Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7 - Shloka (Verse) 7

व्याख्या--'मत्तः परतरं नान्यत् किञ्चिदस्ति धनञ्जय'--हे अर्जुन ! मेरे सिवाय दूसरा कोई कारण नहीं है, मैं ही सब संसारका महाकारण हूँ। जैसे वायु आकाशसे ही उत्पन्न होती है, आकाशमें ही रहती है और आकाशमें ही लीन होती है अर्थात् आकाशके सिवाय वायुकी कोई पृथक् स्वतन्त्र सत्ता नहीं है। ऐसे ही संसार भगवान्से उत्पन्न होता है भगवान्में स्थित रहता है और भगवान्में ही लीन हो जाता है अर्थात् भगवान्के सिवाय संसारकी कोई पृथक् स्वतन्त्र सत्ता नहीं है।यहाँ 'परतरम्' कहकर सबका मूल कारण बताया गया है। मूल कारणके आगे कोई कारण नहीं है अर्थात् मूल कारणका कोई उत्पादक नहीं है। भगवान् ही सबके मूल कारण हैं। यह संसार अर्थात् देश, काल, व्यक्ति, वस्तु, घटना, परिस्थिति आदि सभी परिवर्तनशील हैं। परन्तु जिसके होनेपनसे इन सबका होनापन दीखता है अर्थात् जिसकी सत्तासे ये सभी 'है' दीखते हैं, वह परमात्मा ही इन सबमें परिपूर्ण हैं।
भगवान्ने इसी अध्यायके दूसरे श्लोकमें कहा कि मैं विज्ञानसहित ज्ञान कहूँगा, जिसको जाननेके बाद कुछ जानना बाकी नहीं रहेगा--'यज्ज्ञात्वा नेह भूयोऽन्यज्ज्ञातव्यमवशिष्यते' और यहाँ कहते हैं कि मेरे सिवाय दूसरा कोई कारण नहीं है--'मत्तः परतरं नान्यत् किञ्चिदस्ति।' दोनों ही जगह 'न अन्यत्'कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि जब मेरे सिवाय कुछ है ही नहीं, तब मेरेको जाननेके बाद जानना कैसे बाकी रहेगा? अतः भगवान्ने यहाँ 'मयि सर्वमिदं प्रोतम्'और आगे 'वासुदेवः सर्वम्' (7। 19) तथा 'सदसच्चाहम्'(9। 19) कहा है।जो कार्य होता है, वह कारणके सिवाय अपनी कोई स्वतन्त्र सत्ता नहीं रखता। वास्तवमें कारण ही कार्यरूपसे दीखता है। इस प्रकर जब कारणका ज्ञान हो जायगा, तब कार्य कारणमें लीन हो जायगा अर्थात् कार्यकी अलग सत्ता प्रतीत नहीं होगी और 'एक परमात्माके सिवाय अन्य कोई कारण नहीं है'--ऐसा अनुभव स्वतः हो जायगा।
'मयि सर्वमिदं प्रोतं सूत्रे मणिगणा इव'--यह सारा संसार सूतमें सूतकी ही मणियोंकी तरह मेरेमें पिरोया हुआ है अर्थात् मैं ही सारे संसारमें अनुस्यूत (व्याप्त) हूँ। जैसे सूतसे बनी मणियोंमें और सूतमें सूतके सिवाय अन्य कुछ नहीं है; ऐसे ही संसारमें मेरे सिवाय अन्य कोई तत्त्व नहीं है। तात्पर्य है कि जैसे सूतमें सूतकी मणियाँ पिरोयी गयी हों तो दीखनेमें मणियाँ और सूत अलग-अलग दीखते हैं, पर वास्तवमें उनमें सूत एक ही होता है। ऐसे ही संसारमें जितने प्राणी हैं, वे सभी नाम, रूप, आकृति आदिसे अलग-अलग दीखते हैं, पर वास्तवमें उनमें व्याप्त रहनेवाला चेतन-तत्त्व एक ही है। वह चेतन-तत्त्व मैं ही हूँ--'क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत'(गीता 13। 2) अर्थात् मणिरूप अपरा प्रकृति भी मेरा स्वरूप है और धागारूप परा प्रकृति भी मैं ही हूँ। दोनोंमें मैं ही परिपूर्ण हूँ, व्याप्त हूँ। साधक जब संसारको संसारबुद्धिसे देखता है, तब उसको संसारमें परिपूर्णरूपसे व्याप्त परमात्मा नहीं दीखते। जब उसको परमात्मतत्त्वका वास्तविक बोध हो जाता है, तब व्याप्य-व्यापक भाव मिटकर एक परमात्मतत्त्व ही दीखता है। इस तत्त्वको बतानेके लिये ही भगवान्ने यहाँ कारणरूपसे अपनी व्यापकताका वर्णन किया है।
सम्बन्ध--जो कुछ कार्य दीखता है, उसके मूलमें परमात्मा ही हैं--यह ज्ञान करानेके लिये अब भगवान् आठवेंसे बारहवें श्लोकतकका प्रकरण आरम्भ करते हैं।

ऐसा होनेके कारण मुझ परमेश्वरसे परतर ( अतिरिक्त ) जगत्का कारण अन्य कुछ भी नहीं है अर्थात् मैं ही जगत्का एकमात्र कारण हूँ। हे धनंजय क्योंकि ऐसा है इसलिये यह सम्पूर्ण जगत् और समस्त प्राणी मुझ परमेश्वरमें दीर्घ तन्तुओंमें वस्त्रकी भाँति तथा सूत्रमें मणियोंकी भाँति पिरोया हुआ अनुस्यूत अनुगत बिंधा हुआ गूँथा हुआ है।

Anticipating the doubt that there might be something else superior (para) even to the Supreme Self, who is beyond Pradhāna (Primordial Matter), the Akṣara (Imperishable), and Puruṣa (Spirit), the commentator (Anandgiri) refutes it by relying on the statement of God's universal causality through the two Natures mentioned earlier. 'Yataḥ tasmāt iti' (Since, therefore).

He states the reason for 'Nānyad asti param' (There is nothing else superior): 'Mayi iti' (In Me). He explains the meaning of the word 'parataram' (superior/higher): 'anyat iti' (other). The word 'antara' (internal) is for the exclusion of independence (svātantrya). He states the result of the negation: 'Ahameva iti' (I alone).

He clarifies the meaning established by being the cause of the entire world through the explanation of the second half-verse: 'Yasmāt iti' (Since). Therefore (just as) the perception of a cloth (paṭa) is understood in the threads (tantu) woven both lengthwise and crosswise, similarly, the world is interwoven only in Me; this is stated by 'dīrgha iti' (long).

And just as gems (maṇi) are strung on a thread (sūtra) and are sustained only by it, and scatter in its absence, similarly, since everything is permeated by Me, the Self (ātmabhūtena), anything inferior to Me would be as good as destroyed. This exemplifies the analogy given in the verse by 'sūtre iti' (in the thread).

Since this is so, 'mattaḥ' (from Me, the Supreme Lord) 'parataram' (something superior) 'anyat kāraṇāntaraṁ' (any other cause) 'kiñcin nāsti' (does not exist). 'Na vidyate' (is not present). The meaning is that I alone am the Supreme Cause of the universe. By demonstrating the absence of what is 'parataram' (most superior), the absence of what is 'param' (superior) is also established. Therefore, the doubt expressed in the Brahma Sūtra ('setu-unmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ' - because of the statements of bridge, measure, relation, and difference) is also refuted. The doubt was that something else exists beyond the Supreme Lord. Why? Because of the statements of bridge (setu) like 'Ayam ātmā sa setuḥ' (This Self is that bridge), of measure (unmāna) like 'catus-pād' (four-footed), of relation (sambandha) like 'Sata sobhya tadā sampanno bhavati' (O gentle one, he then becomes merged with the Sat), and of difference (bheda) like 'Atha ya eṣo’ntarāditye', 'ya eṣo’ntarakṣiṇi' (And He who is within the Sun, He who is within the eye).

The conclusive Sūtras also state: 'Sāmānyāt tu buddhyarthaḥ pādavat' (But due to similarity, it is for the sake of understanding, like a foot), 'Sthānaviśeṣāt prakāśādivat' (Due to a particular location, like light, etc.), 'Upapatteś ca tathā anyapratiṣedhāt' (And because of suitability, and likewise due to the negation of anything else), 'Anena sarvagatatvam āyāmaśabdādibhyaḥ' (By this, omnipresence is established from the word 'āyāma' [extent], etc.). The word 'tu' (but) is for the exclusion of the prima facie view. Nothing else can exist apart from Brahman, as there is a lack of proof. We find no evidence for the existence of anything else. It is established that the birth, etc., of all created objects come from Brahman, and there is non-difference (ananyatva) of the effect from the cause. No uncreated (aja) entity other than Brahman is possible, due to the determination 'Sad eva somyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam' (O gentle one, this universe was Sat alone in the beginning, one without a second), and due to the promise that by knowing the One, everything is known, the existence of anything other than Brahman is not admissible.

The objection that the mention of bridge, etc., indicates something different from Brahman is now answered. Due to the similarity with a bridge, the word 'setu' is applied to the Self, which is appropriate. The commonality with a bridge is the Self's capacity to be the support of the world and its boundaries (maryādās). Therefore, the Self under discussion is praised as 'setu iva setuḥ' (a bridge, as it were). 'Setuṁ tīrtvā' (crossing the bridge) also means 'attaining' (prāpnoti), since 'tarati' (to cross) cannot mean transgression in this context, just as one who has 'crossed the grammar' (vyākaraṇaṁ tīrṇaḥ) is said to have 'attained' (mastered) it, not 'transgressed' it. Similarly, the statement of measure (unmāna) is also not for establishing the existence of something other than Brahman, but for the sake of understanding (buddhi) and worship (upāsanā), like the foot (pāda). Just as for the symbols of Brahman—mind and space—which are taught as relating to the self (adhyātma) and relating to the divine (adhidaivata) respectively, the four feet (speech, breath, eye, ear) are conceived as belonging to the mind, and the four feet (fire, air, sun, directions) are conceived as belonging to space, for the purpose of meditation; similarly. Or, for the sake of worldly transaction, like the conceptual division of a coin (kārṣāpaṇa) into a quarter-part (pāda).

The contention that something is superior to the Supreme Lord because of the statement of relation (sambandha) and difference (bheda) is also false. Because both of these refer to the one Brahman in relation to specific locations. The quiescence (upaśama) is the relation with the Supreme Self, which is attributed figuratively (upacaryate) with respect to the limiting adjunct (upādhi), not with respect to finiteness (mitatva). Similarly, the statement of difference is also with respect to the difference in the limiting adjuncts of Brahman, not with respect to a difference in its essential nature. He gives an analogy here: 'prakāśavat' (like light). Just as the statement of difference in relation applies to a single light of the sun, etc., only with respect to the limiting adjuncts like the eye of a needle (sūcīpāśa), similarly. To the doubt as to why the relation, etc., cannot be primary, He says: 'Upapatteś ca' (And because of the suitability). Because only the figurative attribution is suitable.

Having thus overthrown the arguments of the opposing side based on the statements of the bridge, etc., he concludes his own position with another reason: 'Tathā anyapratiṣedhād api' (And also because of the negation of anything else) it is understood that there is no other entity superior to Brahman. This is because the Śrutis like 'Sa evādhastāt', 'Ahamevādhastāt', 'Ātmaivādhastāt', 'Sa evopariṣṭāt' (He is below, I am below, the Self is below, He is above), 'Sarvaṁ taṁ parādād yo’nyatrātmanaḥ sarvaṁ veda' (All abandons him who knows all else than the Self), 'Brahmaivedaṁ sarvam', 'Ātmaivedaṁ sarvam', 'Neha nānāsti kiñcana', 'Yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti kiñcit', 'Tad etad brahmāpūrvam anaparam anantaram abāhyam' (Brahman is all this, the Self is all this, there is no manifoldness here whatsoever, than which there is nothing higher nor lower, that Brahman is without cause, without exterior, without interior, without outside)—which are situated in their own context and whose meaning cannot be otherwise interpreted—forbid any entity other than Brahman. And from the Śruti of being the Self of all (sarvāntaraśruti), it is determined that there is no other Self internal to the Supreme Self. By refuting the statements of the bridge, etc., and by relying on the negation of others, the omnipresence (sarvagatatva) of the Self is also established. And this omnipresence is known from the word 'āyāma' (extent), etc. The word 'āyāma' denotes pervasive. The Śrutis and Smṛtis like 'Yāvān vā ayam ākāśas tāvān eṣo’ntarhṛdaya ākāśaḥ' (As vast as this space is, so vast is this space within the heart), 'Ākāśavat sarvagataś ca nityaḥ' (Omnipresent and eternal like space), 'Jyāyān divo jyāyān antarīkṣāt', 'Nityaḥ sarvagataḥ sthāṇuḥ' (Greater than the heaven, greater than the interspace, eternal, omnipresent, stationary) teach the omnipresence of the Self. Hence, addressing Arjuna, who brought wealth by conquering kings, Bhīṣma, etc., in the conquest of directions and the retrieval of the cows, He hints that just as there is no one else who performs such deeds superior to you, so there is no other cause of the universe superior to Me, calling him 'Dhanañjaya' (Conqueror of wealth!).

Since this is so, 'mayi parameśvare' (in Me, the Supreme Lord) all this world, which is of the nature of cause and effect, is 'protam' (strung), 'grathitam' (woven), just as groups of gems are strung on a thread. By this, His being the cause of sustenance is also shown. However, some (Advaitins) interpret that since I alone am the cause of the birth, sustenance, and destruction of the entire world through My Māyā, therefore, in a transcendental sense (paramārthataḥ), there is nothing else that is transcendentally real (paramārtha sat) 'parataram' (superior) to the support (adhiṣṭhāna) of Māyā—which has transformed into all visible forms—which is the transcendental reality. The meaning is that what is falsely imagined in Me is not transcendentally different from Me. This is established by the maxim 'Tad ananyatvam ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ' (That is non-different from it, because of the initiating word, etc.). From the standpoint of empirical reality (vyavahāra-dṛṣtyā), this entire mass of insentient objects is 'protam' (strung), 'grathitam' (woven) in Me, who am of the nature of existence (sat-rūpa) and consciousness (sphuraṇa-rūpa), and appears to exist by My existence, and appears to shine by My consciousness, for the purpose of empirical reality which is illusory (māyāmaya). 'Sūtre maṇigaṇā iva' (like groups of gems on a thread) is an analogy only for the fact of everything being woven in consciousness. Alternatively, the analogy should be interpreted in all its aspects: like the groups of gems attained in a dream by the dream-seer, who is the luminous Self (taijasa ātman) in the form of the thread (sūtra) (Hiranyagarbha). In this view, since the meaning 'No object different from Me, the transcendentally Real, is transcendentally real' is established merely by 'Matto’nyat kiñcit nāsti' (Nothing is different from Me), similar to 'Neha nānāsti kiñcana' (There is no manifoldness here whatsoever), the purpose of the word 'parataram' (superior) and the natural consistency (svārasya) of 'protam' (strung), etc., become questionable when it should have been said, 'Sarvam idam kalpitam mayi, manasi svapnapadārthā iva' (All this is superimposed on Me, like dream objects in the mind).

I alone am 'parataram' (the most superior); 'mattaḥ' (than Me) 'anyat parataram' (anything else superior) 'na kiñcid api' (does not exist at all).

Having thus established the knowledge of everything through the knowledge of the one, by showing the Self to be the material cause of the world, and upon the possibility of the loss of the Self's immutability (nirvikāratva) because of this, He says: 'Mattaḥ iti' (Than Me).

In common usage, an effect like a pot, etc., is considered 'param' (different) or separated from its cause like clay, etc., because of the experience of difference between the two. But 'parataram' (more superior/transcendent) is something like a cow or a horse, since it is not materially caused by the clay. Similarly, there is nothing 'parataram' (more superior) to Brahman that is not materially caused by it.

O Dhanañjaya! Having thus shown the non-difference of the world (prapañca) from Brahman, He states the difference of Brahman from the world with an analogy: 'Mayi iti' (In Me).

In Me, who is pervasive everywhere like a thread (sūtra) in the form of existence (sat-rūpa) and consciousness (sphuraṇa-rūpa), 'yad idaṁ sarvam' (all this) which is mutually distinct (vyāvṛtta) like a group of gems (maṇigaṇa), is 'protam' (strung). By the maxim that 'that which pervades the distinct objects is distinct from them', I am beyond the world (prapañca-atīta); therefore, there is no changeability (vikāritva) in Me.

Just as 'ahaṁ parataraḥ' (I am superior) by virtue of being the cause and the Supreme Master (śeṣitva) of both Natures, despite their being the cause of all, and by being the Master of all insentient objects, and also the Master of the sentient (Self), similarly, 'aham eva parataraḥ' (I alone am superior) by the possession of qualities like knowledge, power, strength, etc. 'Mattaḥ anyat' (Something else than Me), 'madvyatiriktaṁ' (separate from Me), 'kiñcid jñāna-balādi-guṇāntara-yogi parataraṁ na asti' (nothing else, possessing other qualities like knowledge and strength, is superior).

This entire collection of sentient and insentient objects (cid-acid-vastu-jātam), both in the state of effect (kāryāvastha) and the state of cause (kāraṇāvastha), is 'maccharīra-bhūtam' (My body), and is 'protam' (strung), 'āśritam' (dependent) 'mayi' (in Me), who is established as the Self (ātman) within it, like a group of gems on a thread (sūtre maṇigaṇavat).

The abiding of the world and Brahman in the relationship of Self and body is established in Śrutis like the Antaryāmi Brāhmaṇa (Inner Controller section): 'Yasya pṛthivī śarīram' (Bṛ. U. 3.7.3) (Whose body is the earth), 'Yasyātmā śarīram' (Bṛ. U. 3.7.22) (Whose body is the Self), 'Eṣa sarvabhūtāntarātmāpahatapāpmā divyo deva eko nārāyaṇaḥ' (Su. U. 7) (This is the Inner Self of all beings, sinless, the divine, one God, Nārāyaṇa).

Therefore, since everything is the body of the Supreme Person, and thus a mode (prakāra) of the Supreme Person who is the Self, the Supreme Person alone is established in all modes, and hence all words primarily denote Him. For this reason, He speaks in terms of co-ordinate predication (sāmānādhikaraṇya - where words with different primary meanings refer to the same object through the body-Self relation) in the following four verses, starting with 'rasaḥ ahaṁ' (I am the taste).

Since this is so, 'mattaḥ iti' (Than Me). 'Mattaḥ sakāśāt' (From Me) 'parataram' (superior) 'svatantraṁ kāraṇaṁ' (independent cause) in the creation and destruction of the world 'kiñcid api nāsti' (does not exist at all).

'Sthitihetur api ahameva' (I alone am the cause of sustenance too), He says this by 'mayi iti' (In Me). 'Mayi sarvam idaṁ jagat protaṁ' (In Me this entire world is strung), 'grathitam' (woven), 'āśritam ityarthaḥ' (is dependent, this is the meaning).

The analogy (example) is clear.

In the statement 'mattaḥ parataram' (superior to Me), if it were merely intended to reinforce the previously stated meaning through negation (vyatireka), the purpose would be weak, and since 'ahaṁ parataraḥ' (I am superior) was not stated before, the negation of its opposite is also not extremely appropriate. Therefore, the meaning is that the word's primary reference to an uninstructed, novel meaning is both possible and inescapable. With this intention, he says: 'Yathā iti' (Just as).

The word 'tathā' (similarly) from the previous verse is connected here. And since the possession of infinite great glories (mahāvibhūti) is exemplified as possessing infinite qualities, He says with this intention: 'Tathā jñāna-śakti' (Similarly, knowledge, power, etc.). 'Śeṣitvenetyantam' (Up to being the Supreme Master) shows the existence of the meaning. 'Kāraṇatayā śeṣitayā ca' (By virtue of being the cause and by virtue of being the Supreme Master) states the manner of 'parataratva' (superiority), thus avoiding repetition.

Question: How is the absolute statement 'aham eva' (I alone) possible? Because even by negating what is superior (paratar) to oneself, the negation of what is equal (sama) is not apparent. To this, He says: 'Matto’nyad iti' (Other than Me). 'Madvyatiriktam iti' (Separate from Me). The intention is: The fifth case ending 'mattaḥ' (than Me) is not connected with 'parataram' (superior), as that would lead to the non-connection of the word 'anyat' (other). Therefore, the construction 'mattaḥ anyat parataraṁ nāsti' (There is nothing other than Me that is superior) results in 'aham eva parataraḥ' (I alone am the most superior). And thereby, the absence of both equal and superior is stated.

By saying 'kiñcid api' (anything at all) that 'is endowed with other qualities like knowledge, power, etc.,' even the presiding deities (adhikāriṇaḥ) like Brahmā and Īśāna, and the purified souls (parishuddhātmānaḥ), are encompassed. In this way, the theory of independent transformation of Prakṛti ('Bhūmir āpaḥ' 7.4, etc.), the theory of transformation merely due to the proximity of the sentient being, and the theory that Prakṛti and Puruṣa are not subordinate (aśeṣatva) to Īśvara, are refuted. By 'mattaḥ parataram' (superior to Me), the views of the identity and equality of the Trimūrti (Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Shiva), other streams of distinct entities that transcend the idea of equality, and other conceptions of Īśvara (Lord) are also rejected.

Now, in order to counter the changeability (savikāratva) implied by the previously stated ultimate material causality (sarvopādānatva), and to refute the view of Prakṛti and Puruṣa being independently existing entities, the universal-body-hood (sarvaśarīritvam) is stated through the concept of universal support (sarvādhāratva) by the half-verse 'mayi' (in Me).

'Sarvam idam' (All this) encompasses all sentient and insentient objects in all states, with this intention, 'cid-acid-vastu-jātam' (the collection of sentient and insentient objects), etc., is said. The effectiveness of the analogy of the thread and the gems, and the word 'protam' (strung), indicate pervasion (anupraveśa) and the relationship of the container and the contained (āśrayāśrayī-bhāva). With the intention that the definition of the body is also suggested, 'maccharīra-bhūtam' (My body), etc., is said.

The exclusive universal support of the One, His being hidden (gūḍhatva) even after entering, and the absence of dependence on the contained Prakṛti, etc., for His existence, are established by the thread analogy. To preclude the impression that 'prota' (strung) means the absence of pervasion outside, like a thread, He says: 'āśritaṁ iti' (is dependent).

The citation of the Subālopaniṣad text here is to explicitly state the Nārāyaṇa-hood of the Inner Controller (antaryāmin), and to include other principles not mentioned in the Antaryāmi Brāhmaṇa.

इसके पूर्व के श्लोकों में कथित सिद्धान्त को स्वीकार करने पर हमें जगत् की ओर देखने के दो दृष्टिकोण मिलते हैं। एक है अपर अर्थात् कार्यरूप जगत् की दृष्टि से तथा दूसरा इससे भिन्न है पर अर्थात् कारण की दृष्टि से। जैसे मिट्टी की दृष्टि से उसमें विभिन्न रूप रंग वाले घटों का सर्वथा अभाव होता है वैसे ही चैतन्यस्वरूप पुरुष में न विषयों का स्थूल जगत् है और न विचारों का सूक्ष्म जगत्। मुझसे अन्य किञ्चिन्मात्र वस्तु नहीं है।स्वप्न से जागने पर जाग्रत् पुरुष के लिये स्वप्न जगत् की कोई वस्तु दृष्टिगोचर नहीं होती। समुद्र में असंख्य लहरें उठती हुई दिखाई देती हैं परन्तु वास्तव में वहाँ समुद्र के अतिरिक्त किसी का कोई अस्तित्व नहीं होता। उनकी उत्पत्ति स्थिति और लय स्थान समुद्र ही होता है। संक्षेप में कोई भी वस्तु अपने मूल स्वरूप का त्याग करके कदापि नहीं रह सकती है।पहले हमें बताया गया है कि प्रत्येक प्राणी में एक भाग अपरा प्रकृतिरूप है जिसका संयोग आत्मतत्त्व से हुआ है। यहाँ जिज्ञासु मन में शंका उठ सकती है कि क्या मुझमें स्थित आत्मा अन्य प्राणी की आत्मा से भिन्न है यह विचार हमें इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचायेगा कि विभिन्न शरीरों में भिन्नभिन्न आत्मायें हैं अर्थात् आत्मा की अनेकता के सिद्धान्त पर हम पहुँच जायेंगे। .समस्त नामरूपों में आत्मा के एकत्व को दर्शाने के लिये यहाँ भगवान् कहते हैं कि वे ही इस जगत् के अधिष्ठान हैं। वे सभी रूपों को इस प्रकार धारण करते हैं जैसे कण्ठाभरण में एक ही सूत्र सभी मणियों को पिरोये रहता है। यह दृष्टांत अत्यन्त सारगर्भित है। काव्य के सौन्दर्य के साथसाथ उसमें दर्शनशास्त्र का गम्भीर लाक्षणिक अर्थ भी निहित है। कण्ठाभरण में समस्त मणियाँ एक समान होते हुये दर्शनीय भी होती हैं परन्तु वे समस्त छोटीबड़ी मणियाँ जिस एक सूत्र में पिरोयी होती हैं वह सूत्र हमें दृष्टिगोचर नहीं होता तथापि उसके कारण ही वह माला शोभायमान होती है।इसी प्रकार मणिमोती जिस पदार्थ से बने होते हैं वह उससे भिन्न होता है जिस पदार्थ से सूत्र बना होता है। वैसे ही यह जगत् असंख्य नामरूपों की एक वैचित्र्यपूर्ण सृष्टि है जिसे इस पूर्णरूप में एक पारमार्थिक सत्य आत्मतत्त्व धारण किये रहता है। एक व्यक्ति विशेष में भी शरीर मन और बुद्धि परस्पर भिन्न होते हुये भी एक साथ कार्य करते हैं और समवेत रूप में जीवन का संगीत निसृत करते हैं। केवल यह आत्मतत्त्व ही इसका मूल कारण है।यह श्लोक ऐसा उदाहरण है जिसमें हमें महर्षि व्यास की काव्य एवं दर्शन की अपूर्व प्रतिभा के दर्शन होते हैं। यहाँ काव्य एवं दर्शन का सुन्दर समन्वय हुआ है।किस प्रकार मुझ में यह जगत् पिरोया हुआ है वह सुनो

'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 'prabhavaḥ' (origin) and 'pralayaḥ' (dissolution) of all.

By the word 'Aham' (I), it is demonstrated that Īśvara (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.

Question: Having spoken of the lower (apara) and higher (para) realities, it should have been said, 'parataro'ham' (I am the most superior), so why is 'mattaḥ' (than Me) stated? To this, he gives the intended meaning: 'Aham eva iti' (I alone). By stating the subordination of the higher and lower Natures, His own superiority (parataratva) is virtually stated.

However, just as the lower reality is manifold (due to differences like earth, etc.), so too the higher reality appears manifold due to the statement 'muktastu syāt parābhāsaḥ' (the liberated one becomes a semblance of the superior). The question then arises: Is the most superior (parataram) also manifold, or are You alone the one? The answer to this query is given by the statement 'aham eva parataraḥ' (I alone am the most superior), this is the meaning.

How is this meaning obtained from this statement, when the negation of something possessing superiority in competition with the Lord is apparent here? To this, he harmonizes: 'Mattaḥ iti' (Than Me). The purport is that otherwise the suffix 'tarap' (implying superiority) and the word 'anya' (other) would become redundant.

Since I alone am the cause of the birth, sustenance, and dissolution of the entire universe through My Māyā, therefore, transcendentally (paramārthataḥ)—from Me, the substrate of Māyā which has transformed into all visible forms, who illuminates everything, who is pervasive everywhere in the form of existence (sat-rūpa) and consciousness (sphuraṇa-rūpa), who is self-luminous, the embodiment of supreme bliss, and condensed consciousness, the transcendental reality—there is nothing else that is a superior transcendental reality (parataram paramārtha-sat), just as the dream world is to the dream-seer, the magical show is to the magician, or the silver imagined on the mother-of-pearl is to the consciousness delimited by the shell fragment, which is imagined by ignorance. O Dhanañjaya! The meaning is that what is falsely imagined in Me is not transcendentally different from Me. This is established by the maxim 'Tad ananyatvam ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ' (That is non-different from it, because of the initiating word, etc.).

From the standpoint of empirical reality (vyavahāra-dṛṣṭyā), this entire mass of insentient objects (jaḍa-jātam) is 'protam' (strung), 'grathitam' (woven) in Me, who am of the nature of existence and consciousness, and it appears to exist by My existence and to shine by My consciousness, for the sake of the empirical world which is illusory (māyāmaya). 'Sūtre maṇigaṇā iva' (like groups of gems on a thread) is an analogy only for the fact of everything being woven in consciousness. Alternatively, the analogy should be interpreted in all its aspects: like the groups of gems strung in a dream by the dream-seer in the luminous Self (taijasa ātman) in the form of the thread (sūtra) (Hiranyagarbha).

Others (non-Advaita interpreters) interpret this verse as an answer to the prima facie view expressed in the Brahma Sūtra 'paramataḥ setu-unmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ' (beyond the supreme due to the statements of bridge, measure, relation, and difference). There is no other independent cause 'anyat' (other) 'parataram' (more excellent/superior) for the creation and destruction of the entire universe than Me, the omniscient, omnipotent, and all-cause. O Dhanañjaya! Since this is so, in Me, the all-cause, this entire mass of effects is 'protam' (strung), 'grathitam' (woven), and not elsewhere. The analogy 'sūtre maṇigaṇā iva' is only for the weaving/stringing, and not for the causality. The analogy of gold and an earring (kanaka-kuṇḍala) is the more appropriate analogy.

Since I alone am the cause of origin and dissolution, therefore, O Dhanañjaya! You, who are fit for this knowledge of My glory (vibhūti), know that nothing else is 'parataram' (superior) to Me in the world, or even in the world, in the sense of 'ahaṁ saḥ' (I am He), i.e., in terms of being different from Me.

Thus, having stated the absence of inherent superiority in any other entity compared to Me as the cause of origin and dissolution, He states His being the cause of sustenance (sthiti-hetutva) by saying that You are the same in terms of being the cause of sustenance: 'Mayi iti' (In Me).

'Idaṁ sarvaṁ jagat mayi protaṁ' (This entire world is strung in Me), 'grathitam' (woven), meaning it stands with Me as its support.

He gives an analogy for this: 'Sūtre protā maṇigaṇā iva' (Like groups of gems strung on a thread).

The purport here is: just as the groups of gems, which are the divine forms (ādhidaivika-rūpāḥ) of the souls engaged in sport (krīḍā), rest in Me, so too this divine world rests in Me.

'Mattaḥ Parameśvarāt' (Than Me, the Supreme Lord) 'parataram' (superior) 'anyat kāraṇāntaraṁ' (any other cause) 'kiñcit nāsti' (does not exist at all), 'na vidyate' (is not present). O Dhanañjaya! The meaning is that I alone am the cause of the world.

Since this is so, 'tasmāt' (therefore) 'mayi parameśvare' (in Me, the Supreme Lord) 'sarvāṇi bhūtāni' (all beings), 'sarvam idaṁ jagat' (this entire world) is 'protam' (strung), 'anusyūtam' (threaded), 'anugatam' (pervaded), 'anuviddhaṁ' (pierced through), 'grathitam ityarthaḥ' (woven, this is the meaning), like a cloth in long threads, and groups of gems on a thread.

By which and which quality/characteristic are You endowed in whom all this is strung? He asks this (in the next section, which follows the verse).

Since it is so, therefore indeed the Greatness should be known first—"There is nothing else higher than Me." I alone am the Supreme; this is the meaning.

Moreover, "All this"—world—is "strung", dependent on Me. There, whatever nature—internal, external, "this", "you" etc.—due to being perceived, is "Sattvam" (Existent entity/Being); this (world) is "by My nature," not imagined by Avidya.

There the example is—"Like clusters of gems on a string"—by this, the existence in the relationship of Self and Body is stated. "Whose body is the Earth" (Brihadaranyaka 3.7.3), "Whose body is the Self" (Shatapatha Brahmana/Brihad. Madhyandina), "Who is this, indeed this Inner Self of all beings" (Mundaka 2.1.4)—it should be known as famous in such texts.

मत्तः than Me? परतरम् higher? न not? अन्यत् other? किञ्चित् anyone? अस्ति is? धनञ्जय O Dhananjaya? मयि in Me? सर्वम् all? इदम् this? प्रोतम् is strung? सूत्रे on a string? मणिगणाः clusters of gems? इव like.Commentary There is no other cause of the universe but Me. I alone am the the cause of the universe. This illustration of gems and thread illustrates only the idea that all beings and the whole world are threaded on the Lord. The thread is not the cause of the gems. As Brahman is all in all there is nothing whatever higher than It.

O Dhananjaya, asti, there is; na anyat kincit, nothing else whatsoever, no other cause; parataram, higher; mattah, than Me, the supreme God; i.e. I Myself am the source of the world. Since this is so, therefore, sarvam, all; idam, this, all things, the Universe; protam,is strung, woven, connected, i.e. transfixed; mayi, on Me, the supreme God; like cloth in the warp, [Like cloth formed by threads constituting its warp and woof.] and iva, like; maniganah, peals; sutre,on a string.
'What alities are You endowed with, by virtue of which all this is strung on You? This is being answered:

I am absolutely superior to all in two ways: 1) I am the cause of both the Prakrtis and I am also their controlling master (Sesin). This controllership over inanimate nature is exercised through the animate Prakrti (the Jivas) who form the inner controller (Sesin) of their bodies which are constituted of inanimate nature. 2) I am supreme to all in another sense also - as the possessor of knowledge, power, strength etc., in an infinite degree. There is no entity other than Me with such attributes of an eal or superior nature.
The aggregate of all the animate and inanimate things, whether in their causal state or in the state of effect, is strung on Me who abides as their Self, as a row of gems on a thread. They depend on Me. And it is proved that the universe of inanimate and animate beings exists as the body with Brahman (i.e. the Supreme Person) as their Self as declared by the Antaryami-brahmana and other texts: 'He whose body is the earth' (Br. U., 3.7-3), 'He whose body is the self' (Br. U. Madh., 3.7.22), and 'He is the inner self of all beings, without evil, He is the Lord in the supreme heaven, He is the one Narayana' (Su. U., 7).
Thus, as everything constitutes the body of the Supreme Person forming only a mode of His who is their Self, the Supreme Person alone exists, and all things (which we speak of as diversity) are only His modes. Therefore all terms used in common parlance for different things, denote Him only. Sri Krsna shows this by coordinating some important ones among these entities with Himself.