Text 17: Inspired by Him only, I discover what is already created by Him [Nārāyaṇa] under His vision as the all-pervading Supersoul, and I also am created by Him only.
Text 18: The Supreme Lord is pure, spiritual form, transcendental to all material qualities, yet for the sake of the creation of the material world and its maintenance and annihilation, He accepts through His external energy the material modes of nature called goodness, passion and ignorance.
Text 19: These three modes of material nature, being further manifested as matter, knowledge and activities, put the eternally transcendental living entity under conditions of cause and effect and make him responsible for such activities.
Text 20: O Brāhmaṇa Nārada, the Superseer, the transcendent Lord, is beyond the perception of the material senses of the living entities because of the above-mentioned three modes of nature. But He is the controller of everyone, including me.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
When asked "Then what do you do?", He says: "Even though created by Me, through My glance alone I create. The reasons for this, such as 'for the sake of the seer', are stated." (17)
Now, one may ask: "From where does this division between the individual self and the Lord arise, since you are the prompted and He is the prompter?" In response to this, He states the reason for the division between the individual self and the Lord through three (principles): "sattva" and so on. The meaning is that even for the Lord who is free from qualities, these three qualities bind Him. What are they like? Adopted by His own free will for the purpose of existence, etc., through His deluding potency. (18)
In fact, they always bind even the purusha (individual) who is eternally liberated and the ruler, with regard to the objective world - with the effect as the physical realm, the cause as the subtle body, and the agent as the presiding deity. Their existence is characterized by materiality - the great elements with the word "knowledge" referring to the deities, and the senses with their objects as their basis. Bound by identification with each of these causes. (19)
Therefore, that is the clearly defined nature and reality of the one who is subservient to this deluding potency, bound by these limiting qualities pertaining to the individual selves. Or, whose nature and reality is clearly defined by these very (qualities), being independent. (20)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
He raises an objection with "tarhi" (then) - "Is it not by His own will?" Meaning, no, it is by His glance alone, by His command. With the words "for the sake of the seer", it is implied that while His is indeed the state of being the witness, the lord, the all-inner-soul, and the immutable, the individual self's state is different from that. Accordingly, the scriptures state: "The one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner soul of all beings, the over-ruler of all, the controller of all beings, the witness, the knower, free from qualities." "He is the lord of beings, the lord of the world, the protector of the world." He who is realized as present in the awareness of all beings from Brahma down to the smallest insect, is called the Immutable. (17)
Here he raises an objection with "nanviti" - "How can the three qualities like sattva affect the one who is free from qualities and untouched by them?" In response, he says that they are adopted by the Lord through His own deluding potency, for the sake of existence, etc. Meaning, they have the nature of His potencies and qualities. The usage "adopted" here, even though His form is eternal, should be understood in accordance with conventional worldly speech, just like "by His will were these forms manifested" with reference to Krishna's eternal forms. (18)
To explain that there is no contradiction in the eternal being bound, he says "māyinam" - Here, māyā means delusion. That delusion arises because, from beginningless time, He has turned away from the qualities, and it is due to His being overpowered by māyā. Bondage is nothing but that influence of the qualities. However, it does not negate His being eternally liberated, as He is not directly affected. Cit-sukha (pure consciousness) says - The material elements, the gross effect; knowledge, the subtle body; the functions of the knower, the senses; with their objects as the basis - by the practice of identifying with the body as the effect, with the senses as the cause, with the mind as the agent, they bind. For the immutable consciousness, by superimposing māyā as the basis, there is the idea of Lordship; by superimposing it as the object, the idea of individualized self. (19)
By these indicators, by these distinct agents which are His own powers, His nature is defined. As stated in the verse: "You are inferred from the manifestation of the qualities." (20)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
[According to Amarakosha, the term "gunas" refers to the white and other colors. Therefore, the phrase "the three gunas" qualifies the previous worldly statement that the gunas are of white, red and black colors. Alternatively, according to Medinīkosha, "guna" means the non-principal. So the phrase "adopted by māyā for the purpose of existence, etc." connects to the previous worldly idea that they take a non-principal form. Hence, Swami's commentary does not consider the term "bind" in the next world's statement as redundant, as it is connected to the accepted previous worldly idea.]
Adhibhūtam refers to the physical realm. Adhyātmam refers to the senses. Adhidaivam refers to the deities that prompt the senses' functions. (19, 20)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
By stating "Thus everything is dependent on Him", it does not become a denial of the Vedas. But then you may ask, "Are you merely a servant?" To this, He says, "tamye" - I am created and prompted to create the world by the Lord, who is the inner soul of all, the all-pervading witness of everything, the omniscient ruler who has brought everything under His control, the immutable one, merely by His wish in the form of knowledge and will. What is the reason or purpose for this? That is the intended meaning. (17)
Now, you may wonder, "How does He have this relationship of the commanded and the commander? How can He possess qualities like omniscience when you lack them?" To this, He says, "sattvam" - Though He is free from the dispositions to be avoided, since immediately after it was said that He possesses auspicious qualities, the three gunas - sattva and others - are adopted by the all-pervading Lord through His deluding potency Maya, by way of Prakriti, for the sake of sustaining, creating, and withdrawing the world. The idea is that sattva and other gunas are adopted by the Lord for the sake of His divine play of creation, sustenance and dissolution. (18)
After explaining that the gunas are for the Lord's divine play, He talks about how they bind the individual souls in "kārye" - The gross body is the effect, the senses are the cause; with the idea of being the agent in these two, for the purpose of experiencing good and bad results, the gunas like sattva bind the eternal individual self who is overpowered by Maya, even though he is imperishable by nature, merely by the relationship.
The term "dravya" indicates that the gunas have the nature of deluding, revealing and prompting. This can be understood from statements like these in this chapter: "The three gunas born of Prakriti - sattva, rajas and tamas, O mighty-armed Arjuna, they bind the immutable soul to the body. Of these, sattva, being stainless, is the illuminating one, flawless and attaches by binding to happiness and knowledge, O sinless one. Know rajas to be of the nature of passion, the source of thirst and attachment. It binds the embodied one by attachment to action, O Arjuna. But know tamas to be born of ignorance, deluding all embodied beings. It binds through heedlessness, indolence and sleep, O Arjuna." Such statements from the Gita are recalled here. (19)
Thus, after describing how the gunas bind the individual souls, to show that the same Maya whose nature is the gunas is adopted by the Supreme Lord for His own play, and that He is the Lord of all including me, He says "sa" - He whose course is defined by His own indicators, the gunas like sattva residing in the Prakriti which is His body, He who is self-willed in His course - such a Lord endowed with such divine powers is the ruler of all, including me, O Brahmin Narada. (20)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Now, you may ask, "If you are not the creator, how is your name famous in this world?" To explain this, He says "tasyāpi" - To gain that vision of His, no one else is capable, as He is the Lord. And His lordship is not obtained through boons etc., as He is unchanging. This too is not possible otherwise due to any powerful obstacle, as He is the master of all. Through a mere glance of that Hari of such nature, I am prompted and created by Him to create the world that is to be created. The word "eva" precludes any other prompting agent for creation. (17)
Having thus shown the primary agency of Hari, He now preempts the doubt whether the gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas also operate simultaneously or sequentially. Though eternally adopted by Hari, the three gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas - are adopted sequentially or simultaneously by the all-pervading, ever free from the gunas like sattva, through His Maya, in the causes like sustenance etc. by His wish. The specification is that they are adopted sequentially in the primary creation etc., and simultaneously in the routine daily creation etc. As stated - "They are eternally adopted, specifically simultaneously as well as sequentially, in sustenance etc." (18)
Introducing the guna of rajas, He explains how the gunas like sattva bind the individual souls, by saying "kārye" - The singular "puruṣam" refers to the multitude of individuals, who are the locus of substance, knowledge and action. Substance is the tāmasic ego, the effect is the body, knowledge is the effect of the vaikāric ego which is the mind and the sense organs of perception, action is the group of motor organs like speech which are the effect of the taijasic ego - such gunas of Prakriti like sattva bind the eternal, liberated soul who is pure consciousness by nature, overpowered by Prakriti's influence, by making them feel they are the agents of action and its causes, the body and senses. Here is the analysis - the tamo guna binds through the experience of pain etc. in the body which is the effect; the rajo guna binds through karma and its causes which are the senses; the sattva guna binds through the assumption of agency in the experience of pleasure that comes from the mind and the senses of perception. It is stated - "Sattva binds the self through knowledge and the mind; rajas binds constantly through karma and the senses; and tamas binds through the body and heedlessness" and so on. Since the gunas are non-conscious, they cannot operate on their own, so the Lord's will is the cause that regulates them. (19)
Not only do these - the body, senses and mind - act as bondage, but by the grace of Hari, they can become means for liberation for those eligible, He says in "sa eṣa" - He who was expounded from "With yoga, by His own grace, the universe..." till "...the assumption of agency in action and its cause", that Lord, though transcendental, appears defined by these indicators - the body, senses and mind which are the means of knowledge, being pursued by these individual souls. As stated - "He is seen by them through these very means which are meant for overcoming the body, senses and mind. By His grace, the individual self sees Him thus defined." And since knowledge born of the senses leads downward, He is called "transcendental" even when liberated. Therefore, He is the Lord "of all", and to remove Narada's specific doubt despite being the indwelling Self of all, He specifically says "and of me". (20)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Even the object to be created is fit to be seen (through yoga). (17)
Now, you may ask - how can the individual self and the Lord be the prompting agents? To this, He says "sattvam" with three points - For the Lord who is free from the gunas, all-pervading by His natural power, through His bewildering Maya in accordance with statements like "by whose Maya...", the three gunas - sattva and the others - are adopted by the external power in the causes like sustenance etc. (18)
Those very gunas bind the individual self by making them identify with the effects like the body etc. This is a separate pursuit as suggested by the repetition. Among them, the body is the effect, the gross object. The senses are the cause, the subtle level. The deities who impel them are the agents, the supreme cause. He describes what kind they bind by saying "eternally liberated though". Lest this be a contradiction, He says "māyinam" - Here, māyā means the delusion created by māyā. And that (delusion) is beginningless, precisely because one has turned away from the Lord, being overpowered by His māyā. And it is only the influence of the gunas that binds, not a direct bondage, which justifies being eternally liberated. (19)
He whose path is clearly glimpsed through the three indicators that are the gateways - that is the Lord identified through the manifestation of the gunas as in "The Lord is inferred..." etc. Or, the meaning is that the Lord characterized by cause etc., whose real nature is directly experienced only by devotees, is realized through the three indicators, by the reasoning "The Lord exists in all beings..." etc. Here, the third case (instrumental) is used to indicate the means. (20)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Then to the question "What do you do?", He says: Even the object to be created, I create, having been created by Him. Not by my own will, indeed, but only by His command - this is the meaning. "To be seen" (means) this too (happens) only when I am the witness, the Lord, the unchanging essence, the indwelling self of all - not otherwise. Thus, it hints at my being the individual self and His being the Lord. Consistent with this, there are Vedic texts like - "There is one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner self of all beings. The supreme ruler of all, the controller of all beings, witness and pure, without gunas." And "This is the lord of beings, the ruler of the world, the preserver of the world." He is realized without distinction in the minds of all beings from Brahma down to an ant, and is therefore said to be the unchanging essence residing in the minds of all beings. (17)
Now, you may ask - what is the basis for this division between the individual self and the Lord, since it should be either you are prompted or He is the prompter? To this, He says "sattvam" with three points. Although devoid of gunas like sattva, for the Lord too, the three gunas exist - you may ask how? He says - they are adopted through His Maya for the purposes like sustenance etc. The meaning is that they have the nature of His power and gunas. There, although they always have the nature of His gunas, their being "adopted" is just in keeping with common parlance, like in "by your wish, He assumes that form" despite Krishna being eternally embodied. (18)
For this very reason, the gunas bind the individual self, which is the functioning of the Lord's neutral power. The meaning is that through the logic stated earlier, the Lord's Maya naturally develops attachment in those individual selves situated behind Him. "Eternally liberated" will become clear in the seventh case-ending. What do they bind? The effect is the gross body, the cause is the subtle, the agent is the deity - their nature is in that (the individual self). The objects are the elements, the knowledge refers to the deities, the actions are the senses, their basis - by identifying with them as the cause, they bind. Here, knowledge and action should be understood as being in the reverse order. (19)
Therefore, He whose nature is clearly indicated by these gunas which are the indicators, the limiting adjuncts for the individual selves - or, He who is inferred by the wise devotees through these indicators which are their means, from "The Lord is manifested through the gunas..." and other texts. (20)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
However, I am not created or produced by that Lord, the all-seeing, all-knowing ruler, the unchanging essence who is the cause of all, even though He is free from modifications in His true nature, the self of all sentient and insentient objects. I do not act of my own will, prompted by His glance, to create what is to be created. I only do what is done by Him - that is the meaning. (17)
Not only are we mere prompted ones by Him, but even prakrti and its gunas are governed by Him. So all beings are bound by His Maya-gunas. For attaining Him after getting freed from that bondage, His devotion is to be practiced - this is stated in the three verses beginning with "sattvam". For the Lord, whose essential nature encompasses both the sentient and insentient, there are the three gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas. This is indicated by saying "nirgunasya" (of the one without gunas), meaning His nature is untouched by sattva etc. Now, you may ask how then it is said the gunas belong to the Lord? To this, it is said - they are adopted by the Lord through His insentient Maya which consists of gunas, for the sake of effects. The meaning is - they are directed towards the effects. Now what are those effects? It says - for sustenance, creation and dissolution - meaning they are directed primarily towards sustenance. (18)
Overcoming the Lord's control over Maya, it states the individual self's subjugation to Maya defined as primordial prakrti, in "kāryam" etc. The gunas eternally bind the individual self. For whom? The "amukta" who is different from the "one liberated" mentioned in the Vedic text "Having enjoyed the enjoyments, the unborn..." Anticipating the question of who then is bound, it quotes the previous part of the Vedic text "Only the unborn..." indicating that the one whose best enjoyment is that of Maya is "māthina", not the Lord who is "māyī" by being worshipped etc. What are the "dravya, jñāna, kriyā and āśraya" like? Dravya is the great elements, jñāna means the deities, kriyā is the senses, their causes - and therefore they bind that (self) in its effects like the gross body etc. as the effect, cause and agent. Kāryam means the gross body which is the object of enjoyment. Adhyātmam means the senses like the eye which are the individual's instrument for enjoying forms etc. Adhidaivam is the presiding deity over the eye etc. who becomes an accessory agent for the individual's act of enjoying forms etc. Their nature is in that (the self). (19)
That same Lord of Maya, who transcends the imperishable, is not known in His true nature by all the individual selves covered by His Maya-gunas which are indicated by the three gunas sattva etc., nor even by me who am free from the Maya-gunas by His grace. However, as stated in "whose nature is indicated by His own devotees", He is known by His exclusive devotees who have no other refuge. (20)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Having thus analyzed and described the six questions beginning with "yadūpamiti", and about to elaborate in detail on the four questions starting with "yadvijñānam", he states the answer to those four questions in four verses beginning with "tasyāpi". Of those, first is the answer to the question "yadvijñānam" (what is His knowledge?). For this knowledge is not already accomplished by what was stated before, since the question asks "whose is that knowledge?", therefore His knowledge has to be stated first. And so, he says that the Lord first has the immediate knowledge of the material cause, and also the knowledge which is the means for that, i.e. the knowledge derived from scriptures. This is because He is the agent (of creation). "He prompts me to create whatever is to be created by Him" - this is the connection. The reason for His being the creator is given as "drashtuh" (of the seer). The world, which is the effect, is to be created by the Lord, because He is the seer of it. For only after seeing can something be created. Knowledge alone is not sufficient for creation, therefore he says "īśhasya" (of the ruler). The "Īśa" or ruler is capable of doing everything. However, one may doubt that even if He has the power of knowledge and action, the Lord cannot be the creator, because like ordinary beings, He would then be subjected to the troubles involved in the effort, resulting in His nature being modified. To remove this doubt, it is said "kūṭasthasya" (of the unchanging). For He does everything while remaining unchanging, not undergoing any transformation, like a wish-fulfilling cow or a desire-yielding tree and gem. Or like a Yogi who creates by mere will. Therefore, since He is unchanging, there is no inappropriateness in His being the creator.
Now one may argue that the Lord ought not create, as it would be contrary to any purpose - whether for His own sake or for the sake of souls. If for His own sake, then souls would not be created at all, obstructing the path of devotion. Indeed, all paths would be obstructed, as there would be no bondage or liberation, no diversity, and no ignorance. So it has to be either for both His sake and souls', or only for souls' sake. In the former case, His own complete bliss would be diminished. In the latter, it would lead to partiality and injustice. Therefore, he says "akhilātmanaḥ" - He is the Self of all. By creating souls, there is no partiality etc. And there is no diminishing of His bliss etc. because He is the Self of all - just as souls do not become incomplete by any part being taken away. And it is for their sake that the creation is made, and experiences provided. In this way, while He Himself is complete bliss, He enhances even that through experiences etc. Still, this does not make Him transient or deficient. Therefore, the Lord is right to create for both purposes.
And yet, to establish the path of devotion befitting His lordship, having created me and commanded through His glance, and creating everything through my form alone, He remained just as the inactive changeless reality. Then it is me who creates what is to be created by Him, having gained the powers of knowledge and action from Him. This is what is stated in "prompted by His glance alone". (17)
By this, He alone is indicated as the basis, the controller. And it has already been stated that I am His self. But the reason for this is to be considered - how does this Lord create me and others? How can there be the relation of controlled and controller in one Self? To this, he says with two verses - "avasthite riṣṭakāśa kṛtsna" etc. - the view will be established here. Just as the two, Prakriti and Purusha, assume one form for the sake of creation, similarly the Lord also assumes the three gunas for the sake of the threefold creation. And because they have the nature of gunas, the word "guna" is used. What emanates as the form of sattva is called sattva. What emanates as pure consciousness, being predominantly constituted of the power of action and devoid of absolute bliss, is called rajas. And the part of bliss is called tamas. These, though forms of the Lord Himself, are created by Him. And they did not exist in Him before, otherwise they would not be of the nature of the Lord's Self, just as threads do not exist in the cotton at first. It is only later, when its parts undergo the process of prior and posterior, that the cotton attains the state of threads. Therefore, the Lord is free from the gunas. These gunas are then employed during the periods of cosmic maintenance, creation, and dissolution - for the sake of origin, sustenance and dissolution. Even their employment is through Maya. For Maya is the efficient cause of the world, not the deluding power. As he says - "vibhoh" (of the Almighty). She is the power of the Capable One, the creator of the world. Being related to the Lord who has all forms, she also has the form of all entities. In creation, she takes the form of instruments. Therefore, since a part of her belongs to Him, the gunas emanated in the form of instruments. They remain under the control of Maya, like her sons. Therefore, the soul, which is a part of the Lord, desires to enter that Maya or her effects. Those gunas then bind it, as stated in "for the conditioning as the effect, cause and agent." The body is the effect; the senses are the cause; the mind is the agent. Their conditioning is the state of being the effect, cause and agent. "Sanghatam" means the state of being a composite for the soul - how the soul alone becomes a composite form. For bound by Maya, they are established in their respective functions. This is stated in "having their basis in substance, knowledge and action." Substance is the body; knowledge is the mind; action is the senses. These three are the respective bases for each of those (gunas). Therefore, binding the soul in their respective bases, they do not allow it to remain alone, divested of the bodily, mental and sensual mode of being. They always bind it. The connection with Maya alone is the cause of this bondage. But the connection alone is not the cause, otherwise there would be bondage for the Lord too. However, there He considers Himself the master of Maya, as stated in "the Purusha". But not one who employs her as an instrument for the sake of some work. Therefore, in the same individual, the two states of being bound by the gunas and being the motivated agent of the gunas are logically possible. (18-19)
Having thus explained the distinction between the nature of the individual soul and Brahman in general terms, he now states the same in a specific manner with the words "sa eva" (He alone). This indicates that while the Lord is the general basis, Maya and her effects like matter etc. are the specific basis. And that the individual soul, being a part of Him, has that differentiated nature. What was intended by the previous statement "yadādhārādyuttaram" (what follows is based on that) is now being clarified. If the controller is known first, then in knowing the Self also, control would not be possible. Therefore, by these three indicators alone, sattva etc., His existence is clearly inferred, though He is indeed the same. The very creator is (also) the bound one. Yet the Creator is the Lord. And these gunas are indicators of the Lord. Having emanated externally, they reveal Him from a distance, like the smoke (reveals fire). But they do not envelop Him. He dispels the doubt of contradiction with other texts through the verse "panairitāvantaśceta". Only these (gunas) have that capability (of binding). Then how is He not bound by the binding factors? To this, he says "adhokṣaja iti". Only if they perceive Him through action, or attain Him, then they bind (Him). But that is impossible for them. Hence, His course is truly indeterminable - (indeterminable) whether by the bound souls, or by the liberated ones. But in reality, the devotees ultimately attain the Lord's company. Therefore, O Brahman, "you are indeed such, yet through my grace and yours, the Lord is the controller." (20)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Regarding the phrase "tasya apīti" (His again), "pūrveṇā" means "by the former", i.e., the form of the Self conducive to liberation, while "tasya" refers to the giver of knowledge. "Tat" and so on (refers to the statement) that if, due to the manifestation of souls and recollection, affection and consequently the path of devotion were obstructed, then everything would become contradictory and meaningless. "Ata" (therefore) implies that those (souls) who are perceived cannot be the objects (of that statement). However, if the term "akhila" (all) refers to objects or souls, then in either case, since the Lord is not "all", how can there be no contradiction with (the qualities like) bliss etc.? To remove this doubt, they explain the meaning with "yathākhilam" and so on. And by not using words like "all" but using "akhila", the meaning is that the word "akhila" is conventionally used for "deficient". This deficiency is twofold - due to the absence of bliss and the absence of totality. Here, both are negated. Thus, "those who are neither deficient nor all are called 'akhila'". And since the word "akhila" refers to objects by the power of its constituent parts, when applied to them in that sense, their nature as the Self necessarily follows from the very meaning, implying that (the Lord) is "all". With this in mind, they say "evam" and so on. Regarding "dṛkṣyet" and so on, since the word "īkṣā" in phrases like "tadekṣate" means "observing" or "seeing", and "dṛṣṭi" mentioned here means "knowledge-producing", while "prekṣaṇa" is an action, therefore it means "thus". (17)
Regarding "sattvam ityasya" (of the word "sattva"), they speak of the "āabhāsa śruteneti" (manifestation according to the Srutis). By describing the attainment of self-knowledge and so on from such a Lord, the relationship of the basis and the based, of the controller and the controlled, and of their nature is explained. "Vivṛtau iti mataṃ" means "the view expressed in the commentary". It conveys that in every state or condition, Brahman is expressed by the corresponding words - this is the view of the revered preceptor Kāśakṛtsnā. In the explanation of the verse "yathedaṃ sṛjata", it is indicated that none of the propositions raised like "Is it like a potter?", "Or is it like a charioteer?", "Or is it like a yogin with the mind?" and so on have been accepted, and the unfathomable nature has been affirmed. In "kārpāśse na hīti", "kārpāśa" ends with the seventh case termination. "Tad" means "that cotton", "hi" means "because", "atah eva" means "for this very reason". Since the two states of precedence and subsequence are principally based (on the Lord), the sixth case termination is used merely to indicate relation when the capability of being the agent is already established by the term "vibhu". With the intention to convey the meaning already indicated in the aphorism "vibhorā māyayā gṛhītā" (the entire manifold universe is grasped by the Lord's Māyā), they speak of its nature with phrases like "sāhīti" and end with "gṛhītā". Thus, since the Lord is the instigator due to being the unchanging reality and the essence of all forms, though (Māyā) herself is not an agent in relation to the Lord, she becomes the agent by assuming in those (effects) their respective nature of being instruments, having grasped them through their agency. And so, as it will be stated later "sā vai etasya sandṛṣṭūḥ śaktisadasadātmike" (She is indeed the power of this seer, whose nature is constituted of the existent and the non-existent), her nature will be established as consisting of the undifferentiated existent which is a part of the principal existent and its modification, the non-existent. Regarding the effects of the guṇas, they say "tad iti" and so on, meaning their effects - the objects, knowledge and actions which are the effects of Māyā. "Svasvasraye te badhnanti" means - in the conception of materiality, tamas binds; in the conception of knowledge, sattva binds; in the conception of action, rajas binds. Thus they bind. To explain the cause of bondage, they say "bandhanam" and so on – "śrutā" means "heard from" - the conception or misconception of Māyā and her effects. (18-19)
The words "sajepa ityatra evamiti" indicate the rule and the reason. "Uttaritam iti" means "it has been said by 'that self' (akhilatman)." "Maya ityadi" explains the principle of the house and the seat: just as for one seated there, the house is the general support and the seat is a specific support, similarly, for the bound souls (baddhamsha jiva), the Lord (Bhagavat) is the general support and maya along with its effects like matter (dravyadi) is the specific support. However, for the liberated souls, He is the direct support. Since this has been clarified, there is no need to repeat it. By saying "mayatmana," it has been indicated that the Lord's specific nature is that of maya, for maya is the efficient cause, the power (shakti) that brings about creation, and since He possesses that power, He is endowed with the specific function of creation. This also establishes that His essential nature is that of maya. The statement "yat para" remains unanswered, implying the question "What is that (tat)?"
They explain this by saying "niyamakas yadi": For the ruler (niyamaka), whose subject is perception, there is initially a non-different awareness of the self during the state of perception, since the prompting (prerana) and the perception (darshana) are non-different. However, since this awareness is also a non-discriminating knowledge, it becomes a cause of bondage. Therefore, if such knowledge were to regulate (niyamanam), it would lead to bondage. Hence, He has removed such knowledge. Similarly, the part of me (amsha) whose such knowledge has been removed is "niyamya" (the regulated one). Since I have directly realized the removal of such knowledge, I am not "niyamya," while the Lord, being the perfect knower, is "niyamaka" (the regulator). This is the answer to "yat para."
They explain this further by saying "yadyapi": However, one may wonder how, since the relation is the same, these (maya, etc.) do not bind the Lord. To answer this doubt, they explain the meaning of the word "linga" by saying "ete cha": These (maya, etc.), being "adhahkshajas" - born from the inferior indriyas (senses) whose nature is ignorance (ajna) - cannot function unlawfully (svalakshitagati). They present an alternative view by saying "svair vai": For those who have the knowledge of the mere individual self (kevalajivajnana), including the jivan-muktas, since they lack the knowledge of the Lord, and for the paramuktas (supreme liberated ones), since their misconceptions have ceased and they lack the knowledge of movement, this [explanation of adhahkshajas] is not applicable. Therefore, they state the conclusion with "vastutah": In reality, it is only those who know the Truth, i.e., the Lord Himself and those whose knowledge is derived from Him alone (shruta eva), who can directly know the movement, by virtue of their unity with Him. With "tathapi," they indicate that even for the adhahkshajas, [this explanation] is applicable. (20)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
If everything is dependent on Him, then what do you do? To this anticipated question, He says, "Tasya api" - I too, having been created and impelled by Him for the purpose of creation, create what is to be created by Him. I engage in the act of creation by following His command. Although in every activity you appear to act independently, while He is never seen as the instigator, He explains this by saying "Ikshaya eva" - by His mere glance. Anticipating the doubt "How is He capable merely by His resolution?", He says "Ishasya" - Being the Lord of all, the Inner Ruler of all, He is capable of all actions. He gives the reason - "Drashtur iti" - because He is the direct Witness of all.
Now arises the doubt - Does the Lord create for His own sake or for the sake of souls? In the former case, He would be open to the defect of being motivated by unfulfilled desires. In the latter case, the creation, being a mixture of happiness, misery, etc., would make Him guilty of partiality and cruelty. To remove this doubt, He says "Kutasthasya" - He is free from the defects of partiality, etc. He gives the reason "Akhilatmanah" - because He is the Self of all, being non-dual, there can be no partiality for a second, which is non-existent.
Not only do I follow His command, but others who are empowered by Him and appointed in their respective duties also follow His command, as indicated by the word "api." This is from the Shruti - "From fear of Him, the wind blows; from fear of Him, the sun rises." (17)
If the Lord alone is the Self of all, then how can there be the states of the commanded and the commander? How can He possess attributes like omniscience? And the opposite for others? Anticipating this, He says "Sattvam iti" to explain that it is through His power as the Lord of maya that this is so - "The three gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas - are under the control of the Capable Lord, who directs the sport of creation, being free from the gunas." How did the gunas come to exist in the gunless Lord? He explains "Mayaya" - through His inseparable power maya, which is non-different from His will, He has accepted them as His own for the sake of activity. What is that activity? He says "Sthiti sargau" - Sattva for preservation, rajas for creation and tamas for dissolution. (18)
And these gunas, being part of the Lord's nature, though initially free from bondage, constantly bind the individual soul who is under the sway of maya. Anticipating the question "How do they bind?", He says - "Karyam adhibhutam" - the body is the effect, "Karanam adhyatmam" - the senses are the cause, "Kartta adhidaivatam" - the presiding deities are the agent, their combination is the truth, therein. He gives the reason - "Dravyam" - the primary elements are the material cause, the deities are called knowledge, the senses are called action as they depend on them as their support. Hence, each of them constantly binds the soul through egotism towards their respective functions. But without the Lord's teaching, they never allow the chance to renounce the identification with body, etc. and be free.
The specific modes of bondage are described in the words of the Lord: "The gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas - born of prakriti, bind the immutable embodied soul to the body. Of these, sattva, being pure, is illuminating and healthy - it binds through attachment to happiness and knowledge. Rajas is of the nature of passion, arising from thirst and attachment - it binds the embodied one through attachment to action, O Arjuna. But tamas, born of ignorance, is the deluder of all embodied beings - it binds through heedlessness, indolence and sleep." (19)
Having thus distinguished the soul from the Lord, and that the universe and you are dependent on Him, He answers the two questions with "Sa iti" - That Lord, whose maya is under control, who creates the universe, who is beyond the vision arising from the senses - He is known, His real nature is inferred by His own devotees who are the means of knowledge about Him through these three gunas which reveal Him though insentient themselves. He is the Lord of all beings, moving and unmoving, and of mine and yours. Indicating that you too have entered the host of devotees, He addresses you as "He Brahman". (20)
Hindī Anuvāda
Though the Seers, They are the Lord, the Master; though free from modifications, They are the form of all. They have created me, and inspired by Their vision alone, I engage in creation according to Their will. (17)
The Lord is free from the gunas of maya and infinite. For the purposes of creation, preservation and dissolution, the three gunas - rajas, sattva and tamas - have been accepted in Him through maya. (18)
These very three gunas, taking shelter of substance, knowledge and action, bind even the eternal liberated soul who is beyond maya, with the egotism of effect, cause and agency, when situated in maya. (19)
The Lord, transcending the senses, veils Their real nature with these three coverings of the gunas, therefore people cannot know Them. They alone are the sole Master of the entire universe and of me. (20)
SB 2.5.17-20
