Text 1: The material manifestation’s ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.
Text 2: Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, but the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.
Text 3: One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies. Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.
Text 4: Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Then in the eleventh, the characteristics of time, paramāṇu (atom), etc. are described, along with the measures of yuga, manvantara, etc., and kalpa. (1)
Thus, having generally described the tenfold mixture of qualities that characterize time, now to describe its specific nature, it defines the object that is measured by it in two verses. The ultimate part of the existent effect, which has no further parts, is many, has not reached the state of effect, is unjoined, and has not reached the state of aggregation. Therefore, even when the states of effect and aggregation are removed, it always exists - this should be known as the paramāṇu (atom). What is the proof for this? He says: From which, when combined, arises the illusion of unity, the notion of a whole, for people who engage in practical affairs. Thus it will be said in the fifth [skandha] in the refutation of the whole: "Those whose aggregate creates a distinction". It is postulated due to the impossibility of effects, is the idea. (1)
Having spoken of the subtle, he speaks of the gross. Of the existent alone: That which has the paramāṇu as its ultimate part, of that very existent mere effect, remaining in its own form, not having reached another transformation, that which is its absolute unity is the supreme great. Its masculinity is due to being the counterpart of the paramāṇu. Objection: Every object has various distinctions and is mutually different, how can it have unity? He answers this: Without distinction means without the intention of distinction, and continuous means without the intention of separation. The meaning is that the entire manifest world is the supreme great. (2)
Just as this object is subtle and gross, so too time is inferred. The word 'ca' (and) includes the middle state. Its form is the state of paramāṇu, etc. Its experience is pervasion. By that, the Lord - meaning Hari's power naturally manifests and unmanifests, experiences, pervades, and delimits. Thus he is all-pervading and skilled in creation, etc. (3)
He elaborates on this: With "sa" (he), etc. He who experiences the paramāṇu state of the existent world is time as paramāṇu. He who experiences its totality is the supreme great. This means: As will be said in "situated in the wheel of planets, stars, etc.", the time it takes the sun to traverse the space of a paramāṇu is a paramāṇu of time. And the time it takes to traverse the entire cosmic egg consisting of twelve zodiac signs is the supreme great time in the form of a year. By repetition of that very [time], in the sequence of yuga, manvantara, etc., it reaches up to two parārdhas. Thus in the fifth [skandha] he will describe the divisions of time, etc. by the sun's motion alone. (4)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Then, after the description of creation, "from yuga, manvantara, etc." - the fifth case is used in the sense of the third case, meaning "by yuga, manvantara, etc." By "ādi", Brahmā's day etc. are included. In "mānādi", by "ādi" the Lord's essential form etc. are included. (1)
"Tasya eva" means of time itself. "Tat-pariccheydam" means that which is measured by time. "Ata eva" means precisely because of not having reached the state of effect or aggregation. "Tatra" means regarding the paramāṇu. "Samuditebyaḥ" means combined. Effects like dyads, triads, etc. are impossible without the paramāṇu, so it is inferred. This is the idea. The meaning is that in the inference "A dyad has parts because it is an effect, like a pot", the part of the dyad is only the paramāṇu. If that too were considered to have parts, there would be infinite regress, so that alone is the ultimate part. (1)
"Paramāṇu-pratiyogitva" means the state of having the paramāṇu as the counterpart or determinant. The supreme greatness exists only in relation to the paramāṇu, so the paramāṇu alone is its counterpart. Here he raises an objection with "nanu". The meaning is: Just as one pot object has distinctions in relation to other pots and difference, so too the entire manifest world becomes without distinction by unifying all objects, and without difference due to the absence of a different, dissimilar manifest world. This is the idea. (2)
The middle state is the state between gross and subtle. Because time is also a power of the Lord, it is the Lord himself, due to the metaphorical non-difference of power and the powerful. Time's being a power of the Lord should be understood from the use of the word "power" for time in "Time by its power in māyā". "Svataḥ" means by its own form or distinction. "Vibhuḥ" means one who shines. "Dakṣaḥ" means skilled. From the lexicon: "Vibhuḥ means lord, all-pervading; dakṣa means endless, essential form". (3)
He clarifies this very inference of time, the stated meaning: "ayam arthaḥ". "Bhuvanakośa" means the earth globe. Because the earth globe is traversed in the time the sun moves through the twelve zodiac signs, it is said to also consist of twelve zodiac signs. "Tasyaiva" means of that very time in the form of year, etc. "In the fifth" means in the fifth skandha, starting with "When the Indras move". (4)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
By the characteristics of paramāṇu (atom) etc., meaning by the conditions of paramāṇu etc. From yuga, manvantara etc., starting from the measure of yuga etc., and the measure of kalpa, Brahmā's day, consisting of a thousand catur-yugas in the form of fourteen manvantaras. By "ādi", dissolution, detachment, and timelessness are included. By "ādi", twilight and its parts are included. Guṇa-vyatikara means the creation full of disturbance of qualities. Of that very time itself, the specific paramāṇu etc. state differences, that which is measured by it, pervaded by time, the state of effect, the state of dyads etc., the state of aggregation, the state of collection which is the cause of the state of effect, by conjunction. Therefore, precisely because of not having reached both states, in that paramāṇu, from those combined, joined. Avayavi-buddhi means the erroneous knowledge that there is a separate whole, but in reality there is only a collection, no whole there, is the meaning. Thus in the fifth [skandha] is the general motion. By the impossibility of effects, the whole is inferred by presumption, as effects are impossible without parts. Following the fifth [skandha] in the refutation of the whole, the reason is unestablished in its own form, so the word "illusion" is explained. (1)
Not having reached another transformation means not having reached the transformation of destruction of the state of effect and aggregation. Because of having the paramāṇu as counterpart means because of being in opposition to the word paramāṇu. Though undifferentiated by class, objects like cows etc. have various distinctions by individual, and objects like cows, horses etc. are mutually different even by class. Intention of distinction means intention of difference made by individual difference. Intention of difference means intention of difference made by class difference. By being free from both of these, the entire manifest world is meant, so this is said to be the meaning. In subtlety, in the subtle condition of the paramāṇu, in grossness, in the gross condition of the entire manifest world measured by time, time too is inferred as its measurer. Thus the argument: The object from paramāṇu etc. is measured by time, because it is traversed by time in the form of the sun, like various places. In the negative, like the self. (2) (3)
This very subtlety and grossness of time alone he experiences, pervades. Its totality means the entire manifest world. He explains time's experiencing of those as being in the form of the sun: This is the meaning. In that revolution of the sun, by whatever time. Of that very year itself. (4)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Having thus spoken of the creation of time and kalpa, he describes the nature of time in the form of grossness and subtlety, the limits of excellence and deficiency. With the two verses starting "carama". If it is asked: What is the purpose of describing the excellence and deficiency of the object measured by time, as it is irrelevant? No, for time here from paramāṇu up to year, in gross and subtle form, is indicated by the sun's motion. The time the sun takes to traverse a paramāṇu is a paramāṇu, and the time it takes to traverse the cosmic egg consisting of twelve zodiac signs is the supreme great in the form of a year. Thus, without describing the excellence and deficiency of the space that is the object of the sun's motion, it is impossible to describe the excellence and deficiency of the time of the sun's motion. Therefore it is proper to describe the unsurpassed grossness and subtlety of the object that is the measurable of time. First he states the limit of deficiency, the form of unsurpassed subtlety of what is measured by time, with one [verse] starting "carama". Some say this verse refers to the existence of the paramāṇu stated by the Vaiśeṣikas. That is incorrect. Because it is impossible to accept the existence of paramāṇus in a work that is a supplement to the Veda, and because it will be said "ending with paramāṇu etc. and year".
Of the existent effect, of the distinctions, of the parts, which is the ultimate, final, most minute part, which has no further part, that is the meaning. He qualifies that very thing: Many, not having reached the state of effect, unjoined, and not having reached the state of aggregation. Therefore it always exists even when the states of effect and aggregation are gone - that should be known as the paramāṇu. For people, because from the deficiency of time there is an illusion of unity, not knowing such subtle division, they are confused thinking "This is one time" regarding many parts of time. This is the meaning. (1)
Thus the limit of deficiency has been stated. Now he states the limit of excellence. With "sataḥ". Of which effect the ultimate part is the paramāṇu, of that very existent remaining in the state of effect, remaining in its own form, the object free from other modifications, that which is its absolute aloneness, its mere own form, that itself is the supreme great, the unsurpassed excellence. He qualifies that very thing: Without distinction, further without another excellence, its parts not grasping difference inherent in itself. (2)
Having established the object measurable by time with its limits of excellence and deficiency, he extends the same to time also with two [verses] starting "evam". Thus the limits of excellence and deficiency of the measurable, time too in subtlety, in the form of paramāṇu etc., and in excellence, is inferred by experience with form, either by the characteristic of conjunction with the particular state of the object to be measured that is the meaning of one's own limitation, or by the characteristic of conjunction with the particular state of form that is one's own limiting atomicity etc. Of what kind? Bhagavān, having the nature of the Lord, self-unmanifest, experiencing the manifest, vibhu, the cause of transformation of manifest objects. (3)
He establishes the very limit of deficiency that was extended, with half [a verse] starting "sa". The time which experiences paramāṇu-ness, extreme minuteness, that time should be known as paramāṇu. He states the limit of excellence with half [a verse] starting "sataḥ". Of the existent remaining in the extremely subtle state, its distinction, its state of being the extremely gross year-self, the distinction which it possesses, that is the supreme great, the unsurpassed excellence, is the meaning. For year-self alone is the grossness of time. The state of two parārdhas happens by the sequence of yuga and manvantara of that very year, so that is not its grossness. (4)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
The knowledge of Hari's twofold infinity as the fruit of liberation - this meaning is examined in this chapter. There, to answer Vidura's question "What is the characteristic called time, O Brahman?", he states the measure of the material paramāṇu (atom) for the knowledge of time-paramāṇu. With "carama". The word "tu" is in the sense of "eva". Of one object, which is the ultimate, final distinction of the distinctions, of earthly and other objects, then is it partless? To this he says "aneka". And which is properly joined all around by many parts. How can it be called ultimate if it has many parts? So he qualifies with the word "tu": Humans situated in the divine world, due to its special subtlety, are unable to see its distinction of having parts of parts, that alone the wise call the ultimate distinction. Because from which there is an illusion of unity for Kaṇāda and others, from which there is no paramāṇu, that object is erroneously [thought to be] a paramāṇu. To show that their erroneous knowledge is proper, it is said "nṛṇām", meaning it should be known as paramāṇu by name.
Humans even in the divine world, by special vision, Cannot see the distinction of its having parts of parts. The sages would rightly call that the ultimate distinction. That should be known as paramāṇu; Kaṇāda and others, from delusion, Though it has infinite parts, would call it partless. Therefore paramāṇu-ness is said of its parts too, though Due to their infinity, for distinction paramāṇu-ness is stated.
From this statement, it is known that paramāṇu-ness belongs to this alone, not to anything else. Therefore it is said "vijñeya" (should be known). (1)
Having described the atomic measure, he shows the great measure. With "sataḥ". Of the existent, of the supreme Brahman alone, that which is its absolute aloneness, its mere state, that is the supreme great - this is the connection. Infinitude in time, space and quality belongs primarily to the existent supreme Brahman alone - this is the meaning. Because the word "sat" (existent) is seen to occur in "san ghaṭaḥ" (the pot exists) etc., therefore "padārthasya" (of the object) is continued with "sat". Of that which is primarily denoted by the word "sat", because it is said: "The primarily denoted meaning should be the expressed, and others are said [secondarily]. For non-primary meanings, the word 'artha' is used preceded by 'low' etc." Because it is improper to accept the non-primary when the primary is possible, of that which is primarily denoted by the word "sat" situated in the most atomic object, because it is seen in "yad devasamaḥ pluṣiṇe" etc., therefore "svarūpāvasthitasya" (remaining in its own form) means remaining fixed in its own form alone. The śruti says "in its own greatness". How is it different from Hari called Vāsudeva who envelops the world, who is somewhat great and remains in his own form as the form that has entered the world? Therefore "kaivalyam" (absolute aloneness). Because there are many such forms remaining indifferent to the activity of enveloping the world, how is it determined? Therefore "aviśeṣa" (without distinction), free from distinction of such forms. Though all-pervading, because it has distinction by remaining as measure of a span, how is it without distinction? Therefore "nirantara" (continuous), free from distinctions like measure of a span etc. This is what is meant: That all-pervading own form of the supreme Brahman which is its mere state, without the distinctions of being entered within the egg, enveloping it, its other forms like supreme person etc., and parts like measure of a span etc., that alone is called the supreme great.
The wise know absence of limitation by time as infinity of time, Absence of limitation by space as infinity of space likewise. The immeasurability of qualities, the knowers know as infinity of substance. The threefold infinity is eternal for Hari alone, not for any other. That [infinity] is not of three characteristics in all his essential forms. Yet there is limitation of him by space. Limitation as well as pervasion are possible even in one form, Due to his inconceivable wonderful lordship, and for the sake of worldly dealings. There is no limitation whatsoever by quality or time. Though there is pervasion by space in the previous forms, And there is not even an atom of difference between them anywhere, Yet there is atomicity, therefore due to the connection with lordship, Non-pervasion too is stated for the sake of incarnations like Buddha etc. That pervasive form of his which is supreme, named Nārāyaṇa, Which they call the void Brahman, is the second; the creator is from that. The supreme named Puruṣa, limited in space, is of the Lord. The third named Vāsudeva, limited, is the enveloper of the world. The fourth named Viṣṇu has entered the world in space.
By this statement, the afflictions of doubt of the dull-minded are removed - this should be known. Moreover, though the all-pervading Brahman form is co-pervasive with prakṛti in the form of time etc., because of inclusion in the example and because it does not remain in anything else, it is said "remaining in its own form".
Though the all-pervading Brahman remains with the goddess in the form of time etc., It is called not remaining in another, because like the self, she is of the all-pervading Hari. But that which is in mahat etc. is called remaining in another.
He puts the stated meaning in the example. With "evam". Time too existing in subtlety as paramāṇu-ness, in grossness as supreme greatness, is thus inferred, known by a person possessing knowledge of the sign with pervasion supported by direct perception of the witness, by scripture like "kalā muhūrtā" etc. - this is the connection. Because it is said "They call two kinds of inference, knowledge and that born of a sign", two meanings will be established.
As much as a human situated in the divine world would ascertain, The divine louse of great intelligence, that is the paramāṇu time. Unlimited for creation etc., and immediately after that, Likewise it would not be of the nature of paramāṇu etc. distinctions. With distinctions of before, after etc., that time is the supreme great.
This scriptural statement too is authoritative here. A human who has obtained lordship by the grace of a deity pleased by the action of Brahmā etc. is a divine louse. Not only is time of both kinds inferred, but its inner controller called by that name, Hari, is also inferred - intending this, he says "saṁsthāna-bhuktatvā". The all-pervading Lord, by the experience of the two states delimited as paramāṇu-ness and supreme greatness, by remaining as their inner controller, unmanifest, unseen, is inferred as paramāṇu and supreme great - this is the connection. What does he do while remaining there? To this it is said "vyakta-bhuk". He creates, maintains and destroys the manifest world existing in that time - thus he is vyakta-bhuk. Or, because it has the same properties as himself, he activates the unmanifest in the form of prakṛti at the beginning of creation etc. Here is the distinction.
In three ways - by space, time, and substance - Hari has infinity, but not another. Prakṛti has infinity of space and time, So too sound and time have infinity of space and time. She is of the nature of time and sound, yet always of Hari. She has not even a trace of power in the qualities of knowledge and bliss. Vāyu should be known as inferior to that, then Śeṣa, Indra, and Hara. Indra and others are inferior in all qualities, without doubt.
This should be understood from this statement. Moreover, the inner controller of time cannot be denoted by names like paramāṇu (atom) etc. because he experiences those particular distinctions. As it is said: "The supreme Lord, because he experiences the states of atom etc. and time, cannot be denoted by names like atom etc., and is called time."
He specifies what was stated generally. With "sa kālaḥ". The time which experiences paramāṇu-ness, having the characteristics stated earlier like "the ultimate of distinctions" etc., that time and Hari too are indeed denoted by the name paramāṇu - this is well-known from the remembered statement, is the meaning. The time which experiences the undifferentiated form of the existent Brahman, the undifferentiated continuous characteristic of absolute aloneness remaining in its own form, the supreme great form, that time and the inner controller of time, the Brahman form, should be denoted by the name "supreme great", because even the inner controller of time lacks threefold limitation. As it is said: "Though experiencing everything everywhere, Hari of inconceivable nature, unborn, all-pervading, remains as if experiencing particulars alone, due to his own lordship." By this, it is stated that the qualifications of the supreme great Brahman mentioned earlier with "of the existent object alone" etc. also apply to the inner controller of great time. Thus, that which is the primary meaning of the word "sat" (existent), distinct from the form of the inner controller of paramāṇu etc. time, and the form of the inner controller of manvantara etc. time, and further distinct from the form of the inner controller of gross parārdha etc. time, and which, though in the undivided reality, experiences the supreme great form as distinct from parts etc. of incarnations - that is the supreme great. The times in which the origin and dissolution of paramāṇu and the supreme great would occur, those times are paramāṇu and the supreme great - this meaning should be disregarded due to lack of evidence. (4)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
He elaborates on what was stated with "evam" by saying "sa kālaḥ". Here in the commentary, in "crosses the space of a paramāṇu", the motion of the wheel of light in the middle path should be understood. In "crosses the entire cosmic egg", the motion in the sky should be understood. And in "who experiences paramāṇu-ness", the meaning is simply "who crosses the space of a paramāṇu in the form of the sun". The non-difference of that time from the sun will be stated with "who held the power of creation". Or, paramāṇu-ness means the state of being extremely subtle like that object, which he experiences, pervades - that time is paramāṇu. (1)
Om. Who experiences the undifferentiated manifest world, pervades everything from creation to dissolution - that time is the supreme great in the form of two parārdhas, is the meaning. Thus it will be said "This time extends from paramāṇu to two parārdhas". (2-4)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
In the eleventh chapter, time is characterized particularly, Because the measure of months, years, yugas etc. is known.
Unable to characterize directly the extremely subtle time in its own form, he characterizes the object measured by it. Of the existent effect, earth etc., of the distinctions, of the parts, which is ultimate, which has no further part. Objection: From the singular "ultimate", is it only one? No, it is many. Here, though they are many, for the knowledge of subtle time, only one is useful, so the singular is used. Objection: Then is it taken as joined with its own or not? To this he says "unjoined". The paramāṇu should indeed be known, not seen, is the meaning. Objection: Then what is the proof of its existence? To this he says: Because from which, when combined, there is an illusion of unity for people. In a window opening filled with sunlight, extremely subtle earthly particles are seen moving, and the idea arises "This is one, this is one extremely subtle particle", is the meaning. Its sixth part alone is the paramāṇu, which exists unseen, is the meaning. By saying "of people", it is suggested that for some special insects with bodies the size of trasareṇu, even that is visible. (1)
Having spoken of the extremely subtle, he also speaks of the extremely gross. Of which the ultimate part is paramāṇu, of that very existent mere effect, remaining in its own form, prior to the transformation of dissolution, that which is its absolute unity is the supreme great. Its masculinity is due to being the counterpart of paramāṇu. Objection: Every object has various distinctions and is mutually different, how can it have unity? To this he says: Without distinction means without the intention of distinction, and continuous means without the intention of separation. The meaning is that the entire manifest world is the supreme great. (2)
Just as this object is subtle and gross, so too time is inferred, known. In what way? The form of paramāṇu and the supreme great, by its experience, pervasion, because it is the Lord's power, the Lord, himself unmanifest, experiences, delimits the manifest entire world. Thus he is all-pervading, hence pervasive, or skilled in creation etc. (3)
He elaborates on the meaning of "saṁsthāna-bhuktyā". The time which experiences the paramāṇu-ness, the paramāṇu form of the existent effect, which crosses over in the form of the sun, that is paramāṇu. From the sentence that will be stated "graharṣa", the meaning is: The time it takes the sun to cross the space of a paramāṇu, that much time is paramāṇu. And that which experiences its undifferentiated, the entire manifest world, the time which in the form of the sun by the repetition of year, yuga etc., that is the supreme great. The meaning is: However much time there is from the beginning of creation to the dissolution of the manifest world, all that is indeed the supreme great. There, of paramāṇu, aṇu, trasa, and Brahmā, meaning of the effect consisting of Brahmā. Of the distinctions, of the parts, ultimate means final part. He elaborates on ultimateness. With "aneka". First dividing one into two, then dividing one of those into two, thus done many times, is the meaning. Objection: In this way, all would be established as ultimate in relation to their own prior ones. To this he says "asaṁyuta". That which cannot be divided in two, the ultimate of all, is the meaning. That object should be known as paramāṇu. And it always exists, because it is rooted in existence. Because from which paramāṇus there is an illusion of unity for people like logicians. Because indestructible undivided paramāṇus are eternal, their unity is the universe. (1)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Having mentioned the subtle entity that is limited by a short duration, now he speaks of the gross entity that is limited by a long duration. He says "sata eva" (of the existent alone). The ultimate part of which is the paramāṇu (atom), that very existent effect, remaining in its own form, divided in the aforementioned manner into successive twofold divisions - its kaivalya (aloneness) or oneness is itself the supreme great entity. He explains kaivalya: aviśeṣa (non-particular) means devoid of the desire to express particulars, hence uninterrupted and alone. || 2 ||
Just as the paramāṇu (atom) is the supreme great limiting entity in subtlety, so too in smallness and grossness and greatness. By the word "ca" (and), in the middle state also, through experiencing form and through pervading from the atom onwards, time too is inferred. What kind of time? Divine, characterized as the instrumental cause of world creation etc., vibhu (all-pervading), possessing power, that is vibhu (pervasive), avyakta (unmanifest), adṛśya (invisible). || 3 ||
He elaborates on this very point with "sa" (he) etc. He who experiences the state of being a paramāṇu (atom) of the existent effect in the stated manner is the paramāṇu (atom); the time of the sun's revolution is the paramāṇu (atom). He who experiences the non-particular unity of the existent alone is the time of the sun's revolution through the cosmic shell consisting of twelve zodiac signs, having the nature of a year - this is the meaning. By repetition of the year itself, through the sequence of yuga, manvantara etc., it becomes the two parārdhas. || 4 ||
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
In the eleventh, however, what is the adhyātmika (individual) form of time, which is the senses of all - that is explained in three ways. || 1 || For all time is indeed divine, for that purpose it is worshipped. The time which is impelled by dharma, that indeed reached Brahmā. || 2 || But the time which has the nature of the sun, that too is threefold for all: through entering and not entering the body, and likewise through being seen and not seen, || 3 || and through the divisions of the zodiac, it is always high and low. || 4 ||
Thus, having stated the nature and function of time in the previous chapter, he now describes its subsidiary divisions. The divisions of that (time) are by the sun's motion; the sun is its adhidaivika (divine) aspect. Its adhyātmika (individual) divisions are sometimes also differentiated by will. || 1 || Earth, water, fire, gods, ancestors, humans - they declare this triad of limiting adjuncts; hence time is considered threefold. || 2 || First, to determine day and night for humans in the earthly world, he describes the day-night nature of time caused by seeing and not seeing the sun due to the obstruction and non-obstruction by the earth, in order to explain the divisions of time by earthly paramāṇus (atoms) etc. There he states the definition of the paramāṇu (atom) which is the limiting adjunct: "carama" (ultimate). Of the existent effect like a pot, among the particulars or parts, that which is ultimate, which has no further part, which due to extreme subtlety does not withstand the blow of a divider, that is ultimate. That too has not attained the state of aggregation with those of the same class. He states this: "aneka" (not one). And it has not attained the state of an effect: "asaṃyuta" (unconnected). "Sadā" (always): otherwise if it sometimes attained connection, the definition would be impossible indeed. And "not-oneness" is not the absence of the number one; where it exists, many of the same class exist there - this is its not-oneness. If the definition of paramāṇu (atom) is made as "eternal, having motion, being an element", then the view would be that effects arise from paramāṇus (atoms). But in the Siddhānta view, the subtle arises from the gross alone; the gross part consisting of similar parts is the producer of effects. What is the joining by many parts in a foot, that is for shaping a specific form of the gross cotton etc. which has attained an elongated state by cutting it into pieces. And the aggregate alone is the material cause. Similarly for earrings, images etc. also, the aggregate alone is the material cause, otherwise there would be many effects. One alone is the material cause of one - this is certain. Because the effect consists of five elements, water etc. become connected; hence they too, separated from that, would attain the state of paramāṇus (atoms). And the Lord is the material cause everywhere, so ultimateness applies to Him; to exclude that, "aneka" (not one) is stated. But He is indeed one. To exclude impossibility alone, "sadā" (always). The paramāṇu (atom) should be known; knowledge of it specifically is also enjoined. It should not be thought of otherwise through faulty reasoning - this is the meaning. Having stated the nature of that paramāṇu (atom), he states its effect: "nṛṇām aikyabhramo yataḥ" (from which is the illusion of unity for humans). For humans, i.e. individual souls, by which paramāṇus (atoms), the illusion of unity of the body with the self occurs. The paramāṇus (atoms) alone are the cause of the illusion of unity. For they, being extremely subtle, refined by merit and demerit, connect with the individual soul; then they attain the state of the body. Hence they are faulty, being the limiting adjuncts of time. When connected with them, there is indeed destruction of the individual soul. Hence their nature of producing illusion. Some say, taking the view of the arising of aggregates from aggregates, it should be tolerated due to illusion. For this purpose alone is the description as parts of time - hence the use of the word "illusion". But the mind is indeed of the size of a paramāṇu (atom), not a paramāṇu (atom) itself. The paramāṇus (atoms) are indeed fourfold only, otherwise there would be five kinds of paramāṇus (atoms). And the effect would arise from that, due to being a paramāṇu (atom). Hence eternal motion is not the definition. By the śruti "That moves, that moves not", the eternal Lord would be a paramāṇu (atom). And their elemental nature must be established. And tradition is invalidated by śruti, so the definition of the Vaiśeṣikas etc. is indeed invalidated. And in the present context it is irrelevant. || 1 ||
Having thus stated the characteristics of the paramāṇu (atom), he now describes the characteristics of the parammahat (supreme great) - "sata eva iti" (of the existent alone). The unity of the entire effect, the complete universe, existing in its essential form, not in its manifested state, is to be understood as the parammahat. He refutes the view that the earth alone is the parammahat - "aviśeṣa iti" (without distinctions). There is no distinction such as "this is earth" or "this is water"; it is beyond the scope of differentiated cognition and is without internal divisions. "Sata eva" excludes dream objects. "Padārthasya" excludes the Vedas. "Svarūpāvasthita" excludes effects. It means the Lord existing within the universe is the parammahat. Every object everywhere is not grasped by a single cognition and is devoid of imagined distinctions, though also devoid of differences from the perspective of the knower. Whatever is illuminated by the sun, all that combined is the parammahat. || 2 ||
Having thus determined the lower and upper limits, he now defines the intervening time - "evaṃ kālo'py anumita iti". Just as the paramāṇu and parammahat are inferred from the smallest effect and the totality of effects respectively, so too time, which experiences these, the delimiter of such, is to be inferred. The vocative "sattama" (O best of beings) is used to indicate the knowledge of inference in subtlety and grossness. But how can time, which is unattached like the Lord, have a connection with objects, or how can it be inferred? Otherwise, even the Lord could be inferred. To this he says - "saṃsthānabhuktyeti". Saṃsthāna means state, such as being a paramāṇu or parammahat. Though equal to the Lord in being the essential nature of reality, the particular state and its experience is effected by time alone, hence the subtlety and grossness of time is inferred from the subtlety and grossness of effects. But how does it cause the modification of the essential nature and its experience, and then experience from that? Anticipating this objection, he says - "bhagavān iti". Thus the Lord is of the nature of potency. Just as some posit such a māyā or vidyā, in this system that is time. Then how is it that all do not see this experiencer of all objects? Anticipating this objection, he says - "avyakta iti" (unmanifest). To indicate the cessation of time's consumption, he states its effect - "vyaktabhug iti" (consumer of the manifest). But how can that which is itself unmanifest consume the manifest? To this he says - "vibhur iti", meaning it is capable of experiencing in all ways. || 3 ||
He now states verbally the inferred time - "sa kāla iti". That which experiences atomicity, pervades the atom, and then experiences its own atomicity, that atomic time is meant. Similarly, that which experiences the distinctions of existence, experiences the particularity of mere existence, or itself attains particularity through that experience, that is the parammahat time. The word "tu" delimits the lifespan of the principle of mahat. || 4 ||
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Now, to explain the eleventh chapter, they recall its connection and summarize its meaning - "ekādaśe tv" etc. The word "tu" is used to remove doubt about the connection or to emphasize a distinction. Time's form that is expressed by the word āyus (lifespan), which causes attachment to one's own body and life for all the senses from humans up to Brahmā by acting as their destroyer, and which is of the nature of the senses - that form, on the other hand (tu), which is the spiritual delimiter of Brahmā's lifespan, is specifically described in three ways as parārdha, kalpa, etc. Thus there is an occasion in the śāstra discussion. In the question-answer context, when the king asks in one and a half verses "yāvān kalpo vikalpo vā", Śuka promises "I will explain the measure of time, the definition and form of a kalpa. Now listen to the padma kalpa." So there is an occasion after describing the padma kalpa. In Maitreya's statement, the answer to the question about "kālāvayavasaṃsthiti" comes as a remainder of creation, so that is the contextual connection.
Now, what is the basis for time in the form of lifespan being of the nature of the senses? To this they say - "sarvo hi" etc. Since all is of the nature of Brahmā's lifespan, it is metaphorically described as his eye-blink for the sake of delimiting the imperishable, but in essence it is the Lord. Thus, the metaphorical usage itself is the basis for the delimited lifespan being of the nature of the senses.
But how does time delimit Brahmā's lifespan? To this they say - "dharma" etc. "Dharmaprayukta" means extremely connected with dharma in the form of motion. This will be clarified in "kālagatyopalakṣitaiḥ". Thus it means it delimits through motion. To clarify motion, they say - "sūrya" etc. "Sarveṣām" means of gods, ancestors and humans. "Kāryapraveśāpraveśāt" - kārya means water. "Tadbhedā" means the divisions of spiritual time. "Tasya" means of the spiritual. Thus there is no contradiction with what is stated in the Nibandha "sūryas tasyādhabhautikam", as that refers to the fundamental time. "Kvacit" means in the higher worlds and during dissolution etc. "Icchā" means the Lord's will. The word "api" indicates the divisions of Brahmā's lifespan.
In carama (final) here. In Śrīdharīya - "aneka (many) means not having reached the state of effect, asaṃyuta (unconnected) means not having reached the state of aggregation, therefore sadā (always)" - this is explained. According to this view, the word sadā only indicates being in the present state without the two states. To point out the flaw in that, they explain it differently - so'pi (that also) etc. The word sajātīya (homogeneous) is to prevent the impossibility due to the constant existence of the conjunction of ākāśa (space) atoms. They state the purpose of the word sadā - kadācid (sometimes) etc. Kadācid means in the state of effect. Thus, if sadā applies to both in the original, due to the absence of the word sajātīya, the definition would be impossible as the conjunction of ākāśa always exists. But if it only negates the state of effect, even though multiplicity is unobstructed in the conjunction of ākāśa, the word aneka (many) alone is meaningful in preventing the state of homogeneous conjunction, so that explanation is inappropriate - this is the meaning.
How is the state of aggregation negated by the word eka (one)? To address this question, they say - anekatvaṃ ca (and multiplicity) etc. Yatra (where) means thus this is prevented - this is the meaning. What is the purpose of always negating the state of effect? To address this, they say - bhautika (physical) etc. Thus, in the previous chapter, by establishing time as the material cause and its supreme greatness, the production of the subtle from the gross was accepted. And in the śruti (scripture) "asataḥ sadyetatakṣuḥ" (?) division was accepted. If production of effects from atoms is accepted, both of those would be contradicted - so its absence is the purpose - this is the meaning.
In the production of the gross from the subtle, there is consistency of causality as the originator due to having touch. But in the production of the subtle from the gross, there would be the undesirable consequence of complexity due to the non-consistency of causality in the form of maintaining causality in some like time and prakṛti (primordial nature) due to absence and in others due to presence. To address this, they say - svasamāna (self-similar) etc. Sva means the effect, that which is similar to it are the parts capable of producing it, the gross portion which has that form is the producer of the effect. Thus causality is consistent as the gross portion of suitable parts with respect to that which is delimited by producible-ness. And that, by the word sva, is also useful for those who refer to the specific pot etc. form that is the object of perception etc. But if consistency of causality is accepted in that way, due to the generality of having touch, some other specific causality would have to be imagined for pot etc. in the form of clay etc., so there would be the undesirable consequence of complexity for you alone due to two assumptions, not for us - this is the meaning.
The production of the subtle from a single gross is contradictory to perception, as in cloth etc. the production of cloth etc. is seen from many subtle threads etc. To address this, they say - yad (which) etc. Yojana (joining) means unification through conjunction. Khaṇḍaśo yojana means aggregation of parts. Thus even there, since only the collection of gross portions is the cause, by extraction situated in a machine, the production of cloth that is less than or equal to that, not of the gross from its subtle, nor from many - so there is no contradiction with perception - this is the meaning. They extend this method elsewhere too - evam (thus) etc. Tāvatsamudāyasya (of that much collection) means of the collection of gold, gems etc. Thus there is no deviation of causality anywhere - this is the meaning.
In the case of collections, many are not the cause, but only the collection is - what is the indicator of this? To address this, they say - anyathā (otherwise) etc. In your view, due to the rule that causal qualities originate effect qualities, if each of the unities in the cause originated unity in the effect, there would be cognition of many unities in the effect, and if they did not originate, only those unities in the cause would be cognized - so either way the effect would be devoid of unity inherent in itself. Therefore, the cognition of unity in the effect in such a case itself indicates the causality of the collection - this is the meaning. And it should be understood that in the causality occurring separately, many are the cause, but in the collection view it culminates in one - so there is also simplicity.
Thus in viviparous beings, only the collection of portions of seed and menstrual fluid is the material cause. In Māndhātṛ etc. also, only the puṃsavana water etc. should be considered as the menstrual fluid. By this alone, oviparous and sprouting beings are also explained. Sweat-born beings also arise as subtle from the gross portion itself, from sweat, but growth is later from food etc. Keeping all this in mind, they say - ekasya (of one) etc.
Then let there be production of effects just from the collection of atoms. What is the basis for not accepting the state of effect, since that is always unconnected? To address this, they say - kāryasya (of the effect) etc. For in production from conjunction, destruction is from disjunction. And continuance in the causal state is established by perception. So if there were production of the effect from the collection of atoms, then in the state of destruction the effect would be like that. But that is not seen, nor heard. So conformity to valid means of knowledge alone is the basis for not accepting that - this is the meaning.
Having thus examined being unconnected, they examine multiplicity - bhagavān (the Lord) etc. The word sadā has already been examined - they say - asambhava (impossibility) etc. Having thus considered the definition, they consider the purpose of being knowable - viśeṣeṇa (specifically) etc. Kuyuktyā (by fallacious reasoning) means as established by Naiyāyikas etc., proving their permanence, conjunctness etc.
If effects are not accepted from atoms, due to absence of other purpose for them, accepting them would be pointless - to address this, they say - tasya (its) etc. Aikyabhrama (delusion of unity) means superimposition of the body. They explain how those are the cause of such delusion - te hi (for they) etc. From the statement "Women entered the womb, the soul resides in particles of semen", when the soul enters the womb, or at another time, those also enter there through food etc. and connect with the soul in their own form, being purified by the merits and demerits of one's father etc., making it like menstruating; then souls attain bodies, superimpose bodies - so they have that nature - this is the meaning. Ata eva (therefore) means due to causing superimposition of the body. Nāśa (destruction) means obstruction of liberation due to ignorance of one's true nature etc. Ata eva (therefore) means due to being corrupted by the impressions of merit and demerit.
In Śrīdharīya - "aikyabhrama (delusion of unity) means the cognition of a whole, from the statement in the 5th canto 'whose collection creates a distinction'" - this is explained. They repeat that - puñjād (from the collection) etc. Śramāt kecid āhuḥ (some say due to fatigue) means some say it produces the delusion of unity due to the delusion of a whole in the collection - this is the meaning. They refute that - tatsauṣṭhavyam (that is tolerable). From presenting the original statement, that should be imitated. This is the meaning: In the original, what is said in "evaṃ niruktaṃ kṣitiśabdavṛttam asannidhānāt paramāṇavo ye | avidyayā manasā kalpitās te yeṣāṃ samūhena kṛto viśeṣaḥ ||" (5.12.9) was to show the absence of burden in oneself by the inert, when reproached by Rahūgaṇa. When asked "Whose burden?", by "ayaṃ jano nāma calan pṛthivyāṃ yaḥ pārthivaḥ" (5.12.5) the usage of "person" for the earthly is due to the action of moving, otherwise it would be like a stone - having shown this, then examining each part from top to bottom, showing that their origination and destruction inhere in earth, that earth alone is the cause of those usages due to particular configurations, by the verse "evaṃ niruktam" (5.12.9) although at first glance it appears that production of collections from collections is resorted to, generating the delusion of wholes, due to the statement "pīveti rāśau na vidāṃ pravādaḥ" (5.10.9), still that is not the intention there, as the delusion of distinction is intended here by accepting even atoms as imagined by ignorance by saying they are imagined by ignorance. Rather, due to the intention being the absence of burden due to absence of superimposition of oneself, only the delusion of body-superimposition is intended - this is established. They say this - etadartham (for this purpose) etc. For time produces the delusion of impermanence in the eternal universe through its self-created properties like being an element etc., so it generates delusion.
Therefore, the use of the word bhrama (delusion) is only to indicate their fitness for generating the aforementioned delusion, not to indicate that they generate the delusion of wholes, as even in that explanation, the state of collection is not accepted due to stating they are always unconnected. So it should be tolerated as negligible due to being delusory - this is the meaning.
If production of effects from atoms is not accepted, the creation of mental offspring would be contradicted, as that is also atomic. And there is no inconsistency of causality, as that is accepted due to being corporeal alone, disregarding having touch - to address this, they say - mana (mind) etc. The creation of the mind is from special power, like from cintāmaṇi (wish-fulfilling gem) etc., not through homogeneous conjunction; so there is no fault - this is the meaning. What is the indicator of this? To address this, they say - paramāṇava (atoms) etc. Syād (would be) means would be through homogeneous conjunction. Thus absence of being physical; and the difference in the mode of causality in the mind is the indicator of difference from atoms - this is the meaning.
Let there not be an effect from that, still what is the basis for not accepting that definition? To address this, they say - ata (therefore) etc. Ata means due to deviation in the mind. They state another fault - tadejati (that moves) etc. Thus these two faults are the basis for non-acceptance - this is the meaning. The faults are not in manas (mind) due to the qualification "being physical" - to address this, they say - bhautikatvam (physicality) etc. Thus in the Vaiśeṣika view, since at the beginning of creation only the eternal atoms exist as realities, physicality would have to be established in them through some relation with the non-existent elements. And that is either contradicted or doubtful as being an element. So due to absence of that establishment, the qualification itself is inappropriate, so the absence of fault through that is far removed - this is the meaning.
The establishment of that is from the verbal testimony in the form of Kaṇāda's smṛti (traditional text) - to address this, they say - smṛti etc. Śrutyā (by scripture) means by scriptures like "From this are born prāṇa, mind, all senses, space, air, fire, water, and earth the support of all." They state another reason - prakṛta (in the present context) etc. Prakṛta means in the knowledge of time. 1.
Sata eva (from the existent alone) here. Prākaṭyena (through manifestation) means through transformation as the world etc. Ekatā means the number one. Ayam means supremely great. Sata eva etc. - To prevent overextension to the dream state also, due to the conceit of having the form of universal, form and particular, and being unestablished by another, and due to being established in its own nature, the word sat (existent) - this is the meaning. Padārthasya (of the entity) etc. - To prevent overextension to the Veda also, due to being established in its own nature and being existent as having the nature of the Lord, the word padārtha, as the Veda is not an entity due to being words - this is the meaning. Svarūpāvasthitasya (established in its own nature) etc. - To prevent that, as even though existence and entity-ness are present in the empirical entity, due to being established in its own nature as established by its own cause - this is the meaning.
The definition is impossible for the cosmic egg also, as it lacks being established in its own nature due to being an effect - to address this, they say - brahmāṇḍa (cosmic egg) etc. Thus, the Lord alone who is stated in scriptures like "Who standing on earth, who inside earth" and "Greater than the great" is supremely great. As the unity inherent in Him alone is supremely great, and that is absent elsewhere, this is the definition of Him alone, not of the cosmic egg. To indicate this alone, the two words "aviśeṣa (undifferentiated) and nirantara (uninterrupted)" indicating His nature are stated, otherwise He would not say it, due to absence of purpose - this is the meaning. Thus, to indicate that in reality even atom-ness culminates in Brahman alone, it is explained here in this way - this is the meaning.
How is this relevant in the present context? To address this expectation, they state its purport in connection with what follows - sarvo'pi (all also) etc. Here, up to śūnyo'pi (though empty) is the explanation of the verse's purport in the passage to be explained, to indicate it is the Lord's play, they say; as it is promised "Now your divine plays". Thus "All is all-pervading" by scripture, though all entities exist everywhere, still due to being established in their own nature they are not grasped by any intellect, due to being undifferentiated they are empty of imagined distinctions, due to being uninterrupted they are empty of difference dependent on a cognizer - this is the reality. Even when reality is thus, in connection with what follows, the sunlight delimited by its duration should be grasped as supremely great - this is the meaning. By this, the inappropriateness of Śrīdharīya should be understood as indicated implicitly. 2.
Thus in "evaṃ kāla" (thus time) here. Yathā (just as) etc. Although these two are not directly perceived by us etc., still as they are directly perceived, they make us understand through these two reasons, just as those two are inferred, similarly such time also is to be inferred as their delimiter - this is the meaning. Tadavasthā (that state) means the state of the sun's destination. This alone is explained as paramāṇutva (atomicity) etc. Saukṣmyaṃ sthaulyaṃ ca (subtlety and grossness) means are to be inferred. Tato bhogam (then enjoyment) means enjoyment through internal time. Bhagavān (the Lord) means as stated in scripture "To whom belong both the priestly and warrior classes", due to being the eater, He does - this is the meaning. By this, consciousness is indicated. Prāsanivṛttiparijñānārtham (for the knowledge of cessation of devouring) means for the knowledge of what He does not devour. Thus He does not devour the unmanifest - this is the meaning. 3.
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
In the 11th chapter, the form of time is specifically Described through definitions of atoms etc. And distinctions of subtle, gross etc. (1)
Thus, having described in the previous chapter the tenfold creation which is the indicative effect of time in general, now to describe its specific subtle, gross etc. distinctions, he describes the subtlety and grossness of the object delimited by it in two verses beginning with carama (final).
Of the existent effect alone, of the specific parts, that which is final, ultimate, which has no part, aneka (many) means not having reached the state of effect - though they are many, the singular is used as only one is relevant here for knowledge of subtle time - asaṃyuta (unconnected) means not having reached the state of collection, therefore sadā (always) means that which exists even when the states of effect and collection depart, that should be known as an atom. What is the proof for that? To address this, he says - nṛṇām (of people) etc. Because from those collected arises the delusion of unity, the cognition of a whole, for people who use language. Thus in the 5th [canto] in the refutation of wholes he will say "whose collection creates a distinction". It is imagined due to the impossibility of effects - this is the meaning. (1)
Having thus stated the subtle, he states the gross - sata eva (from the existent alone) etc. Of that alone whose final part is an atom, of that existent effect alone, of the entity established in its own nature, not having reached dissolution, that unity which is isolation is the supremely great - this is the connection. How can there be unity of all entities which have various distinctions of universal, particular etc. and are mutually different? To address this, he says - aviśeṣa (undifferentiated), devoid of intended distinctions. Nirantara (uninterrupted), and devoid of intended differences. All the world is supremely great - this is the meaning. (2)
Having thus described the subtlety inherent in what is delimited by time, he extends it to time itself - evam (thus) etc. Indicating that you are capable of understanding this, he addresses - sattama (O best of beings) etc. Just as this entity has been described as subtle and gross, similarly through the enjoyment of configuration - configuration means the state of atoms etc., its enjoyment means pervasion - through that, time is also inferred in subtlety and grossness. By the word ca (and), the middle state is included. Suggesting the reason for inference, he qualifies - avyakta (unmanifest), as it is not directly perceived - this is the meaning. Let there be inference of subtlety, grossness etc. later, but first what is the proof for its very existence? To address this, he says - vyaktabhug (enjoyer of the manifest) etc. As that time is now not come, usage like "it will be thus in future" etc. is well-known, it enjoys i.e. pervades the manifest world, delimits it as the cause of origination, destruction etc. - thus it is so - this is the meaning. He states the reason for that - vibhu (all-powerful), meaning capable. He states the reason for that too - bhagavān (the Lord). Counted among the incarnations of the Lord, it is a special power of His - this is the meaning. (3)
He clarifies what was stated - sa (he) etc. That time which enjoys the atomic state, the ultimate state of the existent world, is atomic time. That which enjoys the entirety, the distinction of the existent, is time called supremely great. Intending that there is no doubt here, he says - vā (or). Here this is the meaning - as the division of time etc. through the sun's motion will be stated in "situated in planets, constellations, stars" [verse 13] etc., the time taken by the sun to cross the space of an atom is atomic time, and the time taken to cross the entire cosmic shell consisting of twelve zodiac signs is supremely great time in the form of a year, and by its repetition in the sequence of yuga, manvantara etc. it extends up to two parārdhas - this is the meaning. (4)
Hindī Anuvāda
Description of the divisions of time like manvantara etc.
Śrī Maitreya says - Viduraji! The subtlest part of the group of effects like earth etc. - which cannot be further divided, and which has not attained the state of an effect, and which is not conjoined with other atoms; that is called an atom. Due to the mutual combination of these many atoms, people erroneously perceive their collection as one whole. (1)
The unity (collection or entirety) of those earth etc. effects, established in their general nature, of which this atom is the subtlest part, is called the supreme great. At this time, neither the distinction of states like dissolution etc. is manifest in it, nor is there awareness of divisions of time like new and old etc., nor is there imagination of distinctions of objects like pot and cloth etc. (2)
O best of the virtuous! Thus this consideration of the subtlest and greatest nature of an object has been done. Similarly, the subtlety and grossness of the unmanifest Lord Time, who is capable in creation etc., enjoying manifest objects by pervading states like atoms etc., can also be inferred. (3)
That time which pervades the atomic-like subtle state of the world is extremely subtle, and that which enjoys all its states from creation up to dissolution is supremely great. (4)
SB 3.10.25-30
Text 25: The heron, vulture, crane, hawk, bhāsa, bhallūka, peacock, swan, sārasa, cakravāka, crow, owl and others are the birds.
Text 26: The creation of the human beings, who are of one species only and who stock their eatables in the belly, is the ninth in the rotation. In the human race, the mode of passion is very prominent. Humans are always busy in the midst of miserable life, but they think themselves happy in all respects.
Text 27: O good Vidura, these last three creations and the creation of demigods (the tenth creation) are vaikṛta creations, which are different from the previously described prākṛta (natural) creations. The appearance of the Kumāras is both.
Texts 28-29: The creation of the demigods is of eight varieties: (1) the demigods, (2) the forefathers, (3) the asuras, or demons, (4) the Gandharvas and Apsarās, or angels, (5) the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas, (6) the Siddhas, Cāraṇas and Vidyādharas, (7) the Bhūtas, Pretas and Piśācas, and (8) the superhuman beings, celestial singers, etc. All are created by Brahmā, the creator of the universe.
Text 30: Now I shall describe the descendants of the Manus. The creator, Brahmā, as the incarnation of the passion mode of the Personality of Godhead, creates the universal affairs with unfailing desires in every millennium by the force of the Lord’s energy.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
One whose food and movement are downward is called arvāksrotas (downward-streaming). The shortness is archaic. The characteristic of humans is that they have more rajas. They are [25]
These three are only vaikṛta (evolutes), not both like the kumāras. The divine creation is also vaikṛta - this is to be connected. The vaikārika divine creation was already mentioned among the prākṛta ones. But this is inferior to that, being vaikṛta. Being a divine creation, it is included in that. The creation of Sanatkumāra etc. is both prākṛta and vaikṛta, meaning they are created as both gods and humans. [26]
The vaikṛta divine creation is eightfold. Among those, the vibudhas etc. are three types. The gandharvas and apsaras are one. The yakṣas and rākṣasas are one. [27]
The bhūtas, pretas and piśācas are one. The siddhas, cāraṇas and vidyādharas are one. The kinnaras etc. are one. The word "etc." includes the kiṃpuruṣas, horse-faced beings, etc. This will be clear in the 20th chapter. [28] [29] [30]
Thus ends the 10th chapter of Śrī Bhāgavata Bhāvārthadīpikā.
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
The word "tu" indicates there are other types too, as stated in the Garuḍa Purāṇa: "There are ten types of humans including ekapāda etc." These should be understood as humans from other dvīpas or asuras etc. Rajas means those who have more rajasic activities like acquiring houses, wealth etc. They are devoted to action, as stated in the Gītā: "No one can remain without action even for a moment." They consider suffering to be happiness. [25]
Vaikārika means the divine creation in the form of effects of the sāttvika ahaṅkāra, the creation of presiding deities of the senses. This divine creation is inferior to the prākṛta creation because it is an effect of an effect of prakṛti. It is included in that because it is equal in being a divine creation. This is the meaning. It is both prākṛta and vaikṛta because it will be said to be born from meditation on the Lord and created by the Lord in "He created others with a mind purified by meditation on the Lord." [26] [27]
Oṃ. Viśvasṛk, Hari and Brahmā created and manifested them. [28]
After describing the ten types of creation, he is overwhelmed by rajas. By "here in the beginning" etc., the yugas etc. are understood. [29]
Amoghasaṃkalpa means able to create by mere will. He creates independently by his own means, not depending on other factors. As stated by Tīrtha: "Hari himself is always the doer, deed and instrument." [30]
Thus ends the 10th chapter of the third skandha of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśa.
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
In the characteristics of humans, in the latter half, it should be construed as "and those humans have more rajas" etc. [25]
These three main creations of animals, downward-streaming beings, and the divine creation of Indra etc. as world protectors are vaikṛta, created by Brahmā. The vaikārika creation of presiding deities of the senses, which is the effect of sāttvika ahaṅkāra, was already mentioned among the prākṛta creations made by Īśvara. This creation of world protectors like Indra is inferior to that adhidaivika creation. Being divine in general, it is included in the prākṛta. Being created by Īśvara as divine descent, it is prākṛta. Appearing from Brahmā's mind and being created as human, it is vaikṛta. This is the meaning. [26]
In "The divine creation" etc., although the vibudhas etc. are mentioned as three separate special creations, it is explained as three types. The gandharvas and apsaras are explained as one because they are mentioned there with one luster. The bhūtas etc. are one because they are mentioned there with one drowsiness. Though siddhas, cāraṇas and vidyādharas are mentioned separately, they are explained as one because in the 20th chapter they are said to be created by one concealing power, and cāraṇas are implied. The kinnaras, kiṃpuruṣas etc. are one because they are said to be created by one reflection. Otherwise, accepting the numbers used for each would result in ten types, contradicting the eightfold division. That is why it is said "This will be clear in the 20th chapter" - this very enumeration of creations will be clearly explained. [27]
Viśvasṛk, Hari and Brahmā. [28] [29]
Thus ends the 10th chapter of the Dīpikādīpana on the third skandha of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa.
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Now he states the ninth creation. Arvāk means one whose movement or food is downward. Arvāksrotas - the shortness is archaic. O Kṣattā! The human creation which is arvāksrotas is one type, not various like horses etc. This is the ninth creation called arvāksrotas. Or arvāksrotas is an adverb - the human creation which is such that it is arvāksrotas. He states the common characteristic of humans - "They have more rajas" i.e. they are full of rajas, hence devoted to action. [25]
These three are only vaikṛta, not both like the kumāras. From "The divine creation" to "already mentioned" is one construction. The vaikārika divine creation mentioned in the context of prākṛta creations is included in the vaikṛta. O best of the good, Vidura! He states the dual nature of the kumāra creation which is the end of the vikṛta divine creation. How is the kumāra creation included in the prākṛta creation? Because the kumāras were originally created by Brahmā, they are included in prākṛta. Though Nīlalohita included among the kumāras was created along with Sanaka etc., he is created in every kalpa, so he has a vaikṛta nature. Thus it is dual-natured. [26]
Stating that the divine creation is eightfold, he enumerates its types in one and a half verses. The vibudhas and pitṛs are one type as they are worshipped similarly. The asuras are one type. The gandharvas are one. The siddhas are one. The yakṣas and rākṣasas are one. The cāraṇas are one. The bhūtas, pretas and piśācas are one. The kinnaras etc. - the word "etc." includes horse-faced beings, kiṃpuruṣas etc. The vidyādharas are one type. Thus it is eightfold. [27]
He concludes the enumerated creations. With "ten". Although it was stated in the beginning that everything is ninefold, the conclusion with "ten" is not contradictory, as it refers to the intermediate divisions. O Vidura! These ten creations made by the creator of the universe in the form of four-faced Brahma and by the pure Self have been narrated to you. "The creations, sub-creations, Manus and manvantaras" - after describing the creations in the previous and later chapters of Brahma's creation, there is no need to hurry to hear about the Manus and manvantaras in the subsequent creations. I will narrate those also in due course. Hence, after this, after describing time which delimits all objects, I will expound the Manus and manvantaras. (28)
"The puruṣa (person) created the Self as the material cause through play" - thus begun, he concludes that the one Brahman alone is both the material and efficient cause. Thus, in kalpas etc., the self-born Hari, the four-faced Hari enveloped by rajas, through the four-faced one causes an excess of rajas. With infallible will, being of true resolve - this indicates omniscience, omnipotence etc. - he creates by himself alone. By stating "with infallible will", it is said that the worldly distinction between material and efficient causes like clay and potter does not apply here. The potter, not being omnipotent, cannot be the material cause; clay, being insentient, cannot be the efficient cause. But here, as both are established in the same entity, there is no need for other agents, objects or instruments - this is the purport. (29)
Among the nine types of creation mentioned, he states that the creation of the cosmic egg is simultaneous like the elements ether etc., not sequential. Due to the mixture of qualities. He does not desire sequence in this cosmic egg which consists of a mixture of qualities. The creation of the cosmic egg along with the mahat and other principles is simultaneous - this is the meaning. Why is this so? Due to the Supreme Self, the controller and creator, being possessed of māyā (illusion), being endowed with wondrous power, the creation of the egg is simultaneous - this is the meaning. But simultaneity cannot be assumed for ether etc., as it contradicts statements like "from ether came air, from air came fire" etc. He gives an example for simultaneous creation: Like. The word bhrama refers to whirlpools, bubbles etc. Just as whirlpools, bubbles etc. arise simultaneously in a river, so too here - this is the meaning. (30)
Now, to remove the doubt that the same souls who occupy positions of authority like Indra etc. in each kalpa continue again in other kalpas, he states: The devas, asuras etc. O kṣattā (Vidura)! Those who are celebrated as gods etc. in this kalpa with names and forms like Indra, thousand-eyed one etc., they alone existed in other manvantaras - this is the meaning. Or, those who are now gods, demons etc., they alone existed in other manvantaras characterized by different names and forms - this is the meaning. Otherwise there would be contradiction with Parashara's statement about separate creation in each manvantara. This verse indicates that those with divine authority like Indra have primacy and recur again. (31)
Thus ends the tenth chapter of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa's third canto in the commentary Bhāgavata Candracandrikā composed by Śrīmad Vīrarāghavācārya.
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
The ninth, called sarvāksrotas, pertains to which humans? Though one type from the word 'tu', it is twofold - the asuras etc. and humans. He states the nature of humans as predominant in rajas. Born from the material rajas element, they are established in rajas. As stated: "By the material rajas element, humans are always born. By rajas enveloped in tamas, the others who move about." By this, the phrase "abundant in tamas" is explained. Being established in rajas, they are devoted to action, as per the statement "Indeed no one can remain even for a moment without performing action." Moreover, as per the statement: "The downward-streaming are said to be of two types - established in rajas and established in tamas. The asuras etc. are established in tamas, while humans are predominant in rajas."
Having stated the characteristics of humans, he states the characteristics of asuras etc.: "In suffering". The word 'ca' means 'only' - they consider only suffering to be pleasure. By this, it is said that the asura characteristic is having contrary knowledge in all matters, as per the statement "That intellect which sees all things contrarily, O Partha, is tāmasic." From the word 'ca', it should be understood that the gods find only pleasure in pleasure, not so the demons, while humans partake of both.
Then how are humans downward-streaming? Due to downward movement at the end despite good efforts. As stated: "Since downward movement occurs mostly without effort, humans are indeed declared to be downward-streaming."
As per the statements: "For animals, plants, those acting with prior deliberation, asuras, rakshasas, and pishachas as well, downward-streaming is designated. For asuras etc. it is fixed by rule." It should be understood that though common to animals etc., downward-streaming is fixed for asuras etc. (25)
O best among the good! These three standing obliquely related to animals and humans are indeed the modified creations within the egg, this is the remaining part. Due to the saying "eva in similarity is for emphasis", the word eva is said to mean similarity. The meaning is that the creation of gods is both natural and modified. He explains that very thing by saying vaikārika. The divine creation which is called natural as vaikārika is both natural and modified as kaumāra, where kau means on earth, mā means measure or creation, and ara means attainment - thus it is called so. The meaning is that for those born outside the egg, birth again inside the egg on earth is called kaumāra. Mā creation is the root, kumāraṃti thus kaumāra are the egg-born origins of gods. Due to generating the vaikārika, it is both natural and modified.
As stated: "Among the vaikārika, due to being the cause of others' non-enjoyment. It is said to be of both natures, as are the guṇas (qualities)." || 26 ||
He divides the divine creation saying devasargaśca. By the word ca, he indicates the inclusion of a specific number for some, as stated:
"Eight types of gods are declared, all the learned ones.
Here a hundred of ancestors, and only thirty asuras.
Two hundred gandharvas and apsaras are proclaimed.
Seventy in yakṣas and rākṣasas, thirty in cāraṇa species.
A hundred siddhas and seventy in all other species.
These are the upward-flowing, others are known as downward-flowing.
Among the vaikārika gods, these are the non-enjoyers.
The other gods are enjoyers, thus they are known.
All-knowing, to be worshipped with them, devoted among them.
Performers of dance, song etc., and vehicle makers etc.
Declarers of accomplishments, and scouts here and there.
Servants - thus they are considered of eight types.
Others who are all-knowing are proclaimed as learned.
And others by their various deeds fall into eight divisions."
The suitability for the origin of gods born within the egg is from the three qualities inherent in beings. The divisions are of many types, as stated:
"By the earthly sattva, the hidden form born from Brahmā.
Even there, tamas is proclaimed as one-hundredth part.
Born from that is Rudra, thus again the birth of Indra etc.
When that sattva is hidden by earthly rajas, humans.
Thus these qualities of gods pervade and abide in all.
The blissful form beyond qualities of Brahmā etc.
Is consciousness, where excellence of that sattva exists.
Where tamas is prominent, that is naturally inferior.
But in the eternal consciousness, there is no distinction in concealment.
Nowhere in the root form of nature made of qualities.
How much less in the supreme truth of Vāsudeva."
Even when gods are born on earth due to curses etc., their divine or demonic nature is known by the inherent elemental qualities. As stated:
"If gods etc. are born among humans etc. due to faults,
Still they should be known as gods, demons etc. for certain."
He concludes the topic saying daśa. The tenfold nature of the divine creation fits with the natural and modified creations described. || 27-28 ||
So that there may not be doubt that the root creation is by Hari alone and intermediate creation in manvantaras by others, he says evam. Ātmabhūrajo hariḥ - Hari who is self-born and unborn, by his own wish in kalpas etc., himself independently, using prakṛti as the material cause, creates bodies of gods etc. and manifests himself as their controller, appearing in many forms. How is Hari the creator in this way - by this the creatorship of Brahmā etc. is said to be merely instrumental. How is he the creator - to this it is said rajaḥ pluta, as rajas etc. qualities are in the middle, he is imbued with rajas quality, but not dependent on or identified with qualities like an ordinary person. So that Hari may not be considered one of the gods like Indra, it is said ātmabhū. He is not desire, it says sraṣṭā. Then why Virañca - to this it says hariḥ. What is the proof for abandoning the well-known meaning of rajaḥ pluta as "dissolved by rajas quality" and imagining an uncommon meaning - to this the teachers have cited this authority:
"Hari is eternally untouched by qualities, as he is in the midst of qualities.
Due to his non-ego-awareness, he has no contact with qualities.
Creating bodies of gods etc., he made himself manifold.
As their controller, himself, prakṛti, through bodily distinctions."
This statement is proof of his multiplicity. How can he have subject-object relations etc. if he is one - this objection should be answered thus:
"Hari himself is the doer, instrument and action.
In his own multiplicity, prakṛti has independence."
With this intention it is said amoghasaṃkalpa (of unfailing resolve). || 29 ||
Then how is creation first - anticipating this doubt, he says there is no such rule, with an example. Guṇa etc. In this mixing of qualities, the wise do not desire sequence or order. Why? Due to the deluding power of the controller Hari of unbroken lordship, as it is determined by his wish, like the whirling of a river's current. || 30 ||
He prevents the misconception that others are created in another kalpa than this kalpa creation. Deva etc. With the names Indra etc. and forms like thousand-eyed, white etc. || 31 ||
Thus ends the tenth chapter in the commentary Padaratnāvalī by Vijayaḍhvajatīrtha on the third skandha of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa. || 10 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
The one who is in the form of the deity of the vaikārika (transformed) principle has been mentioned as prākṛta (natural), not as vaikṛta (transformed) here. This is the meaning. The Kumāras are of both natures, because they appeared merely in Brahmā's mind, with the intention of including them among his creations. 26. The divine creation is one and a half verses. 27-29. One - thus ends the tenth chapter of the commentary Kramasandarbha on the Third Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavata by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmin. 10.
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Whose food and movement is downward, he is arvāksrotas (human). The shortness is archaic. The characteristic of humans is rajas, etc. 25. These are only vaikṛta (transformed). The divine creation is both vaikṛta and prākṛta. To the question "which?", he answers: The vaikārika, the creation of gods born of vaikārika ego, is mentioned among the prākṛta, and is vaikṛta again because they were created by Brahmā. Similarly, the Kumāra creation, Sanatkumāra etc., is of both natures, meaning they are prākṛta as born from Brahmā's mind purified by meditation on the Lord, and vaikṛta as born from the Lord, as stated later "He created others from that mind purified by meditation on the Lord". 26. The vaikṛta divine creation is eightfold. There, vibudhas etc. are three types, gandharvas and apsaras are one, yaksas and raksasas are one, bhūtas, pretas and piśācas are one, siddhas, cāranas and vidyādharas are one, kinnaras etc. are one - thus eight types. By "etc." kimpurusas etc. are meant. Viśvasṛk is the Supreme Lord and Brahmā. 27-28. Hari himself became the self-born, is the connection. 29.
Thus ends the tenth chapter of the Third Canto in Sārārthadarśinī, which delights the hearts of devotees, and is fitting for the saintly.
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Arvāk means downward, srotas means food and movement, he who has that is thus. The shortness is archaic. It shows the common characteristic of humans - those in whom rajas is predominant. 25. These three are vaikṛta and the divine creation is also vaikṛta, is the connection. The meaning is: The eight previously mentioned, the ninth arvāksrotas, and the divine creation indicated by that, though its inclusion there is especially intended, even so, after stating that predominance of rajas is the characteristic of humans, to indicate that though gods are also arvāksrotas they have a different characteristic from humans, there is a general mention in the vaikṛta. Therefore gods are included in the ninth creation, as they are created by the four-faced one. The gods born from the vaikārika, their creation which is vaikārika, is mentioned by "the fifth is the vaikārika divine creation". Because the presiding deities of the senses within the subtle body are not self-created. Thus after mentioning nine creations, he states the tenth creation. "But the Kumāra creation is of both natures" - the meaning is it is the tenth due to having both aspects. Because the appearance of the Kumāras, the crest jewels of the perfected ones, the establishers of the traditions of knowledge and devotion, is in the creation made by the four-faced one, the Kumāra creation is vaikṛta. Because they do not appear daily in all kalpas as establishers of knowledge and devotion traditions, due to their long duration they are counted among the long-lasting prākṛta - thus it is of both natures. But the interpretation that it means they are created as both gods and humans is incorrect, as the Kumāras being incarnations of the Lord are not seen or heard to be humans here or elsewhere. 26. The vaikṛta divine creation included in the ninth creation is eightfold. There, vibudhas and pitrs are one type, asuras are one, gandharvas and apsaras are one, siddhas are one, yaksas and raksasas are one. 27. Bhūtas, pretas and piśācas are one, cāranas and vidyādharas are one, kinnaras and by "etc." kimpurusas etc. are one - thus it is eightfold. Viśvasṛk means the cause of all causes, the Lord, meaning they are created directly by Him and through the four-faced one. 28-29. He says the same thing. Hari the Supreme Lord, the Self, the Self of all, the Creator, the Cause of the universe, of true resolve, able to do everything by mere will, creates Himself, meaning establishes in the state of effect, creates everything directly and some through His partial expansions - to indicate this he specifies. Contaminated by rajas means in the form of the four-faced one. 30.
Thus ends the illumination of the meaning of the tenth chapter in Siddhāntapradīpa on the Third Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa. 10.
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Among those also he indicates the principal ones - "Kanka" etc. Bhallūka is also a type of bird, not a bear. Some say it was created by Viśvāmitra, or it did not exist in the Padma kalpa. By "etc." all subtle ones are also included. 25. Having thus indicated the enjoyed and enjoyer, he indicates their controllers - "Arvāksrota". The word "tu" (but) here excludes birth as before. Whose food and movement is only downward, that is the human creation which is only one type. All five-nailed creatures, even aquatic ones, are like that. Or one-legged and aquatic creatures did not exist in that kalpa. He states their characteristic as before - "rajodhikā". Only the mode of passion is predominant in them, they are neither in goodness nor in ignorance. But those who belong to the Lord are beyond the modes, they are only gods, not humans, or they are not created by Brahmā, or they did not exist in the Padma kalpa. Rajas is like an element in them. They are always engaged in action, they remain only doing. Their knowledge senses are secondary, by this the object senses are described. And they consider happiness in misery. This is the intellect. And by "ca" (and), in happiness and in the means of misery. Thus the stationary, mobile and humans have been described in three types as per the physical, mental and spiritual divisions. 26. Others though different in form and place do not attain the status of creation. He says this - "These three are only vaikṛta". "And the divine creation, O best one". Some say humans become gods due to maturation of merit. Therefore there are only nine creations, as other divisions of the modes are not possible. Though ninefold by origin, it is tenfold by logic and conclusion, therefore the word "ca" (and) - "and the divine creation". The address "O best one" is to indicate that gods are in the form of results. That divine creation is twofold, one is vaikārika of goodness, the other is vaikārika born from transformation, that is the tenth. Regarding the first, he states the conclusion - "vaikārika". The word "tu" (but) states the difference from this vaikārika. That which is vaikārika of goodness, that is stated as the fifth. But the Kumāra is both a god and becomes human, so it has been described by both descriptions, therefore it need not be stated separately, thus the word "tu" (but). 27.
The divine creation, although of one type, is of eight kinds due to internal distinctions. He enumerates them - The gods like Indra are one. The ancestors are one. The gandharvas and apsaras are one. The siddhas are one. The yakshas and rakshasas are one. Some say the charanas are also included among the yakshas. || 28 ||
The bhutas, pretas and pisachas are one. Some say the vidyadharas are one. The kinnaras, kimpurushas, etc. are one. Having explained all these, he concludes - "These ten are known to be described." The vocative address indicates affection, thereby avoiding any other statement. These creations were made by Brahma, the creator of the universe. || 29 ||
Having said this much and remained silent as before, indicating that he will ask again, he states what is to be said next - "After this I will explain." Not immediately. The meaning is that after explaining the remaining parts, I will explain at a later time. There are two remaining forms - the senses and the intellect. He indicates both of these - "The lineages and the manvantaras." Lineage refers to the form of the senses, and by the word "and" those related to it are also promised to be explained as principles.
Now one may ask, why and when does the Lord create these various types? In response he says "Thus pervaded by rajas." The Lord, pervaded by rajas, engaged in creation, manifested himself from himself in all kalpas, etc. For the removal of suffering of all, by his infallible will alone, he himself creates in the form of agent, object and instrument. It is stated that even Brahma is the Lord pervaded by rajas. The plural "in kalpas, etc." indicates that he creates many universes in various ways. Even rajas is himself, indicating he is the instrument. Similarly, karma, time, etc. are also himself. The world is also himself, indicating he is the object. Purusha, etc. are also himself, indicating he is the agent. Therefore it is established that everything is Hari. || 30 ||
Thus ends the explanation of the tenth chapter in the third canto of the Srimadbhagavata Subodhini composed by Sri Vallabha Dikshita, son of Sri Lakshmana Bhatta.
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
In the semblance of Kanka. Even there. Even among egg-born creatures. || 25 ||
They state the conclusion - "From the origin" etc. "By observing" - By the congruence of being of the nature of sattva. Due to dislike of mixing in asuras etc., they state another reason - "And from the conclusion." || 27 ||
"After this" - here. "Remaining" - remaining in the question about the enumeration of creations.
Thus ends the explanation of the tenth chapter in the Subodhini Prakasha on the third canto.
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
He states their common characteristics - Those in whom rajas predominates are of that nature. Therefore, due to the distracting nature of rajas, they are also devoted to action, always engaged in action. And they mistake suffering for happiness. By the word "and" it should be understood they have the conceit of happiness in the means of suffering. These three creations from immovable beings onwards are only modifications, not of both natures. Thus even in the creation predominated by rajas, you are superior due to being a devotee of the Lord - with this intention he addresses "O best of the truthful ones." And the divine creation is also a modification - this is to be connected. || 25 ||
And that divine creation which was previously stated among the natural ones to be a modification of sattva, due to its re-manifestation in Brahma, is not counted separately - this is to be connected with the remainder. The Kumara creation of Sanatkumara etc. is of both natures - it is natural due to being born from meditation on the Lord as stated later "He created others with a mind purified by meditation on the Lord", and it is a modification due to being born from Brahma. It is of both natures as gods and humans. This is the seventh creation. And that divine creation is of eight kinds. He shows those eight kinds - Three are the gods etc. || 26 || Gandharvas and apsaras are one, yakshas and rakshasas are one, bhutas, pretas and pisachas are one, siddhas, charanas and vidyadharas are one, kinnaras etc. are one. By "etc." kimpurushas, horse-faced beings etc. are included. This will be clear in the 20th chapter. || 27 ||
He concludes the enumerated creations - "These ten." By addressing "O Vidura" he indicates affection and removes doubt of any other statement. These ten types of creations made by the Lord, the creator of the universe, have been described to you by me. Having stated the nature of time and remained silent, expecting he will ask something else again as before, he promises to state what is to be said in the middle of the question - "After this." After this, after describing the nature of time, I will explain the lineages of Manu etc. and the manvantaras - this is the connection. || 28 ||
He concludes the previously begun idea that the one Lord alone is both the material and efficient cause - "Thus." In this way as described, Hari alone, pervaded by rajas, having willingly accepted the quality of rajas, at the beginning of the kalpa becomes self-born from himself, and being the four-faced creator, he himself creates himself who is the material cause, in the form of the universe, by himself who is the instrumental cause in the form of time, pradhana, purusha etc. - this is the connection. By "etc." maintenance and dissolution are included. As Vishnu he maintains through sattva, as Rudra he dissolves through tamas.
Now one may ask, how can one alone be both the material and efficient cause, since that is not seen in potters etc.? In response he says "Of unfailing resolve", meaning of true resolve. A potter etc. cannot be the material cause due to not being all-powerful, and clay cannot be the efficient cause due to being insentient, but for the Lord everything is consistent due to his resolve being true - this is the idea. || 29 ||
Thus in the Balaprabodhini commentary on the Srimadbhagavata
Composed by Giridhara, descendant of Sri Vallabhacharya's lineage
Servant at the feet of Sri Mukunda Raya
For the attainment of the joy of devotion
In the third canto dealing with creation and divisions
The tenth chapter describing the types of creation has been explained. || 1-3 ||
Hindī Anuvāda
Viduraji! The ninth creation is that of humans. It is of one kind only. The flow of its food is from above (mouth) downwards. Humans are predominantly rajoguṇa (with rajoguṇa in parentheses), action-oriented, and find pleasure in painful sense objects. || 25 || Immovable beings, animals-birds, and humans - these three types of creations, and the creation of devas to be mentioned later, are vaikṛta creations, while the vaikārika creation of devas in the form of mahat-tattva, etc., has already been counted in the earlier prākṛta creation. Apart from these, the kaumāra creation of sages like Sanatkumara is both prākṛta and vaikṛta. || 26 || The creation of devas is of eight types, consisting of deities, ancestors, asuras, gandharvas, apsaras, yakṣas-rākṣasas, siddhas-cāraṇas, vidyādharas, bhūtas-pretas-piśācas, and kinnaras-kimpuruṣas with horse faces, etc. Viduraji! Thus I have told you about these ten types of creation made by the world-creator Śrī Brahmājī. || 27-28 || Now I will describe the lineages and manvantaras, etc. In this way, the true-willed Lord Hari himself, pervaded by rajoguṇa, creates the world in the form of Brahmā at the beginning of each kalpa. || 29 ||
End of the tenth chapter
SB 3.10.21-24
Text 21: The eighth creation is that of the lower species of life, and they are of different varieties, numbering twenty-eight. They are all extensively foolish and ignorant. They know their desirables by smell, but are unable to remember anything within the heart.
Text 22: O purest Vidura, of the lower animals the cow, goat, buffalo, kṛṣṇa stag, hog, gavaya animal, deer, lamb and camel all have cloven hooves.
Text 23: The horse, mule, ass, gaura, śarabha bison and wild cow all have only one hoof. Now you may hear from me about the animals who have five nails.
Text 24: The dog, jackal, tiger, fox, cat, rabbit, sajāru, lion, monkey, elephant, tortoise, alligator, gosāpa, etc., all have five nails in their claws. They are known as pañca-nakhas, or animals having five nails.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
He mentions twenty-eight types. Cows and others ending with camels, split-hoofed, double-hoofed, are nine || 21 || ** Donkeys and others with single hooves are six || 22 || ** Dogs and others ending with monitor lizards, five-clawed, are twelve. Thus these land-dwelling are twenty-seven. Crocodiles and others are water-dwelling || 23 || ** Herons and others, birds, are included as one category of non-land dwellers, thus there are twenty-eight types. Among these, kṛṣṇa (black), ruru (swamp deer), and gaura (white) are types of deer. Other animals are also included in these categories as appropriate || 24 ||
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Aja (goat), meṣa (ram), kṛṣṇa, ruru, gavaya are types of deer. Avi is eḍikā (ewe) || 21 || ** Aśvatara is born from a donkey and mare. Gaura is born from a mare and horse, or is a type of deer. Śarabha is an enemy of lions, a wild animal with eight legs. Camarī is similar to a cow, with a long back and many white tail hairs, a type of deer || 22 || ** Vṛka (wolf) is citrika (spotted), as tiger is mentioned separately. Godhā (monitor lizard) digs in the earth, known as goha. Kūrma (turtle), though included in the 28 as water-dwelling, is mentioned separately to show it is five-clawed. Makara and others includes crocodiles, fish etc. || 23 || ** "And others" includes garuḍa etc. Among these 28 types, others like snakes are included in these 28 only. The idea is that snakes are included among birds as egg-laying. This should be understood for others as well || 24 ||
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
Gaura etc. are four. Each is singular. It should be understood as representative of many || 21 || - 24 ||
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
He mentions twenty-eight types. Cows etc. ending with camels, split-hoofed, double-hoofed, are nine only, O best of the truthful, Vidura! || 21 || ** Donkeys etc. ending with camarī, single-hoofed, are six || 22 || ** Dogs etc. ending with monitor lizards, five-clawed, are twelve. Combined land-dwelling are twenty-seven. Crocodiles etc. are water-dwelling || 23 || ** Herons etc., birds, are included as one category of land-dwellers. Thus there are twenty-eight types. Among crocodiles etc., though different species, non-land dwellers are considered as one category. Ruru and gaura mentioned among cows etc. are types of deer, indicated as animals by the umbrella method. This should be seen elsewhere as well || 24 ||
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Twenty-six from cows to monitor lizards, twenty-seven with turtle and crocodile etc., twenty-eight with heron etc. As stated: "Gaura, aja, mahiṣa, kṛṣṇa, śūkara, gavaya, ruru, avi, uṣṭra, khara, camarī, śva, śṛgāla, vṛka, vyāghra, mārjāra, hari, śaśa, śalyaka, kapi, gaja, godhā etc., aquatic, and birds." || 21 || 22 || ** There, turtle, though included in the 28 as aquatic, is mentioned separately to show it is five-clawed.
"The yogi who always remembers the creator and the created with their respective forms is not born again."
From this statement, for remembering well-known split-hoofed etc. in some places. And for informing about the unfamiliar, scripture speaks in two ways. The dictionary states: "Ullūka (owl) is a dancing bird and is also called bhallūka." || 23 || 24 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Gaura etc. are four. Each is singular. It should be understood as representative of many - 21 || - 24 ||
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Cows etc. ending with camels, split-hoofed, double-hoofed, are nine. Avi is ram, donkeys etc. ending with camarī, single-hoofed, are six || 21 || 22 || Dogs etc. ending with monitor lizards, five-clawed, are twelve. Thus these land-dwelling are twenty-seven. Crocodiles etc. are aquatic. Herons etc. are land-dwelling, geese etc. are again aquatic, crows etc. are again land-dwelling - thus these crocodiles etc. are designated as one category. Thus there are twenty-eight types of cows etc. Among these, ruru, kṛṣṇa, gaura are types of deer. Other animals are also included in these as appropriate || 23 || 24 ||
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
He shows twenty-eight types. Cows etc. and sheep, camel are split-hoofed, double-hoofed || 21 || 22 || * Dogs etc. ending with monitor lizards, these twenty-seven are land-dwelling, crocodiles etc. are aquatic || 23 || * Also herons etc. are aerial, included as one category of non-land dwellers, five-clawed. Thus there are twenty-eight types. Other animals are included in these as appropriate || 24 ||
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Having thus explained the seventh, he now explains the eighth - tiraścām iti. Those whose food intake and movement is horizontal (tiryak) are called tiryañcaḥ (animals). As explained by grammarians, tiryak añcati means that which is eaten goes horizontally. Their creation is the eighth, because of their role as consumers of food. It is of 28 types, because of the nature of the tattvas, as the eaten food is desired by the tattvas themselves. Although there are many divisions, yet due to the predominance of the differentiating factors, only 28 types are considered. The inclusion of others here will be explained, or their modified nature will be refuted. Their fourfold characteristics are described as before - bhavida iti. Vedana means knowledge, awareness of what is to be done, or knowledge of the other world. Those without it are avida. Those with excessive (bhūri) darkness (tama), thus overwhelmed by darkness, do not gain knowledge even when in good company. But the divine animals residing in Vaikuṇṭha etc. or the trees there are not overcome by time, so this characteristic does not apply to them. Although they have all senses, they know objects especially through smell, but cannot determine through eyes etc., due to the predominance of tamas. Hṛdyavedinah means devoid of memory of past experiences or free from anxiety. Vedana means knowledge. Ignorance is their foundation, delusion is their object, senses culminate in smell alone, and intellect is just experience. ||21||
They are of three types. The sāttvika are said to have two hooves, the rājasa have four hooves. The tāmasa are said to be the others, with the lowest qualities. ||1||
Nine two-hooved animals like cows etc. Kṛṣṇa is the black deer, gavaya is similar to cow, ruru is a many-horned deer. These are two-hooved. These are again sacrificial animals. Animals denoted by the word tiryak and two-hooved animals. Where animals are specified, these should be taken. Sheep, goat and camel. The address sattama is to prevent misunderstanding in counting animals in God's creation. ||22||
Six one-hooved animals like donkey etc. Gaurī is the wild white deer. Śarabha has eight legs. Camarī is a deer similar to cow. The ca (and) includes other unknown wild animals. Domestic camarīs are two-hooved, they are not created by God. The address kṣattaḥ is for expertise. These very animals are created in many forms by Viśvāmitra etc. through the power of yoga. To exclude those, śṛṇu indicates many doubts about five-clawed animals. He said "animals" to exclude humans who are also five-clawed. Although humans are also considered animals according to scripture, that is not intended here, so they are excluded. ||23||
Thirteen like dogs etc. Among those, makara etc. are all non-terrestrial, of one type, born from eggs. Turtle, though aquatic, is counted separately due to not being egg-born. Makarādaya iti - the word ādi includes snakes etc., due to similarity of being egg-born. ||24||
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
In tiraścām iti. Anyeṣām means birds, rats etc. that are not mentioned. ||21||
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
Sheep, goat. As they are God's creation, they should be treated gently, not cruelly. Addressing as sattama indicates you already know this. Donkey etc. up to camarī are six one-hooved animals. ||21|| The address kṣattaḥ is for attentiveness. Humans are also five-clawed. To exclude them, he says "animals". Dogs etc. up to monitor lizard are twelve five-clawed animals. All these together are 27 terrestrial animals. ||22|| Makara etc. aquatic animals and kaṅka etc. birds are taken together as non-terrestrial. Thus there are 28 types. Other animals that are seen should be included in these as appropriate. ||24|| Kṣattaḥ means O wise one. Arvāksrotaḥ means whose food intake is downwards. The shortness is archaic usage. This one type of human creation is the ninth. ||24||
Hindī Anuvāda
O best of sages! Among these sacred animals, cow, goat, buffalo, black deer, pig, nilgai, ruru deer, sheep and camel - these are called cloven-hoofed (two-hoofed) animals. || 21 ||
Donkey, horse, mule, gaur deer, śarabha (śarabha) and chamari (yak) - these are single-hoofed. Now hear the names of five-clawed animals and birds. || 22 ||
Dog, jackal, wolf, tiger, cat, rabbit, porcupine, lion, monkey, elephant, turtle, monitor lizard and crocodile etc. are (animals). || 23 ||
Kaṅka (heron) (heron), vulture, quail, falcon, bhāsa (a type of bird), bear, peacock, swan, crane, ruddy shelduck, crow and owl etc. flying creatures are called birds. || 24 ||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)