Text 33: Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.
Text 34: O Brahmā, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as My illusory energy, that reflection which appears to be in darkness.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
'By the yoga of my māyā (divine illusion)' - this explains māyā, as it is mentioned and will be useful in the following. Without purpose, without any real meaning. Whatever undefined appears in the self as the substratum. Even though it exists, it may not appear - that should be known as my māyā. For example, illusions like the double moon, etc. are instances of appearance without reality. Like darkness is an example of non-appearance of what exists. Just as Rāhu, though present in the planetary system, is not seen. || 33 ||
This clarifies 'as it is'. Just as the great elements enter into the elemental after creation, being perceived in them, and are also not entered, as they pre-exist in them as the cause. Similarly, I am in these elements and elemental things, and yet I am not in them. This is the meaning of my existence. || 34 ||
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
For the living entity, māyā is partly favorable and partly unfavorable towards the knowledge and realization of the Supreme Self. When the Supreme Self is realized, yogamāyā (divine illusive power) alone prevails, which is indeed favorable. These two must necessarily be explained. Indicating this, he answers the question implied by 'by the yoga of my māyā' about what your māyā and yogamāyā are like, saying 'without purpose'. Whatever real object is not perceived without a purpose, but only the real object is perceived, that is the meaning. Similarly, what appears without purpose, the real object is not perceived, but only the unreal appears, that is the meaning. The liberated and bound living entities should know that as the twofold function of māyā, called vidyā (knowledge) and avidyā (ignorance) respectively, which is the power known as māyā in relation to me, the Self.
An example of vidyā is like the light of a lamp. Just as by lamplight, objects like pots and cloth existing in a house are perceived as they are, not as they were imagined before bringing the lamp, and no non-existent fearful things like snakes or scorpions are perceived. Similarly, due to vidyā, the liberated soul perceives in itself only the eternally connected knowledge, etc., not their absence as in the state of ignorance, nor unconnected bodily sorrows, delusions, etc.
An example of avidyā is like darkness. Just as in darkness, existing objects like pots and cloth in one's house are not perceived, but non-existent imagined fearful things like snakes or thieves are perceived. Similarly, due to avidyā, the bound soul does not perceive the eternally connected knowledge and bliss in itself, but only perceives the unconnected bodily sorrows, delusions, etc.
Thus, though things like flower-horns may be real, due to their lack of connection with space, 'sky-flower' and 'hare's horn' are called unreal. Similarly, though bodies and their qualities like sorrow, delusion, pleasure, and pain may be real as products of pradhāna (primordial nature), due to the soul's lack of connection with them, scriptures state that for the soul, body etc. are unreal. The soul's unreal connection with the body is indeed imagined by avidyā and dissolved by vidyā.
Examples of vidyā and avidyā are light and darkness, as stated in the 8th Skandha: "Where there is neither shadow nor sunshine, where no vulture's wing [can reach]." Some say darkness is an example of the veiling aspect only, while examples of both veiling and projecting are snake, tiger, ghost possession, etc. Others say these are also included under the term 'darkness' due to their tamasic nature.
Thus, avidyā's functions of making existing things appear and non-existing things appear in the soul are called veiling and projecting. As 'artha' also means wealth, the liberated soul rich in knowledge and bliss gained through vidyā is likened to a wealthy merchant, while the bound soul with knowledge and bliss covered by avidyā is likened to a poor merchant who hasn't acquired his wealth.
Through vidyā, only the 'thou' aspect, the individual soul, is experienced, not the 'that' aspect, the Supreme Self, as it is attributeless and can only be directly experienced through attributeless devotion, as the Lord said: "I am attainable only through undivided devotion." Moreover, as the Lord said: "Absolute knowledge is in the mode of goodness," this vidyā, which is knowledge of the self as distinct from the body, etc., being in the mode of goodness, cannot experience the Supreme Self who is beyond the modes. Rather, it is the absence of this that allows such experience. As the Lord said: "Substance, place, result, time, knowledge, action, the doer, faith, state, form, and determination - all these are indeed of the three modes. By these, O gentle one, the modes born of the mind are conquered by the living entity. Through devotional service, fixed in Me, he attains to My nature." Now then, how can a liberated soul obtain devotion for the direct experience of the Supreme Self? It is said: For those qualified for knowledge, through Sankhya, yoga, austerities, etc., mixed with devotion, first comes the experience of the meaning of 'you' (tvam) through knowledge that removes ignorance. Then, for one liberated from that knowledge, like a fire without fuel, as that knowledge gradually subsides, the previously established crescent moon of devotion, freed from its eclipse, gradually rises. Similarly, through devotion practiced again and again, there is a gradual increase in the experience of the Supreme Self. As stated by the Lord in the Gita: "One who has become Brahman, whose self is serene, neither grieves nor desires. Being the same towards all beings, he attains supreme devotion to Me." Supreme means either the best or pure, due to the absence of the state of being a subsidiary quality of the earlier time. Then, as stated: "Through devotion he knows Me as I am in essence," by this devotion, which is slightly less in type and measure, there is experience of only the attributeless Brahman, not of the Lord who is Brahman with infinite conscious distinctions. Just as a person with weak eyesight sees a jeweled image only as a generally luminous form, not as having specific features like face, nose, eyes, and ears. Then, when knowledge ceases completely along with its form, through such devotion, there is the full experience of that wonderful attributelessness of Brahman. This itself is the union of the individual soul and Brahman, denoted by the word nirvāṇa (liberation). As stated there itself: "Having thus known Me in essence, he enters into that immediately." But that supreme faith which is devotion, which is the essence of the functions of consciousness, which is in the form of the play of compassion, which is far superior in type and measure, which is very powerful, completely independent, disregarding even qualities and faults, arises spontaneously even in a bound soul, in a demon, tribal, or outcaste, even if of bad conduct. It does not arise in a brahmin, a renunciate, or even a liberated one. As stated: "Oh wonder! Like a jewel in the hand of a blind man." Similarly, there would be direct experience of the Lord who is Brahman with infinite conscious distinctions. Just as a person with much stronger eyesight clearly sees an image that is generally luminous and specifically full of the beauty of face, nose, eyes, ears, etc. Thus, devotion is of two kinds: attributeless and with attributes. By the first, in its mature state known as love-devotion, there is control over the Lord and experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form, qualities, and pastimes, which are composed of existence, consciousness, and bliss. By the second, which is sāttvika (pure), separated from even the quality of sattva (goodness), there is only the experience of the bliss of attributeless Brahman. Therefore, it is established that maya has authority over souls only in the states prior to the state of experiencing Brahman's bliss. As stated: "That alone would be perceived as real, from which the unreal [appears] thus; one should know that as one's own maya, like light, like darkness." This meaning is also seen in another context. The words ṛte and artha are inverted and coupled because that meaning, just as in people experiencing Brahman, in various types, which clearly establishes by the Lord's will, the revealer of His own form, qualities, and pastimes, is the intrinsic power that bears the burden of concealing. The characteristic of yogamāyā (divine illusive power) too is stated by the tantra itself - ṛte means when the Self, the Supreme Self, I am directly known, since the root ṛ means 'to go' and hence 'to know'. Yataḥ is the present participle of "iṇ gatau" (to go), implied by the word tat itself. By which the object, the thing obtaining the purpose, both supernatural and natural, is perceived. By which the thing with revealed true purpose would be directly experienced by a person who has realized the Supreme Self. From which it is not perceived, or by which that very thing or at another time would not be perceived. One should know that as the Lord's, my internal power called yogamāyā. It should be discerned that by māyā (illusive power) one is engaged without any purpose, but by yogamāyā one is engaged only for a purpose. "yathā bhāso yathā tamaḥ" (as light, as darkness) - Just as objects like pots and cloth are perceived when illuminated by light sources like lamps, and are not experienced when covered by darkness, similarly that yogamāyā (divine illusion) has the properties of both illumination and obscuration according to my will.
For example, to show the absence of love's inhibition even upon seeing divine power, she revealed the natural and supernatural forms of Gokula, Yaśodā, Kṛṣṇa, etc. in the Lord's belly, by which Yaśodā was deluded and directly experienced it for a moment, and in the next moment did not experience it due to concealment.
Similarly, to show the inhibition of love through the experience of divine power, Arjuna directly perceived the universal form and supreme self form revealed by her, while at that same time he did not perceive Kṛṣṇa's form due to her concealment. At another time, the universal form etc. was hidden by her and he only perceived the two-armed Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
The special feature here compared to before is that one form is revealed while another is concealed simultaneously. As in the vision of Mañjumahima, to remove Brahmā's pride of being the supreme lord, through her alternating concealment and revelation, he experienced seeing and not seeing the cowherd boys and calves, seeing Kṛṣṇa's form, seeing the cowherd boys and calves as Sūta, seeing the four-armed form etc., and seeing Śrī Kṛṣṇa's form. Parameṣṭhin (Brahmā) was deluded by her. The special feature here is the repetition of revealing and concealing various forms in that same Parameṣṭhin.
And to show that the Lord's body is inherently both limited and unlimited, and also to show that the Lord is controlled by both the effort of pure devotion and the resulting divine grace, in the rope-binding pastime, she simultaneously fulfilled and prevented Yaśodā's desired binding of Kṛṣṇa through the simultaneous concealment and revelation of his all-pervasiveness, indicated by the encircling anklet falling short by two fingers' length and not encircling. In reality, fulfilling Kṛṣṇa's own desire of being bound, by which the queen of Vraja experienced wonder for a moment, deluded. Afterwards, to fulfill her desire too with Kṛṣṇa's consent, his all-pervasiveness was indeed concealed by her, so she was able to bind Kṛṣṇa. Here the special feature compared to the previous examples is the simultaneous concealment and revelation of the same all-pervasiveness.
And for accomplishing practices like mantras for each sound, through her simultaneous concealment and revelation of his respective forms situated in the homes of Śrutadeva, Bahulāśva, Rukmiṇī, Satyabhāmā etc., the accomplishment of pastimes there will be explained. Here the special feature compared to before is the simultaneity of concealment and revelation with respect to the different individuals like Śrutadeva and Bahulāśva, whereas before it was in Yaśodā alone.
That is indeed yogamāyā, not māyā. This is evident from the direct perception of the Supreme Self even by those deluded by her. And that direct perception of the Supreme Self occurs for those with knowledge mixed with devotion when both ignorance and knowledge cease, as well as for those who, though lacking love, lovingly see Kṛṣṇa at the time of his incarnation due to being objects of his grace. At other times, according to the Bhāgavata view, only those with love have such direct perception of Kṛṣṇa, Rāma etc. Among them, only yogamāyā operates, not māyā.
Even for those who see Kṛṣṇa by his will, like Kaṃsa, there is no direct perception of the Supreme Self due to the inner defect of hatred, just as those with bile-afflicted tongues do not experience the taste of sweets even while eating them. In them, māyā operates, not yogamāyā.
The power of māyā originates from yogamāyā and is her manifestation, as stated in the Nārada Pañcarātra in the dialogue of Śruti and Vidyā: "Her covering power is Mahāmāyā, the controller of all. By her the entire world is deluded, all identifying with their bodies."
The yogamāyā power considered by the Lord as his own nature is indeed consciousness. She herself, considered as her own nature by her own will in part, having become separate from her own nature, is the unconscious māyā power. Just as a snake's skin, though part of its nature, when shed by it becomes a separate, unconscious sheath, as stated in the Śrutis: "Like a snake shedding its skin, you have abandoned that."
That māyā is of three types: pradhāna (primordial nature), avidyā (ignorance), and vidyā (knowledge). The characteristics of pradhāna will be explained in the Jāyantīyopākhyāna. By pradhāna, the limiting adjuncts are created, and they are indeed real. By avidyā, their superimposition on the individual souls is created, and that is indeed unreal. By vidyā, the destruction of that superimposition occurs. Thus, the effect of these three powers, this world, is partly unreal and, due to the eternality of the souls and the transcendental nature of the Lord's abode and devotional accessories, partly eternal as well. This has been described in various ways by different schools according to their views:
"The effect of pradhāna is real, the effect of avidyā is false. That which is connected to His devotion is eternal - this world consists of these three. (1) Bodies are effects of pradhāna, their qualities are of avidyā. Their connection to souls and devotion - these are transcendental. (2) Consciousness, souls, and māyā are the three eternal powers of Kṛṣṇa. Through their functions, that one Supreme Lord appears. (3) Due to the oneness of effect and cause, and of power and the powerful," ekamevādvayaṃ brahma (One alone is the non-dual Brahman) neha nānāsti kiṃcana (there is no diversity here whatsoever) 4 bhaktānāmeva siddhāntaścatuḥślokīyamī- litā (This four-verse doctrine is established only for the devotees) | śīlitā bhavatāduktaistaireva na kilāparaiḥ (It is practiced by those spoken of by you, not by others) 5" Thus says Viśvanātha. The context is: Now, to explain the nature of māyā (illusion) through the differentiation of the self characterized by such forms, etc., he says - ṛte'rtham (without meaning). Without me, the ultimate reality, that appears; in my appearance, there is no appearance of that. The meaning is that its appearance is only outside of me. What is not perceived in the self and that which has no independent perception without being dependent on something - such an entity should be known as māyā, the power called illusion of myself, the supreme Lord, which is of two types - jīvamāyā (individual soul's illusion) and guṇamāyā (illusion of qualities). Here, even for the pure soul, due to its nature of consciousness and being like a ray of it, only its internal inclusion is intended. Its non-dual nature is understood through two examples. The nature of the first part, called jīvamāyā, is clarified through an example, dispelling any doubt. As ābhāsa (reflection) - a reflection is a particular image of a luminous object projected in a nearby place from its own light. Just as it appears only outside of that [object] and there is no perception of it without that [object], so is this [māyā]. By this, its nature as reflection is also implied by the synonym pratibimba (image). Therefore, the effect of it is also called ābhāsa (reflection) in some places, as in "ābhāsa and nirodha (obstruction)" etc. Sometimes, an extremely brilliant light falling on the eyes of onlookers obscures their vision, and covering it, by its own extreme brilliance, confuses the viewer's eye and emits a variety of colors in its vicinity. Sometimes it transforms that very [light] separately into various forms. Similarly, this [māyā] also obscures the knowledge of the individual soul, emits the inert prakṛti (nature) called guṇamāyā which is the equilibrium of sattva and other qualities, and sometimes transforms the separate sattva and other qualities into various forms - this and more should be understood. As it is said: "As the partial smile of fire spreads moonlight, so is this entire world the māyā of the supreme Brahman." And as the Ayurveda experts say: "The unwilling puruṣa (consciousness), who is the source of the world and of the form of pure bliss, has an eternal prakṛti (nature), like the reflection of a luminous object. Though unconscious, through association with the consciousness of the supreme self, it created the entire impermanent world in the form of a play." Thus, the instrumental aspect should be understood as jīvamāyā and the material aspect as guṇamāyā. Now, he clarifies the second aspect called guṇamāyā, which has been established thus, through an example. As tamas (darkness) - here the word tamas refers to the previously mentioned darkness-like variety of colors. Just as that, though non-existent in the original light, cannot exist without depending on it, so is this [māyā]. Or, in the description of māyā alone, these two separate examples are given. The example of ābhāsa (reflection) has been explained. And the example of tamas (darkness) should be understood as: just as darkness is perceived only away from light and is not perceived without light, being perceived by the eye illuminated by light, not by the back etc., so is this [māyā]. Thus, the two aspects are stated only by the difference in their functions, not by the difference in examples. With the intention of the previous two examples, sometimes the former is referred to by the synonym chāyā (shadow), and the latter always by the word tamas (darkness), as in "He created knowledge with shadow, the five-fold unmanifest." And as in "Who am I? I am great darkness" etc. In the former, being related to the individual soul due to its function as the instrumental power called avidyā (ignorance), it is jīvamāyā. In the latter, being the function of the material power consisting of its own various qualities producing the great elements etc., it is guṇamāyā. In "He created" etc., it means that at the beginning of creation, Brahmā himself manifested avidyā (ignorance) relying on the shadow-power māyā. "vidyāvidye mama tanū viddhyuddhava śarīriṇām | bandhamokṣakarī ādhe māyayā me vinirmite" (Knowledge and ignorance are my two forms, know this, O Uddhava, for embodied beings. They cause bondage and liberation, and are created by my māyā (illusion)), thus it is said. The difference in their manifestation is also heard. Regarding the former, in the Padma Purāṇa, in the Kārttika-māhātmya section of the dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Satyabhāmā, in the praise of Māyā by the devas: "Thus, as the devas were praising, they saw in the sky a radiant mandala, with its brilliance pervading all directions. From its center, they all heard a celestial voice: 'I alone, divided threefold, exist with three types of qualities'," and so on. Regarding the latter, in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa: "The innumerable state of prakṛti (nature) is dense darkness, immutable."
The meaning of addressing in the first person as "vidyā" (knowledge) is this: It is an instruction to others by oneself. But you directly experience it through the power given by me. Thus, transcending the illusory vision, one should experience me as endowed with form and other attributes. This is the essence of the experience through the method of negation. Even though my essential nature is determined by words, it cannot be experienced due to the influence of māyā's effects. Therefore, to achieve that purpose, one must abandon māyā. By this, it is understood that love is also experienced due to its inseparability [from knowledge].
This is the meaning: My existence is indeed supernatural. The context is now explaining the secretive nature of that very love, as follows. Just as the great elements, though not entered into beings, appear to be situated within while remaining outside, similarly, I, though not entered into them as I reside in the transcendental Vaikuṇṭha, appear to be situated in the hearts of devoted people who are renowned for their respective qualities. There, the entry and non-entry of the great elements is by partial division, while for Him, it is by the difference in manifestation. Thus, the difference is also an analogy only in terms of the similarity of entry and non-entry.
In this way, it is indicated that for them, such love-devotion, which makes the self subservient, is a secret. And thus in the Brahma-saṃhitā: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Rādhā, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhīs], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa." And: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, Śyāmasundara, who is Kṛṣṇa, who has an inconceivable form of qualities, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love."
The meaning is: Though His form of qualities is inconceivable, it is seen with the eye of devotion, which is like a collyrium tinged with what is called love, thus manifesting brightly. Or, just as those [elements] appear both inside and outside them, similarly, I manifest in the devotees' inner mental functions and outer sensory functions. Thus, the cause of the devotees' complete absorption in me in every way is some self-luminous, love-named, blissful entity, which is my secret – this is the essence.
Similarly, it is said by Śrī Brahmā: "My speech never speaks falsely, nor does my mind ever think falsely. My senses never go towards the unreal path, for Hari is held in my heart with longing." Although according to other explanations, this meaning might be refuted, the intent is in this very meaning, as it is begun for establishing the fourfold assertion and follows that sequence. Moreover, in this meaning, no word becomes redundant or meaningless, as the analogy itself fits with both actions.
Furthermore, this indeed is what is called a secret: when an extremely rare object is covered by another ordinary object to prevent the gaze of desired and indifferent people, like a cintāmaṇi (wish-fulfilling gem) with a box, etc. Therefore, the statement of the Lord: "The sages speak in hidden ways, and hidden am I too." That very thing is made hidden which is not to be given, has rare circulation, and is a great entity. Its non-givability, rare circulation, and greatness are clearly expressed in many places: "He may sometimes give liberation, but never devotional service," "Even among liberated souls and perfected beings," "Devotion is superior to perfection," and so on.
This very thing has been told by the Supreme Lord Himself to His supreme devotees Arjuna and Uddhava with great difficulty: "Listen again to My supreme word, most secret of all," and "I shall speak to you what is most secret." This very secret was revealed to Śrī Nārada by Brahmā himself: "This is called the Bhāgavata, which was spoken to me by the Lord. It is a collection of His glories; you should expand this. Describe it with the resolve that people will develop devotion to Lord Hari, the all-pervading support of all souls." Therefore, it has been well explained by the venerable ones that the secret is devotion.
Viśvanātha, however, [says]: Thus, having characterized māyā and yogamāyā by the tantra itself, he tells in the tantra manner the mode of each in the material and spiritual worlds presided over by them, as asked by Brahmā, as follows: Just as the great elements like ether are entered into the beings like gods, humans, animals, etc., because they are perceived in them. Not entered, and separately existing. Thus, having entered into those elements and elemental beings, I am also not entered, as I exist separately in my own pure essential abode. However, due to the unconscious nature of the great elements, my entry into those elements is without attachment. Even though I am conscious, like space in one's own house, I reside untouched. Thus, the meaning is that in all these, due to the observance of entry, regulation, and protection without attachment, I play without attachment in these illusory forms. Similarly, in those well-known, bowed devotees, I have entered into their inner faculties to give darśana (vision), and not entered, remaining outside to bestow my beauty upon their eyes, to infuse my fragrance into their noses, to engage in speech and reply with them, to fill their ears with the nectar of my melodious voice, and to make them experience my tenderness and other qualities in their bodies through touch, embrace, and other gifts. Thus, the meaning is that I play with attachment in those devotees who are beyond qualities, whom I cannot abandon internally or externally. || 34 ||
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
Without purpose, etc., meaning any body, etc. The idea is this: Though non-existent, though false, the body, etc., appears as the self without any real, ultimate purpose. Though existent, though eternally manifest, the self is not perceived, is not known. The understanding that there is no self different from the body, etc., one should know as the māyā (illusion) of the self, of the Supreme Lord. The idea is this: Māyā has two powers in the form of concealment and projection. By the power of concealment, there is ignorance of one's true nature; by the power of projection, there is identification of the self with the body. In the perception of the non-existent, the example is "like an appearance", meaning that even though there is no duality in the moon, etc., due to mental error or observed defect, sometimes two moons appear to be seen. In the non-perception of the existent, the example is "like darkness", meaning that in a room enveloped in deep darkness, even existing jars, etc., are not perceived, but only darkness is perceived. Thus, not the self, but the body, etc. Or, "darkness and Rāhu", meaning that even though present in the planetary system, it is not perceived. This is the meaning. Thus ends the Bālaprabodhinī. || 33 || 34 ||
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Thus, the nature of the Supreme Self, distinct from conscious and unconscious entities, has been stated. Now, the conscious form, which is to be known as a part indicated by the word "avara" (inferior), is stated in "Without purpose". Without the ultimate object, which is the supreme goal of human life, the conscious principle, when the unconscious substance would be perceived at the time of contemplation on nature, the true nature of the self does not manifest properly. This is the meaning. When the conscious nature is perceived in the self, according to the maxim "that is night for the seeing sage", that which is perceived as unconscious should be known as the māyā of the self, of the Supreme Self. This is the meaning. Intending that when one manifests, the other does not manifest due to their contradictory natures, he gives an example for this: "Like appearances", appearance means shining, or the word "bhāsu" is in plural. Indeed, darkness does not shine in light, nor does light shine in darkness. This is the meaning. The connection of contradictory qualities like grossness, subtlety, eternality, inertness, etc., is intended. || 33 || * * Thus, the mutually distinct natures of the conscious and unconscious have been stated. Now, he states the protection in the form of governing these two by his own entry, and the non-contact with their inherent faults, in "As". The great elements - space, air, fire - as they have entered into various high and low elements and elemental beings like pots, etc., are also not entered, as they are untouched by the divisions and splits present in pots, etc. Similarly, I too, though entered as the self into those conscious and unconscious beings, am not entered into them, meaning I am not touched by their respective faults. Or, even while entering into limited conscious and unconscious entities, he states his own unlimitedness with an example in "As"! Those that have not entered are also outside, and in that way, I have entered into all of them by pervading everything outside as well. The meaning is that I am not confined to them alone, but I am also pervading outside. Thus, by establishing the unlimited nature, "how much I am" is clarified. In "I alone existed," by establishing omniscience, omnipotence, etc., which are implied by being the cause of the world and the distinction between sentient and non-sentient beings, "as I was" is clarified. With "without purpose" and so on, by establishing the nature of the mutually distinct sentient and non-sentient beings that form the body of the Supreme Self, "what form" is clarified. And with "in them," by establishing the Supreme Self as the body of the sentient and non-sentient beings, it is implied that "what qualities" are perceived as my own qualities through the sentient and non-sentient beings that form my body, just as the qualities of the body, such as childhood and youth, belong to the individual self. With "I alone existed," by establishing the actions in the form of world affairs such as creation, preservation, and destruction, "what actions" is made clear. || 34 ||
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
He explains the method of imparting knowledge with "aham" (I). Before creation, I alone existed, and from the word "ca" (and), it is understood that sat (existence) and asat (non-existence), time, prakṛti (primordial nature), etc., existed. However, during dissolution, whatever time, karma, etc., different from Hari existed, that was not independent, but rather under my control due to being covered by māyā (illusion). After creation, during the state of existence, I became this world. He explains the result with "ya" (who). During the state of existence, due to the perception of independence such as "I am the enjoyer" and "I am the doer," one might think that this world had independence before creation and after dissolution. But this is not so, as that perception is rooted in delusion of the intellect. As it is said: "Before creation and after dissolution, it is dependent on Viṣṇu. During the state of existence, its independence is somewhat perceived due to the delusion of the intellect, but even that should be understood as non-existent." By this, it is stated that I am independent in all three times, and everything including you is always dependent on me. || 33 ||
He instructs about the nature of the non-independent prakṛti, etc., with "ṛte 'rtham" (without purpose). Whatever object is perceived everywhere in the Vedas, etc., without purpose for me, who has all desires fulfilled, and whatever is not perceived as an obstacle in me, the Self - for the Lord is not obstructed or benefited by the individual soul or prakṛti - that object of prakṛti, etc., should be known as the māyā of the Self, the Supreme Self. Here, māyā does not mean magic, but rather the individual soul and prakṛti itself, as it is said. Just as the individual soul, which is my reflection, is perceived as real, and just as the root prakṛti, which is the cause of ignorance and weakness, is perceived as real, they are called māyā. Primarily, the power of Viṣṇu is referred to by the word māyā, but metaphorically, prakṛti and the individual soul are also called so. This means that just as those holding umbrellas, etc., standing in a chariot are not called charioteers, similarly, the individual soul, prakṛti, karma, and time, though always existing in me, are not said to be situated in me because the individual soul does not live through me, prakṛti is not bound by me, karma does not yield fruit in me, and time does not cause change in me. Everything, though situated in the Supreme, is not spoken of as being there. || 34 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Now, to inform about the Self possessing such form, etc., through the method of negation, he describes the characteristics of māyā with "ṛte 'rtham" (without purpose) and so on. Whatever is perceived without me, the ultimate reality, meaning whatever is perceived outside of me due to the absence of my perception - that is the meaning. And whatever is not perceived in the Self, meaning whatever has no independent perception without my being its substratum - that is the meaning. Thus, one should know the object with such characteristics as the māyā (illusion) of myself, the supreme lord, which is twofold: jīvamāyā (individual soul's illusion) and guṇamāyā (illusion of qualities). Here, even for the pure soul, due to its nature of consciousness and being like a ray of it, its internal fall is intended. The twofold nature of this is obtained through two examples. Explaining the nature of the first part, called jīvamāyā, through an example, it refutes impossibility: "like a reflection". A reflection is a special image of a luminous object somehow projected in a distant place from its own light. Just as it appears outside of it, and there is no perception of it without it, so is this [māyā]. By this, it is also suggested that the reflection has the nature of an illusory appearance in the form of a reversed image. Hence, its effect is also sometimes called an appearance, as in "appearance and obstruction". Here, just as an extremely bright [object] covers the light of the eyes that fall on its dazzling luster, and covering it, by its own extremely brilliant radiance, confuses the viewer's eye and emits a variety of colors near itself, sometimes transforming the same into various forms separately, similarly, this [māyā] also covers the knowledge of the individual soul, emits the inert nature called guṇamāyā in the form of equilibrium of sattva and other qualities, and sometimes transforms the separate sattva and other qualities into various forms. This and more should be understood. As it is said:
"As the radiance of fire situated in one place spreads, so does this entire world [spread] as the māyā of the supreme Brahman."
And thus, the knowers of Ayurveda [say]:
"The unwilling, consciousness-bliss-formed male progenitor of the world has an eternal nature, like the reflection of a luminous object. Though unconscious, through union with the consciousness of the supreme self, it created the entire impermanent universe in the form of a drama."
Thus, the causal aspect is jīvamāyā, and the material aspect is guṇamāyā, which should be further analyzed. Now, having established this, he clarifies the second aspect called guṇamāyā with an example: "like darkness". The word "darkness" here refers to the variety of colors mentioned earlier as the object of darkness. Just as that [darkness], though always present in its original light, cannot exist without depending on it, so is this [māyā]. Or, in the description of māyā alone, there are two separate examples. The example of reflection has been explained, and the example of darkness should be understood as follows: just as darkness is perceived elsewhere than light and is not perceived without light, and the nature of light is perceived only by the eye, not by the back, etc., so is this [māyā]. Then, the two aspects should be understood by the difference in their functions, not by the difference in examples. With the intention of the previous twofold example, the former is sometimes used with the word "shadow", synonymous with "reflection", and the latter with the word "darkness" itself, as in:
"He first created ignorance with shadow, having five joints."
And as in:
"I am the shadow, I am the great darkness."
In the former, due to being the function of the causal power called ignorance, it is jīvamāyā as it pertains to the individual soul. In the latter, due to being the function of its own quality-filled material power producing the great principle, etc., it is guṇamāyā. Thus, in "He created", etc., it means that Brahma himself manifested ignorance at the beginning of creation, relying on the shadow power māyā. As it is said:
"Knowledge and ignorance are my two bodies, O Uddhava, for embodied beings. These two, causing bondage and liberation, are created by my māyā."
The difference in their manifestation is heard. Among them, for the former, in the Padma Purāṇa, in the glorification of Kārtika in the dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Satyabhāmā, in the praise of māyā by the gods:
"Thus praising, those gods [saw] situated in a circle of light."
"I alone, divided threefold, exist with three kinds of guṇas (and the English translation of that word is: qualities)" and so on.
In the Uttara Khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa:
"The innumerable abode of nature, dense darkness, immutable."
Thus. The meaning of this first-person instruction is: This teaching is indeed for others, but you are directly experiencing it through the power I have given you. Thus, transcending the view of the illusory creation, one should experience me as distinguished by form and other attributes. This is the meaning of non-experience through the method of exclusion: Even though my essential nature is determined by words, experience of it does not occur due to the influence of māyā's (and the English translation of that word is: illusion) effects. Therefore, for that purpose, abandoning māyā is necessary. By this, it is understood that due to its inseparability, one experiences other types of love. (33)
Now, the secrecy of that very love is explained, as in "mahānti" (great). Just as great elements, though not entered into beings, appear as if entered while remaining outside, similarly, I, though not entered as situated in the transcendental Vaikuṇṭha, appear as if entered and not entered into those renowned for their respective qualities. The difference is in the manifestation of that [love]. Despite the difference, the simile is based on the mere similarity of entering and not entering.
Thus, it is suggested that such self-controlling devotional love of theirs is a secret. As stated in the Brahma-saṃhitā:
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Rādhā, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhīs], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa."
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is Śyāmasundara, Kṛṣṇa Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love."
The meaning is: Although of inconceivable qualities, it is seen by the eye of devotion, which is like a collyrium called love, shining brightly. Or, just as those [elements] appear both outside and inside them, similarly, I manifest in devotees both in their internal mental functions and external sensory functions. Thus, it is suggested that there is some self-luminous, love-named, blissful entity that is the cause of devotees' total absorption in Me in every way, which is My secret.
Similarly, as stated by Lord Brahmā: "My dear Lord, neither I nor my speech have ever spoken falsehood. My mind does not enjoy deception, nor do my senses ever stray to irrelevant subjects. Only because of Your expansive attractive features, my mind, words, and body have been totally dedicated to You."
Although according to other interpretations, this meaning might be refuted, the intention is in this very meaning, as it is begun for establishing the fourfold promise and follows that sequence. Moreover, in that meaning, the split word "na teṣu" (not in them) would be meaningless. The simile itself is consistent with both actions.
Furthermore, this is indeed what is called a secret: when an extremely rare object is covered by another common object to prevent the gaze of wicked or indifferent people, like a wish-fulfilling gem by a box. Therefore, the statement of the Lord: "The sages speak in indirect terms, and that indirectness is pleasing to Me."
That very thing is made indirect which is not to be given, rarely circulated, and a great entity. Its ungiveability, rare circulation, and greatness are clearly expressed everywhere in statements like: "Sometimes I give liberation, but rarely devotional service," "Even among millions of liberated souls and those who have attained perfection," and "Devotion is superior to liberation," etc.
And this very thing has been explicitly stated by the Supreme Lord to His supreme devotees Arjuna and Uddhava: "Listen again to the supreme secret" and "I will speak what is most confidential."
This very secret was revealed to Śrī Nārada by Lord Brahmā himself: "This Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which was spoken to me by the Supreme Lord, is the essence of all His potencies. Please expand it so that people will develop devotion to Lord Hari, the all-pervading Soul of all beings, as you have resolved."
Therefore, it is well explained by the venerable commentator as "secret devotion." (34)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Why is māyā (illusion) partially favorable to the jīva's (individual soul's) knowledge and realization of the supreme self? When the supreme self, which is me, is realized, yogamāyā (divine illusion) indeed becomes favorable. These two must necessarily be explained. Thus, indicating that your māyā and yogamāyā, as implied by "through the union of self and māyā," are of what nature, he answers the question in order, saying "ṛte'rtham" (without meaning).
That which is not perceived without artha (meaning, truth, object), but only anartha (meaningless, untrue, non-object) is perceived. The meaning is that only the true object would be perceived. Similarly, that which would be perceived without artha, artha would not be perceived, but anartha would be perceived. That, in the self, the liberated and bound jīva should know the māyā of myself, the self, as the twofold function called māyā, namely vidyā (knowledge) and avidyā (ignorance), in that order.
An example of vidyā: Just as the light of a lamp, etc., just as in a house, only existing objects like pots and cloth are perceived due to the light of a lamp, etc., and not the absence of pots and cloth that was assumed before bringing the lamp, nor are extraneous fear-causing non-objects like snakes and scorpions perceived. Similarly, due to vidyā, the liberated jīva perceives only the eternally connected knowledge, bliss, etc., in itself, not their absence as in the state of ignorance, nor the unconnected body, bodily sorrows, delusions, etc.
An example of avidyā: Just as darkness, just as in one's own house, existing objects like pots and cloth are not perceived due to darkness, but non-existent, imagined fear-causing non-objects like snakes and thieves are perceived. Similarly, due to avidyā, the bound jīva does not perceive the eternally connected knowledge, bliss, etc., existing in itself, but perceives only the body, bodily sorrows, delusions, etc., which are non-existent in the self but appear as if connected to it.
Therefore, just as sky-flowers and rabbit's horns are said to be unreal due to the absence of their connection with the sky and rabbits, even though flowers and horns themselves are real, similarly, although bodies and their properties like sorrow, delusion, pleasure, pain, etc., are real due to their material nature, the scriptures state that the jīva's body, etc., are false due to the absence of their connection with the jīva.
The jīva's false connection with the body is indeed imagined by avidyā and dissolved by vidyā. Thus, the examples of vidyā and avidyā are light and darkness. The authority for this should be known from the eighth skandha (section) where it is said, "Where shadow and sunlight are not the wings of a vulture."
Some say that this example of darkness is only for the concealing aspect, while examples for both concealment and projection are to be understood as snakes, tigers, ghost possessions, etc. Others say that these too, being of the nature of darkness, should be understood by the word "darkness" itself. Thus, in the jīva, the functions of avidyā - causing the perception of non-existent things and non-perception of omnipresent existing things - are called by the words āvaraṇa (concealment) and vikṣepa (projection).
Now, since the word artha also means wealth, by a play on words, the liberated one, having obtained knowledge and bliss through vidyā, is depicted as wealthy, like a merchant who has obtained his own strength and wealth through good fortune. Similarly, the bound jīva, devoid of knowledge and bliss due to avidyā, is to be understood as poor, like a merchant who has not obtained his own wealth due to misfortune.
Thus, through vidyā, the experience of the meaning of the word "tvam" (you), which is the individual self, occurs, but not of the meaning of the word "tat" (that), which is the supreme self. Since the supreme self is without qualities, its direct experience is possible only through nirguṇa bhakti (devotion free from qualities), as stated by the Lord: "I am attainable only through undivided devotion."
Moreover, since the Lord has said that kaivalya (liberation) is sāttvika (of the nature of purity) knowledge, this vidyā, which is in the form of knowledge of the self as distinct from the body, etc., being of the nature of sattva guṇa (quality of purity), cannot bring about the experience of the supreme self, which is beyond the guṇas (qualities). Rather, it leads to its own dissolution. As stated by the Lord: "Substance, place, result, time, knowledge, action, doer, faith, state, form, and determination - all these are indeed of the nature of the three guṇas." By which these qualities born of the mind are conquered by the living being, O gentle one; through bhakti-yoga (devotional service), being fixed on Me, he attains to My state.
Thus, how can bhakti be obtained by the liberated soul for the purpose of indirect experience of the Supreme Self? It is said that for those qualified for knowledge, through Sāṅkhya yoga, austerities, etc., mixed with bhakti, first the experience of the meaning of 'tvam' (you) is generated by knowledge that removes ignorance. Then, for one separated from ignorance, by the gradual cessation of knowledge like a fire without fuel, there is a gradual increase in the previously established crescent moon of bhakti, free from the eclipse of that (ignorance). Similarly, by repeatedly practicing bhakti, there is a gradual increase in the experience of the Supreme Self, the meaning of 'tat' (that). As stated by the Lord in the Gītā: "One who has become Brahman, whose self is joyful, neither grieves nor desires; being equal towards all beings, he attains supreme bhakti to Me." Supreme means either superior due to the absence of the previous state of having qualities, or exclusive. And then, "Through bhakti he knows Me, how great and who I am in truth." From this statement, by category and measure, with that lesser bhakti, there is only the experience of the attributeless Brahman, not of the Lord who is Brahman with infinite conscious attributes. Just as a person with weak eyesight sees a jeweled form only as a general luminous object, not as having specific features like face, nose, eyes, ears, etc. Then, with the complete cessation of knowledge, there is the fullness of the wonderful attributeless state, and similarly, the fullness of the experience of Brahman through bhakti. This is indeed the unity of the individual soul and Brahman, denoted by the word nirvāṇa. As stated there itself: "Then knowing Me in truth, he enters into Me immediately thereafter."
But that bhakti which is the essence of the functions of the energy of consciousness, in the form of the play of grace, supreme, pure, exceedingly great by category and measure, is powerful, supremely independent, disregarding even qualities and faults, arises spontaneously even in a bound soul, in a demon, tribal, or outcaste, even in one of bad conduct, but does not arise in a brahmin, a sannyāsī, or even in a liberated soul. Similarly, it destroys all afflictions up to ignorance, as stated: "Which quickly consumes anger like fire swallows what is thrown into it." By that alone, there can be direct experience even of the Lord who has infinite conscious attributes. Just as a person with much stronger eyesight sees the form distinctly as both generally luminous and specifically beautiful with face, nose, eyes, ears, etc.
Thus, bhakti is twofold: attributeless and with attributes. By the first, in its mature state called prema-bhakti (loving devotion), there is control over the Lord and experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form, qualities, and pastimes, which are composed of existence, consciousness, and bliss. By the second, which is sāttvika (in the mode of goodness), separated from the quality of sattva itself, there is only the experience of the bliss of attributeless Brahman. Therefore, it is established that māyā has authority over souls only in the states prior to the state of experiencing the bliss of Brahman.
"That should be known as one's own māyā, by which the unreal appears as real, just as appearance is due to darkness." From this statement, an intention in another meaning is also seen. The words 'ṛte' and 'artha' are placed together because they cannot be separated. And that meaning is: Just as in people who have experienced Brahman, that which clearly establishes various things by the Lord's will, the inherent energy that is expert in revealing and concealing His own nature, form, qualities, and pastimes - the characteristic of that yogamāyā is also stated by the tantra itself with "ṛte" etc. When the self, the Supreme Self, Myself, is known (ṛte), since 'ṛ' has the meaning of going and thus of knowing, the meaning is: when directly experienced. 'Yad' is the present participle of 'i' meaning 'to go', implying 'yat' by the word 'tat' itself. That by which the object (artha) that is being attained, both transcendental and material, is perceived as purposeful when revealed, is directly experienced by a person who has realized the Supreme Self - this is the meaning. From which it is not perceived and by which it is covered, or would not be perceived at another time - this is the meaning. One should know that to be the yogamāyā (divine illusion), the internal power of the divine Lord, of myself. It should be understood that māyā (illusion) acts without any purpose, while yogamāyā acts with a specific purpose. Just as appearance and darkness. Just as an object like a pot or cloth is perceived when illuminated by light from a lamp, but when covered by darkness it would not be experienced, similarly that yogamāyā, by my will, has the nature of appearance and darkness - this is the meaning. For example, to show the absence of love's inhibition even when seeing [the Lord's] majesty, by which the material universe was illuminated in the Lord's belly, and by which Yaśodā was deluded into directly experiencing the transcendental form of Gokula, Yaśodā, and Kṛṣṇa, and in the next moment, due to concealment, did not experience it. And just as Arjuna directly experienced the universal form and the supreme self's form, which was illuminated by her to show the inhibition of love through the experience of majesty, but due to concealment did not experience the form of Kṛṣṇa present there itself, and at another time did not experience the universal form etc. which was covered by her, but experienced only the two-armed Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Here the special feature compared to before is that there is illumination of one form and concealment of another simultaneously. And just as to remove Brahmā's pride of being the Lord by showing [His] gentle glory, through concealment and revelation, like seeing Kṛṣṇa's form with companions for play and not seeing it, seeing it with children and not seeing it, seeing the four-armed form and not seeing it, seeing Śrī Kṛṣṇa's form - these were experienced by the deluded Brahmā. Here the special feature is the repetition of revealing and concealing various forms in the same Brahmā. And just as to show that the Lord's body is by nature both limited and unlimited, inconceivable, and to show that the Lord is controlled by both mere devotional effort and the Lord's grace born from it, in the rope-binding play, simultaneously fulfilling the desires of both Yaśodā and Kṛṣṇa for binding and freedom, indicating the simultaneous concealment and revelation of omnipresence through the rope falling short by two finger-widths when wrapped around, but actually fulfilling only Kṛṣṇa's desired connection, by which the deluded queen of Vraja experienced wonder for a moment, and afterwards to fulfill her desire too with Kṛṣṇa's consent, the omnipresence was indeed concealed, hence she was able to bind Kṛṣṇa. Here the special feature compared to all previous instances is the concealment and revelation of the same omnipresence simultaneously.
And just as for the success of separate invitations etc., the concealment and revelation of his respective forms situated in the homes of Śrutadeva, Bahulāśva, Rukmiṇī, Satyabhāmā etc. will be explained as simultaneously bringing about the success of the play there. Here the simultaneity of concealment and revelation depends on the difference of individuals like Śrutadeva, Bahulāśva etc., whereas previously it was in Yaśodā alone - this is the special feature. That indeed is yogamāyā, not māyā, because even those deluded ones had direct perception of the Supreme Self. And that direct perception of the Supreme Self happens for those with knowledge mixed with devotion when both ignorance and knowledge cease, and similarly at the time of incarnation for those seeing Kṛṣṇa with love, being objects of his grace even without love. But at other times, direct perception of Kṛṣṇa, Rāma etc. is said to be only for those with love, according to the Bhāgavata view. Among them, only yogamāyā operates, not māyā. Even for those seeing Kṛṣṇa by his will, like Kaṃsa etc., there is no direct perception of the Supreme Self due to the internal defect of hatred, just as those eating fish sauce do not experience its taste if their tongue is vitiated by bile. Among them, only māyā operates, not yogamāyā. And the power of māyā originates from yogamāyā, it is only her manifestation, as stated in the Nārada Pañcarātra in the dialogue of Śruti and Vidyā: "Her covering power is Mahāmāyā, the ruler of all. By her the whole world is deluded, all identifying with their bodies." The power of yogamāyā, considered by the Lord as his own nature, is indeed consciousness. That same [power], partially, by its own will, not considering itself as its own nature, becoming separate from its own nature, is the power of māyā which is indeed inert. Just as a snake's skin, though part of its own nature, if shed by it, becomes a separate inert slough. And thus it is said in the śruti (sacred texts):
"You cast off that [māyā (illusion)] like a snake shedding its skin, with your desires fulfilled."
And that māyā is of three types: pradhāna (primordial nature), avidyā (ignorance), and vidyā (knowledge). The characteristics of pradhāna will be explained in the story of Jāyantī. The upādhis (limiting adjuncts) are created by pradhāna, and they are indeed real. By avidyā, their superimposition is created in the jīvas (individual souls), and that is unreal. By vidyā, the destruction of that superimposition [occurs]. Thus, the effect of these three powers is this world, which is partly real and partly unreal. Due to the eternality of the jīvas and the nirguṇa (without attributes) nature of the Lord's abode and other devotional accessories, there is also partial eternality, which has been described in various forms by different schools of thought according to their own doctrines.
1. The effect of pradhāna is real, the effect of avidyā is false. The connection with devotion is eternal - this is composed of these three.
2. The bodies and their properties are products of pradhāna, while the connection of these with the jīvas is due to avidyā. The devotion, however, is nirguṇa (beyond material qualities).
3. Consciousness, individual soul, and māyā are the three eternal powers of Kṛṣṇa. Through their functions, the one Supreme Lord shines forth.
4. Due to the unity of cause and effect, and of power and the powerful, there is only one non-dual Brahman. There is no diversity here whatsoever.
This is the conclusion of the devotees, expressed in these four verses. It is practiced by the devotees of the Lord, and indeed by no others. [33]
Thus, having characterized māyā and yogamāyā through the mantra itself, and being questioned by Brahmā about the realms of saguna (with attributes) and nirguṇa (without attributes) governed by them, He explains His own mode of play as follows:
Just as the great elements like ether and others have entered into beings such as devas (gods), humans, animals, etc., because they are perceived in them, and yet have not entered because they exist separately, similarly, I have entered into these elemental beings, yet I have not entered because I exist separately in My own abode of pure sattva (goodness). However, the entry of the great elements into beings is without attachment due to their non-conscious nature, while My entry, despite being conscious, is like space - just as one might say "he lives smeared in his own house" - My play in all these is without attachment, including entering, controlling, maintaining, etc.
Similarly, I have entered into those well-known, bowed devotees, into their inner faculties to grant them vision, and I have not entered, remaining outside, to bestow My beauty upon their eyes, to infuse My fragrance into their noses, to fill their ears with the nectar of My melodious voice while engaging in conversation with them, to make them experience My tenderness, sweetness, etc., through the giving of touch, embraces, etc., to their limbs. Thus, My play is with attachment in these devotees who are beyond the guṇas (material qualities), whom I cannot abandon internally or externally. [34]
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
He describes māyā in "ṛte'rtham" (without purpose): That which would be perceived as an object of knowledge in the self, which is of the nature of knowledge and the knower, but would not be perceived without the knower-entity, that non-conscious substance should be known as My māyā. An example for the determination of the nature of the non-conscious as an object of knowledge for the conscious is given: Just as an appearance or light, or just as darkness or non-light, is perceived only when there is a knower, and not in its absence, so it is to be understood. [33]
How the Lord plays, creating and dissolving the universe through the connection with His own māyā, the wisdom regarding this is briefly imparted to the intelligent by this. Here, māyā has been shown. Now, He explains how the self, the cause of universal creation etc., is untouched by the defects in the universe, and how, though entered into the limited, it remains unlimited, in "yathā" (just as): Just as the great elements like ether, air, etc., though having entered after creation into the high and low elemental things like pots, cloth, etc., which are subject to division, moistening, etc. and are limited, are [also] not entered, being untouched by the defects of division, moistening, etc. of pots, cloth, etc., and being uncovered by pots, cloth, etc., similarly, I have entered into these great elements existing in the form of the cosmic egg, as stated in the śruti "Having created that, He then entered into it," yet I am untouched by their defects and uncovered by them. Thus, knowing Me as the cause of the universe composed of the conscious and non-conscious, one becomes possessed of knowledge and realization. When knowledge arises, one becomes fulfilled through devotional yoga to the object of knowledge, which is the abode of the highest auspicious qualities and powers. This is the subtle Bhāgavata conclusion. [34]
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Thus, having analyzed the cause of "tañjalāni", and having ascertained that everything is indeed the Self, anticipating the futility of the means of knowledge, due to its being concerned with the contraction of activity and being the subject of merits and demerits, he describes māyā as also being a single divine play of the Lord - ṛte'rtham (without substance). That which appears different from its true nature is the effect of māyā (illusion), the bewilderer of souls, of the ātman (self), which was described earlier. For it, having bewildered the soul, also bewilders the inner faculties, intellect, and so on associated with it. The intellect, bewildered by it, considers objects differently. But objects do not become different. The means of knowledge and instruments are indeed for the sake of the intellect. Some remove defects produced by the intellect. Some bestow qualities. And māyā produces delusion in two ways: it does not reveal what exists, and it reveals what does not exist, with a displacement of place and time. He states this: "What appears without substance and what does not appear. Substance from substance. Substance does not appear. It appears without substance." Therefore, it is said that the means of knowledge is for the purpose of making known the true nature of objects.
Now, why can't the object itself be like that, since some debaters accept the illusory nature of the world? This would be so if it culminates in deliberation. The authoritative Veda says, "All this is indeed Brahman." The perception of knowers of Brahman is also thus. But an erroneous perception is not determinative of objects. Otherwise, the world grasped by a deluded vision would be of the nature of delusion. Therefore, some objectivity in the object must be accepted, by which the vision becomes objective. Otherwise, due to the stability of objects, the deluded vision would be without an object. Therefore, the established delusion is brought to the object present elsewhere by māyā (illusion). Because it conforms to vision. Thus, keeping in view the eligibility, objects are produced with displacement by the bewildering māyā (illusion), having placed the creation of souls in front. In this way, it produces delusion of intellect everywhere in the world, it produces objectivity of one thing in another. Objectivity is produced by māyā. The object is the Lord. In māyā itself, the nature of the Lord in the form of objectivity is manifested. That too is not without nature. Being the power of the Self, even māyā is not without nature. Being a play of consciousness, it bewilders the intellect itself as long as the state of Brahman is not attained. For it conflicts with all objects belonging to the Lord. For they produce knowledge pertaining to the Lord. Therefore, knowledge produced by objectivity is erroneous, knowledge produced by the object is valid. Thus, as in the world, so in the Self, he says - cā''tmano (and of the Self). In the Self too, it does not reveal what exists. It reveals what does not exist.
Now, why is this object in the form of the world not accepted as different from Brahman in accordance with universal perception? To this, he says - tad vidyād ātmano māyām (one should know that as the māyā of the Self). Because it makes known what does not exist and does not make known what exists, for that reason, one should know that māyā itself. For neither the object nor the eye, being inert and of fixed nature, becomes the cause of erroneous perception. He gives an example for this - yathā''bhāso tathā tama iti (as appearance, so darkness). Just as the appearance of two moons and so on is produced by māyā alone, and not that two moons are imagined in accordance with perception. Similarly, objectivity too is produced by māyā. But the intellect, being a play of consciousness, is not produced by māyā. Otherwise, even the intellect of a knower of Brahman would be so. And then there would be total disruption. And that objectivity is twofold. One is concealing. The other is the cause of erroneous perception. Both types are produced by māyā alone, like an appearance.
Now, how does māyā have this capacity to produce objects? It only has the capacity to produce delusion. And objectivity distinct from the object is not perceived anywhere. Anticipating this objection, he says - yathā tama iti (like darkness). Just as darkness, an object, is produced in the absence of light. Wherever there is absence of light, māyā produces darkness there. This itself is the bewilderer. Therefore, it does not produce darkness for those who are afraid during the day. They, however, perceive only the luminous aspect, as their vision is delicate and strong light becomes an obstruction to sight. In its absence, they easily perceive objects. For us too, light does not modify the objects or the eye. Rather, in the absence of light, due to māyā (illusion) generating darkness, it is that which is perceived by the eye, not the object itself. Therefore, light is only for the removal of darkness. This is also the common understanding. And that objectivity is grasped by the eye. It is assimilated as different from the object. This is established in the case of rotation. In the statement "As the rise of the sun for human eyes", it is only the darkness related to the eyes that is destroyed, not some inherent darkness. Otherwise, it would be an obstruction to knowledge even by touch, or darkness would be perceived by touch. 'Darkness' here is indicative. In a mirror, it generates a face. It should not be thought that the reflected eye only perceives the face. If so, the perception of reflection in another mirror would not occur. It cannot be said that this very face is reflected in both places, as even those not facing the mirror see the reflection. Or this itself is the appearance. Therefore, just as a face is generated in a mirror, in the absence of light, like the generation of darkness, māyā (illusion) generates a duality of objectivity in the intellect of the deluded person. Of these, one does not reveal the nature of brahman (the absolute). The other is the objectivity in the form of the world. All means of knowledge are for the removal of both these - this is the idea. ||33||
Having thus described the object of knowledge and the means of knowledge, he now describes the subject - "Just as the great elements". In the Veda, entities are described in two ways - with form and formless, with parts and partless, complete and limited, and so on. This is begun to show how both these become the subject. Otherwise, only one aspect would be the subject. In that case, the Vedas would be partially invalid. Thus, to establish the validity of all Vedas, the subject is described in both ways. Just as the great elements like ether, entering as causes into beings like pots, which are of various forms - gross, subtle, long, short, crooked, straight, etc., again enter, and then do not enter. Similarly, I am the cause everywhere, entered everywhere, yet not the cause, not entered - this is the meaning. The repetition of "in them" is for understanding two sentences. Otherwise, the negation would connect only with the first sentence. For the cause enters into the effect. And the effect is produced inherent in the cause. Otherwise, the cloth would be produced without a substratum. If so, it would not be produced. Or if produced, it would be produced everywhere. Like "the pot is the Lord", like sound. By the potter's action, the pot is produced in its natural form. Like objectivity. But the form of the Lord is established. Sound too, produced by the action of palate and lips, is produced in all ears. Thus, the cloth too could be without a substratum. If so, in the cloth produced with threads as substratum, if the threads did not enter, there would be no perception of threads in the cloth. Or if occurring, it would be an illusion. The same thing has the nature of substratum and inherent at the time of cause and time of effect respectively. Thus in the great elements, there are three: being the substratum, being inherent, and being specifically inherent. He states this: "entered, not entered". Or in the great elements, there is non-entry in three ways: as cause, as pre-existing there, and as being great elements. Entry is in two ways: as entering like the cause, and as entering separately. Similarly, "in them" is fivefold. "Not in them" is again fivefold. Thus in the Lord, it becomes tenfold. Therefore, the Lord should be known as engaged in tenfold play in ten ways everywhere in the world. ||34||
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
In "ṛter artham" and "tajjalān", etc., the first quarter clarifies that it is the basis of creation, the third that it is the basis of sustenance, and the fourth that it is the basis of dissolution. Having thus properly explained the reason for "tajjalān", the object to be known is determined as the nature of the Self. Thus, since everything is of the nature of Brahman, there is no teacher-student relationship and no means-end relationship, so one might doubt the usefulness of the means of knowledge. To purify the intellect and other faculties, the Veda, which is authoritative and prescribes rituals, etc., and which describes dispassion for abandoning worldly affairs, might be considered futile when the Self is realized everywhere, as there is no need for purification of intellect and dispassion.
Anticipating this doubt, it is explained that due to its nature of restricting activity and being the object of merits and demerits, in "bahuḥ syāṃ prajāyeya" (may I become many), due to the concealment of one's own unity, excellence, and true nature, beings become attached to the world. When engaged in it out of attachment, there is no liberation. As stated in the verse "loke vyavāyāmiṣamadyaseve", the earlier section is meant to restrict the activities of beings. When slight dispassion arises from this, the latter section shows the opposite nature of activity and inactivity, and their results, as objects of merit and demerit.
This attachment, though created by māyā (illusion), is also a divine play for making the means of knowledge meaningful by generating dispassion. Therefore, it describes the Lord's power by introducing it as negating the means of knowledge and māyā. "Anyathāpratibhāsate" means it appears as something different from what it really is.
One might argue that the individual soul's power would become devoid of self-awareness in liberation, so the soul's delusion is its effect. However, in the world, there is no purpose or means for the delusion of difference, so it is not its effect. Hence, the knowledge of difference is not a delusion, but rather the objects themselves are different. To address this, they say "sā hi", etc. Thus, if the soul strives for Brahman, abandoning the manifestation of the world as a part of Brahman, it would not be deluded. For this purpose, it deludes regarding the related objects, meaning that the objects are not as they appear.
Even if there is such an erroneous appearance, how is the means of knowledge meaningful? To this, they say "buddhyartham", etc. Thus, the means of knowledge and its object are useful for purifying the intellect, hence they are meaningful. If purity is achieved by the means of knowledge alone, what is the need for other means? To this, they say "kāni", etc., referring to those that remove the defects generating intellect, and those that remove the defects of internal and external organs. Thus, nothing is meaningless as everything is useful for removing defects and instilling virtues as appropriate.
Summarizing this purport, they explain the verse starting with "māyā ca". The twofold delusion mentioned is created by māyā. If everything were indeed Brahman, it would not be perceivable to us. Therefore, it is not so, but rather illusory. By "vādibhiḥ", it refers to those who follow scriptures like "indro māyābhiḥ pururūpa īyate" (Indra appears in many forms through his māyās), "anṛtāpidhānāḥ" (covered by untruth), "vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāraḥ" (modification is merely a name), "māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyāt" (know māyā as prakṛti), etc.
One cannot argue that the Brahman-nature of everything is stated here only for the purpose of meditation and is not real, as this would render the statement of reasons purposeless. Meditation can be accomplished merely by injunction without reasons, so there is no obstruction. From other scriptures like "idaṃ sarvaṃ yadayam ātmā" (all this is the Self), "sa vai sarvam idaṃ jagat" (He indeed is all this world), "sa bhūtaṃ sa bhavyam" (He is the past and the future), there is no conflict with scriptures like "indro māyābhiḥ". In the first, due to the specificity of plurality, māyā cannot be taken as ignorance, and due to the mention of knowledge-making in many forms, only sense functions are to be taken there, as it is impossible to state becoming many through māyā. Moreover, when intending to express the manifold forms of the puruṣa (puruṣa) by māyā (māyā) (illusion), the first half of the Ṛk (ṛk) verse should state the word māyā in the singular. It cannot be said that this meaning is obtained through simultaneous utterance, as it is impossible to express the distinction from the previously mentioned foreword due to its nature as a reiteration of what was said before. Nor can it be said that this simultaneous utterance is only for the purpose of indicating that meaning, due to the absence of a determining factor.
Furthermore, this sentence is from the Madhu Brāhmaṇa. There, after stating the existence of the self in earth and other elements, its immortality, its nature as Brahman, and its all-pervasiveness as mentioned in the Maitreyī Brāhmaṇa, it then speaks of the creation of cities, entering into them, and everything being enveloped by that, starting with "He made cities with two feet" and so on. To remove the doubt that due to the obtained difference, there might be a secondary all-pervasiveness through pervasion as stated in "You pervade all, therefore you are all", the mantra "form after form" is recited. It is also elaborated as "This indeed is a thousand, ten thousand, many and endless".
Then, for the one whose nature of form is thus expanded here and stated at the beginning of the Brāhmaṇa, its own nature is expressed by "This Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior", and the instruction is concluded with "This Self is Brahman, the experiencer of all". Thus, in this consideration, in the beginning, conclusion, and elaboration, the self's nature as all forms is repeated without māyā. In describing its own nature, to prevent the error of nihilism that arises from the denial of priority, etc., and because of the statement of the nature of being the experiencer of all in "experiencer of all", it is concluded that the all-form nature of the self, free from error, is indeed created by its own will as stated in other śrutis (śruti) (scriptures).
Also, because the word māyā should be understood there only as the function of the senses, as the word māyā has the power to mean the function of the intellect according to the lexicon of multiple meanings which states "māyā could mean magical skill, (difference), deceit, or intellect", the meaning there is simply that Indra is known in many forms through our sense functions. Thus, there is no contradiction with that.
Similarly, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, "covered by untruth" is also recited after introducing the desires of the knower of the small space. "These true desires are covered by untruth. Of these true (existing) ones, untruth is the covering." There too, the word 'untruth' is not false speech, but rather, as in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, starting with "He desired, 'May I become many'", and concluding with "Truth and untruth, he became truth", "Whatever exists here, they call that truth", it refers to another form of the Lord which is denoted by the word 'untruth'. This is evident from the term 'covering', as it is impossible for something false to be a cover.
Even in cases like the silver in mother-of-pearl illusion, it is only the true mental function that appears in the form of silver, and it is only this apparent cognition that is the covering, not the mother-of-pearl itself. Otherwise, there would be an impossibility of simultaneous error and correct knowledge there due to the difference in the counter-positive.
In the present context, the word 'desire' encompasses the desirable objects mentioned in statements like "If he becomes desirous of the world of the fathers, by his mere will the fathers rise up. Endowed with that world of the fathers, he is magnified." The covering of these is intended to be by worldly objects like the body, not by something indefinable. This is because when the appearance can be explained simply by the strength of mental impressions, assuming an indefinable entity for this is logically untenable. Also, because such an appearance is impossible for one who possesses such knowledge, and if it were possible, the desires themselves could not be true, which would contradict the scripture itself. Therefore, the word 'untruth' in that scripture does not refer to something illusory, so there is no contradiction with that either.
The statement "modification is a name based on speech" has been considered by the venerable Vyāsa himself in "That non-difference from that, on account of the words beginning with ārambhaṇa". There, because the modifications like pot, wall, bowl, etc., are begun by speech merely as names when seeing particular shapes, modification is a name, not a form. This is because the form is non-different from the cause, and truth is intended in the form of the causal clay itself, for the purpose of knowing everything by knowing one thing. In that case, only the conceptual cognition is negated by knowledge, not the essential nature of the effect itself.
As for the statement by the author of the Bhāmatī that "In the sūtra, only the denial of difference is made, non-difference is not taught", this is indeed inconsistent, due to lack of evidence. And because in the denial of difference, it ultimately results in non-difference. Even there, illusoriness is not intended, so there is no contradiction with that either.
The statement from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad "Know māyā to be prakṛti (prakṛti)" only states that māyā is prakṛti, it does not say that it or the world is illusory. And it should not be suspected to be so because it is different from Brahman, because according to the previously stated reasoning of "like before", there is no difference when Brahman itself becomes that form. This is also because it will be stated later: "That whose material cause is prakṛti, whose substratum is the supreme Person, whose manifester is time, I am that triad Brahman." Therefore, there is no contradiction with that either.
Thus, everywhere in the Veda, because only the non-difference of the world from Brahman is intended, upon consideration, it does not result in the illusoriness of the world, this is the meaning. If one asks, "Then what is the status of perception?", they state another reasoning starting with "Brahman" and so on. Thus, all beings are transformed into non-different from Brahman, as per the śruti (scripture): "tadidamadhyetarhi ya evaṃ veda" (he who knows thus at present). Therefore, there is no contradiction in perception. If it is argued that one's own perception is more authoritative than others' perceptions and thus not accepted, they reply with "mistaken" and so on. Thus, its authoritativeness is not conclusive. To the question of how this is so, they present a logical argument against its ability to determine meaning: "otherwise" and so on. Even if it does not determine meaning, the illusory nature of the world is established. For instance, if an erroneous perception were to apprehend something entirely non-existent, it would apprehend sky-flowers; if it were to apprehend what exists, things would be different; since neither is the case, if it did not apprehend something illusory, it would be without an object, but it does have an object, and it does not apprehend either of the previously mentioned options, therefore it must apprehend an illusory object. Since this is so, its object is illusory. Thus, when the illusory nature of the object of commonly accepted error is established, in this case too, due to the erroneous nature of our perception that apprehends contrary to śruti, the illusory nature of its object, the world, will be established. To this, they say "therefore" and so on. Therefore, from the aforementioned reasoning, regarding the object in the category of objects of erroneous perception, some objectness or an object appearing as connected though unconnected to the object must be accepted. The reason for this is "just as" and so on. If it is argued that due to defects, misapprehension and such are possible, so why accept objectness, they reply "otherwise" and so on. Thus, the defect is indeed the cause of the cognition, not of the object being otherwise; if the defect were there too, then due to the real otherness of objects, error itself would be eliminated, hence it is necessary. Having thus established objectness, they explain the cause of error in this case: "therefore elsewhere" and so on. Thus, the very bringing together of objectness in between the perception and the object is the cause of error. They state the conclusion: "therefore" and so on. Having thus explained the cause in visual error, they extend it to mental error as well with "thus" and so on. What is established by this, they state: "objectness is born of māyā (illusion), the object is the Lord". If it is argued that if it is the cause of transposition, then due to the object's arrival there, the elimination of error would be equal, they reply "in māyā" and so on. Thus, it brings together only the illusory, not the real, so there is no elimination of error. If it is argued that due to the impossibility of such concealment, in the absence of projection too, how is error possible, they reply "that too" and so on. Thus, due to the concealing nature of the power and the projecting nature of the effect, when the intellect is deluded by these two, there is error. "Because it is a play of consciousness" means because it is a property of consciousness. Just as in the case of visual error in the world, even though objectness is not perceived due to the perception's non-connection with the object, because the supporting intellect is not defective, there is a determination of the non-connection of the error by it, similarly in the case of the error of the intellect of such-ness, by the supporting scripture which has determined the meaning through inquiry, there is a determination of the non-connection of origination, destruction, illusoriness, etc., with the world. Thus, the world is not illusory. If it is argued how these cognitions are erroneous when there is no subsequent negation, they reply "until" and so on. Thus, there is determination of their erroneous nature due to negation after the realization of Brahman. Even in the division of time, they state the reason: "for that" and so on. Thus, due to contradiction with śruti, worldly experience, and the cognition of knowers of Brahman, and due to the mere erroneous cognition of the mistaken not culminating in such consideration as illusoriness in inquiry, the world is not illusory, but rather, by dividing the object category, only the knowledge generated by it is so, they say "therefore" and so on. They extend this reasoning to other subjects as well with "thus" and so on. "Existing" means identity with Brahman. Non-existence refers to the misery of difference and so on. Here, the proponents of difference object, saying "But..." and so on. They explain the resolution, starting with "Because..." and so on. "That" refers to the aforementioned cause of delusion. When asked what evidence there is for māyā (illusion) being the cause of delusion, they say "Indeed not..." and so on. Thus, the defect that is accepted as the determinant of perception is directly or indirectly produced by māyā in some way or another. Since delusion cannot be explained without it, its indispensability itself is the evidence - this is the meaning. When asked how the difference, which is the object of universal perception, can be in the form of objectivity, they say "In that..." and so on. "Even objectivity" means the objectivity in the form of difference. Thus, it is not possible to imagine the difference of the world based on mere perception. When it is ascertained by the śruti (scripture) and the perception of the knower of Brahman that the world and the self are of the nature of Brahman, the non-manifestation of that and the manifestation of the non-existent difference of objects - these two characteristic effects are accepted as that [māyā]. Therefore, the world is not ultimately different from Brahman - this is the meaning. If it is argued that it is inconsistent to say that apparent objectivity is produced by māyā, because apparent [objects] are not produced by māyā, but only the mere notion of difference in the non-different is produced, so only knowledge is illusory, not the object itself, as it is inherently non-existent, they respond "But the intellect..." and so on. "Otherwise" means if it [the intellect] were illusory by virtue of being an intellect. Thus, if it were illusory in a limited sense, there would be the undesirable consequence of non-liberation and so on. Since its illusoriness is possible only through the object, accepting both to be so would result in the undesirable assumption of a double superimposition. To avoid this, it is appropriate that only the objectivity be so [illusory] - this is the meaning. Having thus established objectivity, they state its two types: "And it..." and so on. Here again, they object "But..." and so on. Thus, when considered in the aforementioned manner, the superimposition of knowledge cannot be stated, as māyā's ability to produce objects is nowhere established. Nor can the superimposition of objects be stated (meaning that in that case, either another theory of error or the real difference of the world would have to be accepted). They explain māyā's ability to produce objects, starting with "Just as darkness..." and so on. When it is argued that the substratum of an object has nowhere been seen to be an absence, they respond "Where..." and so on. The meaning is that it [absence] is not desired by us as a substratum, but as an auxiliary cause, so there is no fault. If it is argued that darkness can be stated in a substratum that lacks light, then owls, cats, etc. would have visual perception of it. It cannot be said that they do indeed have visual perception of darkness, because then, like us, they too would be obstructed from visually perceiving other objects. Therefore, in the absence of light, their eyes produce visual perception of objects independent of light connection, and this alone suffices for their activity. Hence, darkness cannot be stated as distinct from the absence of light. To this objection, they respond "This..." and so on. The meaning is this: Just as magicians delude the vision of only those they wish to and show illusory objects to them, not to others, similarly, this [māyā] also deludes the vision of only those it wishes to and shows darkness to them. Due to the causal relationship between the visual perception of darkness and the delusion of that vision, and because the vision of owls etc. is free from defects, in the absence of that [darkness] for them, the establishment of darkness in such a substratum as an object of our vision is unobstructed - this is the meaning. It cannot be said that darkness is just the absence of light, so there is no problem with the object, because that would result in the undesirable consequence of negating the visual perception of blue, making it impossible to state that [darkness] as the absence of light. And it is not appropriate for the illusion to be visual perception due to it being produced by the knowledge of the qualifier as specific knowledge, and because the illusion in question is also of that nature, since only the knowledge of the qualifier that is the form of the qualification connected with the eye is necessary as the material for the cognition of the qualificand, and even in the absence of the blue form that is the qualifier, due to the existence of its knowledge, the illusion of that kind arises merely by the non-apprehension of the connection between the blue form and light, because the conceit of blue visual perception is mere imagination, therefore the establishment of darkness as an entity cannot be asserted by that. This cannot be said, because the knowledge of blue cannot be said to be in the form of memory etc., so the conceit of it being visual cannot be asserted there.
Now if it is asked what is the obstruction to it being in the form of memory, it is said: Know that such memory is impossible to arise due to the absence of impression-awakeners like similar sight, thought, etc. for one who is conversing about daytime matters in a moonlit house etc. on a new moon night. And it cannot be said that the unseen alone is the awakener of that, because it is ineffective without the seen material.
Now if it is said that the knowledge of blue there is merely in the form of presented cognition, no, because in the case of mental presented cognition, by the previously stated reasoning, since memory or impression which is the presenter cannot be asserted at that time, the cognition of that would result; but visual presented cognition is inappropriate in such a place due to the very absence of blue. And it cannot be said that the blueness residing in the eye appears superimposed there, because it is not perceived and because such cognition is not possible for a person with jaundiced eyes. Therefore, since the cognition of blue cannot be said to be in the form of memory etc., its visual nature alone must be accepted. And thus, in accordance with such cognition, darkness is established as distinct from the absence of light.
Moreover, what the Prābhākaras say - 'Darkness is merely the absence of the knowledge of light; even when light exists, if there is no knowledge of it, there is the cognition of darkness, etc.' - that too is not correct, because the knowledge of the absence of knowledge is mental, contradicting the visual cognition 'darkness is blue'. And because the obstructions to it being imagination have been explained earlier, the resulting contradiction of the reflective cognition 'we perceive the absence of light'. The theory of it being a different substance will be refuted shortly. Therefore, it is established that darkness is a separate entity in accordance with blue visual perception.
Thus, having established darkness as an entity, to explain the visual etc. material for it, they expound that for owls etc. in the direct perception of objects, the eye alone is the cause, independent of light, as stated in scripture, etc. Due to owls etc. not being deludable, darkness does not produce confusion for them, so due to its absence, they grasp the absence of light itself with eyes independent of light. 'Absence of light' is a synecdoche; they grasp other entities as well. Otherwise, how would they kill crows without seeing them - with this intention, they state the mode of object-knowledge for them as "for them" etc. And thus, the conjunction of object and light is not auxiliary there, so the eye alone is the cause independent of that - this is the meaning.
Now, if this is so, the causality of the conjunction of object and light with respect to positive visual perception would be invalidated - with this doubt, they say "For us" etc. And thus, since only fitness qualified by the absence of distance etc. is the cause with respect to visual perception in general, there is no undesired consequence even if that is invalidated - this is the meaning. And it cannot be said that if mere fitness is the cause in this way, there would be visual perception of atoms in a house etc., because due to the presence of darkness in the form of shadow there, the atoms being covered by that, there is no fitness qualified by the absence of obstruction, so that does not follow. And there is no such consequence in intense light (it cannot be said), because intense light itself is an obstruction there.
By this alone, those who imagine another sense organ residing in the eye, made of darkness, for the visual perception of darkness, are refuted. They state the conclusion: "Thus" etc. "Common perception" means the universal cognition that "darkness is removed by a lamp". And thus, darkness is established as distinct even by the stated reasoning and common perception - this is the meaning.
Thus, by this, the scriptural statement "and māyā due to the experience of darkness" indicates experience-form and inference-form based on effect as the foundational evidence in establishing the existence of māyā. Thus, having established the objectness of darkness, to show that its cognition is not superimposed like the cognition of silver in mother-of-pearl etc., they say "And that" etc. And thus, in a place of illusion, just as in mother-of-pearl etc. the awakener of the impression of illusion like luster etc. cannot be stated, so in trees etc., because the memory produced by that cannot be asserted, the superimposition to be remembered is difficult to state. Similarly, even the grasped superimposition - what has happened to it now? In the investigation "illusion is grasped", it is inappropriate to say that only what resides in the eye-sense is grasped, because in defects like jaundice etc., one's own or another's perception of the yellowness residing in one's own eyeball is like by a mirror etc., so in the defect of illusion; nor is it proper to say that what resides in the sense organ is grasped, because of the rule that only suitable universals, qualities and actions are graspable, the sense organ being unsuitable. Otherwise, even in the state of quality, there would be the undesirable consequence of graspability of conjunction, action etc. residing in the sense organ. It cannot be said that even in a severe defect, rotation is necessarily experienced, and therefore the superimposition is unobstructed. Even in a minor defect, the defect remains as it is, because at that time there is no experience of rotation of one's own body. Moreover, what is the superimposer here - action or knowledge? If it is action, does it produce another action and superimpose (itself) or its own form? Not the first, because what is concomitant with you is indescribable; not the latter, because it has not obtained existence there, and if it had obtained existence, everyone would experience it. The same applies in the case of knowledge. Therefore, just as rotation is perceived by the eye as different from the object, so is darkness, meaning its perception is not superimposed. If this is the case, since darkness is not established elsewhere, due to the absence of reversal, it is also impossible to say that it has the nature of objectivity, hence they say "yathā hi" (just as) and so on. This is a statement of the Lord in the eleventh skandha (chapter): "Just as the rising of the sun dispels darkness for human eyes but does not produce it, so My penetrating vision destroys the darkness in a person's intellect." Just as this is also established in the human eye when it is brought to a place with the absence of light, there is no inconsistency, this is the meaning. If darkness is not accepted as a separate substance like the Bhāṭṭas, they say "nanu" (but) and so on. From its nature which is perceived as having a blue form and possessing motion, darkness does not become some other substance. If it is questioned why substance-ness is not accepted when the cause is present, they say "anyathā" (otherwise) and so on. Due to the relationship of pervader and pervaded, it would be so because of being a substance with a manifested blue form, being an obstruction to the touch of other substances, and being perceptible by touch. Since it is not so, substance-ness is not accepted. Thus, in establishing substance-ness through possession of blue form, farness, nearness, and motion, due to the counter-evidence of not obstructing the touch of other substances and not being perceptible by touch, and due to the obstruction of the inference of substance-ness, the perception of motion etc. is not valid. The perception of water moving is like the movement of trees on the shore, and since darkness is not a cause of light movement and not a prover of motion etc., it is not a separate substance, this is the meaning. If earthiness is considered in the said pervasions, even then, due to the non-mention of darkness among substances in Vedic and Puranic creation processes and its mention as māyā (illusion), due to contradiction with verbal authority, the earthiness in the said pervasions should be disregarded, thus separate substance-ness is indeed impossible. What the author of Nyāyakandalī says, that darkness is just blue color, is also incongruous, because it is not inherent in substance, and because it contradicts the perception that "darkness is blue"! Therefore, it is certain that darkness is a separate category. All this has been elaborated by me in the discussion on darkness, so it should be understood from there for those who wish to know more details. Having thus established objectivity in the form of darkness, they also establish another objectivity, saying "tamaḥ iti" (darkness is) and so on. Here, the Naiyāyikas and the author of Bhāmatī say that the eye reversed by the proximity of a mirror sees its own face, but standing in darkness, even when reversed, it does not see due to the absence of connection with light on the object. In the case of reflection, due to the absence of obstruction, it would be perceptible by the eye, so there is no separate category of reflection, they say. Refuting this view, they say "na ca" (and not) and so on. Where one mirror is placed facing a second mirror, in both mirrors the appearance of a face in the mirror and an infinite series of mirrors are perceived in both. If there were no separate reflection there, then the eye reversed from that would see only one face, in which case the perception of a face in two mirrors and the perception of an infinite series of mirrors that occurs would not happen. Therefore, in accordance with that, the category of reflection is indeed separate, this is the meaning. If it is argued that just as the nose appears as two stars due to the breaking of eye rays by the placement of an intervening stick etc. in the same place, similarly in the case of a mirror with appearances, due to the two mirrors reflecting the eye rays, the perception of two faces is due to the breaking of rays, and thus a separate reflection is not established by that, they say "na ca" (and not) and so on. "Prativimbataḥ" means "is perceived". From the root "vi-gam". In reality, however, the reading seems to be simply "pratīyate" (is perceived). Thus, in a place not facing etc., due to the contradiction with the logic of face reversal, a separate reflection must necessarily be accepted, this is the meaning. And in this way, there is no possibility of reflection of an object in darkness in a mirror. Due to the covering of that which is to be reflected by darkness, it is absent. And thus, the objection that there would be an absence of it even in a mirror placed in darkness is not valid, because the object is not covered by the intervening darkness, it is easily explained. But if the intervening nature of darkness is the same, why is there this distinction? We say it is just due to its nature. If it is argued that assuming reversal of the eye is lighter than assuming nature, like before, even for you, the assumption of nature is necessary in the case of facing direction etc. mentioned earlier. Therefore, it is appropriate that the category of reflection is indeed separate. This has been explained more skillfully in the section on reflection, so more is not written here. If it is questioned why this insistence when there is no word encompassing reflection in the original, they say "ayam eva vā ābhāsaḥ iti" (or this itself is appearance). Thus, in "The Lord created Kinnaras, Kimpurushas through His own self, honoring Himself through Himself, seeing His own reflection" and "He acts through the reflection of the individual self and God" etc., since the word "ābhāsa" (appearance) is used for reflection, it can be used similarly here as well, hence this insistence, this is the meaning. Thus, having established the reflection and darkness, they state the conclusion beginning with "Therefore, etc." By that, they state the conclusion of the worldly intent beginning with "There, etc." Jagatrūpa (world-form) means that which forms or determines the world, i.e., that which makes known the differentiated world.
Now, even though it has been determined that the world is of the nature of Brahman through appearance and disappearance by the reasoning established in the explanation of the two verses and by the supporting evidence, because aparokṣajñāna (direct knowledge) is not generated by the word "that," and because perceptions of creation, destruction, difference, desirable, undesirable, pure, impure, etc. continue to arise, the existence of objectivity and the perception of difference like those who believe in other philosophies reinforce [this view]. There is no particular difference from these in perception.
Moreover, though the differences of mind, meditation, and non-existence are experienced as present, they are non-existent due to their non-existence at the beginning and end. Whatever is like this is like this, like a mirage. Whatever is not like this is not like this, like the eternal entity accepted in one's own doctrine. The disputed pot and other objects are false because they resemble falsehood, like a magician's [illusion]. They are non-existent because they perform actions, like shadows, echoes, and reflections. By such inferences, there is no particular difference in perception from the Māyāvādins (proponents of illusion) due to the understanding of falsity.
If this is said, we reply: Let such a perception remain for now, what of it? There is no certainty otherwise by which there would be a loss of human purpose. In reality, there is indeed a difference in this, because the negation of the object's invalidation is established by the authority of reliable statements, as in the case of diamonds, etc.
Thus, just as a wooden lion or snake moving by a mechanism made by a skilled craftsman, though perceived, cannot generate fear, etc., in one who knows the truth, but rather creates curiosity and reveals the greatness of the maker, similarly, such a perception and its object, the world, only declares the extraordinary greatness of the Lord.
Now, if it is asked how the contradiction with inference is avoided, we say: By the aforementioned evidence and reasoning, with the difference of objectivity and object established, with a fixed limit determined, and with existence of effects determined by śruti (scripture) through satkāryavāda (the doctrine of pre-existent effect), the statement "due to non-existence at the beginning and end" is established as having an unestablished inherent nature and proving something else.
Similarly, "because it resembles falsehood" is common, because truth resembles falsehood, as in the application "like the pre-illusory elephant, etc., of the magician." Thus, "because it performs actions" is also determined to be common as exemplified by pots, etc., and should be refuted.
Now, if this is the case, what is the fate of the Purāṇa statements that indicate the aforementioned inferences, such as "O Uddhava, take refuge in me," "He should see this as an illusion," "Like shadows, echoes, reflections," etc.? If asked, know that their purpose is for detachment, taking objectivity into account. There is no lack of authority in this, as it is determined by the immediate context. In the larger context, in the conclusion, it is stated: "As gold, well-crafted, before and after all golden [objects], that alone in the middle being transacted with various designations, I am like that," thus only describing the nature of being Brahman.
Now, according to the śruti "The senses are outward-turned," since Brahman is not an object of the senses, it is not proper for the world, which is of its nature, to be an object of the senses. And it is not possible to make it a desired consequence, as it would lead to the non-perception of the world. If this is said, no, because that [śruti] prohibits the vision of unveiled Brahman, it does not negate the world being thus, as determined by the word "inner self" there.
Now, if it is asked how there can be direct perception of the objectivity in the form of the world without direct realization of Brahman in the form of objects, [we reply] no, because by the statement of Haṃsa, "Whatever is grasped by mind, speech, and other senses, I alone am, nothing other than me," and by śruti such as "All this is indeed the self," since Brahman being an object of the senses is intended, and because it is grasped even in the state of ignorance, there is no obstruction to the direct perception of objectivity.
And there is no mutual contradiction between the two statements, as they refer to different objects - veiled and unveiled Brahman. Hence, it should be understood that there is neither attainment of liberation nor the consequence of non-liberation. Thus, in statements about the gross etc., the negation of the properties of inert beings is also appropriate, as they are illusory like the grossness of colors seen through spectacles or the minuteness of the distant sun, pole star, etc. However, what is said about the possibility of superimposition of the diverse world on brahman (absolute reality) as the subject of sound, like the superimposition of blue on the imperceptible sky inferred from sound, space, etc., due to the general causal relationship as the substratum knowledge through superimposition, is also weak. Although it is possible to say so about the sky due to the certainty of the absence of form by the aforementioned inference etc., in the case of brahman, which is known through śabda (verbal testimony) and is inquired into by the Upaniṣads, it is not known to be the substratum of many contradictory properties such as having all forms and formlessness, being the doer of all and non-doer, being partless and having parts, etc. Therefore, such a superimposition is appropriate, and the example of sky is inappropriate. Hence, the difference in our perception and others' perception is unobstructed. Thus, in the vision of the Lord's form, etc., for devotees and non-devotees, there is direct perception of the object and subject respectively, so their respective experiences of feelings, etc., or lack thereof, are appropriate. As for the experience of sorrow, grief, etc., it is caused by the objectification, which is created by māyā (illusion), and ceases when it ceases, and its cessation is fully accomplished through prapatti (surrender). Even in the absence of its cessation in the first and other stages, since the experience of its loosening is felt, there is no room for doubt anywhere by anyone, as should be contemplated by them. Let us now return to the main topic. ||33||
As in "mahānti" (great), etc., thus, etc. Having described in the first verse the nature of all objects of knowledge as brahman in the aforementioned manner, and having described in the second verse the means of knowledge in the form of Veda through the description of māyā which is to be removed by it, now the meaning of the subject, which is the object of the Vedic means of knowledge, is being described. The objection that since the object of knowledge itself is the subject of the means of knowledge, and it has already been described, and there is no other subject, what is the purpose of describing the subject again, is answered by saying "vedena" (by the Veda), etc. "Padārthāḥ" (categories) means the properties pertaining to brahman which is the object of knowledge. "Idam" (this) refers to the description of the subject. "Nirūpyate" (is described) means it is stated with examples. Just as it is manifest in various forms in statements like "I am the taste in water, O son of Kuntī, I am the radiance in the moon and sun", etc., similarly it should be known in the Veda in the form of subject and in māyā in the form of objectification. Otherwise, the śruti (revealed text) "He who knows differently" mentions the fault, resulting in total destruction. And when the validity of all Vedas is established, in correct knowledge, there is attainment of prosperity and liberation. Therefore, the subject is described again for the purpose of establishing the validity of all Vedas.
Here in the original, "bhūteṣu" is in the locative case, implying the all-pervading substratum, as in "the self exists in everything", etc. With this intention, they say "kāraṇatvena" (as the cause), etc. The rest is clear. Just as the great elements, though entered into their effects as components, are not entered as causes, so in that aspect there is no contradiction between form and formlessness, activity and its absence, and there is neutrality in another aspect. Similarly, I, though described in the Veda as having mutually contradictory forms and properties, am neither different nor contradictory. Thus, the validity of all Vedas remains unimpaired.
Now, even though the subject is described here as having a single nature, it is spoken of in terms of being the material cause, entering, and not entering. In that case, if the nature of being the subject can be explained by either being the material cause and not entering, or by entering and not entering, what is the purpose of one of the two - being the material cause and entering? To this doubt, they explain the necessity of both by saying "kāraṇaṃ hi" (for the cause), etc. Having thus promised both, they give the reasoning for "the effect is produced inherent in the cause" by saying "anyathā" (otherwise), etc. Here, two arguments are given together in order. The implication of the first is stated by "anyathā" (otherwise). If the effect were not inherent in the cause as its substratum through the relation of inherence. "Of the cloth" is an example for clarity.
Now, if it is argued that since there is no cognition of cloth etc. before production, the non-existent effect is produced in the cause due to the efficient cause, so let the cause be the substratum but not the existence of the effect in the cause, to this they give another argument saying "tathā sati" (in that case), etc. If the effect did not exist in the cause, then it would not be produced, etc. "Being produced" means even though non-existent, it is being produced. The example for both cases respectively is given by "yathā" (just as), etc. Thus, since the effect is seen to have a fixed limit, the existence of the effect in the cause must necessarily be accepted. It cannot be said that the fixedness of the limit can be explained by the prior non-existence of the effect alone, because it is impossible to determine a prior non-existence distinct from the causal state. And the cognition "there is no pot in this lump of clay" cannot be a proof here, as it, having pot-ness as the counter-positive and being the general absence of connection, does not comprehend the particular which is the prior non-existence. Neither is the skull like the prior absence of a pot, because it possesses the final causal aggregate of a pot. Whatever possesses the final causal aggregate of something has its prior absence, like the threads possessing the final causal aggregate of cloth. This inference is also valid, because before the application of inference, the prior absence which delimits the probandum is unestablished, making the probandum delimited by it unestablished, thus rendering the reason fallacious. This has been thoroughly explained by me in the Prasthānaratnākara (Ocean of Departure) and Prapañcabhedavāda (Doctrine of the Differentiation of the World) as directed in the commentary, so it is not elaborated here. Therefore, even before the cognition of absence in the causal state, due to the misconception of prior absence, the effect already existing in the cause in causal form is produced. Hence, the certainty is that it has a fixed terminus from that very cause. This is also established from the consideration of the nature of origination, as should be understood from the doctrine of manifestation as well.
Now, due to the observation of the pot's production, how can the word have the nature of the Lord? And since sound is produced only in space, how can there be production everywhere? To address this expectation, they explain both with "kumbhe" (in the pot), etc. and "śabdo 'pī" (sound also), etc. Here, the pot example should be understood as follows: In the first book, although there is no difference in the divine nature of the Vedic and Puranic worlds, a distinction like filled and empty vessels is mentioned. Thus, the Vedic world is produced like a filled vessel, either simultaneously or in sequence from space, etc., by will. The Puranic world, however, enters into the accumulator made of guṇas (qualities) produced by prakṛti (primordial nature), puruṣa (consciousness), and kriyā (action), and assumes its form impelled by it. Thus, though produced in both ways due to different impelling factors, the form, like held liquidity, is indeed a property of Brahman. Therefore, in both types of world, Vedic statements like "All this is indeed the Self" and "All this is indeed Brahman", and Puranic statements like "The external world is indeed tanmātra (subtle element)" teach the Brahman-nature of everything.
Further, Puranic statements like "These two are its seeds, with a hundred roots" and Vedic ones like "This knowledge is the entire world", beginning with the two-seed nature, conclude with "He who knows this māyā (illusion) knows the Veda", teaching the illusory nature of the accumulated world. Thus, the manifest world also has a fourfold nature, and existence has a threefold nature. Here is the argument: The empirical world is preceded by a world with higher existence in relation to itself, because of its illusory nature, like a magician's illusion. The existence higher than empirical existence is indeed the absolute existence. In the view accepting verbal existence, existence also has a fourfold nature, and that is lower even than the apparent existence of sky-flowers, etc. In that case, there are two with higher existence, one empirical and one apparent. Thus, the divine nature of the pot is indeed established. This is stated by the commentator with "kumbhakāra" (potter), etc.
Accordingly, just as the empirical pot requires an inherent cause due to its limited duration, so does cloth. This is one example according to the Sāṅkhya method. They explain the second example according to the Nyāya method with "śabda" (sound), etc. Thus, in your view, just as sound is produced somewhere, surpassing the instrumental cause (collision of tongue, etc.) and the inherent locus, so the space delimited by its prior absence is not fixed; similarly, cloth would exist in the absence of threads. This being so for other effects as well, since the doctrine of pre-existent effect is respected by the learned, it is established that the effect, existing in the cause through inherence, is indeed produced. They prove the entry of the cause into the effect with "tathā sati tantu" (thus, the thread), etc. "Tathā sati" means: Thus, even when the cloth exists in the threads. "Na praviśeyur" means: They would not enter as parts.
Now, if this cognition arises through inherence or identity, the entry is not established from cognition. To this, they say "śuṣke" (in the dry), etc. Because of the Vedic statement "Having created that, He entered into it", and Puranic statements like "That Lord entered that group in the form of activity" and "By the supreme one entering his own measure", entry is understood. Therefore, any dry, baseless logic opposing this, unable to find a place in authoritative scripture, is thus; entry is not negated by it. They state the conclusion with "ata" (therefore), etc.
Thus, having established that a single material object has the nature of being a substratum and a superstratum due to differences in time and state, they extend this to the great elements with "evam" (thus), etc. "Viśeṣata ādheyatvam" means being a superstratum through the relation of conjunction. Thus, there are three properties: being a substratum as a cause through inherence, being a superstratum as parts through mutual conjunction, and being a superstratum specifically as an effect through external conjunction. Thus, when three properties are established in the example by prima facie consideration, the same will be established in the subject. Since without ten properties there would be no ten līlās (divine plays), the world would not have the nature of the Lord. Disliking this, they state an alternative view with "prathaṣe" (in the first), etc. "Na teṣu" means: Not in them. "Punaḥ pañcadhā" means: Again in five ways. Since the great elements are causal only in some aspect, they have only five states, but for the Lord it is different. As the Vedic text states, "Beyond the known and the unknown", being distinct from the known and unknown, entered and non-entered in a non-material form of existence, consciousness, and bliss, it means again in five ways. Thus, they state the conclusion with "tathā sati" (thus being), etc.
Thus, by the Lord's existence in the world in five ways as the material cause, and by the divine nature of both material and non-material entities through the forms of object and non-object, the tenfold divine nature in the world is indicated. This subject matter is discussed to refute even the partial invalidity of the Vedas. [34]
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
"yathāt'mamāyā yogena" (as through the yoga of one's own māyā) - By this, since māyā (illusion) is also asked about, he explains it - ṛte'rtham (without purpose). In the self, in the jīva (individual soul), even without the purpose which is in the form of bodily attributes like thinness, in the form of sense attributes like blindness, in the form of vital attributes like hunger, in the form of internal organ attributes like sorrow, from which cause "I am thin", "I am blind", "I am hungry", "I am sorrowful" - this purpose is perceived. Although existing due to being a part of the Divine, the purpose which is of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss is not perceived. One should know that to be the māyā (illusion) of the self, of the Supreme Self, of me, which is the cause of this. He gives an example for this - yathā bhāsa (like an appearance), such as in the form of two moons, etc. There, just as non-existent duality is perceived due to the delusion of māyā (illusion), and the existing oneness is not perceived, such is the meaning. If it exists, why is it not perceived? Anticipating the objection that it therefore does not exist at all, he gives an example for the non-perception of what exists - yathā tama (like darkness). Tama (darkness) or Rāhu, though existing in the planetary system, is not perceived - such is the meaning. (33)
Thus, suspecting changeability in being the soul of the universe, he says yathā (just as) with an example. Just as the great elements, though having entered into their gross and subtle effects, the high and low beings, are as if not entered, and though their effects are subject to destruction and other changes, they themselves are free from change - similarly, though I have entered into the high and low effects, I am as if not entered, and though they are subject to change, I am unchangeable - such is the meaning. By this alone, the statement "yāvānaha" (as much as I am) also shows the all-pervading nature which is one's own measure. Just as the great elements, though entered into all effects, are also pervasive outside, so is the Lord to be contemplated. (34)"
Hindī Anuvāda
In reality, that which is an indescribable thing appearing falsely in me, the Supreme Self, like two moons, despite not actually existing; or that which, despite existing, is not perceived like Rahu among the stars in the sky, should be understood as my māyā (illusion). (33)
Just as the five great elements like ākāśa (space) enter into the small and large bodies of creatures made of the five elements, because they are formed as the effects of those bodies, and also do not enter because they are already present in those places and forms as the cause; similarly, from the perspective of the creatures' bodies, I have entered into them as the ātman (soul), and from the perspective of the ātman (soul), I have not entered them because there is no other entity besides myself. (34)
SB 2.9.33-34
