Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 10 - Shloka (Verse) 41

व्याख्या--'यद्यद्विभूतिमत्सत्त्वं श्रीमदूर्जितमेव वा'--संसारमात्रमें जिस-किसी सजी-वनिर्जीव वस्तु, व्यक्ति, घटना, परिस्थिति, गुण, भाव, क्रिया आदिमें जो कुछ ऐश्वर्य दीखे, शोभा या सौन्दर्य दीखे, बलवत्ता दीखे, तथा जो कुछ भी विशेषता, विलक्षणता, योग्यता दीखे, उन सबको मेरे तेजके किसी एक अंशसे उत्पन्न हुई जानो। तात्पर्य है कि उनमें वह विलक्षणता मेरे योगसे, सामर्थ्यसे, प्रभावसे ही आयी है -- ऐसा तुम समझो -- 'तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंऽशसम्भवम्'। मेरे बिना कहीं भी और कुछ भी विलक्षणता नहीं है।

संसारमें जोजो भी पदार्थ विभूतिमान् -- विभूतियुक्त हैं तथा श्रीमान् और ऊर्जित ( शक्तिमान् ) अर्थात् श्री -- लक्ष्मी? उससे युक्त और उत्साहयुक्त हैं उनउनको तू मुझ ईश्वरके तेजोमय अंशसे उत्पन्न हुए ही जान। अर्थात् मेरे तेजका एक अंश -- भाग ही जिनकी उत्पत्तिका कारण है? इन सब वस्तुओंको ऐसी जान।

To include even those glories of the Supreme that have not been mentioned, He states a defining characteristic with 'yadyat' (whatever).

'Vastu' refers to the class of living beings. 'Shrimat' means possessing prosperity or radiance. Endowed with vitality, strong, and energetic—that He calls 'utsaha' (enthusiasm/energy).

That from which something arises is 'sambhava' (origin). The part of 'Tejas' (splendor), meaning Consciousness or Divine Power, is 'Tejomsha'; that which has this as its origin is 'Tejomshasambhavam'.

He states this with 'tejasah' (of splendor).

He says that this is to be noted.

Whatever 'sattva' or object is endowed with 'vibhuti' (sovereignty/power); endowed with 'shri' (Lakshmi/wealth/beauty); or is 'urjitam' (mighty), meaning endowed with energy/enthusiasm;

know or understand that each of them is born of a part (a fraction) of My 'tejas' (splendor).

The expanse is stated with 'yadyat vibhutimat'. Vishnu and others are His very essential forms. Others are endowed with His splendor. Thus in the Paingikhila: 'Special beings like Rudra, Vainya (Prithu), Indra, gods, and kings are endowed with a portion, not mere jivas. Krishna, Vyasa, Rama, Krishna, Rama, Kapila, Yajna and others are He Himself.' In Gautamakhila: 'He is the One; Bhargava, Dasharathi, Krishna and others (are Him), while others are endowed with a portion, not mere jivas.'

In the Bhagavata [1.3.27-28], having mentioned Rishis etc. as endowed with portions: 'Rishis, Manus, gods, sons of Manus, the mighty Prajapatis are all known as parts of Hari. These are portions and parts of the Purusha, but Krishna is the Supreme Lord Himself.' Here, having mentioned the Rishis etc. as having portions, He speaks of Varaha etc. as His own form. The word 'tu' is in the sense of 'eva' (only/indeed). No other distinction is known anywhere.

Even there (in the case of Krishna), partiality is understood from texts like 'He plucked two hairs from Himself'. The plural usage in 'mridayanti' (they gladden) is not inappropriate. It is not seen anywhere that having mentioned something else in between, without referring back to the former, the action of that (former) is stated.

By saying 'I am the seed of all beings', claiming His status as the Self of all, it was already stated that everything is His glory; yet, for those unable to grasp that, He speaks with 'yadyat'.

Whatever 'sattva' (being) is 'vibhutimat' (endowed with sovereignty); endowed with 'shri' (fortune or beauty); 'urjitam' (endowed with excess of strength etc.);

know all that to be born of a portion of My 'tejas' (consciousness-power).

The meaning is that whatever is extremely beautiful in the world, one should meditate upon it as a form of the Lord.

Whatever aggregate of beings is 'vibhutimat', i.e., possessed of things to be ruled over (dominion); 'shrimat', i.e., radiant or rich in wealth and grain; 'urjitam', i.e., energetic in undertaking auspicious acts; know that to be born of a portion of My 'tejas'.

'Tejas' is the capacity to overpower others. The meaning is: born of a fraction of the controlling power of My inconceivable potency.

Again, to the one who is expectant, He speaks in a way that covers everything with 'yadyat'. Whatever 'sattva', meaning any object whatsoever, is 'vibhutimat' (endowed with sovereignty), 'shrimat' (endowed with wealth/prosperity), or 'urjitam' (excelled by some quality like influence, strength, etc.)—

know that very thing to be born of a portion of My 'tejas' (influence/power).

Having started elaborating the topic with 'pradhanyatah' (10.19), He concludes with the verse 'yadyat' with the intention of including those principal glories which possess necessary qualities but haven't been mentioned.

Keeping in mind the contextual meaning of the word 'vibhuti', it is glossed as 'endowed with dominion'. The word 'sattva' here refers to living beings. To express the intention of repetition in 'yadyat', the word 'jata' (aggregate) is used.

The tautology of 'vibhutimat' and 'shrimat' is avoided by interpreting the latter as 'radiant'. Or, intending a specific type of thing to be controlled, the tautology is avoided by the logic of 'cattle and bulls' (general vs specific), hence the gloss 'rich in wealth and grain'.

If 'urjitam' meant general excellence, other terms would be futile, so a specific meaning is given: 'energetic in auspicious undertakings'. The word 'urja' implies the nature of being prepared due to untiringness. 'Vibhutimat' etc. demonstrate those possessing strength etc.

Saying 'born of a portion of My tejas' might imply that a part of the substance of radiance in His form is the material cause; to refute this, the relevant meaning of 'tejas' is given as 'the capacity to overpower others'.

What is this 'overpowering' here? And how is there a 'portion' in it? To this, he explains 'mama' (My). By saying 'of inconceivable power', the intention of 'mama' is expanded to extract a 'conceivable portion'. This establishes His pervasive scope, imperishability, and ability to make the impossible happen.

Just as moving a straw is born of a mere fraction of the force of a fierce wind that shakes mountains, so is the case here. 'Tejomshasambhavam' means that whose origin is a portion of splendor.

इस अध्याय में कथित उदाहरणों के द्वारा भगवान् की विभूतियों को दर्शाने का अल्पसा प्रयत्न किया गया है? परन्तु यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि उन्होंने सत्य को पूर्णतया परिभाषित किया है। हमें यह बताया गया है कि हम विवेक के द्वारा इसी अनित्य जगत् में नित्य और दिव्य तत्त्व को पहचान सकते हैं। उपर्युक्त दृष्टान्तों से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि जगत् की चराचर वस्तुओं में स्वयं भगवान् अपने को ऐश्वर्ययुक्त? कान्तियुक्त अथवा शक्तियुक्त रूप में अभिव्यक्त करते हैं। वे समस्त नाम और रूपों में विद्यमान हैं।यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण अत्यन्त स्पष्ट रूप से यह बताते हैं कि बहुविध जगत् में दिव्य उपस्थिति क्या है? तथा उसे पहचानने की परीक्षा क्या है। जहाँ कहीं भी महानता? कान्ति या शक्ति की अभिव्यक्ति है? वह परमात्मा के असीम तेज की एक रश्मि ही है। इस में कोई सन्देह नहीं कि उपर्युक्त विस्तृत विवेचन का यह सारांश अपूर्व है। इन समस्त उदाहरणों में भगवान् का या तो ऐश्वर्य झलकता है? या कान्ति या फिर शक्ति।सर्वत्र परमात्मदर्शन करने के लिए अर्जुन को दिये गये इस संकेतक का उपयोग गीता के सभी विद्यार्थियों के लिए समान रूप से लाभप्रद होगा।अब अन्त में भगवान् कहते हैं

This section covers from 'Hanta te kathayishyami' up to 'Jagatsthitah'. By the verse 'Ahamatma' (Verse 20), He wards off exclusion/separation. Otherwise, in sentences like 'Among immovables I am the Himalayas', the exclusion implying 'Only the Himalaya is God, nothing else' would cause the realization of Brahman to be fragmented due to a lack of indivisibility.

Since His undivided pervasiveness does not ascend into the mind as such, this instructional text is for one who wishes to know it.

Thus, in the conclusion, having stated the doctrine of difference-cum-non-difference with 'Yadyadvibhutimatsattvam' (Verse 41), He finally concludes with non-difference alone with 'Athava bahunaitena... vishtabhyahamidam... ekamshena jagatsthitah' (Verse 42). It is indeed said: 'Pado'sya wishwa bhutani...' (RV 10.90.3).

The entire reality of God, the cause of the creation of beings, appearing in those various diverse forms, becomes the object of perception for all.

To refute the idea that the word 'etat' in 'esha tu uddeshatah' (10.40) refers to what has already been mentioned, he explains with 'yadyat'. 'Etat' refers to what is being stated (now) and what is in the mind. The idea is that stating a definition covers a wider scope than listing items one by one.

By saying 'vibhutimat etc. are born of a portion of My tejas', it appears that Vishnu and others are also merely possessed of a portion of the Lord. Since they also fit this definition, to remove that misconception, he says 'Vishnu etc.' (are His own forms). Then what is the subject of this verse? He says 'Anyani tu' (Others are endowed with portions). How is this? He says 'Tatha cha' (citing scriptures). 'Visheshaka' refers to Garuda, Ananta, Virancha (Brahma). 'Vainya' is Prithu. Though Prithu is included in 'Rajanya' (kings), mentioning him again is to indicate his status as a direct avatar.

Krishna is also the son of Dharma (Nara-Narayana). Rama is also Bhargava (Parashurama). By saying 'endowed with portions' and then 'kalas', it means they are digits like digits (of the moon), not the essential form itself. Regarding 'ete svamshakalah'—they are digits in the form of portions of the Self, not metaphorically as before.

Objection: It appears that Varaha etc. are merely portions of the Supreme Person, while Krishna is the source (Amshi) Bhagavan Himself. So how is the stated explanation (that they are the same) valid? Otherwise, the word 'tu' (but) would be inappropriate. To this, he says 'the word tu'. The meaning is: These Varaha etc. are the proper portion-digits of the Purusha. Meaning: Krishna, the Supreme Person Bhagavan, is Himself these (avatars). Why? Because of agreement with the cited Shruti. And because there is no agreement with any other meaning, he says 'anyastu'. The distinction that Varaha etc. are parts and Krishna is the whole is not correct. Also, partiality is applicable there (to Krishna) too. Moreover, in this explanation, since only Krishna is the subject,

the plural in the subsequent sentence 'mridayanti' (they gladden the world) in Bhagavata 1.3.28 would not fit; hence he says 'mridayanti'. If one argues that the plural relates to the previously mentioned Varaha etc. and not Krishna? No, because it is separated by the sentence 'Krishnastu Bhagavan Svayam'. There is no reference back to the separated subject for proximity. When another way is possible, ellipsis is inappropriate. Connection with something not proximate is nowhere seen; with this view, he says 'na hi'. 'Kriya' (action) refers to the action in context. Objection: Competency/Compatibility is stronger than proximity? True, but a compatible connection has been stated without violating proximity.

To include the glories of the Lord that have not been mentioned, this 'upalakshana' (indicative mark/definition) is stated.

Whatever 'sattva', meaning living being, is 'vibhutimat' (endowed with sovereignty); and 'shrimat'—where Shri means Lakshmi, wealth, beauty, or radiance—endowed with that; and 'urjitam' (endowed with an excess of strength, etc.); know/understand that very thing to be born of a portion of My 'tejas' (power).

Objection: I asked about the expanse of glories to meditate on You everywhere through the knowledge of Your universal form; by stating that there is no end to them, where and how should I meditate? Addressing this query, He says 'yadyat'.

Whatever 'sattva', meaning any object whatsoever, is 'vibhutimat' (endowed with sovereignty), 'shrimat' (endowed with assets), or 'urjitam' (having attained excellence in any manner or being extremely beautiful)—know that to be 'mama tejomshasambhavam', i.e., born of My influence/power.

Whatever 'sattva', meaning object, in the world is 'vibhutimat' (endowed with glory); 'shrimat' (endowed with Shri/Lakshmi); or 'urjitam' (endowed with energy/enthusiasm); know that to be 'tejomshasambhavam' of Me, the Lord. Understand 'tejomshasambhavam' as that whose origin is a portion, a part, of My splendor.

Again, speaking to the expectant one in a way that covers everything comprehensively, He says 'yadyat' to include all.

'Sattva' means any object, sentient or insentient. That which is 'shrimat' (endowed with beauty etc.) and 'urjitam' (rich in food/grains or excellent)—know that to be born of a portion of My tejas. Since a single portion is manifested in inert matter, individual souls, and the Inner Controller respectively, know it to be born of a fraction of the Existence-Consciousness-Bliss of My inconceivable Yoga-power; this is the meaning.

Yat yat, whatever; sattvam, object in the world; is eva, verily; vibhutimat, endowed with majesty; srimad, possessed of prosperity; va, or; is urjitam, energetic, possessed of vigour; tvam, you; avagaccha, know; eva, for certain; tat tat, each of them; as mama tejomsa-sambhavam, having a part (amsa) of My (mama), of God's, power (teja) as its source (sambhavam).

Whatever host of beings has 'power', namely the capacity and means to rule over; has 'splendour', has beauty or prosperity in wealth, grains etc., has 'energy,' namely, is engaged in auspicious undertakings - know such manifestations as coming fro a fragment of My 'power'. Power (Tejas) is the capacity to overcome opposition. The meaning is, know them as arising from a fraction of My inconceivable power of subduing.