Text 33: Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.
Text 34: O Brahmā, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as My illusory energy, that reflection which appears to be in darkness.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
'By the yoga of my māyā (divine illusion)' - this explains māyā, as it is mentioned and will be useful in the following. Without purpose, without any real meaning. Whatever undefined appears in the self as the substratum. Even though it exists, it may not appear - that should be known as my māyā. For example, illusions like the double moon, etc. are instances of appearance without reality. Like darkness is an example of non-appearance of what exists. Just as Rāhu, though present in the planetary system, is not seen. || 33 ||
This clarifies 'as it is'. Just as the great elements enter into the elemental after creation, being perceived in them, and are also not entered, as they pre-exist in them as the cause. Similarly, I am in these elements and elemental things, and yet I am not in them. This is the meaning of my existence. || 34 ||
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
For the living entity, māyā is partly favorable and partly unfavorable towards the knowledge and realization of the Supreme Self. When the Supreme Self is realized, yogamāyā (divine illusive power) alone prevails, which is indeed favorable. These two must necessarily be explained. Indicating this, he answers the question implied by 'by the yoga of my māyā' about what your māyā and yogamāyā are like, saying 'without purpose'. Whatever real object is not perceived without a purpose, but only the real object is perceived, that is the meaning. Similarly, what appears without purpose, the real object is not perceived, but only the unreal appears, that is the meaning. The liberated and bound living entities should know that as the twofold function of māyā, called vidyā (knowledge) and avidyā (ignorance) respectively, which is the power known as māyā in relation to me, the Self.
An example of vidyā is like the light of a lamp. Just as by lamplight, objects like pots and cloth existing in a house are perceived as they are, not as they were imagined before bringing the lamp, and no non-existent fearful things like snakes or scorpions are perceived. Similarly, due to vidyā, the liberated soul perceives in itself only the eternally connected knowledge, etc., not their absence as in the state of ignorance, nor unconnected bodily sorrows, delusions, etc.
An example of avidyā is like darkness. Just as in darkness, existing objects like pots and cloth in one's house are not perceived, but non-existent imagined fearful things like snakes or thieves are perceived. Similarly, due to avidyā, the bound soul does not perceive the eternally connected knowledge and bliss in itself, but only perceives the unconnected bodily sorrows, delusions, etc.
Thus, though things like flower-horns may be real, due to their lack of connection with space, 'sky-flower' and 'hare's horn' are called unreal. Similarly, though bodies and their qualities like sorrow, delusion, pleasure, and pain may be real as products of pradhāna (primordial nature), due to the soul's lack of connection with them, scriptures state that for the soul, body etc. are unreal. The soul's unreal connection with the body is indeed imagined by avidyā and dissolved by vidyā.
Examples of vidyā and avidyā are light and darkness, as stated in the 8th Skandha: "Where there is neither shadow nor sunshine, where no vulture's wing [can reach]." Some say darkness is an example of the veiling aspect only, while examples of both veiling and projecting are snake, tiger, ghost possession, etc. Others say these are also included under the term 'darkness' due to their tamasic nature.
Thus, avidyā's functions of making existing things appear and non-existing things appear in the soul are called veiling and projecting. As 'artha' also means wealth, the liberated soul rich in knowledge and bliss gained through vidyā is likened to a wealthy merchant, while the bound soul with knowledge and bliss covered by avidyā is likened to a poor merchant who hasn't acquired his wealth.
Through vidyā, only the 'thou' aspect, the individual soul, is experienced, not the 'that' aspect, the Supreme Self, as it is attributeless and can only be directly experienced through attributeless devotion, as the Lord said: "I am attainable only through undivided devotion." Moreover, as the Lord said: "Absolute knowledge is in the mode of goodness," this vidyā, which is knowledge of the self as distinct from the body, etc., being in the mode of goodness, cannot experience the Supreme Self who is beyond the modes. Rather, it is the absence of this that allows such experience. As the Lord said: "Substance, place, result, time, knowledge, action, the doer, faith, state, form, and determination - all these are indeed of the three modes. By these, O gentle one, the modes born of the mind are conquered by the living entity. Through devotional service, fixed in Me, he attains to My nature." Now then, how can a liberated soul obtain devotion for the direct experience of the Supreme Self? It is said: For those qualified for knowledge, through Sankhya, yoga, austerities, etc., mixed with devotion, first comes the experience of the meaning of 'you' (tvam) through knowledge that removes ignorance. Then, for one liberated from that knowledge, like a fire without fuel, as that knowledge gradually subsides, the previously established crescent moon of devotion, freed from its eclipse, gradually rises. Similarly, through devotion practiced again and again, there is a gradual increase in the experience of the Supreme Self. As stated by the Lord in the Gita: "One who has become Brahman, whose self is serene, neither grieves nor desires. Being the same towards all beings, he attains supreme devotion to Me." Supreme means either the best or pure, due to the absence of the state of being a subsidiary quality of the earlier time. Then, as stated: "Through devotion he knows Me as I am in essence," by this devotion, which is slightly less in type and measure, there is experience of only the attributeless Brahman, not of the Lord who is Brahman with infinite conscious distinctions. Just as a person with weak eyesight sees a jeweled image only as a generally luminous form, not as having specific features like face, nose, eyes, and ears. Then, when knowledge ceases completely along with its form, through such devotion, there is the full experience of that wonderful attributelessness of Brahman. This itself is the union of the individual soul and Brahman, denoted by the word nirvāṇa (liberation). As stated there itself: "Having thus known Me in essence, he enters into that immediately." But that supreme faith which is devotion, which is the essence of the functions of consciousness, which is in the form of the play of compassion, which is far superior in type and measure, which is very powerful, completely independent, disregarding even qualities and faults, arises spontaneously even in a bound soul, in a demon, tribal, or outcaste, even if of bad conduct. It does not arise in a brahmin, a renunciate, or even a liberated one. As stated: "Oh wonder! Like a jewel in the hand of a blind man." Similarly, there would be direct experience of the Lord who is Brahman with infinite conscious distinctions. Just as a person with much stronger eyesight clearly sees an image that is generally luminous and specifically full of the beauty of face, nose, eyes, ears, etc. Thus, devotion is of two kinds: attributeless and with attributes. By the first, in its mature state known as love-devotion, there is control over the Lord and experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form, qualities, and pastimes, which are composed of existence, consciousness, and bliss. By the second, which is sāttvika (pure), separated from even the quality of sattva (goodness), there is only the experience of the bliss of attributeless Brahman. Therefore, it is established that maya has authority over souls only in the states prior to the state of experiencing Brahman's bliss. As stated: "That alone would be perceived as real, from which the unreal [appears] thus; one should know that as one's own maya, like light, like darkness." This meaning is also seen in another context. The words ṛte and artha are inverted and coupled because that meaning, just as in people experiencing Brahman, in various types, which clearly establishes by the Lord's will, the revealer of His own form, qualities, and pastimes, is the intrinsic power that bears the burden of concealing. The characteristic of yogamāyā (divine illusive power) too is stated by the tantra itself - ṛte means when the Self, the Supreme Self, I am directly known, since the root ṛ means 'to go' and hence 'to know'. Yataḥ is the present participle of "iṇ gatau" (to go), implied by the word tat itself. By which the object, the thing obtaining the purpose, both supernatural and natural, is perceived. By which the thing with revealed true purpose would be directly experienced by a person who has realized the Supreme Self. From which it is not perceived, or by which that very thing or at another time would not be perceived. One should know that as the Lord's, my internal power called yogamāyā. It should be discerned that by māyā (illusive power) one is engaged without any purpose, but by yogamāyā one is engaged only for a purpose. "yathā bhāso yathā tamaḥ" (as light, as darkness) - Just as objects like pots and cloth are perceived when illuminated by light sources like lamps, and are not experienced when covered by darkness, similarly that yogamāyā (divine illusion) has the properties of both illumination and obscuration according to my will.
For example, to show the absence of love's inhibition even upon seeing divine power, she revealed the natural and supernatural forms of Gokula, Yaśodā, Kṛṣṇa, etc. in the Lord's belly, by which Yaśodā was deluded and directly experienced it for a moment, and in the next moment did not experience it due to concealment.
Similarly, to show the inhibition of love through the experience of divine power, Arjuna directly perceived the universal form and supreme self form revealed by her, while at that same time he did not perceive Kṛṣṇa's form due to her concealment. At another time, the universal form etc. was hidden by her and he only perceived the two-armed Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
The special feature here compared to before is that one form is revealed while another is concealed simultaneously. As in the vision of Mañjumahima, to remove Brahmā's pride of being the supreme lord, through her alternating concealment and revelation, he experienced seeing and not seeing the cowherd boys and calves, seeing Kṛṣṇa's form, seeing the cowherd boys and calves as Sūta, seeing the four-armed form etc., and seeing Śrī Kṛṣṇa's form. Parameṣṭhin (Brahmā) was deluded by her. The special feature here is the repetition of revealing and concealing various forms in that same Parameṣṭhin.
And to show that the Lord's body is inherently both limited and unlimited, and also to show that the Lord is controlled by both the effort of pure devotion and the resulting divine grace, in the rope-binding pastime, she simultaneously fulfilled and prevented Yaśodā's desired binding of Kṛṣṇa through the simultaneous concealment and revelation of his all-pervasiveness, indicated by the encircling anklet falling short by two fingers' length and not encircling. In reality, fulfilling Kṛṣṇa's own desire of being bound, by which the queen of Vraja experienced wonder for a moment, deluded. Afterwards, to fulfill her desire too with Kṛṣṇa's consent, his all-pervasiveness was indeed concealed by her, so she was able to bind Kṛṣṇa. Here the special feature compared to the previous examples is the simultaneous concealment and revelation of the same all-pervasiveness.
And for accomplishing practices like mantras for each sound, through her simultaneous concealment and revelation of his respective forms situated in the homes of Śrutadeva, Bahulāśva, Rukmiṇī, Satyabhāmā etc., the accomplishment of pastimes there will be explained. Here the special feature compared to before is the simultaneity of concealment and revelation with respect to the different individuals like Śrutadeva and Bahulāśva, whereas before it was in Yaśodā alone.
That is indeed yogamāyā, not māyā. This is evident from the direct perception of the Supreme Self even by those deluded by her. And that direct perception of the Supreme Self occurs for those with knowledge mixed with devotion when both ignorance and knowledge cease, as well as for those who, though lacking love, lovingly see Kṛṣṇa at the time of his incarnation due to being objects of his grace. At other times, according to the Bhāgavata view, only those with love have such direct perception of Kṛṣṇa, Rāma etc. Among them, only yogamāyā operates, not māyā.
Even for those who see Kṛṣṇa by his will, like Kaṃsa, there is no direct perception of the Supreme Self due to the inner defect of hatred, just as those with bile-afflicted tongues do not experience the taste of sweets even while eating them. In them, māyā operates, not yogamāyā.
The power of māyā originates from yogamāyā and is her manifestation, as stated in the Nārada Pañcarātra in the dialogue of Śruti and Vidyā: "Her covering power is Mahāmāyā, the controller of all. By her the entire world is deluded, all identifying with their bodies."
The yogamāyā power considered by the Lord as his own nature is indeed consciousness. She herself, considered as her own nature by her own will in part, having become separate from her own nature, is the unconscious māyā power. Just as a snake's skin, though part of its nature, when shed by it becomes a separate, unconscious sheath, as stated in the Śrutis: "Like a snake shedding its skin, you have abandoned that."
That māyā is of three types: pradhāna (primordial nature), avidyā (ignorance), and vidyā (knowledge). The characteristics of pradhāna will be explained in the Jāyantīyopākhyāna. By pradhāna, the limiting adjuncts are created, and they are indeed real. By avidyā, their superimposition on the individual souls is created, and that is indeed unreal. By vidyā, the destruction of that superimposition occurs. Thus, the effect of these three powers, this world, is partly unreal and, due to the eternality of the souls and the transcendental nature of the Lord's abode and devotional accessories, partly eternal as well. This has been described in various ways by different schools according to their views:
"The effect of pradhāna is real, the effect of avidyā is false. That which is connected to His devotion is eternal - this world consists of these three. (1) Bodies are effects of pradhāna, their qualities are of avidyā. Their connection to souls and devotion - these are transcendental. (2) Consciousness, souls, and māyā are the three eternal powers of Kṛṣṇa. Through their functions, that one Supreme Lord appears. (3) Due to the oneness of effect and cause, and of power and the powerful," ekamevādvayaṃ brahma (One alone is the non-dual Brahman) neha nānāsti kiṃcana (there is no diversity here whatsoever) 4 bhaktānāmeva siddhāntaścatuḥślokīyamī- litā (This four-verse doctrine is established only for the devotees) | śīlitā bhavatāduktaistaireva na kilāparaiḥ (It is practiced by those spoken of by you, not by others) 5" Thus says Viśvanātha. The context is: Now, to explain the nature of māyā (illusion) through the differentiation of the self characterized by such forms, etc., he says - ṛte'rtham (without meaning). Without me, the ultimate reality, that appears; in my appearance, there is no appearance of that. The meaning is that its appearance is only outside of me. What is not perceived in the self and that which has no independent perception without being dependent on something - such an entity should be known as māyā, the power called illusion of myself, the supreme Lord, which is of two types - jīvamāyā (individual soul's illusion) and guṇamāyā (illusion of qualities). Here, even for the pure soul, due to its nature of consciousness and being like a ray of it, only its internal inclusion is intended. Its non-dual nature is understood through two examples. The nature of the first part, called jīvamāyā, is clarified through an example, dispelling any doubt. As ābhāsa (reflection) - a reflection is a particular image of a luminous object projected in a nearby place from its own light. Just as it appears only outside of that [object] and there is no perception of it without that [object], so is this [māyā]. By this, its nature as reflection is also implied by the synonym pratibimba (image). Therefore, the effect of it is also called ābhāsa (reflection) in some places, as in "ābhāsa and nirodha (obstruction)" etc. Sometimes, an extremely brilliant light falling on the eyes of onlookers obscures their vision, and covering it, by its own extreme brilliance, confuses the viewer's eye and emits a variety of colors in its vicinity. Sometimes it transforms that very [light] separately into various forms. Similarly, this [māyā] also obscures the knowledge of the individual soul, emits the inert prakṛti (nature) called guṇamāyā which is the equilibrium of sattva and other qualities, and sometimes transforms the separate sattva and other qualities into various forms - this and more should be understood. As it is said: "As the partial smile of fire spreads moonlight, so is this entire world the māyā of the supreme Brahman." And as the Ayurveda experts say: "The unwilling puruṣa (consciousness), who is the source of the world and of the form of pure bliss, has an eternal prakṛti (nature), like the reflection of a luminous object. Though unconscious, through association with the consciousness of the supreme self, it created the entire impermanent world in the form of a play." Thus, the instrumental aspect should be understood as jīvamāyā and the material aspect as guṇamāyā. Now, he clarifies the second aspect called guṇamāyā, which has been established thus, through an example. As tamas (darkness) - here the word tamas refers to the previously mentioned darkness-like variety of colors. Just as that, though non-existent in the original light, cannot exist without depending on it, so is this [māyā]. Or, in the description of māyā alone, these two separate examples are given. The example of ābhāsa (reflection) has been explained. And the example of tamas (darkness) should be understood as: just as darkness is perceived only away from light and is not perceived without light, being perceived by the eye illuminated by light, not by the back etc., so is this [māyā]. Thus, the two aspects are stated only by the difference in their functions, not by the difference in examples. With the intention of the previous two examples, sometimes the former is referred to by the synonym chāyā (shadow), and the latter always by the word tamas (darkness), as in "He created knowledge with shadow, the five-fold unmanifest." And as in "Who am I? I am great darkness" etc. In the former, being related to the individual soul due to its function as the instrumental power called avidyā (ignorance), it is jīvamāyā. In the latter, being the function of the material power consisting of its own various qualities producing the great elements etc., it is guṇamāyā. In "He created" etc., it means that at the beginning of creation, Brahmā himself manifested avidyā (ignorance) relying on the shadow-power māyā. "vidyāvidye mama tanū viddhyuddhava śarīriṇām | bandhamokṣakarī ādhe māyayā me vinirmite" (Knowledge and ignorance are my two forms, know this, O Uddhava, for embodied beings. They cause bondage and liberation, and are created by my māyā (illusion)), thus it is said. The difference in their manifestation is also heard. Regarding the former, in the Padma Purāṇa, in the Kārttika-māhātmya section of the dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Satyabhāmā, in the praise of Māyā by the devas: "Thus, as the devas were praising, they saw in the sky a radiant mandala, with its brilliance pervading all directions. From its center, they all heard a celestial voice: 'I alone, divided threefold, exist with three types of qualities'," and so on. Regarding the latter, in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa: "The innumerable state of prakṛti (nature) is dense darkness, immutable."
The meaning of addressing in the first person as "vidyā" (knowledge) is this: It is an instruction to others by oneself. But you directly experience it through the power given by me. Thus, transcending the illusory vision, one should experience me as endowed with form and other attributes. This is the essence of the experience through the method of negation. Even though my essential nature is determined by words, it cannot be experienced due to the influence of māyā's effects. Therefore, to achieve that purpose, one must abandon māyā. By this, it is understood that love is also experienced due to its inseparability [from knowledge].
This is the meaning: My existence is indeed supernatural. The context is now explaining the secretive nature of that very love, as follows. Just as the great elements, though not entered into beings, appear to be situated within while remaining outside, similarly, I, though not entered into them as I reside in the transcendental Vaikuṇṭha, appear to be situated in the hearts of devoted people who are renowned for their respective qualities. There, the entry and non-entry of the great elements is by partial division, while for Him, it is by the difference in manifestation. Thus, the difference is also an analogy only in terms of the similarity of entry and non-entry.
In this way, it is indicated that for them, such love-devotion, which makes the self subservient, is a secret. And thus in the Brahma-saṃhitā: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Rādhā, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhīs], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa." And: "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, Śyāmasundara, who is Kṛṣṇa, who has an inconceivable form of qualities, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love."
The meaning is: Though His form of qualities is inconceivable, it is seen with the eye of devotion, which is like a collyrium tinged with what is called love, thus manifesting brightly. Or, just as those [elements] appear both inside and outside them, similarly, I manifest in the devotees' inner mental functions and outer sensory functions. Thus, the cause of the devotees' complete absorption in me in every way is some self-luminous, love-named, blissful entity, which is my secret – this is the essence.
Similarly, it is said by Śrī Brahmā: "My speech never speaks falsely, nor does my mind ever think falsely. My senses never go towards the unreal path, for Hari is held in my heart with longing." Although according to other explanations, this meaning might be refuted, the intent is in this very meaning, as it is begun for establishing the fourfold assertion and follows that sequence. Moreover, in this meaning, no word becomes redundant or meaningless, as the analogy itself fits with both actions.
Furthermore, this indeed is what is called a secret: when an extremely rare object is covered by another ordinary object to prevent the gaze of desired and indifferent people, like a cintāmaṇi (wish-fulfilling gem) with a box, etc. Therefore, the statement of the Lord: "The sages speak in hidden ways, and hidden am I too." That very thing is made hidden which is not to be given, has rare circulation, and is a great entity. Its non-givability, rare circulation, and greatness are clearly expressed in many places: "He may sometimes give liberation, but never devotional service," "Even among liberated souls and perfected beings," "Devotion is superior to perfection," and so on.
This very thing has been told by the Supreme Lord Himself to His supreme devotees Arjuna and Uddhava with great difficulty: "Listen again to My supreme word, most secret of all," and "I shall speak to you what is most secret." This very secret was revealed to Śrī Nārada by Brahmā himself: "This is called the Bhāgavata, which was spoken to me by the Lord. It is a collection of His glories; you should expand this. Describe it with the resolve that people will develop devotion to Lord Hari, the all-pervading support of all souls." Therefore, it has been well explained by the venerable ones that the secret is devotion.
Viśvanātha, however, [says]: Thus, having characterized māyā and yogamāyā by the tantra itself, he tells in the tantra manner the mode of each in the material and spiritual worlds presided over by them, as asked by Brahmā, as follows: Just as the great elements like ether are entered into the beings like gods, humans, animals, etc., because they are perceived in them. Not entered, and separately existing. Thus, having entered into those elements and elemental beings, I am also not entered, as I exist separately in my own pure essential abode. However, due to the unconscious nature of the great elements, my entry into those elements is without attachment. Even though I am conscious, like space in one's own house, I reside untouched. Thus, the meaning is that in all these, due to the observance of entry, regulation, and protection without attachment, I play without attachment in these illusory forms. Similarly, in those well-known, bowed devotees, I have entered into their inner faculties to give darśana (vision), and not entered, remaining outside to bestow my beauty upon their eyes, to infuse my fragrance into their noses, to engage in speech and reply with them, to fill their ears with the nectar of my melodious voice, and to make them experience my tenderness and other qualities in their bodies through touch, embrace, and other gifts. Thus, the meaning is that I play with attachment in those devotees who are beyond qualities, whom I cannot abandon internally or externally. || 34 ||
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
Without purpose, etc., meaning any body, etc. The idea is this: Though non-existent, though false, the body, etc., appears as the self without any real, ultimate purpose. Though existent, though eternally manifest, the self is not perceived, is not known. The understanding that there is no self different from the body, etc., one should know as the māyā (illusion) of the self, of the Supreme Lord. The idea is this: Māyā has two powers in the form of concealment and projection. By the power of concealment, there is ignorance of one's true nature; by the power of projection, there is identification of the self with the body. In the perception of the non-existent, the example is "like an appearance", meaning that even though there is no duality in the moon, etc., due to mental error or observed defect, sometimes two moons appear to be seen. In the non-perception of the existent, the example is "like darkness", meaning that in a room enveloped in deep darkness, even existing jars, etc., are not perceived, but only darkness is perceived. Thus, not the self, but the body, etc. Or, "darkness and Rāhu", meaning that even though present in the planetary system, it is not perceived. This is the meaning. Thus ends the Bālaprabodhinī. || 33 || 34 ||
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Thus, the nature of the Supreme Self, distinct from conscious and unconscious entities, has been stated. Now, the conscious form, which is to be known as a part indicated by the word "avara" (inferior), is stated in "Without purpose". Without the ultimate object, which is the supreme goal of human life, the conscious principle, when the unconscious substance would be perceived at the time of contemplation on nature, the true nature of the self does not manifest properly. This is the meaning. When the conscious nature is perceived in the self, according to the maxim "that is night for the seeing sage", that which is perceived as unconscious should be known as the māyā of the self, of the Supreme Self. This is the meaning. Intending that when one manifests, the other does not manifest due to their contradictory natures, he gives an example for this: "Like appearances", appearance means shining, or the word "bhāsu" is in plural. Indeed, darkness does not shine in light, nor does light shine in darkness. This is the meaning. The connection of contradictory qualities like grossness, subtlety, eternality, inertness, etc., is intended. || 33 || * * Thus, the mutually distinct natures of the conscious and unconscious have been stated. Now, he states the protection in the form of governing these two by his own entry, and the non-contact with their inherent faults, in "As". The great elements - space, air, fire - as they have entered into various high and low elements and elemental beings like pots, etc., are also not entered, as they are untouched by the divisions and splits present in pots, etc. Similarly, I too, though entered as the self into those conscious and unconscious beings, am not entered into them, meaning I am not touched by their respective faults. Or, even while entering into limited conscious and unconscious entities, he states his own unlimitedness with an example in "As"! Those that have not entered are also outside, and in that way, I have entered into all of them by pervading everything outside as well. The meaning is that I am not confined to them alone, but I am also pervading outside. Thus, by establishing the unlimited nature, "how much I am" is clarified. In "I alone existed," by establishing omniscience, omnipotence, etc., which are implied by being the cause of the world and the distinction between sentient and non-sentient beings, "as I was" is clarified. With "without purpose" and so on, by establishing the nature of the mutually distinct sentient and non-sentient beings that form the body of the Supreme Self, "what form" is clarified. And with "in them," by establishing the Supreme Self as the body of the sentient and non-sentient beings, it is implied that "what qualities" are perceived as my own qualities through the sentient and non-sentient beings that form my body, just as the qualities of the body, such as childhood and youth, belong to the individual self. With "I alone existed," by establishing the actions in the form of world affairs such as creation, preservation, and destruction, "what actions" is made clear. || 34 ||
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
He explains the method of imparting knowledge with "aham" (I). Before creation, I alone existed, and from the word "ca" (and), it is understood that sat (existence) and asat (non-existence), time, prakṛti (primordial nature), etc., existed. However, during dissolution, whatever time, karma, etc., different from Hari existed, that was not independent, but rather under my control due to being covered by māyā (illusion). After creation, during the state of existence, I became this world. He explains the result with "ya" (who). During the state of existence, due to the perception of independence such as "I am the enjoyer" and "I am the doer," one might think that this world had independence before creation and after dissolution. But this is not so, as that perception is rooted in delusion of the intellect. As it is said: "Before creation and after dissolution, it is dependent on Viṣṇu. During the state of existence, its independence is somewhat perceived due to the delusion of the intellect, but even that should be understood as non-existent." By this, it is stated that I am independent in all three times, and everything including you is always dependent on me. || 33 ||
He instructs about the nature of the non-independent prakṛti, etc., with "ṛte 'rtham" (without purpose). Whatever object is perceived everywhere in the Vedas, etc., without purpose for me, who has all desires fulfilled, and whatever is not perceived as an obstacle in me, the Self - for the Lord is not obstructed or benefited by the individual soul or prakṛti - that object of prakṛti, etc., should be known as the māyā of the Self, the Supreme Self. Here, māyā does not mean magic, but rather the individual soul and prakṛti itself, as it is said. Just as the individual soul, which is my reflection, is perceived as real, and just as the root prakṛti, which is the cause of ignorance and weakness, is perceived as real, they are called māyā. Primarily, the power of Viṣṇu is referred to by the word māyā, but metaphorically, prakṛti and the individual soul are also called so. This means that just as those holding umbrellas, etc., standing in a chariot are not called charioteers, similarly, the individual soul, prakṛti, karma, and time, though always existing in me, are not said to be situated in me because the individual soul does not live through me, prakṛti is not bound by me, karma does not yield fruit in me, and time does not cause change in me. Everything, though situated in the Supreme, is not spoken of as being there. || 34 ||
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
Now, to inform about the Self possessing such form, etc., through the method of negation, he describes the characteristics of māyā with "ṛte 'rtham" (without purpose) and so on. Whatever is perceived without me, the ultimate reality, meaning whatever is perceived outside of me due to the absence of my perception - that is the meaning. And whatever is not perceived in the Self, meaning whatever has no independent perception without my being its substratum - that is the meaning. Thus, one should know the object with such characteristics as the māyā (illusion) of myself, the supreme lord, which is twofold: jīvamāyā (individual soul's illusion) and guṇamāyā (illusion of qualities). Here, even for the pure soul, due to its nature of consciousness and being like a ray of it, its internal fall is intended. The twofold nature of this is obtained through two examples. Explaining the nature of the first part, called jīvamāyā, through an example, it refutes impossibility: "like a reflection". A reflection is a special image of a luminous object somehow projected in a distant place from its own light. Just as it appears outside of it, and there is no perception of it without it, so is this [māyā]. By this, it is also suggested that the reflection has the nature of an illusory appearance in the form of a reversed image. Hence, its effect is also sometimes called an appearance, as in "appearance and obstruction". Here, just as an extremely bright [object] covers the light of the eyes that fall on its dazzling luster, and covering it, by its own extremely brilliant radiance, confuses the viewer's eye and emits a variety of colors near itself, sometimes transforming the same into various forms separately, similarly, this [māyā] also covers the knowledge of the individual soul, emits the inert nature called guṇamāyā in the form of equilibrium of sattva and other qualities, and sometimes transforms the separate sattva and other qualities into various forms. This and more should be understood. As it is said:
"As the radiance of fire situated in one place spreads, so does this entire world [spread] as the māyā of the supreme Brahman."
And thus, the knowers of Ayurveda [say]:
"The unwilling, consciousness-bliss-formed male progenitor of the world has an eternal nature, like the reflection of a luminous object. Though unconscious, through union with the consciousness of the supreme self, it created the entire impermanent universe in the form of a drama."
Thus, the causal aspect is jīvamāyā, and the material aspect is guṇamāyā, which should be further analyzed. Now, having established this, he clarifies the second aspect called guṇamāyā with an example: "like darkness". The word "darkness" here refers to the variety of colors mentioned earlier as the object of darkness. Just as that [darkness], though always present in its original light, cannot exist without depending on it, so is this [māyā]. Or, in the description of māyā alone, there are two separate examples. The example of reflection has been explained, and the example of darkness should be understood as follows: just as darkness is perceived elsewhere than light and is not perceived without light, and the nature of light is perceived only by the eye, not by the back, etc., so is this [māyā]. Then, the two aspects should be understood by the difference in their functions, not by the difference in examples. With the intention of the previous twofold example, the former is sometimes used with the word "shadow", synonymous with "reflection", and the latter with the word "darkness" itself, as in:
"He first created ignorance with shadow, having five joints."
And as in:
"I am the shadow, I am the great darkness."
In the former, due to being the function of the causal power called ignorance, it is jīvamāyā as it pertains to the individual soul. In the latter, due to being the function of its own quality-filled material power producing the great principle, etc., it is guṇamāyā. Thus, in "He created", etc., it means that Brahma himself manifested ignorance at the beginning of creation, relying on the shadow power māyā. As it is said:
"Knowledge and ignorance are my two bodies, O Uddhava, for embodied beings. These two, causing bondage and liberation, are created by my māyā."
The difference in their manifestation is heard. Among them, for the former, in the Padma Purāṇa, in the glorification of Kārtika in the dialogue between Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Satyabhāmā, in the praise of māyā by the gods:
"Thus praising, those gods [saw] situated in a circle of light."
"I alone, divided threefold, exist with three kinds of guṇas (and the English translation of that word is: qualities)" and so on.
In the Uttara Khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa:
"The innumerable abode of nature, dense darkness, immutable."
Thus. The meaning of this first-person instruction is: This teaching is indeed for others, but you are directly experiencing it through the power I have given you. Thus, transcending the view of the illusory creation, one should experience me as distinguished by form and other attributes. This is the meaning of non-experience through the method of exclusion: Even though my essential nature is determined by words, experience of it does not occur due to the influence of māyā's (and the English translation of that word is: illusion) effects. Therefore, for that purpose, abandoning māyā is necessary. By this, it is understood that due to its inseparability, one experiences other types of love. (33)
Now, the secrecy of that very love is explained, as in "mahānti" (great). Just as great elements, though not entered into beings, appear as if entered while remaining outside, similarly, I, though not entered as situated in the transcendental Vaikuṇṭha, appear as if entered and not entered into those renowned for their respective qualities. The difference is in the manifestation of that [love]. Despite the difference, the simile is based on the mere similarity of entering and not entering.
Thus, it is suggested that such self-controlling devotional love of theirs is a secret. As stated in the Brahma-saṃhitā:
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Rādhā, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhīs], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa."
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is Śyāmasundara, Kṛṣṇa Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love."
The meaning is: Although of inconceivable qualities, it is seen by the eye of devotion, which is like a collyrium called love, shining brightly. Or, just as those [elements] appear both outside and inside them, similarly, I manifest in devotees both in their internal mental functions and external sensory functions. Thus, it is suggested that there is some self-luminous, love-named, blissful entity that is the cause of devotees' total absorption in Me in every way, which is My secret.
Similarly, as stated by Lord Brahmā: "My dear Lord, neither I nor my speech have ever spoken falsehood. My mind does not enjoy deception, nor do my senses ever stray to irrelevant subjects. Only because of Your expansive attractive features, my mind, words, and body have been totally dedicated to You."
Although according to other interpretations, this meaning might be refuted, the intention is in this very meaning, as it is begun for establishing the fourfold promise and follows that sequence. Moreover, in that meaning, the split word "na teṣu" (not in them) would be meaningless. The simile itself is consistent with both actions.
Furthermore, this is indeed what is called a secret: when an extremely rare object is covered by another common object to prevent the gaze of wicked or indifferent people, like a wish-fulfilling gem by a box. Therefore, the statement of the Lord: "The sages speak in indirect terms, and that indirectness is pleasing to Me."
That very thing is made indirect which is not to be given, rarely circulated, and a great entity. Its ungiveability, rare circulation, and greatness are clearly expressed everywhere in statements like: "Sometimes I give liberation, but rarely devotional service," "Even among millions of liberated souls and those who have attained perfection," and "Devotion is superior to liberation," etc.
And this very thing has been explicitly stated by the Supreme Lord to His supreme devotees Arjuna and Uddhava: "Listen again to the supreme secret" and "I will speak what is most confidential."
This very secret was revealed to Śrī Nārada by Lord Brahmā himself: "This Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which was spoken to me by the Supreme Lord, is the essence of all His potencies. Please expand it so that people will develop devotion to Lord Hari, the all-pervading Soul of all beings, as you have resolved."
Therefore, it is well explained by the venerable commentator as "secret devotion." (34)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Why is māyā (illusion) partially favorable to the jīva's (individual soul's) knowledge and realization of the supreme self? When the supreme self, which is me, is realized, yogamāyā (divine illusion) indeed becomes favorable. These two must necessarily be explained. Thus, indicating that your māyā and yogamāyā, as implied by "through the union of self and māyā," are of what nature, he answers the question in order, saying "ṛte'rtham" (without meaning).
That which is not perceived without artha (meaning, truth, object), but only anartha (meaningless, untrue, non-object) is perceived. The meaning is that only the true object would be perceived. Similarly, that which would be perceived without artha, artha would not be perceived, but anartha would be perceived. That, in the self, the liberated and bound jīva should know the māyā of myself, the self, as the twofold function called māyā, namely vidyā (knowledge) and avidyā (ignorance), in that order.
An example of vidyā: Just as the light of a lamp, etc., just as in a house, only existing objects like pots and cloth are perceived due to the light of a lamp, etc., and not the absence of pots and cloth that was assumed before bringing the lamp, nor are extraneous fear-causing non-objects like snakes and scorpions perceived. Similarly, due to vidyā, the liberated jīva perceives only the eternally connected knowledge, bliss, etc., in itself, not their absence as in the state of ignorance, nor the unconnected body, bodily sorrows, delusions, etc.
An example of avidyā: Just as darkness, just as in one's own house, existing objects like pots and cloth are not perceived due to darkness, but non-existent, imagined fear-causing non-objects like snakes and thieves are perceived. Similarly, due to avidyā, the bound jīva does not perceive the eternally connected knowledge, bliss, etc., existing in itself, but perceives only the body, bodily sorrows, delusions, etc., which are non-existent in the self but appear as if connected to it.
Therefore, just as sky-flowers and rabbit's horns are said to be unreal due to the absence of their connection with the sky and rabbits, even though flowers and horns themselves are real, similarly, although bodies and their properties like sorrow, delusion, pleasure, pain, etc., are real due to their material nature, the scriptures state that the jīva's body, etc., are false due to the absence of their connection with the jīva.
The jīva's false connection with the body is indeed imagined by avidyā and dissolved by vidyā. Thus, the examples of vidyā and avidyā are light and darkness. The authority for this should be known from the eighth skandha (section) where it is said, "Where shadow and sunlight are not the wings of a vulture."
Some say that this example of darkness is only for the concealing aspect, while examples for both concealment and projection are to be understood as snakes, tigers, ghost possessions, etc. Others say that these too, being of the nature of darkness, should be understood by the word "darkness" itself. Thus, in the jīva, the functions of avidyā - causing the perception of non-existent things and non-perception of omnipresent existing things - are called by the words āvaraṇa (concealment) and vikṣepa (projection).
Now, since the word artha also means wealth, by a play on words, the liberated one, having obtained knowledge and bliss through vidyā, is depicted as wealthy, like a merchant who has obtained his own strength and wealth through good fortune. Similarly, the bound jīva, devoid of knowledge and bliss due to avidyā, is to be understood as poor, like a merchant who has not obtained his own wealth due to misfortune.
Thus, through vidyā, the experience of the meaning of the word "tvam" (you), which is the individual self, occurs, but not of the meaning of the word "tat" (that), which is the supreme self. Since the supreme self is without qualities, its direct experience is possible only through nirguṇa bhakti (devotion free from qualities), as stated by the Lord: "I am attainable only through undivided devotion."
Moreover, since the Lord has said that kaivalya (liberation) is sāttvika (of the nature of purity) knowledge, this vidyā, which is in the form of knowledge of the self as distinct from the body, etc., being of the nature of sattva guṇa (quality of purity), cannot bring about the experience of the supreme self, which is beyond the guṇas (qualities). Rather, it leads to its own dissolution. As stated by the Lord: "Substance, place, result, time, knowledge, action, doer, faith, state, form, and determination - all these are indeed of the nature of the three guṇas." By which these qualities born of the mind are conquered by the living being, O gentle one; through bhakti-yoga (devotional service), being fixed on Me, he attains to My state.
Thus, how can bhakti be obtained by the liberated soul for the purpose of indirect experience of the Supreme Self? It is said that for those qualified for knowledge, through Sāṅkhya yoga, austerities, etc., mixed with bhakti, first the experience of the meaning of 'tvam' (you) is generated by knowledge that removes ignorance. Then, for one separated from ignorance, by the gradual cessation of knowledge like a fire without fuel, there is a gradual increase in the previously established crescent moon of bhakti, free from the eclipse of that (ignorance). Similarly, by repeatedly practicing bhakti, there is a gradual increase in the experience of the Supreme Self, the meaning of 'tat' (that). As stated by the Lord in the Gītā: "One who has become Brahman, whose self is joyful, neither grieves nor desires; being equal towards all beings, he attains supreme bhakti to Me." Supreme means either superior due to the absence of the previous state of having qualities, or exclusive. And then, "Through bhakti he knows Me, how great and who I am in truth." From this statement, by category and measure, with that lesser bhakti, there is only the experience of the attributeless Brahman, not of the Lord who is Brahman with infinite conscious attributes. Just as a person with weak eyesight sees a jeweled form only as a general luminous object, not as having specific features like face, nose, eyes, ears, etc. Then, with the complete cessation of knowledge, there is the fullness of the wonderful attributeless state, and similarly, the fullness of the experience of Brahman through bhakti. This is indeed the unity of the individual soul and Brahman, denoted by the word nirvāṇa. As stated there itself: "Then knowing Me in truth, he enters into Me immediately thereafter."
But that bhakti which is the essence of the functions of the energy of consciousness, in the form of the play of grace, supreme, pure, exceedingly great by category and measure, is powerful, supremely independent, disregarding even qualities and faults, arises spontaneously even in a bound soul, in a demon, tribal, or outcaste, even in one of bad conduct, but does not arise in a brahmin, a sannyāsī, or even in a liberated soul. Similarly, it destroys all afflictions up to ignorance, as stated: "Which quickly consumes anger like fire swallows what is thrown into it." By that alone, there can be direct experience even of the Lord who has infinite conscious attributes. Just as a person with much stronger eyesight sees the form distinctly as both generally luminous and specifically beautiful with face, nose, eyes, ears, etc.
Thus, bhakti is twofold: attributeless and with attributes. By the first, in its mature state called prema-bhakti (loving devotion), there is control over the Lord and experience of the sweetness of the Lord's form, qualities, and pastimes, which are composed of existence, consciousness, and bliss. By the second, which is sāttvika (in the mode of goodness), separated from the quality of sattva itself, there is only the experience of the bliss of attributeless Brahman. Therefore, it is established that māyā has authority over souls only in the states prior to the state of experiencing the bliss of Brahman.
"That should be known as one's own māyā, by which the unreal appears as real, just as appearance is due to darkness." From this statement, an intention in another meaning is also seen. The words 'ṛte' and 'artha' are placed together because they cannot be separated. And that meaning is: Just as in people who have experienced Brahman, that which clearly establishes various things by the Lord's will, the inherent energy that is expert in revealing and concealing His own nature, form, qualities, and pastimes - the characteristic of that yogamāyā is also stated by the tantra itself with "ṛte" etc. When the self, the Supreme Self, Myself, is known (ṛte), since 'ṛ' has the meaning of going and thus of knowing, the meaning is: when directly experienced. 'Yad' is the present participle of 'i' meaning 'to go', implying 'yat' by the word 'tat' itself. That by which the object (artha) that is being attained, both transcendental and material, is perceived as purposeful when revealed, is directly experienced by a person who has realized the Supreme Self - this is the meaning. From which it is not perceived and by which it is covered, or would not be perceived at another time - this is the meaning. One should know that to be the yogamāyā (divine illusion), the internal power of the divine Lord, of myself. It should be understood that māyā (illusion) acts without any purpose, while yogamāyā acts with a specific purpose. Just as appearance and darkness. Just as an object like a pot or cloth is perceived when illuminated by light from a lamp, but when covered by darkness it would not be experienced, similarly that yogamāyā, by my will, has the nature of appearance and darkness - this is the meaning. For example, to show the absence of love's inhibition even when seeing [the Lord's] majesty, by which the material universe was illuminated in the Lord's belly, and by which Yaśodā was deluded into directly experiencing the transcendental form of Gokula, Yaśodā, and Kṛṣṇa, and in the next moment, due to concealment, did not experience it. And just as Arjuna directly experienced the universal form and the supreme self's form, which was illuminated by her to show the inhibition of love through the experience of majesty, but due to concealment did not experience the form of Kṛṣṇa present there itself, and at another time did not experience the universal form etc. which was covered by her, but experienced only the two-armed Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Here the special feature compared to before is that there is illumination of one form and concealment of another simultaneously. And just as to remove Brahmā's pride of being the Lord by showing [His] gentle glory, through concealment and revelation, like seeing Kṛṣṇa's form with companions for play and not seeing it, seeing it with children and not seeing it, seeing the four-armed form and not seeing it, seeing Śrī Kṛṣṇa's form - these were experienced by the deluded Brahmā. Here the special feature is the repetition of revealing and concealing various forms in the same Brahmā. And just as to show that the Lord's body is by nature both limited and unlimited, inconceivable, and to show that the Lord is controlled by both mere devotional effort and the Lord's grace born from it, in the rope-binding play, simultaneously fulfilling the desires of both Yaśodā and Kṛṣṇa for binding and freedom, indicating the simultaneous concealment and revelation of omnipresence through the rope falling short by two finger-widths when wrapped around, but actually fulfilling only Kṛṣṇa's desired connection, by which the deluded queen of Vraja experienced wonder for a moment, and afterwards to fulfill her desire too with Kṛṣṇa's consent, the omnipresence was indeed concealed, hence she was able to bind Kṛṣṇa. Here the special feature compared to all previous instances is the concealment and revelation of the same omnipresence simultaneously.
And just as for the success of separate invitations etc., the concealment and revelation of his respective forms situated in the homes of Śrutadeva, Bahulāśva, Rukmiṇī, Satyabhāmā etc. will be explained as simultaneously bringing about the success of the play there. Here the simultaneity of concealment and revelation depends on the difference of individuals like Śrutadeva, Bahulāśva etc., whereas previously it was in Yaśodā alone - this is the special feature. That indeed is yogamāyā, not māyā, because even those deluded ones had direct perception of the Supreme Self. And that direct perception of the Supreme Self happens for those with knowledge mixed with devotion when both ignorance and knowledge cease, and similarly at the time of incarnation for those seeing Kṛṣṇa with love, being objects of his grace even without love. But at other times, direct perception of Kṛṣṇa, Rāma etc. is said to be only for those with love, according to the Bhāgavata view. Among them, only yogamāyā operates, not māyā. Even for those seeing Kṛṣṇa by his will, like Kaṃsa etc., there is no direct perception of the Supreme Self due to the internal defect of hatred, just as those eating fish sauce do not experience its taste if their tongue is vitiated by bile. Among them, only māyā operates, not yogamāyā. And the power of māyā originates from yogamāyā, it is only her manifestation, as stated in the Nārada Pañcarātra in the dialogue of Śruti and Vidyā: "Her covering power is Mahāmāyā, the ruler of all. By her the whole world is deluded, all identifying with their bodies." The power of yogamāyā, considered by the Lord as his own nature, is indeed consciousness. That same [power], partially, by its own will, not considering itself as its own nature, becoming separate from its own nature, is the power of māyā which is indeed inert. Just as a snake's skin, though part of its own nature, if shed by it, becomes a separate inert slough. And thus it is said in the śruti (sacred texts):
"You cast off that [māyā (illusion)] like a snake shedding its skin, with your desires fulfilled."
And that māyā is of three types: pradhāna (primordial nature), avidyā (ignorance), and vidyā (knowledge). The characteristics of pradhāna will be explained in the story of Jāyantī. The upādhis (limiting adjuncts) are created by pradhāna, and they are indeed real. By avidyā, their superimposition is created in the jīvas (individual souls), and that is unreal. By vidyā, the destruction of that superimposition [occurs]. Thus, the effect of these three powers is this world, which is partly real and partly unreal. Due to the eternality of the jīvas and the nirguṇa (without attributes) nature of the Lord's abode and other devotional accessories, there is also partial eternality, which has been described in various forms by different schools of thought according to their own doctrines.
1. The effect of pradhāna is real, the effect of avidyā is false. The connection with devotion is eternal - this is composed of these three.
2. The bodies and their properties are products of pradhāna, while the connection of these with the jīvas is due to avidyā. The devotion, however, is nirguṇa (beyond material qualities).
3. Consciousness, individual soul, and māyā are the three eternal powers of Kṛṣṇa. Through their functions, the one Supreme Lord shines forth.
4. Due to the unity of cause and effect, and of power and the powerful, there is only one non-dual Brahman. There is no diversity here whatsoever.
This is the conclusion of the devotees, expressed in these four verses. It is practiced by the devotees of the Lord, and indeed by no others. [33]
Thus, having characterized māyā and yogamāyā through the mantra itself, and being questioned by Brahmā about the realms of saguna (with attributes) and nirguṇa (without attributes) governed by them, He explains His own mode of play as follows:
Just as the great elements like ether and others have entered into beings such as devas (gods), humans, animals, etc., because they are perceived in them, and yet have not entered because they exist separately, similarly, I have entered into these elemental beings, yet I have not entered because I exist separately in My own abode of pure sattva (goodness). However, the entry of the great elements into beings is without attachment due to their non-conscious nature, while My entry, despite being conscious, is like space - just as one might say "he lives smeared in his own house" - My play in all these is without attachment, including entering, controlling, maintaining, etc.
Similarly, I have entered into those well-known, bowed devotees, into their inner faculties to grant them vision, and I have not entered, remaining outside, to bestow My beauty upon their eyes, to infuse My fragrance into their noses, to fill their ears with the nectar of My melodious voice while engaging in conversation with them, to make them experience My tenderness, sweetness, etc., through the giving of touch, embraces, etc., to their limbs. Thus, My play is with attachment in these devotees who are beyond the guṇas (material qualities), whom I cannot abandon internally or externally. [34]
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
He describes māyā in "ṛte'rtham" (without purpose): That which would be perceived as an object of knowledge in the self, which is of the nature of knowledge and the knower, but would not be perceived without the knower-entity, that non-conscious substance should be known as My māyā. An example for the determination of the nature of the non-conscious as an object of knowledge for the conscious is given: Just as an appearance or light, or just as darkness or non-light, is perceived only when there is a knower, and not in its absence, so it is to be understood. [33]
How the Lord plays, creating and dissolving the universe through the connection with His own māyā, the wisdom regarding this is briefly imparted to the intelligent by this. Here, māyā has been shown. Now, He explains how the self, the cause of universal creation etc., is untouched by the defects in the universe, and how, though entered into the limited, it remains unlimited, in "yathā" (just as): Just as the great elements like ether, air, etc., though having entered after creation into the high and low elemental things like pots, cloth, etc., which are subject to division, moistening, etc. and are limited, are [also] not entered, being untouched by the defects of division, moistening, etc. of pots, cloth, etc., and being uncovered by pots, cloth, etc., similarly, I have entered into these great elements existing in the form of the cosmic egg, as stated in the śruti "Having created that, He then entered into it," yet I am untouched by their defects and uncovered by them. Thus, knowing Me as the cause of the universe composed of the conscious and non-conscious, one becomes possessed of knowledge and realization. When knowledge arises, one becomes fulfilled through devotional yoga to the object of knowledge, which is the abode of the highest auspicious qualities and powers. This is the subtle Bhāgavata conclusion. [34]
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Thus, having analyzed the cause of "tañjalāni", and having ascertained that everything is indeed the Self, anticipating the futility of the means of knowledge, due to its being concerned with the contraction of activity and being the subject of merits and demerits, he describes māyā as also being a single divine play of the Lord - ṛte'rtham (without substance). That which appears different from its true nature is the effect of māyā (illusion), the bewilderer of souls, of the ātman (self), which was described earlier. For it, having bewildered the soul, also bewilders the inner faculties, intellect, and so on associated with it. The intellect, bewildered by it, considers objects differently. But objects do not become different. The means of knowledge and instruments are indeed for the sake of the intellect. Some remove defects produced by the intellect. Some bestow qualities. And māyā produces delusion in two ways: it does not reveal what exists, and it reveals what does not exist, with a displacement of place and time. He states this: "What appears without substance and what does not appear. Substance from substance. Substance does not appear. It appears without substance." Therefore, it is said that the means of knowledge is for the purpose of making known the true nature of objects.
Now, why can't the object itself be like that, since some debaters accept the illusory nature of the world? This would be so if it culminates in deliberation. The authoritative Veda says, "All this is indeed Brahman." The perception of knowers of Brahman is also thus. But an erroneous perception is not determinative of objects. Otherwise, the world grasped by a deluded vision would be of the nature of delusion. Therefore, some objectivity in the object must be accepted, by which the vision becomes objective. Otherwise, due to the stability of objects, the deluded vision would be without an object. Therefore, the established delusion is brought to the object present elsewhere by māyā (illusion). Because it conforms to vision. Thus, keeping in view the eligibility, objects are produced with displacement by the bewildering māyā (illusion), having placed the creation of souls in front. In this way, it produces delusion of intellect everywhere in the world, it produces objectivity of one thing in another. Objectivity is produced by māyā. The object is the Lord. In māyā itself, the nature of the Lord in the form of objectivity is manifested. That too is not without nature. Being the power of the Self, even māyā is not without nature. Being a play of consciousness, it bewilders the intellect itself as long as the state of Brahman is not attained. For it conflicts with all objects belonging to the Lord. For they produce knowledge pertaining to the Lord. Therefore, knowledge produced by objectivity is erroneous, knowledge produced by the object is valid. Thus, as in the world, so in the Self, he says - cā''tmano (and of the Self). In the Self too, it does not reveal what exists. It reveals what does not exist.
Now, why is this object in the form of the world not accepted as different from Brahman in accordance with universal perception? To this, he says - tad vidyād ātmano māyām (one should know that as the māyā of the Self). Because it makes known what does not exist and does not make known what exists, for that reason, one should know that māyā itself. For neither the object nor the eye, being inert and of fixed nature, becomes the cause of erroneous perception. He gives an example for this - yathā''bhāso tathā tama iti (as appearance, so darkness). Just as the appearance of two moons and so on is produced by māyā alone, and not that two moons are imagined in accordance with perception. Similarly, objectivity too is produced by māyā. But the intellect, being a play of consciousness, is not produced by māyā. Otherwise, even the intellect of a knower of Brahman would be so. And then there would be total disruption. And that objectivity is twofold. One is concealing. The other is the cause of erroneous perception. Both types are produced by māyā alone, like an appearance.
Now, how does māyā have this capacity to produce objects? It only has the capacity to produce delusion. And objectivity distinct from the object is not perceived anywhere. Anticipating this objection, he says - yathā tama iti (like darkness). Just as darkness, an object, is produced in the absence of light. Wherever there is absence of light, māyā produces darkness there. This itself is the bewilderer. Therefore, it does not produce darkness for those who are afraid during the day. They, however, perceive only the luminous aspect, as their vision is delicate and strong light becomes an obstruction to sight. In its absence, they easily perceive objects. For us too, light does not modify the objects or the eye. Rather, in the absence of light, due to māyā (illusion) generating darkness, it is that which is perceived by the eye, not the object itself. Therefore, light is only for the removal of darkness. This is also the common understanding. And that objectivity is grasped by the eye. It is assimilated as different from the object. This is established in the case of rotation. In the statement "As the rise of the sun for human eyes", it is only the darkness related to the eyes that is destroyed, not some inherent darkness. Otherwise, it would be an obstruction to knowledge even by touch, or darkness would be perceived by touch. 'Darkness' here is indicative. In a mirror, it generates a face. It should not be thought that the reflected eye only perceives the face. If so, the perception of reflection in another mirror would not occur. It cannot be said that this very face is reflected in both places, as even those not facing the mirror see the reflection. Or this itself is the appearance. Therefore, just as a face is generated in a mirror, in the absence of light, like the generation of darkness, māyā (illusion) generates a duality of objectivity in the intellect of the deluded person. Of these, one does not reveal the nature of brahman (the absolute). The other is the objectivity in the form of the world. All means of knowledge are for the removal of both these - this is the idea. ||33||
Having thus described the object of knowledge and the means of knowledge, he now describes the subject - "Just as the great elements". In the Veda, entities are described in two ways - with form and formless, with parts and partless, complete and limited, and so on. This is begun to show how both these become the subject. Otherwise, only one aspect would be the subject. In that case, the Vedas would be partially invalid. Thus, to establish the validity of all Vedas, the subject is described in both ways. Just as the great elements like ether, entering as causes into beings like pots, which are of various forms - gross, subtle, long, short, crooked, straight, etc., again enter, and then do not enter. Similarly, I am the cause everywhere, entered everywhere, yet not the cause, not entered - this is the meaning. The repetition of "in them" is for understanding two sentences. Otherwise, the negation would connect only with the first sentence. For the cause enters into the effect. And the effect is produced inherent in the cause. Otherwise, the cloth would be produced without a substratum. If so, it would not be produced. Or if produced, it would be produced everywhere. Like "the pot is the Lord", like sound. By the potter's action, the pot is produced in its natural form. Like objectivity. But the form of the Lord is established. Sound too, produced by the action of palate and lips, is produced in all ears. Thus, the cloth too could be without a substratum. If so, in the cloth produced with threads as substratum, if the threads did not enter, there would be no perception of threads in the cloth. Or if occurring, it would be an illusion. The same thing has the nature of substratum and inherent at the time of cause and time of effect respectively. Thus in the great elements, there are three: being the substratum, being inherent, and being specifically inherent. He states this: "entered, not entered". Or in the great elements, there is non-entry in three ways: as cause, as pre-existing there, and as being great elements. Entry is in two ways: as entering like the cause, and as entering separately. Similarly, "in them" is fivefold. "Not in them" is again fivefold. Thus in the Lord, it becomes tenfold. Therefore, the Lord should be known as engaged in tenfold play in ten ways everywhere in the world. ||34||
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
In "ṛter artham" and "tajjalān", etc., the first quarter clarifies that it is the basis of creation, the third that it is the basis of sustenance, and the fourth that it is the basis of dissolution. Having thus properly explained the reason for "tajjalān", the object to be known is determined as the nature of the Self. Thus, since everything is of the nature of Brahman, there is no teacher-student relationship and no means-end relationship, so one might doubt the usefulness of the means of knowledge. To purify the intellect and other faculties, the Veda, which is authoritative and prescribes rituals, etc., and which describes dispassion for abandoning worldly affairs, might be considered futile when the Self is realized everywhere, as there is no need for purification of intellect and dispassion.
Anticipating this doubt, it is explained that due to its nature of restricting activity and being the object of merits and demerits, in "bahuḥ syāṃ prajāyeya" (may I become many), due to the concealment of one's own unity, excellence, and true nature, beings become attached to the world. When engaged in it out of attachment, there is no liberation. As stated in the verse "loke vyavāyāmiṣamadyaseve", the earlier section is meant to restrict the activities of beings. When slight dispassion arises from this, the latter section shows the opposite nature of activity and inactivity, and their results, as objects of merit and demerit.
This attachment, though created by māyā (illusion), is also a divine play for making the means of knowledge meaningful by generating dispassion. Therefore, it describes the Lord's power by introducing it as negating the means of knowledge and māyā. "Anyathāpratibhāsate" means it appears as something different from what it really is.
One might argue that the individual soul's power would become devoid of self-awareness in liberation, so the soul's delusion is its effect. However, in the world, there is no purpose or means for the delusion of difference, so it is not its effect. Hence, the knowledge of difference is not a delusion, but rather the objects themselves are different. To address this, they say "sā hi", etc. Thus, if the soul strives for Brahman, abandoning the manifestation of the world as a part of Brahman, it would not be deluded. For this purpose, it deludes regarding the related objects, meaning that the objects are not as they appear.
Even if there is such an erroneous appearance, how is the means of knowledge meaningful? To this, they say "buddhyartham", etc. Thus, the means of knowledge and its object are useful for purifying the intellect, hence they are meaningful. If purity is achieved by the means of knowledge alone, what is the need for other means? To this, they say "kāni", etc., referring to those that remove the defects generating intellect, and those that remove the defects of internal and external organs. Thus, nothing is meaningless as everything is useful for removing defects and instilling virtues as appropriate.
Summarizing this purport, they explain the verse starting with "māyā ca". The twofold delusion mentioned is created by māyā. If everything were indeed Brahman, it would not be perceivable to us. Therefore, it is not so, but rather illusory. By "vādibhiḥ", it refers to those who follow scriptures like "indro māyābhiḥ pururūpa īyate" (Indra appears in many forms through his māyās), "anṛtāpidhānāḥ" (covered by untruth), "vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāraḥ" (modification is merely a name), "māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyāt" (know māyā as prakṛti), etc.
One cannot argue that the Brahman-nature of everything is stated here only for the purpose of meditation and is not real, as this would render the statement of reasons purposeless. Meditation can be accomplished merely by injunction without reasons, so there is no obstruction. From other scriptures like "idaṃ sarvaṃ yadayam ātmā" (all this is the Self), "sa vai sarvam idaṃ jagat" (He indeed is all this world), "sa bhūtaṃ sa bhavyam" (He is the past and the future), there is no conflict with scriptures like "indro māyābhiḥ". In the first, due to the specificity of plurality, māyā cannot be taken as ignorance, and due to the mention of knowledge-making in many forms, only sense functions are to be taken there, as it is impossible to state becoming many through māyā. Moreover, when intending to express the manifold forms of the puruṣa (puruṣa) by māyā (māyā) (illusion), the first half of the Ṛk (ṛk) verse should state the word māyā in the singular. It cannot be said that this meaning is obtained through simultaneous utterance, as it is impossible to express the distinction from the previously mentioned foreword due to its nature as a reiteration of what was said before. Nor can it be said that this simultaneous utterance is only for the purpose of indicating that meaning, due to the absence of a determining factor.
Furthermore, this sentence is from the Madhu Brāhmaṇa. There, after stating the existence of the self in earth and other elements, its immortality, its nature as Brahman, and its all-pervasiveness as mentioned in the Maitreyī Brāhmaṇa, it then speaks of the creation of cities, entering into them, and everything being enveloped by that, starting with "He made cities with two feet" and so on. To remove the doubt that due to the obtained difference, there might be a secondary all-pervasiveness through pervasion as stated in "You pervade all, therefore you are all", the mantra "form after form" is recited. It is also elaborated as "This indeed is a thousand, ten thousand, many and endless".
Then, for the one whose nature of form is thus expanded here and stated at the beginning of the Brāhmaṇa, its own nature is expressed by "This Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior", and the instruction is concluded with "This Self is Brahman, the experiencer of all". Thus, in this consideration, in the beginning, conclusion, and elaboration, the self's nature as all forms is repeated without māyā. In describing its own nature, to prevent the error of nihilism that arises from the denial of priority, etc., and because of the statement of the nature of being the experiencer of all in "experiencer of all", it is concluded that the all-form nature of the self, free from error, is indeed created by its own will as stated in other śrutis (śruti) (scriptures).
Also, because the word māyā should be understood there only as the function of the senses, as the word māyā has the power to mean the function of the intellect according to the lexicon of multiple meanings which states "māyā could mean magical skill, (difference), deceit, or intellect", the meaning there is simply that Indra is known in many forms through our sense functions. Thus, there is no contradiction with that.
Similarly, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, "covered by untruth" is also recited after introducing the desires of the knower of the small space. "These true desires are covered by untruth. Of these true (existing) ones, untruth is the covering." There too, the word 'untruth' is not false speech, but rather, as in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, starting with "He desired, 'May I become many'", and concluding with "Truth and untruth, he became truth", "Whatever exists here, they call that truth", it refers to another form of the Lord which is denoted by the word 'untruth'. This is evident from the term 'covering', as it is impossible for something false to be a cover.
Even in cases like the silver in mother-of-pearl illusion, it is only the true mental function that appears in the form of silver, and it is only this apparent cognition that is the covering, not the mother-of-pearl itself. Otherwise, there would be an impossibility of simultaneous error and correct knowledge there due to the difference in the counter-positive.
In the present context, the word 'desire' encompasses the desirable objects mentioned in statements like "If he becomes desirous of the world of the fathers, by his mere will the fathers rise up. Endowed with that world of the fathers, he is magnified." The covering of these is intended to be by worldly objects like the body, not by something indefinable. This is because when the appearance can be explained simply by the strength of mental impressions, assuming an indefinable entity for this is logically untenable. Also, because such an appearance is impossible for one who possesses such knowledge, and if it were possible, the desires themselves could not be true, which would contradict the scripture itself. Therefore, the word 'untruth' in that scripture does not refer to something illusory, so there is no contradiction with that either.
The statement "modification is a name based on speech" has been considered by the venerable Vyāsa himself in "That non-difference from that, on account of the words beginning with ārambhaṇa". There, because the modifications like pot, wall, bowl, etc., are begun by speech merely as names when seeing particular shapes, modification is a name, not a form. This is because the form is non-different from the cause, and truth is intended in the form of the causal clay itself, for the purpose of knowing everything by knowing one thing. In that case, only the conceptual cognition is negated by knowledge, not the essential nature of the effect itself.
As for the statement by the author of the Bhāmatī that "In the sūtra, only the denial of difference is made, non-difference is not taught", this is indeed inconsistent, due to lack of evidence. And because in the denial of difference, it ultimately results in non-difference. Even there, illusoriness is not intended, so there is no contradiction with that either.
The statement from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad "Know māyā to be prakṛti (prakṛti)" only states that māyā is prakṛti, it does not say that it or the world is illusory. And it should not be suspected to be so because it is different from Brahman, because according to the previously stated reasoning of "like before", there is no difference when Brahman itself becomes that form. This is also because it will be stated later: "That whose material cause is prakṛti, whose substratum is the supreme Person, whose manifester is time, I am that triad Brahman." Therefore, there is no contradiction with that either.
Thus, everywhere in the Veda, because only the non-difference of the world from Brahman is intended, upon consideration, it does not result in the illusoriness of the world, this is the meaning. If one asks, "Then what is the status of perception?", they state another reasoning starting with "Brahman" and so on. Thus, all beings are transformed into non-different from Brahman, as per the śruti (scripture): "tadidamadhyetarhi ya evaṃ veda" (he who knows thus at present). Therefore, there is no contradiction in perception. If it is argued that one's own perception is more authoritative than others' perceptions and thus not accepted, they reply with "mistaken" and so on. Thus, its authoritativeness is not conclusive. To the question of how this is so, they present a logical argument against its ability to determine meaning: "otherwise" and so on. Even if it does not determine meaning, the illusory nature of the world is established. For instance, if an erroneous perception were to apprehend something entirely non-existent, it would apprehend sky-flowers; if it were to apprehend what exists, things would be different; since neither is the case, if it did not apprehend something illusory, it would be without an object, but it does have an object, and it does not apprehend either of the previously mentioned options, therefore it must apprehend an illusory object. Since this is so, its object is illusory. Thus, when the illusory nature of the object of commonly accepted error is established, in this case too, due to the erroneous nature of our perception that apprehends contrary to śruti, the illusory nature of its object, the world, will be established. To this, they say "therefore" and so on. Therefore, from the aforementioned reasoning, regarding the object in the category of objects of erroneous perception, some objectness or an object appearing as connected though unconnected to the object must be accepted. The reason for this is "just as" and so on. If it is argued that due to defects, misapprehension and such are possible, so why accept objectness, they reply "otherwise" and so on. Thus, the defect is indeed the cause of the cognition, not of the object being otherwise; if the defect were there too, then due to the real otherness of objects, error itself would be eliminated, hence it is necessary. Having thus established objectness, they explain the cause of error in this case: "therefore elsewhere" and so on. Thus, the very bringing together of objectness in between the perception and the object is the cause of error. They state the conclusion: "therefore" and so on. Having thus explained the cause in visual error, they extend it to mental error as well with "thus" and so on. What is established by this, they state: "objectness is born of māyā (illusion), the object is the Lord". If it is argued that if it is the cause of transposition, then due to the object's arrival there, the elimination of error would be equal, they reply "in māyā" and so on. Thus, it brings together only the illusory, not the real, so there is no elimination of error. If it is argued that due to the impossibility of such concealment, in the absence of projection too, how is error possible, they reply "that too" and so on. Thus, due to the concealing nature of the power and the projecting nature of the effect, when the intellect is deluded by these two, there is error. "Because it is a play of consciousness" means because it is a property of consciousness. Just as in the case of visual error in the world, even though objectness is not perceived due to the perception's non-connection with the object, because the supporting intellect is not defective, there is a determination of the non-connection of the error by it, similarly in the case of the error of the intellect of such-ness, by the supporting scripture which has determined the meaning through inquiry, there is a determination of the non-connection of origination, destruction, illusoriness, etc., with the world. Thus, the world is not illusory. If it is argued how these cognitions are erroneous when there is no subsequent negation, they reply "until" and so on. Thus, there is determination of their erroneous nature due to negation after the realization of Brahman. Even in the division of time, they state the reason: "for that" and so on. Thus, due to contradiction with śruti, worldly experience, and the cognition of knowers of Brahman, and due to the mere erroneous cognition of the mistaken not culminating in such consideration as illusoriness in inquiry, the world is not illusory, but rather, by dividing the object category, only the knowledge generated by it is so, they say "therefore" and so on. They extend this reasoning to other subjects as well with "thus" and so on. "Existing" means identity with Brahman. Non-existence refers to the misery of difference and so on. Here, the proponents of difference object, saying "But..." and so on. They explain the resolution, starting with "Because..." and so on. "That" refers to the aforementioned cause of delusion. When asked what evidence there is for māyā (illusion) being the cause of delusion, they say "Indeed not..." and so on. Thus, the defect that is accepted as the determinant of perception is directly or indirectly produced by māyā in some way or another. Since delusion cannot be explained without it, its indispensability itself is the evidence - this is the meaning. When asked how the difference, which is the object of universal perception, can be in the form of objectivity, they say "In that..." and so on. "Even objectivity" means the objectivity in the form of difference. Thus, it is not possible to imagine the difference of the world based on mere perception. When it is ascertained by the śruti (scripture) and the perception of the knower of Brahman that the world and the self are of the nature of Brahman, the non-manifestation of that and the manifestation of the non-existent difference of objects - these two characteristic effects are accepted as that [māyā]. Therefore, the world is not ultimately different from Brahman - this is the meaning. If it is argued that it is inconsistent to say that apparent objectivity is produced by māyā, because apparent [objects] are not produced by māyā, but only the mere notion of difference in the non-different is produced, so only knowledge is illusory, not the object itself, as it is inherently non-existent, they respond "But the intellect..." and so on. "Otherwise" means if it [the intellect] were illusory by virtue of being an intellect. Thus, if it were illusory in a limited sense, there would be the undesirable consequence of non-liberation and so on. Since its illusoriness is possible only through the object, accepting both to be so would result in the undesirable assumption of a double superimposition. To avoid this, it is appropriate that only the objectivity be so [illusory] - this is the meaning. Having thus established objectivity, they state its two types: "And it..." and so on. Here again, they object "But..." and so on. Thus, when considered in the aforementioned manner, the superimposition of knowledge cannot be stated, as māyā's ability to produce objects is nowhere established. Nor can the superimposition of objects be stated (meaning that in that case, either another theory of error or the real difference of the world would have to be accepted). They explain māyā's ability to produce objects, starting with "Just as darkness..." and so on. When it is argued that the substratum of an object has nowhere been seen to be an absence, they respond "Where..." and so on. The meaning is that it [absence] is not desired by us as a substratum, but as an auxiliary cause, so there is no fault. If it is argued that darkness can be stated in a substratum that lacks light, then owls, cats, etc. would have visual perception of it. It cannot be said that they do indeed have visual perception of darkness, because then, like us, they too would be obstructed from visually perceiving other objects. Therefore, in the absence of light, their eyes produce visual perception of objects independent of light connection, and this alone suffices for their activity. Hence, darkness cannot be stated as distinct from the absence of light. To this objection, they respond "This..." and so on. The meaning is this: Just as magicians delude the vision of only those they wish to and show illusory objects to them, not to others, similarly, this [māyā] also deludes the vision of only those it wishes to and shows darkness to them. Due to the causal relationship between the visual perception of darkness and the delusion of that vision, and because the vision of owls etc. is free from defects, in the absence of that [darkness] for them, the establishment of darkness in such a substratum as an object of our vision is unobstructed - this is the meaning. It cannot be said that darkness is just the absence of light, so there is no problem with the object, because that would result in the undesirable consequence of negating the visual perception of blue, making it impossible to state that [darkness] as the absence of light. And it is not appropriate for the illusion to be visual perception due to it being produced by the knowledge of the qualifier as specific knowledge, and because the illusion in question is also of that nature, since only the knowledge of the qualifier that is the form of the qualification connected with the eye is necessary as the material for the cognition of the qualificand, and even in the absence of the blue form that is the qualifier, due to the existence of its knowledge, the illusion of that kind arises merely by the non-apprehension of the connection between the blue form and light, because the conceit of blue visual perception is mere imagination, therefore the establishment of darkness as an entity cannot be asserted by that. This cannot be said, because the knowledge of blue cannot be said to be in the form of memory etc., so the conceit of it being visual cannot be asserted there.
Now if it is asked what is the obstruction to it being in the form of memory, it is said: Know that such memory is impossible to arise due to the absence of impression-awakeners like similar sight, thought, etc. for one who is conversing about daytime matters in a moonlit house etc. on a new moon night. And it cannot be said that the unseen alone is the awakener of that, because it is ineffective without the seen material.
Now if it is said that the knowledge of blue there is merely in the form of presented cognition, no, because in the case of mental presented cognition, by the previously stated reasoning, since memory or impression which is the presenter cannot be asserted at that time, the cognition of that would result; but visual presented cognition is inappropriate in such a place due to the very absence of blue. And it cannot be said that the blueness residing in the eye appears superimposed there, because it is not perceived and because such cognition is not possible for a person with jaundiced eyes. Therefore, since the cognition of blue cannot be said to be in the form of memory etc., its visual nature alone must be accepted. And thus, in accordance with such cognition, darkness is established as distinct from the absence of light.
Moreover, what the Prābhākaras say - 'Darkness is merely the absence of the knowledge of light; even when light exists, if there is no knowledge of it, there is the cognition of darkness, etc.' - that too is not correct, because the knowledge of the absence of knowledge is mental, contradicting the visual cognition 'darkness is blue'. And because the obstructions to it being imagination have been explained earlier, the resulting contradiction of the reflective cognition 'we perceive the absence of light'. The theory of it being a different substance will be refuted shortly. Therefore, it is established that darkness is a separate entity in accordance with blue visual perception.
Thus, having established darkness as an entity, to explain the visual etc. material for it, they expound that for owls etc. in the direct perception of objects, the eye alone is the cause, independent of light, as stated in scripture, etc. Due to owls etc. not being deludable, darkness does not produce confusion for them, so due to its absence, they grasp the absence of light itself with eyes independent of light. 'Absence of light' is a synecdoche; they grasp other entities as well. Otherwise, how would they kill crows without seeing them - with this intention, they state the mode of object-knowledge for them as "for them" etc. And thus, the conjunction of object and light is not auxiliary there, so the eye alone is the cause independent of that - this is the meaning.
Now, if this is so, the causality of the conjunction of object and light with respect to positive visual perception would be invalidated - with this doubt, they say "For us" etc. And thus, since only fitness qualified by the absence of distance etc. is the cause with respect to visual perception in general, there is no undesired consequence even if that is invalidated - this is the meaning. And it cannot be said that if mere fitness is the cause in this way, there would be visual perception of atoms in a house etc., because due to the presence of darkness in the form of shadow there, the atoms being covered by that, there is no fitness qualified by the absence of obstruction, so that does not follow. And there is no such consequence in intense light (it cannot be said), because intense light itself is an obstruction there.
By this alone, those who imagine another sense organ residing in the eye, made of darkness, for the visual perception of darkness, are refuted. They state the conclusion: "Thus" etc. "Common perception" means the universal cognition that "darkness is removed by a lamp". And thus, darkness is established as distinct even by the stated reasoning and common perception - this is the meaning.
Thus, by this, the scriptural statement "and māyā due to the experience of darkness" indicates experience-form and inference-form based on effect as the foundational evidence in establishing the existence of māyā. Thus, having established the objectness of darkness, to show that its cognition is not superimposed like the cognition of silver in mother-of-pearl etc., they say "And that" etc. And thus, in a place of illusion, just as in mother-of-pearl etc. the awakener of the impression of illusion like luster etc. cannot be stated, so in trees etc., because the memory produced by that cannot be asserted, the superimposition to be remembered is difficult to state. Similarly, even the grasped superimposition - what has happened to it now? In the investigation "illusion is grasped", it is inappropriate to say that only what resides in the eye-sense is grasped, because in defects like jaundice etc., one's own or another's perception of the yellowness residing in one's own eyeball is like by a mirror etc., so in the defect of illusion; nor is it proper to say that what resides in the sense organ is grasped, because of the rule that only suitable universals, qualities and actions are graspable, the sense organ being unsuitable. Otherwise, even in the state of quality, there would be the undesirable consequence of graspability of conjunction, action etc. residing in the sense organ. It cannot be said that even in a severe defect, rotation is necessarily experienced, and therefore the superimposition is unobstructed. Even in a minor defect, the defect remains as it is, because at that time there is no experience of rotation of one's own body. Moreover, what is the superimposer here - action or knowledge? If it is action, does it produce another action and superimpose (itself) or its own form? Not the first, because what is concomitant with you is indescribable; not the latter, because it has not obtained existence there, and if it had obtained existence, everyone would experience it. The same applies in the case of knowledge. Therefore, just as rotation is perceived by the eye as different from the object, so is darkness, meaning its perception is not superimposed. If this is the case, since darkness is not established elsewhere, due to the absence of reversal, it is also impossible to say that it has the nature of objectivity, hence they say "yathā hi" (just as) and so on. This is a statement of the Lord in the eleventh skandha (chapter): "Just as the rising of the sun dispels darkness for human eyes but does not produce it, so My penetrating vision destroys the darkness in a person's intellect." Just as this is also established in the human eye when it is brought to a place with the absence of light, there is no inconsistency, this is the meaning. If darkness is not accepted as a separate substance like the Bhāṭṭas, they say "nanu" (but) and so on. From its nature which is perceived as having a blue form and possessing motion, darkness does not become some other substance. If it is questioned why substance-ness is not accepted when the cause is present, they say "anyathā" (otherwise) and so on. Due to the relationship of pervader and pervaded, it would be so because of being a substance with a manifested blue form, being an obstruction to the touch of other substances, and being perceptible by touch. Since it is not so, substance-ness is not accepted. Thus, in establishing substance-ness through possession of blue form, farness, nearness, and motion, due to the counter-evidence of not obstructing the touch of other substances and not being perceptible by touch, and due to the obstruction of the inference of substance-ness, the perception of motion etc. is not valid. The perception of water moving is like the movement of trees on the shore, and since darkness is not a cause of light movement and not a prover of motion etc., it is not a separate substance, this is the meaning. If earthiness is considered in the said pervasions, even then, due to the non-mention of darkness among substances in Vedic and Puranic creation processes and its mention as māyā (illusion), due to contradiction with verbal authority, the earthiness in the said pervasions should be disregarded, thus separate substance-ness is indeed impossible. What the author of Nyāyakandalī says, that darkness is just blue color, is also incongruous, because it is not inherent in substance, and because it contradicts the perception that "darkness is blue"! Therefore, it is certain that darkness is a separate category. All this has been elaborated by me in the discussion on darkness, so it should be understood from there for those who wish to know more details. Having thus established objectivity in the form of darkness, they also establish another objectivity, saying "tamaḥ iti" (darkness is) and so on. Here, the Naiyāyikas and the author of Bhāmatī say that the eye reversed by the proximity of a mirror sees its own face, but standing in darkness, even when reversed, it does not see due to the absence of connection with light on the object. In the case of reflection, due to the absence of obstruction, it would be perceptible by the eye, so there is no separate category of reflection, they say. Refuting this view, they say "na ca" (and not) and so on. Where one mirror is placed facing a second mirror, in both mirrors the appearance of a face in the mirror and an infinite series of mirrors are perceived in both. If there were no separate reflection there, then the eye reversed from that would see only one face, in which case the perception of a face in two mirrors and the perception of an infinite series of mirrors that occurs would not happen. Therefore, in accordance with that, the category of reflection is indeed separate, this is the meaning. If it is argued that just as the nose appears as two stars due to the breaking of eye rays by the placement of an intervening stick etc. in the same place, similarly in the case of a mirror with appearances, due to the two mirrors reflecting the eye rays, the perception of two faces is due to the breaking of rays, and thus a separate reflection is not established by that, they say "na ca" (and not) and so on. "Prativimbataḥ" means "is perceived". From the root "vi-gam". In reality, however, the reading seems to be simply "pratīyate" (is perceived). Thus, in a place not facing etc., due to the contradiction with the logic of face reversal, a separate reflection must necessarily be accepted, this is the meaning. And in this way, there is no possibility of reflection of an object in darkness in a mirror. Due to the covering of that which is to be reflected by darkness, it is absent. And thus, the objection that there would be an absence of it even in a mirror placed in darkness is not valid, because the object is not covered by the intervening darkness, it is easily explained. But if the intervening nature of darkness is the same, why is there this distinction? We say it is just due to its nature. If it is argued that assuming reversal of the eye is lighter than assuming nature, like before, even for you, the assumption of nature is necessary in the case of facing direction etc. mentioned earlier. Therefore, it is appropriate that the category of reflection is indeed separate. This has been explained more skillfully in the section on reflection, so more is not written here. If it is questioned why this insistence when there is no word encompassing reflection in the original, they say "ayam eva vā ābhāsaḥ iti" (or this itself is appearance). Thus, in "The Lord created Kinnaras, Kimpurushas through His own self, honoring Himself through Himself, seeing His own reflection" and "He acts through the reflection of the individual self and God" etc., since the word "ābhāsa" (appearance) is used for reflection, it can be used similarly here as well, hence this insistence, this is the meaning. Thus, having established the reflection and darkness, they state the conclusion beginning with "Therefore, etc." By that, they state the conclusion of the worldly intent beginning with "There, etc." Jagatrūpa (world-form) means that which forms or determines the world, i.e., that which makes known the differentiated world.
Now, even though it has been determined that the world is of the nature of Brahman through appearance and disappearance by the reasoning established in the explanation of the two verses and by the supporting evidence, because aparokṣajñāna (direct knowledge) is not generated by the word "that," and because perceptions of creation, destruction, difference, desirable, undesirable, pure, impure, etc. continue to arise, the existence of objectivity and the perception of difference like those who believe in other philosophies reinforce [this view]. There is no particular difference from these in perception.
Moreover, though the differences of mind, meditation, and non-existence are experienced as present, they are non-existent due to their non-existence at the beginning and end. Whatever is like this is like this, like a mirage. Whatever is not like this is not like this, like the eternal entity accepted in one's own doctrine. The disputed pot and other objects are false because they resemble falsehood, like a magician's [illusion]. They are non-existent because they perform actions, like shadows, echoes, and reflections. By such inferences, there is no particular difference in perception from the Māyāvādins (proponents of illusion) due to the understanding of falsity.
If this is said, we reply: Let such a perception remain for now, what of it? There is no certainty otherwise by which there would be a loss of human purpose. In reality, there is indeed a difference in this, because the negation of the object's invalidation is established by the authority of reliable statements, as in the case of diamonds, etc.
Thus, just as a wooden lion or snake moving by a mechanism made by a skilled craftsman, though perceived, cannot generate fear, etc., in one who knows the truth, but rather creates curiosity and reveals the greatness of the maker, similarly, such a perception and its object, the world, only declares the extraordinary greatness of the Lord.
Now, if it is asked how the contradiction with inference is avoided, we say: By the aforementioned evidence and reasoning, with the difference of objectivity and object established, with a fixed limit determined, and with existence of effects determined by śruti (scripture) through satkāryavāda (the doctrine of pre-existent effect), the statement "due to non-existence at the beginning and end" is established as having an unestablished inherent nature and proving something else.
Similarly, "because it resembles falsehood" is common, because truth resembles falsehood, as in the application "like the pre-illusory elephant, etc., of the magician." Thus, "because it performs actions" is also determined to be common as exemplified by pots, etc., and should be refuted.
Now, if this is the case, what is the fate of the Purāṇa statements that indicate the aforementioned inferences, such as "O Uddhava, take refuge in me," "He should see this as an illusion," "Like shadows, echoes, reflections," etc.? If asked, know that their purpose is for detachment, taking objectivity into account. There is no lack of authority in this, as it is determined by the immediate context. In the larger context, in the conclusion, it is stated: "As gold, well-crafted, before and after all golden [objects], that alone in the middle being transacted with various designations, I am like that," thus only describing the nature of being Brahman.
Now, according to the śruti "The senses are outward-turned," since Brahman is not an object of the senses, it is not proper for the world, which is of its nature, to be an object of the senses. And it is not possible to make it a desired consequence, as it would lead to the non-perception of the world. If this is said, no, because that [śruti] prohibits the vision of unveiled Brahman, it does not negate the world being thus, as determined by the word "inner self" there.
Now, if it is asked how there can be direct perception of the objectivity in the form of the world without direct realization of Brahman in the form of objects, [we reply] no, because by the statement of Haṃsa, "Whatever is grasped by mind, speech, and other senses, I alone am, nothing other than me," and by śruti such as "All this is indeed the self," since Brahman being an object of the senses is intended, and because it is grasped even in the state of ignorance, there is no obstruction to the direct perception of objectivity.
And there is no mutual contradiction between the two statements, as they refer to different objects - veiled and unveiled Brahman. Hence, it should be understood that there is neither attainment of liberation nor the consequence of non-liberation. Thus, in statements about the gross etc., the negation of the properties of inert beings is also appropriate, as they are illusory like the grossness of colors seen through spectacles or the minuteness of the distant sun, pole star, etc. However, what is said about the possibility of superimposition of the diverse world on brahman (absolute reality) as the subject of sound, like the superimposition of blue on the imperceptible sky inferred from sound, space, etc., due to the general causal relationship as the substratum knowledge through superimposition, is also weak. Although it is possible to say so about the sky due to the certainty of the absence of form by the aforementioned inference etc., in the case of brahman, which is known through śabda (verbal testimony) and is inquired into by the Upaniṣads, it is not known to be the substratum of many contradictory properties such as having all forms and formlessness, being the doer of all and non-doer, being partless and having parts, etc. Therefore, such a superimposition is appropriate, and the example of sky is inappropriate. Hence, the difference in our perception and others' perception is unobstructed. Thus, in the vision of the Lord's form, etc., for devotees and non-devotees, there is direct perception of the object and subject respectively, so their respective experiences of feelings, etc., or lack thereof, are appropriate. As for the experience of sorrow, grief, etc., it is caused by the objectification, which is created by māyā (illusion), and ceases when it ceases, and its cessation is fully accomplished through prapatti (surrender). Even in the absence of its cessation in the first and other stages, since the experience of its loosening is felt, there is no room for doubt anywhere by anyone, as should be contemplated by them. Let us now return to the main topic. ||33||
As in "mahānti" (great), etc., thus, etc. Having described in the first verse the nature of all objects of knowledge as brahman in the aforementioned manner, and having described in the second verse the means of knowledge in the form of Veda through the description of māyā which is to be removed by it, now the meaning of the subject, which is the object of the Vedic means of knowledge, is being described. The objection that since the object of knowledge itself is the subject of the means of knowledge, and it has already been described, and there is no other subject, what is the purpose of describing the subject again, is answered by saying "vedena" (by the Veda), etc. "Padārthāḥ" (categories) means the properties pertaining to brahman which is the object of knowledge. "Idam" (this) refers to the description of the subject. "Nirūpyate" (is described) means it is stated with examples. Just as it is manifest in various forms in statements like "I am the taste in water, O son of Kuntī, I am the radiance in the moon and sun", etc., similarly it should be known in the Veda in the form of subject and in māyā in the form of objectification. Otherwise, the śruti (revealed text) "He who knows differently" mentions the fault, resulting in total destruction. And when the validity of all Vedas is established, in correct knowledge, there is attainment of prosperity and liberation. Therefore, the subject is described again for the purpose of establishing the validity of all Vedas.
Here in the original, "bhūteṣu" is in the locative case, implying the all-pervading substratum, as in "the self exists in everything", etc. With this intention, they say "kāraṇatvena" (as the cause), etc. The rest is clear. Just as the great elements, though entered into their effects as components, are not entered as causes, so in that aspect there is no contradiction between form and formlessness, activity and its absence, and there is neutrality in another aspect. Similarly, I, though described in the Veda as having mutually contradictory forms and properties, am neither different nor contradictory. Thus, the validity of all Vedas remains unimpaired.
Now, even though the subject is described here as having a single nature, it is spoken of in terms of being the material cause, entering, and not entering. In that case, if the nature of being the subject can be explained by either being the material cause and not entering, or by entering and not entering, what is the purpose of one of the two - being the material cause and entering? To this doubt, they explain the necessity of both by saying "kāraṇaṃ hi" (for the cause), etc. Having thus promised both, they give the reasoning for "the effect is produced inherent in the cause" by saying "anyathā" (otherwise), etc. Here, two arguments are given together in order. The implication of the first is stated by "anyathā" (otherwise). If the effect were not inherent in the cause as its substratum through the relation of inherence. "Of the cloth" is an example for clarity.
Now, if it is argued that since there is no cognition of cloth etc. before production, the non-existent effect is produced in the cause due to the efficient cause, so let the cause be the substratum but not the existence of the effect in the cause, to this they give another argument saying "tathā sati" (in that case), etc. If the effect did not exist in the cause, then it would not be produced, etc. "Being produced" means even though non-existent, it is being produced. The example for both cases respectively is given by "yathā" (just as), etc. Thus, since the effect is seen to have a fixed limit, the existence of the effect in the cause must necessarily be accepted. It cannot be said that the fixedness of the limit can be explained by the prior non-existence of the effect alone, because it is impossible to determine a prior non-existence distinct from the causal state. And the cognition "there is no pot in this lump of clay" cannot be a proof here, as it, having pot-ness as the counter-positive and being the general absence of connection, does not comprehend the particular which is the prior non-existence. Neither is the skull like the prior absence of a pot, because it possesses the final causal aggregate of a pot. Whatever possesses the final causal aggregate of something has its prior absence, like the threads possessing the final causal aggregate of cloth. This inference is also valid, because before the application of inference, the prior absence which delimits the probandum is unestablished, making the probandum delimited by it unestablished, thus rendering the reason fallacious. This has been thoroughly explained by me in the Prasthānaratnākara (Ocean of Departure) and Prapañcabhedavāda (Doctrine of the Differentiation of the World) as directed in the commentary, so it is not elaborated here. Therefore, even before the cognition of absence in the causal state, due to the misconception of prior absence, the effect already existing in the cause in causal form is produced. Hence, the certainty is that it has a fixed terminus from that very cause. This is also established from the consideration of the nature of origination, as should be understood from the doctrine of manifestation as well.
Now, due to the observation of the pot's production, how can the word have the nature of the Lord? And since sound is produced only in space, how can there be production everywhere? To address this expectation, they explain both with "kumbhe" (in the pot), etc. and "śabdo 'pī" (sound also), etc. Here, the pot example should be understood as follows: In the first book, although there is no difference in the divine nature of the Vedic and Puranic worlds, a distinction like filled and empty vessels is mentioned. Thus, the Vedic world is produced like a filled vessel, either simultaneously or in sequence from space, etc., by will. The Puranic world, however, enters into the accumulator made of guṇas (qualities) produced by prakṛti (primordial nature), puruṣa (consciousness), and kriyā (action), and assumes its form impelled by it. Thus, though produced in both ways due to different impelling factors, the form, like held liquidity, is indeed a property of Brahman. Therefore, in both types of world, Vedic statements like "All this is indeed the Self" and "All this is indeed Brahman", and Puranic statements like "The external world is indeed tanmātra (subtle element)" teach the Brahman-nature of everything.
Further, Puranic statements like "These two are its seeds, with a hundred roots" and Vedic ones like "This knowledge is the entire world", beginning with the two-seed nature, conclude with "He who knows this māyā (illusion) knows the Veda", teaching the illusory nature of the accumulated world. Thus, the manifest world also has a fourfold nature, and existence has a threefold nature. Here is the argument: The empirical world is preceded by a world with higher existence in relation to itself, because of its illusory nature, like a magician's illusion. The existence higher than empirical existence is indeed the absolute existence. In the view accepting verbal existence, existence also has a fourfold nature, and that is lower even than the apparent existence of sky-flowers, etc. In that case, there are two with higher existence, one empirical and one apparent. Thus, the divine nature of the pot is indeed established. This is stated by the commentator with "kumbhakāra" (potter), etc.
Accordingly, just as the empirical pot requires an inherent cause due to its limited duration, so does cloth. This is one example according to the Sāṅkhya method. They explain the second example according to the Nyāya method with "śabda" (sound), etc. Thus, in your view, just as sound is produced somewhere, surpassing the instrumental cause (collision of tongue, etc.) and the inherent locus, so the space delimited by its prior absence is not fixed; similarly, cloth would exist in the absence of threads. This being so for other effects as well, since the doctrine of pre-existent effect is respected by the learned, it is established that the effect, existing in the cause through inherence, is indeed produced. They prove the entry of the cause into the effect with "tathā sati tantu" (thus, the thread), etc. "Tathā sati" means: Thus, even when the cloth exists in the threads. "Na praviśeyur" means: They would not enter as parts.
Now, if this cognition arises through inherence or identity, the entry is not established from cognition. To this, they say "śuṣke" (in the dry), etc. Because of the Vedic statement "Having created that, He entered into it", and Puranic statements like "That Lord entered that group in the form of activity" and "By the supreme one entering his own measure", entry is understood. Therefore, any dry, baseless logic opposing this, unable to find a place in authoritative scripture, is thus; entry is not negated by it. They state the conclusion with "ata" (therefore), etc.
Thus, having established that a single material object has the nature of being a substratum and a superstratum due to differences in time and state, they extend this to the great elements with "evam" (thus), etc. "Viśeṣata ādheyatvam" means being a superstratum through the relation of conjunction. Thus, there are three properties: being a substratum as a cause through inherence, being a superstratum as parts through mutual conjunction, and being a superstratum specifically as an effect through external conjunction. Thus, when three properties are established in the example by prima facie consideration, the same will be established in the subject. Since without ten properties there would be no ten līlās (divine plays), the world would not have the nature of the Lord. Disliking this, they state an alternative view with "prathaṣe" (in the first), etc. "Na teṣu" means: Not in them. "Punaḥ pañcadhā" means: Again in five ways. Since the great elements are causal only in some aspect, they have only five states, but for the Lord it is different. As the Vedic text states, "Beyond the known and the unknown", being distinct from the known and unknown, entered and non-entered in a non-material form of existence, consciousness, and bliss, it means again in five ways. Thus, they state the conclusion with "tathā sati" (thus being), etc.
Thus, by the Lord's existence in the world in five ways as the material cause, and by the divine nature of both material and non-material entities through the forms of object and non-object, the tenfold divine nature in the world is indicated. This subject matter is discussed to refute even the partial invalidity of the Vedas. [34]
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
"yathāt'mamāyā yogena" (as through the yoga of one's own māyā) - By this, since māyā (illusion) is also asked about, he explains it - ṛte'rtham (without purpose). In the self, in the jīva (individual soul), even without the purpose which is in the form of bodily attributes like thinness, in the form of sense attributes like blindness, in the form of vital attributes like hunger, in the form of internal organ attributes like sorrow, from which cause "I am thin", "I am blind", "I am hungry", "I am sorrowful" - this purpose is perceived. Although existing due to being a part of the Divine, the purpose which is of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss is not perceived. One should know that to be the māyā (illusion) of the self, of the Supreme Self, of me, which is the cause of this. He gives an example for this - yathā bhāsa (like an appearance), such as in the form of two moons, etc. There, just as non-existent duality is perceived due to the delusion of māyā (illusion), and the existing oneness is not perceived, such is the meaning. If it exists, why is it not perceived? Anticipating the objection that it therefore does not exist at all, he gives an example for the non-perception of what exists - yathā tama (like darkness). Tama (darkness) or Rāhu, though existing in the planetary system, is not perceived - such is the meaning. (33)
Thus, suspecting changeability in being the soul of the universe, he says yathā (just as) with an example. Just as the great elements, though having entered into their gross and subtle effects, the high and low beings, are as if not entered, and though their effects are subject to destruction and other changes, they themselves are free from change - similarly, though I have entered into the high and low effects, I am as if not entered, and though they are subject to change, I am unchangeable - such is the meaning. By this alone, the statement "yāvānaha" (as much as I am) also shows the all-pervading nature which is one's own measure. Just as the great elements, though entered into all effects, are also pervasive outside, so is the Lord to be contemplated. (34)"
Hindī Anuvāda
In reality, that which is an indescribable thing appearing falsely in me, the Supreme Self, like two moons, despite not actually existing; or that which, despite existing, is not perceived like Rahu among the stars in the sky, should be understood as my māyā (illusion). (33)
Just as the five great elements like ākāśa (space) enter into the small and large bodies of creatures made of the five elements, because they are formed as the effects of those bodies, and also do not enter because they are already present in those places and forms as the cause; similarly, from the perspective of the creatures' bodies, I have entered into them as the ātman (soul), and from the perspective of the ātman (soul), I have not entered them because there is no other entity besides myself. (34)
SB 2.9.33-34
SB 2.9.31-32
Text 31: The Personality of Godhead said: Knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully.
Text 32: All of Me, namely My actual eternal form and My transcendental existence, color, qualities and activities — let all be awakened within you by factual realization, out of My causeless mercy.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Indeed, if I am unable to see you, how can I be qualified for knowledge? To this, he says: "As much as." As much as: In essence, as he is, possessing such existence, having those forms, qualities, and actions. (31)
Explaining this properly, he clarifies the meaning of "as much as." I: I alone existed before creation. Nothing else. That which is gross is sat, that which is subtle is asat, and their cause, pradhāna (प्रधान) (primary matter), is supreme. Because even that was absorbed in me at that time due to its inward-facing nature, I alone existed then, and I did nothing else. Even after creation, I alone am. Whatever this universe is, that too am I. What remains in dissolution, that too am I alone. By this, it is said that I am complete, being without beginning or end and without a second. (32)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Here, he raises an objection: "Indeed." To that end, he gives a blessing for the manifestation of the two goals, knowledge and mystery: "As much as." As much as: In essence, of what measure I am, of what nature, of what characteristics I am, that is the meaning. Those intrinsic forms like being dark-blue and four-armed. Qualities like affection for devotees. Actions like those various līlās (divine play). He who has such forms, qualities, and actions, may you have true knowledge, genuine experience of all these aspects, by my grace. By this, the interpretation of the four verses as referring to the formless is itself refuted. It will be said by the Lord himself, referring to these four verses, to Uddhava: "Previously, by me" and so on, "knowledge supreme, illuminating my greatness." Here, by the word "true knowledge," it is clear that forms and other aspects are also essential nature. Here, the blessing of knowledge is clear. The blessing of mystery is that by the genuine experience of that supreme bliss, love will certainly arise, as per the context. Viśvanātha says: Moreover, knowledge through words, indirect determination of reality, might be possible even for pure-hearted believers, but true knowledge is direct experience, immediate realization of my essential nature. And that is not possible without devotional practice and loving devotion, indicated by the words "mystery" and "that." Conveying this, he gives a blessing for that purpose: "As much as," of what measure, form, with what appropriate arrangement of limbs with thickness, length, height, roundness, etc. "Of what nature" means of what intention. "What forms" means being dark-blue, two-armed, four-armed, Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Nṛsiṃha, etc. "Qualities" like affection for devotees. "Actions" like accepting Lakṣmī, lifting Govardhana, etc. "Thus indeed": In whatever way my measure, intention, form, qualities, and actions manifest, may you have true knowledge, genuine experience of them in that very way. Although grace is implied by the blessing itself, the repeated use of "by my grace" indicates that only through the gradation of increase in the most intimate devotional practice and loving devotion, brought about by a special function of my grace, will the gradation of experience of the sweetness of those forms, qualities, etc., arise. From this too, you will directly experience my form as Kṛṣṇa in Vraja, which has even greater sweetness than this form of mine and is extremely rare. By this, the interpretation of the four verses as referring only to a formless essence is refuted. (31)
Svāmī's commentary is clear in meaning. Thus, having promised knowledge etc. to be given in the four verses, and having made one fit for attaining it through blessing, while beginning to teach knowledge, he answers the question "How shall I know you in your true form, both higher and lower?": "I alone existed before creation," touching his chest with his forefinger. By the word "alone," it is understood that no other material object of my kind existed. This is the meaning: At present, this supremely enchanting form, an ocean of sweetness of form and qualities, manifesting before you, I alone existed even at the time of the great dissolution, as per the śrutis (revealed texts): "In the beginning, there was only Vāsudeva, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara," "This was in the beginning the Self alone in the form of a Person," "The Person indeed was Nārāyaṇa," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed," "The Person, Nārāyaṇa, desired," "Then from Nārāyaṇa, the unborn was born, from whom all beings; Nārāyaṇa is the supreme Brahman, Nārāyaṇa is the supreme truth, the supreme Brahman is the Person, dark blue and tawny," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna," and from smṛtis (remembered texts) like "The Lord alone existed." Here, Vaikuṇṭha and its inhabitants are also included in the word "I" as they are His aspects, just as in "The king is coming." Thus, their existence should be understood similarly. And so, the king's question: "And where that Person, the source of the world's existence, creation and dissolution, having set aside his own māyā (illusion), the Lord of māyā, rests, the inner controller of all." And Śrī Vidura's question: "O Lord, of those principles, how many ways are there of dissolution? Who would worship Him there, and who indeed would sleep near Him?" The explanation of Svāmī's verses is: There, in dissolution, who would worship this supreme Lord lying down like a king, and who would sleep near Him, sleeping after Him like chamara-bearers? It is also stated in the Kashi Khanda: "Even in the great dissolution, His devotees do not fall. Therefore, He alone is called Achyuta (acyuta) (unfallen) in all worlds, all-pervading and imperishable." The phrase "I alone existed" excludes the possibility of any other existence. Since the verb "asti" denotes existence, it implies that at that time, there was no absolute non-existence of my being. The meaning "I alone existed, I did nothing" does not actually exclude other actions, as the verb "asti" is inherent in all verbal meanings. When it is said "Chaitra was in this village last year," it does not exclude Chaitra's actions of sleeping, eating, etc., but only implies his presence. Similarly, in this context, "I alone existed" excludes only the creation and other actions perceptible to ordinary people outside of Brahma, but not the internal pastimes, just as when it is said "The king is there, he does nothing," it negates only the king's official duties, not his personal activities like sleeping and eating.
Now, if it is heard somewhere that only the attributeless Brahman existed, it is explained: The Brahman, which is beyond the existent effect and non-existent cause, is not different from me. In some authoritative scriptures that are capable of establishing various specific attributes of the essential nature, I appear as the attributeless Brahman. However, you should know me as possessing form, qualities, etc., as mentioned in the previous verse, through blessings and grace.
If it is argued that after creation, only the world is perceived and not you, it is answered: Even after creation, I alone exist in Vaikuntha in the form of the primordial Lord, as the inner controller in the devotees, and in various incarnations like Matsya as appropriate to the time.
If it is then questioned whether you are not the earth and other elements, or gods and animals, etc., which would imply your incompleteness, it is clarified: This universe, composed of individual and collective forms, is also myself, being produced by my energy. It is my material form. You should know both the higher and lower forms as they are. The lower form that you asked about is this one that you should understand.
Furthermore, the Supreme Lord who remains, as stated in "You alone remain, known as Śeṣa (śeṣa)," that is me. The threefold repetition of "aham" (I) here indicates emphasis. This explains the knowledge of both the higher and lower forms: the higher form with specific qualities that exists eternally in all three times, and the lower form which is this illusory material manifestation seen only during the intermediate period between creation and dissolution.
The realization, however, is only of the first, higher form, and that occurs when one experiences the sweetness of that form and qualities through loving devotion born of hearing and chanting, as will be explained in the fourth verse. This is Vishvanatha's explanation. The context should be understood in this way. (32)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
"Whatever forms" etc. means whatever form, whatever qualities, and whatever actions. (31)
"I alone existed" etc. is the four-verse Bhāgavatam. "Even after creation, I alone exist" means there is no non-perception like a seed when a sprout has grown, due to the separate existence as the cause. This indicates the nature of being unfallen. "This universe is also myself" indicates that the material world is merely a verbal designation; in reality, everything is Brahman alone. (32)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
Addressing one who might doubt "By fully understanding you, I am the master," it is said "Whatever." I, who am of the nature of knowledge as stated in scriptures like "I am truth, knowledge, omniscient," possessing the quality of knowledge, limitless, of such nature, having natural qualities of knowledge, strength, and action as mentioned, possessing form, qualities, and actions – form being conscious and unconscious entities, quality being their attributes and also directly the Lord's qualities like being firm, action being the function of maintaining the world – whatever forms, qualities, and actions I have, may you have that true knowledge of my essential nature, qualities, and glories by my grace and favor. (31)
Clarifying the meaning of "whatever," it explains the Lord's essential nature, which is primarily to be known, as indicated by the word "para" (higher): "I." The entity that is beyond the existent and non-existent, distinct from the conscious and unconscious, that alone I was. Elsewhere, nothing is distinct from the conscious and unconscious; everything else is included in them. I alone am distinct from them. Before creation, whatever existed, and after creation, you and all these effects – I am all that, being the cause in the form of conscious and unconscious entities and the effect in the form of conscious and unconscious entities. Again, at the time of dissolution, whatever remains after dissolution, that too is me alone. Distinct from prakṛti (prakṛti) and puruṣa (puruṣa), having them as my body, I alone am the omniscient, omnipotent, supreme lord who before creation had prakṛti and puruṣa with unmanifest names and forms as my body, during creation had prakṛti and puruṣa with manifest names and forms as my body, and even at the time of dissolution, I alone exist.
Thus, although the Supreme Self exists in the causal state with prakṛti of unmanifest names and forms as its body and in the effect state with prakṛti and puruṣa of manifest names and forms as its body, it remains untouched by the modifications belonging to the conscious entities that form its body (such as being a knower, being subject to sorrow, being under the control of karma) and the unconscious entities that form its body (such as childhood, youth, old age), just as the individual self is untouched by the modifications of its body. Its distinction from conscious and unconscious entities remains undiminished. Its state of being the effect and the cause is logically possible through prakṛti and puruṣa which form its body. More details on this can be found in the commentaries. (32)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
Whatever was asked and whatever explanation was given, thus he speaks about the method of granting the desired boon in "parāvare". He says "jñānam" (knowledge). The meaning is: Take the knowledge that I have spoken, which is about my essential nature along with the secret dialogues of the Upaniṣads (upaniṣat), accompanied by the certain liberation-bestowing knowledge about my own form. If this were just the external meaning of the Upaniṣads, it would not be worth accepting, thus he says "param" (supreme). The explanation that knowledge is about the meaning of scriptures and realization is one's own experience, is rejected by the statement "by whichever means one attains certain liberation after knowing in whichever way, that is called realization; knowledge is remembered as ordinary" in the smṛti texts. (31)
He describes the method of granting the desired boon as requested in "yathātmamāyāyogena" by saying "yāvān". The meaning is: May you have the true knowledge of me exactly as I am - of whatever infinite measure I am in terms of pervasion of space and time, of whatever nature I am in terms of existence free from limitations, of whatever form, qualities and activities I am, of whatever incarnations, qualities and activities I have - by my grace. The word "eva" excludes the forms with limitations. (32)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
There, he gives a blessing for the manifestation of realization and secret knowledge, the two things to be accomplished, in "yāvān aham". "Yāvān" means of whatever measure I am in my essential nature; "yathā bhāvaḥ" means of whatever nature of existence I am, that is, of whatever characteristics I am. "Yadrūpaguṇakarmaka" means one who has forms that are my other essential natures like the dark blue four-armed form etc., qualities like affection for devotees etc., and activities that are my various pastimes. May you have true knowledge, that is, direct experience, in exactly that way, by my grace. By this, the interpretation of the meaning of the four verses as referring to the featureless absolute is itself refuted. It will also be said by the Lord himself addressing Uddhava while referring to these four verses: "Previously I spoke to you supreme knowledge that reveals my greatness" etc. The word "tattvavijñāna" makes it clear that the forms etc. are also part of the essential nature. Here the blessing of realization is clear, and the blessing of secret knowledge is also certain because of the inevitable arising of supreme bliss in the true experience of those things. (31)
He now explains the fourfold topics to be known through the four verses, first stating his own characteristics as the object of knowledge in "aham evāsam". Here the word "aham" refers only to the embodied speaker, not to the featureless Brahman, because that is not the subject. If it were meant to teach self-knowledge, it would have been appropriate to say "You alone were" like "You are that". So the meaning is: I alone, this supremely enchanting divine form appearing before you now, existed even before the great dissolution. This is known from śruti statements like "In the beginning there was only Vāsudeva, not Brahmā or Śaṅkara", "In the beginning there was only Nārāyaṇa, not Brahmā or Īśāna" etc. and from the Third Canto: "In the beginning, the Lord alone existed as the controller of individual souls". Therefore the residents of Vaikuṇṭha etc. are also included by the word "eva" as His parts, like in "The king is coming". Their existence is also understood similarly. Thus Vidura's question: "Where does that person who is the origin, maintenance and dissolution of the universe, free from His own māyā, the Lord of māyā, rest as the inner witness of all?" And the question in the Kāśī-khaṇḍa: "O Lord, how many are those principles, what is their dissolution? Who should one worship there, who indeed should one follow?" It is also said in Dhruva's story: "His devotees do not fall even in the great calamity of dissolution. Therefore He alone is called Acyuta (infallible) in all worlds, all-pervading and imperishable." The word "eva" in "aham eva" excludes any other agent or formlessness etc. "Āsam eva" removes the impossibility of that. This is stated in "yadrūpaguṇakarmaka". Or "vā āsam eva" excludes only other activities like creation etc. known to ordinary people outside of Brahmā etc., but not His own internal pastimes. Just as when it is said "The king is not doing any work now", only royal duties are negated, not activities like sleeping or eating. Or from the root "asa" meaning to shine etc., "I existed shining even before with the special features seen by you now", thus particularly excludes formlessness etc. This is also stated in the Muktāphala commentary explaining the characteristics of Viṣṇu as both with and without form - "There is no non-pervasiveness in those with form, because their form is not concealed." The Aitareya Upaniṣad also states: "In the beginning this was indeed the Self in the form of a Person." By this, it is said that even from the perspective of prakriti, the knowledge of God is superior to non-existence prior to purusa. It is not heard anywhere that brahman alone was without attributes. To this, it is said: sat is the effect, asat is the cause, and that which is beyond these two is brahman, which is not different from me. For some qualified person or scripture unable to comprehend the specific inherent nature, I appear as this very self without attributes. Alternatively, at that time, due to the absence of manifestation, there is a twofold scriptural arrangement: in the form of pure consciousness without attributes, but in vaikuntha (heaven) in the form of God with attributes. By this, the knowledge of God mentioned in "I am indeed the foundation of brahman" is established. Therefore, this knowledge is said to be supremely secret. If it is said that after creation you are not perceived in the world, to this it is said: Even after creation, I alone existed, in vaikuntha in the form of the primordial God, and in the manifested worlds in the form of the inner controller, etc. By this, the knowledge of God described as "the cause of creation, maintenance, and dissolution" is instructed. If it is argued that the forms of pots, cloth, etc., seen everywhere are not your forms, and thus there would be incompleteness in you, to this it is said: This universe is indeed myself, being non-different from me and of my nature. By this, the knowledge of God stated in "This God, the creator of the universe, has been described to you, O dear one. In brief, there is nothing other than Hari, whether existent or non-existent" is instructed. Similarly, that which remains in dissolution is indeed myself alone. By this, the knowledge of God stated in "You alone remain, known as śeṣa (remainder)" is instructed. Thus, what was previously promised to be revealed by one's own grace is instructed as the knowledge of being unlimited by all time and space. In this way, by stating "There is nothing else, whether existent or non-existent, beyond this," the knowledge that "I am indeed the foundation of brahman" is indicated. By describing the form of God as having all forms and parts, the knowledge of having unique infinite forms is indicated. By describing the all-encompassing nature, the knowledge of having unique infinite qualities is indicated. By describing the basis of various actions characterized by creation, maintenance, and dissolution, the knowledge of having extraordinary infinite actions is indicated.
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Moreover, knowledge is the indirect determination of reality through words, which may be possible for some pure-hearted believers. Realization, however, is direct experience, the actual perception of one's true nature, which is not possible without devotion and love for me, as stated in the secret and its auxiliary texts. To convey this, he gives a blessing regarding that quality: yāvān (as great as), yat (of what) measure and form. It means: having limbs with specific thickness, height, length, roundness, purity, and arrangement. Yathābhāva means with what intention. One who has those forms like śyāmatva (dark complexion), caturbhujatva (four-armed), dvibhujatva (two-armed), kṛṣṇatva (being Krishna), rāmatva (being Rama), nṛsiṃhatva (being Narasimha), etc., qualities like affection for devotees, etc., and actions like accepting Lakshmi, lifting Govardhana, etc. Tathaiva means: in whatever way my measure, intention, form, qualities, and actions manifest, may there be true realization of them in that very way. Although grace is already implied by the blessing itself, the repeated use of the word "my grace" suggests that with the gradual increase in devotional practice and loving devotion, which are the special functions of my most intimate grace-bestowing power, the experience of the sweetness of my form and qualities will also increase proportionately. Even beyond this, it hints that you will directly experience me, Krishna, the most sweet and rare form, superior even to this form of mine, in the land of Vraja. By this, other interpretations of the four verses as pertaining only to the attributeless nature are themselves refuted.
Thus, having promised knowledge, etc., to be given in two verses, and having made one fit for its attainment through blessing alone, while first instructing knowledge, he answers the question "How should I know the higher and lower as they are?" by saying "I alone existed before creation," touching his chest with his index finger. The word "alone" excludes the existence of anything else, implying that no material object of my category existed. This is the meaning: At present, manifesting before you, that supremely enchanting form, the great ocean of the sweetness of form and qualities, I alone existed even at the time of the great dissolution. This is supported by śruti texts such as "In the beginning, there was only Vāsudeva, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara," "The Self alone existed in the beginning in the form of a person," "The person indeed was Nārāyaṇa," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed," "The person Nārāyaṇa desired," "Then from Nārāyaṇa, the unborn was born," "From whom all beings [arise], Nārāyaṇa is the supreme Brahman, Nārāyaṇa is the supreme truth," "The supreme Brahman, the person dark and tawny," "Nārāyaṇa alone existed, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna," etc., and smṛti texts like "The Lord alone existed." Here, Vaikuṇṭha and its residents are also included in the word "I" as they are His limbs, just as in "The king is coming." Thus, their existence should be understood similarly. And so is the king's question: "He too, where the person who is the origin, maintenance, and dissolution of the universe, the Lord of māyā, having withdrawn his own māyā, sleeps as the inner controller of all." Vidura's question and the explanation of tattvas, O Lord, how many ways do they dissolve? Who would worship him there, and who would follow him? Thus. The explanation of Śrī Svāmicaraṇa is that during pralaya (dissolution), who would worship this supreme Lord lying down like a king, and who would follow him, sleeping as he sleeps? It is also said in the Kāśīkhaṇḍa: Even in the great calamity of dissolution, his devotees do not fall. Therefore, he is acyuta (unfallen) in all the worlds, the one, all-pervading, and imperishable.
The phrase "āsam eva" (I alone existed) excludes other states of being. Since "asti" denotes existence, it implies that at that time, there was no absence of my existence in any way. The exclusion of other actions in "I alone existed, I did nothing else" is not actually applicable, as "asti" is inherent in all verbal meanings. When it is said "Caitra was indeed there in that village last year," it does not exclude Caitra's actions of sleeping, sitting, eating, etc., but only implies his presence.
However, it fits the manner of expression. As in the context - "I alone existed" excludes only other actions characterized by creation etc., which are within the cognition of ordinary people, starting from Brahmā, but not the internal līlā (divine play). Just as when it is said "Now this king does nothing at all," it only negates the work related to kingship, not sleeping, eating, etc. It is seen similarly here.
Now, it is heard somewhere that only the attributeless Brahman existed. To this, he says: That Brahman which is beyond the existent (effect) and the non-existent (cause), is not different from me. In some adhikārin (qualified person) or śāstra (scripture) incapable of teaching the various inherent distinctions, I appear as the attributeless Brahman - this is the meaning. But you should know me as endowed with form, qualities, etc., through the blessings and grace mentioned in the previous verse.
If it is argued that after creation, only the world is perceived, not you, he responds: Even after creation, I alone exist - in Vaikuṇṭha in the form of the primordial Lord, in the created worlds as the inner controller, and at appropriate times in avatāra forms like Matsya, etc.
If it is then said that you are not the earth, deities, animals, etc., implying your incompleteness, he responds: This universe, which is the cessation of the individual and collective, is also myself, being produced by my power, it is my material form. "As I would know the higher and lower forms" - thus you asked about the lower form, know this to be that, is the meaning. Also, "He who would remain, you alone remain, called Śeṣa" - as stated thus, I am that Supreme Lord. By the threefold repetition of "aham" (I) here, determination is indicated, implying that this form of mine endowed with qualities etc. has eternal existence in all three times as the higher form, while this visible, illusory world manifested only between creation and dissolution is the lower form - thus knowledge of the higher and lower forms is stated. The realization, however, would be of the first, higher form alone, and that too would occur when its form, qualities, etc. are relished through loving devotion born of hearing, chanting, etc., as will be clarified in the fourth verse. (32)
Śrīmad Śukadeva's Siddhānta Pradīpa:
He states that my grace alone is the principal means of knowledge combined with bhakti yoga (devotional yoga) in the verse beginning with "yāvān" (as much as). May you have true knowledge of me through my grace, exactly as I am - of such measure, of such nature, possessed of such existence, having such forms, qualities, and actions. (31)
Now, briefly teaching that very knowledge through instruction about the object to be known, he shows the higher and lower forms in the verse beginning with "aham" (I). The supreme, seed-like cause beyond the gross and subtle, the existent and non-existent, that which existed before creation - that alone I was, nothing else existed. And that which would remain afterwards, that too I am. Thus, the meaning is that I alone am of higher and lower forms, on whom the world depends. This universe of conscious and unconscious entities is also myself - meaning I am of a nature both different and non-different from the universe. By this, it is taught that one should worship me with firm faith, having knowledge that I am unlimited in measure, possessed of existence in all three times, of a nature both different and non-different from the world, endowed with qualities like omniscience etc. appropriate to the creation of the universe, and the doer of all cosmic actions. (32)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
He states the second knowledge - yāvānaham iti. As much as I am in terms of measure and extent. Yathābhāvaḥ means the state that is my cause, in the form of all powers for performing all actions. Yāvanti rūpāṇi means the forms, qualities, and actions that belong to me. Yāni vā guṇādīni means "or whichever qualities, etc." This is also like before. He says - may you have that knowledge of reality by my grace. May the knowledge of the true nature of all things arise in you in reality - this is the meaning. (31)
Thus, being unable to describe the two types of knowledge, or due to the impossibility of Brahman manifesting in the heart when described, he himself gives the teaching in four verses, starting with "aham evāsam evāgre". The form in which the Lord creates the world is prayed for in that teaching. There he says: I alone became that form, nothing else. The appearance as something else is also my māyā (illusion). The perception of a soul in inert things like the body is like the perception of space in a pot. The relationship of container and contained, and the cause of external and internal distinctions, is also myself alone. The world is fundamentally my essential nature. In appearance it is māyā, and the individual soul is the one who has entered into it. Thus the entire world in all ways is myself alone. Knowing this, one's own nature should also be known as such. This is the teaching. If one becomes of my nature and creates the world of my nature, then there is no pride, and hence no delusion which is the cause of pride - this is the meaning of the five verses.
There, in response to the question of how the entire world is the Lord, he elaborates on the reason "tajjalān". Before creation, I alone existed. As per the śruti (scripture): "In the beginning, there was only Nārāyaṇa, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara existed." "In the beginning, there was only Vāsudeva, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara existed." Before creation, I alone existed. Moreover, one should not suspect that something existed before me. Just as I existed before the world, if something else existed before me, that would only be possible if I did not exist at some point. But that is not possible for me. Because I am described as existing in the form of sat (existence), as per the śruti: "In the beginning, my dear, this was existence alone, one only, without a second."
I existed before creation. Statements like "In the beginning this was non-existence, from that existence was born" etc. indicate that even before the world that is perceived later, it existed in an unmanifest form. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction in non-existence giving rise to existence. As per the statement: "Non-existence cannot give rise to existence." Statements like "Neither non-existence nor existence was there then" refer to gross and subtle effects. The statement "In the beginning, this was all water, just water" refers to an intermediate cycle of creation. It means that the various waters and this world which is their effect were all in the form of the waters of dissolution.
The statement "From the unmanifest, all beings..." refers to Brahman in unmanifest form. Since the conception of dissolution is established only later, the prior state of dissolution is also established only later, not earlier. This also refutes statements like "prakṛti and puruṣa...", as they belong to other schools of thought. It also contradicts statements like "There was knowledge, then objects." The statement "There was darkness" also refers to Brahman, due to the similarity of being in a state of complete dormancy. It is not prakṛti (primordial nature). As per the statement "What was the shelter, what was the receptacle...", since there is no purpose or substratum for effects, and since its nature can only be inferred from its effects, prakṛti did not exist then.
Similarly, other statements also indicate the Lord in one form in the beginning, without contradiction. Therefore, being established by śruti (scripture), he negates other things at that time - "Nothing else". Although existence and non-existence are established in śruti as prior, they are not different from him. He says this in "sadased iti". The words sat and asat both refer to Brahman - this is the meaning. Even the word para (supreme) in "He who is beyond this supreme" does not refer to time etc., but to myself alone. Thus it is established that I alone existed before. In your view, absences are not different from concealment, and since that is a power of the Lord, by the maxim "like before", since the attributes of power are not different from him, and since time is also described as such only at the time of description, being equal to prakṛti, the Lord alone is established as one without dispute.
Moreover, I exist afterwards. From the essential nature capable of all becoming, the emergence of action takes place. Time exists afterwards in causal form, in the form of power, and later in the form of effects. As per the śruti: "He himself made himself", and because the existence of non-existence is not accepted. Yadetat means all that is perceived. The word ca (and) includes that which is not perceived and not well-known. This also includes the individual souls. If the reading is "tvam etac ca", it means the entire world consisting of souls and inert matter is myself alone. This is the primary doctrine of Brahman. Indeed, words are not valid when they contradict the nature of things. And the Lord is free from all faults. Modifications and faults are defects. Due to the absence of restriction in all words, there is no instruction and abolition of scripture. Due to lack of purpose, there is the possibility of faults like not doing what is beneficial. And there is absence of being the Supreme Person. Therefore, due to being afflicted by many faults, the doctrine of Brahman is untenable - if this is said, (we reply) not so. Objects beyond the scope of direct perception are known through śruti (scripture). Those that are mutually contradictory do not admit of single remainder. Since both are Vedic, who would be the arbiter here? The intellect of the inquirers should always depend on śruti. In case of focus on action and knowledge, there is unity of sentence through option. Even a faulty view called option is accepted due to the force of śruti. Similarly, the form of the Lord is separate like hands etc. Just as there would be contradiction with everything, so is the consideration here. Therefore, capability of all forms is proclaimed in Brahman. Otherwise, the appearance due to differences of high, low etc. - that appearance and its creator is indeed Hari of that nature. Whatever fault is seen here is also Hari himself. All contradictory views shine with all mantras. "Whatever remains, that I am." In causing the disappearance of everything that has manifested, that which does not disappear, or the locus of disappearance, or through division of parts - that too I am - by this he indicates that all actions and their objects are myself. (32)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
In "yāvān", the play-knowledge prayed for in the two verses "dvitīyam iti" and "yathātmamāye" is (explained). "As many forms" - this is explaining the meaning of "in whatever form", not an analysis of the compound. "This too like before" means this knowledge of form, quality and action is also secret and subsidiary like before, as appropriate. In this verse, by indicating quantity through authority, the all-formness stated in the śruti "That One unmanifest of infinite forms" is illuminated. By indicating quantity through measure, the contradiction of size stated in "Smaller than the atom, greater than the great" etc. is resolved and illuminated as the substrate of contradictory attributes. "As it is" illuminates the form of cause as the twenty-eight principles like śakti etc. and the śruti-stated causal form. "Of whatever form, quality and action" indicates the form of respective effects. By indicating the causality of grace everywhere, what is stated in the śruti "Whom alone this one chooses" should be understood as corroborated. This they say in "Thus knowledge" etc. (31)
*In "grahamevāsam", it is prayed. By "Through connection with one's own māyā" in the two (verses), after knowledge of creation etc. play, instruction to act as taught by the Lord is prayed for by "May I do as instructed by the Lord". This is accomplished by just the first verse, so what is the purpose of the rest - to this doubt, they state their purport in "Otherwise" etc. This is for the second (verse). "In essence" etc. is for the third. In "The entering jīva", the reading is "The jīva form through entering". "It appears" etc. is for the fourth. "Thus in my form" etc. should be known as for the fifth.
"Tajjalān" - he explains the reason in detail. Thus in the Chāndogya in Śāṇḍilya-vidyā, "All this is indeed Brahman, from That it is born etc.", "One should meditate peacefully" - the reason for the world being of the nature of Brahman stated in śruti is explained with reasoning. The meaning of the śruti is: Certainly, decidedly, this visible all (pakṣa/minor term) is Brahman (sādhya/major term). The reason there is "jalān" - "ja" means born, "la" means dissolved, "an" means existing, "jala" is "ja" and "la", "jalān" is that and existing in that - thus is the reason. "One should meditate peacefully" means one should contemplate the world as Brahman due to inherence in Brahman. And inherence is just another name for identity. Even in the view of difference, continuation in the non-superimposed, non-adventitious form is indeed of the nature of That. So there is no contradiction with the Vaiśeṣika doctrinal position.
Here, due to the two "eva"s, the two sentences "I alone was" and "was alone" are connected to both the preceding and succeeding words, as they indicate the previous state - with this intention, they first explain "Before creation" etc. The two śrutis "Nārāyaṇa alone was" etc. are from another branch, now found in well-known Upaniṣads as "Nārāyaṇa alone was, not Brahmā, not Īśāna" in the Brahma (Maha) Upaniṣad. Here, due to absence of the words "before this" in the first śruti, the state before creation and being the material cause are not clear, so the second śruti is shown - this is the meaning. Now, it is said in the śruti (scripture) that time is mentioned by the word "first", as in "from Harita came Rohita", and since the meaning of origination is also established, it is possible to say that at that time it arose first from all, so the assertion of self-existence alone in the time before creation is not justified. In response to this doubt, they say "moreover" etc. "Previously" means in the manner that will be explained. "That" refers to non-existence.
Now, if their existence is accepted, there is no contradiction with the word "only", as only the exclusion of impossibility is to be respected there, otherwise there would be improper usage at the beginning. In response to this doubt, they say "at the beginning, before creation". The meaning is this: Here in the śruti, if the existence of time is accepted, there would be a division of sentences. If repetition is accepted, since it depends on what was said before, its assumption being necessary, there would be an implication of the existence of that and its speaker, leading to a contradiction of the sentence meaning. And in specific injunction, there would be heaviness. Therefore, it must be respected that the sentence operates with the coloring of the currently well-known time for the purpose of teaching the student.
In that case, upon close examination, even the word "agre" (at the beginning) is not indicative of time. Because it is used in reference to a particular place in expressions like "go ahead" and "the city ahead". Therefore, in accordance with the emphasis, leaving aside the subject part manifesting in front in the word "agre", to establish the occurrence of the adjectival anteriority, only existence should be determined as the subject, and the locative case is in the sense of location. In that case, the meaning becomes that existence alone is the location before creation.
And this is not to be said that in the subsequent sentence "ekam evādvitīyam" (one without a second) which is explanatory, the word "eka" (one) can be said to have the primary meaning according to the lexicon "ekapadādeke mukhyānyakevalā", so only the absence of equal or superior is intended there, because that would result in the futility of the word "advitīyam" (without a second), as there would be no gain of the purpose of its utterance other than the negation of the existence of others.
And it is not to be said that according to another śruti (Aitareya) "ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīn nānyat kiñcana miṣat" (the Self alone was this in the beginning, nothing else whatsoever stirred), the word "advitīyam" (without a second) is for the purpose of negating another that performs action, because if so, there would be an obstruction to the proposition "yena aśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavati" (by which the unheard becomes heard) and to the example "yathā somya ekena mṛtpiṇḍena" (as, my dear, by one lump of clay).
And thus there is no problem of the absence of attributes, as there is no fault in the existence of essential attributes being of its nature. With this intention, it is said "at the beginning, before creation" which is faultless. By this, it is also indicated that the reason stated in the śruti "tajjalāni" as being subsidiary to meditation, due to non-contradiction with other means of knowledge, conveys the reality of the substance.
Now, even so, the existence of Brahman alone is not justified, as in śrutis like "asad vai" (verily, non-existence), non-existence etc. are also stated thus. In response to this doubt, they say "asad vai" etc. "Later" means in the state of creation. "Before" means prior to creation. Thus, in stating that it was not in such a form at that time, just as a pot was in the form of clay before, the world was established in the form of existence alone before. So at that time, the existence of Brahman alone is well-established.
Now, why is the existence of non-existence, which is established in the world, not accepted on the strength of śruti? To this they say "otherwise" etc. If this sentence is taken to indicate the existence of non-existence in accordance with the world, there would be a contradiction with the śruti "kutastu khalu saumyaivaṃ syāt katham asataḥ saj jāyeta" (how indeed, my dear, could it be thus? How could existence be produced from non-existence?). The meaning is that there would be a contradiction with the effect having a fixed limit.
Now, for the effect to have a fixed limit, its prior non-existence should be accepted there, so there is no fault even in accepting the existence of non-existence. And the śruti "kutas tu" etc. is for refuting the pure nihilist view, so there is no contradiction with that either. To this they say "na asataḥ" (not of non-existence) etc. Thus, if the existence of everything is accepted at that time, due to the absence of a substratum, the prior non-existence of the effect cannot be determined. And if the existence of a substratum is accepted, there would be a contradiction with the śruti "sad eva" (existence alone). Therefore, that existence should be accepted in Brahman alone. Even then, the contradiction with this sentence is difficult to resolve.
The meaning of the sentence is: The existence of a non-existent thing does not exist; the non-existence of an existent thing does not exist. The reason for this is that the inner conclusion of both these non-existences has been directly perceived by the seers of truth, the seers of the real form.
Now, in the Bhāvavṛtta hymn, the śruti "nāsad āsīt" (non-existence was not) indicates the absence of both existence and non-existence in the time before creation, so the existence of non-existence is indeed arrived at. To this they say "nāsad āsīt" etc. Thus, here too, having referred to the subtle effect by the word "asat" (non-existent) and the gross effect by the word "sat" (existent), their absence is stated. As this is similar to the previous, it is answered by that itself.
Vidyāraṇya, however, has accepted that by the word "asat" (non-existent), the indescribable is meant, and by the word "sat" (existent), the self is meant, as in mantras. Moreover, by indicating the absence of that, it means that according to their view, it was indeed anirvacanīya (indescribable) (and indescribable in English), distinct from both. Nevertheless, there is no particular difference. Further, 'nāsīdraja' negates the quality of rajas, 'no vyomāparo yad' refutes the concept of ākāśa (space) (and space in English) as understood by the Kaṇāda and others, since 'yo'syādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman' later speaks of ākāśa as the nature of imperishable Brahman. 'Tataḥ kimāvarīva' and so on negate the principle of prakṛti (primordial nature) (and primordial nature in English), 'tato'mbhaḥ kimāsīd' and so on negate the dissolution waters, and in the next mantra, 'na mṛtyurāsīd' and so on negate death, mortality, and the knowledge of time. Then 'ānīdvātam' and so on affirm the existence of that one and negate the existence of everything else. This is the meaning of these two mantras.
Now, if one objects that this contradicts the statement in the Samhita text "āpo vā" which affirms the existence of water by negating ambhas (water) (and water in English), they explain: "āpo va" and so on. Even if this is accepted, one might argue that the absence of prakṛti at the beginning of creation cannot be asserted, as the Lord states in the Gita "avyaktādīni" (unmanifest origins) (and unmanifest origins in English), where the word avyakta refers to prakṛti. In response to this objection, they say: "avyakta" and so on.
If one asks how to determine that the word avyakta here refers to Brahman itself, they explain: "līna" and so on. Here, to alleviate Arjuna's sorrow, the eternality of souls is being discussed. Therefore, the word bhūta refers to souls, whose manifestation is established only after origination, as explained earlier. Thus, before the division, in their subtle form, they are not manifest, hence they are called avyakta. In this case, the state of being unmanifest primordial elements cannot be attributed to prakṛti, as in the Sankhya doctrine, both prakṛti and puruṣa (individual soul) (and individual soul in English) are considered beginningless. Therefore, the primordial unmanifest refers to Brahman alone.
If one asks about the interpretation of the statement "prakṛtiṃ puruṣaṃ ca" in this context, they explain: "anena" and so on. "Anena" refers to the determination of the meaning of the word avyakta. Now, in the third mantra of the Bhāvavṛtta Sūkta, the existence of tamas (darkness) (and darkness in English) at the beginning of creation is mentioned, which is indeed māyā (illusion) (and illusion in English), as determined in passages like "tamo vā idamekamevāgra āsīt tat pareṇeritaṃ viṣamatvaṃ prayāti" (Verily, in the beginning, this was one, even darkness; that being moved by the Great One, became uneven). How then is the existence of Brahman alone established at that time? They explain: "tama āsīd" and so on.
To address the question of how, they say: "sarvata" and so on. Here, in the previous mantra, "ānīdavātaṃ svadhayā tadekam tasmāddhānyannaparaḥ kiñcanāsa," the nature of what is referred to by the word "tat" (that) is described here as "tamaḥ" (darkness) and so on. Therefore, it means thus. Now, if one argues that accepting the primary meaning is better than resorting to a figurative interpretation, they explain: "na prakṛtir" and so on.
The meaning of the śruti is: What action would cover? For whose pleasure? Thus, since the existence of prakṛti has already been negated in the previous mantra, the word tamas here cannot be taken to mean the first manifestation. Therefore, a figurative interpretation is indeed better. One should not worry about contradiction with the later statement "tamasā gūḍhamagre" (In the beginning, this was concealed by darkness). The meaning is that this world, differentiated by name and form, was in the beginning, before creation, unknown, unrecognized, and concealed by undifferentiated darkness in the form of the aforementioned Brahman, which is the cause – thus there is no contradiction due to the connection with the verbal action.
Having thus considered a few statements, they explain the interpretation of others similarly: "evamanyāni" and so on. What then? "Tasmai sahovāca na sannāsannasadasaditi" (To him, he said: neither existent nor non-existent, neither existence nor non-existence), "tamo vā idamagra āsīt pareṇeritaṃ viṣamatvaṃ prayatīti yadā tamastanna divā na rātrirna sanna cāsan śiva eva kevala" (Verily, in the beginning this was darkness; that being moved by the Great One became uneven. When it was darkness, then there was neither day nor night, neither existence nor non-existence; Śiva alone was), and other such statements from the Saubāla, Maitrāyaṇīya, and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads, as well as other similar texts, teach in terms of darkness distinct from existence and non-existence, controlled by Śiva and so forth. This is the meaning. Thus, having explained the meaning of a mere sentence, they state the conclusion with "Therefore" and so on. By this, it is also indicated that the doctrine of Viśiṣṭādvaita is disregarded. Now, due to the multiplicity of counterparts that are perceived later, and the existence of prior non-existence, absolute non-existence, and mutual non-existence earlier, how does the negation of others align? To this, they say "Absences" and so on. Thus, having established the existence of the pure self alone in the time before creation, they state that even at the time of creation, when there are various entities, only the existence of the pure self is established. Moreover, "And what" and so on. Thus, the perception of difference itself is inconsistent. The entities, however, are indeed forms of the Divine, so even then there is only pure existence - this is the primary doctrine of Brahman. This is the meaning.
Having thus explained and established the entire doctrine of Brahman through this interpretation, they raise an objection to strengthen it by the method of digging a post: "But" and so on, up to "Here there is no proof." Afterwards, the inconsistency of isolation (kaivalya) is shown. Up to "faults," the inconsistency of direct transformation is stated. "The word 'all'" means that in the Śruti statement "All this is indeed Brahman," if the word "all" implies causing benefit and so on, then even though all forms are of Brahman, there would be the fault of partiality and cruelty in causing suffering to living beings. "Absence of being the Supreme Person" means that if everything is of the form of Brahman and thus of one form, there would be no high or low status, hence no supreme personhood.
Here, the response is given through verses: "Not so, perception" and so on. Like objects to be examined such as gems, and like objects established by the words of an examiner in a matter not determined by direct perception, the mutually contradictory qualities taught by the Śruti, such as being subject to change and being changeless, moving and unmoving, should be understood as residing in one and the same substrate. Because these do not take on ekaseṣa (remaining as one), i.e., the status of one being primary and the other figurative, or the nature of being superseded and superseding, as they are taught by the Śruti. The reason for this: "Of both" and so on. "In the Śruti," means what would be the determining factor in the relationship of quality and qualified or in the nature of being superseded and superseding? Due to the absence of any higher authority than the Veda, there is no determining factor for this. Therefore, it is not easy to say that one is figurative or superseded, as the possession of contradictory qualities by Brahman is established by the Veda itself.
If it is argued that this too is said only after careful consideration, and therefore in the interpretation of the Veda, the intellect of the interpreter is the determining factor, and thus it may determine one to be figurative or superseded, to this they say: "Of the examiners" and so on. "Of the Śruti" is in the fifth case with elision of 'i'. Thus, the intellect of theistic examiners always, at all times, depends on the Śruti along with what is to be relied upon. Therefore, even when seeing two Śruti statements that teach two contradictory meanings, how can the intellect itself assume one meaning to be figurative or superseded, since the nature of being relied upon is not different in both? Or if it does assume so, why would it not consider itself non-authoritative due to contradiction with what is to be relied upon? Thus, it too is not independently determining, so the possession of contradictory qualities should be accepted as it is stated.
Now, having enjoined "He offers oblation when [the sun] has risen" in the Śruti, to praise that, offering oblation before sunrise is censured. Similarly, having enjoined "He offers oblation before [the sun] has risen," offering after sunrise is censured. There, when it's impossible to negate one or perform both, it is established that both apply respectively to different branches of the Veda. Similarly, here it should be said that one pertains to meditation and the other to knowledge. Even there, if it is asked which pertains to what, since meditations are enjoined with emphasis on respective qualities, the qualities pertain to that. In knowledge, however, due to censure in statements like "Brahman is one without a second," "There is no diversity here whatsoever," "He who sees diversity here goes from death to death," the negation should be understood as pertaining to knowledge. And thus, the establishment of dual nature is not achieved even through imagined attributes for the sake of worship, as it is not determined in such a way in passages like "One should worship speech as a cow." However, for knowledge, it is not established in that manner. This is evident from hearing the condemnation: "He who perceives the self, which is one way, in another way - what sin has not been committed by that thief who steals the self?" Therefore, since the discriminating intellect, which is dependent on it, is the determining factor, it is not proper to ascribe contradictory attributes. Hence, they say "action" and so on. Action is mental, in the form of meditation, which is worship. Knowledge is jñāna). When there is an option between the scriptures that describe attributes and those that negate them, there is no unity of statement, because Brahman is not primary. If action and knowledge were to be primarily taught, there would be separate statements due to the difference in meaning, like statements about performed and unperformed homa, and due to the absence of expectancy. In that case, the unity of all scriptures in teaching Brahman, as stated in śruti and sūtra passages like "All Vedas indicate that state" and "The teaching of all Vedānta is non-different due to the absence of specificity in injunctions, etc." would be contradicted.
Now, if one says: "We do not accept knowledge and worship as primarily taught, but rather Brahman. Therefore, the unity of statement is easily established through the connection of superimposition and negation." To this, they say "faulty" and so on. The meaning is this: One who says that attributes are taught as imaginary for the sake of worship must accept that they are real somewhere. Otherwise, even their imagination would be impossible. It is determined in the vidyā of honey and others that only an existing attribute in one place can be superimposed elsewhere. If this is so, the reality of these attributes must be accepted in the limiting adjunct. If the limiting adjunct is real, duality would result. If it is unreal, then due to the non-existence of the attributes themselves, superimposition would be impossible, making the teaching of imagination impossible. Thus, if Brahman is primarily taught, that connection is impossible to state, making the separation of statements unavoidable.
Therefore, just as in the case of statements like "In the Atirātra, one takes the sixteenth cup" and "In the Atirātra, one does not take the sixteenth cup," where the option called vikalpa is accepted despite being faulty with eight defects, due to the force of the two statements, similarly here, due to the force of the two śrutis, dual nature must be accepted. Thus, just as hands and other body parts, though separate from a person, are of the nature of the person, so too the world, though appearing different from Brahman, is of its nature. The Lord, though in the form of the world, is also different as the Supreme Person. In short, just as there is no contradiction with all śrutis, so too should this be examined with subtle vision, not by negating one or the other. Therefore, negations of attributes like "not gross" and "non-doer, non-enjoyer" as well as attributions like "with hands and feet everywhere" and "he is the all-knowing, the source of all" are equally strong, being engaged solely in teaching the nature of Brahman. For ease of understanding, Brahman is described as capable of all forms, being all forms, and capable of all actions. This is taught by Vyāsa in the section on dual characteristics. Thus, due to the force of śruti, sūtra, etc., for the sake of non-contradiction with everything, the possession of contradictory attributes should be respected.
If one objects that it is not proper for Brahman to have all forms, as it is not perceived in all places and times, and Brahman is of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss, a mass of knowledge, and always of one form, and therefore the previous explanation is not fitting, they say "otherwise" and so on. The doer is māyā as per the maxim "Agency in one's own operation exists everywhere indeed for the instrument." Thus, even though there are multiple flavors, the explanation is proper as the single flavor is not contradicted.
If one asks how there can be confidence in accepting something contradictory to perception based on verbal testimony, as there is no determining factor, they say "contradictory aspects" and so on. Here, all the contradictory aspects perceived in Brahman in all avatars, such as the fish growing a hundred yojanas in an instant, the boar becoming mountain-sized in a moment, the seven-year-old lifting Govardhana, the small one becoming all-pervading in the Damodara play, etc., were seen by contemporaries and are well-known even now through śruti, etc. Therefore, everything is beautiful only in Brahman. Thus, you who doubt should respect perception itself as the determining factor. This should be carefully noted by the assembly of scholars, just as it is.
Thus, the absoluteness of Brahman in the state of manifestation has been established. By this, it has been shown that the Lord does not accept the doctrine of difference in any way. Next, they speak about the state of dissolution: "And so on." By this, quoting the Saubala text which states that earth dissolves in water, water in fire, fire in air, air in space, space in the senses, the senses in the tanmātras, the tanmātras in the primordial element, the primordial element in the great principle, the great principle in the unmanifest, the unmanifest in the imperishable, the imperishable in darkness, and darkness becomes one in the Supreme - this is the instruction of nirvāṇa, this is the instruction of the Veda - it has been shown that even the Viśiṣṭādvaita proponents who accept the dissolution of earth and other elements up to the imperishable in their respective causes, and the unification characterized by the inability to distinguish name and form of darkness, which is the cause of all, in the Supreme, are refuted.
In the consideration of the verbal root meaning, since dissolution (laya, लय) has the form of 'le', just as pure water poured into pure water results in the inability to distinguish name and form, the oneness of the imperishable and other elements with their cause is of that nature, and darkness is said to become one, indicating non-difference from the causal nature. This very meaning becomes clear. Therefore, in the conclusion, the nature stated in the beginning - "Beyond which there is neither existence nor non-existence, neither being nor non-being" - is referred to. Hence, this is indeed the primary doctrine of Brahman, and all is well-established. (32)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
If you say "I am not able to grasp that supreme secret", then he says - yāvān iti. I am yāvān (as great as), of such magnitude, yathābhāvaḥ (of such nature) possessing such existence, one who has those forms, qualities and actions, he is yadrūpaguṇakarmaka (of such form, qualities and actions). In the same way, may you have tattvavidñāna (knowledge of truth) and yathārthajñāna (true knowledge) by my grace alone. (31)
Thus, having promised instruction with blessings in two verses, he instructs with four verses - aham iti. Before creation, I alone existed as that supreme cause which is beyond the existent and non-existent, effect and cause. Nothing else, gross or subtle, existed. By this the supreme form is shown. I existed alone, and did not do anything - this is the meaning of eva. After creation also, whatever this universe consisting of effect and cause, gross and subtle - that also I alone am. Thus the other form is shown. The forms of incarnations like Rama and Krishna, qualities like affection for devotees, and actions like creation, preservation, lifting of Govardhana, etc. are indicated by yadrūpaguṇakarmaka. And whatever remains in dissolution, that Lord also I alone am - thus my existence pervading the three times is shown as the meaning of yathābhāvaḥ. (32)
Hindī Anuvāda
My extent, my characteristic, my forms, qualities, and līlās (divine plays) - by my grace, may you experience their essence exactly as they are. || 31 ||
Before creation, I alone existed. Besides me, there was neither the gross nor the subtle, nor the cause of both, which is ignorance. Where this creation does not exist, there I alone am, and whatever appears in the form of this creation is also me, and whatever will remain is also me alone. || 32 ||