60 results for “Bhagavad Gita”

He censures the desirous (kāma-ātmanāḥ). How then can one who seeks heaven perform sacrifices? The scriptures do ordain even for desire-driven people, hence 'karmaṇy ēva' — to mark that point. Are the wise then bound to act for fruit like others? No — some are not so. A wise person may be led astray by passion similarly to kings, and if their sattva were pure they would have knowledge; instruction establishes knowledge for them. The mention of 'ārṣṭi' and other terms counts the wise and shows prohibition of desire. Fruits arise from freedom of will; they do not arise without action. Even the desirous, by wrongful effort, sometimes obtain results by resistance. Therefore abstention from action (karmākaraṇa) is no guarantee of fruitless result; nor does knowledge or desireless conduct by itself ensure fruit. Hence 'karmaṇy eva adhikāras' — one has a right to action; therefore action is to be performed. Not that desire will make one attain the fruit, but likewise not by mere prohibition of action, knowledge, or desirelessness will fruit be secured. The exhortation against desire indicates the Lord's intent to stimulate zeal by the promise of fruit — as one praises medicine by its taste. Thus 'kāmī yajet' means 'let the desirous perform the act', not 'become desirous'. 'Mā tat' — "do not be attached to the fruit" — warns against affection for inaction; otherwise even in absence of fruit one might presume divine favor. From great practice and kindness people come to seek devotion. One does not feel such affection toward a self-seeker. When one says 'what shall I give?' a petitioner receives affection; so the longing for bhakti and jñāna is established.

There are two kinds of beings in creation: the perishable (Kshara) and the imperishable (Akshara). All created beings are perishable; Akshar — unchanging and immovable — is called imperishable.

How? By mere tranquillity (prasāda) all sorrow is removed. A mind serene (prasanna-cetas) abides firmly in direct knowledge of Brahman (brahma-aparokṣa), attaining steady realization. ‘Prasāda’ commonly means the mind’s repose, usually produced by withdrawal from sense‑objects.

The distinction of actions between the wise and the foolish is said to arise from prakriti — from the guṇas, the indriyas, and so on. Those things are guṇa-based and related to prakriti; they are not the actions of a mere reflection.

Here the word ‘mantra‑letter’ is also present: ‘He does not take birth.’ Nor does the Lord, like one who merely attains knowledge, become born. This is corroborated by scriptural statements about time and circumstance: from place and time and condition this state arises; the undiminished one is the conscious self, etc., established by śruti and smṛti. Why? Because the Lord is characteristically unbegun and sovereign. He is eternally of one form. The Purāṇa says formerly He wore a body. Even so, he is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.

Therefore if one says that ‘thus he knows’ — how could that kill or strike the imperishable, the unborn, the one free from incidental destruction? The discrimination everywhere is: the eternal one is not subject to natural destruction. Where blemish‑filled persons are said to be destroyed, the term ‘destroyed’ is used for loss of qualities.

“Activity such as going on is not preceded by new intention,” etc.—the mark is shown by analogy with regular activity, and the question arises why one who is satisfied in supreme bliss still acts. The answer: latent impressions and past merits incline one to some limited action even in the perfected. Usually they abandon all desires, as seen in Śuka and others who perceive God and desire devotion to His feet. When desire for sense-objects arises (e.g. for Indra and such), one is seized; this occurs since great men have stronger causes for action. Hence if peculiar urges arise in those of lesser qualification, they are not to be treated as the knower’s behaviour. The mark of non-attachment is not “does not practice samādhi” — non-attachment is the absence of clinging everywhere. One who is absorbed has no obtaining of auspicious or inauspicious results in the impersonal samādhi, though even in the cognitive samādhi there is not rule to the contrary. Desires can yet arise in distracted minds. The scriptural statements show that desires in knowers are destroyed by knowledge and reliance on God. The mind-formed desires are therefore said to be overcome; taste (rasa) too, when seen as superior, turns away. Therefore the self is not the individual jīva.

There, in the midst of the armies, seeing Arjuna overwhelmed by the snares of attachment and bewilderment, the Blessed Lord spoke these words to rouse his discriminating wisdom: “Why do you grieve for those who are not to be grieved for?”

By that he signifies the mode of experiencing objects: ‘apūryamāṇa’—though the senses be filled with objects, if one remains immovable and steadfast, he attains neither disturbance nor striving, nor does he dry up for want. Just as the ocean is not agitated by rivers entering it, he obtains liberation.

Therefore even great mental absorption is not to be performed; hence ‘‘that one is said to be the performer.’’ Pleasure arises from seeing others, companionship, and similar causes. Satisfaction is a cognitive support elsewhere. Contentment is the pleasure that produces satisfaction; contentment is the cause of satisfaction. From the vision of the Supreme Self there is happiness; elsewhere all is dependent on other supports. That great happiness is such that it too depends on other supports—this shows one is satisfied in the Self alone. Thus one stands satisfied in that state. No other cause of contentment is to be assumed. Being satisfied in the Self, one is not dependent on other supports. The usage ‘‘vayam tu na vitṛpyām’’ (in other text) proves this. The course of food is fixed; self‑delight is declared as the view. For the one in nirvitarka samādhi there is no activity; even the sage established in steadiness has bodily actions. ‘‘Yad vā svadharmo me…’’ shows that one’s own duty exists for satisfaction. One may delight in other things at other times; that is not just dependence on other supports—the words differ. The verb ‘kartṛ’ remains valid even on division of time; therefore this refers to nirvikalpa samādhi. Manu’s clarification shows that the samādhi of the wise is called sampragñāta. The delight in Viṣṇu is specially noted: the one whose action is delight in Viṣṇu has no other action.

“That very thing the scriptures make clear to one who opposes them.” Earlier the scriptures were opposed by the Vedas, but when the opposers become steady in the meaning of the Vedas and in firm conviction, even contrary words do not move them; then they are established in samādhi. By direct vision of Brahman, even blows of a drum or the like do not disturb one who is absorbed in supreme bliss. Thus: having attained the means, you will attain yoga.

That the imperishable is not characterized by particular incidental causes is denied — e.g., by saying ‘not like cutting off’ — therefore particular causal supports are negated. The present (sense) prohibition is against current perception; hence later it says: ‘not to be cut off.’ This indicates fitness to be spoken of from present perception. Why would it be unfit? Because the Lord is of special character as omnipresent etc.; ‘everlasting’ was spoken only of unity of form. The word ‘sthaṇu’ serves to exclude the opposite claim that ‘permanent’ means merely incidental; permanence is a particular qualification of omnipresence, not otherwise. Where unity is asserted, repeated statements and denominators are explained by scriptural reasons. The nature of mirror‑like relations and image–reflected properties are not contrary. Forms arise as forms and counter‑forms; they are mere semblances — established by śruti and smṛti. No contradiction arises from parts because the part follows from the whole. Neither is sameness of form opposed to parthood. The proof in both cases rests on scriptural passages. Nor is the reflection‑status of a part to be invented where the view of parts and bodies in other passages differs. Even for permanence the scripture says ‘so.’ The Lord is declared by both ways to be of both kinds of statements, owing to His inconceivable power. Nor does māyā alone in the Lord contradict Brahman, for the Lord’s sovereignty is different; the relation of cause and effect in Him is manifold. The great purport is that liberation (moksha) is the supreme human goal; that is the one end. ‘At the end they rejoice, not in the middle’ — scriptures testify that final attainment brings bliss and that liberation comes by Vishnu’s grace. Who, without worshiping Vasudeva, can attain liberation? By His grace ultimate perfection is had, no doubt. Those who are established in Him, taking refuge in the all‑pervading Self, surpass others; such are known to cross the worldly ocean. Thus by His grace one attains the supreme state — this is affirmed in many passages. That preeminence arises only by supreme knowledge and is world‑famous.

The fruit of knowledge is declared: “One established in buddhi” (2.50). Even meritorious actions can yield results displeasing to some—human pleasures and the like—and inferior fruits are given by ritual observances; action is not thereby destroyed. Scriptural passages (e.g. Brāhmaṇa statements) show that through ignorance one performs sacrifices and austerities for many thousands of years and obtains results accordingly. Hence the texts about the exhaustion of action apply everywhere to ignorance; even the passages about both exhaustions refer to undesirable objects; the exhaustion of meritorious action has no useful purpose. A knower’s activity is not annihilated. Some objects are indeed desired: if one wishes for the world of the fathers, the fathers arise at his resolve; if one longs for the assembly of Prajāpati, fame among Brahmins, companionship of women, or vehicles, those are produced by one’s wish—scriptural statements testify to this. Desire creates those very things in the soul; desire-wishes move along in the form of desires. Though numerous, because the self’s blissful nature is repeated, the pleasure from action conflicts with the self’s bliss and with power of experience and with God’s grace and with scriptural testimony. The body’s destruction does not precede that [liberation]. He goes there [to the happy realm]; that blissful self enters it—scripture and reply-state this. He is not absorbed completely by Brahman. Criticisms that in supreme knowledge the immersed one would be afflicted are answered: the removal of names and distinctions prevents those objections. The world-penetration and renunciation of worldly affairs, taught for men like Śuka, show that by relying on this knowledge one attains the sameness with me (Vishnu). On the removal of adjuncts, the reflected form is also removed. We do not find the distinct honor of the wholly absorbed in separate knowledge; the objection that the absorbed one would be miserable in supreme knowledge is answered by the absence of distinction. Nor do we see in the world the identity of reflection and reflected: upon removal of the adjunct there is an honor or estimation. The statement “in supreme knowledge what greater misery could there be?” is answered by noting that as long as the sense of self remains, suffering may be spoken of; the texts treat the adjuncts as impermanent. Therefore even a single-statement presentation, though stylistic, is acceptable. Your visions of the Lord and the differences reported by Nārada are described: branches and singlefoldness are asserted in various passages. In disputes force belongs to reasoned argument; the texts such as “the immersed one” are cited. Thus water is said to be one with water; purity remains pure—rivers meet the sea, and mutual selfhood still coexists; distinctions among great ones can arise. The sea has mouths though it is one; greatness causes difference. The poet praised the waters and their giver. The gods like Brahmā and others may not attain what the capable ones obtain; Nārada’s prohibition and the scriptural deliberation establish the decision about liberation. Where one sees nothing else, the statements such as “he is one” are to be understood as referring to the subordinate entity. Otherwise how would sovereignty and so on arise? It is not said that that place is composed of māyā; otherwise why would textually it be called “one” there? Nor is it opposed that the self has a body. The distinction and special nature of bodies are non-physical and produced by Lordly power; in the narrative of Narāyaṇa the body is born by the sixteen impulses called kalā. Scripts treat worldly signs—lack of unusual features, lack of rejoicing, un-rapture, happiness and sorrow—as applying to those bodies; they do not perish in creation nor arise in dissolution, etc. Ordinary practice refers to that. The bodies of Vaikuṇṭha-dwellers lack sense-organs; liberation is not some minor, secondary thing: one does not attain a partial absence of bondage; the scripture’s decision is that the yogi attains full release in due measure. Those who enter the Lord right here, they afterward go there; fitness is here determined. Other criticisms by Yudhiṣṭhira are also answered. Union (sāyujya) is likened to acquiring a deity-spot. Freed ones in the excellent world enjoy external enjoyments; hence separation from the undesirable is appropriate. They are free from sorrow and all sorrow — the great bliss where one does not grieve is specially mentioned. Those whose hunger is acute do not attain sāyujya; they have only proximity, etc. Because remnants of past actions remain, after enjoying those they attain union. All such scriptural statements about contraction follow from the respective authority. Entry into the supreme Lord Viṣṇu is certain. Therefore complete separation from the undesirable is affirmed. One prays even to Brahmā and others asking “I desire supreme-Brahmanhood,” proving that liberation is sought from Them too. Liberation surpasses any other happiness; Vaishṇava bliss is large and perceivable by word and mind. Thus one should strive for yoga and knowledge as means; action is the skill in means. (End of commentary excerpt.)

Hari is the recipient of all sacrificial shares. The offering given in homes is the share of Hari; I am that share in the sacrifices. Hari is my foremost portion; therefore he is called dhari (the holder). This is remembered in the teaching of moksha-dharma.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

Then are all included?—that would be unjust. Hence ‘na mām’ (not me). Those deluded by wicked deeds are therefore the worst of men. By having knowledge taken away they are deluded, thus assuming demonic character. This (the distinction) is described as movement and cessation (16.7) and so on: removal becomes overpowering. Vyāsa‑yoga states that knowledge and the jīvas’ natural condition are overwhelmed by māyā. The demons delight in evil; Vyāsa says the gods are given to knowledge, demons to vice.

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying (abādya) are the same. Yet the words like rasa indicate, regarding the nature and essence of those possessing rasa, both their nature and essence; they show the rule (niyamaka) as that same entity, not something bound by non‑denial. Thus special terms like ‘rasa’ point to essentiality. ‘Bhoga’ is also particularly from rasa, stated for worship. The Gīta‑commentary declares rasas to be rasa‑natured and likewise their essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The enjoyer of essence is everywhere, for he is the Lord. He is established in the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the attendants are the meditatable; he is Hari to the knowers. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is lord of the world for others. The nature is the jīva. Every nature is ordained by Him — what else remains? There is nothing without that whereby moving and non‑moving are mine. This is for worship: free from dharma‑contrary desires and attachments. The commentary says one who has desire circumscribed by dharma is to be worshipped; having desire abolished, those without desire by meditation give only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with regard to expected enjoyment. Scripture confirms going to merit (puṇya), not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, truth, dharma and su‑kṛta are denotations. Rita is mental dharma; truth follows conjunction. The objection about non‑eating is met by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In the life of secluded diet, the body becomes so for the self. The jīva is not the body; from dream passages the body is threefold in relation to states. ‘From this’ denotes divine activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is called īśvara. Nārada and other texts support a distinction of persons across states, not a difference of substance. Hence the supreme person is beyond the body, and enjoyer and enjoyed are the same in gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ is untenable. The world is entirely dependent on that support.

Bhutani sashariran — that which is adhibhuta is the corporeal world, consisting of embodied beings and the claim of jivas over bodies. Kshara bhava is the destructible principle, the entity liable to dissolution. Even in the unmanifest (avyakta) there is a notion of destruction as change; thus it is said "avyaktam parame vyomni niskriye sampraliyate". Hence "avyaktam utpannam triguNam dvijasattama". "Vikara is avyakta-jana" (i.e., change arises from the unmanifest). Skanda commentary: the purusha who sleeps in the city — that is the jiva; sankarshana or Brahma may be named. He, being presiding over all gods, is called adhidaivatam (the presiding deity) or devadhikarastha. Because he enjoys all sacrifices he is adhiyajnah. "Deha" is here a specification (e.g., the recognized body). He is the enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities; "trividya mam" and related passages indicate this. The verses about Gargi praising the sacrificer (Brihadaranyaka) and other texts are cited regarding whether his sphere is certain heaven or the highest welfare — these are addressed in the doctrine of moksha. If Bhagavan's enjoyment establishes adhiyajnatva, how can that contradict moksha? The answer is given separately. The adhiyajna is to be attained in the form of the body of all living beings. Here the phrase indicates renunciation of one’s own body; there is not a separate control of Ishvara there. Brahman is not other than Bhagavan. The guidance in chapter 7 ("te brahma..." and "ye viduh...") shows the distinction of adhidharmas: adhiyajna was mentioned to indicate renunciation. Because of the established distinction of "mama" and the imperishable (akshara), the text speaks accordingly. In the Gitakalpa it is stated that Vishnu in the body is adhiyajna. The role of the lord of works (karmeshvara) in creation is also called. Adhibhuta denotes the insentient; adhyatma denotes the jiva. Hiranyagarbha is adhidaivam — a devata; sankarshana may be likewise. Brahma, Narayana, and other devatas are referred to as supreme among gods. As thus understood, there is no contradiction. In Skanda: adhyatma is that which rests in self-regard and authority. Deha (external to the self) by being very external is adhibhauta; adhidaivam is that which is governed by the authority of the devas; all of that belongs to the authority of the great elements. Thus adhibhuta is nearest to what is to be acted upon; adhidaivam is consequent upon that. In Mahakarma commentary: adhyatma pertains to the body up to its limits and is only for the benefit of the true self. The sentient beings that are of the body assist that self; adhibhuta is maya-subtle and adhidaivam pertains to the gods.

Is it indifference? No; it means ‘unattached.’ Shruti speaks of disrespect through speechlessness. Substance, action, time, nature and the jiva exist. The Bhagavata says: some things exist by grace and some by neglect. If one is attached, all potency for action resides in that attachment; whence then would binding by actions arise? Shruti says action does not increase or diminish. He who regulates actions — how can action bind him?

'Indirect speech' here is like Drona’s words in response to Bhīma’s statement.

If one departs by any other channel than the Brahma-nadi, then one attains another place rather than liberation — this is established by scriptural statements like 'if one controls all the gates and departs, by the eye he goes to the sun, by the ear to that realm,' and by the teaching in Vyasa-yoga and the doctrine of moksha. "In the heart is Narayana" — 'you are said to dwell at the heart of the world' (Padma). If the life-principle is at the crown, the mind cannot be established in the heart. "Where prana is, there the mind; where the mind is, there the jiva," says Vyasa-yoga. Being established in yoga-holding means the yoga-covered one is firmly attached — that is the intended meaning.

To establish 'Having attained Me there is no return' and to show the capacity of the Avyakta-self, the text indicates the dissolution and so on — by expressions like 'in the thousand-year age.' The word 'thousand' here has many senses, implying the supreme Brahman. The Śruti says it is the night of the universal form. Only the half-period dissolution (dvi-paraardha-pralaya) is indicated here. 'From the unmanifest arise all the manifest' is declared. It is also said in the Mahākūrma that the great Viṣṇu remains through many yugas; likewise the night: at the start of night all is dissolved, at dawn all is born. And the remaining words 'He who is in all beings' conclude this passage.

The deities presiding over the periods and moments — those attached to times — go to and return from their spheres; hence it says 'where' and so on. 'Kāla' (time) is indicated, since even the gods like Agni are described as being subject to temporal designation.

Arjuna said: My dear Kṛṣṇa, O infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I have regained my memory by Your mercy. I am now firm and free from doubt and am prepared to act according to Your instructions.

Those who do not think of anything else — as Gautama explains in Khilesha — abandoning all and meditating solely on the pure primeval God: those who here think thus, steadfast are they; having no other thought, they alone enter God. Desire, when subdued by great time, gives single‑minded devotion. It is possible to perceive the Lord’s radiant and non‑radiant spheres, says the teaching on liberation. He is ever near to and united with those established in Him everywhere.

Param aksharam brahman — this denotes the immutable Brahman, the meaning that excludes doubts raised by the Vedas and similar texts. "Adhyatma" (that which is above the self) may mean what is superior to the Atman; "Atmadhikara" may mean that which pertains to the authority of the self. Thus: jiva as svabhava — one’s own nature; swakhya — the self-designation; bhava — nature. By etymology one may say the jiva is its own svabhava; bhava indicates that the jiva’s nature is always of one kind. The word bhava is used to mean the arising from the inner organ and so expresses manifestation, for the inner organ undergoes changes. The word sva (one’s own) when applied to Ishvara indicates the manifestation of Ishvara’s activity producing beings, jivas, states, and insentient substances; visarga in this sense means special creation (srishti), i.e., the discharge of creative agency.

If even a small devotee gives abundant results by affection, or if one opposite gives opposite results, then ‘I am equal’ — ‘samo’ham — is said. Then comes ‘there is no point of devotion’ — ‘ye bhajanti’ (those who worship). ‘In me they are, and I also in them’—‘mam te vashah’ means ‘they are under my control, and I am under theirs.’ In Paingala‑Khila: ‘Those who worship the supreme person are under his control; and indeed I am also under their control.’ Are they always under that sway? Still there is distinction based on whether devotion precedes knowledge or vice versa — as with Uddhava, Shishupala, etc. It is said there: one who is first without knowledge is under restraint; by meditation he again becomes controlled; if knowledge comes first, then control follows.

The seven ancient ṛṣis of old are: Marīci, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and the mighty Vasiṣṭha — these are declared in the dharma of mokṣa. They are mentioned throughout the Purāṇas. The four foremost—Svāyambhuva and others—are their first progeny; their descendants are born later, and priority follows seniority. In the Gautama and related texts Svāyambhuva, Ruciṣa, Raivata and Uttama are named as those who had progeny; the Veda calls him the progenitor. The higher originate from the earlier ones; among the unmanifest the first-born have precedence. The argument for the avatārahood of the tamasic one is accepted in the Bhāgavata. The account of Manu as progenitor of all men is given in the Bhāgavata. Even if other sons are abandoned, the body is such. The evidences elsewhere allow no other inference. ‘From Me are those beings’ — their relation to Me is their very being: those born mentally from Brahman are indeed born from Me.

‘The true effect of the unreal cause’—the wise call the reality the manifested-form of the unmanifest effect; because the unmanifest and the manifest are related, cause is also spoken of. That which is non-existent and existent—this universe is both in relation to the supreme, as declared in the Bharatam.

How does a dharma‑minded person quickly arise? From the very portions of the Lord and the gods he does. As said in the Sāmaveda, in the Śāṇḍilya branch: ‘Not idle, not of evil conduct, not faithless, not unsteady; one becomes properly devoted; someone pure‑hearted devoted to Vasudeva becomes a seer. The celestial sages and their portions become so by knowledge.’ If someone else appears, he is to be inferred as vain. Even association with ordinary sinners can produce devotion in some degree. Ordinary devotion belongs to others. One who seeks only wealth is base and cheats; he has no true devotion, says the Śrī Viṣṇu Purāṇa. The person whose faith grows is rendered detached by it; elsewhere it is said: ‘Where are the Vedas not studied by the master of the world? He has been fulfilled by austerity and earlier true speech. I ever worship the hidden God with the worship of my teachers, not deviating. I keep my secrets and am the same to friend and foe. I continually take refuge in that God, single‑mindedly devoted.’ By such practices, a purified being beholds the Infinite. On the practitioner, the Upanishads teach that enactment of conduct is an aid to knowledge; in absence of knowledge there is lack of proper devotion. Gautama says: ‘Without knowledge whence devotion? Without devotion whence knowledge?’ Devotion that is tested by distress and that produces detachment elsewhere — these three happen at one time, says the Bhagavata.

(Same as 7-15) Then are all included?—that would be unjust. Hence ‘na mām’. Those deluded by wicked deeds are the worst of men. By the theft of knowledge they become deluded and adopt an asuric disposition. This is spoken of as activity and its cessation (16.7) etc.; the overturning is described. Vyāsa‑yoga says knowledge and the natural condition of jīvas are overpowered by māyā. The demons delight in evil; Vyāsa states that deities are disposed to knowledge, demons to evil.

From the consideration of 'Having attained the unmanifest Lord there is no return' (verse 8.15), it follows: 'the unmanifest is the supreme Viṣṇu.' Garuḍa uses this expression. 'Dhāma' denotes the nature of the abode; it is of the form of light; it is described by the wise as abode, for it is of the nature of jñāna and of effulgence.

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying are the same. The term ‘rasa’ and related words indicate, regarding the natures of those possessing rasa, both their nature and essence; they show that the rule‑giver is that same entity, not something bound by negation. ‘Bhoga’ is particularly from rasa, for worship. The commentator states the rasas to be rasa‑natured and likewise their essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The essence‑enjoyer is everywhere, being the Lord. He is present in the bodies of rasa‑endowed beings. The non‑deniable and the companions are the objects of meditation; He is Hari for the knowers. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is world‑lord for others. The nature is the jīva; every nature is ordained by Him. Nothing exists otherwise by which the moving and non‑moving are mine. This is for worship: free from desire opposed to dharma. The commentary also teaches that the one whose desire is circumscribed by dharma is to be worshipped; when desire is absent, the desireless through meditation give only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ appear regarding anticipated enjoyment. Scripture says one goes to merit, not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, satya, dharma and su‑kṛta are denotations. Rita is mental dharma; truth is through conjunction. Objections about non‑eating are resolved by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In secluded eating the body becomes such for the self. The jīva is not the body; dream passages show the body threefold across states. ‘From this’ marks the Lord’s activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is termed īśvara in context. Texts like Nārada assert person‑difference across states, not substantive difference. Therefore the supreme person is beyond the body; enjoyer and enjoyed coincide in gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ lacks support. The world is wholly dependent on that.

‘Rajavidya’ is the chief knowledge. That by which Brahman is directly perceived is called pratyaksha (direct knowledge). ‘Pratyaksha’ means that which abides in the organs without remainder. Likewise Shruti teaches: that which dwells in prana yet is distinct from prana, that by which prana does not know the body — that inner prana is the Atman, the indwelling, immortal one; He who abides in speech, who abides in the eye, etc. (Bri. Up., Chhand. Up.). The indication ‘you are mind, you are moon, you are eye, you are sun’ pertains to the doctrine of liberation. ‘Pratyaksha’ thus signifies that which abides in the organs. The Sama-veda branch declares: ‘One who knows thus knows directly.’ ‘Dharma’ here means the object of the Lord’s law; ‘the whole world He gave’ is a usage in the doctrine of liberation. ‘Earth is Dharma’s summit’ and similar usages appear in the liberation texts. The Vedas say the sustainer bears (the world) while supporting it. The Sama branch also declares: ‘Dharma was foremost — not earth, not wind, not ether, not Brahma, not Rudra, not the gods, not the sages — he alone is to be studied.’

"Tad eva dhyeyam" — he explains what is to be meditated upon, namely the imperishable. "Prapyate mumukshubhir" — the term "pada" (position or abode) is used by the verbal root. The supreme abode is Vishnu's highest position, as the Vedic and other texts declare. The phrase "giyase padam" is used by the sages meaning "you shall sing the abode" (not found in Naradiya, etc.).

(See dvaita-gita-bhashya-8-6) — repeated: "Smaran purusast yajati" — take it as not contradictory; no grounds for doubt for the well-disposed. The scriptures say that when the heart's forefront is illumined the self exits (Brihadaranyaka). For constant recollection use intense, abiding bhavana — 'bhava' is the inner-mindedness; 'bhavitva' means having been firmly established; 'bhavana' indicates deep, lasting recollection.

‘Their result is—vain hopes’ (moghasha). Vain hopes? Nothing yields to those who hate the Lord. Are sacrificial acts like yajna vain for them? Even knowledge is useless. By some means—by devotion to Brahma, Rudra, etc.—no one attains any good in the presence of those foes; this is the sense. ‘I shall speak of those cruel lowest men who hate’ (citation). In moksha-dharma it says: ‘By deed, thought or word whoever hates imperishable Vishnu, his fathers sink into everlasting hells’ and: ‘Who hates the supreme lord, the god Narayana—how can he be?’ etc. The Sama-veda states that hatred cannot stand before supreme knowledge and bhakti toward Narayana. Passages that appear to deny devotion are to be understood in context: because of the power of former devotion even those who later hate may enjoy the fruit of prior devotion (examples cited—Shishupala, Prahlada). Thus scriptures forbid or permit in specific contexts; where the blame is pronounced, prohibition is stated; where equality of the Lord’s favor is indicated, even the hater may in some texts be said to enjoy past merit. Therefore it is not proved that haters have no way. The reason for hatred is said—‘rakshasi’ (demon-like).

9.17 Of the world consisting of mobile and immobile entities, I alone am the father, mother, creator and grandfather. Here the term Dhatr stands for one other than the parents who helps in the birth of a particular person. Whatever is known from theVedas as purifying, I alone am that. I am the Pranava, which originates knowledge and forms the seed of the Vedas. I am the Veda comprising Rk, Saman and Yajus.

Brahman is full and complete. Now why is the supreme Brahman so called? The Veda says: ‘It magnifies through the great’ (bṛhad bṛhatyā bṛṃhayati) [Aśvaraśīrṣa 4]. They read bṛha, bṛhi, vṛddhā—‘He who is supreme is the great Brahman’ [Mahābhāṣya 13.149.9]. ‘He was manifold’ (vividham āsīt) is rendered ‘vibhu’ (all‑pervading). So too in the Vāruna recension: ‘Vibhu, the Lord, was first exerting might’ (vibhu prabhu prathamaṃ mehanāvataḥ) [Ṛg 2.7.2.5]—he indeed by his potency became diverse. And there is the injunction: ‘He wished, “May I be many, let there be progeny”’ (so’kāmayat bahu syāṃ prajāyeya) [Taitt. Up. 2.6].