Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7 - Shloka (Verse) 6

व्याख्या--'एतद्योनीनि भूतानि' (टिप्पणी प0 401.1) जितने भी देवता, मनुष्य, पशु, पक्षी आदि जङ्गम और वृक्ष, लता, घास आदि स्थावर प्राणी हैं, वे सब-के-सब मेरी अपरा और परा प्रकृतिके सम्बन्धसे ही उत्पन्न होते हैं।
तेरहवें अध्यायके छब्बीसवें श्लोकमें भी भगवान्ने क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञके सम्बन्धसे सम्पूर्ण स्थावर-जङ्गम प्राणियोंकी उत्पत्ति बतायी है। यही बात सामान्य रीतिसे चौदहवें अध्यायके चौथे श्लोकमें भी बतायी है कि स्थावर, जङ्गम योनियोंमें उत्पन्न होनेवाले जितने शरीर हैं, वे सब प्रकृतिके हैं, और उन शरीरोंमें जो बीज अर्थात् जीवात्मा है, वह मेरा अंश है। उसी बीज अर्थात् जीवात्माको भगवान्ने 'परा प्रकृति' (7। 5) और 'अपना अंश' (15। 7) कहा है।
'सर्वाणीत्युपधारय'--स्वर्गलोक, मृत्युलोक, पाताललोक आदि सम्पूर्ण लोकोंके जितने भी स्थावर-जङ्गम प्राणी हैं, वे सब-के-सब अपरा और परा प्रकृतिके संयोगसे ही उत्पन्न होते हैं। तात्पर्य है कि परा प्रकृतिने अपराको अपना मान लिया है, (टिप्पणी प0 401.2) उसका सङ्ग कर लिया है, इसीसे सब प्राणी पैदा होते हैं--इसको तुम धारण करो अर्थात् ठीक तरहसे समझ लो अथवा मान लो।'अहं कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रभवः प्रलयस्तथा'--मात्र वस्तुओंको सत्ता-स्फूर्ति परमात्मासे ही मिलती है, इसलिये भगवान् कहते हैं कि मैं सम्पूर्ण जगत्का प्रभव (उत्पन्न करनेवाला) और प्रलय (लीन करनेवाला) हूँ।
'प्रभवः'का तात्पर्य है कि मैं ही इस जगत्का निमित्तकारण हूँ; क्योंकि सम्पूर्ण सृष्टि मेरे संकल्पसे (टिप्पणी प0 401.3) पैदा हुई है--'सदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति' (छान्दोग्य0 6। 2। 3)।जैसे घड़ा बनानेमें कुम्हार और सोनेके आभूषण बनानेमें सुनार ही निमित्तकारण है ऐसे ही संसारमात्रकी उत्पत्तिमें भगवान् ही निमित्तकारण हैं।

यह क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञरूप दोनों परा और अपरा प्रकृति ही जिनकी योनि कारण है ऐसे ये समस्त भूतप्राणी प्रकृतिरूप कारणसे ही उत्पन्न हुए हैं ऐसा जान। क्योंकि मेरी दोनों प्रकृतियाँ ही समस्त भूतोंकी योनि यानी कारण हैं इसलिये समस्त जगत्का प्रभव उत्पत्ति और प्रलय विनाश मैं ही हूँ अर्थात् इन दोनों प्रकृतियोंद्वारा मैं सर्वज्ञ ईश्वर ही समस्त जगत्का कारण हूँ।

He validates the inference based on the mark of the effect (the world) regarding the two Natures mentioned—with 'Those whose source is these two' (etadyonīni). Anticipating the doubt, 'If the two Natures are the cause of the world, how is the Lord's causality implied?', He says 'I' (aham), etc.

When 'etadyonīni' (whose source is these two) is said, fearing that the word 'etat' (these two) might immediately apply only to the contextually preceding Jiva-bhuta Prakriti, he clarifies with 'these two' (etat): The meaning is that all sentient and insentient beings are born (from these two).

Anticipating the doubt, 'If the two Natures are accepted as the cause of all beings, why is 'I' (aham) stated?', He replies 'because' (yasmāt): The meaning is that My Natures are situated as the limiting adjuncts (Upadhi) of the Supreme Lord.

Anticipating the doubt, 'Then there would be acceptance of manifold causality for the world, viz., the two Natures and the Lord?', He says 'Nature' (Prakriti), etc. Since the lower nature is insentient, and the higher nature, although sentient, is only partially knowing (kiñcijjñatva), it is logical that the omniscient Lord alone is the cause of all; He says 'Omniscient' (sarvajña) etc.

He says 'I' (aham) is not merely to state that My sovereignty extends only to the fact that the two Natures of the world are subordinate to Me. 'Origin' (prabhava) etc. is stated because He is the cause of existence, manifestation, etc., and also because He is the enjoyer (bhoktṛtvāt) of it.

And there is also the Shruti: 'He whose desires are true, whose resolutions are true, whose are all odors, whose are all tastes, who holds all this (world), who is speechless and without confusion' (Chandogya Up. 3.14.2).

And it is also said in the Naradiya (Purana): 'He who is the Creator, Protector, Destroyer, Controller, and Illuminator of all. Since I am the source of all, I am praised by the Rishis as 'All'.

(This is) because of being the enjoyer of the nature of bliss (sukharūpasya bhoktṛtvāt), and not because of being the essence of all (sarvasvarūpataḥ). Even the bliss that is to come, and that (bliss) always exists, still, the bliss produced due to inconceivable power is also extremely great.

'These two' (etat), etc. Know well that these fourfold beings, whose 'Womb' (Yoni)—the place of origin and dissolution—is these two Natures, the Higher and Lower, which are in the form of the Field and the Knower of the Field.

Anticipating the doubt, 'Are these two Natures distinct from the Lord, as held by the Pātañjalas (Yoga School)?', He says 'I' (aham). I am the 'Prabhava' (source of manifestation)—meaning the cause of origin—of the entire world, consisting of both sentient and insentient forms along with their respective Natures; and I am also the 'Pralaya' (dissolution)—meaning the place of dissolution. Therefore, both those Natures are not separate from Me.

Know that all beings—whose source is this twofold Nature of Mine, which is the aggregate form of sentient and insentient matter—extending from Brahma down to a blade of grass, situated in high and low states, and mixed with sentient and insentient matter—are Mine. Since they originate from My twofold Nature, they are indeed Mine.

Thus, since the entire world has the two Natures as its source, and since both those Natures have Me as their source and belong to Me, know that I alone am the Origin (Prabhava), I alone am the Dissolution (Pralaya), and I alone am the Ultimate Master (Sheshi) of the entire world.

The Supreme Person being the source of both Prakriti and Purusha—which are the aggregate of sentient and insentient matter—is established by Shruti (Vedic texts) and Smriti (secondary scriptures). Texts like 'Mahat dissolves into the Unmanifest, the Unmanifest into the Imperishable, the Imperishable into Darkness, Darkness becomes unified in the Supreme Deity' (Subala Up. 2); 'From the form of Vishnu, two forms, Pradhana (Prakriti) and Purusha, arose' (Vishnu Purana 1.2.24); 'The Nature declared by Me, which is of manifest and unmanifest form, and the Purusha too—both these dissolve into the Paramatman. Paramatman is the support of all, the Supreme Lord. He is sung by the name Vishnu in the Vedas and Vedantas' (Vishnu Purana 6.4.38-39)—these are the Shruti and Smriti texts.

Showing that these two are Natures (Causes), He states His own causality of creation etc. through them—with 'these two' (etat). Know and understand that all beings, consisting of mobile and immobile things, whose 'Womb' (Yoni)—the cause—is these two Natures, the Field and the Knower of the Field.

There, the inert Nature transforms into the form of the body. The conscious Nature, however, which is a part of Me, enters the bodies as the enjoyer and sustains them through its own Karma.

And those two Natures are Mine and originated from Me. Therefore, I alone am the 'Prabhava' (source of origin) of the entire world, including its Natures. 'Prabhava' means 'that from which (everything) comes forth exceedingly.' The meaning is: I am the Supreme Cause. Similarly, 'Pralaya' means 'that by which (everything) dissolves.' The purport is that I alone am the Destroyer.

In this manner, the vyaṣṭi (individual form) is mentioned by the half-verse 'etadyonīni' (all these are its origins), while the samaṣṭi (collective form) has already been stated. 'Ahaṁ kṛtsnasya' (I am of the whole) is the statement of the nature of being the effect (kāryatva) of both the samaṣṭi and vyaṣṭi combined, as 'sarvāṇi bhūtāni' (all beings) refers to the effect composed of cit (sentient) and acit (insentient).

Sri Vedantadeshikacharya Venkatanatha shows that 'etacchabdaḥ' (this word 'etat') refers to both the presented mode, prakṛti (insentient nature) and puruṣa (sentient self), and not merely to prakṛti, as indicated by 'etaccetane tyādinā' (by this sentient, etc.). By this, it is suggested that even though the sentient being is by nature immutable (nirvikāra), its being the 'cause' (prakṛtitva) is appropriate with respect to its specific forms such as the body of a god, etc., the senses, and the knowledge, action, and enjoyment dependent upon them, and with respect to its preceding state, which is like the insentient (acit).

To the doubt, "If 'madīyāni' (My) is not seen in the text being commented upon, how is it referred to here?" he replies: 'madīyaprakṛtidvayayonīni' (whose origins are My two Natures). The sense is that even though the word is not explicitly used, once the meaning of the sentence is established, the word 'iti' implies one's ownness (svakīyatva). The mention of the word 'madīya' (My) here is because it takes the form of a statement resting in the intention of the Lord.

The meaning of 'tathā' (similarly) is 'tathā sati' (that being the case). 'Prakṛtidvaye tyādi' (both Natures, etc.) is the elaboration of that. Or, the word 'tathā' is for the combination (samuccaya) of the previously mentioned nature of being the ultimate owner (śeṣitva), etc.

The words 'prabhava' (origin) and 'pralaya' (dissolution) here refer to the place/source of origination and dissolution (the cause).

To the question, "If the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad and other texts like 'ajām ekāṁ' (Śv.U. 4.5), 'nityo nityānāṁ' (Śv.U. 6.13), and 'prakṛtiṁ puruṣaṁ caiva viddhy anādī ubhāv api' (13.19) exist, how is it understood that the word 'kṛtsna' (whole) includes both Natures in the context of the effect?" he replies: 'cidacitsamaṣṭīti' (by the aggregate of the sentient and insentient). With the intention that since the dissolution of prakṛti and puruṣa in the Supreme Self is heard in the scriptures, their origin from Him must also be scripturally established, he quotes: 'mahān iti' (the Great One). The dissolution of prakṛti and puruṣa into the Supreme Self is a special type of union (saṁśleṣa) that is not amenable to separation, like water in milk. Due to the eternality of the substance's nature, there is no contradiction with 'ajāṁ' (birthless), etc.

He cites a Smṛti in support of the stated meaning: 'viṣṇor iti' (of Viṣṇu). 'Paratodite' means 'parata uditaḥ' (risen from another). This is an archaic separation of sandhi, or this Smṛti also refers only to dissolution (pralaya) as it is situated in that context.

'Dite' is a past participle from the root do avakhaṇḍane (to cut/divide), meaning 'pṛthakbhūte' (separated). By this, it is said that even in the state of dissolution, the distinction in the nature of pradhāna (prakṛti), puruṣa, and īśvara mutually exists. Alternatively, the separation of the words is 'adite vā' (or undividedly), meaning 'apṛthakbhūte' (not separated). By this, the union (saṁśleṣa) that is not amenable to separation is mentioned, due to its context in the pralaya section and the intent that it has the same meaning as the Smṛti quoted before and after.

He quotes a verse with clear meaning in support of his desired interpretation: 'prakṛtir iti' (Prakriti).

उपर्युक्त अपरा एवं परा प्रकृतियों के परस्पर संबंध से यह नानाविध वैचित्र्यपूर्ण सृष्टि व्यक्त होती है। जड़ प्रकृति के बिना चैतन्य की सार्मथ्य व्यक्त नहीं हो सकती और न ही उसके बिना जड़ उपाधियों में चेनवत् व्यवहार की संभावना ही रहती है। बल्ब में स्थित तार में स्वयं विद्युत् ही प्रकाश के रूप मे व्यक्त होती है। प्रकाश की अभिव्यक्ति के लिए विद्युत् और बल्ब दोनों का संबंध होना आवश्यक है। इसी प्रकार सृष्टि के लिए परा और अपरा जड़ और चेतन के संबंध की अपेक्षा होती है।इसी दृष्टि से भगवान् कहते हैं ये दोनों प्रकृतियां भूतमात्र की कारण हैं। एक मेधावी विद्यार्थी को इस कथन का अभिप्राय समझना कठिन नहीं है। बाह्य विषय भावनाएं तथा विचारों के जगत् की न केवल उत्पत्ति और स्थिति बल्कि लय भी चेतन पुरुष में ही होता है। इस प्रकार अपरा प्रकृति पारमार्थिक स्वरूप में पराप्रकृति से भिन्न नहीं है। आत्मा मानो अपने स्वरूप को भूलकर अपरा प्रकृति के साथ तादात्म्य करके जीवभाव के दुखों को प्राप्त होता है। परन्तु उसका यह दुख मिथ्या है वास्तविक नहीं। स्वस्वरूप की पहचान ही अनात्मबन्धन से मुक्ति का एकमात्र उपाय है। परा से अपरा की उत्पत्ति उसी प्रकार होती है जैसे मिट्टी के बने घटों की मिट्टी से। स्ाभी घटों में एक मिट्टी ही सत्य है उसी प्रकार विषय इन्द्रियां मन तथा बुद्धि इन अपरा प्रकृति के कार्यों का वास्तविक स्वरूप चेतन तत्त्व ही है।इसलिये

'Etadyonīni' (All these are its origins). 'Mattaḥ' (From Me). 'Upadhāraya' (Know/Grasp) - bring it close to your own self through the sequence of experience gained by repeated practice. And thus, you yourself should know that I, Vāsudeva, am the 'prabhava' (origin) and 'pralaya' (dissolution) of all.

By the word 'Aham' (I), it is demonstrated that Iśvara (the Lord), even while being distinct from Prakṛti (Nature), Puruṣa (Self), and Puruṣottama (Supreme Self), is fully present by being inherent in all. In this way, there is no difference/duality doctrine (bhedavāda) between Sāṅkhya and Yoga.

'Sūtre maṇigaṇā iva' (Like groups of gems on a thread): just as the thread, though its nature is not fully grasped, is situated internally inherent, so too, I am everywhere.

The question is: What is the purpose of saying 'Ahaṁ kṛtsnasya prabhavaḥ...' (I am the origin of the whole...) when the main intention here is to state the Lord's 'paratattva' (supreme nature) by describing the 'apara' (lower) and 'para' (higher) Natures, and 'etadyonīni' (all these are its origins) was stated to show that the effects, such as the body, senses, and objects, and the jīvas (souls), are included within those two Natures? This verse should have been 'Ahaṁ parataraḥ' (I am the higher one). To this, he replies: 'Na kevalam iti' (Not only). Earlier, by dividing the sentence, the inferiority (avaratva) of the Natures and their subjection to the Lord ('me' - My) were stated, and by 'Yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat' (by which this world is sustained) and 'etadyonīni' (all these are its origins), the Lord's being the support and the cause of the world was declared. This gave the impression that while the Natures are under the control of the Lord, the origination, sustenance, and dissolution of the world are dependent only on the Natures and not on the Lord. This verse is stated to negate that impression.

The meaning is that my Lordship (aiśvarya) over the world is only figuratively attributed (upacarita) through the two Natures. The sense is that the causality etc. of the Natures is dependent on Me.

By saying 'Prabhavādeḥ' (of the origin etc.), he refutes the idea that the characteristics of the world, namely prabhava (origin) and pralaya (dissolution), are being directly identified with the Lord.

Just as the origin of a son, etc., and the destruction of a foe are seen to be causes of happiness, and the father, etc., are seen as their enjoyers (bhoktṛ), similarly, where does the Lord's 'sarvabhoktṛtva' (being the enjoyer of all) arise from? To this, he replies: 'Tathā ca' (And thus).

Since 'sarvakāmaḥ' (all desires) etc., is repeated, it is understood that one refers to the object of enjoyment. 'Kāmāḥ' (desires) are the dravyas (substances) that are desired. The words scent and taste are indicative of other qualities as well. 'Sarvam idam abhi' (All this around) means 'āttaḥ' (held/sustained) and 'sthitaḥ' (situated). 'Avākyaḥ' (without speech) - one without whose grace (anugraha) there is no speech (vākya). 'Nādaraḥ' (without reverence/wonder) - one who does not have reverence/wonder. 'Avākya-nādaraḥ' (without speech and without reverence).

Where is it known that this designation of identity (aikya-vyapadeśa) is only through causality, etc.? To this, he replies: 'Āha ca' (And He has also said). 'Sukharūpasya' (of the nature of bliss) and 'sukhakāraṇasya' (of the cause of bliss).

Question: To say 'sraṣṭā, pātā' (creator, protector), etc., is inappropriate, as occasional engagement in action would lead to the contingency of changeability (vikāritva), and the non-existence of the happiness to be gained through enjoyment prior to the enjoyment would lead to the contingency of incompleteness (apūrṇatva). To this, he replies: 'Āgamiṣyat' (that which will come). The happiness that would come through enjoyment always exists. And the actions also exist in the form of power.

Then why is it said that it is produced by enjoyment? With this in mind, he asks: 'Api tu' (But rather). He answers: 'Tathāpi' (Even so). Although, even with constant existence, it is possible to interpret 'yasmāt prabhavatyasmād iti prabhavaḥ, pralīyate’sminniti pralayaḥ' (That from which it originates is the origin; that in which it dissolves is the dissolution), it is interpreted in this way to gain an abundance of glory (mahimātiśaya).

By this, the interpretation of Śaṅkara, 'yasmān mama prakṛtī yonī sarvabhūtānāṁ tato’haṁ kṛtsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralaya stathā' (Since my two Natures are the origins of all beings, therefore I am the origin and dissolution of the whole world), is ridiculed.

Considering the inference based on the characteristic of the effect as the proof for the two mentioned Natures (prakṛtī - kṣetra and kṣetrajña), he shows that He is the cause of the creation, etc., of the world through them.

'Ete' (These) two Natures, specified as the kṣetra (field/body, etc.) and kṣetrajña (knower of the field/Self), which were mentioned earlier by their lower and higher status, are the yoni (source of origin) of 'etadyonīni' (all these are its origins) 'sarvāṇi' (all) 'bhūtāni' (beings) - which are subject to the nature of coming into existence, and are of the nature of the sentient (cetana) and insentient (acetana), 'nikhilāni' (all together) - 'ity evam upadhāraya jānīhi' (know this thus).

The meaning is that since the effects are in the form of a knot of the sentient and insentient, one should infer their cause to also be in the form of a knot of the sentient and insentient.

Since the two Natures, which are my limiting adjuncts (upādhi), take the form of the kṣetra and kṣetrajña, through them 'ahaṁ' (I), who am omniscient, the Lord of all, possessing infinite power, and having Māyā as my limiting adjunct, am the 'prabhavaḥ' (cause of origin) and 'tathā' (and similarly) 'pralayaḥ' (cause of destruction) of 'kṛtsnasya' (the whole) world, which is composed of the moving and non-moving, and of 'sarvasya kāryavargasya' (all groups of effects). Just as for the world of a dream, I, the possessor of Māyā, am the material cause (upādāna) and the witness (draṣṭā) due to being the substratum and the object of Māyā.

What will be the result of knowing this (Prakriti and Purusha)? To this, He says: 'Etat' (This). 'Sarvāṇi bhūtāni' (All beings), which are of the nature of the stationary (sthāvara) and the moving (jaṅgama), are 'etadyonīni' (all these are its origins), meaning these two Natures are their causal form. You should 'tad upadhāraya' (grasp/know that), meaning nourish it close to your heart.

The purport is that by knowing this origin, all beings will attain the fitness to be conducive to the sport/play (līlā) of the Lord.

Since they are all its origin and they are part of Me, therefore, 'ahaṁ prabhavaḥ' (I am the source of origin) of 'kṛtsnasya' (the whole) universe—'prabhava' is that from which it originates in an excellent manner, meaning the root cause. And similarly, 'pralayaḥ' (dissolution/destroyer) is that by which it dissolves in an excellent manner, meaning the place of dissolution and the destroyer is also Me alone.

'Etadyonīni' (All these are its origins) — These two, the lower (aparā) and the higher (parā) Natures, which are characterized as the kṣetra (field/body) and kṣetrajña (knower of the field/Self), are the yoni (cause/source) of 'sarvāṇi bhūtāni' (all beings). 'Iti evam upadhāraya jānīhi' (Know this thus).

Since My two Natures are the cause (yoni) of all beings, 'ataḥ ahaṁ' (therefore I) am the 'prabhavaḥ' (origin) and 'tathā' (and similarly) 'pralayaḥ' (dissolution) of 'kṛtsnasya' (the entire) universe.

The meaning is that I, the omniscient Lord (Īśvara), am the cause of the world through the medium of the two Natures.

By explaining the causal nature (prakṛtitva) of these two Natures through definition, He states His unique causality, both as the material and efficient cause, through their medium: 'Etadyonīnīti' (All these are its origins).

Since they are 'prakṛṣṭā kṛtiḥ' (excellent creations), they are 'etadyonī' (these two origins), meaning the stationary and moving beings, of which these two are the procreators (janikā). You should 'upadhāraya' (know them through your intellect).

Among them, the insentient Nature transforms into the form of the body, etc., while the sentient Nature, which is a part of Me, enters into it in the form of the kṣetrajña (knower of the field) as the enjoyer (bhoktṛ) and sustains it through its bewildering power (vyāmohikā).

Since both of them (the Natures) originate 'mattaḥ' (from Me) as the inherent cause (kāraṇabhūta) or the efficient cause (prayojaka), I Myself am the 'prabhavaḥ' (source of origin) and 'tathā pralayaḥ' (and the source of dissolution) of the world, just as earth is the cause of a pot, a cloth, etc. The meaning is that I am the cause through the medium of Prakṛti and Puruṣa.

एतद्योनीनि those of which these two (Prakritis) are the womb? भूतानि beings? सर्वाणि all? इति thus? उपधारय know? अहम् I? कृत्स्नस्य of the whole? जगतः of the world? प्रभवः source? प्रलयः dissolution? तथा also.Commentary These two Natures? the inferior and the superior? are the womb of all beings. As I am the source of these two Prakritis or Natures also? I am the cause of this universe. The whole universe originates from Me and dissolves in Me.In the Brahma Sutras (chapter 1? section 1? aphorism 2) it is said? Janmadyasya yatah meaning that Brahman is that omniscient and omnipotent cause from which proceed the origin? subsistence and dissolution of this world.Just as the mind is the material cause and also the seer (Drashta) for the objects seen in a dream? so also Isvara is the material cause of this world (UpadanaKarana) and also the seer (Drashta). He is also the efficient or the instrumental cause (NimittaKarana). (Cf.XIV.3)

Upadharaya, understand; iti, thus; that sarvani, all; bhutani, things; etat-yonini, have these (etat) as their source (yoni)-things that have these lower and higher Prakrtis, charcterized as the 'field' and the 'Knower of the field (body)', as their source are etat-yonini. Since My two Prakrtis are the source, the cause of all things, therefore, aham, I; am the prabhavah, origin; tatha, as also; the pralayah, end, the termination; krtsnasya, of the whole; jagatah, Universe.
The maning is this: I, who am the ominscient God, am the source of the Univese through My two Prakrtis.
Since this is so, therefore-

Know that all beings from Brahma down to a tuft of grass, who have their origin in these two Prakrtis of Mine, are aggregated forms of the self and of inanimate matter. Irrespective of whether they are existing in a superior or inferior form, the selves and inanimate matter are mixed together in them. On account of their origination in My two Prakrtis, they are Mine. So, know that because the entire universe has its origination in these two Prakrtis which have their origination in Me, I am myself the origin and dissolution of the entire universe. For the same reason, I am its Lord (Sesin).
It is proved on the basis of the Srutis and Smrtis that these two, Prakrti and Purusa (matter and the self), which form the aggregate of all animate and inanimate beings, have the Supreme Person as their cause. This is evident from Sruti and Smrti texts like the following: 'The Mahat resolves into Avyakta, Avyakta into Aksara, Aksara into Tamas, and Tamas becomes one with the Supreme Lord' (Su. U., 2); 'O sage, distinct from the form of Visnu, the Supreme Lord, the two forms, Prakrti and Purusa, arise' (V. P., 1.2.24); and 'What was described by Me as Prakrti in its dual form of the manifest and the unmanifest, and the Purusa do merge in the Supreme Self, and the Supreme Self is the support of all. He is the Supreme Lord named Visnu, exalted in the Vedas and Vedanta' (V. P., 6.4.38-39).