Text 36: In spite of my inability, whatever I have been able to hear [from the spiritual master] and whatever I could assimilate I am now describing in glorification of the Lord by pure speech, for otherwise my power of speaking would remain unchaste.
Text 37: The highest perfectional gain of humanity is to engage in discussions of the activities and glories of the Pious Actor. Such activities are so nicely arranged in writing by the greatly learned sages that the actual purpose of the ear is served just by being near them.
Text 38: O my son, the original poet, Brahmā, after mature meditation for one thousand celestial years, could know only that the glories of the Supreme Soul are inconceivable.
Text 39: The wonderful potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is bewildering even to the jugglers. That potency is unknown even to the self-sufficient Lord, so it is certainly unknown to others.
Text 40: Words, mind and ego, with their respective controlling demigods, have failed to achieve success in knowing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, we simply have to offer our respectful obeisances unto Him as a matter of sanity.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
O Vidura! Even so, I will glorify Hari's fame. As heard from the guru's mouth, but not completely, rather according to my understanding. To purify my impure speech by describing topics other than Hari. [36]
They say there is definite gain even in hearing or glorifying without full knowledge. When the ear is engaged in hearing, there is contact with the divine presence. [37]
The greatness of Hari cannot be fully comprehended even by Brahmā, the first poet, with his mind perfected by yoga, even after thousands of years - this is said with wonder. [38]
Since even Hari himself does not know the full extent of his own māyā (māyā) power. [39]
Therefore, due to being difficult to know, one simply offers obeisance. Even speech and mind, along with Rudra who presides over ego, these deities presiding over the senses, and others, having failed to reach him, turn back. [40]
Thus ends the sixth chapter in Śrīdhara's Bhāvārthadīpikā commentary on the Third Canto of the great Purāṇa, the Bhāgavata.
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Although Hari's glory is indescribable, it is still as follows. Even that which is heard from the guru's mouth. Completely and fully. The objects other than Hari's manifestation, such as body and home, their description. || 36 ||
Somehow even chanting Hari's glories etc. produces auspicious results, he says. Without knowing, unfailingly, sushlokas (with good verses) are punyashlokas (verses producing merit), of their crest jewel Shri Hari. By the learned, with this it is meant that only those who understand the correct meaning of words and objects should listen to the stories, not others. For an ignorant person, being unable to explain the meaning as heard, becomes a destroyer of scripture, therefore even scripture fears him. As it is said in the Mahabharata: "The Veda fears an unlearned person, thinking 'he will strike me'." The Puranas and Itihasas are also considered Vedas, as it is said: "The Itihasas and Puranas are called the fifth Veda." Therefore, "A wise man should listen to the Puranas along with the angas (limbs) and upangas (sub-limbs) of the shrutis (Vedas). He should not destroy scripture out of affection. By this he becomes Brahma. A brahmin who knows all philosophies, is of pure lineage, intelligent, has studied scriptures from a brahmin, follows proper conduct, is dear to Krishna, has a pleasing form, speaks kindly, knows music, is a householder, is complete in all aspects, skillful, free from anger and greed, etc. - such a person should be chosen as the speaker of Itihasas and Puranas after careful consideration. He should be a teacher, a poet, born in a pure place. One who knows many word sciences pleases Hari. Listening to those with defects certainly causes harm in every way. One should especially listen to the Bhagavata Purana from a Vaishnava. A Vaishnava is said to be of two types - external and internal. The external has conch, disc, etc. while the internal is free from attachments. Vi means Vishnu, and one who always goes to him is called vitaraga. Vi primarily refers to Garuda, so one who always goes by him is called vita. There is no doubt about this meaning of the root vi with the prefix a meaning 'to go'." This is according to the Varatantava. With this intention, experts have said: "Even if you don't study much, still study grammar, my son. May your own people not become dogs, making everything broken and feces at once." Enough of this contextual and non-contextual discussion. || 37 ||
To prevent insistence on knowledge, he says: And not. By rhetorical expression, by statements establishing the stated meaning. As said in the Sahityarnava: "A statement establishing the stated meaning by negation and restatement is called rhetorical expression." || 38 ||
Others like Brahma etc. The self is the Supreme Lord. || 39 ||
Because from the Supreme Lord, others like Kubera etc. || 40 ||
Thus ends the sixth chapter of the third skandha in the Bhavarthadipika commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam.
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
Even though unable to describe fully, speech means the organ of speech. [36]
Kaivalya means the bliss of liberation or pure devotion. [37]
"Of the Self" etc. is said with wonder through change in voice tone. [38-40]
Thus ends the sixth chapter of the Third Canto in Rādhāramaṇadāsa's Dīpinī commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Now, if someone is unable to describe, how are you describing it? To this, he says "athāpi" (but still). Even though no one is able to describe completely, I will narrate the glory of Hari as heard from the guru's mouth, not transgressing it, and also according to my intellect, not exceeding the limits of my understanding. O Vidura! I will narrate, not that I have promised to describe completely - this is the intention. Then what is the purpose of describing partially? To this he says - to purify one's own speech which is impure due to describing objects other than Hari. 36
He elaborates on this in "ekāṃta-lābham" (sole gain). The wise who know the śruti, smṛti, itihāsa and purāṇa say that describing the qualities of the Supreme Lord, who is the foremost among the praiseworthy, is the sole gain for human speech. It is the sole gain for the ears in the vicinity of the nectar of stories described by the learned. 37
Not only is the glory of the Lord difficult to know completely by us, but also by Brahmā and others with superior knowledge, he says in "ātmana" (of the self). O child Vidura! Even the primeval poet four-faced Brahmā could not know the full extent of the Lord's glory with his intellect ripened by yoga after many years, thinking "Is this all?". Or it means he understood it as limitless. 38
Not only the primeval poet, but even the Lord himself knows it as such, he says in "aho" (ah!). The Lord's māyā (illusion), which is amazing even to those with amazing powers, ah! Since the Self, who is the source of the Veda which is the means to attain the Self, does not know its extent, what to speak of others like Brahmā? 39
Now, shouldn't the seers and gods who can perceive supersensible objects through speech and mind know it? If it is unknowable to all, it would lead to it being unworshippable, to this he says "vāco" (speech). The speech means Vedic statements, the mind means the mind purified by yoga. The seers like us who can perceive supersensible objects with these, and gods like Brahmā and Rudra, not attaining, not comprehending fully the glory of the Lord from which they returned, to that Lord, salutations. Speech, mind etc. do not know fully, but they know his glory as limitless. There is no issue of it being unworshippable, as worship is possible of his form, qualities and powers as limitless. Hence the Lord's omniscience is not negated by not knowing his own nature etc. fully, as knowledge of limitlessness itself establishes omniscience. Knowing the true nature of an object as it is known leads to omniscience, not knowing the limited as unlimited or the unlimited as limited. Hence the statements "He who thinks he knows, knows not; he who thinks he knows not, knows" and "From where speech returns, along with the mind, not attaining" can be reconciled as referring to the limited and unlimited aspects respectively. 40
Thus ends the 6th chapter of the Bhāgavatacandracandrikā commentary on the third skandha of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa by Śrī Vīrarāghavācārya.
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Even though I am unable to describe the greatness of the Lord due to its infinity, I will still speak for my own purpose, says "athāpi". Although I cannot fully express it due to its limitlessness, I will purify my speech which refers to nothing other than Hari, by avoiding talk of other topics. || 36 ||
This is the supreme gain for the speech organs, says "ekāntalābha". The wise say that glorifying the qualities of Hari, the crest jewel of the praiseworthy, is the ultimate achievement for a person's faculty of speech, bringing unfailing spiritual benefit. For the ears, attentively listening to the nectar of stories explained by scholars is the supreme gain. The word "uta" implies including other senses like eyes. Scriptures and smṛtis (smṛti) also support this, saying "Even an outcaste is liberated by hearing His name once, as the ancient sages knew." || 37 ||
One may ask, since the primordial poet has completed describing Hari's greatness, how can it not be fully expressed? To this he responds with "ātmanaḥ". The self-born poet Brahmā, after a thousand celestial years of yoga practice with inner discipline, comprehended through his mature intellect capable of grasping all scriptures, the greatness of the Supreme Self. Yet the Lord's illusory potency bewilders even the wise knowers of māyā (māyā). || 38 ||
Anticipating the doubt "How can it bewilder if Brahmā knew it?", implying complete knowledge is difficult even for him, he says "yad". Even Brahmā, the teacher of self-knowledge, does not fully know the Lord's māyā (māyā) in all aspects. What to speak of others like us not knowing, when even Brahmā doesn't know completely. As the smṛti (smṛti) says "Māyā (Māyā) refers to greatness and abundance. Brahma is called Ātmā due to excellence, Rudra due to inferiority. Yet neither knows Hari fully." || 39 ||
Expressing this is not surprising, he says "yataḥ". The presiding goddesses of infinite Vedas and Lakṣmīs, from beginningless time, contemplate His qualities mentally and continuously describe them verbally, yet cannot reach the end of narrating His qualities. They do not desist, knowing He has infinite qualities, but engage more in describing His familiar qualities. I (Rudra), Garuḍa, Śeṣa and other gods presiding over ego and senses like Indra do not know His māyā (māyā). Therefore, salutations to that Lord. The plural "vācaḥ" fits with Lakṣmī's infinite forms. As stated "Where Lakṣmī in many forms worships Urugāya's feet with her glories." The word "ahaṃ" refers to ego, not Maitreya. As said "The word ahaṃ refers to these two who do not know supreme Hari." || 40 ||
Thus ends the sixth chapter of Śrī Vijayaḍhvaja Tīrtha's Padaratnāvalī commentary on the third canto of the great Purāṇa Śrīmad Bhāgavata. || 6 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Such speech glorifying the cosmic creation etc. refers to the speech organ. || 36 ||
"Ekānta" implies surpassing even the bliss of liberation. || 37 ||
"Ātmanaḥ" etc. means the Supreme Self's greatness in the form of inconceivable powers etc. was comprehended only as inconceivable potency through mature intellect after a thousand celestial years of yoga. || 38 ||
Therefore, for those who try to comprehend it as conceivable, the Lord's māyā (māyā) which bewilders even the deluders becomes deluding. Thus "Therefore that māyā (māyā) bewilders even the deluders" is connected. Some read "bhāgavatī" instead of "bhagavataḥ". He shows the inconceivability with "yad" etc. Since even he himself does not know his own essential power and glory completely due to its infinity, therefore only salutations to Him - this is the meaning. || 39 ||
He further qualifies Him with "yataḥ". Some read "nivarttante". || 40 ||
Thus ends the sixth chapter of Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī's Kramasandarbha on the third canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa. || 6 ||
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
As heard from the mouth of the guru, and according to one's own understanding, as much as was grasped, only that much, not everything that was heard, is the meaning. Other speech, excluding Hari, by that impure speech of one's own, to purify and make sacred. || 36 ||
Due to the boundlessness of the ocean of nectar of Hari's stories, no one can know it completely. Therefore, even with some knowledge, by glorifying and hearing about Him, people become fulfilled and attain Him. It is said that praising His qualities alone is considered the essence, everything else is just an expansion of words. When the ear is engaged in listening, it is offering itself in His presence. || 37 ||
One should not insist on excessive knowledge, as even Brahma finds it difficult to know Him fully. It is said: Even after thousands of years, has the primeval poet Brahma fully understood the greatness of the Self, of Hari? This is said rhetorically, meaning it is not known. Or, dropping the 'a' in 'avetya', it means 'not known here'. Or, even after thousands of years, the greatness known is inconceivable, infinite, and difficult to know - this itself is the knowledge of the Lord's greatness, that this much is known in this way. As the śruti says: "He whose opinion is not an opinion, his opinion is known; he who thinks he knows, knows not." || 38 ||
Many philosophers are seen who know the truth of the self and teach others. To this it is said: For this reason, their māyā (illusion) to those who are to be taught, their own disciples, offering only illusion, is certainly deluding, causing them to fall into repeated births. Since the Self, the Supreme Lord Himself, does not know His own nature, what to speak of other poor souls knowing? || 39 ||
Thus establishing the difficulty of knowing Him, he offers salutations: Without reaching the end, from where words along with the mind return, unable to fully grasp the sweetness of His name, form, and activities, which are limitless. The śruti also declares: "From where words return, not reaching, along with the mind." Here, the ablative case indicates the connection of speech and mind, and the return is due to the inability to measure the infinite. The self's inaccessibility to speech, etc. should not be explained in all ways, as it would contradict śruti statements like "I alone am to be known by all the Vedas" and "That immeasurable, constant, supreme abode of Viṣṇu, the wise always see." || 40 ||
Thus ends the sixth chapter of the third skandha in the Sārārthadarśinī, which delights the hearts of devotees, connected with the association of the good. || 6 ||
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Even so, as heard, and according to understanding, I glorify Hari's fame, O Vidura! There, he states his own purpose with 'sva'. By other speech, meaning the speech of foolish people, to purify one's own impure speech, to make it virtuous. || 36 ||
They say that for people, the sole, unwavering gain of speech is indeed praising His qualities. When the ear is engaged, the story itself is nectar, joined to it by easy receptivity. From the use of 'ca', it should be understood that the eyes, etc. are also engaged in seeing His form, etc. || 37 ||
If it is said that the Lord's fame is difficult to know, then the Lord Himself is even more difficult to know, leading to the problem of no liberation. To this, it is said that the Lord can be known through spiritual practice: The greatness of the Self, the Supreme Self, is known by the poet through perfected yoga meditation. || 38 ||
Even the Lord's son knew after a long time of meditation, before that he did not know. What is the reason for this? To this it is said: Because the Lord's māyā deludes even those with wondrous powers like Brahma. Therefore, even the Self, the Lord's son, does not know the Lord's path without meditation. What to speak of others knowing? All living beings, though parts of the Lord, do not know Him due to being deluded by His māyā. But they can know Him through perfection in spiritual practice. This is the conclusion. || 39 ||
Having thus established the Lord as an object of knowledge, he now offers salutations, stating that the Lord is beyond speech and mind. || 40 ||
Thus ends the illumination of the meaning of the sixth chapter in the Siddhāntapradīpa of the third skandha of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa. || 6 ||
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
And I am not satisfied with just this, but I continue to describe the infinite qualities (of the Lord). He says this in "adyāpi kīrtayāmi". "Bhaṅge" is a gentle address to avoid deception. "Adyāpi" means from the time I was born until now, even until death, I continue to describe as it is my duty. But due to being a subtle living entity, there is a limitation in me which is "yathāmatī" - according to my intelligence. I speak only as much as I know, not by fabricating. Even in that, only as heard, not transgressing what was heard from the guru. This indicates the repetition of the Lord's qualities. He states the purpose of this: "kīrti hareḥ". There is no ability or means for new hearing, and no purpose; due to infinity and absence of duty. Therefore one should listen only as much as can be described, thus having heard a little I describe just that, which is indicated by the singular form. By "hareḥ" alone the Lord will remove suffering. But there is a purpose in repeated glorification - to purify one's speech. By describing other objects literally, this speech of ours has become impure. We have been created by the Lord for His own purpose, and He has offered speech for His service. He is the master of speech. He Himself is the inspirer for the Lord's purpose. Thus by myself, or inspired by me, or by describing another, speech has become adulterated. Now I purify it, and purified it should be engaged for the Lord. Thus for purification I describe repeatedly - this is the meaning. By this, whatever means has been given by the Lord for His own purpose, using that elsewhere, for its purification it should be repeatedly used for the Lord. (36)
Having concluded thus, he states the determined fruit of birth for all - "ekāntalābham". Other senses cannot be engaged solely for the Lord's purpose as they are necessarily used for the body. And impure things should not be engaged for the Lord. The hands have constant impure touch, likewise the eyes; similarly other senses must necessarily be engaged elsewhere for bodily maintenance if something is to be preserved for the Lord's purpose - either naturally pure or by purifying. Then two should be preserved - the organ of speech and the ears. These do not have necessary use for the body. Therefore if these obtain their purpose by the Lord's grace, then the Lord's qualities should be spoken and heard. Nothing else should be spoken or heard - this is stated. "Vacaso" means of the organ of speech. "Ekāntalābhaḥ" means that which has only the Lord as its purpose. The gain is completed only by attaining the Lord. What is that gain, to this expectation he says - "suślokamauler guṇavādam". "Suślokaḥ" means verses describing fame in the form of Bhāgavata etc., or the fame described by them, which is on His head. By this it is said that His fame becomes like a crown. If one were to adorn that, as "the head is primary for all measurements", only the primary would be adorned. The glorification of qualities, the description with devotion of the attributes indicating the excellence of such a Lord, is said to be the gain - this is the connection. "Āhuḥ" indicates authority. This gain is not only for speech, but also subsequently or certainly for persons. For its use, even in one's own engagement after the activities of other senses, from one's own engagement in that, through glorification all the senses and oneself become fruitful. This is also the gain for the ear, and by "ca" for the persons following that. When a narration about the Lord is begun by scholars, "upasaṁprayogam" means listening that is near, proper and excellent, i.e. listening to the nectar-like narration, that is the gain of hearing. A special point about the ear is stated - only narration about the Lord should be heard; and that too nectar-like described with love; and that too described only by scholars, otherwise there is possibility of improper description by the ignorant. Since those objects are not actually related to the Lord, in hearing them in a narration about the Lord, it would only be a deviation of the ear. Therefore only what is described by scholars should be heard for hearing objects related to the Lord. Even their description of other purposes should not be heard here due to lack of relevance. Thus he says "upākṛtāyām". Kathā means a connected account, which produces nectar-like juice and removes death. That hearing also should not be from afar. The logic of distant sweetness should not be applied to the Lord's qualities thinking knowledge will come through purification of the mind. And propriety is from culmination in oneself. Excellence means free from forgetfulness. If one listens in this way, then the ear and oneself would be for the Lord's purpose, otherwise it would be useless, either a waste of time or for crows. (37)
Now it may be asked - how is a conclusion made after speaking only a little, or how is one's own purpose determined? To this it is said - the Lord's greatness should be known, then devotion, then union with the Lord. Abandoning this sequence, glorification of qualities is for purification of speech, and hearing and describing for the gain of the senses - how is this stated thus? Anticipating this objection, he says "ātmano'vasito vase". The glory of the Self, of Lord Vāsudeva, even after the primeval poet Brahmā performed austerities and yoga for a thousand years, and at the ripening of that, at the end of a thousand years with intelligence ripened by yoga - what was determined? It was not known at all. If even Brahmā after performing austerities, for a long time, could not know the glory; whose story is to be told further; who else will know? For this purpose alone I will tell that story - this is the sense. Hence it is only gain for the senses. When the Lord's qualities are described, gradually when the entire aggregate comes under control, one can easily serve the Lord directly in Vaikuṇṭha - this is Maitreya's conclusion. Refuting this view, he will later refute as mistaken one who speaks otherwise. By "ātmanaḥ" the difficulty of attaining the object is refuted. Even of one who appears as the Self. "Kim" should be supplied, or intonation assumed. Or it was determined by Brahmā alone. He had three means - first the Lord was manifest as the Self, and he himself was the primeval poet, born from the Veda. By this his authority and object are established. "At the end of a thousand years" etc. is the means. Then the result is appropriate. Even then there was no result - this should be considered. (38)
Let the story of Brahman be as it is, but those who strive to know His greatness, and through that pray for devotion, are merely deluded by the Lord's māyā. Although they speak thus to delude others, the great māyā of the Lord deludes them too, as stated: "Therefore, of the Lord". For this reason, they set out to know His greatness. This is indeed the Lord's māyā, which deludes them into the world and then sets them on the path to liberation, but deludes them again. How do those who set out to know the Lord's greatness become deluded? To this he says: "That which itself". This self, the Lord, does not know his own path, what to speak of others? Whatever he does becomes hidden from him. Just as one who has gone far does not see the entire path he has crossed, for if he did, he would not have gone at all. Even the most skilled person cannot know how to do or understand exactly what he did the previous day. Thus, it is fitting that he does not know the path by which he is presently capable of creation, before creating new infinite universes every moment. Others, inspired by him, situated like mosquitoes in the fig of the universe, do not know even their own movement, how can they know the Lord's? Speculation is not valid proof. Or, how is one who sets out to know the Lord's greatness deluded by the Lord's māyā, otherwise the right path would be futile. Its deluding nature is established elsewhere. If it deluded even when one sets out to know the Lord's greatness, then all proofs would be rendered useless. Anticipating this doubt, and saying that māyā is not at fault, as per the maxim "A person desiring what is beyond his capacity surely falls, there is no doubt", he states the nature of one who sets out to know the greatness: "That which itself". The self, being the individual soul itself, does not know its own path - who was I at the beginning of creation? How have I come this far? Even the all-knowing only know three or four births. To say they will know each other is far-fetched. Knowledge from words is like the maxim of "the blind leading the blind", so it's not entirely reliable. Therefore, our stated path alone is appropriate. In reality, this very meaning was explained earlier as the highest view. Existing ignorance indeed produces non-omniscience. But in the Veda, there are doubtful statements even in the absence of doubt, like "Or if he does not know" and "Who indeed knows that". So, whatever is useful for one's own glorification should be repeated to that extent. (39)
Moreover, it is impossible and dependent. Therefore, one should only bow down, as he says: "Because without reaching". Speech and mind turn back without reaching the Lord, right here. The ego-deity and these other deities presiding over the senses turn back without reaching Him. The speeches here are in the form of Vedas. The mind is their prior form belonging to the Lord. This is also the meaning of the śruti "From where speech returns". Following that is ego. But in the śruti "The Lord knows himself as 'I am'. He became 'I am by name'". Even he, the creator of the world, does not know himself. Or these elements designated by him for the purpose of creating the world, the deities do not know. Therefore, knowledge of His greatness is difficult to obtain, so without striving for that, one should simply bow down to the Lord. He says this: "To that Lord, obeisance". O Hari! O Kṛṣṇa! As you are, to such a one, obeisance, obeisance. O Hari! O Kṛṣṇa! As I am, protect me indeed as such. (40)
Thus ends the explanation of the sixth chapter of the third skandha in the Śrībhāgavatasubodhini composed by Śrīvallabhadīkṣita, son of Śrīlakṣmaṇa Bhaṭṭa.
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Now, regarding "athāpi". "Due to infinity" means that even a single quality is unbounded. This is the reason for the inability to hear anew. "Due to absence of one's duty" means that listening from the guru's mouth is one's duty, and that cannot be done due to the mind's smallness, as determining the intention of power is the meaning of listening. Thus, the absence of mind itself is the absence of duty, and that is the reason for the absence of means. They say this: "Therefore" etc. "With singular" refers to "kīrtim". They state the reason for absence of purpose: "Of Hari" etc. || 36 ||
Regarding "ekāntalābham". "The rule of Dravidian pancake" means that in the Dravida region, due to absence of wheat, there are no pancakes, so the locals don't know how to eat or make them. A Dravidian who came from the central region, when asked "How are pancakes eaten?", was mocked by someone. Turning his hand between his feet and back, then facing backwards (?), he said "This is how they are eaten". Thus, this rule indicates a futile procedure. || 37 ||
Regarding "ātmana". "Attainment of senses" means the senses become divine by ceasing their deviation caused by other activities. Disliking even the imaginary tone, they state an alternative view: "Or" etc. || 38 ||
Regarding "ata". "To know" means to know "this much". They state the reason for the Lord not knowing His own path: "For He" etc. This is explained here based on the word "path". In the second canto, in "like the sky's own end", absence of knowledge is stated due to being internal. So here too, the infinity of the path itself is the reason for absence of knowledge, meaning the dullness of the power of knowledge. This is stated by "if so, He would not have gone". Here they also state the infinity of types as a reason: "Extremely skilled". Disliking this view as seeming like a poetic fancy, they say it's like the blind leading the blind rule. It's similar to that due to being indirect knowledge. "Proper" means an alternative view focusing on the dullness of the soul's knowledge: "Or" etc. This is proper. To support this they say: "In reality" etc. "According to others' view" means based on others' view. If knowledge in words were similar to that, it would be a great impropriety, addressing this concern they say: "But in the Veda" etc. Here the first śruti is from the Bahvṛca hymn on existence, the second is from the eighth chapter of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā. There, after prescribing "He makes heavenly abodes", it's said "Who indeed knows whether that exists in that world or not" to praise direct perception. Just as there the non-existence of heaven is not intended, but praising direct perception, so in the śruti on the fruit of existence, the creator's ignorance is not intended, but others' ignorance of it. Thus there's no impropriety as the intent is that others should not make effort to know its extent due to the difficulty of knowledge. || 39 ||
Regarding "yata". "That too" etc. means that knowledge too is impossible as it depends on a guru. "Without attaining" means without thoroughly knowing "this much is this". "This itself is the meaning" means non-attainment of extent is the meaning. Since ego is not mentioned there, how can this determine that meaning, to address this they say "But he who" etc. "Does not know" means does not know "I am this much". Thus, since observation is mentioned elsewhere, there might be doubt about knowledge, so this is said to remove that. Therefore, even there, only the non-difference of all from the self is intended, not the extent of one's nature. || 40 ||
Thus ends the explanation of the sixth chapter in the Subodhinīprakāśa on the third canto, composed by Śrī Gosvāmī Puruṣottamacaraṇajī Mahārāja.
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
Even if one cannot describe completely, then what is the use of describing half? Considering this doubt, he says - athāpi. Although unable to describe completely, I do not glorify Hari's fame as heard from the guru's mouth without understanding, but according to my intellect, in order to purify my speech which has become impure by describing others besides Hari. There is no deception here, indicating the subject of affection for the body parts, he addresses - "O aṅga" (O dear one). || 36 ||
Since glorification, hearing etc. of the Lord's fame removes all faults, therefore the sages say that narrating the virtues of the Supreme Lord, who is the foremost among the blessed and famous like Bali, is the ultimate gain for men's speech organ. Similarly, they say that hearing the nectar of His stories described by the learned is the ultimate gain for the ear organ. The word "ekānta" (exclusive) is used to negate other insignificant worldly gains. The word "nu" indicates this is certain, there should be no doubt about it. || 37 ||
Not only is the Lord's glory incomprehensible to us, but also to Brahmā and other knowledgeable ones, thus he says - ātmana iti. Indicating affection, he addresses Vidura as "vatsa" (child). Even the first-born, poet, subtle-sighted Brahmā himself, after practicing austerities, meditation etc. for a thousand years, with his intellect purified and capable of grasping subtle things through that yoga - was he able to fully comprehend the glory of the all-pervading Lord? The meaning is he was not able to know it completely. || 38 ||
Since even Brahmā cannot comprehend it, therefore the Lord's māyā (illusory power) bewilders even the greatest magicians. He states the a fortiori argument - yad iti. Since the Self, the Supreme Self, does not know the extent of His own māyā, what to speak of others like Brahmā not knowing it? One should not doubt that this negates the Lord's omniscience, as His omniscience is established by knowing things as they are. Knowing a limited thing as limited or an unlimited thing as unlimited alone constitutes omniscience, not the reverse which would be erroneous. Thus the śruti statement "He whose opinion is not known, his opinion is known; he who thinks he knows, does not know; it is unknown to those who think they know, and known to those who think they do not know" is also reconciled. || 39 ||
Thus stating the reason for His incomprehensibility as being beyond speech and mind, and citing the śruti "From where speech returns along with the mind, unable to attain Him", indicating that since knowledge is extremely difficult to attain in all ways, one should give up that insistence and engage in devotional practices like hearing and praising to attain the Lord's grace, he himself offers obeisance - yata iti. The meaning is: I offer obeisance to that Lord, failing to attain whom completely, i.e. without fully knowing His essential nature, qualities, glories etc., speech along with mind purified through yoga return, as do the Vedic hymns, we and other seers who can perceive supersensuous objects, as well as these others like Brahmā and Rudra who are the presiding deities of the senses. || 40 ||
Thus ends the commentary called Bālaprabodhinī on Śrīmad Bhāgavata composed by Śrīgiridhara, son of Gopāla of Śrī Vallabhācārya's lineage, servant of the feet of Śrī Mukundarāya, for attaining the bliss of devotion. In this third canto describing creation, the sixth chapter explaining the universal form has also been elucidated. || 1-3 ||
Hindī Anuvāda
However, dear Viduraji! To purify my speech, which has been defiled by other worldly discussions, I describe the glorious fame of Sri Hari to the best of my understanding and as I have heard from the mouth of my guru. ॥ 36 ॥
It is the opinion of great men that singing the virtues of Sri Hari, the crest jewel of the virtuous, is the greatest benefit of human speech, and drinking the nectar of God's stories from the mouths of the learned is the greatest benefit of their ears. ॥ 37 ॥
My child! Not just us, even the primordial poet Sri Brahmaji contemplated with his yoga-perfected intellect for one thousand divine years; yet could he fathom the limitless glory of the Lord? ॥ 38 ॥
Therefore, the Lord's māyā (illusion) is capable of deluding even the greatest illusionists. Its bewildering ways are infinite; hence even the Lord Himself cannot fathom it, let alone others. ॥ 39 ॥
We bow to that Sri Bhagavan, whom speech along with the mind returns without reaching, and whose limits even Rudra, proud of his ego, and other presiding deities of the senses are unable to cross. ॥ 40 ॥
End of the Sixth Chapter
SB 3.6.31-40
