Text 35: O Brahmā, please know that the universal elements enter into the cosmos and at the same time do not enter into the cosmos; similarly, I Myself also exist within everything created, and at the same time I am outside of everything.
Text 36: A person who is searching after the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, must certainly search for it up to this, in all circumstances, in all space and time, and both directly and indirectly.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
The means are stated. For one who desires to know the truth of the Self, only this much needs to be inquired into and contemplated. That itself is stated. Anvaya (presence) is the persistence of the cause in the effects, and vyatireka (absence) is the absence from them in the causal state. Similarly, there is anvaya as the witness of the waking and other states, and vyatireka in the beginning of attainment. Thus, by anvaya and vyatireka, that which exists everywhere and always is indeed the Self. [35]
What was prayed for in "I will not create progeny" is being fulfilled. Follow this doctrine properly with samādhi (concentration). Through one-pointedness of mind, you will not fall into delusion or ego-identification with the various creations in the cycles of creation. [36]
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Now, as prayed by Brahmā "I shall diligently carry out what is taught by the Lord", he states the extremely secret means of attaining Him, incomprehensible to outsiders, saying "only this much". The implication is that extensive study of scriptures is not required here. For one desiring to know the truth, for a person wishing to know the means of attaining one's own welfare, this is to be inquired into, to be learned from the feet of the venerable guru. But you have already understood it by my grace. What is that? That which among the means of welfare - karma, jñāna, yoga, bhakti, etc. - is established by anvaya and vyatireka, becomes firm. Here, heaven, liberation, etc. are attained even without karma, jñāna, and yoga alone, which are insufficient on their own. Karma, jñāna, yoga, etc. are not means by anvaya and vyatireka. Thus it is said: "What benefit is gained by those who follow their own dharma but do not worship?", "Those who strive for knowledge alone suffer", "O mighty one, many yogis in the past", "What is gained by rituals, by austerities", etc. "Even without karma, etc.", "My devotee easily attains everything by devotion to Me - heaven, liberation, My abode, whatever he may desire." And the statement from Mokṣadharma: "Whatever perfection of means for the four human goals, without that a man attains it by taking refuge in Nārāyaṇa."
But by devotion alone all welfare is attained, and without it nothing is attained. Thus by anvaya and vyatireka, devotion alone is established as the means of all welfare. For example, by anvaya: "Whether desireless, full of desires, or desiring liberation, the intelligent one should worship the Supreme Person with intense devotion." Here the intensity of devotion alone is to be understood, like the sun without clouds. Or by vyatireka: "From the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the Puruṣa, along with the stages of life, the four varṇas were born - brāhmaṇa and others, separately according to the guṇas. Those who do not worship the Lord, who is directly the self-born controller, despising Him, fall from their position." Or: "Ascetics, charitable ones, famous ones, thinkers, knowers of mantras, very auspicious ones - they do not find welfare without offering to Him. To that One of glorious fame, repeated salutations."
Here he states the absence of limitations of place and time - everywhere means in all places and for all qualified persons, always means at all times. For example, rituals should be performed in a pure place by one living purely at that time; knowledge is attained only by one with a pure mind; "Having established a comfortable seat in a clean place, the yogi should practice yoga" - thus karma, jñāna, etc. are not universal. Similarly, karma is limited until renunciation and enjoyment, yoga until attainment, sāṃkhya until self-knowledge, knowledge until liberation - thus they are not universal. But the universality and eternality of devotion are very well-known: "There is no rule of place, no rule of time, no prohibition during impurity, etc. for one who has attained the name of Lord Hari." "Therefore, O king, the Lord should always be heard about, glorified, and remembered by all means, everywhere, at all times, by people."
The pervasiveness of devotion in all qualified persons - karmi, jñāni, etc. - is stated in "Kirātas, Hūṇas, Pulindas, Pulkasas", etc., seen even in outcastes by birth and outcastes by action. Similarly in all states - in the womb like Prahlāda, in childhood like Dhruva, in youth like Ambarīṣa, in old age like Dhruva Yayāti, at death like Ajāmila, even in hell it is said that even a hell-dweller is purified when His name is uttered. "As the hell-dwellers chant the name of Hari..." as stated in the Nṛsiṃha Purāṇa, "They attained heaven by cultivating devotion to Hari," it is determined that devotion alone is the means. Now, the tantra also speaks of the secret in the form of prema-bhakti (devotion of love): "This much." For a person seeking to know the truth, this much alone is to be inquired into among heaven, liberation, and love - what is that which would always be everywhere for oneself through presence and absence? In this regard, heaven and liberation are not established through one's own presence and absence, but love is established through one's own presence and absence. Since love is also denoted by the word bhakti (devotion), and since the accomplishment of prema-bhakti (devotion of love) is seen through sādhana-bhakti (devotional practice) alone. The accomplishment of love is by itself, as it is said, "By devotion born of devotion, the body bears horripilation."
Therefore, the devotion of love and the devotion of practice spoken of by the words "secret" and "its limb" are stated by the tantra alone. Hence, devotion should be performed only as a means to prema-bhakti, not as a means to heaven, liberation, etc. This instruction of the Lord is suggested, as Brahmā prayed, "Let me diligently do what is instructed by the Lord." The experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form, qualities, etc., which is accomplished through pure devotional practice resulting in prema-bhakti, is itself the manifestation of prema-bhakti. This understanding is naturally obtained, hence the secret and its auxiliary knowledge are stated in this very verse.
Moreover, according to the śruti (Vedic text), "He is indeed rasa (essence/taste)," and "This is the investigation of rasa." The rasa, which is the pinnacle of all good, is shown in embodied form on the stage as "the thunderbolt to wrestlers," etc. The knowledge of this is stated in this very verse by the tantra. Just as among the things to be inquired into, this much alone is to be inquired into and experienced - what is that which would be everywhere, in all universes, in Vṛndāvana, etc., among servants, friends, elders, and beloveds, always, even at the time of great dissolution, through presence and absence, union and separation? Thus, the tasting of the rasas (flavors) of servitude, friendship, parental affection, and conjugal love is suggested.
Thus, this verse, which suggests the extremely secret prema-bhakti-rasa (taste of loving devotion), is covered by the Lord Himself with another meaning in the form of knowledge, like a cintāmaṇi (wish-fulfilling gem) enclosed in a golden box, impossible for outsiders to open. As the śruti says, "This Self cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellect, nor by much learning. Whom this Self chooses, by him alone is It attained. To him, this Self reveals Its own nature."
That other meaning in the form of knowledge is exactly as explained by the lotus feet of Svāmī, says Viśvanātha. Here is the context. Now, being fit for the sequence up to the secret, he instructs about its limb as a secret itself - "This much alone." For one seeking to know the truth of myself, the Lord, desiring to experience the reality, this much alone is to be inquired into, to be learned from the lotus feet of Śrī Guru - what is that one thing which would always be everywhere through affirmation and negation, injunction and prohibition? In this regard, by affirmation, as in "This much alone in this world," etc., "The Lord of all beings," etc., and "Be devoted to Me," etc. By negation, as in "From the mouth, arms, thighs," etc., "The sages fall here, averse to association with you gods," etc., "The evil-doers, the deluded do not surrender to Me," etc., and "As long as a person is not a devotee of Viṣṇu," etc. Where would it be applicable? Everywhere, in all scriptures, authors, places, forms, causes, substances, actions, effects, and results. As stated in all scriptures, such as in the Skanda Purāṇa, in the dialogue between Brahmā and Nārada: "In this terribly frightful saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth), full of birth and death, the worship of Vāsudeva is remembered by the learned as the deliverer." Thus, by positive correlation, as in "The Lord is completely Brahman" and so on. Similarly, in the Padma, Skanda, and Linga Puranas: "After churning all the scriptures and reflecting again and again, this one thing is firmly established: Nārāyaṇa (Narayana) should always be meditated upon." An example of negative correlation is: "Even one who has mastered the Vedas and knows the meaning of all scriptures, if he is not devoted to the Supreme Lord, know him to be the lowest of men." This should be understood everywhere. And this will be shown at the end in the Eleventh Canto: "One who is expert in the Vedic literature but not expert in the Supreme, his labor is fruitless, like one who keeps a cow that gives no milk."
Regarding all doers, as in: "They truly know and cross over the Lord's māyā (maya), be they women, śūdras (shudras), hūṇas (hunas), śabaras (shabaras), or even those living sinfully. What then of those of good conduct who are devoted to the Lord of wonderful deeds? Even animals can attain Him." And in the Garuda Purana: "I believe that even millions of birds and beasts who have surrendered their actions to Hari attain the higher realms. What then of knowledgeable humans?"
In the same text, the universality is seen in the virtuous and the wicked, the knowledgeable and the ignorant, the detached and the attached, the seeker of liberation and the liberated, one without perfected devotion and one with perfected devotion, one who has attained the status of the Lord's associate and one who is an eternal associate - even by merely seeing them!
Regarding the virtuous and the wicked, it is said: "Even if one commits the most abominable actions, if he is engaged in devotional service, he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination." The meaning is that this is even more true for the virtuous.
Regarding the knowledgeable and the ignorant: "Whether one knows Me or not..." and "Hari removes sins even when remembered by those with wicked minds."
Regarding the detached and the attached: "My devotee, whose senses are uncontrolled, though harassed by sense objects, is mostly not overwhelmed by them due to mature devotion." The meaning is that one who is not harassed is even less overwhelmed.
Regarding the seeker of liberation and the liberated: "Those desiring liberation from the terrible forms..." and "Even self-satisfied sages..."
Regarding one without perfected devotion and one with perfected devotion: "Some, by pure devotion alone, are devoted to Vāsudeva (Vasudeva)" and "He who does not move even half a step away from the lotus feet of the Lord is the foremost of Vaiṣṇavas (Vaishnavas)."
Regarding one who has attained the status of the Lord's associate: "And known through My service..."
Regarding the eternal associate: "In the lakes with coral banks filled with nectarean water..." In all realms, in all universes, and beyond them, the worship of the glorious Lord performed by them is well-known in the Bhagavata and other texts.
This should be understood as an example for all places. Regarding all senses: "By mental service, joyfully attending to Hari, who is beyond speech and mind, they directly attained Him." Thus, it is well-known that this perfection is achieved even through external senses, mind, and speech.
Regarding all substances: "If one offers Me with devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water..." and so on.
Regarding all actions: "The true dharma, when heard, recited, meditated upon, touched, or approved, immediately purifies even one who has killed a brāhmaṇa (brahmana) or demigod." And "Whatever you do, whatever you eat..." Thus, even in the semblance of devotion and in offenses that appear like devotion, examples like Ajāmila (Ajamila) and the mouse should be understood.
Regarding all purposes: "I bow to that infallible one, by whose remembrance and uttering of whose name, all deficiencies in austerities, sacrifices, and rituals are at once made complete."
Regarding all results: "One who is without desire or full of all desires..." and so on.
Similarly, by the statement "Just as by watering the root of a tree..." it is shown that when service to Hari is performed, the worship of all other gods is automatically accomplished. Hence, universality is also established, as stated in the Skanda Purana in the dialogue between Brahma and Narada: "When the Lord of lords, who holds the conch, disc, and mace, is worshipped, all gods are worshipped, as Hari is all-pervading."
Thus, one who performs devotion, the cow and other things given to the Lord, that through which devotion is performed, that Lord for whose pleasure it is given, that from which milk and other substances are taken and offered to the Lord, the place or family in which someone practices devotion - the fulfilment of all these is seen in the Puranas. Thus, universality in terms of all factors of action is established.
It also states the eternal nature - "Always" and so on. At the beginning of creation: "This knowledge named Veda was destroyed by time during dissolution..." In the middle of creation, it is found in many places. Even in the four types of dissolution, in Vidura's question "Who would worship Him there?", in all ages: "What is achieved by meditation on Viṣṇu (Vishnu) in Satya-yuga, by elaborate sacrifices in Tretā-yuga (Treta-yuga), by deity worship in Dvāpara-yuga (Dvapara-yuga), is achieved by glorification of Hari in Kali-yuga."
What more can be said? In the Vaiṣṇava (Vaishnava) texts: "That is loss, that is a great gap, that is delusion, that is confusion - when even for a moment or an instant Vāsudeva (Vasudeva) is not contemplated."
In all states too - in the womb, as is well-known in the case of Prahlāda (Prahlada) who heard from Nārada (Narada); in childhood, as with Dhruva and others; in youth, as with Ambarīṣa (Ambarisha) and others; in old age, as with Dhṛtarāṣṭra (Dhritarashtra) and others; at death, as with Ajāmila (Ajamila) and others; in heavenly state, as with Citraketu (Chitraketu) and others; even in hellish state, as stated in the Nṛsiṃha (Nrisimha) Purana: "As the residents of hell chanted the name of Hari, they developed devotion to Hari and went to heaven."
Therefore, Durvāsā (Durvasa) said: "Even a resident of hell is liberated when His name is uttered." Similarly, in "For those who are disgusted..." all states are referred to. Now, here and there, some examples of exclusion are seen: "Even one who has mastered the Vedas and understands the meaning of all scriptures, if he is not devoted to the Supreme Lord, know him to be the lowest of men." Also, "What use are the Vedas, what use are the scriptures, what use is visiting holy places? For those devoid of devotion to Viṣṇu (Vishnu), what use are austerities, what use are sacrifices?" And, "What use are many scriptures to him, what use are austerities, what use are sacrifices, or even the Vājapeya and other rituals, for one who has devotion to Janārdana (Janardana)?" These are statements from the Garuḍa Purāṇa, Bṛhannāradīya Purāṇa, and Padma Purāṇa.
Similarly, "Ascetics, philanthropists, the famous, the wise, those who know mantras, and the auspicious - they do not find well-being without offering to Him. To that Lord of auspicious fame, I bow again and again." Also, "That place where there is no river of nectar in the form of stories of Vaikuṇṭha (Vaikuntha), where there are no devotees of the Lord who take shelter in Him, where there are no great festivals of sacrifice to the Lord of sacrifices - even the world of the chief gods should never be served." And as it is said, "Bowing with the tips of their crowns," etc.
Regarding sāyujya (sayujya), sārṣṭi (sarshti), sālokya (salokya), sāmīpya (samipya), etc., it is said: "Not by charity, not by austerity, not by sacrifice," etc. "Even detachment from action, devoid of devotion to the infallible Lord," etc. "They do not consider even Your boundless grace as ultimate," etc.
Now, what is appropriate everywhere and always, as stated in the explanatory text: "Therefore, O king, with all your being, [worship] Hari everywhere and always," etc. By both positive and negative inference, what is appropriate everywhere and always is exemplified by "Viṣṇu should be remembered constantly," etc. In its entirety, as stated in the conclusion, "Indeed, there is no other auspicious path than this," and "Therefore, O king, with all your being, everywhere and always, the Lord should be heard about, glorified, and remembered by men." This is what is meant, as the poets have discerned regarding the human condition.
Whatever action, that is the limit of renunciation; the attainment of enjoyment and body is the limit of yoga; realization is the limit of Sāṅkhya; self-knowledge is the limit of knowledge and liberation. Similarly, all the qualifications, etc., for these various practices should be known. The deviation from scriptures, etc., in such actions, etc., should also be understood. However, devotion to Hari, by both positive and negative inference, is always appropriate everywhere due to its various glories. Therefore, it is fitting for such a secret to be a part [of the teaching]. Thus, being a part of the secret, this is said as if concealed by another meaning in the form of knowledge.
Nevertheless, it is understood that this devotional practice might sometimes be an external means to the knowledge of Brahman, etc., only through self-knowledge concealing other meanings. Here is the procedure: Since devotional practice is universal and eternal, it should first be received from the guru. Then, from its practice, external means, preceded by detachment and good conduct, lead to self-knowledge as a natural consequence. Then again, due to being of such nature, devotion continues, as stated in "One who has realized Brahman becomes joyful," etc., and "Even self-satisfied sages," etc. That itself is "knowledge and realization of the Lord," etc.
Therefore, by teaching the secret of knowledge and realization and its parts, the Lord Himself is the instructor of the four verses here. To Him, "the Lord honored His own abode," where the word "Lord" and the phrase "He saw there the Lord of all Sāttvatas (Sattvatas)" indicate, as supported by the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka scripture "He did not awaken at the end of the parārdha (parardha), [but] My cowherd form appeared before [him]," that this speaker is clearly the Supreme Lord Himself, not just the person lying on the waters of creation named Nārāyaṇa (Narayana), who is a part of Him.
Therefore, the explanation of this great Purāṇa is indeed Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (Srimad Bhagavatam). It is thus said in the beginning, "To whom and by whom was this incomparable lamp of knowledge first spoken?" Here, the word "first" indicates that the Lord is indeed the speaker. In the second [book], it is stated, "The first incarnation is the Supreme Person." Thus, in "This was first revealed by the Lord to Brahmā situated in the lotus of His navel, who was afraid of existence, out of compassion," the word "Lord" is used. The meaning is that the Lord Himself revealed this Purāṇa to Brahmā situated in the lotus of His navel, manifesting it there in the vast Vaikuṇṭha. This is consistent with the history in the second book. 35.
Now, how can I understand this extremely profound four-verse Bhagavata, given the diversity of opinions among those who debate it? To this he says - This is my view, properly follow it with samādhi (concentration), meaning with single-pointedness of mind. In great cycles and sub-cycles. This universal, extremely pleasing view of the nature of existence should be contemplated by those studying devotional scriptures, not by others. Regarding its status as a great Purāṇa, it should be considered as possessing the ten characteristics beginning with creation, etc. This is difficult to understand in these four verses without the grace of Śrī Nandanandana (Krishna). Therefore, this too should be known with subtle intellect, as if hinted at here. Thus, the knowledge related to me, being established in Vedānta, is not secret but well-known. As stated in the eleventh canto by the Lord, "This knowledge has three states in the body," etc. The primary knowledge along with that was spoken by me in the Śrī Gītā in the Mahābhārata, as "I am the supreme abode of Brahman" etc., and "This divine māyā of mine" etc. That supplicant is you. The secret to be placed in the secret beloved, or the secret kept hidden even from the gods, as stated in the Padma Purāṇa: "When Śuka was seated in the assembly to narrate the story to Parīkṣit," etc. "He sang this supreme secret to his peaceful son," as stated in the ninth canto. And Śrī Śuka did not give this supreme secret, the Śrī Bhāgavata, even when giving the Vedas to Paila and others, as stated there: "Having left his disciples like Paila." It gives liberation more secret than the secret, as stated: "A certain woman does not give devotional yoga." Thus only the extremely secret is given, not the non-secret. Therefore, devotion alone is the secret, not knowledge etc. The secret is present here as the subject matter. Thus, the secret is the Śrī Bhāgavata itself. Here, the suffix -vat is used in the sense of 'having that quality'. Or, due to the figurative identification of the subject matter and that which expounds it. Its parts, the parts of devotion - oneness in relation to the general, meaning its parts. And those are indeed association with good people, etc. Even attainment of the Śrī Bhāgavata does not occur without association with good people, etc. Therefore, those are known to be its parts by the wise. Just as I am endowed with qualities and actions, so may you have knowledge of truth by my grace. What kind of being am I? One who liberates his devotees from saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth), or liberates them even from mokṣa (liberation). Or as stated in another Purāṇa: "O king, my devotees never desire anything at all." As stated in the story of Ambarīṣa: "He did not place his good mind on houses, wives, sons, relatives, excellent elephants, chariots, horses, possessions, inexhaustible jewels, ornaments, weapons, etc., endless treasuries." And as stated by Śrī Kapila: "People do not accept the four types of liberation beginning with living in the same world as the deity, etc., without my service." Yama in the sense of cessation, from this, by the rule "yamas tu niyame" in the sense of agent, like a king as the means. Again, there is no being. How is the secret? Supreme, the most excellent. I am the essence of which, that is ahaṃbhāva (I-ness). By the rule "In the Vedas also, even when separated," the separation of words is not a fault, as this is the seed of even the direct Veda in worldly objects. Therefore, from the instruction of the four verses, even the Vedas arose as only four. Otherwise, why was it not taught in three or five? That truth is stated: "The four verses are undoubtedly the seed of the four Vedas," as described in the Saṃhitā and explained in the commentary on the first verse. In the transcendental, however, it should be known that there is indeed I-ness, as stated by the Lord: "I am the origin of the gods," "I am the source of all," etc. What is its measure? In the commentary on "yāvān," the Lord's immeasurability would be torn apart, as stated in the Śrī Gītā: "It has no end, no beginning, no establishment." And from the Śruti: "Brahman is endless." Thus it is understood that there is no measure of the Lord. (31) Now he states the creation, etc. - "I alone existed in the beginning" - by this, the place is suggested. By "Whatever this is," dissolution is suggested. By "There was nothing else, neither existence nor non-existence," opposition is suggested. By "What remains," the substratum is suggested. (32) Except for Brahman, which is of the nature of truth, for the sake of purpose, for removing the burden of the earth, for the sake of establishing the righteous path, etc., the forms like Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, etc., which would be perceived at the end of the activity, would not be perceived - by this, "One should know my māyā as a play," the stories of incarnations and their companions are suggested. By this very means, it is also implied - thus: Without the pure ātman (self) within, what would be perceived in relation to an object, would not be perceived otherwise. That is measured as the future auspicious or inauspicious for the self, the individual soul. This is known as māyā-vāsanā (impressions of illusion). And it is twofold. Auspicious and inauspicious. In the first, the example is as 'light'. The meaning is that light, like the sun etc., is the creator of illumination. In the second, it is like 'darkness'. The meaning is that darkness is the cause of sorrow. (33) Just as the great elements, having entered all bodies for the purpose of protecting the body, remain there, and at their exit, when the body's own elements depart, they disintegrate - thus it is said that the body is destroyed upon hearing. By this, nourishment is spoken of. 'Not entered' is said due to the impossibility of primary entry. Here, by the word 'element', the elemental should also be known, as the cause indicates the effect as well. By that, the manvantara (age of Manu) is indicated, as all Manus etc. are elemental. Thus, by stating "not in them, I am not them", one's own eternal liberation is suggested, so liberation is spoken of. Or, the meaning is that although entered in the form of a soul, in its true nature it is indeed not entered. (34) By "This much alone is to be inquired into", it is said that in the beginning of the inquiry into hearing about the substratum, one must necessarily strive. By "through positive and negative inference" etc., the substratum alone is spoken of. Because it will be said in the twelfth [chapter]: "Through positive and negative inference in waking, dream, and deep sleep, in the states of the soul made of māyā (illusion), that Brahman is the substratum." (35) He states the result of this: This doctrine. Having bowed to Śrī Hari and his desired deity, by his grace. I compose a commentary on the original Bhāgavata, approved by the guru. (1) Śrī Nārāyaṇa, saying "By all the Vedas, I alone am to be known; I am the creator of Vedānta and the knower of the Vedas", etc., instructing Brahmā in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, which is the essence of all Vedas and Vedāntas, summarizing the subject matter to be spoken there, makes Brahmā face him to make him understand. Knowledge, thus. And it should not be said that there is no evidence for the Bhāgavata being the essence of Vedānta. Because it is indicated there itself: "That which is the essence of all Vedānta, characterized by the oneness of Brahman and Ātman, that non-dual reality, established in that, has liberation alone as its purpose." There, having promised that the Bhāgavata is the essence of all Vedānta, to derive that very thing, he states a reason-embedded qualification - "characterized by the oneness of Brahman and Ātman". Here, by the word Brahman, the Supreme Self, qualified by attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, being the controller of all, etc., associated with māyā, is denoted by the word 'that' (tat). And by the word Ātman, the individual self, qualified by attributes such as limited knowledge, etc., associated with ignorance and so on, is denoted by the word 'you' (tvam). Their oneness, established by scripture, being contradictory and unacceptable, as in "This is that Devadatta", the unacceptability of the identity of one qualified by that place, time, umbrella, fan, etc. with one qualified by this place, time, staff, water pot, etc., by abandoning the contradictory aspects and cognizing the non-contradictory identity of Devadatta's body, similarly, abandoning the contradictory aspects of the form of attributes such as omniscience and limited knowledge, etc., which are the limiting adjuncts of māyā and ignorance, etc., it indicates the identity characterized by the nature of being existence-consciousness-bliss through inclusive-exclusive indication. If it be objected that due to the remnants of both limiting adjuncts in the identity established by inclusive-exclusive indication, there is no culmination in non-dualism, to that he says - "that non-dual reality, established in that". For the scripture that teaches identity through indication does not establish identity by separately positing the limiting adjunct, by which such a doubt would arise, but rather by statements like "There is no diversity here whatsoever", negating all limiting adjuncts and their dependent attributes, etc., it becomes established in that non-dual reality alone. And thus, all the meditations heard in the Vedāntas, having their culmination in the knowledge of Brahman through one-pointedness of mind, the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, which determines only the knowledge of non-dual Brahman, is properly the essence of all Vedānta. Having stated its being the essence in terms of subject matter, he also states its being the essence in terms of result - "has liberation alone as its purpose". If it be objected that for the knowledge of Brahman, "The knower of Brahman attains the highest", "He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself", "He who knows this", etc., state other results, in the śruti (sacred text) stating "The ever-attained Brahman becomes Viṣṇu for him," etc., hearing about the result of attaining Brahman, how is there another attainment possible without kaivalya (liberation) through the negation of the illusion of difference? Since attainment is impossible without the illusion of difference conceived by the limiting adjuncts such as māyā (illusion) and avidyā (ignorance), the word "attainment of Brahman" means kaivalya itself through knowledge. The meaning is: Grasp that knowledge which pertains to my essential nature, which is supremely secret, along with its components and the collection of means, as explained by me.
There, the knowledge concerning karma (action) is not secret, even if Vedic, as in "A Brahmin should perform sacrifices," because of its engagement with external superimposed conditions like Brahmin-hood and other caste-related bodily attributes, and because of hearing about its non-firmness in passages like "These eighteen mentioned inferior forms of sacrifice are indeed unsteady." Only the knowledge concerning one's own innermost nature, free from limiting adjuncts, is secret due to its internal nature. The knowledge of non-difference from Brahman is supremely secret, as stated: "Kaivalya is considered the sāttvika (pure) knowledge, established in me, and free from qualities."
There, since sattva (purity) does not cause non-appearance or erroneous appearance, and thus does not lead to superimposition, the knowledge free from limiting adjuncts is sāttvika. Without the realization of Brahman as the Self, mere discriminative knowledge cannot negate the qualities, so it is not nirguṇa (without qualities). But being established in my nature as the Self is man-niṣṭha (established in me), and since it negates the qualities of māyā, it is nirguṇa – this is the meaning.
What kind of knowledge is it? To this, he says: "Endowed with special knowledge." It is that by which one's nature is known through the removal of doubt regarding the object of knowledge. That special knowledge, reflection, is accompanied by its fruit-yielding component, the secret contemplation called nididhyāsana (profound meditation). This is of two types: that which requires effort and that which does not.
The first type is in the form of means, included in remembrance and devotion before direct realization. The second type is for the knower, for whom "there is no duty to be performed," as stated. Due to the impossibility of engaging in duties, it is the natural state of living liberation, self-realization without effort, established by statements like "One who has become Brahman, with a serene self, neither grieves nor desires. Being equal towards all beings, he attains supreme devotion to me." It is accompanied by that supreme devotion and the collection of means that are its components.
If one says, "I am not capable of grasping the knowledge spoken by the Lord," to this he responds: "As great as." As great as the all-pervasive, of the single essence of existence-consciousness-bliss, and in whatever state, of the nature of supreme reality. Or, as he is in his affection, etc., towards his devotees. Or, as he is in his gestures of eyes, hands, etc., in dance and other activities.
If one objects that while the essential nature may be knowable, the actions like hand movements, being different from it, are unknowable according to scriptures like "Therefore, the other is miserable," he responds: "Whose form, qualities, and actions." He whose forms are indeed his essential nature, and whose qualities and actions are his – thus. And thus, since the Lord's qualities and actions are of the nature of his essential self, they are indeed knowable – this is the meaning.
Thus, just as my essential nature is, so indeed may the knowledge of reality, the direct experience of the supreme truth, be yours by my grace alone. As stated in the śruti: "One who has supreme devotion to God, and as to God, so to the guru," even though for devotees of the guru and the Lord, knowledge is obtained by their grace, for you, I alone am the guru and the desired deity, so may it be by my grace alone. Thus, by stating that the arising of knowledge of reality depends on grace, it is indicated that devotion of nine types, which is the main means for the arising of knowledge, manifests grace, as stated in hundreds of verses like:
"Devotional service applied to Lord Vāsudeva quickly generates detachment and that causeless knowledge."
"For those averse to devotion to me, confused in the pit of scriptures, there is neither knowledge nor liberation even after hundreds of births."
"One who has unwavering devotion to the Lord, all divine qualities reside in him."
By these, devotion is crowned as the form of all means, accomplishing all means by a mere fraction of its power, as stated: "Whatever collection of means exists for the four human goals, a person attains that without it by taking refuge in Nārāyaṇa." "Knowledge alone is superior among the materials for liberation" - thus said Śrī Bhagavatpūjyapāda. "There is no path equal to devotion, when practiced towards the all-pervading Lord, for yogis to attain Brahman" - thus said Śrī Kapila. Thus, having faced Brahman through knowledge of truth, and by His grace making its attainment possible, He bestows the power to grasp it and speaks of the truth itself - I alone am the embodiment of sat-cit-ānanda (existence-consciousness-bliss), in the form of my essential nature, abode, instruments, attendants, etc., established by śruti (scripture) such as "satyātmaprāṇānām" (of the true self and life-breaths), directly perceived by you. Due to the non-manifestation or misapprehension of sattva, which is controlled by me, I am the pure essential form, the substratum of all. Before creation, as heard in scripture, without assuming any other meaning for the word 'I' due to its impropriety, and because the effect is not perceived as separate from the cause, I alone am the cause of everything - this is the meaning. "This was indeed the Self alone in the beginning" - thus says the śruti.
It should not be said that the word 'agre' (in the beginning) implies the existence of time, making the word 'eva' (alone) unnecessary, because according to the Lord's words "I am time, the destroyer of worlds", time is not separate from Him. Moreover, in deep sleep, even though time is perceived as distinct from the self covered by ignorance, for one who has awakened, being affected by the impression of time, the use of 'then' in "Then I experienced bliss and knew nothing" is justified as referring to time, just as it is seen. The elders have said: "The use of 'before' in the absence of time is only for a student imbued with the impression of time. Therefore, no duality should be suspected here."
Even if the word 'agre' denotes priority, it does not necessarily denote time, so there is no room for doubt. It should not be argued that the notion of past tense implies the existence of time, for how can there be past tense usage without time? Even the Sāṃkhyas, who do not accept time, use terms like past and future without contradiction.
Now, how can it be said that only Viṣṇu in the form of existence existed first, when śrutis like "This was non-existence in the beginning, this was indeed non-existence in the beginning. That became existence. Some say, this was indeed non-existence in the beginning" speak of precedence of non-existence? And in "Then this was undifferentiated. It is differentiated only by name and form", creation is heard to be without an agent. To this he says - I alone existed, not that I did not exist. There is no contradiction with the quoted śrutis. In the sūtra "By attraction", Bhagavad Vyāsa has shown the resolution of this contradiction.
Thus, "This was non-existence in the beginning" does not intend to state non-existence as the cause. "One who knows Brahman as non-existent becomes himself non-existent. If one knows that Brahman exists, then they know Him as existent." By refuting non-existence, it states that Brahman alone, existing as the innermost self from the food-sheath to the bliss-sheath, is directly perceived. Then saying "He desired", it describes creation and concludes "They call that the truth." There it states this verse - "In the beginning this was non-existence" - if non-existence were intended here, then attracting something else and speaking of something else would make the statement incoherent. Therefore, that which is difficult to perceive due to its subtle nature with unmanifest name and form is figuratively called non-existent.
In "This was indeed non-existence in the beginning", the same interpretation applies due to the attraction of "That became existence". In "Some say this was indeed non-existence in the beginning", it is not a statement of absolute non-existence, but a reference to the mistaken notion to establish the scriptural and directly perceived truth. In "Then this was undifferentiated", it is not creation without a cause, because of the attraction of the creator's entry in "He entered here entirely". If there were no creator, who would be attracted? This entry is of the conscious being alone, as stated in "Seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear" indicating consciousness.
"Having entered through this individual self, let me differentiate name and form" - this other śruti also shows that differentiation has a conscious cause. Just as "The field is reaped by itself", even in "It is differentiated", there is an implied agent. He states what is excluded by 'eva' (alone) - not anything else. "Nothing else winked" - says the śruti. 'Miṣat' means moving, perishable.
He elaborates on the meaning of 'anything else' - that which is existent, non-existent, and beyond. 'Sat' means gross, 'asat' means subtle, 'para' means the cause of both. It should not be argued that the absence of gross and subtle can be accepted due to the śruti "Neither non-existence nor existence was there", and how can the absence of cause be stated when the śruti says "There was darkness"? In "There was no existence, there was darkness", the existence of darkness itself is negated, making the use of 'was' improper. As the elders have said: "Darkness is not existent by itself, as its existence is negated. Its existence is due to its association with existence."
Even if the usage "there was" is possible due to darkness existing as the power of existence, it is inexplicable in terms of difference or non-difference from that. Hence, the Lord's statement "not anything else" is not improper. The power of fire is neither different from fire, as it is not perceived as separate from fire's existence, nor is it fire itself, as then the relation of power and possessor of power would be impossible, and the relation of container and contained cannot be stated for one entity. In the presence of obstructing gems, mantras, etc., even when fire's essential nature is present, the non-appearance of effects like burning shows their obstruction.
The power cannot be explained as different, non-different, or both, due to mutual contradiction, as two positive entities cannot coexist in one substratum. Therefore, the power is indeed inexplicable in terms of difference, non-difference, or both. Similarly, the power of darkness or non-existence, being inexplicable, was not different from that. Furthermore, due to the impossibility of the power being non-different from the existent, there is no existence. And because of the observation of effects, there is no non-existence. And due to contradiction, there is no dual nature. Thus, because the power is indescribable as different or non-different from existence, non-existence, both, or neither, it is unreal. Since its effect is also indescribable, it is unreal. And because it does not arise from that, it did not exist separately - this is the intended meaning.
Now, if it is said that by describing māyā and the world as indescribable in your view, Brahman also becomes indescribable and thus unreal, and consequently the argument "Brahman is also unreal, because it is indescribable" would apply - this is not correct. Here, by including Brahman with the word "also", the entire manifold world would fall within the scope of the argument, resulting in the non-applicability of the reason. For when everything is the subject, the reason becomes non-applicable due to the lack of example of something other than the subject, being devoid of positive and negative concomitance examples.
Even without using the word "also", by taking śabdabrahman (verbal Brahman), there would be proving the proven. With the qualification "conscious", by taking brāhmaṇa (Brahman-knower) etc., there would be proving the proven. With the qualification "supreme", by taking māyā-conditioned causal Brahman, there would be proving the proven. Proving the proven is not a fault, as only that which reveals previously unknown meaning is considered valid knowledge, and what is already established lacks the quality of being unknown. The means to prove it cannot be a valid means of knowledge.
For a subject (pakṣa) has a doubtful predicate (sādhya). If the predicate is established there, it would become a subject with an established predicate, leading to the definition of subject becoming inapplicable. And if not established, as the subject itself is the locus of the reason, the reason would have no locus.
Moreover, is the term "Brahman" here understood as referring to the nature we accept or not? Not the latter, as without understanding the nature of the subject, there would be no establishment of the locus, making it impossible to substantiate the reason, predicate, etc. Not the former either, as if Brahman is understood by the term "Brahman", the reason "being indescribable" would be unestablished due to being the object of the word "Brahman", resulting in the fault of the reason not occurring in the subject, like in "Sound is non-eternal because it is visible, like a pot".
Furthermore, for one who says even Brahman is unreal, is something accepted or not? If accepted, is it inert or conscious? If inert, as it cannot be self-established, it would lead to accepting consciousness for its establishment. If conscious, the desired is established, as the proponents of non-dual consciousness-existence accept only that as established. The debate is not about words, but about reality. If not accepted, Brahman's unreality would not be established due to the impossibility of superimposition without a substratum.
Moreover, does the term "unreality" mean non-existence, being different from existence, or being indescribable as existent or non-existent? Not the first two, as that would lead to absolute non-existence, which is impossible for perceptibly appearing silver-on-shell, dream objects, etc., leading to absence of the predicate in the example and thus non-establishment of the concomitance. Positive concomitance is the presence of the predicate where the reason is present. Negative concomitance is the absence of the reason where the predicate is absent. Here, wherever there is indescribability as the reason in dreams etc., there is no absolute non-existence due to being perceived. Thus there is no positive concomitance. Similarly, in dreams etc., even in the absence of the predicate of absolute non-existence, the reason of indescribability is present, so there is no negative concomitance.
Therefore, as it occurs in the counter-example which has definite absence of the predicate, the reason that occurs where the predicate is absent is an inconclusive fallacy of the common type. The commonness, which is a synonym for deviation and falls under the threefold inconclusive fallacy of common, uncommon and non-applicable, is also present, as the reason of indescribability does not occur in the similar example of absolutely non-existent hare's horn which has definite absolute non-existence as the predicate, and occurs only in the counter-example, making the reason contradictory by being present only where the predicate is absent. Contradictoriness is also due to implying the absence of the predicate.
In the third option, if indescribability as existent or non-existent is taken as the predicate, the same being the reason would make the reason non-different from the predicate. Thus, as the predicate is doubtful in the subject, the reason would be extremely doubtful and thus unestablished in its very nature. In all three options, the absence of the threefold alternatively considered predicate, i.e. existence, is taught for Brahman as the subject by śruti (scripture) texts like "Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite", "That alone is real, they call that alone the supreme Brahman of the wise", etc. And there is also refutation, as per the definition "That whose absence of predicate is refuted by another means of knowledge is refuted". What is anirvacanīyatva (indefinability) in terms of sat (existence) and asat (non-existence)? Or is it the inability to be verbally expressed? Or is it the appearance of knowledge generated by words?
In the first case, due to the assumption of truth in Brahman by the cited śruti (scripture) itself, there is a lack of established self-nature. In the second case - in the appearance of knowledge generated by words like 'snake' and 'silver' in the case of rope-snake and mother-of-pearl-silver, and in the appearance of knowledge generated by words like 'pot' and 'cloth' in dream and waking states - there is a deficiency of the means of proof in the example that possesses the property to be proved, as well as in the counter-example that lacks the property to be proved, such as in the case of non-existent entities like rabbit's horn. Thus, the reason of anirvacanīyatva (indefinability) in the form of being the appearance of knowledge generated by words, by virtue of occurring only in the subject and not occurring in similar and dissimilar instances, becomes an uncommon property characterized by the definition of being exclusive to the subject and distinct from similar and dissimilar instances.
And it's not that Brahman's knowability through Vedānta becomes impossible if it appears as knowledge generated by words. This is because the Vedānta texts serve as the means of knowledge by removing the veil of ignorance about Brahman, and their validity lies in producing knowledge that removes ignorance about Brahman. Brahman's knowability is established by its self-luminosity alone, even though it appears as the object of knowledge generated by words.
It's not proper to deduce falsity merely by the word anirvacanīyatva (indefinability) without raising the option in the reason. If that were the case, then:
Gold is the material cause of ornaments like earrings because it is denoted by the word 'kanaka' (gold). The fruit of dhattura is the material cause of valuable ornaments like thorns because it is gold, like gold. The sun's rays milk cows because of being bovine, like cows. Cows don't milk because of being bovine, like buffaloes etc. The mandāra tree illuminates the world because of being a sun, like the sun. The sun doesn't illuminate because of being a sun, like the mandāra tree. Viṣṇu doesn't save from saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth) because of being green, like monkeys etc. Monkeys etc. save from that because of being green, like Viṣṇu.
These would lead to fallacious equivalences. Insentience, limitedness, etc. are the limiting conditions here. An upādhi (limiting condition) is that which pervades the property to be proved while not pervading the reason. In the pervasion "wherever there is the reason, there is the property to be proved", the pervader that determines the pervasion is the property to be proved, the locus of the pervaded is the pervaded reason, which is the inferential mark. Being the pervader of the property to be proved means invariably occurring in all instances possessing the property to be proved. Not being the pervader of the reason means not invariably occurring in all instances possessing the reason, even though it may occur in some instances possessing the reason.
Insentience, limitedness, etc., while pervading the property to be proved (falsity) by occurring in all instances possessing it, are limiting conditions because they don't pervade the reason by not occurring in the subject (Brahman). It cannot be said that in dream-space and in dreaming persons, there is no pervasion of the property to be proved (falsity) by unlimitedness and sentience, due to the absence of limitedness and insentience. This is because in dream-space, even if spatial limitation is not cognized, objective limitation is cognized, and in the body of sleeping persons, insentience is cognized. And even though insentience is absent in their self, which is conscious, there's no absence of non-pervasion of the property to be proved there, because falsity is not cognized due to non-difference from Brahman.
The counter-inference "Brahman is absolutely real because of being of the nature of consciousness, like the non-existent silver etc. in the case of difference" is also refuted. It cannot be said that for this purely negative inference, if the property to be proved is well-known in the subject, there's no inferential operation, and if it's well-known elsewhere, there's a breakdown of the definition of purely negative inference due to the presence of positive concomitance when the reason exists there, and if there's no operation, there's uncommonness due to exclusion from similar instances - thus in all ways, there's only non-establishment of the property to be proved. This is because in establishing the truth of a subject with undetermined properties through the purely negative inference "Being distinct from the existent is somewhere the counter-positive of absolute non-existence, because of being a property, like color", there's a possibility of establishing in the subject.
There's no deviation in knowability etc., because even though the reason of being a property exists in them, there's no counter-positiveness of absolute non-existence anywhere, as it's accepted that everything is knowable, everything is unrejectable, everything is distinct. This cannot be said because their absolute non-existence in Brahman is established by śruti (scripture) itself in statements like "It is unknowable, beginningless", "From which words return", "Which is not expressed by speech", etc.
Moreover, does knowability occur in knowability or not? In the first case, there's self-dependence. In the second case, there's a loss of being purely positive by being the counter-positive of absolute non-existence in itself. Also, knowability is either the property of being the object of each cognition or the property of being the object of all cognitions. In neither case is pure positivity possible, because the property of being the object of pot-cognition has absolute non-existence in cloth, the property of being the object of cloth-cognition has absolute non-existence in pot, and the property of being the object of all cognitions has absolute non-existence everywhere in pot, cloth, etc. The same can be thought about expressibility etc.
Thus, for the sophists who argue for the pure positivity of knowability etc., there's an impossibility of purely negative inference due to the non-establishment of the property to be proved, not for the Upaniṣads. And it should not be said that in this case of a purely negative reason, where there is no pervasion of the reason by the probandum, the inferential cognition characterized by the knowledge of the reason as a property of the pakṣa (subject) and pervaded by the probandum is impossible due to the absence of such pervasion. This is because in a negative reason, just as in a positive one with positive pervasion, it is the negative pervasion of the reason that leads to the cognition of the probandum. It should also not be said that the pervasion of the absence of the reason by the absence of the probandum is of no use in establishing the probandum through the reason. This is because after exemplifying the pervasion in the counter-instance as "where there is absence of the probandum, there is absence of the reason," by stating its absence here as "not so this, therefore not so," it ultimately resolves into the pervasion of the reason by the probandum itself, since the absence of an absence is presence. It should not be said that in such cases, arthāpatti (presumption) alone is the means of knowledge. This is because both can be accepted as valid means of knowledge as per their utility. Thus, having stated His own existence prior to creation, He also states about dissolution - "Afterwards." Afterwards, at the time of dissolution, I alone exist in the form of Brahmā and others. This is stated: "You alone are the origin of this existent universe, you are its sustenance and you are its grace. Those who are not wise, with their consciousness covered by your māyā (illusion), see you as many, not as one." "Sattva, rajas, and tamas are the guṇas (qualities) of prakṛti (nature). The supreme puruṣa (person), united with these, alone maintains this universe here. For creation, maintenance, and dissolution, He has the names Hari, Virińci, and Hara respectively. The benefits for humans indeed come from the sattva-embodied form." Alternatively, "afterwards" means even after the dissolution of the universe, I alone exist, as per śruti (revealed texts) and smṛti (remembered texts) such as: "All beings arise from Nārāyaṇa alone and dissolve into Nārāyaṇa," "When the world is destroyed at the end of two parārdhas, when the great elements have gone to their primordial state, when the manifest and unmanifest have gone due to the force of time, You alone remain, named Śeṣa." And whatever is seen in between is also Me alone, as the effect is not different from the cause, according to śrutis like: "All this has its self in That, Nārāyaṇa indeed is all this, whatever has been and whatever will be," "This person alone is all this universe, all this ancient," "That in which all this dissolves and comes forth, in which all gods are seated, That alone is what has been and what will be, they say. This is in that imperishable supreme space," "O gentle one, as by one lump of clay all that is made of clay would be known, the modification being only a name arising from speech, while the truth is that it is just clay." And from smṛtis like: "That which was not before its origination, nor after, nor even in the middle, is but a mere designation. Whatever is well-known along with the supreme, that alone would be so - this is my conviction." "The essential nature of all beings here remains established. Of that too, Lord Kṛṣṇa is the essence - what else could have His form?" "The one Self, this universe, the Lord creates and is created, protects and is protected, the Soul of the universe withdraws and is withdrawn, the Controller." "Whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, or other senses, I alone am that, nothing other than Me - understand this clearly." And from the sūtra: "That non-difference, from the word 'origination' and others." Similarly, when the entire dream-like universe is negated, what remains as its mere witness, as per śrutis like "There is no diversity here whatsoever," "Now therefore the instruction: not this, not this," I alone am that which would remain when the entire universe of mere appearance is negated. As per smṛtis: "The saints, not abandoning the one who is within, indeed seek the infinite one. How can the saints go to one who is non-existent, or even to one who is existent but finite, leaving aside the one who is infinite and full of qualities?" "The śrutis, having expanded you as the fruit, becoming conclusive by negating that, what remains after negation, may that non-remainder be victorious." "This much is the meaning of all Vedas: having resorted to me as word, negating the difference which is mere illusion, it becomes clear in the end." And from statements like: "What appears to those established in samādhi (deep meditation) as the full, beyond the three states, non-dual, one, eternal supreme Brahman, that alone I am," after negation is done by statements like "not this, not this." (3) Indeed, if there is nothing other than your true nature, why does the world appear, and why does your blissful form not appear? Anticipating this objection, he says - "Without substance". The world is without substance. In reality it does not exist, as it appears in the self, which is the substratum, due to ignorance of one's true nature. And my true nature, which is of the form of infinite existence-consciousness-bliss, does not appear due to the power of concealment, which is the cause of the non-appearance of the substratum that is my true nature, and the power of projection, which is the cause of the erroneous appearance of something else in place of the substratum. One should know this as my māyā (māyām), the ignorance of myself, the self.
An example of appearance without the existence of an object is like the appearance of two moons, etc. An example of the non-appearance of the true nature of the Lord, who is the substratum, due to concealment is like darkness - Rahu, though present in the star-filled sky, is not perceived.
Or, since it (ignorance) is by nature non-appearance, it does not have the function of concealment. Therefore, just as the sun, though covered by clouds, illuminating those clouds and the universe, and generally shining, does not shine in particular, as if covered by one's own defect of day-blindness for owls and such.
Or, the world without substance - because it appears in the self, the substratum of the world, due to ignorance, and because it does not appear in deep sleep, dissolution, etc. due to dissolution into the causal state, and in the dream state due to the transformation of causal ignorance into the form of another world, and moment by moment due to the awakening of impressions seen in previous delusions as ignorance transforms into the form of various other objects, and in the knowledge of Brahman due to the negation along with its cause - one should know this knowledge and its effects as my māyā (māyām), of myself, the self.
An example of this is like the appearance of a snake in a rope, silver in mother-of-pearl, etc., which appear without substance, and then do not appear when one engages elsewhere or when another delusion like the illusion of a stick, garland, or cloud arises, or when negated. And like the blue color of the sky, which appears without substance, and though appearing at the edges of the horizon, is not perceived when one travels to those places.
Or, in the self as the dream-seer, just as the appearance of the dream world is like light, and sleep is like darkness, and knowledge is without substance - they appear, and then do not appear upon waking. And that self which is their substratum does not appear. Similarly, in myself, the self, that which appears due to the darkness of ignorance, and then does not appear in dissolution, negation, etc., and that substratum which is my true nature and which does not appear - one should know this ignorance as my māyā (māyām).
"Therefore this entire world is of an unreal nature, like a dream, comprehended by the intellect, full of repeated sorrow. Though it appears as if real, it is only your eternal, blissful, conscious form appearing differently due to māyā (māyā)."
"Not knowing the self as the self, by that alone this entire world is produced. By knowledge, it dissolves again, just as the appearance and disappearance of a snake in a rope."
"The two called ignorance and knowledge, bondage and liberation, are nothing other than states of knowing the truth. In the pure, supreme self which is consciousness, when examined, they are like a boat and its movement in water."
It should not be argued that how can the doctrine of māyā (māyāvāda) be written here, as the doctrine of māyā (māyāvāda) is remembered to be a doctrine of unreality and crypto-Buddhism. This is because the authoritativeness of the statements that teach it is not uncertain. Māyāvāda means the exposition of māyā (māyā), and the word māyā (māyā) is seen even in those statements. That which imputes its own unreality and Buddhism, being self-destructive, would lead to the invalidation of other scriptures due to its very unreality.
Moreover, in śruti (śruti) texts like "Know māyā (māyām) as prakṛti (prakṛtim), and the wielder of māyā (māyā) as the great Lord", in the Gītā (gītāyām) "This divine māyā (māyā) of mine, consisting of the guṇas (guṇamayī), is difficult to overcome", "I manifest through my own māyā (ātmamāyayā)", "I am not manifest to all, being veiled by yoga-māyā (yogamāyāsamāvṛtaḥ)", in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata (śrīmadbhāgavate) "This māyā (māyā) of the Lord causes creation, maintenance and destruction", and so on, the use of the word māyā (māyā) is seen everywhere. To impute unreality to all śruti (śruti), smṛti (smṛti), purāṇa (purāṇa), itihāsa (itihāsa) and other scriptures, while itself using the word māyā (māyā), that very doctrine of māyā (māyāvāda) should be abandoned as unreal, following the maxim "One should abandon one thing for the sake of the family".
It should not be argued that only the doctrine that māyā (māyā) is the cause of the world is māyāvāda (māyāvāda). For that is found everywhere in the cited śruti (śruti), smṛti (smṛti), etc. Moreover, even if that statement is authoritative, this interpretation which is not contradicted by anything is reasonable. Just as the proponents of the reality of Brahman are indeed the exponents of Brahman, similarly, since the causality of māyā is heard everywhere and cannot be removed from the respective scriptures, and since rejecting all authority would lead to nihilism, those who assert the reality of māyā are indeed the proponents of māyā due to their partiality towards it. Their view again, due to the error of attributing reality to the unreal māyā and its effects, contradicts the non-duality established by scriptures such as "Now, eternal, indivisible, indefinable, immutable, pure, and unique is Nārāyaṇa; there is no second whatsoever." Thus, while accepting the authority of the Vedas verbally, they effectively become Buddhists, albeit covertly. As the Lord Himself has said, "He who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am not lost to him, and he is not lost to Me," indicating that those with unlimited vision do not perish. For those with limited understanding, derived from "viṣūla" meaning "all-pervading," the destruction of the all-pervading Viṣṇu everywhere implies His limitation to one place, thus revealing their animosity. Therefore, the doctrine of the reality of māyā is indeed māyāvāda, not the doctrine of its unreality, as they refute it by asserting its unreality. (4)
Now, if the world of duality is entirely unreal, being mere māyā, how is Brahman described as its cause in scriptures like "That from which these beings are born, that by which they live after birth, that into which they enter at death," "Verily, from bliss these beings are born," "From this Self, space was produced," "Then the Puruṣa, who is indeed Nārāyaṇa, desired, 'Let me create progeny.' From Nārāyaṇa, prāṇa is born, and mind, and all the senses, space, air, light, water, and earth, the support of all," and in the aphorism "That from which the origin etc. (of the world proceed)"? How is Brahman's entry into it described, as in "Having created it, He then entered into it"? To this, the text responds: Just as the great elements. Just as the great elements, the quintupled mahābhūtas (mahābhūta), appear to have entered into the bodies of beings from Brahmā down to a blade of grass, into pots and cloth after creating them, in reality, as stated in scriptures like "My dear, by knowing a lump of clay, all that is made of clay is known. The modification is a mere name arising from speech; the truth is that it is just clay," pots and cloth have no separate existence apart from clay and threads. Thus, where could they be said to have entered? Similarly, as the bodies of beings and the universe are merely composed of the great elements, they have no separate existence in reality. This is clearly experienced and stated in texts like "Neither the shadow nor the aggregate nor the modification of earth and other elements here is real. They are not separate, not connected, (but) unreal." Therefore, due to their non-existence, where could they have entered? Thus, they have not entered at all.
Although I, the existent consciousness, appear to have entered these elements, upon discriminating between existence and consciousness, their non-existence would not be apparent. As stated in texts like "The elements, being composed of parts, cannot exist without their subtle components. As they are unreal, consciousness cannot be their part," and "He who considers himself present in the visible attributes of the Self is unwise, different from it. Without repetition, his conception is not correct, as a person accepts what is rejected as perfect," there is no separate existence of these elements. Therefore, "I have not entered them," as stated in texts like "You appear to have entered without actually entering. The relationship of pervader and pervaded is false, as the scripture declares you are the Self of all."
The description in terms of causality is due to the inability to directly express Brahman, which is beyond mind and speech, as stated in texts like "The Self, which the mind does not enter, nor speech, nor the eye, nor the vital forces, nor the senses, like the sparks of fire," and "From which speech returns along with the mind, unable to attain it." Following the principle "The non-dual is explained through superimposition and negation. This method is devised by the wise for the sake of teaching the unknown," causality is first attributed and then negated to understand Its nature. As stated, "The most venerable Lord has been thus described for the sake of explanation. The wise should not understand the Supreme in this limited way," and "In the creation etc. of this (universe), the actions of the Supreme are not to be followed. That (creation) is superimposed by māyā to negate (the Lord's) agency." The ultimate reality is described in scriptures like "There is no cessation, no origin, no bondage, no aspirant, no seeker of liberation, no liberated one. This is the absolute truth," which negate creation and other phenomena in the absolute sense. (5) Thus, having expounded the supreme secret knowledge through the method of anvaya-vyatireka (positive-negative correlation), one should contemplate to remove the delusion of difference and realize the non-dual Brahman identical with the inner Self. This is stated as follows:
This much alone is to be inquired into. For the seeker of truth, the true nature or the ultimate reality of the Self is to be inquired into. Therefore, as per the scriptural statement "Other than this is perishable," there is nothing else to be inquired into as everything else is unreal. What is that? It is explained:
"That which exists everywhere and always" - That which pervades everything as the cause, in the form of existence-consciousness-bliss (saccidānanda), in space, air, fire, water, earth, universes, worlds, pots, cloths, etc. This is stated by the venerable teacher:
"Existence, manifestation, desirability, name, and form - these are the five aspects. The first three constitute the nature of Brahman, while the latter two form the world."
Again, that which is the inner consciousness that persists as the witness in all states of waking, dream, and deep sleep. That is to be inquired into through anvaya and vyatireka. Here, anvaya means continuation and vyatireka means differentiation.
Brahman in the form of existence-consciousness-bliss pervades everything from space to pots and cloths, while their respective names and forms are mutually exclusive. "Space exists, manifests, and is dear; likewise air exists, manifests, and is dear; similarly fire, water, and earth exist, manifest, and are dear. From the cosmic egg to the pot, existence, manifestation, and dearness pervade. The name and form of Brahman are not seen elsewhere in anything else. Existence, manifestation, and dearness are distinct from name and form. Just as a thread is distinct from the beads, so too name and form are considered distinct from existence, manifestation, and dearness. The beads are certainly distinct from the thread in their differentiation."
The universe, consisting of name and form, is different from the existent because it is non-existent, different from manifestation because it is non-manifest, and different from the dear because it is not dear. It is stated in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa: "The world is non-existent, full of sorrow, and inert. Brahman, Lord Hari, is the embodiment of existence, consciousness, and supreme bliss. Therefore, this entire universe is essentially unreal, like a dream, based on mere imagination, and full of endless sorrows. It appears as if real only in you, who are eternal happiness, knowledge, and infinite."
"I who did not know anything, slept happily then. Having seen various dreams, I am now awake remembering them." The continuity of the witness, the inner consciousness, is always there in all states. But there is mutual exclusion among those states. The waking state is unreal in the dream, and the dream is not in the waking state. Both are absent in deep sleep, and deep sleep is not in both of them. The witness is real due to its continuity in all three states, like the substratum of nacre. The states are unreal due to their exclusion, like silver, colors, water in a mirage, etc.
The śruti declares, "The three states are three dreams." The waking and deep sleep states are unreal because they are states, just like the dream state. The waking state is unreal because of its nature as waking, just as the waking state seen in a dream. Deep sleep is unreal because of its nature as sleep, like the deep sleep seen in a dream. The entire waking world is unreal because of its nature as world, like the world seen in a dream. Being sublatable is not a valid inferential mark due to its pervasion by what is to be proved. The unreality of the world is ascertained from the śruti statement "There is no diversity here." Dreamhood is not a valid inferential mark due to its pervasion by what is to be proved. From the śruti "The three states are dreams," the dreamhood of those states is ascertained. The differentiation of those two from that is indeed the limiting condition, and consciousness is the essential nature. Due to the pervasion of what is to be proved in Brahman and the impossibility of that in the subject, the witness is always real because of its nature as witness, like the witness in a dream.
Brahman, which pervades everywhere as existence-consciousness-bliss, is distinguished from the unreal things due to its continuity in contrast to their exclusion. Similarly, the witness is distinguished from all unreal waking and other states due to its continuity, being always existent.
Through anvaya and vyatireka, that which exists everywhere and always, Brahman non-different from the inner Self, is the subject matter of statements like "That thou art." This alone is to be inquired into by the seeker of truth about the Self. This is the view of the Lord as stated in the Śrīmadbhāgavatāmṛta.
Thus, concluding the exposition of his own view, he indicates its auxiliary: "This is my view. You should properly establish yourself in it." For such establishment, he states its auxiliary: "Through supreme samādhi (samādhina)." Here, the word samādhi means yoga, which is of three types: karma yoga, bhakti yoga, and jñāna yoga. As stated: "I have declared three types of yoga for the welfare of humans: knowledge, action, and devotion. There is no other means ever."
Yoga is that by which one is united with the nature of the Lord. By the derivation, all expectations are indeed knowledge, as per the Vedic statement about rituals, etc., like a horse. By the maxim "like a horse," all these are auxiliary to knowledge as yoga.
Among them, karma yoga is of three types. The first is the performance of duties prescribed for one's varṇa (social class) and āśrama (stage of life) without desire for results, as stated: "You have the right to work only, but never to its fruits. Let not the fruits of action be your motive, nor let your attachment be to inaction."
The second is the offering of all actions to the Lord: "Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in sacrifice, whatever you give away, whatever austerity you practice – O son of Kunti, do that as an offering to Me." "Whatever one does with body, speech, mind, senses, intellect, or one's own nature, one should offer all that to the Supreme Lord Nārāyaṇa." "Whatever action is performed here for the satisfaction of the Lord, that knowledge is indeed dependent on Him, accompanied by devotional yoga."
The third is the performance of actions without the notion of doership, etc.: "All actions are performed by the modes of material nature, but one deluded by false ego thinks oneself the doer. But one who knows the truth about the divisions of the modes and activities, O mighty-armed one, understanding that the modes interact with the modes, does not become attached." According to this statement. For desire-motivated actions, due to their focus on heavenly and other fruits, and their inability to connect with the essential nature of the Lord, even though they are Vedic prescribed actions, they are not considered karma yoga. As per the principle "The Veda speaks in indirect terms, it is an instruction for the immature. It prescribes actions for liberation, just as medicine is prescribed for healing," the statements aim to attract people towards the path of the Lord through Vedic practices by tempting them with fruits. However, it may be considered karma yoga indirectly through gradually orienting one towards the Lord.
Bhakti yoga is of two types, based on the distinction between higher and lower. The higher form is defined by Śāṇḍilya in his aphorism as "That supreme love directed towards the Lord." This supreme devotion is the fruit, as stated in verses like "One who has become brahman (brahmabhūtaḥ) is joyful in the self, neither grieves nor desires. Being equal towards all beings, he attains supreme devotion to Me." Hence, it is not prescribed as a means for removing ignorance.
The second type of devotion is ninefold, as stated in verses like "Hearing, chanting, remembering Viṣṇu, serving His feet, worship, salutation, servitude, friendship, and self-surrender." This is an unobstructed means to knowledge, as evidenced by statements like "When bhakti yoga is directed towards Lord Vāsudeva, it quickly generates detachment and knowledge that is causeless," "O Immense One, in the past, many yogis in this world, offering their bodies to You, through devotion nurtured by hearing about You, attained the supreme goal, O Imperishable One," "Through devotion one knows Me as I am in truth. Then, knowing Me in truth, one enters into Me thereafter," "One who has supreme devotion to God, and as much devotion to the guru as to God, to him these meanings become clear, O great soul," and "Those averse to devotion to Me, confused in the pit of scriptures, do not attain knowledge or liberation even after hundreds of births."
Jñāna yoga is also of two types based on the external and internal aspects of knowledge: discrimination etc., and hearing etc. The first type is fourfold: discrimination between eternal and non-eternal things, detachment, the six-fold wealth beginning with tranquility, and the desire for liberation. Among these, first is the understanding that the self alone is eternal and everything else is non-eternal, as stated in śruti (śruti) texts like "The wise neither is born nor dies," "Everything else perishes," "As the world earned by action perishes here, so does the world earned by merit perish in the hereafter," and in the words of the ācārya (teacher), "The nature of the self is indeed eternal, while the visible is its opposite," "Discrimination is the definite understanding of the nature of all things."
The second is detachment from worldly and other-worldly objects, as stated in śruti (śruti) texts like "Having examined the worlds attained by karma, a brāhmaṇa (brāhmaṇa) should become dispassionate, (realizing that) the uncreated is not attained by the created," and in the words of the ācārya (teacher), "Detachment towards objects from Brahmā down to immovable things, just as one is detached from crow's excrement, that is pure detachment."
The six-fold wealth consists of śama (tranquility), dama (self-control), uparati (withdrawal), titikṣā (forbearance), śraddhā (faith), and samādhānatā (focus), as stated in the śruti (śruti), "Tranquil, self-controlled, withdrawn, forbearing, faithful, and focused, one should see the self in the self alone." In another recension, it reads "being faithful."
Among these, śama (tranquility) is the withdrawal of the mind from objects other than hearing (of scriptures) etc., as the ācārya (teacher) states, "The constant abandonment of mental impressions is called śama (tranquility)." Dama (self-control) is the withdrawal of external sense organs as well, as stated, "The restraint of external activities is called dama (self-control)."
It should not be argued that mental control alone is sufficient without sense control, as the Lord states, "The turbulent senses forcibly carry away the mind of even a striving wise man. As the wind carries away a ship on water, the mind that follows the roaming senses steals one's wisdom." Nor should it be argued that self-control alone is sufficient, as the Lord states, "One who restrains the organs of action but dwells in the mind on sense objects, that deluded self is called a hypocrite."
Uparati (withdrawal) is the natural supreme withdrawal of the controlled senses and mind from objects other than hearing (of scriptures) etc. The ācārya (teacher) states, "Supreme withdrawal is indeed the turning away from objects." The word "supreme" qualifies the withdrawal, meaning it is natural.
Some say uparati (withdrawal) means sannyāsa (renunciation). However, since direct knowledge is seen in Janaka and others without formal renunciation, and since even renunciation from a previous life can potentially aid knowledge through unseen means (like caste and stage of life duties), and since for non-Brahmins, "This is the dharma of those born from the mouth (Brahmins), wearing the mark of Viṣṇu. For those born from the arms and thighs (Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas), a different dharma is praised," and they are not entitled to it, and since it is not applicable at all times as stated, "In Kali Yuga, five things should be abandoned: horse sacrifice, cow sacrifice, renunciation, flesh offerings to ancestors, and begetting a son on brother's wife. When four thousand four hundred years of Kali Yuga have passed, then the acceptance of Tretā (Yuga begins). A wise Brahmin should not take to renunciation," it is not necessarily included among the four means of knowledge.
Titikṣā (forbearance) is the absence of agitation from sufferings that arise due to prārabdha (accumulated karma) when engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. The ācārya (teacher) states, "Enduring all sufferings is considered good titikṣā (forbearance)." Faith is trust in the words of the guru and Vedanta. As stated by the Acharya, "Faith is known as devotion to the words of the guru and Vedanta." This also indicates the characteristics of a guru established by the śruti (scripture) and approaching him, as stated in "For the knowledge of that (Brahman), one should approach a guru who is well-versed in the Vedas and firmly established in Brahman, with sacrificial fuel in hand." It should be noted that being well-versed in the Vedas is limited to Brahmins by Yajnavalkya's statement, as the śruti says, "For the knowledge of that (Brahman), one should worship only a Brahmin as guru."
According to Sri Nandaraja's statement, "A Brahmin is a guru by birth," the truth is that only a person born in a Brahmin body from Brahmin parents is a guru, not a knowledgeable Kshatriya or others.
Concentration of mind in hearing and other practices is called samādhānatā (composed state), as the śruti states, "It is seen by the subtle intellect of the subtle-seers." The smṛti (remembered text) says, "Knowledge arises from sattva (purity)." Knowledge arises only from a subtle, concentrated intellect free from the grossness of tamas (inertia) and the restlessness of rajas (activity). The Acharya's words confirm, "Mental concentration should be recognized as the composed state."
Mumukṣutā (desire for liberation) is the constant desire for liberation from the suffering of worldly existence, like a person with a burning head rushing towards a body of water. As the Acharya states, "The firm determination of 'How and when can I be freed from the bondage of worldly existence, O Lord?' is called mumukṣutā."
This is the external aspect. The second is threefold, divided into śravaṇa (hearing), manana (reflection), and nididhyāsana (meditation), as the śruti states, "The Self, my dear, should be seen, heard, reflected upon, and meditated upon."
This hearing and the rest is the internal aspect. Although hearing and the others are parts of knowledge, they are also mutually related as parts and whole. Among these, śravaṇa is the determination that all Vedanta texts have their purport in the non-dual Brahman, which is non-different from the inner Self. This is not dependent on injunctions, as the Self is not subject to injunctions, and because the Vedanta is the means of knowledge for it.
Manana, which is reflective thinking, removes doubts about the subject matter through various reasonings. Nididhyāsana, which is a continuous flow of thoughts about the subject matter, removes contrary notions about it.
The contrary notions to be removed by nididhyāsana are twofold: the notion of the reality of the dualistic world, and the appearance of that world. The first is not removed even by consistent practice for a long time with reverence. Only when it is removed does the seeker attain the behavior of a wise person, as their knowledge is unobstructed by doubt and error.
When the contrary notion of the world's appearance is removed, the prārabdha karma (begun actions) obstructs it for the sake of experiencing its fruits, as experience is impossible without the appearance of the world. When the prārabdha karma is in its final stages, there is no purpose in protecting those appearances. When its obstruction ceases, the knowledge of reality, aided by nididhyāsana, removes even that slight appearance-causing error along with its cause, as the śruti states, "And again at the end, there is the cessation of all worldly illusion."
That nididhyāsana is of two types: one achieved through yoga and one that is independent. For those with distracted minds, yoga is practiced to calm the mirror of the mind and turn it towards reality, through devotion to Hari and the guru, by a particle of their grace. For those whose minds are naturally turned towards reality, independent practice is sufficient, as stated: "Thinking of That, speaking of That, mutually enlightening each other about That, being solely devoted to That - this the wise know as the practice of Brahman."
As stated by the Blessed Lord: "What harm can be done by the senses, which are agitated or collected, to one who is united and whose abode is utterly pure? What can the clouds do to the sun when they have passed away?"
Wherever this practice is to be achieved, it is called yoga, samādhi (concentration), etc. The natural state, however, is called the supreme samādhi, para bhakti (supreme devotion), etc., as stated: "When the ego-sense in the body has melted away, and the Supreme Self is realized, wherever the mind goes, there is samādhi. One who sees the divine nature of the Self in all beings, and all beings in the divine Self - he is the highest devotee."
Here, "when the ego-sense in the body has melted away" indicates the cessation of the illusion of the reality of worldly names and forms. "When the Supreme Self is realized" means when the Krishna-Brahman, who is the embodiment of existence, consciousness, and bliss, pervading everything as existence, awareness, and the beloved, is known.
In the Srimad Bhagavatam verse too, by saying "sees the divine nature of the Self in all beings" and "all beings in the divine Self," and by negating the difference between the world and the Self, and by the primary co-reference of the words Self and Bhagavan (Lord), non-dualism is ultimately established.
Thus, through such supreme samādhi (deep meditative state), one should remain steadfast. As it is said: "One who has unwavering devotion to the Lord possesses all divine qualities. Where is the possibility of great qualities in one who lacks devotion to Hari (Vishnu) and whose mind runs outwards with desires?" By such statements, it is dependent on devotion to the Lord, and that too is dependent on association with the righteous, as stated: "When a person wandering in samsāra (cycle of rebirth) attains liberation, then, O Acyuta, it is due to association with the righteous. Indeed, when there is association with the righteous, then devotion to You, the Supreme Lord of all, arises." Therefore, you should remain steadfast through devotion obtained by association with me, who am considered the best among the righteous. The result of this is stated as follows:
By remaining in that state, you will never be deluded in the various creations of a kalpa (cosmic cycle) or its alternatives, due to the vision of my oneness, as the śruti (Vedic scripture) states: "What delusion, what sorrow can there be for one who sees oneness?" "O king, those devoted to Nārāyaṇa (Vishnu) fear nothing, even in heaven, liberation, or hell. They see the same purpose everywhere." These and other statements indicate that only the perception of difference in name and form in heaven, liberation, and hell is the cause of sorrow. Therefore, those who see Nārāyaṇa's form, which is of the nature of existence, consciousness, etc., as the same purpose everywhere, and are thus devoted to Nārāyaṇa, do not fear. As it is said, "Fear arises from duality" and "Fear would arise from the notion of a second entity," as described in śruti and smṛti (remembered texts) and experienced directly. The absence of a second entity, which is the cause of fear, means they do not fear.
"As long as there is inequality of qualities, there is multiplicity of the self. As long as there is multiplicity of the self, there is indeed lack of independence. As long as there is lack of independence, there is fear from the Lord. Those who worship this multiplicity become deluded and sorrowful." These and other statements indicate that fear, sorrow, and delusion are described only when there is a perception of multiplicity due to inequality of qualities.
"I bow to Hari, the Self, who is the guru of my own self, who liberated Brahmā and the entire universe through the instruction of devotion and knowledge. I worship the Self as the guru, who, dwelling in the heart, explained through my mouth the nectar of the Vedas, which originated from His own mouth and is difficult to understand." 36
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
This much is clear. The connection is: when effects are produced, the cause pervades them as their material cause, just as gold pervades ornaments like bracelets. When it remains unmodified as the causal form, due to the absence of effects, it is distinct from them, like refined gold. By this, it is shown that whatever is the eternal, self-luminous cause of the world is the reality to be sought by those desiring liberation. This is the essence of the four verses of the Bhāgavata.
Now, how can these four verses summarize the entire meaning of the Bhāgavata characterized by ten features? It is explained thus: "I alone existed in the beginning" indicates the cause of all causes, which is the main subject of the Bhāgavata. This also summarizes the content of the twelfth skandha. "Then I" refers to puruṣa (ātman), pradhāna (prakṛti), and everything else, summarizing the content of the second and third skandhas. "This which" indicates visarga (sthāna) (creation and sustenance). It also refers to ūti (manvantara) (periods of Manu) and īśānukathā (stories of rulers), meaning that whatever exists as the manifest world is also myself. This hints at the content from the fourth to the ninth skandhas. "What remains is myself" indicates nirodha (dissolution), summarizing the content of the tenth skandha.
"Without purpose" mentions māyā (illusion), indicating the creation of the world through māyā, the transmigration of the jīva (individual soul), and the distinction between jīva and īśvara (God). This should be understood from various episodes in the entire text. This also summarizes the content of the first skandha. "As the great" indicates poṣaṇa (nourishment), summarizing the content of the sixth skandha. "This much alone" shows mukti (liberation) through the description of spiritual practices, summarizing the content of the eleventh skandha.
These specifics of creation and other aspects should be understood from the verses describing the beginning of each skandha as explained by Śrī Śrīdhara Svāmī. Moreover, just as Svāmī has shown the description of visarga (creation) and other aspects in the third skandha which primarily deals with sarga (creation), although there are other characteristics mentioned by Svāmī in other skandhas from the fourth onwards which also describe visarga and other aspects, it should be understood that due to the prominence of majority, all skandhas are appropriately characterized by the features mentioned by Svāmī. This commentary on the four verses is accepted by many scholars. 35. 44.
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Furthermore, intending to briefly describe the nature of īśvara (the Lord) as distinct from prakṛti (nature) and puruṣa (individual soul), he states that this alone is to be inquired into, saying "etāvad" (this much). For one desiring to know the tattva (essence) of the ātman (self), which is the paramātman (supreme self), only this much is to be inquired into through anvaya (positive concomitance) and vyatireka (negative concomitance), that is, the nature of the Lord as the inner self of the conscious and unconscious entities with their mutually distinct natures. This is what is to be inquired into - this is the anvaya. Nothing else is to be inquired into - this is the vyatireka.
Or, due to the presence (anvaya) of the supreme self, which has the conscious and unconscious as its body, in both effect and cause forms, and due to the absence (vyatireka) of anything other than this supreme self with conscious and unconscious as its body, only this much is to be inquired into. This means that by knowing such a supreme self, everything is known, and there is nothing else to be known.
The nature of the Lord, which is primarily to be known, includes the conscious, the unconscious, and their manifestations. Since the knowledge of these is included in the knowledge of the Lord, it is said "ātmanas tattvaṃ" (the essence of the self).
To summarize the distinction from prakṛti and puruṣa, he says "yat syād" (that which would be). That which would be the essence of the self, my nature, always - this excludes the unconscious. The unconscious, due to its constant transformation, cannot be said to always exist in its various states like lump, pot, shard, powder, etc., as the previous states cease to exist when the subsequent states arise. "Sarvatra" (everywhere) excludes the individual soul, as although it can be said to always exist due to being unmodified, it cannot be said to exist everywhere due to its atomic size, as stated in "bālāgraśatabhāgasya" (hundredth part of the tip of a hair) and so on.
Thus, by describing it as unchanging and infinite, the definition of Brahman's nature as stated in "satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ brahma" (Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite) is expressed. 35.
In this way, the answer to "How should I know your forms, both higher and lower?" has been given. Now he answers "I should not be bound by creating progeny" with "etad" (this). By supreme samādhi (concentration), by one-pointedness of mind, properly follow this instruction. This also indicates Rudra and others who preside over dissolution, etc. In creations and dissolutions, in imaginations and contrary imaginations, creation is imagination and dissolution is contrary imagination, he never becomes deluded at any time. By remembering that everything is dependent on me, you will not become afflicted by excessive pride - this is the meaning. By this, the answer to "Fix your intelligence on this subject" is also given. 36.
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
The Lord instructs about His pervasiveness with an example, saying: Just as the great five elements exist having entered into the high and low beings, their effect-bodies, and also exist not having entered into them due to their even greater pervasiveness, similarly I too have entered into the beings pervading endless space and time, and I also have not entered into them due to being situated outside of them as well. Just as the great elements are both inside and outside bodies, and so on. (35)
He concludes the instruction by clarifying the aforementioned pervasiveness with "etāvat" (this much). The meaning is: That entity which would pervade all-knowing, all places, always, at all times, through positive and negative correlation, through the nature of space and time associated and unassociated with non-entities - only this much is to be inquired into as My nature, the nature of the Self, the Supreme Self, by you who are desirous of knowing the truth. By this it is said that it is to be contemplated as pervading all places and times in one way through positive and negative correlation in the form of existence and non-existence of other entities, through qualities and actions. (36)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Now - Because it leads to the ultimate secret in due course, he instructs about its limb as a secret itself with "etāvad eva" (only this much). For one desirous of knowing the truth of the Self, of Me, the Lord, wishing to experience the reality, only this much is to be inquired about, to be learned from the lotus feet of Śrī Guru. What is that? That which is the one entity that would always exist everywhere through positive and negative correlation, through injunction and prohibition. There, by positive correlation, as in "Only this much in this world", "The Lord of all beings", "Be devoted to Me", etc. And by negative correlation, as in "From the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet", "Even sages, O god, averse to association with You, wander here in saṃsāra (saṃsāra)", "The evil-doers, the deluded do not approach Me", "As long as a person does not become a devotee of Viṣṇu (viṣṇu) on earth", etc. Where and where it is appropriate - everywhere in the creator of scripture, place, instrument, substance, action, effect, result - in all of these indeed. There in all scriptures, as in the Skanda Purāṇa (skanda purāṇa) in the dialogue between Brahmā and Nārada: "In this very terrible saṃsāra (saṃsāra), full of birth and death, the worship of Vāsudeva (vāsudeva) is remembered by the knowers as the deliverer." There too, by positive correlation, as "The Lord, having thrice examined the totality of Brahmā (brahmā) with his mind, ascertained that from which the self's steadfast delight would arise." Similarly in the Padma Purāṇa (padma purāṇa), Skanda Purāṇa (skanda purāṇa), and Liṅga Purāṇa (liṅga purāṇa): "Having churned all the scriptures and pondered again and again, this one thing is well-established - Nārāyaṇa (nārāyaṇa) is always to be meditated upon." An example of negative correlation: "Even one who has mastered the Vedas, who knows the meaning of all scriptures, if he is not devoted to the Lord of all, know him to be the lowest of men." This should be understood everywhere. And that will be shown at the end in the Eleventh Canto: "One who is expert in the verbal Brahman, if he is not expert in the Supreme, his labor is indeed labor in vain, like one protecting a cow that gives no milk." Among all doers, as: "They indeed know and cross over the divine illusion - even women, śūdras, hūṇas, śabaras, even those living sinfully. What then of those who follow the conduct of wonderful progressive discipline, even animals, what to speak of those who retain what they have heard?" And in the Garuḍa Purāṇa (garuḍa purāṇa): "I think even insects, birds, and animals whose minds are fixed on Hari (hari) attain the higher destination, what then of knowledgeable humans?" There itself, in good conduct and bad conduct, in the knower and the ignorant, in the detached and the attached, in the seeker of liberation and the liberated, in one imperfect in devotion and one perfect in devotion, in one who has attained the status of an associate and in the eternal associates - the universality is seen even in general. There, in good conduct and bad conduct, as: "Even if one of very bad conduct worships Me with undivided devotion, he is to be considered a saint, for he is rightly resolved." What need be said of one of good conduct - this is the intended meaning. In the knower and the ignorant: "Those who know Me and those who do not know Me", etc. "Hari (hari) removes sins even when remembered by those of wicked minds." In the detached and the attached: "My devotee, though harassed by sense objects, with uncontrolled senses, generally due to mature devotion is not overcome by sense objects."
The meaning is that one who is not obstructed is certainly not overcome. For those seeking liberation and those liberated, "The seekers of liberation with terrible forms" etc., and "The self-satisfied sages" etc. For those accomplished in devotion and those perfected in devotion, "Some, solely through devotion, are devoted to Vāsudeva" etc. "He who does not move even half a blink away from the lotus feet of the Lord is the foremost of Vaiṣṇavas" etc. And "Having attained the status of the Lord's associate through my service" etc. For the eternal associates, "In the ponds with coral banks filled with pure nectar" etc.
In all the realms, worlds, and universes, and beyond them, their worship of the Supreme Lord being performed is well-known in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata and other texts. By these accomplished ones, examples from all places should be understood. In all organs, as in "Joyfully serving Hari with mental offerings." "They directly attained Him who is beyond speech and mind" etc. Indeed, such statements are well-known, let alone accomplishment through external senses, mind, and speech. In all substances, as in "Whoever offers Me with devotion a leaf, flower, fruit, or water" etc. In all actions, as in "The true dharma, when heard, recited, meditated upon, worshipped, or approved, immediately purifies even those who hate gods and brahmins" etc. "Whatever you do, whatever you eat" etc.
Similarly, even in semblances of devotion and offenses resembling devotion, examples like Ajāmila and the mouse should be understood. In all activities, as in "By whose remembrance and uttering of whose name, deficiencies in austerities, sacrifices, and rituals are immediately completed - I bow to that infallible one." In all results, as in "Whether desireless or full of desires" etc. Also, as stated in the verse "Just as by watering the root of a tree" etc., when service to Hari is performed, the worship of all other gods etc. automatically occurs. Hence its universality is also as stated in the Skanda Purāṇa in the dialogue between Brahmā and Nārada: "When the Lord of lords, wielder of conch, discus, and mace is worshipped, all gods are worshipped, as Hari pervades everything."
Thus, one who performs devotion, whatever is given to the Lord, through which devotion is performed as a means, to whom it is given for the Lord's pleasure, from which substance like milk etc. is taken and offered to the Lord, in which place or family someone practices devotion - the fulfillment of all these is seen in the Purāṇas. Thus universality is established even in terms of instruments.
Eternality is also stated by "always" etc. At the beginning of creation, as in "This knowledge called Veda was destroyed by time in dissolution" etc. In the middle of creation, in many places, even during the four types of dissolutions, as in Vidura's question "Who would worship Him then?" In all ages: "In Satya Yuga by meditating on Viṣṇu, in Tretā by performing sacrifices, in Dvāpara by worship, and in Kali by chanting Hari's names" etc. What more - "That is loss, that is a great defect, that is delusion and confusion, when even for a moment Vāsudeva is not contemplated" - thus also in the Vaiṣṇava texts.
In all states too - in the womb, as famous in Prahlāda due to hearing arranged by Nārada; in childhood, as in Dhruva etc.; in youth, as in Ambarīṣa etc.; in old age, as in Dhṛtarāṣṭra etc.; in death, as in Ajāmila etc.; in heaven, as in Citraketu etc. Even in hell, as stated in the Nṛsiṃha Purāṇa: "As the hellish beings chanted Hari's name, they developed devotion to Hari and went to heaven." Hence Durvāsā said: "Even a hellish being is liberated when His name is uttered." Similarly, examples for all states are given in "For those without this knowledge" etc.
Now some examples of the opposite are seen here and there: "One who is not devoted to the Supreme Lord, even if well-versed in all the Vedas and knowledgeable in the meaning of all scriptures, should be known as the lowest of men." "What use are the Vedas, what use are scriptures, what use is visiting holy places, what use are austerities and sacrifices for those devoid of devotion to Viṣṇu?" "What use are many scriptures, austerities, or sacrifices, or even a thousand Vājapeya sacrifices, for one who has devotion to Janārdana?" - thus say the Garuḍa, Bṛhannāradīya and Padma Purāṇas.
Also, "Ascetics, charitable persons, famous ones, intellectuals, knowers of mantras, and the very auspicious do not find welfare without offering to Him - I bow again and again to that gloriously renowned one." "That place where there is no river of nectar in the form of stories of Vaikuṇṭha, no devotees of the Lord who take shelter of Him, no great festivals of sacrifices to the Lord of sacrifices - even the world of Indra should never be served there." By which "Bowing with the tips of their crowns" etc. "Residence in the same world, opulence, same form, and proximity" etc. "Not charity, not austerity, not sacrifice" etc. "Even liberation devoid of devotion to the infallible Lord" etc. "They do not consider even Your unlimited grace as ultimate" etc.
Now the meaning of what is appropriate everywhere and always simultaneously is: "Therefore, O king, with one's whole being, Hari everywhere and always" etc. That which is established everywhere and always by positive and negative concomitance, as in the example: "Viṣṇu should be remembered constantly," etc. And in its entirety, as in: "There is no other auspicious path than this," beginning thus and concluding with: "Therefore, O king, with all your being, Hari should be heard about, glorified, and remembered everywhere and always by humans." Here, "by humans" means "by living beings," distinguishing the human condition, as in "the poets."
This statement implies that karma extends up to renunciation, enjoyment, and attainment of a body; yoga extends up to attainment of siddhis (supernatural powers); sāṃkhya extends up to self-knowledge; knowledge extends up to liberation; and likewise all the various ineligibilities. In such matters of karma and others, deviation from scripture should be understood. But for devotion to Hari, by positive and negative concomitance, it is always and everywhere established with its various glories. Therefore, it is appropriate for such a secret to be a component.
Being a component of the secret, and being concealed by other meanings in the form of knowledge, this is stated. Even there, by self-knowledge alone, concealing other meanings, it is understood that this sādhana-bhakti (devotional practice) may sometimes be external in the means of brahma-jñāna (knowledge of Brahman) and others.
Here is the procedure: Due to the universality and eternality of sādhana-bhakti, it should first be received from the guru. Then, from its practice, external means like detachment, good character, self-knowledge, and realization become consequential. Then again, due to being of such nature, devotion certainly follows, as per statements like "One who has realized Brahman becomes joyful" and "Even self-satisfied sages," etc. That itself is knowledge and realization of the Lord.
Therefore, by instructing those ignorant of the secret of knowledge, realization, and that ignorance, the four verses were indeed taught by the Lord Himself. Here, in "To him, the Lord, being honored, [showed] His own abode," the word 'bhagavān' (Lord) is used. In "There he saw the Lord of all Sātvatas," and "At the end of the para-ardha, He awoke; appearing before [Brahmā] in the dress of a cowherd," the Śrī Kṛṣṇa form is clearly indicated, in accordance with the Tāpanī śruti and other sources. It is not at all the Nārāyaṇa-named Garbhodaśāyī Puruṣa, who is a part of Him.
Therefore, this great Purāṇa is indeed called Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. As it is said: "To whom and by whom was this incomparable lamp of knowledge first spoken?" etc. By the word 'purā' (ancient), it is indeed stated that the Lord is the speaker. In the second canto, it is stated: "The first avatāra is the Puruṣa of the Supreme." Hence, "This was first revealed by the Lord out of compassion to Brahmā, situated in the lotus of His navel, who was afraid of existence." Here too, the word 'bhagavat' is used, meaning that the Lord Himself, having manifested the all-pervading great Vaikuṇṭha world right there, revealed this Purāṇa to Brahmā situated in the lotus navel of Śrī Nārāyaṇa.
This is consistent with the narrative in the second canto. Thus:
May that fourfold promise of the Lord be victorious,
And the commentary of Svāmī's feet, which became my livelihood. (35)
(Thus, Śrī Brahmā also made Śrī Nārada resolve to briefly teach Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, just as Śrī Nārada instructed for the manifestation of that great Purāṇa, so that devotion to Lord Hari would arise in humans, as stated in "O great fortunate one, you" etc.) (36)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Now, "Let me diligently do what the Lord has taught," thus Brahmā prayed, and the means of attainment, being extremely secret, is stated as being incomprehensible to outsiders: "This much alone." Here, the implication is that extensive study of scriptures is not required. A person desiring to know the truth, wishing to know the essential means for one's own welfare, should learn from the lotus feet of Śrī Guru. "But you understand it by my grace," is the implied meaning.
What is that? Among the means of attaining the highest good - karma, jñāna, yoga, bhakti, etc. - what is established by positive and negative concomitance? It means what becomes firm or proven. Since heaven, liberation, etc., are not attained by karma, jñāna, yoga, etc. alone, and since they are attained even without these, karma, jñāna, yoga, etc. are not established as means by positive and negative concomitance.
As it is said: "What benefit was gained by those who did not worship, following their own dharma?" "Those who strive only for knowledge suffer." "O mighty one, formerly in this world, many yogis..." "Whatever is gained by karma, by austerity," etc. And: "My devotee easily attains by devotional service to Me everything - heaven, liberation, My abode - if somehow he desires it." "Whatever abundance of means for the fourfold human goals, without that, a person attains them by taking shelter of Nārāyaṇa," as stated in Mokṣadharma.
But by devotion alone, all good things are accomplished, and without it, they are not accomplished. Thus, by positive and negative concomitance, devotion alone is firmly established as the means for all good. As it is said for positive concomitance: "One who is free from desire, full of all desires, or desirous of liberation, being of noble intellect, should worship the Supreme Person with intense devotional yoga." "What is achieved through karma, tapas (austerities)..." etc.
Or by contrast, as stated:
"From the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the puruṣa (cosmic person), along with the āśramas (stages of life), the four varṇas (social classes) were born, distinguished by their qualities, starting with the brāhmaṇas."
"Those who do not worship and disrespect the puruṣa (sākṣāt) who is directly the ātmaprabhavam īśvaram (self-originating Lord), fall from their position and descend downwards."
Or as stated:
"The ascetics, the charitable, the famous, the thoughtful, the knowers of mantras, the very auspicious - they do not find welfare without offering to Him. To that Lord of excellent glory, I bow again and again."
There it states the absence of restrictions of place and time, that it should be everywhere, in all places, for all qualified persons, and always, at all times. For example, one should perform karma only in a pure place at an auspicious time, one obtains knowledge only with a purified inner consciousness, "Establishing a comfortable seat in a clean place, the yogī practices yoga" - thus karma, jñāna etc. are not universal. Similarly, karma is limited until renunciation or enjoyment is attained, yoga until siddhis are attained, sāṅkhya until self-knowledge is attained, jñāna until liberation is attained - thus they are also not universal.
But the universality of bhakti is well-known. There is no restriction of place or time for it. There is also no prohibition regarding impurity etc. for the name of Śrī Hari, O hunter.
"Therefore, O king, with one's whole being, Hari should be heard about, glorified and remembered by humans everywhere and always."
The pervasiveness of bhakti in all qualified persons like karma-yogīs, jñānīs etc. has already been stated. It is also seen in outcastes by birth and conduct etc., as stated in "The Kirātas, Hūṇas, Āndhras, Pulindas, Pulkaśas..." etc.
It is also seen in all states of being - in the womb like Prahlāda, in childhood like Dhruva, in youth like Ambarīṣa, in old age like Yayāti, at death like Ajāmila, even in hell, as stated: "Even a hellish person is liberated when Your name is uttered." As stated in the Nṛsiṃha Purāṇa: "As the hellish beings chant Hari's name more and more, they develop bhakti for Hari and go to heaven."
Thus bhakti alone is ascertained as the means. Now the secret form of prema-bhakti is also stated through inference in "This much alone". For a person inquiring into truth, this much alone among the goals of heaven, liberation and prema is to be inquired into - that which would be for oneself everywhere and always through positive and negative correlation. Among those, heaven and liberation are not established through one's own positive and negative correlation. But prema is established through one's own positive and negative correlation. Since prema is also denoted by the word bhakti, and since the attainment of prema-bhakti which is to be achieved is seen through sādhana-bhakti, prema is established through itself alone. As stated: "Through bhakti that has arisen, they bear bodies with hair standing on end due to bhakti."
Therefore, by the words "secret" and "its limbs", prema-bhakti and sādhana-bhakti are stated through inference alone. Thus the instruction of the Lord is implied that bhakti should be practiced only as a means for prema-bhakti, not as a means for heaven, liberation etc. This is because it was prayed for by Brahmā: "Let me do what is instructed by the Lord."
The experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form, qualities etc. through prema-bhakti attained by pure sādhana-bhakti is itself the effect of prema-bhakti - this knowledge is gained spontaneously. Therefore the knowledge of the secret and its limbs are stated in this verse alone.
Moreover, after "He indeed is rasa (essence)", the śruti states "This is the investigation of bliss." The rasa which is the ultimate goal of all auspiciousness is shown as embodied on the stage as "the thunderbolt for the wrestlers" etc. The knowledge of that is stated through inference in this verse alone. For example, among the things to be inquired into, this much alone is to be inquired into and experienced - what would be through positive and negative correlation, through union and separation, through meeting and parting. Everywhere in all the universes like Śrī Vṛndāvana etc., always even at the time of great dissolution, in servants, friends, elders and beloveds - thus the tasting of the rasas of servitude, friendship, parental affection and conjugal love is implied.
Thus this verse revealing the extremely secret prema-bhakti-rasa is covered by the Lord Himself with another meaning in the form of knowledge, like a wish-fulfilling gem covered by a golden box that cannot be opened by outsiders. As the śruti states: "This Self cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellect, nor by much learning. Whomever this Self chooses, by him alone It is attained. To him this Self reveals Its own form."
That other meaning in the form of knowledge is as follows: For one inquiring into the truth of the Self, this much alone is to be inquired into - what would be everywhere and always through positive and negative correlation, that alone is the Self. Thus the Self has correlation with the world as its cause, and the world has distinction from the Self. Similarly, the Self has correlation in the waking and other states as their witness, but the waking and other states have distinction from the Self. (35)
Now one may ask - how can I understand this Bhāgavata of four verses with such profound meaning, given the diversity of opinions of disputants? To this he says: Practice this view properly with samādhi, meaning examine it with one-pointed concentration of mind. In great kalpas and sub-kalpas. This completes my commentary on the Bhāgavata of four verses.
This universal, extremely delightful, essence-revealing [commentary] should be seen by people studying bhakti scripture, not by others. (36)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Now he explains the means to be achieved by self-grace, saying "This much alone". Anvaya (continuity) is the material cause of all effects, while vyatireka (discontinuity) is the instrumental cause as the basis, agent, etc. Through these two methods of anvaya and vyatireka mentioned in the scriptures, by which the Self creates itself, this alone is the truth of the Supreme Self, of myself, to be inquired into by one who desires to know my truth, to be contemplated for the purpose of knowing me. This is because nothing else is independently worthy of inquiry, as the scripture says "By knowing which everything becomes known." (35)
Now regarding what was requested about "This is to be meditated upon in nine ways", he says "This doctrine". Through supreme samādhi (concentration), establish this doctrine properly. By this power alone, the Lord is never deluded in those various creations in the kalpas, and does not fall into the misconception of being the doer. (36)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Having thus explained the object of knowledge, the means of knowledge, and the subject matter, he now states the rationale for all three while removing an internal doubt: "This much alone is to be inquired into". The explanation is according to the desire for knowledge. The inquiry is only into these three, not sixteen-fold as in other scriptures, since that has no use for the Self. Only what is useful for the Self is to be inquired into. Hence he says "By one who desires to know the truth of the Self". The object of knowledge is jñāna (knowledge), the means of knowledge is vairāgya (detachment), and the subject matter is the tenfold līlā bhakti (devotional play). Only this much is useful for the Self. The rest is for the body, etc.
Having thus explained and removed internal doubts, he states the rationale for all three: "That which exists everywhere and always through anvaya and vyatireka". "Through anvaya and vyatireka" is the rationale. "That which" etc. refers to the three topics. To the question "How is everything Brahman?", he says "through anvaya and vyatireka". Brahman has anvaya (continuity) everywhere. The one exists as continuity in "The pot exists", "The cloth exists", "It appears", "It is dear", etc. Otherwise there would be no continuity of the word "one" or continuity of cognition. Vyatireka (discontinuity) means it is distinguished by its particularity. How is it distinguished from pot, etc.? A pot is not distinguished from another pot, nor a cloth from another cloth. But existence is distinguished from pot, cloth, etc. Thus, that which exists everywhere and is distinguished from everything is Brahman alone.
If one asks why two methods are needed when one would suffice to establish Brahman-ness, the answer is no. Anvaya alone does not establish Brahman-ness, since the world also has anvaya in the world. Although the world is distinguished from pot etc., it is not distinguished from itself. Things like sky-flowers are distinguished from the world but do not have anvaya. Existence is distinguished from the world. Since both the Lord and the cause have existence, only that which has both anvaya and vyatireka is everything.
Moreover, that which exists everywhere, or that which is not limited by space and time, is established through anvaya and vyatireka. Māyā (illusion) is limited by anvaya, since existence does not have anvaya in the illusory realm of māyā. And the illusory appearance is not distinguished from existence, being itself non-existent. But the Lord exists even in māyā and is also distinct from it. The same applies to time. In an object like a pot, the cause exists, the effect exists, the substratum exists, and the superimposed exists. Even in existence there is distinction. The pot is not the clay itself, otherwise the pot would be perceived even in the clay state and the word "pot" would be used. Thus in the effect, the Lord has anvaya in five ways and is distinguished in five ways. A pot is distinguished from cloth etc., from its cause, from other pots, and from its manifestation and unmanifestaton. Thus in one pot, the Lord exists in ten ways through manifestation and unmanifestation. In this way, the Lord exists everywhere with the tenfold līlā. By this, the Lord is the essential nature. The perception of space is illusory. The perception of a child is through līlā. Thus "I alone am unlimited by and in the form of space, time and objects". This alone is to be inquired into. This alone has been examined through reasoning and through origination, as stated in scriptures like "The Person alone is all this" and "He stands above a span". And in brief statements like "There is nothing apart from whom" and "The Person dwelling in the measure of a span".
Thus the teaching of the Lord Brahman has been explained. The world is to be known as the form of Brahman; since it is distinguished from Brahman, one should not be attached to it. Even in one object, the Lord exists with all līlās. Thus being in the form of space, time and objects, He is distinguished from space, time and objects.
Having thus explained the teaching, he now says that contemplating this alone is the cause for absence of pride: "This doctrine". Everything is the Lord. The perception otherwise is due to māyā. The Lord is everywhere, with all līlās, free from all faults - this is my doctrine, the Lord's doctrine. Establish yourself firmly in this scripture of the Lord. Just as followers of various doctrines are established in their respective doctrines, you too should be established in this doctrine. Many wrong arguments will arise from this, but they should all be removed through experience alone. Hence he says "through supreme samādhi". Samādhi is one-pointedness of mind. This is to be known through subtle vision. This doctrine cannot be known through superficial vision or reasoning. But when this is known, one is not deluded in the great kalpa or minor kalpas during creation and dissolution. Moreover, one is never deluded at any time. Māyā never deludes such a person, due to the opposition between this doctrine and māyā. Māyā exists only where this doctrine does not exist. (36)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
At this point. Now, given the existence of many intermediate subjects like the aforementioned subject, how can there be an absence of what is to be described? To this, they say: "Description, however" and so on. "The object of knowledge" and so on. Here is the meaning: The Lord will say, "For the welfare of humans, I have spoken of jñāna (knowledge), karma (action), and bhakti (devotion)." Thus, for the soul, only these three are useful. Among these, the object of knowledge, being the means of knowledge, the subject of knowledge, and the form of knowledge, is useful. Similarly, the authoritative source, the Veda, which expounds karma, culminates in vairāgya (detachment) through indirect statements, so it is useful for detachment. Likewise, the subject, being the substrate of conflicting attributes, culminates in bhakti, so it is useful as a form of devotion. In "The Lord is Brahman in its entirety," the portion describing the means culminates there. Thus, being knowledge, detachment, and devotion, only these three are to be known in this way, meaning there is nothing else to be considered as desirable to know.
They explain "reasoning" as the logic that reveals the Lord's nature, and expand on the implied meaning with natural flow, saying "there, everything" and so on. "Of one" and so on. The anvaya (connection) of Brahman, which is of the nature of sat (existence), cit (consciousness), and ānanda (bliss), means "follows after," that is, it has a form that follows. The logic for this is "otherwise" and so on. Thus, if everything were not of the nature of sat and cit, there would be no continuity of the terms sat, etc., everywhere, nor would there be continuity of the cognition of sat, etc. Because it is so, therefore it is thus, is the meaning.
Here, as in the lexicon "In Mahendra, Guggulu, owl, snake, and crocodile, [the word] Kauśika [is used]," the word Kauśika is not applied to Mahendra, etc., so it is not their anvaya. Therefore, it is said "cognition" and so on. Thus, the main anvaya is only the continuity of a single cognition, is the meaning.
Now, while such an anvaya is established, how can vyatireka (distinction) arise, since the Lord, being all-pervading, has no absence anywhere, and vyatireka is of the nature of the absence of something in the absence of something else? In response to this expectation, they state its nature differently: "Specifically" and so on. And it should not be doubted that in this way even Brahman is not distinguished, because everything is considered as a party, and only vyatireka is intended here, so there is no fault.
Now, in response to the expectation that vyatireka alone might be sufficient as a proof, why is anvaya needed? They say: "Like sky-flower" and so on. "Of the cause" means of atoms, primordial nature, etc. "It is heard" means that either anvaya or vyatireka alone is insufficient as proof.
Now, how can the Lord's all-ness be determined when the cause is seen to have anvaya with pleasure, displeasure, and dejection, and vyatireka of the world is also seen? In response to this doubt, they say: "Moreover" and so on. The word "vā" has the meaning of "eva" in the ornament of speech. The limiters are the pervaders. "Even there" means even in the case of limitation.
Thus, even in pleasure, displeasure, and dejection, there is anvaya of sat, and because of hearing the vyatireka of the Supreme Deity in "The unmanifest dissolves into the imperishable, the imperishable dissolves into darkness, darkness becomes one with the Supreme Deity," both time and the Supreme Deity are limiters of the cause, and space is also a limiter for atoms. Therefore, everything is not of their nature, but of the nature of sat, is the meaning.
Now, if both are limiters, what is the purpose, since limitation is possible by anvaya with just one of space and time? The continuity of a single cognition is seen in "māyā (illusion) is sat, time is sat." In response to this doubt, they say: "For māyā" and so on. "Anvaya" is a separate word, "not" is separate. Thus, although māyā has anvaya with sat and is limited by it, its effect is not limited by it, and because vyatireka from sat exists, both anvaya and limitation are necessary in the aspect of the effect, is the meaning.
Now then, let vyatireka alone be the limiter, what need is there for anvaya? To this, they say: "The Lord" and so on. Thus, because anvaya exists, it too is not to be disregarded, is the meaning. They indicate this very point about time, saying "Thus time" and so on. Thus, because of the continuity of the cognition "Time is sat" and because sat exists even in māyā etc., and because it is distinct from time, time is indeed limited by sat, and not a limiter, is the meaning.
Similarly, due to the continuity of measure, limitation also appears everywhere. And the non-continuity of being dear should not be doubted, because even in the absence of everything being dear, some degree of dearness continues everywhere. And there is no exception in appearance, because even there, continuity exists in the form of being wonderful. In reality, however, due to its non-existence, only the triad of existence, consciousness, and bliss appears there, so there is no fault even in non-continuity. Therefore, by anvaya and vyatireka, "All is Brahman" is established by experience.
Now, if so, the Brahman-ness of everything is established, but not its Bhagavat-ness (Lordship), due to the absence of the ten līlās (divine plays). In response to this doubt, they derive the connection of the ten līlās for Bhagavat-ness: "The subject" and so on. "Additional" means having an additional form, which they derive in "For not" and so on. Thus, even though it exists, additionalness means having a form additional to it even while being of its nature, is the meaning. It is distinguished, thus it becomes of a different form. There they state two reasons: due to manifestation and disappearance. If these two are admitted as causes, then the resulting difference is established in only three ways, so how can it be five-fold? In response to this question, they say: the manifestation and disappearance of a pot. Thus, those two, being of the nature of distinction, are differentiators, and difference itself is distinguished from them, so the five-fold nature is indeed established. This is the meaning.
It should not be said that manifestation, being distinct from others and being of a separate nature, can be considered as difference, while disappearance, being of the nature of absence, cannot be considered as difference. This is because in the disappearance with pot as the counter-positive, the distinction from others is clear, making the difference evident.
It should not be said that since distinction is accomplished by manifestation alone, disappearance is unnecessary and ineffective. This is because manifestation is of non-pervasive occurrence, and disappearance is accepted elsewhere. In this context too, it is necessary for the cognition of co-located negation like "This is a pot, not a cloth." It should not be said that the manifestation of a pot is just the disappearance of others, because if that were pervasive, there would be no cognition of the pot. If it were non-pervasive, then the assumption of the disappearance of the counter-positive of disappearance would be necessary, and due to the complexity of assumptions and the cognition of existence, it is more appropriate to accept manifestation. Thus, it cannot be accomplished by either alone. This is the direction.
They state the result thus: "Therefore" etc. Since both are necessary, since manifestation causes the cognition of five-fold connection and disappearance causes the cognition of three-fold difference, and both are of the nature of difference, therefore in a single pot, by manifestation and disappearance which are caused and by their inherent existence, the Lord exists and is cognized as of the nature of existence in ten ways. This is the meaning.
Having explained this in one context, they extend it to others thus: "In this way" etc. Thus, in the infinite Lord, in the second person, as stated in the third skandha, in the first person existing in this way, in His parts existing in this way, this ten-fold nature of līlā (divine play) is to be ascertained everywhere. This is the meaning.
Having thus analyzed the meaning of the verse, they state the distilled meaning thus: "By this" etc., up to "to be known". By this triad of verses, by teaching the three-fold object with reasoning. The cognition of time is through līlā, and the cognition of time which is a component in the relation of origination etc. is through the līlā of gradual manifestation.
Now, here it has been concluded that everything is the Lord, but in the previous chapters, the theory of the doer has also been conveyed. How is there no contradiction between these? To this they say: "This very" etc. This very subject matter that everything is the Lord, as stated in the triad of verses, has been considered with reasoning, through positive and negative concomitance. By origination, which is of the nature of the triad beginning with birth. "In the person" etc. "In the verses" etc. Thus, by being the substratum of contradictory attributes in the description, and in "not from which" etc., it has been considered by that very attribute, so there is no contradiction. This is the meaning.
They state the result of the four thus: "Thus" etc. Now, for the proper understanding of the doubt in the previous chapter and the answer in this chapter, both meanings are summarized. There, the doubt is: In "Therefore in Bhārata", is the all-pervading nature stated there primary or secondary? Not the first, because of the impossibility of self-grace, the incongruity of grace in Brahman which is non-different from self, the impossibility of stating origination without difference, the clear difference of the originated lotus from the body, and the world being the content of the lotus and thus different from it too, making the all-pervading nature in the body far removed. Not the last, because the metaphorical all-pervading nature, being equal to a mental kingdom, does not prevent the arising of desires.
Thus, since the all-pervading nature is incongruous in both ways, and due to the non-establishment of a form other than that, the form of Brahman being negated, there is no purpose for the Lord's body other than the origination of the lotus. And by that, due to the non-accomplishment of the all-pervading nature, the body-relation which causes equality with the individual soul and negates the all-pervading nature, what is its purpose? This is the summary of the prima facie view.
There, the answer is given by Śuka in four verses, beginning with the introduction of the Lord's words in the verse "In the nature of the self". There, by positive and negative concomitance, the all-pervading nature in the Lord being unobstructed, the term "all-self" being indicative in its primary sense, otherwise the cognition being non-veridical and not beneficial, the defects like non-beneficence being imagined by the confused intellect of the individual soul and thus absent there. The cognition of time which is a component in the relation of origination etc. being produced by līlā, there being no scope for unwarranted loss or gain, from these very reasons the nature of the Lord is established, and by the establishment of lordship, the equality with the individual soul is avoided, so the body-relation for the purpose of līlā by one's own will is not faulty. Thus, what was said earlier is flawless. This is the summary of the resolution.
The text from "Therefore to Him His own world" up to "the Lord enjoying in His own abode" should be known as an expansion of the verse "All beings are in Me". There, by the use of the second person in "you see", by showing the substratum of contradictory attributes, it is understood that here too that is shown to Brahmā. || 35 ||
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
He states the means of knowledge - "This much". For one who desires to know the truth, the reality of the self or supreme self, only this much is to be inquired into and considered. What is meant by "this much"? To this he says - Anvaya (presence) is the continuity as the cause in the effects, in the form of existence. And vyatireka (absence) is the distinction from them in the causal state. Thus, that which would exist everywhere and always through anvaya and vyatireka, that alone is the nature of the supreme self. [35]
What was prayed for in "May I not be bound creating progeny", he grants that - "This". Practice this view properly with supreme concentration, one-pointedness of mind. Contemplate on it continuously. If you do so, you will never be deluded in the various sub-cycles within a great cycle. You will not be overcome by desire, anger, pride, etc. Thus it should be understood that Brahman's being overcome by desire, anger etc. anywhere is only due to forgetting this. [36]
Hindī Anuvāda
This is not Brahman, this is not Brahman - in this way by the method of negation, and this is Brahman, this is Brahman - by this method of anvaya, it is established that the Lord who is beyond all and the form of all alone exists always and everywhere, He alone is the real truth. Those who wish to know the truth of the self or supreme self need to know only this much. Have complete faith in this principle of mine through unwavering concentration. By this, even while existing through cycle after cycle, you will never be deluded. [36]
SB 2.9.35-36
