Text 22: Please also explain how, merged in the body of the Lord, living beings are created, and how the infidels appear in the world. Also please explain how the unconditioned living entities exist.
Text 23: The independent Personality of Godhead enjoys His pastimes by His internal potency and at the time of annihilation gives them up to the external potency, and He remains a witness to it all.
Text 24: O great sage, representative of the Lord, kindly satisfy my inquisitiveness in all that I have inquired from you and all that I may not have inquired from you from the very beginning of my questionings. Since I am a soul surrendered unto you, please impart full knowledge in this connection.
Text 25: O great sage, you are as good as Brahmā, the original living being. Others follow custom only, as followed by the previous philosophical speculators.
Text 26: O learned brāhmaṇa, because of my drinking the nectar of the message of the infallible Personality of Godhead, which is flowing down from the ocean of your speeches, I do not feel any sort of exhaustion due to my fasting.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Of the followers with dissolved conditioning factors, the jīvas (individual souls). The state of the self, the jīva's (individual soul's) existence in a form distinct from bondage and liberation. [22]
He remains aloof in dissolution. [23]
And also that which is not asked, as indicated by the word "ca" (and). [24]
You are the authority, the one who knows correctly, as there is a tradition through the lineage of Brahmā, Nārada, and Vyāsa, according to the general principle. Others, he says, are mostly followers of tradition, not knowers of truth. This is stated by "pare ca" (and others). [25]
Now, how can you listen when you are distressed by hunger and the anger of the twice-born? To this, he says: They do not depart, do not go away, do not become distressed. This is the meaning. The nectar of Acyuta's glory. [26]
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
He remains as if indifferent, like a witness. [23] To illustrate by presenting history, etc., to speak the truth as it is. To one who has taken refuge, who has approached. The word "O great sage" indicates the appropriateness of the reply. [24]
Others, and even the predecessors like Marīci, have performed and followed the meaning of the scriptures as done by their predecessors, the speakers of Brahman. If you say that you too should follow their practice, he says - or rather. Due to their attachment to worldly affairs, they may forget the truth, but you, being beyond worldly affairs, are superior to all those knowers of truth, so I have complete faith in what you say. This is the meaning. If you ask, "You have understood the truth from the words of other sages, why do you ask me again?" To this, he says - Here. Among other sages, you are indeed the definitive authority. Therefore, although I am knowledgeable about various subjects, I ask you out of curiosity about what kind of answer will emerge from your mouth. Just as the self-born supreme lord Brahmā has self-established knowledge by the grace of the Supreme Lord, so are you. Others, however, see and study whatever has been done by their learned predecessors and follow it - thus says Viśvanātha. [25]
This is the meaning. Even more powerful than food is the drinking of elixirs, etc. This is the idea. By "angry twice-born" is meant the time of death caused by the anger of a twice-born. Thus, the meaning is: At a time other than the seventh day, which is the time of death caused by the anger of the twice-born, my life-breaths do not depart due to fasting as I drink the nectar of Acyuta. Since death on the seventh day is inevitable due to the power of the curse, before that, by drinking the nectar of Acyuta and not thinking of other things, there is no distress from both causes. This is the meaning. Or, my life-breaths do not depart due to fasting and the anger of the twice-born as I drink the nectar of Acyuta, but they would depart elsewhere in the absence of drinking the nectar of Acyuta. This is the meaning. In the Bālabodhinī, it is explained as: The death that is due to the angry twice-born, there is no cessation of that without it elsewhere. This is the meaning. Cakravartī, however, explained: On the seventh day from the angry twice-born, the twice-born in the form of Takṣaka will come; elsewhere, when he arrives, the life-breaths will indeed depart. [26]
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
(Ordinary means. Ordinary is based on mere caste, characterized by non-violence, etc.) [18-25]
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
The dissolution of all beings is the intermediate dissolution. Creation or various order, disorder, existence, return, destruction is the great dissolution. Desired Vedic action, meritorious work, the method of the three goals of life: dharma, artha, and kāma. [22]
The creation, the manner of origin of those who follow with residual karma, fallen from the other world. The origin, emergence of heretical doctrines. The manner of bondage and liberation of the self, the individual soul, the way of existence in its true nature in the state of liberation. This is the meaning. [23]
The independent, all-pervading, inner controller Lord, how He sports through His own māyā (divine power), and again, having withdrawn the māyā, how He remains aloof in dissolution like a witness, as if indifferent. [24]
And all this, even though not asked, as indicated by "ca" (and), which is secret, O Lord, O great-minded one, you should explain to me, who has taken refuge, in truth, to give an answer. These two adjectives, "Lord" and "great-minded," indicate worthiness. It is remembered: "He who knows the origin, dissolution, coming and going of beings, knowledge and ignorance - he is to be called the Lord." And great-mindedness is the knowledge of the true nature of things in the three times (past, present, future). [25]
He establishes the very qualification by saying "Here." In these matters that have been asked, you are the authority, the one who knows correctly. There is an example for this: Just as Brahmā, born of the Supreme Self, the supreme lord, is an authority, so are you. There is also a tradition through the lineage of Brahmā, Nārada, and Vyāsa. He says that others, the later ones, practice what was done by the predecessors of the predecessors. [26]
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Vikrama is characterized by various actions, pratisaṃkrama (reversal) is saṃhāra (dissolution), and iṣṭa (desired) is the completion of yoga and other practices, or the fulfillment of vāpī (step-wells), kūpa (wells), and other pious works, or the accomplishment of kāmya (desired) actions and other activities related to the trivarga (three aims of life) characterized by dharma (righteousness), artha (wealth), and kāma (pleasure). (22)
It specifies the nature of those beings who are anuśāyin (latent) in prakṛti (primordial nature), or of those who have fallen from creation and other states, or the mokṣa (liberation) of the jīva (individual soul) itself, as vyavasthāna (establishment). Alternatively, it may mean a gradual establishment. (23)
The self-dependent Bhagavān (Lord), through his own ātmamāyā (divine power) and by his own will, along with cit-prakṛti (conscious nature), plays in various ways through the creation of the world and other acts. There are two types of ātmamāyā: one that is of his essential nature and one that is under his control. With the latter, he causes the jīva to transmigrate; with the former, he enables those endowed with bhakti (devotion) and other means to achieve liberation from saṃsāra (cyclic existence), delighting them with happiness. Then, releasing the binding power under his control, he remains detached like a witness, abiding beyond prakṛti. The two-fold ātmamāyā, being of his nature and under his control, causes transmigration with the latter and liberates with the former, remaining detached, as stated in the scriptures. Here, māyā is not described as indescribable. (24)
He summarizes the series of questions with "sarvam" (all). The word "ca" (and) implies that what should be said first in order, even if not asked, should be exemplified step by step. By saying "prapannāya" (to one who has taken refuge), he indicates the sixfold process of śaraṇāgati (surrender): resolve to be favorable, abandonment of unfavorability, faith in protection, acceptance of guardianship, self-offering, and feeling of helplessness. By addressing him as "mahāmune" (great sage), he indicates Śuka's ability to respond appropriately. (25)
To dispel any doubt that even an omniscient being might speak otherwise due to some reason, he says "atra" (here). Just as the self-born Brahmā, the supreme among all beings, born from the Supreme Soul, is the authority for all people in all scriptures, being the most trustworthy to speak correctly, so are you, the son of Vyāsa, an authority in this matter. Indeed, this is proper. He elaborates on this by saying "apare" (others). It is well-known that others, like Marīci and others, follow the meaning of scriptures as established by their predecessors who had attained the state of Brahman, as stated in "whatever a great person does" and so on. By this, it is meant that since Brahmā is the authority, you are also an authority in this matter. (26)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
"Atra" means: Born from the Self, i.e., originating from Śrī Nārāyaṇa, thus having knowledge revealed by Him. If one argues, "I have also obtained knowledge through the lineage of gurus," to that he says "pare ca" (others too). It means that such a quality is found in others as well. (Not that you have obtained knowledge through a lineage of gurus.) (25)
Implying that whatever else was asked should not be narrated without the story of Hari, he says "na me'savaḥ" (my life airs do not). O Brahman, my life airs do not depart due to fasting, nor even from an angry brāhmaṇa. The reason for this is "pibato'cyutapīyūṣam" (drinking the nectar of Acyuta). In other contexts or at other times, they would depart even from that. (26)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
"Anuśāyinām" refers to the creation of souls whose limiting adjuncts are dissolved in the Lord during the great dissolution, in response to the inquiry about the accomplishment of spiritual practices by devotees. "Pākhaṇḍasya" is in response to the inquiry about the impossibility of devotion. "Ātmano" refers to the bondage and liberation of the soul touched by māyā, in relation to knowledge mixed with devotion or devotion mixed with knowledge. "Svarūpato vyavasthānam" refers to the eternal devotion of eternally liberated souls like Viṣvaksena, who are always untouched by māyā from the beginning. (22)
He plays in various ways at the time of creation, etc., and releases at the time of great dissolution, giving up. Alternatively, the self-dependent Bhagavān is Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself, who, although being the source of all incarnations, is seen as dependent only on Kṛṣṇa in incidents like the kidnapping of the brāhmaṇa boys. He plays with his ātmamāyā (Yogamāyā) in incidents like the killing of Pūtanā. Or, having specially created in incidents like the destruction by iron clubs, he remains detached like a witness, but not as a mere witness. (23)
The word "ca" (and) implies that even what was not asked [should be answered]. (24)
[Addressing the doubt:] "Haven't you already understood all these matters from other sages? Then why are you asking me again?" He responds with "atra" (here). Here, among all those sages, you are indeed the definitive authority. Therefore, although I am aware of various interpretations, I ask to see what kind of answer emerges from your lotus mouth. Just as Brahmā, born from the Self, has inherently perfected knowledge of the Vedic meaning by the Lord's grace, so do you. Others, however, follow whatever has been done by their predecessors, the learned ones, by studying and learning from them. (25)
To indicate that attention should not be paid to my distress here, he says "na" (not). They do not depart, they do not become agitated. The reason for this is drinking the nectar of Acyuta's stories. However, on the seventh day, when the brāhmaṇa in the form of Takṣaka will come, then indeed the life airs will depart. Therefore, I will not be able to drink the nectar of Acyuta's stories then. Hence, you should not delay in narrating Kṛṣṇa's stories. (26)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
The saṃplava (and in parentheses confluence) of all beings is their proper arising, manifestation, existence, return, and dissolution. You should explain this, as well as the proper procedure for desired Vedic rituals, completed smārta rites, and the construction of wells, tanks, etc. And you should explain the rules for optional rites like the Agnihotra, and for the three aims of dharma, artha, and kāma. (22)
You should also explain the creation of those bound by karma who are absorbed in heaven to experience the fruits of their actions, their rebirth here with the remnants of their karma, as well as the origin of heretical doctrines. You should explain the bondage and liberation of the individual soul, which are its intrinsic states when liberated, and its condition. (23)
How the self-dependent, all-pervading Lord plays in creation through his own māyā (and in parentheses power), or how at the time of dissolution, relinquishing māyā, he remains indifferent like a witness. (24)
Please explain all this that I have asked, and even what I have not asked, to me who has taken refuge in you, in truth. You are capable of answering, as indicated by the two forms of address. (25)
The capability is established here: In these matters that have been asked about, just as the Lord who is self-born, the supreme son, the supreme one, Brahmā, is the proper knower, so too you properly elucidate, as you follow what was done by previous ones like Vyāsa, Nārada, etc. who were instructed by earlier ones like Brahmā. Therefore, those like me should always ask those like you for instruction. This is the purport. (26)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
And the creation of the anuśāyin (and in parentheses those who sleep after). The anuśāyin are a particular type of souls. They sleep after the Lord's sleep, following the karma of the three worlds. The goddess, the knowers, and their followers are not anuśāyin. Other souls are anuśāyin. The question is about how much and what kind of creation there is of the anuśāyin. Pākhanda means opposed to the Vedic path. The question, indicated by "ca", is about how heretical doctrines and the like originate. Regarding the bondage and liberation of the individual soul other than the anuśāyin, the question is whether there is liberation for the knowers, bondage for the demons, or both for both. Vyavasthāna means intrinsically. The question is how the soul exists apart from bondage and liberation, what form it has. The answer to this will be "being without a body" etc. Or how the Lord, though independent, plays here in the universe through his own māyā after descending. The meaning is, how does the Lord play after descending? Or, how does he play in Vaikuntha or elsewhere? The meaning is, what is the Lord's nature in relation to māyā? Or how the Lord remains indifferent after relinquishing māyā. For he sees everything in witness form, indifferent - this is one form of the Lord understood in Sāṃkhya doctrine. The question is whether the root form is also like that or not. The doubt is due to the capacity for both, hence it is stated with vibhu. (14-23)
Having thus presented the extremely useful questions, he concludes by asking about other matters in general: "All this and". "This" refers to what was stated before. "Ca" indicates even what was not asked. "To me who asks" is for the sake of the task. "In sequence" means in the order of the questions. The questions were posed here according to the desire to know. It is said the answers should be given in that very sequence, for then the mind becomes concentrated in that way. Or it should not be spoken according to our qualification, but in truth. By this, other views are also refuted. Even though I have no transformation in hearing, still you should explain. If it is thought the qualification of the hearer is also required, to that he says "to one who has taken refuge". Everything should indeed be told to one who has taken refuge. And this is not just a polite statement. You alone know this, thus he says "O great sage". A sage knows what is in the mind. But a great sage knows even what is to be. The address indicates: You know both the knowledge of truth that is to arise in me, and my taking refuge. (24)
Indeed, all sages are omniscient. They are various types of speakers. Just as their partial authority exists, so will mine be; this should not be doubted. Thus it is said - "The Lord is the authority here." The word 'authority' (pramāṇa) refers to unobstructed knowledge or that which is distinct from what can be refuted. The knower of that, the means of knowledge, or the object of knowledge - all of these are called authority. Some say the word 'authority' has multiple meanings. Among those whose knowledge does not deviate from authority from birth until death, they are referred to by the word 'authority'. In this sense, for objects of knowledge other than the Vedas, the self-born (ātmabhūḥ) is the authority. Just as there are mutual contradictions among sages, there is no such contradiction in any statement about Brahman. The reason for its supreme authority is: "self-born" (ātmabhūḥ), "the highest one" (parameṣṭhī). He stands in the supreme (parame tiṣṭhati). By origin and existence, he is beyond the Lord (bhagavatpara), hence his authority. Thus, the Lord is also an authority - this is the meaning.
Now, how will authority be established by the Lord's word alone, or how will it become universal when arising? Anticipating this doubt, it is said: "And others here follow." Those who are greater than me, who have realized the highest truth, they too have faith in the meaning you have stated and follow that principle. Here, in this path of devotion. What was done by their predecessors was also done by their predecessors. The meaning you have stated has been followed by all and is practiced by all. Therefore, your word is authoritative everywhere. Or, for us, the Lord himself is the direct authority. Others, however, only follow what was done by their predecessors and their predecessors' predecessors. The word 'ca' is used in the sense of 'tu' (but). They do not consider any authority. For us, there is no doubt in what you have said. (25)
Moreover, I live by your words alone. Otherwise, it would be death. Because the great fear named Takshaka has been heard. Thus it is said: "My life-breaths do not depart." My life-breaths (asavaḥ prāṇāḥ) do not depart, do not leave, even due to fasting. The address "O Brahman" is for that knowledge. Indeed, fasting obstructs the life-breath. "O weary one" shows the afflicted life-breaths. Being a king, he is distressed by even one fast. He states the reason for non-departure: "Drinking the nectar of Acyuta." The nectar related to Acyuta in the form of stories. Or Acyuta himself is the nectar. By this, his own highest qualification is indicated.
Now, just as this nectar removes hunger, will it also remove the curse? Anticipating this doubt, it is said: "Except for the angered twice-born." By this nectar, all life-threatening factors are removed. However, the life-threatening Takshaka, which comes from an angered twice-born, is not removed. Otherwise, that anger would destroy that very twice-born. When overcome by death, anger completely destroys one person. There, considering the death of a Brahmin worse than one's own death, this nectar, though capable of removing everything, will not remove that, out of our desire - this is the meaning. Thus, the immediate purpose of the question has been explained.
Since this chapter falls in the middle of the examination, some principle useful for examination should be stated. There, since the examination of reasoning has been begun, and since reasoning has three forms, among objection, conclusion, and result, first the objection should be stated. If it's a complete objection, it would displace the listener's qualification, so in the seven chapters, whatever principle has been established, one's own understanding up to the final conclusion of what is agreed upon should be explained, and wherever there is knowledge of the conclusion, it objects to it as it is heard - this should be understood as the chapter of the prima facie view. Otherwise, it would render the previous chapters or oneself pointless. And the limitation of questions would be inconsistent. Endless questions would need to be asked. They are objected to. And others are understood as subjects of one's own knowledge by stating the concluded meaning. Otherwise, the principle explained in verses like "of the listener" etc. would be unauthoritative as unexplained by Shuka. Or it would raise doubt about the teacher. Therefore, here the seven chapters are examined by the prima facie view.
There, first, having refuted the common qualification with three verses starting with "to be heard," the means stated for those desiring fearlessness is untenable. Because Brahma taught the principle to be stated with various qualifications. Thus it is said: "Not instructed by Brahma." This very truth should be explained in its entirety according to the differences in qualification. Therefore, the view that some are qualified and some are not qualified is not possible. And there is contradiction with the statement "All are qualified here for devotion to Vishnu, just as for the king." Therefore - "I wish to know this," the statement. What was excessively said, that only the Lord is to be heard, that is untenable. Because only one of marvelous prowess is to be heard. Otherwise, this result to be stated would be untenable. If it were mere character, the Lord would naturally be entered into by everyone, so no one would be in samsara. And scripture would be pointless. Thus it is said: "Of Hari of marvelous prowess." The stories of marvelous prowess are in the form of marvelous prowess. In that case, the visible means of hearing etc. would exist. Otherwise, the postulation of the unseen would follow. And due to faults being obstacles, there is no result. There is also a contradiction in the statement "Attachment to qualities leads to the misery of beings." He says: "As I am in the whole self." By hearing etc., in focusing the mind on the Lord, "This much is the fruit in this birth. In another birth, it is different." As it is said, "The task is accomplished in a very short time." That too is irrelevant, "I will abandon the body." Then the Lord is grasped by the mind, so in another birth he produces a body suitable for serving the Lord. Then it will be "one's own" and will become a lotus of feelings. Success in the task is achieved by entering inside while remaining outside, not by being inside. As with fire in wood, he says "that." Due to the Lord having much to do in the seen method. He says "of the listener." For one's own sake, it is just focusing the mind. Hence he says decidedly "of the one entering." Otherwise, in another process, lack of attachment would not occur even in hundreds of births. Because the body and senses are products of qualities. But in this process, having entered with excellence and eagerness, one shakes off impurity. And then, when the limbs are loose, falling from the root bond, further action would be by the qualities alone. So "shaking off" is stated. Then the second fearlessness occurs. "From which there is no fear" - the Lord is attained by the mind in the form of fearlessness. Hence, due to the absence of a body etc. seized by death, "for whom there is no fear" is the second result. When the meaning of the tenth skandha is understood through the fruits of the conclusion, "there is no fear from this" - he himself will become the destroyer of fear. He will say: "Deaths do not overwhelm the Lord who is the death of deaths." Otherwise, if it ends in the first view, even the guru would be purposeless. Therefore, this alone has three aspects. It is also said that misfortune occurs to beings through their natural action. That too is irrelevant. Do beings have connection with body etc. by nature alone or by God's will? In the first case, there would be no liberation for anyone. In the second case, they do not deserve blame, as it is arranged thus by the Lord himself. Intending this, he says "of the unsteady." It is also said that the fourfold attributes of the Lord - all-self, Lord, Hari, controller - should be heard. That too is irrelevant. He says: "From whose belly the lotus was born." The all-self Lord is described as to be heard. And the birth of the lotus from his belly is described. Since he is different from the lotus as its support, and the world is supported by the lotus, all-selfhood is not possible. A figurative usage does not produce results, this is established. Moreover, Lordship is not possible. He says: "As large as this person is." The meaning is: due to being equal to the material. Hari-ness is also not possible. He says: "The unborn creates." Because this unborn one, even after obtaining the Lord's grace, creates all species of beings. Engaged in great action, he is extremely tired. And the self of beings is born, attaining the nature of each. This very thing he will say later: "Lying down, I think much." Controllership is also not possible. He says: "And that person also where." This one's equality with the material, involvement in world creation, the effort of grasping and abandoning māyā, lying down, staying in a hidden place - these are meant. What is said about "his netherworld" etc. is also irrelevant. He says: "By the limbs of the person." Both are irrelevant due to mutual contradiction. This is the idea. It is also said "They say Indra etc. are the arms." That too is irrelevant. Due to the existence of different kalpas, and the diversity of Indra etc. in each kalpa, the arms would be unfixed. Even if it means offices, due to the difference of office-holders, that defect remains. Because Indra-ness is not arm-ness. What is stated as authority in "they say" is also irrelevant. Due to the existence of options. Options are differences of yugas or other kalpas. Since both differ in each kalpa, there is no fixed relation between arms and authority. Moreover, what is said about "The directions are the ears" is not possible because directions are not fixed. Directions are made by the sun. As per the statement "Directions are divided by the sun", where it rises is east etc. Hence when the sun, which measures time, is considered, directions do not exist at all, so how can they be ears? Usage occurs even with figurative expressions. But determination of entities is not like this. What is said about "Sound is his ear" is also not possible. Because sounds occur only in time divisions. He says: "Sound of past, future and present." These do not occur simultaneously, so the ear would not be fixed. If a particular sound is ear-ness, then all-form-ness being concluded would be irrelevant. What is said about "The Nasatyas are the supreme nose" is to be explained as the Ashvins being propounders of Ayurveda. Then the nature of life is to be considered. Is the lifespan of beings fixed or unfixed as given by the Lord? Either way, the Nasatyas are irrelevant. So when lifespan is considered as self-determined, the Ashvins themselves being indeterminable, nose-ness is far off. Similarly for "His smell is scent, his mouth is kindled fire." Scent and fire exist in three moments. So if the continuity of time, gross or subtle, is considered, then scent, fire and heaven do not coincide. This is the meaning. Moreover, "The sun became the eye, the eyelashes of Vishnu became both days" is like before. Because when karmic motions are considered, with some karma the sun turns back, and due to the infinity of suns and the day-night arrangement being made by sun's motion, which is in the form of karma. The eye of the Lord is not appropriate, nor are the eyelashes. As to what kind, it is a subdivision of that itself. Moreover, what has been said is that the raising of the eyebrow is the abode of the supreme. That too is accomplished by action. He says - in which there is a conjunction of actions. This Brahma is said to be the conjunction of actions of qualities and their possessors. What is the raising of the Lord's eyebrow there? By this very statement, "The waters are his palate, taste is indeed the tongue," is implied. By this, whatever has been described as globular and as sense organs, all those should be understood as implied. Furthermore, starting from "The waters are his palate" up to "the best of the demon armies," the objects mentioned will be understood through general and specific considerations. He describes ten objects that have the relation of container and contained - earth, nether regions, etc. When these ten objects along with their functions are considered, and when the universe in general is considered, only the universe comes into view. The Lord or the parts of the Lord do not fit in any way. Therefore, the idea is that it is futile to imagine personhood by setting aside the established universe. He criticizes "the best of the demon armies" by saying "and the conduct of the great ones." From "Brahma's face" onwards, by the determination of varṇa (caste) and āśrama (stage of life). As it is said, "endowed with various names and worshipful qualities." Here, the sacrifice that is described as an action of the Lord, due to its non-material nature and permanence, and due to the absence of connection with the previously mentioned faults, that alone is appropriate. Anticipating this, he asks about the nine objects with two verses, saying that even that will be refuted by considering the nine objects - "The conduct of the avatāras (incarnations)." Indeed, the deity of the sacrifice is considered through the incarnation of the Lord. And that incarnation is in the world, hence worldly. The yugas (ages) are to be considered. When they are considered, even the substance will be refuted. As it is said, "They do not see the sacrificial cake moving as action in the sacrificial arena." When is this action? In the yugas or at a time different from the yugas? If it is in a particular yuga, then before that, due to the absence of substance, there would be no sacrifice. Similarly in other cases too. When the measure of yuga is considered, due to the difference in sacrifices, the action itself does not fit. Thus, the origin of sacrifice is at the beginning of Tretā yuga. Moreover, yuga is time. "The common dharma of men" refers to place. "What kind of special" refers to substances divided into two based on quality differences. "Of the guilds" refers to the performers. "Of the royal sages" refers to the mantras. "In difficulties of dharma" refers to actions. Hence the use of dharma in six places is to indicate its being a part. What has been said, "This much is the form of the Lord," that too will be refuted by considering the truth. The universe is made by a part of the tattvas (principles). There, the statement "There is nothing from which" would be inappropriate. After this, the second chapter begins. There, right at the beginning, it is said, "Thus, in ancient times, by concentration." That is inconsistent. By considering the definition of the tattvas. Their definition is the ability to create. Because that alone is the unique property. When that is known, by the parts that have entered into Brahma. Due to the accomplishment of the effect, there would be futility of his knowledge, etc. Also what is said, "This is indeed the path of the verbal Brahman," etc., that one should meditate on the Lord established in one's mind, preceded by detachment. That too, when the causative definition of the tattvas is considered, will be like before. There, since the mind is in the form of the mahat principle, the Lord being already present in the intellect, who is established in one's own mind? The accomplishment of the self there is far removed. "The mind is composed of that mahat" is the causative definition. What is also said, "Some have space within their own body," that too, when the worship of a person is considered, due to the statement "made of mind, made of jewels," that form is mental. How could that be the Lord? For the accomplishment of gross and subtle concentration, two types of yoga are described. That too, when the nature of yoga is considered, due to it being the cessation of mental modifications, will indeed be inconsistent. What is also said, "The ascetic, seated in a stable and comfortable posture," that is inconsistent. Since it is possible for a living yogi to go to all worlds, what is the need for death, as in the case of Kardama? And by the word 'lordship', even Arjuna and others who went to heaven with this very body are included. What is also said, "At the end, the blissful one made of bliss," that too becomes inconsistent when the dissolution of the subtle body of a yogi is considered. What is also said, "The Lord is Brahman with a sheath," that too becomes inconsistent when the Veda is considered. If the Lord is the Self, love for Him is already established. And instruction is futile. If there is no love, then He is not the Self. If it is said that even the ātman (self) is not known as the self due to ignorance, then it is like the supreme self. Even then, selfhood itself should be taught. And effort should not be made for the sake of love. What has been said about worshiping other deities based on different desires is also inconsistent in the consideration of the Vedas and others, as stated in the third and other sections. For in the Veda, a different means has been described for that purpose. The description for the sake of devotion has been refuted by the refutation of devotion itself. What has been said about contemplation due to lack of knowledge will be refuted by the consideration of dissolution and others. Whether this world will go to dissolution or will become expanded or will become dissolved in the cause, then what about origination from the presence of the Lord? Let it originate by itself or otherwise, due to lack of distinction. What has also been described as the conception of the Lord's parts for the sake of carrying out the nature of sacrifices and others, that too is prevented by the consideration of iṣṭāpūrta (merit of sacrifices and charitable works) and others. There is no difference in effect whether in the refinement of elements, refinement of self, or refinement of the Lord, accomplished by worldly or otherworldly substances. Because the state of belonging to the Lord and others is established differently. What has also been said that He creates the self, that too will be refuted when considering the creation of those who follow. Because they should be stated as different from the Lord. That too has been said: "The supreme truth, form, speak of its nature." That too will be refuted when considering heretical doctrine. The origin of heresy is for the delusion of demons. Are demons the Lord or someone else? If the Lord, then that too would be the Lord's play, so it would not be heresy at all. Devotion is also refuted. Even if established as heresy, demons do not have the state of being the Lord. What has also been said about drying up the impurities of the ears, that too is irrelevant. Bondage and liberation of the conscious self are considered. Bondage is by the Lord's will and so is liberation. What is the use of drying up ear impurities there? If all states are described as different, all means would be useless. Because that is the form of the Lord. And the description of incarnations is useless. Such play of the Lord in māyā (illusion) becomes the incarnation of the entire world, what is special? In abandoning māyā, one would also abandon the play of incarnations. What has also been said, "You expand this," that too should not be said. As you speak with the sentiment of devotion, is that by someone's inspiration? And authority is established in you alone. Therefore it is said: "Here authority." That is appropriate - one describing māyā is not deluded. That too is insignificant and irrelevant. Because generally even my life does not depart; even when heard, the snake will bite. (26)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
The origin of those who, along with the remnants of their past actions, have fallen from the other world due to their attachments. The emergence and spread of heretical doctrines and paths contrary to the Vedas. The nature of bondage and liberation of the individual soul. And the manner of abiding in one's true nature in the state of liberation. (22)
How the Lord plays with His own power in the form of māyā (illusion). Although He is full of qualities like detachment, why does He engage in creation, maintenance, etc.? To this, he says - "ātma-" there. Who can know the intention of the independent one? Or how the all-pervading Lord, having abandoned māyā (illusion), remains detached like a witness. (23)
All this that I have asked - including the eighth implied by 'ca' - you should explain to me, the inquirer, in order, according to my qualification, truly and as it is in reality. In accordance with the statement "Know that by prostration," he expresses his own worthiness to hear - "to the surrendered," meaning to one who has taken shelter. Indicating omniscience as the reason for Śuka's ability to speak, he addresses him - "O great sage." By saying "to the surrendered" I speak directly, or even if such a state exists only in my inner being, suggesting that you have the ability to awaken understanding in my heart as well, he addresses him - "O Lord." (24)
Now, you are also well-learned and a knower of truth, and there are many other knowers of truth here. Why do you ask me, leaving them aside? Expecting this, he says - "atra" (here). In these matters asked about, or in this assembly, it is certainly determined that you alone are the authority, meaning you know correctly. He gives an example for this - "yathā parameṣṭhī" (as the supreme one). Just as there is no dispute with Brahmā's words, so too with your words for those here. Therefore, even though I have some knowledge, I ask you to remove my own doubts. He gives the reason for Brahmā being authoritative - "ātmabhūr" (born of the Self). Because he is born from the Self, the Supreme Self, Śrī Nārāyaṇa. He gives the reason for Śrī Śuka being authoritative - "pare ca" (and others). Others present in this assembly follow what was done or heard from their predecessors, but do not know the truth through tradition. You, however, have the tradition through Brahmā, Nārada, and Vyāsa, so you alone are the knower of truth. Therefore, there is no doubt or dispute in your words. (25)
Now, how will you, who are distressed by fasting and the curse of the brāhmaṇa, and are dying, be able to listen? Anticipating this doubt, he says - "na" (not). Suggesting that nothing is unknown to you and therefore not much needs to be said, he addresses him - "O Brahman." These prāṇas (life-airs) of mine do not depart due to fasting, do not become distressed. Indicating the reason for this, he qualifies himself - "pibataḥ" (of one who drinks), meaning one who drinks the nectar-like stories of the infallible Lord. However, death from the curse of the angry brāhmaṇa cannot be avoided otherwise. Here too, due to the intoxication of the nectar making one forgetful, there is no anxiety even from the fear of death caused by the brāhmaṇa's curse. But if drinking were to stop, immediate death would occur from fasting alone. (26)
Hindī Anuvāda
How are the jīvas (individual souls) who remain merged in prakṛti (nature) during the time of dissolution born again? How does pākhaṇḍa (heresy) originate? What is the nature of bondage and liberation of the soul? And how does it abide in its own nature? (22)
The Lord is supremely independent. How does He play with His māyā (illusion), and how does He become indifferent like a witness after abandoning it? (23)
O Lord! I am asking all this from you. I am under your protection. O great sage! Please kindly explain these matters in order and in essence. (24)
In this matter, you are the supreme authority, like self-born Brahmā. Other people only follow what they have heard from their previous traditions. (25)
O Brahman! Do not worry about my hunger and thirst. My prāṇas (life-airs) cannot leave except due to the curse of the angered brāhmaṇa; because I am drinking the nectar-like stories of the Lord's līlā (divine play) flowing from your lotus mouth. (26)
