Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7 - Shloka (Verse) 14

व्याख्या--'दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी (टिप्पणी प0 411) मम माया दुरत्यया'--सत्त्व, रज और तम--इन तीन गुणोंवाली दैवी (देव अर्थात् परमात्माकी) माया बड़ी ही दुरत्यय है। भोग और संग्रहकी इच्छा रखनेवाले मनुष्य इस मायासे सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद नहीं कर सकते।

तो फिर इस देवसम्बन्धिनी त्रिगुणात्मिका वैष्णवी मायाको मनुष्य कैसे तरते हैं इसपर कहते हैं क्योंकि यह उपर्युक्त दैवी माया अर्थात् मुझ व्यापक ईश्वरकी निज शक्ति मेरी त्रिगुणमयी माया दुस्तर हैअर्थात् जिससे पार होना बड़ा कठिन है ऐसी है। इसलिये जो सब धर्मोंको छोड़कर अपने ही आत्मा मुझ मायापति परमेश्वरकी ही सर्वात्मभावसे शरण ग्रहण कर लेते हैं वे सब भूतोंको मोहित करनेवाली इस मायासे तर जाते हैं वे इसके पार हो जाते हैं अर्थात् संसारबन्धनसे मुक्त हो जाते हैं।

Since the abandonment of subjection to the stated beginningless established Maya is impossible, there is no possibility of the rise of realization of Truth for the world at any time—he raises this doubt—with "Katham punah" (How then). Through sole surrender to the Lord, through the door of Knowledge of Truth, the crossing of Maya is possible—he resolves (the doubt) thus—with "Uchyate" (It is said).

"Being difficult to cross, how can there be its crossing?"—to that He says—"Mameva" (Me alone).

He rejects the independence of Maya like that of Pradhana (in Sankhya)—with "Devasya" (Of the Lord). In non-independence, the unreasonableness of (it being) Maya—which is indicated by the word "Hi"—he makes that the reason—with "Yasmat" (Since). Established by experience, she does not deserve sudden denial—he says this with "Esha" (This).

The Gunas, Sattva etc., are the obstacles to the world's understanding of Truth. "Mama" (My)—restating the previously mentioned relationship of Maya, he divides the intended 'difficulty of crossing'—with "Dukhena" (With difficulty).

He explains "Mameva" etc.—with "Tatra" (There). When that Maya-form is difficult to cross in the stated manner—this is the meaning. In "Mameva", by the particle "Eva" (Alone), the absence of entering into the category of 'knowable by Maya' is intended; meaning without the distraction of performance of actions etc. with the whole being.

Thinking that in the crossing of Maya, there is crossing of Delusion, he qualifies—with "Sarva" (All). Even upon crossing Maya and the Delusion prompted by it, how is there the accomplishment of the human goal for the person?—anticipating this, he says—"Samsara".

"Then, by what means do (Jivas) cross the beginningless, three-gunas-natured, divine Maya which deludes the Jivas?"—upon this expectation, He says "Daivi hi" (Divine indeed). "Devasya"—of Me, the Lord—My own, made of three Gunas, is Maya, Prakriti; "Know Maya as Prakriti, and the Wielder of Maya as the Great Lord" (Svetasvatara 4.10). That Prakriti is twofold in the form of Maya and Avidya—"Maya and Avidya becomes (She) Herself" (Nrisimha Uttara Tapaniya 9)—from this Shruti. That is stated: "Prakriti is considered twofold, having Tamas, Rajas, Sattva gunas. By purity and impurity of Sattva, they are considered Maya and Avidya. The reflection in Maya, having controlled her, would be the Omniscient Ishvara. But the one under the control of Avidya is the Other (Jiva), manifold due to her variety" (Panchadasi 1.15-17)—thus.

And thus, Maya is Prakriti; Avidya is made of Maya; resorting to Ishvara as substratum, she deludes the Jivas. And thus the Shariraka Bhashya (says): "Of the nature of Avidya indeed is the seed-power, designated by the word Unmanifest, resting in the Supreme Lord, made of Maya, the great deep sleep; in which lying, the Jivas, devoid of realization of their nature (sleep)." "I do not know the object"—because of such experience there. And nor is there division of Jiva and Supreme Self when Avidya exists. "And when this (division) exists, there is Vidya (knowledge) resting in Jiva and having Supreme Self as object"—this is mutual dependence (Itaretarashraya)—this should not be said. Because Jiva and Avidya are beginningless like seed and sprout. (Objection) "Now, by this example, there is impermanence of Jiva?" (Answer) No. Because succeeding manifestations of Jiva are based on preceding delusions (Avidya). (Objection) "Now, if Avidya depends on Jiva, and oneself (Jiva) depends on that, there is self-dependence (Atmashraya)?" (Answer) No. Because of absence of origination due to being beginningless. Since Jiva appears by itself, and by the force of that, the appearance of Avidya is also possible. (Objection) "Now, even so, like climbing on one's own shoulder, dependence on one's own dependent is contradictory?" (Answer) No. Because Jiva and Avidya being formless, they are unfit for 'lower-upper relation' like a bowl and a berry; so 'delimited-delimitor relation' (avachhedya-avachhedaka) is resorted to. "Jiva-hood is having the adjunct which is the delimitor Avidya"—thus Jiva is delimited by Avidya. (Objection) "Now, this too is gripped by mutual dependence?" (Answer) No. Because in such cases, mutual dependence is not a fault. "The proof (Pramana) grasping object-ness is delimited by the definer object (Prameya); and the object is delimited by the proof which becomes its qualifier"—since in such cases, the mutual dependence of delimited-delimitor relation is seen.

The substratum of Jiva and Avidya is Brahman; because That alone is the substratum of the illusion of the entire universe. That is stated: "The substratum is the support of illusions; like Brahman for Jiva, Avidya etc., as (shell) for silver; thus everything is clear" (Samkshepashariraka?)—thus. Therefore indeed, it is said by the Lord also: "Divine indeed is this Maya of Mine made of Gunas." Just as the shell alone appears in the form of silver, so the Supreme Self alone appears with the distinction of Jiva-state obtained by the limitation of beginningless Avidya. And That very (Self), being delimited by body, senses etc., is figuratively called "Sharira" (Embodied) by the childish (ignorant). And Avidya belongs to such Jivas, not to the Supreme Self devoid of all adjuncts.

(Objection) "Now, the non-independent one is made to enter prison by another. But the Supreme Self is Omniscient and Omnipotent, why does He suddenly become a Samsari?" If you say this, (Answer) No. Because He is "Of pure, aware, free nature, having wiped away all Avidya and its traces"—thus indeed. Since "Esha" (This one)—established by experience, not deserving sudden denial, "Gunamayi"—made of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. To reject the independence of Maya like that of Pradhana, "Daivi" (Divine) is said. This belonging to the Deva is Daivi. "Of which Deva is this, and who is she?"—upon this expectation, "Mama Maya" (My Maya) is said. "Duratyaya"—she whose "Atyaya" (crossing) is with difficulty. "Then what is the means in crossing?"—upon this expectation He says "Mam" (Me). "Mameva" (Me alone)—who am the very Self. By the particle 'Eva', the exclusion of Maya is intended. "Ye prapadyante" (Who surrender)—who become surrendered with their whole being; "Te" (They)—having obtained the Yoga of Intellect by My grace; "Taramti" (Cross)—transcend this Maya, Duratyaya, deluder of all beings. They are released from the bondage of Samsara; this is the meaning.

Here this is to be noted: Maya is beginningless, indefinable, the Material Nature (Bhuta-prakriti), related to Pure Consciousness. The reflection of Consciousness in It is Ishvara. The reflection of Consciousness in the infinite delimited regions of That Very (Maya)—which possess the power of covering and distraction and are named 'Avidya'—is the Jiva—so say Some. "He creates Jiva and Isha by semblance," "Maya and Avidya becomes Herself"—established by these Shrutis; imagining two form-distinctions of the Root Prakriti made of three Gunas—'Maya' predominant in Pure Sattva unovercome by Rajas-Tamas, and 'Avidya' predominant in Impure Sattva overcome by them; "Reflection in Maya is Ishvara, reflection in Avidya is Jiva"—thus Some describe. "The one Root Prakriti alone, predominant in Distraction (Vikshepa), named Maya, is the adjunct of Ishvara; predominant in Covering (Avarana), named Avidya or Ajnana, is the adjunct of Jiva"—so say Some. Following the Shruti "This Jiva is the effect-adjunct, Ishvara is the cause-adjunct"; "Reflection of Consciousness in Avidya is Ishvara, reflection of Consciousness in Inner Organ is Jiva"—so say Some. Thus in these stated views of Jiva and Ishvara being specific reflections, the Brahman standing as the Bimba (Original) is the one to be attained by the liberated. Others, however, abandoning the triad process of 'Jiva, Ishvara, Pure Chit', visualize a tetrad like the one ether becoming Pot-ether, Water-ether, Great-ether, and Cloud-ether; imagining a tetrad of the one Consciousness as Kutastha, Jiva, Brahman, and Ishvara; they show that "Ishvara has the adjunct of Ignorance colored by mental latencies; Jiva has the adjunct of Inner Organ."

Others, however, citing the Smriti "When the ignorance generating division has gone to ultimate destruction; who will make the non-existent difference between Atman and Brahman?"—propounding that one Ignorance alone is the adjunct for the division of Jiva and Ishvara; say that the division of Jiva and Ishvara is by Bimba-Pratibimba relation, not by reflection-state of both (because reflection of both is impossible without two adjuncts). There too, "Reflection is Jiva, Standing as Bimba is Ishvara." And that Jiva who is the reflection, having Avidya as adjunct—that Ignorance is one only, and the whole world is imagined by that Ignorance; all dealing exists as long as Avidya exists, like his own dream. There is no arrangement of bound and liberated either, due to the oneness of Jiva. The liberation of Shuka etc. is also imagined like the liberation of other persons in a dream—so they describe (Eka-jiva-vadins).

But Others (Siddhantins?) say: Reflection of that which has no form is not logical; even more so in that which is formless. (Objection) "Now, since reflection of formless sky is experienced in water etc., there is no rule that formless has no reflection?" (Answer) No. Because the usage of 'reflection of sky' in the reflection of light is based on mere delusion. Since the superimposition of sound-properties like high pitch etc. on syllables (varnas) is possible merely by proximity as manifesters; and since the imagination of 'reflection of syllable' as adjunct is without proof; the theory of 'reflection of syllable' in sound is also incorrect. Therefore, the rule "Reflection is only of the visible in the visible" is nowhere broken. Because in the reflection of a sandalwood piece etc., only visual qualities are experienced. And because even upon smelling that (reflection), fragrance is not experienced. Even in the reflection of face etc., only visual qualities are perceived, not the sound uttered by the mouth. (Objection) "Now, in caves etc., the echo which is a reflection of sound is perceived?" (Answer) No. In the process of Panchikarana, the sounds of drum, ocean, forest fire, storm wind etc. belong to Earth etc. (elements); so the echo itself being a quality of Akasha, its being a reflection of another sound is unreasonable. And it should not be said that the echo in the form of syllables is a reflection of the previous syllable. Because like the original sound, the echo also can be explained as a manifester of the syllable.

Therefore—Consciousness delimited by Inner Organ etc. like Pot-ether is Jiva. That which is not delimited is Ishvara—thus (Avacchedavada). (Objection) And not thus—contradiction with Shrutis like "Who standing in the Vijnana, controls the Vijnana from within" (Brihadaranyaka 3.7.22) which teach the existence of Ishvara as Inner Ruler within another modification. (Because) By the respective Inner Organ adjuncts within the universe, the Consciousness within them is delimited in the form of Jiva 'with its whole being' (sarvatmana); so the existence of Ishvara, who is Consciousness devoid of that limitation, within the universe would not be obtained (Ishvara would be outside). In the Reflection View (Pratibimba-paksha), however—since the reflection-sky is seen even while the natural sky exists in the water—existence in one place by "doubling" is reasonable—(so Reflection view is better)? (Answer: No). Because the existence of the 'Inner Ruler'—whose adjunct is 'being the object of Avidya' and 'not being mixed with Inner Organ' etc.—distinct from the 'Jiva'—whose adjunct is 'being the locus of Avidya' and 'being mixed with Inner Organ' etc.—is reasonable; so there is no contradiction with Shruti (in Avaccheda view also).

In the Reflection View, however, the Antaryami-Brahmana becomes inconsistent; because just as the reflection of a stone inside water is not seen in the water (only reflection of outside stone is seen), so the reflection must necessarily be accepted of Consciousness not included within the adjunct; so the Bimba (Original/Ishvara) cannot exist within another modification (the adjunct). "Doubling in one place" is also not (valid). Because in the doctrine "Six are beginningless for us," the difference of Jiva and Ishvara is accepted; and since the existence of Pure Consciousness—which is all-pervading as the substratum of the illusion of the entire universe including Jiva—within the Inner Organ is unavoidable; there would be the contingency of explaining the existence of "Jiva, Inner Ruler, and Pure Consciousness"—tripling in one place. And it should not be said that in the Avaccheda View, there is contradiction with Shruti and Sutra like "Just as the self-luminous Sun... appearing as one following the waters... is made of differential form by adjuncts... thus the Unborn Self in the bodies (Kshetras)" (Brahmabindu Up. 12); "And therefore the simile is like the sun etc." (Brahma Sutra 2.3.18 / 3.2.18). Because by the Bhashyakaras (Shankara) themselves—explaining the Sutra "Ata eva" (Therefore etc.); explaining the Sutra "But due to non-perception like water, it is not so" (3.2.19) as an objection that "Reflection of the Self like the sun etc. is not logical"; and then by the Sutra "Because of participating in increase and decrease, due to inclusion, and due to the consistency of both, it is thus" (3.2.20)—accepting that the reflection of the Self is unreasonable due to the stated impossibility, it has been stated that the use of reflection of sun etc. in Shrutis is for describing another purport. And thus the Bhashya: "Because indeed this Self is of the nature of Consciousness, attributeless, beyond speech and mind, to be taught by negation of others; and therefore indeed, intending its unreal possession of attributes caused by adjuncts, the simile 'like water-sun etc.' is given in scriptures—'Just as this Light...' etc. 'The One Bhutatma is established in every being; seen as one and many like the water-moon' (Brahmabindu 12)—in such texts. Here an objection is raised—Similarity with water-sun etc. is not established here, because of non-perception like that. The object (sun) is separate and distant from the formed suns etc.; and water is grasped as formed. There the rise of reflection of sun etc. is logical. But the Self is not formed; nor are the adjuncts separate and distant from It; due to being all-pervading and non-different from all. Therefore this stated example is illogical—thus. Here it is remedied—This example is indeed logical, because of the possibility of the intended part. For indeed, no one can show total similarity between example and illustrated, leaving aside some intended part; for in total similarity, the relation of example and illustrated would be destroyed. And this citing of water-sun example is not by one's own imagination; the mere purpose of this (example) established in scripture is being presented. What then is the intended similarity here? That is said—'Participating in increase and decrease.' Indeed, the sun-reflection in water increases when water increases, decreases when water decreases, moves when water moves, divides when water divides—thus it follows the properties of water; but in reality there is no such nature for the sun. Similarly, Brahman, though in reality changeless and uniform, due to inclusion in adjuncts like body etc., 'as if' partakes of the properties of adjuncts like increase and decrease; thus due to the consistency of both example and illustrated, there is no contradiction—thus."

In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya also, by explaining the meaning of the word 'Entry' (Pravesha) differently, the refutation of Reflection View is stabilized. In Taittiriya Bhashya also—on the occasion of considering 'Entry' in the sentence "Having created that, He entered into that very thing" (2.6)—"If you say entry would be like reflection of water-sun etc.? (Answer) No. Because of being unlimited and formless. The rise of reflection of sun etc. would occur in water etc. which by nature are clear (prasad), for another formed limited object situated elsewhere. But not for the Self due to being formless, due to the all-pervasiveness of the Self which is the cause of Akasha etc., and due to the absence of having a support for reflection distant from It; entry like reflection is not logical"—thus the rejection of entry by reflection-mode has been done by the Bhashyakara. And thus, in Reflection View there is contradiction with Shruti, Sutra, and Bhashya; but in Avaccheda View there is absence of that. In this (Avaccheda) view, there is support of Shruti, Sutra, and Bhashya also. Namely—"Just as when a pot is carried, the pot enclosed space is carried, not the space; so is the Jiva like the sky" (Brahmabindu 13)—by the Shruti stating the equality of Jiva with pot-enclosed-space by the word 'Nabhopama', the nature of Jiva as delimited Consciousness alone is stated.

By the Sutra "A part, due to the designation of manifoldness" (Brahma Sutra 2.3.43), the Jiva deserves to be a part of Ishvara. Like a spark of fire is a part 'as if'. For a main part is not possible for the Partless. Why again? Because of being Partless, He does not become that. "Due to designation of manifoldness." And by the Bhashya "Who standing in the Self controls the Self from within—such designation of difference is not possible if there is no difference"—the 'part-ness' of Jiva-consciousness in the form of 'being delimited by inner organ like pot-ether' is intended. Although by the Sutra "And an appearance (Abhasa) only" (2.3.50); and by its Bhashya "This Jiva is an appearance of the Supreme Self to be understood like water-sun etc."; and its refutation is not possible; (still) out of deference to something, when something has to be explained—since the refutation of reflection-hood is logical, and since in the 'Abhasa' Sutra even the Bhashyakara has not supported reflection-hood by argument of Shruti; that very Sutra and its Bhashya should be interpreted as propounding 'similarity to reflection' due to the logic stated in the Sutra "Because of participating in increase and decrease." And also because in the Bhashya of that topic (which topic?), reflection is mentioned as an example: "Just as when one water-sun trembles, another water-sun does not tremble; so when one Jiva is connected with fruit of action, another Jiva is not connected with it." Therefore—since reflection is impossible; since there is no contradiction in Avaccheda View; since there is proof (sadhaka) for it; and since the 'delimitable consciousness' is agreed upon even in Reflection View, so due to agreement of both, and due to lightness (Laghav), it is appropriate to imagine Jiva-hood of that (delimited consciousness) alone. Since the delimitation of the all-pervading Consciousness by inner organ etc. is inevitable, so by necessity the 'delimited' is the Jiva. And he is Many; due to accepting the many entities like inner organs as adjuncts of Jiva.

"Whoever among the gods woke up, he alone became That" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10); "Just as tiny sparks fly out from fire... so all these selves fly out from this Self" (Brihadaranyaka 2.1.20)—if you say there is negation (of one Jiva) by such Shrutis? (Answer) No. (Because of) The Bhashya propounding bondage and liberation in the 'Sharirat' (Brahma Sutra 1.2.20?) topic; the Bhashya in the 'Abhasa' Sutra "Just as when one Jiva..."; and "And He creates the Vijnana-Atmans named Jivas, who are like His own selves, occupying the place of pot-ether, following the aggregate of effects and instruments created by name and form established by Avidya"; and the Bhashya in 'Tadananyatvam' (2.1.14) topic "The Jivatma also, doer of merit and sin, enjoyer of pleasure and pain, is divided in every body... birth and dissolution of Jivatmas are spoken of"; and the Bhashya in 'Na atma' (2.3.17) topic; and the Smriti "Those who surrender to Me alone cross this Maya" (Gita 7.14); (and) "Thus Jivas—conscious entities, held by the feeling of Samsara (Bhava); forms created of Brahman, in lakhs and crores. Countless were born before, and are being born now O King. And will be born indeed like masses of water drops from a waterfall. Possessed by the sway of their own vasanas, gone to helplessness of hope. In extremely strange conditions, self-bound in heart. Some to be born in future, some born in past and present (?). Some born in present, some gone to non-existence (Abhavatam). (Commentators interpret Abhavatam as Videhamukti). Jivanmuktas wander here, some vessels of welfare. Some stand liberated for long, indeed transformed into the Supreme. (Commentators interpret Pare as transformed in Paramatma, attained His nature, Videhamuktas). Some will become liberated Auspicious ones (Shiva) after a long time. Some Conscious Beings enter the state of Aloneness (Kaivalya) of the Self"—and the Itihasa (Mahabharata/Yogavasishtha?) "Keavalibhavam Kaivalyam" etc.; in this (Many Jiva) view alone is there consistency, not in One-Jiva doctrine.

And it is not that even in Many-Jiva doctrine—"Brahman Itself, by its own Avidya transformed into the state of many inner organs, attaining the state of many Jivas, transmigrates; and is liberated by its own Vidya"—this intention is reasonable (so no conflict with Advaita). And it should not be said that due to the oneness of Avidya which is the adjunct of Jiva-hood, the oneness of Jiva is established. "He became the form of every form..." (Katha 2.2.9); "Indra goes in many forms by Mayas" (Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19)—by such Shrutis, the manifoldness of Avidya is accepted. Shrutis of its oneness are reasonable as referring to the Class (Jati). Even if Avidya is one, according to the Shruti "This Jiva is the effect-adjunct" (Gaudapada Karika 3.7?), it is possible to accept Inner Organs alone as the adjuncts of Jiva-hood. In the view of manifoldness of Avidya, due to absence of a decisor (vinigamaka)—"The universe created by all Avidyas is like a cloth begun by many threads"—say Some. "Like the illusory silver created by respective ignorances, the universe of Akasha etc. created by respective Avidyas is different for every person; but the perception of oneness is like the perception of oneness of shell-silver"—say Others. "Different from the mass of Avidya residing in Jivas, Maya residing in the Supreme Lord alone is the cause of the universe; but the Avidyas of Jivas are useful only in covering and in illusory creation"—(is another view). In statements like "I am not manifest to all, covered by Yoga-Maya" (7.25), the word Maya (is used). "We all from this..." "Desire-souled, intent on heaven" (2.43), "Of those attached to enjoyment and power" (2.44), "Miserly are those motivated by fruit" (2.49), "For those endowed with wisdom (leave) the fruit born of action" (2.51), "What is night for all beings" (2.69), "Of Sankhyas by Jnana Yoga, of Yogis by Karma Yoga" (3.3), "By action alone indeed Janaka etc. attained perfection" (3.20), "As they surrender to Me, so I reward them" (4.11), "Knowing thus action was done even by ancient seekers" (4.15), "The place reached by Sankhyas is reached by Yogis also" (5.5), "But for whom that ignorance of the Self is destroyed by knowledge" (5.16), "With intellect on That, self on That, intent on That, devoted to That; they go to non-return, their sins washed by knowledge" (5.17), "The wise are same-sighted" (5.18), "Here itself creation is conquered by those whose mind is established in equality" (5.19), "The seers whose sins are destroyed attain Brahma-nirvana" (5.25), "Those who surrender to Me alone cross this Maya" (7.14), "The evil-doers do not (seek) Me, the deluded" (7.15), "Four kinds worship Me" (7.16), "Those who strive for liberation from old age and death taking refuge in Me, they know that Brahman entirely" (7.29), "Departing in that, the knowers of Brahman go to Brahman" (8.24), "All beings are in Me" (9.4), "But the great souls, O Partha, taking refuge in Divine Nature" (9.13), "Thus those constantly united devotees who worship You" (12.1), "But others not knowing thus" (13.25), "Knowing which all Munis" (14.1), "Free from pride and delusion, having conquered the fault of attachment" (15.5), "The deluded do not see, those with eye of knowledge see" (15.10), "And the striving Yogis (see) this" (15.11), "Ruined selves, of small intellect" (16.9), "The faith of embodied beings is threefold" (17.2)—from such words of the Lord also, the manifoldness of Jivas is ascertained. "Know Me also as the Knower of the Field in all Fields" (13.2), "Know both Prakriti and Purusha as beginningless" (13.19), "My own eternal part having become the Jiva in the world of Jivas" (15.7)—in such statements, the singular number is with the intention of Class (Jati). "Thus having entered by this Jiva, the Self" (Chandogya 6.3.2), "Part of the hundredth part of the tip of a hair, and imagined hundredfold; the Jiva is a part, he is to be known, and he is fit for infinity" (Svetasvatara 5.9)—in such Shrutis also. The Shruti "One God hidden in all beings" (Svetasvatara 6.11) etc. is propounding the oneness of the Supreme Self, not the oneness of Jiva; because of adjectives like "Alone (Kevala) and Attribute-less" (ibid). And thus the Bhashya—"Difference is caused by adjuncts, imagined by false knowledge, not real"—thus from Shrutis like "One God hidden in all beings"—enough with the incidental (discussion).

Why is there no crossing of delusion for many in beginningless time? To this He says "Daivi" (Divine) etc. This is the intention: "This Maya indeed"—she is deluding; and she, due to being related to the 'Deva' (God) who possesses sport like creation etc., due to being of excessive power, is "Duratyaya" (difficult to cross). For indeed, they read the meaning of the word 'Devata' thus: "Divu (root) is used in the sense of sport, desire to conquer, dealing, splendor, praise, joy, delight, sleep, beauty, and motion" (Dhatupatha Divadi 1). How is she 'Daivi'? Because of belonging to Me. "For I am the Deva."

And it is said: "She who is divided as Sri, Bhu, Durga; Mahamaya indeed is Vaishnavi (of Vishnu); devoid of infinite parts of His power; yet due to the shelter of that Lord; she is not even a fraction of power of Ananta, Brahma, Rudra etc.; for them too she is difficult to cross without the grace of Vishnu"—thus in Vyasa-yoga.

"Then, can she not be crossed in any way?" To this He says "Mameva" (Me alone). Abandoning everything else, those who surrender to Me alone; and dedicate the salutation of Guru etc. to Me alone; and see "He alone standing there becomes the Guru etc." etc.

And it is said in the Naradiya: "Thinking of them as My wealth, intermediate men worship Gurus etc.; thinking of them and all beings as My adjuncts, the best men (worship)"—thus. "By the form of Acharya and the Inner Self, He reveals His path"—and thus.

'Devasya'—of the sportive one, meaning of Me who sports playfully in the form of the Jiva—to Me belongs this 'Daivi' (Divine) [Maya], which is indeed well-known and extended in the form of the individual body (Pinda) and the cosmos (Brahmanda). This is the Maya of Me, the Pure Consciousness. 'I do not know myself'—since it is directly perceived by the Witness in this manner, it cannot be denied. Like magic (Indrajala), it illuminates the false phenomenal world and is 'gunamayi'—consisting of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. It is 'duratyaya', meaning difficult to cross. Those who 'prapadyante' (surrender to/make an object of knowledge) 'Mam eva' (Me alone)—the Lord Vasudeva residing in all beings—they alone cross this Maya. The destruction of illusion along with its root occurs only through the knowledge of the Substratum (Adhishtana), not by other knowledge or by the suppression of mental modifications (vritti-nirodha); this is the meaning.

The import is this: In the Pure Consciousness devoid of the division of Jiva and Ishvara, the imagined mirror of Maya, having subjugated the Jiva (which is the reflection of Consciousness), moves in accordance with the Bimba-Chaitanya (Prototype-Consciousness/Ishvara). Just as an iron rod follows a magnet. This is the subordination of Maya to Ishvara. And this is also Ishvara's creatorship of all through Maya. Thus the Shruti says: 'From that, the Mayin creates this universe, and in that, the other is confined by Maya' (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.9).

Thus, one Maya alone is the limiting adjunct (Upadhi) of both Jiva and Ishvara, just as a mirror is for both the object and its reflection. The Pure Consciousness, which is untouched by the relation of prototype and reflection and is threaded through both, is the other, the 'third' entity, to be attained by the liberated. Jiva and Ishvara, in the state of alignment with the Upadhi, assume states like limited knowledge vs. omniscience, and being ruled vs. being the ruler. Those very two, in the absence of that (identification), being observers of the movement of the Upadhi and being of the nature of indifferent awareness, are referred to by the terms 'Jiva-Sakshi' (Witness of Jiva) and 'Ishvara-Sakshi' (Witness of Ishvara).

Thus, when Maya is destroyed by the knowledge of the inner Self obtained through the worship of Ishvara, and its effects are also destroyed, the Jiva, abandoning even the state of Witnesshood due to the absence of the witnessed object (sakshya), attains the pure third Consciousness threaded through the prototype and reflection. This is what is stated by 'Daivi Maya'. By saying 'Mama Maya' (My Maya), the relationship of the single Maya with both Jiva and Ishvara, and the crossing of Maya by the Jiva through worship of Ishvara, are indicated.

This 'Gunamayi' (consisting of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas) Maya of Mine, because it is 'Daivi'—created by Me, the Deva engaged in sport—is therefore 'duratyaya' (difficult to overcome) for all.

It is denoted by the word 'Maya' because it performs wonderful effects like the weapons of Asuras and Rakshasas. As it is said: 'Then the excellent Sudarshana Chakra, garlanded with flames, arrived, commanded by the Lord for his protection. That swift-moving Chakra, protecting the body of the boy, destroyed the thousands of Mayas of Shambara one by one' (Vishnu Purana 1.19.19-20).

Therefore, the word Maya does not denote a false meaning (illusion). Even in cases of magic (Indrajala), the term 'Mayavi' (magician) is used because he produces a real (paramarthika) cognition that has false objects as its content, by means of mantras, herbs, etc. And there, the mantra, herbs, etc., are indeed the 'Maya', because the meaning of a word must be consistent across all usages. The usage of the word Maya for false objects there is figurative (aupacharika), because they are the objects of the cognition produced by Maya, just as in the phrase 'the cots are crying' (implying the people on the cots).

This Gunamayi Divine Maya is indeed real (paramarthika), as stated in texts like 'Know Maya to be Prakriti (nature) and the Maheshvara to be the Mayin' (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.10).

Its function is the concealment of the Lord's nature and the generation of the idea of enjoyability in one's own nature. Therefore, the whole world, deluded by the Lord's Maya, does not recognize the Lord, who is of the nature of limitless, unsurpassed Bliss.

He states the means to be liberated from Maya: 'Those who take refuge in Me alone'—who is of true resolve, supremely compassionate, and the refuge of the entire world without considering specific distinctions—they cross over this Gunamayi Maya of Mine. It means, abandoning Maya, they worship Me alone.

Why do not all perform this surrender (Prapatti) to the Lord which leads to His worship? To this, He says—

Then who know You? To this He says "Daivi hi" (Divine indeed). "Daivi"—supernatural, extremely wonderful, this is the meaning. "Gunamayi"—consisting of the modifications of Gunas like Sattva etc.; My—the Supreme Lord's—power "Maya" is "Duratyaya"—difficult to cross. "Hi"—this is well known.

Still, those who "Mameva" (to Me alone)—by the particle 'Eva', through unswerving devotion—surrender, worship; they cross this Maya even though difficult to cross. Then they know Me; this is the purport.

In the stated situation of things, regarding the doubt "This delusion itself does not fit"—he introduces "Daivi" etc.—with "Katham" (How). "Sarvasya" (Of all)—meaning of the class of gods who are devoid of fall from knowledge of Truth due to abundance of Sattva; this is the idea. In the proximity of superior and inferior, the receptivity of the superior is indicated by "Bhoktrivargasya" (of the class of enjoyers/experiencers). The word "Hi" here is in the sense of the reason for being difficult to cross. Created by the Deva is "Daivi"—this is the Taddhita meaning. In the root "Divu krida..." etc., the word Deva is derived; by this, the Shruti "Devatwashaktim" (Self-power of God - Svetasvatara 1.3) is indicated.

By the words "Daivi" and "Mama", to remove the delusion of difference between the Deva who is the wielder of Maya and Krishna the Possessor of Maya, "Mayaiva" (By Me alone) is said. For the Maya set in motion for sport by the Lord who is independent and capable of accomplishing the impossible, cannot be crossed even by all beings who are not lords—this is the purport of "Sarvaih" (By all).

To exclude the meaning 'Destruction' for the word 'Atyaya' here, he says "Duratikrama" (Difficult to cross). Crossable with difficulty; impossible to be crossed indeed by those devoid of surrender to the Lord.

Intending to refute the meaning of the word 'Maya' accepted by others (Advaitins), he first states his own accepted meaning—with "Asyah" (Of this). The use of the word Maya in true (real) weapons of Asuras and Rakshasas etc. is not based on falsity; this is the purport. "Yatha cha" (And as)—in "Tena mayasahasram" (By him a thousand Mayas), it is not possible even to imagine the subject being a false object; because a false object cannot be destroyed by weapons; this is the purport. By the word "Adi" (etc.), usages like "He knows constantly by Maya (intelligence)", "Of living beings the good and bad", "Created like the Maya of gods" etc. are included.

Moreover, in Dandaniti (Science of Polity), apart from the four means like Sama etc., three secondary means in the form of Maya, Upeksha, and Indrajala are taught; there Maya is the power to change a real object into something else. Indrajala is the power to make it appear so (without change)—this is the division. Therefore, the word Maya refers to real objects alone; with this intention he says "Atah" (Therefore). Meaning, because the usage of the word Maya is regarding real objects.

(Objection) "Now, in those showing false objects (magicians), due to connection with that, the word 'Mayavin' is used; therefore the word Maya is used in false objects also?" To this he says "Aindrajalika" (Magical). To show that 'producer of falsehood' is also not the basis for the usage of the word Maya, just like 'falsity' is not, "Paramarthikya eva" (Of the real alone) is said. Erroneous knowledge is also real in its nature; the superimposed object is called false. (Objection) "Still, ultimately the connection with false object is the cause?" To this he says "Tatha" (Similarly). "In the proximity of Mantras/Herbs etc. and the false object, what is the regulator of the specific (usage)?" To this he says "Sarva" (All). For when explanation is possible by one power, imagining many powers is not proper; this is the purport.

(Objection) "The usage 'This is Maya' happens in false objects alone; and there, due to absence of 'doing wonderful deeds', falsity alone must be accepted as the cause?" To this he says "Tatra" (There). This is the idea—Where usage is difficult to explain by relationship or by association with qualities, there indeed the heaviness of imagining another power (meaning) is tolerable; and here (in magic), connection is possible indirectly, due to being the object of the knowledge of Maya's effect. But if falsity is accepted as the basis of usage, there is not even a scent of connection of that (falsity) in weapons etc. (which are real). And due to the absence of qualities in a false object, connection with its qualities is rejected from afar. Moreover, due to the absence of its usage in false objects like shell-silver etc.; if a specific falsity is extracted, it gets included in the specific (wonderful-creation-making) stated by us alone.

In "You indeed are the refuge of the world, O God, no one knows You; except Maya with large eyes, Your former wife," "Yoganidra Mahamaya" etc. also—due to being useful for the Lord's specific wonderful deeds, or due to being the presiding deity of the principle of Prakriti etc., she is called Maya. Therefore, it is logical that 'doing wonderful deeds' alone is the basis for the usage of the word Maya.

Even in Shruti, the word Maya is used only when Prakriti, the material cause of wonderful creation, is Real—he says this with "Esha" (This). To remove the delusion that the word 'Maheshwara' here refers to Rudra, the word "Bhagavat" is used. The Svetasvatara Upanishad also appears as referring to the Lord (Vishnu/Narayana) alone due to recognition of Purusha Sukta, the word Mahapurusha, being the instigator of Sattva, etc. Words like Maheshwara, Shiva etc. are used in Him by etymological power or by association of qualities; because Rudra is accepted as being an effect and subject to karma elsewhere; this is the purport. "Know Maya as Prakriti" (Svetasvatara 4.10)—there Maya-hood is not enjoined by translating Prakriti; but Prakriti-hood (is enjoined) by translating the meaning of the word Maya; this is understood from the flow of the sentence. Because in the previous verse "The Mayin creates this universe... and in it the other is bound by Maya" (4.9), having said this, in the expectation "What is this Maya?", it (4.10) proceeded; this is the idea.

He shows the basis for the usage of the word Maya in this context, the wonderful effect useful here—with "Asyah" (Of this). Intending all this, it was said by the Revered Yamunamuni: "His own reality, concealment by Prakriti, surrender..." (Gitarthasangraha 11). Showing that it is the solution to the objection, he concludes—with "Atah" (Therefore).

In the summary verse "Concealment by Prakriti, Surrender," showing that "For the sake of removing that" should be supplied, he introduces the subsequent text—with "Mayavimochana" (Release from Maya). Since the binding which is uncrossable due to His command, its removal also must be done by Him alone, not by another—thus he manifests the intent of the restriction "Mameva" (Me alone)—with "Satyasankalpam" (True-resolved). For the resolve is true not only regarding bondage, but also regarding liberation; so He alone is to be surrendered to; this is the purport. "There is no purpose in surrendering to one who is capable but cruel"—therefore "Paramakarunikam" (Supremely compassionate) is said. "Even for a compassionate one, like in the world, if there is division of acceptable and unacceptable, what is the use of surrender for this person possessing unbearable crimes?"—here it is said "Analochita" (Without considering) etc. And this is clear in Crow (Kakasura), Monkey (Sugriva), Vibhishana, Draupadi etc. And "Or even if Ravana himself" (Valmiki Ramayana 6.18.34) is His statement.

He states the intention of "Etam" (This)—with "Madiyam Gunamayim" (My Gunamayi). "Api" (Even) is the remainder. Since it is the context of Worship (Upasana), and since it is common to the four types like the distressed etc. to be mentioned, 'Surrender' (Prapatti) which is a limb of Worship is being spoken of here—with this intention he says "Mayam utsrijya" (Having abandoned Maya).

भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण स्वयं यह स्वीकार करते हैं कि अहंकार से युक्त आत्मकेन्द्रित पुरुष के लिए मेरी माया से उत्पन्न मोह को पार कर पाना दुस्तर है। यदि कोई चिकित्सक रोगी के रोग को पहचान कर कहे कि इस रोग के निवारण के लिए कोई औषधि नहीं है तो कोई भी रोगी सावधानी उत्साह तथा श्रद्धा के साथ चिकित्सक की सलाह के अनुसार उपचार नहीं करेगा। इसी प्रकार यदि भवरोगियों के चिकित्सक भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण रोग का कारण माया को बताकर उसे दुस्तर घोषित करें तो कौन व्यक्ति श्रद्धा के साथ उनके निराशावादी उपदेश का अनुकरण करेगा भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण इस कठिनाई अथवा दोष को जानते हैं और इसलिए तत्काल ही साधक के मन की शंका को दूर करते हैं। यदा कदा रोगी को उसके रोग की गम्भीरता का भान कराने के लिए चिकित्सक को कठोर भाषा का प्रयोग करना पड़ता है ठीक उसी प्रकार यहाँ श्रीकृष्ण अनेक विशेषणों के द्वारा हमें इस रोग की वह भयंकरता बताने का प्रयत्न करते हैं जिसके कारण हम अपने परमात्म स्वरूप को भूलकर संसारी जीवभाव को प्राप्त हो गये हैं रोग तथा उपचार को बताकर भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण पूर्ण स्वास्थ्य का आश्वासन भी देते हैं।जो साधक मेरी शरण में आते हैं वे माया को तर जाते हैं। शरण से तात्पर्य भगवान् के स्वरूप को पहचान कर तत्स्वरूप बन जाना है। इसका सम्पादन कैसे किया जा सकता है इसका विवेचन पूर्व के ध्यानयोग नामक अध्याय में किया जा चुका है। एकाग्र चित्त होकर आत्मस्वरूप का ध्यान करना यह साक्षात् साधन है और ध्यान के लिए आवश्यक योग्यता प्राप्त करने के उपाय भी पहले बताये गये हैं।यदि आपकी शरण में आने से माया को पार किया जा सकता है तो फिर सब लोग आपकी शरण में क्यों नहीं आते हैं इस पर कहते हैं

केवल सत्त्व आदि में स्थित लोग भगवान के तत्त्व को क्यों नहीं जानते, यह बताते हैं—'दैवी' इत्यादि से। 'देव' अर्थात् क्रीड़ा करने वाला; उसमें होने वाली 'दैवी', अर्थात् यह मेरी क्रीड़ा है।

इसलिए, सत्त्व आदि का वस्तुतः संविन्मात्र (शुद्ध चैतन्य) परब्रह्म से अतिरिक्त (भिन्न) न होने पर भी, जो उनसे अतिरिक्त होने का ज्ञान है, वही उनका 'गुणत्व' है, अर्थात् भोक्ता तत्त्व के अधीन होना या भोग्यत्व है। और वह भेदात्मक रूप संसारी जीवों द्वारा अनिर्वचनीय होने के कारण उनके प्रति 'माया' रूप है।

अतः जो परमार्थ ब्रह्म-प्रकाश को जानने वाले हैं, वे विश्व को उससे (ब्रह्म से) अनतिरिक्त (अभिन्न) देखते हुए, सत्त्व आदि गुणों की 'गुणता' लक्षण वाली, भेद-प्रतीति स्वभाव वाली माया को पार कर जाते हैं—यह 'मामेव' (मुझको ही) पद में स्थित 'एव' कार का आशय है। परन्तु जो यथास्थित भेद-प्रतीति मात्र को ही जानते हैं, वे माया का अतिक्रमण नहीं करते।

इसलिए यह ठीक ही कहा गया था—'मैं उनमें नहीं हूँ'।

'By the absence of means and by the fallaciousness of inference, non-perception and contrary perception (occur)'—thus it was stated; therefore, what is the use of the subsequent sentence? To this, he says "Katham" (How). "The Lord has a body made of Gunas"—this notion is not a delusion, because of the absence of a contradictory cognition (proof). If it is said that "The right cognition of the wise is the contradictor," (Answer) No; because by contradiction with the majority of (ignorant) cognitions, there would be the contingency of only a few cognitions being valid. (Objection) "Now, if a contradictory cognition will occur in future time?" (Answer) No; because of the impossibility even later of what has not been born in beginningless time; this is the purport.

(Objection) "Now, in the doubt that 'Due to the absence of contradictory cognition, this cognition is indeed valid', why is this incoherent thing said?" To this, he says "Ayam" (This). By the restatement "Esha" (This), it is explained as "Mohika" (Deluding); because having referred merely to the root-meaning "Mohitam" (Deluded), it is explained by the connection of the suitable suffix (agent). "Gunamayi" means the presiding deity of that (Prakriti), Durga; who indeed generates such delusion through the Tamas Guna. Inference, however, is merely an instrumental cause.

"Then what?" To this he says "Sa cha" (And she). "And she is difficult to cross" (Duratyaya); no one is able to cross the delusion created by her; for no one does a contradictory cognition arise. "Why difficult to cross?" To this, the reason "Atishakteh" (Due to excessive power) is stated by supplying it. "Why excessive power?" To this, explaining that "Daivi" (Divine) is pregnant with the reason, it is stated "Devasambandhitvat" (Because of being related to the Deva). "Related-ness" means being extremely dear.

And that (power) would belong to the one related to Him if the Deva possesses excessive power; "Whence is that very thing?" To this, the meaning of the word Deva is derived: "Srishtyadi" (Creation etc.). "Creation etc." and "that sport"; by the first word 'Adi' (etc.), maintenance etc. are included; by the second, desire to conquer etc. Thinking that excessive power is not established by possessing sport etc., 'Sport' is explained (as Creation etc.). The meaning of the word "Deva" is "possessing sport etc." "From where?" To this he says "Tatha hi" (For thus). The root (Prakriti) which is in the word "Deva", that is its meaning; this is the meaning. The suffix, however, is "ach" (from the Pachadi group), which blocks the "ka" suffix characterized by having 'ik' as penultimate.

"Since expectancy is removed by the word Daivi, the word Mama (My) is useless"—to this he says "Katham" (How). This is for the explanation of that very word; this is the purport. "Even if belonging to You, how is it Daivi (Divine)?"—to this he completes the remainder "Aham hi" (For I am). The word "iti" is at the conclusion of the description of the intention.

Here he states the proof with "Abravit cha" (And said). He states the connection of the answer as being useful to the context with "Tarhi" (Then). "If not merely inference, but Maya supported by the Lord is the cause of delusion, then"—this is the meaning. And from that, "what was said that this is for the exclusion of the wise, that is false"—this is the purport.

(Objection) "Now, in the doubt regarding the impossibility of the means to cross Maya, that means alone should be stated, not the prohibition of other means. Therefore, the restriction (Eva/Alone) is inappropriate"—to this he says "Anyat" (Other). The word "Eva" (alone) is indicative of the specific manner in the surrender to Him, and does not refer to the prohibition of other means; this is the meaning.

"If so, then the absence of salutation to Guru etc. is obtained"—to this he states the intent with "Gurvadi" (Guru etc.). The devotees perform salutation etc. with the understanding that "These are His" etc.; this is the point. This behavior of intermediate devotees has been stated; but regarding the best ones, he says "Sa eva" (He alone). The Lord alone is there in the Guru etc.

He substantiates the two by proof with "Aha cha" (And said). "And I"—that "Wealth" (Sampatti)—means "As My adjunct", "As My image". "Chaityam" means abiding in the consciousness/heart. "Svagatim" means knowledge of Himself. "Vyanankshi" means You manifest.

Now (objection)—Since the world, bound by the three Gunas of the stated beginningless established Maya, lacks independence, and is thus incapable of abandoning it; and since the cause, the inability to discriminate the Reality, is eternal; there would never be the crossing of Maya?—anticipating this doubt; "Through sole surrender to the Lord, the crossing of Maya is possible through the door of Knowledge of Truth"—He says "Daivi" etc. In the Deva who is self-luminous—propounded in the Shruti "One God hidden in all beings" (Svetasvatara 6.11) etc.—who is Self-luminous Consciousness-Bliss and Indivisible; imagined as His support and His object; because of the statement "The Indivisible Consciousness alone is partaker of being the support and the object." This (Maya) is undeniable due to being directly perceived by the Witness (Sakshi). By the word "Hi", it is also established by Arthapatti (presumption) due to being the material cause of delusion.

"Gunamayi"—consisting of the three Gunas: Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. The cause of bondage due to extreme firmness like a rope of three strands. "Mama"—of Me, the Wielder of Maya, the Supreme Lord, the Cause of the whole world, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent; "Svabhuta"—My own; being dependent, the executor of world-creation etc., Maya; which is the cause of the appearance of non-truth by obstructing the appearance of Truth; Avidya possessing the two powers of Covering (Avarana) and Distraction (Vikshepa), the Matrix (Prakriti) of the entire universe. From the Shruti "Know Maya as Prakriti, and the Mahesvara as the Wielder of Maya" (Svetasvatara 4.10).

Here the process is thus: Beginningless Avidya superimposed on Pure Consciousness devoid of the division of Jiva, Ishvara, and World, due to the predominance of Sattva, catches the reflection of Consciousness like a face-reflection in a clear mirror. And then, the Supreme Lord standing as the Original (Bimba) is untouched by the defects of the adjunct; and the Jiva standing as the Reflection (Pratibimba) is touched by the defects of the adjunct. And the imagination arises that from Ishvara, for the enjoyment of the Jiva, the aggregate of body and senses and the entire universe enjoyable by him is born in the order of Akasha etc. And like the face inherent in both Bimba and Pratibimba faces, the Consciousness with Maya-adjunct inherent in both Isha and Jiva is imagined as the Witness (Sakshi). And by Him alone His own superimposed Maya and its entire effect is illumined. Therefore, with the intention of the Witness "Daivi" is said; and with the intention of the Bimba-Ishvara "Mama" is said by the Lord.

Although the reflection in Avidya, the Jiva, is one only; still, due to the difference of inner-organ impressions present in Avidya, due to that difference of the inner-organ adjunct, the designation of difference of that (Jiva) is made here—"Those who surrender to Me alone," "The evil-doers, deluded, do not surrender," "Four kinds worship Me" etc. And in Shruti: "Whoever among the gods woke up, he alone became That; so among Rishis, so among men" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10) etc. But without considering the difference of inner-organ adjuncts, due to the oneness of the adjunct (Avidya) causing Jiva-hood, the designation is by oneness alone here: "Know Me also as the Knower of the Field in all Fields" (13.2), "Know both Prakriti and Purusha as beginningless" (13.19), "My own eternal part having become the Jiva in the world of Jivas" (15.7) etc. And in Shruti: "Brahman indeed was this in the beginning, It knew Itself alone as 'I am Brahman', therefore It became all that" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10), "One God hidden in all beings," "Having entered by this Jiva, the Self" (Chandogya 6.3.2), "Part of the hundredth part of the tip of a hair..." (Svetasvatara 5.9) etc.

Although the reflection of Chaitra in a mirror does not know himself and another because only the insentient part is reflected there; still the Reflection of Consciousness knows itself and another because of being Consciousness itself. Because in the Reflection View (Pratibimba-paksha), only the state of being in the adjunct is imagined in the Bimba-Consciousness itself; and in the Appearance View (Abhasa-paksha), although it is indefinable, it is distinct from the inert. And as long as he does not know the unity of his Self with his Bimba (Original), so long does he experience the thousand modifications belonging to the adjunct like trembling belonging to water, like the water-sun. That very thing He says—"Duratyaya" (Difficult to cross). Impossible to cross, to transcend, without the direct realization of unity with the Bimba-Ishvara; therefore Duratyaya. That is why the Jiva, being delimited by the inner organ, illuminating the connection with that alone through eyes etc., becomes 'Little-knowing'. And then, thinking "I know, I do, and I enjoy," he becomes the vessel of hundreds of disasters.

And if he worships the Bimba-Bhagavan—who is Infinite Power, Controller of Maya, Omniscient, Giver of all fruits, Eternal Mass of Bliss, taking many incarnations for gracing devotees, the Supreme Guru—by the dedication of all actions; then due to the reflection of what is dedicated to the Bimba into the Pratibimba, he obtains all human goals. Intending this very thing, Prahlada said: "This Lord, full in His own gain, does not indeed choose (need) honor from the ignorant person for Himself, but out of compassion; whatever honor a person does to the Lord, that becomes for himself, like the beauty of the face for the reflection" (Bhagavatam 7.9.11). If the beauty of tilaka etc. is desired for the face reflected in the mirror, it should be applied to the Bimba-face. It reflects there by itself, there is no other means to attain it; just as so, the Jiva who is the reflection obtains only what is dedicated to the Bimba-Ishvara; there is no other means for his attainment of human goals—this is the meaning of the example.

When for him, worshipping the Infinite Lord ceaselessly, the inner organ becomes free from sin obstructing knowledge and accumulated with merit favorable to knowledge; then in the extremely clean inner organ—like a face in an extremely clear mirror-disc—refined by renunciation of all actions, preceded by Shama, Dama etc., approaching the Guru, hearing, reflecting, and meditating on Vedanta sentences; the modification (Vritti) of the nature of Direct Realization arises, having the instrument as the Vedanta sentence "That Thou Art" taught by the Guru, in the form "I am Brahman," devoid of non-Self forms, having the form of Unconditioned Consciousness. And the Consciousness reflected in that (Vritti) uproots the Avidya, which is its own object and support, instantly, like a lamp (uproots) darkness. Then, from the destruction of that (Avidya), there is the destruction of the entire effect-universe along with that Vritti. Because the destruction of the effect upon the destruction of the material cause is established in all systems. This very thing the Lord says—"Those who surrender to Me alone cross this Maya."

As in Shrutis like "One should worship as the Self alone" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.7), "He knew the Self alone" (1.4.10), "The wise knowing Him alone" (4.4.21), "Knowing Him alone one crosses death" (Svetasvatara 3.8); here too in "Mameva", the particle 'Eva' is for the sake of understanding 'uncolored by others' (exclusive). "Mameva"—Me alone, devoid of all adjuncts, Consciousness-Bliss, the Real Self, Indivisible; "Ye prapadyante" (Who surrender)—who make (Me) the object by the mental modification generated by Vedanta sentences, of the form of optionless (Nirvikalpa) direct realization, qualified by the attribute of indescribable Pure Consciousness-form, the fruit of all good deeds, born of the maturity of Nididhyasana, opposed to all Ignorance and its effects; "Te" (They)—those few; "Taramti" (Cross)—transcend effortlessly this Maya, even though difficult to cross, the birth-place of all disasters. From the Shruti: "Indeed neither the gods nor the non-gods rule over him, for he becomes their Self" (Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10). Meaning, by the cessation of all adjuncts, they stand as the Mass of Satchidananda alone. The use of plural number is for restating the delusion of difference of Self based on the difference of the aggregate of body, senses etc. Where "Prapashyanti" (They see) should have been said, "Prapadyante" (They surrender) is said—in this stated meaning: Being of sole refuge in Me, continuously thinking of Me alone, the Lord Vasudeva—such, the essence of infinite beauty, the abode of all arts, having the brilliance of a pair of lotus feet surpassing the beauty of a fresh lotus, constantly engaged in playing the flute, with mind attached to the sport of Vrindavan, the Cowherd who lifted the mountain named Govardhana in sport, who destroyed the group of wicked ones like Shishupala, Kamsa etc., whose form is a mass of supreme bliss with feet stealing the beauty of a fresh cloud, who is beyond Brahma (Ati-vairincha?)—passing their days thus; they, due to their mind being immersed in the ocean of great bliss of love for Me, are not overcome by all the Guna-modifications of Maya; but thinking "These are skilled in My sport and play, these are capable of uprooting Me," Maya withdraws from them as if afraid, like a courtesan from angry ascetics. Therefore, "One desiring to cross Maya should constantly think of Me as such"—this too is intended by the Lord. Shrutis and Smritis should be made proofs in this meaning.

Objection: If it is so, then how are we to know You? In response to this query, He says 'Daivi' etc. This 'Gunamayi' (consisting of My qualities) 'Daivi' (Divine) Maya of Mine is of the nature of sport, manifested out of the desire to bestow Rasa (divine sentiment) upon some fortunate ones, and is capable of producing a contrary state (illusion) through supernatural power. Therefore, it is 'duratyaya'—impossible to conquer even with difficulty.

Even though it is such, those who 'prapadyante' (surrender) to 'Mam eva' (Me alone)—meaning solely to the Purushottama with exclusive devotion—they cross over this deluding Maya. Meaning, they know Me.

By the restrictive particle 'eva' (alone) in 'Mam eva ye' and the singular number in 'Mam', He speaks of His worship in the form of emotional devotion (Bhava) solely as Purushottama with the attitude of servitude (Dasya), and not with the desire for personal enjoyment through seeing Him along with His Lilas etc.

By this, it is implied: 'You too should become surrendered in that manner.'

"Daivi"—of the Deva, of Me, the Lord Vishnu; "Svabhavabhuta" (Being My own nature); "Hi"—since; "Esha"—this stated Gunamayi Maya of Mine is "Duratyaya"—whose "Atyaya" (crossing) is with difficulty, that is Duratyaya.

"Tatra"—this being so; abandoning all Dharmas, "Mameva" (Me alone)—the Wielder of Maya, the very Self—those who "Prapadyante" (surrender) with their whole being; "Te" (They) "Mayam etam"—this deluder of all beings—"Taranti"—cross/transcend; they are released from the bondage of Samsara; this is the meaning.

If those surrendered to You cross this Maya, why do not all surrender to You alone? This is stated—

"Param" (Supreme)—me, the knowable by Vedanta, untouched by these (Gunas), the world does not know; because here (in the world) it is dependent on Gunas; he says this with "Tribhih" (By three). "Bhavaih"—by three objects/entities. The threeness is with the intention of being made of Gunas.

"Mohitam"—this world is covered; "Ebhih"—by these entities made of three Gunas, or by the root Gunas; it does not know Me "Paramavyayam"—Supreme and Imperishable (free from destruction). The Gunas of Prakriti are indeed the binders. The whole world is deluded by entities made of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas; My Maya-Gunas indeed, even though transformed, become another cause for the covering of the Self-nature and for distraction (Vikshepa); they are opposed to the means of knowledge of God, rather they are of the nature of bondage; and they are the causes of the firmness of superimposition (Adhyasa) created by Avidya in the Jiva.

"For the cessation of all superimposition does not happen completely 'as is'; and that (cessation) is upon the rise of Knowledge; and that (Knowledge) is not from well-considered Word (Shabda) alone. If it were so, there would be a violation of the boundaries of proofs (Pramanas). Inference of an elephant would not happen (without perception), or there would be confusion. In 'You are the tenth' etc., due to the body etc. being the object, by the association of the word, the understanding happens by the eye alone. Therefore, in the sentence there is reminder-ness (smarkatva), because number-knowledge is prior. Because superimposition is not removed, the vision of the distinct Self does not happen. If it could be done by the mind, (then) otherwise it would happen always. Even by perception, Vijnana (is obstructed?) by Maya which is the space/sky (?) of knowledge. Indeed by the manner of Dream and Waking, what can the Word prevent? Omniscience and knowledge of all entities is a result only incidentally.

'All is not Brahman', but 'All (is Brahman)'—Vamadeva sang like that. Being released from the womb, repeating 'Sun' etc. again and again. Being a sentence weak in knowledge, this (Mayavada/Kevaladvaita view?) is considered heretical speech. In Satya Yuga, for the extremely great, this happens, not otherwise.

Just as Dream and Waking are mutual enemies; Vidya and Avidya would be like that, but not total dissolution (of the world?). Having decided this very thing, Sri Krishna indeed said to Arjuna"—"Mameva" (Me alone). By the particle 'Eva', he states the non-means-ness of all others; because all things like Knowledge etc. are dependent on the Lord.

"Abandoning trust from everywhere, the wise should worship Krishna alone"—according to this statement of Srimad Acharya (Vallabha), those who worship by the path of Surrender (Prapatti)—"Mam"—Me, the Supreme Person alone; they cross "Mayam"—Maya. And this "Daivi" Maya in the context is not 'Demoniac' (Asuri); because for the other (Asuri), there is a rule of being sublated by specific ignorance (?) and by one's own effort; therefore indeed this (Daivi) is "Duratyaya" (difficult to cross). Or, according to the meaning of the root, it is 'Daivi' (Divine/Sportive) and 'Gunamayi'. "Mama" (My)—meaning this (Maya) is dependent on Me and beneficial to devotees; therefore, this Maya, only they—who are situated in the world as Mine, who are of attribute-less nature—cross; this is the meaning.

दैवी divine? हि verily? एषा this? गुणमयी made of Gunas? मम My? माया illusion? दुरत्यया difficult to cross over? माम् to Me? एव even? ये who? प्रपद्यन्ते take refuge? मायाम् illusion? एताम् this? तरन्ति cross over? ते they.Commentary Maya is the Upadhi or the causal body (Karana Sarira) of Isvara. It is the material cause of this universe. It is inherent in the Lord. It is constituted of the three alities? viz.? Sattva? Rajas and Tamas. Those who completely devote themselves to the Lord alone after renouncing all formal religion (Dharma) cross over this illusion which deludes all beings. They attain liberation or Moksha.Isvara is the Lord of Maya (illusion). He has perfect control over it. Avidya is the Upadhi (limiting adjunct) of the Jiva (individual soul). The Jiva is a slave of this ignorance. Ignorance is the veil that has screened the Jiva from Satchidananda Brahman or the ExistenceKnowledgeBliss Absolute. When the veil is removed by the dawn of knowledge of the Self the Jiva loses his characteras a Jiva or an individual soul and becomes identical with Brahman. (Cf.XV.3and4)

Hi, since; esa, this, aforesaid; daivi, divine; Maya mama, of Mine, of God, of Visnu, which (Maya) is My own; and which is guna-mayi, constituted by the gunas; is duratyaya, difficult to cross over; therefore, this being so, ye, those who; wholeheartedly prapadyante, take refuge; mam eva, in Me alone, in Me who am the Master of Maya and who am their own Self, by giving up all forms of rites and duties; te, they; taranti, cross over; etam, this; mayam, Maya, which deludes all beings. That is to say, they become freed from the bondage of the world.
'If it is that those who resort to You cross over this Maya, why then do not all take refuge in You alone?' This is being answered:

a) This Maya of Mine consists of the three Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Because it is created by Me, the Divine, for purpose of sport, it is divine in its power and therefore difficult to overcome.
The word Maya is used for the effects of the three Gunas, because it has got the power of generating wonderful effects as in the case of the magic of Asuras and Raksasas. See the passages: 'Then the excellent discus, the flaming Sudarsana, was despatched by the Lord to defend the boy. The thousand Mayas or wonderfully created weapons of the evil-designed Sambara were foiled one after another, by that ickly moving discus, for protecting the body of the boy' (V. P., 1.19. 19-20).
Here the term Maya does not signify the sense of 'false'. Even with regard to magicians, when the term, Mayavin (one who possesses Maya) is used, there is origination of real impressions with the aid of certain incantations, herbs etc., though the objects created are illusory things. Accordingly the term Maya denotes the incantations, herbs etc., which have got the power of creating real impressions. Inasmuch as the sense of the term should be invariable, following the usage in all cases, the term Maya can be applied to the illusory objects, only in a secondary sense, while its primary sense in regard to the real impressions generated in the mind. It is just like in the statement 'The cots cry.'
The Maya of the Lord, which is absolutely real and which consists of the Gunas, is alone taught in the texts like, 'Know then Maya to be the Prakrti and the possessor of the Maya to be the great Lord' (Sve. U., 4.10). It not only obscures the essential nature of the Lord but also creates the condition of the mind that sees its objects as enjoyable. Therefore, the entire universe, deluded by the Lord's Maya, does not know the Lord who is of the nature of boundless beatitude. (On the other hand they feel objects set forth by Maya as enjoyable).
Sri Krsna teaches the way of deliverance from Maya:
(b) But those who take refuge in Me alone - Me whose resolves are always true, who has supreme compassion, and who is the refuge of all beings without exception and without consideration of their particular status - such persons shall pass beyond this Maya of Mine consisting of the three Gunas. The meaning is that they worship Me alone, renouncing the Maya.
Why, then do all not take recourse to refuge in the Lord which is conducive to the worship of the Lord?