SB 2.7.46-50

 Text 46: Surrendered souls, even from groups leading sinful lives, such as women, the laborer class, the mountaineers and the Siberians, or even the birds and beasts, can also know about the science of Godhead and become liberated from the clutches of the illusory energy by surrendering unto the pure devotees of the Lord and by following in their footsteps in devotional service.

Text 47: What is realized as the Absolute Brahman is full of unlimited bliss without grief. That is certainly the ultimate phase of the supreme enjoyer, the Personality of Godhead. He is eternally void of all disturbances and is fearless. He is complete consciousness as opposed to matter. Uncontaminated and without distinctions, He is the principle primeval cause of all causes and effects, in whom there is no sacrifice for fruitive activities and in whom the illusory energy does not stand.

Text 48: In such a transcendental state there is no need of artificial control of the mind, mental speculation or meditation, as performed by the jñānīs and yogīs. One gives up such processes, as the heavenly King, Indra, forgoes the trouble to dig a well.

Text 49: The Personality of Godhead is the supreme master of everything auspicious because the results of whatever actions are performed by the living being, in either the material or spiritual existence, are awarded by the Lord. As such, He is the ultimate benefactor. Every individual living entity is unborn, and therefore even after the annihilation of the material elementary body, the living entity exists, exactly like the air within the body.

Text 50: My dear son, I have now explained in brief the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is creator of the manifested worlds. Without Him (Hari, the Lord), there are no other causes of the phenomenal and noumenal existences.

Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā

What more can be said? Even sinful people like women and śūdras understand through holy company, it is stated. Those whose conduct is rooted in that [holy company], meaning the devotees who are devoted to Lord Hari whose footsteps are wonderful - even sinful people like women and śūdras understand, what is there to say about those whose minds are focused on the Lord's form as described in the Śruti? [46]

What then is the true nature of the Lord, by focusing the mind on which one crosses over māyā? This is explained in two verses beginning with "ṣaśvat" (eternal). That which the sages know as Brahman, that indeed is the true nature of the Lord. What is that Brahman? It is free from decay (ajastra), eternal and blissful, and free from sorrow (viśoka). The reason for its being free from decay and blissful is that it is eternal, ever peaceful. The reason for its being free from sorrow is that it is free from fear, because it is non-dual, devoid of difference, as the Śruti states: "Fear arises from duality." How is it non-dual? Because it is mere consciousness, of one essence of knowledge. But knowledge appears to have differences based on forms like blue and yellow, and differences based on sense organs like the eye. No, it is pure, stainless. But it has been shown that the stain is in the form of objects and sense organs. It is beyond the existent and non-existent, free from the association of objects and senses. The stain belongs to the function [of knowledge], not to knowledge itself. But there may still be a difference in relation to the knower. No, it is the very nature of the self, the knower, not different from it. But the Śruti states: "I ask about that puruṣa in the upaniṣad," indicating that it is knowable through words - how then can it be of the nature of consciousness? This is answered: "Where there is no activity of words" - words function only in superimposition and negation, not in the knowledge of that [Brahman]. But granted that being free from the false knowledge of difference leads to freedom from sorrow, how can it be said to be free from decay, since bliss depends on manifold agents and the results of actions that produce, develop, do not change or purify? This is answered: "Where the fourfold result of action to be produced, attained, transformed or purified, which depends on many agents, takes place in the destruction, separation, attrition of substances born of past actions, there the self does not attrit along with the body, since it is unborn (aja) and does not attrit along with that [body]; the self is the lord of the auspicious." [49]

The meaning of the three chapters is concluded in brief. That has been briefly explained to you. The Lord is the cause of both the existent and non-existent, and there is no other [cause]. Objection: If the Lord is not different from the cause and effect, there would be the fault of non-difference [between them]. No, the Lord, being the cause different from the other [cause], is different from the effect. [50]

Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā

In "śīle śucau carite", "śucau tu carite śīlam" thus says Amara. [46]

He asks what is that divine form of māyātāraka (illusion-delivering). That is the same. He objects to the singularity of knowledge with "nanu" (but). Again he objects with "nanu". The object is pot etc., the instrument is eye etc., their connection is the relationship, that form is impurity, that itself is impurity - this is the meaning. The impurity of knowledge function exists, which is like waves, but not of knowledge which is like the ocean - this is the purport. Again he objects that even if there is no impurity of knowledge, the knower who is the jīva (individual soul) strikes with "na" (no). Again he objects with "nanu". Aupaṇiṣada (pertaining to Upaniṣads) means expounded in the Upaniṣads. The world superimposed on that, in its cessation, in its negation - this is the meaning, as said "By superimposition and negation, the non-dual is elaborated" - this is the idea. Again he objects with "nanu". Action accomplished by various factors like ritual sacrifice etc., because it is the result of that self, that which becomes that is to be produced. That which is already established and is obtained is to be attained. Where there is attainment of another state by abandoning the previous state, that is to be modified. Where there is addition of qualities or removal of impurities, that is to be refined. This is the meaning. This is the intention, as the characteristic of origination in the form of becoming what was not before is absent there. Again he objects with "nanu".

But here, "It is called Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān" due to the difference of qualifications, the one appears in three forms, as stated here "Let them drink to satiety the nectar of these words" etc., "Bhagavān will be the controller in Kali age" - thus Bhagavān is described with all special qualities. And about his devotees, "For whom that very Bhagavān would show compassion" etc., "What to speak of auspicious contemplation" - thus they are described by him. Now, with the expectation that Paramātmā and Brahman should be described, he says: The supreme self-principle of the existent and non-existent, superior and inferior, from Brahmā to a blade of grass, the multitude of jīvas, is equal, of one flavor. Thus always supremely peaceful, due to its qualities even for the peaceful, terrible and deluded - this is the meaning. By the words "always" and "supremely", tranquility which is the effect of sattva quality is excluded. Thus fearless, even for the fearful, mere awakening, even for the one with knowledge, its ignorance - by the words "mere" and "awakening", understanding which is the effect of sattva quality is excluded. Pure, even for the impure. Thus having described Paramātmā, he describes Brahman: Where even though having various factors, also with action, meanings to be expressed, implied and suggested - ha-māyā (oh illusion) - where even such word is not effective, that is Brahman. But you describe that by the word Brahman itself, and yet you negate that word is not there - to this he says: In front of whom māyā (illusion) goes to the back, of that Bhagavān, though possessing various forms, qualities etc. of mundane and supramundane nature, his formless nature which is the object of primary direct perception, "My greatness and the supreme Brahman thus called" as stated in Śrīmatsya, his all-pervasiveness characterized as greatness, that alone is ascertained as Brahman.

This is the idea: As word is a quality of ether, being illusory, illusion itself being unable to stand in front of it, though Bhagavān has illusory form and qualities etc., word is unable to express. Thus words like cloud, gold etc., though not effective in comparing to mundane objects, yet "Cloud-dark, gold-girdled, lotus-eyed is this Self" - by superimposition alone somehow introduces it into people's minds. And people, even with one-pointed mind, though actually untouched by that form or semblance of that form, think "I am meditating on Bhagavān, the Lord" and thinking thus that devotee "I am meditating on him" - thinking thus Bhagavān becomes pleased and by the flow of causeless grace alone brings him to his feet - thus the nature of Bhagavān being expressible by words is accomplished by his grace alone. But how can the nature of Brahman, being devoid of mundane and supramundane qualities, be expressible by words - thus it is said "where word is not effective" due to absence of object qualities like genus etc. which are the cause of word application. Where word possessing action and factors is not effective, that is Brahman - thus a separate convention is made for the word Brahman. Therefore, though inexpressible by words, the formless nature of Bhagavān who is expressible by words, that is Brahman - when said thus in relation to Bhagavān alone, the introduction into people's minds happens, not otherwise - by this method, the expressibility by words of Brahman also is stated. This very way it will be explained in the beginning of the chapter on śruti (scripture). Thus constant happiness, from which sorrow has departed, that - implying the obviousness of its nature as happiness and sorrowlessness - thus Viśvanātha. [47]

Here is a prosaic, grammatically correct, fluent and easily understandable translation of the entire text into English, without adding or skipping words or numbers from the original; occasional Sanskrit words within the English translation are written in IAST (with English translation of that word in parentheses):

This is the meaning. For the removal of differences alone, the practice of Vedanta and other means are undertaken. Upon their accomplishment, their abandonment is indeed proper, just as the abandonment of a stick after the pot is made. But Indra did not take up the means earlier; in that case, the abandonment occurred spontaneously, so this meaning is irrelevant. Regarding this, he says - "or". By oneself alone, not by instruments and such, is the meaning. This is the explanation of the meaning. || 48 ||

Before that, prior to attaining the Lord. There, in the role of giving the fruits of actions. The natures of Brahmins and others are: śama (tranquility), dama (self-control), tapaḥ (austerity), śauca (purity), titikṣā (endurance), kṣānti (forgiveness), ārjava (honesty), jñāna (knowledge), dayā (compassion), acyutātmatva (devotion to the imperishable), satya (truthfulness) - these are the natures of Brahmins. Valor, vigor, strength, courage, skill, generosity, lordliness, not fleeing in battle - these are the natures of Kṣatriyas. Agriculture, cow protection, and trade are the natures of Vaiśyas. Service to the three varṇas is the nature of Śūdras. Serving the teacher and studying the Vedas is the nature of a brahmacārin (celibate student). Serving guests and such is for the householder. Austerity is for the forest-dweller. Contemplation is for the renunciate. Thus, considering the unfamiliarity of the word bhāva as denoting varṇa and āśrama, he says "or". He will indeed explain the word bhāva as denoting the great elements and such in "As these modified bhāvas". This is the meaning. He created heaven and such only for the purpose of giving the fruits of actions, as there is no other purpose - this is the meaning. Here he objects, "But". There, situated in the body. This is the meaning. "It is never born nor dies" - from such scriptural statements, the experiencer of the fruits of actions does not perish - this is the meaning. || 49 ||

He objects to Hari, "But". This is the meaning. The effect is not different from the cause, as it cannot be accomplished without it; but the cause is indeed different from the effect, as it can be accomplished without it - this is the meaning. The vocative is used with the stated intention many times. || 50 ||

Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā

Praśānta (tranquil) means free from the six afflictions of hunger, thirst, old age, death, and so on. If it is argued that the impurity in the form of attachment to sense objects and organs has been shown, then it is said that just as a pure crystal appears red due to the proximity of a red flower, similarly - if so, then would there be an association with sense objects and organs? This is the meaning. The sense object is the perceptible form and such; the organ is the instrument, the eye and such. Uparāga (coloration) is the acceptance as perceptible. As it is said:

"The seer colored by the seen, the seen colored by the seer. Both are colored by the I-notion. Their destruction is the non-duality of the self."

It is only the mental state that is colored by that. The coloration of the mental state, the functioning of the eye and such, seeing, hearing, and so on, is the redness of empirical knowledge. But that knowledge is momentary. This knowledge, however, is undivided. By production and so on. By "and so on", attainment, modification, and refinement are included. The fourfold fruits of action are: that which is to be produced, to be attained, to be modified, and to be refined. These are the four types of fruits of action. Here, in "The potter makes a pot", production is the fruit of action. In "One sees form with the eye", attainment is the fruit of action. In "The Soma-drinker extracts Soma", modification is the fruit of action. Refinement is of three types. Among these, the first is a special happiness born from the excess of past merit. The second is in the form of removal of impurities. The third is in the form of imparting qualities. In "The righteous one attains a kingdom", it is the first type of refinement. In "The washerman cleans the cloth", it is the second type of refinement. In "The dyer colors the cloth", it is the third type of refinement. And there is no fruit of action. In the absence of the fruit of action, how can it be accomplished by the doer? This is the meaning. || 47 || 48 ||

Of the great elements that are its constituents means of the great elements like earth that have transformed into the form of flesh and such, which are its constituents. This is the meaning. || 49-52 ||

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā

Here is a fluent and grammatically correct English translation of the entire text, keeping in mind possible OCR errors and maintaining abbreviations in the references:

Those like you and all others know the Supreme Soul, the divine māyā (power) of the god Viṣṇu, which is under his control, and what more, even animals will cross over through association with devotees. He says: The one whose steps are wonderful is the Lord with wonderful strides, Trivikrama. He alone is the supreme goal, the excellent attainable and attainer, and the support of those devotees whose conduct, training, and inclination are thus. If they become so, even animals cross over - this is to be connected. Those humans, brahmins and others, who have retention of the meaning of scripture - this is to indicate that animals do not have retention of the meaning of scripture. What more needs to be said about brahmins and others crossing over? || 46 ||

Now, in expectation of what kind of form it is that you and others know, he purifies that form as distinct from the sentient and insentient, and states in two verses beginning with "śaśvad" that for those engaged in contemplation of that form, there is abandonment of the means for performing rituals for heaven and other purposes:

That which the Vedānta texts proclaim as sorrowless, untouched by suffering, constant bliss, eternal bliss, as Brahman - truth, knowledge, infinite, consciousness, bliss, sorrowless, ageless, etc. - that itself is the form, the state of the supreme Person, the Lord. Now, is it specifically stated as knowable through Vedānta and not the subject of other means of knowledge? To this he says: The material māyā, being ashamed to remain before it, disappears. The organs like the mind, which are effects of māyā, are unable to comprehend that form - this is the meaning.

Not only is it not the subject of worldly means of knowledge, it is also not the subject of the earlier portion of the Veda which is a worldly means of knowledge. He states this in "śabda": Even the earlier portion of the Veda, which has many factors like agent and means and is meant to enjoin actions, does not directly reveal that form. "All Vedas speak of that state" means all rituals worship the form of Brahman as their ultimate goal. "And all austerities speak of it" means the Upaniṣad portions, which are mainly about austerities, directly teach it.

Now, the form of the individual soul is also constant bliss, so he says "paramātma-tattva": By recognition of sentences like "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite" and "Brahman is consciousness and bliss", constant bliss being qualified as infinite, only the Supreme Soul has a form of eternal bliss untouched by limited suffering.

Now, to remove the doubt that like the individual soul, it might also be subject to pleasure and pain dependent on karma, he says "śuddha": It means not subject to karma. Therefore it is beyond the sentient and insentient, the existent and non-existent. Why is it not subject to karma? To this he says "sama": It means uniform. Though it resides as the inner controller of the sentient and insentient, it is not touched by their defects, so it is logically not subject to karma.

Now, to remove the doubt that like the sweet and sour tastes of fruits in different places, Brahman which has a form of favorable knowledge synonymous with bliss might be material in different places, he says "pratibodha-mātra": Consciousness alone is consciousness-only. The word "mātra" excludes materiality anywhere. The śruti says "It is just a mass of consciousness, just a mass of knowledge."

Granting liberation is also a unique quality, so he says "abhaya": That from which there is no fear is fearless, meaning it removes saṃsāra. Why? Because it is eternally peaceful, always free from the six waves like hunger and thirst, so it also grants peace to its worshippers. "It attains supreme equality" - thus say śruti and smṛti. || 47 ||

Moreover, those who strive to contemplate the Lord's form as described, controlling the mind which accompanies the soul - sadhyaṅ means "with", there is substitution of sa for saha - making firm what has been stated as His form, cut off karma, the means for attaining heaven etc. Kṛt means cutting - "All doubts are cut" as per śruti. They abandon the instruments for that karma, like Indra, the rain-giver, abandons the well-digging tools. Nipāna means a well, khanitra means digging tool - they naturally abandon the means for performing rituals for heaven etc. || 48 ||

Here is a prosaic, grammatically correct, fluent and easily understandable translation of the entire text into English, without adding or skipping words or numbers in the original; occasional Sanskrit words within the English translation are written with IAST (and the English translation of that word in parentheses):

Now, for those desiring the fruits of heaven and such, it is necessary to obtain the means and instruments for achieving them, thus he says "sa" (he). The bhāvas (states) are the varṇas (castes) such as Brahmins and āśramas (life stages), which are ordained by the nature of existence. The attainment of fruits from the actions performed in accordance with their nature is because that Lord is vibhu (all-pervading) and prabhu (master) of even the heavenly and other auspicious fruits, meaning he is the bestower of those fruits. Since the Supreme Self, residing as the inner soul, is the instigator of actions even for the sake of heaven and such, is to be worshipped through them, and is the giver of their fruits, by worshipping Him alone, the desired fruits of heaven and such are attained. Therefore, even through actions, He alone is to be worshipped. Fearing the contact with faults in the sentient and insentient beings that form the body due to the Lord's all-pervasiveness, he says "ahaṃ deha" (I am the body). When the body's elements disperse, when the subtle elements that form one's body separate, in the subsequently disintegrating body, the Supreme Person residing there does not disintegrate, like the sky. Why? Because He is aja (unborn), free from birth and such that depend on karma. Here, the word "body" is used to indicate the sentient being as well, meaning He is untouched by the faults in the sentient and insentient. Interpreting the latter half of this verse as referring to the individual soul is not proper, as this entire section is about the Supreme Self, and there is no context of the individual soul in between. Moreover, even for the individual soul, the Śruti itself states that birth and death occur through the body: "This mass of consciousness, arising from these elements, disappears into them." (49)

He concludes the meaning of the three chapters with "so'yam" (He is this). O dear Nārada, this Lord Vāsudeva, who is the cause of the universe, endowed with knowledge, power, strength, sovereignty, etc., as described earlier, has been briefly explained to you by me. He summarizes: That which appears as sat (existent) and asat (non-existent), having the nature of consciousness, and anything else that appears as if separate from Him, is not different from Hari, but is of His nature. There is an alternate reading: "harer nānyad anyat tat sad asac ca yad" (Nothing is different from Hari, and that which is existent and non-existent). In the reading "nānyad anyasmāt sad asac ca yad" (Nothing is different from Him, and that which is existent and non-existent), the meaning is that the existent and non-existent nature of Hari is not different from anything else characterized by existence and non-existence, but is of that nature. (50)

Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā

Here is a fluent and grammatically correct English translation of the entire text:

Here, the principle of a fortiori is stated with "te iti". Even women, śūdras, Huns, Śabaras, and those who live sinfully understand the māyā (illusion) of God and cross over saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth). How much more so for people like us - this is the implied meaning. If that is so, why have not all crossed over saṃsāra? To answer this, it is said "yad iti". Viṣṇu is of wondrous progression, He alone is the supreme goal, those whose nature and instruction are of Him are thus described. He who wondrously progresses through the world is of wondrous progression. Here too the principle of a fortiori is stated with "tiryag iti". Even the animals and birds in Vṛndāvana, who are tiryak (animals), understand and cross over God's māyā. What more needs to be said about those who retain what they have heard? This is the implied meaning. [46]

What are the characteristics of He who is of wondrous progression? To answer this, it is said "śaśvad iti". That which is eternal, always of one form, supremely peaceful, of utmost complete bliss, fearless due to being non-dual - for "fear arises from a second" as stated in śruti. And that which is pure awareness, of the nature of flawless knowledge. The word "mātra" has the sense of emphasis. The word "prati" has its primary meaning. Therefore, it is pure, free from defects like attachment. And it is equal in the smallest particles and the largest entities, not deficient in qualities or free from inequality. Beyond sat (existence) and asat (non-existence), distinct from the manifest and unmanifest world, the essence of the self devoid of all elaborations beginning with the unmanifest. In which there are many nouns denoting agents, objects and actions, thus meant for many rituals like the Agniṣṭoma. Where the word, characterized by sentences, known as the endless Veda, does not function fully as a denoter. It is said: "Hari is considered the essence of the self, beyond the unmanifest and ego, inexpressible due to being unknown, peaceful due to being full of bliss." If Hari Himself is subject to māyā, how do His devotees cross over it? To answer this, it is said "māyā iti". Māyā, the cause of saṃsāra, is prakṛti (primordial nature), which being ashamed to stand before Him, retreats from His devotees, existing beyond the path of sight. [47]

Being full of all qualities, the knowers of past, present and future like Brahmā know Him as brahman, unending bliss, constant happiness. The ascetics, through hearing etc., by the maturation of practice, having properly perceived Him, abandon saṃsāra, the cause of the world of Yama, like Indra abandons the well-digging tool after obtaining nectar. The state of the supreme Person Nārāyaṇa is characterized thus - this is the connection. Or Indra, the wealthy lord, after obtaining nectar or water. [48]

Now it describes the righteous person qualified for such knowledge of the Lord, saying "sa iti". Not only is He the lord of all auspicious things like dharma, but also the giver of results, or of all inauspicious things like adharma. The Lord, for this existing mass of souls created by the devotional nature increased by Hari's grace since beginningless time, would be evident like a myrobalan in the palm of the hand. Therefore, the mass of souls of sāttvika nature are qualified for knowledge. By this, direct perception of the knower is stated as evidence for the stated meaning. Bhāva is devotion, excellence, and also respect. To explain this, it is said "deha iti". When the constituting elements like earth etc. depart, characterized by destruction, when the body is decaying, dissolving into its causes, the person in the body, moving through cities according to his karma etc., though unborn by nature, seemingly born only through identification with the body, does not decay, just as the space in the body does not decay. Therefore, since only the body has the nature of birth and death, and the conscious self is eternal, he is known as the supreme. By this, the supreme Self is also explained. The distinction is that unlike the individual soul, He does not have birth etc. caused by identification. Therefore, the eternal, pure awareness nature of Hari cannot be contradicted, this is the idea. [49]

With "sa ayam iti", it concludes the meaning stated from "devadeva namas tubhyam" through question and answer. It states concisely "harer iti" with the idea that this much knowledge should never be forgotten. The word "ca" has the sense of "eva". All this world consisting of effects and causes, manifest and unmanifest, is not different from Hari who is distinct from anything else. This means: Though different from Hari intrinsically, it is spoken of as non-different due to lack of independence in essence. Not due to intrinsic non-difference. Therefore know that Hari is independent, and everything else like us is dependent on Him. Being dependent on Him for existence etc., it is called "that". If asked what is the evidence for this, it should be answered: Existence etc. which is intrinsic to Viṣṇu, that which is other than Him is "sarvataḥ" etc. [50]

Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā

Now the divine form of the Supreme Lord is specifically described in one and a half verses. This means: That which is known as Brahman due to being the greatest in all respects is indeed the abode of the Supreme Person, the Lord. This is because the realization of Brahman as undifferentiated is primary, and Brahman is the undifferentiated existence form of the Lord. The realization of the Lord with His diverse forms and qualities comes after that. That Brahman which is His essential nature becomes the object of direct perception.

The essential characteristic of that undifferentiated Brahman is described as pratibodhamātra (pure consciousness). And ajasrasukha (constant bliss) is understood as the opposite of insentience and sorrow. It is of one form that is eternal - that is the meaning. Because the essence of the Self is the root of all selves, as the Self is self-illuminating and the object of unconditional supreme love, it is perceived in various forms.

Now the reason for the constancy of that blissful nature is stated. It is eternally peaceful, always free from agitation, similarly fearless, free from fear, and griefless, free from sorrow. And lest its blissful nature be thought to be the result of merit, it is said "śabdo yatra" (where sound does not operate). Where sound denoting action, meant for rituals etc., involving human effort does not operate - that is the meaning. Rather, only the Upanishadic statements like "the Puruṣa (aupaṇiṣadaṃ puruṣam)" etc. are illuminating - that is the meaning.

Again, to negate that its blissful nature is produced by the senses, it is described as śuddha (pure) etc. There, śuddha means free from defects. Sama means devoid of high and low. Beyond sat and asat means situated above the realm of cause and effect. What more can be said - it states that māyā (māyā), facing which and standing before which in the liberated souls, retreats in shame and goes far away - that is the meaning. And just as distinctiveness is shown by "śuddha" etc., it should be understood in the same way.

Due to being touched by ignorance, the essential nature of the individual soul experiences agitation, fear and sorrow. And due to being of the nature of consciousness and bliss, it becomes covered. Therefore it loses its purity and equanimity and becomes the subject of the ritualistic section of the Vedas. But that which is Brahman due to being great and all-pervading, and is supreme in all respects and of absolute reality - that does not inherently belong to the individual soul. Due to lacking such potency, it cannot overcome māyā. Rather, it would be overcome by māyā. (47)

Thus having indicated the pure object of description as difficult to comprehend, out of compassion it is now indicated as easily attainable through the form endowed with the intrinsic potency, in one verse beginning with "sadhyag". Towards whom, having properly restrained and steadied the mind, the ascetics who previously made efforts for such knowledge in the path of renunciation, abandon akartṛheti (the means of liberation in the form of non-dual knowledge), due to obtaining such knowledge etc. and infinite qualities through His grace, as they attain devotion to Him. This is the purport, as stated in verses like "ātmārāmāś ca munayaḥ" etc. showing the great qualities. This is illustrated by the example "svarāḍ iva" (like an emperor). (48)

Indeed, that very Lord is vibhu (all-pervading), the bestower of the five types of liberation and other human goals. Because from the Lord, for this devotee, whatever object suitable to the nature of devotion exists, being present in His intrinsic glory, becomes manifest towards that - this is the meaning. If then the limiting adjunct of the glory of māyā of that soul is destroyed, or even if destroyed whether its individual existence remains, to that it is said in half a verse beginning with "deha". Deha refers to the gross and subtle bodies. Dhātavaḥ refers to the constituent elements. Even when those two bodies and their causal elements are destroyed, the individual soul is not annihilated. The reason for non-destruction is that it is aja (unborn).

Alternatively, "śaśvat praśāntam" etc. describes only the glory of Vaikuṇṭha. Since "the supreme abode of the Lord" has its primary meaning there, as it is shown to be so in the Bhagavat-sandarbha, and as it will be shown in "tasmai svalokaṃ" etc. (49)

So'yam means: This is described briefly. How? Only by its marginal characteristic, it states. Sat refers to the gross effect - the manifest universe of sentient and insentient beings called impure souls. Asat refers to the subtle cause - the unmanifest primordial nature and pure souls. All that is not different from Hari, as the subtle is of the nature of His potency, and the gross is of the nature of its effect - this is the purport. Although the world is non-different from Him, that pure One is not tainted by its defects - this is stated by "anyasmād". (50)

Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā

Not only these great ones, but also the lowly and humble, as stated in "te vai" (they indeed). Wonderful is the gait of the Lord, devoid of discrimination between high and low, related to compassion. The disciples of those devotees who are dedicated to such a Lord learn morality by becoming their pupils. The animals like swans, elephants, parrots, mynas, etc. The humans who quickly retain the name, form, etc. heard from the guru's mouth, what to speak of them? [46]

Now, the Supreme Lord is described as Brahman, Paramātman, and Bhagavān in relation to specific qualifications. Among these, "Let it be drunk, the destroyer of ear-itching" etc. indicates the instructor. "In Kali Yuga, at the end of the age, the Lord will be" - thus the Lord is specifically mentioned as Śeṣa, and His worshippers are described from "whom He alone would show compassion" to "those who retain what they have heard". Now, in anticipation of describing Paramātman and Brahman, it is said "śaśvat" (eternal). For the existent and non-existent, the high and low, from Brahmā to a blade of grass, the multitude of jīvas (living entities), the nature of Paramātman is uniform and of one essence. Thus, it is eternally and eminently peaceful; due to its quality, it is peaceful even for the peaceful, the terrible, and the deluded. By the words "śaśvat" and "pra", tranquility as an effect of sattva-guṇa (mode of goodness) is excluded. Similarly, it is fearless even for the fearful. It is pure consciousness; by the words "prati" and "mātra", knowledge as an effect of sattva-guṇa is excluded for both the ignorant and the knowledgeable. It is pure even for the impure. Thus, having described Paramātman, [it is said that] Brahman is that where even speech endowed with various case-endings, along with action, and meaning - whether expressed, implied, or suggested - does not prevail. Now, you describe it with the word "Brahman" itself, and yet you negate it saying "where speech does not [reach]". To this, it is said "māyā" (illusion). The abode of the Lord, before whom māyā retreats in shame, turning its back, though possessing various extraordinary forms, qualities, etc., its primary, direct perception is of a formless nature. "My glory is also called Para-Brahman" - thus as stated by the Lord, His all-pervasive nature characterized by greatness is indeed the ascertained Brahman. The idea is this: Since speech, being a quality of ākāśa (space), is illusory, and even māyā is unable to stand before Him, speech, though unable to denote the Lord who possesses non-illusory form and qualities, words like "cloud-dark, gold-girdled, lotus-eyed is this Self" etc., by superimposing similarity with natural objects like clouds and gold, somehow lead the minds of people towards Him. And people, even with one-pointed concentration, though actually untouched by His form, thinking "I meditate on the Lord", become delighted. The Lord too, due to the waves of His boundless compassion, thinks "I am indeed meditated upon by this devotee", and honoring that devotee, accepts him for service at His feet. Thus, the Lord's nature being comprehensible through words is accomplished only by His grace. However, how can the nature of Brahman, being devoid of natural and supernatural distinctions, be comprehensible through words? Hence it is said "where speech does not [reach]". Due to the absence of substance-properties like genus etc., which are the cause of verbal application, where speech endowed with action and case-endings does not prevail, that is Brahman - this separate convention is indeed made for the word "Brahman". Therefore, though incomprehensible through words, the formless nature of the Lord, who is comprehensible through words, is that Brahman. When spoken of only in relation to the Lord, the entry of people's minds there occurs, not otherwise - in this way, even Brahman's comprehensibility through words is stated. This very method will be explained at the beginning of the chapter on śruti (revealed scripture). Similarly, from which there is constant happiness, from which sorrow disappears - thus, its nature as happiness and sorrowlessness is emphasized. [47]

Om. The worshippers of Paramātman and Brahman are described in general terms. Restraining the mind, which is a companion (sadhryak), towards that Paramātman and that Brahman, having stabilized it there - "yam" in masculine is archaic usage - the ascetics (yatayaḥ) who are effort-oriented, the yogis and the sannyāsins (renunciates), would conquer non-distinction there, i.e., they would abandon, not care for it due to its uselessness. An example for disregarding the means due to lack of utility: Just as Indra, self-luminous, shining by himself in the form of rain, does not take up the digging tool of a well - or as a self-luminous poor man, becoming wealthy, abandons the well-digging tool taken up during his labor days. However, the devotees of the Lord become doubly eager for the means upon attaining the goal, so they are not to be included in this explanation. [48]

Here is a fluent and grammatically correct English translation of the entire text, keeping Sanskrit words in IAST with English translations in parentheses:

Why devotees of the Supreme Soul, devotees of Brahman, and others cannot attain their desired results without the Lord is explained. That Lord alone is the giver and bestower of auspicious things like mokṣa (liberation) and svarga (heaven). Therefore, yogis, jñānins (those who pursue knowledge), and karmins (those who perform rituals) should practice bhakti (devotion) to the Lord for the attainment of their respective goals. Moreover, the bhāvas (emotional states) of this devotee, such as dāsya (servitude) and sakhya (friendship), are inherent to his nature. The appropriate means of śravaṇa (listening) and kīrtana (chanting) are the highest spiritual practices. Superior attainment comes only from the Lord, not from the Supreme Soul or Brahman. The idea is that devotees of the Lord should not practice yoga, jñāna, etc., to attain the fruit of their love.

Now, what happens if the practice of bhakti, yoga, jñāna, etc., is interrupted by the dissolution of the body before achieving the desired goal? He explains: When one's constituent elements disperse, when the elements that compose the body separate, even as the body disintegrates, the puruṣa (individual soul) does not disintegrate, just as space within the body is like the sky. Therefore, he is unborn, meaning he is not truly born with the body. Thus, with the impressions of bhakti, jñāna, etc., in the appropriate place, he takes on another suitable body and achieves perfection through the practices performed. As it is said: "And from there he strives again for perfection, O son of Kuru," and so on. (49)

He summarizes the meaning of the three chapters with "so this." Briefly, only the Lord has been described. In what way? He explains: sat (the manifest) is the effect, the universe in its collective and individual forms; asat (the unmanifest) is the cause, the individual souls and māyā (illusion). All of this is not different from Hari (Viṣṇu), because the individual souls and māyā are powers, and there is non-difference between the power and the possessor of power. The idea is that the effect of a power is not different from the power. How is Hari described? As different from sat and asat. The idea is that because of his neutral and external nature to these two powers, he is unattached and free from their defects. This non-dualism should be seen as prevalent everywhere in the Bhāgavata, even if not explicitly stated. (50)

Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ

They all know and transcend the māyā of god Viṣṇu, and through the word "ca" (and) they also know the god. Those who do not know Viṣṇu's māyā up to the body, for them there is no thought of "mine" and "I" in the food for dogs and jackals - this is the meaning. Moreover, through association with devotees, all come to know and transcend, as he says with "strī" (woman) etc. - women and others, even animals, whose wonderful steps are the placement of feet of the Lord, those devoted to Him, those trained in His ways, if they become so, then they too know and transcend - this is the meaning. Those who retain what they have heard, whose minds are concentrated on the Supreme Self heard from the mouth of the spiritual teacher - that they know and transcend, what more needs to be said? [46]

Now, the knowers of the field mentioned by words like "te vai vidanti" (they indeed know) etc. are to be known as the enjoyers through the notion of "I" etc. And god's māyā is perceived as the object of enjoyment etc. In the Supreme Self principle exemplified by words like "deva" (god) etc., what is the proof and what is its nature? Therefore, stating the proof for the Supreme Self and the nature of the Supreme Self as distinct from the sentient and insentient, he refutes the view that pradhāna (primordial nature) is the cause and Jaimini's view that the purpose of scripture is ritual action, with two verses beginning with "śaśvad" (eternal).

Where māyā or prakṛti (nature), ashamed to stand separately face to face, turns away, because the power cannot exist separately from its possessor - what to say of prakṛti being the cause of the world? Where, when that is to be established, even words denoting many agents like yajamāna (sacrificer) etc., which are auxiliaries to ritual action, the Veda does not have ritual action as its purpose, as it is useful for the desire to know and has the Supreme Self as its main subject. Then what more needs to be said about words devoid of any trace of agency like the Upaniṣads not having ritual action as their purpose?

That directly refers to the Supreme Self as it is about His qualities and nature. "All Vedas speak of that goal", "I ask about that Upaniṣadic Person", "By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known", "But that is due to concordance" - from such śruti, smṛti and sūtras, that Self-principle is established by Vedic authority. The Supreme Self principle is declared by śrutis like "The Self, my dear, is to be seen" etc.

He gives the reason for it being knowable by all Vedas, saying "sama" (equal). The meaning is that it is the Self of all. It is to be understood as supreme and excellent, beyond the insentient class of gross and subtle forms called existent and non-existent. He gives the reason for that, saying "pratibodha-mātra" (pure consciousness). Pratibodha means knowledge, mātrā means quality, so it means having knowledge as its quality. Even its essential nature is knowledge, as per the śruti "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite".

Having stated its distinction from the insentient, he states its distinction from individual souls, saying there is no fear of saṃsāra in it, meaning that fear approaches the liberated. It is pure, untouched by material defects, because it is eternally peaceful, an ocean of its own bliss. [47]

How is it? It has eternal happiness, it is sorrowless, as per the śruti "sorrowless, without old age" etc. The Self-principle that is of this nature, "expands and causes to expand, therefore it is called the supreme Brahman" - such śrutis definitely know that to be the nature of the supreme Person, the cause of the universe, the Lord endowed with the six opulences.

The ascetics who are intent on that, as per the sūtrakāra's injunction "Because of repeated instruction", where liberation is the highest goal, restraining the mind which accompanies the soul, attaining meditative absorption which is the cause of direct realization of the Lord characterized by supreme bliss, they abandon the weapon of the doer - kartṛ means that by which pleasures are cut off, from the root kṛt meaning to cut; opposite to that is a trace of heavenly pleasures etc.; akartṛ means they abandon karma which is the means for that - this is the meaning. When the primary meaning is intended, in disregarding the means for a trace of objects, the example is like a self-effulgent yet very poor Indra digging a well. [48]

Having said that karma is the means for trivial bliss while the Supreme is the means for supreme bliss, he now states that the Lord alone is the bestower and instigator of the results of both, and further distinguishes the Lord from the individual soul in half a verse beginning with "sa" (He).

That very Lord described in that way is the giver of blessings like liberation and enjoyment, since He is all-pervading. For those desiring liberation and enjoyment, the fruition of meditation and ritual action performed as prescribed, characterized by detachment and engagement respectively, comes only from the Lord.

Now, how can the meditator and ritualist attain supreme bliss and heaven etc. after death? To this he says "dehe" (in the body). The person, the unborn soul situated in the body, even when the body's constituent elements derived from earth etc. disperse and disintegrate, does not disintegrate, like the space present there. [49]

He concludes the meaning of the third chapter with "sa" (He). O dear Nārada, to you this Lord who is the source of the universe, endowed with powers of knowledge etc., Vāsudeva, has been concisely described. Since there is nothing different from Hari, the source of the universe, meaning the universe of gross and subtle forms, existent and non-existent, is not different from Him who is inherently different, from whom everything existent and non-existent is both different and non-different - this is the meaning. As per the sūtra "But it is designated as both, like a golden ornament". [50]

Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā

He states their result - they truly know and cross over. Having known that māyā (illusion), they cross over it. He also states the means of crossing over for us and others - women, śūdras (members of the servant caste), Huns, Śabaras, etc. Among the tamasic, women are sattvic. The śūdra is rajasic. The Hun is tamasic. The Śabaras and others are even lower than that. They live by sin, hence are sinners. These know and cross over, if they are devoted servants of the Lord of wondrous gait and if they are trained in conduct. The Lord whose gait is wondrous, whose power of action is the movement of His feet - devotion to such a Lord is generally easy for anyone. His devotees do not think of anything else even for a moment. Otherwise, due to His wondrous gait, the Lord would go elsewhere. For them too, mere verbal instruction is not effective, but along with conduct. Just as they are devoted to the Lord, so by His command they too become. Moreover, one should not doubt regarding women and others. For even animals attain liberation. Like Indra and others through recitation of names, etc. They are retainers of what is heard, capable of reflecting on the meaning of what is heard. Therefore, all are qualified for partial knowledge. No one is qualified for complete knowledge. But in the absence of association with devotees of the Lord, they know nothing. (46)

Thus, having determined the nature of each dhāraṇā (concentration) through its origin, he considers the meaning of "Having conquered each stage, one should concentrate" through its origin in two verses. That very portion of the Lord becomes independent which shines forth by itself as one's own self. Otherwise, that which is established by the intellect would disappear when the intellect disappears. This is indeed the nature of the feet, etc. Having first considered the nature of the foot, he describes the nature of the first foot by its characteristics, as it will govern the rest by itself - "That indeed is the foot of the Supreme Person, the Lord." Ten qualities are described in the lotus feet of the Lord in the form of ten līlās (divine plays). Thus, ten līlās are stated for each limb. In this regard, in response to the question of what the Lord's lotus feet are like, that which is always His lotus feet is that, while that which is only sometimes is not. By this, the nature of the Lord is determined as unlimited by time - that which is unlimited by time is that. That which is limited by time is not that. Praśānta (peaceful) means free from disturbance of the three guṇas (qualities of nature). The prefix pra is used to indicate the absence of even sattva's disturbance through pride, etc. Thus, the unlimitedness of both the impeller and the impelled is described. Now he states the unlimitedness here of time, which limits everything else - abhaya (fearless). Free from fear. Thus, having described the absence of faults through the absence of worldly qualities, he states its nature as pratibodha-mātra (pure awareness), śuddha (pure), sama (equal). Pratibodha-mātra means of the nature of experience. The word mātra excludes the connection of knower, means of knowledge, and object of knowledge. The meaning is that the foot of the Lord is that cognition which is free from the connection of these three. Since purity is already expressed by the word mātra, śuddha means of the nature of bliss. Sama means of the nature of existence. Thus, it is said to be of the nature of existence, consciousness, and bliss. He states the transcendence of all transactions of this foot with four adjectives. For transaction is indeed fourfold - as manifestation, as one's own, as word, and as meaning of words. In this regard, he states its transcendence of transaction - para (beyond) sat (existence) and asat (non-existence). Beyond the relation of cause and effect. Or beyond prakṛti (primordial nature). It is not one's own, thus there is no transaction even of the self, he says. The essence of the self is its ultimate nature. Transaction made by it occurs in something else. Since the self is established, there is no transaction there. He negates verbal transaction - "where there is no word." In the foot of the Lord, there is no agency due to the absence of action, etc. There is no verbal root meaning due to its non-action nature or due to its being indicated by that. There is no suffix meaning due to its effortless nature. By this, in the absence of being the primary form in a word, due to the absence of being the meaning of nouns and verbs, the meaning of prefixes and particles is excluded from afar. By stating the connection of nouns and verbs, it is said that it is not even the meaning of a sentence. If by the Lord's command there were transactability through māyā, as for souls there would be transactability through the removal of ignorance, etc. He says that too is not - māyā goes far away. The reason for her departure - being ashamed. She is the maidservant of His feet. And due to the Lord's nature as knowledge. She is the deluder. Therefore, the Lord knows her nature as deluding people. Or those who are favorable, and by the word "ca" (and) those who are followers, the knowers and devotees, she is ashamed before all of them. Especially shame indicates non-performance of action even partially. Thus, having characterized the foot of the Lord with ten adjectives, he states its fame - "which they know as Brahman." That foot of the Lord which all inquirers into Vedānta know as Brahman. In that very Brahman, if someone were to rise up as the controller, then he is the Lord. The previously mentioned is the foot. If he were to become the regulator, then he is the Supreme. That is the word (pada). If he were to become the experiencer, then he is the Person (puruṣa). Thus, through inquiry, even knowers of Brahman call it Brahman. Having thus stated its fame, he states its natural result - "unending happiness, free from sorrow." Supreme bliss and absence of sorrow are the result, meaning it gives both of these. He states the means for that - "by restraining the properly moving mind." The mind that moves properly is sadhy-aṅga. Restraining such a mind that moves the self in saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth). Meaning, removing its nature. This is the internal means. The external means is renunciation. He states that - "ascetics." Thus, having described the state up to the result of the absence of faults and so on, the conquered object has been considered. He considers abandoning the conquered position one by one. There, the conquered, subjugated states are not to be abandoned. If that were the case, it would result in the futility of previous efforts. Rather, he says to abandon the conquered position, which is the collection of means that serve as a refuge for the lotus feet of the Lord. Since the state with its means has been conquered, the state should be established. The means should be abandoned, that is the meaning. Now, what is the purpose of this abandonment? To that, he says - he should hold on to the next in succession. For the purpose of subjugating the next part, one should hold on to the successive relations - he clarifies this with an example: "Like a svārāṭ (sovereign) [abandons] the well-digging tool." Just as a svārāṭ, the lord of heaven, master of clouds and others, abandons the well-digging tool, the means for digging a well, such as a spade. Similarly, for the attainment of the Lord's state, even the minor means employed, due to the greatness of the state, when the state is accomplished with great results, the previously unknowingly gathered means for minor objects are abandoned - this is the meaning. The svārāṭ, however, does hold on to the means. Thus, in the next stage, when all aspects of the result are accomplished, becoming Indra and attaining supreme lordship, he abandons everything - this is the idea. || 47 || 48 ||

Thus, having stated the consideration of the origin of the Lord's nature described in the chapter on description, in the chapter on means, in the statement "desire or desire for all," that very nature is again stated as the accomplisher of the result. He considers that aspect here in terms of origin - "He is the lord of even the auspicious ones." He is, in reality, inherently the form of the supreme goal of human life. Even if someone desires something like heaven, he grants that too. Because he alone is the lord capable of producing and giving all auspicious results. Because this Lord, though of the form of supreme bliss, bears the six qualities. He states the reason for that. Because the manifestation of this world, established by nature and character, is prominently accomplished from the Lord's form of existence itself. Indeed, the entire world is of two forms. One is established by nature, the other by character. Nature is the meaning of the verbal root, action, or its manifestation. Some part of the world is accomplished by that. The absence of general action. Its modifications are the modifications of nature, such as origin, etc. By that, whatever is produced, obtained, manifested, or known, all those are established by nature. But those which are of the form of eternal, unsurpassed, etc., such as the imperishable, time, etc., they are established by character. Their very nature is the state, in the form of action, etc., established by that. They are self-accomplished, that is the meaning. Thus, accomplished from action and by themselves, all are well-known from Brahman's form of existence alone, having obtained existence, due to the absence of anything else capable of imparting existence. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Lord alone is the producer and giver of all results. Thus, having considered the Lord's nature from His essential form to the final result, in the context of bestowing results, in response to the question "whose is the result?", if the result were to be of the Lord Himself, then the futility of the inquiry process would ensue, so it should be said that the result is for the individual soul. Then, in response to the inquiry "what entity is called the individual soul?", it is determined that the one associated with a body is the individual soul, as is well-known in the world and Vedas. In that case, being enjoined by positive injunction, it is born with the body. When the body dissolves, it should be understood to dissolve. Otherwise, its perception would exist separately as well. "The body alone being existent, likes and dislikes do not touch," thus in the absence of the body, no human goal is accomplished. Due to the conformity to the presence and absence of the body, the result of the self in this very body is not different - he refutes this view: "The body's own elemental dissolution." This body is indeed not the self. Rather, it is a covering of the self. Only in connection with it does it generate pleasure and pain. And because of the hearing of its all-pervasiveness, etc., in the statement "eternal, all-pervading, immovable." Therefore, just as a pot is a limiter of space, so too the body is a limiter of the self. Thus, just as there is no origination, so too there is no destruction of it even when the body is destroyed. And so, whenever its result occurs, it is indeed the result. The body, however, disintegrates through the dissolution of its own elements. The elements that produce it are the refined elemental components. Foods, etc., are its supporters. Those elements, having produced their inherent result, being fulfilled, cease, then what is born with them ceases. Similarly, this self is born with the body. Just as the body is with the elements. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in the result. || 49 ||

He concludes the stated meaning: "This has been told to you." By me, for this much time, the Lord alone has been described, endowed with ten types of play. As the Lord, the six qualities. As the creator of the world, the four: origination, etc., and liberation. Or dharma, etc. For by these alone the world is created. Thus, the world-creating Lord has been described in this much composition. Your listening has been accomplished - this is the idea. Having described in detail, he describes in brief for the ease of understanding: "In summary." Whatever meaning has been described by me in detail, this is its summary, conciseness - the Lord alone is everything, everything is of the Lord alone. To exclude figurative usage, he states through negation: "Nothing other than Hari." Hari alone is everything, there is nothing other than Hari. Everything is of Hari alone, not from anything else. Sat and asat (existent and non-existent), superior and inferior. And by the word "ca," time, etc., as well. Whatever is well-known. || 50 ||

Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ

They indeed know. Here, they indicate that humility is the means even for great ones. By the word "asmat" in "asmadādīnām", [they mean] "easily attainable". Thus, just as the absence of ego and sense of possession indicates the primary qualification, so does devotion indicate compassion, even in the presence of other faults. Therefore, in general, when that exists, specifically those who are like that should be followed. With this intention, they state the characteristics of that [person] with "tasya" etc. And such [people] are to be pleased. They say "teṣām api" etc., [meaning] that mere satisfaction in conversation is not to be done. "Capable of contemplating the heard meaning" - this is a qualification for women and others. By this, intelligence is indicated as a qualification for the qualified. Keeping this in mind, they state the conclusion with "tasmāt" etc. Thus, the meaning is that as per one's qualification, so is the attainment of such contemplation. (44)

In "śaśvad", [they say] "having determined by origin". Having determined by demonstrating the method of origin and the materials. The meaning is that one determines the nature of conquest and the method of negation by considering the nature of conquest and the materials for conquest. They state the nature of conquest and the materials with "sa eva" etc. Thus, the meaning is that self-luminosity itself is the material. "This very" means the form stated in this verse. If it is asked how the nature of others can be understood from this verse where only the nature of the foot is stated, they respond with "tatra" etc. "Will know" means will know as their characteristic. "Ten dharmas" means in the form of characteristics. "Of the impeller and the impelled" means of the actions of the impeller and the impelled. "Of the all-delimiting" means of the fear-inducing, all-supporting. "Ye" means undifferentiated in the differences of permission, non-permission, and option. "Equally real" means because the real form is perceived as equal everywhere, by the word "sama" that itself is stated. "Beyond all vyavahāra (īśā)" means beyond the scope of worldly intellectual subjects or beyond the capacity of worldly means of knowledge, or beyond verbal and other activities. They explain this with "vyavahāro'pi" etc. "Beyond vyavahāra" means beyond worldly vyavahāra. "Ātmīya" etc. [means] it does not have a connection with the ego-based self like the body etc., thus even the metaphorical self-vyavahāra as in the body etc. does not exist there. "No vyavahāra there" means no self-vyavahāra based on selfness. "Verbal" means based on word-ness and word-meaning-ness. "Due to absence of action etc." means due to the absence of the capacity of the knower and means of knowledge, due to the absence of their connection, due to the absence of knowledge of that subject, it is so. "Kāraka" etc. - by this, the sixth case meaning should also be understood as negated. "Bhagavad-āśaya" etc. - Even when the transcendence of four types of vyavahāra is thus established, just as for the souls possessing the qualities stated in the śruti "This puruṣa is unattached", there is vyavahārya-ness by God's order in the pervasion of māyā, and from that, vyavahārya-ness with the guru etc. through the removal of ignorance, similarly for the pada also, when there is connection with māyā due to some reason, there could be vyavahārya-ness for its removal. "From afar" - thus, due to the absence of its connection, it is beyond even the vyavahāra caused by that. "States the fame" means states the Vedāntic fame as authority. "If" etc. - thus, even though it is beyond all worldly and Vedic vyavahāra, it is established in all Vedānta. This is explained in the sūtra "prakāśavaccāvaiyarthyāt" etc. as it is here. If it is asked, its supremacy and ultimacy are established in the Vedāntas with "Greater than the great, which is beyond the great" and "That itself is the supreme Brahman of the wise". In that case, how is it a foot? To this, they respond with "tasmin" etc. "Pada" means foot, "tatpada" means its place in the form of throne etc. Thus, only due to meditation, its foot-ness, place-ness, and enjoyable-ness [are established]. Even in the form of foot, ornament, weapon, place etc., there is not even a trace of contradiction. This should be understood as stated in the Nibandha with "In the form of the root-limitation, situated as its support" etc. By this, there is also no contradiction with self-establishment etc. "Tasya" means of the known pada. In the root - "tatra", in the fruit. The conquered objects have been considered thus. As per the previously mentioned method, through the tenfold nature of dharma, as a result, and as one's own form, whichever part of the Lord that manifests as connected to the word, that is considered here as the conquered object. Here, by controlling the senses, the ascetics who are saints know the constant happiness that is free from sorrow. Thus, connecting the root, the previously mentioned meaning should be contemplated. "Conquered, conquered" and so on, to explain the nature of negation mentioned here, it means that "yamakartṛ he ti jaghuri" (the doer of restraint struck with a weapon) and so on is considered with purpose and example. They say thus, "tatra" (there) and so on. "śrahe" means that "yamakartṛsthānaniyamanajanakaṃ hetiṃ sādhanaṃ jaghuri" (the weapon that causes restraint of the place of the doer of control struck) means this. And thus, the meaning of "conquered, conquered, removing the place, one should hold" should be understood as: removing the place, abandoning the means of conquest from the portion of the grasping intellect, one should hold what has been conquered. They express this as "sasādhanasya" (with the means) and so on. "asya tyāgasya" (of this abandonment) means the abandonment of the grasping means. || 47 48 ||

In "sa śreyasām" (he of the auspicious), there they state the reason. It means that to consider the efficacy of results through divinity, they state the creation of the world as the cause that is the indicator. "kriyātadabhivyaṅgyo veti" (whether the action or its expression) - here, through consideration of prior manifestation, it should be understood that the meaning of the verbal root is indeed the expression of that through actual consideration of the action. Because it is impossible to express the eternal relation of sound there, due to the action existing only for three moments. Thus it is proper - because the producer necessarily gives the result, the all-pervasiveness of auspiciousness is proper. "nivartata iti" (ceases thus) means the body ceases. || 49 ||

In "yathā harau" (as in Hari), "sambandhātmabhāvāt" (from the state of self through connection) means from the state of self which is characterized by one's own nature through connection. They derive this: "ātmana" (of the self) and so on. To remove this, they state the conclusion: "śrayam" (refuge) and so on. "upapāditam" (established) means it is derived in the section on sentence connection in "punaśca bhūyād bhagavatyanante" (1.19.16). || 50 ||

Thus ends the explanation of the seventh chapter in the Subodhinīprakāśa of the second Skandha.

Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī

Here is a prosaic, grammatically correct, fluent and easily understandable translation of the entire text into English, without adding or skipping words or numbers from the original; occasional Sanskrit words within the English translation are written using IAST (with English translation of that word in parentheses):

What more can be said? The devotees of the Lord, whose steps and playful movements are wonderful, generating supreme joy, and leading to the attainment of the highest human goal without consideration of high or low, who have learned the character of such devotees of the Lord - if they become disciples of the devotees and learn their nature of contemplating the Lord, then even women, śūdras, and others, or those of sinful professions, or those born in sin like hunters, or even animals like elephants, bears, and monkeys, they too can understand and overcome the Lord's māyā (illusion). If this is so, then what need be said of the Brahmins and others who are entitled to retain the auspicious meaning of the Vedas - that being so, they overcome māyā and know the truth? This is the meaning. In the alternative reading "śrutadhāraṇā", the meaning is the same. (46)

What is that form of the Lord by contemplating which they overcome māyā? In response to this expectation, he says with two verses beginning with "śaśvad". That which the knowers of the Veda know as Brahman, that very thing is the pada (form) of the Supreme Person, the Lord full of the six qualities including lordship, etc. - this is the construction. In response to "What is that Brahman?", he says "viśokam", meaning it is itself free from sorrow and removes the sorrow of devotees. He states the reason for this: "abhayam", meaning it is itself free from fear and removes the fear of devotees. He gives another reason: "śaśvat praśāntam". Due to the use of the words śaśvad and ajasra at the beginning and end, śaśvad should be seen as a qualifier for all. As it's possible for a jīva to be so occasionally, to distinguish it, it should be taken to mean: always, in all three times - past, present, and future - praśānta, free from the six urges like hunger, thirst, old age, death, etc. He gives another reason: "śuddham", meaning free from impurities like merit and sin. Another reason: "sad-asataḥ param", meaning different from the gross and subtle effects of prakṛti (nature). Then, in response to whether it's different or non-different from the jīva, he says: "ātma-tattvam", meaning the ultimate reality of the ātmans (souls), as they are parts of it. Then, to avoid the doubt of its being partial, he says: "samam". In response to how it's equal, he says: "pratibodha-mātram", meaning of the nature of pure knowledge. To avoid the doubt that it too might desire happiness, he says: "ajasra-sukham", meaning of the nature of eternal bliss. What more can be said? For the satisfaction of disciples, it is somehow explained, but in reality, words have no operation there, as he says: "śabda", meaning words with their six kārakas (factors of action) - "doer, object, instrument, recipient, source, and location are said to be the six kārakas" - even words with these six kārakas do not operate there, do not express it. He gives the reason: "kriyārtha", meaning words are meant to express actions like rituals. Moreover, due to the delusion of māyā, jīvas have the capability for the worldly transactions of birth, death, etc., but how can the Lord, who controls māyā, have such capability due to the absence of delusion by māyā? With this intention, he says: "mat-kāpaṭam asau jānāti", meaning māyā, being ashamed to stand before him, flees far away.

Since the Lord is such, therefore those who have controlled their minds in him, his devotees, are indeed fulfilled, they have nothing more to do - thus he says with "sadhyaṅ". Controlling the mind which moves together (sadhyaṅ) in him, making it steady in him, the ascetics (yatayaḥ) who are of a nature of effort, by this all their doubts are cut off (kṛtyante chidyante sarva-saṃśayā), and they would abandon the instruments of action and inaction, the means of attaining heaven etc., meaning they don't care for them due to lack of use. To illustrate the disregard for means due to lack of use, he gives an example: "sva-rāṭ". Just as sva-rāṭ (self-shining), Indra himself shining in the form of rain, does not take up the digging tool of a well, etc. (nipāna), which is drunk from - or alternatively, just as sva-rāṭ, one who shines by himself, a poor person, when he becomes prosperous like Indra, abandons the well-digging tool taken up in his laborer state, so too [the devotees abandon the means]. (47-48)

Thus, having described the nature of the Lord, it is said: "Whether without desire or with all desires, or desiring liberation, one with a noble intellect should worship the Supreme Person with intense devotional yoga." To substantiate that nothing is unattainable for the devotees of the Lord, it states: "sa" (he). The natures, such as varṇāśrama (social orders and life stages) and others, by their inherent nature conducive to śama (tranquility), dama (self-control), and other qualities, are the instigators of this prescribed path of karma (action), jñāna (knowledge), bhakti (devotion), yoga, and others for the righteous. Or, from the nature of the elements, from mahat (the great principle) onwards, through their inherent transformation, this existing universe of names and forms is manifested. He alone, the Lord, is capable of bestowing the fourfold fruits of dharma (righteousness), artha (wealth), kāma (desire), and mokṣa (liberation) in their respective forms, being the inner controller of all and the essence of all.

Now, seeing that the doer of actions dies here itself, how can the fruits of heaven, liberation, etc., be obtained afterward? Addressing this doubt, it says: "dehe" (in the body). Even when the body is decaying after the separation of the constituent elements - earth and other great elements that have transformed into flesh and other forms - the puruṣa (person), the experiencer, the jīva (individual soul) residing there does not decay or perish. The reason for this is stated: "aja" (unborn), meaning it is not born along with the body. This is the implication, as it is ascertained in statements like "For the born, death is certain." An example for this is given: "vyomavat" (like the sky), meaning like the space residing therein. (49)

Summarizing the meaning stated in the three chapters, it says: "so'yam" (this same). O dear Nārada, this Lord Vāsudeva, who is the subject matter of all scriptures, who is in my mind, who is the creator of the universe, who is the cause of the entire world, who is endowed with knowledge, power, strength, sovereignty, etc., has been briefly described by me to you. Again, due to affection for Nārada and experiencing supreme joy from remembering the Lord, he states even more concisely: "hareḥ" (of Hari). Whatever exists or does not exist, gross or subtle, sentient or insentient, effect or cause - all that belongs to Hari alone, not to another; therefore, there is nothing other than Him. There is an alternative reading: "harer nānyad anyat syāt," meaning what appears to be different is not actually different from Him. (50)

Hindī Anuvāda

Those who have been taught to cultivate a nature similar to the Lord's loving devotees - even women, śūdras (lower caste), Huns, Bhils, and those living in animal or bird forms due to sin - can understand the mystery of the Lord's māyā (illusion) and permanently cross this ocean of saṃsāra (worldly existence). What then can be said about those who follow Vedic moral conduct? ॥ 46 ॥

The true nature of the Paramātmā (Supreme Soul) is uniform, peaceful, fearless, and pure knowledge. It is free from the impurity of māyā and the disparities created by it. It is beyond both sat (existence) and asat (non-existence). No Vedic or worldly word can reach there. Even the fruits of actions accomplished through various means cannot reach there. What's more, māyā itself cannot approach it and retreats in shame. ॥ 47 ॥

That is the supreme abode of the Supreme Person, the Lord. Great souls directly experience it as the sorrowless, infinite, blissful Brahman. Men of self-control establish their minds there and become settled. Just as Indra, being present in the form of clouds, does not keep a spade to dig a well for water, they also abandon the means of knowledge that remove duality. ॥ 48 ॥

The Lord alone bestows the fruits of all actions. Because whatever good deeds a person performs according to their nature, all that happens by His inspiration. When the five elements residing in this body separate and the body is destroyed, even then the unborn puruṣa (person) residing in it does not perish, just like space. ॥ 49 ॥

Son Nārada! I have briefly described to you Śrī Hari, who is endowed with the six opulences and who creates the universe through His will. Whatever exists as effect and cause, or as being and non-being, is not different from the Lord. Yet, the Lord is also separate from all this. ॥ 50 ॥