Text 33: My dear son, whatever you inquired from me I have thus explained unto you, and you must know for certain that whatever there is (either as cause or as effect, both in the material and spiritual worlds) is dependent on the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Text 34: O Nārada, because I have caught hold of the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, with great zeal, whatever I say has never proved to have been false. Nor is the progress of my mind ever deterred. Nor are my senses ever degraded by temporary attachment to matter.
Text 35: Although I am known as the great Brahmā, perfect in the disciplic succession of Vedic wisdom, and although I have undergone all austerities and am an expert in mystic powers and self-realization, and although I am recognized as such by the great forefathers of the living entities, who offer me respectful obeisances, still I cannot understand Him, the Lord, the very source of my birth.
Text 36: Therefore it is best for me to surrender unto His feet, which alone can deliver one from the miseries of repeated birth and death. Such surrender is all-auspicious and allows one to perceive all happiness. Even the sky cannot estimate the limits of its own expansion. So what can others do when the Lord Himself is unable to estimate His own limits?
Śrīdharasvāmikṛtā Bhāvārthadīpikāvyākhyā
What was said 'etāvattvaṁ yato hi me', not knowing that, you proclaim me as the Lord. Establishing that, he concludes. Na bhāratīti. Because of which, by me, with a heart filled with eagerness and devotion, Hari is held and meditated upon. O Nārada, therefore the functions of my speech, mind and senses are true, but not by my power, this is the meaning. (33) * * Here, he proves his own experience through positive and negative inferences with two (verses). I who am supreme by scriptures etc. and even by resorting to yoga, from where my own birth takes place, I did not know Him, then what to speak of knowing others? And this will be told in the third book in Padmodbhava. (34) * * Then I bow down to His feet, which bestow auspiciousness, which are very auspicious and are to be well served by those who have surrendered, seeking refuge, and which destroy material existence. Thereafter, by the logic of how much more, he says that he has known due to His inconceivable greatness. Yo hīti, He who Himself could not comprehend the expanse of His own māyā. The word pari is used in negation. etāvāniti, He did not know, this is the meaning. How can others know? 'Bow down to His feet' is to be connected with the previous (verse). If (one asks) how the omniscient does not know, he says with the example that just as the sky does not reach its own end. The idea is that the non-perception of sky-flower etc. does not contradict omniscience. And he will say ahead "The masters of animals could not reach Your end due to Your endlessness. Because of being covered, the hosts of creatures within You also (cannot reach)." The śruti also (says) "He who is the presiding deity in the supreme sky, he indeed knows, or maybe he does not know." (35) * * He elaborates on this in two (verses) nāha miti. We know this world created by His māyā, but not the true path of Vāmadeva or Rudra. But even that is similar to one's own self, according to one's own knowledge, but not completely. This is the reason for the ignorance about that and the knowledge of the world, due to deluded intellect. (36)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Indeed, through statements such as "You have placed immortality, freedom from danger, and fearlessness on the three heads," the scripture proclaims the eternality of the three-footed manifestation (tripādvibhūti) that transcends the three guṇas (qualities). Similarly, you teach that even the three-guṇa-composed universe, which is the manifestation of one foot (pādavibhūti) of the Lord, is not false despite being temporary, as it is the effect of the Lord's external potency that acts out of shyness. You also imply the reality of illusory objects as they serve as means for renouncing them. However, other scholars of scripture declare all this to be a mere fantasy of the mind, completely false. They say that even the status of the Lord as the Lord is temporary, being an extrinsic characteristic. What to speak of the manifestation of His toe-nails and feet? In this matter, whom should I trust - your words or their words? To this, [the Lord] says: "O Bhāratī (Sarasvatī)..." My words spoken to you are not false. The reason for this is given: "In all circumstances, with a mind filled with longing, I have held Hari in my heart." Wherever Hari is, everything there is true. Therefore, trust only my words. Even by those other scholars of scripture, Hari has not been held in their hearts, so their minds have a false understanding. Hence, their words are also completely false. The meaning is that they have accepted the views of those who speak falsely. That is why Swami Charan has explained the meaning up to "...by me" as: "What is accomplished in my samādhi (meditative absorption) is not caused by my influence, but rather by Hari's influence." O Aṅga (Brahmā), because of your great affection, I have told you this. It seems that at the time of following the speech [of the false scholars], Hari was not held in your heart with longing, and that is why your senses strayed from the right path. As it will be stated later in the same text: "One should create others with a mind purified by meditation on the Lord." (33)
Here, in the presence of true meaning of vṛtti (functional consciousness), meditation exists through bowing down and other acts - this is anvaya (positive concomitance). In the absence of meditation, true meaning is absent - this is vyatireka (negative concomitance). And this is due to the absence of knowledge of the Lord. Here, Viśvanātha says: Indeed, they think, "We alone know the purport of all the Vedas and scriptures, and the true nature of the Supreme Lord." In the same way, they also instruct others with logical arguments. Regarding this, [the Lord] says - "I, who have the characteristics mentioned in the previous verse, I who have held Hari in the cave of my longing heart, am also..." samaāmnāyamaya - "The Vedas first emanated from my mouth alone, the meaning of which they consider even today as something yet to be known." tapomaya - "The austerity first instructed by the Lord in statements such as 'The sixteenth among the sensory experiences, the twenty-first wealth that the renunciates know, O King' was first performed by me alone." Having shown his knowledge and ignorance, he states the sovereignty given by the Lord: prajā, etc. Similarly, it should not be said that I do not have lordship over yoga, as stated: āsthāya - "Even with a concentrated and one-pointed mind, I could not attain or know that Supreme Lord." The reason for this: yata ātmano mama saṁbhavaḥ - "My own creation." The meaning is: How can others, who are the creation of my creation's creation, know Him? But those who think the status of being the Lord is an extrinsic characteristic are simply blind. (34)
Aho! The modern young ones proudly declare "We are stating the status of being the Supreme Lord." Since even the Lord Himself is unable to know His own reality, with an outburst of devotion, he (Brahmā) bows down to Him - nata iti. samīyuṣāṁ - for those who have approached, bhavacchidam - He cuts the miseries of material existence, an unsolicited result; svastyayanam - He bestows the happiness of love for Him, a solicited result. suṣṭhu maṅgalam - He is greatly auspicious, yasmāt - because, taṁ sumaṅgalam - He is Sumaṅgala (the All-Auspicious). The meaning is that for others - karmīs (fruitive workers), jñānīs (speculative philosophers), and yogīs (mystic practitioners) - there is no auspiciousness without the mixture of devotion to Him. yaḥ hi - Indeed, He Himself paryagāt - did not know ātmamāyāvibhavam - the opulence of His own illusory energy, svayogavistāram - the expanse of His own mystic power. The word pari is used in negation. He did not know to this extent. aparē - How can others like us know? Here, he raises an objection: nanu - If [the Lord] does not know, then He is like ākāśa (sky), which is inert. The meaning is that in the existence of a sky-flower, ignorance of it destroys omniscience. He states the evidence for even His own ignorance: śrutiśca - The scripture also [states], yaḥ parameśvaro'sya jīvasyādhyakṣaḥ - The Supreme Lord, who is the overseer of this living entity, parame vyoman - residing in the supreme sky, aṅga iti saṁbuddhiḥ - is not known by the address "O Aṅga," nāciketaṁ prati - to Naciketa, vedātmānam - He knows Himself, etāvānaham iti - "I am this much." If it is said that He has now come within the scope of knowledge, he replies: yadava. (35)
ṛtāṁ gatiṁ tripādēkapādvibhūtim iti cakravartī - "The movement of the three-footed and one-footed manifestations," says Chakravartī. (36)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
Of all the questions, etc. The rest is: mentioned in the fifth chapter of this canto. From Vāsudeva, etc. (33) This is the fourteenth verse of the fifth chapter of this canto. What has been said, etc. The rest is: in the tenth verse of the fifth chapter of this canto. By the previous, etc. Meaning: by what was said in the previous quarter-verse. Groups, etc. (34-35) This is the forty-first verse of the eighty-seventh chapter of the tenth canto. (36-39)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
To substantiate what has been said, "This much of you I know, because without knowing me, the Lord, you have spoken of me", he concludes: "O Bhāratī," etc. My speech or delusion is not seen to be false, the movement of my mind is not false. The senses do not fall upon or engage in unreal, unworthy objects, because of my yearning, Hari is embraced by the heart, meditated upon. O Nārada, therefore the functions of my speech, mind and senses are of true meaning, not by my power. (33)
Therefore, the all-pervading one, whose nature is inconceivable to me, is the bestower of knowledge even to me. He says, "I am he," etc. Abounding in the Vedas, abounding in austerities, supreme by knowledge and austerities. Saluted by the progenitors like Marīci and others, their lord, born of the Supreme Self, endowed with knowledge gained by His grace, I, being composed, properly establishing yoga without obstacles, did not realize in essence and quality that Supreme Self who by His own māyā's power has attained Himself, as to how much He is. (34)
Therefore, I simply bow down to His feet. How are those feet? Cutting fear for those who have taken shelter, causing cessation of saṁsāra (cycle of birth and death), the abode of auspiciousness, very auspicious, worthy of service. An example for non-comprehension: Just as the sky is an example for being difficult to grasp, the wind is difficult to touch by hand. By the statement from the Mahābhārata, "attaining His own māyā's power", the meaning is that like going behind a curtain, He becomes unperceivable to others, not that He is under the control of māyā. Becoming unperceivable to others by the power of His own māyā is the meaning. Such a Supreme Self, even I, who am liberated, do not realize. What to speak of others? He says, "How," etc. How can others, the living beings, know? (35)
He substantiates this: "Not," etc. In reference to Sanaka and others, the plural is used. Vāsudeva, a certain sage, or Śaṅkara - neither I nor Śaṅkara know. According to another statement of the four-headed one belonging to Śrī Vaiṣṇavas, there is another reading: yahataṁ yasya paramātmana ṛtaṁ satyaṁ gatiṁ svarūparūpayathāvasthitiṁ bata tadvati ("Alas! We do not know the true nature, the essential form of the Supreme Self.") By the logic "how much less others", he says "how much more," etc. Why do they not know? From there he says, "bewildered by His māyā". Those whose intellects are bewildered by His māyā, the māyā of the Lord which is said to be composed of guṇas (qualities), they do not know because of having intellects bewildered by that māyā. Then what do they know? From there he says, "this insentient body constructed by Him". We consider the self to be of the form of the body, the self which is equal to one's own self. For those who do not know the distinction between the body and the self, how can there be knowledge of the Supreme Self? This is the implication. (36)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Apprehending who would have the grace of Hari (Viṣṇu) of such greatness, [the text] says "na" (no) with the idea that it would be for one whose mental impurities have been cleansed by bathing in the river of bhakti (devotion), whose senses are always engaged in the sole object of Bhagavān (God). It states the reason for this with "yan me" (which of me). Autkāṇṭhyaṃ (eagerness) is a particular state of mind towards a beloved object, [which is] held by the heart and mind imbued with affection-characterized bhakti—that is the meaning of "yasmāt" (because of which). By this, it is said that bhakti is a limb in procuring the means for Bhagavān's grace. (33)
Moreover, only bhakti, which gives rise to His grace, is to be accomplished by people. Otherwise, He is difficult to know. With this idea, [the text] says "so 'ham" (I am He). Without grasping that Viṣṇu who is the object of my bhakti, this Vedic teacher, foremost among those to be understood through the Vedas, abounding in the tradition of correct knowledge; or this foremost ascetic among ascetics, the lord of Dakṣa and other Prajāpatis; having become one with a steady mind through singular focus, resorting to the most skillful means characterized by yoga meditation—I do not comprehend that Bhagavān (Lord) from whom is my origin. Due to the specification of "adhi" (beyond), [indicating] the excess of what is specifically comprehended as infinite, [the meaning is] "I do not know." (34)
While explaining the greatness of Hari in this way to Nārada, repeatedly immersed in the ocean of the nectar of bhakti, he (the speaker) offers obeisance, [saying] "nato 'smi" (I bow down). That Viṣṇu Himself knows the expanse, the varied abodes, the infinitude of the glory which is the nature of His own māyā (illusion), having attained [this knowledge] Himself. [The text] states the reason for the specific statement with "nāham" (not I). Vāyu (the Wind God), the powerful one, or others—Garuḍa, Śeṣa, and so on. Now, the completeness of knowledge itself is negated by the word "atha" (now), not just any knowledge of that subject among all classes of living beings such as Brahmā, Vāyu, and Hari. This distinction should be understood through the indicative half-verse "prekṣāvata" (for the discerning). (35)
Now, using himself as an example, [the speaker] says that no one has complete knowledge with "nāham" (not I). This is an incomplete analogy. Just as I do not know the complete extent of it (Viṣṇu's greatness), so too you all do not know. Here too, only complete knowledge is negated through inversion, as suitable knowledge of oneself is stated in the latter part. [The idea is] even the all-knowing Śiva, renowned as Tripurāntaka (the destroyer of Tripura), does not [have such complete knowledge], what to speak of learned individuals. [The text] states the reason for this with "yan māyayā" (by whose illusion). Because the intellect is deluded by the binding power, the māyā of that Hari—that is the meaning. [It] states the result of that with "idam" (this). This world, created [to be] equal to oneself, is discerned as equal to the Supreme Self. If it is apprehended "why [is there] a distinction among you?" [The response is] true, there is a distinction, as stated by "idam" (this). However, we discern, in accordance with our own capacity, Him by whom this [world] is created [to be] equal to Himself. We do not [discern] more than that, yet even that is dependent on His grace. Therefore, we say they do not know. This distinction should be inferred from the word "tu" (but). (36)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
And being in such a state, he manifests only due to my upsurge of devotion. This is stated by "na bhāratī" (not false). (34) But without such devotion, previously, even though I had various means, he did not manifest to me. This is stated by "so 'ham" (I am he). (35) Therefore, devotion consisting of offering obeisances, etc. is indeed useful for him, but not the effort of knowledge. This is stated by "nato 'smy aham" (I bow down). Because "yo hi" (whoever). Here, ātmamāyā (self-illusion) refers to svarūpaśakti (intrinsic power). The scriptural statement of the sky analogy is suitable there itself because the cited scriptures find their own purpose right there. The sky analogy, however, is only for the purpose of superficial understanding; in reality, it is also limited. (36)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
He concludes the topic by "iti" (thus). You should not consider or think of anything else apart from the Lord, which consists of cause and effect, existent and non-existent, and three quarters and one quarter. (33) [Objection:] But by statements such as "tvam amṛtaṁ kṣemam amṛtaṁ kṣemam abhayaṁ trimūrtir no 'dhāyi mūrdhni" (You, the immortal, the secure, the immortal, the secure, the fearless, the three-formed, have placed on our heads), you state the eternality of the tripād-vibhūti (three-quarter opulence) that is beyond the three modes. Similarly, you also imply the falsity of even the external world, which is the effect of the Lord's external illusory energy, by statements such as "pāda-vibhūteḥ tri-guṇamaya-prapañcasyāpi bhagavato vilajjamānayā" (the Lord is ashamed of the three-mode material world, which is his foot opulence). And you indicate the reality of the objects of illusion by presenting them as the means of renouncing it. Other knowers of the scriptures, however, explain that all this is indeed false, being a fabrication of the mind; even the Lordship of the Lord is definitely impermanent because it is an extrinsic characteristic. What to speak of his abode or the tripād-vibhūti? In this regard, whom should I trust—your words or their words? This is answered by "na bhāratī" (not false). This statement of mine to you is not false. The reason for that is "na vai" (certainly not). The reason everywhere is that Hari has been held by me with a mind filled with longing. Wherever Hari is, only there everything is true. Therefore, trust only my words. Even by those other knowers of the scriptures, Hari has not been held in the mind. Therefore, the movement of their minds is indeed false, and consequently, their words are also indeed false. Do not accept the view of those who speak falsely. This is the purport. (34) [Objection:] But they consider themselves to be the knowers of the purport of all the Vedas and scriptures. They know the nature of the Supreme Lord. And similarly, they also enlighten others with logical arguments. Regarding this, he says, "so 'ham" (I am he)—I, who was previously described as having superhuman characteristics, holding Hari in the cave of the heart with longing—[am] according to the Vedic tradition. The purport is that those for whose sake the Vedas were originally uttered by my own mouths are still only inquiring about it even today. By "tapomaya" (consisting of austerity)—the wealth that you have stated in "yat ṣoḍaśam ekaviṁśaṁ niṣkiñcanānāṁ nṛpa yad dhanaṁ viduḥ" (O King, what the renunciants know as their wealth, which is sixteenth, twenty-first)—indicating the austerity that was first performed by me alone, my knowledge and realization are shown as given by the Lord. One should not say that I also do not have the lordship of yoga. This is stated by "āsthāya" and so on. Even though I concentrated with a one-pointed mind, I did not attain him; I did not know him. The reason for that is "yata ātmano mama saṁbhavaḥ" (because my own creation). Alas, how can others who are created by those created by my creation know him? But those who claim that Lordship is an extrinsic characteristic are indeed blind. This is the purport. (35) Aho! The modern ones prattle, "We shall speak of the truth of the Lord", since even the Lord Himself is not able to know His own essence, and thus with an abundance of devotion, He bows down to Himself. For the devotees who have taken refuge in Him, He is the destroyer of existence, the result that is intended is the cessation of the sorrows of samsara, and what is intended is the bestowing of the bliss of His own love. He is supremely auspicious, because without devotion to Him even for others - karmis, jnanis, and yogis - there is no absence of calamity. This is the meaning. He Himself has gone beyond even the glories of His own maya (illusion) and the expanse of His own yogamaya (divine power). The word pari (beyond) is used in the sense of negation, meaning "He did not know 'this much'." How could others like us know? If it is asked, "How can the omniscient not know, since everything is included within Him?" This is illustrated by an example: just as the sky does not reach its own end, in the same way... The idea is that not seeing one's own end does not negate omniscience. And so it will be said later on: "Even the great gods attained their end in His endlessness; You also are endless..." The Shruti (scripture) says: "He who is the presiding deity in the highest heaven, He alone knows, or maybe He does not know." (36)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
The general answer to the questions beginning with "What is the basis..." and all the questions starting with "What is the nature of the self..." is stated as "There is no higher truth than Vāsudeva (vāsudeva), O Brahman." This is also confirmed by the Vedic statement "The Puruṣa (puruṣa) alone is all this." He concludes this with the word "iti." This world consisting of existence and non-existence, gross and subtle, should not be considered or contemplated as separate from the Lord. Because it is His effect, it is dependent on Him, its existence and activity are subject to Him, and therefore it should be contemplated as non-separate from Him. Thus, I have explained to you the true nature as you have inquired. By this, it has been taught that the Lord should be meditated upon with one's whole being. (33)
He shows the result of meditating on Him through one's own experience: O Aṅga, my son, because I have eagerly held Hari in my heart with devotion and meditated on Him, my eloquent speech is not perceived as meaningless, and the activity of my mind never becomes false in any state. My senses do not fall into the condemned path of unreal objects. (34)
He refutes the apparent meaning conveyed by the phrase "held" with the words "I am He." I am the well-known one, abounding in the Vedic tradition and austerities, the best among the Prajāpatis due to knowledge and austerities. The seven great sages, the four Manus, whose progeny are these worlds and beings, as stated by the Lord - the four Sanakas and the seven Marīcis, the lords of progeny who are disciples of the fourteen Manus, have saluted me. Even having resorted to and relied on yoga meditation, I did not fully comprehend the origin of myself from the Lord. (35)
To further emphasize this, he states in two verses, beginning with "I bow," that the Lord grants enjoyment and liberation, He is omniscient, the Lord of māyā, while others are deluded by His māyā, and this is preceded by bowing to His feet. I bow to His auspicious feet. What kind of feet? They sever the ties of those who surrender, the seekers of liberation, and bestow well-being on those who desire enjoyment. Just as the deity presiding over the sky knows the expanse of the sky, He has completely known the power of His own māyā, prakṛti, and the nature of those governed by it. How can other beings fully know His māyā and its manifestations? They cannot know it at all. (36)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Thus, having summarized the previously mentioned points, he first speaks about the greatness of His dharmas, stating their greatness - "Bhāratī is not in my limbs." The Lord, concealed in the heart, generates false intelligence. Therefore, I hold the Lord in my heart with eagerness and love. And Bhāratī resides there. She, having embraced the Lord, never appears to be false, emerging from my mouth along with Him. Even in the future, she does not become obstructed. Similarly, the functions of the mind also. Whatever object is yet to come, it does not become the subject of that, as stated - "My mind is never on anything." There is greatness even in indirect relationships. I am connected with the Lord. And merely by my self-conceit, the mind and so forth are connected, in order to make this known, "my" is said everywhere. Hṛṣīkāṇi are the senses. Asatpathe means on the wrong path. However, in the context of speech, the Lord is not established in the heart, so there is no contradiction with that. Now, how did the Lord, who was held, accomplish what was desired? In response to that, he says - "Hari..." By saying "with an eager heart," this meaning is determined - love for the Lord should be generated in the mind. Then, the mind filled with love will make the Lord, who is present everywhere, its object. Just as the tongue, endowed with the sense of taste, naturally grasps the flavors present in substances. But prior to that, the knowledge of those flavors is required. Similarly, the mind imbued with devotion naturally grasps the Lord. To convey that the Lord can be attained only through exclusive devotion, like a specific sense organ, he says - "I am He." Initially, the Vedas are the authority in knowing the Lord. Austerity is the means. Reflection and contemplation are the forms of understanding the authority. Yoga is the internal means. Its result is one-pointedness of the mind. It should not be thought that when that arises, the highest aspirant has direct realization of the Lord, as stated - "I am He." Samāmnāya (scripture) is the Veda that is repeated again and again. The root "mnā" with the prefixes "sam" and "ā" denotes the repetition of the Veda along with the performance of rituals. Tanmayaḥ means its modification or being pervaded by it. Tapomaya indicates the primacy of the means. It is said to be natural austerity to convey that. Prajāpatīnām abhivandita (saluted by the Prajāpatis) has not been mentioned for the purpose of discussing the meaning. And by the word Prajāpati, its tradition is also indicated. And they are not deceived, as stated - "Pati..." Indeed, the Lord of the Prajāpatis does not deceive them. In this way, the authority along with its parts has been determined. The authority indeed assists the mind in the direct realization of the Lord. Therefore, he also speaks of the mind's capability to grasp the Lord - "Resorting to yoga..." Nipuṇam means not deluded by accomplishments and so forth. Even with the means, I did not attain Him. Because "born of oneself," one's own qualification is stated to be superior. Therefore, the conclusion is that He comes under control and is known only through devotion, not otherwise. || 34 ||
I am bowed to His feet. I do not know any means other than bowing down. How can others know? One may ask, what can be achieved by bowing down? To this, it is said - it removes worldly existence for those who approach Him. His feet remove the worldly existence of those who properly approach Him to attain Him, desiring to perform some action related to Him. It is said that it severs worldly existence to avoid attaining it again. It is said in this way because when the root is severed, the flow ceases naturally. It not only removes suffering but also bestows wellbeing, as stated: "It is the abode of wellbeing and auspiciousness." Here, wellbeing (svasti) refers to the abode of temporal welfare, while auspiciousness (sumaṅgala) indicates the spiritual welfare. Therefore, one should bow down to His feet, as that alone accomplishes the goal.
One may ask, can the Lord or His qualities be known as they are? To this, the incapability of knowing the qualities is stated in the verse beginning with "yo hi..." The Lord Himself could not comprehend the power of His own māyā, which serves as His instrument. The word "pari" negates - it means He did not know. By stating it in this way, the fault in Himself is refuted.
Now, if the power of māyā belongs to the Lord Himself, how can the Lord not know something related to Himself? An example is given: "Just as the sky does not know its own end." One who does not know their own end, despite having an end, is not omniscient. Not even when it is non-existent, because not knowing the horns of a rabbit does not obstruct omniscience. Just as the sky does not know its own end, because it is all-pervading and has no end, similarly, the Lord too (does not know the end of His māyā). [35]
Thus, after describing the ignorance of the qualities, the super-ignorance of the essential nature is described in the verse beginning with "nāham..." It should not be thought that someone can know the Lord, because if even we, the great and competent ones, do not know Him completely, then how can anyone else know? Here, "I" refers to Brahmā. "You all" refers to Sanaka and the others, all of whom are my sons. We do not know the true path (gati) of whom. Knowledge of the Lord is far away, but we do not even know the path by which the Lord travels. Just as humans do not know about the gods, similarly, we too do not know about the Lord.
As for Mahādeva, he is an incarnation of the qualities and the guru of all. With the doubt that he may know, as per the statement "One should seek knowledge from the Lord," it is said: "Not even Vāmadeva." Vāmadeva refers to Mahādeva. Others are inferior to him.
The reason for ignorance is stated in the verse beginning with "yan-māyayā..." Those whose intellects are deluded by māyā, which is related to knowledge as before. The sense organs grasped by the intellect generate knowledge. If the intellect is bewildered there, knowledge is far away. Then the futility of the senses would result. To this, it is said: "We discern this creation, which is made by Him, according to our own intellect." By stating that the effect (creation) is created by the Lord Himself, the view that the Lord does not exist is refuted. By saying "ātma-samam" (equal to Himself), it is indicated that even that (creation) is not properly known. Otherwise, through specific inferences, all the specific characteristics of the Lord would be known, as the world is of the nature of manifesting all qualities. [36]
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
It appears that the reading here is not bhāratītyatra bhāvanetitra bhāvineti. Indeed, how is the statement 'name ṛṣīkāṇi' reconciled, since there is a fall of the words of Brahmā on the censured path due to the narration by Brahmā of the use of violence in the Brāhma and Nītiśāstra, and of adulterous pleasures and lovemaking in the Kāmaśāstra, and their translation in the Bhārata and Vātsyāyanīya? From this, they say vāksambandha (connection of speech) and so on. This is indicative of even the connection of the mind. And even if there is a connection between the two, if there is forgetfulness of the Lord, then by the meaning of bhāratī, it would not say that only the mere emergence of truth should be done. Therefore, emergence itself is non-forgetfulness. But it is not that even in the connection of the two, there is no deviation by that. The meaning is held, i.e., bound by love. Devotion with senses fixed on the Lord. Just as the eyes, etc., grasp form, taste, etc., devotion is grasping the Lord with the mind. (33)
In so 'ham (I am He), tatra means in the knowledge of the Lord. Knowledge of the means of valid knowledge is the knowledge of the purport of the Vedas. Antaraṅga (internal) means producing contemplation. So 'ham refers to the best qualified person. They elucidate the accomplishment of the means in samāmnāya, etc. Uktam means said up to mayi. By this, they determine the purport of such types of statements as "tam tvāupaniṣadaṃ puruṣam" (that Purusha taught in the Upanishads) and "manasaivānudraṣṭavya" (to be perceived by the mind alone), etc. Pramāṇahī, etc. (34)
In natāsmī (I bow down), āha means the world responds. Arthasiddhiḥ is the accomplishment of the desired goal by the method contemplated by the Lord. (35)
In nāham (I am not), jñānasambandhi means related to knowledge. Anena means by the word vinirmita (created). Tadapi means even the world in the form of an effect. Anyathā means in the correct comprehension of the effect. (36)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
What has been said, "This much of you, since you are mine" and "Without knowing me, the Lord, you speak," having established that, he concludes that the functions of my speech, mind, and senses are true by the grace of the Lord, not by my own power. Indicating that you are like my own limb, as you are the object of affection as a son, he addresses you, saying, "O Aṅga (limb)," suggesting, "I speak the truth, not to deceive you." Because of my longing and overflow of love, Hari is held and meditated upon by my heart. Therefore, my speech is never found to be false in any subject. The inclination of my mind, even the saṅkalpa (resolve), is never false in any matter. My senses never fall onto the wrong path or condemned objects. (33)
If such a Lord exists, then why is He not known by all? To address this doubt, he proves his own experience through positive and negative inferences. He, the Lord, born from the lotus navel, composed of the Vedas, engaged in the study of the Vedas, consisting of austerities, always devoted to austerities, the lord of creatures, the teacher of the right path, and thus having his feet worshipped by all, being the most excellent, even though skillfully following the complete yoga and being attentive, I did not attain or know the Lord from whom is my birth. This will be clearly explained in the third canto concerning Padmodbhava (Brahmā). (34)
Then, I bow down to His feet, as He is of inconceivable greatness, and somehow came to know Him. How can knowledge arise merely by bowing to His feet? In response to this question, it is said that it not only grants knowledge but also destroys the existence of those who take refuge, removes the sufferings of birth and other miseries in this world, bestows well-being such as wealth, children, and prosperity in this life, and grants supreme bliss in the next world. Having stated his own experience, he mocks those who claim to be omniscient due to their study of the scriptures, using the maxim of "how much more." He says that even the Lord Himself did not comprehend the expanse of His own māyā (illusory power). How can others know? The word "pari" here denies comprehension, meaning He did not know the extent. The connection is with the previous statement, "I bow down to His feet." If the doubt arises, how can the omniscient not know, he establishes the absence of an end using an example at the end. Just as the sky does not reach its own end, even the Lord is like that. There is no doubt about this. He indicates that the Vedic hymn, "Even the lords did not reach Your end due to Your endlessness. You indeed are the end of the countless universes, but they are enveloped," and the Śruti, "He who is the presiding deity in the supreme sky, He alone knows, or maybe He does not know," are also proofs here. (35)
Having stated the difficulty in comprehending the qualities of the Lord's māyā, he now speaks about the difficulty in understanding His true nature. If I, Brahmā, you, Nārada, Sanaka, and others, and Vāmadeva and Mahādeva, who are renowned for their greatness and knowledge, do not know His true form, then what to speak of other inferior gods not knowing? They certainly do not know. What more can be said? We perceive this world created by Him as similar to ourselves, according to our own understanding, not in reality. He states the reason for the lack of real knowledge of the world: because our intellects are deluded by His māyā. The implication is that without delusion, with the knowledge of reality, the cycle of existence would dissolve into complete liberation. (36)
Hindī Anuvāda
Dear Nārada! I remain absorbed in the remembrance of the Lord with a loving and eager heart. That is why my speech never seems to be false, my mind never makes false resolutions, and my senses also never transgress their boundaries and go astray. || 33 || * * I am the embodiment of the Vedas, my life is full of tapasyā (austerity), great Prajāpatis (progenitors) pay homage to me, and I am their master. Previously, I practiced yoga with great devotion in all its aspects, but I could not comprehend the true nature of the Supreme Soul, my ultimate cause. || 34 || * * (Because He can only be attained through pure bhakti (devotion).) I simply offer obeisances to the feet of the supremely auspicious Lord, who liberates the surrendered devotees from birth and death. His māyā (illusory) power is immeasurable; just as the sky does not know its own limit, similarly, He also does not know the extent of His own glory. In such a situation, how can others fathom it? || 35 || * * My sons, all of you, and even Lord Śaṅkara do not know His true nature; then how can other deities possibly know Him? We are all so deluded that we cannot even properly understand the world created by His māyā. We merely speculate according to our own intellect. || 36 ||
SB 2.6.33-36
