SB 2.9.1-4

 Text 1: Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: O King, unless one is influenced by the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no meaning to the relationship of the pure soul in pure consciousness with the material body. That relationship is just like a dreamer’s seeing his own body working.

Text 2: The illusioned living entity appears in so many forms offered by the external energy of the Lord. While enjoying in the modes of material nature, the encaged living entity misconceives, thinking in terms of “I” and “mine.”

Text 3: As soon as the living entity becomes situated in his constitutional glory and begins to enjoy the transcendence beyond time and material energy, he at once gives up the two misconceptions of life [I and mine] and thus becomes fully manifested as the pure self.

Text 4: O King, the Personality of Godhead, being very much pleased with Lord Brahmā because of his nondeceptive penance in bhakti-yoga, presented His eternal and transcendental form before Brahmā. And that is the objective goal for purifying the conditioned soul.

Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā

Now I will speak of the answers to the king's questions, as told by Hari to Brahmā. In the ninth skandha, Śuka again narrated the Bhāgavata. (1)

There, regarding what was said by "yadaṅghātumata" (that which is without a base), addressing how the jīva (individual soul) is connected to the body, the answer is given. By ātmamāyā (self-illusion). Without the māyā (illusion) of the ātman (self) of Hari, the connection of the self, which is in the form of experience, with the visible body and other objects cannot truly occur. The reason for this is: just as the dream-seer has no real connection with the dream body, so it is for the supreme. (1)

The saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) also appears through māyā (illusion) alone, he says. It appears in many forms, such as childhood and other stages of life, or as forms of gods, humans, and others, in the guṇas (qualities) of the body and other objects. (2)

Therefore, when that (illusion) is removed through bhaktiyoga (devotional yoga), liberation also occurs, he says. When one delights in one's own greatness. The word "vā" means "indeed." He says the same thing: When one renounces both time and māyā, puruṣa (consciousness) and prakṛti (nature), and the notions of "I" and "mine" in relation to the supreme, one remains indifferent, abiding in the full form. As it is said: "By which the jīva (individual soul), deluded, considers itself to be of the nature of the three guṇas (qualities). Though supreme, it imagines misfortune and experiences the results thereof. For the cessation of misfortune, the wise one directly created bhaktiyoga (devotional yoga) to Adhokṣaja (Viṣṇu) in the form of the Sātvata-saṃhitā for people who do not know." (3)

As it was said, since there is no difference in the body connection of even the Supreme Lord, how can liberation occur through devotion to Him? To this, he responds with "āsīdyadudarātpadmam" (from whose navel a lotus emerged) and so on. For the purpose of purifying the truth of the ātman (self) of the jīva (individual soul), that indeed happens. What is that? The Lord worships His own worship for Brahmā, doing what? Showing the form of ṛtam (cosmic order), satyam (truth), and cidvanam (consciousness). The reason for showing: Being served by unwavering vows and austerities. This is the essence: The jīva's (individual soul's) connection with the body is false due to avidyā (ignorance). But for the Lord, it is the manifestation of the form for cosmic play through yogamāyā (divine illusion). This is the great distinction. Therefore, liberation is attained through worship of Him. (4)

Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā

There, in the question, without the kamba (stem), of the experiential form, the knowledge form of the ātman (self), the jīva (individual soul). Here, in the absence of body connection, for the supreme who is free from association with prakṛti (nature) and others, just as the connection with the dream body does not occur without māyā (illusion) in the form of sleep, similarly for the bodiless jīva (individual soul), the connection with the body does not occur without prakṛti (nature) consisting of the arising sattva (purity) quality, which is the effect of māyā (illusion) in the form of the Lord's will. This is the essence. (1)

Through māyā (illusion), by habituation to various bodies, one considers oneself to be those respective embodied beings, although in reality, such is not the case. (2)

Therefore, due to the illusory nature of the many forms, "I-ness" and "my-ness," in the state of Brahman in its greatness, he cites the authority for this - "As it is said." These two verses from the first skandha have been explained. (3)

By avyalīkena (sincerity), without deceit. Here he explains the intention: "This is the essence." Therefore, due to possessing a form of condensed consciousness manifested by yogamāyā (divine illusion). (4)

Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā

"Yadadhātumata" is the sixth verse of the previous chapter. (1) (2)

"Yayā sammohitaḥ" and so on are the fifth and sixth verses of the seventh chapter of the first skandha. (3)

"Āsīd" is the seventh verse of the previous chapter. (4) (5)

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā

Now, to answer the king's questions, the sage, beginning to narrate the Bhāgavata story, first addresses the question of whether the jīva's (individual soul's) embodiment is with or without cause, the question of whether the body is worthy of worship and unable to grant liberation due to being equal to the jīva in having parts of equal measure, and the question "Leaving ātmamāyā (self-illusion), he rests; describe that place," which are not answered in the ninth chapter. Answering the question of causality or non-causality, to explain the Lord's freedom from time and māyā (illusion) who possesses the three-quarter vibhūti (divine manifestation), he states the subjection of conscious beings to time and māyā in saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) with "ātma" (self).

For the anubhavātman (experiential self) - anubhava (experience) is knowledge, that is the essence of which - therefore, for the para (supreme) jīva (individual soul) distinct from the body, etc., the connection with objects - the connection as an enjoyer with enjoyable objects like sound, etc. - cannot properly occur without ātmamāyā (self-illusion), the māyā (illusion) controlled by the Supreme Self, prakṛti (nature). The example for this is "like a dream-seer." Just as for a dream-seer, "There are no chariots, no chariot-yokes, no roads there, yet he creates chariots, chariot-yokes, and roads," as stated in the śruti (scripture), the connection with objects like chariots is explained by the Lord's māyā (illusion). The meaning is similar here. Prakṛti (nature), due to concealing its own and others' form, results in the notion of enjoyability in natural objects. Thus, the concealment of one's own and others' form by prakṛti (nature) is the cause of embodiment, refuting the idea of causelessness. (1)

He elaborates on what was said with "bahu" (many). The jīva (individual soul), its knowledge-bliss nature concealed by the Lord's multiform, variously transforming māyā (illusion), appears as if having many forms by superimposing forms of gods, humans, etc., on itself. Delighting in the guṇas (qualities) of this māyā (illusion), in the effects of sattva (purity) and other guṇas (qualities) like sound, enjoying sounds, etc., he thinks "I" and "mine," meaning he becomes aware through ego and possessiveness. (2)

Speaking of the jīva's (individual soul's) essential state in the context of discussing the jīva, answering another question about the jīva, he says that when self-realization occurs, the inclination towards sound, etc., ceases, stating "yati" (when). Yahi means "when liberated." When he delights in his natural greatness, untouched by the effects of time and māyā (illusion), characterized by the eightfold qualities beginning with freedom from sin and ending with true resolve, the greatness of his self which is solely relishing being a complement to the Supreme Self; or when he delights in the greatness of the controller of time and māyā (illusion), the aforementioned greatness of the Supreme Self, the controller's greatness through his controlling power, free from delusion, free from ego and possessiveness, then abandoning both subject to prakṛti (nature) and time, he remains indifferent, meaning he becomes devoid of inclination towards sound, etc., even for accomplished purposes. This states that abiding with the manifested eightfold qualities is the essential state, and for such a self, the experience of the supreme Brahman of unsurpassed bliss intrinsic to one's self, or the experience of one's self as the body of the supreme Brahman, removes the inclination towards sound, etc. (3)

As for the question, "How is there no liberation in worshipping the Lord, given the similarity in bodily connection with the jīva?" The answer, which will be explained, is that the body of the jīva subject to time and māyā (illusion) is material and dependent on karma, while the Lord has a divine form assumed by His own will, not material. To explain how the nature of the Lord, distinct from the jīva subject to time and māyā, is known, he says "ātmatattva" (essence of the self). Avyalīka (sincere), treated with respect, worshipped, the Lord, showing His non-material, personal form to four-faced Brahmā, for the purpose of purifying the knowledge of the self, for clarifying the true nature of the Supreme Self distinct from the jīva, spoke the true words which I will now relate. If the reading is "adarśayad rūpam" (showed the form), the meaning is "as He showed, so I will speak." (4)

Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā

By the grace of the four-faced Lord, he gained the vision of that world. Without that, the vision of his true form, the union of prakṛti (nature) and jīva (individual soul), and their dependence on him - through the description of such glories, devotion alone is the cause of melting the heart of Hari. Therefore, devotion to Hari should be performed. This is expounded in that chapter. At the beginning, in response to "yaddhātumata", it says "ātma-māyām". Without the Lord's will, which is dependent on him and takes the form of the guṇas (qualities) of sattva (goodness) and others, and without prakṛti (primordial nature), there would be no connection of meaning or bodily connection for the jīva (individual soul), who is distinct from the objects denoted by the word "dhātu" (element) of the Supreme, who is experiential and of the nature of knowledge, and thus inherently bodiless. Similarly, in a dream, without the Lord's will determined by the awakening of vāsanās (latent impressions) and the states of rajas (passion) and tamas (ignorance), the dream objects' connection and the vision of elephants, horses, etc. would not be possible for the jīva (individual soul) who is the seer. Therefore, in the connection of the body with the jīva, the Lord's will is the primary cause, and prakṛti with its guṇas is the secondary cause. This is indicated in the answer by "añjasā" (quickly), which means the cause of the bodiless jīva's embodiment. It suggests the evidence that the Lord's will is primary, without which nothing can happen. Or "añjasā" may mean this very truth, as the dream has reality due to its ability to produce effects, and the unreal cannot have that connection. Here, māyā (illusion) is not described as having the characteristic of being indescribable, which is skilled in accomplishing the unaccomplished, but rather the Lord's will itself is indicated. This is also stated in the śruti (scripture) and explained by the knowers of that, and from the sūtra (aphorism) as well. Thus, Yādava says "añjasā tattve" (quickly in truth). (1)

Now, how does the bodiless jīva begin a body through the guṇas of prakṛti determined by the Lord's will? To answer this, it says "bahurūpa" (many-formed). By the Lord's will, from beginningless time, reveling in the guṇas of this prakṛti and in their effects, the body and senses, like "clay in a pot", existing bound by the subtle body composed of sattva and other guṇas, at the time of creation, having many forms such as human, divine, and demonic bodies, with the great elements, ego, etc. as the material cause, though himself unmodified along with the modified prakṛti, due to identification with it, considering himself modified, he appears as if many-formed, as if in human and other forms. He considers himself "I am a human" or "I am a god" and thinks "I" and "mine" in the body and bodily things due to the mixing of the three guṇas. As it is said, "Their mixed state is the notion of 'I' and 'mine'." Therefore, the puruṣa (spirit), though eternally of the nature of consciousness, appears as if human, etc., only through prakṛti modified into human and other forms. Thus, the meaning is that the beginning of the body through the elements is appropriate due to the ego-sense in the subtle body composed of the three guṇas determined by the Lord's will. (2)

Having thus explained the manner of bondage, now it describes the manner of the jīva's liberation, saying "yahīti". The word "ca" is in the sense of "eva". When this jīva, by the totality of means such as detachment, with the knowledge of the Lord arising, having directly realized his own nature, delights in his own greatness which is beyond time and māyā, which is free from the contact with their power, which is of the nature of existence, consciousness, and bliss, he indeed delights without obstruction. In his own nature, then the delusion that had come is dispelled along with ignorance and its effects. Having abandoned both - māyā which brings old age etc., and which is the cause of the body's beginning, and its root which is saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) - he remains in an exalted state, meaning he is liberated from saṃsāra which brings lowness. As it is said, "When he knows his own nature free from time and prakṛti, by the grace of Vāsudeva, then he becomes liberated." This refutes the misinterpretation that "abandoning the state with qualities, he attains the state without qualities", as there is no evidence for that. (3)

Here too, what is the evidence? Thinking thus, it says that the Bhāgavata spoken by the Lord is indeed the evidence for such liberation, saying "ātmeti". The Bhāgavata Purāṇa which Vyāsa, your honor, spoke for the purification, or for the certain knowledge of the faultlessness, or for the experience of the truth of the self - whether the supreme self or the individual self - which is of the nature of existence, consciousness, and bliss, without superimposition, that given, as stated, is the means of liberation, the means of knowledge, the scripture. It is not deluding, therefore being spoken by the Lord, it is evidence for liberation. The rest means "I will speak in answer to your questions." First, desiring to describe the Padma Kalpa, it answers the question "dadṛśe na tadrūpam" (its form was not seen) saying "brahmaṇa iti". Hari, worshipped with sincere devotion which is the cause of joy, showed his own form to the four-faced Brahmā born from his navel-lotus. This is the connection with "kam iṭi". (4)

Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā

Even for the jīva (individual soul) in the form of experience, as per statements like "the deluded jīva [thinks] 'I am the self'", due to the inappropriateness of delusion etc., experiencership is also obtained through its inherent power - considering this, he establishes the conclusion. ātmamāyām (self-illusion). It should also be understood that in mere experiencership, there would be no connection with māyā (illusion), and the analogy of the dream-seer would not apply. [1] [2]

In one's own greatness means in the cause of one's own greatness. It means that time and māyā (illusion) also [exist] in the supreme, which is the substratum of all those principles. From the Bhagavad Gītā: "Those who surrender unto Me alone cross beyond this māyā (illusion)." And from the words of Śrī Ṛṣabhadeva: "As long as one is not attached to Me, Vāsudeva, with love, one is not freed from the connection with the body." Both [refer to] māyā (illusion) in the form of body etc. [3]

That which is indeed enjoyment in one's own greatness, which is the true nature of the supreme Brahman in the form of Śrī Vigraha (divine form), revealing and directly manifesting to Brahmā, He taught in four verses, meaning He revealed through words and experience. For what purpose? For determining the truth of the self, the jīva (individual soul). It means also to instruct other jīvas (individual souls) through that. Or, for determining the truth, the reality of the self, Śrī Bhagavān (the Supreme Lord) Himself. He states the reason for such grace: avyalīka (without deception). By this, He answers the question related to Bhagavān's form. [4]

Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā

Speaking as the answerer of the first question and responding to the second, He expanded upon the origin of the Bhāgavata in the ninth [verse] through four verses. [0]

What was asked by "From what did you create" - whether the jīva's (individual soul's) connection with the body is without cause or with cause - He answers to that. Without the māyā (illusion) of the self, Hari, the beginningless power of avidyā (ignorance), the jīva's (individual soul's) connection with the body, senses, etc., would not be possible, just as the dream-seer's connection with the dream body would not be possible without ignorance, because knowledge belongs to the experiential self, thus separate from the body, etc. But through māyā (illusion), with its inconceivable power skilled in accomplishing the impossible, the connection with the body becomes possible. [1]

Thus, when the connection with the body occurs through the power of avidyā (ignorance), what would the jīva (individual soul) be like? He says: bahurūpa (multiform), like the forms of child, youth, etc., and the forms of gods, humans, etc. The word 'iva' (like) means that since the jīva (individual soul) is in the form of a particle of consciousness, it is not so in reality. Bahurūpayā (multiform) means the cause of the jīva's multiformity, having many functions. As it is said, "The power of the kṣetrajña (knower of the field) exists in varying degrees." [2]

Thus, just as the jīva's (individual soul's) saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) is due to random māyā (illusion), similarly, the jīva's (individual soul's) liberation from saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) is due to random bhakti (devotion) when love arises. He says this in "yaha". The word 'vā' means 'eva' (indeed). "Yaha vā sve mahimni rameta" means: Truly, abandoning enjoyment in one's own body etc., which is the object of ego, and enjoying in what is truly one's own object of ego. In greatness means in the form of greatness due to its superiority. In the supreme, free from changes caused by time and free from the principles of mahat etc. created by māyā (illusion), one should enjoy, be attached. This should be understood as Bhagavān's abode, His divine form, associates, etc., as per the upcoming statements like "where there is no time" and "where there is no māyā". Since enjoyment is inseparable from bhakti (devotion), if it's interpreted as "through randomly obtained bhakti", then both time and māyā (illusion) - the unchanging created by time and the subtle body created by māyā - having abandoned, there (from that) one becomes detached. As it is said: "By which the deluded jīva (individual soul), though transcendental, considers the self as made of three guṇas (qualities of nature) and undergoes the problems created by it. Vyāsa composed the Sātvata Saṃhitā for directly pacifying these problems through bhakti-yoga to Adhokṣaja (the transcendent Lord), which people do not know." [3]

Now, in the principle beyond time and māyā (illusion), what should one enjoy? To this, he says: For the purification, the knowledge of the principle of the self, one's own principle, like "for the purification of the tenth". Or, for the purification of the principles of the jīva (individual soul) like consciousness etc., revealing the true, pure conscious form, He taught the four verses of the Bhāgavata. Here, the reason is: revered through sincere devotion, without deceit. Due to the word 'yat' belonging to the latter sentence, there's no need for the word 'tat'. The essence is: The jīva's (individual soul's) connection with the body is due to ignorance, while the Lord's manifestation of the play-body of pure consciousness is through yogamāyā (divine illusion) - this great distinction is stated, say the venerable Svāmī's feet. Thus, by "From whose navel the lotus arose" etc., some distinction between the jīva's body and the Lord's body is stated as the answer to the second question. [4]

Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ

Now, to answer the royal question using the narration of Śrīmad Bhāgavata itself, desiring to speak about the subtle Bhāgavata which is the root of it, spoken by the Lord to Brahmā, he says "ātmamāyā" etc. in response to the questions: "O Brahman, is the beginning of his body by elements due to chance or by some cause?", "If bondage and liberation of the self are determined by its nature", "It seems difficult for even the Supreme Lord to grant enjoyment and liberation due to the non-distinction of connection with the body of a bound soul", and "You should also explain that world in which that person sleeps".

There, he says that the beginning of the body for the soul is not by chance, but with a cause: The connection of the object, the connection with the body etc., the union of the self, the individual soul which is different from the body, senses, mind, intellect, life force etc., of the knowledgeable nature, the supreme, could not happen without the māyā (illusion) of the Supreme Self. The connection with the body etc. is only through the Lord's māyā, not without cause, as it is impossible due to the occurrence of connection everywhere. The example there is "like a dream-seer". Just as the connection of the body for a dream-seer could not happen without the māyā of the Supreme Self, similarly, the Supreme Self alone creates the good or bad body etc. for the dream-seer through māyā, which is His own power. The dream object is not without cause, as it would lead to the occurrence of all creations everywhere. Nor is its creator its seer, as undesirable body connections are seen. The elaboration should be seen in Vedāntakaustubha. || 1 ||

He shows bondage in "bahurūpa iva" (as if having many forms). Though distinct from doubt etc., though of the nature of knowledge itself, he appears as if having many forms due to māyā, which is the cause, in many ways through the differences of body, senses, mind, intellect etc. of gods, humans, and others. He is perceived as if having various forms, thinking "I am a god", "I am a human", "I am young", "I am old", etc. Delighting in the qualities of this māyā, he thinks "I" and "mine", becomes bound by the sense of "I" in the body and by the sense of "mine" in things related to it. || 2 ||

He speaks of liberation in "yarhy". Then, when through the worship of the feet of a guru who is learned in the Vedas and established in Brahman, one becomes free from delusion, possessing discrimination of the nature of self, non-self, and Supreme Self etc., when one delights in his own greatness in the Supreme, in Brahman, in the Lord who is the cause of the world, through meditation etc., having abandoned both "I" and "mine", reaching the supreme abode through the path of light etc., he remains transcendent, having manifested his nature of being free from sin etc. By this, it is said that he abides as liberated by nature. || 3 ||

Now, the answer to "It seems difficult for even the Supreme Lord to grant enjoyment and liberation due to the non-distinction of connection with the body of a bound soul" is given, showing that the bound soul has a material, impermanent body, while the Supreme Lord has a non-material, eternal form. He says "ātmatattvavi śuddhyartham" (for the purification of the essence of the self), indicating that devotion to the Lord through austerities etc. is the means of liberation. Worshipped with sincere austerities etc., being pleased, showing the true form to Brahmā, the four-faced one, he speaks of that worship through austerities etc. for the purification of the essence of the self, of the soul desiring liberation, meaning for the purification due to the manifestation of the great ignorance, for the sake of liberation. || 4 ||

Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā

In the ninth [chapter], he further explains the nature of jīva (individual soul) and brahman (supreme soul). [It] removes doubts and [confirms] the truth of the previous statements. (1)

The traditional narrative of this is understood through purity, not otherwise. This is explained to eliminate doubts. (2)

Since other doubts are rooted in the uncertainty about jīva and brahman, he first addresses the doubt about jīva in three verses. As he said, "O brahman, how does this jīva, which is without dhātu (element), relate to the body? How does it become a jīva?" This is implied by the word "other". When jīva-ness occurs, many will exist in relation to the body. So first, he explains jīva-ness.

The Lord, who is of the nature of eternal bliss, is present in millions of forms. Another is of the nature of consciousness. His māyā (illusion) is twofold, as previously explained. The māyā of the consciousness form is bewildering. It bewilders its own person and leads to jīva-ness. Jīva is one who merely strives to maintain life. Indeed, bewildered by māyā and distressed, he relies on the sūtrātman (thread-self) which is in the form of ten prāṇas (vital airs) in the creation made by the eternally blissful one. Then he is called jīva. The suffix 'ac' is added to the root "jīv" (to live) in the sense of agent.

Though of the nature of consciousness, being separate from the blissful form, he connects with it thinking he will attain bliss through that connection, being bewildered by māyā for the sake of bliss. This division is due to the wish "May I become many, may I be born". The wish too is the very nature capable of becoming everything, and also becomes wish-form. There, the power of the sat (existence) aspect is in the form of action. The māyā of the cit (consciousness) aspect is bewildering. The māyā of the ānanda (bliss) aspect is the cause of the world. The unified threefold power of saccidānanda is expressed by words like bhā, tva, tala, etc.

Thus, the Lord's state is created from his own nature. It should not be doubted that this always happens, as there is no time as the causing factor. When time arises again, being regulated by that very [Lord], it will not always happen. Since it has already occurred before, due to association with that, even desire etc. have occurred. The aspects of desire etc., being parts of that [Lord], establish those [aspects] as always uniform.

Thus, the Lord takes on a part of that [māyā] in the form of desire. That very desire is mentioned in the śruti as "He desired". By that [māyā] which is of the nature of division, the attributes of saccidānanda, dividing themselves, also divide their substratum. Then that Lord becomes having hands and feet everywhere and attains form. Though divided, united with that [māyā], he becomes as if undivided and whole, as the effect-form is small in comparison to that.

All three forms are called pūrṇa (full). Hence the sat form culminates in each effect individually. By the wish "May I be born", they are born in the form of excellence and inferiority. Among them, ānanda is superior. The other two are born serving it. Then their attributes, knowledge and action, became forms of the Lord's power. Then that ānanda became possessed of the powers of knowledge and action. When the power of the cid-aṃśa (consciousness aspect) goes into ānanda (bliss), the knowledge attribute deludes it, then it becomes jīva (individual soul). The sat-aṃśa (existence aspect), due to its action power going away, becomes unmanifest. Later it is manifested by the fundamental actions. Afterwards, when its attributes are obscured in that [māyā], it also becomes obscured. Then the sound produced by the primal desire remains manifested in the intellects of jīva and bhagavat (God). In jīva or in bhagavat. Thus, although of the nature of consciousness, it is manifested and obscured by knowledge which is a part of the knowledge power. Its effort, however, is dependent on another, so it always remains for the purpose of grasping jīva. If bhagavat gives it that full knowledge power, then it abandons that deluding māyā. And it abandons effort. It abides in its own nature and in the nature of consciousness. And it becomes independent. But it does not have the power of creating the world. That māyā power does not belong to it. There is also no superiority, because only bliss is superior. Inferiority exists only apparently. United with bliss, it also becomes blissful. If it would grasp this by its own nature, this process, established by śrutārthāpatti (implication) in accordance with all Vedic statements, is useful everywhere. Otherwise, the process contradicts the statements. We will explain the difference of jīva later. This is what he says - Without the self's māyā, the deluding [power] of one's own self of the nature of consciousness. Of this consciousness. The address "O King" indicates compassion, [implying] "you have ignorance of your true nature due to your kingly nature." He states such a particularity that the connection with the body occurs only after delusion - "of the experiencing self". In reality, the experiencing self has the highest power gone to bhagavat, from which delusion will occur. Otherwise, like the connection with objects, even delusion would not occur. Without delusion, it's impossible to explain the connection with objects by mere absence of power. And that is innate power. Its culmination as a defect is due to inferiority. Even when jīva gains power, the removal of its inferiority will not happen separately. Thus in delusion, the connection with objects like the body easily occurs. He clarifies the connection with objects of the deluded one with an example - "like a dream-seer". Deluded by sleep, one sees and identifies with the illusory creation made by bhagavat. Since sleep has no origin from anywhere, having been created by the root māyā of bhagavat, it quickly disappears, then one wakes up. Thus having explained his delusion through the dream example, he states a particularity in the exemplified - "This" completely. Dream states occur in between here. But this one [state] persists through millions of births. (1)

Thus having explained just the connection with it, he explains its effect - "as if multiform". For that illusory root māyā becomes multiform. Thus connected, this one also becomes multiform himself. The word "as if" is because it does not fully convey its true nature. Then for the sake of bliss, delighting in its qualities. Desiring to grasp its qualities. He says "mama" (mine). "Mama" regarding the qualities. "Aham" (I) regarding māyā. These two words conveying the connection impart meaning to his own nature. (2)

Thus having stated its effect, he states the means of abandoning it - "When indeed". When, sometimes, due to the will of the fundamental one. "Indeed" means certainly. In one's own greatness, in one's own glorious form of bhagavat, in bliss. In the controller of māyā which creates the world and disturbs the qualities. Having removed their effect by his own will and remaining graciously, if he would delight. Even then, if bhagavat does not fully reveal his greatness to him, if he would not doubt his lordship, then free from doubt he abandons both. Abandoning the deluding māyā, the qualities, its effect like the body, or the sense of "I" and "mine", he remains indifferent, he does not become attached to it, then there is liberation - this is the meaning. (3)

Thus having removed the doubt about jīva, he removes the doubt about brahman from "For the purification of the knowledge of the self" up to "is never deluded" - Here too liberation has been explained by us through the process. The true nature itself is explained next. There, first the objection that brahman is equal to jīva due to connection with a body, or the impossibility of being the self of all, is refuted here. For the purification of the true nature, the real form, of the self. To produce special purification, characterized by true knowledge, by removing purification characterized by appearing otherwise through worldly knowledge and worldly existence of worldly people. As he says. Not only speech, but showing ṛta (cosmic order), satya (truth), one's own nature of bliss to brahman, as he says - this is the connection. The reason for showing and speaking - "Pleased by sincere vows to be heard". Served or satisfied by sincere vows. (4)

Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ

Now, wishing to explain the ninth chapter, they connect it with the previous chapter and state the purpose of this chapter, saying "The ninth" and so on. The verse is clear in meaning, and thus the connection is through objection and resolution, that is the meaning.

Now, in response to the question "Why is the lineage story told here?", they state the purpose of telling it, saying "In the lineage" and so on. When this individual's purity increases, the meaning stated by the Lord is understood, and not in any other way. For this reason, the lineage story is narrated to remove the king's doubt and, by way of indication, to prevent the arising of other doubts. This is the meaning.

In "ātmamāyam" (ātmamāyam), thus. Having summarized the chapter's meaning in the verse, to explain it they first state the reason for removing the individual's doubt, saying "Of others" and so on. And thus, because removing the individual's doubt is conducive to knowledge of Brahman, and because the king had previously asked a question for that very purpose, it first removes that doubt. This is the meaning.

By the word "other" is obtained, that is, obtained by the word indicating the sustenance of life. There, in such a doubt. From this, for this reason. In response to the question "How does it establish individuality?", to explain the meaning of Śuka's statement, which is difficult to understand without knowledge of the creation process, they establish the Vedic creation process, first establishing individuality, saying "There" and so on.

There, in Brahman of existence, consciousness and bliss. Of that, of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss. In response to the question "How does it become deluded?", they state its nature through its effects, saying "It" and so on. "Its own person" means one who has self-conceit. In response to the question "What is called a jīva (jīva)?", they say "Lives" and so on.

"Of the nature of ten kinds of prāṇa (prāṇa)" means either because apāna (apāna) and others are its variations, or the ten senses are denoted by the word prāṇa (prāṇa). Or it supports them in that way. They explain the process of word formation, saying "jīva-prāṇa (jīva-prāṇa)" and so on. Thus, the previously stated definition is established. This is the meaning.

Now, in response to "How can that which is of the nature of knowledge become deluded?", they say "In knowledge" and so on. Thus, delusion occurs only due to that connection. This is the meaning. This much meaning is summarized in the verse "ātmamāyam".

Now, this would be appropriate if the division etc. of Brahman of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss were authoritative. Otherwise, however, as in other systems where many selves are established by reasoning in the form of the arrangement of bondage, liberation, etc., which is seen in scriptures like "The eternal of the eternals" and in other philosophical systems due to being limited by beginningless ignorance somewhere, those individuals accepted as eternally different would not be appropriate as adventitious individuality. In response to this expectation, they say "And this" and so on.

For here, in the Taittirīya and other śrutis (śruti), two forms of desire are stated. Of these, by the first, division is obtained. That very thing is stated in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka as "As from a fire, tiny sparks fly forth" and so on. And by the second, the state of high and low, otherwise, since multiplicity was stated before, what would be the meaning of the word indicating excellence, as the abundance of creation would also be obtained by force of meaning from that alone? And because in the Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa it is taught by the explanation of the forms of Brahmin, Kṣatriya, etc., therefore the meaning of the word "pra" is indeed the state of high and low.

And there is no contradiction with the śruti (śruti) "The eternal of the eternals". Because later in "The one conscious among the conscious, who grants the desires of many", by the revelation of multiplicity and eternality as conscious, such is not intended as individuality. And there is no contradiction of multiplicity prior to division, because like space and its regions, due to identity, even in the state of non-division, that is appropriate, so there is no contradiction. And there is no mixing, because the difference in nature is subsequent to the desire "May I be born", so before that it does not exist, and in liberation it ceases, and in between it is distinguished, so it can never be established. And there is no consequence of Brahman experiencing suffering etc., because everything that is consequent is of its nature, so like "Indeed fire has no heat, nor does snow have coldness" as stated in the Bhikṣu Gītā, that too does not exist. And there is no contradiction in the arrangement, because it is appropriate by the Lord's desire alone.

This, as it is, has been explained by the venerable teacher in the verse of praise to the Veda "If the embodied ones, who are eternal and limitless, were all-pervading" (10-87-30), and that very thing has been elaborated by me in the refutation of the all-pervasiveness of the individual. The argument of beginningless avidyā (ignorance) being limited is refuted in the scholarly assembly itself, as stated in the śruti (sacred texts) and purāṇas (ancient texts) like "bondage through avidyā", because of the indication of its instrumentality, and because it cannot be sustained without its prior existence, as mentioned earlier, there is no trace of doubt in this matter. And the word "ca" (and) here is also inclusive of other divisions. Now, what is called icchā (desire), is it the essential nature, or something else? In the first case, since the essential nature is eternal, its form being so, and the difference of jīvas (individual souls) and their nature of difference, etc. also being so, there would be the fault of mixing up as mentioned earlier, and hence the theory of difference alone would be the conclusion. In the second case, another cause for that (desire) would have to be sought, thus concluding in the theory of difference itself, and the impermanence of desire would ensue. To this doubt, they say "icchā api" (desire also), etc. Then how is the word "desire" used there? To this they say "dharma" (attribute), etc. In the second quarter of the third [verse], "whereby the unheard becomes heard", etc., for the sake of explaining such śrutis, it is considered in two ways. There, in the section on dual characteristics, in various ways, by the analogy of a serpent and its coils, by the force of its own nature alone, it becomes the substratum of contradictory attributes, thus there being no occurrence of difference, the propositional śruti is explained through consideration of the force of evidence. Thereafter, in the section "like before", Brahman was initially unattached and indifferent, then in the form of attributes, then in the form of potency, and then in the form of effects - even in this way, since difference is adventitious and non-existent in the beginning, disregarding the later state and cognizing only the earlier form, this is also explainable - thus it is considered through examination of the force of the subject matter. And this difference in the mode of explanation, for the understanding of the principal and other qualified persons, will be stated here also at the end of the tenth chapter according to the difference of qualifications. Thus, the use of the word is justified in both ways, this is the meaning. Clarifying the many modes of becoming that are desired, they first establish the nature of potency as such, saying "tatra" (there), etc. In the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, it is heard as threefold: "His supreme power is heard as manifold, and natural is his knowledge, strength, and action." The action aspect is the kriyā (action) form of the sat (existence) portion, the jñāna (knowledge) form of the cit (consciousness) portion, and the svarūpabala (inherent strength) form of the ānanda (bliss) portion. Due to the mention of diversity, the threefold potency is also diverse: the strength potency is thus by analysis, the knowledge potency through differences like māyā (illusion) and avidyā (ignorance), and the action potency also through differences in its own aspects of action. This is stated by "tatra" (there), etc., thus there is no room for any doubt. Now, when the becoming of desire, etc. is considered, wouldn't the previously mentioned faults ensue due to the expectation of another cause? To this doubt, they say "tathā bhagavataḥ" (thus of the Lord), etc. "Tathābhāva" means becoming in the form of potency. Now, if this is so, due to the eternality of the essential nature and non-acceptance of auxiliary causes, the potencies would also be eternal, leading to the theory of dualism. There would be the undesirable consequence of lack of detachment and indifference always due to constant desire, and due to unobstructed desire, there would be creation always without occasion for concealment. To this they say "na ca" (and not), etc. "Bhavati" means it becomes the form of potency. And it should not be doubted that in śrutis like "In the beginning, my dear, this was Being alone, one only, without a second", since time is mentioned, indicating its existence always, its non-existence cannot be stated, because it is stated thus only for the sake of understanding. And there is no lack of evidence here. For instance, is the existence of time here enjoined? Or is it restated? Not the first, because it would result in sentence splitting. Not the latter, because these being instructors of creation etc., it is impossible to state that others are prior statements in relation to this, thus restatement is far removed. And it should not be said that the existence of Brahman qualified by time is enjoined, so there is no fault, because of cumbersomeness and because it would contradict other ascertainments. And it should not be said that there is no contradiction since the other ascertainment negates only the existence of principal others, because if so, since the absence of equality and superiority is established from that itself, and since the existence of an inferior second is accepted, the violation of the word "without a second" would be unavoidable. Therefore, the mention of time there is only for the sake of teaching the student about the past, by coloring with time which is cognized as the substratum of all in accordance with post-creation usage. Otherwise, since the student exists in the time of creation, if he ascertains the existence of time, there would be the undesirable consequence of futility of instruction due to lack of understanding of past events. And if in śrutis like "This was indeed the Self alone in the beginning; there was nothing else whatsoever that winked", the negation of a slight second is accepted, then the contradiction of proposition, example, and best person would be unavoidable. Therefore, since time does not exist at the beginning of creation, there is no room for the previously mentioned doubt. Thus, if time were prior to desire etc., there would be no negation of others in śrutis like "That alone existed". If it were caused by another attribute, proposition etc. would not have been stated in the said śruti. Since it is thus, its non-existence and in its absence, the lack of what brings about, there is no constant desire - thus there is no fault whatsoever, this is the meaning. Now, even so, in statements like "It thought, It desired", since time is restated as a qualifier, and since the destruction of desire etc. is not mentioned, if desire is eternal after that, there would be the undesirable consequence of creation always, thus detachment and indifference would certainly cease. To this they say "jāta" (born), etc. "Due to being the controller" means due to being the destroyer of independence. Thus, it will happen in its favor, it will not happen in indifference and unfavorability, this is the meaning. Now, if time, the controller of desire, comes later, then prior to that, in its independence, since effort and division are also established, the previously mentioned fault would remain as it is. To this they say "pūrvam eva" (even before), etc. Indeed, time is not born after desire etc., because it is mentioned in the śruti only as a qualifier of desire etc. It is not possible to assert here the instructional nature indicated by the scriptural context "sadeve" (in the beginning there was only existence), due to the absence of the determining word "advitīya" (non-dual) and others. Nor can posteriority be suspected based on scriptures like "sarve nimeṣā jajñire" (all moments were born), as only the parts of time are mentioned there. Therefore, since that which is without division of parts was born even before other effects, and since the divisions of effort were also born due to its association, desire and other qualities that are the qualifying aspects of time, which is the qualified entity, are always uniform, subject to appearance and disappearance, and mutually beneficial. The Lord Himself establishes them, so being controlled by the Lord, there is no room for any fault. This is the meaning.

Now, if it is questioned how it is said that division is by desire, when the scripture "bahu syāmi" (may I become many) is read as beginning with desire, they say "tathā ca" (and thus) and so on. The Lord accepts a portion of the power of time in the form of desire, in the very manner stated in "bahu syāmi" (may I become many) and so on. That very desire is He Himself, as in the lexicons, desire itself is mentioned as His name. Just as in action, expression by another word is not faulty in consideration. Hence, it is stated in the Tattvasūtra: "abhidhyopadeśāt" (from the teaching of meditation). Therefore, there is no fault even in saying "by desire". Thus far, supremacy is determined.

Having thus established desire, they determine its object and establish personhood, saying "tasya" (its) and so on. Being divided itself, it also divides its substratum, meaning that being divided themselves in the form of qualities, following the maxim "prakāśāśrayavat" (like the substratum of light), they make their substratum active, knowing, and blissful. They describe its nature at that time saying "tad" (that) and so on. Though threefold, it is one. If there is division in this way, due to its being fragmented, there would be contradiction with the scriptures that speak of its fullness. To address this, they say "bhinno'pi" (though divided) and so on. "tayā" means by desire. "trīṇy api" (all three) and so on. In the scriptural passage "pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṃ pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate, pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate" (That is full, this is full. From fullness, fullness comes forth. Taking fullness from fullness, fullness indeed remains), fullness is spoken of by the word "pūrṇa". If fullness of only the undivided is not spoken of for the three, then fullness is simply superiority in relation to effects. Thus there is no contradiction with scripture. This is the meaning.

The meaning of the scripture is: "adaḥ" (that) refers to the imperceptible, knowledge-only, dense Brahman which is full, pervasive like space. "idam" (this) refers to the visible Brahman of the nature of existence, which is full as before. "pūrṇam" means all-pervading. From the full, the full blissful Brahman is worshipped. "Acyate" means it is worshipped, served by the full forms of existence and consciousness, the perishable and imperishable persons. Thus the fruit of knowledge and so on is stated. Taking the previously mentioned full (pūrṇa) qualities of knowledge and so on, by its grace, attaining fullness alone remains – one becomes non-different from it by attaining union with it. Others have explained that from the full, unconditioned, the full, conditioned arises. This is not agreeable to us as we do not accept the theory of limiting adjuncts. They state the indicator of fullness in what is perceived, saying "anta eva" (at the end) and so on. This is said as an example with the implication that manifestation is also similar for existence and bliss. Thus the primary form of "bahu syāmi" (may I become many) is explained.

Hereafter, they explain "prajāyeya" (may I be born) saying "prajāyeya" and so on. "Jātā" (born) refers to existence, consciousness and bliss born thus. In response to how it is superior, they say "tataḥ" (from that) and so on. Hereafter, they briefly expound the subsequent effect of the two desires, saying "tadā cidaṃśasya" (then of the consciousness portion) and so on. "Tada" refers to the time of redivision of the three. "Tasya" refers to the consciousness portion. "Jñānadharmasyeti" refers to the quality called knowledge included in what is denoted by the word "bhaga" (fortune). "Jīvatvam" means the state of being the principal individual soul, that is, the nature of the tattva of person. All individual souls are portions of this alone, and their state of being souls remains until liberation, it does not cease entirely. To indicate this, they state the arrangement of the existence portion saying "sadaṃśasya" (of the existence portion) and so on. "Avyaktatām" means the state of being the tattva of primordial nature. They describe the manner of its manifestation saying "paścān mūle" (later in the root) and so on. The word "mūla" refers to the full form of the existence portion. "Yathāyatham" means according to the Vedic and Puranic methods.

If this is so, since the desire to protect and the desire to destroy are not mentioned in the Vedas, according to the Vedic view there would only be continuous creation, never preservation or dissolution. Anticipating this objection, they derive those two also from this very desire, saying "paścāt tasyām" (later in that) and so on. "Tatkṛtadharma" refers to the action portion created by it. In the form of pot, cloth, wall, etc. "Svayam" means the manifest existence portion becomes unmanifest. Thus, by the form of "bahu syāmi" (may I become many) alone, preservation is established. By the form of the desire "prajāyeya" (may I be born) alone, the manifestation of another form and the disappearance of the previous form are established. By the form of the desire to create alone, the other two desires for preservation and dissolution are also implicitly obtained. Thus there is no fault whatsoever. This is the meaning.

Hence later, when only favor and neglect should be mentioned in "yadanugrahataḥ santi na santi yadupekṣayā" (they exist by whose favor, they do not exist by whose neglect), the disappearance of action and the disappearance of object are exemplified. The disappearance of action is like the disappearance of water on the cessation of the action of pouring, the disappearance of the spread of a mat on the cessation of the action of spreading. The disappearance of object due to the disappearance of its qualities is clearer, like the disappearance of a pot due to the disappearance of its neck shape, etc. Even with difference in nature, this very desire is the instigator. Hence in the Nibandha it is said: "Growth, transformation, and also decay, disappearance of the previous form, and origin of the second, both unified in the world, are declared by growth, etc." Now, if we accept the view of manifestation and disappearance, in the initial state of manifestation and during dissolution, the description of the previous form ceases. Similarly, in the intermediate state of disappearance, all its interactions would be eliminated. To address this concern, they explain the method of non-obstruction as follows:

In that, referring to the revealing action. "Born" means born from that connection. Thus, due to the existence of the word, there is no cessation of interaction. Due to the dislike of obstruction in disappearance because of the destructibility of the intellect, they state an alternative view: "The individual..."

By this, all the manifestation-disappearance theories discussed by the learned should be understood as supported. Thus, leaving aside the arrangement of the sat (existence) aspect, they extend it to the cit (consciousness) aspect in different ways, saying "Thus..."

Just as the sat aspect is manifested through the action aspect, which is the power of the root sat aspect, by worldly and scriptural methods, similarly, the jīva (individual soul), which is of the nature of consciousness, is also manifested by the special knowledge based on the knower and means of knowledge, which are of the nature of the deluding karma aspect, which is the power of the root knowledge aspect, as will be explained in the Subodhinī of the third Skandha.

As stated, "Due to birth as self, for a person, in all states abundantly, they call it the acceptance of objects, just like in dreams and fantasies," one manifests, being born while identifying thus. As stated in the verse, "Death is absolute forgetfulness," abandoning that identification in disappearance, and forgetting even the subtle body consisting of mind, vital airs, etc., one indeed becomes liberated. So they say, "Effort..."

If the reading is "dependent on that," it means "dependent on God." Thus, even with the cessation of debt, liberation does not occur due to the existence of effort, meaning the state of being a jīva does not cease. This much meaning will be summarized in the second verse.

Now, if it depends on effort, wouldn't there be no liberation? Anticipating this question, they explain the method of liberation: "And if he..." The word "sa" (he) is connected with "tām" (that) later. Following the sūtra "exempt from worldly affairs," they say "The world..."

"Of that" - here, if the reading is "of that," it should be explained as "of consciousness in the form of jīva." Thus, even though equal to God in attaining one's true nature, etc., as stated in the Brahmāṇḍa verse: "The qualities of Viṣṇu for non-delusion are: form, consciousness as body, faultlessness, and gradation is also said even for the liberated," - that is the meaning. Thus, even in sāyujya (union) without bliss, it is indeed in the form of feet, etc. Everything is well-established. This is summarized in the third verse.

By this, it should be known that what is stated in the Vidvanmaṇḍana, "At the very time of the production of the jīva..." etc., is justified. And all types of liberation are thus. Thus, in accepting the creation process, they state the authority and quality: "This..."

In Śruti statements like "In the beginning, my dear, this was only existence," "In the beginning, this was only the Self, one alone," "He, in the form of a person, looked around and saw nothing other than the Self," the existence of only one in the beginning of creation and its agency is understood. In statements like "It saw," "It desired," the will alone is understood as the instrument, and its form is always described as "Let me become many, let me procreate."

By this, its being the material cause is also established. By the Śruti "It made itself by itself" and by sūtras like "Due to the modification of the Self," "Non-difference from that, due to words of beginning" etc., it is thus ascertained. By the Pūrṇa Śruti, the fullness of the three is stated.

Beginning with "As from a fire, tiny sparks fly forth," and concluding with "All selves fly forth," and "Having entered with this living self, let me evolve names and forms," and "One quarter of Him is all beings" - by these Śrutis, and by smṛtis and sūtras like "The eternal living entity in this world is indeed My fragment," "A part, due to the different designations" etc., its being a part is established.

Bondage by ignorance, "Of My one part alone which is the living entity, O great sage, there is bondage by beginningless ignorance and liberation by knowledge" - by such Śrutis and smṛtis, bondage by māyā is established.

"He sees that Ṛta (cosmic order), free from sorrow, the greatness of the Lord, by the grace of the Creator," "He is attainable only by the one whom He chooses" - by such Śrutis, and by smṛtis like "Those who surrender unto Me alone cross over this māyā" etc., liberation is through the attainment of knowledge etc. only by the grace of the Lord.

By Śrutis like "All jīvas are of all natures, yet limited" etc., and by the aforementioned Brahmāṇḍa statement, gradation is thus established. Among these, whichever is not accepted, the statement expressing it is interpreted differently - this śrutārthāpatti (implication from Śruti) is established and is used everywhere in Śruti, Purāṇa, and Tantra.

The statements mentioned in this are the authority, and universal applicability is the quality - this is the meaning.

"Otherwise, the process" means: Brahman is only the efficient cause and does not transform, the effect is produced, the jīva is eternally different, and liberation is just the absence of the perception of difference in non-separation. The jīva and the inert are the body of Brahman, while Brahman is the possessor of the body, and the body and its possessor have an inseparable relationship always, like a pot and potness. Non-duality is indeed characterized by this inseparable relationship. Brahman's transformation is only through the body, not directly. The jīva's being a part is due to being a part as a qualifier. Liberation too is just the absence of the perception of difference in non-separation.

By Śrutis like "This Self is Brahman," "Made of knowledge," "That which is immediate and direct" etc., the jīva is indeed Brahman. The perception of difference is only due to māyā, as per the Śruti "By māyā, it appears as something else." The prapañca (visible world) is false due to being a transformation of māyā (illusion), as stated in śruti (revealed text) like "This is the knowledge of the entire world." Even Īśvara (God) is associated with māyā. Brahman (ultimate reality), being attributeless, appears due to beginningless association with avidyā (ignorance). Liberation is attaining one's true nature through destruction of avidyā and its effects by knowledge, like remembering a forgotten necklace on one's neck. This is the system of Mādhva, Rāmānuja, and Śaṅkara. Similar systems of other philosophical schools should be understood, but are not described here to avoid prolixity. This refutes all aforementioned and similar statements. Thus, the previously stated system should be respected.

If the creation process and essential nature are the same, how do individuals differ in results? To address this, they say "jīva" (individual soul) etc. After explaining everything for understanding, they expound on the verse starting with "etadeva" (this indeed). "Of the conscious form" explains the latter part. This refers back to "asya" (of this) in the question verse "yaddhātumato" 2187 to remind of it.

"Ignorance of true nature" means ignorance of the true nature of jīva, māyā, etc. The rest about impossibility of connection with the body should be understood from the original. Asked why it's impossible, they say "delusion" etc. "Such" means suitable for delusion.

Since the aggregate serves another's purpose, why not accept its connection to the body either naturally or through beginningless avidyā, given ability? They reply: "Otherwise" etc. "Otherwise" means without movement of ability called knowledge denoted by "bhaga" (fortune). "Would not be" means like the object, it too would not exist without self-knowledge.

Then without ability, why not have unwanted connection with a qualified object without delusion? They say: "Delusion" etc. Delusion means false knowledge. Without it, mere lack of knowledge-ability would result in inertness like a tree stump, not bodily connection. So it's necessary, and thus projecting māyā is also necessary.

Asked about the cause of delusion simultaneous with ability obscuration, they say: "And innate power is that." Proximity itself is the cause. If proximity is causal, that power should be positive due to knowledge proximity, not negative. They reply: "Of that" etc. "Due to inferior nature" means from the desire "may I be born." It's negative due to producing inferior effects.

If so, effort should be for gaining ability, not transcending māyā. They say: "Of the jīva" etc. Being authorized for bondage, its effect is unavoidable like death even if unwanted, due to God's unobstructed will. So effort to transcend it is necessary, as implied later. They state the conclusion: "By that" etc.

Objecting that the deluded only experience confusion, not bodily connection, they say: "Of the deluded" etc. "And identifies" means like that, by the root power one also perceives and identifies with body etc.

If so, let this delusion end naturally like sleep, why use means? They say: "Of sleep" etc. "Due to lack of universal arising" means since sleep is a specific mental state, it doesn't arise universally. But this arises universally, so means are necessary as time etc. can't remove it.

They explain the appropriateness: "In dream" etc. Just as sleep makes one perceive God's creation differently and identify with it, so root consciousness-portion-māyā makes one perceive the creator's māyā-made creation of conscious portions and identify with it. This analogy's meaning.

Its field-showing nature is clear in Nṛsiṃhottaratāpanīya, 9th section. See our commentary on it for details. Thus this verse, by teaching the cause of bodily connection, answers the question "yaddhātumato" 2187 by refuting the chance view. (1)

In bahurūpa. From here onwards, you know, as in 287, it is said with the intention of answering the fourth type of knowledge that was asked about. Thus, tasyā (hers) and so on. sāhyābhāsa (with the semblance of that) and so on. This is also clear in "jīveśāvābhāsena karoti, māyā cāvidyā ca svayameva bhavatī" (creates with the semblance of the individual soul and the Lord, and māyā (illusion) and avidyā (ignorance) become themselves) and so on, as heard there. And its nature as the cause of seeing the world should be understood, not as the material cause, but the material cause is only of the self, as should be understood from that explanation itself. Therefore, the threefold nature of the self is also the source, as heard there. samarpakābhāvād (due to the absence of the presenter) is predicate-focused, meaning "due to the absence of presenting". Thus, this verse describes the type of knowledge related to the connection with the body of oneself and those similar to oneself. || 2 ||

In yahi vāva. Thus, after giving the answer with two, "tyakṣye kalevaraṃ" (I will abandon the body), 228|3, because it was asked with the intention of desire to abandon the body, deciding that this one desires that connection, they say with the intention of stating its means: "Thus, her action" and so on. In one's own glory-form, in the Lord who is bliss, in the Chāndogya passage concerning the "svāpyaya" (merging into oneself) aphorism, "svaṃ apīto bhavati tasmādenaṃ svapitītyācakṣate" (he becomes merged in his own self, therefore they say he sleeps), here the word sva (own) refers to the root form of the individual soul, and the word "mahima" (glory) refers to excellence. And thus, the excellence-form of the self is indeed non-different from that, not the worldly form like elephants and gold. To avoid worldly glory, they state the meaning of parasmin (in the supreme) and so on as: guṇa (quality) and so on. || 3 ||

In ātmatattva (essence of the self). In the previous verse, such a death that was mentioned at a particular time, there the cause is not time, etc., but only the controller, as indicated by "in the supreme, of time and māyā". In this case, even delusion is established as dependent on that, with this intention, the process of all creation, etc., is taught here. And thus there is no fault of partiality, etc., as this is refuted by the statement of self-creation. The abandonment of the present and the arrival of the non-done remain ultimately, and they and others will ward off doubt about Brahman, with this intention they state the next, with the intention of saying: "Thus, the individual soul" and so on. śatrāpī (even here) and so on, in this context, the liberation that is intended is described in this itself. (The inappropriateness of being all-inclusive is of Nārāyaṇa, is the remainder.) laukikānām (of the worldly people) and so on. For those ignorant of the essence of scripture, with proper understanding born of worldly evidence, by worldly intellect in the form and qualities of the Lord, meaning to remove the decisive intellect characterized by the delusion that these too should be determined only by worldly evidence and reasoning. As it is said. The connection should be understood as requested by the statement "I will tell that". || 4 ||

Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī

In the ninth [chapter], for the removal of the king's doubt, Hari spoke. The doctrine known as Bhāgavata is expounded by Śrī Śuka. 1

He answers the question asked by "yadaghātumatah" whether the jīva's (individual soul's) connection with the body is without cause or with cause - ātmamāyām. He addresses [the king] to listen attentively - O King. Without the māyā (illusion) of the self, the supreme soul, the Lord, without the delusion of māyā which is of the nature of the resolve "I shall become many," the connection of the other, which is different from the body, etc., which is of the nature of experience, which is of the nature of existence, consciousness, and bliss, being a part of the Lord, of the nature of consciousness, with the visible object, the body, etc., is not possible, does not occur. He gives an example for this - svapnadraṣṭuriva (like a dream-seer). Just as the connection of a dream-seer, a person, with the dream body, etc., is not possible without the delusion of māyā, so it is here. 1

He says that even the saṃsāra (worldly existence) of the jīva is due to māyā - bahurūpa iva (as if having many forms). By māyā transforming into many forms such as gods, humans, etc., and forms such as animals, trees, etc., the jīva that has entered there also appears as if having many forms. In reality, however, because there are no forms of gods, etc., in the jīva, the word 'iva' (as if) is used. Delighting in the guṇas (qualities), in the effects of the guṇas, in the objects like sound, etc., of this māyā, with a mind attached [to them], he considers them as "mine" and the body as "I". 2

Therefore, when the delusion of māyā is removed by devotion to the Lord, liberation also becomes possible, he says - yarhi. The word 'vā' means 'eva' (indeed). When indeed he delights in the supreme controller of time and māyā, in his own greatness, in the Lord who is his own supreme nature due to being His part, by taking refuge in His feet he makes all senses inclined towards Him, then by His grace, with the cessation of māyā, becoming free from delusion, abandoning both "mine" and "I," he dwells exalted, that is, he dwells in an excellent manner in the world of the Lord, meaning he becomes liberated from saṃsāra. This is also stated in the first skandha (book) by "yayā sammohito jīvaḥ" (by which the jīva is deluded), etc. 3

Having thus explained the connection of the jīva with the body and the state of liberation, in response to what was asked by "āsīdyudāt padma" etc., that since there is no difference in the Lord's connection with the body like the jīva, what is the distinction of the Lord from the jīva by which liberation [is achieved] through His worship, he says - ātmatattve. Showing the ṛtaṃ (truth), the ultimate reality of the nature of existence, consciousness, and bliss, for the purification, for the knowledge of the nature of the self, what means the Lord told to Brahmā, I will tell that, you listen - this is to be construed with the rest. Thus, he states the reason for the instruction by showing the true nature - avyalīka, meaning worshipped with sincere devotion. 4

Hindī Anuvāda

Brahmājī's vision of the Lord's abode and the Lord's instruction of the four-verse Bhāgavata to him

Śrī Śukadeva said - Parīkṣit! Just as the dreamer has no connection with the objects seen in a dream, similarly, the ātmā (soul) which is beyond the body and is of the nature of experience, cannot have any connection with visible objects without māyā (illusion). 1

Due to māyā with its various forms, he appears to have various forms, and when he delights in its guṇas (qualities), he begins to think 'This is I, this is mine'. 2

But when he, free from delusion, begins to delight in his own infinite nature, which is beyond both time that disturbs the guṇas and māyā that produces delusion - when he becomes ātmārāma (self-satisfied), then abandoning the notion of 'I' and 'mine', he becomes completely detached - beyond the guṇas. 3

Pleased with Brahmājī's sincere penance, the Lord showed him His form and instructed him in the supreme truth, the ultimate reality, for the knowledge of ātmatattva (the nature of the self) (I am telling you that same thing). 4