Text 13: The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of “It is I” and “It is mine.”
Text 14: The five elementary ingredients of creation, the interaction thereof set up by eternal time, and the intuition or nature of the individual living beings are all differentiated parts and parcels of the Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva, and in truth there is no other value in them.
Text 15: The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord, the demigods are also meant for serving the Lord as parts of His body, the different planets are also meant for the sake of the Lord, and different sacrifices are performed just to please Him.
Text 16: All different types of meditation or mysticism are means for realizing Nārāyaṇa. All austerities are aimed at achieving Nārāyaṇa. Culture of transcendental knowledge is for getting a glimpse of Nārāyaṇa, and ultimately salvation is entering the kingdom of Nārāyaṇa.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Māyā has been described as the relationship with him (Brahman). And since the insurmountable nature of that (māyā) has also been stated, is there really any bondage for him (the Supreme Lord)? (The Lord) says, "That deluding potency of Mine does not know Me." Being ashamed to stand in the presence of Him whose vision she (māyā) does not accomplish her function on us ignorant souls whose knowledge is covered by nescience (avidyā), she merely boasts and prattles. With this, the question "What is the form (of the Lord)?" is answered. (13)
Having thus described the Supreme Lord as different from Himself, (the Lord) now wants to answer the nine questions beginning with "What is the substratum, etc.," by saying that He alone is everything from the substratum onwards. He denies the existence of anything else by saying "substance, etc." Substance means the great elements which are the material cause, action which is the cause of birth, time which agitates them, nature which is the cause of their transformation, the individual soul who is the enjoyer; there is no other object superior to Vāsudeva, because of the absence of any other cause apart from the cause (Brahman). (14)
He expands on that in two verses. Those whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa (are called) "para." Or, those whose highest goal is Nārāyaṇa (are called) "para." By this very statement that the scriptures originate from Him, the authority (of the scriptures), the Lord's omniscience, etc., are also stated. The gods are born as His limbs, so they are not different from Him. The worlds like heaven are part of His bliss. The sacrifices are means to attain Him. (15)
Yoga (meditation) is prāṇāyāma, etc. Austerity (tapas) is that which is accomplished by the concentration of the mind. Knowledge is that which is accomplished by that (austerity). The goal is that which is the result of that (knowledge). By this, everything that is dependent (on the Lord) is also stated. (16)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Here Vishvanath, the world teacher and creator of the universe, (says): "You are indeed the Lord Himself." Those who are devoted to You, what have they been deluded by māyā? Truly, those who are devoted to the relation with the Lord, and those who accept devotion from them, both being external observers, are deluded by māyā who stands behind the Lord's back, (the Lord) says "being ashamed (vilajja)." Here, by being averse to Him, her standing behind His back is to be understood. For when He is the prime Truth, she has no power over one face to face with Him. By this explanation, it is stated that this chapter illuminates the Lord Himself. (13)
By this it is stated that since the cause alone is the substratum of the effects, the Lord alone is the substratum of everything. (14)
Their being no other cause than Him - "All beings subsist by a portion of His bliss" according to the Shruti. Even the bliss of the worlds like heaven is indeed only a portion of the Lord's bliss. (15)
By the word "etc." (ādi) the seven limbs like yama, niyama, etc. are included. "Concentration of the mind is the highest austerity" according to the Smriti. That which is accomplished by that (concentration) is knowledge. The goal is the result of that knowledge. Even Brahman appears dependent on Him, as it has the nature of manifesting His universal form. As the venerable Matsya Deva said to Satyavrata: "You will come to know My greatness, called the Supreme Brahman, which has been graciously revealed in my heart in response to your inquiry." By these two verses, it is stated that all, including the Vedas, is dependent on Him. And by the word "eva" (alone), His being the substratum is also stated. (16)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
"Tasya api" means "of the Supreme Lord Himself." (13-18)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
He states the insurmountable nature of māyā for others and her not touching the Lord by saying "being ashamed (vilajjamānayā)." Those who are deluded by this māyā who, being ashamed, does not accomplish her function in the presence of the Lord's glance, prattle in the ignorance of "mine" and "I". (13)
He explains the prattling itself by saying "substance (dravyam)." Some say the material cause itself is substance, i.e., the elements like earth. Others say action itself is the cause. Others (say) time, others nature, and others the individual soul dependent on action - deluded by māyā, they prattle thus. Stating that the categories imagined independent by them are dependent on the Lord, he says "than Vāsudeva (vāsudevāt)." O Brahman, there is no other object superior to Vāsudeva among the objects like substance, etc. Just as there is nothing superior to Vāsudeva, so too there is nothing independent of Him or not consisting of Him - this will be indicated in the coming verses. (14)
He establishes this by the phrase "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa (nārāyaṇa-parāḥ)." The Vedas are called thus because Nārāyaṇa is their highest cause, as the Śruti states: "The Rig Veda is the exhaled breath of this great being." Or, they are called so because Nārāyaṇa is their highest object of exposition, as the Śruti states: "All the Vedas seek to know His feet." The gods like Indra are born from Nārāyaṇa's limbs and are His body, as per statements like "The moon was born from His mind; it is the self, the other gods are His limbs." The worlds are called so because Nārāyaṇa is their highest Lord. The sacrifices are called so because Nārāyaṇa is their highest object of worship. (15)
Yoga is the upāsanā arising from discrimination, and its highest object is Nārāyaṇa. Austerity is the action forming a limb of knowledge, and Nārāyaṇa is its highest culmination. Knowledge is that arising from scriptures, and since yoga was mentioned earlier, its highest object of meditation is also Nārāyaṇa. The goal is the result of yoga, like attaining the sun's orbit, and its highest destination is also Nārāyaṇa. (16)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Deluded by this māyā called Śaivalya, which covers the true nature of the individual self, which feels ashamed to remain under the Lord's glance, people attain wrong knowledge. Hence, these ignorant people prattle, "The universe is under my control. I am the doer of everything." The purport is that the chief māyā is the Lord's power, the chief Prakṛti, according to the statement "Realize the variety from the statement 'māyā has the nature of a magic show.'" (13)
Now, if it is said, "There is no other cause for Viṣṇu," because of the perception that earth, etc. are not the operative cause, to this he says, "Substance (dravyam)." Substance means earth, etc., action in the form of merit and demerit, or a particular modification of earth, etc. Time is the cause of modification. Nature is of the nature of sound. The individual self is the abode of happiness and distress. Or, substance is rice-ball, etc., action is the function of priests, etc., time is spring, etc., nature is being a brahmaṇa, etc., and the individual self is called the sacrificer. Any one of these other than substance, etc. is not superior to Vāsudeva. Then, would there be anything equal to Him? To this, he says, "Exactly like that (tāttvatah)." No, it is not implied. Exactly like that means there is nothing equal. From the statement, "Declare what is exactly like that," it is established that substance, etc. are not the operative cause, are dependent on the Lord alone, and the Lord alone is the complete agent. (14)
Now, if it is objected that statements like "Hiranyagarbha alone existed in the beginning..." present your qualities differently, then how can they have a different subject matter? Anticipating this, to convey that those statements also propound the qualities of Lord Hari who exists within me, he says, "Whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa (nārāyaṇa-parāḥ)." They are called thus because Nārāyaṇa alone is the highest object to be expounded in what they expound. Explaining this, he says, "The gods (devāḥ)." By this, it is understood that the gods are inferior as they are born from the eyes, etc. which are limbs of Nārāyaṇa, and Nārāyaṇa is superior. "Nārāyaṇa is the highest protector of those called so." This indicates that in statements like "I am the enjoyer of all sacrifices," Nārāyaṇa is said to be the highest among the deities like Indra who are the subjects of sacrifices. Hence, the sacrifices are called "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa (nārāyaṇa-parāḥ)." (15)
Even among objects to be united through the eight-fold yoga, Hari alone is the highest. He alone is the object of severe austerities like Cāndrāyaṇa, meaning he is the highest for those undergoing austerities. Knowledge whose object is Nārāyaṇa - by knowledge, Hari is the highest object to be known. Whose goal is Nārāyaṇa - among goals or destinations, He alone is the chief goal or destination. It is said, "Among objects of going, knowing, words and uniting, Hari is the highest." By this, the subject matter of words like Hiraṇyagarbha as referring to four-faced Brahmā is refuted, as per "All Vedas seek to know His feet." (16)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
The two words "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa (nārāyaṇa-parāḥ)" convey that all scriptures harmoniously establish Śrī Nārāyaṇa as the supreme object of worship. The Vedas are called so because their purport is Nārāyaṇa. Though other deities are also mentioned as objects of worship, the meaning is that they are described thus only because they have originated from the limbs of Nārāyaṇa. Even the worlds which are their resorts, as well as the primary sacrifices which are the means to attain Him, are called "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa," for they are but reflections of His transcendental bliss and aids in realizing Him. (15)
Similarly, the eightfold yoga and sāṅkhya philosophy; the austerities which are their objects; the one-pointed concentration of mind which is the object of those austerities; and the knowledge of Brahman which is the object of that concentration - all have Nārāyaṇa as their highest object. This is because the knowledge of Brahman reveals only His universal form, yoga and austerities are aids in realizing Him, and so on. What more can be said? Even the goal of attaining Brahman, or Brahman itself, has Nārāyaṇa as its highest object, for it reveals only His universal form and appears dependent on Him. As the blessed Matsya Deva said to Satyavrata: "The glories described belong to Me, the Supreme Brahman. This knowledge, received by the grace of Vāsudeva, has been imprinted in my heart by your incessant inquiries." Here, the primary sacrifices, etc. are forms of His manifested energies, while the goal is indeed a fraction of His transcendental bliss, being the result thereof. (16)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Are there really people deluded by māyā who consider you, the creator of the universe, to be the Lord and show you respect? Yes, those who show respect as well as those who accept such respect from others, being external observers of the Lord, are certainly deluded by māyā, which resides in His personal realm. "Ashamed to be under His glance" means she (māyā) remains only in His personal realm, being ashamed to be in His presence, like a deceitful woman. Her influence is only on those averse to Him, not on those facing Him directly. (13)
To answer the question "What is Your actual form?", he first establishes that nothing else exists apart from the Lord, with the verse beginning "Substance (dravyam)." Substance means the great elements in the role of material cause. Action is the cause of birth. Time agitates the guṇas. Nature is the cause of their transformations. The living entity is the enjoyer. There is nothing superior to Vāsudeva, since substance, etc. are products of māyā, and the living entity is also His energy. This answers "What is Your actual form?" (14)
"Whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa" - by stating the Vedas' source is the Lord, it is indicated that He is the valid evidence, being omniscient, etc. Also, since the Vedas, etc. reside in and depend on Nārāyaṇa, they are called "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa." This answers "What is the basis of Your knowledge?" (15)
"Goal" means liberation. (16)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
It is not only that they are deluded by the Lord's māyā and speak of me as the teacher of the world, but they also boast, "I am the Lord, this universe is mine."
The verse means, "Ashamed to be under His glance" - those who are deluded by that māyā are ashamed to be in the vision of the Supreme Lord, the master of all conscious and unconscious beings, as declared in the Vedic statement beginning with "whose vision extends over the material and spiritual worlds." Therefore, these deluded people proudly claim "I am the Supreme." (13)
After thus establishing that the Supreme Lord is superior to himself, he answers the question "What is the basis?" and other queries by stating that although everything is different from the Lord in form, being composed of spiritual and material energies, there is no difference from Him who is the cause, since nothing exists apart from the all-pervading Lord. "Substance" means the material elements beginning from the mahat-tattva down to the physical bodies. "Action" refers to the cause of birth. "Time" is the agitator. "Nature" is the cause of transformation. "The living entity" is the knower of the field. Any object, expressed or unexpressed, as well as the Vedic sound, has no existence separate from Vāsudeva's essential nature, for the Vedic statement declares "All this is verily Brahman," and the Smṛti affirms "Vāsudeva is all." (14)
He expands on this with the two words "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa." Nārāyaṇa is the highest cause of those called "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa," as the Vedic statement says, "From that great being was breathed forth the Ṛg Veda." Deities like us have originated from the limbs of Nārāyaṇa, as the Vedic statement declares, "From Nārāyaṇa, Brahmā was born, from Nārāyaṇa, Rudra was born, Nārāyaṇa is indeed one." Those whose resort is Nārāyaṇa are also called so. Primary sacrifices and other rituals whose goal is Nārāyaṇa are referred to as "whose highest object is Nārāyaṇa." (15)
Yoga was mentioned before. Austerity means difficult observances. Knowledge refers to that arising from the study of Vedānta. Goal means the path of archirādi, etc. (16)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Then, regarding the doubt that if this deluding power (māyā) is of the same essential nature as the Lord, it might delude even its own basis, he says: "Ashamed to be under His glance" - For she (māyā), being the Lord's wife, deludes the intelligence of those who turn away from the Lord, with the intention of enjoying perpetual dalliance with Him. The Lord knows her nature. Therefore, being ashamed, she does not dare to stand even in His glance. Hence, she does not delude those who are facing Him, but only those who have turned away. This is what he states: "Deluded by that māyā, they boastfully claim 'I am the Supreme.'" He mentions the means of delusion by saying "the unintelligent," for she deludes their very intelligence. (13)
Having thus explained knowledge along with its accessories, he first establishes the fundamental truth for the purpose of describing the self: "Substance" and so on. For this truth is not manifold but is indeed one for all. In that truth, everything is fivefold. If the Lord is the truth of those five, then it naturally follows that He is the very truth of their effects as well. He enumerates those five: Substance is the material cause in the form of the great elements, etc. Action is the common cause of birth for the world, along with the unseen results. Time is the agitator of the qualities, also implying the unseen cause. What is experienced everywhere as the basis is Nature, the cause of transformation. The living entity is the enjoyer, a part of the Lord, along with the presiding deities characterized by various misconceptions. Among these, Time, Action and Nature have been properly explained in the previous verse. The living entity has also been described separately. Substance is mentioned here itself, and all products of material nature will be described later on. None of these are different from Vāsudeva, for in establishing the truth, the Lord has been described as the true form of the deities. "In essence" means that although appearing different, there is no real difference, since existence belongs to Him alone. He is addressed as "Brahman" to dispel any disbelief regarding the established truth, for you yourself are Brahman - what doubt can there be about anyone else's brahminical nature? The phrase "any object" implies that there is no division in terms of duties either. By the word "different," any notion of difference in essential nature is refuted. By the word "superior," distinction from the supreme cause is negated. The justification "expressed or unexpressed" is stated. For the relation between words and their meanings is eternal, and if words and meanings are of the same nature as the Lord, their eternality and non-dual nature is established. (14)
Having given the answer that the Lord is the truth of everything, he responds to the further inquiry raised: "The Vedas have Nārāyaṇa as their highest object" and so on. If there could be any possibility of different meanings, further examination would be required. In that case, considering in terms of essential nature, meaning, result, means, and sequence - even in the second cycle, in terms of means, action, and result - there is no disagreement about the Lord being the truth in any respect. There it is undisputed that the purport of the Vedas, which have emanated from the Lord's breath and will re-enter Him, is Nārāyaṇa. Even in the middle, as they indicate their own meaning, since that meaning is of the nature of the Lord, they have the Lord as their highest object. Furthermore, the four kinds of Vedic words denote an object that is focused on the consciousness of the Lord - in this world, people's efforts are directed towards that object, and having expressed it, they become successful and desist. For their effort is to know the objects focused on the Lord's consciousness. Therefore, being the means to attain the object intended by the Lord, they have the Lord as their highest object. Thus, words, their meanings, and their expression all have the Lord as their highest object. But it may be argued that the connected meaning of sentences is their intended meaning, which is fourfold: injunctive, explanatory, eulogistic, and prayer-formulae. Of these, the injunctive meaning, defined as prompting human effort, is focused on human effort or suggests such effort indirectly. Explanatory passages eulogize. Formulae are employed in praising deities other than the one being worshipped. Those referring to the deity being worshipped are used in indicating that deity and in making offerings. Even proper names are meant to delimit the meaning of verbal roots. How then can these, being aimed at their respective meanings, convey the purport of the Lord? To this he says: "The deities are born from the limbs of Nārāyaṇa," "The worlds have Nārāyaṇa as their highest object," "Sacrifices have Nārāyaṇa as their highest object." For the entire Veda, whether fourfold or prompting action, is utilized in sacrifice, since sacrifice is the meaning of the great sayings. There, indeed, sacrifice is the means. The attainment of heaven, etc. is the goal. There, currently, sacrifices manifested by human effort generate their own activity as well as the pleasure of the deities in the middle. Otherwise, due to the lack of activity and the absence of instruments, they cease. However, the unseen results etc. are not activities, since they are not produced by sacrifice. In an imaginary situation, due to the absence of authority. Because of the existence of the perceived activity. For they, relinquishing material objects to the deities, achieve heaven. And the deity, receiving the oblation meant for another according to the injunction, becomes qualified to render some assistance. This is observed in the world. Otherwise, the sacrifice would not consist in the relinquishment of objects meant for that purpose. Since it is possible to state that the deity's assistance is in the form of preparing the material objects. And beginning from the offering, the statement concerning its connection also turns out to be for the sake of a rite like sprinkling, etc. Even though the fourth case (accusative) denoting the deity is not present in those terms. Because of the use of the indeclinable particle (upapada). The pleasure is derived through the sacrificial act. Because there is no evidence of a reminder of it at a later time. There would be difficulty in imagining that. Still, to avoid the fault of the fourth case being meaningless, its meaning must necessarily be stated. And since it is established elsewhere, it can only be the dative (sampradana). This is well known in the case of the deity's designation. As in "to whichever deity the oblation would be taken" and "I offer the libation to Agni," etc., the fourth case has that kind of meaning. For there are no words like "homage," "well-being," etc. in those instances. But again, in a sacrifice, since heaven is desired as the result, merely to convey the idea that the deity is not the object, the instruction about using the indeclinable particles "homage," "well-being," "svaha," etc. follows. Pleasure is not an activity, since it cannot generate heaven, being of a different nature. But the deity, being the agent for attaining heaven, etc., can bestow that result. Therefore, the activity is the deity being pleased with the material objects. And that (deity) is eternal and conscious. And it is capable of determining the appropriate result. However, since it is not dependent on human effort, the human being is not its object of intention, so the sacrifice cannot be accomplished otherwise merely on that basis. Therefore, despite the deity being the activity in the middle, the Supreme Lord is the ultimate object. For the deities have originated from the limbs like arms, etc. of Narayana. Surely, they do not engage in service to the limbs but rather to the possessor of those limbs. Even though the limbs themselves should be mentioned, since they are limbs of that very form, those born from them become limb-born deities. Even in the case of pleasure, since it is perceived and authoritative, there is no difficulty in postulating remembrance, etc. again. Moreover, wherever the deity is accepted as the activity, that heaven, etc. becomes the object. Even in the world of heaven or in happiness, there is no contradiction with regard to their belonging to the Supreme Lord, since the Vedas declare those worlds of heaven, etc. to be his limbs, as in "the world of heaven is his heart," etc. And from the Vedic statement "Other beings survive by obtaining a fraction of that bliss," it follows that since the worlds like heaven, etc. are fractions of the bliss of the Supreme Lord, those who perform sacrifices are sustained by a fraction of the Lord's bliss in achieving their goals, and the deities who grant the fruits merely carry out the Lord's actions. Thus, there is no dispute that even the superior and inferior results belong to the Supreme Lord, and those engaged for the sake of those results are also ultimately aiming at the Supreme Lord. Therefore, in the consideration of the meaning of statements as well, the fact that the Vedas are centered on the Supreme Lord is established. Next, the examination of the Puranas being centered on the Supreme Lord should be undertaken. Any objections must also be dispelled.
In the Puranas, the four goals – the philosophies of Sankhya, Yoga, Pashupati, and Vaishnavism – are to be expounded. Regarding the last of these, there should be no apprehension of contradiction, since Yoga, consisting of the cessation of mental activities, is intrinsically not a human pursuit and hence should be a means to human pursuits. It cannot conceive of meanings contrary to the Vedas, as that would lead to it being unauthentic. The supernatural powers like atomicity, etc. are not its primary goal, since there would be the fault of not being a means to liberation. Those supernatural powers will be described later as merely obstructions causing a waste of time. Therefore, even while being a means to liberation, Yoga only accomplishes single-minded contemplation on the Supreme Lord, since both seed-imbued and seed-free meditations are focused on the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord. Hence, for Yoga too, in consideration of the ultimate goal, it must be postulated that the pleasure of the Supreme Lord alone is the ultimate activity, just as before. Even though it (Yoga) is focused on transforming the mind, since the fruit is dependent on the Supreme Lord, it is necessary to postulate that Yoga is dedicated to observing the Supreme Lord. By using the plural "yogas," all the varieties of Yoga are ultimately centered on the Supreme Lord. The fact that they are centered on the Supreme Lord will be elaborated upon. Their being centered on the Supreme Lord is undisputed in general, since they are means to attain the Supreme Lord. Penance (tapas) too is completely centered on the Supreme Lord by virtue of preparing the body and senses for the service of the Supreme Lord. Otherwise, that which is fraught with suffering would not culminate in a human pursuit. The doctrine of Pashupati is focused solely on penance. Knowledge is twofold – that derived from the Upanishads, and that established by the Sankhya philosophy. Even though these two are contradictory to each other – the former declares everything to be the Self, being all-inclusive in its scope of the Self, while the latter excludes everything from the Self – the principal goal for one who has initially engaged in superimposing the Self and the non-Self is to distinguish the Self. Otherwise, for one who comprehends the non-existence of everything, the knowledge of the Self would be impossible due to ignorance. And the purpose of knowledge is only the object of knowledge. That object of knowledge is none other than Narayana, being the Self, the All, and the Absolute. The goal (gati), as mentioned before, is also centered on the Supreme Lord alone. For it becomes the result of the knowledge of the Absolute, as stated in the verse: "They indeed attain the goal of the Absolute." (15) (16)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Therefore, due to the inability to remain face to face, this is the meaning: "māyā" in the form of delusion etc., which is the accessory that establishes the falsity of knowledge of that kind along with the substance [is meant]. (13)
In the explanation, it means in the form of residual impressions (unconscious traces). The following [words] etc., since the time etc. being spoken of here are in the form of deities, possessing divine bodies composed of sattva, the embodiment of sattva means that sattva is the mode (dharma), not the primordial material quality (prakṛti-guṇa). The one whose body is of that kind is indicated as the Lord, conveyed as the cause, with the meaning of depicting the form that is not adventitious or imposed. For that very primordial Being (sat) itself, by the Vedic text "You are indeed Brahman" etc., the term "Brahman-state" is used. Even in terms of attributes (dharma), there is no difference, meaning that the attributes of being the material cause, the efficient cause, the source of agitation, the cause of manifoldness and commonality, and being the enjoyer – all these belong to the Lord alone.
However, here it is objected that since the words "para" (superior) and "anya" (other) have the same meaning, using one of them would make the other redundant. To this, they say: The statement "manifest as something distinct" [is used] because there is a difference in the controlling principle (adhiṣṭhātṛ-bheda). And thus, Vāsudeva is not "para" (superior), but rather "apara" (not superior) – that is, subordinate to Him. In this way, even though beings like souls (jīva) are non-different from the Lord in essence, they are not equal to the Lord, but rather inferior to Him. This meaning is made clear in the tenth chapter: "Those who are favored by Me attain prosperity, not those who are neglected by Me." Yet, if the intention is to convey that [the Lord] is supreme by virtue of possessing distinct attributes, then the mere existence [of something] is not sufficient to prove that its essential nature is different from Vāsudeva, since it is of the same essential nature as Vāsudeva. To this objection, they present a separate argument by saying, "Its meaning...". (14)
"Its meaning" refers to the reason given. But how can the word "artha" (meaning) denote a reason? To this, they say: "Indeed, eternal..." – the connection between words and their meanings (shabdārtha-sambandha), the relation of words like "substance" etc. with their meanings, is indeed eternal. Just as common people use conventional words like "Narasimha" to denote humans, it is not like that. Rather, in the theory of the eternal relation between words and meanings, words are expressive, and their meanings (artha) are eternal. Therefore, distinct attributes like substance etc. are of the same essence as the Lord, being eternal – for what is eternal is indeed meaningful (artha). And thus, by the Vedic statement "This self, my dear, is indeed that [Brahman]," since everything is of the essential nature of Being (sat), and is therefore eternal, verbal expressions are merely adventitious, and their real meaning (artha-pada) is that their essential nature is that of the Lord.
"In this [passage], there is an investigation regarding Nārāyaṇa." – By such an inquiry, it is known that this alone is the non-imposed form of all [things]. Such an inquiry takes the form of affirmation and negation (ūhāpoha). Now, if the Vedas are focused on Nārāyaṇa, how is the knowledge of the truth mentioned earlier established? Anticipating this question, they present an argument: "If many..." – If there were many essential meanings (artha-tattva), then by being focused on those [multiple meanings], the Vedas would indeed indicate different meanings. But this is not the case, therefore the Vedas do not indicate different meanings.
They affirm with an example: "In that case..." – In the previous section, after establishing that the Lord alone [is the meaning], they show that the Vedas are focused on Him in terms of His essential nature, by saying: "The purport of such Vedas, whose controller is He – i.e., the purport of Him who is the supreme controller – is indeed to expound His status as the controller." And thus, it is stated that the Vedas essentially expound Nārāyaṇa.
They show [that the Vedas expound the Lord] from the perspective of meaning (artha) in the phrase "In the middle as well..." – "In the middle" means that in the condition of being situated externally, they show [the Lord] as the means, with statements like "Indeed, they pervade..." – meaning that the four kinds [of words] – nouns, verbs, particles, and prefixes – pervade [and point to the Lord]. "The effort of the individual soul..." – That for which the manifestation is due to the effort of the individual soul, and the dissolution is its disappearance – such things as substances, qualities, and actions [are shown to be related to the Lord].
"In this way..." – Meaning, in the sense of being expressive of meaning, as well as being the Vedas. They show that [the Vedas expound the Lord] from the perspective of the ancillary parts through the statement "However..." – The four kinds [of words] indicate prohibitions, in the sense of causing cessation, and indicate injunctions through the expression of meaning. In nouns and verbs – i.e., in word-meanings expressing actions. "In that context..." – i.e., in ritual contexts [mentioned] in statements. "Dik" means that in the word "ādi" (and so on), there is no prior member.
If a doubt arises as to what is the authority for the statement that sacrifices (yajña) delight the deities, they explain this by citing the context of passages like 'With the sacrifice, creatures were created'. 'Those' refers to the performers of sacrifices. 'From the observation of reciprocation through delight' means that since reciprocation is observed due to delight. 'Otherwise' means in the absence of delight being the cause. They raise the question, 'Why would it not be so?' by saying 'Because...'. And the meaning is that since consecration has a purpose, delight is the cause. However, even if consecration has a purpose, there is no obstacle to sacrificial rites being the means of delighting the deities, since the four cases (caturthī) denoting the deities are heard as such. They establish this by saying 'Even if...'. 'In that supposition' means in the supposition of the Smrti texts. And the meaning of 'And if...' is that in other instances, like 'giving a cow to a Brahmin,' the fourth case alone is established as denoting giving. 'Denoting that meaning' means expressing that sense. However, if this explanation is accepted, the mention of the fourth case would become redundant in the injunction, and to avoid this defect, they establish the validity by stating the intention as 'In a sacrifice, however...'. And thus, since the fourth case is prescribed with reference to the action in the injunction about offering oblations, and the deity is the object of that action, the deity is established as the goal, and thereby delight is established as the cause. However, it is objected that according to common reasoning, it is not proper for delight in deities to be the cause, since they are different from the agent of the action that produces the result, and in the world, only the property of being the instrument is seen to be the cause, as in the case of an axe, etc. They accept this objection by saying 'No, indeed...'. Then, to avoid any other unacceptability, they say 'However, the deity...'. Hence, even though capable, since they bestow on all, that delight is not inert. And since delight is produced by the sacrifice, and the deity is also delighted in that form, and since they have the capacity to bestow the result, the supposition of an unseen entity is not appropriate, as it is consistent with the definition of being the cause through the combination of delight and the action. For in the world too, reciprocation is observed in such cases. Therefore, wherever a sentient being intervenes, the property of being the cause belongs to a different entity, and where there is no intervention of a sentient being, it remains the same – thus, everything is consistent. However, if this is accepted, there is an apprehension that the sacrifice would lose its status as the cause, and since the result can occur even without the sacrifice continuing to produce delight, it may be said to be redundant. To remove this doubt, they say 'But supreme...'. With this, they conclude the established view by saying 'Thus...'. 'Heard' means that since the sacrifice does not cease to exist. 'Belonging to the Supreme Being' means that the deity is an auxiliary part of the sacrifice, and delight is an auxiliary part of the deity, thereby establishing their connection to the Supreme Being through this sequence of auxiliary parts. They state the reason for this by saying 'That...'. In the phrase 'born there,' the meaning is 'entered' or 'present.' However, if this is accepted, the topic of delight was previously... To address this, they say 'Delight...'. And thus, even in the supposition of delight being a reminder of the property of being connected to the deities, there is no defect. They establish the same status for the result by saying 'Moreover...', where the reading 'being the accomplisher of the action' may be more appropriate than 'being accomplished by the action.' They conclude by saying 'Thus...'. Here, it should be understood that there is no separate discussion of the results like austerity, knowledge, and attaining Brahman, which are auxiliary acts mentioned in the second chapter, as their connection to the Supreme Being is established through the examination of the Purāṇas themselves. 'Also a defect for others' means that since the Itihāsa and Purāṇa are declared to be the fifth Veda according to the statement 'The Itihāsa and Purāṇa are the fifth among the Vedas,' if they are not connected to the Supreme Being, it would be a defect for others (who consider them authoritative). 'Hence' means since meditation is not transitory. 'Also heard' refers to the third chapter. 'Austerity alone is exhausted' means that in the fourth chapter, it is stated that the triple baths, etc., are to be performed with ashes, and since the same is stated in the Śiva Purāṇa, and austerity takes that form, therefore (it is understood as such) (15).
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
Even though she (māyā) is capable of deluding Bhagavān himself due to her connection with him, and is said to be powerful and invincible in deluding, she would make even her own basis, Bhagavān himself, bound to saṃsāra. Apprehending this, it is said that although she is invincible, she is utterly ineffective against Bhagavān – "vilajjamānayā" (by the ashamed one). Not knowing my trick, the one before whose sight and range of vision even that māyā stands ashamed, the deluded ones, deeply engrossed in sense objects due to lack of courage, proudly declare in relation to the body and such forms brought about by Bhagavān himself, "This is mine, I am this." (13)
Having thus described the supreme Lord as different from oneself, and having answered the question "What is his form?", he now proceeds to state that apart from him there is nothing at all, as the answer to the remaining nine questions starting with "What is his designation?" etc. He says – "dravyam" (substance) – the great elements are the material cause; "karma" (action) is the cause of birth; "kāla" (time) is the agitator of guṇas and karmas; "svabhāva" (nature) is the cause of various transformations; "jīva" (soul) is the experiencer; and any other entity not mentioned is also not different from Vāsudeva. Anticipating the doubt "How can it not be (different), since it is perceived?", he says "tattvataḥ" (in reality), meaning from the perspective of the Supreme Reality. Just as an ornament like a bangle or a necklace is not different from gold, which is established by all, similarly, since the effect is necessarily non-different from the cause, and since substance etc. is the effect, it is not different from Vāsudeva, the cause. Though there are many views, he addresses (the student) with the intention that trust should be placed in this view alone – "he brahman" (O brāhmaṇa). (14)
He elaborates on what has been said with a couple of verses – "nārāyaṇa" etc. Nārāyaṇa is the supreme cause, as described in Vedic statements like "That which is the breath of this great being is the Ṛg Veda" etc. By establishing the Vedas as originating from Īśvara, his omniscience etc. is also stated. The devas (gods) are part of Nārāyaṇa's body, known through his command, hence not different from him, as per statements like "The mind was born from Candramā" etc. The worlds like svarga are dependent on Nārāyaṇa, being parts of his bliss. Sacrifices (yajñas) are also centered on Nārāyaṇa, being means to attain svarga etc., promulgated by him through the Vedas. (15)
Yogas, consisting of prāṇāyāma etc., are aimed at Nārāyaṇa, promulgated by him as a means of worshipping him. Austerities like cāndrāyaṇa, which are difficult, are also promulgated by Nārāyaṇa as a means of purifying the mind etc., to attain him. Knowledge of Bhagavān's truth is dependent on Nārāyaṇa – even with all other means, it does not arise without his grace. The attainment of different worlds and of Bhagavān himself is dependent on Nārāyaṇa – respective means are empowered by him, and the fruits are granted by him accordingly. (16)
Hindī Anuvāda
This māyā does not even stand before their eyes, she flees far away at once. But the ignorant people of the world, deluded by her, keep saying 'This is me, this is mine' in this way. (13)
O Nārada! The reality is that there is no other entity apart from Bhagavān - substance, action, time, nature, and the soul. (14)
The Vedas are devoted to Nārāyaṇa. The deities too are conceived as parts of Nārāyaṇa's body, and all sacrifices are for pleasing Nārāyaṇa, and even the worlds attained from them are conceived within Nārāyaṇa. (15)
The six kinds of yoga are also meant for attaining Nārāyaṇa. All austerities lead towards Nārāyaṇa. Through knowledge also, Nārāyaṇa alone is known. The culmination of all means and ends is Bhagavān Nārāyaṇa. (16)
SB 2.5.13-16
