SB 2.6.37-40

 Text 37: Since neither Lord Śiva nor you nor I could ascertain the limits of spiritual happiness, how can other demigods know it? And because all of us are bewildered by the illusory, external energy of the Supreme Lord, we can see only this manifested cosmos according to our individual ability.

Text 38: Let us offer our respectful obeisances unto that Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose incarnations and activities are chanted by us for glorification, though He can hardly be fully known as He is.

Text 39: That supreme original Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, expanding His plenary portion as Mahā-Viṣṇu, the first incarnation, creates this manifested cosmos, but He is unborn. The creation, however, takes place in Him, and the material substance and manifestations are all Himself. He maintains them for some time and absorbs them into Himself again.

Texts 40: The Personality of Godhead is pure, being free from all contaminations of material tinges. He is the Absolute Truth and the embodiment of full and perfect knowledge. He is all-pervading, without beginning or end, and without rival.

Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā

Now, everyone is seen describing Him, so it is said. yasya iti (whose) || 37 || * * He briefly shows the activities of the avatāra (incarnation). sa eṣa ādyo bhagavān (He is the primeval Lord) who, being the puruṣāvatāra (incarnation of the Supreme Person), performs creation and so forth. ātmātmanyātmanātmānam iti (the self within the self, by the self, the self) - the doer, the locus, the instrument, and the object are all Himself. This is a brief statement that the puruṣāvatāra and the activities such as creation are His. || 38 ||

It was said, "na yaṁ vidati tattvena (they do not know Him in truth)." In anticipation of the question, "What is that truth?" He says: jñānaṁ kevalaṁ satyaṁ tattvam (knowledge alone is the truth, the reality). The qualifications are for the sake of distinguishing it from the knowledge functioning in the form of pot etc. viśuddhaṁ (pure) - devoid of the form of objects. Because it is pratyak (inward), sarvāṁtaram (innermost of all), and therefore samyak (completely) free from doubt etc., it is avasthitam (established). sthiraṁ (stable) because it is nirguṇam (without qualities). Indeed, the effect of qualities is unstable due to the interplay of qualities. Although even the knowledge of the modifications is the knowledge of the Self and thus not subject to the flaws of instability etc., it is distinguished as being affected by the defects of the modifications of the inner instrument. By these very qualifications, its truth is also established. Moreover, what is seen to be subject to modification is unreal. And it has no six modifications such as birth, as He says: anādyaṁtaṁ (beginningless and endless) - devoid of birth and destruction. Therefore, even the modification consisting of existence after birth does not exist, and growth, transformation, and decay do not exist. Because it is pūrṇam (complete). The reason everywhere is nityam advayam (eternal non-duality). It is nityaṁ (eternal) - even at the time of the perception of duality, it is advayam (non-dual) in reality. || 39 ||

Here He cites the experience of the wise as evidence. O Nārada, ṛṣe (sage) with a tranquil mind and senses, when the body, senses, and mind become prasanna (clear), then one knows. At other times, He states the reason for its ignorance. But when that very luminous reality is viplutaṁ (distorted) by the tarka (logic) of the unreal, then it is tirodhīyeta (concealed). || 40 ||

Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā

Herein he objects - "Nanu" (but). In reality, by the true nature of śakti (power) and svarūpa (essential nature) ॥ 37 ॥ * In each kalpa (aeon), at the beginning of each mahākalpa (great aeon). This is the meaning. The creator is Īśvara (God), the universe is to be created, sustained and destroyed, māyā (illusion) is the cause of that, and Hari (Viṣṇu) is indeed the substratum of that. Everything happens in such and such a way, this is the purport ॥ 38 ॥ * * For this very reason, because of being the inner essence of all. For this very reason, because of being devoid of birth and destruction. The context here is as follows. And again, in order to define the unique śakti, he describes the svarūpa as well in the same way, while attributing to that one alone the simultaneous creatorship etc. Viśuddham (pure) - this is a pair. Therein, jñāna (knowledge) is the substantive. Therein, sukha-svarūpam (of the nature of happiness) indeed, because of the Śruti (scripture) "Vijñānam ānandam brahma" (Brahman is knowledge and bliss). He states the adjectives that make known its distinctiveness from the essential nature of the jīva (individual soul) - viśuddham (pure), kevalam (alone), distinctly pure indeed, but not of the nature of ignorance, this is the meaning. "Ayam ātmā apahata-pāpmā" (This self is free from evil), because of this Śruti. Beginning with "Yataḥ pratyakaḥ sarvato'py āntaraṃ yaḥ pṛthivyāṃ tiṣṭhan" (Which is inner to all, which stands in the earth), up to "Ya ātmānam antaro yamayati" (Which controls the self from within), because of this Śruti. Therefore, it exists pervading all around without obstruction or distraction, not limited like air, this is the meaning. "Eko devaḥ" (The one God), because of this and other Śrutis. Moreover, satyam (real), because it is of the nature of bestowing existence on all, not primary among unreal entities, this is the meaning. "Satyaṃ cāmṛtañca satyam evābhavat" (The real and the immortal, the real alone came to be), because of this Śruti. Pūrṇam (full), complete with Bhagavattā (Godhood), not devoid of that, this is the meaning. For this very reason, it is of unlimited essential glory. Nirgata (free) from guṇas (qualities) like sattva etc., the guṇas are the six like aiśvarya (lordship) etc. of whom, such is the meaning - a bahuvrīhi compound with the elision of the middle word. "Na tasya kāryaṃ karaṇaṃ ca vidyate" (It has no effect or instrument), because of this and other Śrutis. By this, the fact of having such an essential nature is established. "Na saṃdṛśe tiṣṭhati rūpam asya yam evaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanuṃ svām" (Its form does not exist for seeing. Only by him whom it chooses can it be attained. To him this self reveals its own form), because of this Śruti. Because it is of the nature of bestowing existence on all, it is indeed nityam (eternal), advayam (non-dual), because of the absence of a separate entity, and free from fear, this is the meaning. "Ekam evādvayaṃ brahma" (Brahman is indeed one, without a second), "Dvaitād vai bhayaṃ bhavati" (From duality indeed arises fear), because of this Śruti. Thus, even though all have that as their root, there is a distinctiveness of different essential natures, otherwise the specific statement "Na yaṃ vidaṃti tattvena" (Whom they do not know in reality) would be meaningless. To those who are biased towards other views, he states the reason for its unknowability - praśāntā (peaceful) are those whose devotion to Bhagavān, whose self and senses are tranquil, they alone know that. By asattarkas (fallacious arguments), by such conceptions about its form etc. mentioned in the third skandha (chapter) that is going to be stated - "Yo'nādṛto narakabhāgbhir asat-prasaṅgaiḥ" (He who is disregarded by those destined to hell, through attachment to the unreal), according to the direction indicated by that, and by fallacious arguments, it will be obscured instantly. Thus, by this set of four verses, it is suggested that Bhagavān of such an essential nature, being of such a form through such a śakti, performs incarnations etc. Therein, even those who know that particular thing do not easily attain happiness. Because, concerning the knowledge of that particular thing, much is sung, such as "Pariniṣṭhito'pi naiguṇye" (Even one who is firmly established in sattva-guṇa). But Viśvanātha [says] - Nanu (but) - As it is said "Na yaṃ vidaṃti tattvena" (Whom they do not know in reality), you and others do not know Bhagavān, but do they know or not his essential nature that is heard to be free from specificities? When there is this curiosity, he says - viśuddham (pure) etc. Therein, jñāna (knowledge) is the substantive, and that is indeed of the nature of happiness. "Vijñānam ānandam brahma" (Brahman is knowledge and bliss), because of this Śruti. Kevalam (alone), without a second. For this very reason, because of the absence of limiting adjuncts, it is viśuddham (pure). For this very reason, because of being the inner essence of all, it is pratyak (inner). That too, because of existing by pervading all around, is samyag avasthitam (well established). Even the pervasion is only in the form of existence everywhere, thus it is satyam (real). Because of the absence of gradation, it is pūrṇam (full). Because of the absence of modifications like birth etc., it is anādy anantam (beginningless and endless). Because of the absence of association with guṇas (qualities) like sattva etc., it is nirguṇam (free from qualities). Because of remaining in only one form for all time, it is nityam (eternal). Because of the absence of a second, it is advayam (non-dual). O sage, O Nārada. The purport is that only one who has such knowledge becomes a sage. Munis (sages), those devoted to reflection, when they become praśāntātmendriyāśayas (of tranquil mind, self and senses), then they know that. Otherwise, that very entity, confounded by fallacious arguments, would be obscured. By this, it is said that its essential nature free from specificities, which is Brahman, can somehow be known, but not the essential nature with specificities. In the same way indeed, it will be stated even in the tenth skandha, with "Vibodhumatya-malāntarātmabhiḥ" (By those whose inner selves are pure and of unsullied intelligence) etc. ॥ 39 ॥ 40 ॥

Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā

In the cognition of objects like pots, etc. Just as the water from a reservoir, having exited through a hole, enters the fields in the form of a channel and takes on the shape of a square, etc., in the same way, the taijasa (luminous) antaḥkaraṇa (internal organ) also goes to the place of objects like pots, etc., through the eyes, etc., and transforms into the form of objects like pots, etc. That transformation itself is called vṛtti (mental modification). Thus, [it is stated] in the Vedāntaparibhāṣā. The six modifications are: It is born, it exists, it grows, it transforms, it declines, and it is destroyed - these are the six modifications of existence. (40)

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā

Then what is the means to cross over māyā (illusion)? In reply to this, he says "yasya (of whom)". The avatāras (incarnations) of the Lord (Bhagavān) whose actions and deeds we, the four-faced Brahmā and others, sing about, but do not find or know in reality - however, they offer obeisance to that Bhagavān. The very act of singing the glories of His qualities and actions is the means to cross over māyā. This is the purport. (37)

[Anticipating the questions:] Who are the avatāras? What are their deeds? By singing the glories of what does one cross over māyā? In order to state the avatāras and their actions, he concludes the answers to the questions such as "yadrūpam (of what nature)", etc., saying "sa eṣa (He Himself)". This primordial supreme puruṣa (person), who is unborn (aja), devoid of birth dependent on karma, in every kalpa (cosmic cycle), within Himself alone as the substratum, by Himself who is the Paramātmā (Supreme Self), He Himself being the agent, creates, sustains, dissolves and protects [the universe]. (38)

[If asked:] Is this cosmic activity of the Lord dependent on karma? Negating this, he says "viśuddham (pure)". Being devoid of karma in the form of virtue and vice, the cosmic activity is not dependent on karma. This is the meaning. Thus, the difference from the nature of the individual self, whose activity is dependent on karma, has been stated. If different from the individual self, then is it insentient? In reply, he says "kevalaṁ jñānam (pure knowledge)" - it is not insentient anywhere. Then, is it knowledge that takes the form of modifications such as pots, cloth, etc.? To this, he says "pratyak (inward)", shining to itself. But the individual self is also of this nature. In reply, he says "samyag avasthitam (perfectly abiding)", abiding without dependence on anything else. The individual self, however, is sustained by the Paramātmā. This is the purport.

He states other aspects that are distinct from both sentient and insentient: "satyaṁ (real)" - by nature; "dharmaś ca (and its essential nature)" - free from modification. By this, [the Lord is shown to be] distinct from modifiable sentient substances by nature and from insentient [entities] which are subject to modification by their very nature. "Pūrṇam (complete)" - having obtained all desires; "nirguṇam (devoid of qualities)" - without sattva and other [qualities]; "anādyantam (without beginning or end)" - devoid of origin and destruction, therefore "nityam (eternal)" - unconditioned by time, etc.; "advayam (non-dual)" - without a second entity on par or superior [to Him]. These [attributes] should be understood to the extent possible as distinguishing [the Lord] from sentient and insentient [entities]. (39)

Here he cites the experience of the wise as an authority: "ṛṣe (O Sage)", O Nārada, "ātmā āśayo praṇetā (those whose minds and senses are directed towards the Self)", the sages (kavayaḥ) know the nature of the Supreme Self as described above. The sages discern the nature of the Supreme by proper reasoning and purify it as being distinct from the sentient and insentient. How is it difficult to know? "Asatarkair asatām (by fallacious arguments of the unwise)" - if it were to be refuted by fallacious arguments or theories of the unwise, then it would be obscured. This is the meaning. (40)

Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā

From this, the complete knowledge of His nature is indeed forbidden. Is it not that mere knowledge about Him is otherwise not possible without the functioning of the organ of speech directed towards Him? And that exists, therefore what has been said is proper, with this idea he says - yasya iti (of whom). Even the knowledge of a part independently, with this conception, even that would not exist, with this idea, repeated bowing is the meaning. || 37 ||

And it is proper that there is an abundance of internal forms and that action is characterized by its regulation. In the absence of that, what is the evidence for the existence of other avatāras (incarnations) and their actions? Having doubted thus, he concisely states that in sa eṣa iti (this one). He who is completely unknown by all of us and others, this very person, Śrī Nārāyaṇa, the ātman (self), himself only in every kalpa (eon), by himself, through his own will, with a controlled mind, in himself, as his own support, creates himself in the form of Matsya etc., makes it manifest like one lamp from another lamp. He is not born like Devadatta, hence aja iti (unborn), the first is upajīvya iti (the one to be depended upon), manifestation. He states the very nature of being depended upon - sa saṁyacchati iti (he restrains). Through those avatāras, he protects the gods and his own people, restrains the demons like Hayagrīva etc. The word ca (and) is used to indicate what has been stated and to suggest other avatāras like Vyāsa. And thus, it is known that through avatāras like Vyāsa, by teaching the scriptures, he illuminates the nature concealed by the teachings of the tamasic (ignorant) people like Maṇimada. And thus it has been said by himself only, having created forms like Matsya, Kūrma, etc. in himself through his own will, the unborn one protects the gods and others through them - ityādi (etcetera). || 38 ||

What kind of nature has been illuminated by the scriptures? Here he states - viśuddham iti (pure). The knowledge that is pure due to being flawless, alone due to being non-dual, the form of consciousness independent of objects, pratyak (innermost) due to being established as facing inward for all, even though pure in itself, it may become impure due to others, hence well-established due to being devoid of impure parts, satya (true) of the nature of experiencing eternal unsurpassed bliss, pūrṇa (complete) unconditioned by space, time, or qualities, without beginning or end, devoid of origin and destruction, nirguṇa (attributeless) devoid of qualities like sattva etc. Therefore, nitya (eternal) devoid of the nature of change, advaya (non-dual) devoid of internal differentiation. || 39 ||

Even though devoid of modification in itself, it may occur due to a cause, therefore ṛtaṁ (truth) always of one nature, that has been said - ṛtaṁ (truth) due to the knowledge of its essential nature, sattva (existence) due to its goodness, param (supreme) etc. Since this knowledge alone is the cause for the sole result of liberation, this alone has been illuminated by the scriptures, not anything else, with this idea he says - vindanti iti (they attain). The exceedingly peaceful, auspicious-natured sages whose organs like ears etc., whose minds and intellects are thus stated to be pure when, due to single-pointed devotion to Bhagavān (God), with mental and other activities that have become pure, the omniscient sages like Brahmā and others, having directly perceived Brahman endowed with such qualities, attain, gain their own bliss. At that very moment, through the true perceptions etc. of the non-eternal, it is concealed, the seed of saṁsāra (worldly existence) in the form of the external and internal organs becomes like a burnt seed - this is the connection. By this, the objection - what is the result of actions like singing and listening about the avatāras - is also refuted. Moreover, whatever is the form of the original nature, whatever is the action, whatever is the quality, all that belongs to the avatāras as well. Therefore, their identity with that nature is proper, this too has been made known. Alternatively, asattakair (by the non-eternal) - if he possesses qualities then he would possess faults, if he is an agent then he would be deluded, since this is seen in Devadatta and others, when through the intellect sharpened by the scriptures composed by Vyāsa and others, the sages properly attain the nature characterized by contradictions etc., at that very moment the nature of being impure etc. is concealed, the intellect concerned with that ceases, hence there is no occasion for denigration - with this intention he says sa eṣa iti (this one). When the Dharmaśāstra (scripture of dharma) is concealed by the non-eternal ones like the Buddhists etc., and the Adharmaśāstra (scripture of adharma) becomes manifest, then he creates himself - this is the connection. What kind of self? Here it is stated - viśuddham ityādi (pure etc.). In that, what is the evidence? Here he states - vindanti iti (they attain). The avatāras like Matsya etc. are parts of the nature of Viṣṇu, for this their direct perception is the evidence and in the context of the avatāras - this is the meaning. || 40 ||

Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā

There the army said, "Not I." The path of ṛta (cosmic order) leads to Śrīvaikuṇṭha. We do not know, we do not understand. Let that be. We consider even this universe created by His māyā (illusion) to be suitable for the self. The reason for that is that our intellects are deluded by His māyā. (37)

What is it that is not controlled by Him? In reality, by His śakti (power) and svarūpa (essential nature), He is the controller of all. (38)

There, He alone defines that most distinctive śakti (power) that manifests anything whatsoever. (39)

(And again, illustrating the same in a different way, attributing to that one alone the ability to act simultaneously, etc.) He also defines the svarūpa (essential nature) in the same way, with complete distinctiveness, as being pure. This is a pair of verses. There, knowledge is the subject, and that indeed is of the nature of bliss, as stated in the śruti (revealed scripture), "Brahman is consciousness and bliss." He states the distinguishing attributes that indicate its distinctiveness from the essential nature of the jīva (individual soul): pure, alone, distinctly pure indeed, not tainted by ignorance. This is the meaning, as stated in the śruti, "This self is untouched by sin." Because it is inner to everything, even to the perceiver. As stated in the śruti, beginning with "He who abides in the earth," up to "He who abides in the self and controls the self from within." Therefore, by being perfectly undisturbed, it pervades and abides all around, not obscured or dispersed, nor of atomic size. This is the meaning, as stated in the śruti, "The one God," etc. Moreover, it is satya (true), being the essence that bestows existence on all, the primary among the categories of reality, not secondary to them. This is the meaning, as stated in the śruti, "Both truth and immortality became the true of the true." It is pūrṇa (complete), fulfilled by the state of being Bhagavān, not deficient in that way. This is the meaning. Therefore, its essential nature and glory are without beginning or end. The guṇas (qualities) such as aiśvarya (lordship) and others, which are distinct from the guṇas such as sattva, are six in number. It has no effect or instrument. This is stated in the śruti. By this, its possession of such a form is implied. As stated in the śruti, "His form does not stand within the range of vision. Only he whom He chooses can attain Him. To him, this self reveals His own form." Being the essential nature that bestows existence on all, it is indeed nitya (eternal), advaya (non-dual), devoid of a separate entity, and fearless. This is the meaning, as stated in the śruti, "Brahman is one without a second. From a second, fear arises." Thus, even though everything has its basis in that, there is a distinction in the uniqueness of the essential nature. Otherwise, the specific statement "Whom they do not find in reality" would be meaningless. (40)

Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā

There, with his army, he said, "Not I," through two. Vāmudeva is Rudra. Whose ṛtā (truth), satya (true) path, and three-footed, one-footed vibhūti (power) we do not know, we are not aware of. And there, that one-footed vibhūti form, created by his māyā (illusion), we perceive, we speak of. Even that is similar to the self, according to one's own knowledge, but not entirely. || 37 ||

By saying "yasya (whose)," he shows that devotion through glorification, etc., is possible even without knowledge of his true nature. Therefore, the meaning is: We speak of his avatāras (incarnations) and their actions, and you listen. || 38 ||

He briefly describes the Puruṣa avatāra and its actions - Puruṣa means the Puruṣa avatāra. Kalpe kalpe means in every mahā-kalpa (great eon). Ātmā ātmani ātmanā ātmānam means he himself is the doer, the locus, the means, and the object. || 39 ||

If you are curious whether those like you do not know the Lord in truth, as stated in "na yaṁ vidanti (they do not know him)," but whether they know or not his indistinct true nature that is heard of, he says "viśuddham (pure)," etc. There, "jñānam (knowledge)" is the subject. And that is indeed of the nature of happiness, as per the Śruti, "Brahman is knowledge and bliss." Jñāna (knowledge) is kevalam (absolute), due to the absence of agent, object, and instrument of knowing. Therefore, it is viśuddham (pure) due to the absence of limiting adjuncts. Hence, it is pratyak (innermost) due to being the inner self of all. Even that is samyag avasthitam (well-established) by pervading everything. The pervasion, too, is only in the form of existence everywhere; thus, it is satyam (real). It is pūrṇam (full) due to the absence of gradation. It is anādy-antam (beginningless and endless) due to the absence of origination and other modifications. It is nirguṇam (without qualities) due to the absence of association with sattva and other guṇas (qualities). It is nityam (eternal) because it remains in the same form at all times. It is advayam (non-dual) due to the absence of a second entity. || 40 ||

Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ

I, Brahmā, do not know the true path of the Lord, whose ṛtaṃ (truth) and satyaṃ (reality) are such. Vāmadeva, Śiva, and you, my sons, do not know it either, nor do the other gods know it. What could be the reason for that? Due to the māyā (illusion) and prakṛti (nature) of that Lord, our intellect is deluded. In the end, we consider this creation, which is fashioned by Him according to our own forms, such as the body, house, etc., to be equal to the ātman (self) and perceive it according to our own intellect. (37)

For the sake of mukti (liberation), we know about His avatāra (incarnation) activities through the scriptures. Others also sing about the activities of the avatāras of the Supreme Lord for the attainment of liberation, but they do not fully know Him in truth, in His entirety, or in terms of His qualities and nature. Therefore, I offer my obeisance to that Lord, who possesses limitless qualities and forms, and who is impossible to know completely, the one endowed with unsurpassed sovereignty. (38)

He concisely shows His pastimes of creating the universe, His own form, incarnations, etc., up to the end of the chapter, as it was said, "They sing about the activities of His avatāras." That primordial Puruṣa (Supreme Being), the cause of the universe, the unborn one, devoid of birth, shines in my heart as the object of meditation. In each kalpa (cosmic cycle), at the time of creation and so on, He creates Himself as the ātman (self), the doer, within Himself, using Himself as the instrument. According to the scriptures, He protects, sustains, and withdraws Himself. (39)

Although He is the cause of the creation and so on of the universe, He is pure and devoid of faults such as partiality and cruelty. The author of the sūtras (aphorisms), Bhagavān, says, "Due to the dependence on karma, there is no partiality or cruelty." What is the primary nature of that? It is nirguṇa (devoid of qualities), beyond sattva and other guṇas (qualities). Since it is said to be jñāna (knowledge), it refutes the theory of momentary consciousness. It is satya (true). Is it not the puruṣa (individual soul) presiding over prakṛti (nature)? In response to this, it is said to be kevala (absolute). Then, is it not jīvatva (individual existence)? It is said to be pratyak (inwardly) and samyag avasthitam (well-established), as per the scripture, "He who dwells in the consciousness." How can one reside in all jīvas (individual souls)? It is said to be pūrṇa (complete). Its completeness in terms of time is described as anādi-anta (without beginning or end). Its unequaled and unsurpassed nature in all three times is described as nitya (eternal) and advaya (non-dual). (40)

Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā

Having spoken about the difficulty of comprehending the path of knowledge (jñānamārga), [the author] also states the impossibility of the path of devotion (bhaktimārga) -- "Yasya'vatārakarmāṇī..." There is no direct devotion at all. Indirect devotion must somehow be practiced by someone. Among the types of indirect devotion, glorification of the qualities [of the Lord] is the best; therefore, we and others sing about the deeds of His incarnations. By using the word "avatāra" (incarnation), it is indicated that they do not even know His deeds. By using the word "karma" (deeds), it is implied that His qualities are not known at all. For qualities bestow excellence. What are the dharmas (attributes) of the Lord that establish His supreme excellence or give excellence to others? Such knowledge is difficult to attain. By using the word "avatāra," it is also determined that devotion with attributes, like knowledge of the effect, conceals the Lord with a body or form. If that is so, why do they speak about it? To address this doubt, [the author] says, "Gāyanti" (they sing). Happiness arises through singing; compared to singing about other topics, happiness is manifested more in singing about the qualities of the Lord. Therefore, they do that alone. The word "hi" (for) states this very meaning. The reality is exactly like this. Nevertheless, having ascertained that there exists some kind of Lord characterized by knowledge and ignorance, and since there is no other duty in both paths, one should only offer obeisance. [The author] says "tasmā" (therefore) [to convey this]. Although He is beyond all means of knowledge, He is well-known everywhere. And in that regard, only obeisance should be offered, nothing else. Obeisance is [offered with the words], "O Lord Kṛṣṇa (Krishna), obeisance again and again to You, who are as You are." || 37 ||

Thus, having described the greatness of the Lord and concluding the previously mentioned creation, [the author] concludes the truth -- "Sa eṣa..." (He is indeed this). He whom we do not know is indeed this One who, residing in our intellect now, does everything. The reason for Him alone being the creator is given by the word "śraddha" (faith). "Puruṣa" (Supreme Person) is the means. By saying "kalpe kalpe" (in each kalpa), repeated creation is negated. By [using the word] "aja" (unborn), the eternally unchanging nature of Himself is [conveyed]. He Himself is the material cause, the instrument, and the agent. Ātmā (the Self) is Himself the doer. Ātmani (in Himself) is the locus. Ātmanā (by Himself) is the instrument. Ātmānaṃ (Himself) in the form of the universe is the object. By this, the meanings of the other cases should also be understood. He not only creates but also withdraws and destroys. [He] protects and sustains. The two uses of "ca" (and) negate the difference in the object. Even when He destroys, He also creates. Or, [it is used] to describe the connection with another while engaged in one activity. The rationale here is that by the great yoga of His own will alone, without external means, He becomes multiform. But in regard to the Lord, even yoga and other means are not required. His very nature, endowed with all powers, is indeed such. || 38 ||

You may object: "O Lord, this path is not very easy. Compared to this, the path of knowledge, which is the very nature of the Self that is Brahman, is indeed superior. That can be known." Anticipating this objection, [the Lord] refutes it by stating "viśuddham" (completely pure) in two verses. These twelve attributes demonstrate the distinction between the body and the Self. Having known them, one should abandon the false notion of "I" and "mine" with regard to the body and so on, which arises from delusion. This will be the result. Among them, the body is extremely impure, being filled with urine, feces, and so on, and is impure. The Self, however, is especially pure. There can be no identity between the pure and the impure. By this, it is said that no purificatory rites whatsoever are required for the Self. Purificatory rites performed on the body are utterly futile. By this, the renunciation of all practices is first indicated. Moreover, this Self is kevala (alone), one without any companion. The body, however, is accompanied by sons and everything else. When the oneness of the Self is known, concern for sons and so on goes far away. By that, dispassion is accomplished. Thus, renunciation and dispassion have been explained. Furthermore, this Self is of the nature of knowledge. The body, however, is an object of knowledge. By this, effort for the sake of knowledge is also rejected. For the Self does not become an object of knowledge. The scriptures, however, are helpful from a distance. By that, they gain existence when known by the Self itself. Therefore, they are figuratively referred to as the means of valid knowledge, as they make known the Self itself through their connection with it. Therefore, when the nature of the Self is thus known, it is said that effort for the sake of knowledge should also be abandoned. Moreover, this Self is to be known as pratyak (inward-facing). The body, however, is parāk (outward-facing). Therefore, when the nature of the Self is thus known, yoga is also futile. For by that, the manifestation of the Self is externalized in one's own mental activity. Just as fire becomes external by churning. You may object: "Yoga is useful because what is hidden is revealed." In response to that, [the Lord] says "samyak" (perfectly). The Self exists exactly as it is, perfectly. It is not revealed. And it is distinct from the body. The body, however, is imperfect. It should not be established just as it is, but should be made superior through purificatory rites. Furthermore, this Self is avasthita (unchanging), immovable. Therefore, reflection, which consists of alternating between affirmation and negation, should not be practiced for the sake of making it steady. For what is unsteady is made steady through reasoning. The distinction from the body is indeed established, since the body is unsteady in every way. By this, it is said that the effort to perfect the body through the purification of the nāḍīs and so on is also futile. Moreover, this Self is satya (true), eternally of one nature. It is very clear that the body is not so. By this, the doubt that the Self will become different at another time is removed, and making effort through yoga and so on is prohibited. Furthermore, this Self is pūrṇa (complete). The body, however, is limited. By this, it is indicated that effort should not be made for the sake of removing the deficiency of the Self. Because it is complete by its very nature. You may object: "Even for what is complete and eternally of one nature, such as space, vastness is brought about by removing the covering. Similarly, effort should be made for the sake of removing the limiting adjunct of the Self." [The Lord] refutes this doubt by stating "anādyantam" (without beginning or end). For that which has a beginning and end, origination and dissolution, is accompanied by things of the same class such as pots and cloth. Therefore, limiting adjuncts are possible for it. The inner organ, the body, or anything else cannot possibly be a covering for the Self. Because it is immutable, unattached, and not an object of worldly dealings. Therefore, since there is no origination or dissolution in any part whatsoever, effort should not be made for the sake of removing limiting adjuncts either. The body and so on appear illuminated by its light, but they are not its limiting adjuncts. Therefore, when the nature of the ātman (self) is thus known, effort to negate the body is also futile. If it is doubted that such a state cannot persist because of the possibility of agitation by the guṇas (qualities), and thus effort should always be made to eliminate the agitation of the guṇas for the persistence of that state, it is said - nirguṇam (without qualities). Indeed, the ātman has no guṇas. For these sattva and so on are the guṇas of prakṛti (nature). Indeed, the ātman, being distinct, cannot be agitated by what belongs to another. Therefore, no effort should be made for that purpose either. Moreover, the ātman of such nature is always so, not just sometimes, as stated - nityam (eternal). As many attributes of the ātman have been determined as its indicators, the ātman is eternal with them, they are not produced in it. Therefore, no effort is needed to establish such a state either. Moreover, if this ātman were not ānandamaya (consisting of bliss), then union with the Lord or the state of Brahman would have to be accomplished. But this very ātman is Brahman, the Lord, as per the śruti (scripture) - "ayamātmā brahma vijñānamayaḥ" (this ātman is Brahman, consisting of knowledge), and also "ahamātmā guḍākeśa" (I am the ātman, O Arjuna). Therefore, no effort should be made for the purpose of union with the Lord or for the state of Brahman, as stated - advayam (non-dual). Indeed, the ātman is non-dual in nature. There is not even a slight difference between the puruṣa (individual soul) and Īśvara (Lord) here. As per the censure heard - "mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati" (one who sees multiplicity here attains death after death), and "anyo'sāvanyo'hamasmīti" (he is one, I am another). Indeed, there is no multiplicity in the ātman. Difference is far from it. It is of one nature everywhere, unagitated everywhere, devoid of the attributes of origination and destruction everywhere, unbounded everywhere, of one nature everywhere, immovable everywhere, agreeable everywhere, of the nature of immediate self-effulgence everywhere, of the nature of knowledge everywhere, unattached and indifferent everywhere, and pure. When the ātman is thus known through the mode of indication, one becomes fulfilled. There is nothing to be done. (39)

"Thus, after describing the path of self-knowledge, he refutes that view - 'ṛṣa (O sage)' and so on. O sage Nārada, you are indeed the seer of mantras and know all established conclusions. What is the nature of the self with just this much? The cessation of the perceived unreal is required. If saṃsāra (worldly existence) were to exist even in such a self, then there would be no liberation. Even when perceived due to delusion, the delusion must be removed. Thus, even in the view of cessation through the knowledge of reality, knowledge must be obtained through a valid means of knowledge. The Veda cannot be that valid means of knowledge, because it is contradicted by many disputants. However, the mind alone, endowed with valid means of knowledge and yoga, makes known the true nature of the self. Accepting that view, he refutes it. When the sages, whose self and senses are tranquil, whose inner organ is pure, and who have conquered the senses, engage in reflection, the self alone shines forth. That very nature of the qualities, covered by false arguments of the unreal, would disappear. If the self were always reflected upon in this way, there would never be even a trace of saṃsāra. Otherwise, there would be the undesirable consequence of no liberation from saṃsāra and the futility of the scriptures. Therefore, this must be accepted due to the logical impossibility of what is seen. For those whose self, senses, and mind are tranquil, the self appears in that way, and then there is no saṃsāra. For others, it does not appear, and then they have saṃsāra. Thus, even in the case of direct and indirect statements, the self shines forth through valid means of knowledge such as the Veda, accompanied by true reasoning, and is covered by false arguments of the unreal. Therefore, to regulate this, something must be accepted, by doing which knowledge arises, overcoming even false reasoning and so on. However, tranquility and the like are not possible at first, because there are no means to attain them. Even if they were to arise without any means, then they would always exist. Therefore, such a unique means must be stated, which is unfailing. If it is done by describing the self with devotion (bhakti), because bhakti alone grants liberation by its own independence, and because the Lord is such a self. Therefore, that path without bhakti does not succeed. And when bhakti arises, what is the use of that path? Therefore, in both ways, it is useless. Hence, this one form of the Lord alone is the self - this is the greatness of the Lord. Or, it is his vibhūti (manifestation). Therefore, the understanding of the self by children is like the understanding of the moon by the hand. Thus, the accomplishment of the goal does not happen merely by hearing about it. This is the intended meaning." (40)

Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ

Of the original form of Puruṣottama, whose avatāra (descent) is mentioned here with the word "tasya". Thus, through these three verses, it is established that jñāna (knowledge) and bhakti (devotion) are difficult to attain, and humility alone is the means of pleasing [Him]. Therefore, in accordance with contemplation on Bhagavān, the fulfillment of the jīva's (individual soul's) desires [is achieved]. Thus, obeisance alone is to be done. || 37 ||

In the phrase "sa eṣa" (that very one), [the meaning is] "in another" and so on, even in the creator and even in the destroyer, the state of being the sustainer alone is described in this way. "Tathābhūtam" means "being the means". And thus, the inherent nature of an entity alone is the logical basis. In this way, by concluding that [Bhagavān] is the substratum of contradictory attributes, the greatness of Bhagavān is described. || 38 ||

In the word "viśuddham" (pure), [it means] "having Brahman as the inherent nature of the ātman (Self)". That in which Brahman is the inherent nature of the ātman, such is the meaning. It will bear fruit, and thus, when it is known that it has borne fruit in this way, liberation which has that [ātman] as the basis is certainly accomplished. Therefore, abandoning the easy means, why should the difficult path of Bhagavān be sought? This is the meaning. They explain the ease of accomplishing this through practice and means in the commentary starting with "tatra" (in that respect) and so on. "Jñānārtham" means "for the purpose of self-knowledge". [Objection:] Now, if the futility of effort for the purpose of knowledge is accepted, wouldn't the well-known fact that the scriptures impart knowledge of the ātman be contradicted? In response to this, they say "śāstrāṇi" (the scriptures) and so on. "Tyaktavyaḥ" (to be abandoned), and thus, one should remain accomplished like Kapila and others. This is the meaning. With the two adjectives "pratyak" (inner) and "samyak" (thoroughly), they reject the view of Yoga. Moreover, starting with "na hi" (indeed... not) and so on. By this, the following is made known. This [inwardness] belongs to the body and is caused by the thoroughness and outwardness [of the body]. That being the case, even Yoga, which brings about outwardness in the ātman through the manifestation of its own functioning, only brings about error in the ātman. Thus, that [Yoga] too is useless. This is the meaning. With the adjective "avasthitam" (existing), they reject the Vedic means consisting of manana (reflection). Moreover, starting with "kiñca" (furthermore) and so on. They state the usefulness of the activity of this [ātman] starting with "dehe" (in the body) and so on. To reject the means asserted by the followers of Tāttvika and Upādhi[vāda], they say "nanu pūrṇa" (but, complete) and so on. [Objection:] But it has been said that [the ātman] can be like ākāśa (space). In response to this doubt, they state the three reasons indicated by the mentioned adjectives to show the difference [between ākāśa and ātman] starting with "avikriyatvād" (due to immutability) and so on. Indeed, ākāśa undergoes modification in the form of sound. Thus, in that aspect, it has a beginning and an end. On the other hand, the ātman is different from that, as stated in the śruti (scripture): "This ātman is indeed indestructible". In the view of Arddhavaināśika, although modification is not accepted, the conjunction which is the action of the parts of a pot, etc. is accepted. Thus, there is association of the nature of conjunction [in ākāśa]. The ātman, on the other hand, is devoid of association, as stated in the śruti: "This puruṣa (Person) is unattached". Thus, it is different from that [ākāśa]. In the view where conjunction is the difference of touch, even though that [touch] is absent in ākāśa, there is certainly the state of being transactable in the aspect of providing space. However, the ātman is difficult to know and is not transactable, as stated in the sentence: "Those who do not touch [It] do not know [It]". Thus, it is different from that [ākāśa]. This is the meaning. "Kenāpy aṃśena" means "by the aspect of modification, by the aspect of effect, and by the aspect of transaction". [Objection:] But then, how is the well-known fact that the body, etc. are limiting adjuncts? In response to this, they say "dehādayaḥ" (the body, etc.) and so on. And thus, the transaction [of the ātman] in them [i.e., the body, etc.] is in the manner of being manifested by them. This is the meaning. "Yāvantaḥ" and so on, and thus, the eternality of the earlier inherent nature has been stated with the word "sat" (existence). Now, in accordance with the śruti statement "Dharmādharmau..." (virtue and vice) and so on, the eternality of dharma is being stated. This is the meaning. To establish Brahman-nature, "bhagavān" (Blessed Lord) has been mentioned. In that regard, when there is a doubt as to how [He is] Bhagavān, a statement from the śruti and Gītā is stated. Among them, in the śruti, "vijñānamaya" (consisting of knowledge) establishes Brahman-nature. And in the statement from the Gītā, "sarvabhūtāśayasthita" (situated in the hearts of all beings) establishes the inner presence, which is indicative of the nature of Bhagavān. In the sentence defining Puruṣottama, "uttamaḥ puruṣas tv anyaḥ" (But the Supreme Person is another), due to the mention of the definition "yo lokatrayam āviśya bibharti" (who, having entered the three worlds, sustains them), they say "ayam ātmā" (this ātman) and so on, with the intention [of showing that the ātman is Bhagavān]. Indicating that this is the view accepted by Sāṅkhya, they say "puruṣeśvarayoḥ" (of puruṣa and īśvara) and so on. Concluding all these twelve attributes, they remind the meaning of eternality, etc. up to non-duality, as non-duality has [already] been explained, by stating in reverse order starting with "sarvatra" (everywhere) and so on. || 39 ||

In the word "ṛpaya" (deceive), by accepting the meaning "dūpayati" (causes to err), the meaning is "dūṣayati" (spoils). They clarify this very thing by saying "kintāvata" (to what extent) and so on. The delusion must be removed. And thus, since the specific vision of its removal is dependent, the effort for that purpose is inevitably to be made. The viewpoint that knowledge arises merely from hearing about the self is not proper, as the endeavor for knowledge has already come for this purpose. Keeping the viewpoint of manana (reflection) in mind, they raise an objection to refute the viewpoint of yoga, saying "evam" (thus) and so on. "kriyamāṇa" means when manana is being done, that very nature of the qualities is established by reflection, the nature of the modification consisting of qualities. Rāhu, with his arguments, obstructs this. Therefore, since the refutation of this objection is necessary, they state the defect in the arrangement of achieving the desired result, saying "evam" and so on. "tirobhavati" means even though manifested, such a form, being obstructed by the weakness of the means, disappears, leading to falling back into saṃsāra (worldly existence). Therefore, this regulation is paramount, as a means to prevent the obstruction caused by false arguments, following the contemplation on the weakness of the means. "sādhanābhāvāt" means due to the absence of discrimination between the eternal and temporary objects, dispassion, and so on. "kṛtam ātmanirūpaṇena" means it is useless, as the word "kṛta" in the third case ending is well-known in the world as conveying the sense of futility when used together. Therefore, since knowledge is difficult to attain due to the impossibility of the means. "śruta" means due to being confused by arguments. "ata" means due to the absence of necessity. If it is so, then how can the contradiction be resolved in statements like "yamātmā brahma" (the self is Brahman) and in the Gītā where it is said that one's self is the self of all? To this, they say "tasmāt" and so on. Even though that view is not a valid reason, since the resolution of the contradiction is necessary, in the Śārīraka-brāhmaṇa scripture, the one form of the Lord, which is the enjoyer, is stated to convey the greatness, as it possesses contradictory attributes. In the Gītā, it is stated for that purpose in accordance with the question, as the form of vibhūti (divine manifestation). Therefore, by the maxim of the moon-sighted example, such a statement is made for the sake of generating indirect knowledge, and hence there is no contradiction. (40)

Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī

O King! I bow to that Supreme Lord whom people like us glorify by singing about His incarnations, activities, and pastimes, but do not actually know in truth, in His supreme nature. The singing done by us and others is certainly well-known, there is no doubt about it, as indicated by the word "hi". (37)

In summary, He displays His incarnation activities - that same primeval Supreme Person, by His own nature itself which is the means, within Himself alone as the substratum, Himself being the agent, creates Himself alone, who is the object, in the form of the universe. He also protects the universe and withdraws it at the end. Although He is the creator of the universe, the question may arise whether He still takes birth. To this, it is said - He is unborn (aja). (38)

This knowledge of the Supreme Lord may not arise in this way, but you also certainly have knowledge of Him in some way or another. What is your view regarding the nature of the Supreme? To this, it is said - the knowledge of the Supreme Lord is pure (viśuddha). How is it pure? It is said - it is absolute (kevala). The absoluteness is clarified - it is devoid of material qualities (nirguṇa), meaning free from being controlled by material qualities. If asked where He is, it is said - He is the inner controller (pratyak) of all. There may be a doubt that He undergoes change. To this, it is said - He is eternal (nitya), always existing. Still, one may doubt if He is false. To remove this, it is said - He is real (satya). This is further clarified - He is perfectly established (samyag avasthita), established without changes like contradiction etc. in all three times. The absence of change is further explained - He is beginningless and endless (anādy-anta), devoid of birth and death. Thus, it should be understood that He does not undergo the change of existence in other births as well. He is free from changes like limitation, growth, transformation, and decline. The reason for this is stated - He is complete (pūrṇa). The reason for this is stated - He is non-dual (advaya). Being the root cause of everything including space, time, etc., there is nothing apart from Him. (39)

If it is asked who attains this knowledge of the Supreme Truth, it is said - O sage (ṛṣe)! The vocative case indicates that even for you, this knowledge is not difficult to attain. At that time, the sages whose mind, senses and intentions are tranquil, who have controlled their body, senses and mind, and who are contemplative, know this Supreme Truth. But when that same Truth becomes obscured by fallacious arguments of those who are averse to the Lord and oppose the Vedas, then it becomes concealed and does not manifest. (40)

Hindī Anuvāda

We keep singing only about the līlās (divine plays) of His avatāras, but we do not know His tattva (true essence) - I bow down at the holy feet of that Bhagavān. (37)

He is unborn and Puruṣottama (the Supreme Person). In every kalpa (cosmic cycle), He Himself creates, protects, and dissolves His own creation within Himself. (38)

He is devoid of even a trace of māyā (illusion), purely of the nature of knowledge, and uniformly situated as the inner self (antarātmā). He is true and complete in all three periods of time; He has no beginning or end. He is beyond the three guṇas (qualities), eternal, and without a second. (39)

O Nārada! When great souls pacify their mind, senses, and body, they attain His direct vision. But when He is covered by a web of fallacious arguments spread by unrighteous men, He cannot be perceived. (40)