Text 21: Your good self is one of the eternal associates of the Supreme Personality of Godhead for whose sake the Lord, while going back to His abode, left instructions with me.
Text 22: I shall therefore describe to you the pastimes by which the Personality of Godhead extends His transcendental potency for the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the cosmic world as they occur one after another.
Text 23: The Personality of Godhead, the master of all living entities, existed prior to the creation as one without a second. It is by His will only that creation is made possible and again everything merges in Him. This Supreme Self is symptomized by different names.
Text 24: The Lord, the undisputed proprietor of everything, was the only seer. The cosmic manifestation was not present at that time, and thus He felt imperfect without His plenary and separated parts and parcels. The material energy was dormant, whereas the internal potency was manifested.
Text 25: The Lord is the seer, and the external energy, which is seen, works as both cause and effect in the cosmic manifestation. O greatly fortunate Vidura, this external energy is known as māyā or illusion, and through her agency only is the entire material manifestation made possible.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Moreover. Why? Because He instructed me for imparting knowledge to you, who are dear to Him. The word "ca" (and) implies that He Himself also instructed through remembrance. [21]
Those which have the purposes of world maintenance etc. as their objects. [22]
To describe the creation play, he first states the prior condition. Before creation, this universe was the Supreme Self, the Lord alone. He was the Self, the essence and master of the individual souls. Nothing else in the form of seer or seen existed. Though existing in causal form, there was no separate perception, hence it is said: He was not characterized by various thoughts. Or alternatively, without separating the letter 'a', the meaning is: He who is characterized by various thoughts in creation, was alone at that time. Why? Because the self-will, māyā (illusion), was in dissolution. Or when the desire to remain alone was present. [23]
He describes the manner of māyā's emergence in two verses. That very seer did not see anything visible, since He alone was shining as the sole sovereign then. He considered Himself as if non-existent, due to absence of seer-ness in the absence of the seen. Hence it is said: He whose powers like māyā etc. were asleep. But He did not consider Himself completely non-existent, since His power of consciousness was not asleep. [24]
That indeed is in the form of connecting seer and seen, consisting of existent and non-existent, in the form of effect and cause. Or alternatively, existent is the visible, non-existent is the invisible, and the Self is its own form - she (māyā) whose essence consists of both of these, due to being in the form of connecting both of those. [25]
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
He states another excellence - Moreover. Respected means considered superior. He instructed me who was accompanied by followers like Uddhava etc., while departing. [21-22]
There in the beginning, before creation. If one asks how could the non-existent exist again, he says - In causal form. Relying on the maxim "What wise person would make effort when the desired object is accomplished?", he says - Or alternatively. At that time before creation. Here he anticipates the reason by saying "Why?". If one objects that dissolution of the substratum is not seen without dissolution of the superimposed, he says - Or alternatively. The meaning is: The desire to create, like the desire to protect etc., also arises there sometimes due to the unseen potency of souls. [23]
There in the figure of speech. As per the śruti "He indeed did not delight, therefore one alone does not delight". That considering as if non-existent - consciousness is the inherent internal power. [24]
If one objects that the effect cannot be called existent due to prior non-existence, and the cause cannot be called non-existent due to prior existence, he says - Or alternatively. She whose essence is both of those, visible and invisible, gross and subtle, in the form of the great elements and mahat etc. - that māyā whose essence is existent and non-existent. The affix 'ka' is used in the sense of 'having that quality'. Due to being in the form of connecting both of those visible and invisible, since they have not emerged from it. This is the meaning. [25]
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
The connection and Svāmī's explanation would be appropriate if the word "ca" (and) is applied there itself. [21]
Now the subject is to be expounded due to being approved by the Lord. [22]
Your - There among those three types of pastimes, from that creation onwards, starting with "The Lord" up to "bestows cessation of all afflictions" is the explanation of the four verses. "Was alone" means was united with the Lord who is the cause, this is the meaning. Essence means the fundamental form like the orb of rays, this is the meaning. Just as the Lord is the Self of souls even though they have selfhood, to remove the misconception that the Lord also has some self, the second use of "self" means He Himself is His own self, He is the self-established essence, this is the meaning. Since what is intended is established by "was alone" in the first half, and to avoid the difficulty of separating the letter 'a', he says "Or alternatively". Only the dissolution of the quality māyā is possible, not of the self-māyā. Self-māyā would be His will, while quality māyā is material in nature, as per the Mahāsaṃhitā. The word "following" meaning dissolution is also not used. Due to dissatisfaction with this, he says "Or alternatively". Though mundane plurality was absent then, the existence of Vaikuṇṭha etc. splendor should be understood like "The king is coming", thus half of "I alone existed in the beginning" is explained. [23]
There in the creation play, He did not see the visible universe, due to it being merged in Himself by His own will. He considers Himself, His own portion the Puruṣa incarnation who is the seer of the universe, as if non-existent. Thus he states the state of being without the quality of seeing the universe. He explains the meaning of the word "as if" by saying "But not". Consciousness is the inherent internal power. [24]
Showing the external power that was stated in "That which appears without substance", he explains "That indeed" etc. as: In the form of connecting seer and seen means in the form of the reflection of the power of consciousness. In the previous meaning, due to dislike for the verbal form of being in the form of connecting seer and seen, he says "Or alternatively". The visible is the universe. The invisible is that which is called the seer Puruṣa. He explains the word "self" as "essence". Whose essence consists of connecting those existent and non-existent objects - this is a scribal error for "whose form is of the nature of knowledge-reflection". "Of both of those" means whatever is the object, whatever is the connection, that is its essence, as it remains in its own cause in the form of an object alone. This is the meaning. [25]
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Moreover - You are always pleasing, the object of affection, to the Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa who is accompanied by devotees. Because the Lord, while departing to leave the earth, instructed me for imparting knowledge to you, though I was not present nearby. Having remembered the Lord, He instructed me for the purpose of imparting knowledge. By this, being the object of the Lord's unsurpassed affection is understood, as it is remembered "For the man of knowledge is exceedingly dear to Me". [21]
Therefore I will describe to you who are the object of the Lord's unsurpassed affection according to your questions, this is the connection. How are they? Endowed with yogamāyā - yoga means that which is united, and that is māyā, the wondrous power. Enhanced by that, arranged by the Lord's controlling wondrous power. Dissolution is the inner meaning. Liberation is the purpose. Which have the maintenance etc. of the universe. Or the word "purpose" refers to essence, as the word "purpose" is used for a thing. By the word "inner", dissolution and liberation are intended. As the śruti says "Which they enter into", the maintenance etc. of the universe is the purpose or essence of which - those pastimes, sports, activities. I will describe in order according to the questions. Or in the order of creation pastime etc. [22]
He states in three verses the nature of the substance existing as the cause before creation, in order to describe the creation pastime first. "The Lord" etc. - This visible universe consisting of gross sentient and insentient with divisions of name and form, in the beginning before creation, was the Lord alone, undivided in name and form, with subtle sentient and insentient as His body, the inner controller entering into and supporting the souls, the all-pervading master. This is the meaning. That very Lord, when His self-will useful for creation arose, was characterized by various thoughts cognizable as objects of various name and form like devas etc. in the previous kalpa. Why? Because the self is the limit of thoughts regarding name and form objects. This is the intention. The Lord alone is sometimes in the state of effect with divided name and form sentient and insentient body, and sometimes in the causal state as the Supreme Self with subtle sentient and insentient body not divided by name and form. This is the meaning. Or "characterized by various thoughts" is to be split - when the will regarding the self arose, the resolution regarding dissolution, He was characterized by various thoughts, cognizable as objects of name and form like devas etc. Why? Because the self has the nature of devas etc. name and form, and their absence is also of the self alone. This is the meaning. And thus there is no consequence of changeability, because the contact with name and form is through the medium of sat. With this intention, by the word "this" here the Supreme Self with gross sentient and insentient body alone is stated. His existence as the cause, having given up the gross state and remaining with subtle sentient and insentient body, is stated. And one should not be confused thinking that since having sentient and insentient as body is not perceived here, by "alone" it is stated that Brahman devoid of differences of same class, different class and internal is alone the cause of the world. Because time is indicated by "in the beginning", difference of different class by "of the souls", difference of same class by the separate indication "self", and internal differences like omniscience, omnipotence, true will etc. pertaining to causality are understood here itself by "the Lord". If it is asked what is stated by "alone", it is said - The oneness stated by "alone" is connected with the perception of plurality to be stated in the order of creation of mahat etc. Hence the designation as "alone" is based on the intention of absence of name and form division. [23]
Then to elaborate on the causality of the one possessing prakṛti, puruṣa, time and body, who is the abode of auspicious qualities like omniscience etc., he explains in two verses "He indeed" etc. He, that Lord, then in the state of dissolution, was the seer, omniscient. The reason for this: with undiminished vision, with uncontracted knowledge. Why? The sole sovereign, shining in one form, not like the soul whose knowledge expands and contracts occasionally dependent on karma. With sleeping powers, His own powers called the subtle state sentient and insentient. Why? The word power is a synonym of body etc. Did not see the visible effect. But considered the self as if non-existent, unfit for ordinary dealings, or devoid of name and form. By the word "as if", His possession of qualities like omniscience etc., knowledge of the subtle due to absence of name and form division, possession of knowledge regarding the subtle sentient and insentient existing as His own body, is indicated. This is stated in the śruti. [24]
Now he states having sentient and insentient as body: "That indeed of this" etc. The power called māyā, which is the prakṛti inseparably qualifying the existent seer, the seer possessing existence, the seer of all entities possessing existence, consists of existent and non-existent, has the nature of sentient and insentient - earth, water, fire, air. Others say "Know the other prakṛti as different from this". Because both sentient and insentient are called prakṛti as mutually distinct. By which prakṛti consisting of existent and non-existent, He the all-pervading one Himself, untouched by the defects in the world, created this effect-state world consisting of sentient and insentient. That very māyā also existed in subtle state as the body of the all-pervading one. This is the meaning. By "The Lord alone was this in the beginning", the being the material cause of the one qualified by subtle sentient and insentient is stated. By "by which the all-pervading one created this", the being the efficient cause of the mere extracted own form is also stated. [25]
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Moreover, while going to His abode, He instructed me for imparting knowledge to you. Since therefore you are always considered dear by the Lord who is accompanied by followers, it is proper. This is the meaning. By the word "hi" (indeed), he indicates the relevance of other texts for being considered dear. [21]
To make the listener attentive, he promises the subject to be spoken: "Now" etc. Enhanced by yogamāyā means endowed with essential potency. [22]
The Lord alone was this - the Self, the Supreme Self, the all-pervading master of the individual souls, the Self, the doer of taking etc., following His self-will, the essential desire for creation, having attained the state of "I will create". If there is absence of instruments for that desire, like Devadatta's desire, that desire also becomes futile - not so, he says "characterized by various powers". Characterized by various means under His control. If the reading is "characterized by various thoughts", the meaning is: characterized by the views of ignorant proponents of plurality, from the purport of śrutis like "This was existence alone in the beginning, my dear" and "This was non-existence in the beginning". Because the śruti says "They found the bond of the existent in the non-existent", and it is well-known that the view of non-existence is the demonic view. [23]
He states the manner of arising of the creation desire of the one existing Hari: "He indeed" etc. He who is that sole sovereign, sole king, universal monarch, He did not see the universe then in dissolution, because all effects were merged in the root prakṛti. This is to be supplied. If one objects there was absence of the power of seeing, therefore it is said "seer". Because "There is no loss of the vision of the seer" as per śruti. By "indeed", this very thing is emphasized. By "with undiminished vision", this alone is explained differently. If one asks how He did not see, since the souls are eternal and unmerged, hence seeing is possible, to this he says "considered". "The self" - the singular is used for the class. The Supreme Self considered the individual soul as if non-existent, powerless. By the statement "considered the soul as if non-existent, powerless", non-existence means powerlessness only, not non-existence apart from Himself, because the śruti says "The Person existed". Because it is said "The knower of the field, the person, is indeed the self, the transmigrating conscious being". "Whose powers were asleep" - power means wife Ramā, who is extremely attached to the self alone, of whom He is the husband. As it is said: "Powers are called wives due to being capable. Power is said to be capacity". And "Sleep is said to be of prakṛti, extreme devotion to the Lord". By this, seeing prakṛti is also refuted, due to not existing separately. Why did Hari not see due to having eyes slightly closed in sleep? To this he says "with undiminished vision". What is the recourse for one speaking thus anywhere? Disregard is stated elsewhere: "The closing of Viṣṇu's eyes should be spoken of". [24]
He states the name of the power: "That" etc. O greatly fortunate one - one who has great fortune, accumulation of luck. Or one who attains great splendor. Or in the vocative case: O greatly fortunate one. Of this all-seeing Nārāyaṇa, that power which delights having attained union in dissolution, is called māyā. The word "indeed" is in the sense of "and" due to being the chief of all. Māyā belongs to the magical Viṣṇu. That material power is also called māyā. By which that all-pervading one created this world. How is it? Consisting of existent and non-existent - the first pervading the cause of mahat etc., the second in that form. [25]
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
The connection statement that the Lord Aja instructed me here for the instruction of knowledge along with his followers. 21. 22.
Now, while narrating the story of the līlā prayed for, he explains the knowledge of the four verses instructed by the glorious Lord, saying "bhagavān" etc. With the text beginning with "aśeṣasaṃkleśaśamaṃ vidhatte" and ending with etc., now due to the sequence of the story, the meanings of the four should be stated in reverse order. There, he shows the meaning of half of "aham evāsam evāgre nānyad yat sad asat param" through the beginning of the creation līlā with "bhagavān" in two verses. The meaning is that this universe, from Puruṣa to the earthly elements, was united with the Lord who was existing alone at that time. Ātmā is the supreme form like the orb for the pure jīvas who are like rays. And there is no other than that, because the self is self-established - this is the meaning. Thus the being parts of even his own parts is shown there. And non-difference from Brahman. When? When his desire for creation etc. was absorbed in following him - this is the meaning. But even though there were many glories like Vaikuṇṭha etc., how was he alone? To this he says that even though there were Vaikuṇṭha etc., he alone was characterized, like "This king is traveling with his army" even though accompanied by an army. 23.
The meaning is that it was absorbed in him due to the very absence of manifestation. Thus he considered even his own part, the Puruṣa, as if non-existent. Dṛk is the cit-śakti, the internal potency that is his essential nature - this is the meaning. Ekarāṭ means having all authority. 24.
He churned the inner part of the external potency useful for creation. Being potency, its being the instrumental cause, and being the material cause as composed of sat and asat, are partially manifested. 25.
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
He did not see the visible universe. The meaning is he did not see that. Śakti is māyā. Later, explaining the meaning of "ahaṃ yad etac ca"...Not only are you qualified as Yama, but you are also an eternal associate of the Lord in another manifestation - this is said by "bhavān". Mā means going to Vaikuṇṭha. 21.
There, first as he created this without effort, to answer that question he says he will describe the līlā of the Puruṣa avatāra. Yogamāyā is a particular function of the essential potency. Thus upabṛṃhitāḥ means expanded through his own parts and māyā, viśvasthityādayaḥ means the objects which are the maintenance etc. of the universe, because māyāśakti being a part of yogamāyā is seen in the Nārada Pañcarātra. 22.
To describe the creation līlā, he describes the prior state, saying "This universe, before creation, the Lord full of the six opulences alone existed." Some say because of being absorbed in the Lord, the Lord is the substratum cause. Others say because it is the effect of the Lord's potency. Or "idam agre" in one verse means "before this creation." Thus he alone is to be worshiped through the path of yoga as the inner controller, the self of the selves, the jīvas. Thus he alone is to be worshiped through the path of knowledge as the all-pervading Brahman - this is the meaning. Thus he is characterized by various views of the worshipers - the devotees, yogis and jñānīs. The śrutis also say the same, like "In the beginning there was only Vāsudeva, not Brahmā nor Śaṅkara", "There was only Nārāyaṇa, not Brahmā nor Īśāna", "The self alone was this in the beginning", "In the beginning there was only existence" etc. But from what time before creation was he alone? In answer to this expectation he says: When the desire and will to create of the selves, the jīvas, were absorbed - meaning from the ancient prakṛtic dissolution. 23.
Sa vai means certainly the seer, the one who glances at prakṛti. Puruṣa means at that time, at the beginning of creation, he did not see prakṛti which was to be seen for creation. Then he considered even himself, though shining, as if non-existent - this is a poetic expression like a householder without a wife. Or he considered the universal Virāj self that was to be produced, though existing in himself in subtle form, as non-existent, because its manifestation was impossible without glancing at prakṛti - this is the idea. But if prakṛti is to be enjoyed by the seer alone, what was that beloved māyā like then? To this he says: Suptā means sleeping, the śakti or māyā of whom. The idea is that a sleeping beloved is not enjoyed. Moreover, for his bliss there are many other beautiful beloveds who are awake, so he says: Asuptā means the functions of the cit-śakti, Lakṣmī etc., of whom. Even then the external potency māyā, though unpleasant, was necessary for the creation of the universe etc. - this is the idea. 24.
Then by his desire that māyā-śakti awoke, so he says: Sā means that well-known, vai means certainly, sadāsadātmikā means having the form of cause and effect, idaṃ viśvaṃ means this universe, vibhuḥ means the supreme Lord. 25.
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Your māyā. 21.
Viśvasthityādayaḥ means those whose object or purpose are the maintenance etc. of the universe. 22.
There, to describe the creation līlā of the universe, he states the non-difference of the effect universe from its cause, saying "bhagavān". Idaṃ viśvam agre means before creation, ātmana ekattvecchānugatau means when the desire for oneness of the self was followed, ātmā means the self of all, one without differences of same class or different class, bhagavān means possessing inherent opulence, āsa āsīt means existed, as per the śruti "In the beginning, my dear, this was existence alone". To elaborate on the internal differences, he qualifies the one: Ātmanām is indicative of prakṛti and time, the potencies of prakṛti, puruṣa and time, ātmā means the shelter, meaning possessing the potencies of prakṛti, puruṣa and time. How was he in creation? Yo nānāmatibhir upalakṣyate means he who is understood by various intellects with various objects. 23.
To speak of creation from the transformation of the potency called prakṛti, he describes its origin in two verses beginning with "sa". Eṣa means this Śrī Kṛṣṇa with describable qualities, tadā means before creation, draṣṭā means all-knowing, because asupta-dṛk, dṛśyaṃ kāryaṃ nāpaśyat means he did not see the effect to be seen, because sa ekarāṭ means he alone shines at that time, because suptāḥ prakṛtyādyāḥ śaktayo yasya means whose potencies like prakṛti etc. were asleep, therefore ātmānam asantam iva means as if a non-seer, mene means he considered, because seeing is not possible without something to be seen. 24.
Vibhur yayā idaṃ viśvaṃ nirmame means by which he created this universe, sā etasya saṃdraṣṭuḥ śaktiḥ means that potency of this seer, tadicchayā kṣubhitā bhūd iti śeṣaḥ means was agitated by his desire - this is to be supplied. Because sā sadasadātmikā means having the form of cause and effect, at that time it became inclined towards the effect - this is the concluded meaning. 25.
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Bhavān iti. You are eternally approved by the Lord. Even with servants, also well-associated with Vaiṣṇavas, so he says - sānugasya iti. The constant approval is inferred from remembrance at that time. The servants like Bhīṣma etc. also consider you, from the statement "by the great soul Vidura". He states the reason for that - yajjñānadeśāya iti. For the instruction of whose knowledge the Lord instructed me. And by ca, he himself also instructed by remembrance. Bhagavān iti. The reason in remembrance. Vrajan iti shows its necessity. "A son born from the brother-in-law is prescribed" so there is no fault in Vyāsa approaching his brother's wife. The absence of passionate connection is the cause, like Agnihotra etc. prohibited in Kali-yuga. 21.
Thus having stated his approval, he states the Lord's līlā asked by him - atha iti. The word atha indicates a different way from common understanding. The conduct created by the Lord alone is only in the Veda, still it need not be spoken to you, so he says he will speak the Lord's līlā enhanced by yogamāyā - te bhagavallīlā iti. Yogamāyā is the means, the previously mentioned potency of the Lord, and upabṛṃhitāḥ means touched, alone they are not suitable for you. Even in that, the resolution to the final question is stated, so he says - viśvasya sthityudbhavāntā evārthāḥ prayojanāni yāsāṃ tāḥ. Ānupūrvyeṇa means in sequence, I will describe. The Lord's līlā being pleasing to the mind generates affection. Being endowed with yogamāyā, it is wonderful due to being amazing. This is said to make one forget other thoughts, while the creation of the universe etc. is for knowledge of his greatness. The sequence is for ease of understanding. Thus devotion arises. By this, the Lord's creatorship is only through līlā, so there is absence of all faults. And for being the Supreme Person, it is connected by the means of līlā, so it does not depart. It does not enter into creatorship, but only co-existence, otherwise there would not be control over everything. The nature of the universe is to be stated. That one is the form of the Lord. The origin etc. of those līlās are indeed accomplished. They are only glorified by me, not described like by a poet, so the sequence is determined. 22.
Having thus promised and made the listener attentive, to describe the origin of the universe he states the prior state - bhagavān eka āsed iti. This entire universe was previously only the Lord. But the pure līlā of the Lord is only the Lord becoming in this way. Enhanced by yogamāyā, this universe is one form of the Lord, beginningless in flow, manifest and unmanifest, without beginning or end. In the unmanifest state it is only the Lord, like salt is only water. Still there is no essential unity of those two, as that has sweet taste, and this salty. But it cannot be separated, so it is the state of being the Lord. So he says - This universe, agre means before creation, was only the Lord. And the Lord has infinite forms, so there is no disappearance of him, but only in one. Āsa means there is no action to be done by the Lord there. Dissolved salt in water happens on its own, but separating it is very difficult, possible only for the Lord. So this is called the Lord's conduct. In becoming so himself or producing separately, there is no effort like for a yogi or jewel. But how is there dissolution in one for the souls who are of the nature of consciousness at that time? To this he says - ātmātmanām iti. Indeed that Lord is the self of all souls, the root like the collective, of the nature of consciousness alone. In that alone is the dissolution of this predominated by existence, otherwise there would not even be difficulty. When dissolved it would be existence alone. From the dissolution of the non-liberated souls, the universe resting in the souls is dissolved there alone. For the capacity of its emergence he says - vibhur iti. Indeed he is all-capable, first making the souls in himself, he caused the dissolution of the universe there alone. By this his non-contact is described. Thus even in unity, non-contact is the cause of his all-pervasiveness. But due to the souls having qualities like desire etc., how is there existence in oneness? To this he says - ātmecchānugatau satyām. Ātmanāṃ yā icchā means all qualities, even their following is there alone. Or when the Lord's desire follows in that universe, then it is dissolved - thus the cause of the previous dissolution is described. Then this Lord is designated only as self. Or his desire as self. Or it became of his nature. Then the Lord did not become of one flavor like in other creations, but was characterized by various thoughts alone. Or he alone was characterized by all thoughts. Like when a thousand different types of salt are put in one limited water, though becoming of one taste, it is characterized as one by various thoughts. Like when someone asks where is rock salt etc., he indicates only water for all purposes. Due to the desire of the self following everywhere, or due to selfhood. By that the dissolution of the universe in only one part of the Lord is stated. The Lord's statement "Situated in one part by the universe" refers to that alone. In manifestation also it is thus. 23.
Having thus described the previous state, he first speaks of the emergence of living beings - sa vā eṣa iti. That very Lord, in whom everything exists. Indeed, certainly. This jīva (and in parentheses: living being) appearing in the form of Devadatta etc. was born. Then, having become a jīva, it manifested in the form of concealment. Due to previous impressions, it then became a seer. It remembered its previous state as "I am the seer". Then, when trying to perceive objects in order to fulfill its nature as a seer, it did not see any objects. Because that one alone, who is the Self of all jīvas, has emerged, he alone shines. Although he is able to see even himself, yet due to previous tendencies he has emerged outward-facing. Thus perceiving only objects different from himself, in their absence he considered even himself as non-existent. Iva means half-existence. The portion of the Self exists, the portion of objects does not - thus when the limiting adjuncts are absent, their properties are absent. Therefore the seer considered himself to be a non-seer. If it is asked - since objects existed previously, and due to their similarity they have dissolved, why did objects not manifest along with his own manifestation? To this he replies - supta-śaktir iti. Whose powers are dormant. Those which awaken the world have not yet arisen. Then the power of knowledge would also be absent, so how did he consider himself non-existent? To this he replies - anuprag iti. Lost. His power of knowledge was not lost even previously, did not undergo dissolution, but remained like the Self itself. It means it manifested along with the Self's manifestation. When he considered himself as if non-existent. || 24 ||
These very notions of the Self's non-existence, when unified, became māyā - he states this in sā vā etasya iti. When he knew himself otherwise, this indeed is māyā. That previously mentioned well-known delusive power which has the nature of existence and non-existence. Whose nature is the Self that is existent and non-existent. By nature existent, but non-existent due to accepting otherwise - the Self is of this nature. This very Self is her property. Or she derives her nature from the Self alone. Or her nature consists of the triad. He states her nature as a property - etasya saṃdraṣṭuḥ śaktir iti. Of this jīva who is the true seer. It means he sees the Self itself through perception. Śakti means capability for future effects. Her name is māyā. The word māyā is formed either by not eliding the pratyaya in mayā saha vartate, or it is an indeclinable in the form of a subanta; then the aṇ suffix is added, there is lengthening of similar vowels, and no feminine suffix. Mahābhāge is a vocative. It indicates that this meaning is difficult to know, and great fortune is needed to know it. yayedaṃ nirmame vibhur iti. Just as he created this world by māyā which is of the nature of consciousness, whose essence is not extracted. To exclude the notion of doership of one who has the nature of existence, he says vibhuḥ. Since the world is for the sake of jīvas, it is created by the Lord alone through his māyā. Vibhuḥ indicates he created the world by some means. || 25 ||
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Now in atha te etc. The final question etc. In "sa viśvajanma" etc., regarding the question of the Lord's creation, even though the world's birth etc. is possible through powers like time, why did he himself do those - this doubt and its resolution by stating their purpose as līlā (divine play) is expressed. It means absence of all faults. In "karoti karmāṇi" etc., regarding the Lord's incarnation activities, doubts like "for what purpose" etc. and faults like futility etc. were raised - their absence is stated. For being the Supreme Person and for līlā. If he only performed līlā, then due to everything being of one form without gradations, his status as Supreme Person would not be established. So it is for that purpose. They state the purpose of describing it as associated with yogamāyā - upāyena etc. After the liberation of all, if only the shelter of līlā remains, even the status of Supreme Person would be adventitious. To prevent that, that māyā is only for the purpose of yoga as a means. Thus līlā connected to the Lord through it never departs from the Lord, so his status as Supreme Person is eternal. Controlling all means controlling the liberated, seekers of liberation and devotees. They state another purpose of describing the sequence - tāsām etc. || 22 ||
In bhagavān etc. Evam prakāreṇa bhavatīti means he exists in all forms by himself alone, like a snake coiled up. Iti bhagavattvam iti. By this, the mode of dissolution described in "sa yathā saindhavakhilya udake prāsta" etc., which was heard as the perception of non-difference upon entering, and what is stated by Rāmānujācārya as merely viśiṣṭādvaita based on the shadow of the śruti "yatra tamaḥ pare deva ekībhavati", is indicated to be based on this līlā. Ucyata iti. It is stated as question and answer because it is atipauruṣāṇi. To the doubt of why pure līlā's agency is not stated separately, they describe its mode - svayam etc. Thus since there is no effort there, it is not stated separately. Anyathā kāṭhinyam iti. There would be effort in separating if not dissolved in consciousness. They state the indicator of dissolution in consciousness itself - svayam etc. Amukta etc. Thus even if dissolution of what is dependent on the jīva is accepted, since that would lead to liberation of the jīva if separated from it, what depends on it dissolves in consciousness itself. Thus the conclusion is that what belongs to liberated jīvas, if remaining, dissolves in consciousness. Anugatir iti means following there. Though the word ātmā is present in the first half, they state the purpose of what is said in the latter half - tad etc. Proper dissolution is not possible if there are various notions, so disliking that, looking subtly they state another way of that being so - athavā etc. Tena iti. By stating the reason for following the Self's will in being the Self. Tathā iti means manifesting in one part. || 23 ||
In sa vā etc. Tirobhāvaprakāreṇa iti means in the way stated in the sūtra on supreme meditation. To the doubt of why it does not exist, they say - aupādhika etc. Of things whose properties are based on limiting adjuncts, in their absence those properties are absent, so it does not exist. || 24 ||
In sā vā etc. Since nothing other than the Lord existed in the world's previous state, what power could be referred to as "she" awakening separately - to this expectation, stating its established nature there, they introduce the verse - etāni etc. In yad ātmānam, the word division is yat ātmānam. Pūrvokta means previously stated as the power of consciousness in the Second Canto. They state - ayam etc. To convey that it is non-existence in relation to existence, they say - tasyā vā etc. Thus the meaning is of the nature of darkness. They state an alternative view of it being the aggregate of the Self, non-existence and knowledge - tritaya etc. In the word māyā, initial vṛddhi should be understood after the aṇ suffix. Bhāvarūpā means of the nature of intention or property. Jagat kṛtavān iti means he created the empirical world different from the previous one. || 25 ||
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
Not only are you great due to being Vyāsa's son or Yama, but also as a recipient of the Lord's grace - he says this in Bhagavān etc. You are always pleasing to the Lord who is accompanied by his followers. To the question why, he says - yasya iti. The Lord, while going to Vaikuṇṭha, instructed me for imparting knowledge to you. This would not happen without supreme affection - this is the idea. || 21 ||
Thus having welcomed his question, he promises to describe the Lord's līlā that was asked about. Atha means in another sense. Yogamāyā is the inconceivable power. Upabṛṃhitāḥ means enhanced by that. Viśvasya sthitiḥ is maintenance, udbhavaḥ is creation, antaḥ is dissolution. Arthaḥ means nature. Sthityādayaḥ means those whose nature is maintenance etc. I will describe to you the Lord's līlās in sequence, in the order of creation etc. - this is the connection. || 22 ||
Having thus made the listener attentive by the promise, to describe the world's creation he states its previous state - Bhagavān eka iti. This visible world of names and forms, before creation, was one, therefore not perceived by various notions like seer, seen etc. The Lord alone existed as not having various notions. To the doubt of how he alone existed when jīvas are beginningless, he says they were merged in him - ātmātmanām iti. He was the Self of the selves, i.e. the jīvas. To the question of how this is so, he indicates it is because jīvas are his parts - vibhur iti. To the doubt of what is the reason for this oneness, he says it was his will - ātmeccheti. When his will to remain alone continued. To the doubt that since scripture says "In the beginning this was the Self alone", how can it be said of the Lord, he says that is just another name for him - ātmeti. || 23 ||
There he first describes the origin of māyā - sa vā iti. Vā is for emphasis. That very Lord, though a seer then, did not see any object. He states the reason - ekarāḍ iti. Because he alone shone then, as there was no other thing. So in the absence of objects, due to absence of seeing, he considered even his existent self as if non-existent. Suggesting the reason for absence of objects, he qualifies - suptaśaktir iti. Whose powers like māyā etc. were dormant, i.e. dissolved. So due to dissolution of the power-like cause, its effect of objects was also dissolved - this is the idea. Then to prevent even the notion of non-existence, he says - asuptadṛg iti. Whose power of consciousness was not dormant, i.e. not dissolved. || 24 ||
Sā vai means that very power of the seer to perceive objects, which has the nature of existence and non-existence, i.e. effect and cause, is this seer's power called māyā, by which power the all-pervading Lord created this world - this is the connection. Indicating that crossing this is impossible without great fortune, he addresses - mahābhāge iti. || 25 ||
Hindī Anuvāda
You are always extremely dear to Sri Bhagavan (the Supreme Lord) and His devotees; that is why the Lord, while returning to His abode, has instructed me to impart knowledge to you. || 21 ||
Therefore, I will now sequentially describe the various pastimes of the Lord, which have been expanded through yogamāyā (divine illusion) for the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of the world. || 22 ||
Before the creation of the universe, there was only one complete Paramātman (Supreme Soul), the Soul of all souls - there was neither a seer nor the seen! The multiplicity that appears during the time of creation due to various mental states was also Him; because His desire was to remain alone. || 23 ||
He Himself became the seer and began to see, but He could not see anything visible; because at that time, He alone was shining in His unparalleled form. In such a state, He began to consider Himself as non-existent. In reality, He was not non-existent, because only His powers were dormant. His knowledge was not lost. || 24 ||
This power that investigates the seer and the seen is the māyā (illusion) in the form of cause and effect. O great fortunate Vidura ji! It is through this indescribable māyā, which is both existent and non-existent, that the Lord has created this universe. || 25 ||
SB 3.5.21-25
