Text 29: Since fire is also transformed, there is a manifestation of water, full of juice and taste. As previously, it also has form and touch and is also full of sound. And water, being transformed from all variegatedness on earth, appears odorous and, as previously, becomes qualitatively full of juice, touch, sound and form respectively.
Text 30: From the mode of goodness the mind is generated and becomes manifest, as also the ten demigods controlling the bodily movements. Such demigods are known as the controller of directions, the controller of air, the sun-god, the father of Dakṣa Prajāpati, the Aśvinī-kumāras, the fire-god, the King of heaven, the worshipable deity in heaven, the chief of the Ādityas, and Brahmājī, the Prajāpati. All come into existence.
Text 31: By further transformation of the mode of passion, the sense organs like the ear, skin, nose, eyes, tongue, mouth, hands, genitals, legs, and the outlet for evacuating, together with intelligence and living energy, are all generated.
Text 32: O Nārada, best of the transcendentalists, the forms of the body cannot take place as long as these created parts, namely the elements, senses, mind and modes of nature, are not assembled.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
The particularity is earth (pṛthivī). And earth has an abundance of qualities due to its connection with the preceding elements. (29)
The lord of the mind, the moon (candra), should also be understood by the term "mind" (manaḥ). And there are ten other deities born of sāttvika ahaṃkāra. He states them: The directions, wind, sun, the two Aśvins - these five are the overseers of hearing, skin, eye, tongue and prāṇa. And fire, Indra, Upendra, Mitra and Prajāpati - these five are the overseers of speech, hands, feet, anus and genitals. (30)
Since the intellect (buddhi) is the power of knowledge, and the life-force (prāṇa) is the power of action, both being products of tāmasic ahaṃkāra, therefore the senses which are of the specific nature of knowledge and action also originate from the tāmasic - this is the meaning. He states them: "hearing" etc. The hand is called "pāṇi". The genital is "medra". But no sequence is intended here. (31)
Having thus described the creation of causes, he describes the creation of effects: When these (causes) were unconnected, unmingled, then, for that very reason, they were unable to proceed to the formation of the bodily substrate (āyatana). (32)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
The particularity (viśeṣa) is that the remaining (śeṣāḥ) qualities like smell, etc., which are different from one's own qualities, as well as the qualities of all elements beginning with sound - wherever these become particularized, they attain excellence by bearing the qualities of all elements. Or, (viśeṣa means) that (entity) which attains excellence by bearing the qualities of all elements. (29)
(The deities were born) from the sāttvika ahaṃkāra arising from the vaikārika (30)
"Ityartham iti" - Here, the sense is that the wind, which is a product of the tāmasic ahaṃkāra, also becomes a form of the life-force which is a product of the tāmasic ahaṃkāra. (31)
They were unconnected, unmingled. (32)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
[From the vaikārika, the mind (manah)] (30) By this statement, the meaning of a certain Ṛc verse, "The moon was indeed born from the mind," is shown.
"Kramas tu" - But the sequence is: hearing, skin, eye, tongue, nose; speech, hands, feet, anus, genitals. (31-34)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Then, when the activities were being performed, the earth became particularized by the possession of taste, etc., in accordance with the preceding elements, and endowed with the qualities of taste, touch, sound and form. (29) He states the origin of all the senses from the sāttvika ahaṃkāra with the words "vaikārikāt" - from the sāttvika ahaṃkāra named vaikārika were born the presiding deities of the senses beginning with hearing, like the directions, etc. The senses presided over by them, as well as the mind, were then born. This is the meaning. Just as in the statement "Having become speech, etc.", there is a figurative identification of the presiding entity and the entity presided over due to co-reference, therefore it is said "the vaikārika deities". He enumerates the deities: the directions, wind, the two Aśvins - these five are the overseers of hearing, skin, eye, tongue and smell. Fire, Indra, Upendra, Mitra and Prajāpati - these five are the overseers of speech, hands, feet, anus and genitals. The overseer of the mind is the moon. The idea is that the senses beginning with hearing were born presided over by these ten. (30)
He states that the senses are products of the tāmasic ahaṃkāra with the words "taijasāt" - from the tāmasic, i.e. influenced by the rājasic ahaṃkāra which is connected to the tāmasic nature, derived from the sāttvika ahaṃkāra - otherwise there would be a contradiction with the previous text. If it is argued that in the previous context the creation of the presiding deities is described, (the answer is) no, because without the senses the deities would not be able to enter bodies, and since they are to be described later in this context as being created prior to the creation of Āditya, Indra, etc., it would not be proper for them to preside over (the senses) before being created themselves. To this it should be said: their presiding role is reasonable since they are favored by the will of the Lord, being situated in the supreme space. If it is asked, "What is this supreme space?", it is the realm called Vaikuṇṭha, and for this very reason it will be stated "surrounded by the sixteen spiritual potencies". And it should not be said that their presiding role is not reasonable since they are situated in the supreme space, for the creation of the directions, etc. by the four-faced Brahmā is for the purpose of presiding over the distributed senses, being a necessity. Therefore, it should be understood that they exist in the supreme space itself. For this very reason, the praise being offered to the Supreme Lord by these presiding deities is also reasonable; otherwise, since the impersonalistic conception arose immediately after the cosmic sphere, before that there could be no praise by anyone, being unreasonable.
Though certainly it may be asked, if these preside over all the senses, then who presides over those senses? To this it is said: The ten overseers of those senses also certainly have overseers themselves. But each sense is never without an overseer - it is presided over either by itself or by the Supreme Lord following the principle of being capable of sustaining itself and others. Thus there is no logical inconsistency. Or, the statement "taijasāt" indicates another alternative - he explains the absence of contradiction between the two alternatives with the words "jñānaśaktiḥ": The term "prāṇa" refers to the senses of knowledge as well as the senses of action. Intellect, the faculty of knowledge, is "jñānaśakti"; the life-force, which is the faculty of action, is also "prāṇa"; and the cognitive senses are "kriyāśakti". And since the aggregate of knowledge, action and the internal instrument (mind) arises from the tāmasic ahaṃkāra imbued with the rājasic quality, even that which is their cause must also be associated with the rājasic quality. This is the purport. Thus there is no contradiction between the two alternatives, since all the senses, being products of the sāttvika ahaṃkāra influenced by the rājasic ahaṃkāra, have the tāmasic nature as well. And it should be understood that in the creation of these senses, the tāmasic aspect also favors them. He enumerates the senses: "hearing" etc. The hand is called "pāṇi". The genital is "medra". But no sequence is intended here. (31)
Since the elements, senses and mind existed in an unconnected, unmingled state, therefore, O Brahmā, for that very reason they were unable to proceed in the formation of the bodily substrate, the cosmic sphere which is the body of the Lord. (32)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
"All qualities are distinguished on the earth." The word "visesah" means the earth has a special quality of fragrance. Its meaning is that fragrance arises from the quality of that alone. This is due to the connection with the cause, as stated next. (29)
The Lord explains the process of creation from the vaikaarika-ahamkara by saying "vaikaarikaat." From the vaikaarika-ahamkara, which has the sāttvika portion, arose the mind and thence the senses, endowed with the functioning power of sound, knowledge, etc. Hence they are called "vaikaarika devas." It is to be understood that they too were born from that (ahamkara). As it is said, "Due to their special functioning power, they are called vaikaarika devas." The term "dashe" indicates excluding more or less from the specified number. The Lord then states their names: Prachetā, Varuṇa, the two Aśvinīs, Upendra, and Viṣṇu. But Viṣṇu is not the lord of the foot himself; rather, he presides over the big toe of the foot of the deity named Yajña, as the sustainer of the body. And further, Hari, the vaikārika deity, has descended into the guṇas and presides over the middle part of the toe, as stated in "Viśvabhug, Vibhu," etc. Who is Dakṣa Prajāpati? (30)
Regarding the products of the tāmasāhamkāra, the Lord speaks of "tāmasāt" with the intention of explaining them. Here too, an elaboration based on time should be made. The Lord explains their division due to the difference in their power by saying "jñānaśaktir." As for how the insentient senses can be the cause of knowledge, etc., the Lord explains by saying "buddhir." The power to produce knowledge in the sense organs is called "jñānaśaktih," and its presiding deity is called "Buddhi." The power to perform actions in the motor organs is called "kriyāśaktih," and its presiding deity is called "Prāṇa." And "āhamkārikañca" means "born from the tāmasāhamkāra." It should be understood that the power of knowledge, etc., of the deities of the sense organs also arises from the grace of Buddhi and Prāṇa, as will be described later by statements like "jñānendriyāṇāṃ devānāṃ jñānaśaktir udāhṛtā." The sense organs are called "tāmasā" because of their intense radiance, while the elements are called "tāmasā" due to the absence of the power of knowledge and action. As it is said, "The sense organs are called tāmasā due to their intense radiance," etc. The condition of being an object (dravyatva) for the elements arises from the capacity to undergo transformation through contact with the cause of motion, etc., debated between two disputants in the form of "Was this before or after?" For example, between earth and water, air and fire, their mutual liquefaction is possible due to the characteristic of motion and the impression of their contact. However, for space, although liquefaction is not possible due to its all-pervading nature, its condition of being an object is logically acceptable because of its localized aspect. As it is said, "An object is that which can undergo liquefaction between two disputants due to the previous motion, etc., and space is also an object due to its localized aspect." (31)
The specific names of the senses are given as "śrotraṃ" etc. Śrotra means the sense of hearing, tvak means the sense of touch, cakṣuś means the sense of sight, rasana means the sense of taste, ghrāṇa means the sense of smell, vāk means the organ of speech, pāṇī means the hands, pāda means the feet, pāyu means the organ of excretion, and upastha means the reproductive organ.
After mentioning the external creation, the Lord describes the process of creation of the Brahmāṇḍa from those principles by saying "ye ete." "Ye ete" is an indication referring to the entities mentioned, such as the five elements, ten senses, the tāmasā (buddhi and prāṇa), the mind, the guṇas like sound, etc., the Mahat, the Ahaṃkāra, and other categories. These entities, being disunited and unconnected with each other, were unable to create the support (for the Brahmāṇḍa) due to lack of potency. (32)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
The sāttvika nature of the mind should be understood as not being very different from the state of consciousness (chitta). As stated in the Kapila tradition, the mind (chitta) is described as: "Transparency, unchangeability, and serenity." This Upendra is that particular indwelling deity, as will be stated later by the Lord in phrases like "tad ete," implying that even his power is subordinate to the Lord. (30)
The statement "tāmasāt" is meaningful [because due to Prāṇa being tāmasā, the senses possessing the power of action are also tāmasā; and due to Buddhi being tāmasā, the senses possessing the power of knowledge are also tāmasā. This is as stated in the third verse: "Doubt, misconception, certainty, and remembrance - these are said to be the functions of Buddhi distinct from its mode (vṛtti)."] (31)
The phrase "yad ete" forms a compound word. It refers to the state of being existent or non-existent, primary or secondary. Prompted by the power of the primordial Puruṣa, who is a part of the Lord that has entered into the category of principles, they (the principles) were impelled to unite. (32, 33)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
The distinctive (element) is the Earth. (29)
From the sāttvika ahankāra arise the vaikārikas. The presiding deity of the mind, indicated by the word "manah," should also be understood as the Moon. The deities of the directions, Wind, Sun, Prachetas, Varuna, and the two Ashvins - these are the presiding deities of the ear, skin, eye, tongue, and nose respectively. Fire, Indra, Upendra, Mitra, and Prajāpati are the presiding deities of speech, hands, feet, anus, and genitals. (30)
From the rajasic ahankāra arise the ten (sense faculties). Of these, Buddhi is the capacity for knowledge, and Prāṇa is the capacity for action. Both Buddhi and Prāṇa are rajasic. This means that the five sense organs like the ear are specific manifestations of Buddhi, and the five action organs like speech are specific manifestations of Prāṇa. It should be understood that the activities born of the tāmasic ahankāra are also expressed through Prāṇa in its rajasic form. The hands are called "dau," the genitals are "medhra," and the anus is "pāyu." Their sequence is not specified here. (31)
Thus, after describing the creation of the causal realm, the Lord speaks of the creation of the effect realm. When these (principles) were unconnected and unmingled, they could not undertake the formation of the body, which is their objective. (32)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Having been endowed with fragrance by itself, on account of that fragrance, the earth became distinguished. (29)
Mind is the source of the group of inner faculties. The gods (presiding over) the quarters and so forth (preside) over the ears, skin, eyes, tongue, and vital airs; the (presiding deities of) speech, hands, feet, and organs of excretion and generation are the products of rajas (the mode of passion), born from its cause, sattva (the mode of goodness). (30)
The faculty of knowledge is buddhi (intellect), and the group of knowledge-senses; the faculty of action is prana (life-force), and the group of action-senses. These two, buddhi and prana, are born of tejas (the luminous principle). This very (scripture) expounds that from tejas, when it transformed, the ten senses were produced – the ears, skin, eyes, tongue, speech, nose, anus, genital organ, hands, and feet. (31)
After describing the origin of the great principle and so forth, which are the material cause of the cosmic egg, (the scripture) now speaks of the origination of the cosmic egg in two verses, beginning with "yada" (when). O knower of Brahman, when the elements beginning with space, as well as the indriyas (senses) and the mind, which have the form of the gunas (modes of nature) – when these entities were uncompounded, unsynthesized, they were unable to create the abode, the cosmic egg. (32)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
From the waters, when they underwent modification, a distinction arose. The earth is that distinction. The word "tu" (but, however) indicates her complete singularity. She is "fragrant," fragrance being her principal quality. "Owing to succession" (means) the other four (qualities) as well. (29)
Having thus described the creation from tamas (the mode of ignorance), the creation from sattva (the mode of goodness) is stated as "vaikarikas" etc. Sattva, the mode characterized by goodness, became the first modification of the essential nature. Hence it is called "vaikarikas." From the vaikarikas, the sattvik ahankara (the principle of individuation in the mode of goodness), the mind, and the ten presiding deities of the senses were born. In this system, the mind does not require a presiding deity, as the Self itself is the deity, being nearest to it. Those deities are the quarters and so forth. Next, he will describe the senses such as hearing and so on. Their presiding deities respectively are the two Ashvins, Mitra, and some other. (30)
He describes the effects of rajasic ahankara (the principle born from the mode of passion) as "tejaso" etc. An indriya is so called because by it the Self is expressed ("indrayate"). For the Self cannot be grasped by the eye nor by any other sense. Yet it is differentiated as "You are Devadatta," "You are Yajnadatta," though (itself) it is not seen. It is only known as "That which sees," "That which hears," etc. Those indriyas are ten. Now the knowledge senses, being predominated by knowledge, ought to be in the mode of sattva. And the action senses, ending in inertia, ought to be in the mode of tamas. How then are all ten senses said to be rajasic, abandoning both (other modes)? To this he says "jnanashaktih" etc. There is another reason for the senses being rajasic. Buddhi (intellect) and prana are effects of rajasic ahankara. But this is incongruous. Buddhi has the nature of knowledge - "From sattva arises knowledge"; it ought to be sattvic. And prana is just air, as it is experienced through inhalation and exhalation. To this he says, "jnanashaktih" (the faculty of knowledge), "kriyashaktih" (the faculty of action). For in this system, buddhi is not knowledge itself but the faculty that produces knowledge. It is that faculty by which knowledge of objects arises for one who has buddhi - "This one with good intellect knows those objects." And because of the non-difference between cause and effect, the words "buddhi" and "knowledge" are used as synonyms. Otherwise, in the absence of buddhi, a child would not have proper knowledge of objects. Prana too is different from air. The scripture speaks of an ancient deity called Prana, different from air - "Then they spoke of this life-force (prana) as Asanaya." And statements like "Vayu is indeed Prana" refer to the Lord's prana being air. Therefore, buddhi is different from knowledge, as it is the means of producing knowledge, not the object itself. Nor is it sattvic, as it is not an object amenable to the senses, while whatever is sattvic and non-material is amenable to the senses - this is an invariable concomitance. Buddhi is considered the source of the knowledge senses. Therefore, that which has the faculty of producing knowledge and that which has the faculty of producing action - these two, being of distinct natures, are indeed effects of rajasic ahankara. Hence, the two kinds of senses presided over by them are also effects of rajasic ahankara. The word "tu" (but, however) sets aside the previous view. He enumerates those senses - shrotra (ears) and so on. The dual refers to the twin deities of the sexual organs. Mitra is for the anus. The rest are respectively (in order). Among them, the quarters and wind are assigned to the ears and skin; prana to sight; Indra to speech; Fire to speech; the two Ashvins to the nostrils; Prajapati to the tongue; and Surya to sight. Thus is the order. (31)
Having described the creation of all, and stating that they are presided over, he speaks of the creation from sattva as "yadaiva" etc. "When these" - being effects of the three gunas, they do not combine, being of different natures. Hence, "when they were unable to create the abode," i.e. were incompetent for it, "then," impelled by the Lord, they created the cosmic egg - this is the connection. "Bhutas" are the elements, "indriyas" the senses, "manah" the mind, and "gunas" either the deities like sound etc. or the three modes themselves. The lodging of the beginning and end refers to the tamoguna again. "Ayatana" is the body of the Lord, the Brahmanда. "Brahmavittama" - he is addressed thus as he is omniscient, for the purpose of dialogue. The affix "tama" is used to indicate highest veneration for the Lord. (32)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
It is inferred here that the sun moves in such and such a way. When the doubt arises as to how it is inferred, they explain it with "The Self, indeed..." and so on. Thus, "Devadatta's body possesses a Self because it has sense organs; it has sense organs because each of those sense organs performs its respective function - whatever is like this, that is like my body; whatever is not like this, that is not like a dead body." The meaning is that it is inferred to be so from such an inference. "Culminating in the insentient" means that even in the insentient air, activity is seen, so the activity arising from the motor organs also culminates in the insentient, material state. "Another" means dependent on the intellect and the vital force. To explain that, they say, "The intellect..." Here, the objection is raised, "However..." And thus, the intellect is sattvic (pure) because of its nature as knowledge; what is not like that is not like that - the vital force is tamasic (dull) because of its airy nature, like the external air - from these two inferences, once their respective natures are established, it is meaningless for one to be associated with the other's qualities. Here, the resolution is offered, "Indeed, not so..." "The power that originates knowledge" means the power that belongs to knowledge - in this compound, the genitive case of the word "knowledge" conveys the sense of being the substrate. And that (power) culminates in origination - thus is the meaning. When the expectation arises as to how the intellect originates knowledge, they explain it with "That which..." They mention an objection to non-difference with "Otherwise..." – if the intellect is not the cause of knowledge, then, due to the existence of consideration of another cause, knowledge would arise in it just as in a well-cultured person; but knowledge does not arise there - from the positive and negative concomitance, once the relation of cause and effect is ascertained, the difference between knowledge and the intellect remains unrefuted. However, when the doubt arises that the difference in function and so on between air and the vital force does not establish their difference in essence, they provide the evidence for their difference with "According to Scripture..." "Distinct" means distinct from the wind deity due to being free from sin. They avoid contradiction with other Scriptures by saying "Which..." And thus, here too, the air referred to is not in its gross form, so there is no contradiction with that (Scripture) either; once this is established, due to the air (vital force) being different from the wind, the difference of another vital force from the wind is also unrefuted by the difference in function. They conclude with "Therefore..." - the intellect is sattvic because of its non-difference from knowledge, like (its relation to) action and so on; the vital force is not tamasic because of its difference from the wind, as established by Scripture; it is different from the wind because of its different function - whatever is not like this, is not like the wind - by this reaffirmation, once the respective natures of the intellect and the vital force are negated, the similarity of their forms becomes irrelevant.
However, even though the difference between knowledge and the intellect is established, since knowledge arises from the sense organs, what is the objection to the intellect's being sattvic? They state this with "And not..." Thus, it is sattvic because knowledge arises from the sense organs, like knowledge itself. Here too, "it is not sattvic" because knowledge does not arise merely from the sense organs - whatever is not like that, is not like knowledge itself; it is precisely this counter-inference that is the objection. They substantiate this with "For she..." Thus, if knowledge arose merely from the sense organs, it would not require the operation of memory, since that would contradict reasoning. To preclude any basic flaw in this reasoning, they demonstrate the pervasive principle with "Whatever..." Therefore, in the case of knowledge and action alone being produced merely by the sense organs, and not in the case of sound and other non-substances - since they are not produced by the sense organs, there is no deviation. Those (non-substances) being in the subtle state of substance and form, there is no defect in their being included within substances as well. Hence, that (knowledge) is sometimes innate, sometimes produced by subtle perception arising from practice and so on, but it is not produced merely by the sense organs that give rise to knowledge.
"From the inferences stated" refers to the inferences mentioned earlier. However, some hold that the intellect arises from the five sattvic portions like space and so on; if that is accepted, how can it not be sattvic? They state this with "But swiftly..." Thus, if that (view) is authoritative, it refers to another cycle (of creation and dissolution). (32)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
That which is sold by scents alone is fragrant, possessing the qualities of taste, touch, sound, and form, and is a particular manifestation of the earth, thus is the connection. (29)
Now, he states the effect of the tāmasic ego - "from the vaikāric". From the sāttvic ego arose the mind. By the word "mind", its presiding deity, the moon, should also be understood. And the other ten presiding deities of the ten indriyas (senses) are born from the sāttvic ego, this is the meaning. When there is an expectation of "who are they?", he shows them - the directions, the wind, the sun, Pracetā, Varuṇa, and the two Aśvins - these are the presiding deities of the ear, skin, eye, tongue, and prāṇa (life force). Fire, Indra, Upendra, Mitra, and Prajāpati - these are the presiding deities of speech, hands, feet, anus, and genitals. (30)
He states the effect of the rājasic ego - "from the taijasat". From the taijasat (passionate) rājasic ego arose the ten indriyas which are the sources of knowledge and action. However, since knowledge predominates in the jñāna indriyas (senses of knowledge), from the statement "knowledge arises from sattva", they ought to be sāttvic. And since the karma indriyas (senses of action) culminate in inertness, they ought to be tāmasic. Then, how is it said that abandoning both, all ten indriyas arise from the rājasic? Anticipating this doubt, he states the reason - "the power of knowledge". Buddhi (intellect) is the power of knowledge, and prāṇa is the power of action like movement, grasping, etc. Since both are effects of the taijasat rājasic ego, the indriyas which depend on them and engage in activity are also effects of the rājasic ego, whether they are of both kinds. He shows them - the ear, etc. The two hands, the genitals. The order is not intended here. (31)
To instill faith in what has been stated, he affectionately addresses - "O knower of Brahman!". These entities - the indriyas, the mind, the effects in the form of the guṇas and their opposites - being of contradictory natures due to the difference in their causal guṇas, they were incompatible, not united. And therefore, when the time came for the creation, the construction of the body which is the object of experience, consisting of the collective and individual selves, and is called the brahmāṇḍa, they were not capable. (32)
Hindī Anuvāda
From the transformation of water, the earth was produced, whose quality is smell. The qualities of the cause manifest in the effect - following this principle, the qualities of sound, touch, form, and taste are also present in it. (29)
From the vaikāric ahaṅkāra (ego), the mind and the ten presiding deities of the indriyas (senses) arose. Their names are - the directions, wind, sun, Varuṇa, the two Aśvins, fire, Indra, Viṣṇu, Mitra, and Prajāpati. (30)
From the transformation of the taijasat ahaṅkāra (passionate ego), the five jñāna indriyas (senses of knowledge) - ear, skin, eye, tongue, and nose, and the five karma indriyas (senses of action) - speech, hands, feet, anus, and reproductive organ, arose. Also, buddhi, the power of knowledge, and prāṇa, the power of action, arose from the taijasat ahaṅkāra itself. (31)
O excellent knower of Brahman! At the time when these five elements, indriyas, mind, and the three guṇas like sattva were not united with each other, they could not construct the body, which is the means of experience, for their residence. (32)
SB 2.5.29-32
