SB 2.9.31-32

 Text 31: The Personality of Godhead said: Knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully.

Text 32: All of Me, namely My actual eternal form and My transcendental existence, color, qualities and activities — let all be awakened within you by factual realization, out of My causeless mercy.

Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā

Indeed, if I am unable to see you, how can I be qualified for knowledge? To this, he says: "As much as." As much as: In essence, as he is, possessing such existence, having those forms, qualities, and actions. (31)

Explaining this properly, he clarifies the meaning of "as much as." I: I alone existed before creation. Nothing else. That which is gross is sat, that which is subtle is asat, and their cause, pradhāna (प्रधान) (primary matter), is supreme. Because even that was absorbed in me at that time due to its inward-facing nature, I alone existed then, and I did nothing else. Even after creation, I alone am. Whatever this universe is, that too am I. What remains in dissolution, that too am I alone. By this, it is said that I am complete, being without beginning or end and without a second. (32)

Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā

Here, he raises an objection: "Indeed." To that end, he gives a blessing for the manifestation of the two goals, knowledge and mystery: "As much as." As much as: In essence, of what measure I am, of what nature, of what characteristics I am, that is the meaning. Those intrinsic forms like being dark-blue and four-armed. Qualities like affection for devotees. Actions like those various līlās (divine play). He who has such forms, qualities, and actions, may you have true knowledge, genuine experience of all these aspects, by my grace. By this, the interpretation of the four verses as referring to the formless is itself refuted. It will be said by the Lord himself, referring to these four verses, to Uddhava: "Previously, by me" and so on, "knowledge supreme, illuminating my greatness." Here, by the word "true knowledge," it is clear that forms and other aspects are also essential nature. Here, the blessing of knowledge is clear. The blessing of mystery is that by the genuine experience of that supreme bliss, love will certainly arise, as per the context. Viśvanātha says: Moreover, knowledge through words, indirect determination of reality, might be possible even for pure-hearted believers, but true knowledge is direct experience, immediate realization of my essential nature. And that is not possible without devotional practice and loving devotion, indicated by the words "mystery" and "that." Conveying this, he gives a blessing for that purpose: "As much as," of what measure, form, with what appropriate arrangement of limbs with thickness, length, height, roundness, etc. "Of what nature" means of what intention. "What forms" means being dark-blue, two-armed, four-armed, Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Nṛsiṃha, etc. "Qualities" like affection for devotees. "Actions" like accepting Lakṣmī, lifting Govardhana, etc. "Thus indeed": In whatever way my measure, intention, form, qualities, and actions manifest, may you have true knowledge, genuine experience of them in that very way. Although grace is implied by the blessing itself, the repeated use of "by my grace" indicates that only through the gradation of increase in the most intimate devotional practice and loving devotion, brought about by a special function of my grace, will the gradation of experience of the sweetness of those forms, qualities, etc., arise. From this too, you will directly experience my form as Kṛṣṇa in Vraja, which has even greater sweetness than this form of mine and is extremely rare. By this, the interpretation of the four verses as referring only to a formless essence is refuted. (31)

Svāmī's commentary is clear in meaning. Thus, having promised knowledge etc. to be given in the four verses, and having made one fit for attaining it through blessing, while beginning to teach knowledge, he answers the question "How shall I know you in your true form, both higher and lower?": "I alone existed before creation," touching his chest with his forefinger. By the word "alone," it is understood that no other material object of my kind existed. This is the meaning: At present, this supremely enchanting form, an ocean of sweetness of form and qualities, manifesting before you, I alone existed even at the time of the great dissolution, as per the śrutis (revealed texts): "In the beginning, there was only Vāsudeva, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara," "This was in the beginning the Self alone in the form of a Person," "The Person indeed was Nārāyaṇa," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed," "The Person, Nārāyaṇa, desired," "Then from Nārāyaṇa, the unborn was born, from whom all beings; Nārāyaṇa is the supreme Brahman, Nārāyaṇa is the supreme truth, the supreme Brahman is the Person, dark blue and tawny," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna," and from smṛtis (remembered texts) like "The Lord alone existed." Here, Vaikuṇṭha and its inhabitants are also included in the word "I" as they are His aspects, just as in "The king is coming." Thus, their existence should be understood similarly. And so, the king's question: "And where that Person, the source of the world's existence, creation and dissolution, having set aside his own māyā (illusion), the Lord of māyā, rests, the inner controller of all." And Śrī Vidura's question: "O Lord, of those principles, how many ways are there of dissolution? Who would worship Him there, and who indeed would sleep near Him?" The explanation of Svāmī's verses is: There, in dissolution, who would worship this supreme Lord lying down like a king, and who would sleep near Him, sleeping after Him like chamara-bearers? It is also stated in the Kashi Khanda: "Even in the great dissolution, His devotees do not fall. Therefore, He alone is called Achyuta (acyuta) (unfallen) in all worlds, all-pervading and imperishable." The phrase "I alone existed" excludes the possibility of any other existence. Since the verb "asti" denotes existence, it implies that at that time, there was no absolute non-existence of my being. The meaning "I alone existed, I did nothing" does not actually exclude other actions, as the verb "asti" is inherent in all verbal meanings. When it is said "Chaitra was in this village last year," it does not exclude Chaitra's actions of sleeping, eating, etc., but only implies his presence. Similarly, in this context, "I alone existed" excludes only the creation and other actions perceptible to ordinary people outside of Brahma, but not the internal pastimes, just as when it is said "The king is there, he does nothing," it negates only the king's official duties, not his personal activities like sleeping and eating.

Now, if it is heard somewhere that only the attributeless Brahman existed, it is explained: The Brahman, which is beyond the existent effect and non-existent cause, is not different from me. In some authoritative scriptures that are capable of establishing various specific attributes of the essential nature, I appear as the attributeless Brahman. However, you should know me as possessing form, qualities, etc., as mentioned in the previous verse, through blessings and grace.

If it is argued that after creation, only the world is perceived and not you, it is answered: Even after creation, I alone exist in Vaikuntha in the form of the primordial Lord, as the inner controller in the devotees, and in various incarnations like Matsya as appropriate to the time.

If it is then questioned whether you are not the earth and other elements, or gods and animals, etc., which would imply your incompleteness, it is clarified: This universe, composed of individual and collective forms, is also myself, being produced by my energy. It is my material form. You should know both the higher and lower forms as they are. The lower form that you asked about is this one that you should understand.

Furthermore, the Supreme Lord who remains, as stated in "You alone remain, known as Śeṣa (śeṣa)," that is me. The threefold repetition of "aham" (I) here indicates emphasis. This explains the knowledge of both the higher and lower forms: the higher form with specific qualities that exists eternally in all three times, and the lower form which is this illusory material manifestation seen only during the intermediate period between creation and dissolution.

The realization, however, is only of the first, higher form, and that occurs when one experiences the sweetness of that form and qualities through loving devotion born of hearing and chanting, as will be explained in the fourth verse. This is Vishvanatha's explanation. The context should be understood in this way. (32)

Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā

"Whatever forms" etc. means whatever form, whatever qualities, and whatever actions. (31)

"I alone existed" etc. is the four-verse Bhāgavatam. "Even after creation, I alone exist" means there is no non-perception like a seed when a sprout has grown, due to the separate existence as the cause. This indicates the nature of being unfallen. "This universe is also myself" indicates that the material world is merely a verbal designation; in reality, everything is Brahman alone. (32)

Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā

Addressing one who might doubt "By fully understanding you, I am the master," it is said "Whatever." I, who am of the nature of knowledge as stated in scriptures like "I am truth, knowledge, omniscient," possessing the quality of knowledge, limitless, of such nature, having natural qualities of knowledge, strength, and action as mentioned, possessing form, qualities, and actions – form being conscious and unconscious entities, quality being their attributes and also directly the Lord's qualities like being firm, action being the function of maintaining the world – whatever forms, qualities, and actions I have, may you have that true knowledge of my essential nature, qualities, and glories by my grace and favor. (31)

Clarifying the meaning of "whatever," it explains the Lord's essential nature, which is primarily to be known, as indicated by the word "para" (higher): "I." The entity that is beyond the existent and non-existent, distinct from the conscious and unconscious, that alone I was. Elsewhere, nothing is distinct from the conscious and unconscious; everything else is included in them. I alone am distinct from them. Before creation, whatever existed, and after creation, you and all these effects – I am all that, being the cause in the form of conscious and unconscious entities and the effect in the form of conscious and unconscious entities. Again, at the time of dissolution, whatever remains after dissolution, that too is me alone. Distinct from prakṛti (prakṛti) and puruṣa (puruṣa), having them as my body, I alone am the omniscient, omnipotent, supreme lord who before creation had prakṛti and puruṣa with unmanifest names and forms as my body, during creation had prakṛti and puruṣa with manifest names and forms as my body, and even at the time of dissolution, I alone exist.

Thus, although the Supreme Self exists in the causal state with prakṛti of unmanifest names and forms as its body and in the effect state with prakṛti and puruṣa of manifest names and forms as its body, it remains untouched by the modifications belonging to the conscious entities that form its body (such as being a knower, being subject to sorrow, being under the control of karma) and the unconscious entities that form its body (such as childhood, youth, old age), just as the individual self is untouched by the modifications of its body. Its distinction from conscious and unconscious entities remains undiminished. Its state of being the effect and the cause is logically possible through prakṛti and puruṣa which form its body. More details on this can be found in the commentaries. (32)

Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā

Whatever was asked and whatever explanation was given, thus he speaks about the method of granting the desired boon in "parāvare". He says "jñānam" (knowledge). The meaning is: Take the knowledge that I have spoken, which is about my essential nature along with the secret dialogues of the Upaniṣads (upaniṣat), accompanied by the certain liberation-bestowing knowledge about my own form. If this were just the external meaning of the Upaniṣads, it would not be worth accepting, thus he says "param" (supreme). The explanation that knowledge is about the meaning of scriptures and realization is one's own experience, is rejected by the statement "by whichever means one attains certain liberation after knowing in whichever way, that is called realization; knowledge is remembered as ordinary" in the smṛti texts. (31)

He describes the method of granting the desired boon as requested in "yathātmamāyāyogena" by saying "yāvān". The meaning is: May you have the true knowledge of me exactly as I am - of whatever infinite measure I am in terms of pervasion of space and time, of whatever nature I am in terms of existence free from limitations, of whatever form, qualities and activities I am, of whatever incarnations, qualities and activities I have - by my grace. The word "eva" excludes the forms with limitations. (32)

Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā

There, he gives a blessing for the manifestation of realization and secret knowledge, the two things to be accomplished, in "yāvān aham". "Yāvān" means of whatever measure I am in my essential nature; "yathā bhāvaḥ" means of whatever nature of existence I am, that is, of whatever characteristics I am. "Yadrūpaguṇakarmaka" means one who has forms that are my other essential natures like the dark blue four-armed form etc., qualities like affection for devotees etc., and activities that are my various pastimes. May you have true knowledge, that is, direct experience, in exactly that way, by my grace. By this, the interpretation of the meaning of the four verses as referring to the featureless absolute is itself refuted. It will also be said by the Lord himself addressing Uddhava while referring to these four verses: "Previously I spoke to you supreme knowledge that reveals my greatness" etc. The word "tattvavijñāna" makes it clear that the forms etc. are also part of the essential nature. Here the blessing of realization is clear, and the blessing of secret knowledge is also certain because of the inevitable arising of supreme bliss in the true experience of those things. (31)

He now explains the fourfold topics to be known through the four verses, first stating his own characteristics as the object of knowledge in "aham evāsam". Here the word "aham" refers only to the embodied speaker, not to the featureless Brahman, because that is not the subject. If it were meant to teach self-knowledge, it would have been appropriate to say "You alone were" like "You are that". So the meaning is: I alone, this supremely enchanting divine form appearing before you now, existed even before the great dissolution. This is known from śruti statements like "In the beginning there was only Vāsudeva, not Brahmā or Śaṅkara", "In the beginning there was only Nārāyaṇa, not Brahmā or Īśāna" etc. and from the Third Canto: "In the beginning, the Lord alone existed as the controller of individual souls". Therefore the residents of Vaikuṇṭha etc. are also included by the word "eva" as His parts, like in "The king is coming". Their existence is also understood similarly. Thus Vidura's question: "Where does that person who is the origin, maintenance and dissolution of the universe, free from His own māyā, the Lord of māyā, rest as the inner witness of all?" And the question in the Kāśī-khaṇḍa: "O Lord, how many are those principles, what is their dissolution? Who should one worship there, who indeed should one follow?" It is also said in Dhruva's story: "His devotees do not fall even in the great calamity of dissolution. Therefore He alone is called Acyuta (infallible) in all worlds, all-pervading and imperishable." The word "eva" in "aham eva" excludes any other agent or formlessness etc. "Āsam eva" removes the impossibility of that. This is stated in "yadrūpaguṇakarmaka". Or "vā āsam eva" excludes only other activities like creation etc. known to ordinary people outside of Brahmā etc., but not His own internal pastimes. Just as when it is said "The king is not doing any work now", only royal duties are negated, not activities like sleeping or eating. Or from the root "asa" meaning to shine etc., "I existed shining even before with the special features seen by you now", thus particularly excludes formlessness etc. This is also stated in the Muktāphala commentary explaining the characteristics of Viṣṇu as both with and without form - "There is no non-pervasiveness in those with form, because their form is not concealed." The Aitareya Upaniṣad also states: "In the beginning this was indeed the Self in the form of a Person." By this, it is said that even from the perspective of prakriti, the knowledge of God is superior to non-existence prior to purusa. It is not heard anywhere that brahman alone was without attributes. To this, it is said: sat is the effect, asat is the cause, and that which is beyond these two is brahman, which is not different from me. For some qualified person or scripture unable to comprehend the specific inherent nature, I appear as this very self without attributes. Alternatively, at that time, due to the absence of manifestation, there is a twofold scriptural arrangement: in the form of pure consciousness without attributes, but in vaikuntha (heaven) in the form of God with attributes. By this, the knowledge of God mentioned in "I am indeed the foundation of brahman" is established. Therefore, this knowledge is said to be supremely secret. If it is said that after creation you are not perceived in the world, to this it is said: Even after creation, I alone existed, in vaikuntha in the form of the primordial God, and in the manifested worlds in the form of the inner controller, etc. By this, the knowledge of God described as "the cause of creation, maintenance, and dissolution" is instructed. If it is argued that the forms of pots, cloth, etc., seen everywhere are not your forms, and thus there would be incompleteness in you, to this it is said: This universe is indeed myself, being non-different from me and of my nature. By this, the knowledge of God stated in "This God, the creator of the universe, has been described to you, O dear one. In brief, there is nothing other than Hari, whether existent or non-existent" is instructed. Similarly, that which remains in dissolution is indeed myself alone. By this, the knowledge of God stated in "You alone remain, known as śeṣa (remainder)" is instructed. Thus, what was previously promised to be revealed by one's own grace is instructed as the knowledge of being unlimited by all time and space. In this way, by stating "There is nothing else, whether existent or non-existent, beyond this," the knowledge that "I am indeed the foundation of brahman" is indicated. By describing the form of God as having all forms and parts, the knowledge of having unique infinite forms is indicated. By describing the all-encompassing nature, the knowledge of having unique infinite qualities is indicated. By describing the basis of various actions characterized by creation, maintenance, and dissolution, the knowledge of having extraordinary infinite actions is indicated.

Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā

Moreover, knowledge is the indirect determination of reality through words, which may be possible for some pure-hearted believers. Realization, however, is direct experience, the actual perception of one's true nature, which is not possible without devotion and love for me, as stated in the secret and its auxiliary texts. To convey this, he gives a blessing regarding that quality: yāvān (as great as), yat (of what) measure and form. It means: having limbs with specific thickness, height, length, roundness, purity, and arrangement. Yathābhāva means with what intention. One who has those forms like śyāmatva (dark complexion), caturbhujatva (four-armed), dvibhujatva (two-armed), kṛṣṇatva (being Krishna), rāmatva (being Rama), nṛsiṃhatva (being Narasimha), etc., qualities like affection for devotees, etc., and actions like accepting Lakshmi, lifting Govardhana, etc. Tathaiva means: in whatever way my measure, intention, form, qualities, and actions manifest, may there be true realization of them in that very way. Although grace is already implied by the blessing itself, the repeated use of the word "my grace" suggests that with the gradual increase in devotional practice and loving devotion, which are the special functions of my most intimate grace-bestowing power, the experience of the sweetness of my form and qualities will also increase proportionately. Even beyond this, it hints that you will directly experience me, Krishna, the most sweet and rare form, superior even to this form of mine, in the land of Vraja. By this, other interpretations of the four verses as pertaining only to the attributeless nature are themselves refuted.

Thus, having promised knowledge, etc., to be given in two verses, and having made one fit for its attainment through blessing alone, while first instructing knowledge, he answers the question "How should I know the higher and lower as they are?" by saying "I alone existed before creation," touching his chest with his index finger. The word "alone" excludes the existence of anything else, implying that no material object of my category existed. This is the meaning: At present, manifesting before you, that supremely enchanting form, the great ocean of the sweetness of form and qualities, I alone existed even at the time of the great dissolution. This is supported by śruti texts such as "In the beginning, there was only Vāsudeva, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara," "The Self alone existed in the beginning in the form of a person," "The person indeed was Nārāyaṇa," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed," "The person Nārāyaṇa desired," "Then from Nārāyaṇa, the unborn was born," "From whom all beings [arise], Nārāyaṇa is the supreme Brahman, Nārāyaṇa is the supreme truth," "The supreme Brahman, the person dark and tawny," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna," etc., and smṛti texts like "The Lord alone existed." Here, Vaikuṇṭha and its residents are also included in the word "I" as they are His limbs, just as in "The king is coming." Thus, their existence should be understood similarly. And so is the king's question: "He too, where the person who is the origin, maintenance, and dissolution of the universe, the Lord of māyā, having withdrawn his own māyā, sleeps as the inner controller of all." Vidura's question and the explanation of tattvas, O Lord, how many ways do they dissolve? Who would worship him there, and who would follow him? Thus. The explanation of Śrī Svāmicaraṇa is that during pralaya (dissolution), who would worship this supreme Lord lying down like a king, and who would follow him, sleeping as he sleeps? It is also said in the Kāśīkhaṇḍa: Even in the great calamity of dissolution, his devotees do not fall. Therefore, he is acyuta (unfallen) in all the worlds, the one, all-pervading, and imperishable.

The phrase "āsam eva" (I alone existed) excludes other states of being. Since "asti" denotes existence, it implies that at that time, there was no absence of my existence in any way. The exclusion of other actions in "I alone existed, I did nothing else" is not actually applicable, as "asti" is inherent in all verbal meanings. When it is said "Caitra was indeed there in that village last year," it does not exclude Caitra's actions of sleeping, sitting, eating, etc., but only implies his presence.

However, it fits the manner of expression. As in the context - "I alone existed" excludes only other actions characterized by creation etc., which are within the cognition of ordinary people, starting from Brahmā, but not the internal līlā (divine play). Just as when it is said "Now this king does nothing at all," it only negates the work related to kingship, not sleeping, eating, etc. It is seen similarly here.

Now, it is heard somewhere that only the attributeless Brahman existed. To this, he says: That Brahman which is beyond the existent (effect) and the non-existent (cause), is not different from me. In some adhikārin (qualified person) or śāstra (scripture) incapable of teaching the various inherent distinctions, I appear as the attributeless Brahman - this is the meaning. But you should know me as endowed with form, qualities, etc., through the blessings and grace mentioned in the previous verse.

If it is argued that after creation, only the world is perceived, not you, he responds: Even after creation, I alone exist - in Vaikuṇṭha in the form of the primordial Lord, in the created worlds as the inner controller, and at appropriate times in avatāra forms like Matsya, etc.

If it is then said that you are not the earth, deities, animals, etc., implying your incompleteness, he responds: This universe, which is the cessation of the individual and collective, is also myself, being produced by my power, it is my material form. "As I would know the higher and lower forms" - thus you asked about the lower form, know this to be that, is the meaning. Also, "He who would remain, you alone remain, called Śeṣa" - as stated thus, I am that Supreme Lord. By the threefold repetition of "aham" (I) here, determination is indicated, implying that this form of mine endowed with qualities etc. has eternal existence in all three times as the higher form, while this visible, illusory world manifested only between creation and dissolution is the lower form - thus knowledge of the higher and lower forms is stated. The realization, however, would be of the first, higher form alone, and that too would occur when its form, qualities, etc. are relished through loving devotion born of hearing, chanting, etc., as will be clarified in the fourth verse. (32)

Śrīmad Śukadeva's Siddhānta Pradīpa:

He states that my grace alone is the principal means of knowledge combined with bhakti yoga (devotional yoga) in the verse beginning with "yāvān" (as much as). May you have true knowledge of me through my grace, exactly as I am - of such measure, of such nature, possessed of such existence, having such forms, qualities, and actions. (31)

Now, briefly teaching that very knowledge through instruction about the object to be known, he shows the higher and lower forms in the verse beginning with "aham" (I). The supreme, seed-like cause beyond the gross and subtle, the existent and non-existent, that which existed before creation - that alone I was, nothing else existed. And that which would remain afterwards, that too I am. Thus, the meaning is that I alone am of higher and lower forms, on whom the world depends. This universe of conscious and unconscious entities is also myself - meaning I am of a nature both different and non-different from the universe. By this, it is taught that one should worship me with firm faith, having knowledge that I am unlimited in measure, possessed of existence in all three times, of a nature both different and non-different from the world, endowed with qualities like omniscience etc. appropriate to the creation of the universe, and the doer of all cosmic actions. (32)

Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā

He states the second knowledge - yāvānaham iti. As much as I am in terms of measure and extent. Yathābhāvaḥ means the state that is my cause, in the form of all powers for performing all actions. Yāvanti rūpāṇi means the forms, qualities, and actions that belong to me. Yāni vā guṇādīni means "or whichever qualities, etc." This is also like before. He says - may you have that knowledge of reality by my grace. May the knowledge of the true nature of all things arise in you in reality - this is the meaning. (31)

Thus, being unable to describe the two types of knowledge, or due to the impossibility of Brahman manifesting in the heart when described, he himself gives the teaching in four verses, starting with "aham evāsam evāgre". The form in which the Lord creates the world is prayed for in that teaching. There he says: I alone became that form, nothing else. The appearance as something else is also my māyā (illusion). The perception of a soul in inert things like the body is like the perception of space in a pot. The relationship of container and contained, and the cause of external and internal distinctions, is also myself alone. The world is fundamentally my essential nature. In appearance it is māyā, and the individual soul is the one who has entered into it. Thus the entire world in all ways is myself alone. Knowing this, one's own nature should also be known as such. This is the teaching. If one becomes of my nature and creates the world of my nature, then there is no pride, and hence no delusion which is the cause of pride - this is the meaning of the five verses.

There, in response to the question of how the entire world is the Lord, he elaborates on the reason "tajjalān". Before creation, I alone existed. As per the śruti (scripture): "In the beginning, there was only Nārāyaṇa, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara existed." "In the beginning, there was only Vāsudeva, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara existed." Before creation, I alone existed. Moreover, one should not suspect that something existed before me. Just as I existed before the world, if something else existed before me, that would only be possible if I did not exist at some point. But that is not possible for me. Because I am described as existing in the form of sat (existence), as per the śruti: "In the beginning, my dear, this was existence alone, one only, without a second."

I existed before creation. Statements like "In the beginning this was non-existence, from that existence was born" etc. indicate that even before the world that is perceived later, it existed in an unmanifest form. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction in non-existence giving rise to existence. As per the statement: "Non-existence cannot give rise to existence." Statements like "Neither non-existence nor existence was there then" refer to gross and subtle effects. The statement "In the beginning, this was all water, just water" refers to an intermediate cycle of creation. It means that the various waters and this world which is their effect were all in the form of the waters of dissolution.

The statement "From the unmanifest, all beings..." refers to Brahman in unmanifest form. Since the conception of dissolution is established only later, the prior state of dissolution is also established only later, not earlier. This also refutes statements like "prakṛti and puruṣa...", as they belong to other schools of thought. It also contradicts statements like "There was knowledge, then objects." The statement "There was darkness" also refers to Brahman, due to the similarity of being in a state of complete dormancy. It is not prakṛti (primordial nature). As per the statement "What was the shelter, what was the receptacle...", since there is no purpose or substratum for effects, and since its nature can only be inferred from its effects, prakṛti did not exist then.

Similarly, other statements also indicate the Lord in one form in the beginning, without contradiction. Therefore, being established by śruti (scripture), he negates other things at that time - "Nothing else". Although existence and non-existence are established in śruti as prior, they are not different from him. He says this in "sadased iti". The words sat and asat both refer to Brahman - this is the meaning. Even the word para (supreme) in "He who is beyond this supreme" does not refer to time etc., but to myself alone. Thus it is established that I alone existed before. In your view, absences are not different from concealment, and since that is a power of the Lord, by the maxim "like before", since the attributes of power are not different from him, and since time is also described as such only at the time of description, being equal to prakṛti, the Lord alone is established as one without dispute.

Moreover, I exist afterwards. From the essential nature capable of all becoming, the emergence of action takes place. Time exists afterwards in causal form, in the form of power, and later in the form of effects. As per the śruti: "He himself made himself", and because the existence of non-existence is not accepted. Yadetat means all that is perceived. The word ca (and) includes that which is not perceived and not well-known. This also includes the individual souls. If the reading is "tvam etac ca", it means the entire world consisting of souls and inert matter is myself alone. This is the primary doctrine of Brahman. Indeed, words are not valid when they contradict the nature of things. And the Lord is free from all faults. Modifications and faults are defects. Due to the absence of restriction in all words, there is no instruction and abolition of scripture. Due to lack of purpose, there is the possibility of faults like not doing what is beneficial. And there is absence of being the Supreme Person. Therefore, due to being afflicted by many faults, the doctrine of Brahman is untenable - if this is said, (we reply) not so. Objects beyond the scope of direct perception are known through śruti (scripture). Those that are mutually contradictory do not admit of single remainder. Since both are Vedic, who would be the arbiter here? The intellect of the inquirers should always depend on śruti. In case of focus on action and knowledge, there is unity of sentence through option. Even a faulty view called option is accepted due to the force of śruti. Similarly, the form of the Lord is separate like hands etc. Just as there would be contradiction with everything, so is the consideration here. Therefore, capability of all forms is proclaimed in Brahman. Otherwise, the appearance due to differences of high, low etc. - that appearance and its creator is indeed Hari of that nature. Whatever fault is seen here is also Hari himself. All contradictory views shine with all mantras. "Whatever remains, that I am." In causing the disappearance of everything that has manifested, that which does not disappear, or the locus of disappearance, or through division of parts - that too I am - by this he indicates that all actions and their objects are myself. (32)

Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ

In "yāvān", the play-knowledge prayed for in the two verses "dvitīyam iti" and "yathātmamāye" is (explained). "As many forms" - this is explaining the meaning of "in whatever form", not an analysis of the compound. "This too like before" means this knowledge of form, quality and action is also secret and subsidiary like before, as appropriate. In this verse, by indicating quantity through authority, the all-formness stated in the śruti "That One unmanifest of infinite forms" is illuminated. By indicating quantity through measure, the contradiction of size stated in "Smaller than the atom, greater than the great" etc. is resolved and illuminated as the substrate of contradictory attributes. "As it is" illuminates the form of cause as the twenty-eight principles like śakti etc. and the śruti-stated causal form. "Of whatever form, quality and action" indicates the form of respective effects. By indicating the causality of grace everywhere, what is stated in the śruti "Whom alone this one chooses" should be understood as corroborated. This they say in "Thus knowledge" etc. (31)

*In "grahamevāsam", it is prayed. By "Through connection with one's own māyā" in the two (verses), after knowledge of creation etc. play, instruction to act as taught by the Lord is prayed for by "May I do as instructed by the Lord". This is accomplished by just the first verse, so what is the purpose of the rest - to this doubt, they state their purport in "Otherwise" etc. This is for the second (verse). "In essence" etc. is for the third. In "The entering jīva", the reading is "The jīva form through entering". "It appears" etc. is for the fourth. "Thus in my form" etc. should be known as for the fifth.

"Tajjalān" - he explains the reason in detail. Thus in the Chāndogya in Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, "All this is indeed Brahman, from That it is born etc.", "One should meditate peacefully" - the reason for the world being of the nature of Brahman stated in śruti is explained with reasoning. The meaning of the śruti is: Certainly, decidedly, this visible all (pakṣa/minor term) is Brahman (sādhya/major term). The reason there is "jalān" - "ja" means born, "la" means dissolved, "an" means existing, "jala" is "ja" and "la", "jalān" is that and existing in that - thus is the reason. "One should meditate peacefully" means one should contemplate the world as Brahman due to inherence in Brahman. And inherence is just another name for identity. Even in the view of difference, continuation in the non-superimposed, non-adventitious form is indeed of the nature of That. So there is no contradiction with the Vaiśeṣika doctrinal position.

Here, due to the two "eva"s, the two sentences "I alone was" and "was alone" are connected to both the preceding and succeeding words, as they indicate the previous state - with this intention, they first explain "Before creation" etc. The two śrutis "Nārāyaṇa alone was" etc. are from another branch, now found in well-known Upaniṣads as "Nārāyaṇa alone was, not Brahmā, not Īśāna" in the Brahma (Maha) Upaniṣad. Here, due to absence of the words "before this" in the first śruti, the state before creation and being the material cause are not clear, so the second śruti is shown - this is the meaning. Now, it is said in the śruti (scripture) that time is mentioned by the word "first", as in "from Harita came Rohita", and since the meaning of origination is also established, it is possible to say that at that time it arose first from all, so the assertion of self-existence alone in the time before creation is not justified. In response to this doubt, they say "moreover" etc. "Previously" means in the manner that will be explained. "That" refers to non-existence.

Now, if their existence is accepted, there is no contradiction with the word "only", as only the exclusion of impossibility is to be respected there, otherwise there would be improper usage at the beginning. In response to this doubt, they say "at the beginning, before creation". The meaning is this: Here in the śruti, if the existence of time is accepted, there would be a division of sentences. If repetition is accepted, since it depends on what was said before, its assumption being necessary, there would be an implication of the existence of that and its speaker, leading to a contradiction of the sentence meaning. And in specific injunction, there would be heaviness. Therefore, it must be respected that the sentence operates with the coloring of the currently well-known time for the purpose of teaching the student.

In that case, upon close examination, even the word "agre" (at the beginning) is not indicative of time. Because it is used in reference to a particular place in expressions like "go ahead" and "the city ahead". Therefore, in accordance with the emphasis, leaving aside the subject part manifesting in front in the word "agre", to establish the occurrence of the adjectival anteriority, only existence should be determined as the subject, and the locative case is in the sense of location. In that case, the meaning becomes that existence alone is the location before creation.

And this is not to be said that in the subsequent sentence "ekam evādvitīyam" (one without a second) which is explanatory, the word "eka" (one) can be said to have the primary meaning according to the lexicon "ekapadādeke mukhyānyakevalā", so only the absence of equal or superior is intended there, because that would result in the futility of the word "advitīyam" (without a second), as there would be no gain of the purpose of its utterance other than the negation of the existence of others.

And it is not to be said that according to another śruti (Aitareya) "ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīn nānyat kiñcana miṣat" (the Self alone was this in the beginning, nothing else whatsoever stirred), the word "advitīyam" (without a second) is for the purpose of negating another that performs action, because if so, there would be an obstruction to the proposition "yena aśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavati" (by which the unheard becomes heard) and to the example "yathā somya ekena mṛtpiṇḍena" (as, my dear, by one lump of clay).

And thus there is no problem of the absence of attributes, as there is no fault in the existence of essential attributes being of its nature. With this intention, it is said "at the beginning, before creation" which is faultless. By this, it is also indicated that the reason stated in the śruti "tajjalāni" as being subsidiary to meditation, due to non-contradiction with other means of knowledge, conveys the reality of the substance.

Now, even so, the existence of Brahman alone is not justified, as in śrutis like "asad vai" (verily, non-existence), non-existence etc. are also stated thus. In response to this doubt, they say "asad vai" etc. "Later" means in the state of creation. "Before" means prior to creation. Thus, in stating that it was not in such a form at that time, just as a pot was in the form of clay before, the world was established in the form of existence alone before. So at that time, the existence of Brahman alone is well-established.

Now, why is the existence of non-existence, which is established in the world, not accepted on the strength of śruti? To this they say "otherwise" etc. If this sentence is taken to indicate the existence of non-existence in accordance with the world, there would be a contradiction with the śruti "kutastu khalu saumyaivaṃ syāt katham asataḥ saj jāyeta" (how indeed, my dear, could it be thus? How could existence be produced from non-existence?). The meaning is that there would be a contradiction with the effect having a fixed limit.

Now, for the effect to have a fixed limit, its prior non-existence should be accepted there, so there is no fault even in accepting the existence of non-existence. And the śruti "kutas tu" etc. is for refuting the pure nihilist view, so there is no contradiction with that either. To this they say "na asataḥ" (not of non-existence) etc. Thus, if the existence of everything is accepted at that time, due to the absence of a substratum, the prior non-existence of the effect cannot be determined. And if the existence of a substratum is accepted, there would be a contradiction with the śruti "sad eva" (existence alone). Therefore, that existence should be accepted in Brahman alone. Even then, the contradiction with this sentence is difficult to resolve.

The meaning of the sentence is: The existence of a non-existent thing does not exist; the non-existence of an existent thing does not exist. The reason for this is that the inner conclusion of both these non-existences has been directly perceived by the seers of truth, the seers of the real form.

Now, in the Bhāvavṛtta hymn, the śruti "nāsad āsīt" (non-existence was not) indicates the absence of both existence and non-existence in the time before creation, so the existence of non-existence is indeed arrived at. To this they say "nāsad āsīt" etc. Thus, here too, having referred to the subtle effect by the word "asat" (non-existent) and the gross effect by the word "sat" (existent), their absence is stated. As this is similar to the previous, it is answered by that itself.

Vidyāraṇya, however, has accepted that by the word "asat" (non-existent), the indescribable is meant, and by the word "sat" (existent), the self is meant, as in mantras. Moreover, by indicating the absence of that, it means that according to their view, it was indeed anirvacanīya (indescribable) (and indescribable in English), distinct from both. Nevertheless, there is no particular difference. Further, 'nāsīdraja' negates the quality of rajas, 'no vyomāparo yad' refutes the concept of ākāśa (space) (and space in English) as understood by the Kaṇāda and others, since 'yo'syādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman' later speaks of ākāśa as the nature of imperishable Brahman. 'Tataḥ kimāvarīva' and so on negate the principle of prakṛti (primordial nature) (and primordial nature in English), 'tato'mbhaḥ kimāsīd' and so on negate the dissolution waters, and in the next mantra, 'na mṛtyurāsīd' and so on negate death, mortality, and the knowledge of time. Then 'ānīdvātam' and so on affirm the existence of that one and negate the existence of everything else. This is the meaning of these two mantras.

Now, if one objects that this contradicts the statement in the Samhita text "āpo vā" which affirms the existence of water by negating ambhas (water) (and water in English), they explain: "āpo va" and so on. Even if this is accepted, one might argue that the absence of prakṛti at the beginning of creation cannot be asserted, as the Lord states in the Gita "avyaktādīni" (unmanifest origins) (and unmanifest origins in English), where the word avyakta refers to prakṛti. In response to this objection, they say: "avyakta" and so on.

If one asks how to determine that the word avyakta here refers to Brahman itself, they explain: "līna" and so on. Here, to alleviate Arjuna's sorrow, the eternality of souls is being discussed. Therefore, the word bhūta refers to souls, whose manifestation is established only after origination, as explained earlier. Thus, before the division, in their subtle form, they are not manifest, hence they are called avyakta. In this case, the state of being unmanifest primordial elements cannot be attributed to prakṛti, as in the Sankhya doctrine, both prakṛti and puruṣa (individual soul) (and individual soul in English) are considered beginningless. Therefore, the primordial unmanifest refers to Brahman alone.

If one asks about the interpretation of the statement "prakṛtiṃ puruṣaṃ ca" in this context, they explain: "anena" and so on. "Anena" refers to the determination of the meaning of the word avyakta. Now, in the third mantra of the Bhāvavṛtta Sūkta, the existence of tamas (darkness) (and darkness in English) at the beginning of creation is mentioned, which is indeed māyā (illusion) (and illusion in English), as determined in passages like "tamo vā idamekamevāgra āsīt tat pareṇeritaṃ viṣamatvaṃ prayāti" (Verily, in the beginning, this was one, even darkness; that being moved by the Great One, became uneven). How then is the existence of Brahman alone established at that time? They explain: "tama āsīd" and so on.

To address the question of how, they say: "sarvata" and so on. Here, in the previous mantra, "ānīdavātaṃ svadhayā tadekam tasmāddhānyannaparaḥ kiñcanāsa," the nature of what is referred to by the word "tat" (that) is described here as "tamaḥ" (darkness) and so on. Therefore, it means thus. Now, if one argues that accepting the primary meaning is better than resorting to a figurative interpretation, they explain: "na prakṛtir" and so on.

The meaning of the śruti is: What action would cover? For whose pleasure? Thus, since the existence of prakṛti has already been negated in the previous mantra, the word tamas here cannot be taken to mean the first manifestation. Therefore, a figurative interpretation is indeed better. One should not worry about contradiction with the later statement "tamasā gūḍhamagre" (In the beginning, this was concealed by darkness). The meaning is that this world, differentiated by name and form, was in the beginning, before creation, unknown, unrecognized, and concealed by undifferentiated darkness in the form of the aforementioned Brahman, which is the cause – thus there is no contradiction due to the connection with the verbal action.

Having thus considered a few statements, they explain the interpretation of others similarly: "evamanyāni" and so on. What then? "Tasmai sahovāca na sannāsannasadasaditi" (To him, he said: neither existent nor non-existent, neither existence nor non-existence), "tamo vā idamagra āsīt pareṇeritaṃ viṣamatvaṃ prayatīti yadā tamastanna divā na rātrirna sanna cāsan śiva eva kevala" (Verily, in the beginning this was darkness; that being moved by the Great One became uneven. When it was darkness, then there was neither day nor night, neither existence nor non-existence; Śiva alone was), and other such statements from the Saubāla, Maitrāyaṇīya, and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads, as well as other similar texts, teach in terms of darkness distinct from existence and non-existence, controlled by Śiva and so forth. This is the meaning. Thus, having explained the meaning of a mere sentence, they state the conclusion with "Therefore" and so on. By this, it is also indicated that the doctrine of Viśiṣṭādvaita is disregarded. Now, due to the multiplicity of counterparts that are perceived later, and the existence of prior non-existence, absolute non-existence, and mutual non-existence earlier, how does the negation of others align? To this, they say "Absences" and so on. Thus, having established the existence of the pure self alone in the time before creation, they state that even at the time of creation, when there are various entities, only the existence of the pure self is established. Moreover, "And what" and so on. Thus, the perception of difference itself is inconsistent. The entities, however, are indeed forms of the Divine, so even then there is only pure existence - this is the primary doctrine of Brahman. This is the meaning.

Having thus explained and established the entire doctrine of Brahman through this interpretation, they raise an objection to strengthen it by the method of digging a post: "But" and so on, up to "Here there is no proof." Afterwards, the inconsistency of isolation (kaivalya) is shown. Up to "faults," the inconsistency of direct transformation is stated. "The word 'all'" means that in the Śruti statement "All this is indeed Brahman," if the word "all" implies causing benefit and so on, then even though all forms are of Brahman, there would be the fault of partiality and cruelty in causing suffering to living beings. "Absence of being the Supreme Person" means that if everything is of the form of Brahman and thus of one form, there would be no high or low status, hence no supreme personhood.

Here, the response is given through verses: "Not so, perception" and so on. Like objects to be examined such as gems, and like objects established by the words of an examiner in a matter not determined by direct perception, the mutually contradictory qualities taught by the Śruti, such as being subject to change and being changeless, moving and unmoving, should be understood as residing in one and the same substrate. Because these do not take on ekaseṣa (remaining as one), i.e., the status of one being primary and the other figurative, or the nature of being superseded and superseding, as they are taught by the Śruti. The reason for this: "Of both" and so on. "In the Śruti," means what would be the determining factor in the relationship of quality and qualified or in the nature of being superseded and superseding? Due to the absence of any higher authority than the Veda, there is no determining factor for this. Therefore, it is not easy to say that one is figurative or superseded, as the possession of contradictory qualities by Brahman is established by the Veda itself.

If it is argued that this too is said only after careful consideration, and therefore in the interpretation of the Veda, the intellect of the interpreter is the determining factor, and thus it may determine one to be figurative or superseded, to this they say: "Of the examiners" and so on. "Of the Śruti" is in the fifth case with elision of 'i'. Thus, the intellect of theistic examiners always, at all times, depends on the Śruti along with what is to be relied upon. Therefore, even when seeing two Śruti statements that teach two contradictory meanings, how can the intellect itself assume one meaning to be figurative or superseded, since the nature of being relied upon is not different in both? Or if it does assume so, why would it not consider itself non-authoritative due to contradiction with what is to be relied upon? Thus, it too is not independently determining, so the possession of contradictory qualities should be accepted as it is stated.

Now, having enjoined "He offers oblation when [the sun] has risen" in the Śruti, to praise that, offering oblation before sunrise is censured. Similarly, having enjoined "He offers oblation before [the sun] has risen," offering after sunrise is censured. There, when it's impossible to negate one or perform both, it is established that both apply respectively to different branches of the Veda. Similarly, here it should be said that one pertains to meditation and the other to knowledge. Even there, if it is asked which pertains to what, since meditations are enjoined with emphasis on respective qualities, the qualities pertain to that. In knowledge, however, due to censure in statements like "Brahman is one without a second," "There is no diversity here whatsoever," "He who sees diversity here goes from death to death," the negation should be understood as pertaining to knowledge. And thus, the establishment of dual nature is not achieved even through imagined attributes for the sake of worship, as it is not determined in such a way in passages like "One should worship speech as a cow." However, for knowledge, it is not established in that manner. This is evident from hearing the condemnation: "He who perceives the self, which is one way, in another way - what sin has not been committed by that thief who steals the self?" Therefore, since the discriminating intellect, which is dependent on it, is the determining factor, it is not proper to ascribe contradictory attributes. Hence, they say "action" and so on. Action is mental, in the form of meditation, which is worship. Knowledge is jñāna). When there is an option between the scriptures that describe attributes and those that negate them, there is no unity of statement, because Brahman is not primary. If action and knowledge were to be primarily taught, there would be separate statements due to the difference in meaning, like statements about performed and unperformed homa, and due to the absence of expectancy. In that case, the unity of all scriptures in teaching Brahman, as stated in śruti and sūtra passages like "All Vedas indicate that state" and "The teaching of all Vedānta is non-different due to the absence of specificity in injunctions, etc." would be contradicted.

Now, if one says: "We do not accept knowledge and worship as primarily taught, but rather Brahman. Therefore, the unity of statement is easily established through the connection of superimposition and negation." To this, they say "faulty" and so on. The meaning is this: One who says that attributes are taught as imaginary for the sake of worship must accept that they are real somewhere. Otherwise, even their imagination would be impossible. It is determined in the vidyā of honey and others that only an existing attribute in one place can be superimposed elsewhere. If this is so, the reality of these attributes must be accepted in the limiting adjunct. If the limiting adjunct is real, duality would result. If it is unreal, then due to the non-existence of the attributes themselves, superimposition would be impossible, making the teaching of imagination impossible. Thus, if Brahman is primarily taught, that connection is impossible to state, making the separation of statements unavoidable.

Therefore, just as in the case of statements like "In the Atirātra, one takes the sixteenth cup" and "In the Atirātra, one does not take the sixteenth cup," where the option called vikalpa is accepted despite being faulty with eight defects, due to the force of the two statements, similarly here, due to the force of the two śrutis, dual nature must be accepted. Thus, just as hands and other body parts, though separate from a person, are of the nature of the person, so too the world, though appearing different from Brahman, is of its nature. The Lord, though in the form of the world, is also different as the Supreme Person. In short, just as there is no contradiction with all śrutis, so too should this be examined with subtle vision, not by negating one or the other. Therefore, negations of attributes like "not gross" and "non-doer, non-enjoyer" as well as attributions like "with hands and feet everywhere" and "he is the all-knowing, the source of all" are equally strong, being engaged solely in teaching the nature of Brahman. For ease of understanding, Brahman is described as capable of all forms, being all forms, and capable of all actions. This is taught by Vyāsa in the section on dual characteristics. Thus, due to the force of śruti, sūtra, etc., for the sake of non-contradiction with everything, the possession of contradictory attributes should be respected.

If one objects that it is not proper for Brahman to have all forms, as it is not perceived in all places and times, and Brahman is of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss, a mass of knowledge, and always of one form, and therefore the previous explanation is not fitting, they say "otherwise" and so on. The doer is māyā as per the maxim "Agency in one's own operation exists everywhere indeed for the instrument." Thus, even though there are multiple flavors, the explanation is proper as the single flavor is not contradicted.

If one asks how there can be confidence in accepting something contradictory to perception based on verbal testimony, as there is no determining factor, they say "contradictory aspects" and so on. Here, all the contradictory aspects perceived in Brahman in all avatars, such as the fish growing a hundred yojanas in an instant, the boar becoming mountain-sized in a moment, the seven-year-old lifting Govardhana, the small one becoming all-pervading in the Damodara play, etc., were seen by contemporaries and are well-known even now through śruti, etc. Therefore, everything is beautiful only in Brahman. Thus, you who doubt should respect perception itself as the determining factor. This should be carefully noted by the assembly of scholars, just as it is.

Thus, the absoluteness of Brahman in the state of manifestation has been established. By this, it has been shown that the Lord does not accept the doctrine of difference in any way. Next, they speak about the state of dissolution: "And so on." By this, quoting the Saubala text which states that earth dissolves in water, water in fire, fire in air, air in space, space in the senses, the senses in the tanmātras, the tanmātras in the primordial element, the primordial element in the great principle, the great principle in the unmanifest, the unmanifest in the imperishable, the imperishable in darkness, and darkness becomes one in the Supreme - this is the instruction of nirvāṇa, this is the instruction of the Veda - it has been shown that even the Viśiṣṭādvaita proponents who accept the dissolution of earth and other elements up to the imperishable in their respective causes, and the unification characterized by the inability to distinguish name and form of darkness, which is the cause of all, in the Supreme, are refuted.

In the consideration of the verbal root meaning, since dissolution (laya, लय) has the form of 'le', just as pure water poured into pure water results in the inability to distinguish name and form, the oneness of the imperishable and other elements with their cause is of that nature, and darkness is said to become one, indicating non-difference from the causal nature. This very meaning becomes clear. Therefore, in the conclusion, the nature stated in the beginning - "Beyond which there is neither existence nor non-existence, neither being nor non-being" - is referred to. Hence, this is indeed the primary doctrine of Brahman, and all is well-established. (32)

Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī

If you say "I am not able to grasp that supreme secret", then he says - yāvān iti. I am yāvān (as great as), of such magnitude, yathābhāvaḥ (of such nature) possessing such existence, one who has those forms, qualities and actions, he is yadrūpaguṇakarmaka (of such form, qualities and actions). In the same way, may you have tattvavidñāna (knowledge of truth) and yathārthajñāna (true knowledge) by my grace alone. (31)

Thus, having promised instruction with blessings in two verses, he instructs with four verses - aham iti. Before creation, I alone existed as that supreme cause which is beyond the existent and non-existent, effect and cause. Nothing else, gross or subtle, existed. By this the supreme form is shown. I existed alone, and did not do anything - this is the meaning of eva. After creation also, whatever this universe consisting of effect and cause, gross and subtle - that also I alone am. Thus the other form is shown. The forms of incarnations like Rama and Krishna, qualities like affection for devotees, and actions like creation, preservation, lifting of Govardhana, etc. are indicated by yadrūpaguṇakarmaka. And whatever remains in dissolution, that Lord also I alone am - thus my existence pervading the three times is shown as the meaning of yathābhāvaḥ. (32)

Hindī Anuvāda

My extent, my characteristic, my forms, qualities, and līlās (divine plays) - by my grace, may you experience their essence exactly as they are. || 31 ||

Before creation, I alone existed. Besides me, there was neither the gross nor the subtle, nor the cause of both, which is ignorance. Where this creation does not exist, there I alone am, and whatever appears in the form of this creation is also me, and whatever will remain is also me alone. || 32 ||