecedented by stating "Bhāgavatam" (that which is concerned with or spoken by the Lord). This scripture, with your questions and my answers gracing it, containing the narratives about the Lord's pastimes which encompass the accounts of your birth, sustenance and dissolution, is an inner light on the supreme Self, the essence of all Upanishads, full of rasa (spiritual rapture), existing from time immemorial, and revealed by my father Badarayana. He explains "adhītavān" (I studied) - the meaning is that the import of the scripture cannot be grasped by one's intellectual strength alone. Moreover, since Dvaipayana appeared to Satyavati not long before the incarnation of Krishna, it does not fit with the beginning of Dvapara. Therefore, the word "Dvāpara" here indicates the end of Dvapara, through the usage of representing the succeeding by the preceding, as in the case of a tree, weapon etc. Just as usage like "on the top of the tree" or "at the edge of the sword" denotes the preceding part, similarly "Dvāpara" denotes its end. Or, it could refer to the junction period belonging to the beginning of Dvapara. (8)
Shri Radharamana Das Goswami's Deepani commentary:
"Preṣṭhatvam" means "being the most beloved". The word "priya" (beloved) with the sense of an extraordinary distinguished object, by the rule "atiśāyane tamap iṣṭhan au" (Panini 5.3.55), takes the affix "iṣṭhan". Then by the rule "priya sthira-sphirorubahu-guru-vṛddha tṛpra-dīrgha-vṛndārakāṇāṃ prastha spha-vara-vaṃhi gara-varṣi-trap-drādhi-vṛndāḥ" (Panini 6.4.158), the word "preṣṭha" is derivationally related to "priya". (57)
[Regarding the phrase "Dvāparādau":] Here Vijaydhvaja states: "Vyasa, who was six hundred years old, fathered Dhritarashtra," and from the statement that the story of the Bharatas began at the end of Dvapara. Moreover, since Dvaipayana appeared to Satyavati not long before the incarnation of Krishna, it does not fit with the beginning of Dvapara. Therefore, by the word "Dvapara" here, the end of Dvapara is meant. (8-15)
Śrīmad Vīraraghava's Commentary:
After answering the question of misunderstanding, he states the answer to the question of what is to be heard, etc., with the words "tasmāt" (therefore). He Bharata, descendant of Bharata; sarvātmā, the indwelling Self of all beings—"having entered within" according to the Vedic statement recognizing this; the word "jana" is used to denote sentient beings alone. Hari, the remover of miseries for those who have taken refuge in Him—by this it is stated that the Lord removes miseries that obstruct self-realization for His devotees. Bhagavān, a specific divine being, is mentioned. By recollecting the word "Bhagavān," Īśvara, the controller of the states of cause and effect, both sentient and insentient, is indicated—by this, His status as the cause is intended, according to the Vedic statement "The cause, indeed, is to be contemplated upon." Such a Hari is to be heard, etc., by one desiring the fearless state of liberation. The meaning is that only hearing, etc., about the Supreme Self characterized by His essential nature, form, qualities, and manifestations is the duty of the seeker of liberation, not anything else, according to the Vedic statement: "The Self alone is to be seen, known as the one Self. Give up other teachings."
And thus, the purport of the first aphorism "Atha āto brahma-jijñāsā" (Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman), which introduces the subject matter of the Śārīraka Śāstra, becomes coherent. (5)
He says that there is nothing else to be done with the words "etāvān" (this much alone). Sānkhyam refers to the path of knowledge (jñāna-yoga) without aspiring for the fruits of yoga. Karma-yoga is the path of action without seeking the fruits. This is clear from the Lord's statement: "By the yoga of knowledge for the Sānkhyas, and by the yoga of action for the yogis." Svadharmah refers to the conduct dedicated solely to the Lord. "Tat-upāsanam" means up to the point of its complete accomplishment and without any obstruction. "Ante dehāvasāne" means at the end, upon leaving the body, the remembrance of Nārāyaṇa. The meaning is that this much alone—the attainment of human birth, which is the supreme goal aided by knowledge and action, as well as the remembrance of Nārāyaṇa at the end through His worship—is to be accomplished. (6)
Here he validates virtuous conduct with the word "prāyeṇa" (generally). Those who have desisted from rites and prohibitions, i.e., from kamya-karmas (rites with desires for fruition) taught by the Vedas consisting of injunctions and prohibitions, but not from obligatory duties like the five great sacrifices, nor from prohibitions like abstaining from eating foul substances, etc. This is because it is stated that in the absence of following injunctions and prohibitions, there is no cessation from His worship: "And the necessity of sacrifices, etc., is understood from the Vedic statement, just like that of the horse (sacrifice). The Brahmins seek to know Him by the teachings of the Veda. For a knower of Brahman, the best is to be engaged in rites. One should not deviate from good conduct, nor be inattentive, nor be unmindful."
And it cannot be said that a Brahmin, being devoid of knowledge, should remain childish, for it is stated: "One should not remain childish, nor should one be devoid of knowledge, O sage." Childishness refers to actions motivated by desire, etc., which are declared to be acceptable for the ignorant. This is established in the context of "anavidvān kurvan na anvayāt" (the ignorant person acting does not follow the injunction). What is natural and spontaneous self-manifestation for the child is acceptable for the learned, not actions motivated by desire, etc.
A Brahmin, being learned, abandons childishness (ignorance) and comprehends the pure, complete reality of Brahman. And having realized it through direct experience, he engages in actions that are natural manifestations of his own nature, bestowing abundant benefits. The sages are devoted to cultivating auspicious tendencies, not to the indiscriminate mixture of sattva, rajas, and tamas, which is contrary to the goal. Rather, they are established in Brahman, free from gunas, and are worshippers of That. They delight in recounting the glories of Hari, the remover of miseries for those who have taken refuge in Him. (7)
Not only did the ancient sages delight in this, but he (Sūta) also delights in it—this is stated by the two words "idam" (this) and "aha" (I). Bhāgavatam refers to the work spoken by the Lord, being based on the essence expressed in four verses. Or, it is called Bhāgavatam because it expounds the essential nature, form, etc., of the Lord. Or, it is this Purāṇa, properly measured (samyak mitam) by which Brahman is measured, by the son of Parāśara (Vyāsa), who appeared in the Dvāpara age, the beginning of the Kali age. From him, in that age concurrent with the time of King Śāntanu, I studied it. (8)
The explanation of Padaratnavali by Shri Vijaydhvajatirtha:
Since there is no cessation of the cycle of existence without listening to the glories of Shri Narayana and similar practices, the all-pervading, all-soul, the giver or receiver of everything, Lord Hari, possessing glory, sovereignty and other qualities unmatched by others, worshipped by the multitude of conscious beings like Brahma, who removes all the miseries of the cycle of existence merely by remembrance, the Lord of the entire universe, is to be the subject of listening and other practices for a person desiring freedom from the perpetual fear arising from this cycle of existence. This is the connected meaning. By the triad of listening, contemplating and meditating, it removes ignorance, doubt, and misconceptions as per the statement "Having listened, contemplated and then meditated, having dispelled ignorance, misconceptions and doubts, one attains the vision of Brahman." Listening removes ignorance. By constant contemplation, which is a synonym for glorification, doubts and misconceptions are removed. Then, by meditation, which is similar to remembrance, one attains the direct knowledge of Brahman. The four adjectives "all-soul", etc. are used to indicate that the four practices of listening, glorifying, contemplating and meditating have the same object. By saying "all-soul", it conveys that He pervades everything in the form of the ego. By saying "all-pervading", it conveys that He is none other than the Sun, etc. By saying "Lord", it conveys that He is not different from Rudra, the Lord. Thus, it should be understood that even His well-known association with Rudra is negated through the compound "different from Rudra". (5)
This very purport is propounded in all the Vedas, histories and Puranas, as shown by the verse beginning with "Etavān" at the end. Saying "Etavān" means that just as remembrance of Narayana should take place at the time of death, similarly, extensive study of the scriptures should be undertaken with the same thought. By the knowledge of the principles as taught in the Sankhya scriptures, by the practice of worship of the Lord as taught in the Yoga scriptures, and by firmly adhering to one's own duties prescribed according to one's varna (class) and ashrama (stage of life), the remembrance of Narayana at the end, at the time of death, is the highest achievement of human birth and the fruitfulness of birth itself. This is the connected meaning. Therefore, it is well established that listening to the glories of Narayana and similar practices alone should be pursued in every way as taught in the Vedas and other scriptures, and there is no other alternative. This answers the question raised earlier. (6)
As for why listening to the glories of Lord Hari and similar practices should be performed at all times, the logic is given in the verse beginning with "Prayeneti". The sages, who are knowers of their respective yogic knowledge and who have abstained from injunctions and prohibitions, remain absorbed in describing the qualities of the Lord who is beyond all qualities, because He is the giver of even that state of being free from qualities. This is the connected meaning. The word "sma" is sometimes used with the intention of referring to the past tense. Therefore, there is no need to say anything more about the necessity of constantly listening to the glories of Hari for those desirous of knowledge. (7)
Now, after stating the purport propounded in the Bhagavata through the three verses beginning with "Tasmat Bharata", he begins to explain it further with the words "Idam iti". It is called "Idam" because it is present in the intellect. It is equal to the Vedas, being an exposition of their meaning. And it refers to the Dvapara era because it describes the incarnation of Krishna during that period, not because it itself originated in the Dvapara era, as Vyasa lived for 600 years during the reign of Dhritarashtra according to the statement, and the narration of the Bharata story began at the end of Dvapara according to the statement. (8)
The Commentary with a Progressive Exposition by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī
"One who has attained the supreme goal of life, which is full of all bliss and free from all fear, is said to have attained fearlessness, or Hari." With this verse, he introduces the topic of being free from the fear of death, indicated by the phrase "One who has become free from the fear of the serpent of death." (5-6) He illustrates this same idea with the verse beginning "prayeṇa" (7). "Brahma-sammitam" means equal to the Supreme Brahman, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who has assumed His own divine abode, as indicated by statements like "When Kṛṣṇa returns to His own abode." In the age of Dvāpara, it means at the end of the Dvāpara age, by convention of referring to it as the foremost part, just as we speak of a tree branch. Alternatively, "dvāpara" itself means the beginning, so it could mean at the junction period or transition phase at the end of that age. (8-10)
The Commentary "Sārārtha-darśinī" by Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī
Therefore, to achieve complete fulfillment, one should not perform actions like karma but engage only in devotion. This is stated by the verse beginning "tasmāt" (therefore). O descendant of the Bharata dynasty, one who desires freedom from all fear, which is the absence of any downfall for oneself or others, should listen about Hari. Here, the word "Hari" is the subject, qualified by the three adjectives "sarva-ātmā" (the soul of all), "atiśundaraḥ" (the supremely beautiful one), and "nanda-sūnuḥ" (the son of Nanda), indicating the three types of devotion: devotion aimed at liberation, spontaneous devotion, and regulative devotion, respectively.
In the first case, "One who desires freedom, which is liberation, should listen about Hari, who is the Supersoul of all beings."
In the second case, "One who desires fearlessness, meaning unshakable attainment, should listen about the supremely beautiful Lord, the son of Nanda, as the word 'bhaga' in Sanskrit means 'beauty, fortune, power, effort, radiance, and fame'."
In the third case, "One who does not fear 'from this' (i.e., the material world), meaning one who desires complete deliverance from fear, or one who desires protection of the self, should worship the Lord Hari, indicated by the previous verse 'having attained fearlessness from Hari.'" The injunction to "listen" also implies subsequently glorifying and remembering, as indicated by the particle "ca" (and), prescribing listening, glorifying, and remembering simultaneously. Thus, the question about "śrotavya" (to be listened to) and so on has been answered. (5)
If even the jñānīs (those seeking knowledge), karmīs (those performing prescribed duties), and others become devoted through proper association, then they too become fully accomplished by not performing karma and so forth. This is stated in the verse beginning "etāvān" (so much). The instrumental case in the phrase "sāṅkhya-yoga-sva-dharma-niṣṭhābhiḥ" (through steadfastness in sāṅkhya, yoga, and one's prescribed duties) is used like in the phrase "jaṭābhiḥ tāpasa-mudrākṣīt" (with matted locks, the sage was recognized). Similarly, "so much," which means the highest achievement, is possible at the end for those persons qualified by steadfastness in sāṅkhya, yoga, and one's prescribed duties—what is that achievement? By the principle of "pratyāsatti" (reverting to the previous topic), it refers to pure devotion to Lord Nārāyaṇa, just as in the case of sages like Sanaka and the ancient yoga masters like Barhiṣad, if such devotion arises at the end after the pursuit of knowledge, yoga, and prescribed duties. The phrase "at the end" implies that if they do not develop such devotion after abandoning knowledge and other pursuits, then it cannot be achieved. Therefore, it will be stated further: "This much alone is the highest achievement for those who perform sacrifices here (in this world): unwavering devotion to the Lord, which is imbued with the qualities of the Lord's devotees." Some say that the highest achievement is the remembrance of Lord Nārāyaṇa at the end of this very life. (6)
However, the ultimate perfection is the experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form and qualities, which is even superior to achieving brahma-sāyujya (merging with the impersonal Brahman). This is affirmed based on the authority of great realized souls in the verse beginning "prayeṇa" (mainly). "Vidhi-ṣedha-nirvṛttāḥ" means those who have transcended all rules and prohibitions, referring to the liberated souls who have attained the stage of nirguṇa (beyond the material modes). The phrase "guṇānukathane" (in describing the Lord's qualities) indicates that they delight only in narrating the Lord's qualities, not in the happiness of the impersonal Brahman, which is devoid of qualities. The word "prayeṇa" (mainly) implies that other jīvan-muktas (liberated souls) are inferior, as they pursue the goal of sāyujya and narrate the Lord's qualities, but do not delight in them. (7)
"Is this something you have not heard before, an unprecedented topic that you are describing?" Yes, it is indeed unprecedented, as stated in the following verse. "Bhāgavata" means "pertaining to the Lord" or "spoken by the Lord." So "Bhāgavata" here refers to this scripture, which is either composed about the Lord or spoken by the Lord Himself. It illuminates the inner self and is the essence of all the Upaniṣads, containing the stories of your and others' births, lives, and ends, all of which are part of the Lord's divine pastimes. It is eternal and self-realized, revealed by my father Bādarāyaṇa. "Brahma-sammitam" means equal to the Supreme Brahman, or properly measured even by Brahma (the creator). "How did you obtain this scripture?" To this, the reply is "I have studied it." The implication is that its meaning cannot be understood merely by one's intellectual prowess. The statement "dvāparādau" (in the beginning of the Dvāpara age) does not fit, as Dvāpara is said to have appeared before Kṛṣṇa's incarnation from Satyavati. Therefore, the word "dvāpara" here should be interpreted as referring to the end of the Dvāpara age, and "dvāparādau" should be understood as meaning "at the beginning of the Dvāpara transition period." (8)
The Siddhāntapradīpa by the revered Śukadeva.
Now, he answers the five questions: what should be heard, what should be recited, what should be performed by men, O Lord, what should be remembered, and what should be worshipped. Therefore, because of the futility of wasting one's life in the pursuit of objects other than the Lord, O Bhārata, descended from the Bharata lineage, the seeker of liberation should have no fear. Hari, who removes the sins of even his undevoted devotees, as is well-known from the scriptures like "Hari takes away the sins of those whose minds are wicked, even when remembered," should be heard from the mouth of the guru, and should be loudly recited to disciples and others in the form of the mantra "Haraye nama." With this, the answer to "what should be recited" is also given. He should be remembered, as indicated by the word "ca" (and). He should be worshipped, as indicated by the second "ca" (and). The meaning is that he should be the object of all actions and should be propitiated by all activities.
To show the reason for this, he describes Hari: "There is nothing existing, moving or unmoving, that is not pervaded by me," thus the Lord has declared himself to be the cause of all causes, unsurpassed and unparalleled. "There is nothing superior to me, O Dhanañjaya," as per the scripture. "Know him alone, give up all other talk," as per the Veda. Bhagavān means "endowed with six types of opulence." Īśvara means "controller" and "fulfiller of all desires of devotees" – this is the meaning of these two words. (5)
He then establishes that the sole object of worship is Hari, and that worshipping him is the supreme goal of human existence. He also states that the three Yogas are means to remember the Lord, as per his own words: "This has been explained to you through Sāṅkhya. Now listen to it through Yoga." Here, Sāṅkhya refers to knowledge, and Yoga refers to selfless action. Through the Yoga of knowledge, selfless action, adherence to one's duty, and devotion to the Lord, even at the time of death, the remembrance of Nārāyaṇa alone is the highest attainment for a person. "Uttering the single syllable 'Oṃ' which is Brahman, remembering me, one who departs the body attains the supreme goal" – this is the fruit of remembering him, as declared by his own words. (6)
He then cites the conduct of the great sages, who were immersed in the bliss of devotion to Hari, as evidence for this. "Generally," means that they were free from material qualities, firmly situated in Brahman, with their nature solely absorbed in meditation on him, and solely devoted to contemplating on Hari. Describing his qualities is a means for others to engage in his worship. Therefore, they were free from injunctions and prohibitions, for where there is no scope for the prescribed nectar-like devotion, how can there be any scope for the prohibited material objects? Hence it is said: "Viṣṇu should be remembered, never forgotten. All injunctions and prohibitions are merely servants of these two." (7)
The word "generally" means that they accepted injunctions and prohibitions, as well as descriptions of his qualities, only to the extent that they are useful for people's spiritual progress. Having thus established that activities other than hearing about, etc. Hari are unacceptable, and that hearing about, etc. Hari is indeed acceptable, he now promises to expound the scripture that promotes hearing about, etc. Hari through the next three verses beginning with "idam." "This Bhāgavata was spoken by the Lord Vyāsa, equal to the Vedas spoken by Brahma. I studied it from my father Vyāsa at the beginning of Dvāpara-yuga." (8)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya-kṛtā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Thus praising the question and avoiding the commonplace, he speaks of the means for those desiring fearlessness:
"Therefore" (tasmat). Since the position (paksha) stated earlier is proper, and any other subject is improper, therefore, those who have fear of samsara (cycle of rebirth) and strive for the cessation of that fear, desiring fearlessness, should listen to the Lord (Bhagavan). Although reasoning (yukti) should be stated here, the intellect of an outward-turned person does not grasp reasoning either; hence, the qualified person should be stated first by nature. He says this: "Bharata" indicates the distinguished qualified person for engendering firm conviction. Since Bharata was free from delusion and illusion, as the verse "Those deluded by illusion go to ruin," and since those born under his leadership were also free from delusion and illusion, there is firm conviction in his words.
Now, if the teaching of Vedic rites like Agnihotra etc., or the inquiry into the Self (Atman) is set aside, how can listening to the Lord be prescribed? It is because it is not based on the Vedas. Regarding that, he says: "Of all Selves" (sarvātma). The strength of the object of knowledge is great due to the strength of the means of knowledge, as will be stated later. And in that object of knowledge, reasoning is most potent. This is the reasoning: There is no restriction that only the three classes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) desire fearlessness. Since even others, who have accumulated merits from good deeds, can desire fearlessness, and since the means for them is not stated in the Vedas, therefore, for the sake of that which is to be stated, i.e., the means, since that very means is necessarily required for the accomplishment of the human goals even for the three classes due to its simplicity, a single means suitable for all should be stated. And since the Self is of all, some means concerning that very Self should be stated. For one's own Self should certainly be listened to by everyone. As the Shruti says, "The Self, indeed, should be heard," "There is nothing higher to be attained than the attainment of the Self," "The knower of the Self overcomes sorrow." If the listening concerned one's own particular Self, then the speaker's words would inevitably conclude. Since the Self has no real origination or modification. Therefore, that one Self which is of all should indeed be listened to. Hence, even in the Shrutis, the word "Atman" refers to the Self of all. The word "Atman" does not denote the class. For if it did, since one's own individual form would be secondary and hence unheard, there would be no validity of knowledge arising from action. And if it referred to the aggregate, since the knowledge of the Self already exists, and since the Shruti does not mention any particular mode, the effort for knowledge would be futile, and the Shruti would become merely metaphorical. Therefore, it is the Self of all that should be listened to. And since there is no difference between that [universal Self] and the embodied one, the embodied self is not secondary. Moreover, by the maxim "from the possibility of the result," knowledge alone does not lead to the result, but it is by hearing, etc., and knowing Brahman through those means that it bestows that result. And if that [result] were either devoid of attributes or merely the embodied form, it would be incapable of bestowing the result. Therefore, he says, "The Lord" (Bhagavan), i.e., the Self should be listened to, whose form is capable of bestowing the result, being endowed with the six lordly qualities, and not deluded by mistaken scriptures. We too say that this is indeed the meaning of the Vedas. Furthermore, the result is the absence of sorrow and the attainment of happiness. Of these two, the absence of sorrow should be sought first.
In the case of the Buddha, there would not be supreme bliss in the initial direct experience of cessation of suffering if the knowledge resulting from hearing were considered merely one result or all results, since it would be determined to be all results due to the separateness of the means. Or, if it were supreme bliss, there would not be cessation of suffering, as in the case of the happiness of heaven, etc. Even if there were a remainder of association, the Lord would not grant both, since He is the giver of results. Otherwise, the principle of the separateness of the means would be violated. Hence, hearing itself should be stated as the subject of that kind. It has two aspects, as He states: "Hari and Īśvara." He should be heard as Hari, meaning the remover of all suffering, and as Īśvara, meaning the giver of all results, according to the Śruti: "As one meditates upon Him, so one becomes."
Therefore, having delimited the subject by the distinguishing characteristics of being endowed with the four virtues of dharma, etc., according to the principle of the collection of qualities, He states the three injunctions: to be heard, etc. If it is argued that since the scripture has devotion as its result, hearing, etc. is not in the form of dharma according to the statement of the best speaker, and therefore the ninefold devotion should be stated as what is to be done, then how are only three stated?
It is true that although the ninefold devotion should be stated, since the other forms arise after love, only three are stated. When affection arises from these three, the necessity of the others is automatically accomplished and need not be stated. But what is the meaning of the statement that the Lord should be heard? Does it mean that the words denoting Him should be grasped by the ear, or that their meaning should be understood? Or does it mean the intention of all or only some?
In the first case, the injunction would be futile, for since knowledge depends on the object of valid cognition, knowledge will certainly arise for one who has the ear faculty, no matter from where the sound is uttered. And even the knowledge of the meaning will arise for one who has grasped the convention. And no effort is required to accomplish this, since it happens naturally for all without any effort.
In the second case, it is not possible always, due to lack of capability, which would preclude life itself. Moreover, since it is impossible to present all the words and sentences denoting the Lord by one alone, and since any single word or sentence is common to all people, stating it would be futile.
If it means determining the capability and intention from the word or sentence, then in that case, hearing, chanting, and remembering would be equally applicable. But that is not so, since when all the words and sentences are not presented, determining their meaning is impossible. If it is argued that determining the capability and intention from any single word or sentence alone is common to all people, and hence, no instruction is proper, that is not so.
The Lord's divine play is described as tenfold, and for that purpose, another composition of Vāsudeva is cited. The determination of capability and intention is generally done from words, etc. The topic is dealt with in the scandhā here itself, so there is no defect stated here.
The Lord, possessed of the tenfold divine play, should be heard. Otherwise, if hearing were accomplished merely by the four words denoting the subject, the injunction would be futile, and the compositions of the third and other scandhās would also be futile. To that extent, the determination of capability and intention is done here itself according to the general principles, like in grammar and Mīmāṃsā. Therefore, there is no fault.
These four qualities are indeed stated as determining the qualified person and the result, not as what is to be heard. Their purpose is only to delimit. Although the qualities are infinite, just as all are included in the ten divine plays, so too it will be explained later. Even if they are not included, how the infinity is explained will also be stated.
Now, the three should not be enjoined here, since fearlessness is accomplished through love alone. And the three combined are not the means, for if they were absent, it would lead to the unacceptable consequence of the absence of fearlessness. And since hearing is necessary, it cannot be said that the multiplicity of injunctions is optional.
The reply is that the injunction of the three is for their mutual accomplishment. For instance, if chanting is not enjoined, hearing alone would not accomplish it. And it cannot be said that like the injunction for study, one injunction accomplishes the other, for study is something to be done by the bound souls, and hence it is accomplished by its very practice, without an injunction. But that is not the case here, for one who is accomplished by hearing would not engage in chanting.
Then, let chanting alone be enjoined, and hearing will happen automatically. No, because if it is examined, it would be absent, and there would be a specific characteristic of fearlessness. Therefore, for the sake of establishing the engagement in chanting even for those like Śuka, who are indifferent, the injunction for chanting is given. Thereby, the accomplishment of hearing is achieved. However, the result is distinct for each. Fearlessness takes the form of attaining the Lord, which is indeed the cessation of all fear.
Therefore, remembrance should not be prescribed. And it should not be said that since forgetting follows in the absence of remembrance after hearing, there would be purposelessness. If it is argued that since it is not attainable by other means, it is inappropriate to prescribe it, that is not correct. Even what has been recited once can be forgotten, so remembrance does not occur by virtue of being a remainder of recitation. When remembrance is prescribed, however, hearing and recitation always take place. And there is entry of other faults. Moreover, only those who engage in the three [hearing, recitation, and remembrance] until the falling of the body attain fearlessness. The final limit is the falling of the body. The initial limit is the knowledge of the fear of transmigration. [Remembrance is prescribed] by the maxim "repetition is for the purpose of not forgetting after a single instruction." Even though repetition need not be prescribed when affection arises, since it occurs naturally, still, occasionally, non-attachment may occur, like in the case of Bharata. And it should not be said that since in that case there is no eligibility, the prescription is futile. For the prescription is for the sake of removing that absence [of eligibility]. Therefore, the three should be repeated as much as possible until the falling of the body. If mental contemplation and meditation are not prescribed, how can knowledge [of the Self] not be stated as the means? And there would be conflict with the Vedic statement, "Verily, through knowledge alone is liberation." And knowledge does not accomplish its purpose. In that case, knowledge would be an action. If it is argued that since affection is intended in that way, it is not so, that is not correct, since mental contemplation and meditation are auxiliaries, by virtue of occurring after hearing. That will be explained here and later. But knowledge is well established through words. Direct realization of the Lord is also possible through the three performed with love. Still, hearing and so on are the means. But since the final direct realization is not the means to the goal, there is an occurrence in the middle of the goal. And just as the mental impression created by hearing cannot be described as a direct realization of the embodied self by the mind prevailed upon by that, in the same way, the direct realization of the Lord cannot be described, due to the statement "Not by the Vedas [is realized]." And the direct realization of the embodied self alone is not the goal, since one who has attained liberation after being freed from the aggregate has primary eligibility for hearing about the Lord, as evidenced by the statement "To this extent is immortality," since it occurs in the context of the Brahman section and pertains to the Self which is Brahman. And since the Lord is independent, manifestation is not possible by any other means. What is stated in the text, that there is a manifestation of the nature of the Self that is like a dream—by that, either the cessation of all ignorance or the attainment of the purpose of one's own life-story is described. But that is merely a fanciful idea for those whose knowledge is weak, since even now Shuka, Sanaka, and others are wandering about. Therefore, only attainment of the Lord results in the cessation of all fear, as the Vedic statement "Being verily Brahman, one attains Brahman" conveys that very idea. And there is no futility of the Upanishads, since this very idea is prescribed in various ways according to the eligibility of the aspirant. But the goal is only one, from the statement "They attain only Me." And "It is I alone who am to be known by all the Vedas." And "All the Vedas declare that supreme abode." And "That supreme abode of Vishnu." And "That alone is the supreme Brahman of the seers." Therefore, for those of the three classes, entry into the Lord is achieved by the Vedic method or the Bhāgavata method. But for others, only by the Bhāgavata method. And there is no fixed alternative.
"What then about the meritorious Brahmins?" In this statement "Truly their affliction is greater." Therefore, there is no contradiction with the Vedic injunctions either. Thus Shandilya's statement: "There is no attainment of the result through the Upanishads without prior purification of the mind, since the path of the Vedas is accomplished with difficulty for those whose minds are purified." Hence, since the statements censuring other views are meant merely to establish one's own view, there does not arise a contradiction with the Vedic injunctions on that account. Therefore, in accordance with the deliberation on the aphorisms, the attainment of the highest human goal by all, in accordance with their eligibility, through the Vedic path or the path of the Lord, is entirely faultless. There should be no scrutiny of specific injunctions, since the affixes tavya and anit are employed in enjoining. For only the affixes belonging to the verb roots liṅ, luṭ, and the fifth conjugation are used in injunctions, as is well known in the world and the Vedas. The Lord cannot be the subject of injunctions here, since he is the subject of the Scripture of Devotion. However, the ability to achieve the desired result is indeed obtained simply through the statements to that effect and by their purport, since their meaning is not derived from an injunction. The theory of imagination (bhāvanā) has already been refuted in the commentaries on the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, since the meaning of statements is not derived from an injunction. And this affix tavya is enjoined in obligatory acts by the aphorism "In activities" (kṛtyāce). This injunction is also in accordance with the question. Therefore, it is established that the three (hearing, chanting, and remembering) should be repeated as much as possible for life, for the sake of attaining the Lord. He (the Lord) should be heard about, and He should be praised. He should be praised, and He should be heard about. He should be remembered, and what was stated before should be repeated. The two words ca ('and') are used here to express repetition. From the word "wishes" (icchate), it is indicated that there will certainly be no fear if one does not perform hearing, etc., but not that there would be any obstruction caused by not doing so.
In establishing that remembering and praising are means to the result, since hearing is declared to be an auxiliary, the author first establishes that remembering is a means to the result because of its independence from other means - "to this extent" (etāvān). Five doctrines are enjoined independently. Of these, the Vedic and Vaishnava doctrines are stated as equally important. The Pashupata doctrine is useful in gradual succession, by generating exaltation through the difference in its procedures, or as a means to gradual liberation. Next, the Sankhya, Yoga, and Dharmashastra are taught as auxiliaries. Since they are censured in the independent Brahma Mimamsa, those who do not find entry there become subsidiary to remembering. The meaning is "to this extent is the human goal." The author explains the meaning of the text "at the end, the remembrance of Narayana" by saying "this alone is the supreme birth." For one's own duty, the birth of an excellent body is the result, as in the case of the doctrine of the five fires. Similarly, for Yoga also, beginning with "A yogi who falls from perfection is born in the home of the pure and prosperous" and concluding with "After attaining perfection through many births, he reaches the supreme goal," the final body is achieved through Yoga. In the Sankhya doctrine too, from the statement "After many births, the wise one resorts to Me" and "The knower is even superior to the ascetic," the ability to produce the final birth is indeed stated. The duties relating to the Lord, such as vows and fasts, also lead to a divine birth. Therefore, in the final birth, they are all irrelevant. However, that birth itself, being the very nature, is not a means to the result. Rather, in accordance with the maxim "As is the thought in the end, so is the attainment," and the Lord's statement "Whatever state of being one remembers when casting off the body, to that condition he goes," remembering the Lord at the end is useful for that purpose. And if, in the manner stated by us, there is remembrance of the Lord at the end in any birth whatsoever, then by the maxim "Of two forces, the stronger prevails," that very birth, though not the final one, attains the status of being final and becomes fruitful. And Yoga, etc., being means to remote results through their respective paths, enter into this method here. Therefore, for Yoga, etc., which are means to attaining a body, and for the body itself, this alone is the attainment: remembrance of Narayana at the end. Hence, since this is the direct means to attain the Lord, there is no need to consider a specific Vedic injunction here.
Although being born as a devotee of the Lord is itself a great attainment, yet this [attainment of devotional service] is superior even to that. If it is argued that this statement contradicts the statement "Those who have attained the state of being the Lord's devotee have already achieved the highest goal of human existence, and nothing further remains to be achieved," then [the author] replies with the phrase "for those souls" (puṁsām). For the status of being a devotee of the Lord is said to be the attainment of birth on the path of divine grace, which is directly bestowed by the Lord. This is so because, by the logic that "in the end, the attainment of remembering the Lord occurs," even for those following the traditional paths of Sāṅkhya and others, which are limited progressions, such a status [of devotion] is achieved at the end. The phrase "for those souls" (puṁsām) implies "for all souls in general." Therefore, since remembrance [of the Lord] bears great fruit, it is established that the Lord should always be remembered.
Now [the author] proves that singing [the Lord's glories] is also superior to that [mere remembrance], with the words "prāyeṇa" (mainly). But singing [the Lord's glories] is superior even to that [remembrance]. Those for whom it is their last birth, and those who are already liberated souls, who are solely situated in the transcendental state beyond the modes of material nature, free from the possibility of further rebirth, even they experience supreme bliss while hearing and subsequently singing the glories of the Lord. Thinking, "If such is the happiness in the stage of practice, what kind of happiness will there be in the final stage of attainment?", they rejoice. The word "sma" indicates that this is well-known.
However, some souls who are firmly situated in meditation, or who have attained the state of asamprajñāta-samādhi (unconceived trance), are already established in that very bliss, and thus do not rejoice, due to the absence of any external expression. The phrase "prāyeṇa" (mainly) is used to account for this exception. The form of address "rājan" (O king) is used to remind [the reader] of such elevated souls. Here, their rejoicing is due to the subject matter itself, not because of any connection to action or its merits and demerits, for they are free from any relation to action, merit, or demerit, as stated in the phrase "freed from injunctions and prohibitions" (nirvidhiṣedhatā). This indicates that although they have become one with Brahman, free from the duality of injunctions and prohibitions, as per the maxim "There is no injunction or prohibition for one who has attained Brahman," they are still situated in their own transcendental nature, beyond the three modes of material nature, as indicated by the phrase "beyond the three guṇas" (nirgūṇye). The word "guṇa" is used to dispel any semblance of contradiction. Therefore, since singing [the Lord's glories] is an independent pursuit, there should be no doubt about engaging in it. (7)
Having thus established the propriety of both [remembrance and singing] through logic, one may doubt whether this [scripture] being based on logic alone is not authoritative. To dispel this doubt, [the author] says, "This [scripture]..." The phrase "Purāṇa" indicates that it is an authority. "Known as the Bhāgavata" specifies that it is a subdivision of that [Purāṇa]. And it is "yogic," meaning spoken by the Lord Himself, propounding the Lord, and leading to the Lord's abode. [The author] negates any possibility of this [scripture] being insubstantial by stating that it is "corroborated by the Veda," which means that its subject matter is known or approved by the supreme Brahman [Vedas]. [The author] then mentions the disciplic succession through the phrase "from Pitā Dvaipāyana, etc." Indicating that even at that time, during the beginning of the Dvāpara age, intellectual degradation had not yet begun, [the author] uses the phrase "from the beginning of Dvāpara." The term "adhītavān" (studied) implies that [Śukadeva] comprehended the meaning while methodically studying [this scripture] in the traditional way. The phrase "from his father" suggests that the entire method of study, including the ceremonial initiation, was faultlessly executed by his father, in accordance with the maxim "One should have one's son initiated by the father himself." (8)
The Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśa, composed by the venerable Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa.
Regarding the word 'tasmāt' (therefore) here - The meaning is that for the purpose of eliminating all fears, the Lord should be heard. 'Bahirmukhāsya' (of the one turned outwards) means the one devoid of faith in the Lord by nature is not qualified. 'Autpattikaviśvāsavān' (having faith from birth) implies 'tasmādāha' (therefore he says). 'Viśiṣṭādhikāraṃ sphuṭīkurvanti' (they clarify the special qualification), etc. - By the phrase 'taddharma-puraḥsaram' (preceding their own duty), Duryodhana and others are excluded. Having thus established the necessity of speaking by strengthening the king, he raises a doubt with 'nanviti' (but) etc. to further strengthen what is to be said. 'Katham' (how) means in what way. If by the self, then there is the fault of abandoning the Vedas; if in some other way, then there is a lack of faith in that. 'Tatrāha' (regarding that) means he states the method that avoids both faults in such a doubt. But if there is a desire for evidence, then to fulfill that, why is a specific qualification for the object mentioned when evidence is to be stated? To this, they say 'pramāṇeti' (evidence is) etc. 'Vakṣyati' (will state) means 'baliṣṭhā' (strongest). Because it has been determined in the previous treatise, evidence is seen to be the strongest in the world, but the object is even greater than that. Therefore, such a statement is proper for fulfilling the desire for evidence. In response to the question 'sā kā' (what is that?), they say 'tatreti' (regarding that) until 'vaktavyam' (to be stated). 'Tatra' (regarding that) means in hearing from the Lord. 'Nāsti niyamaḥ' (there is no restriction) means that since there was no violation of the rule even when it was stated to Nārada in a previous birth as a son of a maidservant, and since even now such instances are seen, there is no restriction. 'Śrutam' (heard) means that since such people are to be uplifted, the means of upliftment is not stated in the Veda, which is only for the benefit of the three classes, and therefore it must be stated, being necessary for that purpose, with the same reasoning as stated earlier, for the sake of brevity. Thus, by these two reasons, hearing from the Lord is enjoined in every form of the self. But how is the desire for evidence fulfilled by this? To this, they say 'nahīti' (not so) etc. And since the Śruti (scriptures) have the same purport, the desire for evidence is fulfilled. Regarding how reasoning can be stronger, they say 'tatreti' (regarding that) etc. In the Śruti injunction for hearing, since the initial statement 'ātmanaḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavatī' (for the desire of the self, the husband becomes dear) apparently contradicts the idea that the word 'self' refers to the body, and if each self is limited to its respective body, then the instruction would cease without any conclusion, and since there would be endlessness due to the endlessness of bodies and of what belongs to the self, it would lead to the impossibility of instruction and non-observance, and thus its authority would be denied. But if it is argued that the idea of the body belonging to the self is superior to the self, then they say 'śrutātmasvaviśuddhatvāt' (due to the purity of the self heard in the Śruti) etc. And since the specific characteristic (of belonging to the self) is equal in all selves, and there is no division of nature and manifestation that limits it to particular selves, the same defect would arise from the endlessness, even if hearing is meant for all selves.
If it be said that non-difference alone is self-hood, then what is this non-difference - the absence of multiplicity or the absence of mutual non-existence? Neither, for if the doctrine of pluralism of selves is accepted, then since multiplicity and difference are accepted there, it would be meaningless to speak of the absence of those. Just as difference requires the existence of an opposite, so too non-difference requires the existence of an opposite. In the inquiry "what is the self?", for non-difference of the self to be known, there would be an infinite regress of one self depending on another. This has been summarized by the word "and".
The wise ones declare with the words "therefore..." that since the primacy has to be maintained and the defects have to be avoided, there is only one self, and that very self has to be listened to (i.e understood). The strength of this reasoning is stated with the words "since...". "Since" means due to the reason stated. And thus, since it is by this reasoning that the meaning of the scripture is ascertained, it has great strength, and therefore it fulfills even the requirement for a means of knowledge.
However, it may be objected that since selves are eternal, the view of their being a stream (or continuity) is not possible here. And if the word 'self' is taken to mean an individual or an individual of a specific class, then the aforementioned defects would arise. Therefore, abandoning those views, and since the absolute self-hood carries greater weight than the relative sense, that (relative sense) too should be abandoned, and the word should be taken to mean the class (and not the individual). Consequently, in the cognition "I am this," only the class should be imported, not the individual, in keeping with the primacy (established earlier). Hence, it is not the case that in the scripture the word 'self' means the absolute self. This is what they say with "however..."
The reason for this is given as "because if..." If, in order to avoid the stated defects, the word 'self' is accepted as meaning the class, then since the individual form of one's own self would not be imported as primary, it would be like in phrases such as "Rice grains! Offer oblations!" where the individual rice grains are imported because there is no other way for the injunction to be meaningful, and their word-meaning is accepted because they cannot be obtained elsewhere. Similarly, in self-knowledge, since there is no other way, the class-knowledge arises merely from hearing the word; but since importing the individual would be meaningless, and without it being imported, the unseen self-knowledge would not be accomplished, the unseen result in the form of crossing over sorrow and attaining the self would not be accomplished - this is the meaning.
If it be objected, "Let the unseen result of self-knowledge be accomplished from the class-word 'self' itself, what is the problem?", it is said: No, because mere hearing of a class-word does not accomplish that, as there would be a contradiction with hearing words like "dear" etc.
If it be then said, "Well, let the injunction about hearing the word 'self' be accepted in whatever way possible", to that they say with "even in...". Even without an injunction about hearing, since self-knowledge in the form of the cognition 'I' is already existent as an object of perception and as a means of knowledge, if a specific way were not stated by hearing words like "Not this, not this" in contexts like teaching about brahman to students etc., then the effort in the form of hearing etc. for knowing that (specific way) would be futile. And since that would lead to the futility of the injunction about hearing, it cannot be accepted like that.
If the objection is raised, "Just as in testing gems, there is no futility in the injunction about hearing because direct perception aided by the statements is the means, similarly in examining the self too, since direct perception aided by hearing is the means, there is no futility in the injunction about hearing", to that they say with "and the scripture...". If that be so, then either the scripture must aid the eye, or it must aid the mind. The former option is discarded as it would reinforce the identity with the body. As for the latter, since the discrimination between the self and the mind-sense complex has not yet arisen, the other scripture is stated: "If a person knows the self as 'I am this', then what is the purpose of desiring a body, when there is fever in it? Since it is stated that the cessation of bodily pain arises from self-knowledge alone. And that self-knowledge, when perfected through samadhi (deep meditation) and the control of prana (life force) or mind, becomes strengthened by the realization of the distinctive nature of the Self. Thus, it is implied that defects arising from external characteristics cannot be overcome. The wise declare, "This has indeed been heard." It means that the Scripture enjoins the understanding of the entire Self with ease and without ambiguity, because the statement harmonizes with other statements in that context.
However, even if the injunction to understand the Self is accepted, in the Shokatarana-sruti (scripture dealing with crossing over sorrow) and the Atmajnana-labhana-sruti (scripture dealing with the attainment of Self-knowledge), the term 'Atma' (Self) should be understood to refer only to the individual soul. This is because the word 'labhana' (attainment) is used only in relation to something already existing or non-existing. Since God is independent, it is impossible to attribute dependence on the individual soul to Him. But for the individual soul, like finding a forgotten jewel, even mere knowledge can be called 'attainment'. And with the cessation of bodily ailments, sorrow also ceases, establishing the existence of 'that' (the Self) to be attained. However, if we accept the injunction to listen to the entire Self, then since one's own Self has not been heard (realized), it remains unknown and unattained, making sorrow not cease, due to the subordinate status of the individual soul. Therefore, to reconcile this, they say, "of that" etc.
"Due to the absence of division" – just as gold and its parts are non-different in essence. Similarly, even in the knowledge of that (Brahman), since the attainment of Self-knowledge, crossing over sorrow, etc. are accomplished, the term 'Atma' in that context should be understood to mean the entire Self alone. This refutes the doctrine of difference between the individual soul and Brahman. The qualified non-dualism is also set aside, as it implies a secondary status by treating the individual soul as a qualifier.
If this is so, even though there is an essence of non-division, since there is some form of secondariness, should we not abandon that view as well and accept the doctrine of pure non-dualism? Anticipating this doubt, they give another reason starting with "but indeed" (kincha). "The result" means the result in the form of crossing over sorrow, etc., as stated in the Sruti. This is because giving depends on the competence of the giver.
"Six characteristics, etc." – Thus, the doctrine of pure non-dualism is also refuted. In order to be consistent with the scripture and reasoning, the idea of non-division alone should be accepted, and the meaning of the Sruti should be determined accordingly.
However, one may doubt that this is a mere reasoned view and not scriptural. In response to this, they say, "In the Veda, etc." – It is the Lord Himself who is to be understood as the meaning of the Veda, and therefore, listening to Him, etc. is to be enjoined. This is what has been stated in the first chapter, in the section on the connection of statements, by quoting from the Sruti, "All the Vedas declare that Word alone," and also by presenting reasoning like, "Everywhere, well-known instructions," etc.
However, if this is so, one should simply say, "The Lord, being the entire Self, is to be listened to," in order to determine the meaning of the Sruti. Anticipating this doubt, they state the purpose with "But indeed, the result, etc."
"The absence of sorrow, etc." – Even though there are many distinctions within, these two (listening and realizing) alone are the ultimate goals.
"In that context, etc." – In that context, while considering the means for that (the absence of sorrow), in the Maitreyi Brahmana, when hearing is presented as the means for seeing, and the knowledge which is the object of 'seeing' is stated to have a single result of 'attaining immortality' or the 'absence of sorrow' mentioned in the statement 'attaining the world of no sorrow'; or when it is stated to have all results, as in other Sruti statements like "The knower of Brahman attains the Supreme," "The seer does not see death," "Having attained the knower of Brahman, one can wander freely in all worlds," etc. – due to the difference in their subject matter, all results are determined.
'Having the desire of obtaining progeny', being thus desirous of gratification, for the sake of various objects, the sacrifices which are prescribed, he should offer the Ekadashakapala sacrifice to Indra and Agni, being desirous of progeny, he being about to engage in battle. If, after conquering in battle, there is doubt whether all objects are accomplished by one performance of the sacrifice prescribed by many passages, or whether repetition is to be performed for each particular object, then it is determined that, owing to difference of time and so on, the separation of the objects is the repetition; and hence comes the accomplishment of all the objects, and not by a single performance. At the first initiation, owing to the knowledge prescribed for him, it would be so. If it be objected that, as the subsidiary rites are declared to be co-operative, there must either be the coming into operation of all together, or the non-operation of all together, in accordance with the principle of 'non-separate operation'; we reply to this objection by saying, 'the subsidiary rites' and so on. The motive here is stated in 'otherwise', and so on. And thus, the principle of 'non-separate operation' being settled by the rules of grammar, which relate to words, and the rule under discussion, on account of its relating to action, having to be adopted in the case of an action; if, in that case, it be disregarded, mere activity would be violated. Nor is there any fault on the part of the Venerable One (for he is not subject to any rule). For, from such passages as 'He who assigns rewards to the worshippers', it is clear that He does not disregard the rule. Hence the scriptural declaration is that it should be so. 'On account of the colored dress' and so on. And thus, in case the 'obtained' is the subsidiary to it, according to the scriptural texts, 'He who offers the Ashta-kapala oblation obtains by it the world of Brahman', 'He who offers the Nava-kapala obtains splendor', 'He who offers the Dasha-kapala obtains the life of food', 'He who offers the Ekadashakapala obtains a healthy body', 'He who offers the Dvadasha-kapala obtains cattle'; and 'At the sacrifice at which they offer this oblation, he obtains splendor, the life of food, a healthy body, cattle' - by this scriptural text, even by a single performance of the Dvadasha-kapala oblation, on account of its obtaining the qualities of the Ashta-kapala and so on, various objects are accomplished; thus, here also, according to the qualities stated by scripture, there is no contradiction to the principle.
Now, if it be objected that, being of the nature of an action, scripture must refer to many results, while in the case in question there is reference to the knowledge (not to the sacrifice itself), we reply, 'for him'. 'For, according as a man worships Him, so he becomes Himself; let him worship with the view that he is to become one with Him; for thus he becomes like Him,' says the scripture. And worship means meditation. And in the subsequent part of the sacred texts also, it is stated that according to the difference of knowledge there is a difference of results. So the decision here must be the same. The learned, stating the validity of the principle according to scripture, say, 'For'. Thus, by introducing a general statement based on agreement of the sacred texts, the strength of this method is established. Next, in order to confirm its general applicability, they state, 'If it be said' and so on. 'Declared by the good speaker,' i.e. declared by the supreme well-wishing friend of all who know Brahman. 'For,' i.e. because he is the friend (of the higher Self). And thus, if there is any doubt of his friendship, there would also be a doubt as to the general applicability. Here, accepting what he has said, they confirm it by reason, saying, 'That is true' and so on.
Having thus established the purport of the scriptural injunction by an investigation into (the meaning of the) numbers, they further show it by an investigation into the matter to be taught by the injunction, saying, 'But an objection is raised' and so on. 'For what purpose is this?' i.e. what is the subject-matter of this vakya (sentence)? There are six alternatives here. They refute the first alternative, saying, 'Not so' and so on. Considering a second alternative, they refute it by saying, 'That has been accepted' and so on. They refute the second alternative, saying, 'Moreover' and so on. They refute the third alternative, saying, 'Moreover' and so on. 'Of the word and the sentence,' i.e. of the word and the sentence apprehended by the ear.
Thus it is said. The utterance of words preceded by their determination, meaning the knowledge born from the impression created by that determination. There, regulating the numbers, they undertake "thus" and so on. Again, meaning after the injunction. The mentioned fault, meaning unfit for instruction. They explain the verse "The Lord" and so on. Here, by enjoining the hearing of the Lord and then mentioning the ten kinds of divine play, the meaning is that this is not the intended meaning of the sentence. Here, the word "Lord" is used in a technical sense. "To be heard" means to be the object of the word. Since the word "hearing" is conventionally used for the knowledge arising from the sense of hearing, just as in the usages "The king was heard," "The Veda was heard," they validate by implication that such a thing is to be heard. Otherwise, they say, there would indeed be a redundancy in the second chapter. Of those who speak of the ten kinds of divine play, of those expressions that denote them, and of the words and sentences that are the cause of that intended meaning, the determination of their capacity and intended meaning is carried out through the two forms of uncontracted and contracted capacity, just as in grammar and Mimamsa. Just as in grammar it is said that, due to the difference in relation, the genus existing in cows, etc. is called "the existent," and in that all words are established, and so on, it is understood that all words have existence in one being; and in derivations like "taditam" from "tad" and "tāraka," etc., the existence of the one affix "matup" in the word "tārakit" having been understood, the capacity is determined for those affixes beginning with "tad" to denote that sense of existence. And just as in Mimamsa, methods of understanding the intended meaning are described, such as "from the indicatory mark of space" and "through the connection of sentences," and by means of those reasons like indicatory mark, etc., the capacity and intended meaning of other words and sentences are also determined. In the same way, here too, from verses like "Substance, action, and time, as well as nature and the individual soul – nothing is other than the Supreme Lord Vasudeva in truth" (2.5.14), "For this is the path of the word to Brahman" (10.22.22), and so on, the capacity and intended meaning of all words in relation to the Lord is determined. From verses like "The lower regions are his feet" (2.1.16) and so on, their capacity and intended meaning in relation to particular parts of the Lord's manifestation is determined. And from statements like "The Vedas are centered on Narayana" (10.25.15), "The Lord is Brahman in its totality" (10.22.34), and so on, the intended meaning of sentences is determined. Therefore, since grasping the capacity and intended meaning is the cause of verbal knowledge, and since that grasping depends on one or another method like grammar, etc., there is no fault in this chapter in explaining the sentences whose purport is to facilitate that grasping. It is not mere repetition or redundancy. By this it is also refuted that just as hearing the words of songs being sung brings delight to the minds even of those devoid of knowledge of the meaning, in the same way, hearing words denoting the Lord will also lead to the attainment of fearlessness, etc., even without understanding their meaning. But it should not be said that since the determination of capacity, etc. depends on the entire chapter, and the subject matter is explained in other chapters, it should simply be stated "The Lord is to be heard," as the injunction would be accomplished by that much alone. What then is the purpose of the remaining words like "the self of all," "the Lord," etc? To this they say: "These very words," and so on. "As preventing," meaning as obstructing the assumption of any other intended result.
Thus, the word 'sarvātma' is used to preclude the view of those who hold that the individual self is devoid of attributes and is a single entity. The word 'bhagavat' is used to exclude the view of the followers of the Śārīraka school who believe that the Supreme Lord is limited. The word 'hari' is used to prevent the idea that the Lord is either exclusively qualified by yoga or of secondary importance. The compound 'bhagavān' is used because the word 'bhaga' is applied to Indra and other deities in the Atharva Veda, as in the phrase 'bhagavān indraḥ praṭighātam acīkarat dṛḍhaṁ pralabdho bhagavān apāṁ pati' and because the word is also used in a secondary sense elsewhere. 'utpattim ca nivṛttiṁ ca bhūtānām āgatim gatim, vetti vidyām avidyāṁ ca sa vācyo bhagavān iti' – since the derivation of the word 'bhagavat' is also seen elsewhere, the word 'īśvara' is used to remove any doubt. Thus, by excluding other possibilities, it is indicated that the qualified person attains the result from Bhagavān alone, as stated in the phrase 'tena rasma aditi bodhanā uktā'.
Now, even though the Lord's attributes are innumerable, a doubt may arise as to why only ten are mentioned as objects of study. In response, it is said, 'guṇānām' and so on. But if this is the case, it may appear to contradict statements from the Śruti and Smṛti such as 'viṣṇor mukaṁ vīryāṇi pravocam', 'gāyan guṇān daśaśatānan ādi-devaḥ śeṣo dhunāpi samavasyati nāsya pāram ity ādi'. To address this, it is said, 'anupravēśe 'pi' and so on. Thus, after determining the meaning of the injunctive statements concerning hearing and so on, and the literal meaning of the injunctive statements, they consider the specific number mentioned, beginning with 'atha' and so on.
The meaning here is as follows: The injunction of three activities (hearing, chanting, and meditating) is meant to provide protection. Among these, if hearing and the others are considered the cause for attaining protection according to the logic of 'a grain of rice containing a precious gem', then the contradiction regarding the specific number and the undesirable option would be faulty. If they are considered the cause according to the logic of 'a staff or a disc', then in their cumulative observance, there would be a contingency of not attaining the result for a particular type of qualified person. If there is a definite option, as in the case of 'one sacrifices after sunrise, and another sacrifices before sunrise', then in the case of a particular type of person qualified for hearing alone, not doing chanting and others would also not be possible for those activities. Therefore, since hearing is essential, only hearing should be enjoined. Chanting and remembering will automatically follow due to the force of meaning, for without hearing, chanting is not possible, and one cannot chant without remembering. Hence, only hearing should be enjoined for ascertaining the meaning of the Śruti, not all three. On this, it is concluded with 'atra' and so on.
Next, it considers attainment by saying 'arthāt prāptim' and so on. The reason for this is given as 'śraddhā-āpanasya' and so on. The meaning is as follows: When the study of the Vedas is attained through the injunction 'svādhyāyo 'dhyetavyaḥ' (one should study the Vedas), the question arises as to what should be studied. To address this desire to know the purpose of study, the separate Vedic statement 'aṣṭāvarṣaṁ brāhmaṇam upanayīta tam adhyāpayīta' (One should initiate a Brāhmaṇa at the age of eight and then instruct him) is understood through the word 'ātmanepadenam' to indicate that one desirous of becoming a teacher should be employed. And a teacher is defined by the Smṛti as one who 'upanīya tu yaḥ śiṣyaṁ vedam adhyāpayed vijaḥ, sakalpaṁ sarahasyaṁ ca tam ācāryaṁ pracakṣate' (That twice-born who, after initiating a student, teaches him the Veda along with its rules and secrets, is called an ācārya).
The desire to become a teacher may arise for the sake of prestige, livelihood, or affection towards a son. Therefore, in considering the injunction, since it is a worldly duty, and in considering attainment, since it is a means of livelihood, affection is also implied. Hence, due to the reasons of prestige, livelihood, and affection, teaching becomes a means of attainment, and study also becomes a worldly duty. Just as there is a single injunction for teaching, there should not be any other means of attainment here, since chanting is intended for those liberated souls and is not a worldly duty due to the absence of any specific qualification.
Regarding this, it is said, 'śravaṇena' and so on. The meaning is that even though chanting is attainable through the injunction of hearing elsewhere, the chanting intended here is not attained through that. There should be no apprehension that statements like 'doṣa-buddhyor ubhayātīta' contradict the idea of Śuka and others being enjoined to act, as the resolution of this will be mentioned later in the statement 'nivṛttā vidhiṣedhat'.
Thus, the injunction for chanting is established. The injunction for hearing is then validated by saying 'tarhi' and so on. If there is no possibility of censure for kirtana (recitation/chanting), then it would be meaningful only through the object itself. The Lord is to be glorified, that is, made the object of kirtana. Kirtana means the manifestation of sound through the activity of the lips, tongue, etc., or the sound itself that is manifested. Since the operations relating to the root are well-established, here the sound itself is to be accepted. Because the Lord is the object of activity, sound becomes the object, and since such utterance of sound is not possible without a hearer, it would involve hearing. This is the meaning of 'tatha' (thus).
They refute this by saying 'na iti ādi' (not so, etc.). And if hearing is not prescribed for the attainment of the object, then there would be no result from it, which would render kirtana meaningless for Parikshit. Therefore, to make it meaningful, they mention another defect in accepting the result: 'śrabhaye' (for hearing) etc. Since gradation of results is seen in the case of the teacher and student, etc., when the object is attained and prescribed, it should be stated likewise here. But it cannot be said that there is a distinction in the case of fear and non-fear, for then the instruction would become meaningless. Therefore, instruction in hearing is necessary to give meaning to the instruction.
Thus, they establish the necessity of hearing by saying 'tasmāt' (therefore) etc. Since kirtana, whether successful or not, is not appropriate without an injunction, and since hearing is also not appropriate without kirtana, they are 'atinirapekṣāṇām' (for those who are entirely independent), as stated in the statement 'priyāvatāre naḥ sati' (when the beloved avatara is present for us). But here, due to the statement 'mahāpauruṣiko bhavā' (be a great person), they are independent even disregarding the command. Thus, even though hearing can be censured in the injunction for hearing the glories, here it cannot be censured. Therefore, an injunction for kirtana is necessary to establish the activity of the supreme speaker.
They also state another reason: 'tad eva śravaṇasiddheh' (that alone is for the accomplishment of hearing). When there is a defect in the speaker, such as lack of devotion to the guru in the listener, as stated in the Shruti: 'yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau, tasyaite kathitā hy arthāḥ prakāśante mahātmanaḥ' (For one who has supreme devotion to the Lord as well as to the guru, the meanings that have been spoken become manifest, O great soul), there is no determination of the purport of the statement due to the absence of the manifestation of the meaning for such a person. But for an entirely independent speaker, since there is the possibility of intense devotion to the guru, the determination (of the purport) is possible. Therefore, an injunction is necessary.
If it is said that in this way, hearing becomes a means of accomplishing freedom from fear, but kirtana, after generating hearing, does not have a connection with the result in the form of freedom from fear, they say: 'phalam tu pratyekam eva' (but the result is for each individual). That is, the result is different for each individual. Thus, even though kirtana has the capacity to generate hearing within its own sphere, it is not impossible for it to generate freedom from fear within the same sphere.
If it is said that in this way, since the result differs for each individual, the distinction would also be possible, making the injunction for hearing meaningless even without it, they say: 'śrabhayam tu' (but for hearing) etc. The word 'tad eva' (that alone) indicates non-difference. Thus, there is no scope for the apprehension of distinction.
Here, the words 'tadā' (then) and 'tahi' (there) should be understood as established in the sense of the word 'tat' (that) ending with the seventh case.
Thus, having established the injunctions for hearing and kirtana, they introduce the injunction for remembrance: 'tad yādi' (then, etc.). 'Tahi' (there) means 'in the accomplishment of both injunctions'. 'Anyalabhyatvena' (by being obtained elsewhere) means 'by being obtained from the injunction for kirtana'. They state: 'samadhatte na' (does not begin) etc. The meaning is: Here, after hearing and kirtana, remembrance is also obtained in a specific sequence, and since it exists after kirtana, it cannot be censured by that injunction. Since censure of the primary (kirtana) itself would lead to the censure of remembrance, which is the attainment of its own form, an injunction for remembrance is necessary.
And it should not be said: "Then either remembrance or kirtana along with remembrance should be enjoined, as it would transgress the established tradition." This is because the ten-fold divine play of the Lord is intended here, and since the king is unaware of the Lord's such nature, the statement would become incomprehensible. Moreover, there would be the defect of untenability in enjoining both.
They also state that it is necessary due to the special quality: 'doṣāntarāpravesaśca' (and the entry of other defects). This indicates that the injunction for remembrance is necessary to avoid other defects as well. Since attachment to other things obstructs the attainment of the desired result, the absence of such attachment is necessary. Therefore, remembrance is also essential, even from the perspective of facilitating the desired result. Accordingly, through listening to the instructions on study from the venerable Shuka, affection for the Lord and samskara (impressions) that generate remembrance of the Lord were produced. Thereafter, that remembrance gave rise to further affection, nourishing the previous affection, as well as kirtana (glorification). Hence, Shuka is referred to as the "guru of the sages." Subsequently, that kirtana produced yet another remembrance, nourishing the previous affection. To clarify this experiential cycle of the entry of other faults and their mutual interdependence, Shuka instructed the triad. Some present another reason, beginning with "moreover" (kincha). However, Acharya (the author) clarifies that the purpose of prescribing the repetition will become evident in the verse "Therefore, O King, with all your mind..." (2.2.26). Someone may question the need to establish the repetition even according to Nyaya (logic). To this, it is said that the prescription of repetition is for the purpose of generating another remembrance. Thus, the instruction of the triad is for the purpose of prescribing repetition, in order to eliminate the final obstructing mentality, as per the statement "One's final thought determines one's destiny." However, if the objection arises that since affection arises immediately after remembrance, what is the need for prescribing repetition, it is explained with "even though" (yadyapi). Accordingly, the prescription of repetition is for the purpose of eliminating the binding actions (prarabdha) that give rise to attachment to other things. By this, the meaning of the statement "Those who take refuge in Me alone" is recalled, since taking refuge implies dedicating one's body, speech, and mind to the Lord. The conclusion is indicated by "therefore" (tasmat). Since the repetition of remembrance is essential, in the interpretation of all such statements, the injunctive portion pertains to the divine aspect, while the rest is explanatory. This establishes that listening includes both injunction and explanation.
Regarding the explanatory portion, they raise an objection with "however" (nanv), suggesting that it contradicts the Shruti (Vedic scriptures). By not mentioning the attainment of knowledge through contemplation and other means, it opposes the Shruti that speaks of liberation. By accepting knowledge as a means, it contradicts the Shruti that indicates knowledge as the cause. Thus, there is a conflict with the Shruti in the middle, due to the lack of tolerance for division. To address this, it is stated "No" (na). The reason for considering listening as both injunctive and explanatory is given by "because" (tad). It is indeed established through the very statement that the Lord should be listened to, and since it is already established, it is not reiterated here, thus avoiding any defect.
However, if there is an objection that in the absence of the capability for visual and mental perception here, there would be a contradiction with the Shruti that speaks of the object of perception, it is explained with "through affection" (premna). Since the Shruti mentions "knowing Me through devotion," and this knowledge is a special form of direct realization that comprehends the Lord in various ways, it is possible through affection. Since entry (into the Lord's abode) is the state after the dissolution of individual designation, even though the individual soul then has the capability to tolerate non-division, there is no contradiction with the Shruti on liberation. Thus, there is no loss of the common subject matter with the Shruti for the injunction of listening.
However, if this is the case, there would be a contradiction with the statements that indicate liberation through knowledge alone, since the Shruti speaks of listening and other practices as the means to attain fearlessness. To this, it is said "even then" (tathapi). Since remembrance through affection is necessarily present even after direct realization, and that (remembrance) being the cause, there is no contradiction with the statements to be explained, as they do not deny the role of listening and other practices.
Now, they say "nanu tathāpyantima-sākṣāt-kāreṇānyathā-siddhes tad-virodhō durvāra iti" (meaning, even then, since realization can occur another way, the objection to the final direct experience is difficult to refute). "Antima" means not internal. And thus, they should produce love as far as possible, and the direct experience should happen with those who have love. Then, by those who will exist immediately after that and who have love, there would be some slight defect in entering the final direct experience - this is the meaning. Now, why is it being hypothesized thus? Why is not the Vedic procedure accepted? They say "na cādhyātmiketi" (it is not subjective). "Śravaṇa-vat" (like hearing). "Vati" is used in the sense of the seventh case-ending. The reason for not accepting is "nāham" etc. Here, the word "veda" means simply the knowledge spoken of in the Vedas, as is seen in statements like "The heart of all the Vedas is one". Since the root "vid" means "to know", there is only a restriction here, not a metaphor. And it does not mean all the means spoken of in the Vedas, since disciplines like penance etc. are stated separately, which would lead to the fault of metaphor. But "dṛśi" is common to both knowledge and vision, because of the flow of the previous sentence. By this, even the statement "nāyam ātmā" from the Śruti is included. And thus, the meaning is that it is not accepted.
Now, even though due to the stated faults the embodied soul cannot be accepted as the object in the injunction of hearing, it has to be accepted in the injunction of seeing, since it is worthy of being accepted. And there is no violation of sentence split, since the vision of all selves itself proves the vision of one's own self. And therefore, in accordance with the statement "If one knows the self...", the cessation of sorrow and attainment of the self would be the result of that direct experience alone. They raise an objection with "na ceti" etc. The reason there is "saṅghāteti" etc. This is the meaning: In this very statement - "What one does not hear, even while hearing, one indeed does not hear. For there is no destruction of the hearer in hearing, nor is there a second object separate from it that one could hear." And similarly "What one does not see..." - after saying "What one does not hear", it speaks of not hearing etc. by saying "even while hearing" etc. And by stating the indestructibility of hearing etc., their nature as attributes of the self is indicated. And although the aggregate exists, since the nature of Brahman became manifest, the non-dual liberation arisen from the aggregate performs all functions of the senses like hearing, seeing etc. by itself, just as Brahman itself does actions as is said "The breath indeed becomes the breath". And that the revered one engages in hearing about That will be stated by Śuka himself by saying "Though fully established in the state of desirelessness". If that is so, hearing about That serves the same purpose as seeing That, and is not the purpose of the vision of the embodied soul - this is the meaning.
Now, let the hearing enjoined in the Purāṇas be accepted, but not in the revered Bhāgavata, since there is no authority - with this objection, they say "etāvaditi" (this much). And thus, even there, since the scripture is somewhat unclear, the injunction of seeing is also certainly determined by the strength of context to be about the self that is Brahman. Therefore, there is no lack of authority - this is the meaning. With the objection that, since love is not stated, there would be a contradiction in that part, they say "bhagavati" etc. And thus, by the other Vedic statement "whomsoever", even that is intended there. So there is no contradiction - this is the meaning. To refute the incorrect conception of the opponent in this context, they state their view with "yat tu" etc. They censure it with "tad iti" etc. And thus, if that were so, why would Śuka give the metaphor of the shadow? Why would Sanat-kumāra take the form of Skanda? Therefore, it is not so - this is the meaning. They conclude with "tasmāt" etc. And thus, by the word "ubhaya" (both), it is entry into the Lord alone that is meant, not the attainment of the nature of the individual self. Even in the statement about the "attainment of the self", it is union with the Lord alone that is intended - this is the meaning. For this, they give the reason as "brahmaiveti" etc. And thus, if mere attainment of one's own nature were the result called "moksha", then he would not speak further after attaining the state of Brahman. Therefore, it is union alone that is the cessation of all fears, and that alone is the meaning of the term "attainment of the self" - this is the import.
Indeed, they say "nannu prakarantarena" etc., because in the absence of the manifestation of the Lord, there would be the absence of the result as well, and due to the clear statement of fruitlessness in the Upanishads, that would lead to futility. The meaning is: There is no futility in this because the object to be attained, which is the form of worship, and the result are prescribed in various ways according to differences in eligibility, degrees of restriction, varieties, and other forms like the unmanifest etc.
However, if it is argued that in case of varieties of modes, varieties of results would also follow as in the worldly sphere, to that they say "phalam tu" etc. Now, if it is asked what is the purport here, as it is stated in the scriptures that the form of the Lord itself is the object of knowledge and its union is the result, to that doubt they say "vedash cha" etc. And thus, in the Gita, it is indicated by the word "aham" spoken by the speaker that the highest reality denoted by the word Omkara, which is said in the Veda to be the knower of all knowables, is the same. All the Vedas praise only that supreme reality denoted by the word "Aum" with its two aspects qualified and unqualified, as it is the seed of all mantras and Upanishads: "From that originated the tri-vrid Omkara which sprang from the unmanifest, directly the enunciator of Brahman and the supreme self. That is the seed of all mantras, Upanishads, and the eternal Veda." Therefore, all the Vedas by various modes describe only the meaning of that (supreme reality), "That I am the Lord." Hence, the object of knowledge is one. The result spoken of in the Kathaka Upanishad as "He attains the supreme abode of Vishnu" is the same that is indicated earlier as "having reached the other shore of darkness" with the accompanying characteristic of being freed from the ocean (of samsara), as stated in the Brihannarayaniya Upanishad. The same is summarized here by "ma" (in Bhagavad Gita). For there is no difference between the word and the person. Therefore, there is only a difference in the modes of practice, but not in the object of knowledge or the result. Hence, they conclude "tasmat" etc.
However, it may be argued that here the difference in eligibility should be stated only in terms of the varna (class), otherwise there would be the fault of absence of delimitation of options. To this, they say "na chet" etc. And the difference in eligibility is only due to the difference in the attachment of the mind mentioned in the sentence "avyaktasakta-chetasa" etc., not based on the difference in varna. Then how would the option be delimited, to this they say "shrutair eva" etc., meaning that it is seen delimited in the same way in the case of desirables.
Here they cite another sage, saying "shandilyas tu" etc. His view should be understood as consisting of fifteen aphorisms beginning from "sa mukhyetarapekshitatvat" and ending with "prashnanirupanabhyam adhikyasiddhe." They explain its meaning as "purvam" etc.
However, in that case, what would be the position of statements like "atha yo'nyam devatam upaste'nyo'sav anyo'ham iti na sa veda yatha pashur evam hi sa devanam pashu" etc? To this, they say "shrutir" etc., i.e., due to the difference in eligibility. And according to the maxim "nahi ninda nindam ninditum pravrtta, api tu vidheyam stotum" (censure is not intended to censure the censured, but to praise the prescribed), such statements mean that I am the upasana (meditation) for those lower adherents, so there is no contradiction. They conclude with "tasmat" etc.
Now, is this an injunction, a restriction, or an enumeration? If it is the first, it would be ineffective due to undesirability. If the second or third, there would be the fault of options. To this, they say "vidhir" etc. However, in the aphorism "praishanuvade," all commentators have explained "praisha" as injunction, then how can it be said to be non-injunctive? Anticipating this doubt, and accepting that view, they give another reason, saying "loke" etc. But in reality, by using the word "praisha," the author of the aphorisms indicates that it is different from injunction. However, due to the well-known practice of the commentators, accepting it as injunction is not possible here.
If there is no injunction, how is it understood as the means to the result? To this, they say "phale" etc. If there is no injunction here, it should be stated as merely arthavada (purposeful statement) due to the form of mantra etc., and in that case, being a mere restatement of what is already known, it would lose authority due to not conveying any new meaning for the listener. To this, they say "vakyarthasya apurvavatvat" etc. That is, even though the Lord is well-known, the association with His worship is unknown to the world, so by teaching that new meaning, there is no loss of authority.
If fanciful interpretation is accepted, what is the problem? To this, they say "bhavaneti" etc. However, the way to refute that has to be understood now by the all-decisive reader from the context of statements like "sadhanam cha svarupam cha sarvasya aha shrutih phalam" etc. in the Bhashya, which is the source.
Then what is the purpose of the word "tu" here? To this, they say "shrutam cha" etc. They state the merit in accepting its mandatory nature, saying "prashne" etc. They conclude with "tasmat" etc., because thus the meaning of the statement is established. The rest is easily understandable. (5)
This much here. There, the first is due to not being dependent on others, etc. Between kīrtana (singing) and smaraṇa (remembrance), since kīrtana was mentioned first, because of not being dependent on others, the consideration of kīrtana comes first by way of introduction. They say, "pañca, etc." In the Mokṣadharma section of the Bhārata, when Janmejaya asked, "O sage, are these - Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, the Vedic texts, and the Āraṇyakas - separate or unified paths? Tell me, upon being asked by me, their progression in proper order," Vaiśampāyana replied by stating that Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, the Vedas, and Pāśupata are independent means for attaining their respective fruits: "O great king, know these - Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Pañcarātra, the Vedas, and Pāśupata - to be different doctrines."
Then, mentioning their proponents, he described their progression: "The sage Kapila is said to be the propounder of Sāṃkhya. Hiranyagarbha, the ancient one, is known as the propounder of Yoga. The preceptor of the Vedas is said to be the most ancient. They call that ancient sage Keśava, the primordial being. Umāpati, the lord of beings, Śrīkaṇṭha, the son of Brahma - the unwavering Śiva has expounded this knowledge of Pāśupata. Nārāyaṇa himself is the propounder of the entire Pañcarātra."
After stating this, he said, "O best of kings, in all these doctrines, the knowledge as it has come down is seen. The ultimate goal is Nārāyaṇa." Among them, by stating that "those who are devoted to Pañcarātra and have attained a singular state, focused on the proper order, O king, they indeed enter into Hari (Viṣṇu)," the Pāñcarātrika and Vaiṣṇava doctrines were declared to be equally important and leading to the same result.
Then, further, it is said, "O king, the entire Sāṃkhya, Yoga, the eternal Vedas, and all other doctrines expounded by the sages, have described this entire universe as Nārāyaṇa." Here, since Pāśupata was not mentioned, and earlier it was included among the self-established means of knowledge, and it was also stated that it should be refuted by reason, the Pāśupata doctrine is useful from the perspective of Kalpabheda (division of time cycles) in a gradual way, leading ultimately to the Vaiṣṇava doctrine, being considered as Tāmasic (ignorant).
In the Matsya Purāṇa, in the section on the division of time cycles, it is stated, "Those who have attained perfection in Yoga will attain the supreme goal," indicating that liberation is attained only in the Sāttvika (pure) time cycles. In the Mokṣadharma, when Dakṣa praised Śiva, pleased by his austerities, Śiva said, "I have originated this unprecedented Yoga, which is all-pervasive, eternal, blissful, and imperishable, combined with ten and a half subjects, secret, not pleasing to the ignorant, contrary to the duties of varṇas (classes) and āśramas (stages of life) in some places, and the same in others, established over hundreds of cycles, and having a human form - this is known as Pāśupata."
This statement indicates that the Yoga (Pāśupata) was established over hundreds of cycles. In the Brahma Purāṇa, at the beginning of the chapter on the glorification of Māyā in the final section, it is stated, "Therefore, O Brāhmaṇas, I shall describe how devotion to Kṛṣṇa arises." First, devotion to other deities is described, then devotion to performing sacrifices through the grace of those deities, then devotion to the Sun god through the grace of Agni, and then devotion to Śambhu (Śiva) through the grace of the Sun god. After that, it is said, "When the three-eyed lord (Śiva) is pleased, devotion to Keśava (Viṣṇu) arises. By propitiating that Lord of the universe, known as Vāsudeva and imperishable, one attains devotion and liberation, O best of Brāhmaṇas." This statement of Vyāsa indicates that liberation is attained through gradual progression from one level of devotion to the next, or that the Pāśupata doctrine is useful in that way.
Beyond these (Sāṃkhya, etc.): The Sāṃkhya and other doctrines are superior to these (Pāśupata, etc.). Since they are censured in those (Sāṃkhya, etc.) for being independent means of attaining their respective fruits, they (Pāśupata, etc.) do not attain entry (into Sāṃkhya, etc.) and remain as subjects for remembrance. This is the meaning.
They establish the status of subjects for remembrance for scriptures like Dharmaśāstra, etc., with the statement "one's own dharma, etc."
From the statements: From the statements mentioned, this meaning is determined.
The ultimate being: The final being.
Its utility: The utility of that body.
If that utility, etc.: If remembrance occurs in the manner described as "if that utility, etc.," then it would be so. This is the meaning.
Regarding the query "How?"—they say "From the previous life" [pūrvādi]. They affirm that it is "from the scripture" [śruti]. The meaning is that the remembrance [of the Lord] is the cause of attaining the final body, and the culmination of even practices like yoga, etc., is in this [final life] itself. After explaining the world-view in this way, they state its purport as "from the scripture" [śruti ityādi]. By this, the reasoning is demonstrated. The application [of this reasoning] is as follows: At the time of death, the remembrance of the Lord is the direct cause of attaining the Lord, being the culmination of practices like yoga, etc. It is not otherwise, just as [practices] like desire [kāmyādi] are not [the direct cause]. [This is] because of its being so [tathātvāt]. Since the Lord's statement "Uttering the single syllable 'Om,' which is Brahman, and remembering Me, whosoever departs, abandoning the body, attains the supreme goal"—indicates that even for those [practices like yoga], the result is [merely] an accessory [lābharūpatva]. Therefore, it is so [that remembrance at the time of death leads to the supreme birth]. [6]
Regarding "generally" [prāyeṇa]: Now [idānīm]. [It means that] remembrance is the means of accomplishing the result, immediately following the practice [sādhanānantaram sādhayati]. It accomplishes [sādhayati] through five [means]. "Recounting the attributes" [guṇānukathana]: The word "attribute" [guṇa] is also an indicative term for His pastimes [līlānām]. "Meditation on the Lord, whose nature is pure consciousness" [śrīsamprājñātasamādhayaḥ]: According to the Yoga Sūtra of Patañjali, "Remaining trace of latent impressions [saṃskāraśeṣa], following the practice of cultivating the notion of [successive] cessation [virāmaprātyayāḥ]," where, after focusing on all the parts [of the object of meditation], the cessation [virāma] of that is the notion [pratyaya]; the practice [abhyāsa] of that is preceded by the remaining trace of latent impressions [saṃskāraśeṣa]; the subtle residual aspect [pūrvapratyaya sūkṣmāvasthāśeṣa] of the previous notion [pūrvapratyaya] is what remains [śiṣṭapadārtha]; the meditation on that [yatra tādṛśo] is called "meditation whose nature is not pure consciousness" [asamprajñātasamādhiḥ]. This is as stated by the Lord: "Withdrawing the mind, which pervades everything, and concentrating it within Me, one should not remember anything else, having abandoned even that [concentration]." By the words [of the Lord], [it is indicated that] those types of meditation [bhāvanāviśeṣa] where no object [of knowledge] is cognized [yatra vedyaṃ kimapi na jñāyate tādṛśāḥ]. In the case of elision of l [ḷyablope], the fifth case-ending [pañcamī] [is used], meaning "in accordance with these words" [etadvākyamanuṣandhāyeti]. "For the purpose of indicating the apparent contradiction" [virodhābhāsabodhanārtham]: It should be understood that this indication is for comprehending the transcendence of the Lord's attributes [bhagavadguṇānāṃ guṇātītatvabodhanāya]. They affirm "therefore" [tasmāt siddhāhuḥ]. And so, here is the application [of this reasoning]: The recounting of the Lord's attributes is the direct cause of attaining the Lord, because the object of that meditation transcends [even] attributes, as the scripture states: "That Brahman, the eternal conscious Self of bliss, in which the yogis delight, is referred to by the word 'rama' [the delighter]." [7]
Regarding "this" [idam]: "This is not authoritative" [idamapramāṇikam]. Thus, the means of remembrance and recounting [have been explained]. "From the scripture" [śrutiḥ]: It states the authority [pramāṇam āha]. "Weakness" [durbalatvam]: Lack of strength [nairbalyam] in comparison to scripture. "It states the guru tradition" [guruparamparām āha]: When you ask, "How did you know?" [yuṣmābhiḥ katham jñātam iti āpekṣāyām], it states that [tām āha]. Apprehending that the term "father" [pitṛpada] may be inappropriate, they state its purport as "by the fathers themselves" [pitaiva ityādi]. Regarding "whom having renounced" [yaṃ pravrajantam ityatra], it should be understood that the initiation [upanayana] is not mentioned because of the apprehension, "When should it be studied?" [kadā paṭhanam iti āśaṅkā]. [8]
Śrī Giridhara's Bālaprabodinī:
Thus, having answered the question of misunderstanding, he states the answer to the question of "what is to be heard, etc." - tasmāt (therefore). Addressing him as "he Bhārata" with the intention that you too are indeed like that, as the Bhagavad Gītā (1.36) will state "māyā will lead the embodied ones astray" - he Bhārata (O descendant of Bharata). Since the purpose (puruṣārtha) of a person averse to devotion to the Lord and attached to home, etc., goes in vain, therefore, the fearless abode, the Lord, should be desired by the person. Hari, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the remover of the miseries of saṃsāra by removing the obstacles to His attainment for His sole refuge, is to be heard, glorified, and remembered. The reason for being the remover of miseries is given - īśvara (the Lord). The reason for that is also given - bhagavān (the possessor of six opulences), meaning the six divine qualities. Even though He is so, since there are many wicked ones who give misery, how can there be a complete cessation of misery? Anticipating this doubt, he says - sarvātmā (the indweller of all), meaning the inner controller of all. Hence, by His grace, there is no one to give misery. And it should not be doubted that even though nine types of devotion such as "śravaṇaṃ kīrtanaṃ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṃ pāda-sevanaṃ, arcanaṃ vandanaṃ dāsyaṃ sakhyam ātma-nivedanam" are well-known, why are only three mentioned here? Because hearing is not possible without remembrance and glorification, remembrance is not possible without hearing and glorification, and glorification is not possible without hearing and remembrance. To indicate their interdependence and that the other types of devotion are caused by these three, only the three of hearing, etc. are mentioned as supreme. There is no doubt, however, that even one of them can remove fear. Therefore, starting from the knowledge of the fear of saṃsāra and continuing until the loss of the body, one should constantly practice hearing, etc. as much as possible. Without that, there can never be cessation of the fear of saṃsāra or the attainment of supreme bliss. (5)
Anticipating the question of which among these three is superior, he says - etāvān eva (only this much), because remembrance alone is the means to attain the fruit of all practices, being independent of other means. The supreme fruit, equal only to that, is attained by persons through many births steadfastly practicing Sāṅkhya (discrimination of spirit and matter), Yoga (the eight-fold discipline), and their respective duties. What is that? At the end, at the time of giving up the body, the remembrance of the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa. Any other fruit, such as material gains or fulfillment of desires, is inferior, hence the qualification "supreme." Even if the remembrance of Nārāyaṇa arises at some point, if there is a different remembrance at the end, then, as the verse says: "Whatever state of being one remembers when giving up the body at the end, to that state one attains, ever becoming absorbed in that thought, O son of Kunti." There would be the attainment of that other state, not the attainment of the Lord. Therefore, it is said "at the end." (6)
Here he confirms the conduct of the virtuous - prāyeṇa (mostly). Suggesting that you too must have experienced many such cases being a king, he addresses him - he rājan (O King!). Those sages who have attained the state beyond the three modes of material nature and are therefore free from the injunctions and prohibitions of the Vedas, being unaffected by virtue and vice spoken of in the Vedas, those discriminating ones between the real and unreal, mostly delight in narrating the qualities and pastimes of Hari. Because remembrance is not possible without first practicing hearing and chanting, they first engage in those practices. This is well-known, meaning it needs no further explanation. (7)
Not only the ancient sages, but he himself also studied this Purāṇa to be spoken, in the age of Dvāpara, at the beginning of the Kali-yuga, from his father Vedavyāsa. The connected meaning is: I studied this in the beginning of the Kali-yuga from Dvāpara Vyāsa, my father. Anticipating the doubt that this would make the Vedas inferior, he says - brahma-sammmitam (as valid as the Vedas), meaning equal to the Vedas. Or, that which has properly measured or comprehended Brahman, the Absolute Truth. The reason for that is given - Bhāgavatam (dealing with the Supreme Lord), meaning spoken by the Lord, revealing the Lord, or yielding the Lord as the supreme goal. (8)
Hindi Anuvāda
Therefore, O Parikshit, the one who desires to attain the fearless abode must certainly perform hearing, chanting and remembering the pastimes of the all-pervading, all-powerful Lord Sri Krishna. (5)
This alone - only this much - is the gain of human birth: that one's life be made such, whether through knowledge, devotion, or steadfastness in one's duties, that the remembrance of the Lord certainly remains at the time of death. (6)
O Parikshit, those great sages who are situated in the transcendental reality, having crossed over the injunctions and prohibitions, mostly delight in describing the infinite auspicious qualities of the Lord. (7)
At the end of Dvapara-yuga, I studied this great Purana called Srimad Bhagavatam, which is in the form of the Lord or equal to the Vedas, from my father Sri Krishna Dvaipayana. (8)
SB 2.1.5-8
