SB 2.4.21-25

 Text 21: It is the Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa who gives liberation. By thinking of His lotus feet at every second, following in the footsteps of authorities, the devotee in trance can see the Absolute Truth. The learned mental speculators, however, think of Him according to their whims. May the Lord be pleased with me.

Text 22: May the Lord, who in the beginning of the creation amplified the potent knowledge of Brahmā from within his heart and inspired him with full knowledge of creation and of His own Self, and who appeared to be generated from the mouth of Brahmā, be pleased with me.

Text 23: May the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who enlivens the materially created bodies of the elements by lying down within the universe, and who in His puruṣa incarnation causes the living being to be subjected to the sixteen divisions of material modes which are his generator, be pleased to decorate my statements.

Text 24: I offer my respectful obeisances unto Śrīla Vyāsadeva, the incarnation of Vāsudeva who compiled the Vedic scriptures. The pure devotees drink up the nectarean transcendental knowledge dropping from the lotuslike mouth of the Lord.

Text 25: My dear King, Brahmā, the firstborn, on being questioned by Nārada, exactly apprised him on this subject as it had been directly spoken by the Lord to His own son, who was impregnated with Vedic knowledge from his very birth.

Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā

Recalling the bestowing of knowledge, he says "yatrī" with two case endings. For whom mere contemplation is samādhi, with an intellect purified by that [samādhi], according to one's inclination, by distinctions such as saguna and nirguna. Alternatively, ruk means intuition, so the meaning is "according to one's understanding." (21)

Moreover, in the past, at the beginning of a kalpa, the memory of creation residing in the heart of Brahmā was impelled by him, and Sarasvatī, in the form of the Vedas, speech, is said to have manifested from his mouth. She possesses her own characteristics, endowed with phonetics. He is the best of the sages, bestowing knowledge. (22)

Now he prays for his own speech to be delightful to the listeners and adorned with the beauty of śṛṅgāra, karuṇa, and other rasas. "Bhūtair" means may he adorn my words with ornaments befitting the throne. Anticipating the impossibility of adornment by someone else's ordinary speech, he reveals his inner controller. He who, having previously created these bodies with the great elements, abides in them as the inner controller. Here, he proves the appellation of puruṣa, because "pūruṣa" [means the one who abides in the body]. Moreover, he is the one who illuminates or protects the sixteen qualities, which are the eleven senses and five elements. Then, this is for the sake of the self. The reason for this is that he is the animator of the sixteen. The suffix "ka" is used in the sense of the self, but here, jīvatva is not mentioned due to the contradiction with the prayer. (23)

He salutes Śrī Vyāsa. "Nama" means him at whose lotus mouth the devotees like Vaiśampāyana and others are bees and the nectar is the essence. (24)

Now, he introduces the dialogue between Brahmā and Nārada in the form of question and answer. "Etad" means the Vedas were in his womb at the very time of creation. When Hari himself said directly. (25)

'Thus ends the fourth chapter in the commentary on the second skandha of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā

He expresses the prayer, "May Krishna alone be the bestower of knowledge to me." "Yadvā" means "or." The wise ones, by the strength of their own scholarship, according to their own inclination, speak about the reality of the Supreme Self, whether it has form or is formless, whether the nature of the individual self is atomic in size or all-pervading, whether this universe is false or true, or definitely so, and they prove it with reasoning. However, their intellects do not perceive the truth of the Self. In this case, "sthānena" should be read. If it is said that speaking according to one's inclination is not a valid means of knowledge, the author says "yadvā." The meaning is that they speak according to their own understanding, as his glory is infinite. (21)

Now, intending to convey that just as he caused the Vedas to emanate from the mouth of Brahmā, may he alone cause the story of his own pastimes to emanate from my mouth, he says "kiṃ ca." "Svāni" means the characteristics unique to it, endowed with phonetics, as described in the texts on phonetics composed by Pāṇini and others, possessing the qualities of udātta and other accents, places of articulation, and efforts of articulation. Alternatively, "svalakṣaṇā" refers to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, indicating him as the object of worship. The Lord himself has said, "In the beginning, I taught Brahmā the dharma that is centered on me." (22)

In this context, the etymology of the word "puruṣa" is given, referring to the indwelling nature of the Supreme Being. This is indeed due to His being the puruṣa. Here, the word "pūruṣa" has a long vowel due to the grammatical rule of auṇādika. However, in the sense of nourishing, it is derived from the sūtra "bhujo'navane". Here, in the context of illuminating the sixteen kalās, there is a pun suggesting that one should be pleased by relishing the qualities of my words as well. The implication is that just as the bodies, though devoid of soul, adorned with clothes and ornaments, are unfit to be enjoyed by the virtuous, similarly, may my words not be devoid of that (devotion). (23)

The Bhāgavata scripture, in which the principle of devotion is predominant, is referred to as "jñānamaya" because the truth of devotion is known through it. (24)

The Purāṇa which is of the nature of knowledge. Hari refers to Lord Nārāyaṇa. The word "ātmanaḥ" is in the dative case, meaning "to oneself." He (Brahmā) spoke to himself, to Brahmā, in the form of four verses (catuḥślokī). This very Brahmā, the womb of the Vedas, comes into being from the Supreme Soul. Being such, he inquires and speaks to Nārada. "O King," the implication is that you, shining with renunciation, are indeed qualified to hear this, and therefore, I shall describe it to you. (25)

Thus ends the fourth chapter of the second skandha in the Prakāśa commentary on the Bhāvārthadīpikā of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.

Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā

Salutations to Him. "Bhagavate" refers to the one who possesses knowledge of the past, future, and so on. In this regard, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa states: "He who knows the creation, dissolution, the coming and going of beings, knowledge and ignorance, is called Bhagavān." He is Vāsudeva because He is an incarnation of Vāsudeva. Alternatively, Vāsudeva refers to pure sattva, and due to association with that, He is called Vāsudeva, with the suffix "ṭa" added to indicate possession. This is a brief explanation. (24 - 25)

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā

Demonstrating His position as the Lord of the devotees by granting them knowledge, he prays for His grace with the two verses beginning with "yad." The sages themselves perceive and understand the truth of the self with their intellect purified by meditation on His feet, which itself is samādhi. They also teach others according to their inclination and understanding. May that Lord Mukunda be pleased with me. (21)

Moreover, "pracodita." In the past, at the beginning of the kalpa, the Sarasvatī in the form of the three Vedas, possessing her own distinctive characteristics such as special accents, emerged from the mouth of Brahmā, impelled by the Supreme Soul who expanded the memory pertaining to creation in his heart. May that impeller, the best among the sages who bestow knowledge, be pleased with me. (22)

Now he prays that the Lord Himself should be the subject of his words, with the words "by beings" (bhūtaiḥ). May that Lord grace my words with ornaments, meaning may He be the subject expounded. For expounding the Lord itself is the ornament, as said: "The speech of the wise causes the downfall of the masses," etc. But how can He, being one, be the subject of the various words uttered by you? To this, he says: By "beings" is meant the great elements like earth etc. With those elements, the almighty Lord, whose nature is to pervade all souls internally, created these ancient bodies and resides in those cities (bodies). Therefore, He is called Puruṣa (person) because He lies in the city (body). Not only does He lie (remain) but also experiences the delightful essence, as suggested by "experiences the sixteen qualities" - the objects like sound, etc., the five functions like speech, the states of the vital airs like prāṇa, and the quality of mind like volition. Being of the nature of sixteen (guṇas), consisting of eleven senses and five elements, He experiences the delightful essence. The delightful experience is the Lord's assumption of guṇas by being the indweller of souls, while for the soul, it is experience dependent on karma. And thus, from the deities to the formless Paramātma, being the ultimate reality behind all words, He should be the subject of my words too - this is a justified prayer in accordance with the maxim "That in which all words have their eternal abode is their substratum." (23)

Having thus offered obeisance to the Lord, he then pays homage to his own guru and father, Vyāsa, with the words "etadeva." The statement "vāsudevāya" is used because Vyāsa is also an incarnation of Vāsudeva. The meaning is: Obeisance to the omniscient Vedhas (Vyāsa), whose disciples, being gentle, drank the nectar of knowledge from his lotus mouth. (24)

Having thus paid obeisance to his guru and deity, in order to introduce the answer to the main question and to indicate its traditional nature, he narrates the dialogue between Nārada and Hiraṇyagarbha in response to the question with the word "tad." "That which you have asked, Vedagarbha (Brahmā), within whom the Vedas reside, spoke to Nārada." Why? To this, he says: "What Lord Hari spoke to Himself, which He spoke to the four-faced Brahmā, and what he spoke to Nārada, that very thing I shall speak to you." This is the purport. (25)

Thus ends the fourth chapter of the second skandha of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam with the commentary by Vīrarāghava.

Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā

If one asks, "How can the stated subject matter be known, and what is the evidence for it?" In response to that, he says "yad." Meditation, which is the remembrance of impressions withdrawn from objects, is samādhi called asamprajñāta, in which the impressions of objects have ceased. Because one perceives the truth of the self, the Supreme Soul, with the intellect purified by that meditation and withdrawn from objects, free from the impurities of knowledge and desire, therefore, that perception is the evidence. And having seen it, they speak that truth to disciples and others according to their inclination. Hence, the meaning is that it can be known through the scriptures of their teachings. (21)

At the beginning of the text, he expresses the desire that the blessings of Sarasvatī, the four-faced one, etc., should be the means of achieving the desired goal, with the words "instigated" (procoditā). In the beginning, during the creation, she who was brought forth from the heart of the unborn Brahman, the four-faced one, who extended the supreme state characterized by rules to all sentient beings through the process of refinement and expansion, who was instigated by that Lord, who became her essential nature characterized by eternality, who has the characteristic of being determined by the six features, the speech in the form of the Ṛg-Veda and other Vedas, may Sarasvatī, who manifested from his four faces, the originator of knowledge for the sages, the supreme lord of speech, Nārāyaṇa, be pleased with me. With the word "indeed" (kila), he shows that this is in accordance with all śruti and other texts, for "kila" is used in dialogues and conversations.

Alternatively, in ancient times, during the composition of scriptures, she who was the state characterized by the instruction of knowledge residing in the heart of my grandfather Parāśara, the unborn, who was instigated and refined by Vyāsa, whose essential nature was suitable for the characteristics of creation, etc., the Bhāgavata Samhitā, who manifested from him, may that best of sages, Vyāsa, be pleased with me. The word "aja" means "unborn," referring to the grandfather in this context. In the phrase "in the nearby past," "purā" means "formerly," and "na āgate" means "not in the future." Alternatively, "purā" can also mean "in Viṣṇu or Hari," and "aja" can mean "the unborn Viṣṇu," with the rest being "whose state of existence was extended in the heart of the world." (22)

Now he propitiates Hari, the instigator of the body, senses, etc., with the word "bhūtaiḥ" (by beings). The all-pervading Viṣṇu, by the great elements like earth, etc., created the bodies (cities), and resides in those cities in the form of the self, etc. Therefore, He who is known as Puruṣa (person) due to lying in the city (body). As stated in the śruti "This very thing is His head," or because of His spherical form as the divine goddess, the sixteen-fold Lord, pervading the eleven senses and five elements, experiences the essences of the sixteen qualities like sound, etc., but not the miseries. May that Lord grace my words, which desire to expound the ancient narratives about Him, with what is pleasing to Him. (23)

Now, with intense devotion, he bows down to the son of Devakī, gazing at Him with a sidelong glance, with the word "nama" (obeisance). The knowers of knowledge, like Brahmā, drank the nectar that emerged from the lotus face of Hari, whose nature is knowledge. Obeisance to that ordainer, Vāsudeva, the Lord. Or, the knowers like Uddhava drank the nectar of knowledge that emerged from His lotus face. Obeisance to that ordainer, the valiant one who killed Kaṃsa, Vāsudeva. Or, the knowers like Nārada drank the nectar of knowledge, which is the Bhāgavata Purāṇa that emerged from His lotus face. Obeisance to that ordainer, the four-faced one. Of what kind? Vāsudeva, the son of Nārāyaṇa, just as "Śauri" means the son of Śaura. The knowers like Vyāsa bowed to that ordainer, the son of the Creator, Nārada, who is a devotee of Vāsudeva. The knowers like Vaiśampāyana bowed to that Vāsudeva, the incarnation of Vāsudeva, Vyāsa, the author of scriptures like the Bhārata. (24)

After praying for the grace of the desired deity, he now proceeds to answer Parīkṣit's question with the words "etad eva" (this very thing). Hari, the self, the son of the Supreme Self, the womb of the Vedas, Brahmā, asks all this in the manner of a question, "Tell this." Nārada narrated it to him. There is no transposition of meaning here. What is said is: In the beginning, it was not told to Brahmā by Nārāyaṇa, but Brahmā told it to Nārada, Nārada to Vyāsa, and Vyāsa to me. I shall narrate it to you, setting aside the intermediaries. (25)

Thus ends the fourth chapter of the second skandha of the great purāṇa, the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, along with the commentary titled Vijayā Dhvaja Kṛt.

Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā

Stating the cause for such an experience, he says "whose feet" (yad-aṅghrī). The true nature (tattva) of the Self, the Lord. Otherwise, the learned poets speak merely according to their taste, which means that even the learned ones describe [the Lord] as they like. Or, nevertheless, since His glories are unlimited, even those poets speak only as the Self reveals Himself. (21)

Then he states the means for describing that with the words "that very one" (sa eva). [The two verses] "Instigated" (procoditā), etc. (22-23)

The commentary salutes Vyāsa with the words "Obeisance" (namaḥ iti). "Drank" (papuḥ) and the following words are in the plural form. However, the subsequent verse indicates that the speaker is referring to the four verses together. (24)

"Of the self" (ātmanaḥ) means "of Brahma," indicating this. (25)

Thus ends the fourth chapter of the second skandha of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, along with the commentary Krama-sandarbha by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī.

Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā

He (Krishna) alone is the bestower of knowledge upon me, thus indicating a prayer. Just the meditation on His feet is samādhi, not anything else, therefore purify [your mind] through that. The word "ca" is used for emphasis. However, the poets, solely based on their own learning, describe the true nature and form of the Supreme Soul according to their preferences, either with form or formless, the nature of the individual soul as atomic in size or all-pervading, or even that this entire universe is indeed an illusion or the absolute truth, eternal, and so on—they establish [their views] through reasoning, not by realizing the true nature of the Self. (21)

Just as He initiated the Vedas from the mouth of Brahmā, in the same way, He alone will inspire the narration of His own pastimes from my mouth, thus he hopes. Instigated by whom, Sarasvatī, in the form of the Vedas, appeared from the mouth of the unborn Brahmā. By whom? By the one who, in the beginning of creation, revealed the eternal memory in the heart of that unborn Brahmā. In what form does Sarasvatī manifest? She represents Lord Krishna as the object of worship, as the Lord Himself has said: "In the beginning, I instructed the dharma, which contains My very Self, to Brahmā." (22)

Now, he hopes that She will imbue His own words, created by Him, with the resonance of the rasas like śṛṅgāra (amorous), karuṇā (pathos), etc., and the beauty of figures of speech and qualities, with the words "may she adorn." May she, residing within them, adorn my words. Just as after creating human bodies and others, He Himself resides within them to make them fruitful, so [the Lord] says: The one who, having created these cities (bodies) from the great elements, lies within them as the indwelling Self. Here, He affirms the term "Purusha" by saying "because he is called the Purusha." Therefore, while remaining untainted, He enjoys the eleven senses and the five great elements endowed with the three guṇas. Here, the intention is that by savoring the qualities of my words as well, may He be pleased.

[Unclear OCR text]...so that my words do not become devoid of [His presence], just as material objects like ornaments and clothing become worthless without the indwelling Self. (23)

He offers obeisance to the guru, Śrī Vyāsa, as "to Vāsudeva, His avatāra, the author of scriptures, from whose mouth..." Or, "to Vāsudeva, Krishna, to the pleasing ones, His consorts." "Consisting of knowledge" refers to the knowledge of arts like dancing, singing, playing instruments, figures of speech, rasas, etc., which is extraordinary and unlearned but attained simply by drinking [the nectarine narrations], so that we too, being His devotees, may obtain the same—this is the secret meaning. (24)

Now he introduces the dialogue between Brahmā and Nārada in the form of questions and answers with the words "this" (etad). The Vedas were already present in the womb of the one [Brahmā] at the time of creation, as directly stated by Hari Himself, "of the Self, to the self." (25)

Thus ends the well-reasoned fourth chapter of the second [book] of the Haricarya, which delights the minds of the devotees.

Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ

For those seers who have realized the truth, meditation on Him alone is samādhi. With a pure mind, they directly perceive the true nature and essence of the Self, which is the Lord Himself. These seers, based on their realization, express this true nature of the Self to their disciples according to their inclinations and eloquence, without transgressing their spiritual insight. May that Mukunda be pleased with me. (21)

In the beginning of creation, instigated by the one who expanded the eternal memory of the previous creation in the heart of the unborn Viranchi (Brahmā), Sarasvatī, having her own characteristics in the form of teachings, appeared from his mouth. May that foremost seer among the seers and mantra-composers be pleased. (22)

Then, quite naturally, he prays for the beauty of śṛṅgāra, karuṇā, etc., in His own words, which expound on the Lord's nature and qualities, with the words "May the great elements adorn my words." That all-powerful one, capable of doing everything everywhere, after creating these bodily cities from the great elements like mahat, etc., resides within them as the indwelling Self. Therefore, being the indweller of the cities, He is called Purusha. And not only does He reside, but He also experiences the eleven senses and the five great elements in the form of qualities offered by His devoted followers, because He is the inner Self of all beings, for whose sake everything is done. This indicates that the Lord is not merely an enjoyer due to His actions. (23)

The disciples, who are pleasing, have drunk that nectarine stream which flowed from His mouth. (24)

O King, you have asked about this very thing. Let me relate to Nārada what Brahmā, in whose womb the Vedas existed, instructed. How did he know this? Hari directly told Brahmā "to the Self." What Hari instructed Brahmā, I shall relate to you – this is the intention. (25)

Thus ends the elucidation of the fourth chapter of the second book of the Bhāgavata Siddhānta Pradīpa.

Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā

But if the Lord's qualities have been asked about, how is a prayer to the Lord relevant instead of describing those qualities? To this, he says: "By meditation on His feet alone..." Even without any other means except meditation on Him, they perceive the true nature of the Self, which is the essence of the Lord's form—something that cannot be attained by any other means of knowledge. The intellect is naturally capable of revealing objects. However, even when arisen, it does not illuminate the object due to its own covering and the covering of the senses. The senses do not even arise in the presence of their covering. The object alone is sought as the cause of the intellect's arising, but not the intellect's capacity to reveal. This is proven by the fallacy of mistaking one thing for another, like mistaking a piece of shell for silver. Therefore, keeping the object alone in view, the intellect, due to other auxiliaries, either comprehends or fails to comprehend the true nature of the object. When pure, it comprehends the true nature of the object. In this scripture, the Bhāgavata, since all objects are eternal, they are expressed by those who are revered for their knowledge. And an object is not divided into class and individual; the same pot appears, disappears, and reappears in many ways, as all objects belong to the Lord. The eternity of words has also been established by all respected authorities like Kātyāyana, so we need not discuss it in detail here. "The relation between the eternal word and its meaning..." means the relation between the eternal word and its meaning is being explained. And in the absence of a locus, conjecturing the relation between class and individual is entirely unjustified. When the true nature of a perceived object is unknown, it is ascertained from the scripture. Therefore, since the same pot, being the Lord's, appears in many ways, any other speculation contrary to the Vedic statement "It appears as one" is not authoritative, as it would lead to many undesirable consequences. Hence, the same intellect, when purified by repeated cleansing with purifying substances through rubbing, becomes stainless like a mirror. Similarly, by conjoining the Lord's lotus feet with the intellect and rubbing them together, it attains special purity. The scripture affirms that purifying substances remove impurities to varying degrees, as is well known in the case of collyrium and other such substances. Just as a special kind of collyrium, when combined with a pill, enables the vision to perceive even the devas, so there is no impossibility here either. But an impure intellect cannot reveal the true nature of an object due to its faults. As the faults are removed, the true nature of the object manifests. Hence, the practice of subtle perception and other such means is useful. But there is no fault in the object itself, especially in the case of the Lord and the Self, as the Vedas declare: "Being free from sin, etc." The word "nu" here means "certainly." Anudhyāna means contemplating with full attention. By such contemplation, one becomes identified with that (the Lord), which is samādhi, not the yogic kind. Moreover, the poets (kavis) describe this true nature of the Self in their own way, and the word "kavi" here indicates their special capacity. Someone may describe it in some way, while another may do so differently. Therefore, the true nature of an object cannot be grasped from ordinary speech. Furthermore, the Lord Mukunda is the bestower of liberation. The manifestation of the true nature of an object is a means to liberation, and that is accomplished only when the Lord desires to grant liberation. And that desire arises only through meditation. Therefore, whatever one wishes to know, one should pray to the Lord for the accomplishment of that knowledge. Even the qualities should be described only after being known. And knowledge arises from meditation, which is not mere meditation alone but accompanied by prayer, because the Lord is independent and does not act solely due to meditation. Therefore, he says, "May He be pleased..." Though the Lord has already become pleased for the sake of promulgating the Bhāgavata, may He be pleased again for our sake, for the fulfillment of our own relish. (21)

Now he commonly prays for grace first and then prays for the grace of the Supreme Lord - "prompted by whom" he says. The Lord must certainly be prayed to with regard to the operation of the senses, to be performed. Even in that case, regarding speech. Even in that case, regarding words that express the Lord's meanings. For earlier, before the creation of Brahma, the Lord, being prayed to by Brahma himself, entered Brahma's heart and manifested the self-effulgent speech in the form of the Vedas from his mouth. Therefore, regarding things to be spoken about the Lord's glories, it is the eternal speech itself that becomes that in this context; hence praying to the Lord is necessary. But one may say: By yoga, recollecting the objects and uttering the words expressing them is possible, so what is the need of depending on the Lord? To this he says - "To the unborn Brahma, who was bringing to mind the eternal speech and meaning." Although speech and meaning are eternal, and even if experienced before, recollection is necessary. But mere recollection is not authoritative; what is required is recollection accompanied by the experience of the objects recollected. This is because the Lord's speech, like yoga, is also attentive. Therefore, first in the mind, he generated the eternal recollection accompanied by the experience of the Lord, of the Lord's objects experienced before, and then, prompted by that very heart prompted by the Lord, from the manifestation of the inner Veda, the speech prompted by the Lord again came forth from his mouth. For the Lord's speech cannot go out by itself. Apprehending this statement to be improper, he says "as it were." That which has eternity as its characteristic, i.e., whose characteristic is eternity in the form of being denoted by the word "Brahman," being endless, etc. Or, that whose very characteristic is the unique mark of the Vedas, that the Lord alone is to be expressed by them. Therefore, may the Lord, who prompts all the senses, be pleased, in the recollection of what was experienced before, and also in its manifestation through that. (22)

Thus, having stated that words depend on the Lord for their manifestation, and therefore one should pray to the Lord, he prays that the Lord as the master should also enter the meaning that comes from his mouth in the form of an embellishment - "by the great elements." For existence and enjoyment everywhere are caused by the Lord. Therefore, Krishna, abiding in speech, is desired to be enjoyed. Although he is the Supreme Being itself, and the process is well known everywhere, still, in order to indicate that his being the Lord has been established by the Lord Himself, without any specific distinction of being a person, or to avoid the feeling of this body being the Lord's, he states the process as obtaining in individualized beings as well as in the collective. "By the great elements" - by the great elements created by Himself. These beings - the gods, animals, humans, etc. "In them" - in those very beings, "He lies." Otherwise, His being a person would not be possible. For by the derivation "puri shete" (lies in the body), He is so called. This lying is not in the form of sleep, but only for the purpose of enjoyment. Hence the description of having one eye as Indra and the other as Indrani becomes perfectly reasonable in this context. Here, after lying down, He does not merely experience touch alone, but all sixteen attributes. In enjoyment too, having become sixteen-fold, He enjoys. In the insentient and dry, there is no experience of taste. For the Lord is all-pervading and composed of bliss. There, in the experience of His own nature, by His own nature, there is no taste. But it is experienced in the case of male, female and other components. Therefore, in order to clearly experience taste, He creates for Himself a form of diversity, and having entered into that self of His, being divided into many, He experiences the taste of the other. So that there may be no distraction in enjoyment due to the effort of sustaining the body, He enjoys by lying down. Although the objects are five, still the sense of touch, by producing a special pleasure in a special place, has been specified separately as an object in front of the senses, being the foremost, and hence the number sixteen. Where the senses are secondary, there the objects are primary. In enjoyment, sometimes the senses are not primary, sometimes the senses alone are primary, like in the body of a great king. Hence the statement of sixteen, with both these considerations. Thus the greatness of the Lord is known to be complete everywhere. "May He embellish my desired words." Chandas means "long." But since He has become multiple in this way, how is He prayed to for embellishment? To this he says - "the Lords." The plural is intended to convey seven meanings. By using "my" elsewhere, the absence of the seven meanings is indicated. For the Lord alone has the seven meanings. (23)

Having uttered this prayer, he respectfully bows to his guru, the revered Vyasa, saying: "Reverence to that Lord (namas tasmai bhagavate iti)." The avatara (incarnation) of the Lord Vyasa is solely for the purpose of bestowing moksha (liberation) on all, denoted by the term 'Vasudeva.' He is called 'Vedhas' because he creates the forms of words, revealing the means to moksha. The phrase 'namas vyāsa-namaskaratvam bodhayati' indicates that he reveals the act of reverence to Vyasa. The Bharata and other works are embodiments of knowledge, illuminating the true nature of all things (sarva-vastu-yāthatmya-jñāna-prakāśakam). The term 'saumya' suggests that calmness and steadfastness in knowledge are necessary. Whose very mouth is a lotus (amburu-ham kamalam), there the nectar-rayed moon (makara-nda) itself is described as the nectar (āsava), for it causes the forgetting of the manifold world. Since moksha is the fruit and the speaker is the Lord, the words 'mouth' and 'nectar' suggest the desire to drink, even though drinking is prohibited. This is further indicated by the mention of the delight in the face of a woman. Therefore, even in an assembly, it is fitting to pay reverence to Vyasa, as he is the guru of all and the Lord Himself. [24]

Having thus paid respects to the deities and the guru, he proceeds to answer the previous question at great length, beginning with 'etadeveti.' "This very thing that you have asked about, O Narada, the self-born one (Brahma) himself asked, being strengthened by the authority of the knowable (prameya-bala-pushtah)." The Vedas are in his womb, hence he is strengthened by the authority of scripture (pramāna-bala-pushtah). Being endowed with the special strength of the knowable being the means of knowledge (prameya-sya pramānatvena vishishta-bala-pushtah). As he said, "Since the doubt will be removed only by that very utterance 'Hari is the Self' (hariratmeti vakyat), there is no need for another question of doubt, as before, hence the self-narration." Since the gradations of the defects of the means of knowledge have already been explained, there is no repetition here. The word 'directly' (sakshad) qualifies both. 'Atma' means 'Brahman.' If it were a narration through a tradition, then the defect of the speaker would arise in the middle. Therefore, self-narration is also precluded. The absence of defects is also indicated by the prayer and knowledge. Hereby, it is suggested that both deliberation (utpatti and upapatti) have been promised to be discussed. [25]

Thus ends the fourth chapter of the second Skandha of the Srimad Bhagavata Subodhini, composed by Sri Vallabhadikshita, the son of Sri Lakshmana Bhatta. [4]

Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ

If by merely practicing another type of meditation, there is no clarification, it means that by mere purification of the intellect alone, there is no clarity, because it is perceptible only to ordinary means of knowledge, and in the Vedas too, it is heard as something to be explained. Here, the intellect refers to another object that generates knowledge, which will become clear later on. Anticipating the question of how the intellect perceives, they explain with "buddhirityādi" (the intellect, etc.).

Now, if the intellect itself is self-luminous by nature, then what is the need for the purification of the intellect, since the manifestation of the true nature of the object is possible through the intellect itself? They answer this with "setyādi" (that, etc.), joining it as "sā utpannāpi" (even when it arises).

From one's own covering and the covering of the object - from the covering created by one's own covering and the covering of the object. The covering of the intellect is caused by illusion, delusion, and the like, which will be clarified in the ninth chapter. Thus, purification is necessary for removing the covering of the intellect.

Now, if the senses generate the intellect, then why not purify them instead of purifying the intellect? They answer this with "indriyāṇām" (of the senses, etc.). The meaning is that if those (senses) are purified, only the intellect will arise, but not the true understanding of the object. Therefore, the purification of the intellect is not useful here.

Now, when the senses are pure and there is proximity to the object, how is it that the intellect that arises does not manifest the true nature of the object? They answer this with "viṣayamātram" (only the object, etc.). The meaning is that due to the perception of such delusion, there is no manifestation of the true nature because of the absence of purification of the intellect. Therefore, it is necessary.

Hence, they conclude with "ata" (therefore, etc.), since there is a causal relationship between the intellect and the object due to the difference in their inherent capacities. "Sāmarthyāntaravashāt" (due to the difference in inherent capacities) refers to the inherent qualities and defects of the senses and the intellect. "Tatra śuddhasāmagrī samavadhāne" (there, with the pure materials being available).

Now, since the intellect is momentary, existing only in the present state, any purification done would be futile. They address this with "atreti" (here, etc.). The meaning is that since the intellect is accepted as permanent, purification is necessary.

Now, if there is no difference between the universal and the particular, there would be a contradiction in the perception of objects like pots and cloths in their specific forms. They address this with "eka eva" (one alone, etc.), meaning that just as the perception of a pot is established by repeatedly bringing it and taking it away, similarly, even with multiple occurrences, there is no contradiction in perception.

And there is no objection that in the absence of the universal, there cannot be the knowledge of "this is a pot" since there is no rule that a specific cognition arises from the cognition of a qualifier. After the knowledge of an object through the senses, with the aid of verbal impressions and the like, the intellect determines the specific form like the pot's shape, and easily arises by taking that form.

And it should not be said that this cannot be so because there is no delay in perception, for it is accomplished through practice. Even in the initial perception, a delay is possible. In the case of mere specific cognition, since there is no authority for accepting a qualifier for the supersensible, there is no accomplishment without delay.

Now, if there is no universal, then there would be a contradiction that there would be no cognition of all pots in the form of "potness" since there is also no attachment to the universal. And it cannot be argued that "when the pervasion of smoke and fire (as a universal) is grasped, it is useful," because once the pervasion of smoke and fire is grasped in one particular instance, and that cognition is lasting, when another smoke is seen later, it does not require grasping the pervasion of smoke and fire again. Even if it is necessary, since grasping the pervasion of the universal is possible by taking only the similar form, there is no need for the universal.

Thus, the function of distinguishing capacities should also be understood as belonging to the form itself. And that form is luminous in cognition, aspirational in desire, and of a distinct nature in gold, pot-bellied and so on in a pot - such forms should be inferred. And the grasping and recollection of capacities is done through that itself. So there is no inconsistency.

Similarly, the notion of existence also refers to the form itself. Even an object is only in the form of a particular individual. And so on. Therefore, in the narrative of Chitraketu in the Agirā's statement, it is said: "This division of body and embodied being is created by lack of discrimination, O Lord! This division of universal and particular is imposed on the reality."

Now, since the origination and destruction of words are universal, it would imply the non-eternality of all objects. But then, what is the use of the eternality of half-integrated letters? They address this with "tathā śabdeti" (thus, the word, etc.). Just as for other things, though one, there is manifestation in the form of short, long, thick, subtle, heavy, light, and so on due to the difference in their expressive functions, similarly, though words are one, there is manifestation in the form of short, long, etc., due to the difference in the expressive functions of words, but not through actual disappearance, for otherwise, there would be no possibility of perception. We have elaborated on this in the Prasthānaratna-prakāśa.

The eternality of words, which are similar to other objects, is indeed accepted by all. Therefore, that alone should be considered authoritative. They state this accepted view with "nityeti" (eternal, etc.). They present another objection with "śrūyateti" (it is heard, etc.). When a particular instance is destroyed, the universal and the inherence remain in another particular instance; and when all particular instances are destroyed, they remain in the collective (kalādi) or in time. But this is not accepted as a valid means of knowledge, because the perception is only in the form of the particular. And during the great dissolution, since there are no means of cognition to grasp its existence, therefore some argue that since words are weaker than direct perception, nothing contradicting direct perception can be accepted merely on the basis of words, as expressed in the phrase "dṛṣṭa" and so on. Just as direct perception is weaker than śāstra in comprehending the true nature of an observed object like a gem, similarly, here too, direct perception is weaker than words. This is the meaning. Others say "śruta" and so on, implying that since śabda (words) alone is authoritative without depending on other means of knowledge, it has strength, based on the Upaniṣadic statement "It becomes one, three, and nine". Others point out another objection in the form of complexity in assuming multiple objects, as expressed by "bahu" and so on. These multiple assumptions are to be understood as referring to the manifestation of many entities, their destruction, prior non-existence, and so on. They state the conclusion with "śruta" and so on, implying that it (śabda) should be accepted due to the simplicity of assumptions and its authority. However, if this is the case, one may argue that the mind should be purified by the scriptures alone, so what is the need for meditation on the lotus feet of the Lord? This is addressed by "śodhaka" and so on, meaning that even for the purified mind, meditating on the true nature of the Lord's form as revealed by meditation on His lotus feet is necessary. The phrase "doṣāvṛtatvāt" refers to the idea that this is because the mind is covered by faults like kāma (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), moha (delusion), mada (arrogance), and mātsarya (jealousy), which are to be understood from the scriptures themselves, since they purify the mind. One may argue that even after purifying the mind through practice and so on, mere purification of the mind is not very useful without purifying the object, since errors are still seen due to faults in the object. This is addressed by "viṣaye" and so on, stating that there is no fault causing delusion in objects like a conch shell. If there were such a fault, it would cause delusion even after correct perception. Since delusion does not arise after correct perception, there is no such fault in the object; rather, it is the fault in the mind itself that causes delusion. Therefore, purification of the mind is indeed useful. This also explains the concepts of indrajāla (magic) and camāra (a deceptive illusion). However, one may question how the object can be considered faultless given statements like "yad evāpratirūpaṃ paśyati" (one sees things as they are not) from the scriptures, which indicate the perception of unreality in objects. This is addressed by "sutarām" and so on, stating that although in the state of a knower, the senses may perceive objects as unreal due to their ignorance, in the present context of the object under discussion, such unreality is impossible, so the object is indeed faultless. One may further argue that if the true nature of objects can be known from the statements of sages like Kapila, what is the need for meditating on the Lord's feet? This is addressed by "kiñca" and so on, implying that since their statements contradict each other, and since meditation on the Lord's feet removes obstacles, it is necessary for the Lord's grace.

It is said: How can bliss be attained merely by lying down? That is why they say "inert" and so on. In the case of the inert, flavorless objects like sound, form, etc., which constitute the group of five sense objects. And in that case, the meaning is that it (the self) becomes so (inert) in order to accomplish their (sense objects') essence. They say "the Lord" and so on as the form that accomplishes the essence. And the meaning is that it (the self) accomplishes the state of being full of bliss.

But if it is the state of being full of bliss, how can there be a desire for flavor? That is why they say "there" and so on. The reason for that is "woman" and so on, is the word "that." As the Shruti says, "He did not indeed delight. Therefore, one alone does not delight," etc. Since enjoyment is not possible without the manifestation of flavors due to non-duality, he (the self) divided himself into two for the purpose of enjoyment, as it is said, "He caused himself to fall apart into two; from that, husband and wife came into being." The meaning is that after assuming the form of duality in himself, who is the original form, and entering into that dual form of himself, he became manifold.

Therefore, it is to be understood that the statement "she became this whole world" in that context is appropriate. Then, why is there an embodiment there? That is why it is said, "in the body" and so on. But how can the senses be sixteen? That is why it is said, "although" and so on. In a specific place, in the form of globes like the eye, etc. Similarly, since the mind is also a sense organ, the pleasure arising from it, such as the contemplation of objects, is also possible in the form of a globe in the heart. And since the skin is pervasive, it alone is the source of pleasure. Thus, there are eleven senses, with the predominance of the senses being five and the objects being predominant, making sixteen.

But how is the predominance or non-predominance determined? That is why it is said, "in enjoyment" and so on. And just as in hot weather, even though the senses are not inclined towards wearing clothes, ornaments, etc., the king still performs those actions to experience the pleasures of the kingdom, in the assembly and in private, similarly, the enjoyments through the senses are also performed. Thus, their predominance or non-predominance is determined through direct perception and inference.

With this, they establish: "Thus" and so on. The Shruti has stated the greatness of the Lord, saying, "This indeed is the cause of bliss," in the case of the self being of the nature of sixteen and being the source of bliss when there is the arising of pleasure from the objects and the senses.

Here, the word "alanka" is derived from the root "alankriti" meaning "to decorate." By praying for the entry of the Lord in the form of decoration and by describing the form of a person, etc., the Lord's being an ornament for a person is stated. Thus, the statement of Vyasa, "like a wish-fulfilling tree," is also justified. For in the fruit, which is devoid of the seed, all the qualities of the seed are present, though not manifested – this is the purport.

In the phrase "namastara-ma," the meaning is "fit to be known by those established in knowledge." The meaning is "fit to be drunk by those established in knowledge." But how can the Mahabharata and other works cause the forgetting of the manifold world? That is why it is said, "for liberation" and so on. But the result of liberation is also mentioned elsewhere, so why is it assured here alone? That is why it is said, "fourfold" and so on. The meaning is "also an obstacle to the desire for drinking," since the restraint of the inner senses is the means to peace, and the peaceful ones are also like that (an obstacle to the desire for drinking) through that (restraint).

And just as an example illustrates, so too the peaceful ones indicate the reason (for being an obstacle to the desire for drinking). || 24 ||

The phrase "tadeva" means "by such a mouth," i.e., the mouth of the Lord. This is not a case of repetition, i.e., the fault of repetition does not occur here. "Ubhayatra" means in both the actions of offering and drinking. They explain "sakshad-pada-yojanam" as "speaking in sequence," i.e., speaking in a sequence. "Ata eva" means because of the possibility of a fault, i.e., "eva" means "therefore."

But if there is indeed a sequence here, how is there no fault? That is why it is said, "prarthana-ya" and so on. And if there were a fault, one would not pray to the Lord. Even if prayer is possible in some way, there would be no knowledge.

"Shrneneti" means by referring to the words of Brahma and the Lord, i.e., by mentioning them. || 25 ||

Thus ends the explanation of the fourth chapter in the commentary called Subodhiniprakasha on the second canto.

Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī

Remembering the bestowal of knowledge, he prays with these two [verses]. Through their very mention is Samadhi, by which yogis, with their purified intellect, directly perceive the true nature of the individual self and the Supreme Self. However, other highly skilled poets describe this true nature of the Self only according to their preferences, not knowing its real meaning. May that Mukunda, the bestower of liberation to His devotees, the Lord, be pleased with me. The meaning well-known in the scriptures like "Brahma is verily Brahman" is indicated by the word "hi." (21)

Furthermore, in the beginning of the previous Kalpa, when the unborn Brahma expanded the eternal consciousness pertaining to Himself, Sarasvati, whose characteristics are described in the scriptures as the supreme means of knowledge and are unique to her, emerged from the mouth of Brahma as the foremost bestower of knowledge to the sages. May He be pleased with me. Since there are many authoritative scriptures supporting this, there is no doubt about it. This is expressed by the word "kila." (22)

Here, in anticipation of the question, "What fruit is expected from the Lord's grace upon you?" he says, "May He make my words..." The meaning is: May that Lord make my words adorned with qualities like sweetness that delights the listeners, truthfulness, etc. Anticipating the doubt, "How is it possible for anyone else to adorn words?" he describes the Lord's ability as the indweller of all by saying, "By the great elements..." The great elements like ether, etc., having formed these bodies seen everywhere, He dwells in these cities as the indweller. Here, he supports the word "Purusha" with evidence: "Because He lies in the city (puri), He is called Purusha." To explain how it is possible for the One to lie everywhere, he says, "The Vibhu..." Anticipating the question, "Why does He lie thus?" he says, "He enjoys..." with the idea that since He is conscious, He enjoys the objects for His own play, which is not possible for the insentient. He enjoys the sixteen categories: five sense objects like sound, five activities like speech, five vital airs, and one in the form of volition. Lest it be thought that this enjoyment is well-known only for the respective senses, he says, "The sixteen-natured..." meaning that He alone is of the nature of sixteen: ten senses, five vital airs, and one mind. (23)

Thus paying obeisance to the Lord, His avatara, his own father, and his guru Veda Vyasa, he says: "Obeisance to that Veda-creator, the Lord Vasudeva, the avatara of Vasudeva, Sri Vyasa." He clarifies Vyasa's role as the initiator of the Vedas: "Whose lotus-like mouth is the source of the nectar-like knowledge, whose peaceful disciples have imbibed [that knowledge]." The words "nectar-source" indicate that the knowledge imparted by him stops the misery of samsara. (24)

Thus paying obeisance to the guru-deity, to introduce the answer to the original question and indicate its traditional nature, he narrates the dialogue between Narada and Hiranyagarbha: "This itself..." Suggesting that you should listen to it, he addresses [you]: "O King!" What I have to say in response to your question, this very thing Brahma, the Self-born, imparted to Narada. The flow is: He imparted without being asked, lest you think it should not be spoken without being asked. Anticipating the doubt about the authority of that statement, he says: "What..." Meaning, he imparted exactly what Hari Himself had spoken about the Self, not something imagined. Though sometimes a different version is seen in the world, to dispel that doubt, he indicates your ability to grasp the true meaning and express it accordingly by saying: "The womb of the Vedas..." (25)

Thus, by the servant at the feet of Sri Mukundarayana, the son of Gopala in the lineage of Sri Vallabhacharya, for attaining the bliss of devotion, this Bala Prabodhini commentary on the Srimad Bhagavata has been composed. Here, in the second part dealing with the pleasing of the heart, the fourth chapter elucidating the speaker's faith has been expounded. (1-3)

Hindī Anuvāda

The wise men, through the samadhi of contemplating the lotus feet, experience the Self directly by their purified intellects. After directly seeing, they continue to describe His form according to their own understanding and inclination. May that Lord Sri Krishna, the bestower of love and liberation, be pleased upon me. (21)

The Primal Cause, who inspired the presiding goddess of knowledge to awaken the memory of the previous kalpa in the heart of Brahma at the time of creation, and who along with His limbs manifested as the Vedas from his mouth, may that Lord shower His grace upon me and manifest in my heart. (22)

It is the Lord Himself who has created these bodies from the five great elements and lies within them as the jiva. Endowed with the sixteen constituents - five cognitive senses, five active senses, five vital airs, and the mind - He experiences the sixteen sense objects through them. May that All-pervading Lord embellish my speech with His glories. (23)

I repeatedly bow to the lotus feet of the omniscient Lord Vyasa, the avatara of Vasudeva, from whose lotus mouth the saints incessantly drink the nectar-like knowledge flowing like celestial honey. (24)

O Parikshit! The self-born Lord Brahma, the womb of the Vedas, spoke this very thing to the questioning Narada, which was originally instructed to him by Lord Narayana Himself (and it is that very thing I am telling you). (25)

The Fourth Chapter is concluded.