Text 21: Thus when everything existed in darkness, the Lord desired to see Himself and all that was created. Then the eyes, the illuminating god Sun, the power of vision and the object of sight all became manifested.
Text 22: By development of the desire of the great sages to know, the ears, the power of hearing, the controlling deity of hearing, and the objects of hearing became manifested. The great sages desired to hear about the Self.
Text 23: When there was a desire to perceive the physical characteristics of matter, such as softness, hardness, warmth, cold, lightness and heaviness, the background of sensation, the skin, the skin pores, the hairs on the body and their controlling deities (the trees) were generated. Within and outside the skin is a covering of air through which sense perception became prominent.
Text 24: Thereafter when the Supreme Person desired to perform varieties of work, the two hands and their controlling strength, and Indra, the demigod in heaven, became manifested, as also the acts dependent on both the hands and the demigod.
Text 25: Thereupon, because of His desiring to control movement, His legs became manifested, and from the legs the controlling deity named Viṣṇu was generated. By His personal supervision of this act, all varieties of human being are busily engaged in dutiful occupational sacrifice.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
It was without light, devoid of illumination - that is the meaning. "Nirmakṣikam" is an avyayībhāva compound, like "nirmakṣikam". Then the eyes became the place for one desiring to see the self, the body, and other objects. Jyoti (light) is the sun, the deity of the visual sense organ. From that follows the grasping of the quality of form. This indicates that form is the object. [21]
For one who desires to grasp the awakening of that self which is to be understood through the Vedas by sages, from that follows the grasping of sound. [22]
Softness and hardness, lightness and heaviness, up to warmth, slight warmth, and coldness - that is the meaning. Although extreme heat is also a sense object, because there is no desire to touch it, only warmth is mentioned. In the reading "gurūṣṇa", the semivowel substitution is Vedic. For one desiring to touch these properties of objects, the skin became differentiated. The skin, the base of the sense organ, became the covering - that is the meaning. In it, the hair became the sense organ and plants became the deities. When an object is lifted by hand, lightness and heaviness are known, so those too are objects of the skin sense according to the Puranas. There, the air is enclosed inside and outside the skin, remaining surrounding - past participle in active sense. How so? By which touch, the quality obtained by the skin. The meaning is: the skin sense itself, along with itching sensation externally, grasping touch is called "hair". There, plants have divinity. Grasping touch internally and externally, that itself is called "skin". There, air is the deity. Thus it will be said in the third (skandha): "The plants entered as the abode into his differentiated skin, with a portion through the hairs, by which he perceives itching. The guardian of the world, the wind, entered his differentiated skin coverings, with a portion through the vital air, by which he perceives touch." There, "skin coverings" means the skin indicated by the covering. "With a portion through the vital air" means through the skin sense pervaded by the vital air. But in the Bahvṛca śruti, only one portion is specified: "The skin was differentiated; from the skin, hairs; from the hairs, herbs and trees." [23]
The two (arms) grew forth differentiated. Strength is the sense faculty, Indra is the deity, and grasping based on both of those is the action. [24]
Desirable means prescribed. Along with the feet, Yajña (sacrifice), who is Viṣṇu himself, stood as the presiding deity. By "actions", the capacity for action called movement is stated as the sense faculty. "Offering is made" means the substance to be obtained through movement for the sake of sacrifice is stated as the object. By "men", it shows this same method applies to individual souls as well, indicating that men have the eligibility for sacrifice, etc. [25]
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Then by that eye, by this statement "from that follows grasping of quality". [21-22] "Ityarthaḥ" - As it is said: "Know that ā with ṅ is used for slight meaning with an action, in limitation and injunction, and without ṅ in sentences and recollection. But the ā as a particle is twofold, with and without ṅ. Even there, ā with ṅ undergoes sandhi, but not without ṅ." Because here ā has ṅ, sandhi has occurred - that is the idea. "Yaṇādeśa" - When lengthening would be obtained by "a vowel becomes long before a homogeneous vowel", the semivowel substitution here is Vedic. "Ityarthaḥ" - Here the base is figuratively indicated by what is based on it - that is the idea. The past participle suffix kta. Here he reveals the intention: "ayam arthaḥ". There in the Third Skandha verse and here in "ityarthaḥ", this is the explanation in both places, meaning it is one and the same skin. [23]
"Ubhayāśrayam" means dependent on both the sense faculty and deity. [24]
Yajña is a particular deity possessed by Viṣṇu's power. "Svayam" states its primacy compared to other deities. "Gatiṁ" - going, since the verbal meaning "desires to go" is not intended, it means "desires". Although the root meaning which is the quality is primary elsewhere according to Anubhūti in the desiderative, still because this scripture is in verse form, giving primacy to the suffix meaning as well is not a fault here. [25]
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
"Tvacam asya" is the 18th verse of the 6th chapter of the 3rd Skandha. "Nirbhinnāny asya" is the 16th verse of the 6th chapter of the 3rd Skandha. "Bahvṛcaśrutau" means in the Aitareya Upaniṣad of the Ṛgveda. [23-25]
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
The creation of the individual sense of sight is described with "yada" (when). When there was darkness in the body, i.e. no light due to absence of objects, then desiring to see himself, the body, and other things, that Brahman's two eyes were split open as the basis, and the pairs of individual sense organs of sight were produced. This means the sense organ of sight that perceives visual qualities, and light/the sun. For the sun, being the presiding deity of sight, entered the two eyes as sight, according to scripture. [21]
The creation of the individual sense of hearing is described with "bodhyamānasya" (of the one being awakened). For Brahman who was being awakened by the sages/Vedas and desired to grasp that awakening, the two ears as the basis, the directions as the presiding deities perceiving qualities, and the sense of hearing which is the cause of perceiving sound, were split open. This means pairs of individual sense organs of hearing were produced. [22]
The production of the individual sense of touch is described with "vastuna" (of an object). For grasping the qualities of softness, hardness, lightness, heaviness, slight warmth (as extreme heat cannot be perceived), and coldness of an object or substance, the individual sense of touch was produced. It should be understood that the perception of lightness and heaviness when an object is lifted by hand is also a subject of the sense of touch. Here it should be noted that the sense of touch has two locations - the subtle and gross forms of external and internal skin. Due to the difference in location, there is a difference in objects - itching and touch. Due to the difference in objects, there are two deities - trees and air. This will be clearly stated in the third book: "The deities of plants entered the split skin with a portion, along with the hair follicles, through which itching is perceived. The guardian of the world, the wind, entered the split layers of skin with a portion of vital air, through which touch is perceived." Thus the same sense of touch located in the outer skin, pervading the hair, has plants as its deity and perceives itching, while this same sense pervading inside and outside has air as its deity and perceives touch.
This is stated in summary with "tasyām" (in that). In that skin, when the sense of touch was split open, its basis - the hair, and presiding deities - the trees were produced. Then the author states that this same sense of touch is presided over by air for perceiving touch, with "tatra ca" (and there). And there, in that very sense of touch, the air became established, having obtained its quality through its instrument, the sense of touch, both internally and externally, i.e. capable of producing touch both inside and outside. [23]
The creation of the individual hands is described with "hastau" (the two hands). For Brahman desiring to perform various actions like grasping etc. and to obtain touch, the two hands grew, i.e. pairs of individual hands were produced from the totality of hands in Brahman. Here the presiding deity, actions etc. for the sense organ are stated, as clearly explained in the third book with "tayoḥ" (of those two). Of those two hands as the location, the powerful Indra along with strength, which is another name for the sense organ of the hands, is the presiding deity. The object is grasping, which has both hands as its basis, since the sense organ is located in both hands. [24]
The creation of the individual feet is described with "gatim" (movement). For Brahman desiring to grasp movement according to desire, the two feet grew, i.e. were split open. Here the sense organ etc. are stated with "padbhyām" (with the two feet). Yajña (sacrifice) is Viṣṇu, as per the scriptural statement "Sacrifice is indeed Viṣṇu". Yajña himself became established in the two feet along with the sense organ, i.e. the sense organ of the feet located in both feet that enables the capacity for movement. By human actions like coming and going, sacrificial substances are produced. Movement etc. are stated to be the object of the sense organ. [25]
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
When that Viriñca (Brahmā) was without light and radiance in himself, desiring to see himself, his body and other things, his two eyeballs became manifest. From that arose light, the sun, the visual sense organ for grasping form and qualities, and the visible form to be grasped. [21]
When that Viriñca, being instructed by sages through means of knowledge like the Vedas or fires, and being informed "understand from the Veda", desired to grasp that instruction, his two ears were born. From them arose the directions, the deities of directions, the auditory sense organ for grasping sound qualities, and sound as its object. [22]
When that Creator desired to know the soft and other qualities of objects like pots, the sense of touch arose in his skin. On that skin grew hair and plants. Though pervading inside and outside the skin, the air enclosed by the skin became the tangible air and touch, known through the knowledge gained by the sense of touch. The Vedic form gurvuṣṇa (heavy and hot) is used. [23]
That which has both sense organs and their presiding deities as its basis is called ubhayāśraya (having both as support). Ādāna (taking) refers to actions like grasping and relinquishing. [24]
Gati refers to the action characterized by movement. Yakṣa, the son of Indra, became the presiding deity of movement himself, and movement arose in the feet. That Lord Upendra (Viṣṇu) for whom men perform ritual actions like offering oblations became manifest as the inner controller of sacrifice. [25]
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
It should be known that one's own cognizability and the internal knowledge flashing forth in the form of coherence is the supreme paśyantī (seeing) and madhyamā (intermediate) Veda through the Supreme Self alone. [22-23]
Ādāna (taking) means the object being taken, i.e. the sense object. [24]
Gati (movement) means: Of one desiring to conquer, i.e. wishing to control. Hence "by feet" as before is in the fifth case itself. Yajña (sacrifice) is a certain deity embodied with Viṣṇu's power itself. Even so, with the intention of expressing preeminence in all respects, where offerings are made by men as agents through rituals, "by rituals" is in the plural due to differences in their functions. Everything to be offered should be known as the main havya (oblation), since one goes there for that purpose alone. [25]
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
When in the self there was absence of light, like "without flies" as an avyayībhāva compound, meaning there was absence of light. The eyes are the seat for perceiving oneself and other objects, the sun deity is the light, the sense organ is the eye, from which comes grasping of the quality of form. By this, form is shown as the object. [21]
Of the self being awakened by the sages through the Vedas, that awakening of one wishing to grasp. From that, grasping of qualities is grasping of sound. [22]
Of one wishing to grasp softness, hardness, lightness, heaviness, heat, slight warmth, coldness. Although heat is also a sense object, it is called "warm" due to lack of desire to grasp it. In the reading "guruṣṇa", the semivowel substitution is archaic. Of one wishing to grasp these properties of an object, the skin is understood as divided, the skin is the seat of the sense organ, the skin is known. When an object is lifted by hand, lightness and heaviness are known, so those two are also objects of the skin sense according to the Purāṇas. The skin is the seat, there in the skin the wind deity exists pervading inside and outside. What kind of quality is obtained by the skin sense organ? Touch, by which it is characterized. Similarly, in that skin as the seat, hair is the sense organ, plants are the deities, itching and their objects should be known. Thus two sense organs reside in the skin. The meaning is this: The skin sense organ itself, grasping external contact along with itching, is called by the word "hair", there plants have the status of deities. Grasping touch inside and outside, that same is called by the word "skin". There wind is the deity. And so it will be said in the Third [Skandha]:
"They entered his divided skin as the seat, the plants with a portion through the hairs, by which he perceives itching. The wind as world protector entered his divided skins, by which he perceives contact with a portion as the vital air."
There "skins" means the skin indicated by skin. "With a portion as the vital air" means by the skin sense organ pervaded by the vital air. But in the Veda only one portion is specified: "The skin was divided, from the skin came hairs, from the hairs came herbs and trees." [23]
Of those two hands, strength is the sense organ, united with that the deity is dependent on both the sense organ and deity, taking is the object. [24]
Gati (movement) means going, "of one desiring" means "of one wishing" since the verbal meaning is not intended. Abhikāmikām means desired. Yajña (sacrifice) is a deity possessed by Viṣṇu's power. "By feet" means situated as the presiding deity of the feet. "By rituals" indicates the sense organ which is the power of action called movement. "By rituals" means by the sense organ havya (oblation) is made, i.e. the substance to be offered is made obtainable by movement to another place - thus the object is stated. "By men" indicates this is the method for individual souls everywhere. Thus it is taught that everywhere only objects prescribed by scripture should be accepted. [25]
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
When there was no light in the body, which is the self, and there was no object, there was avyayībhāva (indeclinable compound). Then, for the person wishing to see the body, which is the self, the eyes became the foundation. There, the sun became the light, and the deity became the sense of sight, which is the cause of perceiving form. By this, form as an object was shown. [21]
For the self being awakened by the seers with the Vedas, wishing to grasp that awakening, the ears became the foundation. The directions became the deity and the cause of grasping sound, and the sense of hearing was separated. [22]
For one wishing to grasp the properties of an object, such as softness, hardness, lightness, heaviness, heat, slight warmth, and coldness, the sense of touch was separated. In that skin, when the sense of touch was separated, the hairs, which are the foundation, and the skin, speaking of the non-difference between effect and cause, became the outer layer. There, when touch accompanied by itching is grasped by the sense of touch, the deities that became helpers and the trees were produced. For grasping touch inside and outside, or the deity there, it is said thus. There, in those skins mentioned in the text, the wind settled inside and outside, having obtained the quality of touch through the skin. It is said: "The herbs entered his skin that was separated, he perceives this through the hairs with itching. The guardian of the world, the wind, entered his separated skin, he perceives touch through this with a portion of breath." Thus, from what will be said, by the revelation of many, only one portion is specified. The skin was separated, from the skin came the hairs, from the hairs came the herbs and plants. [23]
For that person, with the desire to perform various actions, the hands grew as the foundation. In those two hands, the sense organ called the hand, which is the cause of strong grasping, was separated. Indra is the deity, and grasping is the action based on both. [24]
For the person desiring to move according to his desire and will, the feet grew and were separated. As it is heard, "The sacrifice is indeed Viṣṇu (viṣṇu)." Viṣṇu (viṣṇu), the sacrifice, himself is the controller, settled in the feet with the sense organ of the feet. The dual number in "feet" is because the sense organ of the feet is located in both feet. It shows that this same movement is in individual souls as well. By individual souls, through actions, which are the functions of the sense organ of the feet, materials for sacrifice are produced. [25]
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Having thus explained the mouth and nose, he now describes the eyes - yadātmani nirālokam. It means "it was". Ātman (self) refers to the body. At that time, I did not know what kind of person I was. And in what kind of place I was staying. And wishing to see those related to me. The eyes were split open. It was said earlier that the eyes and other senses do not depend on light. But he has no illusion of māyā (delusion), so there is no obstruction created by māyā. The lack of light is due to not seeing. The deity there is light, that is, the sun. The sun's form of light is ādhidaivika (divine). The ādhyātmika (spiritual) is the solar orb denoted by the word "sun". The rays are ādhibhautika (physical). Therefore, the word "light" is used here to mean only the divine aspect. The sense organ is the eye. The quality is form. Among the five, since form is well-known, the meaning is that knowledge of qualities occurs through the deity and sense organ.
Then the sages and mantras began to praise the great divine person. Of the one being praised by sages, directly understood as the supreme Brahman. Of the self mentioned earlier. Or for distinguishing from the body. Desiring to grasp that, wishing to grasp the nature being described by them. The ears were split open in the form of spheres. The directions are the deities. The sense organ is hearing. Grasping of qualities means grasping of sound. Because sound was already established earlier. [21-22]
Thus three sense organs with two spheres each have been described. He describes the all-pervading sense organ: vastunah. The skin was split open for one desiring to grasp the lightness etc. of objects like pots and cloth. In it, hair is the sense organ. Trees are the deities. Laghu (light) means subtle. The word laghu denoting a property also indicates the substance due to common usage. With that intention, the word lāghava (lightness) etc. is used. Hence the word lāghava is used for dexterity etc. Here the word laghu denotes a particular touch, like the touch of subtle air. Softness is not perceived in a firm touch. Everywhere in describing touch, only light touch is prescribed, in the ears etc. Hardness is a hard touch, as in stones. Soft means smooth. Slipperiness is also a type of that, as in silk cloth. Heaviness is also a touch. Although in other scriptures it is understood as a different property through lifting etc., in this scripture it is touch itself. Because it is understood only through lifting etc. along with touch. Lifting without touch is inference. Otherwise, how could the effect occur in the absence of heaviness in the cause? Multitude only indicates largeness, not heaviness. Some say lightness is through loose joining of parts and heaviness through tight joining. That too is incorrect, as it is impossible to describe conjunction as separate from touch. In common parlance, conjunction is clearly stated. Otherwise, there would be different atonement for conjunction with outcasts etc. apart from touch. Therefore, even in describing loose joining of parts etc., lightness and heaviness are touch itself. Adhesion is just absence of separation. By this too, conjunction is not separate. Four joined fingertips occur. But in adhesion, it is not so, like a closed fist. Therefore conjunction is not separate from touch. Nor are heaviness etc. Warm means slightly warm touch. Because very hot touch is impossible, as it would burn the skin. Cold is cold touch.
Or, lightness-hardness means the state of being light and hard. Lightness and hardness. The suffix -tva is connected everywhere at the end of the compound. Because it is heard at the end of the dvandva compound. Hence softness, heaviness, warmth, coldness. The property which precedes a word's application to a substance is that very property as the abstract noun. Hence some say the abstract noun is just the basis of the word's application. Everywhere the common thread is existence, a synonym of being. All words denote only aspects of that, so "being" is denoted by all words - this is the meaning of the scripture. Even in the word "non-existence", existence preceded by negation is understood. Otherwise non-existence would be devoid of nature. Here in the skin sense organ, there are two types - itching and touch are its objects. Itching is external touch only. But touch is also internal. And that denoted by the word "hair" perceives itching. There trees are the deities. But the substratum of both is one. [23]
He states the second: tatra cāntarbahirvāyur. The word ca indicates that the skin also has a location other than hair, internally. There air is the deity. "Internal and external" indicates that the previous deity has a greater scope. Tvacālabdhaguṇa means grasping of touch by the skin sense organ. Here the deity is primary. Otherwise air would not be grasped by grasping through conjunction. Vṛta means "air enclosed internally and externally". This states that external air is not the deity. Thus having described the skin and completed the knowledge organs, he describes the action organs - hastau ruruhatuh. With the desire to perform various actions. By saying "these two grew as branches", their branch-like nature is indicated. These two have two spheres. But Indra is strong in them. Strength is the sense organ in the two hands. Indra is the deity. Grasping is the action. It has both as substrates - the deity and sense organ. The deity is not primary as before.
"The feet grew for one desiring to go to the desired destination." The sense organ is padbhyām. The deity is Yajña (sacrifice) himself, i.e. Viṣṇu. Abhikāmikā means desired, related to the wish to go to various places. For such a person, the two feet grew like branches, like the hands. Even those without feet have movement. Four-legged creatures also. Still, bipeds can go everywhere unlike others, hence the desire for two feet.
"But for the cosmic person who is stationary, what is the use of feet? If he is not stationary, there would be disruption in the worlds. And imagining another form would contradict the context" - anticipating this objection, he says: svayaṃ havyaṃ karmabhiḥ kriyate nṛbhir. The oblation like purodāśa (rice cake) is described as the Lord himself - svayaṃ havyam. That being so, its capacity to produce results must be stated. Because men create that oblation through rituals. That very purodāśa etc., when offered in fire with the intention for a deity, takes the form of sacrifice and carries the soul to another world. There feet are necessarily required for movement. Otherwise, if movement were possible through the soul's motion or sacrificial form, movement could occur anywhere. And that is not another form, as this very form is present there. Nor is it the presiding deity of this, as that does not exist. If it existed, it would be solely focused on this, as sacrifice alone gives knowledge of heaven. And from the statement "he strode widely in three steps". Moreover, the sacrifice and oblation are performed on earth itself. If there were no feet, the earth of that form would not exist. Nor would there be movement to heaven etc. Therefore, for the sake of achieving desired movement and attaining the state of animals, sons, heaven etc., feet are required as he himself is the sacrifice and oblation. Moreover, sacrifice is the presiding deity of the feet. In its absence, that too would not exist. And that is well-known in the world. Even if it is supernatural, the directly perceived purodāśa etc. made for its sake cannot be denied. Therefore, since men in the world perform the material sacrifice, by the principle of inexplicability otherwise, it is established that the Lord has feet. [24-25]
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
In "yadātmanī", the phrase "ātmānaṃ ca didṛkṣate" indicates that the eye is capable of grasping substances, so its ability to grasp qualities is not flawed. The obstruction created by māyā (illusion) is an obstruction created by darkness. [21]
In "vastuna", if the word "laghu" (light) is considered a property, the usage like "lightness is seen in this object" would be contradicted. To address this concern, they say "dharmiṇam api" (also the property-bearer). They argue that due to frequent usage, it also denotes the property-bearer. As evidence for this, they say "śruta eva" (from what is heard), meaning due to the abundance of usage in relation to the property-bearer. In "cāturyādāu", it refers to properties like skill, excellence, farsightedness, and loftiness.
Thus, in this śāstra (treatise), even when words like "laghu" are used for object properties, words like "lāghava" (lightness) are used for qualities like skill. Therefore, the frequent use of words like "laghu" for both properties and property-bearers should be considered for consistency.
Now, in other śāstras, since heaviness is counted among qualities, the word "lāghava" is used in its absence. How then can it be a property of objects? To address this, they say "atra" (here). They give an example with "yathā" (just as). Thus, there is no perception of the absence of heaviness, but rather the perception of subtle touch itself, so it is not in the form of absence of heaviness.
Even if this is accepted, since softness is also perceived by the eye, it seems inappropriate to say that touch is indistinguishable here. To address this, they say "mṛdutvaṃ" (softness). Thus, the visual perception there is indirect, not ordinary.
That's why even the illusion of softness created by color in the gulmanavararṅga (a type of flower) is possible. If the indicative nature of touch seems incongruous due to being unestablished and cumbersome, they say "sarvatra" (everywhere). Since touch is indicative everywhere in properties like lightness, here only light touch is prescribed as the operative function in other sense organs like the ear for grasping substances.
In this śāstra (treatise), therefore, as all functions are accomplished by touch alone, there is no cumbersomeness, but rather simplicity. It shouldn't be argued that touch functioning in sound perception by the ear is incongruous, because experience testifies that sound carried by air to the ear is perceived by making use of the contact-type touch between the air carrier and the skin delimiting the ear.
It shouldn't be argued that touch can't function in the ethereal ear organ due to absence of touch and lack of generation by it, because only being an intermediate means is accepted as the definition of function. This has been elaborated by me in Prasthānaratnākara, so it should be referred to there.
Similarly, in visual, olfactory, and gustatory perceptions, the function of light touch should be accepted for convenience. In the skin, intense touch is also involved. This doesn't mean that touch functioning in the eye would be perceived by the eye or skin, because in the perception of physical qualities other than sound, smell, and color, the perception of the substrate is accepted as a cause.
Nor is there an undesired consequence of touch being the basis of all interactions, as it's not considered as such here due to the instrument not being based on it. They define the nature of hardness and other qualities with "kāṭhinyam" (hardness).
If lightness is accepted as distinct, other properties like slipperiness would also have to be accepted as distinct due to their existence. To address this, they say "picchilatāpī" (slipperiness too). This also indicates that oiliness, being perceptible by touch, is included in touch itself.
It shouldn't be argued that it must be accepted as distinct due to being the cause of attraction and being destructible by rubbing, because there's no contradiction in accepting touch itself as having these properties. Similarly, fluidity should also be understood as a type of touch, due to logical consistency. If one objects that heaviness is not a specific type of touch due to its not falling initially, being beyond the senses, and not being knowable by the mind alone, the response is as follows: Even though it is accompanied by touch, it is perceptible through touch. Thus, being an object of tactile perception, it is indeed a specific type of touch. Therefore, when placing a fruit and a flower in one's hand, even without the hand moving downward, the experience of the fruit's heaviness is appropriate. Accepting it as beyond the senses is only due to confusion, since its heaviness is directly perceived through contact with the object.
If one argues that heaviness must be separate and beyond the senses since it cannot be known through touch alone but can be known through weighing without touch, the response is: In that case, the relative heaviness of "this is heavier than that" is established through the tilting of scales, etc. But this is merely imagined, so it does not prove heaviness as a separate entity through inference.
If one asks what is wrong with heaviness being relative like separateness, the response is: Otherwise, if relativity is accepted. Thus, since separateness is eternal in the cause and produced by disjunction in the effect, its relativity is indeed real and known by the intellect, not produced by it. But in this case, since atoms are light in every way, there is no heaviness in the cause, so how could it arise in the effect? Since its cause cannot be stated, accepting it as relative is not appropriate.
Nor is it right to accept lightness alone as separate in that case, since its relativity also cannot be stated before the effect is established. Since it resides in the cause, and there is no other quality in the cause to produce it, its relativity cannot be stated even afterwards. Therefore, both heaviness and lightness must be accepted as specific types of touch perceivable by the skin.
If one argues that there is an eternal, separate heaviness residing only in atoms, which does not produce another heaviness like numbers produce other numbers - for if it were produced, then in a whole composed of parts weighing one unit, its heaviness along with that of the parts would be four units, which is not observed - so it is eternal and independent in atoms alone, and the perception of greater heaviness in wholes is due to their multiplicity, the response is:
If multiplicity were the indicator of heaviness, when dropping a heap of light cotton and a small stone, the stone would not fall first, since it lacks the heaviness indicated by multiplicity. Therefore, multiplicity does not indicate heaviness but rather size, so heaviness is not established this way either.
The objection that if heaviness is a specific touch, it would apply to air as well is welcomed, as it is desirable. There is no contradiction with perception, since heaviness in air is ascertained through the quick falling of inflated skins when weighed. It does not apply to external air, since only condensed air produces heaviness. Similarly, the heaviness in gold etc. is also fiery, as there is no contradiction. It need not apply to other fiery substances due to the same reasoning. Or it may not exist there, which is no fault, just as air lacks heat and fire lacks cold, even though heaviness as a type of touch is uncontradicted in it.
Some propose another way to prove heaviness, but this too is inappropriate. The contempt is due to its reemergence even after refutation by the given arguments. In that case, these arguments should be understood as summarized through contempt. The reason for refutation is stated: Since the contact that would produce it is not established, its existence is even more unestablished.
If one asks how contact is unestablished when it is visible, the response is: This means that touch must be accepted as either a quality pervading color, or pervading sound, or a quality of the four elements like air, or a universal form. That definition applies equally to contact, so common usage is also like that, meaning contact is not a separate quality.
If one objects that contact cannot be called a type of touch merely based on common usage, the response is: Otherwise, if common usage were mistaken. Thus, since Manu and others do not mention two expiations, this was their intention as well, so it is not mistaken.
The objection that contact differs from touch by occurring only between wholes while touch occurs between wholes and parts is invalid, since contact would be produced simultaneously like softness from cooking, so that cognition does not establish it as different from touch. This is how it should be understood from Prasthānaratnākara. The result is stated as "tasmād" etc. Because it is certainly known through direct perception. To refute that conjunction is in the form of contact, they incidentally state the nature of contact as "śleṣastu" etc.
If it is argued that conjunction is simply the absence of separation, what is the objection to that? To this they reply "anenāpo" etc. It does not exceed, meaning it does not become different from touch. The reason for that is "saṃyukte" etc. Not in that way, there is no perception of difference. Therefore, because it does not produce a perception of non-difference.
And if conjunction were of the nature of touch, since the self and mind are devoid of it, there would be the unwanted consequence of knowledge not arising in the absence of touch. According to the śruti "annamayaṃ hi saumya manaḥ" (O gentle one, the mind is made of food), even in the view that it is an effect of the modified ego principle, since it is nourished by food, that [touch] exists in the mind. Thus "dehaṃ manomātramima gṛhītvā" (having taken this body consisting of mind alone) is also consistent.
Its eternality etc. should be known to have been refuted in Prasthānaratnākara, O wise one. If it is argued that even if the mind possesses touch, knowledge cannot arise due to the absence of touch with the self, as per the statement "yan na spṛśanti na vidur manobuddhīndriyāsavaḥ" (which the mind, intellect, senses and vital breaths do not touch or know) - not so, because dream knowledge different from waking is a property of the mind, as per the śruti "hrīrdhīḥ sarve mana eva" (modesty, wisdom, all are indeed mind). The individual self, by superimposition, holding the mind etc., becomes the agent. Thus its arising is easily established through the inner organs etc. alone.
(In the view where the universe is the body of the individual self) There is no impossibility of the body being supported, as that is possible through a particular modification of the intellect superimposed on the self, or through prāṇa (vital force), as determined by the definition of death: "That by which, at its time, there is no separation of the vital force and body for living beings. Death is the utter forgetfulness at one's own time."
In the view where the universe is the body of the individual self, this is indeed the theory. Where it is the body of Brahman, it is possible through its power, as per statements like "yo lokatrayamāviśya bibhartyaya īśvaraḥ" (who, having entered the three worlds, supports them as the Lord). This is the general idea.
Accepting that words like "laghu" (light) etc. denote the substratum, they state an alternative view: "athavā" etc. Therefore, since it is in the form of the limiter of possibility, due to the refutation of universal, and due to non-inference, considering the inappropriateness here and keeping in mind that all words denote the Lord as stated in the Patrāvalambana method, they state the truth: "sarvatra" etc. This is indeed the established conclusion in Mahābhāṣya, Vākyapadīya etc. So there is no doubt about this.
If it is argued that if the word "bhāva" denotes existence, the suffixes tva, tal etc. would be impossible with the word "abhāva" (non-existence), to this they reply: "abhāva" etc. As stated by the learned, "abhāvo'nyo na kaścid anirūpaṇāt" (Non-existence is nothing else, as it cannot be defined), even there, in the case of difference, another positive entity preceded by negation is understood. In the case of relational absence, either the causal state of destruction and prior absence, or the counter-positive preceded by negation is understood. Similarly, even in the case of absolute absence, from cognitions like "ghaṭo nāsti" (The pot does not exist) and "ghaṭābhāvaḥ" (absence of pot), only the counter-positive preceded by negation is understood. Since it is of the nature of a positive entity, the suffixes tva, tal etc. are easily possible. This is the meaning.
To support this, they state a logical argument: "anyathā" etc. If absence were not of the nature of a positive entity, it would be devoid of nature like a sky-flower. In that case, it would not be cognized. Therefore, since that which is grasped by valid cognition is the indicator of its nature, its nature as a positive entity preceded by negation is established by inference. This is the meaning.
The inference is: Absence is of the nature of a positive entity, because it is the object of an uncontradicted cognition of existence, like a pot. Whatever is not so, is not so, like a sky-flower.
In the same context later it will be said "tvacamasya vinirbhinnāṃ viviśurdhiṣṇyamoṣadhīḥ | aṃśena romabhiḥ kaṇḍūṃ yairasau pratipadyata" (The herbs entered his abode, having penetrated his skin. With a portion, through the hair follicles, by which he perceives itching). To indicate that the separation of the skin mentioned there for grasping the touch-pleasure called itching is intended here also, as evidenced by the statement "in it, by the hair" etc., they say: "atra" etc. "Atra" means in this śāstra.
If it is argued that if the skin grasps itching, the effort to establish touch in light things etc. would be futile due to violation of the stated rule, to this they reply: "bahiḥ" etc. The pleasure that arises when an external touch occurs is itself itching. But that which arises internally, though of the same touch form and produced by touch, since it is non-different from touch, the effort to establish touch in those [light things etc.] is not futile. This is the meaning.
If it is argued that if itching is also of the nature of touch, why postulate two skins, to this they reply: "sa ca" etc. Just as in the case of other sense organs, here also there is difference due to difference in presiding deities. So there is no mere postulation. This is the meaning.
If it is then argued that it should simply be considered another sense organ, not a division of the skin, to this they reply: "adhiṣṭhānam" etc. Thus, due to non-difference of the sense organ, and due to being called a "portion" in the same context, there is non-difference of the sense organ. This is the meaning.
Here "tatra ca" means "from the previous deity", this is in the ablative case meaning "from the trees". It should not be argued that since both speech and taste exist in the mouth, non-difference of location does not lead to non-difference of sense organs, because even there, there is difference of location due to difference of palate and space.
They state an indicator of the predominance of the deity: "anyathā" etc. If the air-form deity were predominant in grasping touch, then when prāṇa is controlled, external touch cognition would not be blocked, since the skin exists. Thus this itself is the indicator of the predominance of the deity. This is the meaning.
Thus the main construction is: There, in the hair follicles, and by "ca" in between them, in the bones etc., both internally and externally, air as the deity, having a higher position than the trees, endowed with qualities obtained by the skin, grasped by the skin sense organ, by which such touch is enveloped, i.e. surrounded by the skin sense organ, arose. The verb "arose" should be supplied, as supplying the verb has been determined in "nasi jighṛkṣata" etc. (24)
In "gati jigīṣata" etc. Svayam means Viṣṇu, having the same name and form as himself, his own portion. For the aforementioned desire, they say the seed for the growth of two feet is "śrapadānām", etc. Thus, the desire for two feet is motivated by the wish "May the two-footed ones become victorious in attaining the desired goal." Lest one think that with the word yajña alone sufficient for attaining Viṣṇu, the word svayam is unnecessary, they explain the meaning indicated by the co-occurrence with havya: "havyasya", etc. The havya is made by rituals. That worldly substance like purodāśa (sacrificial cake) is made into havya, the means of oblation, by Vedic rituals like sprinkling. Hence it has divinity due to being a part of Virāj. Thus having explained the divinity of havya, they state the purpose of feet: "tadeva", etc. If one objects that transmigration to other worlds is possible by individual karma alone without needing feet, they reply: "anyathā", etc. In the absence of Virāj's feet, either the individual's movement to other worlds would happen on its own, or the movement of purodāśa etc. to other worlds as means would have to be stated, being included in the sacrifice or having the form of karma. There, due to karma being inert, the individual's independence in going to the desired place would have to be stated. In that case, due to the individual being desirous and karma being inscrutable, movement could be to anywhere, thus the gradation of heaven etc. would be broken. Therefore, to maintain that gradation, the feet of the conscious Virāj must be accepted. If one objects that with sacrifice being Viṣṇu, the arrangement of attaining other worlds can be accomplished by that alone without needing Virāj's feet, they reply: "na ca", etc. "Asya" means of Virāj. "Tatra" means in the sacrifice. Thus, due to the word svayam being placed between yajña and havya, the divinity of both is intended. Hence due to absence of another form, the feet must be accepted as Virāj's alone. If one objects that it can be accomplished even by the presiding deity, so the feet as part of the cow-world are not necessary, they reply: "na vā", etc. Here, by mentioning svayam and not mentioning other gods, that is negated. If one objects that svayam only negates a distinctive form, not the deity, since the deity is mentioned by the word yajña, (then even if that deity exists, they state reasons for the existence of the cow-world: "bhāve vā", etc. Here, if by mentioning the word "svayam" that deity exists, then desiring its substratum) it must be stated that Virāj alone is the substratum. Since the placement of other gods in various places has been stated, by elimination the feet alone must be stated as such. Thus since that deity is established only as residing in the feet, they are accomplished. Moreover, from statements like "One desiring heaven should sacrifice", etc. heaven is understood from sacrifice alone, so by the word yajña here one's own heaven should be understood. Due to the action being inert, even for that, by the logic stated before, a presiding deity is required. The rest is clear. "Movement to heaven, etc." means in the absence of feet, due to impossibility of having location, even that which has the form of a place would not exist. "Therefore" means due to being the locus of contradictory attributes. (25)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
When there was no light in the body, i.e. it was devoid of illumination, then for the one desiring to see the self, the body, and other objects, the eyes emerged as the basis. There, the sun became the deity, and the sense organ of sight came into being. Then the perception of the quality of form occurs. By this, form is shown as the object. [21]
For the self being awakened by the sages and Vedas, desiring to grasp sound, the ears emerged as the basis. There, the directions became the deities, and the sense organ of hearing came into being. Then the perception of the quality of sound occurs. By this, sound is shown as the object. [22]
For one desiring to grasp these properties of objects - softness, hardness, lightness, heaviness, warmth, mild heat, and coldness - the skin emerged as the basis for the sense organ of touch. In that skin, body hair became the sense organ, and the trees became the presiding deities. Although extreme heat is also an object of the sense of touch, due to lack of desire to grasp it, only warmth is mentioned. In the skin, internally and externally, air is enclosed. The quality of touch is obtained through the skin. The sense of touch externally perceiving itching etc. is called 'hair', where trees are the deities. The same perceiving touch internally and externally is called 'skin', where air is the deity. This will be stated in the third canto. [23]
For one desiring to perform various actions like grasping and throwing, the hands emerged as the basis. In those hands, the powerful Indra entered with strength as the sense organ. The action of grasping depends on both the sense organ and the deity. [24]
For one desiring to move as wished, the feet emerged. In the feet, Yajña (sacrifice) or Viṣṇu himself is established with the sense organ of motion as its presiding deity. By humans as agents, through actions like coming and going, materials for sacrifice are procured. This indicates this process applies to individual souls too, and that humans have the authority for sacrifices. [25]
Hindī Anuvāda
First, there was no light in their body; then, when they desired to see themselves and other objects, the openings of the eyes, their presiding deity the sun, and the visual sense appeared. From these, the description of forms began. [21]
When the Vedic sages began to awaken the Virāṭ Puruṣa (virāṭ puruṣa: cosmic form) with hymns of praise, they desired to hear. At that moment, the ears, their presiding deities the directions, and the auditory sense manifested. From this, sound became audible. [22]
When they wished to know the softness, hardness, lightness, heaviness, warmth, and coolness of objects, the skin appeared in their body. Just as trees emerge from the earth, in the same way, hair grew on that skin, and the air residing inside and outside of it also manifested. The sense of touch, the skin, also simultaneously enveloped the body all around, and from this, they began to experience touch. [23]
When they desired to perform various types of actions, their hands sprouted. In those hands, the power of grasping, the sense of touch in the hands, and their presiding deity Indra appeared, and the action of grasping supported by both also manifested. [24]
When they desired to go to desired places, feet grew in their body. Along with the feet, Lord Viṣṇu (viṣṇu: a Hindu deity) himself, in the form of the presiding deity of the sense of locomotion, became established there, and in them, the action of walking manifested. It is with this sense of locomotion that humans walk to gather materials for sacrifice. [25]
SB 2.10.21-25
