Text 6: The Lord, as the Supersoul, is situated in every living being’s heart. Why then do the living entities’ activities result in misfortune and misery?
Text 7: O great and learned one, my mind is greatly illusioned by the distress of this nescience, and I therefore request you to clear it up.
Text 8: Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: O King, Maitreya, being thus agitated by the inquisitive Vidura, at first seemed astonished, but then he replied to him without hesitation, since he was fully God conscious.
Text 9: Śrī Maitreya said: Certain conditioned souls put forward the theory that the Supreme Brahman, or the Personality of Godhead, is overcome by illusion, or māyā, and at the same time they maintain that He is unconditioned. This is against all logic.
Text 10: The living entity is in distress regarding his self-identity. He has no factual background, like a man who dreams that he sees his head cut off.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Moreover, due to being of the nature of Brahman, even the saṃsāra (worldly existence) of the jīva does not exist - thus he objects. Though situated in all bodies as the experiencer, in reality it is only Bhagavān himself, due to being of the nature of consciousness and there being no difference from that. This being so, how can there be misfortune, loss of bliss, etc., or affliction caused by karma for this jīva, since there is no connection with karma? Otherwise, the same would apply to Īśvara as well - this is the idea. || 6 ||
Ignorance alone is the difficulty, the fortress. In that, remove the mental impurity, the delusion. || 7 ||
Challenged, objected to. As if smiling, as if revealing his prowess. But in reality, free from pride. || 8 ||
He repeats the logical contradiction that this māyā of the Lord, who has inconceivable power, is opposed by reasoning and logic. For a liberated person alone there is bondage and wretchedness due to ignorance. || 9 ||
Here he gives an example: Just as, even without any real cause like decapitation, etc., for the witness of a dream, the erroneous notion "my head has been cut off" appears falsely, similarly [for the jīva]. || 10 ||
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
He states another objection with "moreover" (kiṃ ca). Since the jīva is also Brahman according to the śruti "This Self is Brahman", saṃsāra is not possible. The experiencer, though a jīva, is only Bhagavān himself according to the Gītā statement "I alone am the doer and experiencer in this body, O best of the Bharatas". Vyatireka means difference. There is no connection with karma, as stated: "The all-pervading Lord neither accepts anyone's sin nor virtue". Otherwise, if saṃsāra is accepted for the jīva - this is the idea. Since there is no difference in being of the nature of consciousness, [it would apply] to Īśvara just like the jīva. According to the śruti "The two birds cling to the same tree". Due to having the same substratum, how could Īśvara not have saṃsāra - this is the purport. || 6-7 ||
Prauḍhi means superiority. The meaning is "as if revealing astonishment". The use of "as if" is because it is immediately stated that he is free from pride. The reason for being free from pride is that he is focused on Bhagavān. The meaning is that he knows that everything is possible for Bhagavān who has inconceivable lordship. || 8 ||
There is contradiction in saying that Īśvara has wretchedness and a liberated person has bondage, but this is not improper for māyā which is skilled in accomplishing the impossible. || 9 ||
Here, in the perception of the non-existent, "falsely" means without any real cause. Indeed, it is not possible to experience the cutting of one's own head in the same substratum. The meaning is that bondage, wretchedness, etc. caused by ignorance of one's true nature are false, just like mounting one's own shoulders. Just as in a dream one superimposes decapitation, etc. of another onto oneself through the power of dream illusion, similarly the Self superimposes bondage, wretchedness, etc. belonging to ignorance onto itself through Bhagavān's māyā - this is the idea. || 10 ||
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
Bhagavān alone is Brahman. This being so, in reality being Brahman, otherwise though in reality not being Brahman, there would be the consequence of misfortune, etc. || 6-7 ||
Prauḍhi means skill in giving a reply. Gatasmaya means free from pride. || 8 ||
Tarka means reasoning. Viruddhyate means it is beyond reasoning, cannot be logically comprehended. The meaning is: By that very māyā which is the jīva's own function, though non-existent, bondage which is entering the net of the guṇas, and wretchedness which is the concealment of knowledge of one's true nature, are perceived - this māyā belongs to Bhagavān - this is the connection. Here, by saying it is the māyā of Bhagavān who has an inconceivable essential power, since the essential power is internal, He is not touched by the external māyā's guṇas like sattva, etc. and its effects like creation, etc. Thus His being nirguṇa (without qualities) and nirvikāra (unchanging) is not contradicted. Association with guṇas as their controller and creation, etc. merely by His will are also not contradicted. Thus the answer to "How is it possible for Bhagavān, O Brahman?" should also be understood. || 9 ||
Here, in the perception of bondage, etc. which are non-existent, there is erroneous identification with the Self. || 10 ||
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Thus, having raised the doubt in half [a verse] that if He is the inner controller of the jīva, He would not be the substratum of the jīva's afflictions, etc., he resolves it with "Bhagavān". This one Bhagavān is situated in all bodies, situated as the inner Self of all jīvas, entered within, the controller of people, as per śrutis like "He who dwelling in the Self". Therefore He is not sorrowful. If it is said that the qualities which are the effects of karma like being in saṃsāra do not touch the Supreme Self, to that he says "amuṣya". How can there be misfortune or affliction from karmas for Bhagavān? This is the meaning. This is the intention: If the all-pervasiveness of the Supreme Self is stated, then the defects of the jīva in the states of waking, dreaming, deep sleep, unconsciousness and death would also apply to the supreme Brahman who is its inner controller. And it cannot be said that there are no defects for the Supreme Self because He is not subject to karma, because karmas produce results like affliction, etc. by causing connection with a body, so connection with a body itself is a non-goal (apuruṣārtha). Otherwise, if karmas themselves produce suffering, etc., the connection with a body would become purposeless. And even though the Supreme Self is not subject to karma, since it is accepted that He is situated in all bodies, the connection with various impure bodies itself is a non-goal. Therefore, even His entering by His own will for the purpose of controlling them is an unavoidable connection that is a non-goal. Indeed, immersion in pus, blood, etc., even if done by one's own will, is only a non-goal. Therefore, although Brahman is the sole cause of the world and the abode of auspicious qualities like omniscience, etc., still according to statements like "He who dwells in the earth, He who dwells in the Self, He who dwells in the semen", for the one situated in those places, there are non-goals in the form of connection with them. He concludes the question with "in this". O wise Maitreya! In this difficulty of ignorance - this is how the words are to be split. In the difficulty which is ignorance, my mind is distressed. Therefore, O mighty Maitreya! Please completely remove our mental, i.e. related to the mind, great distress. || 7 ||
Thus asked, Maitreya spoke, said Śuka. Questioned in this manner by the kshatriya eager to know the truth, the sage Maitreya, whose mind was fixed on the Lord, free from pride due to his realization of truth, as if smiling at how easily the question could be answered, replied. || 8 ||
What was said about the regulation of the conscious and unconscious, that for one who resides by his own will as the inner self, due to the connection with that, there is unavoidable relation to transformation, suffering, etc. which are not the goal of human life - this is not correct. Even an unconscious object, which by its nature is not the goal of human life, becomes, by the supreme person's will, in accordance with the nature of karma, one and the same object for happiness or suffering for different people at different times. If it were due to the object's own nature, then in that case everything would always be either for everyone's happiness or suffering, but this is not seen. As it is said:
"O best of the twice-born, heaven and hell, known as merit and sin, are one and the same object for suffering, happiness, jealousy, and anger. How then can an object have its own nature? The same thing becomes a source of joy, then again of sorrow. The same thing causes anger, then again pleasure. Therefore, nothing is inherently sorrowful, nor inherently joyful."
Thus, because the jīva is subject to karma, its connection with various objects in accordance with its karma would be not the goal of human life. But for the supreme Brahman, who is free from all defects, the abode of all auspicious qualities, independent, possessing various wonderful natural powers, the connection with the conscious and unconscious which are not the goal of human life would be only for the sake of the joy of his wonderful regulating play. For the jīva, the connection with ignorance would be for generating that which is not the goal of human life. He says this in the next three verses.
This is the Lord's māyā (māyā), the wonderful power by which the Lord's miserliness and the bondage of the liberated are not contradicted. The faults belonging to the miserly bound jīva pervaded by the state of being a jīva do not touch the all-pervading Lord due to his wonderful power that is the cause of not being touched. There is no contradiction due to the cause that makes the faults belonging to the pervaded object not touch [the Lord]. As the śruti says: "His supreme power is heard to be various and natural, consisting of knowledge, strength and action." Due to the connection with various, wonderful, infinite powers, it is said that the faults belonging to various objects in various states do not touch him. By this, the objection "O Brahman, how for the Lord?" regarding causality is also answered. Since qualities and actions are done through the conscious and unconscious, Brahman is not touched by them. By accepting that the cause is qualified by prakṛti and puruṣa, the transformations belonging to prakṛti and puruṣa do not affect the supreme Self, just as whiteness etc. in a cloth made of white, black and red threads exist only in the parts connected with those respective threads, and just as the states of childhood, youth etc. belonging to the body do not touch the self. || 9 ||
But for the jīva, even though its essential nature is free from sin etc., because that nature is obscured by ignorance, karma, vāsanās, desires, connection with prakṛti etc., due to the false identification with various bodies as the self, the connection with the goals of human life is unavoidable. He says this with an example in the next verse:
Because for this person subject to karma, without the goal which is the true nature of the self, the reversal of the self - the state of being a god, human etc. - and the cutting of one's own head etc. caused by that, and the sorrow thinking "my head is cut" when the head of the body of a god, human etc. is cut, is perceived, experienced by the witness identifying with the body as the self - this too is the Lord's māyā. || 10 ||
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Vidura doubts in another way, he says "bhagavān". With the intention that Hari has eternal unsurpassed complete lordship etc., he says "bhagavān". Just as misfortune, lack of lordship etc., and affliction characterized by the sorrow born of saṃsāra consisting of ignorance, ego, attachment, aversion and clinging are seen for Devadatta, similarly for this unfortunate one present in all fields, contact with that is possible. That is not proper because of being the Lord, hence the doubt. || 6 ||
Thinking that because this doubt is preceded by reasoning and knowledge, it will be resolved on its own, with the intention that due to lack of firmness in knowledge, due to remaining like a post, it should be uprooted by you alone, he says "etasmin" - in this dilemma of knowledge, meaning lack of certain knowledge. Refute, remove. The wise do not consider a small defect of understanding in themselves as great, with this intention he says "great", not in reality. Therefore it is mental, not established in the intellect. || 7 ||
Śuka answers his question, he says "sa". Free from pride, smiling slightly as it were. || 8 ||
He answers that even though situated in an unfortunate body, there is no contact with the mud of suffering etc. due to greatness, saying "seyam". The miserliness of the Lord, the embodiment of lordship, Hari, and the bondage of the liberated, the eternally free, is contradicted by authority and reasoning, is contradictory. By that, that is not proper, not endowed with reasoning. How is this the Lord's māyā? This indeed is Hari's greatness, that what is established by authority and reasoning is the ultimate reality, what is difficult to reconcile with them yet is perceived like silver in a shell, that is māyā - this is established by experience. Intending this, he answers the question saying "seyam". That which is contradicted by reasoning, that is the Lord's māyā, the inexplicable ignorance. Because it is established by everyone's experience, it is not fit to be refuted. He shows the contradiction with reasoning saying "īśvarasya". This is known to be dismissed by saying "of the Lord", for the meaning of the word "bhagavat" as possessing all lordship etc. is established, so he does not depend on māyā for creation etc. For the powerless indeed, the guṇas depend on māyā. "Unable to create reality, they spread the creation of māyā." And "How could the supreme God in the body not be bound here? How could he not be sorrowful? If sorrowful, how is he the Lord?" - because it contradicts such śruti. The intended meaning is as stated. Because of having an ordinary body like Devadatta, the connection with māyā is possible - this doubt is answered by you yourself introducing the statement that he is not one with an ordinary body because his knowledge is undiminished. Therefore the connection for the purpose of māyā's creation etc. is also not proper, because of the ascertainment of reality in "What he thought as truth, that is not false." Even if accepted, it would lead to the doctrine of the demons. As it is said: "There is no creation etc. delusion, for the demons are indeed proponents of delusion. Therefore the connection with delusion etc. is never proper for him." || 9 ||
Then whose delusion causes saṃsāra? Expecting this question, he says with an example that due to connection with prakṛti, saṃsāra is for the jīva alone, in "yathā". For this person, the jīva, the witness seeing a dream, without purpose, in the dream, the reversal of the self, of the body, like the cutting of one's own head etc. is perceived though non-existent, due to the impressions of what was seen and heard. The intention here is this: The cutting of the head or mounting on shoulders seen or heard in this birth or another birth, though existing, is seen as if happening simultaneously due to the delusion of seeing. That seeing is not purposeful, hence it is said "without purpose". And the dream is not unreal because of producing results. "For it indicates, and the knowers of that declare it" according to the sūtra. Because it is produced by the impressions in the jīva's mind which is the material cause determined by one's own will in the instrumental cause. "Of the person" is said with the intention of Vedic eligibility, "witness" because of lack of independent knowledge. || 10 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
There, he mentions another contradiction: "The Lord is one alone." This one Lord, the Supreme Self, is situated in the bodies of all living beings. That being so, how can this very living being, who is inherently of the nature of consciousness like the Lord and possesses unchanging knowledge as his essential nature, experience misfortune, loss of his essential knowledge, and suffering due to karma? Or why does he not experience these? For it is not logical that when two things are situated in the same water etc., one has contact with it while the other does not. This is the meaning. [6-8]
Since mere consciousness alone is not possible even in the living being, accepting the quality of being God, Śrī Maitreya said "seyam". That by which the creation of the universe etc. occurs, that is the Lord's inconceivable essential potency called māyā, which is opposed to logic as it is beyond reasoning. Thus, this too is inconceivable. Although both are inconceivable in this way, since the Lord's māyā is manifest, by entering within the essential potency and establishing the external māyā through its qualities like sattva etc. and its effects like creation etc., He is not touched by it. This is the meaning.
According to the tantra, this means that just as māyā is not contradicted by the Lord, He is not made the object of contradiction. Similarly, māyā is not completely negated by the Lord. This is stated in the 6th canto, 9th chapter: "Your pastime of creation seems incomprehensible, as You who are without shelter and without a body, without considering our presence, create, maintain and destroy the universe with qualities while Yourself remaining unchanged and without qualities." With this prose passage, His quality of being the creator with qualities is contradicted. Then again: "Are You here like Devadatta, fallen into the stream of qualities, accepting the fruits of Your good and bad deeds due to dependence? Or are You self-satisfied, peaceful, equipoised and indifferent? Indeed, we do not know." With this prose, the possibility of His being a subject of enjoyment like a jīva due to falling into the stream of qualities as the inner controller is considered.
There is no contradiction, as both exist in the Lord whose groups of unlimited qualities cannot be fathomed. For those whose inner faculties are covered by fallacious logic opposing the inconceivable greatness of the ancient Lord, there is no opportunity for debate. He who has withdrawn all His illusory potency, remaining alone, concealing even His own māyā - what is impossible for Him, as there are not two separate forms? With this prose, His possessing an inconceivable potency is established as the conclusion.
There, the non-duality of the essential potency is shown by qualifiers like "of the Lord" etc., and māyā is shown to be His own māyā. "As there are not two separate forms" means that by His inconceivable potency, His being the agent of various acts and His being situated within them does not exist. The prose "for those of equal and unequal intelligence" should be understood to mean "You appear in various ways according to their higher and lower intellects."
In the previous prose, "as if incomprehensible", "without body" means without bodily activities, "without shelter" means without support of earth etc. In "then Your" etc., "self-created" should be connected as the instrumental cause for that also. Thus, here too the predominance of the essential potency alone is shown. Therefore, in "that which appears without meaning" etc., showing māyā to be like an appearance, the Lord's being untouched by it is shown. In "You are the original person directly" etc., by rejecting māyā and stating "by the potency of consciousness", the same is indicated. And by "māyā retreats ashamed when facing You" etc.
Thus, having removed the contradiction regarding the Lord, he resolves the living being's connection with ignorance as non-real through the Lord's māyā alone: "Of the Lord". "Yat" is connected with this alone, and here it takes the instrumental case by the force of meaning. Just as the Lord, who is capable through His essential knowledge etc. and thus liberated, experiences poverty, the appearing and disappearing of various manifestations, so too bondage and entering the displayed net of the modes occurs. This is stated: "Fallen from association with Him, [the jīva's] lordship [is lost]."
Considering all this, the śrutis also state: "He, through the unborn [māyā], [creates] the unborn [world]" etc. and "devoid of fortune" etc. Here in the root verse, by "the Lord's māyā", the Lord's quality of being the wielder of māyā is implied. Just as in "Indra's māyā", Indra's quality [of being the wielder of māyā is implied]. The same should be understood in the previous case also. [9]
Again, although the living being is not actually in various states, the appearance of those states is due to the Lord's māyā alone. He explains this with an example: "Without meaning, for him". Yat means: Due to which māyā, even without any object - although that object does not exist for him in the three times - there would be mistaken identity, which is a form of self-forgetfulness followed by false ego, thinking "I alone possess those qualities." Thus, of the witness living being, the genitive is used in place of the instrumental. In the dream state, the jīva may see even his own head being cut off, but the Lord's māyā alone superimposes that form of object, which is established elsewhere, on him, according to the maxim "Māyā alone, in its entirety, due to its nature being unmanifest" etc. [10]
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
This injustice should not be imagined like in a kingdom without a king or with two kings, that the unborn [māyā] would defeat the innocent jīva. He says: This Lord is situated in the bodies of all living beings, situated Himself as the inner controller, not like a king in his kingdom through representative persons. By saying "one alone", the doubt of two kings is also removed. Therefore, even though that Lord, the protector of all, is present right here, how can there be misfortune for this jīva, loss of bliss etc., or suffering due to karmas born of ignorance? [6]
Ignorance alone is the fortress of difficulty. In that, remove our delusion, confusion, unconsciousness. The plural "our" refers to both of us. [7]
The sage, his mind fixed on the Lord, thus pondering how to resolve this, remembered the Lord. Then, suddenly realizing the meaning, as if smiling, thinking "Ah, these objections are difficult to resolve" while outwardly appearing amazed, but actually "These are indeed easily resolved" without amazement - this is the meaning. [8]
This famous māyā of the Lord with inconceivable powers is that which is contradicted by logic, meaning it cannot be comprehended by reasoning. Though itself of non-conscious nature, it is the power of the purely conscious Lord, thus its qualities of sattva etc. are also said to be the Lord's qualities. Yet the Lord in His essential nature is indeed without qualities. Just as darkness, clouds, snow etc., though opposed to light, belong to the sun which is pure light. As it is said later in the fourth canto: "Just as they originate from the sun, so in the sky the darkness and light." And: "Covered by its own expansions like prāṇa etc., one considers the sun as if covered by clouds and snow." And in the tenth canto, in Nārada's example, it is exactly the same. Similarly, though the Lord is essentially unchanging, the activities of universal creation etc. are by His power māyā alone. Because power and the powerful are non-different. As the Lord has said: "Nature is My material cause, the support; the supreme Person is the manifester of the existent; Time is the activator; I am this triad." Thus, having removed doubt regarding the Lord, it removes doubt regarding the individual soul also by "in terms of place, time" etc. in one and a half verses. Though the individual soul is capable of experiencing the Lord's essential knowledge and bliss etc., its wretchedness etc. due to misfortune, as well as bondage even when liberated - this is māyā, the function of māyā, avidyā (ignorance). The meaning is that this pair is indeed the binding of ignorance.
This is the meaning: You ask how there is loss of knowledge for the individual soul by the unborn (māyā). If that loss of knowledge were real, then that unborn power would be punishable by the Lord. But it is not real, just as when one forgets about a jeweled medallion present in one's heart and laments "There is no medallion", or when due to delusion one thinks "I myself have stolen" what was actually stolen by another, and then suffers the punishment given by the king's men as a result - similarly, due to beginningless association with ignorance, if the individual soul suffers by forgetting its own knowledge and bliss, assuming identification with the body and obtaining the qualities of the body like wretchedness etc., then to whom should blame be given? Here the example is given: "Like a bad wife, deprived of sovereignty, wandering." Because of the possibility of some sovereignty, the individual soul is also called Īśvara (Lord).
Others explain it thus: The self which has undiminished awareness in terms of place, time etc. is the Supreme Self of pure consciousness nature. How can that be connected with ignorance? Relying on the highest view, he gives the answer to the objector's question with "This is that". This indeed would be the Lord's māyā. Without being deluded by māyā, such a question does not arise - this is the meaning. Because it is contradicted by reasoning, by logic. He states the contradiction to logic: When the Lord, the Supreme Self, becomes an individual soul due to being deluded by māyā, there is wretchedness and bondage. For it is not proper to say that the one pure consciousness, when deluded by māyā, becomes the individual soul, and when undeluded becomes the Supreme Self. For no one can simultaneously be deluded and undeluded by one's own māyā - this is the highest illogicality. Therefore, those who ask and answer thus should be known as deluded by māyā. But in reality, the Supreme Self and individual self are mutually distinct by nature like the sun and its rays, being particles of consciousness and non-consciousness respectively - this is the conclusion. Just as shadow and light both originate from the sun, yet are different from the sun and different from each other, similarly the powers of māyā and the individual soul, though originating from the Supreme Lord and beginningless and non-different, are indeed different in essential nature. As it is said in Ayurveda: "Man has an eternal nature like the reflection of the sun." And the śruti says: "As tiny sparks fly up from fire, so from the self." The individual soul's being a power is stated in the Gītā: "This is My lower nature; but know My higher nature, O mighty-armed one, which is the life-element by which this world is sustained." 9.
There, by the beginningless ignorance of darkness nature situated behind the Lord, the knowledge of the souls situated behind the Lord due to beginningless aversion is obscured. There is no real cause or purpose for this. It is the very nature of darkness that the light of those with diminished radiance is obscured by it. He states this with "For which reason". Yad means "because". Arthena means without any real cause or purpose. Of this person, the individual soul, ātma-viparyayaḥ means loss of knowledge and bliss, is perceived. As the Medinī dictionary states: "Artha means object, wealth, cause, substance, meaning of words, and purpose." Here is an example: For the seer who witnesses a dream, though the head exists, the non-existence of the head is perceived in the dream state when one thinks "My head has been cut off." Similarly, though there is actually no loss of knowledge, bliss etc., in the state of ignorance their loss is perceived. Even the luster of gold, silver etc. is not destroyed by darkness, but only covered. And darkness is also destroyed by powerful luster like rubies etc. Similarly, ignorance is also destroyed by the devoted soul - this should be understood. In the second explanation: Therefore, for the Lord who is full existence-consciousness-bliss, the Supreme Self, all-knowing, all-pervading, even the suspicion of bondage by ignorance is indeed a defect. The conclusion that He Himself becomes the individual soul by ignorance and He Himself becomes the Supreme Self when ignorance is removed is also extroversion. Rather, bondage by ignorance belongs only to the individual soul which is the Lord's marginal potency, of conscious particle nature distinct from the Lord's consciousness, not all-knowing. And that too is unreal - he states this with "For which reason". The explanation is the same as before. "Of this person" means of the individual soul alone, not of any other, the Supreme Lord Hari experienced by us as the highest. 10.
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
What you have shown as the Lord being the inner self of all beings, as stated in "vibhu of selves", how can that be reconciled, given the occurrence of misfortune etc. in His presence, like darkness in the presence of the sun? Thus objects the Lord. The misfortune of this jīva (soul) is the wretchedness of thinking "I am the body" etc. || 6 || 7 || Prompted, objected || 8 || He refutes the second objection with "seyam". That which is put forth by the Lord at the time of universal creation, like the king's horse, does not have its own nature, but is the māyāśakti (power of illusion) of the Lord - the controller of all, free from all material defects - and does not have independent existence or activity. It is not non-Brahman in nature, as then the stated faults would apply. Therefore, in the new view, it does not contradict the established conclusion that Brahman alone is the efficient and material cause of the universe, indistinct from it, as stated in the śruti "He made that ātman by Himself". Now he refutes the third objection: The bondage and wretchedness of the jīva thinking "I am the body, I will die" etc. is due to beginningless māyā. Thus, even in the presence of the Lord, the misfortune or suffering of the jīva bound by beginningless māyā due to karma is refuted. This is the purport. || 9 || He elaborates on the wretchedness caused by beginningless māyā in two verses. "Yad" means that by which māyā, even without the self actually being the body, this jīva's misidentification as "I am the body, I am created, I will die" etc. occurs. This misidentification of the ignorant is well-known, he says. Like a dreamer who, forgetting his human form self, sees himself as having the body of animals etc. belonging to others, and experiences his own head being cut off etc. || 10 ||
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
He says "etasmin" to express that his mind is troubled in this matter. In the difficulty of knowledge. Of verbal knowledge. Due to the absence of a broad path of reasoning, the inability of knowledge to spread, the difficulty is lack of reasoning. Otherwise ignorance is the difficulty. The mind engaged there for ascertainment is troubled due to lack of reasoning and inability to proceed. Drive away with reasoning that trouble existing in our hearts. Anticipating "Let this be", he says - "This is a great mental impurity". This is a great impurity of the mind. That should certainly be removed by the great ones, otherwise the subsequent and aforementioned knowledge would not remain in a satisfied mind. Therefore, this should be driven away for understanding the matter being examined. This is the meaning.
Wealth was renounced in the first, power in the second. Fame and fortune likewise in two, detachment and knowledge in the last two. || 1 ||
By one's own reasoning and abundance of delusion, the state of being God is refuted. Therefore here the doctrine of God is refuted even in creation. || 2 ||
With that refuted, it is established that the question is not fulfilled. Therefore its answer must be stated to establish one's own stated meaning. || 3 ||
For that Maitreya, completely independent, having accepted what was said for purification of mind, saying it should be repeated, to remove the doubt whether he says anything further after the prima facie view is presented, he establishes with reasoning the view that Śuka speaks - "sa ittham". Due to being devoted to God, Vidura has the role of prompter with God's command as assistance, Maitreya has the role of originator with desire to speak. "Kṣatra" indicates he is also a prompter by his own nature, due to being skilled. And there, by one desirous of knowing the truth. Not mere grasping. Therefore he should enlighten one desirous of knowing the truth. Moreover, this sage knows what is ascertained, and future meaning. With mind on God for fulfilling God's command, even objections must be resolved. Or for praying that God Himself enlighten what is ascertained in his mind. "Smayanniva" - As if smiling, thinking "What use are these understood for so long in the Mahābhārata etc." "Iva" because God's māyā is deluding. Whose smile has departed and become grave. Therefore he will examine this secretly, as otherwise one must ask again or remain silent due to lack of qualification if ignorant. The resolution is clearly examined in the commentary itself.
The account of creation beyond the guṇas is not logically possible in any way. Due to the nature of cause and effect, and absence of reason in the world. || 1 ||
In the formless nature indeed, two doubts are raised. If with attributes, the refutation would not be that itself. || 2 ||
The third is established for Brahman, and for the jīva also thus due to non-difference. Indeed in the effect of connection with māyā, to be refuted for them in order. || 3 ||
The refutation of the first is stated as eternal by the sixth. Non-contradiction with being God is indicated by nature itself. || 4 ||
Due to non-compounding, there is primacy, thus no possibility of attributes. In the refutation of the second, negation of the effect due to contradiction. || 5 ||
Is it mere contradiction, or in the beginning since this is the view? In the second it is an ornament of that, not a contradiction or fault. || 6 ||
The connection of contradictory effects made by that is thus described. Contradiction is only in appearance, not in reality as it is great. || 7 ||
Indeed, how is the nature of māyā (illusion) like this? True, it is exactly so. However, it should be done in such a way that when māyā is gone, no contradiction will appear. When it is gone, there is direct realization of the Lord.
Thus || 7 || Here, the resolution of the prima facie view is clearly explained in the Brahma-vāda by the section beginning "dṛśyate tu..." (but it is seen). The unchanging Lord indeed does everything, such is the very nature of the Lord, due to the authority of the śruti (scripture); when accepted as such, all is resolved. Therefore, there is no need to imagine māyā and so on there. Whatever resolution of inconsistency is done by māyā, that too is by its very nature. When it is so, there is conformity with the meaning of śruti, otherwise it would be unauthoritative, being mere imagination. That view should not be stated in any way to a non-Brahmin, as per the śruti "The Brahmin is indeed of divine class, the Śūdra is of demonic class" and "māyā refers to the demons". Also in the beginning - "Now those divine sports of the Lord, enhanced by yogamāyā (divine illusion)" - by this declaration also, he states the resolution is indeed through māyā. This māyā of the Lord resolves the relationship of cause and effect through māyā alone. In an instant, everything could become completely different through it. Indeed such a power must be accepted, otherwise it is not that || 1 ||
The creation as play, as well as knowledge, and the possibility of ignorance even in knowledge. Just as the individual soul exists in non-difference, so too māyā exists in that way || 2 ||
This māyā of the Lord is indeed the same that we have described as the cause of the world. It is the same in your statement also. Therefore, what we have described is the same as what you have described by stating its contradictory attributes, so nothing needs to be reconciled here, since it is not contradicted by logic or the science of reasoning. That contradiction has been described by you alone, so we need not explain it, as this itself is the established conclusion. This resolution should be considered as the prima facie view itself. He clarifies the contradiction - "Of the Lord". This individual soul is indeed the Lord, as per the śruti statements "That thou art", "This Self is Brahman", "Made of consciousness". Therefore, for the Lord who is omnipotent and liberated from worldly existence, poverty, misery, or unexamined begging are contradictory to his lordship. And bondage contradicts liberation || 8 ||
If so, the invalidity of the means of knowledge would be appropriate, and the righteous path would be contradicted - if this is argued. I will explain how it will go away. The main resolution is indeed the disappearance of that (māyā). Therefore, effort should not be made to resolve the contradiction, but rather effort should be made only to refute māyā. All doubts cease in this way, knowledge is taught by another method, then one will know the doctrine of Brahman on one's own. Or when the demonic nature is gone, the state of being a Śūdra will also go away. When that (māyā) is gone, or by itself, this should be understood - this is the idea. He states the nature of māyā and so on through the example of sleep - "For which purpose". Because for this reason, for this individual soul, without any bondage etc., a mistaken notion of the self, an altered state of the self, is indeed perceived. It is mere perception, not reality. Because this is the nearby seer, not the seen. This is all-pervading and directly experienced, while the other is limited and external. Just as when a mirror is present, the face is seen inverted as if in the mirror, similarly due to the proximity of māyā, the self is seen as external and limited. Thus māyā alone is the cause of seeing otherwise. There, just as in a dream decapitation is perceived, indeed the seer's decapitation is not possible, nor can it be seen, as the eye exists right there; yet the perception exists; and this object is contradictory; and there is no logic; similarly here also - this is the idea || 9 ||
Now, since "this self enters into māyā", the attributes of the self should be in māyā, but the attributes of māyā should not be in the self; because māyā does not enter into the self, as per the śruti "Beyond darkness". Therefore, how can the attributes of māyā like bondage be in the self - anticipating this objection, he says - "Just as in water". Although māyā does not enter into the self, but rather the self enters; even so, after entering it becomes associated with its attributes, not without entering. And entering is only an appearance. Just as the moon reflected in water appears to shake due to the shaking of the water, not by its own nature; similarly, though non-existent, an attribute appears in the self due to association with māyā. He states this - "It is seen". The reason for its non-existence - "Of the seer". He states the distinction described for the self - "A quality of the self". Seeing etc. is a quality of the non-self, of nature, of the body || 10 ||
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
They summarize the meaning established in the six worlds with verses - "aiśvaryam" etc. In the last, the absence of one's own knowledge is stated, and that culminates in Brahman alone due to the non-dualism mentioned in the previous verse, thus the objection to knowledge is established. The rest is clear. [6]
This connects with "sa ittham" which explains the word "śuka". Thus, having explained Maitreya's intent through the interpretation of Śuka's statement, and since the question and answer are difficult to understand, they remind that their meaning is explained in the treatise by saying "tatra" and state that meaning with these seven verses - "guṇātīta" etc.
In case of impossibility, there are two reasons: "due to the dissimilarity of cause and effect" and "due to the absence of the cause of the world". The cause is without qualities, the effect has qualities - thus they are dissimilar. The cause of the world is desire in the form of will - that only exists for one whose desires are unfulfilled, so it is absent in Brahman. Thus, as appropriate, this contradicts being the material cause and efficient cause.
For the first: In the argument "Brahman is the material cause of the world; because it is the self of the world, or because it is the prior form of the world; whatever is a material cause is the self of that or its prior form; like clay is the self of a pot or its prior form; similarly", there is the counter-argument "It is not the material cause, because it is dissimilar to the effect, like thread is dissimilar to a pot".
For the second: In the argument "Brahman is the creator of the world, because it has the desire to play as determined by that; whoever has the desire to play as determined by something is its creator, like a child", there is the counter-reason "It does not have the desire to play as determined by that, because its desires are fulfilled, like an old person" which establishes its intrinsic nature etc.
That is completely impossible for one beyond qualities - thus two doubts are raised regarding the unconditioned nature, this is the meaning.
Let there not be material causality and creatorship for one beyond qualities. But in the case of the conditioned by māyā (māyopādhika), since similarity and desire are possible, the impossibility of creation can be resolved - when this is stated, that very conditioned nature would not exist for Brahman, thus a third doubt about Brahman is established. And thus, in the previous inferences, when the dissimilarity and desire cease in the subject Brahman due to being unconditioned, since the counter-argument cannot be revived, the third doubt about Brahman caused by the stated reasons is also unavoidable - this is the meaning. Thus the meaning established in four verses is stated.
Stating the meaning of the next two verses, they extend this very refutation to Brahman's state as jīva - "jīve 'py evam abhedataḥ". And thus, when the conditioned nature ceases due to the previous inference leaving no scope, if a resolution of the defect is attempted, by the inference "Brahman is not connected with conditions, because it has complete knowledge; whatever is not so is not so", the qualifying factors of the reasons proving consciousness become unestablished in the substratum, and by the counter-argument "Pure Brahman cannot have another mode, because it is unconditioned; like a pure cloth etc." when even the possibility of Brahman having another mode ceases, by the inference "The jīva cannot be unfortunate and afflicted, because it is non-different from Brahman; it has contradictory properties; like the space in a pot is non-different from great space" the second doubt regarding the jīva is also unavoidable - this is the meaning.
Having thus explained the meaning of six [verses], they state the intent of the question - "māyā" etc. Since there is this doubt about the nature of Brahman and the nature of the jīva, therefore the questioner's intent is that the connection with māyā in Brahman and its effects in the jīva are to be resolved - this is the meaning.
After this they state the intent of the established view - "tayoḥ" etc. Among those two doubts regarding Brahman, the resolution of the first one about the impossibility of being the material cause is stated by the sixth [verse] as the eternality of the connection - "This is the Lord's māyā which is not contradicted by logic" - this is the meaning.
If the connection is eternal, the nature of being beyond qualities which is the Lord's nature would be lost - anticipating this objection, they say - "bhagavattve" etc. Here the word "bhagavat" indicates non-contradiction with being beyond qualities, the genitive case with the original word suggests the connection, the lack of compound indicates it is primary. And thus, just as the sun in the sky has a connection from afar with various colored mirrors, water etc., similarly for Brahman's connection with māyā; "Pure Brahman, though not conditioned by māyā, is the material cause of the world which is dissimilar to itself, because though unconditioned it is connected with māyā from afar; whatever though unconditioned is connected with something, that is the material cause of an effect dissimilar to itself connected with that, like the sun connected with variously colored mirrors [is the cause] of various kinds of light" - by this inference, when being the material cause of a dissimilar effect is established merely from the connection even though unconditioned, the counter-reason of dissimilarity between cause and effect raised as "dissimilarity to the effect" becomes common, so the proving reason loses its force of contradiction, thus the first [doubt] is resolved, and by that very reason the third [doubt] that there is no possibility of conditioning is also resolved - this is the meaning.
Then what is the resolution of the second doubt regarding Brahman about creatorship, and the doubt regarding the jīva about being unfortunate etc.? Anticipating this question, they state that two resolutions are stated at the root of the option - "dvitīyasya" etc. In resolving the second, the two options stated by "virodhād" etc. are: Either the effect must be negated, since creatorship contradicts the absence of desire which accomplishes creatorship in the world, or there is merely a contradiction in the co-existence of creatorship and absence of desire, since the effect is perceived and by the rule that it must have a creator, when the creator is established.
There, in the first case, the resolution is by the two words "seyam". Its meaning is "yato dṛśi". Since the effect is seen, therefore by the force of the rule, even though desire is absent in the established creator, creatorship is established in this way. And thus, even though the previous reason is intrinsically unestablished, "Brahman is the creator of the world even without the desire to play as determined by it, because it has the power of that action through its eternal connection with māyā; whatever has the power of some action through a connection is the creator of that even without the desire to play as determined by it, like iron rotating through connection with a magnet" - by this different reason, when creatorship is established merely from the connection even though unconditioned and beyond qualities, the resolution is according to the first option.
In the second case, this contradiction in the co-existence of creatorship and absence of desire is an ornament for it, not a defect, because it indicates the excellence of its nature, or because it indicates the special power of that; "Whatever is so is so, like the contradiction of creatorship and absence of desire in iron connected with a magnet" - the resolution is according to the second option. This is stated in the original by "yan nayena virudhyate", since their co-existence is universal.
By this very [reasoning] the doubt regarding the jīva is also resolved, they say - "viruddha" etc. Since it [māyā] is the creator of contradictory effects, therefore the jīva has a connection with contradictory effects through māyā, "The poverty or bondage of the liberated Lord" is described. And thus, "The Lord's māyā is the creator of effects contradictory to its own nature in its connection, because it is māyā, like a magician's illusion that produces health in a person with severed head and extracted entrails" - when its creatorship of contradictory effects is established by this inference; even though "The jīva cannot be unfortunate and afflicted, because it has the properties of Brahman due to non-difference from it; like the space in a pot is non-different from great space" is inferred, it becomes ineffective in establishing the conclusion due to the equally strong counter-argument "The jīva can be so even though it is such, because it is connected with māyā, like a magician", thus the doubt regarding the jīva is also resolved by this - this is the meaning.
Let this be the resolution of the doubt regarding the jīva, but just as there the magician has no distress caused by the illusory distress, similarly here also the absence of that is expected for the jīva, where does that come from? Anticipating this question, they state the purport of "yadartheṇa vināmusya" etc. - "virodho 'pi" etc. "yato bṛhad". Since the jīva is also Brahman itself. And thus, there is distress due to the absence of knowledge of one's own true nature, so for removing that, the three verses beginning "sa vai nivṛttidharmena" are to be done - this is the intent of the resolution text - this is the meaning. [7]
Thus, having determined the intention of both, they are about to explain in detail. Here too, since ultimately only the word brahman is established, according to the conclusive view, why did Maitreya not resolve it? In response to this expectation, they introduce by stating its purport - atra etc. By its very nature. Since brahman is non-dual, even māyā is included within its nature, by that very fact. But what is the insistence on including even māyā within the nature? To this they say - evaṃ sati etc. Then why was it not resolved by the doctrine of brahman alone? To this they say - sa etc. How is the heterogeneity resolved by that? In response to this expectation, they state the method of resolution - kṣaṇa etc. Just as when color, mirror and light are combined, the illumination becomes different in an instant, similarly when the parts of the Lord are connected with māyā, the effect also becomes different. And just as a mirror, though imperceptible, is accepted as such based on seeing various kinds of illumination effects, similarly here too māyā should be accepted as having such a nature based on seeing the effects, otherwise that heterogeneity of effects would not be possible. Thus, the objection is resolved by that which has such a nature based on observation - this is the meaning. In the Nibandha - since even the absence of desire is resolved by "the Lord's māyā" alone, here they state resolution in another way as well. krīḍāsṛṣṭi etc. Even in the absence of desire, just as there is the illusion of movement by the proximity of a magnet, here too there is playful creation even in the absence of desire. Similarly, knowledge is by "He indeed was then the seer". Though knowledge is established as undiminished, the possibility of ignorance stated by "The one ruler did not see what is seen" is also like that. Though non-different from brahman, just as the jīva has qualities opposed to brahman, similarly though non-different from brahman, that māyā itself has qualities opposed to it, as stated - "having the nature of existence and non-existence". Thus everything is accounted for by the very nature and essential character of that [māyā] - this is the meaning. They state this by iyam etc. || 8 ||
In yadarthe here | In māyādīnām here, the word ādi includes misfortune etc. || 9 ||
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
Moreover, due to being of the nature of the Lord, even saṃsāra is not possible for the jīva - thus he states - bhagavān iti. Situated in all fields, in all bodies, this experiencer is in reality only the one Lord, as there is no difference from Him in the form of consciousness. This being so, how can there be misfortune, loss of bliss etc., or affliction caused by karmas for this jīva? As connection with karma is not possible for him, otherwise that would apply to the inner controller as well - this is the idea. || 6 ||
He concludes the question - etasmin iti. He addresses [Maitreya] as vibho, with the intention that you are capable of resolving this. Indicating the reason for the capability, he addresses again - vidvan iti. In this difficult predicament of ignorance, my mind is distressed. You dispel that mental distress of ours - this is the connection. Qualifying it as mahad, he indicates that it must certainly be dispelled, not worthy of being ignored. The plural naḥ is used to indicate that this is not just my distress, but of many others as well. || 7 ||
Sa maitreyaḥ - Maitreya, thus questioned with objections by Kṣattṛ Vidura, as if smiling, revealing astonishment thinking "Oh how difficult to resolve are these objections!", but actually free from wonder, replied giving an answer - this is the connection. He qualifies [Vidura] as tattvajijñāsuḥ, with the idea that Vidura's question must certainly be answered. He qualifies Maitreya as muniḥ, with the idea that it is proper for him to give that answer. He states the reason for being free from wonder - bhagavaccittaḥ. The idea is that he is free from astonishment due to the solution arising by the Lord's grace through constant remembrance of Him. || 8 ||
He shows the resolution given by Maitreya - seyam iti. How can there be action for the unchanging? How can there be qualities for the qualityless? How can there be play for the solitary one who is self-satisfied? How can there be connection with ignorance for one who is of the nature of knowledge, being a part of the Lord? How can there be wretchedness through loss of bliss etc. for the Lord who possesses lordship, bliss etc.? How can there be bondage for the liberated? What contradicts [the Lord] by your logic stated thus - that is this māyā of the Lord, which is of the nature of inconceivable power, a particular desire. Nothing is possible without that desire - this is the meaning. || 9 ||
In reality, even the jīva has no bondage, affliction etc., as they are imagined due to delusion - he states this with an example - yad iti. Just as for a dream-seer, without actual cutting of one's head etc., the mistaken notion "my head is cut" appears falsely, similarly for this person, the jīva, qualities like pleasure and pain belonging to the inner organ, body, senses etc. appear in oneself through superimposition on those - this is the meaning. || 10 ||
Hindī Anuvāda
Only this Lord is situated as the witness in all fields. Then how can misfortune or any kind of karma-born affliction be obtained by them? || 6 || O Lord! My mind is very distressed falling into this predicament of ignorance. Please kindly remove this great delusion of my mind. || 7 || Śrī Śukadeva said - Having received this prompting from the truth-seeking Vidura, the egoless Śrī Maitreya, remembering the Lord, said smilingly || 8 || Śrī Maitreya said - That the self which is the master of all and completely liberated should obtain wretchedness and bondage - this is certainly contrary to reason; but in reality this indeed is the Lord's māyā || 9 || Just as for a person seeing a dream, though there is no actual cutting of his head etc., it appears real due to ignorance, similarly for this jīva, though there is no bondage etc., they appear due to ignorance || 10 ||
SB 3.7.6-10
