Text 1: Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: O King, while Maitreya, the great sage, was thus speaking, Vidura, the learned son of Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, expressed a request in a pleasing manner by asking this question.
Text 2: Śrī Vidura said: O great brāhmaṇa, since the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the complete spiritual whole and is unchangeable, how is He connected with the material modes of nature and their activities? If this is His pastime, how do the activities of the unchangeable take place and exhibit qualities without the modes of nature?
Text 3: Boys are enthusiastic to play with other boys or with various diversions because they are encouraged by desire. But there is no possibility of such desire for the Lord because He is self-satisfied and detached from everything at all times.
Text 4: By His self-sheltered potency of the three modes of material nature, the Lord has caused the creation of this universe. By her He maintains the creation and conversely dissolves it, again and again.
Text 5: The pure soul is pure consciousness and is never out of consciousness, either due to circumstances, time, situations, dreams or other causes. How then does he become engaged in nescience?
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
In the seventh, cutting through doubt, having acknowledged the sage's words, various questions were again properly raised by the kṣatriya. [1]
"Now those divine pastimes of the Lord, enhanced by yogamāyā (divine illusion)" - thus saying that the Lord playfully performs creation etc. through the qualities of māyā, as if pleasing with a prayer-like request, due to not understanding the intention, by way of objection. [1]
Om. How can there be action for the unchanging and qualities for the qualityless? This statement about līlā (divine play) removes the absence of purpose, not the contradiction in reality - this is the meaning. [2]
He says that even play like a child's is not fitting due to dissimilarity. Udyama (effort) means that which impels or motivates. A child has desire as the cause of engaging in play, but from elsewhere the desire to play arises through other objects or by other children's motivating. But for the self-satisfied Lord, how can there be desire? And for one always detached from everything else, how can he desire to play with something else? This is the meaning. [3]
As for what was said: "The Lord of universal creators, remembering, born from the navel..." etc. - that the Lord performs creation etc. for the sake of the jīva's enjoyment, who has ignorance as a limiting adjunct - he restates this in order to object to it as well. He created, it says. He created through māyā (illusion), which produces delusion of doership, enjoyership etc. for the self, the jīva, which is made of the guṇas. As stated in the First Canto: "By which the jīva, deluded, considers itself made of the three guṇas, though transcendent, and accepts the results of its actions." And here: "Therefore the Lord's māyā deludes even the māyins (magicians)." He establishes, maintains, and will reabsorb - will make disappear in reverse order. In another reading: will support within himself in reverse order. [4]
This applies if the jīva is the locus of ignorance, but that is not possible, he says. Spatially, he says. How can that self, the jīva, whose awareness is undiminished by space etc., being of the nature of Brahman, be connected with avidyā (ignorance), which is unborn? There is no diminishment spatially, like the light of a lamp, because it is all-pervading. Not temporally, like knowledge, because it is eternal. Not in states, like memory, because it is unchanging. Not intrinsically, like a dream, because it is true. Not from anything else, like a pot, because it is non-dual. Thus, how can that whose awareness is not diminished by these be connected with the unborn? And the unborn here means avidyā itself, not māyā, as there is no contradiction with awareness for the latter. [5]
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Saṃśayacchedī - cutting through doubt, with ṇini affix in past tense. [1]
This is the meaning, he says. Even if there is some connection with action and qualities in play, being qualityless and changeless, connection with qualities and action is never possible, like darkness and light - this is the purport. In reality, even in play one does not put one's foot on thorns, but rather withdraws from them, so this should be understood as like a child. [2]
He says on this point, "Like a child," he says. This is the meaning: Because of śruti statements like "One whose desires are fulfilled, whose desire is truth" etc., there is no desire. And because of śruti statements like "Brahman is one without a second" and "This puruṣa is unattached," being unattached and non-dual, and always without any other object, play is not consistent - this is the meaning. [3]
To state another objection, he says "And what..." etc. That māyā deludes the jīva. And here in this Canto, in the previous chapter, in another reading: "By that he establishes this, will reabsorb in himself." [4]
This refers to creation of the universe etc. That being the locus of ignorance. There, in the figure of speech. Indeed the light of a lamp exists in some places and not in others, lightning exists sometimes and not other times, memory exists in some states and not in others. Thus in dreams etc., with respect to pots etc., there is something else like the blow of a hammer etc. He clarifies there is no contradiction - the means of knowledge like scriptures and gurus are accomplished by māyā alone, as without that they are not possible. Or, if māyā is accepted as opposed to knowledge, according to the śruti "The great Lord is the wielder of māyā," that will not be established for the Lord qualified by that also - this is the meaning. [5]
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
"Udīritāḥ" - "by Śuka" is to be supplied here. "By objection" - by rejection of the conclusion made by Maitreya. [1]
How can there be action, which produces change, for the unchanging - devoid of change in the form of attaining another state; and qualities like sattva etc. for the qualityless - untouched by material qualities? "Removes absence of purpose" - eliminates lack of purpose. Although kings play with balls etc. without purpose, being fulfilled in desires, but full of joy, so too the Lord's play of creation etc. has no purpose. "Hari does not perform creation etc. expecting any purpose, but only from bliss, like the dancing of an intoxicated person" - according to smṛti. And according to the nyāya "But like the world, for the sake of play alone." Thus absence of purpose is established. Still, the statement about play suggests that play itself is the purpose in accepting action and qualities - this is the meaning. He states the implied meaning: It does not remove the contradiction in reality. Like the absence of co-existence of light and darkness, due to the absence of co-existence of being unchanging and qualityless with action and qualities, the contradiction remains as it is - this is the meaning. Thus having stated the contradiction in attributes, he states the contradiction in essential nature by saying "of pure consciousness." If pure consciousness had connection with qualities and the locus of their connection, its nature as pure consciousness would be violated - this is the meaning. He indicates that even in pure consciousness there is godhood, and even in godhood there is that pure nature. Thus if connection with those two is impossible in pure consciousness, in godhood connection with those two trivial things is even more impossible - thus the question is doubled. [2]
Due to dissimilarity - due to children and the Lord being different in having desires vs. being self-satisfied etc. Udyama is explained as "cause of engagement." The word ca is explained in the sense of "also" by repetition of the explanation. [3]
To make into a prima facie view in order to object. In another reading, "will reabsorb." "In reverse order" - in the reverse order of creation. [4]
This refers to performing creation etc. for the jīva's enjoyment. That being the locus of ignorance. The lamp's light etc. are contrasting examples. "From anything else" - from a hammer etc. "Because it is non-dual" - because of the absolute absence of a second thing that could diminish. "Thus" - in the stated manner. "By these" - by space etc. "Here" - in this verse. "Of that" - of māyā. "With awareness" - with a particular modification called knowledge. In the Vaiṣṇava view, "like a dream" should be understood as "like silver in a shell," since in that view dreams are considered real, according to the nyāya "Not like dream etc., due to dissimilarity." [5]
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Thus, after the tattvas from pradhāna to earth were created, presided over by the Supreme Lord who controls prakṛti, puruṣa and time, and after they were made suitable for creation through His entering into them, and after they were described as existing in the collective state through the beginning of the four-faced body, and after the division into individual bodies, senses, etc. was described as performed by the four-faced one who is the Self of the Supreme Self, the narrator says that Vidura, wanting to know the resolution of the doubt about the Lord's connection with defects due to being the material cause of the world, asked some questions, beginning with the first one.
Śuka says: Thus. Vidura, the wise one who sees the truth, the son of Vyāsa son of Dvaipāyana, as if delighting with his own voice, spoke thus to Maitreya who was speaking in this way. (1)
First he objects to the Lord's creatorship and being the material cause in two verses: O brahman Maitreya! How can qualities, which are the effects of qualities like suffering etc., and transformations like action etc., be compatible even as play with the Lord who is full of six excellences, pure consciousness, of the nature of knowledge alone, therefore not subject to change or transformation, and therefore without qualities, free from sattva and other qualities? This is the meaning. The purport is that the Lord's creatorship of creation etc. and transformation into the form of the world should be said to be only play, not due to karma, because of śruti texts like "He is free from sin" etc. This indeed is established in the adhikaraṇa on having a purpose by the sūtra "But like in the world, it is mere play, for perfection." And thus, when creatorship and being the material cause, having play as the sole purpose, are accepted for one who is unchanging and without qualities, unavoidable transformations like action and effects of qualities like birth, old age, death, suffering etc. will result. Therefore, how can He be the cause of the world? By this, a refutation is stated of the conclusion of the adhikaraṇa on having a purpose. For there it is established that for the Lord who has attained all desires, who is without purpose for Himself or others, who is the embodiment of the six full excellences, an activity in the world with the sole purpose of play is justified, like a great king ruling over the seven-continent earth engaging in ball games etc. This example is inappropriate, because the great king does not have full six excellences, has not attained all desires, is subject to sattva and other qualities, and is subject to change, whereas brahman is the opposite, so the mentioned defects would apply. (2)
He says that even another example is not appropriate in "In play": A child's effort in play, the desire that is its cause, and the wish to play with toys or by engaging with other children would exist. But how can there be desire for the Lord who is satisfied by His own experience alone? And how can there be a wish to play for one who is always free from anything other than Himself, independent play equipment, other persons to engage in play, etc.? Therefore the example of a child is inappropriate. This is the purport. (3)
Now, this attribution of defects is inappropriate, that being the material cause implies undergoing transformation and being the locus of suffering etc., because by accepting causality for the embodied prakṛti and puruṣa, qualities and actions belong to prakṛti and puruṣa which are His body. Anticipating this objection, and not knowing "Who is this one?" in the first half, and attributing other defects in "His misfortune" in the second half and in the verse "In terms of place, time" etc., he refutes it beginning with "He created": The Lord created the universe with His own māyā full of qualities like sattva etc. Characterized by that māyā, He properly establishes, i.e. maintains, this universe. Again He will dissolve, i.e. conceal, it in reverse order. The root dhā with api means to conceal. By transforming His māyā consisting of qualities which He controls into mahat etc., He Himself performs creation etc. in the form of the three deities possessing the three qualities. (4)
Therefore, if transformations etc. belong to the controlled māyā and not to Him, he says to that "In terms of place": That Supreme Self who is not specifically of the nature of lost knowledge, like the light of a lamp in terms of place, like lightning in terms of time, like memory in terms of state, like a dream intrinsically, like a soul in terms of other, because His nature as knowledge is not lost through action etc., due to being all-pervading, eternal, unchanging, not experienced through anything else, not limited by time alone, not subject to karma - how is such a one compatible with the unborn māyā? If His nature as knowledge were lost through any place etc., then connection with ignorance would be possible. Since that is absent, how can He be compatible with the unborn? This is the intention of the doubt. (5)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
The meaning is that there is no concealment of greatness or experience of suffering for the unfortunate body, like one's own heart or Devadatta. And Vidura's series of questions on the topics to be explained is described in this chapter. First it states the beginning of Vidura's question in "Thus". With the dear speech of Bharata, the chief prāṇa. (1)
Though it was said by "In the māyā which is the function of time" etc. that though nirguṇa, the Lord creates the world etc. with sattva and other qualities which are the material cause, Vidura raises an objection to that, saying "O brahman": O brahman! How can sattva and other qualities and actions of creating the world etc. caused by them be compatible with the Lord Hari who is pure consciousness increased by qualities like tranquility and self-control, whose body is of the nature of knowledge alone, therefore nirguṇa, free from sattva and other qualities, therefore unchanging, an ocean of qualities like lordship etc.? They cannot be compatible in any way, due to the stated reason. This is the meaning. If it fits for the sake of play while undergoing change, he says to that "Even as play": Indeed no one places their foot on a thorn tip even in play, but rather avoids it from afar. If it fits due to lordship, he says "or" to negate that, because it is censured by śruti texts like "faultless". And since He does this, explain the truth of this - this is the intention of the question. (2)
It does not fit even as play - what is the obstacle to this? He states that in "In play": Since he has incomplete happiness, for whom there is happiness related to play, therefore it does not fit. He states the a fortiori argument for that in "Desire": Even the desire to play as one wishes arises from dissatisfaction with other things. Or it arises together with an equal person. He objects to both of these in "Intrinsically": For one who is immersed in an ocean of bliss cognizable as "enough" by nature, without requiring satisfaction from objects like sound etc., therefore free from dissatisfaction, with thrilled body, dissatisfaction is impossible. And He is existence and the Self, the eternal Self, as per śruti texts like "This was existence alone in the beginning, my dear; this was the Self alone in the beginning, one only, without a second." And because of having no equal, the very desire to play with another person is impossible, what to speak of the impossibility of play. Or "eternally free Self" may be a separate phrase, meaning because of being full of all qualities, there is no occasion for purpose after attaining play. He negates another way with "but". (3)
Indeed, when there is this play of creation etc. by Hari's qualities, this doubt does not exist at all, as the śruti states "He is inactive". To that he says "He created". By his own māyā (and its English translation: illusion), the self-controlled nature, again and again, he created through its rajas form, he establishes through its sattva form, and he will cover and destroy that universe through its tamas form. Thus, due to seeing the connection with qualities and actions, this is my doubt, is the meaning. || 4 ||
He says this doubt is also difficult to remove in "From place etc." From the cause of place etc., he who is of undiminished awareness nature from himself or others, whose knowledge nature is undiminished, that Bhagavān, how is he connected with ajā (and its English translation: unborn), prakṛti (and its English translation: nature)? Logically, connection with quality-form prakṛti is not possible. But it is seen thus, as the śruti says "covered by the insignificant", hence the doubt, is the meaning. From states means from the cause of waking etc. states. || 5 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Thus in the Vākyālaṃkāra || 1 || Now it is said that by his natural māyā-śakti the Supreme Lord performs creation etc. of the universe and the jīva is deluded there, he removes the doubt there through question and answer with "O Brahman" etc. O Brahman! How for Bhagavān who is pure consciousness, by his own essential power, endowed with such opulence etc. of Śrī Vaikuṇṭha etc., therefore nirguṇa (and its English translation: without material qualities), untouched by material qualities, and thus unchanging, for whom infinite actions which are manifestations of such essential power are eternally manifest in various endless ways, since they are eternally established in him, there is no unchangeability as for a performer of actions appearing, thus how are sattva etc. material qualities possible for the unchanging one? Or how could establishing etc. actions caused by contact with them be fitting? And thus, due to contradiction with pure conscious reality, they and those (actions) are not fitting. But in Bhagavān's nature, they would not be fitting even by independent activity, thus he says "Or by play". Here the questioner asks accepting both pure consciousness and Bhagavān nature along with unchangeability and being without material qualities. Thus let his pure conscious nature be Bhagavān nature, we have no doubt about only that, but how is acceptance of other qualities etc. fitting for him? This is the meaning of the sentence. Thus the question is doubled, that in pure consciousness and only Bhagavān nature, insignificant qualities and actions are indeed not possible for him. || 2 ||
"Or how could they be fitting even by play?" He elaborates: "In play". For a child lacking such authority etc. excellence, desire in the form of wish to play becomes the cause for effort in play for another. But for Bhagavān who is satisfied by his own essential opulence, and thus always detached from others, how could that arise from another? || 3 ||
And it should not be denied that he does not have those qualities and actions, as it is well-known, thus he says "He created". By māyā consisting of qualities, manifesting the three guṇas, dependent on the self, he establishes, maintains, will cover, will conceal in reverse order. || 4 ||
He states another objection of how the jīva's delusion by māyā could be possible in "From place etc." He who is of undiminished awareness from place etc., the self, the jīva, how is he connected with ajā, ignorance? There, awareness is not lost due to separation by place or faults of place like visual perception, due to time like lightning, from states like memory, from itself like silver in mother-of-pearl, from others like pot etc. objects, because he is the substratum of unobstructed essential knowledge, is the meaning. || 5 ||
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
In the seventh, other questions of Kṣattā proclaimed
To cut doubts about God and jīva, with desire for devotion.
Thus that power of this seer, consisting of existence and non-existence, called māyā, O fortunate one, by which the all-pervading one created this. But in māyā consisting of qualities, through the course of time, Adhokṣaja, the powerful one, placed his potency through the Puruṣa who is his self - speaking thus, as if pleasing Vidura who was thinking "O Bhāratī, you have indeed lifted me from the well of saṃsāra" with sweet words, meaning he was unable to please Maitreya since Maitreya had suddenly understood the objection in Vidura's mind. || 1 ||
How can sattva and other guṇas (qualities) and actions like creation etc. be [attributed] to cinmātra (pure consciousness)? Here, by using the word cinmātra with the restrictive particle mātra, instead of using words like cidrūpa or cinmaya, it is indicated that there is no trace of non-consciousness in it. And since māyā, which consists of sattva and other guṇas, is described as the power of the Lord in "sa vā etasya", and since it is impossible for the power to be different from its possessor, the guṇas actually belong to Him alone. So how can He who is cinmātra possess the inert qualities like sattva etc., and if He possesses inert qualities like sattva etc., how can He be cinmātra? This is one objection. Similarly, since modification is a property of the guṇas caused by time, and since He is immutable due to being cinmātra, how can He possess actions which manifest change, and if He possesses actions, how can He be immutable? This is the second objection. Even if these guṇas and actions are impossible, they might be possible due to His self-willed play (līlā). To this he says "or by play". Indeed, the contradiction cannot be resolved just by saying "by play". The idea is that if He has such playfulness, it is difficult to avoid [the conclusion of] His possessing qualities. Here, "of the Lord" is the subject, since it was stated earlier "In the beginning, there was only the Lord". And because it is said later "This is the Lord's māyā", [it means] of the Lord who is of what nature? Cinmātra. It should not be said that only the Lord is cinmātra but not His fortune (bhaga), because the fortune is also seen to be both divine and material in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa. As it says: "Knowledge, power, strength, sovereignty, vigor, and splendor in their entirety are denoted by the word bhagavat, without any negative qualities etc." Therefore it is said "There is no distinction between body and soul in the Lord anywhere." Therefore, the six divine qualities denoted by the word bhaga are also cinmātra only, not transformations of sattva and other guṇas. So those who explain that bhagavattva is the essential definition and bhagavattā is the extrinsic definition due to being māyic are simply mistaken. Just as when it is said "This is Indra's māyā" or "Indra becomes a bull through māyā", it would be understood that only Indra's bull-form is created by his own māyā, not his Indra-ness, similarly when it is said "This is the Lord's māyā" or "The Lord becomes the universe through māyā", it is logical that only the Lord's universe-form would be māyic, not His Lordship. || 2 ||
Moreover, even if the contradiction is not resolved by saying "by play", play itself is not possible in the Lord due to lack of motive. He illustrates this with an example in "In play". Udyama means that which strongly propels or motivates. Desire alone is the natural motive for a child's engagement in play. Similarly, there is a desire to play with other children as well. But how can there be desire in the Supreme Lord who is self-satisfied? How can He play with others when there are no other Lords? He addresses this by saying "Of one who is self-satisfied" etc. [It means] one who is free from others, devoid of others. || 3 ||
It should not be denied that He has those qualities and actions, since that is well-known. He says this in "He created". Pratyapidhāsyati means He will conceal in reverse order. || 4 ||
How can the jīva's being deluded by māyā be possible? He raises another objection in "From place". How can that soul (jīva) which has uninterrupted awareness due to being eternally conscious be connected with avidyā which is unborn? How can there be loss of awareness arising from connection with the unborn? That is the meaning. In this regard, [he gives examples:] like a seed sown in a place, like lightning in time, like memory in state, like a dream intrinsically, like a pot etc. from outside - how can one whose awareness cannot be lost due to being of the nature of consciousness be made to have lost awareness by avidyā? That is the meaning. || 5 ||
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
In the seventh, Vidura's objection, its resolution, and Vidura's further questions are described as follows. Now I shall describe in order those divine sports of the Lord, enhanced by yogamāyā (divine illusion), which are the cause of the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the universe. Before creation, the omnipotent Lord alone existed as the Self of all selves. At that time, that sole sovereign seer saw nothing to be seen. He considered himself as if inactive, with his powers dormant but his vision awake. That power of the seer, consisting of sat (existence) and asat (non-existence), is called māyā (illusion), O fortunate one, by which the omnipotent Lord created this universe. Speaking thus, as if pleasing and satisfying Bhāratī, he replied. The word 'as if' indicates that Vidura's many qualities had already pleased him. ॥ 1 ॥
O Brahman! How can qualities such as being the creator of the universe, and actions such as the task of creating the universe, be appropriate for the Lord who is pure consciousness, whose power of knowing is of an unconscious nature, who is the undifferentiated cause of all activity, who is devoid of defective qualities, who is unchanging, who is free from modifications, who is the natural ocean of six qualities, and whose sport is the cause and purpose of everything? ॥ 2 ॥
If one asks what is wrong with that, he says "in play". In a child's play, desire is the cause of activity, motivating and engaging him. There is a wish to play with other children. How can there be desire or wish to play for one who is self-satisfied, fulfilled, always detached from similar and dissimilar things, and devoid of differences of similar and dissimilar kinds? It is not possible in any way. How can your statement that the one Lord alone creates the universe etc. through his sport, as stated in "Now those divine sports of the Lord" etc., be reconciled? This is the objection, as the cause of the inclination to sport is impossible. ॥ 3 ॥
How can your statement "That power of the seer, consisting of sat and asat, is called māyā, O fortunate one, by which the omnipotent Lord created this universe" be reconciled with the theory of Brahman as the cause? He objects to this with two verses beginning with "asrākṣīd". ॥ 4 ॥
How can the Lord, whose knowledge is unobstructed by space etc., whose self-nature is unobscured consciousness, be associated with ajā (unborn) māyā as an assistant in the creation of the universe etc.? This would lead to the undesirable consequence of māyā also being a cause of the world, the Lord's creatorship of the world being dependent on another, and contradiction with the statement "The Lord alone existed before this", which asserts his oneness. The implication is that pradhāna (primordial nature) would be the cause of the world. ॥ 5 ॥
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
The creation of the mind, belonging to Hari's group of senses, is now described. It is explained in two ways: through saṅkalpa (resolve) and vikalpa (deliberation). ॥ 1 ॥
Saṅkalpa is said to be determination, and it is preceded by doubt. Otherwise, it would just be knowledge. For this purpose, the first is twofold. ॥ 2 ॥
Vikalpa is various alternatives; they are formed as questions here. Here, all actions are inquired about to know the Lord's creation. That should be contemplated with the mind, and the mind was also involved in the previous creation. ॥ 3 ॥
Thus, at the end of the previous chapter, in response to the question "Having extracted from flowers", as much as was extracted by one's own intellect was explained. There, from the statement "What the self itself, the self-protecting self, does not know", the extraordinary capability of the Lord is generally not intended here, so with that intention, he asks about two doubtful meanings regarding the individual soul and the Lord. Regarding that, he first asks four doubts about the Lord, and two about the individual soul - O Brahman.
The operations of instruments etc. have been explained by you as being of one kind, and they cannot be said to be beyond the guṇas (guṇa). If they are with qualities, there is a distinction between cause and effect. The address "O Brahman" indicates certainty of knowledge, as "one attains the state of Brahman". It is certain for you, but for the sake of instruction it is asked - this is the solution to the arrogance. The question is about the manner - how.
Of the Lord who is pure consciousness (cinmātra). The word Bhagavat is not etymological, but by convention refers to Brahman. And that being pure consciousness, due to the absence of the nature of special powers of dharma, the absence of the relation between the expressed and the expresser, and due to being indescribable, how can such a one be the creator of the world? Creatorship and other attributes are modified and belong to the changeable. Therefore, although there is no prima facie doubt about the purpose for the unchanging Lord, the seed doubt question is how the quality-less one has qualities and actions. For an effect does not occur without a seed and a purpose. There, the supreme bliss has no purpose in the world. If it is said that He will do it playfully even without a purpose, according to the maxim "But like the world, it is play", it will be said that even play is not possible. Even if there is play, still the Lord is not the seed of the world, due to being distinct. The world is insentient, changeable and of various forms, while the Lord is pure consciousness and unchangeable. Moreover, the world has qualities, the Lord is quality-less; therefore, due to the distinction between cause and effect, the world is not an effect of the Lord. Although from a wish-fulfilling gem, all kinds of effects distinct from it arise, still in the prima facie view, the effect does not arise from the gem alone, otherwise it would always arise. But in the presence of one who desires, as the thought occurs, in the form of a pot or cloth, so those objects imagined by the mind become as if created in the presence of the gem. This is its extraordinary power. But for the Lord, due to the absence of a second presence, the production of an effect is not possible even in this way. He says this - Of pure consciousness. [1]
Thus, having refuted the state of being the seed, he refutes play which has attained the state of being the fruit - In play. Play means the desire for sport, just the action alone apart from an external effect. By that action, no external effect is produced, even if an effect is produced it is not intended; nor does it generate effort in the agent, but in the fully blissful internal organ, by its exuberance some action similar to effect-production arises, like for a king in the world. That is play. Even that is not possible. Although there is no purpose there, there is a cause. And that cause must be stated as established in the world, since play is explained according to worldly reasoning. And that play is well-known in a child. Even for a child, the desire to play is only due to desire, otherwise there would always be a desire to play. Desire too has a cause, otherwise it would always exist. He says this - A child's effort in play is first. And that is first from the child's desire. The sentence construction there is thus - First the child's desire is from impressions, as the scripture says "This person is indeed made of desire". After that, the desire to play arises from something else; taking another child as the instrumental cause, since play is not possible for one alone. In its absence, even if there is desire, the wish to play ceases. Desire here means knowledge of play. Due to play being in the form of a fruit and in the form of a means, desire and effort have the same object. Where there is a difference between means and fruit, as in heaven etc., desire is for heaven, the wish to perform is for the sacrifice. Hence there is no repetition here. After that, there is effort in play, meaning he becomes ready to play. Some say "Effort is indeed a qualification of desire. Effort is that which makes one exert, desire itself makes a person exert, the wish to play arises from something else." That is to be considered. Even such a view is not possible for the Lord. For one who is self-satisfied, desire is not possible. For desire is only for one who is incomplete, otherwise there would be desire even when the fruit is obtained. Due to oneself being in the form of all fruits and due to having been attained, the absence of desire for the satisfied one is established in the world. If desire and satisfaction are of different types, the Lord would be unsatisfied. Then He would act only for His own sake. If such satisfaction is not a fault, there would be limitation of His own bliss. Therefore, desire cannot be logically established, so the scriptural statement "He desired" refers to something else. If desire were eternal, there would always be an effect. In the view of it being an effect, due to the absence of another producer of it, non-production would follow. Even in the view of it being awakened by time etc., there would be a relation of the Lord with time etc. And that does not exist, he says - Always withdrawn from others. His absence of relation with others is always; therefore due to the absence of seed and purpose, the view of the Lord having an effect is untenable. [2]
Thus, at the end of the previous chapter, in response to the question "Having extracted from flowers", as much as was extracted by one's own intellect was explained. There, from the statement "What the self itself, the self-protecting self, does not know", the extraordinary capability of the Lord is generally not intended here, so with that intention, he asks about two doubtful meanings regarding the individual soul and the Lord. Regarding that, he first asks four doubts about the Lord, and two about the individual soul - O Brahman.
The operations of instruments etc. have been explained by you as being of one kind, and they cannot be said to be beyond the guṇas (guṇa). If they are with qualities, there is a distinction between cause and effect. The address "O Brahman" indicates certainty of knowledge, as "one attains the state of Brahman". It is certain for you, but for the sake of instruction it is asked - this is the solution to the arrogance. The question is about the manner - how.
Of the Lord who is pure consciousness (cinmātra). The word Bhagavat is not etymological, but by convention refers to Brahman. And that being pure consciousness, due to the absence of the nature of special powers of dharma, the absence of the relation between the expressed and the expresser, and due to being indescribable, how can such a one be the creator of the world? Creatorship and other attributes are modified and belong to the changeable. Therefore, although there is no prima facie doubt about the purpose for the unchanging Lord, the seed doubt question is how the quality-less one has qualities and actions. For an effect does not occur without a seed and a purpose. There, the supreme bliss has no purpose in the world. If it is said that He will do it playfully even without a purpose, according to the maxim "But like the world, it is play", it will be said that even play is not possible. Even if there is play, still the Lord is not the seed of the world, due to being distinct. The world is insentient, changeable and of various forms, while the Lord is pure consciousness and unchangeable. Moreover, the world has qualities, the Lord is quality-less; therefore, due to the distinction between cause and effect, the world is not an effect of the Lord. Although from a wish-fulfilling gem, all kinds of effects distinct from it arise, still in the prima facie view, the effect does not arise from the gem alone, otherwise it would always arise. But in the presence of one who desires, as the thought occurs, in the form of a pot or cloth, so those objects imagined by the mind become as if created in the presence of the gem. This is its extraordinary power. But for the Lord, due to the absence of a second presence, the production of an effect is not possible even in this way. He says this - Of pure consciousness. [1]
Thus, having refuted the state of being the seed, he refutes play which has attained the state of being the fruit - In play. Play means the desire for sport, just the action alone apart from an external effect. By that action, no external effect is produced, even if an effect is produced it is not intended; nor does it generate effort in the agent, but in the fully blissful internal organ, by its exuberance some action similar to effect-production arises, like for a king in the world. That is play. Even that is not possible. Although there is no purpose there, there is a cause. And that cause must be stated as established in the world, since play is explained according to worldly reasoning. And that play is well-known in a child. Even for a child, the desire to play is only due to desire, otherwise there would always be a desire to play. Desire too has a cause, otherwise it would always exist. He says this - A child's effort in play is first. And that is first from the child's desire. The sentence construction there is thus - First the child's desire is from impressions, as the scripture says "This person is indeed made of desire". After that, the desire to play arises from something else; taking another child as the instrumental cause, since play is not possible for one alone. In its absence, even if there is desire, the wish to play ceases. Desire here means knowledge of play. Due to play being in the form of a fruit and in the form of a means, desire and effort have the same object. Where there is a difference between means and fruit, as in heaven etc., desire is for heaven, the wish to perform is for the sacrifice. Hence there is no repetition here. After that, there is effort in play, meaning he becomes ready to play. Some say "Effort is indeed a qualification of desire. Effort is that which makes one exert, desire itself makes a person exert, the wish to play arises from something else." That is to be considered. Even such a view is not possible for the Lord. For one who is self-satisfied, desire is not possible. For desire is only for one who is incomplete, otherwise there would be desire even when the fruit is obtained. Due to oneself being in the form of all fruits and due to having been attained, the absence of desire for the satisfied one is established in the world. If desire and satisfaction are of different types, the Lord would be unsatisfied. Then He would act only for His own sake. If such satisfaction is not a fault, there would be limitation of His own bliss. Therefore, desire cannot be logically established, so the scriptural statement "He desired" refers to something else. If desire were eternal, there would always be an effect. In the view of it being an effect, due to the absence of another producer of it, non-production would follow. Even in the view of it being awakened by time etc., there would be a relation of the Lord with time etc. And that does not exist, he says - Always withdrawn from others. His absence of relation with others is always; therefore due to the absence of seed and purpose, the view of the Lord having an effect is untenable. [2]
He created (astrākṣīt). This question is for one who considers māyā to be connected only with consciousness. The Lord created this universe with his own māyā (ātmamāyayā) consisting of the guṇas, and by that same māyā he maintains it, and by that same māyā he will again conceal it and dissolve it. [3]
Thus, having stated the view that the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe are done by the Lord through māyā, he says that the connection with māyā itself is not possible for him, due to his being of perfect knowledge - "In terms of place" (deśataḥ). The destruction of knowledge is possible in five ways. But the Lord's nature as knowledge is undiminished in all five ways. He whose knowledge is undiminished, and who is of that nature, and who is the Self. Or knowledge itself is the Self. How can he be connected with the unborn (ajayā) [māyā]? In this regard, someone's knowledge is destroyed in terms of place - knowledge of a pot is limited by the pot and does not encompass cloth, so there is absence [of knowledge] in terms of place. There is also destruction of knowledge in terms of time, due to forgetting after some time. There is also destruction in terms of state, due to the absence of knowledge of waking state objects in the dream state. There is also destruction from itself, due to neutral cognitions not producing impressions. There is also destruction from others, due to the appearance of opposing qualities. But the Lord's knowledge is unconnected with all five types of faults. It is not limited by place due to encompassing all objects; not [limited] by time due to being eternal; not [limited] by state due to the Lord having no states; not [limited] from itself due to having no objects; not [limited] by others due to the Lord having no opposing qualities. Therefore he cannot be connected with the unborn māyā or prakṛti. Hence the Lord's creatorship of the world is not logically possible, either intrinsically or through connection with māyā. Moreover, you have determined that even the individual soul is the Lord himself. In that case, there is the fault of not acting for its benefit, etc. in creating the world for its sake. [4]
The Lord. The one Lord alone is situated in all fields, in all bodies. Or, the one situated in all bodies is indeed one. For one of this nature, there would be no misfortune, or suffering through births. And suffering is established by experience. Even if accepted due to ignorance, it is the same fault. And repeated births are heard of. Therefore, even the Lord's state as an individual soul is not logically possible, and creatorship of the world is not logically possible. [5]
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Now, desiring to explain the seventh chapter, they recall the context in the form of an opportunity and state the meaning - "Hareḥ" etc. Thus, the chapter's meaning is the description of all senses through the mind. Now, what is the purpose of describing it in two ways? In response to this expectation, they say - "Saṅkalpa" etc. "Anyathā" means in the absence of such nature of resolve. And thus, since that nature is characterized by both as stated in "From resolve and doubt arises desire", therefore the first entity in the form of mind is described in two ways. Now, how is doubt understood here by stating the question? To this they say - "Vikalpa" etc. Having thus stated the meaning according to the branch method, they show the context of the question in the Vidura-Maitreya dialogue - "Atra" etc. Thus, the introduction is the context.
The verse "Evaṃ bruvāṇam" appears to be mostly interpolated.
In "Brahman", "Asya" refers to Maitreya. "Tadabhiprāyeṇa" means with Maitreya's intention. "Karaṇādivyāpārā" etc. means all those activities like comprehension of what is to be said etc. are described as equal to worldly ones, being accomplished by deities, senses and organs. "Dharma" etc. means dharma is self-respect as non-existence, śakti (power) is māyā (illusion) in the form of time etc., viśeṣa (distinction) is the differentiating factor like form etc., svarūpa (essential nature) is the body's arrangement - due to the absence of these. "Vācya" etc. means the use of words is for conveying substance, genus, quality, action and relation, but in Brahman, due to the absence of these constituents of word relation, there is no mutual relation between meaning and word, the object and its name, and also due to the absence of pronunciation etc. indicated by "ādi", it cannot be described even as a word group. "Bījaprayojanābhyām" means bīja (seed) is the inherent cause, prayojana (purpose) is the result intended by the agent. "Mātrasyeti" - thus by this verse, inherent causality and extraordinary agency power should be understood as implied. [1]
In "Krīḍāyām", "Phalabhāvāpannām" means attained the state of result, as creation is the purpose of līlā (divine play) alone. To avoid redundancy of the word "cikrīḍiṣā" since desire is of the nature of wish and will, they say - "Kāmo'tra" etc. Here they report Śrīdhara's view - "Kecittu" etc. They point out the inappropriateness in that by saying "Taccintya". In the aphorism on meditation and instruction, desire of the nature of meditation is accepted by Vyāsa. And meditation is knowledge in the form of determination that "this should be done thus". There it is proper to explain it as pertaining to play. The word "udyama" is established in dissolution. Abandoning both these, such derivation is not proper, as it contradicts Vyāsa's intention. "Etādṛśo'pi pakṣaḥ" means the view of desire being of the nature of meditation. "Kāma" means desire of the said type. "Phala" means in the result in the form of play. "Anyapareti" means pertaining to the individual soul or to the variegated. "Kāryapakṣa" means in the view of produced desire. [2]
In "Deśataḥ", "Virodhiguṇaprādurbhāvāt" means due to the manifestation of contradictory qualities like dissolution etc. of desire pertaining to different objects, and pleasure, pain etc. Though undiminished establishment is achieved through eternality and all-objectiveness, the triad of reasons stated as "Avasthātaḥ" etc. is for revealing the essential nature - with this intention they say - "Bhagavata" etc. "Nirviṣayakatvāt" means due to being so because of the unreality and absence of the object. "Virodhiguṇābhāvāt" means due to the absence of qualities because of being attributeless and eternally all-objective. Thus four doubts regarding the Lord are stated through four - How are there qualities due to being attributeless? How are there actions due to being unchanging? How is there desire in the form of meditation for the self-satisfied? How is there wish to play for the sole one? If māyā connection is the root of the four, how is that itself - thus it culminates in five ways. They state the sixth - "Kiñca" etc. [4]
In "Bhagavān", "Sa eva" means the connection with ignorance itself. [5]
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
It is described that in the seventh chapter, the wise Vidura, acknowledging the sage's words, asked various questions.
The meaning is: Vidura spoke in reply, as if pleasing Maitreya with words in the form of a request from Bharati, who was saying "Now your divine plays (līlā) enhanced by yogamāyā" etc., implying that the Lord playfully creates etc. through the qualities of māyā. Suggesting that he alone is capable of such questioning, he calls him wise. The reason for this is given as "son of Dvaipāyana", meaning son of Vyāsa. [1]
He shows that speech itself in six verses, starting with "O Brahman". By addressing him as "Brahman", he indicates "I ask thus only due to my own lack of understanding, not to challenge you despite knowing, so you who are omniscient already know this, therefore do not be angry." How can qualities and actions like birth etc. be consistent through play even for the Lord who is without qualities (nirguṇa), devoid of material qualities, unchanging, and free from modifications like birth? This is contradictory. The mention of "play" only removes the absence of purpose, not the contradiction in reality. He states the reason for being unchanging and without qualities as "of pure consciousness". [2]
He says play is also not appropriate like a child's due to dissimilarity: "In play". A child has desire, which motivates and impels play, and the wish to play arises from other things or interaction with other children. Thus play occurs. But for the Lord who is inherently satisfied from attaining the state of supreme bliss, desire is not possible. Also, for one who is always detached from others and without a second, the wish to play is not possible. So how can play occur? [3]
After asking this doubt about the Lord, he also asks about the individual soul, repeating what was said: "Now I will describe in order your divine plays enhanced by yogamāyā, which are the cause of the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe." He says: "He created". The Lord created the universe through his own power, which is full of the three guṇas like sattva. By that same power he maintains this universe. By that same power he will again conceal it in reverse order. If read as "pratyabhidhāsyati", it means he will absorb it back into himself in reverse order. [4]
He says all this could apply to the individual soul's connection with ignorance, but that itself is not possible: "In terms of space". How can that soul, which is a part of Brahman and whose awareness is undiminished by space etc., be connected with ignorance (avidyā)? This is the meaning. There is no diminishment in terms of space like the light of a lamp, because it is all-pervading; not in terms of time like lightning, because it is eternal; not in terms of state like memory, because it is unchanging; not intrinsically like a dream, because it is real; not from anything else like a pot, because it is non-dual. [5]
Hindī Anuvāda
Śrī Śukadeva says—After hearing this speech of Maitreya, the wise Vyāsanandana Vidura, pleasing him with his words, said ॥ 1 ॥
Vidura asked- O Brahman! The Lord is of pure consciousness, immutable and without attributes; how can He be associated with qualities and actions even in play? ॥ 2 ॥
A child has desires and the wish to play with others, that is why he makes efforts to play; but the Lord is ever-satisfied, self-fulfilled and always unattached, why would He resolve even for play? ॥ 3 ॥
The Lord has created the world with His quality-based māyā (illusion), with that He sustains it and with that He will destroy it again ॥ 4 ॥
He whose knowledge is never lost by place, time or condition, by itself or by any other cause, how can He be associated with māyā (illusion)? ॥ 5 ॥
SB 3.7.1-5
